33076 MONROE STq Lo(zq
S;o
31
L-2
90
111111111111111[1
q Lo(zq
S;o
1�
1
ZHOV, /0
�RIILO,ffy� HrRAuucs.sruTY-�'
MADISON CUA,"F>
(MOKAMeStYeet)
Volume IIIF
10 -Year, 20 -Year, and 100 -Year Storm
Rational Method Analysis
for
East of Madison, LLC
80 -955 Avenue 52
La Quinta, CA 92253
Prepared be:
"Consultants, Inc.
7595 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 130
Irvine, CA 92618
949.453.0111
knder the superv4545,n of-
Jeremy W. Patapoff, P.E.
pate prepared.•
March 13, 2006
63 4 rr
06
C 10 a�P
OF CAl IFOc
ti�i���CJLi,�i,r�
Ext.
C LINT
TABLE OF CONTENTS'
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................... ..............................1
II. METHODOLOGY ........................................................ ............................1 -2
III. STORM WATER RUNOFF ANALYSIS ............................. ............................2 -3
IV. STORM DRAIN HYDRAULICS ........................................ ..............................3
V. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................... ..............................3
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
10 -YEAR STORM ANALYSIS
20 -YEAR STORM ANALYSIS
100 -YEAR STORM ANALYSIS
WSPG OUTPUT
CATCH BASIN SIZING
STREET CROSS - SECTION CAPACITY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL PLATES
HYDROLOGY MAP
:4
y
1
I
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present the hydrology and hydraulic analysis for the 10 -year, 20-
year and 100 -year storm water discharge for proposed Monroe Street and Madison Club (Tract
33076 -1 and -2) tributary areas. The project area is proposed Monroe Street located in the City of
La Quinta, California and is bounded by Avenue 53 (north) and runs approximately 2,600 feet
south along Monroe Street to Avenue 54. The proposed street and adjacent landscape will consist
of approximately 4.20 acres. This report is specific to proposed Monroe Street only, for
additional references for the complete system analysis, reference "Hydrology Report - Madison
Club 100 -Year Storm Volume. and Storage Analysis" (Volume I), "Hydrology and Hydraulics
Study for Madison Club (Golf Course Storm Drain Backbone)" (Volume II) submitted separately.
This report is intended to accompany the Off -Site Storm Drain Improvement Plans for Monroe
Street" plans as Volume IIIE. The reference report "Hydrology Report - Madison Club 100 -Year
Storm Volume and Storage Analysis" (Volume 1) was submitted with the "Mass Grading and
Perimeter Wall Plans" and addressed the necessary storage volume to retain all off -site and on-
site runoff generated by the largest 100 -year 24 -hour, event based on the Synthetic Unit
Hydrograph method for Madison Club. This report will cover each storm drain main line, which
will include lateral sizing, catch basin sizing, street capacity and compliance with the City's "first
flush" requirement.
This report is intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of Monroe Street peak storm runoff
volumes and how they are conveyed to retention areas (lakes) within Madison Club. Specifically,
M, this report will substantiate the "Off -Site Storm Drain Improvement Plan's for Monroe Street"
design plans, which will show the catch basin and storm drain pipe system only.
H. METHODOLOGY
Madison Club (on -site) and its perimeter streets (off -site) are hydrologically isolated. All runoff
within the project and a portion of the perimeter streets will be stored on -site. Within the site
there are seven (7) lakes and two (2) low points. Although each watershed drains to a lake or low
point within the golf course, only four (4) of the seven (7) lake features serves as the project's
ultimate storage devices. Each watershed area drains by way of storm drains through the golf
course to these four (4) lakes. From these four (4) lakes the water is discharged to on -site dry
wells. These dry wells are intended to remove water from the site over time and are not
considered part of the routing analysis. The hydrology map in the Technical Appendix shows the
delivery system in each watershed area to the adjacent lake for storage. The reports titled
"Hydrology Report - Madison Club 100 -Year Storm Volume and Storage Analysis" and
"Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Madison Club (Golf Course Storm Drain Backbone)"
provide the analysis for the storage and routing mentioned.
In this report, watershed areas were modeled according to the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District's (RCFC &WCD) Hydrology Manual. Sub areas were created to
represent catch basin collection areas within each watershed. A storm drain line was sized and
will be constructed in each sub -area to convey the peak 100 -year storm runoff to a storage basin
(lake). All runoff within a sub area is intended to flow towards a catch basin, enter the storm
drain pipelines to be conveyed to the respective storage basin (lake).
L
1
9
I
The peak storm flow discharge rates from the sub -areas were calculated with integrated rational
method/unit hydrograph method hydrology software available from Advanced Engineering
Software (AES), Version 2001, based on the (RCFC &WCD) Hydrology Manual. The software
was used to analyze the peak discharges generated by a 10 -year, 20 -year and a 100 -year
frequency storm. During analysis, conservative C- values were used (Approximately 0.83 -0.84)
for the rational method analysis of the landscaped and street areas. Street flow time was included,
and the times of concentration and peak runoffs in this report are conservative based on the
assumed. C- values. The soil group classified for the project area is type `B" soil. Rainfall
intensity values were developed from the slope of the intensity duration curves RCFC &WCD
Hydrology Manual figure D -4.6.
Pipe hydraulic calculations were performed using the Water Surface Pressure Gradient (WSPG)
software. WSPG software, authorized by CIVILDESIGN Corporation, is based upon the
Manning equation for conduit and channel flow, incorporating principles of continuity and
conservation of energy. Street capacities and catch basin sizing were calculated using AES
software. Curb inlet capacities were based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for
flow -by and sump basins.
M. STORM WATER RUNOFF ANALYSIS
Reference the Hydrology Map in the Technical Appendix for relevant analysis information for
sub - areas, catch basins and other hydrologic information for the storm water runoff analysis.
Proposed Monroe Street has a responsibility to convey the storm water runoff between Avenue 54
and Avenue 53 on Monroe' Street into the Madison Club to a retention basin, Lake G, within
Madison Club. To analyze the proposed Monroe Street, it was divided into two (2) main storm
drain discharge systems: 6c -1, and 9c -1 (Line 19D). The catch basin within 9c -1 received a sub-
area to analyze its respective flow. All storm drain pipe line sizing was estimated from AES and
then confirmed with the HGL data from WSPG.
The following table is a summary of the results of the hydrology analysis for each storm drain
line including: node number, catch basin number, tributary sub -area, tributary surface area, and
sub -area 100 -year flow (Q100)•
Table 1: 100 -Year Distribution of Flow
Catch Basin #
(Node #)
Storm Drain
Line
Tributary
Sub -Area
Tributary.
Surface Area
Sub -Area
Qioo
1 (3)
Line 19D
9c -1
4.2 Acres
11.5 CFS
TOTAL
11.5 CFS
1 2
The following table is a summary of the catch basin sizes that were determined from the 100 -year
storm water runoff estimate. Part of the criteria of the catch basin sizing was the following: flow
could not exceed right of way, must maintain one (1) operating lane of traffic in each direction,
and a flow -by catch basin would accept approximately 75% of the flow.
Table 2: Catch Basin Summary
Catch Basin #
ode #
Type
Sub -Area Qioo
Inflow
By -pass
Gutter Flow
Depth
Inlet
Len th
1 3
Sump
11.5 CFS
11.5 CFS
0.0 CFS
0.58 FT
9.0 FT
TOTAL
11.5 CFS
11.5 CFS
IV. STORM DRAIN HYDRAULICS
The hydraulic analysis was performed utilizing WSPG software to establish the designed pipe
line sizes for all mainlines and laterals to convey water from each respective sub -area to the
storage basins (lakes). The WSPG software created an HGL that was capable of being placed in
the profile section of the design plans utilizing the 100 -year water surface of the storage basins
(lakes). Line 19D connects into the Madison Club Phase 2 Storm Drain System. The 100 -year
HGL was obtained from the design plans of the Madison Club Phase 2 Storm Drain, and
represents the 100 -year water surface elevation for analysis. The software incorporated all
manholes, junctions, horizontal curves and vertical bends in the analysis. The output reports can
be found in the Technical Appendix for reference.
Note: All supporting documentation is located in the Technical Appendix of this report for
reference.
V. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual
(April 1978).
2. Hydrology Report Madison Club 100 -Year Storm Volume and Storage Analysis
(March 29, 2005).
3. Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Madison Club (Golf Course Storm Drain Backbone)
Volume II (July 27, 2005).
4. Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Madison Club Phase 1; Volume HIA (July 12,
2005).
3
1
sis���N�wxols��s� -ac �
1
1
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
1 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
(RCFC &WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982 -2004 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
(Rational Tabling Version 6.OD)
Release Date: 01/01/2004 License ID 1566
1
1
n
Analysis prepared by:
RCE Consultants
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* Madison Club - 10yr
* Monroe Street
* 12/2205
FILE NAME: C: \MONROE \MONROElO.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 17:15 12/22/2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) _ •10.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE
= 0.95
10 -YEAR STORM 10- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.830
10 -YEAR STORM 60- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 1.000
100 -YEAR STORM 10- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.520
100 -YEAR STORM 60- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 1.600
SLOPE OF 10 -YEAR INTENSITY - DURATION CURVE = 0.5805893
SLOPE OF 100 -YEAR INTENSITY - DURATION CURVE = 0.5796024
COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA:
STORM EVENT = 10.00 1 -HOUR INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 1.010
SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.5806
RCFC &WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC &WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL
AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES
*USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW
MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES:
MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALt IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE
FACTOR
NO. (FT) .(FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT)
(n)
1 34.0 20.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167
0.0150
2 19.0 14.0 0.020/0.100/0.050 0.50 5.00 0.0100 0.010
0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow -Depth = 1.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)
2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21
------------- ------- -------- -------- --------------
------------------------
»» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<<<
ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM
TC = K *[(LENGTH * *3) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)] * *.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 550.00
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 977.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 976.40
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
TC = 0.359 *[( 550.00 * *3) /( 1.50)] * *.2 = 14.599
10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.295
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8013
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.76
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.76
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
-- FLOW - PROCESS FROM - NODE - - - - -- 2_00 -TO- NODE - - - - -- 3_00 -IS -CODE = 62
------ - - - - -- ------------------
» » >COMPUTE.STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««<
»» >( STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 976.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 972.50
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 590.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 34.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
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) = 4.87
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.44
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.04
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.25
PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 0.99
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.36 Tc(MIN.) = 18.96
10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 1.971
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7907
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.21
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.97
END OF SUBAREA STREET'FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET.) = 0.48 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.23
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.47 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.19
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 1140.00 FEET.
1
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 31
»» >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «<
»» >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) <<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 968.11 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 967.68
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 79.69 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.7 INCHES
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.83
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 6.97
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ . 0.27 Tc(MIN.) = 19.24
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 1219.69 FEET.
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
.TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 TC(MIN.) = 19.24
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.97
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
I
1
1
I
I
I
�J
e I
I
SIS�"li�N� W21O1S21i��%-O� ,
1
L�
r
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
(RCFC &WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982 -2004 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
(Rational Tabling Version 6.OD)
Release Date: 01/01/2004 License ID 1566.
Analysis prepared by:
RCE Consultants
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* Madison Club - 20yr
* Monroe 'Street
* 12/2205
FILE NAME: C: \MONROE \MONROE20.DAT
- -TIME/ DATE -OF- STUDY- 1716- 12/22/2005 - --
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 20.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95
10 -YEAR STORM 10- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.830
1 10 -YEAR STORM 60- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 1.000
100 -YEAR STORM 10- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.520
100 -YEAR STORM 60- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 1.600
SLOPE OF 10 -YEAR INTENSITY - DURATION CURVE = 0.5805893
SLOPE OF 100 -YEAR INTENSITY - DURATION CURVE = 0.5796024
COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA:
STORM EVENT = 20.00 1 -HOUR INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 1.169
SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.5805
RCFC &WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC &WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL
AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES
*USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR-COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. -(FT) (FT) -- SIDE -/- SIDE / -WAY- -(FT)- -(FT) -(FT)- (FT)- - -(n) --
1 34.0 20.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150
2 19.0 14..0 0.020/0.100/0.050 0.50 5.00 0.0100 0.010 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow -Depth = 1.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)
2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
»» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM
TC = K *[(LENGTH * *3) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)] * *.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 550.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 977.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 976.40
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
TC = 0.359 *[( 550.00 * *3) /( 1.50)] * *.2 = 14.599
20 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.656
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8109
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.23
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.23
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 62
-------------------------------------------------------------- 7 -------------
» » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««<
>>>>>( STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 976.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 972.50
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 590.00 CURB HEIGHT(,INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 34.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK.(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) '= 0.020
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) = 5.72
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.46
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.98
' AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.35
PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.08
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.18 Tc(MIN.) = 18.78
20 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.294
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8013
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.96
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.19
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.51 HALFSTREET .FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 17.40
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.55 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.29
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 1140.00 FEET.
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
1
F]
I
1
FLOW PROCESS
FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««<
»» >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) <<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 968.11 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 967.68
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 79.69 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.2 INCHES
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.14
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
'
PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 8.19
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.26 Tc(MIN.) = 19.04
LONGEST FLOW PATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 1219.69 FEET.
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 TC(MIN.) = 19.04
-- PEAK -FLOW - RATE( CFS)8= 19=====----- ------------------------- - - - - --
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
F]
I
1
0
SIS�."1�'N� W21O1S21��% -OOL
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
' RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
(RCFC &WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982 -2004 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
' (Rational Tabling Version 6.OD)
Release Date: 01/01/2004 License ID 1566
Ll
11
Analysis prepared by:
RCE Consultants
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* Madison Club - 100yr
* Monroe Street
* 12/22.05
******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
FILE NAME: C: \MONROE \MONROE.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 17:17 12/22/2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
USER SPECIFIED -STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE
FOR FRICTION SLOPE
= 0.95
10 -YEAR STORM 10- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) =
2.830
10 -YEAR STORM 60- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) =
1.000
100 -YEAR STORM 10- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR)
= 4.520
100 -YEAR STORM 60- MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR)
= 1.600
SLOPE OF 10 -YEAR INTENSITY - DURATION CURVE = 0.5805893
SLOPE OF 100 -YEAR INTENSITY - DURATION CURVE =
0.5796024
COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA:
STORM EVENT = 100.00 1 -HOUR INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR)
= 1.600
SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.5796
RCFC &WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR
RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC &WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL
AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS
FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES
*USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW
AND STREETFLOW
MODEL*
HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB
GUTTER - GEOMETRIES:
MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT
WIDTH LIP HIKE
FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT)
(FT) (FT) (FT)
(n)
1 34.0 20.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.67
2.00 0.0313 0.167
0.0150
2 19.0 14.0 0.020/0.100/0.050 0.50
5.00 0.0100 0.010
0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow -Depth = 1.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)
2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« <
ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS CONDOMINIUM
TC = K *[(LENGTH * *3) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)] * *.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 550.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 977.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 976.40
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50
TC = 0.359 *[(. 550.00 * *3) /( 1.50)] * *.2 = 14.599
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.630
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8294
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.52
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.52
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««<
» »>( STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 976.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 972.50
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 590.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 34.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) = 0.0150
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200
I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * **
1
* *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 8.04
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 17.24
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.54
PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.28
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.87 Tc(MIN.) = 18.47
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.167
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8217
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 7.03
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.54
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.56 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 19.90
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.78 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.55
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 1140.00 FEET.
I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * **
1
'
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
»» >USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) ««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 968.11 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 967.68
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 79.69 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.0 INCHES
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.60
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 11.54
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.24 Tc(MIN.) = 18.71
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 1219.69 FEET.
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 TC(MIN.) = 18.71
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.54
----- - - - - --
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
J
I -
1
1YIdlYlO �d5'M
M M M M M M M ' M M M M M M M M M M M
linel9d.OUT
0 FILE: linel9d.Wsw
W S P
G W-
CIVILDESIGN Version 14.06
PAGE 1
Program
Package serial Number: 1735
WATER
SURFACE PROFILE
LISTING
Date:12
-22 -2005
Time:
5:51:27
Madison
club
100 yr
Line
19d
12/22/05
�,t������,t��t,t�,ta,r,t�, rain, t�, r, t�n�,r,t�an�,t,tt,t,t��,tt��,
tea• �, t���t��� ,r,t���������
*�����,t��a���*
*tea *a�����,t,t,t,t,t,n��n�t a��aa�r��,t��,tr���
n�������
I Invert
I Depth
I water
I Q I
vel
vel f
Ener Yy
1 Super
Icritical]FlOW
To p
IHei ht /]Base wt1
No wth
Station
I Elev
I (FT)
1 Elev
I (CFS) l
(FPS)
Head I
Grd.El.1
Elev
I Depth
I width
Dia9 -FT or I.D.II
ZL
Prs /Pip
L /Elem
Ich Slope
l
]
I I
SF Avel
HF
ISE Dpth'Froude
NINorm
Dp
"N"
I X -Fall)
ZR
IType Ch
a *����n�a
, r�������*
I,+ �a, r�• a��1,
�, r���* �a�I����aa��,
rla�. aa��al�������l��e�*
na ,r�l,r����
*�I
*�����aa]������aa
r. *n��,n *1��� *��al�a��r
1����fr *r
6002.410
966.940
1.763
968.703
11.50
3.92
.24
968.94
.00
1.22
1.29
2.000
.000
.00
1 .0
-I-
28.426
-I-
.0050
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
.0024
.07
-I- -I-
1.76
-I-
.46
-I-
1.25
.013
-I- -I-
.00
.00
1-
PIPE
6030.836
I
967.083
I
1.665
I
968.748
I I
11.50
4.11
I
.26
969.01
I
.00
I I
1.22
1.49
I
2.000
I I
.000
.00
I
1 .0
-I-
24.022
-I-
.0050
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
.0026
.06
-I- -I-
1.67
-I-
.53
-I-
1.25.
.013
-I- -I-
.00
.00
1-
PIPE
6054.858
I
967.203
I
1.582
I
968.785
I I
'11.50
4.31
I
.29
969.07
I
.00
I I
1.22
1.63
I
2.000
I I
.000
.00
I
1 .0
-I-
21.513
-I-
.0050
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
.0029
.06
-I- -I-
1.58
-I-
.59
-I-
1.25
.013
-I- -I-
.00
.00
1-
PIPE
I
6076.371
967.311
I
1.508
I
968.819
I I
11.50
4.53
I
.32
969.14
I
.00
I I
1.22
1.72
I
2.000
I I
.000
.00
I
1 .0
20.037
.0050
.0032
.07
1.51
.66
1.25
.013
.00
.00
PIPE
I
6096.408
I
967.411
1.441
I
968.852
I I
11.50
4.75
I
.35
969.20
I
.00
I I
1.22
1.80
I
2.000
I I
.000
.00
I
1 .0
19.390
.0050
.0036
.07
1.44
.72
1.25
.013
.00.
.00
PIPE
I
6115.798
I
967.508
1.379
I
968.888
I I
11.50
4.98
I
.38
969.27
I
.00
I I
1.22
1.85
I
2.000
I I
.000
.00
I
1 .0
20.121
.0050
.0041
.08
1.38
.79
1.25
.013
.00
.00
1-
PIPE
f
6135.919
I
967.609
1.322
I
968.931
I I
11.50
5.22
I
.42
969.35
I
.00
I I
1.22
1.89
I
2.000
I I
.000
.00
I
1 .0
14.081
.0050
•.0045
.06
1.32
.85
1.25
.013
.00
.00
PIPE
I
6150.000
I
967.680
1.289
I
968.969
I I
11.50
5.37
I
.45
969.42
I
.00
I I
1.22
1.91
I
2.000
I I
.000
.00
I
1 .0
-I-
27.214
-I-
.0049
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
.0047
.13
-I- -I-
1.29
-I-
.90
-I-
1.26
-I-
.013
-I-
.00
.00
1-
PIPE
I
6177.214
I
967.813
1.264
I
969.077
I I
11.50
5.50
I
.47
969.55
I
.00
I I
1.22
1.93
I
2.000
I I
.000
.00
I
1 .0
-I-
60.486
-I-
.0049
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
-I-
.0049
.29
-I- -I-
1.26
-I-
.93
-I-
1.26
-I-
.013
-I-
.00
.00
I-
PIPE
0 FILE: linel9d.wsw
W S P
G W-
CIVILDESIGN
Version
14.06
PAGE 2
Program
Package serial
Number: 1735
WATER
SURFACE PROFILE LISTING
Date:12 -22
-2005 Time:
5:51:27
Madison
Club 100 yr
Line
19d
12/22/05
��,ntr�,t�,r,t��
*a��n��a������,
tea, r, ta���a����aa��a��, t* aaaa���������a�,
aa�������* a��a• �aa•* ����a* �a, t,+*
������a *����a *�a�na�a��aa *,r,t�,t
��aaana�
I
Invert I
Depth
water I
Q I
Vel
vel I
Energy
Super ICriticallFloW
Top
Height /IBase Wtl
INO wth
Station I
Elev I
(FT)
Elev I
(CFS) I
(FPS)
Head
Grd.El
Elev I
Depth I
width
Dia. -FTIor I.D.]
ZL
Prs /Pip
_I_
_I
_l_
_I_
_I_
_
_
_'
L /Elem ICh
Slo I
pe
l
I
I
SF Ave]
. HF
ISE DpthlFroude
NINorm
Dp
"N"
I X -Fall'
ZR
IType ch
Page
1
m m m m m m m M M i mm mm M M
linel9d.OUT
I I I I I I I I I I i
6237.700 I 968.110 1.264 I 969.374 11.50 5.50 .47 969.84 .00 1.22 1.93 2.000 .000 .00 1 .0
u
-I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- I-
Page 2
1
1
1
1
�NI2ISNIS�dN01�'� �
1
11
CB #1- 100.txt
»» SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION««
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Curb Inlet capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 11.54
BASIN OPENING(FEET) = 1.00
DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) = 0.58
»»CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 8.46
Page 1
1
CB #1- DEPTH100.txt
» »STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION ««
-----------------------------------
CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) = 0.005000
CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 11.54
AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = 0.015000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 32.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 32.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = 0.67
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- WIDTH(FEET) = 2.00
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- LIP(FEET) = 0.03125
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- HIKE(FEET) = 0.16700
FLOW - ASSUMED -TO- FILL _ STREET _ ON - ONE _ SIDE, - AND _THEN - SPLITS
---- ------ - -- - --
STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.58
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 21.22
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.46
PRODUCT OF DEPTH& VELOCITY-=-_-- 1_ 43------ ------ ------------ ---- --- - - - ---
1
1
1
1
Page 1
NOLL�3S- SS'��1332LLS
t
ST CAP 10.tXt
»» STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION««
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) = 0.005000
CONSTANT STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.59
AVERAGE STREETFLOW.FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = 0.015000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 32.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 32.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = 0.67
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- WIDTH(FEET) = 2.00
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- LIP(FEET) = 0.03125
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- HIKE(FEET) = 0.16700
FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE.
-----------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.59
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 21.59
HALFSTREET FLOW(CFS) = 12.17
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.51
' - - -- PRODUCT -OF- DEPTH& VELOCITY-=---- 1_ 48------------------------------- - - - - --
1
1
Page 1
1
r
1
1
1
I
ST CAP 20.txt
» »STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION ««
-- -----------------------------------
CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) = 0.005000
CONSTANT STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.59
AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = 0.015000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 32.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 32.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = 0.67
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- WIDTH(FEET) = 2.00
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- LIP(FEET) = 0.03125
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- HIKE(FEET) = 0.16700
FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE.
---------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.59
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 21.59
HALFSTREET FLOW(CFS) = 12.17
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.51
PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.48
Page 1
ST CAP 100.txt
»» STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION««
---------------------------------=-----------------------------
CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) = 0.005000
CONSTANT STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.67
AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) = 0.015000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 32.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 32.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = 0.67
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- WIDTH(FEET) = 2.00
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- LIP(FEET) = 0.03125
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- HIKE(FEET) = 0.16700
FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE.
-----------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS:
--------- ----- --------------------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.67
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 25.59
HALFSTREET FLOW(CFS) = 18.81
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.79
,� - - -- PRODUCT -OF- DEPTH& VELOCITY-=---- 1_ 87------------------------------- - - - - --
a
1
Page 1
s���
�)02LLNO0 QOO'1�
J.�NV�oo �ais��ni�
I
1
1
I
I.
1
1
1
I
I
I
'n
7
ar �..c,'�`,l
ILL.r.L.
ARV .AL1C C
I
q e ..I i -- --•-•I 6.� . _.
rn' )=T IVDIA Cl
4
0
1 Aq UA CALI CNTC
aiaI INDIAN 'C EF Cq tlT10N
. .•.I I�ywj,l 'S�
AQUA c LICNTC.:
...I: L!.
ro :1
!•Kqql� ;
INDIAN USFC0TAT1011`1t 1
C 0 U'St 3 E•`, r1cVL' f LICtI'
4 •• \ { O• '•'• {rn�.il • 1 •- o-r. fYl," ems• �
A
9
IL I
DISTRICT
ARJA O. .Li TC \'� A.ILY TC •' I
12 •'�•Lr. �•. 8
L/ NDIAM -{LF Cq tATIDM '
1 M\'
INDIA" qCf CCnATIRN
9 AQUA GALI PTC \ 1 ! -
19 j
is
IYUTA...... ATIDN I Th ..0 h1bu
—;jAh F �r ;r.
I AI�I%• A is,
AQUA T.ALIC TE
AQUA cALIcUte I I \ \ 1 ' ;!T •? P'' •u�'
22 19 L 24 19 y y -4z
JNDIAN UCq CUTATION I I' INDIAN cEq CgTAT10P 1; j
•t7 j i I AD t}f Lls>tre
IIk
V� CA4REN TG icW,� --; ,y
c+ E D may' • • 1 II �tjF3v35 �'••.'..L Z 2I 1
tNNIV.D q . ': .c t :•s ••I'• 1} ,
4i.�._
• IR7g1 .4
�ih% ��IFG �7)!!!tf. n.4i -.mot �w /.._I"�L.. +f. m•. .._ /' � �, .r— .
r`` Vii; }'��` - I• •� t I � • •�!,�t; r.••. _e �..
�,.t''f� • \ \'` `.1�: •1 ' �� y ! 1 , n.. IaL... . I�� Fes,
At
en
IN
LEGEND HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP MAP
SOILS GROUP BOUNDARY FOR
A SOILS GROUP DESIGNATION
R C F C ec ail C D CATHEDRAL CITY
HyD,- ?0L00Y MANUAL 0 FEET 5000
PLATE C-1.36
73.52'70' (THOUSAND PALMS -N.E.) 8 U D
,� .! _,�.- . i ^..! l,r'" • I .\ `�. `A ..ice t I ��
Dr
�r> � �', '•5'.••.ii .., ° -�.• '�•; F tl•t,.,�.t .,D•, r•-_ A�_ rl . -.�� 4 �•..,. A I` • �• \ A
``'•: -4`,R S'/ C.,ti..t, L`�_r - `q • gSTRILT•\ t j? EDuNOART .. 8 �`.��`� •'i ..
�i•y� i�� C"•v.::,y �, •.. 1,.. •jie Y. "� •��.�,f.l�ti� �. 1 �h C � +•1, }��� .
„j .tS; �n n'r': ,t•`l;• s.r -r'_ta _,'1%` \^-�"'"`J °c ! 1. ,• t•.- 4%1� .. r ; ��
•��}+ 'Z
Wh "Jz
-�� :, �'sr t ''W � � ,' +. ~• `. it � -ti5 r. -; •`IC•.'L+ -i�6.. `; %.� '����� `.•$••l y''j Y� � �t; ,! � • .�: ,f-'` •
i �.� p V I -,,.�, �.; s •itt {' J!V'((C _ : „� i ` y .. �� L.•4_ •:''4•.
1:,.':.7 % fu °, fd:;t ✓ :.'�,�r;` I ,. l ,4t,0�;�i�{�,
= titij�,,'11�:`ri `tfp,a,ttir 1 , ?('�s`-�t,,.�
Wit: 7 :a• i LJ "t
• 1. �.� v'.✓ {i"7 l f`1�,' �T �,T .% r i�••oit. K. w,.: 'O • t.'1 ,ir. '
' ��'-� I• -I t � .lira,. 4 :^''•�.•�''.i .` `•. ); t,�i .. :.•�;'
Ili I li 1 ,c_: { Lj 1 �' )d , �f 7 Ft C. �_:�.. i . t ... ; �•
f i i J L .i
Ir
t 6D 221 23 19 M
29 2) 2fi (� 25 ' 70 '+.'�'� 2�• -, �? .'ia'7. e�G
•bt, i _. -_ >•o...4AA -r•' J '+ { ," N )n,• 1. « .;i3Y' i
7 � 1 . � 3 i ^..� ^ '1 • � { .„ . •yam • _ •�. •. • �Y.
f 7 � _ �) ft.Jl. -.. •^� r • •,. I lam' `� �', L.`.. -1`
3t i �,s Get •a .�UQ � `,``.��. '1-
LL E ,T V .. ; t..:.... •• 1'""jl �i'f'`;•`
I�l /C1 I^ 1 C a � fir O - ��• 5 _i + ...................__«._
9 J 10 1113 r �~ 7 (� •� , 7l\'\ p :. 9 0
LEGEND HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP MAP
SOILS GROUP BOUNDARY FOR
A SOILS GROUP DESIGNATION
R C F C a W C D MYOMA
Hyr)FtOL OGY 1\/JANUAL 0 FEET 5000
PLATE C -1, 3T
`
'
|
!
,
r" P/Z
tit
IN
170.
1:'; 21"0
m. r
15
ts
Lj
eJ
IN r
ilt
:45k
,
lkli"_ J.
-^ .45.111 -^
LEGEND HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP MAP
SOILS GROUP WJWARY FOR
A SOILS GROUP DESMAPON
PLATE C-1.48�`
a mo® mm m r m r m m .m r m m m m m m
I1
J
1
1
L�
1
1
I
1
RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS OF HYDROLOGIC SOIL -COVER COMPLEXES FOR PERVIOUS AREAS -AMC II
Cover Type (3)
Quality
Cover
of Soil Group -
(2) A B C D
NATURAL, COVERS -
Barren
(Rockland, eroded and graded land)
78 86 91 93
Chaparrel, Broadleaf
(Manzonita, ceanothus and scrub oak)
Poor
Fair
53. 70 80 85
40 63 75 81
Good
31 57 71 78
Chaparrel, Narrowleaf
(Chamise and redshank)
Poor
Fair.
71 82 88 91
55 72 81 86
Grass, Annual'or Perennial
Poor
Fair.
67 78 86 89
5.0 69 79 -84
Good
38 61 74 80
Meadows or Cienegas
(Areas with seasonally high water table,
principal vegetation is sod forming grass)
Poor
Fair
Good
63 77 85 88
51 70 0 84
30 58 72 78
Open Brush
.(Soft wood shrubs - buckwheat sage,
g e � etc. )
oor
Fair
62 76 84 88
46 66 77 83
Good
41 63 75 81
Woodland
(Coniferous or broadleaf trees predominate.
Canopy density is at least 50 percent)
Poor
Fair
Good
45 66. 77 83
36 60 73 79
28 55 73 77
Woodland, Grass
(Coniferous or broadleaf trees with canopy
density from 20 to 50 percent)
Poor
Fair.
Good
57 73 82 86
44 65 77 82
33 58 72 79
URBAN COVERS -
Residential or Commercial Landscaping
(Lawn, shrubs; etc.)
Good
32 56 .69 75'
Turf
(Irrigated and mowed grass)
Poor
Fair
58 74 83 87
44 65 77 82
Good
33 58 72 79
AGRICULTURAL COVERS -
Fallow
(Land -plowed but not tilled or seeded)
76 85 90 92
R C F C & C D -RUNOFF
INDEX
NUMBERS
HYDROLOGY JMANUAL
FOR
PERVIOUS
AREAS
PLATE E -6.1 (I of 2)
ii
RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS OF HYDROLOGIC SOIL -COVER COMPLEXES FOR PERVIOUS AREAS -AMC II
Cover Type (3) Quality of Soil Group
Cover (2 ) A B C D
AGRICULTURAL COVERS (cont.) -
Legumes, Close Seeded
Poor
66
77
85
89
(Alfalfa, sweetclover, timothy; etc.)
Good
58
72
81
85
Orchards, Deciduous
(Apples, apricots, pears, walnuts, etc.)
See Note 4
Orchards, Evergreen
Poor
57
73
158
82
172
86
179
(Citrus, avocados, etc.)
Fair
44
65
77
82
Good
33
Pasture, Dryland
Poor
67
78
86
89
(Annual grasses)
Fair
50
69
79
84
Good
38
61
74
80
Pasture, Irrigated
(Legumes and perennial grass)
Poor
Fair
58
74
83
87
44
65
77
82
Good
33
58
72
79
Row Crops
(Field crops - tomatoes, sugar beets, etc.)
Poor
Good
72
67
81
Be
91
78
85
89
Small Grain.
(Wheat, oats, barley, etc.)
Poor
Good
65
63
76
84
88
75 183
87
Vineyard
I
S ee_
Note
4
Notes:
1. All runoff index (RI) numbers are for Antecedent Moisture.Condition
(AMC) II.
2. Quality of cover definitions:
Poor - Heavily grazed or regularly burned areas. Less than 50 per -
cent of the ground surface is protected by plant cover or brush
and tree canopy.
Fair- Moderate cover with 50 percent to 75 percent of the ground sur-
face protected.
Good -Heavy or dense cover with more than 75 percent of the ground
surface protected.
3. See Plate C -2 for a detailed description'of cover types.
4. Use runoff index numbers based on ground cover type. See discussion
under "Cover Type Descriptions" on Plate C -2.
5. Reference Bibliography item 17.
C F C C D RUNOFF WDEX NU' M CEPS
HymioL OU'Y J\f1ANUAL FOR
PERVIOUS AREAS
PLATE E -6.1 (2of 2 )
'
ACTUAL IMPERVIOUS COVER
Recommended Value
Ra
Land Use (I) Range-Percent For Average
Conditions -Percent (2
Natural or Agriculture 0 - 10 0
'
Single Family Residential: (3)
40,000 S. F. (1 Acre) Lots 10 - 25 20
20,000 S. F. Acre)
(�j Lots 30 - 45 40
7,200 - 10,000 s. F. Lots 45 - 55 50
Multiple Family Residential:
Condominiums
45 - 70 65
Apartments 65 - 90 80
Mobile Home Park 60 - 85 75
a
Commercial, Downtown 80 -100 90
Business or Industrial
Notes:'
1. Land use should be based on ultimate development of the watershed.
Long range master plans for the County and incorporated cities
should be reviewed to insure reasonable land use assumptions.
�.
2. Recommended values are based on average conditions which may not
apply to a particular study area. The percentage impervious may
vary greatly even on comparable sized lots due to differences in
'
dwelling size, improvements, etc. Landscape practices should also
be considered as it is common in some areas to use ornamental grav-
els underlain by impervious
plastic materials in place of lawns and
shrubs. A field investigation of a study area
should always be made,
and a review of aerial photos, where available may assist in estimat-
ing the percentage of impervious cover in developed areas.
'
3. For typical.horse ranch subdivisions increase impervious area 5 per-
cent over the values recommended in the table above.
C F C C D IMPERVIOUS COVER
HYDROLOGY NJANUAL . FOR
DEVELOPED AREAS
PLATE E -6.3
i
Xiirinii-rV RAAo
LEGEND:
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB —AREA
WATERSHED DESIGNATOR
WATERSHED AREA
XX xxX.X NODE NUMBER / ELEVATION
rX,
GOLF HOLE
MONROE ST.
REVISIONS
RICHARD L. CLARK
®"Consultants, Inc.
DESIGNED BY: D.G. CHECKED BY: J.P.
DATE NO. DRAWN BY: D.G. DATE: 3/10/06
P. E. C46559
EXP. 6 -30 -07
SCALE:
1 " =100'
7595 Irvine Center Dr.
Suite 130
Irvine, Ca.. 92618
Phone: 949.453.0111
Fax: 949.453.0411
FILE No.
0502
BENCH MARK DATUM CORRECTION:
SUBTRACT 1000.00 FEET FROM ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON TO REFLECT
ACTUAL MSL ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO THE BENCH MARK DATUM,
STAMP I BASIS OF BEARINGS I BENCH MARK
re"� . C46559 �
WAMMSOMIYA
\qTe CIV IL��/
OF ('A1.1
APPROVED BY:
1
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 0 50 100 200
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 100 ft.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
THE NORTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 HYDROLOGY MAP - OFFSITE STORM
SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 6 PD 3 3W DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN MONUMENT IN HANDWELL AT THE
BERNARDINO MERIDIAN PER PM INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON ST
44/67 -68 SAID LINE BEARS & 42 AVENUE ELEV= 117.05' TIMOTHY R. JONASSON, P.E. DATE MONROE ST.
N89'46'1 2"E PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR /CITY ENGINEER TRACT MAP NO. 33076 -1
R.C.E. NO. 45843 EXP. 12 -31 -06 PORTIONS OF SECTION 10 T.6.S. R.7.E. , S.B.M.
400
DRAWING NAME:
XT -M DC- HYD- SD -MON ROE -01
PROJECT No.
0001 MDC
SHEET 1 OF 1
I°�
0
C
N
E
Q)
0
L
a