HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 05/27/2003Fin
` SHEAR
ENGINEERING
CORPORATION
FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT
For
HEARTHFIRE P.U.D., SECOND FILING
Ft. Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
Hearthfire, Inc.
6085 Vivian Street
Arvada, Colorado 80094
Prepared By:
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Project No: 1552-02-97
Date: April, 2003
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 Fax (970) 282-0311 www.shearengineering.com
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
TITLE PAGE
VICINITY MAP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 3
II. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 3
A. PROPERTY LOCATION.............................................................................................................3
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY............................................................................................. 4
III. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS.................................................................................... 4
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION................................................................................................... 4
B. SUB -BASIN DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................... 4
C. HISTORIC CONDITIONS........................................................................................................... 6
IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA.................................................................................................6
A. REGULATIONS........................................................................................................................6
B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS....................................................... 6
C. HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA.......................................................................................................... 7
D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA............................................................................................................ 7
V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN................................................................................................. 7
A. GENERAL CONCEPT................................................................................................................ 7
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS - STORM SEWER.....................................................................:................... 8
C. SPECIFIC DETAILS -SWALES.................................................................................................. 10
VI. WATER QUALITY..................................................................................................................... 11
A. GENERAL CONCEPT.............................................................................................................. 11
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS- WATER QUALITY CONTROL POND I....................................................:....II
C. SPECIFIC DETAILS- WATER QUALITY CONTROL POND 2........................................................ 12
D. SPECIFIC DETAILS- POND 3.................................................................................................... 12
E. SPECIFIC DETAILS- INFILTRATION IN SUB -BASIN 11............................................................... 13
VII. EROSION CONTROL................................................................................................................. 13
A. GENERAL CONCEPT.............................................................................................................. 13
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS................................................................................................................ 13
VIII. VARIANCE FROM CITY STANDARDS................................................................................. 14
A. VARIANCE FROM CITY OF FORT COLLINS REQUIREMENTS...................................................... 14
IX. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................14
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS........................................................................................... 14
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT..........................................................:.................................................14
X. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 15
APPENDIX I — Drainage Calculations
APPENDIX II — Erosion Control Calculations
APPENDIX III — Charts and Figures
APPENDIX IV — Detention Pond 2 Storage Capacity
APPENDIX V - Stui%r Envelope
Page 2
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
I. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the pertinent data, methods, assumptions, references and
calculations used in analyzing and preparing the final drainage and erosion control
design for the proposed Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing site. All assumptions and
basin delineations are essentially the same as those developed with Hearthfire P.U.D.
First Filing.
H. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. PROPERTY LOCATION
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing is located in the West one-half (1/2) of
Section 30, Township 8 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer
County, Colorado.
2. More specifically, it is located on the south side of Douglas Road (County
Road 54), approximately 1.5 miles east of the intersection of Douglas Road
and State Highway 1.
3. The site :is bounded on the west by County Road 13, on the north by
Douglas Road and Cherrywood Acres, on the east by Hearthfire P.U.D.,
First Filing and on the south by Richard Lake.
4. Richard Lake is located immediately south of Hearthfire P.U.D., Second
Filing. Storm runoff from the site has historically entered Richard Lake
and will continue to do so with the development of Hearthfire P.U.D.,
Second Filing,
5. Richard Lake is owned and operated by The Water Supply and Storage
Company.
6. The Water Supply and Storage Company has indicated that they will accept
undetained flows from Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing in a manner
similar to historic acceptance.
7. A statement has been provided with the Hearthfire P.U.D, Second Filing
Utility Plans and Final Plat indicating the reservoir company's acceptance
of undetained flows to Richard Lake.
Page 3
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
8. The Water Supply and Storage Company has provided a letter indicating
their intent to accept undetained flows to Richard Lake. A signed copy of
this letter is attached to this report and is located in Appendix IV.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing is a proposed residential subdivision in
the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The overall subdivision consists of
approximately 146 single-family homes. There are 57 lots proposed with
this filing.
2. Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing has a platted area of approximately 39.31
acres.
3. The site is currently vacant and is covered with native vegetation.
4. There are some existing oil wells on the site.
M. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION
The site is located in the Dry Creek Basin as delineated on the City of Fort
Collins Stormwater Basin Map.
2. This portion of the Dry Creek Basin is partially developed with large
single family lots and medium sized ranches.
B. SUB -BASIN DESCRIPTION
The site topography is best described as rolling. There are several ridges
on the site, which create several sub -basins. The site generally slopes
from the northeast to the southwest at an average rate of 0.04 ft/ft (4.0 %).
2. The basin is defined by Douglas Road to the north, County Road 13 to the
west and Richard Lake to the south. The eastern property line of the
entire site is the eastern boundary of the basin.
3. There are two (2) existing wetlands / ponding areas east of the site which
intercept much of the runoff from the site and retain it. Grading proposed
in these areas with Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing created permanent water
features. They are designated Pond 1 and Pond 2 on the Hearthfire P.U.D.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Plan.
Page 4
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
a. Pond 1 is crossed by the access road (Hearthfire Way) to the First
Filing from Douglas Road which was designed and built with
Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing.
b. Pond 2 is the wetland area that is within the limits of Hearthfire
P.U.D., First Filing.
C. Pond 3 is a small water quality pond necessary for discharging
stormwater into Richard Lake. Pond 3 is located upstream of the
culvert underneath Turnstone Lane, along the west side of the
property.
4. The stormwater intercepted by the wetlands percolates into the soil or
evaporates. An exception to this occurs when storm events exceed the
storage capacity of the low areas. The stormwater eventually overflows
into Richard Lake when this occurs.
5. Richard Lake is the ultimate destination of all runoff from the site
including any water that exceeds the storage capacity of the wetland /
pond areas.
6. Nine (9) sub -basins have been delineated within the limits of the Second
Filing.
Table 1
Summary of Sub -basins for Filing 2
-Sub-basin Area Primary Street Outlet
acres
1
0.70
Apitian
Pond 2
2
1.11
Buntwing
Pon 2
3
1.91
Turnstone Lane
Pon 2
4
8.27
Turnstone Lane
Pon 2
5
4.08
Turnstone Lane
Pond 2
6
7.14
NA
Pon 2
7
7.53
Turnstone Lane
Ric ar La e
8
4.32
NA
Pon-1
9
2.79
Grosbeak__,_P_ond
2
10
1.01
Turnstone Lane
I Richard Lake
11
2.13
NA
IRichardLa e
Page 5
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
C. HISTORIC CONDITIONS
The overall site which includes Filings 1 and 2 can be divided into 6
historic sub -basins designated A-F. These basins are undeveloped with a
few active oil wells located on them as well as some wetland areas. We
are utilizing the "C" factor for sandy soils with an average slope because
of the wetlands present for most of the basin. We have assumed a "C"
factor of 0.45 for Sub -basin F that consists of large estate lots in
Cherrywood Acres. The table below summarizes the sub -basins for the
entire Hearthfire property, their total area and the immediate destination of
the flow from them.
Sub -basin
Area acres
Flow Destination
A
50.53
Pond 1
B
57.59
Pond 2
C
40.50
Richard Lake
D
10.64
Richard Lake via Richard Lake PUD,
E
13.75
Serramonte Highlands
F
12.16
Douglas Road and east
2. The total area of the sub -basins is 185.17 acres. Sub -basins A-E contribute
stormwater to Richard Lake. An additional 91.8 acres on the north side of
Douglas Road contribute runoff to pond 1 via an existing 18" culvert
located under Douglas Road.
IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. REGULATIONS
1. This final report and the Master Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
Plans for Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing were prepared in accordance
with the requirements of the current City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage
Design Criteria and Erosion Control Criteria.
B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS
North County Road 13 will be widened with this project to meet City of
Fort Collins standards. North County Road 13 is designated a collector
street with no parking according to the City of Fort Collins Street Master
plan.
Page 6
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
2. The existing wetland areas retain much of the stormwater that flows to
them. Emergency overflow structures were necessary to convey the
stormwater, which exceeds the capacity of the wetlands out of the wetland
areas safely to Richard Lake. These were designed and constructed with
Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing.
3. The design intent for Filing 2 is to divert as much of the runoff as possible
to Ponds 1 and 2 for the purpose of water quality.
C. HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA
1. Runoff calculations at various design points are based on the "Rational"
method. The 2, 10, and 100-year storms have been analyzed. All runoff
calculations have been performed using the current rainfall IDF curves
dated March 16, 1999.
2. No detention is proposed with this subdivision because the existing
wetland areas will act as temporary retention ponds.
D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA
Storm sewer inlet design is based on the inlet curves provided in the City
of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria Manual.
2. Storm sewer design is based on Mannings Equation with Manning's
coefficients as suggested in the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria
Manual.
V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
1. The grading of the site attempts to divert as much of the runoff into the
wetland areas as possible. The majority of the site (sub -basins 1-4 and 6)
will be contributing stormwater to the wetland / pond areas (Pond 2) via
a combination of
a. overland flow
b. gutter flow
C. storm sewer flow
Page 7
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
2. Sub -basins 5 & 7 will contribute stormwater to Richard Lake or Douglas
Road, after they conveyed through water quality control systems. Sub -
basin 8 contributes stormwater to pond 1 via overland flow. Sub -basin 8
consists of the rear portions of lots 1-5 and Tract E.
3. Water quality is addressed in the design of the outfalls of the storm sewer
into Richard Lake. Refer to the Wetlands Mitigation Report prepared by
TR Boss Associates. Water Quality details coincide with the
recommendations of the report.
4. Emergency overflow structures were designed and constructed with Filing
1 to pass any stormwater that exceeds the storage capacity of the wetland /
pond areas to Richard Lake safely.
5. Any swales that have slopes less than 2.0 percent have 3' valley pans
installed at the flow line of the swale.
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS- STORM SEWER
1. Storm sewer A located at the low point on Apiatan Court will consist of
the following;
& 1 - 5' Type R inlet in sump condition
b: 18" HDPE pipe (ADS N-12 or approved equal) with FES to pond.
C. 1 — storm sewer manhole
d. Overflow swale in case the inlet gets clogged
2. Storm sewer B located at the low point on Bateleur Lane will consist of
the following;
a. 10' Type R inlet in sump condition
b. 24" HDPE pipe (ADS N-12 or approved equal) with FES.
C. Overflow swale in case the inlet gets clogged
Page 8
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
3. Storm sewer C located on Buntwing Lane north of Bateleur Lane will
consist of the following;
a. One - 20' Type R inlet in continuous grade condition on the west
side of Town Center Drive.
b. 18" RCP pipe from inlet to inlet.
C. One - 20' Type R inlet in continuous grade condition on the east
side of Town Center Drive.
d. 18" HDPE pipe (ADS N-12 or approved equal) with FES to the
pond.
4. Storm sewer D located on Buntwing Lane south of Bateleur Lane will
consist of the following;
a. One - 15' Type R inlet in continuous grade condition on the west
side of Town Center Drive.
b. 30 " RCP pipe between inlets
C. Two - 20' Type R inlets in continuous grade condition on the east
and west side of Town Center Drive.
d. 30 " RCP pipe between inlets.
e: 30 HDPE pipe (ADS N-12 or approved equal) with FES to
grassed swale.
f.'. Grassed swale with 3' concrete valley pan
g., 30" RCP to pond that goes under the Whiting Oil access
5. Storm sewer E is a 36" RCP culvert to be installed at the southern
terminus of Turnstone Lane to convey runoff from Tract B to Richard
Lake.
a. The inlet for this storm sewer is a Water Quality Control box, which
is the outflow for pond 3. See the specific details — Pond 3 in the
Water Quality section of this report.
6. Storm sewer F is an 18" ADS culvert installed near the 90 degree bend in
CR 13 along the west side of the property.
a. This storm sewer has been place to allow drainage to flow
historically to Richard Lake, on the property to the west side of this
property.
b. The flow contributing to design point osl is conveyed through this
storm sewer.
Page 9
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
7. Storm sewer G is an 18"'RCP culvert located near storm sewer F. This
culvert is located in Tract B upstream from Pond 3.
a. This storm sewer has been place to convey the drainage along the
west side of the development underneath the pedestrian/emergency
access easement, located southeast of the 90 degree bend in CR 13.
b. Stormwater conveyed through this storm sewer will flow into Pond
3.
8. Storm sewer H was built with Filing 1, located on Town Center Drive east
of Buteos Court consists of the following;
a. 1 - 10' Type R inlet in sump condition on the south side of the road
designed and constructed with Filing 1.
b. 1 - 20' Type R inlet in sump condition on the north side of the road
designed and constructed with Filing 1.
C. This storm sewer has been redirected to outfall into Pond 2 for
water quality.
9. The overflow storm sewer from Pond 2 to Richard Lake designed and
constructed with Filing 1.
8. For Calculations regarding storm sewers, see "Storm Sewers" in Appendix
I;
C. SPECIFIC DETAILS-SWALES
Overflow swales are provided at the end of the Apiatan and Buntwing
Courts (Sections A -A and B-B). The swales are designed to convey the
overflow generated by the 100-year storm at the inlets in case the inlets
are clogged.
2. A swale will be constructed in Tract B (Section C-C) to convey runoff
south along the western property line of the site. This swale will convey
runoff to a culvert that will be constructed under Town Center Way. All
flow will eventually reach Richard Lake. This section also incorporates
Pond 3, which is a Water Quality Control Pond.
3. A swale will be constructed in Tract D (Section D-D) to convey
stormwater from Town Center Drive to Pond 1. This swale consists of 3'
concrete valley pan and grassed sides. The design flow is 133% of the
flow intercepted by the inlets on Town Center Drive located south of
Buntwing Court.
Page 10
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
4. A swale (Section E-E) will be constructed downstream from the outfall
storm sewer system for Pond 3. This is a triangular Swale which consists
of 4:1 sloped grassed sides. This will convey water from Pond 3 into
Richard Lake.
5. A swale (Section F-F) will be constructed southwest of the terminus of
Turnstone Lane. This will be a triangular swale with 10:1 sloped grassed
sides. This will convey runoff into Richard Lake.
6. For Calculations regarding swales, see "Swales" in Appendix I.
VI. WATER QUALITY
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
1. Water quality measures are specified in the Water Quality and Wetland
Mitigation Report prepared by Ted Boss, Ph.D. A copy of this report is on
file in the office of Stormwater Utility.
2. Maintenance of water quality measures will be the responsibility of the
contractor and the owner until the project is complete. The Homeowners
Association will be responsible upon completion of the construction.
B. SPECIFIC DETAIL'S —WATER QUALITY CONTROL POND 1
Water Quality Control Pond 1 is located west of Detention Pond 2
2. The function of this pond is to treat stormwater from sub -basins 1 and 3,
before this stormwater flows into Detention Pond 2.
a. Storm sewer A discharges into this pond.
b. Storm sewer C discharges into this pond.
3. This pond will store 3447 cf of stormwater and release this volume at
0.024 cfs for a 40-hr drain time.
4. This pond has a water surface elevation of 5095.07 ft.
5. The release structure from this pond will have two rows of orifices.
Page 11
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
a. The top row will consist of two orifices. These orifices will be
placed at the elevation 5094.85 ft (O.C.), and will have 9/16"
diameter orifices.
b. The bottom row will consist of two orifices. These orifices will
be placed at the elevation 5094.52 ft (O.C.), and will be 11/16"
diameter orifices.
6. For additional information, see Water Quality Control Pond I in Appendix
I.
C. SPECIFIC DETAILS — WATER QUALITY CONTROL POND 2
1. . Water Quality Control Pond 2 is located southwest of Detention Pond 2.
2. The function of this pond is to treat stormwater from sub -basins 1 and 3,
before this stormwater flows into Detention Pond 2.
a. Storm sewer B discharges into this pond.
3. This pond will store 1435 cf of stormwater and release this volume at
- 0.010 cfs for a 40-hr drain time.
4. This pond has a water surface elevation of 5091.47 ft.
5. The release structure from this pond will have two rows of orifices.
a. The top row will consist of one orifice. This orifice will be
placed at the elevation 5094.85 ft (O.C.), and will have 9/16"
diameter orifices.
b. The bottom row will consist of one orifice. This orifice will be
placed at the elevation 5094.52 ft (O.C.), and will be 11/16"
diameter orifices.
6. For additional information, see Water Quality Control Pond 2 in Appendix
I.
D. SPECIFIC DETAILS— POND 3
A small WQCV pond is needed within sub -basin 7 at design point G.
Water quality must be maintained in order to discharge flows into Richard
Lake. An overall imperviousness calculation was performed for sub -basin
Page 12
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
7 resulting in a required storage volume of 3113 cubic feet of water that
must be drained in a forty -hour time period. Refer to the Water Quality
Volume Calculations section within Appendix I for additional information
regarding the Water Quality pond. Please note that this is Pond 3.
a. A 5' x 5.75' concrete box will act as the primary weir and will
be used to pass the 100 year storm (38.35 cfs) safely into the
outlet pipe and into Richard Lake. The outlet pipe is a 36" RCP
with a slope of .005 ft/ft. The capacity of the pipe is
approximately 47.16 cfs. Refer to the Water Quality Volume
Calculations section within Appendix I for additional
information regarding the outlet structure.
E. SPECIFIC DETAILS- INFILTRATION IN SUB -BASIN 11
With in the drainage and utility easement along the southwest side of sub -
basin 11, an infiltrator will be installed to treat stormwater for water
quality.
2. The infiltrator will run along a majority of the back of lots for Lots 28-32.
This system will allow stormwater to sheet flow into the infiltrator and
ultimately reach Richard Lake as groundwater.
3. A 4'xA' area inlet has been set at the low point of this system to accept
the 100-year runoff.
4. A detail of the infiltrator will be found on Sheet 49 of the plan set.
VH. EROSION CONTROL
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
Erosion control measures are specified on the Drainage and Erosion
Control Plan.
2. Maintenance of erosion control devices will remain the responsibility of
the contractor and the owner until the project is complete.
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS
The following temporary measures are specified on the Drainage and
Erosion Control plan:
Page 13
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
a. Silt fence along the downstream property lines.
b. Gravel inlet filters at all storm sewer inlets.
C. Haybale dikes within all swales.
2. The following permanent measures are specified on the Drainage and
Erosion Control plan:
a. Buried riprap aprons, D50 = 12", at all storm sewer outfalls.
b. Minimum length of riprap apron is 10 feet.
C. Minimum width of the riprap apron will be 5.0 feet for 18" pipe and
6.0 feet for pipe larger than 24".
VIII. VARIANCE FROM CITY STANDARDS
A. VARIANCE FROM CITY OF FORT COLLINS REQUIREMENTS
1. There will be no requests for variances from City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility Standards.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
1. The grading and drainage design for Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
complies with the City of Fort Collins storm drainage design criteria.
2. The erosion control measures shown on the erosion control plan comply
with the City of Fort Collins standards and generally accepted erosion
control practices.
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT
1. The proposed drainage design for Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing is
effective for the control of storm runoff with a considerable reduction in
potential downstream effects.
Page 14
Project No. 1552-02-97 February, 2003
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing
X. REFERENCES
• City of Fort Collins "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards%
May, 1984, revised May, 1997
• City of Fort Collins "Erosion Control Reference Manual"; January, 1991
• Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Hearthfire at Richard Lake;
Prepared by Merrick & Company; Project No. 15011782; Dated July 10,1996
• Urban Runoff Mitigation for Hearthfire PUD, TR Boss Environmental and Biological
Consulting; Dated November 1996
• Wetland Mitigation Report for Hearthfire P.U.D.; TR Boss Environmental and
Biological Consulting; Dated November 1996
• Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing;
Prepared by Shear Engineering Corporation; Dated September, 1997; Project Number
1552-01-96
Page 15
APPENDIX I
Drainage Calculations
Runoff
Street Capacities
Inlets
Storm Sewers
Swale Design
Riprap
Water Quality Volume Calculations
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 10/4/2000
By: MEO Storm.xls
Iu RUNOFF
Page 1
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
SUBBASIN BREAKDOWN
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD 2ND FILING
TRACT Area
PLATTED A sf
HEARTHFIRE 39.31 ACRES
OPEN SPACE 8.33 ACRES 12
60.00% IMPERVIOUS - ROOF AND DRIVES
40.00% PERVIOUS -LAWN
1/20/2003
Storm
Area Sub -
acres Basin
SUB-
BASIN
Area
sf
Area
acres
OPEN
SPACE
0.20
acres
ROADS
0.95
acres
PERVIOUS
ROOF/
DRIVES
0.95
acres
PERVIOUS
LAWN
0.20
acres
C2
C10.
C100
1
30394
0.7
.00
3
0.1
0.11
0.
1.0
2
4 3 3
1.II
. 3
.2
3
3103
0
0
. 3
7
4
360433
.27
1.43
0.95
3. 3
2.3
0. 1
177725
4.08
0.0
0.9
1.88
1.25
0.72
310828
7.14
2.4
0.
2.70
1,80
0.48
0.60
7
445277:
7.53
3.3
0.45
2.22
1.4
.51
0. 4
8
188144.
4.32
0.71
0.00
2.17
1.44
0.58
.72
9
121649
2.79
.25
1.14
0.84
0.
0.73
0.92
10
43996,
1.01
0.16
0.75
0.06
0.04
0.80
1. 0
11
92783•
2.13
1.44
0.39
0.18
0.12
0.40
0.50
Total
1644267
37.85
8.57
1 6.16
___14_._6_51
9.760.62
.77
Page 1
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/20/2003
By: MEO Storm
IM-
PERVIOUS PERVIOUS
OPEN ROADS ROOF/ LAWN C2 C100
MINOR Area Area SPACE DRIVES
BASIN 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.20
SF ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES
3
98
0.23
.00
. 4
0.03
3
1.00
3
2
4
2
12
4
4
3
1.04
2
2.
3
146126
33
.7
0.731
0.001
0.261.2
0.761
17935
0.41
0.081
0.33
9
2.1
0.1
2
Summary of Iniperviousness & Perviousness
Sub-
Basin
Pervious
Area
ac
m
Pervious
Area
ac
ota
.11
9
0.70
2
0.28
-----W3
1.11
3
.48
1.42
FTI
4
3.79
4.49
8.27
5
1.25
2.83
4.08
4.44
2.70
7.14
7
4. 6,
2.67
7.53
8
2.1
2.17
432
9
0.81
1.98
2.7
10
0.20
0.81
1.01
11
.5T
0.57
2.13
Minor
Basin
Pervious
Area
ac
Ln
Pervious
Area
ac
Tota
3A
0.03
0.19
0.23
3B
0.45
.23
1.68
4A
3
0.17
0.2
4B
0. 9T
.4
3
4
2.83
3.8
9
5A
1.06
2.29
335
5B
0.19
0.54
0.73
Page 1
H
r-
m
N.
O
i
N
Ln
li
ri
0
z
c
0
.14
s4
0
a
s4
0
U
G
14
i
rn
C
w
Q
w
r.
7
ri
N
tJl
m
a
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Runoff
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT A
FROM SUBBASIN 1
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD SECOND FILING
LOCATIOl`POND VIEW COURT
AREA A)= 0.70 ACRES
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.83 0.83 1.00
LENGTH =
40
FEET
SLOPE =
1.00 %
2-yeai
10-year
100-year
C =
0.20
0.20
0.25
Ti (min)=
10.64
10.64
10.05
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)
=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length
Slope
Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft
%
fps
min
450
1.00
GUTTER
2.00
3.75
?
?
?
0.00
0.00
?
?
?
0.00
0.00
TOTAL TRAVEL TIIv1E (min) =
3.75
L =
490
L/180+10
12.72
< 13.80 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year
10-year
100-year
Tc (min)=
12.72
12.72
12.72
USE Tc =
13.0
13.0
13.0
1 TE 'IT
(I) (iplr)
Intensities taken
from fig. 3-1
2-year
10-year
100-year
[ =
1.98
3.39
6.92
RUNOFF
= 'LA) (cfs)
2-year
10-year
100-year
Qdirect =
1.15
1.97
4.83
QINLET =
1.15
1.97
4.83
QOVER =
0.00
0.00
0.00
Conclude: Install Storm Sewer to handle runoff
Grade minimal overflow Swale for safety
Page 7 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Runoff
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT B
FROM SUBBASIN 2
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD SECOND FILING
LOCATION BATELEUR COURT
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.76 0.76 0.95
UVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
(1.87*(1.1-C*Cf)*L^0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH = 20 FEET
SLOPE =
1.00 %
2-year 10-year ,
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 7.53 7.53
7.11
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
145 5.00 GUTTER
4.45
0.54
58 3.00 GUTTER
3.40
0.28
182 1.00 GUTTER
2.00
1.52
59 0.50 GUTTER
1.50
0.66
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
3.00
L = 464 L/180+10
12.58
> 10.11 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year . 10-year 100-year
Tc (min)= 10.53 10.53 10.11
USE Tc = 10.5: 10.5 10.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
I = 2.17 3.71 7.72
2-year
10-year
100-year
Q =
1.83
3.12
8.12
QUP =
0.00
0.00
0.36 Upstream flow from DP CI
QTOTAL =
1.83
3.12
9.48
QOVER =
0.00
0.00
0.00
olic u e: Install Storm Sewer to handle mno or
. Provide overflow Swale for safety
Page' 8 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 10/13/2000
By: meo Runoff Storm.xls
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT C2
FROM SUBBASIN 3B
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD SECOND FILING
LOCATION Nest side of Buntwing Lane
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.75 0.75 0.94
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti) (1.87*(1.1-C*Cf)*L^0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH =
40 FEET
SLOPE =
2.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C =
0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)=
8.47 8.47
8.00
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length
Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft
%
fps
min
131
0.50 GUTTER
1.50
1.46
808
1.00 GUTTER
2.00.
6.73
206
2.00 GUTTER
2 .8 3
1.21
90
5.00 GUTTER
4.45
0.34
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (nun) =
9.74
L =
1275 L/180+10
17.08
< 17.74 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL
TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Te (min)=
17.09' 17.08
17.08
USE Tc =
17.0 17.0
17.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
I = 1.75 2.99 6.10
2-year
10-year
100-year
QINLET =
2.21
3.77
9.62
QINT =
1.88
2.83
6.25 Q intercepted
QPASS =
0.33
0.94
3.37 Bypass Flow to DP
a Nano
Conclude: e:
Install Storm
SeNver to ian
Page 9 of 45
D3
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Runoff
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT CI
FROM SUBBASIN 3A
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD SECOND FILING
LOCATION East side of Buntwing Lane
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.75 0.75 0.94
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
(1.87*(1.1-C*Cf)*LA0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH = 20 FEET
SLOPE =
2.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 5.99 5.99
5.66
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
173 1.00 GUTTER
2.00
1.44
89 5.00 GUTTER
4.45
0.33
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
1.78
L = 282 L/180+10 11.57 > 7.43 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year 100-year
Tc (min)= 7.76 . 7.76 7.43
USE Tc = 8.0 8.0 7.5
I =
2-year
2.40
10-year
4.10
100-year
8.59
RUNOFF (
= 'IA) (cfs)
2-year
10-year
100-year
QINLET =
0.41
0.69
1.81
QINT =
0.41
0.69
1.45 Q intercepted @ DP C1
QPASS =
0.00
0.00
0.36 Bypass Floiv tp DP B
Conclude: e:
nstall Storni
ewer to ian
e mno
Page 10 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Runoff
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT C
FROM SUBBASIN 3
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD SECOND FILING
LOCATION Buntwing Lane north of Bateleur
RUNOFF COEF. (C)
Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year
10-year
100-year
C =
0.76
0.76
0.95
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
(TJ
set the same overland and travel en
s as DP CT_
OVERLAND(Ti)
(1.87*(1.1-C*Cf)*LAO.5)/SAO.33
LENGTH =
40
FEET
SLOPE = 2.00 %
2-year
10-year
100-year
C =
0.20
0.20
0.25
Ti (min)=
8.47
8.47
8.00
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)
=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length
Slope
Flow Type
Velocity Tt
ft
%
fps min
131
0.50
GUTTER
1.50 1.46
SOS
1.00
GUTTER
2.00 6.73
206
2.00
GUTTER
2.83 1.21
90
5.00
GUTTER
4.45 0.34
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
9.74
L =
1275 L/180+10
17.08 < 17.74 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year 100-year
Tc (min)= 17.08, 17.08 17.08
USE Tc = 17.0, 17.0 17.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
= 1.75 . 2.99 6.10
2-year 10-year 100-year
QTOTAL = 2.54 4.33 11.05
Conclude: Overall flow to inlets north of Buntwing
Street Capacity not exceeded
See Haestads printouts
Page 11 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Runoff
DEVELOPED
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT D3
FROM SUBBASIN 4C
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION West side of Buntwing Lane
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.63 0.63 0.79
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti) (1.87*(1.1-C*Cf)*L^0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH =
250 FEET
SLOPE =
4.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C =
0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti(min)=
16.84 16.84
15.91
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length
Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft
%
fps
min
150
4.00 swale
3.00
0.83
550
0.5 gutter
1.50
6.11
235
2.5 gutter
3.10
1.26
100
0.5 gutter
1.50
1.11
TOTAL TRAVEL
TIME (min) =
9.32
L =
1285 L/180+10
17.14
< 25.22 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)=
17.14 17.14
17.02
USE Tc =
17.0 17.0
17.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
I = 1.75 2.99 6.10
KUNOPk Its= CIA) (cis)
2-year
10-year
Q =
7.41
12.66
QUP =
0.33
0.94
QTOTAL =
7.74
13.60
QINT =
4.80
8.57
QPASS =
2.94
5.03
100-year
32.28 Direct Flow
3.37 Upstream Flow from DP C2
35.65 total flow to inlet
22.46 Qintercept based on spread to CIL
13.19 bypass flow to DP D2&DI
bnc a e: Install torm Sc%N,cr to handle ninoff
Bypass flow spreads to both sides of street - assume 1/2
Page 12 of 45
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 10/13/2000
By: meo Runoff Storm.xls
DEVELOPED
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT D2
FROM SUBBASIN 413
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION West side of Buntwing Lane
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.45 0.45 0.56
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti) (1 (7* 1.1-C*Cf)*L^0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH = 80 FEET
SLOPE =
10.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 7.04 7.04
6.65
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
R %
fps
min
300 2.00 swale
2.16
2.31
75 0.5 gutter
1.50
0.83
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
3.15
L = 455 L/180+10
12.53
> 9.80 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)= 10.19 10.19
9.80
USE Tc = 10.0 10.0
10.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
I = 2.21 3.78 7.72
R�FF n= 1A�vfcl
2-year
10-year
100-year
QINLET =
1.37
2.35
6.00
QUP =
1.47
2.52
6.60
Flow from DP D3
QTOTAL =
2.84
4.87
12.59
Total flow to inlet
QINT =
2.84
4.62
11.96
Interception
PASS =
0.00
0.24
0.63
Bypass flow to Town Center Way
one ude:
Install torn
SeNver to
an a nmo
Page 13 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Runoff
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT D1
FROM SUBBASIN 4A
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION East side of Buntwing Lane
AREA A)= 0.20 A
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.83 0.83 1.00
UVf!ERLANL) FRAVEL TIME (1'i)
(1.87*(1.1-C*Cf)*L^0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH = 20 FEET
SLOPE =
2.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 5.99 5.99
5.66
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
165 2.50 glitter
3.10
0.89
50 _ 0.5 glitter
1.50
0.56
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
1.44
L = 235 L/180+10
11.31
> 7.10 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year
10-year:
100-year
Tc (min)=
7.43
7.43
7.10
USE Tc =
7.5
7.5
7.0
INTENSITY ITl (1) (iphIntensities
taken from fig. 3-1
2-year
10-year.,
100-year
I =
2.46
4.21
8.80
RUNOFF
= IA) (cts)
2-year
10-year
100-year
Q =
0.40
0.69
1.74
Direct Flow
QLT =
1.47
2.52
6.60
Carryover
Qtotal =
1.88
3.21
8.33
QINT =
1.88
3.14
7.91
Intercepted flow
QPASS =
0.00
0.06
0.42
Conclude:
Install Storm
Sewer to liandle ninoff
Page 14 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 10/13/2000
By: meo Runoff Storm.xls
DEVELOPED
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT D
FROM SUBBASIN 4
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION Buntwing Lane South of Bateleur
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.61 0.61 0.76
LENGTH = 250 FEET
SLOPE =
4.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 16.84 16.84
15.91
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
150 4.00 Swale
3.00
0.83
550 0.5 gutter
1.50
6.11
235 2.5 gutter
3.10
1.26
175 0.5 gutter
1.50
1.94
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
10.15
L = 1360. L/180+10
17.56
< 26.06 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)= 17.56 17.56
17.56
USE Tc = 17.5' 17.5
11.5
2-year
10-year
100-year
1 =
1.73
2.95
6.01
RUNOFF (
= CIA) cts)
2-year
10-year
100-year
Q =
8.66
14.78
37.71
Qup =
0.33
0.94
3.37 Q from DP C 1
Qtotal =
8.99
15.73
41.08
QDP-D1=
0.40
0.69
1.74 Qintercept Nil DP D1
QDP-D2 =
2.84
4.62
11.96 Qintercept a DP D2
QDP-D3 =
4.80
8.57
22.46 Qintercept @ DP D3
QP1PE =
8.05
13.88
36.16 Size Pipe for Q100
Qstreet =
0.94
1.84
4.92 Bypass flow
Conclude:
Overall flow to inlets South of Buntwing
2 -yr Street Capacity exceeded - Slop.
0.005 ft/ft
See attached
Haestads printouts
Page 15 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Runoff
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT E1
FROM SUBBASIN 5A
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION TOWN CENTER DRIVE - NORTH SIDE
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.71 0.71 0.89
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
(1.87*(1.1-C*Cf)*L^0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH = 30 FEET
SLOPE =
2.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 7.33 7.33
6.93
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
50 0.50 GUTTER
1.50
0.56
105 4.00 GUTTER
4.00
0.44
770 0.50 GUTTER
1.50
8.56
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
9.55
L = 955 L/180+10
15.31
< 16.47 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year 100-year
Tc (min)= 15.31 15.31 15.31
USE Tc = 15.5 15.5 15.5
1 =
2-year
1.84
10-year
3.14
100-year
6.41
RUNOFF (
= IA) (cts)
2-year
10-year
100-year
QINLET =
4.40
7.49
19.15
Qup =
0.00
0.06
0.42 upstream flow from DP D I
Qtotal =
4.40
7.56
19.57
Conclude: Storm sewer designed and built with Hearthfire Filing I
Page 16 of 45
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
1/16/2003
Storm
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POII E2
FROM SUBBASIN 5B
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION TOWN CENTER DRIVE - SOUTH SIDE
)FF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
= 0.76 0.76 0.94
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
(1.87*(1.1-C*Cf)*L^0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH = 50 FEET
SLOPE =
1.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 11.90 11.90
11.24
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
NB.
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
It %
fps
min
450 0.50 GUTTER
1.50
5.00
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
5.00
L = 500 L/180+10
12.78
< 16.24 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)= 12.78 12.78
12.78
USE Tc = 13.0 13.0
13.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
1 = 1.98 3.39 6.92
2-year 10-year 100-year
Qinlet = 1.09 1.86 4.75
Conclude: Storm sewer designed and built with Heartlifire Filing
Page 11
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
1/16/2003
Storm
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POII E
FROM SUBBASIN 5
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION TOWN CENTER DRIVE - NORTH SIDE
AREA )_ 4.08 ACRES
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.72 0.72 0.90
LENGTH = 30 FEET
SLOPE =
2.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 7.33 7.33
6.93
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60* V)
NB.
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
50 0.50 gutter
1.50
0.56
105 4 gutter
4.00
0.44
770 0.5 gutter
1.50
8.56
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
9.55
L = 955 L/180+10
15.31
< 16.47 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)= 15.31 15.31
15.31
USE Tc = 15.5 15.5
15.5
2-year 10-year 100-year
I = 1.84 3.14 6.41
RUNOFF = c s)
2-year 10-year 100-year
Qtotal = 5.41 9.22 23.55
Conclude: Storm sewer designed and built with Heartlifire Filing I
Page 12
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 10/13/2000
By: meo Runoff Storm.xls
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT F
FROM SUBBASIN 6
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION Reat lots that adjoin pond 2
AREA (A)= 7.14 ACRES
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.48 0.48 0.60
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti) (1. 7 1. -
*Cf)*LA0.5)/SA0.33
LENGTH = 500 FEET
SLOPE =
2.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (nun)= 29.94 29.94
28.28
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
200 2.00 lawn
1.00
3.33
? ? ?
0.00
0.00
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
3.33
L = 700 L/180+10
13.89
< 31.61 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)= 13.89 13.89
13.89
USE Tc = 14.0 14.0
14.0
INTENSITY (1) (iph)
Intensities taken
from fig. 3-1
2-year 10-year
100-year
I = 1.92 3.29
6.71
2-year 10-year 100-year
IQ = 6.62 11.35 28.94
one a e: Overland flow to pond 2 from rear lot
no design required
Page 23 of 45
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
1/16/2003
Storm
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POII G
FROM SUBBASIN 7
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION End of Town Center Way
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.51 0.51 0.64
OVRLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
(. -
*Cf)*L^0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH = 500 FEET
SLOPE =
4.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 23.82 23.82
22.49
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
NB.
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
1050 4.00 swale
3.00
5.83
? ? ?
0.00
0.00
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
5.83
L = 1550 L/180+10
18.61
< 28.33 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)= 18.61 18.61
18.61
USE Tc = 18.5 18.5
18.5
2-year 10-year 100-year
I = 1.68 2.86 5.84
2-year 10-year 100-year
IQ = 6.49 11.08 28.25
Conclude: Insta —culvert under Turnstone Earle
Grade swale to convey water to culvert
Page 15
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Runoff
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT H
FROM SUBBASIN 8
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION From rear lots on north side of Hearthfire Drive
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.23 0.23 0.29
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
(1.87*(1.1-
*Cf)*L^0.5)/S^0.33
LENGTH = 300 FEET
SLOPE =
2.00 ' %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti(min)= 23.19 23.19
21.90
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
1100 2.00 lawn
1.00
18.33
? ? ?
0.00
0.00
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
18.33
L = 1400 L/180+10
17.78
< 40.24 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year 100-year
Tc (min)= 17.78 17.78 17.78
USE Tc = 19.0 18.0 18.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
I = 1.70 2.90 5.92
2-year 10-year 100-year
Q = 1.70 2.90 7.39
Conclude: Rear lot flow from Lots 1-5
Drains into open space - no design required
Page 22 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 10/13/2000
By: meo Runoff Storm.xls
DEVELOPED
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT I
FROM SUBBASIN 9A
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION Hearthfire Drive - South side
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-pear
C = 0.80 0.80 1.00
VERLAND
TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
(1.1-
*C0*L^0.5)/S^0.33
'sNGTH =
30 FEET
SLOPE =
2.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
=
0.20 0.20
0.25
(min)=
7.33 7.33
6.93
3AVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES
TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length
Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft
%
fps
min
550
1.00 gutter
2.00
4.58
34
0.5 gutter
1.50
0.38
DTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
4.96
=
614 L/180+10
13.41
> 11.89 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year 100 year
Tc (min)= 12.29 12.29 11.89
USE Tc = 12.5 12.5 12.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
2.02 3.45 7.16
2-year 10-year 100-year
QINLET = 0.66 1.14 2.95
Conclude: Storm sewer designed and builtwith Heart i ire Filing 1
Page 20 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation' 10/13/2000
By: meo Runoff Storm.xls
DEVELOPED
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT I2
FROM SUBBASIN 9B
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION Hearthfire Drive- NORTH SIDE
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.72 0.72 0.90
LENGTH = 30 FEET
SLOPE =
2.00 %
2-year 10-year
100-year
C = 0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 7.33 7.33
6.93
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Length Slope Flow Type
Velocity
Tt
ft %
fps
min
80 0.5 gutter
1.50
0.89
700 1.0 gutter
2.00
5.83
576 1.0 gutter
2.00
4.80
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
11.52
L = 1386 L/180+10
17.70
< 18.45 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)= 17.70 17.70
17.70
USE Tc = 17.5 17.5
17.5
2-year 10-year 100-year
1 = 1.73 2.95 6.01
2-year 10-year 100-year
QINLET = 2.96 5.05 12.88
one a e: Storm sewer designed andbuiltwith Heart ire Filing 1
Page 19 of 45
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
1/17/2003
Storm
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POR J
FROM SUBBASIN 10
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION End of Town Center Way
AREA )= 1.01 acres -row o umstone ane + ow unb
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.80 0.80 1.00 70/30- asphalt / grass
LENGTH =
20 FEET
SLOPE =
2-year 10-year
100-year
C =
0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti(min)=
12.80 12.80
12.09
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60'V)
NB.
Length
Slope Flow Type
Velocity
ft
%
fps
300
1.00 gutter
2.00
260
3 swale
2.61
TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) =
L =
580 L/180+10
13.22
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)=
13.22 13.22
13.22
USE Tc =
13.0 13.0
13.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
1.98 3.39 6.92
2-year 10-year 100-year
Q = 1.60 2.74 6.99
Conclude: Flow to wa c •-
,0.5)/S^0.33
0.20 %
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Tt
min
2.50
1.66
4.16
< 16.25 CHOOSE LESSER
Page 17
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
1/17/2003
Storm
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POI1 K
FROM SUBBASIN 11
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION End of Town Center Way
AREA (A)= 2.13 acres - row o urnstone Lane + 1 2 Row Bunn
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages 4-5
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.40 0.40 0.50 70/30- asphalt / grass
LENGTH =
260 FEET
SLOPE _
2-year 10-year
100-year
C =
0.46 0.40
0.50
Ti(min)=
12.74 12.74
10.92
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
NB.
Length
Slope Flow Type
Velocity
ft
%
fps
0
1.00 gutter
2.00
0
3 Swale
2.61
TOTAL TRAVEL
TIME (min) _
L =
260 L/180+10
11.44
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)=
11.44 11.44
10.92
USE Tc =
11.0 11.0
11.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
2.13 3.63 7.42
2-year 10-year 100-year
Q = 1.81 3.09 7.90
*Cf)*LA0.5)/SA0.33
4.62 %
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Tt
min
0.00
0.00
0.00
> 10.92 CHOOSE LESSER
Conclude: Back of lots entering infiltration system Wort i o
Richard Lake
Page 18
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
1/17/2003
Storm
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POII 0sl
FROM SUBBASIN Offsite from the west of the property
PROJECT: HEARTHFIRE PUD
LOCATION End of Town Center Way
AREA (A)= 15.84 acres -includes offsite area north & wesi
RUNOFF COEF. (C) Refer to sub -basin breakdown on pages
2-year 10-year 100-year
C = 0.22 0.22 0.27
LENGTH =
.500 FEET
SLOPE =
2-year 10-year
100-year
C =
0.20 0.20
0.25
Ti (min)=
23.82 23.82
22.49
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
NB.
Length
Slope Flow Type
Velocity
ft
%
fps
1000
4.00 lawn
1.47
?
? ?
0.00
TOTAL TRAVEL
TIME (min) _
L =
1500 L/180+10
18.33
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2-year 10-year
100-year
Tc (min)=
18.33 18.33
18.33
USE Tc =
18.0 18.0
18.0
2-year 10-year 100-year
1.70 2.90 5.92
2-year 10-year 100-year
Q = 5.92 10.11 25.32
Conclude: Exiting 18 culvert under CR 13
4-5
^0.5)/S^0.33
4.00 %
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
Tt
min
11.34
0.00
11.34
< 33.83 CHOOSE LESSER
Page 16
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/17/2003
By: SWT Storm
STREET CAPACITIES
Page 1
o
O r-I
o X
N
m E
M ti
O
\ L
m
C
O
L
ro
YI
Q L
u u
C ro
-r+ U
>4 L
a)
v
ai u
C W
W
r
m
I
H
O
N
Ln
Ln
H
O
2
L O
U E
x z
I
O
CA
(n
to
to
to
to
N
N
N
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
0
a)
�+
>.
>4
>•
>+
>•
>�
>�
>
H
N
C
O
c0
Ln
Ln
m
In
OD
to
r-
O
N
r-I
r-
07
m
C)
CD
r-I
m
ri
lD
N
m
V,
N
N
r-I U
M
H
i
a
V'
w
M
M
r,
M
M
M
M
r♦ L
N
N
N
N
1-4N
N
N
N
-Q -ri
3 U W
O
O
V•
V
o
Ln
Ln
w
V
O ro U
r-I
r-I
' ro
Q
Ln
Ln
In
Ln
�o
0
o
Ln
In
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C4
E
ti4
ri
ri
[,
E-
m
m
m
[,
r,
�
(n L
w
r
c,
t-
Ln
Ln
c,
tr
U)
.
.
.
.
O
In
In
M
M
wLn
N
M
M
ro V
r,
N
t,
M
M
N
N
Q,
M
m
H
H
N
ro �
£
x z
O N
N
to
M
En
w
N
to
to
N
N
al
N
w
0
a)
(1)
a)
>,
>
2
>,
>
pH
r-I
r t
Or�
H
O
m
to
LO
V•
N
IT
rM'
V'
V'
O
m
w
a ul
tw
�
N
0
H
t`
V'
ri
N
O
C)
Q
c
v
Ln
Ln
o
m
m
Ln
Ln
LM
M
N
N.
m
M
M
N
N
•Q 4-
m
m
M
m
co
m
m
a.
m
u
o a u
ro
H U
Q
m
Ln
Ln
m
�0
0
o
m
m
m
Ln
\o
(I
m
m
�o
�o
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
>a
<r
w
0
O
I`
w
\o
0
0
li>,
co iJ
M
M
O
O
m
m
m
O
O
"I
to U 4J
O
O
O
O
N
O
0
0
0
ro U
M
M
H
H
N
H
H
H
ri
� v
w
w
Ln
Ln
Ln
\o
\O
U)
Ln
V'
V'
O
O
N
0
0
0
0
o\o A.
0
0
0
0
v
�o
V
lf)
Ln
Ln
M
Ln
Ln
U)
Ln
w
V'
O
O
N
0
0
0
0
W y)
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
a
O \
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ri 1J
U] W
C.
Ol L
•rl C
N •r7
(L) O
H
N
H
N
M
H
N
r1
N
Cl P.
U
I U❑
I q❑
I W
41
H
H
C
O
.rl
L)
ro
7
Q
cn
W
.d
�
N
C
L
C
3
L
O
£
L
O
L
a
CA
3
-rl
•rl -rl �
0
3
ri ri p)
W
fi
O O .tA
w
11 ri w
L
W W 10
41
to
ai
0
a) N N
0
33C
O O L
m m
o
0
Cr
L
L
•O
aa)) w .,1
.p
L
W W a)
27
N
a
a)
4+
m m O
>
ro
L
M ar ri
o
x
r
N
w
0 0
a,
rn
ro
E
ro
n it
(L)
U)
U
A C• l
3
o
N
v
aa))
chi E
a1
U
E
N
rl
-LiO
a) O
0
Wa
L
41
s�i
ro
a)
N
O (1)
L
\
L ll Ul
10
O .>O A
C
L
li
O
>111
in
O)
Q
Li
a,
A.0
d
o
L
U
ro
ro
L
.0 ,C •rl
ro
°
>a
a avC
"
c
(1)
v
ro u
v
L
•rt
7•I
0
W
0
O O E
LI
H
C
ri ri 7
iJ
H
•rf
W 44 N
C
to
O
O
O O •14
>,
a>1i
C
O
ro
.0
U
a) (1) L
3
•O
ro
[n m C
C
ro
•�
rix
AA Oca
u
a
u
a
>1 >,
v
•ri
L
W
L L C
Tj
L
li
rl -rl O)
W
co
to
U U •rl
al
N
O
to
o
a a (j)
O
O
O
O
X
0
L
'O
•H
-ri
-rl
'1
(1)
.0
7
II
U U
L
L
L
L
L
O
>,
� L L O
'd
10
•O
10
O
L
C
L
C a a1 W
C
C
C
C
C
O
O
O
O
>,
f�4
U
•r l4 SUi
>1
L
a
ro
W L L L
L
•1
a
Cl) m -rl
N
a
a
a
a
•rl
u
to
ro
E u
L
E
E
E
E
u
Id
•O
U
O E E m
C
O.
���
ro
rou
o rocnmcnm
4)o
o
ro
U
N
U
W
U
..0
C CU ULj
'UU-
n 0
x
3
aG t•) i4 w
Ol
H a)
v v
O
ro 0 0 a)
Q) -rl
U al
1J i1
a)
ri
L C •n it
L Ln
C ii
O L
(D
.-i
-rl ro L
O a)
H
(N
ri
N
O L
2 w
w
Q
C+ ££ W
2❑
W
W
H
H
U U)
a
W
O
w
M
v
a)
ro
a
30 foot Local street in minor storm
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File
d:\haestad\fmw\streets.fm2
Worksheet
30 foot road w/rollover in 51' ROW
Flow Element
Irregular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Discharge
Section Data
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.016
Channel Slope 0.046000 ft/ft
Water Surface Elevation 100.39. ft *o- TC,
Discharge 30.34 cis
1
1
1
1
0
to
�1
W
01,J� Ottr1 tr 9.
v V 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0
Station (ft)
06/17/00 34 A FlowMaster v5.13
04:15:30 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Design Point C - minor storm
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File
d:lhaestadVmw%streets.fm2
Worksheet
30 foot road w/rollover in 51' ROW
Flow Element
Irregular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Discharge
Input Data
Channel Slope
0.046000 ft/ft
Water Surface Elevation 100.39 ft ♦ TG.
Elevation range: 100.00 ft to 100.89 ft.
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Start Station
0.00
100.89
0.00
0.00
100.60
0.00
4.50
100.51
4.50
9.08
100.39
9.08
10.50
100.00
41.92
11.67
100.11
46.50
25.50
100.39
39.33
100.11
40.50
100.00
41.92
100.39
46.50
100.51
51.00.
100.60
51.00
100.89
Results
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient
0.016
Discharge
30.34
cfs
Flow Area
5.21
fF
Wetted Perimeter
32.96
ft
Top Width
32.84
ft
Height
0.39
ft
Critical Depth
100.54
ft
Critical Slope
0.007189 ft/ft
Velocity
5.82
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.53
ft
Specific Energy
100.92
ft
Fronde Number
2.58
Flow is supercritical.
Flow is divided.
34 12�
End Station
Roughness
0.00
0.032
4.50
0.016
9.08
0.032
41.92
0.016
46.50
0.032
51.00
0.016
06/17/00 FlowMaster v5.13
04:15:18 PM Haostad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Discharge vs. slope - minor storm
Rating Table for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File d:\haestad\fmw\streets.fm2
Worksheet 30 foot road w/rollover in 51' ROW
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Discharge
Constant Data
Water Surface Elevation 100.39 ft
Input Data
Minimum Maximum Increment
Channel Slope 0.005000 0.060000 0.005000 ft/ft
Rating Table
Channel
Slope Wtd. Mannings Discharge Velocity
(ft/ft) Coefficient (cfs) (ft1s)
0.005000
0.016
10.00
1.92
0.010000
0.016'
14.15
2.72
0.015000
0.016
17.32
3.33
0.020000
0.016
20.00
3.84
0.025000
0.016
22.37
4.29
0.030000
0.016
24.50
4.70
0.035600
0.016
26.46
5.08
0.040000
0.016
28.29
5.43
0.045000
0.016
30.01
5.76
0.050000
0.016.
31.63
6.07
0.055000
0.016
33.17
6.37
0.060000
0.016
34.65
6.65
34C
06/17/00 FlowMaster v5.13
04:15:48 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
30 foot Local street in major storm
Cross Section for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File d:lhaestadlfmw\streets.fm2
Worksheet 30 foot road w/rollover in 51' ROW
Flow Element Irregular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Discharge
Section Data
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.016
Channel Slope 0.046000 ft/ft
Water Surface Elevation 100.89 ft 4C:6- <O r GW14
Discharge 375.41 cfs
100.9
100.8
100.7
100.
100.5
c
0
w
m
m 100.4
W
100.3
100.2
100.1
06/17/00
04:17:53 PM
100.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0
Station (ft)
'34D
FlowMaster v5.13
Haeslad Methods, Inc. 37 rlrookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Design Point C - major storm
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File
d:\haestad\fmw\streets.fm2
Worksheet
30 foot road wfrollover in 51'
ROW
Flow Element
Irregular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Discharge
Input Data
Channel Slope
0.046000
ft/ft
Water Surface Elevation
100.89
ft <- CYO W N
}
Elevation range: 100.00
ft to 100.89 ft.
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Start Station End Station
Roughness
0.00
100.89
0.00
0.00
0.032
0.00
100.60
0.00
4.50
0.016
4.50
100.51
4.50
9.08
0.032
9.08
100.39
9.08
41.92
0.016
10.50
100.00
41.92
46.50
0.032
11.67
100.11
46.50
51.00
0.016
25.50
100.39
39.33
100.11
40.50
100.00
41.92
100.39
46.50
100.51
51.00
100.60
51.00
100.89
Results
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.016
Discharge
375.41 cfs
Flow Area
28.68 ft'
Wetted Perimeter
51.71 ft
Top Width
51.00 ft
Height
0.89 ft
Critical Depth
101.52 ft
Critical Slope
0.004312 ft/ft
Velocity
13.09 ft/s
Velocity Head
2.66 ft
Specific Energy
103.55 ft
Froude Number
3.08
Flow is supercritical.
316
06/17/00 FlowMaster v5.13
04:17:40 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 - Page 1 of 1
Discharge vs. slope - major storm
Rating Table for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File
d:lhaestadlfmwlstreets.fm2
Worksheet
30 foot road w/rollover in 51' ROW
Flow Element
Irregular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Discharge
Constant Data
Water Surface Elevation 100.89 ft
Input Data
Minimum
Maximum
Increment
Channel Slope
0.005000
0.060000
0.005000 ft/ft
Rating Table
Channel
Slope
Wtd. Mannings
Discharge
Velocity
(ft/ft)
Coefficient
(cfs)
(ft/s)
0.005000
0.016
123.77
4.32
0.010000
0.016
175.03
6.10
0.015000
0.016
214.37
7.48
0.020000
0.016
247.54
8.63
0.025000
0.016
276.75
9.65
0.030000
0.016
303.17
10.57
0.035000
0.016
327.46
11.42
0.040000
0.016
350.07
12.21
0.045000
0.016
371.31
12.95
0.050000
0.016
391.39
13.65
0.055000
0.016
410.49
14.32
0.060000
0.016
428.75
14.95
06/17/00 FlowMaster v5.13
04:18:20 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 7551666 Page 1 of 1
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/17/2003
By: SWT Storm
INLETS
Page 1
O En
O r1
O X
(N
\ E
M i4
.1 0
L
co
p
ro
v
w
m
C)
O
N
N
Ln
H
0
z
aJ O
au) E
'1
N �
w cn
1'+
to
t[1
N
O
r
N
r
r
O
C,O
ti
Of N
ri
o
LD
O W
1
H U
%4
M
61
r
to
Ol
.�
o
M
M
tp
N
W
N
o
r
N
O
•� U
y�
o
n
[�
C,�
,�
cD
r
r
M
r
N
Q'
W
N
rl
O
r
r-I
C)U
:4
Ln
o
o
O
O
>+ d
W
o
Ln
O
O
o•i
o0
o
i
o a
H
>+
0
0
0
\
Ln
1
O
O
O
rl
�,
.•1
ri
H
y4 a
Ln
o
0
0
0
?.\
o
o
o
0
N a
o
ri
O
11
O
O
In
O
O
a) y1
N
N
H
N
N
r-I
C
C
H
r'
>4
O
r
O
o
Ln
C
>r
W
M
Ln
r-1
H
0
iJ
„{
O W
lJ
O
Q
H
N
S4
Ln
co
O
LD
N
c"
u?
U
r
ra
Ln
r-i'D
a1
0 4+
♦J
1
C
o
r
r
+
Sa
J
M
r
H
0
Im
O
N
r1
C
O
M
O
0
0
0
0 J-1
N
ri
N
N
-r1
H
W
O
O
O
O
O
Q3
p
m
r
S
O
H
r1 11
11
O
N
N
H
3 W
Q
o
0
0
0
0
r1
N
r
W
co
N L
ri
O
N
14
O
3
Q W
yNj
O
O
O
O
O
N
1
p
m
m
O
o
r
C
p L
M
co
o
0
co
H
H W
F'
M
W
Ln
NC;
O
ri
ri
•-�
H
J
O
ry
O
N
o
C)yJ
m
N
0
N
M
O
` H
,-I
F
m
r
Ln
N
r
w
ri
(V
m
r
r
C-
1J
u
N JJ
r
ON
r"L
o
r
U
F' W
)1
r
N
r
O%
Ln'
.1
Q
p
N
H
o
0
r
C
p 4
W
o
N
O
C,
o
Cl u
Ol
rl
(V
W,
ri
r
m
�o
w
Ln
m
v
07
O W
r
LD
M
ro
W
C U
m
0
N
N
O
ri
C
i
H
r
O
�
N
N
r
r
M
r
N
N
O' UC
m
00
00
Q. LH
0
o
m
Ln
m
a)
0
Ln
Ln
N
O
O
0
0
O
o
0
C
HIn
"4
o
0
0
0
0
n,
Q
N
r♦
M
N
H
U
V
Q
Q
Q
a)
C
N
iJ
w
a
0
ri
N
11
Q1
w
Sa
L
N
N a)
M
X •r1
En
u 0w
3 a)
N
Q cn ro
E
3
O
rl,
w
En
ro
ro
M
a)
al
ro
x
E
0
C) W
0 H 44
LV O d
O N
o C
C) .rt
ro
11 •O
11 0
X
cn C F
4
Wo
Im
O W
.� U
Cow
N
O
r
c0
o
co
o
N d 44
r
N
H
U
>1 Cl
M
W
Ln
m
Ln
a%
O -H
00
o
0
0
H
ti4 a
m
Ln
co
W
O
0�
O
m
O
,a Of
N
H
H
N a
L
L
0) V
Ln
H.
O
N
o
N
�i
44
C
H
LI
o
r
r
C
o
+J
r
N
N
.•.I
O W
LJ
O
ar-1
a)
i4
it
11
o
r
r
N
N
N
Q)
o' W
u
C
,1
Ln
o
(I
•ri
>4
0
H
1
C)N
r-/
44r
o
O 4-)
N
N
N
H
OW
O
O
O
p
`o
W
i iJ
N
N
N
Q
0
0
0
3 U
Ln
N
m
N
a)
H
Q
O
CDO
p
o
O
0
p
o
O
O
i W
F
Ln
Ln
Ln
H
H
O
o
Q
O 1
O
F
Ln
Ln
r
?,
i
1
i4
N
m
o
r
r
Ln
U
F w
r
.
m
.
H
ti
r-i
.1
p
Ln
0
Ln
l0
m
In
m
m
C
S-L
a)
Cf
W
a U
Ln
N
o
m
H
o
r
ri
N
0
V
H W
d U
M
r
m
r�
n
r
r
r
o
o
0
N
C'
a W
r
m
0
Ln
0
Ln
1i
N
0\
N
O
o
i
C
H U
0
0
0
H
W
O
0
0
a.
Q
m
Q
N
Q
ri
Q
Ln
r
W
O
W
N
v
to
ro
a
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
1/17/2003
Storm
Storm . . . .. S . ewer - a . t .. Design .. Point . .. . . ......... I ......
'k' ... APIATAN cotJRt
Design for 100
Year Storm
QIOO = 4.83 cfs -
direct flow only
Install 5 ft inlet
in Sump Condition
Capacity per foot taken from figure
5-2 - Flow depth up to back of walk or high point
curb opening (h) =
0.5 ft
Flow Depth (Yo)
0.57 ft Yo/h = 1.14
Capacity per foot (cfs/ft)=
1.34
Reduction Factor
80.00% Actual Capacity = 5.36 CFS
Pipe Diameter
1.50 ft. Pipe type - ADS
Slope
0.0100 ft/ft Manning's n 0.012
Conveyance Factor (C)
113.8 C = (1.486(A)(R^0.667))/n
Refer to Table
4 ADS Manual
Capacity (Qc)
11.38 cfs Q/Qc = 0.424291
.. ............
Storm Sewer at Design Point
]b Buntwing Court
Design for 100
Year Storm
QIOO = 8.48 cfs - includes bypass from C2
Capacity Per Foot taken from figure 5-2 - Flow depth up to back of walk or high point
curb opening (h) =
0.5 ft
Flow Depth
0.78 ft Yo/h = 1.56
Install 10 ft inlet
in Sump Condition
Capacity per foot (cfs/ft)=
1.7
Reduction Factor =
85.00% Actual Capacity = 14.45 CFS
Pipe Diameter =
2.00 ft Pipe = ADS
Slope -
0.0060 ft/ft Manning's n 0.012
Conveyance Factor (C)-
245.08
Refer to Table in
4 ADS Manual
Capacity (Qc)
18.98 cfs Q/Qc = 0.446627
Storm Sewer at Design Point
. . .......... .. ...... ......
C1
Design for
100 Year Storm
Q = 1.81 cfs
- direct flow only
Pipe Material
11 Slope C Qc Q/Qc
1.5 ADS
0.012 0.0100 113.8 11.38 0.15929
.............
Storm Sewer at Design Point
...... :: ...... ......
C*2
Design for
100 Year Storm
Q = 9.62 cfs
- direct flow only
Pipe Diain Material
11 Slope C Qc Q/Qc
ft
ft/ft CIS
1.5 RCP
0.013 0.0286 105.04 17.76 0.541658
Page 1
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
1/17/2003
By: MEO
Storm
Storm Sewer at* Design Point ... bi . .............. - ............
............
....... .....
.. .... ........
.. . .................
Design for 100 Year Storm
Q = 42.34 cfs includes carryover
Pipe Diam Material n Slope C
Qc
Q/Qc
ft ft/ft
cfs
2.5 ADS 0.012 0.0100 444.35
44.44
0.952833
Pipe and Inlet oversized for Upstream Flows
........... : ................... .......
Storm Sewer at Design Point D 2
Design for 100 Year Storm
Q= 34.42 cfs includes carryover
Pipe Diam Material n Slope C
Qc
Q/Qc
ft/ft
cfs
2.5 RCP 0.012 0.0090 410.17
38.91
0.884684
Pipe and Inlet oversized for Upstream Flows
t on n Sewer at Design Point D 3
Design for 100 year storin
Q= 22.46 cfs includes carryover
Pipe Diam Material n Slope C
Capacity
Q/Qc
ft ft/ft
cfs
2.5 RCP 0.013 0.0090 410.17
...........
38.91
0.577214
............ : ...........
-Storm I . . Sewer. . .. a . t .. D . e . s . i . g n. . P . o .. i . n . t ......... ...... .. ... E 1 1 ....... - ......... - ... ........... - ............
..........
--- .............
: ... ................
Size Pipe From DP El
To Pond for 100 year flow Q100 =
19.15
cfs
Pipe Diameter = 2.50 ft/ft ADS
Manning's n = 0.012 Conveyance Factor=
444.35
Slope 0.0089 ft/ft Capacity =
41.92
cfs
Street Capacity from Back of Walk to Back of Walk 27.50
Flow Depth @ Flowline tip to Back of Walk 0.57 ft
... . ........
Storm Sewer at Design Point El
Design Storm 100 year Q100 = 19.15
CES
Installed 20 ft. Type R liflet Sump
FOR
100
Flow Depth (Yo) = 1.0 ft Opening (It) =
0.5
Yo/li = 2.0
Capacity per foot (cfs/ft)= 2.45 from figure 5-2
Reduction Factor = 90.00% Actual Capacity =
44.10
CFS
Pipe Diameter = 1.50 ft Pipe
RCP
Slope - 0.0240 ft/ft built with Hearthfire 1st Filing
Conveyance Factor (C) 226.22
Refer to Table 5 ADS Manual
Capacity = 35.05 CFS
Page 2
Project No 1552-02-97. Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
1/17/2003
Storm
Existing Storm Sewer at Design Point E2
Design Storm
100 year Q100 = 4.75 cfs
Installed
10 ft. Type R Inlet Sump FOR 100
Flow Depth (Yo) =
1.0 ft Opening (h) = 0.5
Yo/h =
2.0
Capacity per foot (cfs/ft)=
2.45 from figure 5-2
Reduction Factor =
85.00% Actual Capacity = 20.83 CFS
Pipe Diameter =
1.50 ft Pipe RCP
Slope -
0.0333 ft/ft built with Hearthfire 1st Filing
Conveyance Factor (C)
245.08
Refer to Table
5 ADS Manual
Capacity =
44.72 cfs
Existing Storm Sewer at Design Point E
Maximum flow in pipe
23.90 cfs = total flow intercepted from streets
Pipe Diameter =
1.50 ft. Pipe RCP
Slope =
0.0235 ft/ft Slope 0.005
Conveyance Factor (C)
245.08
Refer to Table
5 ADS Manual
Capacity =
37.57 cfs
Note: Carries Flow into Pond
2
i�i.......... i`i'!. g.iiiiiiiiii:
. ...
Existing Storm Sewer at Design Point I2
Installed
10 ft. Type R Inlet
Design Storm
100 year
Flow Depth (Yo) =
1.0 ft Curb Opening (h) = 0.5
Yo/h =
2.0 Q 100 = 12.88 cfs
Capacity per foot (cfs/ft)=
2.45 from figure 5-2
Reduction Factor =
85.00% Actual Capacity = 20.83 cfs
Pipe Diameter =
2.00 ft Pipe RCP
51ope -
0.0223 ft/ft built with Heartlifire 1st Filing
Conveyance Factor (C) 226.22
Refer to Table 5 ADS Manual
Capacity = 33.78 cfs
Pipe oversized for overflow from Pond 1
Page 3
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/17/2003
By: MEO Storm
Existing Storm Sewer at Design Point I
Installed 10 ft. Type R Inlet
Design Storm 100 year
Flow Depth (Yo) = 1.0 ft Curb Opening (h) = 0.5
Yo/h = 2.0 Q100 = 7.16
Capacity per foot (cfs/ft)= 2.45 from figure 5-2
Reduction Factor = 85.00% Actual Capacity = 20.83 CFS
Total flow in pipe = 20.04 cfs
Pipe Diameter = 2.00 ft Pipe ADS
Slope - 0.0105 ft/ft built with Hearthfire 1st Filing
Conveyance Factor (C) 245.08
Refer to Table 4 ADS Manual
Capacity = 25.11 cfs Capacity = CS^0.5
Pipe oversized for overflow from Pond I
Culvert at the end of Town Center Way - DP G
Design Storm 100 year Manning's Capacity =
44.44 cfs
Q100 = 28.01 cfs pipe will not be flowing full
Flowline elevation a1 culvert 5084 feet +/-
Inlet Control 100-year
10-year
Inv @ downs tream end = 5079.50 ft
5079.50 ft
Inv @ upstream end = 5080.07 ft
5090.07 ft
Set maximum WSEL= 5083.82 ft
5082.57 ft
Length of pipe 57.0 ft (includes FES)
57.0 ft
Slope 0.0100 ft/ft •
0.0100 ft/ft
Culvert Diameter 2.50 ft
2.50 ft
Headwater 3.75 ft
2.50 ft
Hw/D ratio 1.5
1.0
Culvert Capacity from.fig re 804-1D with groove end projecting
Qculvert = 39.0 cfs
24.0 cfs
Hw = max WSEL - upstream invert
Max WSEL = upstream inv. + Hw where Hw based on max allowable HW/D ratio
Page 4
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 10/12/2000
Designer: meo Heafthfire 2nd 2:17 PM
Total Flow into Manholes located off centerline
Assumption Area figure for ::d-6:ft off centerline
100-year storm Hypotenuse = :14 -1421.4,
............ .............
5 minute Tc Area x hypotenuse
..........
28.:: s f
manhole lid is open Area
asphalt
Contributing area per manhole only consists of
area perpendicular to the cross slope up
to the center line for the width of the manhole lid
Area s f
..... ww...
:,,.0:,0.0.06:: acres
..............
...............
C
C100
.................... ......
Q = CIA
::.::95iph
::00GS:cfs
Total 4 of manholes in Filing 2
............. ...........11..
Total Inflow O::: c f s
...... ........ n.:
0: MGD
::::T09�.87: GPD
Length of Average Storm
hour
4!11.� days
vs..... ....
.......... o................
I9Wgallons
Total Flow
jy"Ys 1
Storm.xls
Boxelder Page 1 of 1
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 10/12/2000
Designer: meo Hearthfire 2nd 2:17 PM
Total Flow into Manholes located off centerline
Assumption Area figure for off centerline
100-year storm Hypotenuse = 7:-!071068-:
5 minute Tc Area .. .....
.2.x hypotenuse
s f
manhole lid is open Area
asphalt
Contributing area per manhole only consists of
area perpendicular to the cross slope up
to the center line for the width of the manhole lid
Area 4*: s f
acres
.......... : ........
.. .. .............
C
C100 = 0 0:
............
CIA
iph
............................
:.0'0:32';cfs
... ..........
............ .... ...
Total # of. manholes in Filing 2
17j:
Total inflow cfs
3:55:MGD
3 54-9J. .; G P D
Length of Average Storm
hour
..........
::0.. 641!i days
Total Flow =
Storm.xls
Boxelder
gallons
.............
Page 1 of 1
Job No. 1552-02-97. Shear Engineering Corporation 10/12/2000
Designer: meo Hearthfire 2nd 2:17 PM
Total Flow into Manholes located off centerline
Assumption Area figure for '::O..'ft off centerline
100-year storm Hypotenuse
5 minute Tc Area = x hypotenuse
....... ... - ...
manhole lid is open Area =
...00.:Sf
asphalt
Contributing area per manhole only consists of
area perpendicular to the cross slope up
to the center line for the width of the manhole lid
Area sf
0.00:acres
.
..........
C
C100 = 0 G:
CIA
1ph
c f s
...................
Total # of manholes in Filing 2
1'7
.............. .............. ......
Total Inflow .0,00: cf S
Off000 MGD
aa0... :GPD
.................
Length of Average Storm
hour
:1*7days
Total Flow =
Storm.xls
Boxelder
gal lons
Page 1 of I
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/17/2003
By: SWT Storm
STORM SEWERS
Page 1
Project No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/17/2003
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing Storm
Storm Sewer Summary
Storm Sewer Profile IMateriallSlope
(ft/ft) IDiameter
(in)
Maximum Discharge (cfs)
A
ADS
0.01
18
4.83
B
ADS
0.006
24
8.12
C
RCP
0.01
18
11.05
D
ADS
0.01
30
42.33
E
RCP
0.007
36
55.8
F
ADS
0.007
18
9.52
G
RCP
0.01
18
10.5
H
RCP
0.005
18
7.43
I
ERCP
0.0244
18
16.41
Shear Engineering Corporation
Profile A - HF2
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
untiUed.fm2
Worksheet
Profile A - HF2
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.012
Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft
Diameter 18.00 in
Discharge 4.83 cfs
Results
Depth
0.68
ft
Flow Area
0.78
ft2
Wetted Perimeter
2.22
ft
Top Width
1.49
ft
Critical Depth
0.84
ft
Percent Full
45.48
Critical Slope
0.004863 ft/ft
Velocity
6.18
fus
Velocity Head
0.59
ft
Specific Energy
1.27
ft
Froude Number
1-.50
Maximum Discharge
12.24
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
11.38
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.001802
ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
3N
02/15/00 FlowMaster v5.13
1227:11 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Profile B - HF2
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
c:lhaestadlfmwlhearthff.fm2
Worksheet
Profile B - HF2
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.012
Channel Slope
0.006000 ft/ft
Diameter
24.00 in
Discharge
8.12 cfs
Results
Depth
0.91
ft
Flow Area
1.40
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
2.97
ft
Top Width
1.99
ft
Critical Depth
1.01
ft
Percent Full
45.68
Critical Slope
0.004179
ft/ft
Velocity .
5.81
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.52
ft .
Specific Energy
1.44
ft
Froude Number
1.22
Maximum Discharge
20.42
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
18.98
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.001098 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
`3 3 3
02/15/00 FlowMaster v5.13
01:11:46 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Profile C- HF2
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
d:\haestad\fmw\hf2.fm2
Worksheet
Profile C - HF2
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Diameter
1.500 ft
Discharge
11.05 cfs
Results
Depth
1.32
ft
Flow Area
1.64
ft2
Wetted Perimeter
3.64
ft
Top Width
0.99
ft
Critical Depth
1.27
ft
Percent Full
87.68
Critical Slope
0.010453
ft/ft
Velocity
6.73
fUs
Velocity Head
0.70
ft
Specific Energy
2.02
ft
Froude Number
0.92
Maximum Discharge
11.30
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
10.50
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.011067 ft/ft
Flow is subcritical.
33G
10/04/00 FlowMaster v5.13
02:20:36 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Profile D - HF2 - reach 3
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
c:\haestad\fmw\hearthfi.fm2
Worksheet
Profile D - HF2
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.012
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Diameter
30.00 in
Discharge
42.33 cfs
Results
Depth
1.95
ft
Flow Area
4.11
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
5.41
ft
Top Width
2.07
ft
Critical Depth
2.18
ft
Percent Full
78.01
Critical Slope
0.008269 ft/ft
Velocity
10.30
ft/s
Velocity Head
1.65
ft
Specific Energy
3.60
ft
Froude Number
1.29
Maximum Discharge
47.80
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
44.43
cfs
r Full Flow Slope
0.009076
fUft
Flow is supercritical.
33 �
02/15/00 FlowMaster v5.13
05:10:03 PM Haostad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Hearthfire 2nd Filing
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
untitled.fm2
Worksheet
Storm Profile E
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.007000 ft/ft
Diameter 36.00 in
Results
Depth
Discharge
Flow Area
Wetted Perimeter
Top Width
Critical Depth
Percent Full
Critical Slope
Velocity
Velocity Head
Specific Energy
Froude Number
Maximum Discharge
Full Flow Capacity
Full Flow Slope
Notes:
3.00
ft
55.80
cfs
7.07
ft'
9.42
ft
0.00
ft
2.42
ft
100.00
0.007193
ft/ft
7.89
ft/s
0.97
ft
FULL
ft
FULL
60.03
cfs
55.80
cfs
0.007000
ft/ft
This is sufficient to carry the 100 yr storm of 28.25 cfs.
01/17/03 FlowMaster v5.13
02:56:49 PM Haestad Methods. Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Hearthfire 2nd Filing
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
untitled.fm2
Worksheet
Storm Profile F
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.012
Channel Slope 0.007000 ft/ft
Diameter 18.00 in
Results
Depth
1.50
ft
Discharge
9.52
cfs
Flow Area
1.77
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
4.71
ft
Top Width
0.00
ft
Critical Depth
1.19
ft
Percent Full
100.00
Critical Slope
0.007425 ft/ft
Velocity
5.39
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.45
ft
Specific Energy
FULL
ft
Froude Number
FULL
Maximum Discharge
10.24
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
9.52
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.007000 ft/ft
01/17/03 FlowMaster v5A3
03:08:47 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Hearthfire 2nd Filing
Worksheet for Circular .Channel
Project Description
Project File
untitled.fm2
Worksheet
Storm Profile G
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft
Diameter 18.00 in
Results
Depth
1.50
ft
Discharge
10.50
cfs
Flow Area
1.77
ftz
Wetted Perimeter
4.71
ft
Top Width
0.00
ft
Critical Depth
1.25
ft
Percent Full
100.00
Critical Slope
0.009774
ft/ft
Velocity
5.94
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.55
ft
Specific Energy
FULL
ft
Froude Number
FULL
Maximum Discharge
11.30
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
10.50
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
01/17/03 FlowMaster v5.13
03:21:07 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 or 1
Hearthfire 2nd Filing
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
untitled.fm2
Worksheet
Storm Profile H
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope
0.005000
ft/ft
Diameter
18.00
in
Results
Depth
1.50
ft
Discharge
7.43
cfs
Flow Area
1.77
ftz
Wetted Perimeter
4.71
ft
Top Width
0.00
ft
Critical Depth
1.06
ft
Percent Full
100.00
Critical Slope
0.007032 ft/ft
Velocity
4.20
fUs
Velocity Head
0.27
ft
Specific Energy
FULL
ft
Froude Number
FULL
Maximum Discharge
7.99
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
7.43
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.005000 ft/ft
01/17/03 FlowMaster v5.13
03:11:23 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Hearthfire 2nd Filing
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
untitled.fm2
Worksheet
Storm Profile I
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.024400 ft/ft
Diameter 18.00 in
Results
Depth
Discharge
Flow Area
Wetted Perimeter
Top Width
Critical Depth
Percent Full
Critical Slope
Velocity
Velocity Head
Specific Energy
Froude Number
Maximum Discharge
Full Flow Capacity
Full Flow Slope
1.50
ft
16.41
cfs
1.77
ft'
4.71
ft
0.00
ft
1.43
ft
100.00
0.021174 ft/ft
9.28
ft/s
1.34
ft
FULL
ft
FULL
17.65
cfs
16.41
cfs
0.024400
ft/ft
01/17/03 FlowMaster v5.13
03:16:25 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 10/13/2000
By: MEO Storm.xls
SWALE DESIGN
Page 35
M E
o �4
0 0
N L
En
N
C
0
L
ro
Sa
0
04
N
0
U
G
1
a
Q1
C
W
N
ro
v
4
N
O
N
Ln
Ln
r-I
0
z
C
M
oo
Cn
04,
0
00
00
00
00
kn
O
U
O
00
aU
COO
M
CO
Vl
00
Cl
O
O
ax.+
O
O
O
Y "U
0
0
v1
M
O
O
0 3
�a
H
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
CD
0
CD
O
�10C)
C
Cl
O
O
O
O
O
Cd
O
O
O
O
O
O
cu
0
0
0
0
0
Ow
0
OD
O
N
Cl
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
kn
Q
0
O
vi
O
Y
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
>
M
4
O
00
V
7
3
CD
>
o
S
E
a x
M
00
cn
Q
W
U
Q
W
w
Cd
a
3
rt
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Swales
10/13/2000
Storm.X15
Channel Capacity at South
end o on view
Project HEARTHFIRE
PUD 2ND
FILING
Description Section A -A Pondview Court
- overflow
Criteria - Overflow channel in case
inlet is clogged
Channel Configuration Triangular
Q100 (cfs)
=
4.83
Channel Lining
GRASS
1.33*Q100 (cfs) =
not require
Da Db Dc Sc n
(ft) (ft)
(ft)
ft/ft
(ft)
(ft)
3.00 3.00
0.75
0.1000
0.0600
0.00
0.25
P-Lt = 3.09
0.25
ffift
= Left Bank
Slope
4.
:1
P-Rt = 3.09
0.25
ft/ft
= Right Bank Slope
4.00
:1 (H:V)
DEPTH WIDTH
A
PERIM
R 23
Sc12
(ft) M
(s.f.)
(ft)
(A/P)
(cfs)
(ft/sec)
.99
0.59
4.76
1.41
4.90
0.44
0.3162
4.83
3.42
0.5
4.
1.
4.12
U.3
1 C2
3. >
3. >
25
2. 0
.2>
2.
.24
. 1 2
.4
1.92
.
U.
0
0.0
.31 2
ow ept i or estgn
ow is 'approximately
9
Freeboard in Channel
0.16
FEET
Conclude
Channel will be adequate
CHANNEL CAPACITY
-AT EAST END OF BUNTWING
Description Section B-B Buntwing Court
- overflow
Criteria - Overflow channel in case
inlet is clogged
Channel of
iguration Triangular
Q100 (CIS)
=
8.48
Channel Lining
GRASS
1.33*Q100 (cfs) =
not require
Da
Db
Dc
Sc
n
W
1
(ft)
U0
(ft)
ft/ft
R
(ft)
4.00
4.00
1.00
0.0500
0.0600
0.00
0.25
P-Lt =
4.12
0.25
It
= Left Bank
Slope
4.00
:1 (H:V)
P-Rt =
4.12
0.25
fVft
= Right Bank Slope
4.00
:1 (H:V)
D PT H
WIDTH
AREA
PERIM
R 2 3
Sc 1 2
(ft.)
(ft)
(s.f.)
(ft)
(A/P)
(cfs)
(ft/sec)
1.00
8.00
4.00
8.25
0.62
0.2236
13.68
3.42
0.841
6.69
2.SU
6.89
0.55
0.223
8.48
3.03
0.75
6.00
2.25
6.18
0.51
.223
.35
2.82
0.50
4.00
1.UU
4.12
0.39
0.2236
2.15
2.15
25
2.00
0.25
2.0
0.24
.2236
0.34
1.3
Flow depth for
Design low is approxunate y
0.84
FEET
Freeboard in
Channel
0.16
FEET
e
Conclude
Channel will
be adequate
Page 37 of 45
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: MEO
1/22/2003
Storm
Criteria - Conveyance of overland flow
Channel Configuration . 1. 1 rapezoiclal
Channel Lining GRASS
Da Db Dc Sc
(ft) (ft) (ft) ft/ft
6.00 6.00 1.50 0.0200
QlVu (cts) = 26.U1
1.33*QI00 (cfs) = 37.25
n W I
(ft) (ft)
0.0600 5.00 0.50
P-Lt =
P-Rt =
6.18
6.18
0.25
0.25
fl/ft
ft/ft
= Left an Slope
= Right Bank Slope
4.00
:1 (H:V)
DEPTH
(ft.)
WIDTH
(ft)
AR A
(S.Q
PERIM
(ft)
R 2/3 Sc 1/2
(A/P)
Q
(cfs)
V
(ft/sec)
1.50
17.00
16.50
17.37
0.97
0.1414
55.85
3.38
1.44
9
77Tg4.77
77UTITIT7
77TFUF7
3 30:
1.00
13 (7-
--Fff-
--6.T4-1-,[-
--Tf -36-
---T.71--
--T.4-
-T2--4T'-
---8-1-T-
12.72
--0.7�3
-F4T4--
1.39
---2-.6F-
--T35-
--Fff-3.
2
--U.T3-
-T-147-
--TT7--
-19T-
--- 74-4
8.49
F-2.74-
8.
FUT9-1
- 0.1 IT4-
How depth for Design Flow is approximately
'Freeboard in Channel
1.44
0.06
I�EEI'
FEET
%-UIIL;Iuut;
Channel will be adequate
Channel Capacity -in Tract D - SectFIT-D�
...................
......
. .. . .. .....
Description Swale from Town Center Drive to Pond
2 - profile D
Criteria - Conveyance of flow from storm sewer
to pond 2
Assume - all flow to design points intercepts
Configuration Trapezoidal
Q 100 (cfs)
=
37.71
Channel Lining GRASS
1.33*QI00 (cfs) =
50.16
Da Db Dc Sc
n
W
I
(ft) (ft) (ft) ft/ft
(ft)
(ft)
8.00 8.00 2.00 0.0114
0.0600
3.00
0.50
P-Lt = 8.25 0.25 filft
= Left Bank Slope
4.00
:1
P-RI = 8.25 0.25 ft/ft
= Right Bank
Slope
4.00
:1 (H: V)
DEPTH WIDTH AREA PEPJM
R 2/3
Sc 1/2
Q
V
(ft.) (ft) (s. f.) (ft)
(A/P)
(cfs)
(ft/sec)
Freeboard in Channel 0.19 FEET
Conclude
Channel will be adequate
Page 2
Project No 1552'02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
I/23/2003
By: MEO
Storm
Description Swale from culvert @ Turnstone to
Kicnarcl LaKe
Criteria - Conveyance of overland flow
Assume - all flow to design points intercepted
Freeboard in Channel 0.04 FEET
Desciipuon
Swale form Turridstone Lane to Ficliard Lake
Criteria -
Conveyance of overland flow
Assume - all flow to design points intercepted
Freeboard ioChannel
Page 3
(l36 FEET
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: meo Hearthfire 2nd
Existing Channel Along West side of CR 13.
CAPACITY OF TRIANGULAR OR TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL
CHANNEL CONFIGURATION:TRAPEZOIDAL
CHANNEL LINING: GRASS
Da
Db
Dc
Sc
n
W
I
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
ft/ft
(ft)
(ft)
2.00
12.00
1.00
0.0250
0.060
8.00
0.25
P-Lt =
2.236068
0.5000
ft/ft =
Left bank
slope
2
:1(H:V)
P-Rt =
12.04159
0.0833
ft/ft =
Right bank
slope
12
:1(H:V)
DEPTH
WIDTH
AREA
PERIM
R 2/3
Sc 1/2
Q
V
ft
ft
sf
ft
(A/P)
cfs
fps
1.00
22.00
15.00
22.28
0.77
0.16
45.12
3.01
0.75
18.50
9.94
18.71
0.66
0.16
25.52
2.57
0.50
15.00
5.75
15.14
0.52
0.16
11.81
2.05
0.25
11.50
2.44
11.57
0.35
0.16
3.38
1.39
1.365
27.11
23.96
27.49
0.91
0.16
85.63
3.57
1.364
27.10
23.94
27.47
0.91
0.16
85.50
3.57
CONCLUDE:
Compare with developed. channel
CR13.xls
CHANNEL Page 1 of 2
10/9/2000
8:16 A`4
Job No. 1552-02-97
Shear
Engineering Corporation
10/9/2000
Designer: meo
Hearth ire 2nd
8:16 A.M
Developed
Channel
Along West side of CR 13
CAPACITY OF TRIANGULAR OR TRAPEZOIDAL
CHANNEL
CHANNEL CONFIGURATION:TRAPEZOIDAL
CHANNEL
LINING:
GRASS
Da
Db
Dc
Sc n
W
I
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
ft/ft
(ft)
(ft)
4.00
12.00
1.00
0.0250 0.060
8.00
0.25
P-Lt -
4.123106
0.2500
ft/ft = Left bank
slope
4
:1(H:V)
P-Rt=.12.04159
0.0833,ft/ft
= Right.bank
slope
12
:1(H:V)
DEPTH
WIDTH
AREA
PERIM R 2/3
Sc 1/2
Q
V
ft
ft
sf
ft (A/P)
cfs
fps
1.00
24.00
16.00
24.16 0.76
0.16
47.60
2.97
0.75
20.00
10.50
20.12 0.65
0.16
26.65
2.54
0.50
16.00
6.00
16.08 0.52
0.16
12.18
2.03
0.25
12.00
2.50
12.04 0.35
0.16
3.43
1.37
1.365
29.84
25.83
30.06 0.90
0.16
91.39
3.54
1.364
29.82
25.80
30.05 0.90
0.16
91.24
3.54
CONCLUDE:
Developed channel is has greater capacity than existing so it
is adequate
CR13.xls
CHANNEL Page 2 of 2
Job No. 1552-02-97
Shear
Engineering Corporation
10/9/2000
Designer: meo
Hearthf ire 2nd
8:16 AM
Existing
Channel Along West side of CR 13
CAPACITY OF TRIANGULAR
OR TRAPEZOIDAL
CHANNEL
CHANNEL CONFIGURATION:TRAPEZOIDAL
CHANNEL
LINING: GRASS
Da
Db
Dc
Sc n
W
I
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
ft/ft
(ft)
(ft)
2.00
12.00
1.00
0.0250 0.060
8.00
0.25
P-Lt -
2.236068
0.5000
ft/ft = Left bank
slope
2
:1(H:V)
P-Rt =
12.04159
0.0833
ft/ft = Right bank
slope
12
:1(H:V)
DEPTH
WIDTH
AREA
PERIM R 2/3
Sc 1/2
Q
V
ft
ft
sf
ft (A/P)
cfs
fps
1.00
22.00
15.00
22.28 0.77
0.16
45.12
3.01
0.75
18.50
9.94
18.71 0.66
0.16
25.52
2.57
0.50
15.00
5.75
15.14 0.52
0.16
11.81
2.05
0.25
11.50
2.44
11.57 0.35
0.16
3.38
1.39
1.365
27.11
23.96
27.49 0.91
0.16
85.63
3.57
1.364
27.10
23.94
27.47 0.91
0.16
85.50
3.57
CONCLUDE:
Compare with developed channel
CR13.xls
CHANNEL Page 1 of 2
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering' Corporation 1/17/2003
By: SWT Storm
RIPRAP
Page 1
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Riprap
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
Sizing Riprap, Apron @ outfall from
Storm Profile A Storm profile into Pond 2
Project Hearthfire 2nd
Q100 = 4.83 cfs
Pipe Diam. = 1.50 ft. ADS
Pipe Area 1.77 sf
Hydraulic Radius = 4.71 ft
Slope = 0.0100 ft/ft smallest slope in profile
C-Factor = 113.80
Capacity = 11.38 cfs
Velocity = 6.44 fps flowing full
Design for Maximum Flow Condition
Q100/QCAP = 0.42
Determine if.flow is super critical or sub critical
F = V/ (gWO.5
Yt = 0.68 ft.
V = 6.18 fps from Hastad printout
F = 1.3207 SUPERcritical
STEP 1 MODIFIED PIPE HEIGHT ONLY IF FLOW -IS SUPERCRITICAL
Da = 1/2(D+Yt) = 1.09 ft.
NB: Da = D IF FLOW IS SUBCRITICAL
STEP 2 FROUDE PARAMETER
Q/DaA2.5 = 3.89
STEP 3 TYPE OF RIPRAP
Yt = 0.68
Yt/Da = 0.62
Q/DaA1.5 4.24
From Figure 5-7 Use Type M Riprap
From Table 5-1 D50 = 12 Inches
D50 never < 1211 to reduce chances of removal
STEP 4 EXPANSION FACTOR
FROM FIGURE 5-9
1/(2TAN(THETA)) = 5.75
STEP 5 LENGTH OF PROTECTION
Allowable Velocity 4 fps
At = Q/V = 1.21 sf
L = (1/(2 TAN(THETA))) *(At/Yt-Da) = 3.94
Minimum Length = 3D = 4.5 ft GOVERNS
Maximum Length = 10D+(6*0.25*D) = 17.25 ft
Conclude
Install 10 foot long apron
D50 = 12 inches
Width = 6 ft. 72 Inches
Width of FES = 50 Inches
Width of FES = 4.17 ft.
OK RIPRAP WIDE ENOUGH
Page 40 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Riprap
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
Sizing Riprap Apron @ outfall from
Storm Profile B Storm profile into
Pond 2
Project Hearthf ire 2nd
Q100 = 8.12 cfs
Pipe Diam. = 2.00 ft. ADS
Pipe Area = 3.14 sf
Hydraulic Radius = 6.28 ft
Slope = 0.0060 ft/ft smallest
slope in profile
C-Factor = 245.08
Capacity = 18.98 cfs
Velocity = 6.04 fps flowing full
Design for Maximum Flow Condition
Q100/QCAP = 0.43
Determine if flow is super critical or sub critical'
F = V/(gY)A0.5
Yt = 0.91 ft.
V = 5.81 fps from Hastad printout
F = 1.0733 SUPERcritical
STEP 1 MODIFIED PIPE HEIGHT ONLY IF FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL
Da = 1/2(D+Yt) = 1.455 ft.
NB: Da = D IF FLOW IS SUBCRITICAL
STEP 2 FROUDE PARAMETER
Q/DaA2.5 = .3.18
STEP 3 TYPE OF RIPRAP
Yt = 0.91
Yt/Da = 0.63
Q/DaAl.5 4.62
From Figure 5-7 Use Type M Riprap
From Table 5-1 D50 = 12 Inches
D50 never < 1211 to reduce chances of removal
STEP 4 EXPANSION FACTOR
FROM FIGURE 5-9
1/(2TAN(THETA)) = 5.75
STEP 5 LENGTH OF PROTECTION
Allowable Velocity 4 fps
At = Q/V = 2.03 sf
L = (1/(2 TAN(THETA))) *(At/Yt-Da) _ 4.45
Minimum Length = 3D = 6
ft GOVERNS
Maximum Length = 1OD+(6*0.25*D) = 23
ft
Conclude
Install 10 foot long apron
D50 = 12 inches
Width = 6 ft. 72 Inches
Width of FES = 60 Inches
Width of FES = 5.00 ft.
OK RIPRAP WIDE ENOUGH
Page 41 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Riprap
10/13/2000
Storm. xls
Sizing Riprap Apron @ outfall from
Storm Profile C Storm profile into Pond 2
Project Hearthfire 2nd
Q100 = 11.05 cfs
Pipe Diam. = 2.50 ft. ADS
Pipe Area = 4.91 sf
Hydraulic Radius = 7.85 ft
Slope = 0.0340 ft/ft slope @ outfall
C-Factor = 444.35
Capacity = 81.93 cfs
Velocity = 16.69 fps flowing full
Design for Maximum Flow Condition
Q100/QCAP = 0.13
Determine if flow is super critical or sub critical
F = V/(gY)A0.5
Yt = 0.62 ft.
V = 11.64 fps from Hastad printout
F = 2.6051 SUPERcritical
STEP 1 MODIFIED PIPE HEIGHT ONLY IF FLOW IS'SUPERCRITICAL
Da = 1/2(D+Yt) = 1.56 ft.
NB: Da = D IF FLOW IS SUBCRITICAL
STEP 2 FROUDE PARAMETER
Q/Da"2.5 = 3.64
STEP 3 TYPE OF RIPRAP
Yt = 0.62
Yt/Da = 0.40'
Q/DaAl.S 5.67
From Figure 5-7 Use Type M Riprap
From Table 5-1 D50 = 12 Inches
D50 never < 12" to reduce chances of removal
STEP 4 EXPANSION FACTOR
FROM FIGURE 5-9
1/(2TAN(THETA)) = 2.1
STEP 5 LENGTH OF PROTECTION
Allowable Velocity 4 fps
At = Q/V = 2.76 sf
L = (1/(2 TAN(THETA))) *(At/Yt-Da) = 6.08
Minimum Length = 3D = 7.5 ft GOVERNS
Maximum Length = 10D+(6*0.25*D) = 28.75 ft
Conclude
Install 10 foot long apron
D50 = 12 inches
Width = 8 ft. 96 Inches
Width of FES = 89.04 Inches
Width of FES = 7.42 ft.
OK RIPRAP WIDE ENOUGH
Page 42 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Riprap
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
Sizing Riprap Apron @ outfall from
Storm Profile D Storm profile into Pond 2
Project Hearthfire 2nd
Q100 = 37.71 cfs
Pipe Diam. = 2.50 ft. ADS
Pipe Area = 4.91 sf
Hydraulic Radius = 7.85 ft
Slope = 0.0100 ft/ft slope @ outfall
C-Factor 444.35
Capacity = 44.44 cfs
Velocity = 9.05 fps flowing full
Design for Maximum Flow Condition
Q100/QCAP = 0.85
Determine if flow is super critical or sub critical
F = V/(gY)"0.5
Yt = 1.77 ft.
V = 10.16 fps from Hastad printout
F = 1.3458 SUPERcritical
STEP 1 MODIFIED PIPE HEIGHT ONLY IF FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL
Da = 1/2(D+Yt) = 2.135 ft.
NB: Da = D IF FLOW IS SUBCRITICAL
STEP 2 FROUDE PARAMETER
Q/DaA2.5 = 5.66
STEP 3 TYPE OF RIPRAP
Yt = 1.77
Yt/Da = 0.83
Q/Da"1.5 12.09
From Figure 5-7 Use Type M Riprap
From Table 5-1 D50 = 12 Inches
D50 never < 1211 to reduce chances of removal
STEP 4 EXPANSION FACTOR
FROM FIGURE 5-9
1/(2TAN(THETA)) = 4.65
STEP 5 LENGTH OF PROTECTION
Allowable Velocity 4 fps
At = Q/V = 9.43 sf
L = (1/(2 TAN(THETA))) *(At/Yt-Da) = 14.84
Minimum Length = 3D = 7.5 ft MAKE LONGER
Maximum Length = 10D+(6*0.25*D) = 28.75 ft
Conclude
Install 10 foot long apron
D50 = 12 inches
Width = 8 ft. 96 Inches
Width of FES = 89.04 inches
Width of FES = 7.42 ft.
OK RIPRAP WIDE ENOUGH
Page 43 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Riprap
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
Sizing Riprap Apron Q outfall from
Storm Profile E Storm profile into Richards Lake
Project Hearthfire 2nd
Q100 = 52.85 cfs
Pipe Diam. = 2.50 ft. ADS
Pipe Area = 4.91 sf
Hydraulic Radius = 7.85 ft
Slope = 0.0100 ft/ft slope @ outfall
C-Factor = 444.35
Capacity = 44.44 cfs
Velocity = 9.05 fps flowing full
Design for Maximum Flow Condition
Q100/QCAP = 1.19
Determine if flow is super critical or sub critical
F = V/(gY)A0.5
Yt = 1.93 ft.
V = 9.50 fps from Hastad printout
F = 1.2051 SUPERcritical
STEP 1 MODIFIED PIPE HEIGHT ONLY IF FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL
Da = 1/2(D+Yt) = 2.215 ft.
NB: Da = D IF FLOW IS SUBCRITICAL
STEP 2 FROUDE PARAMETER
Q/DaA2.5 = 7.24
STEP 3 TYPE OF RIPRAP
Yt = 1:93
Yt/Da = 0.87
Q/DaA1.5 16.03
From Figure 5-7 Use Type M Riprap
From Table 5-1 D50 = 12 Inches
D50 never < 1211 to reduce chances of removal
STEP 4 EXPANSION FACTOR
FROM FIGURE 5-9
1/(2TAN(THETA)) = 4.9
STEP 5 LENGTH OF PROTECTION
Allowable Velocity 4 fps
At = Q/V = 13.21 sf
L = (1/(2 TAN(THETA))) *(At/Yt-Da) = 22.69
Minimum Length = 3D = 7.5 ft MAKE LONGER
Maximum Length = 10D+(6*0.25*D) = 28.75 ft
Conclude
Install 10 foot long apron
D50 = 12 inches
Width = 8 ft. 96 Inches
Width of FES = 89.04 inches
Width of FES = 7.42ft.
OK RIPRAP WIDE ENOUGH
Page 44 of 45
Project No 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Riprap
10/13/2000
Storm.xls
Sizing Riprap Apron @ outfall from
Storm Profile vs/ Existing culvert on CR 13
Project Hearthfire 2nd
Q100 = 24.97 cfs
Pipe Diam. = 1.50 ft. ADS
Pipe Area = 1.77 sf
Hydraulic Radius = 4.71 ft
Slope = 0.0050 ft/ft slope @ outfall
C-Factor = 113.80
Capacity = 8.05 cfs
velocity = 4.55 fps flowing full
Design for Maximum Flow Condition
Q100/QCAP = 3.10
Determine if flow is super critical or sub critical
F = V/(gY)"0.5
Yt = 1.50 ft.
V = 4.20 fps from Hastad printout
F = 0.6043 SUBcritical
STEP 1 MODIFIED PIPE HEIGHT ONLY IF FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL
Da = 1/2(D+Yt) = 1.5 ft.
NB: Da = D IF FLOW IS SUBCRITICAL
STEP 2 FROUDE PARAMETER
Q/DaA2.5 = 9.06
STEP 3 TYPE OF RIPRAP
Yt = 1.50
Yt/Da = 1.00
Q/DaAl.5 13.59
From Figure 5-7 Use Type M Riprap
From Table 5-1 D50 = 12 Inches
D50 never < 1211 to reduce chances of removal
STEP 4 EXPANSION FACTOR
FROM FIGURE 5-9
1/(2TAN(THETA)) = 4.9
STEP 5 LENGTH OF PROTECTION
Allowable Velocity 4 fps
At = Q/V = 6.24 sf
L = (1/(2 TAN(THETA))) *(At/Yt-Da) = 13.04
Minimum Length = 3D = 4.5 ft MAKE LONGER
Maximum Length = 10D+(6*0.25*D) = 17.25 ft
Conclude
Install .10 foot long apron
D50 = 12 inches
Width = 8 ft. 96 Inches
Width of FES = 89.04 inches
Width of FES = 7.42 ft.
OK RIPRAP WIDE ENOUGH
Use this also the existing pipe on the site and
combine the aprons together with the apron from the street
Page 45 of 45
Project No: 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/17/2002
By: DAH 12:34 PM
Water Quality Volume Calculations
Project No: 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 5/13/2003
By: SWT 10:09 AM
Water Quality Control Pond 1
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
Cover
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing
5/13/2003
10:23 AM
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY POND 1
CONTRIBUTING SUB -BASINS
SUB -BASIN STORAGE (cf)
1 977
3 2470
3447
RELEASE RATE
40.00 hr DRAIN TIME
Release rate =
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
WQCV Page 1 of 4
TOTAL
0.024 cfs
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing
5/2/2003
1:35 PM
DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME FOR POND Sub 1
AREA = 0.70 acres
Using Figure SQ-5, Urban Drainage And Flood Control District
Assumptions: One Single Family Dwelling Unit per Acre
3000 sq. ft homes
OVERALL PERCENT IMPERVIOUS: 83.00 PERCENT
TYPE OF POND (RETENTION OR DETENTION) Detention
SELECT 40.00 HOUR BRIM FULL VOLUME DRAIN TIME
USES 40 HOUR FOR DETENTION PONDS
USES 12 HOUR FOR RETENTION PONDS
FROM FIGURE 5-1 REQUIRED STORAGE
WATERSHED INCHES OF RUNOFF= 0.3203
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQC(REQUIRED STORAGE/12)*AREA
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) = 0.02 AF
814 cf
WQCV * SAFETY FACTOR OF 1.2 = 976.80 cf
Release Rate = 0.0068 cfs
Conclude
Design pond to have at this least 977 cf of storage
Install water quality outlet structure
This pond is located at the outlet from Apitan Court
This pond is design for Sub -basin 1
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
WQCV Page 1 of 4
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing
DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME FOR POND Sub 3
AREA = 1.91 acres
Using Figure SQ-5, Urban Drainage And Flood Control District
Assumptions: One Single Family Dwelling Unit per Acre
3000 sq. ft homes
OVERALL PERCENT IMPERVIOUS: 76.00 PERCENT
TYPE OF POND (RETENTION OR DETENTION) Detention
SELECT 40.00 HOUR BRIM FULL VOLUME DRAIN TIME
USES 40 HOUR FOR DETENTION PONDS
USES 12 HOUR FOR RETENTION PONDS
FROM FIGURE 5-1 REQUIRED STORAGE
WATERSHED INCHES OF RUNOFF= 0.2968
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQC(REQUIRED STORAGE/12)*AREA
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) = 0.05 AF
2058 cf
WQCV * SAFETY FACTOR OF 1.2 = 2469.73 cf
Release Rate = 0.0172 cfs
Conclude
Design pond to have at this least 2470 cf of storage
Install water quality outlet structure
This pond is located at the outlet from the two
inlets from Buntwing Lane
This pond is designed for Sub -basin 3
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
WQCV Page 1 of 4
5/2/2003
1:35 PM
Job No. 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing
5/2/2003
1:33 PM
Average Area End Method for Determining Volumes
Pond 1 Pond located in the southwest corner of the property
Invert 5094.50 ft
Increment 1.00 ft
First Even Contour 5095.00 ft
Ton of berm elev. 5097.00
Elev.
ft
Stage Depth Increment Cum. Cum.
d Area Volume Volume Volume
ft ft sf cf cf ac-ft
5094.50
0.00
0
1992
1991.92
1992
0
5095.00
0.50
0.50
5338
1832.40
3824
0.09
5095.50
1.00
0.50
8125
3365.62
7190
0.17
5096.00
1.50
0.50
9275
4349.96
11540
0.26
5097.00
2.50
1.00
11452
10363.44
21903
0.50
Determine WSEL for WQCV
Req'd Volume 3447 cf
WSEL is below 5055.50 ft - Req'd WSEL = 5095.07 ft
Elev Cum Freeboard = 1.93 ft
Volume Error Messages
ft cf
5095.07 3447 Freeboard ok
5096.00 11540
Note: This water quality pond treats drainage
from Sub -basins 1 and 3.
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors Page 2 of 4
Stage Storage
Job No. 1806-01-00 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT Hawthorne Village Subdivision
Water Quality Outlet Structure
Water Quality in Detention Pond 1
WQCV = 3446.53 AF
Required WSEL = 5095.07 ft
Top of Berm 5097.00 ft
Invert = 5094.50 ft
Head (Dwq) = 0.57 ft
From Figure 5 UDFCD - Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3)
Use 2 rows
2 columns
*Note: The top row has only one orifice.
Must Drain 3447 cf Row 1 Q 0.0199 cfs
in 40.00 hours Row 2 Q 0.0042 cfs
Required Q 0.024 cfs Provided Q 0.024 cfs
Orifice Equation:
A = Q/(C(2gH)�.5)
Row 1
Row 2
Elevation
5094.52
ft
Elevation
5094.85
ft
hole Dia.
11/16
in
hole Dia.
9/16
in
A =
0.37
in"2
A =
0.25
inA2
A =
0.00
ft"2
0.00
ftA2
C =
0.65
0.65
g =
32.20
ft/s�2
F==9
32.20
ft/s2
H =
0.55
ft
0.22
ft
Q =
0.010
cfs
0.004
cfs
5/2/2003
2:57 PM
Notes:
Minimum Spacing between columns is 3 inches.
Minimum Spacing between rows is 4 inches.
Provided discharge is slightly less than required discharge, this is acceptable.
According to Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Figure 5, 32nd inch is the
tolorence allowed.
Discharge calculations are only calculating one column.
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
WQoutlet Page 3 of 4
Project No: 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Coporation
By: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing
Well -Screen Type Trash Rack Specifications
Performation Diameter
9%1'6inches
Distance
between rows
4!inches
Distance
between columns
3':inches
Width of
Concrete Opening
6'J'inches
Width of
Trash Rack
6'inches
From Table 6a-2:
Max. Width Opening Less Than 911
......................................
Screen #93 VEE Wire Slot Opening O:.: 39." F ! inches
Support Rod Type #156 VEE,
Support Rod, O.C. Spacing O7:Siinches
Total Screen Thickness 0':';3:1 feet
Carbon Steel Frame Type 0"...flat..bar
..:..:.....:.............................I..................
Notes:
* From Table 6a-1 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (BMP)
5/13/2003
10:22 AM
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
Well -Screen
Project No: 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: SWT
Water Quality Control Pond 2
5/13/2003
10:09 AM
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
Cover
2
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY POND 2
CONTRIBUTING SUB -BASINS
SUB -BASIN STORAGE (cf)
2 1435
1435
RELEASE RATE
40.00 hr DRAIN TIME
Release rate =
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
WQCV Page 1 of 4
TOTAL
0.010 cfs
5/13/2003
10:23 AM
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing
DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME FOR POND Sub 2
AREA = 1.11 acres
Using Figure SQ-5, Urban Drainage And Flood Control District
Assumptions: One Single Family Dwelling Unit per Acre
3000 sq. ft homes
OVERALL PERCENT IMPERVIOUS: 76.00 PERCENT
TYPE OF POND (RETENTION OR DETENTION) Detention
SELECT 40.00 HOUR BRIM FULL VOLUME DRAIN TIME
USES 40 HOUR FOR DETENTION PONDS
USES 12 HOUR FOR RETENTION PONDS
FROM FIGURE 5-1 REQUIRED STORAGE
WATERSHED INCHES OF RUNOFF= 0.2968
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQC(REQUIRED STORAGE/12)*AREA
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) = 0.03 AF
1196 cf
WQCV * SAFETY FACTOR OF 1.2 = 1435.29 cf
Release Rate = 0.0100 cfs
Conclude
Design pond to have at this least 1435 cf of storage
Install water quality outlet structure
This pond is located at the outlet from Bateleur Lane
This pond is design for Sub -basin 2
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
WQCV Page 1 of 4
5/2/2003
2:15 PM
Job No. 1552-01-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 5/2/2003
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing 1:33 PM
Average Area End Method for Determining Volumes
Pond 2 Pond located in the southwest corner of the property
Invert 5090.00 ft
Increment 1.00 ft
First Even Contour 5090.00 ft
Ton of berm elev_ 9092.50
Elev.
ft
Stage Depth Increment Cum. Cum.
d Area Volume Volume Volume
ft ft sf cf cf ac-ft
5090.00
0.00
0
453
453.09
453
0
5091.00
1.00
1.00
889
671.06
1124
0.03
5092.00
2.00
1.00
1319
1103.81
2228
0.05
5092.50
2.50
0.50
1690
752.24
2980
0.07
Determine WSEL for WQCV
Req'd Volume 1435 cf
WSEL is below 5055.50 ft - Req'd WSEL = 5091.47 ft
Elev Cum Freeboard = 1.03 ft
Volume Error Messages
ft cf
5091.47 1435 Freeboard ok
5092.00 2228
Note: This water quality control pond treats
drainage from Sub -basin 2.
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors Page 2 of 4
Stage Storage
O
Job No. 1806-01-00 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT Hawthorne Village Subdivision
Water Quality Outlet Structure
Water Quality in Detention Pond 2
WQCV = 1435.29 AF
Required WSEL = 5091.47 ft
Top of Berm 5092.50 ft
Invert = 5090.00 ft
Head (Dwq) = 1.47 ft
From Figure 5 UDFCD - Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3)
e 1 row
1 columns
*Note: The top row has only one orifice.
Must Drain 1435 cf Row 1 Q 0.0062 cfs
in 40.00 hours Row 2 Q 0.0039 cfs
Required Q 0.010 cfs Provided Q 0.010 cfs
Orifice Equation:
A = Q/(C(2gH)'.5)
Row 1
Row 2
Elevation
5090.02
ft
Elevation
5090.35
ft
hole Dia.
5/16
in
hole Dia.
1/4
in
A =
0.08
in"2
A =
0.05
inA2
A =
0.00
ft�2
A =
0.00
ftA2
C =
0.65
C =
0.65
g =
32.20
ft/sA2
g =
32.20
ft/s�2
H =
5.05
ft
H =
4.72
ft
Q =
0.006
cfs
Q =
0.004
cfs
5/2/2003
2:57 PM
Notes:
Minimum Spacing between columns is 3 inches.
Minimum Spacing between rows is 4 inches.
Provided discharge is slightly less than required discharge, this is acceptable.
According to Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Figure 5, 32nd inch is the
tolorence allowed.
Discharge calculations are only calculating one column.
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
WQoutlet Page 3 of 4
Project No: 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Coporation
By: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing
Well -Screen Type Trash Rack Specifications
Performation Diameter
IN:
inches
Distance
between rows
inches
Distance
between columns
3'`inches
Width of
Concrete Opening
6.I:
inches
Width of
Trash Rack
inches
From Table 6a-2:
Max. Width Opening Less Than 911
......................................
Screen #93 VEE Wire Slot Opening inches
Support Rod Type
........:..........:...
........................
Support Rod, O.C. Spacing 0I17:5inches
Total Screen Thickness 0:3i::feet
Carbon Steel Frame Type 3'/8.::...x..:1...0:'.'...f;1:6t...bar'
.................................................................
..................................................................
Notes:
* From Table 6a-1 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (BMP)
5/13/2003
10:22 AM
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
Well -Screen
Project No: 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 5/13/2003
By: SWT 10:09 AM
Pond 3
WQCV-Replacing Stormceptors
Cover
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/17/2002
Designer: DAH Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing 12:43 PM
DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME FOR POND
AREA = 10.22
Area (ac)
Asphalt
Concrete
Roof
Gravel
Lawn
Total
acres
TmnPYVi n11C D*T
0.55
100.00
55.30
0.25
100.00
25.00
0.46
100.00
46.00
0.05
50.00
2.50
8.91
0.00
0.00
10.22
128.80
OVERALL PERCENT IMPERVIOUS: 12.60 PERCENT
Imperviousness Ration (I): PI/1i0.126
TYPE OF POND (RETENTION OR DETENTION) DETENTION
Note: I40.00 HOUR BRIM FULL VOLUME DRAIN TIME
does not include the 6" slab for the base of the structure.
USES 12 HOUR FOR RETENTION PONDS
FROM FIGURE 5-1 REQUIRED STORAGE
WATERSHED INCHES OF RUNOFF (1*(.91*IA3-1.19*IA2+.78* 0.0812
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (W((REQUIRED STORAGE/ 12) *AREA
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) = 0.07 AF
3013 cf
Conclude
Design pond to have at this least
Install water quality outlet structure
Page 1 of 5
3013 cf of storage
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: DAH Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing
1/20/2003
10:45 AM
Average Area End Method for Determining Volumes
Pond 3 Pond located along west property line
Invert 79.59 ft
Increment 1.00 ft
First Even Contour 80.00 ft
Too of berm elev. 83.00 ft
Volume = 1/3d(A+B+sgrt(AB)
d = E2-El
Elev.
ft
Stage
ft
Depth
d
ft
Area
sq ft
Volume
cf
Cum.
Volume
cf
Cum.
Volume
ac-ft
WQCV
cf
79.59
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
3013
80.00
0.41
0.41
149
20
20
0.00
3013
81.00
1.41
1.00
766
417
438
0.01
3013
82.00
2.41
1.00
1281
1013
1450
0.03
3013
83.00
3.41
1.00
2755
1972
3422
0.08
3013
Note: Wall dimensions are inside dimensions and bottom of box
does not include the 6" slab for the base of the structure.
WQCV
Req'd Volume 3013 cf
WSEL is below 83.00 ft - Req'd WSEL = 82.79 ft
Elev Cum Freeboard 0.21 ft
Volume Error Messages
ft cf Pond Ok
83.00 3422 Not enough freeboard
82.00 1450
Page 1 of 1
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/17/2002
Designer: DAH Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing 12:43 PM
Water Quality Outlet Structure
WQCV =
Required WSEL =
Top of Pond
Invert =
Head (Dwq) _
Required Area per Row (A)
QCV/ (
0.07 AF
82.79 ft
83.00 ft
79.59 ft
3.20 ft
0.013 ' Dwq^2+ 0.22 Dwq- 0.10 )
A = 0.094 sq inches per row
From Figure 5 UDFCD - Drainage Criteria Manual - (V.3)
Note: Wa 4 rows 5/16 inch diameter holes
does not 1 columns
Area provided = 0.077 per row Area Total
0.307 <- This area must be slightly less than -> 0.323 Good
Need to Drain 1,864 cf in 40 hours = .0129 cfs
Orifice Equation:
A = Q/(C(2gH)^.5)
A =
0.00224
C =
0.65
=
32.20
H =
3.20
Q =
0.0209
A =
0.00213
C =
0.65
=
32.20
H =
3.55
WSEL =
83.14
Q =
0.0209
This is the maximum area that is allowed
with all orifice areas added together.
71:12 = 0.323 inA2
Notes:
7t/s^2 Minimum Spacing between columns is 3 inches
t Minimum Spacing between rows is 4 inches.
cfs
t A 2
ft/s^2
ft
ft
cfs
Page 3 of 5
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/17/2002
Designer:. DAH Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing 12:43 PM
Well -Screen Type Trash Rack Specifications
' From Table 6a-1 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (BMP)
" From Table 6a-2 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (BMP)
Performation Diameter
Width of Concrete Opening
Height of Concrete Opening
Width of Plate
Width of Trash Rack
Height of Trash Rack
5116 inches
3 inches `
14 inches
6 inches
3 inches `
16 inches
From Table 6a-2: .
Max. Width Opening Less Than 9"
Screen #93 VEE Wire Slot O ening 10.139" linches
Note: wall dimens#156 VEE
does not include the 6" sla 0.75 inches
Total Screen Thickness 0.31 Ifeet
Carbon Steel Frame Type 3/8" x 1.0" flat bar
Page 4 of 5
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 1/22/2002
Designer: DAH Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing 12:25 PM
Primary Weir Data
Length 16.00
Invert 79.59
Coefficient 2.60
Top of Box 83.00
WSEL 84.00
Sizin of Primary Weir
ft
Design
Storm
r
Q100
cfs
Max
Head
ft
Req'd
Length
ft
ft
ft
100
38.35
1.00
14.75
ft
WQCV Pond Outlet Box Structure summary
Pond
Box Dimensions
Weir
Top Box
Box
Bottom
Box
Length Width
Length
Invert
Box
Height
A B
D
ft ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
3
4.00 4.00
16.00
83.00
79.59
79.25
3.75
Note: Wall dimensions are inside dimensions and bottom of box
does not include the 6" slab for the base of the structure.
WQCV Outlet Pi a Summary
Pond Pipe
Pipe
Invert
Invert
Slope
Diamete
Length
In
Out
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft/ft
3
1 3.00
120.12
1 79.34
1 78.75
0.005
Page 5 of 5
APPENDIX II
Erosion Control Calculations
Performance Standards
Erosion Control Deposit Letter
Page 2
Project No 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
By: meo Performance Standards
1/20/2003
EC-Calcs
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT: Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing STANDARD FORM A
By: MEO
Developed Ero > > ity Asb Lsb Lb Sb PS
Sub -basin Zone (ac) (ft) (%) (feet) (%) (%)
I
Moderate
0.70
490
1.00
343
0.70
2
Moderate
1.11
464
1.20
515
1.33
3
Moderate
1.91
1275
1.90
2435
3.63
4
Moderate
8.27
1360
1.90
11247
15.71
5
Moderate
4.08
955
0.90
3896
3.67
6
Moderate
7.14
700
4.00
4998
28.56
7
Moderate
7.53
1500
2.00
11295
15.06
8
Moderate
4.32.
1400
4.00
6048
17.28
9
Moderate
2.79
1386
2.00
3867
5.58
10
Moderate
1.01
260
4.62
263
4.67
11
Moderate
2.13
1 580
1.87
1235
3.98
Lotals 4V.77
lILO L.44
LINEAR INTERPOLATION
If slope exceeds 5.0 must insert performance standards manually
5 SLOPE
6
LENGTH 2.00 2.44
2.50
1100 81 81.62
81.7
1125.71 81.64
1200 81 81.71
81.8
CONCLUDE:
PERFORMANCE STANDARD =
81.64%
Overall Effectivness of Erosion Control Plan must exceed this amount
Page 1 of 1
m m
O U
o.4
N ro
U
o �
N U
I
C
O
-i
4J
(a Ea
s4 ro
o �4
a ro
O
0 G
u ro
1 U
G
/ ro
-14 S4
r w
W Q)
f-i W
ro
N
E-
T
N
0
N
Ln
Ln
z
41 o
U E
J
N >.
a M
Q
O
w
c o
S\10
O
00
N
00
M
-,
M
N
kn
�
Vl c
.•-.
M
rn
00
00
i
M
m
N
N
V•
a 4N
V1
N
m
�
Z;
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O\
O\
O,�
O
O
N
V
N
CD
'ITvl
O
p0
O
0000
O\
�O
N
M
kn
CD
O
^-»
r
o0
V
M
N
Q\
i-.
r-
•-
D\
N
O
vl
M
I�
't
O
00
[Y
r-
V'
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
N
a
W N
O
N
M
V
kn
�O
l�
00
01\
ti co
ti
'O
00 kn
kn llc�
00 00
C 00
cO W
n p rn r
n E N 00 00 0o II
z�
O.N
c
H
Q C) 00
W � U
O o
N x O N
N n CC) Z O
Cd z
o �
li
c
0
.,I
u
m
u
0
a ,o
�4 c
O N
U
r
m
N
O
O
Ln E
Ln
al
0 C:
0
rJ Q
00 vi vn in v)
Ito K 2 2 c
0 .0
a a .n a .n a
F a o 0 0 0 o 0
a O� Wn 00 O O 00
6✓ O O O O
a
F a 0 0 0 -
o 0 0 0 o
.: o 6
W >
Fes"
C7 U
G
A r L)
x bf) >
C/) CZ
M
W
O
N
Q1
ro
a
U)
m m
� v
X c
rn >
U .,I
r 41
U aa)
1 w
U w
W W
o g
0 2
0
N n
� o
M
•--1 ri
O
ri
rs
o
0
0 0
0 0
UC,o
..
.�
0
0
0
0
a)
0
..
0
o
0
N
N
U
N
U
y
N
N
y
y
y
U
W
m
c9
U
q
U
cl
U
cl
U
cJ
U
cC
U
ci
M O
M
[�
M
00
O— h Vl-It
M
00
O
•�
tt t-
O
O
O O
N
M �p
O
O
O M M
00
O
O
'""'
M M 0
o
oeq
00
o o tn
00
•C
cl
it
o
'C
10
GL
��zz.,
0vidUUa
,U�.,
II
En
p
o
W
W
W
v°�¢�UUP,
W
l0
Q\
b
O
O
LQ
¢
o
r-
a
w
ca
It
N
II
11
N
N
y
N
�
N
N
�
14
frl
ih
iF
-0F
xx
y
cl
wo
d
ww
O
? o
¢¢Y.
q q U
Q
a II u
w
a
U
11
0
r
O1
0 0 o O
T O O O
0 0 0
U U V U
F F F F
M I'D to M [- 00 00
-n Cl Cn -It N O M 00
r-1 N O ti 00 7 M 7
0 o x
'c7
Q 3 U U a W
h
0 0 0 0 Cl 0
0 0 0. o 0
r: 0 o
.. .. .. o
o o o 0
. o
U U U U U U
F F F F F F
00 vl in 00 N � O -e -Krt` N
00 N D, O �D , ° 00 110 .--i O I'D o
��oa. M N N N l� Go M N
0 0 oNo 0 0 od
G
0q .Y
0 0 N' II II W p o
Q U U p. W E 3 U U w W
V1 M
M M
Cl D
3
o
7 r
II II
N N/1
C C
.p
V U
�i
W W
,k #
diN
Q
r.
V)
fA U
ri N
X C
N
UI �
U
rl JJ
ro u
u 4
w
U w
w w
M %
o a
0
N W
\ U1
O••
N
PL.
U
O
r-
01
i
N
O
N O
Ln E
Ln
r(
S�(
N
O
0
O N
�7 Q
O C. O
O O O
6
O . . o
0 0 0 0
-� o 0 0
0
0
N N N N N
CO cC 0 0 tC
V �o V1 r N 7 to
to � M N m 0 c
'M N O M O �j M
~ O O
b
(°nd�UUa W
a
a.
I
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
cs
O
Cl
o
--o
0
0
0
0
o
o
-
o
0
LLi
4
4
0
u
cd
m
u
c0
u
c0
R
M
N
-
00
7
t�
to
Otf)
00 r-
VN'i
O,
M
O
O W
O
O
W
v
V
U
��
fir.,
00
.0
p
0
.0
o
i'
.�
(n
W)
M
N
N
CN
M
1�
7
N
T
N
00
N
U
U
W
W
iFy
iF
AM
m
U)
v
C
N
N
U +
m U
U N
i W
U W
W W
P.
U
m v
C �4
Q
O
r
m
N
O
t 0
N v
In
In
N
v
O
r
3 v
h 0
CD
0 0 0 0
• — O • -+ O
O O
• O O O O O
-- o c o 0
m e m ca m
7 O O N M CD�o .-. O M
W 7 00o O �--� N N O
c c c c rn
c� x is
to
¢�°nUUaw °¢�v,UUaw
W) 00
llc� O
O N
O
N
II II
U U
W W
a
4Ui LUi
Q Q
0
00
W
N
N
Ql
N
U
r
w
O
Ln
tr�
ro
a
!n
!n
N
C
v
ro 0
u v
1 w
u w
w w
F:\Clients\H-Clients\Hearthfire Inc\Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing\Civil\Documents\Erosion\Sequence.doc
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
PROJECT: Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing STANDARD FORM C
SEQUENCE FOR 2000 ONLY COMPLETED BY:MEO/Shear Engineering Corp.
Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an
approved schedule may require submitting anew schedule for. approval by the City Engineer.
'ear 00
rionth M A M J J A S 0 N D
OVERLOT GRADING ***
WIND EROSION CONTROL
Soil Roughening ***
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant
Other
RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL
STRUCTURAL:
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters *** *** *** *** *** ***
Straw Barriers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Silt Fence Barriers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving
Other
VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
Temporary Secd Planting
Sod Installation
Nelti ngs/MatsBlankets
Other
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY: OWNER
MAINTAINED BY: OWNER
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: OWNER
DATE PREPARED: 02-16-2000 DATE SUBMITTED: 02-24-2000
APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON:
Page 1
October 16, 2000
Project No: 1552-02-97
Bob Zachly
City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522
Re:.. Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing Erosion Control Deposit
ZM1
SHEAR
ENGINEERING
CORPORATION
Dear Bob,
Attached is the erosion control security deposit estimate for Hearthfire P.U.D. Second
Filing.
Estimate 1: Erosion Control
4000 LF of silt fence @
9 Gravel Inlet filters @
10 Haybale barriers @
Total Estimated Cost:
Estimate 2: Revegetate disturbed area
20 acres @ $615.00
$615 per acre for areas greater than 5 acres.
Total Estimated Cost:
Cost/unit
Cost
$3.00 LF
$12,000
$150.00 Each
$1,350
$75.00 Each
$750
$14,100
x 1.5
$21,150
$12,300.00
x 1.5
$18,450
In no instance shall the amount of the security be less than $ 1,000.00. Therefore, the
total required erosion control security deposit for Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing is
$21,150.00.
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 Fax (970) 282-0311 \k-\N-\N•.shearengineering.com
October 16, 2000
Page 2
Project No: 1552-02-97
If you have any questions, please call me at 226-5334.
Sincerely,
Mark Oberschmidt
Shear Engineering Corporation
MEO / meo
cc:
Hearthfire Inc.
City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility Erosion Control Department
October 16, 2000
Project No: 1552-02-97
Re: EROSION CONTROL SECURITY DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS:
Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing Erosion Control Deposit
A. An erosion control security deposit is required in accordance with City of policy
(Chapter 7, Section C: SECURITY; page 7.23 of the City of Fort..Collins Development
Manual). In no instance shall the amount of the security be less than $1,000.00
According to current City of Fort Collins policy, the erosion control security deposit Fort
Collins is figured based on the larger amount of 1.5 times the estimated cost of installing
the approved erosion control measures or 1.5 times the cost to re -vegetate the anticipated
area to be disturbed by construction activity.
The cost to. install the proposed erosion control measures is $14,100 Refer to the cost
estimate attached in Appendix 1. 1.5 times the cost to install the.erosion control measures
is $21,150
'Net disturbed area due to construction activity will be 20:acres. Cost to revegetate the
disturbed area is $12,300. 1.5 times the cost to re -vegetate the disturbed area is $18,450
CONCLUSION:
The erosion control security deposit amount required for Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing
Erosion Control Deposit is $21,150
APPENDIX III
Supporting exhibits, figures, tables, etc.
Figure 3-1; City of Ft. Collins Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve, SDDCCS
Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity Curve Data for City of Fort Collins
Figure 3-2; Estimate of Average flow Velocity for Use with the rational formula, UDFCM
Table 3-2; Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Zoning Classifications, SDDCCS
Table 3-3; Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis, SDDCCS
Table 3-4; rational Method Frequency Adjustment Factors, SDDCCS
Figure 4-2; Reduction factor for Allowable Gutter Capacity,
Figure 5-2; Nomograph for Capacity of Curb Opening Inlets in Sumps, SDDCCS
Figure 5-3; Capacity of Grated Inlet in Sump, SDDCCS
Table 5-4; Inlet Capacity Reduction Factors, SDDCCS
Figure 5-5; Standard Curb -Opening Inlet Chart, SDDCCS
Table 8-13; C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values, SDDCCS
Table 4 Circular Pipe Flow Capacity for Mannings'n'=0.012
Table 5 Circular Pipe Flow Capacity for Mannings'n'=0.013
Offsite Drainage Exhibit (Contributing to Design Point osl)
Historic Drainage Exhibit for Sub -Basin 8
Page 3
5
i
Y'UK"1" CULL INS
KAl N r ALL
1 N-1 6N S 1T Y
CU KV G LA lA YUK C 1 1 2 Lac C UR l
LULLILv J
2
10
100
2
10
100
TIME
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
TIME
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
5.00
2.85
4.87
9.95
32.00
1.24
2.12
4.33
5.50
2.760
4.715
9.630
32.50
1.230
2.100
4.285
6.00
2.67
4.56
9.31
33.00
1.22
2.08
4.24
6.50
2.595
4.435
9.055
33.50
1.205
2.060
4.200
7.00
2.52
4.31
8.80
34.00
1.19
2.04
4.16
7.50
2.460
4.205
8.590
34.50
1.180
2.020
4.120
8.00
2.40
4.10
8.38
35.00
1.17
2.00
4.08
8.50
2.350
4.015
8.205
35.50
1.160
1.980
4.045
9.00
2.30
3.93
8.03
36.00
1.15
1.96
4.01
9.50
2.255
3.855
7.875
36.50
1.140
1.945
3.970
10.00
2.21
3.78
7.72
37.00
1.13
1.93
3.93
10.50
2.170
3.705
7.570
37.50
1.120
1.910
3.900
11.00
2.13
3.63
7.42
38.00
1.11
1.89
3.87
11.50
2.090
3.565
7.290
38.50
1.100
1.875
3.835
12.00
2.05
3.50
7.16
39.00
1.09
1.86
3.80
12.50
2.015
3.445
7.040
39.50
1.080
1.845
3.770
13.00
1.98
3.39
6.92
40.00
1.07
1.83
3.74
13.50
1.950
3.340
6.815
40.50
1.060
1.815
3.710
14.00
1.92
3.29
6.71
41.00
1.05
1.80
3.68
14.50
1.895
3.240
6.615
41.50
1.045
1.785
3.650
15.00
1.87
3.19
6.52
42.00
1.04
1.77
3.62
15.50
1.840
3.135
6.410
42.50
1.030
1.755
3.590.
16.00
1.81
3.08
6.30
43.00
1.02
1.74
3.56
16.50
1.780
3.035
6.200
43.50
1.015
1.730
3.535
17.00
1.75
2.99
6.10
44.00
1.01
1.72
3.51
17.50
1.725
2.945
6.010
44.50
1.000
1.705
3.485
18.00
1.70
2.90
5.92
45.00
0.99
1.69
3.46
18.50
1.675
2.860
5.835
45.50
0.985
1.680
3.435
19.00
1.65
2.82
5.75
46.00
0.98
1.67
3.41
19.50
1.630
2.780
5.675
46.50
0.970
1.655
3.385
20.00
1.61
2.74
5.60
47.00
0.96
1.64
3.36
20.50
1.585
2.705
5.530
47.50
0.955
1.630
3.335
21.00
1.56
2.67
5.46
48.00
0.95
1.62
3.31
21.50
1.545
2.640
5.390
48.50
0.945
1.610
3.290
22.00
1.53
2.61
5.32
49.00
0.94
1.60
3.27
22.50
1.510
2.560
5.260
49.50
0.930
1.590
3.250
23.00
1.49
2.55
5.20
50.00
0.92
1.58
3.23
23.50
1.475
2.520
5.145
50.50
0.915
1.570
3.205
24.00
1.46
2.49
5.09
51.00
0.91
1.56
3.18
24.50
1.445
2.465
5.035
51.50
0.905
1.550
3.160
25.00
1.43
2.44
4.98
52.00
0.90
1.54.
3.14
25.50
1.415
2.415
4.925
52.50
0.895
1.530
3.120
26.00
1.40
2.39
4.87
53.00
0.89
1.52
3.10
26.50
1.385
2.365
4.825
53.50
0.885
1.510
3.085
27.00
1.37
2.34
4.78
54.00
0.88
1.50
3.07
27.50
1.355
2.315
4.735
54.50
0.875
1.490
3.050
28.00
1.34
2.29
4.69
55.00
0.87
1.48
3.03
28.50
1.330
2.270
4.645
55.50
.0.865
1.475
3.010
29.00
1.32
2.25
4.60
56.00
0.86
1.47
2.99
29.50
1.310
2.230
4.560
56.50
0.855
1.460
2.975
30.00
1.30
2.21
4.52
57.00
0.85
1.45
2.96
30.50
1.285
2.185
4.470
57.50
0.845
1.440
2.940
31.00
1.27
2.16
4.42
58.00
0.84
1.43
2.92
31.50
1.255
2.140
4.375
58.50
0.835
1.425
2.905
59.00
0.83
1.42
2.89
59.50
0.825
1.410
2.875
60.00
0.82
1.40
2.86
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RUNOFF
50
30
t-- 20
z
w
U
CC
Lu
10
z
w
;>
.:5
w
U)
cc ...
3.
O'
2
w
H
g
1
I
, I i • I • �■
iiiiiMEN
i�'�'
��
111®
5�
•J •3 1 2 3 5 10 20
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR
USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA.
*MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELOPED"
LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION.
REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical
Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975.
5 =1-II4
URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
3.1.6 Runoff Coefficients
The runoff coefficients to be used with the Rational Method referred to in Section 3.2
'Analysis Methodology" can be determined based on either zoning classifications or the
types of surfaces on the drainage area. Table 3-2 lists the runoff coefficients for the various
types of zoning along with the zoning definitions. Table 3-3 lists coefficients for the different
kinds of surfaces. Since the Land Development Guidance System for Fort Collins allows land
development to occur which may vary the zoning requirements and produce runoff coeffi-
cients different from those specified in Table 3-2, the runoff coefficients should not be based
solely on the zoning classifications.
The Composite Runoff Coefficient shall be calculated using the following formula:
C = (:E C;At)1A,
Where C =Composite Runoff Coefficient
CI= Runoff Coefficient for specific area A;
At = Area of surface with runoff coefficient of C;
n = Number of different surfaces to be considered .
At=Total area over which Cis applicable; the"sum.of all Al:s:is equal to At
Table 3-2
RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
Description of Area or Zoning
Coefficient
Business: BP, BL.............................................
.0.85
Business: BG, HB, C..................................................................................
0.95
Industrial: IL, IP............................................................................................
0.85
Industrial: IG................................................................................................
0.95
.....:..,.......:... :Residential:,RE,.RLP ..................................................................................
...........................................
0.45
.,..:.:...... ,. -Residential: RL, ML,.RP...............................................................................
0.50
Residential: RLM, RMP................................................................................. .
0.60 ...
:,..:: .... ..........:.Residential: RM, MM .................................................................................. ..
0.65 .:.
_:..Residential: RH ............................................................................................
0.70
:...:..::..::.. .....Parks;. Cemeteries .........................................................................................
Playgrounds...............................................................................................
0.35
Railroad Yard Areas...................................................................................
0.40
Unimproved Areas......................................................................................
0.20
Zoning Definitions
R-E Estate Residential District — a tow density residential area primarily in outlying
areas with a minimum lot area cf 9,000 square feet.
R-L Low Density Residential District — low density residential areas located throughout
the City with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet.
R-M Medium Density Residential District — both low and medium density residential
areas with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet for one -family or two-family
dwellings and 9,000 square feet for a multiple family dwelling.
R-H High Density Residential District— high density residential areas with a minimum lot
area of 6,000 square feet for one -family or two-family dwellings, 9,000 square feet
for a multiple family dwelling, and 12.000 square feet for other specified uses.
R-P Planned Residential District — designation of areas planned as a unit (PUD) to pro-
vide a variation in use and building placements with a minimum lot area of 6.000
square feet.
R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential District — areas planned as a unit (PUD) to permit
variations in use, density and building placements, with a minumum lot area of 6,000
square feet.
MAY 1984 3-3 DESIGN CRITERIA
R-M-P
Medium Density Planned Residential District — designation for medium density
areas planned as a unit (PUD) to provide a variation in use and building placements
with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet.
R-L-M
Low Density Multiple Family District — areas containing low density multiple family
units or any other use in the R-L District with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet
for one -family or two-family dwellings and•9,000 square feet for multiple -family
dwellings.
M-L
Low Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas for mobile home parks
containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 6 units per acre.
M-M
Medium Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas of mobile home
parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 12 units per acre.
B-G
General Business District —district designation: for downtown business areas,
including a variety of permitted uses, with minimum lot areas equal to 1/2 of the total
floor area of the building.
B-P
Planned Business District — designates areas ,planned as unit developments. to
provide business services while protecting the surroundingresidential areas:with
minumum lot areas the same as R-M.
H-B
Highway Business District — designates an area of automobile -orientated bus!-
nesses with a minimum lot area equal to 1/2 of the total floor area of the building.
B-L
Limited Business District — designates areas for neighborhood convenience
.centers, including a variety of community uses with minimum lot areas equal to two
times the total floor area of the building.
C
Commercial District —designates areas of commercial; service and storage areas.
I-L
Limited Industrial District —designates areas of light industrial uses with a minimum
area of lot equal to two times the total floor area of the building not to be less than
20,000 square feet.
%I=P :
;. Industrial Park District —designates light industrial park areas containing controlled
industrial uses with minimum lot areas equal to two times the total floor area of the
building not to be less than 20,000 square feet.
'1-G
General Industrial District='designates'areas of ma;or industrial development.
T
Transition District — designates areas which are in a transitional stage with regard
to ultimate development.
For current and more explicit definitions of land uses and zoning classifications, refer to the
Code of the City of Fort Collins, Chapters 99 and 118.
Table 3-3
RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS
Character of Surface Runoff Coefficient
Streets, Parking Lots, Drives:
Asphalt................................................................................................
0.95
Concrete.............................................................................................
0.95
Gravel.................................................................................................
0.50
Roofs..........................................................................................................
0.95
Lawns, Sandy Soil:
Flat<2%.............................................................................................
0.10
Average2 to 7%..................................................................................
0.15
Steep>7%..........................................................................................
0.20
Lawns, Heavy Soil:
Flat<2%.............................................................................................
0.20
Average2 to 7%..................................................................................
0.25
Sleep>7%......... :................................................................................
0.35
MAY 1984 3-4 DESIGN CRITERIA
e
3.1.7 Time of Concentration
In order to use the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve, the time of concentration must be
known. This can be determined either by the following equation or the -Overland Time of
Flow Curves" from the Urban Storm.Drainage Criteria Manual, included in this report (See
Figure 3-2).
Tc =1.87 (1.1 — CC,) D "Z
Sm
:,Where Tc=Time of Concentration, minutes
S . = Slope of Basin, %
C = Rational Method Runoff Coefficient
D = Length of Basin, feet
C, = Frequency Adjustment Factor
Time of concentration calculations should reflect channel and storm sewer velocities as well
as overland flow times.
3.11.8. Adjustment for Infrequent Storms '
The preceding variables are based on the initial stormAhat is,`the two to ten year storms. For
storms with higher intensities an adjustment of the runoff coefficient is required because of
t. -the lessening amount of infiltration, depression retention, and other tosses that have a
proportionally smaller effect on storm runoff.
These frequency adjustment factors are found in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4
RATIONAL METHOD FR EQU ENCY.ADJUSTM ENT; FACTORS
Storm Return Period .. Frequency Factor
(years) C,
2 to 10 .1.00
11 to 25 1.10
.26 to 50 ..1.20
51 to 100 ..':1.25
Note:The'product of C times C, shalt not exceed 1.00
3.2 Analysis Methodology
The methods presented in this section will be instituted for use in the determination and/or verification
of runoff at specific design points in the drainage system. These methods are (1), the Rational Method
and (2) the Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure (CUHP).,Other computer methods. such as
SWMM, STORM, and HEC-1 are allowable if results are not radically different thanthesel two. Where
applicable, drainage systems proposed for construction should provide the minimum protection as
determined by the methodology so mentioned above.
3.2.1 Rational Method
For drainage basins of 200 acres or less, the runoff may be calculated by the Rational
Method, which is essentially the following equation:
Q = C,CIA
Where Q = Flow Quantity, cis
A =Total Area of Basin, acres
C, = Storm Frequency Adjustment Factor (See Section 3.1.8)
C = Runoff Coefficient (See Section 3.1.6)
I = Rainfall Intensity, inches per hour (See Section 3.1.4)
3.2.2 Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure
For basins larger than 200 acres, the design storm runoff should be analyzed by deriving
synthetic unit hydrographs. It is recommended that the Colorado Urban Hydrograph
Procedure be used for such ana!ysis. This procedure is detailed in the Urban Storm Drainage
Criteria Manual, Volume 1, Section 4.
MAY 1984 3-5 DESIGN CRITERIA
LL
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.3
IWA
FO
s=06°/
F= 0:8
s-0.4%
F-.0.5
I
II BELOW MINIMUM
ALLOWABLE
STREET GRADE
O 2 4 6 8 10 12 t4
SLOPE OF GUTTER ('/°)
Figure 4-2
REDUCTION FACTOR FOR ALLOWABLE GUTTER CAPACITY
Apply reduction factor for applicable slope to the theoretical gutter capacity to obtain
allowable gutter capacity.
(From: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, 19.65)
MAY 1684 4-4 DESIGN CRITERIA
1.0 12 5
10 4
.9 11 6
3
10 6
0 `` 2
9 0 4
i.LL-
.7 cr 3
8 w /z 1.5
2 \
.0
6 7 y
E*o z 1.0
— z
_ 1.0 .9
Example�
.5 6 --.— — — — -�
a _._.a 8
5.5 �. 0
6
ti-
w �' 0 .7
w 5 = z
wi.. .4 .4
z w
tw .6
? .4.5 z 0 3 :.w .
w
v 4 s 0 .2 r0- 5
z z o
w '3 3.5 w w '' .4
a a -i W
0 p 1 w
u w 0 .08
25 3 o .:06 ..3
_ = 0
c� 0 w z
w w It .04 M .25
= 2.5 = w w
° .03 a
.2 r }
c .02 0 2
a =
2 CL
o
.15 .01 .15
L u
0
0
- - ya a
1.5 --- - -- -- <.
.10
a = 2h
I 1.2
Figure 5-2
NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2"
Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph
MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA
-0.7
N
EXAMPLE
0.0177)111111 111111 11[1 111 11 1 1 11111 1 It 11111 111 11 1111 fill
0 1 2 3 4 5
FLOW INTO INLET PER SO. FT. OF OPEN AREA (tFS/FT
Figure 5-3
CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP
(From: Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, 1969)
MAY 1984 5-11 DESIGN CRITERIA
*5.3.5 Grates for Pipes
Where a clear and present danger exists such as a siphon, a drop in elevation adjacent to a
sidewalk or road, a long pipe with one or more manholes, or at pipes which are near play-
grounds, parks, and residential areas, a grate may be required. For most culverts through
embankments and crossing streets, grates will not be required.
When called for on the plans, grates shall meet the following requirements:
a. Grating shall be constructed of steel bars with a minimum diameter of 5/87. Reinforcing
bars shall not be used.
b. Welded connections shall be 1M' minimum.
c. Spacing between bars shall normally be 6" unless site conditions are prohibitive.
d. All exposed steel shall be galvanized in accordance with AASHTO M 111.
e. Welded joints shall be galvanized with a rust preventive paint.
I. Grates shall be secured to the headwall or end section by removable devices. such as
f bolts or hinges to allow maintenance access, prevent vandalism, and prohibit entrance by
children.
'5.4 Inlets .
Storm inlets shall be installed where sump (low -spot) conditions exist or street runoff -carrying
capacities are exceeded.
The curb inlets shown in the Standard Details; pages D-7, 8. 12 & 13, shall be used in all City Streets.
If larger inlets are required; the Colorado Department of Highways Type R Curb Inlet; Standard M 604-
12, shall be used. For drainageways other than streets (for example,, parking lots, medians, sump
basins) an Area Inlet similar to the detail on page D-9 shall be used.
The outlet pipe of the storm inlet shall be sized on the basis of the theoretical capacity of the.inlel, with
a minimum diameter'of 15 inches, or•12 inches if elliptical or arch pipe is used.
All curb openings shall be installed with the opening at least 2 inches below the flow line elevation. The : ;...
"•:minimum transition length shall be 3'6" as shown on the standard details previously listed.
';'Because of debris plugging; pavement overlaying; parked vehicles; and other factors. which decrease
.,-
"inlet capacity, the reduction factors listed in Table 5-4 shall be utilized.
Table 5-4
INLET CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTORS
Percentage of
Drainage Condition Inlet Type Theoretical Capacity
Sump or Continuous Grade ........................................... CDOH Type R-Curb
Opening
5' 80%
10, 85%
15' 90%
Street — Sump.............................................................. 4' Curb Opening 80%
Street — Continuous Grade .......................................... 4' Curb Opening 80%
Parking Lots, Medians ................................................... Area Inlet 80%
The theoretical capacity of inlets in a low point or sump shall be determined from Figures 5-2 and 5-3
The theoretical capacity of curb openings on a continuous grade shall be determined from Figures 5-4,
5-5 and 5-6.
The standard curb -opening is illustrated by Figure 5-4 and is defined as having a gutter depression,
apron W feet wide at the inlet opening which extends W feet upstream and downstream from the open-
ing, has a depression depth (a) equal to W/12 feet at the curb face, and a curb opening height (h) of at
least 0.5 feet. The graph as presented by Figure 5-5 is based on a depression apron width (W) equal to -
2 feet and depression width (a) equal to 2 inches. The pavement cross-section is straight to the curb
MAY 1984 5-8 DESIGN CRITERIA
No Text
Table 8-13 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from previous page).
Treatment C-Factor P-Factor
Contour Furrowed Surface
Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Maximum length
refers to the down slope length.
Basin
Maximum
Slope
Length
M
(feet)
1 to 2
.400.....................................................................
1.00
0.60
3 to 5
300.....................................................................
1.00
0.50
6 to 8
..200.....................................................................
1.00
0.50
9 to 12
120.....................................................................
1.00
0.60
13 to 16
.80.....................................................................
1.00
0.70
17 to 20
60.....................................................................
1.00
0.80
>20
50.....................................................................
1.00
0.90
TERRACING
Must contain 10-year runoff volumes, without overflowing, as determined by applicable hydrologic
methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00.
Basin
Slope M
1 to 2............................................................................................. 1.00 0.12
3.to 8............................................................................................. 1.00 0.10
9 to 12........................................................................................... 1.00 0.12
13 to 16......................................................................................... 1.00 0.14
17 to 20.:....................................................................................... 1.00 0.16
>20...................................................................................... 1.00 0.18
NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported In this table must be substantiated
by documentation.
May 1984 Design Criteria
Revised January 1997 8-8
Mi
N
OOHNto
Ot-•14
OtO
600)N
O0)
H H Cl)
to t-
H A M
•Q to
O
Oto 00N ay
HHM
O)0O
HtA to
t .
Cl) to .-.a)
toNH
mNto
O
OCO
-fN
H
O O H .••t .tl•
h N N
to •ti
O v N.
.� NM
ton N
N
r
M M C
O
HCDcttoCl)
HMto
LO000
0 to
t-0
Nv00 Cl) a)
V) co tO
•O'MCD
tACH
MO
O O O H N
to CO to
to 00 4
t- M
V• v
.•+
NMto
H
NM
to
to CO) Ct ILO t-
toOtO
01 d'to
to tom
M0
-
HM to O)0
t-HO
0)Ht-
ONN
N
N tD
OOOON
C;Ct 14
ht-00
CV) O-IT
t-sf
H
HNM
to t-H
HN
ti
0) M CD to
to to O
0) OD to '
to ♦T 0)
.-tN to CO 00
M"W O)
ONtD
tY co H
N
v O
00.00H
Mto O.
tD 4.4
t-N N
toN
.•� N•M
.•C tD O
+•+ N
H
LO
Mt-00Cl)
-WHtD
to 14 N.
'C000M
NO
...
N.
HNv 00 t-
HHN
Ot- •ct'
Mt-•tn
of to
OOOOH
c710 0
to N N
et OD to
t!'O
^
H N M
' V' LC) Q 1
0
^ O
N to to a` 0
H M t-
sh N N
0) N O
to CD
Aj to
.•+ N a• t- tO
t7) t to
0
qr to
(�
0)-
NH
OOOOH
C 4 CO
M.-t0
Hit 00
MO)
<
4-i
•-• N M
•C' LO 00
H
LL
to
O
. U
to
t- .-+ 00 0 a"
to N N
N to 0
H co 0)
O) O
H C%3
O M .-+ 00 CD
tD Cl) 00
t- -T
tn. to t-
" N v to et
. . .
. . .
. . ..
4
U
:+H
-Nst t-
NO)t-
t-0)O
Nt-
.
n4.)..
C)
^
O O O O H
.-..•-t N
M r 00
01
U
1) O
to to 00 0)
t-00 O
00 t-H
to �.tD
O to
•.•t .
O
k•)
O O t- O O
Cl)O
t0
Cl) H to
to v .N
t
(D
O N M t
.
to
(1.
7
4
• A+ H
U
. .
N M t-
•-+ t- •O•
Cl C' N
0 to
'c7 to et'
CD '4tr. . tD
to t-.,"
ID co 0
N? . t70
O
Ot-
COt-NN.M
O MO •
00 00
Onto
r{
r-1 .
p H Cl) to H
.
. . ..
. . ..
t. V
i.
.U) O
Cl) -to
0) v H .
.0) 00'04 '
tT co
. .
OOOOH
HN
co(LO
UH
.)
G
7
O
00 CD<t 0to
CO MtD
to V'M
NNO
.-)O
(z.
to
to •ct t0 M N
to t` tT
O H M
[ •cf O
\
O H N 'cf 0)
t- O
N -7'
C7 N t-
Cl) , H
t-
0 0 0 0 0
N co to
.-+
d
X
U)
O C'
O 00 <t'
Cl) to O
to O to
to •,-�
M
V) cli tD t-
V- "
t_ .-+ to
CO N [
Cl)
O ••+ N C) t-
-C• N
\
O
.-•� N •C'
CD O <t
M tD N
tD O)
N
'
OOOOO
H.-+
HN C
W.
X
O
MN t-Nto
to MM
00tD
Ot0.-)
N
O�H
OtD O)
O0M
t-
Ito
tD
..
C)oOt-tb
O O .• N to
CO
M
to t` O
to 0) N
co 0)
ar
00000
H
.-+H M
•O'tO
H
O
OtoMN V•
toNH
O co LO
HtoM
t-H
V
H
M(0 (7)H
t-"N
to'r t-
too0)
aY'N
II
OOHHaY
O
OHN
Cl) tnN
O•V'N
14
0 0 0 0 0
HHN
M' V'
0
�U
to
H to ct CD M
CM to to
d at 00
0 •cY tO
t- O
R1
N
O
N •a• co M O
tt') co to
to O -t
to 0) H
M 00
Lt.
H
O O O H N
O
O
OOH
NCM to
t-l7)CD
y
00000
NM
O
II
N
V'O)Cl) tD to
cY to O)
HMS
Id- DDN
HH
O
HN to cD
Ml00)
to v�v-
t-NN
V O
� C)
000
O
000
HNM
v'tD0
toN
C
O o 0 06
H
H N
O
to
CJ
F�
t- N OD 0) H
Nr O 00
O to 00
-4 to t-
0) .-+
M
•.-1
O
to to m N O
t- to tT
00 tD O
to M to
c2
00
M 000)
Mtitn
to T N
00 tD
tD
cla Cl) t
t- �Y
M
O to
V
H N
M <N t-
M
tb
M<t•to to 00
ONto
00H\7
t-OtD
N00
•.1 0
H H H
H Cl N
N M M
a7 v
A •rt
LOo
N
d
v
C-t
U
N
a�
pel
c w u� in v
(3O M aD
M CO
0
N
O O .. N to
M to 00
.+
t0 C;t')
00 M
'sr --tr
r+ N
v t.- C�
N
v t0
.-t
O
000 a)PN
Mt-M
N.r er
MNM
NN
N tDO N M
M Nat'
N.-t to
�
CO)
tD.-t0
C.)
M N"
LO
.•-� N
Cl) to N
N
M C'
-
O
O Cl) t-tOO
0 t,-W
M CO) M
M!`r-t
O N
Nv t•Cl! t�
Cn MeP
veto
_
000 W4C4
ar t-er
CM LO0
co Mer
NN
•-1
N M to
rt
N Cl)
tO
er 0 tO M
M .••t
h 10 t0
.•� .+
.••t co to M M
-W to N
co o f
M CO . r
N
M N
O O O O .-+
M u; O
tD to tO
00 er 1P)
tO N
.••i
+-+ N M
er tD O
r+ N
O
Nt-M M.-t
O er er
tD. O
O"M
M.•�
.
.•�N er t- t-
'•+O
Ma'M
000M
N
•
N Cl)
OOOOv-�
MtAM
e!'N.--�
M OO er
a'O
.•� N M
sr to.M
.•+ N
to
N to tD 'S O
O to
O to Cl)
t to M
••+ O
+-44N c't-to
Mtn UP)
MMM
M,NN
H
O O O
00
M O M
'O sr'00
Cl) M
CNN
-Kr UP) 00
14�
0
.•+ M N M 00
00 to .-+
r-
Cl) ¢r M
N M
Mtn
.-+N ar to-W
toCl) M
Wert-
MNto
.r
O O O O .-+
Net' [�
Cl) fir
.Nr .M-t N
M too 00
0
O tO
M M tD t- ti
to co N
-tf N M'
.M to N
to CD
•-� N
. M r+ 00 N to
v M N
l t- N
-(D W M)
.
O N co to Cl)
" N O
L+ •-i
N M t-
.r t- to
'er to at'
.-. tD
.
CJ
C; C; O O .-•�
.-� .••� N
Cl) er t-
r+
•-) O
00 0 to .-+ co
M to t0
O tO N
t- N . O
' to to
a) C)
CH
WM<r CD
•+tov
tO 00 CD.
0).0t-
.�
O Cl) to N
4+
N C` tD
O to N
C*)
.�
..�
O O O O .•+ :
-
.-• .r N .
Cl) Iv. ID-
.•r .-�
_ .
Q1
�:
. p. to '.'
NtoM tD t-
OMM
ONM
O t- .
t- to M co �'
M O to
.+ t- tO .
OO.tO t-
-
.-t ...
O •-+ N -Kr 0
. . .
..
t- ar
to O.
.+ OM to
M M M
tD M t`
coN
86 O O "1 -
�.-t .-+
N Cl) tO
-.-�
O
NtO qtrt-aT
to tV t-
MOO
00to
.--0
IO
to Cl) cr M to
to tO to
a7 N O
M O '•'�
\
O . N M co
O
•-�N¢Y
t-.••t tO
40t:
t-0
00000
Kr
••+
<
Y.
tO
N C v N W
C)••-� N
.-+ 00N
[N to
to O
M
to � O M -�
c') .-+ 00
N M m.
c". N V'
-
lC,O
•--� N' M ttom-.
Mtn
\
O
N CJ
tD M M
O0 v M
tO W
N
X
O
Oto O
W MM
OMN
to -Kr mmOD
N
er W lC)
W
t- O
W M W
a)C4
M N
to
N LO
OOr+N tO
. .
.
co
O
O.rN
tY'[-O
MWM
vto
at
0 0 0 0 0
•-•t
� .-•t N
v to
O
WOMt-N
M Mal
N.-t to
Mt-M
NN
v
•r+
Nto0L co
to
M0.-+
t-MO
W a7'
11
O
O .••t N
M tO N
M N +-+
4 to
Li
00000
r•�N
Mar
O
to
OCO) NtoO
Moat
to -Kr to
Mt-.-t
ON
2
Cl)
O
NaY t-Nt-
•7' W`cr
Mto0
MM
to .-i
134
ti
OOO•-tN
O
O
C;
NP710
tO
00000
NM
O
11
N
N�MM.-a
•"�O
M•trO
coOM
M
C)Mto
0)
M
�!'NN
co co V'
NM
m
00o0+,4
;
O
000
.--1NM
�Y'toM
00000
4O
O
01
U
to
'Cr Cl)
M O
�r to N
O t- 00
+-+ V'
it ,..
•.ti
O
W 0 tO .-t CO
M tD tD
0 er N
t- M
�4J
WM•7 to
CD
0m
,y to4
to W tD
0)0W
Q ttC7
O1MtON
co to
0LON
O.-+tD
Ov
co Nr to
44
tdl-
McrtOtoCO
0 N M
W'•1at
t-OtD
N00
•.1
•-t .••� r~
.-+ N N
N m M
Vr v
A •N
I �\ \ / / \�'�� / t"�\ '.\�• \
I NIN
'X -4
13
4-
F.18 51
tq C6.
14
WINDSOR RESERVOIR
4-
(Divide Canyon Res No 8):
'p 0 oil
y N!,
UP
Lu
go,�ky—Rijg'3
all,
%
Annex No
01-
i- En
23
0�1 w
11,
5100
it
or
oil 507,
IL/ r
0; 111
It
Ir
26 2 N
'. �5Qr
V I
%
5051
LL1f4S 3 Afl.. 94 (FORT COLLINS) R. 69 %V. R. 68 W.
4965 11 SE • 497
SCALE 1:24 000 0
2 0
I MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
5000 6000 7000 FEET
131 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
231 MILS
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
DOTTED LINES REPRESENT 5-FOOT CONTOURS
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
378 MAGNETIC NORTH
CENTER OF SHEET
THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS QUADR
FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DENVER, COLORADO 80 - 225, OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092
A FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
r
/ o
0
I J
Ln
LLI
—\) LLJ
/ a co /
o z
/I I in
a Q
in w •� / h / / // // / / // / //
Q w
in vz—i OU coo
I I o m m
cn vfi Of
APPENDIX IV
Water Supply and Storage Letter accepting stormwater from Hearthfire Second Filing
Page 4
THE WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE COMPANY
2319 EAST mULBERRY PHONE (303) 482.3433
P.O. BOX 1584
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
July 8, 1997
To whom it may concern
Re: I4earlhfire P.U.D., Second Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
This note is provided in order to indicate the intent of The Water Supply and Storage Company to agree to
accept developed ed undetained storniwater runoff from the Hea thfire P.U.D. project to Richards Lake in a
pattern sinti:ar to histor'tc flows which entered Richards Lake.
Our understanding is that water quality vvili be addressed. We also understand that an approval block w!I!
be provided on the final utility plans for Htarthfire P.U.D., Second Filing which will be as follows:
Water Supply and Storage
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
The undersigned on behalf of THE WATER SUPPLY AND
STORAGE COMPANY, the owner of Richards Lake, does
hereby agree to accept all runoff from Hearthfire P.U.D. in a
parern similar to historic Pews which entered this irrigation
reservoir.
President Date
We also understand that the final plat •:will be provided with the following:
IRRIGATIO; L COMPANY APPROVAL
The undersigned on behalf of THE WATER SUPPLY AND
STORAGE COV!PANY, the owner of Richards Lake, does
hereby agree to accept all runoff from Hearthfue P.U.D. in a
pattern similar to historic flows which entered this irrigation
reservoir.
President
Date •
if %o-- have nay qucstion or corninents, please call us at (970) 482.3433.
Sincerely,
p
"1'omT`400tc, esiduu
Th: Water Supply and Storage Conipany
cc: Richards Lake Development Company
APPENDIX IV
Detention Pond 2 Storage Capacity
Letter to Water Supply and Storage stating the capacity adequacy of Pond 2
Page 4
May 6, 2003
Project No: 1552-02-97
Water Supply and Storage Company
2319 East Mulberry
P.O. Box 1584
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522
Attn: Fred Walker
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Detention Pond 2 Storage Capacity
The runoff from the contributing sub -basins into Pond 2 at Hearthfire P.U.D. has been verified
for purposes of establishing accurate detention volume requirements according to City of Fort
Collins Storm Drainage criteria. The contributing area to pond 2 includes that portion of
Hearthfire P.U.D. First Filing as identified on the Hearthfire P.U.D. First Filing Drainage and
Erosion Control Plan. The contributing area to pond 2 includes that portion of Hearthfire P.U.D.
Second Filing as identified on the Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan. The total contributing area to Pond 2 is 86.62 acres.
For residential developments, City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage criteria requires detention
storage volumes for a 100-year design storm with a release rate not exceeding the historic 2-year
storm rate.
In this analysis, a comparison of the detention statistics required for this detention pond as set by
the City of Fort Collins Stormwater and detention statistics proposed by this detention pond. The
proposed Hearthfire Detention Pond 2 release structure will consist of a concrete box with a top
elevation of 5090.50 ft with a 15" ADS N-12 pipe flowing into this box. The invert of this 15"
ADS N-12 pipe will insure the normal water surface elevation of Pond 2 to be a maximum of
5088.50 ft.
Required detention pond data for Pond 2 at Hearthfire P.U.D. is as follows:
Contributing area = 86.82 acres
Historic 2-year runoff rate = 18.40 efs
100-year detention storage volume = 12.35 ac-ft
Proposed detention pond data for Pond 2 at Hearthfire P.U.D. is as follows:
Contributing area = 86.82 acres
Designed release rate = 8.96 cfs (capacity of the 15" outfall pipe)
100-year detention storage volume = 13.71 ac-ft
100-year water surface elevation = 5090.46 ft (top of box elevation = 5090.46)
PAGE 2
May 6, 2003
Project No: 1552-02-97
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Detention Pond 2 Storage Capacity
Based on the contributing area to Pond 2, adequate detention volumes are achieved for the 100-.
year design storm.
Sincerely,
Seth W. Tourney, E.I.
Shear Engineering Corporation
BWS / swt
attachments
cc: Tom Kennedy; Hearthfire, Inc.
Tom Dugan; PineCrest Planning and Design
Lucia Liley; Liley, Rogers & Martell, LLC
Reviewed by,
Brian W
Shear Er
P.E.
20262
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
4336 SO. COLLEGE AVE. SUITE 12
FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80525
PHONE: (970) 226-5334 FAX: (970) 282-0311
PROJECT NUMBER:,sl!•?
DRAWN BY: wi k/ 7
BATE: !97Z 17
SHEET: I OF ! O
GI V E.At • . . . . . . Dry a
0ASIKS
1t•iba4s
1ii � I�IIII
SHEAR I
ENGINEERING
f.OP.POP.�7i0N
s � 42 A ��•
2= 1.►.1 .
3= foil.
'9.27
=7,Pf
•
.�� a . .
®�. r/ew �^_` l5 yo�`.I" c INVEnT
2 „o/ Fl L /NG
FO TA L.'
— 6 Y.
= 16.07
F6_ �Z Cc a
EL'CORg' 507
3) �%.�c.-c Gar' c.�c. .--u. = _ . .. . -
J st FIL/n�G — IZ.90 c55 > (-Cc' � HEST 3�
Z
FIL 1-v6 = S. Co S-
r5 -> sIE A = TTACE HD
�,�.`tO cfs �TATIe2NAL MFTtI
RUNOFF Ga.FFic lFnjV. ( sMEET ) --� C = 0. 7 3
(SHFET. 7
SyFET I
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
A336 SO. COLLEGE AVE. SUITE 12 elSE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525
PHONE::(970) 226-53334 FFAX: (970) 282-0311j� q ROJECT NUMBER:'/r-� ` � ` omlt 7 OATE:M10
iRAWN BY: ram/ r SHEET: OF
�oL v i`AoA <G Nlv*
. . .-�~`- . . . .
Tiles ,too-Y 1AIsL-7L (SEL SHL-CT
. ... ?HE tTELEASE MATe OF /S'�/'J/'E � 96
TN E %oa—y!' p,ETFNT/oN V0.L_ UMF = 1�.7/. a c4e (SNEFT IO)
. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 3
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing
H DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS
B. Sub -Basin Description
Runoff from the north side of Douglas Road is also conveyed through the site
via an 15" CMP culvert located east of the proposed entry road. The offsite
contributing area is approximately 86.6 acres. The Larimer County Canal runs
from west to east on the north side of Douglas Road. It is assumed that the
canal will be overtopped during the 100-year event. The 86.6 acres drainage
area takes this assumption into account.
6. Richards Lake is the ultimate destination of all runoff from the site including.
any water that exceeds the storage capacity of the wetland / pond areas.
C. Historic Conditions
1. The basin can be divided into 6 historic sub -basins designated A-F. These
basins are undeveloped with a few active oil wells located on them as well as
some wetland areas. We have assumed a "C" factor of 0.45 for Sub -basin F
which consists of large estate lots in Cherrywood Acres. The table below
summarizes the sub -basins, their total area and the immediate destination of
the flow from them.
Area
Sub -basin acres Flow Destination
A
50.53
Pond 1
B
57.59
Pond 2
C
40.50
Richards Lake
D
6.79
Richards Lake via Richards Lake PUD
E
4.32
Serramonte Highlands
F
12.16
Douglas Road and east
The total area of the sub -basins is 171.89 acres. Sub -basins A-E contribute
stormwater to Richards Lake. There is also an additional 86.6 acres on the
north side of Douglas Road which contributes runoff to pond 1.
The table below. summarizes the peak flows from the historic sub -basins.
Q2
Q100
Sub -basin
(cfs)
cfs
60
Notes
d 14 )
_ S
7�SC F
C
10.50
38.58
Richards Lake
D
1.73
6.43
Richards Lake
E
1.60
5.81
Serramonte Highlands
F
8.66
31.67
Douglas Road
.SHEET 3
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
HISTORIC
PLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT 2
PROM SUB -BASIN B
PROTECT: HEARTHPIRE PUD PILING 1 DATE 09/19/97
LOCATION:PORT COLLINS PROT. NO.1552-01-96
PILE: HPIRBRUN BY HBO
AREA (A)= 57.590 ACRES
RUNOFF CORP. (C)
PAGE 3
2 YEAR 10 YEAR 100 YEAR
C = 0.20 0.20 0.25
SANDY SOILS, AVERAGE SLOPE 3
TIME OF CONCENTRATION (TO
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
LENGTH . 500 FEET SLOPE . 3.20 4
2 YEAR 10 YEAR 100 YEAR
C = 0.20 0.20 0.25
Ti (min)- 25.64 25.64 24.21
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)-L/(60*V) PLOW TYPE
L (ft) = 100 S (t) = 3.50 LAWN V (fps) = 1.37 Tt(min)= 2.19
L (ft) = 720 S (ti) = 1.00 LAWN V (fps) = 0.70 Tt(min)= 17.14
L (ft) _? S (4) = 0.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
L (ft) _? S (4) . 0.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
L (ft) _? S (\) = 0.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
L (ft) =7 S (4) = 0.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
L (ft) =? S (4) = 0.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN PROM FIGURE 3-2 TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) = 19.33
Tc -Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2 YEAR 10 YEAR 100 YEAR
Tc (min)- 44.97 44.97 43.55
USE Tc - 45 45 43.5
INTENSITY (I) (iph)
2 YEAR 10 YEAR 100 YEAR
I 1.12 2.02 3.30
NOTE: INTENSITIES TAKEN PROM FIGURE 3-1
RUNOFF (Q= CIA) (cfs)
2 YEAR 10 YEAR 100 YEAR
Q 12.90 23.27 40.61
CONCLUDE:PEAK FLOW TO WETLAND AREA ON SITE
THIS AREA WILL BE INCREASED BY STORM SEWERS WITHIN THE PROJECT
WATER QUALITY MEASURES WILL HAVE TO BE INSTALLED
SHEET LL
Job No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 5/5/2003
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 2nd Filing. 3:31 PM
Historic Conditions
Design Pt Contributing to Pond 2
Sub -basins Rational Method
All Rainfall Intensities taken from Larimer County Storm Water
Management Manual Fig. 3.3.1-2 Area II - Loveland Area
Runoff Coefficients
C
---------------------------------------------
5-yr 0.20
100-yr 0.25
Intensity -Duration -Frequency
---------------------------------------------------
Time of ConcentratiT on
Overland Travel Time (Til.87*(1.1-C)*L"(1/2)/S"(1/3)
Length = 500.00
ft
Slope = 2.00
2-yr
100-yr
C = 0.20
0.25
Ti (min) = 29.87
28.21
Travel Time (Tt)
Length (ft) Slope (°c)
Flow Type
Column
Velocity
Tt (min)
1250 2.00
Swale
6
1.86
11.20
I
0
1.00
0.00
8
0.00
0.00
8
0.00
0.00
Total Travel Time =
11.20
Time of Concentration (Tc) Tc = Ti +
Tt
Total Length = 1750
2-yr
100-yr
Tc (min) = 41.07
39.41
Use Tc = 41.00
39.00
Intensity
2-yr 100-yr
I (iph) 1.18 3.51
Area
A
------- --------------------------------
Area = 1
Area = 23.21 acres
Discharge (Q = C I A)
-----------------------------------------------
Event C I (iph)
A (acres)
Q (cfs)
4
2-yr 0.20 1.18
23.21
.50
170
100-yr 0.25 3.51
23.21
.35
Conclusion:
Time of concentrations were rounded down to the nearest whole minutes.
This is basins contributing to Pond 2
Pond 2 Detention
HQ
SN EE T S
E
q
Z
LU
v
�l
LL
W
U
LL
LL
. V
u
3I
r n �o �o .•� N m l
in m r r w n w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A- k Y k av dP eM
r
N m N N! r N
r
m H N m" m V'
1N 4 m u Q W w
Lu
O
SN EET 6
Sob No. 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation 5/5/2003
Designer: SWT Hearthfire 3:55 PM
Note: This is with basins that only contribute to pond 2
100-year Storm Detention Volume Calculations
".:(Note:. -:The cummurative:ru�F _
' :?met o . i,1 s:Euse ;,::accor 1ng to, Larlme r::County
Storm .SWater :Management Manual(Sec ,9,; 3 3) -.'
Cumulative Runoff Method for Sizing Detention Ponds Detention Pond 1
Design Point
Runoff Coefficient 0.73
Area :::86 82:' acres
Design Storm .100.;_.. year
Release Rate < 18 40 ?;: c£e
Inflow Inflow Release Storage Storage Peak
Time Intensity Rate Volume Volume Volume Volume Storage
min iph cfe cf cf cf ac-ft
5
9.00
568.61
170584
5520
165064
3.79
10
7.02
443.52
266111
11040
255071
5.86
15
6.11
385.71
347138
16560
330578
7.59
20
5.19
327.90
393480
22080
371400
8.53
25
4.65
293.47
440201
27600
412601
9.47
30
4.10
259.03
466263
33120
433143
9.94
35
3.78
238.50
500854
38640
462214
10.61
40
j 3.45
217.97
523124
44160
478964
11.00
45
3.21
202.99
548086
49680
498406
11.44
50
2.98
188.02
564064
55200
508864
11.68
55
2.79
176.14
581274
60720
520554
11.95
60
2.60
164.27
591358
66240
525118
12.06
65
2.45
154.97
604382
71760
S32622
12.23
70
2.31
145.67
611828
77280
534548
12.27
7S
2.18
137.99
620956
82800
538156
12.35
•�•+
80
2.06
130.31
625475
88320
S37155
12.33
85
1.96
123.91
631943
93840
538103
12.35
90
1.86
117.51
634572
99360
535212
12.29
95
1.78
112.40
640657
104880
S35777
12.30
100
1.70
107.28
643670
110400
533270
12.24
105
1.63
103.09
649475
115920
533555
12.25
110
1.57
98.90
652768
121440
531328
12.20
115
1.51
95.42
658364
126960
531404
12.20
120
1.46
91.93
661866
132480
529386
12.15
Detention Volume Required=:538156 .`'cf
Detention Volume Required
Pond 2 Detention
CRunoff
SN,EET 7
Project No.: 1552-02-97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT Hearthfire
5/5/2003
4:13 PM
100-yr Water Surtace Elevation
Pond
Criteria Store difference between developed and historic minor storms
Larger storms to be stored until released by emergency overflow
Invert °..508850; ft First Even Contour ::-:::5089:00 ft
:::;:;: Increment 00. ft Top Elevation 509400 ft...
Pond 2 Volume
Stage ETevation Area (VI)
ft ft sf cf
Cumulative Volume
cf ac-ft
Req'd
Volume
cf
0.00
5088.50
:.,258622
0
0
0.00
597341
0.50
5089.00
..28,1751
135093
135093
3.10
597341
1.50
5090.00
3328.46:�;�
307298
1 442392
10.16
597341
2.00
5090.50
:346119-.i
169741
612133
14.05
597341
I 00-yr Required Volume 59.7341 cf
Required WSEL .... 5000.461
........ ...
Freeboard .3-54.:ft
d
WS Area sf 95 :acres
Tract Area 0 Sf :0.00..: acres
Tract area is assumed to be the area at the top of the pond until a boundary is placed
around the pond. The boundary will most likely create a larger tract around the pond
Pond 2 Detention
SStorage
—5711 E E T 8
Job No. 1552-02'97 Shear Engineering Corporation
Designer: SWT 8eartbfire
S/S/2OD3
«:13 PM
Pond J
Determine orifice diameter for historic release
Orifice Equation Q = C*A*(2*32.2*B)~(1/2)
100-yr wS Elevation 5090.46 ft
hole Dia. 15 in
iu^2
t^3
Pond 2 Detention
orifice
Job No. 1552-02-97
Designer: SWT
Shear Engineering Corporation
Hearthfire
5/5/2003
4:14 PM
Note: This is with basins that only contribute to pond 2
100-year Storm Detention Volume Calculations
Dstantfoa Voluaws
" Note: The cummu alive rung met o :is rUsed, i::aqcording.: to Larimer:'. County 1:
Storm,; Water; Management: -Manual,. (Sec, 9_;3 3)',"'
Cumulative Runoff Method for Sizing Detention Ponds
Runoff Coefficient 0.73
Area 86.82 acres
Design Storm 100: year
Release Rate cfs
Detention Pond 1
Inflow Inflow Release Storage Storage Peak
Time Intensity Rate Volume Volume Volume Volume Storage
min iph cfe cf cf of ac-ft
5
9.00
568.61
170584
2689
167895
3.85
10
7.02
443.52
266111
5377
260734
5.99
15
6.11
385.71
347138
8066
339073
7.78
20
5.19
327.90
393480
10754
382726
8.79
25
4.65
293.47
440201
13443
426759
9.80
30
4.10
259.03
466263
16131
450132
10.33
35
3.78
238.50
500854
18820
482034
11.07
40
3.45
217.97
523124
21508
501616
11.52
45
3.21
202.99
548086
24197
523890
12.03
So
2.98
188.02
564064
26885
S37179
12.33
55
2.79
176.14
581274
29574
551701
12.67
60
2.60
164.27
591358
32262
SS9095
12.84
65
2.45
154.97
604382
349S1
569431
13.07
70
2.31
145.67
611828
37639
574188
13.18
75
2.18
137.99
620956
40328
580628
13.33
80
2.06
130.31
625475
43017
582458
13.37
85
1.96
123.91
631943
45705
586237
13.46
wwww
90
1.86
117.51
634572
48394
586179
13.46
95
1.78
112.40
6406S7
51082
589574
13.53
100
1.70
107.28
643670
53771
589900
13.54
105
1.63
103.09
649475
56459
593016
13.61
110
1.57
98.90
652768
59148
593620
13.63
115
1.51
95.42
658364
61836
596527
13.69
120
1.46
91.93
661866
64525
597341
13.71
Detention Volume Required :597341 -i>cf
Detention Volume Required >13 71 :.ac-ft
Pond 2 Detention
Cuunoff
SNEET lO
APPENDIX V
Stuffier Envelope
Developed Drainage Exhibit (1"=100' Scale)
Three (3) Developed Drainage Exhibits (1"=50' Scale)
Page 5
NOTES:
1. ALL DISTURBED ARM SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EROSION CONTROL NOTES
SHOWN ON SHEET 45. TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 11.2
2.SEE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR DRAINAGE EXIB I FOR LOTS
D
3. LOWEST OPENING ELEVATION FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO POND 2 AND EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
DOUGLAS ROAD AT TOWN
SHE 45 F R DR N E AN90' (ERO ABOION N THE AND
OTHER
wsEN
4. SEE SHEET 45 FOR DRAINAGE AND EROSION NOTES IND OTHER INFORMATION
Plise
=T—�-- ---_ -rI-O-�-- — —(---,(L.ARIME I --1 _-
�`\ \V V \ ��_' / r1I11I /.�1% `I eI� G. V \ \ ��V 1 I \`,� A \- \-\\- ` v` \, \\ III L``1A_1I A . A �\`,! � /'� `\ -1 ---`.J�`�.`��� ,I , �/ / _I_ A / 1A, -/�- —//\\�-/ I =,\ IIAA I-II_I1III \ I�I,— \��S 1 , •I 1.
`1/11 I 1
V,
o�---.L—�.—E—. GEND
EXISTING V CONTO
UR
EXISTING s' CONTOUR
I-4971PROPOSED I' CONTOUR U
R
-g- PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR
'0 M BASIN BOUNDARY\II I SUBBSBOUNDARY
IMINOR BASIN BOUNDARY
A = BASIN DESIGNATION
N
B = ABFB IN ACRES \c = COMPOSITE ryDF
y COEFFICIENTS (IW
YR. VNT)
8-- , ,��,�,3�d\ . `V'_i\\'_\ V_\I `\�I \ `�V�\\ --Si�F . ✓i\\\\ V� w ` \�+1
. I
I /�1IIIj'�LII
\A/j1
'
`
�\1V
•
� ®rEo_20yw YDh =
DESIGN
POINT f DESIGNATION
OR RATING COMPANY
COUNTY) PROPOSED STORM SEWER
TRACT 3 FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
TRACT 1 --SF SILT FENCE
ASTRAWY SALE DIKESKSPEINLEW/IEMPORARY GRAVEL FILTER
SEE SHIFT 45
TRACT A
a '_-
OPEN SPACETRACT 4 I BLNDERMAN
PROPERTY
5 (LARIMER CO.)
TRACTS 3 & 4
ARE COMBINED
4
T 8 �
R. GRAPHIC SCALE
me ft
_ 2.36 0.90
m _
fTl 28' A City of Fort Collins, Colorado
\ 1HPLAN APPROVAL
CCESS DrY� I / \ I �__� NECKED Sofi.690.R9NO U����11.Mm9
nR
-
i
6 \ \ \�, I' \ \I \\ ` xNgM�NDED EXEMPTON NECKED 9r � pR
• 1 :\\ , ' I
A TRACT NECKED IT7 J I MHEARTHFIRE INC.g {2(LRIMER CQNTV) CHECKED DAM
CHECKED
E CHECKED To'
MIE
arw.smxs OOI< Da. CT n pp1 SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION TH12 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN PROJECT NO. SHER NO.
„ - — FHN eoox m<a<a B.W.S.REARTHFIRE, INC. 4636 W. CO " AVE. SUITE 12. FM COLLINS, COLORADO W525 HEARTHFIRE P.U.D., SECOND FILING 1552-02-97 42
--- BY �,m xe< AFppwl Bws. PHONE: (970) 226-5334 (970) 226-4451 FAX: (920) 262-0311 FORT COLLINS. COLORADO
�, ��� � �_ __�Is�___�' � •� / K.A" _.use_ .3v / � , I / � 'I' I /rF
\I ,\ELEGENDcoNTouR
EXISTING 5' CONTOUR
`/a \//II\-49Jt PROPOSED 1' CONTOUR
1 V � %a I9Ro— PROPOSED s' CONTOUR
i . p \ \ 4C �/ i/ BASIN BOUNDARY
\9v`\\\O�RT� SUBBASIN BOUNDARY
6{\/E I �� \ ��������. MINOR BASIN BOUNDARY
XEMPTION `9 I I �I I A= BASIN DESIGNATION
1 / T AI / e = aREn IN ACRES
2-^\�C = COMPOSITE RUNOFF
G \\ I IE INC.' COEFFICIENis (IOp YR. EKNi)
I� 1 ��UNTV
TRA�T 11— ITS RESLMI�ED-ICOR OPEN SPACE. D = DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION
\BJ C 50 NA EME T5 AND RI Dl USES WAY PROPOSED STORM SEWER
M-1222 _
FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
A
SPACFie ,`SlAY`•���\v sF SILT FENCE
STRAW BALE DIKES
/ \`\\ xo \\ s bq SS. D p8 \\ \\ \ \'dy\a \\ `\\ ® INLET W/TEMPORARY GRAVEL FILTER
0, .r \ \ 'ACCESS. DR A ESMT \ \ \ \ \ \
@71LIrV ESFAr. 5, D.D. r \ \,� i �l '� \\`\ \\ `\\\ E E E = SWALE SECTION
FG.lu � 1 ' `\, 'r \ \ \ \ \ \ :. SEE SHEET 45
-- V ♦ m=1 L25 `. �A � \ �
\
18 va-4k '� i T _qw
i( 4,� . / o ��L V / 12 F� 1 ` vv A vvv v w`v A /ii Y
Fc-tD.i) ` O.u.C.
ost�/ A 50.r -> — -- E6.9. `\ \ FC-IO.➢s 1 \\ / D \ \\// I i ,xr r_____
I" "All Apeom
m Sell `5
\ \ � � �� \ Ll9 Osfi `.\,y �^\ �� / I /" \ / g - /D.rO LO ❑ I^� 11 _� I � _
Y
v bPEN
,k
/ \\\ s \� \ Fc-a
AND UlT\ ESMT. m BR /0 NCTSP
\\
4 /ACCES5, INAGE \
AND T ITV E sry \ \
s_ EXCLUSIVE1140' 6 ^I 53'.
1 RAINAQE'P
TILITY EASEME
/
=N / 6 0���
9x.5D ■■■,1`111I111
r' q...
_ `-' \a / FO=aim i �`\FC=asa ( / I I 1d WETLANDS I I � --
GRAPHIC SCALE
allM e n
T,1I --� -1-- _
'A
1
I y�
\ / m.ID ,' \ � . • I l O N D City OI POrI Collins, Colorado
`.\ \ �ql / / / \ \ 4flT ' �' • 1 DT17AT7 PLAN APPROVAL
y I• •a• HEARTHFDZE P.U. APP9arcD;
R woo wO
�O _ .li . \• FIRST FILIN
96 G °'• `"'m' xn _ Paw
\ `v T �' _ ARElia TRACT �� %a
41 \� $'w / \ \ \y% ,i" ..�x"`°1•.al A:cxu NOTES: MCKED IT.,a..,.,. �.„.
eolov:.w Te""0M.' 1 ALL gSNRSED AREAS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANIE " THE EROSION CONTROL NOTES
io'o.uc / %m \ ) f,' •M • SHOWN ON SHEET 0. TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL.BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WRH TABLE 11.2 CHECKED IN
SEE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR
All tXIRT
owEsoaiNcvA ON FOR EELOTS Al
oRuEM TO POND z ANDEMERCENcv SPILLWAYCHECKED Rn:_
- _ f--- 39 I i \ B ` 1'I` f AT TOWN CENTER DOW 5 93.90' (1.s' ABOVE THE 1aO-vR wsEL)
11 {`, v, 4. SEE SHEET 45 FOR DRAINAGE AND EROSION WES AND OTHER INFORMATION CHUCKED an Dena
Dm ao.o cr Jr. s Om SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION ""' FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN PROJECT NO. s„m No. No eVIA F
°M Led fioa—._ aRaPe ews HEARTHFIRE, INC. 4esa W. COLLECIE AVE. SUITE 12. FORT cOwN% COLORADO W525 HEARTHFIRE P.U.D., SECOND FILING
p„ _SN-02M AI] A(]
Dal sOOIe�_.SO' MO:Owa aws PHONE: (9)e) 236-5334 (9PO) ua-ws FAX: (91O) zez-Oml FORT COLLINS,COLLRNSCOLORADO oxAlx-50-z9we 43 49
NOTES.
r r /
I. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EROSION CONTROL NOTES
SHOWN ON SHEET 45. TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WNH TABLE 11.2
,i,/ 2. SEE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR OFFSITE DRAINAGE E%II
r/� 3, LOWEST OPAING ELEVATION FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO POND P AND EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
AT TOWN-CETRER DRNE IS 93NI (1.5' ABOVE THE 100—YR WSEL)
4. SEE 45 FOR DRAINAGE AND EROSION NOTES AND OTHER INFORMATION
, , "„ �\ 11 11\ _� / / LEGEND t ,r - ---
ExrsnNG r CONTOUR
EXISTING 5' CONTOUR
r 1/>'� 'v — — — _ �• _��-�, , I II � 1111 A /i / I tiln�lW1 i /ai,/ l / —4e/1 Pxoaosco Y corrtouR
PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR
BASIN BOUNDARY
SUBBASIN BOUNDARY
■NERNEWOR MINOR BASIN BOUNDARY
/_ �_ • a el
1A A � � I / I I l / /r r A - AREA
DESIGNATION
( 0 n �1 vlwo�_-_ _— v / / / / Q`/ ,r I A e = nRFn IN ACRES
/I \\ \\ / I , / A 9 /� _ C = COMPOSITE RUNOFF
l/ //\ O ,' COEFFICIENTS (IDO YR. EVENT)
/
D = DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION
rod///•%. ASV'.', �1� �1II�/// / �v I/ �I� III
y,N, / . •.v � I I v II ✓ � A I / 1" I PROPOSED AORM SEWER
rr-nw FlN5NED FL0012 ELEVATION
/ D /v,a �S•' / r r A
r-,-: SILT FENCE
s It oo STRAW BA1F DINES
`•. .. - ` A, '�� fed ' _ - ,� \ ' li °i r_ p INLET W/TEMPORARY GRAVEL FILTER
E = SSECTION
E SEEEES SHEET as Ji
���,__�s
L
T
♦♦
7
�• 1 u 9 i/ /' � F / / �i1P{' ♦ i /
/
City of fort IN AP Colorado
m
Rm' eux AePRovAT.
AWWKO'
E 7 Z - 1 ' ' ! r cHEcxE6 er:
CHENED a
77
5 \� CHECKED BY _
o ® �I vv� /— //fir r r /� / CHECKED n�
OIEOR9 BY
CST, CSP, DMC mn / TAIL OVERALL FINAL DRAINAGE ANO EROSION CONTROL PLAN
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION `"°"" NO, .". `... �
OIN- III - - - - ,gad sou. cheI 8-W.S. HEARTI FIRE, INC. 46.F6 SO. COLLEGE AVE. SUITE 12, FORT DOWNS. COLORADO 60525 HEARTHFIRE P.U.D., SECOND FILING 1552 02-97 41 49
Nm er — S r - 1' - 100' AI9.W.S PHONE: (970) 226-53U (970) SI6-4451 FAIT: (970) 9W9-0311 FT. COLLINS, COLORADO
48/NOTES:
I. ALL 05NRBED AREAS SHALL RE IN ACCORDANCE R11N THE EROSION CONTROL NOTES
SHOWN ON SHEET 45. TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WIM TABLE 11.2
DOE2. SEE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR OFFSIIE DRAINAGE E%IBR 95} Oss I _ j 10 /� O '� __- e 0 \� I 3. LOWEST OPENING ELEVATION FOR LOTS AMCENT TO REND 2 AND EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
\\� 5 \\ I AT TOWN CENTER DRIVE IS 93.90' (1 S' ABOVE THE 1DO-YR WSEL)
/ F ry ¢ I 4. SEE SHEET 45 FOR DRAINAGE AND EROSION NOTES AND OCHER INFORMATION
n 1 � I
E6 au n paxo 1
••1`•••� III
r
9z.ao .\ \ �. LEGEND
EXISTING V CONTOUR
c IN,�\
\ ",' i i 41 s / \ \\ "'o"�`'a�`� •se sW ;E«;,. \ �IIM, I — ExlmNc s' CONTOUR
�( I FCA1.10 / ( / ov 11 T so z.so� •\'u^on^w" ` ag/I PROPOSED V CONTOUR
Y-- Y - A 1 fly)I/1/ I� - //��� / V —agro— PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR
A _ s�90 ` 1--1 -__J /����V II�,I I Ai - ��A- V WETLANDS' BASIN BOUM NDA
V I �8
/ 38 I \ ` Id1 91K 1 SUBBASIN BOUNDARY
I.
C�OMipl
MINOR BASIN BOUNDARY
25IL. ESMT.1 F�A = BASIN DESIGNATION
B = AREA IN ACRES
PION Ll 2)
C = COMPOSITE RUNOFF
COEFFICIENTS (100 YR. EVENiI
D = DESIGN POINT DESIGNATION
4
0.` 5A ,� 9 I / yy I PROPOSED STORM SEWER
FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
e
n / FG-9$W
c yQ e � 1 i � I � I \ � � �F mr FLT+cE
A ,
STRAW BILE DUES
P.U. Q INLET w/TEMPOWAM GRAVEL ALTER
m
DESTRIA CCES FIRST FR.IN E E
y E _$WAIF SECTION�11 o OL UM 99 5506 TRACT SEE SHEET 45
013 POND 2
32.621f 15' A05
I A 88 ♦ . IN 508y.00 n
\
"\ NN NN\ RIB .' . \ �\ /��6�All
`\� \ \ \ \'ff `�\ RET
I1\1N IN �� \ \ I `�\ 11 � E2 I \�\ — \ \ �/ 41
a ER
` 2.0 a.9s \ [[%STING Si SEWER /
\`-T•lyo\ 6 WITH t
25' WELLING O
\ PE TING C Y//
\\ \ \�� �\ /v P EVIOUSLY WTH G PETROLE RP
l\`
4 N -EXCLUSIVE ACCESS 7 S I x
44 II E ERGENCY VEH LE AgC 42 ESMT GRAPHIC SCALE
S
43 � 42
v c `�Y�.�S_ w/IH�� i
\. y c .�aL \cam \ _. q, W)♦YwAxW9�WW�SrN.
\\\ \ 15 emNda, \`may' P m Ae
AC o mw�A M s.c Dmu
5138
/
City of Fort Collin, Colorado
^�' \ \ �� \\` \ �\ ♦ \`� - I al '� \ UTILrN PLAN APPROVAL
50
� • I \y\'� \ \ �' \ \ cxmxm WE
Y �GHr/ `^♦ \\ \\\ �\` �\ ♦ / 1 1 \ \ `�� \ /T` CHECKEDSIR NECKED BY
9l na..v u wn
51 ` \ �1 \
/ CHECKED":CHECKED EY
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION Toll FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN PROJECT xO, SHEET Ho ir. or
EM
Fall Rock , gehN BARS HEARTHFIRE, INC. M36 SO. COLLEGE AVE. SURE 12. FORT LOWRs, COLORAm eo525 HEARTHFIRE P.U.D., SECOND ]THING 1552-02-97 A A AA
ohm ey_ ��b SNK 1-. 501 Appvwtl films. PRONE: (970) 226-5334 (97D) 226-H l FAX: (970) 262-0311 FORT COLLINS. COLORADO oulx-w-xowc " 49