HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 08/01/1996Kamm l '' ' t A
W
► '/ RAIX 1
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR
THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT P.U.D.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Adivision #The Sear -Brown Group
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR
THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT P.U.D.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
July 12, 1996
Prepared for:
Gary Nordic
Miramont Associates L.L.C.
309 W. Harmony Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
Prepared by:
RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants
209 South Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 482-5922
RBD Job No. 504-014
T:DINC.
Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
970/482-5922
FAX:970/482-6368
'
May 1, 1996
Mr. Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services Stormwater
235 Mathews
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control -Study
for The Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D.
Dear Basil:
We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this revised Final Drainage
and Erosion Control Study for The Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. All computations within
this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage
Design Criteria. All comments made by the Stormwater Utility, to date, have been
addressed. Also, the UDSEWER run from the Miramont Valley P.U.D was used in this
package, and comments from that submittal have been addressd as weli.
We appreciate your time and consideration in.reviewing this submittal. Please call if you
have any questions.
Respectfully,
' RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants
repared By:
1
' Proje�ngineer
cc: Gary Nordic, Miramont Associates L.L.C.
Dennis Donovan
H:\USER\civil\projects\ramparts\ramparts. rpt
1
Denver303/458-5526
Reviewed by:
fivir—
Kevin W. Ginger , P.E.
Water Resources Project Manager
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
A. LOCATION 1
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1
II. DRAINAGE BASINS 1
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 1
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA .2
A. REGULATIONS .2
B DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE'AND•CO:NSTRAINTS 2
C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 2
D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 2
E. VARIANCES'FROM CRITERIA 2
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 2
A. GENERAL CONCEPT 2
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 3
V. STORM WATER QUALITY -4
A. GENERAL CONCEPT 4
VI. EROSION CONTROL 4
A. GENERAL CONCEPT 4
B. SPECIFIC DETAIL 5
VII. CONCLUSIONS 5
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 5
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 6
C. '-STORM WATER QUALITY 6
D. EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS
REFERENCES 7
APPENDIX
VICINITY MAP 1
SITE HYDROLOGY 3
UDSEWER MODELING OF STORM SEWER 15
EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS 30
EXCERPTS FROM THE MAIL CREEK SWMM MODEL 39
DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BACK POCKET
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR
THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT P.U.D.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
The Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. (approximately 9.33 acres) is located in
the southeast part of Fort Collins, bounded on the north by Miramont P.U.D.
(previously known as Miramont P.U.D., Third Filing), by Mail Creek
approximately 700 feet south, and on the east by Lemay Avenue. The entire
P.U.D. is a part of the Oak/Cottonwood Farms Master Plan. The Upper
Meadows at Miramont First and Second Filings, and Castleridge are
northwest of this area. The Ramparts at Miramont can also be further
described as being a part of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 69 West
of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado.
B. Description of Property
The area described as The Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. is presently
undeveloped and is being proposed as a 26 lot single family residential
development. The property south of Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch is partially
developed and partially native grassland. Topography south of the Mail
Creek Irrigation Ditch is generally sloping from north to south at
approximately 5%.
1 11. DRAINAGE BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
The area south of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch is part of the Mail Creek
Major Drainage Basin and the Fossil Creek Major Drainage Basin, as shown
on the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in the back of this report.
1
III. 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 Overall Drainage Study for the Oak/Cottonwood Farms, prepared by
RBD, Inc. May, 1992 criteria and constraints will be used in this Final
Drainage Study. This Overall Drainage Study has been updated to reflect all
changes made to the areas considered within the scope of that report, and
was completed in conjunction with the final design of Miramont P.U.D.
The Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D., located within the Fossil Creek Basin
historically drains south to Fossil Creek. To get to the Fossil Creek Basin,
the Ramparts area will drain undetained directly into the end of Mail Creek,
and ultimately to Fossil Creek which lies south of this property.
C. Hydrological Criteria
The rational method was used to determine peak developed runoff from this
site. The 2 year, and 100 year rainfall criteria, which was obtained from the
City of Fort Collins, is the criteria used for this study. The rainfall criteria is
included in the appendix.
D. Hydraulic Criteria
All calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with
the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria.
E. Variances from Criteria
No variances are anticipated at this time.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concept
Development within The Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. will comply with the
I
' concepts presented in the Preliminary Drainage Study, and with the
concepts presented in the Overall Drainage Study for the Oak/Cottonwood
Drainage Plan. The Mail Creek Basin and the Fossil Creek Basins allow for
undetained storm water runoff directly to Mail Creek and to Fossil Creek. A
' bank stabilization study was prepared for the City of Fort Collins for Mail
Creek, and the recommendations put forth in that study have been complied
with when allowing discharge into Mail Creek and Fossil Creek.
' Taking into account the upstream flows from Miramont P.U.D., the peak
undetained flows are 19.3 from the 24" NRCP on the east side of the
' property and 35.9 cfs from Belvedere Place. These discharges, combined
with 178 cfs from Mail Creek plus other offsite flows from Miramont P.U.D.
will give a total well below Mail Creek's maximum capacity of 1055 cfs.
1 B. Specific Details
'
Developed runoff from the areas south of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch, and
those areas located in the Mail Creek Basin and the Fossil Creek Basin will
be conveyed by curb and gutter, and open channels as required to Mail
'
Creek. The preliminary plan for Miramont Phase 3 showed 5 separate points
of discharge into Mail Creek/Fossil Creek. The western portion of Lemay
Avenue, when developed, adjacent to this area will be routed on site, and
'
conveyed to Mail Creek. As the remainder of the Miramont is developed, and
the final routing is determined, a water Quality pond is being considered at
'
the southeast end of the project. The final size, location and if the pond will
be actually installed be determined final design happens in that
will as area.
' Developed flows from Miramont P.U.D. enter the site from points along the
north property line of the Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. The first point,
Belvedere Place, allows upstream developed flows to pass through the
' Ramparts and into the existing channel which picks up flows dumping off
Belvedere Place. The second point, a 15" plastic pipe will connect to the
onsite storm sewer and bring developed flows from Basin 116 of Miramont
' P.U.D. Aside from these two discharge points, sheet flow from the backs of
Lots 25 through 36 (Miramont P.U.D.) will drain onto the Ramparts, and
eventually into the Rampart Place curb inlet.
' Within the Ramparts project, Basins 2 and 7, which are the primary large
basins, drain to a 10' curb inlet at the east end of Rampart Place and into a
' 18" storm sewer which discharges into an existing channel beginning at the
southeast corner of the Ramparts P.U.D. Basins 1, 3, 4, and 5 drain and
t sheet flow directly offsite into channels B5 and D5 (see Drainage and
Erosion Control Plan). These channels were installed previously to drain
1 3
runoff from the upstream Miramont P.U.D. At their outlet point exists a large
rip rap structure on the north bank of Mail Creek.
Basin 6, Lemay Avenue has been accounted for within the design of the
Lemay Avenue improvements.
V. STORM WATER QUALITY
A. General Concept
Beginning in October of 1992, water quality of storm water runoff was
required to be addressed on all final design. The Ramparts at Miramont
P.U.D. development is anticipating construction beginning in the summer of
1996. Therefore for this study, we have sought to find various Best
Management Practices for the treatment of storm water runoff which could
be implemented in the final design process. When Miramont P.U.D. was
approved, along with it were approved several erosion control practices
dealing with offsite drainage. These erosion control practices, such as the
silt berm along Mail Creek, will be applicable to the Ramparts development
as well.
A small water quality pond is being considered at the southeast end of future
developments within Miramont, but not with this project. As mentioned
above, this pond is only being considered at this point, and could be
reconsidered as further development occurs. Future filings will make
attempts to route as much developed runoff as feasible through this pond.
In the interim, and with the Miramont P.U.D. project, a protective siltation
berm was installed along the northerly bank of Mail Creek to provide some
water quality measure for silt and debris to settle out prior to flows entering
Mail Creek. This berm will also provide some minor detention, but this will
not be taken into account within this study.
VI. EROSION CONTROL
A. General Concept
The Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. development lies within the Moderate
Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the 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, the erosion control performance
standard was calculated to be 81.5%. The erosion control measures as
specified on the Final Drainage and Erosion Control plan will allow for a
performance standard in excess of 97.49%. The performance standard after
0
I
' construction has been calculated to be 99.00%.
' All construction activities must also comply with the State of Colorado
permitting process for Stormwater Discharges associated with construction
' activities. A Colorado Department of Health NPDES permit will be required
before any construction grading can begin.
' B. Specific Detail
' This area has already been seeded during Miramont P.U.D. construction.
However, if any additional overlot grading is done, all newly disturbed areas,
shall be kept roughened by ripping, plowing, disking or other acceptable
' measures. All lot areas shall have a temporary cover crop applied per city
specifications if they are disturbed from their existing condition, but not
before paving occurs. If the lots are seeded before paving, then the seed
' will be damaged or destroyed when the roadway is excavated and excess
soil will be placed on top of the seed, therby burying it. A silt fence shall be
placed at the downhill side of the site, as shown on the Drainage and
' Erosion Control Plan. After the utilities have been installed, the roadway
surfaces should receive the pavement structure. After installation of the curb
inlet, it should be filtered with a combination of concrete blocks, 1 /2 inch wire
' screen, and 3/4 inch course gravel.
' Based on field observation of the existing offsite drainage swales, these
elements will have to be lined with an erosion control fabric as called out on
the Utility Plan. The sediment movement stemming from the bare soil
' exposure of these swales was observed and detrermined to be severe
enough to warrant some minor filling of the flowline and the installation of
fabric to prevent future silt -saturated runoff.
' A copy of the Erosion Control Security Deposit Obligation letter is included
in the appendix of this report.
VII. 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.
1
5
IB. Drainage Concept
The proposed drainage concepts presented in this study and shown on the
final utility plans adequately provide for the conveyance of developed runoff
from The Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. The concepts shown here will also
allow for the development to occur and be in compliance with the Fossil
Creek Basin Master Plan, and the Mail Creek Basin Master Plan. This site
will also be in compliance with the Overall Drainage plan for the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm.
1 C. Storm Water Qualm
Because Storm Water Quality has become a requirement, this site will need
to address the storm water quality aspect. The open landscaped channels
within this project and the existence of a siltation berm along the north side
of Mail Creek Ditch will help control the water quality of the developed runoff.
D. Erosion Control Concept
Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for
Construction sites, this project has met the recommended performance
standard calculated. All measures taken to control erosion should be
maintained as design until final landscaping has taken hold.
n
11
REFERENCES
1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, May 1994, revised March 1991.
2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, January 1991.
3. McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan, by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc. 1986.
4. Overall Drainage Study for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm and Preliminary Drainage
Study for the Upper Meadow at Miramont First Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by
RBD, Inc., May 4, 1992.
5. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Miramont 3rd Phase P.U.D.,
by RBD, Inc., February 4, 1994.
6. Fossil Creek Drainage Basin Master Drainageway Planning Study, by Simons, Li
& Associates, August 1982
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
J
I
I
F.
I
I
mto] IO kwakyi►r\�
I
11
I
E
I
I
NORSETOOM ROAD
v
a
WARREN LAKE
mWTMAN
NARUONY ROAD
O
�p OANTDGE DIOW
N
O{
PROJECT
SITE
!'OS$ SOVOOODOC
�CCK CNCCNS
R09MCR RCS
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1 "=2000'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SITE HYDROLOGY
I
i
O
i
7
uCV
r-
a.
O
�
U
L
O
Z (0
c
c (cp
E
aJ
N U
O
O
cn
C (n
N
N
aco s
cu
'
E
-0c
w
c
R' E o
a) N
co
75
o
U
U
cm
'�
L
Q'
c
..
O
to
>
m
Z
0)
w
U C.)O
cS
W W
�z
cn
0 0
cn
�
a 0 a
�
NN001�LOVLOM
N
It
v
M
LO
M
w
N
N
co
O-_
00000000
0
o U
U
cn
COMI-N00000
LO
7
a) O
Lo(0I
q00000
O
f-
f-
00
to
to
O
O
OA
Z
a) N
O_ (..
..
(,4
U?
Z
vcM00Lf)0
00
O)
U O
NNE-
-
O;'
(D
CL -
0
0
1�
V
(O
N
O
O
0
O_
M
7LOIT
Vd
00
�
E d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
N
00000000
0
IT
V
00NM
fl-
N
MOOWN(O
M
Q
N
N
N
N
N
7
N
N
N
N
=
'� U
00000000
0
O
CL
3
000)o
mmm
O
O)
O
00000000
0
ZU
a) =
O_
E
�NMLO0r-N
V
rn
00
,c
om
LU
07
I
1
1
1
Y.
U
'
O
Z
:
O
L
(a
6
�_
cn
O
(�0
�
fl_
U
O
O
O
Q
E
m
c
o
E
o
1
O
c`u
V
o
N
c
0
U
CD
C
L
°'
c
O
w
U
Z
U
o
c
W
OUZO
H
W
ry
rLUd
(.0
rn
c
(o
U �
W N
n O
N
�
N
i
C
N
�
C
m
N
O
O
D
Z
C
C
O
C
M
U)
0
Q
0
0
C
M
m
-
(a
O
N
0-
a
in
D
C
)
C
d
E
N
O
C
N
(U0
E
>
>
u
O
U)
O
a)
O
C)
N
U
mm
EOcl)
O
.
O
V'
�:
L
ti
U7
(o
O
O
Otico(nE
(`a O
Q)
>%
6
0
c0
CO
co
CM
E
(D
O
(%-J
LO
O
O
N
Cl)
N
LL
L O
(D
LL
d
U)
>1
N
N
t7
CO
O
� C
�
N O
m d
I
1
1
1
1
_r.,
0
O
e-
N
II
U
LL
co
0
LL
Q
�
N
Q
Z
a) CO
o
rn
�a
~
T r
q
N O
Z
W
0
OU
LL
0
w
U)
H
ca
C.
m
w
t W
�a
m
0
W
H
�g
wU
0
Q
a U
S
o
v
U)
a
Y
LL LL
d
A o
cn
o 8
LL..
W
ary yp yq m pq j a
C C C C G Q q
3 Y Il 4 4 E c
LL K K K K J.
CO O ODr It ON
Q C
O N N N O O
z� E�
LL �-
U0
LU
O r
N N G N N y N
U
O r cq Ln LnM M
C
r CO O Cl) r r LD
�•EO
Q I N N N I, O N
M N N N N L n N
a)
m
W
_j
2j
H
J
W
O L n O o o NM
O M o 0 0 L o
LU
>
0^
0 o O
�rLnNNLO�
J �
=
Oo00000
F-
N't w Itwv
Z �^+
N M V N M M
r
Z
W
J
aO q N (D OM 0)
^
C
MMtAM W rtn
r r r
W
A 'E co
v
ZW
o 0 0 0 0 0 0
g
0 a
MM Ln LA M N N
x
J
W
N
0 0 0 0 0 Ln O
H=
Oa w N st Mw
_
d
r N N M r
p
Z
Z
J
N r M1Ln WLO V
a aNNLOM Ln
U L)
6666666
It-itN m w w N
N 0 W V Me
'1
� c
r 4 m N O O r
O
r
Z
Q
..
C7
N
�
•-NMOLn
W
K
E
w
r
9
W
Y
j
E
m
W
�
W
Y
rc m
Y
u
2
�
�+
¢
Z
Y
Y
y
a
Q
n
a�
rc
U
C%
pas
y
98
�
ypy5{
pep
a
a
I�
q
T
q
q
�ry
ri
ro
WO
Z
m
r
n
�
WLiv
n
a❑
� O
Y
OI
OI
OI OI MI
1C
M
�v
N m
O'
Z
wS2 q
IV OIV
n
O
\gym
YI
f W t
N❑
� m
q
n
44Q
V V
N
N
a
?
w_
❑ X q
� �
N
N
N
(-
O O
O
b b
r�L
YI
CI
OO
OO
� OO OO
w
NU O D
J
pJ of CJ
GJ
CJ
GJ
pJ pJ CJ GJ
G
yJy��
C
1Qp
N UfO
OON
O
6
O
O
O
O
ViN 00
ONOr
O,
O
Ow, ..
OX�
J
N
-1 ILL6
N OO IV
tl1
Y
b
q
OO
CI \
m
q
O
V
n
0 Z L
q LL
N
Z
S t
O�v
tt
ULL
IV OIV
0
11
o
O
q
�O�m
7
m
q
O
m
q
N
�-
,o.
ZL
6D—
Onn
O
YI
A
0
�p
nut
y
ry
�.-.O
IV OO IV
CI
O
�YOOm
IV
'
OO
V�q
q
q
Cl
O
F
!O
b$b
NNN
O
ry
VI
ry
N
NgWT
rv�rvM
b
T
O
bP2
m
A
Yf
N
FGq
Z_
R99
8
e
'd
99F�
A
S
000
F
M
S
000
0
0
0
0000
0
0
0
0
m
o
o
0
U m
10 m m
<
m
q
O O m
r
m
O N O
n
m
YI
N
4m4
L V r
w
n
d
a €`q
a—
w
it
m
r
ry
YC b
N v
LL
mNb
m
Q!
f
�f�m
m
N
ON,O
O
m
m
O
0
p
o
a
Z
W
J
A
N
It
V
Z
N
O V Y
Y
_
Y
22 Y
2
Y
n
Y O
q
N❑
�
N
r
O
m
❑
I
N
ti
U)
Q.'
O
W
O
Q
Z
H
ti
m
w
Ln
N
a --
II
U
m
n
O
a� CO
Z
o a
q C:)o
Z
W
U
W
O U)¢p
W
O
W
2_ y�
F- N
a
m
L W
F- a
m
0
W
F-
�3
W D
U
wQ
aU
v
0
0
Lo
/y
LL
LL LL j�
d N Y C dl
C
W
N g q q
qA
C C C C C Q
a s s" s s E 6
K LC LL' LC tt J K
Ln�LomNOO
C�
CN O
rNr r
Z +U'
E
L
UZ
W O
O r
h N N N N N N
U
��gggggd
ODU
X�
o r Lo Ln LnM M
.-.
O
r (o 00 V) 0
� E
O N N N h O N
cINNNLV 6CN
y
O
OJ
W
LU
~
W
d
OLn OOOI� CV)J
O L' � 0 0 0 C O M
VnN
O o O
r L0 W r
co
=
00000a0
N tp ratNM W
Z
W
J
LO W a wO 0
C
r r r
W
p co
v
Z000aoao
W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
goo
a-^
Ln
MM Ln Lo M N N
J
W
fn
=
0000000
11
F-
O a 0 0 N v M L n
_
Z
N N M r
Z
W
J
N.-I�Ln W0 a
lq�aNN Ln O Ln
U M
o 0 0 0 o o o
V V N M W W N
Q
N W W V M V C
C O
Q vN
r
0
Z
Q
U
U r
0o
Z)p
v
ON
fA
r N M O o Lo 1,
I
1
1
1
0
1
H
1
a
a
O
2
W
O
W
a
W
F
b
s
O
' N
1
d
a
�
�
m
L
9
W
9
12
v
o
o
g
ii
i
e
�iaa�
r
S
sw
g
C�C
U ry
b
YI
P
T
W
2
U ^
r
c
W b t N
a o "
a
Z
OWCR
'f+ln
N
P
m
'nnn
ry
m
ZV
^I�b
N
O
b
Ymbl�
^
Yf
WO^
m�01
^
YI
�
YI'YI^
r
p1
b �
•-
N
OI
V v
W
W y
b
^
Y
N
a
w
?
0 y b
L
b
W
mm
A
0
p
R000
33
mat^
� a
UQUQU
(9 O9
JJJ
J
J
J
JJJJ
a
NN$
S
S
S
S 888
S
yJy��yJy��
VI YI
O
1bD
DY
OOYI
N
<
Y
ONOO
O
IO
IU
LL
LL
F
^INN
N
^
O
b
Ymbl�
^
P
P
NPOI
fl
m
A
N
Z '
Q �
K
w LL
N
zL�
s
o�
rc
FLL
^f�m
N
O
b
Ymbl�
�-
P
P
NPP
fl
m
h
�-
OW^
smcl
n
Q
WHO
NON
IV
^
Y
�OOO OI
IV
OO
r�Yl
IG
OI
h
O
v
^
O)pP
Pmm
P
1�
YI
bbmN
YI
Yf
b
bl`YI
b
Y
Y
OI
W �
f
Z_
p IOVN
N
C
p
N
O
O
NYINO
C
N
S
m
G
Y�t
O
N
A
OI
U m
O OO
OO
OO
OO
OO OO OO
OO
OO
OO OO OO
OO
OO
OO
OO
^cl
-n
^
O1`N^
P
N
m
PmP
^
A
O
_
•I Ian
m
��Ab
:2
rym
W 2
N
c
a ..
WF
r
F _
W
m
^
A
VI
N
^
^
VI
W � b
LL b
a�.
P
OON^
P^
N
PmP
P
b
b
O
0
o
Y
Z5^
<
^
W
Z
N
M
^ Y
a
e o
u
O
O
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RUNOFF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5C
3C
1—. 2 0
rm�r��
�.
Sim
MIN
i�EllMIN
l�
WA—
�No��/�
v
��y
I
WOMEN
1. .2 .3 5 1 I.8 / 2 3 5 10 20
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
FIGURE 3-2.- ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR
USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA.
f!dOST FREQUENTLY OCCUR RING "UN DEVELQPED"
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 & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DRCOG
Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities
--ior and Minor Storms
City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design criteria
RESIDENTIAL u/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc.
0 is for one side of the road only Novw6er 23, 1993
'V is based on theoretical capacities
Area = 3.37 sq.ft. Area = 18.495 sq.ft.
Minor Storm Major Storm
Slope Red. . Minor . 0 V Major . 0 V
(X) :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) X : (cfs) (fps) .
'0.40 : 0.50 : 129.87 : 4.11 2.31 : 647.33 : 20.47 1.41 :
0.50 : 0.65 : 129.87 : 5.97 2.59 : 647.33 : 29.75 1.58 :
0.60 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 8.05 2.83 : 647.33 : 40.11 1.73 : .
0.70 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 8.69 3.06 : 647.33 : 43.33 1.87 :
0.80 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 9.29 3.27 : 647.33 : 46.32 2.00 :
0.90 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 9.86 3.47 : 6,47.33 : 49.13 2.12 :
1.00 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 10.39 3.66 : 647.33 : 51.79 2.24 :
1.25 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 11.62 4.09 : 647.33 : 57.90 2.50 :
1.50 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 12.72 4.48 : 647.33 : 63.43 2.74 :
1.75 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 13.74 4.64 : 647.33 : 68.51 2.96 :
2.00 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 14.69 5.17 : 647.33 : 73.24 r. 3.16 :
2.25 : 0.78 : 129.87 : 15.19 5.49 : 647.33 : 75.74 : 3.35 :
2.50 : 0.76 : 129.87 : 15.61 5.78 : 647.33 : 77.79 : 3.53 :
2.75 : 0.74 : 129.87 : 15.94 : 6.07 : 647.33 : 79.44 : 3.71 :
3.00 : 0.72 : 129.87 : 16.20 : 6.34 : 647.33 : 80.73 : 3.87 :
i.25 : 0.69 : 129.87 : 16.15 : 6.60 : 647.33 : 80.52 : 4.03 :
3.50 : 0.66 : 129.87 : 16.04 : 6.84 : 647.33 : 79.93 4.18 :
3.75 : 0.63 : 129.87 : 15.84 : 7.08 : 647.33 : 78.97 4.33 :
4.00 0.60 : 129.87 : 15.58 : 7.32 : 647.33 : 77.68 4.47 :
4.25 0.58 : 129.87 : 15.53 : 7.54 : 647.33 : 77.40 4.61 :
4,50 0.54 129.87 : 14.88 : 7.76 : 647.33 : 74.15 4.74
4.75 0.52 : 129.87 r 14.72 : 7.97 : 647.33 : 73.36 4.87 :
5.00 0.49 : 129.87 : 14.23 : 8.18 : 647.33 : 70.93 5.00 :
5.25 : 0.46 : 129.87 : 13.69 : 8.38 : 6,47.33 : 68.23 5.12 :
5.50 : 0.44 : 129.87 : 13.40 : 8.58 : 647.33 : 66.80 5.24 :
5.75 : 0.42 : 129.87 : .13.08 8.77 647.33 : 65.19 5.36 :
6.00 : 0.40 : 129.87 : 12.72 8.96 647.33 : 63.43 5.48 :
I
OE-ZWIM
CLIENT (�!J TY OE 1 %1G JOB NO.
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR e'-q n"T'•�t> F=t �ti /
MADE BY-E(, DATE Z92 CNECKEDBY_DATE SHEET_OF _Z_
... al 6n v�eTcoL G'��e�
�Og�•-E 'STP�ET CdPGG1Tl E5� �
PEi= SE�f1oNJ ' 4.2.Z.2. CITY or- ozr C-C, I Qs ZcaG4 -iJ r P, T-a?
... Q o I�z. aka
V J11[=P� Q Iii1 EOeE=TICdL fal�iTi�Z CppCLITY
1 �. Fiow �.1=�
t7 �. 20L>C-4+QaGS C�1=FPIGE.IJr C USE o.ol.b�
I
I
! 0.1-7
I
n)C4
I i
iz.00\�o,s 8�3�
. 1 l
�.olb t3
6
I
ID.C�Ib
j !
I
' I
' I i
I .
' ItJC
Engineering Consultants
i
I
CLIENT OT_- rq>Q-��I + !�.+S JOB NO.
PROJECT ''`` ^^'' CALCULATIONS
MADEBY Sac. DATE J_I�_t_,_ CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET-OF
r—
1 ......
o
0
- - -- i -
z�
�Ll n1Jo z ST.->PJ,'\ 17 C-_-PT-44 C>
I
UDSEWER MODELING OF STORM SEWER
' MODELING OF INLETS AND SWALES
I
I
I
I
I
1 15
I
Node
1
Description
Flared End Section, discharging to Water Quality Pond
2
Manhole, Rim = 4916.21
3
15' Type 'R' Curb Inlet, Flowline = 4916.73
4
15' Type 'R' Curb Inlet, Flowline = 4917.04
11
Type 'R' Curb Inlet, Flowline = 4919.85
12
Type'R' Curb Inlet, Flowline = 4927.58
13
Type 'R' Curb Inlet, Flowline = 4927.30
14
Type 'R' Curb Inlet, Flowline = 4934.00
■
15
Type 'R' Curb Inlet, Flowline = 4933.75
'R' Flowline = 4933.75 (Dummy Node)
16
Type Curb Inlet,
17
Manhole, Rim = 4934.09
i
1
I
- _ - - _
Sewer' Description
180' 48" RCP @ 0.50% (Upstream Crown = 4915.13)
12
23
of
79' of 48" RCP @ 0.50% (Upstream Crown = 4915.73)
34
41' of 48" RCP @ 0.50% (Upstream Crown = 4916.13)
411
169' of 30" RCP @ 1.45% (Upstream Crown = 4919.39)
1112
161' of 24" NRCP @ 3.50% (Upstream Crown = 4925.22)
1213
33' of 24" NRCP @ 3.50% (Upstream Crown = 4926.57)
1314
104' of 24" NRCP @ 4.50% (Upstream Crown = 4931.45)
1415
33' of 15" NRCP @ 2.65% (Upstream Crown = 4932.52)
1516
0.1' of 15" NRCP @ 2.65% (Upstream Crown = 4932.52)
I
i
i,
I
�p1.,+ �C
i.1t4-r�ti1rJll-T PUD.
Model 1 consists of Node 1 to Node 19
Model 2 consists of Node 19 to Node 22
Model 3 consists of Node 20 to Node 23
tvIodel 4 consists of Node 23 to Node 25
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
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 .............................................
ON DATA 07-12-1996 AT TIME 10:40:01
*** PROJECT TITLE :
MODEL 1 OF THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT
*** 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
-------------------------------------------- --
18.00 19.30 4936.48 4934.06 OK
19.00 19.30 4944.28 4936.78 OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER MANHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH) WIDTH
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT) (FT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1819.00 19.00
18.00
ROUND 23.25
24.00
24.00 0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION 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
--------------------------------------- ---- -- ---------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1819.0 19.3 21.1 1.51 7.60 1.58 7.26 6.14 1.10 V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
--------- ---------- ---------- --------------------
1819.00 1.00 4935.20 4932.52 7.08 1.96 NO
' OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET
'
*** SUMMARY
OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
ID NUMBER
SEWER SURCHARGED
LENGTH LENGTH
CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEET FEET
FEET FEET FEET FEET
1819.00
268.00 0.00
4937.20 4934.52 4936.78 4934.06 JUMP
'
PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
' *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
UPST MANHOLE SEWER
JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND
BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF
LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
1819.0 19.00 4937.36 3.22 0.15
0.09 0.00 0.00 18.00 4934.06
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD
IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT
LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
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.
L
1
1
d
I
1
1
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 .............................................
ON DATA 07-12-1996 AT TIME 10:28:44
*** PROJECT TITLE :
MODEL 2 OF THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT
*** 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.00 19.30 4944.28 4938.78 OK
20.00 19.30 4954.00 4943.94 OK
21.00 16.90 4949.37 4948.78 OK
22.00 16.90 4949.37 4949.14 OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
MAMHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM 'DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
WIDTH
ID NO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
1920.00
20.00
19.00
ROUND
17.93
18.00
18.00
0.00
2021.00
21.00
20.00
ROUND
18.58
21.00
18.00
0.00
2122.00
22.00
21.00
ROUND
18.58
21.00
18.00
0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT
ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
------------------------------------------------ --
1
' 1920.0 19.3 19.6 1.21 12.62 1.44 11.07 10.92 1.95 V-OK
2021.0 16.9 15.6 1.50 9.56 1.41 11.18 9.56 0.00 V-OK
2122.0 16.9 15.6 1.50 9.56 1.41 9.79 9.56 0.00 V-OK
' FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
SLOPE
INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED
DEPTH
COMMENTS
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
%
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
1920.00
4.00
4942.50
4937.74
10.00
5.04
OK
2021.00
2.54
4945.86
4942.71
2.01
9.79
OK
2122.00
2.54
4945.86
4945.86
2.01
2.01
OK
'
OK MEANS BURIED
DEPTH
IS GREATER
THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF
1 FEET
1
H
1
1
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1920.00 119.00 0.00 4944.00 4939.24 4943.94 4938.78 JUMP
2021.00 124.00 124.00 4947.36 4944.21 4948.78 4943.94 PRSS'ED
2122.00 0.10 0.10 4947.36 4947.36 4949.14 4948.78 PRSS'ED
PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1920.0 20.00 4945.79 5.16 1.00 1.85 0.00 0.00 19.00 4938.78
2021.0 21.00 4950.20 3.70 0.50 0.71 0.00 0.00 20.00 4945.79
2122.0 22.00 4950.56 0.00 0.25 0.36 0.00 0.00 21.00 4950.20
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
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.
I
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 .............................................
ON DATA 04-30-1996 AT TIME 14:50:24
*** PROJECT TITLE :
MODEL 3 OF THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT
I*** 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
-------------------------------------------------
20.00
2.90
4954.00
4950.52 OK
23.00
2.90
4969.50
4965.69 OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
I*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1
SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH
ID NO. ID NO.
(IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT)
2023.00 23.00 20.00
ROUND
7.31 15.00 15.00 0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH
SEWER
ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION 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
----------l--------------------------------1--I------I--1------------------------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL
NORAML
CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT
ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
CFS CFS FEET
FPS
FEET FPS FPS
-NUMBER-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2023.0 2.9 19.8 0.32
11.51
0.69 4.20 2.36 4.23 V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A
PRESSURED
FLOW OCCURS
I
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
% (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT)
----
2023.00 5.52 4965.00 4949.99 3.25 2.76 OK
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
----------------------------------------------------------
2023.00 272.00 0.00 4966.25 4951.24 4965.69 4950.52 JUMP
PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023.0 23.00 4965.77 15.23 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 20.00 4950.52
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS 1T 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.
i
11
---=--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 .............................................
ON DATA 04-30-1996 AT TIME 14:31:00
*** PROJECT TITLE :
MODEL 4 OF THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT
*** 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
------------------------------------------------
23.00
CFS
2.90
FEET
4969.50
FEET
4967.52
OK
24.00
2.90
4987.00
4976.19
OK
25.00
2.90
4987.00
4976.21
OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
WIDTH
1D NO. ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
2324.00 24.00 23.00 ROUND
8.36 15.00
15.00 0.00
2425.00 25.00 24.00 ROUND
8.36 15.00
15.00 0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION 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
u
0
--- ---- ------
------
------ ------ ---- ------
------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL
NORAML
CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE
COMMENT
ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2324.0
CFS CFS FEET
2.9 13.8 0.39
FPS
8.92
FEET FPS FPS
0.69 4.20 2.36 2.96
V-OK
2425.0
2.9 13.8 0.39
8.92
0.69 4.20 2.36 2.96
V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A
PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
1D NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Y. (FT)
(FT)
(FT) (FT)
2324.00
2.70 4975.50
4967.00
10.25 1.25 NO
2425.00
2.70 4975.50
4975.50
10.25 10.25 OK
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER
THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET
*** SUMMARY
OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
SEWER SURCHARGED
CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION
FLOW
ID NUMBER
LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET
----------------------------------------------------------
FEET
FEET FEET FEET
2324.00
315.00 0.00
4976.75
4968.25 4976.19 4967.52
JUMP
2425.00
.0.10 0.00
4976.75
4976.75 4976.21 4976.19
JUMP
PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL
FLOW
I*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER
JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST
MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND
BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE
ENERGY
ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF
LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID
FT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2324.0 24.00 4976.27 8.73 0.25
0.02 0.00 0.00 23.00
4967.52
2425.0 25.00 4976.30 0.00 0.25
0.02 0.00 0.00 24.00
4976.27
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD
IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAO-JCT
LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
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
O CHART 4
3
2
1.54
I
0
■FFI% ■■■■■ .. - .
s ' ■■■■■■■■
0
v
6r
S
F
W
W
u 4
9
a 3
W
0
J
a
u 2
v vio%,nAmu c-w-%Ir�
q6
B
7
F-
W
6 W
,U
O
x
S a'
a
W
O
J
a
f 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Boo 900 10009
OISCHARGE-0 -CFS �-
u �
14
4�
0
1000
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS
JAN. 1964
z000
DISCHARGE-0-CFS
184
CANNOT EXCEED TOP OF
3000
4000
CRITICAL DEPTH
CIRCULAR PIPE
n
ORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL. CRITERIA! TABLE 803
MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES
f ==R=
�/ PL A H
o,
A
1E EQUATION 001
K 3
k= u,es
. SECTION
IwiC r^ i., 'IN
of 1.111.
CASE I
INLET oN MAIN LINE or—
/ - "OfIfi(ta- rn Mi.i1,L na
. 4D
PtAq .
f EQUATION805
;ECTIOh'
-
uAHH A F ON PAIN LINF
wmi G' BRAK��
USE EQUATION 005
� . 43 Z
VI
sCCT10N
CASE II
INLET ON LIMN LINE
VIT9 BRANCH LATERAL '
III III _-�-- : - -_-- °�•�
c, • PLAN
USE EQUATION 001.
k-1. zY
SCCTIG-J t�S C: Z. M LAIs
CA5
INLET OR MANHOLE AT
BEGINNING OF LINE
CASE III
CASE 90. K.
gu
�Kqs
Z1
I 0.05
22-11/Z
li 0.25
.45
0.50
IY 1.25
60
0.35
90
0.25
No LateralSce Cosa I
NOV 1984. REFERENCE.
AP4`1A Speclel Report No. 48, 1981
DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA
TABLE 802C I
JDRM SEWER ENERGY LOSS COEFFrrrr���,-
(BENDS AT MANHOLES)
t,t
,• 3
I
rz•r
I
t.z
I
1.11
/F!
I
I
1.0
0: lc
0.1d
I
.0.
13cnd114 h0I I
„ 7�_
noSpoclot shiping I '
c0•(b
7 dtY
Delloclor
curvee I
BcndeIMinh010. I
cursed o� Delleetorl
Monhole I
d'f L
I
0.2
v.l a
I 1 I
j f
0.0
1 1
0f
200 t0'
. 6D' 6D' DD' 100'
Dellecll,nAn"I Y,Dep�ete
NOTE: Heod
loss opplied of oullel of monhae,
#79TCRFERENCE:
— _
-- Modern Sewer Design, AISI, 14'oshinglon D.C., 1980.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
EXISTING SNALE
SECTION B4 ENTERING MAIL CREEK OUTFALLING FROM BELVEDERE PLACE
STA ELEV
0.00
20.00
20.00
15.00
21.00
15.00
41.00
20.00
'N' VALUE
SLOPE
(ft/ft)
0.060
0.0500
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(feet)
---------
(sq ft)
-------
(fps)
--------
(cfs)
---------
NO.
------
15.50
1.5
2.5
3.68
0.79
16.00
5.0
3.7
18.44
0.87
35.9 cfs = Qioo AT 1.27' DEEP
16.50
10.5
4.7
49.64
0.93
(FROM HYDROLOGY SECTION, 100-yr)
17.00
18.0
5.7
101.87
0.97
SUPERCRITICAL FLOW REQUIRES EROSION
17.50
27.5
6.5
179.26
1.00
CONTROL FABRIC)
18.00
39.0
7.3
285.62
1.03
18.50
52.5
8.1
424.50
1.06
19.00
68.0
8.8
599.30
1.08
19.50
85.5
9.5
813.24
1.10
20.00
105.0
10.2
1069.43
1.12
*****************************************
***** CHANNEL LINING ANALYSIS *****
***** North American Green *****
*****************************************
DESIGNER: PEC
PROJECT: RAMPARTS SECTION B4
STATION: TOP
DRAINAGE AREA: 9.2 Acres
CHANNEL DESCRIPTION:
Bottom Width: 1.00 ft
Left Side Slope: 4.0
Right Side Slope: 4.0
Min. Lining Permissible Discharge
Recommended Shear (lb/sf) (cfs)
---------------------------------
C125/D 2.25 32.7
Normal
Depth (ft)
0.68
Area
Velocity
(sf)
(ft/sec)
2.59
12.61
DATE: 04-05-1996
PROJECT NO.: 504-014
TO STATION: BOTTOM
DESIGN FREQUENCY: 1 Years
CHANNEL SLOPE: 0.050 ft/ft
Hydraulic
Radius (ft)
0.38
Calculated
Shear (lb/sf)
-------------
2.15
Manning
Coefficient
0.014
Remarks
------------
Stable
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
EXISTING SWALE
SECTION D4 ENTERING MAIL CREEK OUTFALLING FROM 24" STORM SEWER
STA ELEV
0.00
20.00
20.00
15.00
21.00
15.00
41.00
20.00
'N' VALUE
----------
SLOPE
-------------
(ft/ft)
0.060
0.0250
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(feet)
---------
(sq ft)
------
(fps)
--
(cfs)
---------
NO.
------
15.50
1.5
1.7
2.60
0.56
16.00
5.0
2.6
13.04
0.62
16.50
10.5
3.3
35.10
0.66 48.8
cfs = 0,00 AT 1.87' DEEP
17.00
18.0
4.0
72.04
0.69
(FROM Q = (0.35)(1.25)(4.42
in/hr)(31-55 ac)*
17.50
27.5
4.6
126.76
0.71 SUPERCRITICAL FLOW REQUIRES
18.00
39.0
5.2
201.96
0.73
EROSION CONTROL FABRIC
18.50
52.5
5.7
300.17
0.75
19.00
68.0
6.2
423.77
0.77
19.50
85.5
6.7
575.05
0.78
20.00
105.0
7.2
756.20
0.79
* SINCE
NOT ALL OF BASIN 04
DRAINS INTO
THIS SWALE, A
CONSERVATIVE
AMOUNT OF 60% OF IT WAS ASSUMED.
31.55
ACRES = (0.60)(16.51
AC) + BASINS 2,3,7 AND OFFSITE
*****************************************
***** CHANNEL LINING ANALYSIS *****
***** North American Green *****
*****************************************
DESIGNER: PEC
PROJECT: RAMPARTS SECTION D4
STATION: TOP
DRAINAGE AREA: 31.5 Acres
CHANNEL DESCRIPTION:
Bottom Width: 1.00 ft
Left Side Slope: 4.0
Right Side Slope: 4.0
Min. Lining Permissible Discharge
Recommended Shear (lb/sf) (cfs)
---------------------------------
C125/C 2.15 48.8
Normal
Depth (ft)
0.94
Area
(sf)
4.53
Velocity
(ft/sec)
10.77
DATE: 04-05-1996
PROJECT NO.: 504-014
TO STATION: BOTTOM
DESIGN FREQUENCY: 1 Years
CHANNEL SLOPE: 0.025 ft/ft
Hydraulic
Radius (ft)
0.51
Calculated
Shear (lb/sf)
-------------
1.47
Manning
Coefficient
0.014
Remarks
------------
Stable
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
OVERFLOW SNALE
STA
ELEV
0.00
20.00
20.00
15.00
40.00
20.00
'N' VALUE
----------
SLOPE
-------------
(%)
0.060
25% = 4:1
SLOPE
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(feet)
---------
(sq ft)
-------
(fps)
--------
(cfs)
--------
NO.
------
15.50
1.0
4.8
4.83
1.70
16.00
4.0
7.7
30.68
1.91
16.50
9.0
10.0
90.42
2.04
17.00
16.0
12.2
194.70
2.14
17.50
25.0
14.1
352.96
2.23
18.00
36.0
15.9
573.87
2.29
18.50
49.0
17.7
865.56
2.35
19.00
64.0
19.3
1235.67
2.41
19.50
81.0
20.9
1691.52
2.45
20.00
100.0
22.4
2240.09
2.50
16.9 cfs = Q... AT 0.97' DEEP
SIDES WILL BE SODDED
No Text
'------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
' DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO..............................
ON DATE 07-12-1996 AT TIME 11:09:00
t** PROJECT TITLE: PINNACLE PLACE
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: 2
INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
'
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
10.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)=
6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)=
45.00
'
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)=
2.00
SUMP DEPTH (ft)=
0.15
'
Note: The sump depth is additional
depth to flow
depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
'
STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) =
0.60
STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) =
2.00
STREET MANNING N =
0.016
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)=
1.50
'
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) =
1.50
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) =
22.56
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) =
0.58
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)=
3.28
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)=
5.21
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)=
50.00
'
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)=
10.00
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)=
19.93
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
16.90
FLOW INTERCEPTED
(cfs)=
16.90
CARRY-OVER
FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
'
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW
(cfs)=
16.90
FLOW INTERCEPTED
(cfs)=
16.90
CARRY-OVER
FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
I
1
I
I
IEROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS
I
I
I
u
I
I
i
r_
1 30
I
1'
0
11
1
1
July 12, 1996
1
Mr. Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services Stormwater
235 Matthews
1
Fort Collins, CO 80522
1 RE:: The Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. Erosion Control Cost Estimate
Dear Basil:
1 This portion of the report is to satisfy the City of Fort Collins requirements for an erosion
control security deposit for the Ramparts at Miramont P.U.D. The City of Fort Collins
1 Current Cost Factors will be used in this estimate.
1 There will be approximately 9.33 acres disturbed within this project. Using the city
revegetation criteria of $650.00 per acre for sites less than 10 acres, and a 150%
contingency, the total obligation of the contractor for a security deposit would be:
1 (9.33) x ($650.00 per acre) x (150% contingency) _ $9,096.75
1 A cost breakdown of the erosion control measures that will need to be installed is listed
below:
1
1
1
1
Curb Inlet Filters (1 @ $150 apiece) _ $150.00
Erosion Control Fabric (1800 ft-length/9 ft-width TOTAL)
NAG fabric ($2.00/SY) _ $3600.00
Temporary Vegetation/Mulch (6.50 ac. @ $500 per acre) _ $3250.00
TOTAL x 150% CONTINGENCY = $10500.00
31
I
I
1
' Therefore, the larger amount, or the amount of security deposit obligation should be in the
amount of $10500.00.
Please call with any questions regarding this estimate.
Respectfully,
1"L
D Inc., Engineers g Consultants
Project Engineer
32
' This page outlines the rainfall performance standard evaluation. PEC
12-Apr-96
' Project: The Ramparts at Miramont STANDARD FORM A
For:
Miramont Associates - Gary Nordick
Project No:
504-014
DURING CONSTRUCTION:
DEVELOPED
ERODIBILITY
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Lb
SUBBASIN
ZONE
ac
feet
%
feet
'
1
MODERATE
0.75
280
3.0
2-ONSITE
MODERATE
3.33
880
1.4
'
3
4
MODERATE
MODERATE
3.11
0.08
1140
100
3.0
3.0
5
MODERATE
0.46
280
3.0
6
MODERATE
0.46
400
6.7
'
7
MODERATE
1.14
960
1.3
9.33
'
NET
868.27
Basin 8, being an
offsite basin, is not included in the Performance
Standard calculations.
'
AFTER CONSTRUCTION:
value is the "during
construction" value divided by 0.85
'This
It's value is :
95.88%
1
M
2.39 81.50
This page calculates the effectiveness of the erosion control plan. PEC
20-Nov-95
' Project: The Ramparts at Miramont STANDARD FORM B
For: Miramont Associates - Gary Nordick
Project No: 504-014
' EROSION C-Factor P-Factor Comments
CONTROL Value Value
METHOD
Gravel Inlet Filters/Straw Bales
1.00
0.80
1 Inlet, 2 Bales
Temporary Vegetation
0.45
1.00
Graded Areas
Hay or Straw Mulch
0.06
1.00
Graded Areas
Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
0.01
1.00
Rampart Place, Belvedere Place
Sod Installation
0.01
1.00
Rampart Place, Belvedere Place
'
Gravel Mulch
0.05
1.00
Rampart Place, Belvedere Place
MAJOR
PS
SUB-
AREA
BASIN
%
BASIN
ac
DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION
1
0.75
Fossil Creek
81.50%
EFFECTIVE 'C' : 0.03 0.01
Disturbed-
0.75
EFFECTIVE'P': 1.00 1.00
Street-
0.14
EFFECTIVENESS: 97.30% 99.00%
2
3.33
EFFECTIVE 'C' : 0.03 0.01
Disturbed-
3.33
EFFECTIVE'P': 0.80 1.00
Street-
0.43
EFFECTIVENESS: 97.84% 99.00%
3
3.11
EFFECTIVE'C' : 0.03 0.01
Disturbed-
3.11
EFFECTIVE'P': 1.00 1.00
EFFECTIVENESS: 97.30% 99.00%
4
0.08
EFFECTIVE 'C' : 0.03 0.01
Disturbed-
0.08
EFFECTIVE'P': 1.00 1.00 .
EFFECTIVENESS: 97.30% 99.00%
5
0.46
EFFECTIVE'C' : 0.03 0.01
Disturbed-
0.46
EFFECTIVE'P': 1.00 1.00
Street-
0.14
EFFECTIVENESS: 96.60% 99.00%
6
0.46
EFFECTIVE'C' : 0.01 0.01
Disturbed-
0
EFFECTIVE'P': 0.00 1.00
EFFECTIVENESS: 100.00% 99.00%
7
1.14
EFFECTIVE 'C' : 0.04 0.01
Disturbed-
1,14
EFFECTIVE'P': 1.00 1.00
Street-
0.43
EFFECTIVENESS: 96.43% 99.00%
TOTAL
9.33
97.49% 99.00%
Since 97.49%> 81.5%, proposed plan is OK, during construction.
Since 99.00% > 95.88%, proposed plan is OK, after construction.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
YEAR
1996
I MONTH
J I F I M I A I M I J I J I A I S I 0 I N I D
OVERLOT GRADING
I
A,
WIND EROSION CONTROL
�
I
Soil Roughening
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Compoction/Watering
Other
RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL
STRUCTURAL•
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
1
Straw Barriers
Silt Fence Barriers
Sand Bogs
Bore Soil, Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving
Other
VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Seolont
Temporary Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Mats/Blankets
Other
H
I
11
I
a
0
U
1 �
Ll
W.
'O
k.
I
W
a.
I
I
I
o c�c�000
O C 'C V) V) Lr1
L7 qqq co co
O G)G1G) m 0 0 0 0 0 0
O CCCC V1toM V)M0
v c'o0cococoggqcoco
O qGI G1 G1 Gl G1 Ll G1 Gl G1 G1 Gl OOO
. . . . . . .
O CCCCCCIli, CCCC C LI)L7 V)
M q CJ co co g q q co co q co co q CO co
O C� cO c q Ol G� G1 C1 G1 G1 cl G1 c1 Gl cl Ll G) c1 c1 cl
O C C C C '.Cr C C C C C' C C C C C C C C C �"
N co cococ)ggcoqqCOqq cogcocococo co co
O 0n•C'V)LoQQOhhhhh hhhhhhgcogqqq
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O C C C ltr C C •C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Q. C C C Vr
H q q q q CO co q q q q co CO qqq ggqqqqqqqqq
O coNnC V)In V)1.0 tD .V 1DQ V' hhhhhhhhhhq qq
. .
cl nr1c1avC-IV CCCvC <ll�-CCC C •If--zr � C
co q q CO q co CO co cco g co q q. q co g co co co co co q co co co
O 00N MC V U)4 nV)0000000000hhhhh h
q M C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C •C' C C C �;' •C' C �^ C
co co co co co a CJ co Co g q co a) co q co co co co CO co co co q cJ co
O CMHNnMCCCC V)V) L)V1 In to tit LI) V)0 VQ VO lO V h
.. . ... ... ..
.. .... . . .. ....
h nn•a,-IrvrcC cCCC C aCr<rC�rCc<r rr
q CO q q co q q CO g co q co co q co co q q co CO q CO co q co co
O 0 0 qOH rH NN C)MM n CCCCC'C V C'V)V)V)nQ V
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
� MMMCCd'C C"CCC C rCrrd'C"d'v-"CC V'd C' �+
ggcDqqqqqooqqcoqqqqcOqCJcoqqcoqq q
'o In N In h co m O O ri ri ri N N N N N M M M M M 'C C d' C Q.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...� NnnM MnCCCCC•C'CCV'CCC C•CCC`C'C C`C
p g q q q q 0 co g co q q q q q 0 q q q q q 0 c O q co co
W'
rL4In ricoriM'ClnInlD 0 hhhggqqqq ONmG100000.
al NNnMnnMnMnMMnnMMMnMMM 'q'v<r•IV
U) co Co co co g co co q co Co co g q co co co co cJ co CO qq CO co q CD .
O. wIn q O r•i NMCC V) V)In V V l7 V%D h h hhggqGl C1
N M n n M n n n n M n n M n n n n M n n M n n n
.. co CO q q q q CJ q q q q co co 0 co g co q co q co co g co co co
In r4HU)h0300HNNM In MC'C C "r -,;r InIn0 "o 00t-,
• . . . . . . . • . . i
.h r-( N N N N n r) n ri n M M n n n n M n n n n n n n Mn
CO CO CO CO COggq qqqq g q q co q a).q co Co co co co g q.
0 ..: M N 1D COM M �";r� M 0 ri N N M " C • "r ,' C In In In In to lD %D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1. O ri ri ri ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
co co co g q qqq qqqq co q fD CO g q q q co q co co Coco
V) V)V)c%N MC V) V' hhh q 1 pcl cl cl c1 cl c1 0000
N C%00 ririririT-(HHH rHrHHH Hri.-iHi 4NNNNN N
.. hggqq CO CO CO qqqq q q q q CJ M g M M q q q M CO
O CV)O M m) D 0 m c%o o0 r-i ri ri ri N N N N M M n M Mn
N qG)O ( Oc Oc Oririri 4ri444 4141i1441 4r4
h h co co M q co co co q co co g co co c) q co q co co co co co co co
V) co N g H c" V) h I` q m m O O ri r-4 r{ r-4 r'i N N N n M M n M
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H Uqq G1 cl G1 l cl L1 G\ G1000000000000000
hhhhhhhhhhhq co g co q q q q co CO co co q co
O. o Cj O •C' h m O r4 N n M C' C V) Vi V) V) 10 ,o 0 LO h h tD b lD
q q qqqq g q q q q q cq q q
h h r'Ih h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h
In MoC10h g co h h h o lD Q n CC M M N N In or H G) lD
O ON N;N NNNNNNNN N N N N N N N Nri ri ri ri00
hhr;hhrhhhhhrhrl- hnhhhh
O Ei
Ga.WF.
I � v
MARCH )99)
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
ri N M C V) lD h e 0 O H N n N V h C:) GI O V) O N O N 0
2.4
DESIGN CRITERIA
'
Table 813 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values.
Treatment C-Factor
P-Factor
BARE SOIL
'
Packedand smooth................................................................
1.00
1.00
'
Freshlydisked........................................................................
Rough irregular surface............................................................
SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP.
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.5011'
STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00
SILT FENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00
0.80
0.50
'
ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01
ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 8-A
1.00
1.00
'
SOD GRASS......................................................... I ....................... 0.01
TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.45'='
1.00
1.00
'
HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE........................................... 0.1013'
SOIL SEALANT....................................................................0.01-0.60'"
1.00
1.00
'
EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS............................................ 0.10
1.00
GRAVEL MULCH
'
Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately
1 /4" to 1 1 /2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05
1.00
HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH
After olantino crass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately
tack or crimp material into the soil.
anchor,
'
Sloe %)
1 to 5.....
........................................................................0.06
6 to 10 . .... ..... . 0.06
11 to 15............................................. . 0.07
16 . to 20............................................................................. 0.11
21 to 25............................................................................. 0.1
25 to 33... .0.17
> 33.......................................................................... 0.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation.
(1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading.
(2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required.
(3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated.
(4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation.
�I
' MARCH 1991 8-6
DESIGN CRITERIA
I
'
Table 8-B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from previous page).
Treatment C-Factor
P-Factor
'
CONTOUR FURROWED SURFACE
Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00.
Maximum
length refers to the down slope length.
'
Basin Maximum
Slope Length
M (feet)
1 to 2 400..........................................................................1.00
0.0
'
3 to 5 300. .1.00
0.50
6 to 8 200..........................................................................1.00
0.50
9 to 12 120..........................................................................1.00
0.60
13 to 16 80..........................................................................1.00
0.0
'
17 to 20 60. .1.00
0.80
> 20 50.......................................................................... 1.00
0.90
TERRACING
'
Must contain 10-year runoff volumes, without overflowing, as determined by applicable hydrologic
methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00.
'
Basin
Slope M
1 to 2..................................................................................... 1.00
0.12
3 to 8............................................................1.00
0.12
'
13 to 16..................................................................................... 1.00
0.14
17 to 20.....................................................................................1.00
0.16
> 20..................................................................................... 1.00
0.18
NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation.
0
t
1
' MARCH 1991 8-7 DESIGN CRITERIA
J
1
11
EXCERPTS FROM MAIL CREEK
SWMM MODEL
0
LEG_
53-
SWMM SUB -CATCHMENT
34
-CONVEYANCE ELEMENT
105
` DETENTION ELEMENT
319
-NODE
- POND
5/
1
a
369 95. 2.1 0 42.
367 57. 1.4 0 44.
3
1.
1.8
0
.
320 20
61bi.
,1
3.6
1
1010,
372
66.
.8
0
38.
244
256.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0
40.
37
1.
3.
0
40.
371
16666.
1.9
0
40.
254
72.
1.0
0
36.
19
61.
1.5
1
12.
28
45.
1.7
0
36.
287
113.
2.
0
.
40
40
63.
.88
0
42
42.
362
98.
1.0
0
36.
104
17.
.1
12.1
2
12.
243
289.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0
40.
36
116.
1.1
36.
107
78t-
,1
1.5
1
1
6.
32
165.
1.2
0
38.
29
109.
2.5
0
38.
27
163.
2.9
0
42.
375
43.
3.6
0
52.
374
84.
1.1
0
40.
38
201.
2.6
0
36.
43
31.
.1
19.3
6
40.
321
78.
.1
1.3
0
48.
318
82.
1.7
1
0.
105
20.
.1
7.3
1
38.
30
232.
3.4
0
40.
18
199.:-
3.2
0
42.
300
96.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0
6.
245
298.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0
38.
42
75.
2.6
0
36.
35
249.
1.2
0
36.
319
95.�
(DIRECT
FLOW)
1
34.
17
415.
4.3
0
44.
301
96.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0
6.
103
221.
.1
6.6
0
50.
. ,
102
80.
.1
16.0
1
40.
16
596.
4.1
0
48.
290
69.
5.0
7.0
1
12.
262
36.
3.0
16.3
1
28.
33
170.
.1
12.0
2
20.
'
15
543.
.1
1.9
0
54.
271
186.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0
6.
i
270
69.
4.4
3
0.
j
261
59.
3.5
.8
0
50.
14
3.
0
5 4.
272
224.
224.
7.7
3
0.
0.
13
774.
4.8
0
54.
12
987.
7.0
0
56.
210
1015.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0
54.
+I
101
1009.
.5
4.6
0
56.
211
1056.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0
54.
A
100
1000.
.5
24.1
1
6.
11
1017.
5.4
1
10.
10
1055.
4.9
1
14.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
rj
�I Kic>
ENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED
k \,J 1-rq+Iv,J N` I2A1'v1o1.Si-
��V1=L_o�ME>`1 i �1
27.
21.
0.
16.
42.
49.
4.
2.
.0( )
.4(S)
O(S)
8.7(S)
15.3(S)
20.5(S)
3.7(S)
.4( )
6 32.
374.
370.
358.
202.
166.
27.
28.
1.
0.
21.
3.1( )
3.3( )
4.3( )
1.8( )
1.4( )
O(S)
.9( )
.3( )
.2( )
.9( )
21.
0.
138.
0.
0.
0.
16.
31.
31.
0.
.O( )
.1( )
4.3(S)
.0( )
.1( )
.0( )
.8( )
2.2( )
19.2(S)
.0( )
36.
36.
1.
369.
358.
34.
16.
5.
21.
21.
2.1( )
3.2(0)
.3( )
13.6(S)
3.0(S)
15.3(S)
5.2(S)
5.5(S)
.1(S)
1.3( )
21.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
23.7(S)
.1( )
.0( )
.1( )
.0( )
.2( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.1( )
0.
0.
D.
0.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.1( )
.0( )
1( )
.2( )
.2( )
.3( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
156.
64.
64.
0.
353.
42.
357.
21.
0( )
.3( )
6.5( )
80.0(I)
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.9( )
27.
21.
0.
16.
42.
48.
4.
2.
.0( )
.4(S)
.D(S)
8.5(S)
15.4(S)
19.9(S)
3.7(S)
.3( )
MAIL CREEK BASIN,
DEV.
CONDITIONS
1987 100-YEAR STORM/W UPDATED
POND H105
INCLUDES MOUNTAINRIDGE
10/93-ALTERNATIVE NO.1-C R8D FILE
NO.02011802.DAT
(1/94)
g••• PEAK FLOWS, STAGES
CONVEYANCE PEAK
AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENSION DAMS ••"
STAGE STORAGE TIME
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(FT)
(AC -FT)
(HR/MIN)
20.
1.8
0 36.
203
5656.
1.8
0 36.
205
17.
.1
1.6
1 10.
207
15.
.1
1.4
1 10.
204
207
.
07
107.
.
3
3.11
0 .
40
0 40.
202
15.
1.2
1 22.
200
192.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0 40.
49
327.
3.7
0 46.
48
346.
3.3
0 4.
44
66.
2.0
0 422.
50
404.
5.2
0 48.
280
59.
2.1
0 38.
25
24
15.
51.
.
3 .2
0 4.
0 444.
23
318.
3.9
0 40.
47
404.
3.6
0 48.
279
17.
.1
1.5
1 8.
222
524.
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0 40.
185
59.
1.7
0 36.
51
405.
4.3
0 48.
46
67.
2.0
0 36.
22
21,
.1
29.5
2 18,
364
107. 07.
1.0
0 38.
278
56.
.1
31.2
2 44.
45
103.
2.4
0 38.
221
160.
2.5
0 38.
21
2.
1.3
2 .
399
5.
.1
4.9
22
2 22.
365
97.
1.0
0 38.
247
42.
.1
15.4
6 40.
20
169,
(DIRECT
FLOW)
0 38.
368
56.
.8
0 36.
370
121.
3.1
0 36.
EXISTING SATE HYDROLOGY
m
Total Disturbed Area - 9.33 aces
U'r I EROSION CONTROL NOTES
III,ROPonol TIC - 0.25
1. Any area supped of its vegetation cover shall s kept roughened byripping,picking, DRAINAGE BASIN STATISTICS
applied p other
city acceptable means. All lot olives aM1all how
th a temporary b°°
beefed per sty specifications g f they are disturbed the
from all b existing cand'mul out not Gross Platted Area 933 a lies
before paving occurs. The greenbelt area to lee soft shall be seeded and mulcFed. I, Offs
ta Mw 10.32 a e
Inn a shall cony area remain unprotected by erosion control methods for more II"I Gross Area et. 0.32
o cap
than 60 tlays.
2 After onsfa a Fay or straw mulch Beall sh applied over the ash at a rate
;, ..:. or 2 tonedana, minimum and me mulch shop be adequately see anchored. tacked
or crimped No me sot per ma me<hoda shown on ma sheet
} The channels which discharge to NOT Creek are equipped with moral d'a Pators Ono SCALE 1"-IW'
shall be repaired and rN'ned with North American Green C125 Erosion Control Fabric an as
VI 4. Arta the utilities hove been nslalled the roadway surfaces should receive the .
y/C pavement. After installation of the curb inlet, it should be filtered with a
combination of concrete blocks, 1/2 inch wire screen. and a 3/4 Inch course gravel.
O and a 3/4 inch course gravel
y
SC. 5 The protective slltatlon berm along Mal Creek and Fossil Creek s n place and shall
act as a downstream silt protection method,by al o the existing siltation Pend. ./ua� /prtial
unt J
conotmceon shall, oz undisturbed �__ _
O 6. Areas disturbed by Offers sanitary shwa eatw<tl to
., OG coma tion. �O LEGEND
SITE
HYDROLOGY
PONT(a)
DESIGNN2,7.Ofhit*
IN
AREA
nCn
0E
(cfe)
Owe
(Off)
1efte
4.18
0.48
4.0
11.2
2
6.17
0.43
4.9
18.4
5ffelte
9.20
0.49
8.9
32.7
6.0
0.95
3.0
9.2
Jfhitw
6.90
0.44
5.6
20.8
12te
2.94
0.50
3.0
11.2
14le
4.56
0.50
4.3
15.8
18to
0.73
0.50
0.8
2.9
1Bte
0.M0.95
1.5
5.0
02flete
11.BJ
0.44
9.8
35.9
03
2,37.04.Offsite
3&15
0.35
20.4
]J.8
EXISTING CONTWRs 9�CH� t PROPOSED CWTWRS rv>brs Paput rvolLs
.e t"1 ct oa.neemor theSe i
a 1 ea PROPOSED CURB BOUNDARY DRAINAGE BASIN CUTTESITE pFSCR Fnam afm treat aptaaan we n.Iemrol name as,atrnmm.
PRO
TORM DRAIN
be col lool me ow," it the ficlowit malml
" �..___ _ r fi ("1 /r ER 5 _ ... 'I d..,.. EXISTIINc STORM DRAIN a�mti SOM w'� oil
;O ,t aaal.y
SWALE CC,-
--/ f 1 � . e�la -L,1 I . pn:rE7 SLOPE
IIIenv nr nnn.nnthe ao a v.^non ' �' 1°'Q _ _ _ " etll few IM Yea It Ecm r.�..0
xu
t( n -. _ „ i. DIRECTION OF ROW `" r W v u e E TrA 1 z In d F c
^ ^ " ( I r to no end mnlaanchor the e
� DESIGN PRINT D<'auap[i Wtul 1e eel�o o mal°.
' e a
M/4q ej BASIN NUMBER
N.. vox
• rRgA. ,Y„ 12j. 1°°"c BASIN AREA I No
PAR 1 L,. a n 'a t
. •..� xVF' _. - I O GRAVEL FlL1ER m t ea. c...v
v
PRIOR ,eon the a°rao ..,1
a Creek aer
_ is ss d psi.
C l; STRAW BRIE CHECK DAM TO BE
iINSTALLED IF NOT ALREADY IN PLACE t sup ` n : ('e .e°op
i„� h'ry^ ,tea, MIRAMONT P.U.D. j o RIP -RAP Row DlssvAmR 1dR A PPc. FOR FaEu<rv7 x
SILT FENCE
I
• '4r I ) nn .ya.... MfIAN 7ERF - _ EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVE , .e� un err ono. rn.
_fi
r-(. �1 ACE DRIVE - EXISTING SWALE a. u, .,i n
_ I W
I'
A IRA -
1 ;%� 9lot, OAKRIDGE ESTATES
a°*
(A OUTLETThe •son v� EXISTING ET w/ RIP RAP
���FFF
02 FIT ^
v II^
6 ones .
�- ��-tee"( � -rv�a� A .. . _rru. F t>> x
14;ILF. OF SILT FENCES N -< 25 Yp..�_
i _
f,- DNA EXISTING OGLE E 13 1
Exlsc swASWALE�23 7 Lq� 1
i °e"a fix. 24 / Ac 12
a
C 1
t d - '
I t.^` � I 21 PO I- -� � � nxa
1
I L19 T
Lel\\\ _ �� O .�; 17G' �� ,� oa von. cnvs .m.�M
IS
0
® o -
1t tl- OJfi
FREEBOARD 10
V 1162 L.E OF SILT FENCE x FCML CGMT - LM SW AIM gSAICT
�. 16 C 15 > OVERFLOW SWALE lot BTOP ANK OF
rc6r corss suaunw asTwcr
EXISTING 'EXISTING SWALE - J U - I �Q '-EROSION CONTROL UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
\ OWRFLO PC p FABRIC
1 �C. \ PI PROPOSED ` vC. ` tl _
-_� EXISTING SILT � APPROVED
`y COLLECTION POND (FUTURE) �( KANA
ExlsnNc, �S FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BY OTHERS 2.10' 1 CUTOFF TRENCH
_r \ RIP -RAP \ /// / ♦ 1 _ J S be .0% CFS - DAIE
r STRUCTURE : e 5 = 5.Ox
�� • EXISTING CULVERT e« j. NORTH AMERICAN-C . tl _ 1.10' APPROVED
83 LE OF SILT FENCE MEN C125 EROS, FREEBOARD - TO'
SKrtsls aemx¢n
\�Ojd•O�\ �yy6F3:W} .s ,v-xAdP�sa�K I CONTROL FABRIC I DATE
^\ 1I\ \ SILTA WF1e� 1 FIILLLLED IN
ODED FLONLNE SHALL BE a
Vnrtr rgTFwArrr
TJ` \ is«Tan an c2-19City
\ `EXIsnNG SWALE G EXISTING SWALE a 1-800-922 1987 JTaX Y PLAN APPROVAL
per. e f a 594-6700 ®.:
"� ° "\\ \ •'•e� _ _-• 'x' ••�u,•,,•a CHECKED 9Y Ie k e atff UAPPROWD: Dar IT of A 7 BsAs
CUP` 1iMAIL CREEK •` `2 •• Q"� _ V� s"n°I �.I �1_ 41 CFS � CHECKED BY
_ 0. - GH 191t
O IN CHANNEL �Q:.ly\ \ \ ..n s...�usu.rae�..•ww'pp , tl 1: CH Slmmvler UlWl7 pate
100 YR - 1055 eta T.9 °• +_• NORTH AMERICAN ��
hG JS`\attestation
fir CONTROL FABRIC ' _ FREEBOARD - I.0' lab d R mWn hle
+.n
�p °'�° I CHECKED BY.
J\ e - vv { _ERODED RONLNE SHALL BE -
�.` •• •°°�•• - - _� FILLED IN CHECKED BY: am
- Evsnigc PRC1EcnvE sLTAnoN BERM - - __ EXISTING SWALE /per
CHECKED BY: Oe
ice k
° BERM i8:' 1..-
IEF75
SHM RED ��� Engineering Consultants THE RAMPARTS AT MIRAMONT P.U.D.
oRA'nN beslbn[p execHec«Ep DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
NOV. 1994 W4-014 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 12 4
NO, I BY I DATE I REVISION DESCRIPTION APPa0K0 DATE PRIT 1 1: