Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BUCKING HORSE FILING FOUR, MIXED-RESIDENTIAL - FDP - FDP160023 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORT
May 4, 2016 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR Bucking Horse Filing Four Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: Bucking Horse LLC 3702 Manhattan Avenue, Suite 201 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Prepared by: 200 South College Avenue, Suite 10 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com Project Number: 687-004 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. May 4, 2016 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for BUCKING HORSE FILING FOUR Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review. This report accompanies the Final Plan submittal for the proposed Bucking Horse Filing Four 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 Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 1 A. Location ............................................................................................................................................. 1 B. Description of Property ..................................................................................................................... 2 C. Floodplain ......................................................................................................................................... 4 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ........................................................................ 4 A. Major Basin Description .................................................................................................................... 4 B. Sub-Basin Description ....................................................................................................................... 4 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................... 5 A. Regulations ........................................................................................................................................ 5 B. Four Step Process .............................................................................................................................. 5 C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ............................................................................ 5 D. Hydrological Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6 E. Hydraulic Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 6 F. Modifications of Criteria ................................................................................................................... 6 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ..................................................................................... 6 A. General Concept ............................................................................................................................... 6 B. Specific Details .................................................................................................................................. 7 V. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 8 A. Compliance with Standards .............................................................................................................. 8 B. Drainage Concept .............................................................................................................................. 8 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations APPENDIX B – Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) APPENDIX C – Erosion Control Report APPENDIX D – LID Design Information APPENDIX E – Inlet Computations APPENDIX F – Storm Line Computations APPENDIX G – Riprap Computations APPENDIX H – Swale Computations Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report LIST OF FIGURES: Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 – Existing Floodplains ............................................................................................... 4 MAP POCKET: Proposed Drainage Exhibit Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report 1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1. Vicinity Map 2. The project site is located in Section 20, Township 7 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 east of Gooseberry Lane between existing Bucking Horse Filing 2 and Bucking Horse Filing 1. 4. The Bucking Horse Filing 1 development exists just to the west of the site, and the Bucking Horse Filing 2 development exists just to the south and east of the site. An existing major drainage swale runs along the north boundary of the project site and serves as the major conveyance for all onsite runoff, directing water into the existing detention pond designed with Bucking Horse Filing 1 (“Detention Pond 215”). This drainage swale conveys storm runoff from the existing Bucking Horse Filing 1 site and was intended to also convey runoff from the current site. 5. Some offsite flow enters the site from the west and the south from the existing Bucking Horse Filing 1 and Filing 2 sites. Offsite Basins OS1 through OS4, as shown on the Drainage Exhibit, define these offsite areas. Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report 2 B. Description of Property 1. The project area is roughly 18.3 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 southwest to northeast. 3. A soils report (EEC Project No. 1122025C) was completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) on July 19, 2012. The report contains the results of a complete geotechnical subsurface exploration as well as pertinent geotechnical recommendations. The boring logs show that USCS soil group CL is predominant on- site. These soils are inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays and lean clays. 4. The proposed project site plan is composed of apartment complexes and parking areas. Associated roadways, water and sewer lines will be constructed with the development. Please see Figure 2, below, showing the proposed site plan. Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report 3 Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan 5. There are no known irrigation laterals crossing the site. 6. The proposed land use is residential. Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report 4 C. Floodplain 1. The project site is not encroached by any City or FEMA 100-year or 500-year floodplain. The FEMA Figure 3 –Area Floodplain Mapping II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. Major Basin Description 1. Bucking Horse Filing 4 is located in the Foothills Drainage Basin. All of Bucking Horse Filing 4 was intended to be conveyed into existing “Detention Pond 215”, designed and approved with Bucking Horse Filing 1. The pond currently provides approximately 32.4 ac-ft of storage volume. The pond is also designed as a 40-hour dry extended detention basin (EDB), providing approximately 3.4 ac-ft of water quality capture volume (WQCV). B. Sub-Basin Description 1. The subject property historically drains overland from southwest to northeast. Runoff from the majority of the site has historically been collected in the existing major drainage swale designed with Bucking Horse Filing 1, which runs along the north side of the site, conveys historic runoff from the site southeast into the existing detention pond discussed above, “Detention Pond 215”, designed with Bucking Horse Filing 1. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns follows in Section IV.A.4., Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report 5 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 ultimately be intercepted and treated using extended detention methods prior to exiting the site. Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways There are no regional drainageways within the subject property. While this step may not seem applicable to proposed development, the project indirectly helps achieve stabilized drainageways nonetheless. By providing water quality where none previously existed, sediment with erosion potential is removed from the downstream drainageway systems. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as well as ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City-wide drainageway stability. Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs. The proposed project will improve upon site specific source controls compared to historic conditions: Trash, waste products, etc. that were previously left exposed with the historic trailer park will no longer be allowed to exposure to runoff and transport to receiving drainageways. The proposed development will eliminate these sources of potential pollution. C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The subject property is surrounded by currently developed properties. Thus, several Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report 6 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. 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. The site has been broken into 5 onsite sub-basins for preliminary design purposes. Anticipated drainage patterns for proposed drainage basins are described below. Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report 7 Basins 1 through 3a,3b Basins 1 through 3 consist of apartment complexes, a clubhouse and parking/drives. These basins will generally drain via overland flow and curb and gutter flow into LID features which are discussed below, and will then drain via internal storm piping systems generally northeast into the existing major drainage swale along the northern boundary of the project. The existing major drainage swale designed with Bucking Horse Filing 1, conveys historic runoff from the site into the existing detention pond designed with Bucking Horse Filing 1 as discussed above. Basin 4 Basin 4 consist primarily of apartment complexes, and backs of lots. This basin will generally drain via overland flow into a grass lined swale, and will then drain via internal storm piping systems generally northeast into the existing major drainage swale along the northern boundary of the project. Basin 5 Basin 5 consist primarily of apartment complexes, and a parking area. This basin will generally drain via overland flow through rain gardens, and will then drain via internal storm piping systems generally northeast into the existing major drainage swale along the northern boundary of the project. Basins OS1 through OS4 Basins OS1 through OS4, as shown on the Drainage Exhibit, consist of portions of Bucking Horse Filing 1 and Bucking Horse Filing 2 that drain onto the current Filing 4 site. Runoff from these basins will not be required to receive LID treatment, and detention for these areas has already been accommodated for in the existing “Detention Pond 215”. The current Filing 4 site design will safely convey 100-year flows through the site into the existing major drainage swale running along the north boundary of the site. 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. All of Bucking Horse Filing 4 was intended to be conveyed into existing “Detention Pond 215”, designed and approved with Bucking Horse Filing 1. The pond currently provides approximately 32.4 ac-ft of storage volume. The pond is also designed as a 40-hour dry extended detention basin (EDB), providing approximately 3.4 ac-ft of water quality capture volume (WQCV). 2. The Filing 4 project involves the anticipated build-out of a portion of the overall Bucking Horse development with an apartment complex. The proposed apartment complex area was anticipated in earlier submittals related to the Bucking Horse development, and was incorporated in the SWMM model reviewed and approved with the Bucking Horse Filing 2 project (“Final Drainage Report for Bucking Horse Filing 2”, December 17, 2012, by Northern Engineering). 3. The proposed Filing 4 project will modify basin percentage imperviousness for SWMM Basin 105 as identified in the original Filing 2 report and modeling efforts. This previously approved SWMM model Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report 8 showed this basin with a percent impervious value of 75%. With the proposed site plan for Bucking Horse Filing 4, the averaged percent impervious value will be reduced siginificantly, from 75% down to 63%. This will be beneficial for the storm system design and detention pond design by creating a small decrease in both peak 100-year runoff rates and volumes. 4. LID features have been incorporated in the design of the overall site. The site plan currently shows LID measures proposed with the development plan consisting a “treatment train” involving, rain gardens, bioswales, and landscape buffers. Please see the LID Design Information provided in Appendix D. 5. Final design details, construction documentation, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual shall be provided by the City of Fort Collins in the Development Agreement for the project. 6. 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 Foothills 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. 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 Foothills Basin. Bucking Horse Filing Four Final Drainage Report 9 References 1. City of Fort Collins Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities, November 5, 2009, BHA Design, Inc. with City of Fort Collins Utility Services. 2. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 3. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007. 4. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. 6. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report, Bucking Horse Development - Southeast (Johnson Farm, Working Farm, Urban Estate), Fort Collins, Colorado, July 19, 2012, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC Project No. 1122025C) APPENDIX A Hydrologic Computations CHARACTER OF SURFACE: Runoff Coefficient Percentage Impervious Project: 687-004 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 53086 1.22 0.12 0.07 0.61 0.00 0.42 0.71 0.71 0.89 60% 2 138418 3.18 1.29 0.11 0.81 0.00 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.92 67% 3a 155285 3.56 1.77 0.43 0.29 0.00 1.08 0.74 0.74 0.92 68% 3b 134173 3.08 1.70 0.37 0.24 0.00 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.97 73% 4 62196 1.43 0.00 0.08 0.20 0.00 1.15 0.39 0.39 0.48 18% 5 253449 5.82 2.92 0.14 0.54 0.00 2.21 0.68 0.68 0.85 61% OS1 215856 4.96 0.87 0.60 1.32 0.00 2.17 0.64 0.64 0.80 52% OS2 193537 4.44 0.45 0.37 0.82 0.00 2.80 0.51 0.51 0.64 34% OS3 101677 2.33 0.00 0.21 0.72 0.00 1.40 0.53 0.53 0.66 36% OS4 28082 0.64 0.32 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.17 0.76 0.76 0.95 71% DEVELOPED COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Project: 687-004 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: 687-004 Calculations By: Date: From Section 3.2.1 of the CFCSDDC Rainfall Intensity: 1 1 1.22 15 15 14 0.71 0.71 0.89 1.87 3.19 6.71 1.6 2.8 7.3 2 2 3.18 22 22 21 0.74 0.74 0.92 1.53 2.61 5.53 3.6 6.1 16.2 3a 3a 3.56 19 19 18 0.74 0.74 0.92 1.68 2.86 6.01 4.4 7.5 19.8 3b 3b 3.08 19 19 18 0.78 0.78 0.97 1.68 2.86 6.01 4.0 6.8 18.0 4 4 1.43 14 14 13 0.39 0.39 0.48 1.95 3.34 6.92 1.1 1.9 4.8 5 5 5.82 20 20 19 0.68 0.68 0.85 1.61 2.74 5.75 6.4 10.9 28.6 OS1 OS1 4.96 18 18 18 0.64 0.64 0.80 1.70 2.90 6.01 5.4 9.2 24.0 OS2 OS2 4.44 27 27 25 0.51 0.51 0.64 1.39 2.37 4.98 3.1 5.3 14.1 OS3 OS3 2.33 20 20 19 0.53 0.53 0.66 1.61 2.74 5.75 2.0 3.4 8.9 OS4 OS4 0.64 11 11 10 0.76 0.76 0.95 2.17 3.71 7.72 1.1 1.8 4.7 Area, A (acres) Intensity, i2 (in/hr) 100-yr Tc (min) DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS C100 Design Point Flow, Q100 (cfs) Flow, Q2 (cfs) 10-yr Tc (min) 2-yr Tc (min) C2 Flow, Q10 (cfs) Intensity, i100 (in/hr) Basin(s) ATC May 2, 2016 Intensity, i10 (in/hr) Rainfall Intensity taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria (CFCSDDC), Figure 3.1 C10 Q C f C i A DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF Figure RO-1—Estimate of Average Overland Flow Velocity for Use With the Rational Formula 2007-01 RO-13 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF Table RO-3—Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Values Land Use or Surface Characteristics Percentage Imperviousness Business: Commercial areas 95 Neighborhood areas 85 Residential: Single-family * Multi-unit (detached) 60 Multi-unit (attached) 75 Half-acre lot or larger * Apartments 80 Industrial: Light areas 80 Heavy areas 90 Parks, cemeteries 5 Playgrounds 10 Schools 50 Railroad yard areas 15 Undeveloped Areas: Historic flow analysis 2 Greenbelts, agricultural 2 Off-site flow analysis (when land use not defined) 45 Streets: Paved 100 Gravel (packed) 40 Drive and walks 90 Roofs 90 Lawns, sandy soil 0 Lawns, clayey soil 0 * See Figures RO-3 through RO-5 for percentage imperviousness. C A = K A + ( 1 . 31 i 3 − 1 . 44 i 2 + 1 . 135 i − 0 . 12 ) for CA ≥ 0, otherwise CA = 0 (RO-6) C CD = K CD + ( 0 . 858 i 3 − 0 . 786 i 2 + 0 . 774 i + 0 . 04 ) (RO-7) C B = (CA + C CD ) 2 2007-01 RO-9 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF Table RO-5— Runoff Coefficients, C Percentage Imperviousness Type C and D NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 0% 0.04 0.15 0.25 0.37 0.44 0.50 5% 0.08 0.18 0.28 0.39 0.46 0.52 10% 0.11 0.21 0.30 0.41 0.47 0.53 15% 0.14 0.24 0.32 0.43 0.49 0.54 20% 0.17 0.26 0.34 0.44 0.50 0.55 25% 0.20 0.28 0.36 0.46 0.51 0.56 30% 0.22 0.30 0.38 0.47 0.52 0.57 35% 0.25 0.33 0.40 0.48 0.53 0.57 40% 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.50 0.54 0.58 45% 0.31 0.37 0.44 0.51 0.55 0.59 50% 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.57 0.60 55% 0.37 0.43 0.48 0.55 0.58 0.62 60% 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.57 0.60 0.63 65% 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.59 0.62 0.65 70% 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.62 0.65 0.68 75% 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.68 0.71 80% 0.60 0.63 0.66 0.70 0.72 0.74 85% 0.66 0.68 0.71 0.75 0.77 0.79 90% 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.83 95% 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.88 0.89 100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 TYPE B NRCS HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP 0% 0.02 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.30 0.35 5% 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.28 0.33 0.38 10% 0.06 0.14 0.22 0.31 0.36 0.40 15% 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.38 0.42 20% 0.12 0.20 0.27 0.35 0.40 0.44 25% 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.41 0.46 30% 0.18 0.25 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.47 35% 0.20 0.27 0.34 0.41 0.44 0.48 40% 0.23 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 45% 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.48 0.51 50% 0.29 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.49 0.52 55% 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.51 0.54 60% 0.37 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.54 0.56 65% 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.57 0.59 70% 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.58 0.60 0.62 75% 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.64 0.66 80% 0.57 0.59 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.70 85% 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.75 90% 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.81 95% 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 2007-01 RO-11 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RUNOFF DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) TABLE RO-5 (Continued)—Runoff Coefficients, C Percentage Imperviousness Type A NRCS Hydrologic Soils Group 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 0% 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.20 5% 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.24 10% 0.00 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.24 0.28 15% 0.02 0.10 0.17 0.23 0.27 0.30 20% 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.26 0.30 0.33 25% 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.29 0.32 0.35 30% 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.34 0.37 35% 0.16 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.36 0.39 40% 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.38 0.41 45% 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.37 0.40 0.43 50% 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.45 55% 0.29 0.33 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.47 60% 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.47 0.50 65% 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.53 70% 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.54 0.56 75% 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.61 80% 0.54 0.56 0.60 0.63 0.64 0.66 85% 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.70 0.72 90% 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.79 95% 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.86 100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 RO-12 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF Figure RO-3— Watershed Imperviousness, Single-Family Residential Ranch Style Houses 2007-01 RO-15 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RUNOFF DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) Figure RO-4—Watershed Imperviousness, Single-Family Residential Split-Level Houses RO-16 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF Figure RO-5—Watershed Imperviousness, Single-Family Residential Two-Story Houses Figure RO-6—Runoff Coefficient, C, vs. Watershed Percentage Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group A 2007-01 RO-17 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RUNOFF DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) Figure RO-7—Runoff Coefficient, C, vs. Watershed Percentage Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group B Figure RO-8—Runoff Coefficient, C, vs. Watershed Percentage Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D RO-18 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District APPENDIX B WATER Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) X X X X X X X E DRAWN BY: ATC SCALE: 1" = 500' ISSUED: 6/1/12 SWMM BASIN UPDATE SHEET NO: 1 - Filing One 200 South College Avenue, Suite 010 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com FILING ONE Drainage Report POND STAGE STORAGE TABLE POND 1 Project: 687‐002 Date: 8/10/2012 By: ATC ELEV AREA CONIC CONIC CONIC RELEASE INC. VOL. TOTAL VOL. TOTAL VOL. RATE (FT) (SF) (CF) (CF) (AC‐FT) (CFS) 4,892.20 290.6 N/A 0 0.000 0.00 4,893.00 5,325.40 820.27 1388.14 0.044 17.65 4,894.00 20,349.39 3928.21 14969.46 0.364 39.71 4,895.00 23,733.29 4678.97 37022.52 1.062 61.76 4,896.00 27,183.58 5366.54 62470.13 1.875 83.82 4,897.00 30,767.39 6080.5 91433.46 2.786 105.88 4,898.00 34,509.61 6825.44 124056.85 3.798 127.94 4,899.00 38,462.43 7611.32 160522.88 4.916 150.00 FILING ONE Drainage Report POND STAGE STORAGE TABLE POND 2 Project: 687‐002 Date: 8/10/2012 By: ATC ELEV AREA CONIC CONIC CONIC RELEASE INC. VOL. TOTAL VOL. TOTAL VOL. RATE (FT) (SF) (CF) (CF) (AC‐FT) (CFS) 4,913.00 229.06 N/A 0 0.000 0.00 4,914.00 6,193.18 1110.85 2955.18 0.024 0.00 4,915.00 8,332.88 1636.84 10475.91 0.172 46.90 4,916.00 9,874.89 1943.25 19571.39 0.364 60.10 4,917.00 11,516.51 2269.59 30258.7 0.592 72.10 4,918.00 14,396.21 2818.67 43186.37 0.856 82.80 4,919.00 18,427.08 3600.67 59558.33 1.161 92.30 4,920.00 22,765.40 4461.93 80112.31 1.507 101.20 4,921.00 16,590.28 3340.76 97763.88 1.898 111.00 FILING ONE Drainage Report POND STAGE STORAGE TABLE POND 3 Project: 687‐002 Date: 8/10/2012 By: ATC ELEV AREA CONIC CONIC CONIC RELEASE INC. VOL. TOTAL VOL. TOTAL VOL. RATE (FT) (SF) (CF) (CF) (AC‐FT) (CFS) 4,900.40 0.04 N/A 0 0.000 0.00 4,901.00 1,444.99 213.56 320.96 0.008 3.21 4,902.00 12,666.38 2493.21 15798.17 0.108 8.57 4,903.00 14,923.56 2935.87 29556.98 0.363 13.93 4,904.00 17,607.88 3464.48 45789.34 0.676 19.29 4,905.00 20,084.65 3950.69 60840.53 1.034 24.64 4,906.00 15,942.03 3594.7 64435.23 1.441 30.00 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE NORTHERN ENGINEERING, AUGUST 10, 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 1 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION PC.1 DEVELOPED BY METCALF + EDDY, INC. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970) UPDATED BY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (JUNE 1973) HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 1974) BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1985, JULY 1985) TAPE OR DISK ASSIGNMENTS JIN(1) JIN(2) JIN(3) JIN(4) JIN(5) JIN(6) JIN(7) JIN(8) JIN(9) JIN(10) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JOUT(1) JOUT(2) JOUT(3) JOUT(4) JOUT(5) JOUT(6) JOUT(7) JOUT(8) JOUT(9) JOUT(10) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NSCRAT(1) NSCRAT(2) NSCRAT(3) NSCRAT(4) NSCRAT(5) 3 4 0 0 0 WATERSHED 1/PROGRAM CALLED *** ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL *** SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT; NORTHERN ENG. MODIFIED, 8/10/12 NUMBER OF TIME STEPS 480 INTEGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) 1.00 1.0 PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH FOR 24 RAINFALL STEPS, THE TIME INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTES FOR RAINGAGE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL HISTORY IN INCHES PER HOUR 1.00 1.14 1.33 2.23 2.84 5.49 9.95 4.12 2.48 1.46 1.22 1.06 1.00 .95 .91 .87 .84 .81 .78 .75 .73 .71 .69 .67 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT; NORTHERN ENG. MODIFIED, 8/10/12 SUBAREA GUTTER WIDTH AREA PERCENT SLOPE RESISTANCE FACTOR SURFACE STORAGE(IN) INFILTRATION RATE(IN/HR) GAGE NUMBER OR MANHOLE (FT) (AC) IMPERV. (FT/FT) IMPERV. PERV. IMPERV. PERV. MAXIMUM MINIMUM DECAY RATE NO 100 903 1742.0 12.0 70.0 .0260 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 101 901 2265.0 15.6 49.8 .0040 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 102 902 4705.0 32.4 53.9 .0220 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 103 302 1350.0 9.3 50.9 .0220 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 104 303 1343.0 9.6 55.4 .0300 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 105 304 3049.0 21.0 75.0 .0210 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 106 0 1.0 .1 1.0 .0260 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 107 306 11340.0 78.1 28.9 .0150 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 108 4 3150.0 21.7 55.0 .0010 .035 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 109 4 2076.0 14.3 55.0 .0010 .035 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBCATCHMENTS, 10 TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA (ACRES), 214.10 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT; NORTHERN ENG. MODIFIED, 8/10/12 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE NORTHERN ENGINEERING, AUGUST 10, 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 2 of 7 HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 9 SUBCATCHMENTS - AVERAGE VALUES WITHIN TIME INTERVALS TIME(HR/MIN) 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 0 1. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 6. .0 .1 .0 .0 .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 0 11. 3.0 11.6 3.2 3.7 8.3 .0 18.8 1.2 .8 0 16. 7.9 23.4 6.4 7.3 19.0 .0 32.9 4.2 2.7 0 21. 15.1 39.3 10.7 12.1 33.6 .0 53.0 10.6 7.0 0 26. 24.5 64.0 17.6 19.8 53.7 .0 90.9 21.0 13.8 0 31. 52.2 142.2 39.3 44.1 113.4 .0 216.9 48.0 31.6 0 36. 85.7 216.9 60.3 66.2 166.5 .0 358.9 93.7 61.8 0 41. 56.1 131.4 37.3 39.3 89.4 .0 266.8 79.4 52.3 0 46. 41.1 89.8 25.9 26.4 56.2 .0 210.4 62.7 41.4 0 51. 30.6 61.5 17.9 17.8 36.3 .0 161.4 48.7 32.1 0 56. 25.1 47.8 14.0 13.8 28.0 .0 132.0 39.8 26.3 1 1. 21.3 39.2 11.4 11.3 23.3 .0 110.4 33.7 22.2 1 6. 18.8 34.0 9.9 9.8 20.8 .0 95.2 29.5 19.4 1 11. 17.0 30.4 8.8 8.8 19.1 .0 83.6 26.4 17.4 1 16. 15.5 27.6 8.0 8.0 17.8 .0 74.5 24.0 15.8 1 21. 14.2 25.4 7.3 7.4 16.8 .0 67.0 22.1 14.6 1 26. 13.2 23.7 6.8 6.9 16.0 .0 60.9 20.5 13.5 1 31. 12.3 22.2 6.3 6.5 15.2 .0 55.7 19.2 12.7 1 36. 11.5 20.8 5.9 6.1 14.5 .0 51.2 18.0 11.9 1 41. 10.8 19.6 5.6 5.8 13.9 .0 47.3 17.0 11.2 1 46. 10.2 18.6 5.3 5.5 13.4 .0 44.0 16.1 10.6 1 51. 9.6 17.8 5.0 5.2 12.9 .0 41.0 15.3 10.1 1 56. 9.1 16.9 4.8 5.0 12.5 .0 38.4 14.5 9.6 2 1. 8.3 14.8 4.2 4.3 11.0 .0 33.7 13.6 9.0 2 6. 5.3 7.1 2.0 2.0 4.9 .0 21.2 10.8 7.1 2 11. 3.9 4.6 1.3 1.2 2.8 .0 16.6 8.8 5.8 2 16. 3.1 3.3 1.0 .9 1.8 .0 13.8 7.4 4.9 2 21. 2.6 2.6 .8 .7 1.3 .0 11.8 6.3 4.1 2 26. 2.2 2.1 .6 .5 .9 .0 10.2 5.4 3.6 2 31. 1.9 1.7 .5 .4 .7 .0 8.9 4.7 3.1 2 36. 1.6 1.4 .4 .4 .5 .0 7.8 4.2 2.8 2 41. 1.4 1.2 .4 .3 .4 .0 6.9 3.7 2.5 2 46. 1.3 1.0 .3 .2 .3 .0 6.1 3.3 2.2 2 51. 1.1 .8 .3 .2 .3 .0 5.4 3.0 2.0 2 56. 1.0 .7 .2 .2 .2 .0 4.9 2.7 1.8 3 1. .9 .6 .2 .1 .2 .0 4.3 2.5 1.6 3 6. .8 .5 .2 .1 .1 .0 3.9 2.3 1.5 3 11. .8 .5 .1 .1 .1 .0 3.5 2.1 1.4 3 16. .7 .4 .1 .1 .1 .0 3.1 1.9 1.3 3 21. .6 .3 .1 .1 .1 .0 2.8 1.8 1.2 3 26. .6 .3 .1 .1 .1 .0 2.5 1.6 1.1 3 31. .5 .2 .1 .1 .1 .0 2.3 1.5 1.0 3 36. .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 2.1 1.4 .9 3 41. .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 1.9 1.3 .9 3 46. .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 1.2 .8 3 51. .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 1.1 .7 3 56. .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 1.0 .7 4 1. .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 1.0 .6 4 6. .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 .9 .6 4 11. .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .9 .6 4 16. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 .8 .5 4 21. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 .8 .5 4 26. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 .7 .5 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE NORTHERN ENGINEERING, AUGUST 10, 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 3 of 7 7 11. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 16. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 21. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 26. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 31. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 36. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 41. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 46. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 7 51. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 56. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT; NORTHERN ENG. MODIFIED, 8/10/12 *** CONTINUITY CHECK FOR SUBCATCHMEMT ROUTING IN UDSWM2-PC MODEL *** WATERSHED AREA (ACRES) 214.100 TOTAL RAINFALL (INCHES) 3.669 TOTAL INFILTRATION (INCHES) .604 TOTAL WATERSHED OUTFLOW (INCHES) 2.886 TOTAL SURFACE STORAGE AT END OF STROM (INCHES) .179 ERROR IN CONTINUITY, PERCENTAGE OF RAINFALL .000 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT; NORTHERN ENG. MODIFIED, 8/10/12 WIDTH INVERT SIDE SLOPES OVERBANK/SURCHARGE GUTTER GUTTER NDP NP OR DIAM LENGTH SLOPE HORIZ TO VERT MANNING DEPTH JK NUMBER CONNECTION (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) L R N (FT) 201 302 0 2 PIPE 4.0 266. .0040 .0 .0 .013 4.00 0 202 901 0 1 CHANNEL 7.0 55. .0050 .0 .0 .013 7.00 0 203 303 0 1 CHANNEL 20.0 505. .0040 3.0 3.0 .030 6.00 0 204 304 0 1 CHANNEL 20.0 482. .0040 3.0 3.0 .030 6.00 0 205 305 0 1 CHANNEL 20.0 260. .0040 3.0 3.0 .030 6.00 0 206 306 0 1 CHANNEL 14.0 95. .0040 1.0 1.0 .013 4.00 0 301 3 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 302 203 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 303 204 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 304 205 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 305 206 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 306 215 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 901 1 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 902 2 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 903 3 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 0 1 201 4 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE NORTHERN ENGINEERING, AUGUST 10, 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 4 of 7 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 1.0 4.0 3.0 10.0 6.0 16.0 215 0 9 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .1 .0 2.3 37.0 6.2 54.4 15.6 68.7 26.3 81.2 41.5 92.1 52.7 102.0 64.3 111.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF GUTTERS/PIPES, 20 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT; NORTHERN ENG. MODIFIED, 8/10/12 ARRANGEMENT OF SUBCATCHMENTS AND GUTTERS/PIPES GUTTER TRIBUTARY GUTTER/PIPE TRIBUTARY SUBAREA D.A.(AC) 1 901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.0 2 902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32.4 3 301 903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36.0 201 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.0 202 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32.4 203 302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105.3 204 303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114.9 205 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135.9 206 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135.9 215 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 214.0 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT; NORTHERN ENG. MODIFIED, 8/10/12 HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 6 CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS THE UPPER NUMBER IS DISCHARGE IN CFS THE LOWER NUMBER IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASES: ( ) DENOTES DEPTH ABOVE INVERT IN FEET (S) DENOTES STORAGE IN AC-FT FOR DETENTION DAM. DISCHARGE INCLUDES SPILLWAY OUTFLOW. (I) DENOTES GUTTER INFLOW IN CFS FROM SPECIFIED INFLOW HYDROGRAPH (D) DENOTES DISCHARGE IN CFS DIVERTED FROM THIS GUTTER (O) DENOTES STORAGE IN AC-FT FOR SURCHARGED GUTTER TIME(HR/MIN) 201 202 203 204 205 206 0 1. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) 0 6. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .01( ) .01( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) 0 11. 1.1 5.6 .5 .6 3.9 2.6 .30( ) .26( ) .05( ) .06( ) .19( ) .11( ) 0 16. 10.0 16.8 6.7 5.8 19.9 18.7 .89( ) .51( ) .26( ) .24( ) .50( ) .36( ) 0 21. 26.1 31.3 25.1 24.6 51.4 47.7 1.47( ) .76( ) .57( ) .56( ) .87( ) .64( ) PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE NORTHERN ENGINEERING, AUGUST 10, 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 5 of 7 .78(O) 1.31( ) 1.33( ) 1.40( ) 1.54( ) 1.22( ) 1 11. 97.7 58.5 106.7 116.0 135.5 135.6 1.00(O) 1.14( ) 1.32( ) 1.39( ) 1.51( ) 1.20( ) 1 16. 97.7 48.3 105.8 114.3 132.4 132.5 1.21(O) 1.01( ) 1.31( ) 1.37( ) 1.49( ) 1.18( ) 1 21. 97.7 31.7 105.1 112.9 129.9 130.0 1.39(O) .76( ) 1.31( ) 1.36( ) 1.48( ) 1.17( ) 1 26. 97.7 25.2 104.6 111.7 127.9 128.0 1.52(O) .66( ) 1.31( ) 1.36( ) 1.47( ) 1.16( ) 1 31. 97.7 22.9 104.1 110.8 126.2 126.3 1.62(O) .62( ) 1.30( ) 1.35( ) 1.45( ) 1.15( ) 1 36. 97.7 21.4 103.7 110.0 124.7 124.8 1.67(O) .59( ) 1.30( ) 1.34( ) 1.44( ) 1.14( ) 1 41. 97.7 20.1 103.3 109.3 123.3 123.4 1.69(O) .57( ) 1.30( ) 1.34( ) 1.43( ) 1.13( ) 1 46. 97.7 19.1 103.0 108.7 122.2 122.2 1.67(O) .55( ) 1.29( ) 1.33( ) 1.43( ) 1.12( ) 1 51. 97.7 18.1 102.8 108.1 121.1 121.2 1.61(O) .53( ) 1.29( ) 1.33( ) 1.42( ) 1.12( ) 1 56. 97.7 17.3 102.5 107.6 120.2 120.2 1.53(O) .52( ) 1.29( ) 1.33( ) 1.41( ) 1.11( ) 2 1. 97.7 16.2 102.1 106.9 118.4 118.7 1.41(O) .50( ) 1.29( ) 1.32( ) 1.40( ) 1.11( ) 2 6. 97.7 9.8 100.1 103.0 108.8 109.1 1.26(O) .36( ) 1.27( ) 1.29( ) 1.34( ) 1.05( ) 2 11. 97.7 5.8 99.2 100.8 104.0 104.1 1.06(O) .26( ) 1.27( ) 1.28( ) 1.30( ) 1.02( ) 2 16. 97.7 4.0 98.8 99.8 101.8 101.9 .82(O) .21( ) 1.26( ) 1.27( ) 1.29( ) 1.01( ) 2 21. 97.7 3.0 98.5 99.3 100.7 100.7 .54(O) .17( ) 1.26( ) 1.27( ) 1.28( ) 1.00( ) 2 26. 97.7 2.3 98.3 99.0 100.0 100.0 .22(O) .15( ) 1.26( ) 1.27( ) 1.27( ) 1.00( ) 2 31. 43.1 1.9 78.3 92.2 96.6 97.1 1.94( ) .13( ) 1.11( ) 1.21( ) 1.25( ) .98( ) 2 36. 40.5 1.5 45.2 53.5 59.5 60.5 1.87( ) .12( ) .80( ) .89( ) .94( ) .74( ) 2 41. 31.3 1.3 36.1 40.6 43.4 43.9 1.62( ) .10( ) .70( ) .75( ) .78( ) .61( ) 2 46. 25.3 1.1 28.5 32.0 34.2 34.6 1.44( ) .09( ) .61( ) .66( ) .68( ) .53( ) 2 51. 21.9 .9 24.0 26.4 27.9 28.2 1.34( ) .09( ) .55( ) .59( ) .61( ) .47( ) 2 56. 20.0 .8 21.4 22.9 24.0 24.2 1.28( ) .08( ) .52( ) .54( ) .55( ) .42( ) 3 1. 18.8 .7 19.7 20.8 21.5 21.6 1.23( ) .07( ) .49( ) .51( ) .52( ) .40( ) 3 6. 17.9 .6 18.6 19.4 19.9 20.0 1.20( ) .06( ) .48( ) .49( ) .50( ) .38( ) 3 11. 17.3 .5 17.8 18.4 18.8 18.9 1.18( ) .06( ) .46( ) .47( ) .48( ) .37( ) 3 16. 16.7 .4 17.2 17.7 18.0 18.0 1.16( ) .05( ) .45( ) .46( ) .47( ) .36( ) 3 21. 16.3 .4 16.7 17.1 17.3 17.4 1.15( ) .05( ) .45( ) .45( ) .46( ) .35( ) 3 26. 15.9 .3 16.2 16.6 16.8 16.8 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE NORTHERN ENGINEERING, AUGUST 10, 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 6 of 7 .98( ) .01( ) .37( ) .37( ) .37( ) .28( ) 4 56. 11.8 .0 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.1 .97( ) .00( ) .37( ) .37( ) .37( ) .28( ) 5 1. 11.6 .0 11.7 11.9 11.9 11.9 .97( ) .00( ) .36( ) .36( ) .37( ) .28( ) 5 6. 11.5 .0 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.8 .96( ) .00( ) .36( ) .36( ) .36( ) .28( ) 5 11. 11.3 .0 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.6 .95( ) .00( ) .36( ) .36( ) .36( ) .27( ) 5 16. 11.2 .0 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.5 .95( ) .00( ) .35( ) .36( ) .36( ) .27( ) 5 21. 11.0 .0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.3 .94( ) .00( ) .35( ) .35( ) .35( ) .27( ) 5 26. 10.9 .0 11.0 11.1 11.1 11.1 .93( ) .00( ) .35( ) .35( ) .35( ) .27( ) 5 31. 10.7 .0 10.8 10.9 11.0 11.0 .93( ) .00( ) .35( ) .35( ) .35( ) .26( ) 5 36. 10.6 .0 10.7 10.8 10.8 10.8 .92( ) .00( ) .34( ) .34( ) .35( ) .26( ) 5 41. 10.4 .0 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.7 .92( ) .00( ) .34( ) .34( ) .34( ) .26( ) 5 46. 10.3 .0 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.6 .91( ) .00( ) .34( ) .34( ) .34( ) .26( ) 5 51. 10.1 .0 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.4 .90( ) .00( ) .33( ) .34( ) .34( ) .26( ) 5 56. 10.0 .0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.3 .89( ) .00( ) .33( ) .33( ) .33( ) .25( ) 6 1. 9.8 .0 9.9 10.0 10.1 10.1 .89( ) .00( ) .33( ) .33( ) .33( ) .25( ) 6 6. 9.6 .0 9.7 9.9 9.9 9.9 .88( ) .00( ) .32( ) .33( ) .33( ) .25( ) 6 11. 9.4 .0 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.8 .87( ) .00( ) .32( ) .32( ) .32( ) .25( ) 6 16. 9.2 .0 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.6 .86( ) .00( ) .32( ) .32( ) .32( ) .24( ) 6 21. 9.0 .0 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4 .85( ) .00( ) .31( ) .32( ) .32( ) .24( ) 6 26. 8.9 .0 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.2 .84( ) .00( ) .31( ) .31( ) .31( ) .24( ) 6 31. 8.7 .0 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.0 .84( ) .00( ) .31( ) .31( ) .31( ) .23( ) 6 36. 8.5 .0 8.6 8.8 8.8 8.8 .83( ) .00( ) .30( ) .30( ) .31( ) .23( ) 6 41. 8.3 .0 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.7 .82( ) .00( ) .30( ) .30( ) .30( ) .23( ) 6 46. 8.2 .0 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.5 .81( ) .00( ) .29( ) .30( ) .30( ) .23( ) 6 51. 8.0 .0 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.3 .80( ) .00( ) .29( ) .29( ) .30( ) .22( ) 6 56. 7.8 .0 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.2 .79( ) .00( ) .29( ) .29( ) .29( ) .22( ) 7 1. 7.7 .0 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.0 .79( ) .00( ) .28( ) .29( ) .29( ) .22( ) 7 6. 7.5 .0 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 .78( ) .00( ) .28( ) .28( ) .29( ) .22( ) 7 11. 7.4 .0 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.7 PROPOSED EFFECTIVE MODEL – BUCKINGHORSE NORTHERN ENGINEERING, AUGUST 10, 2012 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Page 7 of 7 *** PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENTION DAMS *** *** NOTE :S IMPLIES A SURCHARGED ELEMENT AND :D IMPLIES A SURCHARGED DETENTION FACILITY CONVEYANCE PEAK STAGE STORAGE TIME ELEMENT:TYPE (CFS) (FT) (AC-FT) (HR/MIN) 1:2 130.4 .1 4.0:D 1 5. 2:2 108.0 .1 1.8:D 0 42. 3:2 28.4 .1 1.3:D 0 46. 4:2 16.1 .1 6.1:D 2 8. 201:2 97.7 4.0 1.7:S 1 41. 202:1 108.0 1.7 0 42. 203:1 131.3 1.5 0 41. 204:1 187.4 1.8 0 36. 205:1 354.0 2.6 0 35. 206:1 363.9 2.2 0 36. 215:2 83.6 .1 29.6:D 2 34. 301:3 .0 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 0. 302:3 139.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 303:3 199.4 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 304:3 365.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 305:3 354.0 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 306:3 722.8 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 36. 901:3 215.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 36. 902:3 240.4 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 903:3 104.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. ENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED APPENDIX C Erosion Control Report Bucking Horse Filing Four 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 D LID Design Information APPENDIX E Inlet Computations INLET CAPACITY SUMMARY Project: 687‐004 By: ATC Date: 5/2/2016 Inlet Design Inlet Street Name Inlet Design Design ID Point(s) Type Condition Storm Flow Inlet Capacity (CFS) (CFS) A6 OS2 Triple Combination Yearling Rd. Sump 100‐YR 19.60 24.60 A2 OS1 Double Combination Cutting Horse Dr. Sump 100‐Yr 1.00 1.10 A3 OS1 Triple Combination Cutting Horse Dr. Sump 100‐Yr 25.40 27.00 B2 Portion DP5 Single Area Inlet Parking Area Sump 2‐Yr 1.30 4.00 C3 3b Double Combination Private Drive Sump 2‐Yr 5.10 7.10 D3 3a Double Combination Private Drive Sump 2‐Yr 4.40 7.10 Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') alocal = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 1.0 3.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo = 2.00 2.00 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Aratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Cf (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Cw (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Co (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Warning 1 Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cf (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) Cw (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Co (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa = 0.1 1.1 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 0.1 1.0 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 687-004 Inlet A2 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-sump-A2.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 5/2/2016, 2:42 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') alocal = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 3 3 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 6.0 9.5 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Warning 1 Width of a Unit Grate Wo = 2.00 2.00 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Aratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Cf (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Cw (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Co (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Warning 1 Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cf (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) Cw (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Co (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa = 8.6 27.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 5.0 25.4 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 687-004 Inlet A3 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-sump-A3.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 5/2/2016, 2:44 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') alocal = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 3 3 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 6.0 9.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Warning 1 Width of a Unit Grate Wo = 2.00 2.00 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Aratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Cf (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Cw (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Co (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Warning 1 Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cf (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) Cw (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Co (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa = 8.6 24.6 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 5.0 19.6 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 687-004 Inlet A6 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-sump-A6.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 5/2/2016, 2:38 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') alocal = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 6.0 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Warning 1 Width of a Unit Grate Wo = 2.00 2.00 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Aratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Cf (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Cw (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Co (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Warning 1 Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cf (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) Cw (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Co (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa = 7.1 7.1 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 5.1 5.1 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 687-004 Inlet C3 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-sump-C3.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 5/2/2016, 2:45 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') alocal = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 6.0 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo = 2.00 2.00 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Aratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Cf (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Cw (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Co (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Warning 1 Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cf (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) Cw (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Co (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa = 7.1 7.1 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 4.4 4.4 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 687-004 Inlet D3 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-sump-D3.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 5/2/2016, 2:47 PM APPENDIX F Storm Line Computations Hydraflow Plan View Project File: StormA.stm No. Lines: 5 05-02-2016 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 30 46.00 4890.10 4892.35 2.25 4.65 9.89 1.52 4893.87 0.944 140 4890.80 4893.92 2.50 4.91 9.37 1.37 4895.29 1.072 1.008 1.416 0.00 0.00 2 30 45.00 4891.30 4893.98 2.50 4.91 9.17 1.31 4895.29 1.026 25.0 4891.43 4894.24 2.50 4.91 9.17 1.31 4895.54 1.026 1.026 0.257 0.00 0.00 3 24 19.60 4891.93 4894.94 2.00 3.14 6.24 0.61 4895.54 0.640 87.9 4892.37 4895.50 2.00 3.14 6.24 0.61 4896.10 0.640 0.640 0.563 0.00 0.00 4 24 19.60 4892.37 4895.50 2.00 3.14 6.24 0.61 4896.11 0.640 383 4896.20 4897.80 1.60 2.69 7.29 0.83 4898.62 0.673 0.656 2.515 0.00 0.00 5 24 19.60 4896.20 4898.02 1.82 3.00 6.54 0.66 4898.68 0.559 54.0 4896.47 4898.34 1.87 3.06 6.41 0.64 4898.98 0.553 0.556 0.300 0.00 0.00 Project File: StormA.stm Number of lines: 5 Run Date: 05-02-2016 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraflow Plan View Project File: StormB.stm No. Lines: 2 05-02-2016 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 24 24.50 4889.41 4891.16 1.75 2.92 8.40 1.10 4892.26 0.905 70.5 4889.77 4891.98 2.00 3.14 7.80 0.95 4892.93 1.000 0.952 0.671 0.00 0.00 Project File: StormB.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 05-02-2016 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraflow Plan View Project File: StormC.stm No. Lines: 2 05-02-2016 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 15 5.10 4886.81 4887.71 0.90 0.95 5.37 0.45 4888.16 0.698 257 4887.71 4889.48 1.25 1.23 4.16 0.27 4889.74 0.532 0.615 1.581 0.00 0.00 2 15 5.10 4887.71 4889.48 1.25 1.23 4.16 0.27 4889.74 0.532 102 4888.06 4890.02 1.25 1.23 4.16 0.27 4890.29 0.532 0.532 0.542 0.00 0.00 Project File: StormC.stm Number of lines: 2 Run Date: 05-02-2016 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraflow Plan View Project File: StormD.stm No. Lines: 2 05-02-2016 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 15 4.40 4886.07 4886.91 0.84 0.88 5.02 0.39 4887.30 0.631 68.8 4886.34 4887.40 1.06 1.11 3.96 0.24 4887.65 0.373 0.502 0.345 0.00 0.00 2 15 4.40 4886.34 4887.45 1.11 1.15 3.83 0.23 4887.67 0.354 207 4887.17 4888.19 1.02 1.07 4.10 0.26 4888.45 0.398 0.376 0.777 0.00 0.00 Project File: StormD.stm Number of lines: 2 Run Date: 05-02-2016 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 APPENDIX G Riprap Computations Project: 687-004 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 A 46.00 2.50 1.25 0.50 11.64 4.65 N/A N/A 2.99 4.65 7.67 10.87 Type M 12.00 10.00 1.5 Storm B 25.5 2.00 1.00 0.50 9.02 4.51 N/A N/A 3.14 4.51 5.10 9.73 Type M 10.00 8.00 1.5 Storm C 5.1 1.25 0.63 0.50 3.65 2.92 N/A N/A 4.73 2.92 1.02 1.81 Type M 5.00 5.00 1.5 Storm D 4.4 1.25 0.63 0.50 3.15 2.52 N/A N/A 5.13 2.52 0.88 0.81 Type M 5.00 5.00 1.5 Design Discharge (cfs) At=Q/V (ft) Spec Length of Riprap (ft) 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 APPENDIX H Swale Computations Bottom Width B = 0.00 feet Left Side Slope Z1 = 5.00 ft/ft Right Side Slope Z2 = 12.00 ft/ft Manning's n or SCS Retardance Curve n = 0.035 Longitudinal Slope S = 0.0075 ft/ft Flow Manning's Flow Wetted Hydraulic Flow Flow Froude Depth Roughness Area Perimeter Radius Velocity rate Number YnA P R VQ Fr (ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) (cfs) 0.00 0.0350 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.0350 0.09 1.71 0.05 0.5 0.0 0.39 0.20 0.0350 0.34 3.43 0.10 0.8 0.3 0.44 0.30 0.0350 0.77 5.14 0.15 1.0 0.8 0.47 0.40 0.0350 1.36 6.86 0.20 1.3 1.7 0.49 0.50 0.0350 2.13 8.57 0.25 1.5 3.1 0.51 0.60 0.0350 3.06 10.28 0.30 1.6 5.0 0.53 0.70 0.0350 4.17 12.00 0.35 1.8 7.6 0.54 0.80 0.0350 5.44 13.71 0.40 2.0 10.8 0.55 0.90 0.0350 6.89 15.43 0.45 2.1 14.8 0.56 1.00 0.0350 8.50 17.14 0.50 2.3 19.6 0.57 1.10 0.0350 10.29 18.85 0.55 2.5 25.2 0.58 1.20 0.0350 12.24 20.57 0.60 2.6 31.8 0.59 1.30 0.0350 14.37 22.28 0.64 2.7 39.4 0.60 1.40 0.0350 16.66 24.00 0.69 2.9 48.0 0.61 1.50 0.0350 19.13 25.71 0.74 3.0 57.7 0.61 1.60 0.0350 21.76 27.42 0.79 3.2 68.6 0.62 1.70 0.0350 24.57 29.14 0.84 3.3 80.6 0.63 1.80 0.0350 27.54 30.85 0.89 3.4 93.9 0.63 1.90 0.0350 30.69 32.57 0.94 3.5 108.4 0.64 2.00 0.0350 34.00 34.28 0.99 3.7 124.3 0.64 SWALE 1 - Q100=4.8 CFS; DEPTH=0.6FT RATING CURVE FOR TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Depth (ft) Flow (cfs) Depth vs. Flow UD-Channels_v1.04.xls, Rating 5/2/2016, 3:41 PM VR Product 0 0.0246114 0.0781362 0.1535811 0.248067 0.3598203 0.4875896 0.6304235 0.7875636 0.9583846 1.1423582 1.3390294 1.5480003 1.7689188 2.0014698 2.2453691 2.5003585 2.7662017 3.0426814 3.3295968 3.6267613 RATING CURVE FOR TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 020406080100120140 Manning's n VR Product Flow Depth (ft), Velocity (fps), Froude No. Flow Rate in cfs Velocity, Flow Depth, Froude Number & Manning's n vs. Discharge Flow Depth Velocity Froude No. Manning's n 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 00.511.522.533.54 0.0 MAP POCKET DRAINAGE EXHIBITS 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Mannin'g n VR Product Velocity (fps), Froude Number Flow Depth (ft) Velocity, Froude Number, & Manning's n vs. Flow Depth Velocity (fps) Froude Number Manning's n UD-Channels_v1.04.xls, Rating 5/2/2016, 3:41 PM MD-22) L= 1/(2tanq)* [At/Yt)-W] (ft) Expansion Factor 1/(2tanq) (From Figure MD-23 or MD-24) May 2, 2016 OUTPUT Storm Line/Culvert Label Culvert Parameters Yt, Tailwater Depth (ft) Urban Drainage pg MD-107 Box Culvert INPUT CALCULATE .77( ) .00( ) .28( ) .28( ) .28( ) .21( ) 7 16. 7.2 .0 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 .76( ) .00( ) .27( ) .28( ) .28( ) .21( ) 7 21. 7.1 .0 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4 .76( ) .00( ) .27( ) .27( ) .28( ) .21( ) 7 26. 6.9 .0 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.3 .75( ) .00( ) .27( ) .27( ) .27( ) .21( ) 7 31. 6.8 .0 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.1 .74( ) .00( ) .26( ) .27( ) .27( ) .20( ) 7 36. 6.7 .0 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.0 .73( ) .00( ) .26( ) .26( ) .27( ) .20( ) 7 41. 6.5 .0 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.8 .73( ) .00( ) .26( ) .26( ) .26( ) .20( ) 7 46. 6.4 .0 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.7 .72( ) .00( ) .26( ) .26( ) .26( ) .20( ) 7 51. 6.3 .0 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.6 .71( ) .00( ) .25( ) .25( ) .26( ) .19( ) 7 56. 6.2 .0 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 .70( ) .00( ) .25( ) .25( ) .25( ) .19( ) THE FOLLOWING CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS WERE SURCHARGED DURING THE SIMULATION. THIS COULD LEAD TO ERRORS IN THE SIMULATION RESULTS!! 201 THE FOLLOWING CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS HAVE NUMERICAL STABILITY PROBLEMS THAT LEAD TO HYDRAULIC OSCILLLATIONS DURING THE SIMULATION. 206 SIDEHILL FILING 2 & 3 SWMM ANALYSIS INPUT, JR ENGINEERING, 10-27-04, ES 3.67" RAINFALL DATA, 100 YEAR STORM EVENT; NORTHERN ENG. MODIFIED, 8/10/12 1.13( ) .04( ) .44( ) .44( ) .45( ) .34( ) 3 31. 15.5 .3 15.8 16.1 16.3 16.3 1.12( ) .04( ) .43( ) .44( ) .44( ) .34( ) 3 36. 15.2 .2 15.5 15.7 15.9 15.9 1.11( ) .04( ) .43( ) .43( ) .43( ) .33( ) 3 41. 14.9 .2 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.6 1.10( ) .03( ) .42( ) .43( ) .43( ) .33( ) 3 46. 14.6 .2 14.9 15.1 15.2 15.2 1.09( ) .03( ) .42( ) .42( ) .42( ) .32( ) 3 51. 14.4 .1 14.6 14.8 14.9 14.9 1.08( ) .03( ) .41( ) .42( ) .42( ) .32( ) 3 56. 14.1 .1 14.3 14.5 14.6 14.6 1.07( ) .02( ) .41( ) .41( ) .41( ) .31( ) 4 1. 13.9 .1 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 1.06( ) .02( ) .40( ) .41( ) .41( ) .31( ) 4 6. 13.7 .1 13.8 14.0 14.1 14.1 1.05( ) .02( ) .40( ) .40( ) .40( ) .31( ) 4 11. 13.4 .1 13.6 13.8 13.9 13.9 1.04( ) .02( ) .40( ) .40( ) .40( ) .30( ) 4 16. 13.2 .0 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.6 1.03( ) .01( ) .39( ) .39( ) .40( ) .30( ) 4 21. 13.0 .0 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.4 1.02( ) .01( ) .39( ) .39( ) .39( ) .30( ) 4 26. 12.8 .0 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.2 1.02( ) .01( ) .38( ) .39( ) .39( ) .30( ) 4 31. 12.7 .0 12.8 12.9 13.0 13.0 1.01( ) .01( ) .38( ) .38( ) .39( ) .29( ) 4 36. 12.5 .0 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.8 1.00( ) .01( ) .38( ) .38( ) .38( ) .29( ) 4 41. 12.3 .0 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.6 .99( ) .01( ) .38( ) .38( ) .38( ) .29( ) 4 46. 12.1 .0 12.2 12.4 12.4 12.4 .99( ) .01( ) .37( ) .37( ) .38( ) .28( ) 4 51. 12.0 .0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.3 0 26. 42.1 49.4 50.5 56.5 100.9 93.2 1.91( ) 1.02( ) .86( ) .91( ) 1.28( ) .96( ) 0 31. 54.1 68.6 81.6 108.1 209.0 191.8 2.22( ) 1.27( ) 1.13( ) 1.33( ) 1.93( ) 1.47( ) 0 36. 77.8 99.3 130.2 187.4 350.5 363.9 2.85( ) 1.63( ) 1.48( ) 1.82( ) 2.57( ) 2.16( ) 0 41. 95.9 107.6 131.3 172.6 265.2 263.2 3.53( ) 1.73( ) 1.49( ) 1.74( ) 2.21( ) 1.78( ) 0 46. 97.7 106.9 125.4 155.7 215.3 216.7 .05(O) 1.72( ) 1.45( ) 1.64( ) 1.97( ) 1.59( ) 0 51. 97.7 101.0 117.0 138.0 177.0 177.7 .17(O) 1.65( ) 1.39( ) 1.53( ) 1.76( ) 1.41( ) 0 56. 97.7 93.2 112.4 128.1 157.6 158.0 .35(O) 1.56( ) 1.36( ) 1.47( ) 1.65( ) 1.31( ) 1 1. 97.7 83.5 109.6 122.1 146.3 146.6 .56(O) 1.45( ) 1.34( ) 1.43( ) 1.58( ) 1.25( ) 1 6. 97.7 72.1 107.9 118.5 139.8 140.0 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .4 39.7 1.9 83.8 4.9 150.0 2 202 7 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .2 46.9 .6 72.1 .9 82.9 1.2 92.3 1.5 101.2 1.9 111.0 3 901 4 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .4 13.9 1.0 24.6 1.4 30.0 4 901 4 2 PIPE .1 1000. .0050 .0 .0 .100 .10 0 4 31. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .7 .4 4 36. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .6 .4 4 41. .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 .6 .4 4 46. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .5 .4 4 51. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .5 .3 4 56. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .5 .3 5 1. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .5 .3 5 6. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 .3 5 11. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 .3 5 16. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .3 5 21. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .2 5 26. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .3 .2 5 31. .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .3 .2 5 36. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 5 41. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 5 46. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 5 51. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 5 56. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .2 6 1. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 6. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 11. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 16. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 21. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 26. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 31. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 6 36. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 6 41. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 6 46. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 6 51. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 6 56. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 1. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 7 6. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 (min) 10-yr Tc (min) 100-yr Tc (min) 11No0.25 0.25 0.31 110 2.00% 13.2 13.2 12.3 265 1.00% 2.00 2.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 15 15 14 22No0.25 0.25 0.31 140 2.00% 14.9 14.9 13.9 855 1.00% 2.00 7.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 22 22 21 3a 3a No 0.25 0.25 0.31 80 2.00% 11.3 11.3 10.5 871 1.00% 2.00 7.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 19 19 18 3b 3b No 0.25 0.25 0.31 80 2.00% 11.3 11.3 10.5 871 1.00% 2.00 7.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 19 19 18 44No0.25 0.25 0.31 60 2.00% 9.8 9.8 9.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 813 5.00% 3.35 4.0 14 14 13 55No0.25 0.25 0.31 100 2.00% 12.6 12.6 11.7 894 1.00% 2.00 7.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 20 20 19 OS1 OS1 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 110 2.00% 13.2 13.2 12.3 630 1.00% 2.00 5.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 18 18 18 OS2 OS2 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 305 2.00% 22.0 22.0 20.5 554 1.00% 2.00 4.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 27 27 25 OS3 OS3 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 105 2.00% 12.9 12.9 12.0 890 1.00% 2.00 7.4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 20 20 19 OS4 OS4 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 40 2.00% 8.0 8.0 7.4 320 1.00% 2.00 2.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 11 11 10 DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS Gutter Flow Swale Flow Design Point Basin Overland Flow ATC May 2, 2016 Time of Concentration (Equation RO-4) 3 1 1 . 87 1 . 1 * S Ti C Cf L 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 May 2, 2016