The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT - FDP220010 - DOCUMENT MARKUPS - ROUND 3 - DRAINAGE REPORT (2) FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS, COLORADO AUGUST 29, 2022 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS GREELEY NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY COVER LETTER August 29, 2022 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR RUDOLPH FARM Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for your review. This report accompanies the Final Development Review submittal for the proposed Rudolph Farm project. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) in conjunction with Mile High Flood Control District Stormwater Criteria as well as the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed Rudolph Farm project. We understand review by the City is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM, Mile High Flood Control District Stormwater Criteria Manual, and Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. BLAINE MATHISEN, PE Project Engineer NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 1 A. LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ............................................................................................................. 2 C. FLOODPLAIN ....................................................................................................................................... 2 DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ..................................................................... 3 A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 3 B. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 3 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................... 5 A. REGULATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 5 B. FOUR STEP PROCESS ......................................................................................................................... 5 C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS .............................................................. 6 D. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA .................................................................................................................. 6 E. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA ......................................................................................................................... 7 F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................... 7 G. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 7 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ........................................................................... 7 A. GENERAL CONCEPT ............................................................................................................................ 7 B. DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SPECIFICS ................................................................................. 11 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 13 A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 13 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT ........................................................................................................................ 13 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 14 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS (RATIONAL CALCULATIONS) APPENDIX B – HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 – STORM SEWERS AND BOX CULVERTS B.2 – INLETS, SIDEWALK CULVERTS, AND STREET CAPACITIES B.3 – DETENTION FACILITIES (SWMM AND ORIFICE RATINGS) B.4 – SCOURSTOP AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS APPENDIX C – STANDARD WATER QUALITY AND LID APPENDIX D – TIMNATH STORMWATER MASTER PLAN PERTINENT INFORMATION APPENDIX E – EROSION CONTROL REPORT, SOILS REPORT, AND FLOODPLAIN MAPS NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP ....................................................................................................1 FIGURE 2 - FEMA FIRM 08069C984H AND 08069C1003G .................................................3 TABLE 1 - PERCENT IMPERVIOUS PER TABLE 4.1.2 FCSCM ............................................5 TABLE 2 - WQCV AND LID SUMMARY .............................................................................. 12 TABLE 3 - POND SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 13 MAP POCKET DR1 – DRAINAGE EXHIBIT DR2 – EXISTING DRAINAGE EXHIBIT NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 1 | 14 GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION Vicinity Map The Rudolph Farm project site is located in a tract of land located in Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. The project site is located north of Prospect Road, east of I-25, to the north is the Fox Grove Subdivision, and to the east is the Timnath High School. Splitting the site in two is the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) drainage channel and the Lake Canal irrigation ditch. There will be two TRIC box culverts installed as well as three Lake Canal box culverts associated with this development. Zoning across the site includes Commercial (CG), Industrial (I), and Urban Estate (UE). The existing lot does not have any stormwater or water quality facilities. Figure 1 Vicinity Map NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 2 | 14 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Rudolph Farm is approximately 119.09 net acres, including a portion of the north side of Prospect Road and the area associated with the TRIC and Lake Canal. Rudolph Farm is proposing developing twelve (12) pad ready lots. Therefore, all detention, standard water quality, LID, and all associated storm water infrastructure will be installed with this package. The project will consist of two local roads and one major road. However, Lot 7 will not be getting developed with this project because the site layout his highly unknown at the time of this report. The site is currently an undeveloped parcel with an existing groundcover consisting of short grasses. The existing on-site runoff generally drains from the northeast to the southwest across flat grades (e.g., <1.00%). The north half of the site drains into the TRIC, the southwest portion sheet flows to an existing 36” RCP that drains toward Boxelder Creek, and the southeast portion of the site sheet flows into Lake Canal. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Survey classifies the site as primarily Garret loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B) and Fort Collins loam (Hydrological Soil Group C). The TRIC and Lake Canal are the only major drainageways within or adjacent to the project site. The only modifications to these channels that the Rudolph Farm development is proposing are installing box culverts underneath the proposed road crossings. Groundwater has not been evaluated on this site but will be as part of additional geological testing. It should be noted that other sites in the area have relatively shallow groundwater (5’-10’ deep), and we would expect to see similar conditions on this site as well. C. FLOODPLAIN The far northwest corner of the site is located within the existing Boxelder Creek Flood fringe, floodway, and erosion buffer zone. The southeast and southwest portions of the site are in an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X). A copy of the FEMA Firmette (Map Numbers 08069CO984H and 08069C1003G and effective date of May 2, 2012) is provided in Appendix E. The far northwest corner of the site is also located in a city high-risk floodway as well as a city high-risk 100-year floodplain. A floodplain map from the City of Fort Collins GIS system is provided in Appendix E. A LOMR was approved by FEMA dated February 21, 2019 (Case No. 17-08-1354P), and these improvements have removed much of this property from the flood fringe and floodway. Most of the development will avoid the effective floodplain/floodway limits per the LOMR revisions. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 3 | 14 DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION Rudolph Farm is located within the City of Fort Collins city limits, and it is not located within any defined major basin. However, Rudolph Farm will have three different outfall locations. One outfall will discharge into the Boxelder Basin at the historic 2-year rate. The next discharge location will be the Lake Canal which will also be discharged at the historic 2-year rate. Lastly, the north portion of Rudolph Farm will be discharging into the TRIC. Rudolph Farm is associated with Basins 2, 3, and 6 within the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. B. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION Historically the property has generally drained northeast to southwest. The site is split near the middle by the TRIC and Lake Canal. Therefore, the area to the north of the TRIC has historically sheet flowed into the TRIC. As specified in the SWMM results of the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan, the north side of the site has historically discharged 52 cfs into the TRIC (Link 102). However, the TRIC has capacity issues, as discussed in the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. In order to improve the TRIC, the Timnath Stormwater Master Plans specifies the north side of the property (Basin 2 – From the Master Plan) can have a maximum release rate of 7 cfs. The maximum release rate is associated with Link 102 from the SWMM results found in the Timnath Figure 2 - FEMA FIRM 08069C984H and 08069C1003G NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 4 | 14 Stormwater Master Plan. Pertinent information from the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan has been included in Appendix D of this report. The area south of the TRIC also sheet flows northeast to southwest. However, instead of entering the TRIC, this runoff has been routed to Boxelder Creek via a 36” RCP at the southwest corner of the site. The Timnath Stormwater Master Plan says this area actually makes it to the Timnath Reservoir; however, this is incorrect. This flow has been historically conveyed to Boxelder Creek through a series of swales and pipes. Therefore, this portion of the site’s release rate is controlled by the FCSCM. FCSCM specifies that this portion of the site must detain the difference between the historic 2-year and proposed 100-year. Lastly, there is a portion of the site on the east side of the Lake Canal, south side of the TRIC, north of Prospect, and west of the new school. This area has historically drained from northwest to southeast, just like the rest of the site. However, this flow enters the Lake Canal via sheet flow. Therefore, during the developed condition, this area will continue to discharge to Lake Canal at the historic 2-year rate. A Stormwater Discharge Agreement will be supplied at the time of recording. Included in this package at the back is an Existing Drainage exhibit. Below are brief descriptions of the existing basins shown in the exhibit. Basin EX1 Basin EX1 is associated with the runoff that sheet flows from northeast to southwest into the existing 36” RCP at the southwest corner of the site. Runoff from Basin EX1 is routed to Boxelder Creek. Basin EX2 Basin EX2 is associated with the runoff that sheet flows from northeast to southwest into the Lake Canal irrigation ditch. Basin EX3 Basin EX3 is associated with the runoff that sheet flows northeast to southwest into the TRIC. Basin EX4 Basin EX4 is associated with the portion of the project site that sits in the floodplain. However, there is no proposed work associated with this basin and it is included to highlight where the floodplain is. Basin EX5 Basin EX5 is associated with the TRIC and Lake Canal ditches. The only work being proposed in this basin is the installation of some box culverts underneath the proposed street crossings. There are some important basins and links to take note of within the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. As previously stated, Rudolph Farm is associated with Basins 2, 3, and 6. Link 102 shows the allowable release rate (7 cfs) into the TRIC from the north side of the project site. Link 103 shows the southern portion of Rudolph Farm draining towards the Timnath Reservoir, and that is incorrect. Pertinent information has been provided in Appendix D, but if the entire report is needed, please reach out to the Town of Timnath or Northern Engineering. All standard water quality and LID have been sized for future developments. Future developments can not exceed the assumed percent imperviousness. Future developments are not allowed to exceed the assumed percent imperviousness. Assumed percent imperviousness NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 5 | 14 was based on zoning percent imperviousness from the FCSCM. The project area north of the TRIC is zoned as mostly Commercial, with one lot being zoned as Urban Estate. All the area to the south of the TRIC is zoned as Industrial. A full-size copy of the Proposed Drainage Exhibit and Existing Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. This Proposed Drainage Exhibit represents the interim condition. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS Rudolph Farm will be using a combination of criteria from FCSCM as well as the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan with respect to detention. As previously described, the southern portion of Rudolph Farm will be detaining the difference between the historic 2-year and proposed 100-year. The northern portion of Rudolph Farm will be following the requirements set forth by the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. Rudolph Farm will have four detention ponds, with two of them having ponds in series to meet the required volumes. A SWMM model was assembled to show the routing and detention of the proposed site. Section IV.B of this report will go into greater depth on the SWMM model and results. Rudolph Farm will be utilizing FCSCM for all standard water quality and LID requirements. There will be no interim LID or standard water quality infrastructure. For standard water quality, a 40-hour drain time was used, and for LID, a 12-hour drain time was used. B. FOUR STEP PROCESS The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the Rudolph Farm project utilizes the “Four Step Process” to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters. The following describes how the proposed development has incorporated each step. Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development and future developments to facilitate the reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the current use and implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, including: Table 1 - Percent Impervious Per Table 4.1.2 FCSCM NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 6 | 14 · Providing vegetated open areas throughout the site to reduce the overall impervious area and minimize directly connected impervious areas. · Routing runoff through the biomedia within the rain gardens to increase concentration time and promote infiltration. Step 2 – Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with Slow Release Water quality will be provided via standard water quality per FCSCM. Utilizing standard water quality and the efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize excess runoff from frequently occurring storm events. Treating frequently occurring storm events will have beneficial impacts on downstream infrastructure. Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways Rudolph Farm proposes to limit the amount of disturbance to the TRIC as well as the Lake Canal. By limiting disturbance to the ditch banks, the project will effectively maintain the existing vegetation. In areas of disturbance, the banks will be stabilized via methods that include erosion control blankets and ScourStop pads. Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs This step typically applies to industrial and commercial developments. Rudolph Farm is zoned as mostly industrial and commercial, but at the time of this infrastructure package, no site-specific or other source-control BMPs will be considered. When those future lots come online, they will need to implement site-specific and other source control BMPs, such as sand-oil separators, localized trash locations, going below the assumed percent imperviousness, etc. C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS There are no known drainage studies for this specific property. However, it is a part of the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. As previously stated, the project area north of the TRIC will be abiding by the release rate specified by the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. The remaining portion of the project site will abide by the FCSCM. Standard water quality and LID will be provided as a part of this infrastructure package using assumed percent impervious values as specified in the FCSCM. Standard water quality and LID sizing follow the FCSCM for the entire site. Future developments are not allowed to go above their assumed percent impervious values as detailed below. D. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in Figure RA-16 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations associated with this development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7 has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing coefficients contained in Tables 4.1-2 and 4.1-3 of the FCSCM. The project area north of the TRIC will meet the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan specified maximum release rate. The remaining portion of the site will utilize FCSCM criteria to detain the NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 7 | 14 difference between the historic 2-year and proposed 100-year. A SWMM model has been provided that shows compliance with both criteria. Two separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios. The first event analyzed is the “Minor,” or “Initial” Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The second event considered is the “Major Storm,” which has a 100-year recurrence interval. No other assumptions or calculation methods have been used with this development that is not referenced by current City of Fort Collins criteria, Mile High Flood District criteria, or Timnath Master Stormwater Plan criteria. E. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA As previously noted, the subject property historically drains towards the southwest. However, the site is split near the center by the TRIC where the north portion of the site drains to. The southern portion of the site mainly drains to the southwest corner of the site to an existing 36” RCP that starts to convey the runoff to Boxelder Creek. There is a small portion of the project site (Lot 7) that drains to the Lake Canal. A Stormwater Discharge Agreement with Lake Canal will be provided at final recordation. All drainage facilities proposed with the Rudolph Farm project are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM and Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. As stated in Section I.C.1 above, the subject property has a small portion of regulatory floodplain restrictions and development code at the northeast corner of the site. However, no development is proposed to take place in this area. Rudolph Farm will be providing full standard water quality and LID for all future developments. Future developments cannot exceed the assumed percent impervious values. See Section I.VA of this report for additional clarification. F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE No occupied structures are being proposed with the Rudolph Farm project. G. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA Rudolph Farm is not seeking any modifications to criteria. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT The main objectives of Rudolph Farm are to provide detention, water quality, and LID for the proposed infrastructure package as well as all future developments. Excluding the TRIC and Lake Canal, there are minor off-site flows draining onto the existing property from Prospect Road. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of Contents at the front of the document. The tables and figures are located within the sections to which the content best applies. Rudolph Farm project comprises twenty-seven (29) drainage basins, designated as Basins 1-13, R1-R6, OS1-OS5, and DC1-DC3. The drainage patterns for each basin are described below. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 8 | 14 Basin 1 Basin 1 is at the southwest corner of the project site. It is zoned as commercial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Detention for Basin 1 is provided in Pond 1. Rain Garden 1 provides LID for Basin 1. Basin 2 Basin 2 is near the southwest corner of the project site. It is zoned as commercial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Detention for Basin 2 is provided in Pond 1. Rain Garden 1 provides LID for Basin 2. Basin 3 Basin 3 is near the southwest corner of the project site. It is zoned as commercial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Detention for Basin 3 is provided in Pond 1. Rain Garden 1 provides LID for Basin 3. Basin 4 Basin 4 is north of Basins 2 and 3 and zoned as commercial thus, it has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Runoff from Basin 4 is allowed to enter the adjacent ROW in Street A. From there, the runoff will be routed to design point r1 (see Drainage Exhibit), where it will enter Rain Garden 1. Detention and for Basin 4 is provided in Pond 1. Basin 5 Basin 5 is east of Basin 4 and north of Basin 6 and zoned as commercial thus, it has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Runoff from Basin 5 is allowed to enter the adjacent ROW in Carriage Parkway. From there the runoff will be routed to design point r2 (see Drainage Exhibit). Runoff from Basin 5 will not receive LID treatment and will be routed directly to Pond 1. Detention and standard water quality for Basin 5 are provided in Pond 1. Basin 6 Basin 6 is east of Basin 4 and south of Basin 5 and zoned as commercial thus, it has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Runoff from Basin 6 is allowed to enter the adjacent ROW in Carriage Parkway. From there, the runoff will be routed to design point r2 (see Drainage Exhibit), Runoff from Basin 6 will not receive LID treatment and will be routed directly to Pond 1. Detention and standard water quality for Basin 5 are provided in Pond 1. Basin 7 Basin 7 is east of Lake Canal, north of Prospect, west of the school, and south of the TRIC. Basin 7 is associated with existing Basin EX2. Basin 7 includes a portion of the northside of Prospect Road, which will be routed through Basin 7. Basin 7 is zoned as commercial thus, a portion (3.31 acres) has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. At the time of this report, it is unclear what type of site layout will occur on Basin 7 (Lot 7). Therefore, all calculations associated with Basin 7 are for future “gut” checks when Lot 7 is eventually developed. Rain Garden 6 in Appendix C shows a conceptual volume required. Lot 7 will need to follow the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria at the time of development. Basin 8A Basin 8A is north of the TRIC along the west side of the project site. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Detention for Basin 8A is provided in Pond 2. Rain Garden 2 provides LID for Basin 8A. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 9 | 14 Basin 8B Basin 8B is north of the TRIC along the west side of the project site. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 8B is routed to a swale that is adjacent to the back lot line of Lots 8 and 9. This swale will route runoff directly to Pond 2. Runoff from Basin 8B will not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality for Basin 8B is provided in Pond 2. Basin 9A Basin 9A is north of the TRIC along the west side of the project site and north of Basin 8A. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 9A is allowed to enter the ROW of Street A. Once in Street A, runoff is routed to Rain Garden 2. Detention for Basin 9A is provided in Pond 2. Basin 9B Basin 9B is north of the TRIC along the west side of the project site. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 9B is routed to a swale that is adjacent to the back lot line of Lots 8 and 9. This swale will route runoff directly to Pond 2. Runoff from Basin 9B will not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality for Basin 8B is provided in Pond 2. Basin 10 Basin 10 is north of the TRIC and centrally located. It is bound to the west by Street A, Street B to the north, and Carriageway to the east. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 10 is not allowed to enter the ROW of any of the surrounding streets. All runoff needs to be routed directly to Rain Garden 3. Detention and for Basin 10 is provided in Pond 2. Basin 11 Basin 11 is north of the TRIC along the east side of the project site. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 11 is not allowed to enter the ROW of Carriage Parkway. Basin 11 will not receive LID treatment. Basin 11 is required to route runoff to Storm Line A by a stub out from Inlet A3. Detention for Basin 11 is provided in Pond 2. Basin 12 Basin 12 is north of the TRIC, centrally located, and adjacent to the northern project boundary. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 12 is not allowed to enter the ROW of any of the surrounding streets. All runoff needs to be routed directly to Rain Garden 4. Detention for Basin 12 is provided in Pond 3. Basin 13 Basin 13 is north of the TRIC and is the northeastern most lot of the Rudolph Farm development. It is zoned as urban estates and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 30%. Runoff from Basin 13 is not allowed to enter the ROW of any of the surrounding streets. All runoff needs to be routed directly to Rain Garden 5. Detention for Basin 13 is provided in Pond 3. All basins that start with “R” denote a basin that is associated with roadways only. Basin R1 Basin R1 is composed of a collector and commercial ROW. Basin R1 drains north to south and the WQ event enters Rain Garden 1, at design point R1, for its LID treatment. However, all flows NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 10 | 14 greater than the WQ event continue south to Prospect Road where they are routed to Inlet C2-1. From there the runoff is routed to Pond 1 for detention. Basin R2 Basin R2 is composed of collector ROW. Basin R2 drains north to south and enters Inlet C3. From there Basin R2 is routed directly to Pond 1 for detention and standard water quality. Basin R2 does not receive LID treatment. Basin R3 Basin R3 is composed of a commercial local and industrial local ROW. Basin R3 drains north to south and the WQ event enters Rain Garden 2, at design point r3, for its LID treatment. The remaining flows will by-pass the 8’ sidewalk chase and enter Inlets C2-A and C2-B which are 25’ and 20’ Type R inlets. From there runoff will then be routed directly to Pond 2 for detention. Basin R4 Basin R4 is composed of commercial local ROW. Basin R4 drains north to south and the WQ event enters Rain Garden 3, at design point r4, for its LID treatment. Like Basin R3 the remaining flows will continue south and enter Inlet C2-A2 which will route the runoff directly to Pond 2 for detention. Basin R5 Basin R5 is composed of commercial and collector ROW. Basin R5 drains north to south and the WQ event enters Rain Garden 3, at design point r5, for its LID treatment. The remaining runoff will continue to drain south where it will enter Inlet A2 which will route the additional runoff directly to Pond 2 for detention. Basin R6 Basin R6 is composed of collector ROW. Basin R6 drains north to south and enters Storm Line A, specifically Inlet A3. Basin R6 does not receive LID treatment. Runoff from Basin R6 is routed directly to Pond 2 for detention and standard water quality. Basin R7 Basin R7 is composed of industrial ROW and a portion of commercial development from Lots 9 and 12. Basin R7 is routed to Storm Line F which conveys the flows to the swale that runs along the north side of Lots 8 and 9. Runoff from Basin R7 does not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality are provided in Pond 2 for Basin R7. Basin R8 Basin R7 is composed of collector ROW and a portion of commercial development from Lot 12 and some urban estate development from Lot 13. Basin R8 is routed to Storm Line G which conveys the flows to the swale that runs along the north side of Lots 8 and 9. Runoff from Basin R8 does not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality are provided in Pond 2 for Basin R8. Basin OS1 Basin OS1 is the area associated with Pond 1. Basin OS1 does not receive LID treatment. Basin OS2 Basin OS2 is the north side of Prospect Road that has historically entered Rudolph Farm Property. Runoff from Basin OS2 is routed to Pond 1 for detention and standard water quality via Storm Drain C. Basin OS2 does not receive LID treatment. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 11 | 14 Basin OS3 Basin OS3 is the area associated with the floodplain at the northwest corner of the site. Basin OS3 will remain undeveloped. Basin OS3 will not receive LID, detention, or standard water quality. Basin OS3 is the same as existing Basin EX4. Basin OS4 Basin OS4 is the area associated with the west side of Pond 2 and Rain Garden 2. Rain Garden 2 provides LID for Basin OS4. Detention for Basin OS4 is provided in Pond 2. Basin OS5 Basin OS5 is the area associated with the central portion of Pond 2 and Rain Garden 3. Rain Garden 3 provides LID for Basin OS5. Detention for Basin OS5 is provided in Pond 2. All basins that start with “DC” (Drainage Channel) denote a basin that is associated with the TRIC and Lake Canal. Basins DC1-DC3 Basins DC1, DC2, and DC3 are all associated with the TRIC and Lake Canal. No development is proposed within these drainage basins. They are simply delineated for information, but no infrastructure is being sized off the rational calculations. The box culverts that are associated with Rudolph Farm were sized using flow rates from Timnath Stormwater Master Plan and Lake Canal correspondence. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. B. DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SPECIFICS The Rudolph Farm project will be installing five (5) rain gardens. Per Chapter 7 of FCSCM new developments must treat 75% of their new or modified impervious area with LID. Because of grading constraints and historic drainage outfalls several basins will not be receiving LID treatment but instead recive standard water quaility in either Pond 1 or Pond 2. Rudolph Farm is proposing to treat 77% of the new impervious area via rain gardens. Therefore, 23% of the new impervious area of project site will be receiving standard water quality. Water quality, LID calculations, and LID Exhibit are provided in Appendix C of this report. As previously mentioned in the basin descriptions above several basins are reaching design points where there is a sidewalk chase that pulls off the WQ event and routes the WQ event to rain gardens. The WQ event equals 50% of the 2-year event. Design Points r1, r3, r4, and r5 are all on grade sidewalk chases that are sized for the WQ event. Runoff from the ROW’s will go down a concrete rundown with ledges that will collect sediment to reduce rain garden maintenance. The Rudolph Farm project will be installing three (3) ponds. Two of the ponds specifically Pond 1 and 2 will also provide standard water quality. Pond 3 is providing only detention so no outlet strucuture will be required, only a restrictor plate. Pond 2 is located in two areas, south of Lot 8 and south of Lot 10. However, a series of pipes connects these two portions of the pond so that it hydraulically acts as one. Pond 3 is also located in two separate lots similar to Pond 2 and these two spots are connected via a series of pipes so that the pond acts as one. SWMM 5.1 was utilized to adequately size the ponds as well as the culverts that connect the ponds. SWMM results have been included in Appendix B.3 of this report. Below is a standard water quality and LID summary table. The design points corralate to the combined basin calculations found in the rational calculations (Appendix A). Rudolph Farm will NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 12 | 14 be installing five rain gardens, which will be utilized by future developments for their LID. A sixth rain garden was sized for Basin 7 (Lot 7), but at this time Rain Garden 6 will not be getting constructed because the layout of Lot 7 is very unkown at the time of the report. All future developments cannot exceed the percent impervious values that are specified in this report. Additionally, Lots 8 and 9 cannot route their entire flows to Rain Garden 2 and must do their utmost best to send the same amount of area of Basins 8B and 9B directly to Pond 2. Rain Garden sizing can be found in Appendix C. Additionally, there is an LID exhibit in Appendix C that shows where all the rain gardens are located. Table 2 - WQCV AND LID SUMMARY Pond 1 provides standard water quality for Basins 5, 6, OS1, and OS2. Pond 1 provides detention for Basins 1-6, R1, R2, OS1, and OS2. Pond 1 has a maximum release rate of 14.96 cfs, which is the historic 2-year runoff (Basin EX1). Pond 2 provides standard water quality for Basins 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, OS4, and OS5. Pond 2 provides detention for Basins 8-11, R3, R4, R5, OS4, and OS5. Pond 2 has a maximum release rate of 7.00 cfs as specified in the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan (Link 102). Pond 3 provides detention for Basins 12 and 13. Pond 3 does not have standard water quality because Basins 12 and 13 are both receiving 100% WQCV via LID treatments. Pond 3 discharges into Pond 2. In order to minimize the footprint of Pond 2, Pond 3 has a maximum release rate of 7.00 cfs which matches the maximum release rate of Pond 2. Pond 4 provides detention for Basin 7. Pond 4 has a maximum release rate of 2.90 cfs, which is the historic 2-year rate (Basin EX4). Pond 4 is not getting constructed with this development and Design Point (Basin Id)1 Total Area (ac)Treatment Method Area Treated (ac) Percent Impervious (%) Area of Impervious (ac)2 Required Standard Water Quality (cu. ft.) Required LID (cu. ft.) Provided LID (cu. ft.) RG1 14.57 Rain Garden 14.57 80% 11.66 N/A 16,670 19,709 Standard WQ Pond 1 11.54 Standard WQ 11.54 46% 5.31 9,831 N/A RG 2 17.72 Rain Garden 17.72 89% 15.77 N/A 24,276 24,613 RG 3 13.93 Rain Garden 13.93 86% 11.98 N/A 17,936 19,079 Standard WQ Pond 2 20.54 Standard WQ 20.54 58% 11.91 20,546 N/A RG 4 13.62 Rain Garden 13.62 90% 12.26 N/A 19,056 20,211 RG 5 8.85 Rain Garden 8.85 30% 2.66 N/A 4,671 4,918 Pond 4 & RG 6 5.29 Rain Garden 5.29 69% 3.65 N/A 4,988 FUTURE BUILD Percent of Impervious Standard WQ Totals 32.08 Standard WQ 32.08 N/A 17.22 23% Rain Garden Totals 73.98 Rain Garden 73.98 N/A 57.97 77% NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 13 | 14 is only included in this report as guidance. When Lot 7 is developed it must follow all of the criteria set forth in FCSCM for full approvals. Table 3 - Pond Summary Standard water quality depths were calculated and input as initial depth within the SWMM model so the ponds would be adequately sized for both detention and water quality. Additionally, the rating curves for each pond incorporated the 40-hour drain time for the WQCV. For additional insight into how these volumes were calculated, please refer to the SWMM results found in Appendix B. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS The drainage design proposed with the Rudolph Farm project does comply with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Timnath Stormwater Master Plan, and Mile High Flood Control District Criteria Manual. There are regulatory floodplains associated with the Rudolph Farm development. However, the floodplains will be unaltered by this development. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with Rudolph Farm development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit potential damage associated with its stormwater runoff. Rudolph Farm will install all LID, standard water quality, and detention infrastructure for future developments to utilize. Rudolph Farm is zoned as industrial, commercial, and urban estate, and assumed percent impervious values were taken from FCSCM. The proposed Rudolph Farm development will impact the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan because it is reducing the runoff rate of storms entering the TRIC. Rudolph Farm is offsetting some of the volumes within the TRIC and bringing it internal to the site. Pond ID Max Release Rate (cfs) Max Volume (1000 cu. ft.) 1 14.68 204.679 2 7.00 579.575 3 7.00 208.365 4 2.90 44.674 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 14 | 14 REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities, November 5, 2009, BHA Design, Inc. with City of Fort Collins Utility Services. 2. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 3. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007. 4. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Mile High Flood District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised September 2017. 5. Town of Timnath Master Drainage Plan Update, by Ayres Associates, August 2018. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: GATEWAY TO PROSPECT FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS (RATIONAL CALCULATIONS) CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Percentage Impervious 2-yr Runoff Coefficient 10-yr Runoff Coefficient 100-yr Runoff Coefficient Developed Asphalt .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………100%0.95 0.95 1.00 Concrete .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………100%0.95 0.95 1.00 Rooftop .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………90%0.95 0.95 1.00 Gravel .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………40%0.50 0.50 0.63 Pavers .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………40%0.50 0.50 0.63 Landscape or Pervious Surface Playgrounds .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………25%0.35 0.35 0.44 Lawns Clayey Soil .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.25 0.25 0.31 Lawns Sandy Soil .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.15 0.15 0.19 Notes: Basin ID Basin Area (ac) Area of Asphalt (ac) Area of Concrete (ac) Area of Rooftop (ac) Area of Gravel (ac) Area of Pavers (ac) Area of Playgrounds (ac) Area of Lawns (ac) Composite % Imperv. 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient EX1 25.96 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.34 8% 0.29 0.29 0.36 EX2 5.29 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.11 5% 0.27 0.27 0.34 EX3 74.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.63 2% 0.25 0.25 0.31 EX4 5.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.44 2% 0.25 0.25 0.31 EX5 8.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.39 2% 0.25 0.25 0.31 EXISTING BASIN % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS 2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 3. Table 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 1) Percentage impervious taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 5, Table 4.1-2 and Table 4.1-3 Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Channelized Flow, Time of Concentration: Total Time of Concentration : T c is the lesser of the values of Tc calculated using T c = T i + T t C2 C100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti2 Ti100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Roughness Coefficient Assumed Hydraulic Radius Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min)Tc (Eq. 3.3-5) Tc2 = Ti +Tt Tc100 = Ti +Tt Tc2 Tc100 ex1 EX1 0.29 0.36 710 0.50%50.9 46.5 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.9 50.9 46.5 13.9 13.9 ex2 EX2 0.27 0.34 365 1.10%28.8 26.3 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.0 28.8 26.3 12.0 12.0 ex3 EX3 0.25 0.31 1750 0.80%71.6 66.6 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19.7 71.6 66.6 19.7 19.7 ex4 EX4 0.25 0.31 250 0.60%29.8 27.7 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.4 29.8 27.7 11.4 11.4 ex5 EX5 0.25 0.31 50 22.00% 4.0 3.7 1000 0.13% 0.030 4.40 4.72 3.5 15.8 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.3 EXISTING DIRECT TIME OF CONCENTRATION Channelized Flow Design Point Basin Overland Flow Time of Concentration Frequency Adjustment Factor: (Equation 3.3-2 FCSCM) (Equation 5-5 FCSCM) (Equation 5-4 FCSCM) (Equation 3.3-5 FCSCM) Table 3.2-3 FCSCM Therefore Tc2=Tc10 Rational Method Equation: Rainfall Intensity: e1 EX1 25.96 13.9 13.9 0.29 0.36 1.95 3.34 6.82 14.68 25.14 63.69 ex2 EX2 5.29 12.0 12.0 0.27 0.34 2.05 2.05 7.16 2.93 2.93 12.88 ex3 EX3 74.63 19.7 19.7 0.25 0.31 1.63 1.63 5.68 30.41 30.41 131.29 ex4 EX4 5.44 11.4 11.4 0.25 0.31 2.13 2.13 7.42 2.90 2.90 12.51 ex5 EX5 8.39 7.3 7.3 0.25 0.31 2.52 2.52 8.80 5.29 5.29 22.90 Tc100 (min) Intensity, i2 (in/hr) Intensity, i100 (in/hr) EXISTING RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS Design Point Basin(s)Area, A (acres) Tc2 (min) Flow, Q2 (cfs) Flow, Q100 (cfs) C2 C100 IDF Table for Rational Method - Table 3.4-1 FCSCM Intensity, i10 (in/hr) Flow, Q10 (cfs) ()()()AiCCQf= BASIN TOTAL AREA (acres) Tc2 (min) Tc100 (min) C2 C100 Q2 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) EX1 25.96 13.9 13.9 0.29 0.36 14.68 63.69 EX2 5.29 12.0 12.0 0.27 0.34 2.93 12.88 EX3 74.63 19.7 19.7 0.25 0.31 30.41 131.29 EX4 5.44 11.4 11.4 0.25 0.31 2.90 12.51 EX5 8.39 7.3 7.3 0.25 0.31 5.29 22.90 Rational Flow Summary | Existing Basin Flow Rates 8/1/20227:06 PM P:\1896-001\Drainage\Hydrology\1896-001_Existing Rational Calcs.xlsx\Summary Tables Project:Rudolph Farm Calculations By:B. Mathisen Date:August 24, 2022 CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Percentage Impervious 2-yr Runoff Coefficient 100-yr Runoff Coefficient Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….….…………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………..100%0.95 1.00 Concrete …….......……………….….……….…….…………………………..…………………………………………………………..….……………………………………………………..100%0.95 1.00 Gravel ……….…………………….….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………………40%0.50 0.63 Roofs …….…….………………..……………….…………………………………………………………………...............................................………90%0.95 1.00 Lawns and Landscaping Sandy Soil - Avg. Slope (2% - 7%)…...................................................................................................................................2%0.15 0.19 Clayey Soil - Avg. Slope (2% - 7%)…........................................................................................................................2%0.25 0.31 ROW Width Asphalt Concrete Area Landscaped Area Percent Impervious LF LF LF SF % ROW (Collector w/ Parking 84' ROW)84 54 10 20 77% 0.78 0.98 ROW (Collector 110' ROW - Prospect Intersection)110 83 10 17 85% 0.84 1.00 ROW (Commercail Local 77' ROW)77 50 10 17 78% 0.80 0.99 ROW (Industrial Local 71' ROW)71 44 10 17 77% 0.78 0.98 ROW (Prospect Frontage (Half ROW))72 57.5 6 8.5 88% 0.87 1.00 UPDATED TO FCSCM 2018 RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (FROM CHAPTER 3 OF FCSCM) SITE SPECIFIC % IMPERVIOUSNESS Right of Way Classification C2 C100 8/24/20223:43 PM P:\1896-001\Drainage\Hydrology\1896-001_Proposed Rational Calcs.xlsx CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Percentage Impervious2-yr Runoff Coefficient100-yr Runoff CoefficientDevelopedROW (Collector w/ Parking 84' ROW).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………77%0.780.98ROW (Collector 110' ROW - Prospect Intersection).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………85%0.841.00ROW (Commercail Local 77' ROW).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………78%0.800.99ROW (Industrial Local 71' ROW).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………77%0.780.98ROW (Prospect Frontage (Half ROW)).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………88%0.871.00Urban Estate.…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………30%0.300.38Commercial .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………80%0.951.00Industrial.…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………90%0.851.00Unimproved AreasUndeveloped, Greenbelts, agricultural.…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.200.25Lawns Sandy Soil.…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.200.25Notes:Basin IDBasin Area(ac)Area of Collector 84' R.O.W(ac)Area of Collector 110' R.O.W (ac)Area ofCommercial 77' R.O.W(ac)Area ofIndustrial 71' R.O.W(ac)Area ofUrban Estate(ac)Area ofCommercial(ac)Area ofIndustrial(ac)Area ofHalf ROW Prospect(ac)Area of Undeveloped, Greenbelts, Agricultural(ac)Composite% Imperv.2-yearComposite RunoffCoefficient100-yearComposite Runoff Coefficient16.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.95 1.0021.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.95 1.0031.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.95 1.0042.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.95 1.0051.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.95 1.0062.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.95 1.0075.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.31 0.00 0.73 1.25 63% 0.76 0.828A5.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.31 0.00 0.00 90% 0.85 1.008B2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 0.00 0.00 90% 0.85 1.009A10.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.54 0.00 0.00 90% 0.85 1.009B4.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.19 0.00 0.00 90% 0.85 1.00109.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.47 0.00 0.00 90% 0.85 1.00113.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.28 0.00 0.00 90% 0.85 1.001213.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.62 0.00 0.00 90% 0.85 1.00138.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30% 0.30 0.38R12.46 0.39 0.42 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79% 0.80 0.99R21.36 0.41 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 84% 0.83 0.99R31.87 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78% 0.79 0.99R41.33 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78% 0.80 0.99R53.13 1.97 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77% 0.78 0.98R61.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77% 0.78 0.98R70.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 82% 0.81 0.99R80.86 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 69% 0.68 0.84OS15.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.16 2% 0.20 0.25OS21.33 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 88% 0.86 1.00OS35.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.44 2% 0.20 0.25OS43.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.87 2% 0.20 0.25OS53.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10 2% 0.20 0.25DC12.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 2% 0.20 0.25DC22.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.21 2% 0.20 0.25DC33.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.54 2% 0.20 0.25DP r1 (Basin 4 and R1) 4.87 0.39 0.42 1.65 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.88 1.00DP r2 (Basin 5, 6 & R2) 5.05 0.41 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.69 0.00 0.00 0.50 73% 0.85 0.92RG 1 (Basin 1-4 & R1) 14.57 0.39 0.42 1.65 0.00 0.00 12.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.92 1.00Standard WQ Pond 1 (Basin 5, 6, R2, OS1, & OS2)11.55 0.41 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.69 0 1.65 5.1646% 0.59 0.66DP r3 (Basin 9A & R3) 12.41 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.51 0.00 0.00 10.54 0.00 0.00 88% 0.84 1.00RG 2 (Basin 8A, 9A, & R3) 17.72 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.51 0.00 0.00 15.85 0.00 0.00 89% 0.84 1.00RG 3 (Basin 10, R4, & R5) 13.93 1.97 0.00 1.33 1.16 0.00 0.00 9.47 0.00 0.00 86% 0.83 0.99Standard WQ Pond 2 (Basin 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, OS4, & OS5)20.54 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.21 0.00 10.51 0.00 6.9658% 0.61 0.74PROPOSED BASIN % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 3. Table 3.2-1 and 3.2-21) Percentage impervious taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 5, Table 4.1-2 and Table 4.1-3Combined Basins Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:Channelized Flow, Time of Concentration:Total Time of Concentration :Tc is the lesser of the values of Tc calculated using Tc = Ti + TtC2C100Length,L(ft)Slope,S(%)Ti2Ti100Length,L(ft)Slope,S(%)Roughness Coefficient Assumed Hydraulic RadiusVelocity,V(ft/s)Tt(min)Tc (Eq. 3.3-5) Tc2 = Ti +TtTc100 = Ti +TtTc2Tc10010.951.002601.00%4.53.00N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.44.53.05.05.020.951.002601.00%4.53.00N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.44.53.05.05.030.951.002601.00%4.53.00N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.44.53.05.05.040.951.002401.00%4.32.90N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.34.32.95.05.050.951.002501.00%4.43.00N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.44.43.05.05.060.951.002501.00%4.43.00N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.44.43.05.05.0Pond 4 & RG 670.760.821502.00%6.25.11501.00%0.0120.153.510.711.76.95.86.95.88A0.851.002002.00%5.22.10N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.15.22.15.25.08B0.851.002002.00%5.22.10N/AN/A0.15N/AN/A11.15.22.15.25.09A0.851.005001.60%8.93.60N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A12.88.93.68.95.09B0.851.005001.60%8.93.60N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A12.88.93.68.95.0100.851.004501.00%9.94.00N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A12.59.94.09.95.0110.851.003201.00%8.43.30N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.88.43.38.45.0RG 4120.851.005001.00%10.54.20N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A12.810.54.210.55.0RG 5130.300.385001.00%33.530.10N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A12.833.530.112.812.8R10.800.99142.00%1.60.612000.70%0.0120.152.946.816.78.47.48.47.4R20.830.99142.00%1.50.64501.11%0.0120.153.692.012.63.52.65.05.0R30.790.99142.00%1.70.620000.70%0.0120.152.9311.421.213.112.013.112.0r4R40.800.99142.00%1.60.611000.70%0.0120.152.936.316.27.96.97.96.9r5R50.780.98142.00%1.70.719800.60%0.0120.152.7112.221.113.912.813.912.8r6R60.780.98142.00%1.70.719800.60%0.0120.152.7112.221.113.912.813.912.8r7R70.810.99902.00%4.11.51801.00%0.0120.153.510.911.54.92.45.05.0r8R80.680.84902.00%5.93.71802.25%0.0120.155.260.611.56.54.26.55.0OS10.200.25502.00%9.48.90N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A10.39.48.99.48.9OS20.861.00452.24%2.31.00N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A10.32.31.05.05.0OS30.200.252100.60%29.027.40N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.229.027.411.211.2OS40.200.25502.00%9.48.90N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A10.39.48.99.48.9OS50.200.25502.00%9.48.90N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A10.39.48.99.48.9DC10.200.255022.00%4.24.03330.13%0.0254.405.681.012.15.25.05.25.0DC20.200.255022.00%4.24.03330.13%0.0254.405.681.012.15.25.05.25.0DC30.200.25 50 22.00% 4.2 4.0 333 0.13% 0.025 4.40 5.68 1.0 12.1 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.0r1DP r1 (Basin 4 and R1)0.881.002401.00%6.42.912000.70%0.0120.152.946.818.013.29.713.29.7r2DP r2 (Basin 5, 6 & R2)0.850.922501.00%7.45.34501.11%0.0120.153.692.013.99.47.49.47.4RG 1RG 1 (Basin 1-4 & R1)0.921.002501.00%5.33.012000.70%0.0120.152.946.818.112.19.812.19.8Pond 1Standard WQ Pond 1 (Basin 5, 6, R2, OS1, & OS2)0.590.662501.00%15.113.012000.70%0.0120.152.946.818.121.919.818.118.1r3DP r3 (Basin 9A & R3)0.841.005001.60%9.33.620000.70%0.0120.152.9311.423.920.714.920.714.9RG 2RG 2 (Basin 8A, 9A, & R3)0.841.005001.60%9.33.620000.70%0.0120.152.9311.423.920.714.920.714.9RG 3RG 3 (Basin 10, R4, & R5)0.830.994501.00%10.74.419800.60%0.0120.152.7112.223.522.916.622.916.6Pond 2Standard WQ Pond 2 (Basin 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, OS4, & OS5)0.610.745001.60%17.512.919800.60%0.0120.152.7112.223.829.725.123.823.8Combined BasinsPROPOSED DEVELOPED DIRECT TIME OF CONCENTRATION Channelized FlowDesignPointBasinOverland FlowTime of Concentration(Equation 3.3-2 FCSCM)(Equation 5-5 FCSCM)(Equation 5-4 FCSCM)(Equation 3.3-5 FCSCM) Rational Method Equation:Rainfall Intensity:16.805.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 18.42 67.6821.475.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 3.97 14.6031.435.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 3.87 14.2242.425.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 6.55 24.0551.105.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 2.99 10.9962.595.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 7.00 25.74Pond 4 & RG 675.296.9 5.8 0.76 0.82 2.60 9.06 10.43 39.288A5.315.2 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.85 9.95 12.87 52.858B2.595.2 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.85 9.95 6.27 25.769A10.54 8.9 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.35 8.21 21.06 86.509B4.19 8.9 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.35 8.21 8.37 34.36109.479.9 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.26 7.88 18.16 74.61113.288.4 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.40 8.38 6.69 27.47RG 41213.6210.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.21 7.72 25.58 105.11RG 5138.8512.8 12.8 0.30 0.38 2.02 7.04 5.35 23.68R12.468.4 7.4 0.80 0.99 2.40 8.38 4.72 20.37R21.365.0 5.0 0.83 0.99 2.85 9.95 3.22 13.41R31.8713.1 12.0 0.79 0.99 1.98 6.92 2.92 12.80r4R41.337.9 6.9 0.80 0.99 2.46 8.59 2.61 11.29r5R53.1313.9 12.8 0.78 0.98 1.95 6.82 4.76 20.91r6R61.9813.9 12.8 0.78 0.98 1.95 6.82 3.01 13.23r7R70.685.0 5.0 0.81 0.99 2.85 9.95 1.57 6.70r8R80.866.5 5.0 0.68 0.84 2.67 9.31 1.55 6.70OS15.169.4 8.9 0.20 0.25 2.30 8.03 2.38 10.36OS21.335.0 5.0 0.86 1.00 2.85 9.95 3.27 13.27OS35.4411.2 11.2 0.20 0.25 2.13 7.42 2.32 10.09OS43.879.4 8.9 0.20 0.25 2.30 8.03 1.78 7.76OS53.109.4 8.9 0.20 0.25 2.30 8.03 1.43 6.22DC12.025.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.85 9.95 1.15 5.03DC22.215.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.85 9.95 1.26 5.50DC33.545.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.85 9.95 2.02 8.82r1DP r1 (Basin 4 and R1)4.8713.29.70.881.001.986.928.4933.72r2DP r2 (Basin 5, 6 & R2)5.059.47.40.850.922.308.039.8837.33RG 1RG 1 (Basin 1-4 & R1)14.5712.19.80.921.002.057.1627.48104.33Pond 1Standard WQ Pond 1 (Basin 5, 6, R2, OS1, & OS2)11.55 18.1 18.1 0.59 0.66 1.70 5.92 11.58 45.13r3DP r3 (Basin 9A & R3)12.4120.714.90.841.001.595.5316.5268.64RG 2RG 2 (Basin 8A, 9A, & R3)17.7220.714.90.841.001.595.5323.6098.01RG 3RG 3 (Basin 10, R4, & R5)13.9322.916.60.830.991.515.2617.4672.56Pond 2Standard WQ Pond 2 (Basin 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, OS4, & OS5)20.54 23.8 23.8 0.61 0.74 1.48 5.15 18.48 78.19Combined BasinsTc100(min)Intensity,i2(in/hr)Intensity, i100(in/hr)PROPOSED DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONSDesignPointBasin(s)Area, A(acres)Tc2(min)Flow,Q2(cfs)Flow,Q100(cfs)C2C100IDF Table for Rational Method - Table 3.4-1 FCSCM()()()AiCCQf= BASINTOTALAREA(acres)Tc2(min)Tc100(min)C2C100Q2(cfs)Q100(cfs)16.805.05.00.951.0018.4267.6821.475.05.00.951.003.9714.6031.435.05.00.951.003.8714.2242.425.05.00.951.006.5524.0551.105.05.00.951.002.9910.9962.595.05.00.951.007.0025.7475.296.95.80.760.8210.4339.288A5.315.25.00.851.0012.8752.858B2.595.25.00.851.006.2725.769A10.548.95.00.851.0021.0686.509B4.198.95.00.851.008.3734.36109.479.95.00.851.0018.1674.61113.288.45.00.851.006.6927.471213.6210.55.00.851.0025.58105.11138.8512.812.80.300.385.3523.68R12.468.47.40.800.994.7220.37R21.365.05.00.830.993.2213.41R31.8713.112.00.790.992.9212.80R41.337.96.90.800.992.6111.29R53.1313.912.80.780.984.7620.91R61.9813.912.80.780.983.0113.23R70.685.05.00.810.991.576.70R80.866.55.00.680.841.556.70OS15.169.48.90.200.252.3810.36OS21.335.05.00.861.003.2713.27OS35.4411.211.20.200.252.3210.09OS43.879.48.90.200.251.787.76OS53.109.48.90.200.251.436.22DC12.025.25.00.200.251.155.03DC22.215.25.00.200.251.265.50DC3 3.54 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.02 8.82DP r1 (Basin 4 and R1)4.8713.29.70.881.008.4933.72DP r2 (Basin 5, 6 & R2)5.059.47.40.850.929.8837.33RG 1 (Basin 1-4 & R1)14.5712.19.80.921.0027.48104.33Standard WQ Pond 1 (Basin 5, 6, R2, OS1, & OS2)11.5518.118.10.590.6611.5845.13DP r3 (Basin 9A & R3)12.4120.714.90.841.0016.5268.64RG 2 (Basin 8A, 9A, & R3)17.7220.714.90.841.0023.6098.01RG 3 (Basin 10, R4, & R5)13.9322.916.60.830.9917.4672.56Standard WQ Pond 2 (Basin 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, OS4, & OS5)20.54 23.8 23.8 0.61 0.74 18.48 78.19Rational Flow Summary |Proposed Developed Basin Flow RatesCombined Basins8/24/20223:43 PMP:\1896-001\Drainage\Hydrology\1896-001_Proposed Rational Calcs.xlsx\Summary Tables 9,028 1,504.7 Rudolph Farms - Zoning This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. City of Fort Collins - GIS 1,143.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet1,143.00571.50 Notes Legend 6,859 Parcels City Zoning Community Commercial Community Commercial North College Community Commercial Poudre River General Commercial Limited Commercial Service Commercial CSU Downtown Employment Harmony Corridor Industrial High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Manufactured Housing Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Public Open Lands River Conservation River Downtown Redevelopment Residential Foothills Low Density Residential Rural Lands District Transition Urban Estate World Hillshade NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 – STORM SEWERS AND BOX CULVERTS B.2 – INLETS AND SIDEWALK CULVERTS B.3 – DETENTION FACILITIES B.4 – SCOURSTOP AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 – STORM SEWERS AND BOX CULVERTS Water Elevation Profile: Node POND2_WEST - POND2 - 5 36" CULVERTS 03/15/2016 00:40:00 Distance (ft) 2001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100POND2_WESTPOND2Elevation (ft)18 17.5 17 16.5 16 15.5 15 14.5 14 13.5 13 12.5 12 11.5 11 SWMM 5.1 Page 1 Water Elevation Profile: Node POND3_EAST - POND3 - 3 36" CULVERTS 03/15/2016 00:40:00 Distance (ft) 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0POND3_EASTPOND3Elevation (ft)21 20.5 20 19.5 19 18.5 18 17.5 17 16.5 16 15.5 15 14.5 14 SWMM 5.1 Page 1 HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report LAKE CANAL CROSSING A PER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LAKE CNAL THEIR BOARD OF TOLD US THE MAX THE DITCH RUNS IS 150 CFS. A FACTOR OF SAFETY WAS INCLUDED FOR SIZING PURPOSES. 200 CFS WAS UTILIZED. Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10 cfs Design Flow: 200 cfs Maximum Flow: 250 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: PROSPECT ROAD Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) LAKE CANAL-A Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 10.77 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 11.60 34.00 34.00 0.00 1 12.19 58.00 58.00 0.00 1 12.66 82.00 82.00 0.00 1 13.08 106.00 106.00 0.00 1 13.45 130.00 130.00 0.00 1 13.78 154.00 154.00 0.00 1 14.10 178.00 178.00 0.00 1 14.36 200.00 200.00 0.00 1 14.66 226.00 226.00 0.00 1 15.09 250.00 247.42 2.56 6 14.92 236.93 236.87 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: PROSPECT ROAD Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: LAKE CANAL-A ************************************** ************************************** **** Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 10.17 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 9.86 ft Culvert Length: 780.00 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0004 ************************************** ************************************** **** Total Discharg e (cfs) Culvert Discharg e (cfs) Headwat er Elevatio n (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwate r Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwate r Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 10.00 10.77 0.353 0.605 3-M1t 0.469 0.230 0.801 0.807 0.780 0.672 34.00 34.00 11.60 0.798 1.434 3-M1t 1.001 0.520 1.615 1.621 1.316 1.005 58.00 58.00 12.19 1.140 2.019 3-M1t 1.405 0.742 2.169 2.175 1.671 1.184 82.00 82.00 12.66 1.436 2.497 3-M1t 1.755 0.934 2.614 2.620 1.960 1.312 106.00 106.00 13.08 1.704 2.910 3-M1t 2.074 1.109 2.995 3.001 2.212 1.412 130.00 130.00 13.45 1.952 3.279 3-M1t 2.371 1.270 3.333 3.339 2.438 1.497 154.00 154.00 13.78 2.185 3.616 3-M1t 2.653 1.422 3.637 3.643 2.646 1.570 178.00 178.00 14.10 2.413 3.928 3-M1t 2.923 1.566 3.917 3.923 2.840 1.634 200.00 200.00 14.36 2.612 4.196 3-M1t 3.162 1.693 4.155 4.161 3.008 1.687 226.00 226.00 14.66 2.837 4.494 3-M1t 3.436 1.837 4.419 4.425 3.196 1.745 250.00 247.42 15.09 3.014 4.923 4-FFf 3.656 1.951 4.500 4.653 3.436 1.793 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: LAKE CANAL-A Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: LAKE CANAL-A Site Data - LAKE CANAL-A Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 10.17 ft Outlet Station: 780.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 9.86 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - LAKE CANAL-A Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 16.00 ft Barrel Rise: 4.50 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (30-75º flare) Wingwall Inlet Depression: None Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: PROSPECT ROAD) Tailwater Channel Data - PROSPECT ROAD Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 16.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0004 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 9.85 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: PROSPECT ROAD Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section: Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 15.18 1 25.00 15.05 2 50.00 14.92 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 127.00 ft Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 10.66 0.81 0.67 0.02 0.14 34.00 11.47 1.62 1.01 0.04 0.15 58.00 12.02 2.17 1.18 0.05 0.16 82.00 12.47 2.62 1.31 0.07 0.16 106.00 12.85 3.00 1.41 0.07 0.17 130.00 13.19 3.34 1.50 0.08 0.17 154.00 13.49 3.64 1.57 0.09 0.17 178.00 13.77 3.92 1.63 0.10 0.17 200.00 14.01 4.16 1.69 0.10 0.17 226.00 14.27 4.42 1.74 0.11 0.18 250.00 14.50 4.65 1.79 0.12 0.18 HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report LAKE CANAL CROSSING B PER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LAKE CNAL THEIR BOARD OF TOLD US THE MAX THE DITCH RUNS IS 150 CFS. A FACTOR OF SAFETY WAS INCLUDED FOR SIZING PURPOSES. 200 CFS WAS UTILIZED. Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10 cfs Design Flow: 200 cfs Maximum Flow: 250 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Carriage pkwy-LC-B Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Lake Canal-B Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 12.04 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 13.22 34.00 34.00 0.00 1 14.03 58.00 58.00 0.00 1 14.70 82.00 82.00 0.00 1 15.29 106.00 106.00 0.00 1 15.82 130.00 130.00 0.00 1 16.32 154.00 154.00 0.00 1 16.78 178.00 178.00 0.00 1 17.17 200.00 200.00 0.00 1 17.62 226.00 226.00 0.00 1 18.13 250.00 250.00 0.00 1 18.95 274.69 274.69 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Carriage pkwy-LC-B Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: Lake Canal-B ************************************** ************************************** **** Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 10.70 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 10.63 ft Culvert Length: 110.00 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0006 ************************************** ************************************** **** Total Discharg e (cfs) Culvert Discharg e (cfs) Headwat er Elevatio n (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwate r Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwate r Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 10.00 12.04 0.428 1.335 3-M2t 2.174 0.278 0.904 0.838 0.922 0.822 34.00 34.00 13.22 0.967 2.517 3-M2t 5.127 0.629 1.724 1.658 1.643 1.208 58.00 58.00 14.03 1.380 3.332 3-M2t 7.000 0.899 2.272 2.206 2.127 1.412 82.00 82.00 14.70 1.739 4.004 3-M2t 7.000 1.132 2.708 2.642 2.524 1.558 106.00 106.00 15.29 2.063 4.593 3-M2t 7.000 1.343 3.078 3.012 2.870 1.673 130.00 130.00 15.82 2.364 5.125 3-M2t 7.000 1.539 3.404 3.338 3.183 1.769 154.00 154.00 16.32 2.647 5.616 3-M2t 7.000 1.723 3.697 3.631 3.471 1.853 178.00 178.00 16.78 2.915 6.076 3-M2t 7.000 1.898 3.965 3.899 3.741 1.926 200.00 200.00 17.17 3.151 6.474 3-M2t 7.000 2.051 4.194 4.128 3.974 1.987 226.00 226.00 17.62 3.418 6.923 3-M2t 7.000 2.225 4.446 4.380 4.236 2.053 250.00 250.00 18.13 3.662 7.426 7-M2t 7.000 2.380 4.663 4.597 4.468 2.108 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Lake Canal-B Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Lake Canal-B Site Data - Lake Canal-B Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 10.70 ft Outlet Station: 110.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 10.63 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - Lake Canal-B Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 12.00 ft Barrel Rise: 7.00 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.1300 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (30-75º flare) Wingwall Inlet Depression: None Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Carriage pkwy-LC-B) Tailwater Channel Data - Carriage pkwy-LC-B Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 12.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0006 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 10.70 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Carriage pkwy-LC-B Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section: Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 18.85 1 20.00 18.95 2 37.00 18.98 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 81.00 ft Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 11.54 0.84 0.82 0.03 0.17 34.00 12.36 1.66 1.21 0.06 0.19 58.00 12.91 2.21 1.41 0.08 0.20 82.00 13.34 2.64 1.56 0.10 0.20 106.00 13.71 3.01 1.67 0.11 0.20 130.00 14.04 3.34 1.77 0.12 0.21 154.00 14.33 3.63 1.85 0.14 0.21 178.00 14.60 3.90 1.93 0.15 0.21 200.00 14.83 4.13 1.99 0.15 0.21 226.00 15.08 4.38 2.05 0.16 0.21 250.00 15.30 4.60 2.11 0.17 0.21 HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report LAKE CANAL CROSSING A PER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LAKE CNAL THEIR BOARD OF TOLD US THE MAX THE DITCH RUNS IS 150 CFS. A FACTOR OF SAFETY WAS INCLUDED FOR SIZING PURPOSES. 200 CFS WAS UTILIZED. Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10 cfs Design Flow: 200 cfs Maximum Flow: 250 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Street-A_Lake Canal-C Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Lake Canal-C Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 11.82 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 12.69 34.00 34.00 0.00 1 13.28 58.00 58.00 0.00 1 13.77 82.00 82.00 0.00 1 14.18 106.00 106.00 0.00 1 14.55 130.00 130.00 0.00 1 14.89 154.00 154.00 0.00 1 15.20 178.00 178.00 0.00 1 15.46 200.00 200.00 0.00 1 15.76 226.00 226.00 0.00 1 16.02 250.00 250.00 0.00 1 19.15 530.27 530.27 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Street-A_Lake Canal-C Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: Lake Canal-C ************************************** ************************************** **** Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 11.04 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 10.96 ft Culvert Length: 176.00 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0005 ************************************** ************************************** **** Total Discharg e (cfs) Culvert Discharg e (cfs) Headwat er Elevatio n (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwate r Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwate r Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 10.00 11.82 0.369 0.785 3-M1t 0.468 0.240 0.836 0.836 0.797 0.683 34.00 34.00 12.69 0.833 1.650 3-M1t 1.005 0.542 1.672 1.672 1.356 1.016 58.00 58.00 13.28 1.190 2.244 3-M1t 1.412 0.774 2.238 2.238 1.728 1.194 82.00 82.00 13.77 1.499 2.725 3-M1t 1.764 0.975 2.691 2.691 2.031 1.321 106.00 106.00 14.18 1.778 3.140 3-M1t 2.087 1.158 3.078 3.078 2.296 1.421 130.00 130.00 14.55 2.038 3.510 3-M1t 2.388 1.326 3.420 3.420 2.534 1.505 154.00 154.00 14.89 2.281 3.846 3-M1t 2.674 1.485 3.729 3.729 2.753 1.577 178.00 178.00 15.20 2.514 4.157 3-M1t 2.948 1.635 4.012 4.012 2.958 1.641 200.00 200.00 15.46 2.723 4.424 3-M1t 3.191 1.767 4.253 4.253 3.135 1.694 226.00 226.00 15.76 2.959 4.721 3-M1t 3.469 1.917 4.519 4.519 3.334 1.751 250.00 250.00 16.02 3.167 4.980 3-M1t 3.719 2.051 4.750 4.750 3.509 1.799 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Lake Canal-C Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Lake Canal-C Site Data - Lake Canal-C Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 11.04 ft Outlet Station: 176.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 10.96 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - Lake Canal-C Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 15.00 ft Barrel Rise: 5.00 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (30-75º flare) Wingwall Inlet Depression: None Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Street-A_Lake Canal-C) Tailwater Channel Data - Street-A_Lake Canal-C Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 15.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0004 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 10.96 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Street-A_Lake Canal-C Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section: Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 19.79 1 20.00 19.49 2 45.00 19.15 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 98.00 ft Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 11.80 0.84 0.68 0.02 0.14 34.00 12.63 1.67 1.02 0.04 0.15 58.00 13.20 2.24 1.19 0.06 0.16 82.00 13.65 2.69 1.32 0.07 0.16 106.00 14.04 3.08 1.42 0.08 0.17 130.00 14.38 3.42 1.50 0.09 0.17 154.00 14.69 3.73 1.58 0.09 0.17 178.00 14.97 4.01 1.64 0.10 0.17 200.00 15.21 4.25 1.69 0.11 0.17 226.00 15.48 4.52 1.75 0.11 0.18 250.00 15.71 4.75 1.80 0.12 0.18 HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10 cfs Design Flow: 250 cfs Maximum Flow: 300 cfs TRIC ANALYSIS Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Carriage Pkwy_TRIC-A Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) TRIC A Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 8.64 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 9.77 39.00 39.00 0.00 1 10.51 68.00 68.00 0.00 1 11.10 97.00 97.00 0.00 1 11.61 126.00 126.00 0.00 1 12.06 155.00 155.00 0.00 1 12.48 184.00 184.00 0.00 1 12.87 213.00 213.00 0.00 1 13.33 250.00 250.00 0.00 1 13.57 271.00 271.00 0.00 1 13.90 300.00 300.00 0.00 1 18.89 698.06 698.06 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Carriage Pkwy_TRIC-A Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: TRIC A ************************************** ************************************** **** Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 7.71 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 7.63 ft Culvert Length: 168.00 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0005 ************************************** ************************************** **** Total Discharg e (cfs) Culvert Discharg e (cfs) Headwat er Elevatio n (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwate r Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwate r Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 10.00 8.64 0.540 0.934 3-M1t 0.601 0.314 0.968 0.968 1.033 0.801 39.00 39.00 9.77 1.337 2.059 3-M1t 1.445 0.779 2.020 2.020 1.930 1.202 68.00 68.00 10.51 1.937 2.796 3-M1t 2.097 1.128 2.685 2.685 2.533 1.403 97.00 97.00 11.10 2.454 3.387 3-M1t 2.678 1.430 3.203 3.203 3.029 1.545 126.00 126.00 11.61 2.922 3.896 3-M1t 3.220 1.702 3.637 3.637 3.464 1.657 155.00 155.00 12.06 3.352 4.351 3-M1t 3.736 1.954 4.017 4.017 3.858 1.750 184.00 184.00 12.48 3.742 4.768 3-M1t 4.234 2.191 4.357 4.357 4.223 1.830 213.00 213.00 12.87 4.112 5.155 3-M2t 4.718 2.415 4.667 4.667 4.564 1.901 250.00 250.00 13.33 4.562 5.616 3-M2t 5.320 2.687 5.028 5.028 4.972 1.982 271.00 271.00 13.57 4.807 5.864 3-M2t 5.656 2.836 5.218 5.218 5.193 2.024 300.00 300.00 13.90 5.137 6.194 3-M2t 6.114 3.035 5.468 5.468 5.487 2.078 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: TRIC A Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: TRIC A Site Data - TRIC A Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 7.71 ft Outlet Station: 168.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 7.63 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - TRIC A Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 10.00 ft Barrel Rise: 6.50 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (90º) Headwall Inlet Depression: None Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Carriage Pkwy_TRIC-A) Tailwater Channel Data - Carriage Pkwy_TRIC-A Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 10.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0005 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 7.63 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Carriage Pkwy_TRIC-A Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section: Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 18.99 1 20.00 18.95 2 40.00 18.89 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 81.00 ft Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 8.60 0.97 0.80 0.03 0.16 39.00 9.65 2.02 1.20 0.06 0.17 68.00 10.31 2.68 1.40 0.08 0.18 97.00 10.83 3.20 1.54 0.10 0.19 126.00 11.27 3.64 1.66 0.11 0.19 155.00 11.65 4.02 1.75 0.13 0.19 184.00 11.99 4.36 1.83 0.14 0.19 213.00 12.30 4.67 1.90 0.15 0.20 250.00 12.66 5.03 1.98 0.16 0.20 271.00 12.85 5.22 2.02 0.16 0.20 300.00 13.10 5.47 2.08 0.17 0.20 HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10 cfs Design Flow: 250 cfs Maximum Flow: 300 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Street A_TRIC B Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) TRIC B Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 9.25 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 10.33 39.00 39.00 0.00 1 11.04 68.00 68.00 0.00 1 11.62 97.00 97.00 0.00 1 12.11 126.00 126.00 0.00 1 12.56 155.00 155.00 0.00 1 12.96 184.00 184.00 0.00 1 13.34 213.00 213.00 0.00 1 13.79 250.00 250.00 0.00 1 14.04 271.00 271.00 0.00 1 14.36 300.00 300.00 0.00 1 18.89 681.25 681.25 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Street A_TRIC B Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: TRIC B ************************************** ************************************** **** Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 8.39 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 8.27 ft Culvert Length: 192.00 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0006 ************************************** ************************************** **** Total Discharg e (cfs) Culvert Discharg e (cfs) Headwat er Elevatio n (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwate r Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwate r Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 10.00 9.25 0.483 0.856 3-M1t 0.552 0.314 0.920 0.920 1.087 0.852 39.00 39.00 10.33 1.196 1.940 3-M1t 1.322 0.779 1.926 1.926 2.024 1.283 68.00 68.00 11.04 1.733 2.653 3-M1t 1.912 1.128 2.564 2.564 2.652 1.499 97.00 97.00 11.62 2.196 3.227 3-M1t 2.437 1.430 3.062 3.062 3.168 1.651 126.00 126.00 12.11 2.615 3.723 3-M1t 2.924 1.702 3.480 3.480 3.620 1.771 155.00 155.00 12.56 3.002 4.168 3-M1t 3.388 1.954 3.846 3.846 4.030 1.871 184.00 184.00 12.96 3.370 4.574 3-M1t 3.834 2.191 4.174 4.174 4.409 1.958 213.00 213.00 13.34 3.725 4.953 3-M1t 4.266 2.415 4.472 4.472 4.763 2.034 250.00 250.00 13.79 4.150 5.405 3-M1t 4.804 2.687 4.820 4.820 5.187 2.121 271.00 271.00 14.04 4.381 5.648 3-M2t 5.103 2.836 5.003 5.003 5.416 2.166 300.00 300.00 14.36 4.689 5.971 3-M2t 5.511 3.035 5.244 5.244 5.721 2.223 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: TRIC B Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: TRIC B Site Data - TRIC B Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 8.39 ft Outlet Station: 192.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 8.27 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - TRIC B Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 10.00 ft Barrel Rise: 6.50 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (30-75º flare) Wingwall Inlet Depression: None Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Street A_TRIC B) Tailwater Channel Data - Street A_TRIC B Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 10.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0006 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 8.27 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Street A_TRIC B Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section: Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 18.99 1 20.00 18.95 2 40.00 18.89 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 95.00 ft Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 9.19 0.92 0.85 0.03 0.17 39.00 10.20 1.93 1.28 0.07 0.19 68.00 10.83 2.56 1.50 0.10 0.20 97.00 11.33 3.06 1.65 0.11 0.20 126.00 11.75 3.48 1.77 0.13 0.21 155.00 12.12 3.85 1.87 0.14 0.21 184.00 12.44 4.17 1.96 0.16 0.21 213.00 12.74 4.47 2.03 0.17 0.21 250.00 13.09 4.82 2.12 0.18 0.21 271.00 13.27 5.00 2.17 0.19 0.22 300.00 13.51 5.24 2.22 0.20 0.22 Date: December 9, 2019 Project: Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal Relocation Project No. 100-019 Fort Collins, Colorado Re: TRIC Flow Depths Memo To whom it may concern: This memo is intended to document the conversations and design process regarding the design of the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) box culvert and the associated pond design for the Poudre School District site at the corner of Prospect Road and County Road 5 (Main Street) in Fort Collins. Dale Trowbridge, the manager of the Cache La Poudre Reservoir Company and operator of the TRIC was contacted to determine the irrigation flows that are present in the ditch during normal operations. The TRIC runs off-season (November-April typically) to refill the Timnath Reservoir. In the conversation with Dale, we were informed that normal flows are typically between 25-50 cfs. In the spring, there can be flows of up to 100 cfs, but this flow is generally limited to no more than a week before reducing back to normal flow rates. If needed, the flows in the ditch can be increased up to 150 cfs, but this only occurs if the reservoir is lower than expected and the winter flows were deficient. In the event of a 150 cfs flow in the ditch being needed for operations, it would only be at that flow for few days before decreasing again. Please refer to the Drainage Letter Report for the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) Relocation dated December 5, 2019 for information regarding ditch performance during storm events. We took the flowrates provided by Dale and ran them through Hydraflow to determine the operational water surface elevation in the box culvert under different conditions. It is worth noting that flap gates are provided at the pond outlets and that ditch operations should not cause ponding in the ponds, regardless of flow rate. Ponding would only occur if a rain or snow event were to occur while the higher operational levels were present, thereby preventing the flap gates from opening and draining the ponds. The analysis, illustrated in the TRIC Operational Flow Summary below, showed varying flow depths in the culvert which have could different implications to the project, with the lower flows having no impact on the ponds and the higher flows resulting in potential ponding within the ponds that would not be able to drain until flows in the ditch subsided. Using this analysis, it was decided that the optimal pond bottom elevation would be designed to minimize ponding with the more common 100 cfs flow in mind. This results in a minimum pond bottom elevation of 4911.0 that would see approximately three inches of ponding if a storm event were to occur the ditch is running at that flow. The duration of the ponding would typically be for a few days, but no more than a week. In the event that a storm event occurred while the ditch was flowing at the more unusual 150 cfs, it is possible that the ponds would see up to 1.37’ of ponding that would not drain until the flow in the ditch subsided. This condition was viewed as acceptable when balancing the relative infrequency of the event (per Dale) and relatively short duration of the ponding against the significant reduction to site earthwork and improved overall drainage performance that can be achieved by having a lower pond bottom. THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS WHERE THE TRIC FLOWRATES ARE COMING FROM FOR THE HEC-RAS MODELING. A FACTOR OF SAFETY WAS INCLUDED TO INCREASE THE 150 CFS TO 250 CFS Page 2 TRIC Operational Flow Summary Flow (cfs) Flow Depth in Culvert* (ft) WSEL (ft) Ponding** (ft) Frequency/Duration 50 2.07 4909.97 0 Normal Winter Flow 100 3.35 4911.25 0.25 Spring Final Fill-up - Week Max 150 4.47 4912.37 1.37 Spring Pond top off on dry years - Few Days Max *Connection 5 used, Inv=4907.9, **Pond Bottom = 4911.0 Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Andy Reese Project Manager Benjamin Ruch, PE Project Engineer NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.2 – INLETS, SIDEWALK CULVERTS, AND STREET CAPACITIES Purpose:This workbook can be used to size a variety of inlets based on allowable spread and depth in a street or swale. Function:1. To calculate peak discharge for the tributary area to each inlet. 2. To calculate allowable half-street capacity based on allowable depth and spread. 3. To determine the inlet capacity for selected inlet types. 4. To manage inlet information and connect inlets in series to account for bypass flow. Content:The workbook consists of the following sheets: Q-Peak Inlet Management Inlet [#] Inlet Pictures Acknowledgements:Spreadsheet Development Team: Ken A. MacKenzie, P.E., Holly Piza, P.E., Chris Carandang Mile High Flood District Derek N. Rapp, P.E. Peak Stormwater Engineering, LLC Dr. James C.Y. Guo, Ph.D., P.E. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado at Denver Comments?Direct all comments regarding this spreadsheet workbook to:MHFD E-mail Revisions?Check for revised versions of this or any other workbook at:Downloads Imports information from the Q-Peak sheet and Inlet [#] sheets and can be used to connect inlets in series so that bypass flow from an upstream inlet is added to flow calculated for the next downstream inlet. This sheet can also be used to modify design information from the Q-peak sheet. Inlet [#] sheets are created each time the user exports information from the Q-Peak sheet to the Inlet Management sheet. The Inlet [#] sheets calculate allowable half-street capacity based on allowable depth and allowable spread for the minor and major storm events. This is also where the user selects an inlet type and calculates the capacity of that inlet. Contains a library of photographs of the various types of inlets contained in MHFD-Inlet and referenced in the USDCM. Calculates the peak discharge for the inlet tributary area based on the Rational Method for the minor and major storm events. Alternatively, the user can enter a known flow. Information from this sheet is then exported to the Inlet Management sheet. STREET AND INLET HYDRAULICS WORKBOOK MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) Mile High Flood District Denver, Colorado www.mhfd.org 1 STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) Worksheet Protected INLET NAME Design Point r1 Desing Point r2 Design Point r3 Site Type (Urban or Rural)URBAN URBAN URBAN Inlet Application (Street or Area)STREET STREET STREET Hydraulic Condition On Grade On Grade On Grade Inlet Type USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Design Flows Minor QKnown (cfs)8.5 9.9 16.5 Major QKnown (cfs)33.7 37.3 68.6 Bypass (Carry-Over) Flow from Upstream Receive Bypass Flow from:No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received Minor Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs)0.0 0.0 0.0 Major Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs)0.0 0.0 0.0 Watershed Characteristics Subcatchment Area (acres) Percent Impervious NRCS Soil Type Watershed Profile Overland Slope (ft/ft) Overland Length (ft) Channel Slope (ft/ft) Channel Length (ft) Minor Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period, Tr (years) One-Hour Precipitation, P1 (inches) Major Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period, Tr (years) One-Hour Precipitation, P1 (inches) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs)8.5 9.9 16.5 Major Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs)33.7 37.3 68.6 Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) Major Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) INLET MANAGEMENT MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) Worksheet Protected INLET NAME Site Type (Urban or Rural) Inlet Application (Street or Area) Hydraulic Condition Inlet Type USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Design Flows Minor QKnown (cfs) Major QKnown (cfs) Bypass (Carry-Over) Flow from Upstream Receive Bypass Flow from: Minor Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs) Major Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs) Watershed Characteristics Subcatchment Area (acres) Percent Impervious NRCS Soil Type Watershed Profile Overland Slope (ft/ft) Overland Length (ft) Channel Slope (ft/ft) Channel Length (ft) Minor Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period, Tr (years) One-Hour Precipitation, P1 (inches) Major Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period, Tr (years) One-Hour Precipitation, P1 (inches) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Major Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) Major Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) INLET MANAGEMENT Design Point r4 Design Point r5 Design Point r6 User-Defined URBAN URBAN URBAN STREET STREET STREET On Grade On Grade On Grade 2.6 4.8 3.0 11.3 20.9 13.2 No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 4.8 3.0 11.3 20.9 13.2 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =0.007 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 =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =15.4 145.7 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r1 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =0.012 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 =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =20.1 195.6 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Desing Point r2 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =0.010 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 =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =18.4 174.1 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r3 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =0.010 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 =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =18.4 174.1 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r4 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =0.006 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 =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =14.2 138.3 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r5 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =0.006 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 =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =14.2 138.3 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r6 1 INLET ID TYPE A1 15' TYPE R A2 10' TYPE R C2-1 25' TYPE R C3 20' TYPE R C2-A1 25' TYPE R C2-B1 20' TYPE R C2-A2 10' TYPE R F2 10' TYPE R F3 10' TYPE R G2 5' TYPE R G3 5' TYPE R INLET SUMMARY Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 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 MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet A1 1 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 =3 3 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 8.0 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) =5.00 5.00 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 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 0.50 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.75 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 0.89 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =13.5 27.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =4.8 20.9 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 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 MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet A2 1 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 =2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 8.0 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) =5.00 5.00 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 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 0.50 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.75 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 =10.5 19.3 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =3.0 13.2 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =16.0 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 =44.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =32.0 32.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 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 MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet C2-1 1 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 =5 5 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 9.2 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) =5.00 5.00 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 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 0.60 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.87 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 0.94 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =22.9 57.6 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =11.8 47.0 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 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 MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet C3 1 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 =4 4 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 8.0 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) =5.00 5.00 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 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 0.50 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.75 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 0.89 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =18.2 37.6 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =9.9 37.3 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 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 MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Pond Culvert 1 - DP 3 1 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 =9 9 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 7.5 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) =5.00 5.00 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 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 0.46 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.71 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 0.87 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =41.7 74.5 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =16.5 68.6 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 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 MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Pond Culvert 1 - DP 4 1 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 =2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 7.5 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) =5.00 5.00 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 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 0.46 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.71 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 =10.5 17.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =2.6 11.3 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =0.007 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 =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =15.4 145.7 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet F2 & F3 1 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a')aLOCAL =3.0 3.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)No = 2 2 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)Lo =5.00 5.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W, Gutter Width) Wo =N/A N/A ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)Cf-G =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1)Cf-C =0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics: OK - Q < Allowable Street Capacity'MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q = 0.8 3.3 cfs Total Inlet Carry-Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet)Qb =0.0 0.0 cfs Capture Percentage = Qa/Qo =C% = 100 99 % CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) CDOT Type R Curb Opening 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 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 MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet G1 & G2 1 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 8.0 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) =5.00 5.00 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 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 0.50 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.77 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 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 =5.4 9.3 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.8 3.4 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 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 =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 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 =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 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 MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet G2 & G3 1 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 8.0 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) =5.00 5.00 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 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 0.50 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.77 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 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 =5.4 9.3 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.8 3.4 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 CDOT Type R Curb Opening Denver No. 14 Curb Opening Colorado Springs D-10-R CDOT/Denver 13 Valley Grate CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Denver No. 16 Combination Wheat Ridge Combination Inlet Denver No. 16 Valley Grate Directional Cast Vane Grate Directional 30-Degree Bar Grate (courtesy HEC-22)Directional 45-Degree Bar Grate Reticuline Riveted Grate 1-7/8" Bar Grate, Crossbars @ 8"1-7/8" Bar Grate, Crossbars @ 4" (courtesy HEC-22)1-1/8 in. Bar Grate, Crossbars @ 8 in. (courtesy HEC-22)Slotted Inlet Parallel to Flow CDOT Type C Grate (Close Mesh)CDOT Type C Grate CDOT Type C Inlet CDOT Type C Inlet in Depression CDOT Type D Inlet In Series (Flat & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet In Series (10° Incline & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet In Series (20° Incline & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet In Series (30° Incline & Depressed) CDOT Type D Inlet Parallel (Flat & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet Parallel (10° Incline & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet Parallel (20° Incline & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet Parallel (30° Incline & Depressed) INLET PICTURES Street Capacity Calcs.xlsm, Inlet Pictures 8/25/2022, 12:24 PM Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Aug 29 2022 Rain Garden 1 - WQCV Flow (0.5 x 2-yr Flow) - DP r1 Rectangular Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 4.25 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.47 Q (cfs) = 4.250 Area (sqft) = 1.87 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.28 Top Width (ft) = 4.00 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 1 - WQCV Flow (0.5 x 2-yr Flow) - DP r1 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. SIDEWALK CHASE Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Aug 29 2022 Rain Garden 2 - WQCV Flow (0.5 x 2-yr Runoff) - DP r3 Rectangular Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 8.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 8.26 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.46 Q (cfs) = 8.260 Area (sqft) = 3.66 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.25 Top Width (ft) = 8.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 2 - WQCV Flow (0.5 x 2-yr Runoff) - DP r3 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. SIDEWALK CHASE Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Aug 29 2022 Rain Garden 3 - 2-yr Flow - DP r4 Rectangular Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 2.61 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.34 Q (cfs) = 2.610 Area (sqft) = 1.35 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.94 Top Width (ft) = 4.00 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 3 - 2-yr Flow - DP r4 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. SIDEWALK CHASE Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Aug 29 2022 Rain Garden 3 - WQCV Flow (0.5 x 2-yr Flow) - DP r5 Rectangular Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 2.38 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.32 Q (cfs) = 2.380 Area (sqft) = 1.27 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.88 Top Width (ft) = 4.00 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 3 - WQCV Flow (0.5 x 2-yr Flow) - DP r5 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. SIDEWALK CHASE Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Aug 29 2022 SWALE BEHIND LOT 8 AND 9 User-defined Invert Elev (ft) = 1.00 Slope (%) = 0.30 N-Value = 0.018 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 97.78 (Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( 0.00, 3.50)-(4.00, 2.50, 0.023)-(7.00, 1.00, 0.012)-(9.00, 1.00, 0.012)-(12.00, 2.50, 0.012)-(16.00, 3.50, 0.023) Highlighted Depth (ft) = 2.50 Q (cfs) = 97.78 Area (sqft) = 19.50 Velocity (ft/s) = 5.01 Wetted Perim (ft) = 16.95 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 2.29 Top Width (ft) = 16.00 EGL (ft) = 2.89 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 0.50 -0.50 1.00 0.00 1.50 0.50 2.00 1.00 2.50 1.50 3.00 2.00 3.50 2.50 4.00 3.00 Sta (ft) Flows are from Basins 8A, 9B, R7, and R8. Q100 = (24.76 + 34.36 + 6.70 + 6.70)x1.33 = 97.78 1.33 multiplier is from Chapter 9 Section 5.1 of FCSCM NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.3 – DETENTION FACILITIES(SWMM AND ORIFICE RATINGS) EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.015) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE Starting Date ............ 03/15/2016 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 03/20/2016 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:05:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00 Routing Time Step ........ 15.00 sec ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 32.432 3.669 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 5.244 0.593 Surface Runoff ........... 27.048 3.060 Final Storage ............ 0.318 0.036 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.547 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 27.048 8.814 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 27.508 8.964 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.620 0.202 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.146 0.047 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.051 ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 15.00 sec Average Time Step : 15.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 15.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.55 Average Iterations per Step : 1.00 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OS1 3.67 0.00 0.00 2.38 0.07 1.22 1.29 0.18 3.66 0.353 1 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.34 2.87 0.40 3.27 0.60 40.57 0.892 2 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.29 2.88 0.45 3.33 0.13 12.47 0.907 3 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.29 2.88 0.45 3.33 0.13 12.19 0.907 DP_r1 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.32 2.87 0.42 3.29 0.43 32.42 0.897 DP_r2 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.44 2.62 0.55 3.17 0.44 33.43 0.865 OS2 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.17 3.16 0.27 3.44 0.12 11.07 0.937 8A 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.17 3.29 0.20 3.50 0.50 49.07 0.953 DP_r3 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.21 3.22 0.24 3.45 1.16 95.49 0.941 OS4 3.67 0.00 0.00 2.08 0.07 1.52 1.59 0.17 5.86 0.434 R4 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.41 2.85 0.40 3.25 0.12 8.19 0.884 10 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.17 3.29 0.20 3.49 0.90 74.73 0.951 OS5 3.67 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.07 1.57 1.65 0.14 5.28 0.449 R6 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.44 2.81 0.40 3.21 0.17 11.19 0.876 11 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.17 3.29 0.20 3.49 0.31 29.14 0.952 R5 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.47 2.81 0.37 3.18 0.27 14.22 0.866 12 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.17 3.29 0.20 3.49 1.29 114.01 0.952 13 3.67 0.00 0.00 1.48 1.10 1.09 2.19 0.53 32.12 0.596 7 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.65 2.30 0.72 3.02 0.43 40.40 0.823 8B 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.16 3.29 0.21 3.50 0.25 25.30 0.953 9B 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.17 3.29 0.21 3.50 0.40 39.51 0.953 R7 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.30 3.00 0.37 3.37 0.06 6.45 0.917 R8 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.53 2.52 0.62 3.14 0.07 7.46 0.857 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND2_WEST JUNCTION 0.02 2.38 14.23 0 00:40 2.33 POND3_EAST JUNCTION 0.01 1.12 15.62 0 00:40 1.10 POND1_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 4.00 0 00:00 0.00 POND2_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 10.00 0 00:00 0.00 POND4_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 10.00 0 00:00 0.00 POND1 STORAGE 0.23 4.46 8.51 0 02:08 4.46 POND2 STORAGE 1.50 4.70 15.70 0 03:21 4.70 POND3 STORAGE 0.40 4.31 18.31 0 02:16 4.31 POND4 STORAGE 0.41 4.86 15.86 0 02:05 4.86 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND2_WEST JUNCTION 228.46 228.46 0 00:40 1.87 2.61 0.000 POND3_EAST JUNCTION 32.12 32.12 0 00:40 0.428 0.526 0.000 POND1_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 13.06 0 02:08 0 2.11 0.000 POND2_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 6.58 0 03:21 0 6.41 0.000 POND4_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 2.81 0 02:05 0 0.443 0.000 POND1 STORAGE 145.46 145.46 0 00:40 1.62 2.11 0.025 POND2 STORAGE 142.17 368.04 0 00:40 1.47 6.46 0.003 POND3 STORAGE 114.01 144.15 0 00:40 0.926 1.82 0.012 POND4 STORAGE 40.40 40.40 0 00:40 0.306 0.444 0.027 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND1 9.190 4 0 0 199.567 86 0 02:08 13.06 POND2 169.820 26 0 0 613.469 92 0 03:21 6.58 POND3 15.482 6 0 0 203.990 81 0 02:15 6.04 POND4 2.061 5 0 0 43.200 95 0 02:05 2.81 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- POND1_OUTFALL 36.76 1.77 13.06 2.111 POND2_OUTFALL 100.00 1.99 6.58 6.409 POND4_OUTFALL 80.48 0.17 2.81 0.443 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 72.41 3.93 22.28 8.963 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND2_WEST_CULVERT CONDUIT 225.33 0 00:40 7.67 0.96 0.78 POND3_EAST_CULVERT CONDUIT 31.48 0 00:40 4.46 0.29 0.37 POND1_OUT DUMMY 13.06 0 02:08 POND2_OUT DUMMY 6.58 0 03:21 POND3_OUT DUMMY 6.04 0 02:16 POND4_OUT DUMMY 2.81 0 02:05 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Wed Aug 24 15:54:37 2022 Analysis ended on: Wed Aug 24 15:54:37 2022 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Elapsed Time (hours) 120100806040200Flow (CFS)14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Link POND1_OUT Flow (CFS)Link POND2_OUT Flow (CFS)Link POND3_OUT Flow (CFS)Link POND4_OUT Flow (CFS) SWMM 5.1 Page 1 Elapsed Time (hours) 120100806040200Volume (ft3)600000.0 500000.0 400000.0 300000.0 200000.0 100000.0 0.0 Node POND1 Volume (ft3)Node POND2 Volume (ft3)Node POND3 Volume (ft3)Node POND4 Volume (ft3) SWMM 5.1 Page 1 Project Number: Project Name: Project Location: Pond No:Calc. By:B. Mathisen Orifice Dia (in):15 3/16 Orifice Area (sf):1.26 Orifice invert (ft):4,904.10 Orifice Coefficient:0.65 Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments 4,904.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,905.00 0.90 4.95 6.23 4,906.00 1.90 7.19 9.05 4,907.00 2.90 8.88 11.18 4,908.00 3.90 10.30 12.97 4,909.00 4.90 11.54 14.53 4,909.10 5.00 11.66 14.68 Orifice Rating Curve ORIFICE RATING CURVE 1896-001 Rudolph Farm Fort Collins Pond 1 Orifice Design Data Detention Pond 1 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Project Number: Project Name: Project Location: Pond No:Calc. By:B. Mathisen Orifice Dia (in):10 8/16 Orifice Area (sf):0.60 Orifice invert (ft):4,911.00 Orifice Coefficient:0.65 Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments 4,911.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,912.00 1.00 5.21 3.12 4,913.00 2.00 7.37 4.41 4,914.00 3.00 9.03 5.40 4,915.00 4.00 10.43 6.23 4,916.00 5.00 11.66 6.97 Orifice Rating Curve ORIFICE RATING CURVE 1896-001 Rudolph Farm Fort Collins Pond 2 Orifice Design Data Detention Pond 2 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Project Number: Project Name: Project Location: Pond No:Calc. By:B. Mathisen Orifice Dia (in):10 8/16 Orifice Area (sf):0.60 Orifice invert (ft):4,914.50 Orifice Coefficient:0.65 Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments 4,914.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,915.50 1.00 5.21 3.12 4,916.50 2.00 7.37 4.41 4,917.50 3.00 9.03 5.40 4,918.50 4.00 10.43 6.23 4,919.50 5.00 11.66 6.97 Orifice Rating Curve ORIFICE RATING CURVE 1896-001 Rudolph Farm Fort Collins Pond 3 Orifice Design Data Detention Pond 3 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.4 – SCOURSTOP AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX C TIMNATH STORMWATER MASTER PLAN Town of Timnath Master Drainage Plan Update 2018 Prepared for: Town of Timnath 4800 Goodman Rd, Timnath, CO 80547 August 2018 - FINAL 18 In addition to modifying impervious values, other subbasin parameters were modified to represent developed conditions. For subbasins where the average ground slope was less than 1.0%, it was assumed that site grading would result in an average ground slope of 1.0% for the overland flow. For urbanized subbasins, the overland flow length was limited to a maximum of 300 feet. The hydrologic parameters for each of the developed condition subbasins are presented in Appendix B. Conceptual Detention for Future Development In a similar manner as the 2005 Study, each subbasin with proposed future development (i.e. undeveloped land that is assumed to be developed according to the 2016 Land Use Plan) was routed directly into a conceptual on-site detention pond. The conceptual detention ponds were modeled with a function storage rating curve (storage equation in EPA SWMM), that was developed based on the developed hydrograph volumes and an iterative sizing procedure. Consistent with Timnath criteria, the 100-year design discharge was set at the 10-year existing condition peak flow rate and an outlet orifice was iteratively sized. These 10-year outlet controls also met the Timnath 2-year flow control requirement. No specific future developments were considered in the developed model. A summary of the conceptual detention pond release rates is given in Appendix B. Routing Changes for Future Conditions In addition to the modification of the subbasin and on-site detention parameters for the developed condition, the conveyance elements were also modified to reflect a developed condition. In contrast to the existing condition, where the majority of the conveyance is over broad, shallow valleys with tall grasses, it was presumed that regional conveyance will be in grass-lined trapezoidal channels. The channel shapes and roughness were modified to replicate conceptual design conditions. Also, routing network was slightly modified to represent the future alignment of the Clark Drainage Channel. The future conditions routing map is provided in Appendix B. Downtown Timnath Two future options were considered for Downtown Timnath, north of the Great Western Railroad, consisting of 100-year storm drain conveyance and two options for future detention on the Timnath Elementary School parcel/ subbasin. Both options assumed a future regional detention pond, located just north of 5th Avenue and Kern Street, restricting 100-year future flows to the 10-year existing flow rate. Details of these options are discussed in Section 5.3. Summary of Developed Condition Hydrology Results The results of the developed condition analysis are summarized in Table 2.8. These results show that the 100-year discharges would decrease from the baseline flows at nearly every location. Along the future Clark Channel, immediately upstream of the TROC, 100-year flows would decrease from 1,269-cfs to 869- cfs. Discharges along the TROC would also decrease from 1,629-cfs to 1,264-cfs at Harmony Road and from 1,735-cfs to 1,379-cfs at the outfall to the Greeley No. 2 Canal. Although on-site detention lowers the individual subbasin discharge for all frequencies (refer to tables provided in Appendix B), the 2-year through 50-year results along the Clark Drainage show increases in future discharge. This effect is due to superposition of the prolonged detention hydrographs and the increased runoff volume from urban development. Appendix A Baseline Condition Hydrology Maps: 1) A-1 – Existing Basin Map – North 2) A-2 – Existing Basin Map – South 3) A-3 – Existing Routing Map – North 4) A-4 – Existing Routing Map – South 5) A-5 – Existing Downtown SWMM Map 6) A-6 – Existing Overall SWMM Map Tables: 1) A-1 – SWMM Subbasin Parameters – Existing Conditions 2) A-2 – SWMM Routing Link Shapes 3) A-3 – Summary of Detention Pond Storage and Outlet Ratings 4) A-4 – Timnath Reservoir Storage and Outlet Ratings 5) A-5 – SWMM Results – Links 6) A-6 – SWMM Results – Nodes 7) A-7 – SWMM Results – Subbasins 8) A-8 – Summary and Comparison of Results MAIN ST.COUNTY ROAD 5HIGHWAY 14 Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-2TIMNATHRESERVOIR E COUNTY ROAD 44 E MULBERRY ST E COUNTY ROAD 40E HORSETOOTH RD E PROSPECT RD INTERSTATE 25!(SB 1251047 ac.43% !(SB 1263423 ac.15% !(SB 2634 ac.66% !(SB 2733 ac.20% !(SB 2835 ac.20% !(SB 3145 ac.25% !(SB 309 ac.30%!(SB 2537 ac.15% !(SB 3444 ac.61% !(SB 432 ac.80%!(SB 732 ac.40% !(SB 69 ac.90% !(SB 337 ac.80%!(SB 15A43 ac.55% !(SB 582 ac.55% !(SB 237 ac.30% !(SB 5A33 ac.15% !(SB 1587 ac.20% !(SB 1326 ac.38%!(SB 1643 ac.25% !(SB 3256 ac.20% !(SB 9143 ac.50% !(SB 8197 ac.67% !(SB 4A30 ac.70% !(SB 1876 ac.51% !(SB 1136 ac.39% !(SB 1242 ac.44% !(SB 10115 ac.55% !(SB 14103 ac.33% !(SB 1737 ac.45% !(SB 2036 ac.40%!(SB 2154 ac.45% !(SB 50A7 ac.50% !(SB 506 ac.50% !(SB 5214 ac.78% !(SB 5121 ac.78% !(SB 4884 ac.68% !(SB 4932 ac.64% !(SB 3310 ac.29% !(SB 37117 ac.37% !(SB 4420 ac.5% !(SB 43A41 ac.44%!(SB 4656 ac.38% !(SB 47A23 ac.43% !(SB 4719 ac.34%!(SB 4566 ac.42%!(SB 7679 ac.35%!(SB 7928 ac.5% !(SB 7872 ac.5% !(SB 3948 ac.21% !(SB 3582 ac.45% !(SB 77A2 ac.10%!(SB 77B2 ac.10%!(SB 80B1 ac.10%!(SB 80A4 ac.10% !(SB 808 ac.15%!(SB 72A5 ac.30% !(SB 7288 ac.32%!(SB 6730 ac.49% !(SB 6851 ac.36% !(SB 7117 ac.30% !(SB 1201225 ac.65% !(SB 8145 ac.25% !(SB 8221 ac.30%!(SB 82A16 ac.10%!(SB 82B3 ac.10% !(SB 81A6 ac.30% !(SB 77C9 ac.25%!(SB 77D27 ac.30% !(SB 80D10 ac.10% !(SB 80C10 ac.10% !(SB 8449 ac.25% !(SB 8449 ac.25%!(SB 82C8 ac.10%!(SB 82D109 ac.30%!(SB 7055 ac.50%!(SB 73159 ac.50% !(SB 2247 ac.20% !(SB 25A17 ac.10% !(SB 2421 ac.15% !(SB 2922 ac.20% !(SB 267 ac.90% !(SB 3866 ac.30% !(SB 9A23 ac.25% !(SB 21A77 ac.42% !(SB 43107 ac.22% !(SB 70A30 ac.67% Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update EXHIBIT B-1 - SWMM Subbasin MapDeveloped Condition - North Map Legend SWMM Subbasins Developed Imperv. 0 - 6% 7 - 20% 21 - 35% 36 - 50% 51 - 65% 66 - 80% 81 - 100% SWMM Subbasin (Name, Area - Ac, % Imp.) SWMM Routing Link q 600 Feet File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-1 - FUT_BasinMap_North.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 MAIN ST.MAIN ST.Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-1TIMNATHRESERVOIR !(SB 1212570 ac.45% !(SB 8197 ac.67%!(SB 1876 ac.51% !(SB 1136 ac.39% !(SB 1242 ac.44% !(SB 10115 ac.55%!(SB 14103 ac.33% !(SB 2036 ac.40%!(SB 2154 ac.45% !(SB 50A7 ac.50% !(SB 506 ac.50% !(SB 5214 ac.78% !(SB 5121 ac.78% !(SB 4884 ac.68% !(SB 4932 ac.64% !(SB 4420 ac.5% !(SB 43A41 ac.44%!(SB 4656 ac.38% !(SB 47A23 ac.43% !(SB 4719 ac.34%!(SB 4566 ac.42%!(SB 7679 ac.35%!(SB 7928 ac.5% !(SB 7872 ac.5% !(SB 7777 ac.15% !(SB 77A2 ac.10%!(SB 77B2 ac.10%!(SB 80B1 ac.10%!(SB 80A4 ac.10% !(SB 808 ac.15%!(SB 72A5 ac.30% !(SB 7288 ac.32%!(SB 6730 ac.49% !(SB 6851 ac.36% !(SB 7117 ac.30% !(SB 1201225 ac.65% !(SB 86B21 ac.10% !(SB 86C5 ac.20% !(SB 86A13 ac.30%!(SB 8145 ac.25% !(SB 8221 ac.30%!(SB 82A16 ac.10%!(SB 82B3 ac.10% !(SB 81A6 ac.30% !(SB 77C9 ac.25%!(SB 77D27 ac.30% !(SB 80D10 ac.10% !(SB 80C10 ac.10% !(SB 7534 ac.30% !(SB 8449 ac.25% !(SB 75A24 ac.30%!(SB 75B27 ac.10% !(SB 7432 ac.20% !(SB 8668 ac.30% !(SB 82C8 ac.10% !(SB 75C8 ac.5% !(SB 82D109 ac.30% !(SB 7055 ac.50% !(SB 11027 ac.73%!(SB 6940 ac.75% !(SB 73159 ac.50% !(SB 9228 ac.80% !(SB 92A20 ac.50%!(SB 9117 ac.80% !(SB 9399 ac.51% !(SB 10931 ac.75% !(SB 10239 ac.50% !(SB 9472 ac.45% !(SB 10183 ac.45% !(SB 10325 ac.45%!(SB 103A21 ac.45%!(SB 103B5 ac.45% !(SB 103D18 ac.45%!(SB 103C16 ac.45% !(SB 10462 ac.50% !(SB 106A103 ac.35% !(SB 10817 ac.35% !(SB 10624 ac.45% !(SB 100A44 ac.27% !(SB 107A15 ac.45% !(SB 10757 ac.40% !(SB 9920 ac.25% !(SB 9876 ac.30%!(SB 10044 ac.27% !(SB 98A34 ac.30% !(SB 85A13 ac.90% !(SB 9612 ac.10% !(SB 85B30 ac.90% !(SB 9561 ac.45% !(SB 9761 ac.35% !(SB 8914 ac.31% !(SB 8716 ac.45% !(SB 8372 ac.72% !(SB 85C45 ac.50% !(SB 85141 ac.54% !(SB 8898 ac.35% !(SB 83A12 ac.47%!(SB 9051 ac.34% !(SB 75D3 ac.5% !(SB 3866 ac.30% !(SB 9A23 ac.25% !(SB 21A77 ac.42% !(SB 43107 ac.22% !(SB 70A30 ac.67% !(SB 10542 ac.30% !(SB 108A8 ac.25% Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update EXHIBIT B-2 - SWMM Subbasin MapDeveloped Condition - South Map q600 Feet File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-2 -FUT_BasinMap_South.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 Legend SWMM Subbasins - Deve loped Impver. Percent 0 - 6% 7 - 20% 21 - 35% 36 - 50% 51 - 65% 66 - 80% 81 - 100% SWMM Subbasin (Name, Area - Ac, % Imp.) SWMM Routing Link !( !( !( !(#*!( !( !( !( !( ") !(!( !( !( ")") ") !( !(!(!( !( ")!( XW !(!(!(!(XW !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( XW!(") !( !( !( !( XW!(!( !( !( !(#*!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(")!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(")")!( ") !( ") ") !(") !(!(!(!( !( !( ")")!(!( !( ") !( !(!(!( !(!(!( ")!( !( !( !( !(XWXWXWXW XWXW XWXW XW XW XWXW !( ") !( !( !( ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 TIMNATHRESERVOIR E PROSPECT RD E MULBERRY ST INTERSTATE 25E HORSETOOTH RD E COUNTY ROAD 40MAIN ST.COUNTY ROAD 5HIGHWAY 14 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-4CacheLa P o u d reRiver TROCTRIC L ari m er- W eld C a n al LakeCa na l 125 26 27 28 31 3025 34 4 7 6 3 15A 5 23 5A 15 13 16 32 9 8 4A 18 11 12 10 14 17 20 21 50A 50 526566 635859 60 55 51 48 49 33 37 44 43A46 47A 4745 79 78 39 35 77B80B80A 80 72A 72 67 68 71 120 82 82A 82B 81A 77C 77D 80D 80C 57 62 64 22 25A 24 29 2 38 9A 21A 43 60A 51A 208 1 7 7 A DTN-5-SFOP-77C267A219210 39 134A20653OP-50105AOP-152 0 9 OP -77B C L A R K 3 DTN-13-PF DTN-13-SF 6 410 2 3 4 2 7 7 A C L A R K 6 CLARK8 155 111 A CLARK7 31O P-251031611121AOP-5A175OP-50AOP-4A2261281 6 2203 T RI CL 7 A153 O P -3 1 OP- 4 3105C209B TROCL41 2 7 135OP-29246 O P-31_ W EIR 264 OP-28178104251 149 TROCL3TRI CL617611535152 1 5 1 OP-815156 TROCL561118115AB 349 1 4 TRI CL7163OP-77D249 OP-51102 OP-12033TRI CL5134125A 212 122214 CLARK41716346160218600 220 159TRICL1 59172TRICL3 C L A R K 5 1 1 1 B 158165164161119TRICL2 209ATRI CL8224 1141 0 8 1 6 6 2111 3 7 22321711251126 J-CLARK5 J-CLARK4 J-CLARK3 165 169 170 166 171 173 P-28 164149 53 127 P-29P-15 P-5A 151 163TRIC1129 54 P-25 177 TRIC2 TRIC3 TRIC4115133 TRIC4ATRIC4-SPILL 132 117 180 LAKECANAL1 183182 TRIC5 116 LAKECANAL2 LAKECANAL4LAKECANAL3 TRIC5ATRIC5A_SPILL P-4A 500 179 118 153 TRIC6A137154 134 147 187 TRIC-OUTFALL 156135136 146 155 193 186 LAKECANAL7P-43142138158144 143 140 196 LAKECANAL8 197159 201157 LAKECANAL9 162 161 LAKECANAL12200 199 160 LAKECANAL10 TROC1 254P-50 P-77B TROC2 P-77C LAKECANAL11 P-50A P-80TROC3 P-77D 207 206 234225 204 213 P-80DTROC4 353 217 P-51 214 224216 LAKECANAL16TROC5 226221 TROC_1A 178 181 DTN15DTN10DTN12 DTN11 DTN13 DTN14 DTN8DTN7 DTN6 DTN5 DTN4 ResOutlet P-31 194 TRIC6_Spill TRIC6 Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update q 590 Feet EXHIBIT B-3 - SWMM Routing MapDeveloped Condition - North Map File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-3 - FUT_RoutingMap_North.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 Legend SWMM Nodes XW DIVIDER !(JUNCTION #*OUTFALL ")POND (EXIST.) SWMM Conveyance Links Link Orifice; Outlet; W eir Subbasin Boundary ^_Subasin Label Subbasin Connnection Irrigation or Drainage Canal Future Clark Channel Alignment !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( ") !( !(!( !( !(")!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(")!(!(")!( ") ") !( ") ") !(") !(!(!(!( !( !( ")")!(!( !( ")")") !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( ")!(!( !(")!( ") !( !(#*") !(!(!(!( !(#*!(") ") ")")!(")!(!(!(!(!(#*!(#*!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(#*")!( !(!( ")!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(") !(!( !( !( !( ") ")!(!(!( ")!(#*!(") !( ") ") ")!(")")#*") !(") !(!( !( !( !( !(#*") ")#*!(#*#*!( !( !( !(XWXWXWXW XWXW XWXW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW !(#*!( !( !( ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 TIMNATHRESERVOIR E COUNTY ROAD 40 MAIN ST.COUNTY ROAD 5MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-3E HARMONY RD S COUNTY ROAD 5KECHTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 1S COUNTY ROAD 3E COUNTY ROAD 36 Future Clark Drainage ChannelRequired Routing Adjustments CacheLa P o u dreRiverGreeley No.2Canal TROCLake Canal 11 14 20 21 50A 50 52 65 66 635859 60 55 51 4849 44 43A46 47A 4745 7679 78 77 77A77B80B80A 80 72A 72 67 68 71 120 86B86C 86A81 82 82A 82B 81A 77C 77D 80D 80C 75 84 75A 75B 74 86 82C 75C 82D 61 113A 57 62 64 114 119 111B 70 110 69 73 92 92A91 93 109 102 94 101 103103A 103B 103D 103C 104 106A 108 106 100A 107A 107 99 98 100 98A 85A 96 85B 95 97 89 87 83 85C 85 88 83A 90 75D 38 21A 43 70A 105 108A 113B 111A 112 130 60A 51A211 138 DTS-5-SF210 DTN-5-SFDTN-4-SFOP-103OP-77C219O P-92 OP-97 39 OP-77 TROCL18O P -8 5 CDTS-3-SFO P-82D 3O P -5 0 2 0 9 OP -77B DTN-13-PF DTN-13-SF 537 0 2 7 7 A DTS-4-SF C L A R K 6 CLARK8 O P -8 4 O P -98AOP-95O P-86 155 111 A O P -1 0 3 A C L A R K 3 147CLARK7 311 7 7 A O P-98A _W EIR145121A17436198283OP-86C OP-106A123175OP-50AOP-82D1T ROCL 1 5596088OP-7 5 D 292OP-110186153OP- 4 3 OP-106A_WEIR209B TROCL4143175A133246 1 2 0 A OP-981 7 7 185CO P -8 8 1121251 OP-75 149 TROCL31141761 8 4 TROCL1721735152 1 5 1 TR OCL8 144 156 TROCL5118 349 OP-77D249 282D146OP-51 75O P-10 4 OP-81 292A183O P-1 0 4 _ W EIR33109 L-9076 212 214 601 270 291 173 12410797CLARK4267A 286AOP - 1 0 7171 TROCL16OP - 1 0 7 _WE I RTROCL11 261 8946160 116_SF21894 116_pipe101 1 3 7 220 15999 112172169 170 71 O P -1 0 5 C L A R K 5 TROCL9C L A R K 2 1 1 1 B 185 286C158119209A61 286B87 95 193 CLARK1 2 6 4 T ROCL 1 4 142TROCL6TROCL10 6 2 120 OP-120J-CLARK5 J-CLARK4 J-CLARK3 J-CLARK2 J-CLARK1 156 136 P-120146 155 193 186 LAKECANAL7P-43142158144 143 140 196 LAKECANAL8 197159 201 157 LAKECANAL9 162 161 250 LAKECANAL12200 199 160 LAKECANAL10 TROC1 254P-50 252 253P-77BTROC2 P-77 P-77CLAKECANAL11 P-50A P-80 TROC3 P-77D 207 206 234225 204 213 P-80D P-81 TROC4 353217 P-51 P-86A P-86C 214 356 297 224 216 LAKECANAL16 TROC5226 221 298P-84 279 LAKECANAL17 350 P-82D1220 P-75 349 296352P-82D2 243231355 LAKECANAL18229 351 LAKECANAL19 P-86P-75A P-82D3 P-75D 248P-110 230 237 274238 LAKECANAL20 295 TROC6 348 LAKECANAL21TROC7 309310 307 LAKECANAL22276283 346 P-92 293 311 291 P-85B TROC8 275 P-85C312 284 277 285 314 303 J-90 327 P-95 TROC9 287 316317 326 P-88 P-97 TROC10a 328 TROC11 P-103A 329330 324P-103 321 P-104 P-98 P-107 TROC12P-103D1P-103C 338 P-103D2 339 P-98A 341 TROC-12A 323 342501 TROC13 G3-1 P-105 P-106A 335 TROC14 TROC-OUTFALL G3-2 TROC_1A 323-surf 191 DTN15DTN10DTN12DTN11DTN13DTN14 DTN9 DTN7 DTN6 DTN5 DTN4 DTN3 DTS2 DTS3 DTS4 DTS5 DTS6 DTS7DTSO1 360 ResOutlet G3-2_A Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update q 600 Feet EXHIBIT B-4 - SWMM Routing MapDeveloped Condition - South Map File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-4 - EX_RoutingMap_South.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 Legend SWMM Nodes XW DIVIDER !(JUNCTION #*OUTFALL ")POND (EXIST.) SWMM Conveyance Links Link Orifice; Outlet; W eir Subbasin Boundary ^_Subasin Label Subbasin Connection Irrigation or Drainage Canal Future Clark Channel Alignment NotesSubbasins with Land Use ChangePond Name Outlet Link Outlet NodeExisting Impervious (%)Future Impervious (%)Target Outflow Rate (cfs)(Exist 10yr)Model Pond Outlet Discharge (cfs)(Future 100‐yr Pond Outflows)100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr100‐yr Future Concept Pond Storage Volume (AF)2CP‐2 L‐CP‐2 53290775874742‐51‐3‐217.73CP‐3 L‐CP‐3 54580101034 9 5 10 5 2 ‐24 ‐4 ‐3 8.44CP‐4 L‐CP‐4 117208031 3276 30 17 32 18 10 ‐45 ‐13 ‐7 5.05CP‐5 L‐CP‐5 129255 9 97195941‐62‐5‐317.56CP‐6 L‐CP‐6 13329011810110‐7002.37CP‐7 L‐CP‐7 1322040303281 30 17 32 14 7 ‐49 ‐16 ‐10 3.18CP‐8 L‐CP‐8 13456749 49187 49 28 49 24 11 ‐137 ‐24 ‐17 41.79CP‐9 L‐CP‐9 5005503637137 35 20 37 16 7 ‐100 ‐19 ‐13 25.610CP‐10 L‐CP‐10 13812 55 6767185 67 38 67 33 18 ‐118 ‐34 ‐20 16.811CP‐11 L‐CP‐11 142239 4 42742421‐23‐2‐16.312CP‐12 L‐CP‐12 143544 11 1144 10 6 11 4 2 ‐34 ‐7 ‐4 6.913CP‐13 L‐CP‐13 LAKECANAL22038262777 26 15 27 12 6 ‐50 ‐14 ‐9 2.414CP‐14 L‐CP‐14 146233 11 1178 10 6 11 3 1 ‐67 ‐7 ‐5 16.715CP‐15 L‐CP‐15 14952022 2296 22 12 22 5 2 ‐74 ‐16 ‐10 10.917CP‐17 L‐CP‐17 153245 4 44542421‐41‐2‐16.918CP‐18 L‐CP‐18 156251 8 86384831‐56‐4‐315.020CP‐20 L‐CP‐20 15912 4022 2263 21 12 22 9 5 ‐41 ‐12 ‐8 4.221CP‐21 L‐CP‐21 16212 45 32 3286 31 18 32 14 6 ‐54 ‐17 ‐12 6.926CP‐26 L‐CP‐26 1691066171849 16 9 18 9 6 ‐31 ‐7 ‐4 5.730CP‐30 L‐CP‐30 177530331821310‐16‐1‐11.333CP‐33 L‐CP‐33 17912 29761863621‐12‐4‐31.034CP‐34 L‐CP‐34 1801061 24 2493 23 13 24 12 6 ‐69 ‐11 ‐7 7.735CP‐35 L‐CP‐35 182545 22 22125 22 12 22 10 4 ‐103 ‐12 ‐8 14.737CP‐37 L‐CP‐37 18753729 29104 29 17 29 11 5 ‐75 ‐18 ‐12 17.838CP‐38 L‐CP‐38 186530171759 16 9 17 6 3 ‐42 ‐10 ‐7 9.139CP‐39 L‐CP‐39 TRIC6521 12 1283 12 7 12 4 1 ‐71 ‐8 ‐6 6.543CP‐43 L‐CP‐43 193522 2727120 26 15 27 7 3 ‐93 ‐19 ‐12 13.145CP‐45 L‐CP‐45 199242778874731‐81‐4‐312.446CP‐46 L‐CP‐46 20112 3833 3392 32 19 33 13 6 ‐59 ‐19 ‐13 6.747CP‐47 L‐CP‐47 LAKECANAL9534 5 57053521‐65‐3‐23.048CP‐48 L‐CP‐48 20456821 2180 21 12 21 11 6 ‐60 ‐10 ‐6 17.949CP‐49 L‐CP‐49 20712 64 19 1955 19 11 19 10 5 ‐36 ‐9 ‐6 5.251CP‐51 L‐CP‐51 213578662153632‐15‐2‐14.652CP‐52 L‐CP‐52 216207814 1439 14 8 14 8 5 ‐26 ‐6 ‐3 2.2Timnath Elem 55CP‐55 L‐CP‐55 21745 75 22 2253 21 12 22 12 7 ‐31 ‐10 ‐5 1.261CP‐61 L‐CP‐61 22040705.04.91353521‐8‐3‐20.364CP‐64 L‐CP‐64 2215077651553531‐10‐3‐20.367CP‐67 L‐CP‐67 J‐CLARK3249 3 32432311‐21‐1‐15.968CP‐68 L‐CP‐68 225236664653621‐41‐3‐29.069CP‐69 L‐CP‐69 229275 4 43342421‐29‐2‐19.670CP‐70 L‐CP‐70 230250664153631‐35‐3‐210.871CP‐71 L‐CP‐71 LAKECANAL11530552942511‐24‐3‐22.472CP‐72 L‐CP‐72 234232 1010124 10 5 10 3 1 ‐114 ‐7 ‐4 15.473CP‐73 L‐CP‐73 J‐CLARK12501717134 17 9 17 8 4 ‐117 ‐8 ‐5 32.276CP‐76 L‐CP‐76 250535 2020161 19 11 20 7 3 ‐142 ‐12 ‐8 12.383CP‐83 L‐CP‐83 276572 19 1991 18 10 19 10 6 ‐73 ‐8 ‐5 15.885CP‐85 L‐CP‐85 283554 35 35125 34 20 35 16 7 ‐90 ‐19 ‐13 25.987CP‐87 L‐CP‐87 LAKECANAL21245 2 23921211‐37‐103.089CP‐89 L‐CP‐89 LAKECANAL22231 2 21911210‐17‐102.190CP‐90 L‐CP‐90 J‐90234665253621‐46‐3‐28.291CP‐91 L‐CP‐91 307580551942531‐15‐2‐13.992CP‐92 L‐CP‐92 P‐92108014 1467 14 8 14 7 3 ‐53 ‐7 ‐5 5.893CP‐93 L‐CP‐93 310251 101071 10 6 10 4 2 ‐62 ‐6 ‐4 19.594CP‐94 L‐CP‐94 312245 8 85274831‐44‐4‐313.399CP‐99 L‐CP‐99 324225 3 32021310‐17‐1‐13.0100CP‐100 L‐CP‐100 TROC1252711 1147 11 6 11 2 1 ‐37 ‐8 ‐5 6.0101CP‐101 L‐CP‐101 327245 9 96985931‐61‐5‐315.5102CP‐102 L‐CP‐102 328550101041 10 6 10 4 2 ‐32 ‐6 ‐4 6.9106CP‐106 L‐CP‐106 5011045 13 1253 12 7 12 4 2 ‐40 ‐8 ‐5 3.7108CP‐108 L‐CP‐108 G3‐2_A1035 9 83085821‐22‐6‐42.2109CP‐109 L‐CP‐109 3461075 15 1443 15 9 14 6 3 ‐29 ‐9 ‐6 6.1Existing Subbasin Outflows (cfs) Future Pond Outlet Flows (cfs) Discharge Comparison EX ‐‐> FUT (cfs)Table B‐2 ‐ Summary of Conceptual Detention Basin Flow RatesF:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Future Pond Calcs.xlsx8/21/2018 NotesSubbasins with Land Use ChangePond Name Outlet Link Outlet NodeExisting Impervious (%)Future Impervious (%)Target Outflow Rate (cfs)(Exist 10yr)Model Pond Outlet Discharge (cfs)(Future 100‐yr Pond Outflows)100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr100‐yr Future Concept Pond Storage Volume (AF)Existing Subbasin Outflows (cfs) Future Pond Outlet Flows (cfs) Discharge Comparison EX ‐‐> FUT (cfs)Table B‐2 ‐ Summary of Conceptual Detention Basin Flow Rates110CP‐110 L‐CP‐110 P‐110673 8 83085842‐22‐4‐35.7Upstream of Tim Res 121CP‐121 L‐CP‐121 1901045 1231 12383402 1231 702 1238 558 259 ‐2164 ‐673 ‐443 310.5122CP‐122 L‐CP‐122 189245 73 72465 73 43 72 36 21 ‐393 ‐37 ‐22 125.8123CP‐123 L‐CP‐123 185239 69 68437 68 40 68 33 18 ‐368 ‐36 ‐22 108.4124CP‐124 L‐CP‐124 1842481601591019 160 93 159 76 36 ‐859 ‐83 ‐57 286.7125CP‐125 L‐CP‐125 17815 43 732 7301886 731 409 730 362 194 ‐1156 ‐369 ‐215 94.9126CP‐126 L‐CP‐126 1761015 163916414530 1639 935 1641 465 203 ‐2889 ‐1174 ‐732 164.3100ACP‐100AL‐CP‐100A TROC1352711 1142 11 6 11 3 1 ‐31 ‐8 ‐5 5.9108ACP‐108AL‐CP‐108A 335525 2 1.91021210‐8‐1‐11.0113ACP‐113AL‐CP‐113A DTS21072 3 3921311‐7‐1‐10.815ACP‐15A L‐CP‐15A 151355774064731‐33‐3‐28.621ACP‐21A L‐CP‐21A 140242 8 85784831‐49‐5‐313.843ACP‐43A L‐CP‐43A 196544 101047 10 6 10 3 1 ‐38 ‐7 ‐4 6.947ACP‐47A L‐CP‐47A LAKECANAL10543664263621‐37‐3‐23.970ACP‐70A L‐CP‐70A 231267332232321‐19‐1‐16.872ACP‐72A L‐CP‐72A P‐801030331021310‐7‐2‐10.683ACP‐83A L‐CP‐83A 277547331632311‐13‐2‐12.085CCP‐85C L‐CP‐85C 29355012 1251 11 7 12 5 2 ‐39 ‐7 ‐5 8.19ACP‐9A L‐CP‐9A 136525662263611‐16‐4‐33.0Subasins with LU Change& No Detention PondDowntown 57DTN4808021 9 4Downtown 58DTN65080732Downtown 59DTN7505020 8 4Downtown 60DTN7505610 3 2Downtown 60ADTN10505610 4 2Downtown 62DTN3707920 8 5Downtown 63DTN65080721Downtown 65DTN14508012 5 3Downtown 66DTN13508017 7 4Tim Res. 120P‐12052 655829 2331 1144Downtown 51A108011 3 2F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Future Pond Calcs.xlsx8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2 L‐CP‐2 457122858 139206260352463607 234567 3 L‐CP‐3 579142134 70102129176233309 2457810 4 L‐CP‐4 17 24 30 41 55 76 62 91 114 155 204 272 10 15 18 22 27 32 5 L‐CP‐5 579173771 116167210290391534 124679 6 L‐CP‐6 011248 182633466078 011111 7 L‐CP‐7 17 24 30 42 57 81 34 48 60 84 116 162 7 11 14 19 25 32 8 L‐CP‐8 28 39 49 74 116 187 327 476 597 815 1,089 1,466 11 18 24 33 41 49 9 L‐CP‐9 20 29 35 53 83 137 186 267 333 454 613 842 7 12 16 23 30 37 10 L‐CP‐10 38 54 67 92 128 185 163 235 293 396 531 725 18 27 33 44 55 67 11 L‐CP‐11 23461327 38546792126176 112234 12 L‐CP‐12 6810162644 496986117158219 2346811 13 L‐CP‐13 15 21 26 37 53 77 27 38 48 67 93 130 6 10 12 16 21 27 14 L‐CP‐14 6810183878 93132163223309438 1236811 15 L‐CP‐15 12 17 22 34 57 96 49 69 85 123 179 269 2 3 5 12 17 22 16 ‐2941517097138 2941517097138 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 17 L‐CP‐17 23492245 446379107145201 112334 18 L‐CP‐18 468133163 101145181245330452 123568 20 L‐CP‐20 12 17 21 29 42 63 39 56 69 94 128 178 5 8 9 13 17 22 21 L‐CP‐21 18 25 31 43 60 86 65 93 115 156 211 292 6 11 14 19 25 32 22 ‐27384668103160 27384668103160 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 23 ‐5810131825 5810131825 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 24 ‐91316243761 91316243761 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 25 ‐152227375174 152227375174 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 26 L‐CP‐26 9 13 16 23 32 49 55 80 100 135 180 242 6 8 9 12 15 18 27 ‐172531425678 172531425678 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 28 ‐202834476697 202834476697 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 29 ‐121822304365 121822304365 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 30 L‐CP‐30 1224918 81114192740 011223 31 ‐32455680116171 32455680116171 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 32 ‐31445575106155 31445575106155 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 33 L‐CP‐33 35681218 81214202840 112356 34 L‐CP‐34 13 18 23 37 58 93 71 102 129 180 244 332 6 9 12 16 20 24 35 L‐CP‐35 12 16 22 40 70 125 99 141 178 251 346 482 4 7 10 14 18 22 37 L‐CP‐37 17 23 29 42 64 104 117 167 206 281 384 540 5 8 11 17 22 29 38 L‐CP‐38 9 13 16 24 36 59 55 78 96 131 182 261 3 5 6 10 13 17 39 L‐CP‐39 71012224483 29404975117184 1246912 43 L‐CP‐43 15 21 26 41 69 120 66 93 115 160 230 341 3 5 7 14 21 27 44 ‐346214379 346214379 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 45 L‐CP‐45 457204688 76107133185256360 123467 46 L‐CP‐46 19 26 32 45 63 92 58 82 102 140 193 271 6 9 13 19 26 33 47 L‐CP‐47 345163670 1926324770106 112345 48 L‐CP‐48 12 17 21 31 49 80 141 206 258 352 469 631 6 9 11 14 17 21 49 L‐CP‐49 11 15 19 26 37 55 52 75 94 127 169 229 5 8 10 12 15 19 50 ‐81214202942 81214202942 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 51 L‐CP‐51 34581221 38577196127170 223456 52 L‐CP‐52 81114192739 2739496789118 5 6 8101114 55 L‐CP‐55 12 17 21 29 39 53 19 28 36 48 64 85 7 10 12 15 18 22 57 ‐479121621 589131723 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 58 ‐223457 2346810 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 59 ‐468101420 468111420 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 60 ‐2335710 2345811 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 61 L‐CP‐61 3457913 578111520 122345 62 ‐578111520 5810131723 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 63 ‐122357 234579 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 64 L‐CP‐64 34571115 578111520 123345 65 ‐3456912 467101317 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 66 ‐45791217 6810141824 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 67 L‐CP‐67 22351224 38556994127174 111233 68 L‐CP‐68 345112446 507088123170240 112456 69 L‐CP‐69 23471633 72106133180239319 122334 70 L‐CP‐70 34592041 72103129175235323 123456 71 L‐CP‐71 23471529 142025355279 111235 72 L‐CP‐72 57103167124 78111139198282406 1235810 73 L‐CP‐73 9 13 17 32 70 134 207 298 373 515 698 959 4 7 8 11 14 17 74 ‐1825314672116 1825314672116 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 75 ‐2839486895135 2839486895135 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 76 L‐CP‐76 11 16 19 39 84 161 77 109 134 188 265 383 3 5 7 12 15 20 77 ‐33465886129198 33465886129198 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 78 ‐1015184193177 1015184193177 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 79 ‐467142954 467142954 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 80 ‐356111830 356111830 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81 ‐32445581120180 32445581120180 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 82 ‐1825304568106 1825304568106 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 83 L‐CP‐83 10 14 18 30 52 91 128 187 235 321 427 573 6 8 10 13 16 19 84 ‐35496095160264 35496095160264 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 85 L‐CP‐85 20 28 34 50 77 125 195 282 351 475 637 870 7 12 16 22 28 35 86 ‐557897132181256 557897132181256 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 87 L‐CP‐87 11282039 2028354969100 111122 88 ‐93132163224307432 93132163224307432 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 89 L‐CP‐89 1114919 121721294161 011122 90 L‐CP‐90 345102552 476783113156221 112356 91 L‐CP‐91 23471119 32476081107142 123345 92 L‐CP‐92 81114223867 5884104141187249 35791114 93 L‐CP‐93 6810163471 131188234317426585 2346810 94 L‐CP‐94 467122552 86123153207280388 123568 95 ‐76108133183254361 76108133183254361 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 96 ‐356143160 356143160 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 97 ‐6085104148217325 6085104148217325 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 98 ‐6389110153213304 6389110153213304 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 99 L‐CP‐99 12251020 142025355073 011223 100 L‐CP‐100 6911172847 33465780112163 1226811 101 L‐CP‐101 578153469 99142176239324449 123579 102 L‐CP‐102 6810152441 517390122164226 2346810 103 ‐3043537297134 3043537297134 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 104 ‐86121150206284398 86121150206284398 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 105 ‐31455777103141 31455777103141 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 106 L‐CP‐106 71012193253 30435374103145 23471012 107 ‐6389110152211300 6389110152211300 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 108 L‐CP‐108 578121930 162329405577 122468 109 L‐CP‐109 91215213043 5682102139185247 34691214 110 L‐CP‐110 568121830 476987117156209 234568 112 ‐223479 223479 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 114 ‐568111522 568111522 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 119 ‐589131927 589131927 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 120 ‐1,144 1,796 2,331 3,237 4,328 5,829 1,277 2,049 2,691 3,774 5,073 6,847 ‐ ‐ ‐‐‐‐ 121 L‐CP‐121 702 995 1,231 1,700 2,364 3,402 2,216 3,433 4,425 6,109 8,149 10,971 259 431 558 754 974 1,238 122 L‐CP‐122 43 59 73 122 231 465 640 992 1,278 1,765 2,354 3,170 21 30 36 47 59 72 123 L‐CP‐123 40 56 68 114 217 437 552 845 1,082 1,486 1,980 2,668 18 27 33 44 55 68 124 L‐CP‐124 93 130 160 267 506 1,019 1,454 2,265 2,929 4,053 5,411 7,285 36 61 76 103 130 159 125 L‐CP‐125 409 588 731 998 1,354 1,886 880 1,357 1,745 2,406 3,207 4,319 194 298 362 464 579 730 126 L‐CP‐126 935 1,325 1,639 2,263 3,148 4,530 1,336 1,920 2,389 3,261 4,424 6,163 203 337 465 753 1,112 1,641 130 ‐35681217 35681217 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Future SWMM Model Results ‐ Concept Detention Discharge Discharge (cfs)Subbasin Concept Detention Outlet Link Table B‐3 ‐ Subbasin Discharge Results Existing SWMM Model Results ‐ Subbasin Discharge Future SWMM Model Results ‐ Subbasin Discharge Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Subbasin Results.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Future SWMM Model Results ‐ Concept Detention Discharge Discharge (cfs)Subbasin Concept Detention Outlet Link Table B‐3 ‐ Subbasin Discharge Results Existing SWMM Model Results ‐ Subbasin Discharge Future SWMM Model Results ‐ Subbasin Discharge Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) 100A L‐CP‐100A 6911162642 33465779112162 1236811 103A ‐2636456286121 2636456286121 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 103B ‐7912172638 7912172638 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 103C ‐202835486794 202835486794 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 103D ‐2332395785124 2332395785124 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 106A ‐85125158215286389 85125158215286389 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 107A ‐192632466798 192632466798 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 108A L‐CP‐108A 1223610 5810131928 001112 111A ‐2346811 2346811 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 111B ‐71013182433 71013182433 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 113A L‐CP‐113A 122369 81215202736 111223 113B ‐579121622 579121622 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 15A L‐CP‐15A 456112040 6188110149201274 123467 21A L‐CP‐21A 468132857 86122152207281391 123568 25A ‐578121726 578121726 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 43A L‐CP‐43A 6810162747 476884115156217 1236810 47A L‐CP‐47A 356112242 2738476795137 112346 4A ‐466987119159212 466987119159212 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 50A ‐101417243448 101417243448 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 51A ‐2234711 111620283749 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5A ‐142024355076 142024355076 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 60A ‐2345710 3446812 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 70A L‐CP‐70A 22351122 507391124165222 112233 72A L‐CP‐72A 1224610 467101522 011123 75A ‐202835486899 202835486899 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 75B ‐81113244378 81113244378 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 75C ‐1224916 1224916 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 75D ‐0113612 0113612 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 77A ‐111259 111259 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 77B ‐111247 111247 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 77C ‐7911213862 7911213862 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 77D ‐2333405887131 2333405887131 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 80A ‐12251120 12251120 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 80B ‐011247 011247 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 80C ‐345101934 345101934 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 80D ‐345102240 345102240 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81A ‐579132031 579132031 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 82A ‐578132239 578132239 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 82B ‐11261424 11261424 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 82C ‐234204266 234204266 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 82D ‐93131160238363558 93131160238363558 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 83A L‐CP‐83A 2235916 152126364968 111223 85A ‐2639496789117 2639496789117 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 85B ‐5888111152200263 5888111152200263 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 85C L‐CP‐85C 7911182951 5985106144194267 23571012 86A ‐111619284365 111619284365 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 86B ‐6810162439 6810162439 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 86C ‐34581423 34581423 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 92A ‐2638476486118 2638476486118 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 98A ‐2940507099144 2940507099144 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 9A L‐CP‐9A 35681322 162227385480 111346 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Subbasin Results.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 5 10 16 21 29 39 55 11 17 21 28 34 40 10 10 16 20 28 39 94 7 12 15 20 26 34 14 16 23 30 50 84 140 19 30 38 54 76 110 31 14 20 32 90 213 423 23 38 55 100 153 227 33 8 11 13 23 52 103 3 5 7 14 21 27 35 3 7 21 91 223 466 28 45 65 119 181 264 37 30 41 65 236 586 1,192 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 39 284059162364701 001114 45 30 42 64 236 591 1,224 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 46 224163669 2347911 53 224163669 2347911 59 372 549 702 1,054 1,732 3,035 260 436 614 1,065 1,617 2,313 60 28 40 56 203 573 1,213 46 79 101 140 178 222 61 6 8 10 30 70 133 3 5 7 12 15 19 62 295 438 553 771 1,149 2,007 247 406 543 772 1,009 1,283 63 12392555 23451013 64 15 21 33 91 205 379 17 27 38 74 118 182 67 29 43 63 231 589 1,269 4 7 9 13 16 20 70 7 10 13 22 46 84 7 10 13 22 46 84 71 14 20 26 48 90 160 14 20 26 48 90 160 75 15 22 28 52 126 249 15 24 32 44 55 68 76 13 19 25 52 125 247 15 24 31 44 55 68 87 10 15 20 51 122 240 15 24 31 44 55 67 88 2234816 111223 89 75 114 145 198 269 379 74 112 143 196 266 374 94 233112755 2346810 95 2 3 4 12 37 83 3 5 7 11 14 17 97 6 7 8 17 42 89 6 9 11 16 20 23 98 62 88 109 149 213 318 62 88 109 149 213 318 99 38 53 64 81 123 199 38 53 65 82 125 201 101 50 76 97 133 183 260 50 76 97 133 183 260 102 23392552 234567 103 35681529 2457810 104 12 19 25 34 46 61 11 17 21 28 34 40 107 0114917 011223 108 13 20 30 71 133 227 25 41 54 77 106 150 109 233123162 123579 112 5 6 8 27 61 111 5 7 10 20 45 82 114 000000 000000 115 12 17 21 30 49 93 2 3 5 12 17 22 118 234102857 123568 119 12 17 23 58 123 230 13 21 29 46 69 101 120 9 12 13 15 19 34 9 12 13 15 19 34 122 23 35 45 63 94 157 23 35 45 63 94 157 123 19 27 34 46 66 97 19 27 34 46 66 97 124 74 113 147 200 262 335 74 113 147 200 262 335 127 22 33 41 56 76 104 15 23 30 42 57 80 128 18 26 34 54 83 132 21 34 44 63 93 139 133 6 9 12 16 22 30 6 9 12 16 22 30 134 1113714 011223 135 11 18 27 59 113 199 10 17 22 32 40 49 137 14 20 32 90 211 410 21 34 49 91 140 211 138 5 7 9 12 15 21 5 7 9 12 15 21 142 0013817 011122 143 01171835 111122 144 1122223 1122223 145 7 10 13 18 37 68 7 10 13 18 37 68 146 11 16 21 29 48 81 11 16 21 29 48 81 147 34591318 34591318 148 29 41 64 234 583 1,199 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 149 6 8 10 14 21 34 5 8 10 12 15 19 151 11 17 22 29 45 73 11 17 22 29 45 73 152 5 8 10 14 20 29 5 6 8 10 11 14 153 5 7 9 13 19 29 5 7 9 13 19 29 155 11 17 21 28 38 52 7 10 12 15 18 22 156 711133785162 711133785162 158 122102547 112345 159 1 2 4 15 31 54 2 3 5 19 39 69 160 000000 000000 161 000049117 0000025 162 26 38 45 56 74 148 26 38 45 56 74 110 163 15 23 29 41 57 84 24 37 46 63 86 122 164 7 9 11 16 24 39 5 9 11 16 21 27 Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐4 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Link Flows Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results Element ID Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐4 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Link Flows Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results Element ID Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) 165 6 9 12 17 31 87 7 11 14 20 26 34 166 10 20 30 48 73 106 15 24 32 52 81 122 169 12261532 122334 170 345101934 2457912 171 22381935 112346 172 47103575138 12481114 173 29 43 63 231 589 1,269 4 7 9 13 16 20 174 5 8 10 17 45 90 3 5 7 11 14 18 175 34571528 111235 176 4 7 21 91 224 469 28 45 65 119 183 267 177 17 25 32 49 81 136 17 25 32 49 81 136 178 14 21 27 38 53 81 13 20 26 37 51 72 183 5 8 9 25 58 111 6 9 11 14 17 21 184 24 38 48 65 112 190 24 38 48 65 112 190 185 14 22 28 38 56 108 7 12 16 22 28 35 186 48 72 91 123 166 234 48 72 91 123 166 234 193 244112856 2346810 203 23471528 2457810 206 00121666 011114 208 10 18 28 67 124 216 25 41 54 77 106 150 209 91316223252 6 913192633 210 38 54 68 92 150 271 18 27 33 44 55 67 211 7 10 14 34 74 162 13 21 29 41 54 68 212 34571733 2346811 214 345133369 1236811 217 14 21 28 47 80 135 14 21 28 42 62 93 218 15 21 28 56 106 189 13 21 28 43 64 95 219 27 39 57 156 347 665 65 108 147 217 287 377 220 6 8 10 13 19 34 4 7 9 13 17 22 223 14 20 30 84 188 341 17 27 35 69 109 169 224 6 9 11 16 26 46 6 9 11 16 26 46 226 91316223044 6 8 9121518 234 9 13 16 26 48 84 6 10 13 18 22 27 246 294159166377726 001114 249 4 5 7 10 17 30 5 8 10 12 15 19 251 30 42 64 236 591 1,221 17 28 36 50 62 76 261 223469 112345 264 122347 112344 268 28 42 63 230 580 1,216 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 270 3 4 6 19 47 95 5 7 9 13 16 20 283 4 6 8 25 57 109 6 9 11 14 17 21 291 1224918 123345 292 000000 0000211 349 3 5 6122343 71012162024 361 8 12 15 21 30 42 8 12 15 21 30 42 600 9 13 16 38 75 166 13 21 29 42 54 68 601 345133263 123579 1121 295 438 553 771 1,149 2,007 247 406 543 772 1,009 1,283 1122 15 21 26 77 194 405 19 28 34 46 58 71 1123 28 40 56 203 573 1,213 46 79 101 140 178 222 1124 33 47 57 171 420 876 32 56 72 99 126 156 1125 372 549 702 1,054 1,732 3,035 260 436 614 1,065 1,617 2,313 1126 363 532 666 901 1,361 2,353 145 237 334 660 1,091 1,630 1611 11 15 26 73 141 218 11 19 29 59 85 110 105A 14 20 25 35 50 74 14 20 25 35 50 74 105C 3 4 5 22 58 114 1 2 4 13 29 57 111A 24 36 47 106 223 436 53 87 116 165 210 265 111B 16 28 42 106 236 472 55 91 122 175 224 281 115AB 233747107 123122028 116_pipe 111111 111111 116_SF 000000 000000 120A 71013182846 23471012 121A 16 24 30 41 56 75 11 18 23 32 42 54 121B 28 40 58 161 363 698 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 125A 19 29 38 56 91 153 19 29 38 56 91 153 134A 11 17 21 31 49 85 6 10 13 18 22 27 175A 19 28 34 47 65 94 19 28 34 47 65 94 177A 011122 011122 185C 6911152649 23571012 209A 7 10 14 35 76 168 38 62 84 119 152 195 209B 33 49 61 108 224 438 53 87 116 165 210 265 267A 2372559104 12481114 277A 1113513 1113513 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐4 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Link Flows Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results Element ID Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) OP‐50A 000004 000004 OP‐51 0 0 0 12 43 99 14 22 28 37 46 56 OP‐5A 00082552 00082552 OP‐75 011112 011112 OP‐75A 8 12 15 19 24 29 8 12 15 19 24 29 OP‐75A_WEIR 000000 000000 OP‐75D 112223 112223 OP‐75D_WEIR 0000021 0000021 OP‐77 011122 011122 OP‐77B 1112411 1112411 OP‐77C 000111 000111 OP‐77C_WEIR 000009 000009 OP‐77D 1113412 1113412 OP‐80 000000 000000 OP‐80D 111233 111233 OP‐80D_WEIR 0000114 0000114 OP‐81 2223510 2223510 OP‐82D1 10 12 14 21 29 31 10 12 14 21 29 31 OP‐82D1_WEIR 0000080 0000080 OP‐82D2 8 11 12 18 26 62 8 11 12 18 26 62 OP‐82D2_WEIR 0000018 0000018 OP‐82D3 9 10 12 16 21 32 9 10 12 16 21 32 OP‐84 34591318 34591318 OP‐85B 344555 344555 OP‐85B‐WEIR 0000014 0000014 OP‐85C 6 8 11 33 78 151 8 12 16 22 27 33 OP‐86 1 2 4 10 19 28 1 2 4 10 19 28 OP‐86A 223456 223456 OP‐86C 000001 000001 OP‐88 1 3 4153541 61015263641 OP‐92 000000 0000211 OP‐95 445566 445566 OP‐97 18 20 21 24 66 115 18 20 21 24 54 97 OP‐98 445566 445566 OP‐98A 111111 111111 OP‐98A_WEIR 000000 000000 TRICL1 191 191 192 198 213 240 191 192 193 194 195 196 TRICL2 192 193 196 219 252 276 192 195 197 205 218 236 TRICL3 193 195 198 225 297 380 194 197 200 211 223 241 TRICL4 212 218 225 261 343 445 209 216 223 246 268 311 TRICL5 212 218 225 261 293 326 209 216 223 246 267 286 TRICL6 218 227 242 294 369 453 219 232 246 278 307 334 TRICL7 207 211 215 221 227 235 208 213 216 219 222 224 TRICL7A 207 212 217 233 256 292 209 215 220 225 231 236 TRICL8 205 209 213 222 227 229 207 212 216 220 222 223 TROC_1B 214 219 223 242 273 322 226 238 249 274 306 409 TROCL1 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROCL1_A 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROCL10 254 276 304 495 888 1,632 363 460 552 749 975 1,280 TROCL11 254 276 304 495 888 1,631 363 460 552 749 975 1,280 TROCL13 256 278 307 508 921 1,669 365 464 558 761 995 1,309 TROCL14 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 371 472 576 784 1,021 1,355 TROCL15 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,031 1,369 TROCL16 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,030 1,369 TROCL17 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROCL18 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROCL3 216 223 230 290 395 561 226 238 250 276 335 446 TROCL4 216 224 232 295 404 578 226 238 250 276 346 465 TROCL5 217 224 232 296 405 578 227 239 251 278 346 464 TROCL6 224 235 246 314 439 635 227 239 251 292 385 531 TROCL8 252 273 301 491 885 1,629 360 456 549 744 969 1,264 TROCL9 252 273 301 491 884 1,628 360 457 549 745 971 1,267 CLARK1 ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 132217298467653869 CLARK2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 127208287448628838 CLARK3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 125206283442619827 CLARK4 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 112185254400559747 CLARK5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 107177244386542727 CLARK6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 105174240378533711 CLARK7 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 78129177267355462 CLARK8 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 73122167249330430 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 115 35681529 2457810 116 12 19 25 34 46 61 11 17 21 28 34 40 117 17 24 30 41 55 76 11 17 21 28 34 40 118 16 34 52 86 120 150 15 25 38 66 104 136 127 14 20 24 35 50 76 14 20 24 35 50 76 129 5 7 9 23 61 122 1 2 4 13 30 58 132 17 24 30 42 58 96 7 12 15 20 26 34 133 01121666 011114 134 28 39 49 82 151 253 25 41 55 80 114 162 135 13 20 30 71 133 227 25 41 54 77 106 150 136 7 10 14 36 76 168 38 62 84 119 152 197 137 9 13 16 38 75 166 13 21 29 42 54 68 138 38 54 67 92 150 271 18 27 33 44 55 67 140 27 41 53 115 248 487 55 91 123 175 224 282 142 40 57 71 109 225 439 53 87 117 165 210 265 143 6810162644 2346811 144 33 49 61 108 224 438 53 87 116 165 210 265 146 6810183878 1236811 147 000000 000000 149 12 17 22 34 57 96 2 3 5 12 17 22 151 4 5 6 11 51 117 1 2 3 12 21 28 153 22 32 40 62 98 158 25 37 47 65 90 128 154 16 23 30 50 84 140 19 30 38 54 76 110 155 15 22 29 58 107 191 14 23 30 45 67 99 156 468133163 123568 157 27 39 57 156 347 665 65 108 147 217 287 377 158 16 23 31 69 140 258 14 22 30 47 70 103 159 12 17 21 29 42 63 5 8 9 13 17 22 160 284059162364701 001114 161 28 40 58 161 363 698 74 122 167 249 330 430 162 18 26 32 43 60 86 11 18 23 32 42 54 163 23 35 45 63 94 157 23 35 45 63 94 157 164 29 42 53 77 115 179 29 42 53 77 115 179 165 5 8 10 13 18 25 5 8 10 13 18 25 166 9 13 16 24 37 61 9 13 16 24 37 61 169 91316233249 6 8 9121518 170 24 35 44 60 81 115 17 25 32 45 62 86 171 22 33 41 56 76 104 15 23 30 42 57 80 173 20 28 37 57 87 139 23 36 46 66 94 139 176 935 1,325 1,639 2,263 3,148 4,530 203 337 465 753 1,112 1,641 177 1224918 011223 178 454 666 840 1,187 1,802 3,088 267 455 630 1,078 1,620 2,319 179 28 42 49 87 192 358 27 40 48 69 109 169 180 13 18 23 37 58 93 6 10 13 18 22 27 181 372 549 702 1,054 1,732 3,035 260 436 614 1,065 1,617 2,313 182 13 20 30 62 116 204 10 17 22 32 40 49 183 11 17 21 31 49 85 6 10 13 18 22 27 184 93 130 160 267 506 1,019 36 61 76 103 130 159 185 40 57 70 212 584 1,231 47 79 102 140 179 222 186 14 20 32 90 213 424 23 38 55 100 153 227 187 17 24 35 95 215 427 21 34 49 91 140 210 188 28 40 56 203 573 1,213 46 79 101 140 178 222 189 43 59 73 122 231 465 21 30 36 47 59 72 190 702 996 1,231 1,700 2,364 3,402 260 433 561 773 1,012 1,288 191 295 438 553 771 1,149 2,007 247 406 543 772 1,009 1,283 193 15 21 26 41 69 120 3 5 7 14 21 27 194 15 21 33 91 206 379 17 27 38 74 118 182 196 6 8 23 91 224 469 28 45 65 119 181 264 197 4 7 21 91 224 470 28 45 65 119 183 267 199 30 42 66 239 596 1,200 107 177 244 386 543 727 200 294159166378726 001114 201 19 26 32 45 63 92 6 9 13 19 26 33 204 30 41 65 236 586 1,203 112 185 255 400 560 747 206 6 8 10 14 21 34 5 8 10 12 15 19 207 11 15 19 26 37 55 5 8 10 12 15 19 213 4 6 7142546 71012162024 214 30 42 64 237 593 1,224 17 28 37 50 62 76 216 81114192739 5 6 8101114 217 12 17 21 29 39 53 7 10 12 15 18 22 220 3457913 122345 221 34571115 123345 223 30 42 64 236 591 1,224 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 224 224163669 2347911 Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results 225 346184280 2347911 226 47103575138 12481114 229 23471633 122334 230 4 6 8 22 53 104 5 7 9 13 17 20 231 356112035 34571012 234 710143781151 12481114 237 29 43 63 231 589 1,269 4 7 9 13 16 20 238 29 43 64 233 592 1,273 5 7 9 13 16 20 239 30 42 64 237 597 1,246 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 243 20 28 35 48 68 99 20 28 35 48 68 99 248 7 11 14 22 46 85 7 11 14 22 46 85 250 11 16 19 39 84 161 3 5 7 12 15 20 252 33 46 58 86 129 198 33 46 58 86 129 198 253 011122 011122 254 1113513 1113513 274 17 26 34 50 94 164 17 26 34 50 94 164 275 5 8 9 25 58 111 6 9 11 14 17 21 276 10 15 18 30 63 123 6 9 11 14 17 21 277 2235916 111223 279 35 49 61 97 162 266 35 49 61 97 162 266 283 20 28 34 50 77 125 7 12 16 22 28 35 284 19 29 38 52 127 250 15 24 32 44 55 68 285 15 22 28 52 126 249 15 24 32 44 55 68 287 13 19 25 52 125 247 15 24 31 44 55 68 291 000000 0000211 293 7911182951 23571012 295 1 2 4 10 19 28 1 2 4 10 19 28 296 55 78 97 132 181 256 55 78 97 132 181 256 297 000001 000001 298 6 8 10 16 24 39 6 8 10 16 24 39 303 94 133 165 227 312 440 93 132 163 224 307 432 307 23471119 123345 309 26 38 47 64 86 118 26 38 47 64 86 118 310 6810163471 2346810 311 244112856 2346810 312 4 6 7 12 37 82 3 5 7 11 14 17 314 6 7 8 17 43 89 6 9 11 16 20 24 316 62 88 109 150 214 319 62 89 110 150 215 320 317 60 85 104 148 217 325 60 85 104 148 217 325 321 63 89 110 153 213 304 63 89 110 153 213 304 323 111111 111111 323‐surf 000000 000000 324 12251020 011223 326 345133263 123579 327 578153469 123579 328 6 8 10 17 45 90 3 5 7 11 14 18 329 7 10 12 33 74 146 5 7 10 26 58 114 330 21 26 30 38 48 63 21 26 30 38 48 63 335 1223610 001112 338 8 10 11 14 18 33 8 10 11 14 18 33 339 10 12 13 16 23 41 10 12 13 16 23 41 341 19 26 32 46 67 98 19 26 32 46 67 98 342 102 150 188 256 346 477 102 150 188 256 346 477 346 91215213043 34691214 348 10 15 18 26 38 54 8 13 16 22 29 39 349 7 10 13 18 24 33 7 10 13 18 24 33 350 5 7 9 12 16 22 5 7 9 12 16 22 351 5 8 9 13 19 27 5 8 9 13 19 27 352 5 6 8 11 15 22 5 6 8 11 15 22 353 5 7 9 13 20 31 5 7 9 13 20 31 355 8 11 12 18 26 80 8 11 12 18 26 80 356 223456 223456 360 8 12 16 22 30 43 8 12 16 22 30 43 500 20 29 35 53 83 169 13 22 30 42 54 68 501 71012193253 23471012 53 457122858 234567 54 579142134 2457810 DTN10 13 19 24 33 44 60 7 11 13 17 21 27 DTN11 12 19 24 33 44 60 7 11 13 17 21 26 DTN12 12 18 21 28 37 53 7 11 13 17 21 26 DTN13 32 44 51 66 91 128 30 45 55 76 91 115 DTN14 33 46 56 69 95 134 33 49 61 83 101 133 DTN15 33 46 55 74 93 132 33 49 60 80 94 125 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results DTN3 5 7 8 11 15 20 5 8 10 13 17 23 DTN4 91317233141 111519263446 DTN5 91317243038 101519263343 DTN6 11 17 21 28 35 46 14 21 26 34 40 53 DTN7 6 9 11 15 21 30 7 9 11 16 22 31 DTN8 17 25 32 42 54 70 21 30 38 49 60 81 DTN9 18 25 31 42 53 70 21 30 37 52 60 80 DTS2 5 8 10 14 20 29 5 7 9 13 17 23 DTS3 71114192733 6 912172331 DTS4 71113192633 6 912172231 DTS5 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 27 37 DTS6 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 26 37 DTS7 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 26 37 DTSO1 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 26 37 G3‐1 71013182846 23471012 G3‐2 579132068 34581072 G3‐2_A 579132068 34581072 J‐90 345113165 123568 LAKECANAL1 10 16 20 28 39 94 7 12 15 20 26 34 LAKECANAL10 356112242 112346 LAKECANAL11 23471529 111235 LAKECANAL12 10 15 18 41 93 177 10 15 18 41 93 177 LAKECANAL16 18 25 30 45 68 106 18 25 30 45 68 106 LAKECANAL17 34591318 34591318 LAKECANAL18 18 25 31 46 72 116 18 25 31 46 72 116 LAKECANAL19 8 11 13 24 43 78 8 11 13 24 43 78 LAKECANAL2 15 21 26 37 53 77 6 10 12 16 21 27 LAKECANAL20 1122223 1122223 LAKECANAL21 11282039 111122 LAKECANAL22 1114919 011122 LAKECANAL3 29 41 51 70 97 138 29 41 51 70 97 138 LAKECANAL4 31 44 55 75 106 155 31 44 55 75 106 155 LAKECANAL7 000000 000000 LAKECANAL8 3 4 6 21 43 79 3 4 6 21 43 79 LAKECANAL9 345163670 112345 P‐103 30 43 53 72 97 134 30 43 53 72 97 134 P‐103A 26 36 45 62 86 121 26 36 45 62 86 121 P‐103C 20 28 35 48 67 94 20 28 35 48 67 94 P‐103D1 23 32 39 57 85 124 23 32 39 57 85 124 P‐103D2 11 13 14 16 30 66 11 13 14 16 30 66 P‐104 86 122 151 209 288 398 86 121 150 207 285 398 P‐105 31 45 57 77 103 141 31 45 57 77 103 141 P‐106A 76 115 149 203 267 338 76 115 149 203 267 338 P‐107 63 89 110 153 212 301 63 89 110 153 212 301 P‐110 10 15 20 29 42 66 8 13 17 24 33 47 P‐120 1,161 1,825 2,381 3,311 4,431 7,073 1,277 2,049 2,691 3,774 5,073 6,848 P‐15 12 17 21 30 49 93 2 3 5 12 17 22 P‐25 34 51 66 98 154 247 34 51 66 98 154 247 P‐28 18 26 34 54 83 132 21 34 44 63 93 139 P‐29 13 18 22 31 44 66 13 19 23 32 45 66 P‐31 33 46 57 81 117 173 33 46 57 81 117 173 P‐43 15 21 32 92 224 463 26 43 61 114 173 255 P‐4A 46 70 90 126 169 225 46 69 87 119 159 213 P‐50 8 12 14 20 29 42 8 12 14 20 29 42 P‐50A 10 14 17 24 34 48 10 14 17 24 34 48 P‐51 34 47 56 76 98 141 43 63 78 96 120 157 P‐5A 14 20 25 35 50 74 14 20 25 35 50 74 P‐75 28 39 48 68 95 135 28 39 48 68 95 135 P‐75A 19 28 34 47 65 94 19 28 34 47 65 94 P‐75D 9 12 15 22 28 36 9 12 15 22 28 36 P‐77 17 25 32 49 81 136 17 25 32 49 81 136 P‐77B 1224816 1224816 P‐77C 7 9 11 21 38 62 7 9 11 21 38 62 P‐77D 25 34 42 60 89 134 25 34 42 60 89 134 P‐80 5 7 8 14 24 40 3 5 6 11 19 32 P‐80D 7 10 13 21 38 67 7 10 13 21 38 67 P‐81 32 44 55 81 120 180 32 44 55 81 120 180 P‐82D1 94 131 161 239 364 559 94 131 161 239 364 559 P‐82D2 10 12 14 21 29 110 10 12 14 21 29 110 P‐82D3 16 23 29 53 96 166 16 23 29 53 96 166 P‐84 24 38 48 65 112 190 24 38 48 65 112 190 P‐85B 58 88 111 152 200 263 58 88 111 152 200 263 P‐85C 6 9 11 33 78 151 8 12 16 22 27 33 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results P‐86 52 78 99 134 181 258 52 78 99 134 181 258 P‐86A 11 16 19 28 43 65 11 16 19 28 43 65 P‐86C 34581423 34581423 P‐88 77 117 149 204 279 403 74 112 143 196 266 374 P‐92 25 39 50 73 109 167 22 34 44 61 83 114 P‐95 76 108 133 183 254 361 76 108 133 183 254 361 P‐97 38 53 64 81 123 199 38 53 65 82 125 201 P‐98 50 76 97 133 183 260 50 76 97 133 183 260 P‐98A 30 42 52 72 102 148 30 42 52 72 102 148 ResOutlet 214 219 223 242 273 322 226 238 249 274 306 409 TRIC1 191 192 192 198 214 241 191 192 193 194 195 196 TRIC2 193 194 197 220 266 337 192 195 197 206 221 247 TRIC3 193 195 198 225 298 382 194 197 200 211 223 242 TRIC4 212 218 225 261 343 445 209 216 223 246 268 311 TRIC4A 212 218 225 261 343 445 209 216 223 246 268 311 TRIC4‐SPILL 000050119 0000026 TRIC5 218 227 242 294 369 454 219 232 246 278 307 334 TRIC5A 218 227 242 294 369 453 219 232 246 278 307 334 TRIC5A_SPILL 11 15 27 73 141 218 11 19 29 59 85 110 TRIC6 207 212 217 233 257 294 209 215 220 225 231 236 TRIC6_Spill 124112963 23451013 TRIC6A 207 212 217 233 256 292 209 215 220 225 231 236 TRIC‐OUTFALL 205 209 213 222 227 229 207 212 216 220 222 223 TROC_1A 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROC1 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROC10a 256 278 307 508 921 1,669 365 464 558 761 995 1,309 TROC11 260 283 312 529 946 1,736 371 472 576 785 1,021 1,356 TROC12 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,031 1,369 TROC‐12A 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,031 1,369 TROC13 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROC14 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROC2 216 223 230 290 395 562 226 238 250 276 335 448 TROC3 217 224 232 295 405 579 226 238 250 276 346 467 TROC4 217 225 232 296 406 580 227 239 251 278 347 468 TROC5 226 237 248 316 443 645 227 239 251 294 389 540 TROC6 252 273 301 491 885 1,629 360 456 549 745 969 1,264 TROC7 252 273 301 491 885 1,629 360 457 549 745 971 1,267 TROC8 254 276 304 495 889 1,634 363 460 553 750 976 1,281 TROC9 254 276 304 495 888 1,632 363 460 552 749 975 1,280 TROC‐OUTFALL 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 CP‐10 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 163235293396531725 CP‐100 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 33465780112163 CP‐100A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 33465779112162 CP‐101 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 99142176239324449 CP‐102 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 517390122164226 CP‐106 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 30435374103145 CP‐108 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 162329405577 CP‐108A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5810131928 CP‐109 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5682102139185247 CP‐11 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 38546792126176 CP‐110 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 476987117156209 CP‐113A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81215202736 CP‐12 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 496986117158219 CP‐121 ‐‐‐‐‐‐2,216 3,433 4,425 6,109 8,149 10,971 CP‐122 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6409921,278 1,765 2,354 3,170 CP‐123 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5528451,082 1,486 1,980 2,668 CP‐124 ‐‐‐‐‐‐1,454 2,265 2,929 4,053 5,411 7,285 CP‐125 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 8801,357 1,745 2,406 3,207 4,319 CP‐126 ‐‐‐‐‐‐1,336 1,920 2,389 3,261 4,424 6,163 CP‐13 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2738486793130 CP‐14 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 93132163223309438 CP‐15 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 496985123179269 CP‐15A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6188110149201274 CP‐17 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 446379107145201 CP‐18 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 101145181245330452 CP‐2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 139206260352463607 CP‐20 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 39566994128178 CP‐21 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6593115156211292 CP‐21A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 86122152207281391 CP‐26 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5580100135180242 CP‐3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 70102129176233309 CP‐30 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81114192740 CP‐33 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81214202840 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results CP‐34 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 71102129180244332 CP‐35 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 99141178251346482 CP‐37 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 117167206281384540 CP‐38 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 557896131182261 CP‐39 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 29404975117184 CP‐4 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6291114155204272 CP‐43 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6693115160230341 CP‐43A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 476884115156217 CP‐45 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 76107133185256360 CP‐46 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5882102140193271 CP‐47 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1926324770106 CP‐47A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2738476795137 CP‐48 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 141206258352469631 CP‐49 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 527594127169229 CP‐5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 116167210290391534 CP‐51 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 38577196127170 CP‐52 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2739496789118 CP‐55 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 192836486485 CP‐6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 182633466078 CP‐61 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 578111520 CP‐64 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 578111520 CP‐67 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 38556994127174 CP‐68 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 507088123170240 CP‐69 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 72106133180239319 CP‐7 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 34486084116162 CP‐70 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 72103129175235323 CP‐70A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 507391124165222 CP‐71 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 142025355279 CP‐72 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 78111139198282406 CP‐72A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 467101522 CP‐73 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 207298373515698959 CP‐76 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 77109134188265383 CP‐8 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3274765978151,089 1,466 CP‐83 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 128187235321427573 CP‐83A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 152126364968 CP‐85 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 195282351475637870 CP‐85C ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5985106144194267 CP‐87 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2028354969100 CP‐89 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 121721294161 CP‐9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 186267333454613842 CP‐90 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 476783113156221 CP‐91 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 32476081107142 CP‐92 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5884104141187249 CP‐93 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 131188234317426585 CP‐94 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 86123153207280388 CP‐99 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 142025355073 CP‐9A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 162227385480 J‐CLARK1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 132217299467653869 J‐CLARK2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 127209287449628839 J‐CLARK3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 125206283442619827 J‐CLARK4 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 105174240378533711 J‐CLARK5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 78129177267355463 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX D STANDARD WATER QUALITY AND LID Design Point (Basin Id)1 Total Area (ac) Treatment Method Area Treated (ac) Percent Impervious (%) Area of Impervious (ac)2 Required Standard Water Quality (cu. ft.) Required LID (cu. ft.) Provided LID (cu. ft.) RG1 14.57 Rain Garden 14.57 80% 11.66 N/A 16,670 19,709 Standard WQ Pond 1 11.54 Standard WQ 11.54 46% 5.31 9,831 N/A RG 2 17.72 Rain Garden 17.72 89% 15.77 N/A 24,276 24,613 RG 3 13.93 Rain Garden 13.93 86% 11.98 N/A 17,936 19,079 Standard WQ Pond 2 20.54 Standard WQ 20.54 58% 11.91 20,546 N/A RG 4 13.62 Rain Garden 13.62 90% 12.26 N/A 19,056 20,211 RG 5 8.85 Rain Garden 8.85 30% 2.66 N/A 4,671 4,918 Pond 4 & RG 6 5.29 Rain Garden 5.29 69%3.65 N/A 4,988 FUTURE BUILD Percent of Impervious Standard WQ Totals 32.08 Standard WQ 32.08 N/A 17.22 23% Rain Garden Totals 73.98 Rain Garden 73.98 N/A 57.97 77% 1. Refer to Rational Calculations for additional clarification. Some are stand alone basins and some are part of combined basins. * indicates a combined basin. 2. Calculated by multiplying the percent impervious by area treated 3. RG = Raingarden WQ = Water Quality Standard Water Quality and LID Summary Table S H2O H2O H2O H2O H2O H2O H2O WV WV W S C C C W CCW E CABLE H2O WVWV W W SS V.P. V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMM WT H2O M12345G0G432112345G0G43210000000000000000 NO PARKINGNO PARKING/ / / / / / / /8" SSG G G GGGGFFT G 12" SS8" W 8" W 8" W F F 12 " S S T8" WFESFES DD / / / / / / / /util LID FE SFES FE SFE S D FE SFESDD D D DD MM/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /UD U D POND 1 - DETENTION AND STANDARD WATER QUALITY RAIN GARDEN 1 POND 2 - DETENTION AND STANDARD WATER QUALITY RAIN GARDEN 2 RAIN GARDEN 4 RAIN GARDEN 5 POND 3 - DETENTION ONLY RAIN GARDEN 3 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 11 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 7 STREET A STREET B CARRI A G E P A R K W A Y PROSPECT ROAD LID EXHIBIT FORT COLLINS, CO RUDOLPH FARM E N G I N E E R N GI EHTRON R N 08.30.2022 P:\1896-001\DWG\SHEETS\DRAINAGE\1896-001_LID.DWG Design Point Area of Impervious (ac) RG1 11.66 Standard WQ Pond 1 5.31 RG 2 15.77 RG 3 11.98 Standard WQ Pond 2 11.91 RG 4 12.26 RG 5 2.66 Pond 4 & RG 6 3.65 Standard WQ Totals 17.22 23% Rain Garden Totals 57.97 77% TOTAL AREA (ac) PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA NOTES: 1.Refer to Rudolph Farm Utility Plans for additional clarification on basin breakdowns, grading, and utility sizing. 2.Refer to Rudolph Farm Drainage Report for additional clarification on basin break downs, LID and standard water quality calculations. LID SUMMARY AND LEGEND: NORTH ( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 300 FEET 300 300 600 900 Project: Calc. By: Date: 11.54 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 46%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.46 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.20 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.23 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 9,831 <-- Calculated from above 0.30 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 1.40 <-- CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3 dia (in) =6/8 number of columns=3.00 number of rows =2.00 number of holes =6.00 Area Per Row =1.40 Total Outlet Area (in2) =2.79 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Standard Water Quality Pond 1 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen August 24, 2022 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,904.10 9,831.00 cu. ft. 4,904.40 4,904.40 9,831.00 cu. ft.0.30 ft. 4,909.10 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,904.10 N/A 30,217 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,905.00 4,904.10 35,797 0.90 29,706.17 0.68 29,706.17 0.68 4,906.00 4,905.00 42,273 1.00 39,035.00 0.90 68,741.17 1.58 4,907.00 4,906.00 49,041 1.00 45,657.00 1.05 114,398.17 2.63 4,908.00 4,907.00 56,098 1.00 52,569.50 1.21 166,967.67 3.83 4,909.10 4,908.00 64,188 1.10 66,157.30 1.52 233,124.97 5.35 STAGE STORAGE CURVE Contour Contour Surface Area (ft2) Depth (ft) Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Pond Stage Storage Curve 1896-001 Fort Collins CO B. Mathisen Elev at WQ Volume: Rudolph Farm August 24, 2022 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation:Water Quality Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Water Quality Pond 1 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:1 Water Quality Depth: 1 Project: Calc. By: Date: 14.57 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 80%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.80 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.26 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.38 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 16,670 <-- Calculated from above WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 1 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen August 24, 2022 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =80.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.800 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.26 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 634,669 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =16,670 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =10155 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =15780 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =23637 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=19,709 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =16,670 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =2 7/8 in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 26, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 1 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 1.xlsm, RG 8/26/2022, 11:35 AM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 26, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 1 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 1.xlsm, RG 8/26/2022, 11:35 AM Project: Calc. By: Date: 20.54 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 58%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.58 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.23 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.47 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 20,546 <-- Calculated from above 0.23 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 3.44 <-- CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3 dia (in) =1 2/8 number of columns=2.00 number of rows =3.00 number of holes =6.00 Area Per Row =3.39 Total Outlet Area (in2) =6.79 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Standard Water Quality Pond 2 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen August 24, 2022 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Project: Calc. By: Date: 20.54 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 58%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.58 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.23 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.47 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 20,546 <-- Calculated from above 0.23 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 3.44 <-- CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3 dia (in) =1 2/8 number of columns=2.00 number of rows =3.00 number of holes =6.00 Area Per Row =3.39 Total Outlet Area (in2) =6.79 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Standard Water Quality Pond 2 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen August 24, 2022 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Project: Calc. By: Date: 17.72 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 89%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.89 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.31 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.56 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 24,276 <-- Calculated from above Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 2 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen August 24, 2022 WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =89.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.890 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.31 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 771,883 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =24,276 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =13740 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =22514 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =26711 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=24,613 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =24,276 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =3 7/16 in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 29, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 2 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 2.xlsm, RG 8/29/2022, 8:09 AM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 29, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 2 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 2.xlsm, RG 8/29/2022, 8:09 AM Project: Calc. By: Date: 13.93 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 86%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.86 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.30 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.41 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 17,936 <-- Calculated from above WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 3 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen August 24, 2022 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =86.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.860 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.30 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 606,791 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =17,936 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =10437 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =16617 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =21541 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=19,079 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =17,936 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =2 15/16 in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 29, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 3 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 3.xlsm, RG 8/29/2022, 8:15 AM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 29, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 3 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 3.xlsm, RG 8/29/2022, 8:15 AM Project: Calc. By: Date: 13.62 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 90%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.90 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.32 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.44 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 19,056 <-- Calculated from above WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 4 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen August 24, 2022 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =90.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.900 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.32 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 593,287 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =19,056 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =10679 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =18589 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =21832 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=20,211 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =19,056 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =3 1/16 in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 29, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 4 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 4.xlsm, RG 8/29/2022, 8:20 AM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 29, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 4 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 4.xlsm, RG 8/29/2022, 8:20 AM Project: Calc. By: Date: 8.85 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 30%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.30 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.12 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.11 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 4,671 <-- Calculated from above Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 5 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen August 24, 2022 WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =30.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.300 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.12 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 385,506 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =4,671 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =2313 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =4164 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =5671 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=4,918 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =2.5 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =4,671 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =1 1/2 in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 29, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 5 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 5.xlsm, RG 8/29/2022, 8:24 AM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering August 29, 2022 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 5 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 5.xlsm, RG 8/29/2022, 8:24 AM Project: Calc. By: Date: 5.29 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 69%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.69 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.22 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.11 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 4,988 <-- Calculated from above WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 6 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen August 24, 2022 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL REPORT AND SOILS REPORT NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY EROSION CONTROL REPORT EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) will be included with the final construction drawings. It should be noted, however, that any such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction, or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed, removed or modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 – Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways and inlet protection at proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor. Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on Sheet EC1 and EC2 of the Utility Plans. The Utility Plans at final design will also contain a full-size Erosion Control Plan as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere to, the applicable requirements outlined in any existing Development Agreement(s) of record, as well as the Development Agreement, to be recorded prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit. Also, the Site Contractor for this project will be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division – Stormwater Program, before commencing any earth disturbing activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive StormWater Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs. 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, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service May 10, 2022 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................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................13 24—Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................13 35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................................14 40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.....................................................16 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...........................................17 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................18 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes.........................................20 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.......................................21 92—Riverwash............................................................................................22 References............................................................................................................23 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 449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 40° 34' 33'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 34' 33'' N104° 59' 26'' W40° 33' 52'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 33' 52'' N 104° 59' 26'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,230 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 16, Sep 2, 2021 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 Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 24 Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.2 1.8% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 34.9 27.9% 40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 57.1 45.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 10.0 8.0% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.0 0.0% 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes 13.2 10.5% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 6.4 5.1% 92 Riverwash 1.6 1.2% Totals for Area of Interest 125.2 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 11 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, 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 24—Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpvw Elevation: 5,000 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 49 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 130 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Connerton and similar soils:50 percent Barnum and similar soils:40 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Connerton Setting Landform:Stream terraces, flood plains, fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R049XB202CO - Loamy Foothill Hydric soil rating: No Description of Barnum Setting Landform:Terraces, valleys, fans Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam H2 - 10 to 60 inches: stratified loamy fine sand to clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 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 (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:NoneOccasional Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Garrett Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 14 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:Interfluves, stream terraces 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 supply, 0 to 60 inches: 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 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope, interfluve Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpwg Elevation: 5,200 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Garrett and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Garrett Setting Landform:Terraces, fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loam H2 - 8 to 39 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 39 to 60 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 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 (0.60 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:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Harlan Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BZ008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No Barnum Percent of map unit:5 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Connerton Percent of map unit:4 percent Ecological site:R067BZ008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpx9 Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Loveland and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Loveland Setting Landform:Stream terraces, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: clay loam H2 - 15 to 32 inches: loam H3 - 32 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:NoneOccasional Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Very slightly saline to slightly saline (2.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Aquolls Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes Poudre Percent of map unit:5 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlng Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Description of Nunn Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:7 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:0.5 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Wages Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxq Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn, wet, and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn, Wet Setting Landform:Stream terraces, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: clay loam H2 - 10 to 47 inches: clay H3 - 47 to 60 inches: gravelly loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:NoneRare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains Custom Soil Resource Report 20 Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Dacono Percent of map unit:3 percent Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Mollic halaquepts Percent of map unit:1 percent Landform:Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxx Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Paoli and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Paoli Setting Landform:Stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 30 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very low Custom Soil Resource Report 21 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Caruso Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Table mountain Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Fluvaquentic haplustolls Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes 92—Riverwash Map Unit Composition Riverwash:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Riverwash Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 8 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 22 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 23 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 24 K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 1 of 4449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600499900500000500100500200500300500400500500500600500700 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 40° 34' 33'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 34' 33'' N104° 59' 26'' W40° 33' 52'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 33' 52'' N 104° 59' 26'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,230 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 Rating Polygons .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available 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 16, Sep 2, 2021 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. K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 2 of 4 K Factor, Whole Soil Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 24 Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes .37 2.2 1.8% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes .43 34.9 27.9% 40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .32 57.1 45.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .32 10.0 8.0% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .37 0.0 0.0% 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes .24 13.2 10.5% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .32 6.4 5.1% 92 Riverwash 1.6 1.2% Totals for Area of Interest 125.2 100.0% Description Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. "Erosion factor Kw (whole soil)" indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Factor K does not apply to organic horizons and is not reported for those layers. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average) Top Depth: 0 K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 3 of 4 Bottom Depth: 60 Units of Measure: Inches K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 4 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 1 of 4449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600499900500000500100500200500300500400500500500600500700 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 40° 34' 33'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 34' 33'' N104° 59' 26'' W40° 33' 52'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 33' 52'' N 104° 59' 26'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,230 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 Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available 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 16, Sep 2, 2021 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. Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 24 Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes C 2.2 1.8% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes C 34.9 27.9% 40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes B 57.1 45.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes C 10.0 8.0% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes C 0.0 0.0% 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes C 13.2 10.5% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes A 6.4 5.1% 92 Riverwash 1.6 1.2% Totals for Area of Interest 125.2 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 3 of 4 Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These 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. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 4 of 4 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 8/2/2022 at 3:28 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°0'14"W 40°34'30"N 104°59'36"W 40°34'3"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 9,028 1,504.7 Rudolph Farms - Zoning This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. City of Fort Collins - GIS 1,143.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet1,143.00571.50 Notes Legend 6,859 FEMA Floodplain FEMA High Risk - Floodway FEMA High Risk - 100 Year FEMA Moderate Risk - 100 / 500 Year City Floodplains City High Risk - Floodway City High Risk - 100 Year City Moderate Risk - 100 Year City Limits World Hillshade NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX MAP POCKET DR1 – DRAINAGE EXHIBIT DR2- EXISTING DRIANGE EXHIBIT SSH2OH2OH2OH2OH2OH2OH2OWVWVWSCCCWCCWECABLEMMCWMH2OWVWVWWWWWWSS SSSSSSSSSSCSCONTROL IRR V.P.V.P.V.P.V.P.CABLEMMCSMMMWTH2OM12345 G0G432112345G0G43210000000000000000 NO PARKINGNO PARKING / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /WWSSSSSSSEEEEEEECA R R I A G E P A R K W A Y KIT DEN DR.HUNTSMAN DR.VIXEN DR.WWWWWWWWW W WSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS8" SS 8" SS 8" SS S S F8" W 8" W FF TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON SSSSSS TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W 8" W8" WTSALPOLYN DU CTILEIRON 8" W8" W8" W8" WS TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRONSFF8" W8" W VAULTF.O.TTVAULTF.O.TTVAULTF.O.FOLIDLIDutilLIDFES FES FESF ESSSDSDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTEEEEEEEEFESFESDDDDDDF.O.FOF.O.F.O.F.O.F.O.MFOMFOVAULTF.O.VAULTF.O.EEEE/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /SSSSSSSSSSSEX1e1EX2EX3EX4EX5SheetRUDOLPH FARM These drawings are instruments of service provided by Northern Engineering Services, Inc. and are not to be used for any type of construction unless signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in the employ of Northern Engineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CO N S T R U C T I O N REVIEW SE T of XXNORTHDR2EXISTING DRAINAGE PLANN/A( IN FEET )1 inch = ft.Feet0150150150300450PROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED SWALEEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPOSED INLETADESIGN POINTFLOW ARROWDRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARYPROPOSED SWALE SECTION11RUNOFF SUMMARY:1.REFER TO THE RUDOLPH FARM - FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION.LEGEND:BASIN AREAABASIN IDBASIN MINOR AND MAJOR C COEFFICIENTSNOTES:KEYMAP/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /EAST PROSPECT ROADINTERSTATE 25BASINTOTALAREA(acres)Tc2(min)Tc100(min)C2C100Q2(cfs)Q100(cfs)EX125.9613.913.90.290.3614.6863.69EX25.2912.012.00.270.342.9312.88EX374.6319.719.70.250.3130.41131.29EX45.4411.411.40.250.312.9012.51EX58.397.37.30.250.315.2922.90 UDUDUDUDUDUDUDSSH2OH2OH2OH2OH2OH2OH2OWVWVWSCCCWCCWECABLEMMCWMH2OWVWVWWWWSS SSSSSSSSSSCSCONTROL IRR V.P.V.P.V.P.V.P.CABLEMMCSMMMWTH2OM12345 G0G432112345G0G43210000000000000000 NO PARKINGNO PARKING / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /WWWWWWWSSSSSSSEEEEEEESBSBSBSBWWCA R R I A G E P A R K W A Y KIT DEN DR.HUNTSMAN DR.VIXEN DR.WWWWWWWWW W WSWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSWW8" SS 8" SS 8" SS S S GGGGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G GF8" W 8" W FF 12" SS G G TTTTGGG12" SS12" SS12" SSTSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON SSSSSS TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W 8" W8" WTSALPOLYN DU CTILEIRON 8" W8" W8" W8" WS TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRONSWFFW W12" SS12" SSTW8" W8" WFESV.P.FESDDDGAS/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / /XGG/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / X X B MB MCCTCCTTCCTCutilLIDFES FES FESF ESSSDSDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST CTV CTV FESFESDDDDDDMM/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /GGGSSSSSSSSSSS/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 6LOT 5LOT 11LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10LOT 12LOT 13LOT 7r1r2r5r6r3r4POND 3POND 2POND 1RAIN GARDEN 2RAIN GARDEN 3RAIN GARDEN 4RAIN GARDEN 5RAIN GARDEN 1TRIC A - BOX CULVERTTRIC B - BOX CULVERTLAKE CANAL A - BOX CULVERTLAKE CANAL B - BOX CULVERTLAKE CANAL C - BOX CULVERTSTREET ASTREET BCARRIAGE PARKWAYr7r81112654R1R29BR4R6R5OS1OS2OS3DC1DC2DC37OS4OS58BR310131238A9AR7R8POND 3POND 26:1 6:16:16:16:16: 16:1 6:16:1 6:16:1 6:1 6:1 6:15:15:15:1 5:15:1 SWALE BEHINDLOTS 8 AND 9SheetRUDOLPH FARM These drawings are instruments of service provided by Northern Engineering Services, Inc. and are not to be used for any type of construction unless signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer in the employ of Northern Engineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CO N S T R U C T I O N REVIEW SE T of 125PROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED SWALEEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPOSED INLETADESIGN POINTFLOW ARROWDRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARYPROPOSED SWALE SECTION11RUNOFF SUMMARY:1.REFER TO THE RUDOLPH FARM - FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION.LEGEND:BASIN AREAABASIN IDBASIN MINOR AND MAJOR C COEFFICIENTSNOTES:NORTHDR1DRAINAGE PLAN125 ( IN FEET )1 inch = ft.Feet0150150150300450BASINTOTALAREA(acres)Tc2(min)Tc100(min)C2C100Q2(cfs)Q100(cfs)16.805.05.00.951.0018.4267.6821.475.05.00.951.003.9714.6031.435.05.00.951.003.8714.2242.425.05.00.951.006.5524.0551.105.05.00.951.002.9910.9962.595.05.00.951.007.0025.7475.296.95.80.760.8210.4339.288A5.315.25.00.851.0012.8752.858B2.595.25.00.851.006.2725.769A10.548.95.00.851.0021.0686.509B4.198.95.00.851.008.3734.36109.479.95.00.851.0018.1674.61113.288.45.00.851.006.6927.471213.6210.55.00.851.0025.58105.11138.8512.812.80.300.385.3523.68R12.468.47.40.800.994.7220.37R21.365.05.00.830.993.2213.41R31.8713.112.00.790.992.9212.80R41.337.96.90.800.992.6111.29R53.1313.912.80.780.984.7620.91R61.9813.912.80.780.983.0113.23R70.685.05.00.810.991.576.70R80.866.55.00.680.841.556.70OS15.169.48.90.200.252.3810.36OS21.335.05.00.861.003.2713.27OS35.4411.211.20.200.252.3210.09OS43.879.48.90.200.251.787.76OS53.109.48.90.200.251.436.22DC12.025.25.00.200.251.155.03DC22.215.25.00.200.251.265.50DC33.545.25.00.200.252.028.82