HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 05/03/2005PROPERTY OF Final Approved Repo
• G _ _.
FORT � S .- - A uto._s_. o
DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
The Human Bean -
North College Avenue
Prepared for:
SS Blue Sky Investments, LLC
4625 Regency Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
Ph. 970.567.2157
Fax 970.223.9371
Prepared by:
Interwest Consulting Group
1218 W. Ash, Suite C
Windsor, Colorado 80550
Ph. 970.674.3300
Fax 970.674.3303
November 24, 2004
January 12, 2005
March 9, 2005
Revised April 20, 2005
April 20, 2005
Mr. Wes Lamarque
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Drainage and Erosion Control Report — The Human Bean — North College Ave.
Dear Wes:
We are pleased to submit to you for your final approval this Drainage and Erosion Control Report for The
Human Bean — North College Avenue. All computations within this report have been completed in
compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria.
We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
David Holloway
Project Engineer
Terry odrigue
Colorado Professional
Engineer No. 30697
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description..........................................................................................................1
1.2 Existing Site Characteristics...........................................................................................1
'
1.3 Proposed Site Characteristics..........................................................................................1
1.4 Design Criteria................................................................................................................2
t
1.5 Master Drainage Basin....................................................................................................2
2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE
t3.
LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN...................................................................3
3.1
Method............................................................................................................................3
I
3.2
3.3
General Flow Routing.....................................................................................................3
Proposed Drainage Plan ..................................................................................................3
3.4
Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions............................................4
4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................5
4.1
Pond Description.............................................................................................................5
5. EROSION CONTROL...........................................................................................................5
5.1
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures........................................................................5
5.2
5.3
Dust Abatement...............................................................................................................5
Tracking Mud on City Streets.........................................................................................6
5.4
Maintenance....................................................................................................................6
II 5.5 Permanent Stabilization..................................................................................................6
6. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................7
1
1
Appendix A:
Maps and Figures
Appendix B:
Hydrologic Calculations
Appendix C:
Water Quality Calculations
Appendix D:
Detention Pond & Outlet Sizing Calculations
Appendix E:
Erosion Control Calculations
1
1
Li
I
u
1
I
11
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Human Bean is a proposed drive-thru coffee shop located on North College Avenue in
the southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the 61h Principal
Meridian in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The nearest intersection to
the north would be Alpine Street and to the south is Vine Drive. A location map is provided
in Appendix A.
1.2 Existing Site Characteristics
The existing site is currently being used as a temporary storing site for U-Haul trailers and
trucks. The soils in the area are reported in the Soil Survey of Larimer County Area,
Colorado as being predominately Nunn Clay Loams (soil numbers 73). These soils belong to
the hydrologic group C and are known to have slight to moderate erosive characteristics and
slow to moderate runoff characteristics. The site historically drains at approximately one
percent from northeast to southwest into the Josh Ames Ditch.
The site is located within Zone AE of the Poudre River Floodplain per the FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Map for the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, Community
Panel Number 080102 0004 C, revised March 18, 1996. Base Flood Elevations, (B.F.E.),
have been determined and for this site the B.F.E. is estimated at an elevation 4965.50. There
is a 1% annual chance that these areas will be flooded.
1.3 Proposed Site Characteristics
This report defines the proposed drainage and erosion control plan for The Human Bean —
North College Avenue. The plan includes consideration of all on -site and tributary off -site
runoff and the design of all drainage facilities required with this development. As stated
above, the existing site is located in the FEMA floodplain. Our client is proposing to
floodproof the proposed structure per City of Fort Collins Floodproofmg Regulations to 2-
feet above the base flood elevation. Therefore, the structure will be floodproofed to an
elevation of 4967.50.
In accordance with applicable floodplain regulations (Chapter 10 of City Code) dry access
has been provided from the proposed entrance off College along the north side of the
Drainage and Erosion Control Report
The Human Bean - North College Avenue
Page 1
April 20, 2005
I
11
1
1
1
[1
t
I
1
1
1
proposed structure. Also in accordance with Chapter 10 of the City Code all floatable
materials (tables, chairs, trash cans, trash dumpsters, bike racks, etc.) shall be anchored or
bolted down. The proposed foundation type will be slab -on -grade.
A floodplain use permit will be required for each structure and each site construction element
(detention ponds, bike paths, parking lots, utilities, etc.) in the floodplain. Before a
Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) is issued a floodproofing certificate must be approved.
Site frontage is along State Highway 287 (College Avenue) and improvements to College
Avenue will be constructed to bring the cross section up to the City of Fort Collins 4-lane
Arterial Street Standard.
1.4 Design Criteria
This report was prepared to meet or exceed the submittal requirements established in the City
of Fort Collins' "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS),
dated May 1984 and revised in January 1997. Where applicable, the criteria established in
the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD) dated 1984, developed by the
Denver Regional Council of Governments have been utilized. The rainfall criteria used was
the April 1999 amended criteria. This report is also in compliance with Chapter 10 of the
City Code — Flood Prevention and Protection.
1.5 Master Drainage Basin.
The Human Bean —North College Avenue is locatedwithih the Dry Creek Master Drainage
Basin.
2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE
The historic (existing) flows draining to or through the site consist primarily of on -site flows
with some off_ site flows from the adjoining property to the north and the west half of College
Avenue. The overall drainage pattern for the entire site is via overland flow in a
southwesterly direction at slopes that range from 0.5 to 2 percent to an existing drainage
swale that discharges into the Josh Ames Ditch. An existing 18-inch Corrugated Metal Pipe
(CMP) flows south along the College Avenue frontage of the proposed site. This 18-inch
CMP discharges into the Josh Ames Ditch and will be the proposed outlet for this site.
Drainage and Erosion Control Report
The Human Bean - North College Avenue
Page 2
April 20, 2005
I
1
1
1
r
I
1
3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN
3.1 Method
The Rational Method was used to determine the 10-year and 100-year flows for the sub -
basins indicated in this drainage report. Drainage facilities were designed to convey the 100-
year peak flows. The hydrologic calculations are found in Appendix B of this report.
3.2 General Flow Routing
The proposed drainage pattern adheres to existing site topography and conveys flows from
north to south. The proposed drainage pattern conveys flows towards two (2) sidewalk
chases, which discharge into the proposed detention facility at the southeast corner of the
site. At this location a water quality structure with an orifice into a proposed 18-inch storm
pipe that flows into a proposed manhole that connects to an existing 18-inch CUT storm
pipe. The existing 18-inch storm pipe flows south and eventually discharges into the Josh
Ames Ditch.
3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan
A qualitative summary of the drainage patterns within each sub -basin and at each design
point is provided in the following paragraphs. Certain sub -basins are combined for
discussion purposes where practicable, and discussed relative to the design point to which the
sub -basins drain. Discussions of the detailed design methodologies for the drainage facilities
identified in this section are included in the following sections. Please refer to the drainage
plan included with this report for basin locations.
Runoff from Sub -basin 1 will be conveyed via overland flow, from northwest to southeast,
to a 2-foot curb cut and sidewalk chase at Design Point 1. The proposed sidewalk chase
releases flows south into the proposed detention facility.
Runoff from Sub -basin 2 and OS-1 will be conveyed via overland and gutter flow to Design
Point 2 where a 2-foot curb cut and sidewalk chase discharge flows into the proposed
-detention facility. Sub -basin 2 and OS-1 encompass the entire western portion of the
proposed site.
The proposed detention pond is the area referred to as Sub -basin 3. The runoff from this
area is detained in the proposed pond. (Refer to Section 4.1 for a description of the pond.)
Drainage and Erosion Control Report
The Human Bean - North College Avenue
Page 3
April 20, 2005
I
Runoff from Sub -basin 4 is conveyed across the property directly to the south into an
' existing drainage swale that eventually discharges into the Josh Ames Ditch.
' Runoff from Sub -basin 5 will be conveyed via overland flow along the north property line to
the west side of the property and ultimately south, into the existing swale, which discharges
' into the Josh Ames Ditch.
' Runoff from Sub -basin 6 will be conveyed via overland flow along the north property line to
the east, onto College Avenue. Flows will ultimately be conveyed south, to the Josh Ames
Ditch.
3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions
' The Rational Method was used to determine the 10-year and 100-year peak runoff values for
each sub -basin. Runoff coefficients were assigned using Table 3-2 of the SDDCCS Manual.
' The Rational Method is given by:
' Q = C,CIA (1)
where Q is the maximum rate of runoff in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cf is
' the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall
intensity in inches per hour for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration. The
frequency adjustment factor, Cf, is 1.0 for the initial 2-year storm and 1.25 for the major 100-
year storm. The runoff coefficient is dependent on land use or surface characteristics.
1 The rainfall intensity is selected from Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort
' .Collins (Figure 3.1 of SDDCCS). In order to utilize the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves,
the time of concentration is required. The following equation is used to determine the time
of concentration
' to = tl + tt (2)
' where to is the time of concentration in minutes, ti is the initial or overland flow time in
' minutes, and tt is the conveyance travel time in minutes. The initial or overland flow time is
calculated with the SDDCCS Manual equation:
'IDrainage and Erosion Control Report Page 4
IL The Human Bean - North College Avenue April 20, 2005
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ti = [1.87(l.1 - CCf)L0.5]/(S)0.33 (3)
where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the
average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cf are as defined previously.
All hydrologic calculations associated with the sub -basins shown on the attached drainage
plan are included in Appendix B of this report.
4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
4.1 Pond Description
A proposed detention facility providing both, water quality and detention volume has been
designed for this site. The proposed outlet structure is a water quality structure per USDFCD
criteria. It is designed to release at a 2-year historic rate, which is approximately 0.10 cfs. A
2-inch orifice plate on the outlet pipe regulates this release rate. The 100-year water surface
elevation for the proposed pond is 4965.50. A proposed spillway will convey flows in excess
of the 100-year onto College Avenue. All water quality calculations can be found in
Appendix C of this report. All pond design and outlet sizing calculations can be found in
Appendix D of this report.
5. EROSION CONTROL
67 1
5.2
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled on -site by use of silt fences, straw bale barriers,
gravel construction entrances, and seeding and mulch. The measures are designed to limit
the overall sediment yield increase due to construction as required by the City of Fort
Collins. During overlot and final grading the soil will be roughened and furrowed
perpendicular to the prevailing winds. Straw bale dikes will be placed along proposed swales.
Erosion control effectiveness, rainfall performance calculations and a construction schedule
are provided in Appendix E.
Dust Abatement
During the performance of the work required by these specifications or any operations
appurtenant thereto, whether on right-of-way provided by the City or elsewhere, the
Drainage and Erosion Control Report
The Human Bean - North College Avenue
Page 5
April 20, 2005
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials, and means required. The Contractor
shall carry out proper efficient measures wherever necessary to reduce dust nuisance.
Efficient measures shall be taken to prevent dust nuisance that has originated from the
contractor's operations from damaging crops, orchards, cultivated fields, and dwellings, or
causing nuisance to persons. The Contractor will be held liable for any damage resulting
from dust originating from his operations under these specifications on right-of-way or
elsewhere.
5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets
It is unlawful to track or cause to be tracked mud or other debris onto city streets or rights -of -
way unless so approved by the Director of Engineering in writing. Wherever construction
vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize
the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved surface.
Stabilized construction entrances are required per the detail shown on the Erosion Control
Plan, with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The contractor will be
responsible for clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis.
5.4 Maintenance
All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and
repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Straw bale
dikes or silt fences will require periodic replacement. Sediment traps (behind straw bale
barriers) shall be cleaned when accumulated sediments equal approximately one-half of trap
storage capacity. Maintenance is the responsibility of the developer.
5.5 Permanent Stabilization
A vegetative cover shall be established within one and one-half years on disturbed areas and
soil stockpiles not otherwise permanently stabilized. Vegetation shall not be considered
established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature enough to
control soil erosion to the satisfaction of the City Inspector and to survive severe weather
conditions.
Drainage and Erosion Control Report
The Human Bean - North College Avenue
Page 6
April 20, 2005
6. REFERENCES
1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards"
(SDDCCS), May 1984.
2. Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado. United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, 1980.
3. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001, and Volume 3, dated September 1992.
`Flood
4. City of Fort Collins Municipal Code and Charter, Chapter 10, Prevention and
Protection".
i
rf:
Iv F^l
n
,
r,
„
b
Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 7
April!
The Human Bean - North College Avenue April! 00 =
..' f
�•
1
r
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C? _
IV
£ IS PAS
E: --.._g �.
Q p [+ f
1$ PochtdJ
'`- �----- _. Ill
1$ UOP4?.
d m
Undoan t Dr
ailt8 IJ.1
i , i lie
� y�
U �
m COu-ECGE
1
�I
1
x
1 p;ne„SL
St IS ukk
1
1
i
1
1
1
0
VIri
in w o w F t Sao
LJIMi
N Mason St
1
o� UI
§S, a
roc y4
l
U,!
t:
, . V�ood St
a N Howus St
o
c N Shci ood St >
0 4
o N YUnitcomb St a
y� A
Cn J
ahy sn11001 tJ
P! Gram Ave
Elm Ct
------ - is Park S[
w
a
N Shields St
W
0
T
ClY �
VVIOSI St
o, ca
W
J
a
u
0
0
z
1
FLOOD /tIGURANXE RATE /V1RP
c ° V W `o a "�iV � E
m y y q u ®O m
s 6 z C c E t a o E
W Y o�=Zo
W O 00
5 °
? gE a8�
TE O=
a e � O li �"� f Gi C • 4 q O
N
goy°«
'of Eli
O FVF�M
b v
m o�ELL�
m`c�E
amIN
ma,
a
a 3'"
"� b r�.a 'v vu•` g> Y}i � v. �,... 9a.�� Fi 'x J ti ,
a 4
x ;YYee,
A
r
I
I
I
. I
I
�1-
I
I
I
e
I
I
I
I
I
p
1
1
1
1
Index to Mapping Units
1—Altvan loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes __________
2—Altvan loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes __________
3—Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes
4—Altvan-Satanta loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes
5—Aquepts, loamy ---------------------------
6—Aquepts, ponded _
7—Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ____
8—Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ____
-9—Bainville-Epping silt loams, 5 to 20 percent
slopes----------------------------------
10—Bainville-Keith complex, 2 to 9 percent
slopes----------------------------------
11—Baller-Carnero complex, 9 to 35 percent
slopes _ -
12—Baller-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent
slopes----------------------------------
13—Blackwell clay loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes ____
14—Boyle gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent
slopes ----------------------------------
15—Boyle gravelly sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent
slopes ----------------------------------
16—Boyle-Ratake gravelly sandy loams, 1 to 9
percent slopes ___________________________
17—Boyle-Ratake gravelly sandy loams, 9 to 25
percent slopes ___________________________
18—Breece coarse sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes----------------------------------
19—Breece coarse sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent
slopes----------------------------------
20—Breece coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent
slopes----------------------------------
21—Carnero loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes -______-__
22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ______
23—Clergern fine sandy loam, 2 to 10 percent
slopes----------------------------------
24—Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent
slopes ---------- -----------=------------
25—Connerton-Barnum complex, 3 to-,9 percent
slopes ----------------------------------
26—Cushman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes ----------------------------------
27—Cushman fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent
slopes -------------------------- ------
28—Driggs loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ______
29—Driggs loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes _________
30—Elbeth-Moen loams, 5 to 30 percent slopes ____
31—Farnuf loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes ______-_-_
32—Farnuf-Boyle-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 25
percent slopes ___________________________
33—Fluvaquents, nearly
34—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ______
35—Fort Collins loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes _____-
36—Fort Collins loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ______
37—Fort Collins loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes ______
38—Foxcreek loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ________
39—Gapo clay loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes ________
40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes __________
41—Garrett loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________-_
42—Gravel pits __ ___ ________ ____________
43—Haploborolls-Rock outcrop complex, steep ____
44—Haplustolls, hilly _________________________
45—Haplustolls-Rock outcrop complex, steep ____
46—Harlan fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes-
47—Harlan fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes__
48—Heldt clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes _______
49—Heldt clay loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes _______
50—Keith silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes __
51—Kildor clay loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes ______
52—Kildor-Shale outcrop complex, 5 to 30 percent
slopes ------ ---------------------------- :_m_
loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ____________
54—Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes _____________
55—Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes ------------
56—Kim-Thedalund loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes__
57—Kirtley loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes __________
58—Kirtley-Purner complex, 5 to 20 percent
slopes ----------------------------------
59—LaPorte-Rock outcrop complex, 3 to 30 percent
slopes----------------------------------
Page 1
1
60—Larim
gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 40 percent
rase
11
slopes ----------------------------------
35
12
61—Larimer
fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent
12
slopes ----------------------------------
35
12
62—Larimer-Stoneham
complex, 3 to 10 percent
12
slopes -----------------------------
36
13
63—Longmont
clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes ________
36
13
64—Loveland
clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes _____
37
65—Midway
clay loam, 5 to 25 percent slopes ___-
38
13
66—Minnequa
silt loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes ____
38
67—Minnequa-LaPorte
complex, 3 to 15 percent
13
slopes __ _ ____ ___ ________ _______
38
68—Miracle sandy loam, 5 to 25 percent slopes ___
39
14
69—Naz
sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________
40
70—Naz
sandy loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes _______
40
14
71—Nelson
fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes__
41
15
72—Newfork
sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ___
41
73—Nunn
clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ________
42
16
74—Nunn
clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________
42
75—Nunn
clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ---- —__
43
16
76—Nunn
clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes ___
43
77—Otero
sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ______
43
16
78—Otero
sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ______
. 43
79—Otero
sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes ______
44
16
80—Otero-Nelson
sandy loam, 3 to 25 percent
slopes ----------------------------------
44
17
81—Paoli
fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes __
44
82—Pendergrass-Rock
outcrop complex, 15 to 25
17
percent slopes _______ ____ _____________
45
83—Pinata-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent
17
slopes ------ - ----------------- -----
45
17
84—Poudre fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes__
46
18
85—Purner
fine sandy loam, 1 to 9 percent slopes__
46
86—Purner-Rock
outcrop complex, 10 to 50
19
percent slopes __________________________
47
87—Ratake-Rock
outcrop complex, 25 to 55
19
percent slopes ___________________________
47
88—Redfeather
sandy loam, 5 to 50 percent
19
slopes - -- ----- --- ------ ---------
48
89—Renohill
clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ____•
48
20
90—Renohill
clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes ____
49
91—Renohill-Midway
clay loams, 3 to 15 percent
20
slopes ----------------------------------
49
21
92—Riverwash
________________________________
49
21
93—Rock
outcrop _____________________________
49
22
94—Satanta loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ----------
50
23
95—Satanta
loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes __________
50
96—Satanta
loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ----------
50
23
97—Satanta
loam, gullied, 3 to 9 percent slopes ___
50
23
98—Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent
24
slopes -- ------------------ -----
51
24
99—Schofield-Redfeather-Rock
outcrop complex,
25
5 to 25 percent slopes ----- _------ _-------
51
25
100—Stoneham
loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ________
52
25
101—Stoneham
loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________
52
26
102—Stoneham
loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes --------
52
27
103—Stoneham
loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes ________
52
27
104—Sunshine
stony sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent
27
slopes --------------------------------
53
27
105—Table
Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes __
54
27
106—Tassel
sandy loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes ____
54
28
107—Thedalund loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ---------
55
29
108—Thedalund
loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes ________
55
30
109—Thiel gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 25 percent
30
slopes ----------------------------------
56
30
110—Tine
gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent
31
slopes ----------------------------------
57
32
ill
—Tine cobbly sandy loam, 15 to 40 percent
slopes ------- --- -------------------
57
32
112=Trag-Moen
complex, 5 to 30-percent slopes ___
58
32
113—Ulm
clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ________
58
32
114—Ulm
clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes --------
58
33
115—Weld
silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ________
59
33
116—Wetmore-Boyle-Moen
complex, 5 to 40 percent
33
slopes -- - ------------- --- ------
60
117—Wetmore-Boyle-Rock
outcrop complex, 5 to 60
33
percent slopes __ ________ ____________
60
118—Wiley
silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________
61
34
119—Wiley
silt loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ________
61
1
1
1
1
r
42
SOIL SURVEY
4/3) moist; moderate medium and coarse
prismatic structure parting to moderate
medium subangular blocky; very hard,
firm, very sticky and very plastic; thin
nearly continuous clay films on peds ;
noncalcareous; mildly alkaline; clear
smooth boundary::_
Baca-24 to 29 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3)
clay loam, brown (10YR 5/3) moist;
weak medium subangular blocky struc-
ture; very hard, firm, very plastic; few
thin patchy films. on ped faces; visible
calcium carbonate occurring as small
nodules; calcareous; moderately alka-
line; gradual smooth boundary.
Clca-29 to 47 inches; light yellowish brown
(10YR 6/4) clay loam, dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/4) moist; massive; very
hard, firm, sticky and plastic; visible
calcium carbonate occurring as nodules,
thin seams, and streaks; calcareous ;
moderately alkaline; gradual smooth
boundary.
C2ca--47 to 60 inches; light yellowish brown
(2.5Y 6/3) clay loam, light olive brown
(2.5Y 5/3) moist; massive; very hard,
firm, sticky and plastic; some visible
calcium carbonate but less than in the
Clca horizon; calcareous; moderately
alkaline.
The A horizon is light clay loam or clay loam 10 to
12 inches thick in cultivated areas. The combined thick-
ness of the A and B horizons ranges from 16 to 40
inches. The 132t horizon is heavy clay loam or light
clay. Depth to calcareous material ranges from 10 to
30 inches. Sand and gravel are below a depth of 40
inches in some profiles. Some profiles have substrata
with a redder hue.
73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This
level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil has a
profile similar to the one described as representative of
the series, but the combined thickness of the surface
I ayer and subsoil is about 35 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas
of soils that are more sloping. Also included are a few
small areas of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils and
a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer and
subsoil of silty clay loam.
Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight.
If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets,
beans, barley, wheat, and alfalfa. Under dryland
management it is suited to wheat or barley. It is also
suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units
IIs-1, irrigated, and IIIc-1, dryland; Clayey Foothill
range site; windbreak suitability group 1.
74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This
nearly level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil
has the profile described as representative of the
series.
Included with this soil in mapping are a few small
areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and
a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer and
subsoil of silty clay loam. Also included are small areas
of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils.
Runoff is slow to medium, the hazard of wind erosion
is slight, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate.
If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets,
beans, barley, alfalfa, and wheat. Under dryland
management it is suited to wheat and barley. It is also
well suited to pasture or native grasses (fig. 10).
Figure ID. —Alfalfa hales on Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes.
APPENDIX B
HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS
3.1 General Design Storms SECTION 3. HYDROLOGY STANDARDS
' All drainage systems have to take into consideration two separate and distinct drainage
problems. The first is the initial storm which occurs at fairly regular intervals,
usually based on the two to ten-year storm, depending on land use. The second is the
major storm which is usually based on an infrequent storm, such as the 100-year storm.
In some instances the -major storm routing will not be the same as the initial storm._ __
In this case, a complete set of drainage plans shall be submitted for each storm
system.
3.1.1 Initial Storm Provisions
As stated before, the initial storm shall be based on the two to ten-year storm.
The objectives of such drainage system planning are to minimize inconvenience,
1 to protect against recurring minor damage and to reduce maintenance costs in
order to create an orderly drainage system at a reasonable cost for the urban
resident. The initial storm drainage system may include such facilities as curb
and gutter, storm sewer and open drainageways, and detention facilities.
1
3.1.2 Major Storm Provisions
The major storm shall
be considered the 100-year storm.. The
objectives of the
major storm planning
are to eliminate substantial property damage or loss of
'
life. Major drainage
systems may include storm sewers, open
drainageways, and
detention facilities.
The correlation between the initial
and major storm
system shall be analyzed
to insure a well coordinated drainage
system.
' 3.1.3 Storm Frequency
The initial and major storm design frequencies shall not be less than those
found in the following table:
' Table 3-1
DESIGN STORM FREQUENCIES
Design Storm Return Period
Land Use or Zoninat Initial Storm Major Storm
1 Residential: (RE,RL,RLP,RP,ML,RM,RMP, ............................
2-year 100-year
RLM,MM,RH)
Business:
(BG,BL,BP, C, ,IP,IG)................. W10-year. f100-year
Public Buillin eas...................... 10-year 100-year
Parks, Greenbelts, etc ...................... 2-year 100-year
Open Channels & Drainageways -- 100-year
Detention Facilities -- 100-year
HSee Table 3-2 for zoning definitions
' 3.1.4 Rainfall Intensities
The rainfall intensities to be used in the computation of runoff shall be
obtained .from the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort
Collins, included in these specifications as Figure 3.1.
3.1.5 Runoff Computations
Storm Runoff computations for both the initial and major storm -shall comply with
the criteria set forth in Section 3.2 "Analysis Methodology." All runoff
calculations made in the design of both initial and major drainage systems shall
be included with the storm drainage plans in the form of a Drainage Report.
Reports submitted for approval should have a typed narrative with computations
and maps in a legible form.
May 1984 Design Criteria
' Revised January 1997
3-1
No Text
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
h
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City of Fort Collins
Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency Table
for using the Rational Method
(5 minutes - 30 minutes)
Figure 3-1a
Duration
(minutes)
2-year
Intensity
in/hr
10-year
Intensity
in/hr
100-year
Intensity
in/hr
5.00
2.85
4.87
9.95
6.00
2.67
4.56
9.31
7.00
2.52
4.31
8.80
8.00
2.40
4.10
8.38
9.00
2.30
3.93
8.03
10.00
2.21
3.78
7.72
11.00
2.13
3.63
7.42
12.00
2.05
3.50
7.16
13.00
1.98
3.39
6.92
14.00
1.92
3.29
6.71
15.00
1.87
3.19
6.52
16.00
1.81
3.08
6.30
17.00
1. 55
2.99
6.10
18.00
1.70
2.90
5.92
19.00
1.65
2.82
5.75
20.00
1.61
2.74
5.60
21.00
1.56
2.67
5.46
22.00
1.53
2.61
5.32
23.00
1.49
2.55
5.20
24.00
1.46
2.49
5.09
25.00
1.43
2.44
4.98
26.00
1.40
2.39
4.87
27.00
1.37
2.34
4.78
28.00
1.34
2.29
4.69
29.00
1.32
2.25
4.60
30.00
1.30
2.21
4.52
1
1
1
1
City of Fort Collins .
Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency Table
for using the Rational Method
(31 minutes - 60 minutes)
Figure 3-1 b
Duration
(minutes)
2-year
Intensity
in/hr
10-year
Intensity
in/hr
100-year
Intensity
in/hr
31.00
1.27
2.16
4.42
32.00
1.24
2.12
4.33
33.00
1.22
2.08
4.24
34.00
1.19
2.04
4.16
35.00
1.17
2.00
4.08
36.00
1.15
1.96
4.01
37.00
1.13
1.93
3.93
38.00
1.11
1.89
3.87
39.00
1.09
1.86
3.80
40.00
1.07
1.83
3.74
41.00
1.05
1.80
3.68
42.00
1.04
1.77
3.62
43.00
1.02
1.74
3.56
44.00
1.01
1.72
3.51
45.00
0.99
1.69
3.46
46.00
0.98
1.67
3.41
47.00
0.96
1.64
3.36
48.00
0.95
1.62
3.31
49.00
0.94
1.60
3.27
50.00
0.92
158.........
3.23
51.00
0.91
1.56
3.18
52.00
0.90
1.54
3.14 .
53.00
0.89
1.52
3.10
54.00
0.88
1.50
3.07
55.00
0.87
1.48
3.03
56.00
0.86
1.47
2.99
57.00
0.85
1.45
2.96
58.00
0.84
1.43
2.92
59.00 - ..
0.83
-1.42.:. ..:::..:..
.: 2.89 -
60.00
0.82
1.40
2.86
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE
--- Design
Point
_: ..Tributary _ _
Sub -basin
..Area
(ac)
. C (10)
C (100)
tc (10)
(min)
tc (100)
(min)
Q(10)tot
(cfs)
0(100)tot
(cfs)
DRAINAGE
STRUCTURE
/REMARKS
1
1
0.15
0.81
1.00
5.0
5.0
0.58
1.46
2
2
0.17
0.84
1.00
5.0
5.0
0.69
1.68
3
0.06
0.20
0.25
5.0
5.0
0.06
0.15
OS1
0.03
0.20
0.25
10.7
10.7
0.02
0.05
4
0.03
0.20
0.25
5.0
5.0
0.03
0.06
5
0.01
0.20
0.25
5.0
5.0
0.01
0.03
6
0.01
0.20
0.25
5.0
5.0
0.01
0.01
2-YEAR HISTORIC FLOWS
LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College
PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00
COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH
DATE: 1/12/2005
Recommended Runoff Coefficient from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria
Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual
Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil)
Lawns (average, 2-7%, sandy soil)
Runoff
coefficient
Impervious
C
0.10
0
0.15
0
DESIGN
POINT
SUBBASIN
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
(ac.)
TOTAL
AREA
(sq.ft)
Length
(It)
(4)
Slope
(%)
(5)
8
(min)
(6)
i
(in/hr)
Q (2)
(cfs)
from
Design
Point
Q (2)
(cfs)
Q(2)tot
(cfs)
1
101 H
0.43
18.731
150
1.0
20.0
1.83
0.12
0.12
total
0.43
18,731
0.12
Equations
- Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted
C=E(Ci Ai) /At
Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai
Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci
n = number of different surfaces to consider
At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's
Q=CfCiA
Q = peak discharge (cfs) ti = [1.87 (1.1 - CCf) 1-0'5) / S 1/3
C = runoff coefficient
Cf = frequency adjustment factor
I = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from IDF curve I = 26 / (10+ tif.71
A = drainage area (acres)
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS
LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College
PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00
COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH
DATE: 1/12/2005
Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria
Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual
Streets, parking lots (asphalt)
Sidewalks (concrete)
Roofs
Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil)
Runoff
%
coefficient
Impervious
C
0.95
100
0.95
96
0.95
90
0.20
0
SUBBASIN
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
AREA
(ac.)
TOTAL
AREA
(sq.ft)
ROOF
AREA
(sq.ft)
PAVED
AREA
(sq.ft)
SIDEWALK
AREA
(sq.ft)
LANDSCAPE
AREA
(sq.ft)
RUNOFF
COEFF.
(C10)
RUNOFF
COEFF.
(CIM)
%
Impervious
1
0.15
6,370
216
3,947
1.043
1,164
0.81
1.00
81
2
0.17
7,334
216
5,629
391
1,098
0.84
1.00
85
3
1 0.06
2.642
0
0
0
2,642
0.20
0.25
0
0S1
0.03
1,218
0
0
0
1,218
0.20
0.25
0
Tributary to Pond
0.40
17,564
432
9,576
1,434
6,122
0.69
0.86
65
4
0.03
1,129
0
0
0
1,129
0.20
0.25
0
5
0.01
543
0
0
0
543
0.20
0.25
0
6
0.01
227
0
0
0
227
0.20
0.25
0
Equations
- Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted
C=E(Ci Ai) /At
Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai
Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci
n = number of different surfaces to consider
At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's
1
1
1
1
1
d
U
,w
Y
Q
W
K
0
0
o r
o
0
0
J
Q
�E e
N
N
m 0
N
m
ifI
z ..
LL
m
n
a n
o
m
n
o
O
o
0 0
0
0
0
m 5a7
E
R
lu
m
GV
yN
oo
mo
�n
�nm
J
van
r�
oln
WZ
Q
Z N
i
m
U cc
F
u 7
II � •-•
t7
l7
fV t7
fill
l
V 4
O
m<
O
6
N O
o
0
1
O
o 0
O
LL
J
O
O
z
m rn
Till
N
N
N
>
Q
=
rn
m
m
m m
OF
C W
0
00
0
0
0
O
I
Q
w
o
O
O
G G
O
n
o
o n
n^
o
t,
0 2° m
1101
m
W
o
0
cc
0
0
0
H
�
o
rn
oln
J
C i
7
v
Q y
J
t7
m O
N
f�I
—
—
O
O
O O
O
O
O
0^
O
n e
N
N
N
N
m
m w
h
m
m
n
n
v
�
}
o 0
0
0
0
wm
N N
N
O
N
C
N
C
O
O
C
O O
Q W
F �
z_F
o 0
0
0
0
d
0
0
0 0
coo
W N
�
a°
o
0
m
m
m
�
N
a'
-
f
z_
Z r-
m
MIT
(a
oz
m 0
w a
m G
m
m
J
U
Y IL
00
m
U O
C m
.E
.a-
0
N
C -Q
m
E
c N
m II
0 E
E
E
c
T
O
O
r
Z
O
N
Wil F
Z
� W
0(-)
LL Z
00
a U
o LL
a O
a)i cWc
L
Y
Q
i
W
C
0
0
o
n
o
0
0
J
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
m
as
e
r
o
m
en
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
mIo
o
"
YN
anmr
No
tU
J
con
uu'i
=
N Z N
u 7
U t
mom
n
oc'i
O
m
N<
O
m?
0
0
0
0
0
0
LL
J
r
O
O
N
0
0
0
Z
Q
2
U
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
It
L
c c a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
K
w
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
o
o
m
o
0
0
:3
d
o�
(�
0. m
N `
w
fo
0o
a
o
0
0o
N
J
L
a �
J
m
m
N
n
N
ClN
C
C
G
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m ,..,
N
N
N
N
0
N
Oa N
N
N
N
N
O
O
m
0
N
N
N
L
m
N
m
c r <
m "
J
N
O
O
N
N
N
N
O
U
.-00
000
Q
U
K
W
0
m
m
N
N
N
Cl!
Cl!
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
� W
z
o
0
0
0
0
d� N
o000
000
�
N
Z
m-
N
m
O
a
N
m
a
N
Z
Z
~
Q
O
N
Q
W a
0
N G
RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF
(City of Fort Collins, 10-Yr Storm)
LOCATION:
The Human Bean - North College
PROJECT NO:
1016-016-00
COMPUTATIONS BY:
DRH
DATE:
1/12/2005
10 yr storm, Cf =
1.00
DIRECT RUNOFF
CARRY OVER
TOTAL
REMARKS
Design
Point
Tributary
Sub -basin
A
(ac)
C Cf
tc
(min)
i
(in/hr)
Q (10)
(cfs)
from
Design
Point
Q (10)
(ds)
Q(10)tot
(cfs)
1
1
0.15
0.81
5.0
4.87
0.58
0.58
0
2
2
0.17
0.84
5.0
4.87
0.69
0.69
0
'
3
0.06
0.20
5.0
4.87
0.06
0.06
0
OS1
0.03
0.20
10.7
3.70
0.02
0.02 -
0
Tributary to Pond
4
0.03
0.20
5.0
4.87
0.03
0.03
0
5
0.01
0.20
5.0
4.87
0.01
0.01
0
6
0.01
0.20
5.0
4.87
0.01
0.01
0
Q=CfCiA
Q = peak discharge (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient
Cf = frequency adjustment factor
i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99)
A = drainage area (acres) i = 41.44 / (10+ tc)1.1e74
1
1
1
1
1
RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF
(City of Fort Collins, 100-Yr Storm)
LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College
PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00
COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH
DATE: 1/12/2005
100 yr storm, Cf = 1.25
DIRECT RUNOFF
CARRY OVER
TOTAL
REMARKS
Des.
Point
Area
Design.
A
(ac)
C Cf
to
(min)
i
(in/hr)
Q (100)
(ofs)
from
Design
Point
Q (100)
(cfs)
Q(1 o0)tot
(CIS)
1
1
0.15
1.00
5.0
9.95
1.46
1.46
2
2
0.17
1.00
5.0
9.95
1.68
1.68
3
0.06
0.25
5.0
9.95
0.15
0.15
OS7
0.03
0.25
10.7
7.55
0.05
0.05
Tributary to Pond
4
0.03
0.25
5.0
9.95
0.06
0.06
5
0.01
0.25
5.0
9.95
0.03
0.03
6
0.01
0.25
5.0
9.95
0.01
0.01
Q=CiA
Q = peak discharge (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient
i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99)
A = drainage area (acres) i = 84.682 / (tor tC)0.i9]5
' Worksheet for 2' Concrete Sidewalk Chase
Project Description
Flow Element: Box Pipe
' Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Normal Depth
Input Data �..,.,°ifwk.'YS
'
Roughness Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope:
0.02000
ft/ft
Height:
0.50
ft
'
Bottom Width:
2.00
It
Discharge:
1.70
ft3/s
77
Normal Depth:
0.18
ft
Flow Area:
0.37
It,
'
Wetted Perimeter:
2.37
It
Top Width:
2.00
It
Critical Depth:
0.28
It
Critical Slope:
0.00523
ft/ft
Velocity:
4.65
ft/s
'
Velocity Head:
0.34
ft
Specific Energy:
0.52
ft
Froude Number:
1.92
'
Flow Type:
Supercritical
GVF Input Data E..' '
N.�;eiF
Downstream Depth:
,c
0.00
ft
Length:
0.00
ft
Number Of Steps:
0,F
GVF Output Data
'
Upstream Depth:
0.00
It
Profile Description:
NIA
'
Profile Headloss:
0.00
It
Average End Depth Over Rise:
0.00
'
Normal Depth Over Rise:
0.00
Downstream Velocity:
0.00
ft/s
Upstream Velocity:
0.00
fus
'
Normal Depth:
0.18
ft
Critical Depth:
0.28
ft
11
11
I
'
2' Concrete Sidewalk Chase
Cross Section for Box Pipe - 1
'
z ' - `"3"'
Project Description
r *fix a
Flow Element Box Pipe
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Normal Depth
Section Data ' aP v star 'e��
Roughness Coefficient. 0.013
'
Channel Slope: 0.02000
ftift
Normal Depth: 0.18
ft
Height: 0.50
ft
'
Bottom Width: 2.00
ft
Discharge: 1.70
ft'!s
'
� atoo �
l�eyit9n I�otrrr Z
1
1
1
1
ft
11
T
OSOtt
T
D.181t
1
m
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME SUMMARY
FOR EXTENDED DETENTION
PROJECT NAME: The Human Bean - North College
JR PROJECT NO: 1016-0,16-00
COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH
DATE: 1/12/2005
Guidelines from Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, September 1999
(Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section)
Use 40-hour brim -full volume drain time for extended detention basin
Water quality Capture Volume, WQCV = 1.0 * (0.91 * i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78i)
Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 * Area * 1.2
MAJOR
BASIN
Trib.
area
(acres)
Impervious
Ratio, la
% Impervious
i = la/100
WQCV
(watershed inches)
Design
Volume, Vol.
(ac-ft)
POND
0.43
65
0.65
0.25
0.01
I
I
1
_J
Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility
POND
Project Name: The Human Bean - North College
Project Number: 1016-016-00
Company: - Interwest Consulting Group
Designer: DRH
Date: 1/12/2005
1. Basin Storage Volume
A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i=la/l00)
B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area)
C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV)
(WQCV =1.0"(0.91 "is-1.19"i2+0.78i))
D) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 ' Area ' 1.2
2. Outlet Works
A) Outlet Type (Check One)
B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowest Perforations (H)
C) Required Maxiumum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao)
(Figure EDB-3)
D) Perforation Dimensions (enter one only)
i) Circular Perforation Diamter OR
ii) 2" Height Rectangular Perforation Width
E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 for Maximum)
' F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (AJ
G) Number of Rows (nr)
H) Total outlet Area (Ao,)
' 3. Trash Rack
A) Needed Open Area:
A, = 0.5 " (Figure 7 Value) " Ao,
B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One)
' C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref: Figure 6a)
1) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (Wwnc)
from Table 6a-1
ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR)
= H - 2" for flange of top support
iii) Type of Screen Based on Depth H)
Describe if "other"
iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension,
Describe if "other"
v) Spacing of Support Rod (O.C.)
Type and Size of Support rod (Ref: Table 6a-2)
la =
65
%
i =
0.65
A =
0.43
acres
WQCV =
0.25
watershed inches
Vol. =
0.01
ac-ft
x Orifice Plate
Perforated Riser Pipe
Other:
H = 1.7 ft
Ao = 0.035 square inches
D = 114 inches, OR
W = inches
nc = 1 number
Ao = 0.05 square inches
nr = 6 number
Aat = 0.3 square inches
At = 10.2 square inches
x < 2" Diameter Round
2" High Rectangular
Other:
Wwnc= 3 inches
HTR = 18.4 inches
x S.S. #93 VE Wire (US Filter)
Other:
x 0.139" (US Filter)
Other:
3/4 inches
#156 VEE
f
[1
91
f
I
I
I
vi) Type and size of Holding Frame (Ref: Table 6a-2) 3/8" x 1.0" flat bar
D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b):
1) Width of rectangular Opening (W) W =
ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wconc=W+12") Wconc
iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) Wopening
from Table 6b-1
iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR =
v) Type of Screen (based on Detph H)
(Describe if "other)
vi) Cross -bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP
Grating). Describe if "other" _
vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2)
(Based on depth of WQCV surcharge)
4. Detention Basin length to width ratio
5. Pre -sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values
A) Volume (5 to 10% of the Design Volume in 1 D)
B) Surface Area
C) Connector Pipe Diameter
(Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control)
D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides
6. Two -Stage Design
A) Top Stage (DWo = 2' minumum) DWo =
B) Bottom Stage (Des = DWo + 1.5' min, DWo + 3.0' max.
Storage = 5% to 15% of Total WQCV)
C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of
0.5"Top Stage Depth or 2.5 feet)
Storage =
Des =
Storage =
Surf. Area =
Depth =
Storage =
Surf. Area =
D) Total Volume: Vol,ot = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B volt., =
Must be > Design Volume in 1 D
ME
7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical)
' Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred
8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit ver
Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred
9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "other")
Z=
inches
inches
inches
inches
KlempTM KPP Series Aluminum
Other:
inches
Other:
(UW )
acre-feet
acres
inches
yes/no
feet
acre-feet
feet
acre-feet
acres
feet
acre-feet
acres
0 acre-feet
(horizontal/vertical)
(horizontal/vertical )
x_Native Grass
_ Irrigation Turf Grass
Other:
IL
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3)
100
M
4.
9
1.1
0.61
a�
co
a 0.4(
E
m
0.2(
U
0.0E
0.02
0.01
0.02
STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
EXAMPLE: DWQ = 4.5 ft
D WQCV = 2.1 acre-feet
01
SOLUTION: Required Area per
Row = 1.75 in?
EQUATION:
WQCV
a=
K 40
in which,
K 40=0.013D WQ +0.22DWQ -0.10
OJT
eQti
bra.
1
O
tiI
-74
r
J�'
0.04 U.06 0.10
1
0.0-3
0.20 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Required Area per Row,a (in.2 )
FIGURE EDB-3
Water Quality Outlet Sizing:
Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume
9-1-99
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
S-43
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
Orifice Plate Perforation Sizing
Circular Perforation Sizing_..
Chart may be applied to orifice plate or vertical pipe outlet.
Hole Die
•
Hole Die
(in)
Min. Sc
(in)
Area per Row (sq in)
-
n=2
n=3
1 4
1 0.250
1
0.05
0.10
0.15
6
0.313
2
0.15
0.23
-3/8-
0.375
2
0.11
0.22
0.33
7/16
0.438
2
0.15
0.30
0.45
1 2
0.500
2
0.20
0.39
0.59
9 16
0.563
3
0.25
0.50
0.75
5 8
0.625
3
0.31
0.61
0.92
11 16
0.688
3
0.37
0.74-.
1.11
3 4
0.750
3
0.44
0.88
1.33
13 16
0.813
3
0.52
1.04
1.56
7 8
0.875
3
0.60
1.20
1.80
15 16
0.938
3
0.69
1.38
2.07
1
1.000
4
0.79
1.57
2.36
1 1 16
1.063
4
0.89
1.77
2.66
1 1 8
1.125
4
0.99
1.99
298
1 3 16
1.188
4
1.11
2.22
3.32
1 1 4
1.250
4
1.23
1 2.45
3.68
1 5 16
1.313
4
1.35
2.71
4.06
1 3/8d2.OGO
4
1.48
297
4.45
1 7 16
4
1.62
3.25
4.87
1 1 2
4
1.77
3.53
5.30
1 9 16
4
1.92
3.83
5.75
1 5 8
4
2.07
4.15
6.22
1 11 16
4
2.24
4.47
6.71
1 3 4
4
2.41
4.81
7.22
1 13 16
4
2.58
5.16
7.74
1 7 8
4
2.76
5.52
8.28
1 15 16
4
2.95
5.90
8.84
2
4
3.14
6.28 1
9.42
n = Number of columns of perforations
Minimum steel
plate thickness
1/4 '
S/16 '
3/8 '
• Designer may interpolate to the nearest 32nd inch
to better match the required area. If desired.
Rectangular Perforation Sizing
Only one column of rectangular perforations allowed.
Rectangular Height = 2 inches
Rectangular Width (inches) = Required Area per Row (sq in)
2"
Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District
Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3)
F7¢ Detdsdwg
Rectangular
Hole Width
Min. Steel
Thickness
5"
1 4
6"
1 F4
7"
5/32 "
8"
5/16 "
9"
11/32 "
ion
3/8 "
>1On
1/2 "
Figure 5
WQCV Outlet Orifice
Perforation Sizing
fj
Table 6a-1: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings.
Minimum Width (W ,o..) of Concrete Opening for a Well -Screen -Type Trash Rack.
See Figure 6-a for Explanation of Terms.
Maximum Dia.
Width of Trash Rack Openin .... Per Column of Holes as a Function of Water Depth H
of Circular
Opening
(inches)
H=2.0'
H=3.0'
H= 4.0'
H=5.0'
H=6.0'
Maximum
Number of
Columns
< 0.25
r3 inj
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
14
< 0.50
in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
3 in.
14
< 0.75
3 in.
6 in.
6 in.
6 in.
6 in.
7
< 1.00
6 in.
9 in.
9 in.
9 in.
9 in.
4
< 1.25
9 in.
12 in.
12 in.
12 in.
15 in.
2
< 1.50
12 in-___E
15 in.
18 in.
18 in.
18 in.
2
< 1.75
18 in.
2l in.
21 in.
24 in.
24 in.
1
< 2.00
21 in.
24 in.
27 in.
30 in.
30 in.
1
Table 6a-2: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings.
US Filter'rm Stainless Steel Well -Screen' (or equal) Trash Rack Design
Specifications.
Max. Width
of Opening
Screen #93 VEE
Wire Slot Opening
Support Rod
Type
Support Rod,
On -Center,
Spacing
Total Screen
Thickness
Carbon Steel Frame
Type
9"
0.139
#156 VEE
'/."
0.31'
'/a k1.0"flat bar
18"
0.139
TE .074"x.50"
1"
0.655
'/4"x 1.0 angle
24"
0.139
TE.074"x.75"
F.
1.03"
1.0"x 1%z"anle
27"
0.139
TE .074"x.75"
I"
1.03"
1.0"x 1'/x"an le
30"
0.139
TE .074"x1.0"
T 1" 1
1.155"
1 '/.'k lWan le
36"
0.139
TE.074"x1A"
1"
1.155"
1 7, x 1%x"anle
42"
0.139
TE.105"x1.0" I
1"
1.155"
I'/.'kl%z"angle
US ruier, St. Paul, Mninesota, USA
DESIGN EXAMPLE:
Given: A WQCV outlet with three columns of 5/8 inch (0.625 in) diameter openings.
Water Depth H above the lowest opening of 3.5 feet.
Find: The dimensions for a well screen trash rack within the mounting frame.
Solution: From Table 6a-1 with an outlet opening diameter of 0.75 inches (i.e., rounded up from 5/8 inch
actual diameter of the opening) and the Water Depth H = 4 feet (i.e., rounded up from 3.5 feet). The
minimum width for each column of openings is 6 inches. Thus, the total width is W = 36 = 18 inches.
The total height, after adding the 2 feet below the lowest row of openings, and subtracting 2 inches for the
flange of the top support channel, is 64 inches. Thus,
Trash rack dimensions within the mounting fiame = 18 inches wide x 64 inches high
From Table 6a-2 select the ordering specifications for an 18", or less, wide opening trash rack using US
Filter (or equal) stainless steel well -screen with #93 VEE wire, 0.139" openings between wires, TE
.074" x .50" support rods on 1.0" on -center spacing, total rack thickness of 0.655" and'/s" x 1.0" welded
carbon steel frame.
Table 6a
l
No Text
APPENDIX D
DETENTION POND & OUTLET SIZING CALCULATIONS
1
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS
Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method
100-Year Event
LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College
PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00
COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH
DATE: 1/12/2005
Equations:
Area trib. to pond =
0.40
Developed flow = Qo = CIA
C (100) =
0.86
Vol. In = Vi = T C I A = T Qp
Developed C A =
0.34
Vol. Out = Vo =K QPo T
Release rate, QPo =
0.1
storage = S = Vi - Vo
K =
0.9
Rainfall intensity from City of Fort Collins IDF Curve
with updated (3.67") rainfall
acre
acre
cfs
Storm
Duration, T
(min)
Rainfall
Intensity, I
(in/hr)
Qp
(cfs)
Vol. In
Vi
(ft)
Vol. Out
Vo
(ft)
Storage
S
(ft)
Storage
S
(ac-ft)
5
9.95
3.4
1027
33
994
0.02
10
7.77
2.7
1603
66
1537
0.04
20
5.62
1.9
2320
132
2188
1 0.05
30
4.47
1.5
2767
199
2568
0.06
40
3.74
1.3
3088
265
2823
0.06
50
3.23
1.1
3337
331
3006
0.07
60
2.86
1.0
3541
397
3144
0.07
70
2.57
0.9
3714
464
3251
0.07
80
2.34
0.8
3864
530
3334
0.08
90
2.15
0.7
3997
596
3401
0.08
100
1.99
0.7
4116
662
3454
0.08
110
1.86
0.6
4224
729
3496
0.08
120
1.75
0.6
4323
795
3528
0.08
130
1.65
0.6
4415
861
3554
0.08
140
1.56
0.5
4500
927
3572
0.08
150
1.48
0.5
4579
994
3586
0.08
160
1.41
0.5
4654
1060
3594
0.08
�1,7,0..
t�,1,�35..:-
0 5x
.', r s;4725
-=1126
y f; ;3599
0U8�s
180
1.29
0.4
4791
1193
3598
0.08
Required Storage Volume: 3599 ft3
0.08 acre-ft
LOCATION:
PROJECT NO:
COMPUTATIONS BY:
1
DATE:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
5000
4000
w
E 3000
6
2000
1000
0+
0
DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS
Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method
100-Year Event
The Human Bean - North College
1016-016-00
DRH
1/12/2005
50 100 150
Storm Duration (min)
—+— Inflow Volume Outflow Volume
200
f
1
t
1
1
1
t
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS
Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method
100-Year Event
LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College
PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00
COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH
DATE: 1/12/2005
4000
3500
3000
2500
E 2000
> 1500
1000
500
0
0 50 100 150 200
Storm Duration (min)
--*.-Storage Volume
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
Proposed Detention Pond - Stage/Storage
LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College
PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00
COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH
SUBMITTED BY: Interwest Consulting Group
DATE: 1/12/2005
Pond Inv.-
WQCV-
100-yr WSEL-
Top of Berm -
Detention Pond Sizing.xls
V = 1/3 d (A + B + sgrt(A'B))
where V = volume between contours, ft3
d = depth between contours, ft
A = surface area of contour
Pmmn NAME
Stage
(ft)
Surface
Area
W)
Incremental
Storage
(ac-ft)
Total
Storage
(ac-ft)
4961.3
0
4962
131
0.00
0.00
4963
633
0.01
0.01
4964
1187
0.02
0.03
4965
1852
0.03
0.06
4965.5
003
4966.5
I
POND
100-yr Event, Outlet Sizing
'
LOCATION:
The Human Bean - North College
PROJECT NO:
1016-016-00
COMPUTATIONS BY:
DRH
SUBMITTED BY:
Interwest Consulting Group
DATE:
1/12/2005
' Submerged Orifice Outlet:
release rate is described by the orifice equation,
I Qo = CA sgrt( 2g(h-Eo))
where Qa = orifice outflow (cfs)
Co = orifice discharge coefficient
' g = gravitational acceleration = 32.20 fus;
A, = effective area of the orifice (W)
Eo = greater of geometric center elevation of the orifice or d/s HGL (ft)
h = water surface elevation (ft)
Qo = 0.23 cfs (0.5 cfs/acre)
outlet pipe dia = D = 18.0 in
Invert elev. = 4961.30 ft (inv. "D" on outlet structure)
Eo = 4962.48 ft (downstream HGL for peak 100 yr flow - from FlowMaster)
h = 4965.50 ft - 100 yr WSEL
Co = 0.65
' solve for effective area of orifice using the orifice equation
Ao = 0.025 ft`
I = 3.7 in`
orifice dia. = d = 2.16 in
' Check orifice discharge coefficient using Figure 5-21 (Hydraulic Engineering)
d/ D = 0.12
kinematic viscosity, v = 1.22E-05 ft
2/s
I Reynolds no. = Red = 4Q/(7cdv) = 1.34E+05
Co = (K in figure) = 0.65 check
I Use d = 2 in
A o = 0.022 ft' =
Qmax = 0.20- cfs
I
I
I
3.14 in 2
L
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
Detention Pond
Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing
LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College
PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00
COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH
SUBMITTED BY: Interwest Consulting Group
DATE: 1/12/2005 top of berm
Equation for flow over a broad crested weir
Q = CLH32 spill elevation
where C = weir coefficient = 2.6 f- L
H = overflow height
L = length of the weir
The pond has a spill elevation equal to the maximum water surface elevation in the pond
Design spillway with 0.5 ft flow depth, thus H = 0.5 ft
Size the spillway assuming that the pond outlet is completely clogged.
Pond
Q (100) = 4 cfs (peak flow into pond)
Spill elev = 4965.50 ft = 100-year WSEL
Min top of berm elev.= 4966.50
Weir length required:
L= 4 ft
Use L = 5 ft
v = 0.96 ft/s
APPENDIX E
EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
�
N
J
ILL
cm�01 J
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGES FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
RIPRAP
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
Yt/H
RIPRAP
7
Use Ho instead of H whenever culvert has supercritical flow in the barrel.
*-*Use Type L for a distance of 3H downstream.
FIGURE 5-8. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT RECTANGULAR
CONDUIT OUTLET.
I1-15 -82
URBAN DRAINAGES FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College Avenue
ITEM: Riprap Calculations for Pond Inlets
' COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH
SUBMITTED BY: Interwest Consulting Group
From Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, March 1969
(Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section)
Q = discharge, cfs
D = diameter of circular conduit, ft
' W = width of rectangular conduit, ft
H = height of rectangular conduit, ft
Yt = tailwater depth, ft
At= required area of flow at allowable velocity, ft2
V = allowable non -eroding velocity in the downstream channel, ft/s
= 7.0 ft/s for erosion resistant soils
= 5.5 ft/s for erosive soils
DP 1 to Pond
2' Concrete Sidewalk Chase
' Q = 2 cfs
H= 6 in = 0.5 ft
W= 24 in = 2 It
' Yt = 0.1 ft
V = 4.7 ft/s
Q/WHo.S= 1.4
1 Yt/ H = 0.2
From Figure 5-8, use Type L for a distance 3H downstream, L = 1.5 ft
' From Table 5-1, d5o = 9 in
From Fig. 5-6. Riprap depth from outlet to dist. U2 = 18.0 in
Riprap depth from U2 13.5 in
Width of riprap (extend to height of culvert) = 3 ft
DP 2 to Pond
' 2' Concrete Sidewalk Chase
Q = 1.7 cfs
H = 6 in = 0.5 ft
' W= 24 in = 2 ft
Yt = 0.5 ft
V = 3.8 ft/s
Q/WHO .5= 1.2
Yt / H = 1.0
' From Figure 5-8, use Type L for a distance 3H downstream, L = 1.5 ft
From Table 5-1, d50 = 9 in
From Fig. 5-6. Riprap depth from outlet to dist. U2 = 18.0 in
' Riprap depth from U2 13.5 in
Width of riprap (extend to height of culvert) = 3 ft
11
1
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT: The Human Bean - North College Avenue STANDARD FORM A
COMPLETED BY: DRH DATE: 12-Jan-05
DEVELOPED
ERODIBILITY
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Ai • Li
Ai' Si
Lb
Sb
PS
SUBBASIN(s)
ZONE
(ALA
(FT)
(%)
1
MODERATE
0.15
140
1.0
20.5
0.1
2
0.17
130
1.2
21.9
0.2
3
0.06
78
3.5
4.7
0.2
4
0.03
5
25.0
0.1
0.6
5
0.01
105
2.1
1.3
0.0
6
0.01
55
3.2
0.3
0.0
OS1
0.03
130
1.3
3.6
0.0
Total
0.45
1
1
1 52.45
1 1.29
1 117
1 2.9
1 80.1%
Ash = Sub -basin area
Lsb = Sub -basin flow path length
Ssb = Sub -basin slope
Lb = Average flow path length = sum(Ai Li)/sum(Ai)
Sb = Average slope = sum(Ai Si)/Sum (Ai)
' PS is taken from Table 8-a (Table 5.1, Erosion Control Reference Manual) by interpolation.
An Erosion Control Plan will be developed to contain PS% of the rainfall sedimentation
that would normally flow off a bare ground site during a 10-year, or less, precipitation event.
1
I
J
I
1
1
L
1
1
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT:
The Human Bean - North College Avenue
STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY:
DRH
DATE: 12-Jan-05
EROSION CONTROL
C-FACTOR
P-FACTOR
METHOD
VALUE
VALUE
COMMENT
BARE SOIL
1.00
1.00
SMOOTH CONDITION
ROUGHENED GROUND
1.00
0.90
ROADS/WALKS
0.01
1.00
GRAVEL FILTERS
1.00
0.80
PLACED AT INLETS
SILT FENCE
1.00
0.50
SEDIMENT TRAP
1.00
0.50
STRAW MULCH (S = 1-5%)
0.06
1.00
FROM TABLE 8B
STRAW BARRIERS
1.00
0.80
EFF = (I -C*P)* 100
MAJOR
SUB
BASIN AREA
EROSION
CONTROL METHODS
BASIN
BASIN
(Ac)
1
0.15
ROADS/WALKS
0.11 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR-
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.03 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER
NET C-FACTOR
0.05
NET P-FACTOR
0.80
EFF = (1-C*P)*100 =
95.8%
2
0.17
ROADS/WALKS
0.14 Ac.
ROUGHENED OR.
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.03 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER
NET C-FACTOR
0.05
NET P-FACTOR
0.80
EFF = (1-C*P)*100 =
96.3%
3
0.06
ROADS/WALKS
0.00 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.06 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER
NET C-FACTOR
0.06
NET P-FACTOR
0.80
EFF = (I-C*P)* 100 =
95.2%
4
0.03
ROADS/WALKS
0.00 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.03 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER
NET C-FACTOR
0.06
NET P-FACTOR
0.80
EFF = (I-C*P)* 100 =
95.2%
[1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
i
PROJECT:
The Human Bean - North College Avenue
STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY:
DRH
DATE: 12-Jan-05
EROSION CONTROL
C-FACTOR
P-FACTOR
METHOD
VALUE
VALUE
COMMENT
BARE SOIL
1.00
1.00
SMOOTH CONDITION
ROUGHENED GROUND
1.00
0.90
ROADS/WALKS
0.01
1.00
GRAVEL FILTERS
1.00
0.80
PLACED AT INLETS
SILT FENCE
1.00
0.50
SEDIMENT TRAP
1.00
0.50
STRAW MULCH (S = 1-5%)
0.06
1.00
FROM TABLE 8B
STRAW BARRIERS
1.00
0.80
EFF = (1-C*P)* 100
MAJOR
SUB
BASIN AREA
EROSION
CONTROL METHODS
BASIN
BASIN
(Ac)
5
0.01
ROADS/WALKS
0.00 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.01 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER
NET C-FACTOR
0.06
NET P-FACTOR
0.80
EFF = (1-C*P)* 100 =
95.2%
6
0.01
ROADS/WALKS
0.00 Ac.
ROUGHENED OR.
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.01 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER, SILT
FENCE
NET C-FACTOR
0.06
NET P-FACTOR
0.40
EFF = (1-C*P)*100 =
97.6%
0S1
0.03
ROADS/WALKS
0.00 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.00 Ac.
STRAW/MULCH
0.03 Ac.
SILT FENCE
NET C-FACTOR
0.06
NET P-FACTOR
0.50
EFF = (I -C*P)* 100 =
97.0%
' TOTAL AREA = 0.45 ac
TOTAL EFF = 95.9% (E (basin area * eft / total area
REQUIRED PS = 80.1%
Since 95.9% > 79.8%, the proposed plan is o.k.
1
1
1
1
PAGE 23
i o i v mC,-cc '
I
i O i tI') 1 CO '
1 q C CO qCO qCO '
1
1 O i c c c c IIS to U!* 1r7 Ir: 1r1 '
1 C 1 qC CJCCCggCC) CD '
1 1 1
1 C 1 q(�1 G10�0'. C'+C`C31 Cn Cn 01 G1COC 1
' I C I cccCCCcCc 1'c cLI)tr7 Lfl
1 M I qq q co CC
1 1 I
1 O 1 t�qC . .Q. . . ...
C. D. Cn 01 O'•OOI G, CT O 1
1 N I C.. g C q C cc C q q w q q q q q q q w CC = '
' 1
I C 1 C M C Lo %0 %C t0 .0 n n rr-. n r,co co CO co coq co co co co co r, tt\ r\ r` C
1 1
1 O 1 C c c c C C C C C c c C c C c C c c C c C c C c C C 1
.%% qqq 1
1 I
1 O I qNM . .u'. t.')�0101... kD t0n nf�n nf,l�nnnggq
co q cC CCC c Cc C' cc c cc CCCCc c
g ccC 1
C I � cc q Go cc co co co
q = (".. g q q q q q q q q q 0 q q co
O 1 O 1 to ON Cl) cc U7 In LO Ir t0 L1 �0 �0 qO w tD %D t0 t0 n I"r � n r` n I
J 1 1
0 1 ccI c•"I 4z,
c c c c c c cc c c c C• C-c C c c c c c c c cc l
U I I co co co co CC cc g q q q q C c.^ q q q cC w q C:J CO G,• q q 07 w
1 I
•1 CD 1 cD1 a-yN M M ccCC11) trf � Ir Ir) IrC IP Ir: lO kC %C)t0 t0 tD f\
N I 1
M M c C c C c c c c c c c c c c c c C c C c C c C c 1
r-.. 1 1 qqqq q CC C CC C g C q q wccw m
q G` C g q q q q '
' J I'
J 1 O I C %0 q 0^• -- � N N M M M M C C C C c C C c 1 r• 1 r. . 1. f I 0 C;
C 1 1
U 1 tD I CO M M C C C C C c C C C C c C C C C C c c C c C C C t
1 I CO C CO CO C CO q4? C CO q G^. Cf.,^ q OC CO CO q q q CO q q CO C i
1 1
C I �C 1 �[.Nl,f'. I,q CTO . ..--1 •-'� CV . . . . . .MMMCCCCC '
O 1 38 1 .
tL 1 v1.17 I N= co cc co co cC C'c C cc CcC' C C'ccCco c CCC 1
1 1 g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q W q C q q q q q;
c I w 1
O I CL to 1 •-+qM Clri 1�gCCggCq010l G1CCC00' 1
I J C I N N M M M C�] M M M M M M M M C; C; M F 7 C• 7 C 4 M C C C c C 1
' (N I N I C COCO = CO CC Co q CC = CO = CO COco coC C: co qqqq coC co
C 1 1
C 1 O 1 aO lt'fq Or+NMCcIr)Ir)U'110 tO 10 tO l0 l�ggq0`. Cn ;
C I 1
C I c 1 r+NNMMM MM Ih m M C•) co M M M M CM M MMMMMMM 1
Z 1 I CO C CC q q q CO M CC CO CO t'^.. CO q CO CO CO CO q Co q q q CO CO CO ;
Q I 1
1 Ull 1 .-�.--I Ln � co CC.-+NNMM M CC' CC Cl.f) t!7 �C1 t010 �01�1-
Vi 1 1
1 M 1 C N NNNMMM MM M M M M M cc M coMMMMMMM N) 1
W I 1 g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q co q q q q
U I 1
Z 1 O 1 MNtOq CSC r+NNMMMCCCCCCI2'. Ir. 1(•. .tC �0101..1
1
Z 1 M I G N co co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
C
g q C Co.q. g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q i
CD iv^IrnNMctL'l%0 fr• rr CO qq Cn CnM MM Cn 1=00000 1
C 1 ,
w 1 N 1 CnC O.-+r-• r+.-• �.-"."'r' "', ^'1 "", ."" r+••".+"'.1 '••' N NNNNN t
q co q q q q q co
1 1
1 O I CLf O MUl% 0 g q C n O C O.--1 �+.--1 r• N N N N M M M M M . I
1 1 .
1 N 1 q 0%0000 C O O.-+r+.--, .--, .--, .r .-'.''r'
1 1 n r%l q CO g co q q q q q q q q co q q q q q q q w q q w i
1 1
1 1
g Cp 0; O a; C.\ . C n r. C n C n O O O O O O O O O O C C CD O I
1 1 n n n n n n tn n n g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q;
1 I
1 O 1 % 0 M O C 1� C n O N M M c c ,P L 11.n � % 0 % J k 0 % 0 n n O D 0'
1 I
C%D 1%,1%-1`I,- M ggqqq M M w M w M g q co q 1
1 1 r-_n r_1\rl r.- I\ r� f\ r` n n 1\ I\ r-_ n I,, n n r I
1 1
t ll'f 1 CnOC�Dl�ggl,nrtDtO %Dq . . . . . .T�Dcr. . . I
1 1
I O I O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r+ �• � O O I
' 1 1 nn nn nf` fin f\nf\rl f�nnn tit\ f`n nn nnnf\ ;
1 I
13 h2 11 O C 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
I O [.7 H I O C O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O C O C O I
I JZI.I_ I NN MC I.'i l0 t\ q O1O raN MC Ir: ID t`q Cn O,j:O m CIflO I
' 1L W v I r� .-� �^ .--� '••1 N •-1 r--, r/ N N M M c c lf'1 1
I
1 J I
TABLE 5.1
I
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
' Project: The Human Bean - North College Avenue Date: March 9, 2005
Indicate with bar line when constructions will occurr and when BMP's will be installed/removed in relation to the construction phase
�J
1
1
I
CONSTRUCTION PHASE(2005)
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
Grading (Include Offsite)
Overlot
7,> �.
uta ;r
Detention/WQ Ponds
Swales, Drainageways, Streams
Ditches
Pipeline Installation (Include Offsite)
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Stormwater
Concrete Installation (Include Offsite)
Area Inlets
-
Curb Inlets
Pond Outlet Structures
. s2•w;
Curb and Gutter
Box Culverts, Bridges
Street Installation (Include Offsite)
Gradiing/Base
+
-
Pavememt
Miscellaneous (Include Offsite)
Drop Structures
Other (List)
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Structural
Silt Fence Barriers.�5'ra
Contour Furrows (Ripping/Disking)
Sediment Trap/Filter
}:
Vehicle Tracking Pads
Flow Barriers (Bales, Wattles, Etc)
Inlet Filter
3?�.
4?'
•-.
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparationy.,"k+
Terracing
Stream Flow Diversion
Rip Rap
Other (List)
Vegetative
Temporary Seed Planting
-
Mulching/Sealant
`
Permanent Seed Planting
•-,+r�`".
Sod Installation
Netti ngs/Blankets/Mats
Other (List)
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
The Human Bean - North College Avenue
Erosion.Control Cost Estimate
JOB NO. 1016-016-00 COMPLETED BY:
cnnVTnMrnArrnnT T.fRACTroRc
,r
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
UNIT COST
I QUANTITY
TOTAL COST
1
TEMPORARY SEED & MULCH
ACRE
$ 775.00
0.30
$ 232.50
2
SILT FENCE
LF
$ 3.00
420
$ 1,260.00
3
GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
EACH
$ 500.00
1
$ 500.00
4
INLET PROTECTION
EACH
$ 250.00
2
$ 500.00
5
STRAW BALES
LF
$ 3.25
3
$ 9.75
6
SEDIMENT TRAP
EACH
1 $ 500.00
0
$
COST $ 2,502.25
�rra� nrc�CL'TITAi!_ nnC'T CnD TnTAT QTTR ADRA
v ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
I UNIT COST
I QUANTITY
I TOTAL COST
1
RESEED/MULCH
ACRE
$ 775.00
1 0.1
1 $ 77.50
COST $ 77.50
SECURITY DEPOSIT $ 2,502.25
REQUIRED EROSION CONTROL SECURITY DEPOSIT WITH FACTOR OF 150% $ 3,753.38
M MAN IN
DRUG
X AS
)I uBOOM
s. —ul x—x—x—x—x—x\ �—x—x—xlu-
5 _ —
II I 49 � 966
I
I
I I I \ W1FALL'CMBB
4966 II
II\ I (STIR)4I _ 6591 6500
II /
\ PRCPOg° LODPONAMxDs)
SvoRsYO
65.72 LPLMITECNPAL CONMT50 L
BUILDING
.150.J9
4986.60T C
ao
2 ,H... curRR (m) w J� \. 656
1 I I aSw O.D .82 fi 2 WR6 WTI ENHANCED GOSSw LN 655J l
M1I I /METE CUT
I FLUSH l I fi5 U
II ,
� END CURB k
I � BwO Durtm--
1 f e6.TOT uTE TI"
wao ro J
w
E'B"6 Di NA 498
6] it PROPOSED 5.05 a PAN eSTa eow ' I 1 /
5
l
` 1 4964 - PBmoA w.w ti> II . $0D0 —4963 A APPRL
x x PRZPOSED 0.YIRON (SEE NOT
J ell\ I e62o PD e6.00 ED t vmARAT aR 4962 100-YR WSE
` \ \ (s" ET NOTE 8 BE`CW) .05 D.ID 4962;
x
—ee-w ✓ well _ I — — — _4966 e6.w Ec milli
E 4964
\ \ 49 ` 4 -- 4966 ew�° 4985-
r .030.t0 4Fell
96 \ 4 6
x i I \
fFMA
CRO55-SECTION
1
r
r e \
1
Q \
U\
AY
LEGEND
111111111111111
PROPOSED ASPHALT
111�111F11K11�111K1�1
PROPOSED PUBLIC RItiHT<IF.WAY ASPHALT
l}�yNyyyl
PoRTION OF SIOEWAI A LO BE COMPLETELY DEPRESCI
SILT FENCE
P v
INLET RiOTECTI
LSEE DETAIL ON SHEET X
CONTECH PrEA
PAFFRovE) EQUAL
DEC
PROPOSED
SALES
WATER QUALITY
OUTLET SUMMARY
POND
ME PLATE III OF ROSS .
5
YA READ NI OF COLUMNS A
1
SO REQUIRED VOLUME
GOT AC -FT
AD PROMDED VOLUME
0.01 AC -FT
\
PROPOSED UTUET WATERTHWIu
x
\
FORD ell
12N(
(SEE DETAIL
CMSMU�Iw*
PEDIRIC!
T w13a+ fin- 'en
Al PNneIRx
0.oApiX 2005
PROPOSED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DETENTION AREA STORAGE VOLUME
CODE B
xCA LI
AW. MEA WI,)
DICTI X.
N'LUME cu. tt.
WM. KIWE w. N.
961.3
0
66
0.7
6
46
4962k1187
1.0
}82
428
4963
1.0
9ID
1]38
4964
1,0985
0
0.5
1415
4 R
49fi5.5
TOTAL CUMULATIVE VOLUME PROVIDED Ad 4,273 cu. ft.
did0.10 Acre ff.
TOTAL DETENTION VOLUME REQUIRED - 3,599 cu. ft.
0.08 Acre ft.
TOTAL WATER QUALITY VOLUME REQUIRED � 439 cu' R.
1 0.01 Acre tt.
TOTAL CUMULATIVE VOLUME REQUIRED - 4.038 cu."
0.09 Acre ft.
�C—
l
unv
A
� 1x961—
---------------
I
T
I
.,
--'I all
woo
Sell
All
1PORARY AREA MEET
(DISEE DETAIL ON THEFT 12)
I�
yl
/ Ili
II
I
I
I 10 3 O 10 20
SCALE I"- 10'
11 /
/ 1 1
Q
LU ,I
V .I
e �
III CONTRACTOR SxILL NOT UVAL
I � AMENDSNDS NARER NCPN HOURS PER
THE OFF OF FORT KUINS.
I
[ I
j I W
I I
illiliv J
ix III
NOTES:
1. ALLCURB B GU ER SHALL BE VERTICAL CURB AND BITTER UNLESS
OTHERWISENOTED.
2. PROPOSED SITE LIES WITHIN ZONE AE OF THE POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN
PER FEMA FIRM COMMUNITY PANEL 0501020004 C. REWSED MARCH 15, 19M
BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS ARE DETERMINED FOR ZONE AS AND IS ESTIMATED
ETO BE
LEVATION SXIMATELY 4965.50. THE REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION
4967,50,
3. ALL FLOATABLE MATERIALS (TABLES. CHAIRS, TRASH CANS,TRASH
OUMPSTERS, BIKE RACKS, ETC) MUST BEANCHOREDOR BOLTED DOWN.
4. BUILDING WILL BE FLOODPROOFED ACCORDING TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS
"FLOODPROOFING GUIDELINES"TO ZFEEr ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION. ALL ELECTRIC, HVAO IN MECHANICALEQUIPMENTAND WINDOW
OPENINGS WILL BE ELEVATEDYFLOODPROOFED TO 2FEET ABOVE THE BASE
FLOODELEVATION,
5. A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURE AND FOR
$TEE WORK
6. A FEMA FLOOOPLAIN CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED FOR CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY (CODE.
T. GRAOIN$ TO SHOW ORYLAND ACCESS MUST BE CERTIFIED AS PAW OF
GIN OINGCERTIFICATIONOFAS9UILTS.
S. CONTECH"PYRAMAT"TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFAC RER'S
SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CONTECH SO THAT ONE OF
THEIR REPRESEMATIVES IS ON SITE TO ENSURE PROPER INSTALLATION.
IN TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS OFF OF ALPINE S EE AS
SHOWN ON SHEET 4,
t0. SEE SHEET 2OF t2 FOR STANDARD EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES.
11.ALLSPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED.
N
WN^
F>0N
m
wL.
W
�>UNm
Ft
00OCq
0
U
Ell
a
JV
Z DiZ
WZON
O
e
ym0Wm
J Onl
W J..
a
YW
U.
�Er_
7
aOd
U.
J
m
IL
N
(0
W
Z
mW
W
DO
CQ
i
a
=
Bell
O
WV
2=
Z
O
Y
O
-
Z
0
O
m
a
DO
w
3
!
U
ISN
uC
U<
N
M
O
U
CITY
OF FORT COLONS. COLORADO
UTILITY
PLAN APPROVAL
APPROVED:
CITY ENGINEER
DATE
CHECKED
BY:
WATER Y WASTEWAT_R GUILTY
DATE
CHECKED
BY:
sTORMwATw Dnun
DATE
CHECKED
BY:
PMRS 8 PECREATp1
DATE
PROJ.NO.101601"0
CHECKED
BY:
TRAFUC RIGNEER
O"
6 OF
12
CHECKED
BY:
DATE
CLASS A BEDDING CLASS a BEDDING snr xrR�mA� r„
_m .m.,r rMryy
, a_
AA
ny
AN
Ad
mb'_rn ..� „x / a,��J .wnA, _ SECTOR A -A
1 Aid
sr. .um ,arm
CLASS C BEDDING RACI EXCAVATION Y✓f
� m_d," a enemy R unuw r mw a I"a I
amod"y ; `illy a„ �ww u I I
G . p'
AN
e ..° az ... ..« .iv A
r_assas-� �II , ru� II, IJ,i11J
UNSTABLE WBCRAIDEE SUBDRAIN DETAIL �i PLAN NEW
mi
r a^ _d"Eviddy, Ad.
er _
AFrAd °„mw + papay T SECTOR NEW • CROSS-SECTION VIEW
r PROFILE MEW
day
„sr GENERAL NOTES,
.omo _dam mm,u xoas:
be
_ _
STORMWATER BEDDING REQUIREMENTS m..a� SET FENCE o+o STRAW BALE DIKE GENERAL INSTALLATION w STRAW BALE DIKE CHANNEL APPLICATION
a IF 1p4ixs STIAMWAIER � 'LL 0.5rPNrt S1aIWWA1EN astral CrvV rode,p S $ICgYW11FR ����4R��N LEte. STMAAWATER at
�''A
VaLlTS wNsm mm OETuts p°^".. /�V_ D_1 VISRC mxsTRucmr DETAILS °'2 �rn"4° _2 uv'„ eOlsTlurnax OETNLs np'� dew "-2 �mymI cONsmucnaN DETAILS p4e -27
A� WgAd Al + 6 Inches (minimum)
AN
Structural Steel Chenna W .. S.i Draw
Formed Into Concrete. To .n ..erg ,enµ„
Span All 01 Structure. rae A� �r m,wde_p ae_e R.a�
y I"
NANNAHAN, di
6 Rows 1 ..,
° In� ��� , �� a
B (>wl ^'x Nee' s.r wo..o
Hale Da _ 1/4fly Mn
Yln mum Steel Plale O ..% sl pWwwx�ia�i� u.x
mmknw - 1/oy, Meady, III
p I `� - --Ad. P= Section B—B Plan View
s — - _ - dappi
a Te' HDPE Lints for this Standardized Design:
i
Pond event - A„I d0 aL J f A9sL]a A I All Donal plateopenings are circular
Trave s„y, Trash Rack DelalI Pi An 2. Diameter of Open IS = 1 3/8 Inches.
1' Fly
md, ucru�ni es'=i °ur Tern a"imi. a Me e, man,f by ey..mmr o-r �ixn l Neon vaM M N.S. Filter, St.Poul, M'nnevola, USA
Fly v DAN bids mn .°rn ii be .w.x...rit er r uer r"mxxe .0 nwaw*. v h err �e
A m
Section A —A
ry Award W. A NMI
— Y rem N x,+,a,xr Nad ed 1..
Orep
add
Flow Control Plate Detail A°„:eM bed,-�,,e .e nwe,w..0 P..m° et e' e"^
npac as d WA a eai , III,mm . Navy A
Emergency fiPnlwor Tr n III re may .^t Ad mi id. A MxIN NANinvai V A d a d ram deal u of 11s eWiraal 1
Rwno , and Lockable
opole EI . - W65.5 1
ed
10'.LVR Woty Surlo„ Div. A96S�' a rY4r�3
_
,my fWxowr Mu a.1 N' 0.0i0"
r V water Surface - W6J.0 = sinlNad Gade e s x�1 °Ai^r' �An
Ad
"°' ;; "°` 'am aeh".a'r^r Section C—C
crs D.ma1 IDD-m GIRae
I �D Plab Db. ]-"- • R Value - (net open area)/
Tram Ra s_ Daa9j M Orifice Detail (gro,s rock area) - 0.60
(S_ DOW IV NOPc III
hp Oullel Plpe Invvt-A9fil.]0 ?-1Ar —,We
QCTON O-D O WINGW�
OroD Box Detention Pond Outlet Structure ^
ro was. rm 01~('ww)
Pan View - Flared Wnawall
sN's
NAME TO
,a .rz� xvp eaP
x eery „T ra� are r.r_ w es"^aF
t�
1111111111111
���1111111111111
1111111111111
1111111111111
"Imessadmiel
Hpaall IPLEW1111F. i�.'WEYE
Er
Pi ��D �MT All All DEGROMIDED IN An Net
9. mosa CONTROL __Mnw.x¢ 15 �a w MTY m ne comblural CONSTRUCTION ENTRAi
I
mma
PLAN
y
zero-
.
•'117K
1
SECTION
A A•
�Y411.
.
Ndii
GENERAL NDTESA
..amen L'M"o
Wor„ ri
yA'viiii 'N ePFM
LIL'6Yeas's
rn'enr a,WE a„ '� O.om ever
8mW1Y
um.anppc
dew lw wwu wu . rxn
Apar
a %n'mi¢`y��i Mx'°o rxm,�-i?ern w.oAror.umv
3 Atdew A aw won A xauxsr Y (m y
Yamm a_eean�Tscm� _Wima u z,W� Amvwo _ „an. ¢�errmmi„mux AN
Arnmw¢ rmm�n on rrxo�a mea ionvn a xn wrtcm1 n spun wnsx row rs
SIDEWALK CHASE INLET PROTECTION
SICFMWAIER
umm I WISTRUCnOx DETAILS
IrwuWluTx
EGA
�" .°... mr�vvm,. Imo' L 1
I5IDRAINBA9A
•eeRra..
W7m � i
III IM"I"
I AN '
I ;I
N�-
W N _
F >OOD,
rc W KDom0) Oil
o > Ooi(n
0 =UVI
¢W V WZON
a J0)O
W NJ.. W
e ItOW..
IN
7 U
J to
5
m U.
to
W
D
W
EnZ J_
a
W
and
o
A
z0
�dW
o
0
J
a
W
O
U
N
I'de
O
Z
z
i
del
divided
IF
o
a
CITY
OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
UTILITY
PLAN APPROVAL
APPROVED:
CiTY mOX
DATE
CHECKED
BY:
WATER k WASTE„TOR UIMITY
DATE
CHECKED
BY:
STmM„TER UTUTY
DATE
CHECKED
BY:
--adi
pxxpS aRECREATW
PROJ.NO.IOIBOle
CHECKED
BY:
mAmc Exax¢R
DATE
12OF 12
CHECKED
BY:
rnrt