The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 07/30/2024 City of Fort Collins Approved Plans Approved by: Dan Mogen _sty o Date: 07/30/2024 rprt', Colorado State University Veterinary Health and Education Complex Project 6-6 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT Fort Collins, Colorado Martin/Martin, Inc. Project No.: 22.0409 April 2, 2024 Prepared For: Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado C0111T University Prepared By: Martin/Martin, Inc. 12499 West Colfax Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80215 303.431.6100 MARTIN/MARTIN C O N S U L T I N G ENGINEER 5 Principal-in-Charge: Scott E. Paling, PE Engineer-of-Record: Melyssa C. Hartzell, PE Project Manager: Benjamin M. Nemec, PE,Assoc. DBIA Engineer: Mikaela Bussell, EIT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................1 A. Location...................................................................................................................................................1 B. Description of the Property.....................................................................................................................1 C. Proposed Development ..........................................................................................................................1 D. Floodplain................................................................................................................................................2 II. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA.......................................................................................................................2 A. Regulations..............................................................................................................................................2 B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ..................................................................................2 C. Hydrological Criteria................................................................................................................................2 D. Hydraulic Criteria ....................................................................................................................................2 E. Floodplain Regulations Compliance........................................................................................................2 F. Modifications of Criteria .........................................................................................................................3 III. MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY.........................................................................................................................3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .......................................................................................................................4 A. General Concept .....................................................................................................................................4 B. Proposed Sub-Basin Descriptions............................................................................................................4 C. Storm Sewer............................................................................................................................................9 V. DRAINAGE FACILITY TREATMENT DESIGN.................................................................................................10 A. Detention and Water Quality................................................................................................................10 B. Bioswale Treatment..............................................................................................................................10 C. Bioswale Outfalls...................................................................................................................................12 D. Rain Garden...........................................................................................................................................13 VI. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................14 A. Compliance with Standards ..................................................................................................................14 B. Drainage Concept..................................................................................................................................14 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................................15 TABLES Table 1: Existing Drainage Summary...................................................................................................................3 Table 2: Proposed Drainage Summary................................................................................................................8 Table 3: Drainage Flow Routing Summary..........................................................................................................8 Table 4: Drainage Area Comparison Summary ...................................................................................................9 Table 5: Bioswale Outfall Summary..................................................................................................................13 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION OF DRAINAGE REPORT "I hereby certify that this Report for the final drainage design of the Veterinary Health and Education Complex Drainage Improvements was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, in accordance with the provisions of the Colorado State University Master Drainage Plan Update, dated April 2003, and the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria for the responsible parties thereof." ��UC1 C1� March 15 2024 Q HE=RI ``• �. Date f 45989 �! Melyssa C. Hartzell, PE Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado PE No.: 45989 ! N�\ 41VAL DEVELOPER CERTIFICATION OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES The Colorado State University hereby certifies that the drainage facilities for the South Campus Scope B Drainage Improvements shall be constructed according to the design presented in this Report. Attest: (Name of Responsible Party) Notary Public Authorized Signature MARTIN/MARTIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS I. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Proposed Development The proposed VHEC Project includes an addition to the VTH building and elements of the South Campus Master Plan including the Bioswale A, roadway and parking lot improvements, and utility infrastructure.The addition to VTH building is approximately 90,000-square-feet of veterinary and educational facilities. B. Location The proposed development is located in the southeast quarter of Section 23,Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.The proposed Veterinary Health and Education Complex (VHEC) building is located within the Colorado State University(CSU) South Campus.The disturbed area for the Project site is approximately 13.5 acres and is bordered to the north by Booth Road,to the east by the existing City Ditch and Bay Road,to the south by the existing Lagoon, and to the west by the existing Veterinary Teaching Hospital (VTH) building. C. Description of the Property The existing site consists of the VTH building, a parking lot, animal shelters, gravel roads, and an existing horse pen.The existing site generally slopes from west to east,with grades ranging from 0.4%to 2.5%. According to the "Geotechnical Engineering Report—CSU VTH South Campus" prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc., dated April 6, 2023,the predominant subsurface conditions encountered in the test holes generally consisted of existing fill, clays, sands, and bedrock located roughly 39.5 to 50 feet below existing grades. Man-made fill materials, similar in composition to the native materials, consisting of sandy clay with local gravels, were encountered at depths of approximately 2 to 9 feet below existing grades. A USDA Web Soil Survey of the campus reports that the soil consists mostly of Longmont clay at the existing Lagoon, and Nunn clay loam at all other locations on site. Groundwater was encountered in the majority of test holes at depths ranging from 16 to 19 feet below existing grades. Stormwater runoff from the existing site generally travels overland easterly, is collected by existing storm sewer infrastructure including swales, drains and storm sewer, and outfalls to the existing Lagoon or City Ditch.The City Ditch is the tributary to the City of Fort Collins storm drainage infrastructure and ultimately Spring Creek. Refer to the Appendix for an exhibit of the existing storm infrastructure. MARTIN/MARTIN,INC. Lakewood,CO Albuquerque,NM Atlanta,GA! Avon,CO Bay Area,CA Cheyenne,WY Fort Collins,CO—Kansas City,MO. .Northwest Arkansas martinmartin.com D. Floodplain The Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 08069C0987G, Panel 987 of 1420, dated May 2, 2012, shows that the proposed development is not located within the 100-year floodway area.The extents of the Project site are within FEMA unshaded Zone X. Unshaded Zone X is defined as areas determined to be outside of the 0.2%annual chance (500-year)floodplain. II. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The drainage design of the Project site is in compliance with the following criteria: 1. Article VII, Stormwater Utility, City of Fort Collins Municipal Code, latest revision (CRITERIA). 2. "Urban Storm Drainage and Flood Control District Manual," latest revision (MANUAL). B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The "Colorado State University South Campus Stormwater Master Plan," prepared by Olsson Associates, dated December 2015, is the development criteria for the proposed site improvements (MASTER). The "Colorado State University South Campus Water Quality Bioswale—Design Substantiation," prepared by Martin/Martin, Inc., dated May 7, 2018, is the design of the South Bioswale to 100%design development level (REPORT). C. Hydrological Criteria Design runoff is calculated for the two-year and 100-year design storms, using the Rational Method as established in the CRITERIA.The two-year, one-hour point rainfall data is 0.82 inches and the 100-year, one-hour point rainfall data is 2.86 inches per the City of Fort Collins Chapter 5, Hydrology Standards. (STANDARD) D. Hydraulic Criteria The proposed storm sewer system is designed to convey the two-year and 100-year runoff for the PROJECT. All proposed inlets are designed in accordance with CRITERIA and MANUAL. Supporting hydraulic calculations are included in Appendix C. E. Floodplain Regulations Compliance No variances from the CRITERIA are requested at this time. Page2114 F. Modifications of Criteria No modifications to the CRITERIA are requested at this time. III. MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY The South Campus drainage patterns have been previously analyzed and defined as part of the MASTER and REPORT Projects. The MASTER studied the existing conditions on the South Campus and provided alternate design concepts for drainage improvements.These studies encompassed the area north of Drake Road, west of Burlington Northern Railroad, east of Research Boulevard and Centre Avenue, and south of the Natural Research Center.The PROJECT is located within a portion of the Spring Creek Basin watershed as defined by MASTER. Spring Creek is a major watercourse that receives flows from Spring Canyon Dam at Horsetooth Reservoir and is a tributary to the Poudre River. All runoff in the existing condition from the PROJECT limits of work is conveyed ultimately northeast to Spring Creek via proposed drainage swales, an existing City Ditch, and proposed and existing storm sewer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate existing and future conditions of the South Campus and provide alternate design concepts for drainage improvements.The results from the MASTER concluded that in-line water quality ponds along the existing City Ditch would best serve the South Campus watershed. The REPORT took the information and recommendations from the MASTER and coordinated with the City of Fort Collins and CSU to determine that several water quality bioswale systems would better meet the stormwater management needs of the South Campus.The REPORT re-defined some of the sub-basins established in the MASTER and determined which sub-basins were tributary to a "North Bioswale" and the future "South Bioswale." Refer to the Appendix for Drainage Plans from the MASTER and REPORT. This PROJECT will be focusing on the sub-basin's tributary to the "South Bioswale"that were defined in the REPORT.These existing sub-basins have since been further analyzed as part of this PROJECT. Further descriptions and information on these new sub-basins can be found later in the Report or referenced in the Drainage Plan. Existing sub-basins tributary to the "South Bioswale"from the REPORT are defined in Table 1. An existing Drainage Plan from the REPORT can be found in Appendix E that shows the tributary basins to the "South Bioswale." Existing Drainage Summary From REPORT Basin Area(ac) %Imp. Peak Runoff(cfs) 65 5.7 36 24 65A 3.0 63 20 65C 3.5 28 15 67.2 2.4 68 16 TOTAL SITE 14.6 45 75 Table 1:Existing Drainage Summary Page3114 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept Stormwater infrastructure improvements for the VHEC building will support proposed development and minimize impacts of stormwater runoff from the developed condition. All stormwater flows captured by the proposed stormwater infrastructure will be routed to either Bioswale A, Bioswale B, Rain Garden A, or the existing Lagoon and City Ditch.The proposed storm sewer system and drainage systems were adequately sized to convey the fully developed runoff for the two-year and 100-year design storms. Stormwater runoff not captured by proposed storm infrastructure will be conveyed, as much as possible,through proposed LID mechanisms for treatment before discharging to the Bioswale A, Bioswale B, or Rain Garden A. Proposed Drainage Plans are provided in the Appendix. B. Proposed Sub-Basin Descriptions The areas tributary to the "South Bioswale" were defined in the REPORT.These areas were further analyzed and sub-divided to appropriately size proposed storm sewer infrastructure and water quality treatment facilities.The Project site is comprised of twenty-three (23) sub-basins, accounting for approximately 19.16 acres.These sub-basins were delineated based on the areas in which the runoff is tributary. Developed flow rates were calculated using composite imperviousness coefficients from the MANUAL. Rational spreadsheets and composite imperviousness calculations for individual sub-basins are provided in the Appendix. Basin Al is approximately 0.80 acres and is located in the northeastern portion of the Project site. The sub-basin consists of a portion of Niswender Road and Jensen Road and native landscaping . Runoff generated within this basin flows overland to existing swale on the south side of Niswender Road and is directed to an existing inlet where runoff is conveyed through existing storm sewer to the east. Runoff is eventually discharged into the existing City Ditch further north of the site.The City Ditch is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin A2 is approximately 0.34 acres and is located in the northeastern portion of the Project site. The sub-basin consists of several existing buildings,the northern portion of existing sheep pens, and native landscaping. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland to a low spot located in the southern central portion of the site. Proposed swales will direct runoff to a proposed rain garden to treat runoff which then discharges to the east into the existing City Ditch.The City Ditch is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin A3 is approximately 0.37 acres and is located in the northeastern portion of the Project site. The sub-basin consists of several existing buildings,the northern portion of existing sheep pens, and native landscaping. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland to proposed swales and is directed to a proposed rain garden to treat runoff which then discharges to the east into the existing City Ditch.The City Ditch is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Page4I14 Basin A4 is approximately 0.85 acres and is located in the northeastern portion of the Project site. The sub-basin consists of several existing buildings and proposed buildings and proposed new paddock areas. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland to proposed swales and is directed to a proposed rain garden to treat runoff which then discharges to the east into the existing City Ditch.The City Ditch is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin A5 is approximately 1.57 acres and is located in the northeastern portion of the Project site. The sub-basin consists of several existing buildings,the proposed VTH Temp Livestock/ Maintenance Shop (being constructed as a separate project from this PROJECT), a portion of Niswender Road, and proposed landscaping and native landscaping. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland to proposed swales and concrete pans and is directed to a proposed rain garden to treat runoff which then discharges to the east into the existing City Ditch.The City Ditch is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin B1 is approximately 0.72 acres in size and is located north of the proposed building, north of Basin B2.The sub-basin consists of landscaping, roof, and existing parking lot. Runoff generated within this basin is routed to a proposed concrete pan that directs flows to the east and discharging into sub-basin B2, where it is then captured by proposed curb and gutter and routed to Bioswale B via a proposed curb cut and rundown, and then into Bioswale A, and then outfalls into the existing City Ditch and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin B2 is approximately 0.67 acres and is located in the central portion of the Project site. The sub-basin consists of part of the proposed Bioswale B and paved roads. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland across asphalt to proposed curb and gutter, directing the flows to Bioswale B. Bioswale B outfalls into Bioswale A and then outfalls into the existing City Ditch, and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin B3 is approximately 0.19 acres and is located in the central portion of the Project site, south and east of Basin B2.The sub-basin consists of paved drive areas, parking, and landscaped islands. Runoff generated withing this basin flows overland to proposed curb and gutter, where flows are directed to proposed storm inlet and conveyed into Bioswale B. Runoff is then directed east to Bioswale A, then outfalls into the existing City Ditch, and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin C1 is approximately 0.50 acres and is located to the east of the proposed building.The sub-basin consists of a portion of the proposed parking lot and landscape islands. Runoff generated within this basin is captured by proposed curb and gutter, sidewalk chases, and concrete pans before being conveyed through sub-basins C2 and C3, and then discharged into a swale that outfalls into Bioswale A, and then discharges into the existing City Ditch, and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin C2 is approximately 0.23 acres and is located to the east of the proposed building.The sub-basin consists of a portion of the proposed parking lot and landscape islands. Runoff generated within this basin is captured by proposed curb and gutter, sidewalk chases, and concrete pans before being discharged into a swale that outfalls into Bioswale A, and then discharges into the existing City Ditch, and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Page5114 Basin C3 is approximately 0.47 acres and is located east of the proposed building.The sub-basin consists of a portion of the proposed parking lot and landscape islands. Runoff generated within this basin is captured by proposed curb and gutter, sidewalk chases, and concrete pans before being discharged into a swale that outfalls into Bioswale A, and then discharges into the existing City Ditch, and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin C4 is approximately 0.37 acres and is located east of the proposed building, south of Basins C1 and C2.The sub-basin consists of a portion of the proposed parking lot and landscape islands. Runoff generated within this basin is captured by proposed curb and gutter and concrete pans before being discharged into swales which outfalls into Bioswale A, and then outfalls into the existing City Ditch, and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin C5 is approximately 2.46 acres and is located to the west of the existing City Ditch.The sub-basin contains the proposed Bioswale A and surrounding landscaping features. Runoff from this basin flows overland to Bioswale A, and then outfalls into the existing City Ditch, and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin D1 is approximately 0.44 acres in size and is located north of the proposed building, and southwest of Basin B1.The sub-basin consists entirely of the existing road. Runoff generated within this basin is captured by proposed curb and gutter and routed to Bioswale B via a proposed curb cut and rundown. Bioswale B outfalls into Bioswale A, which then outfalls into the existing City Ditch and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin D2 is approximately 0.47 acres in size and is located north of the proposed building, and southwest of Basin D1.The sub-basin consists of landscaping and site paving. Runoff generated within this basin is captured by proposed area inlets and routed to Bioswale B via a proposed storm sewer. Bioswale B outfalls into Bioswale A, which then outfalls into the existing City Ditch and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin D3 is approximately 0.69 acres in size and is located east of the proposed building, and west of Basin B2.The sub-basin consists of a portion of Bioswale B and site sidewalks. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland across landscaping to Bioswale B, which then directs the flows to the east. Bioswale B outfalls into Bioswale A, which then outfalls into the existing City Ditch and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin 66A is approximately 4.31 acres and is located on the central portion of the Project site.The sub-basin consists entirely of the proposed and most of the existing building roof. There is a portion of the existing roof(±18,000 square feet) in the southeast corner that enters roof drains and into a storm sewer that outfalls into the Lagoon at a different place. The VHEC Mechanical Addition (±9,000 square feet) also goes directly to an adjacent storm sewer on the northwest corner of the site. Runoff generated within this basin is captured by proposed and existing roof inlets which are routed through a proposed and existing storm sewer to the existing Lagoon.The Lagoon outfalls into the existing City Ditch and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin 66B is approximately 0.52 acres and is located on the northwest side of the existing building, adjacent to the proposed mechanical addition building.The sub-basin consists of landscaping, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and asphalt pavement. Runoff generated within this Page6114 basin is captured by proposed storm inlets which are routed through a proposed and existing storm sewer to the existing Lagoon.The Lagoon outfalls into the existing City Ditch and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin 66C is approximately 1.01 acres and is located on the east and southeast side of the proposed building.The sub-basin consists of landscaping and sidewalks. Runoff generated within this basin is captured by proposed storm inlets,which is routed through a proposed and existing storm sewer to the existing Lagoon.The Lagoon outfalls into the existing City Ditch and is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin 65 is approximately 1.17 acres and is located in the southeastern corner of the Project site.The sub-basin consists of existing landscape, proposed site sidewalks, and the existing City Ditch. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland to the existing City Ditch.The City Ditch is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin 65C is approximately 0.59 acres and is located in the northeastern side of the Project site.The sub-basin consists of existing landscape, existing paved drives, and the existing City Ditch. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland to the existing City Ditch.The City Ditch is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin 67.2 is approximately 0.42 acres and is located in the northeastern corner of the Project site. The sub-basin consists of existing landscape, existing paved drive, and the existing City Ditch. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland to the existing City Ditch.The City Ditch is ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Basin 67.1 is approximately 0.64 acres and is located on the northern side of the Project site.The sub-basin consists of existing buildings,the proposed VTH Temp Livestock/Maintenance Shop site features(being constructed and designed separately from this PROJECT), and native landscaping. Runoff generated within this basin flows overland to existing swales and is directed north to the existing North Bioswale.The North Bioswale ultimately discharges to the City Ditch which is then ultimately tributary to Spring Creek. Page7114 Proposed Drainage Summary Basin Area(ac) %Imp. Q2(cfs) Q100(cfs) Destination Al 0.80 52.8% 1.09 4.45 Rain Garden A A2 0.34 33.3% 0.32 1.25 Rain Garden A A3 0.37 26.4% 0.30 1.18 Rain Garden A A4 0.85 30.9% 0.76 3.26 Rain Garden A A5 1.57 40.8% 2.24 9.07 Rain Garden A 131 0.72 68.1% 1.16 4.30 Bioswale B B2 0.67 53.3% 1.09 4.08 Bioswale B 133 0.19 90.0% 0.46 1.71 Bioswale B C1 0.50 77.7% 1.09 4.00 Bioswale A C2 0.23 64.6% 0.43 1.62 Bioswale A C3 0.47 94.8% 1.21 4.46 Bioswale A C4 0.37 90.0% 0.93 3.42 Bioswale A C5 2.46 14.0% 1.48 5.98 Bioswale A D1 0.44 100.0% 1.19 4.37 Bioswale B D2 0.47 93.6% 1.20 4.43 Bioswale B D3 0.69 22.6% 0.53 2.08 Bioswale B 66A 4.31 90.0% 10.93 40.13 Lagoon 66B 0.52 53.9% 0.90 3.36 Lagoon 66C 1.01 60.6% 1.82 6.75 Lagoon 65 1.17 29.9% 1.27 4.91 City Ditch 67.2 0.42 38.6% 0.50 1.95 City Ditch 67.1 0.64 40.0% 0.91 4.02 North Bioswale 65C 0.59 42.8% 0.81 3.13 City Ditch TOTAL SITE 19.81 55.8% 1 32.64 123.90 - Table 2:Proposed Drainage Summary The 100-year peak runoff values for sub-basins tributary to the proposed water quality bioswale system were defined by rational calculations in accordance with the CRITERIA to determine the cumulative total flows leaving the proposed site at various locations.The total runoff determined from the rational calculations also determined the size of the outfalls for the Bioswale and rain garden. 100 Year Drainage Flow Routing Summary City Ditch* Bioswale B Bioswale A Lagoon** North Rain Bioswale Garden 9.99 20.97 19.48 50.24 4.02 14.76 Table 3:Drainage Flow Routing Summary The sub-basin areas and boundaries that were established and originally defined in the MASTER and REPORT were further analyzed and subdivided to appropriately size proposed storm sewer infrastructure and water quality treatment facilities changing the area and adding additional sub-basins.Table 4 below provides a summary of the existing basin areas and the proposed changes to these basin areas previously determined in the REPORT and MASTER.Table 2 above provides a summary of all the proposed basins that were subdivided further from the existing sub-basins. Page8114 Existing VS. Proposed Sub-Basins Area Comparison Basin Ex Area APR Area Final Area (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) 65 5.7 4.5 1.2 65A 3 3 0 65C 3.5 3.5 0 67.2 2.4 2.0 0.4 66 25.3 5.8 19.5 67A 5.8 0 5.8 67B 2.4 0 2.4 67C 4.8 0 4.8 67.1 2.9 0.6 2.3 68 15.2 0 15.2 TOTAL SITE 71 19.4 51.6 Table 4:Drainage Area Comparison Summary C. Storm Sewer An analysis of the proposed storm sewer system was completed using Bentley Flow Master or StormCAD to evaluate the capacities and hydraulic grade lines in the proposed storm sewer system.The head loss method that was used to determine the local head loss and to obtain the hydraulic grade line in the pipes was the HEC-22 Energy Method,Third Edition. D. Erosion Protection 1. Bioswales:The two bioswales were checked at several locations for side and bottom stability using the shear stress method outlined in HEC 15 "Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings" and FHWA Hydraulics Toolbox 5.3.Three locations were assessed along Bioswale A and one location was assessed along Bioswale B.The general section of the bioswale consists of a trapezoidal ditch section with 5:1 side slope and a flat bottom. The width of the bottom varies from 5.0'to 20'. a. The bottom of the ditch consists of a bioretention media with an amended sandy loam topsoil and a select seed mix for use in the bioswale that extends up the sides to a depth that corresponds with the 2-year flow depth. Above this elevation the side slopes consist of general topsoil with a different seed mix. b. The bioswale seed mix, consisting of side oats grama, blue grama, buffalo grass, green needle grass, and western wheat was provided by the Landscape Architect and the Campus Landscape Architect. Per CRITERIA, a Retardance Class of D should be used, and per Table 4.1 of HEC 15,the final planting mix appears to be considered good stand. However,to assess the interim condition, it was assumed that the condition of the vegetation will be poor . Page9114 Bioswale Stability Bioswale Location Bioswale Bioswale Q100 V100 Section Width Section# (cfs) (fps) Lower end of Bioswale A,downstream of A 8-ft bottom A 40.46 1.36 where Bioswale A and B connect A Beginning of Bioswale A, downstream of 8-ft Bottom Al 15 0.94 forebay into Bioswale A Lower end of Bioswale B,just upstream of B 8-ft Bottom 61 20.98 1.06 where Bioswale A and B connect B Beginning of Bioswale B,downstream of 8-ft Bottom B2 10.09 0.84 first forebay into Bioswale B V. DRAINAGE FACILITY TREATMENT DESIGN A. Detention and Water Quality According to the "CSU Technical Standards, Division 33," at least 50-percent of the Project's impervious area needs to be treated using Low Impact Development (LID) mechanisms (i.e., rain gardens, bioswales, etc.).The majority of the disturbed area as part of this PROJECT is ultimately tributary to the proposed Bioswale A and B.The bioswales convey a total runoff of approximately 45.64 cfs. Based on information provided in the MASTER, it is understood that peak flow from the City Ditch (VTH Outfall channel) occurs after the peak flow of the Bioswale A; therefore, no detention is required for improvements in compliance with the MASTER. See Appendix E. In addition to Bioswale A, an additional bioswale along Booth Road is provided to treat runoff closer to the outfall of the bioswale in order to provide adequate removal of total suspended solids (TSS). Refer to the Appendix for bioswale calculations. B. Bioswale Treatment The implementation of water quality bioswales for the South Campus will improve current existing drainage conditions by providing increased removal of total suspended solids,turbidity, and oil/grease for smaller, more frequent storm events.The bioswales will also help to provide a more defined path of conveyance for larger, less frequent storms. "BioFilters for Storm Water Discharge Pollution Removal"from the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ), dated January 2003,was used for guidance on bioswale design and maintenance based on data indicating a TSS removal rate performance of 80-percent or greater. According to this study,the effectiveness of bioswales is largely dependent on the residence time of the stormwater in the swale. By maximizing the contact time of stormwater runoff, higher rates of pollutant removal can be achieved through sedimentation, infiltration, and vegetative uptake. Design parameters that influence residence time include the longitudinal slope of the swale, cross sectional shape, bottom width,flow depth, length, and flow velocity. A fully vegetated, trapezoidal bioswale is recommended by DEQ.The optimal longitudinal slope of the bioswale Page10114 should be at least 1%and should not exceed 6-percent. If design constraints dictate otherwise, underdrains or check dams can be added to encourage drainage or reduce flow velocities.To establish and maintain the vegetation along the bottom of the bioswale,the bottom should be approximately 8 feet wide. Flow velocity for the water quality event should be approximately 1.5 feet/s and up to 5 feet/s for the major storm event. Freeboard should also be considered when determining the flow depth of the bioswale to ensure a factor of safety during surges of excess flows. Figure 1 illustrates an example section. Trapezoidal Cross Section Example undisturbed naAve wl wgetafive o\er freeboard— side slope —��---— 3:1 max ..! - 2'-0"min. 8'-0"max. Figure 1 Studies conducted by DEQ concluded the following obtainable efficiencies as a result of recommended design parameters: Total Suspended Solids— 83 to 92% Turbidity(with 9 minutes of residence)— 65% Lead— 67% Copper— 46% Total Phosphorus— 29 to 80% Aluminum— 63% Total Zinc- 63% Dissolved Zinc— 30% Oil/Grease— 75% Nitrate-N - 39 to 89% These general design principles were used as guidance and supplemental precedence for the South Campus water quality bioswale system. In addition, per coordination with the CSU Colorado Stormwater Center,the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD)fact sheet and design procedures for grass swales were used for the hydraulic design and analysis of Bioswale A and Bioswale B in the water quality storm event.This fact sheet is provided in the Appendix for reference. Soil riprap and concrete forebays will provide energy dissipation for concentrated flows and encourage sheet flow into the bioswale. The proposed Bioswale A has a bottom slope of 0.25%with an 8-foot-wide swale bottom and 5:1 (H:V) side slopes. Stormwater flows are conveyed northeasterly approximately 465 feet through the bioswale, providing an estimated residence time of 17.8 minutes, with a flow velocity of 0.44 feet/s.The average flow depth during the two-year storm event producing 3.97 cfs of runoff is approximately 9 inches. A perforated underdrain will be installed in the Page11 1 14 bottom of the bioswale to encourage drainage in low-flow conditions.The underdrain discharges to a sump inlet with a solid access cover to allow for regular maintenance and pumping/vacuum removal of collected flows. The proposed Bioswale B has a bottom slope of 0.25%with an 8-foot-wide swale bottom and 5:1 (H:V) side slopes. Stormwater flows are conveyed easterly through approximately 806 feet of bioswale. Bioswale B was broken up into three sections to achieve maximum treatment to remove at least 80%of the total TSS as well as turbidity, and oil/grease for smaller, more frequent storm events. ■ Bioswale B—Section A conveys stormwater runoff from Sub-Basins (D1-D3) easterly approximately 412 feet, providing an estimated residence time of 20.8 minutes, with a flow velocity of 0.33 feet/s.The average flow depth during the two-year storm event producing 2.51 cfs of runoff is 8 inches. ■ Bioswale B—Section B conveys stormwater runoff from Sub-Basins (D1-D3 and 131-133) easterly approximately 232 feet, providing an estimated residence time of 7.9 minutes, with a flow velocity of 0.49 feet/s.The average flow depth during the two-year storm event producing 4.79 cfs of runoff is approximately 9.5 inches. ■ Bioswale B—Section C conveys stormwater runoff from Sub-Basins (D1-D3, 61-133, part of C5) easterly approximately 162 feet before entering Bioswale A, providing a residence time of 5.4 minutes, with a flow velocity of 0.5 feet/s.The average flow depth during the two-year storm event producing 4.79 cfs of runoff is approximately 9.75 inches. In all three sections for Bioswale B, a perforated underdrain will be installed in the bottom of the bioswale to encourage drainage in low-flow conditions.The underdrain discharges to the underdrain for Bioswale A, which ultimately discharges to a sump inlet with a solid access cover to allow for regular maintenance and pumping/vacuum removal of collected flows before the main outfall into the City Ditch. C. Bioswale Outfalls Conveyance of the 100-year design storm was analyzed using the Bentley FlowMaster hydraulic modeling software. In the fully developed condition, the Bioswale A must convey approximately 45.64 cfs for flood control purposes.The design of the bioswales allows major stormwater flows to remain subcritical, with a normal flow depth of 1.34 feet and velocity of 2.32 feet/s. Due to the curvature along the centerline alignment, bends and areas of confluence are reinforced with Type L soil riprap to minimize potential erosion in areas of impact. Supporting hydraulic calculations are included in the Appendix. Stormwater flows captured by the "South Bioswale" or Bioswale A& B are released into the City Ditch through two 36-inch culverts.The culvert size and quantity were determined based on anticipated HGL's in the City Ditch from site constraints in the interim and future condition and average flow depths (refer to Table 4 below). Page12 1 14 Bioswale Outfall Depth of Flow 1.5ft Flow 46 cfs Table 5:Bioswale Outfall Summary Based on information provided in the MASTER and received from CSU and the City of Fort Collins, it is understood that peak flow from the City Ditch occurs after the peak flow of the "South Bioswale". Therefore, no tailwater elevation was considered when analyzing the culverts. In-line check valves will be installed inside the 42-inch outfall culverts to prevent backflow from the City Ditch into the "South Bioswale" during significant storm events.An 80- foot emergency spillway will provide additional conveyance of excess flows. A concrete cut-off wall along the crest of the spillway will help to distribute flows evenly and maintain the functionality of the overflow path. The configuration of the North Bioswale outlet will allow the smaller, more frequent storms to drain through the culverts, even in low flow conditions,with at least 1-inch of head to open the backflow valves. In the larger, less frequent storms,the flow through the backflow valves will increase, but to be conservative,the proposed culverts were assumed to only convey approximately 2.5 feet of flow depth.Any excess flows will be conveyed over the proposed spillway. In significant storm events where the water surface elevation of the City Ditch is hydraulically equalized with the water surface elevation of Bioswale A, flows from the "South Bioswale" will still be able to discharge over the proposed spillway into the City Ditch,while the backflow valves prevent flows in the City Ditch from entering the bioswale. D. Rain Garden A rain garden has been designed in accordance with the design and construction detailing for bioretention systems from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. A single basin (Sub-Basin A) drains directly to the proposed rain garden via overland flow, storm sewer, and concrete pans. Rain Garden A will have 4:1 side slope.The rain garden surface area was sized based on minimizing the water quality ponding depth to avoid the spread of the water in the water quality event and keep earthwork volumes reasonable as well as meeting the required volume. Page13 1 14 Rain Garden A Basin Treated (Area Treated (acres)) A(3.87) Basin Imperviousness 39% Minimum Surface Area Required (sf) 1,315 Minimum Surface Area Provided (sf) 1,363 WQCV Required (cu ft) 2,022 WQCV Provided (cu ft) 2,022 WQ Ponding Depth (ft) 0.67 Drain time(hrs) 12 Table 6:Bioswale Outfall Summary A spillway will be provided for any storm event above the WQ storm event, including the 100-year storm event that will discharge the flows into the existing City Ditch,just north of Booth Road. Refer to Appendix C for detailed rain garden calculations. VI. CONCLUSION A. Compliance with Standards The Final Drainage Report for the VHEC building improvements located on the CSU South Campus has been prepared in compliance with the MASTER, REPORT, CRITERIA, and MANUAL.The proposed Drainage Design will accommodate the minor and major design storms and discharge stormwater to the Bioswale A, which outfalls to the City Ditch, and ultimately into Spring Creek. B. Drainage Concept Developed runoff will be collected and conveyed by a system of overland flow, swales, and proposed storm sewer.The Bioswale A and Bioswale B will provide water-quality treatment for the site to control solids and sediment from entering any downstream waterways.The proposed development is not anticipated to adversely impact downstream properties or drainage facilities. The majority of flow from the Project site is tributary to the Bioswale A. Existing and proposed roof flows are tributary to the existing Lagoon. Flows from the proposed sub-basins are collected and conveyed through proposed storm sewer or swales. All conditions are expected to provide acceptable water quality treatment and 80%TSS removal for upstream tributary areas prior to release into the City Ditch (VTH Outfall Channel). Page14114 REFERENCES "City of Fort Collins Municipal Code," latest revision. "City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria," latest revision. "Colorado State University South Campus Stormwater Master Plan," Olsson Associates, December 2015. "CSU Technical Standards, Division 33," Building Construction Standards Manual, Colorado State University, Revision March 3, 2017. "Colorado State University South Campus Water Quality Bioswale Design Substantiation" Report, prepared by Martin/Martin, Inc., dated May 7, 2018. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 08069C0979H; Panel 987 of 1420. "Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Drainage Criteria Manual Volumes 1, 2 and 3," Wright-McLauglin Engineers, latest version. "Web Soil Survey—Larimer County Area," Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, accessed March 17, 2017. APPENDICIES Appendix A— Maps 1. Vicinity Map 2. Firmette 3. CSU 100-Year Floodplain Map Appendix B— Hydrologic Computations 1. Rational Calculations a. Proposed Appendix C— Hydraulic Computations 1. StormCAD Modeling a. StormCAD Proposed Network Preview b. StormCAD Proposed Flex Tables 2. Inlet Calculations a. Inlet Flow and Distribution Summary b. Inlet Capacity Calculations 3. Water Quality Facility Design a. Bioswale A and Bioswale BUD-BMP Calculations b. Bioswale A and Bioswale B Flow Master Capacity Calculations c. Rain Garden A Calculations 4. Channel Capacity Calculations a. Sidewalk Chase Capacity Calculation b. Open Curb Channel Capacity Calculations c. Trapezoidal Channel Section Capacity Calculation 5. Culvert Capacity Calculations a. Bioswale A Outfall b. Bioswale A Sidewalk Crossing c. Bioswale B Street Crossing d. Bioswale B Fiber Line Crossing 6. Stormwater Erosion Control Calculations a. Forebay Design Calculations b. Spillway Calculations c. Riprap Outfall Calculations d. Bioswale Riprap Bend Calculations 7. Rain Garden Erosion Control Calculations Appendix D— Design Aids 1. NRCS Soil Resource Report 2. NOAA Atlas 14,Volume S, Version 2 3. CSU South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Report 4. CSU South Campus Water Quality Bioswale Report 5. City of Fort Collins, Drake Road Storm Sewer and VTH Pond Outfall Construction Drawings (City Ditch Documents) 6. Underground Plumbing Plans and Roof Plans for Spilt Roof Flows Appendix E— Drainage Maps 1. Existing Drainage Map—MASTER Report 2. Existing Drainage Map- REPORT 3. Proposed Drainage Map Page1712 APPENDIX A Maps 17-1 TO Vicinity Map ` . Cherry St- : •a ,� laporte Ave,* -t•:"�„ ' • -i�. tUui eM ♦ + •— •r�' 1, t -Z, I ? �_—ti ,'. '�.1: ; ' t" - - �aej�.e•,� ' ,�_ _ ¢ v.t, -r y ti1ountain Ave ♦ . + * ��.r ` _ , f Y � J W'.YW Oak Sh �• ' r ;rQ' �, r R i Ai.r w + 4,, Fort Collins S„ 1 Mulberry Sty l - k i ` ••' v -r.+-3, ;', — _ I - ...i. � ,...1 , ,-ail f Arrowhead I ,r_ W-Laurel fit' Q f �T a - f. 'K a r-�r•,l. �• -'• ^►'��. ` �-• Y/ �' ��{1 i. t ;iY'��N �•, � SDI �- /� SprmgfrelcfMDr• ° N ci � E F AI. `Rd ". "` ,� W•ro•.spect•Rd•- E Pro pe`d Rd y .'�e �a E-Prospe Rd Y 4 Stua,t St #'' ..r ",.'`� ,-,�• �.: E-Stuart St X • �lUaf/'S. —t1 � •X. .t -a'P' �` t �.fi'". "r..l I �. ,`p: 9 -It Ar w tit s 2•F,� F/^a• _ �, i 1' r f...- -IA i 1 ♦ V s m WeDrake� d ` - 3 E Drake Rd _ E Drake II LJ —t r 16Ajam' ,. r- C•u t R . . ( Centa ,, FD �' •L► ,••�• WIHorsetooth Rd �F ' „ "` �" E�Horsetooth-Rd N Google.Earth 1 mi NOTES TO USERS FLOODING EFFECTS FROM LEGEND SPRING CREEK This map is for useadministering theNational Flood Insurance Program It SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAS) SUBJECF TO does not race,miY identify II subject to flooding particularly from local PROFILE RASE LINE INUNDATION BY THE 1%ANNUAL C ANICE FLOOD drainage sources of The community map repository should be 3115000 FT °rvP SyTucvure LL0518 E-be sPniN nlvE 3120000 FT 105ma'45.o' to5V53z.5' JOINS PANEL 0979 The 1%annual chance float eng yeti Flood),also lied 1 as the vese flood,a the flood wnsudetl for Possible updated or atltlt flood hazard Information. 4D9a'a5.C^ 9o'33'e5LLE ,o' Ric has a 1%Name of bang¢qualm or erceedm n airy,given year.The Spoil Arse Brrtlge OMFgOKEE DR,ve Flom Hal Flood Arm s the area sublet m Aredng by me 1%annual Nma flood Arms ti'! TO Obtain Ofe detailed Information n sleds whale 88a0 Food Elevations t f y of Special Flom Haunt mdude Zenes 0.e a A0,Ara A99,V and YE.The Base (BF Es)and/or fl odw y h be dot. Ina era are Encouraged t It - ' ° Ram devotion is to venter-sudace devat on oPthe 1%animal rhanw rood the F od Probes and F otl y Data dl Summary of StillwaterE t ns € �' y .^o n$ NNE x Do EA No ease Food Hevahorrs deEammed. tables contained with theFlood s Study(EIS)report that pa s °r e' uCreek i 2oNEAE aide Flood Elevations delemlred. this FIRM. Users should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent ILL D H rounded whole-foot elevations. These BEES are Intended for flood Insurance m Sp'ng Creek ZONE ZONEAH Fond depth,of 1 m 3 feat(isually areas of Willing); Base Rom rating pup my d should not be d e the sole source f flood PoN q0 a f U AE _ I9eveft.tlefurtnired. D n 7 f ,Ji �� '� S., c yy ¢level f 1 n A tl gly flood ton data p sentetl In the AS q0 5 HN C m Y Q m t "go-N ZONE AO Fkm deptlhs a 1 to 3 feet(usish,meet flow o sloping terra n); report should b III'ed conjunction with the FIRM for purposes of 4¢PD Q O avamge dooms determined Flx areas of droviel mnn fbmrg,ex— censtrualon and/or floodplan management. 1• v aWo tlemmned P < DAR MO oAmMOUTH TMIL y ZONEAR Spedal Rom Nazar,Arm formerly prpfueed from the 1%rnnual C star Base Flood Elavetlons shown ntHis map apply only landward DFq Nara¢ flood! by flood cerl sys[a t xis subsequently that of 0.0 North American Vertical Datum of 1988(NAND 88). Users of this R {pPE dmrtifiso.Zone AR of rlroindior-that to forrner float tonal sysem a FIRM should be aware that coastal Hood elevations are also provided in the nuraEns VE beeng mewed m provide promcton flan the 1%annual Naha a Summary of Stillwater Elevations table in the Flood Insurance Study report grater flood. for tilt jurisdiction. Elevations shown In the Summary of Stillwater Elevations y zONE Aga Area m m pmfunfud from m annual Nance Pam by a Faisal table hould be used for co mmctlon and/or fiboi lan rnmeg.rinest purposes bu cE LANE op¢ & from protection sysmm under mnetrucmn, no ease Rood Revadom demrmnned. when they are higher than the elevators shown on the FIRM 5 ' KE ¢ zONEV Coasful fla0d zone with vekcity hoard(wave action); no Base Rood Boundaries of the tloodways w compuletl at cross sections and Interpolated 'j' 3 a Reva dies detemiired. between cf0 secl0 S The fl odw m based on h draulic. CA Sd lions lA w ° ZONE VE Careful good zone well velodly hazard(wave action); Base Flood with egard torequirements of the National Flood Insurance Program floodway APPROX. PROJECT 0 Imetfuns determined. width d otherpenitent ftodway.data are provided n the Flood Insurance 23 In rimer Coanry Canal No.2 W ow '24, Stutly repot for this jurisdiction. G $ FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE LOCATION g waNELL A NE CeneiO areas not In Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by hood SEPSPE - The I iff Is me ment s of a stream piss Arty ad)acen[good son areas mat must be ;hoe R d Insurance Refer 1e SBr,for i for "Rood Promotion Measures" of 1ALE E cAMagIDpF eept lice of enc�xsc min t w use to 1%annual Nance flood an m amen without the Flood Insurance Study report far information on flood control structures � wbaantal maeffies n flood heigdrts. for this jurisdiction. , Ge OTHER FLOOD AREAS The projection used In the preparation of this map was Colorado State Tt a varvoFgq/ ZONE x Are a o.Z%annual Nance flea,; areas of 1%annual Nance fil Plane north come(FIPSZONE 0601).The.. his Intel datum was NAD83, GRS1980 spheroid. Differences in datum,spheroid,projection o Stale Plane ha a. S G with average deems of lees man 1 mot or wit drainage areas des man zones used In the production of FIRMS for adjadent jurisdictions SFN n Mle.�a 1 Aquae mile; and areas protected by levees hoed 1%annual Nance Slight positional differences In map features across jurisdictionmaboundmr erypWN y food. These differences.do not affect the accuracy of the FIRM. E ouEFNg w Q OTHER AREAS Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical $ ZONE X Area,determined m be o,We the 0.2%annual Narsa flompWin. Datum of 1988.These flood elevations must be compared to structure and PRINCETON ROAD ground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. For Information 1445000 FT T ZONE 0 Areas In will Nood hmaNe are undetermleed,but poi regarding n 'American I between the National Geodetc Vertical Datum of 1929 q 0 COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM and the lo A e a vertical Dal m of vist the National Geodetic P°x eArcoa sraEEr (CBRS)AREAS Survey b t.im t httpl/ .gs.no g or c/ or contact the National Geodetic Survey at till 1 II gaddress: OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS(OPAS) NGS formation Services L1032 was t NOAA,N/NGS12 aoao RAKE MIS m and OPAs are namalty loaned whmin or etljacm m Spredal Food HazaN Areas. National Geodetic Survey FloodpWln murdary SSMC-3,#9202 E 9 Food—Ind, 1315 E t W t Highway mr vE zone D boundary Side Spring,MD 20910 3282 - a4 ¢To obtain nt elevation,description,and/or locator information for benchmarks 3 g «�000mN ••• •••• ®RSam CIA boundary show o ills map please contact the Information Services Branch of the _ NCHElm ° o ryE" Boundary div�rg SW,Wl Rood Hold Areas of different $ ° Base Food Uwatons,flood depths or firm veloceics. Natty G otlet'c Survey at (301) 713-3242, or vsrt is webslte at om. hltpi/ ng.noaa.gov/ 3 ao Aid "........513^"""'� sou Ram Renton line and vaAe,.sixieA n in feed Base map Information this FIRM was provided by lheL rmer County CIS and Dnrvp w nuEN (EL997) ease Flood Elvatkn N.where unild.within zone, Mapping DepMWOERHIIN artment p pro Y M FNclr c. N tpncHAN' elevnion in rret" mir, M D orna ti Services I Input on. vie rib the C of cm of CollinsIlins q oW GeOgrephlC Information Bery CBS Division.These data are current a5 Of 2010. g7�7 V o - 'Referatced t to Nortlt Amarkm Va[iml Datum of 1988(NAND 88) _ Oq/ a o MAE A A Gras ex,rum lire This map reflects more detailed and up-to-date stream channel configurations Q QVNE 3 qLE%ANp¢ than those shown o th pY us. FIRM for Ins j sdi ion. The fleodplalns ea rc R v sT and fl od ys that transferred from the prev FIRM may have been 0� msmmm oastspN. a 9rmT30".a2°Ya'3o' Geogmphk moNimtes referencetl m me north A adjusted t COmOrm t in 3 new stream ch mg rat ors.As a M _ a rANE $ o Datum if 19M(NAD 83) result the Flood Profiles tl Fl.odway Data table I the Rood Insurance gocNy �' m o 'a750°a"N leflo-meter Unrveel Tiscive a Neramr rd red,rose 13 Study report(which re thmrtaeve hydraudo data) y reflect stream o uNAeE� g than distances that differ from what s Shown on Ill' p aIOUNTghN .Itl Y L NxsNTHAWK ggnFyOOq 6000000 FT 50fl0-mot gdtl IiQs. (olwado Slate PWne mmtlFam Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the beat data available $ w v on vE a stator,norm zone(RpszoxE osoi),tambat conmmad conrc at the L moofnublicalon.Boustraschanged due to an otl ns or de.annexations may h rred t th' map p blished p ens should contact n _ 'O DX5510 Bench rook(see explana[hon in Noss m users wcmn of appropriate community officials to verify current corporate limit locations. a a New Mercer ¢ J`u�s pogo x this HRM pane0 m Im otipn Canal o: °F `ss N sNNu°w •M1.5 Please refer ro the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the a o + $ _ LmoA 2 2 lover role WU showing the layout of map panels;community map roposhOry, addresses; Z a MAP REPOSITORIES entire Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program 5 dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each O _ Roie to Map Repmilodes list on map Index community is Iecated. w poro T D a EFFECTIVE DATE OFCOUNT DE For information and questions about the map,available products associated th this 2 £ FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FIRMiroluding bull fthi FIRM hmtoo,derp,oductso,the National i 26 w w 25 w EF o t»19,2CD5 H of Insurance Program In general,please call the FEMA Ma Information exchange ZU.NI F CT vE DAT(SI O E SION(h.S)0 S ANSI at 1 A77 FEMAIVIAP(1�77336z627)or v s I the FEMA Mep Sernce Carder websgltie - '� MoPogreprycanmmHislow,omange sd R Flprndpd EI v etbn, i I mo'ra�A pre,w it ar http//mac fema gov Available productInclude Lmers pf Mep Revishon. y er ly tl aerers cfMap ¢ a Change Flootl Insu ance Study Report a tl/o digital verso sof this map Many of o o these p ducts be ordered or obtained d ecily f thewebsite Useemay L.H.er Cdnrefy deternine the current map data for each FIRM panel by vshing the FEMA Map ip $ CanalN.I y Service Center websee or by calling the FEMA Map Information exchange. RE N' gq For mnm 4 map rerson hmory prior to—ntvwde mapping,mi to m r e Community 4E D�F AV Nap Hismry tabW looted in the Rood neuress Study report for this jureficn. g pE�o n gDornhus NOTE:MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED° Ideteanne maxim.Is av a flood mance 0.1c in the ammuniry,tortart ywr imumnce w v°eyy, WITHIN TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH,RANGE 69 WEST. agent er roll me Nedmwl Flood mwrannes Program a 1-ego-e3B-56m. e w a.�000m N Iwflulam oN DP, 0 9�NUE PLOWMAN P(0 .qN ; MAP SCALE 1"=500' ppp 0523 CITY OF FORT COLLINS �1umle0 ° 500 i FEET m 080102 1 1 'M00 ETERS JUSTICE DRrY. Dq SVONEY OB °FIVE w2 PANEL 0987E 1440000 FT + _ �NE - FIRM 3 � m FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP y gocE 3 "cam"galyE !10DRLARIMER COUNTY, TDD RFETN F..D COLORADO t; 8 LL0525ayOlNn m AND INCORPORATED AREAS AVENUE. £' � C] g 6.P ENUE 3 N v,N _ �''��AEe Foa`Nq ROAD PANEL 987 OF 1420 v9 vE W o EFWAgO couBi (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) ° wAv m CONTAINS: VENUE LDEN ° 5 COMMUNRV JNUAABER E&ULL SUFFX s F o o OWUNa cA r:.mTnowns.crrc of osa c Do No., 5 35 Q DRIVE y 36 octo �q BnAmp DRIVENe s P� "87""N ®.. Npilce d Us,r.The Map ap used Number N should be Am— when placing m oNem:to Camireniry Number mmu sM1ovm Dq FE dry Pao above should ba uam on insurance eppllatlons for me sublet row s 4/t EANE mmuniry. MARBLE DDNIRr osl� MAP NUMBER Ae �ETONcr, ®y 08069C0987G w�rsz. acar5a.5" lDsm3 $ z JOINS PANEL 1000 2U� MAP REVISED to5vsaps >.93000m E .94opom E � ND sE� MAY 2,2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 10 FEMA Legend 105°5'20"W 40°33'29"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT ~' +_ Without Base Flood Elevation(BFE) Zone A.V.A99 — SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE.AO.AH.VE,AR 1 i HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway i s t f 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas • of 1%annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage ~ — - - areas of less than one square mile Zonex �� • ♦ ® Future Conditions 1%Annual ®� Chance Flood Hazard Zone x • Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF Levee.See Notes.zone x FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone o i ( T �• • NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zonex Effective LOMRs ■i OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o A • GENERAL - - Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES IIIIIII Levee,Dike,or Floodwall >r ` t 1 o-2O=2 Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance uw'w p 17.5 Water Surface Elevation City of•Fort C01Las AREA OF MINIMAL FL I'IAZAR� e- - - Coastal Transect OU 1 0p 1 Z X •^^^�513^"^•^� Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE) U �? ( Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary ■ —--- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature 1 Digital Data Available N 1 No Digital Data Available T - • MAP PANELS Unmapped The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent 1 an authoritative property location. _ 1 • 1. S This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards v ` • The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA.This map t T7N R69W 526 + was exported on 8/11/2022 at 12:07 PM and does not • reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time.The NFHL and effective information may change or y • become superseded by new data over time. )) This map image is void if the one or more of the following map a elements do not appear:basemap imagery,flood zone labels, legend,scale bar,map creation date,community identifiers, 105°4'42"W 40°33'2"N FIRM panel number,and FIRM effective date.Map images for Feet 1:6 000 unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 regulatory purposes. Basemap:USGS National Map:Orthoimagery.Data refreshed October,2020 APPENDIX B Hydrological Computations PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN PROJECT NO: DESIGN BY: MB CONSULTING ENGINEERS REVIEWED BY: BN JURISDICTION: CSU REPORT TYPE: Drainage DATE: 06/28/23 JURISDICTIONAL STANDARD C2 C5 C10 C100 %IMPERV LANDSCAPE 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 29/6 ROOF 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% GRAVEL 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.63 90% TOTAL SITE COMPOSITE 19.81 1 0.62 0.62 0.62 1 0.67 55.8°/ SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% Al LANDSCAPE 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% GRAVEL 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.63 40% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.80 1 0.59 0.59 1 0.59 1 0.69 1 52.8% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ROOF 0.12 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% A2 LANDSCAPE 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.34 1 0.43 1 0.43 1 0.43 1 0.48 1 33.3% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ROOF 0.10 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% A3 LANDSCAPE 0.27 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.37 1 0.37 1 0.37 0.37 1 0.41 26.4% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS LANDSCAPE 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% A4 GRAVEL 0.64 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.63 40% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 1 0.85 1 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.52 30.9°% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ROOF 0.33 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% A5 ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.08 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% LANDSCAPE 0.53 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% GRAVEL 0.62 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.63 40% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 1 1.57 1 0.50 1 0.50 1 0.50 1 0.58 40.8% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ROOF 0.08 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% B1 ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.41 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% LANDSCAPE 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.72 1 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.74 68.1% COMPOSITE_C-VALUES 12/21/2023 1:56 PM PROPOSED Rational(Non-MHFD).xlsm SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 CS C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.35 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100°% B2 LANDSCAPE 0.32 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.67 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.61 53.3% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.17 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% B3 LANDSCAPE 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.19 0.87 1 0.87 1 0.87 1 0.92 90.0°% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.38 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% C1 LANDSCAPE 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.50 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.81 77.7% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.15 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% C2 LANDSCAPE 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.23 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.71 64.6 SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.44 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% C3 LANDSCAPE 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 1 0.47 0.91 0.91 0.91 1 0.96 94.8% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.34 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% C4 LANDSCAPE 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 1 0.37 0.87 1 0.87 1 0.87 1 0.92 1 90.0% COMPOSITE_C-VALUES 12/21/2023 1:56 PM PROPOSED Rational(Non-MHFD).xism SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ROOF 0.03 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 90°% C5 ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.27 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% LANDSCAPE 2.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% GRAVEL 0.01 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.63 40% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 2.46 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.29 14.0% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.44 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% D1 SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0." 0.95 1 0.95 1 0.95 1 1.00 100.0% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.44 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% D2 LANDSCAPE 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.47 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 93.5% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.15 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% D3 LANDSCAPE 0.55 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.69 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.36 22.6% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ROOF 4.31 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 66A SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 4.31 0.95 0.95 1 0.95 1 1.06 90.0% COMPOSITE_C-VALUES 12/21/2023 1:56 PM PROPOSED Rational(Non-MHFD).xism SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.09 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% 66B LANDSCAPE 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% ROOF 0.21 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 1 0.52 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.65 53.9% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.61 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% 66C LANDSCAPE 0.41 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 1.01 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.67 60.6% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.33 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% 65 LANDSCAPE 0.84 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 1.17 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.42 29.9% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.14 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% 67.2 LANDSCAPE 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% GRAVEL 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.63 40% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.42 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.50 38.6% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS GRAVEL 0.64 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.63 40% 67.1 SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.64 0.50 0.50 1 0.50 0.63 40.0% SUB-BASIN SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AREA COMPOSITE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS PERCENT (ACRES) C2 C5 C10 C100 IMPERVIOUSNESS ASPHALT/CONCRETE 0.25 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 100% 65C LANDSCAPE 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 2% SUB-BASIN COMPOSITE 0.59 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.53 42.8% TOTAL SITE COMPOSITE 19.81 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.67 55.8 COMPOSITE_C-VALUES 12/21/2023 1:56 PM PROPOSED Rational(Non-MHFD).xism CALCULATED BY: MB STANDARD FORM SF-2 JOB NO: CHECKED BY: BN TIME OF CONCENTRATION SUMMARY PROJECT: VTH Scope B DATE: 06/28/23 (RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE) SUB-BASIN INITIAL/OVERLAND TRAVELTIME tc CHECK(URBANIZED BASINS) DATA TIME(Q (h) Is Project Urban?F Yes DESIGN AREA LENGTH SLOPE III LENGTH SLOPE VEL 4 COMP. TOT LENGTH SLOPE IMP tc tc REMARKS BASIN POINT Cs ac It ft/ft in Itfttft n fps min tc R Wft % First DP min (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Al Al 0.59 0.80 150 0.0220 9.0 85 0.0100 0.013 5.14 0.3 9.3 235.0 0.02 52.8% 11.3 9.3 A2 A2 0.43 0.34 134 0.0240 10.9 0.00 0.0 10.9 134.0 0.02 33.3% 10.9 A3 A3 0.37 0.37 100 0.0250 10.1 0.00 0.0 10.1 100.0 0.03 26.4% 10.1 A4 A4 0.42 0.85 90 0.0200 9.6 230 0.0050 0.035 1.63 2.3 11.9 320.0 0.01 30.9% 11.8 11.8 A5 A5 0.50 1.57 15 0.0200 3.5 300 0.0050 0.013 2.77 1.8 5.3 315.0 0.01 40.8% 11.8 5.3 81 B7 0.70 0.72 1 210 0,0150 9.5 0.00 0.0 9.5 210.0 0.02 68.1% 9.5 B2 B2 0.57 0.67 1 60 0.0230 5.3 225 0.0300 0.013 19.85 OZ 5.6 275.0 0-03 53.3% 11:5 5.5 B3 B3 0.87 0.19 1 40 0.0500 1.6 85 0.0150 0.013 14.04 0.1 1.7 125.0 0.03 90.0% 10.7 5.0 Cl Cl 0.77 0.50 1 35 0.0300 2.5 195 0.0050 0.013 8.10 0.4 2.9 230:0 0.01 77.7% 11.3 5.0 C2 C2 0.66 0.23 1 23 0.0270 2.8 154 0.0130 0.013 5.86 0.4 3.3 177.0 0.01 64.6% 11.0 5.0 C3 C3 0.91 0.47 1 40 0.0250 1.7 161 0.0130 0.013 7,09 0.4 2.0 201.0 0.02 94.8% 11.1 5.0 C4 C4 0.87 0.37 1 61 0.0260 2.5 157 0.0200 0.013 5.54 0.5 2.9 218.0 0.02 90.0%. 11.2 5.0 C5 C5 0.25 2.46 77 0.0470 8.4 475 0.0100 0.013 13.65 0.6 8.9 5520 0.02 14.0% 13.1 8.9 D1 D1 0.95 0.44 40 0.0050 2.2 228 0.0100 0.013 11.46 0.3 2.6 268.0 0.01 100.0% 11.5 5.0 D2 D2 0.90 0.47 43 0.0260 1.8 115 0.0220 0.013 9.23 0.2 2.0 158.0 0.02 93.5% 10.9 5.0 D3 D3 0.32 0.69 86 0,0650 7.3 128 0.0030 0.035 2.63 0.8 8.1 214.0 0.03 22.6% 11.2 8.1 66A 66A 0.95 4.31 200 0.0050 5.0 400 0.0100 0.013 6.22 1.1 6.1 500,0 0.01 90.0% 13.3 6.1 66B 66B 0.61 0.52 41 3.6000 0A 30 0.0250 0.013 8.12 0.1 0.9 71.0 2.09 53.9% 10.4 5.0 66C 66C 0.63 1.01 fit 0.0200 5.5 265 0.0200 0.013 16.21 0.3 5.8 327.0 0.02 60.69/6 11.8. 5.8 65 65 0.38 1.17 70 0.1030 5.2 200 0.0050 0.035 5.40 0.6 5.8 270.0 0.03 29.9% 11.5 5.8 67.2 672 0.45 0.42 35 0.0200 5.7 175 0.0050 0.035 5.40 0.5 6.3 210.0 0.01 36.6% 112 6.3 67.1 67.1 0.50 0.64 15 0.0150 3.8 275 0.0150 0.035 2.B3 1.6 5.4 290.0 0.02 40.0% 11.6 5.4 65C 65C 0.48 0.59 40 0.2500 2.5 260 0.0060 0.035 5.91 0.7 3.3 300.0 0.04 42.8% 11.7 5.0 Type of Land Surface Mannings Coefficient,n Heavy Meadow 0.05 MARTIN/MARTIN Tillage/Field 0,045 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Short Pasture and Lawns 0.03 .0001 G Nearly Bare round 0.02 Grassed Waterway 0,035 Paved Areas and Shallow Paved Swales 0.013 TOC 1221120231:56 PM PROPOSED Rational(Non-MHFD).xlam CALCULATED BY: MB STANDARD FORM SF-3 JOB NO: CHECKED BY: BN STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN PROJECT: VTH Scope B DATE: 06/28/23 (RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE) DESIGN STORM: 2-YEAR ONE-HR PRECIP: 0.82 DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF DESIGN ARE4 RUNOFF t� CXA I Q t� S(CXA) I O BASIN POINT REMARKS (AC) COEFF (MIN) (AC) (IN/HR) (CFS) (MIN) (AC) (IN/HR) (CFS) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Al Al 0.80 0.59 9.3 0.47 2.30 1.09 A2 A2 0.34 0.43 10.9 0.14 2.21 0.32 A3 A3 0.37 0.37 10.1 0.14 2.21 0.30 A4 A4 0.85 0.42 11.8 0.35 2.13 0.76 A5 AS 1.57 0.50 5.3 0.79 2.85 2.24 Bl 61 0.72 0.70 9.5 0.51 2.30 1.16 B2 B2 0.67 0.57 5.5 0.38 2.85 1.09 B3 B3 0.19 0.87 5.0 0.16 2.85 0.46 C1 C1 0.50 0.77 5.0 0.38 2.85 1.09 C2 C2 0.23 0.66 5.0 0.15 2.85 0.43 C3 C3 0.47 0.91 5.0 0.42 2.85 1.21 C4 C4 0.37 0.87 5.0 0.33 2.85 0.93 C5 C5 2.46 0.25 1 8.9 0.62 1 2.40 1.48 Of D1 0.44 0.95 5.0 0.42 2.85 1.19 D2 D2 0.47 0.90 5.0 0.42 2.85 1.20 D3 03 0.69 0.32 8.1 0.22 2.40 0.53 66A 66A 4.31 0.95 6.1 4.09 2.67 10.93 66B 66B 0.52 0.61 5.0 0.32 2.85 0.90 66C 66C 1.01 0.63 5.8 0.64 2.85 1.82 65 65 1.17 0.38 5.8 0.45 2.85 1.27 67.2 67.2 0.42 0.45 6.3 0.19 2.67 0.50 67.1 67.1 0.64 0.50 5.4 0.32 2.85 0.91 65C 65C 0.59 0.48 5.0 0.28 2.85 0.81 I. One-Hr Precipitation Values from NOAA Atlas 14 PFDS Return Period: 2-YEAR I 5-YEAR 10-YEAR I 100-YEAR Depth In Inchesi 0.82 1 1.04 1.40 1 2.86 MARTIN/MARTIN 'Equation 5-1,UDFCD(V.1),Chepter5,Page 5-9 CONSULTING ENGINEERS 'Rainfall Intensity:City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual 2-YEAR 12/21120231:56 PM PROPOSED Rational(Non-MHFD).xlsm CALCULATED BY: MB STANDARD FORM SF-3 JOB NO: CHECKED BY: BN STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN PROJECT: VTH Scope B DATE: 06/28/23 (RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE) DESIGN STORM: 100-YEAR ONE-HR PRECIP: 2.86 DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF BASIN DESIGN POINT AREA RUNOFF tc CxA I Q tc S(CxA) I Q REMARKS (AC) COEFF (MIN) (AC) (IN/HR) (CFS) (MIN) (AC) (IN/HR) (CFS) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Al Al 0.80 0.69 9.3 0.55 8.03 4.45 A2 A2 0.34 0.48 10.9 0.16 7.72 1.25 A3 A3 0.37 0.41 10.1 0.15 7.72 1.18 A4 A4 0.85 0.52 11.8 0.44 7.42 3.26 A5 A5 1.57 0.58 5.3. 0.91 9.95 9.07 B1 B1 0.72 0.74 9.5 0.54 8.03 4.30 B2 B2 0.67 0.61 5.5 0.41 9.95 4.08 B3 63 0.19 0.92 5.0 0.17 9.95 1.71 C1 C1 0.50 0.81 5.0 0.40 9.95 4.00 C2 C2 0.23 0.71 5.0 0.16 9.95 1.62 C3 C3 0.47 0.96 5.0 0.45 9.95 4.46 C4 C4 0.37 0.92 5.0 0.34 9.95 3.42 C5 C5 2.46 0.29 8.9 0.71 8.38 5.98 D1 D1 0.44 1.00 5.0 0.44 9.95 4.37 D2 D2 0.47 0.95 5.0 0.45 9.95 4,43 D3 D3 0.69 0.36 8.1 0.25 8.38 2.08 66A 66A 4.31 1.00 6.1 4.31 9.31 40.13 66B 66B 0.52 0.65 5.0 0.34 9.95 3.36 66C 66C 1.01 0.67 5.8 0.68 9.95 6.75 65 65 1.17 0.42 5.8 0.49 9.95 4.91 67.2 67.2 0.42 0.50 6.3 0.21 9.31 1.95 67.1 67.1 0.64 0.63 5A 0.40 9.95 4.02 65C 65C 0.59 0.53 5.0 0.31 9.95 3.13 [Return Period: 2-YEAR 5-YEAR 10-YEAR 100-YEAR Depth In Inches:j 0.82 1.04 1.40 2.86 MARTIN/MARTIN "Equation 5-1.UDFCD(V.1),Chapter 5,Page 5-9 CONSULTING ENGINEEaS "Rainfall Intensity:City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual 100-YEAR 12/21/2023 1:56 PM PROPOSED Rational(Non-MHFD).xlsm PROJECT: VTH Scope B JOB NO: MARTIN/MARTIN DATE: 06/28/23 CONSULTING ENGINEERS RUNOFF SUMMARY BASIN DESIGN AREA % C2 C100 02 0100 POINT (ACRES) IMP. (CFS) (CFS) Al Al 0.80 52.8% 0.59 0.69 1.09 4.45 A2 A2 0.34 33.3% 0.43 0.48 0.32 1.25 A3 A3 0.37 26.4% 0.37 0.41 0.30 1.18 A4 A4 0.85 30.9% 0.42 0.52 0.76 3.26 A5 A5 1.57 40.8% 0.50 0.58 2.24 9.07 B1 B1 0.72 68.1% 0.70 0.74 1.16 4.30 B2 B2 0.67 53.3% 0.57 0.61 1.09 4.08 63 B3 0.19 90.0% 0.87 0.92 0.46 1.71 C1 C1 0.50 77.7% 0.77 0.81 1.09 4.00 C2 C2 0.23 64.6% 0.66 0.71 0.43 1.62 C3 C3 0.47 94.8% 0.91 0.96 1.21 4.46 C4 C4 0.37 90.0% 0.87 0.92 0.93 3.42 C5 C5 2.46 14.0% 0.25 0.29 1.48 5.98 D1 D1 0.44 100.0% 0.95 1.00 1.19 4.37 D2 D2 0.47 93.5% 0.90 0.95 1.20 4A3 D3 D3 0.69 22.6% 0.32 0.36 0.53 2.08 66A 66A 4.31 90.0% 0.95 1.00 10.93 40.13 66B 66B 0.52 53.9% 0.61 0.65 0.90 3.36 66C 66C 1.01 60.6% 0.63 0.67 1.82 6.75 65 65 1.17 29.9% 0.38 0.42 1.27 4.91 67.2 67.2 0.42 38.6% 0.45 0.50 0.50 1.95 67.1 67.1 0.64 40.0% 0.50 0.63 0.91 4.02 65C 65C 0.59 42.8% 0.48 0.53 0.81 3.13 SITE COMPOSITE 19.81 55.8% 0.62 0.67 32.64 123.90 RUNOFF-SUMMARY 12/21/2023 1:56 PM PROPOSED Rational(Non-MHFD).xlsm APPENDIX C Hydraulic Computations StormCAD Model Schematic MECH ADS DI p �8yd INLET66B d)IPE 11 YOADIAIRF i PIPE 24 ,R Z.N G2 O MECH RD O B2.3 OB2 iB2 m INLE 666.6 I ET C2.17 O C5 NL C2.16 f" INL C21 PP� ' IN C2 14 IN IS 32 'rNLET C2. r .Sr',INLET C2.-0 bF FNL 23 4 cET.,yl T 12 C1.3 PP INLET DtlCE4 C6.3.1 �- p�q 1; �.�11LET C6.1.1 a LETCIA t. oL.LN .. TC4 "DER 9 AR `N RC 391 O LAGOON ` / S StormCAD Model Schematic O MECH ADDITION ti PIPE 277 11PE 277(2) PIPE 277(2j IPE 278 INLET 66B.1 a INLET 66B.5 INLET 66B.2 INLET 669.3 INLET 666.4 PIPE 224 INLET66B O MECH RD EJ w a a INLET 66B.6 StormCAD Model Schematic STRC 394 PIPE 137 INLET A4 PIPE 123 INLET E124 f11 IN A2 PIPE 87 INLET LOADING 0 82.3 O C1 INLET Ci PIPE 98 , ez INLETC2PIPE 125 O 82 m �InLEr az a C5 e� I C5 StormCAD Model Schematic INLET C8.4.1 INLET C8.3.1 INLET Ri w� PIPE+FS PIPE 166(3) IPE 16612) PIPE 156 ill INLETC8.1.1 PIPE110 STRC 320 INLET C8.2 INLET C&S STRC 318 y INLET C8.1 AaJ, MH D3 INLET UNOERDRAIN 6fiB.1 ti TRC— .C281 �PP%�ryi INLET 6fiC INLET UNDERDRRIN 899 l INLETB .1 T TRC 323 Q 39' 901 if STRC 290 StormCAD Model Schematic I NLET C4.3 PIPE 283 I C4.2 RC 391 P 129(4)i1) RC 290 Ao rr. O LAGOON StormCAD Model Schematic INLET C:-3 ....,�.._ m m INLET C1.3 P�pF.7j �ry INLETC1-2 Q Q INLET C4.1 I NLET C1.1 NIP I T C4.2 StormCAD Model Schematic PE 236 3 STRC 4fi8 INLET C2.6.2, INLET C2.6.1.1 w a n a w t a v a b pm 0 PIF 211 '1 INLETC2.6.3 P`P�27r(3) PIPE167 STRC458 STRC 461 I NLET C2.6.1 v ro m J W �INLETC2,5 4 ~T l r� INLET C2.4 aty, INLETC2.3.1,1 Q A'p�3�2 STRC 490 ro Q� 4 1 NLET C2.3 StormCAD Model Schematic INLET 02.14 ❑ INLET C2.13 MH C2.12 m `Y CV a a w IL d PE 280 INLET C2.13.2 INLE4 C2 13.1 PIP 214 STRC 316 NLET C2.11 1 N_ Cn W a IL INLET C2,1 2 El a PIPE_ 1.1) STRC 476 INLET 2.10.1 INLET Cp i9E' 12 STRC 486 2 INLET Cp'� 112 m�>!'E�WPI T 1�J STRC 47 w F�j9 STIR 481 a IPE 236 STRC 468 INLETC2.13.2. INI PT r'?r, 1 1 StormCAD Model Schematic INLET C2.17 t Ct w a a. INLE7 C2 1(, 0 N w tr a a INLET C2.15 M_ 0 Ln 9 N w a- n INLET C2.14 fi N_ N D 9 W C r MH C2.12 INLET 2.13 T a W a a ?an INLET C2.13.2 ❑ INLET C2.13.1 PIP -114 STRC 316 100 YEAR INLET SUMMARY (Rim)( , (Known)( Energy (Out)( I Hydraulic Grade Line(Out) ID Label Elevation Rim ft Flow Known cfs Ener Grade Line Out ft INNotes 2385 INLET66B 5,027.47 1.34 5,027.57 5,027.43 Simple 2423 INLET 666.1 5,030.59 0.13 5,028.13 5,028.10 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 3156 INLET 6613.2 5,030.54 0.13 5,028.14 5,028.07 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 3157 INLET 666.3 5,030.54 0.13 5,028.11 5,028.02 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2424 INLET 6613.4 5,030.48 0.13 5,028.07 5,028.02 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 3158 INLET 6613.5 5,030.82 0.13 5,028.08 5,027.96 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 3159 INLET 6613.6 5,030.61 1.34 5,027.17 5,027.13 Type 16 Valley Single ' 2807 INLET66C 5,030.51 0.24 5,030.29 5,030.20 Standard 3162 INLET 66C.1 5,030.51 0.24 5,030.29 5,030.20 Standard . 2808 INLET A2 5,029.76 1.51 5,027.71 5,027.31 Type 16 Single 2809 INLETA3 5,029.99 1.46 5,027.76 5,027.47 Type 16 Valley Single 2810 INLETA4 5,030.92 1.46 5,028.10 5,027.90 Type 16 Valley Triple 2811 INLET B2 5,029.14 1.71 5,026.48 5,026.29 Type 16 Single 2391 INLET C1 5,025.86 2.99 5,022.93 5,022.83 FES 36" 2812 INLET C1.1 5,027.95 0.41 5,025.83 5,025.44 Type 16 Single i 2813 INLET C1.2 5,028.32 0.41 5,026.78 5,026.30 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2814 INLET C1.3 5,028.02 0.24 5,027.33 5,026.87 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" . 2392 INLET C2 5,025.53 2.69 5,022.89 5,022.80 FES 36" 2396 INLET C2.10.1 5,031.48 0.4 5,029.55 5,029.46 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" . 2397 INLET C2.10.2 5,031.31 0.24 5,029.50 5,029.48 Area Inlet Nylo Square 15" 2815 INLET C2.11.1 5,031.64 0.4 5,029.51 5,029.45 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" . 2402 INLET C2.13 5,030.72 0.24 5,029.61 5,029.56 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2816 INLET C2.13.1 5,030.73 0.24 5,029.65 5,029.59 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" ' 2817 INLET C2.13.2 5,031.74 0.4 5,029.62 5,029.60 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2403 INLET C2.14 5,031.05 0.24 5,029.74 5,029.68 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" . 2818 INLET C2.15 5,030.79 0.24 5,029.78 5,029.72 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2819 INLET C2.16 5,030.89 0.24 5,029.76 5,029.73 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" . 2820 INLET C2.17 5,030.50 0.24 5,029.76 5,029.72 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2405 INLET C2.3 5,028.73 0.24 5,027.69 5,027.65 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2821 INLET C2.3.1.1 5,030.47 0.24 5,027.58 5,027.50 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2406 INLET C2.4 5,030.08 0.24 5,028.13 5,027.99 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2407 INLET C2.5 5,028.92 0.24 5,029.07 5,028.81 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2822 INLET C2.6.1 5,030.33 0.24 5,029.03 5,028.98 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2823 INLET C2.6.1.1 5,031.07 0.4 5,029.14 5,029.00 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2824 INLET C2.6.2.2 5,031.81 0.24 5,029.05 5,029.03 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2825 INLET C2.6.3 5,031.78 0.4 5,029.10 5,029.04 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2826 INLET C2.9.01 5,031.58 0.4 5,029.40 5,029.34 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" i 2827 INLET C2.9.1.1 5,031.54 0.24 5,029.34 5,029.32 Area Inlet Nylo Square 15" 2828 INLET C4.1 5,028.17 0.24 5,027.39 5,027.23 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 41 2829 INLET C4.2 5,029.33 0.4 5,027.76 5,027.62 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2830 INLET C4.3 5,031.11 0.4 5,028.14 5,028.05 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2419 INLET C5 5,026.75 0.24 5,024.40 5,024.32 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2831 INLET C8.1 5,030.15 0.3 5,028.00 5,027.81 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" . 2832 INLET C8.1.1 5,030.94 0.24 5,027.86 5,027.78 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2833 INLET C8.2 5,030.51 0.24 5,028.50 5,028.34 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" , 2834 INLET C8.3.1 5,031.89 0.24 5,028.77 5,028.68 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2835 INLET C8.4.1 5,031.89 0.24 5,029.17 5,029.08 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" . 2836 INLET C8.5 5,030.47 0.24 5,028.82 5,028.75 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2838 INLET LOADING 5,030.99 0.21 5,028.59 5,028.50 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2425 INLETR1 5,026.22 36.92 5,028.37 5,027.29 Simple 2426 INLET UNDERDRAIN 66B 5,032.60 0.14 5,026.44 5,026.41 Clean Out 2655 INLET UNDERDRAIN 6613.1 5,031.90 0.14 5,027.56 5,027.53 Clean Out 100 YEAR MANHOLE SUMMARY (Ground)( ) (invert)( ) ( )( ) Hydraulic Grade Line(Out) Energy Grade Line(Out) ID Label Elevation Ground ft Elevation Invert ft Flow Total Out cfs Notes (ft) (ft) 2887 STRC 401 5,030.06 5,023.68 0.00 (N/A) (N/A) Type D Inlet 2897 STRC 458 5,030.85 5,027.61 4.80 5,028.98 5,029.56 Clean Out 2898 STRC 461 5,031.28 5,027.95 0.64 5,028.99 5,029.01 Clean Out 2899 STRC 468 5,031.65 5,028.15 0.24 5,029.01 5,029.04 WYE Connection 2907 STRC 476 5,029.22 5,028.11 2.88 5,029.22 5,029.43 Standard 2908 STRC 477 5,029.04 5,027.93 3.52 5,029.04 5,029.35 Standard 2909 STRC 478 5,027.84 5,027.28 0.14 5,027.47 5,027.53 Standard 2910 STRC 479 5,026.63 5,026.06 0.14 5,026.25 5,026.31 Standard 2911 STRC 481 5,029.01 5,027.90 3.52 5,029.01 5,029.32 Standard 2915 STRC 486 5,031.74 5,028.09 3.12 5,029.29 5,029.54 WYE Connection F 2916 STRC 490 5,030.51 5,026.63 5.52 5,027.54 5,027.92 WYE Connection 2428 MH C2.12 5,031.09 5,028.43 1.84 5,029.42 5,029.51 Clean Out 2429 MH D3 5,030.99 5,023.95 38.42 5,026.39 5,027.35 Storm MH 5' 2453 STRC 290 5,027.95 5,023.22 39.18 5,025.55 5,026.52 Storm MH 5' W 2454 STRC 292 5,026.14 5,023.43 38.80 5,025.77 5,026.80 WYE Connection 2458 STRC 307 5,026.11 5,023.41 38.94 5,025.75 5,026.78 WYE Connection 2461 STRC 314 5,031.79 5,027.97 3.52 5,029.09 5,029.40 Clean Out 2462 STRC 316 5,031.25 5,028.30 2.24 5,029.31 5,029.43 WYE Connection 2463 STRC 318 5,031.71 5,028.03 0.72 5,028.38 5,028.51 WYE Connection 2464 STRC 320 5,031.61 5,028.42 0.48 5,028.71 5,028.81 WYE Connection ` 2469 STRC 328 5,025.74 5,023.39 39.18 5,025.74 5,026.73 WYE Connection 2498 STRC 391 5,028.03 5,021.73 47.04 5,024.22 5,025.09 Storm MH 8' 2501 STRC 394 5,031.16 5,028.15 0.21 5,028.38 5,028.47 WYE Connection 2677 STRC 291 5,026.43 5,023.73 38.56 5,026.12 5,027.11 WYE Connection 100 YEAR OUTLET SUMMARY ID Label Elevation(Ground)(ft) Elevation(Invert)(ft) Elevation(User Defined Tailwater) Hydraulic Grade(ft) Flow(Total Out)(cfs) Notes 2376 O B2 5,026.84 5,025.32 5,025.66 1.71 Simple 2377 O B2.3 5,027.49 5,026.13 5,026.84 4.64 WYE Connection F 2378 O C1 5,025.62 5,021.95 5,022.45 2.99 FES 36" 2379 O C2 5,025.28 5,021.95 5,022.43 2.69 FES 36" 2380 O C5 5,023.04 5,022.66 5,022.86 0.24 Simple 2382 O LAGOON 5,025.30 5,021.63 5,023.86 47.04 FES 36" 2383 O MECH ADDITION 5,031.97 5,027.54 5,027.84 0.65 WYE Connection 2384 O MECH RD 5,027.52 5,026.41 5,027.02 2.68 Standard 200 YEAR CONDUIT SUMMARY ID Label Start Node Stop Node Length(Scaled)(R) Slope(Calculated)(ft/R) Diameter(in) Manning's n Flow(cFs) Velocity(Tt/s) Capacity(Full Flow) Flow/Capacity Notes (cfs) (Design)(%) 2635 PIPE 290 INLET C2.13.2 INLET C2.13.1 87.20 0.00 8.00 0.01 0.40 2.73 1.01 1.01 101,PVC 2944 PIPE 211(3) STRC 461 INLET C2.6.1 174.90 0.01 30 0.01 0.64 1.17 1.97 1.97 101,PVC 2650 PIPE 81(1) INLET C2.5 INLET C2.4 445.40 0.01 12 0.01 5.04 6.42 4.62 4.62 12"HDPE 2924 PIPE 167(3) STRC 458 INLET C2.5 184.80 0.01 12 0.01 4.80 6.11 4.72 4.72 12"HDPE 2532 PIPE 162 INLET C4.1 INLET CI3 367.90 0.01 12 0.01 1.04 4.77 4.66 4.66 12"PVC a 2534 PIPE 163 INLET C4.2 INLETC4.1 427.80 0.01 12 0.01 0.80 4.39 4.59 4.59 12"PVC 2536 PIPE 166 INLET C8.5 STRC 320 163.80 0.01 12 0.01 0.24 3,05 4.52 4.52 12"PV� 2537 PIPE 166(1) INLET C8.2 INLET C8.1 70030 0.01 12 0.01 OAS 4.67 4.66 4.66 12"PVC 2538 PIPE 166(2) STRC 318 INLET C8.2 127.20 0.01 12 0.01 0.72 4.20 4.50 4.50 12"PV 2539 PIPE 166(3) STRC 320 STRC 318 458.90 0.01 12 0.01 0.48 3.84 4.68 4.68 12"PVC 2540 PIPE 167 INLET C2.6.1 STRC 458 158.30 0.01 12 0.01 1.28 1.63 3.37 337 12"PVC- 2544 PIPE 169 MH C2.12 STRC 316 316.70 0.01 12 0.01 1.84 4.27 3.25 3.25 12"PVC 2546 PIPE 169(2) STRC 316 STRC476 444.50 0.01 12 0.01 2.24 2.85 3.32 3.32 12"PVCi� 2591 PIPE 232 INLET C2.13 MH C2.12 269.50 0.01 12 0.01 1.84 4.26 3.24 3.24 12"PVC 2631 PIPE 277 INLET 668.1 INLET 5613.2 150.60 0.01 12 0.01 0.13 2.11 3.46 3.46 12"PV� 2632 PIPE 278 INLET 66B.4 INLET 66B.5 103.80 0.01 12 0.01 0.52 2.96 3.15 3.15 12"PVC 2641 PIPE 288 INLET C4.3 INLET C4.2 523.20 0.01 12 0.01 0.40 3.62 4.65 4.65 12"PV 2925 PIPE 169(1)(2) STRC 314 STRC 477 98.30 0.01 12 0.01 3.52 4.48 3.24 3.24 12"PVC 2926 PIPE 169(2)(2) STRC 476 STRC486 51.00 0.01 12 0.01. 2.88 3.67 3.18 3.18 12" 2927 PIPE 169(2)(2) STRC 486 STRC 314 49.60 0.01 12 0.01 3.12 3.97 3.22 3.22 12"PVC 2985 PIPE 277(2) INLET 668.2 INLET66B.3 241.60 0.01 12 0.01 0.26 2.48 3.26 3,26 12"PV 2986 PIPE 277(2)(1) INLET 66B.3 INLET 668.4 241.20 0.01 12 0.01 0.39 2.80 3.27 3.27 12"PVC 2987 PIPE 278(2) INLET 668.5 O MECH 189.10 0.01 12 0.01 0.65. 3.27 3.30 3.30 12"PV 3007 PIPE 309 INLET C8.1 MH D3 112.40 0.01 12 0.01 1.26 4.94 4.54 4.54 12"PVC 3014 PIPE 319 STRC 477 STRC481 67.90 0.01 12 0.01 3.52 4.48 3.37 3.37 12"PVC 3015 PIPE 320 STRC 481 STRC 458 456.20 0.01 12 0.01 3.52 4.48 3.27 3.27 12"PVC 3228 PIPE 17(1) O MECH RD INLET 66B.6 904.30 0.01 12 0.01 1.34 1.71 3.20 3.20 12"PVC 2514 PIPE 123 INLETA4 INLETA3 1,10S.10 0.01 15 0.01 1.67 4.OS 5.73 5.73 15 inch HP STORM PP 2515 PIPE 124(1) INLETA3 INLET A2 323.00 O.OD 15 0.01 3.13 4.69 5.60 5.60 15 inch HP STORM PP ' 2651 PIPE87 INLET A2 O B2.3 392.30 0.01 15 0.01 4.64 6.87 8.17 8.17 15 inch HP STORM PP 2652 PIPE 90 INLET B2 0 B2 244.90 0.02 15 0.01 1.71 7.12 12A7 12.47 15"HP STORM PP 2579 PIPE 218 INLET CI.2 INLET CIA 361.30 0.01 18.1 0.01 7.45 7.89 13.75 1175 18 inch HP STORM PP 2533 PIPE 162(1) INLET C2.3 INLET CI.3 454.80 0.01 18 0.01 5.76 7.40 13,67 13.67 18"HDPE 2578 PIPE 217 INLET CI.3 INLET CI.2 604.70 0.01 18 0.01 7.04 7.76 13.60 13.60 18"HDPE 2649 PIPE 81 INLET C2.4 STRC 490 302.80 0.01 18 0.01 5.28 7.20 13.59 13.59 18"HDPE - 3018 PIPE 81(4) STRC 490 INLET C2.3 190.70 0.01 18 0.01 5.52 7.33 13.70 13.70 18"HDPE 2527 PIPE 138 INLETCI.l STRC 391 1,705.30 0.01 24 0.01 7.86 6.16 20.79 20.79 24"HDPE 2550 PIPE 170 INLET RI MH D3 134.50 0.00 24 0.01 36.92 11.75 17.57 17.57 24"PVC 2539 PIPE 129(5)(1) STRC 292 STRC 307 54.80 0.00 30 0.01 38.80 7.90 35.30 35.30 30 inch HP STORM PP 2520 PIPE 129(5)(1) STRC 328 STRC 290 391.50 0.00 30 0.01 39.18 7.98 32.34 32.34 30 inch HP STORM PP 2521 PIPE 129(5)(2) STRC 291 STRC 292 853.40 0.00 30 0.01 38.56 7.86 34.63 34.63 30 inch HP STORM PP ' 2582 PIPE 221 STRC 307 STRC 328 43.60 0.01 30 0.01 38.94 9.19 39.56 39.56 30 inch HP STORM PP 2917 PIPE 129(7) MH D3 STRC 291 670.70 0.00 30 0,01 38.42 7.83 33.45 33.45 30 inch HP STORM PP i 2516 PIPE 125 INLETC2 OC2 552.10 0.01 36 0.01 169 3.72 49.17 49.17 36"RCP 2597 PIPE 245 STRC 391 O LAGOON 347.10 0.00 36 0.01 47.04 6.65 39.21 39.21 36"RC� 2653 PIPE 98 INLET Cl OCl 551.90 0.01 36 0.01 2.99 3.84 49.17 49.17 36"RCP 2518 PIPE 129(4)(1) STRC 290 STRC 391 692.20 0.00 0.01 39.18 7.88 25.76 25.76 38"x24"HERCP. 7 2604 PIPE 251 INLET C5 0 C5 785.90 0.02 4 0.01 0.24 4.32 0.3S 0.35 4"PVC 2524 PIPE 133 STRC 394 INLETA4 98.60 0.01 6 0.01 0.21 2.47 0.51 0.51 5"PVC 2567 PIPE 209(1) INLET UNDERDRAIN 66B STRC 479 77.00 0.02 6 0.01 0.14 3.68 1.04 1.04 6"PVC 2570 PIPE 210(1)(1) INLET 66C.1 STRC 328 131.00 0.51 6 0.01 0.24 13.45 5.21 5.21 6"PVC 2571 PIPE 211 INLET C2.6.3 STRC 461 173.40 0.01 6 0.01 0.40 2.04 0.51 1151 6"PVC 2572 PIPE 212 INLET C2.9.01 STRC 314 250.80 0.01 6. 0.01 0.40 2.04 0.50 0.50 6"PVC 2574 PIPE 213IT) INLET C2.10.1 STRC 476 250.30 0.01 6 0.01 0.64 3.26 0.51 0.51 6"PVC 2575 PIPE 214 INLET C2.11.1 STRC 316 250.60 0.01 6 0.01 0.40 2.04 0.50 0.50 6"PVC 2576 PIPE 215 INLET C8.3.1 STRC 318 184.40 0.01 6 0.01 0.24 3.30 0.72 0.72 6"PVC 7577 PIPE 216 INLET C8.4.1 STRC 320 186.50 0.01 6 0.01 0.24 3.37 0.74 0.74 6"PVC 2593 PIPE 234 INLET C2.10.2 INLET C2.10.1 97.90 0.01 6 0.01 0.24 1.22 0.57 0.57 6"PVC 2594 PIPE 236 INLET C2.6.2.2 STRC 468 126.00 0.01 6 0.01 0.24 1.22 0.50 0.50 6"PVC - 2781 PIPE 284 STRC 478 STRC 291 7S.00 0.45 6 0.01 0.14 10.97 4.88 4.88 6"PVC 2936 PIPE 185 INLET 66C STRC 292 161.30 0.41 6 0.01 0.24 12.50 4.67 4.67 6"PVC 2943 PIPE 209(1)(2) STRC 479 STRC 307 49.60 0.40 6 0.01 0.14 10.54 4.61 4.61 6"PVC 2955 PIPE 246 INLET LOADING STRC 394 138.20 0.01 6 0,01 0.21 3.26 0.74 0.74 6'.PVC 2991 PIPE 284(2) INLET UNDERDRAIN 660.1 STRC 478 38.80 0.01 6 0.01 0.14 2.79 0.70 0.70 6"PVC 3006 PIPE 307 INLET C2.6.1.1 INLET C2.6.1 211.10 0.01 6 0.01 0.40 3.83 0.74 0.74 6-PVC 3013 PIPE 317 STRC 468 STRC 461 238.40 0.01 6 0.01 0.24 1.22 0.52 0.52 6"PVC 3016 PIPE 321 INLET C2.9.1.1 STRC 486 250.60 0.01 6 0.01 0.24 1.22 0.50 0.50 6"PVC 2585 PIPE 224 INLET 666 O MECH RD 91.00 0.02 8 0.01 1.34 6.63 2.21 2.21 8"PVC 2602 PIPE 249 INLET C2.13.1 INLETC2.13 235.00 0.01 8 0.01 0.64 1.83 1.12 1.12 8"PVC 2603 PIPE 250 INLET C2.16 INLET C2.15 178.30 0.01 8 0.01 LAS 3.00 1.08 1.08 8"PVC 2636 PIPE 281 INLET C2.17 INLET C2.16 301.20 0.01 8 0.01 0.24 2.57 1.13 1.13 8"PVC 2958 PIPE 250(2) INLET C2.14 INLET C2.13 203.60 0.01 8 0.01 0.96 2.75 1.08 1.08 8"PVC 2959 PIPE 250(3) INLET C2.15 INLET C2.14 201.10 0.01 8 0.01 0.72 2.06 1.15 1.15 8"PVC 3008 PIPE 310 INLET C8.1.1 MH D3 S32.90 0.01 8 0.01 0.24 2.83 1.29 1.29 8"PVC 3017 PIPE 322 INLET C2.3.1.1 STRC 490 262.30 0.01 8 0.01 0.24 3.26 1.58 1.58 8..PVC 2 YEAR INLET SUMMARY ID Label Elevation(Rim)(ft) Flow(Known)(cfs) Energy Grade Line(Out)(ft) Hydraulic Graad)e Line(Out) Notes 2385 INLET 66B 5,027.47 0.36 5,027.11 5,027.06 Simple 2423 INLET66B.1 5,030.59 0.04 5,028.04 5,028.02 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 3156 INLET 6613.2 5,030.54 0.04 5,028.01 5,027.98 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 3157 INLET668.3 5,030.54 0.04 5,027.95 5,027.90 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2424 INLET 666.4 5,030.48 0.04 5,027.88 5,027.86 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 3158 INLET 6613.5 5,030.82 0.04 5,027.87 5,027.80 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 3159 INLET 6613.6 5,030.61 0.36 5,026.78 5,026.77 Type 16 Valley Single 2807 INLET 66C 5,030.51 0.06 5,030.11 5,030.07 Standard 3162 INLET 66C.1 5,030.51 0.06 5,030.11 5,030.07 Standard 2808 INLET A2 5,029.76 0.41 5,027.05 5,026.88 Type 16 Single 2809 INLETA3 5,029.99 0.4 5,027.25 5,027.12 Type 16 Valley Single 2810 INLET A4 5,030.92 0.4 5,027.74 5,027.65 Type 16 Valley Triple 2811 INLET B2 5,029.14 0.46 5,026.13 5,026.03 Type 16 Single 2391 INLET C1 5,025.86 0.74 5,022.56 5,022.51 FES 36" 2812 INLET C1.1 5,027.95 0.11 5,025.11 5,024.94 Type 16 Single 2813 INLET C1.2 5,028.32 0.11 5,025.96 5,025.77 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2814 INLET C1.3 5,028.02 0.06 5,026.54 5,026.35 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2392 INLET C2 5,025.53 0.66 5,022.54 5,022.49 FES 36" 2396 INLET C2.10.1 5,031.48 0.11 5,028.74 5,028.70 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2397 INLET C2.10.2 5,031.31 0.06 5,028.77 5,028.75 Area Inlet Nylo Square 15" 2815 INLET C2.11.1 5,031.64 0.11 5,028.87 5,028.81 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2402 INLET C2.13 5,030.72 0.06 5,029.03 5,028.97 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2816 INLET C2.13.1 5,030.73 0.06 5,029.10 5,029.03 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2817 INLET C2.13.2 5,031.74 0.11 5,029.17 5,029.12 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2403 INLET C2.14 5,031.05 0.06 5,029.13 5,029.09 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2818 INLET C2.15 5,030.79 0.06 5,029.27 5,029.20 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2819 INLET C2.16 5,030.89 0.06 5,029.39 5,029.34 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2820 INLET C2.17 5,030.50 0.06 5,029.56 5,029.52 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2405 INLET C2.3 5,028.73 0.06 5,027.00 5,026.98 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2821 INLET C2.3.1.1 5,030.47 0.06 5,027.42 5,027.38 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2406 INLETC2.4 5,030.08 0.06 5,027.48 5,027.42 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2407 INLET C2.5 5,028.92 0.06 5,028.02 5,027.95 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2822 INLET C2.6.1 5,030.33 0.06 5,028.12 5,028.07 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2823 INLET C2.6.1.1 5,031.07 0.11 5,028.90 5,028.84 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2824 INLET C2.6.2.2 5,031.81 0.06 5,028.36 5,028.32 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2825 INLET C2.6.3 5,031.78 0.11 5,028.34 5,028.28 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2826 INLET C2.9.01 5,031.58 0.11 5,028.48 5,028.46 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2827 INLET C2.9.1.1 5,031.54 0.06 5,028.60 5,028.56 Area Inlet Nylo Square 15" 2828 INLET C4.1 5,028.17 0.06 5,027.09 5,027.02 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2829 INLET C4.2 5,029.33 0.11 5,027.51 5,027.44 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2830 INLET C4.3 5,031.11 0.11 5,027.97 5,027.93 Area Inlet Nylo Round 24" 2419 INLET C5 5,026.75 0.06 5,024.16 5,024.13 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2831 INLET C8.1 5,030.15 0.07 5,027.65 5,027.57 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2832 INLETC8.1.1 5,030.94 0.06 5,027.70 5,027.66 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2833 INLET C8.2 5,030.51 0.06 5,028.20 5,028.13 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2834 INLET C8.3.1 5,031.89 0.06 5,028.59 5,028.55 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2835 INLET C8.4.1 5,031.89 0.06 5,028.99 5,028.95 Area Inlet Nylo Square 12" 2836 INLET C8.5 5,030.47 0.06 5,028.68 5,028.65 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2838 INLET LOADING 5,030.99 0.05 5,028.42 5,028.38 Area Inlet Nylo Round 18" 2425 INLET R1 5,026.22 10.06 5,025.68 5,025.52 Simple INLET UNDERDRAIN 2426 66B 5,032.60 0.04 5,026.32 5,026.30 Clean Out INLET UNDERDRAIN 2655 6613.1 5,031.90 0.04 5,027.44 5,027.42 Clean Out 2 YEAR MANHOLE SUMMARY (Ground)( ) (invert)( ) ( )( ) Hydraulic Grade Line(Out) Energy Grade Line(Out) ID Label Elevation Ground ft Elevation Invert ft Flow Total Out cfs Notes (ft) (ft) 2887 STRC 401 5,030.06 5,023.68 0.00 (N/A) (N/A) Type D Inlet 2897 STRC 458 5,030.85 5,027.61 1.26 5,028.08 5,028.27 Clean Out 2898 STRC 461 5,031.28 5,027.95 0.17 5,028.13 5,028.19 Clean Out 2899 STRC 468 5,031.65 5,028.15 0.06 5,028.27 5,028.31 WYE Connection 2907 STRC 476 5,029.22 5,028.11 0.75 5,028.47 5,028.60 Standard 2908 STRC 477 5,029.04 5,027.93 0.92 5,028.33 5,028.48 Standard 2909 STRC 478 5,027.84 5,027.28 0.04 5027.38 5,027.41 Standard 2910 STRC 479 5,026.63 5,026.06 0.04 5:026.16 5,026.19 Standard 2911 STRC 481 5,029.01 5,027.90 0.92 5,028.30 5,028.45 Standard 2915 STRC 486 5,031.74 5,028.09 0.81 5,028.47 5,028.61 WYE Connection 2916 STRC 490 5,030.51 5,026.63 1.44 5027.08 5,027.24 WYE Connection 2428 MH C2.12 5,031.09 5,028.43 0.47 5:028.71 5,028.82 Clean Out 2429 MH D3 5,030.99 5,023.95 10.43 5025.03 5,025.44 Storm MH 5' 2453 STRC 290 5,027.95 5,023.22 10.63 5:024.14 5,024.49 Storm MH 5' 2454 STRC 292 5,026.14 5,023.43 10.53 5024.52 5,024.93 WYE Connection 2458 STRC 307 5,026.11 5,023.41 10.57 5:024.50 5,024.91 WYE Connection 2461 STRC 314 5,031.79 5,027.97 0.92 5,028.37 5,028.52 Clean Out 2462 STRC 316 5,031.25 5,028.30 0.58 5,028.62 5,028.73 WYE Connection 2463 STRC 318 5,031.71 5,028.03 0.18 5,028.20 5,028.26 WYE Connection 2464 STRC 320 5,031.61 5,028.42 0.12 5,028.56 5,028.61 WYE Connection 2469 STRC 328 5,025.74 5,023.39 10.63 5,024.48 5,024.90 WYE Connection 2498 STRC 391 5,028.03 5,021.73 12.69 5,022.90 5,023.28 Storm MH 8' 2501 STRC 394 5,031.16 5,028.15 0.05 5,028.26 5,028.30 WYE Connection 2677 STRC 291 5,026.43 5,023.73 10.47 5,024.81 5,025.22 WYE Connection 2 YEAR OUTLET SUMMARY (Ground)( ) (invert)( ) Elevation(User(Defined Tailwater) Y ( ) )( ) Notes ID Label Elevation Ground ft Elevation Invert ft Hydraulic Grade ft Flow Total Out cfs 2376 O B2 5,026.84 5,025.32 5,025.49 0.46 Simple 2377 O B2.3 5,027.49 5,026.13 5,026.47 1.26 WYE Connection 2378 0 C1 5,025.62 5,021.95 5,022.21 0.74 FES 36" 2379 0 C2 5,025.28 5,021.95 5,022.19 0.66 FES 36" 2380 0 C5 5,023.04 5,022.66 5,022.75 0.06 Simple 2382 O LAGOON 5,025.30 5,021.63 5,022.76 12.69 FES 36" 2383 0 MECH ADDITION 5,031.97 5,027.54 5,027.71 0.2 WYE Connection 2384 0 MECH RD 5,027.52 5,026.41 5,026.78 0.72 Standard 2 YEAR CONDUIT SUMMARY ID Label Start Node Stop Node Length(Scaled)(k) Slope(Calculated)(k/k) Diameter(in) Manning'sn Flow(cfs) Velocity(k/s) Capacity(Full Flow) Flow/Capacity Notes (-is) (Design)(%) 2635 PIPE 280 INLET C2.13,2 INLET C2.13.1 87.20 0.00 8.00 0.01 0.11 1.90 1.01 1.01 101,PVC 2944 PIPE 211(3) STRC 461 INLET C2.6.1 174.90 0.01 10 0.01 0.17 2.22 1.97 1.97 10"PVC 2650 PIPE 81(1) INLET C25 INLET C2A 445.40 0.01 12 0.01 1.32 5.07 4.62 4.62 12"HDPE 2924 PIPE 167(3) STRC458 INLET C2.5 184.80 0.01 12 0.01 1.26 5.09 4.72 4.72 12"HDPE 2532 PIPE 162 INLET C4.1 INLET CI.3 367.90 0.01 12 0.01 1128 3.27 4.66 4.66 12"PVC 2534 PIPE 163 INLET C4.2 INLET C4.1 427.80 0.01 12 0.01 0.22 3.01 4.59 4.59 12"PVC 2536 PIPE 166 INLET C8.5 STRC320 163.80 0.01 12 0.01 0.06 2.01 4.52 4.52 12"PVC 2537 PIPE 166(1) INLET C8.2 INLET C8.1 700.70 0.01 12 0.01 0.24 3.12 4.66 4.66 12"PVC 2538 PIPE 166(2) STRC318 INLET C8.2 127.20 0.01 12 0.01 0.18 2.79 4.50 4.50 12"PVC 2539 PIPE 166(3) STRC 320 STRC 318 458.90 101 12 0.01 0.12 2.54 4.68 4.68 12"PVC 2540 PIPE 167 INLET C2.6.1 STRC458 158.30 0.01 12 0.01 0.34 2.75 3.37 3.37 12"PVC 2544 PIPE 169 MH C2.12 STRC 316 316.70 0.01 12 0.01 0.47 2.95 3.25 3.25 12"PVC 2546 PIPE 169(2) STRC 316 STRC476 444.50 0.01 12 0.01 0.58 3.18 3.32 3.32 12"PVC 2591 PIPE 232 INLET C2.13 MH C2.12 269.50 0.01 12 0.01 0.47 2.94 3.24 3.24 12"PVC 2631 PIPE 277 INLET 66B:1 INLET 666.2 150.60 0.01 12 0.01 0.04 1A8 3.46 3.46 12"PVC 2632 PIPE 278 INLET 66B.4 INLET 66B.5 103.80 101 12 0.01 0.16 2.10 3.15 3.15 12"PVC 2641 PIPE 288 INLET C4.3 INLET C4.2 523.20 0.01 12 0.01 0.11 2.47 4.65 4.65 12"PVC 2925 PIPE 169(I)(2) STRC 314 STRC 477 98.30 0.01 12 0.01 0.92 3.55 3.24 3.24 12"PVC 2926 PIPE 169(2)(2) STRC476 STRC 486 51.00 0.01 12 0.01 0.75 3.31 3.18 3.18 12"PVC 2927 PIPE 169(2)(2)(1) STRC 486 STRC 314 49.60 0.01 12 0.01 0.81 3.42 3.22 3.22 12"PVC 2985 PIPE 277(2) INLET 668.2 INLET 56B.3 241.60 0.01 12 0.01 0.08 13S 3.26 3.26 12"PVC 2996 PIPE 277(2)(1) INLET 668.3 INLET 66B.4 241.20 0,01 12 0.01 0.12 1.98 3.27 3.27 12"PVC 2987 PIPE 278(2) INLET 66B.5 OMECH 189.10 0.01 12 0.01 0.20 2.32 3.30 3.30 12"PVC 3007 PIPE 309 INLET C8.1 MH D3 112.40 0.01 12 0.01 0.31 3.30 4.54 4.54 12"PVC 3014 PIPE 319 STRC477 STRC481 67.90 0.01 12 0.01 0.92 3.66 3.37 3.37 12"PVC 3015 PIPE 320 STRC 481 STRC458 456.20 0,01 12 0.01 0.92 3.58 3.27 3.27 12"PVC 3228 PIPE 17(1) O MECH RD INLET 668.6 904.30 0.01 12 0.01 0.36 0.46 3.20 3.20 12'PVC 2514 PIPE 123 INLET A4 INLET A3 1,105.10 0.01 15 0.01 0.45 2.79 5.73 5.73 15 inch HP STORM PP 2515 PIPE 124 it) INLET A3 INLET A2 323.00 0.00 15 0.01 0.85 3.30 5.60 5.60 15 inch HP STORM PP 2651 PIPE 87 INLET A2 082.3 392.30 0.01 15 0.01 1.26 4.83 8.17 8.17 15 inch HP STORM PP 2652 PIPE 90 INLET B2 O B2. 244.90 0.02 15 0.01 0.46 4.84 12.47 12.47 15"HP STORM PP 2579 PIPE 218 INLET CI.2 INLET Cl.l 361.30 0.01 18.1 0.01 1.95 5.47 13.75 13.75 18 inch HP STORM PP 2533 RIPE 162(1) INLET C2.3 INLET CI.3. 454.80 0.01 18 0.01 1.50 5.08 13.67 13.67 18"HDPE 2578 PIPE 217 INLET C3.3 INLET CI.2 604.70 0.01 18 0.01 1.84 5.37 13.60 13.60 18"HDPE 2649 PIPE 81 INLET C2.4 STRC 490 302.80 0.01 18 0.01 1.38 4.94 13.59 13.59 18"HDPE 3018 PIPE 81(4) STRC 490 INLET C2.3 190.70 0.01 18 0.01 1.44 5.03 13.70 13.70 18"HDPE 2527 PIPE 138 INLET Cl.l STRC 391 1,705.30 0.01 24 0.01 2.06 4.22 20.79 20.79 24"HDPE 2550 PIPE 170 INLET R1 MH D3 134.50 0.00 24 0.01 10.06 5.78 17.57 17.57 24"PVC 2519 PIPE 129(5)(1) STRC 292 STRC 307 54.80 0.00 30 0.01 10.53 6.28 35.30 35.30 30 inch HP STORM PP 2520 PIPE 129(5)(I)(1) STRC 328 STRC 290 391.50 0.00 30 0.01 10.63 5.90 32.34 32.34 30 inch HP STORM PP 2521 PIPE 129(5)(2) STRC 291 STRC 292 853.40 0.00 30 0.01 10.47 6.18 34.63 34.63 30 inch HP STORM PP 2582 PIPE 221 STRC 307 STRC 328 43.60 0.01 30 0.01 10.57 6.82 39.56 39.56 30 inch HP STORM PP 2917 PIPE 129(7) MH D3 STRC 291 670.70 0.00 30 0.01 10.43 6.02 33.45 33.45 30 inch HP STORM PP 2516 PIPE 125 INLET C2 0C2 552.10 0.01 36 0.01 0.66 2.44 49.17 49.17 36"RCP 2597 PIPE 245 STRC 391 0LAGOON 347.10 0.00. 36 0.01 12.69 4,95 39.21 39.21 36"RCP 2653 PIPE 98 INLET Cl OCT 551.90 0.01 36 0.01 0.74 2.53 49.17 49.17 36"RCP 2518 PIPE 129(4)(1) STRC 290 STRC 391 692.20 0.00 0.01 10.63 4.87 25.76 25.76 38"04"HERCP 2604 PIPE 251 INLET CS 005 785.90 0.02 4 0.01 0.06 3.00 0.35 0.35 4"PVC 2524 PIPE 133 STRC 394 INLETA4 98.60 0.01 6 0.01 0.05 1.65 0.51 0,51 6"PVC 2567 PIPE 209(1) INLET UNDERDRAIN 66B STRC 479 77.00 O02 6 0.01 0.04 2.55 1.04 1.04 6"PVC 2570 PIPE 210(1)(1) INLET 66C.1 STRC 328 131.00 051 6 0.01 0.06 8.97 5.21 5.21 6"PVC 2571 PIPE 211 INLET C2.6.3 STRC 461 173.40 101 6 0.01 0.11 2.06 0.51 0.51 6"PVC 2572 PIPE 212 INLETC2.9.01 STRC 314 250.80 0.01 6 0.01 0.11 2.05 0.50 0.50 6"PVC 2574 PIPE 213(1) INLET C2.10.1 STRC476 250.30 0.01 6 0.01 0.17 2.32 0.51 0.51 6"PVC 2575 PIPE 214 INLET C2.11.1 STRC 316 250.60 0.01 6 0.01 0.11 2.05 0.50 0.50 6"PVC 2576 PIPE 215 INLET C8.3.1 STRC 318 184.40 0.01 6 0.01 0.06 2.22 0.72 0.72 6"PVC 2572 PIPE 216 INLETC8.4.1 STRC 320 186.50 0.01 6 0.01 0.06 2.27 0.74 0.74 6"PVC 2593 PIPE 234 INLET C2.10.2 INLET C2.10.1 97.90 0.01 6 0.01 0.06 1.89 0.57 0.57 6"PVC 2594 'PIPE 236 INLET C2.6.2.2 STRC 468 126.00 0.01 6 0.01 0.06 1.73 0.50 0.50 6"PVC 2781 PIPE 284 STRC 478 STRC 291 75.00 0.45 6 0.01 0.04 7.47 4.88 4.88 6"PVC 2936 PIPE 185 INLET66C STRC 292 16130 0.41 6 0.01 0,06 8.30 4.67 4.67 6"PVC 2943 PIPE 209(1)(2) STRC479 STRC 307 49.60 0.40 6 0.01 0.04 7.17 4.61 4.61 6"PVC 2955 PIPE 246 INLET LOADING STRC 394 139.20 0.01 6 0.01 0.05 2.16 0.74 0.74 6"PVC 2991 PIPE 284(2) INLET UNDERDRAIN 668.1 STRC 478 38.80 0.01 6 0.01 0.04 1.94 0.70 0.70 6"PVC 3006 PIPE 307 INLET C2.6.1.1 INLET C2.6.1 211.10 0.01 6 0.01 0.11 2.70 0.74 0.74 6"PVC 3013 PIPE 317 STRC468 STRC 461 238.40 0.01 6 0.01 0.06 1.76 0.52 0.52 6"PVC 3016 PIPE 321 INLET C2.9.1.1 STRC486 250.60 0.01 6 0.01 0.06 1.73 0.50 0.50 6"PVC 2585 PIPE 224 INLET 66B 0 MECH RD 91.00 0,02 8 0.01 0.36 4.66 2.21 2.21 8"PVC 2602 PIPE 249 INLET C2.13.1 INLET C2.13 235.00 0.01 8 0.01 0.17 2.32 1.12 1.12 8"PVC 2603 PIPE 250 INLET C2.16 INLET C2.15 178.30 0.01 8 0.01 0.12 2.04 1.08 1.08 8"PVC 2636 PIPE 281 INLET C2.17 INLET C2.16 301.20 0.01 8 0.01 0.06 1.72 1.13 1.13 8"PVC 2958 PIPE 250(2) INLET C2.14 INLET C2.13 203.60 0.01 8 0.01 0.24 2.48 1.08 1.08 8"PVC 2959 PIPE 250(3) INLET C2.15 INLET C2.14 201.10 0.01 8 0.01 0.18 2.40 1.15 1.15 8"PVC 3008 PIPE 310 INLET C8.1.1 MH 03 532.90 0.01 8 0.01 0.06 1.89 1.29 1.29 8"PVC 3017 PIPE 322 INLET C2.3.1.1 STRC 490 262.30 0.01 8 0.01 0.06 2.17 1.58 1.59 8"PVC STORM SEWER LINE A - 100YR STRC 394 Rim:5,031.16 ft Invert:5,028.15 ft INLET A4 INLET A3 Rim:5,030.92 ft Invert:5,027.39 ft Rim:5,029.99 ft IPE123:1,105.1in@0.005ft/ Invert:5,026.76 ft 5,035.00 Circle-15.0 in PVC INLET A2 RIM 5,029.76ft Invert:5,026.44 B2 3 o Rim:5,02 .70 ft 5,030.00 Invert:5.0 6.13 ft w 5,025.00 2+00 1+5 1+00 0+50 0+00 -0+50 PIPE 133:98.6 in @ 0.005 ft/ft PIPE 87:392.3 in @ 0.009 ft/f Circle-6.0 in PVC Circle-15.0 in PVC Station (ft) PIPE 124(1):323.0 in @ 0.004 ftlf Circle-15.0 in PVC CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C - 100YR STRC 292 INLET R1 Rim:5,032.00 ft Rim:5,032.50 ft Invert:5,023.43 ft Invert:5,024.04 ft MH D3 STRC 307 Rim:5,031.50 It Rim:5,030.99 ft Invert:5,023.41 ft Invert:5,023.95 ft STRC 291 STRC 391 Rim:5,032.00 ft STRC 328 Rim:5,028.03 ft Invert:5,023.73 ft Rim:5,031.00 ft Invert:5,021.73 ft 5,035.00 _ Invert:5,023.39 ft STRC 29C PIPE 245:347.1 in @ 0.003 ft/ft Rim:5,02 .95 ft Circle-36.0 in Concrete Invert:5,0 3.22 ft O LAGOON 5,030.00 —FRirw-5,025.30 ft Invert:5,021 M ft 0Ll 5,025.00 - — w 5,020.00 3+00 2+50 2+00 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00 -0+50 129 692.2 PIPE 170:163.5 in @ 0.003 ftPE/ft Station(ft) PI Ellipse(438.0�x 24.01in ConcOrete n Circle-24.0 in PVC PIPE 129(7):670.7 in @ 0.004 ft/ft Circle-30.0 in PVC PIPE 129(5)(1)(1):391.5 in @ 0.004 ft/ft Circle-30.0 in PVC PIPE 129(5)(2):853.4 in @ 0.004 ft/ft PIPE 221:43.6 in @ 0.006 ft/ft Circle-30.0 in PVC Circle-30.0 in PVC PIPE 129(5)(1):54.8 in @ 0.004 ft/ft Circle-30.0 in PVC CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.441 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 2 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C3 - 100YR 5,035.00 INLET C8.2 STRC 320 MH D3 5P23 02793 5,028.42 5,023.95 5,031.61 5,030.99 INLET C8.1 5,027.34 5,030.00 C O E 166(3):458.9 in @ 0.010 ft/ft w Circle- 12.0 in PVC 5,025.00 ( ): .2 in @ 0.009 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC PIPE 166(1):700.7 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC PIPE 309: 112.4 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC 5,020.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 Station(ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 3 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C2 - 100 YR STRC 316 502&30 STRC 477 5:031.25 INLET C2.4 5,027.93 STRC 314 [PIPE 169:316.7 n @ 0.005 ft/ft 5,026.88 5:031:00 5,027.97 Cede-120 in PVC STRC 490 STRC 481 5:031.79 MH C2.12 INLET C2.13 IPE 250(2):203.6 in @ 0.005 ft/ft 5,026.63 5'�'� STRC 486 5,028.43 5,078.64 Circle-&OIn PVC 5,031.00 INLET C2.15 5,030.57 5,028.09 5,037.09 IPE 250(3):201.1 in @ 0.005 ft/ft 5,035.00 029'O7 Circle-S.On PVC ,031 0 NLET C2.74 INLETC216 PIPE cle-11 0In PV1 ft/ ,031.00 STRC 1 ,028.82. 5,029.8 de-18.0 In PVC 5,028.11 PIPE 81():190.7 n @ 0.01 fV INLET 5.031:00 INLET C2.17 le-18.0In PVC 5,027. 5,029.41 INLET � 5,030.00 , INLET C1.3, n @ 0.005 ftlft w 5,025.84 Ckde-S.Oin PVC IPE 250:178.3 in @ 0.005 ft/ft IPE 169(2): .5 in @ 0.005 ft Glrcle-8.0 n PVC Circe 120 in PVC I PE 232: 9.5 in @ e-8.ftl PE 169(2)(2):51. n @ 0.005 fVft Circle-12.0 n PVC 5,025.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 i+ 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 PIPE 162(1):454.8 in @ 0.010 ft/ IPE 169(2)(2)(1):49.6 in @ 0,005 WTI: Circle-18.0n PVC PE 169(1)(2ar�3 In@10.0 fVfl PIPE 81(1):445.4 in.@ 0.010 ft/ Circle-12.0 n PVC �cnPIPE 167(3)184.8 n @ 0.010 ff/f IPE 319:67.9 n @ 0.005 ft/ft Circle-120 in PVC Station(ft)Circle-12.0 in PVC PIPE 320:456.2 n @ 0.005 fV Cide-120 in PVC CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.441 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 4 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C1 - 100 YR INLET C1.2 INLET C1.3 STRC 391 INLET CI.1 Rim:5,028.32ft Rim,5,028.02ft Rim,5,028.03ft Rim:5,027.95ft Invert:5,025.24 ft Invert:5,025.84ft INLETC2.3 Invert:5,021.73 ft Invert 5,024.44 ft Rim:5,028.73 ft 5,030.00 �rlv-eF�5 026.37 ft PIPE 138:1.713in 0.005ft/ft m 5,025.00 arc VC- PIPE 162ft)454.8in 0.010fttft > Circle-18.0 in P C w PIPE 217:604.7 in @ 0.010 ft/ft 5,020.00 Circle-18.01in PVC -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 Station(ft) PIPE 218:361.3 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle-18.1 in PVC CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 5 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C4 - 100YR 5,035.00 INLET C4.3 5,027.79 INLET C4.2 5,027.25 INLET C4.1 g 5,030.00 _ 5,026.80 INLET C1.3 m 5,025.84 w PIPE 288:523.2 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC 5,025.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 PIPE 163:427.8 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC IPE 162:367.9 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC Station (ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 6 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE D.1 - 100YR O MECH RD 5,026.41 5,027.52 5,030.00 INLET 66B 5,026.73 5,029.00 0 5,028.00 > 5,027.00 a) w 5,026.00 PIPE 224: 91.0 in @ 0.020 ft/ft 5,025.00 1 Circle - 8.0 in PVC -0+50 -0+25 0+00 0+25 0+50 Station (ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 7 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE D.2 - 100 YR O MECH ADDITION Rim: 5,028.59 ft Invert: 5,027.54 ft 5,035.00 INLET 6613.4 Rim: 5,030.48 ft Invert: 5,027.66 ft INLET 6613.1 Rim: 5,030.59 ft o Invert: 5,027.93 ft 4- 5,030.00 a� w IPE 277: 150.6 in @ 0.006 ft/ft Circle - 12.0 in PVC 5,025.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 PIPE 278: 103.8 in @ 0.005 ft/ft Circle - 12.0 in PVC Station (ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 8 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C5 - 100YR 5,030.00 INLET C5 Rim: 5,026.75 ft O C5 Invert: 5,023.97 ft Rim: 5,023.04 ft Invert: 5,022.66 ft c c� 5,025.00 a� w PIPE 251: 785.9 in @ 0.020 ft/ft Circle - 4.0 in PVC 5,020.00 - -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 Station (ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 9 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE D.3- 100YR INLET 6613.3 INLET 6613.4 5,035.00 INLET 66B.2 5,027.76 5,027.66 5,027.86 INLET 6613.1 INLET 6613.5 5,027.93 5,027.62 O MECH ADDITION 5,027.54 0 5,028.59 5,030.00 P I PE 278(2) > Circle w PIPE 277 PIPE 278 Circle PIPE 277(2) Circle Circle PIPE 277(2)(1) 5,025.00 Circle -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 Station(ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 10 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE A -2YR STRC 394 Rim:5,031.16 ft Invert:5,028.15 ft INLET A4 INLET A3 Rim:5,030.92 ft Invert:5,027.39 ft Rim:5,029.99 ft IPE123:1,105.1in@0.005ft/ Invert:5,026.76 ft 5,035.00 Circle-15.0 in PVC INLET A2 Rini:5,029.76 ft Invert:5,026.44 ft 0 0 B2.3 Rim:5,027.70 ft > 5,030.00 Invert:5,026.13 ft w 5,025.00 -;6.1// 2+00 1+5 1+00 0+50 000 -0+50 PIPE 133:98.6 in @ 0.005 ftlft Vp+,PE87:392.3in@0.009ft/f Circle-6.0 in PVC Circle-15.0 in PVC Station (ft) PIPE 124(1):323.0 in @ 0.004 ft/f Circle-15.0 in PVC CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C -2YR STRC 292 INLET R1 Rim:5,032.00 ft Rim:5,032.50 ft Invert:5,023.43 ft Invert:5,024.04 ft MH D3 STRC 307 Rim:5,031.50 It Rim:5,030.99 ft Invert:5,023.41 ft Invert:5,023.95 ft STRC 291 STRC 391 Rim:5,032.00 ft STRC 328 Rim:5,028.03 ft Invert:5,023.73 ft Rim:5,031.00 ft Invert:5,021.73 ft 5,035.00 _ Invert:5,023.39 ft STRC 29C PIPE 245:347.1 in @ 0.003 ft/ft Rim:5,02 .95 ft Circle-36.0 in Concrete Invert:5,0 3.22 ft O LAGOON 5,030.00I—FR—' -5,025.30 ft Invert:5,021 M ft 0 5,025.00 - — w 5,020.00 3+00 2+50 2+00 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00 -0+50 129 692.2 PIPE 170:163.5 in @ 0.003 ftPE/ft Station(ft) PI Ellipse(438.0�x 24.01in ConcOrete n Circle-24.0 in PVC PIPE 129(7):670.7 in @ 0.004 ft/ft Circle-30.0 in PVC PIPE 129(5)(1)(1):391.5 in @ 0.004 ft/ft Circle-30.0 in PVC PIPE 129(5)(2):853.4 in @ 0.004 ft/ft PIPE 221:43.6 in @ 0.006 ft/ft Circle-30.0 in PVC Circle-30.0 in PVC PIPE 129(5)(1):54.8 in @ 0.004 ft/ft Circle-30.0 in PVC CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.441 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 2 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C3 -2YR 5,035.00 INLET C8.2 STRC 320 MH D3 5P23 02793 5,028.42 5,023.95 5,031.61 5,030.99 INLET C8.1 5,027.34 5,030.00 C O E 166(3):458.9 in @ 0.010 ft/ft w Circle- 12.0 in PVC 5,025.00 ( ): .2 in @ 0.009 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC PIPE 166(1):700.7 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC PIPE 309: 112.4 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC 5,020.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 Station(ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 3 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C2 -2YR STRC 316 502&30 STRC 477 5:031.25 INLET C2.4 5,027.93 STRC 314 [PIPE 169:316.7 n @ 0.005 ft/ft 5,026.88 5:031:00 5,027.97 Cede-120 in PVC STRC 490 STRC 481 5,031.79 MH C2.12 INLET C2.13 IPE 250(2):203.6 in @ 0.005 ft/ft 5,026.63 5,027 STRC 486 51028.43 5,078.64 Circle-&OIn PVC 5,031.00 INLET C2.15 5,030.57 5,028.09 5,037.09 IPE 250(3):201.1 in @ 0.005 ft/ft 5,035.00U29'01 Cycle-&On PVC ,031 0 NLET C2.74 INLETC216 PIPE cle-1 0InPVC ft/ ,031.00 STRC 1 ,028.82. 5,029.8 de-18.O In PVC 5,028.11 PIPE 81():190.7 n @ 0.01 fV INLET 5.031:00 INLET C2.17 le-18.0In PVC 5,027. 5,029.41 INLET � 5,030.00 , INLET C1.3, n @ 0.005 ftlft w 5,025.84 Ckde-S.Oin PVC IPE 250:178.3 in @ 0.005 ft/ft IPE 169(2): .5 in @ 0.005 ft Glrcle-8.0 n PVC Circe 120 in PVC I PE 232: 9.5 in @ e-8.ftl PE 169(2)(2):51. n @ 0.005 fVft Circle-12.0 n PVC 5,025.00 -O+50 0+00 0+50 i+ 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 PIPE 162(1):454.8 in @ 0.010 ft/ IPE 169(2)(2)(1):49.6 in @ 0,005 ftlft Circle-18.0n PVC PE 169(1)(2ar�3 In@10.0 fVfl PIPE 81(1):445.4 in.@ 0.010 ft/ Circle-12.0 n PVC �cnPIPE 167(3)184.8 n @ 0.010 ff/f IPE 319:67.9 n @ 0.005 ft/ft Circle-120 in PVC Station(ft)Circle-12.0 in PVC PIPE 32):456.2 n @ 0.005 fV Cide-120 in PVC CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.441 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 4 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C1 -2YR INLET C1.2 INLET C1.3 STRC 391 INLET CI.1 Rim:5,028.32ft Rim,5,028.02ft Rim,5,028.03ft Rim:5,027.95ft Invert:5,025.24 ft Invert:5,025.84ft INLETC2.3 Invert:5,021.73 ft Invert 5,024.44 ft Rim:5,028.73 ft 5,030.00 �rlv-eF�5 026.37 ft PIPE 138:1.713in 0.005ft/ft m 5,025.00 arc VC- PIPE 162ft)454.8in 0.010fttft > Circle-18.0 in P C w PIPE 217:604.7 in @ 0.010 ft/ft 5,020.00 Circle-18.01in PVC -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 Station(ft) PIPE 218:361.3 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle-18.1 in PVC CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 5 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C4 -2YR 5,035.00 INLET C4.3 5,027.79 INLET C4.2 5,027.25 INLET C4.1 g 5,030.00 _ 5,026.80 INLET C1.3 m 5,025.84 w PIPE 288:523.2 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC 5,025.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 PIPE 163:427.8 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC IPE 162:367.9 in @ 0.010 ft/ft Circle- 12.0 in PVC Station (ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 6 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE D.1 -2YR O MECH RD 5,026.41 5,027.52 5,030.00 INLET 66B 5,026.73 5,029.00 0 5,028.00 > 5,027.00 a) w 5,026.00 PIPE 224: 91.0 in @ 0.020 ft/ft 5,025.00 1 Circle - 8.0 in PVC -0+50 -0+25 0+00 0+25 0+50 Station (ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 7 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE D.2 -2YR O MECH ADDITION Rim: 5,028.59 ft Invert: 5,027.54 ft 5,035.00 INLET 6613.4 Rim: 5,030.48 ft Invert: 5,027.66 ft INLET 6613.1 Rim: 5,030.59 ft o Invert: 5,027.93 ft 4- 5,030.00 a� w IPE 277: 150.6 in @ 0.006 ft/ft Circle - 12.0 in PVC 5,025.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 PIPE 278: 103.8 in @ 0.005 ft/ft Circle - 12.0 in PVC Station (ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 8 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE C5 -2YR 5,030.00 INLET C5 Rim: 5,026.75 ft O C5 Invert: 5,023.97 ft Rim: 5,023.04 ft Invert: 5,022.66 ft c c� 5,025.00 a� w PIPE 251: 785.9 in @ 0.020 ft/ft Circle - 4.0 in PVC 5,020.00 - -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 Station (ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 9 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 STORM SEWER LINE D.3 -2YR INLET 6613.3 INLET 6613.4 5,035.00 INLET 66B.2 5,027.76 5,027.66 5,027.86 INLET 6613.1 INLET 6613.5 5,027.93 5,027.62 O MECH ADDITION 5,027.54 0 5,028.59 5,030.00 P I PE 278(2) > Circle w PIPE 277 PIPE 278 Circle PIPE 277(2) Circle Circle PIPE 277(2)(1) 5,025.00 Circle -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 Station(ft) CSU VTH Scope B_Storm Sewer- Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution StormCAD 2023.07.24.stsw Center [10.03.03.44] 3/12/2024 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 10 of 10 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project CSU VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING [NGINf ENS Date 3/8/2024 Title Inlet Flow and Distribution INLET FLOWS Qz(CFS) Quo(CFS) INLET 66B 0.36 1.34 INLET 6613.1 0.04 0.13 INLET 668.2 0.04 0.13 INLET 66B.3 0.04 0.13 INLET 6613.4 0.04 0.13 INLET 666.5 0.04 0.13 INLET 666.6 0.36 1.34 INLET 66C 0.06 0.24 INLET 66C.1 0.06 0.24 INLET A2 0.41 1.51 INLET A3 0.40 1.46 INLET A4 0.40 1.46 INLET B2 0.46 1.71 INLET C1 0.74 2.99 INLET C1.1 0.11 0.41 INLET C1.2 0.11 0.41 INLET C1.3 0.06 0.24 INLET C2 0.66 2.69 INLET C2.10.1 0.11 0.40 INLET C2.10.2 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.11.1 0.11 0.40 INLET C2.13 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.13.1 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.13.2 0.11 0.40 INLET C2.14 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.15 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.16 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.17 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.3 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.3.1.1 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.4 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.5 0.06 0.24 INLETC2.6.1 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.6.1.1 0.11 0.40 INLET C2.6.2.2 0.06 0.24 INLET C2.6.3 0.11 0.40 INLET C2.9.01 0.11 0.40 INLET C2.9.1.1 0.06 0.24 INLET C4.1 0.06 0.24 INLET C4.2 0.11 0.40 INLET C4.3 0.11 0.40 INLET C5 0.06 0.24 INLET C8.1 0.07 0.30 INLET C8.1.1 0.06 0.24 INLET C8.2 0.06 0.24 INLET C8.3.1 0.06 0.24 INLET C8.4.1 0.06 0.24 INLET C8.5 0.06 0.24 INLET LOADING 0.05 0.21 INLET R1 10.06 36.92 INLET UNDERDRAIN 66B 0.04 0.14 INLET UNDERDRAIN 66B.1 0.04 0.14 Project CSU VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date 121812023 .400�" Title INLET B2.8 DESIGN INLET DESIGN,ORIFICE-WEIR, KNOWN FLOW References none Formulas a _ 1 r Qorif ice Horifice—(�9)I Cod] ) GENERAL Inlet Type Denver#16 Combo, Grate or Valley N 3 # Number of Inlets Qreq 1.46 cfs Required flow for inlet X 1 % Clogging Factor WEIR P 6.46 ft Inlet perimeter Hweir 0.13 ft Water depth for weir flow ORIFICE A 231.7 in Free open area of orifice(ft') Co 0.6 Discharge coefficient for orifice(0.60-0.65) Horifice 0.02 ft Water depth for orifice flow Flow Type Weir flow type Depth 0.13 ft Flow depth at inlet Notes Area Inlet Page 1 of 8 Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx/Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx Project CSU VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date 121812023 .400�" Title INLET B2.6 DESIGN INLET DESIGN,ORIFICE-WEIR, KNOWN FLOW References none Formulas a _ 1 r Qorif ice Horifice—(�9)I Cod] ) GENERAL Inlet Type Denver#16 Combo, Grate or Valley N 1 # Number of Inlets Qreq 1.46 cfs Required flow for inlet X 1 % Clogging Factor WEIR P 6.46 ft Inlet perimeter Hweir 0.26 ft Water depth for weir flow ORIFICE A 231.7 in Free open area of orifice(ft') Co 0.6 Discharge coefficient for orifice(0.60-0.65) Horifice 0.14 ft Water depth for orifice flow Flow Type Weir flow type Depth 0.26 ft Flow depth at inlet Notes Area Inlet Page 2 of 8 Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx/Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx Project CSU VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date 12/8/2023 Title INLET B2.5 DESIGN INLET DESIGN,ORIFICE-WEIR, KNOWN FLOW References none Formulas a _ 1 r Qorif ice Horifice—(�9)I Cod] ) GENERAL Inlet Type Denver#16 Combo, Curb N 1 # Number of Inlets Qreq 1.51 cfs Required flow for inlet X 0.50 % Clogging Factor WEIR P 0 ft Inlet perimeter Hweir 0.45 ft Water depth for weir flow ORIFICE A 234 in Free open area of orifice(ft') Co 0.66 Discharge coefficient for orifice(0.60-0.65) Horifice 0.12 ft Water depth for orifice flow Flow Type Weir flow type Depth 0.45 ft Flow depth at inlet Notes Page 3 of 8 Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx/Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx Project CSU VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date 12/8/2023 Title INLET B2.1 DESIGN INLET DESIGN,ORIFICE-WEIR, KNOWN FLOW References none Formulas a _ 1 r Qorif ice Horifice—(�9)I Cod] ) GENERAL Inlet Type Denver#16 Combo, Curb N 1 # Number of Inlets Qreq 1.71 cfs Required flow for inlet X 0.50 % Clogging Factor WEIR P 0 ft Inlet perimeter Hweir 0.49 ft Water depth for weir flow ORIFICE A 234 in Free open area of orifice(ft') Co 0.66 Discharge coefficient for orifice(0.60-0.65) Horifice 0.16 ft Water depth for orifice flow Flow Type Weir flow type Depth 0.49 ft Flow depth at inlet Notes Page 4 of 8 Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx/Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx Project CSU VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING ENGINEER S Date 12/8/2023 Title INLET L1.1 DESIGN INLET DESIGN,ORIFICE-WEIR, KNOWN FLOW References none Formulas a _ 1 r Qorif ice Horifice—(�9)I Cod] ) GENERAL Inlet Type Denver#16 Combo, Curb N 1 # Number of Inlets Qreq 0.68 cfs Required flow for inlet X 0.50 % Clogging Factor WEIR P 0 ft Inlet perimeter Hweir 0.27 ft Water depth for weir flow ORIFICE A 234 in Free open area of orifice(ft') Co 0.66 Discharge coefficient for orifice(0.60-0.65) Horifice 0.02 ft Water depth for orifice flow Flow Type Weir flow type Depth 0.27 ft Flow depth at inlet Notes Page 5 of 8 Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx/Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx Project CSU VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date 121812023 Title 12"DOMED GRATE INLET INLET CAPACITY BASED ON CAPTURE CHART FROM INLET MANUFACTURER References Insert Product Catalog Reference or Manufacturer's Name GENERAL Inlet type/name INLET D.2.1 X 50% Effective inlet capture(50%-70%) 5-Year 100-year Q 0.09 0.34 cfs Required flow for inlet d 0.1 0.25 ft Maximum Ponding depth 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 F ,15 U 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0." em 0.95 1A0 1.05 1.110 Head(ft) 5-Year 100-year Qinlet F-05-0-F 1.17 cfs Inlet capture Qinlet-reduced 0.15 0.585 cfs Inlet effective capture capacity Good Good Notes All inlets that were 12"Nyloplast Inlets the highest flow conditon at one inlet was used for this calculaiton and the rest are to have a ponding dpeth lower than the ponding depth shown here Page 6 of 8 Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx/Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx Project CSU VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date 121812023 Title 18"DOMED GRATE INLET INLET CAPACITY BASED ON CAPTURE CHART FROM INLET MANUFACTURER References Insert Product Catalog Reference or Manufacturer's Name GENERAL Inlet type/name INLET C2.2 X 50% Effective inlet capture(50%-70%) 5-Year 100-year Q 0.09 0.34 cfs Required flow for inlet d 0.1 0.25 ft Maximum Ponding depth 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Head(@) 5-Year 100-year Qinlet F-O-.4-5-F 1.80 cfs Inlet capture Qinlet-reduced 0.225 0.9 cfs Inlet effective capture capacity Good Good Notes All inlets that were 18"Nyloplast Inlets the highest flow conditon at one inlet was used for this calculaiton and the rest are to have a ponding dpeth lower than the ponding depth shown here Page 7 of 8 Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx/Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx Project CSU VTH Scope B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date 121812023 Title 24"DOMED GRATE INLET INLET CAPACITY BASED ON CAPTURE CHART FROM INLET MANUFACTURER References Insert Product Catalog Reference or Manufacturer's Name GENERAL Inlet type/name INLET 1-1.2 X 50% Effective inlet capture(50%-70%) 5-Year 100-year Q 0.27 1.01 cfs Required flow for inlet d 0.15 0.5 ft Maximum Ponding depth ,1.00 ,a.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 u 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Head(R) 5-Year 100-year Qinlet F-0-7-0-F 2.40 cfs Inlet capture Qinlet-reduced 0.35 1.2 cfs Inlet effective capture capacity Good Good Notes All inlets that were 24"Nyloplast Inlets the highest flow conditon at one inlet was used for this calculaiton and the rest are to have a ponding dpeth lower than the ponding depth shown here Page 8 of 8 Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx/Inlet Capacity Design.xlsx Project VHEC MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22.0409 .60�"CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date 12/5/2023 Title Bioswale Discharge Calculations BIOSWALE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS BIOSWALE A Length Q2 Q100 C1 338.00 1.09 4.00 C2 338.00 0.43 1.62 C3 338.00 1.21 4.46 C4 338.00 0.93 3.42 Bioswale Al subtotal 3.66 13.51 Culvert Al C5 90.00 1.48 5.98 Total 5.14 19.49 BIOSWALE B Length Q2 Q100 B2 284.00 1.09 4.08 B1 284.00 1.16 4.30 B3 284.00 0.46 1.71 D1 284.00 1.19 4.37 D3 284.00 0.53 2.08 Bioswale Downstream subtotal 4.44 16.54 D2 460.00 1.20 4.43 Bioswale Upstream Total 5.64 20.98 TOTAL 40.46 Design Procedure Form: Grass Swale (GS) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Sheet 1 of 1 Designer: BMN Company: Martin/Martin Inc Date: December 5,2023 Project: VHEC South Bioswale Location: Colorado State Univeristy-Bioswale A(Section Al) 1. Design Discharge for 2-Year Return Period Q2= 3.66 Cfs 2. Hydraulic Residence Time A) :Length of Grass Swale Ls= 300.0 ft B) Calculated Residence Time(based on design velocity below) THR= 7.0 minutes 3. Longitudinal Slope(vertical distance per unit horizontal) A) Available Slope(based on site constraints) Savaii= 0.0025 ft/ft B) Design Slope SD= 0.0025 ft/ft 4. Swale Geometry A) Channel Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.distance per unit vertical) Z= 5.00 ft/ft B) Bottom Width of Swale(enter 0 for triangular section) Ws= 8.00 ft hoose One 5. Vegetation A) Type of Planting(seed vs.sod,affects vegetal retardance factor) &Grass From Seed 0 Grass From Sod 6. Design Velocity(1 ft/s maximum) V2= 0.71 ft/s 7. Design Flow Depth(1 foot maximum) D2= 0.49 ft A) Flow Area A2= 5.1 sq ft B) Top Width of Swale WT= 12.9 ft C)Froude Number(0.50 maximum) F= 0.20 D) Hydraulic Radius RH= 0.39 E) Velocity-Hydraulic Radius Product for Vegetal Retardance VR= 0.28 F) Manning's n(based on SCS vegetal retardance curve E for seeded grass) n= 0.056 G) Cumulative Height of Grade Control Structures Required HD= 0.00 ft hoose One AN UNDERDRAIN IS 8. Underdrain REQUIRED IF THE (Is an underdrain necessary?) &YES 0NO DESIGN SLOPE<2.0% 9. Soil Preparation (Describe soil amendment) hoose One 10. Irrigation &Temporary 0Permanent Notes: Bioswale A Section A1.xlsm,GS 12/5/2023,9:23 AM Design Procedure Form: Grass Swale (GS) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Sheet 1 of 1 Designer: BMN Company: Martin/Martin Inc Date: December 5,2023 Project: VHEC South Bioswale Location: Colorado State Univeristy-Bioswale B 1. Design Discharge for 2-Year Return Period Q2= 4.44 CfS 2. Hydraulic Residence Time A) :Length of Grass Swale Ls= 284.0 ft B) Calculated Residence Time(based on design velocity below) THR= 5.5 minutes 3. Longitudinal Slope(vertical distance per unit horizontal) A) Available Slope(based on site constraints) Savaii= 0.0025 ft/ft B) Design Slope SD= 0.0025 ft/ft 4. Swale Geometry A) Channel Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.distance per unit vertical) Z= 5.00 ft/ft B) Bottom Width of Swale(enter 0 for triangular section) Ws= 5.00 ft hoose One 5. Vegetation A) Type of Planting(seed vs.sod,affects vegetal retardance factor) &Grass From Seed 0 Grass From Sod 6. Design Velocity(0.947 ft/s maximum for desirable 5-minute residence time) V2= 0.86 ft/s 7. Design Flow Depth(1 foot maximum) D2= 0.63 ft A) Flow Area A2= 5.1 sq ft B) Top Width of Swale WT= 11.3 ft C)Froude Number(0.50 maximum) F= 0.23 D) Hydraulic Radius RH= 0.45 E) Velocity-Hydraulic Radius Product for Vegetal Retardance VR= 0.39 F) Manning's n(based on SCS vegetal retardance curve E for seeded grass) n= 0.050 G) Cumulative Height of Grade Control Structures Required HD= 0.00 ft hoose One AN UNDERDRAIN IS 8. Underdrain REQUIRED IF THE (Is an underdrain necessary?) &YES 0NO DESIGN SLOPE<2.0% 9. Soil Preparation (Describe soil amendment) hoose One 10. Irrigation &Temporary 0Permanent Notes: Bioswale B Section Downstream.xlsm,GS 12/5/2023,5:22 PM Design Procedure Form: Grass Swale (GS) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Sheet 1 of 1 Designer: BMT Company: Martin/Martin Inc Date: December 5,2023 Project: VHEC South Bioswale Location: Colorado State Univeristy-Bioswale B-Upstream Section 1. Design Discharge for 2-Year Return Period Q2= 5.64 cfs 2. Hydraulic Residence Time A) .Length of Grass Swale Ls= 460.0 ft B) Calculated Residence Time(based on design velocity below) THR= 8.6 minutes 3. Longitudinal Slope(vertical distance per unit horizontal) A) Available Slope(based on site constraints) Savaii= 0.0025 ft/ft B) Design Slope SD= 0.0025 ft/ft 4. Swale Geometry A) Channel Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.distance per unit vertical) Z= 5.00 ft/ft B) Bottom Width of Swale(enter 0 for triangular section) WB= 8.00 ft hoose One 5. Vegetation A) Type of Planting(seed vs.sod,affects vegetal retardance factor) O Grass From Seed O Grass From Sod 6. Design Velocity(1 ft/s maximum) V2= 0.89 ft/s 7. Design Flow Depth(1 foot maximum) D2= 0.58 ft A) Flow Area A2= 6.3 sq ft B) Top Width of Swale WT= 13.8 ft C)Froude Number(0.50 maximum) F= 0.23 D) Hydraulic Radius RH= 0.45 E) Velocity-Hydraulic Radius Product for Vegetal Retardance VR= 0.41 F) Manning's n(based on SCS vegetal retardance curve E for seeded grass) n= 0.049 G) Cumulative Height of Grade Control Structures Required HD= 0.00 ft hoose One AN UNDERDRAIN IS 8. Underdrain REQUIRED IF THE (Is an underdrain necessary?) OYES O NO DESIGN SLOPE<2.0% 9. Soil Preparation (Describe soil amendment) hoose One 10. Irrigation Temporary 0 Permanent Notes: Bioswale B Section Upstream.xlsm,GS 12/5/2023,5:23 PM Project VHEC Project# 22.0409 MARTIN/MARTIN Date 12/5/2023 Title Bioswale A-Section A grass lined channel design GRASS LINED TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL-HEC 15 ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS References HEC-15 Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings Soil Information D75 in Soil size where 75%of material is finer(Geotech Report or Topsoil Spec) Vegitation Parameters Growth Form Mixed Grass growth form,Table 4.1 Condition Good Condition of grass,Table 4.1 Stem Height 0.25 ft Grass stem height,Table 4.1 Channel Parameters d 1.77 ft Flow depth in channel So 0.0025 ft/ft Channel slope n 0.060 Manning's coefficient for the channel Q 40.46 cfs Design flow Z 5.00 :H Side slopes of channel B 8.00 ft Bottom width of channel P 26.05 ft Perimeter A 29.82 ft Effective flow area R 1.14 ft Hydraulic radius T 25.70 ft Top width of flow V 1.36 fps Flow velocity Qi 40.46 cfs Initial check of discharge to check depth/mannings AQ 0.00 cfs Channel Stresses Td 0.276 Ib/ftZ Maximum shear stress in channel,Eq 2.4 To 0.179 Ib/ftZ Mean boundary stress,Eq 2.3 Te 0.005 Ib/ft2 Effective shear stress at soil surface,Eq 4.3 Grass Roughness and Boundary Shear CS 9.000 Density-stiffness Coefficient,Table 4.2 CI 0.750 Cover Factor Value,Table 4.5 C, 0.142 Grass Roughness Coefficient,Eq 4.1 n 0.060 Manning's roughness coefficient,Eq 4.2 ns 0.016 Soil grain roughness,Eq 4.4 Permissive Shear Stress Tp,soil-cohesive 0.020 Ib/ftZ Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.5 Tp,grass 1.134 Ib/ftZ Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.7 Channel Bend R, 75.00 ft Radius of centerline channel bend RdT 2.92 ft Ratio of bend radius to channel top width Kb 1.84 Ratio of channel bend to bottom shear stress,Eq 3.6 Tb 0.508 Ib/ft2 Maximum shear stress on channel,Eq 3.6 Channel Stable? Stable SEED TYPE B•BIOSWALE NATIVE SEED MD(:TYPE TO BE APPROVED BY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY,CAMPUS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DAVID HANSEN. SPECIES %/ACRE Notes Sldeoats Gran 20% Refer to landscaping plans for proposed seed mix in bioswale Blue Grams 25% Buff*Grass 10% Green Needfe9rass 20% Western Wheat 25% Page 1 of 4 Project VHEC MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Bioswale A-Section Al grass lined channel design GRASS LINED TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL-HEC 15 ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS References HEC-15 Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings Soil Information D75 in Soil size where 75%of material is finer(Geotech Report or Topsoil Spec) Vegitation Parameters Growth Form Mixed Grass growth form,Table 4.1 Condition Good Condition of grass,Table 4.1 Stem Height 0.25 ft Grass stem height,Table 4.1 Channel Parameters d 1.16 ft Flow depth in channel So 0.0025 ft/ft Channel slope n 0.069 Manning's coefficient for the channel Q 15.00 cfs Design flow Z 5.00 A Side slopes of channel B 8.00 It Bottom width of channel P 19.81 It Perimeter A 15.97 It Effective flow area R 0.81 ft Hydraulic radius T 19.58 It Top width of flow V 0.94 fps Flow velocity Qi 15.00 cfs Initial check of discharge to check depth/mannings AQ 0.00 cfs Channel Stresses Td 0.181 Ib/ft2 Maximum shear stress in channel,Eq 2.4 To 0.126 Ib/ft2 Mean boundary stress,Eq 2.3 Te 0.002 Ib/ft2 Effective shear stress at soil surface,Eq 4.3 Grass Roughness and Boundary Shear C, 9.000 Density-stiffness Coefficient,Table 4.2 Cf 0.750 Cover Factor Value,Table 4.5 C, 0.142 Grass Roughness Coefficient,Eq 4.1 n 0.069 Manning's roughness coefficient,Eq 4.2 ns 0.016 Soil grain roughness,Eq 4.4 Permissive Shear Stress Tp,soil-cohesive 0.020 lb/ft' Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.5 Tp,grass 1.501 Ib/ft2 Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.7 Channel Bend R, 75.00 It Radius of centerline channel bend RJT 3.83 It Ratio of bend radius to channel top width Kb 1.70 Ratio of channel bend to bottom shear stress,Eq 3.6 lb 0.307 Ib/ft2 Maximum shear stress on channel,Eq 3.6 Channel Stable? Stable SEED TYPE B-BIOSWALE NATWE SEED MDC:TYPE TO BE APPROVED BY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY,CAMPUS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DAVID HANSEN. Notes SPECIES %/ACRE Refer to landscaping plans for proposed seed mix in bioswale side Gramats 25% p 9 P P p Blue Game 25% BuBaloGass 10% Gwen NeedWss 20% Weslaco Wheal 25% Page 2 of 4 Project VHEC MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22.0409 ,N,„L,, „ ,.N 6 r,;, Date 12/5/2023 Title Bioswale B-Section B1 grass lined channel design GRASS LINED TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL-HEC 15 ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS References HEC-15 Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings Soil Information D75 in Soil size where 75%of material is finer(Geotech Report or Topsoil Spec) Vegitation Parameters Growth Form Mixed Grass growth form,Table 4.1 Condition Good Condition of grass,Table 4.1 Stem Height 0.25 ft Grass stem height,Table 4.1 Channel Parameters d 1.34 ft Flow depth in channel So 0.0025 ft/ft Channel slope n 0.066 Manning's coefficient for the channel Q 20.98 cfs Design flow Z 5.00 A Side slopes of channel B 8.00 It Bottom width of channel P 21.69 It Perimeter A 19.75 It Effective flow area R 0.91 ft Hydraulic radius T 21.42 It Top width of flow V 1.06 fps Flow velocity Qi 20.98 cfs Initial check of discharge to check depth/mannings AQ 0.00 cfs Channel Stresses Td 0.209 Ib/ft2 Maximum shear stress in channel,Eq 2.4 To 0.142 Ib/ft2 Mean boundary stress,Eq 2.3 Te 0.003 Ib/ft2 Effective shear stress at soil surface,Eq 4.3 Grass Roughness and Boundary Shear CS 9.000 Density-stiffness Coefficient,Table 4.2 Cf 0.750 Cover Factor Value,Table 4.5 C, 0.142 Grass Roughness Coefficient,Eq 4.1 n 0.066 Manning's roughness coefficient,Eq 4.2 ns 0.016 Soil grain roughness,Eq 4.4 Permissive Shear Stress Tp,soil-cohesive 0.020 Ib/ft2 Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.5 Tp,grass 1.362 Ib/ft2 Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.7 Channel Bend R, 50.00 ft Radius of centerline channel bend RJT 2.33 It Ratio of bend radius to channel top width Kb 1.94 Ratio of channel bend to bottom shear stress,Eq 3.6 lb 0.406 Ib/ft2 Maximum shear stress on channel,Eq 3.6 Channel Stable? Stable SEED TYPE B-BIOSWALE NATWE SEED MDC:TYPE TO BE APPROVED BY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY,CAMPUS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DAVID HANSEN. Notes SPECIES %/ACRE Refer to landscaping plans for proposed seed mix in bioswale side Gramats 25% p 9 P P p Blue Game 25% BuBaloGass 10% Gwen NeedWss 20% Weslaco Wheal 25% Page 3 of 4 Project VHEC MARTIN MARTIN Project# 22.0409 C O N 5 U LT I N G r N G I N r E R 5 Date 12/5/2023 Title Bioswale B-Section B2 grass lined channel design GRASS LINED TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL-HEC 15 ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS References HEC-15 Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings Soil Information D75 in Soil size where 75%of material is finer(Geotech Report or Topsoil Spec) Vegitation Parameters Growth Form Mixed Grass growth form,Table 4.1 Condition Good Condition of grass,Table 4.1 Stem Height 0.25 ft Grass stem height,Table 4.1 Channel Parameters d 1.13 ft Flow depth in channel So 0.0025 ft/ft Channel slope n 0.072 Manning's coefficient for the channel Q 10.09 cfs Design flow Z 5.00 A Side slopes of channel B 5.00 ft Bottom width of channel P 16.51 ft Perimeter A 12.02 ft Effective flow area R 0.73 ft Hydraulic radius T 16.29 ft Top width of flow V 0.84 fps Flow velocity Qi 10.09 cfs Initial check of discharge to check depth/mannings AQ 0.00 cfs Channel Stresses Td 0.176 Iblie Maximum shear stress in channel,Eq 2.4 To 0.114 lb/ft' Mean boundary stress,Eq 2.3 Te 0.002 Iblie Effective shear stress at soil surface,Eq 4.3 Grass Roughness and Boundary Shear CS 9.000 Density-stiffness Coefficient,Table 4.2 C1 0.750 Cover Factor Value,Table 4.5 C, 0.142 Grass Roughness Coefficient,Eq 4.1 n 0.072 Manning's roughness coefficient,Eq 4.2 ns 0.016 Soil grain roughness,Eq 4.4 Permissive Shear Stress Tp,soil-cohesive 0.020 Ib/ft2 Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.5 Tp,grass 1.629 Ib/fl2 Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.7 Channel Bend R, 50.00 ft Radius of centerline channel bend R,/T 3.07 ft Ratio of bend radius to channel top width Kb 1.82 Ratio of channel bend to bottom shear stress,Eq 3.6 Td 0.320 lb/ft' Maximum shear stress on channel,Eq 3.6 Channel Stable? Stable SEED TYPE B-BIOSWALE NATWE SEED MlX:TYPE TO BE APPROVED BY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY,CAMPUS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DAVID HANSEN. Notes SPECIES %/ACRE Refer to landscaping plans forproposed seed mix in bioswale sbe GraniaWs ems 25 P g P Blue Game 25% Gwen Nee*pss 20% WeslemWheat 25% Page 4 of 4 MATERIAL PROPERTY DATA SHEET 70 7 WESTERN EXCEL SR-1 All Natura lTM GREEN Short Term • Single Net • Straw Matrix • Biodegradable • Erosion Control Blanket DESCRIPTION Excel SR-1 All Natural (SR-1AN)temporary Erosion Control Blanket is composed of a 100%weed free agricultural straw matrix mechanically (stitch) bonded on two-inch centers to a single biodegradable,jute/scrim net. Thread utilized in the construction of the blanket is biodegradable �R cotton. Excel SR-1AN blanket is recommended applications requiring erosion protection for a period up to twelve months. The material is fully degradable. The net, thread, and the fiber —t matrix is biodegradable. Actual field longevity is dependent on soil and climatic conditions. '` z Each roll of Excel SR-1AN is made in the USA and manufactured under Western Green's Quality Assurance Program to ensure a continuous distribution of fibers and consistent thickness. SR-1AN has replaced ECS-18,formerly provided by East Coast Erosion. SR-1AN meets or exceeds the ECS-18 and can be used as a replacement with no limitations. ContentMaterial •ex Property Test Method Typical Matrix Straw Thickness ASTM D6525 0.28 in. (7 mm) Mass/Unit Area ASTM D6566 8.0 oz/sy (275 g/sm) Netting Jute Scrim,Biodegradable,Leno Weave Single Net Tensile Strength—MD ASTM D6818 125 Ibs/ft (1.8 kN/m) Tensile Strength—TD ASTM D6818 90 Ibs/ft (1.3 kN/m) Thread Biodegradable Cotton or Rayon Elongation-MD ASTM D6818 15% Standard • Elongation—TD ASTM D6818 15% Width 8 ft (2.4 m) 16 ft (4.9 m) Density/Specific Gravity D792 N/A Length 112 ft (34.1 m) 563 ft (171.0 m) Light Penetration ASTM D6567 15% Biomass Improvement ASTM D7322 375% Weight±10% 50 Ib (22.7 kg) 500 Ib (227.0 kg) Water Absorption ASTM D1117 400% Area 100 Sy (83.6 m') 1000 SY (836.0 m') Material available in custom roll sizes Design Parameters Property Unvegetated Vegetated' RUSLE C Factor' 0.02 N/A Approvals Classification FHWA:Type 2.0/ECTC:Type 2.0 Slope Maximum Gradient' 3HAV N/A TTI Approvals Class 1 Type A,C Permissible Shear StresS' 1.6 psf(75 Pa) N/A NTPEP Number ECP-2019-03-011 Permissible Velocity' 5.0 fps(1.5 m/s) N/A Disclaimer:The information contained herein may represent product index data,performance ratings, bench scale testing or other material utility quantifications.Each representation may have unique utility and limitations.Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy,however,no warranty is claimed and no TI. Tmid T liability shall be assumed by Western Green or its affiliates regarding the completeness,accuracy or fit- ness of these values for any particular application or interpretation.While testing methods are provided 0.040 0.030 0.030 for reference,values shown may be derived from interpolation or adjustment to be representative of intended use.For further information,please feel free to contact Western Green. 1 Maximum Gradient a recomendation for typical insllations. ©2022,Western Excelsior is a registered trademark from Western Green.Certain products and/or appli- 2 Hydraulic thresholds compliant with ASTM D6459/D6460 but generalized for typical applications. cations described or illustrated herein are protected under one or more U.S.patents.Other U.S.patents 3 Vegetated values dependent on established stand of vegetation are pending,and certain foreign patents and patent applications may also exist.Trademark rights also apply as indicated herein.Final determination of the suitability of any information or material for the use contemplated,and its manner of use,is the sole responsibility of the user.Printed in the U.S.A. L ,,r r:0 t' r Rev.4.2023 ® Scan for additional and updated product information, _ or click here. --❑�- � LI Western Green- • E.Boonville-New Harmony . Evansville, IN 47725- i00 westerngreen.com Western Excelsior 1, 4609 E. Boonville-New Harmony Rd. Evansville, Indiana 47725 ' Tel. 866.540.9810 - Fax 812.867.8928 •' ' www.westernexcelsior.com 1/01/2023 RE: Certification of Conformance and Delivery for SR-1 All Natural To Whom it May Concern: This document has been drafted to provide certification as to the origin, properties and delivery of SR-1 All Natural, an Erosion Control Blanket (ECB). SR-1 All Natural is produced by Western Excelsior Corporation (WEC). The material is produced in the United States. Each roll is subjected to regular inspection and testing in accordance with the WEC Quality Assurance Program. Properties and specifications of the material are provided on document number WG_MPDS_SR-1AN, attached as reference. Installation documentation may be found at www.westernexcelsior.com. Since most WEC products are sold to distributors and stocked, WEC is typically unable to certify material type or quantity delivered to the project/project site. However, space is provided below for distributor/contractor certification of materials delivered to the project/project site. To the best of our knowledge,the information included is accurate. Jill Pack,Ch6c Product Manager Standard Material Delivery Certification Material Provided by (Distributor/Contractor): Material Provided to (Contractor/Project): Project Name/Project Number: Rolls/Square Yards Provided: Specification #: Signature: Date: Title: WE COD SR1-NN �� • Western Green- ,i� ,0 4"-6„ Instructions Staple Pattern (10-15cm) G u i d e f' 1.Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control products(RECPs), including any necessary application �'^:`•;:' _'^ ' — — —�. (30 cm) of lime,fertilizer, and seed. Ground surface must be••.•''••'• =1�I=1�I I I=1��_� 12" Plan View 4-6"(10-15 cm) ^+-°•'.::'' free of debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with 4 — 6" the soil over the entirety of the installation. �/ -1 II I II II I II II I� (15 cm) 2.Begin at the top of the slope by anchoring the RECPs 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench. Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes/pins S T 0 0 0 0 0 o spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. � Backfill and compact the trench after stapling and J I. ST Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as fold the roll over downslope. Secure RECPs over appropriate for field conditions compacted soil with a row of staples/stakes/pins o 0 0 1 0 0 ST spaced at ST apart across the width of the RECPs. 3.Roll the RECPs (A)down or(B) horizontally across the o -- 0 0 I slope. When laying RECPs horizontal, a maximum of W 1 Unroll —III two roll widths or 16 feet, whichever is less, may be Direction _ — — _ _ _ ��++• —III—III-I I applied up the slope. If two roll widths or 16 ft is 0 0 0 0 19 0 insufficient to cover the slope, material shall be _ III—III—III placed vertically. RECPs will unroll with appropriate _ I—III=III side against the soil surface. All RECPs must be Underneath _—III—III= securely fastened to soil surface by placing Roll Roll Overlap —III staples/stakes/pins in appropriate locations as shown 4"-6" in the staple pattern guide. RoIIMax RECPs and ECBs Upper Roll `I should utilize Staple Pattern C, TRMs and VMax (10-15cm) o Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as materials should utilize Staple Pattern D. appropriate for field conditions 4.The edges of parallel RECPs must be stapled with III—III approximately 4"-6"(10-15 cm)overlap. Staple Pattern III—III =1 I—III I I—�I =1 5.Consecutive RECPs spliced down the slope must overlapped with the upstream mat atop the Dimension C D _ downstream mat (shingle style). The overlap should I I-I be 4"-6"(10-15 cm). WT 30"(75 cm) 22"(55 cm) I6.At the terminal end, secure each mat across the —III width with a row of staples/stakes/pins spaced at ST. LT 30"(75 cm) 22"(55 cm) =I I 12" (30 cm) If exposed to flow, foot traffic, wind uplift or other disruption, trench the terminal end in as shown in ST 18"(45 cm) 18"(45 cm) III—II detail. Nominal =1 I I 6" 7.Fasteners should provide a minimum of twenty 1.7/SY 3.0/SY I— I I =1 (15 cm) pounds of pullout resistance. Six-inch (10 cm) X Frequency one-inch (2.5 cm) eleven gauge staples are typically ECB TRM Application 6 adequate. In loose soils, longer staples may be (Degradable) (Permanent) necessary,twist pins can provide the greatest pullout Required resistance. In hard or rocky soils, straight pins, such Fastener Min.20#pullout Min.20#pullout 6" as HP-8 or HP-12, may by used where staples or twist (15 cm) pins are refused, provided the minimum pullout rh ote:Staple Pattern A and B used prior to 8/2019 requirements are met. Bio-degradable fasteners shall ve been discontinued. not be used with TRM or HPTRM materials. 17� WESTERN Project: Standard Slope/Rainfall Layout - RECP Date: 4/4/2023 WG: 886-540-9810 GREEN � NORTH ®�' www.westerngreen.com NORTH AN (7�Eh(v:),�CBTC7GShown: Isometric View of Slope, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and VegetationAMERIwww.westernexcelsior.com GREEN os T Omitted for Clarity NITS www.nagreen.com erosion cont— 12"(30cm) 12" Instructions r12"(30 cm) (30cm) Staple Pattern 1.Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control 6" I —1 1 products (RECPs), including any necessary application of G U I d e III-i I —I (15 cm) I 6"(15cm) lime,fertilizer,and seed. Ground surface must be free of I i i 111 (15 cm) debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with the soil over the 5 entirety of the installation. 4-6"(10-15 cm)Plan View 2.Begin at the top of the channel by anchoring the RECPs in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench with approximately 12"(30 cm)of RECPs extended beyond the 6"(15 cm) up-slope portion of the trench. Use ShoreMax mat at the 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4"-6" channel/culvert outlet as supplemental scour protection . . I . (10-15cm) as needed. Anchor the RECPs0 0 0 0 0 with a row of ST o \ staples/stakes/pins approximately 12" (30 cm) apart in S �`� \ `\�•� the bottom of the trench. Backfill and compact the J T � \*I trench after stapling. Apply seed to the compacted soil 0 0 0 ' 0 0 S 4"-6" and fold the remaining 12" (30 cm) portion of RECPs back T (10-15cm) III �\� �I l� l over the seed and compacted soil. Secure RECPs over --I ` - compacted soil with a row of staples/stakes/pins o q- -� o 0 6 I spaced approximately 12" (30 cm) apart across the width NWT Unroll of the RECPs. o 0 0 0 10 o Direction 3.Roll center RECPs in direction of water flow in bottom of —11 � I I I r • \ channel. RECPs will unroll with appropriate side against the soil surface. All RECPs must be securely fastened to Underneath 1 soil surface by placing staples/stakes/pins in appropriate locations as shown in the staple pattern guide. Roll Roll Overlap 4.Place consecutive RECPs end-over-end (Shingle style)with Upper Roll 12"(30 cm) a 4"-6 (10-15 cm) overlap. Use a double row of staples + staggered 4"apart and 4"on center to secure RECPs. 0 Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as —III I I—I I 5.Full length edge of RECPs at top of side slopes must be appropriate for field conditions 6° I- - — I-1 I I I III=I I _—III-I anchored with a row of staples/stakes/pins spaced at ST (15cm) - — I _—I I I—I I I—I I I apart in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6"(15 cm) wide trench. Staple Pattern I=III=III=III=I I Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. =III=I I I=I I I=I I I= =I I I=I I I=I I I=I I I=I I I 6.Adjacent RECPs must be overlapped approximately 4"-6" Dimension E — — — — — — — — — — — — (10-15 cm)and secured with staples/stakes/pins at ST. 7.In high flow channel applications a staple check slot is WT 20"(50 cm) 6 (15 cm) recommended at 30 to 40 foot (9 -12m) intervals. Use a Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as double row of staples staggered 6" (15 cm)apart and 12" LT 20"(50 cm) appropriate for field conditions (30 cm)on center over entire width of the channel. 8.The terminal end of the RECPs must be anchored with a ST 18"(45 cm) row of staples/stakes/pins spaced at ST apart in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench. Backfill and compact Nominal 3.8/SY A A Frequency CRITICAL POINTS g the trench after stapling. B A.Overlaps and Seams C C 9.Fasteners should provide a minimum of twenty pounds of Required B. Projected Water Line pullout resistance. Six-inch (10 cm) X one-inch (2.5 cm) Fastener Min.20#Pullout C.Channel Bottom/Side Slope Vertices `'" '� r eleven gauge staples are typically adequate. In loose soils, longer staples may be necessary, twist pins can provide the greatest pullout resistance. In hard or rocky soils, straight pins, such as HP-8 or HP-12, may by used NOTES: where staples or twist pins are refused, provided the *Horizontal staple spacing should be altered if necessary to allow staples to secure the critical points along the channel surface. minimum pullout requirements are met. Bio-degradable fasteners shall not be used with VMax (TRM) or TMax (HPTRM)materials. T� WESTERN Project: Standard Channel Layout, Unroll w/Flow - RECP Date: 4/4/2023 WG: 886-540-9810 GREEN � NORTH ®�' www.westerngreen.com NORTHAMERI AN (F�Eh'kcBT Shown: Isometric View of Channel, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation www.westerngreen.ormGREEN ogs T Omitted for Clarity NTS www.nagreen.com erosion contr_ Instructions Staple Pattern Guide 12'(30 cm) 1.Prepare soil (fig. 1) before installing rolled erosion control _ 1 products (RECPs), including any necessary application of 12"(30 cm) I j I II I I II II II 6„ lime,fertilizer,and seed. Ground surface must be free of (15 cm) debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth sufficient to Plan View 4-6"(10-15 cm) 12"(30 cm) 6 allow intimate contact of the RECP with the soil over the I = 1 entirety of the installation. Apply seed and amendments (15 cm) `I 1 - to the compacted soil. . . III=1I I III=1 I - I _ 2.Dig anchor trench, 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm)wide, at o 0 0 o I o 0 6° I=1 11= I I—III _— 1 y I_ �-- (15 cm) 1 11-1 I=III I—I I II 111 _ 6" Flow—� the upstream most edge of installation across the 11 11 11111 1 1 I (15 cm) channel. Begin at the top of the channel by unrolling the 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sr 1 " I 4"-6" RECP across the channel, perpendicular to the direction I 111 10 15cm Sr I�•• \ --'1( )� of flow,cut to fit. Carefully flip the RECP panel upstream, I \ �� • • - leaving it upside down. Place the upside down leading o 0 o I o o Sr 6 y �\ ' __._ edge in the trench. Anchor the RECP panel with a row of (15 cm) I I` •• fasteners spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. �� • Backfill and compact the trench after fastening. With the o I o 0 1 I �� I Fasteners omitted for clarity, I � �� y ,�� ••• RECP secured in the backfilled trench,flip the RECP panel WT Unroll \� �� over, right side up, over the backfill. The end result Direction secure as directed in Table 1 • •`••' � _. ._, _ __�_ ,� o 0 0 o I o 0 '••••••••� ``` 1 r " " \ • should mimic fig. 2. Secure RECP just downstream of 1 \ trench with a row of fasteners located approximately •• •• �;' 12"(30 cm)downstream from the trench,spaced at ST. •••`••�• 3.Roll subsequent RECP panels across the channel, fitting Underneath • • the downstream panel under the upstream panel. RECPs Roll Roll Overlap ',•• �•• shall be unrolled with appropriate side against the soil Upper Roll 12"(30 cm) =I \ surface. All RECPs must be securely fastened to soil �� ? ••• • surface by placing twist pins in appropriate locations as 0 Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as =1 I I I I=1 I I I I I •• I=I•I I shown in the pin pattern guide. appropriate for field conditions 6" 11 1=1 I I I 151 4.Place consecutive RECPs end-over-end (Shingle style)with (15cm) I I _I _—� _—� —� I _ � I I—III—III a 4"-6"(10-15 cm)overlap,see fig.6. Secure overlaps as shown. Staple Pattern II—III-II I-III—III—III-I I 5.Adjacent RECPs must be overlapped approximately 4"-6" I I I=III=III=III=III= _ = I=III=III=III=III (10-15 cm)and secured with fasteners at ST. Dimension E 6.The terminal end of the RECPs must be anchored with a W 20" 50 cm 6"(15 cm) row of fasteners spaced at ST apart in a 6"(15 cm)deep X T ( ) Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as 6" (15 cm) wide trench (minimum). Backfill and compact LT 20"(50 cm) appropriate for field conditions the trench after stapling. 7.Fasteners should provide a minimum of twenty pounds of ST 18"(45 cm) pullout resistance. Six-inch (10 cm) X one-inch (2.5 cm) A A eleven gauge staples are typically adequate. In loose Nominal 3.8/SY CRITICAL POINTS soils, longer staples may be necessary, twist pins can Frequency B C B C provide the greatest pullout resistance. In hard or rocky Required A.Overlaps and Seams \; /; soils, straight pins, such as HP-8 or HP-12, may by used q Min.20#Pullout B.Projected Water Line where staples or twist pins are refused, provided the Fastener C.Channel Bottom/Side Slope Vertices minimum pullout requirements are met. Bio-degradable fasteners shall not be used with VMax (TRM) or TMax (HPTRM)materials. NOTES: *Horizontal staple spacing should be altered if necessary to allow staples to secure the critical points along the channel surface. WESTERN Project: Standard Channel Layout, Unroll Cross Flow - RECP Date: 4/4/2023 If WG: 886-540-9810 GREEN ® NORTHShown: Isometric View of Channel, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation www.westerngreen.com AMERICAN (F�Eh'kcST www.westernexcelsior.com GREEN OAST Omitted for Clarity, NTS www.nagreen.com erosion cont— Instructions Staple Pattern 1.For easier installation, lower water level from Level A Guide to Level B before installation. 4"-6" 2.Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control (10-15cm) products (RECPs), including any necessary application 12"(30 cm) of lime, fertilizer, and seed. Ground surface must be I I free of debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth —III I I—I i l 1 W—F sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with Plan View 4-6" (10-15 cm) the soil over the entirety of the installation.(15 cm) —IIIIIII I- 3.Begin at the top of the shoreline by anchoring the ^=1 11= I — I RECPs in a 6 (15 cm) deep X 6 (15 cm)wide trench. 0 0 0 0 I o 0 I " I � 3 ;I Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes/pins o— spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. S Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. 0 0 0 0 o o T 6"(15 cm) 4.Roll RECPs either (A) down the shoreline for long J'_ ST banks (top to bottom) or (B) horizontally across the shoreline slope. RECPs will unroll with appropriate o 0 0 o o ST side against the soil surface. VMax TRMs should always be installed parallel to flow. All RECPs must be o 0 0 securely fastened to soil surface by placing W W W staples/stakes/pins in appropriate locations as shown T Unroll W W W W W in the staple pattern guide. 0 0 0 0 19 0 Direction W W W W W W W W W 5.The edges of all horizontal and vertical seams must be J1 stapled with approximately 4" - 6" (10 - 15 cm) overlap. Note: *In streambank applications, seam Underneath overlaps should be shingled in the predominant flow Roll Roll Overlap direction. 6.The edges of the RECPs at or below normal water Upper Roll level must be anchored by placing the RECP's in a 12"W 1 o Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as _ (30 cm) deep X 6 (15 cm) wide anchor trench.II appropriate for field conditions Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes/pins _ ) spaced approximately 12"(30cm) apart in the trench. I—I — Backfill and compact the trench after stapling (stone Staple Pattern I—I I I —----��`^ _ — or soil may be used as backfill). For installation at or 1=1 11=1 I I \ � � ~ t f the RECP t t underneath likely �� below normal water level, use of ShoreMax mat on Dimension E III=1 I I=1 � � a 0 o e R or eo ex ile un ernea is i el g required for sections below the normal water line. WT 20 50 cm 7.Fasteners should provide a minimum of twenty F.. . . L ( ) pounds of pullout resistance. Six-inch 10 cm X r I=III=III=III -inch eleven staples one i (2 5 cm) en gauge apl are typically adequate. In loose soils, longer staples may be ST 18"(45 cm) necessary,twist pins can provide the greatest pullout =III=III=III=1 1�• 1 Stable Channel Bed Nominal 8 SY 3. — I-III—III—I , v resistance. In hard or rocky soils, straight pins, such Frequency / — I I=III I IVY y 12" (30 cm) as HP-8 or HP-12, may by used where staples or twist pins are refused, provided the minimum pullout Required Min.20#Pullout requirements are met. Bio-degradable fasteners shall Fastener 12 not be used with VMax (TRM) or TMax (HPTRM) = 11I I I (30 cm) materials. =III Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as appropriate for field conditions 6" (15 cm) r� WESTERN Project: Standard Channel Bank Layout - RECP Date: 4/4/2023 If WG: 886-540-9810 GREEN ® NORTH Shown: Isometric View of Channel, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation www.westerngreen.com AMERICAN EAST www.westernexcelsior.com GREEN COAST Omitted for Clarity, NTS www.nagreen.com erosion control Project VTH SCOPE B MARTIN/MARTIN Project# 22-0409 CONSULTING r N G INr. r R S Date 2/8/2024 Title Rain Garden A Design RAIN GARDEN DESIGN References Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 Equations WQCV=a(0.91I'-1.19IZ + 0.781) where a=0.8 V=FS(W12 A 12 ) Dorifice— 0.41 1414•y Arain garden=0.02•A•I General i 39.0% Basin imperviousness A 3.93 acres Basin Area Drain Time 12 hours FS 1 Factor of safety WQCV 0.142 ws-in Water quality capture volume VWQ minimum 0.0464 acre-feet Water quality volume within the Denver Region VWQ minimim 2022.1 ft Water quality volume within the Denver Region dwQ 0.67 ft Depth of water quality storage Arain garden minimum 1335.29 ftz Minimum surface area Arain garden 1363.00 ftz Provided surface area drain garden 1.50 ft Depth of media ELEVmedia surface 5023.15 ft Elevation of the Rain Garden surface ELEVmedia base 5021.65 ft Elevation of the top of Underdrain Section WSELwater quality 5023.82 ft Elevation of the water surface Page 1 of 1 Water Quality Treatment Design-Rain Garden Basin A.xlsx/Water Quality Treatment Design-Rain Garden Basin A.xlsx Sidewalk Chase #C1 Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.800 % Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 4.00 cfs Results Normal Depth 5.2 in Flow Area 0.9 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 2.9 ft Hydraulic Radius 3.6 in Top Width 2.00 ft Critical Depth 6.0 in Critical Slope 0.533 % Velocity 4.61 ft/s Velocity Head 0.33 ft Specific Energy 0.76 ft Froude Number 1.234 Flow Type Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0 in Length 0.0 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0 in Profile Description N/A Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 5.2 in Critical Depth 6.0 in Channel Slope 0.800 % Critical Slope 0.533 % Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution FlowMaster Sidewalk Chase Capacity Calcs.fm8 Center [10.03.00.031 12/5/2023 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Sidewalk Chase #C2 Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 1.500 % Bottom Width 2.25 ft Discharge 5.62 cfs Results Normal Depth 4.8 in Flow Area 0.9 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 3.1 ft Hydraulic Radius 3.6 in Top Width 2.25 ft Critical Depth 6.9 in Critical Slope 0.514 % Velocity 6.22 ft/s Velocity Head 0.60 ft Specific Energy 1.00 ft Froude Number 1.730 Flow Type Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0 in Length 0.0 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0 in Profile Description N/A Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 4.8 in Critical Depth 6.9 in Channel Slope 1.500 % Critical Slope 0.514 % Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution FlowMaster Sidewalk Chase Capacity Calcs.fm8 Center [10.03.00.031 12/5/2023 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Sidewalk Chase #C3 Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 1.500 % Bottom Width 3.00 ft Discharge 10.08 cfs Results Normal Depth 5.7 in Flow Area 1.4 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 3.9 ft Hydraulic Radius 4.3 in Top Width 3.00 ft Critical Depth 8.5 in Critical Slope 0.463 % Velocity 7.08 ft/s Velocity Head 0.78 ft Specific Energy 1.25 ft Froude Number 1.813 Flow Type Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0 in Length 0.0 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0 in Profile Description N/A Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 5.7 in Critical Depth 8.5 in Channel Slope 1.500 % Critical Slope 0.463 % Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution FlowMaster Sidewalk Chase Capacity Calcs.fm8 Center [10.03.00.031 12/5/2023 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 2 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Sidewalk Chase #C3 Notes: Basins C1,C2,and G Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution FlowMaster Sidewalk Chase Capacity Calcs.fm8 Center [10.03.00.031 12/5/2023 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 2 of 2 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Sidewalk Chase #C4 Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 1.500 % Bottom Width 3.00 ft Discharge 13.75 cfs Results Normal Depth 7.0 in Flow Area 1.8 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 4.2 ft Hydraulic Radius 5.0 in Top Width 3.00 ft Critical Depth 10.4 in Critical Slope 0.475 % Velocity 7.86 ft/s Velocity Head 0.96 ft Specific Energy 1.54 ft Froude Number 1.813 Flow Type Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0 in Length 0.0 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0 in Profile Description N/A Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 7.0 in Critical Depth 10.4 in Channel Slope 1.500 % Critical Slope 0.475 % Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution FlowMaster Sidewalk Chase Capacity Calcs.fm8 Center [10.03.00.031 12/5/2023 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 East Parking Ditch Chase Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.015 ft/ft Bottom Width 3.00 ft Discharge 15.00 cfs Results Normal Depth 7.4 in Flow Area 1.9 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 4.2 ft Hydraulic Radius 5.3 in Top Width 3.00 ft Critical Depth 11.0 in Critical Slope 0.005 ft/ft Velocity 8.08 ft/s Velocity Head 1.01 ft Specific Energy 1.63 ft Froude Number 1.810 Flow Type Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0 in Length 0.0 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0 in Profile Description N/A Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 7.4 in Critical Depth 11.0 in Channel Slope 0.015 ft/ft Critical Slope 0.005 ft/ft Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution FlowMaster Untitled 1.fm 8 Center [10.03.00.031 12/5/2023 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1 Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project VHEC Project# 22.0409 MARTIN/MARTIN Date 12/5/2023 Title East Parking Lot Ditches-0.7%Slope GRASS LINED TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL-HEC 15 ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS References HEC-15 Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings Soil Information D75 in Soil size where 75%of material is finer(Geotech Report or Topsoil Spec) Vegitation Parameters Growth Form Mixed Grass growth form,Table 4.1 Condition Good Condition of grass,Table 4.1 Stem Height 0.25 ft Grass stem height,Table 4.1 Channel Parameters d 0.96 ft Flow depth in channel So 0.07 ft/ft Channel slope n 0.050 Manning's coefficient for the channel Q 15.00 cfs Design flow Z 4.00 :H Side slopes of channel B 4.50 ft Bottom width of channel P 12.43 ft Perimeter A 8.03 ft Effective flow area R 0.65 ft Hydraulic radius T 12.20 ft Top width of flow V 5.91 fps Flow velocity Qi 47.43 cfs Initial check of discharge to check depth/mannings AQ 32.43 cfs Channel Stresses Td 4.202 Ib/ftZ Maximum shear stress in channel,Eq 2.4 To 2.821 Ib/ftZ Mean boundary stress,Eq 2.3 Te 0.674 Ib/ftZ Effective shear stress at soil surface,Eq 4.3 Grass Roughness and Boundary Shear CS 9.000 Density-stiffness Coefficient,Table 4.2 C, 0.750 Cover Factor Value,Table 4.5 C, 0.142 Grass Roughness Coefficient,Eq 4.1 n 0.020 Manning's roughness coefficient,Eq 4.2 ns 0.016 Soil grain roughness,Eq 4.4 Permissive Shear Stress Tp,soil-cohesive 0.020 Ib/ftZ Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.5 Tp grass 0.125 Ib/ftZ Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.7 Channel Bend R, 50.00 ft Radius of centerline channel bend RdT 4.10 ft Ratio of bend radius to channel top width Kb 1.66 Ratio of channel bend to bottom shear stress,Eq 3.6 Tb 6.967 Ib/ftZ Maximum shear stress on channel,Eq 3.6 Channel Stable? Unstable Notes Basins C1,C2,C3,and C4 Page 1 of 2 Project VHEC Project# 22.0409 MARTIN/MARTIN Date 12/5/2023 Title East Parking Lot Ditches-2.0%Slope GRASS LINED TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL-HEC 15 ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS References HEC-15 Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings Soil Information D75 in Soil size where 75%of material is finer(Geotech Report or Topsoil Spec) Vegitation Parameters Growth Form Mixed Grass growth form,Table 4.1 Condition Good Condition of grass,Table 4.1 Stem Height 0.25 ft Grass stem height,Table 4.1 Channel Parameters d 0.64 ft Flow depth in channel So 0.02 ft/ft Channel slope n 0.030 Manning's coefficient for the channel Q 15.00 cfs Design flow Z 4.00 :H Side slopes of channel B 4.50 ft Bottom width of channel P 9.78 ft Perimeter A 4.52 ft Effective flow area R 0.46 ft Hydraulic radius T 9.62 ft Top width of flow V 4.20 fps Flow velocity Qi 19.00 cfs Initial check of discharge to check depth/mannings AQ 4.00 cfs Channel Stresses Td 0.799 Ib/ftZ Maximum shear stress in channel,Eq 2.4 To 0.577 Ib/ftZ Mean boundary stress,Eq 2.3 Te 0.036 Ib/ftZ Effective shear stress at soil surface,Eq 4.3 Grass Roughness and Boundary Shear CS 9.000 Density-stiffness Coefficient,Table 4.2 C, 0.750 Cover Factor Value,Table 4.5 C, 0.142 Grass Roughness Coefficient,Eq 4.1 n 0.038 Manning's roughness coefficient,Eq 4.2 ns 0.016 Soil grain roughness,Eq 4.4 Permissive Shear Stress Tp,soil-cohesive 0.020 Ib/ftZ Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.5 Tp,grass 0.444 Ib/ftZ Permissive soil shear stress,Eq 4.7 Channel Bend R, 30.00 ft Radius of centerline channel bend RdT 3.12 ft Ratio of bend radius to channel top width Kb 1.81 Ratio of channel bend to bottom shear stress,Eq 3.6 Tb 1,446 Ib/ftZ Maximum shear stress on channel,Eq 3.6 Channel Stable? Unstable Notes Basins C1,C2,C3,and C4 Page 2 of 2 MATERIAL PROPERTY DATA SHEET 70 7 WESTERN EXCEL PP5-8TM GREEN Permanent • Double Net • Poly-Fiber Matrix • Turf Reinforcement Mat DESCRIPTION Excel PP5-8 Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM) is composed of 100% synthetic green fibers mechanically (stitch) bound between two UV stabilized, synthetic nets. Stitching is secured on two-inch centers using UV stabilized, synthetic thread. Excel PP5-8 is a permanent, three- dimensional TRM that provides immediate erosion protection and long-term turf reinforcement and is intended for applications requiring erosion protection for greater than thirty-six months. 40 Each roll of Excel PP5-8 is made in the USA and manufactured under Western Green's Quality Assurance Program to ensure a continuous distribution of fibers and consistent thickness. MethodMaterial Content Index Property Test Typical Matrix Synthetic Fibers Thickness ASTM D6525 0.30 in. (8 mm) Mass/Unit Area ASTM D6566 8.0 oz/sy (275 g/sm) Top Net:Mediumweight,UV stable Netting Tensile Strength—MD ASTM D6818 300 Ibs/ft (4.4 kN/m) Bottom Net:Mediumweight,UV stable Tensile Strength—TD ASTM D6818 200 Ibs/ft (2.9 kN/m) Thread Synthetic,UV Stable Elongation-MD ASTM D6818 250% Standard Roll Sizes Elongation—TD ASTM D6818 30% UV Stability ASTM D4355 80%@1000 hr Width 8 ft (2.4 m) 16 ft (4.9 m) Light Penetration ASTM D6567 30% Length 112 ft (34.0 m) 112 ft (34.0 m) Biomass Improvement ASTM D7322 400% Weight±10% 59 Ib (27.0 kg) 118 Ib (54.0 kg) Specific Gravity ASTM D792 57.4 Ib/ft3 (0.92 g/cm') Area 100 Sy (83.6 m') 200 SY (167.0 m') Porosity ECTC 96% Material available in custom roll sizes Design Property Unvegetated Vegetated Approvals&Classification RUSLE C Factor' 0.10 N/A Classification FHWA:Type 5.15/ECTC Type 5.6 Slope Maximum Gradient' 1H:1V 1H:1V TTI Approvals Class 2 Type H Permissible Shear Stress' 2.0 psf(95 Pa) 8.0 psf(385 Pa) NTPEP Number ECP-2020-01-008 Permissible Velocity' 7.0 fps(2.1 m/s) 12.0 fps(3.7 m/s) T,,g/TTRM(HEC-15) N/A 0.67 Disclaimer:The information contained herein may represent product index data,performance ratings, bench scale testing or other material utility quantifications.Each representation may have unique utility and limitations.Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy,however,no warranty is claimed and no liability shall be assumed by Western Green or its affiliates regarding the completeness,accuracy or fit- TI.— Tmid T aPe ness of these values for any particular application or interpretation.While testing methods are provided for reference,values shown may be derived from interpolation or adjustment to be representative of 0.031 0.030 0.029 intended use.For further information,please feel free to contact Western Green. ©2022,Western Excelsior is a registered trademark from Western Green.Certain products and/or appli- 1 Maximum Gradient a recomendation for typical installations. cations described or illustrated herein are protected under one or more U.S.patents.Other U.S.patents 2 Hydraulic thresholds compliant with ASTM D6459/D6460 but generalized for typical applications. are pending,and certain foreign patents and patent applications may also exist.Trademark rights also 3 Vegetated values dependent on established stand of vegetation apply as indicated herein.Final determination of the suitability of any information or material for the use contemplated,and its manner of use,is the sole responsibility of the user.Printed in the U.S.A. I M LA Rev.4.2023 ® Scan for additional and updated product information, LF or click here. :-t.% Western Green- .0• -. Evansville, IN 47725- :0i i-i westerngreen.com Western Excelsior 1, 4609 E. Boonville-New Harmony Rd. Evansville, Indiana 47725 ' Tel. 866.540.9810 Fax 812.867.8928 •' ' www.westernexcelsior.com 01/01/2023 RE: Certification of Conformance and Delivery for PP5-8 To Whom it May Concern: This document has been drafted to provide certification as to the origin, properties and delivery of PP5-8,an Erosion Control Blanket(ECB). PP5-8 is produced by Western Excelsior Corporation (WEC). The material is produced in the United States. Each roll is subjected to regular inspection and testing in accordance with the WEC Quality Assurance Program. Properties and specifications of the material are provided on document number WG_MPDS_ PP5-8, attached as reference. Installation documentation may be found at www.westernexcelsior.com. Since most WEC products are sold to distributors and stocked, WEC is typically unable to certify material type or quantity delivered to the project/project site. However, space is provided below for distributor/contractor certification of materials delivered to the project/project site. To the best of our knowledge,the information included is accurate. Jill Pack,Chsc Product Manager Standard Material Delivery Certification Material Provided by (Distributor/Contractor): Material Provided to (Contractor/Project): Project Name/Project Number: Rolls/Square Yards Provided: Specification#: Signature: Date: Title: IT5, 7WESTERN W E_CO D_P P 5-8 Western Green- ,i ,0 4"-6„ Instructions Staple Pattern (10-15cm) G u i d e f' 1.Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control products(RECPs), including any necessary application �'^:`•;:' _'^ ' — — —�. (30 cm) of lime,fertilizer, and seed. Ground surface must be••.•''••'• =1�I=1�I I I=1��_� 12" Plan View 4-6"(10-15 cm) ^+-°•'.::'' free of debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with 4 — 6" the soil over the entirety of the installation. �/ -1 II I II II I II II I� (15 cm) 2.Begin at the top of the slope by anchoring the RECPs 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench. Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes/pins S T 0 0 0 0 0 o spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. � Backfill and compact the trench after stapling and J I. ST Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as fold the roll over downslope. Secure RECPs over appropriate for field conditions compacted soil with a row of staples/stakes/pins o 0 0 1 0 0 ST spaced at ST apart across the width of the RECPs. 3.Roll the RECPs (A)down or(B) horizontally across the o -- 0 0 I slope. When laying RECPs horizontal, a maximum of W 1 Unroll —III two roll widths or 16 feet, whichever is less, may be Direction _ — — _ _ _ ��++• —III—III-I I applied up the slope. If two roll widths or 16 ft is 0 0 0 0 19 0 insufficient to cover the slope, material shall be _ III—III—III placed vertically. RECPs will unroll with appropriate _ I—III=III side against the soil surface. All RECPs must be Underneath _—III—III= securely fastened to soil surface by placing Roll Roll Overlap —III staples/stakes/pins in appropriate locations as shown 4"-6" in the staple pattern guide. RoIIMax RECPs and ECBs Upper Roll `I should utilize Staple Pattern C, TRMs and VMax (10-15cm) o Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as materials should utilize Staple Pattern D. appropriate for field conditions 4.The edges of parallel RECPs must be stapled with III—III approximately 4"-6"(10-15 cm)overlap. Staple Pattern III—III =1 I—III I I—�I =1 5.Consecutive RECPs spliced down the slope must overlapped with the upstream mat atop the Dimension C D _ downstream mat (shingle style). The overlap should I I-I be 4"-6"(10-15 cm). WT 30"(75 cm) 22"(55 cm) I6.At the terminal end, secure each mat across the —III width with a row of staples/stakes/pins spaced at ST. LT 30"(75 cm) 22"(55 cm) =I I 12" (30 cm) If exposed to flow, foot traffic, wind uplift or other disruption, trench the terminal end in as shown in ST 18"(45 cm) 18"(45 cm) III—II detail. Nominal =1 I I 6" 7.Fasteners should provide a minimum of twenty 1.7/SY 3.0/SY I— I I =1 (15 cm) pounds of pullout resistance. Six-inch (10 cm) X Frequency one-inch (2.5 cm) eleven gauge staples are typically ECB TRM Application 6 adequate. In loose soils, longer staples may be (Degradable) (Permanent) necessary,twist pins can provide the greatest pullout Required resistance. In hard or rocky soils, straight pins, such Fastener Min.20#pullout Min.20#pullout 6" as HP-8 or HP-12, may by used where staples or twist (15 cm) pins are refused, provided the minimum pullout rh ote:Staple Pattern A and B used prior to 8/2019 requirements are met. Bio-degradable fasteners shall ve been discontinued. not be used with TRM or HPTRM materials. 17� WESTERN Project: Standard Slope/Rainfall Layout - RECP Date: 4/4/2023 WG: 886-540-9810 GREEN � NORTH ®�' www.westerngreen.com NORTH AN (7�Eh(v:),�CBTC7GShown: Isometric View of Slope, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and VegetationAMERIwww.westernexcelsior.com GREEN os T Omitted for Clarity NITS www.nagreen.com erosion cont— 12"(30cm) 12" Instructions r12"(30 cm) (30cm) Staple Pattern 1.Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control 6" I —1 1 products (RECPs), including any necessary application of G U I d e III-i I —I (15 cm) I 6"(15cm) lime,fertilizer,and seed. Ground surface must be free of I i i 111 (15 cm) debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with the soil over the 5 entirety of the installation. 4-6"(10-15 cm)Plan View 2.Begin at the top of the channel by anchoring the RECPs in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench with approximately 12"(30 cm)of RECPs extended beyond the 6"(15 cm) up-slope portion of the trench. Use ShoreMax mat at the 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4"-6" channel/culvert outlet as supplemental scour protection . . I . (10-15cm) as needed. Anchor the RECPs0 0 0 0 0 with a row of ST o \ staples/stakes/pins approximately 12" (30 cm) apart in S �`� \ `\�•� the bottom of the trench. Backfill and compact the J T � \*I trench after stapling. Apply seed to the compacted soil 0 0 0 ' 0 0 S 4"-6" and fold the remaining 12" (30 cm) portion of RECPs back T (10-15cm) III �\� �I l� l over the seed and compacted soil. Secure RECPs over --I ` - compacted soil with a row of staples/stakes/pins o q- -� o 0 6 I spaced approximately 12" (30 cm) apart across the width NWT Unroll of the RECPs. o 0 0 0 10 o Direction 3.Roll center RECPs in direction of water flow in bottom of —11 � I I I r • \ channel. RECPs will unroll with appropriate side against the soil surface. All RECPs must be securely fastened to Underneath 1 soil surface by placing staples/stakes/pins in appropriate locations as shown in the staple pattern guide. Roll Roll Overlap 4.Place consecutive RECPs end-over-end (Shingle style)with Upper Roll 12"(30 cm) a 4"-6 (10-15 cm) overlap. Use a double row of staples + staggered 4"apart and 4"on center to secure RECPs. 0 Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as —III I I—I I 5.Full length edge of RECPs at top of side slopes must be appropriate for field conditions 6° I- - — I-1 I I I III=I I _—III-I anchored with a row of staples/stakes/pins spaced at ST (15cm) - — I _—I I I—I I I—I I I apart in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6"(15 cm) wide trench. Staple Pattern I=III=III=III=I I Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. =III=I I I=I I I=I I I= =I I I=I I I=I I I=I I I=I I I 6.Adjacent RECPs must be overlapped approximately 4"-6" Dimension E — — — — — — — — — — — — (10-15 cm)and secured with staples/stakes/pins at ST. 7.In high flow channel applications a staple check slot is WT 20"(50 cm) 6 (15 cm) recommended at 30 to 40 foot (9 -12m) intervals. Use a Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as double row of staples staggered 6" (15 cm)apart and 12" LT 20"(50 cm) appropriate for field conditions (30 cm)on center over entire width of the channel. 8.The terminal end of the RECPs must be anchored with a ST 18"(45 cm) row of staples/stakes/pins spaced at ST apart in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench. Backfill and compact Nominal 3.8/SY A A Frequency CRITICAL POINTS g the trench after stapling. B A.Overlaps and Seams C C 9.Fasteners should provide a minimum of twenty pounds of Required B. Projected Water Line pullout resistance. Six-inch (10 cm) X one-inch (2.5 cm) Fastener Min.20#Pullout C.Channel Bottom/Side Slope Vertices `'" '� r eleven gauge staples are typically adequate. In loose soils, longer staples may be necessary, twist pins can provide the greatest pullout resistance. In hard or rocky soils, straight pins, such as HP-8 or HP-12, may by used NOTES: where staples or twist pins are refused, provided the *Horizontal staple spacing should be altered if necessary to allow staples to secure the critical points along the channel surface. minimum pullout requirements are met. Bio-degradable fasteners shall not be used with VMax (TRM) or TMax (HPTRM)materials. T� WESTERN Project: Standard Channel Layout, Unroll w/Flow - RECP Date: 4/4/2023 WG: 886-540-9810 GREEN � NORTH ®�' www.westerngreen.com NORTHAMERI AN (F�Eh'kcBT Shown: Isometric View of Channel, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation www.westerngreen.ormGREEN ogs T Omitted for Clarity NTS www.nagreen.com erosion contr_ Instructions Staple Pattern Guide 12'(30 cm) 1.Prepare soil (fig. 1) before installing rolled erosion control _ 1 products (RECPs), including any necessary application of 12"(30 cm) I j I II I I II II II 6„ lime,fertilizer,and seed. Ground surface must be free of (15 cm) debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth sufficient to Plan View 4-6"(10-15 cm) 12"(30 cm) 6 allow intimate contact of the RECP with the soil over the I = 1 entirety of the installation. Apply seed and amendments (15 cm) `I 1 - to the compacted soil. . . III=1I I III=1 I - I _ 2.Dig anchor trench, 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm)wide, at o 0 0 o I o 0 6° I=1 11= I I—III _— 1 y I_ �-- (15 cm) 1 11-1 I=III I—I I II 111 _ 6" Flow—� the upstream most edge of installation across the 11 11 11111 1 1 I (15 cm) channel. Begin at the top of the channel by unrolling the 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sr 1 " I 4"-6" RECP across the channel, perpendicular to the direction I 111 10 15cm Sr I�•• \ --'1( )� of flow,cut to fit. Carefully flip the RECP panel upstream, I \ �� • • - leaving it upside down. Place the upside down leading o 0 o I o o Sr 6 y �\ ' __._ edge in the trench. Anchor the RECP panel with a row of (15 cm) I I` •• fasteners spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. �� • Backfill and compact the trench after fastening. With the o I o 0 1 I �� I Fasteners omitted for clarity, I � �� y ,�� ••• RECP secured in the backfilled trench,flip the RECP panel WT Unroll \� �� over, right side up, over the backfill. The end result Direction secure as directed in Table 1 • •`••' � _. ._, _ __�_ ,� o 0 0 o I o 0 '••••••••� ``` 1 r " " \ • should mimic fig. 2. Secure RECP just downstream of 1 \ trench with a row of fasteners located approximately •• •• �;' 12"(30 cm)downstream from the trench,spaced at ST. •••`••�• 3.Roll subsequent RECP panels across the channel, fitting Underneath • • the downstream panel under the upstream panel. RECPs Roll Roll Overlap ',•• �•• shall be unrolled with appropriate side against the soil Upper Roll 12"(30 cm) =I \ surface. All RECPs must be securely fastened to soil �� ? ••• • surface by placing twist pins in appropriate locations as 0 Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as =1 I I I I=1 I I I I I •• I=I•I I shown in the pin pattern guide. appropriate for field conditions 6" 11 1=1 I I I 151 4.Place consecutive RECPs end-over-end (Shingle style)with (15cm) I I _I _—� _—� —� I _ � I I—III—III a 4"-6"(10-15 cm)overlap,see fig.6. Secure overlaps as shown. Staple Pattern II—III-II I-III—III—III-I I 5.Adjacent RECPs must be overlapped approximately 4"-6" I I I=III=III=III=III= _ = I=III=III=III=III (10-15 cm)and secured with fasteners at ST. Dimension E 6.The terminal end of the RECPs must be anchored with a W 20" 50 cm 6"(15 cm) row of fasteners spaced at ST apart in a 6"(15 cm)deep X T ( ) Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as 6" (15 cm) wide trench (minimum). Backfill and compact LT 20"(50 cm) appropriate for field conditions the trench after stapling. 7.Fasteners should provide a minimum of twenty pounds of ST 18"(45 cm) pullout resistance. Six-inch (10 cm) X one-inch (2.5 cm) A A eleven gauge staples are typically adequate. In loose Nominal 3.8/SY CRITICAL POINTS soils, longer staples may be necessary, twist pins can Frequency B C B C provide the greatest pullout resistance. In hard or rocky Required A.Overlaps and Seams \; /; soils, straight pins, such as HP-8 or HP-12, may by used q Min.20#Pullout B.Projected Water Line where staples or twist pins are refused, provided the Fastener C.Channel Bottom/Side Slope Vertices minimum pullout requirements are met. Bio-degradable fasteners shall not be used with VMax (TRM) or TMax (HPTRM)materials. NOTES: *Horizontal staple spacing should be altered if necessary to allow staples to secure the critical points along the channel surface. WESTERN Project: Standard Channel Layout, Unroll Cross Flow - RECP Date: 4/4/2023 If WG: 886-540-9810 GREEN ® NORTHShown: Isometric View of Channel, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation www.westerngreen.com AMERICAN (F�Eh'kcST www.westernexcelsior.com GREEN OAST Omitted for Clarity, NTS www.nagreen.com erosion cont— Instructions Staple Pattern 1.For easier installation, lower water level from Level A Guide to Level B before installation. 4"-6" 2.Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control (10-15cm) products (RECPs), including any necessary application 12"(30 cm) of lime, fertilizer, and seed. Ground surface must be I I free of debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth —III I I—I i l 1 W—F sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with Plan View 4-6" (10-15 cm) the soil over the entirety of the installation.(15 cm) —IIIIIII I- 3.Begin at the top of the shoreline by anchoring the ^=1 11= I — I RECPs in a 6 (15 cm) deep X 6 (15 cm)wide trench. 0 0 0 0 I o 0 I " I � 3 ;I Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes/pins o— spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. S Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. 0 0 0 0 o o T 6"(15 cm) 4.Roll RECPs either (A) down the shoreline for long J'_ ST banks (top to bottom) or (B) horizontally across the shoreline slope. RECPs will unroll with appropriate o 0 0 o o ST side against the soil surface. VMax TRMs should always be installed parallel to flow. All RECPs must be o 0 0 securely fastened to soil surface by placing W W W staples/stakes/pins in appropriate locations as shown T Unroll W W W W W in the staple pattern guide. 0 0 0 0 19 0 Direction W W W W W W W W W 5.The edges of all horizontal and vertical seams must be J1 stapled with approximately 4" - 6" (10 - 15 cm) overlap. Note: *In streambank applications, seam Underneath overlaps should be shingled in the predominant flow Roll Roll Overlap direction. 6.The edges of the RECPs at or below normal water Upper Roll level must be anchored by placing the RECP's in a 12"W 1 o Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as _ (30 cm) deep X 6 (15 cm) wide anchor trench.II appropriate for field conditions Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes/pins _ ) spaced approximately 12"(30cm) apart in the trench. I—I — Backfill and compact the trench after stapling (stone Staple Pattern I—I I I —----��`^ _ — or soil may be used as backfill). For installation at or 1=1 11=1 I I \ � � ~ t f the RECP t t underneath likely �� below normal water level, use of ShoreMax mat on Dimension E III=1 I I=1 � � a 0 o e R or eo ex ile un ernea is i el g required for sections below the normal water line. WT 20 50 cm 7.Fasteners should provide a minimum of twenty F.. . . L ( ) pounds of pullout resistance. Six-inch 10 cm X r I=III=III=III -inch eleven staples one i (2 5 cm) en gauge apl are typically adequate. In loose soils, longer staples may be ST 18"(45 cm) necessary,twist pins can provide the greatest pullout =III=III=III=1 1�• 1 Stable Channel Bed Nominal 8 SY 3. — I-III—III—I , v resistance. In hard or rocky soils, straight pins, such Frequency / — I I=III I IVY y 12" (30 cm) as HP-8 or HP-12, may by used where staples or twist pins are refused, provided the minimum pullout Required Min.20#Pullout requirements are met. Bio-degradable fasteners shall Fastener 12 not be used with VMax (TRM) or TMax (HPTRM) = 11I I I (30 cm) materials. =III Pin/Staple/Twist Pin,as appropriate for field conditions 6" (15 cm) r� WESTERN Project: Standard Channel Bank Layout - RECP Date: 4/4/2023 If WG: 886-540-9810 GREEN ® NORTH Shown: Isometric View of Channel, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation www.westerngreen.com AMERICAN EAST www.westernexcelsior.com GREEN COAST Omitted for Clarity, NTS www.nagreen.com erosion control 4"-6" Instructions Staple Pattern (10-15cm) G u i d e 1.Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control 4 6" products (RECPs), including any necessary application Plan View (10-15 cm) of lime,fertilizer, and seed. Ground surface must be .••.•••' I—�I I-��_�- I��—I�I=I 12"(30 cm) free of debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth 4 I I sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with 6" the soil over the entirety of the installation. ° ° ° o "o ° (15 cm) 2.Begin at the top of the slope by anchoring the RECPs M ° S in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench. ° ° ° .:. .o. ° r Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes/pins ST spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. J ° I Backfill and compact the trench after stapling and ° ' ° ST fold the roll over downslope. Secure RECPs over . .'. . . . ° ° ° compacted soil with a row of staples/stakes/pins ° ° ° °spaced at ST apart across the width of the RECPs. `� •o.r,� •o. °`� 3.Roll the RECPs(A)down or(B) horizontally across the I~—�w slope. When Laying RECPs horizontal, a maximum of ° ° ° ° 1 0 ° �° •+'�+� a� r°+'+ _=III two roll widths or 16 feet, whichever is less, may be • �� —III—III-I I applied up the slope. If two roll widths or 16 ft is III-III-III insufficient to cover the slope, material shall be placed vertically. RECPs will unroll with appropriate Upper Roll Roll Overlap —III—III= side against the soil surface. All RECPs must be Underneath Roll Flow secure) fastened to soil surface�I by placing staples/stakes/pins in appropriate locations as shown — as 4"-6" in the staple pattern guide. RollMax RECPs and ECBs ° Twist Pin, eforHS/H field io (10-15cm) should utilize Staple Pattern C, TRMs and VMax appropriate for field conditions materials should utilize Staple Pattern D. 3A (—III 4.The edges of parallel RECPs must be stapled with —III—III approximately 4"-6"(10-15 cm)overlap. Staple Pattern ;III—III =I I—III III—III=I 5.Consecutive RECPs spliced down the slope must —I I I=I I —I I I— overlapped with the upstream mat atop the Dimension C D III-I 1 I downstream mat (shingle style). The overlap should O be 4"-6"(10-15 cm). WT 30"(75 cm) 22"(55 cm) 6.At the terminal end, secure each mat across the —III width with a row of staples/stakes/pins spaced at ST. LT 30"(75 cm) 22"(55 cm) =III 12"(30 cm) If exposed to flow, foot traffic, wind uplift or other _ disruption, trench the terminal end in as shown in Sr 18 (45 cm) 18„(45 cm) O detail. Nominal_ _ III—I I—III 61.7/SY(2.0/Sm) 3.0/SY(3.6/Sm) I— I I—I I I— I I—III—I (15 cm) 7.Fasteners should provide a minimum of sixty pounds Frequency II III— I—II of pullout resistance. Falcon HC-8 or HS-8 are I=III— =II typically adequate. In loose soils, longer twist pins Application ECB TRM may be necessary, HC-12 or HS-12. In hard or rocky (Degradable) (Permanent) 6 soils, hardened spikes (12" Ardox) or Falcon HR-8 / Required Min.60#pullout Min.60#pullout HR-12 pins may be used, assuming minimum pullout Fastener 611 resistance is provided. Bio-degradable fasteners shall (15 cm) not be used with TRIM or HPTRM materials. *Note:Staple Pattern A and B used prior to 8/2019 have been discontinued. r WESTERN Project: Standard Slope/Rainfall Layout - RECP Date: 4/5/2023 WIG: 886-540-9810 GREEN � NORTH ®�' www.westerngreen.com NORTHAMERI AN (F�Eh'kcBT Shown: Isometric View of Slope, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation www•westerngreen.ormGREEN ogs T Omitted for Clarity NTS www.nagreen.com erosion contr_ Project: Standard Channel Layout, Unroll w/Flow - RECP w/Falcon Twist Pins Shown: Isometric View of Channel, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation Omitted for Clarity, NTS Date: 4/4/2023 WG: 886-540-9810 www.westerngreen.com www.westernexcelsior.com www.nagreen.com Instructions 1.Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control products (RECPs), including any necessary application of lime, fertilizer, and seed. Ground surface must be free of debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with the soil over the entirety of the installation. 2.Begin at the top of the channel by anchoring the RECPs in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench with the RECPs staged upstream of the trench. Anchor the RECPs with a row of twist pins spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. Backfill and compact the trench after fastening. Apply seed to the compacted soil and unroll the RECPs back over the seed and compacted soil, proceeding downstream. Secure RECPs over compacted soil with a row of twist pins located approximately 12" (30 cm) from the upstream edge of the installation, spaced at ST. 3.Roll center RECPs in direction of water flow in bottom of channel. RECPs shall be unrolled with appropriate side against the soil surface. All RECPs must be securely fastened to soil surface by placing twist pins in appropriate locations as shown in the pin pattern guide. 4.Place consecutive RECPs end-over-end (Shingle style) with a 4"- 6" (10 - 15 cm) overlap. Secure overlaps as shown. 5.Full length edge of RECPs at top of side slopes must be anchored with a row of twist pins spaced at ST apart in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6"(15 cm) wide trench. Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. 6.Adjacent RECPs must be overlapped approximately 4"- 6" (10 - 15 cm) and secured with twist pins at ST. 7.In high flow channel applications a pin check slot is recommended at 30 to 40 foot (9 -12m) intervals. Use a row of twist pins spaced at 12" (30 cm) on center over entire width of the channel. 8.The terminal end of the RECPs must be anchored with a row of twist pins spaced at ST apart in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench (minimum). Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. 9.Secure fasteners throughout the body of the mats. Fasteners should provide a minimum of sixty pounds of pullout resistance. Falcon HC-8 or HS-8 are typically adequate. In loose soils, longer twist pins may be necessary, HC-12 or HS-12. In hard or rocky soils, hardened spikes (12" Ardox) or Falcon HR-8 / HR- 12 pins may be used, assuming minimum pullout resistance is provided. Bio-degradable fasteners shall not be used with TRM or HPTRM materials. 6 2 4 12" (30 cm) 6" (15 cm) 6" (15 cm) 4"-6" (10-15cm) 6" (15 cm) 5 7 3 1 A B C A B C NOTES: *Horizontal staple spacing should be altered if necessary to allow staples to secure the critical points along the channel surface. CRITICAL POINTS A. Overlaps and Seams B. Projected Water Line C. Channel Bottom/Side Slope Vertices 4"- 6" (10-15cm) 8 6" (15 cm) 6" (15cm) 12"(30 cm) Pin Pattern Guide Pin Pattern Dimension E WT 20" (50 cm) LT 20" (50 cm) ST 18" (45 cm) Nominal Frequency 3.8/SY (4.6/Sm) Required Fastener Min. 60# Pullout 12" (30 cm) ST ST ST 4 - 6" (10-15 cm)Plan View Roll Overlap WT LT Underneath Roll Upper Roll Twist Pin, HS/HC/HR-8/12, as appropriate for field conditions 12" (30 cm) 9 Fasteners omitted for clarity, secure as directed in Table 1 Table 1 Flow Project: Standard Channel Layout, Unroll Cross Flow - RECP w/ Falcon Twist Pins Shown: Isometric View of Channel, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation Omitted for Clarity, NTS Date: 4/4/2023 WG: 886-540-9810 www.westerngreen.com www.westernexcelsior.com www.nagreen.com Instructions 1.Prepare soil (fig. 1) before installing rolled erosion control products (RECPs), including any necessary application of lime, fertilizer, and seed. Ground surface must be free of debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with the soil over the entirety of the installation. Apply seed and amendments to the compacted soil. 2.Dig anchor trench, 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide, at the upstream most edge of installation across the channel. Begin at the top of the channel by unrolling the RECP across the channel, perpendicular to the direction of flow, cut to fit. Carefully flip the RECP panel upstream, leaving it upside down. Place the upside down leading edge in the trench. Anchor the RECP panel with a row of twist pins spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. Backfill and compact the trench after fastening. With the RECP secured in the backfilled trench, flip the RECP panel over, right side up, over the backfill. The end result should mimic fig. 2. Secure RECP just downstream of trench with a row of twist pins located approximately 12" (30 cm) downstream from the trench, spaced at ST. 3.Roll subsequent RECP panels across the channel, fitting the downstream panel under the upstream panel. RECPs shall be unrolled with appropriate side against the soil surface. All RECPs must be securely fastened to soil surface by placing twist pins in appropriate locations as shown in the pin pattern guide. 4.Place consecutive RECPs end-over-end (Shingle style) with a 4"- 6" (10 - 15 cm) overlap, see fig.6. Secure overlaps as shown. 5.Adjacent RECPs must be overlapped approximately 4"- 6" (10 - 15 cm) and secured with twist pins at ST. 6.The terminal end of the RECPs must be anchored with a row of twist pins spaced at ST apart in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench (minimum). Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. 7.Secure fasteners throughout the body of the mats. Fasteners should provide a minimum of sixty pounds of pullout resistance. Falcon HC-8 or HS-8 are typically adequate. In loose soils, longer twist pins may be necessary, HC-12 or HS-12. In hard or rocky soils, hardened spikes (12" Ardox) or Falcon HR-8 / HR- 12 pins may be used, assuming minimum pullout resistance is achieved. Bio-degradable fasteners shall not be used with TRM or HPTRM materials. 5 3 12" (30 cm) 6" (15 cm) 6" (15 cm) 6" (15 cm) 4 A B C A B C NOTES: *Horizontal staple spacing should be altered if necessary to allow staples to secure the critical points along the channel surface. CRITICAL POINTS A. Overlaps and Seams B. Projected Water Line C. Channel Bottom/Side Slope Vertices 6 6" (15 cm) 6" (15cm) 12"(30 cm) Pin Pattern Guide Pin Pattern Dimension E WT 20" (50 cm) LT 20" (50 cm) ST 18" (45 cm) Nominal Frequency 3.8/SY (4.6/Sm) Required Fastener Min. 60# Pullout 12" (30 cm) ST ST ST 4 - 6" (10-15 cm)Plan View Roll Overlap WT LT Underneath Roll Upper Roll Twist Pin, HS/HC/HR-8/12, as appropriate for field conditions Fasteners omitted for clarity, secure as directed in Table 1 Table 1 Flow 4"- 6" (10-15cm) Flow 1 12" (30 cm) 6" (15 cm) 6" (15 cm) 2 Project: Standard Channel Bank Layout - RECP w/Falcon Tist Pins Shown: Isometric View of Channel, Fastener Placement, Trenching and Overlap, Some Fasteners and Vegetation Omitted for Clarity, NTS Date: 4/3/2023 WG: 886-540-9810 www.westerngreen.com www.westernexcelsior.com www.nagreen.com 1.For easier installation, lower water level from Level A to Level B before installation. 2.Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control products (RECPs), including any necessary application of lime, fertilizer, and seed. Ground surface must be free of debris, rocks, clay clods and raked smooth sufficient to allow intimate contact of the RECP with the soil over the entirety of the installation. 3.Begin at the top of the shoreline by anchoring the RECPs in a 6" (15 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide trench. Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes/pins spaced at ST apart in the bottom of the trench. Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. 4.Roll RECPs either (A) down the shoreline for long banks (top to bottom) or (B) horizontally across the shoreline slope. RECPs will unroll with appropriate side against the soil surface. VMax TRMs should always be installed parallel to flow. All RECPs must be securely fastened to soil surface by placing staples/stakes/pins in appropriate locations as shown in the staple pattern guide. 5.The edges of all horizontal and vertical seams must be stapled with approximately 4" - 6" (10 - 15 cm) overlap. Note: *In streambank applications, seam overlaps should be shingled in the predominant flow direction. 6.The edges of the RECPs at or below normal water level must be anchored by placing the RECP's in a 12" (30 cm) deep X 6" (15 cm) wide anchor trench. Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes/pins spaced approximately 12"(30cm) apart in the trench. Backfill and compact the trench after stapling (stone or soil may be used as backfill). For installation at or below normal water level, use of ShoreMax mat on top of the RECP or geotextile underneath is likely required for sections below the normal water line. 7.Fasteners should provide a minimum of sixty pounds of pullout resistance. Falcon HC-8 or HS-8 are typically adequate. In loose soils, longer twist pins may be necessary, HC-12 or HS-12. In hard or rocky soils, hardened spikes (12" Ardox) or Falcon HR-8 / HR- 12 pins may be used, assuming minimum pullout resistance is provided. Bio-degradable fasteners shall not be used with TRM or HPTRM materials. 4A 5 3 6 2 1 LEVEL B LEVEL A 4B 12" (30 cm) 6" (15 cm) 6" (15 cm) 4"- 6" (10-15cm) 12" (30 cm) 12" (30 cm) 6" (15 cm) Instructions Pin Pattern Guide Pin Pattern Dimension E WT 20" (50 cm) LT 20" (50 cm) ST 18" (45 cm) Nominal Frequency 3.8/SY (4.6/Sm) Required Fastener Min. 60# Pullout ST ST ST 4 - 6" (10-15 cm)Plan View Roll Overlap WT LT Underneath Roll Upper Roll Table 1 Fasteners omitted for clarity, secure as directed in Table 1 Twist Pin, HS/HC/HR-8/12, as appropriate for field conditions Flow Stable Channel Bed BASIN D3 OPEN CURB Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.013Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.050Channel Slope ft2.00Bottom Width cfs4.37Discharge Results in3.0Normal Depth ft²0.5Flow Area ft2.5Wetted Perimeter in2.4Hydraulic Radius ft2.00Top Width in6.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.005Critical Slope ft/s8.74Velocity ft1.19Velocity Head ft1.44Specific Energy 3.082Froude Number SupercriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/sInfinityDownstream Velocity ft/sInfinityUpstream Velocity in3.0Normal Depth in6.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.050Channel Slope ft/ft0.005Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 12/5/2023 FlowMaster [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOPEN CHANNELS.fm8 BASIN B2 OPEN CURB Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.013Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.018Channel Slope ft2.00Bottom Width cfs7.08Discharge Results in5.8Normal Depth ft²1.0Flow Area ft3.0Wetted Perimeter in3.9Hydraulic Radius ft2.00Top Width in8.8Critical Depth ft/ft0.006Critical Slope ft/s7.28Velocity ft0.82Velocity Head ft1.31Specific Energy 1.842Froude Number SupercriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/sInfinityDownstream Velocity ft/sInfinityUpstream Velocity in5.8Normal Depth in8.8Critical Depth ft/ft0.018Channel Slope ft/ft0.006Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 12/5/2023 FlowMaster [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOPEN CHANNELS.fm8 BASIN C5 OPEN CURB Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.013Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.055Channel Slope ft2.00Bottom Width cfs1.00Discharge Results in1.1Normal Depth ft²0.2Flow Area ft2.2Wetted Perimeter in1.0Hydraulic Radius ft2.00Top Width in2.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.005Critical Slope ft/s5.26Velocity ft0.43Velocity Head ft0.52Specific Energy 3.006Froude Number SupercriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/sInfinityDownstream Velocity ft/sInfinityUpstream Velocity in1.1Normal Depth in2.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.055Channel Slope ft/ft0.005Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 12/5/2023 FlowMaster [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOPEN CHANNELS.fm8 Trapezodial Swale Capacity - NORTH SWALE Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.025Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.006Channel Slope H:V4.000Left Side Slope H:V4.000Right Side Slope ft4.00Bottom Width cfs6.00Discharge Results in5.5Normal Depth ft²2.7Flow Area ft7.8Wetted Perimeter in4.1Hydraulic Radius ft7.66Top Width in4.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.014Critical Slope ft/s2.25Velocity ft0.08Velocity Head ft0.54Specific Energy 0.674Froude Number SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity in5.5Normal Depth in4.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.006Channel Slope ft/ft0.014Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 12/5/2023 FlowMaster [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterParking lot swales.fm8 Trapezodial Swale Capacity- SOUTH SWALE Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.025Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.006Channel Slope H:V4.000Left Side Slope H:V4.000Right Side Slope ft4.00Bottom Width cfs6.00Discharge Results in5.5Normal Depth ft²2.7Flow Area ft7.8Wetted Perimeter in4.1Hydraulic Radius ft7.66Top Width in4.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.014Critical Slope ft/s2.25Velocity ft0.08Velocity Head ft0.54Specific Energy 0.674Froude Number SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity in5.5Normal Depth in4.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.006Channel Slope ft/ft0.014Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 12/5/2023 FlowMaster [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterParking lot swales.fm8 Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel - Entrance to Bioswale A Section Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.025Roughness Coefficient %0.670Channel Slope H:V4.000Left Side Slope H:V4.000Right Side Slope ft4.50Bottom Width cfs13.45Discharge Results in7.8Normal Depth ft²4.6Flow Area ft9.8Wetted Perimeter in5.6Hydraulic Radius ft9.68Top Width in6.6Critical Depth %1.247Critical Slope ft/s2.93Velocity ft0.13Velocity Head ft0.78Specific Energy 0.749Froude Number SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/sInfinityDownstream Velocity ft/sInfinityUpstream Velocity in7.8Normal Depth in6.6Critical Depth %0.670Channel Slope %1.247Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 9/7/2023 FlowMaster [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterEast Ditch Crossings.fm8 HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 8.76 cfs Design Flow: 40.46 cfs Maximum Flow: 50.00 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Bioswale Outfall Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Double Culvert Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 5023.34 8.76 8.76 0.00 1 5023.65 12.88 12.88 0.00 1 5023.92 17.01 17.01 0.00 1 5024.15 21.13 21.13 0.00 1 5024.37 25.26 25.26 0.00 1 5024.57 29.38 29.38 0.00 1 5024.76 33.50 33.50 0.00 1 5024.94 37.63 37.63 0.00 1 5025.07 40.46 40.46 0.00 1 5025.30 45.88 45.88 0.00 1 5025.48 50.00 50.00 0.00 1 5027.00 83.45 83.45 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Bioswale Outfall Culvert Data: Double Culvert Table 1 - Culvert Summary Table: Double Culvert Total Disch arge (cfs) Culve rt Disch arge (cfs) Head water Elevat ion (ft) Inle t Cont rol Dep th (ft) Outl et Cont rol Dep th (ft) Fl ow Ty pe Nor mal Dep th (ft) Criti cal Dep th (ft) Out let De pth (ft) Tailw ater Dept h (ft) Outl et Velo city (ft/s ) Tailw ater Veloc ity (ft/s) 8.76 cfs 8.76 cfs 5023.3 4 0.94 1.13 9 1- S1t 0.49 0.65 1.3 0 1.30 1.49 0.52 12.88 cfs 12.88 cfs 5023.6 5 1.15 1.44 9 1- S1t 0.59 0.80 1.6 0 1.60 1.68 0.58 17.01 cfs 17.01 cfs 5023.9 2 1.33 1.71 5 1- S1t 0.68 0.92 1.8 5 1.85 1.86 0.63 21.13 cfs 21.13 cfs 5024.1 5 1.50 1.95 2 1- S1t 0.76 1.03 2.0 7 2.07 2.03 0.67 25.26 cfs 25.26 cfs 5024.3 7 1.65 2.16 8 1- S1t 0.83 1.13 2.2 6 2.26 2.21 0.71 29.38 cfs 29.38 cfs 5024.5 7 1.80 2.36 9 1- S1t 0.90 1.22 2.4 4 2.44 2.38 0.74 33.50 cfs 33.50 cfs 5024.7 6 1.94 2.56 0 1- S1t 0.96 1.31 2.6 1 2.61 2.57 0.76 37.63 cfs 37.63 cfs 5024.9 4 2.07 2.74 2 1- S1t 1.03 1.39 2.7 6 2.76 2.76 0.79 40.46 cfs 40.46 cfs 5025.0 7 2.15 2.86 5 1- S1t 1.07 1.44 2.8 6 2.86 2.91 0.80 45.88 cfs 45.88 cfs 5025.3 0 2.31 3.10 1 1- S1f 1.14 1.54 3.0 0 3.04 3.25 0.83 50.00 cfs 50.00 cfs 5025.4 8 2.44 3.28 4 1- S1f 1.19 1.61 3.0 0 3.17 3.54 0.85 Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 5022.20 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 5021.95 ft Culvert Length: 20.00 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0125 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Double Culvert Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Double Culvert Site Data - Double Culvert Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 5022.20 ft Outlet Station: 20.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 5021.95 ft Number of Barrels: 2 Culvert Data Summary - Double Culvert Barrel Shape: Circular Barrel Diameter: 3.00 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Mitered to Conform to Slope Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Bioswale Outfall Table 2 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Bioswale Outfall) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 8.76 5023.25 1.30 0.52 0.16 0.09 12.88 5023.55 1.60 0.58 0.20 0.09 17.01 5023.80 1.85 0.63 0.23 0.10 21.13 5024.02 2.07 0.67 0.26 0.10 25.26 5024.21 2.26 0.71 0.28 0.10 29.38 5024.39 2.44 0.74 0.30 0.10 33.50 5024.56 2.61 0.76 0.33 0.10 37.63 5024.71 2.76 0.79 0.34 0.10 40.46 5024.81 2.86 0.80 0.36 0.10 45.88 5024.99 3.04 0.83 0.38 0.10 50.00 5025.12 3.17 0.85 0.40 0.10 Tailwater Channel Data - Bioswale Outfall Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 9.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0020 Channel Manning's n: 0.1250 Channel Invert Elevation: 5021.95 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Bioswale Outfall Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 50.00 ft Crest Elevation: 5027.00 ft Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 5.00 ft Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 0.00 cfs Design Flow: 15.00 cfs Maximum Flow: 20.00 cfs Table 3 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Bioswale A Culvert Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert 1 Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 5023.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 5023.69 2.00 2.00 0.00 1 5023.95 4.00 4.00 0.00 1 5024.17 6.00 6.00 0.00 1 5024.36 8.00 8.00 0.00 1 5024.53 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 5024.71 12.00 12.00 0.00 1 5024.88 14.00 14.00 0.00 1 5024.97 15.00 15.00 0.00 1 5025.34 18.00 18.00 0.00 1 5025.65 20.00 20.00 0.00 1 5026.00 22.04 22.04 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Bioswale A Culvert Culvert Data: Culvert 1 Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: Culvert 1 Total Disch arge (cfs) Culve rt Disch arge (cfs) Head water Elevat ion (ft) Inle t Cont rol Dep th (ft) Outl et Cont rol Dep th (ft) Fl ow Ty pe Nor mal Dep th (ft) Criti cal Dep th (ft) Out let De pth (ft) Tailw ater Dept h (ft) Outl et Velo city (ft/s ) Tailw ater Veloc ity (ft/s) 0.00 cfs 0.00 cfs 5023.1 1 0.00 0.00 0 0- NF 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 cfs 2.00 cfs 5023.6 9 0.53 0.58 1 2- M2 c 0.45 0.37 0.3 7 0.27 2.92 0.82 4.00 cfs 4.00 cfs 5023.9 5 0.77 0.84 2 2- M2 c 0.65 0.53 0.5 3 0.40 3.55 1.04 6.00 cfs 6.00 cfs 5024.1 7 0.96 1.05 5 2- M2 c 0.82 0.66 0.6 6 0.51 4.02 1.18 8.00 8.00 5024.3 1.14 1.24 2-0.99 0.77 0.7 0.59 4.41 1.30 cfs cfs 6 5 M2 c 7 10.00 cfs 10.00 cfs 5024.5 3 1.31 1.42 4 2- M2 c 1.19 0.86 0.8 6 0.67 4.77 1.39 12.00 cfs 12.00 cfs 5024.7 1 1.49 1.59 8 7- M2 c 1.50 0.95 0.9 5 0.74 5.11 1.47 14.00 cfs 14.00 cfs 5024.8 8 1.70 1.77 2 7- M2 c 1.50 1.02 1.0 2 0.81 5.45 1.54 15.00 cfs 15.00 cfs 5024.9 7 1.82 1.86 2 7- M2 c 1.50 1.06 1.0 6 0.84 5.61 1.57 18.00 cfs 18.00 cfs 5025.3 4 2.23 2.15 3 7- M2 c 1.50 1.16 1.1 6 0.93 6.13 1.66 20.00 cfs 20.00 cfs 5025.6 5 2.54 2.39 5 7- M2 c 1.50 1.22 1.2 2 0.98 6.50 1.71 Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 5023.11 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 5023.04 ft Culvert Length: 29.00 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0024 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Culvert 1 Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Culvert 1 Site Data - Culvert 1 Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 5023.11 ft Outlet Station: 29.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 5023.04 ft Number of Barrels: 2 Culvert Data Summary - Culvert 1 Barrel Shape: Circular Barrel Diameter: 1.50 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Mitered to Conform to Slope Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Bioswale A Culvert Table 4 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Bioswale A Culvert) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 0.00 5023.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 5023.31 0.27 0.82 0.04 0.29 4.00 5023.44 0.40 1.04 0.06 0.31 6.00 5023.55 0.51 1.18 0.08 0.32 8.00 5023.63 0.59 1.30 0.09 0.33 10.00 5023.71 0.67 1.39 0.10 0.33 12.00 5023.78 0.74 1.47 0.12 0.34 14.00 5023.85 0.81 1.54 0.13 0.34 15.00 5023.88 0.84 1.57 0.13 0.34 18.00 5023.97 0.93 1.66 0.14 0.35 20.00 5024.02 0.98 1.71 0.15 0.35 Tailwater Channel Data - Bioswale A Culvert Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 8.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 4.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0025 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 5023.04 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Bioswale A Culvert Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 12.00 ft Crest Elevation: 5026.00 ft Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 12.00 ft Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 0.00 cfs Design Flow: 20.98 cfs Maximum Flow: 25.00 cfs Table 5 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Bioswale B East Culvert Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert 1 Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 5025.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 5025.82 2.50 2.50 0.00 1 5026.07 5.00 5.00 0.00 1 5026.27 7.50 7.50 0.00 1 5026.44 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 5026.59 12.50 12.50 0.00 1 5026.74 15.00 15.00 0.00 1 5026.87 17.50 17.50 0.00 1 5027.07 20.98 20.98 0.00 1 5027.16 22.50 22.50 0.00 1 5027.31 25.00 25.00 0.00 1 5028.50 39.32 39.32 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Bioswale B East Culvert Culvert Data: Culvert 1 Table 3 - Culvert Summary Table: Culvert 1 Total Disch arge (cfs) Culve rt Disch arge (cfs) Head water Elevat ion (ft) Inle t Cont rol Dep th (ft) Outl et Cont rol Dep th (ft) Fl ow Ty pe Nor mal Dep th (ft) Criti cal Dep th (ft) Out let De pth (ft) Tailw ater Dept h (ft) Outl et Velo city (ft/s ) Tailw ater Veloc ity (ft/s) 0.00 cfs 0.00 cfs 5025.2 5 0.00 0.00 0 0- NF 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 cfs 2.50 cfs 5025.8 2 0.57 0.0* 1- S2 n 0.23 0.39 0.2 3 0.31 6.09 0.88 5.00 cfs 5.00 cfs 5026.0 7 0.82 0.0* 1- S2 n 0.33 0.55 0.3 3 0.46 7.47 1.12 7.50 cfs 7.50 cfs 5026.2 7 1.02 0.0* 1- S2 n 0.40 0.68 0.4 1 0.57 8.15 1.27 10.00 10.00 5026.4 1.19 0.0* 1-0.46 0.79 0.4 0.67 8.70 1.39 cfs cfs 4 S2 n 8 12.50 cfs 12.50 cfs 5026.5 9 1.34 0.0* 1- S2 n 0.52 0.88 0.5 4 0.76 9.17 1.49 15.00 cfs 15.00 cfs 5026.7 4 1.49 0.0* 1- S2 n 0.57 0.97 0.5 9 0.84 9.59 1.57 17.50 cfs 17.50 cfs 5026.8 7 1.62 0.0* 1- S2 n 0.61 1.05 0.6 5 0.91 9.83 1.65 20.98 cfs 20.98 cfs 5027.0 7 1.82 0.0* 1- S2 n 0.67 1.16 0.7 2 1.00 10.2 5 1.74 22.50 cfs 22.50 cfs 5027.1 6 1.91 0.00 5 1- S2 n 0.70 1.20 0.7 5 1.04 10.4 3 1.77 25.00 cfs 25.00 cfs 5027.3 1 2.06 0.17 9 5- S2 n 0.74 1.27 0.8 0 1.10 10.6 0 1.83 * Full Flow Headwater elevation is below inlet invert. Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 5025.25 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 5023.60 ft Culvert Length: 46.03 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0359 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Culvert 1 Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Culvert 1 Site Data - Culvert 1 Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 5025.25 ft Outlet Station: 46.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 5023.60 ft Number of Barrels: 2 Culvert Data Summary - Culvert 1 Barrel Shape: Circular Barrel Diameter: 2.00 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Mitered to Conform to Slope Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Bioswale B East Culvert Table 6 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Bioswale B East Culvert) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 0.00 5023.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 5023.91 0.31 0.88 0.05 0.30 5.00 5024.06 0.46 1.12 0.07 0.32 7.50 5024.17 0.57 1.27 0.09 0.33 10.00 5024.27 0.67 1.39 0.10 0.33 12.50 5024.36 0.76 1.49 0.12 0.34 15.00 5024.44 0.84 1.57 0.13 0.34 17.50 5024.51 0.91 1.65 0.14 0.35 20.98 5024.60 1.00 1.74 0.16 0.35 22.50 5024.64 1.04 1.77 0.16 0.35 25.00 5024.70 1.10 1.83 0.17 0.36 Tailwater Channel Data - Bioswale B East Culvert Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 8.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 4.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0025 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 5023.60 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Bioswale B East Culvert Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 10.00 ft Crest Elevation: 5028.50 ft Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 10.00 ft Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 0.00 cfs Design Flow: 10.09 cfs Maximum Flow: 15.00 cfs Table 7 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Bioswale B West Culvert Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert 1 Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 5025.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 5026.17 1.50 1.50 0.00 1 5026.39 3.00 3.00 0.00 1 5026.57 4.50 4.50 0.00 1 5026.73 6.00 6.00 0.00 1 5026.87 7.50 7.50 0.00 1 5027.01 9.00 9.00 0.00 1 5027.11 10.09 10.09 0.00 1 5027.28 12.00 12.00 0.00 1 5027.42 13.50 13.50 0.00 1 5027.57 15.00 15.00 0.00 1 5029.00 23.72 23.72 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Bioswale B West Culvert Culvert Data: Culvert 1 Table 4 - Culvert Summary Table: Culvert 1 Total Disch arge (cfs) Culve rt Disch arge (cfs) Head water Elevat ion (ft) Inle t Cont rol Dep th (ft) Outl et Cont rol Dep th (ft) Fl ow Ty pe Nor mal Dep th (ft) Criti cal Dep th (ft) Out let De pth (ft) Tailw ater Dept h (ft) Outl et Velo city (ft/s ) Tailw ater Veloc ity (ft/s) 0.00 cfs 0.00 cfs 5025.6 7 0.00 0.00 0 0- NF 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 cfs 1.50 cfs 5026.1 7 0.46 0.49 9 2- M2 c 0.37 0.32 0.3 2 0.23 2.70 0.74 3.00 cfs 3.00 cfs 5026.3 9 0.66 0.72 1 2- M2 c 0.53 0.46 0.4 6 0.34 3.27 0.94 4.50 cfs 4.50 cfs 5026.5 7 0.82 0.89 8 2- M2 c 0.66 0.57 0.5 7 0.43 3.68 1.08 6.00 6.00 5026.7 0.97 1.05 2-0.78 0.66 0.6 0.51 4.02 1.18 cfs cfs 3 5 M2 c 6 7.50 cfs 7.50 cfs 5026.8 7 1.10 1.20 0 2- M2 c 0.90 0.74 0.7 4 0.57 4.32 1.27 9.00 cfs 9.00 cfs 5027.0 1 1.22 1.33 9 2- M2 c 1.02 0.81 0.8 1 0.63 4.59 1.35 10.09 cfs 10.09 cfs 5027.1 1 1.32 1.43 7 2- M2 c 1.11 0.86 0.8 6 0.68 4.79 1.40 12.00 cfs 12.00 cfs 5027.2 8 1.49 1.61 1 7- M2 c 1.50 0.95 0.9 5 0.74 5.11 1.47 13.50 cfs 13.50 cfs 5027.4 2 1.65 1.75 2 7- M2 c 1.50 1.01 1.0 1 0.79 5.36 1.53 15.00 cfs 15.00 cfs 5027.5 7 1.82 1.90 4 7- M2 c 1.50 1.06 1.0 6 0.84 5.61 1.57 Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 5025.67 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 5025.46 ft Culvert Length: 74.00 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0028 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Culvert 1 Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Culvert 1 Site Data - Culvert 1 Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 5025.67 ft Outlet Station: 74.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 5025.46 ft Number of Barrels: 2 Culvert Data Summary - Culvert 1 Barrel Shape: Circular Barrel Diameter: 1.50 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Mitered to Conform to Slope Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Bioswale B West Culvert Table 8 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Bioswale B West Culvert) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 0.00 5025.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5025.69 0.23 0.74 0.04 0.29 3.00 5025.80 0.34 0.94 0.05 0.30 4.50 5025.89 0.43 1.08 0.07 0.31 6.00 5025.97 0.51 1.18 0.08 0.32 7.50 5026.03 0.57 1.27 0.09 0.33 9.00 5026.09 0.63 1.35 0.10 0.33 10.09 5026.14 0.68 1.40 0.11 0.33 12.00 5026.20 0.74 1.47 0.12 0.34 13.50 5026.25 0.79 1.53 0.12 0.34 15.00 5026.30 0.84 1.57 0.13 0.34 Tailwater Channel Data - Bioswale B West Culvert Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 8.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 4.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0025 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 5025.46 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Bioswale B West Culvert Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 26.00 ft Crest Elevation: 5029.00 ft Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 26.00 ft Project VHEC Project #22.0409 Date 2/8/2024 Title Forebay B1 OUTFALL FOREBAY CALCULATIONS References Mile High Flood District, Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC-14 Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels Equations General i 93.5%Basin imperviousness A 0.47 acres Basin Area Drain Time 12 hours FS 1 Factor of safety (typically 1) a 0.8 WQCV 0.346 ws-in Water quality capture volume VWQ 0.014 acre-feet Water quality volume within the Denver Region VWQ 591 ft3 Water quality volume within the Denver Region Vforebay required 1%ft3 % WQCV required (Table EDB-4) Vforebay 5.91 ft3 Forebay volume Qbasin-100Y 4.43 cfs 100 year runoff from basin Qforebay 0.09 cfs Forebay release (2% of 100-year discharge) dforebay 0.50 ft Depth of forebay Wforebay 6.00 ft Width of forebay Lforebay 6.00 ft Length of forebay Vforebay provided 18.00 ft3 Forebay volume provided Wweir 0.18 ft Width of weir notch Notes None 𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉=𝑎(0.91𝐼3−1.19𝐼2 +0.78𝐼) 𝑉=𝐹𝑆(𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉 12 )𝐴𝑊=𝑄𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 (2 3 )𝐶1(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟)1.5 +0.1(2𝐻 ) 𝑤h𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶1=0.62 Page 1 of 6 Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx/Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx Project VHEC Project #22.0409 Date 2/8/2024 Title Forebay B2 OUTFALL FOREBAY CALCULATIONS References Mile High Flood District, Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC-14 Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels Equations General i 100.0%Basin imperviousness A 0.44 acres Basin Area Drain Time 12 hours FS 1 Factor of safety (typically 1) a 0.8 WQCV 0.400 ws-in Water quality capture volume VWQ 0.015 acre-feet Water quality volume within the Denver Region VWQ 639 ft3 Water quality volume within the Denver Region Vforebay required 1%ft3 % WQCV required (Table EDB-4) Vforebay 6.39 ft3 Forebay volume Qbasin-100Y 4.37 cfs 100 year runoff from basin Qforebay 0.09 cfs Forebay release (2% of 100-year discharge) dforebay 0.50 ft Depth of forebay Wforebay 6.00 ft Width of forebay Lforebay 6.00 ft Length of forebay Vforebay provided 18.00 ft3 Forebay volume provided Wweir 0.17 ft Width of weir notch Notes None 𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉=𝑎(0.91𝐼3−1.19𝐼2 +0.78𝐼) 𝑉=𝐹𝑆(𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉 12 )𝐴𝑊=𝑄𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 (2 3 )𝐶1(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟)1.5 +0.1(2𝐻 ) 𝑤h𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶1=0.62 Page 2 of 6 Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx/Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx Project VHEC Project #22.0409 Date 2/8/2024 Title Forebay B3 OUTFALL FOREBAY CALCULATIONS References Mile High Flood District, Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC-14 Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels Equations General i 90.0%Basin imperviousness A 0.19 acres Basin Area Drain Time 12 hours FS 1 Factor of safety (typically 1) a 0.8 WQCV 0.321 ws-in Water quality capture volume VWQ 0.005 acre-feet Water quality volume within the Denver Region VWQ 222 ft3 Water quality volume within the Denver Region Vforebay required 1%ft3 % WQCV required (Table EDB-4) Vforebay 2.22 ft3 Forebay volume Qbasin-100Y 1.71 cfs 100 year runoff from basin Qforebay 0.03 cfs Forebay release (2% of 100-year discharge) dforebay 0.50 ft Depth of forebay Wforebay 6.00 ft Width of forebay Lforebay 6.00 ft Length of forebay Vforebay provided 18.00 ft3 Forebay volume provided Wweir 0.13 ft Width of weir notch Notes None 𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉=𝑎(0.91𝐼3−1.19𝐼2 +0.78𝐼) 𝑉=𝐹𝑆(𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉 12 )𝐴𝑊=𝑄𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 (2 3 )𝐶1(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟)1.5 +0.1(2𝐻 ) 𝑤h𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶1=0.62 Page 3 of 6 Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx/Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx Project VHEC Project #22.0409 Date 2/8/2024 Title Forebay B4 OUTFALL FOREBAY CALCULATIONS References Mile High Flood District, Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC-14 Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels Equations General i 81.0%Basin imperviousness A 1.40 acres Basin Area Drain Time 12 hours FS 1 Factor of safety (typically 1) a 0.8 WQCV 0.268 ws-in Water quality capture volume VWQ 0.031 acre-feet Water quality volume within the Denver Region VWQ 1361 ft3 Water quality volume within the Denver Region Vforebay required 1%ft3 % WQCV required (Table EDB-4) Vforebay 13.61 ft3 Forebay volume Qbasin-100Y 8.38 cfs 100 year runoff from basin Qforebay 0.17 cfs Forebay release (2% of 100-year discharge) dforebay 0.50 ft Depth of forebay Wforebay 6.00 ft Width of forebay Lforebay 6.00 ft Length of forebay Vforebay provided 18.00 ft3 Forebay volume provided Wweir 0.24 ft Width of weir notch Notes None 𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉=𝑎(0.91𝐼3−1.19𝐼2 +0.78𝐼) 𝑉=𝐹𝑆(𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉 12 )𝐴𝑊=𝑄𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 (2 3 )𝐶1(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟)1.5 +0.1(2𝐻 ) 𝑤h𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶1=0.62 Page 4 of 6 Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx/Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx Project VHEC Project #22.0409 Date 2/8/2024 Title Forebay B5 OUTFALL FOREBAY CALCULATIONS References Mile High Flood District, Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC-14 Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels Equations General i 90.0%Basin imperviousness A 0.15 acres Basin Area Drain Time 12 hours FS 1 Factor of safety (typically 1) a 0.8 WQCV 0.321 ws-in Water quality capture volume VWQ 0.004 acre-feet Water quality volume within the Denver Region VWQ 178 ft3 Water quality volume within the Denver Region Vforebay required 1%ft3 % WQCV required (Table EDB-4) Vforebay 1.78 ft3 Forebay volume Qbasin-100Y 0.36 cfs 100 year runoff from basin Qforebay 0.01 cfs Forebay release (2% of 100-year discharge) dforebay 0.50 ft Depth of forebay Wforebay 4.00 ft Width of forebay Lforebay 4.00 ft Length of forebay Vforebay provided 8.00 ft3 Forebay volume provided Wweir 0.11 ft Width of weir notch Notes None 𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉=𝑎(0.91𝐼3−1.19𝐼2 +0.78𝐼) 𝑉=𝐹𝑆(𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉 12 )𝐴𝑊=𝑄𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 (2 3 )𝐶1(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟)1.5 +0.1(2𝐻 ) 𝑤h𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶1=0.62 Page 5 of 6 Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx/Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx Project VHEC Project #22.0409 Date 2/8/2024 Title Forebay A1 OUTFALL FOREBAY CALCULATIONS References Mile High Flood District, Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC-14 Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels Equations General i 80.0%Basin imperviousness A 1.65 acres Basin Area Drain Time 12 hours FS 1 Factor of safety (typically 1) a 0.8 WQCV 0.263 ws-in Water quality capture volume VWQ 0.036 acre-feet Water quality volume within the Denver Region VWQ 1573 ft3 Water quality volume within the Denver Region Vforebay required 1%ft3 % WQCV required (Table EDB-4) Vforebay 15.73 ft3 Forebay volume Qbasin-100Y 14.71 cfs 100 year runoff from basin Qforebay 0.29 cfs Forebay release (2% of 100-year discharge) dforebay 0.50 ft Depth of forebay Wforebay 6.00 ft Width of forebay Lforebay 6.00 ft Length of forebay Vforebay provided 18.00 ft3 Forebay volume provided Wweir 0.35 ft Width of weir notch Notes None 𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉=𝑎(0.91𝐼3−1.19𝐼2 +0.78𝐼) 𝑉=𝐹𝑆(𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉 12 )𝐴𝑊=𝑄𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 (2 3 )𝐶1(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟)1.5 +0.1(2𝐻 ) 𝑤h𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶1=0.62 Page 6 of 6 Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx/Forebay Design- Outfalls into Bioswales.xlsx Project VTH - Scope B Project #22.0409 Date 3/8/2024 Title Spillway -Overall Site Outfall Size Calculaitons TRAPEZOIDAL WEIR SPILLWAY Formulas General WSELheadwater 5027.58 ft Headwater elevation bbottom 80.0 ft Bottom width of spillway INVsump 5023.00 ft Invert of sump upstream of weir INVweir 5027.30 ft Weir Invert Hside 4.00 (H:V), V=1 Side slopes Y 4.3 ft Depth to sump Hweir 0.28 ft Flow depth of weir Aflow 23.78 ft2 Area of flow Triangular Weir C2 0.61 (0.58-0.61)Weir coefficient for triangular weir θvertical 75.964 °side slope angle from vertical θ 151.93 °notch angle Qtriangle 0.45 cfs Flow for traingular portion Rectangular Weir C1 0.62 Rectangular Weir cofficient Qrectangle 40.01 cfs Flow for rectangular weir portion Qweir 40.46 cfs Total Flow Vflow 1.70 fps Flow velocity h 0.29 ft Hydraulic depth Fr 0.30 Froude Number Notes None 𝑄𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎=𝐶2(8/15)tan(𝜃/2)(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟)5/2 𝑄𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡=𝐶1(2/3)𝑃(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟)1.5 Page 1 of 1 Spillway, Weir, Trapezoidal (Overall Site Spillway).xlsx/Spillway, Weir, Trapezoidal (Overall Site Spillway).xlsx Page 1 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin D2 Storm Outfall RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OUTFALL IN BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 4.43 cfs design outflow Dc 1.5 ft diameter of circular conduit Q/D2.5 1.61 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.29 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 3.25 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/D2.5 1.6 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.25 Use figure below Θ 4.57 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.81 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 4.50 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 2.22 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Concrete forebay area larger than calculated are of rip-rap protection. No Riprap used in this location 𝑑50=0.023∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡 1.2∙𝐷𝑐 0.3 𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 2 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin D2 Forebay Outfall #1 RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 4.43 cfs design outflow W 6 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 2.56 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 0.85 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 0.77 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 3 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 0.85 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.75 Use figure below Θ 4.24 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.81 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 10.22 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 2.01 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Page 4 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin D2 Open Channel Rundown RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 4.37 cfs design outflow W 2 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 4.37 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 4.37 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 1.05 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 5 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 4.37 (2 tan(Θ))-1 1.90 Use figure below Θ 14.74 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.79 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 2.82 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 1.99 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Two foot either side of 6' wide concrete forebay to be Type L Riprap, see calc on next page. Page 6 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin D2 - Forebay Outfall #2 RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 4.37 cfs design outflow W 6 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 2.52 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 0.84 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 0.76 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 7 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 0.84 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.75 Use figure below Θ 4.24 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.79 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 10.03 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 1.99 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Two foot either side of 6' wide concrete forebay to be Type L Riprap. Page 8 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Basin D Culvert Outlets RIP-RAP APRON FOR BIOSWALE B CULVERTS UNDER ROAD References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 5.045 cfs design outflow Dc 1.5 ft diameter of circular conduit Q/D2.5 1.83 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.29 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 3.70 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/D2.5 1.8 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.00 Use figure below Θ 4.76 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.92 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 4.76 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 2.29 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Double 18" culverts, flow divided between two culverts 𝑑50=0.023∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡 1.2∙𝐷𝑐 0.3 𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 9 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Basin D Culvert Outlets RIP-RAP APRON FOR BIOSWALE B CULVERTS UNDER ROAD References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 5.045 cfs design outflow Dc 1.5 ft diameter of circular conduit Q/D2.5 1.83 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.29 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 3.70 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/D2.5 1.8 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.00 Use figure below Θ 4.76 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.92 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 4.76 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 2.29 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Double 18" culverts, flow divided between two culverts 𝑑50=0.023∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡 1.2∙𝐷𝑐 0.3 𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 10 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin B3 Storm Outfall RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN B3 STORM OUTFALL INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 1.71 cfs design outflow Dc 1.5 ft diameter of circular conduit Q/D2.5 0.62 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.40 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/D1.5 0.93 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 1.25 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 1.25 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.023∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡 1.2∙𝐷𝑐 0.3 𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 11 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/D2.5 0.6 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.75 Use figure above Θ 4.24 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.31 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 4.50 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 2.17 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Concrete forebay area larger than calculated are of rip-rap protection. No Riprap used in this location Page 12 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin B3 Forebay Outfall RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 1.71 cfs design outflow W 6 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 0.99 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 0.33 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 0.30 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 13 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 0.33 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.75 Use figure below Θ 4.24 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.31 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 1.87 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 0.78 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Two foot either side of 6' wide concrete forebay to be Type L Riprap. Page 14 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin B2 Open Channel Rundown RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN B2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 7.02 cfs design outflow W 2 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 7.02 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 7.02 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 1.69 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 15 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 7.02 (2 tan(Θ))-1 1.00 Use figure below Θ 26.57 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.28 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 2.69 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 3.19 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Concrete forebay area larger than calculated are of rip-rap protection. No Riprap used in this location Page 16 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin B2 Forebay Outfall RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 6.82 cfs design outflow W 6 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 3.94 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 1.31 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 1.18 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 17 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH10.5 1.31 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.75 Use figure below Θ 4.24 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.24 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 17.55 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 3.10 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Two foot either side of 6' wide concrete forebay to be Type L Riprap. Page 18 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin B Culvert Outfalls RIP-RAP APRON FOR BIOSWALE B CULVERTS References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 10.49 cfs design outflow Dc 1.5 ft diameter of circular conduit Q/D2.5 3.81 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.29 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 7.70 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/D2.5 3.8 (2 tan(Θ))-1 3.50 Use figure below Θ 8.13 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.91 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 11.44 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 4.77 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Double 18" culverts, flow divided between two culverts 𝑑50=0.023∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡 1.2∙𝐷𝑐 0.3 𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 19 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin B Culvert Outfalls RIP-RAP APRON FOR BIOSWALE B CULVERTS References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 10.49 cfs design outflow Dc 1.5 ft diameter of circular conduit Q/D2.5 3.81 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.29 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 7.70 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/D2.5 3.8 (2 tan(Θ))-1 3.50 Use figure below Θ 8.13 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.91 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 11.44 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 4.77 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Double 18" culverts, flow divided between two culverts 𝑑50=0.023∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡 1.2∙𝐷𝑐 0.3 𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 20 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin B Culvert Outfalls OPEN CHANNEL RIP-RAP DESIGN (SLOPES 2% TO 20%) References Development of RipRap Design Criteria by Riprap Testing in Flumes, CSU, September 1988 Interstitial flow ignored due to minimal impact and use of standard Rip-Rap gradations Formulas UNIT DISCHARGE yc 0.667 ft Critical flow depth for channel s 0.07 ft/ft Slope Type Channelized Flow q 3.09 cfs/ft Equivalent unit discharge Cf 3 Flow concentration factor q'design 9.27 cfs Design unit discharge q*design 12.52 cfs Adjusted unit discharge D50 6.86 in Mean rock size D50 9.00 in Design mean rock size Type L in Design mean rock size tr 18.00 in Riprap layer thickness Notes Steeper slope after cuvlerts going over the Fiber Optic line in the middle of Bioswale B to be Type L rirap between outfall and riprap of next forebay 𝐷50=5.23∙𝑠0.43(𝑞𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 ′)0.56 𝑞=32.2𝑦𝑐 1.5 Page 21 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin C5 Open Channel Rundown RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN C5 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 1 cfs design outflow W 2 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 1.00 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH0.5 1.00 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 0.24 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 22 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 1.00 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.75 Use figure below Θ 4.24 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.18 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 1.50 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 0.72 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Concrete forebay area larger than calculated are of rip-rap protection. No Riprap used in this location Page 23 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin C5 Forebay Outfall - Bioswale B RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 1 cfs design outflow W 6 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 0.58 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 0.19 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 0.17 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 24 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 0.19 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.75 Use figure below Θ 4.24 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.18 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 1.50 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 0.72 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Two foot either side of 6' wide concrete forebay to be Type L Riprap. Page 25 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin C4 Parking Lot Outfall RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN C4 PARKING LOT OUTFALL INTO BIOSWALE A References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 3.42 cfs design outflow W 3 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 2.79 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 1.86 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 0.73 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 26 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 1.86 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.50 Use figure below Θ 4.40 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 0.62 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 6.85 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 1.55 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes none Page 27 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH - Scope B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin C3 Parking Lot Outfall RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN C3 PARKING LOT OUTFALL INTO BIOSWALE A References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 10.08 cfs design outflow W 4 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 7.13 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 3.56 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 1.98 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 28 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH0.5 3.56 (2 tan(Θ))-1 2.25 Use figure below Θ 12.53 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.83 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 9.18 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 4.58 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes none Page 29 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin C Outfall to Bioswale A OPEN CHANNEL RIP-RAP DESIGN (SLOPES 2% TO 20%) References Development of RipRap Design Criteria by Riprap Testing in Flumes, CSU, September 1988 Interstitial flow ignored due to minimal impact and use of standard Rip-Rap gradations Formulas UNIT DISCHARGE yc 0.55 ft Critical flow depth for channel s 0.033 ft/ft Slope Type Channelized Flow q 2.31 cfs/ft Equivalent unit discharge Cf 3 Flow concentration factor q'design 6.94 cfs Design unit discharge q*design 9.37 cfs Adjusted unit discharge D50 4.22 in Mean rock size D50 6.00 in Design mean rock size Type VL in Design mean rock size tr 12.00 in Riprap layer thickness Notes None 𝐷50=5.23∙𝑠0.43(𝑞𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 ′)0.56 𝑞=32.2𝑦𝑐 1.5 Page 30 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin C5 Forebay Outfall - Bioswale B RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 13 cfs design outflow W 6 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 7.51 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 2.50 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 2.26 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 31 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 2.50 (2 tan(Θ))-1 4.75 Use figure below Θ 6.01 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 2.36 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 25.69 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 5.91 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Bottom width of Bioswale, 8-ft, provided with Type L riprap protection. Page 32 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin B Culvert Outfalls RIP-RAP APRON FOR BIOSWALE B CULVERTS References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 7.5 cfs design outflow Dc 1.5 ft diameter of circular conduit Q/D2.5 2.72 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.29 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 5.50 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/D2.5 2.7 (2 tan(Θ))-1 4.90 Use figure below Θ 5.83 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.36 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 9.35 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 3.41 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Double 18" culverts, flow divided between two culverts 𝑑50=0.023∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡 1.2∙𝐷𝑐 0.3 𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 33 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin B Culvert Outfalls RIP-RAP APRON FOR BIOSWALE B CULVERTS References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 7.5 cfs design outflow Dc 1.5 ft diameter of circular conduit Q/D2.5 2.72 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.29 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 5.50 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/D2.5 2.7 (2 tan(Θ))-1 5.90 Use figure below Θ 4.84 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.36 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 11.26 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 3.41 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Double 18" culverts, flow divided between two culverts 𝑑50=0.023∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡 1.2∙𝐷𝑐 0.3 𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 34 of 34 RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Bioswale Outfalls.xlsx Project VTH SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 12/5/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Basin A Storm Outfall into Rain Garden RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OUTFALL IN BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 10.14 cfs design outflow Dc 1.5 ft diameter of circular conduit Q/D2.5 3.68 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.29 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 7.44 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/D2.5 3.7 (2 tan(Θ))-1 3.90 Use figure below Θ 7.31 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.84 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 12.13 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 4.61 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes None 𝑑50=0.023∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡 1.2∙𝐷𝑐 0.3 𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 1 of 1 Rip Rap Design-Overall Site Spillway.xlsx/Rip Rap Design-Overall Site Spillway.xlsx Project VTH - SCOPE B Project #22.0409 Date 10/10/2023 Title Rirap rundown for Emergency Spillway for Bioswale OPEN CHANNEL RIP-RAP DESIGN (SLOPES 2% TO 20%) References Development of RipRap Design Criteria by Riprap Testing in Flumes, CSU, September 1988 Interstitial flow ignored due to minimal impact and use of standard Rip-Rap gradations Formulas UNIT DISCHARGE yc 0.38 ft Critical flow depth for channel s 0.25 ft/ft Slope Type Channelized Flow q 1.33 cfs/ft Equivalent unit discharge Cf 3 Flow concentration factor q'design 3.99 cfs Design unit discharge q*design 5.38 cfs Adjusted unit discharge D50 7.40 in Mean rock size D50 9.00 in Design mean rock size Type L in Design mean rock size tr 18.00 in Riprap layer thickness Notes Type M Riprap used instead of Type L 𝐷50=5.23∙𝑠0.43(𝑞𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 ′)0.56 𝑞=32.2𝑦𝑐 1.5 Page 1 of 4 RIPRAP Design-Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Outfalls.xlsx Project CSU VTH Project #22.0409 Date 12/11/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Rain Garden Forebay Outfall @ Pan RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 9.07 cfs design outflow W 6 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 5.24 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 1.75 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 1.57 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 2 of 4 RIPRAP Design-Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 1.75 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.50 Use figure below Θ 4.40 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.65 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 23.55 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 4.12 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Two foot either side of 6' wide concrete forebay to be Type L Riprap, see calc on next page. Page 3 of 4 RIPRAP Design-Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Outfalls.xlsx Project CSU VTH Project #22.0409 Date 12/11/2023 Title Rip-Rap sizing for Rain Garden Forebay Outfall @ Culvert RIP-RAP APRON FOR BASIN D2 OPEN CHANNEL RUNDOWN INTO BIOSWALE B References UDFCD Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC 14 3rd Edition, 2006 Formulas Rip Rap Sizing Q 10.14 cfs design outflow W 6 ft width of rectangular conduit H 0.5 ft length of rectangular conduit Q/WH.5 5.85 Must be less than 6 Yt Known?No Is the tail water depth known? Yt 0.4 ft Estimated tail water depth, if unknown, use Yt/Dc = 0.40 Yt/Dc 0.40 ft/ft Ratio of tailwater depth to conduit diameter Q/WH1.5 1.95 Hydraulic Jump?No Is a hydraulic jump suspected downstream? Yn 1 ft Normal depth of supercritical flow in the culvert Da 0.75 ft Adjusted depth for supercritical flow d50 1.76 in Riprap mean rock size d50-design 9.00 in Riprap mean rock size Type L Riprap Type 𝑑50=0.014𝐻.5∙𝑄 𝑌𝑡∙𝑊𝐷𝑎=(𝐷𝑐+𝑌𝑛) 2 𝐿𝑝=(1 2∙tan𝜃)(𝐴𝑡 𝑌𝑡 −𝐷𝑐)𝑊𝑝=2(𝐿𝑝∙tan𝜃)+𝐷𝑐𝐿𝑝=3∙𝐷𝑐 Page 4 of 4 RIPRAP Design-Outfalls.xlsx/RIPRAP Design-Outfalls.xlsx Rip Rap Mat Dimensions Q/WH1.5 1.95 (2 tan(Θ))-1 6.50 Use figure below Θ 4.40 °Expansion angle of the culvert flow Vacceptable 5.50 fps 5.5 fps for very erosive soils, 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils At 1.84 ft2 Required area of flow at allowable velocity Lp 26.71 ft Length of riprap protection (Min 3xDc) Wp 4.61 ft Downstream width of riprap protection Tp 18 in Thickness of riprap protection Notes Extend riprap 20' past front edge of forebay and as wide as forebay, use Type L Riprap Page 1 of 2 Forebay Design.xlsx/Forebay Design.xlsx Project Project # Date Title OUTFALL FOREBAY CALCULATIONS References Mile High Flood District, Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC-14 Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels Equations General WQ WQ 3 forebay required 3 forebay 3 basin-100Y forebay forebay forebay forebay forebay provided 3 weir Notes None 𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉=𝑎(0.91𝐼3−1.19𝐼2 +0.78𝐼) 𝑉=𝐹𝑆(𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉 12 )𝐴𝑊= 𝑄𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 (2 3 )𝐶1(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟) 1.5 +0.1(2𝐻 ) 𝑤h𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶1=0.62 Page 2 of 2 Forebay Design.xlsx/Forebay Design.xlsx Project Project # Date Title OUTFALL FOREBAY CALCULATIONS References Mile High Flood District, Drainage Criteria Manual, 2016 HEC-14 Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels Equations General WQ WQ 3 forebay required 3 forebay 3 basin-100Y forebay forebay forebay forebay forebay provided 3 weir Notes None 𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉=𝑎(0.91𝐼3−1.19𝐼2 +0.78𝐼) 𝑉=𝐹𝑆(𝑊𝑄𝐶𝑉 12 )𝐴𝑊= 𝑄𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 (2 3 )𝐶1(2𝑔)0.5(𝐻𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟) 1.5 +0.1(2𝐻 ) 𝑤h𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶1=0.62 APPENDIX D Design Aids United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Larimer County Area, ColoradoNatural Resources Conservation Service May 22, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................13 63—Longmont clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes..................................................13 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................14 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes.................................................15 References............................................................................................................18 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 8 9 1 5 0 44 8 9 2 1 0 44 8 9 2 7 0 44 8 9 3 3 0 44 8 9 3 9 0 44 8 9 4 5 0 44 8 9 5 1 0 44 8 9 1 5 0 44 8 9 2 1 0 44 8 9 2 7 0 44 8 9 3 3 0 44 8 9 3 9 0 44 8 9 4 5 0 44 8 9 5 1 0 492760 492820 492880 492940 493000 493060 493120 493180 493240 493300 492760 492820 492880 492940 493000 493060 493120 493180 493240 493300 40° 33' 23'' N 10 5 ° 5 ' 8 ' ' W 40° 33' 23'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 4 3 ' ' W 40° 33' 10'' N 10 5 ° 5 ' 8 ' ' W 40° 33' 10'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 4 3 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,690 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 7, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 2, 2021—Aug 25, 2021 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 63 Longmont clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes 3.1 10.1% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 19.0 62.4% 74 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 8.4 27.6% Totals for Area of Interest 30.5 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or Custom Soil Resource Report 11 landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Larimer County Area, Colorado 63—Longmont clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpx8 Elevation: 4,800 to 5,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Map Unit Composition Longmont and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Longmont Setting Landform:Valleys, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Clayey alluvium derived from shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 60 inches: clay Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding:NoneOccasional Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Gypsum, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:20.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY035CO - Salt Meadow Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Minor Components Dacono Percent of map unit:5 percent Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Aquolls Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes Heldt Percent of map unit:5 percent Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlng Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:7 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:0.5 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Wages Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlpl Elevation: 3,900 to 5,840 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt - 9 to 13 inches: clay loam Btk - 13 to 25 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 25 to 38 inches: clay loam Bk2 - 38 to 80 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:7 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:0.5 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Satanta Percent of map unit:5 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 17 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 18 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 19 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8,Version 2 � '�' .. Location name: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA* �'��'�``h� Latitude: 40.5545°, Longitude: -105.0832° „. 4 Elevation: 5032 ft** �°�''' 'source:ESRI Maps "-za . "source:USGS '�"`^" ' POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica,Deborah Martin,Sandra Pavlovic,Ishani Roy,Michael St.Laurent,Carl Trypaluk,Dale Unruh,Michael Yekta,Geoffery Bonnin NOAA,National Weather Service,Siiver Spring,Maryland PF tabular� PF graphical � Maps & aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)� Average recurrence interval (years) Duration �� 10 25 � 50 100 ' 200 500 � 1000 �5-min 0.269 0.315 0.413 0.517 0.694 0.857 1.04 1.26 1.57 1.84 (0.216-0.328) (0.253-0.384) (0.330-0.505) (0.411-0.636) (0.546-0.927) (0.649-1.15) (0.757-1.43) (0.867-177� (1.04-2.27) (1.16-2.65 J 10-min 0.394 0.461 0.604 0.757 1.02 1.26 1.53 1.84 2.30 2.70 (0.317-0.480) (0.370-0.562) (0.484-0.739) (0.602-0.931)� (0.800-1.36) (0.950-1.68)I (1.11-2.09) (1.27-2.59) (1.52-3.32) (1.71-3.88) �15-min 0.481 0.562 0.737 0.923 1.24 1.53 1.86 2.24 2.81 3.29 (0.387-0.586) (0.451-0.685) (0.590-0.902) (0.734-1.14) (0.976-1.66) � (1.16-2.05) (1.35-2.55) (1.55-3.16) (1.85-4.05) (2.08-4.73) �30-min 0.617 0.721 0.947 1.19 1.60 1.97 2.40 2.90 3.63 4.25 (0.496-0.751) (0.579-0.879) (0.758-1.16) (0.944-1.46), (1.26-2.13) (1.49-2.64). (1.74-3.30) (2.00-4.08) (2.39-5.24) (2.69-6.12) �60-min 0.757 0.878 1.15 1.46 1.98 2.47 3.04 3.69 4.67 5.50 (0.609-0.923) 0.706-1.07 0.924-1.41 (1.16-1.79) (1.57-2.67) (1.88-3.33) 2.21-4.18 (2.55-5.21) (3.08-6.76) (3.48-7.92) 2-hr 0.898 1.04 1.36 1.73 2.37 2.98 3.68 4.49 5.71 6.75 (0.726-1.08) (0.837-1.25) (1.10-1.65) (1.38-2.10) (1.89-3.17) (2.28-3.98) (2.70-5.02) (3.14-6.29) (3.81-8.21) (4.32-9.66) 3-hr 0.996 1.14 1.49 1.90 2.62 3.30 4.09 5.02 6.41 7.60 I (0.808-1.19) (0.924-1.37� (1.21-1.80) (1.52-2.29)` (2.10-3.49) (2.54-4.39) (3.02-5.58) (3.53-7.01) (4.30-9.18) (4.89-10.8) 6-hr 1.20 1.36 � 1.76 2.22 3.03 3.80 4.70 5.74 � 7.32 )I ( 8.66 ) (0.977-1.42) (1.11-1.61) (1.43-2.10) (1.79-2.65) (2.45-3.99) (2.95-5.01) (3.50-6.34) (4.07-7.95) (4.96-10.4 5.63-12.2 �12-hr 1.43 1.65 2.12 2.62 3.47 I 4.24 � 5.13 6.14 7.65 8.93 (1.17-1.67) (1.35-1.93) (1.73-2.49) (2.13-3.10)_ (2�79-4.46) (3.30-5.48) (3.83-6.81) (4.38-8.39) (5.23-10.7) (5.86-12.5) �24-hr 1.72 1.98 2.51 3.05 3.94 4.74 5.63 6.65 8.14 9.40 (1.42-1.99) (1.63-2.29) (2.06-2.92) (2.49-3.57) (3.18-4.96) (3.69-6.02) (4.23-7.37) (4.78-8.96) (5.61-11.3) (6.24-13.1) �2-da 1.95 2.32 3.00 3.63 4.60 � 5.43 � 6.33 7.32 8.73 9.89 (1.62-2.23) (1.92-2.66� (2.47-3.44) (2.98-4.19) (3.70-5.66) (4.24-6.76)� (4.77-8.13) (5.28-9.71) (6.05-12.0),(6�64-13.7) �3-day 2.12 2.50 3.21 3.87 4.87 5.72 6.64 7.65 9.09 10.3 I (1.76-2.40) (2.08-2.85) (2.66-3.67) (3.18-4.44) (3.92-5.94) (4.48-7.08) (5.03-8.48) (5.55-10.1) (6.33-12.4)I(6.93-14.1) �4-da 2•25 2.65 3.38 4.05 5.08 5.95 6.89 7.92 9.38 10.6 (1.88-2.54) (2.21-3.00� (2.80-3.84) (3.34-4.63) (4.10-6.16) (4.68-7.33) (5.23-8.75) (5.76-10.4) (6.56-12.7) (7.17-14.5) 7-da 2.57 3.04 3.86 4.60 5.70 6.62 7.60 8.65 10.1 11.3 y (2.15-2.88) (2.54-3.40) (3.22-4.34) (3.81-5.20) (4.62-6.83) (5.22-8.05 J 5.80-9.54 ) ( ) (6.33-11.2) (7.14-13.6) (7.75-15.5) 10-day 2•$6 3.37 4.26 5.04 6.19 7.13 8.12 9.17 10.6 11.8 ) (2.40-318) (2.83-3.75) (3.56-4.76) (4.19-5.67) (5.02-7.34) (5.64-8.60) (6.21-10.1) (6.74-11.9) (7.53-14.3) (8.13-16.1 �20-day 3.70 4.27 5.25 6.09 7.29 8.24 � 9.24 10.3 11.7 12.8 (3.12-4.07) (3.61-4.70) (4.42-5.80) (5.09-6.77) (5.93-8.49) (6.56-9.80)� (7.11-11.4)1 (7.61-13.1) (8.35-15.5) (8.91-17.3) 30-day 4.38 5.02 6.09 6.99 8.25 9.24 10.2 11.3 12.7 ) ( 13.7 (3.71-4.78) (4.25-5.49) (5.14-6.68) (5.87-7.72) (6.72-9.52) (7.37-10.9) (7.92-12.5) (8.39-14.3) (9.09-16.7 9.62-18.5) 45-day 5.20 � 5.97 7.23 ) 8.26 > 9.66 > 10.7 11.8 12.8 14.2 15.2 (4.42-5.63) (5.07-6.48) (6.12-7.87 (6.96-9.05 (7.88-11.0 (8.57-12.5) (9.13-14.2) (9.58-16.1) (10.2-18.5) (10.7-20.4) �60-day 5.86 6.79 8.27 9.45 11.0 12.2 13.3 14.4 15.8 16.7 (5.00-6.32) (5.79-7.33) (7.02-8.96) (7.98-10.3) (8.98-12.5) (9.74-14.1) (10.3-15.9) (10.8-17.9) (11.4-20.4) (11.9-22.3) � Precipitation frequency(PF)estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series(PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90%confidence interval.The probability that precipitation frequency estimates(for a given duration and average recurrence interval)will be greater than the upper bound(or less than the lower bound)is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation(PMP)estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAAAtIas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical PDS-based depth-duration-frequency (DDF) curves Latitude: 40.5545°, Longitude: -105.0832° 17.5 A;erag� recurren=e n'iE�r�;�l 15_0 • iyears; � 12.5 . . . . - • - — 1 " - 2 t � � 100 . _ . " — 5 ;' � — � j — �c `o ' _-_. - — z5 � 7.5 _ . . -_ -- . r�' — 5 C a /� — too �� 5.0 . . . - ��f — zoo a` i i' S00 2.5 0 � -.— ��' - _ .. - — '•000 0.0 c c c c c � .. � � � �, >,�, �, �, �, >, �,�, t L L .G L t9 �6 �0 �9 r0 N r0 �0 �0 � � � E � c� n� �o ,;� � �a -a� v � -o v v� �-+ �' �+ r+� v r o 0 o u� o `^ o ,."�'., n�i � Duration ,.., ry rn v ,o 17.5 15.0 � 12.5 -- C�ura�i��n L a� � jQ.Q �,,.," 5-1T�il� — �C-tic�'�' � � — 1o�r,r,�r, — ?-d�Y '�o �� 7 S 1�rr1�n — 4-d�y. '� rf�y 3�-1'F1d1�1 — �i-d['�y .a 5 0 ��--��J ' '` — �7(}-itlirl — 11 @-45 c�'1� �J ' _� '�--' a ��r_��._ _v,.� - " ��1� — �'tJ-t�2y - - "� —�- — 3�l f — ;i C?-tS�t+{ 2.5 - - _ - � -- �-- ._- - — 6-h r — ��-[1�+�� o.o -- - ------- — i�z-nr — t;c�-uay 2�-P�r 1 2 5 10 25 SO 100 200 500 1000 Average recurrence interval (years) NOAA Atlas 14,Volume 8.Version 2 trea[ed fGMTI VJed Jul 12 16 17:03 2G23 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain ___ FllRi LULLINS �Fort Collins �°ow.w�owN�urp � rviusberry_sl__ � �� r�r � r ., � �.:�� .� T, � , � � � _ + ii , i� � � � � ' - 1� I � � 3km Ha;i��c�ni R� II Zmi -- Lar e scale terrain 9 —:"�_ -v a '' � ' r- p 7c � � �, > > r � � z . �� ` ` J � •,. 2-7 • B�.- _�0- . _ _ '''cr " Cheyenne ',�: 9 - 7a, FortCollii7_.� � � - " ' �i�fE'EIc'T �'-'I I�J�f'?Jf': �1;a�n� � L��nymont "' Bovlder + .' . j l;. , �:.r;�{. ._'� ,; • �Denver _ T �-�, . �..= �� oo�o� 60mi �� Large scale map �� ,.�+ y� 1 „- �, ; � Cheyenne ;!�*,,•• � • Fort�e�l�n�y / �r� ' :�reeley Longmont - �- -� r; Boulder + . :-- ` Denver . _ — ��- � �d� , 100km .�� ,,� 60mi Large scale aerial �y � �,i- ,c•� .. _�p:.-�da � • a. � � I�'` _ ,� � 6 . �i' � r . . i�� " �'. � � .�. . .,�.' ��:-', - � . :�-.��.?: 4 . .j' . . �� - i��:... .�� =13�� =,.i il� �. . . G� � � �� _ `� � .�. F�`� '� � ' ,�' � - �:: { '`��'�' .�.y,' . ^ � � t a a I '�`r��7 e. �,z:' �' ��, ��- � i� �' :� ��e � y; ��f4 ,"� � ka � . �q; � 'r�if .�3 rb .- .. � �� twf�� iY a. . . ��'` �`'��d,,�r��'� __'` �;��r' — ��i �, 3'.L. ' M _ _. �.; - � ��K'•L �'..' .:�� i ' � � 60mi �,=, Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.QuestionsCcr�noaa.gov Disclaimer �---��- - q �, ,� �� - - �' k �!7 - ': CO�ORd4D0 STATE UNIVER�ITY SOUTH Ce41VIPUS STOFtMWATER IVIASTER �L�41V FiJftT CC�LLINS, COLt31�r4D� PREPARED FOR �olorado State University Fort Col�iras, Colorado PREPA�'2ED BY ��SS011 ASSOCIa�@S 5285 McWhinney Blvd. Sui#e '�60 Loveia 805�� µ o ��t� o �� ...��.��, . . �o� ; � T7� �• ��:�.� .� . . •a ��Z7/��;� . . e � �e • ��•� ``tt�;>i:', . �;f�;�;: .n_o _ :s-�. December 2015 Ols�on A��ocia#es Proj�c# Rlo. O�J 5�07?0 '�_�� sstac� �r � � South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Previous Reports ...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Model History ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Rainfall ..................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Effective Model ......................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Existing Conditions Model ........................................................................................ 6 3.3 Existing Detention Requirements ............................................................................. 9 4.0 Proposed Conditions ....................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Basin Description ....................................................................................................12 4.2 Detention Basin Alternative .....................................................................................14 4.2.1 Off-Line Detention Alternative ..........................................................................14 4.2.2 On-Line Detention Alternative ..........................................................................16 4.3 Water Quality Alternative .........................................................................................17 5.0 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 19 List of Tables Table 1: Fort Collins Intensity Duration Frequency Curves for Use with SWMM ......................... 4 Table 2: MODSWMM & EPA SWMM Peak Flow Comparison .................................................... 6 Table 3: Changes to Existing Condition...................................................................................... 8 Table 4: Converted Effective Model & Updated Existing Model Peak Flow Comparison ............ 9 Table 5: Required Onsite 100-Year Release Rates ...................................................................10 Table 6 Allowable Release Rate Pond Summary .....................................................................10 Table 7: Detention Pond Requirements Compared to Constructed Facilities ............................10 Table 8: Changes to Proposed Condition ..................................................................................14 Table 9: Required Water Quality and Detention Requirements .................................................15 Table 10: Off-Line Detention Alternative Estimated Cost ...........................................................16 Table 11: On-Line Detention Alternative Estimated Cost ...........................................................17 Table 12: Water Quality Requirements .....................................................................................18 Table 13: Water Quality Alternative Estimated Cost ..................................................................18 List of Figures Exhibit 1: Study Area.................................................................................................................. 2 South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 ii List of Appendices Appendix A Existing Conditions Analysis Exhibit 2: Existing Conditions Basin Map Exhibit 3: Existing Conditions SWMM Schematic Appendix B Master Plan Exhibit 4: Master Plan Basin Map Exhibits 5A-5C: Master Plan SWMM Schematics Exhibit 6: Off-line Detention Pond Alternative Exhibit 7: On-line Detention Pond Alternative Exhibit 8: Water Quality Pond Alternative Appendix C Water Quality Calculations Appendix D EPA SWMM Water Quality Model EPA SWMM Input Files EPA SWMM Output Files South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background This report addresses the stormwater master plan improvements to the Colorado State University (CSU) South Campus. The master plan study encompasses the area north of Drake Road, west of the Burlington Northern Railroad, east of Research Boulevard and Centre Avenue, and south of the Natural Resources Research Center. A vicinity map for this study area is shown in Exhibit 1. 1.2 Purpose and Scope Olsson Associates was retained to complete this Colorado State University South Campus Stormwater Master Plan study, which was authorized by CSU. The purpose of this study was to document the existing and future conditions, update the hydrology for existing conditions, develop drainage alternatives and update hydrology for the future campus layout, and provide a recommendation for drainage improvements. 1.3 Previous Reports The following studies were reviewed as part of this project for comparison of developed hydrology in similar areas:  CSU South Campus/ Veterinary Teaching Hospital Drainage Evaluation (Anderson Consulting Engineer, Inc., 2001)  Tennis Court Parking Lot Final Drainage Report (Olsson Associates, 2015) 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard STUDY AREA 1 LEGEND South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 3 2.0 HYDROLOGY The study area was included in the Spring Creek Basin As-built model, which was prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers in 2008 using MODSWMM. For this study, the effective MODSWMM model was updated to EPA SWMM 5.1.007 and the CSU drainage basins were updated with more detailed existing conditions information. As part of the analysis, the existing detention ponds at CSU were evaluated and the results were compared to the City of Fort Collins criteria. Following the existing conditions analysis, Olsson Associates evaluated the effects of proposed improvements on peak flows at CSU and recommend necessary drainage improvements. 2.1 Model History The City of Fort Collins provided the effective Spring Creek Basin As-built MODSWMM model. This model represents master planning conditions in the basin, including the Physical Map Revision (PMR) improvements at Rolland Moore Park, Taft Hill, and Spring Canyon Park. This model was used as the basis for this study. The existing conditions model development process is detailed in Section 3.0. 2.2 Rainfall The 2- and 100-year precipitation values in the effective model were verified using the Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria manual. The rainfall values used in the effective model were found to be acceptable and were not changed for this study. Only the 2- and 100-year rainfall events were required for this study. The table of rainfall intensities can be found in Table 1. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 4 Table 1: Fort Collins Intensity Duration Frequency Curves for Use with SWMM Duration 2-Year lntensity 5-Year lntensity 10-Year lntensity 25-Year lntensity 50-Year lntensity 100-Year lntensity (min) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) 5 0.29 0.40 0.49 0.63 0.79 1.00 10 0.33 0.45 0.56 0.72 0.90 1.14 15 0.38 0.53 0.65 0.84 1.05 1.33 20 0.64 0.89 1.09 1.41 1.77 2.23 25 0.81 1.13 1.39 1.80 2.25 2.84 30 1.57 2. 19 2.69 3.48 4.36 5.49 35 2.85 3.97 4.87 6.30 7.90 9.95 40 1.18 1.64 2.02 2.61 3.27 4.12 45 0.71 0.99 1.21 1.57 1.97 2.48 50 0.42 0.58 0.71 0.92 1.16 1.46 55 0.35 0.49 0.60 0.77 0.97 1.22 60 0.30 0.42 0.52 0.67 0.84 1.06 65 0.20 0.28 0.39 0.62 0.79 1.00 70 0.19 0.27 0.37 0.59 0.75 0.95 75 0.18 0.25 0.35 0.56 0.72 0.91 80 0.17 0.24 0.34 0.54 0.69 0.87 85 0.17 0.23 0.32 0.52 0.66 0.84 90 0.16 0.22 0.31 0.50 0.64 0.81 95 0.15 0.21 0.30 0.48 0.62 0.78 100 0.15 0.20 0.29 0.47 0.60 0.75 105 0.14 0.19 0.28 0.45 0.58 0.73 110 0.14 0.19 0.27 0.44 0.56 0.71 115 0.13 0.18 0.26 0.42 0.54 0.69 120 0.13 0.18 0.25 0.41 0.53 0.67 South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 5 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS As a baseline to determine necessary master plan improvements, an existing conditions model was developed. To develop an existing conditions model, the effective as-built model was first converted to EPA SWMM 5.1.007. The peak flows from the EPA SWMM 5.1.007 model were then compared to the effective peak flows to see if calibration was warranted. Following this analysis, the existing subbasin boundaries and percent impervious values were checked and updated as needed to reflect existing conditions. A detailed description of the existing conditions analysis is included herein. 3.1 Effective Model To prepare the baseline existing model, the effective as-built MODSWMM model for the Spring Creek Basin was first converted to EPA SWMM 5.1.007. The input file for the MODSWMM model was modified to match the same format as a UDSWMMM 2000 model. Only minor modifications to the input file were necessary to convert the model to a UDSWMM 2000 model. The UDSWMM 2000 model was then converted to an EPA SWMM model using the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) CUHP SWMM Converter. The EPA SWMM 5.1.007 model was spot checked to verify input parameters were properly converted. Minor corrections to the model were required at nodes where flooding was occurring. Primarily, corrections were made at detention ponds and a few nodes where downstream conveyance elements were inadequate for the flows received. For detention ponds, the rating curves for the pond outlets were extrapolated out in order to replicate the higher release rates typically seen when ponded depth increases on an orifice outlet. In cases where nodes were flooding and not freely releasing flows, additional conveyance was added to ensure no inadvertent detention was being modeled. The peak flows from the EPA SWMM 5.1.007 model were then compared to the effective MODSWMM peak flows in the study area, to see if calibration was necessary. The EPA SWMM 5.1.007 100-year peak flows compared well to the effective 100-year peak flows, with average differences of – 2.0% to 3.2% in the study area. Because the peak flows from the EPA SWMM 5.1.007 model only had small percent differences as compared to the effective MODSWMM model, no calibration was warranted. The effective MODSWMM peak flows, EPA SWMM 5.1.007 peak flows, and percent differences are shown in Table 2. An existing conditions subbasin map and SWMM schematic is included as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, in Appendix A. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 6 Table 2: MODSWMM & EPA SWMM Peak Flow Comparison Design Point Notes MODSWMM Peak Flow (cfs) EPA SWMM 5.1.007 Peak Flow (cfs) % Change (MODSWMM to EPA SWMM 5.1 Peak Flow) Q100 Q100 Q100 JUNCT_327 Spring Creek 2930.00 2961.38 1.1% JUNCT_727 Spring Creek 3085.20 3129.67 1.4% JUNCT_27 Spring Creek 3175.40 3220.46 1.4% JUNCT_703 Spring Creek 3789.30 3849.31 1.6% OUTLET_303 Detention Pond/ Spring Creek 1972.10 1957.75 -0.7% JUNCT_321 Spring Creek 1972.70 1958.38 -0.7% JUNCT_726 Area within BNRR Pond 663.30 668.51 0.8% JUNCT_260 Bay Farm Rd. Ditch at swale 552.20 569.65 3.2% JUNCT_261 Bay Farm Rd. Ditch at Spring Creek 570.20 588.71 3.2% OUTLET_50 Detention Pond at CSU Veterinary Teaching Hospital 512.40 527.58 3.0% OUTLET_362 Detention Pond south of the Tennis Courts along Drake Rd. 1.50 1.47 -2.0% OUTLET_289 CSU Tennis Courts Detention Pond 4.50 4.46 -0.9% 3.2 Existing Conditions Model The EPA SWMM 5.1.007 model was checked to see if it correctly reflected the existing conditions in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Manual. LiDAR production, completed by Ayers Associates in 2013 for the City of Fort Collins, was used to verify and update basin boundaries. The LiDAR data includes one-foot contours on the NAVD 88 datum. The evaluation of the model centered on CSU’s south campus. Subbasins in the effective model outside of this area were not checked. The following modifications were made to the CSU subbasins for the existing conditions model.  The subbasin boundaries of 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 89, and 125 did not reflect existing conditions. The subbasin boundaries and EPA SWMM 5.1.007 subbasin parameters were updated using the May 2013 topography provided by Fort Collins. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 7  Basin 126 was split into two subbasins, 126 and 126B, to match the study area boundary. The subbasin parameters were modified accordingly.  The percent impervious values for subbasins 62, 66, 68, 89, 125, 126, and 126 B did not reflect existing conditions. The existing percent impervious values were updated using aerial imagery.  Subbasins 61, 89 and Pond 289 were updated with the design information from the Tennis Court Parking Lot Final Drainage Report, prepared by Olsson Associates in 2015. The improvements were constructed by CSU in the summer of 2015. Pond 362 was removed from the EPA SWMM 5.1.007 model because it did not reflect the current existing conditions of the CSU South Campus study area. As a result of removing Pond 362 from the model, the outflow value of Pond 50 increased, which also increased the inflow values for nodes 261 and 260. A summary of the changes in area and percent imperviousness is included in Table 3. A comparison of the EPA SWMM 5.1.007 model before and after updating the existing conditions can be found in Table 4. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 8 Table 3: Changes to Existing Condition Basin Property Original Value (as of 2008) Corrected Value** (as of 2008) Changed Value*** (as of 2013) 61 Area (acres) 20.4 21.4 21.9 % Impervious 90% 90% 90% 62 Area (acres) 5.9 6.0 4.2 % Impervious 70% 70% 2% 65 Area (acres) 6.5 6.7 6.7 % Impervious 8% 8% 8% 66 Area (acres) 17.8 16.8 22.7 % Impervious 55% 55% 65% 67* Area (acres) 29.2 28.2 25.6 % Impervious 55% 55% 55% 68* Area (acres) 11.5 11.1 16.0 % Impervious 55% 55% 30% 89 Area (acres) 25.4 24.7 16.0 % Impervious 90% 90% 61% 125 Area (acres) 22.6 22.5 23.1 % Impervious 51% 51% 65% 126 Area (acres) 72.6 78.7 51.7 % Impervious 25% 25% 19% 126B Area (acres) N/A N/A 26.9 % Impervious N/A N/A 81% Ditch Area (acres) 1.7 2.4 3.6 *The percent impervious value was not affected by the change in area. **The areas in the effective model did not match the electronic files of the effective subbasins. Because the electronic files were used as a basis for the existing conditions, the total area of the electronic files and the existing conditions match. ***Changed Value refers to the conditions of the subbasin in 2013 as documented in the aerial imagery from LiDAR production by Ayers Associates in 2013. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 9 Table 4: Converted Effective Model & Updated Existing Model Peak Flow Comparison Design Point Notes Converted Effective Peak Flow (cfs) Updated Existing Peak Flow (cfs) % Change Q100 Q100 Q100 JUNCT_327 Spring Creek 2,961.38 2,961.90 0.0% JUNCT_727 Spring Creek 3,129.67 3,146.53 0.5% JUNCT_27 Spring Creek 3,220.46 3,218.72 -0.1% JUNCT_703 Spring Creek 3,849.31 3,846.60 -0.1% OUTLET_303 Detention Pond/ Spring Creek 1,957.75 1,927.99 -1.5% JUNCT_321 Spring Creek 1,958.38 1,928.68 -1.5% JUNCT_726 Area within BNRR Pond 668.51 659.62 -1.3% JUNCT_260 Bay Farm Rd. Ditch at swale 569.65 594.33 4.3% JUNCT_261 Bay Farm Rd. Ditch at Spring Creek 588.71 613.41 4.2% OUTLET_50 Detention Pond at CSU Veterinary Teaching Hospital 527.58 555.94 5.4% OUTLET_289 Tennis Courts Detention Pond 4.46 0.89 -80.0% 3.3 Existing Detention Requirements Pond 303 and Pond 50 provide additional detention beyond what is required for CSU’s property alone. To help determine master plan improvements, the existing detention volumes and release rates were compared to the required detention volumes and release rates. Pond 303, identified in Exhibit 2, in Appendix A, is predominantly inundated by the Spring Creek 100-year storm event. This area provides detention for a large area upstream, not just for CSU south campus. In addition, Pond 50 also provides detention storage for offsite basins. To determine what portion of the pond volumes are used for detention for the study area versus offsite areas, the required onsite detention was determined by modifying the existing conditions model to disconnect all off-site areas. Next, the 2-year undeveloped flow from the study area was developed to determine a 100-year release rate for the developed basin based on City of Fort Collins criteria. The undeveloped 2-year flow was determined by changing all of the subbasins to a 2% imperviousness and converting all of the existing ponds to nodes so no storage would be modeled. The required 100-year release rates, or the CSU 2-year historic (undeveloped) peak flows, at each pond location is shown in Table 5. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 10 Table 5: Required Onsite 100-Year Release Rates Pond CSU Tributary Area (ac) Required 100-Year Release Rate (cfs) 50 33.6 1.98 289 16.0 0.96 303 166.0 5.65 To determine the detention required for the study area, per Fort Collins criteria, the existing conditions model was modified to allow the offsite flows to pass through Ponds 50 and 303, while detaining the developed 100-year flows to release at the 2-year historic flowrates. Pond 289 does not intercept any offsite basins so the release rate from Pond 289 is driven solely by the historic 2-year flow. A summary of the 2-year historic flow, 100-year offsite flow, and total allowable release rate at each pond is provided in Table 6. Table 6 Allowable Release Rate Pond Summary Pond A: Historic 2- year Flow Rate (cfs) B: Intercepted 100- year Offsite Developed Flows (cfs) Allowable Release Rate (A + B) (cfs) 50 1.98 702.91 704.89 289 0.96 0.00 0.96 303* 5.65 3,946.83 3,952.48 *The historic flows, intercepted flows, and allowable release rate for Pond 303 reported in Table 6 include the onsite and offsite flows from Pond 50 and Pond 289, as these ponds are tributary to Pond 303. The offsite flows for Pond 303 also include flows from a portion of the CSU Stadium project on the main campus, hydrographs 297, 298, 299, accounting for approximately 180.83 cubic feet per second (cfs)) of the total 3,946.83 cfs in offsite flows. Table 7 summarizes the required release rates and detention volumes versus the as- constructed condition release rates and detention volumes at each pond. Pond 50 and Pond 303 provide substantial excess detention that benefits the community as a whole. Table 7: Detention Pond Requirements Compared to Constructed Facilities Pond Allowable Release Rate (cfs) Required Detention (ac-ft) Existing Release Rate (cfs) Provided Detention (ac-ft) 50 704.89 5.48 549.72 21.96 289 0.96 3.90 0.89 3.91 303 3,952.48 13.84 1,956.85 337.1 South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 11 The area south of the New Mercer Ditch, which lies just north of the Natural Resource Research Center, is currently undeveloped. Fort Collins stormwater criteria requires the developed 100- year storm event flows be released at a 2-year historic flowrate, even if the site is entirely pervious, which results in required detention to any property, developed or undeveloped. Removing this area, which lies in Subbasin 126, from the onsite analysis reduces the overall detention required in Pond 303 from 13.84 acre-feet (ac-ft) to 9.69 ac-ft. Ponds 50 and 289 would not be effected. Total detention required for the area south of New Mercer Ditch would be 19.07 ac-ft, as compared to the 23.22 ac-ft required for the entire study area identified in Exhibit 1. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 12 4.0 PROPOSED CONDITIONS The “Medical Campus: Master Plan” (Master Plan), in Appendix B, shows the proposed site layout for CSU’s South Campus. The Master Plan includes additional buildings, animal pens, parking lots, and rearrangement of paved and landscaped areas. To evaluate future drainage improvements with the Master Plan site layout, new drainage basins were delineated, as shown in Exhibit 4, in Appendix B. The master plan SWMM schematics are included as Exhibits 5A-5C, in Appendix B. The Anderson South Campus Master Plan used 2-foot contours, as opposed to the one-foot contours used for this study. The Master Plan subbasins, including existing facilities to remain, are described in Section 4.1 The analysis for the western portion of the campus, including the new tennis courts, provides water quality for the southern portion of the campus west of the Larimer County Canal (LCC) No. 2 and detention for the northern portion of the area west of the LCC No. 2. This condition remains consistent whereas alternatives are proposed for the area east of the LCC No. 2. Three drainage alternatives were then evaluated for the area east of LCC No. 2. The first alternative includes three additional off-line detention ponds: Ponds 52, 53, and 54. These ponds would collect runoff from tributary basins and discharge flows into the existing stormwater channel. The second alternative includes the same detention ponds, but the ponds would be constructed on-line (along the existing channel). The proposed detention ponds for both detention alternatives would provide water quality storage and detain developed on-site flows resulting from the Master Plan improvements, releasing flows at the 2-year historic flow rates. The third alternative includes rerouting the existing channel into a meandering swale and construction of three water quality ponds along the relocated channel. This alternative would not provide any additional detention of onsite flows, although it would provide enhanced water quality and a more aesthetically pleasing environment. 4.1 Basin Description Subbasin 62 will consist of a parking lot, a proposed building, Pond 362, and landscaped areas. The future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 46%. Stormwater drains to the southeast to Pond 362, which outlets into in a small swale to Pond 50, which is located in Subbasin 66. Subbasin 65 will consist of paved streets, a proposed parking lot, animal pens, the portion of Pond 50 that is north of the paved road, and landscaped areas. The future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 36%. Stormwater drains to the east along the paved road to Pond 50 which outlets into a swale that flows to the north. Subbasin 65A will consist of paved streets, a portion of the proposed sheep barn, proposed animal pens, and landscaped areas. The future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 63%. Stormwater drains to the east along Booth Road to Pond 52, which is located in Subbasin 65C. Subbasin 65C will consist of a portion of the proposed sheep barn and small animal barn, the existing hay barn, proposed animal pens, paved areas, Pond 52, and landscaped areas. The South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 13 future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 28%. Stormwater drains to the east to Pond 52 which outlets into a swale that flows to the north. Subbasin 66 will consist of parking lots, existing and proposed buildings, the portion of Pond 50 that is south of the paved road, and landscaped areas. The future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 67%. Stormwater drains to the south along Gillette Drive, until it reaches a curb cut that directs flows into Pond 50 which outlets into a swale that flows to the north. Subbasin 67 will consist of a paved roadway, existing and proposed buildings, proposed animal pens, and landscaped areas. The future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 68%. Stormwater drains east along Niswender Road to a swale that flows to the north. Subbasin 67A will consist of a paved roadway, a parking lot, existing and proposed buildings, proposed animal pens, Pond 53, and landscaped areas. The future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 43%. Stormwater drains to the east to Pond 53 which outlets into a swale that flows to the north. Subbasin 67B will consist of a paved roadway, existing, and proposed buildings. The future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 97%. Stormwater will drain east in a proposed 30- inch RCP to Pond 53, which is located in Subbasin 67A. Subbasin 67C will consist of a parking lot, existing and proposed buildings, and landscaped areas. The future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 44%. Stormwater will drain to the west toward Gillette Drive, which is located in Subbasin 66. Subbasin 68 will consist of a paved roadway, a parking lot, existing and proposed buildings, Pond 54, and landscaped areas. The future percent imperviousness for this subbasin is 63%. Stormwater will drain to the east along a paved road to Pond 54 which outlets into a swale that flows to the north to a 78-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that discharges to Spring Creek. Subbasin 89 will consist of the CSU tennis courts, Detention Pond 289, parking lots, and landscaped areas. The future percent impervious for this subbasin is 61%, which was calculated based off of the Tennis Court Parking Lot Final Drainage Report, prepared by Olsson Associates in 2015. Stormwater outlets Pond 289 to the east in an 18-inch RCP to Pond 54, which is located in Subbasin 68. A summary of the Master Plan subbasin areas and percent impervious compared to existing conditions is shown in Table 8. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 14 Table 8: Changes to Proposed Condition Basin Property Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions 62 Area (acres) 4.2 4.2 % Impervious 2% 46% 65 Area (acres) 6.7 5.7 % Impervious 8% 36% 65A Area (acres) --- 3.0 % Impervious --- 63% 65C Area (acres) --- 3.5 % Impervious --- 28% 66 Area (acres) 22.7 25.3 % Impervious 65% 67% 67 Area (acres) 25.6 5.3 % Impervious 55% 98% 67A Area (acres) --- 5.8 % Impervious --- 43% 67B Area (acres) --- 2.4 % Impervious --- 97% 67C Area (acres) --- 4.8 % Impervious --- 44% 68* Area (acres) 16.0 15.2 % Impervious 30% 63% 89 Area (acres) 16.0 16.0 % Impervious 61% 61% 4.2 Detention Basin Alternative 4.2.1 Off-Line Detention Alternative The existing swale located on the east side of the project area drains stormwater from Pond 50 at the southeast corner of the South Campus north to Spring Creek. The first alternative for stormwater improvements includes adding detention ponds prior to discharging into the existing South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 15 swale, as shown in Exhibit 6, in Appendix B. Three detention ponds 52, 53, and 54, would be added as off-line detention ponds that would outlet directly into the swale. Proposed detention ponds will provide water quality capture volume. Due to the high nutrient loading of the stormwater, it is also proposed to provide additional water quality by providing a meandering bioswale to be constructed upstream of the detention ponds. This bioswale would be offset approximately 5 feet from the proposed detention ponds. When the bioswale reaches its capacity, stormwater will overflow to Detention Ponds 52, 53, and 54. A summary of the detention and water quality pond volumes can be found in Table 9. Table 9: Required Water Quality and Detention Requirements Pond Required Detention Volume (AC-FT) WQCV Required (ac-ft) Off-Line Total Required Volume (ac-ft) 52 1.31 0.15 1.46 53 3.14 0.48 3.62 54 3.47 0.48 3.95 362* 0.87 0.11 0.98 *Pond 362 will primarily be utilized for water quality with a maximum capacity of 0.38 ac-ft Proposed Pond 362 is located in basin 62, which is in the southwest portion of the South Campus. Due to site constraints, only 0.38 af-ft of volume can be achieved in Pond 362 given the current layout of the proposed south campus buildings, sidewalks, and utilities. While this volume does not provide adequate detention, it will provide water quality and limited detention. The overflow will be routed to Pond 50. The grading in the South Campus relative to elevations in the swale will cause some hydraulic issues in the ponds. Tailwater in the swale may reduce the outflow rate in the ponds. Check valves will be required to ensure flows do not back into the ponds from the swale. Should this option be selected, refined modeling of the discharge relative to the pond size is required to ensure the timing of the release enables the pond to drain appropriately during final design. The construction costs of the evaluated improvements were estimated using unit costs obtained from Urban Drainage and Flood Control District’s master planning cost estimator, UD-MP Cost, Version 2.2. The detention pond unit cost includes excavation, trickle channels, forebays, micropools, access roads, outlet structures, and revegetation. The estimated cost of this alternative is shown in Table 10. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 16 Table 10: Off-Line Detention Alternative Estimated Cost Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Detention/WQ Pond 52 (Complete-in-Place) 1.46 AC-FT $48,000 $70,080 Detention/WQ Pond 53 (Complete-in-Place) 3.62 AC-FT $48,000 $173,760 Detention/WQ Pond 54 (Complete-in-Place) 3.95 AC-FT $48,000 $189,600 Detention/WQ Pond 362 (Complete-in-Place) 0.38 AC-FT $48,000 $18,240 Bioswale (Complete-in-Place) 1 L.S. $24,000 $24,000 Dewatering 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 Mobilization (5%) 1 L.S. $23,784 $23,784 Traffic Control 1 L.S. $1,000 $1,000 Utility Coordination/Relocation 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 Stormwater Management/Erosion Control (5%) 1 L.S. $23,784 $23,784 Subtotal Capital Improvement Costs $534,248 Engineering (15%) 1 L.S. $80,137 $80,137 Legal/Administrative (5%) 1 L.S. $26,712 $26,712 Contract Admin/Construction Management (10%) 1 L.S. $53,425 $53,425 Contingency (25%) 1 L.S. $133,562 $133,562 Subtotal Other Costs $293,836 Total Capital Improvement Costs $828,084 4.2.2 On-Line Detention Alternative If the detention ponds included in the off-line detention alternative were instead on-line ponds along the existing swale, there would be significantly more developable land, as shown in Exhibit 7, in Appendix B. On-line detention would slightly reduce the overall peak flow in the swale; however, due to the difference in timing of the peak flow from the south campus tributary basins and the peak flow for the outfall of Pond 50, the in-line ponds would not provide much detention of the developed site and little to no water quality benefit. The net impact was a reduction in peak flows of 10 cfs, as compared to existing conditions, at the downstream end of the developed site. No water quality capture volume would be included in the ponds. Water quality would only be addressed by meandering bioswales on the upstream side of the detention ponds. The water quality and detention provided in this alternative do not justify the increased developable land and this alternative is therefore not recommended. The construction costs of the evaluated improvements were estimated using unit costs obtained from Urban Drainage and Flood Control District’s master planning cost estimator, UD-MP Cost, Version 2.2. The detention pond unit cost includes excavation, trickle channels, forebays, micropools, access roads, outlet structures, and revegetation. The estimated cost of this alternative is shown in Table 11. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 17 Table 11: On-Line Detention Alternative Estimated Cost Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Detention Pond 52 (Complete-in-Place) 2.20 AC-FT $48,000 $105,600 Detention Pond 53 (Complete-in-Place) 1.56 AC-FT $48,000 $74,880 Detention Pond 54 (Complete-in-Place) 4.36 AC-FT $48,000 $209,280 Detention/WQ Pond 362 (Complete-in- Place) 0.38 AC-FT $48,000 $18,240 Bioswale (Complete-in-Place) 1 L.S. $24,000 $24,000 Dewatering 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 Mobilization (5%) 1 L.S. $21,600 $21,600 Traffic Control 1 L.S. $1,000 $1,000 Utility Coordination/Relocation 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 Stormwater Management/Erosion Control (5%) 1 L.S. $21,600 $21,600 Subtotal Capital Improvement Costs $486,200 Engineering (15%) 1 L.S. $72,930 $72,930 Legal/Administrative (5%) 1 L.S. $24,310 $24,310 Contract Admin/Construction Management (10%) 1 L.S. $48,620 $48,620 Contingency (25%) 1 L.S. $121,550 $121,550 Subtotal Other Costs $267,410 Total Capital Improvement Costs $753,610 4.3 Water Quality Alternative The final alternative for stormwater improvements addresses only water quality for the proposed improvements on South Campus that lie east of LCC No. 2. The most significant impact of the South Campus plan is the increased presence of animal manure to the storm system. To help alleviate this loading, bioswales would be constructed to collect stormwater from the developed facilities and convey it to water quality ponds. The water quality ponds would be located at the same location as the proposed off-line detention pond alternative. The existing swale along the eastern border would be realigned to have a more natural, meandering, alignment. This alternative would not provide any additional detention of on-site flows; however, it would provide enhanced water quality and a more aesthetically pleasing environment. This alternative is shown on Exhibit 8, in Appendix B. A summary of the water quality storage pond volumes can be found in Table 12. It should be noted that Pond 362 will provide limited detention volume as well as water quality capture volume resulting in a total storage of 0.38 ac-ft. South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 18 Table 12: Water Quality Requirements Pond WQCV Required (ac-ft) 51 0.12 52 0.15 53 0.48 54 0.48 362 0.11 The construction costs of the evaluated improvements were estimated using unit costs obtained from Urban Drainage and Flood Control District’s master planning cost estimator, UD-MP Cost, Version 2.2. The water quality pond unit cost includes excavation, trickle channels, forebays, micropools, access roads, outlet structures, and revegetation. The estimated cost of this alternative is shown in Table 13. Table 13: Water Quality Alternative Estimated Cost Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Water Quality Pond 50 (Complete-in-Place) 0.12 AC-FT $48,000 $5,760 Water Quality Pond 52 (Complete-in-Place) 0.15 AC-FT $48,000 $7,200 Water Quality Pond 53 (Complete-in-Place) 0.48 AC-FT $48,000 $23,040 Water Quality Pond 54 (Complete-in-Place) 0.48 AC-FT $48,000 $23,040 Detention/WQ Pond 362 (Complete-in-Place) 0.38 AC-FT $48,000 $18,240 Swale (Complete-in-Place) 12,000 CY $20 $240,000 Bioswale (Complete-in-Place) 1 L.S. $24,000 $24,000 Dewatering 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 Mobilization (5%) 1 L.S. $17,064 $17,064 Traffic Control 1 L.S. $1,000 $1,000 Utility Coordination/Relocation 1 L.S. $5,000 $5,000 Stormwater Management/Erosion Control (5%) 1 L.S. $17,064 $17,064 Subtotal Capital Improvement Costs $386,408 Engineering (15%) 1 L.S. $57,961 $57,961 Legal/Administrative (5%) 1 L.S. $19,320 $19,320 Contract Admin/Construction Management (10%) 1 L.S. $38,641 $38,641 Contingency (25%) 1 L.S. $96,602 $96,602 Subtotal Other Costs $212,524 Total Capital Improvement Costs $598,932 South Campus Stormwater Master Plan Colorado State University 015-0770 December 2015 19 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The water quality alternative is recommended to be implemented as part of the CSU South Campus Master Plan. With the Master Plan improvements in place, the total outflow of Pond 303 would be 1,932 cfs, as compared to the effective outflow of 1,972 cfs. Pond 303 encompasses not only the Spring Creek floodplain, but also the FEMA designated floodway. The effective water surface elevation at Pond 303 is 4995.12 (NGVD29 datum), or 4988.10 (NAVD88 datum). The proposed water surface elevation will be 4994.90 (NGVD29 datum), or 4997.88 (NAVD88 datum). Because the proposed water surface elevation is lower that the effective, no CLOMR/LOMR will be required for the proposed improvements. This alternative will better serve the watershed by providing additional water quality facilities without negatively affecting the capacity of downstream infrastructure. The proposed stormwater improvements will reduce the potential for pollutants entering Spring Creek. APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Exhibit 2: Existing Conditions Basin Map Exhibit 3: Existing Conditions SWMM Schematic 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard EXISTING CONDITIONS BASIN MAP 2 LEGEND 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard EXISTING CONDITIONS SWMM SCHEMATIC 3R APPENDIX B MASTER PLAN Exhibit 4: Master Plan Basin Map Exhibits 5A-5C: Master Plan SWMM Schematics Exhibit 6: Off-line Detention Pond Alternative Exhibit 7: On-line Detention Pond Alternative Exhibit 8: Water Quality Pond Alternative CSURF-Controlled Property University-Controlled Property New/Future Buildings Existing Buildings LEGEND LEGEND CSURF-Controlled Property University-Controlled Property New/Future Buildings Existing Buildings N WEST DRAKE ROAD JENSEN ROAD CENTREAVENUE NISWENDER ROAD BOOTH ROAD CROSS DRIVE GILETTEDRIVE RESEARCHBOULEVARD PHEMISTER ROAD MASONTRAIL MAX BRT MEDIC AL C AMPUS: MASTER PLAN UPDATE FEB. 2015 MEDIC AL C AMPUS: MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXISTING FACILITIES 1. Veterinar y Teaching Hospital 2. Diagnostic Medicine Center 3. Equine Orthopaedic Research Center 4. Facilities Carpentry Shop 5. Chill Plant 6. Hay Barn 7. Tennis Courts PROPOSED FACILITIES 8. Sheep Barn 9. Hay Barn 10. Small Animal Barn 11. Institute for Biological & Translational Therapies 12. Equine Hospital 13. Second Year DVM 14. Community Practice 15. Parking 16. Relocated Large Animal Program 17. Stormwater Detention/Treatment 18. Cancer Innovation Center 19. 900-Space Parking Lot (Summer 2015) 9 17 11 10 5 4 12 3 6 8 2 16 13 14 15 1 18 19 7 Facilities Management 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard MASTER PLAN BASIN MAP 4 LEGEND NOTE: FOR THE OFF-LINE DETENTION POND ALTERNATIVE BASINS 65A, 65C, 67, 67A, 67B AND 68 ARE MODELED AS 2-YEAR EXISTING TO REPLICATE THE HISTORIC FLOW RATES DISCHARGING FROM THE OFF-LINE DETENTION PONDS INTO THE EXISTING SWALE AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS CRITERIA. 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney BoulevardOFF-LINE DETENTION POND MASTER PLAN SWMM SCHEMATIC 5AR NOTE: BASINS 65A, 65C, 67, 67A, 67B AND 68 ARE MODELED AS 2-YEAR EXISTING TO REPLICATE THE HISTORIC FLOW RATES DISCHARGING FROM THE OFF-LINE DETENTION PONDS INTO THE EXISTING SWALE AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS CRITERIA. 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney BoulevardON-LINE DETENTION POND MASTER PLAN SWMM SCHEMATIC 5BR 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney BoulevardWATER QUALITY POND MASTER PLAN SWMM SCHEMATIC 5CR 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard OFF-LINE DETENTION POND ALTERNATIVE 6 LEGEND 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard ON-LINE DETENTION POND ALTERNATIVE 7 LEGEND POND 50 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard WATER QUALITY POND ALTERNATIVE 8 LEGEND APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY CALCUL ATIONS Project: Basin ID: WQCV Design Volume (Input): Catchment Imperviousness, Ia =36.0 percent Catchment Area, A =5.70 acres Diameter of holes, D =inches Depth at WQCV outlet above lowest perforation, H =1 feet Number of holes per row, N = Vertical distance between rows, h =4.00 inches OR Number of rows, NL =4.00 Orifice discharge coefficient, Co =0.67 Height of slot, H =inches Slope of Basin Trickle Channel, S =0.004 ft / ft Width of slot, W =inches Time to Drain the Pond =40 hours Watershed Design Information (Input):1 Percent Soil Type A =% Percent Soil Type B =% Percent Soil Type C/D =100 % Outlet Design Information (Output): Water Quality Capture Volume, WQCV =0.217 watershed inches Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) =0.103 acre-feet 0.00 Design Volume (WQCV / 12 * Area * 1.2) Vol =0.124 acre-feet Outlet area per row, Ao =0.42 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.00 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.000 square feet 3 Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6 Row 7 Row 8 Row 9 Row 10 Row 11 Row 12 Row 13 Row 14 Row 15 Row 16 Row 17 Row 18 Row 19 Row 20 Row 21 Row 22 Row 23 Row 23 S Flow #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Override Area Row 1 Override Area Row 2 Override Area Row 3 Override Area Row 4 Override Area Row 5 Override Area Row 6 Override Area Row 7 Override Area Row 8 Override Area Row 9 Override Area Row 10 Override Area Row 11 Override Area Row 12 Override Area Row 13 Override Area Row 14 Override Area Row 15 Override Area Row 16 Override Area Row 17 Override Area Row 18 Override Area Row 19 Override Area Row 20 Override Area Row 21 Override Area Row 22 Override Area Row 23 Override Area Row 24 Central Elevations of Rows of Holes in feet Collection Capacity for Each Row of Holes in cfs STAGE-DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) OUTLET WQV-POND51.xls, WQCV 12/22/2015, 4:46 PM Project: Basin ID: WQCV Design Volume (Input): Catchment Imperviousness, Ia =45.4 percent Catchment Area, A =6.05 acres Diameter of holes, D =inches Depth at WQCV outlet above lowest perforation, H =1 feet Number of holes per row, N = Vertical distance between rows, h =4.00 inches OR Number of rows, NL =4.00 Orifice discharge coefficient, Co =0.67 Height of slot, H =inches Slope of Basin Trickle Channel, S =0.004 ft / ft Width of slot, W =inches Time to Drain the Pond =40 hours Watershed Design Information (Input):1 Percent Soil Type A =% Percent Soil Type B =% Percent Soil Type C/D =100 % Outlet Design Information (Output): Water Quality Capture Volume, WQCV =0.254 watershed inches Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) =0.128 acre-feet 0.00 Design Volume (WQCV / 12 * Area * 1.2) Vol =0.153 acre-feet Outlet area per row, Ao =0.51 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.00 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.000 square feet 3 Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6 Row 7 Row 8 Row 9 Row 10 Row 11 Row 12 Row 13 Row 14 Row 15 Row 16 Row 17 Row 18 Row 19 Row 20 Row 21 Row 22 Row 23 Row 23 S Flow #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Override Area Row 1 Override Area Row 2 Override Area Row 3 Override Area Row 4 Override Area Row 5 Override Area Row 6 Override Area Row 7 Override Area Row 8 Override Area Row 9 Override Area Row 10 Override Area Row 11 Override Area Row 12 Override Area Row 13 Override Area Row 14 Override Area Row 15 Override Area Row 16 Override Area Row 17 Override Area Row 18 Override Area Row 19 Override Area Row 20 Override Area Row 21 Override Area Row 22 Override Area Row 23 Override Area Row 24 Central Elevations of Rows of Holes in feet Collection Capacity for Each Row of Holes in cfs STAGE-DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) OUTLET WQV-POND52.xls, WQCV 12/22/2015, 4:45 PM Project: Basin ID: WQCV Design Volume (Input): Catchment Imperviousness, Ia =74.2 percent Catchment Area, A =13.50 acres Diameter of holes, D =inches Depth at WQCV outlet above lowest perforation, H =1 feet Number of holes per row, N = Vertical distance between rows, h =4.00 inches OR Number of rows, NL =4.00 Orifice discharge coefficient, Co =0.67 Height of slot, H =inches Slope of Basin Trickle Channel, S =0.004 ft / ft Width of slot, W =inches Time to Drain the Pond =40 hours Watershed Design Information (Input):1 Percent Soil Type A =% Percent Soil Type B =% Percent Soil Type C/D =100 % Outlet Design Information (Output): Water Quality Capture Volume, WQCV =0.353 watershed inches Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) =0.397 acre-feet 0.00 Design Volume (WQCV / 12 * Area * 1.2) Vol =0.476 acre-feet Outlet area per row, Ao =1.50 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.00 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.000 square feet 3 Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6 Row 7 Row 8 Row 9 Row 10 Row 11 Row 12 Row 13 Row 14 Row 15 Row 16 Row 17 Row 18 Row 19 Row 20 Row 21 Row 22 Row 23 Row 23 S Flow #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Override Area Row 1 Override Area Row 2 Override Area Row 3 Override Area Row 4 Override Area Row 5 Override Area Row 6 Override Area Row 7 Override Area Row 8 Override Area Row 9 Override Area Row 10 Override Area Row 11 Override Area Row 12 Override Area Row 13 Override Area Row 14 Override Area Row 15 Override Area Row 16 Override Area Row 17 Override Area Row 18 Override Area Row 19 Override Area Row 20 Override Area Row 21 Override Area Row 22 Override Area Row 23 Override Area Row 24 Central Elevations of Rows of Holes in feet Collection Capacity for Each Row of Holes in cfs STAGE-DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) OUTLET WQV-POND53.xls, WQCV 12/22/2015, 4:47 PM Project: Basin ID: WQCV Design Volume (Input): Catchment Imperviousness, Ia =63.0 percent Catchment Area, A =15.20 acres Diameter of holes, D =inches Depth at WQCV outlet above lowest perforation, H =1 feet Number of holes per row, N = Vertical distance between rows, h =4.00 inches OR Number of rows, NL =4.00 Orifice discharge coefficient, Co =0.67 Height of slot, H =inches Slope of Basin Trickle Channel, S =0.004 ft / ft Width of slot, W =inches Time to Drain the Pond =40 hours Watershed Design Information (Input):1 Percent Soil Type A =% Percent Soil Type B =% Percent Soil Type C/D =100 % Outlet Design Information (Output): Water Quality Capture Volume, WQCV =0.316 watershed inches Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) =0.400 acre-feet 0.00 Design Volume (WQCV / 12 * Area * 1.2) Vol =0.480 acre-feet Outlet area per row, Ao =1.52 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.00 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.000 square feet 3 Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6 Row 7 Row 8 Row 9 Row 10 Row 11 Row 12 Row 13 Row 14 Row 15 Row 16 Row 17 Row 18 Row 19 Row 20 Row 21 Row 22 Row 23 Row 23 S Flow #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Override Area Row 1 Override Area Row 2 Override Area Row 3 Override Area Row 4 Override Area Row 5 Override Area Row 6 Override Area Row 7 Override Area Row 8 Override Area Row 9 Override Area Row 10 Override Area Row 11 Override Area Row 12 Override Area Row 13 Override Area Row 14 Override Area Row 15 Override Area Row 16 Override Area Row 17 Override Area Row 18 Override Area Row 19 Override Area Row 20 Override Area Row 21 Override Area Row 22 Override Area Row 23 Override Area Row 24 Central Elevations of Rows of Holes in feet Collection Capacity for Each Row of Holes in cfs STAGE-DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) OUTLET WQV-POND54.xls, WQCV 12/22/2015, 4:47 PM Project: Basin ID: WQCV Design Volume (Input): Catchment Imperviousness, Ia =46.0 percent Catchment Area, A =4.20 acres Diameter of holes, D =inches Depth at WQCV outlet above lowest perforation, H =1 feet Number of holes per row, N = Vertical distance between rows, h =4.00 inches OR Number of rows, NL =4.00 Orifice discharge coefficient, Co =0.67 Height of slot, H =inches Slope of Basin Trickle Channel, S =0.005 ft / ft Width of slot, W =inches Time to Drain the Pond =40 hours Watershed Design Information (Input):1 Percent Soil Type A =% Percent Soil Type B =% Percent Soil Type C/D =100 % Outlet Design Information (Output): Water Quality Capture Volume, WQCV =0.256 watershed inches Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) =0.090 acre-feet 0.00 Design Volume (WQCV / 12 * Area * 1.2) Vol =0.107 acre-feet Outlet area per row, Ao =0.36 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.00 square inches Total opening area at each row based on user-input above, Ao =0.000 square feet 3 Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6 Row 7 Row 8 Row 9 Row 10 Row 11 Row 12 Row 13 Row 14 Row 15 Row 16 Row 17 Row 18 Row 19 Row 20 Row 21 Row 22 Row 23 Row 23 S Flow #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Override Area Row 1 Override Area Row 2 Override Area Row 3 Override Area Row 4 Override Area Row 5 Override Area Row 6 Override Area Row 7 Override Area Row 8 Override Area Row 9 Override Area Row 10 Override Area Row 11 Override Area Row 12 Override Area Row 13 Override Area Row 14 Override Area Row 15 Override Area Row 16 Override Area Row 17 Override Area Row 18 Override Area Row 19 Override Area Row 20 Override Area Row 21 Override Area Row 22 Override Area Row 23 Override Area Row 24 Central Elevations of Rows of Holes in feet Collection Capacity for Each Row of Holes in cfs STAGE-DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) OUTLET WQV-POND362.xls, WQCV 12/22/2015, 4:46 PM APPENDIX D EPA SWMM WATER QUALITY MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES EPA SWMM Input EPA SWMM Output COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY SOUTH CAMPUS WATER QUALITY BIOSWALE DESIGN SUBSTANTIATION M/M PROJECT NO. 17.0030 May 07, 2018 PREPARED BY: 12499 WEST COLFAX AVENUE LAKEWOOD, CO 80215 (303)431-6100 WWW.MARTINMARTIN.COM PREPARED FOR: FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE: MATT SCHLAGETER, P.E. ENGINEER OF RECORD: PETER BUCKLEY, P.E. PROJECT MANAGER: MELYSSA LORENGER, P.E. ENGINEER: NICOLE KONTOUR, E.I.T. DESIGN ANALYSIS COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY DESIGN NARRATIVE SOUTH CAMPUS WATER QUALITY BIOSWALE CIVIL CSU PROJECT NO. XX-XXX P a g e 1 | 7 General Location and Description The Colorado State University (CSU) South Campus (also referred to as the “Veterinary Medicine” or “Medical” campus) is located north of Drake Road, west of Bay Road, south of West Prospect Road, and east of Centre Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. A vicinity map is provided in the Appendix. Phased development of the South Campus includes the construction of a new Translational Medicine Institute (TMI), Equine Veterinary Teaching Hospital, supporting livestock and agricultural facilities, additions to existing buildings, and associated infrastructure improvements including utilities, pedestrian and vehicular access, and drainage. Water quality, detention, and historic release facilities are generally absent from the central portions of the South Campus. The existing drainageways within the local watershed typically consist of overland flow, natural swales, and storm sewer infrastructure. Flows are generally routed in an easterly direction to either the existing lagoon located to the southeast of the existing Veterinary Teaching Hospital (VTH) or the existing retention pond located to the north of the existing Chiller Plant. The retention pond is currently undersized for existing conditions and future growth. Stormwater runoff from the South Campus is typically released undetained into the VTH Outfall channel (City Ditch) along Bay Road. Flows are conveyed north in the channel to a 78-inch RCP storm drain. This regional outfall channel is owned by the City of Fort Collins and ultimately outfalls to the north into Spring Creek. Master Drainage Study Stormwater master plan improvements for the South Campus were analyzed in the “Colorado State University South Campus Stormwater Master Plan” (herein referred to as MASTER), prepared by Olsson Associates, dated December 2015. This study encompassed the area north of Drake Road, west of Burlington Northern Railroad, east of Research Boulevard and Centre Avenue, and south of the Natural Research Center. The purpose of this study was to evaluate existing and future conditions of the South Campus and provide alternative design concepts for drainage improvements. This study concluded that in-line water quality ponds along the VTH Outfall channel would best serve the watershed by providing water quality facilities to treat the increased presence of animal manure and reduce potential pollutants from entering Spring Creek. Refer to the “Water Quality Pond Alternative” exhibit by Olsson Associates in the Appendix for a conceptual illustration. Per coordination with CSU and the City of Fort Collins, it was determined that a water quality bioswale system would better meet stormwater management needs of the South Campus while still addressing the recommendations of the MASTER study. The proposed water quality bioswale system is situated along the easternmost portion of the campus and runs parallel to the VTH Outfall channel from the existing lagoon to the outfall into the City stormwater system. Drainage Basins and Sub-basins The South Campus is located within a portion of the Spring Creek watershed as defined by the MASTER. Spring Creek is a major watercourse that receives flows from Spring Canyon Dam at Horsetooth Reservoir and is tributary to the Poudre River. The MASTER study considered only a small a portion of the watershed associated with the drainage improvements for the South Campus. Refer to the “Study Area” exhibit by Olsson Associates provided in the Appendix for the extents of the area analyzed in the MASTER. DESIGN ANALYSIS COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY DESIGN NARRATIVE SOUTH CAMPUS WATER QUALITY BIOSWALE CIVIL CSU PROJECT NO. XX-XXX P a g e 2 | 7 Table 1 The area tributary to the water quality bioswale system is approximately 45.7 acres and includes eight sub-basins. As a result of master planning efforts, the proposed bioswale system is divided into a southern and northern bioswale with two separate outfalls into the VTH channel. The first phase of development includes the construction of the north bioswale to treat developed runoff from tributary areas including the proposed TMI facility and horse barn. The design and layout of the south bioswale have been analyzed to a design development level but will not be constructed until a future development phase of the South Campus. Tables 1 provides a summary of tributary sub-basins for each bioswale. Imperviousness of tributary sub- basins was determined from the MASTER report which assumed a fully developed condition for each sub- basin. Impervious values for current master planning efforts are similar to those identified in the MASTER report and therefore were not revised for the analysis of the water quality bioswale system. North Bioswale Sub-basin Area (acres) % Impervious 67A 5.8 43 67B 2.4 97 67C 4.8 44 67.1 2.9 68 68 15.2 63 TOTAL 31.1 59 Master planned sub-basin 67 was re-delineated from the original master sub-basin by area into sub-basins 67.1 and 67.2 due to the configuration of future buildings and infrastructure. The “Master Plan Basin Map” by Olsson Associates is provided in the Appendix. Hydrology The MASTER study used EPA Stormwater Management Model (SWMM v.5.1.007) to derive peak runoff values in the developed condition for sub-basins tributary to the VTH Outfall channel from the effective Spring Creek Basin As-Built MODSWMM model, prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers in 2008. Basin parameters used to develop individual hydrographs within the model include rainfall depth, sub-basin area and slope, imperviousness, soil infiltration rates, and surface storage losses. The 2- and 100-year hyetographs per the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (herein referred to as the CRITERIA), were used in the MASTER to create distribution raingages within the dynamic rainfall-runoff simulation. The abovementioned rainfall intensities are summarized in ‘Table 1: Fort Collins Intensity Duration Frequency Curves for Use with SWMM’ in the MASTER. The 100-year peak runoff values for sub-basins tributary to the proposed water quality bioswale system were extracted from the SWMM model to determine the cumulative total flows that each swale must convey in the major-year design storm. Table 2 provides a summary of these flows. South Bioswale Sub-basin Area (acres) % Impervious 65 5.7 36 65A 3.0 63 65C 3.5 28 67.2 2.4 68 TOTAL 14.6 45 DESIGN ANALYSIS COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY DESIGN NARRATIVE SOUTH CAMPUS WATER QUALITY BIOSWALE CIVIL CSU PROJECT NO. XX-XXX P a g e 3 | 7 Table 2 Table 3 North Bioswale Tributary Sub-basin Peak Runoff (cfs) 67A 37 67B 22 67C 26 67 19 68 81 TOTAL 185 The Rational Method in accordance with the CRITERIA was used to determine the 2-year peak flows, shown in Table 3, for water quality treatment within the bioswale system. While the 2-year flows for basins tributary to the north bioswale were computed, the 2-year flows for the south bioswale were approximated from best available information. It is assumed that the 2-year recurrence storm interval is an analogous approximation of the 80th percentile storm that defines water quality capture volume. 2-Year Runoff Summary North Bioswale 16.5 cfs South Bioswale 10.0 cfs Bioswale Analysis and Design The implementation of water quality bioswales for South Campus will improve current existing drainage conditions by providing increased removal of total suspended solids, turbidity, and oil/grease for smaller, more frequent storm events. The bioswales will also help to provide a more defined path of conveyance for larger, less frequent storms. “BioFilters for Storm Water Discharge Pollution Removal” from the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), dated January 2003 was used for guidance on bioswale design and maintenance based on data indicating a Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal rate performance of 80- percent or greater. According to this study, the effectiveness of bioswales is largely dependent on the residence time of the stormwater in the swale. By maximizing the contact time of stormwater runoff, higher rates of pollutant removal can be achieved through sedimentation, infiltration, and vegetative uptake. Design parameters that influence residence time include the longitudinal slope of the swale, cross sectional shape, bottom width, flow depth, length, and flow velocity. A fully vegetated, trapezoidal bioswale is recommended by DEQ. The optimal longitudinal slope of the bioswale should be at least one percent and should not exceed six percent. If design constraints dictate otherwise, underdrains or check dams can be added to encourage drainage or reduce flow velocities. To establish and maintain the vegetation along the bottom of the bioswale, the bottom should be approximately two to eight feet wide. Flow velocity for the water quality event should be approximately 1.5 ft/s and up to 5 ft/s for the major South Bioswale Tributary Sub-basin Peak Runoff (cfs) 65 24 65A 20 65C 15 67 16 TOTAL 75 DESIGN ANALYSIS COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY DESIGN NARRATIVE SOUTH CAMPUS WATER QUALITY BIOSWALE CIVIL CSU PROJECT NO. XX-XXX P a g e 4 | 7 Figure 1 storm event. Freeboard should also be considered when determining the flow depth of the bioswale to ensure a factor of safety during surges of excess flows. Figure 1 illustrates an example section. Studies conducted by DEQ concluded the following obtainable efficiencies as a result of recommended design parameters: These general design principals were used as guidance and supplemental precedence for the South Campus water quality bioswale system. In addition, per coordination with the CSU Colorado Stormwater Center, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) fact sheet and design procedures for grass swales were used for the hydraulic design and analysis the north bioswale in the water quality storm event. This fact sheet is provided in the Appendix for reference. Tributary sub-basins discharge concentrated and channelized flows into the north bioswale at the westernmost end of the existing retention pond. Soil rip-rap and concrete forebays will provide energy dissipation for concentrated flows and encourage sheet flow into the bioswale. The proposed north bioswale has a bottom slope of 0.25-percent with a 10-foot wide swale bottom and 5:1 (H:V) side slopes. Stormwater flows are conveyed northeasterly approximately 815 feet through the bioswale, providing an estimated residence time of 9.4 minutes with a flow velocity of 1.45 ft/s. The average flow depth during the water quality storm event is 10-inches. A perforated underdrain will be installed in the bottom of the bioswale to encourage drainage in low-flow conditions. The underdrain discharges to a sump inlet with a solid access cover to allow for regular maintenance and pumping/vacuum removal of collected flows. Conveyance of the 100-year design storm was analyzed using the Bentley FlowMaster hydraulic modeling software. In the fully developed condition, the north bioswale must convey approximately 185 cfs for flood control purposes. The design of the north bioswale allows major stormwater flows to remain DESIGN ANALYSIS COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY DESIGN NARRATIVE SOUTH CAMPUS WATER QUALITY BIOSWALE CIVIL CSU PROJECT NO. XX-XXX P a g e 5 | 7 Table 4 subcritical with a normal flow depth of 2.50-feet and velocity of 3.37 ft/s. Due to the curvature along the centerline alignment, bends and areas of confluence are reinforced with Type M soil rip-rap to minimize potential erosion in areas of impact. Supporting hydraulic calculations are included in the Appendix. Stormwater flows captured by the north bioswale are released into the VTH Outfall channel through three 42-inch culverts. The culvert size and quantity were determined from site constraints in the interim and future condition and average flow depths; refer to Table 4 below. North Bioswale Outlet Depth of Flow 2.5 ft Flow 74.2 cfs Based on information provided in the MASTER and received from CSU and the City of Fort Collins, it is understood that peak flow from the VTH Outfall channel occurs after the peak flow of the north bioswale. Therefore, no tailwater elevation was considered when analyzing the culverts. In-line check valves will be installed inside of the 42-inch outfall culverts to prevent backflow from the VTH Outfall channel into the north bioswale during significant storm events. A 100-foot emergency spillway will provide additional conveyance of excess flows. A concrete cut-off wall along the crest of the spillway will help to distribute flows evenly and maintain the functionality of the overflow path. The configuration of the north bioswale outlet will allow the smaller, more frequent storms to drain through the culverts even in low flow conditions with at least 1-inch of head to open the backflow valves. In the larger, less frequent storms, the flow through the backflow vales will increase, but to be conservative, the proposed culverts were assumed to only convey approximately 2.5-feet of flow depth. Any excess flows will be conveyed over the proposed spillway. In significant storm events where the water surface elevation of the City Ditch is hydraulically equalized with the water surface elevation of the north bioswale, flows from the north bioswale will still be able to discharge over the proposed spillway into the City Ditch while the backflow valves prevent flows in the City Ditch from entering the bioswale. Maintenance During the initial establishment of the bioswale, erosion control blankets should be installed along the slopes to minimize erosion of compacted soils and seeding. Temporary irrigation may be required to effectively promote growth of the bioswale vegetation. Extended maintenance efforts should include regular mowing, pruning, removal of trash and visual inspection. Any organic waste or sediment removal should be disposed of properly off-site since it contains pollutants from stormwater runoff. Occasional regrading may be necessary to remove collected sediment and reshape the bioswale cross-section. For recommended maintenance and inspection refer to “Section 4.0 Grass Buffers and Swales” of Chapter 6, Volume 3 of the UDFCD Manual. The UDFCD “Grass Swale” fact sheet has also been included in the Appendix for reference. DESIGN ANALYSIS COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY DESIGN NARRATIVE SOUTH CAMPUS WATER QUALITY BIOSWALE CIVIL CSU PROJECT NO. XX-XXX P a g e 6 | 7 Conclusion The design and analysis of the proposed water quality bioswale system for the South Campus has been prepared in compliance with the MASTER study and CRITERIA. The south and north bioswales will provide water quality for tributary sub-basins to remove a minimum of 80-percent of total suspended solids and treat other common pollutants generated from stormwater runoff. The bioswales will also accommodated the 100-year design storm and provide a means of conveyance for flood protection. Developed stormwater runoff will be collected and conveyed to the bioswale system via overland flow, swales, and storm sewer infrastructure. Temporary and permanent erosion control measures will ensure the establishment and continued performance of the bioswale. If the bioswale is effectively established, routine maintenance is expected to be relatively low. The proposed master drainage improvements outlined above will provide adequate site drainage and are not anticipated to adversely impact downstream waterways. DESIGN ANALYSIS COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY DESIGN NARRATIVE SOUTH CAMPUS WATER QUALITY BIOSWALE CIVIL CSU PROJECT NO. XX-XXX P a g e 7 | 7 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP N.T.S DRAKE ROAD BA Y R O A D NISWENDER ROAD CROSS ROAD CE N T R E A V E N U E 3 4 5 1 2 KEY NOTES: 1. DIAGNOSTIC MEDICINE CENTER 2. CRG BUILDING 3. APHI LAB 4. GAIL HOLMES EQUINE ORTHOPAEDIC CENTER 5. VISITOR PARKING 6. VETERINARY TEACHING HOSPITAL 7. LAGOON 6 7 NORTH BIOSWALE SOUTH BIOSWALE 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard STUDY AREA 1 LEGEND PAGE 5 OF MASTER REPORT 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard EXISTING CONDITIONS BASIN MAP 2 LEGEND PAGE 24 OF MASTER REPORT 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard MASTER PLAN BASIN MAP 4 LEGEND NOTE: FOR THE OFF-LINE DETENTION POND ALTERNATIVE BASINS 65A, 65C, 67, 67A, 67B AND 68 ARE MODELED AS 2-YEAR EXISTING TO REPLICATE THE HISTORIC FLOW RATES DISCHARGING FROM THE OFF-LINE DETENTION PONDS INTO THE EXISTING SWALE AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS CRITERIA. TRIBUTARY TO NORTH BIOSWALE TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH BIOSWALE PAGE 28 OF MASTER REPORT 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney BoulevardWATER QUALITY POND MASTER PLAN SWMM SCHEMATIC 5CR Q100 PEAK=80.54cfs Q100 PEAK=37.06cfs Q100 PEAK=21.48cfs Q100 PEAK=33.34cfs Q100 PEAK=19.87cfs Q100 PEAK=15.08cfs Q100 PEAK=23.94cfs PAGE 31 OF MASTER REPORT POND 50 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard WATER QUALITY POND ALTERNATIVE 8 LEGEND PAGE 34 OF MASTER REPORT Sheet 1 of 1 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Design Discharge for 2-Year Return Period Q2 =16.50 cfs 2. Hydraulic Residence Time A) : Length of Grass Swale LS =815.0 ft B) Calculated Residence Time (based on design velocity below)THR= 9.4 minutes 3. Longitudinal Slope (vertical distance per unit horizontal) A) Available Slope (based on site constraints)Savail =0.003 ft / ft B) Design Slope SD =0.003 ft / ft 4. Swale Geometry A) Channel Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. distance per unit vertical) Z = 5.00 ft / ft B) Bottom Width of Swale (enter 0 for triangular section)WB =10.00 ft 5. Vegetation A) Type of Planting (seed vs. sod, affects vegetal retardance factor) 6. Design Velocity (minimum of 1 ft /s, LS / 300)V2 =1.45 ft / s 7. Design Flow Depth (1 foot maximum)D2 =0.81 ft A) Flow Area A2 =11.4 sq ft B) Top Width of Swale W T =18.1 ft C) Froude Number (0.50 maximum)F = 0.32 D) Hydraulic Radius RH = 0.62 E) Velocity-Hydraulic Radius Product for Vegetal Retardance VR = 0.90 F) Manning's n (based on SCS vegetal retardance curve E for seeded grass) n = 0.037 G) Cumulative Height of Grade Control Structures Required HD =0.00 ft AN UNDERDRAIN IS 8. Underdrain REQUIRED IF THE (Is an underdrain necessary?)DESIGN SLOPE < 2.0% 9. Soil Preparation (Describe soil amendment) 10. Irrigation Notes: Design Procedure Form: Grass Swale (GS) PB/NK Martin/Martin March 26, 2018 CSU TMI North Bioswale UD-BMP (Version 3.06, November 2016) Choose One Temporary Permanent Choose One Grass From Seed Grass From Sod Choose One YES NO UD-BMP_v3.06-north 2yr flow.xlsm, GS 3/26/2018, 2:07 PM Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.25000 % Normal Depth 2.50 ft Left Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft (H:V) Bottom Width 10.00 ft Results Discharge 189.35 ft³/s Flow Area 56.25 ft² Wetted Perimeter 35.50 ft Hydraulic Radius 1.58 ft Top Width 35.00 ft Critical Depth 1.69 ft Critical Slope 0.01270 ft/ft Velocity 3.37 ft/s Velocity Head 0.18 ft Specific Energy 2.68 ft Froude Number 0.47 Flow Type Subcritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 2.50 ft Critical Depth 1.69 ft Channel Slope 0.25000 % NORTH BIOSWALE - 100YR 3/26/2018 2:40:54 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page NORTH BIOSWALE - 100YR GVF Output Data Critical Slope 0.01270 ft/ft 3/26/2018 2:40:54 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of2Page Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.25000 % Normal Depth 2.50 ft Left Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft (H:V) Bottom Width 10.00 ft Discharge 189.35 ft³/s Cross Section Image NORTH BIOSWALE CROSS SECTION 3/26/2018 2:41:58 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1of1Page Culvert Calculator Report North Bioswale Outfall g:\...\drainage\offsite\bioswale\culvert calcs.cvm 03/27/18 02:00:02 PM Martin/Martin Inc. © Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: nkontour CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04] Page 1 Solve For: Discharge Culvert Summary Allowable HW Elevation 2.50 ft Headwater Depth/Height 0.68 Computed Headwater Elevation 2.50 ft Discharge 74.20 cfs Inlet Control HW Elev. 2.28 ft Tailwater Elevation 0.00 ft Outlet Control HW Elev. 2.50 ft Control Type Outlet Control Grades Upstream Invert 0.11 ft Downstream Invert 0.00 ft Length 28.93 ft Constructed Slope 0.003621 ft/ft Hydraulic Profile Profile M2 Depth, Downstream 1.53 ft Slope Type Mild Normal Depth 1.56 ft Flow Regime Subcritical Critical Depth 1.53 ft Velocity Downstream 6.12 ft/s Critical Slope 0.003864 ft/ft Section Section Shape Circular Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Section Material Concrete Span 3.50 ft Section Size 42 inch Rise 3.50 ft Number Sections 3 Outlet Control Properties Outlet Control HW Elev. 2.50 ft Upstream Velocity Head 0.55 ft Ke 0.50 Entrance Loss 0.28 ft Inlet Control Properties Inlet Control HW Elev. 2.28 ft Flow Control Unsubmerged Inlet Type Square edge w/headwall Area Full 28.9 ft² K 0.00980 HDS 5 Chart 1 M 2.00000 HDS 5 Scale 1 C 0.03980 Equation Form 1 Y 0.67000 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT #: POND NAME: DATE: Emergency Overflow Weir Type: *Equation 12-20, UDFCD (V.2), Chapter 12, Page 12-33 Where: Q = Discharge (cfs) L = Horizontal Weir Length (ft) H = Head Above Weir Crest Excluding Velocity Head (ft) C = Broad-Crested Weir Coefficient (2.38-3.32) Max 100-Year Release Rate = 185.0 (cfs) Weir Design Release Rate = 300.00 (cfs) Crest Elevation = 6.00 Freeboard (1.0') WSEL = 7.00 Minimum Pond Elev = 0.00 H = 1.00 C = 3.00 Crest Length = 100.00 (ft) Broad-Crested CSU TMI 17.0030 BIOSWALE 05/07/18 5/7/2018 11:48 AM Emergency Overflow G:\SCHLAGETER\17.0030-CSU IBTT and Equine Research Horse Barn\ENG\DRAINAGE\OFFSITE\BIOSWALE\Emergency- Overflow_Weir.xls PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT #: DATE: Riprap Channel with Mild Slope: *Equation 8-11, UDFCD (V.1), Chapter 8, Page 8-71 Where: d50 =Mean Rock Size (ft) V = Mean Channel Velocity (ft/sec) S = Longitudinal Channel Slope (ft/ft) Gs =Specific Gravity of Riprap (minimum=2.5, typically 2.5 to 2.7) V = 3.5 (ft/sec) S = 0.00 (ft/ft) Gs =2.60 d50 =0.04 (ft) 0.51 (in) TYPE-VL CSU TMI BIOSWALE 17.00 0319/2018 3/26/2018 G:\SCHLAGETER\17.0030-CSU IBTT and Equine Research Horse Barn\ENG\DRAINAGE\OFFSITE\BIOSWALE\Riprap Channel Mild Slope.xlsx UPSIZED TO TYPE M PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT #: POND NAME: DATE: Required Water Quality Volume: Detention Sizing Method: WQCV NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group: C & D *Figure 3-1, UDFCD (V.3), Chapter 3, Page 3-5 *Equations 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, UDFCD (V.2), Chapter 12, Page 12-4 Where: WQCV = Water Quality Capture Volume (Watershed Inches) a = Constant Dependent on Drain Time (Typically a=1.0 40-Hr Drain Time) i = Percent Imperviousness i = 59.7% WQCV = 0.235 (watershed inches) *Equation 3-3, UDFCD (V.3), Chapter 3, Page 3-6 Where: WQCV = Water Quality Capture Volume (Watershed Inches) Area = Contributing Watershed Area (Acres) Area = 7.59 (acres) Required Storage = 0.1487 (ac-ft) CSU SOUTH CAMPUS 17.003 BioSwale 5/7/2018 5/7/2018 9:20 AM WQCV G:\SCHLAGETER\17.0030-CSU IBTT and Equine Research Horse Barn\ENG\DRAINAGE\OFFSITE\WQCV_FOR TMI- To Size Forebay.xlsx TMI PORTION OF THE SITE IS TRIBUTARY TO THE FOREBAY OUTFALL INTO THE BIOSWALE. FOREBAY IS SIZED FOR 193.5 CUBIC FEET = 2.98% OF THE WQCV Project Description Solve For Crest Length Input Data Discharge 0.65 ft³/s Headwater Elevation 0.50 ft Crest Elevation 0.00 ft Tailwater Elevation 0.00 ft Weir Coefficient 3.33 US Number Of Contractions 0 Results Crest Length 6.6 in Headwater Height Above Crest 0.50 ft Tailwater Height Above Crest 0.00 ft Flow Area 0.28 ft² Velocity 2.35 ft/s Wetted Perimeter 1.55 ft Top Width 0.55 ft Worksheet for Forebay Discharge 5/7/2018 9:35:24 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1of1Page FOREBAY IS SIZED TO DRAIN ENTIRE VOLUME IN 5 MIN. 193.5 CUBIC FEET = 0.645 CUBIC FEET/ SECOND 5 MIN* 60 SEC 0.65 CUBIC FEET/ S > 0.645 CUBIC FEET/S Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 1.50000 % Normal Depth 15.00 in Diameter 15.00 in Results Discharge 7.91 ft³/s Flow Area 1.23 ft² Wetted Perimeter 3.93 ft Hydraulic Radius 3.75 in Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 1.11 ft Percent Full 100.0 % Critical Slope 0.01336 ft/ft Velocity 6.45 ft/s Velocity Head 0.65 ft Specific Energy 1.90 ft Froude Number 0.00 Maximum Discharge 8.51 ft³/s Discharge Full 7.91 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01500 ft/ft Flow Type SubCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 in Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 in Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 100.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Worksheet for Culvert Pipe from Sheep Barn 5/7/2018 7:30:09 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page PIPE MUST CONVEY: 5.25 CFS FROM BASIN 67 7.91 CFS > 5.25 CFS GVF Output Data Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 15.00 in Critical Depth 1.11 ft Channel Slope 1.50000 % Critical Slope 0.01336 ft/ft Worksheet for Culvert Pipe from Sheep Barn 5/7/2018 7:30:09 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of2Page Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.50000 % Normal Depth 24.00 in Left Side Slope 33.00 % Right Side Slope 33.00 % Results Discharge 41.01 ft³/s Flow Area 12.12 ft² Wetted Perimeter 12.76 ft Hydraulic Radius 11.40 in Top Width 12.12 ft Critical Depth 1.63 ft Critical Slope 0.01505 ft/ft Velocity 3.38 ft/s Velocity Head 0.18 ft Specific Energy 2.18 ft Froude Number 0.60 Flow Type Subcritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 in Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 in Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 24.00 in Critical Depth 1.63 ft Channel Slope 0.50000 % Critical Slope 0.01505 ft/ft Worksheet for Swale near Future Pens and Paddocks 5/7/2018 7:26:08 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1of1Page SWALE MUST CONVEY: 5.25 CFS FROM BASIN 67 20.0 CFS FROM BASIN 67A 25.5 CFS TOTAL 41.01 CFS > 25.5 CFS Grass Swale T-2 November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District GS-1 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Photograph GS-1. This grass swale provides treatment of roadway runoff in a residential area. Photo courtesy of Bill Ruzzo. Description Grass swales are densely vegetated trapezoidal or triangular channels with low-pitched side slopes designed to convey runoff slowly. Grass swales have low longitudinal slopes and broad cross-sections that convey flow in a slow and shallow manner, thereby facilitating sedimentation and filtering (straining) while limiting erosion. Berms or check dams may be incorporated into grass swales to reduce velocities and encourage settling and infiltration. When using berms, an underdrain system should be provided. Grass swales are an integral part of the Low Impact Development (LID) concept and may be used as an alternative to a curb and gutter system. Site Selection Grass swales are well suited for sites with low to moderate slopes. Drop structures or other features designed to provide the same function as a drop structures (e.g., a driveway with a stabilized grade differential at the downstream end) can be integrated into the design to enable use of this BMP at a broader range of site conditions. Grass swales provide conveyance so they can also be used to replace curb and gutter systems making them well suited for roadway projects. Designing for Maintenance Recommended ongoing maintenance practices for all BMPs are provided in Chapter 6 of this manual. During design, the following should be considered to ensure ease of maintenance over the long-term:  Consider the use and function of other site features so that the swale fits into the landscape in a natural way. This can encourage upkeep of the area, which is particularly important in residential areas where a loss of aesthetics and/or function can lead to homeowners filling in and/or piping reaches of this BMP. Grass Swale Functions LID/Volume Red. Yes WQCV Capture No WQCV+Flood Control No Fact Sheet Includes EURV Guidance No Typical Effectiveness for Targeted Pollutants3 Sediment/Solids Good Nutrients Moderate Total Metals Good Bacteria Poor Other Considerations Life-cycle Costs Low 3 Based primarily on data from the International Stormwater BMP Database (www.bmpdatabase.org). T-2 Grass Swale GS-2 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3  Provide access to the swale for mowing equipment and design sideslopes flat enough for the safe operation of equipment.  Design and adjust the irrigation system (temporary or permanent) to provide appropriate water for the selected vegetation.  An underdrain system will reduce excessively wet areas, which can cause rutting and damage to the vegetation during mowing operations.  When using an underdrain, do not put a filter sock on the pipe. This is unnecessary and can cause the slots or perforations in the pipe to clog. Design Procedure and Criteria The following steps outline the design procedure and criteria for stormwater treatment in a grass swale. Figure GS-1 shows trapezoidal and triangular swale configurations. 1. Design Discharge: Determine the 2-year flow rate to be conveyed in the grass swale under fully developed conditions. Use the hydrologic procedures described in the Runoff Chapter in Volume 1. 2. Hydraulic Residence Time: Increased hydraulic residence time in a grass swale improves water quality treatment. Maximize the length of the swale when possible. If the length of the swale is limited due to site constraints, the slope can also be decreased or the cross-sectional area increased to increase hydraulic residence time. 3. Longitudinal Slope: Establish a longitudinal slope that will meet Froude number, velocity, and depth criteria while ensuring that the grass swale maintains positive drainage. Positive drainage can be achieved with a minimum 2% longitudinal slope or by including an underdrain system (see step 8). Use drop structures as needed to accommodate site constraints. Provide for energy dissipation downstream of each drop when using drop structures. 4. Swale Geometry: Select geometry for the grass swale. The cross section should be either trapezoidal or triangular with side slopes not exceeding 4:1 (horizontal: vertical), preferably flatter. Increase the wetted area of the swale to reduce velocity. Lower velocities result in improved pollutant removal efficiency and greater volume reduction. If one or both sides of the grass swale are also to be used as a grass buffer, follow grass buffer criteria. Benefits  Removal of sediment and associated constituents through filtering (straining)  Reduces length of storm sewer systems in the upper portions of a watershed  Provides a less expensive and more attractive conveyance element  Reduces directly connected impervious area and can help reduce runoff volumes. Limitations  Requires more area than traditional storm sewers.  Underdrains are recommended for slopes under 2%.  Erosion problems may occur if not designed and constructed properly. Grass Swale T-2 November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District GS-3 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Native grasses provide a more natural aesthetic and require less water once established. Use of Grass Swales Vegetated conveyance elements provide some benefit in pollutant removal and volume reduction even when the geometry of the BMP does not meet the criteria provided in this Fact Sheet. These criteria provide a design procedure that should be used when possible; however, when site constraints are limiting, vegetated conveyance elements designed for stability are still encouraged. 5. Vegetation: Select durable, dense, and drought tolerant grasses. Turf grasses, such as Kentucky bluegrass, are often selected due to these qualities1 once established. Turf grass is a general term for any grasses that will form a turf or mat as opposed to bunch grass, which will grow in clumplike fashion. Grass selection should consider both short-term (for establishment) and long-term maintenance requirements, given that some varieties have higher maintenance requirements than others. Follow criteria in the Revegetation Chapter of Volume 2, with regard to seed mix selection, planting, and ground preparation. . Native turf grasses may also be selected where a more natural look is desirable. This will also provide the benefit of lower irrigation requirements, 6. Design Velocity: Maximum flow velocity in the swale should not exceed one foot per second. Use the Soil Conservation Service (now the NRCS) vegetal retardance curves for the Manning coefficient (Chow 1959). Determining the retardance coefficient is an iterative process that the UD-BMP workbook automates. When starting the swale vegetation from sod, curve "D" (low retardance) should be used. When starting vegetation from seed, use the "E" curve (very low vegetal retardance). 7. Design Flow Depth: Maximum flow depth should not exceed one foot at the 2-year peak flow rate. Check the conditions for the 100-year flow to ensure that drainage is being handled without flooding critical areas, structures, or adjacent streets. Table GS-1. Grass Swale Design Summary for Water Quality 1 Although Kentucky bluegrass has relatively high irrigation requirements to maintain a lush, green aesthetic, it also withstands drought conditions by going dormant. Over-irrigation of Kentucky bluegrass is a common problem along the Colorado Front Range. It can be healthy, although less lush, with much less irrigation than is typically applied. Design Flow Maximum Froude Number Maximum Velocity Maximum Flow Depth 2-year event 0.5 1 ft/s 1 ft T-2 Grass Swale GS-4 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 8. Underdrain: An underdrain is necessary for swales with longitudinal slopes less than 2.0%. The underdrain can drain directly into an inlet box at the downstream end of the swale, daylight through the face of a grade control structure or continue below grade through several grade control structures as shown in Figure GS-1. The underdrain system should be placed within an aggregate layer. If no underdrain is required, this layer is not required. The aggregate layer should consist of an 8-inch thick layer of CDOT Class C filter material meeting the gradation in Table GS-2. Use of CDOT Class C Filter material with a slotted pipe that meets the slot dimensions provided in Table GS-3 will eliminate the need for geotextile fabrics. Previous versions of this manual detailed an underdrain system that consisted of a 3- to 4-inch perforated HDPE pipe in a one-foot trench section of AASHTO #67 coarse aggregate surrounded by geotextile fabric. If desired, this system continues to provide an acceptable alternative for use in grass swales. Selection of the pipe size may be a function of capacity or of maintenance equipment. Provide cleanouts at approximately 150 feet on center. Table GS-2. Gradation Specifications for Class C Filter Material (Source: CDOT Table 703-7) Sieve Size Mass Percent Passing Square Mesh Sieves 19.0 mm (3/4") 100 4.75 mm (No. 4) 60 – 100 300 µm (No. 50) 10 – 30 150 µm (No. 100) 0 – 10 75 µm (No. 200) 0 - 3 Table GS-3. Dimensions for Slotted Pipe Pipe Diameter Slot Length1 Maximum Slot Width Slot Centers1 Open Area1 (per foot) 4” 1-1/16” 0.032” 0.413” 1.90 in2 6” 1-3/8” 0.032” 0.516” 1.98 in2 1 Some variation in these values is acceptable and is expected from various pipe manufacturers. Be aware that both increased slot length and decreased slot centers will be beneficial to hydraulics but detrimental to the structure of the pipe. Grass Swale T-2 November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District GS-5 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Photograph GS-2. This community used signage to mitigate compaction of soils post- construction. Photo courtesy of Nancy Styles. 9. Soil preparation: Poor soil conditions often exist following site grading. When the section includes an underdrain, provide 4 inches of sandy loam at the invert of the swale extending up to the 2-year water surface elevation. This will improve infiltration and reduce ponding. For all sections, encourage establishment and long-term health of the bottom and side slope vegetation by properly preparing the soil. If the existing site provides a good layer of topsoil, this should be striped, stockpiled, and then replaced just prior to seeding or placing sod. If not available at the site, topsoil can be imported or the existing soil may be amended. Inexpensive soil tests can be performed following rough grading, to determine required soil amendments. Typically, 3 to 5 cubic yards of soil amendment per 1,000 square feet, tilled 4 to 6 inches into the soil is required in order for vegetation to thrive, as well as to enable infiltration of runoff. 10. Irrigation: Grass swales should be equipped with irrigation systems to promote establishment and survival in Colorado's semi-arid environment. Systems may be temporary or permanent, depending on the type of grass selected. Irrigation practices have a significant effect on the function of the grass swale. Overwatering decreases the permeability of the soil, reducing the infiltration capacity of the soil and contributing to nuisance baseflows. Conversely, under watering may result in delays in establishment of the vegetation in the short term and unhealthy vegetation that provides less filtering (straining) and increased susceptibility to erosion and riling over the long term. Construction Considerations Success of grass swales depends not only on a good design and maintenance, but also on construction practices that enable the BMP to function as designed. Construction considerations include:  Perform fine grading, soil amendment, and seeding only after upgradient surfaces have been stabilized and utility work crossing the swale has been completed.  Avoid compaction of soils to preserve infiltration capacities.  Provide irrigation appropriate to the grass type.  Weed the area during the establishment of vegetation by hand or mowing. Mechanical weed control is preferred over chemical weed killer.  Protect the swale from other construction activities.  When using an underdrain, ensure no filter sock is placed on the pipe. This is unnecessary and can cause the slots or perforations in the pipe to clog. T-2 Grass Swale GS-6 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Figure GS-1. Grass Swale Profile and Sections Design Example The UD-BMP workbook, designed as a tool for both designer and reviewing agency is available at www.udfcd.org. This section provides a completed design form from this workbook as an example. Grass Swale T-2 November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District GS-7 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Sheet 1 of 1 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Design Discharge for 2-Year Return Period Q2 =4.00 cfs 2.Hydraulic Residence Time A) : Length of Grass Swale LS =400.0 ft B) Calculated Residence Time (based on design velocity below)THR= 6.7 minutes 3.Longitudinal Slope (vertical distance per unit horizontal) A) Available Slope (based on site constraints)Savail =0.020 ft / ft B) Design Slope SD =0.010 ft / ft 4.Swale Geometry A) Channel Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. distance per unit vertical)Z =4.00 ft / ft B) Bottom Width of Swale (enter 0 for triangular section)W B =4.00 ft 5.Vegetation A) Type of Planting (seed vs. sod, affects vegetal retardance factor) 6.Design Velocity (1 ft / s maximum)V2 =1.00 ft / s 7.Design Flow Depth (1 foot maximum)D2 =0.62 ft A) Flow Area A2 =4.0 sq ft B) Top Width of Swale W T =9.0 ft C) Froude Number (0.50 maximum)F = 0.26 D) Hydraulic Radius RH = 0.44 E) Velocity-Hydraulic Radius Product for Vegetal Retardance VR = 0.44 F) Manning's n (based on SCS vegetal retardance curve D for sodded grass)n = 0.088 G) Cumulative Height of Grade Control Structures Required HD =4.00 ft AN UNDERDRAIN IS 8.Underdrain REQUIRED IF THE (Is an underdrain necessary?)DESIGN SLOPE < 2.0% 9.Soil Preparation (Describe soil amendment) 10.Irrigation Notes: Design Procedure Form: Grass Swale (GS) M. Levine BMP Inc. November 24, 2010 Filing 30 Swale between north property line and 52nd Ave. Till 5 CY of compost per 1000 SF to a depth of 6 inches. Choose One Temporary Permanent Choose One Grass From Seed Grass From Sod Choose One YES NO T-2 Grass Swale GS-8 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 References Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open Channel Flow. McGraw Hill: New York, NY. 42" Tideflex CheckMate Check Valve Headloss vs. Flow Rate 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 Flow Rate (gpm) HE A D L O S S ( F e e t ) O n � C p N � O � " / � o � [13mm] �-� :a' � X x c�i� � o � >G X � � � � � ; :� X x � � o � �:;�� ;;:� � N I r— � � � �.� "�, � fTl �.c �� h::' :' zA l.�'.' �i � � � I`F N � Z --� m z . . I �...;• '`•� m N O O � � � .�a. . . ° �:,.:. I :;..,a o p � i ;� - m , . �� -I � � C • �p �2.. .�.�•�"I m ry O � Z �J ------- i:�:. '.�a O Qz z p � I r' !.:� N � � � � � . � �,:+;, � .'r.� � D m f l i�.". ��;y �� C7 �.' � n� I � ' C o m �� —i - - �'�,•�; .. -�T1 rn �� Z -� f.,:: '`��a N C./) � I i � ..i s r� ``�: � c� �, rn c �,.� D ,':� J — �7 t`,: � i: co O D / �... o :.i I � � o� , f m ] 3 � � �� = ry r= -+ � I�,.'r� � ;�.1 3 � z -� � m �, x`-' � ,.�` �::, � mr � � = r,-i ��''. ,...�� +t. r�'. D � � O D �TI p � �'..'4 ''�.•}� X y � � � p � � l'..., -�-I ,...I � z � m W o r �.. � .:i �� ; I N r F.:..': O ��;�� , � N w r . '�.� m cDi> � � �=.: � :�� z m� � � o � I•'�:- O0 .'.�,� m ao o �..,'.` � I • ' ry r -y �`::� r �� .�� N �'i�. t/) i::�.' �.•i \ i�:-'. I •..� mW �•':.. I � r r i�:�,: � �•�i � '1 Z � O O Z Z D � = n � � � � Z (n N 2 v � = rWi � m � � p o c � � r�'*� ,,�, nc � SEE NOTE #1 � � -' � � � - m m 42.00" [1067mm] �N -� � � Zzvz � s o ` c� -*� � PIPE I.D. � r*ivc �^ OO° 3 c � -< vc� � � 3 � � � r*i c� c a 'i z � �, on � =' o � � � � IA � OrOZrz - 2 � -1 l./) r'7 N � � � O N � x � � � \ � � _ - p m � � \ mZ � ZNmZ � � 11J / _ - � � � � _� mmZm � � OD m � I \ -- c � � r = O � -r Z � = NZr, � � D �T� � � N O r+�i N Z � � N N �/ � o � � Z� � �-�..{ � rn cz � ao <no 11J � Qm � O � r+'� NC � Z � ` I oo � � z � � O � m; o � n � Z � � vNrr+-i � � � - o � � - mv � � 0 � � 0 C7 o J m � Am=im m � Z m � � � \\ N � CT� X � 00 m � O � c � (/�, , � � x � mnl'NT12 � `�I` � � v r*i � � � = c v � N � _ � � ''� zo � � oNOo � vX � � rpmvr+�-io � � � n C � � NrT7 � N2 r - � D � / DZNNn2 �r / � �l vpy � � � � � � Zr _ v m Cv X r•, � z � cn � r r D � � � n O Z � � � W N � z = � O v ' � � � � O mm � m � oO D � <� � n N � � � � C7 ^ � � C7 cn � � � o v,' � �v = O D m � m � n n ' � � o' � � � x � � z m � � �T m � � -�.1 0 � � Z z O D � �7 C z � C z � � � �, o 0 o r� m o m � � Tl C7 -P � � � �-�,, � y � � Z Z � N —� C � N m � = cn m � � D G7 C/) D � C7 II � vn � � �-� oz � � o � D � o r= � � C o� .. = m z r O n z r� C r p z � m � � � `m � X � o � zo � � .�' � D c-�� x z � m � z W m D v, N r � � � � p � DC -� � < �, o x � � z � � .� 00 � � � 'T' � m v � n -� � D O � f' m � � � � o � n � _ � -• r � � i � � � D D C � � � 2 �7 ITl n � � N � � ,' -_ _ O � � � � � C C o � � � `� � O � z i�,- : � � c z � rn W � � m � �-W,t r D � D �7 � D z � � p � � �0 C� � —I C7 IT1 -O � � D C� p � � C m m � n X ��,Zp Z � �O ,i� ' �� n � z Cz�/) ,P � C C D x = �o m p � D ` � o � o r� � � � x o m �iv�G�z D � � o o � � �— o � � x � � �'v�m � r � r� -� � z m N C��,�� 'G � \� frl � _ � � D �oX D� � � � � � � r Cn�c� >G < +��.p -'� O m m � �m X m < � o• cr� � IMPORTANT Please take a moment to review this manual. The improper installation or use of this product may result in personal injury, product failure, or reduced product life. Tideflex® Technologies can accept NO liability result- ing from the improper use or installation of this product. If you have any questions or problems, please call the customer service department at (412) 279-0044. We appreciate your comments. Thank you for choosing Tideflex® Technologies. CHECKMATE® inlinE CHECK vAlvEs insTAllATion, opErATion And MAinTEnAnCE MAnuAl The revolutionary design of the CheckMate® Inline Check Valve provides superior backflow prevention and odor mitigation in stormwater, CSO and SSO outfalls. The CheckMate's® custom- engineered, all-rubber unibody design eliminates costly back- flow from oceans, rivers and interceptors. The valve's unique elastomer fabric and wire reinforced design provides a proven record of maintenance-free performance, cost savings and results that no other inline check valve can match. The Check- Mate® is built to suit all your site-specific and flow needs. The CheckMate® has a 100% fabric and elastomer construction that eliminates corrosion problems. Because the CheckMate® is made with a unibody construction, there are no mechanical components that trap debris, corrode or fail. The CheckMate® Valve's inherent flexibility virtually eliminates seating problems. The CheckMate® remains in the closed posi- tion until forward differential pressure opens it. The fabric- reinforced elastomer CheckMate® Valve seals around silt and small debris, preventing unwanted backflow. The major advantage of the CheckMate® Valve is its extremely low headloss. The CheckMate® can open to a near full pipe diameter. This maximizes flow capacity of the outfall, which is particularly beneficial in low-lying areas where limited driving head is available. Tideflex® Technologies recommends pinning all CheckMate® Valves for added security and stability. CheckMate’s® effective- ly have a zero face-to-face dimension because they fit com- pletely inside of the pipe. No modification of piping is required provided adequate pipe length exists. A Division of Red Valve, Inc. 1. Product Shipping Valve sizes 2" - 18" are furnished with one clamp. Valves 20" - 60" ship with two clamps. 72" valves ship with three clamps. NOTE:A clamp is installed on each end of the valve to keep the valve’s shape during transit and storage. Once the installation orientation is determined the CheckMate® valve will be clamped from either the upstream or downstream side. For valves with two or three clamps, they can be installed onto the same side of the valve and offset from each other, as illustrated in Figure 1. 2. Unpacking & Lifting Do not use sharp tools when unpacking this product as it may damage the valve. For larger CheckMate® valves, the valve should be lifted with either a sling or with supports around the O.D. at each side of the valve to ease the installation procedure. Do not place an object through the valve in order to lift. 3. Inspection of Pipe I.D. Check the inside diameter (I.D.) of the pipe section for rough or damaged areas. The inside surface should be uniform and rela- tively smooth. Long gouges or cracks in the pipe may allow water to pass and should be filled prior to installation. Do not attempt to install a CheckMate® in a smaller pipe I.D. 4. Pipe I.D. Measurements The pipe I.D. is to be checked in the field. It should be a consistent diameter for the length of valve and should not be out of round. When there is a +/- tolerance on the pipe I.D., the CheckMate® Valve should be ordered to the smallest pipe I.D.. Then, rubber adhesive strip can be applied to both CheckMate® cuffs to build the cuff O.D. up to the actual pipe I.D. See procudure in #5. NEVER...Install the valve at an angle NEVER...Install the Valve Backwards NEVER...Use Sharp Tools on Rubber NEVER...Exceed Design Back Pressure Clamp* Cuff Bill (Sealing Area) *Clamps are installed in the upstream or downstream cuff, depending upon the application. The illustration above is shown clamped upstream. FLOW CheckMate® installation procedure CheCkMate® InstallatIon Figure 1 Ð Clamps shown installed on the same side of valve CAUTION:Do not try to bend, collapse or fold the valve in order to facilitate the installation as this will cause permanent damage and will not allow the valve to return to a fully round shape. Cuff Body Saddle Extraction Hole Extraction Hole 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • Wire Reinforcement CheckMate® rubber Adhesive strip Build up procedure 5. Rubber Adhesive Strip Build up When valve O.D. is smaller than the pipe I.D., one-sided rubber adhesive strip is used to build up the O.D. of both CheckMate® cuffs to the actual pipe I.D. notICe: Clean and dry the exterior of the valve prior to beginning rubber adhesive strip build up procedure. steP a: Place the valve on a solid, flat surface with the clamped end hanging slightly over the edge of the surface. steP B: Slowly rotate the valve while firmly pressing the rubber adhesive strip onto itself in concentric layers until valve O.D. is equal to or a fraction smaller than pipe I.D. steP C: Repeat steps A and B on the opposite side of the valve to ensure uniformity of the CheckMate’s® O.D. is consistent and matches the pipe I.D. steP e: Check O.D. of the valve to ensure it fits snugly into the I.D. of pipe. If loose, add another layer(s) of the rubber adhesive strip. steP D: Lubricate the valve and rubber adhesive strip surface. Slide valve into pipe. Ensure the area marked TOP is in the 12:00 position. steP F: Once in place, tighten the clamp to secure it against the pipe and compress the rubber ahesive strip. 3 Upstream Clamp Upstream Flanged Upstream Flanged Thimble Insert Flow Flow Flow Downstream Clamp Downstream Flanged Downstream Flanged Thimble Insert Flow Flow Flow 6. Preparation The CheckMate® Valve uses expanding clamp(s) to exert pressure outwards on the walls of the valve to wedge it in place within the pipe. The walls of the pipe should be clean and free of debris prior to installation. The valve should be inserted fully into the pipe so that no part of the cuff or bill extends outside the pipe. Ensure that the valve is not slanted at an angle with the bill pointing upwards or downwards. The valve centerline should be parallel to the pipe centerline. Tideflex® Technologies recommends pinning the CheckMate® Valve on all installations. See below. Four pre-drilled holes are provided in each expansion clamp. At least one clamp should be pinned. On exposed pipe, holes can be drilled through the valve and pipe, and a bolt run through secured with a nut. For buried pipe, silicon or similar sealant should be used to seal bolts. 7. Lubrication The outside of the valve can be lubricated with a water-based lubricant prior to inserting the valve into the pipe. If the taping procedure has been used, the surface of the tape can be lubricate to aid insertion. 8. Plumb Lines and Arrows The CheckMate® Valve arrives with a “top” arrow, “flow” arrow and plumb lines, marked in white, at the 12:00 and 6:00 position of the valve. Utilize this marking to orient the valve in the pipe, as well as to ensure the valve is oriented correctly in pipe section. 9. Valve Orientation The CheckMate® Valve must be installed in a horizontal pipe. Valves 4" – 18" (nominal) are supplied with a single clamp. The clamp turnbuckle should be oriented at top dead center as delinated by the plumb line. Valves 20” – 60” (nominal) are supplied with two clamps. The turnbuckles should be oriented 45° from the top center plumb line. The 72” is supplied with three clamps. The turnbuckle for one clamp to be at top center. The other clamps to be 45° to each side of top center. CheckMate® installation procedure CaUtIon: If you expand the clamp excessively at this step it will hinder or prevent the CheckMate® valve being fully inserted into the pipe. CheckMate¨ Clamping Diagrams CaUtIon: Do not use petroleum-based lubricants on this product or on the vulcanized rubber tape. 4 Flow 10. Insertion Into Pipe Clamp to support the shape of the cuff should be hand tight and should be extended outward, but only tight enough to loosely keep the shape of the cuff during installation. Pallet Push method for installing CheckMate® Valve 11. Pallet Push for Larger CheckMate¨ Valves Larger CheckMate® valves can be pushed into the pipe utilizing the shipping pallet. The pallet should be placed perpendicular to the valve being inserted into the pipe. Then, with assistance from an excavator, push with consistent even force against the shipping pallet to insert the CheckMate® valve into the pipe. See the image to the right for the suggested positioning and usage of the excavator’s shovel assistance for larger-sized CheckMate® valves. Clamps must be installed to prevent damage to cuff. 5 12. Corrugated Pipe and Smooth Wall (PVC, HDPE) Pipe Installation For installation on corrugated pipe, it is recommended that the corrugations be filled with hydraulic cement (or similar material) that will provide a smooth I.D. For smooth wall pipe, it is recommended that the valve be pinned. 5 The clamps should be checked for proper tension, and be sure that the inside of the valve is free of debris. Soft marine growth is normal on valves in submerged applications. Because hard marine growth such as barnacles will not bond well to the CheckMate®, they can be easily removed. Also insert pins to ensure they are tight. storage If your CheckMate®, is to be stored for a period of time prior to instal- lation, the following storage guidelines will help to preserve the valve and assure a trouble-free installation: 1. Store in a clean, cool, dry location. Avoid exposure to light, elec- tric motors, dirt, or chemicals. 2. Store valve vertically on floor or pallet. 3. Store valve to prevent other items from contacting check sleeve to prevent possible damage. 4. Store this manual with the valve, so that it is readily available at time of installation. troUBleshootIng gUIDe Sleeve Inverted or Distorted 1. Excessive back pressure, water surge, or water hammer. Leaking Around Perimeter of Valve 1. Tighten clamp. 2. Check for cracks and holes in surface of pipe. 3. If taped, check tape to ensure the pipe I.D. has been fully sealed Backflow 1. Debris lodged inside bill. tIDeFlex® teChnologIes Warranty WARRANTIES - REMEDIES - DISCLAIMERS - LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Unless otherwise agreed to in writing signed by Tideflex® Technologies, all Products supplied by Tideflex® Technologies will be described in the specifications set forth on the face hereof. THE WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS PROVISION ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES WHETHER STATUTORY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED (INCLUDING ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND ALL WARRANTIES ARISING FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OR TRADE). Tideflex® Technologies Products are guaranteed for a period of one year from date of shipment, against defective workmanship and material only, when properly installed, operated and serviced in accordance with Tideflex® Technologies' recommendations. Replacement for items of Tideflex® Technologies manufacture will be made free of charge if proved to be defective within such year; but not claim for transportation, labor or consequential damages shall be allowed. We shall have the option of requiring the return of the defective product to our factory, with transportation charges prepaid, to establish the claim and our liability shall be limited to the repair or replacement of the defective product, F.O.B. our factory. Tideflex® Technologies will not assume costs incurred to remove or install defective products nor shall we incur back charges or liquidated damages as a result of warranty work. Tideflex® Technologies does not guarantee resistance to corrosion ero- sion, abrasion or other sources of failure, nor does Tideflex® Technologies guarantee a minimum length of service, or that the product shall be fit for any particular service. Failure of purchaser to give prompt written notice of any alleged defect under this guarantee forthwith upon its discovery, or use, and possession thereof after an attempt has been made and completed to remedy defects therein, or failure to return product or part for replacement as herein provided, or failure to install and operate said products and parts according to instructions furnished by Tideflex® Technologies, or failure to pay entire contract price when due, shall be a waiver by purchaser of all rights under these representations. All orders accepted shall be deemed accepted subject to this warranty which shall be exclusive of any other or previous warranty, and shall be the only effective guarantee or warranty binding on Tideflex® Technologies, anything on the contrary contained in purchaser’s order, or represented by any agent or employee of Tideflex® Technologies in writing or otherwise, not withstanding implied warranties. TIDEFLEX® TECHNOLOGIES MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE PRODUCTS, AUXILIARIES AND PARTS ARE MERCHANTABLE OR FIT FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 600 North Bell Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106 Phone: 412 279-0044 Fax: 412 279-7878 Web: www.tideflex.com 6 CheckMate® IOM 4/25/16 1. It is important that the CheckMate® is installed level within the pipe. The CheckMate® may "gap open" if installed improperly. 2. The sealing area of the CheckMate® must have room to expand outwards, while bottom of the sealing area rises. The area around the sealing area must be kept free of debris to allow the bill to close in order for the valve to seal properly. 3. The CheckMate® effectively reduces the inside diameter of the pipe in which it is installed, creating a restriction. It may also create a "ledge" inside the pipe, causing standing water. 4. Back pressure in excess of the back pressure rating may cause valve failure. 5. Should the conditions that the CheckMate® was designed for change, (line pressure, back pressure, chemical compatibility) the performance of the valve may suffer. 6. CheckMate® Valves must be installed in true round pipe which is concentric across the entire length. Out of round pipe may cause the sealing area of the valve to distort and gap, which will cause the valve to leak. MaIntenanCe Inspection Valves should occasionally be inspected for damage, wear, and buildup of debris. The frequency of the inspections should be deter- mined by the severity of the service and the environment in which it operates. CheckMate® installation notes — -- — --- -- - - � , �_ � �". ��' � f'r ,� ��. • . -�. . � � _.. I' .�T7 � � � � . ;,h . . . . . . ' ti ...J� ' :L"��. - .. , ��5 [• ��.. . 1 . � � . � � , .��}��n�^:.rJ - � �.x��C.kl� i'+i�'��J1 -l; 1�-�� M '�"-�6i� _ • -!� � 1 }�� f � �'}!�}� /g`'}-�� '� +� I,� � ' , ��'�7� .��i��,, i�'�F ' '� ��.�..�( �St r'-•'�.. ..r�'f�� .4'� � r..Ft�'7��1.�i 6��7',�� .� �. .f r rJ -� i,i.r �r� , , T'�f,�.-t��# ..k y..:.v�`' ''S r-'. . �� -:f�,�_: i . . ' ..'i( _ . . � f�. r ��CJ � . d , T . .1. _, / P .'��(�' f-�� fl'- 1. .r . . . . . . . P' - . _ '.a�.t��. `i ., " , i .. � - . � - ' .� - .. . .� . ' , . . . . . . _. ' f. - �� . � . , . 1� I � " ' , _. . .. . . ._. � . . . , - . - . . � » � �-.. . ' � , � ... .":h�.::rL°��';��..�. K. G.Ek�� . .. . r- ��f.�,� . � Y,�?: _ . ..� �,.. ��.�4 • .� ... .. ' .�1 f.+t-{{- :5 .�Y:� �:� ��•.h's L'�.Y ij <'P"'?�_. .�1� ..��t: ��I `�.ra.::. �. .J.�'At y_ . . .� . . � �Z� '�I _ . . , c� . . ' .. . , � . � � .l�G � � AS — BUILT , REVISED 09 — 1 2 — 2000 _ _ . _ ._ . _-. . , ,� � # . - � . UC TO BER � 1999 � - .. : „ „ � ..... . .. . . :. . . .. . .. . , � � . . ..• .. . . . a - • . .. �* ',,,�,,_ - ,.a.�_- � _�.:'.� :_,. • P�.P��T .B.p A� _,�.; -�. _� >,��r�� .. .........r. .� .... � - " om� .y . �f�Ctn19 _,-� •: . . ........� � 1 1 � # � � Scb ' � ' �� 1NDEX OF SHEETS . . .............:. _ � : , ow�vER � . : � �.. • ....,.......,_..� t 1 J i � � y., �� . � ( ' �' •• ��e��r�� .: �., �+.��.,....-'�. .. . �� ' - _. �^_JM��-.��_' `..-�=, --� . -' . . . =��r' � � r � i�' `'�f 1 ,,�" �� +Y �� '�t:�_��i___y, �,�' ;. .� -,� � �v� =.-��`^ a 3 ' �l.� �:� `��'--�� , �J��= �:� CITY OF F�RT C �LLINS UTILITIES A�H � . , : -�- , SHEET INDEX gP �' - '� ; ; ' • � '1.�. _ . � _ . � . -- . .,�- � � � � 0 WODD STREET r -_ ?' : • • • � NO N0 . DESCRIPTION � �� ;; • :;� -,.�,,;:;: `a,.� � - �� . i - . : .�r - . B �pr:n��,�.�.� � _ " � 5 21 , • . . � r . . � c� . ��_ � ��f� - --�='� ��1'`E�4'wonp�rk , ��.��,-: F�RT C4LLINS , C � 80 , � � '�� . - - - - -- __-- - :_, � �'`�--.;..� ;;_ - 1 1 COVER SHEET , ti�,�, .' � ' � , � �_ �,- ��... � PROJECT � � �� - - C1 PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET i • ' � • . • •' ' _ . ,.., . • ;, __�--�� 2 • : : , . . .. ; : . . . • .; - , .� . �. .:. . . ; ; .� , ,.. . .. ; �, � �-_. AREA� � , . , _, _ . .___. � . . . .� .;., . :... . .. _ ,�_. -�• • ;; : ; ;; � 3 C2 SURVEY CONTROL AND GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATIONS _�' . Iti � �y�• •. � •i��• � - ' • ._,. F��'- `,+ • •�� •� �" ,` m C s u � � _ ":;'� •� . . • " • City of Fort Collins _�� ` �, � vEr TEACHING � � :. : �;: : :�', �_� 4 C3 DRAKE ROAD STORM SEWER GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOGS �� ' � � HOSPI�4L � ` : ; . • , : . ; �r . �`�' ;' •� • = : ,� � � � .. �� - . _- � Q�':'� �rake � : :'''�.`,=� ' '.' � I� �� z . • � :=•' ';: ` . � TEAM: 5 C4 VTH POND OUTFALL GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOGS . Q _ _ _ . _ _- �� DESI GN �� M .� r ' 6 C5 SHEET INDEX MAP , ..� . . ::. .� tr � - - � ,.4. _- E?1ti ' �'�� ORAK E" d RG�!) f, - 5� � �_ ---_.�--. �------ -- I�._ >i 7Rs ..�.r- —... .e...._ _...._ ........ --.;'-�. SD6� � '� ., ' ' � l "�- _ , " '. � - »� •��1 � '1 ,: �,00 - � � � � � �i�� -- � ' � �- 7 -9 C6-8 DRAKE ROAD STORM SEWER PLAN AND PROFILES W� �;� . � � �` � ��--,, � . ANDERS4N CONSULTING ENGINEERS , IN � �' `�� - _ 2 `�t '� � . • f ' SUITE 3 10- 15� C9 - 14 VTH POND OUTFALL UTILITY RELOCATION/REMOVAL PLAN ., � �� : � � ,, - - � 2900 S4UTH COLLEGE AVENUE , , y , 4 ; . o ;�., - • o `•_, ; _ ��: �1� `' � `� � FORT COLLINS , CO 80525 1 6-21 C15-20 VTH POND OUTFALL PLAN AND PROFILES � � . � •l W \ � � �j � � � � ��` �. _ • ROSION CONTROL PLAN . , ,_ , � ,,, ,� , ,, � � , , , 22 25 C21 -24 VTH POND OUTFALL GRADING AND ; y ` �'�1r'.. ' j ,1� � � _ -j_'-e-�. . - � - � � � 26-32 C25-31 VTH POND OUTFALL CROSS SECTIONS � �`� ' � a� ,. - r w ' t� ,4.. �' - � � .; 2 .�--.'� W � - ' � W �' , �T� - ANdER50N CONSU�TINC� ENC�INEERS, INC � �� t`, t`• : � p �i, _ - .,,;r,,; , k, x _ . ... .� v ,`,. : :. .:. crvi! • Water Resources • F.nvironmental 3 3 C 3 2 S P R I N G C R E E K 0 U T L E T D E T A I LS � � w � ''� � 2�S.College Avenue.Suite 3B,Fort Collins,CO 80525 1 � � Phonc(970)226-0120%Fax 1970)226-0121 . I 5 . ' � � . TO SC �E : `� � � '� 34 C33 SPRING CREEK OUTLET TRASHRACK DETAILS � NOT � ,�� L�CATION o., �� 35 C34 ACCESS ROAD CULVERT AT STA. 24+43 DETAILS _ ...:: ,_ - � � . - . - Z ic��- �� MAP -;: . �;;_j�c� 5�$:� . HORSETOOTH A�AD�`� � � � .� `�� ---. 36-37 C35-36 ACCESS ROAD CULVERT AT STA. 27 +84 DETAILS _. .� . _,� _.�� . �. _� .�.�.. .� �.. �._ � . --� _ AVI , p c . � �� 1 • 2035 WESTLAND R�AD � 38 c3� TYPICAL SECTIONS CHEYENNE , WY 82001 39 -41 C38-40 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS • t' � 42-43 C41 —42 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN ,_.,•,,�;; �� .. ,. �.; � , ; � l��nr'�"��'��'�� 44-57 S1 — 1 4 STRUCTURAL DETAILS �_��;r v%��yin q F'Nr)NE ��SU(ANt>>� ��,��' � ='';5 '" 58-59 L1 -2 IRRIGATION REPAIR PLAN r,;^,, �.ti , . : CIT'Y OF FORT C LLINS, COLORADO UTI LITY PL�AN APPROVAL 6 0 L 3 I R R I G A T I 0 N D E T A I L S � APPROVED: ; JIM SELL DESIGN 61 —62 L4- 6 LANDSCAPE REPAIR PLAN CITY ENGINEER � DATE CHECKED BY: ' 153 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE 63 �� PLANTING DETAILS WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE F 0 RT C 4 LLIIN S � C O 8 0 5 2 4 CHECKED BY: DATE STORMWATER UTILITY CHECKED BY: - �- PARKS AND RECREATION DATE � � ��r �- � ) �'.�a�� ! /...'��,, w'r' ��r� � 4 r�'' a � r � t�,�,� � �� ,i CHECKED BY. DATE ' TRAFFIC ENGINEER V , �, �� Z F ' � � WAUL " '�� ' � �� 1 SHEET NUMBER 31547 , �, 4 q�zo el+� �� ' , . � ' \t�;.� APPROVED: '�' , '� � � "'� �'�J 1 LARIMER COUNTY CANAL o. 2 DATE ' / `""�'�'"�' �el/li�n'A(�r.'�/t'�>l�fi�U%f(�-��(.�lII/1l/IQ APPROVED: DATE � SHERWOOD LATERAL ' SHEET INDEX project location ADD TO DESIGN REPORT PROPOSED OUTFALL LOCATION 5' - 1 3 / 4 " 5' - 6 " ANTICIPATED FLOW DEPTH PROPOSED OUTFALL LOCATION 10,060 sf 8,560 sf PREFIN. StANDING SEAM MTL. MTL. FLAS1-�IRJG W/ lU�. B�ocKtr� RECORD DRAWMGS ROOF OvER 3m"FELT These record drawings have FfRE-TREATED 2x8 UJD `� P}�EFIN. St,4NDIIJG SEAM MTL. ROOF � '� '� PR�FM. BTANDfNCs SE,4M M7L. ROOF been prepared, in part, on OVER 30" FELT 01/ER 30� FELt the basis of information FIRE-Ti�ATED 2x12 WD 9 9 compiled and fumished by MTL. FLAv�411VC� TO WRAP WD. A13 IM 12 A13 3' RIGID INSUL. others. Therefore, the RE7URN �LASNING BENfND U1D. � 4 � 3' RIGIO INSUL. � �� ,-,�-` I'?'T'L. �L,e,SI-IINCs W/ Wp. BLOCKfNCs architect and other design consultants shall not be DRIP EDCsE 1 MTL. DECK MTL. DECK responsible for any errors 3�' EXTERIOR GYP. SOFFIt � � or omissions which have 3'x3' ST. ANCsLE CORf�tER STRfM Cp��R 3°�'x20 CsA. MTL. STUDS • Ib' O.G. �' 3°� x20 GA. MTL. S7UDS * I6 O.G. been incorporated into these ��C��O� P�-FINISHED M�TAL PANELS F�'�'�� YP' ��T document as a result. RE: 3/A3.10 3TL. TUBE BEYOND- RE: STRUGTURAL ALIJM. � � 87L. 7UBE BEYOND- �: STRLICTURAL 9 ��0� �� u�w. wi �� , , FLASNI SYNTNETIC STUGCO OVER SCRATCI-1 IN3UL. 51'NtHEtIG STUCGO OVER 3GRAtGN 1-3 3/4� = 1'-�� - Gd,�SET PLATE II�LD� TO PIPE GOLUMN COAT, MTL. LATN, TYVEK BLDCs. U1RAP, CsLASS 4 � �GOAT, MTL. LATH, TYYEK BLDG. WRAP, s �iz' SNEATHING z' SN�ATNtTJC� ON 6'xlb CxA. MtL. STUDS STL. AN�sLE WELp�D TO CaiJS°.�T PLAT'E 13 Ib' O.G. W/ 4�a' T`r'PE 'X' CaYP. BD. A E3 C D E F G 6' PIP� COLUMN � 10'-0' O.�C. � _ R-19 BAT1' IN3UL. 2 °yb' Tl'PE 'X' Gl'P. BD. ��A�I EPDM OVER �i�' f�EG01/ERl' BD, 3' RICsID INSUL. OvER METAL DECK OVER � _� EPDM OVER ��z' RECOVERY BD, 3' LICsNT FIXTURE . gTL• BEAMS. ROOF TO BE SLOPED t0 L � PIPE JACK FLASNMG - R�: Z/A3.10 RICsID INSUL. OvER MEtAL DECK OvER GENTER OF BLDGs W/ ROOF t � 87L. BAR JOI81'8. ROOF TO BE SLOPE� � OVE�LOW DRAINS � - - - TO GENTER OF BLDCs W/ ROOF t gTL. BE,41'1g - RE: gTRUGT. DRAWINGS � I � ' � � � • - - - OYERFLOW DRAINS � � ��R � STL. BE,4M - RE: STR�.IGTURAL p 1�i2'x20 CxA MTL. STUDS +� I6' O.G. � W DS. I �` MEGH. UNIT - i�: MECNANIGAL U � � �� , I 1 °�b' 71'PE 'X' Gl'P. BD. ON 3�a'x20 GA, r;� � °jb� NPE 'X' GYP. BD. ON 3�'8'x20 GA. � a MTL. STUDS • I6' O.C. � � 1"iTL. STUDS � 16' O.G. � � - pb. - .J SECTfON/PLAN SECTION SECTION � � � � � � � 1�I�C�. fi�00� SC -'��1�! 3 ��'fi�� l�i"� �'00� � ��'i''I l�1„C �00� t� L.L� � .� �� 1/2' = 1'-�" 1.3 I/2" = 1'-m' 1.3 1/2' = I'-�' � V � O 3 � V � 0 A32 � _ + Q PRE-FMISNED METAL FLASNINC: GAP � n.�s�-a� OvER Zx F.R. WD. f�LOGCINCs C� � � � (3� � I . O I ��, , I . � I RE: 5/,43.10 � I TOP OF WALL � � Z O EF. TAJ.134-0 � � TD1LL 132-b � � � O � � � ' • TA.UJ. = 119'-4' � � J SYNtNEtIG STUGCO OI/ER QvGRATGH C � � a 3s�-m•F.v. , I GOAT, MTL. LATN, Tl'VEK BLDCs. WRAP, 8' NOM. GMIJ PARAPET - 4-HR RATED, � O �Q PREGASt CONG. GAP 'iz' SNEAtNINCs FILL GELLS FULL WItN GROUT W � U �� - � GOIJNTERFLASNINCs - RE: 3/,43.10 �' O TAJ 13P- � I p�isT. 33�a'xlb C�A. MtL. S'iUD FRAMINCz 3�'x2m CsA. MTL. STUDS • Ib' O.G. _ FLA5HINCs � � Q � vei i er _ � _ RTll. �q I � w ❑ � � � ;� - ` " - - `�+°� ' ��z' DRIP EDCsE p STL. TUBE - I�E: StRL1GTURAL - � �• , TOP OF MTL DECIC � TAD. = 6'-�' � � � OYERROW c�i AU�! I I � � � DRAM .2' p -" ❑ �, I � � �l� � � EPDM 1�DOF P 8 -� . . R-19 BATT INSUL. - EPDM RDOFINCs OVER 1/2' REC0I/ERY . � � Q � � 4 NOMINA� BRICK W/ 1 AIRSPAGE � . BOARD OI/ER 3 RIGID IN8l.lL. 01/ER � � � �� '- ' � � ❑O I 2 _ ALUM. WINDOW W/ IN5UL CsLA58 4-1/'2' GONG SLAB 01/ER MTL. DECK J � OVER 3tL. BAR JOISTS. ROOF TO BE � � � s� e �i�� ❑ ' I BLOPED t0 ROOF DRAINS � � O � O � fl ��T�'�"'��' � q � I SECTfON PLAN SEGTION 2 � Z � �5 � a � ❑ ❑❑ ❑�❑❑ ao❑�o� - � C�� C,�� ,�� 00� 6 �� Q I 13 � _ � � 1,3 � � � � � . � � � � b ❑ 1/2 - 1 -m 1/2 = 1 -0 1-3 1/2 = 1 -m �oo�roP wit s ' - _ � � 5.3 - �] ' . � � E- �- � I � ' DcISTMG 1�OCJF � O � 4 2 I I � � � \ � ts�stqer� f'f�E-FINISNED METAL �LASNINCs GAF' � A3.2 � �. A32 Ol/ER 2x F.R WD. BLOC4CINCs � � � � e�►�ooF � � � � RE: 5/A3.10 � Qo sTor�r� �� I �M 01/ER ��s' . OvER = � � � � - - TAJ.l3P-•t� - - _ L. DEGK 01/E TAPERED INSUL }+ � �'�� £ - Y�1-��- ' I �'� 01/ER STL. BAR � � s� � � - � L I _ FLASHINCs t GOUNTEI�LASNINCs � � � � ow c�aM ❑ , - RE: 3/A3.1m � � � � � � � � i � � � _ O p � � � � TA1L 134'-8' �IST.RT11. 4 Q VENT Tl'P. � I - �- �� t.o�.�2�-0' �� _ 3.1 51M. � � �� _ sT�' actarn�r� �nsTn��oo� <-"' � - GONNECT DRAIN LEADER t0 �� TAB.13�'-8' TAD.L33'-m' ❑ f11U0 STOR1') (S bTOR'1' stEP r ExP.,tr. - DOU�lSPOUT - �: 1"tEGN. DWGB. 1 I PR£fM.bTIY�DMG BEAM hfiL Db. T�OJtI 133'-0' RDOF OVER 8d FELT � TAD.133'-4' S� IQEMOIIE EX18T.STOPE vE1�R PATCH �-�A�� _ b'x16 GA. MTL. 8TUD8 � 16' O.C. W/ 3 6PDM ROCJF PADS TAJLI C33'-4' W.4LL TO MATG-1 ADJAC�NT e PAINT TO �-�'4��x�� - ��' Csl'P. BNEATNINrs t T1'1/EK BLDCs MATCH rrrt.r�,n�un�ro we�uo. ' � WRAP. A3.2 RIDrsE TOJ l32'-9 EXIST.DOOR C3�Z)/aND FRIN"IE W/ 'B' � I'LAd�►MG DEHR�C uD. � TAPEREp 3 LABEL CANTR4GTOR5 OPTION TO F1AYE pRl EDC„E � ! � n�su�ariorr ocisrrt��oo�e c�r�ree as�-n¢o�e � +�� oR��.so�rr �Cp ALUM. WINDOW W/ INSUL. CsLABS � TAM 134'-8' T�OLL Ci3'-8 REPLACE lW PEW 3FIR DOOR A38EM8LY � - �INISH ON _ g7�p O TA.I.L3Y'- ' SAW CUT DCIST_P.C.PANEL MBtALL NEW SECTION ��'GRA7G-� TAa.t��-4� � �., �Q t u�,_8. ►�+,arm t� ��,��,coNc.a�Ps r-o�e�ooF �sn�sToie�n 9 �� GOAT FX7. Gl'P. SO�FfT OVER 35�a' MTL. 8. -- 4 p.b �� O - ►�au�avoF - r a.�r-,. i - -13 9�4' • 1'-m' FRAMINCs , f�STp�QY� � TIE NEW I�OOF INTO 9 A33 tA9.�133'-0' �� 2 � t�W 8' CMIl PARAPET -0, EXIST.1�DOF c'J�CT�� O'� Q - ,_ _-= p0 � � ,43Z TO MATCN EXIST- � A3� � � � ._ . - o00 � � P��. ,�� m. R�_, R�_� , �oo� �� . . ___ T� �� Q ocisrn�cor�c Paea�r � - - - - - - - - - A1.3 t, . _ � � ,� ��, ��;� � tDa•�� Q � I IW PEW CAP PLASHMG � AEtU PI�EFR�I hETAL G4P FL,49FIMCs - � 2 - � -� MTL_ STRAfNER SG�EN '; ��..�� :.. �, � fA.l. R 4 1 I�IEIU R70F �M � Q" ❑ ❑ � � = � ,: b (SIN LE STORI'J � ' .� �, ' - �� ' � � STRAINER BA.°�MCET 1 tsTtr� P , �Sdp 1l�� pRA' � �' �A�� ' � TA1U.132'-8 � � I � Q � A 113'-4' � � � ��.�Q �in�� ~ EPnI'11�OF - D . D . F'RE-C'.Aflt COPIG'C+4P OVERFLOW DRAIN ��CUIT�CTs P�C. A 1 �� '-�' • '"" , z �rrn.oF 3� - sE.o� � _ , _- v QQOQQ • � TAa.L32'-8 BMCaLE BtOR'1') g�pp�R Z-HR RATED I PEIU PF� STANDMG I . Q 43 r,�: g�,43 s�oPE y L SEAI"I J , OD.•1 � - • 1 3 A.I.II6'-iO' BA.a.122'- WJSTF3JGT. p � { � � F- T01. '-0' TA.I.IT2'-8' D .123'-4' 2 3 BLDCs.ALT. �9 - 3 � 712 WHALERS WAY Rp. � ��' 33 � o _ � 35 35 � . L> FORTL 0 BINSUICO 18 525 . ` ��A2 �� p! �,11 r��o►.�� -- � a rr�. v�T au�M - - - � (970) 223-1820 c a-�p'►�' � , 3 Db. 11 ��,�T►�T� 1.131'-9 I/! T�OJ.1R'-I V!' tAJ.Itt'-I TAB. '-4' � i _- --- __ . ,� �� s 8, TA ,_ - � �� - - - � .� K�1' NOTES: !� , �r ��M � o,�R �� co� 33 A,'�O % BLOF'E ROOF TO DRAM � � TAD. 8' V �GOI/ERl" BOARD �� - . � � ~�� QI ATTAGH l2) TWO LAl'ERg 5/8' Tl'P£ 'X' 3' RIGID IN3l1LATION p��INC�S 1/31/03 �� --t.a.im-4� --- - �� XTERIOR GYPSUrf BD, W/ STAGC,ERED �S/�8�� .� - � =-"' C�1,� �E1.�t�� 33 to$.��a'-8' ��au �� JOMT3 t0 3 5/8' 16 CsA. MTL 81UD8 • 16' 8TL. DEGK _ , tD� � O.G. TO �AGE OF EXIST. PREGA3T C.ONG. Q 1/31/(d3 �Tr1°� STL. ANGLE COLLAR AT STL. --' / Tpb��.8' 2 F,4SGIA WRAP EPDM ROOFING OI/ER DECK OPENMG - RE: . �� 4 PARAPET AND INDER GAP srRucru� �w�s. ROOF PLAN __ = E �� ROOF TOP GONDENSERS FOR DRAM GL�I'1F' • 3. - - � ENVIRONP1ENTAl. LABS A4 DD DRAM LEADER A13-Roof.dwg CC O TA.B. TOP OF BRICK • r�ooF DR4M QQ 33 TA.I. TOP OF M3ULATION SECTION PROJECT 0033 TA�11. tOP OF WALL • 8 �OO� �� I � CSU # 9902� AA G J J. .6 OK L M N OP TAM. tOP OF MASONRY • �-3 1' = I'-0' DATE �/20/01 W DRAWN M�,NJD �O O� �� I �l • (ADD 2' �OR U�D. BLOCKMCs AND GAP Z FL�431-IMG �OR FfN ELEYAtION �IEICsNT) � � 1/16' = 1'-�' J J Q O • I ' I APPENDIX E Drainage Maps 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard EXISTING CONDITIONS BASIN MAP 2 LEGEND 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard MASTER PLAN BASIN MAP 4 LEGEND NOTE: FOR THE OFF-LINE DETENTION POND ALTERNATIVE BASINS 65A, 65C, 67, 67A, 67B AND 68 ARE MODELED AS 2-YEAR EXISTING TO REPLICATE THE HISTORIC FLOW RATES DISCHARGING FROM THE OFF-LINE DETENTION PONDS INTO THE EXISTING SWALE AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS CRITERIA. EXISTING SWMM MODEL FROM MASTER (SCAB100-UPDATED_EXIST.INP) EXISTING SWMM MODEL FROM MASTER (SCAB100-UPDATED_EXIST.INP) LAGOON CITY DITCH JUNCTION 160 CONDUIT OUTLET_50 OUTLET_50 PEAK VS. BASINS 65 AND 76 015-0770PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: 12/04/2015 FJS/MKD EXHIBIT R TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 Suite 160 5285 McWhinney Boulevard MASTER PLAN BASIN MAP 4 LEGEND NOTE: FOR THE OFF-LINE DETENTION POND ALTERNATIVE BASINS 65A, 65C, 67, 67A, 67B AND 68 ARE MODELED AS 2-YEAR EXISTING TO REPLICATE THE HISTORIC FLOW RATES DISCHARGING FROM THE OFF-LINE DETENTION PONDS INTO THE EXISTING SWALE AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS CRITERIA. TRIBUTARY TO NORTH BIOSWALE TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH BIOSWALE PAGE 28 OF MASTER REPORT WD DN DN WD A3.30 3 A3.30 7 A3.30 13 A B C D E 4321 T G 116 T G TRIBUTARY TO NORTH BIOSWALE IRRIGATION PUMP STATION 577 EXISTING JEFH BUILDING FFE=5036.59± EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING BA Y R O A D 553DIAGNOSTIC MEDICINE CENTER (DMC) 578 567 568 553 EXISTING LAGOON CITY SUBSTATION GI L L E T T E D R I V E BOOTH ROAD BA Y R O A D TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE INSTITUTE (TMI) BAY FACILITY NISWENDER ROAD (TO BE IMPROVED WITH FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK) EXISTING VETERINARY HOSPITAL EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING C801 811 1 OVERALL PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN C800 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 A B C D E 4321 TRIBUTARY TO NORTH BIOSWALE IRRIGATION PUMP STATION 577 PROPOSED BIOSWALE A PROPOSED BIOSWALE B PROPOSED BIOSWALE B PROPOSED BIOSWALE B PROPOSED BIOSWALE A A B1 B2 B3 C5 C3 C2 C1 C4 66C 66A 66B D3 D2 D1 67.1A 67.2 65C 65 66 A1 A5A4 A3 A2 EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING BA Y R O A D 553DIAGNOSTIC MEDICINE CENTER (DMC) 578 567 568 553 EXISTING LAGOON CITY SUBSTATION GI L L E T T E D R I V E BOOTH ROAD BA Y R O A D TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE INSTITUTE (TMI) BAY FACILITY NISWENDER ROAD (TO BE IMPROVED WITH FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK) EXISTING VETERINARY HOSPITAL EXISTING PARKING LOT C801 PROPOSED PARKING PROPOSED PARKING 811 1 PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN C801 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 C LAGOON SWALE B SWALE CITY DITCHA RG BOOTH ROAD BA Y R O A D BIOSWALE B RE: C230 - C232 BIOSWALE B RE: C230 - C232 BIOSWALE B RE: C230 - C232 BIOSWALE A RE: C221 - C225 BIOSWALE A RE: C221 - C225 BIOSWALE B CULVERTS RE: C230 BIOSWALE B CULVERTS RE: C231 PARKING LOT DITCHES RE: C214 SECTION A-A 8 FT BOTTOM WIDTH BIOSWALE SECTION C-C 5 FT BOTTOM WIDTH BIOSWALE SECTION B-B 8-20 FT BOTTOM WIDTH BIOSWALE WATER QUALITY OVERALL GRADING PLAN C220 811 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 CURRENT VIEW 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #A8 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #A1 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #A9 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A2 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A4 STORM CLEAN OUT #A5 STORM CLEAN OUT #A6 6" 22.5 DEG HOIZONTAL BEND #A10 18" FES W/ CUTOFF WALL RE: SHEET C492 18" FES W/ CUTOFF WALL RE: SHEET C492 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #A3 BIOSWALE A UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # A 3 UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # A 8 UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # A 9 UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # A 1 ST O R M C L E A N O U T # A 6 ST O R M C L E A N O U T # A 5 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 4 18 " F E S W / C U T O F F WA L L R E : S H E E T C 4 9 2 18 " F E S W / C U T O F F WA L L R E : S H E E T C 4 9 2 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 2 6" 1 1 . 2 5 D E G B E N D BIOSWALE A PLAN & PROFILE C221 811 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 MA T C H L I N E : S E E S H E E T C2 2 2 MA T C H L I N E : S E E S H E E T C2 2 2 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED 18" NYLOPLAST INLET #A30 C9 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #A19 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #A15 BO O T H R O A D STORM WYE CONNECTION #A17 OUTFALL DETAIL SEE SHEET C225 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 6" 11.25 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A11 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A12 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A13 6" 11.25 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A14 6" 11.25 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A18 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A20 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A21 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A22 6" 11.25 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #A23 SMALL STRAIGHT HEADWALL RE: SHEET C222 & C490 BIOSWALE A UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # A 1 5 UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # A 1 9 18 " N Y L O P L A S T I N L E T # A 3 0 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 1 0 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 1 2 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 1 3 6" 1 1 . 2 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 1 4 6" 1 1 . 2 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 1 8 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 2 0 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 2 1 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 2 2 6" 1 1 . 2 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 1 1 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 1 6 ST O R M W Y E C O N N E C T I O N # A 1 7 6" 1 1 . 2 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # A 2 3 811 BIOSWALE A PLAN & PROFILE C222 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 MA T C H L I N E : S E E S H E E T C2 2 1 MA T C H L I N E : S E E S H E E T C2 2 1 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED BIOSWALE A 0+54.63 BIOSWALE A 1+00.00 BIOSWALE A 1+50.00 BIOSWALE A 2+00.00 BIOSWALE A 2+50.00 BIOSWALE A 3+00.00 BIOSWALE A 3+50.00 BIOSWALE A 4+50.00 BIOSWALE A 5+00.00 BIOSWALE A CROSS SECTIONS C223 811 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED BO O T H R O A D 811 BIOSWALE A OUTFALL C225 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 EMERGENCY SPILLWAY SECTION B-B NOT TO SCALE CUT OFF WALL DETAIL SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY NOT TO SCALE BIOSWALE A EMERGENCY SPILLWAY NOT TO SCALE CURRENT VIEW 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED AS PER ADD. #C20402/28/2024A - 04 PROPOSED SOUTH BIOSWALE RE: SHEET C221-C222 36" FES 36" FES 36" FES 36" FES BIOSWALE OUTFALL CULVERT NORTH 36 " F E S 36 " F E S BIOSWALE OUTFALL CULVERT SOUTH 36 " F E S 36 " F E S BIOSWALE A OUTFALL DETAIL PLAN & PROFILE C226 811 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 BIOSWALE OUTFALL 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED BIOSWALE B UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # B 1 UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # B 2 UN D R E D R A I N C L E A N O U T # B 4 ST O R M C L E A N O U T # 5 UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # B 6 CO N N E C T I O N T O C O N C R E T E FO R E B A Y B 1 RE : S H E E T C 2 3 0 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # B 3 6" 1 1 . 2 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # B 7 18 " F E S W / C U T O F F WA L L R E : S H E E T C 4 9 2 18 " F E S W / C U T O F F WA L L R E : S H E E T C 4 9 2 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #B1 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #B2 UNDREDRAIN CLEAN OUT #B4 STORM CLEAN OUT #5 18" FES W/ CUTOFF WALL RE: SHEET C492 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #B6 18" FES W/ CUTOFF WALL RE: SHEET C492 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #B3 BIOSWALE B PLAN & PROFILE C230 811 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 MA T C H L I N E : S E E S H E E T C2 3 1 MA T C H L I N E : S E E S H E E T C2 3 1 CURRENT VIEW 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED AS PER ADD. #C20402/28/2024A - 04 AS PER ADD. #C20703/22/2024A - 07 BIOSWALE B UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # B 8 UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # B 1 0 UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # B 1 3 UN D E R D R A I N C L E A N O U T # B 1 4 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G B E N D & U N D E R D R A I N CL E A N O U T # B 1 7 ST O R M W Y E C O N N E C T I O N # A 1 7 ST O R M C L E A N O U T # B 9 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # B 1 1 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # B 1 2 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # B 1 5 6" 2 2 . 5 D E G HO R I Z O N T A L B E N D # B 1 6 24 " F E S W / C U T O F F WA L L R E : S H E E T C 4 9 2 24 " F E S W / C U T O F F WA L L R E : S H E E T C 4 9 2 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #B8 STORM CLEAN OUT #B9 24" FES W/ CUTOFF WALL RE: SHEET C492 24" FES W/ CUTOFF WALL RE: SHEET C492 24" FES W/ CUTOFF WALL RE: SHEET C492 24" FES W/ CUTOFF WALL RE: SHEET C492 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #B10 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #B13 UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT#B14 6" 22.5 DEG BEND & UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT #B17 STORM WYE CONNECTION #A17 6" 11.25 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #B7 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #B11 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #B12 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #B15 6" 22.5 DEG HORIZONTAL BEND #B16 811 BIOSWALE B PLAN & PROFILE C231 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 MA T C H L I N E : S E E S H E E T C2 3 0 MA T C H L I N E : S E E S H E E T C2 3 0 CURRENT VIEW 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED AS PER ADD. #C20703/22/2024A - 07 BIOSWALE B 1+00.00 BIOSWALE B 1+50.00 BIOSWALE B 2+00.00 BIOSWALE B 2+50.00 BIOSWALE B 2+74.23 BIOSWALE B 4+00.00 BIOSWALE B 4+30.00 BIOSWALE B 5+00.00 BIOSWALE B 5+50.00 BIOSWALE B 6+00.00 BIOSWALE B CROSS SECTIONS C232 811 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED 811 BIOSWALE DETAILS C240 Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning \ \ \ \ clarkenersen.com Fort Collins, Colorado Lawrence, Kansas Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Charleston, South Carolina #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CE No.: 223-037-21 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU No: 20-018 BP-3 EARLY PROCUREMENT GMP Veterinary Health and Education Complex: Project C1, C2 & B6 Addition December 6, 2023 SOIL FILLED RIP RAP FOR BIOSWALE ⎯ 12/06/2023 CONSTRUCTION SETISSUED BO O T H R O A D BAY ROAD EX CITY DITCH EX HAY SHED AA CONCRETE FOREBAY RE: SHEET C221 LENGTH: 6' WIDTH: 6' NOTCH WIDTH: 0.27' 18" FES WITH CUTOFF RE: SHEET C290 STORM CLEAN OUT UNDERDRAIN CLEAN OUT 24" FES WITH CUTOFF RE: SHEET C290 SEE PLANS "VTH EXPANSION" (PROJECTS C-2, C-1 AND B-6) CONCRETE FOREBAY RE: SHEET C221 LENGTH: 6' WIDTH: 6' NOTCH WIDTH: 0.25' TYPE D INLET 5'Ø STORM DRY WELL MH RE: C221 811 RAIN GARDEN A DETAILED PLAN C220 CE No.: 7 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 4 1 0 : 0 2 : 5 2 A M Pl o t T i m e S t a m p : G: \ P A L I N G \ 2 2 . 0 4 0 9 - c s u v t h \ P L A N S \ P a d d o c k s C D s \ C 2 2 0 R A I N G A R D E N A D E T A I L E D P L A N . d w g Fi l e L o c a t i o n / N a m e : Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Lawrence, Kansas Portland, Oregon Fort Collins, Colorado Omaha, Nebraska Charleston, South Carolina BP-2 100% CONST. DOCUMENTS VHEC - South Campus Paddocks Project B5 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 223-037-21 CSU No: 20-2018 January 31, 2024 #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # CURRENT VIEW B B RAIN GARDEN SECTION B-B SCALE 1:5 RAIN GARDEN SECTION A-A SCALE 1:5 SEWER CLEAN-OUT DETAIL 811 RAIN GARDEN A DETAILS C221 CE No.: 7 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 4 1 0 : 0 3 : 1 4 A M Pl o t T i m e S t a m p : G: \ P A L I N G \ 2 2 . 0 4 0 9 - c s u v t h \ P L A N S \ P a d d o c k s C D s \ C 2 2 0 R A I N G A R D E N A D E T A I L E D P L A N . d w g Fi l e L o c a t i o n / N a m e : Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Kansas City, Missouri Lincoln, Nebraska Lawrence, Kansas Portland, Oregon Fort Collins, Colorado Omaha, Nebraska Charleston, South Carolina BP-2 100% CONST. DOCUMENTS VHEC - South Campus Paddocks Project B5 300 W Drake Rd Fort Collins, CO 80523 223-037-21 CSU No: 20-2018 January 31, 2024 #SHEET HISTORY: ? ? - # SPILLWAY SECTION B-B NOT TO SCALE CUT OFF WALL DETAIL SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE RAIN GARDEN SPILLWAY NOT TO SCALE RAIN GARDEN SPILLWAY NOT TO SCALE CULVERT CONCRETE FOREBAY NOT TO SCALE DRAINAGE PAN CONCRETE FOREBAY SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 5' DIAMETER DRY WELL SCALE: NOT TO SCALE