HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 01/04/2010 (4)City of FL Civ!Ph"
,)ate- 1 y1-10
FINAL HYDRAULIC DESIGN REPORT
FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO COLLEGE AVENUE AND
HARMONY ROAD
Prepared for:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared by:
Interwest Consulting Group
1218 West Ash Street, Unit C
Windsor, Colorado 80550
(970)674-3300
December 23, 2009
Job Number 104"12-02
INT[RwISTM CONSULTING GROUP
INTERWEST = CONSULTING G R O U P
' December 23, 2009
'
Mr. Glen Schlueter
Mr. Wes Lamarque
City of Fort Collins
Utilities
'
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Final Hydraulic Design Report for Improvements to College Avenue and Harmony Road
Dear Sirs,
' I am pleased to submit for your review this Final Hydraulic Design Report for Improvements to College
Avenue and Harmony Road. Hydraulic and Hydrologic calculations are per the City of Fort Collins Storm
' Drainage Manual. The Outline of this report is per CDOT requirements.
Approximately 0.5 acres of impervious area has been added to this project. However, because the area is
well developed and per the City's comment that detention would be a hardship, this project does not intend
' to provide detention. Please note that in order to achieve the State MS4 requirements, water quality will
be provided for this project via SNOUT Stormwater Quality Systems. It will be the City's responsibility to
maintain these structures.
' I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions.
' Sincerely Reviewed by,
C�
' Erika Schneider, P.E. Michael Ober 0 E., LEED AP
� E
' r
U� •_ U
' \SV Tz�
ss�
�O
I , 1218 WEST ASH, SUITE C WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550
TEL, 970. 67d.3300 • Eex. 970. 674. 3303
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... iii
it Qvr1Ti)91x4 Ci7.
1.1 Project Location.......................................................................................................1
2. HYDROLOGY
2.1 Master Basin Description.........................................................................................1
2.2 Basin Description.....................................................................................................2
2.3 Channel Description.................................................................................................4
2.4 Precipitation Data.....................................................................................................5
2.5 Flood History ...........................................................................................................5
2.6 Design Flood Frequency..........................................................................................5
2.7 Prediction of Design Discharge
...............................................................................5
3. EXISTING STRUCTURE
3.1 Description...............................................................................................................5
4. DESIGN DISCUSSION
4.1 General Concept.......................................................................................................6
4.2 MS-4 Requirements.................................................................................................6
4.3 Erosion Control........................................................................................................7
5. RECOMMENDED DESIGN
5.1 Compliance with Standards .........
5.2 Drainage Concept ..........................
...........7
...........8
6. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................8
APPENDIX
A
Vicinity Map and Drainage Plan
B
Hydrologic Computations
C
Hydraulic Computations
D
Permanent BMP Calculations
E
Erosion Control Plans
I
1
1
1
I
II
II
II
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Project Location
The College Avenue and Harmony Road intersection is a main intersection in south Fort
Collins, Larimer County. Specifically, the project is situated within the Southeast Quarter
of Section 35 and the Southwest Quarter of Section 36 in Township 7 North as well as the
Northwest Quarter of Section 1 and the Northeast Quarter of Section 2 in Township 6
North of Range 69 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado. Adjacent
development is mainly commercial areas including Harmony Centre, Arbor Plaza and
The Gateway at Harmony Road. Please refer to Appendix A for a vicinity map.
The College Avenue and Harmony Road intersection improvement project involves
geometrical changes and updates such as the addition of or modification to curb and
gutter, sidewalks and raised medians to improve the operation and safety of the
intersection. The limits of the project are 500' north and south of Harmony on College
and 1,000' west and 500' east of College on Harmony. College Avenue is US 287.
2.1. Master Basin Description
This project is within the City of Fort Collin's Mail Creek master drainage basin. The
Mail Creek Basin is located in southwest Fort Collins. The basin drains to Mail
Creek/Fossil Creek and ultimately to the Fossil Creek Reservoir. The project is
specifically located in the South Tributary reach of the Mail Creek Basin.
The Mail Creek Drainage Basin Master Plan outlines the needs for the basin and does not
show the need for significant improvements to the current system. Most of the existing
drainage systems in the area have been designed using the old 100-year rainfall criteria of
2.89 inches. The current and updated estimate for the 50-year storm rainfall is 2.91
inches. Therefore, the existing drainage systems that were designed using the old criteria
are currently designed to provide protection for the 50-year storm and the existing
drainage systems in the area are generally considered functional by the City Stormwater
Department. According to the City Stormwater Department, because this area is almost
completely developed, no additional detention will be required for the road
improvements; however, modifications and extensions of the system will be needed with
II
this project in order to provide water quality which is required by the CDOT MS-4
' discharge permit within CDOT Right of Way (College Avenue). The design minimizes
impacts to other utilities and properties and maintains the existing functional drainage
system with minimal improvements.
' 2.2. Basin Description
' The basin used for the project encompasses the ROW of Harmony Road and College
Avenue. On College Avenue, it extends north to Kensington Drive and south, about 250'
' north of Mason Street. On Harmony Road, it extends west to the railroad and east to the
existing box culvert crossing.
' The project's basin has been divided into 9 sub -basins for discussion in this report.
Existing flow paths have been maintained. Please refer to the Drainage Plan in Appendix
tA for identification and location of these basins.
' Sub -basin A — is 0.6 acres, includes the north half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
the ProBuild lumberyard property. This area maintains current conditions and flows east
along the curb and gutter of Harmony Road to Mason Street where it then travels north in
' the curb and gutter to an existing 10' Type R sump inlet. This storm system conveys
flows south to the Arbor Plaza box culvert which is the main Mail Creek channel.
I'
I'
I'
I
Sub -basin B — is 0.8 acres, includes the north half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
the Mc Donald's property. This area maintains current conditions and flows east along
the curb and gutter of Harmony Road to S. College Avenue where it flows a short
distance north in the curb and gutter of College to a new 15' Type R sump inlet. This
water will be conveyed via new Storm System A to an existing storm system that conveys
flows south to the Arbor Plaza box culvert. This 15' Type R inlet replaces the existing
10' Type R sump inlet located at the curb return. The 15' Type R inlet must be relocated
a short distance north, due to the intersection improvements. Sub -basin B is City ROW
but is presently planned to be treated to CDOT MS-4 standards.
2
I
1
1
I
1
1
Sub -basin C — is 0.7 acres, includes the west half of College Avenue and is adjacent to
the Gateway at Harmony Road McDonald's property. This area maintains current
conditions and flows south along the curb and gutter of S. College Avenue to the 15'
Type R sump inlet mentioned above, currently a 5' Type R inlet is at this location. This
water will also be conveyed via new Storm System A to an existing storm system that
conveys flows south to the Arbor Plaza box culvert. The first half -inch of runoff will be
treated for water quality via a SNOUT train system in order to meet the CDOT MS-4
requirements. This basin is within the CDOT ROW.
Sub -basin D1 — is 0.6 acres, includes the south half of Harmony Road. This area
maintains current conditions and flows east along the curb and gutter of Harmony Road
to Mason Street where it then flows south along the curb and gutter of Mason Street to an
existing storm system in Arbor Plaza.
Sub -basin D2 — is 0.7 acres, includes the south half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
the Arbor Plaza property. This area maintains current conditions and flows east along the
curb and gutter of Harmony Road to S. College Avenue where it will then join with sub -
basin E. This basin is City ROW but currently planned to be treated to CDOT MS-4
standards with Basin E.
Sub -basin E — is 0.6 acres, includes the west half of College Avenue and is adjacent to
the Arbor Plaza property. This area maintains current conditions and flows south along
the curb and gutter of S. College Avenue to two new on -grade single, Type 13
combination inlets (design point El and E2). This water will be conveyed via new Storm
System B to an existing storm system that conveys flows north to the Arbor Plaza box
culvert. The intent of these inlets is to collect the first half -inch of runoff from sub -basins
D2 and E to be treated for water quality, via a SNOUT train system, in order to meet the
CDOT MS-4 requirements.
3
I
I
1
1
1
r
1
Sub -basin F — is 0.5 acres, includes the east half of College Avenue and is adjacent to the
property on the southeast comer of the intersection. This area maintains current
conditions and flows south along the curb and gutter of S. College Avenue. Due to an
intense network of utilities on both sides and under the curb of College Avenue, it is not
possible to collect the first half -inch of runoff to be treated for water quality via a new
inlet and storm system. However, in order to meet the intent of the CDOT MS-4
requirements, sub -basins D2 (0.7 acres) and B (0.8 acres) will be treated for water quality
in place of sub -basin F and G.
Sub -basin G — is 0.5 acres, includes the east half of College Avenue and is adjacent to
the Harmony Centre property. This area maintains current conditions and flows south
along the curb and gutter of S. College Avenue to a new on -grade double, Type 13
combination inlet (design point G). This water will be conveyed via new Storm System
C to an existing storm system that conveys flows south to Mail Creek. Currently, a 5'
Type R on -grade inlet is located at this location but must be replaced and moved a short
distance north, due to the intersection improvements and existing utility locations. This
basin is not treated, but rather traded with sub -basins B and D to meet intent.
Sub -basin H — is 0.6 acres, includes the north half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
the Harmony Centre property. This area maintains current conditions and flows east
along the curb and gutter of Harmony Road.
Sub -basin I — is 0.5 acres, includes the south half of Harmony Road and is adjacent to
the property on the southeast comer of the intersection. This area maintains current
conditions and flows east along the curb and gutter of Harmony Road.
2.3. Channel Description
This project will not cause a change to current conditions and therefore, no adverse
effects will occur to existing channels.
4
' 2.4. Precipitation Data
' This report was prepared to meet or exceed the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage
Design Criteria Manual' specifications and the Master Plan. Where applicable, the
' criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual' (UDFCD), 2001,
developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, has been used.
t Improvements to College Avenue will conform to the intent of the CDOT MS-4
discharge permit requirements.
The rainfall intensities used in the computation of runoff were obtained from the Rainfall
Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort Collins, Figure 3-1 of the City of Fort
t Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. Please refer to Appendix B for this
figure.
' 2.5. Flood History
' This project is not within any designated floodplain.
2.6. Design Flood Frequency
' As recommended by the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual the
initial storm design frequency was based on the ten-year storm. The major storm design
' frequency was based on the 100-year storm.
2.7. Prediction of Design Discharge
Runoff computations were prepared for the 10-year minor and 100-year major storm
' frequencies utilizing the Rational Method. All hydrologic calculations associated with
the basins are included in Appendix B of this report.
' 3. EXISTING STRUCTURE
' 3.1. Description
' This project will not cause a change to current conditions and therefore, no adverse
effects will occur to existing channels.
I
1 4.
I
I
1
DESIGN DISCUSSION
4.1. General Concept
All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the
City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are included in Appendix C of this report. All
new storm sewers and inlets have been sized based on the WQ flow determined from the
volume of the first half -inch of runoff. An exception to this is the new inlet and storm
system (Storm System A) at design point C which was sized to convey the 100-year
storm.
4.2. MS4 Requirements
CDOT MS-4 treatment will be required for the improvements in CDOT ROW. This
requires that storm water discharges within the CDOT ROW have permanent best
management practices (BMP) to protect water quality. One hundred percent of the
volume of the first half -inch of runoff will be treated for water quality. This volume was
calculated thus:
Volume of first %2" of Runoff= A * C * ''/a" *(1 ft/12") * 43560 cf/l ac-ft
Where: A = Basin Area in acres C = Runoff Coefficient
The required volume of the first half -inch of runoff for this project to meet the MS-4
requirement is 2567 cf. Due to an intense network of utilities in College Avenue, it is not
possible to collect sub -basin F and G's first half -inch of runoff for water quality
treatment; therefore, sub -basins D2 (0.7 acres) and B (0.8 acres) are proposed to be
treated for water quality in place of sub -basins F (0.5 acres) and G (0.5 acres). Thus, the
volume of the first half -inch of runoff treated for the project is 3302 cf. The actual area
treated will be greater than if the CDOT-MS4 were strictly used and only CDOT ROW
was treated. We feel this meets the intent of the CDOT requirement. Most arterial
intersection reconstructions will likely have a similar scenario with drainage facilities
only on the upstream side of the intersection.
6
I
The recommended permanent BMP for this project are SNOUT® Stormwater Quality
Systems. This system is based on a vented hood that can reduce solids from storm water
discharges. The vented hood is installed over the outlet pipe of a catch basin or other
stormwater structure which incorporates a deep sump, permitting heavier solids to sink to
' the bottom.
' Storm systems A and B capture 100% of the volume of the first half -inch of runoff (3302
cf). According to the manufacturer, given favorable site conditions, proper maintenance
and a multi -structure treatment train, up to 89.5% of the required pollutants can be
' removed via these permanent BMPs. Manufacturer's documentation states that each
structure on average removes 56% TSS. In tandem, 80% is reached. This number can be
achieved with these systems because both systems incorporate a treatment train and the
City of Fort Collins street sweeps major arterials and bike lanes, improving site
conditions for these systems. The City of Fort Collins will maintain these systems.
Please refer to Appendix D for the sizing and example of this type of BMP.
43. Erosion Control
' This site lies within the Moderate Rainfall and Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort
Collins and into adjacent properties. Potential also exists for tracking of mud onto
existing streets which could then wash into existing and proposed storm systems.
I
I
[1
I 5.
II
II
II
II
This project will utilize a variety of Erosion Control devices including Vehicle Tracking
Pads, Silt Fence and Wattles for Inlet Protection. There will be erosion control on
adjacent developments that may take runoff from this project. Erosion Control is shown
on the Erosion Control Plans located in Appendix E. A Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP) and State of Colorado Stormwater Discharge for Construction Activities permit
will be required during construction. The SWMP will be maintained by the contractor.
RECOMMENDED DESIGN
5.1. Compliance with Standards
The previous section is the recommended design for this project. All computations that
have been completed within this report are in compliance with the Storm Drainage
Design Criteria Manual.
7
11
5.2. Drainage Concept
The project will drain to Mail Creek/Fossil Creek and ultimately the Fossil Creek
Reservoir through a combination of existing and proposed facilities. The design
minimizes impacts to other utilities and properties and maintains the existing functional
drainage system through minimal improvements. The intended requirements of the MS-4
permits will also be achieved through this design.
6. REFERENCES
1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", (SDCM), dated March,
1986.
2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual", Volumes I and 2, dated June 2001 and Volume 3, dated September
2001.
3. Sear -Brown, "Mail Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan Hydrology Technical
Appendix", dated April 22, 2002
4. URS, "Selected Plan for Mail Creek Basin", dated March 2003.
5. City of Fort Collins, "Stormwater Basins Map", dated June 1, 2004.
6. Colorado Department of Transportation, "Drainage Design Manual", 2004.
8
I:�» piol U ►:I_1
VICINITY MAP
F'Roca wmc
0
ra
�— O
Z
Q
2
W }
Q�
3nN3AV 3J31��- a'
PS�ti�
JL33H.LS
NOSVW
MH ASNe
HN ASN9
DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE --- FOR SUBMITTAL
Design Tributary Area C(10) C(100) tc(10) is(1001 Volume of WMO 0(10)tw gtaapel-
$uh.banin flrstWB.lnch RowY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Pole" (-I (min) )min) of wmoN(cf) Ole (cls) (el")
A A 06 0.84 1.00 50 5.0 929.5 07 2.5 80-
B B 08 am 700 5.6 5.0 1251.3 a9 3.2 6.4
C C 07 0.81 1.00 5.3 5.0 977.a 07 2.5 86
Dt D1 0.6 0.68 1.00 5.0 so 953.0 its 26 6.0 1 --
02 1 02 0.7 1 0.88 1.00 5.0 5.0 1116.9 0.9 3.0 7.0 9 jI
E E 06 Dw 1.00 5.0 50 624A 0.6 2.2 5.7
F F 0.5 0.79 0.99 5.0 50 759.E 0.6 2.0 52 -1 y11 I
G G 0.6 0,85 0.05.0 50 6/73 05 1.7 44
H H 08 0.85 100 5.0 902.3 0.2A
I I 0.5 088 10SA 0 5.0 0.0 750.0.66 640 20 84
C 8+C 1.5 0.82 1.00 53 5.0 2228.3 1.7 5.8 14.9
E DME 13 0.14 1.00 50 5.0 1943.7 1.5 52 12.7 I /
'- C I HI
I -STORM SYSTEM A 1I /
0.7 t oD 1li-tf-1 i STORM SYSTEM CI
Pi G � _ .�
.l
08
D1 D2'Xil-
a6 1.00 t' HARMONY ROAD-
..� HAR .-NYROA❑
ILL-
II I itl I I E... OS 0.99s
0.6 1.00
_ k
LEGEND`
FI
PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN DIVIDE LINE
1 DRAINAGE BASIN NUMBER STORM SYSTEM BI
0.370.63 MAJOR STORM RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
DRAINAGE BASIN AREA ✓
}
-� PROPOSED DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW \ l° I E I
1 DESIGN POINT NOTE:
60 O 120
�uu�ur coxsuvine aetur
1. ALL STORM SEWER SHALL BE CLASS III RCP WITH WATER TIGHT JOINTS (ASTM C443). sCAIE:1 1za
Computer File Information Index of Revisions Cityoff p7 As Constructed DRAINAGE PLAN Project No./Code
Creation Date: 2/14/09 Initials: ES Cotten$
Cost Modification pate: 12/23/09 Initials: ES No Revisions: STA 4+50.00 TO STA 21 +00.00 STU M455-077
Full Path:
1420 end Street 16136
287 North College Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Revised: Oesgnec E. $CHNE10ER
DrawingFile Name: 104601202FOR-OR Hormon .dw Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126 Oetoiler: E. SCHNEIDER
Phone: (970) 221-6605 FAX: (970) 350-2198 Void: Sheet Number 01
Mad Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:120 Units: ENGLISH FAX: 970) 221-6378 flogion 4 PJG Sheet Subset: DRgttAGE Subset She*(:: I of I
:_"i _ ►11
HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS
l� ���
� � � r i 4 it't .tY iV � a��.zil f�L4 ��;
n �.. !�
C� i
-. t
i� a
.� � _ _.
�r i
S n
o
c
m
o
o
n
N
a
m
a
°'
^
O V
m
t0
t0
n
N
N
O
N
m
`7
N
O
m
N
N
N
(O
O
N
O
A
V
O
m
N
o
3 p'
m
m
.
m
m
m
m
vl
n
m
1A
N
LL V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V y
O �
m
E C
m
N
0
N
N
O
N
n
t0
O
Oq K
1 T
LTO
0 2
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
N
N
N
N
N
m
In
m
In
o
In
1(l
o
m
M
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
m
o
u E
NL6
...
N
N
IN
N
N
1fl
N
o
0
0
o
a
0
o
o
rn
m
m
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
m
m
m
m
m
m
n
n
m
m
m
m
U
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y y
m
m
n
n
e
in
N
m
n
in
n
¢ m
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.-
T ,
o
' N
c
mo
¢
o
U
p
p
W
LL
17
2—
U
W
a
o
u-
0
v
c►
0
X
I4
s a
2
r r
�
N
J
m
CO
3
6
L
�
0
5
S
7
7
�vo
v
LL
m
0
m
a
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS
LOCATION: Harmony and College
PROJECT NO: 1046-012-01
COMPUTATIONS BY: es
DATE: 1212312009
Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Foil Collins Design Criteria
Recommended % Impervious from Urban Stone Drainage Criteria Manuel
Single Family:
Paved streets (gravel):
Paved streets, parking lots (asphalt):
Sidewalks (concrete),
Roofs
Lawns (Oat 42%, heavy soil):
Runoff
%
coefficient
Impervious
C
0.60
50
0.50
40
0.95
100
0.95
96
0.95
90
0.20
0
Interwest Consulting Group
1218 W. Ash Street, Suite C
wmdsor. CO 85550
SUBBASIN
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
(M.)
TOTAL
AREA
(Sd.ft)
SINGLE FAMILY
OR ROOF AREA
(so.ft)
PAVED
AREA
(so.ftl
SIDEWALK
AREA
(se.ft)
LANDSCAPE
AREA
(WA)
RUNOFF
COEFF.
(C)
%
ImpeMous
A
0.61
26448
0
19,617
3,074
3,757
0.84
a5
B
0.84
30655
0
26,059
4,208
6.388
0.82
82
C
0.66
28781
0
21,473
2,117
5,191
0.81
82
DI
0.61
2&MO
0
21,069
Z711
2,600
0.88
90
D2
0.70
30653
0
24,480
3,151
3,022
0.88
go
E
0.57
24858
1 0
16.476
3.288
5,095
0.80
79
F
0.53
22996
0
17,743
432
4,823
0.79
79
G
0.45
19800
0
15,158
275
4.367
0.78
78
H
01%
25390
0
21,806
299
3.285
0.85
87
1
0.48
20695
0
16,494
2,242
1,959
0.88
90
B-C
I
65436
0
47532
6325
11579
0.82
82
D2+E
127
55512
0
40956
6439
8117
0."
85
Equations
- Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted
C=£(Ci A)/At
Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai
At = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci
n = number of different surfaces to consider
At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai s
PC Drainage Calm,xls
0
ry
N ~
i Z
W
oU
W Z
O
°
t L%
° LL
a0
w
F
Y
Wi
6
m n
o o
o o
o om
J
�
VI
N n
m m
n N
9
E
LL
E
0 E m
n
E =
-
I°IYY
Yry
U
!3
y
v
m P
P
p C
<
m
CI P
P P
4
W
2
S
j2m
u
nnnnnnmmmm
c
le
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 6
0
nnn
c c
c
X m
IT
W
S
F
Co'cr
1°a
mn
nn�'^m
n
ITi
a7 tl
A l7
N N
O
E `O
m
oa000000
s x v
�V N
tV N
N 1V
lV
05 `
w2v
tiomm�nNmom
W
Q
'mm
s—
—
o00000
oc
F w
�F
m.mm.nma
airy
P==..........
z
w
°
m
N
=
Z
m F
y
W S
moo°
i
`
o
m R
o 0
o m
m o
o
n e
8
mm.......
Ne
Sop
ermNmrymmmo
mmE?
rvao.-
a
m
=
ir
yob
Y N
u m
OF^
K
F
u J_
m �nN
e
e N
O
a-`E �
of
rirvN
eim
LL
W
m
A I -
am
IV
u
o
mmmmmo
m
c
-`�
o0000
omm
00
0
� 2
m
m
m
m m
m
O
$��
A
G O
G
IT
_S
m
cr
a
M S
e
E tO
00000000
S
„
N
N N
N N
N
�
41
osa
C
ommmn
-IF
oo
z
a
oc0000ccco
od
p=N
'0mml�lnll
Ymle
u{e
N'
a
o
G O
G G
G O
O O
O
z
W
y
z
z
m F
N
W
N O
U LL
it
m UJ
C
F
u
U
9
TN 00 �
O O
xgr
z
O p E
zZ o
0
uo0 $
O a U O o
Y
f
K
<J
2 9
2
c o
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
LL
E�
"�
b
N
NY{NhhNN
Yf
Yf
O
4 _
N
_
�
m
-
YoY11
Y N
U 2
J
S
C
m
p
10
O
p
0
p
IYS 0
y
m N
y
N N
Ul
F
N
m
m
N
N A
O N
N N
s
e
N
l7
N
N
N Cl
CI N
N N
LL
J
A
A
m
A
A O
O m
m m
Q
S
U
o
m
m
m
m
m m
m m
m m
K
O
C
C C
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
O
O
O C
O O
OO O
O O
O O
w
�'e
m
m
m
m
m o
o m
m m
(7
o ems` m
NvV
w
H
G
C A
m
aiF Z
m
J
4
(O
N
N
P 1'J
tV N
ImV
^c
= E m
A
.........
A
A
m
m m
m m
N N
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
m
N
iV
N
CI
N IV
(V lV
H N
J v
o
000gg��ga
o0
2
U
W
m
m
m
m
0. S
m m
m
m
4
coocoo
0.
0oco
co
S
m
Q q N
o
o
c
o
0 o
a o
d o
i
m<m
Upp
W
LL [7S-
m
N w
m
N
z H
_yz
Q
m a
m0
<
m
05
� 0
w LL
0
/\ §
o�m
f15 158
0LD
§)}
§t
o»
)®
}9
(
L
�
2
,
«kq
(§[..
\)2§
#
22222-----
=_
/(
§�/�
\ f
===
- {
§@§§§!!@!2
§!
z�§
<.oBR.�o=-
;<
//m
MIT
o
m
-
0
w
IT
j
3
E|
)
k
U.
O E
Z `0
zN
Q r
W
C
O
H O
LU U
C
J C
LL
Q F
Z 0
O >
m
U
U
byp _ Q
W
O�
TN
C p
O
1
II
Z
O I"'
0
Q
U¢p2lW-
OaOQ
fq
Y
LL'
Q
f
W
C
0
Q
- Fl
O
N
t")
N"
t7
N
N
-
N
N
b
w
F
0
O y
O
w
0
0
E c
Q
K
- m a°
a
❑
U
b
CN
ON
V
O
N
Q
"NN�N�NN
O
N
..
_ �
A
m
Yl
A
A
m
A
m
A
a0
A
m
A
m
A
m
A
m
N
A
A
m
FIT
C
O
¢I
M
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
Of
O
E
N�
N
N
try
N
Yl
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
m
m
m
m
m
A
A
o
0
0
U
o000
and
d�cc
cc
m
�
p
�p
Q
N
Q q
t0
tp
[O
I(]
Ip
O
Itl
1n
o
c
o
o
c
o
c
o
0
0
LL
LL
z
M
K
0
C
� 'p
QmUp
p
W
LL
(92-
ow
o a
3 U m
020
0 N m
C _O
d
U
5 0
C n N
O L V
U m >c
2N Q
C OD
m OD
C N
LL
LL
O E
Z O
L
Y Y
Qo
W O
a
0 O ._C
= O
W U
0
J O
Q U.
Z O
O >1
H
M
�cC
m O
p,
C p
N N
C
N
n
U
r
m
y
z
p�
o
ozF
� a
OUP
m u
.A
m
Y
Q
E
W
K
a
o
edmeC!
Idt
Q�
m
m
m
m
A
m
m
d
YI
m
d
N
O
l]
f
O_ p
�
Q
O
>
�
E ® c
Q
�
U
p
m
A
O
m
m
m
m
m
Yl
m
N
Yl
m
m
—
m
in
0!
a!m
m
m
m
m
m
m
5
ai
of
ai
of
of
ai
ai
of
ai
fO
ai
ai
E
YI
If)
N
m
m
N
N
N
1A
O
IA
Ipp
d
m
OA
mmm
OA
Q
m
m
m
m
A
m
LQ
d
N
d
m
N
m
0
0
0
o
c
o
0
0
0
0
LL
O
Q
c
L)
H
O
U
O
1<1
0 a
F 2
im V
o
2 N
m
U m
U n
m
c
O
U
C
0
LL
0
U
y g�
L
C O
U m
m m LD
ULo Om m m
0 C
0 2 '� v
I II It
O U
APPENDIX C
HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS
I'
DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD
Harmony and College
C
Design Flow =Gutter Flow + Carryover Flow
I DVAND
Iy FLOWND SIDE I❑ FRDLW
I STREET I Y'
r GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOWt rGUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET
1/2 OF STREET
esign ow: ONLY it already determinedthrough other met Minor Storm
Major Storm
(oral peak flow for V2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): -Q =1 5.80
14.90 cfs < _
• If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow)
Geographic Information: TEnter datam the blue calls):
Subcatchment Area=
Acres
Percent Imperviousness =
Y
NRCS Soil Type =1IA,
B. C. or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope III
Length (it)
Site is Urban: X Overland Flow =
Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow =
am e IT TnIloo-r-m-aliam—Inn rens i now nr = U, v «I U Minor Stem
Major Storm
Design Storm Return Period, T, =
years
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, =
inches
C,
Ct =
Ca=
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C e =
Bypass (Cary -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Qs = 0.00
0.00 cis
Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concontration) fora Catchment: Minor Stonn
Major Storm
Calculated Design Storrs Runoff Coefficient, C =
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, CS =
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo
Gutter Flow Velocity, Vo
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, to
Calculated Time of Concentration. Tr
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, Tc =
RecommerWad T: _
Time of Concentration Soleetad by User, T�
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Qp =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
WA
=
=
WA
WA
NIA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
NIA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
NIA
WA
N/A
WA
5.80
14.90
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
inch/hr
car
eft
a" C_
UD Inlet C.xls, Q-Peak 12/17/2009, 8:37 AM
11
II ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) II
(based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flaw Depth and Spread)
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID: C
-Tasex Teaowk
Seat T. Taax
W -"K T'�
troet
a town
If Q Qa�
Heuas d S.
a 4
num Allowable Width for Spread Bet" Cum
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for taf Conveyance credit behind curb)
ling s Roughness Behind Curb
of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
ce from Curb Face to Street Crown
Depression
Width
Transverse Slope
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ig•s Roughness for Street Seclion
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Store
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flaw Line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
at Cross Slaps, (Eq. ST-8)
er Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
at Depth with a Gutter Depression
wable Spread for Discharge outside the Duffer Section W (T - W)
er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
harge outside the Cuter Section W. dried in Section Tx
Image within Me Gutter Section W (Or - Qx)
harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
imuln Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
r Velocity Wth a the Gutter Section
Product. Flow Velocity Times Guber Flowline Depth
ombcal Water Spread
oretical Spread for Discharge outside the Guber Section W (T - W)
ter Flaw to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
oretcal Discharge outside the Gutter Section W tamed in Section Txra
lal Discharge outside the Guber Section W, (limited by distance Tccei
Marge within the Gutter Section W (ad - 00
:harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
it Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
r Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
ie-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Stoml
Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
ultam Flow Depth at Guber Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
ultart Flow Depth W Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
Taxuxdd
15.o
If
Savory
hi. s
0.02D0&
vent. /fE honz
0.0130
Hcusas
6.OD
Indhes
T.
8
a
1.52
Inches
W =
2.00
It
S. •
0.0240
R win.I a. honz
So.
0.0000
IL van. / b. honz
rarseel
Mnx'
S.
y
d
Tx
Eo:
Qx'
Qasck
an,
Vr
V'd
Tra
Tx r,
Eo'
Qx 1w
Qx'
aw'
Qum'
Qh
V•
V'd=
R=
o.
d=
dcsovw+'
Minor Storm Maim But.
25.0 30.0
6.Oo 7.20
0.0873
0.0873
7.20
8.6C
8.72
10.16
23.0
28.0
0.229
0,190
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SUMP
SUMP
0.0
0.D
D.o
o.o
Minnr CMim Enna Cinrm
15.6
19.7
13.6
17.7
0 371
0292
0.0
0.0
D.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SUMP
SUMP
SUMP
SUMPi
i
i
1
riches
(=yes
U0
riches
riches
,s
is
fs
.IS
Ds
fs
.is
;is
fs
is
as
ts
Iches
aches
Minor Storm Major Storm
towable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q . or Q. Q...= SUMP SUMP cfs
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
UD Inlet C xis, O-Allow
12)17/2009, &37 AM
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
Project = Harmony and College
Inlet ID = C
d—Lo(C)—i
H-Curb
M-Vad
W
of Inbl
ii Dominion (addieonal to eon6nuoue puperdepreem.it aUn. nAll. )
leer of Unit tnbts (Grate or Curb Opaning)
• Iniormetbn
MI W • Unit Drato
In of a Unit Gale
Opening Rate fare Grate (typical values 0.1".90)
Bing Factor for a Single Grab (typcal ralue 0W -0.70)
e Weir Coe6.mund (typcal vwue 3. W)
e Owica CoeMcbrX (typical value 0,67)
r Opaning Iwanvtbn
Ith a Unit Curb Opening
M of Vertical Curb Opening In entries
ht w Curb OW. Throat In Inches
e of Threat (see USDCM Figure STL)
Width for Delienbn pan (typically the uter a1Wh of 2 feet)
ping Fautorfor a Single Curb Opening (typical valor 010)
Opening Well, Cudlplent (III value 2.3".00)
grog Coeffcbm for Multiple Unit.
ping F..W rf., Multid. Unit.
a.•W.b
Depth W Lout Depression wdh.W 01,,1, (0 On We. 5.6 do curb)
Row Used for Comgretion Inlets Only
Depth W Local Dominion With Clooing (0 ef. grime. 58 oh curb)
Row Used for Combirmulcn Inlnc Only
• as .n OMlae
Depth W Local Depenron wlth.u! Clagglrg (0 on grate. 5.8 cfe curb)
Depth W Local Deprevakn wtM Cbggmg (0 ch, grab. 5.8 clo curb)
,trig Coeifciem for Wool. Units
Sing Faclortor Multiple Un.
. • Wait, Grove. an Drift.
Depth W Local Depraaebn without Clogging (0 we grate, 6.8 ols curb)
Depth W Local Depm.lon win, Clogging (0 ices grato, 6.8 ce curb)
.. 0r61., Oren. an Ortfin.
Depth el Le.l Depmnbn wthoul Clogging (D the grove, 6.8 ch Curb)
Depth W Loral Depression whh Clogging (0 ch grate. 5.8 ch out)
Intel Length
mice Iraemepibn Capacity (Design Discharge from D-Pock)
IWt Duller Flew D.pM (b.a.d on e1heet O-A/low 9.or.try)
loot 34.t Flaw Spread (cased on sh.et O.A/bw p.oMI
Type
a.r `
No•
4 (0)
yj .
Ace`
Cr(0)-
C.. (GI
C. (0) -
L.
C. (C)
MINOR MAJOR
COOT Type R Curb Opening
2.001 2.01
Inch.
MINOR Nut
N/A
WA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
N/A
NIA
WA
N/A
MAJOR
MINOR MAJOR
Cow• NIA N/A
Clog • N/A WA
NIA
WA
NIA
NIA
N/A
WA
Al
NIA
feet
rent
rich.
rch.
rch.
oche.
MINOR MAJOR
Opef-I 1.00 1.00
Clog • 0.10 0.10
MINOR MAJOR
d.i• 3.08 5.74 lrmhe.
den.• 3286.10 hoh.
a.•
d-
T-
oK
UD Inlet C.xls, inlet in SUMP 121172009, 8:37 AM
•1
�
q
J
Z
Z L
1
O
nNz
a o 0
a m�
M N N
a
j N N
�6a
N �
a
U U
m
d m
u
1
m
{
w
i
� U
Z
� O
N
V)
n
L
� n
T Q
m
m
m
m
n U
or
mm
V C
UN
m
ma
Y
a
m
r
O
a
m
N
d
Calculation Results Summary
Scenario: 10-yr
' »» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-1
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
' I Label I Inlet I Inlet I Total I Total I Capture I Gutter I Gutter I
I Type I I Intercepted I Bypassed I Efficiency I Spread I Depth
I I Flow I Flow I (8) I (ft) I (ft) I
' I I I (cfs) I (cfs) I I I I
-
------I--------------- ---------------------- I ------------- I ---------- I ------------ I--------I--------I
I I-C I Generic Inlet I Generic Default 100% 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 100.0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
' CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-1
'
I Label I Number I Section
I Section
I Length
I Total
I Average
I Hydraulic
I Hydraulic I
I I of I Size
I Shape
I (ft)
I System
I Velocity
I Grade
I Grade I
I I Sections I
I
I
I Flow
I (ft/s)
I Upstream
I Downstream I
'
I
I- ---------------- I ---------
I
I ----------I--------
I
I (cfs)
--------
I
I (ft)
I (ft) I
I P-1 I 1 1 24 inch
I Circular 1
I
24.00 1
5.80
I ----------
1 6.53
I -----------
1 21.85
I ------------I
1 21.38 1
1 P-2 I 1 1 24 inch
I Circular 1
17.00 1
5.80
1 4.97
1 23.25
1 23.10 1
'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Label
I Total
I Ground
I Hydraulic
I Hydraulic I
I
I System I
Elevation
I Grade
I Grade I
'
I
I Flow I
(ft) I
Line In
I Line Out I
I
- ------I--------
I (cfs) I
I
-----------
(ft)
I (ft) I
I
1 0-1
I
1 5.80 1
I
32.27 1
-----------
15.20
I -----------I
1 15.20 1
'
1 J-1
1 5.80 1
28.10 1
22.11
1 21.85 1
1 I-C
1 5.80 1
27.80 1
23.25
1 23.25 1
Completed: 12/17/2009 09:38:19 AM
1
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer. Intenvest Consulting Group
' x:1.. AdrainageldesignIstornraMatorn a.51m Intervrest Consulting Group Sto"CAD v5.5 (5.5005)
12M 7/09 09:39:12 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Profile
Scenario: 10-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 10-yr
35.00
Label: 0-1
Rim: 32.27 ft
Sump:15.20 it
Label: J-1
Rim: 28.10 ft
Sump: 17.0 Oft
30.00
Label: I-C
Rim: 28.30 ft
Sump: 18.00 it
Label: P-1
up. Invert: 210 0 it
ft
Dn. Invert:
L: 24.00 it
Size: 24 inch
S. 0.012500 wft
Label: P-2
Jp. Invert: 22.40 it
On. Invert: 22.30 it
L:17.00 (Elevation (ft)
Size: 24 inch
S: 0.005882 flirt
20.00
u
15.00
10.00
-1+00 0+00
Station (it)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer. Interwest Consulting Group
x:\..ldrainageldesign%storncadlstORn a.stm IMerm est Consulting Group SlornCAD v5.5 15.5005]
12/17/09 09-40:12 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
I
Calculation Results Summary
Scenario: 100-yr
1 »» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-1
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
1
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
1 I Label I Inlet I Inlet Total I Total I Capture I Gutter I Gutter
I
I Type
I
I Intercepted I Bypassed I Efficiency
I Spread 1
Depth
I
I
I
I Flow
I Flow
I M
I (ft) I
(ft) 1
1
-------I---------------I----------------------
I
I
I (cfs)
I (cfs)
I
I I
I
I I-C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Generic
Inlet I Generic Default
-------------
100% I 0.00
----------
0.00
------------I--------
100.0
I
I 0.00 1
--------I
0.00 I
1
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-1
1
I Label
I Number
I Section
I Section I
Length I Total
I Average I
Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I
I of
I Size
I Shape I
(ft) I System
I Velocity I
Grade I
Grade I
I
I Sections
I
I I
I Flow
I (ft/3) I
Upstream I Downstream I
1
I
I - ------I----------
I
I
I ---------
I I
I ----------I--------
I (cfs)
I --------
I I
I ----------
(ft) I
(ft) I
I P-1
I 1
1 24 inch
I Circular 1
24.00 1 14.90
I
1 8.38 1
-----------I------------I
22.39
21.88 I
1 P-2
I 1
1 24 inch
I Circular 1
17.00 1 14.90
1 6.21 1
23.83 I
23.69 I
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Label
I Total I
Ground
I Hydraulic I
Hydraulic I
I
1 System I
Elevation
I Grade I
Grade I
1
1
I Flow I
(ft) I
Line In I
Line Out I
I
I--------
(cfs) I
I -----------
I
(ft) I
-----------
(ft) I
1 0-1 1
14.90 1
I
32.27 1
I
15.20 1
----_______I
15.20 1
1
1 J-1 1
14.90 1
28.10 1
22.90 1
22.39 1
1 I-C 1
14.90 1
27.80 1
23.83 1
23.83 1
Completed: 12/17/2009 09:39:16 AM
1
1
1
1
i
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interest Consulting Group
1 xA... \drainageXdesign\stonncadlstonn a.stm Interest Consulting Group Sto"CAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/17/09 09:39:20 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA .1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Profile
Scenario: 100-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 100-yr
Label: 0-1
Rim: 32.27 ft
Sump: 15.20 It
\Label: J-1
Rim: 28.1
Sump: 17
Label: - 00 ft
Up. Invert 2070
Dn. Invert•.
It
L: 24.00 cSize- 24 h
S 06125001tlt
-1+00
35.00
ft
30.00
Label: I-C
Rim: 28.30 It
Sump: 18.00 It
Label: P-2
p. Invert: 22.40 It
n. Invert: 22.30 It
L: 17.001Elevation (ft)
Size: 24 inch
S: 0.005882 tO
15.00
10.00
0+00
Station (it)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
x:%. Wrainage%desigMstormcad\storm astm Intenxest Consulting Group Sto"CAD v5.515.5005]
12/17/09 09,39:56 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06709 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
II
II
II
DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD
and
Design Flow = Gutter Flow+ Carry-over Flow
OVERLAND STSIDE REET iOVERLA
t-GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOW r <— GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET S.�,C, ,ipe- '3
112 OF STREET %atibr rJo�� O-1 QJ � . V
Design ow: ONLY if already determined through other methods Mhtor Storm Major Slonn
(local peak flow for V2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): `Q 5.201 12.70 cfs
If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow)
Geographic Information:(Enter data in the blue call
Subratchmenl Area= Acres
Pement Imperviousness= %
NRCS Soil Type =1 JA, B, C. or D
She: (Check One Box Only) Slope (ft1ft) Length (11)
Site is Urban: Gutter
Flow =
Site Is Non -Urban: Ger Flow =
Krundmill information: intensity me r = r * > Minor Storm Major Storm
Design Ste" Return Period, Tr m years
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, - inches
C,
Ct= Cs=
User -Defined Ste" Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to swept a calculated value), C
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C s =
Bypass (CanyOver) Flow from upstream Subcatehments, Qn a oaoo 0.00 site
Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Minor Storm Major Storm
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C =
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5
Ovedand Flow Velocity, Vp
Gutter Flow Velocity, VG
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, to
Calculated Time of Concentration, T
'rim of Concentration by Regional Formula, T,
Recommended Tr
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T,
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Qa =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
N/A
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
'
N IA
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.20
12.70
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
mch/hr
sits
cis
UD ''inlet E1.xlc. Q-Peen 12/17/2009, 8.47 AM
I
1
I
I
I
I
11
I
i
I
I
11
I
I
I
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm)
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID: E7
'�Tesax Tcsowx
Baxp!_ T• TM1M
Tx
N Streel
Crown
Qw Ox/
Y
Heuxe d Sx
rum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Earned Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
ert Roughness Behind CUM
at Gutter Flow Line
:urb Fars to Street Crown
Depression
Width
Transverse Slope
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condWon
ig's Roughness for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Ciewn (leave blank for no)
ter C. Slope (Eq. ST-8)
or Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
at Depth with a Gutter Depression
wable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)
at Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FH WA NEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
:harge ou6ide the Gutter Section W, cartied in Section T x
:harge wltren the Gutter Section W (OT- OX)
:harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
:Imum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
r Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product. Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
preeral Water Spread
are8cal Spread for Discharge outside the Geller Section W J - W)
at Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FH WA HEC-22 method (Eq, ST-7)
prelical DisohaMe outside the Gutter Section W. tamed in Section T x Tw
ial Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. (limited by distance T Csowr)
harge within the Gutter Section W (Oa - Ox)
harge Behind the CUM (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
11 Diseharge for Major & Minor Storm
i Velocity Within Me Gutter Section
Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major& Minor (it > 6") Storm
Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
Arent Flow Depth at Gutter Ravine (Safety Factor Applied)
Aare Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
Ta.rx =�50fl
Savor =flvart.
/ ft hone
rpxox=
Hgpxa=P0.021
inches
Tcxcrwt=fl
a =inches
W =ft
Sx'ft.
vem / ft. honz
So'It.
ven. / ft, honz
esressT=
Tom:
dasx'
Sw
y'
dr
Tx'
Ea •
�« r
V•
V•d
Tra
Tx Ta'
Eo'
Oxrr'
Q.
Qw
Qom:
Q•
V•
V•d
Qv•
it
dcmawv
uku- Crnrm uaw Cmrm
25.0 40.0
6.013 980
Minor Storm Maior Storm
0,0851
0,0851
6.54
10.46
8.06
11.98
23.0
38.0
0232
0.142
28.6
1D9.2
8.7
18.1
2.1
32A
39.3
159.7
7.41
9.9
5.01
9.9
Ui-Sturm u=fe=Cmrm
17.1
30.9
15.1
28.9
0.343
0.186
9.4
52.6
9.4
52.6
4.9
12.0
0.0
9.2
142
73.7
5.9
8.6
2.9
6.7
1.00
1.00
142
]3.7
6.00
9.60
o.Do
0.00
t
acres
c_yes
fUli
nches
inches
tt
die
cfs
c6
cfe
fps
:1s
-is
:6
its
:fs
as
:Is
riches
Itches
Mina Stone Major Storm
towable Gutter Capacity eased on Minimum of Q r or Q. Q.--r 142 73.7 cf°
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flaw given on sheet'Q-Peak'
STORM max_ allowable canacity OK - araater than flow aiven on sheet'O-Peak'
II LID Inlet E1.xis, O-Allow 12/17/2009. 9:09 AM
INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
Project Harmony and College
Inlet ID: E1
,�—Lot (C)
HLum H-VM
Wo __
W
WP —
Lq (13)
of inlet
Deoreaslan(swifimel to mnpnuow gu dagssul a Men O'Mlper)
Number of Unes in Me Inlet (Grate or Cum Opening)
h of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate m Cum Opening)
of a Unit Grate (ca prol be greater Man W /roe DAImv)
Ing Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)
1no Factor for a Smple Unit Cum Ooenin0 (tvnical min. value - 0.1)
m Discharge for Half of Street (tram Sheet D-peaa )
Spread Width
Depth at Flowllne (outside of local deprpssim)
DOOM at Street Chown (or at Twin
of Duper Few w Design Flow
arye outside Me Guder Section W, cared in Section T,
ergo within Me Guher Senon W
ergo Behind Me Cum Face
Flow Area
Flow Velocity
Length of WIN Crete Opening
of Crate Flow to Design Flow
r No -Clogging Cmdlam
lure Velocity Whore Grate Spash-0ver Begins
billion Raw of Fmnxl Flow
Match Raw of Side Flow
Coefficient for Mulbpleanit Grate Inlet
Factor for Mulbpwanit Grate Inlet
(uncloggeG) Length of Mulgple-unit Grew Inlet
Velocity Where Grave SpashOver Begins
on Rate of Fmnal Flow
on Rate of Side Flow
IMeinotlon Capacity
ar Flow= O„-O, (to be applied to curb .porn, or next dls
nl Slope S. (based on grate carryover)
Length LT In Have 100% Interception
o Iogging Condition
Length of Cum Opening or slotted Inlet (minimum of L, 4)
on Capedly
Factor for Mu16pleanit Cum Opening or Sicesel Inlet
(Unclogged) Leal
turcepam Capacity
Inlet Interception Capacity _
Inlet Ca" -Over Flow(Ilow bypassing inlet)
.. V.r—ta..=rf /n e
Type
suer
L-1 3.001 3.00 0
E.t, 'j 0,4701 0.325
MINOR MAJOR
V.
R=
R=
4=
6.17
6.I
00
00
0.16
0.12
2.90
5.17
fix
CIo
S. =1
0.0970
0.07"
"
Lr=
11.a0
22.52
a
MINOR
MAJOR
L=
3.D0
3.00a
Oi�
0.54
0.96
cle
MINOR
MAJOR
ELe1q:1
LID IMet El As, Inlet On Oracle 121172009, 9:09 I,M
I
I
DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD
Harmony and College
E2
1 Mdpn Flow- Gutter Flow+ Carry-over Flow
1°FLOW"nI 1 STREET DVFLOWNB
' _ < GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOW r —GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET Si MJIlie --r I� `
' 1/2 OF STREET Qn-�,-4dC_
r—
(local peak now for V2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream sutecatchments):
' ' If you entsrod a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sh,
Geographic Information:(Enter data In the blue ce s :
K01
cfs
Subcatehment Area Acres
Percent Imperviousness = %
NRCS Sell Type = A. B, C, or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope (ft/ft) Length (it)
Site is Urtsm:F__X___1 Overland Flow=
Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow, =
motion: n ens inc r = , + , Minor Storm Major Stone
Design Stonn Retum Pared, T,
Return Ponied One -Hour Precipitation, P, _
C, _
Cs =
C, _
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined Syr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), Cr, _
Bypass (Cary -Over) Flow from upstream Subcalchments, Q= 0.00 0.00 r
Analysis of Flow Time
a
Calculated Design Stone Runoff Coefficient, C+
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C51
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo
Gutter Flow Velocity, Vo
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, to
Calculated Time of Concentration, Tc:
Time of Concenttation by Regional Formula, T.,
Recommended T:
Time of Concentration Selected by Usar, T�:
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Q,
Total Design Peak Flow, 0
N/A
N/A
WA
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
WA
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIAI
N/A
2.151
7.59
fps
FPS
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
ncWhr
:g
:is
UD Inlet E2.)ls, C-Peak
1211712009, 8:52 AM
I
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) d
(based on iKegulate , Unions Tor Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID:
E2
�`TeaeK r Tekewi;
T. TYAa
a W _ T,,
gg tree)
Heuee d
a
r C own
=+
y;�
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
iings Roughness Behind Curb
of Curb at Gutter Flow line
a from Curb Face to Street Crown
Slope
I Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
less for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
ter Cress Slope (Eq. ST-8)
er Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
er Depth with a Gutter Depression
wable Spread for Discharge outside Me Gutter Section W IT - W)
or Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FH WA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
:harge outside the Gutter Section W, earned in Section T e
:harge within Me Gutter Section W (OT - DO
:harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
imum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
r Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocty Times Gutter Flaveme Depth
orefiral Water Spread
oreliwl Spread for Discharge outside Me Guitar Section W (T- W)
ter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-T)
oretical Discharge outside the Cutler Section W. tamed in Section T. m
al Discharge apiece the Gutter Section W. (limited by distance T ci ewe)
:harge within the Gutter Section W (ad -Q0
;harge Behind the Curb (e g_ sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
at Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
u Velocity Within the Guber Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Storm
Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
ultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
pliant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
Tait- = 15.0 8
Seeca = 0.0200 8. vert. / f , honz
name= 0.0130
Hcuaa =
6.00
Inches
TCRorm
a=
inches
W =
rl;.-,8
12-
R
Sy =1t
wart / R hertz
So=ft
verl / R hertz
nsmssr=
T.
d.=
Sw'
y'
d
Ts=
Eo
Gk:
Ow'
Gaau'
GT-
V=
V'd =
TT
Tem
Ec!
tier
Gs'
Gw'
084CK °
a-
V=
V'd =
R-
ad:
d=
dcaaw,ta
Minor Ctnrm Main Armor
25.0 40.0
6.00 9.60
0.0875
0.0875
7.26
11.62
8.78
13.14
23.0
38.0
0.229
0,141
34.1
130.0
10.1
21.3
4.6
48.0
"A
199.3
].8
10,6
5.7
6
Mimr Ctnrm Main Cmrm
15.4
27.8
13.4
25.8
0.373
0205
8.1
46.4
8.1
464
4.8
12.0
0.0
9.2
12.9
67.5
5.9
8.4
2.91
6.7
1.00
1.00
13.01
67.5
6.0DJ
9.60
0.001
0.G0
t
moves
K = yes
t/8
riches
nchm
t
ds
fs
h
h
ps
ds
ds
:is
Is
ds
DS
ds
Tclom
,ones
Minor Storm Major Storm
Invisible Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of G T or O, O= 13.0 67.5 cis
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'0-Peak'
UD Inlet E2n1s. O-Allow
12117/2009, 9:13 AM
I
INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID: E2
,!—I.o (C)--x
H•Cgrb H-VM
wo
Wp
w
Lo (0)
m Inlet
Type
Depression (eddllanol 0 mbit. puller delineation 'I kom'O-Albw)
•loco,
Number of'Jnds In the Intel (Gale or Cure Opening)
No
h of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Cure Opening)
L.
of a Unit Groh (cannot be greater Nan W edn O-Allali)
W.
trig Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typica mm. vatue=0,5)
CrG
no Factor fora Small, Unit Corn Porno !,vnical min vm„n = o 1
r
gn Discharge for Half of Street (from Sheet O-Peak)
Q.
r Spread Width
T
u Depth at Rowline (outside of total depression)
of
n Depth at Sol Crown (or at T.)
dmaae
of Gutter Flow to Design Flow
E.
urge 0uMde the Guder Section W, banned in Section T.
Q
Mega within the Cutler Section W
D.
large Behind the Curd Face
Ce¢•,
I Flow area
A.
I Flow Velocity
V.
r Depth for Design Condition
it,.
Analveie X,isi tMed\
Length of Inlet Grate Opening
L
of Gate Flow to Design Flow
E..
r NuCiogging Condition
am Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins
V.
.or. RAW of Frontal Flow
K .
option Rate M Side Flow
P.
eption Capacity
Q
r Clogging Condition
ling Coefficient for Multiple,mit Grate Inlet
Oselcoef
ing Factor for Mullfse�nit Gale Inlet
GateClogv
ive (unciogged) Length of MuMple-unit Graa Inlet
L.
Um Velocity Where Gate SMdM-Over Begins
V. _
aption Rate of Frontal Flow
R .
spoon Rate of Side Flow
IZ.
d Interception Capacity
p..
lane Slope S. (eased on gal ca ryaveQ
ad Length L, to Havre 100% Interception
No.Clldgging Condition
,e Length of Curb Opening or Skilled Inlet (minimum of L. La)
ption Capacity
Clogging Condition
,g Coefficient
,g Factor for Murbpla-unit Curb Opening or Slotlad Intel
x(Unclogged) Length
Interception Capacity
Inlet Interception Capacity
Inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet)
MINOR
MINOR
'I 5.51 7.111nc
MINOR "OR
3.001
3.00 g
0.665
0.42D
MINOR MAJOR
6.17 6.17
1.00
1.W
0221
D.15
Im
3.66
cis
MINOR
MAJOR
S..
0.13191
0.0916
eyh
L,.
6d1
14.86
it
MINOR
MAJOR
L -1
3.001
3.00
D
Or =
025
0.71
cis
MINOR
MAJOR
L
UD Inlet E2.kls, inlet On Gracie
12,172009. 9:13 AM
3
z
w
�
J
2
�
T�
\r
1 0
9
,LLJXD,I�
i
l
3
i
4-
�"
v2i
m
r
r
�
z
C5z14
1
N
1
0
a
m
N
S
N
0
Calculation Results Summary
Scenario: 10-yr
»» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-2
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
[MAFM/IF:YrYs}}�(Yi1L����'�iCi}�gi):�yTd:i�W}�rj;(i}1 {y
I Label I Inlet I Inlet I Total I Total I Capture I Gutter I Gutter I
I I Type I I Intercepted I Bypassed I Efficiency I Spread I Depth I
I I Flow I Flow I (BI I (ft) I (ft) I
I I (cfs) I (cfs) I I I I
I -------I--------------- I---------------------- I ------------- 1--------- I ------------ I -------- I --------I
I I -El I Generic inlet I Generic Default 1001 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 100.0 1 0.00 1 0.00 I
I I-E2 I Generic Inlet I Generic Default 100% 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 100.0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-2
I Label I Number I Section
I Section
I Length
I Total I
Average
I Hydraulic
I Hydraulic I
I of I Size
I Shape
I (ft)
I System I
Velocity
I Grade
I Grade I
I Sections I
I
I Flow I
(ft/s)
I Upstream I
Downstream I
I
I-------I---------I---------I----------I--------
I (cfs) I
--------
I (ft) I
(ft)
I P-4 1 1 1 15 inch
I Circular
1 16.00 1
I I
4.79 1
----------
8.19
I ----------- I
1 17.39 1
-----------I
16_77 1
1 P-5 1 1 1 15 inch
I Circular 1
35.00 1
3.05 1
6.33
1 18.70 1
17.93 1
I Label
I Total
I Ground
I Hydraulic
I Hydraulic I
I
I System I
Elevation
I Grade
I Grade I
I I
Flow I
(ft)
I Line In
I Line Out I
I I
(cfs) I
I
(ft)
I (ft) I
I--------
1 0-2 1
I
4.79 1
----------- I
23.00 1
---------- I
15.50 1
----------- I
15.50 1
1 I-E2 1
4.79 1
22.60 1
17.72 1
17.39 1
1 I -El 1
3.05 1
22.60 1
16.70 1
18.70 1
Completed:c12/17/2009 10:00:30 AM
Title: Hannony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
x:\...\drainage\dealgn\stormcadlstorm b.stm Interwest Consulting Group Sto"CAD v5.5 [5.50051
12/17/09 10:00:40 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA *1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of
-1+00
Profile
Scenario: 10-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 10-yr
Label: 0-2 Label:l-E2
Rim: 23.00 ft Rim: 23.10 ft
Sump:15.50 Sump:12.50 ft
25.00
Label: I -Ell
Rim: 23.10 ft
Sump: 14.00 ft
20.00
Label. P 8 00 �
3p• Inv InverC Al 40 ft .
Dn.L: 35.00levat[on (ft)
gize:15 inch
S: 0.017143 {Uft
15.00
1 10.00
0+00
Station (ft)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interest Consulting Group
x:V..tdrainage\designtetorm dtston-n b.stm Interwest Consulting Group StorrnCAO v5.5 [5.5005]
12/17/09 10:00:48 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT D6708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
11
I
Calculation Results Summary
Scenario: 100-yr
»» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-2
»» Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
I Label I Inlet
I Inlet I Total
I Total
I Capture
I Gutter
I Gutter I
I Type
I I Intercepted
I Bypassed
I Efficiency
I Spread
I Depth I
I
I I Flow
I Flow
I M
I (ft)
I (ft) I
I I
I -------I---------------
I I (cfs)
I (cfs)
I
I
I I
I I -El I Generic Inlet
1---------------------- I-------------
I Generic Default 100% I 0.00
---------- I------------
I 0.00 I
100.0
I -------- I
1 0.00 1
--------I
0.00 1
I I-E2 I Generic Inlet
I Generic Default 100% 1 0.00
1 0.00 I
100.0 1
0.00 1
0.00 1
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-2
I Label I Number I Section I Section I Length I Total I Average I Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I I of I Size I Shape I (ft) I System I Velocity I Grade I Grade I
I I Sections I I I Flow I (ft/s) I Upstream I Downstream I
I I I I I I (cfs) I I (ft) I (ft) I
1-------I---------- I --------- I ---------- I-------- I -------- I ---------- I ----------- I ------------I
I P-4 I 1 1 15 inch I Circular 1 16.00 1 9.10 1 9.41 1 17.66 1 17.10 I
1 P-5 I 1 1 15 inch I Circular 1 35.00 1 5.11 1 7.22 1 18.92 1 18.39 I
I Label I Total I Ground I Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I I System I Elevation I Grade I Grade I
I I Flow I (ft) I Line In I Line Out I
I I (efs) I I (ft) (ft) I
-
------I-------- I ----------- I-----------I-----------I
1 0-2 1 9.10 1 23.00 1 15.50 1 15.50 1
1 I-E2 1 9.10 1 22.60 1 18.39 1 17.66 1
1 I -El 1 5.11 1 22.60 1 18.92 1 18.92 1
-----------------------------------------------------
Completed: 12/17/2009 10:00:54 AM
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Intenwest Consulting Group
x:\...\drainage\design\stormcad\stonn b.stm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.515.5005]
12/17/09 10:00:59 AM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Profile
Scenario: 100-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 100-yr
Label: 0-2 Label:l-E2
Rim: 23.00 ft Rim: 23.10 ft
Sump:15.50 Sump: 12.50 ft
\nve�• 16 10
�pn ve�•00
S \0 025p00 �Ji1
-1+00
25.00
Label: I -El
Rim: 23.10 ft
Sump: 14.00 ft
41111111
babel; P g.00 ft
jn.lnv5'• 1140
35.00 ation (ft)
Size 15 *Inch ft
S•. p.01J143
15.00
—' 10.00
0+00
Station (ft)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
x:l..rdminageidesign\sto"mdlstorrn bstm Interwest Consulting Group StormCAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/17/09 10:01:D6 AM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD
Harmony and College
G (Existing 5' Type R Inlet)
I Design Flow= Gutter Flow+ Carty -over Flow
�OVERLAND
� STREET I ,SIDE DVFLOW
OWND
t CUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOW F t GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET
112 DF STREET
Design ow: ONLY if already terms through other methods Minor Storm
Major Stonn
(local peak flow for 112 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): 'Q =1 1.70
4 oh
- If you entered a value hero, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to shoat O-Allow)
eogrep ¢ n onnahon: nter eta m t ue ca s :
Subcatchmem Area=
OB7 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =
77.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =
C A. B, C, or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope (ff/R)
Length (et)
Site is Urben:r— _X__1 Overland Flow = 0.0200
10.0
Site is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = O.00fiO
484.0
in n orma on: n ern in = , , a Minor Stonn
Major Stonn
Design Storm Return Period, T, =
Years
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, =
inches
C, _
C2=
Cy =
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined Syr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to swept a calculated value), C, =
Bypass (Carty -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchmems, qa = 0.00
0.00
is
Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Minor Storm
Major Stern
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C
Calculated Syr. Runoff Coefficient. CS
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo
Gutter Flow Velocity, VG
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, to
Calculated Time of Concentration, T.
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T � =
Recommended T, -
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T.
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak
Total Design Peak
- NIA WA
= NIA WA
= NIA WA
= NIA WA
NIA WA
= NIA WA
= WA WA
NIA WA
- NIA WA
NIA NIA
N/A WA
NIA WA
1.70 4,40
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
nch/hr
CIS
cfs
UD Inlet G.xls, Q-Peak 12)17/2009, 9:28 AM
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
nch/hr
CIS
cfs
UD Inlet G.xls, Q-Peak 12)17/2009, 9:28 AM
Project
Inlet ID:
STREET (Minor & Major Storm)
on
+ex TcaowaI-
no T. Tu•a
W -', Tx tree;
_ row,)
Y Ow Ox�
r d Ss
a
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
iing's Roughness Behind Curb
of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
ce from Curb Face to Street Crown
Depression
Width
Transverse Slope
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ng's Roughness for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Stoon
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
er CmSS Slope (Ec. STA)
or Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
er Depth with a Gunter Depression
wable Spread for Discharge outside the Guoar Section W (T - W)
er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Ee. ST-7)
harge outside the Gutter Section W. tamed in Section T,
harp, within the Gutter Section W (07 - Oz)
harge Behind the Curb (e.g., adawalk, driveways. & lawns)
imum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
r Velocity Whim the Gutter Section
Product'. Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
oratiwl Water Spread
oretical Spread for Discharge outside the Ducar Section W (T - W)
per Flow M Design Flow Ratio by FH WA HEC-22 method (E4. ST-7)
Statical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, tamed in Section T x Te
ial Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance T caows)
;harge within the Gutter Section W (Oa - DO
charge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
it Discharge for Major & Minor Stonn
i Velocity Within he Gutter Section
Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth
e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Stonn
Flow Based on All". Gutter Depth (safety Factor Applied)
Arent Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
Alanl Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
T.A. =®ft
Sa = fL vent. / ft. honz
rb px =
Hcuae= 6g01oohes
Toile. = 68.0 f1
a -aInches
W =ft
Sxft. vert. / ft. honz
So=ft. van. / ft. hertz
ne,rcr=
Minor Stomr Major Storm
Tv. -1 25.01 25.0 ft
tluAz = 8.00 6.00 inches
X = yes
= O.OB21 0.0821
= 5.6d 5.61
- 7.16 T.i6
- 23.0 23.0
0237 0237
24.1 24.1
7.5 7.5
Do a.o
31.6 31.6
7.3 7.3
4.4 44
Sw lufl
Inches
tl inches
Tz- ft
E. `
Oz = c(s
Ow- cis
OMca ` cis
Or • cis
V= p5
V"d -
Minor Storm Major Stonn
TTa R
TxTw ft
Ed
Oz m ors
Oz us
Ow ere
a.. ch
O • fa
V= s
V-d =
R=
Da = is
d= riches
dcaoww - riches
= 19.9 19.9
= 17.9 17.9
= 0.302 0,302
12.3 12.3
= 2.3 72.3
=M
306 c 4 b20c9 101
Minor Storm Majorstorm
lovable Gutter Caoeclly Basco on Minimum of O . or D, a...= 122 122 ch
STORM max. allowable capacity OK -greater than ftow given on sheet'O-Peak'
LID Inlet GxIs, O-Allow 12/17/2009 9:29 AM
Sw lufl
Inches
tl inches
Tz- ft
E. `
Oz = c(s
Ow- cis
OMca ` cis
Or • cis
V= p5
V"d -
Minor Storm Major Stonn
TTa R
TxTw ft
Ed
Oz m ors
Oz us
Ow ere
a.. ch
O • fa
V= s
V-d =
R=
Da = is
d= riches
dcaoww - riches
= 19.9 19.9
= 17.9 17.9
= 0.302 0,302
12.3 12.3
= 2.3 72.3
=M
306 c 4 b20c9 101
Minor Storm Majorstorm
lovable Gutter Caoeclly Basco on Minimum of O . or D, a...= 122 122 ch
STORM max. allowable capacity OK -greater than ftow given on sheet'O-Peak'
LID Inlet GxIs, O-Allow 12/17/2009 9:29 AM
Minor Storm Major Stonn
TTa R
TxTw ft
Ed
Oz m ors
Oz us
Ow ere
a.. ch
O • fa
V= s
V-d =
R=
Da = is
d= riches
dcaoww - riches
= 19.9 19.9
= 17.9 17.9
= 0.302 0,302
12.3 12.3
= 2.3 72.3
=M
306 c 4 b20c9 101
Minor Storm Majorstorm
lovable Gutter Caoeclly Basco on Minimum of O . or D, a...= 122 122 ch
STORM max. allowable capacity OK -greater than ftow given on sheet'O-Peak'
LID Inlet GxIs, O-Allow 12/17/2009 9:29 AM
= 19.9 19.9
= 17.9 17.9
= 0.302 0,302
12.3 12.3
= 2.3 72.3
=M
306 c 4 b20c9 101
Minor Storm Majorstorm
lovable Gutter Caoeclly Basco on Minimum of O . or D, a...= 122 122 ch
STORM max. allowable capacity OK -greater than ftow given on sheet'O-Peak'
LID Inlet GxIs, O-Allow 12/17/2009 9:29 AM
Minor Storm Majorstorm
lovable Gutter Caoeclly Basco on Minimum of O . or D, a...= 122 122 ch
STORM max. allowable capacity OK -greater than ftow given on sheet'O-Peak'
LID Inlet GxIs, O-Allow 12/17/2009 9:29 AM
L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
h
L
INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID: G (Existing 5' Type R Inlet)
,I L. (C)X
H-Cure H-Vert
Wo
IN
Doslare Informal (Input
MINOR
MAJOR
Type of Inlet
Type •
CDOT Type R Cum Opening
1pCdl Oldmssbn(addNona b mrNr.nus Supper depression 'W"in GAIbW)
4orx^
2.0
2.0 IncrieS
Toll Number of Units in the Inlet Orem or Cum Opening)
No •
1
1
Langn, of a Single Unit trial (Grate or Cum Opening)
1. ^
5.00
5.00 1
Width of a Unit Grote (cannot be greater Nan W from OAlow)
Al
WA
WA I
Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate(typical min.value =CS)
CrG•
WA
WA
Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Cum Opening (typical min. value =0.1)
CC •
0.10
0.10
Spreall OK oruirmi loofabl, fror, M1 IoW
MINOR
MAJOR
Design Discharge for Hati of Street (from Sheet Q PaAk)
0. •
plea
1.70
4.10
7.9
12.31
Water Spread WdM
Te
3.4
4.5
Water Depth at Fldwllna(outside of local depression) d-
incises
Water Depth at Street Crown (or at TvA)
dos .
0.0
0.0
inches
Ratlo of Guder Fox to Door Flow
E, •
0.696
0.483
Discharge outside Me Sutler Section W, carried In Section T,
0. •
0.52
2.28
cis
Discharge within be Gutter Section W
4.•
cfs
1.19
2.13
0.00
0.00
Discharge Behind the Cum Few Cl •
cis
Sheet Flow Area
A.
0.75
1.112
apt
2.28
2.71
Street Flax Velocity
V,w
fps
5.4
6.6
Water Depth for Design Condition it,. -1
Inches
rat Anal als Lalculat d
MINOR
"OR
Total Lenl of Inlet Grate Opening
L •
ff
RAW of Greb Flow to Design Ed.
En
Under NoClogging Condition
MINOR
MAJOR
Minimum Velocity Wham Grab Stash-0var Begins
V. = fps
Interception Rate of Emmet Flow
Rc =
Inbrcephon Rate of Side Flow
R.
Interception Capacity
O =
its
Under Clogging Condition
MINOR
Mi
Clopping Coefficient for MWimm ail Grate Intel
GmIBCoof-
Gogging Factor for Multiple-und Greb War
G.mClog =
Effective (unciogged) Langln of Multiple -unit Grata Inlet
I- =
1
Minimum Veloody Mom Grab Stash-0var Begins
V. =
fps
Interception Rate of Frontal Flow
R, _
Interception Rah of Side Fldw
R. _
Actual Intemepbon Capactty
Q. =
NIA
WA sup
Carry -Over Flow= Q.-Q. (to be applied to cum opening or next firs inlet)
Q„ =
All
WA eta
Curb orSlotmd Inlet Opening Ana sia Calculated
MINOR
MAJOR
Equivalent Slope S.(based on Brae cony -over)
S.
0G221
0.0909
Required Length Lrb Heve tp0%Inbmeption
L�-
]d3
13.2
Under NoCbpging Condition
MINOR
MAJOR
Effective Length of Cum Opening or Sloded inlet (minimum of L, L,)
L =
5.00
5.00 ff
Interception Capacity
O, =
1.47
2.53 cis
Untler aogaln, Condmnn
MINOR
MAJOR
ClopBcng Coefficient
CumCoef =
1.00
1.00
ClapBing Factor tar Mubple-unit Cum Opening or Sioned Inlet
Curbi=
0.10
0.10
Lengb
L.=
4,50
4.501
�Effective(Unclogped)
Astual Intersection CapasXy
Q, =
1.38
2.32 plea
C.".Ov.r Flow=Qanea.r14L
Q,.=
D.32
2.08 efe
MINOR
MAJOR
rT,iIntersection Capasly f
Carry -Over Floor(Boor bypassing Inlet) A-,o
\y.
�'j 7
0 =
0,
LJB232ce
0.32
2.11 cupercentage=C.(Qe
L"/.=
81.3
52.7
' UD Inlet G.As, Inlet On Grade
12117=119, 929 AM
INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
Project: Harmony and College
Inlet ID: G
I'--Lo (C)--f
H-Cum H-VM
It P
W 1 s-C cA &-a ei Tp�
Up tG)
�.a_b�.L 1 l.�Pti \3 c.or✓.b;(.r0.�+o�r
to Information (Inoue MINOR MAJOR
of Inlet Types, CDOTfOeImmr13ConMsmmon
Depraddion(additional wcorrnuous Buller Gepreaabrl'a'pare 'PARv,) arpcn• 2.0 2.D inldres
Number of Units in Me Inlet (Grate ar Curb Opening) No . 2 2
❑ of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) L - 3.00 3.00 It
of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater roan W from ofdlow) W. • 1,73 1.73 it
ling Factor for a Single Unit Grate (Wiwi min. value = 0.5) CrG = 0.50 0.50
!ing Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (trawl min. value=(.1) GC 0.1D 0.10
go Discharge for Half of Street (from Shell D-Pi
r Spread Wdth
I Depth at RroMine (doubled at local impression)
r Depth at Sweet Crown (or at Ta,,$)
of Guder Flaw to Design Flow
urge outside to Guider Section W, canted In Section T,
ar9e million the Gutter Section W
arge Behind the Curb Face
t Flay Area
I Flow Velocity
Depth for Design Condition
Analysis [Calculated)
Length of Inlet Grate Opening
W Grate Flow to Design Flow
r No -Clogging Condition
um Velocity Whom Grate Spash-Over Begins
ep5on Raw of Forst Fl.
option Rate a Side Flow
motion Capacity
r Clogging Condition
Ing CoeAcant for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet
ing Factor for Mull ple-uMt Grew Inlet
ve (undogged) Length of Mut0pls-uNl Grow Inlet
um VelotlN Mere Grate Spash-Over Ba01na
iddi Rate of Frontal Ftow
moon Rate of Side Flow
I Interception Capacity
-Dve, Flow= O,; O. (W be applied to curb open.,, or next bo Inlet)
lent Slope S. (based on grale wnyover)
W length L, to Have 100% Intercom..,
hl {logging Condition
re Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L. L; )
.don Capacity
Clogging Condition
ig Coefficient
ig Factor far Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted InIM
a (Unclogged) Loop
Interception Capacity
)ver Flow = 0..........-0.
Inlet Interception Capacity
Inlet Ca".0ver Flow (pow bypassing Inlet)
ire Pencentade = 212 -
O. in
T=
d=
desewr -
E. =
D. -
O. •
Oa„ca-
h `
V. =
1.70
7.0
3.1
pA
0.762
0.41
1.30
0.00
0.56
2.92
MINOR
MAJOR
L =
6.00
6.00
8
F e,r. =
0.716
0.492
MINOR
MAJOR
V.
Poe
Ws
R, _
O,-
M
MINOR
MAJOR
GrawC
1.50
1.50
:
Gold Clog-
0.38
0.36
L, •
3.75
3.15
ft
V. -
7.15
7.15
fps
9.B8
9.98
1.00
1.00
0.53
0 dub
1.47
3.19
MINOR
MAJOR
S, =
0.1305
0.0970
Alt
Lr =
4.41
10.34
8
MINOR
MA IR
L =
4.40
6.00
It
0, =
0.16
0.69
aA
MINOR
MAJOR
CurbCoer=
1.25
125
Cult Cl,
0.06
1
L- =
4.40
5.63
ft
O,=
0.18
a."cfa
walla
UD Inlet G.xta, Inlet On Grade
12212009, 7:40 AM
a
1
O
E
1
1
1
1
11
Calculation Results Summary
----------------------=--=-a-=-=-----------------------------_
Scenario: 10-yr
»» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-1
>>>> Info: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
I Label I Inlet I Inlet I Total I Total I Capture I Gutter I Gutter I
I Type I I Intercepted I Bypassed I Efficiency I Spread I Depth I
I I I Flow I Flow I ($) I (ft) I (ft)
I (cfs) I (cfs) I I I I
I -
---------------------I----------------------
------------- I ---------- I ------------ I--------I--------
I
11-G I Generic. Inlet I Generic Default 100% 0.00 1 0.00 I 100.0 1 0.00 1 0.00 I
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-1
I Label I Number I Section I Section I Length I Total I Average I Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I I of I Size I Shape I (ft) I System I Velocity I Grade I Grade I
I I Sections I I I I Flow I (ft/s) I Upstream I Downstream I
1 1 1 1 1 (cfs) I I (ft) I (ft)
I-
------i---------- I --------- I ---------- I -------- I -------- I ---------- I ----------- I ------------I
I P-1 1 1 1 18 inch I Circular 1 22.00 1 1.52 1 4.09 1 23.50 1 23.50 1
I Label I Total I Ground I Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I I System I Elevation I Grade I Grade I
I I Flow I (ft) I Line In I Line Out I
I I (cfs) I I (ft) I (ft) I
-
-------------- I ----------- I ----------- I ----------- I
1 0-1 1 1.52 1 27.50 1 23.50 1 23.50 1
1 1-G 1 1.52 1 27.10 1 23.50 1 23.50 1
------------------------------------------------------
Completed: 12/21/2009 07:45:39=AM
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
xA... ldrainageklesignlst0rmcad\storn c.stm Interwest Consulting Group Sto"CAD v5.5 [5.5005)
12/21/09 07:45:48 AM m Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA t1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
-1 +00
Profile
Scenario: 10-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario: 10-yr
Label: 0-1
Rim: 27.50 ft
Sump: 22.20 ft
Label: P-1
Dn. Invert'. 22.20 ft
r` 4
Station (ft)
Label:1-G
Rim: 26.60 ft
Sump: 22.40 ft
25.00
--L: &UU-11 2000.
Size:18 inch 0+00
S: 0.009091 ftlft
Elevation (ft)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
x:\...ldrainagetdesign\storncadlstorn c.stm Interwest Consulting Group StorrlCAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/21/09 07.46:33 AM C Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA «1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
II
II
II
II
Calculation Results Summary
Scenario: 100-yr =
»» Info: Subsurface Network Rooted by: 0-1
»» In£o: Subsurface Analysis iterations: 1
»» Info: Convergence was achieved.
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SURFACE NETWORKS
I Label I Inlet I Inlet I Total I Total I Capture I Gutter I Gutter I
I I Type I Intercepted I Bypassed I Efficiency I Spread I Depth I
I I Flow I Flow I (%) I (ft) I (ft)
I I f I (Cfs) I (Cfs) I I I
I-
------I--------------I---------------------- I ------------ I ---------- I ------------I--------I--------
I I-G I Generic Inlet I Generic Default 100% 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 100.0 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
CALCULATION SUMMARY FOR SUBSURFACE NETWORK WITH ROOT: 0-1
I Label I Number I Section I Section I Length I Total I Average I Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
I I of I Size I Shape I (ft) I System I Velocity I Grade I Grade I
I I Sections I I I I Flow I (ft/s) I Upstream I Downstream I
I I I I (Cfs) I I (ft) I (ft) I
-
------I---------- I ---------I---------- -------- I -------- I ---------- I ----------- I ------------ I
I F-1 I 11 18 inch I Circular 1 22.00 1 3.32 1 5.09 1 23.50 1 23.50 1
I Label I Total I Ground I Hydraulic I Hydraulic I
1 I System I Elevation I Grade I Grade I
I I Flow I (ft) I Line In I Line Out I
I I (Cfs) I I (ft) I (ft)
-
------I-------- I-----------I-----------I-----------I
1 0-1 1 3.32 1 27.50 1 23.50 1 23.50 1
1 1-G 1 3.32 1 27.10 1 23.50 1 23.50 1
-----------------------------------------------------
Completed: 12/21/2009 07:46:07 AM
II
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group
xa..%drainageldesign\stormradlstorm c.stm Interwest Consulting Group Sto"CAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/21/09 07:46:10 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA .1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1
-1+00
Profile
Scenario: 100-yr
Profile: Profile - 1
Scenario
100-yr
Label: 0-1
Rim: 27.50 ft
Sump: 22.20 ft
MR
Label:1-G
Rim: 26.60 ft
Sump: 22.40 ft
25.00 Elevation (ft)
Label: P-1
Up. Invert: 22.40 ft
Dn. Invert: 22.20 ft
L:22.00-ft 20.00
Size:19 inch 0+00
S: 0.009091 ftlft
Station (ft)
Title: Harmony and College FIR Project Engineer Intenrvest Consulting Group
x:\...\dminage\designlslormcad\storn c.stm Interwest Consulting Group Sto"CAD v5.5 [5.5005]
12/21/09 07:46:20 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA *1-203-755-1566 Page 1 of 1
L.
\ 1 / • Al
1 — EX 6' 0 SDMH
STA 10+00=
CL STA 118+16.77, 75.45' LT
A3 Ll
'i5' 0 SDMH W/ 30" R SNOUT
''STA 10+24.0=
4 CL STA 116+09.29, 52,15 LT
A2 24" RCP �yy
EL
CI AS
TYPE R INLET W/ 30" F SNOUT
SEE NOTE 8.
STA 10+47 5
p - CL STA 115+87.88, 61.12' LT
HARMONYROAD [u HARMONY LFL STA 14+63 52f
00
STORM SYSTEM A
5035
5030
5020
5015
n�,.1Nr
yah3�0�
III�ZZZZ
1-
Z
Q
N 3+INN0
O
PZ-H
O
+O
^��N
NNN15
IIO
p0fM10VQ1
N II eVO
1VOi0IIDO
raN�Oil
N
N®II?oa
01-II
00 OIL
m>>f
EX1577NG
GRADE
IIf
PROPOSED
9
GRADE
W
k
100-YR HGL
A4 11 LF
24" RCP
0 0.6%
A2 24 LF
24" RCP
® 1.3ro
10+00 10+50
File Informotion
9 Initials: JDL
Full Path:
Drawing File Nome: 104601202FOR-PP
Acod Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:50H 1:5V
5035 5030
5030 5025
5025 5020
5020 5015
5015 5010
84 15"
B5
TYPE 16 SPECIAL INLET
_W/ 18" F SNOUT
STA 10+51.3=
CL STA 110+48.07. 51.88' LT
LFL STA 10+48.01
63
TYPE 16 SPECIAL INLET
_W/ 18" F SNOUT IC
STA 10+15.3= r
CL STA 110+11.74, 51.90' LT
LFL STA 10+11.68
8
-41
82 15" RCP Ell W
EX SDMH V R
STA 10+00=
CL STA 110+11.58. 66.93' LTJ
I
' IWi II••dl I
STORM SYSTEM B
2
O
N
3
3
F
J
J
p 1n
n a
^
n =
1P
b v1 to
pO>J
+
N
g
N�Ei<l��ll
NtvII uar+
N
pNvI
T`ipdWpNphR'`up��j
aO^.I{
ry
O4yNO
11
mNOO,aaZNN0
RtiIm'nF
��ph,.vO>^
aN
timKO>
m3
>
_ll
mlo 0
.Uzv
k
EX/SANG
h
GRADE
13
100-YR HGL
RAISE
EX COMCAST
W
64
36 LF
B2
15' RCP
15 LF
15" RCP
0 1.7%
p
0 2.7%
W
J
10+00
Cof
y,-ins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins. CO 80522
Phone: (970) 221-6605
FAX: (970) 221-6378
10+50
0
5030
5025
5020
�pO REGIST
o.........
pUL •.. F�
sots 0 �P <: o
34288:
•o 'sue �: z
�0 _••• : •• ��cu
FSS/ONAL EaG\
5010
Greeley, CO 80631
Phone: (970) 350-2126
FAX: (970) 350-2198
Region 4 PJG
As Constructed
No Revisions:
Revised:
Void:
ow
A
"ARMO".nOAO
B
'
pan
25 O 25 50
HORIZONTAL
5CALE: 1 50
VERTICAL
si q p ill - 5'
NOTE:
1. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS.
2. RCP STORM SHALL BE CLASS III WITH WATER
TIGHT JOINTS (ASTM C443).
3. CL STATIONING AT TYPE R INLET IS CENTER OF
FACE OF STRUCTURE AT FLOWLINE.
4. CL AND FL STATIONING AT TYPE 16 INLET IS
MIDPOINT OF STRUCTURE AT FLOWLINE.
5. ALL OTHER STATIONING IS CENTER OF STRUCTURE.
6. EX UTILITY INFORMATION TO BE VERIFIED BY
CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
7. "SNOUT" DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMENDATIONS.
8. 15' TYPE R INLET WITH DROP BOX
FOR SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -..T.-TI1
STORM SEWER Project No./Code
PLAN & PROFILE STU M455-077
r: M. OBERLANDER 16136
J. I nFTON
iubset: STORM I Subset Sheet:: I of I Sheet Number 77
Jlk
ill
H J
1 <
• < y iy ly
�8 Ch j ',O•', . C4 DOUBLE TYPE 16 INLET
W Z \ STA 10+22.8=
CL STA 16+08.24, 48.78' LT=
J >, • I ••• • LFL STA 16+07.55
63 18" RCP
- �
4' 1
� G a' a SDMH
•Cam-
rSTA 10+00.0=- E
n CL STA 15+86.95. 39.23' LT,
I e• 'Cl Ex 18" ! <HARMONYROAD!
_ • SFE NOTE 3 < -
e
STORM SYSTEM C
5035
1&106A1
5025
5020
r-
W
J
Z_
O
N m
CI
O
+
Nry "i
+1 N NW+
ONO +o-
N
O
la-
>
,It-1ZO Nm
II
N
O
N ai»
O VEZZ
rDU
uO
MD
>
3
100-YR HGL
11
C3
23 LF
18" RCP
® 0.9R
a
EX 18• ® 16%
10+00 10+50
kitiols: JDL
Full Poth:
Drawing File Nome: 104601202FOR-PP
Acad Ver. 2007 Seek: 1:50H 1:5V
5035
5030
5025
5020
z
Cw.wwowrwo
25 0 25 5O
HORIZONTAL
SCALE: 1"= So'
ICAL
SCALE:
1"" 5'
NOTE:
1. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS.
2. RCP STORM SHALL BE CLASS III WITH WATER
TIGHT JOINTS (ASTM C443).
3. CL STATIONING AT TYPE R INLET IS CENTER OF
FACE OF STRUCTURE AT FLOWLINE.
4. CL AND FL STATIONING AT TYPE 16 INLET IS
MIDPOINT OF STRUCTURE AT FLOWLINE.
5. ALL OTHER STATIONING IS CENTER OF STRUCTURE.
6. EX UTILITY INFORMATION TO BE VERIFIED BY
CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
�P00 REC/ST
•ii<S•,.ycr`�
7. "SNOUT" DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER
oy: QpUL
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMENDATIONS.
Yg'O
•� 34288 6;
8. CONNECT EXISTING 18" PIPE TO NEW MANHOLE C2.
�SS70NAL•ENG\
FOR SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION •••••••• •••••, .....
)UT
As Constructed
STORM SEWER
Project No./Code
Fort Collins
No Regions:
STU M455-077
_ _
1- ,= „ i
PLAN & PROFILE
North College Avenue
1420 el end Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Revised:
Designer: VA OBERIANDER
9
16136
Detaikr: J. LOFTON
For
Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126
Sheet Number 78
Phone: (970) 221 -6605 FAX: (970) 350-2198
FAX: 970) 221-6378 4 PJo
Void:
Sheet Subset: STORM
Subset Sheet:: I Of I
APPENDIX D
PERMANENT BMP
CALCULATIONS
1
1
I
I
I
i
f
Ah
' SUBJECT: SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
This document pertains to the potential suspended solids removals by the SNOUT
Stormwater Quality System installed per manufacturer's recommendations.
The SNOUT system will have a positive impact on the reduction of suspended solids.
The total efficiency of removal will vary depending on the constituent nature of the solids
found in the stormwater runoff and the size distribution of those solids as typified by the
native sediment and soils. As is the case in all stormwater quality improvement designs,
the largest particles will be most easily removed and the smaller particles are more likely
to stay suspended. Without a detailed analysis of the suspended solids entrained in any
given storm flow, and the exact parameters of any given installation, the total percent
'
removal is difficult if not impossible to estimate.
However, according to generally accepted engineering practices, the range of theoretical
solids reductions will vary widely. For a single SNOUT equipped inlet with a deep sump
'
and proper maintenance, suspended solids removals from 30 to over 50 percent have
been shown. Given favorable site conditions, proper maintenance and a multiple structui
treatment train, up to 89.5 percent removals could be possible.
Please contact Best Management Products, Inc. if you have further questions.
I
I
MD Office: Ph. (800) 504-8008 Fax (410) 687-6757 ♦ CT Office: Ph. (860) 434-0277 Fax (860) 434-3195
1 www.bmpinc.com
I
H
1
1
13 November 2007
Mr. T.J. Mullen
Best Management Products, Inc.
53 Mount Archer Road
Lyme, Connecticut 06371
Dear Mr. Mullen:
Princeton Hydro
t As part of the 2002 — 2003 watershed project for Lake Peekskill, SNOUT stormwater retrofits
were installed in the Town of Putnam Valley. These retrofits were chosen since large, structural
Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be difficult to install these residential areas. On 9
' May 2003, the Putnam Valley Department of Public Works installed two SNOUT devices into
two previously identified catch basins. The SNOUTS were monitored four times during 2003; 18
September, 25 September, 12 December, and 29 December. Stormwater samples were collected
1 entering and exiting the SNOUT retrofitted catch basins and were analyzed for total phosphorus
(TP) and total suspended solids (TSS). In order to estimate the pollutant loads entering and
exiting the devices, rainfall data (Northeast Regional Climate Center:
' http://chmod.nrcc.comell.edu/), measured pollutant concentrations, and the immediate drainage
area were used. Specifically, the following equation was used to estimate the pollutant load
entering and exiting the SNOUT devices:
' L =R*A*C
' Where L = Pollutant load (lbs)
R = Rainfall during sampling event (meters)
A = Drainage area (m2)
' C = pollutant concentration (mg/ L)
It should be noted that rainfall data during the 29 December 2003 sampling event was not
available through the Cornell Climod database; thus, Princeton Hydro estimated the amount of
rainfall to be 0.1 inches. In addition, the area of land draining into the SNOUT devices were
estimated to be 880 m2, using ArcGIS and the limited existing topographic data. The SNOUT
devices removed both TSS and TP from stormwater entering the SNOUT devices from the
surrounding drainage area. On average the SNOUTS reduced TSS by 56% and TP by 46%.
Please refer to the figures at the end of this document for additional removal data. Please note
that these are rough estimates since the exact drainage area and amount of rainfall were
approximated.
Based on these data, the SNOUT -modified catch basins demonstrated the potential to remove the
TSS and TP pollutant loads originating from surface runoff. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact us at (610) 524 — 4220.
Sincerely,
Mary Lambert
GIS Specialist/ Scientist
SNOUT TSS Removal
0.35
0 TSS Entering SNOUT
0.3
■ TSS Exiting SNOUT
0.25
a 0.2
rn
y 0.15
0.1
0.05
0
18-Sep-03 25-Sep-03 12-Dec-03 29-Dec-03 Average
Date
SNOUT TP Removal
0.014
■ TP Entering SNOUT
0.012
■ TP Exiting SNOUT
0.01
m
0.008
IL
t-
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
18-Sep-03 25-Sep-03 12-Dec-03 29-Dec-03 Average
Date
I
1
h
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
ft
EM
Introduction to Design and Maintenance
Considerations for SNOUT Stormwater Quality Systems
Background:
The SNOUT system from Best Management Products, Inc. (BMP, Inc.) is based
on a vented hood that can reduce floatable trash and debris, free oils, and other
solids from stormwater discharges. In its most basic application, a SNOUT hood
is installed over the outlet pipe of a catch basin or other stormwater quality
structure which incorporates a deep sump (see Installation Drawing). The
SNOUT forms a baffle in the structure which collects floatable debris and free oils
on the surface of the captured stormwater, while permitting heavier solids to sink
to the bottom of the sump. The clarified intermediate layer is forced out of the
structure through the open bottom of the SNOUT by displacement from incoming
flow. The resultant discharge contains considerably less unsightly trash and
other gross pollutants, and can also offer reductions of free -oils and finer solids.
As with any structural stormwater quality BMP (Best Management Practice),
design and maintenance considerations will have a dramatic impact on SNOUT
system performance over the life of the facility. The most important factor to
consider when designing structures which will incorporate a SNOUT is the depth
of the sump (the sump is defined as the depth from beneath the invert of the
outlet pipe to the bottom of the structure). Simply put. the deeper the sump. the
more effective the unit will be both in terms of pollutant removals and reducing
frequency of maintenance. More volume in a structure means more quiescence,
thus allowing the pollutant constituents a better chance to separate out.
Secondly, more volume means fewer cycles between maintenance operations,
because the structure has a greater capacity. Of equal importance to good
performance is putting SNOUTS in every inlet whenever possible. The closer
one captures pollution to where it enters the infrastructure (e.g. at the inlet), the
less mixing of runoff there is, and the easier it will be to separate out pollutants.
Putting SNOUTs and deep sumps in every inlet develops a powerful structural
treatment train with a great deal of effective storage volume where even finer
particles may have chance to settle out.
Design Notes:
The SNOUT size is ALWAYS greater than the nominal pipe size. The
SNOUT should cover the pipe OD plus the grouted area around the pipe
(e.g. for a 12" pipe, an 18" SNOUT is the correct choice).
1
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
7
i1
I
i
I
J
As a rule of thumb, BMP, Inc. recommends minimum sump depths based
on outlet pipe inside diameters of 2.5 to 3 times the outlet pipe size.
4. Special Note for Smaller Pipes: A minimum sump depth of 36 inches for
all pipe sizes 12 inches ID or less, and 48 inches for pipe 15-18 inches ID
is required if collection of finer solids is desired.
The plan dimension of the structure should be up to 6 to 7 times the flow
area of the outlet pipe.
❖ To optimize pollutant removals establish a "treatment train" with SNOUTS
placed in every inlet where it is feasible to do so (this protocol applies to
most commercial, institutional or municipal applications and any
application with direct discharge to surface waters).
❖ At a minimum, SNOUTS should be used in every third structure for less
critical applications (less critical areas might include flow over grassy
surfaces, very low traffic areas in private, non-commercial or non -
institutional settings, single family residential sites).
Bio-SkirtSTM (for hydrocarbons and/or bacteria reduction in any structure)
and flow deflectors (for settleable solids in a final polishing structure) can
increase pollutant removals. Bio-Skirts are highly recommended for gas
or vehicle service stations, convenience stores, restaurants, loading
docks, marinas, beaches, schools or high traffic applications.
The "R" series SNOUTs (12R, 18R, 24R, 30R, and 54R/72) are available
for round manhole type structures of up to 72" ID; the "F series SNOUTs
(12F, 18F, 24F, 30F, 36F, 48F, 72F and 96F) are available for flat walled
box type structures; the "NP" series SNOUTs (NP1218R, NP1524R,
NP1830R, and NP2430R) are available for PVC Nyloplast® type
structures up to 30" ID.
Example Structure Sizing Calculation:
A SNOUT equipped structure with a 15 inch ID outlet pipe (1.23 sgft. flow area)
will offer best performance with a minimum plan area of 7.4 sgft. and 48 inch
sump. Thus, a readily available 48 inch diameter manhole -type structure, or a
rectangular structure of 2 feet x 4 feet will offer sufficient size when combined
with a sump depth of 48 inches or greater.
Maintenance Recommendations:
Monthly monitoring for the first year of a new installation after the site has
been stabilized.
Measurements should be taken after each rain event of .5 inches or more,
or monthly, as determined by local weather conditions.
❖ Checking sediment depth and noting the surface pollutants in the structure
will be helpful in planning maintenance.
❖ The pollutants collected in SNOUT equipped structures will consist of
floatable debris and oils on the surface of the captured water, and grit and
sediment on the bottom of the structure.
'
•r
It is best to schedule maintenance based on the solids collected in the
sump.
'
•:
Optimally, the structure should be cleaned when the sump is half full (e.g.
when 2 feet of material collects in a 4 foot sump, clean it out).
•i
Structures should also be cleaned if a spill or other incident causes a
'
larger than normal accumulation of pollutants in a structure.
•:•
Maintenance is best done with a vacuum truck.
'
❖
If Bio-Skirts'" are being used in the structure to enhance hydrocarbon
capture and/or bacteria removals, they should be checked on a monthly
basis, and serviced or replaced when more than 2/3 of the boom is
'
submerged, indicating a nearly saturated state. Assuming a typical
pollutant -loading environment exists, Bio-Skirts should be serviced' or
replaced annually.
'
•:•
In the case of an oil spill, the structure should be serviced and Bio-Skirts
replaced (if any) immediately
:•
All collected wastes must be handled and disposed of according to local
environmental requirements.
'
To maintain the SNOUT hoods themselves, an annual inspection of the
anti -siphon vent and access hatch are recommended. A simple flushing
of the vent, or a gentle rodding with a flexible wire are all that's typically
'
needed to maintain the anti -siphon properties. Opening and closing the
access hatch once a year ensures a lifetime of trouble -free service.
tFurther structural design guidelines including CAD drawings, hydraulic
spreadsheets, and site inspection and maintenance field reports and installation
' inspection sheets are available from BMP, Inc.
'To extend the service life of a Bio-Skirt, the unit may be "wrung out" to remove
' accumulated oils and washed in an industrial washing machine in warm water.
The Bio-Skirt may then be re -deployed as long the material maintains it's
structural integrity.
I_I
1
1
1
n
J
' Fitment Guide: Based on SNOUT inlet area vs. pipe inlet area.
t
1
1
1
1
% OF SNOUT INLET AREA vs. PIPE INSIDE DIAMETER
MODEL
12F
12R
18F
18R
24F
24R
30F
30R
36F
48F
54R
72F
96F
SQFT
0.393
0.455
1.091
1.264
1.843
2.118
2.793
3210
3.534
6.278
9.045
14.13702
25.132
PIPE I.D.
4
450.3%
521.4 %
N10
N10
N/0
NIO
N10
N/O
N/0
N/0
N/0
N10
N/O
6
200.2%
231.7%
555.6 %
643.8 %
N10
N/0
NIO
N10
N/0
N/O
N10
N10
N10
8
112.6%
130.3%
312.6%
362.1%
528.1%
606.8%
N/0
N10
NIO
N/0
N/0
N/0
N10
10
72.1%
83.4%
200.0%
231.8%
338.0%
388.3%
N/O
N/O
N10
NIO
NI0
N/0
N10
12
NIA
NIA
138.9%
160.9%
234.7%
269.7%
355.6%
409%
450%
N10
WO
N10
N/O
15
NIA
NIA
88.9 %
103.0 %
150.2%
172.6%
227.6%
252%
288%
N10
N/O
N10
N10
18
NIA
NIA
61.7 %
71.5 %
104.3%
119.9%
158.1 %
182%
200%
355%
N10
N10
21
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
76.6%
88.1 %
116.1%
133%
147%
261%
376%
N/0
N10
24
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
88.9%
102%
1 112%
200%
288%
N10
N/0
27
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
1 70.2%
81%
89%
158%
227%
N10
N10
30
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
56.9%
65 %
72%
128%
184 %
288%
N/0
36
NIA
N.�A
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
50 %
89%
128%
200%
355.5%
42
NIA
NSA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
65%
94%
147%
261.2%
48
NIA
NZA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
50°/
72%
113%
200.0%
54
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
57 %
89%
158.0%
60
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
72%
128.0%
66
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
60%
105.8%
72
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
50%
88.9%
78
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
75.7 %
84
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
65.3%
90
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
56.9%
Use "F' for flat back SNOUT in rectangular structure
-Use "R" for round back SNOUT in cylindrical structure
' VALUE% => Marginal Sizing
NIA => Not Applicable
N10 => Not Optimal
' Design Note: The SNOUT size will always be bigger than the pipe size as
the SNOUT must cover the pipe O.D. (i.e. Use an 18" SNOUT for 12" pipe.)
1
1
1
I
Installation Drawings:
SEE
Contact Information:
TYPICAL INSTALLATION
a ,
OLITLEi
PIPE
,NTI-SIPHON DEVICE
SNOUT
OIL-0EBRIS
HOOD
OIL AND DEBRIS F--4
A
J:
6
,. SOLIDS SETTLE ON
a BOTTOM
'NOTE- SUMP DEPT^q OF 36' My,, FOR < ORw 12• DIAM.
OUTLET. FOR OUTLETS>OP� 17. DEPTH a2E.0 DLW
Please contact us if we can offer further assistance. 53 Mt. Archer Rd. Lyme, CT
06371. Technical Assistance: T. J. Mullen (800-504-8008, tjm@bmpinc.com) or
Lee Duran(888-434-0277).
Website: www.bmpinc.com
The SNOUT® is protected by: US PATENT # 6126817 CANADIAN PATENT # 2285146
SNOUT® is a registered trademark of Best Management Products, Inc. Nyloplast® is a registered
trademark of ADS Structures, Inc.
I
'
Quick -Start Application
Q pp cation Guide with
1
I
1
1
I
SNOUT' to Structure Ratio (STSR) Methodology
Background:
The SNOUT system from Best Management Products, Inc. (BMP, Inc.) is based
on a vented hood that can reduce floatable trash and debris, free oils, and other
solids from stormwater discharges. In its most basic application, a SNOUT hood
is installed over the outlet pipe of a catch basin or other stormwater quality
structure which incorporates a deep sump (see Installation Drawing). The
SNOUT forms a baffle in the structure which collects floatable debris and free oils
on the surface of the captured stormwater, while permitting heavier solids to sink
to the bottom of the sump. The clarified intermediate layer is forced out of the
structure through the open bottom of the SNOUT by displacement from incoming
flow. The resultant discharge contains considerably less unsightly trash and
other gross pollutants, and can also offer reductions of free -oils and finer solids.
What follows are basic design tips to optimize the performance of SNOUT
systems.
Design Recommendations for Site:
Establish SNOUT to Structure Ratio (STSR) for site as follows:
Heavy Traffic and Pollutant Loading Applications (STSR 1:1): This includes
gas stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants, vehicle repair facilities,
stores with "drive through" service (e.g. banks, drug stores, dry cleaners, coffee
shops), loading docks, distribution facilities, marinas, hospitals, transportation
terminals (air, bus, train, sea, shipping), school bus loading areas, maintenance
facilities, light industrial sites, waste disposal facilities or "dumpster areas",
parking and roadway areas of shopping centers close to the stores, etc. In
"Heavy Traffic and Pollutant Load" areas a SNOUT in every structure is indicated
(STSR 1:1). The exception will be where an inlet can not be maintained. In this
case, and where additional treatment is desired, non -inlet polishing structures
can be added to the drainage network prior to discharge (e.g. with a cover not a
grate thus it receives no surface flow). An oil absorbing boom may also be
deployed in structures that will receive heavy hydrocarbon loading and flow
deflectors may be added to a polishing structure to increase solids removals.
Moderate Traffic and Pollutant Loading Applications (STSR 1:2): This
includes office buildings, multi -residential complexes, schools (other than bus
H
I
1
areas), most shopping mall parking areas, mixed retail commercial facilities,
municipal/government buildings, athletic/entertainment/recreational facilities,
non -fast food restaurants, special event/remote parking areas, etc. In "Moderate
Traffic and Pollutant Load" areas a SNOUT in at least every other structure is
indicated (STSR 1:2). The downstream structures (prior to discharge) are most
critical, and oil absorbing booms may be useful if heavier hydrocarbon loading is
expected. Flow deflectors may be employed in a polishing structure to increase
solids separation.
Low Traffic and Pollutant Loading Applications (STSR 1:3): This includes
grassy or vegetated areas, single family residences, parks', parking for offices
within residences, flow excess from permeable paving areas, etc. In Low Traffic
(STSR 1:3). The need for oil booms or flow deflectors is unlikely as such a need
would indicate a Moderate or Heavy Pollutant load scenario.
If discharge in a park setting is to a "high -value" water body, additional
treatment may be indicated even if it is otherwise defined as a low traffic low load
area.
STSR Note: A large site may have different STSR areas, just like it may have
different runoff coefficients. For instance, a shopping mall may have an STSR of
1:1 in heavy traffic roadways and loading/unloading areas, but may have a STSR
' 1:2 in a remote parking area. Therefore apply the appropriate STSR to each
area of the site to arrive at the total number of SNOUT equipped structures for
the project.
71
J
t
Design Recommendations for Individual Structures:
s The SNOUT size will always be bigger than the nominal pipe size as the
SNOUT must over the pipe OD (e.g. use an 18" SNOUT for 12" pipe).
❖ As a rule of thumb, BMP, Inc. recommends minimum sump depths based
on outlet pipe inside diameters of 2.5 to 3 times the outlet pipe size.
(Special Note for Smaller Pipes: A minimum sump depth of 36 inches for
all pipe sizes 12 inches ID or less, and 48 inches for pipe 15-18 inches ID
is required if collection of finer solids is desired.)
❖ The plan dimension of the structure should be up to 6 to 7 times the flow
area of the outlet pipe.
❖ Bio-Skirts (for hydrocarbon and bacteria reduction in any structure) and
flow deflectors (for settleable solids in a final polishing structure) can
increase pollutant removals. Bio-Skirts are highly recommended for gas
or vehicle service stations, convenience stores, restaurants, loading
docks, marinas, or high traffic applications. Bio-Skirts are most effective
when used in coniunction with a SNOUT.
❖ The "R" series SNOUTS are available for round manhole type structures of
up to 72" ID with pipes up to 50" OD; bl
the "F" series SNOUTs are availae
for flat walled box type structures for pipes up to 94" OD; the "NP" series
SNOUTs are available for PVC Nyloplast® type structures up to 30" ID.
n
Further structural design guidelines including CAD drawings, hydraulic
spreadsheets, and site inspection and maintenance field reports and installation
inspection sheets are available from BMP, Inc.
APPLICATION DRAWINGS:
SEE
Y", JCAL INS ALL4710N
WTU �, r-fit o-T. CTi -zA*m 7' Q'':"fr. i.3ik -Ku,
Contact Information:
Please contact us if we can offer further assistance. 53 Mt. Archer Rd. Lyme, CT
06371. Technical Assistance: T. J. Mullen (800-504-8008, tjm@bmpinc.com) or
Lee Duran (888-434-0277). Website: www.bmoinc.com
The SNOUT' is protected by:
US PATENT # 6126817 CANADIAN PATENT # 2285146
SNOUT is a registered trademark of Best Management Products, Inc.
Nyloplasto is a registered trademark of ADS Structures, Inc.
11
a
Xtw
O Z p
mor9r
�wX
w
ww
m `om
w
LL f/1
0 w
� O �
LL w
m
m
0
EN
a
Z
O
LLy
0
0
ILH
N
Z
sNN
�
a
o
a
Z
Z
q
N
a
Z
N
Ol
U
aFt
LLgo
p LL
L)
LLLLgo
U
a
N
U
aZn
p m
mm F F
O LL m
>a
J
Z m
Om
F- f
g LL
LL
Z �
�a
QO ww ti0-
F ?LLLLaa 00
Oa io °o W h
z>jOo iQE
p
y » » w O O Z Z¢
Z ZZZZ N U
w 0000 Om_oan =�
3$d'd"¢dOOaaa rcui iti ui ui
aLLga ¢ti
1. GG O ON mY00 J J
f �pp p m N m m {q o m O N ¢
y o<m m t e �' F co co
w m m N m m m LL LL LL LL w� D a
gF -
FFFf E:. 466 aoo00. �Q
y LL LL IL IL LLILN hm0 zNNN nZ
• LL W LLIa �
N m N h Z Z Z Z % � N m N O1 • z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[1
DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD
Harmony and College
E1 (WQ)
I I Design Flown Gutter Flow + Carryover Flow
y 12VERLAND W SIDE T �OVFROLA
aFLOW ND
I STREET I
GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY—OVER FLOW Y� 1= r GUTTER FLOW
INLET INLET I tl ff
�rs Z i tJ c Yl
—112 OF STREET
Sian Flow: bREP if alreadv determinedmw other methods
(local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus now bypassing upstream subcatchments):
If You entered a value here. skip the rest of this shoot and proceed to sheet
Site: (Check One Box Only)
Site is Urban: X
Site Is Non -Urban:
Subcatchment Area = Acres
Percent Imperviousness = °/,
NRCS Soil Type =1 IA, B, C, or D
Slope III Length In)
Overland Flow =
Gutter Flow =
Design Stoma Return Period,
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation,
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value),
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave the blank to accept a calculated value),
Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, I
Analysis of Flow Time (Time
a
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficent, C ,
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 :
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo'
Gutter Flow Velocity, VG'
Overland Flow Time, to
Gutter Flow Time, to :
Calculated Time of Concentration, To:
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T.
Recommended Ta ,
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T. r
Design Rainfall Intensity, I
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Q,
Total Design Peak Flow, Q 2
WA
WA
WA
WA
NIA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
N/A
WA
WA
WA
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
NIA
WA
WA
N/A
WA
NIA
1.50
12.70 :
08
minutes
nlnutes
minutes
ninutes
minutes
ninutes
ach/hr
Its
fs
UD Inlet E1(WO).xis, O-Peak
12/17/2009, 9:09 AM
I
'
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm)
(Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Project: Harmony and College
'
Inlet ID: El (WQ)
'-Te"ea Taaowx�
yM� T. Taer
W T"
'Ic�I� Crown
Q Oa� -�
d Ss
house
Guttor Geomelry (Enter tlate In Me blue eellsl
J
n
I
1
1
II
I
I
II
rum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
eng's Roughness Behind Curb
of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
ce from Curb Face to Street Crown
Depression
Width
Transverse Slope
Longitudinal Slope - Emer 0 for sump condition
ig's Roughness for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Mmor Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
ter Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8)
per Depth withoul Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
er Depth with a Gutter Depression
wabie Spread for Discharge outside Me Gutter Seam W IT - W)
tar Flay to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
:harge outside the Gutter Seaton W, camed in Secbun T x
Marge within the Gutter Section W (Or - DO
charge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, tlnveways, & lawns)
:Imu a Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
v Velocity Within the Gutter Section
Product Flow Velomty Times Gutter Fkadine Depth
pretical Spread for Discharge oubide the Gutter Secton W (T - W)
or Flow M Design Flaw Ratio by FHWA HEG22 meMw (Eq. ST-7)
3rebeal Discharge outside Me Gutter Section W, gamed in Section T 171
gal Discharge outside Me Gutter Section W. (limited by distance T cnom)
harge within the Gutter Section W (Qe -Ox)
harge Behind Me Curb (e.g.. sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)
if Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
r Velocity Whin Me Gutter Section
Product Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flail Depth
e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6-) Storm
Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
itiant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
Alan! Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
T.:
15.0
8
xrx Se
nel
0.0200
It vert. /8. honz
0.0730
Hcuas=9E..02121
inches
Tceow� =ft
e =Inches
W_8
Sx=Rvert./tt.
Ill
So =ft
vertJ ft. honz
nSinEEr=
T•• u,:
d.ux'
Sw
y
d
Tx'
E.
Qs'
Ow'
Os.l
Qr'
V=
Wit
Trx
Txnr'
E0
O"Tx'
Qx'
ow'
�IX �
O°
V
V'd
R•
Qx°
d•
deeowv°
Mi-Cavm Mali-C.-
25.0 40.0
6.00 9.80
0.0851
6.0851
6.54
10.46
8.06
11.98
23.0
38.0
0232
0.142
28.6
109.2
8.7
18A
2.1
32.4
39.3
159.7
5.0
9.9
Mimi Stmn Maim R.-
17.1
30.9
15.1
28S
0.343
0.186
9.4
52.6
9.4
52.6
4.9
12.D
0.0
9.2
142
73.7
5.9
SA
2.9
6.7
IDD
1.00
142
73.7
6.00
9.60 1
0.00
0.00 1
t
aches
(=yes
Im
riches
niches
t
fs
Is
fs
is
7S
:fs
:fs
:fa
its
fa
lches
Ines
Minor Storm Major Storm
lowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q . or O O= 742 73.7 cls
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak'
STORM max. allowable caoactty OK - creator than flow given nn sham •O.Pwxk•
I' UD Inlet Ei(WO).%Is, O-Allow 12/17/2009. 9'10 AM
I
INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
project Harmony and College
Inlet ID: Et (Wp)
K-Lo(C)�
H-Curb Will
Wo
W �
LS (G)
Type of Inlet
Type •
COOT/Denver 13 Congress.
Loral Depression(atlJlLonal to wronuout 90M nermosan'a'ITm'0.AIbW)
at.
2.0
2.0
inch.
Total Number of Units in Me Inlet (Grate or Cum Opening)
No •
1
1
Lengm of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Cum Opening)
L. •
3.00
3.00
If
Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater Nan W from QAlpw)
W. •
1.73
1.73
It
Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value - 0.5)
CeG •
0.50
0.50
Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Cum Opsong (typical min. value =0.1)
C-C •
0.10
0.10
x maximum allowable from
MINOR
MAJOR
Design Dlacbarge for Half & Street (fran Shoat O PaaA)
0a •
1.50
12.70
cfs
Water Spread Width
T=
61
16AIt
Water Depth at Flowline (deal of local disposal
tl •
3.1
6.8
Inches
Water Ceps, at Street Crown (or at Tau.)
tlenaaa =
0.0
0.0
inches
Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow
E. •
0.802
0.359
Cisebarge pool Ine Gudor Semi. W, canted m Section T.
O, •
0AO
8.15
phs
Discharge wlmin Me Gutter Section W
O, •
1.21
C56
cis
Discharge Behind Me Curb Face
QAax=
0.00
0.00
tls
Street Flow Aea
A.
0.56
3.06
all n
Street Flow Velocity
V, •
2.79
d.1B
fps
epin Wr Design Condition
do. •
5.1
7.8
mcnes
a alb Calculated
MINOR
MAJOR
g0 of Mal Grate Opening
L=
3.00
3.00
n
Grata Flow to Design Flow
Few.n =
0.7s5
0.32511ogging
Condition
7�ta
MINOR
MAJOR
Velocity Whew Gate Spash-Over eeglea
V„ =
8,17
8.17
fps
on Rate of Fontal Flow
R ^
1.00
950on
Rate ci Sto Flow
lY •
p12
0 12on
Capacity
Q `
1.21
5.17
Cs
Under Clogging Condition
MINOR
MAJOR
Clogging CoafBcient for MuMpleunit Grote Inlet
Gralecoef-
1.001
1.00
Clogging Factor is Multiple -unit Grate Inlet
Grateclog•
0.50
0.50
EBech" (unciogged) Length of Mueiple-unit Gate Inlet
L. =
1 m
1.50
It
Minimum VelWty Where Gone Spaan-Over Begins
Vo=
AM
3.86
fps
Interception Rele of Frontal Flow
W •
1.00
0.97
Imincepbon Rate of Side Flow
R.=
O.D6
0.03
Actual Inerception Capacity
O, •
1.15
414
da
Canv-0eo r Flow= Q-C, (to be applied W curb opening or neat d/s inlet)
O.•
OAS
B"
eta
lent Slope S, (based on grate carryover(
M Longer LT to Have 100% Interception
No -Clogging Condleon
e Lengtit of Curb Opening or Slpned Inlet (minimum of L, Lr)
,am Capacity
Clogging Condition
ig Coefficient
g Factor for Mulepleonit Curb Opening or Sloned Inlet
.(Unclogged) Langer
Intarce,ob. Capacity
Intel Interception Capacity \
Inlet Carry.Dyer Film (flow bypassing inlet) so
re Percenlaoe = 010 _
MINOR
MAJOR
S.-I
0,1395
0.0766
ilnt
LT =
4.06
22.11
MINOR
MAJOR
L =
3.00
3.00
8
O,=
0.16
0.98
CIS
MINOR
MAJOR
Oobcosf=
1.00
1.00
aroclgg •
0.10
p.1D
L•
2.0
von
CA
MAJOR
5.11
UO Inlet E1(WO). xis. Intel On Grade
1211712009. 9.10 AM
DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD
Harmony and College
E2 (WQ)
Design Flow= Gutter Flow + Carryover Flow
UVF 13WND STREET I �SID DVFLOWND
<—GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLDw TTER FLOW II t r II
INLET INLET fS7 /-Z i r1 c h
112 OF STREET /�� 'r-x• \
(local peak flow for V2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments):
• If you entered a value her. akin the rest of this sheet and crossed to sheet
Site: (Check One Box Only)
Site is Urban: X
Site Is Non -Urban:
iz
Subratchm nt Area= Acres
Pemenllmper'iousness=I %
NRCS Soil Type =1 IA, 0, C, or D
Slope(Poft) Length(ft)
Overland Flow =
Gutter Flow -
Design Starts Return Period
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation,
User -Defined Stan Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value),
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value),
Bypass (Carry-0ver) Flow from upstream Subeatehments,
Calculated Design Ste" Runoff Coefficient, C
Calculated 5yc Runoff Coefficient, C5
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo
Gutter Flow Velocity, VG:
Overil Flow Time, to:
Gutter Flow Time, to
Calculated Time of Concentration. T�
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T,+
Recommended T,
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T,:
Design Rainfall Intensity, 1 :
Calculated Local Peak Flow, Op =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q -
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
WA
NIA
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
WA
N/A
N/A
0.201
7.59
rh
IN`.(t �_ L C!��u �t 3 �.Z c'S o� �i-s'7 \�z.l 1 r1C✓�,
fJ C it \ C- —K-c a [ ".4
as
Ps
ninutes
ninutes
ninutes
ninutes
ninutes
ninutes
nch/hr
.N
IS
LID Inlet E2(WQ)xls, Q-Peak 12/1712009, 9:14 AM
I
1
1
1
I
II
II
I
II
�I ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm)
(based on Regulated Criteria tar Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread)
Project:
Harmony and College
Inlet ID:
E2IWO)
'�`-T ...
8axc`
y
Hcuse d
a
T... we
T. Tvex
LW Tx 'I Strecl
Crown
B+
mum Allowable W dth for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance cretllf behind curb)
ring's Roughness Behind Curb
of Curb m Gutter Flow Line
m Rom Curb Face to Street Crown
Width
Transverse Slope
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
g's Roughness for Street Section
Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
or Cress Slope (Eq, ST-8)
er Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)
er Depth Met a Gutter Depression
.able Spread far Discharge outside Me G" Section W IT - W)
er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FH WA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
:harge outside Me Gutter Section W, canned in Section T,
:harge within Me Gutter Section W (0. -%)
harge Behind Me Curb (e.g., sidewalk. driveways, & lawns)
Imum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread
r Velocity Within Me Gutter Section
Product: Flow Velocity Times Cutler Nowhere Depth
oretical Water Spread
oretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W IT- W)
ler Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FH WA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)
onucal Discharge outs de the Golfer Section W, camel In Section T 171
lal Discharge outside Me Gutter Section W, (limited by distance T camw)
:harge within Me Gutter Section W (Od - DO
:harge Behind Me Curb (e.g., sidewalk. driveways, & lawns)
it Discharge for Major & Minor Storm
r Velocity Within Me Gutter Senon
Product: Flow Velachy Times Gutter Flowline Depth
�e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6') Storm
Flow Based on Allow. Guder Depth (Safety Factor Applied)
Aunt Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)
Atant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)
Teem =
15.0
ft
Sae w =
neeox=
0.0200
R vert / ft. hertz
0.013D
Hama=40.0111
inches
To..R
a=inches
W =ft
Sx =IL
vert. / R horiz
So=ft.
vet. I ft. hmiz
naraeer=
Minor Storm Major Storm
T. = 25.0 40.0 R
6.00 9.60 inches
X =yes
Minor Seem Maier Shorn
Sw
y.
it
Tx:
Ea:
Ox'
Ow:
Oeees
Qr
V-
V•d
TT.
Txw'
Eo;
Oxrn'
Ox:
Geecx
0:
V-
Wal =
R=
0..
it
do.
0.0875
0.0875
7.26
1TU
8.78
13.14
23.0
38.0
02.29
0.141
34.1
130.0
10.1
21.3
4.6
48.0
48.8
1993
7.8
10.6
5.7
H.fi
Mivv Clore Meinr ei-_
15.4
27.8
13.4
25.8
0.373
0.205
8.1
46.4
8.1
46.4
4.0
lZI)
0.0
9.2
12.9
67.5
984
5M
i
Vftes
noires
t
ds
:fs
is
is
as
A
ds
:is
:is
ds
pe
fs
'Chas
lutes
Minor Storm Major Sronn
loveable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of 0 . or 0. O,ne.= 13.0 67.5 cfs
STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'0-Peak'
STORM max. allowable caparm, OK - areatar than flow nivnn on shoot n.P..ov
I' LID Inlet F2(WO).xls, C-Allow 12/17/2009. 9:14 AM
11
INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
Home entl Colleee
Inlet 10: FZ (WOI
f-Lo (C)-x
H-Curb H•Verl
W0
Wp
W
of Inlet
Depression (occasional M mminuous leader conversion b' 1. c}AIIOW)
Number of Units in Me Inlet (Grate or Cum Opening)
h of a Single Unit Inlet lGrate or Cum Opening)
of a Unit Grate (cannot be greeter Man W from O Allow)
Ing Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical man, value = 0.5)
Type
acorn
No
CIG
CIC
Imlal:l
Design Discharge for Had of Street(hen Sheet OFaak)
q=
02D
7M
efa
Water Spread Width
T=
15
12.4
It
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)
d =
1.6
5.1
inches
Wit Deem at Street Crown (or at Taxa)
dom e, -
0.0
0.0
Inches
Retie of Guter Flow to Design Flow
Be'
1.000
0.461
Discharge outside Me Gutter Section W, carved in Section T.
O, s
D.00
4.09
cis
Discharge within Me Gutter Section W
O„=
0.20
350
cfs
Discharge Behind the Cum Face
Oexac=
DOD
0.00
cis
Street Flow Area
A. -
0.10
1.98
aq If
Street Flow Velocity
V,=
2.01
3.83
lot
Water Depth for Design Condition
µ„nv =
3.6
7.1
inches
MINOR
MAJOR
gth 0f INat Grate Opening
L =
3.00
3.C)
n
rate Flow M Design Flow
E.. =
1A21
0420Clogging
7GtaWR�
Conction
MINOR
MAJORVelocity
Where Grate Spesh-0er Begins
V,=
6.1]
6.1]ips
on Rate of Frontal Row
R =
1.00
1.00on
Rare of Side Flow
R.=
036
0.15n
Capacity
Oi=
0.20
356
Ms
Under Clogging Contlitlon
MINOR
MAJOR
Clogging Coefficient for Mullipleunit Grate Inlet
GrateCoef=
I.W1
1.00
Clogging Factor far MUMOleunit (hate Intel
GmmClog=
0.50
0.50
Effective (umogged) Length M MunapliI Grate Inlet
L. =
1.50
LSO
ff
Minimum Velocity More Grab Sca sh-0 Begicu
V,=
3.86
3.88
fps
Intar.m. Rate of Fmnbl FMw
R =
1.00
1.0g
Intemepbon Rate of Side Flaw
R.
0ID
0.06
Actual Interception Capacity
0, =
am
3.35
CIe
Cni Fli Qi,-Q, (I. be seabed to cum opening or nazi do, Intel)
q =
0000
42d
cfs
Curb or dint Get
MINOR
MAJOR
Equivalent Slope S. (based on grab carryover)
S. =1
0.17091
0.0918
N0
Required Length LT M Have 100%Interception
Lr=
0.00
14.86
0
Under Nc Llogglm, Condition
MINOR
MAJOR
Effective Length or Cum Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, Lr)
L-
0.00
3.00If
Interceptor, Capacity
Oi=
0.001
0.71
cis
Under clogging Condition
MINOR
MAJOR
Clogging Coelficenl
CumCoef=
1.OD
1.00
Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Cum Opening m Status Inlet
Cur�Cbp=
0.10
0.10
Effectt.(Untlogged) Length
L.
0.00
2.70h
Actual Interception Capacity
Q =
0.00
a."
oft
Inlet Interception Capacity
Inlet Carry -Over Flow (fiche bypassing Inlet)
JO Inlet E2(WO).x1s. Inlet On Grace
12/1]2009, 9'14 AM
Project
No.: K>ALQ—OC)---LOZ.
Date: J'2 l I --A, � o q By: IF 5
T---e A� C-i - trl
` k r: < g
C
1,A Z5, —t-� JN of I n
S y '5Vt M A S
LLI
1 A, 8
I5 ) ' CZ ;�4�
l i j
CDC) /.
1 � ,
o IC
\0UAA,4A a C i'rst `J1 of 9-u . of l 1�3• Y �i'
1 y�� 5 cQ>� b . �, I.s C� `�GF- C 1 6ai - "r s 8
. / ..
(1U91C-F
Pk :5 sA Oti1 �o �.� 13 ��b ;��� cz
\e�i c- f.-1seo q A-X-4 s i h1 rAA-ka1N:,,,� �3of
1218 W. ASH, STE C • WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550
T e 1.970.674.3300 • FAx.970.674.3303
Project
No.:
II
'J —6A C5 ; N 5
C -D` ; awl (f
, P� —�
'F— ,
�S19� ��
;5 rc��; rt
�o -�c Am
■
■
(0yl
t��� W1 2�1`rc� _ moo' �� s.�., s
\3 � \[Jl SSE �G� Ie�':sr-40 v 77_s<i:,S
I
1218 W. ASH, STE C • WINDSOR, COIORADO 80550
TEI.970.674.3300 • rAx.970.674.3303
APPENDIX E
EROSION CONTROL PLANS
NOTES,�
1. EROSION CONTROL. METHOOS SHOWN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME,
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SWMP AND STATE DISCHARGE
PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REWIRED.
i
yyP
2. CONTRACTOR TO PROWOE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHWT AND
Is
u
CMSIRUC110N ENTRANCE.
/
X X /
! (2)
\ l X !X,—X-
'I
00 i
e
Creol'on Dole: 2/14/09 Initioh: JDL
Lost ModilicOtion Dote: 12 23 09 Initiate: JDL
Full Poth:
2007 Scale: 1:40 Units: ENGLISH
SAWCUT LINE (TVP.).
of
.Fates I�5
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Phone: (970) 221-6605
FAX: (970) 221-6378
CORRECTED
SPEC/AL WARRANTYDEED
REC. NO. 2007006,4770
LNREAL ESTATELLC
LOT3
ARBOR PLAZA P. U.D.
FOR SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DT
As Constructed
No Revisions:
Eilwt -i'd---
1420 2ntl Street
Greeley. CO 80631
Revised:
Phone: (970) 350-2126
Void:
FAX�n(970) 350-219G
20 0 20 40
�iiiiAiiiiiiiill�l
SCALEI I"- AD'
LEGEND
UJI
Z
t-- FLOW DIRECTION
"'I
® EX STORM PIPE
UPROPOSED
F
STORM PIPE
Q
PROPOSED INLET
EX 1' CONTOUR
- -- EX 5' CONTOUR
1' CONTOUR
490i 5• CONTOUR
e, 0 REc/S�
TF�
34288:
--0: a
S7 ONAL.�a
`s' P-1
RMONY EROSION CONTROL Pt
STA 4+00.00 TO STA 8+50.00
Iner. M. 09ERLANDER
SILT FENCE
WATTLES
INLET PROTECTION
(NUMBER DENOTES
CORRECT DETAIL)
AN Project No./Code
STU M455-077
16136
II 4 Sheet Number 65
NOTES,�E
1. EROSION CONTRW METHWS SHOM REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME. L < f
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SwMP AND STATE DISCHARGE
PERMIT WITH My AND ALL METHODS REWIRED.
2, CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AREA FEW CONCRETE WASHOUT AND u
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
jp' •jl II LOTi
mEGATEWAYATHARMONYROA
P.CUD., SECOND FILING
'11 Q II II ( — — — — 10
SAWCUT LINE (T1yyfIL it I
I t °E 0E
W
Z
J
U
a
n
Last ModiliCOliDn Dote: 1
Full Path:
Drawing File Name: 10�
Acad ver. 2007
.Fort Collins
281 North College Avanue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Phone: (970) 221-6605
FAX: (970) 221-6378
FOR SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0
1420 2nd Street
Greeley. CO 80631
Phone: (970) 350-2126
4,F(970) 350-2198
4 PJG
rAllmr
RIaV[
A
20 0 20 40
SCALE: 1 •• 40'
LEGEND
f— FLOW DIRECTION
® EX STORM PIPE
PROPOSED
STORM PIPE
PROPOSED INLET
EX 1' CONTOUR
EX 5' CONTOUR
1' CONTOUR
4905 5' CONTOUR
O
SILT FENCE
0
V P-1
As Constructed HARMONY EROSION CONTROL P
a Revisions: STA 8+50.00 TO STA 13+00.00
wised: Designer: M. OBERLANDER
Detaiier. J. LOFfDN
WATTLES
INLET PROTECTION
(NUMBER DENOTES
CORRECT DETAIL)
AN Project No./Code
STU M455-077
16136
Ti 4 Sheet Number 66
NOTES.
1. EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHOWN REFLECT WE SNAPSHOT IN TIME.
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SMMP AND STALE DISCHARGE
PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REWIRED.
2CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT AND
Ci NSTRUCTI°N ENTRANCE. I MATCHLINE
— (SEE COLLEGE AVE EROSION_ CONTROL PLAN)
/ o
L�<�h °m
d \
///// • ° • IN1� �' 1 SAINCUT LINE (TYP•). .
/ 5p79
WARRANTYDEED i�r
REC. NO. 97087728
SCHRADER LAND CO, LLLP
W
n °
,
" 4
IA
ao 0 20 40
Z
° °
°
a
n
- - ° ° ° " ° d
Z
SCLE At ^ • 40
°
- - 00•
e
°
Iti.pp n
"
°:6_ppa , . ;; nn
a°
° J
..I
4
LEGEND
°
°
I"
-4
4'
4 `
FLOW DIRECTION
°
°°° t
a
d ,
50 ° a
_
EX STORM PIPE
- -
°
a
-" a
d
HD
ARMONYROA
PROPOSED
STORM PIPE
°
_d
° a
" a
--'
PROPOSED INLET
°
,
EX 1' CONTOUR
G
4 -------- -_ --_ -
_ -
- -- - EX 5' CONTOUR
`'.:' ••.. -
.4° ° _.
-
V CONTOUR
-�_
°°
_
- -
PROPOSED ROw .�^ �
^ °r 4
5025 - _
a905 5' CONTOUR
.',
1
_
-
x —
-
F
a°
- ---
-
NSF PROPOSED Row
X X SILT FENCE
\ _
LOT 1 J 2� E
-
A
° ° d ° 4° '(
(�-Z
`/,&- --- - - -
O ' WATTLES
SOUNDTRACKAT - - I 1I
V
°
�� WARRANTYDEED
ARSORPLAZAP.U.D. I
u Ili
REC. NO.20050044293
INLET PROTECTION
4 4° ". I
\� If 5EHARAfONYROAD, L -C
V P_1 (NUMBER DENOTES
I
I �,
`
QO REG
CORRECT DETAIL
I
4 ° •„�
,
0.
o.
g�PP Flo
MATCHLINE
oo:�QpU�
E.
(SEE COLLEGEIAVE
EROSION CONTROL PLAN)
4 8
3 28
FOR SUBMITTAL
°
0
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
ASS/ONAL
�aG\
Computer
File Information
Index
of Revisions
) 0 T
As Constructed
HARMONY
EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
Project No./Code
Creation Date:
2/14/09 Initials: JDL
-Fort CoLLIns
�f�'
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins. CO 80522
Phone: (970) 221-6605
FAX: 970 221-6378
_
���
1420 2no Street
Greeley. CO 80631
Phone: (970) 350-2126
FAX: (970) 350-2198
Regain 4 PJG
STA
13+00.00 TO STA
17+50.00
No Revisions;
STU M455-077
Last Modification Dote: 12 2J 09 Initials: JDL
Full Path:
Revised:
Void:
Designer: M. OBERLANOER
16136
Drawing File Nome: 104601202FOR-EC(Hormonv).dwq
Delailec J. LOfTON
Sheet Number 6�
Acad Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:40 Units: ENGLISH
Sheet Subset: GRADING
Subset Sheet::
3 DI 4
TES-
1,EERROSION CONTROL METHODS $ OMN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME.
CONTRACTOR IS RESPON98LE FOR MAINTAINING SWMP AND STATE DISCHARGE n
PERMIT mTH ANY AND ALL METHODS REQUIRED.
2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT AND
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. N
pp ewurm wnNonreowR
p�
z
M
it
A,
7-7
_�------ _ ......................
--_—_� —_ — -----_ ��_ ---_ •s�����s
-- -- —
— ----- ~-------- ---�--�
.O
EX ceLc�w LEGEND
A"JZ \soz \ F FLOW DIRECTION
19+00 20+00 21+00
< —'— CkZ; I r - --_ ------ ® EX STORM PIPE
e.." "4 �j�-_ PROPOSED
U_-----_—__� - _--- - --- STORM PIPE
— _--_-_---------_-- �' PROPOSED INLET
_--------
.. SAWCOT EX C&G .� i------ - - - - -- EX 1' CONTOUR
LINE (TYP.)
HARMONYROAD
/ EX 5' CONTOUR
/ 1' CONTOUR
O /
--------------------- �-��.- 5' CONTOUR
E — — — — .�=T_r_ X F X SILT FENCE
CD' WATTLES
INLET PROTECTION
v P_t (NUMBER
CORRECT DETAIL)
WARRANTYDEED LO
REC. N0.20050044293,It/ .....
r�
f f5EHARMONY III ) h�" All /�)LL
ROAD, ]-,LCI S i N I I `'—
FOR SUBMITTAL 34288o
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
S/ONAL
Computer File Information Index of Revisions A _ ) 0 Tj As Constructed HARMONY EROSION CONTROL PLAN Project No./Code
Creation Date: 2/14/09 Initials: JOL Fort Collins
Lost Modification Dote: 12 23 09 Initials: JDL -/��' earrrareµalTr No Revisions: STA 17+50.00 TO STA 22+00.00 STU M455-077
1420 2nd Street
Full Path: 281 North College Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Revised: Designer: M. O6ERLANDER 16136
Drawin File Nome: 104601202FOR—EC Hormon .dw Fort Collins. CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126 Detailer: J. LOFTON
Phone: (970) 221-6605 FAX: (970) 350-2198 Void: Sheet Number 68
Acad Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:40 Units: ENGLISH FAX: 970 221-6378 Region 4 _ Pic Sheet Subsel: GRADING Subset Sheet:: 4 of 4
LEGEND
NOS,
I. EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHOWN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT N TIME.
�
y
-1116— FLOW DIRECTION
$E
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SWMP AND STATE DISCHARGE
PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REWIRED.
w
® EX STORM PIPE
x SILT FENCE
PROE.� AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT AND
° •IT[L(
X
C2. WSTRC TCTOR ON ENTRANCE.
�rZ� PROPOSED
STORM PIPE
O'
WATTLES
O0 RECA20 0 20 40
S
MAHHn YPo AT
PROPOSED INLET
INLET PROTECTION
�P.........
•. O'rF scnLe I^- ao
'�Q� `•��.+;��Y
LJ
`"""
------------ EX 1' CONTOUR
(NUMBER DENOTES
p"
V ' (• O
— — — —
v
= 34288
_
EX 5' CONTOUR
CORRECT DETAIL)
:� �.
1' CONTOUR �o�; .`�� FOR SUBMITTAL
4905
�SS7ONAL E�G�a NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5' CONTOUR
LOT I ' TRACTA LOT f
FAZOLIWATARHORPLAZA P.U.D. 1 (PARKINGESMT• SOUNDTRACKAT
I 20 of 1.— I AE. UE& DE)ARBOR PLAZA P, U.D.
1
O r_/ sozs
6-- 1�- L
--------- - — _ — —i l;
E% ROw
IP-1 IP-1 _— ------ -- \ Q -J
O
4 0
5 SAWCUT LINE (TYP) _ \ o ° 0 X'
J 0 G
110l DD —Imo---- ---.00 \` \ \ . oc ° ° U � Z
lP
COLLEGE CL=�
SECTION LINE
•50 , 502
EX C&G
` - L
- - - - - - - = - --
LARIMER COUNTY 0 o
PARCEL NO. 960f20582
QWEST
QQ ---- +—
SAWCUT LINE (TYP) ° c n ° °' " O 4
� 0 �o
° 4 M
Q... ° W ° n"
I �
WARRANTYDEED
5� REC. NO. 20050044293 S
_
115EHARMONYROAQLLC
Computer File Information
Index
of Revisions
FOrtC011l(15 —_ 10T
1 9rmTr=r
1420 2nd Street
281 North College Avenue Greeley, CO 80631
Fort Collins. CO 80522 Phone: (970) 350-2126
Phone: (97D) 221-6605 FAX: (970) 350-2198
FAX: 970 221-6378 'on 4 PUG
As Constructed
COLLEGE EROSION CONTROL PLAN
STA 110+00.00 TO STA 113+50.00
Project No./Code
Creation Dole: 2/14/09 Initials: JDL
No Revisions:
STU M455-077
Lae( Modification Dote: 1 z 23/09 Initials: JDL
Full Path:
Revised:
Void:
Designer: M. OBERLANDER
16136
Drawing File Name: 104601202FOR—EC Colle a
Detailer. J. LOFTON
.dw
Aced Ver. 2007 Scale: 1:40 Units: ENGLISH
Sheet Subset: EROSION
Subset Sheet:: 1 0l 2
Sheet Number 69
LEGEND
f- FLOW DIRECTION
® EX STORM PIPE
PROPOSED
STORM PIPE
PROPOSED INLET
-- - - - - _- - --- EX 1'CONTOUR
- — EX 5' CONTOUR
I'CONTOUR
4905 5' CONTOUR
SF
X
X SILT FENCE
O '
WATTLES
INLET PROTECTION
V P 1
(NUMBER DENOTES
CORRECT DETAIL)
LOT1
\ \ THE GATEWA YA T HARMONY it uE.
ROAD P. U.D., SECOND FILING - I I& I£
\ ' - EX AREA /IVrCT-
Com uter File Information
Creation Dale: 2/14/09 Initials:
Last Modification Dote: 12/23/09 Initials:
:40 Units: ENGLISH
NOTES,
IERR'OSION CONTROL METHODS SHOWN REFLECT ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME.
CONTRACTOR Is RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING SWMP AND STATE DISCHARGE
PERMIT WITH ANY AND ALL METHODS REWIRED.
2. CONTRACTOR TO PRONOE AREA FOR CONCRETE WASHWT AND
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
e" REC7Sr �
p ; •QE% F
v P� '� UO
34288:
v t� FIT o
S7• ONALt' Gp
�E
y�
3
20 0 20 40
scnlE 1'• - eD,
FOR SUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Ii.i 0
IQ I I o j 1 l I I
I
,�-- r!— -r-- _
FCity of
ort CoILIns
y.
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Phone: (970) 221-6605
FAX: (970) 221-6378
0
1420 2nd Street
Greeley. CO 80631
Phone: (970) 350-2126
FAX (970) 35D-2198
Regien 4 PJO
As Constructed
No Revisions:
Revised:
Void:
COLLEGE EROSION CONTROL PLAN
STA 116+25.00 TO STA 120+50.00
Designer: M. OBERIAND�ER
Detoiler: J. OFTON I
Project No./Co
STU M455-077
16136
Sheet Number 70