HomeMy WebLinkAboutTERRA VIDA II APARTMENTS - FDP - FDP130046 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORTNovember 27, 2013
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR
TERRA VIDA 2 APARTMENTS
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
Milestone, Terra Vida II LLP
1400 16th Street, 6th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80202
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: 514-002
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.
November 27, 2013
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
TERRA VIDA 2 APARTMENTS
Dear Staff:
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Report for your review. This
report accompanies the Project Development Plan submittal for the proposed Terra Vida 2
Apartments 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 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.
Aaron Cvar, PE
Project Engineer
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 1
A. Location ............................................................................................................................................. 1
B. Description of Property ..................................................................................................................... 2
C. Floodplain ......................................................................................................................................... 4
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ........................................................................ 4
A. Major Basin Description .................................................................................................................... 4
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................... 5
A. Regulations ........................................................................................................................................ 5
B. Four Step Process .............................................................................................................................. 5
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ............................................................................ 6
D. Hydrological Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6
E. Hydraulic Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 6
G. Modifications of Criteria ................................................................................................................... 6
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ..................................................................................... 6
A. General Concept ............................................................................................................................... 6
B. Specific Details .................................................................................................................................. 8
V. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 9
A. Compliance with Standards .............................................................................................................. 9
B. Drainage Concept .............................................................................................................................. 9
References ......................................................................................................................... 10
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A– Onsite Hydrology and Hydraulics
APPENDIX A.1– Rational Method Calculations
APPENDIX A.2– Inlet Calculations
APPENDIX A.3– Storm Line Calculations
APPENDIX A.4– Riprap Calculations
APPENDIX A.5– LID / Water Quality Calculations and Information
APPENDIX B – Erosion Control Report
APPENDIX C – Banner Health Medical Campus Master Drainage Exhibit
APPENDIX D – Precision Drive Drainage Plan
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES:
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph .................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3 – Existing Floodplains ............................................................................................... 4
MAP POCKET:
Proposed Drainage Exhibit
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 1
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
1. Vicinity Map
2. The project site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 4, Township 6 South,
Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer,
State of Colorado The project site is located on the east side of Lady Moon Drive, and
just north of Precision Drive
3. The project site lies within the East Harmony portion of the McClellands Creek Master
Drainage Basin. Per the “East Harmony Portion of the McClellands Creek Master
Drainage Plan Update”, by Icon Engineering, August 1999 (Ref. 6), onsite detention
is required with a release rate of 0.5 cfs per acre in the 100-year storm event.
4. Areas directly adjacent to the project site on the west, east are currently undeveloped.
The Terra Vida 1 Apartments (submitted as “Presidio Apartments”, Ref. 6) exist just
to the south of the project site. The existing Hewlett Packard campus is located just
north of the project site on the north side of Harmony Road. The Fossil Creek
Reservoir Inlet Ditch is located roughly 1/4 mile east of the site.
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 2
5. Any offsite flows that would enter the site on the west are intercepted by the existing
Lady Moon Drive storm line.
B. Description of Property
1. The development area is roughly 10.2 net acres.
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph
2. The subject property currently consists mostly of vacant ground. There are three
existing residential lots and associated structures along Lady Moon Drive, that are to
be incorporated into this development. Existing ground cover generally consists of
open pasture and some native seeding. Existing ground slopes are generally mild
(i.e., 1 to 5±%) through the interior of the property. General topography slopes from
west to east towards the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch
3. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey website:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx,
the site consists of Paoli fine sandy loam, which falls into Hydrologic Soil Group B.
4. The proposed project will develop the majority of the existing site, constructing an
apartment complex. Parking areas and associated utilities will be constructed. The
Detention/water quality pond currently under review with the Banner Health Medical
Campus which will to be constructed just to the northeast of the site has been
designed to incorporate all necessary detention, water quality, and L.I.D. (Low Impact
Design) requirements for the Terra Vida 2 site.
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 3
Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan
5. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch is located roughly 1/4 mile east of the project
site, and runs parallel to the site from north to south. There are no other major
irrigation ditches or related facilities in the vicinity of the project site.
6. The proposed land use is an apartment complex.
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 4
C. Floodplain
1. The project site is not encroached by any City or FEMA floodplain.
Figure 3 –Area Floodplain Mapping
2. No offsite improvements are proposed with the project.
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
3. The project site is located within the East Harmony portion of the McClellands Creek
Master Drainage Basin.
B. Sub-Basin Description
4. The subject property historically drains overland towards the Fossil Creek Reservior
Inlet Ditch, located roughly 1400 feet east of the project site. A more detailed
description of the project drainage patterns follows in Section IV.A.4., below.
5. Areas to the east of the site drain into an existing storm line within Lady Moon Drive
and are conveyed south in the existing storm system.
PROJECT
SITE
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 5
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Regulations
There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the proposed
project.
B. Four Step Process
The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the proposed project utilizes
the “Four Step Process” to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters.
The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each
step.
Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices
Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development to facilitate the
reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the
current use by implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID) strategies including:
Conserving existing amenities in the site including the existing vegetated areas.
Providing vegetated open areas throughout the site to reduce the overall impervious
area and to minimize directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA).
Routing flows, to the extent feasible, through vegetated swales to increase time of
concentration, promote infiltration and provide initial water quality.
Step 2 – Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with
Slow Release
The efforts taken in Step 1 will facilitate the reduction of runoff; however, urban
development of this intensity will still generate stormwater runoff that will require
additional BMPs and water quality. The majority of stormwater runoff from the site will
ultimately be intercepted and treated using extended detention methods prior to exiting the
site.
Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways
There are no major drainageways within the subject property. While this step may not
seem applicable to proposed development, the project indirectly helps achieve stabilized
drainageways nonetheless. By providing water quality where none previously existed,
sediment with erosion potential is removed from the downstream drainageway systems.
Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as well as
ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City-wide drainageway
stability.
Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs.
The proposed project will improve upon site specific source controls compared to historic
conditions:
Trash, waste products, etc. that were previously left exposed with the historic trailer
park will no longer be allowed to exposure to runoff and transport to receiving
drainageways. The proposed development will eliminate these sources of potential
pollution.
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 6
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The subject property is tied currently developed properties adjacent to the site. Thus,
several constraints have been identified during the course of this analysis that will
impact the proposed drainage system including:
Existing elevations along the property lines will generally be maintained.
As previously mentioned, overall drainage patterns of the existing site will be
maintained.
Elevations of existing downstream facilities that the subject property will release to
will be maintained.
D. Hydrological Criteria
1. The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in
Figure RA-16 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations
associated with the proposed development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7
has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations.
2. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing
coefficients contained in Tables RO-11 and RO-12 of the FCSCM.
3. Three separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage
scenarios. A fourth design storm has also been computed for comparison purposes.
The first design storm considered is the 80th percentile rain event, which has been
employed to design the project’s water quality features. The second event analyzed is
the “Minor,” or “Initial” Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The third
event considered is the “Major Storm,” which has a 100-year recurrence interval.
The fourth storm computed, for comparison purposes only, is the 10-year event.
4. No other assumptions or calculation methods have been used with this development
that are not referenced by current City of Fort Collins criteria.
E. Hydraulic Criteria
1. As previously noted, the subject property maintains historic drainage patterns.
2. All drainage facilities proposed with the project are designed in accordance with
criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
(UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
3. As stated above, no part of the subject property is located in a City or FEMA
regulatory floodplain.
4. The proposed project does not propose to modify any natural drainageways.
F. Modifications of Criteria
1. The proposed development is not requesting any modifications to criteria at this time.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concept
1. The main objectives of the project drainage design are to maintain existing drainage
patterns, and to ensure no adverse impacts to any adjacent properties.
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 7
2. The offsite detention/water quality pond, referred to as the “ODP Pond”, currently
under review with the Banner Health Medical Campus, will be constructed just to the
northeast of the site. The pond has been designed to incorporate all necessary
detention, water quality, and L.I.D. (Low Impact Design) requirements for the north
portion (Basin 1 - 3.88 acres) of the Terra Vida 2 site. Please see the Banner Health
Master Drainage Exhibit provided in Appendix C. The portion of the Terra Vida 2 site
that was anticipated to drain to the “ODP Pond” is identified on this exhibit as “Basin
4”. There will be 0.16 acres less than originally anticipated draining to the “ODP
Pond” from the Terra Vida 2 site.
It is noted that the offsite ODP Pond was previously agreed to by City Stormwater to
provide all water quality and L.I.D. measures for both the Terra Vida 2 site, noted as
“Tract I” in the Banner Health Medical Campus project, as well as “Tract K” (just
northeast of the Terra Vida 2 site) and “Tract M” (just east of the Terra Vida 2 site).
3. The offsite storm sewer system in Precision Drive, which was recently constructed,
will receive and convey storm runoff from the south portion of the Terra Vida Site
(5.67 acres). Please see the Precision Drive Drainage Exhibit, provided in Appendix
D (excerpt from approved Final Drainage Report submitted as “Presidio Apartments”,
now referred to as “Terra Vida 1 Apartments”, Ref. 6). The portion of the Terra Vida
2 site that was anticipated to drain to the previously approved Precision Drive storm
sewer system is identified in this exhibit as “Basin 1”, “Basin 2”, and a portion of
“Basin 3”. There will be 0.13 acres more than originally anticipated draining to the
Precision Drive storm sewer system from the Terra Vida 2 site.
4. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of
Contents at the front of the document. The tables and figures are located within the
sections to which the content best applies.
5. The drainage patterns anticipated for proposed drainage basins are described below.
Basins 1A and 1B
Basins 1A and 1B will consist of apartment complex development. These basins will
generally drain via parking and drive curb and gutter to inlets and an internal storm
drain system. This system will tie to the offsite storm line system currently under
review with the Banner Health Medical Campus. This offsite storm system will convey
runoff to the offsite detention/water quality pond, referred to as the “ODP Pond”,
currently under review with the Banner Health Medical Campus, to be constructed just
to the northeast of the site.
Basin 2
Basin 2 rooftops and landscaped areas. This basin will generally drain via sheet flow
into the Lady Mood Drive R.O.W. Runoff will be collected in the existing Lady Moon
Drive storm sewer system and directed to the existing offsite detention pond within the
Willow Brook Subdivision.
Basins 3A - 3D
Basins 3A through 3D will consist of apartment complex development. These basins
will generally drain via parking and drive curb and gutter to inlets and an internal
storm drain system. This system will tie to the offsite storm line system in Precision
Drive, which was recently constructed and will drain to the existing offsite detention
pond within the Willow Brook Subdivision.
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 8
Basins 4A and 4B
Basins 4 A and 4B will consist of rooftop area and landscaped area. These basins will
sheet flow into adjacent Right of Way, and will result in minimal impact to adjacent
Right of Way drainage systems.
A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of
this report.
B. Specific Details and LID Requirements
Basins 1A and 1B detention, water quality and L.I.D. (Low Impact Design)
requirements will be met within the offsite “ODP Pond”, currently under review
with the Banner Health Medical Campus project. This pond will be
constructed just to the northeast of the site. The pond has been designed to
incorporate all necessary detention, water quality, and L.I.D. (Low Impact
Design) requirements for the north portion of the site noted as Basin 1 (3.88
acres). A storm line system collecting all runoff from Basin 1 will be
connected to the proposed storm line system running within Cinquefoil Lane to
be constructed with the Banner Health Medical Campus project.
Basin 2 drains to the existing Lady Moon Drive storm sewer system, and
detention/water quality requirements will be met within the existing offsite pond within
the Willow Brook Subdivision.
Basins 3A through 3D detention, and water quality requirements will be met
in the offsite Willow Brook Subdivision pond. L.I.D. requirements will be met
onsite and will consist of a series of L.I.D. measures as follows:
1. The main storm line system within these basins (Storm Line B), which will
be utilized for collecting the majority of drainage for these basins, will
begin with a series of modified rain gardens generally at all landscaped
areas around buildings. The detail of these modified rain gardens shows a
sumped area in with a perforated standpipe. This standpipe will drain to a
series of collection pipes which connect to the main storm line system.
2. Storm Line B will utilize a “Snout” water quality feature within the final
inlet connection prior to the daylight point of the storm line system at the
Rain Garden. This water quality feature will be combined with a sumped
inlet design and will serve to reduce pollutants such as floatables, trash,
free oils, and sediment.
3. A Rain Garden will be provided at the daylight point of the main storm
line system within these basins (Storm Line B) as shown on the Drainage
Exhibit.
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 9
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with Standards
1. The drainage design proposed with the proposed project complies with the City of Fort
Collins’ Stormwater Criteria Manual.
2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with all applicable City of
Fort Collins Master Drainage Plans.
3. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the
proposed development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations
governing stormwater discharge.
B. Drainage Concept
1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential
damage associated with its stormwater runoff as all runoff is being captured and
routed to offsite drainage facilities which have either been previously approved by the
City of Fort Collins or are in the review and approval process with the City of Fort
Collins.
2. The drainage concept for the proposed development is consistent with all applicable
City of Fort Collins Master Drainage Plans.
Terra Vida 2 Apartments
Final Drainage Report 10
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. 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.
3. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and
Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007.
4. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008.
6. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Presidio Apartments, Northern Engineering,
December 21, 2009.
APPENDIX A
ONSITE HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS
.
APPENDIX A.1
RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS
CHARACTER OF SURFACE:
Runoff
Coefficient
Percentage
Impervious Project: 514-002
Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Calculations By: ATC
Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….……………………………… 0.95 100% Date:
Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………………… 0.95 90%
Gravel ……….…………………….….…………………………..…………………………… 0.50 40%
Roofs …….…….………………..……………….……………………………………………. 0.95 90%
Pavers…………………………...………………..…………………………………………… 0.40 22%
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
Lawns and
Landscaping
(ac)
2-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
10-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
100-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
Composite
% Imperv.
1A 97707 2.24 0.000 1.570 0.401 0.000 0.272 0.87 0.87 1.00 79%
1B 71498 1.64 0.000 0.874 0.615 0.000 0.152 0.89 0.89 1.00 82%
2 26311 0.60 0.000 0.136 0.401 0.000 0.067 0.87 0.87 1.00 80%
3A 63108 1.45 0.000 0.779 0.594 0.000 0.076 0.91 0.91 1.00 85%
3B 115637 2.65 0.000 1.444 0.890 0.000 0.321 0.87 0.87 1.00 79%
3C 11166 0.26 0.000 0.078 0.089 0.000 0.089 0.71 0.71 0.88 59%
3D 34418 0.79 0.000 0.422 0.270 0.000 0.098 0.86 0.86 1.00 79%
4A 10069 0.23 0.000 0.131 0.085 0.000 0.015 0.90 0.90 1.00 84%
4B 11241 0.26 0.000 0.025 0.114 0.000 0.119 0.63 0.63 0.78 48%
OS1 48089 1.10 0.000 0.944 0.106 0.000 0.054 0.92 0.92 1.00 86%
Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:
Project: 514-002
Calculations By:
Date:
Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration:
Tt = L / 60V
Tc = Ti + Tt (Equation RO-2)
Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S½
Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S½
NOTE: C-value for overland flows over grassy surfaces; C = 0.25
Is Length
>500' ?
C*Cf
(2-yr
Cf=1.00)
C*Cf
(10-yr
Cf=1.00)
C*Cf
(100-yr
Cf=1.25)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Ti
2-yr
(min)
Ti
10-yr
(min)
Ti
100-yr
(min)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
2-yr
Tc
Rational Method Equation: Project: 514-002
Calculations By:
Date:
From Section 3.2.1 of the CFCSDDC
Rainfall Intensity:
1A 1A 2.24 16 16 15 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.84 3.14 6.52 3.6 6.1 14.6
1B 1B 1.64 16 16 15 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.84 3.14 6.52 2.7 4.6 10.7
2 2 0.60 12 12 12 0.87 0.87 1.00 2.05 3.50 7.29 1.1 1.8 4.4
3A 3A 1.45 12 12 11 0.91 0.91 1.00 2.09 3.57 7.42 2.8 4.7 10.7
3B 3B 2.65 16 16 15 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.84 3.14 6.52 4.2 7.2 17.3
3C 3C 0.26 9 9 8 0.71 0.71 0.88 2.35 4.02 8.59 0.4 0.7 1.9
3D 3D 0.79 11 11 10 0.86 0.86 1.00 2.17 3.71 7.72 1.5 2.5 6.1
4A 4A 0.23 9 9 9 0.90 0.90 1.00 2.30 3.93 8.21 0.5 0.8 1.9
4B 4B 0.26 10 10 9 0.63 0.63 0.78 2.26 3.86 8.03 0.4 0.6 1.6
OS1 OS1 1.10 15 15 14 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.90 3.24 6.82 1.9 3.3 7.5
Intensity,
i10
(in/hr)
Rainfall Intensity taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria (CFCSDDC), Figure 3.1
C10
Area, A
(acres)
Intensity,
i2
(in/hr)
100-yr
Tc
(min)
DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS
C100
Design
Point
Flow,
Q100
(cfs)
Flow,
Q2
(cfs)
10-yr
Tc
(min)
2-yr
Tc
(min)
C2
Flow,
Q10
(cfs)
Intensity,
i100
(in/hr)
Basin(s)
ATC
November 1, 2013
Q C f C i A
APPENDIX A.2
INLET CALCULATIONS
Project: 514‐002
By: ATC
Date: 11/1/2013
Inlet Inlet Inlet Design Design Inlet
ID Type Condition Storm Flow Capacity
(CFS) (CFS)
A Single Combination On‐Grade 100‐yr 2.80 4.30
A2 Double Area Sump 100‐yr 2.80 19.90
A5 Double Combination Sump 100‐yr 10.70 20.10
A8 Single Combination On‐Grade 100‐yr 4.10 4.30
A13 Single Area Sump 100‐yr 2.50 5.10
B1 Double Combination Sump 100‐yr 0.60 0.60
B1‐1 Double Combination Sump 100‐yr 9.40 9.40
B3 Single Area Sump 100‐yr 3.60 5.10
B4 Single Area Sump 100‐yr 3.50 5.10
B5 Single Area Sump 100‐yr 3.50 5.10
C1 Double Combination Sump 100‐yr 1.70 1.70
INLET CAPACITY SUMMARY
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') alocal
= 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Ponding Depth = 1.00 2.70 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate Lo
(G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate Wo
= 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Aratio
= 0.43 0.43
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Cf
(G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Cw
(G) = 3.30 3.30
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Co
(G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo
(C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert
= 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat
= 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp
= 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cf
(C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) Cw
(C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Co
(C) = 0.66 0.66
Grate Flow Analysis (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.50 1.50
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.38 0.38
Grate Capacity as a Weir (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qwi
= 0.09 0.86 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qwa
= 0.06 0.54 cfs
Grate Capacity as a Orifice (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qoi
= 7.00 10.70 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qoa
= 4.38 6.69 cfs
Grate Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qmi
= 0.73 2.81 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qma
= 0.46 1.76 cfs
Resulting Grate Capacity (assumes clogged condition) QGrate
= 0.06 0.54 cfs
Curb Opening Flow Analysis (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.00 1.00
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.08 0.08
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') alocal
= 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Ponding Depth = 6.00 7.40 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate Lo
(G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate Wo
= 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Aratio
= 0.43 0.43
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Cf
(G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Cw
(G) = 3.30 3.30
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Co
(G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo
(C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert
= 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat
= 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp
= 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cf
(C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) Cw
(C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Co
(C) = 0.66 0.66
Grate Flow Analysis (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.50 1.50
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.38 0.38
Grate Capacity as a Weir (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qwi
= 5.83 9.73 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qwa
= 3.64 6.08 cfs
Grate Capacity as a Orifice (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qoi
= 15.54 17.19 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qoa
= 9.71 10.74 cfs
Grate Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qmi
= 8.85 12.02 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qma
= 5.53 7.52 cfs
Resulting Grate Capacity (assumes clogged condition) QGrate
= 3.64 6.08 cfs
Curb Opening Flow Analysis (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.00 1.00
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.08 0.08
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') alocal
= 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Ponding Depth = 1.00 4.00 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate Lo
(G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate Wo
= 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Aratio
= 0.43 0.43
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Cf
(G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Cw
(G) = 3.30 3.30
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Co
(G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo
(C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert
= 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat
= 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp
= 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cf
(C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) Cw
(C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Co
(C) = 0.66 0.66
Grate Flow Analysis (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.50 1.50
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.38 0.38
Grate Capacity as a Weir (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qwi
= 0.09 2.19 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qwa
= 0.06 1.37 cfs
Grate Capacity as a Orifice (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qoi
= 7.00 12.83 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qoa
= 4.38 8.02 cfs
Grate Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qmi
= 0.73 4.92 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qma
= 0.46 3.08 cfs
Resulting Grate Capacity (assumes clogged condition) QGrate
= 0.06 1.37 cfs
Curb Opening Flow Analysis (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.00 1.00
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.08 0.08
Area Inlet Performance Curve:
Inlets B4, B5, B6
Governing Equations:
At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation:
* where P = 2(L + W)
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline
At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation:
* where A equals the open area of the inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A)
The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown.
However, what is known, is that the stage-discharge curves of the weir equation and the orifice equation
will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below:
If H > 1.792 (A/P), then the grate operates like an orifice; otherwise it operates like a weir.
Input Parameters:
Type of Grate: Area Inlet
Length of Grate (ft): 1.98
Width of Grate (ft): 1.35
Open Area of Grate (ft
2
): 1.88
Flowline Elevation (ft): 0.000
Allowable Capacity: 50%
Depth vs. Flow:
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Shallow
Weir Flow
(cfs)
Orifice
Flow
(cfs)
Actual
Flow
(cfs)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 0.10 0.32 1.59 0.32
0.20 0.20 0.89 2.25 0.89
0.30 0.30 1.64 2.76 1.64
0.40 0.40 2.53 3.19 2.53
0.50 0.500 3.54 3.56 3.54
0.60 0.60 4.65 3.90 3.90
0.70 0.70 5.86 4.22 4.22
0.80 0.80 7.16 4.51 4.51
0.90 0.90 8.54 4.78 4.78
1.00 1.000 10.00 5.04 5.04
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Discharge (cfs)
Stage (ft)
Stage - Discharge Curves
Project:
Inlet ID:
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') aLOCAL = 2.0 2.0 inches
Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Lo = 3.00 3.00 ft
Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q-Allow) Wo = 1.73 1.73 ft
Warning 1 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) Cf
-G = 0.20 0.20
Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) Cf-C = 0.10 0.10
Street Hydraulics: WARNING: Q > ALLOWABLE Q FOR MINOR STORM' MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q = 2.8 4.3 cfs
Total Inlet Carry-Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet) Qb = 2.2 5.7 cfs
Capture Percentage = Qa/Q
o = C% = 56 43 %
INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
514-002
ON GRADE COMBINATION INLET - GENERAL
CDOT/Denver 13 Combination
514-002_UD-Inlet_v3.12_SINGLE COMBO ON GRADE, Inlet On Grade 11/26/2013, 2:18 PM
Area Inlet Performance Curve:
Single Area - General
Governing Equations:
At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation:
* where P = 2(L + W)
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline
At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation:
* where A equals the open area of the inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A)
The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown.
However, what is known, is that the stage-discharge curves of the weir equation and the orifice equation
will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below:
If H > 1.792 (A/P), then the grate operates like an orifice; otherwise it operates like a weir.
Input Parameters:
Type of Grate: Area Inlet
Length of Grate (ft): 1.98
Width of Grate (ft): 1.35
Open Area of Grate (ft
2
): 1.88
Flowline Elevation (ft): 0.000
Allowable Capacity: 50%
Depth vs. Flow:
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Shallow
Weir Flow
(cfs)
Orifice
Flow
(cfs)
Actual
Flow
(cfs)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 0.10 0.32 1.59 0.32
0.20 0.20 0.89 2.25 0.89
0.30 0.30 1.64 2.76 1.64
0.40 0.40 2.53 3.19 2.53
0.50 0.500 3.54 3.56 3.54
0.60 0.60 4.65 3.90 3.90
0.70 0.70 5.86 4.22 4.22
0.80 0.80 7.16 4.51 4.51
0.90 0.90 8.54 4.78 4.78
1.00 1.000 10.00 5.04 5.04
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Discharge (cfs)
Stage (ft)
Stage - Discharge Curves
Area Inlet Performance Curve:
Double Area - General
Governing Equations:
At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation:
* where P = 2(L + W)
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline
At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation:
* where A equals the open area of the inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A)
The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown.
However, what is known, is that the stage-discharge curves of the weir equation and the orifice equation
will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below:
If H > 1.792 (A/P), then the grate operates like an orifice; otherwise it operates like a weir.
Input Parameters:
Type of Grate: Area Inlet
Length of Grate (ft): 3.96
Width of Grate (ft): 2.70
Open Area of Grate (ft
2
): 7.48
Flowline Elevation (ft): 0.000
Allowable Capacity: 50%
Depth vs. Flow:
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Shallow
Weir Flow
(cfs)
Orifice
Flow
(cfs)
Actual
Flow
(cfs)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 0.10 0.63 6.36 0.63
0.20 0.20 1.79 8.99 1.79
0.30 0.30 3.28 11.02 3.28
0.40 0.40 5.05 12.72 5.05
0.50 0.500 7.06 14.22 7.06
0.60 0.60 9.29 15.58 9.29
0.70 0.70 11.70 16.83 11.70
0.80 0.80 14.30 17.99 14.30
0.90 0.90 17.06 19.08 17.06
1.00 1.000 19.98 20.11 19.98
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Discharge (cfs)
Stage (ft)
Stage - Discharge Curves
Weir Flow
Orifice Flow
Q 3 . 0 P H 1 . 5
Q 0 . 67 A ( 2 gH ) 0 . 5
APPENDIX A.3
STORM LINE CALCULATIONS
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: StormLineB.stm No. Lines: 13 11-26-2013
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Storm Sewer Summary Report Page 1
Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns
No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss Junct line
(cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No.
1 PIPE A1 20.10 24 c 76.6 4897.73 4898.42 0.901 4899.73 4900.05 0.00 4900.05 End
2 Pipe - (135) 17.30 24 c 27.5 4898.42 4898.67 0.909 4900.41 4900.50 0.00 4900.50 1
3 PIPE A3 17.30 24 c 6.0 4898.67 4898.72 0.838 4900.50 4900.51 0.00 4900.51 2
4 Pipe - (107) 17.30 24 c 93.0 4898.72 4899.56 0.903 4900.57 4901.03 n/a 4901.03 j 3
5 PIPE A4 17.30 24 c 38.8 4899.56 4899.91 0.903 4901.32 4901.38 n/a 4901.38 j 4
6 PIPE A6 6.60 18 c 78.0 4900.41 4900.91 0.641 4901.92 4902.12 0.00 4902.12 5
7 Pipe - (133) 2.50 18 c 71.0 4900.91 4901.38 0.662 4902.33 4902.34 0.00 4902.34 6
8 Pipe - (134) 2.50 18 c 10.1 4901.38 4901.44 0.598 4902.34 4902.34 0.00 4902.34 7
9 PIPE A7 2.50 18 c 65.0 4901.44 4901.86 0.646 4902.39 4902.46 n/a 4902.46 j 8
10 Pipe - (108) 2.50 18 c 47.1 4901.86 4902.17 0.659 4902.65 4902.77 n/a 4902.77 j 9
11 PIPE A8 2.50 18 c 48.0 4902.17 4902.48 0.646 4902.96 4903.08 n/a 4903.08 j 10
12 PIPE A9 2.50 18 c 34.2 4902.48 4902.70 0.644 4903.27 4903.31 0.00 4903.31 11
13 Pipe - (109) 2.50 18 c 76.8 4902.70 4903.20 0.651 4903.49 4903.80 n/a 4903.80 j 12
Project File: StormLineB.stm Number of lines: 13 Run Date: 11-26-2013
NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 2 Yrs. ; j - Line contains hyd. jump.
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1
Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor
coeff loss
Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy
elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft)
1 24 20.10 4897.73 4899.73 2.00 3.14 6.40 0.64 4900.37 0.673 76.6 4898.42 4900.05 1.63 2.74 7.34 0.84 4900.89 0.682 0.677 0.519 0.00 0.00
2 24 17.30 4898.42 4900.41 1.99 3.14 5.51 0.47 4900.89 0.475 27.5 4898.67 4900.50 1.83 3.01 5.75 0.51 4901.01 0.434 0.455 0.125 0.00 0.00
3 24 17.30 4898.67 4900.50 1.83 3.01 5.75 0.51 4901.01 0.434 6.0 4898.72 4900.51 1.79 2.96 5.84 0.53 4901.04 0.442 0.438 0.026 0.00 0.00
4 24 17.30 4898.72 4900.57 1.84 3.03 5.71 0.51 4901.07 0.432 93.0 4899.56 4901.03 j 1.47** 2.48 6.97 0.76 4901.79 0.626 0.529 n/a 0.00 n/a
5 24 17.30 4899.56 4901.32 1.76 2.93 5.91 0.54 4901.86 0.449 38.8 4899.91 4901.38 j 1.47** 2.48 6.97 0.76 4902.14 0.626 0.537 n/a 0.00 n/a
6 18 6.60 4900.41 4901.92 1.50 1.77 3.74 0.22 4902.14 0.337 78.0 4900.91 4902.12 1.21 1.52 4.34 0.29 4902.41 0.349 0.343 0.268 0.00 0.00
7 18 2.50 4900.91 4902.33 1.42 1.73 1.45 0.03 4902.36 0.042 71.0 4901.38 4902.34 0.96 1.19 2.09 0.07 4902.41 0.088 0.065 0.046 0.00 0.00
8 18 2.50 4901.38 4902.34 0.96 1.19 2.09 0.07 4902.41 0.088 10.1 4901.44 4902.34 0.90 1.10 2.26 0.08 4902.42 0.108 0.098 0.010 0.00 0.00
9 18 2.50 4901.44 4902.39 0.95 1.17 2.13 0.07 4902.46 0.092 65.0 4901.86 4902.46 j 0.60** 0.67 3.76 0.22 4902.68 0.416 0.254 n/a 0.00 0.00
10 18 2.50 4901.86 4902.65 0.79 0.95 2.64 0.11 4902.76 0.161 47.1 4902.17 4902.77 j 0.60** 0.67 3.76 0.22 4902.99 0.416 0.289 n/a 0.00 0.00
11 18 2.50 4902.17 4902.96 0.79 0.95 2.64 0.11 4903.07 0.161 48.0 4902.48 4903.08 j 0.60** 0.67 3.76 0.22 4903.30 0.416 0.289 n/a 0.00 0.00
12 18 2.50 4902.48 4903.27 0.79 0.95 2.64 0.11 4903.38 0.161 34.2 4902.70 4903.31 0.61** 0.67 3.73 0.22 4903.52 0.407 0.284 0.097 0.00 0.00
13 18 2.50 4902.70 4903.49 0.79 0.95 2.64 0.11 4903.60 0.161 76.8 4903.20 4903.80 j 0.60** 0.67 3.76 0.22 4904.02 0.416 0.289 n/a 0.00 0.00
Project File: StormLineB.stm Number of lines: 13 Run Date: 11-26-2013
Notes: ; ** Critical depth.; j-Line contains hyd. jump.
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: StormLineB.stm No. Lines: 6 11-26-2013
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
Storm Sewer Summary Report Page 1
Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns
No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss Junct line
(cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No.
1 PIPE B1 20.60 30 c 38.1 4899.06 4899.25 0.498 4900.55 4900.77 0.00 4900.77 End
2 PIPE B2 10.60 18 c 299.0 4899.25 4900.75 0.502 4900.89* 4903.48* 0.00 4903.48 1
3 PIPE B3 10.60 18 c 56.0 4900.75 4901.03 0.500 4903.48* 4903.97* 0.00 4903.97 2
4 PIPE B4 7.00 18 c 59.0 4901.03 4901.32 0.492 4904.29* 4904.51* 0.00 4904.51 3
5 PIPE B5 3.50 18 c 85.0 4901.32 4901.75 0.506 4904.69* 4904.77* 0.00 4904.77 4
6 PIPE B1-1 9.40 15 c 24.0 4899.25 4899.37 0.501 4900.77* 4901.21* 0.00 4901.21 1
Project File: StormLineB.stm Number of lines: 6 Run Date: 11-26-2013
NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 2 Yrs. ; *Surcharged (HGL above crown).
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.Hydraflow com) Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1
Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor
coeff loss
Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy
elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft)
1 30 20.60 4899.06 4900.55 1.48 3.04 6.78 0.71 4901.26 0.460 38.1 4899.25 4900.77 1.52** 3.13 6.58 0.67 4901.45 0.455 0.457 0.174 0.00 0.00
2 18 10.60 4899.25 4900.89 1.50 1.77 6.00 0.56 4901.45 0.869 299 4900.75 4903.48 1.50 1.77 6.00 0.56 4904.04 0.868 0.868 2.597 0.00 0.00
3 18 10.60 4900.75 4903.48 1.50 1.77 6.00 0.56 4904.04 0.869 56.0 4901.03 4903.97 1.50 1.77 6.00 0.56 4904.53 0.868 0.868 0.486 0.00 0.00
4 18 7.00 4901.03 4904.29 1.50 1.77 3.96 0.24 4904.53 0.379 59.0 4901.32 4904.51 1.50 1.77 3.96 0.24 4904.75 0.379 0.379 0.223 0.00 0.00
5 18 3.50 4901.32 4904.69 1.50 1.77 1.98 0.06 4904.75 0.095 85.0 4901.75 4904.77 1.50 1.77 1.98 0.06 4904.83 0.095 0.095 0.080 0.00 0.00
6 15 9.40 4899.25 4900.77 1.25 1.23 7.66 0.91 4901.69 1.806 24.0 4899.37 4901.21 1.25 1.23 7.66 0.91 4902.12 1.806 1.806 0.433 0.00 0.00
Project File: StormLineB.stm Number of lines: 6 Run Date: 11-26-2013
Notes: ; ** Critical depth.
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: StormLineC.stm No. Lines: 1 11-26-2013
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
Storm Sewer Summary Report Page 1
Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns
No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss Junct line
(cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No.
1 PIPE C1 1.70 15 c 31.3 4898.97 4899.13 0.511 4899.47 4899.66 0.00 4899.66 End
Project File: StormLineC.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 11-26-2013
NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 2 Yrs.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.Hydraflow com) Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1
Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor
coeff loss
Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy
elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft)
1 15 1.70 4898.97 4899.47 0.50 0.46 3.68 0.21 4899.68 0.445 31.3 4899.13 4899.66 0.52** 0.49 3.48 0.19 4899.84 0.436 0.440 0.138 0.00 0.00
Project File: StormLineC.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 11-26-2013
Notes: ; ** Critical depth.
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
APPENDIX A.4
RIPRAP CALCULATIONS
Circular
D or Da,
Pipe
Diameter
(ft)
H or Ha,
Culvert
Height
(ft)
W,
Culvert
Width
(ft)
Yt/D Q/D
1.5
Q/D
2.5 Y
t/H Q/WH
0.5
Storm Line B 20.60 2.50 1.00 0.40 5.21 2.08 N/A N/A 5.60 2.08 4.12 9.07 Type L 10.00 11.00 1.5
Storm Line C 1.70 1.25 0.50 0.40 1.22 0.97 N/A N/A 6.70 0.97 0.34 ‐3.82 Type L 5.00 5.00 1.5
Project: 514‐002
Urban Drainage
pg MD‐107
L=
1/(2tanq)*
[At/Yt)‐W]
(ft)
OUTPUT
Spec
Length
of
Riprap
(ft)
Box Culvert
CALCULATIONS FOR RIPRAP PROTECTION AT PIPE OUTLETS
Circular
Pipe
(Figure MD‐21)
Rectangular
Pipe
(Figure MD‐22) Spec
Width
of
Riprap
(ft)
2*d50,
Depth
of
Riprap
(ft)
for L/2
Froude
Parameter
Q/D
2.5
Max 6.0
or
Q/WH
1.5
APPENDIX A.5
LID / WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS AND INFORMATION
WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS
RAIN GARDEN CALCULATIONS
Project: 514-002
By: ATC
Date: 11.1.13
REQUIRED STORAGE & OUTLET WORKS:
BASIN AREA = 5.150 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs
BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENT = 90.00 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs
BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS RATIO = 0.9000 <-- CALCULATED
WQCV (watershed inches) = 0.320 <-- CALCULATED from Figure EDB-2
WQCV (cu-ft) = 5982 <-- CALCULATED from UDFCD DCM V.3 Section 6.5
Introduction to Design and Maintenance
Considerations for SNOUT® Stormwater Quality Systems
Background:
The SNOUT system from Best Management Products, Inc. (BMP, Inc.) is based
on a vented hood that can reduce floatable trash and debris, free oils, and other
solids from stormwater discharges. In its most basic application, a SNOUT hood
is installed over the outlet pipe of a catch basin or other stormwater quality
structure which incorporates a deep sump (see Installation Drawing). The
SNOUT forms a baffle in the structure which collects floatable debris and free oils
on the surface of the captured stormwater, while permitting heavier solids to sink
to the bottom of the sump. The clarified intermediate layer is forced out of the
structure through the open bottom of the SNOUT by displacement from incoming
flow. The resultant discharge contains considerably less unsightly trash and
other gross pollutants, and can also offer reductions of free-oils and finer solids.
As with any structural stormwater quality BMP (Best Management Practice),
design and maintenance considerations will have a dramatic impact on SNOUT
system performance over the life of the facility. The most important factor to
consider when designing structures which will incorporate a SNOUT is the depth
of the sump (the sump is defined as the depth from beneath the invert of the
outlet pipe to the bottom of the structure). Simply put, the deeper the sump, the
more effective the unit will be both in terms of pollutant removals and reducing
frequency of maintenance. More volume in a structure means more quiescence,
thus allowing the pollutant constituents a better chance to separate out.
Secondly, more volume means fewer cycles between maintenance operations,
because the structure has a greater capacity. Of equal importance to good
performance is putting SNOUTs in every inlet whenever possible. The closer
one captures pollution to where it enters the infrastructure (e.g. at the inlet), the
less mixing of runoff there is, and the easier it will be to separate out pollutants.
Putting SNOUTs and deep sumps in every inlet develops a powerful structural
treatment train with a great deal of effective storage volume where even finer
particles may have chance to settle out.
Design Notes:
The SNOUT size is ALWAYS greater than the nominal pipe size. The
SNOUT should cover the pipe OD plus the grouted area around the pipe
(e.g. for a 12” pipe, an 18” SNOUT is the correct choice).
As a rule of thumb, BMP, Inc. recommends minimum sump depths based
on outlet pipe inside diameters of 2.5 to 3 times the outlet pipe size.
Special Note for Smaller Pipes: A minimum sump depth of 36 inches for
all pipe sizes 12 inches ID or less, and 48 inches for pipe 15-18 inches ID
is required if collection of finer solids is desired.
The plan dimension of the structure should be up to 6 to 7 times the flow
area of the outlet pipe.
To optimize pollutant removals establish a “treatment train” with SNOUTs
placed in every inlet where it is feasible to do so (this protocol applies to
most commercial, institutional or municipal applications and any
application with direct discharge to surface waters).
At a minimum, SNOUTs should be used in every third structure for less
critical applications (less critical areas might include flow over grassy
surfaces, very low traffic areas in private, non-commercial or non-
institutional settings, single family residential sites).
Bio-Skirts™ (for hydrocarbons and/or bacteria reduction in any structure)
and flow deflectors (for settleable solids in a final polishing structure) can
increase pollutant removals. Bio-Skirts are highly recommended for gas
or vehicle service stations, convenience stores, restaurants, loading
docks, marinas, beaches, schools or high traffic applications.
The “R” series SNOUTs (12R, 18R, 24R, 30R, 52R/72and 72R/96) are
available for round manhole type structures of up to 72” ID; the “F” series
SNOUTs (12F, 18F, 24F, 30F, 36F, 48F, 72F and 96F) are available for flat
walled box type structures; the “NP” series SNOUTs (NP1218R, NP1524R,
NP1830R, and NP2430R) are available for PVC Nyloplast® type
structures up to 30” ID.
Example Structure Sizing Calculation:
A SNOUT equipped structure with a 15 inch ID outlet pipe (1.23 sqft. flow area)
will offer best performance with a minimum plan area of 7.4 sqft. and 48 inch
sump. Thus, a readily available 48 inch diameter manhole-type structure, or a
rectangular structure of 2 feet x 4 feet will offer sufficient size when combined
with a sump depth of 48 inches or greater.
Maintenance Recommendations:
Monthly monitoring for the first year of a new installation after the site has
been stabilized.
Measurements should be taken after each rain event of .5 inches or more,
or monthly, as determined by local weather conditions.
Checking sediment depth and noting the surface pollutants in the structure
will be helpful in planning maintenance.
The pollutants collected in SNOUT equipped structures will consist of
floatable debris and oils on the surface of the captured water, and grit and
sediment on the bottom of the structure.
It is best to schedule maintenance based on the solids collected in the
sump.
Optimally, the structure should be cleaned when the sump is half full (e.g.
when 2 feet of material collects in a 4 foot sump, clean it out).
Structures should also be cleaned if a spill or other incident causes a
larger than normal accumulation of pollutants in a structure.
Maintenance is best done with a vacuum truck.
If Bio-Skirts™ are being used in the structure to enhance hydrocarbon
capture and/or bacteria removals, they should be checked on a monthly
basis, and serviced or replaced when more than 2/3 of the boom is
submerged, indicating a nearly saturated state. Assuming a typical
pollutant-loading environment exists, Bio-Skirts should be serviced* or
replaced annually.
In the case of an oil spill, the structure should be serviced and Bio-Skirts
replaced (if any) immediately
All collected wastes must be handled and disposed of according to local
environmental requirements.
To maintain the SNOUT hoods themselves, an annual inspection of the
anti-siphon vent and access hatch are recommended. A simple flushing
of the vent, or a gentle rodding with a flexible wire are all that’s typically
needed to maintain the anti-siphon properties. Opening and closing the
access hatch once a year ensures a lifetime of trouble-free service.
Further structural design guidelines including CAD drawings, hydraulic
spreadsheets, and site inspection and maintenance field reports and installation
inspection sheets are available from BMP, Inc.
*To extend the service life of a Bio-Skirt, the unit may be “wrung out” to remove
accumulated oils and washed in an industrial washing machine in warm water.
The Bio-Skirt may then be re-deployed as long the material maintains it’s
structural integrity.
Fitment Guide: Based on SNOUT inlet area vs. pipe inlet area.
% OF SNOUT INLET AREA vs. PIPE INSIDE DIAMETER
MODEL 12F 12R 18F 18R 24F 24R 30F 30R 36F 48F 52R 72F 96F
(SQFT.) 0.393 0.455 1.091 1.264 1.843 2.118 2.793 3.210 3.534 6.278 9.045 14.13702 25.132
PIPE I.D.
4 450.3% 521.4% N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O
6 200.2% 231.7% 555.6% 643.8% N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O
8 112.6% 130.3% 312.6% 362.1% 528.1% 606.8% N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O
10 72.1% 83.4% 200.0% 231.8% 338.0% 388.3% N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O
12 N/A N/A 138.9% 160.9% 234.7% 269.7% 355.6% 409% 450% N/O N/O N/O N/O
15 N/A N/A 88.9% 103.0% 150.2% 172.6% 227.6% 262% 288% N/O N/O N/O N/O
18 N/A N/A 61.7% 71.5% 104.3% 119.9% 158.1% 182% 200% 355% N/O N/O
21 N/A N/A N/A N/A 76.6% 88.1% 116.1% 133% 147% 261% 376% N/O N/O
24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88.9% 102% 112% 200% 288% N/O N/O
27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 70.2% 81% 89% 158% 227% N/O N/O
30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 56.9% 65% 72% 128% 184% 288% N/O
36 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50% 89% 128% 200% 355.5%
42 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% 94% 147% 261.2%
48 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50% 72% 113% 200.0%
54 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 57% 89% 158.0%
60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 72% 128.0%
66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60% 105.8%
72 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50% 88.9%
78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 75.7%
84 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65.3%
90 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 56.9%
Use "F" for flat back SNOUT in rectangular structure
Use "R" for round back SNOUT in cylindrical structure
VALUE% => Marginal Sizing
N/A => Not Applicable
N/O => Not Optimal
Design Note: The SNOUT size will always be bigger than the pipe size as
the SNOUT must cover the pipe O.D. (i.e. Use an 18” SNOUT for 12” pipe.)
Installation Drawings:
Contact Information:
Please contact us if we can offer further assistance. 53 Mt. Archer Rd. Lyme, CT
06371. Technical Assistance: T. J. Mullen (800-504-8008, tjm@bmpinc.com) or
Lee Duran (888-434-0277).
Website: www.bmpinc.com
The SNOUT® is protected by: US PATENT # 6126817 CANADIAN PATENT # 2285146
SNOUT® is a registered trademark of Best Management Products, Inc. Nyloplast® is a registered
trademark of ADS Structures, Inc.
Best Management Products, Inc.
SNOUT Oil-Water-Debris Separator
Flow Rate Worksheet
MODEL 12F 12R 18F 18R 24F 24R 30F 30R 36F 42RTB/60* 48F 52RTB/72 72F 72RTB/96 96F
(SQFT.) 0.393 0.455 1.091 1.264 1.843 2.118 2.793 3.210 3.534 4.900 6.278 7.40 14.13702 14.30 25.132
PIPE I.D.
4 450.3% 521.4% N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O
6 200.2% 231.7% 555.6% 643.8% N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O
8 112.6% 130.3% 312.6% 362.1% 528.1% 606.8% N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O
10 72.1% 83.4% 200.0% 231.8% 338.0% 388.3% N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O N/O
12 N/A N/A 138.9% 160.9% 234.7% 269.7% 355.6% 409% 450% 624% N/O N/O N/O N/O
15 N/A N/A 88.9% 103.0% 150.2% 172.6% 227.6% 262% 288% 399% N/O N/O N/O N/O
18 N/A N/A 61.7% 71.5% 104.3% 119.9% 158.1% 182% 200% 277% 355% N/O N/O N/O
21 N/A N/A N/A N/A 76.6% 88.1% 116.1% 133% 147% 204% 261% 308% N/O N/O
24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88.9% 102% 112% 156% 200% 236% N/O N/O
27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 70.2% 81% 89% 123% 158% 186% N/O N/O
30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 56.9% 65% 72% 100% 128% 151% 288% 291% N/O
36 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50% 69% 89% 105% 200% 202% 355.5%
42 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% 77% 147% 149% 261.2%
48 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50% 59% 113% 114% 200.0%
54 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 47% 89% 90% 158.0%
60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 72% 73% 128.0%
66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60% 60% 105.8%
72 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50% 51% 88.9%
78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 75.7%
84 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65.3%
90 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 56.9%
Use "F" for flat back SNOUT in rectangular structure
Use "R" for round back SNOUT in cylindrical structure
BMP, Inc. VALUE% => Marginal Sizing * Avail 2010
Phone: (800) 504-8008 N/A => Not Applicable
Fax: (410) 687-6757 N/O => Not Optimal
Website: www.bmpinc.com
Email: tjm@bmpinc.com
% OF SNOUT INLET AREA vs. PIPE INSIDE DIAMETER
APPENDIX B
WATER EROSION CONTROL REPORT
Terra Vida II
Final Drainage Report
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) has been
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 the Utility Plans. The Final Plans contain a
full-size Erosion Control sheet as well as a separate sheet 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 the Development Agreement for the development. 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, prior to any earth disturbance 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.
APPENDIX C
BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS MASTER DRAINAGE EXHIBIT
PRIVATE DR.
RD
RD
TF
E E E E E E E E E E E E E
E
G G G G G G G G G G
G
G
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G G G G G G G G G G G G
G G G G G G G G
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
TF
RD
RD
RD
RD
H
Y
D
H
Y
D
H
Y
D
H
Y
D
G
G
T S
T S
F
E
S
H
Y
D
H
Y
D
H
Y
APPENDIX D
PRECISION DRIVE DRAINAGE PLAN
S
D
D
S
D
D
S
ELEC
S
WV
WV WV
WV
WV
H
Y
D
D
S
WV
WV
ELEC
V.S P.
S
S
S
S V.P.
V.P.S V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
S
V.P.
S V.P.
S
S
S
V.P.
H2O
S
H
Y
D
ELEC
S
X
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLE
V.P.
X
X
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
WV
WV
S
S
Presidio Apartments
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Character of Surface
Runoff
Coefficient
Percentage
Imperviousness
Streets, Parking Lots, RoofS, Alleys, and Drives:
Asphalt ……....……...…...…...………………………………………….. 0.95 100 Project: Presidio
Concrete …….......…….……………….………………………………… 0.95 90 Date: 6.30.09
Gravel ……….………….………………………………………………….. 0.50 40 By: ATC
Roofs …….…….………………………………………………………….. 0.95 90
Lawns and Landscaping
Sandy Soil ……..………………………………………………………….. 0.15 0
Clayey Soil ….….……….…………………………………………………. 0.25 0 2-year Cf
= 1.00 100-year Cf = 1.25
Runoff Coefficients are taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, Table 3-3
Basin ID
Basin Area
(s.f.)
Basin Area
(acres)
Area of Asphalt
Streets, Parking
Lots, and Alleys
(sf)
Area of Roofs,
Walks,
and Driveways
(sf)
Area of Gravel
Parking
and Drives
(sf)
Area of Lawn
and Landscape
(sf)
2-year
Composite Runoff
Coefficient
100-year
Composite Runoff
Coefficient
Composite
%
Impervious
1 107523 2.468 91395 0 0 16128 0.85 1.00 85.00
2 102980 2.364 87533 0 0 15447 0.85 1.00 85.00
3 131838 3.027 112062 0 0 19776 0.85 1.00 85.00
4 97916 2.248 83229 0 0 14687 0.85 1.00 85.00
5 27956 0.642 17036 0 0 10920 0.68 0.85 60.94
1-5 468213 10.74869146 391254.45 0 0 76959 0.83 1.00 83.56
NOTE: all impervious surfaces within street, whether asphalt or concrete, have been grouped together in the "Asphalt" column
DEVELOPED COND. COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS
Presidio Apartments
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Fort Collins, Colorado
Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:
Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration:
Tt = L / 60V
Tc = T
i + Tt
(Equation RO-2)
Intensity, i From Figures 3.3.1-2 (Area II) Project: Presidio
Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S
½
Date: 6.30.09
Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S
½
By: ATC
Rational Equation: Q = CiA (Equation RO-1)
Time of Concentration
C*Cf
Length, L
(ft)
Slope, S
(%)
Ti
(min)
Length, L
(ft)
Slope, S
(%)
Velocity, V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
Length, L
(ft)
Slope, S
(%)
Velocity, V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
2-YR
Tc
(min)
110.25 50 2.0 8.9 400 1.0 2.00 3.3 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 12.3
220.25 50 2.0 8.7 350 1.0 2.00 2.9 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 11.7
330.25 50 2.0 8.7 450 1.0 2.00 3.8 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 12.5
440.25 50 2.0 8.7 475 1.0 2.00 4.0 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 12.7
550.25 20 2.0 5.5 780 0.7 1.67 7.8 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 13.3
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 2-YR TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS
Overland Flow Gutter Flow Swale Flow
Design
Point Basin(s)
(Equation RO-4)
()
3
1
1 . 87 1 . 1 *
S
Ti C Cf L
Presidio Apartments
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Fort Collins, Colorado
Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:
Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration:
Tt = L / 60V
Tc = T
i + Tt
(Equation RO-2)
Intensity, i From Figures 3.3.1-2 (Area II) Project: Presidio
Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S
½
Date: 6.30.09
Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S
½
By: ATC
Rational Equation: Q = CiA (Equation RO-1)
Time of Concentration
C*Cf
Length, L
(ft)
Slope, S
(%)
Ti
(min)
Length, L
(ft)
Slope, S
(%)
Velocity, V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
Length, L
(ft)
Slope, S
(%)
Velocity, V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
100-YR
Tc
(min)
110.31 50 2.0 8.3 400 1.0 2.00 3.3 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 11.6
220.31 50 2.0 8.1 350 1.0 2.00 2.9 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 11.0
330.31 50 2.0 8.1 450 1.0 2.00 3.8 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 11.9
440.31 50 2.0 8.1 475 1.0 2.00 4.0 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 12.1
550.31 20 2.0 5.1 780 0.7 1.67 7.8 0 0.0 0.00 N/A 12.9
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 100-YR TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS
Overland Flow Gutter Flow Swale Flow
Design
Point Basin(s)
(Equation RO-4)
()
3
1
1 . 87 1 . 1 *
S
Ti C Cf L
Presidio Apartments
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Project: Presidio
Date: 6.30.09
By: ATC
1 1 2.47 12.3 11.6 0.85 1.00 2.05 7.29 4.3 18.0
2 2 2.36 11.7 11.0 0.85 1.00 2.09 7.42 4.2 17.5
3 3 3.03 12.5 11.9 0.85 1.00 2.05 7.29 5.2 22.1
4 4 2.25 12.7 12.1 0.85 1.00 2.02 7.16 3.8 16.1
5 5 0.64 13.3 12.9 0.68 0.85 1.98 7.04 0.9 3.8
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS DEVELOPED DIRECT RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS
C100
Design
Point
Flow,
Q100
(cfs)
Flow,
Q2
Basin(s) (cfs)
Area, A
(acres)
Intensity,
I100
(in/hr)
2-yr Tc
(min)
Intensity, I2
C2 (in/hr)
100-yr Tc
(min)
MAP POCKET
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS
G G G
G
T
T T T
T
T T
T
ST
ST
ST ST ST ST
ST
ST ST ST
ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST
ST
ST
ST ST ST
ST
R
R
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
UD
UD
LE FEVER DRIVE
CINQUEFOIL LANE
PRECISION DRIVE
LADY MOON DRIVE
BLDG 1
BLDG 2
BLDG 3
BLDG 4
BLDG 8
BLDG 7
BLDG 10
BLDG 9
BLDG 5
BLDG 6
UD
UD
3B
1A
2
1
3D
2
RAINGARDEN
RAINGARDEN
CLUB HOUSE &
COMMUNITY CENTER
POOL DECK
BLDG 7
GARAGE
G1
GARAGE
G2
GARAGE
G3
GARAGE
G5
GARAGE
G6
GARAGE
G8
GARAGE
G9
GARAGE
G10
GARAGE
G14
GARAGE
G13
GARAGE
G15
GARAGE
G16
GARAGE
G12
GARAGE
G11
GARAGE
G7
GARAGE
G17
GARAGE
G18
GARAGE
G4
GARAGE
G19
GARAGE
G20
3A
3C
3D
3B
3A
3C
1B
OS1
4A
4B
These drawings are
instruments of service
provided by Northern
Engineering Services, Inc.
and are not to be used for
any type of construction
unless signed and sealed by
a Professional Engineer in
the employ of Northern
Engineering Services, Inc.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
200 South College Avenue, Suite 010
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
C700
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
R
NORTH
LEGEND:
1
1 1
PROJECT BENCHMARK
BENCHMARK #1:
City of Fort Collins Benchmark 7-01
Elevation = 4911.33
BENCHMARK #2:
City of Fort Collins Benchmark 7-07
Elevation = 4875.97
NOTES:
FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
UD
1
−
=
}
−
=
}
WV
WV
D
V.P. V.P.
V.P.
S
WV
WV
S
D
X
X
X
X
X
W
S
O
X
V.P.
X
X
W
S
O
S
D
D D
S
D
D
SSANI
SANI
SANI
D
D D
S
VAULT
ELEC
WV
WV
WV
S
VAULT
ELEC
E
E
E
E
VAULT
ELEC
E
E
E
E
E
W
8" W
H
Y
D
WV
WV
8" W
8" W
8" W
H
Y
D
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
W
WV
WV
8" W
WV
WV
12" W
FO
FO
FO
FO
FO
FO
FO
CABLE
ELEC
T
T
T
T
T
G
G
G
G
G
GAS
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
TELE
H2O
GAS
GAS
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC ELEC
E
D
F
E
S
F
E
S
D
VAULT
ELEC
V.P.
W
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
ST ST
D
ST ST ST
ST
ST
ST ST
ST ST
10" SS 10" SS
10" SS 10" SS
10" SS
8" SS
12" SS
SS
18" SS
8" SS
12" SS
18" SS
8" SS
8" SS
SS
D D
W
12" W 12" W
6" W
12" W 12" W
8" W
R R
R R
R
R
R
R R
ST
10
12
14
10
8
22
12
10
24
11
11
22
24
24
24
24
8
6
12
HC
HC
HC
9
14 14
10
14
13
6
HC
HC
7
HC
11
HC
HC
HC
HC
4
12 5
8
18
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
4
TF
TF
1
2
3
4
5
Drawn by:ATC Date Drawn:7.15.09
NORTH
0
1 inch ( = IN ft. PRESIDIO
FUTURE PRECISION DRIVE DRAINAGE BASINS
D
GAS
GAS
F
E
S
F
E
S
F
E
S
F
E
S
F
E
S
F
E
S
F
E
S
�
�
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D D
LOT ONE
HARMONY
TECHNOLOGY
PARK, SECOND
FILING
LOT TWO
HARMONY
TECHNOLOGY
PARK, SECOND
FILING
LOT TWO
HARMONY
TECHNOLOGY
PARK, SECOND
FILING
PRECISION
DRIVE
OWNER:
ANDERSON, KATHRYN JOY
WINCHESTER, ELSIE A / SUSAN P
BILL RAY II / LUCAS, SHERI W
OWNER:
CHANDLER, J THOMAS
OWNER:
CHANDLER, J THOMAS
TRACT E
BROOKFIELD
������ � ���� �
������ ���
H
Y
D
F
E
S
F
E
S
V.P.
V.P.V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
V.P.
F
E
S
F
E
S
C.O.
LID
LID
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
TOTAL VOLUME~2.61 AC-FT
POND AREA~38,288 SF / 0.90 ACRES
100 YR. RELEASE RATE 39.7 CFS
TOTAL VOLUME~3.92 AC-FT
SURFACE AREA 48,207 SF / 1.10 AC
100 YR. RELEASE RATE 0.7 CFS
TRACT i
100 YR. RELEASE RATE 25.1 CFS
TRACT M
100 YR. RELEASE RATE 29.1 CFS
FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR INLET DITCH
IRRIGATION DITCH ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED PLD SECTION
WITH UNDERDRAIN
3
23.79
1
13.88
2
13.00
4
5.10
5
5.90
TOTAL VOLUME~8.39 AC-FT
POND AREA~120,166 SF / 2.76 ACRES
100 YR. RELEASE RATE 28.2 CFS
TRACT K
HARMONY ROAD
LADY MOON DR.
CINQUEFOIL LANE
LE FEVER DR.
UEFOIL LANE
LADY MOON DR.
TIMBERWOOD
DR.
CINQUEFOIL LANE
NORTH
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
100 0 100 Feet
100
200 300
LEGEND:
5013
PROPOSED CONTOUR 93
EXISTING STORM SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
ST
PROPOSED SWALE
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED VERTICAL
PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION 33.43
PROPOSED SLOPES
PROPOSED STORM INLET
2.0%
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RAMPS
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION (47.45)
CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
LOT LINE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
CROSS PAN (TYP.)
KEYMAP
HARMONY ROAD
BROOKFIELD DRIVE
LE FEVER DRIVE
TIMBERWOOD DRIVE
LADY MOON DR.
CINQUEFOIL LANE
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
K��� ����'� �����.
C��� ������ ��� ���.
R
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
EXHIBIT
MASTER DRAINAGE
�600
FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
���� �������, ��������
������ ������ ������� ������
���� 24, 2013
�����
������� ��. & ���� ���� ��.
������� ���������� ���������� 1426 ����� ��., ����� 300 �������, �� 303.499.7795
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW SET
��56
����� ����
Max 8.0
Riprap
Type
(From
Figure
MD‐21 or
MD‐22)
Yt,
Tailwater
Depth
(ft)
Culvert Parameters
At=Q/V (ft)
INPUT CALCULATE
Date: 11/1/13
Expansion
Factor
1/(2tanq)
(From
Figure
MD‐23 or
MD‐24)
Storm
Line/Culvert
Label
Design
Discharge
(cfs)
By: ATC
Weir Flow
Orifice Flow
Q 3 . 0 P H 1 . 5
Q 0 . 67 A ( 2 gH ) 0 . 5
Weir Flow
Orifice Flow
Q 3 . 0 P H 1 . 5
Q 0 . 67 A ( 2 gH ) 0 . 5
Curb Opening as a Weir (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qwi
= 0.01 0.72 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qwa
= 0.01 0.66 cfs
Curb Opening as an Orifice (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qoi
= 6.95 9.83 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qoa
= 6.37 9.01 cfs
Curb Opening Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qmi
= 0.19 2.28 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qma
= 0.18 2.09 cfs
Resulting Curb Opening Capacity (assumes clogged condition) QCurb
= 0.01 0.66 cfs
Resultant Street Conditions MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Length L = 6.00 6.00 feet
Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) T = 1.0 9.4 ft
Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown dCROWN
= 0.0 0.0 inches
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa
= 0.06 1.69 cfs
WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Minor and Major Storms Q PEAK REQUIRED
= 1.00 10.30 cfs
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
514-002
SUMP COMBINATION INLET - C1
CDOT/Denver 13 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
Override Depths
514-002_UD-Inlet_v3.12_SUMP COMBO-c1, Inlet In Sump 11/26/2013, 12:43 PM
Curb Opening as a Weir (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qwi
= 3.02 5.85 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qwa
= 2.77 5.36 cfs
Curb Opening as an Orifice (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qoi
= 11.35 12.31 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qoa
= 10.41 11.28 cfs
Curb Opening Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qmi
= 5.04 7.29 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qma
= 4.62 6.69 cfs
Resulting Curb Opening Capacity (assumes clogged condition) QCurb
= 2.77 5.36 cfs
Resultant Street Conditions MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Length L = 6.00 6.00 feet
Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) T = 16.8 22.0 ft.>T-Crown
Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown dCROWN
= 0.5 1.9 inches
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa
= 5.30 9.44 cfs
WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for MAJOR Storm Q PEAK REQUIRED
= 1.00 18.40 cfs
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
514-002
SUMP COMBINATION INLET - B1-1
CDOT/Denver 13 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
Override Depths
514-002_UD-Inlet_v3.12_SUMP COMBO, Inlet In Sump 11/26/2013, 12:36 PM
Curb Opening as a Weir (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qwi
= 0.01 0.10 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qwa
= 0.01 0.09 cfs
Curb Opening as an Orifice (based on UDFCD - CSU 2010 Study) MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qoi
= 6.95 8.70 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qoa
= 6.37 7.98 cfs
Curb Opening Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR
Interception without Clogging Qmi
= 0.19 0.81 cfs
Interception with Clogging Qma
= 0.18 0.74 cfs
Resulting Curb Opening Capacity (assumes clogged condition) QCurb
= 0.01 0.09 cfs
Resultant Street Conditions MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Length L = 6.00 6.00 feet
Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) T = 1.0 4.6 ft
Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown dCROWN
= 0.0 0.0 inches
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa
= 0.06 0.55 cfs
WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Minor and Major Storms Q PEAK REQUIRED
= 1.00 18.40 cfs
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
514-002
SUMP COMBINATION INLET - B1
CDOT/Denver 13 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
Override Depths
514-002_UD-Inlet_v3.12_SUMP COMBO-b1, Inlet In Sump 11/26/2013, 12:41 PM
(min)
10-yr
Tc
(min)
100-yr
Tc
(min)
1A 1A No 0.25 0.25 0.32 45 2.00% 8.5 8.5 7.8 634 0.50% 1.41 7.5 N/A N/A 16 16 15
1B 1B No 0.25 0.25 0.32 45 2.00% 8.5 8.5 7.8 634 0.50% 1.41 7.5 N/A N/A 16 16 15
22No0.25 0.25 0.32 60 2.00% 9.8 9.8 9.0 220 0.50% 1.41 2.6 N/A N/A 12 12 12
3A 3A No 0.25 0.25 0.32 45 2.00% 8.5 8.5 7.8 285 0.50% 1.41 3.4 N/A N/A 12 12 11
3B 3B No 0.25 0.25 0.32 70 2.00% 10.6 10.6 9.7 460 0.50% 1.41 5.4 N/A N/A 16 16 15
3C 3C No 0.25 0.25 0.32 40 2.00% 8.0 8.0 7.3 45 0.50% 1.41 0.5 N/A N/A 9 9 8
3D 3D No 0.25 0.25 0.32 45 2.00% 8.5 8.5 7.8 215 0.50% 1.41 2.5 N/A N/A 11 11 10
4A 4A No 0.25 0.25 0.32 45 2.00% 8.5 8.5 7.8 85 0.50% 1.41 1.0 N/A N/A 9 9 9
4B 4B No 0.25 0.25 0.32 45 2.00% 8.5 8.5 7.8 105 0.50% 1.41 1.2 N/A N/A 10 10 9
OS1 OS1 No 0.25 0.25 0.32 50 2.00% 8.9 8.9 8.2 475 0.50% 1.41 5.6 N/A N/A 15 15 14
DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS
Gutter Flow Swale Flow
Design
Point
Basin
Overland Flow
ATC
November 1, 2013
Time of Concentration
(Equation RO-4)
3
1
1 . 87 1 . 1 *
S
Ti C Cf L
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
November 1, 2013