HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 01/10/1994PROPERTY OF
FORT COLLINS UTHATZ3
':ina! Appi-o e-r Fil"r
1/1 a/54
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR.
RAINTREE 'OWN. II0 S
1
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR.
RAINTREE TOWNIIOMES
PREPARED FOR:
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
235 Mathews
Fort Collins, CO 80524
PREPARED BY:
Lidstone & Anderson, Inc.
736 Whalers Way, F-200
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(LA Project No. CO-TST47.1)
IN CONJUNCTION WITH:
TST, Inc.
748 Whalers Way, Building D
Fort Collins, CO 80525
January 4, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1
1.1 Background..........I ............................. 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Study 1
r
II. HISTORICAL DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ........................
4
III. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR RAINTREE TOWNHOMES ............
3.1 General ..........................................
6
6
3.2 Proposed Drainage Plan ................................
3.3 Hydrologic Modeling of Proposed Drainage Conditions .............
6
8
3.4 Design of Drainage Improvements .........................
13
3.4.1
Gen ....................................
13
3.4.2
Allowable Street Capacities ........................
13
i3.4.4
3.4.3
Inlet Design .................................
Storm Sewer Design ............................
14
14
3.4.5
Swale Design .................................
15
"-
3.4.6
3.4.7
Detention Pond Reconfiguration .....................
Statement of Maintenance Responsibility
15
17
................
IV. EROSION CONTROL PLAN ...............................
18
FIGURES/TABLES/APPENDICES/SHEETS
FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Vicinity Map for Raintree Townhomes. ...................... 2
Figure 2.1. Historical Drainage Basin . .............................. 5
�r Figure 3.1. Schematic Diagram of the Proposed Condition SWMM Model. ....... 11
TABLES
Table 3.1.
Summary of Subcatchment Parameters . ..............
9
Table 3.2.
Summary of Conveyance Element Parameters. .........
9
Table 3.3.
Summary of 2- and 100-Year Peak Runoff
GTable
3.4.
Values for Developed Conditions ..........................
Summary of Design Discharges at all Inlets and
12
Other Pertinent Locations . .............................
12
Table 4.1.
Table 4.2.
Rainfall Performance Standard Evaluation . ...................
Effectiveness Calculations.
19
20
I
I
19
Table 4.3.
Table 4.4.
TALBE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Construction Sequence ................................ 22
Erosion Control Cost Estimate . .......................... 23
APPENDICES
Appendix A: LA 1993 Letter Report: "Hydraulic Evaluation of the Storm Sewer Outfall
for the Raintree P.U.D. Detention Facilities"
Appendix B:
Existing Condition Stage -Storage Characteristics for Pond A
Appendix C:
Developed Condition Hydrologic Modeling
Appendix D:
Street Capacity Calculations
Appendix E:
Inlet Hydraulic Design Calculations
Appendix F:
Pipe Hydraulic Design Calculations
Appendix G:
Swale Design Calculations
Appendix H:
Erosion Control Plan Calculations
SHEETS
Sheet 1: Overall Drainage Plan
Sheet 2: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
t
i
i
I
I ii
I
1 I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Raintree Townhomes P.U.D. is a proposed residential development located in the
SE quarter of Section 22, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, in the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado. The development is bounded on the north and west by the New Mercer Canal, on
the east by Shields Street, and on the south by the proposed Fort Collins Senior Center and a
small undeveloped tract of land. This area is part of the Spring Creek drainage basin. Figure
1.1 is a vicinity map for the project site.
The proposed development would consist of six duplexes. The proposed plan intends to
utilize the existing Detention Pond A which was designed in conjunction with the Raintree
P.U.D. and Senior Center, increasing the volume of the pond as necessary to offset increased
flows due to the Raintree Townhomes development.
The Raintree Townhomes property was not included as part of the original Raintree
P.U.D., as dictated by historical drainage boundaries. However, development of the area has
changed drainage patterns such that the drainage areas are interrelated. Drainage for the
Raintree P.U.D. and related development has been previously addressed in: "Storm Water
Drainage Report for the Raintree P.U.D." [TST, 1980], "Addendum to Stormwater Drainage
Report for the Raintree P.U.D." [Parsons & Associates, 1985], the utility plans for Raintree
P.U.D. [TST, 19851, and "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Fort Collins Senior
Center" [TST, 1993].
The proposed drainage facilities for the Fort Collins Senior Center (approved with
construction pending) would convey Senior Center runoff, as well as runoff from the commercial
development to the south (part of the Raintree P.U.D.), to Pond A. The allowable release rate
�l from Pond A was defined as 4.4 cfs in the 1980 report. However, a recent analysis performed
for the Fort Collins Stormwater Utility ("Hydraulic Evaluation of the Storm Sewer Outfall for
the Raintree P.U.D. Detention Facilities" [LA, 1993]) indicates that the allowable release rate
is actually 6.1 cfs based on the capacity of the downstream storm sewer system. The letter
report describing the hydraulic evaluation of the Raintree outfall pipe is included in this report
as Appendix A.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Study
This study defines the proposed drainage plan for Raintree Townhomes in the context of
current and approved developed conditions adjacent to the site, and includes an evaluation of
V rj
P r7
*LR
z
It ADO ST
..a
T�
Lai
re
:1 [Ell
;F,
OSP 41
ti 50561
5
:r1111
b
40
.0 —.. �� ��\• Jjl II• �o —11 � ' j�/j���•J`�• I �
BN
!it M
os
4n
k
502,?
7
k' CA
tzm J..
ask
co
it
OR
5090 —K AD J DOC :L 504
711
C
TOW�Nj M �E
E C T SIT _!F
Rocky Mount'j, I im
High Sch
lI ilk
2.11� y
'I Parke.
27
of
e
C A 2 G
--�5 12 71 EST I HORSE TH - — ROAD ,50f'4,f
505
Figure 1.1. Vicinity Map for Raintree Townhomes.
2
I
stormwater detention requirements in accordance with the previously mentioned studies. The
analysis accounts for drainage from and tributary to the Townhomes site, as well as all areas
tributary to Pond A.
It is noted that all drainage facilities proposed herein are designed in accordance with,
and meet the specifications and requirements set forth in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage
Design Criteria and Construction Standards (SDDC) Manual.
The EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) was used to determine hydrographs
at various points within the system. This information was then used to prepare a stormwater
management plan that addresses overall storm drainage issues and provides detailed solutions to
specific drainage conditions within the site. The SWMM analysis was conducted to provide the
information necessary to design specific drainage measures including curb inlets and storm sewer
pipes, and allow re -sizing of Detention Pond A.
i
i
I
I
H. HISTORICAL DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
IHistorically, the Raintree Townhomes area was tributary to Spring Creek, but the existing
drainage patterns are such that the New Mercer Canal intercepts all runoff from the Townhomes
drainage area except a small portion which flows east to Shields Street. The drainage to Shields
Street is conveyed north to Spring Creek. The proposed development limits and the historical
drainage boundary are depicted in Figure 2.1.
The existing Townhomes tributary drainage area consists of the Raintree Townhomes site
and an off -site area to the south. The tributary area is presently undeveloped, with the exception
of the southeast corner of the off -site area, which is a single private residence. The project site
slopes from south to north varying from 1.3 to 12 percent; off -site slopes range from 1 to 2.5
percent.
It is proposed that runoff from the Townhomes site and tributary off -site area be routed
through existing Pond A which has a pre -defined, allowable peak release rate of 6.1 cfs [LA,
1993]. Since the downstream release rate is dictated by the capacity of the receiving storm
sewer outfall, as opposed to the 2-year historical peak runoff, the historical hydrology was not
analyzed as part of this study.
Pond A is part of the storm sewer system designed for the Raintree P.U.D. The system
jincludes storm sewer pipes draining the commercial area at the northwest corner of Drake Road
and Shields Street, south of Raintree Drive. A single pipe conveys runoff to the north from 9.7
acres of the Raintree area. The proposed Senior Center storm sewer system will connect to this
pipe, with the combined runoff conveyed to an existing siphon passing under the New Mercer
Canal into Pond A. The outlet from Pond A connects to the outlet from Pond B (also part of
the Raintree P.U.D.) in a manhole located south of Larimer County Canal No. 2. The system
downstream of this junction consists of a siphon under Larimer County Canal No. 2 and a pipe
to Spring Creek. Sheet 1 presents the existing storm sewers system for Raintree P.U.D. and
the proposed system for the Senior Center.
The existing storage capacity of Pond A was determined from design topography shown
in the Raintree P.U.D. utility plans. Although an elevation of 5043.0 feet is nearly continuous
around the pond, an existing low point of 5041.5 feet between Ponds A and B limits the
maximum allowable ponding elevation to 5040.5 feet; this corresponds to 0.3 ac-ft of storage.
Minor grading between the ponds could raise the low point to 5043.0 feet thereby allowing a
ponded water surface elevation of 5042.0 feet with one foot of freeboard; this would increase
the available storage volume to 1.0 ac-ft. Backup information concerning storage characteristics
r of the existing pond are provided in Appendix B.
O `
S r �wd r
k r
TGot
x
71
t I+
Iff—
i
t
• � 4
F T N�
1, _ lv
pJ{
� x ,1 � ,�M iL}- ?, `l� � `� •n.r '� any t'-tttt�,., �'.-��)l�r, ;jx
�.) `fit �� •���k'''..:1°7\`� f'•
i i r; •:.� .a � � \�i) r 1`a1 4^•�R `.ae'4 r, y1�y d � .+fy t�. �x i,3'... .. •:
I• I e' ',L•� A� � .�1. \ ., vLm
>. a j'• ,•; .�y„f�ri
jw
`-a rig:. 1 � s'�s� �.:t ;••' r'`'1� �`- , , ,�;�T�:
W, � ` • G• a, �R.�j �s J4�1,. 'FI �F 1 . y,, J...
Air ' .Y VV," f (((((E, i' �y r,L,flyy�i�i -- _—r--;.5.•�-
-9'4 M's� - • i i y'�;. f` i �pPi' : >/r99 �� '. ,{+r c A y �'4f A
o
vlR.:q �Y �. a>! �--1175 4 i.N$•. ,� a-snb. 5.'14..
.OWN,`Sir
.r
rI }��-
,!,
M. FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR RAINTREE TOWNHOMES
3.1 General
The drainage boundaries for the proposed Raintree Townhomes P.U.D., as well as all
off -site drainage areas tributary to Pond A, are shown on Sheet 1. Development of the
Townhomes and Senior Center site would alter historical drainage patterns throughout the area.
As part of the approved Senior Center drainage plan, flows from the Senior Center which
previously drained across this site will be collected and conveyed to Pond A. Also, a portion
`t of the drainage from the Raintree Commercial P.U.D. will now pass through the storm sewer
pipe system proposed for the Senior Center development.
Sheet 2 shows the final grading and site plan for Raintree Townhomes. Sheet 2 also
shows the proposed grading and drainage for the Senior Center as well as the general drainage
features of the undeveloped and residential property on the northwest corner of Shields Street
and Raintree Drive.
All on- and off -site runoff which travels to Evenstar Court will be collected by curb inlets
near Shields Street. A high point in the street at the entrance to Evenstar Court will preclude
off -site flows traveling south along Shields Street, from entering the development. This is
consistent with existing conditions along Shields Street, as the curb and gutter is continuous
(there is no existing curb cut) at the proposed location of Evenstar Court. The north and west
perimeter area of the Townhomes site drains overland to the north and will be collected by a
perimeter Swale. A pipe will connect the inlets on Evenstar Court and convey flows underneath
the swale. All flows are to be conveyed to the low point on the north perimeter and siphoned
under the New Mercer Canal to an expanded Pond A.
3.2 Proposed Drainage Plan
A qualitative summary of the flow conditions within each basin and at each design point
is provided in the following paragraphs. Discussion of the design of drainage facilities, which
are introduced in this section, is included in Section 3.4.
Runoff from Subbasin 1 consists of overland flow across the open and mostly
undeveloped portion of the adjacent property to the south. Flow from the 100-
year event would be collected on the south side of Evenstar Court and conveyed
to Inlet lA (a 6-foot sump inlet).
1
Runoff from Subbasin 2 would be collected along Evenstar Court and conveyed
to Inlets IA and 1B at the east end of Evenstar Court The 100-year flows which
would be collected on the northern portion of the street would drain to Inlet 1B
(an 8-foot sump inlet), and would not commingle with the flows from the
southern portion of the street which would drain to Inlet IA. The 100-year flow
to Inlet IA would join the flow from Subbasin 1 and be conveyed by a 15-inch
RCP to Inlet 1B, and then continue via a 21-inch ADS pipe to Manhole #2.
Runoff from Subbasin 3, consisting of overland flow from the northern and
western portions of the development would be conveyed to a perimeter swale
along the northern boundary of the development. Flow from the 100-year event
would then be conveyed via the swale to the low point at Inlet 1C (a standard
area inlet associated with Manhole #2). At this point, swale flows would join .
runoff from Subbasin 1 and 2 and be conveyed to Pond A by way of the
proposed 24-inch RCP siphon under New Mercer Ditch.
Runoff from Subbasin 5 will be collected at a single inlet in the eastern portion
of the Senior Center, and then conveyed via a 15-inch RCP to the manhole
associated with SWMM Node 305. In addition, a majority of the flow from
Subbasin 4 will be conveyed to this manhole; runoff from the remaining portion
of Subbasin 4 collects at the manhole associated with SWMM Node 306. It is
�. noted that for the SWMM analysis, all runoff from Subbasin 4 is collected at
SWMM Node 305. The 100-year flow to the manhole from Subbasin 4, 5 and
6 will then be conveyed to the existing siphon via a 24-inch RCP where all flow
from these three subbasins will be conveyed to Pond A.
Runoff from Subbasin 6 consists of overland flow from the existing Raintree
Commercial P.U.D which collects at several inlets placed in the parking area and
along Raintree Drive. The drainage plan for this development showed four areas
of on -site detention within the parking areas of the development. Flow from the
100-year event is conveyed via a 15-inch RCP to an inlet associated with SWMM
Node 305 (see Sheet 1) where it joins flow from the Senior Center.
The area within Subbasin 7 is tributary to Shields Street; once in Shields Street,
runoff from this Subbasin is conveyed north to Spring Creek. It is noted that this
�- is both an existing and proposed drainage pattern. Even though the flow is not
7
I
tributary to Raintree Townhomes or to Pond A, the 100-year peak discharge was
calculated in order to confirm that flows on Shields Street would not enter
Evenstar Court.
The entire area within Subbasin 8 is proposed for a future expansion of the
Senior Center. The drainage report for the Senior Center calls for on -site
detention for the future expansion with a maximum release rate of 4.09 cfs for
the 100-year event. For this subbasin, a conceptual detention pond was modeled
for the current study to limit outflows to this maximum release rate. It was
assumed that outflows would be routed to Pond A through the existing siphon.
Subbasin 9 has been included to account for direct rainfall on the expanded Pond
A. Accordingly, minimal surface retention storage depths were specified in the
SWMM model for this subbasin.
Subbasin 10 (as shown on Sheet 2 only) is located between the New Mercer
Ditch and Larimer County Canal No. 2, but excludes the area within Pond A.
This subbasin is not slated either for development or inclusion in an easement.
It has been delineated and included on Sheet 2 to allow a complete assessment of
erosion control considerations. Hydrologic calculations were not conducted for
this subbasin.
i3.3 Hydrologic Modeling of Proposed Drainage Conditions
SWMM was used to model the basin response to both the 2- and 100-year rainfall events.
The rainfall, resistance factors, surface storage and infiltration information were taken from the
Spring Creek Master Drainageway Plan [EPI, 1988]. The remaining subcatchment parameters
(area, width, etc.) and conveyance parameters (diameter, length, etc.) were taken from: (a) the
proposed grading and drainage plans for Raintree Townhomes and the Fort Collins Senior
Center; (b) the grading and drainage plan for the Raintree Commercial P.U.D.; and (c) the City
of Fort Collins topographic aerial photographs [dated March 1986]. Tables 3.1 and 3.2
summarize the resulting basin and conveyance parameters, respectively.
The hydrologic model consists of three major areas: (a) on -site and tributary off -site; (b)
off -site tributary to Pond A; and (c) off -site tributary to Shields Street. Each of these areas was
divided into several subbasins to reflect physical drainage conditions. The area which impacts
Raintree Townhomes was divided into an off -site subcatchment (Subbasin 1), and the two on -site
1 8
I
0
1
a
0
' subcatchments described above (Subbasins 2 and 3). The off -site area tributary to Pond A drains
through the proposed Senior Center. This area was divided into two Senior Center
' subcatchments (Subbasins 4 and 5), an off -site subcatchment consisting of the commercial
development to the south (Subbasin 6), and on a conceptual basis, the future Senior Center
' expansion (Subbasin 8). The off -site area tributary to Shields Street is represented by Subbasin
7, which is also the historical area contributing flow to Shields Street. Reference is made to
Sheet 1 which depicts the delineation of these subbasins and to Sheet 2 which provides greater
' detail for the subbasins in and adjacent to Raintree Townhomes. Figure 3.1 provides a
schematic diagram of the SWMM model connectivity.
' Referring to Sheet 1, Figure 3.1, and Table 3.1, it is evident that the tributary off -site
area to the south (Subbasin 1) has been modeled assuming existing, undeveloped conditions.
' Consequently, any future development in that subbasin would be required, at a minimum, to
provide on -site detention to limit releases to the 100-year historical level as identified in the
attached SWMM results. This is a minimum requirement which addresses the peak outflow rate
only, and not runoff volumes. By meeting this peak release rate, the downstream curb inlets
and storm sewers would be sufficiently sized. However, it is recommended that future
' development of the southern off -site area include a hydrologic routing analysis to ensure that
potential adverse impacts to Pond A are mitigated. Ultimately, the allowable release rate from
' Subbasin 1 may be lower than the historical 100-year peak runoff in order to maintain the
prescribed freeboard in Pond A.
While on -site detention was incorporated into the drainage plans for both the Raintree
' Commercial P.U.D. and the Senior Center, the current study determined that the detention
provided is not adequate for containing the 100-year runoff. Therefore the on -site detention in
these areas (Subbasins 4, 5 and 6) was not explicitly modeled. Instead, the SWMM model was
allowed to "simulate" storage over pipe inlets. In this manner, each entire attenuated
' hydrograph is passed through its respective conveyance element, eventually reaching Pond A.
This approach was taken because in these areas the storm sewer outlet pipes associated with the
' designed detention ponds generally have limited capacity (relative to the contributing runoff),
thereby resulting in extensive and widespread ponding within these subbasins. As modeled, the
inflow hydrographs are attenuated while maintaining volumetric balance. As previously
' mentioned, on -site detention was modeled, at a conceptual level, for Tract B of the Senior
Center site (Subbasin 8).
' Table 3.3 presents a summary of the runoff results of the hydrologic modeling for each
subbasin. Table 3.4 summarizes the design discharges at all pertinent locations; i.e., existing
' and proposed inlets, and for critical SWMM elements. The SWMM output, which is the basis
for the information given in the tables, is contained in Appendix C.
10
LEGEND
OSUBBASIN
17 CHANNEL
ROUTING
O NODE
DETENTION
POND
RAINTREE
SENIOR
RAINTREE
OFFSITE
TOWNHOMES
CENTER
COMMERCIAL
n
n
n
n
( 301 ) (302 ) ( 4 ) 1 105 1 1 106
FUTURE
303 O 305 O SENIOR
CENTER
101 102 107 200
OFFSITE
O
307
DISCHARGE TO
SHIELDS STREET
304 9. 306
Poll
DETENTION
POND A
DISCHARGE TO
1 SPRING CREEK
Figure 3.1. Schematic Diagram of the Proposed Condition SWMM Model.
11
Table 3.3. Summary of 2- and 100-Year Peak Runoff Values for Developed Conditions.
i
I
'A value of I cfs was used for design of drainage facilities.
Table 3.4. Summary of Design Discharges at All Inlets and Other Pertinent Locations.
D; A . : ... . ..........
IS arge�.cfs
Location �:or:.:.....::::,
Contributing
SWMM ide
S 0basins.:
....2 heat ..
100-wyear
Inlet IA
1,2
1.8
5.4
Inlet IB
2
2.2
6.6
Node 303
1,2
3
11
Inlet IC
3
< 0.5
5
Node 304
1, 2,3
3
14
Node 307
7
2
8
Pipe 105
5
3
5
Pipe 106
6
6
6
Node 305
4,5,6
13
31
Pipe
107
4,5,6
14
17
Node 306
4, 5, 6, 8
14
21
Pond Node 200
8
1
4.1
Pond A (Node 201)
1-6, 8, 9
4.9
6.1
12
3.4 Design of Drainage Improvements
t3.4.1 General
The proposed drainage plan for Raintree Townhomes consists of a combination of street
flow, curb inlets, storm sewers, swales and an expansion of an existing detention pond. Final
lot grading details will ensure that each lot is graded and landscaped to provide positive drainage
around and away from building foundations. Drainage easements have been provided where
necessary, both within the Raintree Townhomes development and within the area proposed for
detention pond expansion between the New Mercer Ditch and Larimer County Canal No. 2.
It is noted that Pond A and the area proposed for expansion of the pond is owned by the
City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Department. An agreement has been reached between
the Raintree Townhomes developer and the Parks Department, whereby Raintree Townhomes
has been granted permission to expand the pond and direct additional runoff into it. This is
documented on the plat which shows an off -site easement, on Parks Department property,
between the ditches. Approval of this easement, an off -site use by Raintree Townhomes, is
indicated by the Parks Department signature on the plat.
1 3.4.2 Allowable Street Capacities
Evenstar Court is classified as a local street and incorporates a roadway width (flowline
to flowline) of 28 feet. It is further characterized by a 2 percent cross slope and a Fort Collins
standard 4.75-inch rollover curb. Allowable gutter flows and maximum street encroachments
for both the initial and major storms were estimated and evaluated based on specifications set
forth in the SDDC Manual.
Per the SDDC Manual, during the initial storm, runoff was not allowed to overtop the
curb or the crown. Criteria also dictates that the maximum flow depth during the major storm
is 6 inches over the roadway crown. However, since the southern property line coincides with
the back -of -walk, the maximum flow depth associated with the major storm was further
restricted to be no higher than the back -of -walk.
A normal depth analysis of the allowable street capacities was performed using the water
surface profile computer model HEC-2 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991). A single cross
section, normal depth option was used in conjunction with the SDDC Manual capacity reduction
factors to find the flow rate associated with the allowable depth. The results of the analysis
indicate that the maximum allowable flow rate for the minor storm event is 6.0 cfs for either
half of Evenstar Court. The discharges to Evenstar Court for the minor storm event (2.2 and
1 13
1.8 cfs for the north and south sides of the street, respectively) are less than the allowable
discharge. For the major storm, the maximum allowable flow rate for the entire street section
' is 30.4 cfs. It is noted that the peak discharge for the major storm event (12 cfs) is also less
than the allowable discharge. The calculations associated with the street capacity analysis are
included in Appendix D.
In addition to the street capacity calculations, the actual flow depth for the major storm
event was calculated for Shields Street to confirm that flow does not enter Evenstar Court. The
results of this analysis, also provided in Appendix D, show that flows on Shields Street do not
commingle with those on Evenstar Court for the major storm.
1 3.4.3 Inlet Design
As indicated in the previous section, it was determined that street capacities were not
exceeded within Raintree Townhomes. Therefore, curb inlets are necessary only at the sump
at the eastern end of Evenstar Court, near the intersection with Shields Street. An area inlet is
specified at the low point in the northern perimeter swale. Per SDDC Manual guidelines,
theoretical capacities of the curb inlets were reduced by 10 to 15 percent depending on the size
of the inlet. Inlets IA and 1B are sized to be 6- and 8-foot Fort Collins standard curb inlets,
respectively, while a single standard area inlet is designed for Inlet 1C. The calculations
associated with the inlet design are provided in Appendix E.
M3.4.4 Storm Sewer Design
' The capacity of the pipe downstream of Inlets I and I was designed for the total 100-
year discharge to the respective inlets. The pipe from Inlet IA to 1B is sized as a 15-inch RCP
to convey a discharge of 5.4 cfs (the 100-year discharge at Inlet IA). The pipe from Inlet 1B
to Inlet 1C is designed as a 21-inch ADS pipe for a design discharge of 12 cfs (the total 100-
year discharge at Inlets IA and 113). Inlet 1C would collect runoff from Subbasin 3 as well as
pipe flow from Inlets IA and 113; the peak discharge from Inlet 1C to Pond A would be 14 cfs.
The siphon under New Mercer Ditch would be a 24-inch RCP.
A detailed hydraulic analysis of the pipe system was performed using the UDSewer pipe
hydraulic analysis model which was developed by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District. The maximum water surface elevation in Pond A of 5042.34 feet was used as the
downstream tailwater elevation for the pipe network. The pipes from Manhole #1 (siphon outlet)
to 27 feet upstream of Manhole #8 are operating in a pressurized condition, with a maximum
14
of 4.3 feet of pressure head (1.9 psi) at the siphon outlet. Therefore all pipe joints within this
reach must have a pressure seal application which complies with ASTM Standard 361.
The results of the UDSewer analysis also show that the energy grade line in the storm
sewer is below the ground surface at all three inlets. Therefore, the pipe flow does not have an
1 adverse impact on the inlet designs which were previously described. All storm sewer design
calculations are shown in Appendix F.
3.4.5 Swale Design
The perimeter swale along the northern development boundary is designed in conjunction
with an improved access road for the New Mercer Ditch. The ditch has a top width of 18 feet
which corresponds to the width of the access road. A normal depth analysis was performed to
analyze the swale with a depth of 1.0 foot; this would provide swale side slopes of 9H:1V. The
flow to the eastern and western portions of the swale were determined to be 4 and 2 cfs,
respectively, by area weighting within Subbasin 3. The results of the normal depth analysis
indicate that the 100-year discharge from the eastern portion of Subbasin 3 can be conveyed in
the swale with a flow depth of 0.7 feet. This total swale depth provides sufficient freeboard for
conveying more than the extra one-third capacity (above the 100-year discharge) as required by
the SDDC Manual. The tributary area, and corresponding 100-year discharge, for the western
1 portion of the swale is smaller than the tributary area to the eastern portion of the swale.
Consequently, the western portion of the swale (which has a design identical to the eastern
portion) would have ample capacity. Calculations for the swale design are shown in Appendix
M G.
3.4.6 Detention Pond Reconfiguration
As previously noted, in its existing configuration the total capacity of Pond A is 0.3 ac-ft
at elevation 5040.5 feet. As documented in Chapter II, a slight modification of the pond would
increase the capacity of the pond to 1.0 ac-ft at an elevation of 5042.0 feet. It is noted that this
configuration would provide 1.0 feet of freeboard. In order to maximize pond capacity in the
limited amount of space available, the existing pond will be regraded and expanded to the east.
A side slope of 3H:1 V was incorporated throughout the entire pond. A variance is requested
to allow the use of 3H:1 V side slopes as compared to 4H:1 V side slopes mandated by the SDDC
Manual. The bottom slopes vary from 0.5 to 1.5 percent. With the exception of the orifice
1 15
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
P
I
I
I
i
l�
plate, the pond outlet structure would remain in its existing configuration. A new 8.1-inch
square orifice opening would be required to limit the peak discharge to 6.1 cfs for the 100-year
event.
The results of the SWMM model detention routing analysis indicate that the peak
discharge from Pond A would be 6.1 cfs. The maximum active volume would be 2.3 ac-ft; this
corresponds to a water surface elevation of 5042.34 feet. It is noted that the total freeboard for
the major storm would be 0.66 feet. A variance is being requested associated with the 1.0 foot
of freeboard required per the SDDC Manual.
In order to reduce the possibility of uncontrolled pond overtopping to Larimer County
Canal No. 2, a 20-foot wide overflow weir section is proposed at elevation 5042.5 feet to divert
flow to Pond B. At water surface elevations of 5042.75 and 5042.9 feet, the overflow section
would have capacities of 6.5 and 13.2 cfs, respectively. It is noted that an overflow spillway
has also been proposed for Pond B, in conjunction with The Preserve P.U.D., which .would
direct overflow to the Spring Creek floodplain. Design calculations for Pond A and all
associated outlet structures are provided in Appendix C.
Adverse impacts related to seepage from the New Mercer Ditch and Larimer County
Canal No. 2 are not anticipated as a result of the proposed Pond A expansion. Field
observations indicate that seepage into the pond does not presently occur. Furthermore, the
minimum ground elevation in the pond is not proposed to be lowered below the existing level.
Therefore, since the potential head differential would not be increased, seepage is not expected
for the future pond configuration.
Ditch access would be retained in the proposed condition. The existing access road along
the south side of the New Mercer Ditch would be reconfigured in the form of the 18-foot wide,
1-foot deep drainage swale. The existing access road for Larimer County Canal No. 2 which
is located between the canals would be altered in a manner which would increase the access road
frontage along the canal. The existing road is adjacent to the New Mercer Ditch at Shields
Street, and for a distance of approximately 800 feet west of Shields Street. The road currently
shifts from its alignment along the north side of the New Mercer Ditch to the south side of
Larimer County Canal No. 2 at the east end of existing Pond A (see Sheet 1). The relocated
access road (shown on Sheet 2) would be moved away from the New Mercer Ditch at the east
end of the proposed Pond A, approximately 400 feet east of Shields Street. This would increase
the access road frontage along Larimer County Canal No. 2 by about 400 feet.
16
I
t3.4.7 Statement of Maintenance Responsibility
' The City of Fort Collins would be responsible for maintenance of all storm sewers
located in the City street rights -of -way. The City Parks and Recreation Department will retain
' responsibility for maintaining the off -site detention facility. The Raintree Townhomes
Homeowners Association would be responsible for maintaining all other on -site drainage
facilities which would be built or modified in conjunction with this project.
I
C
17
I
H
1
1
1
t
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IV. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The Erosion Control Plan for this site was proposed using the criteria set forth in the
SDDC manual. Transportation of sediment will be controlled by the implementation of a silt
fence, sediment trap, and soil roughening at the start of construction. Inlet filters will be
installed shortly after construction on all proposed inlets, as well as at the Pond A outlet
structure, to remove sediments which may be transported prior to seeding. The pond will be
used as a sediment trap during construction. Deposition of sediment in the pond will be
monitored through the use of graduated stakes. The pond will be regraded at the end of the
construction phase, as necessary, to regain the pond design configuration. Finally, reseeding
and mulching will be used to prevent the transportation of sediments. The contractor shall be
responsible for maintaining all erosion control facilities for as long as they are required.
For the purpose of the erosion control calculations, Basin A includes Subbasins 1, 2, 3
and 9. Subbasin lengths within Basin A were calculated by adding the overland travel lengths
and gutter lengths. Due to varying grades and overland flow distances within Subbasin 3, the
length and slope were calculated by length weighted averages. Within Basin A, sediment will
be controlled by: (a) a silt fence adjacent to New Mercer Ditch; (b) inlet filters on all proposed
inlets as well as on the existing Pond A outlet structure; and (c) a sediment trap within Pond A.
Subbasin 10 was analyzed separately due to the fact that it is hydraulically removed from
the other subbasins within the development area. The subbasin length was determined by only
the overland travel. A silt fence will be placed to eliminate sediment runoff into I arimer
County Canal No. 2 from the northern slope of the proposed Pond A expansion.
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 detail the rainfall performance and effectiveness of this erosion control
plan, respectively; associated calculations can be found in Appendix H of this report. It is noted
that the erosion effectiveness calculations are 1.2 and 0.7 percent lower than the calculated
performance standard for Basin A and Subbasin 10, respectively. The post -construction
performance levels are met and exceeded for the entire Raintree Townhomes site. Although the
effectiveness for the entire site is slightly below performance standards only during the
construction period, site specific and seasonal aspects need to be considered. During the winter
months the ground is generally wet or frozen, thus reducing the opportunity for erosion. In
addition, the chance for heavy rain and runoff are considerably less likely to occur during this
period of time. Therefore, a variance is requested allowing the slightly low erosion
effectiveness.
Table 4.3 outlines the construction sequence for the erosion control plan; this table is also
included on Sheet 2. The erosion control cost estimate for Raintree Townhomes is provided in
Table 4.4.
18
I
C
L
I
I
I
[1
I
I
[1
Table 4.1. Rainfall Performance Standard Evaluation.
Project: Raintree Townhomes P.U.D. STANDARD FORM A
Completed By: KGS Date: 11/19/93
During
Post -
Developed
Erodibility
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Lb
Sb
Construction
Construction
Subbasin
Zone
(ac)
(ft)
M
(ft)
M
PS
PS
M
M
1
Moderate
0.98
230
2.66
2
Moderate
1.14
485
1.65
3
Moderate
0.84
375
2.22
9
Moderate
1.00
654
0.99
TOTAL
3.96
441
1.85
80.1
94.2
10
Moderate
0.95
480
0.66
TOTAL
0.95
480
0.66
74.3
87.4
I
19
II
II
II
1
II
II
1
1
I
I
1
I
Table 4.2 Effectiveness Calculations.
Project: Raintree Townhomes P.U.D. STANDARD FORM B
Completed By: KGS Date: 11/19/93
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor
Method Value Value Comment
Sediment Trap 1.00 0.50 Detention Pond
Bare Ground 1.00 0.90 Roughened
Gravel Inlet Filter 1.00 0.80
Pavement 0.01 1.00
Established Grass 0.075 1.00 Undisturbed Ground
Reseed/Mulch 0.06 1.00
Major
PS
Subbasin
Area
Calculations
Basin
(%)
(Ac)
(Calculations Are Shown in Appendix H)
10
74.3
0.95
75% Undisturbed Ground
(87.4)
30% Bare Ground (Reseed/Mulch)
30% Silt Fence
Wt. C-Factor = 0.34 (0.071)
Wt. P-Factor = 0.83 (1.00)
Eff = 74% (93%)
Note: Values in parenthesis are post -construction.
I
20
r
I
[1
I
1
Table 4.2. Effectiveness Calculations (Continued).
Project: Rai tree Townhomes P.U.D. STANDARD FORM B
Completed By: KGS Date: 11/19/93
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor
Method Value Value Comment
Sediment Trap 1.00 0.50 Detention Pond
Bare Ground 1.00 0.90 Roughened
Gravel Inlet Filter 1.00 0.80
Pavement 0.01 1.00
Established Grass 0.075 1.00 Undisturbed Ground
Reseed/Mulch 0.06 1.00
Major
PS
Subbasin
Area
Calculations
Basin
M
(AC)
(Calculations Are Shown in Appendix H)
A
80.1
1
0.98
100% Undisturbed Ground
(94.2)
Inlet Filter
Sediment Trap
Wt. C-Factor = 0.075 (.0075)
Wt. P-Factor = 0.40 (0.80)
Eff = 97% (94.0%)
2
1.14
55% Bare Ground (Reseed/Mulch)
45% Paved
Inlet Filter
Sediment Trap
Wt. C-Factor = 0.55 (.04)
Wt. P-Factor = 0.38 (1.00)
Eff = 79.1 % (96.0%)
3
0.84
100% Bare Ground (Reseed/Mulch)
Inlet Filter
Sediment Trap
Wt. C-Factor = 1.00 (.06)
Wt. P-Factor = 0.18 (1.00)
Eff = 82.0% (94.0%)
9
1.0
100% Bare Ground (Reseed/Mulch)
Inlet Filter
Sediment Trap
Wt. C-Factor = 1.00 (.06)
Wt. P-Factor = 0.36 (1.00)
Eff = 72% (94.0%)
EffNL7,. _ [(97)(0.98) + (79.1)(1.14) +
(82)(0.84) + (72)(1)1/3.96
= 82.4% (94.6%)
'1 Note: Values in parenthesis are post -construction.
21
Table 4.3. .Construction Sequence.
Project: Raintree Townhomes P.U.D. Standard Form C
Sequence for 1924 Only Completed By: KGS Date: 11 / 19/93
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 a new schedule for approval by the City
Engineer.
Year
93
94
Month
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Demolition
Overlot Grading
Wind Erosion Control:
Soil Roughing
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 Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Mats/Blankets
Other
Structures: Installed by CONTRACTOR Maintained by OWNER
Vegetation/Mulching Contractor To Be Decided by Bid
Date Submitted: 11/19/93 Approved by City of Fort Collins on
22
I
1 2
TST, INC. Table 4.4. Erosion Control Cost Estimate. OPINION OF COST
Consulting Engineers
. .. .... ... ........ ..
rob . .......
... .. ... ......
10/OSl93
. ....Date
. . ... .
�Y'roject.:AAINTAEE;
VAG&
... . ......... ......
. ..........
.
..........
................. ... .
..... ...... ...... ........ ....
..................... ............ .
A . ............. :
......
. .........
...... .....
Cost
.
Total
tl,
....... ...
C omwents
EROSION CONTROL
1
RESEED/MULCH
2.75
A.C.
650.00
$1,787.50
$0.0149/S.P.
2
INLET FILTER
4
EA.
300
$1,200.00
3
SILT FENCE
770
L.F.
3.00
$2,310.00
CONSTRUCTION COST
$5,297.50
1.5 X COST
$7,946.25
TOTAL SECURITY
$7,946.25
CITY RESEEDING COST
I
RESEEDING
3.93
A.C.
500.94
$1,968.70
$0.0115/S.F.
1.5 X COST
$2,953.05
TOTAL SECURITY
$2,953.05
23
11
' APPENDIX A
LA 1993 LETTER REPORT:
"HYDRAULIC EVALUATION OF THE STORM SEWER OUTFALL
FOR THE RAINTREE P.U.D. DETENTION FACILITIES"
G
C
11
11
II
II
HYDRAULIC EVALUATION OF THE
STORM SEWER OUTFALL FOR THE
RAIN!'REE P.U.D. DETENTION FACILITIES
PREPARED FOR:
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
235 Mathews
Fort Collins, CO 80524
PREPARED BY:
Lidstone & Anderson, Inc.
736 Whalers Way, F-200
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(LA Project No. CO-FC-93.09)
November 4, 1993
[J
LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC.
Water Resources and Environmental Consultants
November 4, 1993
Ms. Kate Malers
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
235 Mathews Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
736 Whalers Way, Suite F-200
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(303) 226-0120
Re: Hydraulic Evaluation of the Storm Sewer Outfall for the Raintree P.U.D. Detention
Facilities (LA Project No. CO-FC-93.09)
Dear Kate,
' Lidstone & Anderson, Inc. (LA) has completed the analyses associated with referenced study
' and is pleased to submit the attached letter report. We believe that the analyses and report are
complete and provide an accurate description of the hydrologic conditions which affect the
Raintree detention facilities storm sewer outfall, and the hydraulic conditions in the pipe system
for the 100-year event.
We hope that this report will meet your needs in explaining the storm drainage situation
associated with the outfall. If during the course of your review of this report, you have any
questions concerning the study please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Gr o . Koch, P.E.
Senior Engineer
1 GJK/tlt
' Enclosure
' Branch Office: Box 27, Savery, Wyoming 82332
BACKGROUND
' Development of the Raintree P.U.D. began in the early 1980s with the commercial area
which now exists adjacent to the northwest corner of Shields Street and Drake Road, south and
' east of Raintree Drive. Two regional detention ponds (Ponds A and B) were constructed to
serve the Raintree area. These ponds are both located between the New Mercer Ditch and
' Larimer County Canal No. 2. The outfall pipes for these two ponds connect at a manhole
located south of Larimer County Canal No. 2. From this manhole, outflows are conveyed under
the canal via a siphon, and then west in a pipe to Spring Creek. The outfall pipe confluences
with Spring Creek at a point approximately 175 feet downstream of the canal.
As a part of the original drainage study conducted in conjunction with the Raintree
' development, allowable release rates were established for the two ponds. In the document
"Storm Water Drainage Report for the Raintree P.U.D." [TST, 1980], release rates of 4.37 and
' 5.94 cfs were specified for Ponds A and B, respectively. An hydraulic grade line was
established for the downstream pipe system. The resulting hydraulic grade line is documented
on the utility plans for the "Stormwater Detention Facilities for Raintree P.U.D." [dated 1985]
' which are on file with the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department. (It is noted that in the
1980 report, the Pond A and B designations were reversed relative to current conventions. The
1985 utility plans show Pond A to be located east of Pond B; this is the currently recognized
labeling scheme.)
' Orifice plates were designed and constructed to meter outflows from the ponds. The
utility plans for the outfall system indicate that the hydraulic grade line at the downstream face
of the orifice plates for Ponds A and B leave 0.30 and 0.21 feet of freeboard (below crown of
' pipe), respectively, in the pipes.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
■ It is currently proposed that Pond A would serve the new Raintree Townhomes and Fort
' Collins Senior Center developments, as well as a portion of the Raintree Commercial site. An
existing storm sewer directs runoff from a portion of the commercial site to Pond A. It is also
proposed that Pond B would receive runoff from The Preserve development and a portion of the
Raintree Commercial site. Similarly, an existing pipe conveys runoff from the western fringe
of the commercial area to Pond B.
' Drainage studies currently being conducted for additional development within the Raintree
area, notably The Preserve P.U.D. [TST & LA, 1993] and the Raintree Townhomes P.U.D.
' [LA, 1993], have found that the existing detention system is under -designed to accommodate
.' 1
C
developed condition runoff from the 100-year storm. These drainage studies have determined
that both ponds would have to be enlarged in order to adequately detain flows from the 100-year
event. The results of these studies have pointed to the possibility that the existing detention
system may be inadequate even without development of The Preserve and/or Raintree
Townhomes. Consequently, this study was initiated by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater
Utility to verify the capacity of the storm sewer outfall system for Ponds A and B; with the
purpose of defining higher release rates from the ponds, if possible, to the extent the system's
capacity will allow.
The primary constraint in defining the capacity of the storm sewer system, as specified
by the Stormwater Utility, is that outflows from the ponds not pressurize the pipes at the
downstream face of the orifice plates. This requirement is commensurate with the current
condition as indicated by the existing hydraulic grade lines. In order to ensure that this
constraint is met, the minimum freeboard requirement in the pipes was set to be 0.1 feet.
The scope of this study included an evaluation of the Stormwater Management Models
(SWMM) for the Spring Creek Master Drainageway Plan [EPI, 1988], The Preserve P.U.D.
[LA, 1993], and Raintree Townhomes P.U.D. [LA, 1993] to determine the worst -case hydraulic
condition for the outfall pipe; i.e., maximum tailwater in Spring Creek versus maximum
outflows from the ponds. This study then involved, iteratively, UDSewer and SWMM analyses
to determine maximum allowable release rates for the two ponds based on the capacity of the
downstream storm sewer system.
HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION
Due to its connection to Detention Ponds A and B, the hydraulic analysis of the Raintree
storm sewer outfall is actually a UDSewer analysis of the pipe, performed in conjunction with
a hydrologic (SWMM) analysis of the ponds and Spring Creek basin. It is noted that all
hydrologic analyses either investigated or conducted for this study were based on the 100-year
developed condition event.
The SWMM analyses associated with the final drainage reports for The Preserve and
Raintree Townhomes (as of October 6, 1993) were the basis used by the current study for
determining outflows from Ponds A and B. It is noted that these reports have not yet received
final approval by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility. Consequently, any modifications
to the reports which impact detention must conform to the assumptions and results of this study.
Any adverse impacts to the storm sewer outfall system arising from future detention
modifications would need to mitigated.
2
I
The Preserve SWMM analysis used for this study included the three proposed .on -site
detention ponds and the proposed expansion of Pond B. The Raintree Townhomes SWMM
analysis used for this study included the proposed expansion of Pond A, and conceptual storage
for Tract B of the Fort Collins Senior Center site to allow a peak release of 4.09 cfs under
' developed conditions. This release rate was documented in the "Final Drainage and Erosion
Control Report for Fort Collins Senior Center" [TST, 1993]. An evaluation of the results of
these two hydrologic analyses indicated that the combined peak release would be 12.0 cfs
occurring at 3 hours 0 minutes (after rainfall commences). The peak outflows from the
individual ponds would both occur at this time. The discharges would be 6.1 and 5.9 cfs for
' Ponds A and B, respectively.
The results of the developed condition SWMM analysis conducted for the Spring Creek
' basin (as reported in the "Spring Creek Master Drainageway Plan Technical Addendum" [EPI,
1988]) were reviewed as a part of the current study. It was found that the peak discharge in
' Spring Creek, at the confluence with the Raintree outfall, would occur at 1 hour 25 minutes and
would be 2,040 cfs. Furthermore, the discharge in Spring Creek at 3 hours 0 minutes (the time
of the peak outflow from the detention ponds) would be 882 cfs. Based on the HEC-2 analyses
' conducted for the Master Plan, water surface elevations in Spring Creek were interpolated for
both 2,040 and 882 cfs. The resulting estimated water surface elevations are 5033.66 and
' 5032.45, respectively.
It is noted that in 1992, improvements were made to the north bank of Larimer County
Canal No. 2 which impact the Spring Creek floodplain in this area; the Master Plan HEC-2
analysis has not been updated to reflect this change. However, these improvements are located
upstream of the Raintree storm sewer outfall at Spring Creek. Consequently, it is anticipated
' that the Spring Creek water surface profile in the vicinity of the outfall (and therefore the
tailwater elevation for the storm sewer outfall) should not be affected by these improvements.
The Preserve and Raintree Townhomes SWMM results were reviewed to determine the
pond discharges at 1 hour 25 minutes (the time of peak flow in Spring Creek). The total
discharge at that time would be 11.5 cfs, with Ponds A and B contributing 5.9 and 5.6 cfs,
respectively.
In order to identify the worst -case condition, two initial UDSewer analyses were
conducted, one each for: (a) the maximum 100-year water surface elevation in Spring Creek,
with the reduced pond outflows at 1 hour 25 minutes; and (b) the peak release from the ponds,
with the reduced water surface elevation in Spring Creek at 3 hours 0 minutes corresponding to
a discharge of 882 cfs. The results of these analyses indicated that Case (a) would result in the
' most limiting hydraulic condition in the storm sewer outfall. Consequently, all subsequent
analyses were conducted for that case.
3
The initial analysis for Case (a) also indicated that water surface elevations at the orifice
plates are actually lower than those shown on the 1985 utility plans. However, due to the
' relatively limited incremental freeboard available at the Pond B outlet, the previously prescribed
allowable release rate of 5.94 cfs (actual peak release rate of 5.9 cfs) appears to be appropriate
' for that pond. On the other hand, the somewhat larger incremental freeboard available
downstream of Pond A suggests that a higher release rate may be possible. Multiple UDSewer
' analyses were then conducted using incrementally larger release rates from Pond A until the
specified freeboard requirement in the pipe was met. The final freeboard in the outlet pipes for
Ponds A and B was identified as 0.30 and 0.11 feet, respectively. Although freeboard is still
' available downstream of Pond A, additional releases are not possible as they result in backwater
in the Pond B outfall pipe thereby violating the freeboard requirement at that location.
' Based on these results, it was determined that the allowable release rate from Pond A,
based on downstream storm sewer capacity, is actually 6.1 cfs, rather than the 4.37 cfs specified
in the 1980 drainage report. The final UDSewer analysis for the outfall pipe system is included
in the technical appendix provided at the end of this report.
' An assessment was made of the validity of The Preserve and Raintree Townhomes
SWMM analyses in light of the results of the hydraulic analysis of the storm sewer outfall. The
tailwater in the pipe at the downstream face of the Pond A outlet orifice would be identical to
' that shown on the utility plans. Since the tailwater elevation used to develop the original Pond
A rating curve was taken from the utility plans, this would not constitute a change to the
' Raintree Townhomes SWMM model. However, the change in allowable release rate would
require an increase in orifice size. With the increase in potential outflows from Pond A, the
SWMM model developed in conjunction with the Raintree Townhomes drainage report was
modified to reflect the altered storage -discharge curve. Results of this analysis indicated that
under the conditions defined above, Pond A would have 0.66 feet of freeboard during the 100-
' year event.
The hydraulic grade line elevation at the downstream face of the Pond B outlet orifice
would be 0.1 feet higher than that given on the 1985 utility plans. Therefore, the orifice plate
originally designed as part of The Preserve drainage report was enlarged slightly to meet the
' actual modeled release rate of 5.9 cfs. This modified version of The Preserve SWMM model
was used in the analyses for the current study.
All SWMM computer output, (i.e., that associated with the Spring Creek Master Plan,
and the Raintree Townhomes and The Preserve P.U.D.s, modified herein) is provided in the
technical appendix to this report.
4
I
' SU1INEWARY AND CONCLUSIONS
' The hydraulic evaluation of the storm sewer outfall associated with the Raintree P.U.D.
detention facilities included an assessment of. (a) hydrologic modeling of Spring Creek, per the
' Master Plan; (b) hydrologic modeling of the areas tributary to the two regional detention ponds,
performed in conjunction with The Preserve and Raintree Townhomes drainage reports; (c)
' tailwater conditions in Spring Creek; and (d) timing of outflows from the two detention ponds.
The limitations and assumptions inherent in the hydraulic analysis of the storm sewer outfall are
described above. Detailed descriptions of the Preserve and Raintree Townhomes SWMM
' analyses can be found in the drainage reports for those developments.
The results of this hydraulic evaluation indicate that, based on the capacity of storm
sewer outfall, the allowable release rates for Ponds A and B are 6.1 and 5.9 cfs, respectively.
The 5.9 cfs release rate for Pond B is commensurate with that previously defined for that pond.
' The allowable release of 6.1 cfs for Pond A is an increase of 1.7 cfs over the original rate.
These outflows would result in 0.30 and 0.11 feet of freeboard in the downstream pipes at Pond
A and B outlets. Avoiding a pressurized condition at the outlet orifice plates ensures that the
' ponds would not be hydraulically connected in the sense that one pond would not be able to back
flows into the other. At these levels, and for the conditions defined in this report, the available
freeboard in Ponds A and B would be 0.66 and 1.0 feet, respectively.
5
I
TECENICAL APPENDIX
(FOR TECHNICAL APPENDIX SEE ORIGINAL LETTER REPORT) ,
APPENDIX B
EXISTING CONDITION STAGE -STORAGE
CHARACTERISTICS FOR POND A
I
V ..I.LR� rRVJLN 1 . YI11 L
TZ,..�rT�� IcwlwlNor9� GJ1L L/z8/`13 Co-,-ST_,�
FEATURE
CHECKED BY
DATE
SHEET OF
STe�ts,tg� ��9Q!%A¢G.E
`H.�Q�T•C¢1�'1
a.,--�.[D A
1 2
5�'f�aE-�tSQJ-H�S�aL CuicJ� // \\ )
8�'.��� aw1 ��..i14EY.- r• V �. LT1UT'`i '}�llif i`J \A 'S
it c= --4 —prv:- - 5034-41
OT" r-1OE 0.5 ,a _
I/ IWTC' 503 �i 12 - Pr 6`4 51
o¢icrdjc aJect1- = 83/4 rJ
! / g.75 \
ems, rr2br D -ua�/, e F otZi tr ice- = So34. 5 I 7- ` l z J = 503487
rlG` wlov of 9j15 5rbc aF -p21p-Ica= 5036A.71 > 503+En
T+r` R GL- �V Qowf T eaLS -rrle
a�zivi�!'� 1fCriL: FDIL --�- D2JFrCe
-1. C? o. t,zgo Z � N ; A" = �- �s.-Is�Z�2 z pr- -
•F _ o.4
14 = Qr-m- l a 'P„1� A - sass. L71
z
I.JS—C\Llw
`.0
So3 $
So39
3.8
50 4-o
13
50+1
4.5
5c�Z
5.3
•So¢3
5."7
I
BOO
OWNER -PROJECT By DATE PROJECT NO.
d-Z'TL 1 1,/z8/93 Co TST- J-,
FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
z Z
l�T�t�'-+r -S�o2AC� CuiCJC (i*5_TZolLT)
/2/10'
14CM¢t-MI. ML
Cur,%>cjcMVE
AIM
vo U_� Jti
Vowr•t%F_
(Fr�
(Ac)
(Ae• FIN
o-c15
So38
0.03
o.oZ
0.0?5
So3�i
o.lz
o.09
o.l$o
50
o. 7A
o.-AM
0.300
0.$15
s047-
o.515
5m'a
STRi1C- S�-oEK++�-��SOtFriicGG L:uTtVC
C--LC-V
S c2/lec
�mCtwv4
(F->
(An-F-?:
(C��
5034-.53
O
O
603$
c.oz
g.z
5o39
0.09
3.8
5041
o.6-1
4:e
5o4-L-
o •9n
5.3
5043
1.50
5.-1
PX v%- n4C
t4AK. wtZL -M
cLWO /•b Pr Fer'��ccrcJtl�
N �6H T.e�.r ��►Jzti�!
Nam,%JsA=_ AIMM lmiei_
TrA'aGp aRb+az. ZG,v�,�
TowCt3 A 1;.15 (c8C 1 .4h OF
t A�.l"�-G 'P.ua. Fog AaSw.c•�
it
APPENDIX C
DEVELOPED CONDITION HYDROLOGIC MODELING
I
I
I
r'
�1
11
I
1.
' DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE -STORAGE -DISCHARGE
CHARACTERISTICS FOR POND A
I
1
I
I
I
�Y.M YWYIN� W �Y�YWN�I�I CM�MIW�
t�len%ree To-jnharn 6L)'I q-9-(9S3 COT5TI7-/
-Ponj
EATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
A - MDJ,F,e� 5f4o,e-5+,orage-Di5J)nrge dwue G-4y- 1 °It3=193 C r z
-e oL,fle+ dt5cl n" e IS eor 4(olled N on or, �cE l afe on 4A e eyi-5 � ��
pond oof l e4f ,4r Lxt re . TA . ey -h ari-hc e a l of e (81/q v pe�11n)) L J i l l be J
rewo ee ur?c� r•eplacec wl Ll11 I"xQ,.l 5gU've orillce operiw-,�
OpP,,,„� = 8'%���$'ya�
�IQJq}lOn
(fed
NaVL04er
D�pek
DuryP
(cfs)
Tokl 5btoy
Volume
(At., e 4e64 )
5035. -7
o
0
0
0-0C)q
503�
1/33
d-1a
5038
�133
0
0106
5039
3133
y,aO G,
0,30
50`i I
5, 33
5
I Z
'50gJ
(o 39
5, 93
118
�13
7133
6136
�I qo
swr.lt1 -Kj=muxr5
-Vloo = �J Ac -�f
Qioo = 6,1 45
WjFLL , = yoga, 3q �j
`rom%lulyfs15
OI �.7)fI fu�r�
5yt4em.
6a Appel ok 4)
OWNER -PROJECT By roll-
ROJEC NO.
koulf/ee T,jnhomo5 CLIP PT5Ti7• I
FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
Ipond h Moc���i(c� S�ucje-5+&-�)e Cvitle C z z
5ofl-,cf tnu(�r.lnfA� TJiul S+ciu�e
f}/(� ryeCA VoIJMe ✓olam e
(feN� CPq' (Acirs 4c -Ff (Ac-f)
So3� 5 o a v o Lip Fjew,fioon o� oLdW 54,,oAd,-e
Sv37 q(e� ba(� I , ooq , 004
5036
-011
1 ,145
,01q..
, 078
50�O
&&3
5v�1
a�39a
,�7�1
,ss�I
I,al�
3
1 �00f o; Fieeboa rJ
Top Df- F*ri fooiikmev+
11
1
SWMM INPUT AND OUTPUT
2-YEAR EVENT
I
I
'
2
1
1
2
�TERSHED
0
INTREE
TOWNHOMES -
HYDROLOGIC AND
DETENTION
ANALYSIS (INCLUDES
OFF -SITE
FLOWS)
- Rcunfree To jnhame5
2-YR
EVENT
FILE:
RT-2YR
LIDSTONE
8 ANDERSON,
INC.
CLD
9-10-1993
II
�IyyldC2fp IC �fnolyys
'.
48
0000
5.
1
1.
1
bet -on iCv✓�1^`,
25
5.
(Arlo{
'
.12
.36
.48
.60
.84
1.8
3.24
1.08
.84
.48
36
12
.36
.12
.36
.12
.24
.12
.24
0.
.24
.24
.12
.12
.12
- oZ - ��✓PYI�•
y
1
1
301
230.
0.98
10.
.006
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018 -
7r.b,4G,y +o gccdre<'T H
1
2
302
850.
1.14
84.
.050
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018 -
On -St4e Soilh
1
3
102
700.
0.84
26.
.050
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
om -
Un-5%4e Nor{h
1
4
305
800.
2.90
67.
.020
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018 5 e✓I,Or Cen+C�
1
5
105
320.
1.73
70..0125
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018
1
6
1061700.
9.66
90.
.015
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018 -
�t
RcI✓ let U� hPrc�a�
1
7
307
700.
0.98
70.
.020
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018
0{f s4e �r,(jJi4ry iOS� C�55}
1
8
200
700.
2.40
67.
.9
.43
.0018 -
R'-W e sewor
1
9
201
2000
1.00
01.
.020
.200
.020
.020
.25
.25
.1
.001
.3
.001
.9
.43
.0018 -
f on[I ft birQe+ �Gin�Gl�
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
L9
1
I
L
L�4
7 8
1.
1.
1.
509.
400.
1. -
487.
766.
1.
525.
1.
4.09
9
ooe o. o. .011 1.75
008 9. 9. .060 2.
005
008
005
0. 0. .013 1.25
0. 0. .013 1.25
0. 0. .013
1.
1.
2.72 0.08 3.60
1 0.66 4.91 1.22 5.44 1.98 5.93
13
'101 102 105 106 107 301 302 303 304 305 307 200 201 13
101 102 105 106 107 301 302 303 304 305 307 200 201
(PROGRAM
2 3 4
301 303 0 3
302 303 0 3
303 101 0 3
101 304 0 2
102 304 0 1
304 201 0 3
105 305 0 2
106 305 0 2
305 107 0 3
107 306 0 2
200 306 2 2
0.0 0.0
306 201 0 3
201 0 8 2
0.0 0.0
.1
.1
.1
1.75
0.
1
1.25
1.25
1
2.00
.1
0.3
.1
.1
0.004
0.30
2.90
(�ro�vsecl a I " AD5
j�Falflo..7fu ���ec! 7��ivn
�en�or�enfl�5�blx,s�n 5 S;O�riS!.J('�
h'rnrrf�FZ SJbbrrj�n (s
2.00
(pmbmtd 5+orm5CwPl- 1
4.30I- \
i
1
' ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL
DEVELOPED BY
UPDATED BY
1
TAPE OR DISK ASSIGNMENTS
METCALF + EDDY, INC.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970)
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (JUNE 1973)
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 1974)
BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1983)
Rr-a r9, oL)i
- Ra��f-ree7oanb�,�
- 0(z)a9lc Am(Y515
u i b e, It&,, �cvh
- �W -yCa� ✓��i�Vl
JIN(1)
JIN(2)
JIN(3)
JIN(4)
JIN(5)
JIN(6)
JIN(7)
JIN(B)
JIN(9)
JIN(10)
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JOUT(1)
JOUT(2)
JOUT(3)
JOUT(4)
JOLT(5)
JOUT(6)
JOUT(7)
JOUT(8)
JOUT(9)
JOUT(10)
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NSCRAT(1)
NSCRAT(2)
NSCRAT(3)
NSCRAT(4)
NSCRAT(5)
3
4
0
0
0
WATERSHED PROGRAM CALLED
'' ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL "'
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
2-YR EVENT FILE: RT-2YR LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS 48
INTEGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) 5.00
1.0 PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH
FOR 25 RAINFALL STEPS, THE TIME INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTES
FOR RAINGAGE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL HISTORY IN INCHES PER HOUR
.12 .36 .48 .60 .84 1.80
.36 .36 .36 .24 .24 .24
.12 .12 .12 .12 .00
3.24 1.08
.24 .12
84 .48
12 .12
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES
,2-YR EVENT
HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
FILE: RT-2YR LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
'SUBAREA GUTTER
WIDTH
AREA
NUMBER
OR MANHOLE (FT)
(AC)
1
301
230.
1.0
302
850.
1.1
'2
3
102
700.
.8
4
305
800.
2.9
105
320.
1.7
'S
6
106
1700.
9.7
7
307
700.
1.0
8
200
700.
2.4
9
201
2000.
1.0
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
SUBCATCHMENTS,
9
`TOTAL
TRIBUTARY
AREA (ACRES),
PERCENT
IMPERV.
10.0
84.0
26.0
67.0
70.0
90.0
70.0
67.0
1.0
21.63
SLOPE
(FT/FT)
.0060
.0500
.0500
.0200
.0125
.0150
.0200
.0200
.2000
RESISTANCE FACTOR SURFACE STORAGE(IN)
IMPERV.
PERV.
IMPERV.
PERV.
.020
.250
.100
.300
.020
.250
.100
.300
.020
.250
.100
.300
.020
.250
.100
.300
.020
.250
.100
.300
.020
.250
.100
.300
.020
.250
.100
.300
.020
.250
.100
.300
.020
.250
.001
.001
'HYDROGRAPHS WILL BE SAVED FOR THE FOLLOWING 9 SUBCATCHMENTS FOR SUBSEQUENT USE WITH UDSWM2-PC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I
I
I
INFILTRATION RATE(IN/HR)
GAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
DECAY RATE
NO
.90
.43
.00180
1
.90
.43
.00180
1
.90
.43
.00180
1
.90
.43
.00180
1
.90
.43
.00180
1
.90
.43
.00180
1
.90
.43
.00180
1
.90
.43
.00180
1
.90
.43
.00180
1
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
2-YR EVENT FILE: RT-2YR LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON. INC. CLD 9-10-1993
HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 9 SUBCATCHMENTS - AVERAGE VALUES WITHIN TIME INTERVALS
TIME(HR/MIN) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 5. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0 10. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0 15. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0 20. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0 25. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 2. 0. 1. 0.
0 30. 0. 1. 0. 2. 1 7. 1. 2. 1.
a y SS 7
0 35. 0. O 55.. ( ' / 18.E O O4. 2. peck kbisci-',tye
0 40. 0. 2. 1. 4. 3. 19. 1. 4. 2.
0 45. 0. 1. 0. 2. 2. 11. 1. 2. 1.
0 50. 0. 1. 0. 2. 1. 8. 1. 1. 0.
0 55. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 5. 0. 1. 0.
1 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 4. 0. 1. 0.
1 5. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 4. 0. 1. 0.
1 10. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 3. 0. 1. 0.
1 15. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0.
1 20. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.
1 25. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.
1 30. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.
1 35. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.
1 40. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.
1 45. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.
1 50. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.
1 55. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.
2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.
2 5.
' 2 10.
2 15.
2 20.
' 2 25.
2 30.
' 2 35.
' 2 40.
2 45.
1 2 50.
2 55.
` 3 0.
' 3 5.
3 10.
3 15.
3 20.
3 25.
' 3 30.
3 35.
3 40.
3 45.
' 3 50.
' 3 55,
4 0.
1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
2-YR EVENT FILE: RT-2YR LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
•" CONTINUITY CHECK FOR SUBCATCHMEMT ROUTING IN UDSWM2-PC MODEL "'
WATERSHED AREA (ACRES) 21.630
TOTAL RAINFALL (INCHES) 1.060
TOTAL INFILTRATION (INCHES) .178
TOTAL WATERSHED OUTFLOW (INCHES) .743
TOTAL SURFACE STORAGE AT END OF STROM (INCHES) .139
ERROR IN CONTINUITY. PERCENTAGE OF RAINFALL .002
1
RAINTREE
TOWNHOMES
- HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS
(INCLUDES
OFF -SITE
FLOWS)
'2-YR EVENT
FILE: RT-2YR
LIDSTONE
8 ANDERSON, INC.
CLD 9.10-1993
WIDTH
INVERT
SIDE
SLOPES
OVERBANK/SURCHARGE
GUTTER
GUTTER
NDP
NP
OR DIAM
LENGTH
SLOPE
HORI2
TO VERT
MANNING
DEPTH
JK
NUMBER
CONNECTION
(FT)
(FT)
(FT/FT)
L
R
N
(FT)
' 301
303
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00
0
302
303
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00
0
303
101
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00
0
' 101
304
0
2
PIPE
1.8
509.
.0080
.0
.0
.011
1.75
0
102
304
0
1
CHANNEL
.0
400.
.0080
9.0
9.0
.060
2.00
0
304
201
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00
0
105
305
0
2
PIPE
1.3
487.
.0050
.0
.0
.013
1.25
0
106
305
0
2
PIPE
1.3
766.
.0080
.0
.0
.013
1.25
0
305
107
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00
0
107
306
0
2
PIPE
2.0
525.
.0050
.0
.0
.013
2.00
0
200
306
2
2
PIPE
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
.10
0
RESERVOIR
STORAGE IN
ACRE-FEET VS
SPILLWAY OUTFLOW
.0
.0
.3 4.1
306
201
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00
0
201
0
8
2
PIPE
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
.10
0
RESERVOIR
STORAGE IN
ACRE-FEET VS
SPILLWAY OUTFLOW
'
.0
.0
.0 2.7
.1
3.6
.3
4.3
.7
4.9
1.2 5.4
2.0
5.9
2.9 6.4
�OTAL NUMBER OF GUTTERS/PIPES,
13
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
2-YR EVENT FILE: RT-2YR LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
ARRANGEMENT OF SUBCATCHMENTS AND GUTTERS/PIPES
GUTTER TRIBUTARY GUTTER/PIPE
101 303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
201 304 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 301 302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
304 101 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 105 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 107 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HYDROGRAPHS WILL BE STORED FOR THE FOLLOWING 13 POINTS
101 102 105 106 107 301 302
307 200 201
TRIBUTARY
SUBAREA
D.A.(AC)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1,
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.8,
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.7,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.3
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.4
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.6'
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0,
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.3,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.7
303
304
305
'
1
1
RAINTREE TONNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
YR EVENT FILE: RT-2YR LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC. CUD 9-10-1993
YDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 13 CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS
' THE UPPER NUMBER IS DISCHARGE IN CFS
THE LOWER NUMBER IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASES:
( ) DENOTES DEPTH ABOVE INVERT IN FEET
' (S) DENOTES STORAGE IN ACRE -FT FOR SURCHARGED PIPE OR DAM. DISCHARGE INCLUDES SPILLWAY OUTFLOW.
(I) DENOTES GUTTER INFLOW IN CFS FROM SPECIFIED INFLOW HYDROGRAPH
(D) DENOTES DISCHARGE IN CFS DIVERTED FROM THIS GUTTER
�IME(HR/MIN) 101 102 105 106 107 301 302 303 304 305
307 200 201
' 0 5. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
.0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( )
' 0. 0. 0.
.0( ) .0(S) .O(S)
0 10. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
' .0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 0. 0.
.O( ) .O(S) .0(S)
0 15. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
' .0( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 0. 0.
.O( ) .O(S) .D(S)
' 0 20. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .1( ) .1( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 0. 0.
.O( ) .O(S) .O(S)
0 25. 1. 0. 0. 2. 2. 0. 1. 1. 0. 2.
.3( ) .1( ) .2( ) .5( ) .5( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 0. 2.
.O( ) .O(S) .O(S) l0(0
' 0 30. 2. 0. 1. 6. 11. 0. 1. 2. 1. 9.
.4( ) .2( ) .4( ) 1.3( ) 1.3( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( )
1. 0. 3.
.O(S) .O(S)
I07 V'9
0 35. 4. 0. 3. 6. Q
0. 3. 3. 3. 13.
.6( ) .3( ) .7( ) 1.3( ) .O( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .O( )
3()l
2. 1. 4.
.0( ) .o(S) .1(s) v5
D
(0S
0 40. 2. 0. 3. 6. 13. 0. 2. 2. 3. 13.
.4( ) .3( ) .7( ) 1.3( ) 1.4( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0(
1. 1. 4.
.0( ) .1(S) .3(S)
0 45. 1. 0. 1. 6. 9. 0. 1. 1. 2. 10.
.2( ) .3( ) .5( ) 1.3( ) 1.1( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
1. 1. 4.
.0( ) .I(S) .3(S)
0 50. 1. 0. 1. 6. 9. 0. 1. 1. 1. 9.
.3( ) .3( ) .4( ) 1.3( ) 1.1( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
9na
1. 1. 4.
.0( ) .1(S) .4(S)
0 55. 0. 0. 1. 6. B. 0. 0. 0. 1. B.
.2( ) .3( ) .3( ) 1.3( ) 1.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( > .0( )
0. 1. 5.
.0( ) .1(S) .4(S)
1 0. 0. 0. 1. 6. 8. 0. 0. 0. 1. 8.
.2( ) .2( ) .3( > 1.3( ) 1.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( > .0( ) .0( )
0. 1. 5.
.0( ) .1(s) .4(s)
1 5. 0. 0. 1. 6. 8. 0. 0. 0. 1. 8.
.2( ) .2( ) .3( ) 1.3( ) 1.0( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 1. 5.
.0( ) .1(S) .5(s)
1 10. 0. 0. 0. 6. 7. 0. 0. 0. 1. 7.
.2( ) .2( ) 3( ) 1.3( ) 1.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 1. 5.
.0( ) .1(S) .5(S)
1 15. 0. 0. 0. 6. 7. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7.
.2( ) .2( ) .2( ) 1.3( ) .9( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 1. 5.
.0( ) .1(S) .5(S)
1 20. 0. 0. 0. 6. 7. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7.
.2( ) .2( ) .2( ) 1.3( ) .9( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 1. 5.
.0( ) .1(s) .6(S)
1 25. 0. 0. 0. 6. 7. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7.
.2( ) .2( ) .2( ) 1.3( ) .9( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0.
1.
5.
'
.0( )
.1(S)
.6(S)
1
30.
0.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
'
.1( >
.2( )
.2( )
1.3( )
.9(
) .0( )
.0( >
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
5.
.0( )
.1(S)
.6(S)
' 1
35.
0.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
.1( )
.1( )
.2( )
1.3( )
.9(
) .O( )
.0( )
.O( )
.O( )
.O( )
0.
1.
5.
.O( )
.I(S)
.6(S)
1
40.
0.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
.1( )
.1( )
.2( )
1.3( )
.9(
) .0( )
.O( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
5.
.0( )
.0(S)
.7(S)
1
45.
0.
0.
0.
4.
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
.1( )
.1( )
.2( )
.7( )
.8(
) .0( )
.O( )
.O( )
.0( )
.0( )
�v�dK
Vc,=
0'7hc-�4
0.
1.
EQ
Q,-
0 c4!5
.0(
AM
Q'sA =
50qo,1 f f
1
50.
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
'
.1( >
.1( )
.2( )
.4( )
.5(
) .O( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
5.
.O( )
.0(S)
.7(S)
1
55.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
.1( )
.1( )
.2( )
.4( )
.4(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0(
'
0.
1.
5.
.0( )
.0(S)
.6(S)
' 2
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
.1( )
.1( )
.2( )
.4( )
.4(
) .0( )
.0( >
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
5.
.0( )
.O(S)
.6(S)
2
5.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
.3( )
.4(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
5.
'
.O( )
.0(S)
.b(S)
2
10.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
.3( )
.3(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
0.
0.
5.
.0( )
.0(S)
.6(S)
2
15.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
.2( )
.3(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
5.
.0( )
.O(S)
.b(S)
2 20.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
.2( )
.2( )
.0( >
.0( >
.0( )
.0( )
.0( >
0.
0.
5.
.0( )
.O(S)
.5(S)
2 25.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
.2( )
.2( >
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
5.
.0( )
.O(S)
.5(S)
2 30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.1( )
.1( >
.2( )
.2( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
5.
.0( )
.O(S)
.5(S)
2 35.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( >
.1( )
.1( )
.1( >
.2( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( >
.0( )
0.
0.
5.
.0( )
.O(S)
.5(S)
2 40.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.O( )
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
.2( )
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
5.
.0( )
.O(S)
.4(S)
2 45.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
.O( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
5.
.0( )
.O(S)
.4(S)
2 50.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
AM
.4(S)
2 55.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
.O(S)
.3(S)
3 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.O( )
.O( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
.O(S)
.3(S)
3 5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
.O(S)
.3(s)
3
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
'
.0( >
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( >
.0(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
4.
)
.O(S)
.3(S)
'.0(
3
15.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.0(
) .0( )
.0( )
.O( )
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
.O(S)
.2(S)
' 3
20.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( >
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.0(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
.O(S)
.2(S)
3
25.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.0(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
.O(S)
.2(S)
3
30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( >
.0(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
4.
'
.0( )
.O(S)
.2(S)
3
35.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
'
.0( )
.0( )
.1( >
.1( >
.0( >
.0(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
.O(S)
.1(S)
'
3
40.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.O(
) .0( )
.0( )
.O( )
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
.O(S)
.1(S)
3
45.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( >
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.0(
) .0(
0.
0.
4.
.0( )
.0(S)
.1(S)
3
50.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
'
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.0(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
3.
.0( )
.O(S)
Am
3
55.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1( )
.0( )
.0(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0. 0. 3.
.O( ) .O(S) .O(S)
4 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .1( ) .1( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 0. 3.
.0( ) .O(S) .O(S)
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
YR EVENT FILE: RT-2YR LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, INC. CUD 9-10-1993
I" PEAK FLOWS OF GUTTERS AND STORAGES OF RESERVOIRS *'*
CONVEYANCE
PEAK
STORAGE
TIME
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(AC -FT)
(HR/MIN)
106
6.
0.
0 30.
105
3.
0.
0 35.
'
302
3.
0.
0 35.
301
0.
0.
0 35.
305
13.
0.
0 40.
303
3.
0.
0 35.
200
1.
0.
0 50.
107
14.
0.
0 35.
102
0.
0.
0 40.
I
101
4.
0.
0 35.
306
14.
0.
0 40.
304
307
3.
2.
0.
0.
0 40.
0 35.
201
5.
1.
1 45.
L
I
I
I
ENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED
' SWMM INPUT AND OUTPUT
100-YEAR EVENT
1
I
2
1
1
2
3
4
/ T oU
rr'
ATERSHED
0
I� l •
AINTREE TOWNHOMES -
HYDROLOGIC
AND
DETENTION
ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE
FLOWS)
-�
100-YR
EVENT
FILE:
RT-100
LIDSTONE
& ANDERSON,
INC.
CLD
9-10-1993
48
0000
5.
1
1.
1
Grt! (�F^�'0,^ F•U./ •.
' 25
5.
.60
.96
1.44
1.68
3.00
5.04
9.00
3.72 2.16
1.56
W MM Tnp J f
1.20
.84
.611
.48
.36
.36
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
.12
.12
.12
0.
1
1
301
230.
0.98
10.
.006
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018 ^
br -wc in oJta i •% '= .l:n.Y%'/ '
1
2
302
850.
1.14
84.
.050
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018 -
Gr-Silt 5cv��
3
102
700.
0.84
26.
.050
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018
Or. 14c ka'*✓'
'1
1
4
305
800.
2.90
67.
.020
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018 -7
5oo0r
1
5
105
320.
1.73
70..0125
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018
6
1061700.
9.66
90.
.015
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018
'1
1
7
307700.
0.98
70.
.25
.9
.43
.0018-"5ilt
Iri U�{p„va �lnri;'S T1•
.020.020
.1
.3
1'J}✓/P S£i„or
1
8
200
700.
2.40
67.
.020
.020
.25
.1
.3
.9
.43
.0018
Kc„nl�(I
1
9
201
2000
1.00
01.
.200
.020
.25
.001
.001
.9
.43
.0018
I oncl r17✓ecl
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 9
9
1
2 3 4
301 303 0 3
302 303 0 3
303 101 0 3
101 304 0 2
102 304 0 1
304 201 0 3
105 305 0 2
106 305 0 2
305 107 0 3
107 306 0 2
200 306 2 2
0.0 0.0
306 201 0 3
201 0 8 2
0.0 0.0
0.66 4.91
5 6
.1
.1
.1
1.75
0.
.1
1.25
1.25
.1
2.00
.1
0.3
.1
.1
0.004
1.22
7 8
1.
1.
1.
509.
400.
487.
766.
1.
525.
1.
4.09
1. -
1.
2.72
5.44
9
.008 0
.008 9
0. .011
9. .060
005 0. 0. .013
008 0. 0. .013
.005 0. 0. .013
0.08 3.60 0.30
1.98 5.93 2.90
13
101 102 105 106 107 301 302 303 304 305 307 200 201
13
101 102 105 106 107 301 302 303 304 305 307 200 201
�NDPROGRAM
1
1.752.
1�lo�.rh�i! I fl�j
jprnl
1.25
1.25 riled
2.00
.1 lJr <iIJ'✓G� �X .
.1 -
4.30�
6.38
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL
DEVELOPED BY METCALF + EDDY, INC.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970)
UPDATED BY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (JUNE 1973)
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 1974)
BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1983)
TAPE OR DISK ASSIGNMENTS
0- ioo , ooi
U rC;'C r tpn �Cr�Jt7�l
- jW MM 0-4(1)4
JIN(1) JIN(2) JIN(3) JIN(4) JINO JIN(6) JIN(7) JI N(8) JIN(9) JINGO)
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
JOUT(1) JOLT(2) JOUT(3) JOUT(4) JOUT(5) JOUT(6) JOUT(7) JOUT(8) JOUT(9) JOUT(10)
1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NSCRAT(1) NSCRAT(2) NSCRAT(3) NSCRAT(4) NSCRAT(5)
3 4 0 0 0
1
1
' WATERSHED PROGRAM CALLED
'*• ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL "•
TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND
DETENTION
ANALYSIS (INCLUDES
OFF -SITE
FLOWS)
'RAINTREE
100-YR EVENT FILE: RT-100
LIDSTONE
8 ANDERSON, INC.
CLD
9-10-1993
,NUMBER OF TIME STEPS 60
INTEGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES)
5.00
1.0 PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS
ZERO DETENTION
DEPTH
,FOR 25 RAINFALL STEPS, THE TIME
INTERVAL IS
5.00 MINUTES
FOR RAINGAGE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL
HISTORY IN
INCHES PER HOUR
.60 .96 1.44
1.68 3.00
5.04
9.00
3.72 2.16 1.56
1.20 .84 .60
.48
.36 .36
.24
.24 .24 .24
.24 .12 .12
.12
.00
RAINTREE TONNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
100-YR EVENT FILE: RT-100 LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
SUBAREA
GUTTER WIDTH
AREA
PERCENT
SLOPE
RESISTANCE
FACTOR
SURFACE STORAGE(IN)
INFILTRATION RATE(IN/HR)
GAGE
NUMBER
OR MANHOLE (FT)
(AC)
IMPERV.
(FT/FT)
IMPERV.
PERV.
IMPERV.
PERV.
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
DECAY RATE
NO
1
301
230.
1.0
10.0
.0060
.020
.250
.100
.300
.90
.43
.00180
1
2
302
850.
1.1
84.0
.0500
.020
.250
.100
.300
.90
.43
.00180
1
3
102
700.
.8
26.0
.0500
.020
.250
.100
.300
.90
.43
.00180
1
4
305
800.
2.9
67.0
.0200
.020
.250
.100
.300
.90
.43
.00180
1
5
105
320.
1.7
70.0
.0125
.020
.250
.100
.300
.90
.43
.00180
1
6
106
1700.
9.7
90.0
.0150
.020
.250
.100
.300
.90
.43
.00180
1
7
307
700.
1.0
70.0
.0200
.020
.250
.100
.300
.90
.43
.60180
1
8
200
700.
2.4
67.0
.0200
.020
.250
.100
.300
.90
.43
.00180
1
9
201
2000.
1.0
1.0
.2000
.020
.250
.001
.001
.90
.43
.00180
1
TOTAL NUMBER OF
SUBCATCHMENTS, 9
TOTAL TRIBUTARY
AREA (ACRES),
21.63
HYDROGRAPHS WILL
BE SAVED
FOR THE
FOLLOWING
9 SUBCATCHMENTS FOR
SUBSEQUENT USE WITH
UDSWM2-PC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
RAINTREE TONNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
'100-YR EVENT FILE: RT-100 LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
'HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 9 SUBCATCHMENTS - AVERAGE VALUES WITHIN TIME INTERVALS
TIME(HR/MIN) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
' 0 5. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
' 0 10. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0 15. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 0.
0 20. 0. 2. 0. 3. 1. 10. 1. 2. 1.
0 25. 0. 3. 1. 5. 3. 18. 2. 4. 2.
' 0 30. 1. 5. 2. 'f 10. 5 5. 35. 7 4. 8. 4.
1 S 0 35. 2. 9 E ' 19.
0 40. O 6. 5. 17. 10. 61. 5. 14. 5.
0 45. 2. 2. 2. 8. 5. 30. 2. 6. 2.
0 50. 2. 2. 2. 6. 4. 20. 2. 5. 1.
0 55. 2. 1. 1. 4. 3. 15. 1. 3. 1.
1 0. 1. 1, 1, 3. 2. 11, 1, 2. 1.
' 1 5. 1. 1. 0. 2. 2. 8. 1. 2. 0.
' 1 10. 1. 1. 0. 2. 1. 6. 0. 1. 0.
1 15. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 5. 0. 1. 0.
' 1 20. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 4. 0. 1. 0.
1 25, 1. 0, 0, 1, 1, 3. 0, 1. 0.
' 1 30. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 3. 0. 1. 0.
1 35. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.
1 40. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.
1 45. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.
1 50. 0, 0, 0, 0. 0. 2. 0, 0. 0.
' 1 55. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.
' 2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.
2
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2
15.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
20.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
25.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
35.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
40.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
45.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
50.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2
55.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
15.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
20.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
25.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
35.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
40.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
45.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
50.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
55.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
15.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
20.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
25.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4
30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4 35.
' 4 40.
' 4 45.
4 50.
' 4 55.
5 0.
1
1
1
1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
100-YR EVENT FILE: RT-100 LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
*** CONTINUITY CHECK FOR SUBCATCHMEMT ROUTING IN UDSWM2-PC MODEL ***
WATERSHED AREA (ACRES) 21.630
TOTAL RAINFALL (INCHES) 2.880
TOTAL INFILTRATION (INCHES) .230
TOTAL WATERSHED OUTFLOW (INCHES) 2.514
TOTAL SURFACE STORAGE AT END OF STROM (INCHES) .136
ERROR IN CONTINUITY, PERCENTAGE OF RAINFALL .000
1
RAINTREE
TOWNHOMES
- HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION
ANALYSIS
(INCLUDES
OFF -SITE
FLOWS)
100-YR EVENT
FILE: RT-100 LIDSTONE
8 ANDERSON, INC.
LLD 9-10-1993
WIDTH
INVERT
SIDE
SLOPES
OVERBANK/SURCHARGE
GUTTER
GUTTER
HOP
NP
OR DIAM
LENGTH
SLOPE
HORIZ
TO VERT
MANNING
DEPTH JK
NUMBER
CONNECTION
(FT)
(FT)
(FT/FT)
L
R
N
(FT)
' 301
303
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00 0
302
303
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00 0
303
101
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00 0
101
304
0
2
PIPE
1.8
509.
.0080
.0
.0
.011
1.75 0
102
304
0
1
CHANNEL
.0
400.
.0080
9.0
9.0
.060
2.00 0
304
201
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00 0
'105
305
0
2
PIPE
1.3
487.
.0050
.0
.0
.013
1.25 0
106
305
0
2
PIPE
1.3
766.
.0080
.0
.0
.013
1.25 0
305
107
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00 0
107
306
0
2
PIPE
2.0
525.
.0050
.0
.0
.013
2.00 0
200
306
2
2
PIPE
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
.10 0
RESERVOIR
STORAGE IN
ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW
.0
.0
.3 4.1
' 306
201
0
3
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
10.00 0
201
0
8
2
PIPE
.1
1.
.0010
.0
.0
.001
.10 0
RESERVOIR
STORAGE IN
ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW
.0
.0
.0 2.7
.1
3.6
.3
4.3
.7
4.9
1.2 5.4
2.0
5.9
2.9 6.4
'TOTAL NUMBER OF GUTTERS/PIPES,
13
1
1
1
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
100-YR EVENT FILE: RT-100 LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
ARRANGEMENT OF SUBCATCHMENTS AND GUTTERS/PIPES
GUTTER TRIBUTARY GUTTER/PIPE
101 303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
201 304 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 301 302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
304 101 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 105 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 107 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HYDROGRAPHS WILL BE STORED FOR THE FOLLOWING 13 POINTS
101 102 105 106 107 301 302
307 200 201
TRIBUTARY
SUBAREA
D.A.(AC)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1'
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.8'
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.7'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.3
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.4'
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.6'
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0'
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.7
303
304
305
,
1
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
' 100-YR EVENT FILE: RT-100 LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 13 CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS
' THE UPPER NUMBER IS DISCHARGE IN CFS
THE LOWER NUMBER IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASES:
( ) DENOTES DEPTH ABOVE INVERT IN FEET
' (S) DENOTES STORAGE IN ACRE -FT FOR SURCHARGED PIPE OR DAM. DISCHARGE INCLUDES SPILLWAY OUTFLOW.
(I) DENOTES GUTTER INFLOW IN CFS FROM SPECIFIED INFLOW HYDROGRAPH
(D) DENOTES DISCHARGE IN CFS DIVERTED FROM THIS GUTTER
'TIME(HR/MIN) 101 102 105 106 107 301 302 303 304 305
307 200 201
0 5. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
.0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
' 0. 0. 0.
.0( ) .0(S) .0(S)
0 10. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
' .O( ) .0( ) .0( ) .Ol ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .O( )
0. 0. 0.
' .0( > .O(S) .O(S)
0 15. 1. 0. 0. 3. 3. 0. 1. 1. 1. 3.
' .3l ) .2( ) .3( ) .7( ) .6( ) .0( ) .Ol ) .0( ) .0( ) .O( )
1. 0. 3.
.0( ) .O(S) .O(S) loLp
' 0 20. 2. 0. 2. 6. 12. 0. 2. 2. 2. 10.
.4( ) .2( ) .5( ) 1.3( > 1.3( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
1. 0. 3.
.0( ) .O(S) .1(S)
' 0 25. 3. 0. 3. 6. 13. 0. 3. 3. 3. 13.
.5( ) .3( ) .7( ) 1.3( ) 1.4( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
' 2. 1. 4.
D( > o(s) V15 10
0 30. 7. 1. 5. 6. 17. 1. 5. 6. 6. 21.
.8( ) .4( ) 1.3( ) 1.3( ) 2.0( )j .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .O( ) .O( )
4. 1. 4.
101.0( ) .1(S) .3(S) 309 305
0 35, 13. 4. 5. 6. 17. 2. 9. 1. 13. O
1
.2( ) .7( ) 1.3( ) 1.3( ) 2.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) 0( )
YI
8. 3. 5.
.O( ) .2(S) .6(S) I
0 40. 6. 5. 5. 6. 17. 3. 6. 9. 4. 28.
.7( ) .7( ) 1.3( ) 1.3( ) 2.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( 7
5. 4. 5.
.0( ) .3(S) .8(S)
0 45. 4. 3. 5. 6. 17. 2. 2. 4. 9. 19.
.5( ) .6( ) 1.3( ) 1.3( ) 2.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
2. 4. 5.
.0( ) .3(S) 1.0(S)
0 50. 4. 2. 5. 6. 17. 2. 2. 4. 6. 17.
.6( ) .5( ) 1.3( ) 1.3( ) 2.0/( ) .0( )) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
2. 4. 5. Po
r� d40
.0( ) .3(S) 1.2(S) 1iJJ �� C�5
0 55. 3. 1. 5. 6. 17. 2. 1. 3. 5. 15.
.5( ) .4( ) 1.3( ) 1.3( ) 2.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
1. 4. 6.
.0( ) .3(S) 1.3(S)
1 0. 2. 1. 5. 6. 17. 1. 1. 3. 4. 14.
.5( ) .4( ) 1.3( ) 1.3( ) 2.0( ) .G( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
1. 4. 6.
.0( ) .3(S) 1.4(S)
1 5. 2. 1. 5. 6. 17. 1. 1. 2. 3. 13.
.4( ) .3( ) 1.3( ) 1.3( ) 2.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( ) .0( )
1. 4. 6.
.0( ) .3(S) 1.6(S)
1 10. 1. 1. 4. 6. 17. 1. 1. 2. 2. 12.
.4( ) .3( ) .9( ) 1.3( ) 2.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .O( ) .0( )
0. 3. 6.
.O( ) .2(S) 1.7(S)
1 15. 1. 0. 0. 6. 17. 1. 0. 1. 2. 10.
.3( ) .3( ) .2( ) 1.3( ) 2.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 3. 6.
.0( ) .2(S) 1.8(S)
1 20. 1. 0. 1. 6. 17. 1. 0. 1. 1. B.
.3( ) .2( ) .3( ) 1.3( ) 1.9( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0. 3. 6.
.0( ) .2(S) 1.9(S)
1 25. 1. 0. 1. 6. 5. 1. 0. 1. 1. 8.
.3( ) .2( ) .3( ) 1.3( ) .8( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
1
1
1 30
1
' 1 35
1
1 40
' 1 45.
1
i 50.
1
1 55.
1
' 2 0.
' 2 5.
' 2 10.
2 15.
1
0.
3.
6.
.0( )
.2(s)
2.0(S)
1.
0.
0.
6.
8.
0.
0.
i.
1.
7.
.2( >
.2( )
.3( )
1.3( )
1.0( )
.0( >
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
3.
6.
.0( >
.Z(S)
2.0(S)
1.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
1.
1.
7.
.2( )
.2( )
3( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
2.
6.
.0( )
.2(S)
2.0(S)
1.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
1.
1.
7.
.2( >
.2( )
.2( >
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
2.
6.
.0( )
.Z(S)
2.1(S)
1.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
1.
1.
7.
.2( )
.2( )
.2( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
2.
6.
.0( )
.I(S)
2.1(S)
0.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
0.
1.
7.
.2( )
.2( )
.2( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
2.
6.
.0( )
AM
2.1(S)
0.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
.2( )
.1( )
.2( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
2.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.1(S)
0.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
.2( )
.1( )
.2( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
2.
6.
.0( )
.1(3)
2.2(s)
0.
0.
0.
6.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
.2( )
.1( )
.2( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.O( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.2(S)
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.2(S)
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.2(S)
2 20.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( >
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.2(S)
2 25.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.2(S)
2 30.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.2(S)
2 35.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.2(S)
2 40.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.3(S)
2 45.
0.
0.
0.
6.
el.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.1(S)
2.3(S)
2 50.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.1( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
2 55.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.0( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0(
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
3 0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.0( )
.1( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
1.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
3 5.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.O( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
'
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
3
10.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
)
.O(S)
2.3(S)
'.0(
3
15.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
'
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.U(S)
2.3(S)
3
20.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
'
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
3
25.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
0.
)
0.
6.
2.3(S)
.O(
.O(S)
3
30.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
3
35.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
'
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( >
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0(
0.
0.
6.
.O( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
'
3
40.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
' 3
45.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.0( )
.O( )
1.3( >
.9( >
.0( >
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
'
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
3
50.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.1( )
.O( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
'
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
3
55.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( >
.O(S)
2.3(S)
4 0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( ;
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
4 5.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( 7
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
4 10.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.O( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
AM
2.3(S)
4 15.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9(
) .0( )
.0( )
.O( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
.O( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
4 20.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( >
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
4 25.
0.
0.
0.
6.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O( )
.0( )
1.3( )
.9(
> .0( )
.O( )
.O( )
.O( )
.0( )
''//
ci
0.
0.
6.
(
(oJ r.,
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
gym_
15 �=
f09�','44
4 30.
0.
0.
0.
3.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.6( )
.7(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
4 35.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
.1( )
.3(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
4 40.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.O( )
.0( )
.0( )
.1( )
.1(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.3(S)
4 45.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0( )
.0( )
.O( )
.1( )
.1(
) .0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
I
4 50.
' 4 55.
' 5 0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.2(S)
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
.0( >
.0( >
.0( )
.0( ) .1( )
.0( )
.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
.O(S)
2.2(S)
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
.0( )
.0( )
.0( )
.0( ) .1( )
.0( )
.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0.
0.
6.
.0( )
AM
2.1(S)
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
.0( )
.O( )
.0( )
.0( ) .0( )
.0( )
.0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( )
0.
0.
6.
.O( )
.O(S)
2.1(S)
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES - HYDROLOGIC AND DETENTION ANALYSIS (INCLUDES OFF -SITE FLOWS)
100-YR EVENT FILE: RT-100 LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC. CLD 9-10-1993
••• PEAK FLOWS OF GUTTERS AND STORAGES OF RESERVOIRS •••
CONVEYANCE
PEAK
STORAGE
TIME
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(AC -FT)
(HR/MIN)
106
6.
0.
0 20.
105
5.
0.
0 30.
302
9.
0.
0 35.
301
3.
0.
0 40.
305
31.
0.
0 35.
303
11.
0.
0 35.
200
4.
0.
0 50.
107
17.
0.
0 30.
102
5.
0.
0 40.
101
13.
0.
0 35.
306
21.
0.
0 55.
304
14.
0.
0 40.
307
8.
0.
0 35.
201
6.
2.
4 25.
I
1 ENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED
1
U
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
11
1
M
I
1
POND A OVERFLOW WEIR CALCULATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
1
t
t
OWNER -PROJECT By DATE PROJECT NO.
Car✓4(-eeTtijon ne CL-D IO-a -(OT5Tr7• r
FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
Find O✓er efw ctic korj
Il��r Wa4er 5or-Fme E(e✓ =
I inlm,)m E (xnka,en4 Fle✓: 5243,0 ff
0100 �OJ%p�p�rFK2� _ % IttC�S rr 1 I I
��Gle Q� DVeif�U.� �Et77on �T We5-� Fn�(,b-� Pund {4 -I-o �uln Ir1Tu �onc� Q.
r-le✓afivn = 504, 50 , t)(,A = QO;eef
(ie Were ert146, : Q= CLN
a+ pep+ = D, F+ ,ale✓abo� 504;17 5
I
I
' APPENDIX D
STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
I
I
I
11
I
I
AL
AIUML
AF
eoir ae 7o�jri ne5 LLD 9-10-M3 C075T17
FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
�Ylli- i�c c��V CGICJ/g7)Or'15 G�-IL_ q/�193 17 � I�
4;-00" 5WMM (2nalp15 (er-RLL ,OUT (� yr) , kr--� rle ,OUT-
obrx'Sin 1 (ot S"54e �o 5cA) . 0100 = 3 C 5
Og = OcP, (fobeco SerVe, lve , o-e
SJb�S n d (Jn51Ie 10 Q,m= ii cf5
Qa 3cf5
— f laa �o sxr�h slcieof 5versi fr C
,r5a-N,e- area or -EA ,r, S
QS = Qg1 t 03�1+1 om
t TOfa l h 1w or 845w 1
05a = I + (0,1/,I4)(3) = I, 6 C-'s
0
cis
From NEC' Nd/ola pIh n:� : , i d
,>? � Ue , gr�G1l515 (�� ,�„ "/055 �C�on I�[ii Prrl, ulh Ci,(. 7Cr
J
rorrrllrlor 5Jornt i 116J`AM,jeleFl 3-i 4- i��y i/!i�r qG0 ?JIJC Cell O)
( LOCO /I IOS l kl'>�ci CScn, = (�,Sc�S)(OISo) _ �riJCFS j 1,Q�c�Sancia,aCFS
5eep5j (�,rMlrsirrc Qerlxlw�F4e%r
`5CC{On st F-jDl{/16)
5t(fl-r1 cgFYiC I l/ 15 fO0 VjOk-teCl fUr
orrr.afor Sfevm : Mlc)'40t AeC7n (2,51 �4' \1on kbjv)ai'l� r 5L)4lJgll �6-j S�cp vJ411ni;,e 5irc'(4)
CLocF9-0Jr, \ ftiiP.4able &5cA4/-je: (56c(5)(0,g0) = 36,v{e�s 7/IaeFs
S'ep�DID Iles / (F qd Far �✓ll S�rt t �J
r 1
✓ JiCF+ �G�gCt�� li M-4 ✓,01,4ec1 fOrf�,e �i!c�0( (ILYJ yi)5t)r/l.
I
+ HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES
• a
+ Version 4.6.0; February 1991 '
r +
• RUN DATE 09SEP93 TIME 12:08:40
rrtartaaaarrarwtrtrteaaeaatrtwaraatrtrtartaaaeatttaa
LOC41 -OuT
Are-; Normal beP4
Mloor5fvrrn 5f7Pr^{Co�ZlcIli/
x x
xxxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
x x
x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x
xxxxxxx
xxxx
x
xxxxx xxxxx
x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x x
xxxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxxx
I
11
�I
1
I
• U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
• HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
• 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D
• DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-4687
* (916) 756-1104
taarrtttrttrrtraaaaaaeaaawwartrrwwrwwwwrtwrtrt
i
09SEP93
12:08:40
wwf!!!!»lffff!lwferf!lr11wl11ffffeee
WATER
SURFACE PROFILES
'NEC-2
Version 4.6.0;
February 1991
ff f f f f ff f!!f H!!! f!f wf wff!!f f llww Htt
T1 RAINTREE TOWNHOMES FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN --
STREET ANALYSIS
9/9/1993
T2 FLOW
FOR THE ALLOWABLE 2-YR DEPTH (CURB FULL)
LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON, INC.
T3 EVENSTAR CT. (1/2 LOCAL)
J1 (CHECK
IND NINV IDIR STRT
METRIC
HVINS
D
2 1 0.012
J2 NPROF
IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH
FN
ALLDC
IBW
1
-1
D2all
OT 1
7.5
NC 0.016
0.016 0.016 0.1
0.3
X1 1
6 98.58 114.01
10
10
10
GR 2
98.58 0.39 98.59
0
100.00
0.11
GR 2
114.01
aA(Fl;allocl[�
�
p _ —O•II
lyplcp LOCO' Sfree 5%c o�
r
r
PAGE 1
THIS RUN EXECUTED 09SEP93 12:08:40
WSEL FD
1.0
CHNIM ITRACE
101.17 0.39 114.00
09SEP93
12:08:40
SECNO
DEPTH
CWSEL CRIWS
WSELK
EG
HV
HL
OLOSS
L-BANK ELEV
r�
0
GLOB
GCH GROB
ALOE
ACH
ARDS
VOL
TWA
R-BANK ELEV
II
TIME
VLOB
VCH VROB
XNL
XNCH
XNR
WTN
ELMIN
SSTA
v
SLOPE
XLOBL
XLCH XLOBR
(TRIAL
IDL
ILONT
LORAR
TOPWID
ENDST
rr1
'PROF 1
1'
CCHV= .100 CEHV=
.300
•SECNO 1.000
1.000
_
F.39
.39 .43
1.00
.53
.14
.00
.00
2.00
�'.
7.5 1
.0
7.5 .0
.0
2.5
.0
.0
.0
2.00
I
.00
.00
2.99 .00
.000
.016
.000
.000
.00
98.59
.011770
0.
0. 0.
0
13
7
.00
15.41
114.00
i{Ilo-wble
depO for
M,nor5wwo
r
I�
i
i
�r
a�
D qI'8
PAGE 2
1 1)51,g
09SEP93 12:08:40 PAGE 3
THIS RUN EXECUTED 09SEP93 12:08:41
•rrrrerefwrwwwrrrr wfwrrrrrrrrerwfwfrr
1E1-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES
Version 4.6.0; February 1991
wwrrrrrrrrrrwfwrrrrrwrrrrrrwrrrrrrrrr
NOTE- ASTERISK (r) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST
' EVENSTAR CT. (1/2 LOCAL)
SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150
SECNO XLCH ELTRO ELLC ELMIN 0 CWSEL CRIWS EG
1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 7.50 .39 .43 .53
1
I
I
10rKS VCH AREA .01K
117.70 2.99 2.51 .69
09SEP93 12:08:40
EVENSTAR CT. (1/2 LOCAL)
,I SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150
SECNO 0 CYSEL DIFNSP DIRISX DIFKYS TOPYID XLCH
1.000 7.50 .39 .00 .00 -.61 15.41 .00
r
l
1�
r
r-
r
r
PAGE 4
i�
V 7110
09SEP93 12:08:40
I; SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES
j
iI
PAGE 5
* NEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES '
,. ,
+ Version 4.6.0; February 1991 '
r +
* RUN DATE 09SEP93 TIME 12:08:59
ww,,,,,,fff„wwwrr,f,,,f,,,frrf rwwr,,,,,fwr,
LOC F1 , O uT
HF—N Noem('l Dtplh Fmi'�t 5
115r/P%' 5ec} oil
n•
EvPng
x x
xxxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
x x
x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x
xxxxxxx
xxxx
x
xxxxx xxxxx
x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x x
xxxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxxx
D b1le
' U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS `
' HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER `
' 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D '
' DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-4687 +
* (916) 756-1104 '
,,,,,f„wrrrr,ef,,,,,ffwrwfe,eerrw wwrr,
09SEP93 12:08:59
i
....................................
HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES
Version 4.6.0; February 1991
rrrrrrwrr rrrwrrwwwrwwrrrrrwwrrrrrrrrr
T1
RAINTREE TOWNHOMES FINAL DRAINAGE
PLAN --
STREET ANALYSIS
9/9/1993
FLOW FOR THE ALLOWABLE 100-YR DEPTH
(BACK OF
WALK)
LIDSTONE
8 ANDERSON
�T2
T3
EVENSTAR CT. (LOCAL)
11
ICHECK INO NINV IDIR
STRT
METRIC
HVINS
O
2 1
0.012
�J2
NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV
XSECH
FN
ALLDC
IBW
1 -1
Ot00alt
OT
1 38
NC
0.016 0.016 0.016 0.1
0.3
1
1 9 98.57 129.43
10
10
10
GR
2 98.57 0.39 98.58
0
100.00
0.11
�R
0.11 126.83 0 128.00
0.39
129.42
2
C
\
I
—p,it
PAGE 1
THIS RUN EXECUTED 09SEP93 12:08:59
WSEL FO
1.0
CHNIM ITRACE
101.17
129.43
0.39 114.00
r
09SEP93 12:08:59
1
SECNO
DEPTH
CWSEL
CRIWS
WSELK EG
HV HL CLOGS
L-BANK ELEV
O
GLOB
OCH
OROS
ALOB ACH
ARDS VOL TWA
R-BANK ELEV
'
TIME
VLOB
VCH
VROB
XNL XNCH
XNR WTN ELMIN
SSTA
SLOPE
XLOBL
XLCH
XLOSR
ITRIAL IDC
ICONT CORAR TOPWID
ENDST
-PROF 1
.100
CEHV=
.300
�CCHV=
*SECNO 1.000
1.000
.51
.51
.59
1.00 .81
.29 .00 .00
2.00
.0
38.0
.0
.0 8.7
.0 .0 .0
2.00
.00
.00
4.35
.00
.000 .016
.000 .000 .00
98.58
.011988
0.
0.
0.
0 14
7 .00 30.84
129.42
Allow,«ble
DepjArort'iopr5fo/M
(Backor"lk�
hIIOv-YIJI`
TOr
I'G IOr 5TWrOl
J
r
r
1
D ' 8
PAGE 2
09SEP93 12:08:59 PAGE 3
THIS RUN EXECUTED 09SEP93 12:09:00
ftf..YYY.YYYYY.f YYf Y..f...f kf Y..f.f1f
HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES
Version 4.6.0; February 1991
.YY'YYf...........ff.f e..lf..f ff Y....e
NOTE- ASTERISK (f) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST
EVENSTAR CT. (LOCAL)
SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150
SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN G CYSEL CRINS EG 10'KS VCH AREA .OIK
1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 38.00 .51 .59 .81 119.88 4.35 8.73 3.47
r
i
i
09SEP93 12:08:59
i
EVENSTAR CT. (LOCAL)
SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150
SECNO 0 CWSEL OIFWSP DIFWSX DIFKWS TOPWID XLCH
1.000 38.00 .51 .00 .00 -.49 30.84 .00
1
r
PAGE 4
p /� "q
09SEP93 12:08:59
1
1 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES
11
11
I
I
PAGE 5
IN
ij
7
o .6
U
U
9
/j
F;
8
s:0.4%
F:0.5
II
I
I
BELOW
ALLOWABLE
STREET
I
MINIMUM
GRADE
I
'
1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
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, 1965)
MAY 1984
4-4
DESIGN CRITERIA
4A-
t°q rl4(P TwoWmP)CC 1� 13 199� CDT57i i-
FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
5hreU-D 5 �Iv�� D i51 iS
moflalcle
In aralll5!5 woi
-for
`5�, 10 CD✓l�i;c/J i� t
- (ovoc{v5
bic4 enl pl- Atol e
-6n
51iiel�)
y .
oloo = 9�24; (rror, 50PIh1 ouia(p5 , iiode P7
t From 5orde� oiri� bee
fulm�z�Ci. r7eak
6110vghle -RoJde p 66'40 40,JOM kafde�' T�)nhOrne55 : 594q-501I B-g = 0'7r4-
�rLele,, aFa+SkiCF
Oil Sl0A 54
Qom NEB- Hrdtwd btp4h grOly,r, (0 0j-W4,
,'.T�,era-Four,-�o�}a�Sh�el�i� 5-� clo n� e�.�e� �'�r��ez To�nl,o✓�e5,
p Itolle
I
+ HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES
r
* Version 4.6.0; February 1991
r +
* RUN DATE 13SEP93 TIME 02:16:38 *
+rrrrrerfrwfffffffff*err:r+++r++err+rrfw+rr+
11
PkTN I - o Or
5h,A5 54, (%h(jrtwl)
x x
xxxxxxx
xxxxx
x x
x
x x
x x
x
x
xxxxxxx
xxxx
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x
xxxxxxx
xxxxx
r
r
I
I
I
11
I
` U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS '
' HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER `
` 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D
` DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-4687 '
` (916) 756-1104
errreerrrfrf+f+ffffrwffffwwf wrr+wrffffr
I
D
OIOCT93 09:16:45 PAGE 1
THIS RUN EXECUTED 01OCT93 09:16:45
rwfff ffff rrrwererrwewffrrrerfrerrwwff
'HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES
Version 4.6.0; February 1991
erwwffffffrwffffwffffwrrrrwfwfrewfwff
T1 RAINTREE TOWNHOMES FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN -- STREET ANALYSIS 9/9/1993
T2 FLOW FOR THE ACTUAL 100-YR DEPTH (BASIN 7 FLOW) LIDSTONE 8 ANDERSON
T3 SHIELDS ST. (1/2 ARTERIAL)
11 ICHECK INO NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS O WSEL FO
2 1 0.020 1.0
J2 NPROF IPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW CHNIM ITRACE
1 0 -1
0100ACT
OT 1 8
NC 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.1 0.3
X1 1 5 100 135.01 10 10 10
GR 2 100 0.5 100.01 0 100.02 0.70 135 2 135.01
i
' 01OCT93 09:16:45 PAGE 2
1 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS L-BANK ELEV
0 OLOB OCH OROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA R-BANK ELEV
TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA
' SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST
*PROF 1
CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300
`SECNO 1.000
1.000 1.301 .30 .36 1.00 .50 .20 .00 .00 2.00
8.0; .0 8.0 .0 .0 2.2 .0 .0 .0 2.00
.00 .00 3.62 .00 .000 .016 .000 .000 .00 100.01
.019791 0. 0. 0. 0 22 9 .00 14.87 114.88
/ wlcl
J
1
D
f0/Ie
O1OCT93 09:16:45
PAGE
3
LTHIS
RUN EXECUTED 010CT93
09:16:46
rrrerrrrt ttrrrrerrrwtttrrrrrrrrrrerrr
1E1-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES
' Version 4.6.0; February 1991
reettttttrttrrrerrerrwtrrrrerrrrrrrrr
NOTE- ASTERISK (r) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION
NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN
SUMMARY OF
ERRORS LIST
SHIELDS ST. (1/2 ARTERIAL)
SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150
SECNO XLCH ELTRD ELLC
ELM1N O
CWSEL
CR1WS
EG 10rKS VCH
AREA
.01K
1.000 .00 .00 .00
.00 8.00
.30
.36
.50 197.91 3.62
2.21
.57
010CT93 09:16:45
PAGE
4
SHIELDS ST. (1/2 ARTERIAL)
,SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150
SECNO 0 CWSEL DIFWSP
DIFWSX DIFKWS
TOPWID
XLCH
1.000 8.00 .30 .00
.00 -.70
14.87
.00
1 010CT93 09:16:45
PAGE
5
' SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES
APPENDIX E
I INLET HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATIONS
PgiirzteTwnhome c0i 1 11-10-IS9 CoT57717,
FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
Znlef ,51�n 1671E 9/3c,/93 e I (Q
! cr m[nor 5forrn y° = 0139 4 6-lac✓vwl occub ovlr40rp,�J)
h s 0,5 i4 (f.le¢ opem,79 hu9ht)
yo/ti- 0178
ra,rl nanocjrapA %- E a /(,) : Op 0, 7� c{5 /rf
F:or(yigjorSfo//r1 yv' 0 51 {� (�Ic�JSpoaci fo 66ck0a tda[k)
h
YO/h - ),N
.yn(e� 114 (5�}h side of 1;uenSfar �-F-�
0,1a 1,er-15 )(;,"m �Dal
QOo 7-
Re��ci;on( pg�s)
✓o k
c s Too 5nn(l , frr 6 �.
r)rc, G ` sad clef Qa - (6,76 cf5P) (0'8) (&-ri) = 5,645 ✓1k I
r Q10o = C14cf514:f) (0,8) (6ff) = S,BcFs ✓�l�
()Sea F--, tile �f,)/ vle4 1k (5,,A 51deo-r E✓evs�ur l f). .
.Tnle� 18 (North S icl e o� Euer�S,'�. �f
Qa, a`,a iom Fxjpl�is)
Qw: (�46 c{S
Y)r Gn R`.9':J-I/11Ci . �zd - (�,�i9) (o,g5) C8�1'= 5,oy C-F5 1/0 k
, 05e qn U ta7" tra-5+l Old -For inlet 1 B 0)or1'i-xcic o-� EvenS4r,r C�.
w
1.0
.9
.8
7
.6
.5
.2
15
Znit�S
1A .�Q�
12
10
II
8
10
6
1=
U.
9
0
0 4
i
��-�
8
x 3
w
z
-
o.
�
c
m 2�
�
O
7-
LL
�/a
z
tD
- P e, Part o
1.0
z'
w
5.5
0
----- a-
0
5
_
io
z
Z 4
r'
z
w
0o
4.5
z
.3
w
4
-
v
U-
o 2
x
0
o
z
-
c
T
3.5
w
Z
�
It
O
I
0
w
3
U-
0
.08
0 .06
0
o
LL
z
w
x .04
Cr
2.5
w
o .03
w
a
r
3
U .02
a
0
2
CL
<
x
Q-
U
U
D.
.01
w
C
L
Iz
0
0
1.5
--- -
¢
1 = 1.2
5
4
3
2
C6
1.5
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
V
.4
l
.3
.25
.2
.15
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
r 3�h
'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 5/8". Reinforcing
bars shall not be used.
' b. Welded connections shall be 1/4" 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
bolts or hinges to allow maintenance access, prevent vandalism, and prohibit entrance by
children.
I
I
'S.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 inlet, 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.
- nlef fCCaJCIIo r.
�ac�or-S
Percentage of
Theoretical Capacity
Table 5-4
INLET CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTORS
Drainage Condition
Sump or Continuous Grade
Street— Sump ...............................................
Street —Continuous Grade ...........................
Parking Lots, Medians ...................................
CDOH Type R-Curb
Opening ,
qI +o "7
�t7 8'fu Ia
,
]3" 13"r; �rurci
4' Curb Opening
..... 4' Curb Opening
...... Area Inlet
80%
85%
90%
80%
80%
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
1
I
11
I
I
C]
OWNER -PROJECT BY DATE PROJECT NO.
Yowohome5 al-I)9- to_
�t93 COi5r(7.1
FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET ' OF
nle4 1C De51�jn
5o(np Inle4 ; 6rea ,hlef a� Man hole ;� a
Q,00 : 5 cf5 (iroAj S W M M 66tty5l S ; Corvelorce v'lenetr I Da�
1
F-or I 57oraa(c G/CG IYIIeT Copen area fi(l fAe FoAc ) depA rq ✓vecl
FlaLj info mleFper squarefoo+o�opmorea (e-�}1f4"G'a5 cfslg�4- = 3,1 %td
U51ny �9Ure 5'3 (Sec C 5I5�
1tie pvnjI(q 80A 1� 0, The 5wa!e depjl IS I b -fee,-,
�iher/e'-�vne^n,�LLII �IIIv�II Ill eecontG,aed F��i'nln�7f�c5wrrale.�r
q . Vse 15TGrlctgrd rnreG mle4' (�e/1Q/ea = d �) t0/ .Ynle�-1C
e
R
F
{f
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,
1
i
1
1
1
1�
w
0.7
LL 0.6
F-
0.5
> 0.4.
0
a 0.3
w
0
CD
z 0.2
0
z
0
a- 0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 3-19 ck/F42 4
FLOW INTO INLET PER 50. FT. OF OPEN AREA (CFS/FT2)
Figure 5-3
CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP
(From: Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, 1969)
!"I le-71 I C
EXAMPLE
5
MAY 1984
5-1 1
DESIGN CRITERIA
rr ��Yww1Y CwYw•,
OWNER -PROJECT By DATE PROJECT NO.
gaikAor- Ffx,4home5 CAD /I- 19-I993 W-5T17,
11 51phon Oolef Siz(ng I I I F
' C�Ov = .14c(5
Siphon aA4 v5iny o(�i{xe C'9o,-�on:
e= b,&5 ; F}= 5 Ff°1 ' 9ravl, ; 9; FI- Nead��e� DQFtH = lv�el, U/5 -wsel D/s
qz&7-14 -,
' 040,65)(5) 54'4 0,53 I5 Cfs,
V2 re, -' e sIpAon oo+le4 has i fo -pas5 11,e pmk
Qis6karyC 0� M c-F5
1
APPENDIX F
' PIPE HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATIONS
l
lJ
11
Raintree Townhomes Stonnmewer Analysis - Inlet to to Pond A
COTST17.1 9-10-1993 L&A Inc. CLD File: RT-UDS.DAT
1 12 , 20 2 2 , 1 , .85 , 500 , 500 , .2 ,N
1 100
1.4 , 28.5 10 .786
13
1 , 5040.84, 0 , 1 ,
12 ,
0 ,
0 , 0
L
MAn L1Dle 1.
(S,pllOn 0✓TIc7)
14.0, 0 , 2.12 , .65
, 0 ,
0 ,
0 , 0 , OI
2 , 5043.50, 12 , 1 ,
23 ,
0 ,
0 , 0
N�,hlwle#a
(Tnkf SC�
14.0, 0 , 2.12 , .65 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
3 , 5043.80, 23 , 1 , 34 , 0 , 0 , 0 Man6,ole #3
12.0, 0 , 2.12 , .65 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
4 , 5044.38, 34 , 1 , 45 , 0 , 0 , 0 Manhole #4
12.0, 0, 2.12 .65 0 0 0 0 0
5 , 50".68, 45 , 1 , 56 , 0 , 0 , 0 5
12.0, 0, 2.12 .65 0 0 0 0, 0
6 , 5045.06, 56 , 1 , 67 , 0 , 0 , 0 I *Ohple #la
12.0, 0 , 2.12 , .65 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 f
7 , 5045.31, 67 , 1 , 78 , 0 , 0 , 0 MGN ht�e'
12.0, 0 , 2.12 , .65 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
8 , 5045.56, 78 , 1 , 89 , 0 , 0 , 0 Manhole 4b8
12.0, 0 , 2.12 , .65 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
9 , 5048.00, 89 , 1 , 910, 0 , 0 , 0 Iv(anln4le 49
12.0, 0 , 2.12 , .65 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
10, 5048.25, 910, 2 ,1011,1020,0 , 0 1nle� J-13
12.0, 0 , 0.83 , .65 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
rl��
1T UDS, Oft I
9416JIVe O'�AhD e5
uD5eoer hnalpi5
Tile% '1 �4 �v Pond l'�
20,
5048.25,1020,
0 , 0
0 , 0
, 0
�'-TV1le+ �-�`��^} :rAle4 •y
6.6
, 0, 0.83 ,
.65 0
0 0
0
0
11,
5048.25,1011,
1 ,1121,
0, 0,
0
Ihle�
1
5.4,
0, 1.29,
.65 0
0 00
0�
21,
5048.25,1121,
0 0
0 0
0
I d
5.4
0, 1.29 ,
.65 0
0 0
0
0
12
12
, 87.0, 1.0,
5038.87 ,
.013 ,
1 ,
0 ,
1 , 24 ,
0 -
MH1�a NO
23
60.5,1.42,
5039.61
.011 ,
0.28,
0
1 , 21 ,
0 -
?,pefYum MHa +o MO
34
,115.0, 0.8,
5040.73 ,
.011 ,
0.46,
0
1 , 21 ,
0 -
-P,pe f-wA NIN3 +o MH4
45
, 60.0, 0.8,
5041.41 ,
.011 ,
0.05,
0 ,
1 , 21 ,
0 -
?. pe -/om NIH q b NW 5
56
75.0, 0.8,
5042.21 ,
.011 ,
0.08,
0
1 , 21 ,
0-
i?ipe G-on MN5+o M14G
67
,
49.8, 0.8,
5042.81
.011 ,
0.05,
0
1 , 21 ,
0-
?,PC�p�M M9 0 MN1
78
, 51.0, 0.8,
5043.42 ,
.011 ,
0.05,
0
1 , 21 ,
0 -
P'PC -PD' MN 1+0 MHE3
89
52.0,4.92,
5046.18 ,
.011 ,
1.00,
0
1 , 21 ,
0 -
'pipe -Prom MNB io MH9
910
, 17.3, 0.8,
5046.52 ,
.011 ,
0.08,
0 ,
1 , 21 ,
0-
p,pe�rvwi Ml+a Ti1k+dB
1011, 28.0, 1.0,
5046.50 ,
.011 ,
0.05,
0 ,
1 , 15 ,
0 -
p'pe from .role+.1 ♦•c iAn16 11R
1020, 1.0, 1.0,
5046.22 ,
.011 ,
0.25,
0
1 , 15 ,
0 -
.y r,, le} Lo55c4+ AB
' 1121, 1.0, 1.0,
5046.50 ,
.011 ,
0.25,
0
1 , 15 ,
0 -
#- f4iW [vY� 4i' AV
I
REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
' USING UDSEWER-MODEL 2-10-1993
DEVELOPED
BY
JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
IN COOPERATION WITH
' URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DENVER, COLORADO
"' EXECUTED BY LIDSTONE AND ANDERSON...................................................
ON DATA 11-19-1993 AT TIME 12:11:25
"' PROJECT TITLE
' Raintree Townhomes Stormseuer Analysis - Inlet 1A to Pond A
I"' RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS
' RAINFALL INTENSITY FORMULA IS GIVEN
"' SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
MANHOL
ND
GUTTER
BASIN
RAIN I
AK FLOW
ID NUMBER
AIN)
Tf (MIN)
Tc (MIN)
INCH
CFS
-"""'"""-----"""""""""'""'
1.00.00
0.00
0.0
4.75
6.54
2.00.110
W1.380.00
0,00
.00
4.75
6.54
'
3.00.
0.00
0.00
4.75
6.54
4.000.00
0.
0.00
4.75
6.54
5.000.00
0
0.0
44.75
6.54
6.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 6.54
7.00 1.38 0 0.00 00 4.75 6.54
8.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0. 4.75 6.54
9.00
1.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.75
6.54
10.00
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.56
20.00
0.54
0.00
0.00
5.00
12.23
6.60
11.0
0.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.75
.98
.00
0.84
0.00
0.00
5.00
6.44
5.
RT V175. 0uT
PAIR ue Tajo haws
va Laei Amlpi5
THE SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES
d
DENVER REGIONAL DRAINAGE CRITERIA WAS NOT USED TO CHECK
' THE COMPUTATION OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION
' ... SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND VATER COMMENTS
ID
NUMBER AREA " C
DURATION INTENSITY
PEAK FLOW ELEVATION
ELEVATION
MINUTES
INCH/HR
CFS
FEET
FEET
(oo�laW, mclY- ING / SUrTL(cC �Ie(�fia�
1�1/_^_I
--
................---
"-------
""""""'
_
1L
pom
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.00
5040.84
5042.34
NO
IYl r,
2.00
0.00
6.04
0.00
14.00
5041,50
1041,67
OK
3.00
0.00
5.94
0.00
12.00
5043.80
5042.95
OK
4.00
0.00
5.69
0.00
12.00
5044.38
5043.60
OK
5.00
0.00
5.55
0.00
12.00
5044.68
5043.86
OK
6.00
0.00
5.39
0.00
12.00
5045.06
5044.20
OK
7.00
0.00
5.28
0.00
12.00
5045.31
5044.42
OK
8.00
0.00
5.17
0.00
12.00
5045.56
5044.65
OK
9.00
0.00
5.11
0.00
12.00
5048.00
5045.72
OK
10.00
0.00
5.07
0.00
12.00
5048.25
5046.06
OK
20.00
0.54
5.00
12.23
6.60
5048.25
5046.11
OK
11,00
0.00
5.00
0.00
5,40
5041,25
5046,19
OK
OK
21.00
MEANS WATER
0.84 5.00
ELEVATION IS LOWER
6.44 5.40 5048.25
THAN GROUND ELEVATION
5046.27
OK
H�draullL C,(aclellt�C
pb}e ; Hl0.�e✓ 5or4ce rs
'
bebN 9ro��d�le�(na� Gf
•'•
SUMMARY OF
SEWER
HYDRAULICS
AlI )ytANhO(C5.
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .85
'SEWER
_______________________________________________________________________________
MANHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
WIDTH
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
12.00
2.00
1.00
ROUND
20.05
21.00
24.00
0.00
23.00
3.00
2.00
ROUND
16.64
18.00
21.00
0.00
34.00
4.00
3.00
ROUND
18.53
21.00
21.00
0.00
'
45.00
5.00
4.00
ROUND
18.53
21.00
21.00
0.00
56.00
6.00
5.00
ROUND
18.53
21.00
21.00
0.00
67.00
7,00
6.00
ROUND
18.53
21.00
21.00
0.00
'
78.00
8.00
7.00
ROUND
18.53
21.00
21.00
0.00
89.00
9.00
8.00
ROUND
13.18
15.00
21.00
0.00
910.00
10.00
9.00
ROUND
18.53
21.00
21.00
0.00
1011.00 11.00 10.00 ROUND 13.18 15.00 15.00 0.00
1020.00 20.00 10.00 ROUND 14.21 15.00 15.00 0.00
1121.00 21.00 11.00 ROUND 13.18 15.00 15.00 0.00
' DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
' EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
I
F7 z//&
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT
ID FLOW Q FULL O DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
12.0 14.0 22.7 1.14 7.60 1.35 6.23 4.46 1.39 V-OK
' 23.0 12.0 22.4 0.91 9.47 1.29 7.35 4.99 1.96 V-OK
34.0 12.0 16.8 1.09 7.59 1.29 6.30 4.99 1.38 V-OK
45.0 12.0 16.8 1.09 - 7.59 1.29 6.30 4.99 1.38 V-OK
56.0 12.0 16.8 1.09 7.59 1.29 6.30 4.99 1.38 V-OK
67.0 12.0 16.8 1.09 7.59 1.29 6.30 4.99 1.38 V-OK
78.0 12.0 16.8 1.09 7.59 1.29 6.30 4.99 1.38 V-OK
89.0 12.0 41.6 0.64 14.96 1.29 6.30 4.99 3.82 V-OK
'910.0 12.0 16.8 1.09 7.59 1.29 6.30 4.99 1.38 V-OK
1011.0 5.4 7.7 0.77 6.76 0.94 12.09 4.40 1.47 V-OK
1020.0 6.6 7.7 0.90 7.02 1.03 6.10 5.38 1.35 V-OK
1121.0 5.4 7.7 0.77 6.76 0.94 5.44 4.40 1.47 V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
' ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM ONSTREAM
% (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
' 12.00 1.00 5036.87 5036.00 4.63 2.84 OK
23.00 1.42 5037.86 5037.00 4.19 4.75 OK
34.00 0.80 5038.98 5038.06 3.65 3.99 OK
45.00 0.80 5039.66 5039.18 3.27 3.45 OK
' 56.00 0.80 5040.46 5039.86 2.85 3.07 OK
67.00 0.80 5041.06 5040.66 2.50 2.65 OK
78.00 0.80 5041.67 5041.26 2.14 2.30 OK
' 89.00 4.92 5044.43 5041.87 1.82 1.94 OK
910.00 0.80 5044.77 5044.63 1.73 1.62 OK
1011.00 1.00 5045.25 5044.97 1.75 2.03 OK
1020.00 1.00 5044.97 5044.96 2.03 2.04 OK
1121.00 1.00 5045.25 5045.24 1.75 1.76 OK
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET
"' SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION HATER ELEVATION FLOW Node ; Me/ pi pe5q i&� mo Slphon
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
e+) 70 a`1-Feed U�5 0�
.....-FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
--------------------------------- .......M�#gore oPl(a�]n� in/G� pips
12.00 87.00 87.00 5038.87 5038.00 1042,95 5142,67 PRSS'ED nvll C� I_, o,J-31+vAf3�n-
23.00 60.50 60.50 5039.61 5038.75 5042.95 5042.67 PRSS'ED -l' LCc+ �/
' 34.00 115.00 115.00 5040.73 5039.81 5043.60 5042.95 PRSS'ED Q.II ^�r�p-��;nfs 0(1 iifi f 5 f&A.
45.00 60.00 60.00 5041.41 5040.93 5043.86 5043.60 PRSS'ED 11 Lp �Q�e �,Q�I �e 5�°AI
56.00 75.00 75.00 5042.21 5041.61 5044.20 5043.86 PRSS'ED ���T 1
' 67.00 49.80 49.80 5042.81 5042.41 5044.42 5044.20 PRSS'ED ohlch comp he-,)w4h
h5-rm 5tU(tciara 361,
F5/t,
78.00
51.00
51.00
5043.42
5043.01
5044.65
5044.42
PRSS'ED
89.00
52.00
28.69
5046.18
5043.62
5045.72
5044.65
JUMP
910.00
17.30
0.00
5046.52
5046.38
5046.06
5045.72
JUMP
1011.00
28.00
0.00
5046.50
5046.22
5046.19
5046.06
JUMP
1020.00
1.00
0.00
5046.22
5046.21
5046.11
5046.06
JUMP
1121.00
1.00
0.00
5046.50
5046.49
5046.27
5046.19
JUMP
PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
' *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
11
1
I
t
1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
ID NO 1D NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.0 2.00 5042.9 00.33 1.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 1.00 5042.34k+ 1C
23.0 3.00 5043.33 0.25 0.28 0.11 0.00 0.00 2.00 5042.98
34.0 4.00 5043.98 0.47 0.46 0.18 0.00 0.00 3.00 5043.33
45.0 5.00 5044.25 0.24 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 4.00 5043.98
56.0 6.00 5044.58 0.31 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 5.00 5044.25
67.0 7.00 5044.81 0.20 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 6.00 5044.58
78.0 8.00 5045.03 0.21 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 7.00 5044.81
89.0 9.00 5046.11 0.69 1.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 8.00 5045.03
910.0 10.00 5046.45 0.31 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 9.00 5046.11
1011.0 11.00 5046.49 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 10.00 5046.45
1020.0 20.00 5046.56 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.00 0.00 10.00 5046.45 T4,lt+ do
1121.0 I21.00 5046.57 0.00 0.25 0.08 0.00 0.00 11.00 5046.491Gf,JA
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VNEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O.
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
*** SUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE.
THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE
MANHOLE
GROUND
INVERT
MANHOLE
ID NUMBER
ELEVATION
ELEVATION
HEIGHT
FT
FT
FT
-----------------------------------------
1.00
5040.84
5036.00
4.84
2.00
5043.50
5036.87
6.63
3.00
5043.80
5037.86
5.94
4.00
5044.38
5038.98
5.40
5.00
5044.68
5039.66
5.02
6.00
5045.06
5040.46
4.60
7.00
5045.31
5041.06
4.25
8.00
5045.56
5041.67
3.89
1
NZAC Fnfry� jac ellfM[15 (vv)ri
�6d 4eiraad e(evafw
' 9.00
5048.00
5044.43
3.57
10.00
5048.25
5044.77
3.48
20.00
5048.25
5044.97
3.28
'
11.00
5048.25
5045.24
3.01
21.00
5048.25
5045.25
3.00
•..............................................................
SEWER
UPST TRENCH
WIDTH
DNST TRENCH
WIDTH
TRENCH
" "'-"
WALL
""
EARTH
ID NUMBER
ON GROUND AT INVERT
ON GROUND AT
INVERT
LENGTH
THICKNESS
VOLUME
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
INCHES
CUBIC YD
...............................................................................
12.00
12.76
4.50
9.18
4.50
87.00
3.00
134.0
'
23.00
11.67
4.21
12.79
4.21
60.50
2.75
104.3
34.00
10.59
4.21
11.27
4.21
115.00
2.75
166.0
45,10
9.83
4,21
10,19
4,21
60,01
2,75
75.9
56.00
8.99
4.21
9.43
4.21
75.00
2.75
84.2
67.00
8.29
4.21
8.59
4.21
49.80
2.75
49.6
78.00
7.57
4.21
7.89
4.21
51.00
2.75
45.4
' 89.00
6.93
4.21
7.17
4.21
52.00
2.75
41.4
910.00
6.75
4.21
6.53
4.21
17.30
2.75
12.9
1011.00
6.38
3.63
6.93
3.63
28.00
2.25
18.0
1020.00
6.93
3.63
6.95
3.63
1.00
2.25
0.7
'
1121.00
6.38
3.63
6.39
3.63
1.00
2.25
0.6
'TOTAL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES = 732.8132 CUBIC YARDS
SEWER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER
'EARTH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE
BOTTOM WIDTH=DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 - B
B=ONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <=48 INCHES
'B=TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES
IF BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED.
BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT
' SEWER WALL THICKNESS=EOIVLNT DIAMATER IN INCH112 +1 IN INCHES
1
1
t
F'&/6
I
1
1
L
1
1
1
I
h ' ' NIx` 1Me,
SWALE DESIGN CALCULATIONS
1
I
OWNER -PROJECT BY DATE PROJECT NO.
1rnfiec —10'anhome3 CAD q-3v-93 c07s7i7,
FEATURE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET Of
?trimeler 5vikle DL251tin f�5cl7u�ae 6JcvIci BOA I (tz�L I q/3�Pia 6 Z a
SJbbp5 r1 3 a,00= 6C�5
Plea Fg4ete� W5oeife ' 0,53ae
lc�A(e)oRv5rn3 re4 O'MuC.
aEasr = o � = 3, 8cC5 Jse Qcoo = 4.o c{s
Townhomes --
Perimeter Swale Design
Raintree
INPUT DATA:
'
DISCHARGE
4.000000
CFS
BOTTOM WIDTH
= 0.000000E+00
FT
BED SLOPE
= 8.000000E-03
FT/FT
'
SIDE SLOPE
= 9.000000
MANNINGS N
= 6.000OOOE-02
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH
= 6.520951E-01
FT -
FLOW VELOCITY
= 1,044911
FPS
HYDR. DEPTH
3.261348E-01
FT
TOP WIDTH
= 11.737710
FT
FROUDE NUMBER
= 3.224430E-01
'
INPUT DATA:
DISCHARGE
= 5.300000
CFS -
BOTTOM WIDTH
= 0.000000E+00
FT
t
BED SLOPE
8.000000E-03
FT/FT
SIDE SLOPE
9.000000
MANNINGS N
= 6.000000E-02
'
RESULTS:
NORMAL DEPTH
= 7.246805E-01
FT -
t
FLOW VELOCITY
= 1.121145
FPS
HYDR. DEPTH
= 3.624058E-01
FT
TOP WIDTH
= 13.044250
FT
'
FROUDE NUMBER
= 3.281982E-01
t7 ��^
Qioo
5 = b8'7o
Z: 9N dv (Per Ui,6+y Dk1 P5 ; 5uxie l5 user QS !i:icraClP::• /xd�
Imcv = 0,7 �4
Q De5iciN = 0ioo* I,S3
YD: Sim - J-7 F4
1v
----------
' EROSION CONTROL PLAN CALCULATIONS
' TARANTG. STANTON 6 TAGGE
Consulting Engineers
TT
CLIENT QZWt) M�Go'I JOBNO. 10 �74Z. 00�
' PROJECT _ ea�aTe.E6 TblJnl'42 ES � l7. CALCULATIONS FOR E-r11IEM1'C SS
MADE BY ,�G S DATE �� `� CHECKED BY -DATE SHEET OF�
.. - . _ - ....- S'+. 31 : 4 8.2 5... c
_._ SIoP� +c too �o
23Co
-..
�Jg= bashA�¢E /. !rl Slopes SS o 48 25 0
X I o0 0
' SJec B sla .. �' 3..: AG4E5 D. B`f Slope Ole o5 - 43 S x t0O`/,..._=p 99
/53X29s)+�/2oi(376i� �135 -
9G - - i 2
-
_ -
_
- -' — -
3To 5 0
Suo:- BAsla::-#xl00% --
- - - --- - -
-- - -
' $45113:..: _+F 10.. _- _. 5 - Q,95 - ... SI OP K 100
�a
_ _ 51o�c D.(o6__
f IDTE . �EJyTNS -.Foa TNe :S �z 3nsla. JEQE loasT Case:-_ r>NAtioS._ TE . rueriC�T
-
GO507I3 84
' TARANT0. STANTON d TAGGE
Consulting Engineers. -r 1, ,�
CLIENT- OTI.4Q 1-IL�O�i �'� JOB NO. IV ��Z OBI
' PROJECT �-• I M1.1TQ.EE �p�•.Jl�!-�Vf IE. S�• D. CALCULATIONS FOR rocsl �A-S
MADE BY KG S DATE 9 - 29 - 9 s CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF�
TOTAL: _ LeoTi-y, _ oF... 3A-si
+ -1 (1.0%5�4i�/3.9(e
.. /7`%%. 3/3.9G
14 (s /3 q( _
_ _
¢eau, ¢ED
----------------------
-
' SPSIFJ_# to AcFES. ..0.95 Slopc 4(o,(rl St3_o x l00%
_ --
._. — (•0�. -_. - _._T--7F7=f
G050713-84
' TARANTO, STANTON 6 TAGGE
Consuming Engineers
T 1
CLIENT To�IJ H �Cay JOB NO. I C ry 4"2- OO
' PROJECT C.QiNmQ-P-C TOvJrJ+4oD �S CALCULATIONSFOR �FEc.rrJE (,JESS
' TARANTO,STANTON & TAGGE
Consulting Engineers
CLIENT JeHA� M��GTO`^i JOB NO. IO7�ZOO�
' PROJECT LR I/���l bv.1rv�-ey�c s , V • L. CALCULATIONS FOR EFI� I ✓�` A,ss /,
MADE BY DATE 11 19. 93 CHECKED BY DATE SHEET -- OF Y
' TARANTO,STANTON 3 TAGGE
Consulting Engineers
CLIENT 6'104 Me-Go4 JOB NO. IO 141,00 �
' PROJECT IA, %. O " 'TOMilArMeS CALCULATIONS FOR EF-lmr--mVEleS t
MADE BY r-'✓n PATE ► ► I9 . 93 CHECKED BY PATE SHEET -OF
OF
L
1
[1
GM713 84
' TARANTO. STANTON 6 TAGGE
Consulting Engineers �
CLIENT T"✓'y JOB NO. /1.0 %�ZC
'C'/
PROJECT /%-"r, �� �VJJ,J �4,.o�S /, (/,� CALCULATIONS FOR %C�!%//�1tT✓/ 7-6ryJ
1
t
1
MADE BY S DATE 9' Zf 93 CHECKED BY PATE SHEET �}(o OF
G050713-M
a
0
F
U
4
w
19
0.35
0.25
0.15
0.10
m
0.00
Figure 8-A
ESTABLISHED GRASS AND C-FACTORS
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
i
0 20 40 60 80 100
ESTABLISH® GRASS GROUND COVER (%)
MARCH 1991 8-8 DESIGN CRITERIA
0 o,rn000
o v v 1n In In
I[l mmmmm
o mmaD 1000000
o v v v v In In In In 1n In
v m m m m m m m m m m
o mDlrnalrnrnmmrnrnrno,000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o v v v v v v v v v v v v Ill In In
M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
o nmmmD rnrnmrnrnrnrnrna rnrnmma rn
o vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
O 0 m v 0%0%01D 10 n n n n n n n n n r r r m m m m co co
O O. vvvvvv v vva . 4 Vv VVv v vvvvvvv. Vo rI CO CO m m CO m CO m m CO CO CO CO m m CO CO CO m CO Co Co m Co m m
O m N M V' ICI Ill UI to tD lD 1D 1D Dnnr nr nr r nr mmm
p. . . . . . . . .
a rn M v v v v c v v v IT v v v v v v v v v c c v v v v v
UCO CO CO CO m m m CO CO m CO CO CO m CO CO m CO m m m m m m m m
O 1D o N M v v Ill Ill Vl Ill o o 1D 1D to o 1D o 1D %o r r n n r r
V1 m M v v v v v v v v v v v v v v ;4 v v v v v v v v v z mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
H
a O V'01 .iN MM V'-w V'tf Ill L1 Ill un un Ln to Ifl Ln 10 D %Do l0 o n
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O r MM�vvv V• V'�v V'v V' V' V' V•vd'�? V' V'�vvv
U m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
aO 00 mO 111-4NN M MMM V' V' -W -W v v v V'1111110m w%D
w mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
1 0 �O 1. . . . . 0. . . . . . . . . . . P MMMM V V C C d
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
coPk Ill N M M M M M -W v v V V' v -W W -W -W v V' v V' v V' V'
CO m m m CO m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
W VI W
oaO O111 r1m rlMv nIn D 0rrrmmmmmm0 0 0100000
R�' a V' N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M v v v v v
EQ m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
O tO 1/1m0rlNM V' V'I/I IA l/1 to 10 to w 10 r r r r m m m 0101
E+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ui V' rINNMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
W
U ICI rl H 111 r m 00.4 N N M M M V'vv V'v0 n00W0rr
M .4 N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
CO CO m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO m CO CO m m m CO CO CO m m CO CO m CO
O O M N 10 m 01O �INNMMM V'v V' V' I I W!
n 111 In LI] � � 101D
w
. ..........................
ii M O rl.i.i rl N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNN N
W m m m m m m CO CO CO m CO CO CO CO m CO m m CO CO m m m m m CO
a
u'1 111 111 01 N M v ICI 1D r r r m m m 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0
a. ..........................
a N 01 O O rI rI.-1.1 rl rl rl rl rl ri rl rl rl rl rl NN NNNN
wrmmmmmmmmmco co co mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
z O vLo0 cn 1111om CO 0% 000'4.4 .-4. 1 N N N N M M M M MM
H
4 N m 01 O O O O O O O rl rI ri .i 'i OD CD co co
C: r I, CD co co co OD co co OD co co co co OD m OD co co OD co Go co co Dom
Ul mNm rl V' I/l r r CO 0f 0100 ri HH rl rlN NNMMMMM
.i 1D m m 010; 0; 0; 010/01010 0 0000000 000 00 0
rrrrrrrrrnnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmCID
0 tO M ovr 0%0•4f11 MM V' V'Ill Ln 111 Ln%00 ID 0 r r ID %0%0
. . . . . H v tD r r r. r. m. m. m. m m. m m. m m. m m. m. m. . m m. m m. m. .
m
rrrrrrrrnrnrrrrrrrrnrrrnrr
Ill 0%0 V 0 r CO m r r r1O 1D 10111 v V'MMNN 011D V'HM 0
O. O. N N N N N . N N N N N N N . N N N N 4 r4 1. 0 0
rrrrrrrnrrrrin
x
P(D O00000000000000000000000000
U' E+ 00000000000000000000000000
azFL. rINM V•I/11Dr m010 rM V'1111D rm 01 OII10 to O
w Wv .-
I.iH rlrlrlrlrlrl.-INNMMvvLOIn
a
MARCH 1991 9-4 DESIGN CRITERIA
''TIP fi
RpU�ANC moon, PARK
a.
fir; �
O0 a,
✓• U�� AIL
1 SJ P�PV w 30a
3 �R`DBE
D
DEAL
00
P
RAINT2 WNHOMES I
i,
a _ ILL — _ 302 303.
rD S„CP
p
DETENTION POND A�� eIF,
g- �� FORT COLL NS 3
SENIOR CE TERLu
x�
i i xF w
o
x` s
4 + - U) —
�ja a.xyA V)
,m
CONCEPTUAL DE E TI„LLr
R„D FOR FUTURE SEx OR Oh� ,QO _y •
-nEa EXPANSION
I iov s� 305 -pp0 Z
+' R 066DEP TaVbTReR9rP'*
TRACT B
Rv _ a♦�
_ co FUTURE SENIOR RAINTREE DRIVE
CENTER EXPANSION 10R
o II
\O RAINTREE COMMSWINJ P.U.D.
cea
LEGEND
-- — PROPERTY SOUNDERY
,� • ?�~F SUBCATCHMENT BOUNDARY
,. loot —STORM SEWER ,
OPEN CIEVANNEE
F
..•''
so.F., If wIa•o ,,,„j r SUBRASIN IDENTIFICATION '
01
`sIs -- - ® CONVEYANCE ELEMENT J i •+
n ..a w1.. .a xxort vx.,, w.iR.aw.+Eaw;aP.,. 10 ,
s101 IA� I -, IDENTIFICATION
Ojfklm A,,
nnm w R _ {
ia„v SPIRIT 1,2—� 10 NODE IDENTIFIOATION
i
_ a3 LINKJr
IT
off
— µ"me
w u. - .
c DETENTION POND
m IDENTIFICATION
as ,
M1 m
31
Li
vNAI „ .1
nr . , ,mE
- :.t a-m,w.em —_
-� ,x• a a DRAKE ROAD ^
It
a low
�a
Z
J
o
a
a
W
o
Z
I:
Rome
3
a
O
w
J
w
J
�
Q
Z
Q
LLI
CL
>
O
SHEET
1 OF 2
FQ '. of
g¢c sr wb.4lwsm, corobful un,
yow by
All .�bbbbbbby
C. I,- A
sorbobb
boorrolly
AA
boo y
• \ �� V `�
to
9 :1All
A.
14.
♦ �. _ _,
r
Abbbb, 3
\i�/
- ...
a
be
t
a \
V A �•
4 / �
r•�
--
`� .
Arno
r a
of, ArIA. jr
PERIMETER SWALE (A -A) y \ 7 /• �( • ♦l '<
z/
' 4+
( ( m nc aYA avurooIY v
Air; fly
-v
POND A OVERFLOW (B-B) orb � � �ib*> �� / •
All it An
__A/.
C Suso,�. col Rti6n P¢Iur6aa.All In k,,fb GM1ul w,tlna a.. `\ �� �•\ '�wt• •\ I ,• /a a,
Summary If v - offIN-Yw Puri, Yilun for Raluyl onau;om. A,$
..a.eof �.>~•�I,�ao f �1me
L.m,
wMM I
now
- -
eSUMulm�
ownn.rzns
f-Yau
IWYer
llnllq
22
l
Nqa.
3
we
<as
Nou
All
5
3
5
Any, 1
Ne.
�1
NM N;w
fryindArno,
twls
1¢e.9
�� ' \i OMB � �� , •
EY5IM4 FE3/OFMCE � /
LEGEND •♦• ! �• '�
♦ x
\ �.
\ ,.
♦'\� / SHEET
All' / 10AOF10
0Al
i
1, -ow,
va,L ,,tl,,�T
SHEET
2OF2