PRIORITY PROJECT
HYDROLOGY STUDY
FOR:
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES WOODWARD
APN No. 220-210-49
Woodward St, San Marcos, California
PREPARED FOR:
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
1241 Cave Street
La Jolla, CA 92037
Contact Person: Jack Robson
Tel No: 858-458-9700
PREPARED BY:
EXCEL ENGINEERING
440 State Place
Escondido, CA 92029
Tel: (760) 745-8118
Project No: 22-027
DATE PREPARED:
2/13/2023
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 amount of 100-year runoff that the existing site is generating right now and compare it to the 100 year runoff that the proposed project will be generating. We will also calculate adequacy of the proposed storm drain facilities and mitigation measures.
1.2 Project Proposed Facilities
The 8.57-acre project site is located Woodward Street in San Marcos, California. The site is currently undeveloped. The project site is face to Woodward Street to the east and bordered by East Mission Road to the north. The fill slopes have a gradient of about 2:1 (horizontal:vertical).
The project is proposing to build multifamily residential. As part of this project, associated improvements will include two biofiltration basins (BMP-A and BMP-B) located at the north and west edge of the project site, respectively. All necessary utilities (storm, sewer, water, etc.) will be installed as part of the project.
2.0 Vicinity Map
The project is located on the east side of Woodward Street and bounded by the East Mission Road to the north in San Marcos, California.
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 project onsite is currently undeveloped. The project fronts onto Woodward Street and East Mission Road. The property drains primarily by overland flow to an existing storm drain system located at the southwest corner of the project site. According to the Web Soil Survey, the soil type in this project is Type C and Type D. The same runoff factors will be used for the overall project calculations.
The upper east side of the project site drains westerly to the existing 18 inches and 24 inches storm drain pipe then drains to poc-1, which is located at the southwest corner of the project site. The lower east side of the project site drains southerly to the existing 12 and 18 inches storm drain pipe then to poc-2, which is located at the southeast corner of the project site. At the north edge of the project site, surface runoff drains northerly to poc-3, which is located at the north west edge of the project site.
The pre-development onsite area is approximately 8.57 acre. The impervious square footage of the site was estimated based on aerial photography and detailed aerial topographic mapping to be approximately 0% of the site. From table 3-1 “RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAs”, runoff coefficients for 0% impervious 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 project proposed to install residential houses. The project is proposed to build two biofiltration basins (BMP-A and BMP-B) for storm water quality, which located at the northeast corner and northwest edge of the project site, respectively, to incorporate the collection of storm water from the building and street and direct the storm water through storm water drainage pipes to POCs.
At the east side of the property, the project proposed to build brow ditch to direct surface flow northerly to the proposed 36 inches storage pipe 2 then follow the existing site slope drains to poc-3, which is located at the north edge along the Woodward Street of the project site. The middle part of the project site is proposed to build multifamily, park, and street improvement. The proposed impervious area routes surface runoff northerly through proposed storm drain storage pipe 1 then to BMP-A, which is located at northeast side of the project site. After runoff get treated in BMP-A, it outlets to a brow ditch down the slope to Woodward Street POC-1. The west part of the project site includes proposed graded slope, existing slope, and the proposed driveway. This part of the project drains surface flow southwesterly to poc-1. The rest of the project, the east part, routes stormwater southeasterly to existing 12 and 18 inches storm drain pipe then to poc-2, which is located at the southeast corner of the project site.
The average impervious square footage of the post-development condition was estimated based on aerial photography and detailed aerial topographic mapping. to be approximately 100%, 65%, and 0% of the site. From table 3-1 “RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAs”, runoff coefficient for 100%, 65%, and 0% impervious 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 16.14 CFS to POC-1, 7.87 CFS to POC-2, and 2.17 CFS to POC-3.
The project proposed post-development discharge a peak 100-year flow of 21.37 CFS to POC-1, 4.70 CFS to POC-2, and 3.61 CFS to POC-3, which need storage detention at POC-1 and POC-3 in post development. After mitigation, the peak 100-year flow of the post-development is 11.76 CFS at POC-1 and 2.05 CFS at POC-3. The northeast biofiltration basin (BMP-A) and storage pipe 1 perform peak flow detention purposes for POC-1, and the storage pipe 2 at the east side perform peak flow detention purposes for POC-3.
The mitigation for POC-1 has two parts. Part 1 is for flow being detained in storage pipe 1, part 2 is for flow after storage pipe 1 and being detained in BMP-A due to confluence. The final mitigated result for POC-1 is shown in part 2.
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 D and type C soil. The runoff coefficients C are based on the %IMPER. 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, detention structure is needed in this project. The method we are using here on how to use the resulting values of the outflow hydrograph is to recalculate the runoff coefficient C value based on the fix values of the outflow hydrograph to achieve a C out . 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, 0.016 for Concrete Pavement, 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
POC-1 POC-2 POC-3 POC-1 POC-2 POC-3 POC-1 POC-3
Q (CFS) 16.14 7.87 2.17 21.37 4.70 3.61 11.76 2.05
A (Acres) 7.10 2.88 0.89 6.59 2.34 1.46 6.59 1.46
TC (MIN) 8.54 6.29 6.98 11.17 7.34 7.57 17.27 11.73
Table 1. Q100 Analysis Results
Structures that are used for detention are the biofiltration basin (BMP-A) and storage pipe 1 located at the northeast side of the project site, and storage pipe 2 located at the east side of the project site.
The total volume of BMP-A is 13387.08 cu ft. The total volume for storage pipe 1 and storage pipe 2 is 57937.32 cu ft and 15020.29 cu ft, respectively. The figures of stage versus volume of the detention structures are shown below:
Fig. 2 BMP-A Volume
Fig. 3 Storage Pipe 1 Volume
Fig. 4 Storage Pipe 2 Volume
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: 22-027
___________________________________________________ ____________ Robert D. Dentino, RCE 45629 Date
Registration Expire: December 31, 2023
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 E xhibit 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 Calculation s
Attachment 7 – Hydrograph
7a. HEC-HMS Simulation Results
7b. Runoff Coefficient C After Detention Structure
ATTACHMENT 1
SITE MAP
ii:@#1
[NG/NEERING
LAND Pl.ANMNG • EN~NEERING • sumNG
«o SIAlE PlA(I, ESCOOOO CA 92029
PH (760)745-8118 FX (760j745-1890
..,
\
I
_ I ;' I
. I
~G
' _,
I
(
I '
I
'f , 7
'
I /
z '
, w
,,,..-
SCALE· ! ' 60,,
---- -0 60 120 180 240
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES
f1/OO0J1/ARO SITE MAP
ATTACHMENT 2
FIGURES & TABLES FROM THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY HYDROLOGY
MANUAL 2003
San Diego County Hydrology Manual Section: 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 used for dir ect calculation of the runoff coe fficient 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 shou ld 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 limits of the length (Maximum Length (L M)) of sheet flow to be used in
hydrology studies. Initial Ti values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are also included. These values can be used in planning and design applic ations as described below. Exceptions may be approved by the “Regulating Agency” when submitted 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 L
M Ti L M Ti L M Ti L M Ti L M Ti L M 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
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
'
...... "-...
'
"r-..
'
..... .... i ......
'
'
...... "", "", .... , 'r-. r-,._
r-.. ... ...
'i-... ·, r-,r-, .. ......
'
..... .... .. ",
"", "",-
' .. I"
• ' , .... ... ,. .. ~
...
'
• "'"' ",.
'
.... "l'r-. '" "'r-r-..
' '
,, .. '"
~ ,.,. .... ,.
'
"", , ....... ,.
' ' ·, '"'
~ ",.
• ' 'r-.. r-.,. ... ,. .. ,.
.... .... , I" ... ,.
.... r-, ,.
'
.... ,. ...-...
~
' ·, ... ,. .. ,.,.
' "", ,.
'
..... ,.~ , .. ...,.
.... , ~
,, ,.
......
"' ... ,.
"
5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 5 20 30
Minutes
,. ..
,."' ,.., ,. ,.., ,.
""' ..
" ,.., .. ,..,
,. ,. ,."' ,.., ,.
,.
.. "
40 50
Duration
EQUATION
I = 7_44 P6 D-0.645
I = Intensity (in/hr)
P5 = 6-Hour Precipitation (in)
D :::; Duration (min)
' r-. ....
' .... , ....
"
,i-., ... , , ... 1 ...
'
.. ....
i'-
'
.... , ... ...
~
..... , .. ':-. .. 1 ... ..., , ... :-, ,. ,, ... ~
'r-. , ... ,.
~
,.
'
...
.... , .......
'
I" ..... ~ .. ,, ... "' " .... , ,.
1 ... '"' ,.
'
I" ,. ..... ,.
""r-.
I"
"i-..
,.
~
2 3 4
Hours
5 6
0,
±
0 ~
7J
iil n
6.0 1
5.5 g.
5.0 :,
4.5 '§'
n
4.0 15
3.5 ~
3,0
2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0
Intensity-Duration Design Chart - Template
Directions for Application:
(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 yrmaps 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 precipita tion (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.
Application Form:
(a) Selected frequency ___ year
p
(b) P6 :::: __ in., p24 = __ 'P 6 = _ __ % (2)
24 (c) Adjusted p6(2) = __ in.
(d) Ix= __ min .
(e) J = __ in.lhr .
Note: This chart replaces the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used since 1965.
~ -- 3- 3~5 I 4.s- I I sis j ~ 1 1,s 1-~ 2:5 4 5
Duration l I . I I I I I I ' I
5 2.63 3.9515.27 6.59 7.90 ~ 10.54 11.86 13.17 14.49 15.81 7 2. 12➔3. 1 8~,?4 5.3Q. 6}~~ J:4f 9.54_ J 0.60 11;.66 12.72 10 1.s8 2.s3 3.37 4.21 I 5.o5 s.90 6.74 7.58 8.42 9.27 10.11 --15 1.30 1.95 2.59 3.24 [,89.,. 4.54 ~ - - 7.78 5.19 5.84 6.49 7.13
--20 1.08 1.62 2.15 2.69 3.23 3. TT 4.31 4.85 5.39 5.93 "'['45 ~
25 0.93 1.401.87 2.33 12.89 !3.27 3.73 4.20 I 4.67 5.13_ 5:so --30 0.83 _,.1.24 ,..l .66 2.~-bl 2.49 2.90 3.~2 _ 3.73_, 4.1~ 4.~_ ~ 98 40 0.69_, 1.03 1.38 L72 2.07 2.4 1 2.76 3.10 I 3.45 3.7_9 4.13 50 o.~o o.oo D9Ti .49 t 1.79,...~0i ..J,39 2.69 I 2.98 3.28 3.58 60 0.53 0.80 1.06 1.33 1.59 1.86 2 . 12 2.39 I 2.65 2.e2 3.18 ~ 0 :4; 0.61 0.82 1.02 1.23 1.43 1.63 L84 2.04 2.25 2.45 120 0.34 10.51 0.68 0.85 1.02 1.19 1.36 1.53 , 1.70 1.87 2.04 - 7 so 0.29 0.44 0.59 0.731 0.88 1.03 1.18 1.32 1.47 1.62 1.76 180 .!).26 0.39i 0.5~ 0.65 0.78 0.91 1.04 I 1.18 1.31 1.44 1.57 240 0.22 0.33 0.43 0~65 0.76 0.87 j 0.98 ! 1.08 1.19 ~? 0.19 0.28 0.38 1['477>: 55 0.66 - ~ -300 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 I 0. 75 I 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 Feet
5000
4000
Tc
Tc
L
~E
::;:
::;
=
::;
EQUATION
(1~t)°·385
Time of concentration (hours)
Watercourse Distance (miles)
Change in elevation along
effective slope line (See Figure 3-5)(feet)
L'.).E
3000
2000
400
300
200
100
50 40
30 20
10 5
SOURCE: California Division of Highways (1941 ) and Kirpich (1940) L
MIies Feet
0.5 L
4000
' ' 3000
'
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
900
BOO
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 Submerged 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(
AÀ
A×
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
SANTA
MARGARITA