Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project

Transcription

1 WATER YEAR 2007 DATA REPORT Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation March 2008

2 WATER YEAR 2007 DATA REPORT Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation P.O. Box Olympia, Washington Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington Telephone: 206/ March 12, 2008

3 Contents Introduction...1 Monitoring Overview...3 Test Site Description...5 Methods...7 Discharge Monitoring Procedures...7 Precipitation Monitoring Procedures...7 Water Quality Sampling Procedures...8 Flow-weighted Composite Samples...8 Grab Samples...10 Analytical Procedures...10 Data Management Procedures...10 Data Analysis Procedures...12 Flow Control Performance...12 Water Quality Treatment Performance...15 Results and Discussion...19 Precipitation Monitoring Results...19 Discharge Monitoring Results...20 Monitoring Data Overview...21 Evaluation Filter Strip Performance for Reducing Runoff Volumes...21 Evaluation Filter Strip Performance for Reducing Peak Discharge Rates...23 Evaluation Filter Strip Performance for Reducing Flow Durations...23 Water Quality Monitoring Results...24 Storm Event Acceptability Evaluation...24 Evaluation of Filter Strip Water Quality Treatment Performance...26 Conclusions...39 Hydrologic Treatment Performance...39 Water Quality Treatment Performance...39 References...41 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Hydrologic Data Quality Assurance Review Memorandum Water Quality Data Quality Assurance Review Memorandum Precipitation and Discharge Data for Individual Storm Events in Water Years 2005, 2006, and 2007 Laboratory Reports, Chain-of-Custody Records, and Data Quality Assurance Worksheets Appendix E Individual Storm Report for Sampled Storm Events in Water Year 2007 Appendix F Compost/Soil Leachate Analysis Data Report i

4 Tables Table 1. General characteristics of the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 filter strips and the Curb and Gutter Control a....6 Table 2. Dates and locations for water quality sampling in water year Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Bottle type, preservation methods, analytical methods, reporting limits, and sample holding times for water quality analyses Summary statistics for precipitation data measured during runoff-producing storm events in water year Summary statistics for discharge data measured during storm events in water year Evaluation of storm event acceptability guidelines for water quality sampling in water year Summary statistics for pollutant concentrations and associated filter strip removal efficiency estimates from water quality sampling conducted in water years 2006 and Filter strip influent and effluent pollutant loading and removal efficiency estimates from water quality sampling conducted in water years 2006 and Filter strip influent and effluent pollutant loading and removal efficiency estimates from water quality sampling conducted in water years 2006 and 2007 (continued) ii

5 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map showing pilot filter strip locations along Interstate 5 in Snohomish County, Washington. Figure 2. Schematic diagram of pilot filter strips and associated monitoring stations. Figure 3. Fifteen-minute and cumulative precipitation totals measured at the CAVFS1 station over water year Figure 4. Discharge and cumulative flow volumes measured at the Curb and Gutter station over water year Figure 5. Discharge and cumulative flow volumes measured at the VFS station over water year Figure 6. Discharge and cumulative flow volumes measured at the CAVFS1 station over water year Figure 7. Discharge and cumulative flow volumes measured at the CAVFS2 station over water year Figure 8. Comparison of normalized runoff volumes measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and Figure 9. Comparison of normalized runoff volumes at the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations versus the VFS station for runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and Figure 10. Comparison of normalized peak discharge rates measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and Figure 11. Comparison of normalized peak discharge rates at the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations versus the VFS station for runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and Figure 12. Comparison of normalized flow durations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and Figure 13. Comparison of normalized runoff durations at the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations versus the VFS station for runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and Figure 14. Comparison of total suspended solids concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and iii

6 Figure 15. Comparison of total suspended solids concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 16. Comparison of total phosphorus concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 17. Comparison of total phosphorus concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 18. Comparison of soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 19. Comparison of soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 20. Comparison of total copper concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 21. Comparison of total copper concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 22. Comparison of dissolved copper concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 23. Comparison of dissolved copper concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 24. Dissolved copper and hardness concentrations measured at each station during storm events in water years 2006 and 2007 with the associated acute water quality standard for dissolved copper. Figure 25. Comparison of total zinc concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 26. Comparison of total zinc concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 27. Comparison of dissolved zinc concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and iv

7 Figure 28. Comparison of dissolved zinc concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 29. Dissolved zinc and hardness concentrations measured at each station during storm events in water years 2006 and 2007 with the associated acute water quality standard for dissolved copper. Figure 30. Comparison of total petroleum hydrocarbon (motor oil fraction) concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and Figure 31. Comparison of total petroleum hydrocarbon (motor oil fraction) concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and v

8

9 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Introduction The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) received research funds in 2003 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to install and document the flow control effectiveness of one low-impact development (LID) technique with potential application as a best management practice (BMP) for stormwater in urban environments. This grant is being administered through WSDOT s Environmental Services Office (ESO) Stormwater Program. In late fall 2003, the ESO conducted a preliminary evaluation of low-impact treatment options available in the Puget Sound region to identify potential candidates for inclusion in this study. Based on the results of this evaluation, the ESO Stormwater and Watershed Programs jointly selected the shoulder/median application of compost-amended vegetated filter strip(s) (CAVFS) as the subject of a pilot study to be conducted with FHWA support. Herrera Environmental Consultants was subsequently retained by the ESO to design and implement a monitoring program to evaluate the treatment performance of CAVFS. The primary goal of this monitoring program is to document the performance of CAVFS with regard to reducing the peak discharge rates, flow volumes, and flow durations of highway runoff. This information would then be used to support the acceptance of this technology for flow control by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). The secondary goal of this monitoring program is assess the performance of CAVFS with regard to treating common pollutants in highway runoff. A quality assurance project plan (QAPP) was subsequently developed for the project (Herrera 2004) to describe the monitoring procedures that would be used to meet these goals. The QAPP also presents design criteria and as-built drawings for three pilot filter strips that were constructed for this study. Finally, this QAPP documents the quality assurance procedures to be implemented during the monitoring program to ensure that resultant data from this study are scientifically and legally defensible. This QAPP was prepared in accordance with the Ecology (2001) Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans. Pursuant to a schedule presented in the QAPP, monitoring for the project was scheduled to occur over a 3-year period starting in December 2004 and ending in September The project has now been extended through the addition of a fourth year of monitoring. Annual monitoring reports are prepared at the end of each water year within this period. (A water year initiates in October and ends in September of the following year.) This document is the third annual monitoring report for the project that summarizes data collected over water year 2007 (i.e., October 2006 through September 2007). (Data collected over water years 2005 and 2006 were summarized in two previous annual monitoring reports for the project [Herrera 2005 and 2007a]). This document specifically evaluates and compares the hydrologic and water quality treatment performance of filter strips with and without compost amendment. This document is organized to include the following major sections: Monitoring Overview Test Site Description AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

10 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 2 March 12, 2008

11 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Monitoring Overview As described in the Highway Runoff Manual (WSDOT 2004a), CAVFS is one design variation of the vegetated filter strip (BMP RT.02). Vegetated filter strips are land areas of planted vegetation and amended soils situated between the pavement surface and a surface water collection system, pond, wetland, stream, or river. Vegetated filter strips accept overland sheet flow runoff from adjacent impervious areas and rely on their flat cross-slope and dense vegetation to maintain sheet flows. Their primary purpose is to remove sediments and other pollutants coming directly off the pavement. Vegetated filter strips function by reducing runoff velocities, precipitating and trapping sediment and other pollutants, and providing some hydraulic infiltration and biologic uptake. Frequently planted with turf grasses, the strips may also include native vegetation such as small herbaceous shrubs that make the system more effective in treating runoff by providing infiltration-enhancing root penetration into the subsoils. Some research (e.g., Glanville et al. 2004) has indicated that compost amendment can improve filter strip treatment performance by: increasing surface roughness; improving moisture retention and infiltration capacity; increasing removal of soluble cationic contaminants through sorption; and promoting vegetative health while limiting the spread of invasive weeds. CAVFS have somewhat higher construction costs due to more expensive materials but may require less land area for runoff treatment, which can reduce overall costs. This study is a pilot field application of WSDOT s implementation of vegetated filter strips. Accordingly, three separate pilot filter strips were constructed along Interstate 5 in Snohomish County (Figure 1) in accordance with specifications in the Highway Runoff Manual (WSDOT 2004a) for vegetated filter strips (BMP RT.02). Two of these filter strips (designated CAVFS1 and CAVFS2) were amended with tilled-in compost, while a third (designated VFS) received no compost. (Note that these filter strips were designated as Compost 1, Compost 2, and Control, respectively, in previous documents that were prepared for this project [i.e., Herrera 2004, 2005].) The CAVFS were hydroseeded with the same type of grass as is present at the adjacent VFS. The design criteria and as-built drawings for the pilot filter strips are documented in the QAPP that was prepared for the project (Herrera 2004). Figure 2 provides a schematic diagram of the pilot filter strips and associated influent and effluent monitoring stations. Effluent flow volumes are measured continuously at three separate monitoring stations downgradient of each of the pilot filter strips. As shown in Figure 2, these stations are designated VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 after their associated pilot filter strips. (Note that these stations were designated Compost 1, Compost 2, and Control, respectively, in previous documents that were prepared for this project [i.e., Herrera 2004, 2005]). Stormwater that is not infiltrated within the filter strips is conveyed to these monitoring stations via a shallow drainage ditch located immediately downgradient of each system and running parallel to the highway. Because water enters each filter strip as highly diffuse sheet flow, influent flow cannot be monitored directly. Therefore, untreated runoff from a curbed section of highway (designated Curb and Gutter Control) is routed to a single monitoring station in order to characterize influent AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

12 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance flow rates. This station is designated Curb and Gutter Station in Figure 2. Measured flows from this station are then scaled up in proportion to the contributing basin size for each pilot filter strip relative to the basin size for the Curb and Gutter Control. In this way, influent flow rates can be estimated for each pilot filter strip based on data from one monitoring station. A slope drain has also been constructed adjacent to each pilot filter strip to intercept any untreated surface and shallow subsurface runoff coming from areas that are adjacent to the drainage ditch (e.g., the noise berm shown in Figure 2). This intercepted water is routed to downgradient discharge locations to prevent it from commingling with filter strip effluent in the drainage ditch. Automated equipment has been installed to facilitate continuous monitoring of influent and effluent discharge rates and volumes. These data are subsequently processed and compared at the end of each water year to assess the performance of the pilot filter strips in reducing peak discharge rates, runoff volumes, and flow durations. To aid in the interpretation of these data, an automated rain gauge has also been installed at the CAVFS1 station (see Figure 2) and programmed to continuously record precipitation depths at the test site. Automated water quality sampling equipment has also been installed in association with each monitoring station (i.e., VFS, CAVFS1, CAVFS2, and Curb and Gutter Control) to collect flowweighted composite samples during discrete storm events. Triggering and pacing of the automated sampling equipment is controlled by the flow monitoring equipment described above. In addition, grab samples are collected during each storm event for analysis of parameters that cannot be evaluated based on composite samples. Water quality sampling for this project was not conducted during the first year of monitoring (i.e., water year 2005) to allow time for vegetation in the pilot filter strips to become fully established. Water quality sampling over water year 2007 occurred during six discrete storm events. Collected samples were analyzed for the following parameters: total suspended solids, phosphorus (total and soluble reactive), total petroleum hydrocarbons, hardness, copper (dissolved and total), and zinc (dissolved and total). Water quality treatment performance of the filter strips is subsequently assessed based on comparisons of the concentrations and loads of these parameters as measured in the influent and effluent to each test system. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 4 March 12, 2008

13 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Test Site Description Site selection for the pilot filter strips in this study was guided by the following criteria developed by WSDOT during an earlier phase of this project: Soil types. The test site will be located on disturbed, compacted glacial till (i.e. freeway embankment soil) within urban areas of the Puget Sound region. This represents a worst-case scenario for assessing the performance of CAVFS on drained soils in Western Washington. Rainfall. The test site will be selected to approximate the mid- to upper range of the 35 to 50 inches of annual rainfall that is characteristic of the Puget Sound region urban areas. Average daily trips (ADT). The test site will represent the traffic volumes characteristic of the greater Puget Sound region. The minimum average daily trip threshold will be 100,000. WSDOT determined that a section of Interstate 5 near Lynnwood, Washington, meets the criteria above and therefore has suitable attributes for this study (see Figure 1). Soils in this area are mapped as Urban Land within the Alderwood Urban Land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1983). The Alderwood series consist of moderately well-drained soils on till plains. The surface layer of these soils typically consists of gravelly, sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper part (23 inches thick) and lower part (5 inches thick) of the subsoil consist of very gravelly, sandy loam. A weakly cemented hardpan is typically encountered at a depth of approximately 35 inches. However, the actual depth to hardpan can range from 20 to 40 inches. The permeability of undisturbed Alderwood soil is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it. Infiltration rates are lower where construction activities result in incidental or deliberately compacted soil. The average annual rainfall total for the vicinity of the test sites is approximately 36.7 inches based on data from Everett, Washington (Western Regional Climate Center 2004); and the average daily trip value for this section of highway is 175,881 based on traffic data from 2003 (WSDOT 2004b). The specific locations within this section of highway for the CAVFS1, CAVFS2, and VFS are shown in Figure 1. All are located on the east side of the highway between mileposts 185 and 186. As described previously, runoff from a curbed section of highway (designated Curb and Gutter Control) is being used to characterize influent flow and water quality for all of the pilot filter strips. As shown in Figure 1, the Curb and Gutter Control is located near milepost on the east side of the highway. Catch basins located immediately upgradient and downgradient of each test location make it possible to isolate them hydrologically from other sections of roadway. The general characteristics of each pilot filter strip and the Curb and Gutter Control are presented AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

14 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance in Table 1. Design criteria and as-builts for the pilot filter strips are also documented in the QAPP that was prepared for the project (Herrera 2004). Table 1. General characteristics of the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 filter strips and the Curb and Gutter Control a. Curb and Gutter Control VFS CAVFS1 CAVFS2 a Location Length (ft) Impervious Basin Area b (sf) Pervious Basin Area c (sf) Total Basin Area (sf) Percent impervious Filter strip lateral slope d (percent) Longitudinal slope e (percent) Near MP , , n.a. n.a. Between MP and Between MP and Between MP and ,038 6,356 20, ,563 6,180 18, ,297 6,184 19, Data are based on surveys conducted at the test site on November 15, 2004 to document as-built conditions. b Impervious basin area includes asphalt highway and shoulder. c Pervious basin area includes gravel highway shoulder, filter strip, and downgradient drainage ditch. d Slope of filter strip from top at highway shoulder to bottom at convergence with downgradient drainage ditch. e Slope of shallow drainage ditch located immediately downgradient of each filter strip and running parallel to the highway. ft: feet. sf: square feet. MP: milepost. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 6 March 12, 2008

15 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Methods Discharge monitoring procedures, precipitation monitoring procedures, water quality sampling procedures, data management, and data analysis procedures for this study are described in the following sections. These procedures were originally presented in the QAPP that was developed for the project (Herrera 2004). Discharge Monitoring Procedures Automated monitoring equipment for measuring water levels (i.e., ISCO 6712 Full Size Portable Sampler and ISCO 730 Bubble Flow Module) was installed within vandalism-resistant housing at the VFS, CAVFS1, CAVFS2, and Curb and Gutter monitoring stations (see Figure 2). A 3-inch Parshall flume was also installed at each monitoring station so that accurate estimates of discharge can be derived from the water level measurements. Water from the three pilot filter strips and the Curb and Gutter Control is directed into the flumes using a combination of untreated plywood wingwalls and sandbags. The automated monitoring equipment at each station is programmed to record water levels in the flumes with a 15-minute logging interval. These data are uploaded remotely using telemetry systems (ISCO SPA 1215 Cell Phone System) that are integrated with the automated monitoring equipment. Power for all the equipment is maintained using a battery and solar panel charger (ISCO SPA watt solar panel charger). Site visits are performed at least every month or as necessary to address operational problems and perform routine maintenance on the automated monitoring equipment. Maintenance activities include the following: Inspection of the battery and solar panel system Replacement of desiccant for the ISCO 730 Bubble Flow Module Removal of any debris that may be blocking the flumes. The calibration of the automated monitoring equipment is also checked on each site visit by comparing their readings to a manual measurement of stage in the flumes. The equipment is then recalibrated as needed so that the measured water levels conform to the manual readings. Whenever possible, field personnel also make visual inspections during storm events to confirm that flows are properly routed to the flumes. Failures or partial failures of the flow management structures are documented in field notes along with any associated corrective actions. Precipitation Monitoring Procedures Precipitation is measured at the CAVFS1 station with an ISCO 674 Rain Gauge that is integrated with the automated monitoring equipment described in the section above. The equipment is AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

16 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance programmed to continuously measure precipitation totals with a 15-minute logging interval. These data are uploaded remotely via the station s telemetry system. Water Quality Sampling Procedures Water quality sampling during the water year 2007 occurred during six discrete storm events. As describe in the QAPP for the project (Herrera 2004), the following conditions served as guidelines for defining the acceptability of these storm events for sampling: Precipitation depth: A minimum of 0.25 inches of precipitation over a 24-hour period. (Note: While the goal is to target larger storms, samples from storms as small as 0.15 inches over 24 hours may be accepted as long as the other specified criteria are met.) Antecedent conditions: A period of at least 6 hours preceding the event with less than 0.04 inches of precipitation. End of storm: A continuous 6-hour period with no measurable rainfall. During each storm event, samples were generally not collected at all the monitoring sites because runoff volumes were frequently too low at some of the stations (especially CAVFS1) to facilitate sampling and/or equipment malfunctions made sample collection impossible. The specific dates and locations for water quality sampling over water year 2007 are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Dates and locations for water quality sampling in water year Storm Start Time Storm Stop Time Curb and Gutter VFS CAVFS1 CAVFS2 11/2/06 6:00 11/3/06 21:15 S a S a NS S a 11/4/06 5:15 11/5/06 00:00 S b S b NS S b 11/10/06 4:00 11/10/06 16:30 S S NS S 11/15/06 4:30 11/15/06 23:00 S S NS S 12/11/06 0:30 12/12/06 0:15 S S NS S 12/14/06 10:00 12/15/06 10:00 S S NS S S: Sample collected at indicated station. NS: Sample not collected at indicated station due to insufficient runoff volumes during storm event. a Grab sample collected during event but no flow-weighted composite sample. b Flow-weighted composite sample collected during event but no grab sample. The specific procedures used during each storm event for the collection of flow-weighted composite and grab samples are described in the following subsections. Flow-weighted Composite Samples To facilitate the collection of flow-weighted composite samples, dedicated automated water quality sampling equipment (i.e., ISCO 6712 Full Size Portable Samplers) were installed in AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 8 March 12, 2008

17 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance association with each of the flow monitoring stations described above. For the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations, the sampler intakes were positioned just up gradient of the flumes used for flow monitoring (see description in Discharge Monitoring Procedures section). For the Curb and Gutter station, the sampler intake was suspended in a plastic tray mounted at the top of the catch basin that receives water from the curbed section of highway. In each case, the sampler intakes were positioned to ensure the homogeneity and representativeness of the sample. Specifically, sampler intakes were installed to make sure adequate depth is available for sampling, and to avoid capture of litter, debris, and other gross solids that might be present at the base of the channel. The sampler suction lines consist of Teflon tubing with a 3/8-inch inner diameter. During actual sampling, antecedent conditions and storm predictions are monitored via Internet accessible weather information sites to determine when specific storms should be targeted for sampling. Once a storm is targeted, field personnel visit each station to verify that the equipment is operational and start the sampling program. A clean 2.5-gallon polyethylene carboy and several bags of crushed ice are also placed in the sampling equipment at this time. The speed and intensity of incoming storm events is then tracked using Internet-accessible images from a Doppler radar site in Seattle, Washington (King 5 News 2006). (Actual rainfall totals during sampled storm events are quantified on the basis of data from the rain gauge installed at the CAVFS1 station.) During the storm event sampling, each automated sampler is programmed to trigger in response to a predefined increase in flow at the respective station. The automated samplers then collect 250-milliliter sample aliquots at preset flow increments. The particular flow increments are adjusted for each station based on the anticipated size of the incoming storm. In general, sampler pacing at each station is targeted at a goal of sampling at least 75 percent of the storm hydrograph. However, pursuant to the QAPP for the project, sampling only the rising limb of the hydrograph is considered acceptable for very long storms (>24 hours). The maximum duration of automated sample collection for all stations is 36-hours. Periodic monitoring of each station occurs during storm events via the remote access system. If this monitoring indicates that a carboy at a particular station is likely to fill before the end of the rain event, field personnel visit the site and replace the nearly full carboy with an empty one. After each targeted storm event, field personnel return to each station, make visual and operational checks of the sampling equipment, and determine the total number of aliquots composited. Pursuant to the QAPP for the project, the minimum number of composites that constitutes an acceptable sample is ten. (A minimum volume of 2 liters must be collected to perform all the targeted analyzes in this study with the associated laboratory quality control requirements.) If the sample is acceptable, the carboy is immediately capped, removed from the automated sampler, and kept at 4 C using ice during transport to the laboratory. Once in the laboratory, water from the carboy is used to fill pre-cleaned, preserved (where appropriate) sample bottles for the required analyses. All collected samples are then analyzed for total suspended solids, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, total hardness, total and dissolved copper, and total and dissolved zinc. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

18 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Grab Samples In addition to the flow-weighted composite samples described above, samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) analysis were collected as grab samples from each station during sampled storm events. Grab samples collected from the Curb and Gutter monitoring station were targeted to capture the rising limb of the storm hydrograph. Sample collection from the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 monitoring stations occurred once sustained flow was observed at each respective location. Once collected, the TPH samples were kept at 4 C in a cooler and transported to the laboratory with the automated samples after the end of the storm event. Analytical Procedures Laboratory analytical procedures followed methods approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (APHA et al. 1992; U.S. EPA 1983, 1984). Preservation methods, analytical methods, reporting limits, and sample holding times are presented in Table 3. The laboratory identified for this project (Aquatic Research, Inc.) is certified by Ecology and participates in audits and interlaboratory studies by Ecology and U.S. EPA. These performance and system audits have verified the adequacy of the laboratory s standard operating procedures, which include preventive maintenance and data reduction procedures. Data Management Procedures Hydrologic data from automated instrumentation were uploaded from each station on a weekly basis using the installed telemetry systems (ISCO SPA 1215 Cell Phone System) and the ISCO Flowlink software program. The uploaded data were immediately checked for evidence of an equipment malfunction or other operational problems. At the end of the current monitoring period, the data from each station were exported to an Excel spreadsheet for subsequent data management, quality assurance review, and archiving tasks related to this report. The data quality assurance review procedures are described in the Hydrologic Data Quality Assurance Review Memorandum that is presented in Appendix A. Water quality analytical results were received from the laboratory (Aquatic Research, Inc.) within 30 days of receipt of the associated samples. The laboratory provided sample and quality control data in standardized reports that are suitable for evaluating the project data. These reports included all quality control results associated with the data. The reports also included a case narrative summarizing any problems encountered in the analyses, corrective actions taken, changes to the referenced method, and an explanation of data qualifiers. Laboratory data were subsequently entered into an Excel spreadsheet for all subsequent data management, analysis, and archiving tasks related to this report. Herrera s quality assurance officer performed an independent review to ensure all the data were entered without error. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 10 March 12, 2008

19 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Table 3. Bottle type, preservation methods, analytical methods, reporting limits, and sample holding times for water quality analyses. Parameter Bottle Type Preservation Method Analytical Method Method Number a Reporting Limit b Sample Holding Times Total suspended solids P Cool, 4 C Gravimetric, 103 C EPA mg/l 7 days Total phosphorus P Cool, 4 C; H2SO4 to ph<2 Automated ascorbic acid EPA mg/l 28 days Soluble reactive phosphorus P Cool, 4 C; filtration, 0.45 µm Automated ascorbic acid EPA mg/l 48 hours c Total petroleum hydrocarbons G Cool, 4 C; HCl to ph<2 GCFID NWTPH-Dx 0.05 mg/l (diesel) 0.1 mg/l (motor oil) 14 days c Hardness P Cool, 4 C; HNO3 to ph<2 EDTA titrimetric SM 2340C 2 mg/l as CaCO3 6 months Copper, dissolved P Cool, 4 C; filtration, 0.45 µm; HNO3 to ph<2 GFAA EPA mg/l 6 months c Copper, total P Cool, 4 C; HNO3 to ph<2 GFAA EPA mg/l 6 months Zinc, dissolved P Cool, 4 C; filtration, 0.45 µm; HNO3 to ph<2 ICP EPA mg/l 6 months c Zinc, total P Cool, 4 C; HNO3 to ph<2 ICP EPA mg/l 6 months a b c SM method numbers are from APHA et al. (1992); EPA method numbers are from U.S. EPA (1983, 1984). Reporting limit refers to the practical quantitation limit. Sample filtration and/or preservation will occur within 12 hours of sample collection. EDTA = ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. GFAA = graphite furnace atomic absorption. GCFID = gas chromatograph, flame ionization detector. ICP = inductively coupled plasma. mg/l = milligrams per liter. CaCO 3 = calcium carbonate. NWTPH = northwest total petroleum hydrocarbon. P = polyethylene, polypropylene, fluoropolymer. G = glass. ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

20 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Specifically, 10 percent of the sample values were randomly selected for rechecking and crosschecking with laboratory reports. If errors are detected, they will be corrected, and then an additional 10 percent will be selected for validation. This process was repeated until no errors are found in the data. The Herrera quality assurance officer also provided an independent review of the quality control data from each sampling event relative to method quality objectives (MQOs) that are identified in the QAPP for the project (Herrera 2004). The procedures and results from this review are documented in the Water Quality Data Quality Assurance Review Memorandum that is presented in Appendix B. Data Analysis Procedures The sections below present data analysis procedures that were used to evaluate flow control and water quality treatment performance of the pilot filter strips. Flow Control Performance Separate data analyses were performed to assess flow control performance with regard to reducing runoff volumes, peak discharge rates, and flow durations based on the following comparisons: Curb and Gutter station relative to the three filter strip stations (VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2). These comparisons were performed to provide a general assessment of filter strip performance for treating highway runoff. Compost amended filter strip stations (CAVFS1 and CAVFS2) relative to the vegetated filter strip station (VFS). These comparisons were performed to specifically examine the potential benefits of compost amendment for improving filter strip performance. In order to conduct these analyses, the following information was compiled for each storm that occurred during the monitoring period: Storm precipitation depth Storm duration Storm average intensity Storm peak intensity Storm antecedent dry period Peak discharge rate at each station Runoff volume at each station Flow duration at each station. Once this information was compiled, additional analyses were performed to identify a subset of storms that had sufficient precipitation totals and/or intensities to produce runoff into the pilot filter strips. Specifically, any storm that produced a measurable discharge volume at the Curb and Gutter station was flagged as runoff-producing. When data from the Curb and Gutter AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 12 March 12, 2008

21 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance station were not available for a particular storm, the storm precipitation total and discharge records from other stations were examined collectively to determine if the storm produced runoff. In order to account for differences in contributing basin size when comparing the hydrologic performance of the filter strips, the peak discharge rate, runoff volume, and flow duration data from all stations were also normalized by contributing basin area. This was done using the following generalized equation for all three measures of hydrologic performance: Where: H N si = A N si = normalized data for station s, event i H i = raw data for station s, event i A s = contributing basin area for station s Note that the contributing basin area in these calculations included both the impervious and pervious areas that are associated with each station (see Table 1). The normalized data for each measure of hydrologic performance were subsequently expressed in the following units: cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre for peak discharge rate; cubic feet (cf) per acre for runoff volume; and hours per acre for flow duration. Statistical analyses were then performed on the normalized data from the runoff-producing storms to compare hydrologic characteristics (i.e., runoff volumes, peak discharge, flow duration) for the Curb and Gutter station to those for the three filter strip stations (VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2). In these analyses, data from the Curb and Gutter station were used to evaluate these characteristics for untreated highway runoff (i.e., system influent) whereas data from the three filter strip stations were used to evaluate these characteristics for treated runoff (i.e., system effluent). The specific null hypotheses (H o ) and alternative hypotheses (H a ) for these analyses are as follows: Hypothesis 1: si s H o : H a : Runoff volumes for the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations are equal to or higher than those for the Curb and Gutter station. Runoff volumes for the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations are lower than those for the Curb and Gutter station. Hypothesis 2: H o : H a : Peak discharge rates for the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations are equal to or higher than those at the Curb and Gutter station. Peak discharge rates for the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations are lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

22 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Hypothesis 3: H o : H a : Flow durations for the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations are equal to or higher than those at the Curb and Gutter station. Flow durations for the VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations are lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. To evaluate these hypotheses, a Friedman test (Helsel and Hirsch 1992) was used to compare performance data from all four stations. The Friedman test is a non-parametric analogue to the blocked analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Through the use of a blocked test, differences in the performance data for each monitoring station could be more efficiently assessed, because the noise (or variance) associated with monitoring over a range of storm sizes was blocked out of the statistical analyses (Helsel and Hirsch 1992). The Friedman test was used in lieu of the blocked ANOVA because visual examinations of the data indicated they do not meet the assumptions required for a parametric test (e.g., normality and homoscedasticity). In cases where the Friedman test indicated there was a significant difference between the stations, a follow-up onetailed nonparametric multiple comparison test (Zar 1984) was performed to determine which specific filter strip monitoring stations were significantly different from the Curb and Gutter station. (These tests were performed using the Dunnett s procedure for comparing various treatment groups to a control.) In all tests, statistical significance was assessed based on an alpha (α) level of Statistical analyses were also performed on the normalized data from the runoff-producing storms to test three hypotheses relating to the performance of filter strips with and without compost amendment. The specific null hypotheses (H o ) and alternative hypotheses (H a ) for these analyses are as follows: Hypothesis 1: H o : H a : Peak discharge rates for filter strips with compost amendment are equal to or greater than those for filter strips without compost amendment. Peak discharges rates for filter strips with compost amendment are less than those for filter strips without compost amendment. Hypothesis 2: H o : H a : Runoff volumes for filter strips with compost amendment are equal to or greater than those for filter strips without compost amendment. Runoff volumes for filter strips with compost amendment are less than those for filter strips without compost amendment. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 14 March 12, 2008

23 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Hypothesis 3: H o : H a : Runoff durations for filter strips with compost amendment are equal to or greater than those for filter strips without compost amendment. Runoff durations for filter strips with compost amendment are less than those for filter strips without compost amendment. To evaluate these hypotheses, a one-tailed sign test (Helsel and Hirsch 1992) was used to compare performance data from the compost amended filter strip stations (CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations) to those from the vegetated filter strip station (VFS). Specifically, two separate one-tailed sign tests were run for each hypothesis to obtain results for the following filter strip combinations: CAVFS1 versus VFS, and CAVFS2 versus VFS. The sign test is a non parametric analogue to the paired t-test. Like the Friedman test described above, a paired test was used in this analysis to remove noise in the data that stems from sampling over a range of storm sizes so that differences between the filters strips could be more efficiently assessed (Helsel and Hirsch 1992). The sign test was used because visual examinations of the data indicated they do not meet the assumptions required for a parametric test (i.e., the paired differences of the data generally exhibited an asymmetrical distribution as opposed to a normal or symmetrical distribution). In all tests, statistical significance was assessed based on an alpha (α) level of Finally, scatter plots were also generated from the data to compare hydrologic data from the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations over storms of varying magnitudes. These plots specifically examined how performance varies with different storm precipitation totals and average storm intensities. To aid in the interpretation of these plots, separate lines were fitted to the data for each filter strip using Locally Weighted Scatterplot Smoothing (LOWESS) (Helsel and Hirsh 1992). Water Quality Treatment Performance Like the analysis of hydrologic treatment performance described above, separate data analyses were performed to provide a general assessment of filter strip water quality treatment performance and to specifically examine the potential benefits of compost amendment for improving performance. To increase statistical power, pooled data from both water year 2007 and 2006 were generally used in both of these analyses. However, because sufficient flow volumes for sampling were rarely observed at the CAVFS1 station (see discussion in Discharge Monitoring Results section), this station was only sampled on one occasion in water year 2006 and on no occasion in water year 2007 (see Table 2). Therefore, data from this station are only included in a subset of these analyses. Water quality treatment performance was evaluated based on both pollutant concentrations and loads that were measured at each monitoring station. Procedures that were used in these evaluations are described in the following subsections. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

24 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Comparison of Treatment Performance Based on Pollutant Concentrations In order to assess the general performance of filter strips at improving water quality, statistical analyses were performed on data collected during water years 2006 and 2007 to compare pollutant concentrations measured at two of the filter strip stations (VFS and CAVFS2), to the Curb and Gutter station. In these analyses, data from the Curb and Gutter station were used to evaluate pollutant concentrations in untreated highway runoff (i.e., system influent) whereas data from the two filter strip stations were used to evaluate pollutant concentrations in the runoff following treatment (i.e., system effluent). The null hypothesis (H o ) and alternative hypothesis (H a ) for these analyses are as follows: H o : H a : Pollutant concentrations for the VFS and CAVFS2 stations are equal to or higher than those for the Curb and Gutter station. Pollutant concentrations for the VFS and CAVFS2 stations are lower than those for the Curb and Gutter station. To evaluate these hypotheses, a Friedman test (see description in preceding section) was used to compare pollutant concentrations measured at all three stations. Separate tests were run for all the monitoring parameters identified in Table 3 except hardness. Hardness data were only used in these analyses to compare effluent dissolved copper and zinc concentrations to state water quality standards. In cases where the Friedman test indicated there was a significant difference between the stations, a follow-up one-tailed nonparametric multiple comparison test (Zar 1984) was performed to determined which specific filter strip monitoring stations were significantly different from the Curb and Gutter station. In all these tests, statistical significance was assessed based on an alpha (α) level of Statistical analyses were also performed to compare effluent pollutant concentrations from filter strips with and without compost amendment. The null hypothesis (H o ) and alternative hypothesis (H a ) for these analyses are as follows: H o : H a : There is no difference in effluent pollutant concentrations between filter strips with and without compost amendment. There are differences in effluent pollutant concentrations between filter strips with and without compost amendment. To evaluate these hypotheses, a two-tailed sign test (see description preceding section) was used to compare pollutant concentrations at the CAVFS2 station to those from the VFS station with separate tests run from all the monitoring parameters identified in Table 3 except hardness. In all these tests, statistical significance was assessed based on an alpha (α) level of Comparison of Treatment Performance Based on Pollutant Loads Water quality treatment performance was also assessed based on pollutant loads measured at each station over water year 2007 and over water years 2006 and 2007 combined. Specifically, AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 16 March 12, 2008

25 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance flow and water quality data from each monitoring station were used to compute annual pollutant loads using the following equation: where: L = F N i= 1 N i= 1 l f L = pollutant load at station for water year (kilograms) F = measured flow volume at station for water year (liters) l i = measured load during each sampled storm event that occurred during the water year (kilograms) f i = measured flow volume during each sampled storm event that occurred during the water year (liters). Loads measured during each sampling storm event (l) were calculated using the following equation: l = C i i f i where: C i = pollutant concentration for each sampled storm event determined from flow-proportioned composite samples or grab samples (kilograms per liter). The load measured at the Curb and Gutter station for the water year was subsequently scaled to estimate influent loads for each pilot filter strip using the following equation: L IN = L C& G B BC FS & G where: L IN = filter strip influent pollutant load for water year (kilograms) L C&G = Curb and Gutter station load for water year (kilograms) B FS = impervious basin area for pilot filter strip (square feet) from Table 1 B C&G = impervious basin area for Curb and Gutter Control (square feet) from Table 1. The influent and effluent pollutant loading estimates for each pilot filter strip were then used to calculate pollutant removal efficiencies using the following equation: R = ( L L ) i L i e 100 AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

26 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance where: R = removal efficiency for pilot treatment system (percent) L i = influent pollutant load for the water year (kilograms) L e = effluent pollutant load measured in effluent over the study period of interest (kilograms). Measured loads and pollutant removal efficiencies for each station were then compared to provide a general assessment of filter strip water quality treatment performance and to examine the potential benefits of compost amendment for improving performance. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 18 March 12, 2008

27 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Results and Discussion Monitoring results for water year 2007 are presented and discussed herein. This section begins with a summary of the precipitation data that were collected over this period. Discharge data from each station are then summarized along with results from analyses that were performed to characterize filter strip hydrologic treatment performance. Finally, water quality data from each station are summarized along with results from analyses that were performed to characterize filter strip water quality treatment performance. Precipitation Monitoring Results Precipitation data collected over water year 2007 are presented in Figure 3. Table C1 in Appendix C also displays data compiled for individual storm events during water years 2005, 2006, and 2007; including the date and time for the storm s start and end, the storm s duration, antecedent dry period, precipitation depth, average intensity, and peak intensity. Finally, summary statistics for runoff-producing storms are shown in Table 4 for water year Table 4. Summary statistics for precipitation data measured during runoff-producing storm events in water year Minimum Median Maximum Precipitation depth (inches) Duration (hours) Antecedent dry period (hours) Average intensity (inches/hour) Peak intensity (inches/15 minutes) Based on monitoring data from rain gauge at the CAVFS1 station, a total of 158 storm events occurred during water year Out of this total number of storm events, 83 were defined as runoff-producing events based on the definition provided in the Data Analysis Procedures section above. The median, minimum, and maximum precipitation depth for runoff-producing storms were 0.22, 0.01, and 1.74 inches, respectively. The maximum precipitation depth (1.74 inches) was observed during a storm event that started on November 15, 2006 and lasted 50 hours. The runoff-producing storm with the highest average intensity (0.18 inches/hour) started on November 26, 2006 and lasted 1 hour. The highest peak intensity (0.20 inches/15 minutes): was observed during a runoff producing storm event that started on December 14, 2006 and lasted 24 hours, and again during a runoff producing storm event that started on May 4, 2007 and lasted 4.5 hours. Based on precipitation records from Sea-Tac International Airport, the cumulative precipitation total over water year 2007 was 47.3 inches (National Weather Service 2007). This total is almost 10 inches higher than the historical annual average of inches for Sea-Tac International Airport that is derived from precipitation records for the period from 1931 through 2005 AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

28 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance (Western Regional Climate Center 2007). Most of the additional rainfall for water year 2007 came in November, which had the highest monthly rainfall total on record (15.6 inches) based on the data from Sea-Tac International Airport. The precipitation total for water year 2007 was also substantially higher than the totals for water years 2005 (30.2 inches) and 2006 (39.3 inches). Discharge Monitoring Results This section presents discharge monitoring results for each station from monitoring conducted over water year A tabular summary of these data is presented in Table 5 and graphical summaries are provided in Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 for the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations, respectively. Tables C2, C3, and C4 in Appendix C also present the raw runoff volumes, peak discharge rates, and runoff durations, respectively, that were measured at these stations during individual storm events over the 2005, 2006, and 2007 water years. Similarly, Tables C5, C6, and C7 in Appendix C present the normalized data for runoff volumes, peak discharge rates, and runoff durations, respectively. Table 5. Summary statistics for discharge data measured during storm events in water year Curb and Gutter VFS CAVFS1 CAVFS2 Total number of captured storm events a Tota l number of captured runoff-producing events b Total runoff volume 4,708 3, ,793 Maximum raw discharge rate (cfs) Maximum normalized discharge rate (cfs/acre) Start date of storm producing maximum discharge rate 12/ 14/06 12/14/06 3/2/07 12/ 14/06 a Indicates number of storms during which flow monitoring took place at the specified station after excluding periods w monitoring data were not being collected due to equipment failures or data were rejected due to other quality assurance hen issues. b Indicates the number runoff producing storms during which flow monitoring took place at the specified station. Runoff producing storms are defined as those storms that that produced a measurable discharge volume at the Curb and Gutter station. c D ata from 5 runoff-producing storms are not captured in the specified volume due to equipment failures or other operational problems. d Data from 9 runoff-producing storms are not captured in the specified volume due to equipment failures or other operational problems. e Data from 12 runoff-producing storms are not captured in the specified volume due to equipment failures or other operational problems. cfs: cubic feet per second cf: cubic feet This section begins with an overview of the data that were collected at each station during water year 2007, including the number of storms that were captured and statistics to summarize measured discharge volumes and rates. Separate subsections then evaluate the performance of the filter strips for reducing flow volumes, peak discharge rates, and flow durations. Where applicable, the analyses presented in these latter sections also include data from monitoring conducted in water years 2005 and 2006 to show year-to-year trends and provide greater statistical power for detecting patterns in the monitoring results. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 20 March 12, 2008

29 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Monitoring Data Overview Excluding periods when monitoring data were not being collected due to equipment failures or rejected due to operational problems, monitoring occurred during 148 storm events at the Curb and Gutter station during water year Out of these storm events, 78 (or 53 percent) were defined as runoff-producing events based on the definition provided in the Data Analysis Procedures section above. As shown in Figure 5, the combined volume from these runoff- producing storms was 4,708 cubic feet (cf). (Note: data from 5 runoff-producing storms that occurred during the monitoring period are not captured in this combined volume). The maximum raw and normalized discharge rates of cfs and cfs/acre, respectively, were measured during the storm event that initiated on December 14, 2006 and produced 1.48 inches of precipitation over a 24-hour period. Monitoring occurred during 142 storm events at the VFS station during water year Out of these storm events, 74 (or 52 percent) were defined as runoff-producing events based on the definition provided above. The combined volume from these runoff-producing storms was 3,250 cf (Figure 5). (Note: data from 9 runoff-producing storms that occurred during the monitoring period are not captured in this combined volume). The maximum raw and normalized discharge rates of cfs and cfs/acre, respectively, were measured during the storm event that initiated on December 14, Monitoring occurred during 148 storm events at the CAVFS1 station during water year Out of these storm events, 78 (or 53 percent) were defined as runoff-producing events based on the definition provided above. The combined volume from these runoff-producing storms was 447 cf (Figure 6). (Note: data from 5 runoff-producing storms that occurred during the monitoring period are not captured in this combined volume.) The maximum raw and normalized discharge rates of cfs and cfs/acre, respectively, were measured during the storm event that initiated on March 2, 2007 and produced 0.34 inches of precipitation over a 22.5-hour period. Monitoring occurred during 137 storm events at the CAVFS2 station during water year Out of these storm events, 71 (or 52 percent) were defined as runoff-producing events based on the definition provided above. The combined volume from these runoff-producing storms was 1,793 cf (Figure 7). (Note: data from 12 runoff-producing storms that occurred during the monitoring period are not captured in this combined volume.) The maximum raw and normalized discharge rates for the CAVFS2 station of cfs and cfs/acre were also measured during the storm event that initiated on December 14, Evaluation Filter Strip Performance for Reducing Runoff Volumes Figure 8 presents box and whisker plots comparing normalized runoff volumes measured at each station during runoff-producing storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively. To facilitate the evaluation of year-to-year trends in the data, Figure 8 also presents separate box and whisker plots for normalized runoff volumes that were measured in water years 2005 and Each box and whisker plot presented in Figure 8 (and all subsequent AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

30 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance figures) summarize the following information from the data: 10th and 90th percentiles as the lower and upper whiskers, respectively; the 25th and 75th percentiles as the lower and upper boundaries of the box, respectively; and the median as the point in the box. As described in the Methods section, a Friedman test was used to compare the normalized runoff volumes measured at the Curb and Gutter station to those at the three filter strip stations in order to provide a general assessment of treatment performance. To increase statistical power for detecting differences between these groups, this test was performed using data from water years 2005, 2006, and Results from the Friedman test showed there were significant differences in the normalized runoff volumes between these stations (p < ). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that the normalized runoff volumes measured at all three filter strip stations were significantly lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. Highway runoff volumes during individual storm events were reduced on average by 88 percent through treatment within VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 filter strips. Water losses within the filter strips are likely occurring due to both infiltration and evapotranspiration; however, the monitoring data obtained through this study cannot be used to determine which of these two processes dominates at any given time. In order to examine the potential benefits of compost amendment for improving filter strip performance, Figure 9 shows scatter plots and linear regression analysis results that compare normalized runoff volumes measured at the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations to those measured at the VFS station during runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and Results from a one-tailed sign test indicated that normalized runoff volumes measured at the CAVFS1 station were significantly lower (p < ) than those measured at the VFS station. Likewise, a one-tailed sign test also indicated that normalized runoff volumes measured at the CAVFS2 station were significantly lower (p = ) than those measured at the VFS station. These differences in runoff volumes between the monitoring stations are clearly evident in the scatter plots presented in Figure 9, although the differences between the CAVFS2 and VFS stations are less pronounced. Based on the slopes from the linear regression lines shown in Figure 9, runoff volumes at the CAVFS1 station were between 90 and 99 percent less than those at the VFS station. Similarly, runoff volumes at the CAVFS2 station were between 44 and 50 percent less than those at the VFS station. These results are generally consistent with other studies that have measured lower runoff volumes from highway embankments with compost amendment (e.g., Glanville et al. 2004; Harrison et al. 1997). However, it should also be noted that runoff volumes from the CAVFS1 filter strip were markedly lower than those for both the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips. As discussed in the previous monitoring report for the project (Herrera 2007a), results from a subsurface soil assessment conducted in 2006 indicated (Herrera 2007b) that most of the site is underlain by glacial till; however, a historic surface depression occupies approximately 40 percent of the CAVFS1 filter strip s total length. Soils in this depression consist of permeable outwash sand that likely contributes to the CAVFS1 filter strip s superior flow attenuation performance relative to the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 22 March 12, 2008

31 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Evaluation Filter Strip Performance for Reducing Peak Discharge Rates Figure 10 presents box and whisker plots comparing normalized peak discharge rates measured at each station during runoff-producing storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively. Results from a Friedman test showed there were significant differences in the normalized peak discharge rates between these stations (p < ). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that the normalized peak discharge rates measured at all three filter strip stations were significantly lower than those for the Curb and Gutter station. Peak discharge rates during individual storm events were reduced on average by 89, 96, and 90 percent through treatment within VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. Figure 11 shows scatter plots and regression analysis results that compare normalized peak discharge rates measured at the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations to those measured at the VFS station during runoff-producing storm events in 2005, 2006, and Results from a one-tailed sign test indicated that normalized peak discharge rates measured at the CAVFS1 station were significantly lower (p < ) than those measured at the VFS station. Based on the slopes from the linear regression lines shown in Figure 12, peak discharge rates at the CAVFS1 station were between 77 and 99 percent lower than those at the VFS station. These large differences in peak discharge rates between the CAVFS1 and VFS stations are clearly evident in the upper scatter plot presented in Figure 12 and are probably related to the unique subsurface soil characteristics for the CAVFS1 filter strip that were discussed in the previous section. A one-tailed sign test indicated that normalized peak discharge rates measured at the CAVFS2 station were not significantly lower (p = ) than those measured at the VFS station. As shown in the associated scatter plot for these data (see Figure 11), a reduction of peak discharge rates are evident over the lower end of the data range (i.e., 0 to 0.10 cf/acre): however, the scatter plot also shows that peak discharge rates tended to be higher at the CAVFS2 station relative to the VFS station in the upper end of the range (i.e., > 0.10 cf/acre). In general, these high values occurred coincident with larger storm events (the associated precipitation amounts ranged from 0.62 to 2.39 inches) when the CAVFS2 filter strip was likely saturated. Under saturated conditions, other factors such as the CAVFS2 filter strip s steeper longitudinal slope (see Table 1) may be contributing to its inferior performance relative to the VFS filter strip. Evaluation Filter Strip Performance for Reducing Flow Durations Figure 12 presents box and whisker plots comparing normalized flow durations measured at each station during runoff-producing storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively. Results from a Friedman test showed there were significant differences in the normalized flow durations between these stations (p < ). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that the normalized peak discharge rates measured at all three filter strip stations were significantly lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. Flow durations during individual storm events were reduced on average by 82, 71, and 79 percent through treatment within VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

32 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 15 shows normalized flow durations measured at the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations in comparison to those measured at the VFS station during runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and Results from a one-tailed sign test indicate that normalized flow durations measured at the CAVFS1 station were significantly lower (p < ) than those measured at the VFS station; however, the test also indicated there were no significant differences (p = ) in normalized flow durations between the CAVFS2 and VFS stations. Again, the mixed results between the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations for this measure of performance is probably related to the unique subsurface soil characteristics of the CAVFS1 filter strip. Water Quality Monitoring Results This section summarizes water quality data that were collected at each station through water year It begins with an evaluation of summary data from this monitoring relative to guidelines for defining the acceptability of sampled storm events. This section then evaluates filter strip performance with regard to water quality treatment based on the data that were obtained from these events. Storm Event Acceptability Evaluation As described in the QAPP for the project (Herrera 2004) and Methods section for this document, guidelines were established for defining the acceptability of specific storm events for sampling based on: Precipitation depth Antecedent conditions Sampling coverage over storm hydrograph Total number of composite samples collected. These guidelines were established to ensure that representative data will be collected for the target conditions of this study. Summary data related to these guidelines are presented in Table 6 for each of the storm events that were sampled in water year Bold face values in this table indicate where a particular guideline for defining storm event acceptability was not met. Based on the data presented in Table 6, the guideline established for sampling coverage was not met at the CAVFS2 station for storm event number 9. However, it should be noted that the sampling coverage for this storm (69.7 percent) was very close to the established guideline of 75 percent. Because all other criteria were met for this storm, the associated data were accepted without qualification. In addition, the guideline for sampling coverage was not met at the VFS station for storm event number 10. However, because all other criteria were met for this storm, the associated data were accepted with qualification. Specifically, the water quality data from this storm water flagged as estimated values. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 24 March 12, 2008

33 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Table 6. Evaluation of storm event acceptability guidelines for water quality sam pling in wat er year Event No. Storm Start Time Storm Stop Time Precipitation Depth a (inches) Storm Antecedant Dry Period b (hours) Curb and Gutter Station Sampling Coverage c (percent of storm hydrograph) VFS Station CAVFS1 Station Curb and CAVF S2 Gutter Station Station St Number of Composites d VFS ation CAVFS1 Station CAVFS2 Station 8 11/2/06 6:00 11/3/06 21: NA NA NA NA NA NA NS NA 9 11/4/06 5:15 11/5/06 00: NS NS /10/06 4:00 11/10/06 16: NS NS /15/06 4:30 11/15/06 23: NS NS /11/06 0:30 12/12/06 0: NS NS /14/06 10:00 12/15/06 10: NS NS 27 a The storm acceptability guideline established precipitation depth is a minimum of 0.25 inches over a 24-hour period. However, samples from storms as small as 0.15 inches over 24-h ours may be accepted as long as the other specified criteria are met. The storm acceptability guideline established antecedent dry period is a minimum 6 hours period preceding each event with less than 0.04 inch es of precipit ation. Sampler pacing at each station is targeted at a goal of sampling through at least 75 percent of the storm hydrograph. However, pursuant to the QAPP for the proje ct, sampling only the rising limb of the hydrograph is considered acceptable for very long storms (>24 hours). b c The minimum number of composites that constitutes an acceptable sample is ten. Values in bold face do not meet the associated guideline for defining storm event acceptability. NA not applicable. Only grab samples were collected for TPH analysis for this storm event. NS not sampled due to lack of adequate runoff volume. d ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

34 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Finally, the sampling coverage at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations during event numbers 12 and 13 were all below the target goal of sampling at least 75 percent of the storm hydrograph. However, pursuant to the QAPP for the project, sampling only the rising limb of the hydrograph is considered acceptable for very long storms (>24 hours). Because the actual durations of thes e storm events (i.e., and 24.0 hours, respectively) were extremely close to this threshold, the associated data have been accepted without qualification. Evaluation of Filter Strip Water Quality Treatment Performance This section evaluates the water quality treatment performance of the filter strips based on monitoring data collected over water years 2006 and (The analyses include data from monitoring conducted in water year 2006 to provide greater statistical power for detecting patterns in the monitoring results.) Included are comparisons of influent and effluent concentrations and loads that were measured for each filter strip. To facilitate these comparisons, summary statistics for pollutant concentrations and associated removal efficiency estimates are presented in Table 7 for each of the filter strips. Similarly, annual pollutant load and removal efficiency estimates that were calculated in association with each filter strip are presented in Table 8. Additional graphical repr esentations of these data are provided as necessary throughout this section. Finally, supporting information for this section is also provided in Appendices B, D, and E. For example, Appendix B contains the Water Quality Data Quality Assurance Memorandum while Appendix D contains the associated laboratory reports, chain-of-custody records, and data quality assurance worksheets. Appendix E contains Individual Storm Reports that provide a concise summary of key data from each sampled storm event including: the precipitation amount and duration of the event; the number of sample aliquots collected at each station; coverage of composite sam pling at station over the storm hydrograph; summary statistics for flow data collected at each station; pollutant concentrations measured at each station; and computed pollutant removal efficiencies for each parameter based on concentrations and loads. The presentation and discussion of the water quality monitoring results is organized under separate subsec tions for each of the primary monitoring parameters. Because water quality sampling at the CAVFS1 station was only conducted on one occasion during water year 2006 and was not conduct ed during water year 2007 due to a lack of adequate runoff volumes, there are limited data available for characterizing the performance of this filter strip in relation to the others. Therefore, the available data from this station have been included in summary figures within the following sections for informational purposes only; however, these data are generally not discussed in detail in any of the following subsections. Total Suspended Solids Figure 14 presents box and whisker plots comparing total suspended solids concentrations measured at each station during storm event sampling that occurred over water years 2006 and As shown in Table 7, median concentrations from these sampling events were 255, 4.8, and 14 milligrams/liter ( mg/ L) for the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations, AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 26 March 12, 2008

35 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance respectively. As described in the Methods section, a Friedman test was used to compare the total suspended solids concentrations for water years 2006 and 2007 from the Curb and Gutter station to those from the VFS and CAVFS2 stations in order to provide a general assessment of filter strip treatment performance. Results from the Friedman test showed there were significant differences in the total suspended solids concentrations between these stations (p < ). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that total suspended solids concentrations measured at the VFS and CAVFS2 stations were significantly lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. Pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on measured total suspended solids concentrations over water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 7) were 97.5 and 93.0 percent for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. Similarly, pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on annual pollutant loads over water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 8) were 99.2 and 98.4 percent for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. The higher pollutant removal estimates derived using the annual loading data reflect water losses that are occurring within the filter strips through infiltration and/or evapotranspiration (see Discharge Monitoring Results section). In order to examine the potential benefits of compost amendment for improving filter strip performance, Figure 15 presents a scatter plot comparing total suspended solids concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station to those at the VFS station from samples collected during water years 2006 and Results from a two-tailed sign test indicated that concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station were significantly higher (p < ) than those measured at the VFS station. As shown in Figure 15, this pattern is clearly evident in the data from both water year 2006 and water year 2007, respectively. As noted in the previous monitoring report for the project (Herrera 2007a), this increase in total suspended solids concentrations within the compost amended filter strip is likely related to fines present within the compost mix that are being mobilized during storm events. These data appear to suggest that compost amendment does not provide any water quality treatment benefits for this parameter. However, as noted above, the removal efficiency estimates for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips are nearly equivalent when evaluated based on the annual loading data (see Table 8). These data suggest that sufficient water losses are occurring within the CAVFS2 filter strip to offset any negative affect from the observed increase in total suspended solids concentrations compared to VFS. Total Phosphorus Figure 16 presents box and whisker plots comparing total phosphorus concentrations measured at each station during storm event sampling that occurred over water years 2006 and As shown in Table 7, median concentrations from these sampling events were 0.354, 0.067, and mg/l for the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations, respectively. Results from the Friedman test conducted on these data showed there were significant differences in the total phosphorus concentrations between these stations (p = ). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that total phosphorus concentrations measured at both the VFS and CAVFS2 stations were significantly lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

36

37 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Table 7. Summary statistics for pollutant concentrations and associated filter strip removal efficiency estimates from water quality sampling conducted in water years 2006 and Parameter N Curb and Gutter Station VFS Station/Filter Strip CAVFS2 Station/Filter Strip Median Concentration (mg/l) Maximum Concentration (mg/l) N Median Concentration (mg/l) Maximum Concentration (mg/l) Median Removal Efficiency a (%) N Median Concentration (mg/l) Maximum Concentration (mg/l) Median Removal Efficiency a (%) TSS TP SRP Total Copper Dissolved Copper Total Zinc Dissolved Zinc TPH - Motor Oil Fraction TPH - Diesel Fraction b U 0.05 U U 0.06 U NA U 0.11 U NA Removal efficiency (RE) calculated based on measured concentrations at the Curb and Gutter station and filter strip stations during each storm event using the following equation: a b where: RE = ( C C ) CG C CG FS C CG = Concentration measured at Curb and Gutter station C FS = Concentration measured at filter strip station Concentrations of the diesel fraction of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were below detection limits in all samples. TSS: Total suspended solids TP: Total phosphorus SRP: Soluble reactive phosphorus mg/l: milligrams/liter NA: not applicable ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

38

39 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Table 8. Filter strip influent and effluent pollutant loading and removal efficiency estimates from water quality sampling conducted in water years 2006 and Parameter Influent Load (g) VFS Filter Strip CAVFS2 Filter Strip Effluent Load (g) Removal Efficiency (%) Influent Load (g) Effluent Load (g) Removal Efficiency (%) Total Suspended Solids Water year , ,864 1, Water year , ,977 1, Water years 2006 and 2007 combined 193,257 1, ,257 2, Total Phosphorus Water year Water year Water years 2006 and 2007 combined Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Water year Water year Water years 2006 and 2007 combined Total Copper Water year Water year Water years 2006 and 2007 combined ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

40 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Table 9. Filter strip influent and effluent pollutant loading and removal efficiency estimates from water quality sampling conducted in water years 2006 and 2007 (continued). Dissolved Copper Parameter Influent Load (g) Water year VFS Filter Strip CAVFS2 Filter Strip Effluent Load (g) Removal Efficiency (%) Influent Load (g) Effluent Load (g) Removal Efficiency (%) Water year Water years 2006 and 2007 combined Total Zinc Water year Water year Water years 2006 and 2007 combined Dissolved Zinc Water year Water year Water years 2006 and 2007 combined TPH - Motor Oil Fraction Water year , , Water year Water years 2006 and 2007 combined 1, , TPH - Diesel Fraction a Water year 2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA Water year 2007 NA NA NA NA NA NA Water years 2006 and 2007 combined NA NA NA NA NA NA a Concentrations of the diesel fraction of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were below detection limits in all samples. g: grams NA: not applicable AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 32 March 12, 2008

41 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 17 presents a scatter plot comparing total phosphorus concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station to those from the VFS station from samples collected during water years 2006 and Results from a two-tailed sign test indicate that concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station were not significantly different (p = ) from those measured at the VFS station. These results are reflected in the similar removal efficiency estimates for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips (80.3 and 84.0 percent, respectively) that were derived for this parameter using concentration data from samples collected during water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 7). Removal efficiency estimates based pollutant loads measured over water years 2006 and 2007 were also similar between the VFS (93.5 percent) and CAVFS2 (96.6 percent) filter strips (see Table 8). Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Figure 18 presents box and whisker plots comparing soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at each station during storm event sampling that occurred over water years 2006 and As shown in Table 7, median concentrations from these sampling events were 0.003, 0.017, and mg/l for the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations, respectively. Results from the Friedman test that was applied to these data showed there were significant differences in the soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations between these stations (p = ). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station were significantly lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station; however, there were no significant differences in the concentrations measured at VFS and Curb and Gutter station. In general, these results reflect anomalies in the soluble reactive phosphorus data from the VFS station that were observed during water year Specifically, soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the VFS station were markedly higher during water year 2006 relative to those measured at the Curb and Gutter and CAVFS2 stations over the same period (see Figure 18). In comparison to water year 2006, soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the VFS station in water year 2007 were also much lower and generally similar to those from the other two monitoring stations. For example, the median and maximum soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the VFS station during water year 2006 were and mg/l, respectively. In comparison, the median and maximum concentrations measured during water year 2007 were only and mg/l, respectively. The specific source for the high soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations at the VFS station during water year 2006 has not been identified; however, potential sources include decaying vegetation, fertilizers and/or phosphorus based pesticides that were present on the ground surface prior to the construction of the test filters strips. During construction of the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 filters strips, these sources would have been tilled into the ground with the compost where they would be less likely to influence surface water quality. In contrast, any of these sources that were present in the VFS filter strip would have remained on the ground surface where they could potentially be mobilized with greater ease by highway runoff. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

42 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance As shown in Tables 7 and 8, the high soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the VFS station during water year 2006 are reflected in the calculated pollutant removal efficiency estimates for this parameter. For example, the pollutant removal efficiency estimate calculated for the VFS filter strip using measured concentrations for this parameter from both water years 2006 and 2007 was -550 percent (see Table 7). However, if data from only water year 2007 are used in this calculation, the pollutant removal efficiency estimate for the VFS filter strip is - 80 percent. Similarly, pollutant removal efficiency calculated based on measured pollutant loads at the VFS station over water years 2006 and 2007 was 9.2 percent (see Table 8); whereas, pollutant removal efficiency calculated using only the data from water year 2007 was 48.3 percent. In comparison to these results, the calculated pollutant removal efficiency estimates for the CAVFS2 filter strip were -40 and 71.4 percent based on soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations and loads, respectively, that were measured over both water years 2006 and Figure 19 presents a scatter plot comparing soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station to those from the VFS station from samples collected during water years 2006 and Results from a two-tailed sign test that was applied to the data from both water years 2006 and 2007 indicated that concentrations measured at the VFS station were significantly higher (p = ) than those measured at the CAVFS2 station. However, if only the data from water year 2007 are used, the test results indicate there were no significant differences in the concentrations measured at these two stations (p = ). Total Copper Figure 20 presents box and whisker plots comparing total copper concentrations measured at each station during storm event sampling that occurred over water years 2006 and As shown in Table 7, median concentrations from these sampling events were , , and mg/l for the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations, respectively. Results from the Friedman test showed there were significant differences in the total copper concentrations between these stations (p < ). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that total copper concentrations measured at both the VFS and CAVFS2 stations were significantly lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. Pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on total copper concentrations measured during water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 7) were 85.8 and 80.5 percent for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. Similarly, pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on annual pollutant loads measured over water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 8) were 95.4 and 97.2 percent for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. Figure 21 presents a scatter plot comparing total copper concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station to those at the VFS station from samples collected during water years 2006 and Results from a two-tailed sign test indicated that concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station were significantly higher (p < ) than those measured at the VFS station. These higher concentrations for the CAVFS2 station are clearly evident in the scatter plot presented in Figure 21. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 34 March 12, 2008

43 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance In order to investigate potential sources for the elevated total copper concentrations in the effluent from the CAVFS2 filter strip, soil leachate analyses were performed on samples of the raw compost used to construct the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 filter strips and on soil samples collected from all three filters strips (Herrera 2007c). The specific objective of these analyses was to determine if the compost used in the construction of the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 filter strips contained copper that may be contributing to the elevated concentrations measured in the effluent from the CAVFS2 filter strip. Results from these analyses confirmed the raw compost is a potential source for this copper. More specifically, the elevated copper in the effluent from the CAVFS2 filter strip is likely related to the transport of particulate bound copper from the compost as opposed to the leaching of this pollutant from the compost in a dissolved form. For reference, the full data report from this analysis is reproduced in Appendix F of this document. Dissolved Copper Figure 22 presents box and whisker plots comparing dissolved copper concentrations measured at each station during storm event sampling that occurred over water years 2006 and As shown in Table 7, median concentrations from these sampling events were , 0.005, and mg/l for the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations, respectively. Results from the Friedman test showed there were no significant differences in total copper concentrations between these stations (p = ). Pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on measured dissolved copper concentrations during water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 7) were relatively low at 1.6 and 5.3 percent for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. In general, these low removal efficiencies are to be expected for this parameter given that the median concentration reported above for the Curb and Gutter station is at a low enough level as to be considered irreducible using conventional stormwater treatment processes such as filtration and sedimentation (Schueler 1996; Winer 2000; Minton 2002). In contrast, pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on annual pollutant loads measured over water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 8) were substantially higher for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips (66.9 and 82.1 percent, respectively) because they reflect water losses within these systems due to infiltration and/or evapotranspiration. Figure 23 presents a scatter plot comparing dissolved copper concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station to those at the VFS station from samples collected during water years 2006 and Results from a two-tailed sign test indicated that there was no significant difference between the concentrations for this parameter at the VFS and CAVFS2 stations (p = ). Washington state surface water quality standards (WAC A) for dissolved copper vary depending on water hardness. Figure 24 presents dissolved copper and hardness concentrations measured at each station in relation to the acute water quality standard for this parameter. These data show that this standard was exceeded in 100, 91, and 80 percent of the samples collected from the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations, respectively. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

44 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Total Zinc Figure 25 presents box and whisker plots comparing total zinc concentrations measured at each station during storm event sampling that occurred over water years 2006 and As shown in Table 7, median concentrations from these sampling events were 0.251, 0.019, and mg/l for the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations, respectively. Results from the Friedman test showed there were significant differences in the total zinc concentrations between these stations (p < ). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that total zinc concentrations measured at both the VFS and CAVFS2 stations were significantly lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. Pollutant removal efficiencies for total zinc were relatively high. For example, pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on measured total zinc concentrations during water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 7) were 91.4 and 88.2 percent for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. Similarly, pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on annual pollutant loads measured over water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 8) were 97.2 and 97.7 percent for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. Figure 26 presents a scatter plot comparing total zinc concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station to those at the VFS station from samples collected during water years 2006 and Results from a two-tailed sign test indicated that concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station were significantly higher (p < ) than those measured at the VFS station. These higher concentrations for the CAVFS2 station are clearly evident in the scatter plot presented in Figure 26. As noted above, a similar pattern was also observed for total copper concentrations. Like total copper, soil leachate analyses were also performed to determine if the compost used in the construction of the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 filter strips contained zinc that may be contributing to the elevated concentrations measured in the effluent from the CAVFS2 filter strip (see associated data report in Appendix F). Results from these analyses confirmed that trace amounts of this metal are present in the compost used in the filter strip construction. Furthermore, the elevated zinc in the effluent from the CAVFS2 filter strip is likely related to the transport of particulate bound zinc from this compost. Dissolved Zinc Figure 27 presents box and whisker plots comparing dissolved zinc concentrations measured at each station during storm event sampling that occurred over water years 2006 and As shown in Table 7, median concentrations from the sampling events that occurred during water year 2007 were 0.045, 0.014, and mg/l for the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations, respectively. Results from the Friedman test showed there were significant differences in the dissolved zinc concentrations between these stations (p = ). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that dissolved zinc concentrations measured at both the VFS and CAVFS2 stations were significantly lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 36 March 12, 2008

45 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on measured dissolved zinc concentrations during water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 7) were 68.8 and 68.9 percent for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. Similarly, pollutant removal efficiency estimates calculated based on annual pollutant loads measured over water years 2006 and 2007 (see Table 8) were 88.8 and 93.4 percent for the VFS and CAVFS2 filter strips, respectively. Figure 28 presents a scatter plot comparing water year 2006 and 2007 dissolved zinc concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station to those at the VFS station from samples collected during water years 2006 and Results from a two-tailed sign test indicated that there was no significant difference between the concentrations for this parameter at the VFS and CAVFS2 stations (p = ). Like dissolved copper, state surface water quality standards (WAC A) for dissolved zinc vary depending on water hardness. Figure 29 presents dissolved zinc and hardness concentrations measured at each station in relation to the acute water quality standard for this parameter. These data show that this standard was exceeded in 100 percent of the samples collected from the Curb and Gutter station, but in only 18 and 20 percent, respectively, of the samples collected from the VFS and CAVFS2 stations. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Figure 30 presents box and whisker plots comparing concentrations of the motor oil fraction of TPH that were measured at each station during storm event sampling that occurred over water years 2006 and As shown in Table 7, median concentrations from the sampling events that occurred in 2007 were 2.91, 0.210, and mg/l for the Curb and Gutter, VFS, and CAVFS2 stations, respectively. Results from the Friedman test showed there were significant differences in the concentrations of this parameter between these stations (p =0.0013). The follow-up multiple comparison test indicated that total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations measured at both the VFS and CAVFS2 stations were significantly lower than those at the Curb and Gutter station. Figure 31 presents a scatter plot comparing concentrations of the motor oil fraction of TPH that were measured at the CAVFS2 station to those at the VFS station from samples collected during water years 2006 and Results from a two-tailed sign test indicated that there was no significant difference between the concentrations for this parameter at these stations (p = ). Concentrations of the diesel fraction of TPH were below detection limits in all the collected samples. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

46

47 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Conclusions As noted in the introduction, this document summarizes data from the project that were collected from the inception of monitoring through the end of water year 2007 (i.e., December 2004 through September 2007). It specifically evaluates and compares the hydrologic and water quality treatment performance of grass-vegetated filter strips with and without compost amendment. The key conclusions from the monitoring data collected thus far are summarized below under separate subheadings for hydrologic and water quality treatment performance, respectively. Hydrologic Treatment Performance In general, grass-vegetated filter strips appear to be highly effective treatment systems for mitigating hydrologic impacts from highway runoff with the associated volumes, peak discharge rates, and durations reduced on average by 88, 92, and 77 percent, respectively. Compost amendment appears to improve filter strip performance for reducing runoff volumes. More specifically, runoff volumes in filter strips with compost amendment are between 44 and 50 percent lower than those in filter strips without similar amendment. Compost amendment appears to improve filter strip performance for reducing peak discharge rates through the low end of the data range; however, other factors (e.g., slope) are likely influencing performance under saturated conditions at the high end of range. Data collected thus far do not provide any strong indication that compost amendment improves filter strip performance for reducing flow durations. Water Quality Treatment Performance When evaluated based on pollutant concentrations, grass-vegetated filter strips appear to be highly effective treatment systems for mitigating water quality impacts from highway runoff for all parameters examined except soluble reactive phosphorus. Treatment performance could not be assessed for dissolved copper because influent concentrations were at low enough levels to be considered irreducible using conventional stormwater treatment processes. Excluding soluble reactive phosphorus and dissolved copper, pollutant removal efficiency estimates that were calculated based on concentration measured during water years 2006 and 2007 ranged from 68.9 to 93.0 across all the other monitoring parameters. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

48 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance When evaluated based on annual pollutant load removal, filter strips appear to be highly effective treatment systems for mitigating water quality impacts from highway runoff for all the parameters examined in this study. For example, pollutant removal efficiency estimates that were calculated based on annual pollutant loads measured over water years 2006 and 2007 ranged from 71.4 to 98.4 across all the monitoring parameters. In comparisons between filter strips with and without compost amendment (i.e., CAVFS2 and VFS filter strips, respectively), concentrations of total suspended solids were significantly higher in the effluent from the filter strip with compost amendment. This increase in total suspended solids concentrations within the compost amended filter strip is likely related to fines present within the compost mix that are being mobilized during storm events. It should be noted that, these elevated concentrations were offset by higher water losses within the filter strip with compost amendment so that it generally achieved equivalent treatment performance to that of the noncomposted filter strip. In comparisons between filter strips with and without compost amendment (i.e., CAVFS2 and VFS filter strips, respectively), concentrations of total copper and total zinc were significantly higher in the effluent from the filter strip with compost amendment. Results from soil leachate analyses (Herrera 2007c) indicated the raw compost is a potential source for these metals. More specifically, the elevated concentrations of these metals in the effluent from the filter strip with compost amendment are likely related to fines in the compost mix that contain trace amounts of these metals. As described above, comparisons of total suspended solids data from the filter strips with and without compost amendment suggest these fines are being mobilized during storm events. However, as with total suspended solids, the elevated concentrations of these metals were generally offset by higher water losses within the filter strip with compost amendment so that it generally achieved equivalent treatment performance to that of the non-composted filter strip. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 40 March 12, 2008

49 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance References APHA, AWWA, and WEF Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18th Edition. Edited by A.E. Greenberg, American Public Health Association; A.D. Eaton, American Water Works Association; and L.S. Clesceri, Water Environment Federation. Ecology Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies. Publication No Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Glanville, T.D., R.A. Persyn, T.L. Richard, J.M. Laflen, and P.M. Dixon Environmental Effects of Applying Composted Organics to New Highway Embankments: Part 2. Water Quality. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 47(2): Harrison, R.B., M.A. Grey, C.L. Henry, and D. Xue Field Test of Compost Amendment to Reduce Nutrient Runoff. Prepared for the City of Richmond by the College of Forestry Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Helsel, D.R. and R.M. Hirsch Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Studies in Environmental Science 49. Elsevier Publications. Herrera Quality Assurance Project Plan: Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Herrera Water Year 2005 Data Report: Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Herrera. 2007a. Water Year 2006 Data Report: Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Herrera. 2007b. Subsurface Soil Assessment: Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project, Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Herrera. 2007c. Compost/Soil Leachate Analysis Data Report: Compost Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. King 5 News Real time data from Doppler radar site located in Seattle, Washington. King 5 News, Seattle, Washington. Obtained from King 5 News First Alert Weather website: < AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

50 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Minton, G.R Stormwater Treatment: Biological, Chemical & Engineering Principles. Resource Planning Associates, Seattle, Washington. National Weather Service Historical climate information for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Obtained November 20, 2007 from National Weather Service Forecast Office website: < Schueler, T.R Irreducible Pollutant Concentrations Discharged from Stormwater Practices. Technical Note 75. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(2): Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, State College of Washington. U.S. EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. EPA Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants under the Clean Water Act; Final Rule and Interim Final Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CFR Part 136. October 26, Western Regional Climate Center Historical climate information for Everett, Washington. Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada. Obtained from Western Regional Climate Center website: < Western Regional Climate Center Historical climate information for SeaTac Airport, Washington. Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada. Obtained November 20, 2007 from Western Regional Climate Center website: < Winer, R National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices. Second Edition. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology in association with Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland. June WSDOT. 2004a. Highway Runoff Manual. Publication No. M Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. WSDOT. 2004b. Average daily trip (ADT) data, provided to Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., by Richard Tveten, Washington State Department of Transportation. Zar, J.H Biostatistical Analysis. Second Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Edgewood Cliffs, New Jersey. AB / cavfs water year 2007 report Herrera Environmental Consultants 42 March 12, 2008

51 FIGURES

52 Figure 1. Vicinity map showing pilot filter strip locations along Interstate 5 in Snohomish County, Washington /rtb /HEC-R/ /Concpt Monitoring Approach Vancouver Island CANADA Bellingham Everett Seattle Tacoma Olympia Mt. Rainier Washington Oregon PACIFIC OCEAN Columbia River Project Area 0 N 50 Compost-amended Vegetated Filter Strip 2 (CAVFS2) Vegetated Filter Strip (VFS) 5 Compost-amended Vegetated Filter Strip 1 (CAVFS1) Curb and gutter control 5 Map source: Thomas Bros 1997 N

53 /rtb/HEC-R/ /Concpt Monitoring Approach PLAN A roadway curb Curb and Gutter Control Curb and Gutter Station VFS Station CAVFS 1 Station CAVFS 2 Station VFS Filter Strip CAVFS1 Filter Strip CAVFS2 Filter Strip noise berm A Legend CROSS-SECTION A-A Sheet flow Concentrated flow Subsurface flow Catch basin Flow, water quality, and precipitation monitoring station Flow and water quality monitoring station Vegetated filter strip Compost-amended vegetated filter strip French drain system roadway noise berm Not to scale HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 2. Schematic diagram of pilot filter strips and associated monitoring stations.

54 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 3. Fifteen-minute and cumulative precipitation totals measured at the CAVFS1 station over water year ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

55 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 4. Discharge and cumulative flow volumes measured at the Curb and Gutter station over water year ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

56 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 5. Discharge and cumulative flow volumes measured at the VFS station over water year ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

57 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 6. Discharge and cumulative flow volumes measured at the CAVFS1 station over water year ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

58 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 7. Discharge and cumulative flow volumes measured at the CAVFS2 station over water year ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

59 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 8. Comparison of normalized runoff volumes measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

60 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 9. Comparison of normalized runoff volumes at the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations versus the VFS station for runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

61 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 10. Comparison of normalized peak discharge rates measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, Herrera Environmental Consultants

62 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 11. Comparison of normalized peak discharge rates at the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations versus the VFS station for runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

63 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 12. Comparison of normalized flow durations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

64 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 13. Comparison of normalized runoff durations at the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 stations versus the VFS station for runoff-producing storm events in water years 2005, 2006, and AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

65 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 14. Comparison of total suspended solids concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

66 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 15. Comparison of total suspended solids concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

67 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 16. Comparison of total phosphorus concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

68 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 17. Comparison of total phosphorus concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

69 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 18. Comparison of soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

70 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 19. Comparison of soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

71 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 20. Comparison of total copper concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

72 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 21. Comparison of total copper concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and AB / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

73 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 22. Comparison of dissolved copper concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

74 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 23. Comparison of dissolved copper concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

75 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 24. Dissolved copper and hardness concentrations measured at each station during storm events in water years 2006 and 2007 with the associated acute water quality standard for dissolved copper. ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

76 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 25. Comparison of total zinc concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

77 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 26. Comparison of total zinc concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

78 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 27. Comparison of dissolved zinc concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

79 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 28. Comparison of dissolved zinc concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

80 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 29. Dissolved zinc and hardness concentrations measured at each station during storm events in water years 2006 and 2007 with the associated acute water quality standard for dissolved copper. ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

81 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Legend: Point = median; Box = 25 th and 75 th percentile; Whisker = 10 th and 90 th percentile Figure 30. Comparison of total petroleum hydrocarbon (motor oil fraction) concentrations measured at the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 stations during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

82 Water Year 2007 Report CAVFS Performance Figure 31. Comparison of total petroleum hydrocarbon (motor oil fraction) concentrations measured at the CAVFS2 station versus the VFS station during storm events in water years 2006 and ab / cavfs water year 2007 report March 12, 2008 Herrera Environmental Consultants

83 APPENDIX A Hydrologic Data Quality Assurance Review Memorandum

84 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Memorandum To Project file From Rebecca Dugopolski and John Lenth Date November 13, 2007 Subject Water Year 2007 Hydrologic Data Validation Review for the Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project This memorandum presents the results from a quality assurance review of hydrologic monitoring data collected at monitoring stations for the compost-amended vegetated filter strip (CAVFS) monitoring project over water year 2007 (i.e., from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007). Included in this review were water level and associated discharge data from the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 monitoring stations. Also included were precipitation data from the CAVFS1 station. Detailed descriptions of these stations and their associated monitoring equipment are provided in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (Herrera 2004) for the project. This memorandum initially describes the procedures that were used in this data quality assurance review. Specific quality assurance issues that were identified through this review are then documented in the concluding section along with any associated limitations on the use and interpretation of the data. Data Quality Review Procedures The following procedures were used in the hydrologic data quality assurance review for the precipitation data, storm identification, and data flagging. Precipitation data The precipitation data were reviewed to identify any significant data gaps. If any data gaps were observed, data was obtained from a rain gauge in Lynwood, WA operated by King County (2006). This gauge is located approximately 3 miles from the project site. The beginning of a storm was identified as the first recorded precipitation value associated with that particular storm. The end of a storm was defined as 15 minutes after the last precipitation value associated with that particular storm. ab / cavfs_appendix a hydro data qa November 13, Herrera Environmental Consultants

85 Storm Identification The precipitation record was then analyzed to identify every individual storm that occurred during the monitoring period. The individual storms were defined based on a minimum 6-hour dry period separating each event. Once defined, these storms were sequentially numbered starting with the first storm in the monitoring period and progressing through the last. The available discharge and water level data from each monitoring station were then verified based on comparisons of the associated hydrographs to the hyetographs for individual storm events. A minimum level of feet was used to identify discharge data associated with a particular storm event. Since flow may occur after a storm event has concluded, data was examined 2-4 hours after the storm end to determine if those values should be identified as part of the storm event. The conclusion of the storm event at each monitoring station was identified using the following criteria: Two to four hours after the storm based on the storm size and professional judgment A gap of 30 minutes to 1 hour with no flow (<0.005 foot level) in the 2-4 hour window Two hours after the last recorded precipitation if continuous flow occurred after the storm concluded. Gross anomalies (e.g., data spikes), gaps, or inconsistencies that were identified through this review were investigated to determine if quality assurance issues associated with the data limited their usability. Data Flagging If major quality assurance issues were identified in any portion of the data from a particular station and/or storm event, the data from that station and event were rejected and assigned an R qualifier. If the reason for the error is described in the field notes or field data worksheets, this will be provided in the flow data quality assurance summary in Table A-1. Examples of data flagged with an R qualifier include the following scenarios: If flow and level were recorded continuously before the storm event when no precipitation was occurring due to instrument drift If unreasonable values are recorded (i.e., stilling well freezing). If minor quality assurance issues were identified in any portion of the discharge record or in the water level data from a particular station and storm event, the data from that station and event were considered estimates and assigned a J qualifier. Examples of data flagged with a J qualifier include the following scenarios: ab / cavfs_appendix a hydro data qa November 13, Herrera Environmental Consultants

86 If data is missing from one of the monitoring stations, but it is less than 5-10% of the total storm coverage If a peak occurs due to instrument calibration, the affected lines of data will be zeroed out (this normally would not occur during a storm event, but could occur at the conclusion of a storm event). Finally, ND qualifiers were assigned to the data from a particular station and event when no data were collected due to equipment malfunctions or other operational problems. Data Quality Assurance Review Results Results from this quality assurance review are summarized in Table A-1. More specifically, this table indicates where quality assurance issues were identified in the data including the associated station, storm event, nature of the problem and cause if known, and action taken in response. These results indicate that data from a total of 43 storms were rejected (R) due to severe quality assurance problems. In addition, data from a total of two storms were qualified as estimates (J) due to minor quality assurance problems. Finally, data from a total of 10 storms were assigned ND qualifiers to indicate no data were collected. Only estimated values were used in subsequent data analyses for this project. References Herrera Quality Assurance Project Plan: Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. King County Precipitation data from the LYNN rain gauge in Lynwood, Washington. Department of Natural Resources. Obtained October 17, 2006, from agency website: < ab / cavfs_appendix a hydro data qa November 13, Herrera Environmental Consultants

87 Table A-1 Results from quality assurance (QA) review of hydrologic monitoring data collected from the Curb and Gutter, VFS, CAVFS1, and CAVFS2 monitoring stations in water year Station Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff producing QA Issue Cause QA Action CAVFS /26/06 13:45 11/26/06 14:45 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /30/06 0:45 11/30/06 12:15 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /11/06 0:30 12/12/06 0:15 yes Small gap in data Memory error CAVFS /13/06 5:00 12/13/06 12:30 no No data Memory error CAVFS /20/06 5:45 12/21/06 19:30 yes Missing data Memory error Rainfall data obtained from King County gauge LYNN. Discharge data identified as estimated and assigned a J qualifier. Rainfall data obtained from King County gauge LYNN. Flagged discharg data as nd. Rainfall data obtained from King County gauge LYNN. Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier CAVFS /28/06 10:30 12/28/06 10:45 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS1 47 1/16/07 13:45 1/16/07 14:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS1 49 1/17/07 23:00 1/18/07 7:15 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS1 50 1/19/07 5:00 1/19/07 12:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS1 51 1/19/07 21:15 1/19/07 21:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS1 67 2/15/07 4:00 2/15/07 6:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /12/06 9:30 11/13/06 1:30 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /26/06 13:45 11/26/06 14:45 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /30/06 0:45 11/30/06 12:15 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /1/06 3:15 12/1/06 8:30 yes No data Memory error Flagged as nd. CAVFS /10/06 6:00 12/10/06 14:00 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /13/06 5:00 12/13/06 12:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS2 43 1/7/07 20:00 1/7/07 20:15 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS2 46 1/14/07 14:45 1/14/07 15:00 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS2 47 1/16/07 13:45 1/16/07 14:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS2 48 1/17/07 11:00 1/17/07 11:15 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS2 70 2/19/07 6:00 2/19/07 14:15 yes No data Memory error Flagged as nd. CAVFS2 71 2/20/07 0:15 2/20/07 5:45 yes No data Memory error Flagged as nd. CAVFS2 72 2/22/07 1:30 2/22/07 3:30 yes No data Memory error Flagged as nd. CAVFS2 73 2/23/07 1:00 2/23/07 3:00 no No data Memory error Flagged as nd. CAVFS /5/07 8:00 6/5/07 15:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /6/07 12:30 6/6/07 16:00 no Inaccurate water level measurements Plugged bubbler line Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /6/07 22:15 6/7/07 9:00 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Plugged bubbler line Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /21/07 18:00 7/22/07 8:00 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /23/07 2:30 7/23/07 4:00 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. CAVFS /19/07 0:00 8/19/07 11:30 no No data Memory error Flagged as nd. CAVFS /20/07 7:00 8/20/07 12:15 no No data Memory error Flagged as nd. Curb and Gutter 17 11/12/06 9:30 11/13/06 1:30 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. Curb and Gutter 24 11/26/06 13:45 11/26/06 14:45 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. Curb and Gutter 25 11/30/06 0:45 11/30/06 12:15 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. Curb and Gutter 33 12/20/06 5:45 12/21/06 19:30 yes Small gap in data Memory error Discharge data identified as estimated and assigned a J qualifier Curb and Gutter 37 12/28/06 10:30 12/28/06 10:45 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. Curb and Gutter 47 1/16/07 13:45 1/16/07 14:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. Curb and Gutter 76 2/28/07 8:30 2/28/07 11:15 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. Curb and Gutter 79 3/5/07 9:45 3/5/07 10:00 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. Curb and Gutter 82 3/10/07 5:30 3/10/07 5:45 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. Curb and Gutter 147 8/25/07 8:45 8/25/07 9:00 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. Curb and Gutter 148 8/26/07 5:45 8/26/07 6:45 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 17 11/12/06 9:30 11/13/06 1:30 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 24 11/26/06 13:45 11/26/06 14:45 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 25 11/30/06 0:45 11/30/06 12:15 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 31 12/13/06 5:00 12/13/06 12:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 47 1/16/07 13:45 1/16/07 14:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 97 4/7/07 23:30 4/8/07 0:15 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 98 4/8/07 16:45 4/9/07 5:45 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 99 4/9/07 16:15 4/9/07 16:45 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 100 4/10/07 13:30 4/10/07 14:15 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 101 4/13/07 12:15 4/13/07 19:30 no Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 102 4/14/07 9:45 4/15/07 1:30 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 103 4/16/07 11:15 4/16/07 12:15 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 104 4/18/07 4:15 4/18/07 12:45 yes Inaccurate water level measurements Instrument drift Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 152 9/16/07 5:45 9/17/07 0:30 yes Missing data Memory error Flagged as nd. VFS 153 9/17/07 13:30 9/17/07 20:30 no Missing data Memory error Discharge data rejected and assigned an R qualifier. VFS 154 9/18/07 18:30 9/18/07 22:45 yes Missing data Memory error Flagged as nd.

88 APPENDIX B Water Quality Data Quality Assurance Review Memorandum

89 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Memorandum To Project File cc From John Lenth, Herrera Environmental Consultants Gina Catarra, Herrera Environmental Consultants Date November 7, 2007 Subject Data Quality Assurance Review of CAVFS Performance Monitoring Surface Water Data This memorandum presents a review of data quality for surface water samples collected for performance monitoring of compost-amended vegetated filter strip (CAVFS) test plots from November to December Aquatic Research Incorporated of Seattle, Washington analyzed the samples for: Total suspended solids by EPA Method Total phosphorus by EPA Method Hardness by Standard Method 2340C Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) by Standard Method 4500P,F Total and dissolved copper by EPA Method Total and dissolved zinc by EPA Method Total petroleum hydrocarbons by Ecology s NWTPH-Dx method The laboratory s performance was reviewed in accordance with quality control (QC) criteria outlined in the WSDOT Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (WSDOT 2004). Quality control data summaries submitted by the laboratories were reviewed; raw data were not submitted by the laboratories. Data quality assurance worksheets summarizing the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) review were completed for each sampling event and are included with the data. Data qualifiers (flags) were added to the sample results in the laboratory reports. Data validation results are summarized below, followed by definitions of data qualifiers. Custody, Preservation, Holding Times, and Completeness Not Acceptable The samples were properly preserved and sample custody was maintained from sample collection to receipt at the laboratories. All samples were analyzed within the required holding times (Table 1). With the exception noted below, the laboratory reports were complete and contained results for all samples and tests requested on the chain-of-custody (COC) forms. ab / cavfs wq data validation memo November 7, Herrera Environmental Consultants

90 Table 1. Summary of sample collection requirements. Parameter Analytical Method Bottle Preservative Holding Time Hardness SM 2340B 500 ml poly Nitric acid to ph<2, cool to 4 C 6 months Total suspended solids EPA L poly Cool to 4 C 7 days Total phosphorus Soluble reactive phosphorus Dissolved metals Total metals Total petroleum hydrocarbons EPA ml poly Sulfuric acid to ph<2, cool to 28 days 4 C EPA ml poly Cool to 4 C 48 hours EPA 220.2/200.7 EPA 220.2/200.7 NWTPH-Dx 500 ml poly Cool to 4 C, filtration within 12 6 months hours 500 ml poly Nitric acid to ph<2, cool to 4 C 6 months 500 ml amber glass Hydrochloric acid to ph<2, cool to 4 C 14 days to extraction; 40 days to analysis The samples collected on 11/10/2006 were analyzed for soluble reactive phosphorus 24 hours outside of the 48 hour holding time. Because the 48 hour holding time was exceeded data were qualified as estimated to indicate a potentially biased result due to holding time exceedance (see Table 2). Samples collected on 12/12/2006 were analyzed nine days past the 7 day holding time for total suspended solids. Samples were not logged into the laboratory system correctly and the holding time for total suspended solids was exceeded before the error was discovered. The QAPP specifies that all samples analyzed 48 hours past the holding time will be rejected. The total suspended solids results for samples Curb & Gutter , Control , and Compost were rejected (R) in accordance with the QAPP (see Table 2). Table 2. Summary of sample results qualified due to holding time exceedance. Sample ID Sample Date Parameter Qualifier Curb+Gutter /10/06 Soluble reactive phosphorus J Control /10/06 Soluble reactive phosphorus J Compost /10/06 Soluble reactive phosphorus J Curb&Gutter /12/06 Total suspended solids R Control /12/06 Total suspended solids R Compost /12/06 Total suspended solids R ab / cavfs wq data validation memo November 7, Herrera Environmental Consultants

91 Laboratory Reporting Limits Acceptable The laboratory reporting limits and QAPP specified reporting limits are provided in Table 3. The laboratory reporting limits met the QAPP specified reporting limits for all analyses. No data were qualified based on laboratory reporting limits. Table 3. Summary of QAPP and laboratory reporting limits. Parameter QAPP Reporting Limit Laboratory Reporting Limit Hardness 2 mg/l 2 mg/l Total suspended solids 0.50 mg/l 0.50 mg/l Total phosphorus mg/l mg/l Soluble reactive phosphorus mg/l mg/l Total and dissolved copper mg/l mg/l Total and dissolved zinc mg/l mg/l Total petroleum hydrocarbons mg/l (diesel); 0.10 mg/l (motor oil) mg/l (diesel); 0.10 mg/l (motor oil) Blank Analysis Acceptable with Qualification Method Blanks Method blanks were analyzed at the required frequency. Method blanks did not contain levels of target analytes above the laboratory reporting limits. Rinsate Blanks One equipment rinsate blank was collected on 2/23/07 and analyzed for metals in accordance with the QAPP. As shown in Table 4, results for copper (dissolved and total) exceeded the criterion of metals values less than 2 times the reporting limit. The QAPP specified that additional testing be conducted if metals results exceed the less than 2 times the reporting limit. An additional rinsate blank was collected on 4/06/07 and produced similar results. Table 4. Summary of equipment rinsate blank criterion exceedances. Sample Date Parameter Sample ID Sample Result (mg/l) Reporting Limit (mg/l) Qualifier 2/23/07 Dissolved copper C+G-RB none 2/23/07 Total copper C+G-RB J ab / cavfs wq data validation memo November 7, Herrera Environmental Consultants

92 No data were qualified for dissolved copper because the exceedance was marginal. As shown in Table 5, all total copper data with results less than 5 times the equipment rinsate blank value were qualified as estimated (J) to indicate a potential high bias. Table 5. Summary of samples qualified due to equipment rinsate blank criterion exceedances. Sample Date Parameter Sample ID Sample Result (mg/l) Equipment Rinsate Result (mg/l) 11/06/06 Total copper Compost J 11/06/06 Total copper Control J 11/06/06 Total copper Cont-Dupe J 11/10/06 Total copper Control J 11/10/06 Total copper Compost J 11/10/06 Total copper C+G J 11/16/06 Total copper Control J 11/16/06 Total copper Compost J 12/12/06 Total copper Control J 12/12/06 Total copper Compost J 12/15/06 Total copper Control J 12/15/06 Total copper Compost J 12/15/06 Total copper Comp2 Dupe J Qualifier The following corrective actions were taken after the 2007 data were collected. These actions include: New suction line was installed at location Curb&Gutter; suction line at the other stations were removed and cleaned by the laboratory. The suction tubing will be rinsed with reagent grade water prior to collection of project samples and equipment rinsate blanks. Frequency and number of locations for equipment rinsate blank collection will be increased. An equipment rinsate blank will be collected after the first sample event for water year 2008 at locations Curb& Gutter and Control. In addition, an equipment rinsate blanks will be collected midproject and at the end of the sample year. If equipment rinsate blanks exceed QAPP criteria after the corrective actions, additional corrective actions may be taken that include: Clean sample tubing in the field between events with detergent and water Removing sample tubing between events and clean with detergent and acid rinse between events ab / cavfs wq data validation memo November 7, Herrera Environmental Consultants

93 Replace sample tubing between events. Laboratory Control Sample Analysis Acceptable Laboratory control samples were analyzed at the required frequency. The percent recovery values for all sampling events met the QAPP criteria (80 to 120 percent for petroleum hydrocarbon analyses and 90 to 110 percent for all other analyses). Matrix Spike Analysis Acceptable Matrix spike (MS) samples were analyzed for total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, hardness, and metals at the required frequency. The percent recovery values for the MS analyses met the control limits (75 to 125 percent) established by the QAPP. Laboratory Duplicate Analysis Acceptable Laboratory duplicates or laboratory control sample duplicates were analyzed at the required frequency. The relative percent difference (RPD) was calculated for each analyte where both duplicate values were greater than five times the reporting limit (RL). The difference between duplicate values was calculated if the detected compound concentration was less than five times the RL in either the sample or the field duplicate. A control limit of less than 20 percent RPD (25 percent for total suspended solids and 35 percent for petroleum hydrocarbons) was established in the QAPP and a control limit of two times the RL was used to evaluate difference values. The relative percent difference (RPD) values met the control limits established by the QAPP, and all difference values were less than two times the RL. Field Duplicates Acceptable with Qualification Field duplicates were analyzed for all analyses. The QAPP specified that a field duplicate sample be collected at a frequency of one per every three sample events. As shown in Table 6, field duplicates were collected and analyzed at the required frequency for all parameters, except TPH. No data were qualified because of field duplicate sampling frequency. Table 6. Frequency of Field Duplicate Sample Collection Number of Events Number of Field Duplicates Collected Percentage of Events Sampled 5 2 (1 for TPH analysis) 40 (20 for TPH) Field duplicate precision met the QAPP specified criterion of less than 20 percent RPD (25 percent for total suspended solids and 35 percent for petroleum hydrocarbons). In addition, a criterion of less than 2 times the reporting limit was used if the sample concentration was less than 5 times the reporting limit. ab / cavfs wq data validation memo November 7, Herrera Environmental Consultants

94 Data Quality Assessment Summary In general, the data quality for all parameters was found to be acceptable based on holding time, reporting limit, method blank, control standard, matrix spike, laboratory duplicate, and field duplicate criteria. Holding time criteria for three soluble reactive phosphorus values and three total suspended solids values was exceeded. The soluble reactive phosphorus values were qualified as estimated; the total suspended solids values were rejected due to holding time exceedance. The equipment rinsate blank exceeded criteria for dissolved and total copper. No dissolved copper values were qualified because the exceedance was marginal. Thirteen total copper results were qualified as estimated (J) due to potential high bias. Usability of the data is based on the guidance documents previously noted. Upon consideration of the information presented here, the data are acceptable as qualified, with the exception of total suspended solids data for samples collected on 12/12/06. These sample results were rejected due to gross holding time exceedance. Definition of Data Qualifiers The following data qualifier definitions are taken from USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (USEPA 2002). U J UJ R The material was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the associated value. The associated value is either the sample quantitation limit or the sample detection limit. The associated value is an estimated quantity. The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. The associated value is an estimate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. The data are unusable. (Note: analyte may or may not be present.) References USEPA Contract laboratory program national functional guidelines for inorganic data review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. (EPA-540/R-01/008). WSDOT WSDOT Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring, Quality Assurance Project Plan. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office, Water Quality Program. December ab / cavfs wq data validation memo November 7, Herrera Environmental Consultants

95 APPENDIX C Precipitation and Discharge Data for Individual Storm Events in Water Years 2005, 2006, and 2007

96 Table C.1. Summary statistics for individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Storm Duration (hours) Storm Antecedent Dry Period (hours) Precipitation Amount (inches) Max Precipitation Intensity (inches/15-minutes) Ave. Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) /9/04 16:45 12/11/04 5:45 yes /11/04 13:15 12/11/04 13:30 yes /13/04 12:15 12/14/04 10:15 yes /16/04 20:45 12/16/04 22:45 yes /17/04 9:15 12/17/04 9:30 no /18/04 3:15 12/18/04 3:30 yes /19/04 12:15 12/19/04 12:45 yes /21/04 8:45 12/21/04 15:15 yes /25/04 11:45 12/26/04 11:30 yes /29/04 8:45 12/30/04 0:15 yes /1/05 3:30 1/1/05 6:45 yes /2/05 13:30 1/2/05 13:45 yes /5/05 15:15 1/5/05 15:30 no /6/05 19:00 1/7/05 14:45 no /8/05 17:00 1/8/05 19:45 yes /10/05 13:30 1/10/05 13:45 no /13/05 8:00 1/13/05 8:15 no /16/05 2:45 1/16/05 14:00 undefined /17/05 8:30 1/18/05 2:30 undefined /18/05 10:00 1/18/05 15:00 undefined /18/05 23:30 1/19/05 7:00 undefined /20/05 11:15 1/20/05 13:45 yes /22/05 20:15 1/22/05 20:30 yes /26/05 23:00 1/26/05 23:15 yes /28/05 21:30 1/28/05 21:45 yes /30/05 8:45 1/30/05 9:30 yes /31/05 3:30 1/31/05 3:45 no /4/05 7:15 2/4/05 15:30 yes /4/05 23:00 2/5/05 3:45 yes /5/05 20:30 2/5/05 21:15 yes /6/05 8:00 2/6/05 18:30 yes /12/05 3:30 2/12/05 3:45 no /12/05 10:00 2/12/05 18:45 yes /13/05 6:00 2/13/05 8:30 yes /14/05 9:00 2/14/05 9:15 no /28/05 8:00 3/1/05 6:45 yes /1/05 13:45 3/1/05 14:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 1 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

97 Table C.1. Summary statistics for individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Storm Duration (hours) Storm Antecedent Dry Period (hours) Precipitation Amount (inches) Max Precipitation Intensity (inches/15-minutes) Ave. Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) /9/05 9:15 3/9/05 9:30 no /16/05 11:30 3/16/05 15:45 yes /17/05 7:15 3/17/05 7:30 no /18/05 3:30 3/18/05 5:15 yes /19/05 13:15 3/20/05 19:30 yes /26/05 3:00 3/27/05 9:45 yes /27/05 23:45 3/28/05 0:00 no /28/05 6:45 3/28/05 13:30 yes /28/05 22:30 3/29/05 1:30 yes /29/05 13:15 3/29/05 13:30 yes /29/05 21:15 3/29/05 21:45 no /30/05 21:00 3/30/05 21:15 no /31/05 11:15 3/31/05 11:45 yes /31/05 18:30 4/1/05 9:00 yes /2/05 17:15 4/3/05 13:00 yes /4/05 6:15 4/4/05 10:15 yes /6/05 13:00 4/6/05 13:15 no /7/05 10:00 4/7/05 18:15 yes /8/05 10:15 4/8/05 10:30 yes /10/05 19:15 4/11/05 3:00 yes /12/05 11:45 4/12/05 14:15 yes /13/05 13:30 4/13/05 13:45 no /14/05 1:00 4/14/05 13:30 yes /15/05 12:45 4/16/05 13:00 yes /17/05 15:00 4/18/05 0:45 yes /23/05 22:15 4/23/05 23:30 yes /29/05 7:30 4/29/05 8:15 yes /29/05 17:45 4/30/05 6:15 yes /4/05 4:15 5/4/05 6:45 yes /8/05 17:30 5/9/05 0:00 yes /9/05 6:30 5/9/05 9:45 yes /9/05 19:30 5/10/05 3:15 yes /14/05 1:45 5/14/05 7:45 yes /15/05 2:45 5/15/05 9:00 yes /16/05 11:45 5/16/05 22:30 yes /17/05 23:00 5/20/05 0:15 yes /20/05 11:00 5/20/05 15:00 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 2 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

98 Table C.1. Summary statistics for individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Storm Duration (hours) Storm Antecedent Dry Period (hours) Precipitation Amount (inches) Max Precipitation Intensity (inches/15-minutes) Ave. Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) /21/05 17:30 5/21/05 19:45 yes /22/05 11:30 5/22/05 11:45 yes /31/05 4:30 5/31/05 19:30 yes /1/05 4:00 6/1/05 9:15 yes /3/05 4:15 6/3/05 5:30 yes /5/05 13:15 6/5/05 15:15 yes /5/05 22:45 6/5/05 23:00 no /6/05 15:45 6/6/05 16:00 no /7/05 22:30 6/8/05 4:15 yes /8/05 15:15 6/8/05 15:30 yes /10/05 18:45 6/12/05 5:15 yes /12/05 21:15 6/13/05 6:00 yes /14/05 23:15 6/15/05 3:15 no /16/05 20:45 6/17/05 7:00 yes /21/05 15:30 6/21/05 17:00 no /22/05 6:00 6/22/05 20:15 yes /26/05 19:30 6/27/05 9:15 no /2/05 1:15 7/2/05 6:15 yes /5/05 18:00 7/6/05 0:15 yes /8/05 5:15 7/8/05 15:30 yes /15/05 12:45 7/15/05 15:45 yes /16/05 0:45 7/16/05 9:00 yes /22/05 6:00 7/22/05 8:30 yes /1/05 7:30 8/1/05 7:45 no /17/05 3:00 8/17/05 5:45 no /28/05 19:00 8/28/05 23:30 yes /29/05 19:15 8/29/05 19:45 no /30/05 7:15 8/30/05 8:00 no /4/05 8:15 9/4/05 8:30 yes /5/05 8:00 9/5/05 8:15 no /9/05 1:15 9/9/05 11:45 yes /9/05 23:30 9/10/05 8:45 yes /14/05 21:00 9/14/05 21:15 yes /16/05 1:30 9/16/05 6:30 yes /30/05 4:45 9/30/05 11:00 no /1/05 9:00 10/1/05 19:00 yes /2/05 4:45 10/2/05 5:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 3 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

99 Table C.1. Summary statistics for individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Storm Duration (hours) Storm Antecedent Dry Period (hours) Precipitation Amount (inches) Max Precipitation Intensity (inches/15-minutes) Ave. Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) /2/05 11:30 10/2/05 19:30 yes /6/05 13:30 10/6/05 19:15 no /8/05 19:00 10/8/05 20:15 no /10/05 12:45 10/10/05 13:00 no /11/05 0:00 10/11/05 1:45 yes /12/05 15:30 10/12/05 19:00 yes /14/05 20:15 10/15/05 1:30 yes /16/05 5:00 10/16/05 8:30 yes /17/05 0:00 10/17/05 5:45 no /19/05 1:00 10/19/05 12:45 yes /23/05 6:45 10/23/05 16:45 no /25/05 17:30 10/25/05 18:45 no /26/05 1:30 10/26/05 2:00 no /26/05 8:30 10/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 21:30 10/28/05 7:00 yes /28/05 18:15 10/28/05 18:30 no /29/05 2:15 10/29/05 3:15 yes /29/05 15:00 10/29/05 17:30 yes /30/05 0:30 10/30/05 0:45 no /30/05 19:45 10/31/05 19:00 yes J J 0.80 J 0.05 J 0.03 J /1/05 8:00 11/1/05 19:45 yes J J 0.38 J 0.04 J 0.03 J /2/05 9:30 11/2/05 9:45 no /2/05 17:30 11/3/05 20:00 yes /4/05 10:00 11/4/05 14:45 yes /5/05 8:45 11/6/05 0:00 yes /7/05 3:15 11/7/05 6:15 yes /10/05 13:30 11/10/05 18:15 yes /11/05 10:00 11/11/05 14:30 yes /12/05 23:00 11/13/05 19:45 yes /14/05 4:45 11/14/05 5:15 yes /24/05 16:00 11/25/05 22:30 yes /26/05 8:30 11/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 2:15 11/27/05 11:15 yes /28/05 22:00 11/30/05 3:30 no /1/05 12:45 12/1/05 13:30 no /2/05 12:30 12/2/05 14:45 yes /3/05 13:30 12/3/05 17:00 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 4 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

100 Table C.1. Summary statistics for individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Storm Duration (hours) Storm Antecedent Dry Period (hours) Precipitation Amount (inches) Max Precipitation Intensity (inches/15-minutes) Ave. Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) /4/05 11:30 12/4/05 17:00 yes /6/05 1:00 12/6/05 6:00 yes /12/05 14:30 12/12/05 14:45 no /15/05 10:15 12/15/05 10:30 no /19/05 3:30 12/19/05 10:45 yes /19/05 22:15 12/22/05 10:00 yes /22/05 18:15 12/22/05 18:30 no /23/05 14:00 12/24/05 11:45 yes /24/05 22:15 12/25/05 7:30 yes /25/05 13:45 12/26/05 10:15 yes /27/05 0:30 12/27/05 8:15 yes /28/05 3:30 12/28/05 12:00 yes /29/05 20:45 12/30/05 5:15 yes /30/05 11:45 12/31/05 6:30 yes /1/06 7:15 1/1/06 10:30 yes /1/06 16:30 1/1/06 21:30 yes /2/06 5:15 1/2/06 20:30 yes /3/06 12:00 1/3/06 23:30 yes /5/06 7:30 1/6/06 0:00 yes /6/06 9:15 1/6/06 9:30 no /6/06 23:00 1/6/06 23:15 no /7/06 6:30 1/7/06 15:45 yes /8/06 15:45 1/11/06 0:15 yes /12/06 11:15 1/13/06 23:15 yes J J 0.65 J 0.03 J 0.02 J /14/06 6:30 1/14/06 20:30 yes /15/06 16:30 1/15/06 16:45 no /16/06 2:30 1/16/06 22:45 yes /18/06 0:15 1/18/06 1:15 yes /18/06 8:00 1/18/06 8:15 no /18/06 23:15 1/19/06 5:00 yes /19/06 22:30 1/20/06 10:15 yes /21/06 3:15 1/21/06 11:45 no /22/06 11:15 1/22/06 11:30 no /22/06 21:00 1/23/06 0:15 yes /23/06 6:15 1/23/06 10:15 yes /24/06 6:45 1/24/06 7:00 no /25/06 18:00 1/25/06 19:00 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 5 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

101 Table C.1. Summary statistics for individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Storm Duration (hours) Storm Antecedent Dry Period (hours) Precipitation Amount (inches) Max Precipitation Intensity (inches/15-minutes) Ave. Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) /26/06 16:00 1/26/06 21:00 yes /27/06 20:00 1/28/06 5:30 yes /29/06 12:45 1/30/06 12:00 yes /31/06 13:45 1/31/06 21:30 yes /1/06 16:15 2/2/06 2:30 yes /2/06 15:45 2/2/06 20:00 yes /3/06 14:30 2/4/06 9:45 yes /8/06 4:30 2/8/06 6:45 yes /13/06 2:00 2/13/06 8:15 yes /14/06 2:00 2/14/06 3:45 yes /14/06 10:45 2/14/06 11:30 yes /21/06 16:45 2/21/06 17:00 no /22/06 8:00 2/22/06 8:15 no /22/06 15:30 2/22/06 19:45 yes /23/06 2:00 2/23/06 14:00 yes /26/06 16:00 2/27/06 2:30 yes /27/06 22:15 2/28/06 12:45 yes /2/06 3:45 3/2/06 7:00 yes /5/06 8:15 3/5/06 8:45 no /6/06 19:00 3/6/06 21:15 no /7/06 10:00 3/7/06 18:30 yes /8/06 3:45 3/8/06 20:45 yes /9/06 22:45 3/9/06 23:00 no /10/06 19:15 3/10/06 20:45 no /15/06 6:45 3/15/06 19:30 yes /16/06 8:30 3/16/06 13:45 yes /17/06 8:15 3/17/06 8:30 no /17/06 22:00 3/17/06 22:30 yes /18/06 12:15 3/18/06 12:30 no /21/06 15:30 3/22/06 19:00 yes /24/06 3:00 3/24/06 15:15 yes /25/06 22:15 3/25/06 22:30 no /28/06 2:30 3/28/06 8:00 yes /31/06 3:15 3/31/06 9:30 no /1/06 4:00 4/1/06 11:45 yes /3/06 14:30 4/3/06 19:30 yes /5/06 22:15 4/5/06 22:45 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 6 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

102 Table C.1. Summary statistics for individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Storm Duration (hours) Storm Antecedent Dry Period (hours) Precipitation Amount (inches) Max Precipitation Intensity (inches/15-minutes) Ave. Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) /8/06 13:30 4/9/06 15:45 yes /12/06 7:15 4/12/06 12:15 no /13/06 9:45 4/13/06 10:00 no /13/06 20:30 4/13/06 23:30 yes /14/06 6:45 4/14/06 7:45 yes /14/06 17:15 4/14/06 17:30 yes /15/06 3:00 4/16/06 6:45 yes /17/06 20:30 4/17/06 20:45 no /20/06 21:30 4/21/06 10:15 no /29/06 11:30 4/29/06 16:30 yes /1/06 9:45 5/1/06 10:00 no /6/06 22:00 5/7/06 0:30 no /7/06 13:30 5/8/06 0:45 no /11/06 15:15 5/11/06 15:30 no /11/06 23:00 5/12/06 9:15 no /19/06 16:00 5/19/06 19:00 no /20/06 1:30 5/20/06 1:45 no /21/06 16:30 5/21/06 17:15 yes /22/06 1:00 5/22/06 6:45 no /23/06 8:15 5/23/06 10:30 yes /23/06 22:30 5/24/06 15:30 no /26/06 2:00 5/26/06 6:30 no /26/06 13:30 5/26/06 13:45 yes /26/06 21:15 5/27/06 5:30 yes /27/06 11:45 5/28/06 15:00 yes /29/06 5:45 5/29/06 6:00 no /31/06 18:45 5/31/06 23:15 yes /1/06 12:00 6/2/06 5:15 yes /2/06 11:45 6/2/06 14:30 no /4/06 0:30 6/4/06 11:30 yes /8/06 18:45 6/9/06 8:15 yes /10/06 10:45 6/10/06 11:00 no /12/06 7:45 6/12/06 9:15 no /12/06 20:30 6/13/06 2:00 yes /16/06 10:45 6/16/06 12:45 yes /4/06 5:15 7/4/06 6:15 no /6/06 16:15 7/6/06 16:30 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 7 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

103 Table C.1. Summary statistics for individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Storm Duration (hours) Storm Antecedent Dry Period (hours) Precipitation Amount (inches) Max Precipitation Intensity (inches/15-minutes) Ave. Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) /12/06 9:30 7/12/06 10:00 no /13/06 17:45 7/13/06 18:00 no /30/06 11:00 7/30/06 12:30 no /29/06 8:15 8/30/06 10:45 yes /9/06 1:30 9/9/06 11:00 yes /13/06 9:15 9/13/06 9:30 no /14/06 0:00 9/14/06 7:45 yes /18/06 0:15 9/18/06 5:45 yes /19/06 2:45 9/19/06 6:30 yes /20/06 8:45 9/20/06 21:30 yes /21/06 10:15 9/21/06 10:30 yes /3/06 16:15 10/3/06 16:30 no /6/06 6:45 10/6/06 11:30 no /8/06 8:45 10/8/06 9:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 8 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

104 Table C.2. Raw runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Runoff Volume (cf) VFS Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS1 Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS2 Runoff Volume (cf) /9/04 16:45 12/11/04 5:45 yes 1, R R R /11/04 13:15 12/11/04 13:30 yes R R /13/04 12:15 12/14/04 10:15 yes R /16/04 20:45 12/16/04 22:45 yes /17/04 9:15 12/17/04 9:30 no /18/04 3:15 12/18/04 3:30 yes /19/04 12:15 12/19/04 12:45 yes /21/04 8:45 12/21/04 15:15 yes /25/04 11:45 12/26/04 11:30 yes /29/04 8:45 12/30/04 0:15 yes /1/05 3:30 1/1/05 6:45 yes /2/05 13:30 1/2/05 13:45 yes /5/05 15:15 1/5/05 15:30 no R R R /6/05 19:00 1/7/05 14:45 no R 0.00 R R /8/05 17:00 1/8/05 19:45 yes R /10/05 13:30 1/10/05 13:45 no nd nd nd nd /13/05 8:00 1/13/05 8:15 no nd nd nd nd /16/05 2:45 1/16/05 14:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /17/05 8:30 1/18/05 2:30 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 10:00 1/18/05 15:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 23:30 1/19/05 7:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /20/05 11:15 1/20/05 13:45 yes nd /22/05 20:15 1/22/05 20:30 yes nd /26/05 23:00 1/26/05 23:15 yes nd /28/05 21:30 1/28/05 21:45 yes nd /30/05 8:45 1/30/05 9:30 yes nd /31/05 3:30 1/31/05 3:45 no nd /4/05 7:15 2/4/05 15:30 yes /4/05 23:00 2/5/05 3:45 yes /5/05 20:30 2/5/05 21:15 yes /6/05 8:00 2/6/05 18:30 yes /12/05 3:30 2/12/05 3:45 no /12/05 10:00 2/12/05 18:45 yes /13/05 6:00 2/13/05 8:30 yes /14/05 9:00 2/14/05 9:15 no /28/05 8:00 3/1/05 6:45 yes /1/05 13:45 3/1/05 14:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 9 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

105 Table C.2. Raw runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Runoff Volume (cf) VFS Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS1 Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS2 Runoff Volume (cf) /9/05 9:15 3/9/05 9:30 no /16/05 11:30 3/16/05 15:45 yes nd /17/05 7:15 3/17/05 7:30 no nd /18/05 3:30 3/18/05 5:15 yes nd /19/05 13:15 3/20/05 19:30 yes /26/05 3:00 3/27/05 9:45 yes R /27/05 23:45 3/28/05 0:00 no /28/05 6:45 3/28/05 13:30 yes /28/05 22:30 3/29/05 1:30 yes /29/05 13:15 3/29/05 13:30 yes nd /29/05 21:15 3/29/05 21:45 no 0.00 nd nd /30/05 21:00 3/30/05 21:15 no 0.00 nd nd /31/05 11:15 3/31/05 11:45 yes nd /31/05 18:30 4/1/05 9:00 yes R /2/05 17:15 4/3/05 13:00 yes nd /4/05 6:15 4/4/05 10:15 yes nd /6/05 13:00 4/6/05 13:15 no /7/05 10:00 4/7/05 18:15 yes /8/05 10:15 4/8/05 10:30 yes /10/05 19:15 4/11/05 3:00 yes /12/05 11:45 4/12/05 14:15 yes /13/05 13:30 4/13/05 13:45 no /14/05 1:00 4/14/05 13:30 yes /15/05 12:45 4/16/05 13:00 yes R /17/05 15:00 4/18/05 0:45 yes /23/05 22:15 4/23/05 23:30 yes /29/05 7:30 4/29/05 8:15 yes /29/05 17:45 4/30/05 6:15 yes /4/05 4:15 5/4/05 6:45 yes /8/05 17:30 5/9/05 0:00 yes /9/05 6:30 5/9/05 9:45 yes /9/05 19:30 5/10/05 3:15 yes /14/05 1:45 5/14/05 7:45 yes R /15/05 2:45 5/15/05 9:00 yes R /16/05 11:45 5/16/05 22:30 yes /17/05 23:00 5/20/05 0:15 yes /20/05 11:00 5/20/05 15:00 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 10 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

106 Table C.2. Raw runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Runoff Volume (cf) VFS Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS1 Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS2 Runoff Volume (cf) /21/05 17:30 5/21/05 19:45 yes /22/05 11:30 5/22/05 11:45 yes /31/05 4:30 5/31/05 19:30 yes /1/05 4:00 6/1/05 9:15 yes /3/05 4:15 6/3/05 5:30 yes /5/05 13:15 6/5/05 15:15 yes /5/05 22:45 6/5/05 23:00 no /6/05 15:45 6/6/05 16:00 no /7/05 22:30 6/8/05 4:15 yes /8/05 15:15 6/8/05 15:30 yes /10/05 18:45 6/12/05 5:15 yes /12/05 21:15 6/13/05 6:00 yes /14/05 23:15 6/15/05 3:15 no nd /16/05 20:45 6/17/05 7:00 yes nd /21/05 15:30 6/21/05 17:00 no nd /22/05 6:00 6/22/05 20:15 yes nd /26/05 19:30 6/27/05 9:15 no nd /2/05 1:15 7/2/05 6:15 yes /5/05 18:00 7/6/05 0:15 yes /8/05 5:15 7/8/05 15:30 yes /15/05 12:45 7/15/05 15:45 yes /16/05 0:45 7/16/05 9:00 yes /22/05 6:00 7/22/05 8:30 yes /1/05 7:30 8/1/05 7:45 no /17/05 3:00 8/17/05 5:45 no nd /28/05 19:00 8/28/05 23:30 yes nd /29/05 19:15 8/29/05 19:45 no /30/05 7:15 8/30/05 8:00 no /4/05 8:15 9/4/05 8:30 yes /5/05 8:00 9/5/05 8:15 no /9/05 1:15 9/9/05 11:45 yes R 0.00 R /9/05 23:30 9/10/05 8:45 yes R /14/05 21:00 9/14/05 21:15 yes /16/05 1:30 9/16/05 6:30 yes /30/05 4:45 9/30/05 11:00 no nd /1/05 9:00 10/1/05 19:00 yes /2/05 4:45 10/2/05 5:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 11 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

107 Table C.2. Raw runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Runoff Volume (cf) VFS Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS1 Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS2 Runoff Volume (cf) /2/05 11:30 10/2/05 19:30 yes /6/05 13:30 10/6/05 19:15 no /8/05 19:00 10/8/05 20:15 no /10/05 12:45 10/10/05 13:00 no /11/05 0:00 10/11/05 1:45 yes /12/05 15:30 10/12/05 19:00 yes /14/05 20:15 10/15/05 1:30 yes /16/05 5:00 10/16/05 8:30 yes /17/05 0:00 10/17/05 5:45 no /19/05 1:00 10/19/05 12:45 yes /23/05 6:45 10/23/05 16:45 no R /25/05 17:30 10/25/05 18:45 no /26/05 1:30 10/26/05 2:00 no /26/05 8:30 10/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 21:30 10/28/05 7:00 yes /28/05 18:15 10/28/05 18:30 no /29/05 2:15 10/29/05 3:15 yes /29/05 15:00 10/29/05 17:30 yes /30/05 0:30 10/30/05 0:45 no /30/05 19:45 10/31/05 19:00 yes J 1.17 J R R /1/05 8:00 11/1/05 19:45 yes J J nd R /2/05 9:30 11/2/05 9:45 no /2/05 17:30 11/3/05 20:00 yes /4/05 10:00 11/4/05 14:45 yes /5/05 8:45 11/6/05 0:00 yes /7/05 3:15 11/7/05 6:15 yes /10/05 13:30 11/10/05 18:15 yes /11/05 10:00 11/11/05 14:30 yes /12/05 23:00 11/13/05 19:45 yes /14/05 4:45 11/14/05 5:15 yes /24/05 16:00 11/25/05 22:30 yes /26/05 8:30 11/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 2:15 11/27/05 11:15 yes /28/05 22:00 11/30/05 3:30 no nd /1/05 12:45 12/1/05 13:30 no R /2/05 12:30 12/2/05 14:45 yes /3/05 13:30 12/3/05 17:00 yes R CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 12 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

108 Table C.2. Raw runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Runoff Volume (cf) VFS Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS1 Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS2 Runoff Volume (cf) /4/05 11:30 12/4/05 17:00 yes /6/05 1:00 12/6/05 6:00 yes /12/05 14:30 12/12/05 14:45 no /15/05 10:15 12/15/05 10:30 no /19/05 3:30 12/19/05 10:45 yes /19/05 22:15 12/22/05 10:00 yes /22/05 18:15 12/22/05 18:30 no 0.00 R 0.00 R /23/05 14:00 12/24/05 11:45 yes /24/05 22:15 12/25/05 7:30 yes /25/05 13:45 12/26/05 10:15 yes /27/05 0:30 12/27/05 8:15 yes /28/05 3:30 12/28/05 12:00 yes /29/05 20:45 12/30/05 5:15 yes /30/05 11:45 12/31/05 6:30 yes /1/06 7:15 1/1/06 10:30 yes /1/06 16:30 1/1/06 21:30 yes /2/06 5:15 1/2/06 20:30 yes /3/06 12:00 1/3/06 23:30 yes /5/06 7:30 1/6/06 0:00 yes /6/06 9:15 1/6/06 9:30 no /6/06 23:00 1/6/06 23:15 no R /7/06 6:30 1/7/06 15:45 yes /8/06 15:45 1/11/06 0:15 yes /12/06 11:15 1/13/06 23:15 yes J J R J /14/06 6:30 1/14/06 20:30 yes /15/06 16:30 1/15/06 16:45 no /16/06 2:30 1/16/06 22:45 yes /18/06 0:15 1/18/06 1:15 yes /18/06 8:00 1/18/06 8:15 no /18/06 23:15 1/19/06 5:00 yes /19/06 22:30 1/20/06 10:15 yes /21/06 3:15 1/21/06 11:45 no /22/06 11:15 1/22/06 11:30 no R /22/06 21:00 1/23/06 0:15 yes /23/06 6:15 1/23/06 10:15 yes /24/06 6:45 1/24/06 7:00 no /25/06 18:00 1/25/06 19:00 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 13 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

109 Table C.2. Raw runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Runoff Volume (cf) VFS Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS1 Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS2 Runoff Volume (cf) /26/06 16:00 1/26/06 21:00 yes /27/06 20:00 1/28/06 5:30 yes /29/06 12:45 1/30/06 12:00 yes R 1, /31/06 13:45 1/31/06 21:30 yes /1/06 16:15 2/2/06 2:30 yes /2/06 15:45 2/2/06 20:00 yes /3/06 14:30 2/4/06 9:45 yes J /8/06 4:30 2/8/06 6:45 yes /13/06 2:00 2/13/06 8:15 yes /14/06 2:00 2/14/06 3:45 yes /14/06 10:45 2/14/06 11:30 yes /21/06 16:45 2/21/06 17:00 no /22/06 8:00 2/22/06 8:15 no /22/06 15:30 2/22/06 19:45 yes /23/06 2:00 2/23/06 14:00 yes /26/06 16:00 2/27/06 2:30 yes R /27/06 22:15 2/28/06 12:45 yes /2/06 3:45 3/2/06 7:00 yes /5/06 8:15 3/5/06 8:45 no /6/06 19:00 3/6/06 21:15 no /7/06 10:00 3/7/06 18:30 yes /8/06 3:45 3/8/06 20:45 yes /9/06 22:45 3/9/06 23:00 no /10/06 19:15 3/10/06 20:45 no /15/06 6:45 3/15/06 19:30 yes /16/06 8:30 3/16/06 13:45 yes /17/06 8:15 3/17/06 8:30 no R /17/06 22:00 3/17/06 22:30 yes /18/06 12:15 3/18/06 12:30 no /21/06 15:30 3/22/06 19:00 yes /24/06 3:00 3/24/06 15:15 yes R /25/06 22:15 3/25/06 22:30 no /28/06 2:30 3/28/06 8:00 yes R /31/06 3:15 3/31/06 9:30 no /1/06 4:00 4/1/06 11:45 yes R /3/06 14:30 4/3/06 19:30 yes R /5/06 22:15 4/5/06 22:45 yes R CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 14 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

110 Table C.2. Raw runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Runoff Volume (cf) VFS Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS1 Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS2 Runoff Volume (cf) /8/06 13:30 4/9/06 15:45 yes R /12/06 7:15 4/12/06 12:15 no /13/06 9:45 4/13/06 10:00 no /13/06 20:30 4/13/06 23:30 yes R /14/06 6:45 4/14/06 7:45 yes R /14/06 17:15 4/14/06 17:30 yes R /15/06 3:00 4/16/06 6:45 yes R /17/06 20:30 4/17/06 20:45 no R /20/06 21:30 4/21/06 10:15 no /29/06 11:30 4/29/06 16:30 yes /1/06 9:45 5/1/06 10:00 no /6/06 22:00 5/7/06 0:30 no /7/06 13:30 5/8/06 0:45 no /11/06 15:15 5/11/06 15:30 no /11/06 23:00 5/12/06 9:15 no /19/06 16:00 5/19/06 19:00 no /20/06 1:30 5/20/06 1:45 no /21/06 16:30 5/21/06 17:15 yes /22/06 1:00 5/22/06 6:45 no /23/06 8:15 5/23/06 10:30 yes R /23/06 22:30 5/24/06 15:30 no R /26/06 2:00 5/26/06 6:30 no /26/06 13:30 5/26/06 13:45 yes R /26/06 21:15 5/27/06 5:30 yes R /27/06 11:45 5/28/06 15:00 yes R /29/06 5:45 5/29/06 6:00 no R /31/06 18:45 5/31/06 23:15 yes /1/06 12:00 6/2/06 5:15 yes R /2/06 11:45 6/2/06 14:30 no R /4/06 0:30 6/4/06 11:30 yes /8/06 18:45 6/9/06 8:15 yes R /10/06 10:45 6/10/06 11:00 no /12/06 7:45 6/12/06 9:15 no /12/06 20:30 6/13/06 2:00 yes R /16/06 10:45 6/16/06 12:45 yes /4/06 5:15 7/4/06 6:15 no /6/06 16:15 7/6/06 16:30 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 15 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

111 Table C.2. Raw runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Runoff Volume (cf) VFS Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS1 Runoff Volume (cf) CAVFS2 Runoff Volume (cf) /12/06 9:30 7/12/06 10:00 no /13/06 17:45 7/13/06 18:00 no /30/06 11:00 7/30/06 12:30 no /29/06 8:15 8/30/06 10:45 yes /9/06 1:30 9/9/06 11:00 yes /13/06 9:15 9/13/06 9:30 no /14/06 0:00 9/14/06 7:45 yes /18/06 0:15 9/18/06 5:45 yes /19/06 2:45 9/19/06 6:30 yes /20/06 8:45 9/20/06 21:30 yes /21/06 10:15 9/21/06 10:30 yes /3/06 16:15 10/3/06 16:30 no /6/06 6:45 10/6/06 11:30 no /8/06 8:45 10/8/06 9:00 no /14/06 21:45 10/16/06 4:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 16 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

112 Table C.3. Raw peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Control Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 1 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 2 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) /9/04 16:45 12/11/04 5:45 yes R R R /11/04 13:15 12/11/04 13:30 yes R R /13/04 12:15 12/14/04 10:15 yes R /16/04 20:45 12/16/04 22:45 yes /17/04 9:15 12/17/04 9:30 no /18/04 3:15 12/18/04 3:30 yes /19/04 12:15 12/19/04 12:45 yes /21/04 8:45 12/21/04 15:15 yes /25/04 11:45 12/26/04 11:30 yes /29/04 8:45 12/30/04 0:15 yes /1/05 3:30 1/1/05 6:45 yes /2/05 13:30 1/2/05 13:45 yes /5/05 15:15 1/5/05 15:30 no R R R /6/05 19:00 1/7/05 14:45 no R R R /8/05 17:00 1/8/05 19:45 yes R /10/05 13:30 1/10/05 13:45 no nd nd nd nd /13/05 8:00 1/13/05 8:15 no nd nd nd nd /16/05 2:45 1/16/05 14:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /17/05 8:30 1/18/05 2:30 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 10:00 1/18/05 15:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 23:30 1/19/05 7:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /20/05 11:15 1/20/05 13:45 yes nd /22/05 20:15 1/22/05 20:30 yes nd /26/05 23:00 1/26/05 23:15 yes nd /28/05 21:30 1/28/05 21:45 yes nd /30/05 8:45 1/30/05 9:30 yes nd /31/05 3:30 1/31/05 3:45 no nd /4/05 7:15 2/4/05 15:30 yes /4/05 23:00 2/5/05 3:45 yes /5/05 20:30 2/5/05 21:15 yes /6/05 8:00 2/6/05 18:30 yes /12/05 3:30 2/12/05 3:45 no /12/05 10:00 2/12/05 18:45 yes /13/05 6:00 2/13/05 8:30 yes /14/05 9:00 2/14/05 9:15 no /28/05 8:00 3/1/05 6:45 yes /1/05 13:45 3/1/05 14:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 17 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

113 Table C.3. Raw peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Control Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 1 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 2 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) /9/05 9:15 3/9/05 9:30 no /16/05 11:30 3/16/05 15:45 yes nd /17/05 7:15 3/17/05 7:30 no nd /18/05 3:30 3/18/05 5:15 yes nd /19/05 13:15 3/20/05 19:30 yes /26/05 3:00 3/27/05 9:45 yes R /27/05 23:45 3/28/05 0:00 no /28/05 6:45 3/28/05 13:30 yes /28/05 22:30 3/29/05 1:30 yes /29/05 13:15 3/29/05 13:30 yes nd /29/05 21:15 3/29/05 21:45 no nd nd /30/05 21:00 3/30/05 21:15 no nd nd /31/05 11:15 3/31/05 11:45 yes nd /31/05 18:30 4/1/05 9:00 yes R /2/05 17:15 4/3/05 13:00 yes nd /4/05 6:15 4/4/05 10:15 yes nd /6/05 13:00 4/6/05 13:15 no /7/05 10:00 4/7/05 18:15 yes /8/05 10:15 4/8/05 10:30 yes /10/05 19:15 4/11/05 3:00 yes /12/05 11:45 4/12/05 14:15 yes /13/05 13:30 4/13/05 13:45 no /14/05 1:00 4/14/05 13:30 yes /15/05 12:45 4/16/05 13:00 yes R /17/05 15:00 4/18/05 0:45 yes /23/05 22:15 4/23/05 23:30 yes /29/05 7:30 4/29/05 8:15 yes /29/05 17:45 4/30/05 6:15 yes /4/05 4:15 5/4/05 6:45 yes /8/05 17:30 5/9/05 0:00 yes /9/05 6:30 5/9/05 9:45 yes /9/05 19:30 5/10/05 3:15 yes /14/05 1:45 5/14/05 7:45 yes R /15/05 2:45 5/15/05 9:00 yes R /16/05 11:45 5/16/05 22:30 yes /17/05 23:00 5/20/05 0:15 yes /20/05 11:00 5/20/05 15:00 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 18 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

114 Table C.3. Raw peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Control Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 1 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 2 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) /21/05 17:30 5/21/05 19:45 yes /22/05 11:30 5/22/05 11:45 yes /31/05 4:30 5/31/05 19:30 yes /1/05 4:00 6/1/05 9:15 yes /3/05 4:15 6/3/05 5:30 yes /5/05 13:15 6/5/05 15:15 yes /5/05 22:45 6/5/05 23:00 no /6/05 15:45 6/6/05 16:00 no /7/05 22:30 6/8/05 4:15 yes /8/05 15:15 6/8/05 15:30 yes /10/05 18:45 6/12/05 5:15 yes /12/05 21:15 6/13/05 6:00 yes /14/05 23:15 6/15/05 3:15 no nd /16/05 20:45 6/17/05 7:00 yes nd /21/05 15:30 6/21/05 17:00 no nd /22/05 6:00 6/22/05 20:15 yes nd /26/05 19:30 6/27/05 9:15 no nd /2/05 1:15 7/2/05 6:15 yes /5/05 18:00 7/6/05 0:15 yes /8/05 5:15 7/8/05 15:30 yes /15/05 12:45 7/15/05 15:45 yes /16/05 0:45 7/16/05 9:00 yes /22/05 6:00 7/22/05 8:30 yes /1/05 7:30 8/1/05 7:45 no /17/05 3:00 8/17/05 5:45 no nd /28/05 19:00 8/28/05 23:30 yes nd /29/05 19:15 8/29/05 19:45 no /30/05 7:15 8/30/05 8:00 no /4/05 8:15 9/4/05 8:30 yes /5/05 8:00 9/5/05 8:15 no /9/05 1:15 9/9/05 11:45 yes R R /9/05 23:30 9/10/05 8:45 yes R /14/05 21:00 9/14/05 21:15 yes /16/05 1:30 9/16/05 6:30 yes /30/05 4:45 9/30/05 11:00 no nd /1/05 9:00 10/1/05 19:00 yes /2/05 4:45 10/2/05 5:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 19 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

115 Table C.3. Raw peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Control Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 1 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 2 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) /2/05 11:30 10/2/05 19:30 yes /6/05 13:30 10/6/05 19:15 no /8/05 19:00 10/8/05 20:15 no /10/05 12:45 10/10/05 13:00 no /11/05 0:00 10/11/05 1:45 yes /12/05 15:30 10/12/05 19:00 yes /14/05 20:15 10/15/05 1:30 yes /16/05 5:00 10/16/05 8:30 yes /17/05 0:00 10/17/05 5:45 no /19/05 1:00 10/19/05 12:45 yes /23/05 6:45 10/23/05 16:45 no R /25/05 17:30 10/25/05 18:45 no /26/05 1:30 10/26/05 2:00 no /26/05 8:30 10/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 21:30 10/28/05 7:00 yes /28/05 18:15 10/28/05 18:30 no /29/05 2:15 10/29/05 3:15 yes /29/05 15:00 10/29/05 17:30 yes /30/05 0:30 10/30/05 0:45 no /30/05 19:45 10/31/05 19:00 yes J J R R /1/05 8:00 11/1/05 19:45 yes J J nd R /2/05 9:30 11/2/05 9:45 no /2/05 17:30 11/3/05 20:00 yes /4/05 10:00 11/4/05 14:45 yes /5/05 8:45 11/6/05 0:00 yes /7/05 3:15 11/7/05 6:15 yes /10/05 13:30 11/10/05 18:15 yes /11/05 10:00 11/11/05 14:30 yes /12/05 23:00 11/13/05 19:45 yes /14/05 4:45 11/14/05 5:15 yes /24/05 16:00 11/25/05 22:30 yes /26/05 8:30 11/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 2:15 11/27/05 11:15 yes /28/05 22:00 11/30/05 3:30 no nd /1/05 12:45 12/1/05 13:30 no R /2/05 12:30 12/2/05 14:45 yes /3/05 13:30 12/3/05 17:00 yes R CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 20 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

116 Table C.3. Raw peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Control Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 1 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 2 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) /4/05 11:30 12/4/05 17:00 yes /6/05 1:00 12/6/05 6:00 yes /12/05 14:30 12/12/05 14:45 no /15/05 10:15 12/15/05 10:30 no /19/05 3:30 12/19/05 10:45 yes /19/05 22:15 12/22/05 10:00 yes /22/05 18:15 12/22/05 18:30 no R R /23/05 14:00 12/24/05 11:45 yes /24/05 22:15 12/25/05 7:30 yes /25/05 13:45 12/26/05 10:15 yes /27/05 0:30 12/27/05 8:15 yes /28/05 3:30 12/28/05 12:00 yes /29/05 20:45 12/30/05 5:15 yes /30/05 11:45 12/31/05 6:30 yes /1/06 7:15 1/1/06 10:30 yes /1/06 16:30 1/1/06 21:30 yes /2/06 5:15 1/2/06 20:30 yes /3/06 12:00 1/3/06 23:30 yes /5/06 7:30 1/6/06 0:00 yes /6/06 9:15 1/6/06 9:30 no /6/06 23:00 1/6/06 23:15 no R /7/06 6:30 1/7/06 15:45 yes /8/06 15:45 1/11/06 0:15 yes /12/06 11:15 1/13/06 23:15 yes J J R J /14/06 6:30 1/14/06 20:30 yes /15/06 16:30 1/15/06 16:45 no /16/06 2:30 1/16/06 22:45 yes /18/06 0:15 1/18/06 1:15 yes /18/06 8:00 1/18/06 8:15 no /18/06 23:15 1/19/06 5:00 yes /19/06 22:30 1/20/06 10:15 yes /21/06 3:15 1/21/06 11:45 no /22/06 11:15 1/22/06 11:30 no R /22/06 21:00 1/23/06 0:15 yes /23/06 6:15 1/23/06 10:15 yes /24/06 6:45 1/24/06 7:00 no /25/06 18:00 1/25/06 19:00 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 21 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

117 Table C.3. Raw peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Control Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 1 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 2 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) /26/06 16:00 1/26/06 21:00 yes /27/06 20:00 1/28/06 5:30 yes /29/06 12:45 1/30/06 12:00 yes R /31/06 13:45 1/31/06 21:30 yes /1/06 16:15 2/2/06 2:30 yes /2/06 15:45 2/2/06 20:00 yes /3/06 14:30 2/4/06 9:45 yes J /8/06 4:30 2/8/06 6:45 yes /13/06 2:00 2/13/06 8:15 yes /14/06 2:00 2/14/06 3:45 yes /14/06 10:45 2/14/06 11:30 yes /21/06 16:45 2/21/06 17:00 no /22/06 8:00 2/22/06 8:15 no /22/06 15:30 2/22/06 19:45 yes /23/06 2:00 2/23/06 14:00 yes /26/06 16:00 2/27/06 2:30 yes R /27/06 22:15 2/28/06 12:45 yes /2/06 3:45 3/2/06 7:00 yes /5/06 8:15 3/5/06 8:45 no /6/06 19:00 3/6/06 21:15 no /7/06 10:00 3/7/06 18:30 yes /8/06 3:45 3/8/06 20:45 yes /9/06 22:45 3/9/06 23:00 no /10/06 19:15 3/10/06 20:45 no /15/06 6:45 3/15/06 19:30 yes /16/06 8:30 3/16/06 13:45 yes /17/06 8:15 3/17/06 8:30 no R /17/06 22:00 3/17/06 22:30 yes /18/06 12:15 3/18/06 12:30 no /21/06 15:30 3/22/06 19:00 yes /24/06 3:00 3/24/06 15:15 yes R /25/06 22:15 3/25/06 22:30 no /28/06 2:30 3/28/06 8:00 yes R /31/06 3:15 3/31/06 9:30 no /1/06 4:00 4/1/06 11:45 yes R /3/06 14:30 4/3/06 19:30 yes R /5/06 22:15 4/5/06 22:45 yes R CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 22 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

118 Table C.3. Raw peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Control Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 1 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 2 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) /8/06 13:30 4/9/06 15:45 yes R /12/06 7:15 4/12/06 12:15 no /13/06 9:45 4/13/06 10:00 no /13/06 20:30 4/13/06 23:30 yes R /14/06 6:45 4/14/06 7:45 yes R /14/06 17:15 4/14/06 17:30 yes R /15/06 3:00 4/16/06 6:45 yes R /17/06 20:30 4/17/06 20:45 no R /20/06 21:30 4/21/06 10:15 no /29/06 11:30 4/29/06 16:30 yes /1/06 9:45 5/1/06 10:00 no /6/06 22:00 5/7/06 0:30 no /7/06 13:30 5/8/06 0:45 no /11/06 15:15 5/11/06 15:30 no /11/06 23:00 5/12/06 9:15 no /19/06 16:00 5/19/06 19:00 no /20/06 1:30 5/20/06 1:45 no /21/06 16:30 5/21/06 17:15 yes /22/06 1:00 5/22/06 6:45 no /23/06 8:15 5/23/06 10:30 yes R /23/06 22:30 5/24/06 15:30 no R /26/06 2:00 5/26/06 6:30 no /26/06 13:30 5/26/06 13:45 yes R /26/06 21:15 5/27/06 5:30 yes R /27/06 11:45 5/28/06 15:00 yes R /29/06 5:45 5/29/06 6:00 no R /31/06 18:45 5/31/06 23:15 yes /1/06 12:00 6/2/06 5:15 yes R /2/06 11:45 6/2/06 14:30 no R /4/06 0:30 6/4/06 11:30 yes /8/06 18:45 6/9/06 8:15 yes R /10/06 10:45 6/10/06 11:00 no /12/06 7:45 6/12/06 9:15 no /12/06 20:30 6/13/06 2:00 yes R /16/06 10:45 6/16/06 12:45 yes /4/06 5:15 7/4/06 6:15 no /6/06 16:15 7/6/06 16:30 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 23 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

119 Table C.3. Raw peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Control Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 1 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) Compost 2 Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) /12/06 9:30 7/12/06 10:00 no /13/06 17:45 7/13/06 18:00 no /30/06 11:00 7/30/06 12:30 no /29/06 8:15 8/30/06 10:45 yes /9/06 1:30 9/9/06 11:00 yes /13/06 9:15 9/13/06 9:30 no /14/06 0:00 9/14/06 7:45 yes /18/06 0:15 9/18/06 5:45 yes /19/06 2:45 9/19/06 6:30 yes /20/06 8:45 9/20/06 21:30 yes /21/06 10:15 9/21/06 10:30 yes /3/06 16:15 10/3/06 16:30 no /6/06 6:45 10/6/06 11:30 no /8/06 8:45 10/8/06 9:00 no /14/06 21:45 10/16/06 4:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 24 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

120 Table C.4. Raw flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Flow Duration (hours) VFS Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS1 Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS2 Flow Duration (hours) /9/04 16:45 12/11/04 5:45 yes R R R /11/04 13:15 12/11/04 13:30 yes R R /13/04 12:15 12/14/04 10:15 yes R /16/04 20:45 12/16/04 22:45 yes /17/04 9:15 12/17/04 9:30 no /18/04 3:15 12/18/04 3:30 yes /19/04 12:15 12/19/04 12:45 yes /21/04 8:45 12/21/04 15:15 yes /25/04 11:45 12/26/04 11:30 yes /29/04 8:45 12/30/04 0:15 yes /1/05 3:30 1/1/05 6:45 yes /2/05 13:30 1/2/05 13:45 yes /5/05 15:15 1/5/05 15:30 no R R R /6/05 19:00 1/7/05 14:45 no R 0.00 R R /8/05 17:00 1/8/05 19:45 yes R /10/05 13:30 1/10/05 13:45 no nd nd nd nd /13/05 8:00 1/13/05 8:15 no nd nd nd nd /16/05 2:45 1/16/05 14:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /17/05 8:30 1/18/05 2:30 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 10:00 1/18/05 15:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 23:30 1/19/05 7:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /20/05 11:15 1/20/05 13:45 yes nd /22/05 20:15 1/22/05 20:30 yes nd /26/05 23:00 1/26/05 23:15 yes nd /28/05 21:30 1/28/05 21:45 yes nd /30/05 8:45 1/30/05 9:30 yes nd /31/05 3:30 1/31/05 3:45 no nd /4/05 7:15 2/4/05 15:30 yes /4/05 23:00 2/5/05 3:45 yes /5/05 20:30 2/5/05 21:15 yes /6/05 8:00 2/6/05 18:30 yes /12/05 3:30 2/12/05 3:45 no /12/05 10:00 2/12/05 18:45 yes /13/05 6:00 2/13/05 8:30 yes /14/05 9:00 2/14/05 9:15 no /28/05 8:00 3/1/05 6:45 yes /1/05 13:45 3/1/05 14:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 25 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

121 Table C.4. Raw flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Flow Duration (hours) VFS Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS1 Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS2 Flow Duration (hours) /9/05 9:15 3/9/05 9:30 no /16/05 11:30 3/16/05 15:45 yes nd /17/05 7:15 3/17/05 7:30 no nd /18/05 3:30 3/18/05 5:15 yes nd /19/05 13:15 3/20/05 19:30 yes /26/05 3:00 3/27/05 9:45 yes R /27/05 23:45 3/28/05 0:00 no /28/05 6:45 3/28/05 13:30 yes /28/05 22:30 3/29/05 1:30 yes /29/05 13:15 3/29/05 13:30 yes nd /29/05 21:15 3/29/05 21:45 no 0.00 nd nd /30/05 21:00 3/30/05 21:15 no 0.00 nd nd /31/05 11:15 3/31/05 11:45 yes nd /31/05 18:30 4/1/05 9:00 yes R /2/05 17:15 4/3/05 13:00 yes nd /4/05 6:15 4/4/05 10:15 yes 3.00 nd /6/05 13:00 4/6/05 13:15 no /7/05 10:00 4/7/05 18:15 yes /8/05 10:15 4/8/05 10:30 yes /10/05 19:15 4/11/05 3:00 yes /12/05 11:45 4/12/05 14:15 yes /13/05 13:30 4/13/05 13:45 no /14/05 1:00 4/14/05 13:30 yes /15/05 12:45 4/16/05 13:00 yes R /17/05 15:00 4/18/05 0:45 yes /23/05 22:15 4/23/05 23:30 yes /29/05 7:30 4/29/05 8:15 yes /29/05 17:45 4/30/05 6:15 yes /4/05 4:15 5/4/05 6:45 yes /8/05 17:30 5/9/05 0:00 yes /9/05 6:30 5/9/05 9:45 yes /9/05 19:30 5/10/05 3:15 yes /14/05 1:45 5/14/05 7:45 yes 2.00 R /15/05 2:45 5/15/05 9:00 yes 4.50 R /16/05 11:45 5/16/05 22:30 yes /17/05 23:00 5/20/05 0:15 yes /20/05 11:00 5/20/05 15:00 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 26 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

122 Table C.4. Raw flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Flow Duration (hours) VFS Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS1 Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS2 Flow Duration (hours) /21/05 17:30 5/21/05 19:45 yes /22/05 11:30 5/22/05 11:45 yes /31/05 4:30 5/31/05 19:30 yes /1/05 4:00 6/1/05 9:15 yes /3/05 4:15 6/3/05 5:30 yes /5/05 13:15 6/5/05 15:15 yes /5/05 22:45 6/5/05 23:00 no /6/05 15:45 6/6/05 16:00 no /7/05 22:30 6/8/05 4:15 yes /8/05 15:15 6/8/05 15:30 yes /10/05 18:45 6/12/05 5:15 yes /12/05 21:15 6/13/05 6:00 yes /14/05 23:15 6/15/05 3:15 no nd /16/05 20:45 6/17/05 7:00 yes nd /21/05 15:30 6/21/05 17:00 no nd /22/05 6:00 6/22/05 20:15 yes nd /26/05 19:30 6/27/05 9:15 no nd /2/05 1:15 7/2/05 6:15 yes /5/05 18:00 7/6/05 0:15 yes /8/05 5:15 7/8/05 15:30 yes /15/05 12:45 7/15/05 15:45 yes /16/05 0:45 7/16/05 9:00 yes /22/05 6:00 7/22/05 8:30 yes /1/05 7:30 8/1/05 7:45 no /17/05 3:00 8/17/05 5:45 no nd /28/05 19:00 8/28/05 23:30 yes nd /29/05 19:15 8/29/05 19:45 no /30/05 7:15 8/30/05 8:00 no /4/05 8:15 9/4/05 8:30 yes /5/05 8:00 9/5/05 8:15 no /9/05 1:15 9/9/05 11:45 yes 2.25 R 0.00 R /9/05 23:30 9/10/05 8:45 yes 6.25 R /14/05 21:00 9/14/05 21:15 yes /16/05 1:30 9/16/05 6:30 yes /30/05 4:45 9/30/05 11:00 no nd /1/05 9:00 10/1/05 19:00 yes /2/05 4:45 10/2/05 5:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 27 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

123 Table C.4. Raw flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Flow Duration (hours) VFS Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS1 Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS2 Flow Duration (hours) /2/05 11:30 10/2/05 19:30 yes /6/05 13:30 10/6/05 19:15 no /8/05 19:00 10/8/05 20:15 no /10/05 12:45 10/10/05 13:00 no /11/05 0:00 10/11/05 1:45 yes /12/05 15:30 10/12/05 19:00 yes /14/05 20:15 10/15/05 1:30 yes /16/05 5:00 10/16/05 8:30 yes /17/05 0:00 10/17/05 5:45 no /19/05 1:00 10/19/05 12:45 yes /23/05 6:45 10/23/05 16:45 no R /25/05 17:30 10/25/05 18:45 no /26/05 1:30 10/26/05 2:00 no /26/05 8:30 10/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 21:30 10/28/05 7:00 yes /28/05 18:15 10/28/05 18:30 no /29/05 2:15 10/29/05 3:15 yes /29/05 15:00 10/29/05 17:30 yes /30/05 0:30 10/30/05 0:45 no /30/05 19:45 10/31/05 19:00 yes J 0.50 J R R /1/05 8:00 11/1/05 19:45 yes 8.25 J 2.50 J nd R /2/05 9:30 11/2/05 9:45 no /2/05 17:30 11/3/05 20:00 yes /4/05 10:00 11/4/05 14:45 yes /5/05 8:45 11/6/05 0:00 yes /7/05 3:15 11/7/05 6:15 yes /10/05 13:30 11/10/05 18:15 yes /11/05 10:00 11/11/05 14:30 yes /12/05 23:00 11/13/05 19:45 yes /14/05 4:45 11/14/05 5:15 yes /24/05 16:00 11/25/05 22:30 yes /26/05 8:30 11/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 2:15 11/27/05 11:15 yes /28/05 22:00 11/30/05 3:30 no nd /1/05 12:45 12/1/05 13:30 no R /2/05 12:30 12/2/05 14:45 yes /3/05 13:30 12/3/05 17:00 yes R CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 28 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

124 Table C.4. Raw flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Flow Duration (hours) VFS Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS1 Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS2 Flow Duration (hours) /4/05 11:30 12/4/05 17:00 yes /6/05 1:00 12/6/05 6:00 yes /12/05 14:30 12/12/05 14:45 no /15/05 10:15 12/15/05 10:30 no /19/05 3:30 12/19/05 10:45 yes /19/05 22:15 12/22/05 10:00 yes /22/05 18:15 12/22/05 18:30 no 0.00 R 0.00 R /23/05 14:00 12/24/05 11:45 yes /24/05 22:15 12/25/05 7:30 yes /25/05 13:45 12/26/05 10:15 yes /27/05 0:30 12/27/05 8:15 yes /28/05 3:30 12/28/05 12:00 yes /29/05 20:45 12/30/05 5:15 yes /30/05 11:45 12/31/05 6:30 yes /1/06 7:15 1/1/06 10:30 yes /1/06 16:30 1/1/06 21:30 yes /2/06 5:15 1/2/06 20:30 yes /3/06 12:00 1/3/06 23:30 yes /5/06 7:30 1/6/06 0:00 yes /6/06 9:15 1/6/06 9:30 no /6/06 23:00 1/6/06 23:15 no R /7/06 6:30 1/7/06 15:45 yes /8/06 15:45 1/11/06 0:15 yes /12/06 11:15 1/13/06 23:15 yes J J R 9.50 J /14/06 6:30 1/14/06 20:30 yes /15/06 16:30 1/15/06 16:45 no /16/06 2:30 1/16/06 22:45 yes /18/06 0:15 1/18/06 1:15 yes /18/06 8:00 1/18/06 8:15 no /18/06 23:15 1/19/06 5:00 yes /19/06 22:30 1/20/06 10:15 yes /21/06 3:15 1/21/06 11:45 no /22/06 11:15 1/22/06 11:30 no R /22/06 21:00 1/23/06 0:15 yes /23/06 6:15 1/23/06 10:15 yes /24/06 6:45 1/24/06 7:00 no /25/06 18:00 1/25/06 19:00 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 29 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

125 Table C.4. Raw flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Flow Duration (hours) VFS Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS1 Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS2 Flow Duration (hours) /26/06 16:00 1/26/06 21:00 yes /27/06 20:00 1/28/06 5:30 yes /29/06 12:45 1/30/06 12:00 yes R /31/06 13:45 1/31/06 21:30 yes /1/06 16:15 2/2/06 2:30 yes /2/06 15:45 2/2/06 20:00 yes /3/06 14:30 2/4/06 9:45 yes J /8/06 4:30 2/8/06 6:45 yes /13/06 2:00 2/13/06 8:15 yes /14/06 2:00 2/14/06 3:45 yes /14/06 10:45 2/14/06 11:30 yes /21/06 16:45 2/21/06 17:00 no /22/06 8:00 2/22/06 8:15 no /22/06 15:30 2/22/06 19:45 yes /23/06 2:00 2/23/06 14:00 yes /26/06 16:00 2/27/06 2:30 yes R /27/06 22:15 2/28/06 12:45 yes /2/06 3:45 3/2/06 7:00 yes /5/06 8:15 3/5/06 8:45 no /6/06 19:00 3/6/06 21:15 no /7/06 10:00 3/7/06 18:30 yes /8/06 3:45 3/8/06 20:45 yes /9/06 22:45 3/9/06 23:00 no /10/06 19:15 3/10/06 20:45 no /15/06 6:45 3/15/06 19:30 yes /16/06 8:30 3/16/06 13:45 yes /17/06 8:15 3/17/06 8:30 no R /17/06 22:00 3/17/06 22:30 yes /18/06 12:15 3/18/06 12:30 no /21/06 15:30 3/22/06 19:00 yes /24/06 3:00 3/24/06 15:15 yes R /25/06 22:15 3/25/06 22:30 no /28/06 2:30 3/28/06 8:00 yes R /31/06 3:15 3/31/06 9:30 no /1/06 4:00 4/1/06 11:45 yes R /3/06 14:30 4/3/06 19:30 yes R /5/06 22:15 4/5/06 22:45 yes R CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 30 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

126 Table C.4. Raw flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Flow Duration (hours) VFS Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS1 Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS2 Flow Duration (hours) /8/06 13:30 4/9/06 15:45 yes R /12/06 7:15 4/12/06 12:15 no /13/06 9:45 4/13/06 10:00 no /13/06 20:30 4/13/06 23:30 yes R /14/06 6:45 4/14/06 7:45 yes R /14/06 17:15 4/14/06 17:30 yes R /15/06 3:00 4/16/06 6:45 yes R /17/06 20:30 4/17/06 20:45 no R /20/06 21:30 4/21/06 10:15 no /29/06 11:30 4/29/06 16:30 yes /1/06 9:45 5/1/06 10:00 no /6/06 22:00 5/7/06 0:30 no /7/06 13:30 5/8/06 0:45 no /11/06 15:15 5/11/06 15:30 no /11/06 23:00 5/12/06 9:15 no /19/06 16:00 5/19/06 19:00 no /20/06 1:30 5/20/06 1:45 no /21/06 16:30 5/21/06 17:15 yes /22/06 1:00 5/22/06 6:45 no /23/06 8:15 5/23/06 10:30 yes 1.00 R /23/06 22:30 5/24/06 15:30 no R /26/06 2:00 5/26/06 6:30 no /26/06 13:30 5/26/06 13:45 yes R /26/06 21:15 5/27/06 5:30 yes R /27/06 11:45 5/28/06 15:00 yes R /29/06 5:45 5/29/06 6:00 no R /31/06 18:45 5/31/06 23:15 yes /1/06 12:00 6/2/06 5:15 yes R /2/06 11:45 6/2/06 14:30 no R /4/06 0:30 6/4/06 11:30 yes /8/06 18:45 6/9/06 8:15 yes R /10/06 10:45 6/10/06 11:00 no /12/06 7:45 6/12/06 9:15 no /12/06 20:30 6/13/06 2:00 yes R /16/06 10:45 6/16/06 12:45 yes /4/06 5:15 7/4/06 6:15 no /6/06 16:15 7/6/06 16:30 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 31 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

127 Table C.4. Raw flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Flow Duration (hours) VFS Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS1 Flow Duration (hours) CAVFS2 Flow Duration (hours) /12/06 9:30 7/12/06 10:00 no /13/06 17:45 7/13/06 18:00 no /30/06 11:00 7/30/06 12:30 no /29/06 8:15 8/30/06 10:45 yes /9/06 1:30 9/9/06 11:00 yes /13/06 9:15 9/13/06 9:30 no /14/06 0:00 9/14/06 7:45 yes /18/06 0:15 9/18/06 5:45 yes /19/06 2:45 9/19/06 6:30 yes /20/06 8:45 9/20/06 21:30 yes /21/06 10:15 9/21/06 10:30 yes /3/06 16:15 10/3/06 16:30 no /6/06 6:45 10/6/06 11:30 no /8/06 8:45 10/8/06 9:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 32 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

128 Table C.5. Normalized runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) VFS Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) /9/04 16:45 12/11/04 5:45 yes 5, R R R /11/04 13:15 12/11/04 13:30 yes R R /13/04 12:15 12/14/04 10:15 yes 1, R /16/04 20:45 12/16/04 22:45 yes /17/04 9:15 12/17/04 9:30 no /18/04 3:15 12/18/04 3:30 yes /19/04 12:15 12/19/04 12:45 yes /21/04 8:45 12/21/04 15:15 yes /25/04 11:45 12/26/04 11:30 yes 2, /29/04 8:45 12/30/04 0:15 yes 2, /1/05 3:30 1/1/05 6:45 yes /2/05 13:30 1/2/05 13:45 yes /5/05 15:15 1/5/05 15:30 no R R R /6/05 19:00 1/7/05 14:45 no R 0.00 R R /8/05 17:00 1/8/05 19:45 yes R /10/05 13:30 1/10/05 13:45 no nd nd nd nd /13/05 8:00 1/13/05 8:15 no nd nd nd nd /16/05 2:45 1/16/05 14:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /17/05 8:30 1/18/05 2:30 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 10:00 1/18/05 15:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 23:30 1/19/05 7:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /20/05 11:15 1/20/05 13:45 yes nd /22/05 20:15 1/22/05 20:30 yes nd /26/05 23:00 1/26/05 23:15 yes nd /28/05 21:30 1/28/05 21:45 yes nd /30/05 8:45 1/30/05 9:30 yes nd /31/05 3:30 1/31/05 3:45 no nd /4/05 7:15 2/4/05 15:30 yes /4/05 23:00 2/5/05 3:45 yes /5/05 20:30 2/5/05 21:15 yes /6/05 8:00 2/6/05 18:30 yes 1, /12/05 3:30 2/12/05 3:45 no /12/05 10:00 2/12/05 18:45 yes /13/05 6:00 2/13/05 8:30 yes /14/05 9:00 2/14/05 9:15 no /28/05 8:00 3/1/05 6:45 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 33 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

129 Table C.5. Normalized runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) VFS Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) /1/05 13:45 3/1/05 14:00 no /9/05 9:15 3/9/05 9:30 no /16/05 11:30 3/16/05 15:45 yes nd /17/05 7:15 3/17/05 7:30 no nd /18/05 3:30 3/18/05 5:15 yes nd /19/05 13:15 3/20/05 19:30 yes /26/05 3:00 3/27/05 9:45 yes 2, R /27/05 23:45 3/28/05 0:00 no /28/05 6:45 3/28/05 13:30 yes /28/05 22:30 3/29/05 1:30 yes /29/05 13:15 3/29/05 13:30 yes nd /29/05 21:15 3/29/05 21:45 no 0.00 nd nd /30/05 21:00 3/30/05 21:15 no 0.00 nd nd /31/05 11:15 3/31/05 11:45 yes nd /31/05 18:30 4/1/05 9:00 yes R /2/05 17:15 4/3/05 13:00 yes nd /4/05 6:15 4/4/05 10:15 yes nd /6/05 13:00 4/6/05 13:15 no /7/05 10:00 4/7/05 18:15 yes /8/05 10:15 4/8/05 10:30 yes /10/05 19:15 4/11/05 3:00 yes /12/05 11:45 4/12/05 14:15 yes /13/05 13:30 4/13/05 13:45 no /14/05 1:00 4/14/05 13:30 yes /15/05 12:45 4/16/05 13:00 yes 2, R , /17/05 15:00 4/18/05 0:45 yes /23/05 22:15 4/23/05 23:30 yes /29/05 7:30 4/29/05 8:15 yes /29/05 17:45 4/30/05 6:15 yes /4/05 4:15 5/4/05 6:45 yes /8/05 17:30 5/9/05 0:00 yes /9/05 6:30 5/9/05 9:45 yes /9/05 19:30 5/10/05 3:15 yes /14/05 1:45 5/14/05 7:45 yes R /15/05 2:45 5/15/05 9:00 yes R /16/05 11:45 5/16/05 22:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 34 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

130 Table C.5. Normalized runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) VFS Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) /17/05 23:00 5/20/05 0:15 yes 1, /20/05 11:00 5/20/05 15:00 yes /21/05 17:30 5/21/05 19:45 yes /22/05 11:30 5/22/05 11:45 yes /31/05 4:30 5/31/05 19:30 yes 1, /1/05 4:00 6/1/05 9:15 yes /3/05 4:15 6/3/05 5:30 yes /5/05 13:15 6/5/05 15:15 yes /5/05 22:45 6/5/05 23:00 no /6/05 15:45 6/6/05 16:00 no /7/05 22:30 6/8/05 4:15 yes /8/05 15:15 6/8/05 15:30 yes /10/05 18:45 6/12/05 5:15 yes /12/05 21:15 6/13/05 6:00 yes /14/05 23:15 6/15/05 3:15 no nd /16/05 20:45 6/17/05 7:00 yes nd /21/05 15:30 6/21/05 17:00 no nd /22/05 6:00 6/22/05 20:15 yes nd /26/05 19:30 6/27/05 9:15 no nd /2/05 1:15 7/2/05 6:15 yes /5/05 18:00 7/6/05 0:15 yes /8/05 5:15 7/8/05 15:30 yes /15/05 12:45 7/15/05 15:45 yes /16/05 0:45 7/16/05 9:00 yes /22/05 6:00 7/22/05 8:30 yes /1/05 7:30 8/1/05 7:45 no /17/05 3:00 8/17/05 5:45 no nd /28/05 19:00 8/28/05 23:30 yes nd /29/05 19:15 8/29/05 19:45 no /30/05 7:15 8/30/05 8:00 no /4/05 8:15 9/4/05 8:30 yes /5/05 8:00 9/5/05 8:15 no /9/05 1:15 9/9/05 11:45 yes R 0.00 R /9/05 23:30 9/10/05 8:45 yes R /14/05 21:00 9/14/05 21:15 yes /16/05 1:30 9/16/05 6:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 35 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

131 Table C.5. Normalized runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) VFS Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) /30/05 4:45 9/30/05 11:00 no nd /1/05 9:00 10/1/05 19:00 yes /2/05 4:45 10/2/05 5:00 no /2/05 11:30 10/2/05 19:30 yes /6/05 13:30 10/6/05 19:15 no /8/05 19:00 10/8/05 20:15 no /10/05 12:45 10/10/05 13:00 no /11/05 0:00 10/11/05 1:45 yes /12/05 15:30 10/12/05 19:00 yes /14/05 20:15 10/15/05 1:30 yes /16/05 5:00 10/16/05 8:30 yes /17/05 0:00 10/17/05 5:45 no /19/05 1:00 10/19/05 12:45 yes /23/05 6:45 10/23/05 16:45 no R /25/05 17:30 10/25/05 18:45 no /26/05 1:30 10/26/05 2:00 no /26/05 8:30 10/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 21:30 10/28/05 7:00 yes /28/05 18:15 10/28/05 18:30 no /29/05 2:15 10/29/05 3:15 yes /29/05 15:00 10/29/05 17:30 yes /30/05 0:30 10/30/05 0:45 no /30/05 19:45 10/31/05 19:00 yes J 2.50 J R R /1/05 8:00 11/1/05 19:45 yes J J nd R /2/05 9:30 11/2/05 9:45 no /2/05 17:30 11/3/05 20:00 yes 1, /4/05 10:00 11/4/05 14:45 yes /5/05 8:45 11/6/05 0:00 yes 1, /7/05 3:15 11/7/05 6:15 yes /10/05 13:30 11/10/05 18:15 yes /11/05 10:00 11/11/05 14:30 yes /12/05 23:00 11/13/05 19:45 yes /14/05 4:45 11/14/05 5:15 yes /24/05 16:00 11/25/05 22:30 yes 1, /26/05 8:30 11/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 2:15 11/27/05 11:15 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 36 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

132 Table C.5. Normalized runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) VFS Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) /28/05 22:00 11/30/05 3:30 no nd /1/05 12:45 12/1/05 13:30 no R /2/05 12:30 12/2/05 14:45 yes /3/05 13:30 12/3/05 17:00 yes R /4/05 11:30 12/4/05 17:00 yes /6/05 1:00 12/6/05 6:00 yes /12/05 14:30 12/12/05 14:45 no /15/05 10:15 12/15/05 10:30 no /19/05 3:30 12/19/05 10:45 yes /19/05 22:15 12/22/05 10:00 yes 1, /22/05 18:15 12/22/05 18:30 no 0.00 R 0.00 R /23/05 14:00 12/24/05 11:45 yes 1, /24/05 22:15 12/25/05 7:30 yes 1, /25/05 13:45 12/26/05 10:15 yes /27/05 0:30 12/27/05 8:15 yes /28/05 3:30 12/28/05 12:00 yes /29/05 20:45 12/30/05 5:15 yes /30/05 11:45 12/31/05 6:30 yes 1, /1/06 7:15 1/1/06 10:30 yes /1/06 16:30 1/1/06 21:30 yes /2/06 5:15 1/2/06 20:30 yes /3/06 12:00 1/3/06 23:30 yes /5/06 7:30 1/6/06 0:00 yes 1, /6/06 9:15 1/6/06 9:30 no /6/06 23:00 1/6/06 23:15 no R /7/06 6:30 1/7/06 15:45 yes /8/06 15:45 1/11/06 0:15 yes 1, /12/06 11:15 1/13/06 23:15 yes J J R J /14/06 6:30 1/14/06 20:30 yes /15/06 16:30 1/15/06 16:45 no /16/06 2:30 1/16/06 22:45 yes /18/06 0:15 1/18/06 1:15 yes /18/06 8:00 1/18/06 8:15 no /18/06 23:15 1/19/06 5:00 yes /19/06 22:30 1/20/06 10:15 yes /21/06 3:15 1/21/06 11:45 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 37 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

133 Table C.5. Normalized runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) VFS Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) /22/06 11:15 1/22/06 11:30 no R /22/06 21:00 1/23/06 0:15 yes /23/06 6:15 1/23/06 10:15 yes /24/06 6:45 1/24/06 7:00 no /25/06 18:00 1/25/06 19:00 yes /26/06 16:00 1/26/06 21:00 yes /27/06 20:00 1/28/06 5:30 yes /29/06 12:45 1/30/06 12:00 yes R 2, , /31/06 13:45 1/31/06 21:30 yes /1/06 16:15 2/2/06 2:30 yes /2/06 15:45 2/2/06 20:00 yes /3/06 14:30 2/4/06 9:45 yes J /8/06 4:30 2/8/06 6:45 yes /13/06 2:00 2/13/06 8:15 yes /14/06 2:00 2/14/06 3:45 yes /14/06 10:45 2/14/06 11:30 yes /21/06 16:45 2/21/06 17:00 no /22/06 8:00 2/22/06 8:15 no /22/06 15:30 2/22/06 19:45 yes /23/06 2:00 2/23/06 14:00 yes 1, /26/06 16:00 2/27/06 2:30 yes R /27/06 22:15 2/28/06 12:45 yes /2/06 3:45 3/2/06 7:00 yes /5/06 8:15 3/5/06 8:45 no /6/06 19:00 3/6/06 21:15 no /7/06 10:00 3/7/06 18:30 yes /8/06 3:45 3/8/06 20:45 yes /9/06 22:45 3/9/06 23:00 no /10/06 19:15 3/10/06 20:45 no /15/06 6:45 3/15/06 19:30 yes /16/06 8:30 3/16/06 13:45 yes /17/06 8:15 3/17/06 8:30 no R /17/06 22:00 3/17/06 22:30 yes /18/06 12:15 3/18/06 12:30 no /21/06 15:30 3/22/06 19:00 yes /24/06 3:00 3/24/06 15:15 yes R CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 38 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

134 Table C.5. Normalized runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) VFS Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) /25/06 22:15 3/25/06 22:30 no /28/06 2:30 3/28/06 8:00 yes R /31/06 3:15 3/31/06 9:30 no /1/06 4:00 4/1/06 11:45 yes R /3/06 14:30 4/3/06 19:30 yes R /5/06 22:15 4/5/06 22:45 yes R /8/06 13:30 4/9/06 15:45 yes R /12/06 7:15 4/12/06 12:15 no /13/06 9:45 4/13/06 10:00 no /13/06 20:30 4/13/06 23:30 yes R /14/06 6:45 4/14/06 7:45 yes R /14/06 17:15 4/14/06 17:30 yes R /15/06 3:00 4/16/06 6:45 yes R /17/06 20:30 4/17/06 20:45 no R /20/06 21:30 4/21/06 10:15 no /29/06 11:30 4/29/06 16:30 yes /1/06 9:45 5/1/06 10:00 no /6/06 22:00 5/7/06 0:30 no /7/06 13:30 5/8/06 0:45 no /11/06 15:15 5/11/06 15:30 no /11/06 23:00 5/12/06 9:15 no /19/06 16:00 5/19/06 19:00 no /20/06 1:30 5/20/06 1:45 no /21/06 16:30 5/21/06 17:15 yes /22/06 1:00 5/22/06 6:45 no /23/06 8:15 5/23/06 10:30 yes R /23/06 22:30 5/24/06 15:30 no R /26/06 2:00 5/26/06 6:30 no /26/06 13:30 5/26/06 13:45 yes R /26/06 21:15 5/27/06 5:30 yes R /27/06 11:45 5/28/06 15:00 yes 1, R /29/06 5:45 5/29/06 6:00 no R /31/06 18:45 5/31/06 23:15 yes /1/06 12:00 6/2/06 5:15 yes R /2/06 11:45 6/2/06 14:30 no R /4/06 0:30 6/4/06 11:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 39 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

135 Table C.5. Normalized runoff volumes measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) VFS Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Runoff Volume (cf/acre) /8/06 18:45 6/9/06 8:15 yes R /10/06 10:45 6/10/06 11:00 no /12/06 7:45 6/12/06 9:15 no /12/06 20:30 6/13/06 2:00 yes R /16/06 10:45 6/16/06 12:45 yes /4/06 5:15 7/4/06 6:15 no /6/06 16:15 7/6/06 16:30 no /12/06 9:30 7/12/06 10:00 no /13/06 17:45 7/13/06 18:00 no /30/06 11:00 7/30/06 12:30 no /29/06 8:15 8/30/06 10:45 yes /9/06 1:30 9/9/06 11:00 yes /13/06 9:15 9/13/06 9:30 no /14/06 0:00 9/14/06 7:45 yes /18/06 0:15 9/18/06 5:45 yes /19/06 2:45 9/19/06 6:30 yes /20/06 8:45 9/20/06 21:30 yes /21/06 10:15 9/21/06 10:30 yes /3/06 16:15 10/3/06 16:30 no /6/06 6:45 10/6/06 11:30 no /8/06 8:45 10/8/06 9:00 no /14/06 21:45 10/16/06 4:30 yes 1, CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 40 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

136 Table C.6. Normalized peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) VFS Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) /9/04 16:45 12/11/04 5:45 yes R R R /11/04 13:15 12/11/04 13:30 yes R R /13/04 12:15 12/14/04 10:15 yes R /16/04 20:45 12/16/04 22:45 yes /17/04 9:15 12/17/04 9:30 no /18/04 3:15 12/18/04 3:30 yes /19/04 12:15 12/19/04 12:45 yes /21/04 8:45 12/21/04 15:15 yes /25/04 11:45 12/26/04 11:30 yes /29/04 8:45 12/30/04 0:15 yes /1/05 3:30 1/1/05 6:45 yes /2/05 13:30 1/2/05 13:45 yes /5/05 15:15 1/5/05 15:30 no R R R /6/05 19:00 1/7/05 14:45 no R R R /8/05 17:00 1/8/05 19:45 yes R /10/05 13:30 1/10/05 13:45 no nd nd nd nd /13/05 8:00 1/13/05 8:15 no nd nd nd nd /16/05 2:45 1/16/05 14:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /17/05 8:30 1/18/05 2:30 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 10:00 1/18/05 15:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 23:30 1/19/05 7:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /20/05 11:15 1/20/05 13:45 yes nd /22/05 20:15 1/22/05 20:30 yes nd /26/05 23:00 1/26/05 23:15 yes nd /28/05 21:30 1/28/05 21:45 yes nd /30/05 8:45 1/30/05 9:30 yes nd /31/05 3:30 1/31/05 3:45 no nd /4/05 7:15 2/4/05 15:30 yes /4/05 23:00 2/5/05 3:45 yes /5/05 20:30 2/5/05 21:15 yes /6/05 8:00 2/6/05 18:30 yes /12/05 3:30 2/12/05 3:45 no /12/05 10:00 2/12/05 18:45 yes /13/05 6:00 2/13/05 8:30 yes /14/05 9:00 2/14/05 9:15 no /28/05 8:00 3/1/05 6:45 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 41 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

137 Table C.6. Normalized peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) VFS Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) /1/05 13:45 3/1/05 14:00 no /9/05 9:15 3/9/05 9:30 no /16/05 11:30 3/16/05 15:45 yes nd /17/05 7:15 3/17/05 7:30 no nd /18/05 3:30 3/18/05 5:15 yes nd /19/05 13:15 3/20/05 19:30 yes /26/05 3:00 3/27/05 9:45 yes R /27/05 23:45 3/28/05 0:00 no /28/05 6:45 3/28/05 13:30 yes /28/05 22:30 3/29/05 1:30 yes /29/05 13:15 3/29/05 13:30 yes nd /29/05 21:15 3/29/05 21:45 no nd nd /30/05 21:00 3/30/05 21:15 no nd nd /31/05 11:15 3/31/05 11:45 yes nd /31/05 18:30 4/1/05 9:00 yes R /2/05 17:15 4/3/05 13:00 yes nd /4/05 6:15 4/4/05 10:15 yes nd /6/05 13:00 4/6/05 13:15 no /7/05 10:00 4/7/05 18:15 yes /8/05 10:15 4/8/05 10:30 yes /10/05 19:15 4/11/05 3:00 yes /12/05 11:45 4/12/05 14:15 yes /13/05 13:30 4/13/05 13:45 no /14/05 1:00 4/14/05 13:30 yes /15/05 12:45 4/16/05 13:00 yes R /17/05 15:00 4/18/05 0:45 yes /23/05 22:15 4/23/05 23:30 yes /29/05 7:30 4/29/05 8:15 yes /29/05 17:45 4/30/05 6:15 yes /4/05 4:15 5/4/05 6:45 yes /8/05 17:30 5/9/05 0:00 yes /9/05 6:30 5/9/05 9:45 yes /9/05 19:30 5/10/05 3:15 yes /14/05 1:45 5/14/05 7:45 yes R /15/05 2:45 5/15/05 9:00 yes R /16/05 11:45 5/16/05 22:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 42 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

138 Table C.6. Normalized peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) VFS Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) /17/05 23:00 5/20/05 0:15 yes /20/05 11:00 5/20/05 15:00 yes /21/05 17:30 5/21/05 19:45 yes /22/05 11:30 5/22/05 11:45 yes /31/05 4:30 5/31/05 19:30 yes /1/05 4:00 6/1/05 9:15 yes /3/05 4:15 6/3/05 5:30 yes /5/05 13:15 6/5/05 15:15 yes /5/05 22:45 6/5/05 23:00 no /6/05 15:45 6/6/05 16:00 no /7/05 22:30 6/8/05 4:15 yes /8/05 15:15 6/8/05 15:30 yes /10/05 18:45 6/12/05 5:15 yes /12/05 21:15 6/13/05 6:00 yes /14/05 23:15 6/15/05 3:15 no nd /16/05 20:45 6/17/05 7:00 yes nd /21/05 15:30 6/21/05 17:00 no nd /22/05 6:00 6/22/05 20:15 yes nd /26/05 19:30 6/27/05 9:15 no nd /2/05 1:15 7/2/05 6:15 yes /5/05 18:00 7/6/05 0:15 yes /8/05 5:15 7/8/05 15:30 yes /15/05 12:45 7/15/05 15:45 yes /16/05 0:45 7/16/05 9:00 yes /22/05 6:00 7/22/05 8:30 yes /1/05 7:30 8/1/05 7:45 no /17/05 3:00 8/17/05 5:45 no nd /28/05 19:00 8/28/05 23:30 yes nd /29/05 19:15 8/29/05 19:45 no /30/05 7:15 8/30/05 8:00 no /4/05 8:15 9/4/05 8:30 yes /5/05 8:00 9/5/05 8:15 no /9/05 1:15 9/9/05 11:45 yes R R /9/05 23:30 9/10/05 8:45 yes R /14/05 21:00 9/14/05 21:15 yes /16/05 1:30 9/16/05 6:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 43 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

139 Table C.6. Normalized peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) VFS Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) /30/05 4:45 9/30/05 11:00 no nd /1/05 9:00 10/1/05 19:00 yes /2/05 4:45 10/2/05 5:00 no /2/05 11:30 10/2/05 19:30 yes /6/05 13:30 10/6/05 19:15 no /8/05 19:00 10/8/05 20:15 no /10/05 12:45 10/10/05 13:00 no /11/05 0:00 10/11/05 1:45 yes /12/05 15:30 10/12/05 19:00 yes /14/05 20:15 10/15/05 1:30 yes /16/05 5:00 10/16/05 8:30 yes /17/05 0:00 10/17/05 5:45 no /19/05 1:00 10/19/05 12:45 yes /23/05 6:45 10/23/05 16:45 no R /25/05 17:30 10/25/05 18:45 no /26/05 1:30 10/26/05 2:00 no /26/05 8:30 10/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 21:30 10/28/05 7:00 yes /28/05 18:15 10/28/05 18:30 no /29/05 2:15 10/29/05 3:15 yes /29/05 15:00 10/29/05 17:30 yes /30/05 0:30 10/30/05 0:45 no /30/05 19:45 10/31/05 19:00 yes J J R R /1/05 8:00 11/1/05 19:45 yes J J nd R /2/05 9:30 11/2/05 9:45 no /2/05 17:30 11/3/05 20:00 yes /4/05 10:00 11/4/05 14:45 yes /5/05 8:45 11/6/05 0:00 yes /7/05 3:15 11/7/05 6:15 yes /10/05 13:30 11/10/05 18:15 yes /11/05 10:00 11/11/05 14:30 yes /12/05 23:00 11/13/05 19:45 yes /14/05 4:45 11/14/05 5:15 yes /24/05 16:00 11/25/05 22:30 yes /26/05 8:30 11/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 2:15 11/27/05 11:15 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 44 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

140 Table C.6. Normalized peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) VFS Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) /28/05 22:00 11/30/05 3:30 no nd /1/05 12:45 12/1/05 13:30 no R /2/05 12:30 12/2/05 14:45 yes /3/05 13:30 12/3/05 17:00 yes /4/05 11:30 12/4/05 17:00 yes /6/05 1:00 12/6/05 6:00 yes /12/05 14:30 12/12/05 14:45 no /15/05 10:15 12/15/05 10:30 no /19/05 3:30 12/19/05 10:45 yes /19/05 22:15 12/22/05 10:00 yes /22/05 18:15 12/22/05 18:30 no R R /23/05 14:00 12/24/05 11:45 yes /24/05 22:15 12/25/05 7:30 yes /25/05 13:45 12/26/05 10:15 yes /27/05 0:30 12/27/05 8:15 yes /28/05 3:30 12/28/05 12:00 yes /29/05 20:45 12/30/05 5:15 yes /30/05 11:45 12/31/05 6:30 yes /1/06 7:15 1/1/06 10:30 yes /1/06 16:30 1/1/06 21:30 yes /2/06 5:15 1/2/06 20:30 yes /3/06 12:00 1/3/06 23:30 yes /5/06 7:30 1/6/06 0:00 yes /6/06 9:15 1/6/06 9:30 no /6/06 23:00 1/6/06 23:15 no R /7/06 6:30 1/7/06 15:45 yes /8/06 15:45 1/11/06 0:15 yes /12/06 11:15 1/13/06 23:15 yes J J R J /14/06 6:30 1/14/06 20:30 yes /15/06 16:30 1/15/06 16:45 no /16/06 2:30 1/16/06 22:45 yes /18/06 0:15 1/18/06 1:15 yes /18/06 8:00 1/18/06 8:15 no /18/06 23:15 1/19/06 5:00 yes /19/06 22:30 1/20/06 10:15 yes /21/06 3:15 1/21/06 11:45 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 45 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

141 Table C.6. Normalized peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) VFS Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) /22/06 11:15 1/22/06 11:30 no R /22/06 21:00 1/23/06 0:15 yes /23/06 6:15 1/23/06 10:15 yes /24/06 6:45 1/24/06 7:00 no /25/06 18:00 1/25/06 19:00 yes /26/06 16:00 1/26/06 21:00 yes /27/06 20:00 1/28/06 5:30 yes /29/06 12:45 1/30/06 12:00 yes R /31/06 13:45 1/31/06 21:30 yes /1/06 16:15 2/2/06 2:30 yes /2/06 15:45 2/2/06 20:00 yes /3/06 14:30 2/4/06 9:45 yes J /8/06 4:30 2/8/06 6:45 yes /13/06 2:00 2/13/06 8:15 yes /14/06 2:00 2/14/06 3:45 yes /14/06 10:45 2/14/06 11:30 yes /21/06 16:45 2/21/06 17:00 no /22/06 8:00 2/22/06 8:15 no /22/06 15:30 2/22/06 19:45 yes /23/06 2:00 2/23/06 14:00 yes /26/06 16:00 2/27/06 2:30 yes R /27/06 22:15 2/28/06 12:45 yes /2/06 3:45 3/2/06 7:00 yes /5/06 8:15 3/5/06 8:45 no /6/06 19:00 3/6/06 21:15 no /7/06 10:00 3/7/06 18:30 yes /8/06 3:45 3/8/06 20:45 yes /9/06 22:45 3/9/06 23:00 no /10/06 19:15 3/10/06 20:45 no /15/06 6:45 3/15/06 19:30 yes /16/06 8:30 3/16/06 13:45 yes /17/06 8:15 3/17/06 8:30 no R /17/06 22:00 3/17/06 22:30 yes /18/06 12:15 3/18/06 12:30 no /21/06 15:30 3/22/06 19:00 yes /24/06 3:00 3/24/06 15:15 yes R CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 46 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

142 Table C.6. Normalized peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) VFS Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) /25/06 22:15 3/25/06 22:30 no /28/06 2:30 3/28/06 8:00 yes R /31/06 3:15 3/31/06 9:30 no /1/06 4:00 4/1/06 11:45 yes R /3/06 14:30 4/3/06 19:30 yes R /5/06 22:15 4/5/06 22:45 yes R /8/06 13:30 4/9/06 15:45 yes R /12/06 7:15 4/12/06 12:15 no /13/06 9:45 4/13/06 10:00 no /13/06 20:30 4/13/06 23:30 yes R /14/06 6:45 4/14/06 7:45 yes R /14/06 17:15 4/14/06 17:30 yes R /15/06 3:00 4/16/06 6:45 yes R /17/06 20:30 4/17/06 20:45 no R /20/06 21:30 4/21/06 10:15 no /29/06 11:30 4/29/06 16:30 yes /1/06 9:45 5/1/06 10:00 no /6/06 22:00 5/7/06 0:30 no /7/06 13:30 5/8/06 0:45 no /11/06 15:15 5/11/06 15:30 no /11/06 23:00 5/12/06 9:15 no /19/06 16:00 5/19/06 19:00 no /20/06 1:30 5/20/06 1:45 no /21/06 16:30 5/21/06 17:15 yes /22/06 1:00 5/22/06 6:45 no /23/06 8:15 5/23/06 10:30 yes R /23/06 22:30 5/24/06 15:30 no R /26/06 2:00 5/26/06 6:30 no /26/06 13:30 5/26/06 13:45 yes R /26/06 21:15 5/27/06 5:30 yes R /27/06 11:45 5/28/06 15:00 yes R /29/06 5:45 5/29/06 6:00 no R /31/06 18:45 5/31/06 23:15 yes /1/06 12:00 6/2/06 5:15 yes R /2/06 11:45 6/2/06 14:30 no R /4/06 0:30 6/4/06 11:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 47 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

143 Table C.6. Normalized peak discharge rates measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) VFS Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Peak Discharge Rate (cfs/acre) /8/06 18:45 6/9/06 8:15 yes R /10/06 10:45 6/10/06 11:00 no /12/06 7:45 6/12/06 9:15 no /12/06 20:30 6/13/06 2:00 yes R /16/06 10:45 6/16/06 12:45 yes /4/06 5:15 7/4/06 6:15 no /6/06 16:15 7/6/06 16:30 no /12/06 9:30 7/12/06 10:00 no /13/06 17:45 7/13/06 18:00 no /30/06 11:00 7/30/06 12:30 no /29/06 8:15 8/30/06 10:45 yes /9/06 1:30 9/9/06 11:00 yes /13/06 9:15 9/13/06 9:30 no /14/06 0:00 9/14/06 7:45 yes /18/06 0:15 9/18/06 5:45 yes /19/06 2:45 9/19/06 6:30 yes /20/06 8:45 9/20/06 21:30 yes /21/06 10:15 9/21/06 10:30 yes /3/06 16:15 10/3/06 16:30 no /6/06 6:45 10/6/06 11:30 no /8/06 8:45 10/8/06 9:00 no /14/06 21:45 10/16/06 4:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 48 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

144 Table C.7. Normalized flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) VFS Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) /9/04 16:45 12/11/04 5:45 yes R R R /11/04 13:15 12/11/04 13:30 yes R R /13/04 12:15 12/14/04 10:15 yes R /16/04 20:45 12/16/04 22:45 yes /17/04 9:15 12/17/04 9:30 no /18/04 3:15 12/18/04 3:30 yes /19/04 12:15 12/19/04 12:45 yes /21/04 8:45 12/21/04 15:15 yes /25/04 11:45 12/26/04 11:30 yes /29/04 8:45 12/30/04 0:15 yes /1/05 3:30 1/1/05 6:45 yes /2/05 13:30 1/2/05 13:45 yes /5/05 15:15 1/5/05 15:30 no R R R /6/05 19:00 1/7/05 14:45 no R 0.00 R R /8/05 17:00 1/8/05 19:45 yes R /10/05 13:30 1/10/05 13:45 no nd nd nd nd /13/05 8:00 1/13/05 8:15 no nd nd nd nd /16/05 2:45 1/16/05 14:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /17/05 8:30 1/18/05 2:30 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 10:00 1/18/05 15:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /18/05 23:30 1/19/05 7:00 undefined nd nd nd nd /20/05 11:15 1/20/05 13:45 yes nd /22/05 20:15 1/22/05 20:30 yes nd /26/05 23:00 1/26/05 23:15 yes nd /28/05 21:30 1/28/05 21:45 yes nd /30/05 8:45 1/30/05 9:30 yes nd /31/05 3:30 1/31/05 3:45 no nd /4/05 7:15 2/4/05 15:30 yes /4/05 23:00 2/5/05 3:45 yes /5/05 20:30 2/5/05 21:15 yes /6/05 8:00 2/6/05 18:30 yes /12/05 3:30 2/12/05 3:45 no /12/05 10:00 2/12/05 18:45 yes /13/05 6:00 2/13/05 8:30 yes /14/05 9:00 2/14/05 9:15 no /28/05 8:00 3/1/05 6:45 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 49 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

145 Table C.7. Normalized flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) VFS Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) /1/05 13:45 3/1/05 14:00 no /9/05 9:15 3/9/05 9:30 no /16/05 11:30 3/16/05 15:45 yes nd /17/05 7:15 3/17/05 7:30 no nd /18/05 3:30 3/18/05 5:15 yes nd /19/05 13:15 3/20/05 19:30 yes /26/05 3:00 3/27/05 9:45 yes R /27/05 23:45 3/28/05 0:00 no /28/05 6:45 3/28/05 13:30 yes /28/05 22:30 3/29/05 1:30 yes /29/05 13:15 3/29/05 13:30 yes nd /29/05 21:15 3/29/05 21:45 no 0.00 nd nd /30/05 21:00 3/30/05 21:15 no 0.00 nd nd /31/05 11:15 3/31/05 11:45 yes nd /31/05 18:30 4/1/05 9:00 yes R /2/05 17:15 4/3/05 13:00 yes nd /4/05 6:15 4/4/05 10:15 yes nd /6/05 13:00 4/6/05 13:15 no /7/05 10:00 4/7/05 18:15 yes /8/05 10:15 4/8/05 10:30 yes /10/05 19:15 4/11/05 3:00 yes /12/05 11:45 4/12/05 14:15 yes /13/05 13:30 4/13/05 13:45 no /14/05 1:00 4/14/05 13:30 yes /15/05 12:45 4/16/05 13:00 yes R /17/05 15:00 4/18/05 0:45 yes /23/05 22:15 4/23/05 23:30 yes /29/05 7:30 4/29/05 8:15 yes /29/05 17:45 4/30/05 6:15 yes /4/05 4:15 5/4/05 6:45 yes /8/05 17:30 5/9/05 0:00 yes /9/05 6:30 5/9/05 9:45 yes /9/05 19:30 5/10/05 3:15 yes /14/05 1:45 5/14/05 7:45 yes R /15/05 2:45 5/15/05 9:00 yes R /16/05 11:45 5/16/05 22:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 50 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

146 Table C.7. Normalized flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) VFS Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) /17/05 23:00 5/20/05 0:15 yes /20/05 11:00 5/20/05 15:00 yes /21/05 17:30 5/21/05 19:45 yes /22/05 11:30 5/22/05 11:45 yes /31/05 4:30 5/31/05 19:30 yes /1/05 4:00 6/1/05 9:15 yes /3/05 4:15 6/3/05 5:30 yes /5/05 13:15 6/5/05 15:15 yes /5/05 22:45 6/5/05 23:00 no /6/05 15:45 6/6/05 16:00 no /7/05 22:30 6/8/05 4:15 yes /8/05 15:15 6/8/05 15:30 yes /10/05 18:45 6/12/05 5:15 yes /12/05 21:15 6/13/05 6:00 yes /14/05 23:15 6/15/05 3:15 no nd /16/05 20:45 6/17/05 7:00 yes nd /21/05 15:30 6/21/05 17:00 no nd /22/05 6:00 6/22/05 20:15 yes nd /26/05 19:30 6/27/05 9:15 no nd /2/05 1:15 7/2/05 6:15 yes /5/05 18:00 7/6/05 0:15 yes /8/05 5:15 7/8/05 15:30 yes /15/05 12:45 7/15/05 15:45 yes /16/05 0:45 7/16/05 9:00 yes /22/05 6:00 7/22/05 8:30 yes /1/05 7:30 8/1/05 7:45 no /17/05 3:00 8/17/05 5:45 no nd /28/05 19:00 8/28/05 23:30 yes nd /29/05 19:15 8/29/05 19:45 no /30/05 7:15 8/30/05 8:00 no /4/05 8:15 9/4/05 8:30 yes /5/05 8:00 9/5/05 8:15 no /9/05 1:15 9/9/05 11:45 yes R 0.00 R /9/05 23:30 9/10/05 8:45 yes R /14/05 21:00 9/14/05 21:15 yes /16/05 1:30 9/16/05 6:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 51 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

147 Table C.7. Normalized flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) VFS Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) /30/05 4:45 9/30/05 11:00 no nd /1/05 9:00 10/1/05 19:00 yes /2/05 4:45 10/2/05 5:00 no /2/05 11:30 10/2/05 19:30 yes /6/05 13:30 10/6/05 19:15 no /8/05 19:00 10/8/05 20:15 no /10/05 12:45 10/10/05 13:00 no /11/05 0:00 10/11/05 1:45 yes /12/05 15:30 10/12/05 19:00 yes /14/05 20:15 10/15/05 1:30 yes /16/05 5:00 10/16/05 8:30 yes /17/05 0:00 10/17/05 5:45 no /19/05 1:00 10/19/05 12:45 yes /23/05 6:45 10/23/05 16:45 no R /25/05 17:30 10/25/05 18:45 no /26/05 1:30 10/26/05 2:00 no /26/05 8:30 10/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 21:30 10/28/05 7:00 yes /28/05 18:15 10/28/05 18:30 no /29/05 2:15 10/29/05 3:15 yes /29/05 15:00 10/29/05 17:30 yes /30/05 0:30 10/30/05 0:45 no /30/05 19:45 10/31/05 19:00 yes J 1.07 J R R /1/05 8:00 11/1/05 19:45 yes J 5.34 J nd R /2/05 9:30 11/2/05 9:45 no /2/05 17:30 11/3/05 20:00 yes /4/05 10:00 11/4/05 14:45 yes /5/05 8:45 11/6/05 0:00 yes /7/05 3:15 11/7/05 6:15 yes /10/05 13:30 11/10/05 18:15 yes /11/05 10:00 11/11/05 14:30 yes /12/05 23:00 11/13/05 19:45 yes /14/05 4:45 11/14/05 5:15 yes /24/05 16:00 11/25/05 22:30 yes /26/05 8:30 11/26/05 8:45 no /27/05 2:15 11/27/05 11:15 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 52 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

148 Table C.7. Normalized flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) VFS Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) /28/05 22:00 11/30/05 3:30 no nd /1/05 12:45 12/1/05 13:30 no R /2/05 12:30 12/2/05 14:45 yes /3/05 13:30 12/3/05 17:00 yes R /4/05 11:30 12/4/05 17:00 yes /6/05 1:00 12/6/05 6:00 yes /12/05 14:30 12/12/05 14:45 no /15/05 10:15 12/15/05 10:30 no /19/05 3:30 12/19/05 10:45 yes /19/05 22:15 12/22/05 10:00 yes /22/05 18:15 12/22/05 18:30 no 0.00 R 0.00 R /23/05 14:00 12/24/05 11:45 yes /24/05 22:15 12/25/05 7:30 yes /25/05 13:45 12/26/05 10:15 yes /27/05 0:30 12/27/05 8:15 yes /28/05 3:30 12/28/05 12:00 yes /29/05 20:45 12/30/05 5:15 yes /30/05 11:45 12/31/05 6:30 yes /1/06 7:15 1/1/06 10:30 yes /1/06 16:30 1/1/06 21:30 yes /2/06 5:15 1/2/06 20:30 yes /3/06 12:00 1/3/06 23:30 yes /5/06 7:30 1/6/06 0:00 yes /6/06 9:15 1/6/06 9:30 no /6/06 23:00 1/6/06 23:15 no R /7/06 6:30 1/7/06 15:45 yes /8/06 15:45 1/11/06 0:15 yes /12/06 11:15 1/13/06 23:15 yes J J R J /14/06 6:30 1/14/06 20:30 yes /15/06 16:30 1/15/06 16:45 no /16/06 2:30 1/16/06 22:45 yes /18/06 0:15 1/18/06 1:15 yes /18/06 8:00 1/18/06 8:15 no /18/06 23:15 1/19/06 5:00 yes /19/06 22:30 1/20/06 10:15 yes /21/06 3:15 1/21/06 11:45 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 53 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

149 Table C.7. Normalized flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) VFS Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) /22/06 11:15 1/22/06 11:30 no R /22/06 21:00 1/23/06 0:15 yes /23/06 6:15 1/23/06 10:15 yes /24/06 6:45 1/24/06 7:00 no /25/06 18:00 1/25/06 19:00 yes /26/06 16:00 1/26/06 21:00 yes /27/06 20:00 1/28/06 5:30 yes /29/06 12:45 1/30/06 12:00 yes R /31/06 13:45 1/31/06 21:30 yes /1/06 16:15 2/2/06 2:30 yes /2/06 15:45 2/2/06 20:00 yes /3/06 14:30 2/4/06 9:45 yes J /8/06 4:30 2/8/06 6:45 yes /13/06 2:00 2/13/06 8:15 yes /14/06 2:00 2/14/06 3:45 yes /14/06 10:45 2/14/06 11:30 yes /21/06 16:45 2/21/06 17:00 no /22/06 8:00 2/22/06 8:15 no /22/06 15:30 2/22/06 19:45 yes /23/06 2:00 2/23/06 14:00 yes /26/06 16:00 2/27/06 2:30 yes R /27/06 22:15 2/28/06 12:45 yes /2/06 3:45 3/2/06 7:00 yes /5/06 8:15 3/5/06 8:45 no /6/06 19:00 3/6/06 21:15 no /7/06 10:00 3/7/06 18:30 yes /8/06 3:45 3/8/06 20:45 yes /9/06 22:45 3/9/06 23:00 no /10/06 19:15 3/10/06 20:45 no /15/06 6:45 3/15/06 19:30 yes /16/06 8:30 3/16/06 13:45 yes /17/06 8:15 3/17/06 8:30 no R /17/06 22:00 3/17/06 22:30 yes /18/06 12:15 3/18/06 12:30 no /21/06 15:30 3/22/06 19:00 yes /24/06 3:00 3/24/06 15:15 yes R CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 54 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

150 Table C.7. Normalized flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) VFS Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) /25/06 22:15 3/25/06 22:30 no /28/06 2:30 3/28/06 8:00 yes R /31/06 3:15 3/31/06 9:30 no /1/06 4:00 4/1/06 11:45 yes R /3/06 14:30 4/3/06 19:30 yes R /5/06 22:15 4/5/06 22:45 yes R /8/06 13:30 4/9/06 15:45 yes R /12/06 7:15 4/12/06 12:15 no /13/06 9:45 4/13/06 10:00 no /13/06 20:30 4/13/06 23:30 yes R /14/06 6:45 4/14/06 7:45 yes R /14/06 17:15 4/14/06 17:30 yes R /15/06 3:00 4/16/06 6:45 yes R /17/06 20:30 4/17/06 20:45 no R /20/06 21:30 4/21/06 10:15 no /29/06 11:30 4/29/06 16:30 yes /1/06 9:45 5/1/06 10:00 no /6/06 22:00 5/7/06 0:30 no /7/06 13:30 5/8/06 0:45 no /11/06 15:15 5/11/06 15:30 no /11/06 23:00 5/12/06 9:15 no /19/06 16:00 5/19/06 19:00 no /20/06 1:30 5/20/06 1:45 no /21/06 16:30 5/21/06 17:15 yes /22/06 1:00 5/22/06 6:45 no /23/06 8:15 5/23/06 10:30 yes 5.25 R /23/06 22:30 5/24/06 15:30 no R /26/06 2:00 5/26/06 6:30 no /26/06 13:30 5/26/06 13:45 yes R /26/06 21:15 5/27/06 5:30 yes R /27/06 11:45 5/28/06 15:00 yes R /29/06 5:45 5/29/06 6:00 no R /31/06 18:45 5/31/06 23:15 yes /1/06 12:00 6/2/06 5:15 yes R /2/06 11:45 6/2/06 14:30 no R /4/06 0:30 6/4/06 11:30 yes CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 55 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

151 Table C.7. Normalized flow durations measured during individual storm events that occurred in water years 2005, 2006, and Water Year Storm ID Storm Start Date & Time Storm Stop Date & Time Runoff Generating Event (yes/no/undefined) Curb & Gutter Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) VFS Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS1 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) CAVFS2 Normalized Flow Duration (hours/acre) /8/06 18:45 6/9/06 8:15 yes R /10/06 10:45 6/10/06 11:00 no /12/06 7:45 6/12/06 9:15 no /12/06 20:30 6/13/06 2:00 yes R /16/06 10:45 6/16/06 12:45 yes /4/06 5:15 7/4/06 6:15 no /6/06 16:15 7/6/06 16:30 no /12/06 9:30 7/12/06 10:00 no /13/06 17:45 7/13/06 18:00 no /30/06 11:00 7/30/06 12:30 no /29/06 8:15 8/30/06 10:45 yes /9/06 1:30 9/9/06 11:00 yes /13/06 9:15 9/13/06 9:30 no /14/06 0:00 9/14/06 7:45 yes /18/06 0:15 9/18/06 5:45 yes /19/06 2:45 9/19/06 6:30 yes /20/06 8:45 9/20/06 21:30 yes /21/06 10:15 9/21/06 10:30 yes /3/06 16:15 10/3/06 16:30 no /6/06 6:45 10/6/06 11:30 no /8/06 8:45 10/8/06 9:00 no CAVFS_2007_Appendix C Precip Hydro raw data Page 56 of 56 Herrera Environmental Consultants

152 APPENDIX D Laboratory Reports, Chain-of-Custody Records, and Data Quality Assurance Worksheets

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207 APPENDIX E Individual Storm Report for Sampled Storm Events in Water Year 2007

208 Individual Storm Report CAVFS1 WY Site Information OUT IN OUT IN 18, , Station Name CAVFS1 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (0.95 in) ft ft cfs cfs TPH grab sample AADT in ,881 # vehicles: 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 3 Fri 3AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 11/2/2006 4:00:00 AM - 11/3/ :00:00 PM AM 2 Thu Nov 2006 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: 10 NA NA Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 39.3 % Storm Sampled: 75 NA NA Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA 0.02 Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: No composite samples collected. Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness NS NS TSS NS NS TP NS NS SRP NS NS Total Cu NS NS Dissolved Cu NS NS Total Zn NS NS Dissolved Zn NS NS TPH-diesel 0.05 U NS 0.05 TPH-oil 3.6 NS 0.1 notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

209 Individual Storm Report CAVFS1 WY Site Information OUT IN OUT IN 18, , Station Name CAVFS1 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (0.63 in) ft ft cfs 0.01 cfs in AADT ,881 # vehicles: 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 5 Sun 3AM 6AM 11/4/2006 5:00:00 AM - 11/5/2006 9:00:00 AM AM 4 Sat Nov 2006 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: NS Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 18.8 % Storm Sampled: NS Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA 0.03 Storm Volume (cf): NA pacing 2.5 and.25 Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: No grab sample for TPH constituents. Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness 6.84 NS 2.0 TSS 188 NS 0.5 TP NS SRP NS Total Cu NS Dissolved Cu NS Total Zn NS Dissolved Zn NS TPH-diesel NS NS 0.05 TPH-oil NS NS 0.1 notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable; NS = no sample

210 Individual Storm Report CAVFS1 WY Site Information OUT IN OUT IN 18, , Station Name CAVFS1 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (0.83 in) ft ft cfs cfs TPH grab sample AADT # vehicles: 187, in 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 11/10/2006 1:00:00 AM - 11/10/2006 8:00:00 PM 3AM 10 Fri Nov 2006 Sampling Information Storm Information - Storm WY Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: NS Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 12.5 % Storm Sampled: NS Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): 6 16 Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction notes NA NA NA NA NA <5 times rinsate blank NA NA NA NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness NS NS 2.0 TSS 45 NS 0.5 TP 0.08 NS SRP NS Total Cu J NS Dissolved Cu NS Total Zn NS Dissolved Zn 0.06 NS TPH-diesel 0.05 U NS 0.05 TPH-oil 2.0 NS 0.1 notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable; NS = no sample

211 Individual Storm Report CAVFS1 WY Site Information OUT IN OUT IN 18, , Station Name CAVFS1 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (1.05 in) ft ft cfs cfs TPH grab sample in AADT ,881 # vehicles: AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 16 Thu 3AM 11/15/2006 3:00:00 AM - 11/16/2006 4:00:00 AM 6AM 15 Wed Nov 2006 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: NS Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 18.5 % Storm Sampled: NS Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA pacing 7 cf Antecedent Dry Period (hr): 6 51 Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA Analytical Information notes EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness 6.84 NS 2.0 TSS 171 NS 0.5 TP NS SRP NS Total Cu NS Dissolved Cu NS Total Zn NS Dissolved Zn NS TPH-diesel 0.05 U NS 0.05 TPH-oil 2.56 NS 0.1 notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable; NS = no sample

212 Individual Storm Report CAVFS1 WY Site Information OUT IN OUT IN 18, , Station Name CAVFS1 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain ft ft cfs cfs TPH grab sample in AADT 187,881 # vehicles: 3AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 12 Tue 3AM 6AM 12/10/ :00:00 PM - 12/12/2006 7:00:00 AM Mon Dec 2006 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: NS Precipitation Duration (hr): NA % Storm Sampled: NS Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA no flow after noon? Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction notes NA NA Holding time exceeded NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness NS 2.0 TSS 417 R NS 0.5 TP NS SRP NS Total Cu NS Dissolved Cu NS Total Zn NS Dissolved Zn NS TPH-diesel 0.05 U NS 0.05 TPH-oil 3.3 NS 0.1 notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

213 Individual Storm Report CAVFS1 WY Site Information OUT IN OUT IN 18, , Station Name CAVFS1 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (1.48 in) ft 0.1 ft cfs 0.05 cfs TPH grab sample AADT 187,881 # vehicles: 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 15 Fri 3AM 6AM 9AM 12/14/2006 8:00:00 AM - 12/15/ :00:00 PM AM 14 Thu Dec 2006 in Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: NS Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 24.0 % Storm Sampled: NS Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness 6.64 NS 2.0 TSS 561 NS 0.5 TP NS SRP NS Total Cu NS Dissolved Cu NS Total Zn NS Dissolved Zn NS TPH-diesel 0.05 U NS 0.05 TPH-oil 5.4 NS 0.1 notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

214 Individual Storm Report CAVFS2 WY Site Information OUT IN OUT IN 8, Station Name CAVFS2 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (0.95 in) ft ft cfs cfs TPH grab sample in AADT ,881 # vehicles: AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 3 Fri 3AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 11/2/2006 4:00:00 AM - 11/3/ :00:00 PM 6AM 2 Thu Nov 2006 Sampling Information Storm Information - Storm WY Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: 10 NA NA Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 39.3 % Storm Sampled: 75 NA NA Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA 0.02 Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: No composite samples collected. Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA 89 IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness NS NS TSS NS NS TP NS NS SRP NS NS Total Cu NS NS Dissolved Cu NS NS Total Zn NS NS Dissolved Zn NS NS TPH-diesel 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 TPH-oil notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

215 Individual Storm Report CAVFS2 WY Site Information OUT IN OUT IN 8, Station Name CAVFS2 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (0.63 in) ft 0.02 ft cfs 0.01 cfs in AADT # vehicles: 187,881 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 5 Sun 3AM 11/4/2006 3:00:00 AM - 11/5/2006 5:00:00 AM AM 4 Sat Nov 2006 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 18.8 % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA 0.03 Storm Volume (cf): NA pacing 2.5 and.3 Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: No grab sample for TPH constituents. Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA <5 times rinsate blank NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness TSS TP SRP Total Cu J Dissolved Cu Total Zn Dissolved Zn TPH-diesel NS NS 0.05 TPH-oil NS NS 0.1 notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

216 Individual Storm Report CAVFS2 WY Site Information Station Name CAVFS2 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN (0.019 ft) Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (0.83 in) ft 0.01 ft OUT OUT IN IN cfs cfs , TPH grab sample in AADT ,881 # vehicles: AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 11/10/ :00:00 AM - 11/10/2006 8:00:00 PM 3AM 10 Fri Nov 2006 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 12.5 % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA pacing 3.75 and 1 Antecedent Dry Period (hr): 6 16 Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA Holding time exceeded -40 <5 times rinsate blank NA 63 IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness NS NS 2.0 TSS TP SRP J Total Cu J J Dissolved Cu Total Zn Dissolved Zn TPH-diesel 0.05 U TPH-oil notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

217 Individual Storm Report CAVFS2 WY Site Information Station Name CAVFS2 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (1.05 in) ft 0.05 ft OUT OUT IN IN cfs cfs , TPH grab sample in AADT ,881 # vehicles: AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 16 Thu 11/15/2006 3:00:00 AM - 11/16/2006 3:00:00 AM 6AM 15 Wed Nov 2006 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 18.5 % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA pacing 7 and 2 cf Antecedent Dry Period (hr): 6 51 Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA Holding time exceeded <5 times rinsate blank NA 71 IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness TSS R 0.5 TP SRP Total Cu J Dissolved Cu Total Zn Dissolved Zn TPH-diesel 0.05 U 0.11 U 0.05 TPH-oil notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable; NS = no sample

218 Individual Storm Report CAVFS2 WY Site Information OUT IN OUT IN 8, Station Name CAVFS2 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain ft ft cfs cfs TPH grab sample in AADT # vehicles: 187,881 3AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 12 Tue 3AM 12/10/ :00:00 PM - 12/12/2006 5:00:00 AM Mon Dec 2006 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA pacing 7 and 2 cf Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA Holding time exceeded <5 times rinsate blank NA 78 IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness TSS 417 R 8.5 R 0.5 TP SRP Total Cu J Dissolved Cu Total Zn Dissolved Zn TPH-diesel 0.05 U 0.11 U 0.05 TPH-oil notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

219 Individual Storm Report CAVFS2 WY Site Information Station Name CAVFS2 Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (1.48 in) ft 0.1 ft OUT OUT IN IN 0.10 cfs 0.05 cfs , TPH grab sample in AADT ,881 # vehicles: PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 15 Fri 3AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 12/14/2006 7:00:00 AM - 12/15/2006 1:00:00 PM 9AM 14 Thu Dec 2006 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA notes Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 24.0 % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA pacing 20 and 9 cf Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA <5 times rinsate blank NA 83 IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness TSS TP SRP Total Cu J Dissolved Cu Total Zn Dissolved Zn TPH-diesel 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 TPH-oil notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

220 OUT OUT Individual Storm Report 20, VFS WY Site Information IN IN 8, Station Name VFS Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (0.95 in) ,881 ft ft cfs cfs TPH grab sample AADT # vehicles: in AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 3 Fri 3AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 11/2/2006 2:00:00 AM - 11/3/ :00:00 PM AM 2 Thu Nov 2006 notes Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: 10 NA NA Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 39.3 % Storm Sampled: 75 NA NA Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA 0.02 Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: No composite samples collected. Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction NA 97 IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness NS NS TSS NS NS TP NS NS SRP NS NS Total Cu NS NS Dissolved Cu NS NS Total Zn NS NS Dissolved Zn NS NS TPH-diesel 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 TPH-oil U 0.1 notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

221 Individual Storm Report VFS WY Site Information OUT OUT IN IN 20, , Station Name VFS Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (0.63 in) ft 0.02 ft cfs 0.01 cfs in 187,881 AADT # vehicles: AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 5 Sun 3AM 11/4/2006 2:00:00 AM - 11/5/2006 4:00:00 AM AM 4 Sat Nov 2006 notes pacing 2.5 and 1 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 18.8 % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA 0.03 Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: No grab sample for TPH constituents. Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) % Conc. Reduction <5 times rinsate blank NA NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness TSS TP SRP Total Cu J Dissolved Cu Total Zn Dissolved Zn TPH-diesel NS NS 0.05 TPH-oil NS NS 0.1 notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

222 Individual Storm Report VFS WY Site Information OUT OUT IN IN 20, , Station Name VFS Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (0.83 in) ft ft cfs cfs TPH grab sample ,881 AADT # vehicles: 0.02 in AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 11/10/2006 1:00:00 AM - 11/10/2006 8:00:00 PM 3AM 10 Fri Nov 2006 notes pacing 3.75 and 1.0 Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 12.5 % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): 6 16 Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) Reduction NA Holding time exceeded <5 times rinsate blank NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness NS NS j TSS j TP j SRP Jj Total Cu J Jj Dissolved Cu j Total Zn j Dissolved Zn j TPH-diesel 0.05 U 0.05 Uj TPH-oil j notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

223 Individual Storm Report VFS WY Site Information OUT OUT IN Station Name VFS Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (1.05 in) ft 0.05 ft cfs 0.01 cfs IN , , TPH grab sample in 187,881 AADT # vehicles: AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 16 Thu 11/15/2006 3:00:00 AM - 11/16/2006 3:00:00 AM 6AM 15 Wed Nov 2006 notes pacing 7 and 4 cf Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 18.5 % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): 6 51 Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) Reduction NA <5 times rinsate blank NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness TSS TP SRP Total Cu J Dissolved Cu Total Zn Dissolved Zn TPH-diesel 0.05 U 0.06 U TPH-oil notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable; NS = no sample

224 Individual Storm Report VFS WY Site Information OUT OUT IN IN 20, , Station Name VFS Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain ft ft cfs cfs TPH grab sample in 187,881 AADT # vehicles: AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 12 Tue 3AM 12/10/ :00:00 PM - 12/12/2006 5:00:00 AM 11 Mon Dec 2006 notes pacing 7 and 4 cf Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) Reduction NA Holding time exceeded <5 times rinsate blank NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness TSS 417 R 29 R TP SRP Total Cu J Dissolved Cu Total Zn Dissolved Zn TPH-diesel 0.05 U 0.05 U TPH-oil notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable

225 Individual Storm Report Site Information VFS WY OUT OUT IN IN 20, , Station Name VFS Inlet Station Name Curb and Gutter Control BMP Type Vegetated Filter Strip I-5 Location Milepost Drainage Area Total (sf): % Impervious: Level IN Level OUT Q IN Q OUT Rain (1.48 in) ft 0.1 ft cfs 0.05 cfs TPH grab sample ,881 AADT # vehicles: 0.10 in 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 15 Fri 3AM 6AM 9AM 12/14/2006 8:00:00 AM - 12/15/ :00:00 PM AM 14 Thu Dec 2006 notes pacing 20 and 7 cf Storm Information - Storm WY Sampling Information Goal Result notes Goal IN QA OUT QA Precipitation Total (in): Number of Aliquots: Precipitation Duration (hr): NA 24.0 % Storm Sampled: Mean Precip. Intensity (in/hr): NA Storm Volume (cf): NA Antecedent Dry Period (hr): Max Discharge (cfs): NA Storm and Sampling QA Narrative: Flow Duration (hr): NA notes Analytical Information EMC Concentration (mg/l) Reduction NA <5 times rinsate blank NA NA IN QA OUT QA MDL Hardness TSS TP SRP Total Cu J Dissolved Cu Total Zn Dissolved Zn TPH-diesel 0.05 U 0.05 U TPH-oil notes: j = conditional use (storm/sampling criteria); J = conditional use (chemical analysis criteria); r = rejected (storm/sampling criteria) R = rejected (chemical analysis criteria); U = at or below detection limit; G = value greater than max. detection limit; NA = not applicable; NS = no sample

226 APPENDIX F Compost/Soil Leachate Analysis Data Report

227 COMPOST/SOIL LEACHATE ANALYSIS DATA REPORT Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Monitoring Project Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation P.O. Box Olympia, Washington Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington Telephone: 206/ July 5, 2007

228 Compost/Soil Leachate Analysis CAVFS Monitoring Project Background The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) received research funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to install and document the flow control effectiveness of one low-impact development (LID) technique with potential application as a best management practice (BMP) for stormwater in urban environments. In the fall of 2003, WSDOT s Environmental Services Office (ESO) conducted a preliminary evaluation of low-impact treatment options available in the Puget Sound region to identify potential candidate sites for inclusion in this study. Based on the results of this evaluation, the ESO Stormwater and Watershed Programs jointly selected the shoulder/median application of compost-amended vegetated filter strips (CAVFS) as the subject of a pilot study to be conducted with FHWA support. Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) was subsequently retained by the ESO to design and implement a monitoring program to evaluate the treatment performance of CAVFS. The primary goal of this monitoring program is to document the performance of CAVFS with regard to reducing the peak runoff discharge rates, flow volumes, and flow durations of highway runoff. This information could then be used to support the acceptance of this technology for flow control by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). A secondary goal of this monitoring program is to assess the performance of CAVFS with regard to treating common pollutants in highway runoff. Monitoring for the project is occurring over a 4-year period starting in December 2004 and ending in September To facilitate this monitoring, three separate pilot filter strips were constructed by WSDOT along Interstate 5 (I-5). These pilot filter strips were built according to specifications in the Highway Runoff Manual (WSDOT 2004) for vegetated filter strips (BMP RT.02). Two of these filter strips (designated CAVFS1 and CAVFS2) were amended with compost, while a third (designated VFS) received no compost. The design criteria and as-builts for the pilot filter strips are documented in the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) prepared for the project (Herrera 2004). Water quality samples collected in connection with this project over the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 wet seasons indicated that total suspended solids, total copper, and total zinc concentrations in effluent samples from the CAVFS2 filter strip tended to be higher than those from the VFS filter strip (Herrera 2007a, 2007b). Concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) in effluent samples from the VFS filter strip were generally higher than those for the CAVFS2 filter strip during the 2005/2006 wet season, but not the 2006/2007 wet season. In order to investigate the cause of these differences, leachate analyses were performed on samples of the raw compost used to construct the CAVFS2 filter strip and on compost-amended soil samples collected from the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 filter strips and surface soil from the VFS strip. The specific objective of these analyses was to determine if the compost was a source for the elevated metals concentrations. (Although effluent concentrations of total copper and zinc for the CAVFS2 filter strip were elevated relative to those for the VFS filter strip, it should be noted that these effluent concentrations were significantly lower than the associated influent wp cavfs leachate analysis report.doc July 5, Herrera Environmental Consultants

229 Compost/Soil Leachate Analysis CAVFS Monitoring Project concentrations for the CAVFS2 filter strip [Herrera 2007a, 2007b].) In addition, analyses were performed to investigate compost-amended soil and native soil as potential phosphorus sources. This report documents the results from these analyses. It begins with a description of the study location and the procedures that were used during the leachate analysis process. Results from the analyses are then summarized with graphical representations of the data provided as necessary. Finally, raw data from the test are provided in Appendix A. Study Location The three pilot filter strips are located on the northbound shoulder of I-5 between mileposts (MP) 185 and 186 (Figure 1). Compost was tilled into the surface of the CAVFS1 (MP to MP ) and CAVFS2 filter strips (MP to MP ) to a depth of approximately 12 inches. The VFS filter strip (MP to MP ) did not receive compost amendment. Compost samples for leachate analysis were collected from a reserved portion of raw compost material used during filter strip construction and stored in the Herrera laboratory. Soil samples for leachate analysis were collected at randomly selected locations in each of the three filter strips. The location of each soil sampling station is shown in Figure 2. Methods Potential sources of elevated copper, zinc, and SRP concentrations in the effluent samples from the CAVFS2 and VFS filter strips were investigated by processing raw compost and soil samples using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), in accordance with EPA Method SPLP is a procedure used to determine the mobility of organic and inorganic analytes present in liquids, soils, and wastes. The leachate that is generated is intended to simulate precipitation. A ph of 5.00 is used west of the Mississippi River reflecting less industrialization and smaller population densities, when compared to areas east of the Mississippi River. The procedure involves mixing the sample with an extraction liquid, agitating the mixture for approximately 18 hours, and isolating the leachate by filtering the mixture through a glass fiber filter. The leachate is then analyzed for the parameters of interest. For this investigation, the leachate was analyzed for dissolved copper, dissolved zinc, and SRP. Because the final processing step in the SPLP involves filtration with a 0.6 to 0.8 micron filter, the leachate was not analyzed for total copper or total zinc. A total of seven compost samples and thirty soil samples were submitted to the analytical laboratory for the leachate analysis. The compost samples were collected by hand on May 26 and June 13, 2007 and placed in a labeled 32-ounce glass jar. Ten soil samples were collected from each filter strip using a stainless steel soil core. Soil samples were collected on June 7 and 13, The soil core was used to bore a hole in the filter strip to a depth of not more than 10 inches. The soil sample was removed from the soil core and placed in a labeled 32-ounce glass jar. Each sample was identified using the filter strip designation, the abbreviation of the wp cavfs leachate analysis report.doc July 5, Herrera Environmental Consultants

230 Compost/Soil Leachate Analysis CAVFS Monitoring Project leaching procedure, and the sample number. For example, the fifth sample collected from CAVFS1 was identified as CAVFS1-SPLP-5. The location of each soil sampling station was determined using a five digit number selected from a random number table. The first two digits determined the location within one of four equally spaced sections (quadrants) across the width of the filter strip from east to west, and the last three digits determined the distance from the flume located at the northern end of the filter strip. For example, the five digit number for the fifth sample collected from CAVFS1 was 38186, which corresponds to a location that is 186 feet south of the flume in the second quadrant (38 is within the second quartile of 26 and 50). Results from the analyses are summarized in the section that follows. Results This section presents results from the leachate analyses for compost and soil samples. Graphical summaries for dissolved copper, dissolved zinc, and soluble reactive phosphorus are presented as box and whisker plots in Figures 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Each box plot presents the following information: median of the data as the point in the box; the 25 th and 75 th percentiles as the bottom and top of the box, respectively; and the 10 th and 90 th percentiles as the bottom and top whiskers, respectively. For comparison, water quality data from the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 wet seasons are also presented in these plots (Herrera 2007a, 2007b). Specifically, each plot presents influent concentrations that were collectively measured for all the filter strips through sampling conducted at a single edge-of-pavement station (designated the Curb and Gutter station) and effluent concentrations that were measured in association with each of the filter strips. Laboratory reports, chain of custody records, and quality assurance worksheets for the leachate samples are presented in Appendix A. As shown in Figure 3, the dissolved copper concentrations from the raw compost leachate samples were substantially higher than the influent concentrations observed at the Curb and Gutter station, the soil leachate concentrations for each filter strip, and the effluent concentrations for each filter strip. These results indicate that the compost is a potential source of dissolved copper. However, dissolved copper concentrations observed in the VFS soil leachate samples were similar to concentrations observed in the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 soil leachate samples, indicating that the compost amendment is not a source of dissolved copper. These results suggest that the elevated total copper concentrations in effluent samples from the CAVFS2 filter strip are likely related to the transport of particulate bound copper from the compost as opposed to the leaching of this pollutant from the compost in a dissolved form. This conclusion is supported by sampling data for total suspended solids (Herrera 2007a, 2007b) that indicate total suspended solids concentrations in effluent samples from the CAVF2 filter strip tend to be higher than those from the VFS filter strip. Several factors could be influencing the transport of particulate bound copper within the CAVFS2 from the compost. For example, it is possible that copper-containing fines present wp cavfs leachate analysis report.doc July 5, Herrera Environmental Consultants

231 Compost/Soil Leachate Analysis CAVFS Monitoring Project within the compost mix are being mobilized during storm events. Alternatively, the process of tilling in the compost amendment may have reduced surface compaction on the CAVFS2 filter strip, thereby making it potentially more erosive than the VFS filter strip. Figure 4 shows that dissolved zinc concentrations from the raw compost leachate samples were less than the filter strip influent concentrations and greater than the leachate concentrations observed from each filter strip. These results indicate that compost is a potential source of dissolved zinc. However, dissolved zinc concentrations in all 30 of the leachate samples were below the reporting limit. In addition, except for the only sample collected from CAVFS1 during the 2006 or 2007 water years, dissolved zinc concentrations observed in the effluent samples from the filter strips were substantially lower than the associated soil leachate concentrations. The results indicate that the compost amendment in the filter strips is not a source of dissolved zinc and, like the result for copper above, the elevated total zinc concentrations in the effluent samples from the CAVFS2 filter strip are likely related to the transport of particulate bound zinc with the compost. As shown in Figure 5, SRP concentrations observed in VFS soil leachate samples were similar to concentrations observed in the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 soil leachate samples, indicating that the compost amended filter strips are not a source of SRP. However, SRP concentrations observed in the effluent samples from the VFS filter strip were higher than concentrations observed in both the influent samples and the effluent samples collected from the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 filter strips, suggesting that there is an unidentified source of SRP in the VFS filter strip. It is possible that this source may be related to fertilizer and/or phosphorus based pesticides applications that may have occurred prior to the construction of the three filter strips. During construction of the CAVFS1 and CAVFS2 filters strips, these sources would have been tilled into the ground with the compost where they would be less likely to influence surface water quality. In contrast, any of these sources that were present in the VFS filter strip would have remained on the ground surface where they could potentially be mobilized with greater ease by highway runoff. Alternatively, these results may suggest that the compost in the two amended filter strips may be adsorbing some of the SRP that is being generated within all of the filter strips. Although raw compost leachate was not analyzed for SRP, a review of the water quality data suggests that the filter strips, not the compost, is a likely source of SRP. This is based on the relatively high concentration of SRP observed in the VFS (non-compost amended) effluent samples. Conclusions Results from the leachate analyses conducted for this study indicate the raw compost is a potential source of dissolved copper and dissolved zinc; however, the elevated total copper and zinc concentrations in effluent samples from the CAVFS2 filter strip collected in earlier tests are likely related to the transport of particulate bound copper from the compost as opposed to the leaching of these pollutants from the compost in a dissolved form. In addition, these results wp cavfs leachate analysis report.doc July 5, Herrera Environmental Consultants

232 Compost/Soil Leachate Analysis CAVFS Monitoring Project indicate there may be unidentified source of SRP in the VFS filter strip (e.g., fertilizers and/or phosphorus based pesticides). Alternatively, the compost amended soil mixture in the two test filter strips may be adsorbing SRP that is being generated within all of the filter strips. References Herrera Quality Assurance Project Plan: Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Herrera. 2007a. Unpublished water quality data collected during the 2006/2007 wet season for the Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project. Collected for Washington State Department of Transportation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Herrera. 2007b. Water Year 2006 Data Report: Compost-Amended Vegetated Filter Strip Performance Monitoring Project. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual. Publication No. M Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. wp cavfs leachate analysis report.doc July 5, Herrera Environmental Consultants

233 FIGURES

234 Figure 1. Vicinity map showing pilot filter strip locations along Interstate 5 in Snohomish County, Washington /rtb /HEC-R/ /Infiltration Rpt Vancouver Island CANADA Bellingham Everett Seattle Tacoma Olympia Mt. Rainier Washington Oregon PACIFIC OCEAN Columbia River Project Area 0 N 50 5 CAVFS 2 VFS CAVFS 1 5 Map source: Thomas Bros 1997 N

235 K:/Projects/ /Projects/Soil sampling locations leachate analysis.mxd (06/28/07) JAS CAVFS2 - SPLP-1 CAVFS2 - SPLP-2 CAVGF2 - SPLP-3 CAVFS2 - SPLP-4 CAVFS2 - SPLP-5 CAVFS2 - SPLP-6 CAVFS2 - SPLP-7 CAVFS2 - SPLP-8 140th St SW CAVFS2 - SPLP-9 CAVFS2 - SPLP-10 CAVFS1 - SPLP-1 CAVFS1 - SPLP-2 CAVFS1 - SPLP-3 CAVFS1 - SPLP-4 CAVFS1 - SPLP-5 CAVFS1 - SPLP-6 CAVFS1 - SPLP-7 d rthbou n I-5 No 143rd St SW I-5 Sou thbou n d CAVFS1 - SPLP-8 CAVFS1 - SPLP-9 CAVFS1 - SPLP-10 VFS - SPLP-1 143rd Pl SW VFS - SPLP-3 VFS - SPLP-2 VFS - SPLP-4 VFS - SPLP-5 VFS - SPLP-6 VFS - SPLP-7 VFS - SPLP-8 VFS - SPLP-9 VFS - SPLP-10 Legend SPLP-1 0 Leachate analysis soil sampling station Aerial photography: USGS, 2002 Figure 2. Soil sampling locations for leachate analysis collected for the CAVFS project. 200 ft

236

237 Raw Compost Leachate Influent VFS Leachate VFS Effluent CAVFS1 Leachate CAVFS1 Effluent CAVFS2 Leachate CAVFS2 Effluent Dissolved Copper (ug/l) Median; Box: 25%-75%; Whisker: 10%-90% Figure 3. Dissolved copper concentrations observed in samples collected for the CAVFS project. wp4 / cavfs leachate analysis report.doc

238 Raw Compost Leachate Influent VFS Leachate VFS Effluent CAVFS1 Leachate CAVFS1 Effluent CAVFS2 Leachate CAVFS2 Effluent Dissolved Zinc (ug/l) Median; Box: 25%-75%; Whisker: 10%-90% Figure 4. Dissolved zinc concentrations observed in samples collected for the CAVFS project. wp4 / cavfs leachate analysis report.doc

239 Influent VFS Leachate VFS Effluent CAVFS1 Leachate CAVFS1 Effluent CAVFS2 Leachate CAVFS2 Effluent Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (mg/l) Median; Box: 25%-75%; Whisker: 10%-90% Figure 5. Soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations observed in samples collected for the CAVFS project. wp4 / cavfs leachate analysis report.doc

240 APPENDIX A Laboratory Reports, Chain of Custody Records, and Quality Assurance Reports

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317 Data Quality Assurance Worksheet By Mike Cawrse Project Name/No./Client: CAVFS/ /WSDOT Date Page 1 of 2 Laboratory/Parameters: Analytical Resources/dissolved copper, dissolved zinc, soluble reactive phosphorus Checked: initials Sample Date/Sample ID: (HEC-Com1, -Com2, -Com3, -Com4); (VFS-SPLP-1 through 10; CAVFS1-SPLP-1 through 10); (CAVFS2-SPLP-1 through 10; Comp , Comp , Comp ) date Parameter Completeness/ Methodology Holding Times Blanks/ Detection Limit Matrix Spikes/ Surrogate Recoveries Lab Duplicates Field Duplicates Lab Control Samples Instrument Calibration/ Performance ACTION Dissolved copper ( ) ok ok <0.002/0.002 HEC-Com1 / 107% HEC-Com1 / 0.00% NA NA ok Dissolved zinc ( ) ok ok <0.010/0.010 HEC-Com1 / 104% HEC-Com1 / 0.00% NA NA ok Soluble reactive phosphorus (6-7-07) ok ok <0.004/0.004 VFS-SPLP-1 / 97.5% VFS-SPLP-1 / NC NA 98.3% ok Dissolved copper (6-7-07) ok ok <0.002/0.002 VFS-SPLP-1 / 95.4% VFS-SPLP-1 / NC NA NA ok Dissolved zinc (6-7-07) ok ok <0.010/0.010 VFS-SPLP-1 / 100% VFS-SPLP-1 / NC NA NA ok Soluble reactive phosphorus ( ) ok ok <0.004/0.004 CAVFS2-SPLP-1 / 98.5% CAVFS2- SPLP-1 / NC NA 98.3% ok Dissolved copper ( ) ok ok <0.002/0.002 CAVFS2-SPLP-1 / 99.4% CAVFS2- SPLP-1 / NC NA NA ok Dissolved zinc ( ) ok ok <0.010/0.010 CAVFS2-SPLP-1 / 106% CAVFS2- SPLP-1 / NC NA NA ok NC not calculable due to values below detection limit wp apx-a 2 qa leachate data doc Herrera Environmental Consultants

318 Data Quality Assurance Worksheet By Mike Cawrse Project Name/No./Client: CAVFS/ /WSDOT Date Page 2 of 2 Laboratory/Parameters: Analytical Resources/dissolved copper, dissolved zinc Checked: initials Sample Date/Sample ID: (Comp , Comp , Comp ) date Parameter Completeness/ Methodology Holding Times Blanks/ Detection Limit Matrix Spikes/ Surrogate Recoveries Lab Duplicates Field Duplicates Lab Control Samples Instrument Calibration/ Performance ACTION Dissolved copper ( ) ok ok <0.002/0.002 Comp / 108% Comp / NC NA NA ok Dissolved zinc ( ) ok ok <0.010/0.010 Comp / 106% Comp / NC NA NA ok NC not calculable due to value below detection limit wp apx-a 3 qa leachate data doc Herrera Environmental Consultants