The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 05/03/1999FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR THE FORT COLLINS MAINTENANCE FACILITY (Revised May 3, 1999) Prepared for: Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley, Colorado 80632 Prepared by: Muller Engineering Company, Inc. Irongate 4, Suite 100 777 South Wadsworth Boulevard Lakewood, Colorado 80226 NEC Project No. 9708 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 May 3, 1999 Mr. Ted Shepard City Of Fort Collins Muller Engineering Company, Inc. Consulting Engineers Community Planning and Environmental Services / Current Planning P.O. Box 580 Irongate a, Suite 100 777 South Wadsworth Boulevard Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Lakewood. Colorado 80226-4331 (303) 988-4969 Fax (303) 988-4939 Re: CDOT Region 4 Maintenance Facility MEC Project No. 9708.01 Dear Mr. Shepard: We are pleased to resubmit the "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for the CDOT Region 4 Fort Collins Maintenance Facility." The report was prepared in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, dated May, 1984. This report includes a variance request for the slight increase in the percent imperviousness as compared to the P.U.D.. Also, the June 28, 1993 revision to the study for the East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. included a variance to design the minor storm facilities for the 2-year storm. The East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. contains the CDOT site within its boundaries, and the proposed development is consistent with the P.U.D.. Thank you for your assistance during the review and submittal process. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, MULLER ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. Bruce A. Behrer Jr., P.E. Project Engineer cc: Rex Touslee, CDOT Project Manager i FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR THE FORT COLLINS MAINTENANCE FACILITY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1 II. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...................................... 1 III. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS ............................................. 1 IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA.......................................................... 2 V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN.......................................................... 2 VI. EROSION CONTROL PLAN................................................................. 4 VII. VARIANCE REQUEST.......................................................................... 5 VIII. CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 5 I I. INTRODUCTION The subject parcel is the west 2.5-acre portion of Lot 4 that is located within the East ' Vine Streets Facility P.U.D.. The following Final Drainage Report for the CDOT R4 Fort Collins Maintenance Facility is being submitted as a supplement to the drainage ' report prepared for the East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D., which is described as follows: Final Drainage, Erosion and Storm Water Quality Study; East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D.; Phase One Final; for the City of Fort Collins dated June 28, 1993 by RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants (PUD Drainage Report). The following drainage report makes numerous references to the previous drainage report, since that report was used as a guideline for addressing drainage related concerns for this project. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION IL ' A. Location The East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. is bounded by 9th Street on the east, Linden Street on the west, and by the Burlington Northern Railroad on the North. The west portion of Lot 4, which is labeled as parcel 4A, is located in the west half of the P.U.D. property. The site is situated in the North half of Section 12, township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. A vicinity map is shown in Appendix A. B. Description of Properly The subject parcel contains 2.5 acres of land located within the 32.5 acres of the East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. parcel. The subject parcel is currently a flat, undeveloped lot that generally slopes gently down to the east at slopes from 0.2 to 1.5 percent. The ground cover consists of grasses and weeds. III DRAINAGE BASINSAND SUB -BASINS A. Major Basin Description The runoff from the site drains to the southeast into the Dry Creek Basin. The site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. Please refer to the P.U.D. Drainage Report for additional details. The site is located within the 500-year floodplain. B. Sub -Basin Description The subject parcel is located within portions of sub -basins A and B as shown in the P.U.D. report. Please refer to the P.U.D. Drainage Report for additional details. II II 1 II II 1 I t IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The P.U.D. Drainage Report includes additional discussions regarding the utilization of detention and the associated requirements for the drainage design. C. Hydrological Criteria Rational method calculations in accordance with the City Criteria were used for the analyses shown in the P.U.D. Drainage Report and completed for this report. D. Hydratdic Criteria The calculations shown in the P.U.D. report are in accordance with the City Criteria. All hydraulic calculations associated with the development of the subject parcel are in accordance with the City Criteria. E. Variances from Criteria The P.U.D. Drainage Report describes the variances associated with the P.U.D. project. An additional variance is requested for the slight increase in percent imperviousness as compared to the percent imperviousness used in the P.U.D. See Section V11, Variance Request for additional explanation. V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept The general concept for the development conforms to the land use shown in the P.U.D. Drainage Report. Drainage improvements have been designed to follow the restraints set forth in the original P.U.D.. See the P.U.D. Drainage Report for additional information. 2 I I 1 1 I 1 1 B. Specific Details Please refer to the P.U.D. Drainage Report and associated references for description related to the overall site development. Existing Conditions Drainage Characteristics The existing drainage patterns for the 2.5-acre site drain to the east across very gentle grass terrain. The drainage from this site drains onto Lot 4B and ultimately into the existing detention pond located near the east end of the East Vine Streets P.U.D. site. A 1.3-acre portion of the offsite area to the west of Lot 4A drains to the southeast into the property. Proposed Conditions Drainage Characteristics 2-Year Minor Storm The majority of the site is contained in subbasin A-1, which will drain to the east until it is intercepted by a 6 foot wide valley gutter that is located along the east property line. Sub -basin A-2 includes the west half of the roof drainage and a large portion of the west side of the lot. The runoff from sub -basin A-2 will be routed to the south by a 2-foot wide concrete pan that is located adjacent to the west property line and collected by an area inlet located near the southwest comer of the property. From that point, the drainage will flow east through a 15-inch RCP storm sewer to the Type C area inlet that will be constructed near the southeast comer of the site. An 18-inch storm sewer will route the 2-year flows to the east where another area inlet will be constructed. This inlet will serve to capture runoff from the future development of the parcel located to the east of the subject parcel. A 24-inch storm sewer will be connected to the stubout from the existing inlet located to the east. Sub -basin A-3 is a small basin that drains to the north into the railroad ditch. The runoff from this relatively small basin flows back into the East Vine Streets development further to the east of the subject parcel. The proposed drainage improvements are in conformance with the development and related improvements shown P.U.D. Drainage Report. Drainage channels will be constructed along the east and west property lines. These channels will intercept and convey local site runoff to the south. The east channel will route runoff to the south using a 6-foot wide concrete ►fined valley gutter toward the Type C inlet located near the southeast comer of the site. A 2-foot wide concrete valley gutter will route runoff to the south along the west property line toward the upstream area inlet for the storm sewer system. 1 3 i 100-Year Major Storm ' The 100-year storm flows will drain over the surface since the storm sewer system will be surcharged due to the capacity of the 2-year storm sewer. The flow from subbasins A-1 and A-3 will drain to the east. Subbasin A-1 will flow along the swales along both sides of the access road. Subbasin A-3 will flow ' along the railroad for a short distance before draining back into Lot 4B and ultimately into the water quality/ detention pond. The flow from subbasin A-2 will flow to the west to Linden Street then south to the Cache La Poudre. The Drainage Report Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan and the drainage design related calculations are located in the Appendix. Calculations include drainage channel hydraulic calculations, storm sewer hydraulic grade line calculations, and sub -basin hydrological calculations. ' C. Irrigation Ditches ' There are no irrigation facilities that will be affected by this development. tD. Water Quality The runoff from this site will be routed through a water quality pond located to the east of the subject parcel. Additional information regarding the water ' quality pond is described in the P.U.D. Drainage Report. The water quality Pond A is designed to contain the 2-year runoff from its tributary basins, which includes the subject parcel and release the flow over a 40-hour period. E. Mitigation of Impacts to Downstream Receiving Waters ' The receiving waters located downstream from the subject parcel is the Cache La Poudre River. There are no anticipated adverse effects to the river that are ' anticipated for this development. ' VI. EROSION CONTROL_ PLAN The erosion control measures for the site have been designed in accordance I with the City Criteria. Appendix A includes the calculations for the site' s Performance Standard and the net Effective Value (EFF). The Drainage and Erosion Control Plan shows the erosion control facilities to be implemented as part of construction. The installation schedule is included on the Erosion Control Detail sheet of the contract drawings. An erosion control cost estimate is included in Appendix A. ' The majority of the site will be paved or aggregate base course surfacing. The areas that will be landscaped will be protected by mulching during the interim, 4 I tuntil revegetation gets established. Also, two straw bale barriers will be installed around the two area inlets, which are the collection points for the ' majority of the site. Silt Fence is shown to be installed around the east, north and west sides of the ' site, which will serve to treat the runoff during the overlot grading work. This will also provide a significant benefit as far as wind erosion protection is concerned. 1 VIZ VARIANCE REQUEST A variance is requested to allow a slight increase in the percent imperviousness For the site development as compared to the percent imperviousness shown in ' the P.U.D. drainage report. Although there is a slight increase in the percent imperviousness of less than 5 percent, the site development is consistent with ' proposed use shown in the P.U.D.. 1 1 1 VIII. CONCLUSION The drainage design for the site is in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and the P.U.D. Drainage Report. The P.U.D. Drainage Report included provisions to address drainage concerns for areas designated for future development, which includes the portion of Lot 4 that is the subject parcel for this report. 5 I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS 1 AREA Downtown art Collins St. �P A VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=4000' HIM a 19.s - oo l FF-- Q Z 0 Fn w 0 zm �(0 Uj J � Q N aCID a) c W m W yc LO U)L °' w o1 ILL z ca crL oCD UE � o Q LL O LL cc LL J Q U a MAY 1984 5-3 DESIGN CRITERIA PAULLER ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. ICDOT REGION 4 MAINT. FACILITY In FT. COLLINS JOB 9 9708 rROLOGICAL ANALYSIS DATE 8113198 ATIONAL METHOD CALLS PREP. BY BAB BASIN A-1 Find Area: Total Area = 1.85 Ac Other Notes: Basin that drains to the southeast Type C inlet Find Cvfu & Owl 001 a. Table for various ground cover types and corresponding C-values Type of Cover C-value Source Paved or Impery 0.95 Ft. Collins Thl 3-3 Gravel 0.5 Ft Collins Thl 3-3 Gass/ Land 0.2 Ft. Collins TbI 3-3 b. Calculate Qv -values 5-Year Typeof Cover C-value Area C-velue(Area) Paved or Impery 0.95 1.73 1.64 Gavel 0.50 0.02 0.01 Grassi Land. 0.20 0.10 0.02 1.85 1.67 Cvalue= 0.90 C(2 to 10 year)= 1.O*C- aIue => 0.90 C(51 to 100 yea 1.25-C-valu => 1.00 (C-value rs rat to exceed 1.0) Find To: a. Calculate Ti: Formula. TI=(1.87(1.1-GTC-value)(agrt Length))l(Slope".333) From UDFCD Equation 3-3 L = 150 It L = 150 R C 5yr= 0.9 C100yr= 1 S = 1.50 % S = 1.50 TI = 3-9 min TI = 2.0 m b. Calculate Tt'. L = 310 R Conc. Rundovm 5 = 0-89 % v = 1.9 From Fig. 3-2 of UDFCD Average Tt = 2.7 min c Calculate Tc Tc equals sum of parts a. 8 b. Tc = 6.6 min To = 47 min d. Check Tc Based on Equation 3-4 from UDFCD: Formula_ Tc=(U180)+10 Ltotal = 460 R To = 12.6 min e. Use Lowest Tc from part c or of above, But not less than 5.0. Tic = 6.6 min Tc(100yr)= 5.0 m Find I.values a. 1.2 = 2.9 iNhr I-100 = 9.2 initlr Calculate O-values. a. Cl- 2yr = 4.9 cis 0-100yr = 17.0 cfs FILZ 51-10 17•4p-98 4 MAIM FACILITY in FT COLLINS JOB a 9708 IL ANALYSIS DATE (ReO 51 BASIN A-2 Find Area. Total Area = 0.79 Ac Other Notes: Basin that drains to the southwest comer of the property. Find Ow5 & Cwl00: a. Table for various ground cover types and corresponding C-values Type of Cover C-value Source Paved or Imperv. 0.95 Ft. Collins TDI 3.3 Gravel 0.5 Ft. Collins Tot 3-3 Grassf Land. 0.2 Ft. Collins Tbl 3.3 b- Calculate Cw-values 5-Year Typeof Cover C-value Area C-value(Area) Paved or Impery 0.95 0,14 0.13 Gravel 0.50 0,32 0.16 Grass/ Land. 0.20 0.33 0,07 0.79 0.36 Cvalue = 0.45 C(2 to 10 year)- 1.0•C-value => GAS C(51 to 100 yea 1.25'C-valu => 0.57 Find To a. Calculate Ti Formula. Ti = (1,87(1.1-CPC-value)(sgrt Lengthy (Slope".333) From UDFCD Equation 3-3 L = 20 R L = 20 It C Syr = O5 Gravel C 100yr = O.625 G S = 1.50 % S = 1.50 T= 4.7 min Ti= 3.5m b. Calculate Tt: L = 350 R Concrete Gutter S= 1,10% V = 2.2 From Fig. 3-2 of UDFCD Average f Tt= 2.7 min c. Calculate To: To equals sum of parts a. 8 b. Tc = 7.4 min Tc(100yr) 6.1 min d Check To Based an Equation 3-4 from UDFCD' Formula'. Tc = L1180)-l0 Ltotal = 370 ft Tc= 12.1 min e. Use Lowest Tc from pen c or d above, But not less than 5.0. Tc = 7.4 min Tc(100yr) 6.1 min Find I -values. a 1-2 = 2.8 inmr 1.100 = 7.8 m1hr Calculate C values. a O. 2yr = 1.0 cfs 0-100yr = 35 cis FILE'.EI-1a 0&M ,99 REGION 4 MAIM. FACILITY N Ff. COLLII4S r v JOB N 9708 )LOGICAL ANALYSIS DATE (Rev) 5( BASIN A-3 (Existing Conditions) Find Area: Total Area = 0.21 Ac Other Notes: Basin that sheetflows of ode to the north into a ditch along the south side of the railroad, Basin contains 15' wde east. asphalt drive. Find OwS & Cw100: a. Table for various ground cover types and corresponding C-values Type of Cover C-value Source Payed or Impels 0.95 FL Collins Thl 3-3 Gravel 0.5 FL Collins Tbl 3-3 Grass/ Land. 0.2 FL Collins Tbl 3-3 b. Calculate Cw-values 5-Year Type of Cover C-value Arm C-velue(Ame) Paved or Impery 0.95 0.09 0.09 Gravel 0.50 0.00 0.00 Graa6l Land. 0.20 0.12 0.02 0.21 0.11 Cvalue = 0.52 C(2 to 10 year)= 1.0'C-value => 0.52 C(51 to 100 yea 1.25'C-valu => 0.65 Find Tc: a. Calculate Ti: Formula: TI = (1.87(1.1-CPC-value)(sgrt Length))/ (Slope".333) From UDFCD Equation 3.3 L = 40 it L = 40 8 CSyr- 0.5 CSyr= 0.625 S = 2.50 % S = 2.50 % C = Avg. for 15' pavement & 25' grass Ti = 5.0 min Ti = 4.1 min b. Calculate Tt: L= Ofr S = 0.00 % V= 2.2 Average f Tt = 0.0 min c. Calculate To: Tc equals sum of parts a. & b. To = 5.0 min d. Check Tc Based on Equation 3.4 from UDFCD: Formula: To = (U180)+10 Llotal = 40 fi Tc = 10.2 min e. Use Lowest Tc from part c or tl above. But not less than 5.0 Tc = 5.0 min Tc = 5.0 min Find I -values a. 1-2 = 3.3 inmr 1-100 = 9.2 Inthr Calculate O-values: a. O- 2yr = 0.4 cis C-100yr = 1.3 of$ FILE .E110 M ,,,N .LER ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. 5/ZI REGION 4 MAINT. FACILITY In FT. COLLINS JOB It 9708 DLOGICAL ANALYSIS DATE (Rev) 513M BASIN A-3 (Proposed Conditions) Find Area Total Area = 0.13 Ac Other Notes: Basin that sheelnows offsite to the north into a ditch along the south side of the railroad Find Gw5 & Cwl00. a. Table for various ground cover types and corresponding C-values Type of Cover C-value Source Paved or Impery 0.95 Ft Collins Tbl 3-3 Gravel 0.5 Ft. Collins Tbi 3.3 Grata Land. 0.2 Ft. Collins T513-3 b. Calculate C.-values 5-Year Type of Cover C-value Area C-value(Area) Paved or Impery 0.95 0.01 0.01 Gravel 0.50 0.04 0.02 Gross/ Land 0,20 0.08 0,02 -_ .---..._.. 0,13 0.05 Cvalue = 0.35 q2 to 10 year)= 1.0'C-value => 0.35 C(51 to 100 yea 1.25'C-valu => 0.44 Find To a. Calculate Ti: Formula: Ti = (1 87(1.1 -Cf C-value)(sgrt Length))/ (Slope".333) From UDFCD Equation 3-3 L = 40 It L = 40 If C Syr = 0.3 Gravel C t 00yr = 0,375 S e 3.50 % S = 3.50 % Ti = 6.2 min Ti = 5.6 min b. Calculate Tt: L= 0n S = 0.00 % v= 22 Average Tt = 0.0 min c. Calculate To: To equals sum of parts a. 8 b. To = 62 min To (100yr)= 5.6 min d. Check To Based on Equation 3-4 from UDFCD: Formula: Tc=(L/180)tl0 Ltotal = 40 If To = 10.2 min e. Use La t To from part c of of above, But not less than 5.0. To = 6.2 min To (100yr)= 5.6 min Find bvalues. a. k2 = 3 ir/hr 1-100 = 8.5 Win, Calculate O-values a. Q. 2yr = 0.1 cis l}100yr = 05 cis FILE'E1.10 6121 4,MAINi. FACILIN in FT. COLLINS JOB a 9708 DATE (Rev) 57. BASIN OS-1 Find Area: Total Area = 0.79 Ac Other Notes: Offsite basin that drame, to the southeast corner of the property Find Cw5 8 Cw100: a. Table for various ground cover types and corresponding C-values Type of Cover C-value Source Paved or Impen. 0.95 Ft. Collins Tbl 3.3 Gravel 0.5 Ft. Collins Tbl 3-3 Grass/ Land. 0.2 Ft. Collins Tbl 3-3 b. Calculate Qv -values 5-Year Type of Cover C-value Area C-value(Araa) Paved or Impen, 0.95 0.79 0.75 Gravel 0.50 0.00 0.00 Gress/ Land. 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.75 Cvalue= 0.95 C(2 to 10 year)= 1.0-C-value => 0.95 C(51 to 100 yea 1.25-C-valu => 1.00 (C-value not to exceed 1.0) Find To: a. Calculate Ti: Formula: TI = (1.87(1.1-CPC-value)(sgrt Length))/ (Slope".333) From UDFCD Equation 3-3 L= 125R L= 125R C 5yr = 0.95 C 5yr = 1.00 S= 1.12% S= 1.12% Ti = 3.0 min Ti = 2.0 min b. Calculate Tt: L= 210If S = 0.89 % V = 1.9 From Fig. 3-2 of UDFCD Average f Tt = 1.8 min c. Calculate Tc Tc equals sum of parts a. 8 b, Tc = 4.9 min Tc 100-yr 3.9 min d. Check To Based on Equation 34 from UDFCD. Formula: Tc = (L/180)+10 Ltotal = 335 8 Tc= 11.9 min e. Use Lowest Tc from part c or of above, But not less than 5.0 Tc = 5.0 min Tc 100-yr 5.0 min Find I -values: a. 1-2= 3,25 in/hr 1-100 = 9.2 Whir Calculate O-values: a. 0-2yr= 2.4 cfs 0-100yr= 7.3 cfs FILE: Et-10 D&May-99 ER ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. DOT REGION 4 MAIM. FACILITY in FT. COLLINS JOB a 9706 OLOGICAL ANALYSIS DATE 513199 ATIONAL METHOD CALCS PREP. BY BAR BASIN OS-2 (Existing Conditions) Fmtl Area: Total Area = 1 31 Ac Other Notes Basin that drains toward Lot 4 and Into the West Swale Find Cw5 & Owl 00'. a. Toole for venous ground cover types and corresponding C-values Type of Cover C-value Source Paved or Impen, 0.95 Ft. Collins Tbl 3-3 Gravel 0.5 Ft, Collins Tbl 3-3 Grass/ Land. 0.2 FL Collins Tbl 3.3 b. Calculate Qv -values 5-Year Type of Cover C-value Area C-mlue(Ares) Paved or Impery 0.95 0.00 0.00 Gravel 0.50 0.00 0.00 Gressr Land. 0.20 1.31 0.26 1.31 0.26 Ovalue = 0.20 C(2 to 10 year)= 1.0'C-value 0.20 C(51 to 100 yea 1.25-0-valu 0.25 Find To a. Calculate Ti: Formula: TI = (1.67(1.1-CM-velue)(sgn Length))/ (Slope" 333) From UDFCO Equation 3-3 L= 26011 L= 260 6 C 5yr - 0.2 C 100yr = 0.25 S = 1.54 % S = 154 % C - Grass T1= 23.5 min Ti= 22.2 min to Calculate Tt'. L = 125 6 S = 1.67 % V= 2.2 Average f Tt= 0.9 min a Calculate To.. Tc equals sum of pans a. 3 to. To= 24.5 min To = 23.2 min d. Check To Based on Equation 3-4 from UDFCD: Formula. Tc=(L/160).W Ltatal = 365 ft To = 12.1 min e. Use Lowest Tc from pan c a of above, But not less than 5.0. To = 12.1 min Tc = 5.0 min Find 1-values. a. 1-2 = 1.7 inthr 1.100 = 4.9 inmr Calculate O-values: a. 0. 2yr = DA cfs 0.100yr = 1.6 cfs 7/2-1 FILE:E1-10 iwmarW L' 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 8 /z / ION PROJECT: F-4 C.))inS / )wyn F4c ;-1 or CDOT 2-C STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: ,G,4-cr �d�rti 0 DATE: 3—//-9 DEVELOPED ERODIH LITY Asb Lsb Sab Lb Sb PS SUBBMIN ZONE (ac) (ft) (t) (feet) (t) (t) A_ I m" ,dem e 1.55 0- 79 yE0 370 /.09 /. i6 77. S 5EE rNE F t(Awi SNEcT Fa2 ,Pr c0 C[.C..c'7J0 S 1 MARCH 1991 S-1 • DESIGN CRITUER i CJ i 1 II II Muller Engineering Company, Inc. DESIGN NOTES /AND COMPUTATIONS 9/z / Sub ect: fait //ins / /a.n . .Ce Jac. i Sh t N Of o Prepared By: ;V4 Checked By: BAS/H - J , LALC . 4)0 SLOPE y�r Date: 3-10-ff BASIN A-Z 9 LALC . AI/6. SLOPE - SAVE = zo' (0.-79) + 350'L1.1 B> 370 C..teucarE LB Hbo �1.8� + 370 (0.79) Z. G'{ GoLcuL.� S 8 Z,by ee o. Project No.: F708 pETEa.MINE P&V-F*2 nnHC(s STQ�Oa¢D l 1�$ 1 11flN6 7-4816 9-A \ / inr6kRo"76 Fat 59= ).17 rGi '400/ 77.9 + (79. I - 77.4)� L I 77 7 o. ss ,Wro2PoLAT.�. Foe $6=1.1% @ $00�/ 77.7+ (79.11-777)j s) = 78. o Now rN-reePo-ATE FOR L-g= 433' 1 77.74 = s o-voa) So 'P S = 77 8 at CALCULATIONS PROJECT: STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: DATE: 3-11-9`J Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Co>mEent IMF�NIcvs "kS 0.10 ).0 A�O /cl Gn e,� 0.05 1.0 ,$'re.Ow &ALE SA2RiE2- 1.00 0.80 SILT j='cNcE 1.00 0.50 MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN (Y) BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS A 778 ,4-1 1-85 1.73 Ac I..Perviov5 ojo Ac L� .�:� �M.�c�u� �•�(T2ss O.OZ Ac G�a✓r� 0.10(0.10)+ 0.0Z(O•65� Cw - /. 8S �w= O.O I S CAI11A A PW . SrF ,, BAGS pt,¢RICA cFF= i-0.01s 0.8 I oo I c 0.>'Z Ac e, .vgA1 1clU) = 0.33Ac. GN= 0.14(.o>+ 0+0.33�O.o� 0.79 Cw= O.o63 �AAw r,,a ew ¢192. = O. A 3 0.13 SIGr r=En�cE C..,-o.13(•lo)=p.D13 �W=O.8 crr 78.a(r.o��t 77.IIQ—*/7/t'17.Q(•13 = �7 7 MARCH 1971 Z'77 E-16 DESIGN CRRITOU --7 I Muller Engineering Company, Inc. DESIGN NOTES AND COMPUTATIONS I 1 11 I I 1 1 --- I 1 I 1 Subject: yv Prepared By R149 Checked By: Dote: 7- Z- 97 NYDeaaUG F.,GODa ZOWAF 4=eLGvt.4-ponIS F.Pv.y 2BO 5'''v'e r OQArNAQ� PLAN L p20F1 ti SNfi6T FO& Z.N-INCH Ex7-ENS/0NE ce o,ZW`%s 1/Sn QL= %O o7S par. PBD I..a S iN TiiE AViEJYDIX 1 �+ = 9 = 0.82. Sheet No. Of _ Project No.: 9709 off.-�T "f,,{ 9 5r.L Syr zyoi 63 vca f� = 3'v r DC7—mRM,NE F4.0w l76Pfii: Js'6 �lnc(vUtr^/ D = o. 68(L) = /. 3G / /7E7-52MiNE z-oss& /NLE77 z= /-//(1/c>rI/P6e F/G 8o/(/nc/vdtG>� 4il(s.sl= 3.9 if�see K FoAr ALA N`= V2. 2 2v r 7_ a zz.775 2NtGT �L=9 cTS /8 L�l� q �r vZ 18 `� Q a,P o.zv 70 7 3. 96 Nsac- SINGE I8" /S T✓LGM'eA'CrCD XP Ef/ALWa T/ON OF L-OSSES /S 0eEZUI9.ED p, C3 ° l Zt{ z 2/zI I 1 1 1 I I I t 1 15-inch from A-2 to SE Comer Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\fmw\ftcollin.fm2 Worksheet pipes Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Diameter 15.00 in Discharge 1.00 cfs Results Depth 0.40 ft Flow Area 0.34 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 1.50 ft Top Width 1.16 ft Critical Depth 0.39 ft Percent Full 31.79 Critical Slope 0.005214 ft/ft Velocity 2.98 ft/s Velocity Head 0.14 ft Specific Energy 0.54 ft Froude Number 0.98 Maximum Discharge 4.91 cfs Full Flow Capacity 4.57 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.000240 fUft Tri Flow is subcr tical 04r21/98 MULLER ENGINEERING COMPANY FlowMaster Z.08 04:25:34 PM Haestad Methods. Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of II II 5E Cc wE2Tc EAST 18-inch from "Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\fmw\ftcollin.fm2 Worksheet pipes Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Full Flow Slope Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Diameter 18.00 in Discharge 7.00 cfs Results Channel Slope 0.004441 fUft Depth 18.0 in Flow Area 1.77 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 4.71 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 1.02 ft Percent Full 100.00 Critical Slope 0.006765 ft/ft Velocity 3.96 fUs Velocity Head 0.24 ft Specific Energy FULL ft Froude Number FULL Maximum Discharge 7.53 cfs Full Flow Capacity 7.00 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.004441 ft/ft CA6CuLA-TION USED TU DCTfr—ii FRACCioN 5t.-6P6 Foil H4D�. <i2AD� Li NF— 4N/:LY51 S 04/22/98 MULLER ENGINEERING COMPANY FlowMaster v5.O8 09:01:33 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ^c4ty N W � QZZIL ° z OQQO _ moaa o� o �l`lzl c U N� we: FOR U 5 IdE Cc"ti) r7�N �p O O O O to W O IV co I I i is � T , , r I r : I ; i I : ao , : e® ' — N J N cw z 2 66 84 3 AN fl d '�NO� i 6'84 M 'AN OS'L =31Va� 9 84 3 'AN t Al ql V38Y 31enoo i : w : I a i � r J N i e a did o SL'84 'ANI e o `O O ti O A STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL. CRITERIA; FIGURE 801 HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES 15ri CIRCULAR PIPE son ■■■■■■■■■ MEN ■■■■■ SENSE ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■��Ea�■E■■■■E■o■■EE ■i.e■.■■E■■■SEE■See■ R.'■■■I► Ron ■■SEEson ■ �■■e■■■■■aE■■=■EELS■ of■■\\■■■■■\■■■ SEES MEN e■\n■■■■ Elkin ES■SEE ■■■■ Em..I■- 111 0e ■■■Mm11 ■ EEE■a■E■E■■ Son ■SK501■■■S ►■s■E■ ■■SEES"■■■■■■\■SEE ■■■ESSI1I�►1■SS■SSE■■E■ ■■■■■■l1■■ a■■■ ■■■■■■l■■ ■■■ ■E ■■■■■■m�■■■■E■■■■Amom ■■■■■■0■■■ also ■■SEE■ ■■■■■■s■■■■m■SEE■■■■ ■■■■■■Rg■■■■■►D■■E■ ■ ■■■■■■yl■ soon \e■■NONE ■■■■■■11■■■■■■ -lie ■Imill ■E son ■H■■■■EI■\■■MEN ■■ son ■11 ON OMEN 11 NINE ■E■EaEmill ■■■E■■��■■■■■■■■■■�■■ I MOl3 30 H1d30 C M. N O O C] Date: NOV 1984 I REFERENCE: Rev: CONCRETE PIPE DESIGN MANUAL" ACPA. 1970 CHART 2 m6 10,000 �� (2) (3) 168 8,000 EXAMPLE S. 156 6,000 pc42 inches 13.5 feet) 6. 5,000 O. 120 cf s 5. 144 S. 5. 4,000 a mw D 132 b. 5. 4. 3,000 (1) 2.5 8.6 4• 120 (2) 2.1 7.4 2.000 (3) 2.2 7.7 4' 3. 108 3. •p in faef 3. 96 1,000 BOO -- 84 600 / 500 Q 2 400 3 N w 72 300 g j S }j = j N z 60 v 200 W "'5z z f 0 54 .9w O / 100 z j 48 / 80 x j = F 42 N 60 W , U- 50 HW ENTRANCE �� 1.0 O 40 SCALE TYPE D w rc w H 36 30 111 - Square 1 .itn ~ It 3 yt ne 'all p .9 f Q 33 20 (2) .Groin end ..In Q w O /� hao0.all = 30 i (3) I�L Groon and .8 2 proj eat ing 27 10 (� Goer 5E 8 7 24 6 To uso scab (2) or (3) project 5 horizontally to scale (I), thin 21 us• straight inclined line through 4 0 and 0 scales, or r•rsre4 as 3 illustrot•d. .6 18 2 2.-+-- 2- 1.5 1- 1.5 1.0 1.0 • .9 .9 .8 .8 J- 6 6 .5 1- .5 L .5 12 °2 F4 /.v 7HEA A�TER DEPTH FOR HEADWATER SCALES 283 CONCRETE P1PE CULVERTS REVISED MAY1964 WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1963 5-22 l71ZI ME 0.7 F_ � 0.6 r w Z 0.5 w > 0.4 O r a 0.3 w 0 0 z 0.2 0 z 0 a 0.1 EXAMPL • • • FLOW INTO INLET PER SO 3 4 5 FT OF OPEN AREA (CFS/FT2) Figure 5-3 CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP A? �STez NE oPeN AP,;-; (From: Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, 1969) \ 1 e7_Rr c oz 2.6(osF ( Fore FT-. r-OLLINS AREA, INLET) u5E oft N ACEA = SO`%: of :-Ac"wC.ACEA ' sod c -ZA = /. � � 5 F 6� DETcQA111Jc Qc/51= ujr oP6N FGEA . ■ Q Z A-1 —A OS -I como1146D _ 7.6cir ■ So Q/S� ,W,4 'AR -EA - '.38 - s'7 1 IgLr F.�ooD P62 CHART ABovE. / TRY f7 - YPE C r ti/LG r cc 0-T-) / 4ZA7=5 oreNiNGr = 3.. 3 = 5' IF ✓sr_ 5o`7o OfItN A¢EA So OPT,OPEA=.5(9)_ �{.SSF ® 'DcTr2MIWAS QAr of oPEN ALGA Qr..(R-1 L 05-) %•—° _ �, 69 MAY 1984 O �evrq e-Egp _ �' Z1 5-11 DESIGN CRITERIA ' -6> p"LijDE 0.5' poNDjrgeer Z)CpTN /01 Valley Gutter Capacity Worksheet Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\fmw\ftcollin.fm2 Worksheet Valley Gutter Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 ' Channel Slope 0.008900 ft/ft Depth 0.25 ft Left Side Slope 12.000000 H : V ' Right Side Slope 12.000000 H : V IResults Discharge 2.02 cfs Flow Area Wetted Perimeter 0.75 6.02 ft2 ft Top Width 6.00 ft Critical Depth Critical Slope 0.28 ft 0.004758 ft/ft Velocity 2.69 fus Velocity Head 0.11 ft Specific Energy 0.36 ft Froude Number 1.34 Flow is supercritical. 1 1 I 1 1 04/21/98 02:24,59 PM USE (o r w&e V41- -eY 607Tc t''�/ 12_To� 5119E 5L-U PeS 3 r1 'A ° K 12te , •4 MULLER ENGINEERING COMPANY FlowMaster v5.08 Haestad Methods. Inc. 37 8rookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 'DEPTN or- Worksheet foayk 9441w Worksheet for Irregular Channel ,di..KC, 5 Pe0PMiY LIISS ' Project Description Worksheet Irregular Channel - 1 Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Slope 0.008900 ftHl Discharge 24.30 cfs ' Options Current Roughness Method Improved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting Metho Improved Lotter's Method ' Closed Channel Weighting Meth Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficient 0.020 ' Water Surface Elevation 57.41 ft Elevation Range 57.00 to 58.00 Flow Area 10.0 ft Wetted Perimeter 49.00 It Top Width 48.99 ft Actual Depth 0.41 ft Critical Elevation 57.40 ft Critical Slope 0.009972 ft/ft ' Velocity 2.43 We Velocity Head 0.09 R Specific Energy 57.50 ft Froude Number 0.95 Flow Type Subcritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 1+20 0.020 Channel Points Natural Station Elevation (R) (ft) ' 0+00 58.00 0+60 57.00 1 +20 58.00 Project Engineer: Bruce Behrer cAhaestadUmw1Jtcollins.fm2 Muller Engineering Co Inc FlowMaster v6.0 )614b) 05/04199 02:37:42 PM 11 Hassled Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 067011 USA 1203) 755-1666 Page 1 or 1 ' I Muller Engineering Company, Inc. DESIGN NOTES AND COMPUTATIONS II II II If II II Subject: I`'J .-i 17A,o7' t'ALIt, f Sheet No. —Of Prepored By: /I li Checked By: Date: 3'I0"i/ Project No.: %G$ COMMAt5 C-✓.tu/ES of TN/S 06VS40PM5&7r To THe Pop C-y's ?NE -v P r J,r eLc .v/LFww Y in/ �'El1�tc/� a4eA✓c; L C = 0.7S o G goo Cc,+ima ,6 THcsE VALUc'S TO TNc OC vWC AftpeS ll:cD Foa AeS/NS .4-1 .ev0 .4-Z DoTce.riiNE 4..'el4NTc0 C-4-144VZS. A- l /. BS.ec 0. 9 I." ,W-Z 07?4C a.ys o.s6 Z.ot z.s8 AC. cW= 2.oz_g78 Cw = o.�8x I.zs - o. 98 z-Ye z.59 /colt- TI+E /co-rL fs orcY THE 2-�14 is Cc.�s�sTcn�T w� C�•7.5 V>�t7 Foe>af/!� .4'c7;o �4 N /S St- 14H74LY, h'i4Nez . T///S CHECK INDIC47CS TNAr 407 yA 006S IS CoNSISMWr ;N,r,- -C-VJWZ Pee To 'THE XUD, I¢EPo,27� TNGzsr4s c') wE C.eN A•MWE T//•OT 7w Ncw otVtC@PMENT CONFdRNlS TO 7we- AAmpeo PU.P. a Muller Engineering Company, Inc. ZI/L/ DESIGN NOTES AND COMPUTATIONS Subject: t-t Le//,n5 V141 Tai' Ltw -or �T l�—G Sheet No. Of Prepared By: 13AIg Checked By: Dote: // Project No.: 9��8 SP-OSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE Q+ v" J v�,4 PR,� c o fi S/cT NC // L.F Z.so Z-600 Srz4P-) AM46 BA22/E2 Z EA 300 /300 liENicLE '77Z,4C,r�N4 I F-A u0 fc 1000 I1000 Gn.vTeoG 7�' k3,500 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J APPENDIX B FINAL DRAINAGE, EROSION AND STORM WATER QUALITY STUDY EAST VINE STREETS FACILITY P.U.D. PHASE ONE FINAL CITY OF FORT COLLINS 1 FINAL DRAINAGE, EROSION AND STORM WATER QUALITY STUDY EAST VINE STREETS FACILITY P.U.D. PHASE ONE FINAL CITY OF FORT COLLINS March 1, 1993 Revised April 26, 1993 Updated June 28, 1993 Prepared for: Client: Vaught Frye Architects, P.C. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Owner: City of Fort Collins Streets Department 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 183-020 �j�i, 6 s993 i INC. ' Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 '303/482-5922 FAX: 303/482-6368 April 26, 1993 'Ms. Susan Hayes City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater '235 Mathews Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 ' RE: Final Drainage, Erosion and Storm Water Quality Study for the East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. Phase One Final Dear Susan: 'We are pleased to resubmit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage, Erosion and Storm Water Quality Study for the East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D., Phase One Final. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We have addressed each of the review comments from the previous submittal. We appreciate ' your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, tRBD Inc. En ineenng Cc ultants J LKroject Ohms, P.E. / Engineer 7oseph C. Goldbach, P.E. Project Engineer �c: Mr. Joe Frye, Vaught Frye Architects, P.C. ' Other Offices: Denver 303/458-5526 • Vail 303/476.6340 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A- MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 2 B. SUB -BASIN DESCRIPTION 2 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS 2 B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 2 C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 3 D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 3 E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 4 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT 4 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 4 V. STORM WATER QUALITY A. GENERAL CONCEPT 9 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 9 VI. EROSION CONTROL A. GENERAL CONCEPT 10 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 10 VII. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 12 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 12 C. STORM WATER QUALITY 12 D. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 12 REFERENCES 13 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP 1 HYDROLOGY 2 WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER DETENTION 11 DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AND ANALYSIS OF THE OFF -SITE ROADSIDE DITCH 18 RIPRAP DESIGN 30 EROSION CONTROL 32 DETENTION POND OUTLET STRUCTURE DESIGNS 37 WATERMAN SITE CALCULATIONS 45 CHARTS, TABLES AND FIGURES 52 I FINAL DRAINAGE, EROSION fAND STORM WATER QUALITY STUDY FOR THE EAST VINE STREETS FACILITY P.U.D. ' PHASE ONE FINAL ' CITY OF FORT COLLINS I 1 11 I I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. is located on the old Great Western Sugar Factory site and is bounded on the north by the Burlington Northern Railroad and Vine Street, bounded on the east by 9th Street, bounded on the west by Linden Street and on the south by undeveloped land. The site is shown on the Vicinity Map in the Appendix. More particularly, the site is situated in the North half of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. B. Description of Prone The East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. entire site contains 32.5 acres more or less. Currently the site contains existing buildings and storage areas. The City of Fort Collins Street Department has moved some of their equipment and operations to the site. Recent tenants have been Larrabees, Platte Valley Lumber, ADS Pipe, and Centennial Lumber companies. Some of the existing buildings were previously used by the Great Western Sugar Company. The site contains numerous stockpiles of plastic pipe and lumber. Once the buildings have been renovated, the property will become the City of Fort Collins Streets Facility. The existing site contains large quantities of asphalt, concrete and gravel parking and storage areas per the Drainage Plan & Existing Site Conditions included in the back pocket of this report. A portion of the site contains natural Colorado grasses. Topography at the site is generally sloping from west to east at approximately 0.5%. 1 I DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASIN A. Maior Basin Description No major drainageway exists within the subject site. The East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. lies within the Dry Creek Basin, per the Dry Creek Drainageway.Planning report by Gingery Associates, Inc. dated January 1980. The East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. also lies within the Cache La Poudre River floodplain per the Cache La Poudre report by the Corps of Engineers dated October 1973. The majority of the site drains eventually to Dry Creek - On the existing site drainage plan,. previously mentioned, the flood plains for the Dry Creek Basin and the Cache U Poudre River are delineated and field elevations indicate that the site does not lie within the 100 year flood plain of either waterway as discussed later within this report. B. Sub -Basin Description Historic drainage patterns for 28.9 acres of the site are easterly across the site towards 9th Street. Once storm water runoff reaches 9th Street, the runoff is collected in a roadside ditch and directed southerly and then easterly to eventually reach Dry Creek Approximately 3.9 acres of the site drains southwesterly towards Linden Street. Once storm water runoff reaches Linden Street, the runoff travels along the shoulder of Linden Street and eventually reaches the Cache La Poudre River, unless it is intercepted by the existing irrigation lateral. Two small off -site areas totalling 1.25 acres currently drain onto the subject site along the northern property line. These two small off -site areas are the Burlington Northern Railroad fill areas for the tracks. The off -site flows meander along the northern property line and eventually reach the roadside ditch along 9th Street. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Q Regulations The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The subject site is in the Dry Creek Basin. The Dry Creek Master Plan does not require on -site detention. However, the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility requires that the developer analyze and improve, if necessary, the drainage system from this site downstream to Dry Creek to adequately carry PA 1 CI 1 1 1 1 the 100 year developed storm water runoff. If the downstream system is not adequate, then on -site detention will be required. Per the City Stormwater Utility, if an on -site detention system is used, the release rate from the detention pond must be limited to the 2 year historic event during the 100 year developed runoff event. Use of a higher release rate must consider downstream limitations and an off -site analysis must be performed from the subject site to Dry Creek to verify the capacity of the off - site hydraulic structures. Since on -site detention is being provided within Tract A, on the east side of the Streets Facility property, no downstream improvements will be made. The release rate from Detention Pond No. 1 is limited to the 2 year historic event. Detention Pond No. 1 releases into the roadside ditch on the west side of 9th Street. Downstream of this release point is an existing 15" culvert under Buckingham Street at 9th Street. This 15" culvert cannot pass the 2 year historic event from the site without overtopping the intersection. This will be discussed further in Section 1V. In addition to the development in Lot 1, Lot 3 is also proposed for development, for the construction of a water filling station, called a Waterman. This site presently drains toward an existing roadside ditch on the east side of I inden Street. The release rate from the on -site detention pond must again be limited to the 2 year historic event during the 100 year developed runoff event. Use of a higher release rate would have necessitated consideration of downstream limitations as runoff flows toward the Cache La Poudre River. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility has indicated that the existing conditions of the subject site as of May 16, 1991 can be used for calculating the historic "C" value. C. Hvdrolo6cal Criteria The rational method was used to determine runoff peak flows from the site. The 2, 10 and 100 year rainfall criteria, which was obtained from the City of Fort Collins, is the criteria which was utilized. This criteria is included in the Appendix. D. Hydraulic Criteria All calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria. 3 E. Variances from Criteria The East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. is considered a commercial site and therefore the minor design storm is the 10 year storm. Due to the minimal amount of available grade on site and the necessary storm drain system, a variance is being sought to change the minor design storm to the 2 year storm, and to collect the 2 year runoff in the storm drain system. With the owner's intent to use the existing brick buildings, there is an automatic limitation on raising the elevations surrounding the buildings, and to the east, where the flows are directed. Since the site is designed to release its flows into existing drainage facilities, there is a limit as to how low the detention release point can be set. The Storm Drainage Critieria Manual requires that the drainage system minimises inconvenience, protects against recurring minor damage, reduces maintenance costs, yet all at a reasonable cost to the owner. The design presented in this report represents a fair balance between higher construction costs and increased inconvenience and maintenance. More discussion is provided in Section 4, under Specific Details. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. 1.3 General Concept As development occurs within the subject site, all on -site fully developed flows will either flow easterly and eventually into a storm water detention pond near 9th Street or westerly and into a storm water detention pond near Linden Street. Included in the back pocket of this report are the East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. Lot 1 Grading & Drainage Plan, and the Tract A Grading and Drainage Plan. These drawings, plus a detail sheet, address erosion control and storm water quality issues. Also included in the back is the Waterman Site, Utility, Grading & Drainage Plan. Specific Details Cache La Poudre Floodplain In preparing the Drainage Plan & Existing Site Conditions (Sheet 3 of 8), the flood fringe line, which separates the Intermediate Regional Flood and the Standard Project Flood for the Cache La Poudre River, required some special attention. From the report "Flood Plain Information Cache La Poudre River Colorado" dated October 1973, the flood fringe line shown on the drawings n ' indicated the flood fringe line encroached onto the subject site. Also the current FEMA maps indicate that a portion of the subject site falls within the 100 year floodplain of the Cache La Poudre River. A careful examination was performed in the area where the flood fringe line encroached onto the ' subject site. By comparing the Intermediate Regional Flood Elevations between sections 68 and 69 with the existing site topograpby and the City of ' Fort Collins Engineering Division aerial photographs by Arix dated 1974, we determined that the flood fringe line does not encroach onto the subject site. Additionally, the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility provided RBD Inc. with two preliminary Poudre River Floodplain maps for the North half of ' section 12, T7N, R69W which are not currently being used for enforcement purposes. These preliminary drawings also indicate that the flood fringe line ' does not lie within the subject site. Although the subject site is physically outside the floodplain of the Cache La Poudre River, the Cache La Poudre River report and the FEMA maps indicate that a portion of the site is within the floodplain. Therefore, prior to release of any building permit for a structure located in a designated floodplain, a Floodplain Use Permit must be obtained and the actual ' elevations verified. The Grading and Drainage Plan, provided in the back, shows the minor extent to which the floodplain extends onto the site. No ' existing or proposed buildings lie within the on -site floodplain. Groundwater ' The East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D. soils report indicates that, within the building area, ground water lies between 5.5 and 7 feet below the existing surface. The geotechnical investigation was conducted on April 10th and llth, 1991. If groundwater is encountered during construction, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit would be required. ' Variance Request The subject site is considered a commercial site and therefore the minor design storm is the 10 year storm. During the course of preparing the proposed drainage plan for the subject site, the lack of available fall in elevation across the subject site governed the establishment of the proposed t contours in Basin 1. Due to the limited grade and cover for a storm drain system, a variance is being requested to allow the minor design storm to be the 2 year storm. The storm drain system safely carries the flows for the 2 ' year storm. For storms of a lesser frequency than 2 years, there will be some ponding at ' the collection points, which are located in the travel lane areas. The calculations in the appendix show the anticipated depths of flows for the 10 year event. About 50 feet east of Design Point D, between the proposed ' 5 1 ' addition on the south and the future covered parking, the flow depth is about 1 inch. Within the road section, 50 feet east of Design Point E, the flow ' depth at the north flowline is about 6 inches. Farther east and closer to the curb inlet, the ponding depth may exceed 6 inches. ' Even though these locations are on private property, we could liken these travel lanes to a local street. The runoff encroachment requirements for a ' local street limit the ponding to curb height in the minor storm event. Even though the storm drain system is designed for the two year event, the ponding depths resulting from the 10 year event almost satisfy th= encroachment requirements for the minor storm event. Since no regular maintenance operations or equipment storage will occur in the travel lane areas, operations should be capable of continuing without significant hindrance. Therefore, the ' use of the 2 year event as the minor storm does not adversely impact the use of the facility. ' Storm Drain System The storm drain system was designed to collect the two year storm water runoff from sub -basins A through G and then transport this runoff easterly toward Water Quality Pond A. Through the use of area inlets, two trench drains, and a 5' Type R inlet, the 2 year storm water runoff is collected and transported to Water Quality Pond A. A small portion of the 2 year runoff from the east parking lot bypasses the curb inlet at Design Point F, since the hydraulic grade line is 0.47 feet higher than the flow line at the Type R inlet. While the storm drain pipe is full, the 2 year runoff will be conveyed to Water Quality Pond A by the road system, due to the proximity of the parking lot to the pond. Storm water quality ponds are discussed later within this study. ' Sub -basin H lies primarily within Lot 2 of the platted property. Other than the installation of a waterline to serve Lot 1, no improvements are being made in Lot 2. Storm water runoff from sub -basin H presently flows to the east across the existing pavement or in a grass swale along the north property line of the subject site. Runoff from sub -basin H will continue to drain easterly toward the proposed Water Quality Pond B. Storm events in Basin 1 larger than the 2 year storm event are designed to be transported overland via either concrete, asphalt, or grass water ways, easterly to the water quality and detention ponds. Calculations within the appendix indicate that storm water runoff from the 100 year storm can be conveyed easterly within Basin 1 to the storm water detention ponds. Only the developed drainage for Basin 1 has been fully addressed at this time, as Basin 1 is currently planned as a three phase project for the new Streets Facility. A storm drain system for developed sub -basins A and B was 1 6 ,1 ' designed concurrently with the storm drain system for sub -basins C through ' G. At this time, however, only the storm drain system within sub -basins C through G will be constructed. ' Detention For Basin 1, the on -site storm water detention system within Tract A has been sized to release at the 2 year historic rate during the 100 year developed runoff event, since downstream off -site hydraulics were not fully evaluated. For this study, the downstream off -site hydraulics are evaluated no farther than the existing 15" culvert under Buckingham Street at 9th Street. The 15" ' culvert at this location cannot pass the 2 year historic event from this site without overtopping the intersection. For this study, we have designed the storm water detention pond within Basin 1 to detain up to the 100 year developed runoff and release all flows at not more than the 2 year historic release rate. By releasing all storm events at the 2 year historic release rate, the impact to the downstream existing properties will be improved from what currently exists for storm events greater than the 2 year storm. Ninth Street Ditch 1 The Street Department personnel have requested that the roadside ditch along the west side of Ninth Street be re -graded, to provide for easier maintenance of the ditch. For the sake of the pavement structure, a ditch will Ibe maintained, though not as deep as the present ditch. The ditch starts at the northeast comer of the Streets Facility site. Since the ditch serves such a small area on the east side of the site, re -grading the ditch and reducing its capacity will not have any adverse impacts on the drainage patterns. Some people have mentioned that there are area inlets and pipes which drain into this ditch. These inlets and pipes are located south of San Cristo Street. Although the pipes do drain into this ditch, they outlet farther south of the section of the ditch slated for re -grading. Waterman Site Only the southwest corner of Basin 2, i.e. the Waterman site in Lot 3, has been evaluated in this study for runoff and detention. For the Waterman site, the on -site storm water detention system has been sized to release at the 2 year historic rate during the 100 year developed runoff event, since downstream off -site hydraulics were not fully evaluated. Judging from present field conditions, once stormwater leaves the site, it travels south for a short distance and then ponds at the fence line. If enough water is present, it will travel to the east via an irrigation lateral, then south, until this lateral empties into the roadside ditch on the north side of Buclingham Street. From there the water follows roadside ditches toward the intersection of Third and Lincoln Streets, and thence east via ditches alongside Lincoln, eventually 7 P reaching the Cache La Poudre River. Potable water is dispensed from the Waterman station on a timed basis. A timer is adjusted within the Waterman to dispense $0.25 worth of water, based ' on current water charge rates. Presently, this amounts to about 250 gallons per quarter inserted into the dispensing machine. Often, the containers brought to be filled will not hold the full amount of water dispensed. ' Therefore, spillage is a common occurrence. Potable water for many mountain residences is provided only by storage in a ' cistern. When the water level in the cistern becomes low, the resident brings a container to the Waterman for additional water. This has resulted in a significant demand for water during the winter. To minimise ice formation ' by spilled water, an area inlet has been provided near the truck fill riser. A 15" diameter N-12 ADS pipe conveys water toward the on -site detention pond. After each use, water in the truck fill riser drains back into a sump located in the Waterman. This drainage is pumped into the area inlet for conveyance to the detention pond. Approximately 15 gallons of water is pumped into the ' area inlet after each use. I The Waterman site has been graded so that all stormwater runoff will flow overland to a detention pond in the southwest corner of the site. The detention pond outfall has been set at elevation 55.2 so that it will be above ' standing or flowing water levels in the roadside Swale into which the pond discharges. The 15" dia. drain line from the area inlet has an invert into the pond of elevation 53.75, in order to gain sufficient cover over the pipe. A 1.45 foot depression, approximately 20 feet square, is provided in the southeast corner of the pond, to contain the "nuisance" flows discharged by the area inlet drain. The water collecting in this depression will then ' evaporate or percolate into the ground. The east end of the Waterman site is being filled 3 feet above existing grade to provide adequate slope for stormwater to overland flow into the detention pond. Should the drain from ' the area inlet become plugged, collection of stormwater runoff into the detention pond will remain essentially unchanged. ' The remainder of Basin 2 will be developed by another entity at some future date. For the development of the north portion of Basin 2, an internal storm drain system may be required in the future, and the subjects of detention and water quality will need to be addressed. As the northern portion of Basin 2 is developed, the site must be planned for I future on -site detention. The release rate from this detention pond must be limited to the 2 year historic event during the 100 year developed runoff 1 8 event. Use of a higher release rate must consider the downstream hydraulic capacities to verify the capacities to the Cache La Poudre River. V. STORM WATER OUALITY A. General Concept In late 1993 or in 1994, it is anticipated that the water quality of storm water runoff will need to be addressed on all final design utility plans. For this study, we have sought to find various Best Management Practices for the ' treatment of storm water runoff which can be implemented during the final design process. ' B. Specific Details It is our understanding that the concept of storm water quality should address ' the treatment of the initial first flush runoff. By capturing the initial flush in either a water quality pond, infiltration device, dry wells or other devices, the pollutants can be filtered out of the storm water runoff. This design makes ' use of the 2 year storm as the design basis, which is understood to be a conservative approach. The water quality ponds have been designed to release the storm water runoff over a 40 hour period, in order to use the soil as a filter for pollutants. Water quality ponds A and B have been shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan, and these ponds have been graded to enable each pond to contain the entire 2 year storm water runoff from its respective runoff basins. The 40 hour ' release will be controlled by a perforated outlet box in Pond A, and by a perforated outlet plate attached to an existing pipe in Pond B. The calculations in the appendix show how each outlet structure was designed. The details for the outlet structures are located on the Tract A Grading & Drainage Plan, provided at the back of this study. The perforated box in Pond A will be surrounded by gravel on three sides. The purpose of the gravel is to filter trash and debris. The gravel is intentionally sized too large to be able to trap sediment. The outlet features in Ponds A and B should be inspected regularly to check for clogging or any damage. The ponds will require debris and litter removal to minimize clogging and to improve aesthetics. This cleaning should be done routinely, especially prior to annual storm seasons, i.e. April and May, and following significant rainfall events. Any areas which become eroded should be repaired and revegetated. 9 ' Each pond has an emergency overflow weir for the release of runoff for events greater than the 2 year storm event. The integrity of the overflow weir should be inspected annually. Within the paved areas, the inlets and trench drain were previously designed with the bottom slab 6 to 18 inches below the invert of the outlet pipe. The depressed bottom would have collected sediment and other pollutants. Weep holes in the base of each structure would enable the trapped storm water to filter out into the ground water. The inverts of the proposed inlets vary from 3 to 5.5 feet below existing ground. The geotechnical report shows that the depth of the groundwater table, in the area of the bulTd"mgs, was between 5.5 and 7 feet at the time of the investigation, in mid -April, 1991. Due to the proximity of the groundwater table to the weepholes and the possible contamination with pollutants, City staff recommended eliminating the sediment traps and weep holes. This recommendation has been followed in the final design. Another factor in this decision is that regular maintenance would be required to clean out the sediment and pollutants from the base of Ieach structure. ' VI. EROSION CONEMOL A. General Concept IThe East Vine Streets Facility lies within the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. Due to the existing site slopes of 0.517o, the potential exists for minor erosion problems during and after the construction phases of the project. Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites and the related calculation in the appendix, the erosion control performance standard for the subject site is 75.4%. From the calculations in the appendix, the effectiveness of the proposed erosion control plan is 81.5%. Therefore the erosion control plan as specifically detailed below, meets and exceeds the City of Fort Collins requirements. ' B. Specific Details Basin 1 Basin 1 currently consists of native vegetation on the eastern one third, gravel and asphalt in the middle one third, and gravel and concrete on the western one third. The eastern one third has been designed as the location of the proposed detention pond system. The Erosion Control Reference Manual 10 i I 1 1 I 1 states "All disturbed areas seeded with permanent grasses will be mulched immediately after seeding'. After overlot grading in the detention pond system, a seed and mulch combination should be immediately applied to this area in order to begin the revegetation process. After the seed is applied, a hay or straw mulch should be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and the mulch should be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. The mulch should reduce both wind and rainfall erosion. Water Quality Ponds A & B and Detention Pond No. 1 will act as sediment traps until the pavement structures and permanent grass have been established. The majority of the remainder of Basin 1 is proposed for the development of asphalt and concrete impervious surfaces. Since it is unlikely that the pavement structures will be constructed within six weeks after earthwork begins, credit cannot be taken for the pavement structure in the erosion control calculations. The pavement subgrade should be left in a roughened state for as long as possible, since soil clumps are more resistant to the effects of wind and rain. After installation of the inlets, the inlets must be filtered with a combination of concrete blocks, wire screen and coarse gravel. The trench drains should also feature a temporary sediment trap at the outlet pipe. A wooden plug with a screened opening will prevent sediment from unnecessarily entering the storm drain system. Erosion control mat should be installed at the outlet of the storm drain system into Water Quality Pond A, and at the the easterly ends of the curb and gutter on the entrance drive. A straw bale dike should be constructed along the west edge of pavement, between Lots 1 and 4, to limit the amount of dirt and sediment which traverses the pavement and enters the storm drain system. A straw bale dike should also be installed in front of the outlet pipe for Detention Pond No. 1. Silt fence should be installed along the south and east property lines. Due to the large extent of the site, the silt fence does not need to extent along the entire south property line, but only in the areas where work is occurring. The silt fence can be moved and reinstalled as the work progresses to a new area. ' Waterman Site Since it is more likely that the paving will occur within six weeks after earthwork has begun, the pavement structure can be accounted for in the ' erosion control calculations. Seeding and mulching should be done immediately after the grading work is complete. A silt fence should be installed on the south and east edges of the site. Erosion control mat should ' be installed below the weir at the detention pond outfall, and at the downstream end of the culvert. 11 VIL CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards 1 All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with 1 the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and the Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites. A variance to change the minor storm event from the 10 year storm to the 2 year storm is being requested in order to use a 2 year storm drain design. B. Drainage Concept ' The proposed drainage concepts adequately provide the detention of developed on -site flows within Basin 1 of the subject site, and within the developed portion of Basin 2. The proposed storm drain system w211 remove nuisance and snowmelt flows from the impervious surfaces and up to the 2 year storm water runoff£ The proposed grading concepts will adequately transport storm water runoff to the discharge locations. C, Storm Water Ouality Since storm water quality treatment is soon to become a requirement, the site will address this storm water aspect. The proposed grading concepts in Basin 1 provide for two storm water quality ponds (A and B) which are sized to contain the storm water runoff from a 2 year storm event. The storm water quality ponds will need to release the 2 year storm water runoff over a period of 40 hours in order for the pollutants to settle out of the runoff. D. Erosion Control Concept The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control of wind and rainfall erosion from the site. Through the construction of the proposed erosion control concepts, the City of Fort Collins performance standards will be met. i I I 0 12 I I J IREFERENCES ' 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1984. ' 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. I 3. Dry Creek Drainageway Planning for the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County Colorado by Gingery Associates, Inc., January 1980. 4. Flood Plain Information Cache La Poudre River Colorado Volume 1 Fort Collins, Larimer County, prepared for the Larimer-Weld Regional Planning Commission by the Department of the Army, October 1973. S. Urban Stormwater Quality Management Guidelines, prepared for the American Society of Civil Engineers, prepared by Wright Water Engineers, Inc., Denver, Colorado and Camp Dresser McKee, Orlando, Florida, 1991. 6. Preliminary Drainage, Erosion and Storm Water Quality Study for the East Vine Streets Facility P.U.D., City of Fort Collins, by RBD, Inc., July 10, 1991. ,1 if ,I 21 Al i I 13 ,I a, I i E I I I I 1 1 i 1 I i APPENDIX .! 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 UNDENMEIER LAKE a W < J i < O U � W fN J E. VINE DR. 7MULBE:RRY PROJECT SITE � VICINITY MAP I %p3 1 1 I E I jI I I 1 I I I I HYDROLOGY 1 irc Engineering Consultants CLIENT VAVGGNr r2�YE JOBND,- la3-020 PROJECT 61LreJ:#5 rA-1121�e CALCULATIONS FOR N)"7'"40ar MADE BY KLOG2 DATE S-13-9/ CHECKED BY_ DATE SHEETS OF 0 -- x�STinN'—LON017r0'nl I L — I_B!S/nCE1_—teaCCs)a -- -- -3y3-----,------; j Ir � vproa.,•h_ e'.--_G� 6 �ci >f�� i+� �%�ne{o% G� 0.9S 40. re /e,76C.Sb : //,96 --- Cse t va]uc� ovccl�Nd flow_ • t=.Soo ' — O'7C--- L— -- c= o y8__ — 3 2.— -- — .— - :.T Z7n+i n ✓_ }}o... �__-- ' AP 4ap_O�.Pr.CL•3Y�-6.9J-----Dz - o•YBjo�.i li:----- `---� — 1 j_ T _'._:. �� __.Q1eO O.YBG•25X2.%oX2B,9)_ -- — lc�.�j1+ = 37p f304C -- Qi ZO ----� o c`(• ,L1,'Izuw — -- •- - - ---- W. YR.5TOAM Tc: /-87Z+ ZC�•z37�37d� __ -- _ '. .. 1 -- .. -------/j'�--- — - ---- -- Qaa_ p_�q�2745x3 dj , Qz` p 2 pC/ 39X3 p) .Q S <is._J._ Xi6j5W) .- - --- -- � c{s_i`Fh STdR lc - - - _ - CLIENT VAL)AHT ESYS _JO8NO. 163-020 RWIW- PROJECT —CALCULATIONS FOR Engineering Consultants MADEBYKWC, DATES-U-t-91 CHECKED BY —DATE _SKEET�_ OF 97 7 W3A_ZS)D I 7 7 a 73 5 n)nj._�:4_USE. -7 T- p z Z7,0 4,q E4F9 s7)= —7— CLIENT VAL)r.H7 Fre.YE: -JOBNO. IB3-020 Rwitr_ PROJECT +-r i&FeL�Ii�CALCULATIONSFO, tIy,0g6"&.,(, Engineering Consultants MAVEBYXW—;2DATE5"3-'d CHECKED BY_ DATE —SHEET 5, OF -�kl c- -17 T 7,7 7-7 AiU.S L7 Vi:- 17 c— Wis I'a 15)f A -11E: 5;0 A#.,, sn xe-e= 62-6cE — 71 Q YY + N. I� n it n 4 N N � � ZOQ m cv Ot4m ti U) F }� o CC Z O w '13 u. U 0 Z O Q U J Z LL O } Y f Q u1 F- o_ Wa W � F� Qo _ O J 7 m � U Z 2 Lti N o N a N a N\ N J 0 N w o m C 0 w Z N OH N W U V N N y r ovrO 0 — N U U j N o m o m i - zj- T � W J a F- > t2 J — N -Z -Z w� I O Ll In OJ p m I (=' I I r r > Z c yob?O o p Oo O mlo-hln cal C) �rrl4 l ljn 4 �> �carTs mrri � W �-^ �'" W In r: y I O O O S \OW S Q� Z W N 10 N m J n r kA m r cz � N N l.i Z o O O O o O o 0 0 0 m Q W u N T O [�I m m Ch O m 0 D U) U Z W W x H N 0 m f U Z f7 Z w w w z 6 z w U fr F= Q w F U J Q U z U W f— z Q z 0 co W 7 W 7 i 7- 0 -7/63 iMIN Ell IM Ell E. Mill 1111 1 Ell ONE oil 1� N Eli 1 1 1 NINE III Rol Ill 11 Mill1 �Ya Z MAY 1944 a ❑ Z U) W Q a ZF J W IL 2.E- LU m U) C � W } C Lr) U) L W m 5 � m IL Z a 0t ❑ o co - I=� 2 0 LL J a U a } t- d. ^ i I . 5-3 DESIGN CRITERIA 3/� 3 .�tzo E L r � m mRLl �a4gsa o N Y �1 C T a 6 ? N V � Y L o ;✓ J •� a x p i E lJ N l:t y; F= ti krJO1a/1 �' n'i T Q A.Oweq cl O € I Ju6Fap _ �' I� ill U) sp o s m1n�v, o ti H HI QIJ rJPOP'� - T N N N N O N N N }cc S ells = 1niN a m m rn Q Z % BQM j` b Lt N N N (V N < O C N` o O L y J Nneae _ o € eioe..a1V �51 w _W Q. aao:5 7 I T p L LI s:> wound _ UM.W s co Cn YI ulp I f LL1 CD p T N your O O m O Ln N HJ L N IMP. yl P 41 N h N In S N s f s N N O luerwuae) _ r m W m to ¢ aC rJ fYl y _ F" -u,w E add I � I I ' 0 Iaas v awp layl a Vl6ue, - C -d C o NNN sc u C p - p �tl R fd d q MAY 1084 < F < O Z CD V) w O LLI Q < Z � .J Cc LL a� 2 c W }W C Lr) L W m a < J hr LL Z G W = � c> 'D 11 o �Lo��43 j EL h � Lu W3�N O h \1h2 J No g 5-3 DESIGN CRITERIA ' RB,01A.C. V&G 7oe/vo, 183-01z RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS BYKuj C- CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION S_2Z-91 ' ROAD SECTION 50' EAST OF DESIGN PT. D BETWEEN BUILDINGS STA ----- -ELEV- ' 0.00 60.00 4952.90 4952.15 100.00 4952.90 'N' VALUE ---------- SLOPE ------------- (ft/ft) ' 0.013 0.0014 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sg ft) (fps) (Cfs) NO. --------- ------- -------- --------- cis ------ '7.! 4952.25 0.7 0.6 0.39 Qic 0.46 4952.35 2.7 0.9 2.47 0.52 '4952.45 6.0 4952.55 10.7 1.2 1.5 7.29 15.70 0.55 0.58 4952.65 16.7 1.7 28.46 0.60 4952.75 24.0 1.9 46.28„0 0.62 ' 4952.85 32.7 2.1 69.80 0.63 ' =AL CvcaT I"-s AR--- 8o95 c11 oN 7WE An!NinJGS EQVA�o.v C�=/yeb r. z��'$�fi M R Frog. th, 5-farm Dra7nn�c SySi'e..� ' Praliminary oes'lon LjA+4, Sh!cf For D *Ae- /oo Yts,r 5fDrm at Le5;4n POiht loali,c,4c.s N?.3 cfSbcUcarrie.� 0.b ouEl groo.l across -�Ae Co^cr.HC ,eo neL aL rG aL DoF�� -N+c IDO year s�nr..,/f-he. Uchicic ' r4 al lL'.a a..L -I'%[ es clan c.� pµ rKina� -Free o� 5'larM Wa/{-cr r�r+a� are.a5.,re.•^a5n 1 1 ro�fi3 Q8AD INC ' S48 me, r s3 -017- RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 6VKa-) G CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION 5-22-91 ' ROAD SECTION 50' EAST OF DESIGN PT. E ' -STA- -ELEV 0.00 4952.20 ' 27.00 4952.00 55.00 4951.50 55.00 4951.00- ' 57.00 4951.17 85.00 4952.01 85.00 4952.51 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) ' ---------- ------------- 0. 020- so..,e �-Ss 0.0100 ' ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (sq ft) NO ' -(feet)-- --(fps)- --(cfs)-- 4951.10 0.1 1.0 0.06 0.75 0.2 1.3 0.33 0.83 '4951.20 4951.30 0.7 1.7 1.20 3.20 S.2cs 0.89 0.94 4951.40 1.5 2.1 2.7 2.5 6.67 Qi. 0.98 '4951.50 4951.60 4.4 2.5 11.08 0.99 4951.70 7.1 2.8 19.42 1.02 4951.80 10.6 3.1 32.39 rtl�Z�s 1.04 4951.90 15.0 3.4 50.78 Q,vo 1.07 4952.00 20.4 3.7 75.30 1.10 4952.10 26.9 3.9 103.57 1.11 C ,q(,Ci/GNT/oNs /9RE B•OsEo ON T N6 m ANN/N65 EQ✓ATYa•J e 2/>S1J n 1 PkDM THE STORM OKri/�✓RGE J✓STEM p lEfL/M /n/rsey V,5-v6 v Oi9T•9 sNccr 1 FDK 7/1E ioo ✓2 . S7Z'R1w 9CF EW�G� BE (DENT LC/NO/C/o TEs #(p,2 CHQR/Eo,g6DvE 6RDdvO FLONG iNE riSiNALT pR/UC 1 1 1 I i J 1 1 1 1 1 1 k 1 1 1 1 I 1 WATER QUALITY FOR STORMWATER DETENTION 1 1216,3 DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD ' DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHD, P.E. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER EXECUTED ON 05-22-1991 AT TIME 12:46:06 KBE /A/C. Sob NO, 153 -OI Z BYKwG RSV, BY li W67-"! 10JECT TITLE: CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETS FACILITY MAJOR BASIN 1 * DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION ' BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 29.80 RUNOFF COEF = 0.56 (DE'vF10PED COND /7-iOn/) ** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00 IENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN VON 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 d'TENSITY 9.0 7.3 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 * POND OUTFLOW CAPACITY mRx lmvin A;;EE-j^AGE RELEASE RATE = 10.5 CFS (8'95/N EL QZ HISTORIG,) * COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE NFALL ----------------------------- --REQUIRED RAI--NFAL---L INFLOW OUTFLOW ORATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE INUTE ------------------------------------------------- INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '5.00 10.00 9.00 7.30 1.04 1.69 0.07 0.97 0.14 1.55 15.00 6.25 2.17 0.22 1.96 20.00 5.20 2.41 0.29 2.12 25.00 4.68 2.71 0.36 2.35 30.00 4.15 2.89 0.43 2.45 35.00 3.83 3.10 0.51 2.60 40.00 3.50 3.24 0.58 2.67 45.00 3.25 3.39 0.65 2.74 50.00 3.00 3.48 0.72 2.75 155.00 60.00 2.80 2.60 3.57 3.62 0.80 0.87 2.77 65.00 2.40 3.62 0.94 2.75 2.68 10.00 2.20 3.57 1.01 2.56 5.00 2.00 3.48 1.08 2.39 0.00 1.80 3.34 1.16 2.18 85.00 ----- 1_ 3_ 1__23------ 1_ - ----- - ----- - ---- REQUIRED POND SIZE = 2.773923 ACRE -FT RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 55 MINUTES DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD DEVELOPED BY ' JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHD, P.E. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING -_ -- -- UNIVER.=TY OF COLORADO AT D=NVFR==_____________________ EXECUTED ON 02-27-1993 AT TIME 11:21:44 PROJECT TITLE: CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETS FACILITY WATER QUALITY POND A ' "" DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION 1 11 II II 11 1' 1' 11 BASIN ID NUMBER = 0.00 BASIN AREA (acre)- 14.64 ( 5A6114S A -(r) RUNOFF COEF -0.82 (11CV. COMPOSITE. "(-" AT DE516iti4 'PT. 5r) ""' DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 2.00 INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE 1S GIVEN DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 INTENSITY 3.2 2.5 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 ""' POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE _ .1 CFS coNSIDE(ZEp 6M,4L- ENoLrH jo PeOJIDF, Fo(L APPROX, !gyp HZ, WTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = 1 TI M E) 1 pRoV I D E AVERAGE RELEASE RATE _ .1 CFS 6oK,�-tzVATIVE PD0D 61EE: AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE ' ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. ""' COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE ..................................................... RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE- INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT 0.00 ........................................... 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 5.00 3.24 0.27 0.00 0.27 10.00 2.52 0.42 0.00 0.42 15.00 2.18 0.55 0.00 0.54 20.00 1.B4 0,61 0.00 0.61 25.00 1.65 0.69 0.00 0.69 30.00 1.47 0.74 0.00 0.73 35.00 1.34 0.78 0.00 0.78 40.00 1.21 0.81 0.01 0.80 45.00 1.13 0.84 0.01 0.84 50.00 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.86 55.00 0.98 0.89 0.01 0.89 60.00 0.91 0.91 0.01 0.90 65.00 0.87 0.94 0.01 0.93 70.00 0.83 0.97 0.01 0.96 75.00 0.79 D.99 0.01 0.98 80.00 0.75 1.00 0.01 0.99 MAX 85.00 0.71 1.01 0.01 D.99 90.00 0.67 1.D1 O.D1 0.99 95.00 0.63 1.D0 0.01 0.98 1DO.00 0.59 0.98 0.01 0.97 105.00 0.55 0.96 0.01 0.95 110.00 0.51 0.94 0.02 0.92 115.00 0.47 0.90 0.02 0.89 1' 1V�2 ----------------------------------------------------- THE REQUIRED POND SIZE a .9945278 ACRE -FT THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE- B5 MINUTES ••••' GEOMETRIES OF AN EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR POND STAGE CONTOUR CONTOUR POND POND (DEPTH) DIAMETER AREA SIDE SLP STORAGE FEET FEET ACRE FT/FT ACRE -FT ----------------------------------------------------- O.OD 21.06 0.01 110.00 O.DO 0.50 131.06 0.31 110.00 0.08 1.00 241.06 1.05 110.00 0.42 1.50 351.06 2.22 11D.00 1.24 2.00 461.06 3.83 110.00 2.75 2.50 ..................................................... 571.06 5.88 110.00 5.18 . DETENTION PDNO SIZING BY FAA METHOD DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHO, P.E. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING ' __ xxxxx_ xxxxxxx=_ UNIVERSITY TY O= COLORA.= AT DENVER ==xxxx. zzz ccccccxasssxxsxsxsxxxsxsxxssssssx=c==== EXECUTED ON 02.27-1993 =ATTIME 09:23:16 PROJECT TITLE: CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETS FACILITY WATER QUALITY POND B •••• DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION= ' BASIN ID NUMBER 0.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 4.39 66A61N H) RUNOFF COEF 0.78 ' **"• DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 2.00 ' INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE 11 GIVEN DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 BO 100 120 150 180 INTENSITY 3.2 2.5 1.B 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 •••• POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = .1 CFS -- COMSIDE1zED eMALI-- EjL,7 k:qq Td FAC70R = 1 '?20VIDE Fp2 APPR499. 40 HfZ. OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT , DEj� -I-OW T1MEPRvJIDE60W6I;2vATIVE. AVERAGE RELEASE RATE _ .1 CFS POND SIEE. ' AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE ' ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. ••••• COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE i' ................................................. RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE INCH/MR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ' --MINUTE ........................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 3.24 0.08 0.00 0.08 10.DD 2.52 0.12 0.00 0.12 I' 15.00 2.18 0.16 0.00 0.15 20.0D 1.84 0.18 0.00 0.17 25.00 1.65 0.20 0.00 0.19 30.00 1.47 0.21 0.00 0.21 d' 35.00 1.34 0.22 0.00 0.22 1 40.00 1.21 0.Z3 OAT 0.22 45.00 1.13 0.24 0.01 0.23 50.00 1.04 0.25 0.01 D.24 55.00 0.96 0.26 0.01 0.25 +, 60.00 0.91 0.26 0.01 0.25 1 65.00 0.87 0.27 0.01 0.26 MOO D.83 0.28 0.01 0.27 75.00 0.79 0.28 0.01 0.27 80.00 0.75 0.29 0.01 0.27 85.00 0.71 0.29 0.01 0.28 90.00 0.67 0.29 0.01 0.27 95.00 0.63 0.28 0.01 0.27 100.00 0.59 0.28 0.01 0.27 105.D0 0.55 0.27 0.01 D.26 110.D0 0.51 0.27 D.02 0.25 115.00 0.47 0.26 D.02 0.24 1' III I I �3 1 ----------------------------------------------------- TXE REQUIRED POND SIZE = .2753065 ACRE -FT < ' THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE- 85 MINUTES --*" GEOMETRIES OF AN EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR POND STAGE CONTOUR CONTOUR POND POND (DEPTH) DIAMETER AREA SIDE SLP STORAGE FEET FEET ACRE FT/FT ACRE -FT ..................................................... 0.00 2.36 O.DD 87.00 0.00 t 0.50 89.36 0.14 87.00 0.D4 1.00 176.36 0.56 87.DD 0.21 1.50 263.36 1.25 87.D0 0.67 2.00 350.36 2.21 87.00 1.53 ' 2.50 ----------------------------------------------------- 437.36 3.45 87.00 2.95 I1 II LJ 11 I r L i E r r r r ►r I I II �r I III it CLIENT-_YaU4nN T FEyF JOBNO. 155-o ZO T:1D,NC PROJECT =EMI , EA ll J7x CALCULATIONS FOR .DE MO POWD4, Engineering Consultants MADE BY:T-(--o DATE ECKED BY_ DATE SKEET 17 OF L) WATER:-: QUAL I Ty FO N D A -LA 5 .--- _ __.._ CONTOok ACE A L . 1o9y3 c - _ 47 I -- 46- 0603 wAT��L, 4vaury Po nip COLLJb01Z : _. A2EA .. dol- - -- _ - - _ 4V - 23 22c 20 337 r - D 46. I Ac Fr FT: Lt)-DE 7:IjiatJ Pot�D }iO 1 1 _ — VOlyJMES- _ -. 7.11 COL t 4 45 - - I, cJh1c'srFo2 pE51G APPENDIX-) ,Q OF oUTLE.T 5T2Lk-7rVrzF-5 OccuK LAVF-� IN DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, ME ANALYSIS OF THE OFF -SITE ROADSIDE DITCH I 1 1 [1' 1' I L� I l 1 tl I I cuENT VAL44r JOBNO. I63-OZO Engineering Consultants PROJECT 5+ MADEBYUK R�vitJ 7K,v �F2� m r- r IllI;+`f CALCUUTIONSFOR Svf.e—r$ DATESHEET I I F OF D3 OATES-MTL CHECKED BY_ 2�/24s�jj S�_SJ�E-l3RErt /.i1LET fl�DB/C�+.1�PJ-�9 EP4�---- � yQ sroa n Ev6--nrL._.—'------�-- T— —-z 01::.. 7%?CalGti.u� 6i —=ApplyiHJ— 80jo fsc}a�--3:SCiok7=4 Bo%-4'^--- r�-f------- — —_ ar—'—__ (Vlic�lear/7 ppin/n c 7:8 I -- -, _ Qif57_c�s----{ ---- — -----PP% _—, , -J /ii:cfc: .!✓? 72 Vgg .frl <"7et . - a EVCNT- ---- __Y --- SJo_TS��o%� 3_S(.SeJ .: ,_Lc cfs7_F%ZofB •L�'^/cfi _ .z 09 CLIENT eLil u'i 61%y� JOB NO. 1 U7-VL✓ J \�1 IN: PROJECT 5y-pr Gt3 Fn c.i !� f`/� CAICULATIONB FOR r7 /GT 5 � MADE BY KKW & DATE S Z'ICNECKED BY DATE SHEET ZD OF Engineering Consultants fCevd� TY.o 2�2i3�y3 -- i - --- r NAI=DES:IGJ ��F2 _ 37aRM �E✓.T_ � 1 - � �G T_� _ -- ]L I Sol: -fay_ r - M d _Dt�A r------�a—o —_ —_ ---y,AGE-?TT-DOof�WAj�S { ti �— _ -- S01e_fnG 4 • I Se � _ -- _! l..__a.' ..G_.-_�..AWS� �.1 SAS rrr+.cJ+ A>s .... 86 Csti Da,5ir_PS tS q-E-1-..-- TN1E Z ✓.e.: Sroan+`EuEnr—.!_ _. .�_ 1—L-----�� 40 - -- 1 ,f - - ___— �'i'�_�.Muel_6uL'�'s c►. Gnnts.�'y.'rTTrs f � j .. .. —_ _ - �— Ji17.'e fY1YT _ lL✓r —_. rrGw;._. 2.D.>b —�— __ t T -- ----- Front. F15_S� !e J�lc�;=7.T{crce/%{'s -- FlN1L�E57(3jtii 6_F_-T74E 5p.9M A.-L�41PT SyS�M—�J jjpJJ V�U77� =TFi� WII�ZAM-f1flS�WE� �17GN FOt LOWS ' z B o in/c, 21 63 SOB Na. 193-01Z ' BY KWG RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS S-zz_gl CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION FLOW SPREAD AT CURB INLET AT DESIGN PT. F ' STA ELEV 1 0 00 4949.10 0.00 4948.60 2.00 4948.77 ' 30.00 4949.61 ' VALUE 'N'__ SLOPE(ft/ft) _ ' 0.016 0.0100 AREA-_ DISCHARGE FROUDE 'ELEVATION (feet) (sq ft) -VELOCITY (fps) (cfs) NO. '4948.70 0.1 1.2 0.07 0.94 1.04 4948.80 0.2 1.7 0.41 4948.90 0.7 2.1 1.50 3.4cfs 1.11 1.17 4949.00 1.5 2.6 4.00-r- CFL[uGAT/ONS Age G 95 ED ON THE �zA 14,9NAIIN65 EQuATio„1 Q= /,H86 z;'35 n Qz- 3.ycfs a d es;5- PT F for Qz`3,4 cfs spread j eLcv, i 9 e 77 L_7p of ycaG= y9ve�4 'Ft = o.z3; 39, vc55 $/-/ r- 7.7 ict rZ-Pt �✓i�en = 9,-7 fyo sP�% Y94B.9�-Y9yB,7µ Doti a 1C= 0,40' ' CLIENT VAyL 147_ J rM JOOBB,N,OO. /� PROJECT CAICUUTIONS FOA �7Ulu Yl 1 '. Engineering Consultants MADEB GATE NECKEDBY_DATE SHEET 2Z2 OF � 8 - -- tZ ai ��- "�T Pt•�� p _- I --�--- V___ 4a=� vim•- m� Va- I [] 1 1 1 1 1 REPORT OF STORM SEVER SYSTEM DESIGY USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.T. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO ... EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 02-26-1993 AT TIME 11:42:C3 ^' PROJECT TITLE : CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETS FACILITY STORM SEWER SYSTEM •" RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD 1S 2 YEARS •" SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRGTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA • C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION INCH/HR CFS FEET ---------------._____ 10.00 __-MINUTES N/A N/A ________-__--______-_ N/A 19.40 __..._ET._ 50.00 -_-_-____-__-_---_ 47.00 OK 20.00 N/A N/A N/A 19.00 50.50 48.31 OK 30.00 N/A N/A N/A 19.00 51.50 48.64 OK 40.00 N/A N/A N/A 17.90 52.15 49.35 OK 50.00 N/A N/A N/A 14.40 52.53 50.03 OK 60.00 N/A N/A N/A 12.90 '_2.50 50.35 OK 70.00 N/A N/A N/A 12.90 52.50 50.37 OK 80.00 N/A N/A N/A 9.00 52.75 51.01 DK 90.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.60 54.50 51.64 OK 95.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.60 54.50 51.69 OK 55.OD N/A N/A N/A 3.50 51.50 50.49 OK 56.OD N/A N/A N/A 3.5D 51.50 50.70 OK 45.00 N/A N/A N/A 3.50 51.70 49.65 OK 46.00 N/A N/A N/A 3.50 51.70 49.89 OK 35.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.30 4S.32 49.04 NO 36.DO N/A N/A N/A 1.30 45.32 49.07 NO OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION L I 1 ••• SUMMARY OF SEVER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1 ------------------------------ SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM ID NO. ID NO. ............................... 1.00 20.00 10.00 2.00 30.00 20.00 3.D0 35.D0 30.00 4.00 40.00 30.00 5.00 45.00 40.00 6.00 50.00 40.00 7.OD 55.00 50.OD 8.00 60.00 50.00 9.00 70.D0 60.00 10.00 80.00 70.00 11.D0 90.00 MOO 12.D0 95.00 90.OD MOD 36.00 35.00 14.00 46.00 45.OD 15.00 56.00 55.D0 SEWER REOUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ---------------------------------------------- (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) ROUND 29.38 30.00 30.00 DAD ROUND 29.38 3D.00 30.00 0.00 ROUND 11.12 1B.00 12.00 0.00 ROUND 28.73 30.00 30.00 O.OD ROUND 13.74 18.00 15.00 O.DO ROUND 26.48 27.00 3D.00 0.00 ROUND 14.16 18.00 15.00 0.07 ROUND 25.41 27.00 30.00 0.00 ROUND 25.41 27.OD 30.00 0.00 ROUND 22.2D 24.00 24.00 0.00 ROUND 17.26 18.00 18.00 0.00 ROUND 17.26 18.00 18.00 0.00 ROUND 11.12 18.00 12.00 0.00 ROUND 14.16 18.D0 15.D0 0.00 ROUND 14.16 18.00 15.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISTTNG SIZE WAS USED ............................................................................... SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ............................................................................... 1.0 19.0 20.1 1.93 4.67 1.47 6.44 3.87 0.59 V-OK 2.0 19.0 20.1 1.93 4.67 1.47 6.31 3.87 0.59 V-OK 3.0 1.3 1.6 0.69 2.27 0.50 48.76 1.66 0.51 V-LOW 4.0 17.9 20.1 1.83 4.64 1.43 6.16 3.65 0.62 V-OK 5.0 3.5 4.4 0.84 4.01 0.75 18.65 2.85 0.82 V-OK 6.0 14.4 20.1 1.56 4.46 1.30 5.01 2.93 0.68 V-OK 7.0 3.5 4.1 0.89 3.75 0.75 16.71 2.85 0.73 V-OK 8.0 12.9 20.1 1.45 4.36 1.24 3.69 2.63 0.70 V-OK 9.0 12.9 20.1 1.45 4.36 1.24 1.89 2.63 0.70 V-DK 10.0 9.0 11.1 1.37 3.94 1.08 2.66 2.86 0.63 V-OK 11.0 4.6 5.2 1.10 3.30 0.83 3.51 2.60 0.57 V-OK 12.0 4.6 5.2 1.10 3.30 0.83 3.51 2.60 0.57 V-OK 13.0 1.3 1.6 0.69 2.27 0.50 8.98 1.66 0.51 V-LOW 14.0 3.5 4.1 0.89 3.75 0.75 4.53 2.85 0.73 V-OK 15.0 3.5 4.1 0.89 3.75 0.75 1.68 2.85 0.73 V-OK FROUOE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS I 1 [1 1 1 1 •SEWER SLOPE ID NUMBER X -------------------- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12. DO 13. DO 14.00 15.00 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.47 0.24 0.40 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.40 0.40 --------------------------------------- INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT.) --------------------------------------- 46.27 46.00 1.73 1.50 46.57 46.30 2.43 1.70 46.72 46.60 0.60 3.90 47.42 46.60 2.23 2.40 47.51 47.44 2A4 3.46 48.41 47.45 1.62 2.20 4B.73 48.45 1.52 2.83 48.84 48.45 1.16 1.58 48.90 4B.88 1.10 1.12 49.63 48.95 1.12 1.55 50.49 49.65 2.51 1.6D 50.49 50.49 2.51 2.51 46.72 46.72 0.60 0.60 47.51 47.51 2.94 2.94 48.73 48.73 1.52 1.52 COMMENTS OK OK NO DK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK NO OK OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET "' SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS --------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM -------------------------------------------- FEET FEET FEET FEET 1.00 112.00 0.00 48.77 48.50 2.OD 114.00 0.00 49.07 48.80 3.DD 60.D0 60.00 47.72 47.60 4.00 340.00 0.00 49.92 49.10 5.00 15.00 15.00 4B.76 48.69 6.00 400.00 0.00 50.91 49.95 7.00 71.00 71.00 49.98 49.70 8.00 161.00 0.00 51.34 50.95 9.00 8.00 0.00 51.40 51.38 10.00 283.00 0.00 51.63 50.95 11.OD 350.00 0.00 51.99 51.15 12.00 0.10 O.OD 51.99 51.99 13.00 0.10 0.00 47.72 47.72 14.00 0.10 0.00 48.76 48.76 15.00 0.10 0.00 49.98 49.96 ---------------------------- WATER ELEVATION FLOW UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET ---- -- -- -- 48.31 ---- - --- 47.00 - -"' -- SUBCR 48"64 48. SUBCR 9- 48.6464 PRSS'ED 49.35 48.64 SUBCR 49.65 4935 PRSS'ED 50_03 49:35 SUBCR 50.49 50.03 PRSS'ED 50.35 50.03 SUBCR 50.37 50.35 SuecR 51.01 50.37 SUBCR 51.64 51.01 SUBCR 51.69 51.64 SUBCR 49.07 49.D4 SUBCR 49.89 49.65 SUBCR 50.70 50.49 SUBCR PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW HGL 15 ASOVE INLET Ft- wHS�j 370�6 PIPE 15 FULL. i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 lJ I I I ••• SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ---------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT ............................... 1.0 20.00 48.65 1.42 2.0 30.00 48.98 D.24 3.0 35.00 49.12 0.08 4.0 40.00 49.69 0.65 5.0 45.00 49.90 O.D4 6.0 50.00 50.34 0.62 7.0 55.00 50.71 0.21 3.0 60.00 50.64 0.28 9.0 70.00 50.67 0.02 10.0 80.00 51.25 0.58 11.0 90.00 51.81 0.53 12.0 95.00 51.B6 0.02 13.0 36.00 49.15 0.02 14.0 46.00 50.11 0.04 15.0 56.00 50.92 O.D4 .............................................. JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT .............................................. 1.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 10.00 47.DO 0.38 0.09 0.00 0.00 20.00 48.65 1.33 0.06 0.00 0.00 30.00 48.98 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 30.00 48.93 1.33 0.17 0.00 0.00 40.00 49.69 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 40.00 49.69 1.33 0.17 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.34 0.25 0.03 D.00 0.00 50.00 50.34 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 60.00 50.64 0.05 0.01- 0.00 0.00 70.00 50.67 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 80.00 51.25 0.25 0..03 O.DO 0.00 90.00 $1.51 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 35.00 49.12 1.33 0.17 0.00 0.00 45.00 49.90 1.33 0.17 0.00 0.00 55.00 50.71 BEND LOSS =BEND Kt VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K•INFLOW VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. I iKQo �IG3 i,vc, So8,vo, IS3-ot2 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS B0KwvS-Z7--9/ CHANNEL RATI14G INFORMATION IROADSIDE DITCH ON WEST SIDE OF 9TH AVENUE 205' D/S OF 18" RCP -STA- -ELEV- 0.00 44.60 10.00 44.00 12.50 43.00 15.00 42.00. 15.50 41.40 16.00 42.00 18.50 43.00 21.00 44.00 23.00 44.60 'N' VALUE ---------- SLOPE ------------- (ft/ft) I0.030 0.0019 ^TEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE NO. (feet) (sq ft) ------- (fps) -------- (cfs) --------- ------ I41.60 --------- 0.0 0.3 0.01 0.19 41.80 0.1 0.6 0.07 0.22 42.00 0.3 0.7 0.22 0.23 42.20 0.6 0.8 0.48 0.26 42.40 1.1 1.0 1.06 0.28 42.60 1.8 1.1 2.03 0.30 42.80 2.7 1.3 3.48 5.50 0.31 0.32 43.00 3.8 1.4 43.20 5.1 1.6 8.16 0.33 43.40 6.6 1.7 11.52 0.34 I 43.60 8.3 1.9 15.67 0.35 43.80 10.2 2.0 20.66 0.35 44.00 12.3 2.2 26.55 0.36 44.20 14.9 2.0 30.27 36.y 0.36 0.36 44.40 18.3 2.0 36.81r- L III III Q"o= 34,'/C�f6 C9TsivrSL Fa,C bA5/nl61i E Road I +A q en ,e = '/Y, G Y, " _f'k Can dcon ver -f"�+c i0o �t ki Sin ric !`vnc� SoOfh aeon, qih fl.e n,.cr oa Roaissda V2. //�STORlG BUCKIA+6dtlM Si/9%HavENuE i.v7-&-RSEc710N cOiLL F4=0 DuR,NG A /o Si0,2M EU£Nr- SEE CNARr I I,�LEi CONTROL vofl06RgPN FOR EX. I5'R�P �Bd 7uc, 2545 =R Nc, l83-01L RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS eYKLU6 CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION S-z2-I/ ROADSIDE DITCH ON WEST SIDE OF 9TH AVENUE 203' U/S OF 15" RCP (AT 6VGK.I146rlA M ST STA ELEV 1 0.00 43.60 5.00 43.00 7.50 42.00 ' 9.75 41.00 10.00 40.80 ' 10.25 13.00 41.00 42.00 15.50 43.00 17.00 43.60 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) ---------- 0.030 0.0019 IELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. -------- ------- -------- 41.00 0.1 0.4 0.02 0.22 41.20 41.40 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.15 0.26 0.53 0.28 41.60 1.3 1.0 1.27 0.30 41.80 2.1 1.2 2.46 0.31 ' 42.00 3.1 1.4 4.19 0.33 42.20 4.3 1.5 6.53 0.33 42.40 5.7 1.7 9.55 0.34 42.60 7.3 1.8 13.32 0.35 42.80 9.1 2.0 17.91 0.36 43.00 11.1 2.1 23.39 0.36 ' 43.20 43.40 13.4 16.1 2.1 2.2 28.53 35.25 0.37 0.37 121e0=34.q CF5 �N75fvrrr Far aAS In E2) ES3c of Roai q-�A RoeAoe = 1/3, 6 -' .o /?oa,(siale d'iz! ran mn,.ey f-A� /oa 6-- l si-or;c t-o Sodrh a�onq l l��n�e, ' 8bck,NGHAM ST/977r RVFv'J6 1NTER5Ec7-10 J WIZI Fcoap pU,C'/Nb /� .2Y,P. HiS7"aRic STORM =PENT- SEE cNFZT / /,uLET lovT,2oG Ve4l7ea,e-,9" Fog Ey,/S'Rc/O t 1 6-X. 1 $••RCP 4T 9DGt-1AJ6HAM Sr- /cith .9UEM!/E luv = MB. YZ OWID = 2.5iyl.ZS ?,o& eL.nPor- ROAD=93 4a=10.6CTs I{ISTORIC IBO 10,000 O Q,ea= 34.Y cf5, 3 BPStN Er CHART 1 168 8,000 EXAMPLE (1) (2) (3) 156 OOO 0.42 inches (3.5 roof) 6' 6, 5,000 0. 120 cf. 6• 144 S, 4,000 ha A RR S. S. 132 D fast 3,000 (1) 2.3 h.8 S, 4' 120 a• (2) 2.1 7.4 2,000 (3) 2.2 7 T 4. 3. 40 in teal 3. 96 1,000 3. Boo 04 --� — 600 / 2- 500 _ 72 400 2• u 300 N tnW = 60 LL 200 LS 77 _ /� m 34 2 a a �W 100 �_ 7pr t4 W 48 co 42 60 IL 1.0 1.0 0 o SO HW ENTRANCE SCALE Re cc 40 D TYPE ¢ L0 W 36 30 (1) SPors dB, .Ilh f 9 9 33 head.*][ 3C .9 Q O Q 20 (2) Graaq an0.ifh W 30 haae.an x •8 8 —11—'Lt (3) Gress@ *.it •B 'J 27 pro)ecting 10 9 s ,rel TSRSECTtOa WILL FLmD 24 Dvie tvf. A ZY9, STORm ,7 FU6A4'I Q.=1l,Sui3 )I LMR1 •7 'T 6 To usa scats (2) or (3) project S horizontally to scale4 .sa straight Inclinedfine throa3h0 /8 and 0 smluor nnraa asillustrate, 6 2 Is s s Lp .S 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS HEADWATER SCALES 2113 REVISED MAY 1964 WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROA031Arc 1063 v �8� Preceding page blank I 3�3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 RIPRAP DESIGN 1 PROJECT Engineering Consultants 51,7 Air I ` .r� ! '�7 ! ' EROSION CONTROL i 33 RAINFALWLI L PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: t--%-jj VINL 57-'nEE-7S r,aVAL-4 17, PNA5E.1 STANDARD FORK! A COMPLETED BY: J. 3 DEVELOPEDIERonrnrrDATE: Q_Tm., SLBBAqIN ZONE -- QA NFAL-L) (ac) (ft) (�) Lb (feet) Sb PS C MoD�RA� 2.27 4G5 0.65 D I.23 230 0.9g E F 3(c� 0,r4 G 1.45 325 1,4a H 0•.a3 " 9 0 1.14- I 4. 39 50 5 o. E77 1•44 930 0,77 15q.13 456' D. 78 75 4 Ly X Assn) CDUK 14e G 4. lG¢ GONS�j As6� _ 74.l3 - 45G Qs� 1 .l3 �b TA8 E 5. 0.78 /. 400 7z. 7� 45, 72. 75.9 7; 500 7s, 77 0) I IRCH 1991 8-14 DESIGN CRITERIA EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJr:ci•: EAST VINE FAC.I L ITY, PHAhE I STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: 1T. K.O. r.{ g j) T-nc DATE: Erosion Control Method C-Factor Value P-Factor Value Comment GXST. pUILDINCTS 0.01 /.00 5ED- gA51 N /. 0-0 0.50 F0L)(,?4EI,fED SOIL /. Uv D 90 LAN DSCApI11e-7 4.5EEDIIJ!. 0.0& oo STP-AVJ SALE✓ -DI E GRAVEL FI LJV 1.0?J O.>30— (�DEr POlID#1 ouTt� 5 7D 0. 01 O.go 1 n n BASINI (t) IBASINI (Ac) I CALCULATIONS 1 75.4- C 2.27 0. l(< Ac 5oA.(-rEM P. I IJ FUTU>? E TAK K I IJ�, AP -EA 2. 11 A,� 1Z0vA+-I I:tJ ED -4oI LL WT'D C. FAG-P2 = `0./6(0.01)+ 2.1 2-17 Q ET P FAC.ToJ� _ (. so) x (. yo) 0. 72- N � EFP• _ [I - (.93)(.72)� x !ov = 33. o D /.23 0.05AC, 50D(TEM P. it -,I FvTU2E FA.ZK.Ib4 AP- } ) I.IgA� Rour,+tF.1.lE.D `.XJIL WTI G 1.23 0.9� NET P P�-�z�� = (80) x (�o) = 0. 72 EFF = [I — 72)]x l0-v E 2.49 0.13 Ac, EX.ST S LL6. 0.25Ac- SO.D(TEMP.) 1. 3 / Ao RoL)AhLE1JED SOI L- WT'D G = 093(.0/) + 0.25(-01) t l,3/(1) -�53 2..49 EFF=�!— (.53)(•72)�x1017 = (ol.y�% MARCH 1991 1 8.1S DESIGN CRrrERIA I EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PLI: C -J 1 1 1 i i 1 I- I 1 1 1 1 PROJECT: EA/-)T VINE 5"Z.EET5 F,hCfl -I TyJ PW!jE I STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: J40, of RPU T46, DATE: Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment previex,5 }gag',) F 5T! PA V T 0.01 1.07) NArrVE 6�FA/551;5 0.07 1•U0 TEMP VE6E.160ve z c.(-.DPS 0.45, /,cv MAJORI PS I SUB AREA BASIN (%) BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS 1 75, 4 F 1.4-5 0.4�, Ac� IANDSOApE D 4 TEMP. 5�;D /.02,Ac, RoUAPfNED ,''OIL wT'D G = [0. 4-&(06) �- (/. o2)(r )]�1.48 = 0, 7/ P = (. W) X 00) = 0. 7z EFF= [1-(•72X.71) xl0D CT 0,63 0.52 Ac, 5oM�,p OK 5EEDED 0.3/ Ar, 9ou4NENEj) SOIL IT'D .52-)(.o&) + [.51)(1)�/Qj�j = 0.4 ! EFF = [I- (.41)(.45)] y 4.51 3.513 Ac. PP,v`r �EKf�T) 0.5/ Ac, nlgT1V 4r2A,�-,6E5 WT'D G = [3. 58 (. o!) + (, al)(.07)] /¢ P= 0.50 EFF=C1-(0Z)(50)]xMD=')i.0 I 1.44 ).504,5EEDED (PEZA) 0.06k, ROLAH✓✓NED 501L- NT'D G=[.3a(o.o�o) t o.oG(r)]�1.44 = 0, i0 F= 0.5o EFF=[s-(./ol'90)]XiLV = 9/,0'7� � /5.l Ac, TEMP VErAE. G0VE2 Gr?OP D.io A� EZIST >;Dwy -7 0 WTDG= _.47 F= 0.90(, 50)(SBO� I 1' NET EFF= [2,E7(33.0)+ 1.23(30,q)+ 2-496�t•b)t 1.4.6(4�7,0)+005(BL(o)0) MARCH 1991 + r•¢4(91.0)f /5,7(e L. pj5/Z% !3 c 7�,4e'd %5 y�RrSA G� CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE �'ROJECT: G AST J I nl F— STEZt' S I L. I T y� PH 5 E I'� STANDARD FORM c QUENCE FOR 19 9�3 ONLY COMPLETED BY: .TKo /A1 T �Y �LD, Z71G. DATE: 2�ZG nCicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. ajoz modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for by the City Engineer. �a�r_oval EAR MONTH :z �lyl��lzl I I I I I JZP:.OT GR.7JING '- 7 EROSION CONTROL - Soil Ro:ghening Perixter Barriers' fi Additional Barriers vegetative Methods Sail Sealant Other iLn7; EROSION CONTROL S`RUC-7?LhL: ... ... Sediment Trap/Basin PE�Ma,NENT ^'_et Filters Straw Barriers Salt Fence Barriers Sand Baca Bare Sci1 Preparation Co.^._o•_^ Furrows ... Terracing P-Ephalt/Concrete Paving Per--Z.ent Seed Planting M_lchinc/Sealant e—?=a_ry Seed Planting Sod Installation 1;ettin9E/Mate/Blankets Other ='' ter=5: INSTALLED BY _ V-7:0NIMUI—CHING CONTRACTOR 7 MAINTAINED BY APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON 6-16 DESIGN CRITERIA DETENTION POND OUTLET STRUCTURE DESIGNS CLIENT V-!Ahlf X Eh% It JOB NO. PROJECT 1�nc;Iitz CALCULATIONSFOR Pond Engineering Consultants MADESY*-,U)& DATE?Z_S HECKED By— DATE —SHEET 3� OF I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I fni-f -fhe, 57�er 6f!�r�st flosk _Sf&r�r caf (�o -VM c_ _0 , /0- 'ivi;r -e-:Mc.Ilt, 4V'bc- &C rase- -m t lklr, _onja: 'Y #C6,r-jQ - ';;i - 77/:ne�w _417r- 7'lle 2X;V7 d?zt;;, -Ire� /-0".) LvvR&�- ho/es. vE` loon dy . ROW57 all *__x?" . _-oirl_ M." a )Zows� OF: o filet hole:; 171 ME 1 4f dev"kj .n Per rooj�t 71S 7/5 p)�� 0, P 917 (,U0 456040___ of0c: �s o,340) -tl� Z, > /-7-s Z (a5e—) - z51-tE-,! /Z)C� YE,90Z 00AIO -We.J 06-/iIZ 1: f -.�5 flI.Isk,- s�r�_ eai4 77,�__ r L, CT M area. ra 'm Per - row 0 7 .7 /;OM Al 111-• rvv7 zYac�.s 'd A v IA� -17, /n 7_7_ ./M �P.e5 lzz�_r_ row ...... h ---- - ------ a3e� ex �4 /01/0 e. 78- b t - - - ---------- ---------- - - T -7 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3) STRUCTURAL BMPs 10.0 6.0 4.0 2.( 1A E PAP PA 9AA PAA EA PAMA, 0.0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0,60 1.0 2.0 Required Area per Row (n.2 ) I' Source: Douglas County Storm Drainage and Technical Criteria, 1966. FIGURE 5-3. WATER QUALITY OUTLET SIZING: DRY EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN WITH A 40-HOUR DRAIN TIME OF THE CAPTURE VOLUME 9-1.1992 UDFCD 11910 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA WATER QUALITY POND A OVERFLOW WEIR OUTLET WEIR COEF. 3.000 STA ELEV 0.0 48.00 16.0 47.70 82.0 47.50 125.0 47.70 215.0 48.00 ELEVATION (feet) 47.50 47.60 47.70 47.80 47.90 48.00 Prvyl m OSes Q= CLN 3/Z DISCHARGE (cfs) 0.0 1.8 10.3 30.4 60.4 Q a' a 6z.6C-P., 101.2 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA DETENTION POND EMERGENCY OVERFLOW WEIR WEIR COEF. 3.000 STA ELEV 1 0.0 47.00 12.0 46.00 42.0 46.00 54.0 47.00 ELEVATION (feet) 46.00 46.10 46.20 46.30 46.40 46.50 46.60 46.70 46.80 46.90 47.00 Proq%m l%6_S Q= CLH31Z DISCHARGE (cfS)- .L__M 1 4Je 4Z' max. 100YR. W5Ec.= 95'.9y. 5ET FcnoL 0.0 ovGrCfow a{ Y6.00. 2.9 8.5 16.0 25.3 36.3 48.9 63.1 79.0 96.4 115.5 a N Iz N Q I N W O rj I W - Y 11�0013A Qj w' O LU 1311n0 11pa'. N W I I 1111__ m NOIIVA313 W H G a I N31sM.0V3NIDHIMOD `ai .T ul W 1 V N N S W U' W Q I j � Q N • \ N z u ri a p e I m Ln a �I 1 k46 c m r N � Q 91 e �{ iL rn t m 10 jea J V yWj 7 llll - W 0rQ N�1 h �\ V)Iz O 3 N xIz P 3' f oaQ z_ H UJ 6 S _ l/1 In '^ o 4 W W J Q 6 S J U I, J ❑ ❑_ - vl u W N •t Q p 3 _ V J� O Q O _N O V W F 1¢i V W zo W N H O U J U WIZ C¢ : m pO J G W) 2 > N N !!) ( O O O iZOM U I � S O c 0 1J o u ¢ F 7 p ❑❑❑❑ _ 6-SINSlO0133S ¢ W O W j iucizxo�w O F F 3� _. N e�ccc-ate 240 CHART 10 LBO 10,000 168 8,000 EXAMPLE (2) (3) 156 6000 , D•e2 inch., 17.5 teat) 6. 6, 144 5,000 0. 120 efs 5• 4,000 IJ_[t ♦ Nlg 6• 5. 132 3, 000 D lost 5, 4, 120 11) Y.s 3.0 4. 2,000 (2) 2.1 7.e 4. 108 (]1 2.2 T.7 3• eD in feel 3• 96 1,000 3' Soo 84 600 500 72 400 a 2. U) = t 300 U = N / y 60 u 200 Z 54 a 0 _ / W- 100 = W > 48 z 80 x ~ t77 42 060 o N 50 HW ENTRANC w � � SCAL 40 D TY L0 w (' w 36 30 (I .n edge atth W .9 33 Mad.ell .9 Q � Q 20 12 GraeH cad .ilh W 30 hood.oll x ISI Grs.n cad •8 27 bee pre)ettleg 10 24 8 .7 6 To uee eagle (2) or (]) project 21 5 horllonfallt to .tale I]),th.a 4 uu straight incun.d line through D and 0 scale,, or reverse as 3 i11u2fral.d. IS 2 15 Re] 2—. 1-5 I-- 1.5 — 1.o 1.0 9 k .9 6 k.8 6 6 .6 .5 .5 .5 `12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR HEADWATER SCALES 2153 - CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS SURE nU OF PUBLIC ROAD] JAM 1963 REVISED MAY1964 WITH INLET CONTROL , 181 Preceding page blank 'n- OCHART 4 3 1 2 I IIII-7-777i� IlliI IIIII I 3.O' 3I5 I I I do CANNOT EXCEED TOP OF PIPET 0 0 6 U 2L r 0 U 14 r 12 10 6 6 4 ,v zu AU 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 DISCHARGE-D-CFS I I I i B 7 r w 6 y M 5 r a w O DIA, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 B00 900 1000 u DISCHARGE-O-CFS U BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1964 CANNOT EXCEED TOP OF ZVVV 3000 4000 DISCHARGE-O-CFS CRITICAL DEPTH CIRCULAR PIPE 184 ME i 3 WATERMAN SITE CALCULATIONS RM 4__ Engineering Consultants CLIENT Augmwr Ftz)a joBNo. _LR3 - ozj PROJECT 4 t F. .;I i' iy-- CALCULATIONS FOR MADED141-1 DATEZ__2?__93CHECKEO BY- DATE -SHEET OF 'r- Z 7 C, :S -- --- -- (see; A ")_J i, t 7 bd 2 1 7�; I E�' 7—, - - .., - . .. __ ; .. _ /.Z2 7 1Y.3 - _-, - AreaL z 0. (-,q E-3 0.9 AC , 49V kill," wr � I e I QZ=0.8C�fs �FLOOD FRI�JGE QIo= 1.5 cfs L u1 E Q 100 = 3.1 cfs sea�LE : 1a=1�' WTERMEDIATE REGIOIJAL FLOOD AR&A (POUDRE RIVE() .qe 6Hr. IAA, (.#V 11 L7 I I I I I I I I I RMIW- Engineering Consultants CLIENT AOAHT rjzY;-� JOB NO. PROJECT -5+r0t�+5 FC-Ill CALCULATIONS FOR H?eJYOID MADEBY&,d DAT9j--?7-M— HEC1EDBYDATE 1� SHEET OF PrAi e C, + Y1- - -! cz 0 -dfJ-!!L-, ev- at VL 0 L;j -- ---- kip 2—.... C. 9 Z. Sr 404L- 0 -3 C>. 7 Y" ------- - ----- - ---- c T J, C, j; --= 7 T--- - ----- 7 7-----' 7------ 7 �(w ^�i�.��' s •,...fib._ Y . 1 1 I 1 F 1 I I I I FA4.1s 11 �yy u✓ATE-RMI4FJ S17t DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHD, P.E. . DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF COLORAD0 AT DENVER EXECUTED ON= 02-23-19933 AT TIME 15:31:47 PROJECT TITLE: CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETS FACILITY SW DETENTION POND •*"* DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER - 1.00 BASIN AREA (acre)- 0.64 - RUNOFF COEF 0.75 "••• DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) - 1DD.0D INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 INTENSITY 9.0 7.3 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 0.1 1.2 1.0 •"" POND OUTFLDW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE _ .26 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .98 AVERAGE RELEASE RATE _ .2548 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE • ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. "•`• COMPUTATION OF POND S1ZE ' ................................................. RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE ..................................................... INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 9.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 10.00 7.30 0.05 0.00 0.05 15.00 6.25 0.06 0.01 0.06 20.00 5.20 0.07 0.01 0.06 25.DO 4.68 0.08 0.01 0.07 30.00 4.15 0.08 0.01 0.07 35.00 3.83 0.09 0.01 0.08 40.00 3.50 0.09 0.01 0.08 45.00 3.25 0.10 0.02 0.08 50.DO 3.00 0.10 0.02 0.08 55.00 2.80 0.10 0.02 0.08 60.D0 2.60 0.10 0.02 0.08 65.00 2.46 0.11 0.02 0.08 70.00 2.32 0.11 0.02 0.08 75.DO 2.19 0.11 0.03 0.03 80.00 2.05 0.11 0.03 0.08 85.00 1.91 0.11 0.03 0.08 90.00 1.77 0.11 0.03 0.07 95.DO 1.64 0.10 0.03 0.07 100.00 1.50 0.10 0.04 O.D6 ..................................................... THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = 8.393249E-02 ACRE -FT THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE- 70 MINUTES 1'' � CLIENT VALYa NT Fr_v;:� •.: .,• •. �y. r /r Jos NO. INC PROJECT _S4.. t6r6 f-al �1 iC.v CALWLATIONSFORS LU DEle.In i1lO g O ' Engineering Consultants MADE BY DATE4-�3 4mECKEDBY-DATE SHEETq OF �2 w6-rERmAAJ S)TE 1 1 I L1 1 I 1 I n J I 1 i 1 • --- - ---------. Poti�-_Ov I�e — urn_----- .S�r�tc r ---- --1 n1 _bf[LI lr-a ,]- k'IN- YG! - -- v:J K�I Y` Tr 3 or Tt ce— _ —-= O, Z- —�--------_---- �— -- --- o zs — - — --- --- -a � __ �.—?r r `'�' l � -�---� o.. ohs f � — ' --•— I _ 3"d orl F(c ,.._. ----' _ 7_— �Y6,cz;, ----_ - (�,b 1 O a e nN m 6 P N N n 1 _ R 6 O O n 630 0 I O ei n d I ra ti o e g' V O 00 V � O ' o 0 nea O N N N O m n O o n lvn _ mmo O ry N N o o O ! G O m O N N N 9 n :ean O N N N N m C o O N N N non o n n ri L- Gdd F sss S on ao as G'oie -ai u.ied odaaa aaaaaaa $ :e'So O_ N N n N n N n n N N N n N N N pHp ra b N n N N N N N • N N N N N N N N N C fD O d O m ^ n O R N tl C9 m O n .a N n N H N N N n N N N N N M1 H n n as oaoon maoDnnn N n N n H N N N N N N n n n A $ 1000! dGeG bfOO O PNgnq ddnnF Rm $rA n n H Np_n� n n A n •N� $ GO b10O nFWYim OFr.n .1.n _ =^ Ii N 1•i ri .: ei of ri n .i ri ri=l•:= $ nnnnm niw e nation m0000 u N N N Hy R n W $ S n ti 4fi O O f0i N A 104 (r'S 1'l Cl In5 l0 ei nav �i ei ri ri ei ri nei v:n riw� _ nlGo ma.l+ . . . iannnna; . 11 0 {'IN . einn ri ein n.nrinn i mconn $nnnn nnnnnn`� O N N n A A n nnn n A nnn n v ` L J' N! O m O H Y O m O b O N O n O V R O O O O r r r r r N n A n! V O W r Fa O C! N b .A• O R R n R R v r.nnnnN o .+nna m m�nnSo e 1•i n _ - e eenom R R N n N o mcl.G.e m 61 a nnnn m m i n O m o .•+ .i n mtlnoom o r n r m m N o =uu Gna.: N N e C � € >ssssss :•+ Q r N N n C^ 109 m o b _ O 0 n b r. u O G d n b r •� v a - a a m S a O c O d yaaj o� cur jy5iop --to p •jaaj ul mr OR jo 4fI'eaap poaem ma 7 jo ivpgj 1�pR. j� co e CCJ � 49A 63 I I I I I I I 11 I I I R4 CLIENT , VALOI�M HT Fps c �JOBNOI Z,3 - rrC PROJECTLi�-13 f=.-c. I I L* CALCULATIONS FOR Engineering Consultants MADE 541-a DATE 12-2-00MECKED BY_ DATE � SMEEr --�EOF REV. -S/Te- e ---e S11- o 0, 7 4 It 7 ---- --- 00- SC. 0. ------ ------- Z A PIo- -A-*r lea -- LAD I W-17-- P L A LUME:-- 1 [1 1 I I� 1 Y yr. INC Engineering Consultants CLIENT `AQ,9� F1 ' `' 'I //TJJOeBBNNO�_Z tI -r-�/�/ PROJECT 6I —E 5 FAC l 4T� CALCULATIONS FOR ✓`In'Ir49AN MADE BY�DAT CHECKED BY— DATE —SHEET— OF T. huw55 Pvm r CNoe l) M ff O1 z M � 0 N \ U F " 111O013A � J Z 13,1f10 � �/ ¢ • Q W I NOIIVA313 N W W f I y3lbrOblN � � O � W v O Q a ,001N00 Q � J Wu 11 J a w in rwa Ir J t—i T I 3 a I _, ¢ O' 0 C J N 4 W ¢ Q W m LL I - W - O 2 a W w W Z J H Q^ O ,Q 2 3: cal W O a W N o 2 W dry J 10 O` J 302 O S Q a e V " wat a - s ❑ ❑ J u j 0 N F > J V, .. O Z W W 6 p ' O 41 � N W 6 Z OF O V W V W ¢ O Q W W W ZON x v ¢ ;� J V O Z O YQ4C6a wW Srra w W¢ V O G J U oia.+oco. �W3 O LL 'S1NSlOO♦3350- 240 10 CHART ISO 10,000 (�) (2) (3) 8.000 EXAMPLE 6 68 p.42 Incnel I3.5 feel) 6• 156 6,000 0. 120 cle 5. 5.000 6• 5. 144 4,000 a MR p to" 4. 132 3,000 Ill 2.3 e.s 5. 4' 120 (2) 2.1 7.4 4' 2,000 13) 2.2 7.7 3. 3. .108 ep in bet 3. 96 1.000 800 --� 84 600 500 2. 72 400 w 300 2 / 2 Z_ L 200 W z 60 u > o_ z Q 54 0 o 100oc = w > 48 / Ir 80 = / =60 d 0 42 w 50 HW ENTRANCE �/ 1,0 O 40 0 SCALE TYPE /w cc W 36 30 III SRanre edu1 3 .9 Madu allge p W Q Q 33 20 (2) Drees nd Gila W = O eduall B 30 (3) Dr eere end yrelecllny 2T 10 8 7 24 6 to uee ecsb 12) er I31 are)ecl Ilor laenl ally Ie •tale 21 uw ❑lsighl lecllned Ilse lay Ru911 4 D and 0 r<elea, or nor le ae Il laelraled. 3 i 18 2 15 2- 1,5 �- 1.5 .6 .6 6 .5 .5 5 - 1.0 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS HEADWATER SCALES 283 REVISED MAY1964 WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAV OF "BLIC ROADS JAM. 1963 y 181 (03 RAINFALL PERFOF-V NCE STANDARD EVALUATION flip MARCH 1991 g-14 DESIGN CRITERIA EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: WAMAt� 7I'T-`'' SI � DATE: 4 % 3 COMPLETED BY: i u, Erosion Control C-Factor Value P-Factor Value Comment Method SILT FGrJGE 0.01 1.01� vmF, W'7ffi &Gii%r Ks Pav E I� �N T o.45 1. cv SEEDI�� O.DlO MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN (Ac) CP.LCULATIONS BASIN 78.9A 0.640.33 Ate. PAV'i 0.31 kc, 6&LbF,D 31� (• Olo� JJT' D G FALL R = -(, 33)( O I) + (. = D. 03 o. �4 NET P FA�PE: = 0.5o NET 5r-F PS a� DESIGN CRrrERIA 5-15 MARCH 1991 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE �O ECT: EAST `�arc 1 STREETS AUUTTj�d WASH WA SITE sTANDAnD TOM �1 KD Gf' RDD.SYIC. DATE: SEQUENCE FOR 19 3 ONLY vim—^ T i ll Ile ldicate by use of a Dar line or symbols when erosion control measures wischedulesfoz _r led. vajor modifications to an approved schedule may ze�:e submitting �proval by the City Engineer. YEF-vt �- I I I I I L 2aoNTH I I N I o I I I I GRADING �IND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening ?erimeter Barr_er(Silt Fvnu) Additional Barriers vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other RXINFA-L EROSION CONTROL - STRUCTUR.AL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barr=era Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt /Concate Pav_ng Other VEGETATIVE: permanent Seed planting .� Y.ulching/Sealant Temporary Seed planting Sod Installation Nettings/Y.ats/Blankets Other � YAINTAIhiD BY Vi RUCTURES: INSTALLED BY EGETATION/Y.ULCEING CONTRACTOR VATE SUBY.ITTED Ap?ROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON DESIGN CRITERIA MARCH 1991 O3 CHARTS, TABLES, 8 FIGURES I ti f i DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF 50 30 I— 2 O z w U CC W 10 z w a O 5 rn w s 3 O U Q 2 w 1 5 .1 MEMO I .2 .3 .5 �` Y� 2 3 5 VELOCITY% IN FEET PER SECOND 10 20 FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING"UNDEVELOPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE: 'Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical Release No. 55. USDA. SCS Jan. 1975. 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE d FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT No Text No Text ME 0.7 w 0.6 Z 0.5 x w > 0.4 0 x a 0.3 w 0 ? 0.2 0 z 0 a 0.1 EXAMPLE • FLOW INTO INLET PER SO. FT. OF OPEN AREA (CFS/FTI Figure 5-3 CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP (From: Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, 1969) FA = Z70 INZ C �• •`F'J TL/ 3 SU(r Mf_'t Cpry Sve / ,'L✓j • Pfjo..i C-*7 Z89' �8Z-5 MAY 1984 5-11 DESIGN CRITERIA No Text L DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP r Me ., 4( 0 0 z GO\&ILp��' lQ� 7YPEI �I ' 1.0 o p 2 4 Yt�D 6 0.76 Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercriticcl in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstrecm. FIGURE 5 -7 RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 71-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE B FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT II it II DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL m 6 C O a 5 0 u 4 Z� o_ z a 2 w w A = Expansion Angle NONE WA W, A M A FAAF RIPRAP (03 p .I .2 .3 A .5 .6 .7 TAILWATER DEPTH/CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 5 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT I.TVO OF DO'TH TO YI.MIIII IM MENNE OEM OMEN No ®■■n M■ n■■■■■■ ■9,■ n ��■■n��®nn �aM,■�■■il�l■■■■� • ■nRi�\n■��nn ■■■N�■\'\■n�■n ■no■\\■■■nn■■n ■■■■NINE■■■�n�l�■■■■■ MEMO ME M■■n ii iiii i�i►�iii on ■■ ■tea■■►vQISM ■o n \�■n■■■■.�N o i■■i�iiiiii �nMEME ii��i WE e e e .11 IIIINVIC Ol M11)O !O OI1rI e e e y N: Y i i iI J .l 1 � t k k i I 1 I p i a+o+ppo ' I I p 1 < c to tl-I to ' to I q=qq CO ' I O I O+CI [n o+O G O 00 0 I O I C C C C t o C: CO Coco COWCO C I Coco qI C . Ot C . Ct [T C . Ct CT C1 . . . 1 1 O I g q CO CO C CO CO CO CO C: Co q q q q I p 1 r q Q co CT CIt Ot Cn [T C. Ct Ot CT ON 0` O+ Ct Gl CJt Ct � O««««C C C •C < 1 N I CO CO CC COC O w CO C) CO CO g COq W q q q q C 7 q 1 o I oM<In to to to tOM1M1rnnr�M1M1rnnrco��cD ca • I g q q O ©q q C) g q b q q c 0 q q q C O q q q O J m C I CO CO I CDI CONM <��N• ��hhhhM1hhnnhQG%=O I CT. I CO co Cc co co cc) coC 7 CO COq C O q C) Coco g m O q co co CC m q l p I IDO Nf"1 <<lfl lD In L7LO to LD 10 LO to totDto LDhnnhnM1 ' O I ggqcO w M co CO co co CD q co co ggqqC)C)qq I to lP l!') tP tl'1 LP t.f) In to to t0 O t0 to h I co CO co C) q co C) cc co co cc CO CO CO cc co co co CI C)q co CO co OOq O I O to co 0 •--I ti N N Cal t•'1 m (•'1 « « < < C C lP lA LA kD to I i qq CO CO q mgCO ClC CO ggqOC)CI GC'1q co co co OC7a r 1 ,CDI LnNN n gCnOO �•"•--INNNNNt")I`•�O�OCCCC • tn I co q q O q co q w CO q q q q Cl CO CO co co CI q CO co co co co CO � .--I co .--I C..� C to un to tO M1 h h co co co cc co CT [T C 0 0 0 0 O 1 N< I co q q co co q CO q cO g q q q cO O co O co W mgC7� cc co O I tD tnCDO.-+N CSC Ctft U•f to tD to ID IO tOhnM1h co co co CT • v 1 CO co CC) CI co Do co q q co q co co co co co co co co co q co OOO co 1 r+ N N[ ") f h C' ) C C C C C t r, 7 U) t O t O t O h h to 1 '-I r+ Ln 1 CO 0 CD C] 1 CO q cc. co q q co co q q q C) co co co co CO co co co q co co O co co O 1 C)N ID ComO.--IN Nf")C')mCCCCCCIP Ln Ll'l ll')tO to to • O i Oq CC CI C) CO CO NW co CO CO co co CO m co C)NW co co co co CC) C)gq tl'f I In ll'1 OtN f7<N t0 rM1M1 ggCO [T Cn CT CT CIt CnOOOOO • N 1 Oco W co C) co co co CO OO CO CO co q N 4] CIO co co co C I C I CO cc) q O 1 C to O C•'Y tO to q q CT'O O O •--. .-•I .--. '-. N N N N (". �''. . M O • ' • • •-• .--1 .-• .--I .r .--1 •--• r+ .--1 N .-N .-� r--I •-q .-1 I N I g C T O • p 0 0 CO CO 0 I I corrC)cOggqqqOOOcOO co co q COgNgqOq I tP I CIN C7 •--' Cto r h CO C+CtO O•--1 .--I r+ti N N Nmm C)[•'1 (•� 14 i to C)• q.• m m m m O N m o l C T O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD CD i I n r h n h M1 h h r h n Co g CO CO CO CO CO W O W W q O q q I I to CDI tD fh 0 C nCTO r1 N (")C7C Cln to totP to to t0 to l0 to qO ggqcOqO C)CI co coO qC7 C)CC) CI Coco I 1 t to to tO to CC t'7O NNCT to C •--I CT . I � i CTO CIp hq Con ' O I n h h h M1 h h M1 n h n n h h n h M1 h M1 M1 n h n O n 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD p 01— 1 OOOO OO OOOOON �CC�l t, toCD o comO �O� OOO J Z LL 1 `-I N c7 C tP to h q Ot O e--I r+ •--I .--1 •-+ .-'I .-I .--I e-I N N (•') ['7 C C 4!') LL W .i 1 J 1 I 1 i I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 PAGE 23 TABLE 5.1 G3 ' PACE 24 Table 5.2 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. Treatment C-Factor P-Factor BARE SOIL. Packed and smooth 1.00 1.00 Freshly disked. . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.90 Rough irregular surface . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.90 SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.50(1) STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG. .'1.00 0.80 SILT FENCE BARRIER . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.50 ' ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 1.00 ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS. . . See Figure 1.00 SOD GRASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS . . . . . . 0.45(2) 1.00 HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE. . . . . . . . . 0.10(3) 1.00 SOIL SEALANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01-0.60(4) 1.00 EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS. . . . . . . . . 0.10 1.00 ' HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH After plantin rass seed, apply mulch at a rate or tons acre minimum) and anchor, tack or crimp into adequately material the soil. Maximum Slope Length (�) (feet) 1 to . . . . . . . 0.06 1.00 6 to 10 200 ... . . . . 11 to 15 150 . . . 0.06 0.07 1.00 1.00 16 to 20 100 . . . . . . . . . 0.11 1.00 21 to 25 75 . . . . . . . . . 0.14 1.00 25 to 33 50 . . . . . . . . . 0.17 1.00 > 33 35 0.20 1.00 ' NOTE: Use of other C-factor or P-Factor table must be values reported in this substantiated by documentation. (1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading. (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 7.4 thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required. (3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated. ' (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. i PAGE 26 ESTABLISHED GRASS AND C-FACTORS 0.40 0.35 -._...r 0.30 - _ .-.. 0 0.25 -.._....- --- Q 0.20 ------------ ...... 0.10 -..-------- 0.05 -.-...__...- a FORT COMS, COLORADO 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 EO 90 100 ESTABLISHED GRASS GROUND COVER (7o) FIGURE 5.1