ATTACHMENT D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
APPENDIX K
HYDROLOGY STUDY
PRIORITY PROJECT
HYDROLOGY STUDY
FOR:
CAPALINA APARTMENTS
APN No. 219-115-33
Capalina Road, San Marcos, CA 92069
PREPARED FOR:
Capalina SMA, LLC
179 Calle Magdalena #201
Encinitas, CA 92024
Attn: Jon Rilling
Tel No.: 760-445-5144
PREPARED BY:
EXCEL ENGINEERING
440 State Place
Escondido, CA 92029
Tel: (760) 745-8118
Project No: 22-060
DATE PREPARED:
6/12/2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Description
1.1 Project Purpose
1.2 Project Proposed facilities
2.0 Vicinity Map
3.0 Site Map
4.0 Description of Watershed
4.1 Existing Conditions Topography and Drainage Patterns
4.2 Post Conditions Topography and Drainage Patterns
4.3 Hydrologic Unit Contribution
5.0 Methodology
5.1 Hydrology Software
5.2 Routing Software
5.3 Soils Type Determination
5.4 Isopluvial Value Determination
6.0 Calculations
6.1 Calculate Runoff Coefficient
6.2 Manning Roughness Coefficient
6.3 Rational Method Calculation Summary
7.0 Summary
8.0 References
9.0 Declaration of Responsible Charge
10.0 Attachments
Attachment 1 – Site Map
Attachment 2 – Figures & Tables from the SD Hydrology Manual 2003
Attachment 3 – Watershed Information
Watershed Map
Soils Index Map
Soil Report
Rainfall Isopluvial Maps
Attachment 4 – Pre-Development Condition Exhibit
Attachment 5 – Post-Development Condition Exhibit
5a. Hydrology Map of Post-Development Condition Exhibit 5b. Hydrology Map of Post-Development Mitigation Condition Exhibit
Attachment 6 – Modified Rational Method Runoff Calculations
6a. CivilD Pre-Development Calculations
6b. CivilD Post-Development Calculations
6c. CivilD Mitigated Post-Development Calculations
Attachment 7 – Hydrograph
7a. HEC-HMS Simulation Results
7b. Runoff Coefficient C After Detention Structure
1.0 Project Description
1.1 Project Purpose
The objective of this study is to determine the flow rates from 100-year runoff analysis for the existing site conditions and compare that analysis to the 100-year runoff generated from the proposed project. We will also calculate the adequacy of the proposed storm drain facilities and mitigation measures to maintain existing peak flows.
1.2 Project Proposed Facilities
The 2.51-acre project site is located on Capalina Road in the City of San Marcos, California. The site is currently undeveloped. The project site fronts on West Mission Road to the north and Capalina Road to the south, existing commercial development is adjacent to the sites westerly and easterly boundaries.
The proposed project is a multifamily residential facility containing two buildings and associated surface parking and supporting utilities. The proposed drainage facilities include two biofiltration basins, an underground storge tank used to mitigate the projects peak flow and associated storm drain systems which outlet to Mission Road.
2.0 Vicinity Map
The project site is located on Capalina Road in the City of San Marcos, California. The project site fronts on West Mission Road to the north and Capalina Road to the south.
Fig. 1 Vicinity Map
3.0 Site Map
Please see Attachment 1 – Site Map
4.0 Description of Watershed
4.1 Existing Conditions Topography and Drainage Patterns
The existing site is currently undeveloped. The project fronts on West Mission Road to the north and Capalina Road to the south. The property drains primarily by overland flow to West Mission Road then easterly along West Mission Roads curb and getter to an existing storm drain system located at North Pacific Street.
According to the Web Soil Survey, the soil types for this site are Type C and Type D.
Table 3-1 Runoff Coefficient for Urban Areas from the San Diego County Hydrology Manual will be utilized to determine the appropriate runoff coefficient based on the proposed use and the existing soils type.
The proposed development northerly of the right of way of Capalina Road drains to the north (West Mission Road) with the drainage leaving the site in two outlets to the existing curb and gutter along West Mission Road which flow to discharge point 1 at the projects northeasterly corner. The site improvements within the right of way of Capalina Road and consist of road widening, curb and gutter, driveway aprons and right of way improvements drains easterly to discharge point 2.
Downstream of the two discharge points, surface runoff continues easterly to the existing storm drain inlets located at North Pacific Street, the projects POC.
The pre-development onsite area is approximately 2.51 acre. The existing land use is undisturbed natural terrain. This determination was made based on a site inspection, aerial photography and a detailed aerial topography mapping. From table 3-1 “RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAs”, runoff coefficients for undisturbed natur al terrain will be used in the pre-development runoff calculations.
A pre-developed drainage map can be found as Attachment 4 in this report.
4.2 Post Conditions Topography and Drainage Patterns
This proposed project is a multifamily residential facility containing two buildings and associated surface parking and supporting utilities. Two biofiltration basins are proposed to mitigate the storm water quality for the project (BMP-A and BMP-B). BMP-A is located near the northeast corner of the site and BMP-B is located near the northwest corner of the site. The biofiltration basins will collect the storm water runoff from the building and proposed parking lots and convey the storm water through storage tanks, storm drain systems and curb and gutters to POC.
At the center of the project site, the proposed impervious area runoff is routed northerly to BMP-A then through the proposed 18 inches storm drain to the proposed 48 inches storage pipe system. After detention in said storage pipe system the system outflow through a 12 inches storm drain to discharge point 1, which is located at the northeast corner of the project site. BMP-A also has an emergency overflow which exits with a 12 inches storm drain to the same discharge point 1.
At the northwest part of the project site, surface runoff follows the proposed grades through curb cuts to BMP-B. BMP-B then drains through a 12 inches storm drain to a curb outlet at West Mission Road. These flows confluence with the existing surface flow along West Mission Road and drains easterly along the curb and gutter to the discharge point 1.
The south portion of the project site, The Capalina Road proposed improvements, drain easterly along the proposed curb and gutter, to discharge point 2, located at the southeast corner of the project site. After runoff leaves discharge point 1 and the discharge point 2, the drainage follows the existing curb and gutter to the east to the inlet in North Pacific Street, the project’s POC.
The land use type for the project site proposed condition was estimated based on aerial photography and detailed aerial topographic mapping to be High Density Residential 43.0 DU/A or less. From table 3-1 “RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAs ”, runoff coefficients for High Density Residential 43.0 DU/A or less will be used in the post- development runoff calculations.
As calculated below and summarized further in section 6, the pre-development discharges a peak 100-year flow of 5.627 CFS to Discharge Point 1, 1.571 CFS to Discharge Point 2, total 7.198 CFS to the project’s POC. The project proposed post-development discharge is a peak 100-year flow of 18.158 CFS to Discharge Point 1, 2.978 CFS to Discharge Point 2, for a total 21.136 CFS to POC , which needs storage and or detention upstream of the POC in post development design.
The mitigation system includes BMP-A and 224 ft of 48 inches RCP storage pipe to be installed as two 112 ft lengths. (Note: A third storage pipe is only used for hydromodification, not to peak flow). An 18 inches storm drain connects BMP-A to the storage pipe. The total storage volume of the storage pipe is 3067 cubic feet. The storage curve is shown in Figure 2 below.
Fig. 2 – Detention Pipe Storage Cuve
At the west side of the 2 barrels of 48 inches storage pipe, weir plate 1 provides flow control with an orifice at the bottom and a spillway at the top of weir plate 1. Orifice 1 is
1.39 ft in length and 0.125’ in height, and spillway 1 is 3.71 ft in length and 1.25 ft in height. The entire weir plate 1 is 48 inches in diameter. At the east end of the detention pipe, weir plate 2 which is 48 inches diameter is used to block water in the detention pipe.
HEC-HMS was used for routing the project flows. The area of the orifice and spillways input into HEC-HMS. The result of the routing shows that the project is mitigated from peak flow. The detailed routing results and hydrograph of HEC-HMS is in Attachment 7 of this study.
After mitigation, the peak 100-year flow of the post-development is reduced to 4.184 CFS at Discharge Point 1, for a total 7.162 CFS at the project’s POC. The onsite 48 inches storage pipes systems perform peak flow detention to mitigate POC. A post-developed drainage map can be found as Attachment 5 in this report.
4.3 Hydrologic Unit Contribution
The project site is located in Richland Hydrologic Sub Area of the San Marcos Hydrologic Area of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (904.52).
5.0 Methodology
This report is prepared in accordance with the 2003 San Diego County Hydrology Manual.
Based on the overall tributary study area, calculations are based on the Rational Method.
5.1 Hydrology Software
We are using the CivilCadd /CivilDesign® software to analyze the runoff. The module we are using is the one for the San Diego County Flood Control Division 2003 Hydrology Manual. Please see the detailed hydrology calculations in Attachment 6.
5.2 Routing Software
Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), Version 4.9 is used for hydrologic routing of the entire project site. The hydrograph developed from the rational method is then manually entered into this software and routed into each detention pipe. The HEC-HMS simulation results can be found in Attachment 7 in this report.
5.3 Soil Type Determination
The soil type for the proposed project was determined by mapping the project limits on the EPA Web Soil Survey website. The Web soil Survey indicate that the site is composed of soil type C and type D. The soil report and soil index map can be found in Attachment 3 of this report.
5.4 Isopluvial Value Determination
The isopluvial values for the 100-year 6 hour and 24 hour storm events were determined by plotting the projects location on the respective exhibits from Appendix B of the Hydrology Manual. The rainfall isopluvial maps can be found in Attachment 3 of this report.
6.0 Calculations
The intent of the post-development calculation done as part of this report is to verify the 100-year flowrates expected from the post-developed conditions are lower than the pre- developed conditions. These numbers will be used to size the proposed storm drainage pipes and to doublecheck if the existing storm drain outlet facilities are adequate.
6.1 Calculate Runoff Coefficient
The runoff coefficients for each of the drainage areas are taken from Table 3-1 of the Hydrology Manual. Based on the EPA Web Soil Survey, this project site is in type C and type D soil. The runoff coefficients C are based on the land use type for this project. Table 3-1 is included in the CIVILD software, and the values chosen based on the program input parameters. The output file was checked to ensure that the correct C values are used.
In order to not have a negative impact on the post development downstream facilities, a detention structure is needed for this project. The method used on the resulting values of the outflow hydrograph is to recalculate the runoff coefficient C value based on the fixed values of the outflow hydrograph to achieve a Cout . The detailed description and calculation of the Cout value can be found in Attachment 7 in this report.
6.2 Manning Roughness Coefficient
Manning Roughness Coefficients are taken from San Diego County Drainage Design Manual. Values are taken from Table A-1, Average Manning Roughness Coefficients for Pavement and Gutters, Table A-2, Average Manning Roughness Coefficients for Closed Conduits, and Table A-5, Average Manning roughness Coefficient for Natural Channels.
Values of 0.015 for Concrete Gutter, 0.013 for PVC Pipe, and 0.03 for Fairly Regular Section Some Grass and Weeds, Little or No Brush are used in the hydrology calculations.
Table of Manning’s n value can be found in Attachment 2 in this report.
6.3 Rational Method Calculation Summary
The peak runoff values for the 100-year storm are calculated according to the Hydrology Manual Rational Method. The calculations are performed using the CIVILD software. A summary of the initial calculations is summarized in the table below:
Summary of Q100 Runoff
PRE POST POST MITIGATION
Discharge
Point 1
Discharge
Point 2 POC
Discharge
Point 1
Discharge
Point 2 POC
Discharge
Point 1
Discharge
Point 2 POC
Q (CFS) 5.627 1.571 7.198 18.158 2.978 21.136 4.184 2.978 7.162 Tc
(MIN) 11.112 5.23 11.112 4.77 4.61 4.77 5.677 4.61 5.677 A
(ACRE) 2.7 0.398 3.098 2.675 0.423 3.098 2.673 0.42 3 3.096
Table 1. Q100 Analysis Results
Structures that used for detention consist of 48 inches storage pipes located at the northeast side of the project site within the project’s parking lot.
CIVILD data and output files can be found in Attachment 6 of this report.
By observation of the results in the summary table, the mitigated developed condition of the site will have an overall decrease in the 100-year peak flow discharge from the site.
7.0 Summary
This project will not negatively impact the existing downstream storm drain facilities.
Based on the results of this report, the project does not increase the 100-year peak flow rate of the Mitigated Post Development stormwater discharge from the site as flows are lower than those of the Pre Development condition.
8.0 References
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section, June 2003 San Diego County Hydrology Manual.
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section, September 2014 San Diego County Hydraulic Design Manual.
9.0 DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE
I hereby declare that I am the engineer of work for this project. That I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in section 6703 of the business and professions codes, and that the design is consistent with current design.
I understand that the check of the project drawings and specifications by the City of San Marcos is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as engineer of work, of my responsibilities for project design.
ENGINEER OF WORK
Excel Engineering
440 State Place
Escondido, CA 92029
Tel – (760)745-8118
Fax – (760)745-1890
Project Number: 22-060
___________________________________________________ ____________ Robert D. Dentino, RCE 45629 Date
Registration Expire: December 31, 2024
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Site Map
Attachment 2 – Figures & Tables from the San Diego County Hydrology Manual 2003
Attachment 3 – Watershed Information
Watershed Map
Soils Index Map
Soil Report
Rainfall Isopluvial Maps
Attachment 4 – Pre-Development Condition Exhibit
Attachment 5 – Post-Development Condition Exhibit
5a. Hydrology Map of Post-Development Condition Exhibit 5b. Hydrology Map of Post-Development Mitigation Condition Exhibit
Attachment 6 – Modified Rational Method Runoff Calculations 6a. CivilD Pre-Development Calculations
6b. CivilD Post-Development Calculations
6c. CivilD Mitigated Post-Development Calculations
Attachment 7 – Hydrograph
7a. HEC-HMS Simulation Results
7b. Runoff Coefficient C After Detention Structure
ATTACHMENT 1
SITE MAP
I
. ' --·
\
1 \
' __ /
I
/
I
/
/
.• .. ' ~ '
~ . " . . ..
I
I
I
I
I
........
~ . :. ,_. .
---
----------- ---
----------- ---
----------- ---
,,,_
~
---
----------- ---
-----------
-
Ill
l!l
----------- ---
----------- ---
----------- ---
----------- ------
----------- ---
----------- ---
----------- ---
-----------
----------- ---
----------- --- ~ /
-
\
SCALE: I ' 40"
-- -- - - -0 40 80 !20 !60
RILL/NC FNTFRPR/SFS
CAPAL/NA APARTMENTS
SIT£ MAP
ATTACHMENT 2
FIGURES & TABLES FROM THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY HYDROLOGY
MANUAL 2003
San Diego County Hydrology Manual Sect ion: 3
Date: June 2003 Page: 6 of 26
Table 3-1
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAS
Land Use Runoff Coefficient “C”
Soil Type
NRCS Elements County Elements % IMPER. A B C D
Undisturbed Natural Terrain (Natural) Permanent Open Space 0* 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 1.0 DU/A or less 10 0.27 0.32 0.36 0.41 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.0 DU/A or less 20 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.46 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.9 DU/A or less 25 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.49 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 4.3 DU/A or less 30 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.52 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 7.3 DU/A or less 40 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 10.9 DU/A or less 45 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.60 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 14.5 DU/A or less 50 0.55 0.58 0.60 0.63 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 24.0 DU/A or less 65 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.71 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 43.0 DU/A or less 80 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 Commercial/Industrial (N. Com) Neighborhood Commercial 80 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 Commercial/Industrial (G. Com) General Commercial 85 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.82 Commercial/Industrial (O.P. Com) Office Professional/Commercial 90 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 Commercial/Industrial (Limited I.) Limited Industrial 90 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 Commercial/Industrial (General I.) General Industrial 95 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
*The values associated with 0% impervious may be use d for direct calculation of the runoff coefficient as described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious runoff coefficient, Cp, for the soil type), or for areas that will remain undisturbed in perpetuity. Justification must be given that the area will remain natural forever (e.g., the area is located in Cleveland National Forest).
DU/A = dwelling units per acre
NRCS = National Resources Conservation Service
3-6
San Diego County Hydrology Manual Section: 3
Date: June 2003 Page: 12 of 26
Note that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general land-use at the upstream end of a drainage basin. A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have a significant effect where the drainage basin area is 20 to 600 acres.
Table 3-2 provides lim its of the length (Maximum Length ( LM)) of sheet flow to be used in hydrology studies. Initial Ti values based on average C values for the Land Use Elem ent are also included. These values can b e used in planning and design applic ations a s described below. Exceptions m ay be approved by the “Regulating Agency” when subm itted with a detailed study.
Table 3-2
MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH (LM)
& INITIAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Ti)
.5% 1% 2% 3% 5% 10% Element*
DU/
Acre LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti
Natural 50 13.2 70 12.5 85 10.9 100 10.3 100 8.7 100 6.9 LDR 1 50 12.2 70 11.5 85 10.0 100 9.5 100 8.0 100 6.4
LDR 2 50 11.3 70 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 7.4 100 5.8
LDR 2.9 50 10.7 70 10.0 85 8.8 95 8.1 100 7.0 100 5.6
MDR 4.3 50 10.2 70 9.6 80 8.1 95 7.8 100 6.7 100 5.3
MDR 7.3 50 9.2 65 8.4 80 7.4 95 7.0 100 6.0 100 4.8
MDR 10.9 50 8.7 65 7.9 80 6.9 90 6.4 100 5.7 100 4.5
MDR 14.5 50 8.2 65 7.4 80 6.5 90 6.0 100 5.4 100 4.3
HDR 24 50 6.7 65 6.1 75 5.1 90 4.9 95 4.3 100 3.5
HDR 43 50 5.3 65 4.7 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7
N. Com 50 5.3 60 4.5 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7
G. Com 50 4.7 60 4.1 75 3.6 85 3.4 90 2.9 100 2.4
O.P./Com 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2
Limited I. 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2
General I. 50 3.7 60 3.2 70 2.7 80 2.6 90 2.3 100 1.9
*See Table 3-1 for more detailed description
3-12
10.0 9.0
8.0 7.0
6.0 5.0
4.0 3.0
2.0 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
' ' " ....
'
"r-..
' ' .... i, .... ....
'
• ' .... , ........ .... I'-,. 'r-. r-,,
'
... ...
'r-..
' '
.....
.... , .... ,. ... • ' ' '
.... "r-,.
' ' '
...
'
.... ,
' ' • ' 'r-.. ...
.....
'
.... ,.
' ' .... ,
' , ..
' 5 6 7 8 9 10
·,
....
•
r-..,
·,
... ,
·,
.... ,
r-.r-. .. r-'
'
~ .. .. I"
I'-"- """
, .. .. ~ ~
r-.r-, "'i-.
'~ ~ .. .. ..
, ... , ..
'i-. ~ ~
r-.,. '~ .. ..
r-. I", .. ..
"r-
~
....... ..
,.
'r- .. ... ..
~
.. 1'-i-,. ,, "", ..
15 20 30
Minutes
.. ..
'"" .... .. .... ..
~r-.. ..
~
~ .. .. .. ..
~ ..
~
~
~
'"" ~ .. ..
..
""~
40 50
Duration
I =
I =
p6 =
D =
EQUATION
7.44 P6 D-0.645
Intensity (in/hr)
6-Hour Precipitation (in)
Duration (min)
'i', ...
' ... , ....
i', ,i-..
'
~
i', ....
'i-.. 1,
'i-.. 'r--
Ir-.
... , , ...
'i-..
' I'-,
'i'
'-i-..
2 ', '' .. ' ....
'' ' .. .. ""· ', ', ' ~
"" '' .
.... ,
.
.... ,
.. ,
'
I" ..
',
'"" I"
I"
3 Hours
..
..
..
..
.. .. ..
~
~
..
..
..
4 5 6
O>
i
0 ~
7J
ro
0 6.0 R
5.5 ~
5.0 g
4.5 5'
0 4.0 ~
3.5 ~
3.0 2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0 Intensity-Duration Design Chart - Template
Directions for Applicatio n:
(1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr and 24 hr amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are included in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50, and 100 yr maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual).
(2) Adjust 6 hr precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr precipitation (not applicaple to Desert).
(3) Plot 6 hr precipitation on the right side of the chart . (4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. (5) This line is the intensity-duration curve for the location being analyzed .
Applicat ion Form:
(a) Selected frequency ___ year
p
(b) p6 = --- in., P24 = --- 'P 6 = %(2J
24 (c) Adjusted p6<2l = ___ in.
(d) tx = __ min .
(e) I = __ in./hr .
Note: This chart replaces the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used since 1965.
I
P6 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Duration I I I I I I I I I I I
5 2.63 3.95 5.27 6.59 7.90 9.22 10.54 11.86 13.17 14.49 15.81 7 2.12 3.18 4.24 5.30 6.36 7.42 8.48 9.54 10.60 11.66 12.72 10 1.68 2.53 3.37 4.21 5.05 5.90 6.74 7.58 8.42 9.27 10.11 15 1.30 1.95 2.59 3.24 3.89 4.54 5.19 5.84 6.49 7.13 7.78 20 1.08 1.62 2.15 2.69 3.23 3.77 4.31 4.85 5.39 5.93 6.46 -25 0.93 1.40 1.87 2.33 2.80 3.27 3.73 4.20 4.67 5.13 5.60 30 0.83 1.24 1.66 2.07 2.49 2.90 3.32 3.73 4.15 4.56 4.98 ~ 0.69 1.03 1.38 1.72 2.0~ 2.41 2.76_ 3.10 3.45 3.79
c---
4.13 50 0.60 0.90 1.19 1.49 1.79 2.09 2.39 2.69 2.98 3.28 3.58 60 0.53 0.80 ,_~ 1.33 1.59 1.86 2.12 2.39 2.65 2.92 3.18 90 0.41 0.61 0.82 1.02 TI3 1.43 1 .63 1.84 2.04 2.25 2 .45 120 0.34 0.51 0.613_ 0.85 ~ 1.19 1.36 1.53 1.70 1.87 2.04 --f-- 150 0.29 0.44 0.59 0.73 0.88 1.03 1.18 1.32 1.47 1.62 1.76 180 0.26 0.39 0.52 0.65 0.78 0.91 1.04 1.18 1.31 1.44 1.57 240 0.22 0.33 0.43 0.54 0.65 0.76 0.87 0.98 1.08 1.19 1.30 300 0.19 0.28 0.38 0.47 0.56 0.66 0.75 0.85 0.94 1.03 1.13 360 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.42 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.75 0.84 0.92 1.00 FIGURE
~
3-3
15 Nomograph for Determination of
Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) for Natural Watersheds 16 .6.E
Feet
5000
4000
Tc
Tc
L
.6.E
:::
::;
:::
=
EQUATION
(1~t)°·385
nme of concentration (hours)
Watercourse Distance (miles)
Change in elevation along
effective slope line (See Figure 3-S)(feet)
3000
2000
300
200
30 20
10 5
.6.E
SOURCE: California Division of Highways (1941} and Kirpich (1940) L
MIies Feet
0.5 L
4000
' ' 3000
'
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
' ' '
Tc
Hours Minutes
4 3
2 ' ' '
Tc
50 40
30 20
18 16
14 12
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
FIGURE
~
F I G U R E
SOURCE: California Division of Highways (1941) and Kirpich (1940) 3-5
Computation of Effective Slope for Natural Watersheds
Area “A” = Area “B”
Watershed Divide
Design
Point
Area “A”
Watershed
Divide
L
L
Design Point
(Watershed Outlet)
Stream Profile
Effective Slope Line
Area “B”
E
17 F I G U R E
SOURCE: San Diego County Department of Special District Services Design Manual 3-6
Gutter and Roadway Discharge - Velocity Chart
0.13 EXAMPLE:
Given: Q = 10 S = 2.5%
Chart gives: Depth = 0.4, Velocity = 4.4 f.p.s.
Depth RESIDENTIAL STREET
ONE SIDE ONLY
1.5’
n = .015
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50
Discharge (C.F.S.)
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9
1.0 1.2
1.4 1.6
1.8 2
3 6
4 5
7 8
9 10
12 14
16 18
20 V = 2.5 f.p.s.
V = 3 f.p.s.
V = 4 f.p.s.
V = 5 f.p.s.
V = 6 f.p.s.
V = 8 f.p.s.
V = 10 f.p.s. V = 12 f.p.s.
V = 2 f.p.s.
Depth 0.7 Feet
Depth 0.6 Feet
Depth 0.5 Feet
Depth 0.4 Feet
Depth 0.3 Feet
Depth 0.25 Feet
Depth 0.2 Feet
% of Street Slope
V = 1.5 f.p.s.
2%
2%
n = .0175
PavedConcrete
Gutter
18 F I G U R E
SOURCE: USDOT, FHWA, HDS-3 (1961)
3-7
Manning’s Equation Nomograph
s = 0.003
n = 0.02
SLOPE in feet per foot -s
HYDRAULIC RADIUS in feet - R
VELOCITY in feet per second - V
EXAMPLE
R=0.6
V=2.9
EQUATION: V = ____ R2/3 s1/21.49
n
0.3 0.2
0.15 0.10
0.09 0.08
0.07 0.06
0.05 0.04
0.03 0.02
0.01 0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
0.0009
0.001
20 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1.0 0.9
0.8 0.7
0.6 0.5
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9
1.0 2
3 4
10 9
8 7
6 5
50 40
30 20
0.01 0.02
0.03 0.04
0.05 0.06
0.07 0.08
0.09 0.10
0.2 0.3
0.4 GENERAL SOLUTION
ROUGHNESS Coefficient - n
19 San Diego County Drainage Design Manual (July 2005)
Page A-3
Table A-1 Average Manning Roughness Coefficients for Pavement and Gutters1 Concrete Gutter2 ......................................................................................................................0.015 Concrete Pavement
Float Finish .........................................................................................................................0.014 Broom Finish.......................................................................................................................0.016 Concrete Gutter with Asphalt Pavement
Smooth Finish.....................................................................................................................0.013 Rough Texture ....................................................................................................................0.015 Asphalt Pavement
Smooth Finish.....................................................................................................................0.013 Rough Texture ....................................................................................................................0.016 Based on FHWA HEC-22.
1 Based on materials and workmanship required by standard specifications. 2 Increase roughness coefficient in gutters with mild slopes where sediment might accumulate by 0.020.
Table A-1
San Diego County Drainage Design Manual (July 2005)
Page A-4
Table A-2 Average Manning Roughness Coefficients for Closed Conduits3 Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) .............................................................................................0.013 Corrugated Metal Pipe and Pipe Arch
2-3/8 x 1/2 inch Corrugations
Unlined ........................................................................................................................0.024 Half Lined
Full Flow ............................................................................................................... 0.018 d/D>=0.60 ............................................................................................................. 0.016 d/D<0.60 ............................................................................................................... 0.013 Fully Lined ................................................................................................................... 0.013 3 x 1 inch Corrugations ...................................................................................................... 0.027 6 x 2 inch Corrugations ...................................................................................................... 0.032 Spiral Rib Pipe ................................................................................................................... 0.013 Helically Wound Pipe
18-inch .........................................................................................................................0.015 24-inch .........................................................................................................................0.017 30-inch .........................................................................................................................0.019 36-inch .........................................................................................................................0.021 42-inch .........................................................................................................................0.022 48-inch .........................................................................................................................0.023 Plastic Pipe (HPDE and PVC)
Smooth ..............................................................................................................................0.013 Corrugated .........................................................................................................................0.024 Vitrified Clay Pipe .....................................................................................................................0.014 Cast-Iron Pipe (Uncoated) ....................................................................................................... 0.013 Steel Pipe ................................................................................................................................. 0.011 Brick ......................................................................................................................................... 0.017 Cast-In-Place Concrete Pipe
Rough Wood Forms .......................................................................................................... 0.017 Smooth Wood or Steel Forms ...........................................................................................0.014
3 Based on materials and workmanship required by standard specifications.
Table A-2
San Diego County Drainage Design Manual (July 2005)
Page A-6
Table A-5 Average Manning Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels Minor Streams (Surface Width at Flood Stage < 100 ft)
Fairly Regular Section
(A) Some Grass and Weeds, Little or No Brush .........................................................0.030 (B) Dense Growth of Weeds, Depth of Flow Materially Greater Than Weed Height ....................................................................................................................0.040 (C) Some Weeds, Light Brush on Banks..................................................................... 0.040 (D) Some Weeds, Heavy Brush on Banks .................................................................. 0.060 (E) For Trees within Channel with Branches Submerge d at High Stage, Increase All Above Values By ..............................................................................................0.015 Irregular Section, with Pools, Slight Channel Meander
Channels (A) to (E) Above, Increase All Values By .....................................................0.015 Mountain Streams; No Vegetation in Channel, Banks Usually Steep, Trees and Brush along Banks Submerged at High Stage
(A) Bottom, Gravel, Cobbles and Few Boulders ..........................................................0.050 (B) Bottom, Cobbles with Large Boulders.................................................................... 0.060
Flood Plains (Adjacent To Natural Streams)
Pasture, No Brush
(A) Short Grass ............................................................................................................ 0.030 (B) High Grass ............................................................................................................. 0.040 Cultivated Areas
(A) No Crop .................................................................................................................. 0.040 (B) Mature Row Crops ................................................................................................. 0.040 (C) Mature Field Crops................................................................................................. 0.050 Heavy Weeds, Scattered Brush .........................................................................................0.050 Light Brush and Trees ........................................................................................................ 0.060 Medium To Dense Brush.................................................................................................... 0.090 Dense Willows ....................................................................................................................0.170 Cleared Land with Tree Stumps, 100-150 Per Acre...........................................................0.060 Heavy Stand of Timber, Little Undergrowth
(A) Flood Depth below Branches ................................................................................. 0.110 (B) Flood Depth Reaches Branches ............................................................................ 0.140
Table A-5
ATTACHMENT 3
WATERSHED INFORMATION
WATERSHED MAP
A¨
AÀ
A¨
A©
!"_$
!"^$
!"_$
?h
!"^$
!"a$
!"_$
%&s( AÀ
Aª
Aª
A©
?z
Aª
!"^$
?z
!"_$
AÛ!"^$
%&s(
AÀA×AÀ
?z
!"a$%&s(
Aù!"_$
?h
!"a$
!"a$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
A©
A©
!"a$
%&s(
!"a$
!"a$
A§ !"_$
!"_$
?j!"^$!"a$
Aù
A§
A§
AÀ
?j
?z
AÕ
Aª
Aª
A©AªA©
AÀ
A©
Aª
A¨
A¨
A¨
A©
AÀ
A©
A©
?j
Aq
A¨
AÛ
!"_$?j
!"_$
Aù
%&s(
!"a$
?h
AÛ
?@ 6 5
SANTAMARGARITA