HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 05/14/1995J:mal A ,roved Isp
VERALL DRAINAGE STUDY
�JWOOD FARM - McCLELLANDS BASIN
ORT COLLINS, COLORADO
OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY
OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM - McCLELLANDS BASIN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
May 4, 1992
Revised March 7, 1995
Prepared for:
Miramont Associates
309 West Harmony Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Prepared by:
RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants
209 South Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 482-5922
RBD Job No. 504-001
9
INC.
Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
303/482-5922
FAX:303/482-6368
March 7, 1995
Mr. Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services Stormwater
235 Mathews
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
tRE: Overall Drainage Study for
Oak/Cottonwood Farm - McClellands Basin
1
II
L
Dear Basil:
We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Revised Overall.
Drainage Study for Oak/Cottonwood Farm. The original study has been broken down
into two studies; the McClellands Basin and the Mail Creek and Fossil Creek Basins.
All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City
of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria.
The SWMM modeling in this study does contain all the updates due to new
developments as of October, 1994. A copy of the SWMM model for the 2, 5, 10, 25,,
50, and 100 year storm events has also been included.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if
you have any questions.
Respectfully,
RBD Inca Engineering Consultants
W1
Roger A. Curtiss, P.E.
Project Engiineer
7
evin W. Gingery, .E.
Project Manager
27362
Denver 303/458-5526
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
'
A. LOCATION
1
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
1
'
II. DRAINAGE BASINS
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION
2
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
1
A. REGULATIONS
B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS
2
2
C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA
3
D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA
3
'
E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA
3
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN -OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
4
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS
4
V. EROSION CONTROL
,
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
10
VI. CONCLUSIONS
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
11
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT
11
REFERENCES
11
'
APPENDIX A
VICINITY MAP
2
'
OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN INFORMATION
3
McCLELLANDS BASIN SWMM MODEL INPUT DATA
16
DETENTION POND 313
20A
DETENTION POND 321
21
DETENTION POND 340
24
OAKRIDGE DRIVE DRAINAGE CROSSINGS
34
McCLELLANDS BASIN SWMM MODEL 2 YEAR INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
37
McCLELLANDS BASIN SWMM MODEL 5 YEAR INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
40
McCLELLANDS BASIN SWMM MODEL 10 YEAR INPUT AND OUTPUT FILE
43
'
McCLELLANDS BASIN SWMM MODEL 25 YEAR INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
46
'
McCLELLANDS BASIN SWMM MODEL 50 YEAR INPUT AND OUTPUT
49
FILES
McCLELLANDS BASIN SWMM MODEL 100 YEAR INPUT AND OUTPUT
FILES
'
52
TABLES AND FIGURES
70
11
I
OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY
' OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM - McCLELLANDS BASIN
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
' 1. GENERAL. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
The Oak/Cottonwood Farm development is located in the southeast part
' of Fort Collins, immediately south of Harmony Road and west of Lemay
Avenue. The Oak/Cottonwood Farm development consists of
approximately 271.7 acres occupying the east half of Section 1,
' Township 6 North, Range 69 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian. See
the Overall Drainage Plan in the back pocket of this report. This study
will deal only with the area within the McClellands Basin, or all of the
area north of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch. The areas south of the Mail
Creek Irrigation Ditch will be addressed under a separate study.
B. Description of Property
The Oak/Cottonwood Farm site contains two existing churches and
assorted retail businesses along Harmony Road, and an existing
psychiatric hospital along Lemay Avenue. The remainder of the existing
' site, prior to the start of construction of the single family developments,
consisted of cultivated farmland and natural grasses. The Mail Creek
Irrigation Canal runs across the center of the site from northwest to
' southeast. Topography north of the Mail Creek irrigation canal is
generally sloping from northwest to southeast at approximately 1:.4% .
Topography south of the Mail Creek irrigation canal is generally sloping
' from north to south at approximately 5.7%. Mail Creek and Fossil Creek
is located in the southern part of the development, generally running
from west to east. A small portion of the site, planned for residential
' development, is located south of Mail Creek
Three separate single family developments have been designed and
' construction started within the Oak/Cottonwood Farm development; The
Upper Meadow at Miramont First and Second Filings, and Castleridge
P.U.D.. Four other developments have been proposed within this Overall
' development, and either Final or Preliminary plans submitted to the City
for review; Miramont Third Filing, Oak Hill Apartments, Tennis Center,
and the Courtyards at Miramont. The developments mentioned above
' have been shown schematically on the overall Drainage Plan included in
the back of this report. Reference should be made to each individual
Drainage reports for more specific detail associated with each project.
DRAINAGE BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
The Oak/Cottonwood Farm site lies within the McClellands Basin, the
Mail Creek Basin, and the Fossil Creek Basin per the vicinity map in the
appendix. The major basin delineations are also shown on the Overall
Drainage Plan.
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Regulations
The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for
the subject site.
B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The portion of the ,Oak/Cottonwood Farm site within the McClellands
Basin historically drains southeasterly under Lemay Avenue and through
the adjacent Oakridge development. Downstream improvements have
been completed within the Oakridge development to accept a maximum
storm water runoff of 119 cfs (0.5 cfs per acre) from the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm site per the report titled "Master Drainage Study
for the Oakridge Business Park", dated September 1990. Detention
requirements for the McClellands Master Drainage Basin have been.
established to be 0.20 cfs/acre for the minor, or 10 year storm event,
and 0.5 cfs/acre for the major, or 100 year storm event. Detention.ponds
ultimately designed for the area of Oak/Cottonwood Farms within the
McClellands Basin should be designed to allow for multiple release rates
to accommodate both release requirements. The detention requirement
for the minor storm is not a requirement within the Oak/Cottonwood
Farm site (to be further explained later in the report).
C. Hydrological Criteria
The SWMM model, as acquired from the Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District, was utilized for the portion of the Oak/Cottonwood Farm
site within the McClellands Basin. The adjacent Oakridge development
utilized SWMM modeling for the 10 year and 100 year storm events with
a different model for each storm event. Due to the number of existing
0�
' and proposed detention facilities within this portion of the subject site,
and the need to determine the size of the future detention ponds, a new
' SWMM model was developed for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm site. The
2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year rainfall events, which were obtained from
the City of Fort Collins and required to be run by the City, were run for
' a new single SWMM model developed for the site for this March 1995
report. The new SWMM model was not incorporated into the existing
Oakridge site 1990 SWMM model.
' D. Hydraulic Criteria
All calculations with this report have been prepared in accordance with
the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria.
' E. Variances from Criteria
' No variances are being sought for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm site.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN - OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY FOR
OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM
A. General Concept
' As development continues to occurs within the Oak/Cottonwood Farm
site, the drainage concepts shown on the Overall Drainage Plan in the
back pocket of this report should be followed. Specific detention
'
requirements exist in the McClellands Basin, where as the Mail Creek
.Basin and the Fossil Creek Basins allow for undetained storm water
'
runoff directly to Mail Creek and to Fossil Creek.
B. Specific Details
To the East of the Oak/Cottonwood Farm property, within the
McClellands Basin, is the Oakridge Business Park and Residential
Community. The appendix includes portions of the text from the 1990
Master Drainage Study for the Oakridge Business Park. Three existing
36" pipes lie beneath Lemay Avenue, approximately 3000 feet south of
'
Harmony Road, which in effect direct the Oak/Cottonwood Farm storm
water runoff to the Oakridge property. Within the Oakridge
development, the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) was utilized
to model the anticipated storm water runoff. In the 1990 Oakridge
Master Drainage Study, SWMM modeled the proposed Oak/Cottonwood
Farm development with a 100 year developed storm water release rate
'
of 0.5 cfs per acre. The Oakridge development 10 year SWMM model
1 3
' did not include any site specific detention requirements for the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm development. This is due to the existing
' detention pond No. 1 within the Oakridge development and its ability to
control and adequately bring the 10 year release rate within the
McClellands Basin, at this location, to the allowable 0.2 cfs per acre
' discharge. Thus the 10 year detention control of 0.2 cfs per acre within
the McClellands Basin is not necessary for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm
development.
The 1990 SWMM model developed for the Oakridge development
consisted of two different models, one model for the 10 year and one
' model for the 100 year storm events. The conveyance/element
numbering scheme is different in these two SWMM models. The City
' Stormwater Utility now requires that SWMM models route the 2, 5, 10,
25, 50, and 100 year rainfall events. Due to the differences in the
Oakridge SWMM model elements for the different storm events, and the
complexity of the Oak/Cottonwood Farm development, a new SWMM
model has been developed, independent of the Oakridge SWMM model,
for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm development. This new SWMM model
utilizes the same hydrological assumptions and criteria that the Oakridge
' SWMM model utilized, but the numbering of the basins and elements has
changed.
The 1994 Oak/Cottonwood Farm SWMM model .study area was broken
up into sub-basins.per the developments proposed in each sub -basins as
' shown on the Overall Drainage Plan. Included in the appendix is a
SWMM schematic for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm development. In
addition to the SWMM schematic, the SWMM model numbers have been
' included on the Overall Drainage Plan for ease of reference. The SWMM
model includes previously developed areas draining through the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm site as these areas also drain to the three existing
36" pipes under Lemay Avenue. Information was obtained on the
drainage characteristics of the existing developments within the SWMM
area modeled. The SWMM model was calibrated using the basin widths
' as a physical parameter, per the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility.
For the Pace Membership Warehouse, the Builders Square site and the
Steele's Market site numerous detention ponds exist on these properties.
' The two basins defining these existing developments were not broken
down to show each of the numerous detention ponds on the sites.
These basins were calibrated to release runoff to the Oak/Cottonwood
' Farm development at the projected design rates of these sites. For the
Collinswood Treatment Complex immediately north of the existing 36"
pipes, the SWMM model was also calibrated to release runoff from this
' property at a target design rate for the site.
1 4
I
hI
1
11
Once the SWMM model was calibrated for the existing developments
within the study area, the study area was evaluated in reference to the
required 0.5 cfs per acre ,100 year storm event, release rate. Future
detention pond sites were planned with the Client to the best extent
possible in order to determine how the study area would drain. Each
detention pond system was modeled with a release rate of 0.5 cfs per
acre during a 100 year storm event.
OFFSITE CONTRIBUTIONS
The off -site residential neighborhood to the west of the Oak/Cottonwood
Farm site drains southeasterly and through the first planned development
in the Oak/Cottonwood Farm site. The extent of this off -site area was
estimated to be 14.75 acres per the Mail Creek Hydrologic Information
drawing by Water Engineering & Technology, Inc. dated 2-29-90. For
this report, it has been assumed that the separation between the Mail
Creek Basin and the McClellands Basin has been shown correctly on the
Mail Creek Hydrologic Information drawing. Per a conversation with.the
City Stormwater Utility, it was learned that within the Mail Creek Basin
it was assumed during storm events that the Mail Creek Ditch is flowing
full and land above the Ditch will sheet flow storm water directly over
the.Ditch and downstream to Mail Creek. Per a meeting with John Moen
(Ditch Rider of the Mail Creek Ditch) the Mail Creek irrigation ditch has
no available capacity for storm water runoff and during a storm event
storm water runoff sheet flows,directly over the Mail Creek irrigation
ditch. This off -site storm water runoff from the 14.75 acres of existing
residential neighborhood only has a minor impactto the Oak/Cottonwood
Farm site and these off -site flows are collected in .the First Filing
development as discussed later in this report.
Included on the Overall Drainage Plan is a summary table of the proposed
' detention ponds, their required capacities, and their maximum allowable
release rates (Summarized below). The detention pond capacities were
sized with the anticipated type of development contributory to the ponds
at the time of this report. As the development of these sites progresses
to final design, the SWMM model should be updated to finalize the size
of each detention pond per its final type of development. Outflow from
' each pond shall utilize a rating curve based on the ultimate pond
configuration, where available. The rating curves for detention ponds
321 (Associated with Miramont First Filing), and Detention pond 340
' (Associated partly with Miramont Second Filing) have been included in
the model with this update.
5
11
I
I
Minimum
Maximum
Detention Pond
Storage
Outflow
303
0.6 ac.ft
3.0 cfs
306
1.0 ac.ft
4.0 cfs
313
4.2 ac.ft
22.0 cfs
321
3.5 ac.ft
7.0 cfs
322
2.1 ac.ft
11.0 cfs
340
4.9 ac.ft
66.0 cfs
DETENTION PONDS 322 AND 306
Detention ponds 322 and 306 have not been modeled with a rating
curve, but with a pipe outlet preliminarily sized to approximate a release
rate of 0.5 cfs per acre. As final design occurs around these ponds, a
rating curve should be built into the model to better approximate actual
conditions.
' The reader should be advised that with the insertion of a rating curve
into the model, the required minimum pond size can be expected to be
increased.
' DETENTION POND 321
' With this update, the SWMM model parameters for Basin 201 were
modified to reflect a higher impervious factor. This caused the required
storage volume of Existing pond 321, located between.Miramont 1st and
2nd Filing, to increase. A drainage certification has been performed on
Miramont 1 st Filing, and the actual volume of the pond constructed was
found to be approximately 3.8 ac.ft., or large enough to account for this
' change in model parameters.
The model also shows a detention requirement for conveyance elements
' 301, 303, 307, and 311. The following methodologies were applied
during the modeling of these conveyance elements:
DETENTION POND 301 - Steele's sites (Basin 204)
Per the Harmony Market 3rd Filing drainage report, the designed
' release rate at this location is 24 cfs. No SWMM model rating
curves are available for the detention ponds existing within this
basin. For the SWMM modeling herein, a conveyance element was
derived which modeled the maximum release rate of 24 cfs
1 6
L
1
t
L
11
r
PI
occurring from this basin, and caused water over and above this
release rate to be detained at the upstream end of the conveyance
element. This way of modeling the existing facilities enables the'
model to realize the intended release rate at this location so the
downstream system analysis can be completed utilizing the full
upstream impact. Per the SWMM Model output, the water
detained at conveyance element 301 is 1.3 ac.ft.. The actual
detention volume available within basin 204 based on field
verification is 3.4 ac.-ft.. Because the existing available volume
is greater than the required volume per the SWMM Model, this
method of modeling Basin 204 is adequate.
DETENTION POND 307 - Pace and Builders Square (Basin 203)
Per the Harmony Market 2nd Filing drainage report, the designed
release rate at this location is 6 cfs. No SWMM model rating
curves are available for the detention ponds existing within this
basin. Forthe SWMM modeling herein, a conveyance element was
derived which modeled the maximum release rate of 6 cfs
occurring from this basin, and caused water over and above this
release rate to be detained at the upstream end of the conveyance
element. This way of modeling the existing facilities enables the
model to realize the intended release rate at this location so the
downstream system analysis can be completed utilizing the full
upstream impact. Per the SWMM Model, output, the water
detained at conveyance element 307 is 5.3 ac.ft.. The actual
detention volume available within basin 203 based on field.
verification is 8.0 ac.-ft.. Because the existing available volume
is greater than the required volume per the SWMM Model, this
method of modeling Basin 203 is adequate.
DETENTION POND 303 - Church Site (Basin 205)
No SWMM model rating curves are available for the detention pond
existing within this basin. For the SWMM modeling herein, a
conveyance element was derived which modeled the maximum
release rate of 0.5 cfs/acre occurring from this basin per the
criteria within the McClellands Basin, and caused water over and
above this release rate to be detained at the upstream end of the
conveyance element. This way of modeling the existing facilities
enables the model to realize the intended release rate at this
location so the downstream system analysis can be completed
utilizing the full upstream impact. The actual detention volume,
available within basin 205 by a field verification is outside the
7
ti�
I
F-
L
1
scope of this project. At the time of this report, only temporary
detention exists.
DETENTION POND 311 - Collinwood Treatment Complex (Basin 207)
No SWMM model rating curves are available for the detention pond
existing within this basin. For the SWMM modeling herein, a
conveyance element was derived which modeled the maximum
release rate of 0.5 cfs/acre occurring from this basin per the
criteria within the McClellands Basin, and causedwater over and
above this release rate to be detained at the upstream end of the
conveyance element. This way of modeling the existing facilities
enables the model to realize the intended release rate at this
location so the downstream system analysis can be completed
utilizing the full upstream impact.
A certification of Drainage facilities dated 10/23/90 by RBD, inc.
' found that existing pond 311 was found to contain 1.77 ac.ft. of
available storage with a maximum release rate of 2.56 cfs.
11
1
1
I Jl
A network of storm sewers and channels exist along the west side of
Lemay Avenue, and along the westerly property line of the Hospital and
Church, and these systems transport stormwater runoff from the Pace
Membership Warehouse, Builders Square, Steele's Market, Church, and
Collinswood Treatment Complex to the existing 36" pipes under Lemay
Avenue. As the Tennis center project is final designed, those existing
conveyance elements, particularly those associated with the easterly
property line of the Tennis center should be reevaluated to determine the
effects of development. This system will need to be extended easterly
across a portion of the Oak/Cottonwood Farm site to the existing 36"
pipes under Lemay Avenue. For master planning and SWMM modelling
purposes, the outlet to detention pond number 313 is proposed to be
connected into the existing storm sewer system on the west side of
Lemay Avenue and routed directly into the existing 36" culvert under
Lemay Avenue.
DETENTION POND 313
The original 1992 Overall Drainage Plan showed a Detention pond being
located near the southwesterly corner of the existing Collinswood site.
During construction of The Upper Meadow at Miramont first Filing, it was
determined that pond 313 would be located adjacent to Boardwalk Drive.
This shift caused the contributory area to Pond 313 to decrease, and the
contributory area for Pond 340 to increase. The future Park site ( the
'
westerly portion of Basin 213) will now have detention provided within
Detention pond 340. The shift in the location of the pond was discussed
with the Parks and Recreation Department. Detention pond 313 will also
'
have a permanent water surface to store approximately 2.7 ac.ft. of
irrigation water for the adjacent residential developments. The SWMM
model and the overall drainage plan reflect the shift in pond 313. A rating
'
curve has also been developed for pond 313 based on the existing pond
configuration, and the Final Utility plans for the Courtyards at Miramont,
'
by Shear Engineering, and the SWMM model reflects this rating curve.
DETENTION POND 322
With the development of the first residential community within the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Development, titled The Upper Meadow at
Miramont First Filing, the construction of Boardwalk Drive from Oakridge
Drive to Lemay Avenue was required. With the development of
Boardwalk Drive, and the need for the developable land lying west and
'
southwest of Boardwalk Drive to drain under Boardwalk Drive and to the
existing 36" culverts under Lemay Avenue, a second drainage system
was master planned along Boardwalk. A series of storm sewers and
'
open channels was constructed along Boardwalk from the existing 36"
storm sewers under Lemay Avenue, upstream to Oakridge Drive. A
temporary detention pond (future detention pond 340) was designed and
'
partially constructed in 1993 for the property in the northwest corner of
the Oak/Cottonwood Farm site with an 18" storm sewer outlet to release
runoff at the required 0.5 cfs per acre.
'
At the time of this update, Detention pond 322 schematically will outlet
'
onto Boardwalk Drive and be conveyed by curb and gutter to the storm
sewer system (a combination of pipes and open channels). Actual final
design of this basin will require that each individual developer within
'
'Basin 202 provide their own onsite detention based on the revised
criteria for detention requirements. A new agreement between GT Land,
Bank One, Nordic Construction and Front Range Bap urch exists
that limits the release from basin 202 to 0.12 cfs or the 2 year storm
event and 10.75 cfs for the 100 year storm event (Based on the capacity
of Boardwalk Drive Curb and Gutter). Boardwalk Drive adjacent to Basin
202 will be allowed to flow south down Boardwalk, and ultimately onto
'
Pond 340. A copy of the revised agreement is included in the appendix
of this report.
'
DETENTION POND 321
' Detention pond 321 will outlet on the west side of 'Boardwalk and be
' 9
1
conveyed downstream to Lemay Avenue by the same series of pipes and
open channels. This pond is designed to provide detention for parts of
Miramont 1 st and 2nd Filings.
BOARDWALK DRIVE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
' The storm sewer system in Boardwalk Drive was sized to carry the 25
year storm runoff event due to the location of the proposed high and low
' points in Boardwalk Drive. As storm events occur greater than the 25
year storm event, minor ponding is planned to occur at the low points.
In the event the storm sewer systems become plugged, overflow swales
' have been provided to redirect storm water runoff to the proposed open
channel system to safely convey storm water runoff to the proposed
detention pond number 340 and the existing 36" culverts under Lemay
' Avenue.
DETENTION POND 340
In order to achieve the required 0.5 cfs per acre release at the existing
36" culverts under Lemay Avenue, detention pond number 340 is
' planned immediately upstream of the 36" culverts. A temporary pond
has been constructed to date to accomodaie upstream development from
Miramont 1st and 2nd Filings, along with Boardwalk Drive. This
' temporary pond was designed and built such that the maximum
allowable: discharge downstream does not exceed 119 cfs. During final
design of."this detention pond, the hydraulics of the connection from the
' detention pond to the existing 36" culverts will need to be worked out
to ensure the 0.5 cfs per acre release rate is not exceeded. A preliminary
' rating curve based on the ultimate design of this pond has been included
in the model, and the calculations are included in the appendix of this
report. The rating curve used in the 1994 SWMM model is based on the
' existing 36" pipes under Lemay. This rating curve is a preliminary design
only. As pond 340 is finalized, these existing 36" culverts will need to
be reevaluated and the new rating curves based on actual field
' conditions. The pond 340 size will need to be reexamined & downstream
flows to Oakridge will need to be decreased to 119 cfs (the model
currently shows a release to Oakridge of 129 cfs). Pond 340 will need
' to be permanently designed when either Basin 211 (the Hamlet), or basin
213 is developed.
' V. EROSION CONTROL
A. General Concept
' 10
The Oak/Cottonwood Farm site lies within the Moderate and High Rainfall
Erodibility Zone and within the Low to Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone
' per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. Per the City of Fort Collins
Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites, at the time of
final design of the site, the erosion control performance standard will
' need to be calculated and appropriate measures taken to control erosion
from the site.
' VI. CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with Standards
' All computations within this report have been completed in compliance
with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria.
' B. Drainage Concept
' The proposed drainage concepts adequately provide for the transmission
of developed on -site runoff to the proposed detention facilities. The
sizes and locations of each detention pond within the study area will
' enable the Oak/Cottonwood Farm site to develop in conformance with
the McClellands, Mail Creek and Fossil Creek Basin requirements. The
street systems will need to convey storm water runoff to the
' downstream outlets without exceeding the capacities of the street
conveyance systems. If the street capacities are exceeded, storm sewer
systems may be required to transport storm water runoff to the
' downstream outlets. Each of the on -site detention ponds in the
McClellands Basin will be required to provide one foot of freeboard and
an emergency overflow outlet in the event the outlet structure and pipe
become plugged. All on -site drainage facilities will be maintained by a
homeowners association, or other entity created by the developer. The
' City of Fort Collins will maintain the storm sewer systems located within
dedicated right-of-ways.
REFERENCES
1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort
' Collins, Colorado, May 1984.
2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort
' Collins, Colorado, January 1991.
' 11
1
3. Master Drainage Study for the Oakridge Business Park in Fort Collins, Colorado,
by RBD Inc., September 1990.
4. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for The Upper Meadow at Miramont
First Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., November 10, 1992.
5. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for The Upper Meadow at Miramont
Second Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc.
6. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Castleridge at Miramont First
Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., October 7, 1993.
7. Preliminary Design Report for Mail Creek Stability Study, by Lidstone and
Anderson & TST, Inc., January 28, 1994.
8. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Miramont 3rd Phase P.U.D.,
Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., February 4, 1994.
9. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Miramont P.U.D. Third Filing, Fort
Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., April 4, 1994.
10. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for the Oak Hill Apartments, Fort
Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., February 4, 1994
12
I
1
APPENDIX
1
1
0
VICINITY MAP
4k,
ul
Ev v
Ass
W
.4MIL • Y '' 7 1 w M J 1 4i \ \\
0
...... is HORSETQDTH -..ROAL'
..... ..... ...........
..............................
Warren ... . .................. I % .... . ... .....
.......
......
Lake,
cc
w
HARMONY ROAD
—OAKRIDGE
AREA
z
MCCLELLANDS BASIN
rn
m �-= i'�.!i!' O
V AK ./COTTONWO D FARM
COUNTY ROAD 36
uj A
uj .. . ........ . A:
N�*S�0009P 00)
0
................ ....... cc
1 ZI
A 01
t ZI z
0
TRILBY, ROAD 0
Fossil Creek—
QIL CREE"ASIN
FOSE
0
VICINITY .MAP
Enq;naarinq Consultant,
FIGURE 1
EXCERPTS FROM OAKRIDGE BUSINESS PARK
DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN INFORMATION
y1
I
7
L
In
LJ
I INTRODUCTION
The results of a Master Drainage Plan for the Oakridge Business
Park are presented in this report. A comprehensive plan for the
control of storm water is proposed for the use in planning future
development. This ty e of management approach is outlined by the
City of Fort Collins .
The Oakridge Business Park and Oakridge Villages are located in
South Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is bounded on the north by
Harmony Road, the west by Lemay Avenue, the east by Union Pacific
Rail Road and the south by Southridge Greens. The Business Park
portion occupies approximately half of the total 263 acre site.
1.1 Purpose
This Master Plan has been developed for the following reasons:
1. Suggest specific detention release rates for individual
sites during the modeled 10 and 100 year storm events in
conformance with the intent of previous studies, the City of
Fort Collins criteria, and, generally, for the mitigation of
downstream impacts,
2. Provide documentation for the enforcement of.a mutually
agreed upon approach to the control of storm water,
3. Act as a tool for possible minor revisions of subsequent
development,
4. Analyze the effects of upstream flows as they enter the
property and flow to the Pond 1, Search and Replace: Search
for "POND 111; replace with "oakridge Development Pond",
5. Evaluate the impact of the discharge from the Pond 1 to
the downstream portion of McLellands Basin,
6. Evaluate individual design points within the subdivision
for their individual hydraulic performance.
Figures in this report are found at the end of the Appendices at
the back of the report. Further, and to avoid confusion, the
reader should be aware that the 100 year numbering scheme in the
Flow Diagram (Figure 9) is not exactly the same as the 10 year
Diagram (Figure 10). When reviewing the SWMM output, please re e
to the associated Flow Diagram. Also, all references to "Pond 1"
are associated with the large detention facility located at the
south east corner of the property. Pond 1 is the combined
Elements 1 and 2-in the SWMM Model
1 City of Fort Collins, Storm Drainaae Design Criteria and
Construction Standards, May, 1984, Section 1.2.2
11
1
11
1
d
1.2 Basin Characteristics
1.�.1 Existing Description
At the time of this report the Oakridge Business Park consists of
office buildings separated by areas of undeveloped land. The
existing development of the site can be seen on the "Overall
Master Drainage Plan" in the pocket of this report.
An offsite drainage way enters the site at the north west corner.
The runoff originates from land north of Harmony Road and west of
Lemay Avenue, and from a portion of Harmony Road itself. The
second offsite drainaaeway enters the site through three 36"
RCP's under Lemay Avenue on the west side of the property,
approximately 3000 feet south of Harmony.
Currently about half of the Oakridge site is slated for
commercial development. The residential portion is almost
completely built, while about 50% of the business area remains to
be developed. The undeveloped areas are covered with natural
grasses and slope to the southeast at about one percent.
1.2.2 Proposed Development
As mentioned above, the commercial area remains to be built out.
The development of the SWMM model for this portion of the site is
timely because this area will be relatively impervious and will
account for a significant portion of the site generated runoff
volumes.
1.3 Previous Reports and Criteria
Master Planning effort fora portion of McClellands
rred in 1980 and was done by Cornell Consultina
aownstream to Timberline Road. Figure 1 (see Figure packet at end
of this report) shows the extent of McClellands Basin as well as
the location of the Oakridge Business Park within the basin.
In 1986 Greenhorne and O'Mara Inc 2 exp<
report to include all of the basin to the
'ornell
e with the
The construction of the street infrastructure and the Comlinear
development was completed prior to 1986. The southerly, or
Oakridge Village, portion of the development began construction
in 1986 and is near full build out at the time of this report.
There were several drainage reports filed with the City of Fort
Collins during the course of development and are listed below in
the "Reference" section.
Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc,. McClellands Basin Master
Drainage Plan, June 20, 1986, Fort Collins
6/
d
1
11
u
The above mentioned reports discuss criteria specific to the
Oakridge project, as does the Greenhorne report. Release rate
criteria is specified3 and is based on generalized parameters
relating to allowable discharge in units of cfs per acre. This
approach is discussed in section 2.2.1, below.
Generally, however, the recommendations were to control the 10
and 100 year events by restricting outflow rates to 0.2 and 0 5
cfs per acre, respectively. The developer chose to install a
large capacity detention pond (Pond 1) near the south east corner
of the site suplementing several upstream site specific detention
ponds.
II HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY
2.1 Event Simulation Computer Models
The model chosen for this report is the UDSWM2-PC as revised by
several entities. This computer program is described in more
detail, below, but is classified as an event simulation model. It
is important to use this type of model, instead of one that
evaluates many different storms, because two very specific types
of storms are being evaluated in conformance with the City of
Fort Collins regulations. These storms have a lot and 1% chance,
of occurring in any year and arecalled the 10 and 100 year
events.
' 2.1.1 SWMM Model Description
This computer model had its origins with the U.S. Environmental.
' Protection Agency (EPA) and originally contained both runoff and
water quality blocks. The model has undergone several
modifications, including deletion of the water quality block,
' with the latest revision performed by Boyle Engineering for the
Urban Drainage and Flood Control. District, Denver, Colorado.
The SWMM model (= UDSWM2PC) is a physically based single event
' simulation digital computer model. It mathematically evaluates
various physical phenomenon involved in the hydrologic process
and generates hydrographs of excess, or surface, storm water
flow.
' 3 Greenhorne...I Ibid., page 3
' 4 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Users Manual,
Urban Drainage Storm Water Management Model - PC Version (UDSWM2
PC), March, 1985. Software Support by Boyle Engineering, Denver
' Colorado. Further details of operation and additional software
support by Dr. James Guo, Univ. of Colo. @ Denver, Short Course
on Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedures, January 8-10, 1986,
Section entitled "Introduction to Modified SWMM".
F
I
I
0
J
There is one characteristic of the model that differs slightly
from other similar computer models and relates to the
establishment of Mannings n values to channel and overland
flows. In relation to channels n = 0.393(S)1.38(R)-0.16. This
requires an iterative process for proper determination.
For the Oakridge model, however, a generalized value of 0.035 was
used. This judgement is made in light of the fact that most of
the routing control in the channels is determined by the
backwater effects and structure caused attenuation in the 100
year event, not the channel friction. The value of 0.035 is
slightly conservative considering that the channels will be
maintained quite well and the actual values should be closer to
0.0306.
The overland flow n value used is 0.25 and is recommended by the
sources cited in note 5 and 6, below. In fact, this is the
default value built into the model by its authors. The asphalt or
concrete surfaces should be about 25% greater than normal values,
or 0.016 for average conditions.
2.1.2 Hydrology
For the basins that have free
conveyance systems, the SWIM
accounting .of the development
construction of hydrographs.7
The infiltration parameters,
abstracted through the use of
by the Greenhorne stu
infiltration rate of 0.51, per
relatively saturated antecede
undetained release to the
model makes a step by step
of the designated.storm for the
on rate
as
and further assumes a
The individual hydrographs are lagged and summed and appear in a
matrix in the SWMM output. Summary output appears on pages 1 and
2 of Appendix A. The basins that include detention ponds have
been routed through the use of a modified FAA Mass Balance Method
as described in Section 2.1.3, below.
The rainfall hyetographs for the 100 and 10 year events were
taken from the Greenhorne study and provided by the City of Fort
Collins, respectively.
5 Op. Cit., UDFCD, page 16; and also Op. Cit., Gyo, page 12
2.1.3 Routing Techniques
' The SWMM Model allows two types of routing$. The first is for
subcatchments (overland) and the second is for conveyance routing
(pipes, channels, etc.). Both are calculated using Kinematic Wave
theory.
For the basins that contain detention facilities a modified
version of the FAA Mass Balance method is used9. The
' modification to the Mass Balance method was simply to have the
outflow from the pond begin at the time of concentration. This
aproach was deemed acceptable by.City Staff. Figure 2 graphically
' depicts 1) the developed triangular hydrograph construction from
information provided on 2) the mass diagram. The development of
the outflow hydrograph is described as follows;
Gather pertinent data about the basin including
■ Runoff coeff. 'C' (C)
■ Area (acres) (A)
' ■ Longest travel distance (L)
■ Outflow peak discharge = Qout peak = 0.5*Acres
(max 0.5 cfs per acre)
2. Apply the 100 and 10 year storm Intensity -Duration -
Frequency data to a least squares regression and derive
the best fit formula. See Figure 3 for the results.
' 3.• Calculate the Time of concentration; Tc, by the formula
Tc = (L/180)+10 (1)
' This formula assumes that a flow velocity of 3 feet per
second exists for overland and conveyance flow. It is
' somewhat conservative and will reveal slightly higher
rainfall intensities.
' 4. tag the beginning of the outflow by the Tc (see Figure
2).
5. Calculate storage volumes for five minute increments
(see Appendix A, pages 3 through 7 for detailed
output). This is accomplished by subtracting the
outflow volume from the inflow volume. Observe the time
' at which the peak outflow occurs. This is the Time to
Peak (T1, Fig. 2) of the outflow hydrograph.
' 6 Chow, Ven T., Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill, 1959,
page 112, C.b.21 page 120 (13).
' 7 Op. Cit., UDFCD, page.3
8 UDFCD, Op. cit., page 4
9/
' 6. The ascending limb of the inflow hydrograph (triangular
assumption) begins at time 0 and ends at the
' coordinates for the Qpeak (inflow) at its Time of
Concentration (Tc, and.is.Tl/2 ±, Fig. 2). The
recession limb descends from that point to intersect
with Qpeak (outflow) and Ti. The integrated area within
' the described 5 points (0,0; Qin,Tc; Qout,Tl; 0,Tc;
0,0) is equal to the outflow volume under the recession
limb (Vs) of the outflow hydrograph. The time for the
' outflow hydrograph, from beginning to end, may now be
calculated as T2 = Vs/((Qpeak outflow)/30).
7. Introduce the coordinates for beginning, peak and end
' of the outflow hydrograph to the SWMM model.
The SWMM model lags and sums all upstream hydrographs at Pond 1
' (Element 17, see Figure 9 for 100 year diagram). This is known, as
a "dummy" conveyance element and is used simply to combine. the
upstream hydrographs for routing at Pond 1. Similar in nature to
Element 17 is Element 3 which is the calculated resultant outflow
' hydrograph at a point immediately to the east of the rail road
tracks.
' Element 17 is not input as a channel leading through the Pond. 1.
pond simply because it will not act as a channel experiencing
steady uniform flow. The bottom of the pond will be covered with
water about 40 minutes after the storm begins. This determination
is made by observing that;
1. Most of The surface area of the pond is covered with
' storm water at elevation 4950±
2. This elevation corresponds to 45 cfs, approximately, on
Figure 4. The outflow hydrograph from the SWMM output
indicates that 45 cfs occurs about 40 minutes after the
storm begins.
' At that early point in the storm event the channel area will be
inundated. This is a conservative approach because no lag is
calculated to the outlet works.
' 2.2 Hydraulic Output summary
2.2.1 Allowable Discharge Criteria
The Greenhorne study recommends that no more than 0.5 cfs per,
acre be allowed during the 100 year storm eventlu and 0.2
' cfs/acre for the 10 year event. The rationale used was that the
resulting detained flow approximately equals the 100 year
historic flow rate. This, obviously, is arrived at by dividing
' the historic flow rate into the total acreage for the basin.
10 Greenhorne...I Op. Cit., pages 3 and 5
I.
' The output from the current Oakridge SWMM model suggests that an
alteration of the previously mentioned release rates is
appropriate. The overall scheme for future planning in the
neighborhood must naturally evolve from the specific detail of
offsite; onsite and downstream conditions. The offsite flows
accepted by Oakridge Subdivision enter the property at two
' locations.
The first is located at the triple 36" culverts passing under
Lamay Avenue approximately 3000 feet south of Harmony Tinael- ME
contributory area is 238 acres with a planned 100 year developed
release rate of 0.5 cfs/acre or 119 cfs.
' The second is located at the north west corner of the subject
property and is designated as Design Point 86 in the Greenhorne
study. The peak flow is specified as 59 cfs11. The area contains
118 acres ± of mixed use land.
The total offsite area is, therefore, 238 + 118 or 356 acres.
Total future fully developed 100:year offsite contribution is 178
' cfs.
The watershed area for all of Oakridge Subdivision is about 263.
' acres. The total upstream area contributing to Element 17,
therefore, is 619 acres. Conforming to the Greenhorne study
.release criteria and comparing to the Oakridge SWMM results we
find the following results at Pond 1;
Allowable Actual SWMM Amt. <
' 10 Year Storm12 123.8 cfs 83 cfs -40.8
(33%)
100 Year Storm 309.5 cfs 203 cfs -106.5 (34%)
These results were obtained bv.allowing free undetained release
from several basins in the Oakrid a Subdivision for the 100 year
storm and did not include any site specific detention for the 10
year storm. Following is a list of the basins in the northern
portion of the onsite area (except offsite basin 300) and n-lude
' all of oakridcre Business dark. Those that will require detention
of the 100 year storm will have a maximum discharge rate of 0.5
cfs/acre. See the enclosed Drainage Plan for locations of the
Basins.
11 Greenhorne, Op. Cit., Table 4 lists SWMM point 86, future
' conditions as 65 cfs (100 year). The author understands, however,
that the outflow hydrograph was provided by Greenhorn... and
indeed indicates a Q100 peak of 59 cfs.
' 12 By accident the offsite flows were left at 0.5 cfs per
acre for the 10 year model. This will remain unchanged, however,
to allow for a downstream factor of safety.
I
1
0
1
1
0
t
1
1
1
11
BASIN #
340
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
160
120
110
100 YEAR 10 YEAR
CONTROL CONTROL
YES NONE
NO it
NO "
YES "
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
The 10 year storm model
the al
n
n
n
It
of
it
it
to
it
it
It
REMARKS
Possible, if onsite problems exist
Cemetary
Offsite from north of Harmony
Existi
Street
Existing
Downstream street capacity is OK
From sump in Innovation to channel
Possible YES*; Direct to Pond
Internal street system13
Possible YES*; Includes Comlinear
Internal street system14
* There may be a need for local detention due to certain physical
site constraints. As an example there.may be flat topography that
restricts longitudinal street grade.
2.2.2 Flow Characteristics
STREET SYSTEM FLOW DEPTH
Page 8 of Appendix A is a sorted. list of all the basins and
conveyance elements with their respective flow depths. The
internal street system was evaluated according to allowable flow
depth. The City of Fort Collins criteria states that15 both
local and collector streets may have an 18" depth of runoff in
the gutter for the major (100 year) storm event and arterial
streets are only allowed a depth. of 0.5' above the crown. There
are no arterial streets internal to the Oakridge site. For
comparative purposes only, the above mentioned evaluation is
based on the arterial standard.
Ridge13 . West half of Harmony, Wheaton and a small portion of Oak
14 East half of Harmony, Innovative, McMurry and about half
of the easterly portion of Oak Ridge.
15 City of Fort Collins, Op. Cit., Table 4-4, page 4-6.
1
iq
' There are only three streets that exceed 0.51in crown depth and
are located at the downstream end of the basin (see enclosed
' Dr4inage Plan). This exceedance is only 0.04 feet in each case.
They are Elements 21 (Innovation Drive), 12 (internal future
street near Comlinear) and 7 (Wheaton Drive). Innovation Drive
and Wheaton Drive have been built. All the internal streets have
' 100 year water surface levels below the allowed 18" standard and
present no hinderance to the passage of emergency vehicles.
' Element 12 is associated with Basin.120 (Comlinear) and was -
evaluated at a minimum grade of 0.6% slope.
Following is an evaluation of Elements 18 (McMurry Drive) and 11
' (internal street system leading to, and including, Keenland
Drive). These Elements are not combined in the model. Flow depth
is calculated as follows;
' From the Ft. Collins criteria formula 4.2.2.2;
Z = 50
Q = 14 + 9 (see SWMM output, last page)
' S = 0.006 ft/ft
n = 0.016
Use Q/2 to evaluate 1/2 street depth;
' (Qn/(Z*0.56*S•s) )o.sa = y = 0.39' OK Also see Figure 7
The onsite street systems are adequate for the conveyance of the
' 100 year storm.
CULVERTS AND CROSSINGS
' Elements 41, 42 and 43 exist within the "drainage channel"
truncating the site from north-west to south-east. Each element
contains culverts that flow beneath Oakridge, Wheaton and
' McMurry, respectively, under various hydraulic conditions during
the 100 year event. Figure 5 refers to the hand calculation of
Element #43 (McMurry at Pond 1) for both tailwater rating curve
and culvert hydraulics. The maximum flow rate is 232 cfs and the
' culvert operates under Inlet control flowing at about 87% full.
These two 42" culverts are not pressurized.
' Element 42 also contains two 42" RCP culverts and, except for the
flow rate, operate under the same.conditions as Element 41. The
above stated Figure 5 for Element 43 applies also to Element 41.
That is to say, the culverts have similar head/tail water
' conditions, operate under inlet control and have adequate
capacity to handle the 100 year storm.
1
k
1
A series of elements are next evaluated within Basin 270 and at
Oak Ridge Drive. This area is somewhat hydraulically complex and
has been dealt with, aside from the SWMM model, as illustrated in
Figure 6 and as follows;
►3/
' The assumption that head water conditions prevail is
substantiated by the use of the following;
' 29(n)2(L)
H = (Ke + Ko +--------- ) V2/2g
R1.33 .
Appendix A, page 9 shows the results of the evaluation
of required headwater elevations and Figure 6
' graphically displays the schematic view. The local
detention pond depths do not control the hydraulics of
this system. The tailwater depth does not reach the
' crown of the culvert. The depth above inside crown (Hp
on Figure 6) at the upstream end of the 4211 culvert is
0.9 feet. The grading plan for this .property (Filing
10) that there is adequate head available and that no
' spill will occur toward the detention pond area.
The head above inside crown for the 36" culverts (Ho on
' Figure 6) is 1.38 feet.
There is a sump, or low area, in the southerly portion of
Innovation Drive (Basin 210). A concrete channel (Element 44) was
introduced at this location to convey peak flows south to Pond 1.
' TABLE 2
Element Location 0100 Flow 010 Pressurized ?
41 Oakridge 70 89 YES
' 42 Wheaton 79 147 It
43 MacMurry 159 232 of
' The 10 year flow rates are greater than the 100 year because the
offsite flow rates entering the site were not changed from the
100 year data and the 10 year storm is not detained, but the 100
year event is detained for several basins that affect the above
' listed elements.
2.2.3 Routing and Downstream Impact
' The attenuation of the resultant 100 year hydrograph to
downstream properties will clearly mitigate future flood events.
' The recession limb of the hydrograph will extend flow in the
channel longer than the historic conditions, but the peak flow is
truncated to a rate less than historic16. The soil type or other
aspects of the channels morphology is not known at this time;
' 16 This observation is made in light of the Greenhorn study
statement that 0.5 cfs per acre discharge reflects historic
conditions, and the regional pond discharges 100 year and 10 year
flows at about 30% less than that rate. See text, above.
wy
I
however, the sustained rate of recession flow is not expected to
alter the downstream cross sectional geometry.
III CONCLUSIONS
It is the finding of this report that the existing conditions and
proposed design for the oakridge Basin is appropriate and will
mitigate downstream flooding for the 10 and 100 year event to a
rate less then that specified in the Greenhorne and O'Mara study
(see note 15). There are several site specific recommendations
and are listed below for convenient reference;
1.
Overlot grading and street design in Basin 270 (extreme
north west corner of the site) should be sensitive to the
'
headwater conditions experienced at Element 41 (Oak Ridge
Drive). The headwater elevation is calculated to be 75.78 in
'
the 100 year event. Grading adjacent to the channel should
accomodate this high
water elevation.
2.
The channel leading from the north west corner of the
property to Pond 1 should be maintained in a clean condition
with the grass mowed to allow optimum hydraulic efficiency.
3.
10 year control at 0.2 cfs per acre is not necessary for the
'
onsite Basins or offsite land to the west of Lemay (Basin
300). The flow is controlled at Pond 1. Staged release
therefore, will not be used.
'
4.
Although Basins 330 (Innovation Dr.), 120 (Comlinear) and
upper.200 (north east corner of.the site) do not need
detention ponds to control discharge to Pond 1, the
'
developer may elect to add detention to these sites simply
to control onsite runoff or mitigate expected local
hydraulic problems.
1
Overall, the subdivision is a capable hydraulic system that
manages major flood events well and reduces downstream impact.
IV
REFERENCES
'
1.
City of Fort Collins, Storm Drainage' Design and Construction
Standards, May, 1984
2.
Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc., McLellands Basin Master
'
Drainage Plan, June 20, 1986, Fort Collins
3.
Urban Drainage and flood Control District, Users Manual.
'
Urban Drainage Storm Water Management Model - PC Version
(UDSWM2-PC), March, 1985
4.
Guo, Dr. James, U of Co. at Denver, Short Course on Colorado
Urban Hydrograph Procedures, January, 1986
5.
Chow, Ven T., Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill, 1959
1
0
I S/
'
6.
Viessman et. al, Introduction to Hydrology, Harper and Row,
1977
'
7.
Wright McLaughlin Engineers, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual, Urban drainage and Flood Control District, 1969 and
1983 Project Reuse revision
'
8.
Final Drainage Report for Oakridge Village P U D Filing
No. 2, Revised July 16, 1986, by RBD, Inc. Engineering
Consultants.
9.
Drainage Report for the Oakridge Village P U D Filings 3
4 and 5, April 26, 1987, by RBD, Inc., Engineering
'
Consultants.
10.
Draft Drainage Investigation for Oakridge Business Park, May
'
17, 1987 by James H. Stewart and Associates Inc.
11.
Final Drainage Report for the Oakridge Business Park Tenth
'
Filing, November 10, 1987, by RBD, Inc. Engineering
Consultants.
12.
Final Drainage Report for the Seventh Filing of oakridge
Village P.U.D, Revised September 9, 1988, by RBD, Inc.,
Engineering Consultants.
'
END OF REPORT
C
�I
I Gf .
McCLELLANDS BASIN
SWMM MODEL
INPUT DATA
.I
CLIENT %✓INEAL JOB NO.SOy-OO�
■��INC PROJECT G077O/V CJOOD CALCULATIONS FOR 5%a MW Io06-L
' Engineering Consultants MADEBV kW4 DATE CHECKED BY -DATE SHEET PA OF
RWINC
Engineering Consultants
s C� E-=, NAZ�=
CLIENT Q JOB NO.
PROJECT (1 1 2-5Q I� IL->--) D CALCULATIONS FORSUAAKA
MADE BY _22�, DATE 4 "34 CHECKED BY - DATE -SHEET L2f;-) OF
IKI,
-207
11vila
a P110 IVA
P16 V giNhwki6wk
■■rYiNC
'
Engineering Consultants
067FKMU✓E Al /0/i
SUB.CATCyivE��T
i
A) um 8ER-
'
znz -
I
j zo3.
.. 9n <.
k
I
1
CLIENT VORPICK ,/✓ENL JOB NO. say -aol
PROJECT C077-0,V WOOD CALCULATIONS FOR .5,4v/y7m lnoyc (
MADE BY K CU 6 DATEyZ CHECKED BY- DATE SHEET 10 OF
�P. /✓/�TEi2S i
�
� V TO
-
7DTt}G 7e/8.
w!orN •. i
AcpES. ' .
..m� .
,- . ScoGE-� .� ,. ; . ; 1,.
- t
Too
ZI 5 .
50
loco
3225
80
/ oo�o�
bo
y7 ....---......:
/ os90 _
650.' ; ;
70
70
0 007o1
13,8 57, 2.35%f.
zo ?50 7q.%�
y35
y00y,2
v0
3Bo9e! _..
-..:. ..
Zy
110
. :.
i..._ _z 16...
i i .. 141__.I
667ERm/AIE
'i:
Go V V E7,9NCE l04,P4 ME 7_.&'R5
;
COW FyFUCB ( T1PE a orrlaR GEN67N I ScoPE -GEi7, Rl6NT DE/TN ,
30Z
Citi�m vF .
I
30S CMNN£L,
•�c�U� '� 3oG
dam,=
300
309,
316
Po L1D1-3// --
QJi'L-B1_
I J
Pv UD i 3/3
oU-rL�r
... _.
'tl67EQ � . j � .,.... SinFSIdFK'_.i S/GFlleol...
1.25 /0 0017. o ( O :;: 0,13 % ZS -
1
, 0070 7
ybo 0021 2 Z o3S 4:cn
1,25 /D . 00313 0 ' O I 0.13 % ZS
013 /_
0 1200. ooSo
2,75- -75- OZI1 o O. !.013 z;2S, -,
1
2.S0 853 0/z3 o D i o13. 2s0 '
1, co 31S , oozo o o: 0/3 i; oo .'
j 1
3.00 1/80 ,0100 0 :: 0.. ... 'i :0/3: :.: 3,0o
i 1
2,25 �31a o038 O O 013.. 2:25PCmt1C,
... _.
'tl67EQ � . j � .,.... SinFSIdFK'_.i S/GFlleol...
1.25 /0 0017. o ( O :;: 0,13 % ZS -
1
, 0070 7
ybo 0021 2 Z o3S 4:cn
1,25 /D . 00313 0 ' O I 0.13 % ZS
013 /_
0 1200. ooSo
2,75- -75- OZI1 o O. !.013 z;2S, -,
1
2.S0 853 0/z3 o D i o13. 2s0 '
1, co 31S , oozo o o: 0/3 i; oo .'
j 1
3.00 1/80 ,0100 0 :: 0.. ... 'i :0/3: :.: 3,0o
i 1
2,25 �31a o038 O O 013.. 2:25PCmt1C,
CLIENT 11OP12/GK IAMW L-
JOB NO. SOy-QO /
TDINC
PROJECT COTTDNWOOD
CALCULATIONS FOR SWMM MDDE�
'
Engineering Consultants
MADEBY K��' DATE 4 y 9Z CHECKED BY
DATE
SHEET OF
1
— - --
(. 1)ETE.erN/.VE
-- - - —1-- - -- -- -
.Co:✓ E;yAi✓DE" PAK/�� E7F�C'S _
-
�
I J� ,._
i_
'
EG�mEM
`
WIDTHCR
DI AS;ori
LENGnI
-
SCOPE, .LEFr�
' SiOESriPEf
R'
i6Hr
Sl�?ESLaP°
nN`�.
oEPT7! iF Fu[c
oR PIPE O/y,
,cHs�As<'2
32o
Get 1?NNEL
13S
o
ooSo
y
1
3z/.
PIPE:
—J��
25
oll.o
o I
p
013
/25 E4T1�L
II
�
i. 32Z.
PIPE_',
/,50
!0-
0i00
/
323
P/PE
/ISO
/SOD
OIJp
D i
O
;Q3
✓SD
+
PIPE.
3.00
1 Z o
�-
0650
b ;
0
3
- 3 00 D
(25. YR Es (6
3Z5
GkgNi/6
y,o0
Y2o
9650
9 :.
9
035
3,00. J
3 ZG
PI PE ...
3, so
/0.0
ooSo
0
O
013
3 So
(25YR,GE516
!. ....317 _.__.._
..
CNA,NUFL
y00_.
__
7s0
,00So,
_
-
3Z8
PIPE.
/,7S
100
,01.00
O..
O
1013
A75-
(25YR DESIC-
3Zc/
CHAv//EL
5.0o
21
•0050
y:_ (
--:.,
Al
035
yf00::
/150-
(Z5_df DES'161
.....' 330
PfPE
- 1r50
__:8D �.
,00So
0 f
, o -
.,.013
_
t_ 331
PtPE
3 00
80!
0a5o
b-,
O
!
0 13
3 o D
C 25 YR DEsi
'
-
34o
PIPE,
I-
O to
Irk
00/96
O:
D
013
d Io:
Clct�Ti�c� Cu
I
a4i
SIP !
6 zo
lw
o
o,al3
s 1 za
f
fi
1
�
f
1
I
!
;
r
I
1
I,
_... _ .. ..-
-
-
-- --
•
I
r r
i
0J)
CLIENT A24POIC-KIA'-fg-- _JOB NO. .5-111-ool
NC PROJECT C'077_01VW000 -CALCULATIONS FOR 15 vi rr? m m 0 p 6-1-
Engineering Consultants MADEBYI&4XI DATE YZ%&-CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET OF
IT
Ex 5,0.6,0 1 v kv ok/:
7 Z
CiZE6K AIWO ce
C,0 7-M) WMV.q. )A/ Z#e
V K5 /..OIL/
CO 77ZKWzQ0) !V.,V 5._1':_
_722
60(I5)t 9s Z-5)+- (14(35j-,L 75(#0)4 1.5
1
y5(
-170(zs-) .t
DETENTION POND 313
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
CLIENT6- -F—D JOB No.
NC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR
Engineering i
.gineering Consultants MADE BY-5:1 DATE— CHECKED BY DATE —SHEETZ-CLa OF
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
11
I
NC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT JOB NO.
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR
MADE BY DATE — CHECKED BY — DATE SHEET ZC>-4 OF
-7-
r 4
44
;
H�
Ml>
r0
A4_1
.�-i 4 ......
I
I
7
L
-A
cza
------ ------- -
L-�il
Z 2�2
+
-054.,
iT
.......
IA
L r
4
4
i
4-
c),
4
.... .... ...
j.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h
I
I
I
NC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT L D JOB NO.
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR
MADE BY- DATE- CHECKED BY - DATE -SHEET 2212 OF
-J-i... r -I,- - 7-
fIVE=N
- 1=1ClS
'fJCy S.'..
Jt>LD I L-T-S n
1-1-A
4-
-4-
owe
7-
J
F=r-
j L
I J L I
7
4 i41-
T-r-
L
+
q
---- ------
L L.
-T
J_ii
14
4�;
-7cx�b.
-J.
44'
'1►j_
.... ...... .
-- -----
T�
c- X-
-----
i- 4-4
- - - - - -
--- ----
------
or
145
e
L4-
LJ
5- VZT
,
66.
-
j-
Id,,
-4-
F=
1
- -- ----- ------ - -
7 Z
c�s
j
4..
i4-
4-!
h
F
DETENTION POND NO. 321
11
11
0
1
[]
0
1
I
n
L_J
C
11
CLIENT _A41ra._GIC _1100ea I JOBNO. 5OY-00 / RMINC PROJECT /N;r4R on f CALCULATIONS FOR POnd &c04.fi"9 CUC. e
Engineering Consultants MADESY KW6 DATE 5 Z L CHECKED BY DATE SHEETOF jy
Z3 /
1
1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF POND 340
WHEN FINAL DESIGN OF POND 340 OCCURS,
THESE RATING CURVES WILL NEED TO BE REVISED
1
1
i
11
1
1
I
No Text
T:MING
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT �;r"av on4' 09SSOCi&+e�% JOBNO. -5-OV-003
PROJECT M-irR�cm-IL ? mot CALCULATIONS FOR On
MADE BY 1641 (- DATES-17-?3 CHECKED BY- DATE -SHEET Q OF
J_...
--1 7
-'
Fop- THE 5yvm M! MOO 0
T
_0
thu OCR out-6jE7"'V, S.
01561MR6F VS
Us.- PONOfitlG A5-P77T - 1AJF0oe14,9-75AV
AR_ N - 5 _F6 - 'A - 6'
. . . . . . . . . . . .
SNMM
PA'�5 IAIC(- U.0 4 ow- LU,7_W6__ 0.
J
0 77ff 770VA//u
-77
H91de, NOT BEEN IA)C.1- UP ------- -
OE
E.
--clm;vm --k*uN6 _Fcff;,l
; 41,06V 9T7ONS
-4
' Z5/
-------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
' USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4
DEVELOPED
BY
' JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
IN COOPERATION WITH
URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DENVER, COLORADO
'*** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY................................6............
ON DATA 05-19-1993 AT TIME 21:18:13
*** PROJECT TITLE :
' LEMAY AVENUE/BOARDWALK DRIVE DETENTION FACILITY
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
---------------------------------------------------------------------"-"
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION
MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET
------------
1.00 N/A N/A N/A 123.00 4962.00 4958.73 OK
2.00 N/A N/A N/A 123.00 4963.00 4959.63 OK
3.00 N/A N/A N/A 66.00 4963.00 4960.21 OK
' 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 66.00 4963.00 4960.97 OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO=
SEWER
MAMHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID
NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAN
SHAPE
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGN)
DIA(HIGH)
WIDTH
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'
1.00
2.00
1.00
BOX
2.02
2.50
3.00
7.07
2.00
3.00
2.00
BOX
2.87
3.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
BOX
2.87
3.00
2.00
4.00
�IMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
IMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
1
?g
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL
NORAML
CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE
COMMENT
ID
FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER
CFS CFS FEET
----
FPS
----
FEET
----
FPS FPS
.... ---- ----
----
1 ....
1.0
---....'-----
123.0 159.1 2.02
8.63
2.11
8.24 5.80 1.07
V-OK
2.0
66.0 31.3 2.00
8.25
2.00
0.00 8.25 0.00
V-OK
3.0
66.0 31.3 2.00
8.25
2.00
0.00 8.25 0.00
V-OK
IFROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A
PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
SEWER
SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED
DEPTH COMMENTS
1D NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
% (FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
----.-'._'------------------------------------------------------------
1.00
0.40 4957.52
4957.10
2.48
1.90 NO
1 2.00
0.20 4957.60
4957.52
3.40
3.48 OK
3.00
0.20 4957.60
4957.60
3.40
3.40 OK
1 OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET
1*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
1 ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
...............................................................................
1.00 105.00 0.00 4960.52 4960.10 4959.63 4958.73 JUMP
1 2.00 42.00 42.00 4959.60 4959.52 4960.21 4959.63 PRSS'ED
3.00 0.10 0.00 4959.60 4959.60 4960.97 4960.21 PRSS'ED
PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUSCR=SUSCRITICAL FLOW
1
*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
1 ID NO 10 NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 2.00 4960.79 1.54 1.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 1.00 4958.73
2.0 3.00 4961.26 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.26 2.00 4960.79
1 3.0 4.00 4962.02 0.02 0.70 0.74 0.00 0.00 3.00 4961.26
BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD
1 FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O.
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
1
i
1
J
"3�/
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
EXISTING CHANNEL D/S OF TRIPLE 36" RCP'S
STA
ELEV
0.00
4961.10 Ali
16.00
4957.10 4 y
33.00
4957.10
49.00
4961.10 1-71
'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft)
0.035 0.0040
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(feet)
---------
(sq ft)
-------
--(fps)-
(cfs)
---------
NO.
------
4957.30
3.6
0.9
3.19
0.36
4957.50
7.4
1.4
10.28
0.40
4957.70
11.7
1.8
20.58
0.43
4957.90
16.2
2.1
33.87
0.44
4958.10
21.0
2.4
50.10
0.46
4958.30
26.2
2.6
69.27
0.47
4958.50
31.7
2.9
91.40
0.48
4958.70
37.5
3.1
116.54
0.49
4958.90
43.6
3.3
144.76
0.50
4959.10
50.1
3.5
176.12
0.50
4959.30
56.8
3.7
210.70
0.51
4959.50
63.9
3.9
248.58
0.52
4959.70
71.3
4.1
289.83
0.52
4959.90
79.1
4.2
334.53
0.53
4960.10
87.1
4.4
382.77
0.53
4960.30
95.5
4.6
434.63
0.54
4960.50
104.2
4.7
490.20
0.54
4960.70
113.2
4.9
549.54
0.54
4960.90
122.5
5.0
612.76
0.55
31 j
I' TABLE 12 - ENTRANCE LOSS COEFFICIENTS
' Outlet Control, Full or Partly Full Entrance head loss
He = ke VS
2g
Type of Structure and Design of Entrance ( ) Coefficient k_
Pioe. Concrete
Projecting from fill, socket end (groove -end) . . . .
. . . 0.2
Projecting from fill, sq. cut end ...
. . 0.5
Headwall or headwall and wingwalls
:
Socket end of pipe (groove -end)
0.2
Square -edge . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0.5
Rounded (radius - 1/12D) . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 0.2
'
Mitered to conform to fill slope
0.7
*End -Section conforming to fill slope . . . . . .
. . 0.5
Beveled edges, 33.7° or 450 bevels ':
Side -or slope -tapered inlet
0.2
0.2
Pine. or Pine -Arch. Corrugated Metal
Projecting from fill (no headwall)
0.9
Headwall or headwall and wingwalls square -edge . . . . . . .
0.5
+�
Mitered to conform to fill slope, paved or unpaved slope . . .
0.7
'
'
*End -Section conforming to fill slope
0.5
Beveled edges, 33.70 or 450 bevels . . . . . . . . . . .
0.2
Side -or slope -tapered inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.2
Box. Reinforced Concrete
Headwall parallel to embankment (no wingwalls)
Square -edged on 3 edges
0.5
Rounded on 3 edges to radius of 1/12 barrel
dimension, or beveled edges on 3 sides . . . . . . .
0.2
'
Wingwalls at 30° to 75° to barrel
Square -edged at crown
0.4
Crown edge rounded to radius of 1/12 barrel
dimension, or beveled top edge . . . . . . . . . .
0.2
'
Wingwall at 10° to 250 to barrel
Square -edged at crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.5
Wingwalls parallel (extension of sides)
Square -edged at crown
0.7 t use WORST
Side -or slope -tapered inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.2 %g
•Note: "End Section conforming to fill slope," made of either metal or
concrete,
are the sections commonly available from manufacturers. From limited hydrau-
lic tests they are equivalent in operation to a headwall in both
'ni let and
gut]le control. Some end sections, incorporating a closed taper
sign have hydraulic
,
in their
ed a superior performance. These latter sections
can be
179
11
r
3
CHART 8
12
II
l0
' 9
8
' 7 .
8
' S
H
' W
W
U.
z 4
C
' O
m
U.
O
to
t3
x
W
x �
I
BUREAU OF FUBI.IO ROAO$ JAIL ISM
1
600
500
EXAMPLE
400
S's 2' Boa 0 • 73 etc
0/8 • Isots/tt.
300
Inlet HW mw
0 feat
(1) 1.70 3.3
200
(2) 1.90 3.8
(3) 2.00 4.1
p 100
O
U. so
W
a 60
y
W SO
U
= 40
a 30
x
d 0
(�)
(2)
(3)
8
9
10
6
7
7
8
6
6
7
S
6
S
4
S
4
4
3
3
3
Z
1.0
z
,9
1.0
l0
I,r
Angl .e _
y
ngwll 0.
Flare W
9
9
.9
u
8 K
y
m
W
t
1`
6 ;
S a
p
H W W1NG-WALL
p CALE—
.7
a
4 FLARE x
6
(1) 30• to 73•
3 (2) 90•and IS•
= .6
.6
--� (3) 0•(adonslone
•$
of sides)
CNO W111GWALCS�
.S
.S
To use stole (2) or elect
harlIt"fallF to wale Ulr 1M
use straight inclined line through
0 and 0 wales, or reverse as
Illustrated.
e
.a
.a
6
30
33
.3S
S
188
HEADWATER DEPTH
FOR BOX CULVERTS
WITH INLET CONTROL
3j
I
I
I
I
11
I
�I
[_
1
STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND
TECHNICAL CRITERIA
TABLE 803
MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES
a BAN NOT[
fn
off-[
Any Type e•/ PLAN
1.
USE EQUATION 805
O' a
G, `=� — k -0?
.z9
V,
4.•,
o,.•l vz
USE EQUATION 801 SECTION
SECTION
K �� CASE I
CASE II
Iz;fi INLET ON MAINLINE or
INLET ON MAIN LINE
k= u os
ca mural--ine-
WITH BRANCH LATERAL
\71'I'tAlletc-
\`
------ Ows
PLAN
USE EQUATION 801
'L
PLAN
•
i o, k=1.2S
e
USE EQUATION 805
_
SECTION
a�
IC=tE VI
CASE Mr
INLET OR MANHOLE AT
o=`l
BEGINNING OF LINE
o,
SECTION
. CM
MANHOLE ON MAIN LINE
CASE III
WITH A° BRANCH LATERAL :CASE
NO. 9� K.
I 0.05 22 1/2 0.75
II 0.25 45 0.50
IV 1.25 60 0.35
90 0.25
No Lateral See Case I
Date: NOV 1984
REFERENCE.
Rev:
APWA Special Report No. 49, 1981
:I
i
OAKRIDGE DRIVE CROSSINGS
1
1
I
I
1
CLIENT kon ("J JOB NO. 31�6' rn
Rwm PROJECT V�CLA . -- . I)M 1 -U CALCULATIONSFOR P�:'.. sJ'.a-=l
Engineering Consultants MADE BYUA DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET!` OF 3
7
-- 1; ;
t _
-
`.::
i�
V
-
L °�
No Text
3��
.1
McCLELLANDS BASIN
SAMM MODEL
2 YEAR
INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
I
1
2
1
1 2
3
4
WATERSHED
0
COTTONWOOD
FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE
PLAN 2 YEAR EVENT
1
RBD
FILE NO. 50400102.DAT
50
0 0
5.0 1 1.0
1
25
5
0.12
0,36
0,48
0,60 0.84 1.80 3.24
1,08 0.84
0.48
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
0.12 0.12
0.12
1
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12 0.00
-2
.016 .250
OA
0.5
0.5
0.5 .0018
1
201
320
31514.75 25.0183
'
1
1
202
203
322
307
70021.50 50.0165
100032.25 80.0100
1
204
301
90019.00 80.0100
1
205
303
650 5.85 47.0105
1
206
306
650 7.70 70.0080
1
207
311
100013.80 57.0235
1
1
208
313
95033.61 70.0170
1
209
321
43523.40 40.0085
1
210
324
40010.30 40.0100
1
1
1
211
212
325
328
100010.90 40.0200
400 4.20 80.0380
1
213
340
70016.89 70.0055
1
214
330
2200 1.62 90.0110
1
215
331
500 0.70 90.0270
1
1
216
327
1400 0.96 90.0060
0
16
201
202
203
204 205 206 207
208 209
210
211
212
213 214
215
216
0
301
302
0 2 2.27 96
0.0060
0
0
0.013
2.27
1
0
302
304
0 1 4.00 260
0.0021
2
2
0.035
4.00
0
303
304
0 2 1.25 10
0.0017
0
0
0.013
1.25
0
304
305
0 2 2.27 40
0.0070
0
0
0.013
2.27
0
305
309
0 1 4.00 460
0.0021
2
2
0.035
4.00
1
0
306
309
0 2 1.25 10
0.0038
0
0
0.013
1.25
0
307
308
0 2 1.50 120
0.0033
0
0
0.013
1.50
0
308
310
0 1 0 1200
0.0050
4
4
0.035
1.10
0
309
310
0 2 2.25 75
0.0211
0
0
0.013
2.25
0
310
312
0 2 2.50 853
0.0123
0
0
0.013
2.50
1
0
311
312
0 2 1.00 315
0.0020
0
0
0.013
1.00
0
312
341
0 2 3.00 480
0.0100
0
0
0.013
3.00
0
313
312
11 2 0.1 1310
0.0033
0
0
0.013
0.10
0.0
0.0 0.60
2.1
1.26
4.1
1.92
5.4
1
2.64
6.5 2.80
6.7
2.99
12.3
3.35
13.4
4.13
15.5 4.68
16.8
4.91
17.3
0
320
321
0 1 5.00 1350
0.0050
4
4
0.035
4.00
0
321
324
8 2 0.1 300
0.0053
0
0
0.013
0.10
0.0
0.0 0.05
0.0
0.31
2.6
0.79
4.3
1
1.52
5.5 2.55
6.4
3.85
7.3
5.40
8.0
0
322
323
0 2 1.50 10
0.0100
0
0
0.013
1.50
0
323
324
0 1 0 1500
0.0142
50
0
0.016
1.50
0
324
331
0 2 3.00 120
0.0050
0
0
0.013
3.00
1
0
325
326
0 1 4.00 420
0.0050
4
4
0.035
3.00
0
326
327
0 2 3.50 100
0.0050
0
0
0.013
3.50
0
327
329
0 7 4.00 750
0.0050
4
4
0.035
3.00
0
328
329
0 2 1.75 100
0.0100
0
0
0.013
1.75
0
329
340
0 1 5.00 240
0.0050
4
4
0.035
4.00
1
0
330
324
0 2 1.50 80
0.0050
0
0
0.013
1.50
0
331
325
0 2 3.00 80
0.0050
0
0
0.013
3.00
0
340
341
10 2 0.10 10
0.0040
0
0
0.013
0.10
0.0
0.0 0.28
0.0
0.65
4.0
1.06
5.0
1
2.00
15.0 2.53
29.0
3.72
55.0
4.39
62.0
5.10
68.0 5.86
72.0
0
341
0
0 2 5.20 120
0.0040
0
0
0.013
5.20
D
1
27
301
302
303
304 305 306 307
308 309
310
311
312
313 340
320
321
322
323
324
325 326 327 328
329 330
331
341
1
ENDPROGRAM
i
7-
IL
r/
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 2 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400102.DAT
' ***
PEAK FLOWS,
STAGES
AND STORAGES
OF GUTTERS
AND DETENSION DAMS ***
CONVEYANCE
PEAK
STAGE
STORAGE
TIME
'
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(FT)
(AC -FT)
(HR/MIN)
322
11.
1.5
.1
0 45.
320
4.
.4
0 45.
330
6.
1.0
0 35.
'
323
11.
.4
1 5.
321
4.
.1
.6
1 35.
324
22.
1.4
0 35.
301
25.
1.9
0 35.
331
24.
1.5
0 35.
'
303
3.
1.3
.1
0 45.
302
26.
1.7
0 40.
325
32.
1.3
0 40.
304
29.
2.3
.0
0 40.
326
32.
1.6
0 40.
'
306
4.
1.3
.1
0 50.
305
27.
1.7
0 40.
307
6.
1.5
1.0
1 35.
328
10.
1.0
0 35.
'
327
28.
1.2
0 45.
309
34.
1.4
0 40.
308
6.
1.0
2 35.
329
32.
1.2
0 40.
313
4.
.1
1.3
1 50.
'
311
2.
1.0
.4
1 30.
310
39.
1.8
0 45.
340
14.
.1
1.9
1 35.
312
43.
1.7
0 45.
'
1
341
47.
1.8
0 45.
ENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED
MCCLELLANDS BASIN
SWMM MODEL
5 YEAR
INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
41/
' 2 1 1 2
3 4
WATERSHED 0
' COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 5 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400105.DAT
50 0 0 5.0 1 1.0
25 5
0.48 0.48 0.60 0.84 1.56 2.52 4.68 2.04 1.08 0.72
' 0.60 0.48 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.12
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00
-2 .016 .250 0.1
1 201 320 31514.75 25.0183
' 1 202 322 70021.50 50.0165
1 203 307 100032.25 80.0100
1 204 301 90019.00 80.0100
1 205 303 650 5.85 47.0105
1 206 306 650 7.70 70.0080
1 207 311 100013.80 57.0235
1 208 313 95033.61 70.0170
1 209 321 43523.40 40.0085
1 210 324 40010.30 40.0100
1 211 325 101010,90 40,0200
1 212 328 400 4.20 80.0380
1 213 340 .70016.89 70.0055
1 214 330 2200 1.62 90.0110
1 215 331 500 0.70 90.0270
' 1 216 327 1400 0.96 90.0060
1
0
16
201
202
203
204
0
301
302
0 2
0
302
304
0 1
0
303
304
0 2
0
304
305
0 2
0
305
309
0 1
0
306
309
0 2
0
307
308
0 2
0
308
310
0 1
0
309
310
0 2
0
310
312
0 2
0
311
312
0 2
0
312
341
0 2
0
313
312
11 2
0.0
0.0
2.64
6.5
4.13
15.5
0
320
321
0 1
0
321
324
8 2
0.0
0.0
1.52
5.5
0
322
323
0 2
0
323
324
0 1
0
324
331
0 2
0
325
326
0 1
0
326
327
0 2
0
327
329
0 1
0
328
329
0 2
0
329
340
0 1
0
330
324
0 2
0
331
325
0 2
0
340
341
10 2
0.0
0.0
2.00
15.0
5.10
68.0
0
341
0
0 2
0
27
301 302 303
322 323 324
�NDPROGRAM
205 206
2.27
4.00
1.25
2.27
4.00
1.25
1.50
0
2.25
2.50
1.00
3.00
0.1
0.60
2.80
4.68
5.00
0.1
0.05
2.55
1.50
0
3.00
4.00
3.50
4.00
1.75
5.00
1.50
3.00
0.10
0.28
2.53
5.86
5.20
207 208 209
96 0.0060
260 0.0021
10 0.0017
40 0.0070
460 0.0021
10 0.0038
120 0.0033
1200 0.0050
75 0.0211
853 0.0123
315 0.0020
480 0.0100
1310 0.0033
2.1
6.7
16.8
1350 0.0050
NO 0.0053
0.0
6.4
10 0.0100
1500 0.0142
120 0.0050
420 0.0050
100 0.0050
750 0.0050
100 0.0100
240 0.0050
80 0.0050
80 0.0050
10 0.0040
0.0
29.0
72.0
120 0.0040
0.5 0.5 0.5
210 211
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1.26
2.99
4.91
4
0
0.31
3.85
0
50
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
0.65
3.72
0
212
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
4.1
12.3
17.3
4
0
2.6
7.3
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
4.0
55.0
213 214
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
1.92
3.35
0.035
0.013
0.79
5.40
0.013
0.016
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.013
1.06
4.39
a
.0018
215 216
2.27
4.00
1.25
2.27
4.00
1.25
1.50
1.10
2.25
2.50
1.00
3.00
0.10
5.4
13.4
4.00
0.10
4.3
8.0
1.50
1.50
3.00
3.00
3.50
3.00
1.75
4.00
1.50
3.00
0.10
5.0
62.0
0 0.013 5.20
304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 340 320 321
325 326 327 328 329 330 331 341
1
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE
PLAN 5 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE
N0. 50400105.DAT
1
***
PEAK FLOWS, STAGES
AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS
AND DETENSION DAMS ***
1 CONVEYANCE
PEAK
STAGE STORAGE
TIME
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(FT) (AC -FT)
(HR/MIN)
1
322
11.
1.5 .4
0 55.
320
8.
.6
0 45.
1
330
323
8,
11.
1.3
.4
0 35.
1 45.
321
5.
.1 1.1
1 40.
324
34.
1.9
0 35.
1
301
26.
2.3 .2
0 45.
331
36.
2.0
0 35.
J
303
3.
1.3 .1
0 55.
302
29.
1.8
0 35. -
1
325
49.
1.6
0 40.
304
29.
2.3 .0
1 0.
326
50.
2.2
0 40.
1
306
4.
1.3 .3
1 0.
305
29.
1.8
0 55.
307
6.
1.5 2.1
1 50.
328
15.
1.4
0 35.
1
327
48.
1.6
0 40.
309
33.
1.4
0 50.
308
6.
1.0
2 30.
1
329
57.
1.6
0 40.
313
6.
.1 2.2
1 45.
311
2.
1.0 .8
1 45.
1
310
40.
1.8
0 40.
340
28.
.1 2.5
1 25.
312
46.
1.8
1 5.
1
341
72.
2.3
1 10.
1
1
1
1
1
1
4s/
McCLELLANDS BASIN
SWMM MODEL
10 YEAR
INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
2 1 1 2
3 4
WATERSHED 0
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 10 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400110.DAT
50 0 0 5.0 1 1.0
25 5
0,48 0,60 0.72 0,96 2.16 3.12 1*64 2.28 1,12 0,84
'0.72 0.60 0.60 0.48 0.48 0.36 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.12
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00
.2 .016 .250 0.1
1 201 320 31514.75 25.0183
' 1 202 322 70021.50 50.0165
1 203 307 100032.25 80.0100
1 204 301 90019.00 80.0100
1 205 303 650 5.85 47.0105
1 206 306 650 7.70 70.0080
' 1 207 311 100013.80 57.0235
1 208 313 95033.61 70.0170
1 209 321 43523.40 40.0085
1 210 324 40010.30 40.0100
' 1 211 325 100010,90 40,0200
1 212 328 400 4.20 80.0380
1 213 340 70016.89 70.0055
1 214 330 2200 1.62 90.0110
1 215 331 500 0.70 90.0270
' 1 216 327 1400 0.96 90.0060
1
1
Ll
11
I
0
16
201
202
203
204
0
301
302
0 2
0
302
304
0 1
0
303
304
0 2
0
304
305
0 2
0
305
309
0 1
0
306
309
0 2
0
307
308
0 2
0
308
310
0 1
0
309
310
0 2
0
310
312
0 2
0
311
312
0 2
0
312
341
0 2
0
313
312
11 2
0.0
0.0
2.64
6.5
4.13
15.5
0
320
321
0 1
0
321
324
8 2
0.0
0.0
1.52
5.5
0
322
323
0 2
0
323
324
0 1
0
324
331
0 2
0
325
326
0 1
0
326
327
0 2
0
327
329
0 1
0
328
329
0 2
0
329
340
0 1
0
330
324
0 2
0
331
325
0 2
0
340
341
10 2
0.0
0.0
2.00
15.0
5.10
68.0
0
341
0
0 2
205 206
2.27
4.00
1.25
2.27
4.00
1.25
1.50
0
2.25
2.50
1.00
3.00
0.1
0.60
2.80
4.68
5.00
0.1
0.05
2.55
1.50
0
3.00
4.00
3.50
4.00
1.75
5.00
1.50
3.00
0.10
0.28
2.53
5.86
5.20
207 208 209
96 0.0060
260 0.0021
10 0.0017
40 0.0070
460 0.0021
10 0.0038
120 0.0033
1200 0.0050
75 0.0211
853 0.0123
315 0.0020
480 0.0100
1310 0.0033
2.1
6.7
16.8
1350 0.0050
300 0.0053
0.0
6.4
10 0.0100
1500 0.0142
120 0.0050
420 0.0050
100 0.0050
750 0.0050
100 0.0100
240 0.0050
80 0.0050
80 0.0050
10 0.0040
0.0
29.0
72.0
120 0.0040
0.5 0.5 0.5
210 211
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1.26
2.99
4.91
4
0
0.31
3.85
0
50
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
0.65
3.72
0
212
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
4.1
12.3
17.3
4
0
2.6
7.3
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
4.0
55.0
213 214
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
1.92
3.35
0.035
0.013
0.79
5.40
0.013
0.016
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.013
1.06
4.39
1
.0018
215 216
2.27
4.00
1.25
2.27
4.00
1.25
1.50
1.10
2.25
2.50
1.00
3.00
0.10
5.4
13.4
4.00
0.10
4.3
8.0
1.50
1.50
3.00
3.00
3.50
3.00
1.75
4.00
1.50
3.00
0.10
5.0
62.0
0 0.013 5.20
' 0
27
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 340 320 321
322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 341
�ENDPROGRAM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 10 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400110.DAT
*** PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENSION DAMS ***
CONVEYANCE
PEAK
STAGE
STORAGE
TIME
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(FT)
(AC -FT)
(HR/M1N)
322
11.
1.5
.7
1 0.
320
11.
.7
0 40.
330
8.
1.5
.0
0 35.
323
11.
.4
1 45.
321
5.
.1
1.5
1 50.
324
41.
2.2
0 35.
301
26.
2.3
.4
0 50.
331
45.
2.3
0 35.
303
3.
1.3
.2
1 5.
302
30.
1.8
0 30.
325
60.
1.8
0 40.
304
29.
2.3
.1
1 15.
326
61.
2.5
0 40.
306
4.
1.3
.4
1 10.
305
29.
1.8
0 50.
307
6.
1.5
2.8
1 55.
328
17.
1.8
.0
0 35.
327
61.
1.8
0 40.
309
35.
1.5
0 35.
308
6.
1.0
.2 30.
329
73.
1.8
0 40.
313
7.
.1
2.8
1 45.
311
2.
1.0
1.1
1 55.
310
39.
1.8
1 20.
340
36.
.1
2.9
1 15.
312
48.
1.9
1 20.
341
84.
2.5
1 15.
��
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
McCLELLANDS BASIN
SAMM MODEL
25 YEAR
INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
47/
2 1 1 2
3 4
WATERSHED 0
' COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 25 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400125.DAT
50 0 0 5.0 1 1.0
25 5
0.48 0.72 0.96 1.32 2.28 3.72 3.84 2.88 1.56 1.08
' 0.84 0.72 0.72 0.48 0.48 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.24 0.12
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00
-2 .016 .250 0.1
1 201 320 31514.75 25.0183
' 1 202 322 70021.50 50.0165
1 203 307 100032.25 80.0100
1 204 301 90019.00 80.0100
1 205 303 650 5.85 47.0105
1 206 306 650 7.70 70.0080
' 1 207 311 100013.80 57.0235
1 208 313 95033.61 70.0170
1 209 321 43523.40 40.0085
1 210 324 40010.30 40.0100
' 1 211 325 100010,90 40,0200
1 212 328 400 4.20 80.0380
1 213 340 70016.89 70.0055
1 214 330 2200 1.62 90.0110
1 215 331 500 0.70 90.0270
1 216 327 1400 0.96 90.0060
11
11
0
16
201
202
203
204
0
301
302
0 2
0
302
304
0 1
0
303
304
0 2
0
304
305
0 2
0
305
309
0 1
0
306
309
0 2
0
307
308
0 2
0
308
310
0 1
0
309
310
0 2
0
310
312
0 2
0
311
312
0 2
0
312
341
'0 2
0
313
312
11 2
0.0
0.0
2.64
6.5
4.13
15.5
0
320
321
0 1
0
321
324
8 2
0.0
0.0
1.52
5.5
0
322
323
0 2
0
323
324
0 1
0
324
331
0 2
0
325
326
0 1
0
326
327
0 2
0
327
329
0 1
0
328
329
0 2
0
329
340
0 1
0
330
324
0 2'
0
331
325
0 2
0
340
341
10 2
0.0
0.0
2.00
15.0
5.10
68.0
0
341
0
0 2
' 0
27
301 302 303
322 323 324
�ENDPROGRAM
0.5 0.5 0.5
205 206 207 208 209 210 211
2.27 96 0.0060 0
4.00 260 0.0021 2
1.25 10 0.0017 0
2.27 40 0.0070 0 _
4.00 460 0.0021 2
1.25 10 0.0038 0
1.50 120 0.0033 0
0 1200 0.0050 4
2.25 75 0.0211 0
2.50 853 0.0123 0_
1.00 315 0.0020 0
3.00 480 0.0100 0
0.1 1310 0.0033 0
0.60 2.1 1.26
2.80 6.7 2.99
4.68 16.8 4.91
5.00 1350 0.0050 4
0.1 300 0.0053 0
0.05 0.0 . 0.31
2.55 6.4 3.85
1.50 10 0.0100 0
0 1500 0.0142 50
3.00 120 0.0050 0
4.00 420 0.0050 4
3.50 100 0.0050 0
4.00 750 0.0050 4
1.75 100 0.0100 0
5.00 240 0.0050 4
1.50 80 0.0050 0
3.00 80 0.0050 0
0.10 10 0.0040 0
0.28 0.0 0.65
2.53 29.0 3.72
5.86 72.0
5.20 120 0.0040 0
212
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
4.1
12.3
17.3
4
0
2.6
7.3
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
4.0
55.0
213 214
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
1.92
3.35
0.035
0.013
0.79
5.40
0.013
0.016
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.013
1.06
4.39
1
0018
215 216
2.27
4.00
1.25
2.27
4.00
1.25
1.50
1.10
2.25
2.50
1.00
3.00
0.10
5.4
13.4
4.00
0.10
4.3
8.0
1.50
1.50
3.00
3.00
3.50
3.00
1.75
4.00
1.50
3.00
0.10
5.0
62.0
0 0.013 5.20
304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 340 320 321
325 326 327 328 329 330 331 341
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 25 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400125.DAT
*** PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENSION DAMS ***
CONVEYANCE
PEAK
STAGE
STORAGE
TIME
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(FT)
(AC -FT)
(HR/MIN)
322
11.
1.5
.7
1 10.
320
10.
.7
0 45.
330
7.
1.1
0 30.
323
11.
.4
1 40.
321
6.
.1
1.7
2 0.
324
34.
1.9
0 35.
301
26.
2.3
.5
0 50.
331
37.
2.0
0 35.
303
3.
1.3
.2
1 10.
302
29.
1.8
0 30.
325.
54.
1.7
0 35.
304
29.
2.3
.1
1 20.
326
54.
2.3
0 35.
306
4.
1.3
.5
1 10.
305
29.
1.8
0 50.
307
6.
1.5
3.1
2 0.
328
14.
1.3
0 35.
327
55.
1.7
0 40.
309
34.
1.5
0 35.
308
6.
1.0
2 25.
329
66.
1.8
0 40.
313
12.
.1
3.0
1 35.
311
2.
1.0
1.2
2 0.
310
40.
1.8
0 35.
340
40.
.1
3.0
1 15.
312
52.
2.0
1 25.
341
91.
2.6
1 25.
49/
MCCLELLANDS BASIN
SWMM MODEL
50 YEAR
INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
I
' 2 1 1 2
3 4
WATERSHED 0
' COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 50 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400150.DAT
50 0 0 5.0 1 1.0
25 5
0.48 0.84 1.08 1.68 2.40 4.44 7.92 3.24 2.04 1.44
' 0.96 0.72 0.72 0.48 0.48 0.36 0.36 0.24 0.24 0.24
0.24 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00
.2 .016 .250 0.1
1 201 320 31514.75 25.0183
1 202 322 70011,50 50,0161
1 203 307 100032.25 80.0100
1 204 301 90019.00 80.0100
1 205 303 650 5.85 47.0105
1 206 306 650 7.70 70.0080
1 207 311 100013.80 57.0235
1 208 313 95033.61 70.0170
1 209 321 43523.40 40.0085
1 210 324 40010.30 40.0100
' 1 211 325 100110,90 40,0200
1 212 328 400 4.20 80.0380
1 213 340 70016.89 70.0055
1 214 330 2200 1.62 90.0110
1 215 331 500 0.70 90.0270
' 1 216 327 1400 0.96 90.0060
1
0
1
1
0
16
201
202
203
204
0
301
302
0 2
0
302
304
0 1
0
303
304
0 2
0
304
305
0 2
0
305
309
0 1
0
306
309
0 2
0
307
308
0 2
0
308
310
0 1
0
309 '310
0 2
0
310
312
0 2
0
311
312
0 2
0
312
341
0 2
0
313
312
11 2
0.0
0.0
2.64
6.5
4.13
15.5
0
320
321
0 1
0
321
324
8 2
0.0
0.0
1.52
5.5
0
322
323
0 2
0
323
324
0 1
0
324
331
0 2
0
325
326
0 1
0
326
327
0 2
0
327
329
0 1
0
328
329
0 2
0
329
340
0 1
0
330
324
0 2
0
331
325
0 2
0
340
341
10 2
0.0
0.0
2.00
15.0
5.10
68.0
0
341
0
0 2
' 0
27
301 302 303
322 323 324
�NDPROGRAM
0.5 0.5 0.5
205 206 207 208 209 210 211
2.27 96 0.0060 0
4.00 260 0.0021 2
1.25 10 0.0017 0
2.27 40 0.0070 0
4.00 460 0.0021 2
1.25 10 0.0038 0
1.50 120 0.0033 0
0 1200 0.0050 4
2.25 75 0.0211 0
2.50 853 0.0123 0
1.00 315 0.0020 0
3.00 480 0.0100 0
0.1 1310 0.0033 0
0.60 2.1 1.26
2.80 6.7 2.99
4.68 16.8 4.91
5.00 1350 0.0050 4
0.1 300 0.0053 0
0.05 0.0 0.31
2.55 6.4 3.85
1.50 10 0.0100 0
0 1500 0.0142 50
3.00 120 0.0050 0
4.00 420 0.0050 4
3.50 100 0.0050 0
4.00 750 0.0050 4
1.75 100 0.0100 0
5.00 240 0.0050 4
1.50 80 0.0050 0
3.00 80 0.0050 0
0.10 10 0.0040 0
0.28 0.0 0.65
2.53 29.0 3.72
5.86 72.0
5.20 120 0.0040 0
212
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
4.1
12.3
17.3
4
0
2.6
7.3
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
4.0
55.0
213 214
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
1.92
3.35
0.035
0.013
0.79
5.40
0.013
0.016
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.035
0.013
0.013
0.013
1.06
4.39
1
0018
215 216
2.27
4.00
1.25
2.27
4.00
1.25
1.50
1.10
2.25
2.50
1.00
3.00
0.10
5.4
13.4
4.00
0.10
4.3
8.0
1.50
1.50
3.00
3.00
3.50
3.00
1.75
4.00
1.50
3.00
0.10
5.0
62.0
0 0.013 5.20
304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 340 320 321
325 326' 327 328 329 330 331 341
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 50 YEAR EVENT
RSD FILE NO. 50400150.DAT
*** PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENSION DAMS ***
CONVEYANCE
PEAK
STAGE
STORAGE
TIME
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(FT)
(AC -FT)
(HR/MIN)
322
11.
1.5
1.5
1 20.
320
18.
.9
0 40.
330
8.
1.5
.0.
0 35.
323
11.
.4
1 40.
321
7.
.1
2.7
2 20.
324
51.
3.0
.0
0 35.
301
26.
2.3
1.2
0 55.
331
51.
3.0
.1
0 40.
303
3.
1.3
.5
1 20.
302
29.
1.8
0 30.
325
91.
2.1
0 35.
304
29.
2.3
.1
1 50.
326
76.
3.5
.1
0 40.
306
4.
1.3
.8
1 15.
305
29.
1.8
0 50.
307
6.
1.5
4.6
2 5.
328
17.
1.8
.1
0 40.
327
81.
2.0
0 40.
309
35.
1.5
0 40.
308
6.
1.0
2 25.
329
101.
2.1
0 40.
313
15.
.1
4.0
1 30.
311
2.
1.0
1.9
2 5.
310
40.
1.8
0 35.
340
60.
.1
4.2
1 5.
312
56.
2.1
1 30.
341
115.
3.0
1 5.
u
MCCLELLANDS BASIN
SWMM MODEL
100 YEAR
INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
�53/
L
1
.1
11
2 1 1.2
3 4
WATERSHED 0
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 100 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400100.DAT
50 0 0 5.0 1 1.0
25 5
0.60 0.96 1.44 1.68 3.00 5.40 9.00 3.72 2.16 1.56 "
1.20 0.84 0.60 0.48 0.36 0.36 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
0.24 0.24 0.12 0.12 0.00
-2 .016 .250 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5
1 201 320 31514.75 25.0183
1 202 322 70021.50 50.0165
1 203 307 100032.25 80.0100
1 204 301 90019.00 80.0100
1 205 303 650 5.85 47.0105
1 206 306 650 7.70 70.0080
1 207 311 100013.80 57.0235
1 208 313 95033.61 70.0170
1 209 321 43523.40 40.0085
1 210 324 40010.30 40.0100
1 211 325 100010.90 40.0200
1 212 328 400 4.20 80.0380
1 213 340 70016.89 70.0055
1 214 330 2200 1.62 90.0110
1 215 331 500 0.70 90.0270
1 216 327 1400 0.96 90.0060
0018
1
0
16
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216
0 301 302 0 2 2.27 96 0.0060 0 0 0.013 2.27
0 ' 302 304 0 1 4.00 260 0.0021 2 2 0.035 4.00
0 303 304 0 2 1.25 10 0.0017 0 0 0.013 1.25
0 304 305 0 2 2.27 40 0.0070 0 0 0.013 2.27
0 305 309 0 1 4.00 460 0.0021 2 2 0.035 4.00
0 306 309 0 2 1.25 10 0.0038 0 0 0.013 1.25
0 307 308 0 2 1.50 120 0.0033 0 0 0.013 1.50
0 308 310 0 1 0 1200 0.0050 4 4 0.035 1.10
0 309 310 0 2 2.25 75 0.0211 0 0 0.013 2.25
0 310 312 0 2 2.50 853 0.0123 0 0 0.013 2.50
0 311 312 0 2 1.00 315 0.0020 0 0 0.013 1.00
0 312 341 0 2 3.00 480 0.0100 0 0 0.013 3.00
0 313 312 11 2 0.1 1310 0.0033 0 0 0.013 0.10
0.0 0.0 0.60 2.1 1.26 4.1 1.92 5.4 .
2.64 6.5 2.80 6.7 2.99 12.3 3.35 13.4
4.13 15.5 4.68 16.8 4.91 17.3
0 320 321 0 1 5.00 1350 0.0050 4 4 0.035 4.00
0 321 324 8 2 0.1 300 0.0053 0 0 0.013 0.10
0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.31 2.6 0.79 4.3
1.52 5.5 2.55 6.4 3.85 7.3 5.40 8.0
0 322 323 0 2 1.50 .10 0.0100 0 0 0.013 - 1.50
0 323 324 0 1 0 1500 0.0142 50 0 0.016 1.50
0 324 331 0 2 3.00 120 0.0050 0 0 0.013 3.00
0 325 326 0 1 4.00 420 0.0050 4 4 0.035 3.00
0 326 327 0 2 3.50 100 0.0050 0 0 0.013 3.50
0 327 329 0 1 4.00 750 0.0050 4 4 0.035 3.00
0 328 329 0 2 1.75 100 0.0100 0 0 0.013 1.75
0 329 340 0 1 5.00 240 0.0050 4 4 0.035 4.00
0 330 324 0 2 1.50 80 0.0050 0 0 0.013 1.50
0 331 325 0 2 3.00 80 0.0050 0 0 0.013 3.00
0 340 341 10 2 0.10 10 0.0040 0 0 0.013 0.10
0.0 0.0 0.28 0.0 0.65 4.0 1.06 5.0
2.00 15.0 2.53 29.0 3.72 55.0 4.39 62.0
5.10 68.0 5.86 72.0
0 341 0 0 2 5.20 120 0.0040 0 0 0.013 5.20
0
27
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 340 320 321
322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 341
ENDPROGRAM
�5+/
1
1
1
1
1
1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION PC.1
DEVELOPED BY METCALF + EDDY, INC.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970)
UPDATED BY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (JUNE 1973)
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 1974)
BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1985, JULY 1985)
OTAPE OR DISK ASSIGNMENTS
1
JIN(1) JIN(2) JIN(3) JIN(4) JIN(5) JIN(6) JIN(7) JIN(8) JIN(9) JIN(10)
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
JOUT(1) JOUT(2) JOUT(3) JOUT(4) JOUT(5) JOUT(6) JOUT(7) JOUT(8) JOUT(9) JOUT(10)
1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NSCRAT(1) NSCRAT(2) NSCRAT(3) NSCRAT(4) NSCRAT(5)
3 4 0 0 0
WATERSHED PROGRAM CALLED
*** ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL ***
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 100 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400100.DAT
ONUMBEROF TIME STEPS 50
OINTEGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) 5.00
1.0 PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH
OFOR 25 RAINFALL STEPS, THE TIME INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTES
OFOR RAINGAGE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL HISTORY IN INCHES PER HOUR
.60 .96 1.44 1.68 3.00 5.40 9.00
1.20 .84 .60 .48 .36 .36 .24
.24 .24 .12 .12 .00
1
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN 100 YEAR EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400100.DAT
3.72 2.16 1.56
.24 .24 .24
SUBAREA
GUTTER
WIDTH
AREA
PERCENT
SLOPE
RESISTANCE
FACTOR
SURFACE STORAGE(IN)
INFILTRATION RATE(IN/HR) GAGE
NUMBER
OR MANHOLE
(FT)
(AC)
IMPERV.
(FT/FT)
IMPERV.
PERV.
IMPERV. PERV.
MAXIMUM MINIMUM DECAY RATE N(
-2
0
0.
.0
.0
.0300
.016
.250
.100 .500
.50 .50 .00180
201
320
315.
14.8
25.0
.0183
.016
.250
.100 .500
.50 .50 .00180 1
t5�/
' 202 322 700. 21.5 5.w .0165 .016 .250 .100 .500 .50 .50 .00180
203
307
1000.
32.3
80.0
.0100
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
204
301
900.
19.0
80.0
.0100
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
205
303
650.
5.8
47.0
.0105
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
206
306
650.
7.7
70.0
.0080
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
207
31l
1000.
13.8
57.0
.0235
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
208
313
950.
33.6
70.0
.0170
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
'209
210
321
324
435.
400.
23.4
10.3
40.0
40.0
.0085
.0100
.016
.016
.250
.250
.100
.100
.500
.500
.50
.50
.50
.50
.00180
.00180
211
325
1000.
10.9
40.0
.0200
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
212
328
400.
4.2
80.0
.0380
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
213
340
700.
16.9
70.0
.0055
.016
:250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
214
330
2200.
1.6
90.0
.0lio
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
215
331
500.
.7
90.0
.0270
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
216
327
1400.
1.0
90.0
.0066
.016
.250
.100
.500
.50
.50
.00180
OTOTAL
NUMBER OF
SUBCATCHMENTS, 16
'OTOTAL
1'
TRIBUTARY
AREA (ACRES),
217.43
COTTONWOOD
FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE
PLAN
100 YEAR EVENT
RBD
FILE NO.
50400100.DAT
HYDROGRAPHS ARE
LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING
16 SUBCATCHMENTS - AVERAGE VALUES WITHIN
TIME INTERVALS
TIME(HR/MIN)
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
0
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
'
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
15.
1.
2.
3.
2.
1.
1.
3.
3.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
0
20.
3.
7.
10.
8.
3.
4.
9.
11.
4.
3.
6.
4.
5.
3.
1.
1.
0
25.
6.
16.
24.
19.
6.
9.
16.
27.
9.
7.
7.
12.
4.
2.
2.
'10.
0
30.
13.
34.
56.
42.
12.
19.
32.
61.
22.
14.
19.
14.
28.
8.
3.
4.
0
35.
27.
70.
•124.
88.
24.
38.
64.
130.
47.
28.
'
40.
28.
60.
14.
6.
8.
0
40.
29.
78.
155.
24.
40.
64.
154.
59.
31.
40.
25.
74.
.101.
8.
4.
5.
0
45.
19.
53.
119.
70.
15.
25.
38.
112.
45.
21.
26.
13.
56.
3.
1.
2.
0
50.
15.
40.
89.
50.
11.
18.
29.
82.
35.
16.
'
21.
9.
42.
3.
1.
2.
0
55.
13.
32.
69.
38.
9.
13.
23.
64.
28.
13.
17.
6.
33.
2.
1.
1.
1
0.
12.
26.
54.
29.
8.
10.
18.
51.
23.
11.
14.
5.
26.
1.
1.
1.
1
5.
10.
22.
43.
23.
6.
8.
14.
40.
19.
9.
'
11.
3.
21.
1.
0.
1.
1
10.
9.
18.
34.
18.
5.
6.
11.
32.
16.
8.
9.
3.
17.
1.
0.
0.
I
1 35.
1 40.
' 1 45.
' 1 50.
1 55.
' 2 0.
' 2 5.
2 10.
' 2 15.
' 2 20.
2 25.
' 2 30.
' 2 35.
2 40.
' 2 45.
' 2 50.
2 55.
' 3 0.
' 3 5.
3 10.
8.
15.
28.
14.
4.
5.
9.
26.
14.
7.
7.
2.
14.
1.
0.
0.
7.
13.
23.
12.
3.
4.
7.
22.
12.
6.'
6.
2.
12.
1.
0.
0.
7.
11.
19.
10.
3.
3.
6.
19.
11.
5.
5.
1.
10.
0.
0.
0.
6.
10.
16.
8.
2.
3.
5.
16.
10.
5.
4.
1.
8.
0.
0.
0.
6.
9.
14.
7.
2.
3.
4.
14.
9.
4.
4.
1.
7.
0.
0.
0.
6.
8.
13.
6.
2.
2.
4.
U.
8.
4.
3.
1.
7.
0.
0.
0.
5.
8.
12.
6.
2.
2.
4.
12.
8.
4.
3.
1.
6.
0.
0.
0.
5.
7.
11.
5.
2.
2.
3.
11.
8.
4.
3.
1.
6.
0.
0.
0.
5.
7.
10.
5.
1.
2.
3.
10.
7.
3.
2.
1.
5.
0.
0.
0.
4.
6.
8.
4.
1.
1.
2.
9.
7.
3.
2.
1.
5.
0.
0.
0.
4.
S.
7.
4.
1.
1.
2.
7.
6.
3.
2.
0.
4.
0.
0.
0.
4.
4.
6.
3.
1.
1.
2.
6.
6.
2.
1.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
3.
4.
5.
2.
1.
1.
1.
5.
5.
2.
1.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
3.
3.
4.
2.
1.
1.
1.
4.
5.
2.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
3.
3.
4.
2.
0.
1.
1.
4.
4.
2.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
3.
3.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
3.
4.
2.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
3.
3.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
3.
4.
2.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
3.
2.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
3.
4.
7.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
3.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
3.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
51/
3 15. .2. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3
20. 2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3
25. 2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3
30. 2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3
35. 2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
'
0.
0.
1.
0:
0.
0.
3
40. 2.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3
0.
45. 1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3
50. 1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
'
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
55. 1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
'0.
4
0. 1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
5. 1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
'
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
10. 1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
'0.
1
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE
PLAN 100 YEAR
EVENT
'
RBD FILE NO.
50400100.DAT
' *** CONTINUITY CHECK FOR
SUBCATCHMEMT ROUTING
IN
UDSWM2-PC MODEL ***
WATERSHED AREA (ACRES)
217.430
' TOTAL
RAINFALL (INCHES)
2.920
TOTAL
INFILTRATION (INCHES)
.332
TOTAL
WATERSHED OUTFLOW (INCHES)
2.222
TOTAL
SURFACE STORAGE AT
END OF
STROM (INCHES)
.365
ERROR
1
IN CONTINUITY, PERCENTAGE
OF RAINFALL
.003
COTTONWOOD FARMS
OVERALL DRAINAGE
PLAN 100 YEAR
EVENT
'
RBD FILE NO.
50400100.DAT
0.
1.
3.
1.
0.
1.
3.
1.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
r
2.
1.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
2..
1.
0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
1.
.2.
0.
WIDTH '
INVERT
SIDE SLOPES
OVERBANK/SURCHARGE
GUTTER
GUTTER NDP
NP OR DIAM
LENGTH
SLOPE
HORIZ TO VERT
MANNING DEPTH JK
NUMBER
CONNECTION
(FT)
(FT)
(FT/FT)
L R
N (FT)
302 0
2 PIPE 2.3
96,
0060
.0 .0
.013 2.27 0
'301
302
304 0
1 CHANNEL 4.0
260.
.0021
2.0 2.0
.035 4.00 0
303
304
0
2
PIPE
1.3
10.
.0017
.0
.0
.013
1.25
0
304
305
0
2
PIPE
2.3
40.
.0070
.0
.0
.013
2.27
0
305
309
0
1
CHANNEL
4.0
460.
0111
2.0
2"0
.035
4,00
0
306
309
0
2
PIPE
1.3
10.
.0038
.0
.0
.013
1.25
0
307
308
0
2
PIPE
1.5
120.
.0033
.0
.0
.013
1.50
0
308
310
0
1
CHANNEL
.0
1200.
.0050
4.0
4.0
.035
1.10
0.
309
310
0
2
PIPE
2.3
75.
.0211
.0
.0
.013
2.25
0
312
0
2
PIPE
2.5
853.
.0123
.0
.0
.013
2.50
0
'310
311
312
0
2
PIPE
1.0
315.
.0020
.0
.0
.013
1.00
0
312
341
0
2
PIPE
3.0
480.
.0100
.0
.0
.013
3.00
0
313
312
11
2
PIPE
.1
1310.
.0033
.0
.0
.013
.10
0
RESERVOIR
STORAGE IN
ACRE-FEET
VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW
.0
.0
.6
2.1
1.3
4.1
1.9
5.4
2.6
6.5
2.8
6.7
'
3.0
12.3
3.3 13.4
4.1
15.5
4.7
16.8
4.9
17.3
320
321
0
1
CHANNEL
5.0
1350.
.0050
4.0
4.0
.035
.4.00
0
321
324
8
2
PIPE
.1
300.
.0053
.0
.0
.013
.10
0
RESERVOIR
STORAGE IN
ACRE-FEET
VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW
'
.0
.0
.1
.0
.3
2.6
.8
4.3
1.5
5.5
2.5
6.4
3.8
7.3
5.4
8.0
322
323
0
2
PIPE
1.5
10.
.0100
.0
.0
.013
1.50
0
323
324
0
1
CHANNEL
.0
1500.
.0142
50.0
.0
.016
1.50
0
324
331
0
2
PIPE
3.0
120.
.0050
.0
.0
.013
3.00
0
325
326
0
1
CHANNEL
4.0
420.
.0050
4.0
4.0
.035
3.00
0
326
327
0
2
PIPE
3.5
100.
.0050
.0
.0
.013
3.50
0
327
329
0
1
CHANNEL
4.0
750.
.0050
4.0
4.0
.035
3.00
0
328
329
0
2
PIPE
1.8
100,
.0100
.0
.0
.013
1.75
0
329
340
0
1
CHANNEL
5.0
240.
.0050
4.0
4.0
.035
4.00
0
330
324
0
2
PIPE
1.5
80.
.0050
.0
.0
.013
1.50
0
331
325
0
2
PIPE
3.0
80.
.0050
.0
.0
.013
3.00
0
340
341
10
2
PIPE
.1
10.
.0040
.0
.0
.013
.10
0
RESERVOIR
STORAGE IN
ACRE-FEET
VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW
.0
.0
.3
.0
.6
4.0
1.1
5.0
2.0
15.0
2.5
29.0
3.7
55.0
4.4 62.0
5.1
68.0
5.9
72.0
341
0
0
2
PIPE
5.2
120.
.0040
.0
..0
.013
5.20
0
'OTOTAL
1
NUMBER
OF GUTTERS/PIPES,
27
COTTONWOOD FARMS
OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN
100
YEAR EVENT
'
RBD FILE NO. 50400100.DAT
ARRANGEMENT
OF SUBCATCHMENTS AND GUTTERS/PIPES
'
TRIBUTARY
SUBAREA
D.A.(AC)
GUTTER
TRIBUTARY
GUTTER/PIPE
301
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
204 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
19.0
'
302
301
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
19.0
303
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
205 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
5.8
'
304
302
303 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
24.9
305
304
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
24.9
306
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
206 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
7.7
'
307
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
203 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
32.3
308
307
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
32.3
'
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
32.5
309
305
306 0
0
0
310
308
309 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
64.8
'
311
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
207 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
13.8
312
310
311 313
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 112.2
'
313
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
208 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
33.6
320
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
201
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.8
321
320 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
269
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38.2
322
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
202
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.5
'
323
324
322 0 0
321 323 330
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
210
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.5
71.6
325
331 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
211
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
83.2
326
325 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
83.2
327
326 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
216
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84.1
'
328
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
212
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.2
329
327 328 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
88.3
'
330
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
214
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
331
324, 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72.3
340
329 0 0
O 0 0 0
0 0
0
213
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'105.2
'
1
341
312 340 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
217.4
'
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN
100 YEAR
EVENT
RBD FILE NO. 50400100.DAT
HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE
FOLLOWING 27 CONVEYANCE
ELEMENTS
THE
UPPER NUMBER IS DISCHARGE IN CFS
'
THE
LOWER NUMBER IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASES:
( ) DENOTES
DEPTH ABOVE INVERT IN
FEET
(S) DENOTES
STORAGE IN AC -FT FOR
DETENSION DAM. DISCHARGE INCLUDES SPILLWAY OUTFLOW.
(I) DENOTES
GUTTER INFLOW IN CFS
FROM SPECIFIED INFLOW
HYDROGRAPH
(D) DENOTES
DISCHARGE IN CFS DIVERTED
FROM
THIS
GUTTER
(0) DENOTES
STORAGE IN AC -FT FOR
SURCHARGED GUTTER
TIME(HR/MIN)
301 302
303 304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311 312
313 340
320
321
322
323
324
325
326 327
328 329
330
331
341
0 5.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
'0( ) 0(
) .0( ) 0( )
.0(
)
'0( )
0(
)
0(
)
.0(
)
.0(
)
0. 0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0( ) -0(
) O(S) O(S)
.0(
)
O(S)
-0(
)
-0(
)
-0(
)
-0(
)
0. 0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
'
-0( ) 0(
) .0( ) .0( )
.0(
)
.O( )
.O(
)
0 10.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.1( ) .0( )
.0(
)
.1( )
.1(
)
-0(
)
-0(
)
-0(
)
0. 0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.1( ) .0(
) O(S) O(S)
.0(
)
O(S)
.1(
)
.0(
)
.1(
)
-0(
)
0. 0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
'
.0( ) .0(
) -0( ) .0( )
.1(
)
.1( )
-0(
)
0 15.
4. 1.
2. 3.
1.
3.
4.
0.
3.
1.
.6( ) .3(
) .9( ) .6( )
.2(
)
.7( )
.9(
)
.3(
)
.4(
)
3(
)
rm/
0 20
0 25
0 30
1
0 35
0 40
0 45
1
0 50
0 55
2. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4. 1. 5. 3.
.0(0) .4( ) O(S) O(S) .0( ) O(S) .7( ) .1( ) .6( ) .4( )
3. 1. 3. 1. 3. S. 2.
.5( ) .2( ) .5( ) .2( ) .7( ) .7( ) .4( )
12. 8. 3. 11. 5. 4. 6. 2. 11. 10.
1.1( ) .9( ) .0(0) 1.0( ) .7( ) .0(0) .0(0) .7( ) .8( ) .8( )
2. 9. 0. 0. 1. 0. 11. 4. 10. 14.
AM .8( ) .1(s) .1(S) .1( ) O(S) 1.2( ) .2( ) 1.0( ) .9( )
13. 5. 5. 8. 2. 11. 9.
1.0( ) .5( ) .7( ) .6( ) .5( ) 1.0( ) .8( )
25. 20. 3. 22. 15. 4. 6. 4. 17. 20.
1.9( ) 1.5( ) .0(0) 1.6( ) 1.3( ) .0(0) .2(0) .8( ) 1.0( ) 1.1( )
2. 21. 1. 0. 2. 1. 11. 8. 21. 28.
.2(0) 1.2( ) .3(S) .3(S) .3( ) .1(S) .0(0) .3( ) 1.4( ) 1.2( )
27. 18. 9. 22. S. 23. 20.
1.5( ) 1.0( ) .9( ) 1.0( ) .9( ) 1.5( ) 1.2( )
26. 28. 3. 29. 28. 4. 6. 5. 33. 33.
.1(0) 1.8( ) .1(0) .0(0) 1.8( ) .1(0) .5(0) .9( ) 1.4( ) 1.6( )
2. 35. 2. 4. 6. 2. 11. 10. 41. 57.
.4(0) 1.5( ) .7(S) .7(S) .5( ) .3(S) .2(0) .3( ) 2.2( ) 1.7( )
56. 41. 17. 56. 8. 45. 38.
2.3( ) 1.5( ) .0(0) 1.6( ) .0(0) 2.3( ) 1.6( )
26. 26. .3. 29. 28. 4. 6. 6. 32. 39.
.5(0) 1.7( ) .2(0) .0(0) 1.8( ) .4(0) 1.3(0) .9( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
2. 46. S. 10. 16. 4. 11. 11. 51. 99.
.8(0) 1.8( ) 1.6(S) 1.6(S) .9( ) .7(S) .6(0) .4( ) .0(0) 2.2( )
76. 81. 17. 88. S. 51. 55.
.1(0) 2.0( ) .1(0) 2.0( ) .0(0) .1(0) 2.0( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 34. 38.
1.0(0) 1.7( ) .4(0) .0(0) 1.8( ) .6(0) 2.3(0) .9( ) 1.5( ) 1.8( )
2. 46. 6. 30. 22. 5. 11. 11. 51. 89.
1.2(0) 1.8( ) 2.6(S) 2.6(S) 1.0( ) 1.2(S) 1.1(0) .4( ) AM 2.1( )
76. 81. 17. 103. 8. 51. 76.
.2(0) 2.0( ) .1(0) 2.1( ) .0(0) .1(0) 2.3( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 32. 39.
1.4(0) 1.7( ) .5(0) .0(0) 1.8( ) .8(0) 3.1(0) .9( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
2. 53. 13. 48. 211 6. 11. 11. 51. 73.
1.5(0) 2.0( ) 3.3(S) 3.4(S) 1.0( ) 1.6(S) 1.3(0) .4( ) .0(0) 1.9( )
76. 79. 17. 94. 8. 51. 100.
.2(0) 2.0( ) .1(0) 2.1( ) .0(0) .1(0) 2.7( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 34. 39.
1.5(0) 1.7( ) .5(0) .0(0) 1.8( ) .8(0) 3.7(0) .9( ) 1.5( ) 1.8( )
2. 56. 14. 58. 18. 6. 11. 11. 40. 72.
1.7(0) 2.1( ) 3.8(S) 4.0(S) .9( ) 1.9(S) 1.5(0) .4( ) 2.1( ) 1.9( )
76. 78. 17. 96. 3. 51. 113.
.2(0) 2.0( ) .0(0). 2.1( ) .7( ) AM 3.0( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 32. 39.
1.6(0) 1.7( ) .6(0) .0(0) 1.8( ) .9(0) 4.1(0) .9( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
1
2.
56.
15.
62.
16.
6.
11.
11.
26.
60.
1.8(0)
2.1( )
4.1(S)
4.4(S)
.9( )
2.2(S)
1.7(0)
AC )
1.6( )
1.8( )
76.
78.
10.
90.
1.
38.
118.
t
.1(0)
2.0( )
'1.0( )
2.0( )
.3( )
2.0( )
3.0( )
1 0.
26.
26.
3.
29.
29.
4.
6.
6.
34.
39.
'
1.6(0)
2.
1.7( )
57.
.6(0)
16.
.0(0)
65.
1.8( )
14.
1.0(0)
6.
4.4(0)
11.
.9( )
11.
1.5( )
33.
1.8( )
42.
1.9(0)
2.1( )
4.3(S)
4.7(S)
.8( )
2.4(S)
1.8(0)
.4( )
1.9( )
1.5( )
64.
72.
0.
75.
2.
24.
122.
'
2.6( )
1.9( )
.0( )
1.9( )
.5( )
1.5( )
3.1( )
1 5.
26.
26.
3.
29.
29.
4.
6.
6.
32.
39.
1.6(0)
1.7( )
.6(0)
.0(0)
1.8( )
1.0(0)
4.7(0)
1.0( )
1.4( ) .
1.8( )
'
2.
57.
16.
66.
12.
6.
11.
11.
24.
40.
2.0(0)
2.1( )
4.5(S)
4.9(S)
.8( )
2.6(S)
1.9(0)
.4( )
1.5( )
1.5( )
20.
46.
6.
56.
0.
34.
123.
'
1.3( )
1.6( )
.8( )
1.6( )
.1( )
1.9( )
3.1( )
1 10.
26.
26.
3.
29.
29.
4.
6.
6.
34.,
39.
1.5(0)
1.7( )
.6(0)
AM
1.8( )
1.0(0)
4.9(0)
1.0( )
1.4( )
1.8( )
'
2.
58.
17.
66.
11.
7.
11.
11.
29.
35.
2.1(0)
2.2( )
4.6(S)
4.9(S)
.7( )
2.7(S)
1.9(0)
M )
1.7( )
1.4( )
52.
38.
0.
40.
1.
20.
124.
'
2.2( )
1.4( )
.0( )
1.4( )
.4( )
1.4( )
3.1( )
1 15.
26.
26.
.3.
29.
.29.
4.
6.
.6.
.32.
39.
1.4(0)
1.7( )
.6(0)
.1(0)
1.8( )
1:0(0)
5.0(0)
1.0( )
1.4( )
1.8( )
2.
58.
17.
65.
9.
7.
11.
11.
23.
33.
2.1(0)
2.2( )
4.7(S)
4.8(S)
.7( )
2.8(S)
1.9(0)
M )
1.5( )
1.3( )
'
18.
1.2(.)
36.
1.4( )
4.
.6( )
38.
1.3( )
0.
.1( )
31.
1.8( )
123.
3.1( )
1 20.
26.
26.
3.
29.
29.
4.
6.
6.
34.
39.
1.3(0)
1.7( )
.6(0)
.1(0)
1.8( )
1.0(0)
5.1(0)
1.0( )
1.4( )
1.8( )
'
2.
58.
17.
64.
9.
7.
11.
11.
26.
31.
2.2(0)
2.2( )
4.7(S)
4.7(S)
.6( )
2.9(S)
1.9(0)
M )
1.6( )
1.3( )
44.
2.0( )
32.
1.3( )
0.
.1( )
35.
1.3( )
1.
.3( )
19.
1.3( )
122.
3.1( )
1 25.
26.
26.
3.
29.
29.
4.
6.
6.
32.
39.
1.2(0)
1.7( )
.6(0)
.1(0)
1.8( )
1.0(o)
5.2(0)
1.0( )
1.4( )
1.8( )
2.
58.
17.
63.
8.
7.
11.
11.
22.
29.
2.2(0)
2.2( )
4.7(S)
4.5(S)
.6( )
3.0(S)
1.9(0)
.4( )
1.5( )
1.3( )
'
18.
1.2( )
31.
1.3( )
2.
'.5( )
32.
1.2( )
0.
.2( )
29.
1.7( )
121.
3.1( )
1 30.
26.
26.
3.
29.
29.
4.
6.
6.
33.
39.
1.1(0)
1.7( )
.6(0)
.1(0)
1.8( )
1.0(0)
5.3(0)
1.0( )
1.4( )
1.8( )
'
2.
58.
17.
62.
7.
7.
11.
11.
24.
28.
2.2(0)
2.2( )
4.7(S)
4.4(S)
.6( )
3.1(0
1.9(0)
AC )
1.5( )
1.2( )
'
37.
1.8( )
28.
1.2( )
0.
.1( )
31.
1.2( )
0.
.3( )
18.
1.3( )
120.
3.1( )
1 35.
26.
26.
3.
29.
29.
4.
6.
6.
32.
39.
1.0(0)
1.7( )
.6(o)
.1(0)
1.8( )
1.0(0)
5.3(o)
1.0( )
1.4( )
1.8( )
W
�/
1 40.
1 45.
1 50.
1 55.
1
2 0.
2 5.
2 10.
2 15.
2. 58. 17. 60. 7. 7. 11. 11. 22. 26.
2.2(0). 2.2( ) 4.7(S) 4.2(S) .5( ) 3.2(S) 1.9(0) .4( ) 1.4( ) 1.2( )
18. 28. 2. 29. 0. 27. 118.
1.2( ) .1.2( ) .4( ) 1.2( ) .2( ) 1.6( ) 3.0( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 33. 39.
.8(0) 1.7( ) .6(0) AM 1.8( ) 1.0(0) 5.4(0) 1.0( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
2. 58. 17. 58. 6. 7. 11. 11. 23. 26.
2.2(o) 2.2( ) 4.7(S) 4.0(S) .5( ) 3.2(S) 1.9(0) .4( ) 1.5( ) 1.2( )
33. 26. 0. 28. 0. 18. 116.
1.7( ) 1.2( ) .2( ) 1.2( ) .2( ) 1.3( ) 3.0( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 32. 39.
.7(0) 1.7( ) .6(0) .1(0) 1.8( ) .9(0) 5.4(0) 1.0( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
2. 58. 17. 57. 6. 7. 11. 11. 22. 25.
2.3(0) 2.2( ) 4.6(S) 3.9(S) .5( ) 3.3(S) 1.9(0) .4( ) 1.4( ) 1.2( )
19. 26. 1. 27. 0. 26. 114.
1.2( ) 1.2( ) .3( ) 1.1( ) .2( ) 1.6( ) 3.0( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 33. 39.
.5(0) 1.7( ) .6(0) .1(0) 1.8( ) .9(0) 5.5(0) 1.0( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
2. 58. 17. 55. 5. 7. 11. 11. 22. 25.
2.3(0) 2.2( ) 4.6(S) 3.7(S) .5( ) 3.3(S) 1.8(0) .4( ) 1.5( ) 1.2( )
31. 25. 1. 27. 0. 19. 112.
1.6( ) 1.2( ) .2( ) 1.1( ) .2( ) 1.3( ) 2.9( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 32. 39.
.4(0) 1.7( ) .6(0) .1(0) 1.8( ) .9(0) 5.5(0) 1.0( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
2. 57. 16. 52. 5. 7. 11. 11. 21. 24.
.2.3(0) 2.1( ) 4.5(S) 3.6(S) .5( ) 3.4(S) 1.8(0) .4( ) 1.4( ) 1.2( )
20. 25. 1. 26. 0. 25. 109.
1.3( ) 1.2( ) .3( ) 1.1( ) .2( ) 1.5( ) 2.9( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 33. 39.
.2(0) 1.7( ) .6(0) .1(0) 1.8( ) .9(0) 5.5(0) 1.0( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
2. 57. 16. 49. S. 7. 11. 11. 22. 24.
2.3(0) 2.1( ) 4.5(S) 3.4(S) .5( ) 3.4(S) 1.8(0) .4( ) 1.4( ) 1.1( )
28. 24. 0. 25. 0. 19. 106.
1.5( ) 1.1( ) .2( ) 1.1( ) .2( ) 1.3( ) 2.8( )
26. 26. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 32. 39.
.1(0) 1.7( ) .6(0) .1(0) 1.8( ) .9(0) 5.5(0) 1.0( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
2. 57. 16. 46. 5. 7. 11. 11. 21. 23.
2.3(0) 2.1( ) 4.4(S) 3.3(S) .4( ) 3.4(S) 1.7(0) .4( ) 1.4( ) 1.1( )
19. 24. 0. 24. 0. 23. 103.
1.2( ) 1.1( ) .2( ) 1.1( ) .1( ) 1.5( ) 2.8( )
5. 13. 3. 29. 29. 4. 6. 6. 33. 39.
.7( ) 1.2( ) .5(0) .1(0) 1.8( ) .8(0) 5.5(0) 1.0( ) 1.4( ) 1.8( )
2. 57. 16. 43. 4. 7. 11. 11. 21. 22.
2.3(0) 2.1( ) 4.4(S) 3.2(S) .4( ) 3.4(S) 1.7(0) .4( ) 1.4( ) 1.1( )
25. 23. 0. 23. 0. 18. 100.
1.4( ) 1.1( ) .1( ) 1.1( ) .1( ) 1.3( ) 2.7( )
0. 2. 3. 14. 21. 4. 6. . 6. 26. 35.
.2( ) .4( ) .5(0) 1.2( ) 1.5( ) .8(0) 5.5(0) 1.0( ) 1.2( ) 1.6( )
�3�
2 20.
2 25.
1
2 30.
2 35.
2 40.
2 45.
2 50.
2 55.
2.
53.
16.
41.
4.
7.
11.
11.
20.
21.
2.3(0)
2.0( )
4.3(S)
3.1(S)
.4( )
3.4(S)
1.6(0)
.4( )
1.4( )
1.1(
)
19.
22.
0.
22.
0.
22.
94.
1.2( )
1.1( )
.1( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.5( )
2.6( )
3.
2.
3.
0.
9.
4.
6.
6.
13.
23.
.5( )
.4( )
.5(0)
.0( )
1.0( )
.8(0)
5.5(0)
1.0( )
.8( )
1.2(
)
2.
42.
16.
38.
4.
7.
11.
11.
20.
21.
2.3(0)
1.7( )
4.2(S)
3.0(S)
.4( )
3.5(S)
1.6(0)
.4( )
1.4( )
1.1(
)
23.
21.
0.
22.
0.
18.
81.
1.4( )
1.1( )
.1( )
1.0( )
.O( )
1.3( )
2.4( )
0.
2.
3.
9.
5.
4.
6.
6.
9.
16.
.2( )
.4( )
.5(0)
.9( )
.7( )
.8(0)
5.4(0)
1.0( )
.7( )
1.0(
)
2.
33.
15.
36.
3.
7.
11.
11.
20.
21.
2.3(0)
1.5( )
4.1(S)
2.9(S)
.4( )
3.5(S)
1.5(0)
.4( )
1.4( )
1.1(
)
19.
21.
0.
21.
0.
22.
70.
1.2( )
1.1( )
.1( )
1.0( ).
.0( )
1.4( )
2.2( )
2.
1.
3.
0.
5.
4.
6.
6.
9.
16.
.4( )
.3( )
.5(0)
.2( )
.7( )
.7(0)
5.4(0)
1.0( )
.7( )
1.0(
)'
2.
33.
15.
35.
3.
7.
11.
11.
20.
21.
2.3(0)
1.5( )
4.0(S)
2.8(S)
.4( )
3.5(S)
1.5(0)
.4( )
1.4( )
1.1(
)
22.
21.
0.
21.
0.
18.
67.
1.3( )
1.1( )
.1( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
2.2( )
1.
1.
3.
8.
4.
4.
6..
6.
B.
15.
.2( )
.3( )
.5(0)
.8( )
.6( )
'.7(0)
5.4(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0(
)
2.
32.
15.
33.
3.
7.
11.
11.
20.
20.
'2.2(0)
1.5( )
4.0(S)
2.7(S)
..4( )
3.5(S)
1.4(o)
.4( )
1.4( )
1.1(
)
19.
21.
0.
21.
0.
21.
65.
1.2( )
1.1( )
.1( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.4( )
2.1( )
1.
1.
3.
1.
4.
4.
6.
6.
9.
15.
.4( )
.3( )
.4(0)
.2( )
.6( )
.7(0)
5.4(0)
1.0( )
.7( )
1.0(
)
2.
31.
15.
31.
3.
7.
11.
11.
20.
20.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.9(S)
2.6(S)
.3( )
3.5(S)
1.3(0)
.4( )
1.4( )
1.1(
)
22.
20.
0.
21.
0.
19.
63.
1.3( )
1.1( )
.1( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
2.1( )
1.
1.
3.
7.
4.
4.
6.
6.
8.
15.
.2( )
.3( )
AM
.8( )
.6( )
.7(0)
5.3(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0(
)
2.
31.
15.
30.
3.
7.
11.
11.
20.
20.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.8(S)
2.6(S)
.3( )
3.5(S)
1.3(o)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.1(
)
19.
20.
0.
20.
0.
21.
61.
1.2( )
1.1( )
.1( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.4( )
2.1( )
1.
1.
3.
1.-
4.
4.
6.
6.
8.
15.
.3( )
- .2( )
AM
.3( )
.6( )
.6(0)
5.3(0)
1.0( )
.7( )
1.0(
)
2.
31.
14.
29.
3.
7.
11.
11.
20.
20.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.7(S)
2.5(S)
.3( )
3.5(S)
1.2(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.1(
)
21.
20.
0.
20.
0.
19.
60.
1.3( )
1.1( )
.1( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
2.0( )
1.
1.
3.
6.
4.
4.
6.
6.
8.
15.
.2( )
.2( )
.4(0)
.7( )
.6( )
.6(0)
5.3(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0(
)
2.
30.
14.
28.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
20.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.6(S)
2.5(S)
.3( )
3.4(S)
1.2(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
20.
0.
20.
0.
20.
58.
1.2( )
1.1( )
.1( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.4( )
2.0( )
3 0.
1.
1.
3.
1.
4.
4.
6.
6.
B.
14.
.3( )
.2( )
.4(0)
.3( )
..6( )
.6(0)
5.2(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0( )
2.
30.
14.
27.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
20.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.5(S)
2.4(S)
.3( )
3.4(S)
1.1(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
20.
20.
0.
20.
0.
19.
57.
1.3( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
2.0( )
3 5.
0.
1.
3.
6.
3.
4.
6.
6.
8.
14.
.2( )
.2( )
AM
.7( )
.6( )
.5(0)
5.2(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0( )
2.
30.
14.
26.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
20.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.5(S)
2.4(S)
.3( )
3.4(S)
1.0(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
20.
0.
20.
0.
20.
55.
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.4( )
2.0( )
3 10.
1.
1.
3.
1.
3. ,
4.
6.
6.
8.
14.
.2( )
.2( )
.3(0)
.4( )
.6( )
.5(0)
5.2(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0( )
2.
29.
13.
25.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
20.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.4(S)
2.4(S)
.3( )
3.4(S)
1.0(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
20.
20.
0.
20.
0.
19.
54.
1.3( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.9( )
3 15.
0.
0.
3.
S.
'3.
4.
6.
6.
7.
14.
.2( )
.2( )
.3(0)
.7( )
.6( )
..5(0)
5.1(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0( )
2.
29.
13.
24.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
19.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.3(S)
2.3(S)
.3( )
3.4(S)
.9(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
20.
0.
20.
0.
20.
53.
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.4( )
1.9( )
3 20.
0.
0.
3.
2.
3.
4.
6.
6.
8.
14.
.2( )
.2( )
.3(0)
.4( )
.6( )
.5(0)
5.1(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0( )
2.
29.
13.
23.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
19.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.2(S)
2.3(S)
.3( )
3.4(S)
.8(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
20.
19.'
0.
20.
0.
19.
52.
1.3( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.9( )
3 25.
0.
0.
3.
5.
3.
4.
6.
6.
7.
14.
.2( )
.2( )
.3(0)
.6( )
.6( )
AM
5.1(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0( )
2.
29.
13.
23.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
19.
2.2(0)
1.4( )
3.1(S)
2.3(S)
.3( )
3.4(S)
.7(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
19.
51.
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.9( )
3 30.
0.
0.
3.
2.
3.
4.
6.
6.
8.
14.
.2( )
.2( )
.3(0)
.4( )
.6( )
.4(0)
5.0(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0( )
2.
28.
12.
22.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
19.
2.1(0)
1.4( )
3.0(S)
2.3(S)
.3( )
3.3(S)
.7(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
19.
51.
1.3( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.9( )
3 35.
0.
0.
3.
4.
3.
4.
6.
6.
7.
14.
.2( )
.1( )
.2(0)
.6( )
.6( )
AM
5.0(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0( )
1
2.
28.
12.
22.
2.-
T.
11.
11.
19.
19.
2.1(0)
1.3( )
3.0(S)
2.3(S)
.3( )
3.3(S)
.6(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
19.
50.
'
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.8( )
3 40.'
0.
0.
3.
2.
3.
4.
6.
6.
8.
14.
.2( )
.1( )
.2(0)
.4( )
.6( )
.3(0)
4.9(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
1.0( )
2.
26.
10.
22.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
19.
2.1(0)
1.3( )
2.9(S)
2.3(S)
.3( )
3.3(S)
.5(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
19.
47.
-
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.8( )
3 45.
0.
0.
3.
4.
3.
4.
6.
6.
7.
14.
2( )
.1( )
.2(0)
.6( )
.6( )
.3(0)
4.9(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
.9( )
'
2.
24.
8.
21.
2.
7.
11.
11.
19.
19.
2.1(0)
1.2( )
2.8(S)
2.2(S)
.3( )
3.3(S)
.5(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
19.
45.
'
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.8( )
3 50.
0.
0.
3.
2.
3.
4.
6.
6.
7.
14.
.2( )
2.
.1( )
23.
.2(0)
7.
.4( )
21.
.6( )
2.
.3(0)
7.
4.9(0)
11.
1.0( )
11.
.6( )
19.
.9( )
19.
2.1(0)
1.2( )
2.8(S)
2.2(S)
.2( )
3.3(S)
AM
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
19.
44.
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.7( )
3 55.
0.
0.
3.
4.
3.
4.
6.
6.
7.
14.
1( )
2.
A( )
22.
.2(0)
7.
.6( )
21.
.5( )
1.
3(0)
7.
4.8(0)
11.
'A M )
11.
6( )
19.
9( )
19.
2.1(0)
1.2( )
2.8(S)
2.2(S)
.2()
'3.2(S)
.3(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
19.
43.
'
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.7( )
4 0.
0.
0.
3.
2.
3.
4.
6.
6.
7.
14.
.1( )
A( )
.1(0)
.4( )
.51 )
2(0)
4.8(0)
1.01 )
6( )
.9( )
'
2.
22.
7.
21.
1.
7.
11.
11.
19.
19.
2.1(0)
1.2( )
2.7(S)
2.2(S)
.2( )
3.2(S)
.3(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
19.
43.
'
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.7( )
4 5.
0.
0.
3.
4.
3.
4.
6.
6.
7.
14.
'
.1( )
2.
.1( )
22.
.1(0)
7.
.6( )
20.
.5( )
1.
.2(0)
7.
4.7(0)
11.
1.0( )
11.
.6( )
19.
.9( )
19.
2.1(0)
1.2( )
2.7(S)
2.2(S)
.2( )
3.2(S)
.2(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
19.
42.
'
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
.9( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.7( )
4 10.
0.
0.
3.
2.
3.
4.
6.
6.
7.
14.
.1( )
.1( )
AM
.5( )
.5( )
.2(0)
4.7(0)
1.0( )
.6( )
.9s( )
'
2.
22.
7.
20.
1.
7.
11.
11.
19.
19.
2.1(0)
1.2( )
2.6(S)
2.2(S)
.2( )
3.2(S)
.1(0)
.4( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
19.
19.
0.
19.
0.
18.
42.
'
1.2( )
1.0( )
.0( )
.9( )
.0( )
1.3( )
1.7( )
1
1
1�15/
^,
COTTONWOOD FARMS OVERALL DRAINAGE
PLAN 100 YEAR EVENT
RSD FILE
NO. 50400100.DAT
*** PEAK FLOWS, STAGES
AND STORAGES
OF GUTTERS
AND DETENSION DAMS ***
CONVEYANCE
PEAK
STAGE
STORAGE
TIME
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(FT)
(AC -FT)
(HR/MIN)
322
11.
1.5
1.9
1 25.
320
22.
1.0
0 40.
330
8,
1.5
.0
0 40.
323
11.
.4
1 40.
321
7.
1
3.5
2 30.
v:
324
51.
3.0
.1
0 40.
!r�
301
331
26.
51.
2.3
3.0
1.6
.1
1 0.
0 45.
303
3.
1.3
.6
1 20.
302
28.
1.8
0 36.
325
99.
2.2
0 35.
304
29.
2.3
.1
2 5.
326
76.
3.5
.2
0 45.
306
4.
1.3
1.0
1 15.
305
29.
1.8
0 50.
307
6.
1.5
5.5
2 5.
328
17.
1.8
.1
0 40.
327
81.
2.0
0 40.
309
34.
1.5
0 40.
308
6.
1.0
2 25.
329
313
103.
17.
2.1
.1
0 40.
1 25.
311
2.
1.0
3
2 5.
310
39.
1.8
0 35.
340
66.
.1
4.9
1 5,
312
58.
2.2
1 30.
'
1
341
124.
3.1
1 10.
ENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED
1
1
AGREEMENT LETTER BETWEEN GT LAND
' AND FRONT RANGE BAPTIST CHURCH
BASIN 202
1
1
1
RMI
1
Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins. Colorado 80521
303/482-5922
1
FAX:303/482-6368
1
September 20, 1994
1 Mr. Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services Stormwater
1 235 Mathews Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
1 RE: Drainage for the Northwest Corner of Oak/Cottonwood Farm
Basin 202 of the Overall Drainage Plan
PROJECT NO.: 226-013
Dear Basil,
1 The purpose of this letter is to address the drainage design,
detention requirements, and maximum release rates as specified in
the Overall Drainage Plan for the Oak/ Cottonwood Farms. This is in
1 particular regard to Basin 202, as shown on the Overall Drainage
Plan. This basin contains approximately 22.9 acres, and is bounded
on the south by Miramont 1st Filing, on the east by Boardwalk
Drive, on the North by Harmony Road, and on the west by Fairway
1 Estates.
There is an existing agreement in place between Oak Farms, Inc. and
1 the Front Range Baptist Church. In this agreement, the 10 year
storm maximum release rate was to be limited to 0.24 cfs/acre, and
the 100 year storm maximum release rate was to be limited to 0.50
1 cfs/acre. These figures were established by the capacity of
Boardwalk Drive to convey developed stormwater per the City of Fort
Collins Stormwater requirements. Per the Overall Drainage Plan for
Oak/Cottonwood Farms, developers of Basin 202 would be responsible
' for detention of one-half of Boardwalk Drive adjacent to this
basin. This is how the SWIM model for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm
Overall Plan is currently structured.
1 The developers of the Bank One portion of Basin 202 (located in the
Northeast corner of Basin 202) have requested a reevaluation of the
drainage concepts presented in the current version of the Overall
1 Study. In the revised concept, they propose that developed runoff
from that portion of Boardwalk Drive be released undetained from
Basin 202, and compensated for downstream ultimately in Detention
1 Pond 340 (this detention pond located at the northwest corner of
1 Denver303/458.5526
694/
' Boardwalk and Lemay Avenue). Since this area will be allowed to
flow downstream undetained, this causes the allowable release rates
for Basin 202 to be readjusted so as not to exceed the capacities
of surface runoff allowed in Boardwalk Drive.
The 2 year developed stormwater capacity in Boardwalk Drive without
' exceeding the top of the curb is 8.39 cfs. Developed runoff from
Boardwalk and that portion of Miramont 1st Filing which currently
flows to Boardwalk is 5.90 cfs. The remaining area of Basin 202
' which would restricted by this agreement would be 21.5 acres. -
Therefore, the adjusted release rate for the 2 year storm would be
(8.39 cfs - 5.90 cfs / 21.5 acres) or 0.12 cfs/acre. Similarly for
' the 100 year storm, the capacity of Boardwalk is 70.00 cfs,
contributing undetained flows are 7.38 cfs, therefore the allowable
release rate would be limited to (70.00 cfs - 7.38 cfs / 21.5
acres) or 2.91 cfs. The Overall Drainage Plan, and the requirements
' of the McClellands Master Plan limits developed runoff from the 100
year storm to 0.5 cfs/acre, therefore this restriction of 0.50
cfs/acre will still be required for Basin 202. The existing
' agreement also limited the 100 year release rate to 0.50 cfs/acre.
This will cause a slight increase in the required volume of
downstream detention pond 340. A modified SWMM model, with the
' above described concepts, showed an increase from 4.9 ,ac.ft. of
detention required to 5.0 ac.ft.
' By approval of this letter, the parties 'listed below agree to the
aforementioned drainage criteria. The above concepts have been
presented to the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility, however
' these conceptual changes are subject to review -and final approval
by the City Stormwater Utility. This agreement will also supersede
the original agreement dated August 5, 1992, signed by Oak Farms,
Inc. and the Front Range Baptist Church.
f�
IJ
' Sincerely,
Inc. Engineering Consultants
Roger Curtiss, P.E.
I
d9C�/
' APPROVED:
Oak Farms, Inc.
Date
I1II
L�
SHARON K. NORDICK.
v
Title
Date
0
11
Front nge:Qz
tiist
Title
41.2 Z/ q
Date
Bank One, isrZT��, ll41 1-4�
Titl&
Date
I
II
1
G. T. LAND COLORADO INC.
Ms. Kathy Malers
City of Fort Collins
Storm Drainage Utility
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
welvi
Smnford Plana
3555 Stanford Read %p/
Suitc II%1
non Collin<, Co W025
Fun Collins — V)3.223.3933
ncnvcr — 303-440-3433
Longmont — 303-651-6336
Facsimile — 303-2234671
October 6, 1992
' Dear Kathy:
This letter Is written to Inform you that Oak Farm Inc., as the owner of
' the property adjacent to the north of the Upper Meadow at Hlramont, Is
aware of the planned landscape berm and other grading proposed on our
property in conjunction with the Upper Meadow; and has no objection to
said grading. We do not feel that an "off -site easement" Is necessary to
allow this grading.
Sincer ly,
' t"b ass CCIM
Oak Farm Inc.
cc: Eldon Ward, Cltyscape Urban Design, Inc.
Gary Nordlck and Bill Neal, Nordick/Nea1 Partnership
' Stan Myers, RBD
1 -7t7)
-7V
CHARTS, TABLES, GRAPHS
No Text
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RUNOFF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
50
30
F- 2 0
Z
w
U
°' 10
Z
w
a
O 5
w
3
O
U 2
cc
w
Q
3
1
5
.1
FA
•►I r.
2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR
USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA.
*MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING"UNDEVELOPED"
LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION.
REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical
Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975.
5-1-84
URBAN DRAINAGE 3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
z
McCLELLANDS BASIN 3,2
U(I51- SWALE 302
301 2-21"RCP's- m-NOR
EXIST. 2-21"RCP's 304 /J
EXIST. 30" RCP EAST, 3ioII
IJi
7 pp
22 P a LEMA /AVENUE D2' s3
THIS SITE CONTAINS E%ISr. QQ�� 43 Ch
THREE SEPARATE EXIST. CURB OUTFACE' 0"_t. .1 01W _ 01 DO le ]40 SWALE\
DETENDON PONDS - 'aa0 POND
(NOT MODELED) INLETS / C1l \ 311 EAST. 12" III 2C RCP \
EXIST. CURB PVC 313 329
< 305 INLETS
0C I EX T - T BOAC ill o
e SWALE/e \ \ �.
`95A—Al) I I /ULTI. FAMILY AND o
0C ' / nAC. \ \ / OR BUSINESS
< I CHURCH / BUSINESS / —e �OLUNSAOOU Sn SERVICES 322 wALE
Z SERVICES TREATMENT COMPLEX
COMMUNITY -REGIONAL 13 SAC. r
SI IOPPINC CENTER & EXISL�
3-M'RCP'S 340
EXIST.
21' RCP 328
Ra INLETS
I
P 0O
2
II � Qi
II 4.2AC.
DORMERC11
_ W
1
I yI / S
BUSINESS SERVICES CURB eJ _ CITYMULTI.
PARK OR 2e
INLET 0 - 6 05
i� ��.�.h 24' RCP MULTI, FAMILY 0.98AC PRWOS
L — IN YEA
308 EXIST, SWALE OR BUSINESS PATH
I/ \ \ SERVICES \ PATH
J 32`r
I XI T TENNIS CENTER COURTYARDS AT MISWALE
I OT 1
115
P ;
N5-ROP -42
d2 ]A
pPANE
I COMMUNITY -REGIONAL THNOT IS
SATE CCNTNN9 Ow OAK HILL APARTMENTS OOpPp
SHOPPING CENTER & N.(p1-K� .
FIVE SEPARATE Q
BUSINESS SERVICES / el
DETENTION PONDS Q
(NOT MODEIED) Z '
O 214
35AC
313 cace &g�lu \
LURE -N i CTHE I
N1ti
109A
IEV/ 9
MEDIUM DEN'`Il�
RESIOFN rIAL
371 324 "RCP
15" R / g \
0 ]AC.
0.30AC
LMONT CO D FILING
—�� MIR MONT FIRST FIAG
ll'' 22 QDO
CHURCH SITE
23.MC
(INTERNAL CUPS-(Z
NUETS k SIOHM 32D
' MIXED u5E5 SEWER SHOWN) 1
\ F
21.SAC. ZONED RL / I LOW DENSITY
& \ / \
RLM C
/ RESIDENTIAL
.00
cfs LIN 22 cis
I 4 TSAC
EXISTING
IRESIDENTIAL
MAIL CREEK
IV I
FOSSIL CREEK BASIN =a
4
F
� v
2 I
LL
3
6.
41
SEE FOSSIL OF EK & MAIL CREEK
BASIN OVERALI;' DRAINAGE- STUDY
FOR DETAILS OF. THIS AREA SOUTH
OF MAIL CREEK IFfRRATION DITCH
h t'
A
0 �y
off' r
MAIL CREEK BASIN
1
O �.f
�F 4P
Mq/4
C
AFFF
<
Py
_ QPP
dq-
gy0�
r(O
0 8' 2 3'
S
(PLUS I' FREEBOARD) (PLUS t' FREEBOARD)
SECTION A -A SECTK7N B-B
S - OA05 ft/ft S - 0.005 It
0 20000
4�600
SCALE:
1'-200'
NOTES.
I) INTERNAL STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS IN ANnON TO THO5L
SHOWN, MAY BE REWIRED TO TRANSPORT STORM WATER
RUNOFF. IN EXCESS OF THE STREET CAPACITIES, TO THE
MAIL CREEK AND FOSSIL CREEK CURETS.
LEGEND
�.� MAIL CREEK & FOSSIL CREEK BASIN BCUNDART
BASIN BOUNDARY LINE
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROWS
BASIN NUMBER
3.2AC. BASIN AREA
�.>♦ PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
LP. LOW POINT
H.P. HIGH POINT
02 RUNOFF FROM MINOR STORM EVENT
BIN RUNOFF FROM MA" STORM EVENT
10 SWAM CONVEYANCE ELEMENT
51 SWAM SUB -CATCHMENT NUMBER
QDESIGN POINT
' 320 SWWM CONVEYANCE ELEMENT
W PROPOSED MANHOLE
- - EXISTING STORM DRAIN
322 PROPOSED DETENTION POND
311 EXISTING DETENTION POND
iQQYj�Aa STORM EVENI
QN-5LTF DErENjQN PON2
REQUIREMENTS
eyMQ MINIMUM MAXIMUM
STORAGE OUTFLOW
(AC. FT L9w
322 1.9 11
303 0.6 3 (ULTMATE)
% 1.0 4
313 4,7 17.0
340 4.9 66
(TOTAL TO CARMINE 119 CPS)
Z15
BASIN
NUMBER
TOTAL TRIG.
WIDTH
AREA
ACRES
%
IMP,
GROUND
SLOPE
201
315'
N75
25
1.83%
202
700
215
50
1.65%
203
TOO'
32.25
80
1,00%
204
900'
ISM
80
1,00%
205
650'
5.85
47
1.05%
205_
L.SD_'
-710_
- 10
n.spT
207
Io00'
ono
P
2.35X
208
950'
3270
TO
1.70%
209
435'
23.40
40
0.85%
210
doo'
10.3
40
1.00%
211
1000'
10,90
40
2.00%
212
ao0'
4,20
80
3.80E
213
700'
17.BO
20
0.55E
214
2200'
1,62
%
1 t0E
215
BOB'
0.70
%
2.20E
216
1400'
0.%
%
0.60%
r z.,
10,
1L �I 1L J1
4. 4 4
(PLUS 1- FREEBOARD)
SECTION C-C SECTION D-D
S = 0. DES fL/k EXISTING SWALE
s = D.005 f1./ft.
E I.T' &1.8'
4� '
SECTION E-E
EXISTING WALE
S = 0.0021 fl./It.
OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN - McCLELLANDS BASIN
3'
5
\v
all
�.
({ Ads
/ 9"
F"
EXIST\
DETENE
POND
EXIST S
Am
,,.•
REXIST 15' ADS
iCUTLET PP'S
Lu
I - EXST 24- R_I
F
Y
1
UPPER MEADOW
r T MIRAMONT 2nd FILING
FUTURE PARK OR MULTI -FAMILY
,pal, T.
ISM
{ . `, •._ of
Mw A
CASTLE
Li ;APPRDVEDB
NRRENTLY Be
W.E
1013
(EXISTING)
WERNER ELEMENTARY
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT -.
M.A4 y '%,MCCLELLANDS- ;IY��•
1 :.c\ •,, E A SIN
74,ti,M ¢.._•.�
Los
ALI
��O1SiA
Pf
l
t � SIB • 1
OiA ``➢FFpAr
J as HI
_�
226
1�
` 1 13a
D2 \
OJ8
i ryAM
e
jyf, y FOSSIL CREEK
R A 1q I
NOTE. EACH PERMANANT CR TEMPORARY WTIET TO
MAIL CREEK SHALL PEROXIDE CHANNEL PROTECLON
k ANCHORING PER MAIL CREEK STABILITY STUDY BY
LIOSiWE 4 ANDERSON
OAKRIDGc VILLAGE
OAKRIDGE ESTATES
DEVELOPED
SITE
HYDROLOGY
DESIGN POINT
X YEAR
100 YEAR
mN)
mN) I
.,
341
12a,
10111
1.90
714
m18
258
9.M
102
253
am
104
9 )B
36.66
105
12.14
ARM
107
14M
5362
108
517
1894
109
8.16
29.93
111
107
739
115
4.95
19 n
116
9.06
27,05
117
5.31
19n
118
IL6J
45.52
120
13.62
51
121
4.60
35X95
122
4.83
3297
123
W
1 M
125
4,76
1 1803
126
1766
65. J.
q]
11a
64
130
1 a
9
z
WE
1➢.
.96
30
00
53
JDz
5.e6
14.9
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTp/R
%—
CHANNEL
EXSTl STERNA EYI PPE
PRfPfhEO STORM M" IRS
-
IM ECRI OF ELOY
EIOSal SECT ELEX'ATRN
-
PROPOSE^ SPOT ELEVA'1T
HP
HCH o'.u4
LP
00 +ws-
QCESW
PC%T
YAXH ORAII Ill PEI
EEEEEE.EEE9
DRAINAGE SEAS BOJNOAP`
103
BARN NUMBER
226
BASH AREA
♦
DENOTES B~_ ! F-005- .8
RVOK➢ WISH AST.i RpY
CPIO•ETE PAN
OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN
OAK / COTTONWOOD FARMS
MAIL CREEK & FOSSIL CREEK BASINS
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
:EMIn1
Engineering Consultants
45 ROP CI PPE