The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutALPINE BANK - FDP210009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - DRAINAGE REPORT PREPARED FOR: Alpine Bank 220 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-3209 PREPARED BY: Galloway & Company, Inc. 6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: (303) 770-8884 DATE: July 8th, 2021 ALPINE BANK SUBDIVISION ALPINE BANK Fort Collins, Colorado FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT 17 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 2 of 22 6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303.770.8884 • GallowayUS.com FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT Alpine Bank Subdivision Alpine Bank Legal Description Alpine Bank Subdivision: A portion of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, I.C. Bradley’s Addition to the City of Fort Collins; Part of the Northwest ¼ of Section 24, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimar, State of Colorado. Preparation Date April 8, 2021 Prepared for Alpine Bank 220 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384-3209 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 3 of 22 ENGINEER’S STATEMENT I hereby attest that this report and plan for the final drainage design for the Alpine Bank Subdivision was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, in accordance with the provisions of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others. Michael Alan Shaw, PE # 53656 Date For and on behalf of Galloway & Company, Inc. DEVELOPER’S CERTIFICATION “Alpine Bank hereby certifies that the drainage facilities for The Alpine Bank Subdivision shall be constructed according to the design presented in this report. I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume liability for the drainage facilities designed and/or certified by my engineer and that the City of Fort Collins review))s drainage plans pursuant to the Municipal Code; but cannot, on behalf of The Alpine Bank Subdivision, guarantee that final drainage design review will absolve Alpine Bank and/or their successors and/or assigns of future liability for improper design.” Authorized Signature Date Alpine Bank 7/8/2021 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 4 of 22 I. General Location and Existing Information ................................................................................................ 5 Location ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Description of Property..................................................................................................................... 5 II. Master Drainage Basin Description .......................................................................................................... 6 Major Basin Description ................................................................................................................... 6 Sub- Basin Description..................................................................................................................... 6 III. Floodplain Information .............................................................................................................................. 7 IV. Project Description ................................................................................................................................... 7 V. Drainage Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 7 Regulations ...................................................................................................................................... 7 The Four Step Process (Low Impact Development) ........................................................................ 7 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ........................................................................... 8 Hydrologic Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 9 Hydraulic Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 9 VI. Proposed Drainage Facilities ................................................................................................................. 11 General Concept ............................................................................................................................ 11 Specific Details ............................................................................................................................... 12 VII. Variance Requests ............................................................................................................................... 14 VIII. Erosion Control .................................................................................................................................... 14 Construction Material & Equipment ............................................................................................... 14 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................... 15 IX. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Compliance with Standards ........................................................................................................... 15 Variances ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Drainage Concept .......................................................................................................................... 15 VI. References ............................................................................................................................................ 16 VII. Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 17 A. Exhibits & Figures ............................................................................................................... 17 B. Hydrologic Computations .................................................................................................... 17 C. Hydraulic Computations ...................................................................................................... 17 D. Drainage Maps .................................................................................................................... 17 E. Remington Street Drainage Report References ................................................................. 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 5 of 22 I. General Location and Existing Information Location The Alpine Bank Subdivision (hereafter referred to as “the site” or “project site”) will be located at the southwest corner of South College Avenue and East Prospect Road. It is bounded on north by an East Prospect Road; on the east by an alley shared with the neighboring residences; on the south by an existing commercial site; and on the west by South College Avenue. Spring Creek is located south of the site. More specifically, the site is located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer and State of Colorado. Refer to Appendix A for a Vicinity Map. Description of Property The project site is approximately 0.9 acres (after replatting with additional right of way dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for the proposed lane widening), and consists of two existing commercial buildings that will be removed, an existing historic home (currently designated for commercial use) that will be relocated within the site to preserve it, and associated parking, drive aisles, and landscaping. Existing grades on the site range from approximately one to eight percent, with historic runoff generally draining across the site and to the existing inlet in the alley along the east side of the site. There are no major drainage ways passing through the project site. According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, ‘Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes’ covers the entire project site. This soil is associated with Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) ‘C’. HSG ‘C’ soils have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet and consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Refer to Appendix A for additional soils information. During the water quality storm event, surface runoff will be collected into an underground storm drain system through a series of roof drain downspouts and inlets throughout the site through which it will be conveyed to an underground water quality facility located at the southeast corner of the site. During the minor (i.e., 2-year) and major (i.e., 100-year) storm events, runoff volume in excess of the water quality event will be released into the existing 30” storm drain main in the alley at or below the current 100-year developed flow rate for the site. Since the proposed development provides a net reduction in impervious area, the proposed outflow rate will be less than the existing site. Also, per ongoing coordination with the City of Fort Collins and the As-Built Design Report for the Remington Street Storm Sewer Outfall Improvement Project, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers on December 7, 2020 (Remington Outfall Drainage Repot) it is understood that local flooding in the adjacent intersection enters the site in the 100-year storm event and that approximately 8.7 cfs of runoff enters the site via the existing South College Avenue entry and 13.1 cfs enters the site via the existing East Prospect Road entry (See Appendix E Report References). This runoff is directed to the existing inlet in the alley which is not sized to handle these flows, creating a local flooding condition. This runoff contributes to a pre-existing flooding issue in this alley due to the existing storm drain infrastructure being undersized. This project will not be required to provide detention or to resolve these flooding issues, but will help improve this condition by reducing net impervious area across the site, providing water quality capture volume storage, and by redirecting a significant amount of runoff away from the existing inlet (which flows into a 12” storm drain pipe) and shifting the project outfall just south of this where the existing storm drain increases to a 30” pipe. 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 6 of 22 II. Master Drainage Basin Description Major Basin Description The project site is located in the Spring Creek drainage basin. According to the City of Fort Collins website (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/drainage-basins/spring-creek-basin), this basin “is a major watercourse that flows from Spring Canyon Dam at Horsetooth Reservoir to its confluence with the Poudre River. The basin is dominated by residential development, but also includes open space, parks, and isolated areas of commercial and industrial development.” On-site detention storage is not required for the site because it is a redevelopment of an existing site that does not have detention storage and will be reducing the overall impervious area of the site. Water quality for the site has been provided in accordance with the City of Fort Collins LID requirements for the redeveloped portions of the site. An underground water quality facility has been sized for the redeveloped portions of the site in the form of an underground water quality filtration system, herein referred to as UG A. Final calculations for the underground basin have been provided in Appendix C. Due to grading constraints and the existing alley being incorporated into the project site, only about 75% of the onsite runoff can be captured and treated by the underground water quality facility, which is similar to the existing condition The current site does not have any LID features so this is a significant improvement from the existing condition. Also, the water quality volume has been sized for the entire site as if were all being captured and treated by the under water quality facility. Sub- Basin Description The site historically drains south and east towards the adjacent alley. Also, portions of the north side of the site drain into East Prospect Road and the sidewalk and tree lawn along the western frontage currently drains into South College Avenue. An existing combination inlet on the north side of the site also captures a small amount of runoff and ties into the existing East Prospect Road combination inlet directly north of the site. Runoff conveyed to South College Avenue is captured by the existing curb inlet in the curbline directly west of the project. This inlet will be impacted by the project and relocated directly west to provide a right turn lane with the development. This inlet will function in the same manner in the new location and existing flow patterns have been maintained. See the Inlet Calculation section of this report for further details. In order to redirect water out of the alley and into the project site, existing drainage patterns were modified wherever feasible to maximize onsite runoff capture. However, several locations could not be modified, such as the following. First, the existing tree lawn on the north side of the site has been preserved at the request of Fort Collins and directs this onsite runoff into East Prospect Avenue. Second, the new proposed sidewalk along South College Avenue associated with the lane widening is part of the project site area but must be directed into the public right-of-way per Larimer County Standards. This is consistent with the existing drainage pattern. The east side of the site has been graded to attempt to direct additional runoff back into the site and away from the alley, however the steep slopes on this site have made some areas infeasible to capture runoff onsite. Wherever it is infeasible to capture this runoff, the existing drainage pattern is being maintained and overall, the runoff entering the alley is significantly reduced. In the 2-year event the project runoff entering the alley inlet has been reduced from approximately 2.0 cfs to 0.2 cfs and in the 100-year event this has been reduced from approximately 8.2 cfs to 1.0 cfs (not including the flood bypass from College and Prospect). 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 7 of 22 There are a few proposed storm inlets within the site which collect runoff and direct it to the underground water quality facility at the southeast corner of the site before it is released into the existing storm drain infrastructure in the alley and ultimately drains to Spring Creek. This outfall is consistent with the existing drainage pattern for the site. At the sub-basin level, no offsite runoff is anticipated to enter the site, with the exception of 19 cfs of local flooding from South College Avenue that currently enters the site and sheet flows into the alley inlet. A description of each basin and their characteristics can be found later in the report. There are no known irrigation, reservoir, or other facilities that influence, or are influenced by, the local drainage. III. Floodplain Information The project site is shown on FEMA Map Number 08069C0979H (refer to Appendix A for FEMA Firmette). This map shows that the project is not impacted by an existing floodplain/floodway. Refer to Appendix A for a copy of the Firmette. IV. Project Description The Alpine Bank Subdivision will be developed in one phase and is approximately 9.0 acres. The two existing commercial buildings will be removed, and the existing historic home (currently designated for commercial use) will be relocated to the south side of the site to preserve it. The existing parking lot and drive aisles will be removed and a proposed bank building will be built in the northwest corner of the lot V. Drainage Design Criteria Regulations This final drainage design presented herein is prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, November 2017 (FCSCM), the Mile High Flood District (MHFD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, January 2016 (USDCM), and Chapter 10, Flood Prevention and Protection, of the Fort Collins City Code. No other drainage reports could be provided for the site by the City of Fort Collins. The Four Step Process (Low Impact Development) At the final stage in the design process, we developed a commensurate implementation of the ‘The Four-Step Process’ for stormwater quality management. Ordinance No. 007, 2016 requires that no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of any newly developed or redeveloped area be treated using one or a combination of LID techniques. As previously mentioned, the runoff for the modified areas collected onsite will be treated using and underground LID water quality system. This LID system will address 100% of the captured volume rather than using a combination of LID and standard methods. Consistent with the ordinance referenced above, 75% of the new or modified impervious area is captured and treated by the underground water quality facility. And it has also been sized assuming a 100% capture rate to provide additional water quality storage volume for larger storm events. 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 8 of 22 Step 1 - Employ runoff reduction practices The attached drainage map (see Appendix D) delineates the proposed drainage basins, each of which drains to the proposed underground water quality system, UG A wherever feasible. Underground systems are an accepted LID method when surface BMPs are infeasible, which consist of an underground chamber that provide stormwater quality treatment via sedimentation, screening, filtration, and other physical and chemical processes. Step 2 - Implement BMPs that provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Due to site constraints, an underground storage system will provide the necessary Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV). This has been sized for the entire project area, although only 75% of the project impervious area is directed to the facility due to reasons described earlier in the report. Step 3 - Stabilize drainageways The developed runoff generated by the proposed redevelopment will drain to an existing storm drain system located within the existing alley directly east of the project site. This system drains north and outfalls into Spring Creek. Our work assumes that an appropriate level of stabilization exists at the outfall into Spring Creek. Step 4 - Implement site specific and other source control BMPs Site specific considerations such as material handling/storage and other site operations will be addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). Development Criteria Reference and Constraints This final drainage design presented herein is prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, November 2017 (FCSCM) and the Mile High Flood District (MHFD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, January 2016 (USDCM). No other drainage reports could be provided for the site by the City of Fort Collins. Existing runoff for the proposed site generally drains to the south and east across the site. The majority of the on-site runoff is captured by an existing storm sewer inlet in the adjacent alley which directs runoff south via a 12” storm pipe, which increases to a 30” pipe at the next manhole in the alignment. Capacity calculations for the proposed and existing portions of the storm sewer system will be provided with a subsequent submittal once an updated drainage study for this area has been provided by the City. This is anticipated to be received and reviewed shortly after this submittal. However, at this time it is known by the City that there are existing flooding issues in this alley due to the existing infrastructure being undersized and due to localized flooding in South College Avenue, as described earlier in the report. Therefore, it is known that the existing system does not have capacity, however, the proposed project will be matching or improving the existing conditions and release rates thereby improving the system overall. Also, the City noted that a future Capital Improvement Project is planned for this alley to upsize the existing infrastructure and mitigate these pre-existing flooding issues. Per conversations with the City, a timeframe is not known yet for this project at this time. 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 9 of 22 Hydrologic Criteria For urban catchments that are not complex and are generally 160 acres or less in size, it is acceptable that the design storm runoff be analyzed using the Rational Method. The Rational Method is often used when only the peak flow rate or total volume of runoff is needed (e.g., storm sewer sizing or simple detention basin sizing). The Rational Method was used to estimate the peak flow at each design point. Routing calculations (i.e., time attenuation) that aggregate the basins draining to a specific design point are include in the Rational Method calculations in Appendix B. The Rational Method is based on the Rational Formula: Q = CiA Where: Q = the maximum rate of runoff, cfs C = a runoff coefficient that is the ratio between the runoff volume from an area and the average rate of rainfall depth over a given duration for that area i = average intensity of rainfall in inches per hour for a duration equal to the Time of Concentration (Tc) A = area, acres Runoff Coefficients were determined based on Tables 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3 of the the FCSCM. The one-hour rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency tables for use with the Rational Method of runoff analysis are provided in Table 3.4-1 of the FCSCM. The 2-year and 100-year storm events serve as the basis for the drainage system design. The 2-year storm is considered the minor storm event. It has a fifty percent probability of exceedance during any given year. The 100-year storm is considered the major storm event. It has a one percent probability of exceedance during any given year. The 2-year drainage system, at a minimum, must be designed to transport runoff from the 2-year recurrence interval storm event with minimal disruption to the urban environment. The 100-year drainage system, as a minimum, must be designed to convey runoff from the 100-year recurrence interval flood to minimize life hazards and health, damage to structures, and interruption to traffic and services. Hydraulic Criteria There are three on-site basins which drain to the proposed storm sewer system, which are identified in the proposed drainage map (Appendix D) as Basins A, B, and C. Runoff from each basin will be collected by storm sewer inlets and pipes and conveyed onsite to the proposed underground water quality facility before entering the existing storm drain system in the adjacent alley. Basin A is collected by a storm sewer system at the northeast corner of the site. Basin B is collected by a storm drain inlet in the bank drive through area, and Basin C is collected by an inlet at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the alley. Additional areas for the site not collected by the proposed storm drain system are designated as Off-Site Basins (OS) and will drain offsite to existing storm drain infrastructure, consistent with the existing drainage pattern. Runoff from these offsite basins will be released untreated and undetained toward existing inlets in East Prospect Road and South College Avenue as described in more detail earlier in this report. 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 10 of 22 Inlet Capacity Analysis A 10’ CDOT Type R (College Avenue), Type C, Type 13 Area Inlet and NDS 24” Area Inlet are proposed throughout the project for removing excess developed runoff from the site. In general, the inlet capacities for the minor and major storm event were estimated using Figure 7-7 (for area inlets) from Volume 1 of the USDCM (included in Appendix C), along with the MHFD spreadsheet UD- Inlet_v4.05 (for curb inlets). Appendix C includes capacity calculations for the proposed inlets. All inlets on the site are in a sump condition. The existing 10’ CDOT Type R Inlet in College Avenue will be relocated as part of the proposed lane widening improvements with no changes in size or configuration proposed. This inlet is located in existing basin OS-E1 which corresponds to Subbasin 9 in the Remington Outfall Drainage Report (See Appendix E). In the proposed condition the tributary area for this basin has increased by approximately 0.01 acres and will have a negligible impact on the inlet (approximately a 0.1 cfs increase). Therefore, no additional inlet calculations have been provided for this inlet. Appendix E includes the original inlet calculation for this inlet (COLLG_IN-1) for reference. Per the Remington Outfall Drainage Report, this inlet has approximately 44.9 cfs of runoff directed to it in the 100-year storm event due to localized flooding overtopping the College Avenue median directly west. This inundates the inlet and it is only able to capture about 17.9 cfs of this runoff before the remainder is directed into Prospect Avenue (which ultimately ends up in the existing alley east of the project site) and directly into the project site via College. This is outlined on the Existing and Proposed Drainage Maps in Appendix D of this report. The existing inlet in the alley directly east of the project site is known to have significant local flooding issues per the Remington Outfall Drainage Report and discussions with the City. In the 10-year event the report shows 1.3’ of ponding and 2.2’ of ponding in the 100-year event. This is a known issue with the City of Fort Collins and this report also models a future scenario that proposes a City Capital Improvement Project to upsize the existing storm sewer infrastructure in the alley. This project is anticipated to eliminate ponding altogether during the 10-year event and the reduce the 100-year ponding elevation to 1.1’ (0.2’ below the current 10-year event ponding elevation). The City does not have a timeframe for completing this work at the time of writing this report and has not confirmed the feasibility of the anticipated design. However, it has been indicated that this work could be completed as soon as 2022. All the above referenced ponding exhibits have been included in Appendix E of this report. This inlet has not been modeled with this report, as the amount of runoff intercepted by the project site with the proposed design with reduce the amount of runoff entering this inlet. However, it is described in detail with this report to clarify that the local flooding within this alley east of the project site is an existing, known issue that the City is aware of and seeking opportunities to mitigate. The chart provided in Appendix C for Inlet 4A show that it has sufficient capacity for anticipated runoff associated with the project improvements. However, any additional flow above this will result in ponding that spills above the highest point between this inlet and the alley. In a 100-year storm event it is anticipated that the bypass flooding from College Avenue entering the site via College will initially bypass this inlet. However, per the Remington Outfall Drainage Report the 2.2 feet of ponding in the alley in the 100-yr event will translate to approximately 1.8’ of ponding above this proposed inlet. Once the ponding height in the alley reaches approximately 9” it will begin to spill back over into this inlet which will have an inlet capacity of about 16 cfs with 12” of ponding, thereby reducing the amount of runoff that needs to be captured by the existing alley inlet. This could potentially reducing the flooding depth in the alley by redirecting a portion of this localized flooding through the project 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 11 of 22 storm sewer system. Please review the Storm Drain Capacity Analysis section below for more details related to this. Storm Drain Capacity Analysis The storm drain system has been sized with the Bentley StormCAD v8i hydraulic modeling software package to convey the routed 100-year developed runoff at each design point draining into the system. The pipes are sized to convey this runoff without surcharging (full-flow capacity) for the non- flooded alley scenario, and to be partially surcharged at the low ends of the system (due to elevation head) with some ponding in the flooded alley scenario. This is explained in more detail in the paragraphs that follow. Although the existing storm drain system in the alley is undersized, it is currently used at the outfall for the existing development and will be able to continue to serve as the outfall for the proposed development. Also, the larger, 30” RCP section in they alley has been selected as the project outfall to provide better capacity and reduced likelihood of clogging (which is a common issue noted by the City for the 12” RCP section directly north). Regardless of this outfall location, when water ponds up to 2.2’ at the existing alley inlet it will eventually overtop into the project site and be captured by the proposed CDOT Type D area inlet. This has not been modeled in the base 100-year storm event scenario in StormCAD to ensure the site is initially designed for the required 100-year storm event without attempting to accommodate existing flooding issues. However, this has been approximately modeled as an alternative scenario to depict how this may affect the site when flows bypass the alley inlet and enter the site. Since the ponding assumed in the alley is part of a much larger, regional model within the Remington Outfall Drainage Report this scenario is only an approximation, as the ponding in the alley is anticipated to be reduced once this project is constructed, but to still be present. This scenario assumes that the alley inlet is clogged, and all runoff is entering the project site, with a free outfall into the alley (since all flow is assumed to be directed through the project site). Modeling a free outfall into the alley is not likely, but the intent is to show the maximum amount of runoff that could enter the project site due to localized flooding if the alley inlet were clogged. It is beyond the scope of this project and report to revise this regional analysis to determine to new ponding depths in the alley and model the interaction between the alley and the project site accurately so this additional scenario is for reference only and to depict the fast that the localized flooding in the alley will impact the proposed drainage infrastructure being built with the project, causing backups and additional ponding within the project site until the localized flooding issue in the alley is mitigated by the City of Fort Collins. The proposed development is not required to provide detention to reduce the site release rate, however it will ultimately be reducing the impact on this system by lowering the release rate and reducing the overall impervious area of the site. All pipe sizing calculation StormCAD hydraulic analysis output has been included in Appendix C. VI. Proposed Drainage Facilities General Concept This final design presents the detailed design of the proposed system for collecting and conveying developed runoff from current and proposed development at the Alpine Bank Subdivision site to the Stormwater quality and detention features and offsite systems. The existing site runoff drains to existing storm sewer inlets within the alley and adjacent streets as described in more detail earlier on 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 12 of 22 in this report. The proposed design generally matches this existing drainage pattern and includes the implementation of and underground StormTech system to provide water quality and detention for the site. Drainage patterns have only been modified to maximize the amount of runoff directed to the water quality treatment facility. Specific Details The site has been broken into three basins, each with their own set of sub-basins. A description of each basin and their characteristics can be found below. The intent of the drainage design is to have the runoff from the majority of the site collected and drain through a water quality facility prior to entering the existing storm sewer system offsite. UG A has been sized based on the City of Fort Collins LID requirements for the necessary portions of the site, which will be located at the downstream connection point to the existing storm drain system at the southeast corner of the site. The released stormwater from the site will travel in the existing storm sewer system in the adjacent alley, and ultimately reach Spring Creek. Basin A Basin A consists of the north side of the site and is comprised of 4 sub-basins. The basin includes a portion of the bank roof (connected via downspouts), the landscape area at the northeast corner of the site, and a portion of the large raised planter wrapped around the building on the north side and a portion of the west side. Runoff from Basin A will be collected by the proposed storm sewer system and conveyed to the southeast corner of the site to the proposed underground water quality facility, and ultimately discharge into the existing storm sewer system in College Ave. Basin B Basin B consists of the drive through banking area east of the bank building and is comprised of 7 sub-basins. The basin includes the drive through banking areas, additional portions of the bank roof, and a portion of the bank entry area. Runoff from Basin B will be collected by the proposed storm sewer system and conveyed south to the southeast corner of the site to the proposed underground water quality facility, and ultimately discharge into the existing storm sewer system in College Ave. Basin C Basin C consists of the southern portion of the site and is comprised of 3 sub-basins. The basin includes the main drive aisle, parking, the historic building, and portions of the bank roof. Runoff from Basin C will be collected by the proposed storm sewer system and conveyed south to the southeast corner of the site to the proposed underground water quality facility, and ultimately discharge into the existing storm sewer system in College Ave. Offsite Basins The remainder of the site consists of basins that flow offsite, as is current with the existing drainage pattern. These basins are located along East Prospect Road (OS-1), South College Avenue (OS-2) and the existing alley to the east (OS-3). These basins include sidewalk, tree lawn, and landscape areas between the sidewalk and proposed bank building. They also include portions of the alley that are located on the project site where the existing drainage pattern cannot be modified to redirect additional runoff into the site. The characteristics of the tributary areas draining to these inlets will remain virtually the same, so anticipated flow rates generated should be the same and not negatively impact the existing storm sewer system. Once in the existing storm sewer inlets, the stormwater from this basin is conveyed through the existing storm sewer system and ultimately reaches Spring Creek. 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 13 of 22 Basin OS-E1 has also been delineated to represent the area in College contributing to the existing inlet in College. For consistency, the basin values in the existing condition have been set to match Subbasin 9 in the Remington Outfall Drainage Report (See Appendix E). In the proposed condition the additional lane in College proposed with this project. As stated in the Inlet Calculation section of the report, this change in overall basin area will have a negligible impact on this inlet. Water Quality Enhancement The site has been divided into multiple drainage basins as described above. Runoff from each basin will be collected and conveyed to UG A, which provides water quality treatment in the form of an underground LID system. The LID Summary Table below identifies the on-site impervious areas of the proposed improvements. In the proposed condition, there is approximately 0.70 acres of on-site new or modified impervious area. Of that area, 0.17 acres of impervious area are infeasible to be captured by the on-site drainage system due to grading constraints where the proposed improvements match existing grades. Thus, the system can capture 0.53 acres of the total on-site new and modified impervious area (76%). In lieu of the uncaptured area, the underground water quality facility has been sized for 100% of the project site area. Based on coordination with the City, a reduced capture volume is acceptable for this site due to significant grading constraints and existing drainage patterns that cannot be modified. Also, a significant portion of the impervious area that cannot be captured consists of public sidewalk that drains into College (0.08 acres). When this portion of the impervious area is removed from the calculation this reduces the on-site new or modified impervious area to 0.62 acres (since the sidewalk is not technically “on-site” despite being within the property lines. In this case, the actual capture rate is 85%. These impervious areas are summarized in the table below. LID – Impervious Area Summary Table Proposed Impervious Area (ac) (ac) On-Site New and Modified Impervious Area 0.70 100% Impervious Area Infeasible to Capture 0.17 24% Total Impervious Area Captured 0.53 76% Public Sidewalk Impervious Area (Onsite) 0.08 11% Actual On-Site New and Modified Impervious Area 0.62 100% Actual Total Impervious Area Captured 0.53 85% In conformance with the requirement identified under the Four Step Process to treat at least 75% of impervious areas through LID methods, 100% of the captured on-site proposed impervious areas will be treated through the proposed underground water quality system. A delineation of the on-site area boundaries for the existing and proposed conditions can be found in the Impervious Area Exhibit in Appendix D. More information for the calculation and sizing of the water quality system is provide in Appendix B. Water Quality treatment will be provided in the isolator rows of the StormTech detention system. The total volume of water quality has been calculated based on a release rate of 0.35 gpm/sf of storage area. Structures within the StormTech system will divert flows in excess of the water quality event to bypass the system and leave the site at the system outfall point. In addition to the bypass that naturally occurs along the isolator row manifold within the system, an additional 24” bypass pipe has been incorporated per coordination with ADS and the City to provide an unimpeded path of travel 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 14 of 22 directly between the inlet and outlet structure of the system (with no manifolds in-between). In order to ensure the full WQCV is contained within the system, an outlet structure weir has also been incorporated with the top of weir elevation set at the top of the WQCV elevation within the system. Once the system is full with the WQCV, all excess flows will bypass the system to enter the outfall point, which is how the StormCAD analysis has been modeled as well. The detailed ADS StormTech system and weir design details are provided in Appendix C. A summary of the water quality system calculations can be found in Appendix B. Storm Water Detention The City has confirmed that Storm Water Detention will not be required for this project. VII. Variance Requests No variances are being requested with the proposed improvements described herein. VIII. Erosion Control A General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activities issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division (WQCD), will be acquired for the site. A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) should be prepared to identity the Best Management Practices (BMPs) which, when implemented, will meet the requirements of said General Permit. Below is a summary of SWMP requirements which may be implemented on-site. The following temporary BMPs may be installed and maintained to control on-site erosion and prevent sediment from traveling off-site during construction: · Silt Fence – a woven synthetic fabric that filters runoff. The silt fence is a temporary barrier that is placed at the base of a disturbed area. · Vehicle Tracking Control – a stabilized stone pad located at points of ingress and egress on a construction site. The stone pad is designed to reduce the amount of mud transported onto public roads by construction traffic. · Straw Wattles – wattles act as a sediment filter. They are a temporary BMP and require proper installation and maintenance to ensure their performance. · Inlet protection – Inlet protection will be used on all existing and proposed storm inlets to help prevent debris from entering the storm sewer system. Inlet protection generally consists of straw wattles or block and gravel filters. Compliance with Erosion Control Criteria and all Erosion Control Materials have been provided with the project Stormwater Management Plan Report and Erosion Control Plan, prepared as a separate document. Construction Material & Equipment The contractor shall store all construction materials and equipment and shall provide maintenance and fueling of equipment in confined areas on-site from which runoff will be contained and filtered. 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 15 of 22 Maintenance The temporary BMPs will be inspected by the contractor at a minimum of once every two weeks and after each significant storm event. The property owner will be responsible for routine and non-routine maintenance of the temporary BMPs. Routine maintenance includes: · Remove sediment from the bottom of the temporary sediment basin when accumulated sediment occupies about 20% of the design volume or when sediment accumulation results in poor drainage. · Debris and litter removal-remove debris and litter to minimize outlet clogging and improve aesthetics as necessary. · Inspection of the facility-inspect the facility annually to ensure that it functions as initially intended. · Cleaning and repair of BMP’s is required when sediment has built up or the BMP is not working properly. IX. Conclusions Compliance with Standards The design presented in this final drainage report for the Alpine Bank Subdivision has been prepared in accordance with the design standards and guidelines presented in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and the MHFD Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Variances No variances are being requested with the proposed improvements described herein. Drainage Concept The proposed Alpine Bank Subdivision storm drainage improvements should provide adequate collection and Water Quality protection for the developed site. The proposed drainage design will sufficiently drain the proposed development and should not negatively impact the existing condition of the overall storm drainage system. 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 16 of 22 VI. References 1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, November 2017 2. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Mile High Flood District, January 2016 (with current revisions). 3. Flood Insurance Rate Map – Larimer County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas Community Panel No. 08069C0979H, Effective May 2, 2012. 4. Soil Map – Larimer County Area, Colorado as available through the Natural Resources Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey web site via Web Soil Survey 2.0. 5. As-Built Design Report for the Remington Street Storm Sewer Outfall Improvement Project, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers on December 7, 2020 17 Alpine Bank Subdivision 7/8/2021 Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 17 of 22 VII. Appendices A. Exhibits & Figures · Vicinity Map · USGS Soil Survey Data · FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map B. Hydrologic Computations · Existing Condition Basin Summary · Existing Condition Rational Method Computations · Existing Minor and Major Storm Runoff Computations · Proposed Condition Basin Summary · Proposed Condition Rational Method Computations · Proposed Minor and Major Storm Runoff Computations · Modified FAA Calculations - Water Quality · Modified FAA Calculations – 100-Year Routing · Water Quality System Calculation Summary C. Hydraulic Computations · StormCAD Results & Outputs · Inlet Calculations · ADS StormTech Detailed Design · ADS StormTech Stage Storage Summary · ADS StormTech Water Quality Weir Layout D. Drainage Maps · Impervious Area Exhibit · Existing Drainage Map · Proposed Drainage Map E. Remington Street Drainage Report References · Existing College Avenue Inlet Calculation · Appendix B.2 – Hydrologic Parameters (Basin OS-E1 Reference) · Appendix D.3 – As-Built Conditions with Existing Facilities SWMMM Input and Results o Hydrologic Basemap o College Avenue Inlet Node Details o Overtopping Weirs into Alley Summary Table o 10-Year Storm Event Runoff Map (Existing Condition) o 100-Year Storm Event Runoff Map (Existing Condition) o 10-Year Storm Event Runoff Map (Future Condition) o 100-Year Storm Event Runoff Map (Future Condition) 17 USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed October, 2020. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 11/2/2020 at 3:07 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 105°4'56"W 40°34'15"N 105°4'19"W 40°33'48"N United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Larimer County Area, ColoradoNatural Resources Conservation Service November 12, 2020 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map (Alpine Bank Project).............................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend (Alpine Bank Project)..............................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions (Alpine Bank Project)......................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................13 35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................................13 References............................................................................................................15 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map (Alpine Bank Project)44906004490610449062044906304490640449065044906604490670449068044906904490600449061044906204490630449064044906504490660449067044906804490690493490 493500 493510 493520 493530 493540 493550 493560 493490 493500 493510 493520 493530 493540 493550 493560 40° 34' 1'' N 105° 4' 36'' W40° 34' 1'' N105° 4' 33'' W40° 33' 57'' N 105° 4' 36'' W40° 33' 57'' N 105° 4' 33'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 20 40 80 120 Feet 0 5 10 20 30 Meters Map Scale: 1:502 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 15, Jun 9, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018—Aug 12, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend (Alpine Bank Project) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 1.1 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.1 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions (Alpine Bank Project) The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report 11 onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Larimer County Area, Colorado 35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlnc Elevation: 4,020 to 6,730 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Fort collins and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Fort Collins Setting Landform:Stream terraces, interfluves Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Pleistocene or older alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam Bt1 - 4 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 16 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 16 to 29 inches: loam Bk2 - 29 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:12 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity:High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Minor Components Nunn Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Interfluves Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope, interfluve Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 15 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Alpine Bank Subdivision APPENDIX B Hydrologic Computations Tributary Areatc | 2-Yeartc | 100-YearQ2Q100Sub-basin(acres)(min)(min)(cfs)(cfs)EX-1 0.04 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.1 0.4E2-OS 0.05 0.45 0.56 5.0 5.0 0.1 0.3EX-3 0.09 0.91 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.9EX-4 0.10 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.3 1.0EX-5 0.40 0.71 0.89 5.3 5.0 0.8 3.6EX-6 0.03 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.1 0.3EX-7 0.02 0.85 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.1 0.2EX-8 0.04 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.1 0.4EX-9 0.08 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.8EX-10 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.1EX-11 0.03 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.1 0.3OS-E1 1.07 0.92 1.00 5.0 5.0 2.8 10.6OS-E2 0.02 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.2Onsite Total 0.90 2.00 - - - 2.1 8.3Offsite Total 1.090.92- - -2.9 10.8Total Tributary to Site- - - - - 2.0 8.2Onsite Total + Flood Flow Bypass--- - - 2.0 30.0BASIN SUMMARY TABLE - EXISTINGC2C100H:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College Prospect\3 Permit CDs\3.04 Grading-Drainage Studies\3.04.2 Proposed Drainage Reports-Info\PDP 2nd Sub\Calcs\Rational Routing Existing.xlsPage 1 of 6 1/20/2021 Subdivision:Alpine Bank SubdivisionProject Name: Alpine BankLocation:CO, Fort CollinsProject No.:Calculated By: M. ShawChecked By: P. DalrympleDate: 1/20/21Single-Family Alley-LoadedSF Duplex/AttachedMulti-Family95%5%62.5%70%75%80%EX-10.04950.04 95200.00 0950.00 0 0.95E2-OS0.05950.02 31200.04 13950.00 0 0.45EX-30.09950.08 89200.01 1950.00 0 0.91EX-40.10950.00 0200.00 0950.10 95 0.95EX-50.40950.27 64200.13 6950.00 0 0.71EX-60.03950.00 0200.00 0950.03 95 0.95EX-70.02950.02 82200.00 3950.00 0 0.85EX-80.04950.04 95200.00 0950.00 0 0.95EX-90.08950.00 0200.00 0950.08 95 0.95EX-100.01950.01 95200.00 0950.00 0 0.95EX-110.03950.03 95200.00 0950.00 0 0.95OS-E11.07951.03 91200.04 1950.00 0 0.92OS-E20.02950.02 95200.00 0950.00 0 0.95Onsite Total0.900.81Offsite Total1.090.92Total1.990.87COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - EXISTINGArea (ac)Area WeightedAsphalt + Concrete Walks Lawns, Heavy Soil: Flat <2%Area WeightedRunoff CoefficientArea (ac)ALB000001.20Area WeightedC2Basin ID Total Area (ac)Runoff CoefficientArea (ac)Building RoofRunoff CoefficientPage 2Drainage Calculations Subdivision:Alpine Bank SubdivisionProject Name: Alpine BankLocation:CO, Fort CollinsProject No.:Calculated By: M. ShawChecked By: P. DalrympleDate: 1/20/21Single-Family Alley-LoadedSF Duplex/AttachedMulti-Family95%5%62.5%70%75%80%EX-10.041000.04 10020.00 0900.00 0 100%E2-OS0.051000.02 3320.04 1900.00 0 34%EX-30.091000.08 9420.01 0900.00 0 94%EX-40.101000.00 020.00 0900.10 90 90%EX-50.401000.27 6820.13 1900.00 0 68%EX-60.031000.00 020.00 0900.03 90 90%EX-70.021000.02 8620.00 0900.00 0 87%EX-80.041000.04 10020.00 0900.00 0 100%EX-90.081000.00 020.00 0900.08 90 90%EX-100.011000.01 10020.00 0900.00 0 100%EX-110.031000.03 10020.00 0900.00 0 100%OS-E11.071001.03 9620.04 0900.00 0 96%OS-E20.021000.02 10020.00 0900.00 0 100%Onsite Total0.9079%Offsite Total1.0996%Total1.9988%COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS - EXISTINGALB000001.20Asphalt + Concrete WalksLawns, Heavy Soil: Flat <2%Building Roof% ImpBasin ID Total Area (ac) % Imp Area (ac)Area WeightedArea Weighted % Imp Area (ac)Area Weighted% Imp Area (ac)Page 3Drainage Calculations Subdivision:Alpine Bank SubdivisionProject Name: Alpine BankLocation:CO, Fort CollinsProject No.:Calculated By: M. ShawChecked By: P. DalrympleDate: 1/20/211BASIN D.A. HydrologicC2C5C100L STi | 2-YearTi | 100-YearL S R VEL.TtCOMP. Tc | 2-YearCOMP. Tc | 100-YearTOTALUrbanized TcTc | 2-YearTc | 100-YearID (AC) Soils GroupCf=1.00Cf=1.00Cf=1.25(FT) (%) (MIN) (MIN) (FT) (%) (FT) (FPS) (MIN) (MIN) (MIN) LENGTH(FT) (MIN) (MIN) (MIN)EX-1 0.04 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 45 3.80 1.2 0.8 25 0.50 0.1 1.6 0.3 1.5 1.1 70 10.4 5.0 5.0E2-OS 0.05 C 0.45 0.45 0.56 12 5.00 2.5 2.0 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 2.5 2.0 12 10.1 5.0 5.0EX-3 0.09 C 0.91 0.91 1.00 80 8.00 1.6 0.8 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 1.6 0.8 80 10.4 5.0 5.0EX-4 0.10 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 35 1.00 1.7 1.1 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 1.7 1.1 35 10.2 5.0 5.0EX-5 0.40 C 0.71 0.71 0.89 155 5.00 5.3 2.9 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 5.3 2.9 155 10.9 5.3 5.0EX-6 0.03 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 20 20.00 0.5 0.3 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.5 0.3 20 10.1 5.0 5.0EX-7 0.02 C 0.85 0.85 1.00 25 4.50 1.4 0.6 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 1.4 0.6 25 10.1 5.0 5.0EX-8 0.04 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 30 2.50 1.1 0.8 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 1.1 0.8 30 10.2 5.0 5.0EX-9 0.08 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 35 2.00 1.3 0.9 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 1.3 0.9 35 10.2 5.0 5.0EX-10 0.01 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 50 2.00 1.6 1.0 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 1.6 1.0 50 10.3 5.0 5.0EX-11 0.03 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 15 16.00 0.4 0.3 0 1.00 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.4 0.3 15 10.1 5.0 5.0OS-E1 1.07 C 0.92 0.92 1.00 90 2.20 2.5 1.4 60 0.50 0.1 1.6 0.6 3.1 2.0 150 10.8 5.0 5.0OS-E20.02C0.950.951.00151.001.10.701.000.12.30.01.10.71510.15.05.0NOTES: Ti = (1.87*(1.1 - CCf)*(L)^0.5)/((S)^0.33), S in %Tt=L/60V (Velocity From Fig. 501) Velocity V=(1.4/n)*(R^(2/3))*(S^0.5), S in ft/ft, R=Area/Wetted Perimeter in ft, n=Roughness Coeff.,Tc Check = 10+L/180For Urbanized basins a minimum Tc of 5.0 minutes is required.For non-urbanized basins a minimum Tc of 10.0 minutes is requiredSTANDARD FORM SF-2TIME OF CONCENTRATION - EXISTING(URBANIZED BASINS)(Tt)FINALINITIAL/OVERLANDTc CHECKALB000001.20TRAVEL TIMESUB-BASIN(Ti)DATAPage 4Drainage Calculations Project Name: Alpine BankSubdivision:Alpine Bank SubdivisionProject No.:ALB000001.20Location:CO, Fort CollinsCalculated By: M. ShawDesign Storm:Checked By: P. DalrympleDate: TRAVEL TIMESTREETDesign PointBasin IDArea (Ac)Runoff Coeff. | C 2Tc | 2-Year (min)C*A (Ac)I (in/hr)Q (cfs)Tc (min)C*A (Ac)I (in/hr)Q (cfs)Slope (%)Street Flow (cfs)Design Flow (cfs)Slope (%)Pipe Size (inches)Length (ft)Velocity (fps)Tt (min)REMARKSEX-1 0.04 0.95 5.0 0.04 2.85 0.1E2-OS 0.05 0.45 5.0 0.02 2.85 0.1This basin flows offsite and is tributary to the inlet in Prospect.EX-3 0.09 0.91 5.0 0.08 2.85 0.2EX-4 0.10 0.95 5.0 0.09 2.85 0.3EX-5 0.40 0.71 5.3 0.29 2.79 0.8EX-6 0.03 0.95 5.0 0.03 2.85 0.1EX-7 0.02 0.85 5.0 0.02 2.85 0.1EX-8 0.04 0.95 5.0 0.04 2.85 0.1EX-9 0.08 0.95 5.0 0.08 2.85 0.2EX-10 0.01 0.95 5.0 0.01 2.85 0.0EX-11 0.03 0.95 5.0 0.03 2.85 0.1OS-E1 1.07 0.92 5.0 0.98 2.85 2.8This basin is tributary to the inlet in College Avenue - assumed no flows enter site in 2-year storm event.OS-E2 0.02 0.95 5.0 0.02 2.85 0.0This basin is outside the property line but flows into the site.Onsite Total 0.902.1Offsite Total 1.092.9Total Tributary to Site 0.872.0Total site runoff directed to existing alley inlet. Includes EX-1, EX-3 through EX-11, and OS-E21.072.81OS-E1 - assumed basin area for offsite flows entering College Inlet - assumed to be contained by inlet in 2-yr event and not overtop curb into project siteTotal Site Contribution to Prospect Inlet 0.050.07E2-OS - does not account for other flows to Prospect, only project flows leaving siteProspect Road Flooding Site Bypass -0.0College Avenue Flooding Site Bypass -0.0Assumed no flooding entering site in 2-yr storm event per coordination with City of Fort CollinsOnsite Total + Flood Flow Bypass -2.0This is the same as the 2-yr Onsite Total Flow, shown for reference/comparison to the 100-year eventTotal Site & Offsite Contribution to College InletDIRECT RUNOFFTOTAL RUNOFFSTREETPIPESTANDARD FORM SF-3STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN - EXISTING(RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE)2-Year1/20/21Page 5Drainage Calculations Project Name: Alpine BankSubdivision:Alpine Bank SubdivisionProject No.:ALB000001.20Location:CO, Fort CollinsCalculated By: M. ShawDesign Storm:Checked By: P. DalrympleDate: TRAVEL TIMESTREETDesign PointBasin IDArea (Ac)Runoff Coeff. | C 100Tc | 100-Year (min)C*A (Ac)I (in/hr)Q (cfs)Tc (min)C*A (Ac)I (in/hr)Q (cfs)Slope (%)Street Flow (cfs)Design Flow (cfs)Slope (%)Pipe Size (inches)Length (ft)Velocity (fps)Tt (min)REMARKSEX-1 0.04 1.00 5.0 0.04 9.95 0.4E2-OS0.050.565.00.039.950.3EX-3 0.09 1.00 5.0 0.09 9.95 0.9EX-4 0.10 1.00 5.0 0.10 9.95 1.0EX-5 0.40 0.89 5.0 0.36 9.95 3.6EX-6 0.03 1.00 5.0 0.03 9.95 0.3EX-7 0.02 1.00 5.0 0.02 9.95 0.2EX-8 0.04 1.00 5.0 0.04 9.95 0.4EX-9 0.08 1.00 5.0 0.08 9.95 0.8EX-10 0.01 1.00 5.0 0.01 9.95 0.1EX-11 0.03 1.00 5.0 0.03 9.95 0.3OS-E1 1.07 1.00 5.0 1.07 9.95 10.6OS-E2 0.02 1.00 5.0 0.02 9.95 0.2Onsite Total 0.908.3Offsite Total 1.0910.8Total Tributary to Site 0.878.2Total site runoff directed to existing alley inlet. Includes EX-1, EX-3 through EX-11, and OS-E21.0710.65Total Site Contribution to Prospect Inlet 0.050.30Prospect Road Flooding Site Bypass -13.1College Avenue Flooding Site Bypass -8.7Assumed 19 cfs enters site after College inlet is flooded and water overtops curb to enter site.Onsite Total + Flood Flow Bypass -30.0This is the assumed 100-yr flowrate entering the existing inlet in the alley at the southeast corner of the project. Proposed project outflows must be below this rate in the 100-yr storm event.Total Site & Offsite Contribution to College InletSTANDARD FORM SF-3STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN - EXISTING(RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE)100-YearDIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET1/20/21PIPEPage 6Drainage Calculations Tributary Areatc | 2-Yeartc | 100-YearQ2Q100Sub-basin(acres)(min)(min)(cfs)(cfs)A-1 0.02 0.20 0.25 5.0 5.0 0.00.0A-2R 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.00.0A-3 0.01 0.20 0.25 5.0 5.0 0.00.0A4-R 0.06 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.20.6B-1 0.13 0.71 0.88 5.0 5.0 0.31.2B2-R 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.00.1B3-R 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.00.1B4-R 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.00.1B5-R 0.02 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.10.2B6-R 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.00.1B7-R 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.00.1C-1 0.35 0.78 0.98 5.0 5.0 0.83.4C-2R 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.00.1C-3R 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.00.1OS-1 0.04 0.36 0.45 5.0 5.0 0.00.2OS-2 0.08 0.79 0.99 5.0 5.0 0.20.8OS-30.110.831.005.05.00.21.0OS-E1 1.08 0.93 1.00 5.0 5.0 2.910.7Basin A 0.09 0.75 - - - 0.2 0.7Basin B 0.21 0.80 - - - 0.5 2.0Basin C 0.37 0.79 - - - 0.8 3.6WQ Chamber Tributary (A, B & C)0.68 0.79 - - - 1.5 6.3Flow Leaving Site (Offsite Basins)0.23 0.74 - - - 0.5 2.0Total Project Lot Area 0.90 0.78 - - - 2.0 8.3College Avenue Flooding Site Bypass- - - - - 0.0 8.7Onsite Total + Flood Flow Bypass- - - - - 1.5 28.1BASIN SUMMARY TABLE - PROPOSEDC2C100H:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College Prospect\3 Permit CDs\3.04 Grading-Drainage Studies\3.04.2 Proposed Drainage Reports-Info\PDP 1st Sub\Rational Routing Proposed.xlsPage 1 of 8 1/20/2021 Subdivision:Alpine Bank MarketplaceProject Name: Alpine BankLocation:CO, Fort CollinsProject No.:Calculated By: M. ShawChecked By: P. DalrympleDate: 1/20/21Single-Family Alley-LoadedSF Duplex/AttachedMulti-Family95%5%62.5%70%75%80%A-10.02950.00 0200.02 20950.00 0 0.20A-2R0.01950.00 0200.00 0950.01 95 0.95A-30.01950.00 0200.01 20950.00 0 0.20A4-R0.06950.00 0200.00 0950.06 95 0.95B-10.13950.09 64200.04 6950.00 0 0.71B2-R0.01950.00 0200.00 0950.01 95 0.95B3-R0.01950.00 0200.00 0950.01 95 0.95B4-R0.01950.00 0200.00 0950.01 95 0.95B5-R0.02950.00 0200.00 0950.02 95 0.95B6-R0.01950.00 0200.00 0950.01 95 0.95B7-R0.01950.00 0200.00 0950.01 95 0.95C-10.35950.24 66200.08 4950.03 8 0.78C-2R0.01950.00 0200.00 0950.01 95 0.95C-3R0.01950.00 0200.00 0950.01 95 0.95OS-10.04950.01 20200.03 16950.00 0 0.36OS-20.08950.07 75200.02 4950.00 0 0.79OS-30.11950.09 79200.02 3950.00 0 0.83OS-E11.08951.05 92200.03 1950.00 0 0.93Basin A0.09-0.00 --0.02 --0.06 - 0.75Basin B0.21 - 0.09 - - 0.04 --0.08 - 0.80Basin C0.37 - 0.24 - - 0.08 --0.05 - 0.79WQ Chamber Tributary (A, B & C)0.68-0.33 --0.15 --0.20 - 0.79Flow Leaving Site (Offsite Basins)0.23-0.16 --0.06 --0.00 - 0.74Total Project Lot Area0.90-0.49 --0.21 --0.20 - 0.78COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - PROPOSEDArea (ac)Area WeightedAsphalt + Concrete Walks Lawns, Heavy Soil: Flat <2%Area WeightedRunoff CoefficientArea (ac)ALB000001.20Area WeightedC2Basin ID Total Area (ac)Runoff CoefficientArea (ac)Building RoofRunoff CoefficientH:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College Prospect\3 Permit CDs\3.04 Grading-Drainage Studies\3.04.2 Proposed Drainage Reports-Info\PDP 2nd Sub\Calcs\Rational Routing Proposed.xls Page 2 of 8 1/20/2021 Subdivision:Alpine Bank MarketplaceProject Name: Alpine BankLocation:CO, Fort CollinsProject No.:Calculated By: M. ShawChecked By: P. DalrympleDate: 1/20/21Single-Family Alley-LoadedSF Duplex/AttachedMulti-Family95%5%62.5%70%75%80%A-10.021000.00 020.02 2900.00 0 2%A-2R0.011000.00 020.00 0900.01 90 90%A-30.011000.00 020.01 2900.00 0 2%A4-R0.061000.00 020.00 0900.06 90 90%B-10.131000.09 6820.04 1900.00 0 68%B2-R0.011000.00 020.00 0900.01 90 90%B3-R0.011000.00 020.00 0900.01 90 90%B4-R0.011000.00 020.00 0900.01 90 90%B5-R0.021000.00 020.00 0900.02 90 90%B6-R0.011000.00 020.00 0900.01 90 90%B7-R0.011000.00 020.00 0900.01 90 90%C-10.351000.24 7020.08 0900.03 7 77%C-2R0.011000.00 020.00 0900.01 90 90%C-3R0.011000.00 020.00 0900.01 90 90%OS-10.041000.01 2120.03 2900.00 0 23%OS-20.081000.07 7920.02 0900.00 0 79%OS-30.111000.09 8420.02 0900.00 0 84%OS-E11.081001.05 9720.03 0900.00 0 97%Basin A0.09-0.00 --0.02 --0.06 - 66%Basin B0.21 - 0.09 - - 0.04 --0.08 - 77%Basin C0.37 - 0.24 - - 0.08 --0.05 - 78%WQ Chamber Tributary (A, B & C)0.68-0.33 --0.15 --0.20 - 76%Flow Leaving Site (Offsite Basins)0.23-0.16 --0.06 --0.00 - 72%Total Project Lot Area0.90-0.49 --0.21 --0.20 - 75%COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS - PROPOSEDALB000001.20Asphalt + Concrete Walks Lawns, Heavy Soil: Flat <2% Building Roof% ImpBasin ID Total Area (ac) % Imp Area (ac)Area WeightedArea Weighted % Imp Area (ac)Area Weighted% Imp Area (ac)H:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College Prospect\3 Permit CDs\3.04 Grading-Drainage Studies\3.04.2 Proposed Drainage Reports-Info\PDP 1st Sub\Rational Routing Proposed.xlsPage 3 of 8 1/20/2021 Subdivision:Alpine Bank MarketplaceProject Name: Alpine BankLocation:CO, Fort CollinsProject No.:Calculated By: M. ShawChecked By: P. DalrympleDate: 1/20/211BASIN D.A. HydrologicC2C5C100L STi | 2-YearTi | 100-YearL S R VEL.TtCOMP. Tc | 2-YearCOMP. Tc | 100-YearTOTALUrbanized TcTc | 2-YearTc | 100-YearID (AC) Soils GroupCf=1.00Cf=1.00Cf=1.25(FT) (%) (MIN) (MIN) (FT) (%) (FT) (FPS) (MIN) (MIN) (MIN) LENGTH(FT) (MIN) (MIN) (MIN)A-1 0.02 C 0.20 0.20 0.25 15 18.00 2.5 2.4 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 2.5 2.4 15 10.1 5.0 5.0A-2R 0.01 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 20 30.00 0.4 0.3 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.4 0.3 20 10.1 5.0 5.0A-3 0.01 C 0.20 0.20 0.25 5 2.00 3.0 2.8 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 3.0 2.8 5 10.0 5.0 5.0A4-R 0.06 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 20 30.00 0.4 0.3 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.4 0.3 20 10.1 5.0 5.0B-1 0.13 C 0.71 0.71 0.88 20 28.00 1.1 0.6 50 3.00 1.0 18.7 0.0 1.1 0.6 70 10.4 5.0 5.0B2-R 0.01 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 15 30.00 0.4 0.2 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.4 0.2 15 10.1 5.0 5.0B3-R 0.01 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 25 30.00 0.5 0.3 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.5 0.3 25 10.1 5.0 5.0B4-R 0.01 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 25 30.00 0.5 0.3 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.5 0.3 25 10.1 5.0 5.0B5-R 0.02 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 25 30.00 0.5 0.3 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.5 0.3 25 10.1 5.0 5.0B6-R 0.01 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 25 30.00 0.5 0.3 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.5 0.3 25 10.1 5.0 5.0B7-R 0.01 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 25 30.00 0.5 0.3 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.5 0.3 25 10.1 5.0 5.0C-1 0.35 C 0.78 0.78 0.98 95 4.00 3.7 1.4 75 4.50 1.0 22.8 0.1 3.7 1.5 170 10.9 5.0 5.0C-2R 0.01 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 25 30.00 0.5 0.3 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.5 0.3 25 10.1 5.0 5.0C-3R 0.01 C 0.95 0.95 1.00 25 30.00 0.5 0.3 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 0.5 0.3 25 10.1 5.0 5.0OS-1 0.04 C 0.36 0.36 0.45 15 4.00 3.4 3.0 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 3.4 3.0 15 10.1 5.0 5.0OS-2 0.08 C 0.79 0.79 0.99 15 1.80 1.8 0.7 0 1.00 1.0 10.8 0.0 1.8 0.7 15 10.1 5.0 5.0OS-30.11C0.830.831.00253.801.60.601.001.010.80.01.60.62510.15.05.0OS-E1 1.08 C 0.93 0.93 1.00 100 2.20 2.5 1.4 60 0.50 1.0 7.6 0.1 2.6 1.6 160 10.9 5.0 5.0NOTES: Ti = (1.87*(1.1 - CCf)*(L)^0.5)/((S)^0.33), S in %Tt=L/60V (Velocity From Fig. 501) Velocity V=(1.4/n)*(R^(2/3))*(S^0.5), S in ft/ft, R=Area/Wetted Perimeter in ft, n=Roughness Coeff.,Tc Check = 10+L/180For Urbanized basins a minimum Tc of 5.0 minutes is required.For non-urbanized basins a minimum Tc of 10.0 minutes is requiredSTANDARD FORM SF-2TIME OF CONCENTRATION - PROPOSED(URBANIZED BASINS)(Tt)FINALINITIAL/OVERLANDTc CHECKALB000001.20TRAVEL TIMESUB-BASIN(Ti)DATAH:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College Prospect\3 Permit CDs\3.04 Grading-Drainage Studies\3.04.2 Proposed Drainage Reports-Info\PDP 1st Sub\Rational Routing Proposed.xlsPage 4 of 8 1/20/2021 Project Name: Alpine BankSubdivision:Alpine Bank MarketplaceProject No.:ALB000001.20Location:CO, Fort CollinsCalculated By: M. ShawDesign Storm:Checked By: P. DalrympleDate: TRAVEL TIMESTREETDesign PointBasin IDArea (Ac)Runoff Coeff. | C 2Tc | 2-Year (min)C*A (Ac)I (in/hr)Q (cfs)Tc (min)C*A (Ac)I (in/hr)Q (cfs)Slope (%)Street Flow (cfs)Design Flow (cfs)Slope (%)Pipe Size (inches)Length (ft)Velocity (fps)Tt (min)REMARKSA-1 0.02 0.20 5.0 0.00 2.85 0.0NDS Area InletA-2R 0.01 0.95 5.0 0.00 2.85 0.0Roof DrainA-3 0.01 0.20 5.0 0.00 2.85 0.0Elevated Planter BoxA4-R 0.06 0.95 5.0 0.06 2.85 0.2Roof DrainB-1 0.13 0.71 5.0 0.09 2.85 0.3CDOT Type 13 Area InletB2-R 0.01 0.95 5.0 0.01 2.85 0.0Roof DrainB3-R 0.01 0.95 5.0 0.01 2.85 0.0Roof DrainB4-R 0.01 0.95 5.0 0.01 2.85 0.0Roof DrainB5-R 0.02 0.95 5.0 0.02 2.85 0.1Roof DrainB6-R 0.01 0.95 5.0 0.01 2.85 0.0Roof DrainB7-R 0.01 0.95 5.0 0.01 2.85 0.0Roof DrainC-1 0.35 0.78 5.0 0.27 2.85 0.8CDOT Type C Area InletC-2R 0.01 0.95 5.0 0.01 2.85 0.0Roof DrainC-3R 0.01 0.95 5.0 0.01 2.85 0.0Roof DrainOS-1 0.04 0.36 5.0 0.01 2.85 0.0Sheet Flow to ex. Combo Inlet in Prospect RoadOS-2 0.08 0.79 5.0 0.07 2.85 0.2Sheet Flow to Combo Inlet in College AveOS-3 0.11 0.83 5.0 0.09 2.85 0.2Sheet Flow to ex. Area Inlet in alleyOS-E1 1.08 0.93 5.0 1.00 2.85 2.9Estimated area in College Ave directed to inletBasin A 0.090.2Onsite A Basins (Treated by onsite water quality)Basin B 0.210.5Onsite B Basins (Treated by onsite water quality)Basin C0.370.8Onsite C Basins (Treated by onsite water quality)WQ Chamber Tributary (A, B & C) 0.681.5Total Site Area Treated by Water Quality SystemFlow Leaving Site (Offsite Basins) 0.230.5Total Uncaptured Site AreaTotal Project Lot Area 0.902.0Total of all flows generated within property lineTotal Site Contribution to College Inlet0.080.2OS-2 flows to CollegeTotal Site Contribution to Prospect Inlet0.040.0OS-1 flows to ProspectTotal Site Contribution to Alley Inlet0.110.2OS-3 flows to Alley (Significant reduction from ex.)Prospect Road Flooding Site Bypass-0.0College Avenue Flooding Site Bypass-0.0Assumed no flooding entering site in 2-yr storm event per coordination with City of Fort CollinsOnsite Total + Flood Flow Bypass-1.5This is the same as the 2-yr Onsite WQ Treatment Area - shown for reference/comparison to the 100-year eventDIRECT RUNOFFTOTAL RUNOFFSTREETPIPESTANDARD FORM SF-3STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN - PROPOSED(RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE)2-Year1/20/21H:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College Prospect\3 Permit CDs\3.04 Grading-Drainage Studies\3.04.2 Proposed Drainage Reports-Info\PDP 1st Sub\Rational Routing Proposed.xlsPage 5 of 8 1/20/2021 Project Name: Alpine BankSubdivision:Alpine Bank MarketplaceProject No.:ALB000001.20Location:CO, Fort CollinsCalculated By: M. ShawDesign Storm:Checked By: P. DalrympleDate: TRAVEL TIMESTREETDesign PointBasin IDArea (Ac)Runoff Coeff. | C 100Tc | 100-Year (min)C*A (Ac)I (in/hr)Q (cfs)Tc (min)C*A (Ac)I (in/hr)Q (cfs)Slope (%)Street Flow (cfs)Design Flow (cfs)Slope (%)Pipe Size (inches)Length (ft)Velocity (fps)Tt (min)REMARKSA-1 0.02 0.25 5.0 0.00 9.95 0.0NDS Area InletA-2R0.011.005.00.019.950.0Roof DrainA-3 0.01 0.25 5.0 0.00 9.95 0.0Elevated Planter BoxA4-R 0.06 1.00 5.0 0.06 9.95 0.6Roof DrainB-1 0.13 0.88 5.0 0.12 9.95 1.2CDOT Type 13 Area InletB2-R 0.01 1.00 5.0 0.01 9.95 0.1Roof DrainB3-R 0.01 1.00 5.0 0.01 9.95 0.1Roof DrainB4-R 0.01 1.00 5.0 0.01 9.95 0.1Roof DrainB5-R 0.02 1.00 5.0 0.02 9.95 0.2Roof DrainB6-R 0.01 1.00 5.0 0.01 9.95 0.1Roof DrainB7-R 0.01 1.00 5.0 0.01 9.95 0.1Roof DrainC-1 0.35 0.98 5.0 0.34 9.95 3.4CDOT Type C Area InletC-2R 0.01 1.00 5.0 0.01 9.95 0.1Roof DrainC-3R 0.01 1.00 5.0 0.01 9.95 0.1Roof DrainOS-1 0.04 0.45 5.0 0.02 9.95 0.2Sheet Flow to ex. Combo Inlet in Prospect RoadOS-2 0.08 0.99 5.0 0.08 9.95 0.8Sheet Flow to Combo Inlet in College AveOS-3 0.11 1.00 5.0 0.11 9.95 1.0Sheet Flow to ex. Area Inlet in alleyOS-E1 1.08 1.00 5.0 1.08 9.95 10.7Estimated area in College Ave directed to inletBasin A 0.090.7Onsite A Basins (Treated by onsite water quality)Basin B 0.212.0Onsite B Basins (Treated by onsite water quality)Basin C0.373.6Onsite C Basins (Treated by onsite water quality)WQ Chamber Tributary (A, B & C) 0.686.3Total Site Area Treated by Water Quality SystemFlow Leaving Site (Offsite Basins) 0.232.0Total Uncaptured Site AreaTotal Project Lot Area 0.908.3Total of all flows generated within property lineTotal Site Contribution to College Inlet 0.080.8OS-2 flows to CollegeTotal Site Contribution to Prospect Inlet0.040.2OS-1 flows to ProspectTotal Site Contribution to Alley Inlet0.111.0OS-3 flows to Alley (Significant reduction from ex.)Prospect Road Flooding Site Bypass-13.1College Avenue Flooding Site Bypass -8.7Assumed 19 cfs enters site after College inlet is flooded and water overtops curb to enter site.Onsite Total + Flood Flow Bypass -28.1This is the WQ Chamber Tributary Flowrate + the offsite flooding from College entering the site.STANDARD FORM SF-3STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN - PROPOSED(RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE)100-YearDIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET1/20/21PIPEH:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College Prospect\3 Permit CDs\3.04 Grading-Drainage Studies\3.04.2 Proposed Drainage Reports-Info\PDP 1st Sub\Rational Routing Proposed.xlsPage 6 of 8 1/20/2021 Project Number:Alpine BankDate:1/20/2021Project Location:CO, Fort CollinsCalculations By:M. ShawChecked By:P. DalrymplePond Description:UG WQ (Underground Water Quality Facility)User Input Cell:Blue Text1/2 2-year00.790.000.680.76*Release rate based on 1/2 of 2-year developed runoff ("water quality" release rate)**No additional storage required beyond WQCV - outflows exceed inflows.minutessecondsin/hrcubic feetcubic feetcubic feetacre-feet5 3001.43228 228 0 0.0010 6001.11353 456 -103 0.0015 9000.94448 684 -236 -0.0120 12000.81514 912 -398 -0.0125 15000.72571 1140 -569 -0.0130 18000.65623 1368 -745 -0.0235 21000.59654 1596 -942 -0.0240 24000.54684 1824 -1140 -0.0345 27000.50712 2052 -1340 -0.0350 30000.46735 2280 -1545 -0.0455 33000.44764 2508 -1744 -0.0460 36000.41786 2736 -1950 -0.0465 39000.39810 2964 -2154 -0.0570 42000.37816 3192 -2376 -0.0575 45000.35839 3420 -2581 -0.0680 48000.33843 3648 -2805 -0.0685 51000.32869 3876 -3007 -0.0790 54000.31877 4104 -3227 -0.0795 57000.29880 4332 -3452 -0.08100 60000.28894 4560 -3666 -0.08105 63000.27906 4788 -3882 -0.09110 66000.26914 5016 -4102 -0.09115 69000.26937 5244 -4307 -0.10120 72000.25939 5472 -4533 -0.10Modified FAA Method - WQ Storage Volume CalculationsInputs | Tributary Area Output | Detention VolumeReturn Period for Detention Control: Required Storage, cubic feet:Catchment 'C': **Required Storage, ac-ft:Average OutflowStorage VolumeStorage VolumeCatchment Drainage Area, ac:*Release Rate, cfs:Storm DurationTimeRainfall IntensityInflow Volume0246810120 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Series1H:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College Prospect\3 Permit CDs\3.04 Grading-Drainage Studies\3.04.2 Proposed Drainage Reports-Info\PDP 1st Sub\Rational Routing Proposed.xlsPage 7 of 8 1/20/2021 Project Number:ALB000001.20Date:1/20/2021Project Location:SEC College & Prospect, Fort Collins, COCalculations By:M ShawChecked By:P. DalrymplePond Description:UG WQ (Underground Water Quality Facility)User Input Cell:Blue Text100-year4551.000.010.68*Max Allowable Release Rate, cfs:8.305.20Bypass Release Rate (From College Ave), cfs:21.80Total Release Rate (Design + Bypass), cfs:27.00minutessecondsin/hrcubic feetcubic feetcubic feetacre-feet5 3009.952015 1560 455 0.0110 6007.723127 3120 7 0.0015 9006.523961 4680 -719 -0.0220 12005.604536 6240 -1704 -0.0425 15004.985042 7800 -2758 -0.0630 18004.525492 9360 -3868 -0.0935 21004.085783 10920 -5137 -0.1240 24003.746059 12480 -6421 -0.1545 27003.466306 14040 -7734 -0.1850 30003.236541 15600 -9059 -0.2155 33003.036749 17160 -10411 -0.2460 36002.836877 18720 -11843 -0.2765 39002.717134 20280 -13146 -0.3070 42002.597343 21840 -14497 -0.3375 45002.487533 23400 -15867 -0.3680 48002.387711 24960 -17249 -0.4085 51002.297883 26520 -18637 -0.4390 54002.218055 28080 -20025 -0.4695 57002.138195 29640 -21445 -0.49100 60002.068343 31200 -22857 -0.52105 63002.008505 32760 -24255 -0.56110 66001.948643 34320 -25677 -0.59115 69001.888756 35880 -27124 -0.62120 72001.848942 37440 -28498 -0.65*The current onsite release rate entering the alley + flooding bypass (from College Avenue) is approx. 21.8 cfs per the Existing Rational Calculations, with 8.3 cfs of this being onsite runoff. The anticipated release rate has been reduced in the redevloped condition and is diverting these flows from the alley to the proposed underground water quality facility. This is reducing the existing release rate and redirecting flows away from the inundated inlet. The total release rate will be the design release rate + the bypass release rate (bypass providng additional bypass for the existing flooding condition).Average OutflowStorage VolumeStorage VolumeCatchment Drainage Area, ac:Design Release Rate, cfs:Storm DurationTimeRainfall IntensityInflow VolumeModified FAA Method - 100-Year Routing CalculationsInputs | Tributary Area Output | Detention VolumeReturn Period for Detention Control: Required Storage, cubic feet:Catchment 'C': Required Storage, ac-ft:0246810120 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Series1H:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College Prospect\3 Permit CDs\3.04 Grading-Drainage Studies\3.04.2 Proposed Drainage Reports-Info\PDP 1st Sub\Rational Routing Proposed.xlsPage 8 of 8 1/20/2021 Basin Area (ac) % Imp Drain Time (hrs)a WQCV Volume (ac-ft) Volume (cf) UG WQ 0.90 77% 12 0.8 0.25 0.022 976 REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME WQCV Required Page 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xii)Vault IDTotal Required WQ Volume (cf)Flow, WQ (cfs)Chamber TypeChamber Unit Release Rate (cfs)Chamber Unit Volume (cf)Installed Chamber Unit Volume with Aggregate (cf)Minimum No. of ChambersTotal Max Release Rate (cfs)Required Storage Volume by FAA Method (cf)Minimum No. of Chambers for FAA VolumeStorage Provided within the Chambers (cf)Total Installed System Volume Required (cf)Actual Total Installed System Volume (cf)A 976 0.76 SC-160 0.012 6.9 15.0 66 0.792 437 64 452 990 1,396(i) Calculated WQCV (Eq. 7-1 & 7-2)(ii) 1/2 of the 2-year developed flow rate for the basin being sized (use half of the 2-year intensity for the time of concentration used in the calc - i.e. for 5 min Tc, use 1.425)(iii) Per ADS, these equate to different chamber sizes they have available.(iv) Flow rate thru the bottom of the Isolator Row chamber which is equal to the area of the bottom of the chamber multiplied by the flow rate per unit area (.35 gpm/sf).(v) Volume within chamber only, not accounting for void spaces in surrounding aggregate.(vi) Volume includes chamber and void spaces (40%) in surrounding aggregate, per chamber unit.(vii) Number of chambers required to provide full WQCV within total installed system, including aggregate. (i) / (vi)(viii) Release rate per chamber times number of chambers. (iv) * (vii)(ix)FAA calc based on Flow, WQ and Total Release Rate. Note: this additional volume is not required but is already being provided for water quality pruposes and will also allow for the 100-yr release rate to be reduced.(x) Number of chambers required to provide required FAA storage volume stored within the chamber only (no aggregate storage). (ix) / (v) (xi) Volume provided in chambers only (no aggregate storage). This number must meet or exceed the required FAA storage volume. Greater of (vii) or (x) * (v)(xii) System volume includes total number of chambers, plus surrounding aggregate. This number must meet or exceed the required WQCV. Greater of (vi) or (x) * (vi)(xiii) Actual total system volume provided with ADS design.WQ System Calculation SummaryWQ System CalculationsPage 2 Chamber Dimensions Width (in) Length (in) Height (in) Floor Area (sf) Chamber Volume (cf) Chamber w/ Aggregate Volume (cf) Flow Rate / Chamber (cfs) Installed End Cap Volume (cf) SC-160 25.0 85.4 12.0 14.8 6.85 15.0 0.01156 n/a SC-310 34.0 85.4 16.0 20.2 14.70 31.0 0.01572 n/a SC-740 51.0 85.4 30.0 30.2 45.90 74.9 0.02359 n/a DC-780 51.0 85.4 30.0 30.2 46.20 78.4 0.02359 n/a MC-3500 77.0 86.0 45.0 46.0 109.90 178.9 0.03586 46.0 MC-4500 100.0 48.3 60.0 33.5 106.50 162.6 0.02616 115.3 Flow Rate* 0.35 gpm / sf 1 cf = 7.4805 gal 1 gal = 0.1337 cf 1 gpm = 0.0022 cfs *Flow rate based on 1/2 of Nov 07 Qmax in Figure 17 of UNH Testing Report Chamber Flow Rate Conversion (gpm/sf to cfs) STORMTECH CHAMBER DATA Chamber Data Alpine Bank Subdivision APPENDIX C Hydraulic Computations 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755 -1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw C-3R B7-R B6-R B4-R B2-R B3-R A4-R A2-R A-1 Alley Ponding C-1 A3-R B5-R B-1 C-2R PO-1P2-EL 2 -B P2-FP2-HP2-BP-4 P 2 -D P2-CP1-AP2-AP2-IP3-AP3-BRD 2C-1 BEND 2E BEND 2F TEE 2C TEE 2G BEND 2H RD 3B MH 1B (Pond Outlet) O-1 (MH 1A) MH 1A (Pond Inlet) INLET 2I INLET 2D INLET 4AMH 3A MH 2B Profile Report Engineering Profile - Line 1 (Alpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203- 755-1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - Line 2 (Alpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203- 755-1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - Line 3 (Alpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203- 755-1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - Line 4 (Alpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203- 755-1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw FlexTable: Catch Basin Table Headloss Method NotesHydraulic Grade Line (In) (ft) Flow (Captured) (cfs) Capture Efficiency (Calculated) (%) Inlet TypeWidth (ft) Length (ft) Elevation (Invert) (ft) Elevation (Rim) (ft) Elevation (Ground) (ft) LabelID StandardCDOT-TYPE C INLET (35' x 35')4,986.803.44100.0Full Capture2.922.924,984.914,987.174,987.17INLET 4A62 StandardCDOT-TYPE 13 INLET (SINGLE)4,986.821.15100.0Full Capture1.632.964,985.254,987.744,987.74INLET 2D63 Standard24" SQUARE NDS INLET W/ GALVANIZED METAL GRATE4,987.460.78100.0Full Capture2.002.004,986.224,991.514,991.51INLET 2I64 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755 -1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw FlexTable: Conduit Table Flow / Capacity (Design) (%) Capacity (Full Flow) (cfs) Depth (Out) (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Flow (cfs) Manning's n Diameter (in) Section Type Slope (Calculated) (ft/ft) Length (User Defined) (ft) Invert (Stop) (ft) Stop NodeInvert (Start) (ft) Start NodeLabelID 4.34.631.002.950.200.01012.0Circle0.01073.24,986.73MH 3A4,987.46RD 3BP3-B48 4.24.630.862.920.200.01012.0Circle0.01079.94,985.73MH 2B4,986.53MH 3AP3-A49 16.84.631.410.990.780.01012.0Circle-0.01027.34,986.22INLET 2I4,985.95BEND 2HP2-I50 26.920.790.745.615.590.01024.0Circle0.00518.94,984.64MH 1A (Pond Inlet)4,984.73MH 2BP2-A51 26.820.790.735.615.570.01024.0Circle0.00525.74,984.51O-1 (MH 1A)4,984.64MH 1B (Pond Outlet)P1-A52 24.68.641.584.042.130.01018.0Circle0.00429.04,985.14TEE 2C4,985.25INLET 2DP2-C53 23.44.631.581.381.080.01012.0Circle0.0106.44,985.25INLET 2D4,985.31BEND 2EP2-D54 117.62.931.764.383.440.01012.0Circle0.00420.14,984.83MH 2B4,984.91INLET 4AP-455 27.68.641.764.182.380.01018.0Circle0.00476.64,984.83MH 2B4,985.14TEE 2CP2-B56 16.34.631.520.960.750.01012.0Circle-0.01021.44,985.95BEND 2H4,985.74TEE 2GP2-H57 20.04.631.481.180.930.01012.0Circle-0.0105.64,985.74TEE 2G4,985.68BEND 2FP2-F58 9.23.271.580.380.300.01012.0Circle0.00527.74,985.00RD 2C-14,985.14TEE 2CL2-B59 24.04.631.721.411.110.01012.0Circle0.01037.44,985.31BEND 2E4,985.68BEND 2FP2-E60 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755 -1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw FlexTable: Manhole Table Headloss (ft) NotesHydraulic Grade Line (In) (ft) Headloss Method Hydraulic Grade Line (Out) (ft) Depth (Out) (ft) Flow (Total Out) (cfs) Elevation (Invert in 1) (ft) Elevation (Rim) (ft) LabelID 1.02MH-ECCENTRIC (4' %%C)4,987.73Absolute4,986.710.180.204,986.734,990.87MH 3A30 1.02MH-FLAT TOP (5'%%C)4,986.59Absolute4,985.570.835.594,985.734,987.83MH 2B38 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755 -1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw FlexTable: Outfall Table NotesFlow (Total Out) (cfs) Hydraulic Grade (ft) Elevation (User Defined Tailwater) (ft) Boundary Element Boundary Condition Type Elevation (Invert) (ft) LabelID MH-ECCENTRIC (4' %%C)5.554,985.24<None>Free Outfall4,984.51O-1 (MH 1A)61 MH-FLAT TOP (5'%%C)(N/A)(N/A)PO-1Boundary Element4,984.64MH 1A (Pond Inlet)71 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755 -1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw FlexTable: Transition Table NotesHydraulic Grade Line (Out) (ft) Depth (Out) (ft) Flow (Total Out) (cfs) Flow (Total In) Elevation (Invert) (ft) Elevation (Top) (ft) Elevation (Ground) (ft) LabelID 12" TEE4,987.710.250.200.200591996 3121414,987.464,988.464,991.79RD 3B33 45-DEGREE HORIZONTAL BEND 4,987.251.300.750.777293980 1216134,985.954,986.954,990.03BEND 2H39 12" TEE4,987.151.410.930.954914510 2500924,985.744,986.744,988.63TEE 2G41 18" X 12" INSERT-A-TEE4,986.611.482.382.425997257 232674,985.144,986.644,988.24TEE 2C42 45-DEGREE HORIZONTAL BEND 4,987.041.361.111.126224517 822274,985.684,986.684,988.54BEND 2F43 45-DEGREE HORIZONTAL BEND 4,986.821.511.081.109493970 870974,985.314,986.314,987.63BEND 2E44 12" RD CNXN4,986.711.720.300.300888001 9187934,985.004,986.004,989.96RD 2C-145 Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755 -1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - Line 1 (Alpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203- 755-1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - Line 2 (Alpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203- 755-1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - Line 3 (Alpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203- 755-1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - Line 4 (Alpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw) Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203- 755-1666 4/5/2021 Bentley StormCAD V8i (SELECTseries 4) [08.11.04.54]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAlpine Bank - StormCAD Model - Onsite.stsw 7 of 7 24” CATCH BASIN Part #: 2400, 2404 24” Catch Basin Grate Number(s) Description Flow Rate with ½” Head 2411, 2412 24” x 24” Square Grate 708.77 GPM 2413 24” x 24” Square Cast Iron Grate 602.65 GPM 2415 24” x 24” Square Galvanized Steel Grate 1292.33 GPM OUTLET FLOW CAPACITIES Part # Flow Rate per Outlet 1242, 1243 (with reducer ring) 120.63 GPM 1245 (with reducer ring) Top: 116.75 GPM Middle: 121.80 GPM Bottom: 124.40 GPM 1266 (with reducer ring) 419.01 GPM 1888 532.62 GPM 2410 Inner Most Ring: 1147.01 GPM 2nd Ring: 1457.67 GPM 3rd Ring: 1542.18 GPM Outer Ring: 1940.08 GPM Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =0.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK = Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =14.0 ft Gutter Width W =4.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.026 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =4.0 14.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Alpine Bank - Final Drainage Report Inlet 2D Inlet Calcs - UD-Inlet_v4.05.xlsm, Inlet 2D 4/6/2021, 3:49 PM Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =4.0 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 =1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =0.43 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =3.30 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =N/A N/A feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =N/A N/A inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =N/A N/A inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =N/A N/A degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =N/A N/A feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =N/A N/A Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =0.391 0.559 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =N/A N/A ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =N/A N/A Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =N/A N/A Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =0.62 0.94 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =1.1 2.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.3 1.2 cfs CDOT/Denver 13 Valley Grate INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT/Denver 13 Valley Grate Override Depths Inlet Calcs - UD-Inlet_v4.05.xlsm, Inlet 2D 4/6/2021, 3:49 PM ©2013 ADS, INC. PROJECT INFORMATION ADS SALES REP: ENGINEERED PRODUCT MANAGER: PROJECT NO: ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. R ALPINE BANK FORT COLLINS, CO MARK KAELBERER 720-256-8225 MARK.KAELBERER@ADS-PIPE.COM S215409 EVAN FISCHGRUND 720-250-8047 EVAN.FISCHGRUND@ADS-PIPE.COM SC-160LP STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS 1.CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH SC-160LP. 2.CHAMBERS SHALL BE ARCH-SHAPED AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. 3.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418-16a, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 4.CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORTS THAT WOULD IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. 5.THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1) LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. 6.CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED, TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE: 1) INSTANTANEOUS (<1 MIN) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM COVER 2) MAXIMUM PERMANENT (75-YR) COVER LOAD AND 3) ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED (1-WEEK) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK. 7.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: ·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS. ·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1.5”. ·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418 SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 400 LBS/IN/IN. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS. 8.ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. UPON REQUEST BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OWNER, THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE AS FOLLOWS: ·THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL BE SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. ·THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY SECTIONS 3 AND 12.12 OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. ·THE TEST DERIVED CREEP MODULUS AS SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 SHALL BE USED FOR PERMANENT DEAD LOAD DESIGN EXCEPT THAT IT SHALL BE THE 75-YEAR MODULUS USED FOR DESIGN. 9.CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF THE SC-160LP SYSTEM 1.STORMTECH SC-160LP CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. 2.STORMTECH SC-160LP CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH SC-160LP CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 3.FOUNDATION STONE AND EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE; AASHTO M43 #3,357, 4, 467, 5, 56, OR 57. 4.THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. 5.THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE SUBGRADE BEARING CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. 6.THE CONTRACTOR MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES CONCERNING CHAMBER FOUNDATION DESIGN AND SUBGRADE BEARING CAPACITIES TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. 7.JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. 8.CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED "TOE TO TOE". NO ADDITIONAL SPACING BETWEEN ROWS IS REQUIRED. 9.STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: ·STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. ·BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. ·BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. 10.ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH IT" INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 1.THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OVER SC-160LP CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: ·NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. ·NO RUBBER TIRED LOADERS, DUMP TRUCKS, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH SC-160LP CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". ·WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH SC-106LP CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 2.FULL 36" (900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. FOR STORMTECH INSTRUCTIONS, DOWNLOAD THE INSTALLATION APP SHEET OFDATE:PROJECT #:DRAWN:CHECKED:THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 43026ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC.R2 605/07/2021S215409MFSRWDFORT COLLINS, COALPINE BANKDATEDRWNCHKDDESCRIPTION05/14/2021GGCALIREVISED PER ENGINEER0010'20'520 CROMWELL AVENUE | ROCKY HILL | CT | 06067860-529-8188 |888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COMDetention Retention Water Quality24" X 24" ADS N-12 BYPASS PIPE PER ENGINEER'S PLAN 6" ADS N-12 DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAIN (SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER / SOLID OUTSIDE PERIMETER STONE) INSPECTION PORT (TYP 12 PLACES) PROPOSED 30" NYLOPLAST BASIN (24" SUMP MIN / TYP 11 PLACES) ISOLATOR ROW PLUS (SEE DETAIL / TYP 12 PLACES) STRUCTURE MH 2A PER PLAN SHOWN AS 30" NYLOPLAST BASIN [RELOCATED] (24" SUMP MIN) 8" OPEN END CAP, PART# SC160IEPP08 TYP OF ALL SC-160LP 8" CONNECTIONS 10" X 8" CONCENTRIC MANIFOLD 8'' INVERT 0.96" ABOVE CHAMBER BASE 10'' INVERT 0.12" BELOW CHAMBER BASE 10'' PIPE TO BE PVC AND CONNECTED TO BASINS W/INSERTA TEES 8'' STUB TO CONNECT TO 10'' TRUNCK W/INSERTA TEE (SEE NOTES / TYP 8 PLACES) PROPOSED LAYOUT 68 STORMTECH SC-160LP CHAMBERS 24 STORMTECH SC-160LP END CAPS 6 STONE ABOVE (in) 6 STONE BELOW (in) 40 % STONE VOID 1396 INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME (CF) (PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED) 1,396 SYSTEM AREA (ft²) 160 SYSTEM PERIMETER (ft) PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 4995.38 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED) 4987.05 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC) 4986.55 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC) 4986.55 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT) 4986.55 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF RIGID PAVEMENT) 4985.88 TOP OF STONE 4985.38 TOP OF SC-160LP CHAMBER 4984.46 8" ISOLATOR ROW PLUS CONNECTION INVERT 4984.46 10" X 8" MANIFOLD (8'' PIPE INVERT) 4984.38 BOTTOM OF SC-160LP CHAMBER 4984.37 10" X 8" MANIFOLD (10'' PIPE INVERT) 4983.88 UNDERDRAIN INVERT 4983.88 BOTTOM OF STONE NOTES ·MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. SEE TECH SHEET #7 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE. ·DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD. ·THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS. THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAY BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION IS PROVIDED. STRUCTURE MH1B PER PLAN W/WEIR [RELOCATED] (DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS) 43.17'25.00'ADS N-12 24'' 11.25° BEND27.93'4.17'23.76'20.83'51.87' 39.33' 28.93' 12.53' SHEET OFDATE:PROJECT #:DRAWN:CHECKED:THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 43026ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC.R3 605/07/2021S215409MFSRWDFORT COLLINS, COALPINE BANKDATEDRWNCHKDDESCRIPTION05/14/2021GGCALIREVISED PER ENGINEER520 CROMWELL AVENUE | ROCKY HILL | CT | 06067860-529-8188 |888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COMDetention Retention Water QualityMATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION AASHTO MATERIAL CLASSIFICATIONS COMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENT D FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS. CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS.N/A PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. PAVED INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. C INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 14" (355 mm) ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER. GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES OR PROCESSED AGGREGATE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THIS LAYER. AASHTO M145¹ A-1, A-2-4, A-3 OR AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10 BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 12" (300 mm) OF MATERIAL OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN 6" (150 mm) MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE DENSITY FOR PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS. ROLLER GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 12,000 lbs (53 kN). DYNAMIC FORCE NOT TO EXCEED 20,000 lbs (89 kN). B EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER ABOVE.CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57 NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. A FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) OF THE CHAMBER.CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57 PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.2,3 PLEASE NOTE: 1.THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE". 2.STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 6" (150 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. 3.WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. 4.ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH SC-160LP CHAMBER SYSTEMS NOTES: 1.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418-16a, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 2.CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED, TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE: 1) INSTANTANEOUS (<1 MIN) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM COVER 2) MAXIMUM PERMANENT (75-YR) COVER LOAD AND 3) ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED (1-WEEK) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK. 3.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. 4.PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. 5.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: ·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS ·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1.5” ·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418 SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 400 LBS/IN/IN. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS. D C B *TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, INCREASE COVER TO 20" (510 mm). 14" (350 mm) MIN* 10' (3.0 m) MAX 6" (150 mm) MIN 12" (300 mm) MIN 25" (635 mm) 12" (300 mm) MIN DEPTH OF BASE STONE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 6" (150 mm) MIN A 12" (305 mm) EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) PERIMETER STONE (SEE NOTE 4) SC-160LP END CAP SUBGRADE SOILS (SEE NOTE 3) NO SPACING REQUIRED BETWEEN CHAMBERS PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS **THIS CROSS SECTION DETAIL REPRESENTS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION. PLEASE SEE THE LAYOUT SHEET(S) FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. SHEET OFDATE:PROJECT #:DRAWN:CHECKED:THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 43026ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC.R4 605/07/2021S215409MFSRWDFORT COLLINS, COALPINE BANKDATEDRWNCHKDDESCRIPTION05/14/2021GGCALIREVISED PER ENGINEER520 CROMWELL AVENUE | ROCKY HILL | CT | 06067860-529-8188 |888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COMDetention Retention Water QualityINSPECTION & MAINTENANCE STEP 1)INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENT A.INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT) A.1.REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN A.2.REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED A.3.USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG A.4.LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL) A.5.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. B.ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS B.1.REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUS B.2.USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPE i)MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY ii)FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE B.3.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. STEP 2)CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS USING THE JETVAC PROCESS A.A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED B.APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN C.VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED STEP 3)REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS. STEP 4)INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM. NOTES 1.INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS. 2.CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY. SC-160LP ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL NTS STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS FLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES SC-160LP CHAMBER 8" (200 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE 8" OPEN END CAP PART #: SC160IEPP08 OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT SC-160LP END CAP ONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS125 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS 4' (1.2 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS SUMP DEPTH TBD BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER (24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED)NYLOPLAST WEIR WEIR HEIGHT TBD BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER NOTE: INSPECTION PORTS MAY BE CONNECTED THROUGH ANY CHAMBER CORRUGATION CREST. STORMTECH CHAMBER CONCRETE COLLAR PAVEMENT 12" (300 mm) MIN WIDTH CONCRETE SLAB 6" (150 mm) MIN THICKNESS 4" PVC INSPECTION PORT DETAIL (SC SERIES CHAMBER) NTS 8" NYLOPLAST INSPECTION PORT BODY (PART# 2708AG4IPKIT) OR TRAFFIC RATED BOX W/SOLID LOCKING COVER CONCRETE COLLAR NOT REQUIRED FOR UNPAVED APPLICATIONS 4" (100 mm) SDR 35 PIPE 4" (100 mm) INSERTA TEE TO BE CENTERED ON CORRUGATION CREST SHEET OFDATE:PROJECT #:DRAWN:CHECKED:THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 43026ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC.R5 605/07/2021S215409MFSRWDFORT COLLINS, COALPINE BANKDATEDRWNCHKDDESCRIPTION05/14/2021GGCALIREVISED PER ENGINEER520 CROMWELL AVENUE | ROCKY HILL | CT | 06067860-529-8188 |888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COMDetention Retention Water QualityUNDERDRAIN DETAIL NTS A A B B SECTION A-A SECTION B-B NUMBER AND SIZE OF UNDERDRAINS PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 4" (100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 & SC-160LP SYSTEMS 6" (150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, DC-780, MC-3500 & MC-4500 SYSTEMS OUTLET MANIFOLD STORMTECH END CAP STORMTECH CHAMBERS STORMTECH CHAMBER STORMTECH END CAP DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAIN ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS PART #STUB A SC160EPP 6" (150 mm)0.66" (16 mm) 8" (200 mm)0.80" (20 mm) SC160EPP08 8" (200 mm)0.96" (24 mm) ALL STUBS ARE PLACED AT BOTTOM OF END CAP SUCH THAT THE OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF THE STUB IS FLUSH WITH THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694. NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)25.0" X 12.0" X 85.4" (635 mm X 305 mm X 2169 mm) CHAMBER STORAGE 6.85 CUBIC FEET (0.19 m³) MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*16.0 CUBIC FEET (0.45 m³) WEIGHT 24.0 lbs.(10.9 kg) *ASSUMES 6" (152 mm) ABOVE, 6" (152 mm) BELOW, AND STONE BETWEEN CHAMBERS WITH 40% STONE POROSITY. 25.0" (635 mm) 12.0" (305 mm) 90.7" (2304 mm) ACTUAL LENGTH 85.4" (2169 mm) INSTALLED LENGTH OVERLAP NEXT CHAMBER HERE (OVER SMALL CORRUGATION) BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION START END SC-160LP TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NTS 4.4" (112 mm) A 11.7" (297 mm) 18.6" (472 mm) SHEET OFDATE:PROJECT #:DRAWN:CHECKED:THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 43026ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC.R6 605/07/2021S215409MFSRWDFORT COLLINS, COALPINE BANKDATEDRWNCHKDDESCRIPTION05/14/2021GGCALIREVISED PER ENGINEER3130 VERONA AVEBUFORD, GA 30518PHN (770) 932-2443FAX (770) 932-2490www.nyloplast-us.com®TRAFFIC LOADS: CONCRETE DIMENSIONS ARE FOR GUIDELINE PUPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL CONCRETE SLAB MUST BE DESIGNED GIVING CONSIDERATION FOR LOCAL SOIL CONDITIONS, TRAFFIC LOADING & OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN FACTORS ADAPTER ANGLES VARIABLE 0°- 360° ACCORDING TO PLANS A 18" (457 mm) MIN WIDTH AASHTO H-20 CONCRETE SLAB 8" (203 mm) MIN THICKNESS VARIABLE SUMP DEPTH ACCORDING TO PLANS [6" (152 mm) MIN ON 8-24" (200-600 mm), 10" (254 mm) MIN ON 30" (750 mm)] 4" (102 mm) MIN ON 8-24" (200-600 mm) 6" (152 mm) MIN ON 30" (750 mm) 12" (610 mm) MIN (FOR AASHTO H-20) INVERT ACCORDING TO PLANS/TAKE OFF BACKFILL MATERIAL BELOW AND TO SIDES OF STRUCTURE SHALL BE ASTM D2321 CLASS I OR II CRUSHED STONE OR GRAVEL AND BE PLACED UNIFORMLY IN 12" (305 mm) LIFTS AND COMPACTED TO MIN OF 90% INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRON FRAME & GRATE/SOLID TO MATCH BASIN O.D. NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN NTS NOTES 1.8-30" (200-750 mm) GRATES/SOLID COVERS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-05 2.12-30" (300-750 mm) FRAMES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-05 3.DRAIN BASIN TO BE CUSTOM MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAILS 4.DRAINAGE CONNECTION STUB JOINT TIGHTNESS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3212 FOR CORRUGATED HDPE (ADS & HANCOR DUAL WALL) & SDR 35 PVC 5.FOR COMPLETE DESIGN AND PRODUCT INFORMATION: WWW.NYLOPLAST-US.COM 6.TO ORDER CALL: 800-821-6710 A PART #GRATE/SOLID COVER OPTIONS 8" (200 mm)2808AG PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DUTY STANDARD LIGHT DUTY SOLID LIGHT DUTY 10" (250 mm)2810AG PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DUTY STANDARD LIGHT DUTY SOLID LIGHT DUTY 12" (300 mm)2812AG PEDESTRIAN AASHTO H-10 STANDARD AASHTO H-20 SOLID AASHTO H-20 15" (375 mm)2815AG PEDESTRIAN AASHTO H-10 STANDARD AASHTO H-20 SOLID AASHTO H-20 18" (450 mm)2818AG PEDESTRIAN AASHTO H-10 STANDARD AASHTO H-20 SOLID AASHTO H-20 24" (600 mm)2824AG PEDESTRIAN AASHTO H-10 STANDARD AASHTO H-20 SOLID AASHTO H-20 30" (750 mm)2830AG PEDESTRIAN AASHTO H-20 STANDARD AASHTO H-20 SOLID AASHTO H-20 VARIOUS TYPES OF INLET AND OUTLET ADAPTERS AVAILABLE: 4-30" (100-750 mm) FOR CORRUGATED HDPE WATERTIGHT JOINT (CORRUGATED HDPE SHOWN) Project: Chamber Model - SC-160 Units -Imperial Number of chambers - 68 Voids in the stone (porosity) - 40 % Base of Stone Elevation - 4983.88 ft Amount of Stone Above Chambers - 6 in Amount of Stone Below Chambers - 6 in 9 Area of system - 1396 sf Min. Area - Height of System Incremental Single Chamber Incremental Total Chamber Incremental Stone Incremental Ch & St Cumulative Chamber Elevation (inches)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(feet) 24 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 1396.43 4985.88 23 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 1349.89 4985.80 22 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 1303.36 4985.71 21 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 1256.83 4985.63 20 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 1210.29 4985.55 19 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 1163.76 4985.46 18 0.05 3.48 45.14 48.62 1117.23 4985.38 17 0.13 9.14 42.88 52.02 1068.60 4985.30 16 0.29 19.76 38.63 58.39 1016.59 4985.21 15 0.44 30.05 34.51 64.56 958.20 4985.13 14 0.54 36.66 31.87 68.53 893.63 4985.05 13 0.62 41.91 29.77 71.68 825.10 4984.96 12 0.68 46.29 28.02 74.31 753.42 4984.88 11 0.74 50.04 26.52 76.56 679.11 4984.80 10 0.78 53.27 25.22 78.50 602.56 4984.71 9 0.82 56.09 24.10 80.19 524.06 4984.63 8 0.86 58.50 23.13 81.64 443.87 4984.55 7 0.89 60.84 22.20 83.04 362.24 4984.46 6 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 279.20 4984.38 5 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 232.67 4984.30 4 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 186.13 4984.21 3 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 139.60 4984.13 2 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 93.07 4984.05 1 0.00 0.00 46.53 46.53 46.53 4983.96 StormTech SC-160 Cumulative Storage Volumes REV1 - Alpine Bank (S215409) 1008 sf min. area Include Perimeter Stone in Calculations Click Here for Metric Alpine Bank Subdivision APPENDIX D Drainage Maps HISTORICAL BUILDING RELOCATED PROPOSED BANK EXIT ONLYTRASH ENCLOSURE -01/20/2021 2ND PDP SUB MAS -02/17/2021 3RD PDP SUB MAS -04/07/2021 1ST FDP SUB MAS -05/19/2021 2ND FDP SUB MAS -07/07/2021 3RD FDP SUB MAS - - - - - - - - STAMP H:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College & Prospect\CADD\3 CD\Drainage XBs\ALB001x_D_Impervious Area XB.dwg - Mike Shaw - 7/7/2021Init.#Issue / DescriptionDate THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF GALLOWAY, AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GALLOWAY. COPYRIGHTS AND INFRINGEMENTS WILL BE ENFORCED AND PROSECUTED. COPYRIGHT GallowayUS.com 6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303.770.8884 PRELIMINARYNOT FOR BIDDINGNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate: Drawn By: Project No: Checked By:CIVIL UTILITY PLANS FORALPINE BANK1608 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUES. COLLEGE AVE. & PROSPECT ROADFORT COLLINS, COLORADO-12/02/2020 1ST PDP SUB MAS ALB000001 MRB MAS JULY 2021 1 IMPERVIOUS AREA EXHIBIT SCALE: 1"=20' 0 10 20 SCALE: 1"=20' 0 10 20 OF 1 -01/20/2021 2ND PDP SUB MAS -02/17/2021 3RD PDP SUB MAS -04/07/2021 1ST FDP SUB MAS -05/19/2021 2ND FDP SUB MAS -07/07/2021 3RD FDP SUB MAS - - - - - - - - STAMP H:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College & Prospect\CADD\3 CD\Drainage XBs\ALB001x_P_11-Ex Drainage.dwg - Mike Shaw - 7/7/2021Init.#Issue / DescriptionDate THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF GALLOWAY, AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GALLOWAY. COPYRIGHTS AND INFRINGEMENTS WILL BE ENFORCED AND PROSECUTED. COPYRIGHT GallowayUS.com 6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303.770.8884 PRELIMINARYNOT FOR BIDDINGNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate: Drawn By: Project No: Checked By:CIVIL UTILITY PLANS FORALPINE BANK1608 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUES. COLLEGE AVE. & PROSPECT ROADFORT COLLINS, COLORADO-12/02/2020 1ST PDP SUB MAS ALB000001 MRB MAS JULY 2021 1 EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP SCALE: 1"=20' 0 10 20 DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY LINE DESIGN POINT BASIN AREA IN ACRES 100-YEAR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT BASIN DESIGNATION 2-YEAR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT FLOW ARROW 1.NO BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR FILL WILL BE PLACED IN THE DETENTION AREAS AND CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS AFFECTING THE HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DETENTION AREAS WILL BE MADE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 2.MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY AREAS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROPERTY OWNER. IF OWNER FAILS IN THIS RESPONSIBILITY, THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE PROPERTY, MAINTAIN THE DETENTION AREAS, AND BE REIMBURSED FOR COSTS INCURRED. 3.DETENTION POND VOLUMES, ALL DRAINAGE APPURTENANCES, AND BASIN BOUNDARIES SHALL BE VERIFIED. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 4.PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THESE PLANS IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR CITY PURPOSES ASSOCIATED WITH PLAN REVIEW, APPROVAL, PERMITTING, INSPECTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORK. 5.ALL PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER FOR THE SITE SHALL BE 6" VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER W/ A 1' PAN. NEW PROJECT BOUNDARY (EXCLUDING ALL ROW DEDICATION) OF 1 HISTORICAL BUILDING RELOCATED PROPOSED BANK EXIT ONLYTRASH ENCLOSURE 1 PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP SCALE: 1"=20' 0 10 20 DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY LINE DESIGN POINT BASIN AREA IN ACRES 100-YEAR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT BASIN DESIGNATION 2-YEAR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT FLOW ARROW 1.NO BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR FILL WILL BE PLACED IN THE DETENTION AREAS AND CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS AFFECTING THE HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DETENTION AREAS WILL BE MADE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 2.MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY AREAS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROPERTY OWNER. IF OWNER FAILS IN THIS RESPONSIBILITY, THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE PROPERTY, MAINTAIN THE DETENTION AREAS, AND BE REIMBURSED FOR COSTS INCURRED. 3.DETENTION POND VOLUMES, ALL DRAINAGE APPURTENANCES, AND BASIN BOUNDARIES SHALL BE VERIFIED. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 4.PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THESE PLANS IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR CITY PURPOSES ASSOCIATED WITH PLAN REVIEW, APPROVAL, PERMITTING, INSPECTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORK. 5.ALL PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER FOR THE SITE SHALL BE 6" VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER W/ A 1' PAN. NEW PROJECT BOUNDARY (EXCLUDING ALL ROW DEDICATION) OF 1 -01/20/2021 2ND PDP SUB MAS -02/17/2021 3RD PDP SUB MAS -04/07/2021 1ST FDP SUB MAS -05/19/2021 2ND FDP SUB MAS -07/07/2021 3RD FDP SUB MAS - - - - - - - - STAMP H:\Alpine Bank\CO, Fort Collins - XXXXX - College & Prospect\CADD\3 CD\FDP\Civil Consturction Plans\ALB001_D1.0-Drainage.dwg - Mike Shaw - 7/7/2021Init.#Issue / DescriptionDate THESE PLANS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF GALLOWAY, AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, DISCLOSED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GALLOWAY. COPYRIGHTS AND INFRINGEMENTS WILL BE ENFORCED AND PROSECUTED. COPYRIGHT GallowayUS.com 6162 S. Willow Drive, Suite 320 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303.770.8884 PRELIMINARYNOT FOR BIDDINGNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDate: Drawn By: Project No: Checked By:CIVIL UTILITY PLANS FORALPINE BANK1608 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUES. COLLEGE AVE. & PROSPECT ROADFORT COLLINS, COLORADO-12/02/2020 1ST PDP SUB MAS ALB000001 MRB MAS JULY 2021 Alpine Bank Subdivision APPENDIX E Remington Street Drainage Report References Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =10.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =45.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.024 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =45.0 45.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 8.4 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions Maximum Capacity for 1/2 Street based On Allowable Spread Minor Storm Major Storm Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) y =12.96 12.96 inches Vertical Depth between Gutter Lip and Gutter Flowline (usually 2")dC =2.0 2.0 inches Gutter Depression (dC - (W * Sx * 12))a =1.42 1.42 inches Water Depth at Gutter Flowline d =14.38 14.38 inches Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)TX =43.0 43.0 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)EO =0.124 0.124 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section TX QX =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W (QT - QX)QW =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)QBACK =0.0 0.0 cfs Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Spread QT =SUMP SUMP cfs Flow Velocity within the Gutter Section V =0.0 0.0 fps V*d Product: Flow Velocity times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d =0.0 0.0 Maximum Capacity for 1/2 Street based on Allowable Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Theoretical Water Spread TTH =15.9 24.3 ft Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)TX TH =13.9 22.3 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)EO =0.358 0.234 Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section TX TH QX TH =0.0 0.0 cfs Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCROWN)QX =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - QX)QW =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)QBACK =0.0 0.0 cfs Total Discharge for Major & Minor Storm (Pre-Safety Factor) Q =0.0 0.0 cfs Average Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V =0.0 0.0 fps V*d Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d =0.0 0.0 Slope-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Storm R =SUMP SUMP Max Flow Based on Allowable Depth (Safety Factor Applied)Qd =SUMP SUMP cfs Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)d =inches Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)dCROWN =inches MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) City of Fort Collins - Remington Street Storm Outfall Improvements Final Design (2019-2020) COLLG_IN-1 - Southeast Corner of College and Prospect, on College (Existing Inlet) Inlet Calculations for Remington Street Storm Sewer Design.xlsm, COLLG_IN-1 10/8/2020, 8:15 AM Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Ponding Depth = 6.0 8.4 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =10.00 10.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Grate Flow Analysis (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = N/A N/A Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = N/A N/A Grate Capacity as a Weir (based on Modified HEC22 Method)MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qwi =N/A N/A cfs Interception with Clogging Qwa =N/A N/A cfs Grate Capacity as a Orifice (based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qoi =N/A N/A cfs Interception with Clogging Qoa =N/A N/A cfs Grate Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qmi =N/A N/A cfs Interception with Clogging Qma =N/A N/A cfs Resulting Grate Capacity (assumes clogged condition)QGrate =N/A N/A cfs Curb Opening Flow Analysis (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.25 1.25 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.06 0.06 Curb Opening as a Weir (based on Modified HEC22 Method)MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qwi =8.8 19.1 cfs Interception with Clogging Qwa =8.3 17.9 cfs Curb Opening as an Orifice (based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qoi =19.5 22.9 cfs Interception with Clogging Qoa =18.3 21.5 cfs Curb Opening Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qmi =12.2 19.5 cfs Interception with Clogging Qma =11.4 18.2 cfs Resulting Curb Opening Capacity (assumes clogged condition)QCurb =8.3 17.9 cfs Resultant Street Conditions MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Length L = 10.00 10.00 feet Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on street geometry from above) T = 15.9 24.3 ft Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown dCROWN =0.0 0.0 inches Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.53 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.79 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.93 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =8.3 17.9 cfs WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Major Storm Q PEAK REQUIRED =2.4 44.9 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths Inlet Calculations for Remington Street Storm Sewer Design.xlsm, COLLG_IN-1 10/8/2020, 8:15 AM Unit RunoffUnit RunoffUnit RunoffQ100 (cfs)Q10 (cfs)Q2 (cfs)Q100/A (cfs/acre)Q10/A (cfs/acre)Q2/A (cfs/acre)SUB - 1 92978 2.13 60 743 1.3% 76501 0.82 0.17 0.26 190 1.4% 14.9 6.0 3.07.02.81.4SUB - 2 51261 1.18 55 595 1.3% 37450 0.73 0.14 0.25 149 1.6% 8.5 3.4 1.77.22.81.4SUB - 3 66002 1.52 75 533 1.5% 53229 0.81 0.23 0.36 191 1.5% 13.1 5.5 2.88.73.61.8SUB - 4 28892 0.66 65 374 0.9% 20518 0.71 0.21 0.36 136 1.0% 5.5 2.2 1.18.33.41.7SUB - 5 140198 3.22 70 858 2.0% 120855 0.86 0.19 0.27 233 2.1% 24.9 10.2 5.17.73.21.6SUB - 6 28665 0.66 65 424 1.0% 16651 0.58 0.16 0.33 139 1.2% 5.6 2.3 1.28.53.51.7SUB - 7 41373 0.95 55 359 0.7% 34500 0.83 0.32 0.47 168 0.6% 6.7 2.6 1.37.02.81.4SUB - 8 256732 5.89 100 1158 1.3% 208878 0.81 0.19 0.29 340 1.4% 48.0 20.1 9.68.13.41.6SUB - 9 46556 1.07 100 634 0.9% 26678 0.57 0.12 0.24 153 1.2% 10.0 4.6 2.49.44.32.3SUB - 10 2331 0.05 100 49 5.1% 1996 0.86 0.97 1.26 62 2.5% 0.5 0.3 0.19.34.72.6SUB - 11 106988 2.46 80 594 2.2% 74976 0.70 0.30 0.53 317 2.0% 22.4 9.6 4.99.13.92.0SUB - 12 97379 2.24 65 957 0.5% 73276 0.75 0.11 0.18 172 0.6% 14.5 5.7 2.76.52.61.2SUB - 13 22172 0.51 35 191 1.2% 11315 0.51 0.61 1.27 243 0.7% 4.4 1.6 0.58.73.01.0SUB - 14 99523 2.28 60 979 1.1% 70698 0.71 0.10 0.19 181 1.5% 15.7 6.3 3.26.92.81.4SUB - 15 119975 2.75 50 540 2.2% 66256 0.55 0.41 0.85 457 1.7% 20.0 7.6 3.87.32.81.4SUB - 16 49154 1.13 65 626 1.7% 34287 0.70 0.13 0.23 142 2.2% 9.3 3.8 1.98.23.31.7SUB - 17 177501 4.07 55 1178 2.1% 154742 0.87 0.13 0.18 213 2.4% 25.4 10.1 5.06.22.51.2SUB - 18 5436 0.12 100 490 1.6% 5436 1.00 0.02 0.03 13 1.8% 1.1 0.5 0.39.04.12.2SUB - 19 8468 0.19 100 166 2.2% 4459 0.53 0.31 0.66 109 2.0% 1.9 0.9 0.59.84.82.8SUB - 20 15768 0.36 95 333 0.6% 10687 0.68 0.14 0.26 87 0.7% 3.5 1.6 0.89.64.42.3SUB - 21 73201 1.68 65 769 1.6% 40788 0.56 0.12 0.26 202 2.2% 13.7 5.6 2.88.13.31.7SUB - 22 34003 0.78 90 430 1.6% 18090 0.53 0.18 0.40 171 1.9% 7.6 3.5 1.99.84.52.4SUB - 23 8296 0.19 95 155 4.3% 5383 0.65 0.35 0.64 100 3.6% 1.9 0.9 0.510.04.92.7SUB - 24 92732 2.13 70 493 1.9% 77629 0.84 0.38 0.55 271 1.5% 17.7 7.3 3.78.33.41.7SUB - 25 151361 3.47 60 937 1.8% 128607 0.85 0.17 0.25 235 1.9% 23.7 9.5 4.76.82.71.4SUB - 26 27554 0.63 85 167 0.5% 21304 0.77 0.99 1.44 240 0.2% 5.8 2.5 1.39.24.02.1SUB - 27 9496 0.22 95 146 0.3% 6415 0.68 0.45 0.79 116 0.2% 2.1 1.0 0.59.84.62.4SUB - 28 105923 2.43 70 682 2.0% 84891 0.80 0.23 0.35 241 2.0% 19.9 8.2 4.18.23.41.7SUB - 29 152418 3.50 50 1033 1.5% 124481 0.82 0.14 0.22 226 1.7% 20.6 8.1 4.15.92.31.2SUB - 30 21204 0.49 85 242 0.9% 14687 0.69 0.36 0.64 154 0.7% 4.7 2.1 1.19.74.32.3SUB - 31 15245 0.35 50 223 4.4% 8891 0.58 0.31 0.62 138 3.9% 3.2 1.2 0.59.03.51.5SUB - 32 72775 1.67 80 1100 0.9% 37619 0.52 0.06 0.13 148 1.5% 14.1 5.9 2.98.43.51.7SUB - 33 30990 0.71 95 584 0.6% 23526 0.76 0.09 0.15 89 0.8% 6.4 2.8 1.49.03.92.0SUB - 34 126067 2.89 20 403 0.2% 65494 0.52 0.78 1.57 633 0.1% 8.7 3.1 1.53.01.10.5SUB - 35 41309 0.95 80 806 1.5% 25003 0.61 0.06 0.13 104 2.4% 8.6 3.7 1.99.03.92.0SUB - 36 166317 3.82 70 1185 1.1% 133315 0.80 0.12 0.19 221 1.3% 26.6 10.6 5.17.02.81.3SUB - 37 87298 2.00 65 725 1.3% 50108 0.57 0.17 0.34 250 1.6% 16.0 6.5 3.38.03.21.6SUB - 38 15466 0.36 60 154 0.6% 8777 0.57 0.65 1.28 197 0.3% 3.1 1.2 0.68.63.41.7SUB - 39 35490 0.81 80 356 1.0% 27104 0.76 0.28 0.45 162 0.9% 7.4 3.2 1.69.13.92.0Totals/Averages62.5572467.7191.795.67.53.11.51From ACAD delineation. Delineations based on available topo and site visits.2Land use/percent impervious informed by Table 4.1-2 of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual3Some basins have multiple flow lengths. For these basins the sum of the lengths were added to define total basin length.4Computed Using Conversion of Natural Watershed to Kinematic Wave Cascading Plane Equations (Guo and Urbonas, 2009)Darkened Cells Indicate Input Parameters for EPA SWMMREMINGTON STREET STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS HYDROLOGIC MODELING PARAMETERSLength of Collector ChannelL (ft)3Slope along Main ChannelSo (%)Area Skewness CoefficientZ4Watershed Shape FactorX4Virtual Basin Width Lw(ft)4Virtual Basin Slope Sw (%)4Dominating AreaAm (ft2)4AreaA (Ac)AreaA (ft2)1Basin #Kinematic WatershedShape FactorY4% Impervious2 PROSPECT RDCOLLEGE AVE PARKER STSTUART STBNSF RAILWAY MATHEWS ST REMINGTON STINSET INSETSTUART STSPRING CREEKREMINGTON STINSETCOLLEGE AVE.SPRING PARK DR.Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc Civil ▪ Water Resources ▪ Environmental 375 East Horsetooth Road, Building 5, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-0120 / Fax (970) 226-0121 www.acewater.com CITY OF FORT COLLINS REMINGTON STREET STORM SEWER OUTFALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WITH EXISTING FACILITIES SUBBASIN AND SWMM CONVEYANCE ELEMENT MAP (1 OF 2)D.3-1 FINAL DESIGN EPA-SWMM NODE INPUT AND RESULTSNode No.* Node Name Location/DescriptionInvertElev. (ft)RimElev. (ft)Max NodeDepth (ft)InitialDepthMax Depth 100-YR (ft)Max 100-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Max Depth 10-YR (ft)Max 10-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Max Depth 2-YR (ft)Max 2-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Notes55 COLLG_N-1College Inlet #1 onSE Corner of College and Prospect4988.61 N/A 4.70 0.00 3.48 4992.09 1.32 4989.93 0.84 4989.45 Max node depth based on street transect height56 COLLG_N-2 4' Dia Manhole West of College Inlet #1 4987.58 4991.29 4.63 0.00 4.50 4992.08 2.16 4989.74 1.00 4988.58 Max node depth based on alley overtopping height57 COLLG_N-3College Inlet #2 onSW Corner of College and Prospect4989.12 N/A 3.49 0.00 3.36 4992.48 1.25 4990.37 0.73 4989.85 Max node depth based on street overtopping height58 COLLG_N-4 4' Dia Manhole North of College Inlet #2 4987.47 4991.72 5.14 0.00 4.84 4992.31 2.34 4989.81 1.27 4988.74 Max node depth based on street overtopping height59 COLLG_N-5 Street Outfall for Subbasin #26 4993.2 N/A 6.11 0.00 4.38 4997.58 1.35 4994.55 0.53 4993.73 Max node depth based on street transect height*Node Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element MapNode No.* Node Name Location/DescriptionInvertElev. (ft)RimElev. (ft)Max NodeDepth (ft)InitialDepthMax Depth 100-YR (ft)Max 100-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Max Depth 10-YR (ft)Max 10-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Max Depth 2-YR (ft)Max 2-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Notes60 LAKE_N-1 Lake Inlets #1 and #2 Connection to Lateral 4991.72 4997.05 8.70 0.00 6.28 4998.00 6.08 4997.80 1.87 4993.59Max node depth based on street transect height (manhole will surchage in 100-year event)61 LAKE_N-2Lake Inlet #1 on SE Corner of College and Lake4994.8 N/A 3.71 0.00 3.21 4998.01 3.06 4997.86 0.19 4994.99 Max node depth based on street transect height62 LAKE_N-3Lake Inlet #2 on NE Corner of College and Lake4994.9 N/A 3.41 0.00 3.18 4998.08 3.04 4997.94 0.34 4995.24 Max node depth based on street transect height63 LAKE_N-4 Lake Inlets #3 and #4 Connection to Lateral 4993.2 4998.5 5.3 0.00 5.14 4998.34 4.99 4998.19 0.74 4993.94 Max node depth based on street transect height64 LAKE_N-5Lake Inlet #3 on NW Corner of College and Lake4994.2 N/A 4.51 0.00 4.24 4998.44 4.11 4998.31 0.71 4994.91 Max node depth based on street overtopping height65 LAKE_N-6Lake Inlet #4 on SW Corner of College and Lake4993.8 N/A 5.91 0.00 4.63 4998.43 4.50 4998.30 0.37 4994.17 Max node depth based on street transect height*Node Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element MapNode No.* Node Name Location/DescriptionInvertElev. (ft)RimElev. (ft)Max NodeDepth (ft)InitialDepthMax Depth 100-YR (ft)Max 100-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Max Depth 10-YR (ft)Max 10-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Max Depth 2-YR (ft)Max 2-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Notes66 PITKN_N-1Pitkin Inlet #1 on SW Corner of Remington and Pitkin4994.2 N/A 4.41 0.00 4.13 4998.33 0.69 4994.89 0.43 4994.63 Max node depth based on street transect height67 PITKN_N-2 Pitkin Inlet #1 Connection to Lateral 4991.1 4998.4 7.3 0.00 1.37 4992.47 0.92 4992.02 0.59 4991.69 Max node depth based on manhole rim height68 PITKN_N-3Pitkin Inlet #2 on SW Corner of College and Pitkin4998.2 N/A 3.31 0.00 2.55 5000.75 0.26 4998.46 0.17 4998.37 Max node depth based on street transect height69 PITKN_N-4 Pitkin Inlet #2 Connection to Lateral 4995.2 5000.6 5.4 0.00 0.60 4995.80 0.41 4995.61 0.28 4995.48 Max node depth based on manhole rim height*Node Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element MapNode No.* Node Name Location/DescriptionInvertElev. (ft)RimElev. (ft)Max NodeDepth (ft)InitialDepthMax Depth 100-YR (ft)Max 100-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Max Depth 10-YR (ft)Max 10-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Max Depth 2-YR (ft)Max 2-YRHGL Elev. (ft)Notes70CSU_GARDEN_SUMPCSU Flower Garden North of Lake and West of Remington 4989.9 N/A 2.10 0.00 2.06 4991.96 1.06 4990.96 0.63 4990.53Max node depth based sump spill elevation to southeast*Node Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element MapCSU SUMP NODELAKE LATERAL NODESPITKIN LATERAL NODESCOLLEGE LATERAL NODES AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WITH EXISTING FACILITIES EPA-SWMM LINK INPUT AND RESULTSStormSewerLink No.*Link Name Location/Description Size (ft)D/S InvertElev. (ft)D/S NodeNameU/S InvertElev. (ft)U/S NodeNameLengthSlope (%)Manning'sRoughnessEntry LossCoefficientExit LossCoefficient100-YearPeak Q (cfs)10-YearPeak Q (cfs)2-YearPeak Q (cfs)47 PRSPT_IN-1_P-1**14" H x 23" W HERCP Lateral Connection Between Prospect Inlet #1 and Prospect Inlet #21.17 ft H X 1.917 ft W (1.5 ft Equivalent)4987.61 PRSPT_N-3 4987.85 PRSPT_N-2 8.0 3.00% 0.013 0.500 0.100 1.9 0.9 0.548 PRSPT_IN-2_P-1**14" H x 23" W HERCP Lateral Connection Between Prospect Inlet #2 and Prospect Lateral1.17 ft H X 1.917 ft W (1.5 ft Equivalent)4987.37 PRSPT_N-6 4987.41 PRSPT_N-3 49.0 0.08% 0.013 0.500 1.010 9.5 4.4 2.449 PRSPT_IN-3_P-1**18" PVC Lateral Connection Between Prospect Inlet #3 and Prospect Inlet #41.5 ft 4987.76 PRSPT_N-5 4990.24 PRSPT_N-4 20.0 12.40% 0.011 0.500 0.050 0.7 0.3 0.150 PRSPT_IN-4_P-1**18" RCP Lateral Connection Between Prospect Inlet #4 and Prospect Lateral1.5 ft 4987.00 PRSPT_N-6 4987.19 PRSPT_N-5 47.0 0.40% 0.013 0.500 0.500 6.7 1.1 0.751 PRSPT_IN-5_P-1***Fictious 18" RCP to Limit Captured FlowBased on Inlet Capacity1.5 ft 4987.52 PRSPT_N-9 4987.55 PRSPT_N-11 10.0 0.30% 0.013 0.500 0.025 2.1 0.5 0.3*Link Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element Map**These pipes were installed as part of the College Avenue/Prospect Road Improvement Project in 2017***Fictious pipe to limit captured flow based on inlet capacityIndicates data updated for As-built AnalysisIndicates data revised for Existing Facilities AnalysisStormSewerLink No.*Link Name Location/Description Size (ft)D/S InvertElev. (ft)D/S NodeNameU/S InvertElev. (ft)U/S NodeNameLengthSlope (%)Manning'sRoughnessEntry LossCoefficientExit LossCoefficient100-YearPeak Q (cfs)10-YearPeak Q (cfs)2-YearPeak Q (cfs)52 COLLG_IN-1_P-2**18" RCP Lateral Connection Between College Inlet #1 and Manhole West of Inlet1.5 ft 4988.56 COLLG_N-2 4988.61 COLLG_N-1 10.0 0.50% 0.013 0.500 1.010 6.3 4.6 2.453 COLLG_IN-1_P-1**18" RCP Lateral Connection Between Manhole West of Inlet and Prospect Lateral1.5 ft 4986.86 PRSPT_N-7 4987.58 COLLG_N-2 144.0 0.50% 0.013 0.200 1.010 10.7 8.7 4.654 COLLG_IN-2_P-3**15" Existing RCP Between College Inlet #1 and College Inlet #21.25 ft 4988.63 COLLG_N-2 4989.12 COLLG_N-3 88.0 0.56% 0.013 0.500 1.010 5.2 4.3 2.355 COLLG_IN-2_P-2**24" RCP Lateral Connection Between College Inlet #2 and Manhole North of Inlet2.0 ft 4988.75 COLLG_N-4 4989.12 COLLG_N-3 10.0 3.70% 0.013 0.500 0.025 23.8 15.7 7.256 COLLG_IN-2_P-1**18" RCP Lateral Connection Between Manhole North of Inlet and Prospect Lateral2.0 ft 4987.12 PRSPT_N-8 4987.47 PRSPT_N-4 108.0 0.32% 0.013 0.200 0.500 23.8 15.5 7.257 COLLG_IN-3_P-1**12" RCP Lateral Connection Between College Inlet #3 and CSU Medical Center System1.0 ft 4992.90 CSU_MC_O-1 4993.20 COLLG_N-5 54.0 0.56% 0.013 0.500 0.025 3.8 3.8 1.3*Link Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element Map*These pipes were installed as part of the College Avenue/Prospect Road Improvement Project in 2017Indicates data updated for As-built AnalysisIndicates data revised for Existing Facilities AnalysisStormSewerLink No.*Link Name Location/Description Size (ft)D/S InvertElev. (ft)D/S NodeNameU/S InvertElev. (ft)U/S NodeNameLengthSlope (%)Manning'sRoughnessEntry LossCoefficientExit LossCoefficient100-YearPeak Q (cfs)10-YearPeak Q (cfs)2-YearPeak Q (cfs)58 LAKE_IN-1_P-1**15" RCP Lateral Connection Between Lake Inlet #1 and Lake Lateral1.25 ft 4993.20 LAKE_N-1 4994.80 LAKE_N-2 50.0 3.20% 0.013 0.500 0.500 0.9 0.9 0.659 LAKE_IN-2_P-1**15" RCP Lateral Connection Between Lake Inlet #2 and Lake Lateral1.25 ft 4993.20 LAKE_N-1 4994.90 LAKE_N-3 68.0 2.50% 0.013 0.500 0.500 2.0 2.1 1.460 LAKE_IN-3_P-1**12" RCP Lateral Connection Between Lake Inlet #3 and Lake Lateral1.0 ft 4993.20 LAKE_N-4 4994.20 LAKE_N-5 86.0 1.16% 0.013 0.500 0.100 3.0 3.4 2.861 LAKE_IN-4_P-1**15" RCP Lateral Connection Between Lake Inlet #4 and Lake Lateral1.25 ft 4993.20 LAKE_N-4 4993.80 LAKE_N-6 79.0 0.76% 0.013 0.500 0.025 2.5 2.6 1.1*Link Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element Map**Existing pipes based on COFC inventory and field measurementsIndicates data updated for As-built AnalysisIndicates data revised for Existing Facilities AnalysisLAKE INLET PIPESPROSPECT INLET PIPESCOLLEGE INLET PIPES AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WITH EXISTING FACILITIES EPA-SWMM LINK INPUT AND RESULTSSurfaceFlowLink No.**Link Name Location/DescriptionInvertElev. (ft)D/S NodeNameU/S NodeNameHeight(ft)Length(ft)Side Slope (ft)WeirCoefficient100-YearDepth (ft)10-YearDepth (ft)2-YearDepth (ft)100-YearPeak Q (cfs)10-YearPeak Q (cfs)2-YearPeak Q (cfs)21 REM_OT-1 Remington Overtopping North or Parker 4986.90 E_PKR_N-2 REM_N-16 0.4 50 160 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.022 REM_OT-2 Remington Overtopping at Prospect 4991.40 REM_N-20 REM_N-24 0.85 10 75 2 0.5 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.023 REM_OT-3***Remington Overtopping North of Lake(Removed From Model)N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A*Trapezoidal weirs were utilized to simulate road and sidewalk overtopping **Link Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element Map***Due to ponding in the Lake Street and Remington Street intersection, this street overtopping weir was not modeled as part of the As-built Condition With Existing Facilities AnalysisIndicates data updated for As-built AnalysisIndicates data revised for Existing Facilities AnalysisSurfaceFlowLink No.**Link Name Location/DescriptionInvertElev. (ft)D/S NodeNameU/S NodeNameHeight(ft)Length(ft)Side Slope (ft)WeirCoefficient100-YearDepth (ft)10-YearDepth (ft)2-YearDepth (ft)100-YearPeak Q (cfs)10-YearPeak Q (cfs)2-YearPeak Q (cfs)24 E_PKR_OT-1 East Parker Overtopping at Alley 4985.30 E_PKR_N-3 E_PKR_N-5 0.6 90 165 2 0.4 0.2 0.1 28.7 10.3 3.925 E_PKR_OT-2 East Parker Overtopping at Mathews 4986.10 E_PKR_N-9 E_PKR_N-8 0.5 40 60 2 0.4 0.2 0.1 21.3 6.5 1.7*Trapezoidal weirs were utilized to simulate road and sidewalk overtopping **Link Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element MapIndicates data revised for Existing Facilities AnalysisSurfaceFlowLink No.**Link Name Location/DescriptionInvertElev. (ft)D/S NodeNameU/S NodeNameHeight(ft)Length(ft)Side Slope (ft)WeirCoefficient100-YearDepth (ft)10-YearDepth (ft)2-YearDepth (ft)100-YearPeak Q (cfs)10-YearPeak Q (cfs)2-YearPeak Q (cfs)26 PRSPT_OT-1 Prospect Overtopping West of Remington 4991.10 REM_N-20 REM_N-23 0.4 30 155 2 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.027 PRSPT_OT-2Prospect Overtopping West of College(North Side of Road)4992.35 PRSPT_N-11 PRSPT_N-10 0.6 10 35 2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.028 PRSPT_OT-3Prospect Overtopping West of College(South Side of Road)4992.55 COLLG_N-3 PRSPT_N-11 0.35 40 70 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0*Trapezoidal weirs were utilized to simulate road and sidewalk overtopping **Link Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element MapIndicates data revised for Existing Facilities AnalysisSurfaceFlowLink No.**Link Name Location/DescriptionInvertElev. (ft)D/S NodeNameU/S NodeNameHeight(ft)Length(ft)Side Slope (ft)WeirCoefficient100-YearDepth (ft)10-YearDepth (ft)2-YearDepth (ft)100-YearPeak Q (cfs)10-YearPeak Q (cfs)2-YearPeak Q (cfs)29 COLLG_OT-1 College Overtopping South of Prospect 4922.10 COLLG_N-1 COLLG_N-3 0.5 90 150 2 0.3 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.0 0.0*Trapezoidal weirs were utilized to simulate road and sidewalk overtopping **Link Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element MapIndicates data revised for Existing Facilities AnalysisSurfaceFlowLink No.**Link Name Location/DescriptionInvertElev. (ft)D/S NodeNameU/S NodeNameHeight(ft)Length(ft)Side Slope (ft)WeirCoefficient100-YearDepth (ft)10-YearDepth (ft)2-YearDepth (ft)100-YearPeak Q (cfs)10-YearPeak Q (cfs)2-YearPeak Q (cfs)30 ALLEY_OT-1 Overtopping of Prospect Sidewalk Into Alley 4990.70 ALLEY_SUMP PRSPT_N-1 0.7 35 15 2 0.3 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.031 ALLEY_OT-2 Overtopping of College Sidewalk Into Alley 4991.60 ALLEY_SUMP COLLG_N-1 0.6 15 50 2 0.4 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.031A ALLEY_OT-3***Alley Sump Overtopping Towards Northwest Corner of Remington and Parker 4987.60 REM_N-16 ALLEY_SUMP 0.4 5 90 2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0*Trapezoidal weirs were utilized to simulate road and sidewalk overtopping **Link Numbers are Referenced on the Subbasin and Conveyance Element Map***Weir Added to Model Spill From Alley Sump Towards Remington/Parker as part of the As-built Condition With Existing Facilities AnalysisIndicates data revised for Existing Facilities AnalysisREMINGTON STREET OVERTOPPING WEIRS*EAST PARKER STREET OVERTOPPING WEIRS*PROSPECT ROAD OVERTOPPING WEIRS*COLLEGE AVENUE OVERTOPPING WEIRS*OVERTOPPING WEIRS INTO ALLEY SUMP EAST OF COLLEGE/SOUTH OF PROSPECT* COLLEGE AVENUEREMINGTON STREETPROSPECT ROAD MATHEWS STREETPARKER STREET STUART STREET SPRING CREEK ALPERT AVENUEBNSF RAILWAY1 CFS5 CFS17 CFSLAKE STREET SPRING PARK DR1 CFS4 CFS 7 CFS58 CFS11 CFS84 CFS87 CFS49 CFS5 CFS5 CFS6 CFS6 CFS16 CFS9 CFS1 CFS4 CFS1 CFS16 CFS56 CFS4 CFS 10 CFS6 CFS2 CFS38 CFS62 CFS75 CFS8 CFS0 CFS0 CFS7 CFS3 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS2 CFS10 CFS2 CFS7 CFS35 CFS30 CFS21 CFS5 CFS23 CFS10 CFS6 CFS2 CFS4 CFS1 CFS3 CFS3 CFS9 CFS5 CFS4 CFS10 CFS3 CFS4 CFSAnderson Consulting Engineers, Inc Civil ▪ Water Resources ▪ Environmental 375 East Horsetooth Road, Building 5, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-0120 / Fax (970) 226-0121 www.acewater.com CITY OF FORT COLLINS REMINGTON STREET STORM SEWER OUTFALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WITH EXISTING FACILITIES 10-YEAR FLOW MAPD.3.3LEGENDPEAK PIPE FLOWPEAK SURFACE FLOWPEAK STREET/SIDEWALK OVERTOPPING FLOWMAXIMUM PONDING AREAEXISTING PIPES AND INLETSPHASE 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS COLLEGE AVENUEREMINGTON STREETPROSPECT ROAD MATHEWS STREETPARKER STREET STUART STREET SPRING CREEK ALPERT AVENUEBNSF RAILWAY9 CFS3 CFS25 CFS6 CFS0 CFS4 CFS14 CFS6 CFS55 CFSLAKE STREET 30 CFSSPRING PARK DR 4 CFS 8 CFS92 CFS19 CFS161 CFS177 CFS127 CFS5 CFS5 CFS14 CFS15 CFS24 CFS11 CFS10 CFS2 CFS20 CFS85 CFS5 CFS 25 CFS22 CFS3 CFS50 CFS113 CFS135 CFS19 CFS13 CFS21 CFS11 CFS0 CFS1 CFS8 CFS8 CFS28 CFS0 CFS3 CFS19 CFS3 CFS6 CFS9 CFS53 CFS20 CFS44 CFS35 CFS6 CFS32 CFS16 CFS6 CFS1 CFS2 CFS4 CFS1 CFS4 CFS3 CFS3 CFS29 CFS12 CFS9 CFS2 CFS7 CFS5 CFS4 CFSAnderson Consulting Engineers, Inc Civil ▪ Water Resources ▪ Environmental 375 East Horsetooth Road, Building 5, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-0120 / Fax (970) 226-0121 www.acewater.com CITY OF FORT COLLINS REMINGTON STREET STORM SEWER OUTFALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WITH EXISTING FACILITIES 100-YEAR FLOW MAPD.3.4LEGENDPEAK PIPE FLOWPEAK SURFACE FLOWPEAK STREET/SIDEWALK OVERTOPPING FLOWMAXIMUM PONDING AREAEXISTING PIPES AND INLETSPHASE 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS COLLEGE AVENUEREMINGTON STREETPROSPECT ROAD MATHEWS STREETPARKER STREET STUART STREET SPRING CREEK ALPERT AVENUEBNSF RAILWAY1 CFS5 CFS2 CFSLAKE STREET SPRING PARK DR1 CFS4 CFS 42 CFS90 CFS7 CFS131 CFS135 CFS83 CFS10 CFS10 CFS6 CFS6 CFS16 CFS9 CFS1 CFS5 CFS1 CFS16 CFS89 CFS4 CFS 10 CFS6 CFS2 CFS52 CFS95 CFS19 CFS128 CFS8 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS3 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS2 CFS0 CFS0 CFS0 CFS26 CFS9 CFS10 CFS2 CFS7 CFS33 CFS28 CFS21 CFS5 CFS58 CFS10 CFS8 CFS11 CFS10 CFS15 CFS21 CFS7 CFS2 CFS6 CFS1 CFS1 CFS4 CFS3 CFS0 CFS0 CFS4 CFS12 CFSAnderson Consulting Engineers, Inc Civil ▪ Water Resources ▪ Environmental 375 East Horsetooth Road, Building 5, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-0120 / Fax (970) 226-0121 www.acewater.com CITY OF FORT COLLINS REMINGTON STREET STORM SEWER OUTFALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WITH FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 10-YEAR FLOW MAPD.2-3LEGENDPEAK PIPE FLOWPEAK SURFACE FLOWPEAK STREET/SIDEWALK OVERTOPPING FLOWMAXIMUM PONDING AREAEXISTING PIPES AND INLETSPHASE 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSFUTURE PHASE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS COLLEGE AVENUEREMINGTON STREETPROSPECT ROAD MATHEWS STREETPARKER STREET STUART STREET SPRING CREEK ALPERT AVENUEBNSF RAILWAY18 CFS3 CFS32 CFS9 CFS2 CFS4 CFS15 CFS6 CFS43 CFSLAKE STREET 29 CFS4 CFSSPRING PARK DR1 CFS4 CFS 55 CFS108 CFS16 CFS213 CFS229 CFS165 CFS48 CFS48 CFS12 CFS12 CFS20 CFS9 CFS7 CFS8 CFS2 CFS20 CFS106 CFS5 CFS 25 CFS29 CFS3 CFS64 CFS126 CFS27 CFS193 CFS19 CFS10 CFS19 CFS15 CFS11 CFS6 CFS4 CFS11 CFS9 CFS34 CFS0 CFS3 CFS6 CFS2 CFS10 CFS36 CFS16 CFS16 CFS6 CFS9 CFS46 CFS29 CFS35 CFS28 CFS5 CFS69 CFS15 CFS38 CFS23 CFS32 CFS19 CFS21 CFS7 CFS1 CFS2 CFS5 CFS1 CFS1 CFS4 CFS4 CFS3 CFS10 CFS29 CFS9 CFS18 CFSAnderson Consulting Engineers, Inc Civil ▪ Water Resources ▪ Environmental 375 East Horsetooth Road, Building 5, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-0120 / Fax (970) 226-0121 www.acewater.com CITY OF FORT COLLINS REMINGTON STREET STORM SEWER OUTFALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS-BUILT CONDITIONS WITH FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 100-YEAR FLOW MAPD.2-4LEGENDPEAK PIPE FLOWPEAK SURFACE FLOWPEAK STREET/SIDEWALK OVERTOPPING FLOWMAXIMUM PONDING AREAEXISTING PIPES AND INLETSPHASE 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSFUTURE PHASE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS