HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAPSTONE COTTAGES - FDP - FDP150046 - REPORTS - DRAINAGE REPORTMarch 30, 2016
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR
CAPSTONE COTTAGES
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
Capstone Collegiate Communities
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35223
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: 939-001
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.
March 30, 2016
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
CAPSTONE COTTAGES
Dear Staff:
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your
review. This report accompanies the Project Development Plan submittal for the proposed
Capstone Cottages 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, PhD, PE
Senior Project Engineer
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 1
A. Location ..................................................................................................................................1
B. Description of Property ............................................................................................................3
C. Floodplain ...............................................................................................................................5
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS................................................................................ 5
A. Major Basin Description ...........................................................................................................5
B. Sub-Basin Description ..............................................................................................................6
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 6
A. Regulations .............................................................................................................................6
B. Four Step Process ....................................................................................................................6
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ......................................................................7
D. Hydrological Criteria ................................................................................................................7
E. Hydraulic Criteria .....................................................................................................................7
F. Modifications of Criteria ..........................................................................................................7
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .............................................................................................. 8
A. General Concept......................................................................................................................8
B. Specific Details ........................................................................................................................9
V. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 10
A. Compliance with Standards .................................................................................................... 10
B. Drainage Concept .................................................................................................................. 11
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations
APPENDIX B – Street Capacity Computations
APPENDIX C – Inlet Computations
APPENDIX D – Storm Line Computations
APPENDIX E – LID Design Information
APPENDIX F – Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)
APPENDIX G – Erosion Control Report
APPENDIX H – Larimer County Correspondence-Lincoln Channel
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 – Existing Floodplains ......................................................................................................... 5
MAP POCKET:
Proposed Drainage Exhibit
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 1
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
1. Vicinity Map
2. The project site is located in the west half of Section 7, Township 6 North, Range 68
West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado .
3. The project site is located just northeast of the intersection of Lemay Avenue and
Lincoln Avenue.
4. The project site lies within the Dry Creek Basin. Detention requirements are to detain
the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year
release rate. The historic release rate for this basin is 0.20 cfs per acre.
5. The Mulberry Street Walmart and the Buffalo Run Apartment complex exist just to the
south of the site, on the south side of Lincoln Avenue. The San Criso residential
development exists to the north of the site. The Sunward Condos development exists
to the east of the site. The Lincoln Channel (Storm Drainage) runs along the southern
boundary of the project site, and will be utilized as the storm outfall for the majority of
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 2
developed site runoff.
6. No offsite flows enter the site from the west, south, or east. Currently, offsite flows
along the north side of the site are conveyed east via overland flow; however, as
shown on the Drainage Exhibit, we are anticipating some form of detention pond in
the future to occur at the northwest corner of the intersection of International Blvd.
and Duff Dr. We will design the proposed storm line in international Blvd. to take 5.0
cfs from this point through the site, based on an allowable release rate of 0.20 cfs per
acre per the the Dry Creek Basin Master Plan. We are not detaining this offsite flow,
and we will not increase site release rate to compensate for this offsite flow; rather,
we have designed the emergency spillway to safely pass flows from the offsite area in
both the future anticipated condition as well as the current existing condition.
7. The Lincoln Channel conveys regional flows from the west; this channel conveys flows
east along the southern boundary of the project site. The proposed site will release
into the Lincoln Channel at a rate of 0.20 cfs per acre per the Dry Creek Basin Master
Plan. We have met with the Larimer County Engineering Department and they have
indicated acceptance of this master planned release rate into the Lincoln Channel.
8. An existing 36-inch diameter storm line runs along the west side of the site, which
will be utilized in the proposed site design to serve as an outfall for the proposed
paver detention system shown in drainage Basin 4 on the proposed drainage exhibit.
The existing storm line will also serve as an outfall for the proposed inlets within the
future Realigned Lemay Avenue (drainage Basins 14a and 14b). The existing 36-inch
diameter line begins to the north of the proposed site and serves as the outfall for the
existing San Cristo neighborhood detention pond.
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 3
B. Description of Property
1. The project area is roughly 25.9 net acres.
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph
2. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel with native ground cover. Existing
ground slopes are mild to moderate (i.e., 1 - 6±%) through the interior of the
property. General topography slopes from northwest to southeast. The Lincoln
Channel, running along the southern boundary of the project site, collects the majority
of historic site runoff.
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 Caruso Clay Loam, Loveland Clay Loam, and Nunn Clay Loam,
which all fall into Hydrologic Soil Group C.
4. The proposed project site plan is composed of residential and commercial
development. Associated roadways, water and sewer lines will be constructed with
the development. Onsite detention for a portion of the site is proposed within the
subgrade of a permeable paver system. The remainder of onsite detention will be
provided within a surface detention pond located at the southeast corner of the site.
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 4
Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan
5. There are no known irrigation laterals crossing the site.
6. The proposed land use is residential and commercial.
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 5
C. Floodplain
1. The project site is not encroached by any City or FEMA 100-year floodplain. The site
is located within the FEMA-Regulatory 500-year floodplain (shaded Zone X) of the
Cache La Poudre River. As such, At-Risk Population and Essential Service Critical
Facilities are not allowed within the limits of the 500-year floodplain.
Figure 3 –Area Floodplain Mapping
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
2. The project site lies within the Dry Creek Basin. Detention requirements are to detain
the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year
release rate. The historic release rate for this basin is 0.20 cfs per acre. The site
outfall is the existing Lincoln Channel, running along the southern boundary of the
site. We have met with Larimer County and communicated the concerns that the City
of Fort Collins has regarding discharge into the Lincoln Channel. Larimer County’s
position, as documented in the February 20, 2015 email from Larimer County (copy
provided in Appendix), is that Larimer County is in agreement with discharging into
the Channel as long as the release rate specified in the Dry Creek Basin Master
Drainage Plan is maintained.
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 6
B. Sub-Basin Description
1. The subject property historically drains overland from northwest to southeast. Runoff
from the majority of the site has historically been collected in the Lincoln Channel,
running along the southern boundary of the site. The Lincoln Channel captures
regional flows from the west and conveys these flows east.
2. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns follows in Section IV.A.4.,
below.
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 be
intercepted and treated using rain gardens prior to exiting the site.
Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways
There are no major drainageways within the subject property (the Lincoln Channel is
located outside of the property boundary). 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:
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 7
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.
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The subject property is surrounded by currently developed properties. 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, the subject property is not 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.
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 8
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.
2. Onsite detention will be provided within the subgrade of the proposed permeable
pavement systems for Basin 2, and in the pond within Basin 7 for the majority of the
site (please see exceptions discussed below). Detention release rates will be
controlled through sub-surface control structures.
3. The site has been broken into 14 sub-basins for preliminary design purposes.
Anticipated drainage patterns for proposed drainage basins are described below.
Basins 1, 5, 10, 13
Basins 1, 5, 10, and 13 consist of residential and commercial development, and will
generally drain via overland flow and curb and gutter flow into permeable paver
systems (Basins 10 and 13 will not have a paver system), and a series of rain gardens
for pre-treatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the constructed wetland.
The proposed series of permeable paver systems shown on the Drainage Exhibit will
be designed to both capture and collect runoff and then direct flows into storm line
systems via a subdrain system, connecting to the proposed storm line system.
Detention for Basins 1, 5, 10,and 13 will be provided within the detention
pond/constructed wetland in the southeast corner of the site.
Basins 2, 3, 6, 12
Basins 2, 3, 6, 12 consist of public right of way areas that will generally drain via
curb and gutter flow into inlets and storm line systems within the project site. The
storm main collecting all runoff from these basins will include a Snout for pre-
treatment of runoff prior to discharge into the constructed wetland. Detention for
Basins 2, 3, 6, and 12 will be provided within the detention pond/constructed
wetland in the southeast corner of the site. LID treatment will be provided for these
basins as outlined in Appendix E.
Basin 4
Basin 4 consists of residential development, and will generally drain via overland flow
and curb and gutter flow into a permeable paver system, and underground storage
vault system. The permeable paver sub-grade material as well as the underground
vault system will be utilized for 0.99 acre-feet of onsite detention volume.
Basins 6c and 11
Due to grading constraints Basins 6c and 11 will be directed offsite undetained.
Basin 6c is 0.23 acre and will sheet flow primarily into the adjacent Lincoln Avenue.
In a 100-year event this basin produces 1.1 cfs. Basin 11 is 0.04 acre and will flow
from curb and gutter to offsite property to the north. In a 100-year event this basin
produces 0.4 cfs. Release from the detention pond has been reduced by the total
undetained flow of 1.5 cfs from Basins 6c and 11.
Basin 7
Basin 7 consist of the proposed detention/constructed wetland area, and will drain
directly into the detention pond.
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 9
Basins 8 and 9
Basin 8 will be directed into a rain garden through a 5-foot curb cut, and will drain via
the rain garden’s subdrain system into the adjacent detention pond/constructed
wetland in the southeast corner of the site. Basin 9 will be directed into a rain garden
through a 10-foot curb cut, and will drain via the rain garden’s subdrain system into
the adjacent detention pond/constructed wetland in the southeast corner of the site.
Detention Basins 8 and 9 will be provided within the detention pond/constructed
wetland.
Basins 14a through 14e
Basins 14a defines future Lemay Avenue Right of way and will drain into proposed
inlets shown within the future Realigned Lemay Avenue, which will convey flows into
the existing 36-inch diameter storm line extending from the north and running along
the west side of the site (discussed above in Section I.A). Analysis of the capacity of
this line has been provided in Appendix D which shows the existing storm line has
capacity for this flow. The line does have additional capacity for additional flow as
well. Future flows from Basin 14e may also be accommodated in this line. Future
analysis will need to occur when this area is developed.
Basin 14b also defines future Lemay Right of Way and will drain into proposed inlets
shown within the future Realigned Lemay Avenue, which will convey flows into the
existing 18-inch diameter storm line running along the west side of the site. Analysis
of the capacity of this line has been provided in Appendix D which shows the existing
storm line has capacity for this flow.
Basins 14c and 14d define onsite areas adjacent to the future Lemay Avenue Right of
Way and are primarily composed of landscaped areas and rooftops. We have
designed small pockets of detention cells to capture flows prior to discharge into Right
of Way. These small detention cells will release back into the existing 36-inch pipe
extending from the north and running along the west side of the site (discussed above
in Section I.A).
Please see further discussion of water quality and detention requirements in Section
IV.B, below.
A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of
this report.
B. Specific Details
1. Quantity detention is a requirement for the site, and portion (0.98 acre-feet) of
quantity detention is proposed to be provided within the underground vault
system and permeable paver sub-grade material within Basin 4. The majority
of the site will be directed into the onsite pond within Basin 7 to maintain the
required site release rate. The current stipulation for release rate is 0.20 cfs
per acre per the Dry Creek Master Plan. The project site encompasses 25.9
acres, thus, a release rate of 5.2 cfs for the overall site is required by this
criteria. A total detention volume of 4.80 acre-feet with a release rate of 3.70
cfs has been calculated for the detention/water quality pond in Basin 7. This
release rate accounts for Basins 6c and 11 releasing from the site undetained
as described above.
2. A detention volume of 0.98 acre-feet with a release rate of 1.25 cfs has been
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 10
calculated for the paver system detention in Basin 4. Detention volumes have
been estimated using the computer program EPA SWMM.
Table 1 – Detention Summary Table
Pond ID
100-Yr.
Detention Vol.
(Cu-Ft)
100-Yr.
Detention Vol.
(Ac-Ft)
100-Yr. WSEL
(Ft)
Peak
Release
(cfs)
Paver Subgrade
(Within Drainage
Basin 4) 42579 0.98 N/A 1.25
Detention Pond
(Within Drainage
Basin 7) 208744 4.79 4938.90 3.70
3. The site plan currently shows LID measures proposed with the development
plan consisting a “treatment train” involving permeable paver systems, and
rain gardens, prior to discharge into the detention pond/constructed wetland
located at the southeast corner of the site. The constructed wetland
component in the bottom stage of the detention pond will provide significant
water quality treatment benefits as well. Please see Appendix E for LID table,
design information, and an LID exhibit.
4. The site plan ensures a minimum of 25% of paved drive and parking areas to
consist of permeable pavers. The paver system will greatly enhance filtration of
storm runoff, and will provide significant storm runoff infiltration.
5. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual shall be provided by the City of
Fort Collins in the Development Agreement.
6. Proper maintenance of the drainage facilities designed with the proposed
development is a critical component of their ongoing performance and effectiveness.
The constructed wetland within Basin 7 has been designed to be easily accessed by
maintenance staff via gentle slopes provided to the bottom of the pond.
7. The drainage features associated with the proposed project are all private facilities,
located on private property.
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 requirements for the
Dry Creek Basin.
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.
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 11
B. Drainage Concept
1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential
damage associated with its stormwater runoff by providing detention and water
quality mitigation features.
2. The drainage concept for the proposed development is consistent with requirements
for the Dry Creek Basin.
Capstone Cottages
Final Drainage Report 12
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.
APPENDIX A
HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS
CHARACTER OF SURFACE:
Runoff
Coefficient
Percentage
Impervious Project: 939-001
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
Pavers (ac)
Area of
Lawns and
Landscaping
(ac)
2-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
10-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
100-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
Composite
% Imperv.
1 321748 7.39 4.48 0.50 0.86 0.74 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00 79%
2 51592 1.18 0.98 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.90 0.90 1.00 92%
3 32743 0.75 0.63 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.90 1.00 92%
4 196020 4.50 3.10 0.19 0.49 0.51 0.21 0.86 0.86 1.00 85%
5 302154 6.94 5.00 0.40 0.60 0.53 0.41 0.87 0.87 1.00 87%
6a 27201 0.62 0.46 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.90 0.90 1.00 91%
6b 13461 0.31 0.28 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.93 1.00 96%
6c 10193 0.23 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.37 0.37 0.46 17%
7 47523 1.09 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.40 0.40 0.51 22%
8 8364 0.19 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 98%
9 15856 0.36 0.29 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 98%
Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:
Project: 939-001
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: 939-001
Calculations By:
Date:
From Section 3.2.1 of the CFCSDDC
Rainfall Intensity:
1 1 7.39 18 18 17 0.82 0.82 1.00 1.70 2.90 6.10 10.3 17.5 45.1
2 2 1.18 5 5 5 0.90 0.90 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 3.0 5.2 11.8
3 3 0.75 13 13 12 0.90 0.90 1.00 2.02 3.45 7.16 1.4 2.3 5.4
4 4 4.50 13 13 12 0.86 0.86 1.00 2.02 3.45 7.29 7.8 13.3 32.8
5 5 6.94 24 24 22 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.48 2.52 5.32 8.9 15.2 36.9
6a 6a 0.62 10 10 10 0.90 0.90 1.00 2.26 3.86 7.88 1.3 2.2 4.9
6b 6b 0.31 5 5 5 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.8 1.4 3.1
6c 6c 0.23 5 5 5 0.37 0.37 0.46 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.2 0.4 1.1
7 7 1.09 12 12 11 0.40 0.40 0.51 2.05 3.50 7.42 0.9 1.5 4.1
8 8 0.19 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.5 0.9 1.9
9 9 0.36 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.0 1.7 3.6
10 10 1.14 5 5 5 0.76 0.76 0.96 2.85 4.87 9.95 2.5 4.3 10.9
11 11 0.04 5 5 5 0.88 0.88 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.1 0.2 0.4
12 12 0.35 5 5 5 0.87 0.87 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.9 1.5 3.5
13 13 0.60 11 11 10 0.62 0.62 0.77 2.13 3.63 7.72 0.8 1.3 3.6
14a 14a 1.95 10 10 9 0.65 0.65 0.82 2.26 3.86 8.03 2.9 4.9 12.8
14b 14b 1.00 10 10 9 0.73 0.73 0.91 2.26 3.86 8.21 1.6 2.8 7.5
14c 14c 1.12 12 12 11 0.68 0.68 0.85 2.05 3.50 7.42 1.6 2.7 7.0
14d 14d 0.56 15 15 14 0.50 0.50 0.62 1.90 3.24 6.82 0.5 0.9 2.4
14e 14e 1.92 32 32 30 0.25 0.25 0.31 1.24 2.12 4.52 0.6 1.0 2.7
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
APPENDIX B
WATER WAWASSTREET CAPACITY COMPUTATIONS
Project: 939‐001
By: ATC
Date: 12/1/2015
Design Street Street Street 2‐Yr 2‐Yr 100‐Yr 100‐Yr Comment
Point Name Section Slope Flow Capacity Flow Capacity
w/Reduction w/Reduction
(CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS)
2 Duff Drive Minor Collector 0.80% 3.04 4.9 11.78 128.20 Flow < Cap.
3 Duff Drive Local Residential 0.80% 1.37 4.9 5.38 128.20 Flow < Cap.
6a International Boulevard Local Residential 0.60% 1.9 4.2 7.8 111.20 Flow < Cap.
STREET CAPACITY SUMMARY
Project:
Inlet ID:
Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells)
Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb T
BACK =
10.5 ft
Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S
BACK =
0.020 ft/ft
Manning's Roughness Behind Curb n
BACK =
0.016
Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line H
CURB =
3.90 inches
Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown T
CROWN =
17.0 ft
Gutter Width W = 1.44 ft
Street Transverse Slope S
X =
0.020 ft/ft
Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) S
W =
0.060 ft/ft
Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition S
O =
0.008 ft/ft
Manning's Roughness for Street Section n
STREET =
0.016
Minor Storm Major Storm
Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm T
MAX =
17.0 17.0 ft
Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm d
MAX =
3.9 12.0 inches
Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) check = yes
MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow
= 4.9 128.2 cfs
Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak'
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm)
939-001
Design Point 2
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak'
dp2-StrtCap-UDFCD.xlsm, Q-Allow 12/15/2015, 1:32 PM
Project:
Inlet ID:
Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells)
Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb T
BACK =
10.5 ft
Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S
BACK =
0.020 ft/ft
Manning's Roughness Behind Curb n
BACK =
0.016
Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line H
CURB =
3.90 inches
Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown T
CROWN =
17.0 ft
Gutter Width W = 1.44 ft
Street Transverse Slope S
X =
0.020 ft/ft
Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) S
W =
0.060 ft/ft
Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition S
O =
0.008 ft/ft
Manning's Roughness for Street Section n
STREET =
0.016
Minor Storm Major Storm
Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm T
MAX =
17.0 17.0 ft
Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm d
MAX =
3.9 12.0 inches
Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) check = yes
MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow
= 4.9 128.2 cfs
Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak'
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm)
939-001
Design Point 3
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak'
dp3-StrtCap-UDFCD.xlsm, Q-Allow 12/15/2015, 1:34 PM
Project:
Inlet ID:
Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells)
Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb T
BACK =
10.5 ft
Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S
BACK =
0.020 ft/ft
Manning's Roughness Behind Curb n
BACK =
0.016
Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line H
CURB =
3.90 inches
Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown T
CROWN =
17.0 ft
Gutter Width W = 1.44 ft
Street Transverse Slope S
X =
0.020 ft/ft
Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) S
W =
0.060 ft/ft
Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition S
O =
0.006 ft/ft
Manning's Roughness for Street Section n
STREET =
0.016
Minor Storm Major Storm
Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm T
MAX =
17.0 17.0 ft
Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm d
MAX =
3.9 12.0 inches
Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) check = yes
MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow
= 4.2 111.1 cfs
Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak'
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm)
939-001
Design Point 6a
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak'
dp6a-StrtCap-UDFCD.xlsm, Q-Allow 12/15/2015, 1:36 PM
APPENDIX C
WAWASINLET COMPUTATIONS
Project: 939‐001
By: ATC
Date: 12/1/2015
Design Inlet Inlet Design Design
Point Type Condition Storm Flow Inlet Capacity
(CFS) (CFS) Comments
1 Quadruple (4) Combo Sump 100‐yr 45.10 46.20 100‐yr flow taken in w/max 4‐inch over top of curb
2 Quadruple (4) Combo Sump 100‐yr 11.80 46.20 Inlet oversized to accommodate triple pipe configuration
3 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 5.40 8.90
4 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 7.80 8.90 Inlet works to capture 100‐yr in conjunction w/pavers, paver detention
5 Quadruple (4) Combo Sump 100‐yr 36.90 46.20 100‐yr flow taken in w/max 2‐inch over top of curb
6a Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 7.80 17.90 Inlet oversized to accommodate pipe configuration
6b Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 7.80 17.90 Inlet oversized to accommodate pipe configuration
10 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 10.90 11.00 100‐yr flow taken in w/max 9.5‐inch over top of curb (partial overflow to raingarden)
13 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 3.60 8.90
14a Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 20.60 20.70
14b Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 7.90 20.70 Inlet oversized to accommodate pipe configuration
OS1 Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 20.70 20.70 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow
OS2 Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 20.70 20.70 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow
OS2 Single (1) Area Inlet Sump 100‐yr 5.50 5.50 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow
OS4 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 8.90 8.90 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow
OS5 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 8.90 8.90 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow
Inlet Summary Table
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 4 4
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 24.4 46.2 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 15.0 46.0 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.1
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP1.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:09 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 4 4
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 24.4 46.2 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 3.0 11.8 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.2
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP2.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:15 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 6.3 8.9 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 1.4 5.4 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.3
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP3.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:21 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 6.3 8.9 cfs
WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Minor Storm Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 7.8 7.8 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.4
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP4.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:23 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 4 4
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 10.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 24.4 38.4 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 8.9 36.9 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.5
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP5.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:28 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 10.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 13.9 17.9 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 1.9 7.8 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.6a
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP6a.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:36 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 10.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 13.9 17.9 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 0.8 3.1 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.6b
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP6b.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:45 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 17.5 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 6.3 11.0 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 2.5 10.9 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.10
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP10.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:46 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 6.3 8.9 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 0.8 3.6 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.13
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP13.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:49 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 13.9 20.7 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 4.6 20.6 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.14a
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP14a.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:08 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 13.9 20.7 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 1.9 7.9 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt.14b
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP14b..xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:10 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 13.9 20.7 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 10.0 20.7 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt. OS1
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-OS1.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:32 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 13.9 20.7 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 10.0 20.7 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt. OS2
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-OS2.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:33 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 6.3 8.9 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 5.0 8.9 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt. OS4
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-OS4.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:33 PM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a
local = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate L
o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate W
o = 1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A
ratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C
f (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C
w (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C
o (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L
o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H
vert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H
throat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W
p = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C
f (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C
w (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C
o (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q
a = 6.3 8.9 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q
PEAK REQUIRED = 5.0 8.9 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
939-001
Design Pt. OS5
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-Vert
H-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-OS5.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:33 PM
APPENDIX D
RIPRAP & STORM LINE DESIGN COMPUTATIONS
Project: 939-001
Date:
Calculation by: ATC
Circular
D or Da,
Pipe
Diameter
(ft)
H or Ha,
Culvert
Height
(ft)
W,
Culvert
Width
(ft)
Yt/D Q/D1.5 Q/D2.5 Yt/H Q/WH0.5
Storm Line 1 98.00 4.50 2.25 0.50 10.27 2.28 N/A N/A 5.37 2.28 16.33 14.82 Type M 16.00 14.00 1.5
Exist Storm Extended 105.0 4.00 2.00 0.50 13.13 3.28 N/A N/A 4.37 3.28 21.00 28.40 Type M 30.00 20.00 1.5
OUTPUT
Storm Line/Culvert Label
Culvert Parameters
Yt,
Tailwater
Depth
(ft)
Urban Drainage
pg MD-107
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/D2.5
Max 6.0
or
Q/WH1.5
Max 8.0
Riprap
Type
(From
Figure
MD-21 or
MD-22)
L=
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: Storm1REV.stm No. Lines: 17 02-15-2016
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 STRM PIPE 1.0 98.00 54 c 32.5 4929.96 4930.07 0.338 4932.80 4933.12 1.12 4934.24 End
2 STRM PIPE 1-2B 60.40 48 c 148.2 4930.27 4930.79 0.351 4935.02* 4935.24* 0.05 4935.29 1
3 STRM PIPE 1-3 60.40 48 c 348.0 4930.79 4932.01 0.350 4935.29 4935.76 0.06 4935.82 2
4 STRM PIPE 1-4 60.40 48 c 101.2 4932.01 4932.36 0.346 4935.82 4935.91 0.41 4936.32 3
5 STRM PIPE 1-5 60.40 48 c 23.7 4932.36 4933.08 3.040 4936.32 4936.21 0.08 4936.29 4
6 STRM PIPE 1-5a 24.90 42 c 48.0 4933.27 4933.44 0.354 4936.67 4936.69 0.09 4936.78 5
7 STRM PIPE 1-7A 18.10 24 c 62.8 4933.44 4933.76 0.509 4936.78* 4937.12* 0.24 4937.36 6
8 STRM PIPE 1-8 18.10 24 c 113.4 4933.76 4934.32 0.494 4937.36* 4937.98* 0.52 4938.50 7
9 PIPE 1-7 4.00 18 c 46.4 4933.71 4934.17 0.991 4936.81* 4936.87* 0.06 4936.93 6
10 PIPE 1-7A 4.00 18 c 50.0 4934.18 4934.43 0.500 4936.93* 4936.99* 0.01 4937.00 9
11 PIPE A-7A.2 2.00 18 c 10.7 4935.82 4937.42 14.940 4937.06 4937.96 n/a 4937.96 j 10
12 STRM PIPE 1-2A 37.60 30 c 23.1 4931.46 4931.58 0.520 4934.46* 4934.63* 0.42 4935.05 1
13 STRM PIPE 1-2A.1 25.60 30 c 25.4 4931.58 4931.71 0.512 4935.54* 4935.62* 0.06 4935.68 12
14 STRM PIPE 1-2A.1 ( 12.10 30 c 6.4 4931.71 4931.74 0.474 4936.01* 4936.02* 0.01 4936.03 13
15 STRM PIPE 1-2A.1 ( 12.10 30 c 21.5 4931.74 4931.84 0.464 4936.03* 4936.05* 0.01 4936.06 14
16 STRM PIPE 1-2A.2 ( 12.10 24 c 94.2 4932.04 4932.99 1.009 4936.06* 4936.29* 0.22 4936.52 15
17 STRM PIPE 1-2A.3 12.10 24 c 64.1 4932.99 4933.63 0.999 4936.52* 4936.67* 0.23 4936.90 16
Project File: Storm1REV.stm Number of lines: 17 Run Date: 02-15-2016
NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 2 Yrs. ; *Surcharged (HGL above crown). ; 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 54 98.00 4929.96 4932.80 2.84 10.58 9.27 1.34 4934.14 0.403 32.5 4930.07 4933.12 3.05 11.49 8.53 1.13 4934.25 0.328 0.365 0.119 0.99 1.12
2 48 60.40 4930.27 4935.02 4.00 12.56 4.81 0.36 4935.37 0.151 148 4930.79 4935.24 4.00 12.57 4.81 0.36 4935.60 0.151 0.151 0.223 0.15 0.05
3 48 60.40 4930.79 4935.29 4.00 12.56 4.81 0.36 4935.65 0.151 348 4932.01 4935.76 3.75 12.24 4.94 0.38 4936.14 0.130 0.140 0.489 0.15 0.06
4 48 60.40 4932.01 4935.82 3.81 12.34 4.89 0.37 4936.19 0.131 101 4932.36 4935.91 3.55 11.80 5.12 0.41 4936.32 0.134 0.132 0.134 1.00 0.41
5 48 60.40 4932.36 4936.32 3.96 12.55 4.81 0.36 4936.68 0.139 23.7 4933.08 4936.21 3.13 10.55 5.73 0.51 4936.72 0.165 0.152 0.036 0.15 0.08
6 42 24.90 4933.27 4936.67 3.40 9.55 2.61 0.11 4936.78 0.046 48.0 4933.44 4936.69 3.25 9.32 2.67 0.11 4936.80 0.045 0.046 0.022 0.77 0.09
7 24 18.10 4933.44 4936.78 2.00 3.14 5.76 0.52 4937.29 0.546 62.8 4933.76 4937.12 2.00 3.14 5.76 0.52 4937.64 0.546 0.546 0.343 0.47 0.24
8 24 18.10 4933.76 4937.36 2.00 3.14 5.76 0.52 4937.88 0.546 113 4934.32 4937.98 2.00 3.14 5.76 0.52 4938.50 0.546 0.546 0.619 1.00 0.52
9 18 4.00 4933.71 4936.81 1.50 1.77 2.26 0.08 4936.89 0.124 46.4 4934.17 4936.87 1.50 1.77 2.26 0.08 4936.95 0.124 0.124 0.057 0.73 0.06
10 18 4.00 4934.18 4936.93 1.50 1.77 2.26 0.08 4937.01 0.124 50.0 4934.43 4936.99 1.50 1.77 2.26 0.08 4937.07 0.124 0.124 0.062 0.15 0.01
11 18 2.00 4935.82 4937.06 1.24 1.56 1.28 0.03 4937.08 0.030 10.7 4937.42 4937.96 j 0.54** 0.57 3.49 0.19 4938.15 0.403 0.217 n/a 1.00 n/a
12 30 37.60 4931.46 4934.46 2.50 4.91 7.66 0.91 4935.37 0.717 23.1 4931.58 4934.63 2.50 4.91 7.66 0.91 4935.54 0.716 0.716 0.166 0.46 0.42
13 30 25.60 4931.58 4935.54 2.50 4.91 5.22 0.42 4935.96 0.332 25.4 4931.71 4935.62 2.50 4.91 5.22 0.42 4936.04 0.332 0.332 0.084 0.15 0.06
14 30 12.10 4931.71 4936.01 2.50 4.91 2.47 0.09 4936.11 0.074 6.4 4931.74 4936.02 2.50 4.91 2.46 0.09 4936.11 0.074 0.074 0.005 0.15 0.01
15 30 12.10 4931.74 4936.03 2.50 4.91 2.47 0.09 4936.13 0.074 21.5 4931.84 4936.05 2.50 4.91 2.46 0.09 4936.14 0.074 0.074 0.016 0.15 0.01
16 24 12.10 4932.04 4936.06 2.00 3.14 3.85 0.23 4936.29 0.244 94.2 4932.99 4936.29 2.00 3.14 3.85 0.23 4936.52 0.244 0.244 0.230 0.97 0.22
17 24 12.10 4932.99 4936.52 2.00 3.14 3.85 0.23 4936.75 0.244 64.1 4933.63 4936.67 2.00 3.14 3.85 0.23 4936.90 0.244 0.244 0.156 1.00 0.23
Project File: Storm1REV.stm Number of lines: 17 Run Date: 02-15-2016
Notes: ; ** Critical depth.; j-Line contains hyd. jump.
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: storm3.stm No. Lines: 3 12-15-2015
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 - (105) 23.30 24 c 55.1 4931.42 4934.60 5.776 4932.41 4936.32 n/a 4936.32 End
2 Pipe - (112) 17.80 18 c 63.9 4934.80 4935.12 0.501 4936.32* 4937.89* 0.38 4938.26 1
3 Pipe - (113) 8.90 18 c 37.9 4935.12 4935.30 0.475 4939.45* 4939.68* 0.39 4940.07 2
Project File: storm3.stm Number of lines: 3 Run Date: 12-15-2015
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 24 23.30 4931.42 4932.41 0.99 1.55 15.04 3.52 4935.93 0.837 55.1 4934.60 4936.32 1.72** 2.87 8.11 1.02 4937.34 0.837 0.837 n/a 0.91 n/a
2 18 17.80 4934.80 4936.32 1.50 1.77 10.07 1.58 4937.90 2.449 63.9 4935.12 4937.89 1.50 1.77 10.07 1.58 4939.46 2.448 2.449 1.565 0.24 0.38
3 18 8.90 4935.12 4939.45 1.50 1.77 5.04 0.39 4939.84 0.612 37.9 4935.30 4939.68 1.50 1.77 5.04 0.39 4940.07 0.612 0.612 0.232 1.00 0.39
Project File: storm3.stm Number of lines: 3 Run Date: 12-15-2015
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: storm4.stm No. Lines: 4 12-15-2015
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 - (26) 32.80 36 c 123.6 4933.67 4934.09 0.340 4935.50 4936.17 0.61 4936.78 End
2 UD PIPE 4 0.40 6 c 139.9 4934.39 4935.79 1.001 4937.33* 4937.94* 0.06 4938.00 1
3 Pipe - (26) (2) 0.40 36 c 57.4 4934.09 4934.28 0.331 4937.39* 4937.39* 0.00 4937.39 1
4 PIPE 4 32.00 18 c 8.3 4934.09 4934.17 0.967 4936.78* 4937.44* 5.10 4942.54 1
Project File: storm4.stm Number of lines: 4 Run Date: 12-15-2015
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 36 32.80 4933.67 4935.50 1.83 4.50 7.28 0.82 4936.32 0.437 124 4934.09 4936.17 2.08 5.22 6.29 0.61 4936.78 0.303 0.370 0.458 1.00 0.61
2 6 0.40 4934.39 4937.33 0.50 0.20 2.04 0.06 4937.39 0.434 140 4935.79 4937.94 0.50 0.20 2.04 0.06 4938.00 0.434 0.434 0.607 1.00 0.06
3 36 0.40 4934.09 4937.39 3.00 7.07 0.06 0.00 4937.39 0.000 57.4 4934.28 4937.39 3.00 7.07 0.06 0.00 4937.39 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.00 0.00
4 18 32.00 4934.09 4936.78 1.50 1.77 18.11 5.10 4941.88 7.916 8.3 4934.17 4937.44 1.50** 1.77 18.11 5.10 4942.54 7.913 7.914 0.655 1.00 5.10
Project File: storm4.stm Number of lines: 4 Run Date: 12-15-2015
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: storm5.stm No. Lines: 1 12-15-2015
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 5 7.90 15 c 83.2 4933.68 4937.79 4.943 4934.32 4938.90 n/a 4938.90 End
Project File: storm5.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 12-15-2015
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 7.90 4933.68 4934.32 0.64 0.64 12.41 2.40 4936.72 1.134 83.2 4937.79 4938.90 1.11** 1.15 6.85 0.73 4939.63 1.134 1.134 n/a 1.00 n/a
Project File: storm5.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 12-15-2015
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: storm6.stm No. Lines: 1 12-15-2015
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 6 3.90 15 c 6.3 4934.65 4934.68 0.483 4935.44 4935.52 0.31 4935.83 End
Project File: storm6.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 12-15-2015
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 3.90 4934.65 4935.44 0.79 0.82 4.77 0.35 4935.79 0.588 6.3 4934.68 4935.52 0.84 0.88 4.44 0.31 4935.83 0.493 0.541 0.034 1.00 0.31
Project File: storm6.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 12-15-2015
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
EXISTING STORM LINE ANALYSES
(Existing North Storm Line and Existing West Storm Line)
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: ExistN.stm No. Lines: 7 02-15-2016
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 36 29.00 4933.67 4936.67 3.00 7.07 4.10 0.26 4936.93 0.161 181 4934.28 4936.91 2.63 6.56 4.42 0.30 4937.21 0.146 0.153 0.278 0.00 0.00
2 36 29.00 4934.28 4936.95 2.67 6.64 4.37 0.30 4937.25 0.143 221 4935.02 4937.21 2.19 5.52 5.26 0.43 4937.64 0.208 0.175 0.388 0.00 0.00
3 36 29.00 4935.08 4937.37 2.29 5.80 5.00 0.39 4937.76 0.185 165 4935.41 4937.68 2.26 5.72 5.07 0.40 4938.07 0.191 0.188 0.310 0.00 0.00
4 36 29.00 4935.41 4937.81 2.40 6.07 4.78 0.36 4938.17 0.168 239 4935.88 4938.21 2.33 5.89 4.93 0.38 4938.59 0.179 0.174 0.416 0.00 0.00
5 36 29.00 4935.88 4938.32 2.44 6.17 4.70 0.34 4938.67 0.163 134 4936.15 4938.53 2.38 6.01 4.83 0.36 4938.89 0.172 0.167 0.224 0.00 0.00
6 30 14.50 4936.15 4938.74 2.50 4.91 2.95 0.14 4938.88 0.107 162 4936.32 4938.92 2.50 4.91 2.95 0.14 4939.05 0.107 0.107 0.173 0.00 0.00
7 30 11.80 4936.32 4938.96 2.50 4.91 2.40 0.09 4939.05 0.071 280 4936.98 4939.13 2.15 4.50 2.62 0.11 4939.24 0.065 0.068 0.190 0.00 0.00
Project File: ExistN.stm Number of lines: 7 Run Date: 02-15-2016
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: ExistW.stm No. Lines: 6 02-15-2016
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 18 7.50 4934.00 4935.50 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4935.78 0.435 21.4 4934.05 4935.55 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4935.83 0.434 0.434 0.093 0.40 0.11
2 18 7.50 4934.05 4935.66 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4935.94 0.435 58.9 4934.28 4935.92 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4936.20 0.435 0.435 0.256 0.30 0.08
3 18 7.50 4934.28 4936.00 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4936.28 0.435 208 4935.01 4936.91 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.19 0.435 0.435 0.906 0.15 0.04
4 18 7.50 4935.01 4936.95 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.23 0.435 37.4 4935.14 4937.11 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.39 0.435 0.435 0.162 0.15 0.04
5 18 7.50 4935.14 4937.15 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.44 0.435 105 4935.56 4937.61 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.89 0.435 0.435 0.455 0.80 0.22
6 18 7.50 4935.56 4937.83 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4938.11 0.435 83.5 4935.50 4938.20 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4938.48 0.435 0.435 0.363 0.60 0.17
Project File: ExistW.stm Number of lines: 6 Run Date: 02-15-2016
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
APPENDIX E
LID DESIGN INFORMATION
Project No: 939‐001
By: N. Haws
Date: 11.13.2015
Receiving
Treatment?
LID
Technique
Receiving
Treatment?
Asphalt to
PICP Run‐on
Ratio
Receiving
Treatment?
Raingarden
ID
Receiving
Treatment?
Snout®
(or equal)
1 321,748 7.39 partial (low) grass buffers yes 2.6:1 partial (low) 3 yes yes YES
3 84,335 1.94 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ yes yes n/a
4 196,020 4.50 partial (low) grass buffers yes 1.9:1 partial (low) 1 & 2 yes yes YES
5 302,154 6.94 partial (low) grass buffers yes 2.8:1 partial (low) 5 yes yes YES
6 43,211 0.99 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ yes yes n/a
7 60,984 1.40 yes multiple yes ‐ yes all yes yes YES
8 8,364 0.19 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ n/a
9 15,856 0.36 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ n/a
10 49,827 1.14 yes rain garden no ‐ yes 6 yes yes YES
11 3,136 0.07 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ n/a
12 15,333 0.35 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ yes yes n/a
13 26,063 0.60 yes rain garden no ‐ yes 4 yes yes YES
14a 227,295 5.22 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ n/a
14b 47,780 1.10 partial (med.) rain garden no ‐ partial (med.) 1 yes yes YES
WATER QUALITY | LOW‐IMPACT DEVELOPMENT | TREATMENT TRAIN SUMMARY TABLE
Permeable Interlocking
Concrete Pavement (PICP)
Bioretention Rain Gardens
Minimized Directly Connected
Impervious Areas (MDCIA)
Basin
ID
Basin
Area
(sq.ft.)
Basin
Area
(ac)
Underground
Proprietary BMP 100%
Treatment
Train
REVEGETATION SCHEDULES
Excavation and grading may ordinarily occur during any month of the year. However,
revegetation activities are typically more limited with respect to the time of year in which they
should be completed and must be timed to coincide with a recognized planting season. The
following tables depict two revegetation schedules that can be followed to achieve the mitigation
objectives set for this project.
Site conditions and/or climatic variations may require that these schedules be modified
somewhat to achieve revegetation success. The schedules do not reflect any weed control
activities that may be employed on site and would be amended to incorporate such a program if
required.
TABLE 1: FALL (DORMANT SEEDING) MITIGATION SCHEDULE
Month
Reclamation Technique J F M A M J J A S O N D
Excavation/Grading Any month
Resoiling and/or Ripping (if necessary) XXX
Seedbed Material Sampling XXX
Fertilization XXX
Seedbed Preparation XXX
Seeding XX
Mulching (as specified) XX
Shrub Seedling and Tree Planting (following year) XX
Willow Cutting and Planting (following year before XX
breaking bud)
TABLE 2: SPRING MITIGATION SCHEDULE
Month
Reclamation Technique J F M A M J J A S O N D
Excavation/Grading Any month
Resoiling and/or Ripping (if necessary) XXX
Seedbed Material Sampling XXX
Fertilization XX
Seedbed Preparation XX
Seeding XX
Mulching (as specified) XX
Shrub Seedling and Tree Planting XX
Willow Cutting and Planting (before breaking bud) XX
Note: Weather and surface conditions permitting, the earlier in the season spring planting is
completed the higher the potential for revegetation success.
MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
No earth-moving activities will be permitted outside the boundaries of the mitigation area
except as provided for in the site development plans. Adjunct disturbances related to the
installation of emergency erosion control or site stabilization measures are also excepted.
All erosion control measures will be kept in good condition until the mitigation plan is
deemed acceptable by the City or it is obvious that the site is stable and the installed measures
are no longer required as per City direction. Within this time frame, any erosion control measure
removed prematurely or damaged will be immediately replaced / repaired.
The permanent mitigation plantings will be inspected at least bi-monthly during the first three
growing seasons following planting and immediately following intense rainstorms. Areas of poor
“seed take” will be noted. Any area remaining unvegetated by desirable species throughout the
first four growing seasons will be reseeded following the application of appropriate seedbed
preparation techniques during the next Fall planting season. Shrub seedlings or tree plantings
judged to be dead will be replaced as necessary to meet success requirements.
If nutrient deficiency symptoms develop on revegetated areas, this condition will be
remedied by adding the proper nutrients in the proper amounts. Where slips, slides, or slumps
occur on slopes, such will be remedied as soon as soil conditions permit access.
No mowing, trimming, or other similar vegetation modification activities will be permitted in
the wetland mitigation area unless directly associated with a planned weed control activity.
MONITORING
Monitoring Overview
At the end of each of the first three full growing seasons following initial planting, the wetland
mitigation site will be monitored quantitatively to determine the overall level of construction
success, site stability, and vegetation establishment. The results of this assessment will be
submitted to the City of Fort Collins in a report on or about December 31.
Mitigation and revegetation success will be judged based on four criteria. These criteria
include the size of the mitigation areas successfully established, the wetland soil moisture
regimes created, the percent ground cover of wetland-classed species present in the wetland
mitigation area, and the percent success of the shrub and tree plantings.
The mitigation size criterion will be met if the mitigation site qualifying as vegetated wetlands
totals 0.22 acres. The soil moisture regime criteria will be met if the wetland mitigation area
surface dedicated to the establishment of hydric species exhibits saturated conditions in the
upper 12.0 inches of the soil profile and/or shallow flooding throughout the majority of the growing
season as evidenced either by soil characteristics or the presence of sufficient wetland indicator
species. Small ridges and potholes that enhance species diversity will be acceptable so long as
these features do not compromise the overall integrity of the vegetated wetlands to be created.
The average depth of free water over the mitigation sites will be reported as will an estimate of
the percent of the vegetated mitigation area overlain by free surface water. (Surface water
occurring in a mosaic with wetland species and representing a typical marsh community will not
be included in the estimate of percent of open water present.)
The ground cover criterion will be met if, after three growing seasons, the total ground cover
contributed by all grass, forb, and shrub species (including willow cuttings) present in the wetland
mitigation area (point intercept method) is equal to or greater than 80 percent, on average, and
wetland-classed species (FAC, FACW, and OBL) are dominant on site (51+ percent relative
cover) as compared to upland-classed (FACU and UPL) species. In addition, there will be no
evidence of erosion detrimental to vegetation establishment or site stability. The percent of open
water occurring over the surface of the mitigation basin will be considered a “null set” when
calculating percent herbaceous ground cover, so long as such surface water does not indicate
the formation of an "open water" system.
Shrub (excluding willow cuttings which will be evaluated as a part of ground cover) and tree
species planted as a part of wetland mitigation construction will be tallied by a simple count of
viable species present at the time of monitoring fieldwork. Any indications of insect or animal
damage will be noted as will any indications of nutrient deficiencies. Shrub and tree plantings will
be considered successful where 90 percent of the numbers planted are present on site. In the
case of shrubs and trees, volunteer plants will be included in the tally.
Any actions deemed necessary to enhance mitigation success and / or site stability will be
taken as a result of each annual monitoring assessment.
Specific vegetation sampling and analysis protocols will be developed prior to the first
annual assessment. Information and showings to be submitted with each annual quantitative
monitoring report include a project location map, a discussion of the conditions of the mitigation
sites, a summary of the data collected, a list of all species observed within the mitigation areas,
copies of all data sheets completed in the field, and a continuation of the photographic record
submitted with the first annual report. As appropriate, recommendations will be made with
respect to the continued maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation area.
Monitoring will continue on an annual basis until the City judges this mitigation program to
be successful. Disturbed areas revegetated to upland conditions will not be included in the
annual monitoring assessments.
Soil and Plant Cover Sampling Technique Specifics
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Area
To determine the depth to which non-inundated soils are saturated, soil sample pits will be
dug at two to three representative locations in the wetland mitigation area. Each pit will be dug to
a depth of 12.0-16.0 inches. The depth to saturation or flooding, if occurring, will be recorded.
Soil matrix colors will be recorded to assess soil moisture regime characteristics. The presence
of gleying or mottling will be noted and the color and percent of mottles in the matrix will be
recorded, if present. A sulfidic (H2S) odor will also be noted, if observed.
Plant cover will be evaluated using the point-intercept method. A 100-foot tape will be laid
out along the surface at two to three locations in the created wetlands. Transects will be sited to
represent the vegetation conditions common within the mitigation and enhancement area. At
each one-foot interval along each transect, a "hit" will be recorded. A hit will consist of vegetation
(by species), “free water”, floating algae, or bare ground/rock/litter combined. The percent total
plant cover will then be calculated for each transect. The relative cover contributed by both hydric
and upland plant species will also calculated for the wetland transects.
Shrub and tree planting success will be assessed by a simple tally of the shrubs and trees
(by species) alive at the end of each growing season. Plant vigor will be recorded for each
individual planting as “ viable”, “stressed”, or “dead”. Both viable and moderately stressed plants
will be included in the success calculation. Seriously stressed plants will be selected for remedial
planting on a case-by-case basis.
APPENDIX F
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM)
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0 (Build 5.0.022)
--------------------------------------------------------------
*********************************************************
NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are
based on results found at every computational time step,
not just on results from each reporting time step.
*********************************************************
****************
Analysis Options
****************
Flow Units ............... CFS
Process Models:
Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES
Snowmelt ............... NO
Groundwater ............ NO
Flow Routing ........... YES
Ponding Allowed ........ NO
Water Quality .......... NO
Infiltration Method ...... HORTON
Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE
Starting Date ............ NOV-21-2012 00:00:00
Ending Date .............. NOV-21-2012 06:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0
Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00
Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00
Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00
Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec
************************** Volume Depth
Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches
************************** --------- -------
Total Precipitation ...... 7.910 3.669
Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000
Infiltration Loss ........ 1.328 0.616
Surface Runoff ........... 6.507 3.018
Final Surface Storage .... 0.127 0.059
Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.654
************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 6.507 2.121
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000
External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 2.204 0.718
Internal Outflow ......... 0.000 0.000
Storage Losses ........... 0.000 0.000
Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000
Final Stored Volume ...... 4.304 1.402
Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.003
********************************
Highest Flow Instability Indexes
********************************
All links are stable.
*************************
Routing Time Step Summary
*************************
Minimum Time Step : 30.00 sec
Average Time Step : 30.00 sec
Maximum Time Step : 30.00 sec
Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff
Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basins 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.64 3.00 1.74 160.64 0.817
Basin2 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.51 3.12 0.38 36.63 0.850
******************
Node Depth Summary
******************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max
Depth Depth HGL Occurrence
Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlet_Overall OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 96.00 0 00:00
Pond STORAGE 2.45 2.89 99.89 0 02:13
Detention_Pavers STORAGE 2.33 2.81 99.81 0 02:09
*******************
Node Inflow Summary
*******************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum Lateral Total
Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow
Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume
Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlet_Overall OUTFALL 0.00 4.95 0 02:13 0.000 0.718
Pond STORAGE 160.64 160.64 0 00:40 1.739 1.739
Detention_Pavers STORAGE 36.63 36.63 0 00:40 0.381 0.381
**********************
Node Surcharge Summary
**********************
Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Max. Height Min. Depth
Hours Above Crown Below Rim
Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pond STORAGE 6.01 2.890 7.110
Detention_Pavers STORAGE 6.01 2.809 7.191
*********************
Node Flooding Summary
*********************
No nodes were flooded.
**********************
Storage Volume Summary
**********************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Avg E&I Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum
Volume Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow
Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pond 163.730 7 0 208.843 8 0 02:12 3.70
Detention_Pavers 31.596 5 0 42.724 7 0 02:09 1.25
***********************
Outfall Loading Summary
***********************
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flow Avg. Max. Total
Freq. Flow Flow Volume
Outfall Node Pcnt. CFS CFS 10^6 gal
********************
Link Flow Summary
********************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/
|Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full
Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlet DUMMY 3.70 0 02:13
Outlet_Pavers DUMMY 1.25 0 00:43
*************************
Conduit Surcharge Summary
*************************
No conduits were surcharged.
Analysis begun on: Mon Feb 08 15:30:50 2016
Analysis ended on: Mon Feb 08 15:30:50 2016
Total elapsed time: < 1 sec
SWMM 5 Page 3
Node Detention_Pavers Volume
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Volume (ft3)
45000.0
40000.0
35000.0
30000.0
25000.0
20000.0
15000.0
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
SWMM 5 Page 1
Link Outlet_Pavers Flow
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Flow (CFS)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
SWMM 5 Page 1
Node Pond Volume
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Volume (ft3)
250000.0
200000.0
150000.0
100000.0
50000.0
0.0
SWMM 5 Page 1
Link Outlet Flow
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Flow (CFS)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
SWMM 5 Page 1
DETENTION STAGE STORAGE CURVE
PROJECT: 939-001
DATE: 12/1/15
BY: ATC
Contour Contour Depth Incremental Cumulative Cumulative
Elevation Area (ft) Volume Volume Volume
(FT) (SF) (FT) (CU‐FT) (CU‐FT) (AC‐FT)
4,930.00 9,600.72 N/A N/A 0 0.000
4,930.20 10,373.62 0.2 1997 1997 0.046
4,930.40 11,135.60 0.2 2150 4147 0.095
4,930.60 11,868.64 0.2 2300 6447 0.148
4,930.80 12,564.73 0.2 2443 8890 0.204
4,931.00 13,580.22 0.2 2614 11504 0.264
4,931.20 14,833.57 0.2 2840 14345 0.329
4,931.40 15,307.82 0.2 3014 17359 0.399
4,931.60 15,783.04 0.2 3109 20468 0.470
4,931.80 16,259.16 0.2 3204 23672 0.543
4,932.00 16,736.63 0.2 3299 26971 0.619
4,932.20 17,217.37 0.2 3395 30367 0.697
4,932.40 17,702.50 0.2 3492 33858 0.777
4,932.60 18,193.55 0.2 3589 37448 0.860
4,932.80 18,690.98 0.2 3688 41136 0.944
4,933.00 19,195.42 0.2 3789 44925 1.031
4,933.20 19,707.02 0.2 3890 48815 1.121
4,933.40 20,226.11 0.2 3993 52808 1.212
4,933.60 20,752.19 0.2 4098 56906 1.306
4,933.80 21,284.11 0.2 4204 61109 1.403
4,934.00 21,821.91 0.2 4310 65420 1.502
4,934.20 22,365.61 0.2 4419 69839 1.603
4,934.40 22,915.40 0.2 4528 74367 1.707
4,934.60 23,471.25 0.2 4639 79005 1.814
4,934.80 24,033.40 0.2 4750 83755 1.923
4,935.00 24,601.69 0.2 4863 88619 2.034
4,935.20 25,175.76 0.2 4978 93596 2.149
4,935.40 25,755.35 0.2 5093 98689 2.266
4,935.60 26,341.37 0.2 5210 103899 2.385
4,935.80 26,934.65 0.2 5327 109227 2.507
4,936.00 27,533.98 0.2 5447 114673 2.633
4,936.20 28,140.50 0.2 5567 120241 2.760
4,936.40 28,752.53 0.2 5689 125930 2.891
4,936.60 29,372.46 0.2 5812 131742 3.024
4,936.80 29,998.65 0.2 5937 137679 3.161
4,937.00 30,651.84 0.2 6065 143744 3.300
4,937.20 31,315.16 0.2 6197 149941 3.442
4,937.40 31,983.98 0.2 6330 156270 3.587
4,937.60 32,659.16 0.2 6464 162735 3.736
4,937.80 33,341.16 0.2 6600 169335 3.887
4,938.00 34,030.32 0.2 6737 176072 4.042
4,938.20 34,726.83 0.2 6876 182947 4.200
4,938.40 35,431.57 0.2 7016 189963 4.361
4,938.60 36,152.78 0.2 7158 197121 4.525
4,938.80 36,892.19 0.2 7304 204426 4.693
4,939.00 37,648.14 0.2 7454 211880 4.864
4,939.20 38,448.14 0.2 7610 219489 5.039
4,939.40 39,248.14 0.2 7770 227259 5.217
ORIFICE RATING CURVE
100-yr Orifice
PROJECT: 939-001
DATE: 12/1/15
BY: ATC
ORIFICE RATING
Orifice Dia (in) 7.25
Orifice Area (sf) 0.29
Orifice invert (ft) 4930.00
Orifice Coefficient 0.65
Outlet
Stage release
(FT) (CFS)
4930.00 0.00
4930.20 0.00
4930.40 0.00
4930.60 0.00
4930.80 1.06
4931.00 1.25
4931.20 1.42
4931.40 1.57
4931.60 1.70
4931.80 1.83
4932.00 1.95
4932.20 2.06
4932.40 2.17
4932.60 2.27
4932.80 2.36
4933.00 2.46
4933.20 2.55
4933.40 2.63
4933.60 2.72
4933.80 2.80
4934.00 2.88
4934.20 2.95
4934.40 3.03
4934.60 3.10
4934.80 3.17
4935.00 3.24
4935.20 3.31
4935.40 3.38
4935.60 3.44
4935.80 3.51
4936.00 3.57
4936.20 3.63
4936.40 3.69
4936.60 3.75
4936.80 3.81
4937.00 3.87
4937.20 3.93
4937.40 3.98
4937.60 4.04
4937.80 4.09
4938.00 4.15
4938.20 4.20
4938.40 4.26
4938.60 4.31
4938.80 4.36
4939.00 4.41
4939.20 4.46
APPENDIX G
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
Capstone Cottages
Final Erosion Control Report
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) HAS BEEN
PROVIDED BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT. 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 will 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 H
LARIMER COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE-LINCOLN CHANNEL
1
Aaron Cvar
From: Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 5:18 PM
To: Aaron Cvar
Cc: tshambo@larimer.org; Nick Haws
Subject: Re: Capstone Project
Aaron -
Yes we are in agreement with the release rate that is consistent with the master plan. Thanks for checking.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Aaron Cvar <aaron@northernengineering.com> wrote:
Hello Traci,
I have attached the preliminary drainage sketch that we discussed today, as well as portions of the City of Fort
Collins review comments relevant to site drainage. Specifically, the City would like your confirmation
regarding the Lincoln Channel and release rate into the channel (COFC Comment # 5, January 2014; Comment
#2, January 2015), and wants to ensure that Larimer County is in agreement with allowing the development to
release at the Dry Creek Basin Master Plan rate of 0.20 cfs per acre (2-year historic rate).
So we would like your confirmation that Larimer County is in agreement with our preliminary design, using
the Master Plan release rate for the site of 0.20 cfs per acre.
Thank you!
Aaron Cvar, PE
NORTHERN ENGINEERING
970-568-5401
--
Traci Shambo, P.E.
Larimer County Engineering Department
200 West Oak St, Suite 3000
P.O. Box 1190
Fort Collins, CO 80522
MAP POCKET
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS
4939.40 4.51
-----------------------------------------------------------
Outlet_Overall 97.23 4.57 4.95 0.718
-----------------------------------------------------------
System 97.23 4.57 4.95 0.718
SWMM 5 Page 2
Percent in Steady State : 0.00
Average Iterations per Step : 1.00
***************************
Subcatchment Runoff Summary
***************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff
SWMM 5 Page 1
1/(2tanq)*
[At/Yt)-W]
(ft)
Design
Discharge
(cfs)
February 1, 2016
INPUT CALCULATE
At=Q/V
(ft)
Expansion
Factor
1/(2tanq)
(From
Figure
MD-23 or
MD-24)
Spec
Length
of
Riprap
(ft)
(in/hr)
Basin(s)
ATC
March 1, 2016
Q C f C i A
(min)
10-yr
Tc
(min)
100-yr
Tc
(min)
11No0.25 0.25 0.31 120 2.00% 13.8 13.8 12.8 520 1.00% 2.00 4.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 18 18 17
22No0.95 0.95 1.00 25 2.00% 1.1 1.1 0.7 460 1.00% 2.00 3.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
33No0.25 0.25 0.31 25 2.00% 6.3 6.3 5.8 790 1.00% 2.00 6.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 13 13 12
44No0.25 0.25 0.31 70 2.00% 10.6 10.6 9.8 250 1.00% 2.00 2.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 13 13 12
55No0.25 0.25 0.31 265 2.00% 20.5 20.5 19.0 410 1.00% 2.00 3.4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 24 24 22
6a 6a No 0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 1030 1.00% 2.00 8.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10 10 10
6b 6b No 0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 280 1.00% 2.00 2.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
6c 6c No 0.95 0.95 1.00 25 2.00% 1.1 1.1 0.7 0 1.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
77No0.25 0.25 0.31 95 2.00% 12.3 12.3 11.4 0 1.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 12 12 11
88No0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 188 1.00% 2.00 1.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
99No0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 416 1.00% 2.00 3.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
10 10 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 120 2.00% 2.4 2.4 1.6 193 1.00% 2.00 1.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
11 11 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 35 1.00% 2.00 0.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
12 12 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 190 1.00% 2.00 1.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
13 13 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 80 2.00% 11.3 11.3 10.5 0 1.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 11 11 10
14a 14a No 0.25 0.25 0.31 25 1.50% 6.9 6.9 6.5 330 1.00% 2.00 2.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10 10 9
14b 14b No 0.25 0.25 0.31 25 1.20% 7.5 7.5 7.0 245 1.00% 2.00 2.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10 10 9
14c 14c No 0.25 0.25 0.31 75 2.00% 10.9 10.9 10.2 130 1.00% 2.00 1.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 12 12 11
14d 14d No 0.25 0.25 0.31 95 1.40% 13.8 13.8 12.9 110 1.00% 2.00 0.9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 15 15 14
14e 14e No 0.25 0.25 0.31 319 0.68% 32.3 32.3 30.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 32 32 30
DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS
Gutter Flow Swale Flow
Design
Point
Basin
Overland Flow
ATC
March 1, 2016
Time of Concentration
(Equation RO-4)
3
1
1 . 87 1 . 1 *
S
Ti C Cf L
10 49827 1.14 0.76 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.76 0.76 0.96 73%
11 1931 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 1.00 90%
12 15333 0.35 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.87 0.87 1.00 88%
13 26063 0.60 0.28 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.28 0.62 0.62 0.77 52%
14a 84942 1.95 0.950 0.150 0.00 0.10 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.82 57%
14b 43707 1.00 0.600 0.083 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.73 0.73 0.91 67%
14c 48787 1.12 0.600 0.083 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.68 0.68 0.85 60%
14d 24494 0.56 0.050 0.050 0.10 0.00 0.36 0.50 0.50 0.62 33%
14e 83756 1.92 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.25 0.25 0.31 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
March 1, 2016