Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUCKING HORSE SECOND FILING - PDP - PDP120022 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORTPRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT BUCKING HORSE SECOND FILING Fort Collins, Colorado July 25, 2012 Prepared for: Bucking Horse LLC 3702 Manhattan Avenue, Suite 201 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Prepared by: 200 South College Avenue, Suite 10 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com Project Number: 687-002  This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF. Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety. When a hard copy is absolutely necessary, we recommend double-sided printing. ADDRESS: 200 S. College Ave. Suite 10 Fort Collins, CO 80524 PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 WEBSITE: www.northernengineering.com July 25, 2012 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for BUCKING HORSE SECOND FILING Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review. This report accompanies the 07.25.12 Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal for the proposed Bucking Horse Second Filing development. This report has been prepared in accordance to Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed Bucking Horse Second Filing project. We understand that review by the City is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM. If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Nicholas W. Haws, PE Andrew G. Reese Project Manager Project Engineer Aaron T. Cvar, PE Senior Engineer SECOND FILING Preliminary Drainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 1 A. Location .................................................................................................................... 1 II. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ........................................................................................... 2 A. General Concept ......................................................................................................... 2 B. Compliance with Drainage Master Plan ......................................................................... 2 C. Additional Considerations ............................................................................................ 3 D. Design Details ............................................................................................................ 4 III. FLOODPLAIN .................................................................................................................. 4 IV. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 5 A. Compliance with Standards ......................................................................................... 5 References ........................................................................................................................... 6 EROSION CONTROL REPORT .................................................................................................. APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations APPENDIX B – Hydraulic Computations B.1 – Storm Sewers (reserved for future use) B.2 – Street Flow (reserved for future use) B.3 – Inlets (reserved for future use) B.4 – Detention Facilities APPENDIX C – Water Quality Design Computations APPENDIX D – StormWater Management Model (SWMM) APPENDIX E – Erosion Control Report MAP POCKET: DR1 – Overall Drainage Exhibit SECOND FILING Preliminary Drainage Report 1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1. Vicinity Map 2. Bucking Horse Second Filing primarily consists of Outlots A and B from Sidehill – Filing Two. Portions of other rights-of-way and residential lots will be replatted with this subdivision as well. In general, Bucking Horse Second Filing is bound to the northwest by Gooseberry Street, to the east/northeast by the Great Western Railroad, to the west by Cargill, and to the south by Drake Road and Environmental Drive. The large regional detention pond (Pond 215) serving most of Sidehill – Filing Two, ad both First and Second Filings of Bucking Horse, exists at the southeast corner of the property. This pond outfalls into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. While this southern “urban estate” portion of the master development was previously lacking any site-specific plans, developed runoff from this area has always been assumed to drain to the major drainage facilities already designed and constructed. SECOND FILING Preliminary Drainage Report 2 II. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept This report is intended to address the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed Bucking Horse Second Filing project. Bucking Horse Second Filing is a mixed-use development consisting of five distinct sub-areas: single-family (detached) residential homes on urban estate lots, a new Working Farm, the historic Johnson Farm to be repurposed as an office park, a future City of Fort Collins public park, and a tract reserved for future multi- family development. The “Final Drainage & Erosion Control Report, Sidehill – Filing Two” dated May 27, 2005 by JR Engineering documented the final design and analysis of the stormwater infrastructure at Sidehill – Filing Two (SF2). The drainage facilities included therein were sized to accommodate runoff from the build-out of the entire subdivision. Stormwater conveyance, peak flow attenuation, as well as water quality treatment have already been established for the subject property. The Phase 1 infrastructure, as outlined in the approved construction plans for SF2, has already been installed and certified by others. Bucking Horse First Filing will complete the Phase 2 stormwater improvements originally identified with SF2, as modified per the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Bucking Horse First Filing by Northern Engineering. The Bucking Horse First Filing drainage study updated the master SWMM and addressed any deviations from the initial Sidehill stormwater designs and improvements. However, proposed modifications to the Bucking Horse Second Filing area have yet to be addressed. Therefore, this Preliminary Drainage Report for Bucking Horse Second Filing will focus on documenting conformance with existing design assumptions and drainage improvements relative to the urban estate area only. B. Compliance with Drainage Master Plan All of Bucking Horse Second Filing drains to Detention Pond 215. This pond currently provides approximately 32.4 ac-ft of storage volume at an elevation of roughly 4885.3-feet. The pond is also designed as a 40-hour dry extended detention basin (EDB), providing approximately 3.3 ac-ft of water quality capture volume (WQCV) at an elevation of roughly 4882.4-feet. Both the detention storage volume, as well as the WQCV, have been reanalyzed using updated acreages and impervious values from the proposed Bucking Horse development. The composite runoff coefficient and percent impervious calculations included in Appendix A show that the proposed development has an imperviousness of approximately 28.9%. Therefore, the percent imperviousness for Basin 107 has been updated, along with the basin area increase previously conducted with Bucking Horse First Filing, and a new MODSWMM analysis was run. The resultant required detention storage volume increased from 28.0 ac-ft to 28.8 ac-ft with a new peak discharge from Pond 215 of 83.0 cfs. The SWMM basins were also utilized to update the overall water quality calculations for Pond 215. This pond was originally designed to treat nearly 216 acres with an assumed imperviousness of 31%. However, since that time, two major modifications have been made to the original SWM model. SECOND FILING Preliminary Drainage Report 3 The first change has to do with upstream Basins 108 and 109, which are off-site and west of Timberline Road. While runoff volumes from these basins are still routed through Pond 215 in the SWMM, upstream detention ponds now provide water quality treatment for these basins; therefore, their respective areas have been removed from the WQCV calculations. The second major revision to the SWM model comes with the Bucking Horse First and Second Filing developments. Basin areas and percent imperviousness have been updated to be consistent with the development plan(s) currently proposed. This includes the addition of Basin 100 and Pond 3 to correctly model the development now proposed on the Jessup Farm parcel. The required detention storage volume for Pond 3 can be found with the Bucking Horse First Filing documents. However, the water quality requirements for Basin 100 have now been shifted from Pond 3 to Pond 215. With all of the above changes taken into consideration, the new watershed area to be treated is roughly 178.1 acres with an approximate imperviousness of 46%. The resultant WQCV for a 40-hour dry extended detention basin is 3.48 ac-ft. Combined with the necessary detention storage volume of 28.8 ac-ft, the total new required volume in Pond 215 is roughly 32.3 ac-ft. With 32.4 ac-ft of volume currently provided at an elevation of 4885.25-ft, the existing pond is sufficient. This water surface level will be utilized as the new spillway crest elevation. The emergency overflow weir will be revised accordingly with a wider length and lower top of pond. One foot of freeboard will still be provided above the 4885.25 WSEL; however, lowering the top of pond offers substantial improvement to the site grading design and earthwork condition. C. Additional Considerations While the minimum water quality requirements for stormwater runoff from Bucking Horse Second Filing are technically met with the existing WQCV within Detention Pond 215, additional consideration has been given to the proposed agricultural uses. In particular, the working farm and horse areas, as well as the dog park, may warrant additional stormwater management measures. The primary objective is to prevent animal waste and similar pollutants from traveling across private residential property, and to minimize the potential for any such pollutants to enter the downstream receiving waters. Therefore, interceptor swales and bio-filter sand buffer strips are suggested to bolster the overall stormwater management and treatment strategies. Said measures are envisioned to consist of roughly a 2’ wide by 1’ deep sand section surrounded by “bio-swale” plantings. This filter mechanism would be installed in low-gradient interceptor swales downstream of the Working Farm and two horse areas. A similar buffer/filter strip could be installed in a flush, at-grade manner along the north edge of the dog park. These treatment measures are above and beyond the minimum requirements already satisfied with the EDB in Pond 215. These concepts are preliminary in nature at this time, and the Project Team remains open to further discussion and suggestions during Final Design. SECOND FILING Preliminary Drainage Report 4 D. Design Details Appendix A contains composite percent imperviousness computations reflective of the proposed Bucking Horse Second Filing development plan. These areas and impervious values were then input into MODSWMM, the results of which can be found in Appendix D. Additionally, WQCV computations were also updated in Appendix C utilizing Best Management Practices criteria outlined by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Detailed Rational Method calculations, Street capacity computations, inlet sizing, and storm sewer analyses will be performed during the Final Plan phase. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. III. FLOODPLAIN The portion of Bucking Horse Second Filing generally located south of Palomino Court and east of Miles House Avenue is located within a FEMA Moderate Risk Flood Hazard Area for the Cache la Poudre River. This area is designated as Zone X on FIRM Panel 0992G, Revised May 2, 2012. Therefore, it falls outside of the regulated 100-year floodway and floodplain fringe. Chapter 10 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code does regulate critical facilities within this Moderate Risk Flood Hazard Zone. However, no life-safety or emergency response critical facilities are proposed with Bucking Horse Second Filing. SECOND FILING Preliminary Drainage Report 5 While the area referenced above does fall outside of the 100-year floodplain, it should be noted that this particular area is protected from the 1% annual chance or greater flood hazard by a levee system. Overtopping or failure of any levee system is possible. Current and future land owners should check with the local Floodplain Administrator at the City of Fort Collins to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of protection provided (which may exceed the 1% annual chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the levee system(s) providing protection for this area. To mitigate flood risk in residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested parties should visit the FEMA Website at http:/www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm. IV. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards 1. The drainage design proposed with the Bucking Horse Second Filing development complies with the City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater Criteria Manual, as well as previous drainage studies from which downstream stormwater infrastructure was constructed. 2. The drainage design proposed with the Bucking Horse Second Filing development complies with the City of Fort Collins’ Master Drainage Plan for the Foothills Drainage Basin. 3. There are no life-safety or emergency response critical facilities proposed within the Moderate Risk Flood Hazard Area (Zone X); therefore, this development complies will all federal and local floodplain regulations. 4. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the Bucking Horse Second Filing development are compliant with all applicable state and federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. 5. Additional information and detail will be provided with future submittals, as is customary during the Final Plan review and approval process. SECOND FILING Preliminary Drainage Report 6 References 1. City of Fort Collins Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities, November 5, 2009, BHA Design, Inc. with City of Fort Collins Utility Services. 2. Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Bucking Horse First Filing, July 5, 2012, Northern Engineering. (NE Proj. No. 687-002) 3. Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Spring Creek Farms, September 28, 2005, Stantec Consulting Inc. 4. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 5. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report, Sidehill – Filing Two, May 27, 2005, JR Engineering LLC. (JR Job No. 39350.06). 6. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Timberline Center Subdivision, Revised April 12, 2006, North Star Design (NSD Job No. 114-37 & 114-38) 7. Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Sidehill Subdivision, Filing 2, Fort Collins, Colorado, April 25, 2006, CTL | Thompson, Inc. (CTL Project No. FC03741-115) 8. Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Townhomes at Bucking Horse, Fort Collins, Colorado, April 19, 2012, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC Project No. 1122025A) 9. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007. 10. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report, Bucking Horse Development, Fort Collins, Colorado, April 23, 2012, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC Project No. 1122025B) 11. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 12. Stormwater Pipe Reduction Due to Decrease in Offsite Flow Release Rate, March 30, 2007, JR Engineering LLC. 13. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS SECOND FILING Preliminary Drainage Report CHARACTER OF SURFACE: Runoff Coefficient Percentage Impervious Project: Bucking Horse - Second Filing Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Calculations By: A. Reese Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….………………………… 0.95 100 Date: Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………… 0.95 90 Gravel ……….…………………….….…………………………..……………………… 0.50 40 Roofs …….…….………………..……………….……………………………………… 0.95 90 General Single Family…………………………...………………..……………………… 0.60 50 Lawns and Landscaping Sandy Soil ……..……………..……………….………………………………………… 0.15 0 Clayey Soil ….….………….…….…………..…………………………………………… 0.25 0 2-year Cf = 1.00 100-year Cf = 1.25 Basin ID Basin Area (s.f.) Basin Area (ac) Area of Asphalt (ac) Area of Concrete (ac) Area of Roofs (ac) Area of Gravel (ac) Area of Single Family (ac) Area of Lawns and Landscaping (ac) 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient Composite % Imperv. A1 127,032 2.92 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 1.21 1.29 0.50 0.50 0.62 33.6 A2 79,296 1.82 0.79 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.33 0.74 0.74 0.92 68.2 A3 324,984 7.46 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.77 5.60 0.38 0.38 0.48 18.7 A4 12,137 0.28 0.17 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.82 0.82 1.00 79.5 A5 16,066 0.37 0.17 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.77 0.77 0.96 72.3 APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 – Storm Sewers B.2 – Street Flow B.3 – Inlets B.4 – Detention Facilities APPENDIX B.4 DETENTION FACILITIES SECOND FILING Preliminary Drainage Report POND RATING CURVE PROJECT: Bucking Horse Second Filing POND: 215 DATE: 07/25/12 BY: N. Haws STAGE DEPTH INCREMENTAL CUMULATIVE STORAGE STORAGE (FT) (FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) 4878.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 4879.3 1.0 0.02 0.02 4880.3 2.0 0.14 0.16 4881.3 3.0 0.70 0.86 4882.3 4.0 3.19 4.05 WQCV = 3.5 ac-ft 4883.3 5.0 6.92 10.97 @ 4882.4 ft 4884.3 6.0 10.17 21.14 4885.3 7.0 11.28 32.42 100-yr WSEL* = 32.3 ac-ft @ 4885.25 ft * = 3.5 ac-ft WQCV plus 28.8 ac-ft req'd detention storage volume per SWMM APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY DESIGN COMPUTATIONS SWMM Area Imperv. Basin (ac) p % 100 12.0 70.0 101 15.6 49.8 102 32.4 53.9 103 9.3 50.9 104 9.6 55.4 105 21.0 75.0 106 01 0.1 10 1.0 107 78.1 28.9 TOTAL 178.1 46.0 * weighted average * Project Tittle Date: Project Number Calcs By: Client Pond Designation 1 WQCV = Watershed inches of Runoff (inches) 46.00% a = Runoff Volume Reduction (constant) i = Total imperviouness Ratio (i = Iwq/100) 0.196 in Pond 215 Drain Time a = i = WQCV = Bucking Horse ‐ Second Filing July 25, 2012 687‐002 N. Haws Bellisimo 0.196 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 WQCV (watershed inches) Water Quality Capture Volume 6 hr 12 hr 24 hr 40 hr WQCV  a  0.91 i 3  1 . 19 i 2  0 . 78 i  WQCV  a  0.91 i 3  1 . 19 i 2  0 . 78 i  40 hr A = 178.10 ac V = 3.48 ac‐ft V = Water Quality Design Volume (ac‐ft) WQCV = Water Quality Capture Volume (inches) A = Watershed Area (acres) 1.2 = 20% Additional Volume (Sediment Accumulation) Figure EDB‐2 ‐ Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV), 80th Percentile Runoff Event 0 0.05 0.00 APPENDIX D STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM) PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE 4&$0/%'*-*/( NORTHERN ENGINEERING, JU-: 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 1 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION PC.1 DEVELOPED BY METCALF + EDDY, INC. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970) UPDATED BY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (JUNE 1973) HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 1974) BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1985, JULY 1985) TAPE OR DISK ASSIGNMENTS JIN(1) JIN(2) JIN(3) JIN(4) JIN(5) JIN(6) JIN(7) JIN(8) JIN(9) JIN(10) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JOUT(1) JOUT(2) JOUT(3) JOUT(4) JOUT(5) JOUT(6) JOUT(7) JOUT(8) JOUT(9) JOUT(10) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NSCRAT(1) NSCRAT(2) NSCRAT(3) NSCRAT(4) NSCRAT(5) 3 4 0 0 0 WATERSHED 1/PROGRAM CALLED *** ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL *** SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT NUMBER OF TIME STEPS 480 INTEGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) 1.00 1.0 PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH FOR 24 RAINFALL STEPS, THE TIME INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTES FOR RAINGAGE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL HISTORY IN INCHES PER HOUR 1.00 1.14 1.33 2.23 2.84 5.49 9.95 4.12 2.48 1.46 1.22 1.06 1.00 .95 .91 .87 .84 .81 .78 .75 .73 .71 .69 .67 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT SUBAREA GUTTER WIDTH AREA PERCENT SLOPE RESISTANCE FACTOR SURFACE STORAGE(IN) INFILTRATION RATE(IN/HR) GAGE NUMBER OR MANHOLE (FT) (AC) IMPERV. (FT/FT) IMPERV. PERV. IMPERV. PERV. MAXIMUM MINIMUM DECAY RATE NO 100 3 1742.0 12.0 70.0 .0260 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 101 1 2265.0 15.6 49.8 .0040 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 102 2 4705.0 32.4 53.9 .0220 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 103 302 1350.0 9.3 50.9 .0220 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 104 303 1343.0 9.6 55.4 .0300 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 105 304 3049.0 21.0 75.0 .0210 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 106 0 1.0 .1 1.0 .0260 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 107 306 11340.0 78.1 28.9 .0150 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 108 4 3150.0 21.7 55.0 .0010 .035 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 109 4 2076.0 14.3 55.0 .0010 .035 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBCATCHMENTS, 10 TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA (ACRES), 214.10 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE 4&$0/%'*-*/( NORTHERN ENGINEERING, JU-: 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 2 of 7 HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 9 SUBCATCHMENTS - AVERAGE VALUES WITHIN TIME INTERVALS TIME(HR/MIN) 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 0 1. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 6. .0 .1 .0 .0 .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 0 11. 3.0 11.6 3.2 3.7 8.3 .0 18.8 1.2 .8 0 16. 7.9 23.4 6.4 7.3 19.0 .0 32.9 4.2 2.7 0 21. 15.1 39.3 10.7 12.1 33.6 .0 53.0 10.6 7.0 0 26. 24.5 64.0 17.6 19.8 53.7 .0 90.9 21.0 13.8 0 31. 52.2 142.2 39.3 44.1 113.4 .0 216.9 48.0 31.6 0 36. 85.7 216.9 60.3 66.2 166.5 .0 358.9 93.7 61.8 0 41. 56.1 131.4 37.3 39.3 89.4 .0 266.8 79.4 52.3 0 46. 41.1 89.8 25.9 26.4 56.2 .0 210.4 62.7 41.4 0 51. 30.6 61.5 17.9 17.8 36.3 .0 161.4 48.7 32.1 0 56. 25.1 47.8 14.0 13.8 28.0 .0 132.0 39.8 26.3 1 1. 21.3 39.2 11.4 11.3 23.3 .0 110.4 33.7 22.2 1 6. 18.8 34.0 9.9 9.8 20.8 .0 95.2 29.5 19.4 1 11. 17.0 30.4 8.8 8.8 19.1 .0 83.6 26.4 17.4 1 16. 15.5 27.6 8.0 8.0 17.8 .0 74.5 24.0 15.8 1 21. 14.2 25.4 7.3 7.4 16.8 .0 67.0 22.1 14.6 1 26. 13.2 23.7 6.8 6.9 16.0 .0 60.9 20.5 13.5 1 31. 12.3 22.2 6.3 6.5 15.2 .0 55.7 19.2 12.7 1 36. 11.5 20.8 5.9 6.1 14.5 .0 51.2 18.0 11.9 1 41. 10.8 19.6 5.6 5.8 13.9 .0 47.3 17.0 11.2 1 46. 10.2 18.6 5.3 5.5 13.4 .0 44.0 16.1 10.6 1 51. 9.6 17.8 5.0 5.2 12.9 .0 41.0 15.3 10.1 1 56. 9.1 16.9 4.8 5.0 12.5 .0 38.4 14.5 9.6 2 1. 8.3 14.8 4.2 4.3 11.0 .0 33.7 13.6 9.0 2 6. 5.3 7.1 2.0 2.0 4.9 .0 21.2 10.8 7.1 2 11. 3.9 4.6 1.3 1.2 2.8 .0 16.6 8.8 5.8 2 16. 3.1 3.3 1.0 .9 1.8 .0 13.8 7.4 4.9 2 21. 2.6 2.6 .8 .7 1.3 .0 11.8 6.3 4.1 2 26. 2.2 2.1 .6 .5 .9 .0 10.2 5.4 3.6 2 31. 1.9 1.7 .5 .4 .7 .0 8.9 4.7 3.1 2 36. 1.6 1.4 .4 .4 .5 .0 7.8 4.2 2.8 2 41. 1.4 1.2 .4 .3 .4 .0 6.9 3.7 2.5 2 46. 1.3 1.0 .3 .2 .3 .0 6.1 3.3 2.2 2 51. 1.1 .8 .3 .2 .3 .0 5.4 3.0 2.0 2 56. 1.0 .7 .2 .2 .2 .0 4.9 2.7 1.8 3 1. .9 .6 .2 .1 .2 .0 4.3 2.5 1.6 3 6. .8 .5 .2 .1 .1 .0 3.9 2.3 1.5 3 11. .8 .5 .1 .1 .1 .0 3.5 2.1 1.4 3 16. .7 .4 .1 .1 .1 .0 3.1 1.9 1.3 3 21. .6 .3 .1 .1 .1 .0 2.8 1.8 1.2 3 26. .6 .3 .1 .1 .1 .0 2.5 1.6 1.1 3 31. .5 .2 .1 .1 .1 .0 2.3 1.5 1.0 3 36. .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 2.1 1.4 .9 3 41. .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 1.9 1.3 .9 3 46. .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 1.2 .8 3 51. .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 1.1 .7 3 56. .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 1.0 .7 4 1. .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 1.0 .6 4 6. .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 .9 .6 4 11. .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .9 .6 4 16. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 .8 .5 4 21. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 .8 .5 4 26. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 .7 .5 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE 4&$0/%'*-*/( NORTHERN ENGINEERING, JU-: 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 3 of 7 7 11. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 16. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 21. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 26. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 31. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 36. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 41. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 46. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 51. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 56. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT *** CONTINUITY CHECK FOR SUBCATCHMEMT ROUTING IN UDSWM2-PC MODEL *** WATERSHED AREA (ACRES) 214.100 TOTAL RAINFALL (INCHES) 3.669 TOTAL INFILTRATION (INCHES) .604 TOTAL WATERSHED OUTFLOW (INCHES) 2.886 TOTAL SURFACE STORAGE AT END OF STROM (INCHES) .179 ERROR IN CONTINUITY, PERCENTAGE OF RAINFALL .000 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT WIDTH INVERT SIDE SLOPES OVERBANK/SURCHARGE GUTTER GUTTER NDP NP OR DIAM LENGTH SLOPE HORIZ TO VERT MANNING DEPTH JK NUMBER CONNECTION (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) L R N (FT) 201 302 0 2 PIPE 4.0 266. .0040 .0 .0 .013 4.00 0 202 1 0 1 CHANNEL 7.0 55. .0050 .0 .0 .013 7.00 0 203 303 0 1 CHANNEL 20.0 505. .0040 3.0 3.0 .030 6.00 0 204 304 0 1 CHANNEL 20.0 482. .0040 3.0 3.0 .030 6.00 0 205 305 0 1 CHANNEL 20.0 260. .0040 3.0 3.0 .030 6.00 0 206 306 0 1 CHANNEL 14.0 95. .0040 1.0 1.0 .013 4.00 0 301 3 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 302 203 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 303 204 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 304 205 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 305 206 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 306 215 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 1 201 4 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .4 30.0 1.9 60.0 4.9 140.0 2 202 7 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE 4&$0/%'*-*/( NORTHERN ENGINEERING, JU-: 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 4 of 7 41.5 92.1 52.7 102.0 64.3 111.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF GUTTERS/PIPES, 17 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT ARRANGEMENT OF SUBCATCHMENTS AND GUTTERS/PIPES GUTTER TRIBUTARY GUTTER/PIPE TRIBUTARY SUBAREA D.A.(AC) 1 202 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32.4 3 301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36.0 201 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.0 202 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32.4 203 302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105.3 204 303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114.9 205 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135.9 206 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135.9 215 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 214.0 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 6 CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS THE UPPER NUMBER IS DISCHARGE IN CFS THE LOWER NUMBER IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASES: ( ) DENOTES DEPTH ABOVE INVERT IN FEET (S) DENOTES STORAGE IN AC-FT FOR DETENTION DAM. DISCHARGE INCLUDES SPILLWAY OUTFLOW. (I) DENOTES GUTTER INFLOW IN CFS FROM SPECIFIED INFLOW HYDROGRAPH (D) DENOTES DISCHARGE IN CFS DIVERTED FROM THIS GUTTER (O) DENOTES STORAGE IN AC-FT FOR SURCHARGED GUTTER TIME(HR/MIN) 201 202 203 204 205 206 0 1. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) 0 6. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .01( ) .01( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) 0 11. .8 5.6 .4 .6 3.9 2.6 .26( ) .26( ) .05( ) .06( ) .19( ) .11( ) 0 16. 7.7 16.8 5.7 5.5 19.7 18.6 .79( ) .51( ) .24( ) .23( ) .49( ) .36( ) 0 21. 20.8 31.3 21.1 21.9 49.3 45.9 1.30( ) .76( ) .51( ) .52( ) .85( ) .62( ) 0 26. 32.3 49.4 42.0 49.5 94.5 87.5 1.65( ) 1.02( ) .77( ) .85( ) 1.23( ) .92( ) 0 31. 41.1 68.6 69.4 96.6 197.7 181.2 1.89( ) 1.27( ) 1.03( ) 1.25( ) 1.87( ) 1.42( ) 0 36. 58.5 99.3 112.5 170.8 334.5 347.5 2.34( ) 1.63( ) 1.36( ) 1.73( ) 2.51( ) 2.10( ) PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE 4&$0/%'*-*/( NORTHERN ENGINEERING, JU-: 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 5 of 7 1.09(O) .76( ) 1.31( ) 1.36( ) 1.48( ) 1.17( ) 1 26. 97.7 25.2 104.6 111.7 127.9 128.0 1.19(O) .66( ) 1.31( ) 1.36( ) 1.47( ) 1.16( ) 1 31. 97.7 22.9 104.1 110.8 126.2 126.3 1.24(O) .62( ) 1.30( ) 1.35( ) 1.45( ) 1.15( ) 1 36. 97.7 21.4 103.7 110.0 124.7 124.8 1.25(O) .59( ) 1.30( ) 1.34( ) 1.44( ) 1.14( ) 1 41. 97.7 20.1 103.3 109.3 123.3 123.4 1.21(O) .57( ) 1.30( ) 1.34( ) 1.43( ) 1.13( ) 1 46. 97.7 19.1 103.0 108.7 122.2 122.2 1.14(O) .55( ) 1.29( ) 1.33( ) 1.43( ) 1.12( ) 1 51. 97.7 18.1 102.8 108.1 121.1 121.2 1.03(O) .53( ) 1.29( ) 1.33( ) 1.42( ) 1.12( ) 1 56. 97.7 17.3 102.5 107.6 120.2 120.2 .89(O) .52( ) 1.29( ) 1.33( ) 1.41( ) 1.11( ) 2 1. 97.7 16.2 102.1 106.9 118.4 118.7 .73(O) .50( ) 1.29( ) 1.32( ) 1.40( ) 1.11( ) 2 6. 97.7 9.8 100.1 103.0 108.8 109.1 .54(O) .36( ) 1.27( ) 1.29( ) 1.34( ) 1.05( ) 2 11. 97.7 5.8 99.2 100.8 104.0 104.1 .32(O) .26( ) 1.27( ) 1.28( ) 1.30( ) 1.02( ) 2 16. 97.7 4.0 98.8 99.8 101.8 101.9 .06(O) .21( ) 1.26( ) 1.27( ) 1.29( ) 1.01( ) 2 21. 55.3 3.0 65.5 79.1 87.1 88.3 2.25( ) .17( ) 1.00( ) 1.11( ) 1.18( ) .93( ) 2 26. 51.9 2.3 54.6 58.6 62.1 62.6 2.17( ) .15( ) .90( ) .93( ) .97( ) .75( ) 2 31. 48.8 1.9 50.7 52.7 54.4 54.6 2.09( ) .13( ) .86( ) .88( ) .89( ) .69( ) 2 36. 45.8 1.5 47.5 49.2 50.4 50.6 2.01( ) .12( ) .83( ) .84( ) .86( ) .66( ) 2 41. 43.1 1.3 44.7 46.1 47.2 47.3 1.94( ) .10( ) .80( ) .81( ) .82( ) .64( ) 2 46. 40.6 1.1 42.0 43.4 44.3 44.5 1.87( ) .09( ) .77( ) .78( ) .79( ) .61( ) 2 51. 38.3 .9 39.6 40.9 41.7 41.8 1.81( ) .09( ) .74( ) .76( ) .77( ) .59( ) 2 56. 36.2 .8 37.4 38.5 39.3 39.4 1.75( ) .08( ) .72( ) .73( ) .74( ) .57( ) 3 1. 34.2 .7 35.3 36.4 37.1 37.2 1.70( ) .07( ) .70( ) .71( ) .72( ) .55( ) 3 6. 32.4 .6 33.5 34.4 35.1 35.1 1.65( ) .06( ) .67( ) .68( ) .69( ) .53( ) 3 11. 30.8 .5 31.7 32.6 33.2 33.3 1.60( ) .06( ) .65( ) .66( ) .67( ) .51( ) 3 16. 27.2 .4 29.4 30.7 31.4 31.5 1.50( ) .05( ) .62( ) .64( ) .65( ) .50( ) 3 21. 23.3 .4 25.3 27.2 28.3 28.4 1.38( ) .05( ) .57( ) .60( ) .61( ) .47( ) 3 26. 20.9 .3 22.3 23.9 24.8 24.9 1.30( ) .04( ) .53( ) .55( ) .56( ) .43( ) 3 31. 19.3 .3 20.3 21.4 22.1 22.2 1.25( ) .04( ) .50( ) .52( ) .53( ) .40( ) 3 36. 18.2 .2 19.0 19.8 20.3 20.3 1.22( ) .04( ) .48( ) .49( ) .50( ) .38( ) 3 41. 17.4 .2 18.0 18.6 18.9 19.0 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE 4&$0/%'*-*/( NORTHERN ENGINEERING, JU-: 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 6 of 7 .98( ) .00( ) .37( ) .37( ) .37( ) .28( ) 5 11. 11.8 .0 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.1 .97( ) .00( ) .37( ) .37( ) .37( ) .28( ) 5 16. 11.6 .0 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.9 .96( ) .00( ) .36( ) .36( ) .37( ) .28( ) 5 21. 11.4 .0 11.5 11.7 11.7 11.7 .96( ) .00( ) .36( ) .36( ) .36( ) .28( ) 5 26. 11.2 .0 11.3 11.5 11.5 11.6 .95( ) .00( ) .36( ) .36( ) .36( ) .27( ) 5 31. 11.0 .0 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.4 .94( ) .00( ) .35( ) .35( ) .36( ) .27( ) 5 36. 10.9 .0 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.2 .93( ) .00( ) .35( ) .35( ) .35( ) .27( ) 5 41. 10.7 .0 10.8 10.9 11.0 11.0 .93( ) .00( ) .35( ) .35( ) .35( ) .26( ) 5 46. 10.5 .0 10.7 10.8 10.8 10.9 .92( ) .00( ) .34( ) .34( ) .35( ) .26( ) 5 51. 10.4 .0 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.7 .91( ) .00( ) .34( ) .34( ) .34( ) .26( ) 5 56. 10.2 .0 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.5 .91( ) .00( ) .34( ) .34( ) .34( ) .26( ) 6 1. 10.0 .0 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.4 .90( ) .00( ) .33( ) .33( ) .34( ) .26( ) 6 6. 9.8 .0 9.9 10.1 10.2 10.2 .89( ) .00( ) .33( ) .33( ) .33( ) .25( ) 6 11. 9.6 .0 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.0 .88( ) .00( ) .32( ) .33( ) .33( ) .25( ) 6 16. 9.4 .0 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.8 .87( ) .00( ) .32( ) .32( ) .33( ) .25( ) 6 21. 9.2 .0 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.6 .86( ) .00( ) .32( ) .32( ) .32( ) .24( ) 6 26. 9.0 .0 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4 .85( ) .00( ) .31( ) .32( ) .32( ) .24( ) 6 31. 8.8 .0 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.2 .84( ) .00( ) .31( ) .31( ) .31( ) .24( ) 6 36. 8.7 .0 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.0 .83( ) .00( ) .31( ) .31( ) .31( ) .23( ) 6 41. 8.5 .0 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 .83( ) .00( ) .30( ) .30( ) .31( ) .23( ) 6 46. 8.3 .0 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.7 .82( ) .00( ) .30( ) .30( ) .30( ) .23( ) 6 51. 8.1 .0 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.5 .81( ) .00( ) .29( ) .30( ) .30( ) .23( ) 6 56. 8.0 .0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 .80( ) .00( ) .29( ) .29( ) .29( ) .22( ) 7 1. 7.8 .0 7.9 8.1 8.1 8.1 .79( ) .00( ) .29( ) .29( ) .29( ) .22( ) 7 6. 7.6 .0 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.0 .78( ) .00( ) .28( ) .29( ) .29( ) .22( ) 7 11. 7.5 .0 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8 .78( ) .00( ) .28( ) .28( ) .28( ) .22( ) 7 16. 7.3 .0 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.7 .77( ) .00( ) .28( ) .28( ) .28( ) .21( ) 7 21. 7.2 .0 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 .76( ) .00( ) .27( ) .28( ) .28( ) .21( ) 7 26. 7.0 .0 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.4 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE4&$0/%'*-*/( NORTHERN ENGINEERING, JU-: 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 7 of 7 ELEMENT:TYPE (CFS) (FT) (AC-FT) (HR/MIN) 1:2 126.7 .1 4.4:D 1 6. 2:2 108.0 .1 1.8:D 0 42. 3:2 26.8 .1 1.5:D 0 47. 4:2 16.1 .1 6.1:D 2 8. 201:2 97.7 4.0 1.3:S 1 34. 202:1 108.0 1.7 0 42. 203:1 121.0 1.4 0 46. 204:1 170.8 1.7 0 36. 205:1 338.9 2.5 0 35. 206:1 347.5 2.1 0 36. 215:2 83.0 .1 28.8:D 2 23. 301:3 .0 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 0. 302:3 123.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 46. 303:3 182.8 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 304:3 349.9 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 305:3 338.9 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 306:3 708.4 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. ENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL REPORT SECOND FILING Preliminary Erosion Control Report EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) will be included with the final construction drawings. It should be noted, however, that any such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction, or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed, removed or modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 – Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways and inlet protection at existing and proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor. Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on Sheet CS2 of the Utility Plans. The Utility Plans also contain a full-size preliminary Erosion Control Plan as well as separate sheets dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere to, the applicable requirements outlined in any existing Development Agreement(s) of record, as well as the Development Agreement for Bucking Horse Second Filing, to be recorded prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit. Also, the Site Contractor for this project will be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division – Stormwater Program, before commencing any earth disturbing activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive StormWater Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs. MAP POCKET DR1 – OVERALL DRAINAGE EXHIBIT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X D X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD DRAKE ROAD NANCY GRAY AVENUE MILES HOUSE AVENUE PALOMINO DRIVE PALOMINO COURT PALOMINO DRIVE APPALOOSA WAY A4 A5 A2 A3 B C5 D5 F3 F1 F2 D3 D4 C1 C2 A1 C3 C4 A4 0.28 ac. B 1.16 ac. C5 4.54 ac. A5 0.37 ac. C4 1.70 ac. C3 2.05 ac. C2 C1 1.16 ac 6.94 ac. A3 7.46 ac. F1 4.36 ac. D3 2.20 ac. D4 0.52 ac. A2 1.82 ac. D5 4.36 ac. F3 1.15 ac. F2 0.50 ac. OS1 0.84 ac. OS2 1.46 ac. E 5.42 ac. OS3 1.13 ac. D2 D1 5.34 ac. D2 1.46 ac. D1 E OS4 0.05 ac. OS3 OS4 OS2 OS1 G 20.55 ac. G A A ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVE FUTURE CITY PARK HORSE AREA OFFICE COMPLEX WORKING FARM DOG PARK EXISTING DETENTION POND 215 BUCKING HORSE FIRST FILING PROSPECT INDUSTRIAL PARK WATER / WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES HORSE STABLES & RIDING AREA CARGILL, INC. SIDEHILL - FILING ONE A1 2.92 ac. DR1 DRAINAGE EXHIBIT OVERALL A. Reese A. Reese 1"=150' NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 150 0 150 Feet 150 300 450 Date Date Date Date Date Date APPROVED: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: City Engineer Water & Wastewater Utility Stormwater Utility Parks & Recreation Traffic Engineer Environmental Planner City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: 4953 PROPOSED CONTOUR 93 PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED INLET A DESIGN POINT FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (AC) DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED SWALE SECTION 1 1 B2 1.45 ac No. Revisions: By: Date: REVIEWED BY: N. Haws DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: JULY 25, 2012 PROJECT: 687-002 Sheet Of 42 Sheets - ������ F����� T���� �������� ��� ����������� �� ������� �������� �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ��� ��� ���� �� ������������ ������ ������ ��� ������ �� � P����������� E������� �� ��� ������ �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CHECK-SET 07/25/12 200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 010 F��� C������, C������� 80524 E N G I N E E R I N G � � � � � � �� PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 ���.�������������������.��� DETENTION POND SUMMARY VOLUME REQ'D (ac-ft) WQ VOLUME REQ'D VOLUME PROVIDED (ac-ft) POND INVERT WSEL POND 215 28.80 3.48 32.42 4878.54 4885.25 SWALE SECTIONS MIN. D (FT) S2:1 S1:1 MIN. TW (FT) SWALE SUMMARY TABLE SWALE ID MIN D MIN TW MIN BW S1 S2 A 3.00 34.00 20 4 4 MIN. BW (FT) EMERGENCY OVERFLOW WEIR SUMMARY TABLE POND NO. 215 4886.25 4886.25 TOP OF WEIR 4885.25 4883.25 300 ELEVATION (FT) TOP OF BANK ELEVATION (FT) NOTCH ELEVATION (FT) BOTTOM ELEVATION (FT) NOTCH WIDTH, W (FT) TOP OF WEIR 3' BOTTOM ELEV. NOTCH ELEV. 2-2' #5 BARS W 2' 3' 4 1 (SEE NOTE) 8" MINIMUM THICKNESS 2-#5 BARS 4 1 3" CLR 3" CLR TOP OF EMBANKMENT NOTE: TRENCH FOR WEIR OUTLET STRUCTURE USING NATIVE GROUND AS FORM WORK. CONSTRUCT WEIR 8" MINIMUM THICKNESS. UPON COMPLETION OF TRENCHING, PLACE TEMPERATURE STEEL AND CONCRETE IMMEDIATELY. FORM TOP 4". POND EMERGENCY OVERFLOW WEIR .75( ) .00( ) .27( ) .27( ) .27( ) .21( ) 7 31. 6.9 .0 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.2 .75( ) .00( ) .27( ) .27( ) .27( ) .21( ) 7 36. 6.8 .0 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.1 .74( ) .00( ) .26( ) .27( ) .27( ) .20( ) 7 41. 6.6 .0 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.9 .73( ) .00( ) .26( ) .26( ) .26( ) .20( ) 7 46. 6.5 .0 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.8 .72( ) .00( ) .26( ) .26( ) .26( ) .20( ) 7 51. 6.4 .0 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.6 .72( ) .00( ) .25( ) .26( ) .26( ) .20( ) 7 56. 6.2 .0 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.5 .71( ) .00( ) .25( ) .25( ) .26( ) .19( ) THE FOLLOWING CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS WERE SURCHARGED DURING THE SIMULATION. THIS COULD LEAD TO ERRORS IN THE SIMULATION RESULTS!! 201 THE FOLLOWING CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS HAVE NUMERICAL STABILITY PROBLEMS THAT LEAD TO HYDRAULIC OSCILLLATIONS DURING THE SIMULATION. 206 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT *** PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENTION DAMS *** *** NOTE :S IMPLIES A SURCHARGED ELEMENT AND :D IMPLIES A SURCHARGED DETENTION FACILITY CONVEYANCE PEAK STAGE STORAGE TIME 1.19( ) .03( ) .47( ) .48( ) .48( ) .37( ) 3 46. 16.8 .2 17.2 17.7 18.0 18.0 1.16( ) .03( ) .46( ) .46( ) .47( ) .36( ) 3 51. 16.3 .1 16.6 17.0 17.2 17.3 1.15( ) .03( ) .45( ) .45( ) .46( ) .35( ) 3 56. 15.8 .1 16.1 16.5 16.7 16.7 1.13( ) .02( ) .44( ) .44( ) .45( ) .34( ) 4 1. 15.4 .1 15.7 16.0 16.2 16.2 1.12( ) .02( ) .43( ) .44( ) .44( ) .33( ) 4 6. 15.1 .1 15.3 15.6 15.7 15.7 1.10( ) .02( ) .42( ) .43( ) .43( ) .33( ) 4 11. 14.7 .1 15.0 15.2 15.3 15.3 1.09( ) .02( ) .42( ) .42( ) .42( ) .32( ) 4 16. 14.4 .0 14.6 14.8 15.0 15.0 1.08( ) .01( ) .41( ) .42( ) .42( ) .32( ) 4 21. 14.1 .0 14.3 14.5 14.6 14.6 1.07( ) .01( ) .41( ) .41( ) .41( ) .31( ) 4 26. 13.8 .0 14.0 14.2 14.3 14.3 1.05( ) .01( ) .40( ) .41( ) .41( ) .31( ) 4 31. 13.6 .0 13.7 13.9 14.0 14.0 1.04( ) .01( ) .40( ) .40( ) .40( ) .31( ) 4 36. 13.3 .0 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 1.03( ) .01( ) .39( ) .40( ) .40( ) .30( ) 4 41. 13.1 .0 13.2 13.4 13.5 13.5 1.02( ) .01( ) .39( ) .39( ) .39( ) .30( ) 4 46. 12.8 .0 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.2 1.02( ) .01( ) .38( ) .39( ) .39( ) .30( ) 4 51. 12.6 .0 12.7 12.9 13.0 13.0 1.01( ) .01( ) .38( ) .38( ) .39( ) .29( ) 4 56. 12.4 .0 12.5 12.7 12.8 12.8 1.00( ) .00( ) .38( ) .38( ) .38( ) .29( ) 5 1. 12.2 .0 12.3 12.5 12.5 12.5 .99( ) .00( ) .37( ) .38( ) .38( ) .29( ) 5 6. 12.0 .0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.3 0 41. 81.1 107.6 114.6 155.0 247.4 252.9 2.95( ) 1.73( ) 1.38( ) 1.63( ) 2.12( ) 1.74( ) 0 46. 97.7 106.9 121.0 147.5 205.2 205.7 3.74( ) 1.72( ) 1.42( ) 1.59( ) 1.91( ) 1.54( ) 0 51. 97.7 101.0 116.8 137.3 175.8 176.5 .07(O) 1.65( ) 1.39( ) 1.53( ) 1.75( ) 1.40( ) 0 56. 97.7 93.2 112.4 128.0 157.5 157.9 .20(O) 1.56( ) 1.36( ) 1.47( ) 1.65( ) 1.31( ) 1 1. 97.7 83.5 109.6 122.1 146.3 146.5 .38(O) 1.45( ) 1.34( ) 1.43( ) 1.58( ) 1.25( ) 1 6. 97.7 72.1 107.9 118.5 139.8 140.0 .58(O) 1.31( ) 1.33( ) 1.40( ) 1.54( ) 1.22( ) 1 11. 97.7 58.5 106.7 116.0 135.5 135.6 .77(O) 1.14( ) 1.32( ) 1.39( ) 1.51( ) 1.20( ) 1 16. 97.7 48.3 105.8 114.3 132.4 132.5 .95(O) 1.01( ) 1.31( ) 1.37( ) 1.49( ) 1.18( ) 1 21. 97.7 31.7 105.1 112.9 129.9 130.0 .0 .0 .2 46.9 .6 72.1 .9 82.9 1.2 92.3 1.5 101.2 1.9 111.0 3 1 4 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .4 5.0 1.0 15.0 1.4 25.0 4 1 4 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 1.0 4.0 3.0 10.0 6.0 16.0 215 0 9 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .1 .0 2.3 37.0 6.2 54.4 15.6 68.7 26.3 81.2 4 31. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .7 .4 4 36. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .6 .4 4 41. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .6 .4 4 46. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .5 .4 4 51. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .5 .3 4 56. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .5 .3 5 1. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .5 .3 5 6. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 .3 5 11. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 .3 5 16. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .3 5 21. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .2 5 26. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .3 .2 5 31. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .3 .2 5 36. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 5 41. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 5 46. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 5 51. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 5 56. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .2 6 1. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 6. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 11. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 16. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 21. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 26. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 31. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 36. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 6 41. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 6 46. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 6 51. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 6 56. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 1. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 6. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Total Imperviousness Ratio (i = Iwq /100) * * 1 . 2 12 V WQCV A        B 50,740 1.16 0.21 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.83 0.04 0.67 0.67 0.84 59.5 C1 302,281 6.94 0.47 0.24 0.00 0.06 4.70 1.46 0.56 0.56 0.70 44.1 C2 50,496 1.16 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.81 0.06 0.67 0.67 0.83 58.6 C3 89,469 2.05 0.47 0.14 0.00 0.01 1.27 0.16 0.68 0.68 0.85 60.2 C4 73,941 1.70 0.51 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.18 0.70 0.70 0.87 63.2 C5 197,745 4.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.40 3.04 0.36 0.36 0.45 16.2 D1 232,400 5.34 0.51 0.26 0.00 0.02 3.91 0.63 0.61 0.61 0.76 50.8 D2 63,680 1.46 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.01 1.14 0.06 0.65 0.65 0.81 56.0 D3 95,793 2.20 0.32 0.10 0.00 0.01 1.67 0.10 0.65 0.65 0.81 56.6 D4 22,526 0.52 0.33 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.82 0.82 1.00 79.4 D5 189,797 4.36 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.53 0.38 0.38 0.48 19.0 E 236,071 5.42 0.49 0.14 0.15 0.22 0.59 3.84 0.40 0.40 0.50 20.8 F1 189,997 4.36 0.53 0.20 0.00 0.11 2.70 0.82 0.59 0.59 0.74 48.3 F2 21,867 0.50 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.80 0.80 1.00 76.8 F3 50,142 1.15 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.42 0.42 0.53 24.7 G 895,351 20.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.55 0.25 0.25 0.31 0.0 TOTAL ONSITE 3,321,811 76.26 7.49 2.69 0.15 0.66 22.40 42.88 0.45 0.45 0.56 28.2 OS1 36,563 0.84 0.19 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.47 0.47 0.59 31.0 DEVELOPED COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS Runoff Coefficients are taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, Table 3-3. % Impervious taken from UDFCD USDCM, Volume I. 10-year Cf = 1.00 July 25, 2012 D:\Projects\687-002\Drainage\Second Filing\Hydrology\687-002_SF_Rational-Calcs\C-Values