Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 04-20; MATCHPLAY AT LA COSTA; STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN; 2005-07-25
I I -I I I , I i I -I I ---I , ---I I -I- STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STORMWATER MAINTENANCE PLAN MATCH PLAY at LA COSTA CITY OF CARLSBAD Prepared for: Michael Crews Commercial Development cf 0 Frost Custom Builders P.O. Box 300429 Escondido, CA 92030 r' -, , Prepared by: 1 c=B land planning, civil engineering, surveying 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387 (760). 931-8700 --W.O. 731-0990-400, BR CT04-20 rn-Iol":<...,:,:: t"'~'c?l'" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I _ I I I MEMORANDUM DATE: 07·26·05 TO: Clyde Wickham FROM: Bruce Rice JOB NO. ,731·0990·400 RE: Plan check comments for Hydrology and Hydraulic Report and Storm Water Management Plan for Match Play at La Costa. Comment Number I Requirement Remark No.1 / Existing Hydrology Map Correct scale is now shown as 1"=20'. No. 2/ Title of Report No.3 / Exhibit "B" No.4 / Proposed Grades No.5 / Sheet Numbers No.6 / Existing Hydrology Match Play at La Costa is the correct name of the project. Proposed runoff from the Match Play at La Costa Project will surface drain toward Navarra Drive, at two different locations (Nodes 30 and 80), where a stormwater treatment device will filter the flow prior to discharging it into the street gutter of Navarra Dlive. Proposed grades shown on Exhibit "B" will be referenced from the Grading Plans. Added page numbers to report. Existing hydrology is based on current zoning (runoff coefficient of 0.79) for the property. In addition the project is filling in an undeveloped portion of the surrounding developed neighborhood. The existing storm drain in the vicinity was designed to convey the runoff based ,on the current zoning for the neighborhood. No.7 / Existing Sump Curb Inlet The existing i5-foot sump curb inlet at the easterly end'of Navarra Drive can adequately intercept the existing or ' proposed runoff, but the existing 18-inch rcp per Storm Drain I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I No. 8/ BOW on sheets No.9 / Trash Enclosure Area --··bI-lA,lnc Page 2 of 2 Plan 2694-1 (See references for copy of plan) is inadequate to convey the flow. The cul-de-sac is subject to inundation during a 1 aO-year frequency stonn event. The report is comb bound. Small chance that sheets in the reports will become separated. The area surrounding the trash enclosure is designed to prevent runoff from draining through the trash enclosure. See attached detail of trash enclosure from the Grading Plan. I, ~ I I I I· t ~ 3.48% ... 2.5% I . I 1.5% It- t ------~--------~ V.::;I.L.. I 1-1 VU. Uo.../ '-' ... ~ -- .' t> . . , . ~ .. .' \>. • o~, ::.....;::....;. ~.~I-I---l' '. ()' t> ',. 1aJ" ' , .' • b. ' I I , I i I i I i ~ I i I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I I , ~ I- i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1 1.1 Project Description .......................................... 1 1.1.1. Hydrologic Unit Contribution ............................... 1 1.1.2. Beneficial Uses ............................................ 1 1.1.2.1. Inland Surface Waters ................................. 2 1.1.2.2. Costal Waters ........................................ 2 1.1.2.3. Ground Waters ....................................... g. 2. CHARACTERIZATION OF PROJECT RUNOFF ................ 3 2.1. Expected Discharges ...................................... ; . 3 3. IDENTIFY CONDITIONS OF CONCERN ...................... 4 4. MITIGATION MEASURES TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY ... 4 4.1. Construction BMPs ............................. , ........... 4 4.2 Post-construction BMPs ..................................... 5 5. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ............... 6 6. REFERENCES ............................................... 6 ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Water Quality Standards Inventory Database C. Numeric Sizing of BMPS D. Storm Water Requirements Applicability Checklist E. Site Map F., Hydrology and Hydraulic Report I I I ~ ~ I , , I I ~ I i '1 f I , I I ~ I t . I I ~ ~ ~ 1. INTRODUCTION A Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) is required under the 'City of Carlsbad ordinances. The purpose of this SUSMP is to address the water quality impacts from the proposed storm drain improvements for Match Play at La Costa Project in the City of Carlsbad. The goal of the SUSMP is to develop and implement practicable policies to ensure to the maximum extent practicable that development does not increase pollutant loads from the project site and considers urban runoff flow rates and velocities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to provide a long-term solution to water quality. The SUSMP identifies appropriate BMPs for certain designated proj ect types to achieve this goal. This SUSMP is intended to ensure the effectiveness of the BMPs through maintenance that is based on long-term planning. 1.1 Project Description This is a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and Stormwater Maintenance Plan (SMP)- for the Match Play at La Costa Project. The property is in the City of Carlsbad, on Navarra Drive, west of Viejo Castilla Way. The project site is currently vacant but had been previously graded to its existing condition. In its existing condition, the 0.43 acre site drains toward Navarra Drive. Soil group D will be used for a composite runoff coefficient for the existing and proposed hydrology analyses. The runoff coefficient for attached residential lot land use reflects a composite value of landscaping, roof and street runoff per County of San Diego Hydrology Manual County. 1.1.1. Hydrologic Unit Contribution The project falls with the Batiquitos Lagoon Hydrologic Area Basin 904.51 which is part of the San Marcos Creek Watershed. The total watershed size for Batiquitos Lagoon Hydrologic Basin is approximately 210 square miles or 21,319 acres, of which the site is composed of 0.43 acres, or 0.0020 percent. 1.1.2. Beneficial Uses The beneficial uses for the Batiquitos Lagoon Hydrologic Area Basin 904.51 are included in Table 1.2.2. This table has been extracted from the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. MUN -Municipal and Domestic Supply: Includes uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems including, but not limited to, drinking water supply. REel· Contact Recreation: Includes uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs. I I ~ I I i I 1 -! -, I i I t I ~ I I I 1 I I ~ I ! I ! I I I- i REC2 -Non-Contact Recreation: Includes the uses of water for recreational involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities. BIOL -Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance: Includes uses of water that support designated areas or habitats, such as established refuges, parks, sanctuaries, ecological reserves, or Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), where the preservation or enhancement of natural resources requires special protection. EST -Estuarine Habitat: Includes uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., estuarine mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds). WILD -Wildlife Habitat: Includes uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife, (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and foot sources. RARE -Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species: Includes uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federal law as rare, threatened or endangered. MAR -Marine Habitat: Includes uses of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., marine mammals, shorebirds). MIGR -Migration of Aquatic Organisms: Includes uses of water that support habitats necessary for migration, acclimatization between fresh and' salt water, or other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such as anadromous fish. 1.1.2.1. Inland Surface Waters Batiquitos Lagoon is a Coastal Water, see Section 1.1.2.2. for Beneficial Uses of Coastal Waters. 1.1.2.2. Coastal Waters Coastal waters have the following beneficial uses as shown on Table 1.2.3 of Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). 2 I I I I I i I :1 I I I I I ( ~ ~ I ! I , ~ I i I I I I Table 1.2.3 Beneficial Uses for Inland Surface Waters Hydrologic Unit Number x X X X X x X x X = Existing Beneficial Use 1.1.2.3. Ground Waters Ground waters in Batiquitos Lagoon have the following beneficial uses as shown on Table 1.2.4 of Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). Table 1.2.4 Beneficial Uses for Ground Waters Hydrologic Unit Number d ~ ~ "0 d ~ Batiguitos Lagoon X X X X = Existing Beneficial Use 2. CHARACTERIZATION OF PROJECT RUNOFF According to the 2002 CW A section 303( d) List of Water Quality Limited, Batiquitos Lagoon (Hydrologic Unit -904.51) is not an impaired water body that is associated with this project. 2.1 Expected Discharges There is no sampling data available for the existing site condition. In addition, the project is not expected to generate significant amounts of non-visible pollutants. However, the following constituents listed in Table 2.1 below are commonly found on similar developments and could contribute to impairment of Batiquitos Lagoon: 3 I I -I I I , I ! I I , il i II i Table 2.1 -Pollutants from Match Play at La Costa Project General Pollutants Categories Project Categories 0.0 CIl ;::: 1 C1) CIl CIl .5 r/) ..... l-< -..0 C1) :> c<:I r/) C1) r/) -"'t:l r/) C\I 0'(3 C1) (.) § 0 0 C1) C1) r/) -r/) ;g e (.) 0 c<:I C1) 1:1 0'(3 5 ~ "'t:l '§ ~ .-.-S C1) ~ ~ ·s ',..d o.ot:l 0'(3 (.) ..... ..... r/) ~..o t:l "'t:l C1) ~o C\I -C\I C1) ...... C1) Cf.} ~ ::c: ou e:: 0&5 0 1:0 ~ Attached Residential X X X X X X X Sediment, nutrients, oxygen demanding substances, bacteria and viruses and pesticides will be filtered by bio-filters (grassy swale). Trash, debris, oil and grease will be filtered by grassy swale filters. 3. IDENTIFY CONDITIONS OF CONCERN The development of Match Play at La Costa Project will not impact the downstream water body of the Batiquitos Lagoon, or it's habitat integrity. Sediment will likely be reduced upon ~ite development. There will be no change in the vicinities priority hydrologic regime that would be considered a condition of concern for the downstream water bodies and habitat integrity. The existing facilities (e.g., storm drains) and source control BMPs (e.g., landscaping) remove sediment and p.ollutants. of c.oncern to the maximum extent practicable. See Attachment "D" for hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of existing and proposed models for Navarra Condominium project. 4. MITIGATION MEASURES TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY 4.1 Construction BMPs A detailed description of the construction BMPs will be developed during the Grading Plan and Improvement Plan Engineering. Since the project is in the preliminary development phase, only a listing of potential types of temporary BMPs are available. This includes the following: • Silt fence • Stockpile management • Solid Waste management • Stabilized construction entrance/exit • Vehicle and equipment maintenance • Desilting basin • Gravel. bag berm • • • • • • • Gravelbag barrier Material spill prevention and Control Spill prevention and control Concrete waste management Water conservation practices Dust controls Permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas • Material delivery and storage • Sediment traps on graded building pads • Scheduling construction project to reduce the amount and duration of soil exposed to erosion by wind, rain, runoff and vehicle parking. 4 I I • I I I \ -I 1 I I I \ --I i I I -I , I I I I I Construction BMPs for this project will be selected, constructed, and maintained so as to comply with all applicable ordinances and guidance documents. The Contractor on. site will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the BMPs . 4.2 Post-construction BMPs Match Play at La Costa Project is an Attached Residential Development Priority Project. Storm Water BMPs requirements are as follows: (1) Site Design BMPs Control post-development peak storm runoff discharge rates and velocities to maintain or reduce pre-development downstream erosion by applying the following BMPs. A. Minimize impervious footprints (See Site Map). B. Minimize directly connected impervious areas by draining roof tops and patios into adjacent landscaping. (See Site Map). C. Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by planting additional native or drought tolerant trees and large shrubs .. D. Convey runoff safely from tops of slopes (See Site Map). E. Vegetate slopes with native or drought tolerant vegetation (See Site Map). (2) Source Control BMPs: A. Use efficient irrigation systems. B. Trash enclosures will be paved with an impervious surface and designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas. Walled enclosures will prevent off-site transport of trash. Lids on all trash enclosures will exclude rain, or a roof or awning to minimize direct precipitation. The area surrounding the trash enclosure is designed to prevent runoff from draining through the trash enclosure. (3) BMPs Applicable to Individual Priority Project Categories: A. Runoff from the Match Play at La Costa Project will be treated with a Swalegard grassy swale filter by Kristar Enterprises Inc. See Treatment Control BMPs for discussion of Swalegard grassy swale filter. (4) Treatment Control BMPs: A. Runoff from Match Play at La Costa Project will be filtrated by a Biofilters (Grassy swale) prior to discharging into the Swalegard grassy swale filter. The primary purpose of the grass swale is to convey the runoff while effectively removing the pollutants of concern. The grass swale is not intended for infiltration purposes. The grass swale is designed to convey the 100-year frequency storm evept and treat the 85th percentile 24 hour runoff event. A manning's roughness coefficient of 0.25 will be used for the calculations of the hydraulic residence time. See Appendix "C" for grass swale detail and numeric sizing of the BMPs. The hydraulic residence time for the grassy swale at Node 30 is 3.5 minutes, at Node 80 the hydraulic 5 I I -I I I I , I I I , I I , residence time is 1.4 minutes. See Appendix "C" for numeric sizing of the BMPs. B. Runoff from the Match Play at La Costa Project will be treated with a Swalegard grassy swale filter by Kristar Enterprises Inc. The Swalegard grassy swale filter is a self-contained filter plus hydrocarbon pouches designed to collect sediment, debris and petroleum hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. The unit will treat runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches of rainfall per hour for each hour of a storm event. No infiltration will be allowed thru the bottom of the Swalegard grassy swale filter. See Attachment "C" for sizing of Treatment Control BMPs and removal efficiency. The grassy swale filter is placed after the grassy swales at Nodes 30 and 80 to take advantage of the hydraulic residence time due to elevation constraints on-site. Placement of the Post-Construction BMPs are noted on Attachment "D" -Site Map. The development of Match Play at La Costa Project will not impact the downstream water bodies and habitat integrity. Sediment will be reduced upon site development. There will be no change in the vicinities priority hydrologic regime that would be considered a condition of concern for the downstream water bodies and habitat integrity. The proposed BMPs will remove sediment and pollutants of concern to the maximum extent practicable. 5. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM A stormwater facilities maintenance agreement with the proponent of Match Play at La Costa Project will be used to maintain and repair the stormwater management facilities mention in this SUSMP. The average annual cost for installation and maintenance oflandscaping will be $300 per acre. Landscaping, seeding and mulching will cost $1,100 per acre. Trees, shrubs, vines and ground cover costs are based on species used. Annual operation and maintenance cost for the Swalegard filter is $500.00. The Swalegard filter will be inspected and cleaned once annually or as required by inspection. 6. REFERENCES Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, September 8, 1994 County of San Diego Stormwater Management Requirements and Guidelines 2000-2001 California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, Municipal, March 1993 1998 California 303 (d) List and TMDL Schedule approved by USEP A, May 12, 1999 City of Carlsbad, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, November 2003 6 I I I I i I , -I I I I , -I, J :1 I- I I , ATTACHMENT "A" LOCATION MAP I I. I I I I I I, ,. I I I I I I I I I I . I ~ CARLSBAD OL/V£HAIN ROAD VICINITY MAP NO SCALE 47 G-1 TB PAGE 11 I I I I I I I' I I I I I I J 'I I , -I , I , I \ -I \ I ATTACHMENT "B" WATER QUALITY STANDARDS INVENTORY DATABASE • -- 9 9 9 9 9 - - - -- -- --- -- - - R E R E E 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OJ;" WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Agna Hcdionda Creek 90431000 Agna Hedionda Lagoon 90431000 Aliso Creek 90113000 Aliso Creek (mouth) 90113000 Bueua Vista Lagoon 90421000 Total Dissolved Solids Bacteri" Indicators Sedimentation/Siltation Bacteria Indicators Phosphorus Urban RunofllStorm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown noint sOllrce NonpointfPoint Sonrce' Source Urbau RuuofllStorm Sewers lJukuowu poiut sOllrce NonpointlPoint Source Impamnenllocated at lower 4 miles. Toxicity Bacteria Indicators Bacteria Indicators Nutrients lJrban RunofllStorm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint SOllrce Unknown point sonrce Urbau Runoff/Storm Sewers Uuknowu Nonpoint SOllrce {Jukuown source Source Noupoint/Point Source Low Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Low Low Estimated si::e o{impairmel1t is ISO acres located il1l1pper portion of lagool1. NonpointlPoint Source Sedimentatiou/Siltation l\'1cdinm Source Page] of16 7 Miles 6.8 Acres 6.8 Acres 19 Miles 19 Miles 19 Miles 0.29 Acres 202 Acres 202 Acres 202 Acres ---/jpprm'ed by [j,)TP,1: Jill), 2003 -- 9 - - -- -- ---- - - - - R 2002 CW A SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Chollas Creek 90822000 Bacteria Indicators Medium 1.2 Miles NonpointfPoint Source Cadmium High 1.2 Miles NonpointfPoint Source Copper High 1.2 Miles NonpointfPoint Source Diazinon High 1.2 Miles NonpointfPoint Source Lead ITigb 1.2 Miles NanpointfPoint Sonrce Zinc High 1.2 Miles NonpointfPoint Source - - ""'fJProved OJ' USE!'A: J"h' 2003 2004 2004 2002 2004 2004 ~~~~2;,,;~::=,~"'51t~~~~~~~):ttr.,.g~~~":t;"!:~~~':t"e~~~i:;-~~~~~~~ :':'·-·~~~-!;;;'::;;~~~~~~;:EP'.£;~~~~;:~~":t~'$':i';5.~~~~~~~'~~~~';;~..:i;.'t'-!";j'~f~~q.t!0.:¥x},"t~r:.:':-ft~)?,:-.t..~~~i!~~-:~:'::':f-~~~'l:;rr~~~;,~ 9 R Cloverdale Creek 90532000 Phosphorus Total Dissolved Solids Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Urhan Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Low Low 1.2 Miles 1.2 Miles i1~~~'3!~~~;.~.·'I";":-.~;;;c:r.;;,;;bs,:, . .,;;;.,~~r~;"'~,, . .,,..-::.::; ·t1"":":::::;;ll,1f<~~~0.2id'",~::~,;.-~t<~h;;;f.:;:~;;<:;S:.,3..u ... t~~~~~.;,,,,,,;;'ii-:":,,~~~:.;;;r..rc-o.·#b;.!i~-11~~~~··~~+.'i~"¥;f~,;.;S?;,n;;.~"'o<,,~~ii:f;;;f."~~~~~.,;p1m;,;;~""f,f;o~'1i?f~~m~~]*~-;·;;ti~.,<;J~',-.,-x"', .. ffE~~mil;:;,m;:~t:~~;r.~ 9 B Dana Point Harbor 90114000 9 E FalUosa Slough and Channel 90711000 Baderia Indicators Medium impairment located al Baby Beach. Eutrophic PaKe 2 oj" 16 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Marinas and Recreational Boating Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown source SOllrce Low 119 Acres 32 Acres - - - 9 9 9 9 - -- --- --- - -- - - R R R L 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Felicita Creek 90523000 Forester Creel, 90712000 Grecn Valley Creek 90511000 GuajollIe Lake 90311000 Total Dissolved Solids Fecal Coliform Agricultural Return Flows Urbau Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regula!ion/Modification Unknown Noupoint Source IJnlmown Doint source Impairmenr Located at lower I mile. pII Urban Runo ff/Storm Sewers Spills Unknown Nonpoin! Source Unknown point source Impairment Located at upper 3 miles. Total Dissolved Solids Indnstrial Point Sources Habitat Modification Spills Unknown Nonpoint Source Un known point source Impairment Located at lower I mile. Sulfates Eutrophic Page 30/16 Agricultnral Return Flows Urhan Runoff/Stonn Sewers Flow Regulatiou/Modification Unknown Nonpoint Sonrce Unkuown source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown source Source Low 0.92 Miles Medinm 6.4 Miles Low 6.4 Miles Low 6.4 Miles Low 1.2 Miles Low 33 Acres - --Approl'ed /JJ USEPA: JII/" 2003 -- 9 9 9 9 9 9 --- -- ----- -- --- - ~: B R C c c 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 4PI'rIII'cli by USEPA: Jull' 2003 Los Penasquitos Lagoon Mission Bay Murrieta Creek Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Aliso lISA Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Buena Vista Creek HA Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Dana Point lISA 90610000 90640000 90252000 90113000 90421000 901l4()OO Sedimentation/Siltation Low 469 Acres Source B"cteria Indicators Medium 2032 Acres Impairment located along entire bay shoreline. Nonpoint/Point Source Eutrophic Low 2032 Acres Estimated area of impairment 0[0.5 acres located Of mouth Of Rose Creek and 0.5 acres located at /11ollth of Tee alate Creek. NnnpointlPoint Source Lead Low 2032 Acres Estimaled area of impairment of 0.5 acres localed all1lolllh of Rose Creek and 0.5 acres located at 11I01lr" ofTecolore Creek. Phosphorns Bacleria Indicators Source Urban Rnnoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown source Low Medium Impairmenlloeated at Lagllna Beach at LagllJ1ila Place / Bille Lagoon Place, Aliso Beach. Source Bacteria Indicators Low 12 Miles 0,65 Miles 1.2 Miles fmpairmel1llocated al Bllella Vista Creek, Carlsbad City Beach at Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Slate Beach at Pine Avenue. Source Bacteria Indicators Medium 2 i\mes fmpairmelltlocated at Aliso Beach at West Street, Aliso Beach at Table Rock Drive, 1000 Steps Beach at Pacific Coast Hll'y (Hospital, 91h Ave), Salt Creek (large owlet), Salt Creek Beach at Salt Creek sel1'ice road, Salt Creek Beach at Dalla Strand Road Source PaRe 5 "flri - -- 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ------------ --- - C C C c c c C 2002 C'VA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QlJALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD -ipprOl'£'{{ hI' USE!'4: Jill" 2003 Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Escondido Creek IIA Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Laguna Beach lISA Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Lonm Alta IJA Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Lower San .Juan lISA Pacilie Ocean Shoreline, Miramar Reservoir HA Pacilie Ocean Shoreline, San Clemente HA Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Diego lIU 90461000 90112000 9041{)000 90120000 90610000 90130000 90711000 Bacteria Indicators Low 0.44 Miles fmpairmen! located at San Elijo Lagoon olltlet. Source Bacteria Indicators Medium 1.8 Miles Impairment located at Main Lagllna Beach, Lagllna Beachat Ocean Al'<mue, Laguna Beach at Laguna A,'enue, LagTllw Beach at Cleo Street, Arch Cove a/ Bluebird Canyon Road, Laguna Beach at Dumond Drive. Source Bacteria Indicators Low 1.1 Miles Impairmentlocaled at Lama Alta Creek Mouth. Source Bacteria Indicators Medium 1.2 Miles Impairment located at North Beach Creek, San Juan Creek (large outlel), Capislrana Beach, So 11th Capislrano Beach al Beach Road. Source Bacteria Indicators Low Impairment localed al Torrey Pines Slate Beach at Del Mar (Aaderson Canyon). Bacteria Indicators Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown source Medium 0.39 Miles 3.7 Miles Impairment localed al Poche Beach (large ollllet), Ole Hanson Beach Club Beach at Pico Drain, San Clemente Cily Beach at EI Porlal St. Stairs, Sal! Clemenle City Beach at A1ariposa SI., San Clemenle City Beach at Linda Lane, San C1emenle City Beach at SOlllh Linda Lane, San Clemente City Beach aI Lifeguard J leadqllarlers, Under Sail Clemenle MUllicipal Pier, San Clemente City Beach at Trafalgar Canyon (Trafa/gar Ln.), San Clemente Slate Beach al Riviera Beach, San Clemenle Stale Beach at cypress Shares. Source Bacteria Indicators Medium 0.37 Miles Impairmenl/ocated 01 Sail Diego River MOlllh (aka Dog Beach). Source Page 6 of 16 - -- 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ------ ---------- c C c c C C R 2002 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Approved by lfSEP.-1: JlliI' 21J1J3 Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Dicquito IlU Pacilic Ocean Shoreline, San Joaquin Hills HSA Pacific OCC'lU Shoreline, San Luis Rey HlJ l'"cific Ocean Shoreline, San Marcos HA Paei fie Ocean Shoreline, Scripps HA Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Tiju3l1ll HlJ Pine Valley Creek (Upper) 90511000 90111000 90311000 90451000 90630000 91111000 91141000 Ractuia Indicators Low Impairment localed 01 San Diegllilo Lagoon Maull!, Solana Beach. Source Bacteria Indicators Low Impairment localed at Cameo Cove at Irvine Cave Dr.lIliviera Way, Heisler Park-North Urban RunofUStorm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Sonrce Unknown point source Bacteria Indicators Low impairllleJ1l located 01 San Luis Rey River MOlltil. Source Barterill Indicators Low Impairment locmed at Moonlight Siale Beach. Sonrce Bacteria Indicators Medium 0,86 Miles 0.63 Miles 0.49 Miles 0.5 Miles 3.9 Miles Impairmem located at La Joi/a Shores Beach at EI Paseo Grollde, La Jolla Shores Beach at Camillilo De/ Oro, La Joi/a Shores Beach at Vallecitos, La .folia Shores Beach at Ave de la Playa, Coso Beach (Childrens Pool), Sallth Casa Beach 01 Coast Blvd, Whispering Sands Beach 01 Rm'ina SI., Windal1Sea Beach 01 Vista de 10 Playa, Windansea Beach 01 Bonair SI., fVindansea Beach 01 Playa del Norle, Windansea Beach al Palomar Ave., Tourmaline S1II/ Park, PaCific Beach 01 Grand Ave. Source Bacterhl Indicators Low I111pairmel1llocaledji'01ll rhe border, extending norrh along the shore. En terococci Page 70/16 Source Medium Grazing-Related Sources Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (permitted, point source) Transient encarnoments 3 Miles 2.9 Miles - -- -- ------ -- ----2002 C'VA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QlJALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 9 R Prima Desherh" Creek 90130000 Phosphorus Low 1.2 Miles Urban Hunoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Sonrce lin known point source Turbidity Low 1.2 Miles Urban Runof1}Storm Sewers t1nknown Nonpoint SOllrce Unknown source 9 R Rainhow Creek 90222000 Nitrogen IIigh 5 !lliles Agricultural Return Flows Other Urban Runofr Nurseries Onsitt Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks) NOllpointiPoint Source Phosphorus High 5 Miles Agricultural Return Flows Other Urbau Runoff Nurseries Onsi!e Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks) Sonrce ~~¥:'~~~'t:E\W~~V~-';'$~;~'!t"'2.~'!:tr~··:S:'"~~~~~,*-~#''*;::t;!?:C"!T:'::¥'t';t'ftj'~::~::;:;:..'£ll~"<;t:~r!t;"f:~ 9 n San Diego nay Shoreline, 32nd St San Diego 90822000 Naval Statiou Benthic Community Effects Medium 103 Acres Nonpointll'oint Source Sediment Toxicity Medium t03 Aues Source ~~~~'t.'l'~4~~~~¥ff!!'~~if.-'S~~~::.~!~~~r-~~';"T~W:-~f$.l:--~[.~i{~~,~~,~-;~'%:=r~~;W 9 B San Diego nay Shoreline, hetween Sampson 90822000 and 28th Streets Copper High 5S Acres NOllpointlPoint Source Mercury High 55 Acres NOllpoilltlPoint Source PAns High 55 Acres NOllpoillt/l'oillt Source Page 8 0/16 -- Approved liy lJSEP4: 11/(1' 20(13 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 - -- -------- -- -------2002 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT Approved hp USEP4: Jlliv 2003 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, ncar snb base 90810000 Benthic Community Effects Medium 16 Acres NonpointfPoint Source Sediment Toxicity Medium 16 Acres Source ~i:-'1~~~~~~~2~~~f,i~~~'?5-:f~Iu"i~~~~~~,f,-£€:r;:.:rr:;"2:t:i,,£.o~gm;:sEi5:~~gal~~t£!~'l:~:'fr}:'~~i~z:;'::TI~'-~:!;lJ:;L:g~s.:E'1ii 9 B Sail Diego Bay Shoreline. ncar Switzer Creek 90821000 Chlordane Medium 5.5 Acres Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Other Boatyards NonpointfPoint Source Lindane Medium 5.5 Acres Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Other Boatyards Nonpoint/Point Source PAIls Medium 5.5 Acres Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Other Boa t)'ll nls SOllrce ~~o:.:2"""S'1':.';'·~~+~n~·:;"r:-~·· ·~-~i::""'>'~;:-:"·"='" '~",,:~ .. -" • -""'--~"'ff=~~-"';gm§5iif§§SY:;:\';'~;:;,·.i-:£R~~~~~s~~~~..:.."3J: 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, North of 24th 90832000 Street l'>Iarinc Termi"'ll Benthic Commnnity Effects Medium 9.5 Acres Nonpoint/Point Source Sediment Toxicity Medium 9.5 Acres Source 1r~~~~:£<'~!§;~~E.:r~~qm'ii:m~~Y.;;;k~lE.~~~~~~~Jlm."$~"!:[:ft~.-_=,,~~~d,g:~~ 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, Seventh Street 90831000 Channel Benthic COlllllluuity Effects MediulIl 9 Acres Nonpointll'oint Source Sediment Toxicity Medium 9 Acres Source Page J() of 76 -- 9 9 9 9 9 -- - ----- ------ c c B B R 2002 CvVA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD San Diego Bay Shoreline, Shelter Isl:md Shoreline Park San Diego Bay Shoreline, Tidelands Park San Diego Bay Shoreline, Vicinity ofB Sf and Broadway Piers San Diego Bay, Shelter Island Yacht Basin San Diego River (Lower) 90810000 91010000 90821000 90810000 90711000 Bacteria Indicators Low Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown source Bacteria Indicators Low Unknown Nonpoint SGnrce Unknown source B:lclcria Indicators Low Estimated size oJimpairme/ll is 0.4 miles around the shoreline oJlhe bay. Benthic Community Effects Sedilllent Toxicity Copper, Dissolved Fecal Coliform LOlVer 6 miles. Low Dissolved Oxygen Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source llnknown point source Nonpoint/Point Sonrce Source Sonree Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Wastewater NonpointlPoint Source Impairmelllll'al1SceJlds adjacent Calwalel' wtaresiled 90712. Fage 11 of if} Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Medium Medinlll High Low Low 0.42 Miles 0.38 Miles 9.9 Acres 9.9 Acres 9.9 Acres 153 Acres 12 Miles 12 Miles -- - ~jpl'rol'ed by USEP.4: Jill)' J003 2003 -- 9 9 9 9 ---- -- -- -- -- -- E R E R 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD San Elijo Lagoon 90461000 San .Juan Creek 90120000 San JUlin Creek (mouth) 90120000 Sau Luis Rey River 90311000 Phosphorus Impairment transcends adjacent Ca/water walershed 907 J 2. Total Dissolved Solids Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Vnknown point source Impairmenl lranscends adjacenl Ca/lValer walershed 907 J 2. Bacteria Indicators Urban RunoWStorm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown source Eslimaled si::e of impairmenl is /50 acres. Nonpoint/T'oint Source Eutrophic Eslimaled si::e of impair me III is 330 acres. NonpointlPoint Source Sedimentation/Siltation Estimated si::;e of impairment is /50 acres. NonnointiPoint Source Bacteria Indicators Source Bacteria Indicators Source Chloride Impairment located at lower 13 miles. PiJge 12 of l(i Urban Runo fl7Storm Sewers Vnknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Low 12 Miles Low 12 Miles Low 566 Acres Low 566 Acres Medium 566 Acres Medium I Miles Medium 6.3 Acres Low 19 Miles ---Approved by USEPA: Jlli), 2003 -- 9 9 9 9 - --------- ---- R E R R 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALlTY CONTROL BOARD Total Dissolved Solids Low 19 Miles Industrial Point Sources Agriculture-storm ruuoff Urban RlIllOff/Storm Sewers Surf:lcc Mining Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Crllif course activities Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown noint source S:;:~¥.:TI:~-=~":i.:"£':;#~.":":t;:"",, .. ,,.,._~;g~~':0~'F!1'b=".'i!=,~~;'[:g~-!::.~;r-~"it~::;;~d'tmlm~~~'13!l~!!~r~~~i2:'jt Sandia Creek 90222000 Total Dissolved Solids Low 1.5 Miles Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown ooint source ~:JF'~~*~,o--·~~~:r;::-~~~~~-::..""r=Ef.~~gt3~..,."-_ .. ,,,u~~~'T-'!'~~'"t,., .. ....,~~;::rd.~ Santa Margarita Lagoon 90211000 f:lltrophic Low 28 Acres Source ~h:r.4~~~~ii;:ii,,~:g,:;:;,~r,,\"!i';;i:l;;':"$:;~~~;\~~?E:'1'?t.i~'*:7.~I~c}!;;;~1:~f;:;;);:',!::~;t~-;;~~~;~,:;t~~g.itr.m .. ;tf:';'"~~:~t:~g;~:;'l~~~~:7!I;:t7.'i'l~· Santa Margarita River (Upper) 90222000 Phosphorus Low 18 Miles Urban RUnoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown Doint source ;~J:~*:r~~~~,m<t~~r:l"t:ifr~~~.ffifi~~~'i;~:;.::~{'7;:f.','ffila~:;:Jf!;~~~:~i"1;.:t~1;ti:r$$l'~~~,ffi;$:s!it:li;;;~~;;;!jfii;~~~;;;.:;"'""",,~'"1;t.~~ Segllnda Deshecha Creek 90130000 Phosphorus Low 0.92 Miles Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Turhidity Low 0.92 Miles Construction/Land Development Urban Rnnoff/Storm Sewers Channelization Flow Regulation/Modification Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown sonrce Page 13 of 16 --.·jpprnved by USEP.4: }rt1), 201J3 - -- 9 L 9 R 9 R - -- ---- -- - ---- 2002 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGl\1ENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Sutherland Reservoir 90553000 Color Low 561 Acres Urhan RunoWStorm Sewers lInlmown Nonpoint Source Unknown noint source ~~<?'S"'~~~~."~~&~·-:i-"'S"·S-"""JJ.~:f.:::'!'-"':;r..o:i'~S!: Tecolote Creek 90650000 Bacteria Indicators Medium 6.6 Miles NonpointlPoint Source' Cadmium Low 6.6 Miles NonpointlPoint Source Copper Low 6.6 Miles NonpointfPoint Source Lead Low 6.6 Miles NonpointfPoint Source Toxicity Low 6.6 Miles NonpointfPoint Source Zinc Low 6.6 Miles Source ;tr~~~.x!'!f2t"'~'L-;'.1~.;t"~~~~~~~s:~'ttfte",":~~~~W~~~~~'tf.:~~~·t~~*E~~r,;."-,~~~~~'~":':'T~~~~q-! Tijuana River 91111000 Bacteria Indicators Low 5.8 Miles NonpointfPoint Source Eutrophic Low 5.8 Miles Nonpoint/Poinf Source Low Dissolved Oxygen Low 5.8 Miles NonpointlPoint SOllrce Pesticides Low 5.8 Miles NonpointlPoint Source Solids Low 5.8 Miles Nonpoint/Point Source Synthetic Organics Low 5.8 Miles NonpointiPoint Sonrce Trace Elements Low 5.8 Miles NonpointfPoint Source Trash Low 5.8 Miles Sonrce ];t1m;g~~i::;;:~r:;8sm~!~~,; ,,!.,,; .. 'l'p-.tf.f;i,~~'i:;;;:g;:;;st;'if,':tf.~ Page 14 of lfi --- c!pproi'ed 1'1' USEP 1: Jllir 200.' -- 9 ---- -- ---- ---- E 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Tijuana River Estuary 91111000 Bacteria Indicators Estimated si::e oj impoirmelll is J 50 acres. Nonpointfl'oiut Source Eutrophic ESlimated si::e ojimpoirmellt is J acre. NoupointfPoint Source Lead Estimated si:ce ojimpairl1lelll is J acre. Low Dissolved Oxygen Nickel NonpoiutfPoiut Source Urbau RunoWStorm Sewers 'Vastewater Unknown Noupoint Source Unknown point source Estimated si ..... e ojil1lpairmeni is J acre. NonpointfPoint Source Pesticides Esrimaled si ..... e oj impairment is J acre. NonpointfPoint Source Thallium Estimated si::e o/impairmenT is I acre. NonpointfPoint Source Trash Estimated si ..... e ojimpairmel1l is J acre. Source PIIge 150/,16 Low 1319 Acres Low 1319 Acres Low 1319 Acres Low 1319 Acres Low 1319 Acres Low 1319 Acres Low 1319 Acres Low 1319 Acres - --4pprol'ed by USEPA: JII'" 2003 --- --- ---- -- ----2002 C,\VA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REGIONAL WA n:R QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS WATER BODY TYPE North Coast B = Bays and Harbors 2 Sail Francisco Bay c= Coast!!l ShorelineslBeaches 3 Central Coast E= Estuaries 4 Los Angeles L = l.akes/Reserviors 5 Centntl Valley R= Rivers and Slreams 6 Lahontan s= Saline Lakes 7 Colorado River Basin T= Wetlands, Tidal 8 Sanl!! Ana W= Wellands, Freshwater 9 San Diego CALWATER WATERSHED "Calwater 'Vatershed" is the State 'Valer Resources Control Board hydrolol!;ical subunit area or an even smaller area delineation. GROUP A PESTICIDES OR CIIEM A aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, cndrin, heptac.hlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorocyclohexane (including lindane), endosulfan, !!nd toxaphene Page /6 of 16 --- Appro"ed by USEP.4: JlIll' 2003 ATTACHMENT "C" NUMERIC SIZING OF BMPS I, f I \ I ( I i I \ I- I I. I , I I I I I I I' , . I I .' I 'I I' 85TH 'PERCENTILE STORMWATER RUNOFFF Navarra Condominiums City of Carlsbad 02/02/05 IN. 731-0990-400 Q=CIA Where: Q = Flow rate per cubic feet (cfs) C = weighted runoff coefficient of drainage area I = Rainfall intensity in inches per hour (0.2 in\hr) A = Drainage area (acres) ... ' ::: :: N:~ d~:: .. :.: ... , ::.:! :;:.:: ,: "'~:, '}'.::: ~:::;;':~.~;. :y.: ::': .:! :::;::·:':::t ,,:: ;::::.::::::;.:':::~';,i;:~!!~~~:2f:,::;·~~r;:;r:(:l~~:/1: ~·t;:Ji::Jiil~:~~:fll:;~~:!;l:;iil!i' i't:!:[!~~l~ill:!::;I~I~';iilli;l~!!!li~!~:1 ·':ci·::3O:'!P::·':::-::':f=t' 0.79 0.2 0.10 0.02 0.79 0.2 0.35 See Grassy Swale Hydraulic Calculations or 85th Percentile Storm Event and 100 Year Storm Event after this sheet. Page 1 of 1 0.06 I I I , I I I I , I J I I I , I I I 'S-'\~M w~~ 1b71h ~.-N"\\~ ~O~SV CIRCULAR CHANNEL ANALYSIS NORMAL DEPTH COMPUTATION February 2, 2005 ================================================================================ PROGRAM INPUT DATA DESCRIPTION Flow Rate (cfs) ............................................ . Channel Bottom Slope (ft/ft) ............................... . Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n-value) •.................. Channel Diameter (ft) .....................................•. VALUE 0.06 0.07 0.25 2.0 ================================================================================ COMPUTATION RESULTS DESCRIPTION Normal Depth (ft)··········································· Flow Velocity (fps)········································· Froude Number'" ...................................•...•.. ~ . Velocity Head {ft)···········,'······························ Energy Head (ft)············································ Cross-Sectional Area of Flow (sq ft)······· ................ . Top Width of Flow {ft)······································ VALUE 0.19 0.39 0.189 0.0 0.19 0.15 1.18 ================================================================================ HYDROCALC Hydra:ulics for Windows, Version 1.2a Copyright (c) 1996 Dodson & Associates, Inc., 5629 FM 1960 West, Suite 314, Houston, TX 77069 Phone: (281) 440-3787, Fax: (281) 440-4742, Email: software@dodson-hydro. com All Rights Reserved. I I I I I I I I I I I· \ I I I \ I , ND~ ~o.-\00'112, Co'W\>S"1 5UJ At...~ CIRCULAR CHANNEL ANALYSIS NORMAL DEPTH COMPUTATION February 2, 2005 ================================================================================ PROGRAM INPUT DATA DESCRIPTJ:ON Flow Rate (cfs) ............................................ . Channel Bottom Slope (ft/ft) ............................... . Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n-value) .................. . Channel Diameter (ft) ...................................... . VALUE 2.0 0.07 0.025 2.0 ================================================================================ ""'-COMPUTATION RESULTS DESCRIPTION Normal Depth (ft)··········································· Flow Velocity (fps)········································· Froude Number··············································· Velocity Head {ft)·········· ',' ............................. . Energy Head (ft)············································ Cross-Sectional Area of Flow (sq ft)······ ................. . Top Width of Flow {ft)······································ VALUE 0.34 5.56 2.007 0.48 0.82 0.36 1.51 ================================================================================ HYDROCALC Hydraulics for Windows, Version 1.2a Copyright (c) 1996 Dodson & Associates, Inc., 5629 FM 1960 West, Suite 314, Houston, TX 77069 Phone: (281)440-3787, Fax: (281)440-4742, Email:software@dodson-hydro.com All Rights Reserved. I I I I I I I I 'I I' " 'I I I CIRCULAR CHANNEL ANALYSIS NORMAL DEPTH COMPUTATION February 2! 2005 ===========================~==================================================== PROGRAM INPUT DATA DESCRIPTION Flow Rate (cfs) ............................................ . Channel Bottom Slope (ft/ft) ............................... . Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n-value) .................. . Channel Diameter (ft) ...................................... . VALUE 0.02 0.045 0.25 2.0 ================================================================================ COMPUTATION RESULTS DESCRIPTION VALUE --------------------------------------------------------------------------~----- Normal Depth (ft)··········································· Flow Velocity (fps)········································· Froude Number" ............................................ . Velocity Head (ft)··········· <' •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Energy Head (ft)············································ Cross-Sectional Area of Flow (sq ft)····· .................. .. Top Width of Flow (ft)······································ 0.13 0.24 0.143 0.0 0.13 0.08 0.98 ================================================================================ HYDROCALC Hydraulics for Windows! Version 1.2a Copyright (cl 1996 Dodson & Associates! Inc.! 5629 FM 1960 West! Suite 314! Houston! TX 77069 Phone: (281)440~3787! Fax: (281)440-4742! Email:software@dodson-hydro.com All Rights Reserved. I. I I I , I ; -I I I I I I I I , I I I I tdili:;s $"\ <jVA\.£ > CIRCULAR CHANNEL ANALYSIS NORMAL DEPTH COMPUTATION February 2, 2005 ================================================================================ PROGRAM INPUT DATA DESCRIPTION Flow Rate (cfs) ............................................ . Channel Bottom Slope (ft/ft) ............................... . Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n-value) .................. . Channel Diameter (ft) ...................................... . VALUE 0.6 0.045 0.025 2.0 ================================================================================ COMPUTATION RESULTS DESCRIPTION Normal Depth (ft)··········································· Flow Velocity (fps)········································· Froude Number" ............................................ . Velocity Head (ft)·········· ;; .............................. . Energy Head ( ft) ........................................... . Cross-Sectional Area of Flow (sq ft)· ...................... . Top Width of Flow (ft)······································ VALUE 0.21 3.33 1.535 0.17 0.39 0.18 1.24 ================================================================================ HYDROCALC Hydraulics for Windows, Version 1.2a Copyright (c) 1996 Dodson & Associates, Inc., 5629 FM 1960 West, Suite 314, Houston, TX 77069 Phone: (281)440-3787, Fax: (281)440-4742, Email:software@dodson-hydro.com All Rights Reserved. / I POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL S 1 1 1 I ·1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I \ I- I GRASSY SWALE PRE-FILTER Specifi(otions Model NQ. GSP·IS ; GSp·1D Designed for ~wol., deplh$I*~ them J e" COG-IA Fil16rl$d Flow Role 650 9pm n .45 d6) ..... Deep Swale Installation . Cross Drain InstaUation .... ! C=dr~in Cull) at pn\' .... J SUr!..'\Ce Ught.'IIl19htl~IY,lOO ; ~ ... ltfumlnU!l1 (!~ .. IIt.I-r:~: ' AllUl1inUnl dlamOlld·pk\t-;. hlng9d ;lCC~S$1It.I nmkeo tlebi\$ rnrnoval nnd UQr m:llnl~nllflC(> I;Il<\rQI1)Qly $llll'l. ©'2003 KdSt:JI Enf.:rFrM~. Inc. . . ;,,,de-G;udrM ~" r<:.gi$t.:r ... ;llrr.l"J:.m.-.lII: d j(iiSl.;Jl EnF.:lrJfI~I, In.:. KrlSl:.r EIlJ.;fr-rl!f.l'. lor. .• p.o. Box 7352 • Sonta RO'..a, CA 95407-0352 • FH: 80:'5/9-8819 • F.AX: 707·524-$ I S6. "",A"".krbt.;Jl.ccrn I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1- SwaJeGard™ A seif-contained pre-filter designed to collect sediment, debris and petroleum hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff prior to a grassy swale or bio-retention area. The SwaleGard™ may also be used to filter runoff through a parkWay culvert in some instances. The working chamber of the SwaleGard™ is made of durable geotextile fabric which is easily replaced and provides for flexibility, ease of maintenance and economy. It is designed to collect sediment and debris, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons (oils and greases). As with Flo-Gard™ inserts, the SwaleGard™ performs as an effective filtering device at low flows ("first flush") and, because of the built-in high flow bypass, will not impede the system's maximum design flow. SwaleGard™ pre-filters are available in sizes to fit 24",36" and 48" wide curb cuts. SwaleGard™ pre-filters are recommended for areas subject to sediment and debris as well as low-te-moderate levels of petroleum hydrocarbon (oils and grease) preceding runoff to grassy swales or bio-retention areas. Examples of such areas are vehicle parking lots, aircraft ramps, truck and bus storage yards, corporation yards, subdivision streets and public streets. Questions? Contact Krfstar at (800) 579-8819. 03/10/04 I I I I I I I I I .1 I I ,I I I I ,I I I Another innovative stormwater management product-· I r -I ! 11 '. I II I I I I I I I I I I I , I i I I ~I ~ I i ~ I ·_----------------_. __ ._- Krlstar !=nlerplises, Inc. 121,9 Briggs f-veil\le POBox7552 . .Santa·Ras~; CA 9540.7·0.552 {SOO),§79..aa.19 . . Ro-Gard™ +Plus Performance Assessme(lt:in Ne~ zealand" !-e:sti.hg Flo-Gard™ +Plus catch basin 'insert filters (sOld by. Hynds"f;livir6hmentaI ,Ltd:) 'w..~;.~. ~yal~"t¢~:'~$A'~~tt' of laboratory and field studies .commissioned by t.ile .Aucklafl~-~iW:C.QiJ~ciri6'f'I!e.W:.Z~al~rfp.i"iri:2QP.3·JO assess suspended solids remov~1. Of .four catch baSin. !nsert-·filters .. · Ccifl?i~e~~:·:.!i\ :.J~b :,t¥~tir19."at., tn:~ . University of Auckland, bNo were qualified for further evaluCltion ·in-:fi~lCJt~stil!g • .inCl(j~ing'lhe"F.lo~GardTM +Plus. Results for the Flo-GardThl +Plus'indicate'good partiClllate removal down.to 100:J.ltn, though:ltft? nominal opening size of the filter liner us~ in the-testswas 400 j.lm. . . . .. ". 08104 I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I -I· ---------_.-.. -.. _._._-_.-...... _._ .............. __ ._._._-----. __ ._-_.----_ .... _._------_._-----_.-. --_ .... _- .EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Auckland UniServices was commissioned by the Aucklimd City Council to undertake a laboratory study to determine the general efficiency of sedimc;rrt retenti.on by selecteq:: :: commercially available catchpit filter systems (CFS). This report . discusses the ·perfonnance . of the Enviropod and Hynds CFS. The laboratory study was conducted in the S~h.ool ofEngineeii-Qg·at:ilie·UniverSity of '.:'. . . Auckland using a field se,ale catchpit. Tests were conducted by feeding s~tlietic roa.d runoff;' . derived by adding sediments of specified concentration and particle size to runni.i;lg water}' to the catchpit at various flow rates. Additional tests were perfowed using -street sweep sediments cQllected by.vacuuming various streets in tp.e Oakley catclll:uep,t arid a ·560 m2 area 011 Carr Rd in Mt Roskil1. Tests were conducted for three cases: base· case -(i.e., catcllpit without CFS) and catchpits containing the 200 J.l Enviropod or 400.).1 Hynds 'CFS. F9r. each 'of , , the three cases a total of 81 to 83 tests were conducted. These tests cOITespoud ·to the .. -. combinations of four pq.rticle size ranges «lqO /-t, 100-500 F, 500-1000 po, lOq~-lOOOO' po),. '. fou~ concentrations (50 lUg/I, 150 mg/l, 250 lUg/I, 400 mgll) and five flbwrates.(O.5 VSl 1 iJs •. ' . . '\. , 4 1/s, 12 lis, 20 lis) plus one to three tests with. the street sweep~ediments .. -Additionally, . , . measurements were made of the head loss at .different il,ow rates.to ·~sess the effect'Qf . reduction in filter area following sediment accumulation'oD: the pOmUssible flow. The test results show that for the base case, sec;1.iment removal varied with particle size; sediments larger than 500 po are completely removed for flows up to 20 US, while ,the removal of 100-'500 Il particles decreases from 75% to 47% by increasihg·the.:flo~ froj.tl..O.5. 1Is to 20 Jls, and approximately 18% of the particles smaller than 100.po ate .trapped 'hy the catcbpit independently of the flow rate. Approximately -58% of the street sweep sediments ~e removed at 4 lis. The Enviropod and Hynds CPS performed similarly. essentially removing aU sediments> 100 Il; the removal efficiency of sediments <100 p: is similar to the base caseof no CPS installed. The removal efficiencies of the str~et sweep sediments at 4, 12 and '20 Jls are 97%, 89%, and 88%, respectively, with the Eflviropod CPS and 86%, 79%, and 78%, . . respectively, with the Hynds CFS. 'HIe Enviropod CFS consistently gave ~lpproximateiy 10% greater removal than the Hynds CPS. -2-@ Auckland City Council 2003 i I ., .1: 'l ':1: ·rM "'1 •• J j. 'I: ~ . ", ,:'1; I . ... ~ I· ':I~' • :-"~r ·11 ,:;' I:·i;·~ . ·t r I· ;.:; · , · ~ " .1 I il :! 0··· ------_ .. -._--------'---'-'---------------- 'The estimated removal efficiencies for the street sweep sediments using the pacticl.e size distribution and the observed removal efficiencies for the <100 fl, l{)O-:500 fl, 500-1000 1-t, and 1000-10000 )l particle ranges are 91 %, 91 % and 89% for the Enviopoc! 'CFS and 89%, 89%, and 88% for the Hynds CFS at 4, 12,and 20 115, respectively. The .estimated and observed street sweep results compare weLl and indicate that filter' "pe~fonmince' can:. be estimated with some confidence with a known input particle disttibution. The head losses for the pipe with the, filter materials ii1Stalled' ate much lar~er than . those for the pipe without a filter fabric. The Hynds filter exhibits siriUJar head .loss to the Enviropod filter for flows up to 4 11s. For flows between 4 lis and 20 ·1/s the Hynds filter . shows a larger head ~oss than the Enviropod filter. At 20 lis the head loss for the 'Hynds .filter . is larger than that for the Enviropod filter by 15 em of mercury, whiph is equivalent .to approximately 200 cm of water. Given that the tota:lheight of catchpi~ .'~s .~pproximat~ly 200' cm the difference in the CFS 'filter head losses is significant for the Hynds ·filter. ~ @ Auck~?nd·.City CounCil 2003 ,/ ",II' , . .'~: ~ -3- I I I I I I , I I I i I -I i I I I t I I I I I I I ( I I I ! 1-· ,.-------_ .... _---_.-. __ ._-_ .. --- o 80 -.--.---.-.---.------.. -.---. ---. ···----fr---' ----------'-. '. -0 ~ 60 ---.--.--.--.--------------.-- .. ':Pafn:clc ~ize'(p). '. .. ---' ·---~.OOQ" '1 ()'Qoti .; . '. . . ., . . , ~ " .. > o fiE III c::: : ~--.50.0-f;OOO:· '. ; -t.,-100. -500 ; ~ 40 . ______ . __ ~.I' -•. M <.1(;)0 ...i o Streetsweep' . 20 ----------.----------------.... -.~ .. ~ ... ....................... -... -_ ... ,.-----::--.... --.~.~-.... ---~ .. -- O+--------o----------~r_-----------r----------~ o ,5 10 15 20 Flow Rate (lIs) Figure 9,. -Sediment removal by the catchpit with a 400 j.i HyndS CPS . ",'. 1 i.' . .; ~ • @ Auckl'and"City?couYtCif2:003 -16- I I' i .1 . .-:,1 . "Ji , " ~ i ill . ·S I i .. 1 , .::.:' I ·1 I I i ., i! fH: Ii I·· I I I :1 I I , I I I , I :. ; I I i I I i I· I , I , , I 1-- Krlstar Enterprises, Inc. 1219 Briggs Avenue po Box 7352 Santa Rosa, CA 95407-0352 (800) 579-8819 FloGar<f> +Plus Performance Assessment in City of Honolulu Testing FloGar~ +Plus catch basin insert filters were recently evaluated in an i8-month field study commissioned by the City of Honolulu, Hawaii and conducted by the University of Hawaii to assess the effectiveness and practical utility of catch basin insert filters. Of four catch basin insert filters tested, only two were recommended as viable for implementation, including the FloGar~ +Plus. Results for the FloGar~ +Plus indic.ated: >-80% removal of typical road sediment (effective filtration down to 100!lm -see chart below) in short-term testing. >-20-40% PAH removal. >-Effective metal retention associated with sediment removal. >-Viable for large scale urban implementation based on evaluation of performance, installation and maintenance features and costs. Qf those filters recommended for potential use in the City, FloGar~ +Plus provided the most TSS removal capability and the only local sales and service. .-.. --_ .. _-----_._----_._----------------'--------, 1: Cl ~ >-.c t~ c:~ u:: c: 0 ~ ~ u. Honolulu Street Deposited Sediment Profile Material sampled .from 400 block of Cooke St., Kakaako Area 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 10 100 1000 Particle Size (micron) 10000 ~.!:1o~~I~sediment ___ Woodward-Clyde (a\9) (1997) .. ..,. .. -NURP (1986) I .... -_ .. _-_.-._-- 09/04 I I I I I I \ I' I -I I \ I ; I I l " Oil and Grease and Particle Removal by KriStar Flo-Gard and Flo- Gard High Capacity Storm drain Inserts by Michael K. Stenstrom Sim-Lin Lau Civil and Environmental Engineering Department University of California, Los Angeles 4173 Engineering I Los Angeles, CA 90095-1593 February 20, 2002 I I I I I I , I I i I I I I I I, I I' I I I I I I , \ I- i Summary A series of experiments was performed in a small but full-scale catch basin simulator to determine the efficiency of various KristaI' (Fossil Filter) catch basin inserts to remove oil and grease and suspended solids. Catch basin inserts are devices used in stormwater collection systems to remove various pollutants, including suspended solids, litter and oil and grease. Devices from several other manufacturers have also been tested in this same facility. This work builds upon an earlier project to develop catch basin inserts, which was funded in part by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project and in part by a consortium of cities and agencies. ' All experiments were conducted in a full-scale "mock" catch basin (36 inch wide opening) located in a laboratory at UCLA. The catch basin is constructed of plywood and stands above grade to allow easy access and installation of prototype devices. The catch 'basin operates with tap water at flow rates from near zero to 200 gallons per minute (GPM). Various levels of contaminants can be added to the influent to simulate stormwater. Tests were performed on two types of inserts, called Flo-Gard™ and Flo-Gard™ High Capacity, over flow rates ranging from 15 to 25 gallons per minute (GPM). Testing was performed to determine oil and grease removal rate for influent concentrations that varied from 16 mgfL to 36 mg/L for time periods from 30 to 180 minutes. Total suspended solids (TSS) removal was evaluated for concentrations from 65 to 100 mg/L for 30minute periods. Automobile crank case oil was used to simulate oil and grease in stormwater. Graded sand was used to simulate TSS in stormwater. Two types of sorbents were used for the oil and' grease studies: Fossil Rock™, an aluminum silicate sorbent, and Rubberizer™, an organic polymer. Both are commercially available for this and other applications. Oil and grease removal efficiency ranged from 70 to 80% for most conditions. Sand removal was nearly 100% for particles 30 mesh (589 to 833 I-l.1n) and larger, 20% for particles 60 mesh (250 to 420 mm) and nearly zero for smaller particles. Experimental Methods Figure 1 show is a schematic diagram of the experimental facility. Building water (tap water) is connected to the catch basin simulator via a 3-ihch diameter pipe. Two flow meters are provided. The first is an ultrasonic flow meter (Dynasonic UST-603, Naperville, IL) that uses Doppler effect to determine the velocity of flowing particles. From the velocity and known pipe diameter, the flow is calculated. In this application, there are too few particles in the tap water and a small quantity of air is added to simulate particles. A second flow meter (Signet +GF+, Cole-Parmer, Chicago, IL) using a paddle wheel is also used. The paddle wheel rotations are counted and the flow rate is proportional to the rotations; different calibrations are provided for different pipe I I I , I j I , I' I I I I j I 1 I I -I I 1 I I I I I . 1- Air Injection Point I 3 in. Tap water line. • i Control Valve Paddle Wheel Flow M-ete-r I ~ • --- Stilling Chamber Doppler Effect Flow Meter . ~ g~'--~ " Metering ~ Pump § ..c:: (,) c .- -.::t N Kristar In~ert +----1 Effluent Sample Point Influent Sample Point I I I I I I I I I I I J I I --I I , I' diameters. The ultrasonic meter is used for higher flows while the paddle wheel meter is more convenient for low flows. The paddle wheel meter was generally used during these experiments. The pipe connects to the stilling basin, which discharges into a 24 inch-wide flume. The purpose of the stilling basin is to dampen velocities from the inlet as well as to insure a constant flow rate. The flume is 10 feet long and connects to the catch basin. All contaminants (oil and grease, sand, etc.) were introduced into the 24-inch flume. Liquids were pumped into the flume using a peristaltic metering pump. The sand was "sprinkled" into the flow fi·om preweighed sample bottles over 1 or 2-minute intervals. In this way the appropriate amounts of sand were released everyone or two minutes. This process was continued throughout the test. The flume provides adequate mixing to disperse all materials. Test Sequence. InDuent samples were collected :from the free surface as the water spilled into the inlet device. Effluent samples were' collected by passing glass sample bottles below the inlet device. Tests were begun by collecting a influent sample.prior to the introduction of any contaminants to the flume. Next the metering pump was turned on. Effluent samples w~re collected periodically for the test duration: Generally 10 to 12 samples were collected for each test, and samples were evenly distributed over time. Two additional influent samples were collected at times equal to approximately one-third and two-thirds of the test duration. At the end ofthe test, the metering pump was turned.off In previous testing sampling continued for 30 minutes after ending oil and grease addition. For aluminum silicate, Rubberizer and OARs sorbents at the concentrations used in these studies, it was shown that no measurable oil and grease desorbs. In some cases the sorbents were reused, which simulates sequential rainfall. For these tests, the sorbent was allowed to dry but was not modified in anyway. Samples were generally analyzed within 16 hours after the tests were completed. Oil and grease removal test. Tests were generally performed for 30 minutes (see Table 1 for a summary of all tests). Used crankcase lubricating oil (from automobiles) was used as the oil and grease source. One batch was used for all tests. Influent oil and grease samples were collected as the oil/water combination flowed into the insert. Effluent samples were collected by capturing flow from the bottom of the insert. Efficiencies were calcu lated by subtracting the measured effluent concentrations from the average influent concentration. All tests were performed at constant flow rate. Oil and Grease Analysis. Oil and grease was measured using a solid phase extraction (SPE) technique developed earlier by the authors (Lau and Stenstrom, 1997). This technique uses a known volume of sample (generally 500 ml for this study), which is pumped through an SPE column at a constant but low rate (e.g., 5 ml/min). The oil and grease in the sample is sorbed on the SPE column. After the sample is pumped through the column, it is eluted with a small volume of solvent (5 ml):methylene chloride and hexane. The sample bottle is also washed with a small volume of isopropanol. The two I I I I -• -I I : ,I i :1 I !I I II I 'I I I I I I -I solvent volumes are combined and placed in a tarred container. The solvents are allowed to dry at 50°C lIsing a gentle nitrogen purge. The residue is weighed and the results are , reported as mg/L based upon the original s'ample volume. This method has the advantages of higher recovery, especially for the'more volatile components in oil and grease, and using less solvent. By using different sample volumes is it possible to have different detection limits, and the limit with 500-ml sample volume is typically 0.25 mg/L. This method does not quantitatively measure oil and grease adsorbed to solids and an alternate technique mllst be used for particle-bound oil and grease. However, this is not important for this study because no particles where added to the tap water used for oil and grease testing. Sand particle removal test. Sand particles were prepared by sieving sands, from various sources, but mostly £I'om sand used for concrete construction. A series of ASTM standard sieves were used. Particles were selected to demonstrate removal efficiency, as opposed to simulate particles found in stormwater. For the screen provide in the h~gh capacity FloGard, sieve sizes of20, 30, 40, 60 and 100 (2000, 833, 589,420,250, 149 ~lm respectively) were selected. Equal, known masses of each sand particle size were released into the flume over a 30 minute test which flowed into the insert. Below the insert, a fine screen, corresponding to 325 mesh (45 ~m), captured the particles not removed by the insert. At the end of the test, the 325-mesh screen was removed and the ,retained sand particles were collected, dried, sieved and weighed. The weight of recovered particles in each sieve size was compared to the amount of sand released into the flume to calculate efficiency. As expected the large particles were removed well, while the smaller particles were removed poorly. The smallest sand particles are smaller than the mesh openings. Three sand removal tests were performed. One was performed at 25 gallons per minute (aPM) and two were performed at 15 GPM. Sand was added to create influent concentrations equal to 65 to 1'00 mglL Inserts The two inserts tested were standard units and were modified only to allow them to be accurately positioned in the simulated catch basin. This required the end brackets to be modified to allow attachment. The pollutant removal parts ofthe inserts (e.g., sotbent pouches, screens) were not modified. ' The Flo-Gard insert measured 35 inches long by 22 inches wide and was open in the middle. The opening was 27 inches long and 15 inches' wide. The area between the opening and the outside dimensions is a trough of screen and contained 6 pouches or "sausages" of sorbent. The opening is provided to allow high flows to bypass. The sorbent pouches can be replaced in both models without removing the insert. The Flo- Gard high capacity insert was 35 inches long by 17 inches deep. The central section is fu lly enclosed and forms a bag that retains Jitter and debris. The internal dimensions are 32 long by 12 inches wide, and the bag is 28 inches deep. Sorbent pouches (12) are I I I I I I I I I il il II I I I I clipped to the sides and bottom of the bag. Two types of bags were tested; the bottom of Tablel. Oil and grease removal test conditions used. Test No. Insert Type Sorbent Flow rate 2 3 4 Flo-Gard High Capacity From test 1 From test 2 Flo-Gard 5 From test 4 6 From test 5 Fossil Rock Fossil Rock 7 Flo-Gal'd™ High Capacity, --Rubberizer-- non-woven bottom 8 From test 7 9 From test 8 ' ---j"O'---Flo-G-~';dTM High c;p-;citY"--· R~bberizer 11 From test 10 12 From test 11 Table 2. Particle removal test conditions used. Test No. 13 14 Insert Type Flo-Gard High Capacity Flo-Gard High Capacity Mesh No. Particle size (urn) 20,30, 2000,833, 40, 60, 589, 420, 100 250, 149 20, 30. 2000, 833, 40, 60, 589,420, 100 250, 149 15 Flo-Gard High 20, 30. 2000, 833, Capacity 40, 60, 589, 420, _. __ .. ___ .. __ . ____ . __ .. _____ .-!.Q9 ___ ~~lj9 .. 16 Flo-Gard 20,30, 2000,833, 17 Flo-Gard 18 Flo-Gard -19--"-F'i'o-Gard High Capacity, non-woven bottom 20 Flo-Gard High Capacity, non-woven bottom 40, 60, 589,420, 100 250, 149 20, 30, 2000, 833, 40, 60, 589,420, 100 250,149 20, 30, 2000, 833, 40, 60, 589,420, 100 250, 149 20,30, 2000, 833, 40,60, 589,420, 100 250, 149 60, 100, 250, 149, 200 75 (GPM) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Flow rate (GPM) 15 15 25 15 15 25 25 25 Duration (min) 30 30 180 30 30 180 30 30 180 30 30 180 Duration (min) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Influent cone. (mgIL) 16 29 26 34 34 34 36 31 23 22 24 30 Influent cone. (mglL) 65 100 65 65 100 65 65 65 I I I : I I , I I i I I :1 I l II i II !I I, I I I I· I one was screen, just like the walls, while the other was non-woven polypropylene. Manufacturer's literature should be consulted for more precise information. Results and Discussion Figure 2 (top) shows the results of the first two series oftest (3 tests each). Two insert configurations (Flo-Gard and Flo-Gard High Capacity) were evaluated. Both used aluminum silicate (Fossil Rock) sorbents. The first two tests for each insert were conducted over a 30-minute period. The third test was conducted over a 180-minute period. The first two tests were used to establish the removal efficiency of the unit. The third test was performed to see if any decline in removal efficiency would occur due to saturation of the sorbent. The initial removal efficiency of both inserts was approximately 85% and decline slightly during the first 60 mitlutes. The high capacity unit showed less decline in removal rate after the third test, as expected. The normal capacity unit declined to approximately 60% removal after 240 minutes, while the high capacity insert decline to 70%. The high capacity insert has greater sorbent mass and has greater volume for litter and debris retention. Rubberizer sorbent was also used in the high capacity insert. Rubberizer has greater specific gravity than aluminum silicate (0.1 0 to 0.13 for aluminum silicate versus 0.26 for Rubberizer). RubberizeI' has less tendency to abrade than aluminum silicate sorbents. Both have particles sizes approximately 2 to 3 mm. SOl'bent pouches containing Rubberizel' were substituted in each insert in exactly the same way as aluminum silicate pouches were used. Figure2 (middle) compares the removal efficiencies with Rubberizer and aluminum silicate. The RubberizeI' has lower initial removal efficiency, but declines less over time. After 240 minutes, the efficiency of both sorbents was approximately 70%. Figure 2 (bottom) compares a modified screen to a normal screen using Rubberizer as sorbents. The difference in the screen is the bottom construction. The modifIed screen has a non-woven bottom composed of polypropylene mesh. The polypropylene mesh is' also a good oil and grease sorbent. It has a very fine mesh and is more subject to clogging than the more open screen. The non-woven bottom produces higher efficiency during the initial phases 'ofthe tests, and approximates the same removal efficiency as aluminum silicate sorbent. Figures 3 and 4 show the particle removal rates ofFlo-Gard and Flo-Gard High Capacity inserts. Sand was sieved using ASTM screens to produce the particle size groupings shown on the horizontal axis of each graph. Sieves were chosen to select particles that were larger, equal to and less than the nominal screen size openings. Figure 5 shows a photomicrograph of the mesh with a millimeter ruler, and both inserts used the same size mesh. The openings are approximately 500 ~lm. The elongated openings at the surface of the ruler are an artifact of cutting the mesh. I 'I I I -I , :1 I' I i :1 , 'I I I I I I. I -I Removal rates are consistent with the average mesh opening (500 ).tm). Particles much larger(580 to 2,000 flm) were almost completely removed. Very little removal occurred with smaller particles smaller than 420 flm. Removal rates at higher flow rates or concentrations were slightly higher, suggesting that accumulation of particles at the screen might be forming a "dynamic" filter. Head loss for the flows and amounts of particles removed were not observably different from head loss without particles. More accumulation of particles would be necessary to observe head loss. Conclusions The performance ofthese two devices is consistent with the better devices tested in our laboratory (Lau, Khan and Stenstrom, 2.001). The differences in performance, as measured by these tests is small, and the selection of products could be based upon other considerations, such as cost, durability and potential for clogging. I I I ! I ! I i I I I I I . :1 t I i I I I ~ E " 0:: 1st· 2nd lest test 3rdtesl ~~~~~----------------------------~) 100~~~~-r-+-r-r-r-r-+~-r-r-r-+~-r~-Y-+-r-T-r-T~ : . ~ ¥-¥!X'XXx x:·x ! . . 80 ......... ;.:;.'!';, .. :: .. cu::a::: • ; !'j'!·!·~ .. •• .. • ••• i", ... lttU''''''''''~II'';''''''''''''"U' ~.'. • --~~ -...!;. )C -t- 60 • .. • .. •• .... •• .. • ... t.· ............ · .... '1' ....... lt ............ t .... :::: .. ::::..I~ .. = .. ~ ... 40 ...... --FGr!. Fossil Rock 1 ..................... 4 ..................... 1 ................... .. -FG. Fossil Rock 1 1 1 ! i i . : : : 20 ...................... , ..................... , ..................... .:. ..................... : ................... .. I I I I 50 100 150 200 250 Time (min) 1st 2nd lest lest 3rdtest ____ ~(E-----------------»o 100~-r-r-r~-+~-r~~-+-r-r-r-r~-r-r-r-r~-r~-r-r-1 : i.· : 60 '. : • • •• ~ .......... .: ... u ............. u.! ...... I ............ .. ........ ·jii·f· ... ,....... , • i • : • 50 100 150 200 250 Time (min) 1st 2nd lest test 3rdtest ____ -+-------------------------0)-100~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mr~mr~-r~wi j a c a : : 80 .S ....... :~u •• ~.7.~~~ ... uD .... j.i •• t '! •••• ~ ...... u.n.a., ...... : ... ~,n ............ . -e: ~.j. ____ . .L~~K_~ . Q •• -; !-:: -.-~---• 60 ...................... 1 ..................... 1 ..................... i ..................... l .................... . : : : : ~ ! f ~ 40 ...... -<>-FGH·NW, Rubberizer ................. 1.. .................. .1.. .................. . : : -' FGH. Rubberizer i 1 : : 20 ...................... [ ..................... ! ..................... f.~ ................... ~ .................... . I i I ! 50 100 150 200 250 Time (min) Figure 2. Oil and grease removal efficiency ofFlo-Gard™ insert (tests 1-12). I I I I ! I I i I :1 I 'I , 'I I il I II II I :1 "~ :1 " I I' -I 120 100 80 Cii > 0 60 E Q) cr: ;:,!! 0 40 20 0 i ---15 GPM (65 rng/L SS) ........................ ~-~ .................... . I I' --m -25 GPM (65 rng/L SS) .· ....... ·· ........•.... ··j ........ ··•··.·· .... ·•· ... l ... · ... t. ......... --<9---15 GPM (100 rng/L SS) ................ . : : \1 : i \ 20 (833- 2000 urn) 30 (589- 833 urn) 40 (420- 589 urn) Mesh No. (particles size) 60 (250- 420 urn) 100 (149- 250 urn) Figure 3. Patticle removal efficiency ofFlo-Gard™ insert (tests 16-1~). 120 ~ : 100 80 Cii > 0 60 E Q) cr: ;:,!! 0 40 ..... : ................... t~.-.K ...... a:::J .................... ---15 GPM (65 rng/L SS) ! T~ -Ill -25 GPM (65 rng/L SS) ·· .. ······ .. ······ .. ··· .. ·t······ .... ····· .... · .... ·/ .. · ................ --<9---15 GPM (100 rng/L SS) ................ . : : ::::::::·::: .. :J::~:::~:::·=f··~·:·j~·F:::·~···::::F:~"'·:,,:::r::~'~::~ 20 ········ .... ·· ........ · .. ·t···· .... · .. · .. · .. · ...... ·I .. ·· .... ·· .... · .... ·· .. ~~.~ i · .. · .... ··: .. · ........ t· .. · .. ·· ...... · .. ·· ...... 0 i f ~ ! 20 30 40 60 100 (833-(589-(420-(250-(149- 2000 urn) 833 urn) 589 urn) 420 urn) 250 urn) Mesh No. (particles size) Figure 4. Particle removal efficiency ofFlo-Gard™ High Capacity (tests 13-15). I' I I I I, I I ,I -:1 i 11 I I I I I I Figure 5. I I I -I, I I I , I ! I \ --I -,I ;1 ;1 il I I I -I References Lau, S-L. and M. K. Stenstrom, "Application of Oil Sorbents in Oil and Grease Removal from Stormwater Runoff," Proceedings ofthe 68th Annual Water Environment Federation Conference and Exposition, Miami Beach, FL, October 21-25, # 9572008, Vol. 3, pp. 685-695, 1995. Lau, S-L. and M.K. Stenstrom, "Solid Phase Extraction for Oil and Grease Analysis," Water Environment Research, Vol. 69, No.3, pp. 368-374, 1997. Lau S-L., E. Khan, and M.K. Stenstrom, "Catch Basin Inserts to Reduce Pollution from Stormwater," Water Science and Technology, Vol. 44, pp. 23-34., 2001. I I I I I I ATTACHMENT "D" • STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST I I :1 , :1 , ;1 I II 11 I II I :1 I I I I I I I , I --I· I I :1 .) il ! :1 , II i 'I I I I I Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 VI. RESOURCES & REFERENCES APPENDIX A STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST Complete Sections 1 and 2 of the following checklist to determine your project's permanent and construction storm water best management practices requirements. This form must be completed and submitted with your permit application. Section 1. Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements: If any answers to Part A are answered "Yes," your project is subject to the "Priority Project Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements," and "Standard Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements" in Section III, "Permanent Storm Water BMP Selection Procedure" in the Storm Water Standards manual. If all answers to Part A are "No," and any answers to Part B are "Yes," your project is only subject to the "Standard Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements". If every question in Part A and B is answered "No," your project is exempt from permanent. storm water requirements. Part A: .Determine Priority P . rOJect P ermanent Storm W ater B MP Requirements. Does the project meet the definition of one or more of the priority project Yes No categories?* 1. Detached residential development of 10 or more units 1>< 2. Attached residential development of 10 or more units l>< 3. Commercial development greater than 100,000 square feet I'?< 4. Automotive repair shop X 5. Restaurant X 6. Steep hillside development greater than 5,000 sguare feet '>< 7. Project discharging to receiving waters within EnVironmentally Sensitive Areas rx 8. Parking lots greater than or equal to 5,000 ft~ or with at least 15 parking spaces, and 1)( potentially exposed to urban runoff 9. Streets, roads, highways, and freeways which would create a new paved surface that is X 5,000 square feet or Qreater * Refer to the definitions section in the Storm Water Standards for expanded definitions of the priority project categories. Limited Exclusion: Trenching and resurfacing work associated with utility projects are not considered priority projects. Parking lots, buildings and other structures associated with utility projects are priority projects if one or more of the criteria in Part A is met. If all answers to Part A are "No", continue to Part B. \ .. 30 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I :1 \ . II t . Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 P t B D t ar e ermine St d d P an ar Does the project propose: ermanen t St orm W t R a er t eqUiremen s. 1. New impervious areas, such as rooftops, roads, parking lots, driveways, paths and sidewalks? 2. New pervious landscape areas and irrigation systems? 3. Permanent structures within 100 feet of any natural water body? 4. Trash storage areas? 5. Liquid or solid material loadina and unloading areas? 6. Vehicle or equipment fueling, washinil, or maintenance areas? 7. Require a General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Except construction)?* 8. Commercial or industrial waste handling or storage, excluding typical office or household waste? 9. Any Qrading or ground disturbance durinil construction? 10. Any new storm drains, or alteration to existing storm drains? Yes No X X X X >< >< .~ K X *To find out if your project is required to obtain an individual General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, visit the State Water Resources Control Board web site at, w'vvw.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr/industrial.html Section 2. Construction Storm Water BMP Requirements: . If the answer to question 1 of Part C is answered "Yes," your project is subject to Section IV, "Construction Storm Water BMP Performance Standards," and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If the answer to question 1 is "No," but the answer to any of the remaining questions is "Yes," your project is subject to Section IV, "Construction Storm Water BMP Performance Standar:ds,~'.an.d must prepare a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP). If every question in Part C is answered "No," your project is exempt from any construction storm water BMP requirements. If any of the answers to the questions in Part C are "Yes," complete the construction site prioritization in Part D, below. P C D art . etermme C t r ons rue Ion P h ase S torm w ater R t eqUiremen s. Would the project meet any of these criteria during construction? Yes No 1. Is the project subject to California's statewide General NPDES Permit for Storm Water 'X Discharges Associated With Construction Activities? 2. Does thelJ!oject propose gradin~ or soil disturbance? ?<\ 3. Would storm water or urban runoff have the potential to contact any portion of the >( construction area, including washing and staging areas? 4. Would the project use any construction materials that could negatively affect water X quality if discharged from the site (such as, paints, solvents, concrete, and stucco)? 31 ,.. I I -I I I ! I i I : I I I ! I I 11 I il I :1 i II I I :1 i 'I I I ·1 Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 Part 0: Determine Construction Site Priority In accordance with the Municipal Permit, each construction site with construction storm water BMP requirements must be designated with a priority: high, medium or low. This prioritization must be completed with this form, noted on the plans, and included in the SWPPP or WPCP. Indicate the project's priority in one of the check boxes using the criteria below, and existing and surrounding conditions of the project, the type of activities necessary to complete the construction and any other extenuating circumstances that may pose a threat to water quality. The City reserves the right to adjust the priority of the projects both before and during construction. [Note: The construction priority does NOT change construction BMP requirements that apply to projects; all construction BMP requirements must be identified on a case-by-case basis. The construction priority does affect the frequency of inspections that will be conducted by City staff. See Section IV.1 for more details on construction BMP requirements.] o A) High Priority , 1) Projects where the site is 50 acres or more and grading will occur during the rainy season 2) Projects 5 acres or more. 3) Projects 5 acres or more within or directly adjacent to or discharging directly to a coastal lagoon or other receiving water within an environmentally sensitive area Projects, active or inactive, adjacent or tributary to sensitive water bodies % 8) Medium Priority 1) Capital Improvement Projects where grading occurs, however a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not required under the State General Construction Permit (Le., water and sewer replacement projects, intersection and street re-alignments, widening, comfort stations, etc.) 2) Permit projects in the public right-of-way where grading occurs, such as installation of sidewalk, SUbstantial retaining walls, curb and· gutter for an entire street frontage, etc. '. however SWPPPs are not required. 3) Permit projects' on private property where grading permits are required, however, Notice Of Intents (NOls) and SWPPPs are not required. o C) Low Priority 1) Capital Projects where minimal to no grading occurs, such as signal light and loop installations, street light installations, etc. 2) Permit projects in the public right-of-way where minimal to no grading occurs, such as pedestrian ramps, driveway additions, small retaining walls, etc. 3) Permit projects on private property where grading permits are not required,' such as small retaining walls, single-family homes, small tenant improvements, etc. 32 I I -I I I I i I I I -I il il il I II II II il . ! :1 i ATTACHMENT "E" SITE MAP I I I I I I I I I ) I ) I 'I' , \ I I I -I I, I I ATTACHMENT "F" HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC REPORT I I I I I I I' I -I I I , I , I I' I -, I I I I I I HYDROLOGY and HYDRAULIC REPORT MATCH PLAY at LA COSTA CITY OF CARLSBAD Prepared for: Michael Crews Commercial Development c/o Frost Custom Builders P.O.l;3ox 300429 Escondido, CA 92030 Prepared by: bHA, Inc. land planning, civil engineering, surveying 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 July 26, 2004 . W.O. 731-0990-400, BR CT04-20 I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS Discussion: Purpose and Scope Project Description Study Method Conditions of Concern Conclusions Calculations A. Existing Hydrology B. Proposed Hydrology . Exhibits A. On-Site Existing Hydrology Map B. On-Site Proposed Hydrology Map C. Off-Site Existing Hydrology Map D. Off-Site Existing Hydrology Map References A. Hydrology Manual Charts B. Reference Maps I I' , I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I. DISCUSSION I I' I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I' I I PURPOSE AND SCOPE: The purpose of this report is to publish the results of hydrology and hydraulic computet analysis for the proposed Match Play at La Costa Project. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map will consist of 8-condominiums on 0.43 acres. The scope is to study the existing and proposed hydrology and hydraulics as it influences existing storm drain facilities in the vicinity during a 100-year frequency storm event. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The existing site was previously cleared and is vacant. Drainage from the site sheet flows northerly, toward Navarra Drive at grades between 10 and 30 percent, where the flow is intercepted by the street gutter and flows easterly in Navarra Drive where it is intercepted by an existing 15-foot sump curb inlet and conveyed through an existing 18-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (rcp). See Exhibits "A" and "C" for eXisting hydrology. Proposed runoff from the Match Play at La Costa Project will surface drain toward Navarra Drive at two different locations (Nodes 30 and 80), where a stormwater treatment device will filter the runoff prior to discharging it into the street gutter of Navarra Drive. The runoffwill then flo,w to the existing sump curb inlet at the easterly end of Navarra Drive. See Exhibits "B" and "D" for the proposed hydrology. STUDY METHOD: The method of analysis was based on the Rational Method according to the San Diego COtiIlty Hydrology Manual. The Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis were done on HydroSoft by Advanced Engineering Software. Drainage basin areas were determined from the proposed grades shown on the Grading Plans for the property and Aerial Photo Maps from the City of Carlsbad. The Rational Method provided the following variable coefficients: Soil group "D" will be used for a composite runoff coefficient for the existing and proposed hydrology analyses. Since the surrounding area is almost all developed, a runoff coefficient of 0.79 will be used for both the existing and proposed hydrology calculations. The runoff coefficient for attached residential lot land use reflects a composite value of landscaping, roof and street runoff per County of San Diego Hydrology Manual County. Initial Time of concentration (in minutes) = Ti = 60x(11.9x(L A 3)1H) A 0.385 Rainfall Intensity = I = 7.44x(P6)x(Tc) A 0.645 Page 1 I I' -I I I I \ I -I· I I' I I I '. I \ I I , I· I -I i I P6 for 100 year storm = 2.5 CONDITIONS OF .CONCERN: The development of Match Play at La Costa Project will not impact the downstream water bodies or their habitat integrity. Sediment will likely be reduced upon site development. There will be no change in the vicinities priority hydrologic regime that would be considered a condition of concern for the downstream water bodies and habitat integrity. See Table 1.1 below comparing On-site Existing and Proposed storm drain flows. Table 1.1 Existing and Proposed On-Site Storm Drain Flows Cumulative Nodes Flow (cfs) Existing Condition 2.5 30 See Exhibit "A" Proposed Condition 2.6 30,60 See Exhibit "8" See Table 1.2 below comparing Off-site Existing and Proposed storm drain flows. Table 1.2 Existing and Proposed Off-Site Storm Drain Flows Cumulative Nodes Flow (cfs) Existing Condition 34.3 170 See Exhibit "C" Proposed Condition 34.3 170 See Exhibit "0" CONCLUSION: The proposed storm drain system for Match Play at La Costa Project. conveys a.100~year frequency storm event to Navarra Drive. The existing 15-foot sump curb inlet at the easterly end of Navarra Drive can adequately intercept the existing or proposed runoff, but the existing 18-inch rep per Storm Drain Plan 2694-1 (See references for copy of plan) is inadequate to Page 2 I I convey the flow. event. The cul-de-sac is subject to inundation during a lOO-year frequency storm I I I \ I I I ,I i I , I i I \ I \ I \ I " -I i I Page 3 \ I I '1 I I I I' I I \ ,I I I I I I \ I I , I \ I II. CALCULATIONS I I I I I I I I 'I , I ,I I \ I. I I ...,... ,I t I I i. I 1- ,I II. CALCULATIONS A. EXISTING ON-SITE HYDROLOGY I I I I I I I I ,I I ; I \ , I' I ,I I a I ·1 ************************~*************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2003 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2003 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: bHA, Inc. 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, Calif 92008 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * EXISTING HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS ************************** * * , ' ************************************************************************~* FILE NAME: 990-E1.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:01 07/14/2004 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.700 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) ~O USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *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 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ============================================================================ RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 1 I, I ,I I \ I I I I I· I J I I- :1 I , I' \ I I INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH (FEET) = 82.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) = 82.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) = 73.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE (FEET) = 8.50 2.346 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME'OF FLOW(MIN.) = WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 7.114 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF (CFS) 1.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = l. 35 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS, CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 73.50 DOWNSTREAM (FEET) 65.00. CHANNEL LENGTH THRU .SUBAREA(FEET) = 89.00 CHANNEL SLOPE 0.0955 CHANNEL BASE (FEET) 5.00 "Z''' FACTOR = 10.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.l14 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.94 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 3.09 AVERAGE .FLOW DEPTH (FEET) 0.10 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) 0.48 Tc(MIN.) = 2.83 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.18 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0 . 79.0 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 0.45 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.53 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.12 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 3.43 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 30.00 = 171. 00 FEET. =====~====================================================================== END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA (ACRES) PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) 0.45 TC(MIN.) = 2.53 2.83 ============================================================~=============== ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS I' I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I p I ,- I I'" I I I ?- -. I II. CALCULATIONS 'J B. EXISTING OFF-SITE HYDROLOGY I I I I I I I- I I 1 , 1 I- I I , I I 1 I I I· **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2005 Advanced Engineering Software (aes). Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * OFF-SITE EXISTING HYDROLOGY * * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 990-P2.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 08:14 07/26/2005 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.700 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* * HALF-CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSS FALL 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 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ============================================================================ RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "0" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 1 I I I I I -I i I I. I -1 I i I 1 I . I I . I I I 1- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 95.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 151.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 146.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 5.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.127 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 7.114 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.56 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.56 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 61 --------~------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 146.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) STREET LENGTH (FEET) = 870.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) 0.020 61. 00 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Street flow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTlMATEITFLOW(CFS) STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH (FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH (FEET) = 10.51 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.24 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 2.44 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.00 Tc(MIN.) = 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 6.997 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU!AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.790 5.13 .7900 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 3.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) .= END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.40 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) 13.81 8.85 16.58 17 .14 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.46 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 3.40 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 140.00 = 965.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 1 ----------------------------------~----------------------------------------- <»»DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< ============================================================================, TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM I.ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.13 2 I I , I I I 1 I I I I I , - I· i I t. , I I~ RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HR) = 7.00 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.10 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17 .14 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ============================================================================ RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 71.00 DOWNSTREAM EL~VATION(FEET) = 70.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE (FEET) = 1.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.897 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 7.114 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF (CFS) 0.45 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF (CFS) = 0.45 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 61 »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) = 70.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) = STREET LENGTH (FEET) = 930.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6:0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL} 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) 0.020 61.00 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS} 7.03 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH (FEET) = 0.43 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.38 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY (FEET /SEC. ) 2.8.3 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 1.23 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.48 Tc(MIN.) 9.38 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 4.742 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.790 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 3.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 12.74 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 3.48 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 13.04 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: 3 I I -I I -I I I I I I , I , I ! , 1 t I 1 I , I: ! DEPTH (FEET) = 0.49 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.12 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 1.52 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 140.00 = 995.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< 1 ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) 9.38 RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HR) = 4.74 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.48 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 13.04 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF NUMBER (CFS ) 1 17.14 2 13.04 Tc (MIN. ) 5.13 9.38 INTENSITY ( INCH/HOUR) 6.997 4.742 AREA (ACRE) 3.10 3.48 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK STREAM NUMBER 1 2 FLOW RATE RUNOFF (CFS) 24.27 24.65 TABLE ** Tc (MIN. ) 5.13 9.38 INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 6.997 4.742 ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 24.65 Tc(MIN.) = 6.58 9.38 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 140.00 995.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 61 »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»> (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 61.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 550.00 CURB HEIGHT (INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = '1 STREET PARKWAY CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) 0.020 51. 60 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Street flow Section(curb-to-curb) 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW (CFS) = 28.74 4 I I I I I -I , I ; .- I -I 1 -I , I - ***STREET FLOWING FULL*** STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH (FEET) = 0.49 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH (FEET) = 18.00 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 4.21 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 2.06 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.18 Tc(MIN.) 11.55 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 4.144 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.790 SUBAREA AREA (ACRES) 2.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 29.73 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.49 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH (FEET) = 18.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.25 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 1545.00. FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR ~ONFLUENCE««< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) 11.55 .RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HR) = 4.14 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.08 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 29.73 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ============================================================~=============== RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 71.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 70.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE (FEET) = 1.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.56 65.00 3.897 7.114 = 5-MINUTE. TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF (CFS) = 0.56 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NOD:!;; 170.00 IS CODE = 61 »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA~«« »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< =========================================================================~== UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 70.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 51. 60 5 I I ~ I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I i I ! ~ I I ~ I ! STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1480.00 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) 0.020 6.0 13.00 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Street flow Section(curb-to-curb) 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section 0.020·0 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW (CFS) 3.23 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH (FEET) = 10.61 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.59 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 0.88 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 9.52 Tc(MIN.) 13.41 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 3.764 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.790 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.06 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 5.35 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DE-PTH(FEET) -= 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) 13.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.92 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 1.13 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 1545.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.00 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.) 13.41 RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HR) = 3.76 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.35 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) 1 29.73 11.55 2 5.35 13.41 RAIN"FALL INTENSITY AND TIME CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF NUMBER (CFS ) Tc (MIN. ) OF 2 INTENSITY ( INCH/HOUR) 4.144 3.764 CONCENTRATION STREAMS. INTENSITY ( INCH/HOUR) AREA (ACRE) 9.08 1. 80 RATIO 6 I I I I I I I I I I· I I I 1 I I I I 1 2 34.34 32.36 11. 55 13.41 4.144 3.764 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 34.34 Tc(MIN.) = 11.55 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.88 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 170.00 1545.00 FEET. * * ** * * * ** ** ** * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** ** * * ** * *.;, * * * *** ** *.*-**.* * * * * * * ***.** * FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.10 IS CODE = 41 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 46.14 DOWNSTREAM (FEET) 44.46 FLOW LENGTH (FEET) = 56.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.43 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER.(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW (CFS) = 34.34 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 11.62 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 170.10 1601.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA (ACRES) PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) 10.88 TC(MIN.) = 34.34 11. 62 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 7 I I -I -I i I I I I I I I i 1 , I , I I , I c, I 1- , II. CALCULATIONS " C. PROPOSED ON-SITE HYDROLOGY I I -I I I I I I I I -I I I' I -I I -I I I **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY ~LOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985[1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (cl Copyright 1982-2003 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2003 License 10 1459 Analysis prepared by: bHA[ Inc. 5115 Avenida Encinas[ Suite L Carlsbad, Calif 92008 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * PROPOSED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS ************************** * * * * * , ' ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 990-P1.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:17 07/16/2004 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.700 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR "FRICTION SLOPE SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: CONSIDER ALL CONFLUENCE STREAM COMBINATIONS FOR ALL DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND "STREETFLOW HALF-CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: WIDTH CROSSFALL IN-/ OUT-/PARK-HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE 0.90 NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) MODEL* MANNING FACTOR (n) ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.01a/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.U (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE "10.00 TO NOD~ 20.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 1 I I -I I I I I I \ I I --I \ _. -I , --I I I I INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH (FEET) = 63.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 70.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 69.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE (FEET) = 1.50 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.317 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCHfHOUR) 7.114 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.28 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.28 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 51 >.»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 69.00. DOWNSTREAM (FEET) = CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA (FEET) = 48.00 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) ,= 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.114 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW (CFS) TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.14 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) Tc(MIN.) = 3.70 0.42 2.09 0.38 67.00 0.0417 0.05 SUBA-REA AREA (ACRES) AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.790 (L 28 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 0.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.56 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.16 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 2.27 30.00 = 111. 00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH (FEET) = 20.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 81.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 80.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE (FEET) = 0.30 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.180 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 7.114 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.84 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 TOTAL RUNOtF~CfS) = 0.84 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 60.00 IS CODE = 41 »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< 2 I I I , -I I , . I I , I I I I , I' I \ J -I L I I , »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 79.20 DOWNSTREAM (FEET) 75.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 138.00 MANNING'S N = 0.010 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 3;7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 6.65 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER (INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW (CFS) = 0.84 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 Tc(MIN.) = 2.53 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 60.00 158.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00. TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------~------------ »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 75.30 DOWNSTREAM (FEET) 74.30 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU -SUBAREA(FEET) = 32.00 CHANNEL SLOPE 0.0312 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH (FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA (CFS) = 0.84 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.17 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.17 Tc(MIN.} = 2.69 LONGEST FLOW PATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 70.00 = 190.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 70.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 51 ----------------------------------------------~----------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 74.30 DOWNSTREAM (FEET) 65.20 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA (FEET) = 105.00 CHANNEL SLOPE 0.0867 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.025 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET} = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) = 7.114 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc.= 5-MINUTE. USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW (CFS) 1.40 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY (FEET/SEC,. ) 3.68 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.20 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) 0.48 Tc(MIN.) = 3.17 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.12 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.790 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 0.35 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 1.97 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.22 FLOW VELOCITY (FEET/SEC. ) LONGEST FLOW PATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 4.12 80.00 = 295.00· FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA (ACRES) PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) 0.35 TC.(MIN.) = 1. 97 3.17 ============================================================================- ==================================================================~========= 3 I I I I I , I I ! I I I I -I 1- , I \ I \ J I , . I. - II. CALCULATIONS , D. PROPOSED OFF-SITE HYDROLOGY I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I , I \ I \ I I I i I l I L I I **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-200~ A~vanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *********************<***** * OFF-SITE PROPOSED HYDROLOGY * * * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 990-P2.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 08:15 07/26/2005 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.700 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOWMODEL* HALF-CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSS FALL 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 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ============================================================================ RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 1 I I ~ I ; I I I I , I \ I I I : I i I \ I , I I , I i I , INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH{FEET) = 95.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) = 151.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION{FEET) = 146.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE (FEET) = 5.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW{MIN.) = 3.127 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 7.114 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF{CFS) 0.56 TOTAL AREA{ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF (CFS) = 0.56 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 140.00 18 CODE = 61 »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»> {STANDARD CURB SECTION U8ED)««< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION{FEET) = 146.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) STREET LENGTH (FEET) = 870.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH{FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CR08SFALL GRADE BREAK (FEET) INSIDE STREET CROS8FALL{DECIMAL) ~ 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL{DECIMAL) 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL{DECIMAL) 0.020 13.00 61.00 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW (CFS) STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH (FEET) = 10.51 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.24 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 2.44 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.00 Tc(MIN.) 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 6.997 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.790 5.13 .7900 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 3.00 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 3.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = PEAK FLOW RATE{CFS) END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.40 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH (FEET) 13.81 8.85 16.58 17.14 FLOW VELOCITY{FEET/SEC.) = 8.46 DEPTH*VELOCITY{FT*FT/SEC.) 3.40 LONGEST FLOW PATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 140.00 = 965.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 140.00 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.) = 5.13 2 I I I I I , I 1 I , I I \ I I I I > I . I I I' i I \ • I I. I 1 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 7.00 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.10 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17 .14 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ============================================================================ RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 71.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) = 70.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE (FEET) = 1.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.897 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 7.114 NOTE: RAINFALL INTE~SITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF (CFS) 0.45 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.45 ****************************************************************************. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 61 »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»> (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) = 70.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) STREET LENGTH(FEET) = .930.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) INSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) 0.020 13.00 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Sec"tion(curb-to-curb) Manning's FRICTION FACTOR. for Back-of-Walk Flow Section 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW (CFS) 7.03 STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH (FEET) = 0.43 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.38 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.83 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 1.23 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.48 Tc(MIN.) 9.38 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 4.742 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" . S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.790 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 3.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.74 61.00 0.0150 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 3.48 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) 13.04 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: 3 I I' I I I' I I I J I I I I \ I I j I I I \ I , I I I , - DEPTH (FEET) = 0.49 HALFSTREEr FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.12 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 1.52 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 140.00 = 995.00 FEET. ** ** *'****** * * * * * ** * *** ** * * * ** *** ** * ***** * * * * ** ** * ** * ****** ********'**** **** ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< 1 ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) 9.38 RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HR) = 4.74 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.48 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 13.04 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) ( INCH/HOUR) 1 17.14 5.13 6.997 2 13.04 9.38 4.742 RAINFALL INTENSITY AN'D TIME OF CONCENTRATION CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) ( INCH/HOUR) 1 24.27 5.13 6'.997 2 24.65 9.38 4.742 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 24.65 Tc(MIN. ) = TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.58 AREA (ACRE) 3.10 3.48 RATIO 9.38 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 140.00 995.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 61 »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»> (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 61.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) 51. 60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 550.00 CURB HEIGHT (INCHES) 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL} 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DEClMAL} 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Street flow Section (curb-ta-cutb) 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW (CFS)' = 28.74 4 I I I I I ! I ! I ! I I I I I I I 11 I , I' i· I I : I I 1..1 I I I ***STREET FLOWING FULL*** STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.49 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH (FEET) = 18.00 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 4.21 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 2.06 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.18 TC(MIN.) 11.55 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 4.144 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" 94 0.790 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = (AMC II) = COEFFICIENT 2.50 9.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 8.18 29.73 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.49 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH (FEET) 18.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.25 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 1545.00 2.10 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.00 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.) 11.55 RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HR) = 4.14 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 29.73 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ====================================================================~======= RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS liD" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 94 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 71.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) = 70.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE (FEET) = 1.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 65.00 3.897 7.114 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.56 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF (CFS) = 0.56 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 61 -------------------------------------------~-------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»> (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< . ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 70.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 51.60 5 I I I i J I I: I I I I I i I I I I, I , I I' ,;-,- I t .• , I I ! STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1480.00 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) INSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 6.0 13.00 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Street flow Section(curb-to-curb) 0,0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW (CFS) 3.23 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED ·FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.61 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.59 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) 0.88 STREET FLOW TRAVEL rIME(MIN.) = 9.52 Tc(MIN.) 13.41 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) 3.764 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT. = .7900 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "0" S. C. S. CURVE NUMBER '(AMC II) = 94 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.790 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 5.06 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 5.35 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) 13.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.92 DEPTH*VELOCITY-(FT*FT/SEC.) 1.13 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 1545.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< 1 ==================================?========================================= TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) 13.41 RAINFALL.INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.76 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.35 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF NUMBER (CFS ) 1 29.73 2 5.35 Tc (MIN. ) 11. 55 13.41 INTENSITY ( INCH/HOUR) 4.144 3.764 AREA (ACRE) 9.08 1. 80 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF NUMBER (CFS ) Tc (MIN. ) INTENSITY ( INCH/HOUR) 6 I. I -I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I , -I I J I I . I I 1 2 34.34 32.36 11.55 13.41 4.144 3.764 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 34.34 Tc(MIN.) = 11.55 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 10.88 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 170.00 1545.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.10 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM (FEET) = 46.14 DOWNSTREAM (FEET) 44.46 FLOW LENGTH (FEET) = 56.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.43 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER1INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW (CFS) = 34.34 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 11.62 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 170.10 1601.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 10.88 TC(MIN.) = 34.34 11.62 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 7 I I ,I I I \ I i I I \ I i 'I i I , I, t" I , I t I I III. EXHIBITS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. REFERENCES I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I IV. REFERENCES .. A.HYDROLOGYMANUALCHARTS --.. --.. -------------.. ---- l· .. ----- -- County of San Diego Hydrology Manual RaiJ1fa/l fsopluvials 100 Yen!' Rninfall EV(,llt -6 Hours Isopluviol (inches) '~"'s I.1t~\X/ .1!.._'.~ 'I.-...... " .. GIS "~'::i:"" '·Ur.>'''-'''I'' • .!>o.:~:r\ol ...... ,..I·",..·_ ..... ,...'· .... r ~-tt~~'GTS .. " ,r M •• " _" \\t H;:~~' : .. ~--: !,I: •• l'~' ( :., .. r.t. N ',Q'u .... tsr'AD'l.Wt)"#tTlrouf'UIPlA'IlY.,.,.urt~l'>!l un.!-flP<1fS1 ~ 0I1IW'UfP.tr,o.\1IJN.i.bUlt:O,,,,".I!fturU.lh!;IY""I~P'1"'1It"III·~ or t.,t[flLIPtl'J.oh"IIV »10 ''''''!S'i 'O~ ... ".t.Jtw.'W'1 "'.Il'''''SL c..1'Y'V .. SIO>C15 • ...,~~lP" ... t4. nts."'adv<;lsflUr(\WJ'"Worm..Ill6o\t_ .... ~I:UC"..,....." E ~ .. _:s)'ll ....... "'"-"t-.At.oo •• />Iroe..r.""_ ... ~ _,lIr .. _hoM'" SAUOAC. ; . i--H "I . l ... lrw~ot;f_'D1MI ... "" __ "'*"~, .... ".~.,.,,_ ;-'-J i f"! S .,. ..... ,_ .• '_...thll ....... lhl~''''''''. I' • 32;30Tr. . r·i-· .. ·j· .. ·,-r-i·-r-!-' 3 0 3 Mires E5,,;oC::S I I I; I , I' I I' I I' I , I \. , I' t ' I' I I' I I I -:---.. -~---.-.- .--------.---.. - - - - 1~.~ .N..:bI""~I::ibl I I ! II I I UlJI ill Ii I II Ii ullill ! Iii I IT I 1m Iii ilii a'o-l'-I~ L:h.tN 1'llllllIllllillII1111lllillllllll 11 11111l1U!! 7'0l"lIb i'.~'l-,f'j-.N-I! II II illill I I i III!IIII1I1I III 1III ill um ·ol"-lJ,:{·.. ~~t'N'N. ~ I II ill H I I II . II II! EQUATION 1111 6. 11 J ~! r-I ~ i N-! ~ Ilhl/11 III ul I "11 ::: 7.44 Pe D-O.645~ t7;T11!I f'o...l ~ ~ L'L. N N . , Ill. '! II " . I.! 5.0 l'l.i . ,. I I"?' I f'N..~ i Hi-!: :. tH I .. II I :: IntenSity (In/hr) liP 40 iL'b ~IJ{£ I bQ r{ rtH.lN I~dt I I I I Ii Ps = 6-Hour Precipitation (in) II! · NI' f I t'-~ II J I N--I! N I r;..1j 1'1 ~ 1 I I', III' D :: Duration (min) ~llli Ii'I IN--I ".P, I .11 . 30 !jj." 1 N Ii Inr-},! ~~':~I ,~I~!j'~IIIIIII!l11! I III I Ii! IIi! dil, · 'I I liN Ji r-; J 11'1 -lll·,u ~r lLl·~~f!J.I"I" I i Ii 'I I 111!llllllI! ~ -.LC . 17 J f I:' I". I} 1t I I . r .• lL! 2.0lltL I' l_dJ I rjt J H~ Illn U i .~I~~~~,; ~ J i I 1·11 IIW III1 ! II r-rt Ii I'! I d~,' I f f~I:~II~,'i 'Il~ J ~III~I~ Jtt~li" ~l 1111 111111 11:1 ill. 1 ! I I I ,! I. f'> 1 , I I 1 I I'}J., ,I I & 1 'b...J:"" "I II II I Ill' I 'N-I: J.l i I'rlml', 11'11 ~ I I 11111 i~ '.I~I: ~f{ I·~ r~ III 11,'11 iii' ~. I ~ I 'I II , , li-!. I' I I 1'-, I IN .1 :g 10 I I I I II I ~rJ. 1111 i~~ I ~ ITI d 1m dl~ I[t:i'-rt-~~ [ill rn!. ~I ,§.O·9 i I I ! I iii ! II i I bI.! j ! III J N-I II In . 'lIlll I i'i' I J'lJ l' Ii-!. !'HIli m; ~O'8 iJ J I! 111IIII:q'lIlll II 1I111tH-!1I NilI' !-If'N,UI'II; .ill 0'7 I I I I j j I I! j I III li Itt; I J I Irll ill! I ii'-I I J cl,11 tH II II!I oS'6 i i ! 1·1 i j I Ii ! I i/.lllli lli-I I lli 1I1l~ I l"N.1 I' 'II d-tUI rlful ::51 ! ! ! I I I! I ! I I'll I !! II I. ~ Ii :!!! II~ It " ~ II ~ I rrt~ ~ ~ 3.0 04' III I! II I j 1IIIIIi I II I 11lli~11 111~J 11t~;11 ~12.5 · III 1 III 1111 ! 1111111 'I '1111111 ~~WII J'i ~llj ~~ 2.0 0.3., ':I=l-t-r--l-f-i· ~" _S-• , , , • , •• • , ". -H 1+ r--i--l-;...' -4-' " '. ",",11 : ~'! : t::1-~!-1 -;-H-:--;-r; I; ",;-:. 1 -." • ';'H+ H !--: . ~--.,: ':" i· ~: i • 'I I • -. i ' f -I! ,.. 1'1 ': I-" ±:±:j--t-:t:: 1-1 r -+-H-+ i-' IT . , t ;' -• itrtii fH H---i-i..i-:-f·:<t.l+. i"'~11 1.::> FFf -L. .--l:±: i --r., ., j : +: p., H-:. , : r$[ Hl-!I o 2 ' , rr-t-r--r H-TI-t ,ti' T1' H-.• .-! rH+ r ., ,rrrr --If D..L i !i:it!1 ~ H \ w.~:±:l : ;, f 'J f '; H, + rl-w tH; . ·H-t+! I:: . i ;t ! -r-H. ,\ '1 i I. III ! . I I ; i ~ -10 ]---1-' .-.... -.+. -F j"+' --I''' _.+ .. I •• ~ ••• ~ 1. i"h ~. ri· .. ·1-1.. .j . j . I -'1'-' _. -_1-+ + -., ... ,+ .it . H·p . t_ ---1-'-'-!-u. _L -l . j.. lJ_ • U U 'J _'-.__ -J, l4-pl L!.!.! I I I I I __ .. _L'_L I I _!....I 11 'Il . _ I .1 I 1.1. I _ I " r .I! I 11111 r I 1-1_ -1_ .J._L!.. + Itt L14 71 H 1 all tt U I 'i d~· I-j-+ -7 -I I:H ,'1 Ifill ! ! .!' iii UJ I j' II I I I t If i llil ; II '. 1 i! LlI II!' i ' H-! I iii ii, + I! ! II I I IlIIl/IUIi !. I ! I ~ .lllli. Ii'! 1;-----"---"-I~! -.--H--·---ITT I r .-r'I'1I . "Ii'i . T-l-T -'11 "11 0.1 1 .: , ., ! I., ! J I I /I,. I I ,Ill I 1111111 I; I , I II I, "U @ n ~:~l 5.0 g' 4.55' n 4.0 iii 3.5~ 0> :l: o !:i 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 30 Minutes 40 50 2 3 4 5 6 Hours DUration .Int~nsity-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 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. (.1.) 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 /tJc.) year /'".'..-} .J.p' Ps t:? / (2) (b) Ps = ~ in., P24 = q, ".J 'p = .... k' % 24 (c) Adjusted P6(2):: __ in. (d) tx:: ___ min. (s) I :: __ in.fhr. Note: This chart replaces the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used since 19S5. pi\·.-:-::-:: !:~-.1-tl.S.· ·2·.:ni.5t)~:::j;5.1:.~5:'4.5~+~.·5:·~~.!· 5.5' . 6 . oumlion! 1 i I I: I I I , I 1 I I i I : 1 I . '''--S 2.63 13;95' 5.27; 6.59 i 7.90: 9.22i 10.5-1: 11.86' 13.!li 1'1.49! 15.81 .' -'-i -i.i'2i3.1·iil~{24T5.3016.3Bii.l:F·ii.48 r 9.5·' 'i'lojibi 'lUi6: 12.72 · '---To "'I6ST2.531!3:37·!'·(2'rrS·.05 i 5.901'6:'74'; '7.58 r 8.42 ! 9:~7 ; io. i' I ... -.-.. ~. . ... -._;-. -~r-·"'~-·~-r;: .... -l~-c.:--: .. · · .. ·-····---·1-----.. , .. ·-; --,;;-;',:;-.::" . ___ . __ gi ._~~~~.!1:~S.!.~~J..l. ~:.?'!..L.~:.~~ ; . .':.~.l .~:2.?..l-5.8~ .. ~ .. E!..~9 •. 1 .. !. '.~~.! ..':'..~ · . __ .• 20, 1.08.11.·~?i2.:1~~.?\'!~ .. !~il.31.;E?..I.-~~ .. ~l.Li:~5 .. L!?.39 . .L,?~3.J. BA6 25 0.93; 1.40£1.B7: 2.3312.80 i 3.27 , 3.73 ; 4.20 . 4.67 • 5.13 . 5.60 · "-'30 .. 0:8~j"lT2411.66r2:oF2:,j·912'.iiol3j2T3)3 .. :-4·.15 i 4.'56';' .{ga .... _._-.. _ ....... '.N .... ~. ~ .. ···-·l .. · .... ·." ... -......... _.1. ... _ •. I ......... '.... "" -•... -.~.Q _9:<j9.~_1·9~1.J-'?B_! .~:~? i.2;0'-i.~·.~.1.i.2.:;:?; .3;.19. i ~:~.5N; ~lP .. i .. '1.~3 ____ ?!1 ..P.:.BQ..W·_9~p .. .1)3.j.1.~9.1 J.'Z~.i ?:O~ i. 2.39.! . .?:,6.9.l ?:?~. i 3:2:9.1 .:3.~~ ____ 6Q .. Q.§.? .. ~9:.!!~!..!.·2?U:.~~jl:.!?9~~.a6i ?-.J2 L-??.9..i .. 2.6~.i 2:~2.i.3.1~ , ____ ~g _Q.j.1..l!\~JQ~~?:. ),f?~J..!.23_; .. !.~:l.l. lA~~.L1.?~.I._2:0_~:. 2.2.~.; 2 . .45. .. ~20 .0.34 IO:!5.1.\.q&a.i.0.~.~ U:02: 1.19.l.1.~? .;:!,.~~ ,', .. ! .'(9 .. : 1.~~. i ~.O,1 'N_!~Q ..9:g~i0.44'Q.5g LQ·73 jJh~?.I.1.·P~.i . .1:2.aJ~;g i .. !.4? i _!:§.2 .. L.i:?G. --~~~ ...Q..~§.-l-.~;:mJ.Q:§.~P!.§~.QJ!!.&~.l·ll...!&LI·..'!,E!· !_pl-1 ..!:.~Ll1·.§z.. __ 1~Q 0.22! O~~!~l. 0.54 ! O:~2 ~7G I.~.~?.. _q~91l ... i-..!.:~~ . .L!.:!9..L2.:':?Q. __ sg..Q .i!:..l~ iO:~~I.Q,~...j_q.:9_.L~.Q..Q~j.o.7~-i 0.81Ll...Q:.g1J"'!~Q~-L:!. . .1 .. 3 .. 360 0.1710.2510.3310.42 0.5010.58,0.6710.75 10.84·! 0.92 i 1.00 (I;M~ REI --.---------.---._--------.---. -.- San Diego County Hydrology Manual Date: June 2003 Table 3-1 Section: Page: RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAS Land Use Runoff Coefficient "c" Soil Type . NRCS Elements Coun Elements % IMPER. A B Undisturbed Natural Terrain (Natural) Permanent Open Space 0* 0.20 0.25 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 1.0 DU/A or less 10 0.27 0.32 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.0 DU/A or less 20 0.34 0.38 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.9 DU/A or less 25 0.38 0041 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 4.3 DU/A or less 30 0.41 0.45 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 7.3 DU/A or less 40 0.48 0.51 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 10.9 DU/A or less 45 0.52 0.54 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 14.5 DU/A or less 50 0.55 0.58 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 24.0 DU/A or less 65 0.66 0.67 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 43.0 DU/A or less 80 0.76 0.77 CommerciallIndustrial (N. Com) Neighborhood Commercial 80 0.76 0.77 CommerciaVlndustrial (G. Com) General Commercial 85 0.80 0.80 CommerciallIndustrial (O.P. Com) Office Professional/Commercial 90 0.83 0.84 ComrnerciallIndustrial (Limited I.) Limited Industrial 90 0.83 0.84 General Industrial 95 0.87 0.87 C 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.69 0.18 0.78 0.81 0.84- 0.84 0.87 3 60f26 D 0.35 0041 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.87 - - *The values associated with 0% impervious may be used 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. ,ustification 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I San Diego County Hydrology Manual 'Date: June 2003 Section: Page: 3 120f26 N ate that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the generalland"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. t Table 3-2 provides limits 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 Element are also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described below. Exceptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a , detailed study. , ' Table 3"2 MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLO,"" LENGTH (LM) & INITIAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tj) Element* DU/ .5% 1% 2% 3% 5% ' 10% 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 1QO 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 I 50 4.7 60 4.1 75 3.6 85 3.4 90 2.9 ,lQO 2.4 O.P.lCom 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 .f\GU.~ ?'i] , 3"12 I .. ~ I I' I I I I I IV. REFERENCES I B. REFERENCE MAPS I I I I I I I I I I I ;~ -" .. ..... 20 10 o 20 40 60 -----~ ~ SCALE: 1" -20' • < ' •• . "" -' .. ." .. ..... ,; . , ':: y~*(¥:;, . .... , , ", ~;. '" . :," . .: -.; ., : -", '" , . ~ .. ' ..... ,~ . . :c: .... ',. " .:- ,,' -.-'.'~ .... , '-. :.,., ..... ,~ " , ~ ," .. ", . ''' .. -. ...... '-.-..; , -.. .... .. ~ . " -. " . -', ~'''''->'.~-.' "~. " " ".,. .. - .: . -", .. \. ,< ' " ""-- "'~~ .- .-.1_ . . . -' ". . r , : ... ,'; .. ---"--"",, ----.----... ~ ~~tEi2~~~i_~ ~}~<>;·i.:;'"';-.':·-+~ .+~ ;~.'.:.~~, :\i.~'¥·; ~ ..... " . \ .l-'--.'~ -~--....::..,,--.. _\ .' '''-.. ;. , ... ~'-~':-i ' (IJ) ,---(vI) ---' (IJ) ---'- " , ... ~ " III' . ~'-.- , '. -, . ~ . .. ;.. ; .. / , -_ ... _---', . " (S) (S) ",,: '-,. ..... '<" "-,' ',' . ,"', . ", -'. (S) -,-0 / ... '. 1.:'.1 . , , j-. -- i .. i " .. 0) ® LEGEND AJArmPLAY AT LA COSTA" CITY OF CARLSBAD , , (T:rPfCAL LQCATlON OF BMPs SHOWN ON AtAN) .,. ., , , ;~ . ~: , "-, .~ . ,'C:X:::X:::X:::: , J~;:t,:,;· >!;~I : • ,;-;'-:;;'>.' 1 ... -... '~' .• :"r .. PnQ'l"nUt ZC);"F'liln •• f1:;>JliJlP BMPS '" ·VO;JC·Vp· :vtL/~_VF .1v~ .. pr);· o 'SWALEGARD (J?ASSY SWALEAL7'E1? .~ .. ~ ,,--® SLOPE ,pLANTNG. AND BONDED' AStiR MA mix .... , "; ,',' . ~ . .... ., INTT£NSITY FOR EACH ~'.'. .: ,. Sl1'E' MAP 1,..,':-,.1\; .• 1"'0 . ~~~ ~1 • ' 1Gmd· pIQ,nnlng. eM ~glneelfngr surveying 5115 A Vi::NIOA ENCINAS SUITE "L" CARI..SBAO. CA. 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 " ' . ., ',' " . ---------------------=-==========================-----_ .. _-----------------~ -_.- """-;; -'- . r." 178 180 3, conforms to Notional Mop is cautioned that the preceding .~ , __ ~ ... _ ';_J; .. ;A,\>,I! ';-;!-:::Ol~::-189 19 J ---. --. Aerial Photo Date -Sept-Oct 1988. Aerial Photo Scale -1 : 9600 ~ ... ". , :... ,.. .... ,-.! " ----'----------------- OCEAN BOTTOM CONTOURS DERIVED FROM 1968 U.S.G.S. QUAD MAPS. This set of mops, consisting of 225 sheets, conforms to Notional Mop Accuracy Standards, The user of the mop is cautioned that the preceding statement of accuracy pertains to the entire set of maps. Individual sheets '~i\h:'l the se\ m9Y contain error that exceeds that allowed by National Mop . , . ; ' . . ' .- 3, conforms to Notional Mop is cautioned that the preceding ire set of mops. Individual sheets 'eds that allowed by Notioncl Mop -/ ._-------------_._-_ ... __ .. ---_. --------.-- 178 179 189 190 i L .t)1[ _ dC _ J i -'ill. E_ .. 180 191 IA 3 0 100 200 300 is !!il13 j !i Ihih4l. ~ O!',I!il', GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 100' Aerial Photo Date -Sept-Oct. 1988. Aerial Photo Scale -1:9600 This map was compded by photograrnmetric methods and meets national map standard accuracy specifications. Horizontal Control is Based On !he CaI~omia Coordinate System NAO. 83 .. \I ertic;;>l_G9!'.tmLis_Bas¢. OnJha )_929 )JEA/'LSEA LE..'lEUJA TUM~ ----------.-------.------------------------- _3. N l,S78,DOO Iry by. £RtNG COMPANY Q().I.O_c::.A",_Ou.:c...t"\..r. ... o::t11n . ---.-.---- OCEAN BOTTOM CONTOURS DERIVED FROM 1968 U.S.G.S. QUAD MAPS. • This set of mops, consisting of 225 sheets, conforms to Notional Map Accuracy Standards. The user of the mop is cautioned that the preceding statement of accuracy pertains to the entire set of mops. Individual sheets within the set may contain error that exceeds thot ollowed by National Mop Accuracy standards, .~-,-~-.----.-------------- .' .. ~ ~~ -~ .--.=~ ~ I ! -~~ ~~ .... lUO: ~Q: .. ~:~ = --=.;;:-. -~ \U- ...l z : ....... '. ~t ,.t - J :.?t' ~r .~: -,1, I~ , , i , • , -_. 198 199 --~-- ; " , kiA-VA DQ\V " " / i -- 191) Q: ,. "';:, C. A. L ==: \~ -::1=;:, C>. R~rd Fmm • e.ot..l'O;.J,~ ~t.\..l, L'aVl!!:L .... ~ O<:.J.,:'2. EleT.: {l:J"10 Datum: O."':).c..._c",. __ PltIVA CO NT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SUlVEYOl DE1AITMENT FILE NO. ....... ..-.,.: '1InA i ! .. .. - t I t < , , , 1 • ~ I -- . r---. . : ! -I ; EX 1~T. WATE12 F I _'" -<'. ,,"""" a~J::i~-4()'/" ~~t..'1)~\ , 1':>(,.) - ---l:,. ' ________ ' -- "'-. :.~ ," .. fl 58 ~ • I ' .. \~ t''',l' .... ,. ~ .. ", . ,'. '. . " ' I' ., .. ' ., -•• I .~. GO " --- .:. . --' .--1-'-------, 194 liS 7 ,; ::. - -, 188 189 --"-~ -~ ....... .....-.... < ,.-, - -, :' -: ';-:=-, ", '~",' --.:: -~:." ---- ~.-----.-_.----: --------. - BENCH MARX Dtltrlption ~u~n , ~ '¥.5'f{' BENCH -LEYELS Na ()c I~ bcOid From I :_ Datum: u.S.t!.1G .. Eft'. : 'ACT -PRIVATE CONTR I s~rr II COUNTY',-OF SAN DIEGO. -; SUIlV£YOJI. DE?Al1'MEHT 1/ PLANS FIJI? THE jMPRIJYEMENT ()F N AVARRI. " 'r'" DRI VE -, , , IN LA CIJSTA, SO'!TH UNIT r'!2.J!: .' ~ ... -... ~ -" . . -. -,' ~ CMcl:Ht.y; , iEit_IfWori., ~': ':~', ' ,,-, 2B94-2 --.' t" _. ApJnnIDat. :--'0, . ,----", 8-1-:-t;9 T. M. :. , _ ..!:'c, !. -, ,.. ,' .. ~L.I ___ _ .~ ) ." ~ z :t ;;' .., " o :0 i.' ;n ~ co z 15 " % m o l> ,. '" o :0 Z C J: }: -< < :z c :z c ;$ a n ::I c ) < < • c -• ( • ( r ;;'-----