The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 05/23/2018City of Fort Collins Approved Plans Approved by: Wes Lamarque Date: 5�23�2018 Final Drainage Report Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 May 22, 2oi8 Prepared For: Wilson & Company, Inc. i675 Broadway #200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Prepared By: E E S ENTITLEMENT AND ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS. INC. `� 51 8 1 7th Street. Suite 1 575 Denver. CO 80202 �''� www.ees.us.com 303-572-7997 Contact: Shelley McMullen, P.E. Email: shelley.mcmullen@ees.us.com En�ineer's Statement This report for the drainage design of Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements was prepared by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with the provisions of Fort Collins Storm Water Criteria Manual, and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual, and was designed to comply with the provisions thereo£ I understand that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins does not, and will not, assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others. �.,,nn ,._ _-�6�� -j��,.`� f J j = 47703 �o�s��z�� Shelley Anne McMullen Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 47703 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements — Final Dyainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS L GENERAL LOCAT[ON AND EXISTING SITE INFO ................................................................................2 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. II. A. B. III. IV. A. B. V. A. B. C. D. E. VI. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. VII. VIII. IX. A. B. X. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE ...........................................................................................................................2 VICINITYMAP ..................................................................................................................................................2 ROADWAYS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO SITE ..................................................................................................2 NAMES OF SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS .....................................................................................................3 MASTERDRAINAGE BASIN ..............................................................................................................................3 EXISTING STORMWATER DRAINAGC FACILITIES AND DRAINAGE PATTERNS ...................................................3 EXISTING IRRIGATION FACILITIES ....................................................................................................................3 EXISTINGLAND USLS ......................................................................................................................................3 EXISTING GROUND COVER AND/OR VEGETATION TYPE ..................................................................................3 Ex►S7'[NG So�Ls INFo .......................................................................................................................................4 MASTER DRAINAGE BASIN INFO ..............................................................................................................4 MASTER DRAINAGE BASIN ..............................................................................................................................4 IRRIGATION FACILITIES ....................................................................................................................................4 FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION ................................................................................................................4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................................4 PROPOSED LAND USES AND/OR PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................................................4 SITEACRCAGE .................................................................................................................................................4 PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES .........................................................................................................5 PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN .............................................................................................................................5 DETENTIONBASINS .........................................................................................................................................6 �VQCV DESIGN ................................................................................................................................................6 LOW IMPACT DESIGN (LID� SYSTEMS AND DESIGN .........................................................................................6 EASEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................6 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ..............................................................................................................7 FOURSTEP PROCESS ........................................................................................................................................% IDENTIFY DESIGN RAINFALL ............................................................................................................................7 DESIGN STORM RECURRENCE INTERVALS .......................................................................................................8 RUNOFF CALCULATION METHOD .....................................................................................................................9 TIME OF CONCENTRATION .............................................................................................................................1 O STREETCAPACITY .........................................................................................................................................1 1 INLET AND PIPC CAPACITY .............................................................................................................................12 MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................13 VARIANCEREQUESTS ...........................................................................................................................13 EROSIONCONTROL ...............................................................................................................................13 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................................13 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS ....................................................................................................................13 DRAINAGECONCEPT ......................................................................................................................................13 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................14 /:� ��, � �1►1 I] ►: �� Page 1 Horsetooth & College Intersection I�nprovements — Final Drainage Report I. GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISTING SITE INFO A. Section, Township, Range The project lies at the intersection of Sections 25, 26, 35, and 36 (within the SW corner of Section 25, the SE corner of Section 26, the NE corner of Section 35 and the NW corner of Section 36), Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Vicinity Map �� [ . , � i �' '1 � ��i : �r � '�': ` � �M � � w: ' Chick-fil-a " �. 1 ;�I �, � � � y.. v, �,.7�b I � .1��1;� � 1.AIA�'�t .?ijr- —= � '�,i; � ( ii� ', .1. 1 ,�f•� :�-.� �..� _.. N. ,:; , ' I �I'�i� ► ,* � � 1��.��, r� a-' � M : � � : �� l . � � r- i � � : �, . 4. ` '� �L�,;-�4•� aite �c,' ��. ' . � n�f � ,w � • ' � r.; - - - _t t � - � ��!p1 � � � � ` Y `�� :,i. 'f'=""`,,,,�-.� � ,� - �n �'r ;',� . �, � „ � � �� . �. �. ._ '� j �,t, ?. , ' � Q' � r 1a -� . ' _ c . � r �, � . =` .�`,� ..`:a,. ' � � � p� � . �`— �:,� i � � s+5 x. � �p „� � a� 1 , � ,�_ _ � tl' ��e�n , o I' Chili's s � '� �:�-;-. 41 � = � ' � .;�,� ' � � �- . �_-.� _ r� a ��-�" . . - �� '�4 . - �. �'��r'.�:��.� _- . i .,. T -_ —: .^ _ . `. �_� .�,�..� _ '; � ��T�r�et��th R�ad �� L��. - ��, yR � �! �-h3 �'F 1x .� �r � �\' � � (+_ � �� f S i � v ir. �`�^-� ��'+i;� fu ' ya, Larimerr � � � �� r Wells Fargo ��i.� " : � '' ' �� y I ' s � 1� ±� ;r � COUriiy NO. 2 � • . ,t. � } _ � � ,�, ' " " � r � " �. Canal � " f � � �.�rq,�r$�u� � "� i � f � r -� � . ,ar "� � �! � • '' r+'�'�•�1� � �� _� -r ! . � ,� �9� � � �"*►�.�' � : .� •` � . � � „ . . Figure 1: Vicinity Map C. Roadways Within and Adjacent to Site The Project is located at the intersection of Horsetooth Road and College Avenue in the City of Fort Collins, Lariiner County, Colorado. College Avenue is also US Highway 287 and under the jurisdiction of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Page 2 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements — Final Dyainage Report D. Names of Surrounding Developments Commercial establishments occupy each corner of the project intersection. There is a Chili's restaurant at the NE corner, a commercial building anchored by Wells Fargo Bank at the SE conler, a Chick-fil-A restaurant at the SW corner, and a strip mall at the NW conler. E. Master Drainage Basin The site lies within the Foothills Basin, centrally located in Fort Collins. It covers about 3,200 acres generally between Taft Hill and Ziegler Roads, and between Horsetooth and Drake Roads. The basin is mostly developed, with commercial development along College Avenue and mixed- use residential in the remainder of the basin. Ultimately the basin drains from west to east through open channels and/or storm sewer system systems to the Fossil Creek Reservoir. F. Existing Stormwater Drainage Facilities and Drainage Patterns The site has moderate slopes, between 2%-15%. The west side of the site generally conveys runoff overland to the northwest corner, where it drains to a curb inlet on the west side of the site and is conveyed into Larimer County No. 2 Canal that flows SE into Warren Lake. The east side of the site conveys the street flows along Horsetooth Road in the curb and gutter where it is ultimately collected by a curb inlet and outfalls into Warren Lake. G. Existing Irrigation Facilities Larimer County No. 2 Canal runs in a SE direction underneath Horsetooth Road approximately 130 feet west of the intersection, then crosses College Avenue 170 feet south of the intersection. Estimated flow in the canal while running full is 100 cfs. H. Existing Land Uses Existing land use is a roadway intersection with commercial establishments occupying each corner of the project intersection. I. Existing Ground Cover and/or Vegetation Type The existing project site consists of the intersection of Horsetooth Road and College Avenue. The roadways are comprised of an asphalt pavement structure with concrete curb and gutter and raised median. Surrounding developments include additional impervious ground cover such as concrete sidewalks and asphalt parking lots. Surrounding developments also contain landscaped grassed areas with various trees and shrubs. Page 3 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements — Final Dyainage Report J. Existing Soils Info The NRCS soil survey classifies the soils at the site as Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D. II. Master Drainage Basin Info A. Master Drainage Basin The project site is not part of the Fort Collins Master Plan. B. Irrigation Facilities Larimer County No. 2 Canal runs in a SE direction underneath Horsetooth Road approximately 130 feet west of the intersection, then crosses College Avenue 170 feet south of the intersection. The bridge on Horsetooth Road will be reconstructed but will have no negative impacts on the Canal. II1. Floodplain Information There are no reported flooding problems on the site. The site is outside of the regulatory floodplain as illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM Map 08069C0987G). IV. Project Description A. Project Summary The project is a reconstruction of the intersection of Horsetooth Road and College Avenue. Due to safety and traffic capacity issues, the intersection is to be reconfigured with dual left turn lanes and right only turn lanes where possible. The intersection is to be reconstructed with concrete as well as new striping and sidewalk configuration. Surrounding commercial developments will not be impacted. B. Site Acreage The disturbed area of the project is approximately 9.4 acres. Currently, approximately 1.5 acres are landscaped. With proposed project improvements the change in landscaped area is negligible. Page 4 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements — Final Dyainage Report V. Proposed Drainage Facilities A. Proposed Drainage Plan The site generally flows away from the center of the intersection of Horsetooth Road and College Avenue. There are no changes to the existing flow patterns or collection points. A manhole will be constructed in the existing 36" stonndrain that currently travels east in the center of Horsetooth and outfalls beneath the bridge. Because the existing walls beneath the bridge will remain in place, the current outfall location through the wall will remain but new 36" pipe will be constructed between the proposed manhole and the outfall. West of the bridge over Horsetooth, drainage will be captured by on-grade inlets on both the north (IN-3) and south (IN-4) curbs to limit flow across the bridge. These inlets will connect into the proposed manhole described previously and outfall via the 36" pipe beneath the bridge. Bypass flow from IN-3 will flow across the bridge to the northeast into an inlet just north of the intersection (IN-2). IN-2 collects drainage on the west side of college between the driveway to the north and the intersection. IN-1 is upstream of IN-2 and collects drainage froin College Avenue north of the driveway. These inlets will connect into the existing area inlet in the parking lot of the property to the northwest, which outfalls to the canal, following existing drainage flow patterns. Bypass flow from IN-4 will flow across the bridge to an inlet just east of the bridge (IN-7). This inlet will outfall directly into Larimer County No. 2 canal. A basin with signiiicant offsite flows from the south collects flow along the west side of college and flows north into the Chik-fil-a parking. The flow directed into the Chik-fil-a parking lot by across pan which crosses the southern parking lot entrance. Currently, this flow travels towards the northeast into an existing inlet (to be removed) and an existing concrete rundown directly into the canal. The proposed condition, drains down a 4' wide concrete channel towards an area inlet (IN-6) that outfalls through the proposed wingwall into the canal. The capacity of the 18" outfall can handle the minor storm. An overflow weir is proposed in the wingwall for flows that exceed the maximum capacity of the area inlet and pipe outfall. The wall will be lined with riprap to protect the bank froin erosion. An inlet south of the intersection on the east side of college (IN-5) outfalls into the wall of the culvert beneath College Ave. The NE quadrant includes majority roadway drainage with minor landscaping areas. This flow is conveyed east in the curb and gutter along Horsetooth Road where it is collected in an existing Page 5 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements — Final Dyainage Report curb inlet that ultimately outfalls into Warren Lake. There will be no changes to the eXisting flow patterns or collection points. The SE quadrant includes majoriry roadway drainage with minor landscaping areas. Flow from the SE quadrant of the intersection towards a bioswale along the south side of Horsetooth Rd. After the bioswale, the flow is transmitted east in the curb and gutter along Horsetooth Road where it is collected in an existing curb inlet downstream that ultiinately outfalls into Warren Lake. There will be no changes to the existing flow patterns or collection points. B. Detention Basins There is no planned detention for the Project. C. WQCV design Water quality snouts will be installed on proposed sump inlets to provide water quality for the direct roadway runoff prior to outfalling into the canal. Biannual maintenance and observation is recommended to determine a proper maintenance schedule for the inlets. A cobblestone bioswale located within the landscaped area along the south side of Horsetooth, east of the intersection provides water quality. Details are provided in the following section. D. Low Impact Design (LID) Systems and Design LID is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach to managing stormwater runoff with a goal of replicating the pre-development hydrologic regime of urban and developing watersheds. Key LID techniques include: conserving existing amenities, minimizing impacts, permeable pavement usage, and minimizing directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA). This project uses the MDCIA provides a bioswale on the south side of Horsetooth, east of the intersection. Stormwater (in the minor storm event) is diverted from a curb cut along Horsetooth towards a sediment catch. The flow then travels through a cobblestone swale prior to existing in another curb cut further east on Horsetooth Rd. E. Easements There is a ditch easement for the Larimer County No. 2 Canal that runs through the site. There are utility and sidewalk easements adjacent to each property surrounding the intersection. Page 6 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements — Final Dyainage Report VI. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Four Step Process The UDFCD recommended Four Step Process focuses on reducing runoff volumes, treating the water quality capture volume (WQCV), stabilizing streams, and implementing long-term source controls. B. Identify Design Rainfall 1-hour point rainfall depths of 0.82" and 2.86" for the 2- and 100-year storm events, respectively. Depths were obtained from Table 3.4-1 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual: Page 7 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements - Final Dyainage Report Table 3.4-1. IDF Table for Ratio�al Method Intensity Intensity Intensity �uration 2-year 10-year 100-year (min� (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr� S 2.85 4.87 9.95 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 7 2.52 4.31 8.80 8 2.40 4.10 8.38 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 16 1.81 3.08 5.30 17 1.75 2.99 6.10 18 1.70 2.90 5.92 19 1.b5 2.82 5.75 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 21 1.56 2.67 5.46 22 1.53 2.61 5.32 23 1.49 2.55 5.20 24 1.46 2.49 5.09 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 26 1.4 2.39 4.87 27 1.37 2.34 4.78 28 1.34 2.29 4.69 29 1.32 2.25 4.60 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 31 1.27 2.16 4.42 32 1.24 2.12 4.33 33 1.22 2.08 4.24 34 1.19 2.04 4.16 35 1.17 2.00 4.08 36 1.15 1.96 4.01 37 1.16 1.93 3.93 38 1.11 1.89 3.87 Intensity Intensity Intensity Duration 2_Year 10-year 100-year (min) ��hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) 39 1.09 1.86 3.8 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 41 1.05 1.80 3.68 42 1.04 1.77 3.62 43 1.02 1.74 3.56 44 1.01 1.72 3.51 45 0.99 1.69 3.46 46 0.98 1.67 3.41 47 0.96 1.64 3.36 48 0.95 1.62 3.31 49 0.94 1.6 3.27 SO 0.92 1.58 3.23 S1 0.91 1.56 3.18 52 0.9 1.54 3.14 53 0.89 1.52 3.10 54 0.88 1.50 3.07 55 0.87 1.48 3.03 56 0.86 1.47 2.99 57 0.85 1.45 2.96 58 0.84 1.43 2.92 59 0.83 1.42 2.89 60 0.82 1.4 2.86 65 0.78 1.32 2.71 70 0.73 1.25 2.59 75 0.70 1.19 2.48 80 0.66 1.14 2.38 85 0.64 1.09 2.29 90 0.61 1.05 2.21 95 0.58 1.01 2.13 100 0.56 0.97 2.06 105 0.54 0.94 2.00 110 0.52 0.91 1.94 115 0.51 0.88 1.88 120 0.49 0.86 1.84 C. Design Storm Recurrence Intervals The Minor storm is designated as the 2-year storm and the Major storm is designated as the 100- year storm per the Fort Collins Amendments to the UDFCD Drainage Criteria Manual. The . :, � Horsetooth & College Intersection I�nprovements — Final Drainage Report Major storm is also designated as the 100-year storm per the Colorado Department of Transportation Drainage Design Manual. D. Runoff Calculation Method The hydrology for the sub-basin and drainage elements for this project was developed for the minor and major storms using the Rational Method. The Rational Method, which is approved for basins less than 90 acres, is represented as Q=CCflA. Q= peak flow rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) C = Runoff Coefficient Cf= Frequency adjustment factor i = Rainfall intensity (inches/hour) A = Drainage basin area (acres) Runoff coefficients (C) were taken from Table 3.2-2 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual: Table 3.2-2. Surface Type - Runoff Coefficients Surface Type Runoff Coefficients Haniscape or Hard Surface Asphalt, Concrete 0.95 Rooftop 0.95 Recycled Asphalt 0.80 Gravel 0.50 Pavers 0.50 Landscape or Pervious Surface lawns, Sandy Soil, Flat Slope < 2% 0.10 Lawns, Sandy Soil, Avg Slope 2-7% 0.15 Lawns, Sandy Soil, Steep Slope >7% 0.20 Lawns, Clayey Soil, Flat Slope < 296 0.20 Lawns, Clayey Soil, Avg Slope 2-7% 0.25 Lawns, Clayey Soil, Steep Slope >7% 0.35 Frequency adjustment factors (Cf) were applied as necessary and taken froin Table 3.2-3 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual: Page 9 Horsetooth & College Intersection I�nprovements — Final Drainage Report Table 3.2-3. Frequency Adjustment Factors Storm Return Period Frequency Adjustment (years) Factor (f.,) 2, 5, 10 1.00 25 1.10 SO 1.20 100 1.25 The product of C x Cf cannot exceed 1.00. E. Time of Concentration The time of concentration (t�) for the Rational Method for each sub-basin was calculated using the method outlined in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Equation 5-3. The time of concentration consists of the initial time of overland flow and travel time in channel flow: tc=t;+tt The initial of overland flow time, t�, calculated using the Fort Collins Ston�nwater Criteria Manual overland flow equation 33-2: ii �l.g%��l.l- C'�Cf� I,0.5�� 5033 t; = initial or overland flow time (minutes) C = runoff coefficient Cf = frequency adjustment factor L= overland length (ft) (max 200' in developed areas) S=average slope (percent) The channelized flow time (travel time), tr, calculated using USDCM equation 6-4: t�= L/60V= L/60*K So o.s in which: L= waterway length (ft) V= travel time velocity (ft/sec) K= NRCS conveyance factor (Table 6-2) So = watercourse slope (ft/ft) Page 10 Horsetooth & College Intersection I�nprovements — Final Drainage Report Tablc 6-2. 1RCS Con��e��ancc factors, K Typc of Land Surface Hca��v mcado��• Tillage:�ticld Short pasturc and lawns Ncarly bare �:round Gras�.d �ti�atcn��av Paved areas and shallo��• paved sw�ales Conveyancc Factor, K ?,5 $ 7 10 15 20 The time of concentration was limited to a minimum and maximum value as follows: t� (minimum) = 5 minutes t� (maximum) _(L/180)+10 (Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Equation 3.3-5) F. Street Capacity Hydraillic computations were performed to determine the capacity of gut�ers and the encroachment of stormwater onto the street. The design discharge was determined using the Rational Method. Gutter flow and street encroachment were calculated using InRoads v8i (Select Series 4) and UDFCD spreadsheets. Street encroachment criteria are outlined in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-2: Table 2.1-1: Street Encroachment Standards for the Minor (2-Year) Storm Street Classification Maximum Encroachment Local, Alley • No curb-overtopping. • Flow may spread to crown of street. Collector, Arterial • No curb-overtopping. (without median) • Maximum allowable depth at gutter is 6 inches (6"). • Flow spread must leave a minimum of 6 feet (6') wide clear travel lane on each side of the centerline. Arterial (with median) • No curb-overtopping. • Maximum allowable depth at gutter is 6 inches (6"}. • Flow spread must leave a minimum of 12 feet (12') wide travel lane in both directions of travel. Note: Encroachment may not extend past the public right-of-way or into private property. Page 11 Horsetooth & College Intersection I�nprovements — Final Drainage Report Table 2.1-2: Street Encroachment Standards for the Major (100-Year) Storm Street Classificatian Maximum Encreachment Local, Alley, Collector, • Maximum allowable depth at crown is 6 inches (6") and must Arterial (without median) allow for the operation of emergency vehicles. • Maximum allowable depth at gutter is 12 inches (12"). • The most resirictive of these criteria will apply. Arterial (with median) . Maximum allowable depth must not exceed bottom of gutter at the median and must allow for the operation of emergency vehicles. • Maximum allowable depth at gutter is 12 inches (12"). • The most restrictive of these criteria will apply. Note: Encroachment may not extend past utility easements that parallel the public right-of-way. CDOT spread width criteria is listed below. For consistency, spread was calculated for the 2- year storm, arterial less than 45 mph. Table 1�' Desi�� Frequeiic�� t�s Spread �i'idtli Desian Frequency �•s. Spread Width. Road Classification Desi� Frequency Interstate ?-5 year 10 yeaz Artenals � �Suipi� ?-5 year 10 year � 45 mpt� Z-10 year sag pomt 50 yeaz Collecton � 45 u�ph ?-10 year � �35 uiph ?-5 y�ear 10 year sag point 10 year Local Streets ?-10 year sag point 10 _yeu Desien Spread Widih Shoulder Sl�oulder — 3 ft Shoulder — 4 ft Shoulder + 3 ft Sl�oi�lder Shoulder - 3 ft 1.'? Dm-uig Lane Shoulder — 4 ft Shoulder 1; ? Dm� Lane 1 ? Dn�-ing Lane 1 �? Dm-ing Lane Note: Tirese criterin applres to shoulder n•idths oj4 ft or grecrter. f�'here shoiilder i+zdths m-e less rhan 4 %r. n»rirlrnrrnrr desr�r spr•en�! of 4%shor�ld be corrside�•ed. G. Inlet and Pipe Capacity The minor storm encroachment criteria controls inlet placement. Inlets and storm sewer pipes were sized for 100-year flows using InRoads v8i (Select Series 4) and UDFCD spreadsheets. Minimum pipe diameter is 12" or equivalent. Hydraulic and Energy Grade Line Calculations Page 12 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements — Final Dyainage Report including friction losses were calculated through the InRoads program and must be a minimuin of 12" below the surface. H. Modifications of Criteria No modifications are requested for the project. VII. Variance Requests There are a few needs due to the large number of existing utilities and shallow storm in the area that may require variance. Particularly between IN-1 and the existing area inlet northwest of the intersection, pipes must travel at both shallow slope and depth to meet the invert elevation at the existing inlet. Cover of a minimum 15" is maintained, but drops within inlets and manholes are only 0.05'drop. In addition, the proposed pipe entering the existing inlet does not match crowns with the larger, existing pipe downstream. Because the storm system is designed for the major storm event, debris that is not flushed in lower frequency storms will be addressed by higher frequency storms within the pipe. There are a few locations where clearance between existing utilities is less than the ideal 18 inches. VIII. Erosion Control The Project falls under the City of Fort Collins' MS4 Permit area. Erosion control measures will meet the requirements listed in the Fort Collins Stonnwater Criteria Manual. Refer to the stormwater management plan for details. IX. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards This drainage report presents the drainage analysis for the Horsetooth & College Intersection I�nprovements Project and complies with both the criteria and standards of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and the CDOT Drainage Design Manual, other than the specified variance requests provided earlier in this report. B. Drainage Concept The drainage systein provides a 100-year level of protection for the site. The conveyance systein is designed to safely convey the 100-year storm. The site has also been fitted with several permanent water quality features that will enhance the overall water quality of the runoff from this area. Page 13 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements — Final Dyainage Report X. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins. November 2017. Fort Collins Criteria Manual. 2. Colorado Department of Transportation. 2004. Drainage Design Manual. 3. Merrick Company Preliminary Drainage Plan. December 2008. Chick-Fil-A at Cottonwood Shopping Center. 4. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. March 2017. Urban Storm Drainage and Technical CYiteria Manual, Volume I. 5. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. September 2017. Urban Storm Drainage and Technical Criteyia Manual, Volume II. 6. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. November 2015. Urban Storm Drainage and Technical Criteria Manual, Volume III. Page 14 Horsetooth & College Intersection Improvements — Final Dyainage Report XI. APPENDIX A. Hydrologic Computations, Hydraulic Calculations and Basin Map B. Floodplain Maps C. Soil Survey Information Page 15 APPENDIX A: Basin Map Hydrologic Computations Hydraulic Calculations • UDFCD UD-Inlet Allowable Capacity • InRoads Output • Riprap Design • Concrete channel from Chick-Fil-A parking lot • Nomograph to determine maximum capacity of 18" outfall from concrete channel • Flow Master o Maximum flow capacity of 18" outfall from concrete chamlel o Bioswale velocity and Froude number o Flow depth of canal with 150 cfs design flow � M v � � E E Print Date: 5/1/2018 File Name: Drainage Ma Horiz. Scale: 1:200 Unit Information HORSETOOTH RD EX-IN � LARIMER N0.2 CANAL � ' ' � -�� 0.9=� }. � �� 1 1 ' � � � �� i � � 4 ;�� i � __ ______� � � � _ _.,� -�. � -�_--`_� I I �� Q� ; � w� �' 1 ' O' ' ' U !� � 1 ■ Vert. Scale: As Noted Q Unit Leader Initials Q � Sheet Revisions Date: Comments Init. Region 4 KMK 10601 W lOth Street Greeley, C� 80634 Phone:970-350-2100 t� �� A-El � � �� • 0.90 � 0.95 " ' ` � ` ' � � � ` ` � � ` � � � � � _� � � � � � � � � � �� i�� 1 4-E2 A-E3 � 0.93 0.83 0.98 0.88 LEGEND A# BASIN ID rea c2 Cio RUNOFF COEFFICENTS AREA (ACRES) . ( I o� too� zoo� aoo� Fort Collins � As Constructed No Revisions: Revised: Void: HORSETOOTH & COLLEGE DRAINAGE MAP Designer: SAM Structure Detailer: LTE Numbers Sheet Subset: DrainMao Subset Sheets: Project No./Code STU M455-118 / 20615 City Proj. No. 8485 1 0� Sheet Number HORSETOOTH AND COLLEGE - PROPOSED BASIN HYDROLOGY User Entered Data Calculated Cells Basin ID Area Landuse & C-Values SurFace Type 1 Sueface Type 2 Total Area Total Area (Streets - Paved) (Lawns - Type C Soil) Weighted C Value [sf] [ac] CZ C�o C�oo Area CZ C�o C�oo Area CZ C�o C�oo A-1N (IN-1) 27309 0.63 0.95 0.95 1.00 22290 0.25 0.25 0.31 5019 0.82 0.82 0.87 A-1 (IN-2) 27875 0.64 0.95 0.95 1.00 27875 0.25 0.25 0.31 0 0.95 0.95 1.00 A-2 41023 0.94 0.95 0.95 1.00 41023 025 0.25 0.31 0 0.95 0.95 1.00 A-3 (IN-7) 16162 0.37 0.95 0.95 1.00 15852 0.25 0.25 0.31 310 0.94 0.94 0.99 A-4 16337 0.38 0.95 0.95 1.00 16337 0.25 0.25 0.31 0 0.95 0.95 1.00 A-W1 (IN3) 21341 0.49 0.95 0.95 1.00 18260 025 0.25 0.31 3081 0.85 0.85 0.90 A-W2 (IN-4) 74197 1.70 0.95 0.95 1.00 71557 0.25 025 0.31 2640 0.93 0.93 0.98 A-E7 112889 2.59 0.95 0.95 1.00 104870 0.25 0.25 0.31 8019 0.90 0.90 0.95 A-E2 24523 0.56 0.95 0.95 1.00 23817 0.25 0.25 0.31 706 0.93 0.93 0.98 A-E3 18306 0.42 0.95 0.95 1.00 15124 0.25 0.25 0.31 3182 0.83 0.83 0.88 A-S1 (IN-5) 11563 0.27 0.95 0.95 1.00 10523 025 0.25 0.31 1040 0.89 0.89 0.94 A-S2(IN-6) 190466 4.37 0.95 0.95 1.00 183594 0.25 0.25 0.31 6872 0.92 0.92 0.98 Total 581991 13.36 0.95 0.95 1.00 551122 0.25 0.25 0.31 30869 0.91 0.91 0.96 C values are from FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL, TABLE 3.2-2 Frequency factors have been applied per Table 3.2-3 Rational_Proposed Hydrology.xlsx 5/ 1 /2018 HORSETOOTH AND COLLEGE - PROPOSED BASIN HYDROLOGY User Entered Data Calculated Cells Basin ID Overland Flow Channel Flow Time of Concentration True Total True Initial Channel Initial Channel Total Tc Length Length High Point Low Point Slope Length High Point Low Point Slope t; t� t� (max) Tc iZ QZ iia Qia iioo Q�oo [ft] [ft] Elevation Elevation [%] [ft] Elevation Elevation [ftlft] [min] [min] [min] [min] [min] [inlhr] [cfs] [inlhr] [cfs] [in/hr] [cfs] A-1N (IN-1) 258 43 5036.0 5034.6 3.21 215 5034.6 5033.5 0.005 10.63 2.46 13.09 11.19 11.19 2.13 1.10 3.63 1.87 7.42 4.06 A-1 (IN-2) 435 57 5035.8 5035.3 0.89 378 5035.3 5034.9 0.001 10.04 9.34 19.38 12.10 12.10 2.05 1.25 3.50 2.13 7.16 4.58 A-2 724 45 5035.7 5034.6 2.36 679 5034.6 5027.7 0.010 6.48 5.62 12.10 13.77 12.10 2.05 1.83 3.50 3.13 7.16 6.74 A-3 (IN-7) 162 40 5035.3 5034.0 3.15 122 5034.0 5033.4 0.005 6.05 1.45 7.50 10.68 7.50 2.52 0.88 4.31 1.50 8.80 3.22 A-4 236 68 5035.2 5033.8 2.04 168 5033.8 5031.5 0.014 8.35 120 9.55 10.93 9.55 2.30 0.82 3.93 1.40 8.03 3.01 A-W1 (IN3) 360 80 5036.8 5033.9 3.51 280 5033.9 5033.9 0.000 12.68 13.80 26.48 11.56 11.56 2.13 0.89 3.63 1.51 7.42 3.27 A-W2 (IN-4) 1119 21 5041.2 5041.0 0.81 1098 5041.0 5034.0 0.006 7.35 11.46 18.81 16.10 16.10 1.81 2.85 3.08 4.85 6.30 10.47 A-E7 1485 65 5029.4 5027.6 2.78 1420 5027.6 5002.4 0.018 9.82 8.88 18.70 17.89 17.89 1.75 4.08 2.99 6.98 6.10 15.04 A-E2 407 61 5033.5 5031.2 3.80 347 50312 5025.5 0.016 7.28 2.25 9.53 11.93 9.53 2.30 1.20 3.93 2.06 8.03 4.43 A-E3 417 25 5027.2 5025.5 6.64 392 5025.5 5017.0 0.022 622 2.22 8.43 12.18 8.43 2.40 0.84 4.10 1.43 8.38 3.10 A-S1 (IN-5) 105 50 5035.6 5034.4 2.40 55 5034.4 5033.8 0.011 9.64 0.44 10.08 10.31 10.08 2.21 0.52 3.78 0.89 7.72 1.92 A-S2 (IN-6) 1410 115 5047.0 5046.1 0.83 1295 5046 5031.2 0.011 17.11 1.20 18.31 17.19 17.19 1.75 7.08 2.99 12.09 6.10 26.01 Total 17.89 1.75 21.34 2.99 36.47 6.10 78.53 C values are fron Slope = (High Point - Low Point)/Length Frequency factor t� = t; + t� FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL EQUATION 53 t�(max) _(L/180)+10 FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL EQUATION 3.3-5 t� (min) = 5 minutes 33.2 Overland Flow Time Overland flow, T;, can be determined by the following equation: 1.87(]1-CzC�)�'L T� _ � S Where: C= Runoff Coefficient, dimensionless C, = Frequency Adjustment Factor, dimensioniess L= Length of Overland Flow, feet S = Slope, percent Q= CiA FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL EQUATION 5-1 Q: Peak Runoff Rate (cfs) c: Runoff Coefficient i: Rainfall intensity (inches/hour) A: Tributary Area (ac) " Flow calculations in spreadsheet may differ slightly from S&S outputs because S&S interpolates between values. Inroads and Equation 33-2 UDFCD spreadsheets used for flow and inlet design. OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH L=200' MAX IN DEVELOPED AREAS L=500' MAX IN UNDEVELOPED AREAS Rational_Proposed Hydrology.xlsx 5/1/2018 HORSETOOTH AND COLLEGE PROPOSED CHANNELIZED FLOW TIME HORSETOOTH AND COLLEGE PROPOSED CHANNELIZED FLOW TIME Conveyance Upstream Downstream �� ope t t Basin ID Factor (K) Length (ft) Elevation Elevation ft/ft ft/sec min A-1 N(IN-1) 20 215 5035 5033 0.005 1.46 2.46 A-1 (IN-2) 20 378 5035 5035 0.001 0.67 9.34 A-2 20 679 5035 5028 0.010 2.01 5.62 A-3 (IN-7) 20 122 5034 5033 0.005 1.40 1.45 A-4 20 168 5034 5032 0.014 2.34 1.20 A-W1 (IN-3) 20 280 5034 5034 0.000 0.34 13.80 A-W2 IN-4 20 1098 5041 5034 0.006 1.60 11.46 A-E1 20 1420 5028 5002 0.018 2.66 8.88 A-E2 20 347 5031 5026 0.016 2.57 2.25 A-E3 20 392 5026 5017 0.022 2.95 2.22 A-S1 (IN-5 20 55 5034 5034 0.011 2.09 0.44 A-S2 (IN-6) 20 1295 5046 5031 0.011 2.14 10.07 2.-3.2 Channelized FIoH� Time The channelized flo�� time �tra� el time) is calculated using the hydraulic propertics of the com�eyance element. The channelized flo�ti• time, ��, is estimated by dividing the length of conveyance by the velocity. The following equation. Equation b-# (Guo 2013), can be used to deterntine the flo�v velocity in conjunction µ•ith Table b-2 for the c��nveyance factor. t = L� — L, ` bOK� f60[-; �� here: t, = channelized flow time (travel time, nun) L; = w�aten+ay length (ft) S, _ «�aterw�ay slope (ft/ft) T; = travel tiine velocity (tt:'sec) = K�'S� K= NRCS com�eyance factor (see Table 6-2). Table 6-2. NRCS Concey-ance factors, K Equat�on 6-� T}�pe of Land Surface Conveyance Factor. K Hea��- meadow• ?.5 Tillaee field 5 Short pasturc and laa•ns 7 �learly bare ground 10 Grassed waterw�ay 15 Paved areas and shallo�v paved sw�ales 20 January'_Olb Urban Drainagc and Flood Control District b-5 Urban Stonn Drainage Criteria Manual �'olwne l ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) Project: InIetID: Enter Your Proiect Name Here IN-1 T � T T. T� �.c" W I T. m � STREET U. I ��: CROWN � � _� �� Allowable W idth for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) iinq's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) of Curb at Gutter Flow Line ;e from Curb Face to Street Crown Transverse Slope Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftlk) Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition iq's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Stoim Allowable Depth at Gutter Flavline for Minor & Major Storm k boxes are notapplicable in SUMP conditions STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Tanck = 14.0 R SBACK - 0.020 fVft �encK = 0.013 Hcuas = 6.00 inches TcaowN = 32.0 ft W = 2.00 k Sx = 0.034 fVft Sw = 0.083 ft/ft So = 0.000 fVft �sraEEr = 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm TMna = 12.0 24.0 k dM�ix= 6.0 12.0 inches Minor Storm Major Storm �,now= SUMP SUMP cfs UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-1 4/25/2018, 639 PM � INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION I Version 4.05 Released March 2017 � Lo (C) x I H-Curb I H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo (G ) of Inlet I CDOT Type R Curb Opening I Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) ber of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) �r Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) e Information th of a Unit Grate i of a Unit Grate Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) 3ing Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - OJO) a Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) :Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60-0.80) � Opening Information th of a Unil Curb Opening �t of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches �t of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches a of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Width for Depression Pan (rypicallythe gutter width of 2 feet) 3ing Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.33.7) Opening Orifce Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - OJO) i for Grate Midwidth i for Curb Opening Weir Equation �ination Inlet Performance Reductim Factor for Long Inlets Opening Performance Reduction Facmr for Long Inlets �d Inlet Pertormance Reduction Factor foi Long Inlets I Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) IS GOOD for Minor and MINOR MAJOR Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening aio�,i = 3.00 inches No = 1 Ponding Depth = 6.0 11.0 inches MINOR MAJOR I O�rride Depths Lo (G) = N/A feet N10 = N/A � � feet %�reno = N/A �rIG) = N/A N/A C„, (G)= N/A �� (G) = NIA � .. MINOR MAJOR Lo (C) = 5.00 feet H�en= 6.00 � � inches Hm�oa�= 6.00 � inches Theta = 63.40 degrees N1u = 2.00 feet C� (C) = 0.30 0.30 C„, (C) = 3.60 ' Co (C) = 0.67 MINOR MAJOR dc�ai� = NIA N/A k dam = 0.33 0.75 k RFcpme;,,a�io„ = 0.77 1.00 RF�,,,� = 1.00 1.00 RFc,a�e = N/A NIA Qa - Q aEnrc aEauiaEo = MINOR MAJOR UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-1 4/25/2018, 639 PM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) Project: InIetID: Enter Your Proiect Name Here IN-2 T � T T. T� �.c" W I T. m � STREET U. I ��: CROWN � � _� �� mum Allowable W idth for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) iinq's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) of Curb at Gutter Flow Line ;e from Curb Face to Street Crown Transverse Slope Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftlk) Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition iq's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Stoim Allowable Depth at Gutter Flavline for Minor & Major Storm k boxes are notapplicable in SUMP conditions er Depih without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) ical Depth between Gutter Lip and Gutter Flowline (usually 2") er Depression (d� - (W " S," 72)) er Depth at Gutter Flowline mable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W(T - W) er Flow to Design Fiow Ratio by FHWA HEG22 method (Eq. ST-7) :harge outside the Gurier Section W, carried in Section Tx :harge within Ihe Gutter Section W(Qr - Qx) :harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) �.imum Flow Based On Allowable Spread � Veiocity within the Gutter Section Product: Flow Velocitytimes Gutter Flowline Depth �retical Water Spread �retical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W(T - W) er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEG22 method (Eq. ST-7) oretical Discharge wtside the GuBer Seclion W, carried in Section Tx rH ial Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TcaowN) :harge within the Gutter Section W(Qa - Qx) :harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) il Discharge for Major & Minor Storm (Pre-Safety Factor) rage Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section Product: Flow VelocityTimes Gutter Flowline Depth �e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Storm �. Flow Based on Allowable Depth (Safety Pactor Applied) ultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safery Factor Applied) ultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion STORM Aliowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Tanck = 14.0 R SBACK - 0.020 fVft �encK = 0.013 Hcuas = 6.00 inches TcaowN = 74.0 ft W = 2.00 k Sx = 0.028 fVft Sw = 0.083 ft/ft So = 0.000 fVft �sraEEr = 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm TMna = 30.0 42.0 k dMnx= 6.0 12.0 inches Minor Storm Major Storm y = 10.08 14.11 inches dc = 2.0 2.0 inches a = 1.32 1.32 inches d = 11.40 15.43 inches Tx = 28.0 40.0 k Eo = 0.184 0.131 Qx = 0.0 0.0 cfs �1w = 0.0 0.0 cfs Qenck = 0.0 0.0 cfs Q7= SUMP SUMP cfs V = 0.0 0.0 fps V`d = 0.0 0.0 Minor Storm Major Storm TrH = 13.9 31.8 k Txrn= 1t9 29.8 k Eo = 0.395 0.174 Qx.H = 0.0 0.0 cfs Qx = 0.0 0.0 cfs �1w = 0.0 0.0 cfs 4BACK - O.O O.O CfS Q = 0.0 0.0 cfs V = 0.0 0.0 fps V`d = 0.0 0.0 R= SUMP SUMP Qa= SUMP SUMP cfs d = incl dcaowu = incl Minor Storm Major Storm �,now= SUMP SUMP cfs UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-2 4/25/2018, 635 PM � INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION I Version 4.05 Released March 2017 � Lo (C) x I H-Curb I H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo (G ) of Inlet I CDOT Type R Curb Opening I Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) ber of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) �r Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) e Information th of a Unit Grate i of a Unit Grate Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) 3ing Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - OJO) a Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) :Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60-0.80) � Opening Information th of a Unil Curb Opening �t of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches �t of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches a of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Width for Depression Pan (rypicallythe gutter width of 2 feet) 3ing Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.33.7) Opening Orifce Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - OJO) i for Grate Midwidth i for Curb Opening Weir Equation �ination Inlet Performance Reductim Factor for Long Inlets Opening Performance Reduction Facmr for Long Inlets �d Inlet Pertormance Reduction Factor foi Long Inlets I Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) IS GOOD for Minor and MINOR MAJOR Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening aio�,i = 3.00 inches No = 1 Ponding Depth = 6.0 12.0 inches MINOR MAJOR I 0�.2rride Depths Lo (G) = N/A feet N10 = N/A � � feet %�reno = N/A �rIG) = N/A N/A C„, (G)= N/A �� (G) = NIA � .. MINOR MAJOR Lo (C) = 5.00 feet H�en= 6.00 � � inches Hm�oa�= 6.00 � inches Theta = 63.40 degrees N1u = 2.00 feet C� (C) = 0.30 0.30 C„, (C) = 3.60 ' Co (C) = 0.67 MINOR MAJOR dc�ai� = NIA N/A k dam = 0.33 0.83 k RFcpme;,,a�io„ = 0.77 1.00 RF�,,,� = 1.00 1.00 RFc,a�e = N/A NIA Qa - Q aEnrc aEauiaEo = MINOR MAJOR UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-2 4/25/2018, 635 PM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) Project: InIetID: Enter Your Proiect Name Here IN-3 T � T T. T� �.c" W I T. m � STREET U. I ��: CROWN � � _� �� mum Allowable W idth for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) iinq's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) of Curb at Gutter Flow Line ;e from Curb Face to Street Crown Transverse Slope Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftlk) Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition iq's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Stoim Allowable Depth at Gutter Flavline for Minor & Major Storm Flow Depth at Street Crown Qeave blank for no) Tanck = 10.0 R SBACK - 0.020 fVft �encK = 0.013 Hcuas = 6.00 inches TcaowN = 46.0 ft W = 2.00 k Sx = 0.029 fVft Sw = 0.083 ft/ft So = 0.005 fVft �sraEEr = 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm TMna = 12.0 24.0 k dM�ix= 6.0 12.0 inches check = yes INOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Siorm Major Storm AJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion �,now = 7.0 47.1 cfs inor s[orm max. allowable wpacdy GOOD - greater [han [he design flow given on sheet'Inlet ManagemenY aior storm max. allowable caoacitv GOOD - qreater than the desiqn flow qiven on sheet'Inlet ManaqemenP UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-3 4/25/2018, 638 PM INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Version 4.05 Released March 2017 �Lo (C)-� H-Curb H-Vert b'Vo �� W � Lo fGl Type of Inlet � CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additiorel to continuous gutier depression'a) Total Number of Units in the Iriet (Grate o� Curb Opening) Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grete or Curb Opening) Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be grea[er than W, Gutter Width) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) Warning 1 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0. 7n Discharge for Half of Street (from Sheet Inlet Management � r Spread Width r Depth at Plowline (outside of local depression) r Depth at Street Crown (or at TMpx) of Gutter Flow to Design Flow iarge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T„ iarge within the Gutter Section W iarge Behind the Curb Face Area within the Gutter Section W :ity within the Gu[ter Section W r Deoth for Desian Condition Length of Inlet Grate Opening of Grete Flow to Design Flow r No-Ciogging Condition wm Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins eption Rate of Frontal Flow eption Rate d Side Flow eption Capacity r Clogging Condition ing Coeffcient for Muitiple-unit Grate Inlet ing Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet ive (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet ium Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins eption Rate of Frontal Flow eption Rate d Side Flow il Interception Capadty -Over Flow = �. Q, (to be aoolied to curb openinq or next dls lent Siope Se (based on grate carry-wer) �d Length L7 to Have 100 % Inferception No-Ciogging Condition �e Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, L,) ption Capacity Clogging Condition ig Coeffcient ig Factor for Multiple-unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet �e (Unclogged) Length Interception Capadty Dver Flow = Qe��Ra,E�•Q, Inlet Interception Capacdy Inlet Carry-Over Flow (fiow bypassing inlet) re Percentaae = O../�_ _ MINOR MAJOR Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening a�ocn� = 3.0 incl No = 1 Lo = 5.00 k Wo= N/A ft CrG = NIA NIA C�C = 0.30 0.30 MINOR MAJOR Qo = 0.9 3.3 cfs T= 4.6 8.7 k d = 2.9 4.3 incl dcaowN = 0.0 0.0 incl Eo = 0.885 0.596 Q. = 0.1 1.3 cfs Q„, = 0.8 1.9 cfs Qencrc = 0.0 0.0 cfs Aw = 0.32 0.55 sq - Vw = 2.5 3.5 fps d�oca� = 5.9 7.3 incl MINOR MAJOR L = NIA NIA ft Ea-canle = N/A NIA MINOR MAJOR Vo = NIA NIA fps R� = N/A NIA R„ = NIA NIA Q�, = NIA N/A cfs MINOR MAJOR GrateCoef= N/A N/A GrateClog = NIA NIA LQ = NIA N/A ft Vo = NIA N/A fps R�= N/A NIA R„ = NIA NIA Q, = N/A NIA cfs Q. = N/A N/A cfs MINOR MAJOR Se= 0.187 0.735 fUft Lr = 420 9.46 k MINOR MAJOR L = 4.20 5.00 ft Q�, = 0.9 2.4 cfs MINOR MAJOR CurbCoef = 1.00 1.00 CurbClog = 0.30 0.30 LQ = 3.50 3.50 ft Q, = 0.9 �.8 cfs Qe = 0.0 1.4 cfs MINOR MAJOR Q = 0.9 1.8 cfs Qe = 0.0 1.4 cts C % = 96 56 % UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-3 4/25/2018, 638 PM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) Project: InIetID: Enter Your Proiect Name Here IN-4 T � T T. T� �.c" W I T. m � STREET U. I ��: CROWN � � _� �� mum Allowable W idth for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) iinq's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) of Curb at Gutter Flow Line ;e from Curb Face to Street Crown Transverse Slope Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftlk) Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition iq's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Stoim Allowable Depth at Gutter Flavline for Minor & Major Storm Flow Depth at Street Crown Qeave blank for no) Tanck = 20.0 R SBACK - 0.020 fVft �encK = 0.013 Hcuas = 6.00 inches TcaowN = 46.0 ft W = 2.00 k Sx = 0.020 fVft Sw = 0.016 ft/ft So = 0.005 fVft �sraEEr = 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm TMna = 12.0 34.0 k dM�ix= 6.0 12.0 inches check = yes INOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Siorm Major Storm AJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion �,now = 3.3 55.8 cfs inor s[orm max. allowable wpacdy GOOD - greater [han [he design flow given on sheet'Inlet ManagemenY aior storm max. allowable caoacitv GOOD - qreater than the desiqn flow qiven on sheet'Inlet ManaqemenP UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-4 4/25/2018, 639 PM INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Version 4.05 Released March 2017 �Lo (C)-� H-Curb H-Vert b'Vo �� W � Lo fGl Type of Inlet � CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additiorel to continuous gutier depression'a) Total Number of Units in the Iriet (Grate o� Curb Opening) Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grete or Curb Opening) Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be grea[er than W, Gutter Width) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) Warning 1 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0. 7n Discharge for Half of Street (from Sheet Inlet Management � r Spread Width r Depth at Plowline (outside of local depression) r Depth at Street Crown (or at TMpx) of Gutter Flow to Design Flow iarge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T„ iarge within the Gutter Section W iarge Behind the Curb Face Area within the Gutter Section W :ity within the Gu[ter Section W r Deoth for Desian Condition Length of Inlet Grate Opening of Grete Flow to Design Flow r No-Ciogging Condition wm Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins eption Rate of Frontal Flow eption Rate d Side Flow eption Capacity r Clogging Condition ing Coeffcient for Muitiple-unit Grate Inlet ing Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet ive (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet ium Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins eption Rate of Frontal Flow eption Rate d Side Flow il Interception Capadty -Over Flow = �. Q, (to be aoolied to curb openinq or next dls lent Siope Se (based on grate carry-wer) �d Length L7 to Have 100 % Inferception No-Ciogging Condition �e Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, L,) ption Capacity Clogging Condition ig Coeffcient ig Factor for Multiple-unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet �e (Unclogged) Length Interception Capadty Dver Flow = Qe��Ra,E�•Q, Inlet Interception Capacdy Inlet Carry-Over Flow (fiow bypassing inlet) re Percentaae = O../�_ _ MINOR MAJOR Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening a�ocn� = 3.0 incl No = 1 Lo = 5.00 k Wo= N/A ft CrG = NIA NIA C�C = 0.30 0.30 MINOR MAJOR Qo = 2.9 10.5 cfs T = 11.3 18.4 k d = 2.6 4.3 incl dcaowN = 0.0 0.0 incl Eo = 0.398 0261 Q. = 1.7 77 cfs Q„, = 1.1 2.7 cfs Qencrc = 0.0 0.0 cfs Aw = 0.40 0.69 sq � Vw = 2,8 4.0 fps d�oca� = 5.6 7.3 incl MINOR MAJOR L = NIA NIA ft Ea-canle = N/A NIA MINOR MAJOR Vo = NIA NIA fps R� = N/A NIA R„ = NIA NIA Q�, = NIA N/A cfs MINOR MAJOR GrateCoef= N/A N/A GrateClog = NIA NIA LQ = NIA N/A ft Vo = NIA N/A fps R�= N/A NIA R„ = NIA NIA Q, = N/A NIA cfs Q. = N/A N/A cfs MINOR MAJOR SQ = 0.068 0.052 fUft Lr = 12.10 26.69 k MINOR MAJOR L = 5.00 5.00 ft Q�, = 1.8 3.3 cfs MINOR MAJOR CurbCoef = 1.00 1.00 CurbClog = 0.30 0.30 LQ = 3.50 3.50 ft Q, = 1.3 2.3 cfs Qe = 1.5 8.1 cfs MINOR MAJOR Q = 1.3 2.3 cfs Qe = 1.5 8.1 cts C % = 46 22 % UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-4 4/25/2018, 639 PM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) Project: InIetID: Enter Your Proiect Name Here IN-5 T � T T. T� �.c" W I T. m � STREET U. I ��: CROWN � � _� �� Allowable W idth for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) iinq's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) of Curb at Gutter Flow Line ;e from Curb Face to Street Crown Transverse Slope Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftlk) Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition iq's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Stoim Allowable Depth at Gutter Flavline for Minor & Major Storm k boxes are notapplicable in SUMP conditions STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Tanck = 11.5 R SBACK - 0.020 fVft �encK = 0.013 Hcuas = 6.00 inches TcaowN = 35.0 ft W = 2.00 k Sx = 0.020 fVft Sw = 0.083 ft/ft So = 0.000 fVft �sraEEr = 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm TMna = 12.0 35.0 k dM�ix= 6.0 12.0 inches Minor Storm Major Storm �,now= SUMP SUMP cfs UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-5 4/25/2018, 6:45 PM � INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION I Version 4.05 Released March 2017 � Lo (C) x I H-Curb I H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo (G ) of Inlet I CDOT Type R Curb Opening I Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) ber of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) �r Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) e Information th of a Unit Grate i of a Unit Grate Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) 3ing Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - OJO) a Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) :Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60-0.80) � Opening Information th of a Unil Curb Opening �t of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches �t of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches a of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Width for Depression Pan (rypicallythe gutter width of 2 feet) 3ing Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.33.7) Opening Orifce Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - OJO) i for Grate Midwidth i for Curb Opening Weir Equation �ination Inlet Performance Reductim Factor for Long Inlets Opening Performance Reduction Facmr for Long Inlets �d Inlet Pertormance Reduction Factor foi Long Inlets I Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) IS GOOD for Minor and MINOR MAJOR Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening aio�,i = 3.00 inches No = 1 Ponding Depth = 4.4 9.9 inches MINOR MAJOR I 0�.2rride Depths Lo (G) = N/A feet N10 = N/A � � feet %�reno = N/A �rIG) = N/A N/A C„, (G)= N/A �� (G) = NIA � .. MINOR MAJOR Lo (C) = 5.00 feet H�en= 6.00 � � inches Hm�oa�= 6.00 � inches Theta = 63.40 degrees N1u = 2.00 feet C� (C) = 0.30 0.30 C„, (C) = 3.60 ' Co (C) = 0.67 MINOR MAJOR dc�ai� = NIA N/A k dam = 0.20 0.66 k RFcpme;,,a�io„ = 0.56 1.00 RF�,,,� = 1.00 1.00 RFc,a�e = N/A NIA Qa - Q aEnrc aEauiaEo = MINOR MAJOR UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-5 4/25/2018, 6:45 PM AREA INLET IN A SWALE Enter Your Project Name Here IN-6 TM� This worksheet uses the NRCS I� T v _ I vegetal retardance method to � determine Manning's n. '� d Z' d1� MAX For more information see 1 Section 72.3 of the USDCM. I� B I NRCS Vegetal Retardance (A, B, C, D, or E) Manning's n(Leave cell D16 blank to manually enter an n value) Channel Invert Slope Bottom Width Warning 01 Left Side Slope Warning 01 Right Side Slope Check one of Ihe following soil rypes: Soil Tvpe: Max. VelociN N��ox) Max Froude No. (F�,,,) Non-Cohesive 5.0 fps 0.60 Cohesive 7.0 fps 0.80 Paved N/A NIA Allowable Top Width of Channel for Minor & Majo� Storm Allowable Water Depth in Channel for Minor & Major Storm A,B.C,DorE n = 0.013 sa = o.00so wn B = 4.00 Ft Z1 = 2.00 ftlft Z2 = 2.00 fUft Choose One: �� Non-Cohesive +�' Cohesive !� Paved Minor Storm Major Storm Tmwc = 8.00 8.00 feet dmnz = 2.00 2.00 feet STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Top Width Criterion STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Top Width Criterion � Peak Flow Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Q,uew = 38.6 38.6 cfs d,naw = 1.00 7.00 ft Qo = 6.9 25.4 cfs d = 0.38 0.60 feet storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than [he design flow given on sheet'Inlet Management' storm max. allowa6le caoacitv GOOD - area[er than the desian flow aiven on sheet'Inlet Manaaement' UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-6 4/25/2018, 5:47 PM AREA INLET IN A SWALE Enter Your Project Name Here IN-6 of Inlet � CDOT Type C � of Inclined Grate (must be r_ 30 degrees) i of Grate th of Grate - i Area Ratio .�N / _ iC of Inclined Grate � = x -. 3ing Factor i � Discharge Coefficient — - e Coefficient � -- -- . _ - Coefficient �� __ Fo�G o� _ J Inlet Type = CDOT Type C B = 0.00 W = 3.00 L = 3.00 %�aano = 0.70 He = 0.00 Cr 0.50 ��.-�" Ho Ca= 0.96 �a } � Co= 0.64 � �w = 2.05 MINOR MAJOR Depth at Inlet (for depressed inlets, 1 foot is added for depression) d= 0.38 0.80 Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa = a.a �3.� cfs Bypassed Fiow, Qe = 2.5 12.2 cfs Capture Percentage = Q,IQo = C% 63 52 % Warning 01: Sideslope steepness exceeds USDCM Volume I recommendation. UD-Inlet v4.05.xlsm, IN-6 4/25/2018, 5:47 PM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) Project: Inlet ID: r r , r. T,w,x `-�a^ �cx W T. �� ' STREET 0. a CROWN ��• / num Allowable Widlh for Spread 8ehind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) iing's Roughne� Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) of Curb at Gutter Flow Line ce from CuPo Face to Street Cmwn Width Transverse Slope Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 fUk) Longitudlnal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition ig's Roughne� for Street Section (typically be[ween 0.012 and 0.020) Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm k boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions ar Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) Ical Depth behveen Gutter Lip and Gutter Flowline (usually 2") er Depression (d� -( W' S, " 12)) =_r Depth at Gutter Flowline vable Spread for Discharge outside [he Gutter Section W(T - W) er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FH WA HEG22 method (Eq. ST-7) harge outside the Gutter Sec[ion W, carried in Section Tx harge within the Gutter Section W(Q, - Qx) harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) imum Flow Based On Allowable Spread � Velacity wi[hin the Gutter Section Product Flow Velociry times Gu[ter Flowline Depth �retical Wa[er Spread �retical Spread for �ischarge outside the Gutter Section W(T - W) er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEG22 method (Eq. 5T-7) �retical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carned in Section Tx,H al Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by dis[ance TcRowN) harge within the Gutter Section W(Qd - Qx) harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) I Discharge for Major & Minor Storm (Pre-Safety Factor) age Flow Velocity within the Gutter Section Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth e-Based Depth Safery Reduction Factorfor Major & Minor(d > 6") Storm Flow Based on Allowable �epth (Safety Factor Applied) �Itant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) �Itant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Apptied) STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Dep[h Criterion Tanck = 70.0 ft Sencrc = 0.005 ftlft �encrc = 0.013 Hcuae = 6.00 inches TcRowry = 46.0 ft W = 2.00 ft Sx = 0.024 fUk Sw = 0.083 fVft So = 0.000 ft/ft �srREEr= 0.013 MinorStorm MajorStorm Tmnx = 12.0 46.0 ft dMae = 6.0 12.0 inches Minor Storm Major Storm y = 3.46 1325 inches dc = 2,0 2.0 inches a = 7.42 1.42 inches d = 4.87 14.66 inches Tx = 70.0 44.0 ft Eo = 0.470 0.121 �x = 0.0 0.0 cfs Qw = 0.0 OA cfs QancK = 0.0 0.0 cfs �, = SUMP SUMP cfs V = 0.0 0.0 (ps V'd = 0.0 0.0 Minor Storm Major Srorm Tm = 75.9 36.8 ft TxrH= 13.9 34.8 k Eo = 0.358 0.153 Qx.H = 0.0 OA cfs Qx = 0.0 0.0 cfs Qw = 0.0 0.0 cfs �1encK = 0.0 0.0 ds Q = 0.0 0.0 cfs V = 0.0 0.0 fps V*d = 0.0 0.0 R= SUMP SUMP Qa = SUMP SUMP cfs d = inches dcRowry = inches Minor Storm Major Srorm Qaimw = SUMP SUMP cfs UD-Inlet v4.O5.xlsm, IN-7 4/25/2018, 6:49 PM � INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION I Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ,r �Lo(C)� � H -C u rb I H-Vert Wo WP W Lo (G) Desiqn Information (Inputl I MINOR MAJOR I CDOT Type R Curb Opening Type of Inlet - Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression'a' fmm above) a,o�.,, = 3.00 inches Number of Uni[ Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 Water Dep[h at Flowline (outside of Iocal depression) Ponding Depth = 4.9 12.0 inches Grate Informa[ion MINOR MAJOR � O�erride Depths Length of a Unit Grete I.o (G) = N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo = N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical vaiues 0.15-0.90) A,a„o = N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (rypical v alue 0.50 - 0.70) C� (G) = NIA NIA Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C,„ (G) = NIA �� Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C� (G) = NIA Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR length of a Unit Curb Opening Lp (C) = 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H�e„ = 6.00 � inches Height of Curb Orifce Throat in Inches H,n,o�, = 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see US�CM Figure ST-5) Theta = 63.40 � degrees Side Widih for Depression Pan (typicalty the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp = 2.00 feet Clogging factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C� (C) = 0.30 0.10 Curb Opening Weir CoeBicient (typical value 233J) Cw (C) = 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (rypical val ue 0.60 - 0.70) Cp (C) = 0.67 Grete Flow Analvsis ICalculatedl MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coeffcieni for Multiple Units Coef = NIA N/A Clogging Pactorfor MWtiple Units Clog = N/A NIA Grete Capacity as a Weir (based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qw; = N/A NIA cfs Interception with Clogging Qwe = NIA NIA cfs Grate Capacity as a Orifice (based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qo, = NIA NIA cfs Interception with Clogging Qoa = NIA NIA cfs Grate Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qm, = NIA NIA cfs Interception with Clogging Q�„ = NIA NIA cfs Resultiog Grate Capacity (assumes cloggetl condition) �a„�e = NIA NIA cfs Curb Openinq Flow Analvsis ICalculated) MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient far MWtiple Units Coef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factorfor MW[iple Units Clog = 0.30 0.70 Curb Opening as a Weir (based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qw, = 3B 23.6 cfs Interception with Clogging Qw, = 2.5 212 cfs Curb Opening as an Orifice (based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qo, = 8.8 13.6 cfs Interception with Clogging Qoa = 62 12.3 cfs Curb Opening Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qm; = 5.3 167 cfs Interception with Clogging Qm� = 3.7 15A cfs Resulting Curb Opening Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qc�m = 2.5 12.3 cfs Resultant Street Condi[ions MINOR MAJOR TotallnletLength L= 5.00 5.00 feet Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on street geometry from above) T= 12.0 36.8 ft Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown ticRowN = 0.0 0.0 inches Low Head Performance Reduction ICalculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth d��„e = NIA NIA k Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dc�,e = 0.24 0.83 k Combination Iniet Pedormance Reduction Factor for Long In�ets RFcome,�,,,o� = 0.62 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RF��,n = 1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RF��e = N/A NIA MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Irrterception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa = z.s �2.a cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK) Q venrc aeouiaeo = 2.4 11.3 cfs UD-Inlet v4.O5.xlsm, IN-7 4/25/2018, 6:49 PM InRoads Output Area Summary 100-YR Date:4/30/18 Attached Runoff Frequenc Time Of ID To Method Coef Intensity y Area PeakFlow Concentration A-1 A-1 N A-2 A-3 A-4 A-E1 A-E2 A-E3 A-S 1 A-S2 A-S3 A-W 1 A-W2 IN-2 IN-1 IN-7 � IN-5 IN-6 IN-3 IN-4 Rational Rational Rational Rational Rational Rational Rational Rational Rational Rational Rational Rational Rational (year) (acre) 1 7.136 100 0.64 0.87 7.3706 100 0.63 1 7.136 100 0.92 0.99 8.59 100 0.37 1 7.8595 100 0.39 0.95 5.9398 100 2.57 0.98 7.8657 100 0.59 0.88 8.2295 100 0.42 0.94 7.696 100 0.27 0.98 6.0658 100 4.37 1 6.106 100 1.82 0.9 7.2744 100 0.49 0.98 6.28 100 1.70 (cfs) 4.57 4.02 6.54 3.16 3.04 14.52 4.53 3.04 1.92 25.99 11.10 3.21 10.48 (min) 12.10 11.19 12.10 7.50 9.55 17.89 9.53 8.43 10.08 17.19 16.97 11.56 16.10 InRoads Output Date:4/30/18 Inlet Summary Depth Inlet Vault Vault Inlet Bypass Flowline Invert Below Gutter Gutter Longitudinal Transverse Contributing Clogging ID Class Type Length Width Thickness Location Inlet ID Elevation Invert In Out Depression Invert Type Roughness Slope Slope Area Percentage (ft) (ft) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (in) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (acre) (%) Curb IN-1 TYPE R Opening 5 Curb IN-2 TYPE R Opening 5 Curb IN-3 TYPE R Opening 5 Curb IN-4 TYPE R Opening 10 Curb IN-5 TYPE R Opening 5 INLET IN-6 TYPE C Catchpit 2.92 Curb IN-7 TYPE R Opening 5 3 3 3 3 3 2.92 3 6 Sump N/A 6 Sump N/A 6 On-Grade IN-2 6 On-Grade IN-7 6 Sump N/A 6 Sump N/A 6 Sump N/A 5033.51 N/A 5031.22 5033.76 5030.29 5030.24 5033.92 N/A 5031.46 5034.00 N/A 5030.56 5033.86 N/A 5029.97 5031.18 N/A 5027.59 5033.94 N/A 5031.67 3 3.75 Composite 3 3.75 Composite 3 3.75 Composite 3 3.75 Composite 3 3.75 Composite 0 3.75 Uniform 0 3.75 Composite 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.034 2.800 0.029 0.020 0.020 0.500 0.024 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.000 0.083 0.627 0.640 0.490 1.703 0.265 4.373 0.371 30 30 30 30 30 50 30 InRoads Output Inlet Summary 100-YR Date:4/30/18 Bypass Flow Bypass Gutter Intercepted to Drainage Upstrea Area Injected Flow From Grate Grate ID TotalFlow Depth Spread Capacity Flow Downstream Area m Area Runoff Intensity Frequency Storm Flow Upstream Length Width Headloss HGL EGL (cfs) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (%) (cfs) (acres) (acres) (acres) (year) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) IN-1 IN-2 IN-3 IN-4 IN-5 IN-6 IN-7 4.02 0.35 7.27 4.02 9.47 0.42 2.09 5.45 2.33 0.36 8.71 2.33 6.94 0.48 17.72 6.94 1.92 0.21 4.23 1.92 25.99 1.29 2.57 25.99 6.69 0.50 15.92 6.72 100 0 100 0 72.50 0.88 66.25 i 3.54 100 � 0 100 0 100 0 0.63 0.00 4.02 0.64 0.63 4.57 0.49 0.00 3.21 1.70 0.00 10.48 0.27 0.00 1.92 4.37 0.00 25.99 0.37 0.00 3.16 7.37 7.14 7.27 6.28 7.70 6.07 8.59 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.00 4.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0 0.88 5 0 0.00 5 0 0.00 10 0 0.00 5 0 0.00 2.92 2.92 3.54 5 0 0.00 5032.52 5032.60 0.27 5031.79 5032.24 0.00 5032.28 5032.48 0.00 5031.82 5032.51 0.00 5030.40 5030.72 0.00 5029.75 5033.11 0.00 5033.92 5035.05 InRoads Output Date:4/30/18 Manhole Summary 100-YR Connectio Upstream Rim ID Material Shape Diameter n Point Diam Invert In Invert Out Elevation MH-2 MH-1 EX-M H Precast Precast Precast Circular Circular Circular (ft) 6 Center 4 Center 6 Center (in) 36 23 0 (ft) (ft) 5028.69 5028.56 5030.46 5030.41 N/A 5029.66 (ft) 5034.72 5033.86 5036.56 InRoads Output Manhole Summary 100-YR Date:4/30/18 Contributing Area ID Total Flow Upstream Headloss HGL EGL (cfs) (acre) (ft) (ft) (ft) MH-2 9.27 2.19 0.14 5032.08 5032.37 MH-1 4.02 0.63 0.05 5032.26 5032.34 InRoads Output Date:4/30/18 Pipe Summary 100-YR Upstream Downstream Plan Pipe ID ID ID Material Shape Width Height Thickness Invert In Invert Out Length Length Slope Roughness (in) (in) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) EX-P1 EX-P2 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 .. EX-MH MH-2 RCP Circular EX-IN FREE_EXT HERCP Elliptical IN-1 MH-1 HERCP Elliptical MH-1 IN-2 HERCP Elliptical IN-2 EX-IN HERCP Elliptical IN-3 MH-2 HERCP Elliptical IN-4 MH-2 RCP Circular MH-2 FREE EXT RCP Circular IN-5 FREE EXT RCP Circular IN-6 FREE EXT RCP Circular IN-7 FREE EXT RCP Circular 36 30 23 23 23 23 18 36 18 18 12 36 19 14 14 14 14 18 36 18 18 12 4 5029.66 5028.69 330.91 324.91 3.25 5029.92 5029.32 86.70 85.03 2.75 5031.22 5030.46 195.27 190.76 2.75 5030.41 5030.29 33.25 31.25 2.75 5030.24 5030.12 30.81 29.32 2.75 5031.46 5031.26 50.76 47.76 2.5 5030.56 5030.21 35.94 31.44 4 5028.56 5028.48 28.10 25.10 2.5 5029.97 5029.78 21.91 19.41 2.5 5027.59 5027.46 12.90 12.90 2 5031.67 5031.39 43.14 43.14 0.003 0.007 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.003 0.010 0.010 0.006 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 InRoads Output Date:4/30/18 Pipe Summary 100-YR Injected Froude Flow Flow Depth Of Critical Area Storm Entrance Entrance ID Total Flow Number Status Regime Capacity Velocity Flow Depth Upstream Flow Height Width Headloss d Over D HGL Exit HGL EGL Exit EGL (cfs) (cfs) (fps) (ft) (ft) (acre) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) EX-P2 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 12.81 12.81 1.35 Partial SuperCritical 19.42 6.74 1.08 1.27 12.81 4.02 4.02 0.00 Full Subcritical 6.88 2.29 0.63 0.63 0.00 4.02 4.02 0.00 Full Subcritical 6.88 2.29 0.63 0.63 0.00 9.47 9.47 0.00 Full Subcritical 6.88 5.39 1.17 1.27 4.02 2.33 2.33 1.05 Partial SuperCritical 7.04 3.53 0.48 0.49 0.00 6.94 6.94 1.39 Partial SuperCritical 11.11 6.63 1.02 1.70 0.00 9.27 9.27 0.88 Partial Subcritical 36.53 4.31 0.96 2.19 0.00 L 1.92 1.92 1.43 Partial SuperCritical 10.50 4.51 0.52 0.27 0.00 25.99 25.99 0.00 Full Subcritical 10.50 14.71 1.50 4.37 0.00 6.69 6.69 0.00 Full Subcritical 2.87 8.52 1.00 0.37 0.00 19 14 14 14 14 18 36 18 18 12 30 0.00 23 0.27 23 0.05 23 0.23 23 0.00 18 0.00 36 0.08 18 0.00 18 0.79 12 1.52 0.59 5030.85 5030.25 5031.56 5030.96 0.55 5032.52 5032.26 5032.60 5032.34 0.55 5032.21 5031.79 5032.29 5032.24 1.00 5031.52 5031.29 5031.97 5031.74 0.40 5032.28 5032.08 5032.48 5032.28 0.57 5031.82 5031.47 5032.51 5032.15 0.34 5030.54 5030.46 5030.83 5030.75 0.29 5030.40 5030.21 5030.72 5030.53 1.00 5029.75 5028.96 5033.11 5032.32 1.00 5033.92 5032.39 5035.05 5033.52 Low Tail Water Basin and Riprap Design 36" Outfall under Horsetooth Bridge 1-May-18 Instructions: Refer to Section 3.4.3.2 of Chap 8 Vol 2 in UD Manual. Enter values in blue cells. Green cells are calculated. 100-year design flows Outlet Pipe Information: Type of Pipe: Circular Storm Sewer Dia, D= 3 ft Riprap Size: Velocity = 5.17 ft/s �1� 100 Year Design Depth, d= 3 ft �Z� Gravity, g = 32.2 ft/sz Eqn: HS-16e Pd = 11.11 ft/s Use Figure HS-20c to find the size and type of riprap to use in the outlet protection basin. Riprap Selection: Type L Riprap Diameter, Dso = 9 inches Riprap Minimum Thickness: Thickness, T = 1.31 ft Eqn: HS-17 1.751.751.75 Basin Dimensions: Storm Sewer Dia, D= 3 ft Length is defined as being the greater of the following: L= 4D = 12 ft Eqn: HS-18 L=(D)^0.5(V/2) = 4.477351338 ft Eqn: HS-19 L = 12 ft Width: w= width of box culvert 5 ft W= 4D = 12 ft Eqn: HS-20 or HS-21 Cutoff Wall: B= 2.81 ft Eqn: HS-22 (1) Obtain Velocity from Section 3.4.3.1 of Vol 2 in the UD Manual or program such as FlowMaster or StormCad (2) Obtain flow depth from Section 3.43.1 of Vol 2 in the UD Manual or program such as FlowMaster or StormCad Low Tail Water Basin and Riprap Design 18" Outfall from Channel Area Inlet 1-May-18 Instructions: Refer to Section 3.4.3.2 of Chap 8 Vo12 in UD Manual. Enter values in blue cells. Green cells are calculated. 100-year design flows Outlet Pipe Information: Type of Pipe: Circular Storm Sewer Dia, D= 1.5 ft Riprap Size: Velocity = 5.94 ft/s �l� 100 Year Design Depth, d= 1.5 ft �Z� Gravity, g = 32.2 ft/s2 Eqn: HS-16e Pd = 9.14 ft/s Use Figure HS-20c to find the size and type of riprap to use in the outlet protection basin. Riprap Selection: Type L Riprap Diameter, Dso = 9 inches Riprap Minimum Thickness: Thickness, T = 1.31 ft Eqn: HS-17 Basin Dimensions: Storm Sewer Dia, D= 1.5 ft Length is defined as being the greater of the following: L= 4D = 6 ft Eqn: HS-18 L=(D)^0.5(V/2) = 3.637492268 ft Eqn: HS-19 L = 6 ft Width: w= width of box culvert 5 ft W= 4D = 6 ft Eqn: HS-20 or HS-21 Cutoff Wall: B= 2.06 ft Eqn: HS-22 (1) Obtain Velocity from Section 3.4.3.1 of Vol 2 in the UD Manual or program such as FlowMaster or StormCad (2) Obtain flow depth from Section 3.4.3.1 of Vol 2 in the UD Manual or program such as FlowMaster or StormCad Low Tail Water Basin and Riprap Design 18" Outfall beneath College Culvert 1-May-18 Instructions: Refer to Section 3.4.3.2 of Chap 8 Vo12 in UD Manual. Enter values in blue cells. Green cells are calculated. 100-year design flows Outlet Pipe Information: Type of Pipe: Circular Storm Sewer Dia, D= 1.5 ft Riprap Size: Velocity = 4.5 ft/s �l� 100 Year Design Depth, d= 0.43 ft �Z� Gravity, g = 32.2 ft/s2 Eqn: HS-16e Pd = 5.84 ft/s Use Figure HS-20c to find the size and type of riprap to use in the outlet protection basin. Riprap Selection: Type L Riprap Diameter, Dso = 9 inches Riprap Minimum Thickness: Thickness, T = 1.31 ft Eqn: HS-17 Basin Dimensions: Storm Sewer Dia, D= 1.5 ft Length is defined as being the greater of the following: L= 4D = 6 ft Eqn: HS-18 L=(D)^0.5(V/2) = 2.755675961 ft Eqn: HS-19 L = 6 ft Width: w= width of box culvert 5 ft W= 4D = 6 ft Eqn: HS-20 or HS-21 Cutoff Wall: B= 2.06 ft Eqn: HS-22 (1) Obtain Velocity from Section 3.4.3.1 of Vol 2 in the UD Manual or program such as FlowMaster or StormCad (2) Obtain flow depth from Section 3.4.3.1 of Vol 2 in the UD Manual or program such as FlowMaster or StormCad Low Tail Water Basin and Riprap Design 12" Outfall 1-May-18 Instructions: Refer to Section 3.4.3.2 of Chap 8 Vo12 in UD Manual. Enter values in blue cells. Green cells are calculated. 100-year design flows Outlet Pipe Information: Type of Pipe: Circular Storm Sewer Dia, D= 1 ft Riprap Size: Velocity = 4.1 ft/s �l� 100 Year Design Depth, d= 1 ft �Z� Gravity, g = 32.2 ft/s2 Eqn: HS-16e Pd = 7.00 ft/s Use Figure HS-20c to find the size and type of riprap to use in the outlet protection basin. Riprap Selection: Type L Riprap Diameter, Dso = 9 inches Riprap Minimum Thickness: Thickness, T = 1.31 ft Eqn: HS-17 Basin Dimensions: Storm Sewer Dia, D= 1 ft Length is defined as being the greater of the following: L= 4D = 4 ft Eqn: HS-18 L=(D)^0.5(V/2) = 2.05 ft Eqn: HS-19 L = 4 ft Width: w= width of box culvert 5 ft W= 4D = 4 ft Eqn: HS-20 or HS-21 Cutoff Wall: B= 1.81 ft Eqn: HS-22 (1) Obtain Velocity from Section 3.4.3.1 of Vol 2 in the UD Manual or program such as FlowMaster or StormCad (2) Obtain flow depth from Section 3.4.3.1 of Vol 2 in the UD Manual or program such as FlowMaster or StormCad Concrete Channel Project Description Friction Method Solve For Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Discharge Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Manning Formula Normal Depth Supercritical 0.013 0.00500 ft/ft 2.00 fUft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 4.00 ft 25.99 ft'/s 0.81 ft 4.54 ftz 7.61 ft 0.60 ft 7.23 ft 0.93 ft 0.00298 ft/ft 5.73 ft/s 0.51 ft 1.32 ft 1.27 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 0.81 ft 0.93 ft 0.00500 ft/ft Bentiey Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolB�atl�yeFilewMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 5/112018 11:56:59 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Concrete Channel GVF Output Data Critical Slope Px1IlY�:I:�iifn Bentiey Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolB�atl�yeFilewMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 5/112018 11:56:59 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Chapter 11 Culverts and Bridges Q=15cfs iao io,000 From BPR 168 g�ppp EXAMPLE ( I ) (2) (3) 156 6,000 0�42 inch�� (3.5 f�ei) 6 6. 5,000 0•120cfs 144 5• � a,000 Hw* Hw s• s. 132 n r��t 4. 120 3,000 ��) 2.5 s.e 5' 4. 2'ooO (2) 2.1 7.4 108 (3) 2.z 7.7 4' 3. %0 in faet 3• 9.6 I , 000 3. eoo Hw/D=4/1.5=2.67 84 600 / 2. 2- 500 � �2 400 � � 2' U300 �,�j / N z v� / � Z 60 v 200 � � 1.5 — z � w � 54 � a 0 w ae / � ioo Z � so J Q S v /2 � 60 W 0 0 50 HW SCALE ENTRANCE ��.0 40 TYPE � � w W 36 30 (I) Squan �dq� with 3 .9 � 33 neaerall 0 a a Q p (2) Groov� and .ifh W 30 h�odwall = (3) Graow end •8 27 vroj.oney 10 24 8 .7 6 To uss scal� (2) or {3) pioj�ct 2 � 5 horizontotly to ccal� (I),th�n 4 use slralqhl Inclined line ihrouqh D ond 0 acalas, or nv�rs� cf 3 illu�trat�d, s 18" DIA 1e OUTFALL 2 15 I.0 �— .5 I2 January 2016 Figure 11-9. Inlet control nomograph—example Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 2 1.5 �— I.$ 1.0 I.O '9 .9 '8 .8 .T 7- .6 .6 .5 .5 11-21 Worksheet for 18" Outfall Maximum Project Description Friction Method Solve For Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Normal Depth Diameter Discharge Results Discharge Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Discharge Full Slope Full Flow Type GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Manning Formula Full Flow Capacity SubCritical 0.013 0.01000 ft/ft 1.50 ft 1.50 ft 10.50 ft'/s 10.50 ft'/s 1.50 ft 1.77 ftz 4.71 ft 0.38 ft 0.00 ft 1.25 ft 100.0 % 0.00977 ft/ft 5.94 ft/s 0.55 ft 2.05 ft 0.00 11.30 ft'/s 10.50 ft'/s 0.01000 ft/ft 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Bentiey Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolB�atl�yeFilewMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 4/25I2018 11:20:33 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for 18" Outfall Maximum GVF Output Data Normal Depth Over Rise Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Critical Slope 4/25I2018 11:20:33 AM 100.00 % Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 1.50 ft 1.25 ft 0.01000 ft/ft 0.00977 ft/ft Bentiey Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolB�atl�yeFilewMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Worksheet for Bioswale Cobble btm Project Description Friction Method Solve For Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Bottom Width Discharge Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Critical Slope Manning Formula Normal Depth Subcritical 0.040 0.00800 ft/ft 2.00 ft 0.82 ft'/s 0.32 ft 0.64 ftz 2.64 ft 0.24 ft 2.00 ft 0.17 ft 0.05174 ft/ft 1.29 ft/s 0.03 ft 0.34 ft 0.40 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 0.32 ft 0.17 ft 0.00800 ft/ft 0.05174 ft/ft Bentiey Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolB�atl�yeFilewMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 5/112018 11:55:51 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet for Horsetooth Existing with 150cfs Project Description Friction Method Solve For Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Bottom Width Discharge Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Critical Slope Manning Formula Normal Depth Subcritical 0.030 0.00760 ft/ft 20.00 ft 150.00 ft'/s 1.47 ft 29.42 ft2 22.94 ft 1.28 ft 20.00 ft 1.20 ft 0.01434 ft/ft 5.10 ft/s 0.40 ft 1.88 ft 0.74 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity fUs Infinity ft/s 1.47 ft 1.20 ft 0.00760 ft/ft 0.01434 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods S�imYa�EtdwiNaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 5I10/2018 4:25:57 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX B: Floodplain Maps FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map City of Fort Collins Floodplain Map No. 2 � REGER TH LL0523 0 a 0 � W PARKW Py NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST. CITY OF FORT COLLINS � 080102 � SITE HORSETOOTH ROAD Q Y � w a � � } O o w Z z W J V' J � Z 2 O � DRIVE � �R� COURT � z BOWLINE CT 0 z a J 4 MAP SCALE 1" - 500' i0 0 500 100�EET � FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 987 OF 1420 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) CONTAINS: COMMUNITY N MBER PANEL SUFFIX FORTCOLLINS,CITYOF 060102 0987 G �tice to Usec The Map Number shown below should be ;ed when placing map orders; ihe Canmunity Number shown �ove should be used on insurance applications for the subject �mmuniry. pE4A��F,p MAP NUMBEF ,; ,� �, 08069C0987G G MAP REVISEC ��AND SE�J� MAY 2, 201: Tederal �mereencv Manaeement A¢encv fhis is an ofiicial copy ot a portion otthe above reTerenced nood map. It was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www. msc.fema.gov I t'ANtL OyS!(a �tf�1s FCMaps :� a� � � � r, CC �serve � adows �� " . � �: - •; � . �. • .• , A. :. s �: a f� : b� • 1 �_ _ i H�,-�- . _'h F'd ' r �- : l� - � � :� � � , � : „ j _1 � � t : ( `�� : � ,:�42 R � ' � r;. - — — � i i �J � �8��,� Colbaard Dr � �, � � � 1 � 0 a c � � L z - � -., J � �Q�c .� J L. � � ; S. , a � �� _� � . . ` , � � � •�► � . -- --- , _ � � � � � �a _ x � � � ' ;\!� � `� �. � �, . �/ % a =� � � � V - . �,� -1 � �a., � . . � �� „�� _. Legend FEMA Floodplain ■ FEMA High Risk - Floodway FEMA High Risk - 100 Year FEMA Moderate Risk - 100 / 500 Y� FEMA Map Panel City Floodplains . City High Risk - Floodway City High Risk - 100 Year City Moderate Risk - 100 Year �_; City Limits 1: 3,430 � 72.0 0 286.00 572.0 Feet This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaF �GS 1984 Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on th map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliabl ity of Fort Collins - GIS Notes �'..a � � � _ �• � J � J `� '`.i � " . � r L :J ,_ � L_J � �► _ ao � � `� E Horse`tooth Rd � �.! � rr i° � � i <� � � o - � � .; � : ,__ � - I �` ; -- — � � 2 � �� ` � � �� Lee�artf Ct J ��- �� J`J-� I��. ,. , - o L �� . i , Sk"''='' . � r BOWIiIIE _. � _� JI � �� f ! �.`-, J .� �l �i� �' � Ln Bockman Dr � ' �� ''e � � a'v 1ti1-,nrae ��i APPENDIX C: Soil Survey Information � Hydroiogic sou vroup—�a � � 0 493280 493340 493400 40° 32'28"N T-.�. I �T. -�- �, T� � T .M • � � p �� ,.' . �� . I�' .. ��r�• �'+� � '� � ^�r , � . • � ; , .� �— ,� .�;�. . _ _ n'�i' � � :� � � . .� .. , � �''l �0.,� -;C� " � "' R , �• � ti_ ' .r' �� - - - --- :� � -- �,T* b � � �' '�I��1�`'I f �_��YpF �� r — ._. r^ '.�% � "_ . y ':'�'� l'++ �� .T � � _ r _�'" �� A1:GI:RaBU � - � ' F ':�, �.-��ti ��:��,�ie �w � _ _��: — � h ' ,� �-,� „--- _ : ��q-��=-�a1qAlq�-=�q�� g� ;� jn�4, , _efl �-�-�,�r�nr o�' - � ' . �' ; ... '�` t ��.c� � - r"'- ! � '�� ;�s ,� �.roD aF3 r� y ��.. ,�- ��r •'� n„� .: �1l i 1 �r��!� i � i , C I ' � � i � � n,fl' l � i�, , ,' � I n ' � � � ' � I� � _ �.- . i I�� f�i.`f•ks� aa�i��A`t_• - - i ��'. ^ . . � � -` . � � � ""ir.� � I ; �i� - � •e � � r9 �. I � � 1' " � i� � �� '� , �� ..�,�;-j A � ' � ��'r'fl , �+ � ` � '� "u ,�'�'� � "' ;� `, � ' r�!►� � �'�`� �� Y� -, � , t r— - '�, .�,��1''�, • , � � �, I �. � �' � . s►�) I .r�� `y ' � -, .l T 1':: -� �, '.l; " . � ��' ' ' �,='.I� � , ^.� . �� . i��. _,..��,;_ �� ' � _� ..� I `r r .�� ^ �.R�p. ' , � , •' " �� R �� _. - �' � . � j �1'- : ' ' a ?+ ; 1` .�4 , ;7t.�1 jfL ..� �� !�h ,, . � ��.� -�� r �C . • w� _ / �y�n �'i"Y �• � � - —+� }' S , � I • ,,�`_" -.,�i��, � '� � -� '� 1��, , � � ..,' � �, . , I ' �. �°�� V � ' � �� _� � � � . *�, r... —� ! � : �w: � "� -� '_�d . II `__. f r . i '�'f, � �� -'� �.�. y � � � •� �• rimer _ � 1 . "�VS�. \ � � - : � y � �. -- ` . , � � ' ..,� . .:.' , ^ _-� � r, - �' � - lAJ W;J�7rlL'.l'ASllUYJ --(y�- - - - �-, _ - C'.hl T � T � � I �. - d�� - -��:��.�.,,_.. � _ , � „ [� _ � ,r, � a .� , _ � rt�h_ � �;,� _ �� t ' � �� b �-�.� � ,� � � — _ �' � _ � - � �u -'� . _ 4 nti� J . � ' �'I, . � ' t ' _ � 1 - � _+� f-=; ~ Y- . . � � � , Y � . I x 4 �� , ,,•.. - . ��, r i C7'f` T' I � f% � �- n�. ��r-- '-t, r < � r. � � n,,. _ r*„�, �l"` c+r r� t�o ;--�.ar : ^ +'� � � . ' ` ��, F,'�ii ' 'L' � r,�. � �� , �t � �.N � .� �, tt0 � . I: �.'... y ! � �� li � � '� �Fiflpt,'l f r+, ` � � , . . � �I��, _' r" . , :, i�"� � �ik' . �� _ ; �� Ml . � �� : i _ w: � .i , �� .. i �r..�� <�, ,! t. , ___. � � �' ' � � ,� _ _ r „ - �,- . �j .:,',r, � - � � , �; .� � .� • , , . .:� -� � � _ . . � �. _� � , � � � IJ _ �� a, -- F - � �,� _ � . �� n - T � .� � . �`'� - .r -��, M _; � �,} . � � ��i. �n •(�: � ' .... n _�. _- �`.`1f�.,rT�„ � •,`� �� r --� �-� ��, jK � � - . �� '��'�'�*�'�`�'' �'��- ; „ ��.�°�' I� _ ._ � .;�:, � ._ �, !� �i;�_.. "�a�1�r�� > h �'� .� � A' : �y` : �, Soil M�p 1»ay i�bt be va�li•d �t�tyhis scale. � {. �� 40° 32�8„N ,�' I �_ � , - �. ��nfl. a.^�A.i.l _ � .�:�. _ .r-� �Y iC' '� I � 4932&1 433.'i40 493400 4934G0 c;ounty Hrea, c;oiorado � 0 � 0 493520 493580 49.'i640 � � `� 40° 32' 2S" N � ,�, .i��(=Y � .��4.� ._ - - � � # '�A `a,�' "�,.:'.."�'� :,;, �n k� � � , � ail� �-, �(; ' �+roC .�,i , �,5� .._ IT J � `• :1 '� �� ` �� ._, � � �'.} �.w .{ � -� > �. � � , �r�:,,��m�� j,r_ � � t :� -r,,. 1 y `�� ; n� , 1�.. �� .� , �i ' °`,' P.,� �,,,,,.�. �; �,.. ,��'� k ► r , �� . �' , � C: �� ,d!� �„ f' t+,�'�r` r Ar, A�� _ �(��1n�`. ��. 1 ��p • � �� , ;,]�'� e � � m �� ;a � � � _ � �� _ t �►� �i A �T'' A I� '��A,��?�;�. , '�� ''' - ,' �.; � �� L �� J �� r'� � " r l �� '''�— � � �� . � ;%�� r��►�.��"�� / � , p• �� r�►• , . , �1 ,� w �°� .�''' ,V' � � , �-� � =� A-. �aA--; - � i . � k� �� F, �,�� J�r . n �� - 4M� .',':D �4.. _ �.,. .. � . � I � e`� .. _1 � ^ � �.�� A � �f , ' , F' I . ��+{_S t,� _1 ` ' A �7 Si � � � �,A ;' �A;� �' ��,,.!� � � �,�.�.� _ r � , � ;,� " � : "^�- �q � r ��-- � . ., . .. � -,r1 � n,,,,,,�, ..' ',� �� ' � �t 1:*'..'i. � � ,. '. _,�!�� , .�� - � - r. _ � � ,� � " _ . —.� - � 'i �l ' �•AIdC !1+..�`.f?:. ^ ^ i. �� .R �.A..� � �..,. � A i . , 'nR�� t�� r �_ ' ``L ~ � ��,�� Q�Qi � �. ; g�; , -��p�e'� —� .,.� �;,� ll � S ' 'F'�'.� �t��e� i. A ,''ii^;A�_� R {1- �� , .I ��- A � �' �-.� . _, 3 :� �� ---��►�: A.?" 6 �., ; �,� t� . _ 't: '_ R� I.I % � � � � � .!` 4�' +r' � � I j�` . i � ,p � y1 i i l. '�1 ' •.�� . � �'':.1� �.i-:�.rir . �4� ��•�„01� � [�!I� � � — "" I�1 _ f.` . src �,. � � 'i � �" _ , � - � �� - . - -�.- . �...� �.�. , _ r � ��.. t . _ �� _ 9� � '� =a ��i ��h �� 1.�7 � . . • f �,� �� y �' �� I �u� � � - , �., •••••"�' ` �' '�' w �*�,- _%i � f+ 'E'1 e �r n�� „ r � • ,1 � � � � . 1 �_ �,�4� A� n_��AQe ��• a.A �� s. � . �� ,� � � .. e T� '- - ! �.�t •_ • {7 � ' �� I �, , �_� r � � ��,. � ' - a �i � .. � - , .'"- _ � ' � � � I i � �`: %�, � _ ^ _ � �'t} :� v� ii ' �_ ^�•�l�. j �'� s t m__.�"�" f! n,r _= ' N�-, � ; ��,,,�. � �� - � ss��+ �l ,, n � �� -� ; : � � �r� - _ — � � � . �� ., � :� n _�� t' � �� .` — � ;� d�,�� q � � -��!�fl�l�r;��!� ._ �' t. T '�;�': ~�rj� � ��IGfi� _ �• A' t � ?. . � it'� ` � . ,) /j e? '�A n ;'�1t��" r� � �1,� i � ',1 ,ti � , �r �� 4 _ -�,.� ^ i l as ; �W!'t � • - �-. � P�_�, !^" 1 � ;. � , � � -' �� .) *, °' , _ M ',,�' I I � �d` � fi•,.,J-h Ii e*. . �,� _ _ . '� � � , ;� w * q �? T-', .� II - I 40° 32' 8" N 493520 493580 � � � Map Scale: 1:1,680 if printed on B porhait (11" x 17") sheet. ° N Meters � 0 20 40 80 120 n Feet �\ 0 50 100 200 300 � Map projectlon: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge dcs: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 USDn Natural Resources Web Soil Survey � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey � 0 v 0 5/30/2017 Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado MAPLEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons � A � A/D 0 B � B/D 0 C 0 C/D � D � Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines . r A o � � C/D � D 0 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation �..} Rails � Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background � Aerial Photography � r A/D ,.v B ,�y B/D . r C . � C/D �,i D . r Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points 0 A o �o ■ B � si� MAP INFORMATION 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 11, Sep 23, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 22, 2011—Apr 28, 2011 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. USDn Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/30/2017 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Larimer County Area, Colorado (C0644) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 C 0.0 0.2% percent slopes 48 Heldt clay loam, 0 to 3 C 0.1 1.0% percent slopes 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 C 0.0 0.5% percent slopes 74 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 C 0.5 5.5% percent slopes 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 C 0.6 6.5% to 3 percent slopes 89 Renohill clay loam, 0 to D 4.2 48.8% 3 percent slopes 107 Thedalund loam, 0 to 3 C 3.3 37.5% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 8.7 100.0% USDn Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/30/2017 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado 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 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/30/2017 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4