Att 3.b.viii Hydrology Studies — Murrieta City Council, May 20, 2025 (part 1 of 5)

APPENDIX H
,zZK>K'z^dh/
^
LMC Murrieta Apartments
Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
APN 910-410-011
Murrieta Hot Spring Rd/Jefferson Ave.

Murrieta, CA 92562
Prepared for:

Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC
95 Enterprise, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Prepared By:

Erica Kawata, PE
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W Town and Country Rd, Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
May 2022
LMC Murrieta Apartments
Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................2 Hydrology................................................................................................................................................3 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................3 Proposed Conditions...........................................................................................................................3 Hydraulics ...............................................................................................................................................4 Detention System Calculations ...........................................................................................................4 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................5 APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................6 APPENDIX B: PROPOSED CONDITIONS.....................................................................................7 APPENDIX C: DETENTION CALCULATIONS...............................................................................8 APPENDIX D: REFERENCES........................................................................................................9 LMC Murrieta Apartments
Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
Introduction
The scope of the project is to complete a preliminary hydrology and hydraulic analysis for the storm drain improvements associated with the proposed LMC Murrieta Apartments project in Murrieta, CA. The Project is located at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Jefferson Ave and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The Project consist of about 160,000 square feet of multi-family apartment buildings and carports. Other project activities will also include utility improvements, parking areas, driveways redevelopment, and stormwater treatment and detention. The total project limits of disturbance make up approximately 13.35 acres. The total study limits for this report consists of 13.35 acres. As a preliminary report, the study area will include onsite drainage only, any offsite drainage and storm drain improvements will be analyzed and addressed during final design.

Figure 1: LMC Murietta Apartments Location
P a g e | 3
Hydrology
The preliminary hydrology and hydraulic analyses were completed in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual. A rational method analysis in accordance with the Manual was completed to calculate the peak discharges for existing conditions and proposed project conditions. Plate C-1.52 of the Hydrology Manual shows that the project is underlain by three soil types, B, C, and BC. However, a review of the Geotechnical Investigation Report dated April 8, 2022 prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc found that subsurface soils at the site consisted of silty and clayey sand. Per the web soil survey in Appendix D, soil group C is defined as soils having slow infiltration rates (high runoff potential) and was used conservatively to calculate the soil loss rates.

Land use for existing and proposed drainage areas were selected based on actual imperviousness for each area. The corresponding land uses are included in the AES summary tables in Appendix A. Storm intensities from NOAA 14 were used for the analyses. The Advance Engineering Software (AES) Hydrosoft package was used to complete the rational method analysis.

Existing Conditions
The project consists of vacant property, with a naturally occurring creek located along the northern edge of the site. Under existing conditions, the site sheet flows to an outfall point located on the southeastern corner. Any runoff that does not sheet flow directly to the southeast corner will sheet flow into the creek along the northern edge before eventually running into the same outfall location. Runoff is then routed into the public system through three 36” RCP storm drain lines. As-Built plans show these existing 36” pipes and their connection to the public system in Appendix B. Table 1 includes a summary of the existing conditions peak flow rate calculations. Refer to Appendix A for existing conditions, map, and AES calculations.

Table 1 – Existing Conditions
Drainage
Area
Area (ac) Imperviousness
(%)
10-year, 24-hour
flow (cfs)
100-year, 24-hour
flow (cfs)
1 13.35 0 11.46 21.19
Total 13.35 0 11.46 21.19
Proposed Conditions
The project improvements include new multi-family apartment, utility improvements, parking areas, driveways redevelopment, and stormwater treatment and detention. Under proposed conditions, drainage patterns will mimic that of existing conditions and consist of six P a g e | 4
drainage areas. Areas 1-4 will sheet flow to proposed catch basins located just off the main drive aisle and be routed to the main storm drain line running East towards the proposed detention basin. Drainage area 5 will sheet flow to a proposed catch basin, tie into the main storm drain line and connect to the proposed detention vault system. Drainage areas 1-4 will follow very similar drainage patterns, before connecting with the eastmost drainage area 5 and the proposed detention vault system. Impervious percentages were calculated for each area; permeable pavement was included in calculations as pervious area. Table 2 includes a summary of the proposed conditions peak flow rate calculations.

Table 2 – Proposed Conditions
Drainage
Area
Area (ac) Imperviousness
(%)
10-year, 24-hour
flow (cfs)
100-year, 24-
hour flow (cfs)
1 3.00 80 6.46 10.75
2 3.25 80 6.55 10.91
3 1.19 80 2.57 4.27
4 1.75 80 3.76 6.26
5 4.16 80 7.96 13.24
Total 13.35 80 26.52 44.21
The total proposed runoff discharging to the existing outfall basin will exceed that of existing conditions, therefore detention is required. Hydrology maps and AES results for existing and proposed conditions are included in Appendix A.

Hydraulics
Detention System Calculations
In the proposed conditions, peak flows have increased, therefore the detention system will mitigate the peak flows to reflect that of the existing system. An Old Castle Storm Trap detention system or approved other is to be utilized onsite and will consist of 276 vaults measured at 7 ft x 15 ft x 7 ft internal dimensions. The system will be located along the northeastern edge of the site and hold 215,000 cubic feet of water. The detention system provided has been designed to mitigate storm events up to the 100-year storm. A hydromodification analysis was performed on the proposed system to ensure requirements were being met per the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan. Please refer to the project WQMP for hydromodification analysis.

P a g e | 5
A unit hydrograph was developed for the entire site using AES per the Manual. This hydrograph was then routed in Bentley's Pond Pack to the detention system. The detention system and outlet structure used in the Pond pack analysis corresponds to the same layout from the site's hydromodification Santa Margarita Region Hydrology Model. In order to mitigate peak flows to that of existing conditions, internal outlet structures have been designed. The outlet structure consists of an orifice located at the invert of the system with a diameter of 2.229 in, a riser at 6 ft above the invert with a diameter of 54 in, and a rectangular weir AES Unit Hydrograph and Pond pack results for the proposed detention system are included in Appendix C.

Conclusion
As a result of this preliminary hydrology and hydraulic analysis, the proposed Project demonstrates compliance with the sizing of the project infiltration system to the extent necessary to limit peak flows to level equal to, or less than predevelopment for the 100-year storm event. The final design will include calculations and hydraulic sizing of the on-site Project storm drain system catch basins, and energy dissipation devices.

Existing 10-
year, 24-hour
flow (cfs)
Proposed 10-
year, 24-hour
flow (cfs)
Mitigated 10-
year, 24-hour
flow (cfs)
Existing 100-
year, 24-hour
flow (cfs)
Proposed 100-
year, 24-hour
flow (cfs)
Mitigated 100-
year, 24-hour
flow (cfs)

11.46 26.52 0.2817 21.19 44.21 8.7647
LMC Murrieta Apartments
Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS

JEFFERSON AVE MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS

COLE CANYON-MURRIETA CREEK
LMC
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200 ALISO VIEGO, CA 92656
949.606.5536
JOB NO.: 194422001
DEVELOPER INFORMATIONAL BLOCK, AS IS, SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR CLIENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC LOGO. THIS DEVELOPER INFORMATIONAL BLOCK MUST BE REPLACED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BLOCK WHICH ALSO HOUSES THE CLIENT LOGO. IF THE CLIENT LOGO BLOCK HAS NOT BEEN CREATED YET, CONTACT YOUR DEPARTMENT'S AUTOCAD SUPPORT TEAM.

JEFFERSON AVE, MURRIETA, CA
©
DATE: 06-14-22

DRAINAGE AREAS SUMMARY
NORTH

PRELIMINARY H&H
EXISTING CONDITIONS FIG 1
LEGEND
Upstream Node Downstream Node Flow Type Code Upstream Elevation (ft) Downstream Elevation (ft) Length (ft) Path Slope (%) LU Soil Type Area (AC) DA 1 2 Sheetflow 1085.10 1071.10 1343.92 1.04% 9 C 13.35 A-1 Category Code Notes
Rainfall Intensity Data 1
Minimum Pipe Size 8 in
% Subarea Land Grad. 0.95
Subarea Runoff Coeff. 1
Confluence Analysis 1
Friction Factor 0.01
Topo Data Entry 1
Pipe Sizing Constraint 1
Runoff Coeff. Output 1
LMC Murrieta Apartments - AES Inputs - Existing Conditions Assumptions/Codes:
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2011 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 18.0)
Release Date: 07/01/2011 License ID 1499
Analysis prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
765 The City Drive
Suite 200
Orange, CA 92868
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * LMC Murrieta Apartments *
* 10 yr Existing Conditions *
* Kimley-Horn *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: LMCME.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:46 06/06/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.180
10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.040
100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.610
100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.710
SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.4130599
SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.4170282
COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA:

STORM EVENT = 10.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.050 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.4131
RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL

AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH FAIR COVER
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 1343.92
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1085.10
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1071.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 14.00
TC = 0.709*[( 1343.92**3)/( 14.00)]**.2 = 31.528
10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.370
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6262
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.46
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.35 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.46
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.4 TC(MIN.) = 31.53
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.46
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
765 The City Drive
Suite 200
Orange, CA 92868
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * LMC Murrieta Apartments *
* 100 yr Existing Conditions *
* Kimley-Horn *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: LMCME.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:43 06/06/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.180
10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.040
100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.610
100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.710
SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.4130599
SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.4170282
COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA:

STORM EVENT = 100.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.710 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.4170
RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH FAIR COVER
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 1343.92
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1085.10
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1071.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 14.00
TC = 0.709*[( 1343.92**3)/( 14.00)]**.2 = 31.528
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.236
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7099
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 21.19
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.35 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 21.19
============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.4 TC(MIN.) = 31.53
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.19
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

LMC Murrieta Apartments
Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
APPENDIX B: PROPOSED CONDITIONS
ELEC. MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD

JEFFERSON AVENUE

JEFFERSON AVE, MURRIETA, CA
©
DATE: 06-14-22

DRAINAGE AREAS SUMMARY
NORTH

PRELIMINARY H&H
PROPOSED CONDITIONS FIG 2
LEGEND

DISCHARGE POINT - PEAK FLOW RATES
Upstream Node Downstream Node Flow Type Code Upstream Elevation (ft) Downstream Elevation (ft) Length (ft) Path Slope (%) LU Soil Type Area (AC) DA 1 2 Sheetflow 2 1084.00 1080.70 277.4 1.19% 2 C 3.00 A-1 2 3 Pipe 3 1072.32 1071.12 238.95 0.50% 2 C 3.24 A-2
3 3 Confluence 1 of 2 1
4 5 Sheetflow 2 1082.60 1078.00 395.55 1.16% 2 C 3.24 A-2 5 3 Pipe 3 1071.36 1071.22 26.49 0.50% 2 C 3.24 A-2
3 3 Confluence 2 of 2 1
3 6 Pipe 3 1071.02 1070.25 153.67 0.50% 2 C 1.19 A-3
6 6 Confluence 1 of 2 1
7 8 Sheetflow 2 1080.40 1077.00 278.47 1.22% 2 C 1.19 A-3 8 6 Pipe 3 1070.43 1070.35 15.26 0.50% 2 C 1.19 A-3
6 6 Confluence 2 of 2 1
6 9 Pipe 3 1070.15 1069.24 183.83 0.50% 2 C 1.75 A-4
9 9 Confluence 1 of 2 1
10 11 Sheetflow 2 1078.70 1075.00 290.01 1.28% 2 C 1.75 A-4 11 9 Pipe 3 1069.58 1069.34 48.83 0.50% 2 C 1.75 A-4
9 9 Confluence 2 of 2 1
9 12 Pipe 3 1069.14 1067.75 277.15 0.50% 2 C 4.16 A-5
12 12 Confluence 1 of 2 1
13 14 Sheetflow 2 1077.10 1072.90 477.84 0.88% 2 C 4.16 A-5 14 12 Pipe 3 1067.98 1067.85 27.01 0.50% 2 C 4.16 A-5
12 12 Confluence 2 of 2 1
12 15 Pipe 3 1067.65 1065.00 529.95 0.50% 2 C 4.16 A-5
Category Code Notes
Rainfall Intensity Data 1
Minimum Pipe Size 8 in
% Subarea Land Grad. 0.95
Subarea Runoff Coeff. 1
Confluence Analysis 1
Friction Factor 0.013
Topo Data Entry 1
Pipe Sizing Constraint 1
Runoff Coeff. Output 1
LMC Murrieta Apartments - AES Inputs - Existing Conditions Assumptions/Codes:
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
765 The City Drive
Suite 200
Orange, CA 92868
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * LMC Murrieta Apartments *
* 10 yr Proposed Conditions *
* Kimley-Horn *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: LMCMP.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 07:58 05/27/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.180
10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.040
100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.610
100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.710
SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.4130599
SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.4170282
COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 277.40
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1084.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1080.70
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.30
TC = 0.323*[( 277.40**3)/( 3.30)]**.2 = 7.429
10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.489
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8651
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.46
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.46
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1072.32 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1071.12 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 238.95 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.75
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.46
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.69 Tc(MIN.) = 8.12
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 516.35 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.12
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.40
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.00
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.46
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 395.55
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1082.60
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1078.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.60
TC = 0.323*[( 395.55**3)/( 4.60)]**.2 = 8.601
10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.343
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8634
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.55
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1071.36 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1071.22 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 26.49 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.88
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.55
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 8.68
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 422.04 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.68
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.33
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.24
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.55
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 6.46 8.12 2.399 3.00
2 6.55 8.68 2.335 3.24
*********************************WARNING**********************************

IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW. **************************************************************************

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 12.60 8.12 2.399
2 12.84 8.68 2.335
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.84 Tc(MIN.) = 8.68
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 516.35 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1071.02 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1070.25 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 153.67 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.69
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.84
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.38 Tc(MIN.) = 9.06
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 670.02 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.06
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.29
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.24
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 12.84
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 278.47
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1080.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1077.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.40
TC = 0.323*[( 278.47**3)/( 3.40)]**.2 = 7.402
10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.493
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8651
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.57
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.19 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.57
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1070.43 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1070.35 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 15.26 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.61
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.57
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 Tc(MIN.) = 7.46
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 293.73 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.46
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.49
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.19
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.57
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 12.84 9.06 2.294 6.24
2 2.57 7.46 2.485 1.19
*********************************WARNING**********************************

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 13.14 7.46 2.485
2 15.21 9.06 2.294
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.21 Tc(MIN.) = 9.06
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.4
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 670.02 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1070.15 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1069.24 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 183.83 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.05
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 15.21
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.43 Tc(MIN.) = 9.49
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 9.00 = 853.85 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.49
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.25
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 7.43
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 15.21
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 290.01
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1078.70
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1075.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.70
TC = 0.323*[( 290.01**3)/( 3.70)]**.2 = 7.458
10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.485
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8650
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.76
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.75 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.76
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1069.58 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1069.34 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 48.83 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.98
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.76
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.16 Tc(MIN.) = 7.62
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 9.00 = 338.84 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.62
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.46
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.75
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.76
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 15.21 9.49 2.250 7.43
2 3.76 7.62 2.463 1.75
*********************************WARNING**********************************

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 15.97 7.62 2.463
2 18.65 9.49 2.250
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 18.65 Tc(MIN.) = 9.49
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 9.00 = 853.85 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1069.14 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1067.75 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 277.15 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.33
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 18.65
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.63 Tc(MIN.) = 10.12
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 1131.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.12
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.19
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.18
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 18.65
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 477.84
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1077.10
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1072.90
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.20
TC = 0.323*[( 477.84**3)/( 4.20)]**.2 = 9.811
10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.219
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8617
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.96
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.96
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1067.98 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1067.85 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 27.01 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.88
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.96
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 9.89
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 504.85 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.89
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.21
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.16
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.96
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 18.65 10.12 2.191 9.18
2 7.96 9.89 2.212 4.16
*********************************WARNING**********************************

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 26.17 9.89 2.212
2 26.52 10.12 2.191
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 26.52 Tc(MIN.) = 10.12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.3
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 1131.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1067.65 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1065.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 529.95 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 21.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.95
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 26.52
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.11 Tc(MIN.) = 11.24
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 15.00 = 1660.95 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.3 TC(MIN.) = 11.24
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 26.52
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
765 The City Drive
Suite 200
Orange, CA 92868
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * LMC Murrieta Apartments *
* 100 yr Proposed Conditions *
* Kimley-Horn *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: LMCMP.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:34 05/25/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.180
10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.040
100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.610
100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.710
SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.4130599
SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.4170282
COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 277.40
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1084.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1080.70
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.30
TC = 0.323*[( 277.40**3)/( 3.30)]**.2 = 7.429
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.086
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8770
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.75
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.75
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1072.32 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1071.12 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 238.95 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.50
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.75
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.61 Tc(MIN.) = 8.04
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 516.35 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.04
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.95
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.00
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.75
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 395.55
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1082.60
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1078.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.60
TC = 0.323*[( 395.55**3)/( 4.60)]**.2 = 8.601
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.844
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8757
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.91
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.91
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1071.36 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1071.22 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 26.49 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.65
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.91
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 8.67
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 422.04 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.67
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.83
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.24
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.91
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 10.75 8.04 3.953 3.00
2 10.91 8.67 3.832 3.24
*********************************WARNING**********************************

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 20.87 8.04 3.953
2 21.33 8.67 3.832
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.33 Tc(MIN.) = 8.67
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 516.35 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1071.02 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1070.25 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 153.67 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 17.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.70
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 21.33
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.33 Tc(MIN.) = 9.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 670.02 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.00
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.24
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 21.33
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 278.47
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1080.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1077.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.40
TC = 0.323*[( 278.47**3)/( 3.40)]**.2 = 7.402
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.092
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8770
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.19 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.27
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1070.43 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1070.35 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 15.26 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.26
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.27
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 7.45
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 293.73 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.45
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.08
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.19
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.27
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 21.33 9.00 3.772 6.24
2 4.27 7.45 4.081 1.19
*********************************WARNING**********************************

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 21.93 7.45 4.081
2 25.27 9.00 3.772
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.27 Tc(MIN.) = 9.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.4
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 670.02 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1070.15 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1069.24 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 183.83 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.87
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 25.27
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.39 Tc(MIN.) = 9.39
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 9.00 = 853.85 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.39
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.71
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 7.43
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 25.27
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 290.01
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1078.70
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1075.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.70
TC = 0.323*[( 290.01**3)/( 3.70)]**.2 = 7.458
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.080
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8770
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.26
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.75 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.26
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1069.58 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1069.34 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 48.83 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.66
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.26
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.14 Tc(MIN.) = 7.60
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 9.00 = 338.84 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.60
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.05
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.75
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.26
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 25.27 9.39 3.706 7.43
2 6.26 7.60 4.047 1.75
*********************************WARNING**********************************

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 26.72 7.60 4.047
2 31.01 9.39 3.706
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 31.01 Tc(MIN.) = 9.39
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 9.00 = 853.85 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1069.14 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1067.75 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 277.15 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 30.0 INCH PIPE IS 21.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.40
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 31.01
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.55 Tc(MIN.) = 9.94
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 1131.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.94
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.62
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.18
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 31.01
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 477.84
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1077.10
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1072.90
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.20
TC = 0.323*[( 477.84**3)/( 4.20)]**.2 = 9.811
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.639
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8746
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.24
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1067.98 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1067.85 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 27.01 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.59
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 13.24
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 9.88
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 504.85 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.88
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.63
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.16
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 13.24
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 31.01 9.94 3.619 9.18
2 13.24 9.88 3.628 4.16
*********************************WARNING**********************************

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 44.06 9.88 3.628
2 44.21 9.94 3.619
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 44.21 Tc(MIN.) = 9.94
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.3
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 1131.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1067.65 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1065.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 529.95 MANNING'S N = 0.010
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 25.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.06
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 44.21
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.97 Tc(MIN.) = 10.91
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 15.00 = 1660.95 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.3 TC(MIN.) = 10.91
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 44.21
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

LMC Murrieta Apartments
Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
APPENDIX C: DETENTION CALCULATIONS
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

F L O O D R O U T I N G A N A L Y S I S

ACCORDING TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTORL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1989-2011 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Version 18.0)
Release Date: 05/01/2011 License ID 1499
Analysis prepared by:

************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * LMC Murrieta Apartments *
* Unit Hydrograph - 10 yr, 24 hr *
* Drainage Area 1 *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: LMCMPHG.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 19:03 09/20/2022
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>SUBAREA RUNOFF (UNIT-HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS)<<<<<
============================================================================ (UNIT-HYDROGRAPH ADDED TO STREAM #1)
WATERSHED AREA = 13.350 ACRES
BASEFLOW = 0.000 CFS/SQUARE-MILE
*USER ENTERED "LAG" TIME = 0.150 HOURS
CAUTION: LAG TIME IS LESS THAN 0.50 HOURS.

THE 5-MINUTE PERIOD UH MODEL (USED IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM) MAY BE TOO LARGE FOR PEAK FLOW ESTIMATES.

VALLEY S-GRAPH SELECTED
UNIFORM MEAN SOIL-LOSS(INCH/HOUR) = 0.110
LOW SOIL-LOSS RATE PERCENT(DECIMAL) = 0.500
MINIMUM SOIL-LOSS RATE(INCH/HOUR) = 0.050
USER-ENTERED RAINFALL = 4.63 INCHES
RCFC&WCD 24-Hour Storm (15-Minute period) SELECTED
*USER SPECIFIED PRECIPITATION DEPTH-AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = 0.9900 UNIT HYDROGRAPH TIME UNIT = 15.000 MINUTES
UNIT INTERVAL PERCENTAGE OF LAG-TIME = 166.667
============================================================================

UNIT HYDROGRAPH DETERMINATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERVAL "S" GRAPH UNIT HYDROGRAPH

NUMBER MEAN VALUES ORDINATES(CFS)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 36.829 19.820
2 82.779 24.729
3 92.971 5.485
4 97.347 2.355
5 98.994 0.886
6 99.522 0.284
7 99.809 0.154
8 99.952 0.077
9 100.000 0.026

****************************************************************************

UNIT UNIT UNIT EFFECTIVE

PERIOD RAINFALL SOIL-LOSS RAINFALL
(NUMBER) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
2 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
3 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
4 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
5 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
6 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
7 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
8 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
9 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
10 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
11 0.0229 0.0115 0.0115
12 0.0229 0.0115 0.0115
13 0.0229 0.0115 0.0115
14 0.0229 0.0115 0.0115
15 0.0229 0.0115 0.0115
16 0.0275 0.0138 0.0138
17 0.0275 0.0138 0.0138
18 0.0321 0.0160 0.0160
19 0.0321 0.0160 0.0160
20 0.0367 0.0183 0.0183
21 0.0275 0.0138 0.0138
22 0.0321 0.0160 0.0160
23 0.0367 0.0183 0.0183
24 0.0367 0.0183 0.0183
25 0.0413 0.0206 0.0206
26 0.0413 0.0206 0.0206
27 0.0458 0.0229 0.0229
28 0.0458 0.0229 0.0229
29 0.0458 0.0229 0.0229
30 0.0504 0.0252 0.0252
31 0.0550 0.0275 0.0275
32 0.0596 0.0298 0.0298
33 0.0688 0.0327 0.0361
34 0.0688 0.0322 0.0366
35 0.0733 0.0317 0.0416
36 0.0779 0.0312 0.0467
37 0.0871 0.0307 0.0564
38 0.0917 0.0303 0.0614
39 0.0963 0.0298 0.0665
40 0.1008 0.0293 0.0715
41 0.0688 0.0289 0.0399
42 0.0688 0.0284 0.0403
43 0.0917 0.0280 0.0637
44 0.0917 0.0275 0.0642
45 0.0871 0.0271 0.0600
46 0.0871 0.0266 0.0604
47 0.0779 0.0262 0.0517
48 0.0825 0.0258 0.0567
49 0.1146 0.0254 0.0892
50 0.1192 0.0249 0.0942
51 0.1283 0.0245 0.1038
52 0.1329 0.0241 0.1088
53 0.1558 0.0237 0.1321
54 0.1558 0.0233 0.1325
55 0.1054 0.0229 0.0825
56 0.1054 0.0225 0.0829
57 0.1238 0.0222 0.1016
58 0.1192 0.0218 0.0974
59 0.1192 0.0214 0.0978
60 0.1146 0.0211 0.0935
61 0.1100 0.0207 0.0893
62 0.1054 0.0203 0.0851
63 0.0871 0.0200 0.0671
64 0.0871 0.0196 0.0674
65 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
66 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
67 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
68 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
69 0.0229 0.0115 0.0115
70 0.0229 0.0115 0.0115
71 0.0229 0.0115 0.0115
72 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
73 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
74 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
75 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
76 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
77 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
78 0.0183 0.0092 0.0092
79 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
80 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
81 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
82 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
83 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
84 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
85 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
86 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
87 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
88 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
89 0.0138 0.0069 0.0069
90 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
91 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
92 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
93 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
94 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
95 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
96 0.0092 0.0046 0.0046
TOTAL STORM RAINFALL(INCHES) = 4.58
TOTAL SOIL-LOSS(INCHES) = 1.51
TOTAL EFFECTIVE RAINFALL(INCHES) = 3.07
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 1.6853
TOTAL STORM RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 3.4123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================================ 2 4 - H O U R S T O R M

R U N O F F H Y D R O G R A P H
============================================================================

HYDROGRAPH IN FIVE-MINUTE UNIT INTERVALS(CFS)
(Note: Time indicated is at END of Each Unit Intervals) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME(HRS) VOLUME(AF) Q(CFS) 0. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

0.083 0.0006 0.09 Q . . . .

0.167 0.0013 0.09 Q . . . .

0.250 0.0019 0.09 Q . . . .

0.333 0.0036 0.25 Q . . . .

0.417 0.0053 0.25 Q . . . .

0.500 0.0070 0.25 Q . . . .

0.583 0.0093 0.33 VQ . . . .

0.667 0.0116 0.33 VQ . . . .

0.750 0.0139 0.33 VQ . . . .

0.833 0.0166 0.40 VQ . . . .

0.917 0.0194 0.40 VQ . . . .

1.000 0.0222 0.40 VQ . . . .

1.083 0.0251 0.42 VQ . . . .

1.167 0.0280 0.42 VQ . . . .

1.250 0.0308 0.42 VQ . . . .

1.333 0.0335 0.38 VQ . . . .

1.417 0.0361 0.38 VQ . . . .

1.500 0.0387 0.38 VQ . . . .

1.583 0.0413 0.37 VQ . . . .

1.667 0.0439 0.37 VQ . . . .

1.750 0.0464 0.37 VQ . . . .

1.833 0.0493 0.42 VQ . . . .

1.917 0.0522 0.42 VQ . . . .

2.000 0.0551 0.42 VQ . . . .

2.083 0.0583 0.47 VQ . . . .

2.167 0.0616 0.47 VQ . . . .

2.250 0.0648 0.47 VQ . . . .

2.333 0.0682 0.49 VQ . . . .

2.417 0.0715 0.49 VQ . . . .

2.500 0.0748 0.49 VQ . . . .

2.583 0.0785 0.54 V Q . . . .

2.667 0.0822 0.54 V Q . . . .

2.750 0.0859 0.54 VQ . . . .

2.833 0.0900 0.59 .VQ . . . .

2.917 0.0941 0.59 .VQ . . . .

3.000 0.0982 0.59 .VQ . . . .

3.083 0.1024 0.61 .VQ . . . .

3.167 0.1066 0.61 .VQ . . . .

3.250 0.1107 0.61 .VQ . . . .

3.333 0.1150 0.61 .VQ . . . .

3.417 0.1192 0.61 .VQ . . . .

3.500 0.1234 0.61 .VQ . . . .

3.583 0.1277 0.62 .VQ . . . .

3.667 0.1319 0.62 .VQ . . . .

3.750 0.1361 0.62 .VQ . . . .

3.833 0.1407 0.66 .VQ . . . .

3.917 0.1452 0.66 .VQ . . . .

4.000 0.1498 0.66 .VQ . . . .

4.083 0.1547 0.72 .VQ . . . .

4.167 0.1597 0.72 .VQ . . . .

4.250 0.1646 0.72 .VQ . . . .

4.333 0.1700 0.78 .V Q . . . .

4.417 0.1753 0.78 . VQ . . . .

4.500 0.1807 0.78 . VQ . . . .

4.583 0.1865 0.84 . VQ . . . .

4.667 0.1922 0.84 . VQ . . . .

4.750 0.1980 0.84 . VQ . . . .

4.833 0.2042 0.90 . VQ . . . .

4.917 0.2104 0.90 . VQ . . . .

5.000 0.2166 0.90 . VQ . . . .

5.083 0.2226 0.87 . VQ . . . .

5.167 0.2286 0.87 . VQ . . . .

5.250 0.2346 0.87 . VQ . . . .

5.333 0.2402 0.82 . VQ . . . .

5.417 0.2459 0.82 . VQ . . . .

5.500 0.2515 0.82 . VQ . . . .

5.583 0.2577 0.90 . Q . . . .

5.667 0.2639 0.90 . Q . . . .

5.750 0.2701 0.90 . Q . . . .

5.833 0.2767 0.96 . Q . . . .

5.917 0.2833 0.96 . Q . . . .

6.000 0.2900 0.96 . Q . . . .

6.083 0.2970 1.02 . VQ . . . .

6.167 0.3040 1.02 . VQ . . . .

6.250 0.3111 1.02 . VQ . . . .

6.333 0.3186 1.09 . VQ . . . .

6.417 0.3260 1.09 . VQ . . . .

6.500 0.3335 1.09 . VQ . . . .

6.583 0.3414 1.15 . Q . . . .

6.667 0.3493 1.15 . Q . . . .

6.750 0.3572 1.15 . Q . . . .

6.833 0.3655 1.21 . Q . . . .

6.917 0.3738 1.21 . Q . . . .

7.000 0.3821 1.21 . Q . . . .

7.083 0.3906 1.22 . Q . . . .

7.167 0.3990 1.22 . Q . . . .

7.250 0.4074 1.22 . Q . . . .

7.333 0.4162 1.27 . VQ . . . .

7.417 0.4250 1.27 . VQ . . . .

7.500 0.4338 1.27 . Q . . . .

7.583 0.4433 1.38 . Q . . . .

7.667 0.4528 1.38 . Q . . . .

7.750 0.4623 1.38 . Q . . . .

7.833 0.4726 1.49 . Q . . . .

7.917 0.4828 1.49 . Q . . . .

8.000 0.4931 1.49 . Q . . . .

8.083 0.5048 1.69 . VQ . . . .

8.167 0.5165 1.69 . Q . . . .

8.250 0.5282 1.69 . Q . . . .

8.333 0.5411 1.88 . VQ . . . .

8.417 0.5540 1.88 . VQ . . . .

8.500 0.5670 1.88 . VQ . . . .

8.583 0.5810 2.04 . V Q . . . .

8.667 0.5950 2.04 . V Q . . . .

8.750 0.6090 2.04 . VQ . . . .

8.833 0.6248 2.28 . V Q. . . .

8.917 0.6405 2.28 . V Q. . . .

9.000 0.6562 2.28 . V Q. . . .

9.083 0.6743 2.63 . V Q . . .

9.167 0.6925 2.63 . V Q . . .

9.250 0.7106 2.63 . V Q . . .

9.333 0.7314 3.01 . V . Q . . .

9.417 0.7521 3.01 . V . Q . . .

9.500 0.7729 3.01 . V. Q . . .

9.583 0.7957 3.31 . V. Q . . .

9.667 0.8185 3.31 . V. Q . . .

9.750 0.8413 3.31 . V. Q . . .

9.833 0.8660 3.59 . V Q . . .

9.917 0.8908 3.59 . V Q . . .

10.000 0.9155 3.59 . V Q . . .

10.083 0.9372 3.14 . V Q . . .

10.167 0.9588 3.14 . VQ . . .

10.250 0.9804 3.14 . VQ . . .

10.333 0.9971 2.42 . Q.V . . .

10.417 1.0137 2.42 . Q.V . . .

10.500 1.0304 2.42 . Q. V . . .

10.583 1.0492 2.74 . Q V . . .

10.667 1.0681 2.74 . Q V . . .

10.750 1.0869 2.74 . Q V . . .

10.833 1.1093 3.26 . . Q . . .

10.917 1.1318 3.26 . . Q . . .

11.000 1.1542 3.26 . . Q . . .

11.083 1.1769 3.29 . . Q . . .

11.167 1.1996 3.29 . . QV . . .

11.250 1.2223 3.29 . . QV . . .

11.333 1.2446 3.25 . . Q V . . .

11.417 1.2670 3.25 . . Q V . . .

11.500 1.2894 3.25 . . Q V . . .

11.583 1.3106 3.08 . . Q V . . .

11.667 1.3318 3.08 . . Q V . . .

11.750 1.3531 3.08 . . Q V . . .

11.833 1.3735 2.96 . .Q V . . .

11.917 1.3938 2.96 . .Q V . . .

12.000 1.4142 2.96 . .Q V . . .

12.083 1.4396 3.68 . . Q V . . .

12.167 1.4650 3.68 . . Q V . . .

12.250 1.4903 3.68 . . Q V . . .

12.333 1.5220 4.59 . . VQ . . .

12.417 1.5536 4.59 . . Q . . .

12.500 1.5852 4.59 . . Q . . .

12.583 1.6203 5.09 . . V Q . .

12.667 1.6553 5.09 . . VQ . .

12.750 1.6904 5.09 . . VQ . .

12.833 1.7285 5.53 . . V Q . .

12.917 1.7666 5.53 . . V Q . .

13.000 1.8047 5.53 . . VQ . .

13.083 1.8474 6.21 . . .V Q . .

13.167 1.8902 6.21 . . . V Q . .

13.250 1.9330 6.21 . . . V Q . .

13.333 1.9802 6.86 . . . V Q . .

13.417 2.0274 6.86 . . . V Q . .

13.500 2.0747 6.86 . . . V Q . .

13.583 2.1162 6.03 . . . Q . .

13.667 2.1578 6.03 . . . QV . .

13.750 2.1993 6.03 . . . QV . .

13.833 2.2328 4.87 . . Q. V . .

13.917 2.2664 4.87 . . Q. V . .

14.000 2.2999 4.87 . . Q. V . .

14.083 2.3343 5.00 . . Q V . .

14.167 2.3688 5.00 . . Q V . .

14.250 2.4032 5.00 . . Q V . .

14.333 2.4396 5.27 . . .Q V . .

14.417 2.4759 5.27 . . .Q V. .

14.500 2.5122 5.27 . . .Q V. .

14.583 2.5483 5.24 . . Q V. .

14.667 2.5844 5.24 . . Q V .

14.750 2.6205 5.24 . . Q V .

14.833 2.6561 5.18 . . Q .V .

14.917 2.6918 5.18 . . Q .V .

15.000 2.7274 5.18 . . Q .V .

15.083 2.7618 4.99 . . Q. . V .

15.167 2.7961 4.99 . . Q. . V .

15.250 2.8305 4.99 . . Q. . V .

15.333 2.8634 4.78 . . Q. . V .

15.417 2.8963 4.78 . . Q. . V .

15.500 2.9292 4.78 . . Q. . V .

15.583 2.9587 4.28 . . Q . . V .

15.667 2.9882 4.28 . . Q . . V .

15.750 3.0176 4.28 . . Q . . V .

15.833 3.0439 3.81 . . Q . . V .

15.917 3.0701 3.81 . . Q . . V .

16.000 3.0963 3.81 . . Q . . V .

16.083 3.1139 2.55 . Q . . V .

16.167 3.1315 2.55 . Q . . V .

16.250 3.1490 2.55 . Q . . V .

16.333 3.1563 1.06 . Q . . . V .

16.417 3.1636 1.06 . Q . . . V .

16.500 3.1709 1.06 . Q . . . V .

16.583 3.1756 0.68 . Q . . . V .

16.667 3.1803 0.68 . Q . . . V .

16.750 3.1850 0.68 . Q . . . V .

16.833 3.1883 0.48 .Q . . . V .

16.917 3.1916 0.48 .Q . . . V .

17.000 3.1949 0.48 .Q . . . V .

17.083 3.1984 0.50 . Q . . . V .

17.167 3.2018 0.50 . Q . . . V .

17.250 3.2053 0.50 . Q . . . V .

17.333 3.2094 0.59 . Q . . . V .

17.417 3.2134 0.59 . Q . . . V .

17.500 3.2175 0.59 . Q . . . V .

17.583 3.2217 0.61 . Q . . . V .

17.667 3.2259 0.61 . Q . . . V .

17.750 3.2301 0.61 . Q . . . V .

17.833 3.2340 0.57 . Q . . . V .

17.917 3.2379 0.57 . Q . . . V .

18.000 3.2418 0.57 . Q . . . V .

18.083 3.2453 0.51 . Q . . . V .

18.167 3.2488 0.51 . Q . . . V .

18.250 3.2524 0.51 . Q . . . V .

18.333 3.2558 0.50 . Q . . . V .

18.417 3.2593 0.50 . Q . . . V .

18.500 3.2627 0.50 . Q . . . V .

18.583 3.2658 0.45 .Q . . . V .

18.667 3.2689 0.45 .Q . . . V .

18.750 3.2720 0.45 .Q . . . V .

18.833 3.2744 0.35 .Q . . . V .

18.917 3.2768 0.35 .Q . . . V .

19.000 3.2792 0.35 .Q . . . V .

19.083 3.2814 0.32 .Q . . . V .

19.167 3.2836 0.32 .Q . . . V .

19.250 3.2859 0.32 .Q . . . V .

19.333 3.2887 0.41 .Q . . . V .

19.417 3.2915 0.41 .Q . . . V .

19.500 3.2943 0.41 .Q . . . V .

19.583 3.2972 0.42 .Q . . . V .

19.667 3.3001 0.42 .Q . . . V .

19.750 3.3030 0.42 .Q . . . V .

19.833 3.3053 0.34 .Q . . . V .

19.917 3.3076 0.34 .Q . . . V .

20.000 3.3099 0.34 .Q . . . V .

20.083 3.3121 0.32 .Q . . . V .

20.167 3.3143 0.32 .Q . . . V .

20.250 3.3165 0.32 .Q . . . V .

20.333 3.3190 0.36 .Q . . . V .

20.417 3.3214 0.36 .Q . . . V .

20.500 3.3239 0.36 .Q . . . V .

20.583 3.3264 0.37 .Q . . . V .

20.667 3.3289 0.37 .Q . . . V.

20.750 3.3315 0.37 .Q . . . V.

20.833 3.3337 0.32 .Q . . . V.

20.917 3.3359 0.32 .Q . . . V.

21.000 3.3381 0.32 .Q . . . V.

21.083 3.3403 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.167 3.3424 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.250 3.3446 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.333 3.3467 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.417 3.3489 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.500 3.3510 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.583 3.3532 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.667 3.3553 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.750 3.3574 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.833 3.3595 0.31 .Q . . . V.

21.917 3.3617 0.31 .Q . . . V.

22.000 3.3638 0.31 .Q . . . V.

22.083 3.3659 0.31 .Q . . . V.

22.167 3.3680 0.31 .Q . . . V.

22.250 3.3701 0.31 .Q . . . V.

22.333 3.3723 0.31 .Q . . . V.

22.417 3.3744 0.31 .Q . . . V.

22.500 3.3765 0.31 .Q . . . V.

22.583 3.3783 0.26 .Q . . . V.

22.667 3.3801 0.26 .Q . . . V.

22.750 3.3820 0.26 .Q . . . V.

22.833 3.3837 0.25 .Q . . . V.

22.917 3.3854 0.25 .Q . . . V.

23.000 3.3872 0.25 .Q . . . V.

23.083 3.3889 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.166 3.3906 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.250 3.3923 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.333 3.3940 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.416 3.3957 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.500 3.3974 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.583 3.3991 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.666 3.4008 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.750 3.4025 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.833 3.4042 0.25 Q . . . V.

23.916 3.4059 0.25 Q . . . V.

24.000 3.4076 0.25 Q . . . V.

24.083 3.4087 0.16 Q . . . V.

24.166 3.4098 0.16 Q . . . V.

24.250 3.4109 0.16 Q . . . V.

24.333 3.4112 0.04 Q . . . V.

24.416 3.4114 0.04 Q . . . V.

24.500 3.4117 0.04 Q . . . V.

24.583 3.4119 0.02 Q . . . V.

24.666 3.4120 0.02 Q . . . V.

24.750 3.4121 0.02 Q . . . V.

24.833 3.4121 0.01 Q . . . V.

24.916 3.4122 0.01 Q . . . V.

25.000 3.4122 0.01 Q . . . V.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE:
(Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have
an instantaneous time duration)
Percentile of Estimated Duration
Peak Flow Rate (minutes)
======================= =========
0% 1500.0
10% 750.0
20% 525.0
30% 450.0
40% 375.0
50% 255.0
60% 210.0
70% 165.0
80% 60.0
90% 30.0
============================================================================ END OF FLOODSCx ROUTING ANALYSIS
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

F L O O D R O U T I N G A N A L Y S I S

************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * LMC Murrieta Apartments *
* Unit Hydrograph - 100-yr, 1-hr *
* Drainage Area 1 *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: LMCMPHG.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:25 05/26/2022
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>SUBAREA RUNOFF (UNIT-HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS)<<<<<
============================================================================ (UNIT-HYDROGRAPH ADDED TO STREAM #1)
WATERSHED AREA = 13.350 ACRES
BASEFLOW = 0.000 CFS/SQUARE-MILE
*USER ENTERED "LAG" TIME = 0.150 HOURS
CAUTION: LAG TIME IS LESS THAN 0.50 HOURS.

THE 5-MINUTE PERIOD UH MODEL (USED IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM) MAY BE TOO LARGE FOR PEAK FLOW ESTIMATES.

VALLEY S-GRAPH SELECTED
UNIFORM MEAN SOIL-LOSS(INCH/HOUR) = 0.100
LOW SOIL-LOSS RATE PERCENT(DECIMAL) = 0.500
USER-ENTERED RAINFALL = 1.71 INCHES
RCFC&WCD 1-Hour Storm (5-Minute period) SELECTED
(SLOPE OF INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE = 0.42)
*USER SPECIFIED PRECIPITATION DEPTH-AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = 0.9900 UNIT HYDROGRAPH TIME UNIT = 5.000 MINUTES
UNIT INTERVAL PERCENTAGE OF LAG-TIME = 55.556
============================================================================

UNIT HYDROGRAPH DETERMINATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERVAL "S" GRAPH UNIT HYDROGRAPH

NUMBER MEAN VALUES ORDINATES(CFS)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 7.039 11.364
2 37.811 49.682
3 65.637 44.925
4 77.088 18.488
5 83.494 10.343
6 87.755 6.880
7 90.831 4.966
8 93.134 3.718
9 94.948 2.927
10 96.378 2.310
11 97.463 1.751
12 98.200 1.191
13 98.599 0.643
14 98.998 0.644
15 99.385 0.625
16 99.754 0.596
17 99.938 0.298
18 100.000 0.099

****************************************************************************

UNIT UNIT UNIT EFFECTIVE

PERIOD RAINFALL SOIL-LOSS RAINFALL
(NUMBER) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.0844 0.0083 0.0760
2 0.0885 0.0083 0.0801
3 0.0933 0.0083 0.0849
4 0.1015 0.0083 0.0932
5 0.1063 0.0083 0.0980
6 0.1190 0.0083 0.1106
7 0.1366 0.0083 0.1282
8 0.1483 0.0083 0.1400
9 0.2113 0.0083 0.2029
10 0.3844 0.0083 0.3760
11 0.1275 0.0083 0.1192
12 0.0919 0.0083 0.0836
TOTAL STORM RAINFALL(INCHES) = 1.69
TOTAL SOIL-LOSS(INCHES) = 0.10
TOTAL EFFECTIVE RAINFALL(INCHES) = 1.59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.1113
TOTAL STORM RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 1.7712
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================================ 1 - H O U R S T O R M

R U N O F F H Y D R O G R A P H
============================================================================

HYDROGRAPH IN FIVE-MINUTE UNIT INTERVALS(CFS)
(Note: Time indicated is at END of Each Unit Intervals) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME(HRS) VOLUME(AF) Q(CFS) 0. 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

0.083 0.0060 0.86 Q . . . .

0.167 0.0382 4.69 V Q . . . .

0.250 0.0958 8.36 . V Q . . . .

0.333 0.1667 10.28 . V Q . . .

0.417 0.2481 11.83 . V .Q . . .

0.500 0.3393 13.24 . V . Q . . .

0.583 0.4418 14.89 . V. Q . . .

0.667 0.5587 16.97 . . V Q . . .

0.750 0.6941 19.66 . . V Q. . .

0.833 0.8733 26.02 . . V. Q . .

0.917 1.1160 35.23 . . . V . Q .

1.000 1.3326 31.46 . . . VQ .

1.083 1.4798 21.37 . . .Q . V .

1.167 1.5716 13.33 . . Q . . V .

1.250 1.6264 7.96 . Q . . . V .

1.333 1.6645 5.53 . Q . . . V .

1.417 1.6927 4.09 . Q . . . V .

1.500 1.7140 3.10 . Q . . . V .

1.583 1.7302 2.35 . Q . . . V.

1.667 1.7423 1.76 .Q . . . V.

1.750 1.7510 1.25 .Q . . . V.

1.833 1.7569 0.87 Q . . . V.

1.917 1.7616 0.68 Q . . . V.

2.000 1.7653 0.54 Q . . . V.

2.083 1.7683 0.43 Q . . . V.

2.167 1.7700 0.26 Q . . . V.

2.250 1.7709 0.12 Q . . . V.

2.333 1.7711 0.04 Q . . . V.

2.417 1.7712 0.01 Q . . . V.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE:
(Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have
an instantaneous time duration)
Percentile of Estimated Duration
Peak Flow Rate (minutes)
======================= =========
0% 145.0
10% 80.0
20% 65.0
30% 50.0
40% 35.0
50% 25.0
60% 20.0
70% 15.0
80% 10.0
90% 5.0
============================================================================ END OF FLOODSCx ROUTING ANALYSIS
____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

F L O O D R O U T I N G A N A L Y S I S

**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>SUBAREA RUNOFF (UNIT-HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS)<<<<<
============================================================================ (UNIT-HYDROGRAPH ADDED TO STREAM #1)
WATERSHED AREA = 13.350 ACRES
BASEFLOW = 0.000 CFS/SQUARE-MILE
*USER ENTERED "LAG" TIME = 0.150 HOURS
CAUTION: LAG TIME IS LESS THAN 0.50 HOURS.

THE 5-MINUTE PERIOD UH MODEL (USED IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM) MAY BE TOO LARGE FOR PEAK FLOW ESTIMATES.

VALLEY S-GRAPH SELECTED
UNIFORM MEAN SOIL-LOSS(INCH/HOUR) = 0.100
LOW SOIL-LOSS RATE PERCENT(DECIMAL) = 0.500
MINIMUM SOIL-LOSS RATE(INCH/HOUR) = 0.050
USER-ENTERED RAINFALL = 7.37 INCHES
RCFC&WCD 24-Hour Storm (15-Minute period) SELECTED
*USER SPECIFIED PRECIPITATION DEPTH-AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = 0.9900 UNIT HYDROGRAPH TIME UNIT = 15.000 MINUTES
UNIT INTERVAL PERCENTAGE OF LAG-TIME = 166.667
============================================================================

UNIT HYDROGRAPH DETERMINATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERVAL "S" GRAPH UNIT HYDROGRAPH

****************************************************************************

UNIT UNIT UNIT EFFECTIVE

PERIOD RAINFALL SOIL-LOSS RAINFALL
(NUMBER) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
2 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
3 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
4 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
5 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
6 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
7 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
8 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
9 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
10 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
11 0.0365 0.0182 0.0182
12 0.0365 0.0182 0.0182
13 0.0365 0.0182 0.0182
14 0.0365 0.0182 0.0182
15 0.0365 0.0182 0.0182
16 0.0438 0.0219 0.0219
17 0.0438 0.0219 0.0219
18 0.0511 0.0255 0.0255
19 0.0511 0.0255 0.0255
20 0.0584 0.0292 0.0292
21 0.0438 0.0219 0.0219
22 0.0511 0.0255 0.0255
23 0.0584 0.0292 0.0292
24 0.0584 0.0292 0.0292
25 0.0657 0.0327 0.0330
26 0.0657 0.0323 0.0334
27 0.0730 0.0318 0.0411
28 0.0730 0.0314 0.0416
29 0.0730 0.0310 0.0420
30 0.0803 0.0306 0.0497
31 0.0876 0.0301 0.0574
32 0.0949 0.0297 0.0651
33 0.1094 0.0293 0.0801
34 0.1094 0.0289 0.0805
35 0.1167 0.0285 0.0882
36 0.1240 0.0281 0.0959
37 0.1386 0.0277 0.1109
38 0.1459 0.0273 0.1186
39 0.1532 0.0269 0.1263
40 0.1605 0.0265 0.1340
41 0.1094 0.0261 0.0833
42 0.1094 0.0258 0.0837
43 0.1459 0.0254 0.1205
44 0.1459 0.0250 0.1209
45 0.1386 0.0247 0.1140
46 0.1386 0.0243 0.1143
47 0.1240 0.0239 0.1001
48 0.1313 0.0236 0.1078
49 0.1824 0.0232 0.1592
50 0.1897 0.0229 0.1668
51 0.2043 0.0225 0.1818
52 0.2116 0.0222 0.1894
53 0.2481 0.0219 0.2262
54 0.2481 0.0215 0.2266
55 0.1678 0.0212 0.1466
56 0.1678 0.0209 0.1469
57 0.1970 0.0206 0.1764
58 0.1897 0.0202 0.1695
59 0.1897 0.0199 0.1698
60 0.1824 0.0196 0.1628
61 0.1751 0.0193 0.1558
62 0.1678 0.0190 0.1488
63 0.1386 0.0187 0.1199
64 0.1386 0.0185 0.1202
65 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
66 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
67 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
68 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
69 0.0365 0.0171 0.0194
70 0.0365 0.0168 0.0196
71 0.0365 0.0166 0.0199
72 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
73 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
74 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
75 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
76 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
77 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
78 0.0292 0.0146 0.0146
79 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
80 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
81 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
82 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
83 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
84 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
85 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
86 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
87 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
88 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
89 0.0219 0.0109 0.0109
90 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
91 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
92 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
93 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
94 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
95 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
96 0.0146 0.0073 0.0073
TOTAL STORM RAINFALL(INCHES) = 7.30
TOTAL SOIL-LOSS(INCHES) = 1.79
TOTAL EFFECTIVE RAINFALL(INCHES) = 5.51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 1.9928
TOTAL STORM RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 6.1212
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================================ 2 4 - H O U R S T O R M

R U N O F F H Y D R O G R A P H
============================================================================

HYDROGRAPH IN FIVE-MINUTE UNIT INTERVALS(CFS)
(Note: Time indicated is at END of Each Unit Intervals) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME(HRS) VOLUME(AF) Q(CFS) 0. 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

0.083 0.0010 0.14 Q . . . .

0.167 0.0020 0.14 Q . . . .

0.250 0.0030 0.14 Q . . . .

0.333 0.0057 0.40 Q . . . .

0.417 0.0085 0.40 Q . . . .

0.500 0.0112 0.40 Q . . . .

0.583 0.0148 0.53 VQ . . . .

0.667 0.0185 0.53 VQ . . . .

0.750 0.0221 0.53 VQ . . . .

0.833 0.0265 0.64 VQ . . . .

0.917 0.0309 0.64 VQ . . . .

1.000 0.0353 0.64 VQ . . . .

1.083 0.0399 0.67 VQ . . . .

1.167 0.0445 0.67 VQ . . . .

1.250 0.0491 0.67 VQ . . . .

1.333 0.0533 0.61 VQ . . . .

1.417 0.0574 0.61 VQ . . . .

1.500 0.0616 0.61 VQ . . . .

1.583 0.0657 0.60 VQ . . . .

1.667 0.0698 0.60 VQ . . . .

1.750 0.0739 0.60 VQ . . . .

1.833 0.0785 0.66 VQ . . . .

1.917 0.0831 0.66 VQ . . . .

2.000 0.0876 0.66 VQ . . . .

2.083 0.0928 0.75 VQ . . . .

2.167 0.0980 0.75 VQ . . . .

2.250 0.1032 0.75 VQ . . . .

2.333 0.1085 0.77 VQ . . . .

2.417 0.1138 0.77 VQ . . . .

2.500 0.1191 0.77 VQ . . . .

2.583 0.1250 0.85 VQ . . . .

2.667 0.1309 0.85 VQ . . . .

2.750 0.1368 0.85 VQ . . . .

2.833 0.1433 0.95 VQ . . . .

2.917 0.1498 0.95 VQ . . . .

3.000 0.1563 0.95 Q . . . .

3.083 0.1630 0.97 .Q . . . .

3.167 0.1696 0.97 .Q . . . .

3.250 0.1763 0.97 .Q . . . .

3.333 0.1830 0.98 .Q . . . .

3.417 0.1897 0.98 .Q . . . .

3.500 0.1964 0.98 .Q . . . .

3.583 0.2032 0.98 .Q . . . .

3.667 0.2099 0.98 .Q . . . .

3.750 0.2167 0.98 .Q . . . .

3.833 0.2239 1.05 .VQ . . . .

3.917 0.2312 1.05 .VQ . . . .

4.000 0.2384 1.05 .VQ . . . .

4.083 0.2463 1.14 .VQ . . . .

4.167 0.2542 1.14 .VQ . . . .

4.250 0.2621 1.14 .VQ . . . .

4.333 0.2706 1.24 .VQ . . . .

4.417 0.2791 1.24 .VQ . . . .

4.500 0.2876 1.24 .VQ . . . .

4.583 0.2968 1.34 .VQ . . . .

4.667 0.3060 1.34 .VQ . . . .

4.750 0.3152 1.34 . Q . . . .

4.833 0.3251 1.43 . Q . . . .

4.917 0.3349 1.43 . Q . . . .

5.000 0.3448 1.43 . Q . . . .

5.083 0.3543 1.39 . Q . . . .

5.167 0.3639 1.39 . Q . . . .

5.250 0.3734 1.39 . Q . . . .

5.333 0.3824 1.30 . Q . . . .

5.417 0.3913 1.30 . Q . . . .

5.500 0.4003 1.30 . Q . . . .

5.583 0.4102 1.43 . Q . . . .

5.667 0.4201 1.43 . Q . . . .

5.750 0.4299 1.43 . Q . . . .

5.833 0.4405 1.53 . VQ . . . .

5.917 0.4510 1.53 . VQ . . . .

6.000 0.4616 1.53 . Q . . . .

6.083 0.4728 1.63 . Q . . . .

6.167 0.4840 1.63 . Q . . . .

6.250 0.4952 1.63 . Q . . . .

6.333 0.5072 1.74 . Q . . . .

6.417 0.5192 1.74 . Q . . . .

6.500 0.5312 1.74 . Q . . . .

6.583 0.5445 1.93 . Q . . . .

6.667 0.5578 1.93 . Q . . . .

6.750 0.5711 1.93 . Q . . . .

6.833 0.5859 2.14 . VQ . . . .

6.917 0.6006 2.14 . VQ . . . .

7.000 0.6154 2.14 . Q . . . .

7.083 0.6306 2.21 . Q . . . .

7.167 0.6458 2.21 . Q . . . .

7.250 0.6610 2.21 . Q . . . .

7.333 0.6775 2.39 . Q . . . .

7.417 0.6940 2.39 . Q . . . .

7.500 0.7105 2.39 . Q . . . .

7.583 0.7294 2.75 . VQ . . . .

7.667 0.7483 2.75 . VQ . . . .

7.750 0.7673 2.75 . Q . . . .

7.833 0.7889 3.14 . VQ . . . .

7.917 0.8105 3.14 . VQ . . . .

8.000 0.8321 3.14 . VQ . . . .

8.083 0.8575 3.69 . V Q . . . .

8.167 0.8829 3.69 . V Q . . . .

8.250 0.9083 3.69 . V Q . . . .

8.333 0.9368 4.14 . V Q . . . .

8.417 0.9653 4.14 . V Q . . . .

8.500 0.9938 4.14 . V Q . . . .

8.583 1.0242 4.41 . V Q . . . .

8.667 1.0546 4.41 . V Q . . . .

8.750 1.0849 4.41 . VQ . . . .

8.833 1.1180 4.80 . V Q. . . .

8.917 1.1510 4.80 . V Q. . . .

9.000 1.1841 4.80 . V Q. . . .

9.083 1.2209 5.35 . V Q . . .

9.167 1.2578 5.35 . V Q . . .

9.250 1.2946 5.35 . V Q . . .

9.333 1.3355 5.94 . V .Q . . .

9.417 1.3764 5.94 . V .Q . . .

9.500 1.4173 5.94 . V.Q . . .

9.583 1.4613 6.39 . V. Q . . .

9.667 1.5053 6.39 . V. Q . . .

9.750 1.5493 6.39 . V Q . . .

9.833 1.5963 6.82 . V Q . . .

9.917 1.6433 6.82 . V Q . . .

10.000 1.6903 6.82 . V Q . . .

10.083 1.7322 6.08 . .VQ . . .

10.167 1.7741 6.08 . .VQ . . .

10.250 1.8160 6.08 . .VQ . . .

10.333 1.8498 4.91 . Q. V . . .

10.417 1.8836 4.91 . Q. V . . .

10.500 1.9175 4.91 . Q. V . . .

10.583 1.9547 5.40 . Q V . . .

10.667 1.9919 5.40 . Q V . . .

10.750 2.0291 5.40 . Q V . . .

10.833 2.0719 6.22 . . QV . . .

10.917 2.1147 6.22 . . QV . . .

11.000 2.1575 6.22 . . Q V . . .

11.083 2.2006 6.25 . . Q V . . .

11.167 2.2436 6.25 . . Q V . . .

11.250 2.2867 6.25 . . Q V . . .

11.333 2.3291 6.16 . . Q V . . .

11.417 2.3716 6.16 . . Q V . . .

11.500 2.4140 6.16 . . Q V . . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME(HRS) VOLUME(AF) Q(CFS) 0. 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.583 2.4545 5.88 . .Q V . . .

11.667 2.4950 5.88 . .Q V . . .

11.750 2.5355 5.88 . .Q V . . .

11.833 2.5745 5.67 . .Q V . . .

11.917 2.6136 5.67 . .Q V . . .

12.000 2.6527 5.67 . .Q V . . .

12.083 2.6995 6.80 . . Q V . . .

12.167 2.7463 6.80 . . Q V . . .

12.250 2.7932 6.80 . . Q V . . .

12.333 2.8499 8.23 . . Q V . . .

12.417 2.9066 8.23 . . Q V . . .

12.500 2.9633 8.23 . . Q V. . .

12.583 3.0253 9.01 . . QV. . .

12.667 3.0873 9.01 . . Q V . .

12.750 3.1494 9.01 . . Q V . .

12.833 3.2161 9.69 . . Q.V . .

12.917 3.2829 9.69 . . Q.V . .

13.000 3.3496 9.69 . . Q.V . .

13.083 3.4237 10.76 . . .QV . .

13.167 3.4978 10.76 . . .QV . .

13.250 3.5719 10.76 . . .Q V . .

13.333 3.6529 11.77 . . . Q . .

13.417 3.7340 11.77 . . . QV . .

13.500 3.8151 11.77 . . . QV . .

13.583 3.8870 10.44 . . Q V . .

13.667 3.9589 10.44 . . Q V . .

13.750 4.0308 10.44 . . Q V . .

13.833 4.0898 8.57 . . Q . V . .

13.917 4.1489 8.57 . . Q . V . .

14.000 4.2079 8.57 . . Q . V . .

14.083 4.2683 8.77 . . Q . V . .

14.167 4.3287 8.77 . . Q . V . .

14.250 4.3891 8.77 . . Q . V . .

14.333 4.4523 9.19 . . Q . V. .

14.417 4.5156 9.19 . . Q . V. .

14.500 4.5789 9.19 . . Q . V. .

14.583 4.6417 9.12 . . Q . V .

14.667 4.7045 9.12 . . Q . V .

14.750 4.7673 9.12 . . Q . V .

14.833 4.8292 9.00 . . Q . .V .

14.917 4.8912 9.00 . . Q . .V .

15.000 4.9532 9.00 . . Q . . V .

15.083 5.0130 8.69 . . Q . . V .

15.167 5.0729 8.69 . . Q . . V .

15.250 5.1327 8.69 . . Q . . V .

15.333 5.1901 8.33 . . Q . . V .

15.417 5.2475 8.33 . . Q . . V .

15.500 5.3049 8.33 . . Q . . V .

15.583 5.3568 7.53 . . Q . . V .

15.667 5.4087 7.53 . . Q . . V .

15.750 5.4606 7.53 . . Q . . V .

15.833 5.5071 6.77 . . Q . . V .

15.917 5.5537 6.77 . . Q . . V .

16.000 5.6003 6.77 . . Q . . V .

16.083 5.6313 4.50 . Q . . . V .

16.167 5.6623 4.50 . Q . . . V .

16.250 5.6933 4.50 . Q . . . V .

16.333 5.7057 1.81 . Q . . . V .

16.417 5.7182 1.81 . Q . . . V .

16.500 5.7307 1.81 . Q . . . V .

16.583 5.7384 1.13 . Q . . . V .

16.667 5.7462 1.13 . Q . . . V .

16.750 5.7540 1.13 . Q . . . V .

16.833 5.7594 0.78 .Q . . . V .

16.917 5.7648 0.78 .Q . . . V .

17.000 5.7702 0.78 .Q . . . V .

17.083 5.7759 0.83 .Q . . . V .

17.167 5.7816 0.83 .Q . . . V .

17.250 5.7873 0.83 .Q . . . V .

17.333 5.7942 1.00 . Q . . . V .

17.417 5.8011 1.00 . Q . . . V .

17.500 5.8081 1.00 . Q . . . V .

17.583 5.8152 1.04 . Q . . . V .

17.667 5.8224 1.04 . Q . . . V .

17.750 5.8296 1.04 . Q . . . V .

17.833 5.8361 0.95 .Q . . . V .

17.917 5.8427 0.95 .Q . . . V .

18.000 5.8493 0.95 .Q . . . V .

18.083 5.8550 0.83 .Q . . . V .

18.167 5.8607 0.83 .Q . . . V .

18.250 5.8664 0.83 .Q . . . V .

18.333 5.8719 0.80 .Q . . . V .

18.417 5.8774 0.80 .Q . . . V .

18.500 5.8830 0.80 .Q . . . V .

18.583 5.8879 0.72 .Q . . . V .

18.667 5.8929 0.72 .Q . . . V .

18.750 5.8978 0.72 .Q . . . V .

18.833 5.9016 0.55 .Q . . . V .

18.917 5.9055 0.55 .Q . . . V .

19.000 5.9093 0.55 .Q . . . V .

19.083 5.9128 0.51 .Q . . . V .

19.167 5.9163 0.51 .Q . . . V .

19.250 5.9199 0.51 .Q . . . V .

19.333 5.9243 0.65 .Q . . . V .

19.417 5.9288 0.65 .Q . . . V .

19.500 5.9333 0.65 .Q . . . V .

19.583 5.9379 0.67 .Q . . . V .

19.667 5.9425 0.67 .Q . . . V .

19.750 5.9472 0.67 .Q . . . V .

19.833 5.9508 0.53 .Q . . . V .

19.917 5.9545 0.53 .Q . . . V .

20.000 5.9582 0.53 .Q . . . V .

20.083 5.9617 0.51 .Q . . . V .

20.167 5.9652 0.51 .Q . . . V .

20.250 5.9687 0.51 .Q . . . V.

20.333 5.9726 0.57 .Q . . . V.

20.417 5.9765 0.57 .Q . . . V.

20.500 5.9805 0.57 .Q . . . V.

20.583 5.9845 0.58 .Q . . . V.

20.667 5.9885 0.58 .Q . . . V.

20.750 5.9925 0.58 .Q . . . V.

20.833 5.9960 0.51 .Q . . . V.

20.917 5.9996 0.51 .Q . . . V.

21.000 6.0031 0.51 .Q . . . V.

21.083 6.0065 0.50 Q . . . V.

21.167 6.0100 0.50 Q . . . V.

21.250 6.0134 0.50 Q . . . V.

21.333 6.0168 0.50 Q . . . V.

21.417 6.0202 0.50 Q . . . V.

21.500 6.0236 0.50 Q . . . V.

21.583 6.0270 0.49 Q . . . V.

21.667 6.0304 0.49 Q . . . V.

21.750 6.0338 0.49 Q . . . V.

21.833 6.0372 0.49 Q . . . V.

21.917 6.0406 0.49 Q . . . V.

22.000 6.0440 0.49 Q . . . V.

22.083 6.0473 0.49 Q . . . V.

22.167 6.0507 0.49 Q . . . V.

22.250 6.0541 0.49 Q . . . V.

22.333 6.0575 0.49 Q . . . V.

22.417 6.0609 0.49 Q . . . V.

22.500 6.0643 0.49 Q . . . V.

22.583 6.0671 0.42 Q . . . V.

22.667 6.0700 0.42 Q . . . V.

22.750 6.0729 0.42 Q . . . V.

22.833 6.0756 0.40 Q . . . V.

22.917 6.0784 0.40 Q . . . V.

23.000 6.0812 0.40 Q . . . V.

23.083 6.0839 0.40 Q . . . V.

23.166 6.0866 0.40 Q . . . V.

23.250 6.0894 0.40 Q . . . V.

23.333 6.0921 0.39 Q . . . V.

23.416 6.0948 0.39 Q . . . V.

23.500 6.0975 0.39 Q . . . V.

23.583 6.1002 0.39 Q . . . V.

23.666 6.1029 0.39 Q . . . V.

23.750 6.1056 0.39 Q . . . V.

23.833 6.1083 0.39 Q . . . V.

23.916 6.1111 0.39 Q . . . V.

24.000 6.1138 0.39 Q . . . V.

24.083 6.1155 0.25 Q . . . V.

24.166 6.1172 0.25 Q . . . V.

24.250 6.1189 0.25 Q . . . V.

24.333 6.1193 0.07 Q . . . V.

24.416 6.1198 0.07 Q . . . V.

24.500 6.1203 0.07 Q . . . V.

24.583 6.1205 0.03 Q . . . V.

24.666 6.1207 0.03 Q . . . V.

24.750 6.1209 0.03 Q . . . V.

24.833 6.1209 0.01 Q . . . V.

24.916 6.1210 0.01 Q . . . V.

25.000 6.1211 0.01 Q . . . V.

25.083 6.1211 0.00 Q . . . V.

25.166 6.1211 0.00 Q . . . V.

25.250 6.1211 0.00 Q . . . V.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE:
(Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have
an instantaneous time duration)
Percentile of Estimated Duration
Peak Flow Rate (minutes)
======================= =========
0% 1515.0
10% 735.0
20% 540.0
30% 495.0
40% 435.0
50% 345.0
60% 210.0
70% 180.0
80% 60.0
90% 30.0
============================================================================ END OF FLOODSCx ROUTING ANALYSIS
Scenario Calculation Summary
Scenario Summary
ID 1
Label Base
Notes
Active Topology Base Active Topology
Hydrology Base Hydrology
Rainfall Runoff Base Rainfall Runoff
Physical Base Physical
Initial Condition Base Initial Condition
Boundary Condition Base Boundary Condition
Infiltration and Inflow Base Infiltration and Inflow
Output Base Output
User Data Extensions Base User Data Extensions
PondPack Engine Calculation Options Base Calculation Options Output Summary
Output Increment min 3.000 min Duration 1,440.000
Rainfall Summary
10-year, 24-
hr Return Event Tag Rainfall Type (N/A)
Total Depth (N/A) (N/A) in Storm Event
Executive Summary (Nodes)
Maximum
Pond
Storage
(ft³)
Maximum
Water
Surface
Elevation
(ft)
Peak Flow
(ft³/s)
Time to
Peak
(min)
Hydrograph
Volume
(ft³)
Return Truncation
Event
(years)
Label Scenario
148,025.00 798.000 6.8600 (N/A) (N/A)
0 Onsite Base 0 None
Detention
Basin (IN)
133,511.00
0 Onsite Base 0 None 14,690.000 1,347.000 0.2817 4.360
Detention
Basin
(OUT)
Outfall Base 0 None 14,690.000 1,347.000 0.2817 (N/A) (N/A) (POC)
148,144.00 797.333 6.8600 (N/A) (N/A)
0 Unit Base 0 None
Hydrograph
(Onsite
Runoff)
Executive Summary (Links)
Node Flow
Direction
Peak Flow End Point
(ft³/s)
Peak Time
(min)
Hydrograph
Volume
(ft³)
Label Type Location
Onsite Pond Inflow
Detention
Basin
Outlet-1 Pond Outlet Upstream 148,025.000 798.000 6.8600 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 2
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
9/20/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Scenario Calculation Summary
Executive Summary (Links)
Node Flow
Direction
Peak Flow End Point
(ft³/s)
Peak Time
(min)
Hydrograph
Volume
(ft³)
Label Type Location
Pond
Outflow
Onsite
Detention
Basin
Outlet-1 Pond Outlet Outflow 14,690.000 1,347.000 0.2817 Outlet-1 Pond Outlet Link 14,690.000 1,347.000 0.2817
Outlet-1 Pond Outlet Downstream 14,690.000 1,347.000 0.2817 Outfall (POC) 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 2 of 2
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
9/20/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Project Summary
LMC Murrieta
Apartments - 100-
yr, 1-hr
Title
Engineer Erica Kawata, P.E.

Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. Company
Date 6/16/2017

1. Inflow hydrograph (100-year, 1 hr) calculated based on Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual (April 1978) using AES software.

Notes
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Table of Contents
Diverted Hydrograph 29
Outlet-1
Pond Inflow Summary 28
Onsite Detention Basin (IN)
Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) 25
Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Level Pool Pond Routing Summary 24
Onsite Detention Basin (IN)
Elevation-Volume-Flow Table (Pond) 23
Onsite Detention Basin
Composite Rating Curve 22
Individual Outlet Curves 17
Outlet Input Data 14
Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Volume Equations 13
Elevation-Area Volume Curve 12
Onsite Detention Basin
Onsite Detention Basin Time vs. Volume 9
Onsite Detention Basin (OUT) Time vs. Elevation 6
Outfall (POC) Addition Summary 5
Unit Hydrograph (Onsite Runoff) Read Hydrograph 4
Master Network Summary 3
User Notifications 2
Subsection: User Notifications
No user
notifications
generated.

User Notifications?
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 2 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Subsection: Master Network Summary
Catchments Summary
Peak Flow
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Hydrograph
Volume
(ft³)
Return
Event
(years)
Label Scenario
Unit Hydrograph Base 0 61,048.000 0.914 35.2300
(Onsite Runoff)
Node Summary
Peak Flow
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Hydrograph
Volume
(ft³)
Return
Event
(years)
Label Scenario
Outfall (POC) Base 0 14,684.000 1.100 0.1869
Pond Summary
Maximum
Pond Storage
(ft³)
Maximum
Water
Surface
Elevation
(ft)
Peak Flow
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Hydrograph
Volume
(ft³)
Return
Event
(years)
Label Scenario
Onsite Base 0 60,741.000 0.900 33.7207 (N/A) (N/A)
Detention
Basin (IN)
Onsite Base 0 14,684.000 1.100 0.1869 1.973 60,412.000
Detention
Basin (OUT)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 3 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Unit Hydrograph (Onsite Runoff)
Subsection: Read Hydrograph Scenario: Base
Peak Discharge 35.2300 ft³/s
Time to Peak 0.914 hours
Hydrograph Volume 61,048.325 ft³
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.083 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

0.000 0.0000 0.8600 4.6900 8.3600 10.2800

0.415 11.8300 13.2400 14.8900 16.9700 19.6600

0.831 26.0200 35.2300 31.4600 21.3700 (N/A)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 4 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Outfall (POC)
Subsection: Addition Summary Scenario: Base
Summary for Hydrograph Addition at 'Outfall (POC)'
Upstream Link Upstream Node
Outlet-1 Onsite Detention Basin
Node Inflows
Flow (Peak)
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Volume
(ft³)
Inflow Type Element
Flow (From) Outlet-1 14,684.249 1.100 0.1869
Flow (In) Outfall (POC) 14,684.249 1.100 0.1869
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 5 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Time vs. Elevation Scenario: Base
Time vs. Elevation (ft)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Time
(hours)

0.000 0.000 0.002 0.008 0.024 0.054

0.250 0.097 0.149 0.208 0.273 0.343

0.500 0.418 0.499 0.585 0.679 0.780

0.750 0.891 1.018 1.170 1.351 1.548

1.000 1.737 1.900 1.973 1.972 1.970

1.250 1.969 1.968 1.967 1.966 1.965

1.500 1.964 1.963 1.962 1.961 1.959

1.750 1.958 1.957 1.956 1.955 1.954

2.000 1.953 1.952 1.951 1.950 1.949

2.250 1.947 1.946 1.945 1.944 1.943

2.500 1.942 1.941 1.940 1.939 1.938

2.750 1.937 1.936 1.934 1.933 1.932

3.000 1.931 1.930 1.929 1.928 1.927

3.250 1.926 1.925 1.924 1.922 1.921

3.500 1.920 1.919 1.918 1.917 1.916

3.750 1.915 1.914 1.913 1.912 1.911

4.000 1.910 1.908 1.907 1.906 1.905

4.250 1.904 1.903 1.902 1.901 1.900

4.500 1.899 1.898 1.897 1.896 1.894

4.750 1.893 1.892 1.891 1.890 1.889

5.000 1.888 1.887 1.886 1.885 1.884

5.250 1.883 1.882 1.881 1.879 1.878

5.500 1.877 1.876 1.875 1.874 1.873

5.750 1.872 1.871 1.870 1.869 1.868

6.000 1.867 1.866 1.865 1.863 1.862

6.250 1.861 1.860 1.859 1.858 1.857

6.500 1.856 1.855 1.854 1.853 1.852

6.750 1.851 1.850 1.849 1.848 1.846

7.000 1.845 1.844 1.843 1.842 1.841

7.250 1.840 1.839 1.838 1.837 1.836

7.500 1.835 1.834 1.833 1.832 1.831

7.750 1.830 1.828 1.827 1.826 1.825

8.000 1.824 1.823 1.822 1.821 1.820

8.250 1.819 1.818 1.817 1.816 1.815

8.500 1.814 1.813 1.812 1.811 1.810

8.750 1.809 1.807 1.806 1.805 1.804

9.000 1.803 1.802 1.801 1.800 1.799

9.250 1.798 1.797 1.796 1.795 1.794

9.500 1.793 1.792 1.791 1.790 1.789

9.750 1.788 1.787 1.786 1.785 1.784

10.000 1.782 1.781 1.780 1.779 1.778

10.250 1.777 1.776 1.775 1.774 1.773

10.500 1.772 1.771 1.770 1.769 1.768
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 6 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Time vs. Elevation Scenario: Base
Time vs. Elevation (ft)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Time
(hours)

10.750 1.767 1.766 1.765 1.764 1.763

11.000 1.762 1.761 1.760 1.759 1.758

11.250 1.757 1.756 1.755 1.753 1.752

11.500 1.751 1.750 1.749 1.748 1.747

11.750 1.746 1.745 1.744 1.743 1.742

12.000 1.741 1.740 1.739 1.738 1.737

12.250 1.736 1.735 1.734 1.733 1.732

12.500 1.731 1.730 1.729 1.728 1.727

12.750 1.726 1.725 1.724 1.723 1.722

13.000 1.721 1.720 1.719 1.718 1.717

13.250 1.716 1.715 1.714 1.713 1.712

13.500 1.711 1.710 1.708 1.707 1.706

13.750 1.705 1.704 1.703 1.702 1.701

14.000 1.700 1.699 1.698 1.697 1.696

14.250 1.695 1.694 1.693 1.692 1.691

14.500 1.690 1.689 1.688 1.687 1.686

14.750 1.685 1.684 1.683 1.682 1.681

15.000 1.680 1.679 1.678 1.677 1.676

15.250 1.675 1.674 1.673 1.672 1.671

15.500 1.670 1.669 1.668 1.667 1.666

15.750 1.665 1.664 1.663 1.662 1.661

16.000 1.660 1.659 1.658 1.657 1.656

16.250 1.655 1.654 1.653 1.652 1.651

16.500 1.650 1.649 1.648 1.647 1.646

16.750 1.645 1.644 1.643 1.642 1.641

17.000 1.640 1.639 1.638 1.637 1.636

17.250 1.635 1.634 1.633 1.632 1.631

17.500 1.630 1.629 1.628 1.627 1.626

17.750 1.625 1.624 1.623 1.622 1.621

18.000 1.620 1.619 1.618 1.617 1.616

18.250 1.615 1.614 1.613 1.612 1.611

18.500 1.610 1.609 1.608 1.607 1.607

18.750 1.606 1.605 1.604 1.603 1.602

19.000 1.601 1.600 1.599 1.598 1.597

19.250 1.596 1.595 1.594 1.593 1.592

19.500 1.591 1.590 1.589 1.588 1.587

19.750 1.586 1.585 1.584 1.583 1.582

20.000 1.581 1.580 1.579 1.578 1.577

20.250 1.576 1.575 1.574 1.573 1.572

20.500 1.571 1.570 1.569 1.568 1.567

20.750 1.566 1.565 1.564 1.564 1.563

21.000 1.562 1.561 1.560 1.559 1.558

21.250 1.557 1.556 1.555 1.554 1.553
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 7 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Time vs. Elevation Scenario: Base
Time vs. Elevation (ft)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Time
(hours)

21.500 1.552 1.551 1.550 1.549 1.548

21.750 1.547 1.546 1.545 1.544 1.543

22.000 1.542 1.541 1.540 1.539 1.538

22.250 1.537 1.536 1.535 1.535 1.534

22.500 1.533 1.532 1.531 1.530 1.529

22.750 1.528 1.527 1.526 1.525 1.524

23.000 1.523 1.522 1.521 1.520 1.519

23.250 1.518 1.517 1.516 1.515 1.514

23.500 1.513 1.512 1.512 1.511 1.510

23.750 1.509 1.508 1.507 1.506 1.505

24.000 1.504 (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 8 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Time vs. Volume Scenario: Base
Time vs. Volume (ft³)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Time
(hours)

0.000 0.000 47.000 241.000 743.000 1,654.000

0.250 2,963.000 4,571.000 6,379.000 8,365.000 10,513.000

0.500 12,813.000 15,277.000 17,927.000 20,786.000 23,893.000

0.750 27,289.000 31,185.000 35,827.000 41,372.000 47,400.000

1.000 53,186.000 58,197.000 60,412.000 60,379.000 60,345.000

1.250 60,312.000 60,278.000 60,244.000 60,211.000 60,177.000

1.500 60,144.000 60,110.000 60,077.000 60,043.000 60,010.000

1.750 59,976.000 59,943.000 59,909.000 59,876.000 59,842.000

2.000 59,809.000 59,775.000 59,742.000 59,708.000 59,675.000

2.250 59,642.000 59,608.000 59,575.000 59,541.000 59,508.000

2.500 59,475.000 59,441.000 59,408.000 59,375.000 59,341.000

2.750 59,308.000 59,275.000 59,241.000 59,208.000 59,175.000

3.000 59,142.000 59,108.000 59,075.000 59,042.000 59,009.000

3.250 58,976.000 58,942.000 58,909.000 58,876.000 58,843.000

3.500 58,810.000 58,777.000 58,744.000 58,710.000 58,677.000

3.750 58,644.000 58,611.000 58,578.000 58,545.000 58,512.000

4.000 58,479.000 58,446.000 58,413.000 58,380.000 58,347.000

4.250 58,314.000 58,281.000 58,248.000 58,215.000 58,182.000

4.500 58,149.000 58,116.000 58,083.000 58,050.000 58,017.000

4.750 57,984.000 57,952.000 57,919.000 57,886.000 57,853.000

5.000 57,820.000 57,787.000 57,755.000 57,722.000 57,689.000

5.250 57,656.000 57,623.000 57,591.000 57,558.000 57,525.000

5.500 57,492.000 57,460.000 57,427.000 57,394.000 57,362.000

5.750 57,329.000 57,296.000 57,264.000 57,231.000 57,198.000

6.000 57,166.000 57,133.000 57,100.000 57,068.000 57,035.000

6.250 57,003.000 56,970.000 56,938.000 56,905.000 56,872.000

6.500 56,840.000 56,807.000 56,775.000 56,742.000 56,710.000

6.750 56,677.000 56,645.000 56,612.000 56,580.000 56,548.000

7.000 56,515.000 56,483.000 56,450.000 56,418.000 56,386.000

7.250 56,353.000 56,321.000 56,288.000 56,256.000 56,224.000

7.500 56,191.000 56,159.000 56,127.000 56,095.000 56,062.000

7.750 56,030.000 55,998.000 55,965.000 55,933.000 55,901.000

8.000 55,869.000 55,837.000 55,804.000 55,772.000 55,740.000

8.250 55,708.000 55,676.000 55,643.000 55,611.000 55,579.000

8.500 55,547.000 55,515.000 55,483.000 55,451.000 55,419.000

8.750 55,387.000 55,354.000 55,322.000 55,290.000 55,258.000

9.000 55,226.000 55,194.000 55,162.000 55,130.000 55,098.000

9.250 55,066.000 55,034.000 55,002.000 54,971.000 54,939.000

9.500 54,907.000 54,875.000 54,843.000 54,811.000 54,779.000

9.750 54,747.000 54,715.000 54,683.000 54,652.000 54,620.000

10.000 54,588.000 54,556.000 54,524.000 54,493.000 54,461.000

10.250 54,429.000 54,397.000 54,365.000 54,334.000 54,302.000

10.500 54,270.000 54,239.000 54,207.000 54,175.000 54,143.000 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 9 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Time vs. Volume Scenario: Base
Time vs. Volume (ft³)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Time
(hours)

10.750 54,112.000 54,080.000 54,048.000 54,017.000 53,985.000

11.000 53,954.000 53,922.000 53,890.000 53,859.000 53,827.000

11.250 53,796.000 53,764.000 53,732.000 53,701.000 53,669.000

11.500 53,638.000 53,606.000 53,575.000 53,543.000 53,512.000

11.750 53,480.000 53,449.000 53,417.000 53,386.000 53,354.000

12.000 53,323.000 53,292.000 53,260.000 53,229.000 53,197.000

12.250 53,166.000 53,135.000 53,103.000 53,072.000 53,041.000

12.500 53,009.000 52,978.000 52,947.000 52,915.000 52,884.000

12.750 52,853.000 52,822.000 52,790.000 52,759.000 52,728.000

13.000 52,697.000 52,665.000 52,634.000 52,603.000 52,572.000

13.250 52,541.000 52,509.000 52,478.000 52,447.000 52,416.000

13.500 52,385.000 52,354.000 52,322.000 52,291.000 52,260.000

13.750 52,229.000 52,198.000 52,167.000 52,136.000 52,105.000

14.000 52,074.000 52,043.000 52,012.000 51,981.000 51,950.000

14.250 51,919.000 51,888.000 51,857.000 51,826.000 51,795.000

14.500 51,764.000 51,733.000 51,702.000 51,671.000 51,640.000

14.750 51,609.000 51,579.000 51,548.000 51,517.000 51,486.000

15.000 51,455.000 51,424.000 51,393.000 51,363.000 51,332.000

15.250 51,301.000 51,270.000 51,240.000 51,209.000 51,178.000

15.500 51,147.000 51,116.000 51,086.000 51,055.000 51,024.000

15.750 50,994.000 50,963.000 50,932.000 50,902.000 50,871.000

16.000 50,840.000 50,810.000 50,779.000 50,748.000 50,718.000

16.250 50,687.000 50,657.000 50,626.000 50,595.000 50,565.000

16.500 50,534.000 50,504.000 50,473.000 50,443.000 50,412.000

16.750 50,382.000 50,351.000 50,321.000 50,290.000 50,260.000

17.000 50,229.000 50,199.000 50,168.000 50,138.000 50,107.000

17.250 50,077.000 50,047.000 50,016.000 49,986.000 49,955.000

17.500 49,925.000 49,895.000 49,864.000 49,834.000 49,804.000

17.750 49,773.000 49,743.000 49,713.000 49,683.000 49,652.000

18.000 49,622.000 49,592.000 49,561.000 49,531.000 49,501.000

18.250 49,471.000 49,441.000 49,410.000 49,380.000 49,350.000

18.500 49,320.000 49,290.000 49,259.000 49,229.000 49,199.000

18.750 49,169.000 49,139.000 49,109.000 49,079.000 49,049.000

19.000 49,019.000 48,988.000 48,958.000 48,928.000 48,898.000

19.250 48,868.000 48,838.000 48,808.000 48,778.000 48,748.000

19.500 48,718.000 48,688.000 48,658.000 48,628.000 48,598.000

19.750 48,568.000 48,538.000 48,509.000 48,479.000 48,449.000

20.000 48,419.000 48,389.000 48,359.000 48,329.000 48,299.000

20.250 48,269.000 48,240.000 48,210.000 48,180.000 48,150.000

20.500 48,120.000 48,091.000 48,061.000 48,031.000 48,001.000

20.750 47,971.000 47,942.000 47,912.000 47,882.000 47,853.000

21.000 47,823.000 47,793.000 47,763.000 47,734.000 47,704.000

21.250 47,674.000 47,645.000 47,615.000 47,585.000 47,556.000 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 10 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Time vs. Volume Scenario: Base
Time vs. Volume (ft³)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Time
(hours)

21.500 47,526.000 47,497.000 47,467.000 47,437.000 47,408.000

21.750 47,378.000 47,349.000 47,319.000 47,290.000 47,260.000

22.000 47,231.000 47,201.000 47,172.000 47,142.000 47,113.000

22.250 47,083.000 47,054.000 47,024.000 46,995.000 46,965.000

22.500 46,936.000 46,906.000 46,877.000 46,848.000 46,818.000

22.750 46,789.000 46,759.000 46,730.000 46,701.000 46,671.000

23.000 46,642.000 46,613.000 46,583.000 46,554.000 46,525.000

23.250 46,495.000 46,466.000 46,437.000 46,408.000 46,378.000

23.500 46,349.000 46,320.000 46,291.000 46,261.000 46,232.000

23.750 46,203.000 46,174.000 46,145.000 46,115.000 46,086.000

24.000 46,057.000 (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 11 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Elevation-Area Volume Curve Scenario: Base
Volume (Total)
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
A1+A2+sqr
(A1*A2)
(ft²)
Area
(ft²)
Planimeter
(ft²)
Elevation
(ft)

0.000 0.0 30,625 0 0.000 0.000

3.500 0.0 30,625 91,875 107,188.000 107,188.000

7.000 0.0 30,625 91,875 107,188.000 214,375.000
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 12 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Volume Equations Scenario: Base
Pond Volume Equations
* Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes.

Volume = (1/3) * (EL2 - El1) * (Area1 + Area2 + sqr(Area1 * Area2)) where: EL1, EL2 Lower and upper elevations of the increment Area1, Area2 Areas computed for EL1, EL2, respectively
Volume Incremental volume between EL1 and EL2
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 13 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Outlet Input Data Scenario: Base
Requested Pond Water Surface Elevations
Minimum (Headwater) 0.000 ft
Increment (Headwater) 0.500 ft
Maximum (Headwater) 7.000 ft
Outlet Connectivity
E2
(ft)
E1
(ft)
Structure Type Outlet ID Direction Outfall
Rectangular Weir Weir - 1 Forward TW 4.550 7.000
Stand Pipe Riser - 1 Forward TW 6.000 7.000
Orifice-Circular Orifice - 1 Forward TW 0.000 7.000
Tailwater Settings Tailwater (N/A) (N/A)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 14 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Outlet Input Data Scenario: Base
Structure ID: Orifice - 1
Structure Type: Orifice-Circular
Number of Openings 1
Elevation 0.000 ft
Orifice Diameter 2.28 in
Orifice Coefficient 0.600
Structure ID: Riser - 1
Structure Type: Stand Pipe
Number of Openings 1
Elevation 6.000 ft
Diameter 54.00 in
Orifice Area 15.9 ft²
Orifice Coefficient 0.600
Weir Length 14.14 ft
Weir Coefficient 3.00 (ft^0.5)/s
K Reverse 1.000
Manning's n 0.000
Kev, Charged Riser 0.000
Weir Submergence False
Orifice H to crest True
Structure ID: Weir - 1
Structure Type: Rectangular Weir
Number of Openings 1
Elevation 4.550 ft
Weir Length 3.95 ft
Weir Coefficient 3.00 (ft^0.5)/s
Structure ID: TW
Structure Type: TW Setup, DS Channel
Tailwater Type Free Outfall
Convergence Tolerances
Maximum Iterations 30

0.010 ft Tailwater Tolerance
(Minimum)

0.500 ft Tailwater Tolerance
(Maximum)

0.010 ft Headwater Tolerance
(Minimum)

0.500 ft Headwater Tolerance
(Maximum)
Flow Tolerance (Minimum) 0.001 ft³/s
Flow Tolerance (Maximum) 10.000 ft³/s
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 15 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Outlet Input Data Scenario: Base
Convergence Tolerances
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 16 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

RATING TABLE FOR ONE OUTLET TYPE
Structure ID = Orifice - 1 (Orifice-Circular)
---------------------------------------
Upstream ID = (Pond Water Surface)
Downstream ID = Tailwater (Pond Outfall)
Convergence Error
(ft)
Tailwater Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Water Surface
Elevation
(ft)

0.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

0.500 0.0868 (N/A) 0.000

1.000 0.1298 (N/A) 0.000

1.500 0.1618 (N/A) 0.000

2.000 0.1883 (N/A) 0.000

2.500 0.2116 (N/A) 0.000

3.000 0.2326 (N/A) 0.000

3.500 0.2518 (N/A) 0.000

4.000 0.2697 (N/A) 0.000

4.500 0.2864 (N/A) 0.000

4.550 0.2880 (N/A) 0.000

5.000 0.3022 (N/A) 0.000

5.500 0.3173 (N/A) 0.000

6.000 0.3316 (N/A) 0.000

6.500 0.3454 (N/A) 0.000

7.000 0.3586 (N/A) 0.000
Computation Messages
Upstream HW &
DNstream TW < Inv.El
H =.41
H =.91
H =1.41
H =1.91
H =2.41
H =2.91
H =3.41
H =3.91
H =4.41
H =4.46
H =4.91
H =5.41
H =5.91
H =6.41
H =6.91
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 17 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

0.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

0.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

1.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

1.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

2.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

2.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

3.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

3.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.550 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

5.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

5.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

6.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

6.500 14.9947 (N/A) 0.000

7.000 42.4115 (N/A) 0.000
Computation Messages
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 18 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

RATING TABLE FOR ONE OUTLET TYPE
Structure ID = Riser - 1 (Stand Pipe)
---------------------------------------
Upstream ID = (Pond Water Surface)
Downstream ID = Tailwater (Pond Outfall)
Computation Messages
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
Weir: H =0ft
Weir: H =0.5ft
Weir: H =1ft
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 19 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

0.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

0.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

1.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

1.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

2.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

2.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

3.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

3.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.550 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

5.000 3.5771 (N/A) 0.000

5.500 10.9725 (N/A) 0.000

6.000 20.6905 (N/A) 0.000

6.500 32.2679 (N/A) 0.000

7.000 45.4431 (N/A) 0.000
Computation Messages
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
H=.00; Htw=.00;
Qfree=.00;
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 20 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

RATING TABLE FOR ONE OUTLET TYPE
Structure ID = Weir - 1 (Rectangular Weir)
---------------------------------------
Upstream ID = (Pond Water Surface)
Downstream ID = Tailwater (Pond Outfall)
Computation Messages
H=.45; Htw=.00;
Qfree=3.58;
H=.95; Htw=.00;
Qfree=10.97;
H=1.45; Htw=.00;
Qfree=20.69;
H=1.95; Htw=.00;
Qfree=32.27;
H=2.45; Htw=.00;
Qfree=45.44;
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 21 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Composite Rating Curve Scenario: Base
Composite Outflow Summary
Convergence Error
(ft)
Tailwater Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Water Surface
Elevation
(ft)

0.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

0.500 0.0868 (N/A) 0.000

1.000 0.1298 (N/A) 0.000

1.500 0.1618 (N/A) 0.000

2.000 0.1883 (N/A) 0.000

2.500 0.2116 (N/A) 0.000

3.000 0.2326 (N/A) 0.000

3.500 0.2518 (N/A) 0.000

4.000 0.2697 (N/A) 0.000

4.500 0.2864 (N/A) 0.000

4.550 0.2880 (N/A) 0.000

5.000 3.8794 (N/A) 0.000

5.500 11.2897 (N/A) 0.000

6.000 21.0221 (N/A) 0.000

6.500 47.6080 (N/A) 0.000

7.000 88.2131 (N/A) 0.000
Contributing Structures
None Contributing
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Riser - 1 +
Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Riser - 1 +
Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Riser - 1 +
Orifice - 1
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 22 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Elevation-Volume-Flow Table (Pond) Scenario: Base Infiltration
No Infiltration Infiltration Method
(Computed)
Initial Conditions

0.000 ft Elevation (Water Surface,
Initial)
Volume (Initial) 0.000 ft³
Flow (Initial Outlet) 0.0000 ft³/s
Flow (Initial Infiltration) 0.0000 ft³/s
Flow (Initial, Total) 0.0000 ft³/s
Time Increment 0.050 hours
2S/t + O
(ft³/s)
Flow (Total)
(ft³/s)
Infiltration
(ft³/s)
Area
(ft²)
Storage
(ft³)
Outflow
(ft³/s)
Elevation
(ft)

0.000 0.0000 0.000 30,625 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.500 0.0868 15,312.500 30,625 0.0000 0.0868 170.2257

1.000 0.1298 30,625.000 30,625 0.0000 0.1298 340.4076

1.500 0.1618 45,937.500 30,625 0.0000 0.1618 510.5784

2.000 0.1883 61,250.000 30,625 0.0000 0.1883 680.7439

2.500 0.2116 76,562.500 30,625 0.0000 0.2116 850.9061

3.000 0.2326 91,875.000 30,625 0.0000 0.2326 1,021.0659

3.500 0.2518 107,187.500 30,625 0.0000 0.2518 1,191.2240

4.000 0.2697 122,500.000 30,625 0.0000 0.2697 1,361.3808

4.500 0.2864 137,812.500 30,625 0.0000 0.2864 1,531.5364

4.550 0.2880 139,343.750 30,625 0.0000 0.2880 1,548.5519

5.000 3.8794 153,125.000 30,625 0.0000 3.8794 1,705.2683

5.500 11.2897 168,437.500 30,625 0.0000 11.2897 1,882.8175

6.000 21.0221 183,750.000 30,625 0.0000 21.0221 2,062.6887

6.500 47.6080 199,062.500 30,625 0.0000 47.6080 2,259.4135

7.000 88.2131 214,375.000 30,625 0.0000 88.2131 2,470.1576 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 23 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (IN)
Subsection: Level Pool Pond Routing Summary Scenario: Base Infiltration
No Infiltration Infiltration Method
(Computed)
Initial Conditions

0.000 ft Elevation (Water Surface,
Initial)
Volume (Initial) 0.000 ft³
Flow (Initial Outlet) 0.0000 ft³/s
Flow (Initial Infiltration) 0.0000 ft³/s
Flow (Initial, Total) 0.0000 ft³/s
Time Increment 0.050 hours
Inflow/Outflow Hydrograph Summary
Flow (Peak In) hours 33.7207 ft³/s Time to Peak (Flow, In) 0.900 Flow (Peak Outlet) hours 0.1869 ft³/s Time to Peak (Flow, Outlet) 1.100

1.973 ft Elevation (Water Surface,
Peak)
Volume (Peak) 60,412.477 ft³
Mass Balance (ft³)
Volume (Initial) 0.000 ft³
Volume (Total Inflow) 60,741.000 ft³
Volume (Total Infiltration) 0.000 ft³
14,684.000 ft³ Volume (Total Outlet
Outflow)
Volume (Retained) 46,028.000 ft³
Volume (Unrouted) -29.000 ft³
Error (Mass Balance) 0.0 %
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 24 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) Scenario: Base Peak Discharge 0.1869 ft³/s
Time to Peak 1.100 hours
Hydrograph Volume 14,684.226 ft³
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

0.050 0.0003 0.0014 0.0042 0.0094 0.0168

0.300 0.0259 0.0362 0.0474 0.0596 0.0727

0.550 0.0866 0.0942 0.1022 0.1109 0.1205

0.800 0.1310 0.1407 0.1522 0.1643 0.1743

1.050 0.1830 0.1869 0.1868 0.1868 0.1867

1.300 0.1867 0.1866 0.1865 0.1865 0.1864

1.550 0.1864 0.1863 0.1863 0.1862 0.1861

1.800 0.1861 0.1860 0.1860 0.1859 0.1858

2.050 0.1858 0.1857 0.1857 0.1856 0.1856

2.300 0.1855 0.1854 0.1854 0.1853 0.1853

2.550 0.1852 0.1851 0.1851 0.1850 0.1850

2.800 0.1849 0.1849 0.1848 0.1847 0.1847

3.050 0.1846 0.1846 0.1845 0.1845 0.1844

3.300 0.1843 0.1843 0.1842 0.1842 0.1841

3.550 0.1841 0.1840 0.1839 0.1839 0.1838

3.800 0.1838 0.1837 0.1837 0.1836 0.1835

4.050 0.1835 0.1834 0.1834 0.1833 0.1832

4.300 0.1832 0.1831 0.1831 0.1830 0.1830

4.550 0.1829 0.1828 0.1828 0.1827 0.1827

4.800 0.1826 0.1826 0.1825 0.1824 0.1824

5.050 0.1823 0.1823 0.1822 0.1822 0.1821

5.300 0.1821 0.1820 0.1819 0.1819 0.1818

5.550 0.1818 0.1817 0.1817 0.1816 0.1815

5.800 0.1815 0.1814 0.1814 0.1813 0.1813

6.050 0.1812 0.1811 0.1811 0.1810 0.1810

6.300 0.1809 0.1809 0.1808 0.1807 0.1807

6.550 0.1806 0.1806 0.1805 0.1805 0.1804

6.800 0.1804 0.1803 0.1802 0.1802 0.1801

7.050 0.1801 0.1800 0.1800 0.1799 0.1798

7.300 0.1798 0.1797 0.1797 0.1796 0.1796

7.550 0.1795 0.1795 0.1794 0.1793 0.1793

7.800 0.1792 0.1792 0.1791 0.1791 0.1790

8.050 0.1789 0.1789 0.1788 0.1788 0.1787

8.300 0.1787 0.1786 0.1786 0.1785 0.1784

8.550 0.1784 0.1783 0.1783 0.1782 0.1782

8.800 0.1781 0.1781 0.1780 0.1779 0.1779

9.050 0.1778 0.1778 0.1777 0.1777 0.1776

9.300 0.1776 0.1775 0.1774 0.1774 0.1773

9.550 0.1773 0.1772 0.1772 0.1771 0.1771
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 25 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) Scenario: Base HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

9.800 0.1770 0.1769 0.1769 0.1768 0.1768

10.050 0.1767 0.1767 0.1766 0.1766 0.1765

10.300 0.1764 0.1764 0.1763 0.1763 0.1762

10.550 0.1762 0.1761 0.1761 0.1760 0.1760

10.800 0.1759 0.1758 0.1758 0.1757 0.1757

11.050 0.1756 0.1756 0.1755 0.1755 0.1754

11.300 0.1753 0.1753 0.1752 0.1752 0.1751

11.550 0.1751 0.1750 0.1750 0.1749 0.1749

11.800 0.1748 0.1747 0.1747 0.1746 0.1746

12.050 0.1745 0.1745 0.1744 0.1744 0.1743

12.300 0.1743 0.1742 0.1741 0.1741 0.1740

12.550 0.1740 0.1739 0.1739 0.1738 0.1738

12.800 0.1737 0.1737 0.1736 0.1735 0.1735

13.050 0.1734 0.1734 0.1733 0.1733 0.1732

13.300 0.1732 0.1731 0.1731 0.1730 0.1730

13.550 0.1729 0.1728 0.1728 0.1727 0.1727

13.800 0.1726 0.1726 0.1725 0.1725 0.1724

14.050 0.1724 0.1723 0.1723 0.1722 0.1721

14.300 0.1721 0.1720 0.1720 0.1719 0.1719

14.550 0.1718 0.1718 0.1717 0.1717 0.1716

14.800 0.1716 0.1715 0.1714 0.1714 0.1713

15.050 0.1713 0.1712 0.1712 0.1711 0.1711

15.300 0.1710 0.1710 0.1709 0.1709 0.1708

15.550 0.1707 0.1707 0.1706 0.1706 0.1705

15.800 0.1705 0.1704 0.1704 0.1703 0.1703

16.050 0.1702 0.1702 0.1701 0.1701 0.1700

16.300 0.1700 0.1699 0.1698 0.1698 0.1697

16.550 0.1697 0.1696 0.1696 0.1695 0.1695

16.800 0.1694 0.1694 0.1693 0.1693 0.1692

17.050 0.1692 0.1691 0.1690 0.1690 0.1689

17.300 0.1689 0.1688 0.1688 0.1687 0.1687

17.550 0.1686 0.1686 0.1685 0.1685 0.1684

17.800 0.1684 0.1683 0.1683 0.1682 0.1682

18.050 0.1681 0.1680 0.1680 0.1679 0.1679

18.300 0.1678 0.1678 0.1677 0.1677 0.1676

18.550 0.1676 0.1675 0.1675 0.1674 0.1674

18.800 0.1673 0.1673 0.1672 0.1672 0.1671

19.050 0.1671 0.1670 0.1669 0.1669 0.1668

19.300 0.1668 0.1667 0.1667 0.1666 0.1666

19.550 0.1665 0.1665 0.1664 0.1664 0.1663

19.800 0.1663 0.1662 0.1662 0.1661 0.1661

20.050 0.1660 0.1660 0.1659 0.1659 0.1658

20.300 0.1658 0.1657 0.1656 0.1656 0.1655

20.550 0.1655 0.1654 0.1654 0.1653 0.1653
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 26 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) Scenario: Base HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

20.800 0.1652 0.1652 0.1651 0.1651 0.1650

21.050 0.1650 0.1649 0.1649 0.1648 0.1648

21.300 0.1647 0.1647 0.1646 0.1646 0.1645

21.550 0.1645 0.1644 0.1644 0.1643 0.1643

21.800 0.1642 0.1642 0.1641 0.1641 0.1640

22.050 0.1639 0.1639 0.1638 0.1638 0.1637

22.300 0.1637 0.1636 0.1636 0.1635 0.1635

22.550 0.1634 0.1634 0.1633 0.1633 0.1632

22.800 0.1632 0.1631 0.1631 0.1630 0.1630

23.050 0.1629 0.1629 0.1628 0.1628 0.1627

23.300 0.1627 0.1626 0.1626 0.1625 0.1625

23.550 0.1624 0.1624 0.1623 0.1623 0.1622

23.800 0.1622 0.1621 0.1621 0.1620 0.1620
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 27 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (IN)
Subsection: Pond Inflow Summary Scenario: Base
Summary for Hydrograph Addition at 'Onsite Detention
Basin'
Upstream Link Upstream Node
<Catchment to Outflow Node> Unit Hydrograph (Onsite Runoff) Node Inflows
Flow (Peak)
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Volume
(ft³)
Inflow Type Element
Unit 61,048.325 0.914 35.2300
Hydrograph
(Onsite
Runoff)
Flow (From)
Onsite 60,741.391 0.900 33.7207
Detention
Basin
Flow (In)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 28 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Outlet-1
Subsection: Diverted Hydrograph Scenario: Base
Peak Discharge 0.1869 ft³/s
Time to Peak 1.100 hours
Hydrograph Volume 14,684.226 ft³
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

0.050 0.0003 0.0014 0.0042 0.0094 0.0168

0.300 0.0259 0.0362 0.0474 0.0596 0.0727

0.550 0.0866 0.0942 0.1022 0.1109 0.1205

0.800 0.1310 0.1407 0.1522 0.1643 0.1743

1.050 0.1830 0.1869 0.1868 0.1868 0.1867

1.300 0.1867 0.1866 0.1865 0.1865 0.1864

1.550 0.1864 0.1863 0.1863 0.1862 0.1861

1.800 0.1861 0.1860 0.1860 0.1859 0.1858

2.050 0.1858 0.1857 0.1857 0.1856 0.1856

2.300 0.1855 0.1854 0.1854 0.1853 0.1853

2.550 0.1852 0.1851 0.1851 0.1850 0.1850

2.800 0.1849 0.1849 0.1848 0.1847 0.1847

3.050 0.1846 0.1846 0.1845 0.1845 0.1844

3.300 0.1843 0.1843 0.1842 0.1842 0.1841

3.550 0.1841 0.1840 0.1839 0.1839 0.1838

3.800 0.1838 0.1837 0.1837 0.1836 0.1835

4.050 0.1835 0.1834 0.1834 0.1833 0.1832

4.300 0.1832 0.1831 0.1831 0.1830 0.1830

4.550 0.1829 0.1828 0.1828 0.1827 0.1827

4.800 0.1826 0.1826 0.1825 0.1824 0.1824

5.050 0.1823 0.1823 0.1822 0.1822 0.1821

5.300 0.1821 0.1820 0.1819 0.1819 0.1818

5.550 0.1818 0.1817 0.1817 0.1816 0.1815

5.800 0.1815 0.1814 0.1814 0.1813 0.1813

6.050 0.1812 0.1811 0.1811 0.1810 0.1810

6.300 0.1809 0.1809 0.1808 0.1807 0.1807

6.550 0.1806 0.1806 0.1805 0.1805 0.1804

6.800 0.1804 0.1803 0.1802 0.1802 0.1801

7.050 0.1801 0.1800 0.1800 0.1799 0.1798

7.300 0.1798 0.1797 0.1797 0.1796 0.1796

7.550 0.1795 0.1795 0.1794 0.1793 0.1793

7.800 0.1792 0.1792 0.1791 0.1791 0.1790

8.050 0.1789 0.1789 0.1788 0.1788 0.1787

8.300 0.1787 0.1786 0.1786 0.1785 0.1784

8.550 0.1784 0.1783 0.1783 0.1782 0.1782

8.800 0.1781 0.1781 0.1780 0.1779 0.1779

9.050 0.1778 0.1778 0.1777 0.1777 0.1776

9.300 0.1776 0.1775 0.1774 0.1774 0.1773

9.550 0.1773 0.1772 0.1772 0.1771 0.1771
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 29 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Outlet-1
Subsection: Diverted Hydrograph Scenario: Base
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

9.800 0.1770 0.1769 0.1769 0.1768 0.1768

10.050 0.1767 0.1767 0.1766 0.1766 0.1765

10.300 0.1764 0.1764 0.1763 0.1763 0.1762

10.550 0.1762 0.1761 0.1761 0.1760 0.1760

10.800 0.1759 0.1758 0.1758 0.1757 0.1757

11.050 0.1756 0.1756 0.1755 0.1755 0.1754

11.300 0.1753 0.1753 0.1752 0.1752 0.1751

11.550 0.1751 0.1750 0.1750 0.1749 0.1749

11.800 0.1748 0.1747 0.1747 0.1746 0.1746

12.050 0.1745 0.1745 0.1744 0.1744 0.1743

12.300 0.1743 0.1742 0.1741 0.1741 0.1740

12.550 0.1740 0.1739 0.1739 0.1738 0.1738

12.800 0.1737 0.1737 0.1736 0.1735 0.1735

13.050 0.1734 0.1734 0.1733 0.1733 0.1732

13.300 0.1732 0.1731 0.1731 0.1730 0.1730

13.550 0.1729 0.1728 0.1728 0.1727 0.1727

13.800 0.1726 0.1726 0.1725 0.1725 0.1724

14.050 0.1724 0.1723 0.1723 0.1722 0.1721

14.300 0.1721 0.1720 0.1720 0.1719 0.1719

14.550 0.1718 0.1718 0.1717 0.1717 0.1716

14.800 0.1716 0.1715 0.1714 0.1714 0.1713

15.050 0.1713 0.1712 0.1712 0.1711 0.1711

15.300 0.1710 0.1710 0.1709 0.1709 0.1708

15.550 0.1707 0.1707 0.1706 0.1706 0.1705

15.800 0.1705 0.1704 0.1704 0.1703 0.1703

16.050 0.1702 0.1702 0.1701 0.1701 0.1700

16.300 0.1700 0.1699 0.1698 0.1698 0.1697

16.550 0.1697 0.1696 0.1696 0.1695 0.1695

16.800 0.1694 0.1694 0.1693 0.1693 0.1692

17.050 0.1692 0.1691 0.1690 0.1690 0.1689

17.300 0.1689 0.1688 0.1688 0.1687 0.1687

17.550 0.1686 0.1686 0.1685 0.1685 0.1684

17.800 0.1684 0.1683 0.1683 0.1682 0.1682

18.050 0.1681 0.1680 0.1680 0.1679 0.1679

18.300 0.1678 0.1678 0.1677 0.1677 0.1676

18.550 0.1676 0.1675 0.1675 0.1674 0.1674

18.800 0.1673 0.1673 0.1672 0.1672 0.1671

19.050 0.1671 0.1670 0.1669 0.1669 0.1668

19.300 0.1668 0.1667 0.1667 0.1666 0.1666

19.550 0.1665 0.1665 0.1664 0.1664 0.1663

19.800 0.1663 0.1662 0.1662 0.1661 0.1661

20.050 0.1660 0.1660 0.1659 0.1659 0.1658

20.300 0.1658 0.1657 0.1656 0.1656 0.1655

20.550 0.1655 0.1654 0.1654 0.1653 0.1653
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 30 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Outlet-1
Subsection: Diverted Hydrograph Scenario: Base
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

20.800 0.1652 0.1652 0.1651 0.1651 0.1650

21.050 0.1650 0.1649 0.1649 0.1648 0.1648

21.300 0.1647 0.1647 0.1646 0.1646 0.1645

21.550 0.1645 0.1644 0.1644 0.1643 0.1643

21.800 0.1642 0.1642 0.1641 0.1641 0.1640

22.050 0.1639 0.1639 0.1638 0.1638 0.1637

22.300 0.1637 0.1636 0.1636 0.1635 0.1635

22.550 0.1634 0.1634 0.1633 0.1633 0.1632

22.800 0.1632 0.1631 0.1631 0.1630 0.1630

23.050 0.1629 0.1629 0.1628 0.1628 0.1627

23.300 0.1627 0.1626 0.1626 0.1625 0.1625

23.550 0.1624 0.1624 0.1623 0.1623 0.1622

23.800 0.1622 0.1621 0.1621 0.1620 0.1620
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 31 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Index
User Notifications...2
Unit Hydrograph (Onsite Runoff) (Read Hydrograph)...

U
Outlet-1 (Diverted Hydrograph)...

Outlet Input Data...14, 15, 16
Outfall (POC) (Addition Summary)...

Onsite Detention Basin (Volume Equations)...

Onsite Detention Basin (Time vs. Volume)...

Onsite Detention Basin (OUT) (Time vs. Elevation)...

Onsite Detention Basin (OUT) (Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out))...

Onsite Detention Basin (IN) (Pond Inflow Summary)...

Onsite Detention Basin (IN) (Level Pool Pond Routing Summary)...

Onsite Detention Basin (Elevation-Volume-Flow Table (Pond))...

Onsite Detention Basin (Elevation-Area Volume Curve)...

O
Master Network Summary...3
M
Composite Rating Curve...22
Composite Outlet Structure - 1 (Outlet Input Data)...

Composite Outlet Structure - 1 (Individual Outlet Curves)...

Composite Outlet Structure - 1 (Composite Rating Curve)...

C
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 32 of 32
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Project Summary
LMC Murrieta
Apartments - 100-
yr, 24-hr
Title
Engineer Erica Kawata, P.E.

Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. Company
Date 6/16/2017

1. Inflow hydrograph (100-year, 24 hr) calculated based on Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual (April 1978) using AES software.

Notes
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Table of Contents
Diverted Hydrograph 30
Outlet-1
Pond Inflow Summary 29
Onsite Detention Basin (IN)
Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) 26
Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Level Pool Pond Routing Summary 25
Onsite Detention Basin (IN)
Elevation-Volume-Flow Table (Pond) 24
Onsite Detention Basin
Composite Rating Curve 23
Individual Outlet Curves 18
Outlet Input Data 15
Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Volume Equations 14
Elevation-Area Volume Curve 13
Onsite Detention Basin
Onsite Detention Basin Time vs. Volume 10
Onsite Detention Basin (OUT) Time vs. Elevation 7
Outfall (POC) Addition Summary 6
Unit Hydrograph (Onsite Runoff) Read Hydrograph 4
Master Network Summary 3
User Notifications 2
Subsection: User Notifications
No user
notifications
generated.

User Notifications?
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 2 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Subsection: Master Network Summary
Catchments Summary
Peak Flow
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Hydrograph
Volume
(ft³)
Return
Event
(years)
Label Scenario
Unit Hydrograph Base 0 265,442.000 13.289 11.7700
(Onsite Runoff)
Node Summary
Peak Flow
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Hydrograph
Volume
(ft³)
Return
Event
(years)
Label Scenario
Outfall (POC) Base 0 125,694.000 15.000 8.7647
Pond Summary
Maximum
Pond Storage
(ft³)
Maximum
Water
Surface
Elevation
(ft)
Peak Flow
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Hydrograph
Volume
(ft³)
Return
Event
(years)
Label Scenario
Onsite Base 0 265,549.000 13.300 11.7700 (N/A) (N/A)
Detention
Basin (IN)
Onsite Base 0 125,694.000 15.000 8.7647 5.330 163,220.000 Detention
Basin (OUT)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 3 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Unit Hydrograph (Onsite Runoff)
Subsection: Read Hydrograph Scenario: Base
Peak Discharge 11.7700 ft³/s
Time to Peak 13.289 hours
Hydrograph Volume 265,441.735 ft³
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.083 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

0.000 0.0000 0.1400 0.1400 0.1400 0.4000

0.415 0.4000 0.4000 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300

0.831 0.6400 0.6400 0.6400 0.6700 0.6700

1.246 0.6700 0.6100 0.6100 0.6100 0.6000

1.661 0.6000 0.6000 0.6600 0.6600 0.6600

2.076 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7700 0.7700

2.492 0.7700 0.8500 0.8500 0.8500 0.9500

2.907 0.9500 0.9500 0.9700 0.9700 0.9700

3.322 0.9800 0.9800 0.9800 0.9800 0.9800

3.738 0.9800 1.0500 1.0500 1.0500 1.1400

4.153 1.1400 1.1400 1.2400 1.2400 1.2400

4.568 1.3400 1.3400 1.3400 1.4300 1.4300

4.983 1.4300 1.3900 1.3900 1.3900 1.3000

5.399 1.3000 1.3000 1.4300 1.4300 1.4300

5.814 1.5300 1.5300 1.5300 1.6300 1.6300

6.229 1.6300 1.7400 1.7400 1.7400 1.9300

6.644 1.9300 1.9300 2.1400 2.1400 2.1400

7.060 2.2100 2.2100 2.2100 2.3900 2.3900

7.475 2.3900 2.7500 2.7500 2.7500 3.1400

7.890 3.1400 3.1400 3.6900 3.6900 3.6900

8.306 4.1400 4.1400 4.1400 4.4100 4.4100

8.721 4.4100 4.8000 4.8000 4.8000 5.3500

9.136 5.3500 5.3500 5.9400 5.9400 5.9400

9.551 6.3900 6.3900 6.3900 6.8200 6.8200

9.967 6.8200 6.0800 6.0800 6.0800 4.9100

10.382 4.9100 4.9100 5.4000 5.4000 5.4000

10.797 6.2200 6.2200 6.2200 6.2500 6.2500

11.213 6.2500 6.1600 6.1600 6.1600 5.8800

11.628 5.8800 5.8800 5.6700 5.6700 5.6700

12.043 6.8000 6.8000 6.8000 8.2300 8.2300

12.458 8.2300 9.0100 9.0100 9.0100 9.6900

12.874 9.6900 9.6900 10.7600 10.7600 10.7600

13.289 11.7700 11.7700 11.7700 10.4400 10.4400

13.704 10.4400 8.5700 8.5700 8.5700 8.7700

14.119 8.7700 8.7700 9.1900 9.1900 9.1900

14.535 9.1200 9.1200 9.1200 9.0000 9.0000

14.950 9.0000 8.6900 8.6900 8.6900 8.3300

15.365 8.3300 8.3300 7.5300 7.5300 7.5300

15.781 6.7700 6.7700 6.7700 4.5000 4.5000
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 4 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Unit Hydrograph (Onsite Runoff)
Subsection: Read Hydrograph Scenario: Base
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.083 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

16.196 4.5000 1.8100 1.8100 1.8100 1.1300

16.611 1.1300 1.1300 0.7800 0.7800 0.7800

17.026 0.8300 0.8300 0.8300 1.0000 1.0000

17.442 1.0000 1.0400 1.0400 1.0400 0.9500

17.857 0.9500 0.9500 0.8300 0.8300 0.8300

18.272 0.8000 0.8000 0.8000 0.7200 0.7200

18.688 0.7200 0.5500 0.5500 0.5500 0.5100

19.103 0.5100 0.5100 0.6500 0.6500 0.6500

19.518 0.6700 0.6700 0.6700 0.5300 0.5300

19.933 0.5300 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5700

20.349 0.5700 0.5700 0.5800 0.5800 0.5800

20.764 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5000 0.5000

21.179 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.4900

21.594 0.4900 0.4900 0.4900 0.4900 0.4900

22.010 0.4900 0.4900 0.4900 0.4900 0.4900

22.425 0.4900 0.4200 0.4200 0.4200 0.4000

22.840 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000

23.256 0.3900 0.3900 0.3900 0.3900 0.3900

23.671 0.3900 0.3900 0.3900 0.3900 0.2500
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 5 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Outfall (POC)
Subsection: Addition Summary Scenario: Base
Summary for Hydrograph Addition at 'Outfall (POC)'
Upstream Link Upstream Node
Outlet-1 Onsite Detention Basin
Node Inflows
Flow (Peak)
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Volume
(ft³)
Inflow Type Element
Flow (From) Outlet-1 125,693.859 15.000 8.7647
Flow (In) Outfall (POC) 125,693.859 15.000 8.7647
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 6 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Time vs. Elevation Scenario: Base
Time vs. Elevation (ft)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Time
(hours)

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003

0.250 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.009 0.011

0.500 0.014 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.025

0.750 0.029 0.032 0.035 0.039 0.043

1.000 0.047 0.050 0.054 0.058 0.062

1.250 0.066 0.070 0.073 0.077 0.080

1.500 0.084 0.087 0.091 0.094 0.097

1.750 0.101 0.104 0.108 0.112 0.116

2.000 0.120 0.123 0.128 0.132 0.136

2.250 0.140 0.145 0.149 0.154 0.158

2.500 0.162 0.167 0.172 0.176 0.181

2.750 0.186 0.191 0.196 0.202 0.207

3.000 0.213 0.218 0.223 0.229 0.234

3.250 0.240 0.245 0.251 0.256 0.262

3.500 0.267 0.273 0.278 0.284 0.289

3.750 0.295 0.300 0.306 0.312 0.318

4.000 0.324 0.330 0.336 0.342 0.349

4.250 0.355 0.362 0.369 0.376 0.382

4.500 0.389 0.397 0.404 0.411 0.419

4.750 0.426 0.434 0.442 0.450 0.458

5.000 0.466 0.474 0.481 0.489 0.497

5.250 0.504 0.512 0.519 0.526 0.533

5.500 0.540 0.548 0.556 0.563 0.571

5.750 0.579 0.587 0.596 0.604 0.613

6.000 0.621 0.630 0.639 0.648 0.657

6.250 0.666 0.675 0.685 0.694 0.704

6.500 0.714 0.724 0.735 0.745 0.756

6.750 0.767 0.778 0.790 0.802 0.814

7.000 0.826 0.838 0.850 0.863 0.875

7.250 0.887 0.900 0.914 0.927 0.940

7.500 0.954 0.968 0.984 0.999 1.015

7.750 1.030 1.047 1.065 1.082 1.100

8.000 1.118 1.138 1.159 1.179 1.200

8.250 1.222 1.244 1.267 1.291 1.314

8.500 1.338 1.363 1.388 1.413 1.438

8.750 1.463 1.489 1.517 1.544 1.571

9.000 1.599 1.628 1.659 1.689 1.720

9.250 1.751 1.783 1.817 1.851 1.885

9.500 1.919 1.955 1.991 2.028 2.064

9.750 2.101 2.139 2.178 2.217 2.256

10.000 2.294 2.330 2.364 2.399 2.433

10.250 2.467 2.496 2.524 2.551 2.579

10.500 2.607 2.637 2.667 2.698 2.728
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 7 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Time vs. Elevation Scenario: Base
Time vs. Elevation (ft)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Time
(hours)

10.750 2.760 2.794 2.829 2.864 2.899

11.000 2.934 2.970 3.005 3.041 3.076

11.250 3.111 3.146 3.181 3.216 3.250

11.500 3.285 3.318 3.352 3.385 3.418

11.750 3.451 3.483 3.515 3.546 3.578

12.000 3.612 3.648 3.687 3.725 3.764

12.250 3.804 3.849 3.896 3.943 3.989

12.500 4.037 4.087 4.139 4.190 4.242

12.750 4.294 4.348 4.403 4.459 4.514

13.000 4.570 4.628 4.685 4.739 4.790

13.250 4.841 4.892 4.942 4.990 5.035

13.500 5.075 5.107 5.135 5.161 5.184

13.750 5.203 5.215 5.223 5.231 5.238

14.000 5.245 5.252 5.258 5.264 5.270

14.250 5.276 5.282 5.288 5.294 5.300

14.500 5.304 5.309 5.312 5.316 5.319

14.750 5.322 5.324 5.326 5.327 5.329

15.000 5.330 5.330 5.329 5.329 5.328

15.250 5.327 5.326 5.323 5.322 5.320

15.500 5.317 5.312 5.306 5.301 5.297

15.750 5.291 5.284 5.276 5.270 5.263

16.000 5.253 5.238 5.221 5.206 5.192

16.250 5.174 5.151 5.127 5.104 5.084

16.500 5.064 5.044 5.025 5.007 4.991

16.750 4.975 4.958 4.942 4.927 4.913

17.000 4.899 4.886 4.874 4.862 4.851

17.250 4.841 4.831 4.822 4.814 4.806

17.500 4.799 4.791 4.785 4.778 4.772

17.750 4.766 4.760 4.754 4.749 4.743

18.000 4.738 4.732 4.727 4.722 4.717

18.250 4.713 4.708 4.704 4.700 4.696

18.500 4.692 4.688 4.684 4.680 4.677

18.750 4.673 4.669 4.665 4.661 4.658

19.000 4.654 4.651 4.647 4.644 4.641

19.250 4.639 4.637 4.635 4.633 4.631

19.500 4.630 4.628 4.627 4.625 4.624

19.750 4.623 4.621 4.619 4.617 4.615

20.000 4.614 4.612 4.610 4.609 4.608

20.250 4.606 4.605 4.604 4.604 4.603

20.500 4.602 4.601 4.601 4.600 4.599

20.750 4.599 4.598 4.597 4.596 4.595

21.000 4.594 4.593 4.593 4.592 4.591

21.250 4.591 4.590 4.589 4.589 4.588
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 8 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Time vs. Elevation Scenario: Base
Time vs. Elevation (ft)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Time
(hours)

21.500 4.588 4.587 4.586 4.586 4.585

21.750 4.585 4.585 4.584 4.584 4.583

22.000 4.583 4.583 4.582 4.582 4.582

22.250 4.581 4.581 4.581 4.581 4.580

22.500 4.580 4.579 4.579 4.578 4.578

22.750 4.577 4.576 4.576 4.575 4.575

23.000 4.574 4.574 4.573 4.573 4.572

23.250 4.572 4.572 4.571 4.571 4.570

23.500 4.570 4.570 4.569 4.569 4.569

23.750 4.569 4.568 4.568 4.568 4.567

24.000 4.567 (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 9 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Time vs. Volume Scenario: Base
Time vs. Volume (ft³)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Time
(hours)

0.000 0.000 8.000 28.000 53.000 78.000

0.250 103.000 143.000 206.000 278.000 349.000

0.500 421.000 500.000 590.000 685.000 780.000

0.750 875.000 976.000 1,086.000 1,200.000 1,314.000

1.000 1,428.000 1,544.000 1,662.000 1,780.000 1,899.000

1.250 2,018.000 2,132.000 2,242.000 2,349.000 2,456.000

1.500 2,564.000 2,670.000 2,776.000 2,881.000 2,986.000

1.750 3,091.000 3,200.000 3,314.000 3,429.000 3,544.000

2.000 3,660.000 3,781.000 3,910.000 4,041.000 4,171.000

2.250 4,302.000 4,434.000 4,568.000 4,701.000 4,835.000

2.500 4,970.000 5,109.000 5,254.000 5,402.000 5,549.000

2.750 5,698.000 5,852.000 6,014.000 6,179.000 6,344.000

3.000 6,508.000 6,674.000 6,841.000 7,009.000 7,176.000

3.250 7,344.000 7,511.000 7,680.000 7,848.000 8,017.000

3.500 8,185.000 8,353.000 8,520.000 8,688.000 8,856.000

3.750 9,024.000 9,197.000 9,375.000 9,554.000 9,733.000

4.000 9,913.000 10,100.000 10,292.000 10,487.000 10,681.000

4.250 10,877.000 11,080.000 11,289.000 11,501.000 11,712.000

4.500 11,925.000 12,145.000 12,371.000 12,600.000 12,828.000

4.750 13,058.000 13,293.000 13,535.000 13,779.000 14,022.000

5.000 14,264.000 14,503.000 14,739.000 14,974.000 15,209.000

5.250 15,442.000 15,668.000 15,888.000 16,106.000 16,324.000

5.500 16,544.000 16,774.000 17,013.000 17,254.000 17,494.000

5.750 17,737.000 17,987.000 18,244.000 18,502.000 18,760.000

6.000 19,021.000 19,288.000 19,562.000 19,838.000 20,113.000

6.250 20,391.000 20,677.000 20,970.000 21,265.000 21,560.000

6.500 21,858.000 22,172.000 22,498.000 22,826.000 23,154.000

6.750 23,486.000 23,836.000 24,198.000 24,563.000 24,928.000

7.000 25,295.000 25,666.000 26,042.000 26,419.000 26,796.000

7.250 27,177.000 27,572.000 27,978.000 28,386.000 28,794.000

7.500 29,212.000 29,658.000 30,127.000 30,599.000 31,070.000

7.750 31,553.000 32,067.000 32,605.000 33,146.000 33,687.000

8.000 34,243.000 34,845.000 35,480.000 36,119.000 36,758.000

8.250 37,410.000 38,099.000 38,815.000 39,534.000 40,252.000

8.500 40,979.000 41,728.000 42,492.000 43,258.000 44,024.000

8.750 44,801.000 45,612.000 46,445.000 47,280.000 48,114.000

9.000 48,966.000 49,866.000 50,796.000 51,728.000 52,660.000

9.250 53,612.000 54,614.000 55,650.000 56,687.000 57,724.000

9.500 58,775.000 59,867.000 60,982.000 62,099.000 63,215.000

9.750 64,345.000 65,514.000 66,706.000 67,898.000 69,090.000

10.000 70,255.000 71,352.000 72,410.000 73,467.000 74,524.000

10.250 75,538.000 76,446.000 77,291.000 78,137.000 78,982.000

10.500 79,845.000 80,753.000 81,686.000 82,618.000 83,550.000 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 10 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Time vs. Volume Scenario: Base
Time vs. Volume (ft³)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Time
(hours)

10.750 84,514.000 85,552.000 86,631.000 87,710.000 88,789.000

11.000 89,868.000 90,950.000 92,033.000 93,116.000 94,199.000

11.250 95,278.000 96,348.000 97,414.000 98,480.000 99,545.000

11.500 100,598.000 101,626.000 102,641.000 103,655.000 104,668.000

11.750 105,673.000 106,659.000 107,634.000 108,609.000 109,584.000

12.000 110,607.000 111,733.000 112,910.000 114,088.000 115,265.000

12.250 116,505.000 117,873.000 119,307.000 120,740.000 122,173.000

12.500 123,641.000 125,179.000 126,752.000 128,324.000 129,896.000

12.750 131,499.000 133,163.000 134,856.000 136,549.000 138,242.000

13.000 139,970.000 141,738.000 143,470.000 145,123.000 146,700.000

13.250 148,252.000 149,821.000 151,360.000 152,829.000 154,209.000

13.500 155,417.000 156,410.000 157,268.000 158,053.000 158,774.000

13.750 159,345.000 159,707.000 159,967.000 160,205.000 160,423.000

14.000 160,632.000 160,842.000 161,041.000 161,224.000 161,391.000

14.250 161,566.000 161,762.000 161,957.000 162,135.000 162,299.000

14.500 162,446.000 162,574.000 162,690.000 162,795.000 162,892.000

14.750 162,974.000 163,040.000 163,095.000 163,146.000 163,193.000

15.000 163,220.000 163,218.000 163,205.000 163,193.000 163,182.000

15.250 163,153.000 163,096.000 163,031.000 162,972.000 162,916.000

15.500 162,822.000 162,669.000 162,502.000 162,349.000 162,206.000

15.750 162,035.000 161,814.000 161,587.000 161,379.000 161,181.000

16.000 160,874.000 160,404.000 159,903.000 159,445.000 159,012.000

16.250 158,465.000 157,743.000 157,001.000 156,320.000 155,693.000

16.500 155,079.000 154,462.000 153,876.000 153,339.000 152,839.000

16.750 152,346.000 151,847.000 151,360.000 150,896.000 150,453.000

17.000 150,034.000 149,638.000 149,262.000 148,902.000 148,561.000

17.250 148,245.000 147,958.000 147,688.000 147,431.000 147,186.000

17.500 146,955.000 146,737.000 146,531.000 146,333.000 146,144.000

17.750 145,958.000 145,774.000 145,596.000 145,426.000 145,262.000

18.000 145,098.000 144,933.000 144,772.000 144,618.000 144,472.000

18.250 144,330.000 144,192.000 144,060.000 143,934.000 143,812.000

18.500 143,691.000 143,570.000 143,452.000 143,340.000 143,230.000

18.750 143,115.000 142,992.000 142,871.000 142,755.000 142,644.000

19.000 142,536.000 142,429.000 142,327.000 142,229.000 142,138.000

19.250 142,061.000 141,997.000 141,939.000 141,884.000 141,831.000

19.500 141,783.000 141,738.000 141,695.000 141,655.000 141,614.000

19.750 141,565.000 141,508.000 141,451.000 141,397.000 141,345.000

20.000 141,294.000 141,244.000 141,196.000 141,150.000 141,108.000

20.250 141,071.000 141,041.000 141,013.000 140,986.000 140,960.000

20.500 140,937.000 140,915.000 140,894.000 140,874.000 140,854.000

20.750 140,830.000 140,802.000 140,774.000 140,747.000 140,722.000

21.000 140,697.000 140,672.000 140,649.000 140,626.000 140,605.000

21.250 140,584.000 140,565.000 140,546.000 140,528.000 140,511.000 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 11 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Time vs. Volume Scenario: Base
Time vs. Volume (ft³)
Output Time increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
Time
(hours)

21.500 140,494.000 140,477.000 140,460.000 140,445.000 140,430.000

21.750 140,415.000 140,402.000 140,389.000 140,376.000 140,365.000

22.000 140,353.000 140,343.000 140,332.000 140,323.000 140,313.000

22.250 140,304.000 140,296.000 140,288.000 140,280.000 140,271.000

22.500 140,256.000 140,238.000 140,221.000 140,204.000 140,187.000

22.750 140,169.000 140,151.000 140,134.000 140,117.000 140,102.000

23.000 140,087.000 140,072.000 140,059.000 140,045.000 140,033.000

23.250 140,020.000 140,007.000 139,994.000 139,982.000 139,971.000

23.500 139,960.000 139,950.000 139,940.000 139,931.000 139,922.000

23.750 139,913.000 139,905.000 139,897.000 139,890.000 139,878.000

24.000 139,855.000 (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 12 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Elevation-Area Volume Curve Scenario: Base
Volume (Total)
(ft³)
Volume
(ft³)
A1+A2+sqr
(A1*A2)
(ft²)
Area
(ft²)
Planimeter
(ft²)
Elevation
(ft)

0.000 0.0 30,625 0 0.000 0.000

3.500 0.0 30,625 91,875 107,188.000 107,188.000

7.000 0.0 30,625 91,875 107,188.000 214,375.000
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 13 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Volume Equations Scenario: Base
Pond Volume Equations
* Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes.

Volume = (1/3) * (EL2 - El1) * (Area1 + Area2 + sqr(Area1 * Area2)) where: EL1, EL2 Lower and upper elevations of the increment Area1, Area2 Areas computed for EL1, EL2, respectively
Volume Incremental volume between EL1 and EL2
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 14 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Outlet Input Data Scenario: Base
Requested Pond Water Surface Elevations
Minimum (Headwater) 0.000 ft
Increment (Headwater) 0.500 ft
Maximum (Headwater) 7.000 ft
Outlet Connectivity
E2
(ft)
E1
(ft)
Structure Type Outlet ID Direction Outfall
Rectangular Weir Weir - 1 Forward TW 4.550 7.000
Stand Pipe Riser - 1 Forward TW 6.000 7.000
Orifice-Circular Orifice - 1 Forward TW 0.000 7.000
Tailwater Settings Tailwater (N/A) (N/A)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 15 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Outlet Input Data Scenario: Base
Structure ID: Orifice - 1
Structure Type: Orifice-Circular
Number of Openings 1
Elevation 0.000 ft
Orifice Diameter 2.28 in
Orifice Coefficient 0.600
Structure ID: Riser - 1
Structure Type: Stand Pipe
Number of Openings 1
Elevation 6.000 ft
Diameter 54.00 in
Orifice Area 15.9 ft²
Orifice Coefficient 0.600
Weir Length 14.14 ft
Weir Coefficient 3.00 (ft^0.5)/s
K Reverse 1.000
Manning's n 0.000
Kev, Charged Riser 0.000
Weir Submergence False
Orifice H to crest True
Structure ID: Weir - 1
Structure Type: Rectangular Weir
Number of Openings 1
Elevation 4.550 ft
Weir Length 3.95 ft
Weir Coefficient 3.00 (ft^0.5)/s
Structure ID: TW
Structure Type: TW Setup, DS Channel
Tailwater Type Free Outfall
Convergence Tolerances
Maximum Iterations 30

0.010 ft Tailwater Tolerance
(Minimum)

0.500 ft Tailwater Tolerance
(Maximum)

0.010 ft Headwater Tolerance
(Minimum)

0.500 ft Headwater Tolerance
(Maximum)
Flow Tolerance (Minimum) 0.001 ft³/s
Flow Tolerance (Maximum) 10.000 ft³/s
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 16 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Outlet Input Data Scenario: Base
Convergence Tolerances
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 17 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

0.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

0.500 0.0868 (N/A) 0.000

1.000 0.1298 (N/A) 0.000

1.500 0.1618 (N/A) 0.000

2.000 0.1883 (N/A) 0.000

2.500 0.2116 (N/A) 0.000

3.000 0.2326 (N/A) 0.000

3.500 0.2518 (N/A) 0.000

4.000 0.2697 (N/A) 0.000

4.500 0.2864 (N/A) 0.000

4.550 0.2880 (N/A) 0.000

5.000 0.3022 (N/A) 0.000

5.500 0.3173 (N/A) 0.000

6.000 0.3316 (N/A) 0.000

6.500 0.3454 (N/A) 0.000

7.000 0.3586 (N/A) 0.000
Computation Messages
Upstream HW &
DNstream TW < Inv.El
H =.41
H =.91
H =1.41
H =1.91
H =2.41
H =2.91
H =3.41
H =3.91
H =4.41
H =4.46
H =4.91
H =5.41
H =5.91
H =6.41
H =6.91
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 18 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

0.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

0.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

1.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

1.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

2.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

2.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

3.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

3.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.550 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

5.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

5.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

6.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

6.500 14.9947 (N/A) 0.000

7.000 42.4115 (N/A) 0.000
Computation Messages
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 19 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

RATING TABLE FOR ONE OUTLET TYPE
Structure ID = Riser - 1 (Stand Pipe)
---------------------------------------
Upstream ID = (Pond Water Surface)
Downstream ID = Tailwater (Pond Outfall)
Computation Messages
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
HW & TW <
Inv.El.=6.000
Weir: H =0ft
Weir: H =0.5ft
Weir: H =1ft
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 20 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

0.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

0.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

1.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

1.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

2.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

2.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

3.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

3.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.500 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

4.550 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

5.000 3.5771 (N/A) 0.000

5.500 10.9725 (N/A) 0.000

6.000 20.6905 (N/A) 0.000

6.500 32.2679 (N/A) 0.000

7.000 45.4431 (N/A) 0.000
Computation Messages
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
HW & TW below
Inv.El.=4.550
H=.00; Htw=.00;
Qfree=.00;
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 21 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves Scenario: Base

RATING TABLE FOR ONE OUTLET TYPE
Structure ID = Weir - 1 (Rectangular Weir)
---------------------------------------
Upstream ID = (Pond Water Surface)
Downstream ID = Tailwater (Pond Outfall)
Computation Messages
H=.45; Htw=.00;
Qfree=3.58;
H=.95; Htw=.00;
Qfree=10.97;
H=1.45; Htw=.00;
Qfree=20.69;
H=1.95; Htw=.00;
Qfree=32.27;
H=2.45; Htw=.00;
Qfree=45.44;
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 22 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1
Subsection: Composite Rating Curve Scenario: Base
Composite Outflow Summary
Convergence Error
(ft)
Tailwater Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Water Surface
Elevation
(ft)

0.000 0.0000 (N/A) 0.000

0.500 0.0868 (N/A) 0.000

1.000 0.1298 (N/A) 0.000

1.500 0.1618 (N/A) 0.000

2.000 0.1883 (N/A) 0.000

2.500 0.2116 (N/A) 0.000

3.000 0.2326 (N/A) 0.000

3.500 0.2518 (N/A) 0.000

4.000 0.2697 (N/A) 0.000

4.500 0.2864 (N/A) 0.000

4.550 0.2880 (N/A) 0.000

5.000 3.8794 (N/A) 0.000

5.500 11.2897 (N/A) 0.000

6.000 21.0221 (N/A) 0.000

6.500 47.6080 (N/A) 0.000

7.000 88.2131 (N/A) 0.000
Contributing Structures
None Contributing
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Riser - 1 +
Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Riser - 1 +
Orifice - 1
Weir - 1 + Riser - 1 +
Orifice - 1
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 23 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin
Subsection: Elevation-Volume-Flow Table (Pond) Scenario: Base Infiltration
No Infiltration Infiltration Method
(Computed)
Initial Conditions

0.000 0.0000 0.000 30,625 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.500 0.0868 15,312.500 30,625 0.0000 0.0868 170.2257

1.000 0.1298 30,625.000 30,625 0.0000 0.1298 340.4076

1.500 0.1618 45,937.500 30,625 0.0000 0.1618 510.5784

2.000 0.1883 61,250.000 30,625 0.0000 0.1883 680.7439

2.500 0.2116 76,562.500 30,625 0.0000 0.2116 850.9061

3.000 0.2326 91,875.000 30,625 0.0000 0.2326 1,021.0659

3.500 0.2518 107,187.500 30,625 0.0000 0.2518 1,191.2240

4.000 0.2697 122,500.000 30,625 0.0000 0.2697 1,361.3808

4.500 0.2864 137,812.500 30,625 0.0000 0.2864 1,531.5364

4.550 0.2880 139,343.750 30,625 0.0000 0.2880 1,548.5519

5.000 3.8794 153,125.000 30,625 0.0000 3.8794 1,705.2683

5.500 11.2897 168,437.500 30,625 0.0000 11.2897 1,882.8175

6.000 21.0221 183,750.000 30,625 0.0000 21.0221 2,062.6887

6.500 47.6080 199,062.500 30,625 0.0000 47.6080 2,259.4135

7.000 88.2131 214,375.000 30,625 0.0000 88.2131 2,470.1576 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 24 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (IN)
Subsection: Level Pool Pond Routing Summary Scenario: Base Infiltration
No Infiltration Infiltration Method
(Computed)
Initial Conditions

0.000 ft Elevation (Water Surface,
Initial)
Volume (Initial) 0.000 ft³
Flow (Initial Outlet) 0.0000 ft³/s
Flow (Initial Infiltration) 0.0000 ft³/s
Flow (Initial, Total) 0.0000 ft³/s
Time Increment 0.050 hours
Inflow/Outflow Hydrograph Summary
Flow (Peak In) hours 11.7700 ft³/s Time to Peak (Flow, In) 13.300 Flow (Peak Outlet) hours 8.7647 ft³/s Time to Peak (Flow, Outlet) 15.000

5.330 ft Elevation (Water Surface,
Peak)
Volume (Peak) 163,219.794 ft³
Mass Balance (ft³)
Volume (Initial) 0.000 ft³
Volume (Total Inflow) 265,549.000 ft³
Volume (Total Infiltration) 0.000 ft³
125,694.000 ft³ Volume (Total Outlet
Outflow)
Volume (Retained) 139,781.000 ft³
Volume (Unrouted) -74.000 ft³
Error (Mass Balance) 0.0 %
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 25 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) Scenario: Base Peak Discharge 8.7647 ft³/s
Time to Peak 15.000 hours
Hydrograph Volume 125,693.510 ft³
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

0.300 0.0008 0.0012 0.0016 0.0020 0.0024

0.550 0.0028 0.0033 0.0039 0.0044 0.0050

0.800 0.0055 0.0062 0.0068 0.0075 0.0081

1.050 0.0088 0.0094 0.0101 0.0108 0.0114

1.300 0.0121 0.0127 0.0133 0.0139 0.0145

1.550 0.0151 0.0157 0.0163 0.0169 0.0175

1.800 0.0181 0.0188 0.0194 0.0201 0.0208

2.050 0.0214 0.0222 0.0229 0.0237 0.0244

2.300 0.0251 0.0259 0.0267 0.0274 0.0282

2.550 0.0290 0.0298 0.0306 0.0315 0.0323

2.800 0.0332 0.0341 0.0350 0.0360 0.0369

3.050 0.0379 0.0388 0.0398 0.0407 0.0416

3.300 0.0426 0.0436 0.0445 0.0455 0.0464

3.550 0.0474 0.0483 0.0493 0.0502 0.0512

3.800 0.0522 0.0532 0.0542 0.0552 0.0562

4.050 0.0573 0.0584 0.0595 0.0606 0.0617

4.300 0.0628 0.0640 0.0652 0.0664 0.0676

4.550 0.0689 0.0702 0.0715 0.0728 0.0741

4.800 0.0754 0.0768 0.0781 0.0795 0.0809

5.050 0.0823 0.0836 0.0849 0.0863 0.0872

5.300 0.0878 0.0885 0.0891 0.0897 0.0903

5.550 0.0909 0.0916 0.0923 0.0930 0.0936

5.800 0.0944 0.0951 0.0958 0.0965 0.0973

6.050 0.0980 0.0988 0.0995 0.1003 0.1011

6.300 0.1019 0.1027 0.1036 0.1044 0.1052

6.550 0.1061 0.1070 0.1079 0.1089 0.1098

6.800 0.1108 0.1118 0.1128 0.1138 0.1149

7.050 0.1159 0.1170 0.1180 0.1191 0.1201

7.300 0.1213 0.1224 0.1235 0.1247 0.1259

7.550 0.1271 0.1284 0.1297 0.1307 0.1318

7.800 0.1328 0.1339 0.1351 0.1362 0.1374

8.050 0.1386 0.1399 0.1413 0.1426 0.1440

8.300 0.1454 0.1469 0.1484 0.1499 0.1514

8.550 0.1530 0.1546 0.1562 0.1578 0.1594

8.800 0.1611 0.1626 0.1641 0.1655 0.1670

9.050 0.1686 0.1702 0.1718 0.1734 0.1751

9.300 0.1768 0.1786 0.1804 0.1822 0.1841

9.550 0.1859 0.1879 0.1896 0.1913 0.1931

9.800 0.1948 0.1966 0.1985 0.2003 0.2020
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 26 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) Scenario: Base HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

10.050 0.2037 0.2053 0.2069 0.2085 0.2101

10.300 0.2115 0.2126 0.2138 0.2149 0.2161

10.550 0.2174 0.2186 0.2199 0.2212 0.2225

10.800 0.2239 0.2254 0.2269 0.2284 0.2298

11.050 0.2313 0.2328 0.2341 0.2355 0.2369

11.300 0.2382 0.2395 0.2409 0.2422 0.2435

11.550 0.2448 0.2461 0.2474 0.2486 0.2499

11.800 0.2511 0.2523 0.2535 0.2546 0.2558

12.050 0.2571 0.2585 0.2599 0.2612 0.2627

12.300 0.2643 0.2659 0.2676 0.2693 0.2709

12.550 0.2726 0.2743 0.2760 0.2778 0.2795

12.800 0.2813 0.2832 0.2850 0.2869 0.4513

13.050 0.9120 1.3634 1.7940 2.2050 2.6094

13.300 3.0184 3.4195 3.8022 4.4040 4.9888

13.550 5.4692 5.8842 6.2644 6.6130 6.8894

13.800 7.0646 7.1903 7.3055 7.4110 7.5125

14.050 7.6138 7.7103 7.7987 7.8798 7.9642

14.300 8.0590 8.1534 8.2399 8.3192 8.3902

14.550 8.4523 8.5081 8.5592 8.6060 8.6459

14.800 8.6775 8.7044 8.7291 8.7517 8.7647

15.050 8.7636 8.7574 8.7518 8.7465 8.7324

15.300 8.7047 8.6734 8.6447 8.6178 8.5723

15.550 8.4979 8.4171 8.3431 8.2743 8.1911

15.800 8.0842 7.9745 7.8739 7.7780 7.6292

16.050 7.4019 7.1597 6.9377 6.7285 6.4637

16.300 6.1143 5.7550 5.4257 5.1221 4.8252

16.550 4.5263 4.2428 3.9830 3.8049 3.6764

16.800 3.5463 3.4195 3.2985 3.1832 3.0739

17.050 2.9707 2.8726 2.7790 2.6900 2.6078

17.300 2.5329 2.4626 2.3956 2.3317 2.2714

17.550 2.2147 2.1609 2.1095 2.0603 2.0118

17.800 1.9637 1.9173 1.8729 1.8303 1.7876

18.050 1.7445 1.7026 1.6626 1.6244 1.5874

18.300 1.5515 1.5170 1.4841 1.4525 1.4210

18.550 1.3894 1.3587 1.3294 1.3009 1.2707

18.800 1.2387 1.2071 1.1770 1.1481 1.1199

19.050 1.0921 1.0654 1.0400 1.0162 0.9961

19.300 0.9795 0.9644 0.9500 0.9363 0.9236

19.550 0.9119 0.9008 0.8902 0.8795 0.8668

19.800 0.8520 0.8372 0.8232 0.8096 0.7964

20.050 0.7833 0.7708 0.7588 0.7477 0.7382

20.300 0.7303 0.7229 0.7159 0.7093 0.7031

20.550 0.6974 0.6921 0.6869 0.6817 0.6753

20.800 0.6680 0.6607 0.6538 0.6472 0.6407
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 27 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Onsite Detention Basin (OUT)
Subsection: Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) Scenario: Base HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

21.050 0.6342 0.6281 0.6222 0.6166 0.6113

21.300 0.6062 0.6013 0.5967 0.5922 0.5877

21.550 0.5832 0.5790 0.5749 0.5710 0.5673

21.800 0.5637 0.5604 0.5571 0.5541 0.5511

22.050 0.5483 0.5457 0.5431 0.5407 0.5383

22.300 0.5361 0.5340 0.5320 0.5296 0.5258

22.550 0.5212 0.5165 0.5121 0.5077 0.5031

22.800 0.4985 0.4939 0.4896 0.4855 0.4816

23.050 0.4779 0.4743 0.4709 0.4676 0.4642

23.300 0.4608 0.4576 0.4545 0.4515 0.4487

23.550 0.4460 0.4434 0.4410 0.4386 0.4364

23.800 0.4343 0.4323 0.4303 0.4273 0.4214
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 28 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
LMC Murrieta Apartments
Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
APPENDIX D: REFERENCES
5/18/22, 4:07 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.5503&lon=-117.1971&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/4 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Murrieta, California, USA*
Latitude: 33.5503°, Longitude: -117.1971°
Elevation: 1081.36 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches) 1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.119
(0.100‑0.143)

0.157
(0.132‑0.189)

0.210
(0.175‑0.253)

0.254
(0.210‑0.309)

0.317
(0.253‑0.400)

0.367
(0.287‑0.474)

0.420
(0.320‑0.556)

0.476
(0.352‑0.650)

0.555
(0.393‑0.792)

0.619
(0.423‑0.916)
10-min 0.170
(0.143‑0.205)

0.225
(0.189‑0.271)

0.300
(0.251‑0.363)

0.364
(0.302‑0.444)

0.454
(0.363‑0.573)

0.526
(0.411‑0.679)

0.602
(0.458‑0.797)

0.682
(0.505‑0.932)

0.796
(0.563‑1.14)

0.887
(0.606‑1.31)
15-min 0.206
(0.173‑0.248)

0.272
(0.228‑0.328)

0.363
(0.304‑0.439)

0.440
(0.365‑0.536)

0.549
(0.439‑0.693)

0.636
(0.497‑0.821)

0.727
(0.554‑0.964)

0.825
(0.610‑1.13)

0.962
(0.681‑1.37)

1.07 (0.733‑1.59)
30-min 0.319
(0.267‑0.383)

0.422
(0.353‑0.508)

0.562
(0.470‑0.679)

0.681
(0.564‑0.830)

0.849
(0.679‑1.07)

0.984
(0.770‑1.27)

1.13 (0.858‑1.49)

1.28 (0.945‑1.74)

1.49 (1.05‑2.13)

1.66 (1.13‑2.46)
60-min 0.484
(0.407‑0.583)

0.641
(0.538‑0.772)

0.855
(0.715‑1.03)

1.04 (0.858‑1.26)

1.29 (1.03‑1.63)

1.50 (1.17‑1.93)

1.71 (1.31‑2.27)

1.94 (1.44‑2.65)

2.27 (1.60‑3.23)

2.53 (1.72‑3.74)
2-hr 0.710
(0.596‑0.855)

0.933
(0.782‑1.12)

1.23 (1.03‑1.49)

1.48 (1.23‑1.81)

1.83 (1.47‑2.32)

2.11 (1.65‑2.73)

2.40 (1.83‑3.18)

2.70 (2.00‑3.69)

3.13 (2.21‑4.46)

3.46 (2.36‑5.13)
3-hr 0.887
(0.745‑1.07)

1.16 (0.974‑1.40)

1.53 (1.28‑1.85)

1.84 (1.52‑2.24)

2.26 (1.81‑2.86)

2.60 (2.03‑3.36)

2.95 (2.25‑3.91)

3.31 (2.45‑4.52)

3.82 (2.70‑5.45)

4.22 (2.88‑6.24)
6-hr 1.27
(1.07‑1.53)

1.66 (1.39‑2.00)

2.18 (1.83‑2.64)

2.62 (2.17‑3.19)

3.21 (2.57‑4.06)

3.68 (2.88‑4.75)

4.16 (3.17‑5.51)

4.66 (3.45‑6.36)

5.35 (3.79‑7.63)

5.89 (4.02‑8.72)
12-hr 1.69
(1.42‑2.03)

2.22 (1.86‑2.67)

2.92 (2.44‑3.53)

3.50 (2.90‑4.26)

4.29 (3.43‑5.42)

4.90 (3.84‑6.33)

5.53 (4.22‑7.33)

6.19 (4.58‑8.45)

7.08 (5.01‑10.1)

7.77 (5.31‑11.5)
24-hr 2.18
(1.92‑2.51)

2.90 (2.56‑3.35)

3.85 (3.39‑4.46)

4.63 (4.04‑5.41)

5.70 (4.82‑6.87)

6.53 (5.41‑8.03)

7.37 (5.97‑9.28)

8.25 (6.51‑10.7)

9.45 (7.16‑12.7)

10.4 (7.62‑14.5)
2-day 2.62
(2.31‑3.02)

3.57 (3.15‑4.13)

4.85 (4.27‑5.62)

5.91 (5.16‑6.91)

7.39 (6.25‑8.91)

8.56 (7.10‑10.5)

9.77 (7.91‑12.3)

11.0 (8.71‑14.3)

12.8 (9.71‑17.2)

14.2 (10.4‑19.8)
3-day 2.76
(2.44‑3.19)

3.83 (3.38‑4.43)

5.29 (4.65‑6.13)

6.51 (5.69‑7.61)

8.24 (6.97‑9.94)

9.63 (7.98‑11.8)

11.1 (8.98‑14.0)

12.6 (9.97‑16.3)

14.8 (11.2‑20.0)

16.6 (12.2‑23.1)
4-day 2.99
(2.64‑3.45)

4.19 (3.70‑4.84)

5.82 (5.13‑6.75)

7.21 (6.30‑8.43)

9.19 (7.77‑11.1)

10.8 (8.94‑13.3)

12.5 (10.1‑15.7)

14.3 (11.3‑18.5)

16.9 (12.8‑22.7)

19.0 (13.9‑26.4)
7-day 3.48
(3.07‑4.02)

4.91 (4.33‑5.68)

6.88 (6.05‑7.97)

8.55 (7.47‑9.99)

11.0 (9.27‑13.2)

12.9 (10.7‑15.9)

15.0 (12.1‑18.9)

17.2 (13.6‑22.3)

20.4 (15.5‑27.5)

23.1 (16.9‑32.1)
10-day 3.76
(3.32‑4.34)

5.33 (4.70‑6.16)

7.49 (6.59‑8.68)

9.34 (8.16‑10.9)

12.0 (10.2‑14.5)

14.2 (11.7‑17.4)

16.5 (13.3‑20.7)

19.0 (15.0‑24.5)

22.6 (17.1‑30.4)

25.6 (18.7‑35.6)
20-day 4.69
(4.14‑5.41)

6.72 (5.93‑7.77)

9.55 (8.41‑11.1)

12.0 (10.5‑14.0)

15.5 (13.1‑18.7)

18.4 (15.3‑22.7)

21.5 (17.5‑27.1)

24.9 (19.7‑32.3)

29.9 (22.6‑40.2)

34.0 (24.9‑47.3)
30-day 5.55
(4.90‑6.40)

7.98 (7.05‑9.23)

11.4 (10.0‑13.2)

14.4 (12.5‑16.8)

18.7 (15.8‑22.5)

22.2 (18.4‑27.3)

26.1 (21.1‑32.8)

30.3 (23.9‑39.1)

36.4 (27.6‑49.0)

41.5 (30.4‑57.7)
45-day 6.54
(5.78‑7.55)

9.40 (8.30‑10.9)

13.4 (11.8‑15.6)

16.9 (14.8‑19.8)

22.1 (18.7‑26.6)

26.4 (21.9‑32.4)

31.0 (25.1‑39.0)

36.1 (28.4‑46.6)

43.5 (33.0‑58.6)

49.7 (36.5‑69.2)
60-day 7.58
(6.70‑8.76)

10.8 (9.57‑12.5)

15.5 (13.6‑17.9)

19.5 (17.0‑22.8)

25.4 (21.5‑30.6)

30.3 (25.2‑37.3)

35.7 (28.9‑44.9)

41.6 (32.8‑53.8)

50.3 (38.1‑67.7)

57.5 (42.2‑80.1)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
PF graphical
5/18/22, 4:07 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.5503&lon=-117.1971&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/4 Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
5/18/22, 4:07 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.5503&lon=-117.1971&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 3/4 Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
5/18/22, 4:07 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.5503&lon=-117.1971&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 4/4 Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
+
–
100km
60mi
5/18/22, 4:06 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.5503&lon=-117.1971&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 1/4 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Murrieta, California, USA*
Latitude: 33.5503°, Longitude: -117.1971°
Elevation: 1081.36 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches/hour) 1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 1.43
(1.20‑1.72)

1.88 (1.58‑2.27)

2.52 (2.10‑3.04)

3.05 (2.52‑3.71)

3.80 (3.04‑4.80)

4.40 (3.44‑5.69)

5.04 (3.84‑6.67)

5.71 (4.22‑7.80)

6.66 (4.72‑9.50)

7.43 (5.08‑11.0)
10-min 1.02
(0.858‑1.23)

1.35 (1.13‑1.63)

1.80 (1.51‑2.18)

2.18 (1.81‑2.66)

2.72 (2.18‑3.44)

3.16 (2.47‑4.07)

3.61 (2.75‑4.78)

4.09 (3.03‑5.59)

4.78 (3.38‑6.82)

5.32 (3.64‑7.88)
15-min 0.824
(0.692‑0.992)

1.09 (0.912‑1.31)

1.45 (1.22‑1.76)

1.76 (1.46‑2.14)

2.20 (1.76‑2.77)

2.54 (1.99‑3.28)

2.91 (2.22‑3.86)

3.30 (2.44‑4.51)

3.85 (2.72‑5.49)

4.29 (2.93‑6.35)
30-min 0.638
(0.534‑0.766)

0.844
(0.706‑1.02)

1.12 (0.940‑1.36)

1.36 (1.13‑1.66)

1.70 (1.36‑2.15)

1.97 (1.54‑2.54)

2.25 (1.72‑2.98)

2.55 (1.89‑3.49)

2.98 (2.11‑4.25)

3.32 (2.27‑4.92)
60-min 0.484
(0.407‑0.583)

0.641
(0.538‑0.772)

0.855
(0.715‑1.03)

1.04 (0.858‑1.26)

1.29 (1.03‑1.63)

1.50 (1.17‑1.93)

1.71 (1.31‑2.27)

1.94 (1.44‑2.65)

2.27 (1.60‑3.23)

2.53 (1.72‑3.74)
2-hr 0.355
(0.298‑0.428)

0.466
(0.391‑0.562)

0.616
(0.515‑0.744)

0.742
(0.614‑0.904)

0.917
(0.733‑1.16)

1.06 (0.826‑1.36)

1.20 (0.914‑1.59)

1.35 (1.00‑1.85)

1.56 (1.11‑2.23)

1.73 (1.18‑2.56)
3-hr 0.295
(0.248‑0.355)

0.387
(0.324‑0.466)

0.510
(0.426‑0.616)

0.612
(0.507‑0.746)

0.754
(0.603‑0.952)

0.865
(0.677‑1.12)

0.981
(0.748‑1.30)

1.10 (0.816‑1.51)

1.27 (0.900‑1.81)

1.41 (0.959‑2.08)
6-hr 0.212
(0.178‑0.255)

0.278
(0.233‑0.334)

0.365
(0.305‑0.441)

0.437
(0.362‑0.533)

0.536
(0.429‑0.678)

0.614
(0.480‑0.793)

0.694
(0.529‑0.920)

0.778
(0.575‑1.06)

0.893
(0.632‑1.27)

0.983
(0.671‑1.46)
12-hr 0.140
(0.118‑0.169)

0.184
(0.154‑0.222)

0.243
(0.203‑0.293)

0.290
(0.241‑0.354)

0.356
(0.285‑0.450)

0.407
(0.318‑0.526)

0.459
(0.350‑0.609)

0.513
(0.380‑0.701)

0.587
(0.416‑0.838)

0.645
(0.440‑0.955)
24-hr 0.091
(0.080‑0.105)

0.121
(0.107‑0.140)

0.160
(0.141‑0.186)

0.193
(0.169‑0.225)

0.237
(0.201‑0.286)

0.272
(0.226‑0.335)

0.307
(0.249‑0.387)

0.344
(0.271‑0.445)

0.394
(0.298‑0.530)

0.433
(0.317‑0.602)
2-day 0.055
(0.048‑0.063)

0.074
(0.066‑0.086)

0.101
(0.089‑0.117)

0.123
(0.108‑0.144)

0.154
(0.130‑0.186)

0.178
(0.148‑0.219)

0.203
(0.165‑0.256)

0.230
(0.181‑0.297)

0.267
(0.202‑0.359)

0.296
(0.217‑0.412)
3-day 0.038
(0.034‑0.044)

0.053
(0.047‑0.062)

0.073
(0.065‑0.085)

0.090
(0.079‑0.106)

0.114
(0.097‑0.138)

0.134
(0.111‑0.164)

0.154
(0.125‑0.194)

0.176
(0.138‑0.227)

0.206
(0.156‑0.277)

0.231
(0.169‑0.321)
4-day 0.031
(0.028‑0.036)

0.044
(0.039‑0.050)

0.061
(0.053‑0.070)

0.075
(0.066‑0.088)

0.096
(0.081‑0.115)

0.112
(0.093‑0.138)

0.130
(0.105‑0.164)

0.149
(0.117‑0.192)

0.176
(0.133‑0.237)

0.198
(0.145‑0.275)
7-day 0.021
(0.018‑0.024)

0.029
(0.026‑0.034)

0.041
(0.036‑0.047)

0.051
(0.044‑0.059)

0.065
(0.055‑0.079)

0.077
(0.064‑0.094)

0.089
(0.072‑0.112)

0.102
(0.081‑0.133)

0.122
(0.092‑0.164)

0.137
(0.101‑0.191)
10-day 0.016
(0.014‑0.018)

0.022
(0.020‑0.026)

0.031
(0.027‑0.036)

0.039
(0.034‑0.045)

0.050
(0.042‑0.060)

0.059
(0.049‑0.073)

0.069
(0.056‑0.086)

0.079
(0.062‑0.102)

0.094
(0.071‑0.127)

0.107
(0.078‑0.148)
20-day 0.010
(0.009‑0.011)

0.014
(0.012‑0.016)

0.020
(0.018‑0.023)

0.025
(0.022‑0.029)

0.032
(0.027‑0.039)

0.038
(0.032‑0.047)

0.045
(0.036‑0.057)

0.052
(0.041‑0.067)

0.062
(0.047‑0.084)

0.071
(0.052‑0.099)
30-day 0.008
(0.007‑0.009)

0.011
(0.010‑0.013)

0.016
(0.014‑0.018)

0.020
(0.017‑0.023)

0.026
(0.022‑0.031)

0.031
(0.026‑0.038)

0.036
(0.029‑0.046)

0.042
(0.033‑0.054)

0.050
(0.038‑0.068)

0.058
(0.042‑0.080)
45-day 0.006
(0.005‑0.007)

0.009
(0.008‑0.010)

0.012
(0.011‑0.014)

0.016
(0.014‑0.018)

0.020
(0.017‑0.025)

0.024
(0.020‑0.030)

0.029
(0.023‑0.036)

0.033
(0.026‑0.043)

0.040
(0.031‑0.054)

0.046
(0.034‑0.064)
60-day 0.005
(0.005‑0.006)

0.008
(0.007‑0.009)

0.011
(0.009‑0.012)

0.014
(0.012‑0.016)

0.018
(0.015‑0.021)

0.021
(0.017‑0.026)

0.025
(0.020‑0.031)

0.029
(0.023‑0.037)

0.035
(0.026‑0.047)

0.040
(0.029‑0.056)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
PF graphical
5/18/22, 4:06 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.5503&lon=-117.1971&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 2/4 Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
5/18/22, 4:06 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.5503&lon=-117.1971&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 3/4 Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
5/18/22, 4:06 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.5503&lon=-117.1971&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 4/4 Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
+
–
100km
60mi
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Western Riverside
Area, California Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
February 7, 2022
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Western Riverside Area, California.................................................................13 GtA—Grangeville fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent sl opes............13 GvB—Grangeville fine sandy loam, saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes.....14 GyA—Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.................................. 15 MmC2—Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded.................16 MnE3—Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded.................................................................................... 18 RaB2—Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded......................19 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................21 Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................21 Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................21 Hydrologic Soil Group................................................................................. 21 References............................................................................................................26 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
3711990 3712060 3712130 3712200 3712270 3712340 3712410 3712480 3712550 3711990 3712060 3712130 3712200 3712270 3712340 3712410 3712480 3712550 481480 481550 481620 481690 481760 481830 481900
481480 481550 481620 481690 481760 481830 481900
33° 33' 9'' N
117° 11' 58'' W
33° 33' 9'' N
117° 11' 41'' W
33° 32' 50'' N
117° 11' 58'' W
33° 32' 50'' N
117° 11' 41'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 40 80 160 240
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,840 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Western Riverside Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 13, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 7, 2021—Jan 14, 2021
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI GtA Grangeville fine sandy loam,
drained, 0 to 2 percent sl
opes

8.6 50.3%
GvB Grangeville fine sandy loam,
saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent
slopes

0.0 0.3%
GyA Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes

3.9 22.8%
MmC2 Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8
percent slopes, eroded

0.3 2.0%
MnE3 Monserate sandy loam, shallow,
15 to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded

0.6 3.6%
RaB2 Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes, eroded

3.6 21.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 17.0 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit Custom Soil Resource Report
11 descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Western Riverside Area, California
GtA—Grangeville fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent sl opes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcvn
Elevation: 10 to 1,800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 270 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Map Unit Composition
Grangeville and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Grangeville
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 36 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 36 to 64 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D
Ecological site: R019XD070CA - SANDY BASIN
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Dello
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Traver
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
GvB—Grangeville fine sandy loam, saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcvr
Elevation: 10 to 1,800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 270 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Grangeville and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Grangeville
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 17 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 17 to 60 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 6.0 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Ecological site: R019XD070CA - SANDY BASIN
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Dello
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Traver
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
GyA—Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcvv
Elevation: 100 to 3,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Greenfield and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Greenfield
Setting
Landform: Terraces, alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 26 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 26 to 43 inches: fine sandy loam
H3 - 43 to 60 inches: loam
H4 - 60 to 72 inches: stratified loamy sand to sandy loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.3 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R019XD029CA - LOAMY
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Arlington
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Pachappa
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
MmC2—Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcx5
Elevation: 700 to 2,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 220 to 280 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Monserate and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Custom Soil Resource Report
16 Description of Monserate
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 10 to 28 inches: sandy clay loam
H3 - 28 to 45 inches: indurated
H4 - 45 to 57 inches: cemented
H5 - 57 to 70 inches: loamy coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 5 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to duripan Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R019XD029CA - LOAMY
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Greenfield
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Ramona
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
17 MnE3—Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcx9
Elevation: 700 to 2,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 220 to 280 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Monserate and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Monserate
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 10 to 18 inches: sandy clay loam
H3 - 18 to 45 inches: indurated
H4 - 45 to 57 inches: cemented
H5 - 57 to 70 inches: loamy coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to duripan Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R019XD060CA - SHALLOW LOAMY (1975)
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
18 Minor Components
Greenfield
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
RaB2—Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hcy5
Elevation: 250 to 3,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 230 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Ramona and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Ramona
Setting
Landform: Terraces, alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 14 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 14 to 23 inches: fine sandy loam
H3 - 23 to 68 inches: sandy clay loam
H4 - 68 to 74 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Custom Soil Resource Report
19 Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R019XD029CA - LOAMY
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Arlington
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Greenfield
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
20 Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Properties and Qualities
The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality.

Soil Qualities and Features
Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil.

Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
21 Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.

These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Custom Soil Resource Report
22 23
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group
3711990 3712060 3712130 3712200 3712270 3712340 3712410 3712480 3712550 3711990 3712060 3712130 3712200 3712270 3712340 3712410 3712480 3712550 481480 481550 481620 481690 481760 481830 481900
481480 481550 481620 481690 481760 481830 481900
33° 33' 9'' N
117° 11' 58'' W
33° 33' 9'' N
117° 11' 41'' W
33° 32' 50'' N
117° 11' 58'' W
33° 32' 50'' N
117° 11' 41'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 40 80 160 240
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,840 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Western Riverside Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 13, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Custom Soil Resource Report
24 Table—Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI GtA Grangeville fine sandy
loam, drained, 0 to 2
percent sl opes
A/D 8.6 50.3%
GvB Grangeville fine sandy
loam, saline-alkali, 0 to
5 percent slopes
B/D 0.0 0.3%
GyA Greenfield sandy loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes
A 3.9 22.8%
MmC2 Monserate sandy loam, 5
to 8 percent slopes,
eroded
C 0.3 2.0%
MnE3 Monserate sandy loam,
shallow, 15 to 25
percent slopes,
severely eroded
D 0.6 3.6%
RaB2 Ramona sandy loam, 2
to 5 percent slopes,
eroded
C 3.6 21.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 17.0 100.0%
Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Custom Soil Resource Report
25 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 26 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
27 Label: Onsite Detention Basin (IN)
Subsection: Pond Inflow Summary Scenario: Base
Summary for Hydrograph Addition at 'Onsite Detention
Basin'
Upstream Link Upstream Node
<Catchment to Outflow Node> Unit Hydrograph (Onsite Runoff) Node Inflows
Flow (Peak)
(ft³/s)
Time to Peak
(hours)
Volume
(ft³)
Inflow Type Element
Unit 265,441.735 13.289 11.7700
Hydrograph
(Onsite
Runoff)
Flow (From)
Onsite 265,549.217 13.300 11.7700
Detention
Basin
Flow (In)
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 29 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Outlet-1
Subsection: Diverted Hydrograph Scenario: Base
Peak Discharge 8.7647 ft³/s
Time to Peak 15.000 hours
Hydrograph Volume 125,693.510 ft³
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

0.300 0.0008 0.0012 0.0016 0.0020 0.0024

0.550 0.0028 0.0033 0.0039 0.0044 0.0050

0.800 0.0055 0.0062 0.0068 0.0075 0.0081

1.050 0.0088 0.0094 0.0101 0.0108 0.0114

1.300 0.0121 0.0127 0.0133 0.0139 0.0145

1.550 0.0151 0.0157 0.0163 0.0169 0.0175

1.800 0.0181 0.0188 0.0194 0.0201 0.0208

2.050 0.0214 0.0222 0.0229 0.0237 0.0244

2.300 0.0251 0.0259 0.0267 0.0274 0.0282

2.550 0.0290 0.0298 0.0306 0.0315 0.0323

2.800 0.0332 0.0341 0.0350 0.0360 0.0369

3.050 0.0379 0.0388 0.0398 0.0407 0.0416

3.300 0.0426 0.0436 0.0445 0.0455 0.0464

3.550 0.0474 0.0483 0.0493 0.0502 0.0512

3.800 0.0522 0.0532 0.0542 0.0552 0.0562

4.050 0.0573 0.0584 0.0595 0.0606 0.0617

4.300 0.0628 0.0640 0.0652 0.0664 0.0676

4.550 0.0689 0.0702 0.0715 0.0728 0.0741

4.800 0.0754 0.0768 0.0781 0.0795 0.0809

5.050 0.0823 0.0836 0.0849 0.0863 0.0872

5.300 0.0878 0.0885 0.0891 0.0897 0.0903

5.550 0.0909 0.0916 0.0923 0.0930 0.0936

5.800 0.0944 0.0951 0.0958 0.0965 0.0973

6.050 0.0980 0.0988 0.0995 0.1003 0.1011

6.300 0.1019 0.1027 0.1036 0.1044 0.1052

6.550 0.1061 0.1070 0.1079 0.1089 0.1098

6.800 0.1108 0.1118 0.1128 0.1138 0.1149

7.050 0.1159 0.1170 0.1180 0.1191 0.1201

7.300 0.1213 0.1224 0.1235 0.1247 0.1259

7.550 0.1271 0.1284 0.1297 0.1307 0.1318

7.800 0.1328 0.1339 0.1351 0.1362 0.1374

8.050 0.1386 0.1399 0.1413 0.1426 0.1440

8.300 0.1454 0.1469 0.1484 0.1499 0.1514

8.550 0.1530 0.1546 0.1562 0.1578 0.1594

8.800 0.1611 0.1626 0.1641 0.1655 0.1670

9.050 0.1686 0.1702 0.1718 0.1734 0.1751

9.300 0.1768 0.1786 0.1804 0.1822 0.1841

9.550 0.1859 0.1879 0.1896 0.1913 0.1931

9.800 0.1948 0.1966 0.1985 0.2003 0.2020
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 30 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Outlet-1
Subsection: Diverted Hydrograph Scenario: Base
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

10.050 0.2037 0.2053 0.2069 0.2085 0.2101

10.300 0.2115 0.2126 0.2138 0.2149 0.2161

10.550 0.2174 0.2186 0.2199 0.2212 0.2225

10.800 0.2239 0.2254 0.2269 0.2284 0.2298

11.050 0.2313 0.2328 0.2341 0.2355 0.2369

11.300 0.2382 0.2395 0.2409 0.2422 0.2435

11.550 0.2448 0.2461 0.2474 0.2486 0.2499

11.800 0.2511 0.2523 0.2535 0.2546 0.2558

12.050 0.2571 0.2585 0.2599 0.2612 0.2627

12.300 0.2643 0.2659 0.2676 0.2693 0.2709

12.550 0.2726 0.2743 0.2760 0.2778 0.2795

12.800 0.2813 0.2832 0.2850 0.2869 0.4513

13.050 0.9120 1.3634 1.7940 2.2050 2.6094

13.300 3.0184 3.4195 3.8022 4.4040 4.9888

13.550 5.4692 5.8842 6.2644 6.6130 6.8894

13.800 7.0646 7.1903 7.3055 7.4110 7.5125

14.050 7.6138 7.7103 7.7987 7.8798 7.9642

14.300 8.0590 8.1534 8.2399 8.3192 8.3902

14.550 8.4523 8.5081 8.5592 8.6060 8.6459

14.800 8.6775 8.7044 8.7291 8.7517 8.7647

15.050 8.7636 8.7574 8.7518 8.7465 8.7324

15.300 8.7047 8.6734 8.6447 8.6178 8.5723

15.550 8.4979 8.4171 8.3431 8.2743 8.1911

15.800 8.0842 7.9745 7.8739 7.7780 7.6292

16.050 7.4019 7.1597 6.9377 6.7285 6.4637

16.300 6.1143 5.7550 5.4257 5.1221 4.8252

16.550 4.5263 4.2428 3.9830 3.8049 3.6764

16.800 3.5463 3.4195 3.2985 3.1832 3.0739

17.050 2.9707 2.8726 2.7790 2.6900 2.6078

17.300 2.5329 2.4626 2.3956 2.3317 2.2714

17.550 2.2147 2.1609 2.1095 2.0603 2.0118

17.800 1.9637 1.9173 1.8729 1.8303 1.7876

18.050 1.7445 1.7026 1.6626 1.6244 1.5874

18.300 1.5515 1.5170 1.4841 1.4525 1.4210

18.550 1.3894 1.3587 1.3294 1.3009 1.2707

18.800 1.2387 1.2071 1.1770 1.1481 1.1199

19.050 1.0921 1.0654 1.0400 1.0162 0.9961

19.300 0.9795 0.9644 0.9500 0.9363 0.9236

19.550 0.9119 0.9008 0.8902 0.8795 0.8668

19.800 0.8520 0.8372 0.8232 0.8096 0.7964

20.050 0.7833 0.7708 0.7588 0.7477 0.7382

20.300 0.7303 0.7229 0.7159 0.7093 0.7031

20.550 0.6974 0.6921 0.6869 0.6817 0.6753

20.800 0.6680 0.6607 0.6538 0.6472 0.6407
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 31 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Label: Outlet-1
Subsection: Diverted Hydrograph Scenario: Base
HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s)
Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours
Time on left represents time for first value in each row.

Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Flow
(ft³/s)
Time
(hours)

21.050 0.6342 0.6281 0.6222 0.6166 0.6113

21.300 0.6062 0.6013 0.5967 0.5922 0.5877

21.550 0.5832 0.5790 0.5749 0.5710 0.5673

21.800 0.5637 0.5604 0.5571 0.5541 0.5511

22.050 0.5483 0.5457 0.5431 0.5407 0.5383

22.300 0.5361 0.5340 0.5320 0.5296 0.5258

22.550 0.5212 0.5165 0.5121 0.5077 0.5031

22.800 0.4985 0.4939 0.4896 0.4855 0.4816

23.050 0.4779 0.4743 0.4709 0.4676 0.4642

23.300 0.4608 0.4576 0.4545 0.4515 0.4487

23.550 0.4460 0.4434 0.4410 0.4386 0.4364

23.800 0.4343 0.4323 0.4303 0.4273 0.4214
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 32 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Index
User Notifications...2
Unit Hydrograph (Onsite Runoff) (Read Hydrograph)...

U
Outlet-1 (Diverted Hydrograph)...

Outlet Input Data...15, 16, 17
Outfall (POC) (Addition Summary)...

Onsite Detention Basin (Volume Equations)...

Onsite Detention Basin (Time vs. Volume)...

Onsite Detention Basin (OUT) (Time vs. Elevation)...

Onsite Detention Basin (OUT) (Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out))...

Onsite Detention Basin (IN) (Pond Inflow Summary)...

Onsite Detention Basin (IN) (Level Pool Pond Routing Summary)...

Onsite Detention Basin (Elevation-Volume-Flow Table (Pond))...

Onsite Detention Basin (Elevation-Area Volume Curve)...

O
Master Network Summary...3
M
Composite Rating Curve...23
Composite Outlet Structure - 1 (Outlet Input Data)...

Composite Outlet Structure - 1 (Individual Outlet Curves)...

Composite Outlet Structure - 1 (Composite Rating Curve)...

C
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 33 of 33
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
6/16/2022
PondPack CONNECT Edition
[10.02.00.01]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
LMC - 100 yr.ppc Center
Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan
A Template for preparing Project Specific WQMPs for Priority Development Projects located within the Santa Margarita Region of Riverside County. This template does not apply to projects in other watersheds within Riverside County. It does not apply to projects in San Diego or Orange County.

Attention: This submittal package only applies to “Priority Development Projects” and does not apply to “Other Development Projects”. Proceed only if the Applicabilty Checklist completed for your project categorizes project activities as a “Priority Development Project.” Project Title: LMC Murrieta Apartments
Development No:

Design Review/Case No: DP 2022-2605
Original Date Prepared: June 16, 2022
Revision Date(s): September 14, 2022
Prepared for Compliance with Regional Board Order No. R9-2013- 0001 as amended by Order No. R9-2015-0001 and Order No. R9-2015-0100 Prepared for:

Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC
95 Enterprise, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 Town and Country Rd, Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
Preliminary
Final
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 2 -
A Brief Introduction
The Regional Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit1requires that a Project-Specific WQMP be prepared for all development projects within the Santa Margarita Region (SMR) that meet the ‘Priority Development Project’ categories and thresholds listed in the SMR Water Quality Management Plan (WQPM). This Project-Specific WQMP Template for Development Projects in the Santa Margarita Region has been prepared to help document compliance and prepare a WQMP submittal. Below is a flowchart for the layout of this Template that will provide the steps required to document compliance. 1 Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100, NPDES No. CAS0109266, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds within the San Diego Region, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, May 8, 2013.

Section A
• Project and Site Information
• Identification of LID and
Hydromodification
requirements, if any
Section B
•Optimize Site Utilization (LID
Principles)
Section C
• Delineate Drainage
Management Areas (DMAs)
Section D
• Technical Feasibility
• Implement LID BMPs
Section E
• Technical Feasibility
• Implement Hydromodification
BMPs
Section F
• Document Alternative
Compliance Measures
Section G
• Implement Trash Capture
BMPs
Section H
• Specify Source Control BMPs
Section I
• Cordinate Submittal w/Other
Site Plans
Section J
•Operation, Maintenance, and
Funding
Section K
• Acronyms, Abbreviations, and
Definitions
Appendices
• Placeholders for supporting
material
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 3 -
OWNER’S CERTIFICATION
This Project-Specific WQMP has been prepared for LMC Murrieta Holdings, LLC by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the LMC Murrieta Apartments project.

This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of City of Murrieta Stormwater and Runoff Management and Discharge Controls Municipal Code Section 8.36.320, Water Quality Management Plan, which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a Project-Specific WQMP.

The undersigned, while owning the property/project described in the preceding paragraph, shall be responsible for the implementation and funding of this WQMP and will ensure that this WQMP is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site. In addition, the property owner accepts responsibility for interim operation and maintenance of Stormwater Best Management Practices until such time as this responsibility is formally transferred to a subsequent owner. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party (or parties) having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. At least one copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office in perpetuity. The undersigned is authorized to certify and to approve implementation of this WQMP. The undersigned is aware that implementation of this WQMP is enforceable under the City of Murrieta Stormwater and Runoff Management and Discharge Controls (Municipal Code Section 8.36). "I, the undersigned, certify under penalty of law that the provisions of this WQMP have been reviewed and accepted and that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest." Owner’s Signature Date
Owner’s Printed Name Owner’s Title/Position
PREPARER’S CERTIFICATION
“The selection, sizing and design of stormwater treatment and other stormwater quality and quantity control Best Management Practices in this plan meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9- 2013-0001 as amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100.” 06/16/2022
Preparer’s Signature Date
Erica Kawata, PE Project Engineer
Preparer’s Printed Name Preparer’s Title/Position
Dan Ferguson
9/13/2022
Vice President
DocuSign Envelope ID: BAF51574-D838-429F-ABE3-C44F25ABF2B1 09/21/2022
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 4 -
Preparer’s Licensure: 92986
Table of Contents
Section A: Project and Site Information........................................................................................................ 6 A.1 Maps and Site Plans............................................................................................................................7 A.2 Identify Receiving Waters...................................................................................................................7 A.3 Drainage System Susceptibility to Hydromodification .......................................................................8 A.4 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project: ....................................................................8 Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles) ................................................................................... 10 Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs)....................................................................... 15 Section D: Implement LID BMPs................................................................................................................... 9 D.1 Full Infiltration Applicability ...............................................................................................................9 D.2 Biofiltration Applicability ..................................................................................................................11 D.3 Feasibility Assessment Summaries...................................................................................................13 D.4 LID BMP Sizing ..................................................................................................................................15 Section E: Implement Hydrologic Control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs ........................................... 17 E.1 Hydrologic Control BMP Selection....................................................................................................17 E.2 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing..........................................................................................................18 E.3 Implement Sediment Supply BMPs...................................................................................................18 Section F: Alternative Compliance.............................................................................................................. 23 F.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern...........................................................................................................23 F.2 Treatment Control BMP Selection ....................................................................................................26 F.3 Sizing Criteria.....................................................................................................................................26 F.4 Hydrologic Performance Standard – Alternative Compliance Approach..........................................27 Section G: Implement Trash Capture BMPs................................................................................................ 28 Section H: Source Control BMPs................................................................................................................. 30 Section I: Coordinate Submittal with Other Site Plans............................................................................... 31 Section J: Operation, Maintenance and Funding........................................................................................ 33 Section K: Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions ................................................................................. 34 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 5 -
List of Tables
Table A-1 Identification of Receiving Waters ...............................................................................................7 Table A-2 Identification of Susceptibility to Hydromodification ..................................................................8 Table A-3 Other Applicable Permits..............................................................................................................8 Table C-1 DMA Identification......................................................................................................................15 Table C-2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas.........................................................................................................7 Table C-3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas.......................................................................................................7 Table C-4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas........................................................................7 Table C-5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs.................................................................................................8 Table D-1 Infiltration Feasibility..................................................................................................................10 Table D-2 Geotechnical Concerns for Onsite Infiltration...........................................................................11 Table D-3 Evaluation of Biofiltration BMP Feasibility ................................................................................12 Table D-4 Proprietary BMP Approval Requirement Summary ...................................................................12 Table D-5 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix .............................................................................................13 Table D-6 Summary of Infeasibility Documentation...................................................................................13 Table D-7 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs...................................................................................................15 Table D-8 LID BMP Sizing ............................................................................................................................16 Table E-1 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing....................................................................................................18 Table E-2 Triad Assessment Summary ........................................................................................................21 Table F-1 Summary of Approved 2010 303(d) listed waterbodies and associated pollutants of concern for the Riverside County SMR Region and downstream waterbodies.............................................................24 Table F-2 Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type........................................................................................25 Table F-3 Treatment Control BMP Selection ..............................................................................................26 Table F-4 Treatment Control BMP Sizing....................................................................................................26 Table F-5 Offsite Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing........................................................................................27 Table G-1 Sizing Trash Capture BMPs.........................................................................................................28 Table G-2 Approximate precipitation depth/intensity values for calculation of the Trash Capture Design Storm...........................................................................................................................................................28 Table G-3 Trash Capture BMPs...................................................................................................................29 Table I-1 Construction Plan Cross-reference ..............................................................................................31 Table I-2 Other Applicable Permits.............................................................................................................32 List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans................................................................................................................41 Appendix 2: Construction Plans..................................................................................................................42 Appendix 3: Soils Information.....................................................................................................................44 Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions........................................................................................................45 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 6 -
Appendix 5: LID Feasibility Supplemental Information ..............................................................................46 Appendix 6: LID BMP Design Details...........................................................................................................47 Appendix 7: Hydromodification..................................................................................................................48 Appendix 8: Source Control ........................................................................................................................49 Appendix 9: O&M .......................................................................................................................................50 Appendix 10: Educational Materials...........................................................................................................51 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 6 -
Section A: Project and Site Information
Use the table below to compile and summarize basic site information that will be important for completing subsequent steps. Subsections A.1 through A.4 provide additional detail on documentation of additional project and site information.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Type of PDP: New Development
Type of Project: Multi-Family Residential
Planning Area: N/A
Community Name: N/A
Development Name: LMC Murrieta Apartments

PROJECT LOCATION
Latitude & Longitude (DMS): 33.550284, -117.197121
Project Watershed and Sub-Watershed: Santa Margarita River 24-Hour 85th Percentile Storm Depth (inches): 0.81
Is project subject to Hydromodification requirements? Y N (Select based on Section A.3) APN(s): 910-410-011
Map Book and Page No.: Parcel Map 15420, Pages: 95,81,82

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Proposed or Potential Land Use(s) Multi-Family Residential Proposed or Potential SIC Code(s) N/A
Existing Impervious Area of Project Footprint (SF) 571,744 SF Total area of proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Limits (SF)/or Replacement 467,888 SF Total Project Area (ac) 13.35 acres
Does the project consist of offsite road improvements? Y N Does the project propose to construct unpaved roads? Y N Is the project part of a larger common plan of development (phased project)? Y N Is the project exempt from Hydromodification Performance Standards? Y N Does the project propose the use of Alternative Compliance to satisfy BMP requirements? (note, alternative compliance is not allowed for coarse sediment performance standards) Y N
Has preparation of Project-Specific WQMP included coordination with other site plans? Y N

EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Is the project located within any Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan area (MSHCP Criteria Cell?)
Y N
If "Y" insert Cell Number
Are there any natural hydrologic features on the project site? Y N Is a Geotechnical Report attached? Y N
If no Geotech. Report, list the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils type(s) present on the site (A, B, C and/or D)
N/A
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 7 -
A.1 Maps and Site Plans
When completing your Project-Specific WQMP, include a map of the Project vicinity and existing site. In addition, include all grading, drainage, landscape/plant palette and other pertinent construction plans in Appendix 2. At a minimum, your WQMP Site Plan should include the following:
• Vicinity and location maps
• Parcel Boundary and Project Footprint
• Existing and Proposed Topography
• Drainage Management Areas (DMAs)
• Proposed Structural Best Management
Practices (BMPs)
• Drainage Paths
• Drainage infrastructure, inlets, overflows
• Source Control BMPs
• Site Design BMPs
• Buildings, Roof Lines, Downspouts
• Impervious Surfaces
• Pervious Surfaces (i.e. Landscaping)
• Standard Labeling
Use your discretion on whether or not you may need to create multiple sheets or can appropriately accommodate these features on one or two sheets. Keep in mind that the Copermittee plan reviewer must be able to easily analyze your Project utilizing this template and its associated site plans and maps.

Complete the checklists in Appendix 1 to verify that all exhibits and components are included.

A.2 Identify Receiving Waters
Using Table A-1 below, list in order of upstream to downstream, the Receiving Waters that the Project site is tributary to. Continue to fill each row with the Receiving Water’s 303(d) listed impairments (if any), designated Beneficial Uses, and proximity, if any, to a RARE Beneficial Use. Include a map of the Receiving Waters in Appendix 1. This map should identify the path of the stormwater discharged from the site all the way to the outlet of the Santa Margarita River to the Pacific Ocean. Use the most recent 303(d) list available from the State Water Resources Control Board Website. (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/) Table A-1 Identification of Receiving Waters
Receiving
Waters
USEPA Approved 303(d) List
Impairments
Designated
Beneficial Uses Proximity to RARE Beneficial Use
Murrietta Creek
Chlorpyrifos, Indicator Bacteria,
Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, Toxicity

MUNI, AGR, IND, PROC,
REC2, WARM, WILD
Santa Margarita
River (Upper)
Indicator bacteria, Iron, Manganese,
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Selenium,
Toxicity
MUN, AGR, IND, REC1,
REC2, WARN, COLD, WILD,
RARE
The site is approximately 6.2 miles northwest
from the confluence of Murrieta Creek and the
Santa Margarita River.

Santa Margarita
River (Lower)
Benthic Community Effect,
Chlorpyrifos, Indicator Bacteria,
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Toxicity
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 8 -
A.3 Drainage System Susceptibility to Hydromodification Using Table A-2 below, list in order of the point of discharge at the project site down to the Santa Margarita River2, each drainage system or receiving water that the project site is tributary to. Continue to fill each row with the material of the drainage system, and any exemption (if applicable). Based on the results, summarize the applicable hydromodification performance standards that will be documented in Section E. Exempted categories of receiving waters include:
• Existing storm drains that discharge directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, or enclosed embayments, or
• Conveyance channels whose bed and bank are concrete lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. • Other water bodies identified in an approved WMAA (See Exhibit G to the WQMP) Include a map exhibiting each drainage system and the associated susceptibility in Appendix 1.

Table A-2 Identification of Susceptibility to Hydromodification Drainage System Drainage System Material Hydromodification Exemption Hydromodification Exempt
Murrietta Creek

6.2 miles
Native bottom Exempt at the confluence and downstream
of Warm Springs Creek
Y N
Santa Margarita River
26 miles
Engineered bottom Exempt.

Y N
Y N
Summary of Performance Standards
Hydromodification Exempt – Select if “Y” is selected in the Hydromodification Exempt column above, project is exempt from hydromodification requirements.

Not Exempt-Select if “N” is selected in any row of the Hydromodification Exempt column above. Project is subject to hydrologic control requirements and may be subject to sediment supply requirements.

A.4 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project:

Table A-3 Other Applicable Permits
Agency Permit Required
State Department of Fish and Game, 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Y N State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Y N US Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Y N US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion Y N 2 Refer to Exhibit G of the WQMP for a map of exempt and potentially exempt areas. These maps are from the Draft SMR WMAA as of January 5, 2018 and will be replaced upon acceptance of the SMR WMAA.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 9 -
Statewide Construction General Permit Coverage Y N
Statewide Industrial General Permit Coverage Y N
Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency Approval (e.g., JPR, DBESP) Y N Other (please list in the space below as required) Y N
If yes is answered to any of the questions above, the Copermittee may require proof of approval/coverage from those agencies as applicable including documentation of any associated requirements that may affect this Project-Specific WQMP.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 10 -
Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles)
Review of the information collected in Section ‘A’ will aid in identifying the principal constraints on site design and selection of LID BMPs as well as opportunities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate LID Principles into the site and landscape design. For example, constraints might include impermeable soils, high groundwater, groundwater pollution or contaminated soils, steep slopes, geotechnical instability, high-intensity land use, heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic, utility locations or safety concerns.

Opportunities might include existing natural areas, low areas, oddly configured or otherwise unbuildable parcels, easements and landscape amenities including open space and buffers (which can double as locations for LID Bioretention BMPs), and differences in elevation (which can provide hydraulic head).

Prepare a brief narrative for each of the site optimization strategies described below. This narrative will help you as you proceed with your Low Impact Development (LID) design and explain your design decisions to others.

Apply the following LID Principles to the layout of the PDP to the extent they are applicable and feasible.

Putting thought upfront about how best to organize the various elements of a site can help to significantly reduce the PDP's potential impact on the environment and reduce the number and size of Structural LID BMPs that must be implemented. Integrate opportunities to accommodate the following LID Principles within the preliminary PDP site layout to maximize implementation of LID Principles.

Site Optimization
Complete checklist below to determine applicable Site Design BMPs for your site.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 11 -
Project- Specific WQMP Site Design BMP Checklist
The following questions below are based upon Section 3.2 of the SMR WQMP will help you determine how to best optimize your site and subsequently identify opportunities and/or constraints, and document compliance.

SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Answer the following questions below by indicating “Yes,” “No,” or “N/A” (Not Applicable). Justify all “No” and “N/A” answers by inserting a narrative at the end of the section. The narrative should include identification and justification of any constraints that would prevent the use of those categories of LID BMPs. Upon identifying Site Design BMP opportunities, include these on your WQMP Site plan in Appendix 1.

Yes No N/A
Did you identify and preserve existing drainage patterns? Integrating existing drainage patterns into the site plan helps to maintain the time of concentration and infiltration rates of runoff, decreasing peak flows, and may also help preserve the contribution of Critical Coarse Sediment (i.e., Bed Sediment Supply) from the PDP to the Receiving Water. Preserve existing drainage patterns by:
• Minimizing unnecessary site grading that would eliminate small depressions, where appropriate add additional “micro” storage throughout the site landscaping. • Where possible conform the PDP site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, preserve or replicate the sites natural drainage features and patterns.
• Set back PDP improvements from creeks, wetlands, riparian habitats and any other natural water bodies.
• Use existing and proposed site drainage patterns as a natural design element, rather than using expensive impervious conveyance systems. Use depressed landscaped areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities and focal points within the site and landscape design.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Yes, under existing conditions, stormwater runoff sheetflows to an existing outfall located on the southwest corner of the site. Under proposed conditions, storm water will generally flow the same drainage patterns and be collected in a detention basin designed to release storm water at a calculated rate to mimic existing conditions.

Yes No N/A
Did you identify and protect existing vegetation?
Identify any areas containing dense native vegetation or well-established trees, and try to avoid disturbing these areas. Soils with thick, undisturbed vegetation have a much higher capacity to store and infiltrate runoff than do disturbed soils. Reestablishment of a mature vegetative community may take decades. Sensitive areas, such as streams and floodplains should also be avoided.
• Define the development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be left undisturbed. • Establish setbacks and buffer zones surrounding sensitive areas. • Preserve significant trees and other natural vegetation where possible.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Existing vegetation will be redeveloped as part of the project. Additionally, vegetation strips and buffers have been proposed. On the northern edge of the site, the creek and its side slopes will be protected, as will the outfall basin.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 12 -
Project- Specific WQMP Site Design BMP Checklist
Yes No N/A
Did you identify and preserve natural infiltration capacity? A key component of LID is taking advantage of a site's natural infiltration and storage capacity.

A site survey and geotechnical investigation can help define areas with high potential for infiltration and surface storage.
• Identify opportunities to locate LID Principles and Structural BMPs in highly pervious areas. Doing so will maximize infiltration and limit the amount of runoff generated. • Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils, and preserve areas that can promote infiltration.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

According to the web soil survey pulled for our site, low infiltration rates are expected on site due to poor soil conditions. No infiltration BMPs have been identified. Infiltration rates will be confirmed prior to final design.

Yes No N/A
Did you minimize impervious area?
Look for opportunities to limit impervious cover through identification of the smallest possible land area that can be practically impacted or disturbed during site development. • Limit overall coverage of paving and roofs. This can be accomplished by designing compact, taller structures, narrower and shorter streets and sidewalks, clustering buildings and sharing driveways, smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. • Inventory planned impervious areas on your preliminary site plan. Identify where permeable pavements, or other permeable materials, such as crushed aggregate, turf block, permeable modular blocks, pervious concrete or pervious asphalt could be substituted for impervious concrete or asphalt paving. This will help reduce the amount of Runoff that may need to be addressed through Structural BMPs. • Examine site layout and circulation patterns and identify areas where landscaping can be substituted for pavement, such as for overflow parking. • Consider green roofs. Green roofs are roofing systems that provide a layer of soil/vegetative cover over a waterproofing membrane. A green roof mimics predevelopment conditions by filtering, absorbing, and evapotranspiring precipitation to help manage the effects of an otherwise impervious rooftop.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Impervious areas have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Impervious areas are included for parking, sidewalks, and the proposed multifamily residences. Parking lots, drive aisles, and sidewalks have all been designed to the minimum dimensions allowed. In addition, permeable pavement has been implanted in all available areas to increase infiltration capacity otherwise.

Permeable pavement has been included in pervious area as shown in calculations in Appendix 6.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 13 -
Project- Specific WQMP Site Design BMP Checklist
Yes No N/A
Did you identify and disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas or small collection areas? Look for opportunities to direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent landscaping, other pervious areas, or small collection areas where such runoff may be retained. This is sometimes referred to as reducing Directly Connected Impervious Areas. • Direct roof runoff into landscaped areas such as medians, parking islands, planter boxes, etc., and/or areas of pervious paving. Instead of having landscaped areas raised above the surrounding impervious areas, design them as depressed areas that can receive Runoff from adjacent impervious pavement. For example, a lawn or garden depressed 3"-4" below surrounding walkways or driveways provides a simple but quite functional landscape design element.
• Detain and retain runoff throughout the site. On flatter sites, smaller Structural BMPs may be interspersed in landscaped areas among the buildings and paving. • On hillside sites, drainage from upper areas may be collected in conventional catch basins and piped to landscaped areas and LID BMPs and/or Hydrologic Control BMPs in lower areas. Low retaining walls may also be used to create terraces that can accommodate LID BMPs. Wherever possible, direct drainage from landscaped slopes offsite and not to impervious surfaces like parking lots. • Reduce curb maintenance and provide for allowances for curb cuts. • Design landscaped areas or other pervious areas to receive and infiltrate runoff from nearby impervious areas.
• Use Tree Wells to intercept, infiltrate, and evapotranspire precipitation and runoff before it reaches structural BMPs. Tree wells can be used to limit the size of Drainage Management Areas that must be treated by structural BMPs. Guidelines for Tree Wells are included in the Tree Well Fact Sheet in the LID BMP Design Handbook.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Based on the provided WQMP Exhibit, runoff will be dispersed from the parking lot aisles to the main drive aisle and be collected via catch basins before entering the proposed storm drain system. The easternmost drainage area will have the longest time of concentration, however it will still flow to a catch basin and all runoff on site will be treated via Bio Clean Modular Wetland Systems Yes No N/A
Did you utilize native or drought tolerant species in site landscaping? Wherever possible, use native or drought tolerant species within site landscaping instead of alternatives. These plants are uniquely suited to local soils and climate and can reduce the overall demands for potable water use associated with irrigation.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Native or drought tolerant species to be provided in final landscape design.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 14 -
Project- Specific WQMP Site Design BMP Checklist
Yes No N/A
Did implement harvest and use of runoff?
Under the Regional MS4 Permit, Harvest and Use BMPs must be employed to reduce runoff on any site where they are applicable and feasible. However, Harvest and Use BMPs are effective for retention of stormwater runoff only when there is adequate demand for non-potable water during the wet season. If demand for non-potable water is not sufficiently large, the actual retention of stormwater runoff will be diminished during larger storms or during back-to-back storms.

For the purposes of planning level Harvest and Use BMP feasibility screening, Harvest and Use is only considered to be a feasible if the total average wet season demand for non-potable water is sufficiently large to use the entire DCV within 72 hours. If the average wet season demand for non-potable water is not sufficiently large to use the entire DCV within 72 hours, then Harvest and Use is not considered to be feasible and need not be considered further.

The general feasibility and applicability of Harvest and Use BMPs should consider:
• Any downstream impacts related to water rights that could arise from capturing stormwater (not common).
• Conflicts with recycled water used – where the project is conditioned to use recycled water for irrigation, this should be given priority over stormwater capture as it is a year-round supply of water.
• Code Compliance - If a particular use of captured stormwater, and/or available methods for storage of captured stormwater would be contrary to building codes in effect at the time of approval of the preliminary Project-Specific WQMP, then an evaluation of harvesting and use for that use would not be required. • Wet season demand – the applicant shall demonstrate, to the acceptance of the [Insert Jurisdiction], that there is adequate demand for harvested water during the wet season to drain the system in a reasonable amount of time.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Project does not provide enough demand to meet harvest and use drawdown requirements.

Yes No N/A
Did you keep the runoff from sediment producing pervious area hydrologically separate from developed areas that require treatment?
Pervious area that qualify as self-treating areas or off-site open space should be kept separate from drainage to structural BMPs whenever possible. This helps limit the required size of structural BMPs, helps avoid impacts to sediment supply, and helps reduce clogging risk to BMPs.

Discuss how this was included or provide a discussion/justification for “No” or “N/A” answer.

Landscaped areas will be mostly in parking islands which will have a curb. However, during a large enough storm event, flow would enter the proposed BMPs. Sedimentation will be reduced through the implementation of vegetation and through inspection and maintenance of landscaped areas.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 15 -
Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs)
This section provides streamlined guidance and documentation of the DMA delineation and categorization process, for additional information refer to the procedure in Section 3.3 of the SMR WQMP which discusses the methods of delineating and mapping your project site into individual DMAs. Complete Steps 1 to 4 to successfully delineate and categorize DMAs.

Step 1: Identify Surface Types and Drainage Pathways
Carefully delineate pervious areas and impervious areas (including roofs) throughout site and identify overland flow paths and above ground and below ground conveyances. Also identify common points (such as BMPs) that these areas drain to.

Step 2: DMA Delineation
Use the information in Step 1 to divide the entire PDP site into individual, discrete DMAs. Typically, lines delineating DMAs follow grade breaks and roof ridge lines. Where possible, establish separate DMAs for each surface type (e.g., landscaping, pervious paving, or roofs). Assign each DMA a unique code and determine its size in square feet. The total area of your site should total the sum of all of your DMAs (unless water from outside the project limits comingles with water from inside the project limits, i.e. runon). Complete Table C-1 Table C-1 DMA Identification
DMA Name or Identification Surface Type(s)1 Area (Sq. Ft.) DMA Type 1 Asphalt, Concrete,
Permeable Pavement,
and Landscape
122,126 Type D
2 Asphalt, Concrete,
Permeable Pavement,
and Landscape
140,165 Type D
3 Asphalt, Concrete,
Permeable Pavement,
and Landscape
51,427 Type D
4 Asphalt, Concrete,
Permeable Pavement,
and Landscape
75,292 Type D
5 Asphalt, Concrete,
Permeable Pavement,
and Landscape
178,824 Type D
6 Walk, Concrete, and
Landscape
13,621 Type A
Add Columns as Needed
Step 3: DMA Classification
Determine how drainage from each DMA will be handled by using information from Steps 1 and 2 and by completing Steps 3.A to 3.C. Each DMA will be classified as one of the following four types:
• Type ‘A’: Self-Treating Areas: • Type ‘B’: Self-Retaining Areas Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 7 -
• Type ‘C’: Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas • Type ‘D’: Areas Draining to BMPs Step 3.A – Identify Type ‘A’ Self-Treating Area
Indicate if the DMAs meet the following criteria by answering “Yes” or “No”.

Yes No
Area is undisturbed from their natural condition OR restored with Native and/or California Friendly vegetative covers.

Yes No
Area is irrigated, if at all, with appropriate low water use irrigation systems to prevent irrigation runoff.

Yes No
Runoff from the area will not comingle with runoff from the developed portion of the site, or across other landscaped areas that do not meet the above criteria.

If all answers indicate “Yes,” complete Table C-2 to document the DMAs that are classified as Self-Treating Areas.

Table C-2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas
DMA Name or Identification Area (Sq. Ft.) Stabilization Type Irrigation Type (if any) Step 3.B – Identify Type ‘B’ Self-Retaining Area and Type ‘C’ Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas Type ‘B’ Self-Retaining Area: A Self-Retaining Area is shallowly depressed 'micro infiltration' areas designed to retain the Design Storm rainfall that reaches the area, without producing any Runoff.

Indicate if the DMAs meet the following criteria by answering “Yes,” “No,” or “N/A”.

Yes No N/A Slopes will be graded toward the center of the pervious area.

Yes No N/A Soils will be freely draining to not create vector or nuisance conditions.

Yes No N/A Inlet elevations of area/overflow drains, if any, should be clearly specified to be three inches or more above the low point to promote ponding.

Yes No N/A
Pervious pavements (e.g., crushed stone, porous asphalt, pervious concrete, or permeable pavers) can be self-retaining when constructed with a gravel base course four or more inches deep below any underdrain discharge elevation.

If all answers indicate “Yes,” DMAs may be categorized as Type ‘B’, proceed to identify Type ‘C’ Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 7 -
Type ‘C’ Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas: Runoff from impervious or partially pervious areas can be managed by routing it to Self-Retaining Areas consistent with the LID Principle discussed in SMR WQMP Section 3.2.5 for 'Dispersing Runoff to Adjacent Pervious Areas'.

Indicate if the DMAs meet the following criteria by answering “Yes” or “No”.

Yes No
The drainage from the tributary area must be directed to and dispersed within the Self-Retaining Area.

Yes No
Area must be designed to retain the entire Design Storm runoff without flowing offsite.

If all answers indicate “Yes,” DMAs may be categorized as Type ‘C’.

Complete Table C-3 and Table C-4 to identify Type ‘B’ Self-Retaining Areas and Type ‘C’ Areas Draining to Self-Retaining Areas.

Table C-3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas
Self-Retaining Area Type ‘C’ DMAs that are draining to the Self-Retaining Area
DMA
Name/ ID
Post-project
surface type
Area
(square
feet)
Storm
Depth
(inches)
DMA Name / ID
[C] from Table
C-4=
Required Retention Depth
(inches)
[A] [B] [C] [D] = [𝐵] +
[𝐵]∙[𝐶]
[𝐴]
Table C-4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas DMA Receiving Self-Retaining DMA
DMA Name/ ID
Area
(square feet)
Post-project
surface type
Runoff
factor
Product
DMA name /ID
Area (square
feet) Ratio
[A] [B] [C] = [A] x [B] [D] [C]/[D]
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 8 -
Note: (See Section 3.3 of SMR WQMP) Ensure that partially pervious areas draining to a Self-Retaining area do not exceed the following ratio:
(
𝟐 𝑰𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑭𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏) ∶ 𝟏
(Tributary Area: Self-Retaining Area)
Step 3.C – Identify Type ‘D’ Areas Draining to BMPs
Areas draining to BMPs are those that could not be fully managed through LID Principles (DMA Types A through C) and will instead drain to an LID BMP and/or a Conventional Treatment BMP designed to manage water quality impacts from that area, and Hydromodification where necessary.

Complete Table C-5 to document which DMAs are classified as Areas Draining to BMPs Table C-5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs
DMA Name or ID BMP Name or ID Receiving Runoff from DMA 1 BMP 1
2 BMP 1
3 BMP 2
4 BMP 2
5 BMP 3
Note: More than one DMA may drain to a single LID BMP; however, one DMA may not drain to more than one BMP.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 9 -
Section D: Implement LID BMPs
The Regional MS4 Permit requires the use of LID BMPs to provide retention or treatment of the DCV and includes a BMP hierarchy which requires Full Retention BMPs (Priority 1) to be considered before Biofiltration BMPs (Priority 2) and Flow-Through Treatment BMPs and Alternative Compliance BMPs (Priority 3). LID BMP selection must be based on technical feasibility and should be considered early in the site planning and design process. Use this section to document the selection of LID BMPs for each DMA.

Note that feasibility is based on the DMA scale and may vary between DMAs based on site conditions.

D.1 Full Infiltration Applicability
An assessment of the feasibility of utilizing full infiltration BMPs is required for all projects, except where it can be shown that site design LID principals fully retain the DCV (i.e., all DMAs are Type A, B, or C), or where Harvest and Use BMPs fully retain the DCV. Check the following box if applicable:

Site design LID principals fully retain the DCV (i.e., all DMAs are Type A, B, or C), (Proceed to Section E).

If the above box remains unchecked, perform a site-specific evaluation of the feasibility of Infiltration BMPs using each of the applicable criteria identified in Chapter 2.3.3 of the SMR WQMP and complete the remainder of Section D.1.

Geotechnical Report
A Geotechnical Report or Phase I Environmental Site Assessment may be required by the Copermittee to confirm present and past site characteristics that may affect the use of Infiltration BMPs. In addition, the Copermittee, at their discretion, may not require a geotechnical report for small projects as described in Chapter 2 of the SMR WQMP. If a geotechnical report has been prepared, include it in Appendix 3. In addition, if a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared, include it in Appendix 4.

An updated Geotechnical Investigation Report dated April 8, 2022 was prepared for the site by Leighton and Associates, Inc. and can be found in Appendix 3. Six borings were advanced onsite. An upper fill layer in the upper 0 to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs) consists of clayey sand fill. Other loose silt and sand layers were encountered at depths greater than 10 feet bgs. A final geotechnical report with infiltration rates will be provided at final design. In addition to the geotechnical report, web soil survey was used to confirm an overall site soil type of C was to be used for this design.

Infiltration Feasibility
Table D-1 below is meant to provide a simple means of assessing which DMAs on your site support Infiltration BMPs and is discussed in the SMR WQMP in Chapter 2.3.3. Check the appropriate box for each question and then list affected DMAs as applicable. If additional space is needed, add a row below the corresponding answer.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 10 -
Table D-1 Infiltration Feasibility
Downstream Impacts (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.a)
Does the project site… YES NO
…have any DMAs where infiltration would negatively impact downstream water rights or other Beneficial Uses3? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:

Groundwater Protection (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.b)
Does the project site… YES NO
…have any DMAs with industrial, and other land uses that pose a high threat to water quality, which cannot be treated by Bioretention BMPs? Or have DMAs with active industrial process areas? X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any DMAs with a seasonal high groundwater mark shallower than 10 feet? X If Yes, list affected DMAs: 1-5
…have any DMAs located within 100 feet horizontally of a water supply well? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any DMAs that would restrict BMP locations to within a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) influence line extending from any septic leach line?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any DMAs been evaluated by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer, Hydrogeologist, or Environmental Engineer, who has concluded that the soils do not have adequate physical and chemical characteristics for the protection of groundwater, and has treatment provided by amended media layers in Bioretention BMPs been considered in evaluating this factor?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:

Public Safety and Offsite Improvements (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.c) Does the project site… YES NO
…have any areas identified by the geotechnical report as posing a public safety risk where infiltration of stormwater could have a negative impact?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:

Infiltration Characteristics For LID BMPs (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.d) Does the project site… YES NO
…have factored infiltration rates of less than 0.8 inches / hour? (Note: on a case-by-case basis, the Local Jurisdiction may allow a factor of safety as low as 1.0 to support selection of full infiltration BMPs. Therefore, measured infiltration rates could be aslow as 0.8 in/hr to support full infiltration.

A higher factor of safety would be required for design in accordance with the LID BMP Deign Handbook).

X
If Yes, list affected DMAs: A geotechnical report with infiltration rates is not available at this time but will be provided prior to final design.

Cut/Fill Conditions (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.e)
Does the project site… YES NO
…have significant cut and/or fill conditions that would preclude in-situ testing of infiltration rates at the final infiltration surface?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:

Other Site-Specific Factors (SMR WQMP Section 2.3.3.f)
Does the project site… YES NO
…have DMAs where the geotechnical investigation discovered other site-specific factors that would preclude effective and/or safe infiltration?
X
Describe here:

If you answered “Yes” to any of the questions above for any DMA, Infiltration BMPs that rely solely on infiltration should not be used for those DMAs and you should proceed to the assessment for Biofiltration 3 Such a condition must be substantiated by sufficient modeling to demonstrate an impact and would be subject to [Insert Jurisdiction] discretion. There is not a standardized method for assessing this criterion. Water rights evaluations should be site-specific.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 11 -
BMPs below. Biofiltration BMPs that provide partial infiltration may still be feasible and should be assessed in Section D.2. Summarize concerns identified in the Geotechnical Report, if any, that resulted in a “YES” response above in the table below.

Table D-2 Geotechnical Concerns for Onsite Infiltration Type of Geotechnical Concern DMAs Feasible (By Name or ID) DMAs Infeasible (By Name or ID) Collapsible Soil
Expansive Soil
Slopes
Liquefaction
Other (infiltration rate) DMA 1-5
D.2 Biofiltration Applicability
This section should document the applicability of biofiltration BMPs for Type D DMAs that are not feasible for full infiltration BMPs. The key decisions to be documented in this section include:

1. Are biofiltration BMPs with partial infiltration feasible? a. Biofiltration BMPs must be designed to maximize incidental infiltration via a partial infiltration design unless it is demonstrated that this design is not feasible. b. These designs can be used at sites with low infiltration rates where other feasibility factors do not preclude incidental infiltration.

Document summary in Table D-3.

2. If not, what are the factors that require the use of biofiltration with no infiltration? This may include:
a. Geotechnical hazards
b. Water rights issues
c. Water balance issues
d. Soil contamination or groundwater quality issues
e. Very low infiltration rates (factored rates < 0.1 in/hr) f. Other factors, demonstrated to the acceptance of the local jurisdiction If this applies to any DMAs, then rationale must be documented in Table D-3.

3. Are biofiltration BMPs infeasible?
a. If yes, then provide a site-specific analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of all LID BMPs has been performed and is included in Appendix 5. If you plan to submit an analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of LID BMPs, request a pre-submittal meeting with the Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site to discuss this option. Proceed to Section F to document your alternative compliance measures.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 12 -
Table D-3 Evaluation of Biofiltration BMP Feasibility
DMA ID
Is Partial/
Incidental
Infiltration
Allowable?
(Y/N)
Basis for Infeasibility of Partial Infiltration (provide summary and include supporting basis if partial infiltration not feasible) 1 N High groundwater
2 N High groundwater
3 N High groundwater
4 N High groundwater
5 N High groundwater
Proprietary Biofiltration BMP Approval Criteria
If the project will use proprietary BMPs as biofiltration BMPs, then this section is completed to document that the proprietary BMPs are selected in accordance with Section 2.3.7 of the SMR WQMP. Proprietary Biofiltration BMPs must meet both of the following approval criteria:

1. Approval Criteria for All Proprietary BMPs, and

2. Acceptance Criteria for Proprietary Biofiltration BMPs.

When the use of proprietary biofiltration BMPs is proposed to meet the Pollutant Control performance standards, use Table D-4 to document that appropriate approval criteria have been met for the proposed BMPs. Add additional rows to document approval criteria are met for each type of BMP proposed.

Table D-4 Proprietary BMP Approval Requirement Summary
Proposed Proprietary
Biofiltration BMP Approval Criteria Notes/Comments
Bioclean Modular Wetland
System
Proposed BMP has an active TAPE
GULD Certification for the project
pollutants of concern4 or equivalent 3rd
party demonstrated performance.

The BMP is used in a manner
consistent with manufacturer guidelines
and conditions of its third-party
certification.

The BMP includes biological features
including vegetation supported by
engineered or other growing media.

The BMP is designed to maximize
infiltration, or supplemental infiltration
is provided to achieve retention
equivalent to Biofiltration with Partial
Infiltration BMPs if factored infiltration
rate is between 0.1 and 0.8 inches/hour.
4 Use Table F-1 and F-2 to identify and document the pollutants of concern and include these tables in Appendix 5.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 13 -
The BMP is sized using one of two
Biofiltration LID sizing options in Section

2.3.2 of the SRM WQMP.

The Bioclean Modular Wetland System
was sized using the calculation
provided by the WQMP guidance
document using 0.2 in/hr. Water
quality design flow rate for this site is

1.6250 cfs
Low flow runoff entering the proposed storm drain system will all be treated by the Bio Clean Modular Wetland Systems. The treated runoff from the system will discharge to the proposed underground detention vault system. All overflow from the system will bypass the MWS and discharge directly into the detention system.

D.3 Feasibility Assessment Summaries
From the Infiltration, Biofiltration with Partial Infiltration and Biofiltration with No Infiltration Sections above, complete Table D-5 below to summarize which LID BMPs are technically feasible, and which are not, based upon the established hierarchy.

Table D-5 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix
DMA Name/ID
LID BMP Hierarchy
No LID (Alternative
Compliance)

1. Infiltration

2. Biofiltration
with Partial
Infiltration

3. Biofiltration
with No
Infiltration
1 2
3 4
5 For those DMAs where LID BMPs are not feasible, provide a narrative in Table D-6 below summarizing why they are not feasible, include your technical infeasibility criteria in Appendix 5, and proceed to Section F below to document Alternative Compliance measures for those DMAs. Recall that each proposed DMA must pass through the LID BMP hierarchy before alternative compliance measures may be considered.

This is based on the clarification letter titled “San Diego Water Board’s Expectations of Documentation to Support a Determination of Priority Development Project Infiltration Infeasibility” (April 28, 2017, Via email from San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board to San Diego County Municipal Storm Water Copermittees5).

Table D-6 Summary of Infeasibility Documentation
Question
Narrative Summary (include reference to applicable appendix/attachment/report, as applicable)
a) When in the entitlement
process did a
5 http://www.projectcleanwater.org/download/pdp-infiltration-infeasibility/ Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 14 -
geotechnical engineer
analyze the site for
infiltration feasibility?
b) When in the entitlement
process were other
investigations conducted
(e.g., groundwater
quality, water rights) to
evaluate infiltration
feasibility?
c) What was the scope and
results of testing, if
conducted, or rationale
for why testing was not
needed to reach
findings?
d) What public health and
safety requirements
affected infiltration
locations?
e) What were the
conclusions and
recommendations of the
geotechnical engineer
and/or other professional
responsible for other
investigations?
f) What was the history of
design discussions
between the permittee
and applicant for the
proposed project,
resulting in the final
design determination
related locations feasible
for infiltration?
g) What site design
alternatives were
considered to achieve
infiltration or partial
infiltration on site?
h) What physical
impairments (i.e., fire
road egress, public safety
considerations, utilities)
and public safety
concerns influenced site
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 15 -
layout and infiltration
feasibility?
i) What LID Principles (site
design BMPs) were
included in the project
site design?
Existing drainage patterns were preserved in proposed conditions to the maximum extent possible. Impervious areas were minimized by designing the parking lots to the minimum dimensions required for impervious areas (parking stalls and drive aisles) and maximizing landscaped areas.

D.4 LID BMP Sizing
Each LID BMP must be designed to ensure that the DCV will be captured by the selected BMPs with no discharge to the storm drain or surface waters during the DCV size storm. Infiltration BMPs must at minimum be sized to capture the DCV to achieve pollutant control requirements.

Biofiltration BMPs must at a minimum be sized to:
• Treat 1.5 times the DCV not reliably retained on site using a volume-base or flow-based sizing method, or
• Include static storage volume, including pore spaces and pre-filter detention volume, at least 0.75 times the portion of the DCV not reliably retained on site.

First, calculate the DCV for each LID BMP using the VBMP worksheet in Appendix F of the LID BMP Design Handbook. Second, design the LID BMP to meet the required VBMP using the methods included in Section 3 of the LID BMP Design Handbook. Utilize the worksheets found in the LID BMP Design Handbook or consult with the Copermittee to assist you in correctly sizing your LID BMPs. Use Table D-7 below to document the DCV each LID BMP. Provide the completed design procedure sheets for each LID BMP in Appendix 6. You may add additional rows to the table below as needed.

Table D-7 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
(square
feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor
Total Site
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
1 122,126 Mixed 0.82 0.62 75,718
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)

DCV, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
2 140,165 Mixed 0.82 0.62 86,902
3 51,427 Mixed 0.82 0.62 31,885
4 75,292 Mixed 0.82 0.62 46,681
5 178,824 Mixed 0.82 0.62 110,871
Total 567,834 273,491 0.81 24,669 **
[B], [C] is obtained as described in Section 2.6.1.b of the SMR WQMP [E] is obtained from Exhibit A in the SMR WQMP
[G] is obtained from a design procedure sheet, such as in LID BMP Design Handbook and placed in Appendix 6. ** Proposed propriety BMPs are sized based on Design Capture Flow (cfs). Proposed Volume not applicable as all biofiltration systems will be upstream of detention system.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 16 -
Complete Table D-8 below to document the Design Capture Volume and the Proposed Volume for each LID BMP. You can add rows to the table as needed. Alternatively, the Santa Margarita Hydrology Model (SMRHM) can be used to size LID BMPs to address the DCV and, if applicable, to size Hydrologic Control BMPs to meet the Hydrologic Performance Standard described in the SMR WQMP, as identified in Section E.

Table D-8 LID BMP Sizing
BMP Name /
ID
DMA No. BMP Type / Description Design Capture
Flow (cfs)
Proposed Flow
(cfs)
BMP 1 1-2 Bio Clean MWS 0.7506 0.764
BMP 2 3-4 Bio Clean MWS 0.3627 0.462
BMP 3 5 Bio Clean MWS 0.5117 0.693
If bioretention will include a capped underdrain, then include sizing calculations demonstrating that the BMP will meet infiltration sizing requirements with the underdrain capped and also meet biofiltration sizing requirements if the underdrain is uncapped.

As mentioned in the H&H Report, imperviousness percentages were calculated per drainage area, accounting for permeable pavement as pervious area in each DMA. See Appendix 6 for supporting calculations.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 17 -
Section E: Implement Hydrologic Control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs
If a completed Table 1.2 demonstrates that the project is exempt from Hydromodification Performance Standards, specify N/A and proceed to Section G.

N/A Project is Exempt from Hydromodification Performance Standards.

If a PDP is not exempt from hydromodification requirements than the PDP must satisfy the requirements of the performance standards for hydrologic control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs. The PDP may choose to satisfy hydrologic control requirements using onsite or offsite BMPs (i.e. Alternative Compliance). Sediment supply requirements cannot be met via alternative compliance. If N/A is not selected above, select one of the two options below and complete the applicable sections.

Project is Not Hydromodification Exempt and chooses to implement Hydrologic Control and Sediment Supply BMPs Onsite (complete Section E).

Project is Not Hydromodification Exempt and chooses to implement Hydrologic Control Requirements using Alternative Compliance (complete Section F). Selection of this option must be approved by the Copermittee.

E.1 Hydrologic Control BMP Selection
Capture of the DCV and achievement of the Hydrologic Performance Standard may be met by combined and/or separate structural BMPs. The user should consider the full suite of Hydrologic Control BMPs to manage runoff from the post-development condition and meet the Hydrologic Performance Standard identified in this section.

The Hydrologic Performance Standard consists of matching or reducing the flow duration curve of postdevelopment conditions to that of pre-existing, naturally occurring conditions, for the range of geomorphically significant flows (10% of the 2-year runoff event up to the 10-year runoff event). Select each of the hydrologic control BMP types that are applied to meet the above performance standard on the site.

LID principles as defined in Section 3.2 of the SMR WQMP.

Structural LID BMPs that may be modified or enlarged, if necessary, beyond the DCV.

Structural Hydrologic Control BMPs that are distinct from the LID BMPs above. The LID BMP Design Handbook provides information not only on Hydrologic Control BMP design, but also on BMP design to meet the combined LID requirement and Hydrologic Performance Standard. The Handbook specifies the type of BMPs that can be used to meet the Hydrologic Performance Standard.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 18 -
E.2 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing
Hydrologic Control BMPs must be designed to ensure that the flow duration curve of the postdevelopment DMA will not exceed that of the pre-existing, naturally occurring, DMA for the range of geomorphically significant flows. Using SMRHM, (or another acceptable continuous simulation model if approved by the Copermittee) the applicant shall demonstrate that the performance of the Hydrologic Control BMPs complies with the Hydrologic Performance Standard. Complete Table E-1 below and identify, for each DMA, the type of Hydrologic Control BMP, if the SMRHM model confirmed the management (Identified as “passed” in SMRHM), the total volume capacity of the Hydrologic Control BMP, the Hydrologic Control BMP footprint at top floor elevation, and the drawdown time of the Hydrologic Control BMP. SMRHM summary reports should be documented in Appendix 7. Refer to the SMRHM Guidance Document for additional information on SMRHM. You can add rows to the table as needed.

Table E-1 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing
BMP
Name / ID
DMA
No.

BMP Type / Description SMRHM
Passed
BMP Volume
(ac-ft)
BMP
Footprint (ac)
Drawdown
time (hr)
5 Total Underground vault
detention system

4.94 0.85 120
Runoff collected in catch basins throughout the site will be routed into the Bio Clean Modular Wetland System via the proposed underground storm drain system. After this stage, the treated stormwater will discharge into the onsite underground vault detention system. Runoff exceeding the Bio Clean Modular Wetland System capacity will bypass and discharge directly to the underground vault detention system.

Outflow from the detention system will be controlled with a orifice and riser with a weir.

If a bioretention BMP with capped underdrain is used and hydromodification requirements apply, then sizing calculations must demonstrate that the BMP meets flow duration control criteria with the underdrain capped and uncapped. Both calculations must be included.

E.3 Implement Sediment Supply BMPs
The sediment supply performance standard applies to PDPs for which hydromodification applied that have the potential to impact Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas. Refer to Exhibit G of the WQMP to determine if there are onsite Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas or Potential Sediment Source Areas. Select one of the two options below and include the Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area Exhibit showing your project location in Appendix 7.

There are no mapped Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas or Potential Sediment Source Areas on the site. The Sediment Supply Performance Standard is met with no further action.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 19 -
There are mapped Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas or Potential Sediment Source Areas on the site, the Sediment Supply Performance Standard will be met through Option 1 or Option 2 below.

The applicant may refer to Section 3.6.4 of the SMR WQMP for a description of the methodology to meet the Sediment Supply Performance Standard. Select the applicable compliance pathway and complete the appropriate sections to demonstrate compliance with the Sediment Supply Performance Standard if the second box is selected above:

Avoid impacts related to any PDP activities to Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas.

Proceed to Section E.3.1.

Complete a Site-Specific Critical Coarse Sediment Analysis. Proceed to Section E.3.2.

E.3.1 Option 1: Avoid Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas and Potential Sediment Source Areas
The simplest approach for complying with the Sediment Supply Performance Standard is to avoid impacts to areas identified as Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas or Potential Sediment Supply Areas.

If a portion of PDP is identified as a Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area or a Potential Sediment Source Area, that PDP may still achieve compliance with the Sediment Supply Performance Standards if Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas and Potential Sediment Supply Areas are avoided, i.e. areas are not developed and thereby delivery of Critical Coarse Sediment to the receiving waters is not impeded by site developments.

Provide a narrative describing how the PDP has avoided impacts to Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas and/or Potential Sediment Source Areas below.

Insert narrative description here
If it is not feasible to avoid these areas, proceed to Option 2 to complete a Site-Specific Critical Coarse Sediment Analysis.

E.3.2 Option 2: Site-Specific Critical Coarse Sediment Analysis Perform a stepwise assessment to ensure the maintenance of the pre-project source(s) of Critical Coarse Sediment (i.e., Bed Sediment Supply):

1. Determine whether the site or a portion of the site is a Significant Source of Bed Sediment Supply to the Receiving Channel (i.e., an actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area);

2. Avoid areas identified as actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas in the PDP design and maintain pathways for discharge of Bed Sediment Supply from these areas to receiving waters.

Step 1: Identify if the site is an actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area supplying Bed Sediment Supply to the receiving channel
 Step 1.A – Is the Bed Sediment of onsite streams similar to that of receiving streams? Rate the similarity: High
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 20 -
Medium
Low
Results from the geotechnical and sieve analysis to be performed both onsite and in the receiving channel should be documented in Appendix 7. Of particular interest, the results of the sieve analysis, the soil erodibility factor, a description of the topographic relief of the project area, and the lithology of onsite soils should be reported in Appendix 7.  Step 1.B – Are onsite streams capable of delivering Bed Sediment Supply from the site, if any, to the receiving channel?
Rate the potential: High
Medium
Low
Results from the analyses of the sediment delivery potential to the receiving channel should be documented in Appendix 7 and identify, at a minimum, the Sediment Source, the distance to the receiving channel, the onsite channel density, the project watershed area, the slope, length, land use, and rainfall intensity.
 Step 1.C – Will the receiving channel adversely respond to a change in Bed Sediment Load? Rate the need for bed sediment supply:

High
Medium
Low
Results from the in-stream analysis to be performed both onsite should be documented in Appendix 7.

The analysis should, at a minimum, quantify the bank stability and the degree of incision, provide a gradation of the Bed Sediment within the receiving channel, and identify if the channel is sediment supplylimited.  Step 1.D – Summary of Step 1
Summarize in Table E.3 the findings of Step 1 and associate a score (in parenthesis) to each step. The sum of the three individual scores determines if a stream is a significant contributor to the receiving stream. • Sum is equal to or greater than eight - Site is a significant source of sediment bed material – all on-site streams must be preserved or by-passed within the site plan. The applicant shall proceed to Step 2 for all onsite streams.
• Sum is greater than five but lower than eight. Site is a source of sediment bed material – some of the on-site streams must be preserved (with identified streams noted). The applicant shall proceed to Step 2 for the identified streams only.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 21 -
• Sum is equal to or lower than five. Site is not a significant source of sediment bed material.

The applicant may advance to Section F.

Table E-2 Triad Assessment Summary
Step Rating Total Score

1.A High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)

1.B High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)

1.C High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Significant Source Rating of Bed Sediment to the receiving channel(s) Step 2: Avoid Development of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas, Potential Sediment Sources Areas, and Preserve Pathways for Transport of Bed Sediment Supply to Receiving Waters Onsite streams identified as a actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas should be avoided in the site design and transport pathways for Critical Coarse Sediment should be preserved Check those that apply:

The site design does avoid all onsite channels identified as actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
AND
The drainage design bypasses flow and sediment from onsite upstream drainages identified as actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas to maintain Critical Coarse Sediment supply to receiving waters
(If both are yes, the applicant may disregard subsequent steps of Section E.3 and directly advance directly to Section G).
- Or -
The site design does NOT avoid all onsite channels identified as actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
OR
The project impacts transport pathways of Critical Coarse Sediment from onsite upstream drainages. (If either of these are the case, the applicant may proceed with the subsequent steps of Section E.3).

Provide in Appendix 7 a site map that identifies all onsite channels and highlights those onsite channels that were identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment. The site map shall demonstrate, if feasible, that the site design avoids those onsite channels identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment. In addition, the applicant shall describe the characteristics of each onsite channel identified as a Significant Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 22 -
Source of Bed Sediment. If the design plan cannot avoid the onsite channels, please provide a rationale for each channel individually.

The site map shall demonstrate that the drainage design bypasses those onsite channels that supply Critical Coarse Sediment to the receiving channel(s). In addition, the applicant shall describe the characteristics of each onsite channel identified as an actual verified Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area.

Identified Channel #1 - Insert narrative description here Identified Channel #2 - Insert narrative description here Identified Channel #3 - Insert narrative description here E.3.3 Sediment Supply BMPs to Result in No Net Impact to Downstream Receiving Waters If impacts to Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas cannot be avoided, sediment supply BMPs must be implemented such there is no net impact to receiving waters. Sediment supply BMPs may consist of approaches that permit flux of bed sediment supply from Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas within the project boundary. This approach is subject to acceptance by the [Insert Jurisdiction]. It may require extensive documentation and analysis by qualified professionals to support this demonstration.

Appendix H of the San Diego Model BMP Design Manual provides additional information on site-specific investigation of Critical Coarse Sediment Supply areas. http://www.projectcleanwater.org/download/2018-model-bmp-design-manual/ If applicable, insert narrative description here
Documentation of sediment supply BMPs should be detailed in Appendix 7.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 23 -
Section F: Alternative Compliance
Alternative Compliance may be used to achieve compliance with pollutant control and/or hydromodification requirements for a given PDP. Alternative Compliance may be used under two scenarios, check the applicable box if the PDP is proposing to use Alternative Compliance to satisfy all or a portion of the Pollutant Control and/or Hydrologic Control requirements (but not sediment supply requirements)
If it is not feasible to fully implement Infiltration or Biofiltration BMPs at a PDP site, Flow-Through Treatment Control BMPs may be used to treat pollutants contained in the portion of DCV not reliably retained on site and Alternative Compliance measures must also be implemented to mitigate for those pollutants in the DCV that are not retained or removed on site prior to discharging to a receiving water.

Alternative Compliance is selected to comply with either pollutant control or hydromodification flow control requirements even if complying with these requirements is potentially feasible on-site. If such voluntary Alternative Compliance is implemented, Flow-Through Treatment Control BMPs must still be used to treat those pollutants in the portion of the DCV not reliably retained on site prior to discharging to a receiving water.

Refer to Section 2.7 of the SMR WQMP and consult the Local Jurisdiction for currently available Alternative Compliance pathways. Coordinate with the Copermittee if electing to participate in Alternative Compliance and complete the sections below to document implementation of the FlowThrough BMP component of the program.

F.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern
The purpose of this section is to help you appropriately plan for mitigating your Pollutants of Concern in lieu of implementing LID BMPs and to document compliance and.

Utilize Table A-1 from Section A, which noted your project’s Receiving Waters, to identify impairments for Receiving Waters (including downstream receiving waters) by completing Table F-1. Table F-1 includes the watersheds identified as impaired in the Approved 2010 303(d) list; check box corresponding with the PDP’s receiving water. The most recent 303(d) lists are available from the State Water Resources Control Board website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml).https://www.wa terboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 24 -
Table F-1 Summary of Approved 2010 303(d) listed waterbodies and associated pollutants of concern for the Riverside County SMR Region and downstream waterbodies.

Water BodyNutrients
1 Metals
2 ToxicityBacteria and PathogensPesticides and HerbicidesSulfateTotal Dissolved Solids De Luz Creek X X X
Long Canyon Creek X X X
Murrieta Creek X X X X
Redhawk Channel X X X X X
Santa Gertudis Creek X X X X
Santa Margarita Estuary X
Santa Margarita River (Lower) X X
Santa Margarita River (Upper) X X
Temecula Creek X X X X X
Warm Springs Creek X X X X
1 Nutrients include nitrogen, phosphorus and eutrophic conditions caused by excess nutrients. 2 Metals includes copper, iron, and manganese.

Use Table F-2 to identify the pollutants identified with the project site. Indicate the applicable PDP Categories and/or Project Features by checking the boxes that apply. If the identified General Pollutant Categories are the same as those listed for your Receiving Waters, then these will be your Pollutants of Concern; check the appropriate box or boxes in the last row.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 25 -
Table F-2 Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type
Priority Development
Project Categories and/or
Project Features (check those
that apply)
General Pollutant Categories
Bacterial
Indicators Metals Nutrients Pesticides
Toxic
Organic
Compounds
Sediments Trash &
Debris
Oil &
Grease
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Sulfate
Detached Residential
Development P N P P N P P P N N
Attached Residential
Development P N P P N P P P(2) N N
Commercial/Industrial
Development P(3) P(7) P(1) P(1) P P(1) P P N N
Automotive Repair
Shops N P N N P(4, 5) N P P N N
Restaurants
(>5,000 ft2)
P N N P(1) N N P P N N
Hillside Development
(>5,000 ft2)

P N P P N P P P N N
Parking Lots
(>5,000 ft2)
P(6) P(7) P(1) P(1) P(4) P P P N N
Streets, Highways, and
Freeways P(6) P(7) P(1) P(1) P(4) P P P N N
Retail Gasoline Outlets N P(7) N N P(4) N P P N N
Project Priority
Pollutant(s) of Concern
P = Potential
N = Not Potential
(1) A potential Pollutant if non-native landscaping exists or is proposed onsite; otherwise not expected (2) A potential Pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas; otherwise not expected (3) A potential Pollutant is land use involving animal waste products; otherwise not expected (4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons
(5) Including solvents
(6) Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff (7) A potential source of metals, primarily copper and zinc. Iron, magnesium, and aluminum are commonly found in the environment and are commonly associated with soils, but are not primarily of anthropogenic stormwater origin in the municipal environment.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 26 -
F.2 Treatment Control BMP Selection
Treatment Control BMPs typically provide proprietary treatment mechanisms to treat potential Pollutants in runoff, but do not sustain significant biological processes. Treatment Control BMPs must be selected to address the Project Priority Pollutants of Concern (identified above) and meet the acceptance criteria described in Section 2.3.7 of the SMR WQMP. Documentation of acceptance criteria must be included in Appendix 6. In addition, ensure that proposed Treatment Control BMPs are properly identified on the WQMP Site Plan in Appendix 1.

Table F-3 Treatment Control BMP Selection
Selected Treatment Control BMP
Name or ID1
Priority Pollutant(s) of
Concern to Mitigate2
Removal Efficiency
Percentage3
1 Treatment Control BMPs must not be constructed within Receiving Waters. In addition, a proposed Treatment Control BMP may be listed more than once if they possess more than one qualifying pollutant removal efficiency. 2 Cross Reference Table E.1 above to populate this column. 3 As documented in a Copermittee Approved Study and provided in Appendix 6.

F.3 Sizing Criteria
Utilize Table F-4 below to appropriately size flow-through BMPs to the DCV, or Design Flow Rate, as applicable. Please reference Chapter 3.5.1 of the SMR WQMP for further information.

Table F-4 Treatment Control BMP Sizing
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor
Project Site
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
Design
Storm
(in)
Design Flow
Rate (cfs)
[B], [C] is obtained as described in Section 2.6.1.b from the SMR WQMP [E] either 0.2 inches or 2 times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity [G] = 43,560,.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 27 -
F.4 Hydrologic Performance Standard – Alternative Compliance Approach
Alternative compliance options are only available if the governing Copermittee has acknowledged the infeasibility of onsite Hydrologic Control BMPs and approved an alternative compliance approach. See Section 3.5 and 3.6 of the SMR WQMP.

Select the pursued alternative and describe the specifics of the alternative:
 Offsite Hydrologic Control Management within the same channel system  In-Stream Restoration Project
For Offsite Hydrologic Control BMP Option
Each Hydrologic Control BMP must be designed to ensure that the flow duration curve of the postdevelopment DMA will not exceed that of the pre-existing, naturally occurring, DMA by more than ten percent over a one-year period. Using SMRHM, the applicant shall demonstrate that the performance of each designed Hydrologic Control BMP is equivalent with the Hydrologic Performance Standard for onsite conditions. Complete Table F-5 below and identify, for each Hydrologic Control BMP, the equivalent DMA the Hydrologic Control BMP mitigates, that the SMRHM model passed, the total volume capacity of the BMP, the BMP footprint at top floor elevation, and the drawdown time of the BMP.

SMRHM summary reports for the alternative approach should be documented in Appendix 7. Refer to the SMRHM Guidance Document for additional information on SMRHM. You can add rows to the table as needed.

Table F-5 Offsite Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing
BMP Name / Type Equivalent
DMA (ac)
SMRHM
Passed
BMP Volume
(ac-ft)
BMP
Footprint (ac)
Drawdown
time (hr)
For Instream Restoration Option
Attach to Appendix 7 the technical report detailing the condition of the receiving channel subject to the proposed hydrologic and sediment regimes. Provide the full design plans for the in-stream restoration project that have been approved by the Copermittee. Utilize the San Diego Regional Water Quality Equivalency Guidance Document.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 28 -
Section G: Implement Trash Capture BMPs
The Local Jurisdiction may require full trash capture BMPs to be installed as part of the project. Consult with the Local Jurisdiction to determine applicability.

Trash Capture BMPs may be applicable to Type 'D' DMAs, as defined in Section 2.3.4 of the SMR WQMP.

Trash Capture BMPs are designed to treat QTRASH, the runoff flow rate generated during the 1-year 1- hour precipitation depth. Utilize Table G-1 to size Trash Capture BMP. Refer to Table G-2 to determine the Trash Capture Design Storm Intensity (E).

Table G-1 Sizing Trash Capture BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
PostProject
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor Project Site
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
1 122,126 Mixed 0.82 0.62 75,718
Trash Capture
Design Storm
Intensity (in/hr) [E]
Trash Capture Design Flow
Rate (cubic feet or cfs)
[D]*[E]/[G]
2 140,165 Mixed 0.82 0.62 86,902
3 51,427 Mixed 0.82 0.62 31,885
4 75,292 Mixed 0.82 0.62 46,681
5 178,824 Mixed 0.82 0.62 110,871
567,834
[A]
357,735
[D] 0.47 3.86
[B], [C] is obtained as described in Section 2.6.1.b from the SMR WQMP [G] = 43,560
Trash capture flow rates required to pre-treat flow have been identified for each drainage area. Design per catch basin and identification of each catch basin insert capacity will be provided during final design.

Table G-2 Approximate precipitation depth/intensity values for calculation of the Trash Capture Design Storm City 1-year 1-hour Precipitation
Depth/Intensity (inches/hr)
Murrieta 0.47
Temecula 0.50
Wildomar 0.37
Use Table G-3 to summarize and document the selection and sizing of Trash Capture BMPs.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 29 -
Table G-3 Trash Capture BMPs
BMP Name /
ID
DMA
No(s) BMP Type / Description
Required Trash
Capture Flowrate
(cfs)
Provided Trash
Capture Flowrate
(cfs)
FloGard
Catch Basin
Insert Filter
1 FloGard Catch Basin Insert
Filter

3.86 **
**Catch Basin Insert Filters will be designed to meet the required trash capture flowrate. Final catch basin insert details to be provided during final design.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 30 -
Section H: Source Control BMPs
Source Control BMPs include permanent, structural features that may be required in your Project plans, such as roofs over and berms around trash and recycling areas, and Operational BMPs, such as regular sweeping and “housekeeping,” that must be implemented by the site’s occupant or user. The Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) standard typically requires both types of BMPs. In general, Operational Source Control BMPs cannot be substituted for a feasible and effective Structural Source Control BMP. Complete checklist below to determine applicable Source Control BMPs for your site.

Project-Specific WQMP Source Control BMP Checklist
All development projects must implement Source Control BMPs. Source Control BMPs are used to minimize pollutants that may discharge to the MS4. Refer to Chapter 3 (Section 3.8) of the SMR WQMP for additional information. Complete Steps 1 and 2 below to identify Source Control BMPs for the project site.

STEP 1: IDENTIFY POLLUTANT SOURCES
Review project site plans and identify the applicable pollutant sources. “Yes” indicates that the pollutant source is applicable to project site. “No” indicates that the pollutant source is not applicable to project site.

Yes No Storm Drain Inlets Yes No Outdoor storage areas
Yes No Floor Drains Yes No Material storage areas
Yes No Sump Pumps Yes No Fueling areas
Yes No Pets Control/Herbicide Application Yes No Loading Docks Yes No Food Service Areas Yes No Fire Sprinkler Test/Maintenance water Yes No Trash Storage Areas Yes No Plazas, Sidewalks and Parking Lots Yes No Industrial Processes Yes No Pools, Spas, Fountains and other water features
Yes No Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning and
Maintenance/Repair Areas
STEP 2: REQUIRED SOURCE CONTROL BMPS
List each Pollutant source identified above in column 1 and fill in the corresponding Structural Source Control BMPs and Operational Control BMPs by referring to the Stormwater Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist included in Appendix 8. The resulting list of structural and operational source control BMPs must be implemented as long as the associated sources are present on the project site. Add additional rows as needed.

Pollutant Source Structural Source Control BMP Operational Source Control BMP Storm Drain Inlets Mark inlets with “Only Rain Down
the Storm Drain”
Maintain and Periodically repaint
of replace inlet markings. See
CASQA Fact Sheet SC-44.

Trash Storage Areas Refuse areas to be covered and
marked with “Do Not Dump
Hazardous Materials Here”.

Provide adequate number of
receptacles. Inspect receptacles
regularly; repair or replace leaky
receptacles. Pick liter up litter
daily and clean up spills
immediately. See CAQA Fact
Sheet SC-34.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 31 -
Fire Sprinkler Test/Maintenance
Water
Provide means to drain fire
sprinkler test water to the sanitary
sewer.

Prevent and reduce the discharge
of pollutants to stormwater from
building. See CASQA Fact Sheet
SC-22.

Plazas, Sidewalks, and Parking Lots Sweep sidewalks and parking lots regularly to prevent accumulation
of litter and debris.

Pets Control/Herbicide Application Maintain landscaping using minimum or no pesticides.

Provide Integrated Pest
management (IPM) information to
new owners, lessees and
operators.

Section I: Coordinate Submittal with Other Site Plans
Populate Table I-1 below to assist the plan checker in an expeditious review of your project. During construction and at completion, City of Murrieta inspectors will verify the installation of BMPs against the approved plans. The first two columns will contain information that was prepared in previous steps, while the last column will be populated with the corresponding plan sheets. This table is to be completed with the submittal of your final Project-Specific WQMP.

Table I-1 Construction Plan Cross-reference
BMP No. or ID BMP Identifier and Description Corresponding Plan Sheet(s) Bio Clean MWS Proposed BMP Prelim Utility Plan
Note that the updated table — or Construction Plan WQMP Checklist — is only a reference tool to facilitate an easy comparison of the construction plans to your Project-Specific WQMP. The Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site can advise you regarding the process required to propose changes to the approved Project-Specific WQMP.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 32 -
Use
Table I-2 to identify other applicable permits that may impact design of the site. If yes is answered to any of the items below, the Copermittee may require proof of approval/coverage from those agencies as applicable including documentation of any associated requirements that may affect this Project-Specific WQMP.

Table I-2 Other Applicable Permits
Agency Permit Required
State Department of Fish and Game, 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Y N State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Y N US Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Y N US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion Y N Statewide Construction General Permit Coverage Y N
Statewide Industrial General Permit Coverage Y N
Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency Approval (e.g., JPR, DBESP) Y N Other (please list in the space below as required) Y N
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 33 -
Section J: Operation, Maintenance and Funding
The Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site will periodically verify that BMPs on your Project are maintained and continue to operate as designed. To make this possible, the Copermittee will require that you include in Appendix 9 of this Project-Specific WQMP:

1. A means to finance and implement maintenance of BMPs in perpetuity, including replacement cost.

2. Acceptance of responsibility for maintenance from the time the BMPs are constructed until responsibility for operation and maintenance is legally transferred. A warranty covering a period following construction may also be required.

3. An outline of general maintenance requirements for the Stormwater BMPs you have selected.

4. Figures delineating and designating pervious and impervious areas, location, and type of Stormwater BMP, and tables of pervious and impervious areas served by each facility. Geolocating the BMPs using a coordinate system of latitude and longitude is recommended to help facilitate a future statewide database system.

5. A separate list and location of self-retaining areas or areas addressed by LID Principles that do not require specialized Operations and Maintenance or inspections but will require typical landscape maintenance as noted in Chapter 5, in the SMR WQMP. Include a brief description of typical landscape maintenance for these areas.

The Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site will also require that you prepare and submit a detailed BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan that sets forth a maintenance schedule for each of the BMPs built on your site. An agreement assigning responsibility for maintenance and providing for inspections and certification may also be required.

Details of these requirements and instructions for preparing a BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan are in Chapter 5 of the SMR WQMP.

Maintenance Mechanism: Maintenance agreement recorded against the property.

Will the proposed BMPs be maintained by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA)?
Y N
Include your Operation and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Mechanism in Appendix 9. Additionally, include all pertinent forms of educational materials for those personnel that will be maintaining the proposed BMPs within this Project-Specific WQMP in Appendix 10.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 34 -
Section K: Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions
Regional MS4 Permit Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by Order No. R9-2015-0001 and Order No. R9-2015-0100 an NPDES Permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Applicant Public or private entity seeking the discretionary approval of new or replaced improvements from the Copermittee with jurisdiction over the project site. The Applicant has overall responsibility for the implementation and the approval of a Priority Development Project. The WQMP uses consistently the term “user” to refer to the applicant such as developer or project proponent.

The WQMP employs also the designation “user” to identify the Registered Professional Civil Engineer responsible for submitting the Project-Specific WQMP, and designing the required BMPs.

Best Management
Practice (BMP)
Defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the United States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. In the case of municipal storm water permits, BMPs are typically used in place of numeric effluent limits.

BMP Fact Sheets BMP Fact Sheets are available in the LID BMP Design Handbook.

Individual BMP Fact Sheets include sitting considerations, and design and sizing guidelines for seven types of structural BMPs (infiltration basin, infiltration trench, permeable pavement, harvest-and-use, bioretention, extended detention basin, and sand filter).

California
Stormwater Quality
Association (CASQA)
Publisher of the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks, available at
www.cabmphandbooks.com.

Conventional
Treatment Control
BMP
A type of BMP that provides treatment of stormwater runoff.

Conventional treatment control BMPs, while designed to treat particular Pollutants, typically do not provide the same level of volume reduction as LID BMPs, and commonly require more specialized maintenance than LID BMPs. As such, the Regional MS4 Permit and this WQMP require the use of LID BMPs wherever feasible, before Conventional Treatment BMPs can be considered or implemented.

Copermittees The Regional MS4 Permit identifies the Cities of Murrieta, Temecula, and Wildomar, the County, and the District, as Copermittees for the SMR.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 35 -
County The abbreviation refers to the County of Riverside in this document.

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act - a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible.

CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System - an integrated network of 118 automated active weather stations all over California managed by the California Department of Water Resources.

CWA Clean Water Act - is the primary federal law governing water pollution. Passed in 1972, the CWA established the goals of eliminating releases of high amounts of toxic substances into water, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that surface waters would meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation by 1983.

CWA Section 402(p) is the federal statute requiring NPDES permits for discharges from MS4s.

CWA Section 303(d)
Waterbody
Impaired water in which water quality does not meet applicable water quality standards and/or is not expected to meet water quality standards, even after the application of technology based pollution controls required by the CWA. The discharge of urban runoff to these water bodies by the Copermittees is significant because these discharges can cause or contribute to violations of applicable water quality standards.

Design Storm The Regional MS4 Permit has established the 85th percentile, 24- hour storm event as the "Design Storm". The applicant may refer to Exhibit A to identify the applicable Design Storm Depth (D85) to the project.

DCV Design Capture Volume (DCV) is the volume of runoff produced from the Design Storm to be mitigated through LID Retention BMPs, Other LID BMPs and Volume Based Conventional
Treatment BMPs, as appropriate.

Design Flow Rate The design flow rate represents the minimum flow rate capacity that flow-based conventional treatment control BMPs should treat to the MEP, when considered.

DCIA Directly Connected Impervious Areas - those impervious areas that are hydraulically connected to the MS4 (i.e. street curbs, catch basins, storm drains, etc.) and thence to the structural BMP without flowing over pervious areas.

Discretionary
Approval
A decision in which a Copermittee uses its judgment in deciding whether and how to carry out or approve a project.

District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 36 -
DMA A Drainage Management Area - a delineated portion of a project site that is hydraulically connected to a common structural BMP or conveyance point. The Applicant may refer to Section 3.3 for further guidelines on how to delineate DMAs.

Drawdown Time Refers to the amount of time the design volume takes to pass through the BMP. The specified or incorporated drawdown times are to ensure that adequate contact or detention time has occurred for treatment, while not creating vector or other nuisance issues. It is important to abide by the drawdown time requirements stated in the fact sheet for each specific BMP.

Effective Area Area which 1) is suitable for a BMP (for example, if infiltration is potentially feasible for the site based on infeasibility criteria, infiltration must be allowed over this area) and 2) receives runoff from impervious areas.

ESA An Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA) designates an area "in which plants or animals life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which would be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments". (Reference: California Public Resources Code § 30107.5).

ET Evapotranspiration (ET) is the loss of water to the atmosphere by the combined processes of evaporation (from soil and plant surfaces) and transpiration (from plant tissues). It is also an indicator of how much water crops, lawn, garden, and trees need for healthy growth and productivity
FAR The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the total square feet of a building divided by the total square feet of the lot the building is located on.

Flow-Based BMP Flow-based BMPs are conventional treatment control BMPs that are sized to treat the design flow rate.

FPPP Facility Pollution Prevention Plan
HCOC Hydrologic Condition of Concern - Exists when the alteration of a site’s hydrologic regime caused by development would cause significant impacts on downstream channels and aquatic habitats, alone or in conjunction with impacts of other projects.

HMP Hydromodification Management Plan – Plan defining Performance Standards for PDPs to manage increases in runoff discharge rates and durations.

Hydrologic Control
BMP
BMP to mitigate the increases in runoff discharge rates and durations and meet the Performance Standards set forth in the HMP.

HSG Hydrologic Soil Groups – soil classification to indicate the minimum rate of infiltration obtained for bare soil after prolonged wetting. The HSGs are A (very low runoff potential/high infiltration rate), B, C, and D (high runoff potential/very low infiltration rate)
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 37 -
Hydromodification The Regional MS4 Permit identifies that increased volume, velocity, frequency and discharge duration of storm water runoff from developed areas has the potential to greatly accelerate downstream erosion, impair stream habitat in natural drainages, and negatively impact beneficial uses.

JRMP A separate Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP) has been developed by each Copermittee and identifies the local programs and activities that the Copermittee is implementing to meet the Regional MS4 Permit requirements.

LID Low Impact Development (LID) is a site design strategy with a goal of maintaining or replicating the pre-development hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques. LID site design BMPs help preserve and restore the natural hydrologic cycle of the site, allowing for filtration and infiltration which can greatly reduce the volume, peak flow rate, velocity, and pollutant loads of storm water runoff.

LID BMP A type of stormwater BMP that is based upon Low Impact Development concepts. LID BMPs not only provide highly effective treatment of stormwater runoff, but also yield potentially significant reductions in runoff volume – helping to mimic the preproject hydrologic regime, and also require less ongoing maintenance than Treatment Control BMPs. The applicant may refer to Chapter 2.

LID BMP Design
Handbook
The LID BMP Design Handbook was developed by the
Copermittees to provide guidance for the planning, design and maintenance of LID BMPs which may be used to mitigate the water quality impacts of PDPs within the County.

LID Bioretention BMP LID Bioretention BMPs are bioretention areas are vegetated (i.e., landscaped) shallow depressions that provide storage, infiltration, and evapotranspiration, and provide for pollutant removal (e.g., filtration, adsorption, nutrient uptake) by filtering stormwater through the vegetation and soils. In bioretention areas, pore spaces and organic material in the soils help to retain water in the form of soil moisture and to promote the adsorption of pollutants (e.g., dissolved metals and petroleum hydrocarbons) into the soil matrix.

Plants use soil moisture and promote the drying of the soil through transpiration.

The Regional MS4 Permit defines “retain” as to keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position without discharge to surface waters.

LID Biofiltration BMP BMPs that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges by intercepting rainfall on vegetative canopy, and through incidental infiltration and/or evapotranspiration, and filtration, and other biological and chemical processes. As stormwater passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded, and sequestered by the soil and plants, and collected through an underdrain.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 38 -
LID Harvest and
Reuse BMP
BMPs used to facilitate capturing Stormwater Runoff for later use without negatively impacting downstream water rights or other Beneficial Uses.

LID Infiltration BMP BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff by capturing and infiltrating the runoff into in-situ soils or amended onsite soils. Typical LID Infiltration BMPs include infiltration basins, infiltration trenches and pervious pavements.

LID Retention BMP BMPs to ensure full onsite retention without runoff of the DCV such as infiltration basins, bioretention, chambers, trenches, permeable pavement and pavers, harvest and reuse.

LID Principles Site design concepts that prevent or minimize the causes (or drivers) of post-construction impacts, and help mimic the predevelopment hydrologic regime.

MEP Maximum Extent Practicable - standard established by the 1987 amendments to the CWA for the reduction of Pollutant discharges from MS4s. Refer to Attachment C of the Regional MS4 Permit for a complete definition of MEP.

MF Multi-family – zoning classification for parcels having 2 or more living residential units.

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): (i) Owned or operated by a State, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States; (ii) Designated or used for collecting or conveying storm water; (iii) Which is not a combined sewer; (iv) Which is not part of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.26.

New Development
Project
Defined by the Regional MS4 Permit as 'Priority Development Projects' if the project, or a component of the project meets the categories and thresholds described in Section 1.1.1.

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - Federal program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under Sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of the CWA.

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 39 -
PDP Priority Development Project - Includes New Development and Redevelopment project categories listed in Provision E.3.b of the Regional MS4 Permit.

Priority Pollutants of
Concern
Pollutants expected to be present on the project site and for which a downstream water body is also listed as Impaired under the CWA Section 303(d) list or by a TMDL.

Project-Specific
WQMP
A plan specifying and documenting permanent LID Principles and Stormwater BMPs to control post-construction Pollutants and stormwater runoff for the life of the PDP, and the plans for operation and maintenance of those BMPs for the life of the project.

Receiving Waters Waters of the United States.

Redevelopment
Project
The creation, addition, and or replacement of impervious surface on an already developed site. Examples include the expansion of a building footprint, road widening, the addition to or replacement of a structure, and creation or addition of impervious surfaces.

Replacement of impervious surfaces includes any activity that is not part of a routine maintenance activity where impervious material(s) are removed, exposing underlying soil during construction. Redevelopment does not include trenching and resurfacing associated with utility work; resurfacing existing roadways; new sidewalk construction, pedestrian ramps, or bike lane on existing roads; and routine replacement of damaged pavement, such as pothole repair.

Project that meets the criteria described in Section 1.

Runoff Fund Runoff Funds have not been established by the Copermittees and are not available to the Applicant.

If established, a Runoff Fund will develop regional mitigation projects where PDPs will be able to buy mitigation credits if it is determined that implementing onsite controls is infeasible.

San Diego Regional
Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board - The term "Regional Board", as defined in Water Code section 13050(b), is intended to refer to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Diego Region as specified in Water Code Section 13200. State agency responsible for managing and regulating water quality in the SMR.

SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Site Design BMP Site design BMPs prevent or minimize the causes (or drivers) of post-construction impacts, and help mimic the pre-development hydrologic regime.

SF Parcels with a zoning classification for a single residential unit.

SMC Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition SMR The Santa Margarita Region (SMR) represents the portion of the Santa Margarita Watershed that is included within the County of Riverside.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 40 -
Source Control BMP Source Control BMPs land use or site planning practices, or structural or nonstructural measures that aim to prevent runoff pollution by reducing the potential for contamination at the source of pollution. Source control BMPs minimize the contact between Pollutants and runoff.

Structural BMP Structures designed to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff and mitigate hydromodification impacts.

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Tentative Tract Map Tentative Tract Maps are required for all subdivision creating five (5) or more parcels, five (5) or more condominiums as defined in Section 783 of the California Civil Code, a community apartment project containing five (5) or more parcels, or for the conversion of a dwelling to a stock cooperative containing five (5) or more dwelling units.

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load - the maximum amount of a Pollutant that can be discharged into a waterbody from all sources (point and non-point) and still maintain Water Quality Standards. Under CWA Section 303(d), TMDLs must be developed for all
waterbodies that do not meet Water Quality Standards after application of technology-based controls.

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Volume-Based BMP Volume-Based BMPs applies to BMPs where the primary mode of pollutant removal depends upon the volumetric capacity such as detention, retention, and infiltration systems.

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Wet Season The Regional MS4 Permit defines the wet season from October 1 through April 30.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 41 -
Appendix 1: Maps and Site
Plans
Location Map, WQMP Site Plan and Receiving Waters Map
Complete the checklist below to verify all exhibits and components are included in the ProjectSpecific WQMP. Refer Section 4 of the SMR WQMP and Section D of this Template.

Map and Site Plan Checklist
Indicate all Maps and Site Plans are included in your Project-Specific WQMP by checking the boxes below.

Vicinity and Location Map
Existing Site Map (unless exiting conditions are included in WQMP Site Plan): Refer to Demolition Plan in Appendix 2.

WQMP Site Plan
Parcel Boundary and Project Footprint
Existing and Proposed Topography
Drainage Management Areas (DMAs)
Proposed Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Drainage Paths
Drainage infrastructure, inlets, overflows
Source Control BMPs
Site Design BMPs
Buildings, Roof Lines, Downspouts
Impervious Surfaces
Pervious Surfaces (i.e. Landscaping)
Standard Labeling

JEFFERSON AVE MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS

JEFFERSON AVE, MURRIETA, CA
©
DATE: 06-14-22
LMC
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200 ALISO VIEGO, CA 92656
949.606.5536
JOB NO.: 194422001
DEVELOPER INFORMATIONAL BLOCK, AS IS, SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR CLIENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC LOGO. THIS DEVELOPER INFORMATIONAL BLOCK MUST BE REPLACED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BLOCK WHICH ALSO HOUSES THE CLIENT LOGO. IF THE CLIENT LOGO BLOCK HAS NOT BEEN CREATED YET, CONTACT YOUR DEPARTMENT'S AUTOCAD SUPPORT TEAM.

DRAINAGE AREAS SUMMARY

PRELIMINARY WQMP
EXISTING CONDITIONS FIG 1
ELEC.

MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD JEFFERSON AVENUE COLE CANYON-MURRIETA CREEK LMC 95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200 ALISO VIEGO, CA 92656 949.606.5536 JOB NO.: 194422001 DEVELOPER INFORMATIONAL BLOCK, AS IS, SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR CLIENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC LOGO. THIS DEVELOPER INFORMATIONAL BLOCK MUST BE REPLACED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BLOCK WHICH ALSO HOUSES THE CLIENT LOGO. IF THE CLIENT LOGO BLOCK HAS NOT BEEN CREATED YET, CONTACT YOUR DEPARTMENT'S AUTOCAD SUPPORT TEAM. JEFFERSON AVE, MURRIETA, CA © DATE: 06-14-22 DRAINAGE AREAS SUMMARY LEGEND NORTH PRELIMINARY WQMP PROPOSED CONDITIONS FIG 2 BMP NOTES HYDROMODIFICATION SUMMARY Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 42 -
Appendix 2: Construction
Plans
The latest set of Grading, Drainage and Street Improvement Plans shall be included.

For Bioretention and Biofiltration facilities, the following construction notes shall be shown on the Grading and/or Drainage plans.
1) BSM and Aggregates should not be delivered or placed in frozen, wet or muddy conditions. The Contractor should protect materials from absorbing excess water and from erosion at all times.

The Contractor shall not store materials unprotected during large rainfall events (>.25 inches). If water is introduced into material while it is stockpiled, the Contractor shall allow the material to drain to an acceptable level before it is placed.
2) The Engineer shall furnish to the City a copy of the source testing and a signed certification that the fully blended Bioretention/Biofiltration Soil Media (BSM) material meets all of the WQMP requirements before the material is imported or if the material is mixed onsite prior to installation. Onsite mixing may only occur if sand or topsoil components are sourced from the Project site. Onsite mixing may be conducted by using loaders. 3) BSM shall be lightly compacted and placed in loose lifts of 12 inches thick. Compaction should not exceed 75% standard procter. Machinery should not be used in the BSM area to place BSM.

As BSM material is being installed, Quality Assurance (QA) tests shall be conducted or for every 1,200 tons or 800 cubic yards mixed on-site from a completely mixed stockpile or windrow, with a minimum of three tests. For imported material from a supplier with a quality control program the QA tests shall be conducted 2,400 tons or 1,600 cubic yards from the supplier. 4) The Engineer conducting the Quality Control testing shall furnish to the City a copy of the QA testing and a certification that the BSM for the project meets all of the following requirements. a. BSM shall consist of 60-80% clean sand, up to 20% clean topsoil, and 20% of a nutrientstabilized organic amendment. The initial infiltration rate shall be greater than 8 inches per hour per laboratory test.
b. pH: 6.0 – 8.5; Salinity: 0.5 to 3.0 mmho/cm as electrical conductivity; sodium absorption ratio: < 6.0; Chloride: <800 ppm in saturated extract; Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC): > 10 meq/100 g; Organic Matter: 2 to 5 percent on a dry weight basis; Carbon: Nitrogen ratio: 12 to 40, preferably 15 to 40; Gravel larger than 2mm: 0 to 25-percent of the total sample; Clay smaller than 0.005 mm: 0 to 5 percent of the non-gravel fraction. c. BSM shall be tested to limit the leaching of potential inherent pollutants. BSM used in Biofiltration BMPs shall conform to the following limits for pollutant concentrations in saturated extract: Phosphorous: < 1 mg/L; Nitrate < 3 mg/L, Copper <0.025 mg/L. These pollutant limits are for the amount that is leached from the sample, not from the soil sample itself. Testing may be performed after laboratory rinsing of media with up to 15 pore volumes of water. Equivalent test results will be accepted if certified by a laboratory or appropriate testing facility.

Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
LMC Murrieta Apartments
- 44 -
Appendix 3: Soils Information
Geotechnical Study, Other Infiltration Testing Data, and/or Other Documentation Examples of material to provide in Appendix 3 may include but are not limited to the following:
• Geotechnical Study/Report prepared for the project,
• Additional soils testing data (if not included in the Geotechnical Study), • Exhibits/Maps/Other Documentation of the Hydrologic Soils Groups (HSG)s at the project site.

This information should support the Full Infiltration Applicability, and Biofiltration Applicability sections of this Template. Refer to Section 2.3 of the SMR WQMP and Sections A and D of this Template.

DRAFT

UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD &

JEFFERSON AVENUE

MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For LENNAR MULTIFAMILY

COMMUNITIES, LLC
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
Prepared By LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
41715 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE N SUITE 103
TEMECULA, CA 92590
Project Number 13343.004
April 8, 2022
DRAFT
April 8, 2022
Project No. 13343-004
Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC
95 Enterprise, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Attention: Mr. Alec Chaseman, Development Manager
Subject: Update Geotechnical Exploration
Multi-Family Residential Development: APN 910-410-011
Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Jefferson Avenue
City of Murrieta, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, we are pleased to provide herein the results of our update geotechnical exploration for the subject site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the onsite subsurface conditions and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site development in view of the proposed grading plan. Based on the results of our exploration, it is our opinion that the subject site is generally suitable for the intended use provided the recommendations included in this report are implemented during design and construction. As discussed further in this report, the major geotechnical concern on this site is the presence of shallow groundwater and compressible soil layers that underlie the majority of the site.

The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office.

Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mitchel S. Bornyasz, CEG 2416
Project Geologist
Ext 8925 [email protected]
Simon I. Saiid, GE 2641
Principal Engineer
Ext 8013, [email protected]
Joe Roe, CEG 2456
Senior Principal Geologist
Ext 4263, [email protected]
Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF via email)
DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 2

2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................... 2

2.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION....................................................................... 2

2.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 3

2.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS................................................................................. 3

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING........................................ 5

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION........................................................................................... 5

3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................... 5

4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS................................................................. 6

4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY.......................................................................................... 6

4.2 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS........................................................................................ 6

4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER............................................................................ 7

4.4 FAULTING .......................................................................................................... 7

4.5 GROUND SHAKING AND SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS.................................................... 8

4.6 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS .......................................................................... 8

4.6.1 Liquefaction............................................................................................. 8

4.6.2 Lateral Spreading Potential..................................................................... 9

4.6.3 Ground Rupture ...................................................................................... 9

4.6.4 Flooding .................................................................................................. 9

5.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 10

5.1 GENERAL......................................................................................................... 10

5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 10

5.2.1 Site Preparation and Removal .............................................................. 10

5.2.2 Structural Fills ....................................................................................... 11

5.2.3 Import Soils ........................................................................................... 11

5.2.4 Trench Excavations and Backfill ........................................................... 11

5.2.5 Shrinkage and Bulking .......................................................................... 12

5.3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................... 12

5.3.1 General ................................................................................................. 12

5.3.2 Foundation Design Criteria ................................................................... 12

5.4 SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................... 13

5.4.1 Static Settlement................................................................................... 13

5.4.2 Dynamic Settlement .............................................................................. 13

5.5 FOOTING SETBACK........................................................................................... 14

5.6 SULFATE ATTACK............................................................................................. 14 DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 ii

5.7 CONCRETE FLATWORK ..................................................................................... 14

5.8 SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL............................................................ 15

5.9 SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................................................. 15

5.10 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ...................................................................... 15

5.11 RETAINING WALLS............................................................................................ 17

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW .................................................................................. 19

6.1 PLAN REVIEW .................................................................................................. 19

6.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ..................................................... 19

7.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................... 20 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 21

LIST OF FIGURES (END OF TEXT)

Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Boring Location Plan
Figure 3 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 4 – Regional Geology Map

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. 2019 CBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS PER USGS GENERAL PROCEDURE ...........8 TABLE 2. PRELIMINARY ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTIONS.................................................16 TABLE 3. RETAINING WALL DESIGN EARTH PRESSURES (STATIC, DRAINED)...............17

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Field Boring Logs (this and previous studies) Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Results (this and previous studies) Appendix C – Slope Stability and Settlement Analyses
Appendix D – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix E – GBA Important Information about this Geotechnical Engineering Report DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the results of this update geotechnical exploration, the proposed development of the subject property appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the preliminary recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. The main geotechnical/geologic concern associated with this parcel is the presence of compressible and/or liquefiable layers which can induce excessive differential settlement if subjected to additional loads or seismic shaking. The following is a summary of the geotechnical concerns and/or opportunities that exist on this site:
 The site is underlain by alluvial deposits and weathered Pauba Formation to the maximum depth explored. Groundwater has been encountered at a depth of 4.5 feet to 6.5 feet below existing ground surface within the low lying portions of the site.
 Remedial grading (over-excavation) will be required to reduce the anticipated excessive differential settlement. However, due to the presence of shallow groundwater and in view of the proposed site development, the depth of overexcavation should be limited to 4 feet below existing ground surface or 3 feet below bottom of footings, whichever is deeper.
 The western portion of the site (~350 to 400 feet) lies within a designated AlquistPriolo (AP) and Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone. However, according to a site-specific fault investigation performed within this zone (Leighton, 1980), no evidence for faults were found to exist within the site or fault zone area.  Based on the proposed site grading and anticipated building loads, consolidation induced settlement of up to 2.8 inches is estimated to occur over a period of 16 month. Approximately 50 percent of this settlement will occur within 4 months of applied load.
 Liquefaction-induced settlement is estimated to range up to 3.3 inches. However, due to the depth of the liquefiable layers and presence of cohesive/clay layers at shallow depth, settlement is estimated to be relatively global. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed 1-inch in a 30-foot horizontal distance.  Typical 2- to 3-story multi-family residential and/or retail commercial structures may be founded on conventional shallow spread or continuous wall footings based on a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds-per-square-foot.  The site, like much of the Murrieta area, could be subjected to relatively strong shaking due to earthquakes on active faults in the region. Thus, the potential for relatively high seismic forces should be considered in the design of the proposed buildings.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this update geotechnical exploration is to further evaluate the overall geotechnical/geologic conditions and the potential for settlement on this site in view of the new proposed site pln. In addition, this report provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and remedial grading. As such, this report is a stand-alone document and supersedes the previous reports referenced herein. Our scope of services for this update geotechnical evaluation included the following:
 Review of published geologic hazard maps for this area including site-specific geotechnical reports as listed in the references at the end of this report;  Site reconnaissance to observe and document the current surface conditions; During this task, we marked the proposed exploration locations and notified DigAlert for utility clearance,
 Drilled six (6) hollow-stem auger soil borings at select locations across the site.

The borings were drilled to target depths ranging from 21 to 31 feet below ground surface (BGS) and were logged by a geologist from our office. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected at specified intervals of approximately 2½ to 5 feet to the proposed target depth. Samples were then transported to our laboratory for testing. Upon completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings to the ground surface,  Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to determine in-situ moisture and density, soil classification, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, Atterberg limits, consolidation, and R-value;
 Engineering evaluation and analysis including: general subsurface soil characterization (thickness of various subsurface soil strata and their classification), settlement, time rate of consolidation, liquefaction, slope stability analysis, geotechnical seismic design parameters; and
 Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations regarding the development of this site as described herein.

2.2 Site Location and Description
The vacant 18-acre parcel (APN 910-410-011) is located at the southeast corner of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue, City of Murrieta, California (see Figure 1). The site is relatively flat and appears to have been partially graded during previous site work or grading activities associated with the construction of adjacent roads. At the time of our field exploration, the site was covered with native grasses/weeds and brush. The DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 3 adjacent Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue appear to be improved to their maximum width with existing curbs along the frontage of the parcel. The existing drainage dissecting the parcel in a southerly direction appears to be concrete lined near Jefferson Avenue, just outside the southern boundary of the site.

2.3 Proposed Development
Review of the preliminary grading plans (Option 2) provided by Kimley-Horn (December 6, 2021), indicate nineteen (19) buildings consisting of two- to three-story residential apartment buildings, rental offices, and associated facilities. The preliminary grading plans depict conventional cut and fill grading with a net import of approximately 13,200 cubic yards to construct the design building pad elevations. The Option 2 grading plan also depicts 10 to 15 feet high retaining walls bordering the western edges along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue. Site plan reflects minor cut and fill grading (±2 feet) for proposed building pads. Structural loads for the proposed wood-frame buildings are expected to be typical and not exceed 125 kips for column loads and 7.5 kips/ft for continuous wall footings. If site development significantly differs from the above assumptions and the plans referenced herein, the recommendations included in this report should be subject to further review and evaluation.

2.4 Previous Investigations
Based on our in-house data, four site-specific geologic/geotechnical investigations were reviewed for this site.
 The first investigation was a geologic study performed for Riverside County Parcel 15420 by Leighton, in 1980 to evaluate whether or not the Wildomar fault underlies the site. As shown on Figure 2, Geotechnical Map, the exploratory trench extended 350 into the subject parcel and slightly beyond the limits of the designated AP fault zone. The results of this investigation indicate that the mapped Wildomar fault does not exist within the limits of this property and no building restrictions or setbacks are necessary for site development.
 The second site-specific geotechnical investigation (LGC, 2004) was performed to explore the subsurface soils conditions and included four (4) geotechnical borings (B1 through B-4). The results LGC’s study indicated the presence of compressible and liquefiable layers underlying the site and thus the recommendations required the removal of the upper 7 to 10 feet of surficial soils. Groundwater was encountered during drilling at a depth a depth of 7.5 to 10 feet below existing ground surface.  A third investigation of this property consisted of an Updated Geotechnical Exploration performed by Leighton in 2011 and consisted of advancing five (5) geotechnical borings (LB-1 through LB-5) to verify and amend the previous findings as applicable. Results of this update study confirmed the presence of groundwater at DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 4 shallower depths than encountered in 2004 by LGC and potentially liquefiable soils.

However, recommended remedial grading was limited to 3 feet below existing ground surface in view of the proposed placement of 5 to 8 feet of import fill across the site at that time. A consolidation settlement in the underlying compressible silt and clay layers on the order of 2 to 4 inches was estimated. This settlement was expected to occur over a period of 6 to 18 months.
 In December of 2021 Leighton provided Due-Diligence level (desktop) review of the site for Lennar Multifamily Communities wherein Leighton reviewed the previous reports and provided recommendations for an additional investigation based on current land improvement plans.

Boring and fault trench logs from the previous studies are included in Appendix A, Exploration Data. Laboratory tests data is included in Appendix B, Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 5 FIELD EXPLORATION AN D LABORATORY

TESTING

3.1 Field Exploration
On March 8th, 2022, we conducted a subsurface field exploration of the subject site using a CME 75, truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig. Site exploration consisted of the excavation, sampling and logging of six (6) exploratory borings. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from a depth of 21.5 to 31.5 feet below existing ground surface. Approximate locations of the borings are depicted on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2). The borings were loosely backfilled after drilling with the excavated cuttings.

The exploratory borings were sampled utilizing a 140-pound automatic safety hammer dropping 30-inches. During the drilling operation, bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings for laboratory testing and evaluation. The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained utilizing a modified California drive sampler (2⅜-inch inside diameter and 3-inch outside diameter) driven 18-inches (where possible), in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3550. Sampling and logging of the exploratory borings were performed by a Geologist from our office. Soil materials were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System and further classified in the laboratory.

3.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk samples to provide a basis for development of remedial earthwork and geotechnical design parameters. Selected samples were tested to determine the following parameters: in-situ moisture content, Atterberg limits, maximum dry density and optimum moisture, expansion index, R-value, soluble sulfate content, and consolidation test. The results of our laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 6 GEOLOGIC AND SOILS C ONDITIONS

4.1 Regional Geology
The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. This northwest-trending geomorphic region is characterized, by steep, elongated mountain ranges and intervening valleys. The most common rock types found in the Peninsular Ranges consist of early Cretaceous age (140 to 105 million-year old) formations including the metasedimentary Bedford Canyon Formation and Santiago Peak Volcanics. These formations were intruded by granodiorite, quartz monzonite and other granitics of the Southern California Batholith during the Cretaceous period (Kennedy, 1977).

More specifically, the subject property is located along the eastern edge of the fault controlled, down dropped graben of Temecula Valley where it forms the southern end of the Elsinore Trough (Mann, 1955; Kennedy, 1977). The active Wildomar segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone forms a part of the eastern margin of the graben in this area and the Willard segment of the fault zone extends along the western margin of the trough to the west of the site. The Elsinore Fault Zone extends from the San Gabriel River Valley southeasterly towards, and then beyond the United States-Mexico border.

The Santa Ana Mountains lie along the western side of the Elsinore Fault Zone and the Perris Block is located along the northeastern side of the fault zone. The mountain ranges nearest to the site are comprised predominantly of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern California batholith.

Tertiary aged sediments, different volcanic rock types and Quaternary aged sediments and sedimentary rocks flank the igneous, or other crystalline basement rocks within these mountain ranges. The Tertiary and Quaternary rocks are generally comprised of nonmarine sediments consisting of sandstones, mudstones, conglomerates, and localized volcanic units. Alluvial deposits (recent and older Pleistocene-aged) and Pauba Formation sedimentary materials fill in the lower valley and drainage areas.

4.2 Site Geologic Units
Based on the results of this and previous studies, the site is underlain by alluvial deposits and weathered Pauba formation to the depth explored. Although not encountered in our borings, some portions of the site along the existing roads may be covered with a thin layer of artificial fill due to past grading activities associated with the existing street improvements.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 7 Our field exploration and laboratory testing results indicate that the alluvial deposits and/or weathered Pauba formation beneath portions of this site include layers of relatively loose and compressible soils. These soils can undergo significant settlement if subjected to higher loading conditions or seismic shaking. Based on the field and laboratory testing performed during this and previous studies, the pertinent engineering properties for the underlying loose/soft silt and clay deposits can be summarized as follows:
 A coefficient of compressibility (Cc) ranging from 0.06 to 0.12 was estimated based on applied loads of less than 2.5 ksf. A higher Cc should be considered for higher loads.
 A coefficient of consolidation (Cv) ranging from 0.08 to 0.16 square-ft/day was measured for the encountered sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay layers.  Expansion Index (EI) is expected to vary from very low (EI<21) for sandy soils to low (EI<51) for the surficial silt and clay layers.

4.3 Surface and Groundwater
Surface water was not encountered within the site boundaries during our field exploration, except for the existing creek channel that had storm water ponding in some areas.

Groundwater was encountered at a depths of 5.75 to 8.8 feet in our current phase of exploration borings. However, previous borings drilled on this site document groundwater as shallow as 4.5 feet below ground surface (Leighton, 2011). Thus, groundwater is anticipated to be a construction challenge during site development if proposed site grading or site utilities extend below groundwater levels.

4.4 Faulting
Murrieta, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates.

The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems produce approximately 55 millimeters per year of slip between the plates.

The Elsinore fault zone comprised of the Willard Fault and the Wildomar Fault, are estimated to accommodate 10 to 15 percent of the plate boundary slip (WGCEP, 1995).

The location of the site in relationship to known active faults in the subject area is depicted Figure 3, Regional Fault Map. Per published geologic hazards maps, the State Alquist-Priolo (AP) and Riverside County Fault Zones extend into the property for approximately 350 feet (see Figure 2). As previously discussed in this report, fault trench T-1 (Leighton, 1980) extended 350 into the subject parcel or slightly beyond the limits of the designated AP/County Fault Zones indicate that the mapped Wildomar fault DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 8 does not exist within the limits of this property and no building restrictions or setbacks are necessary for site development

4.5 Ground Shaking and Seismic Coefficients
Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics. Based on the previous explorations, the site is underlain by shallow soft alluvial materials and highly weathered Pauba formation at depth. As such, the site is classified as a Class D site, and in accordance with ASCE 7-16 as the Design Code Reference Document, the 2019 CBC seismic coefficients are listed in table below.

These seismic coefficients are generated based on interactive tools/programs currently available on USGS website and/or OSHPD seismic maps.

Table 1. 2019 CBC Seismic Coefficients per USGS General Procedure CBC Categorization/Coefficient Value1
Site Longitude (decimal degrees) -117.1971°
Site Latitude (decimal degrees) 33.5503°
Site Class Definition D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 1.63 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0.61 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 1.63 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM1 1.04g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 1.09 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SD1 0.69g Site-Specific Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAm 0.80 g Note: The seismic coefficients for Site Class D follows Exception (2) in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 that assumes a fundamental period of vibration less than 0.5s for the proposed structures. The project structural engineer should confirm such assumption or else a site–specific ground motion analysis will be required g = Gravity acceleration

4.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards
Secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake include shallow ground rupture, liquefaction, seismically-induced settlement, and flooding. These hazards are discussed in the following sections.

4.6.1 Liquefaction
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils below a near-surface groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction, DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 9 while the stability of most clayey material is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. When loose to medium dense, saturated granular deposits are subjected to strong seismic shaking of significant duration without substantial dissipation of excess pore water pressure, then soil deposits may liquefy (i.e., behave like a liquid) and lose bearing strength.

Based on our analysis of the subsurface exploration data and laboratory test results, there is a potential for liquefaction in relatively loose silt and sand layers at depth greater than 10 BGS. The total seismically induced settlement in the upper 50 feet is estimated to range up to 3.3 inches where shallow groundwater exists. However, due to the depth of the liquefiable layers and presence of cohesive/clay layers at shallow depth (upper 10 feet), differential settlement is estimated to be relatively global and on the order of 1 inch or less over a horizontal distance of 30 feet.

4.6.2 Lateral Spreading Potential
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move down slope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping ground. Due to relatively flat terrain, fine and cohesive nature of the shallow layers (upper 10 to 15 feet), it is our opinion that the potential for lateral spreading is low.

4.6.3 Ground Rupture
Ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along pre-existing active faults. Based on the results of the previous Leighton fault trench investigation, the potential for ground rupture within this site is considered low.

4.6.4 Flooding
Risk of flooding on this site is not within the scope of this study. However, a moderate drainage course traverses the eastern margin of the property from the north. The design civil engineer should consider potential impacts of this drainage or flooding on the site development.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 10 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General
The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the site’s development. The main geotechnical concern associated with site development is the presence of potentially shallow groundwater and compressible alluvium in upper 5 to 10 feet BGS. If subjected to additional loads from proposed building, the underlying alluvium may settle up 2.8 inches that is estimated to occur over a period of 16 month.

5.2 Earthwork Considerations
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix D as well as the following recommendations. The recommendations contained in Appendix B are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix D.

The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill properly in accordance with the recommendations of this report and the specifications in Appendix D, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant.

5.2.1 Site Preparation and Removal
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all-structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) of the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions and organic material. Heavy vegetation, roots, and debris should be disposed of offsite. Voids created by removal of buried material should be backfilled with properly compacted soil in general accordance with the recommendations of this report.

To reduce the potential for adverse differential settlement, we recommend that onsite soils be over-excavated and recompacted to a depth of 4 feet below existing grades or 3 feet below bottom of footings, whichever is deeper. Local conditions may require deeper over-excavation. Such areas should be evaluated by Leighton during grading and depth of removal should not encroach to within 2 feet of groundwater that is expected to be as shallow as 5.75 feet below existing ground surface in some areas. Grading contractor should confirm DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 11 the depth to groundwater with local test pit explorations at the time of earthwork cost estimating and grading.

After completion of the recommended removal/over-excavation and prior to placing additional fill, the approved surface should be scarified a minimum of 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557. If saturated/unstable subgrade conditions are encountered in some areas during remedial grading, it is the responsibility of the contractor to provide stable bottom prior to fill placement. The limits of subgrade instability will be determined during site grading based on field observations. The means-and-method of subgrade stabilization is the contractor’s responsibility and may include placement of Geogrid and/or 12-inch rock fill layer.

5.2.2 Structural Fills
The onsite soils are generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill, provided they are free of debris and organic matter. Fills placed within 10 vertical feet of finish pad grades or slope faces should contain no rocks over 12 inches in maximum dimension.

Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of Leighton. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557) and at near or above optimum moisture content.

5.2.3 Import Soils
Import soils and borrow sites (if needed) should be evaluated by Leighton prior to importation. Import soils should be granular in nature, free of organic material, and have a low expansion potential, a minimum R-value of 35, and a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements.

5.2.4 Trench Excavations and Backfill
The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are free of rocks over 3 inches in diameter (or per governing agency requirements) and free of organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method D1557).

Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications, and all applicable OSHA requirements. The contractor should be responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils could make excavations particularly unsafe, even and necessary safety precautions should DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 12 be taken. Groundwater and/or saturated soils may be encountered during excavations and construction of underground utilities, if to be installed a depth greater than 5 feet BGS.

5.2.5 Shrinkage and Bulking
The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected to vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, location, and compaction effort. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made.

Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some variation.

Based on our experience with similar materials and the laboratory data, we anticipate shrinkage of approximately 5 to 15 percent in the onsite surficial soils.

A subsidence value of 0.3 should be used to account for potential settlement in underlying materials.

5.3 Foundation Recommendations

5.3.1 General
Our recommendations below are provided as minimum and do not supersede local or State ordinances or Codes, the requirements of the project structural engineer or the 2019 CBC. Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed to confirm foundation design parameters as provided below.

5.3.2 Foundation Design Criteria
Based on our preliminary analysis, the proposed structures may be founded on a conventional foundation system in accordance with the design criteria provided below. The proposed foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural consultants’ design, the geotechnical recommendations presented herein, and the 2019 CBC. In utilizing the minimum geotechnical foundation recommendations, the structural consultant should design the foundation system to the acceptable deflection criteria as determined by the structural engineer and/or architect.

Foundation footings for the proposed buildings may be designed in accordance with the following parameters:
 A net allowable bearing capacity of 2,400 pounds per square foot (psf), or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci may be used for design of footings founded entirely into compacted fill. The footings should extend a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. A minimum base width of 18 inches for continuous footings and a minimum bearing area of 3 square feet (1.75 ft by 1.75 ft) for pad foundations should be used. Additionally, an DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 13 increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind).
 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third
It should be noted that the above recommendation is based on soil support characteristics only. The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab-on-grade thickness should be designed by the structural consultant based on recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein and the most recently adopted edition of the CBC.

A moisture retarder should be installed underneath all slabs where moisture condensation is undesirable. The vapor retarder should be properly installed in accordance with the recommendations of the architect, concrete subcontractor, and the manufacturer’s recommendations. Moisture vapor retarders may retard but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. A slipsheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc.) are to be placed directly on the concrete slab.

5.4 Settlement Considerations
The project civil engineer, structural engineer, and architect should consider the potential effects of both static settlement and dynamic settlement presented below.

5.4.1 Static Settlement
Due to presence of potentially compressible alluvium at shallow depth (~5’ to 15’ BGS), long-term consolidation settlement will occur and expected to generally take place within 16 months of applied loads. This consolidation settlement is estimated to be on the order of 2.8 inches in some areas. Fifty percent of this consolidation settlement will generally occur within four month period of applied load. As such, differential static settlement of 1 inch over a 30-foot span should be considered for design purposes.

5.4.2 Dynamic Settlement
Based on our analysis we estimate that total dynamic settlement may be on the order of 3.3 inches. However, due to the depth of the liquefiable layers and presence of cohesive/clay layers at shallow depth and proposed compacted fill cap, this settlement is estimated to be relatively global and on the order of 1-inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. This post mass-grading total/ differential DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 14 settlement is expected to decrease if the underlying materials are allowed to consolidate under the proposed loading. The project civil, structural engineer and architect should consider the potential combined effects of both static and dynamic settlement as presented in this report. If the above settlements are considered excessive for building design, other methods of ground improvements should be considered such as deeper removal or surcharging.

5.5 Footing Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, etc.). This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2 (or as required by the CBC), where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 7 feet and need not be greater than 15 feet.

The soils within the structural setback area may possess poor lateral stability and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade-beam foundation system to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described above.

5.6 Sulfate Attack
The results of the laboratory testing on representative soils samples indicate negligible exposure to concrete per ACI 318. Further testing should be performed at the completion of site grading to confirm soluble-sulfate content of finish subgrade soils.

5.7 Concrete Flatwork
Sidewalk/Flatwork should conform to City of Murrieta standards. A representative of Leighton should verify subgrade soil expansion, moisture conditions and compaction prior to formwork and reinforcement placement. If subgrade soils possess expansion index greater than 21, we recommend a minimum 8-inch deepened edge be constructed for all flatwork to reduce moisture variation in subgrade soils along concrete edges adjacent to open (unfinished) or irrigated landscape areas.

Concrete flatwork should be constructed of uniformly cured, low-slump concrete and should contain sufficient control/contraction joints. Additional provisions such as ascending/descending slope conditions, perched (irrigation) water, special surcharge loading conditions, potential expansive soil pressure and differential settlement/heave DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 15 should be incorporated into the design of exterior improvements. Additional exterior slab details are suggested in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines.

Homeowners (HOA) should be advised of their maintenance responsibilities as well as geotechnical issues that could affect performance of site improvements.

5.8 Site Drainage and Erosion Control
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a minimum 2 percent gradient away from the structures for a distance of at least 5 feet. Below grade planters should not be situated adjacent to structures or pavements unless provisions for drainage such as catch basins and drains are made. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structures or pavements. Over-watering of the site should be avoided. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during construction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest Riverside County grading ordinances.

5.9 Slope Stability
The existing 2:1 or flatter descending slopes along the exiting channel and cut slopes in the western portion of the site (Cross-Sections AA’ and BB’ - see Figure 2) were evaluated for long-term stability. As presented in Appendix C, the results of our analyses indicate that both slopes are considered stable under static and pseudo-static conditions.

Slope faces are inherently subject to erosion, particularly if exposed to rainfall and storm drainage water. It is recommended that proper erosion control measures be provided that may include breakwater berms and rip-rap in accordance with recommendations of the project Civil Engineer or erosion control specialist.

5.10 Preliminary Pavement Design
Our preliminary pavement design is based on an R-value of 18 for onsite soils (clayey sand). For planning and estimating purposes, the pavement sections are calculated based on a range of Traffic Indexes (TI) as indicated in Table below and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual:

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 16 Table 2. Preliminary Asphalt Pavement Sections
General Traffic
Condition
Design
Traffic
Index (TI)
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate
Base*
(inches)
Automobile
Parking Lanes

4.5 3.0 6.0

5.0 3.0 7.50
Truck Access &
Driveways

6.0 3.5 8.0

6.5 3.5 12.0
Appropriate Traffic Index (TI) data should be selected or verified by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant and appropriate R-value of the subgrade soils will need to be verified after completion of site grading to finalize the pavement design.

Final pavement sections should be constructed in general accordance with local, county and industry standards. The Caltrans pavement section design calculations were based on a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. A minimum of 6 inches of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement over 6-inch of AB may be used, rather than asphalt, in high impact load areas such as loading docks, trash truck bin loading areas, etc. The PCC pavement may be placed directly on a compacted subgrade with an R-Value of 40 or higher. The PCC pavement should be adequately reinforced to prevent shrinkage cracking and have a minimum of 28-day flexural strength of 550 psi. Other requirements of Caltrans Standard Specifications regarding mixing and placing of concrete should be followed.

The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils should be moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content, compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Aggregate base should conform to the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (green book) current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of 78.

If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, some deterioration of the subgrade load bearing capacity may result. Moisture control measures such as deepened curbs or other moisture barrier materials may be used to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered when pavement is planned adjacent to either open (unfinished) or irrigated landscaped areas.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 17 5.11 Retaining Walls
Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear strength of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive soils can be designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures:

Table 3. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) Loading
Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)
Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill
Active 33 55
At-Rest 52 85
Passive* 350 125 (2:1, sloping down)
* This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of the project, not to exceed 2,000 psf at depth.

For walls retaining more than 6 feet of soils, we recommend for non-restrained walls with level backfill, a uniform pressure distribution of 14H psf with resultant force applied at mid-height of wall, where H is the retaining wall stem height in feet. For walls with 2:1 sloping backfill, a uniform pressure distribution of 28H psf with resultant force applied at mid-height. These seismic pressures should be added to static pressures above or any applicable surcharge loads.

Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active equivalentfluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils that are free draining. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding) such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest equivalent fluid weight value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be measured as the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding calculations. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a backfill is loaded by an adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight values provided above should be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us. Non-standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to check that the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall design.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 18 All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Wall backfill should be non-expansive (EI ≤ 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be used as wall backfill.

Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the 28-day compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer that the wall is structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction equipment should be used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural Engineer.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 19 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton be provided the opportunity to review all geotechnical aspects of the project including the following.

6.1 Plan Review
Leighton should review the rough-grading plans prior to release for bidding and construction. Such review is necessary to evaluate whether the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively incorporated into the plans. Leighton should also review the proposed commercial building layout, retaining wall plans, and foundation plans to determine whether the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are adequate or whether additional recommendations are required.

6.2 Construction Observation and Testing
Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton during grading and onsite construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during grading may vary from that encountered in the previously excavated borings. Reasonably continuous geotechnical observation and testing during site grading allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions during grading, if required.

Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill placement and other site geotechnically-related operations should be observed and tested by Leighton. Additional tests of subsurface materials to confirm compacted density and moisture content, corrosive potential, expansion potential, and resistance value (R-value) should be performed during or prior to grading.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 20 LIMITATION S
This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations.

Such information is necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. This investigation was performed with the understanding that the subject site is proposed for development as described in Section 2.3 of this report.

This report was prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC based on Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC’s needs, directions, and requirements at the time of our investigation. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC, and its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom Leighton Consulting, Inc. has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk.

Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton Consulting, Inc. from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton Consulting, Inc.

The client is referred to Appendix E regarding important information provided by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA).on geotechnical engineering studies and report and their applicability.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 21 REFERE NCES
ASCE, 2016, ASCE Standard 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures by Structural Engineering Institute.

Blake, T. F., 2000, EQFAULT, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program, for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User’s Manual, 77pp.

Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication

42. 2007 Interim Revision.”
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018
California Building Code, (CBC) 2019, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2.

California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) 2020, Water Data Library, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/index.cfm, Data viewed March 2021.

California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.

Civil Tech Corporation, 2005, LIQUEFYPRO Version 5.2, A Computer Program for Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis, Civil Tech Software.

Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, State of California (CDMG), 2008, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, dated March, 2008.

Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1980, Geological Study of Parcel 15420, Riverside County in Compliance with California State Law Chapter 7.5 Division 2 of the California Resources Code as of 7-1-79, dated August 1.

Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2011, Geological Study of Parcel 15420, Riverside County in Compliance with California State Law Chapter 7.5 Division 2 of the California Resources Code as of 7-1-79, dated August 1.

DRAFT
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 22 Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2021, Geological Study of Parcel 15420, Riverside County in Compliance with California State Law Chapter 7.5 Division 2 of the California Resources Code as of 7-1-79, dated August 1.

LGC, 2004, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 18-acre Commercial Site, located on the SEC of Jefferson Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs road, Murrieta, California, dated June 10.

OSHPD, 2021, Seismic Design Maps, an interactive computer program on OSHPD website to calculate Seismic Response and Design Parameters based on ASCE 7-16 seismic procedures, https://seismicmaps.org/
Public Works Standard, Inc., 2021, Greenbook, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Building News, Anaheim, California.

Riverside County Information Technology, 2021, Map My County (website), http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public.

Tokimatsu, K. and H.B. Seed, 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, published August 1987.

FIGURE 1
Scale:1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13343.004 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13343\004\Maps\13343-004_F01_SLM_2022-03-14.mxd on 3/21/2022 10:27:48 AM Author: (kmanchikanti) Date: March 2022

SITE LOCATION MAP
Proposed Multifamily Residential Development
APN: 910-410-011
Murrieta, California
Approximate
Site Boundary
Basemap Reference: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation ©
2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS ©
2022 TomTom
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
³ 0 120 240
Feet
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13343\004\Maps\13343-004_F02_BLP_2022-04-05.mxd on 4/6/2022 12:28:59 PM Author: (kmanchikanti) Scale:1 " = 120 '
Project: 13343.004 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB
Date: April 2022
G FIGURE 2 EOTECHNICAL MAP/BORING LOCATION PLAN
Proposed Multifamily Residential Development
APN: 910-410-011
Murrieta, California
Basemap Reference: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation
© 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus
DS © 2022 TomTom
LEGEND
&<
Approximate Location of Boring
shown with Total Depth (T.D.) and
Groundwater (G.W.) Depth at Time
of Exploration in Feet Below Ground
(Leighton 2022)
&<
Approximate Location of shown with
Total Depth (T.D.) and Groundwater
(G.W.) Depth at Time of Exploration
in Feet Below Ground (Leighton,
2011)
!(#
Approximate Location of Boring
shown with Total Depth (T.D.) and
Groundwater (G.W.) Depth at Time
of Exploration in Feet Below Ground
(LGC, 2004)
% % Slope Stability Cross-section
% %
Approximate Locatoin of Fault
Trench (Leighton, 1980)
Eastern Limits of Alquist-Priolo Fault
Zone
Eastern Limits of Riverside County
Fault Zone
Approximate Site Boundary
B-4
T.D. 26.5'
[email protected]'
LB-5
T.D 25'
[email protected]'
A
LB-6-2022
T.D. 31.5'
G.W. @ 7.8'
A'
T-1
FIGURE 3
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Reference: Riverside County Mapping Portal, 9/9/2019.
1 " = 500 '
Project: 13343.004 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13343\004\Maps\13343-004_F03_RFM_2022-03-14.mxd on 3/21/2022 10:52:29 AM Author: (kmanchikanti)
Date: March 2022

REGIONAL FAULT MAP
Approximate
Site Location
Legend
Approximate Location of Fault (Alquist-Priolo)
Approximate Location of Fault Zone
(Alquist-Priolo)
³ 0 500 1,000
Feet
Proposed Multifamily Residential Development
APN: 910-410-011
Murrieta, California
!"a$
%&h(
Qya
QTws
Qya
Qya
Qya
Qps
Qya
Qyls
Qyv
Qyf
Qps
Qps
QTws
Qps
QTws
Qps Qyls
QTws
QTws
QTws
Trmu
Qps
Trmu
Qyf
Qps
Qps
Qps
Qps
Qyv
Qya
Qpf
Qps
Qyv
Qyv
Qpf
Qpf
Qps
Qyv
Alta Murrieta Dr
Jackso
Av
n
e
Kalmia St
Ivy St
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
Jefferson Ave
Los Alamos Rd
California Oaks Rd
Washington Ave
Scale:1 " = 2,000 '
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13343\004\Maps\13343-004_F04_RGM_2022-03-14.mxd on 3/21/2022 10:58:33 AM Author: (kmanchikanti) Date: March 2022
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Reference: USGS, 2006 Geologic map of the San
Bermardino and Santa Ana 30'x60 quadrangle,
California Version 1,0 Open File Report 2006-1217.

Legend
Qyf - Young alluvial-fan deposits
!! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
! Qya - Young axial-channel deposits
Qyls - Young landslide deposits
Qyv - Young alluvial-valley deposits
QTws - Sandstone and conglomerate of Wildomar area
Qpf - Pauba Formation
Qps - Pauba Formation
Trmu - Rocks of Menifee Valley, undifferentiated
Project: 13343.004 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB

REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
Approximate
Site Location
FIGURE 4
Proposed Multifamily Residential Development
APN: 910-410-011
Murrieta, California

APPENDIX A
Field Boring Logs (This and Previous Studies)
The exploration logs included within Appendix A and related information depicts subsurface conditions only at the locations indicated and at the particular date designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these borings locations. The passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions. In addition, any stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual
4 6
8 2
2 4
5 13
15 4
5 13
109
96 116
CL-SM
SM
CL
SM
BB-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
21 29
19 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal)
CLAYEY, SILTY SAND, loose, yellow to brown, dry, fine sand, sparse vegetation
SANDY SILT with clay, black to brown, moist, fine sand, low plasticity
SANDY LEAN CLAY, stiff, black to brown, moist, fine sand, carbonate stringers prevalent
SANDY LEAN CLAY, reddish brown, very moist, fine sand, low plasticity, mottled with light gray, carbonate stringers prevalent PAUBA FORMATION (Qps)
SILTY SAND, medium dense, gray, very moist, very fine sand SILTY SAND, gray, moist, very fine sand, micaceous
Total Depth 21.5'
GW measured @ 8.35'
Backfilled upon completion of drilling
PP=1.5 tsf
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

Page 1 of 1 ends

Murrieta City CouncilMay 20, 2025

Murrieta City Council
May 20, 2025