Admin Order 58-12-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. The UICs were only assumed to infiltrate runoff up to the 5 -year storm event and the design events modeled were the 10 and 25 -year events. Hence, the accommodation of the 5 -year storm was overwhelmed by the larger storms; and 2. Only 20% of the total drainage area was assumed to be area draining to UICs. Hence the majority of the drainage area is accommodated via the pipe and surface drainage system only. Following the development of the XP -SWMM models for each subbasin (with and without UICs) it was discovered that the GIS maps only included the 86 Lane County dry wells and not the 72 Eugene dry wells. A decision was made not to update the basin delineations to include the Eugene UICs, as resources were limited to conduct an additional analysis. In addition, it was decided that the model without the UICs would be used to design conceptual flood control CIPs, in order to be conservative and to account for the fact that UICs may need to be decommissioned in the future to address UIC regulatory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore, results of an updated analysis to include the Eugene dry wells in addition to the Lane County dry wells already included in the model would not provide significant additional value. 5