Getting Caltrans to Approve Getting Caltrans to Approve Your PlansYour Plans

Basic Drainage Policies and Basic Drainage Policies and RequirementsRequirements

Roy H. King, MS,PERoy H. King, MS,PECalifornia Department of TransportationCalifornia Department of Transportation

Division of HydraulicsDivision of Hydraulics

Getting StartedGetting Started• IGR (Inter-Governmental Review) –

Optional but HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!• Environmental Processing and Approval• Research (Encroachment Permit Required

for ALL WORK within Caltrans Right-of-Way!)

Plan and Permit ProcessingPlan and Permit Processing• Plan Submittal (PS & E Package, including

Drainage Report)

• Plan Review and Approval

• Construction

Why Can’t I Do That?Why Can’t I Do That?

• Mandated / Restricted Use of Highway Funds and Right-of-Way

• Longitudinal Encroachments

REMEMBER:REMEMBER:

• We Have High-Speed Traffic! (Affects ALL FACILITIES on our Highways!)

• Affects DESIGN!

Caltrans Drainage ConsiderationsCaltrans Drainage Considerations

• On-site Drainage

• Off-site (Cross) Drainage

• California Drainage Law

• Existing / Future Storm Drain Systems

• FEMA and Flood Plain Issues

On-Site DrainageOn-Site Drainage

• No more than 0.1 cubic foot per second during a 25-year frequency storm allowed as concentrated flow anywhere within the traveled way.

• No water allowed to pond into the traveled way during a 25-year frequency storm.

Off-Site DrainageOff-Site Drainage

• No formal written policy for design of culverts.

• Informal Policy: 100-year storm flow may not pond to the edge of traveled way; 10-year storm may not cause the culvert to seal or flow under pressure.

FEMA IssuesFEMA Issues• Is there a FIRM map for any of the

watercourses near your project?• Will your proposed construction potentially

raise the water surface by one foot or more?• If so, you will need to prepare a LOMR or

CLOMR• - and: -

• Even if there is no FIRM map, you still might have to prepare a LOMR or CLOMR!

FEMA Website:FEMA Website:

• http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1

Recent Problem # 1Recent Problem # 1

• Where water previously flowed well outside the traveled way, the installation of curb and gutter now forces this water into the highway.

Existing ground probably capable of conveying 50-60 cfs before water reaches traveled way

Reduced carrying capacity as a result of the curb and gutter – will carry maybe 10-15 cfs before water flows into traveled way

Even in a minor storm, note how little runoff it takes to pond to edge of traveled way

But now—let’s put in some curb and gutter!

Recent Problem # 2Recent Problem # 2

• In the desert, our old two-lane rural roads would pond to a depth of four inches or so before water would flow across the road. Now that we’ve added two lanes and a shoulder, it ponds to a foot and a half!

Water ponds to only a few inches depth before spilling over centerline

Again, water ponds to only a few inches depth

But now, let’s add two twelve foot lanes (giving us three) at 2% crossfall, a ten foot shoulder at 5% crossfall, and look how deep the water ponds!

A More Serious Recent Problem:A More Serious Recent Problem:

• New development, while retarding the 100-year storm to less than pre-development conditions, has increased the flow from small storms. The increased flow from these small storms is KILLING us!

The flood routing calculations showed this basin would work just fine! (Did the outlet plug?)

Were the Contractor’s BMP’s functioning properly?

However, the 5-year post-development runoff of 85 cfs was NOT reduced to the pre-development 5-year runoff of 50 cfs!

The basin was designed to reduce the 100-year Q from 250 cfs post-development down to 175 pre-development—and will work just fine in a 100-year storm!

So where did the extra concentrated runoff from the basin outlet go?

This is how it looked when it got to the next major highway junction…

After the storm…

Same location looking upstream…

Existing Problems you MAY be Existing Problems you MAY be Asked to Help SolveAsked to Help Solve

• Malfunctioning drainage facilities

• Non-existent facilities

• Safety hazards (whether drainage-related or not)

Will your development increase the flow in this ditch? If so, you may be required to improve it…

Are you developing upstream? You’ll be asked to protect the culvert entrance…

Upstream or downstream, you’re probably going to have to do something here!

(Yes, we may ask you to help fix this, too, even though we did it…)

No comment!!!

Drainage Report Submittal Drainage Report Submittal Guidelines for District 8 Guidelines for District 8 Transportation ProjectsTransportation Projects

• Floodplain Analysis (if Applicable)

• Preliminary Drainage Report

• Final Drainage Report

4. Estimated duration of traffic interruption for 100-year event ______ hours. 5. Estimated value of Q100 flood damages (if any) - moderate risk level.

A. Roadway $________ B. Property $_________ Total $____________

6. Assessment of Level of Risk

Low ___ Moderate ___ High ___ For High Risk projects, during design phase, additional Design Study Risk Analysis may be necessary to determine design alternative.

PREPARED BY:

_____________________________________________ ____________________ Signature - Dist. Hydraulic Engineer Date (Item numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 9) Is there any longitudinal encroachment, significant encroachment, or any support of incompatible Floodplain development? No ____ Yes ____ If yes, provide evaluation and discussion of practicability of alternatives in accordance with 23 CFR 650.113 Information developed to comply with the Federal requirement for the Location Hydraulic Study Shall be retained in the project files. _____________________________________________ ____________________ Signature - Dist. Project Engineer Date (Item numbers 1, 2, 6, 8)

Responsible Engineer Preparing Plans

Caltrans Project EngineerCaltrans Project Engineer

SUMMARY FLOODPLAIN ENCROACHMENT REPORT Dist. __________Co. _________ Rte.__________ P.M. _________________________ Project No.: _________________________ Bridge No. ______________________ Limits: ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Floodplain Description: ___________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ No Yes 1. Is the proposed action a longitudinal encroachment of the base floodplain? ___ ___ 2. Are the risks associated with the implementation of the proposed action

significant? ___ ___

3. Will the proposed action support probable incompatible floodplain development?

___ ___

4. Are there any significant impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values? ___ ___ 5. Routine construction procedures are required to minimize impacts on the

floodplain. Are there any special mitigation measures necessary to minimize impacts or restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values? If yes, explain.

___ ___

6. Does the proposed action constitute a significant floodplain encroach-ment as defined in 23 CFR, Section 650.105(q).

___ ___

7. Are Location Hydraulic Studies that document the above answers on file? If not explain.

___ ___

PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ __________ Signature - Dist. Hydraulic Engineer Date ______________________________________ __________ Signature - Dist. Environmental Branch Chief Date ______________________________________ __________ Signature - Dist. Project Engineer Date

SUMMARY FLOODPLAIN ENCROACHMENT REPORT Dist. __________Co. _________ Rte.__________ P.M. _________________________ Project No.: _________________________ Bridge No. ______________________ Limits: ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Floodplain Description: ___________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ No Yes 1. Is the proposed action a longitudinal encroachment of the base floodplain? ___ ___ 2. Are the risks associated with the implementation of the proposed action

significant? ___ ___

3. Will the proposed action support probable incompatible floodplain development?

___ ___

4. Are there any significant impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values? ___ ___ 5. Routine construction procedures are required to minimize impacts on the

floodplain. Are there any special mitigation measures necessary to minimize impacts or restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values? If yes, explain.

___ ___

6. Does the proposed action constitute a significant floodplain encroach-ment as defined in 23 CFR, Section 650.105(q).

___ ___

7. Are Location Hydraulic Studies that document the above answers on file? If not explain.

___ ___

PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ __________ Signature - Dist. Hydraulic Engineer Date ______________________________________ __________ Signature - Dist. Environmental Branch Chief Date ______________________________________ __________ Signature - Dist. Project Engineer Date

Responsible Engineer Preparing PlansProfessional Responsible for Environmental DocumentCaltrans Project Manager

http://caltrans-opac.ca.gov/publicat.htm

To order by e-mail:

To Order by Mail or FAX:To Order by Mail or FAX:

State of California

Department of Transportation

Publication Distribution Unit

1900 Royal Oaks Drive

Sacramento California 95815 – 3800

FAX (916) 324-8997

Caltrans Drafting Standards

Caltrans Basic Traffic Control Requirements

Caltrans Basic Soil Compaction Requirements

Caltrans Water Quality Requirements

Caltrans Basic Landscaping Requirements

…and of course Caltrans Drainage Requirements…

Caltrans Plan Review & Encroachment Permit Process

Roy H. King, MS, PE

Hydraulics Division, California Department of Transportation

464 West 4th, MS 1065

San Bernardino, CA 92401-1464

Tel. (909) 383-4555

E-mail: Roy_King@dot.ca.gov