Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 05/12/1995Final A r; Report aye 5/rL/�s FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTPOL STUDY FOR MIRAMONT P.U.D., THIRD FILING FORT COLLINS, COLORADO FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR MIRAMONT P.U.D., THIRD FILING FORT COLLINS, COLORADO March 27, 1995 Prepared for: Gary Nordic Miramont Associates 309 W. Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 n Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-6368 RBD Job No. 504-008 TMINC. Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 303/482-5922 FAX: 303/482-6368 March 27, 1995 Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235 Mathews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Miramont P.U.D., Third Filing Dear Basil: We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this revised Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study, for Miramont P.U.D., Third Filing. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants \\1\\1111111111111H//j//// �1yJ1t� `�:°rpIDENCG°,9F��i Roger A. CurtisRO s, P.E. 2 ;� : Project EngineerS it 27362 ° Denver303/458-5526 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY II. DRAINAGE BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT B. SPECIFIC DETAILS V. STORM WATER QUALITY A. GENERAL CONCEPT VI. EROSION CONTROL A. GENERAL CONCEPT VII. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT C. STORM WATER QUALITY D. EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS REFERENCES APPENDIX VICINITY MAP SITE HYDROLOGY DESIGN OF INLETS, PIPES, CHANNELS, CULVERTS RIPRAP DESIGN EROSION CONTROL CHARTS, GRAPHS, TABLES, REFERENCES PAGE 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5. 5 5 5 6 6 rX 1 2 11 22 26 33 0 ' FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR ' MIRAMONT P.U.D., THIRD FILING FORT COLLINS,. COLORADO I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ' A. Location ' Miramont P.U.D., Third Filing (approximately 31 acres) is located in the southeast part of Fort Collins, bounded on the north by the Mail Creek ' Irrigation Ditch, by Mail Creek approximately 1000 feet south, and on the east by Lemay Avenue. The entire third filing is a part of 'the Oak/Cottonwood Farms Master Plan. The Upper Meadows at Miramont ' First and Second Filings, and Castleridge are northwest of this area. Miramont 3rd Filing can also be further described as being a part of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado. B. Description of Property The area described as Miramont 3rd Filing is presently undeveloped and is being proposed as a 66 lot single family residential development. The ' property south of Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch is partially cultivated farmland. Topography south of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch is generally sloping from north to south at approximately 5%. 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS ' A. Major Basin Description ' The area south of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch is part of the Mail Creek Major Drainage Basin and the Fossil Creek Major Drainage Basin, as shown on the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in the back of this report. 11 11 1 111. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations 1 The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. 1 B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The Overall Drainage Study for the Oak/Cottonwood Farms, prepared by 1 RBD, Inc. May, 1992 criteria and constraints will be used in this Final Drainage Study. This Overall Drainage Study is currently being updated to reflect all changes made to the areas considered within the scope of 1 that report, and will be completed. in conjunction to final design of Miramont Third Filing. . 1 The portion of Miramont 3rd Filing located within the Mail Creek Basin historically drains south to Mail Creek. From the Mail Creek .Major ' Drainage Plan, this portion of the project lies within the SWMM Basin 51, and drains undetained directly into Mail Creek. Mail Creek outfalls into Fossil Creek immediately southeast of Basin 51. 1 The portion of Miramont 3rd Filing located within the Fossil Creek Basin historically drains south to Fossil Creek. For the Fossil Creek Basin, this 1 area will drain undetained directly into the end of Mail Creek, and ultimately to Fossil Creek which lies south of this property. 1 C. Hydrological Criteria 1 The rational method was used to determine peak developed runoff from this site.. The 2 year, and 100 year rainfall criteria, which was obtained from the City of Fort Collins, is the criteria used for this study. The 1 rainfall criteria is included in the appendix. ' D. Hydraulic Criteria All calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with 1 the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria. 1 1 2 1 [1 ' E. Variances from Criteria No variances are anticipated at this time. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 1 A. General Concept ' Development within Miramont 3rd Filing will comply with the concepts presented in the Preliminary Drainage Study, and with the concepts presented in the Overall Drainage Study for the Oak/Cottonwood ' Drainage Plan. The Mail Creek Basin and the Fossil Creek Basins allow for undetained storm water runoff directly to Mail Creek and to Fossil Creek. A bank stabilization study was prepared for the City of Fort Collins for ' Mail Creek, and the recommendations put forth in that study will be complied with when allowing discharge into Mail Creek and Fossil Creek. A copy of the SWMM model for Mail Creek has been included in the appendix of this study, and this confirms the fact that there is no detention requirements for Basin 51, which Miramont 3rd Filing is a ' portion of. The Preliminary Drainage Study for Miramont P.U.D. - Phase 3 included ' development to the buffer limits, as shown on the Drainage and Erosion• Control Plan. A box culvert is preliminarily being considered to access that area south of Mail Creek. A HEC-2 analysis and design of that ' culvert will be required for approval of further development. This portion of Basin 51 within the Mail Creek Master plan is being released into the channel undetained. The peak flows from Conveyance ' element 0-3 peaks at approximately 32 minutes. Per the SWMM model for Mail Creek, flows in Mail Creek at 32 minutes are 178 cfs (as opposed to 1055 cfs at 1 hour and 14 minutes). The peak undetained flows are 68.6 cfs from Miramont, combined with 178 cfs from Mail Creek will give a total of approximately 250 cfs, or well below the maximum capacity of 1055 cfs: Similar comparisons can be made for ' outlet 0-4. As the flows in Mail Creek increase, the developed runoff from the Miramont project will be decreasing. At the time of the peak of ' Mail Creek, discharge from the Miramont development would be reduced to the point of being less than if the site had been detained, and was releasing flows at a slower rate. L� ' 3 I_1 C I7I L�� 11 B. Specific Details Developed runoff from the areas south of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch, and those areas located in the Mail Creek Basin and the Fossil Creek Basin will be conveyed by curb and gutter, and open channels as required to Mail Creek. The preliminary plan for Miramont Phase 3 showed 5 separate points of discharge into Mail Creek/Fossil Creek. The western portion of Lemay Avenue, when developed, adjacent to this area will be routed on site, and conveyed to Mail Creek. As the remainder of the Miramont is developed, and the final routing is determined, a water Quality pond is being considered at the southeast end of the project. The final size, location and if the pond will be actually installed will be determined as final design happens in that area. Developed flows from Subbasins *7 (A subbasin located within the Castleridge P.U.D. project), along with Subbasin 101 will be routed to the west side of Highcastle Drive. Developed flows from Subbasin 102 will be directed towards the east side of Highcastle Drive. Developed flows from subbasin 103 will be directed by curb and gutter to the south end of Highcastle Court, and conveyed by a concrete sidewalk culvert and open channel to Milan Terrace Drive. Developed runoff from Subbasin 104 will be directed west in an open channel, under Belvedere court via storm sewer, and on to Milan Terrace Drive by an open channel (combined with flows from Subbasin 103, Channel section F-F). Subbasin 105 is directed to an open channel, flows westerly to a concrete culvert under Belvedere Place and is combined with the developed runoff from Subbasin 106 in an open channel north of Milan. Terrace Drive. Combined developed flows at Design Point 6 will be routed by a culvert under Milan Terrace Drive, south to the southerly property line of Miramont 3rd Filing. Flows from Subbasins 107 and 108 will be directed westerly by curb and gutter to Highcastle Drive, and directed south in curb and gutter along with flows from Subbasin 102 to the temporary end of Highcastle Drive. Flows will then be routed south by an open channel (Section A -A), combine with developed flows from Design Point 6, and eventually to Mail Creek. Developed flows from Subbasins 110, 1 1 1, 112, 1 13,. and 114 will be directed along Belvedere Court and Belvedere Place by curb and gutter to the temporary end of Belvedere Place, then by an open channel (Section B-B) south to Mail Creek. Channel sections A -A and B-B connect, forming channel section C-C, which is the final leg of this temporary channel to Mail Creek, and minimizing the number of direct outlets directly into Mail Creek. Channels A -A, B-B, and C-C have been sized to accommodate offsite flows which would tend to overland flow 0 7 tto the channel. These channels are also temporary in nature, as development occurs down the hill and south of Miramont 3rd Filing these ' channels will be replaced with more permanent conveyance elements such as curb and gutters and storm sewers. ' Given the relative steep nature of these channels, they will be lined with a geotextile fabric to help with erosion problems. Per the Bank Stability study, the outlet to Mail Creek will also need to be armored with riprap. Both of these measures have been specified on the construction plans. A copy of the documentation from the manufacturer has been provided in the appendix of this report. Developed flows from Subbasin 116 will be directed south of the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch in an open channel, along the easterly edge of the ' property by a storm sewer, and directed south by open channel to Mail Creek (Section D-D). As mentioned above this channel section will also receive a geotextile fabric lining, and an armored riprap outlet section. ' This again is also a temporary channel, and will be replaced as development occurs to the south of Miramont 3rd Filing. Historic flows for offsite subbasin 0-4 has also been accounted for in channel section ' D-D. This channel section is being routed westerly and. allowed to drain to that portion of Mail Creek which is still on the Miramont property. Fossil Creek is not adjacent to this property, and a drainage easement would be required for drainage south of this property. By routing the flows westerly, they can be contained within the Miramont PUD area, and within the temporary drainage and grading easement. Grading is such along the northerly boundary of this project so that developed flows will not be allowed to drain directly to the Mail Creek Irrigation Ditch. This ditch has now been lined with clay to Lemay Avenue. Ditch Company approvals will be sought as a part of the review ' and approval process of this development. To route developed flows parallel to the Irrigation ditch, a shallow swale will be installed, along with a perforated underdrain to account for low flows. ' This development has been graded such that it will generate fill material to be used south of this development on subsequent filings of Miramont. Thus the area south of Miramont 3rd Filing will be granted as a temporary drainage and grading easement. This easement will cover all of the area south of Miramont 3rd Filing and north of Mail Creek and ' Fossil Creek, within the area as defined by the Preliminary Plat for Miramont P.U.D. - Third Phase. 1 5 1 ' V. STORM WATER QUALITY ' A. General Concept Beginning in October of 1992, water quality of storm water runoff was ' required to be addressed on all final design. Miramont 3rd Filing development is anticipating construction beginning in the summer of 1994. Therefore for this study, we have sought to find various Best ' Management Practices for the treatment of storm water runoff which could be implemented in the final design process. Without a formal detention system, however, the amount of tangible water quality ' features will be limited, although some intangible benefits might be achieved. ' A small water quality pond is being considered at the southeast end of future developments within Miramont, but not with this project. As mentioned above, this pond is only being considered at this point, and could be reconsidered as further development occurs. Future filings will make all attempts to route as much developed runoff as feasible through this pond. In the interim, and with this project, a protective berm will be ' installed along the northerly bank of Mail Creek to provide some a way for silt and debris to settle out prior to flows entering Mail Creek. This ' berm will also provide some minor detention, but this will not be taken into account within this study. ' The use of grassed waterways and open channels has been found to be of great help with water quality. In the interim until future development occurs with the Miramont Master plan, water quality of stormwater ' runoff will benefitfrom the numerous landscaped open channels provided for in this project, and the conscious efforts by the good citizens which choose Miramont 3rd Filing as their residential community. VI. EROSION CONTROL A. General Concept r The Miramont Third Filing development lies within the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the Moderate Wind Erodibility zone per the City of Fort Collins Zone maps. Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control ' Reference Manual for Construction Sites, the erosion control performance standard was calculated to be 78.5%. The erosion control measures as specified on the Final Drainage and Erosion Control plan will allow for a ' performance standard in excess of 78.5%. The performance standard ' 6 �I I ' after construction has been calculated to be 92.4%. ' All construction activities must also comply with the State of Colorado permitting process for Stormwater Discharges associated with construction activities. A Colorado Department of Health NPDES permit will be required before any construction grading can begin. B. Specific Detail After the overlot grading has been completed, all open space areas ' (Tracts A-E), shall have a temporary seed and mulch applied per the City of Fort Collins Specifications. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre, and the mulch shall be ' adequately anchored, tacked or crimped into the soil. All areasthat are lots shall have a temporary seed applied. •After the utilities have been installed, the roadway surfaces should receive the pavement structure. After installation of the sidewalk culverts, area inlets, and curb inlets, they will be filtered with a combination of concrete blocks, 1 /2 inch wire screen, and 3/4 inch course gravel. ' A copy of the Erosion control Security Deposit Obligation letter is included in the• appendix of this report. ' VII. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. ' B. Drainage Concept The proposed drainage concepts presented in this study and shown on the final utility plans adequately provide for the conveyance and detention of developed runoff from Miramont 3rd Filing. The concepts shown here will also allow for the development to occur and be in ' compliance with the Fossil Creek Basin Master Plan, and the Mail Creek Basin Master Plan. This site will also be in compliance with the Overall Drainage plan for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm. 7 1 C 1 Storm Water Quality Because Storm Water Quality has become a requirement, this site will need to address the storm water quality aspect. The open landscaped channels within this project will help water quality of the developed runoff. D. Erosion Control Concept Per, the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for ' Construction sites, this project will meet or exceed the recommended performance standard calculated. All measures taken to control erosion should be maintained as design until final landscaping has taken hold. 1 REFERENCES ' 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1994, revised March 1991. 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. ' 3. McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan, by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc. 1986. ' 4. Overall Drainage Study for the Oak/Cottonwood Farm and Preliminary Drainage Study for the Upper Meadow at Miramont First Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., May 4, '1992. ' 5. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Miramont 3rd Phase P.U.D., ' by RBD, Inc. dated February 4, 1994. 8 1 I 11 I 0 1 F L 1 I I 1 1 APPENDIX I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I` j 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 "=2000' 1 1 1 1 1 N SITE HYDROLOGY Z/ I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I NC Engineering Consultants r--7 CLIENT pp ( O-ANA (=,,, Ir ills, f JOB NO. PROJECT e-n�,MQtQ7- -Z> CALCULATIONSFOR MADE BY DATER - CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET�OF T--T' ------- --- ----------- ----- --------- -- -- -- ------------- -- - ---------- ------- ......... . . .. . 7. 7 -- ----- ------------ i.J A- L DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 50 10 0 C' RUNOFF 4V TEST AREA LOCATIONS O ARAPAHOE COUNTY O ❑ LITTLEION Kin O LOW DENS ITY MEDIUM DENSITY 1 2 3 4 5 HOUSING DENSITY - UNITS PER ACRE FIGURE 2-1. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DENSITY VS. IMPERVIOUS AREA 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT im G/ Q � T T T• r 7 T r r��r� O � g N r g � g J°.. pp� w N N N �► N N 0 W — a ? N . (26 oo .D .D o to U Oj z 6 Z ¢O o U� 3 6 dpn Nl Q0 .o N Ni N -icn N �m E >la.°' > w� W a $ a a r ; lD d) l� cn 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 z w! U) 8Gj u) '�• p � J —�Y Imo' U1 4 CQ W, > �. w a.. -- r O Q o g o 0 0 o a a N N a w N' N N (� N N N �i N t�1 Q� _ p Z ._ W`�mm���_��c�'Q0c°N�c° J —qq — ,•, � m Q Ln z Q a O o ol 0 p 1 mQ w N Q 0 g i cn 0 0I NJ 1 N 1 co o -- 0 0 o fl U 2 0 z cc W W U z w U x 3 i V ,n a ai � � r � d Qr N D� 8 1 co rn N —�ozo 4. c0 F o � cq U z 0 1-•1 F' F' E- 4 y 7 Q " 1 0 M O Q _U QO UU — 1 � O N �9 N N N N W J a. m LD n I w . , U W +- �' w CL s0 �o ar co (n° w N d o°n 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 w a� _ z �� W�`�c�v o — J — LOD _Z Q Q o Q � n fCnJ a N C� Cn dJ J Coa W o — — — — — C= 0 ' � 1tp N N � � 4 d I N N O LL Fa- N z 7 O if w ~� a Mo W 1 U � z 0 U � LL w } m 2 o LU Z � � D U Q j J U U 1{a! 1� V� V N dcr N d LLJ N N 8 N N a � O o� n r` dJ 9�02Q7p70�0 io I JS 4 �L] O z" 87 o ) ..4 � 4 a° a� 1 ? A U Ou — Q Q 8 W � J onul w Ali. a) n n F- >� o 0m z Zd- �'�`"4` cr W^ LLJ 0- O q Q Q O Q >' ��C/) �W o n N N N N N N N 03 m Q w � L j Q Q U z c� z EE W W z Z W U IY Q w 1- U J Q U z U W I— D z z U) N w D L^^ �J Q z Q r r L iM i 1 I I 1 1 r ix T 1 J Q 1 w N N a = 03 of M 1(1 � N O � D o f o o Q to te 9 }N U a o r U d Uom w w n. m J w� a. Got 0 -j C] C Q e V e lit W � u f� w v 00 40 00 of ~Z~^�c°n z z�� `gym N N N z — Z) N U z 1, z FX W W z cD z W U oc ri x W U J Q J Z L iJ z cc n u u L C C i a 1 � J Q T r'� 1� 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z ���■■tom - � �"»®■ ■■■■■■■ ■ - _ - _ ■■■ ■■i ■�� . . ®ems=���■ ■■■■■ EAMM - ■6 ■■■■■■■■ - - MMMM■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ®■■■■mom ®mom ■■ . • �■■■■■®■■ �■ ON i 1 �S� Jo.a---►-� - �04=� oo� g� __�..,_�v�,Ss _�I��-r-� M��+ z� 19�� �2Q1EGT — MI 1 �P�]•moi..►r Ord. �1L.d t..s� - � i :. ... C � 1 • ZS � �—�S1.C��.] �SOS�.iv� �--�S 5+ao`i.e �1 1 �- 1 r 1 1 1 1- - i r 1 1 g _ MINIM OWES ������� - • = • = • Elm= - - mmmmmme .mot _�©� • - ® • - •• - _____M_ mm� mmm m�w���� ZI ZLJV�01J� 3� �IL1fJC� - O Location of Design Point ��� • .. a ... ����� Ems . • � � . . - nr.� .. �©� mmm mm� mm sm���������a����� m I II/ 1 I I 1 DESIGN OF INLETS, CULVERTS, AND CHANNELS I 1 I 1 1 IZ/ CHART iO 160 10.000 168 8.000 EXAMPLE (1) (2) (3) 6. lab 6,000 0.42loehes (3.3 1oo11 g S. 0.120 el. 5,000 144 6. S. 40000 I R Her I32 0 feel S' 1. 3,000 (1) 2.3 0.E 4. 120 (2) 2.1 7.4 2,000 (3) 2.2 7.7 4• 3. toe 3• .,. •D Im Uel 96 1,000 3. . 000 ---► ---- 84 600 Ole 2. 2,-;:,:. 500 a 2. 72 400 / # m = 300 V Z U) K I.7 60 u 200 F c 74 a V cc v v W' O 100 = j46 a 60 x 1.0 u 60 1.0r. U.w 42 W 50 HW ENTRANCE C 0 40 p CALE TYPE cc 1.0 0 W i .9 a 1.-36 30 (1) 34vmre edge with 3: •9 W ho4d►ail . a 33 12) Groove aad milk 41 O hsobvail x •6 .8<. 30 .8 . (3) Groove and rrepalmg IT )0 •T _,. .T 24 6 .T= 6 T4 woo semi@ (2) or (3) I141661 .. . a hmrlsomtail7 to ssaie (1), them 21 4 use straight Imellmod Ilse throogk 0 eM D •ales, k reverse mo ,6 •6' IIImItrNed. .. 3 2 1a s •s, Lo .s . ,, Liz HEADWATER DEPTH FOR HEADWATER SCALES 293 CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS REVISED MAY1964 WITH INLET CONTROL SUREAU Of ►UGIIC ROADS AAA 1/93 -4u / 7G, o - -7Z. Z NC Engineering Consultants 1 CLIENT A 1 - JO--B NO. �- PROJECT U I en MO t, rf �ti4 CALCULATIONS FOR S10EL�L/4 0 MADE BY _5I 2, DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF TDINC Engineering Consultants I I P I I I I I I I I I p I I I CLIENT U I 2_66fYV'!)k%-r- JOB NO. PROJECT Kj I P /\ MQN17- CALCULATIONS FOR C:��Zp� MADE BY_�_ DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY DATE SHEETOF WWOM No Text NC Engineering Consultants CLIENT JOB NO. pnoJEcTc^Lcuunm"opon M^oso,EZumc-C-n$:)4-cxso^soa,--_--u^rs_-_-__-_---oxsET-op ---_' [J 1 1 REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN 1 USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE ORADO AT DENVER LARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COL IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FOOD CONTROL DISTRICT EN --- .............. ECUTED BY DENODATA EROSOU24T1994E OATY7IME 14:32:10 PROJECT TITLE : 1RAMONT 3RD FILING BELVEDERE COURT STORM SEWER 1------------------------ * SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ---_-pESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS HOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL FEET FEET w.0 DURATION INTENSITY PEAK CFSW ELEVATION ELEVATION.-" t�NUMBER AREA MINUTES INCH/HR _-.-- -" 75.29 OK 76.00 N/A OK --------"" N/A 7.66 - ^-------------'- N/A 81.00 75.84 1 1.00 NIA N/A N/A N/A 7.66 81.50 77.83 OK 2.OK 00 N/A 7.66 82.20 �'44 OK 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 78.25 7'44 7.66 OK 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 7,66 78.25 5.00 N/A N/A N/A 6.00 N/A OZI MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION 1* SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS SEWER 512E RATIO= 8" -------- NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH-70 EXISTING SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED WIDTH MANHOLE NUMBER DIA(HIGH) DIA(NIGH) (FT) SEWER DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGN) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) --- 0.00 �D NUMBER UPSTREAM ID NO- "-- ID NO- 18.00 18.00 0.00 - -" 1.00 ROUND 17.60 18.00 18.00 2.00 ROUND 17.60 18.00 18.00 0.00 12.00 3.00 2.00 17.60 0.00 1 23.00 3.00 ROUND 17.60 18.00 18.00 0.00 34.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 17.60 18.00 18.00 45.00 6,00 5.00 ROUND 56.00 WER 1 DIMENSION UNITS FOR FOR DIMENSION UNITS80XND AND SEWER AREHINEFEETARE IN INCHES REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY' OTHERWISE, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE, 1 FOR A NEW SEWER, FULL FROUDE COMMENT EXISTING SIZE WAS USED NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC VLCITY NO. FLOW NORMAL DEPTH VLCITY SEWER DESIGN DEPTH VLCITY FPS FPS ------- ID FLOW Q FULL Q FPS FEET ---- FEET CFS CFS 4.33 0.86 V-OK ----------- 1.06 5.73 NUMBER -- -_" _______ 1.15 5•25 5.73 4.33 0.86 V-OK ! 7.7 8.2 5.25 1.06 4.33 0.86 V-OK i 12.0 7.7 8.2 1.15 5,25 1.06 5.73 4,33 O.Sb V-OK 1 34.0 45 0 7.7 8.2 1. 5 5 25 1.06 5.73 4.33 0.86 V OK 8.2 56.0 FLOW OCCURS 1 FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED t-------------------------------------------- ------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) 12.00 0.60 -------------------------------------------- 74.12 73.79 5.38 0.71 NO 23.00 0.60 75.01 74.12 4.99 5.38 OK 34.00 0.60 75.30 75.01 5.40 4.99 OK ' 45.00 0.60 75.50 75.30 1.25 5.40 . OK 56.00 0.60 75.50 .75.50 1.25 - 1.25 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 WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.00 55.00 0.00 75.62 75.29 75.84 75.29 SUBCR ' 23.00 148.00 60.25 76.51 75.62 76.83 75.84 SUBCR 34.00 48.00 48.00 76.80 - 76.51 77.17 -76.83 PRSSIED 45.00 34.00 34.00 77.00 76.80 77.44 77.17 PRSSIED 56.00 0.10 0.10 77.00 77.00 77.52 77.44 PRSSIED 'PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT '12.0 2.00 76.14 0.55 1.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 1.00 75.29 23.0 3.00 77.12 0.85 0.48 0.14 0.00 0.00 2.00, 76.14 34.0 4.00 77.47 0.25 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.00 3.00 77.12 45.0 5.00 77.73 0.18 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.00 4.00 77.47 '56.0 6.00 77.81 0.00 0.25 0.07 0.00 0.00 5.00 77.73 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD 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, FRICTIONLOSS 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. 0 0 0 lJ 0 T:WINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT K A A M 1T SO J �T�G JOB NO. I PROJECT I\ -'� YY�D _T" 2T CALCULATIONS FOR �pI P>- <n.- KA 11 ^ 1-T-F=7zfL MADE BY 1 DATES CHECKED BY- DATE - -SHEET-OF REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 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 DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 03-21-1995 AT TIME 14:32:36 *** PROJECT TITLE ' DESIGN POINT 6 - CULVERT UNDER MILAN TERRACE DRIVE *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER .COMMENTS ' 1D NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 31.84 53.50 53.50 2.00 N/A N/A N/A 31.84 63.00 54.92 OK OK 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 31.84 62.00 61.42 OK 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 31.84 62.00 61.74 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 __----NOTE_ --------------------------'------------------------------'----- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ' NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) -_ID '---- --------------'-'------- ---.-'-"'------------------------- 12.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 22.98 24.00 30.00 0.00 23.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 31.07 33.00 30.00 0.00 34.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 31.07 33.00 30.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOXISEWER 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, EXISTING SIZE WAS USED --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY .NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS 12.0 31.8 65.0 1.24 13.17 1.92 7.86 6.49 2.36 V-OK 23.0 31.8 29.1 2.50 6.49 1.92 7.86 6.49 0.00 V-OK 34.0 31.8 29.1 2.50 6.49 1.92 7.86 6.49 0.00 V-OK ' FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS 1 I 1 SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM - % ------------------------------------------------- (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) 12.00 2.50 53.00 51.00 7.50 0.00 NO 23.00 0.50 58.00 57.50 1.50 3.00 NO 34.00 0.50 58.00 58.00 ' 1.50 1.50 NO ' OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET ' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS '---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET ---------------------------------------------------------- FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ' 12.00 80.00 0.00 55.50 53.50 54.92 53.50 JUMP 23.00 100.00 100.00 60.50 60.00 61.42 54.92 PRSS'ED 34.00 0.10 0.10 60.50 60.50 61.74 61.42 PRSS'ED ' PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW ' *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS '- --------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID N0, ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT -_ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 2.00 55.58 1.42 1.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 1.00 53.50 23.0 3.00 62.07 5.68 1.25 0.82 0.00 0.00 2.00 55.58 34.0 4.00 62.40 0.00 0.50 0.33 0.00 0.00 3.00 62.07 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD 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. I 1 1 CLIENT Imo+, I_JOB NO. S- NC Engineering Consultants PROJECT U I b aT-IT aT-a CALCULATIONS FOR IfDIA-5� N 1 I E- C MADE BY r=i DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF 4 3 z 11 0 I 1 f.. REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 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 DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 03-21-1995 AT TIME 16:09:43 *** PROJECT TITLE ' OUTFLOW PIPE PARALLEL TO LEMAY AVENUE *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 3.01 68.50 68.50 OK ' 2.00 N/A N/A N/A 3.01 85.00 76.20 OK 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 3.01 80.00 78.24 OK 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 3.01 80.00 78.32 OK ' OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .8 SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ' --__- -ID N0. 1D NO. ------------'----" - _ (IN)(FT)(IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 12.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND -------- ---- ----- ----- -'---,---- 9.27 15.00 15.00 0.00 23.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 12.83 15.00 15.00 0.00 ' 34.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 12.83 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC , FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. ' NUMBER CFS CFS FEET _ FPS FEET FPS FPS '----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 3.0 10.9 0.45 7.58 0.70 4.27 2.45 2.32 V-OK 23.0 3.0 4.6 0.74 3.98 0.70 4.27 2.45 0.90 V-OK ' 34.0 3.0 4.6 0.74 3.98 0.70 4.27 2.45 0.90 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ----S-EDER-----------S--- LOPE----INVERT---------ELEVATION ------------B---URIED-----DEPTH----------C-OM-MENTS----- ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM 11 (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) ------------------------------------------------- 12.00 2.83 75.50 67.01 8.25 0.24 NO 23.00 0.50 77.50 75.50 1.25 8.25 OK 34.00 0.50 77.50 77.50 1.25 1.25 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 WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET 12.00 300.00 8.48 76.75 68.26 76.20 68.50 JUMP 23.00 400.00 0.00 78.75 76.75 78.24 76.20 SUBCR 34.00 0.10 0.00 78.75 78.75 78.32 78.24 SUBCR ' PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS '----'--------'--------------- ------------------------------------------------ UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 2.00' 76.29 7.70 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 1.00 68.50 ' 23.0 3.00 78.34 2.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 76.29 34.0 4.00 78.41 0.05 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 78.34 ' BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD 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 I 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. d 1 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION MIRAMONT 3RD FILING CHANNEL SECTION A•A 1 STA ELEV �o�mBol.our ..... --•--- / ff 20.00 15.0o ' 40.00 20.00 ' IN' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) ' 0.060 0.0300 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE ' (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. ..... ..... ..... ' 15.50 1.0 1.7 1.67 0.59 16.00 4.0 2.7 10.63 0.66 16.50 9.0 3.5 31.32 0.71 aL cJ8•2S e-2' ' 17.00 16.0 4.2 67.44 0.74 1 17.50 25.0 4.9 122.27 0.77""�Q 18.00 36.0 5.5 198.80 0.79 18.50 49.0 6.1 299.84 0.82 ' 19.00 64.0 6.7 428.05 0.83 19.50 81.0 7.2 585.96 0.85 20.00 100.0 7.8 775.99 0.86 1 � KA Ticlo Gor..)Ua GLI a vNEE_l_ -1-c-) use t=2A]v( DP ' DP �l� S L7 .S LLj IS IZ=O Z F--i2-C>Ni Can-# �p ti1�5 ***************************************** ***** CHANNEL LINING ANALYSIS ***** ***** North American Green ***** DESIGNER: MIRAMONT PROJECT: 3RD FILING STATION: SECTION A -A DRAINAGE AREA: 22.3 Acres CHANNEL DESCRIPTION: Bottom Width: 0.00 ft Left Side Slope: 4.0 Right Side Slope: 4.0 Min. Lining Permissible Recommended Shear(lb/sf) - C125/C 2.15 Normal Area Depth (ft) (sf) ------------------ 1.12 5.10 0 DATE: 11-16-1994 PROJECT NO.: 504-008 TO STATION: DESIGN FREQUENCY: 0-.100 Years CHANNEL SLOPE: 0.030 ft/ft Discharge Hydraulic (cfs) Radius (ft) -- -- - 62.7 0.54 ar_ Velocity Calculated (ft/sec) Shear (lb/sf) --------------------- 12.30 2.11 Manning Coefficient 0.014 Remarks ------------ Stable ' MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS CATEGORY I ' C125 Coconut fiber channel lining shall be a machine -produced mat of 1001 coconut fiber. The blanket shall be of consistent thickness with the coconut fiber ' evenly distributed over the entire area of the mat. The blanket shall be covered on the top and bottom with black polypropylene netting having ultraviolet additives to reduce breakdown and an approximate 5/8" X 5/8" mesh size. The blanket shall be sewn together on 1.5" centers with polyester thread. Coconut fiber channel lining shall be C125 as manufactured by North American Green, or equivalent. Coconut fiber channel lining shall have the following properties: Material Content ' Coconut fiber 10001 (.5 lb/sq.yd.) (.27 kg/sq.meter) Netting Both sides, heavyweight UV stabilized (3 lb/1,000 sq. ft. approx. wt.) ' Stitch 1000i Polyester Black Physical Specifications (Roll) ' Width 6.5 feet (2 meter) ' Length 83.5 feet (25.4 meter) Weight 30 lbs +/- 10% (13.6kg) ' Area 60 sq. yds. (50 sq.meter) Stitch Spacing 1.5" /> 50 per 6.5' roll width 11 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION MIRAMONT 3RD FILING CHANNEL SECTION B•B ' ELEVATION (feet) 15.50 16.0 16.50 17.00 17.50 ' 18.00 18.50 19.00 0 20.00 0.0 2 1 STA 0.00 20.00 40.00 'N' VALUE 0.060 AREA (sq ft) 1.0 4.0 9.0 16.0 25.0 36.0 49.0 64.0 81.0 100.0 ELEV 20.00 15.00 20.00 SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0700 VELOCITY (fps) 2.6 4.1 5.3 6.4 7.5 8.4 9.3 10.2 11.1 11.9 ' dim°1.35 4=i 17/ 0 DISCHARGE FROUDE (cfs) NO. 2.56 0.90 16.23 1.01 47.85 1.08 --j .�J @ d = • S3' 103.02 1.13`�Q 186.77 1.18 303.67 1.21 458.01 1.25 653.86 1.27 895.07 1.30 1185.34 1.32 131 KA J RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION MIRAMONT 3RD FILING CHANNEL SECTION C•C 1 ELEVATION (feet) 15.50 ' 16.0 16.50 17.00 • 17.50 ' 18.00 18.50 19.00 19.50 ' 20 1 20.0000 t STA ELEV 0.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 Q 40.00 20.00 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.060 0.0300 AREA sq VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. 1.0 1.7 1.67 0.59 4.0 0.66 9.0 16.0 3.5 3.5 4.2 31.32 71 31.32 0.71t� 67.44 0.744-� 25.0 4.9 122.27 0.77'--�.j1Z,IZ 36.0 5.5 198.80 0.79 49.0 6.1 299.84 0.82 64.0 6.7 428.05 0.83 81.0 7.2 585.96 0.85 00.0 7.8 775.99 0.86 ZQ( I.1IIJ 1 4- 0 I Z.4- tAIQ RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION ' MIRAMONT 3RD FILING CHANNEL SECTION D-D c4c, d-- ol_)T ELEVATION (feet) 15.50 ' 16.0 16.50 17.00 17.50 ' 18.00 18.50 19.00 0 .0 ' 20 20.00 STA 0.00 20.00 40.00 'N' VALUE 0.060 AREA sq ft) 1.0 4.0 9.0 16.0 25.0 36.0 49.0 64.0 81.0 100.0 ELEV 20.00 15.00 20.00 SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0600 VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (fps) (cfs) NO. 2.4 2.37 0.83 3.8 15.03 0.94 4.9 44.30 1.00 53.'Z4 6.0 95.38 1.05 6.9 172.91 1.09 7.8 281.14 1.12 8.7 424.04 1.15 9.5 605.35 1.18 10.2 828.67 1.20 11.0 1097.42 1.22 1 ' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION MIRAMONT 3RD FILING CHANNEL SECTION E•E ELEVATION (feet) 19.10 ' 19.0 . 19.30 19.40 19.50 ' 19.60 19.70 19.80 ' 19.90 ZIP/ STA ELEV 0.00 20.00 50.00 19.00 100.00 20.00-------.--____-- 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.060 0.0050 AREA sq VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. 0.5 0.2 0.12 0.19 2.0 0.4 0.76 0.21 4.5 0.5 2.23 0.23 8.0 0.6 4.81 0.24 nn 12 �' 12.5 0.7 8.72 0.25 •� c+s T] - �� 18.0 0.8 14.17 0.25� I{;.9g�s�d=C�).4=4' 24.5 0.9 21.38 0.26 32.0 1.0 30.52 0.27 40.5 1.0 41.78 0.27 DQDQ IQ C-L.z . -JAL. " 4 1�EZF L.>rlaE-Z.De�,li.I ?_ l4 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION ' MIRAMONT 3RD FILING CHANNEL SECTION F-F STA 0.00 20.00 40.00 IN VALUE f..--....-- 0.060 ELEVATION AREA (feet) (sq ft) --------- ------- 15.50 1.0 ' 16.00 4.0 16.50 9.0 17.00 16.0 17.50 25.0 ' 18.00 36.0 18.50 49.0 19.00 64.0 ' 19.50 81.0 20.00 100.0 ' C:K�= I•si�. ELEV 20.00 15.00 20.00 SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0300 VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (fps) ........ (cfs) ......... NO. ...... 1.7 1.67 0.59 2.7 10.63 0.66 I I•�� 3.5 31.32 0.71,E 31..1 d= 4.2 67.44 0.74 4.9 122.27 0.77 `t 5.5 198.80 0.79 6.1 299.84 0.82 6.7 428.05 0.83 7.2 585.96 0.85 7.8 775.99 0.86 14' ?A IQ. RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ' CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION MIRAMONT 3RD FILING CHANNEL SECTION G-G STA 0.00 ' 0.00 40.00 'NO VALUE - - 0.060 ELEV 20.00 15.00 20.00 SLOPE(ft/ft) - 0.0050 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY ' (feet) (sq ft) (fps) ' 15.50 1.0 0.7 16.00 4.0 1.1 16.50 9.0 1.4 17.00 16.0 1.7 17.50 25.0 2.0 18.00 36.0 2.3 18.50 49.0 2.5 19.00 64.0 2.7 19.50 81.0 3.0 20.00 100.0 3.2 1 2_' g/ FROUDE NO. 0.24 0.27 r 1 0.29 0.30 135' 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 DISCHARGE (cfs) 0.68 4.34 12.79 27.53 49.92 81.16 122.41 174.75 239.22 316.80 mtj i RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA RIP RAP WEIR FOR SECTION C5 AND D5 WEIR COEF. 3.000 STA ELEV ..... ----- 0.0 2.00 0.0 1.00 30.0 1.00 30.0 2.00 ELEVATION DISCHARGE (feet) (cfs) 1.00 0.0 1.10 2.8 1.20 8.0 1.30 14.8 1.40 22.8 1.50 31-8 1.60 41.8 1.70 1.80 52.7 64.4 G -pEar- Fop- 1.90 76.8 2.00 90.0 ZZ� EXERPTS FROM THE SWMM MODEL FOR MAIL CREEK [1 1 27. 21. 0. 16. 42. 49. 4. 2. ' 0( ) .4(S) AM 8.7(S) 15.3(S) 20.5(S) 3.7(S) .4( ) 6 32. 374. 370. 358. 202. 166. 27. 28. 1. 0. 21. 3.1( ) 3.3( ) 4.3( ) 1.8( ) 1.4( ) O(S) .9( ) .3( ) .2( ) .9( ) ' 21. 0. 138. 0. 0. 0. 16. 31. 31. 0. .0( ) .1( ) 4.3(S) .0( ) .1( ) .0( ) .8( ) 2.2( ) 19.2(S) .0( ) 36. 36. 1. 369. 358. 34. 16. 5. 21. 21. ' 2.1( ) 3.2(0) .3( ) 13.6(S) 3.0(S) 15.3(S) 5:2(S) 5.5(S) 1(S) 1.3( ) 21. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 23.7(S) .1( ) .0( ) .1( ) .0( ) .2( ) .1( ) .1( ) .0( ) .1( ) ' 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 2. 1. 0. 0. 0. .0( ) .1( ) .0( ) .1( ) .2( ) .2( ) .3( ) O( ) .0( ) .0( ) 0. 1. 156. 64. 64. 0. 353. 42. 357. 21. ' 0( ) .3( ) 6.5( ) 80.0(1) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .0( ) .9( ) 27. 21. 0. 16. 42. 48. 4. 2. .0( ) .4(S) O(S) 8.5(S) 15.4(S) 19.9(S) 3.7(S) .3( ) MAIL CREEK BASIN, DEV. CONDITIONS 1987 100-YEAR STORM/W UPDATED POND #105 ' INCLUDES MOUNTAINRIDGE 10/93-ALTERNATIVE NO.1-C RBD FILE NO.02011802.DAT (1/94) '*** PEAK FLOWS, STAGES CONVEYANCE PEAK AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENSION DAMS *** STAGE STORAGE TIME ELEMENT (CFS) (FT) (AC -FT) (HR/MIN) 206 60. 1.8 0 36. ' 203 56. 1.8 0 36. 205 17. .1 1.6 1 10. 207 15. .1 1.4 1 10. 204 82, 2.2 0 38. 201 107. 3.1 0 40. ' 202 15. 1.2 1 22. 200 192. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. 49 327. 3.7 0 46. 48 342. 3.3 0 48. ' 44 66. 2.0 0 42. 50 404. 5.2 0 48. 280 59. 2.1 0 38. ' 25 24 157, 51. 2.9 3.2 0 40. 0 44. 23 318. 3.9 0 40. 47 404. 3.6 0 48. 279 17. .1 1.5 1 8. 222 524. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. 185 59. 1.7 0 36. 51 405. 4.3 0 48. 46 67. 2.0 0 36. 22 22, 1 29.5 2 28, 364 107. 1.0 0 38. ' 278 56. .1 31.2 2 44. 45 103. 2.4 0 38. 221 160. 2.5 0 38. 21 22. 1.3 2 36. ' 399 5. .1 4.9 2 22. 365 97. 1.0 0 38. 247 42. .1 15.4 6 40. 20 169. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 38. 368 56. .8 0 36. ' 370 121. 3.1 0 36. I Z�1 ' 369 95. 2:1 0 42. 367 57. 1.4 0 44. 366 102. 1.8 0 42.• ' 320 61. .1 3.6 1 10. 372 66. .8 0 38. 244 256. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. 373 123. 3.4 0 40. 371 166. 1.9 0 40. ' 254 72. 1.0 0 36. 19 61. 1.5 1 12. 28 45. 1.7 0 36. 287 113. 2.5 0 38. ' 40 63. .8 0 42. 362 98. 1.0 0 36. 104 17. .1 12.1 2 12. 243 289. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. 36 116. 1.1 0 36. ' 107 78L- .1 1.5 1 6. 32 165. 1.2 0 38. 29 109. 2.5 0 38. ' 27 375 163. 43. 2.9 3.6 0 0 42. 52. 374 84. 1.1 0 40. 38 201. 2.6 0 36. 43 31. .1 19.3 6 40. 321 78. .1 1.3 0 48. ' 318 82. 1.7 1 0. 105 20. .1 7.3 1 38. 30 232. 3.4 0 40. 18 300, 199.- 96. 3.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 0 42. 6. 245 298. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 38. 42 75. 2.6 0 36. 35 249. 1.2 0 36. 319 95.D (DIRECT FLOW) 1 34. ' 17 415, 4.3 0 44. 301 96. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 6. 103 221. .1 6.6 0 50. ' 102 16 80. 596. 1 16.0 4.1 1 0 40, 48. 290 69. 5.0 7.0 1 12. 262 36. 3.0 16.3 1 28. 33 170. .1 12.0 2 20. 15 543. .1 1.9 0 54. ' 271 186. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 6. 270 69. 4.4 3 0. 261 59. 3.5 .8 0 50. ' 14 272 715, 224. 3.9 7.7 0 3 54. 0. 13 774. 4.8 0 54. 12 987. 7.0 0 56. 210 1015. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 54. 101 1009. .5 4.6 0 56. ' 211 1056. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 54. 100 1000. .5 24.1 1 6. 11 1017. 5.4 1 10. L_Ot�3�/E`(Ae►JG 10 1055. 4.9 1 14. ' (DIRECT FLOW) ENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED (I (moo e�1 2AV�1ol.�i- ld r- Zs/ LEGEND SWMM SUB -CATCHMENT 53 1 211 34 CONVEYANCE ELEMENT - DETENTION ELEMENT !0 -NODE -POND . 1 --- 52 L` �F• is 1� f< MI�AMON-T� 3Ud .. ' 5/ 1 { 10 t \ \ FV•-Tl)� D�VELC'�M�N"-j I 2 Co/ I 7 L-j DESIGN OF RIPRAP 11 I 1 U 1 RMIN-C Engineering Consultants CLIENT M 1 P A M C>.M .���- 1 A JOB NO. �4-mom PROJECT M �I P- AMQN— ?.� CALCULATIONS FOR MADEBY_EY--DATE4•94- CHECKEDBY_DATE SHEET 27 OF P,�E=Qt�itilL- 1 WENT h.J:I�A1..101J"T ji_"-r�QGIA.T�� !OB NO. RWINC PROJECT,-A"`?.I„AOiJ-f 3 CALCMATIONSFOR G'IP CAMP ' Englneering Consultants MADEBY �C DATE03'2'2- CHECKEDBY DATE SHEET_OF �I�EE3 �1 PPP �Vrt�-C' pt'�T-1�I�J': lTrl ICES . UI=�Scw! 'p 1 /� I CANT-L' OL Call TFmQJA -i1VMNs Q a' .3 ,005 G�=S V-S Q :7.3 FPS : i S,SS% 1 �b� 3c:, US FM: oEs1�r 1.ctloQr� 1 4/ � Z.S � 3 L4 �/D.1.5 = 3: Ip 1.1��D� p••g-�- i • . USE= G�L.P.SS (o�.�GL;�Sb: �IZ; �M�J 1 E�CPo� 151o+,y P�SL�i✓ 2.6 I/zTaw1 A, = -IA:... /� _ PP�M FIEi�2j= S-9 I�Z roi.j :e 4 •g . LsNr,TN of Pexrr--=csi :ol i' ZELqL-�pm ..: :. �'. I '.. : - =- - - - - - - - - T+�lcl.,( a� IvtaK F-i PIf �7 EODIN%E ` `�Y:�• L-A°SS /� � I .-., : ..i .I ..j.. i ....:...: ; f , r ....I 21 P 0,- i \S / I [�Ta I :....... D M i!4. `7, 1 C'onleUJsIOAJ..:_._ R1Pa�p -� Gi��S _ - •-- ::. i ;...;._. --- 1kii I oTM - 8 ****** HYCHL ****** (Version 2.0) ****** Date 03-23-95 Commands Read From File: N:\HYDRO\MCTRANS\HYCHL\MIRAMONT.CHL JOB MIRAMONT UNI 0 ** UNITS PARAMETER = 0 (ENGLISH) CHL .055 32 VSH 4 4 ** V-SHAPE RIGHT Z1 = 4.0 AND LEFT Z2 = 4.0 N .03 .03 LOW FLOW N VALUE= .030 '** ** SIDE SLOPE N VALUE= .030 LRR 1.5 2 0 2.5 0.047 ** D50 (FT) 1.50 ** SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.50. ** SHIELDS PARAMETER .047 END '***************END OF COMMAND FILE************ MIRAMONT INPUTREVIEW - DESIGN PARAMETERS: DESIGN DISCHARGE (CFS): 32.00 ' CHANNEL SHAPE: VSHAPED CHANNEL SLOPE (FT/FT): .055 '------------------------------------- HYDRAULIC -CALCULATIONS ----------------------------------------- -USING -NORMAL -DEPTH DESIGN MAXIMUM FLOW (CFS) 32.00 163.98 (FT) 1.04 1.92 'DEPTH AREA (FT�2) 4.34 14.79 WETTED PERIMETER (FT) 8.59 15.86 HYDRAULIC RADIUS (FT) .51 .93 VELOCITY (FT/SEC) 7.37 11.09 MANNINGS N (LOW FLOW) .030 .030 REYNOLDS NUMBER (10�5) 2.24 ' *** WARNING *** REYNOLDS NUMBER IS LARGER *** WARNING *** Davg/D50 <= 2 FOR THE MAXIMUM DISCHARGE PROCEDURE. Qmax MAY BE INCORRECT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES BATHURST ------------------ ' STABILITYANALYSIS - LINING ' CONDITION TYPE -- BOTTOM; STRAIGHT RIPRAP ' SIDE; STRAIGHT RIPRAP *** NORMAL END OF HYCHL *** THAN 10A5 PERMIS SHR CALC. SHR STAB. (LB/FT�2) (LB/FT-2) FACTOR REMARKS 6.60 3.58 1.85 STABLE 6.15 3.00 2.05 STABLE GLASS I�. = IZ_ Aso IS S-TABIJ� F l✓ DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP 2-8/ EMEMEMEMOM MEN FAAM M NA Ei ME ■ ,='PAA ION I W, � IMAP WIN 0 -0 00 ti 2 A Yt /D .6 .8 1.0 Use Da instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream. FIGURE 5-7.4 RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 9 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 6 = Expansion Angle ■I r .0 laws i MAE I■r' m�•' ''�■I mu ' immom I EAPA,I I ROME MEN Z *0 m■■■m■ RIPRAP -2CY I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .( a TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 6 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT t I 1 [l F- L nl 7 J EROSION CONTROL 30/ ' September 7, 1994 ' Mr. Glen Schlueter City of Fort Collins ' Utility Services Stormwater 235 Mathews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 ' Re: Miramont P.U.D., Third Filing Erosion Control Cost Estimate ' Dear Glen: ' This letter is intended to satisfy the City of Fort Collins requirements for an erosion control security deposit for Miramont P.U.D. Third Filing. The City of Fort Collins current cost factors will be used for this estimate. There will be approximately 30.96 acres (Gross platted area) disturbed within this project. There will also be approximately 51 acres offsite that will be overlot graded ' along with this project. Using the City criteria of $500.00 per acre for construction sites greater than 10 acres, and using a 150% contingency, the total obligation of Miramont Associates for a security deposit would be (81.96 acres) * ($500.00 per acre) * (150% contingency) = $61,470 ' A cost breakdown of the erosion control measures that will need to be installed is listed below: Temp seed& Mulch (82 acres) @ $500 = $41,000 Gravel inlet filters (4 ea).@ $300 = $1200 Straw Bale check dams (20 ea) @ $150 = $3000 ' Total $45,200 1 , Therefore, the larger amount, or the amount,of security deposit obligation should be in the amount of $61,470. Please call if you have any questions regarding this estimate. Respectfully, RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants o N� Roger Curtiss, P.E. a RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION 33/ PROJECT: STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: DATE: 30 DEVELOPED SUBBA�IN ERODIBILITY ZONE Asb (ac) Lsb (ft) Ssb Lb (feet) Sb PS M a S 00eedTe o.98 4-So Z.'o- Ic7Z � z,69 Sao I.8' 18g3 4.84 103 2.-70 80 -7-a5c> 0,-10 1246 I-8`i ocj Z.Z9 O.So 11l S I - 14 10-7 I a 13 4 4s2 2.2� I 16. I (> 28 ? �Z 30o I Vo I oz4 f • 23 _ 1 l o ��S O•S 9"7Z (�.SS III U.33 Z3o . O,S I I Z D,59 4?DD 3- 7. 2 1- Z. I& 113 �o SZS O•S • �99 O.S� l 14 2Z7Z 3.Iz IIS 0.69 2bZ D.�s d- -3 low 1 3 3250 4.23 s,- �.g....-... .. _... D-.37_..._ 300 111 1, _ .Z. 3�7.44- _ U=>T T MARCH 1991 8.14 ►A DESIGN CRITERIA CLAD 7. 1 1 1 1 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS .34zz PROJECT: STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: k3- G�>i?1s5 DATE: �•4.9Q- Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment \ 'T-aNW SEED (tJO M.}11 O. 4i= WOUJ4- .. O- io L-00....._.....- --- --- ._...------- pCO.-..._..._....._._--------..._..'.:._:_...: MAJOR BASIN PS SUB BASIN AREA (Ac) CALCULATIONS 1-777 _.._-_.>\l 6 9za °e -- ------ _ _ . - ---- -- - - — -- - _o s----- .75 , ._ -�•Io._ nn_� __Q�ELl1.E C�uQ.�n',�1-1 __---_._ . C-�•77 DC,. TD ��E�Vc.Ti<MP SEED. �- MULGa-}. - Q-Icl�' ----------------------- � ------ 30, cep ---- - -- - 74 MARCH 1991 5-15 DESIGN CRITERIA gj� d.3Z I '22 I CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE M 35/ PROJECT: I ezmnl.lr Jt� STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 19 9 ONLY COMPLETED BY: DATE: 4-4-24 Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new.schedule for 'Major approval by the. City Engineer. ` I 1 YEAR MONTH I I I J i �I I o I tv I rD I J I I t,•� OVERLOT GRADING WIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete. Paving Other VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/Kate/Blankets Other STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR 'ATE SUBMITTED MAINTAINED BY APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON ' MARCH1931 8-16 DESIGN CRITERIA Table 86 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. Treatment C-Factor P-Factor ' BARE SOIL Packedand smooth................................................................ 1.00 1.00 Freshlydisked........................................................................ 1.00 0.90 ' Rough irregular surface........................................................... 1.00 0.90 SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP......................................... ........................ 1.00 0.50"' ' STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00 0.80 SILT FENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00 0.50 ' ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01 1.00 ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 8-A 1.00 ' SOD GRASS.................................................................................. 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.4512' 1.00 HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE ........... 0.1013' 1.00 SOIL SEALANT....................................................................0.01-0.60"' 1.00 EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS............................................ 0.10 1.00 GRAVEL MULCH Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately ' 1/4" to 1 1/2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05 1.00 HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH After planting grass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately anchor, tack or crimp material into the soil. ' Slope (%) 1 to 05.............................................................................0.06 1.00 6 to 10............................................................................. 0.06 1.00 11 to 15............................................................................. 0.07 1.00 ' 16 to 20.............................................................................0.11 21 to 25............................................................................. 0.14 1.00 1.00 25 to 33.............................................................................0.17 1.00 > 33.......................................................................... 0.20 1.00 NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation. (1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading. (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required. (3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated. (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. I ' MARCH 1991 8.6 DESIGN CRITERIA ' Table 8-e C Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from previous page). Treatment C-Factor P-Factor ' CONTOUR FURROWED SURFACE Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Maximum length refers to the down slope length. ' Basin Maximum Slope Length 1°,l (feet) ' 1 to 2 400. .1.00 .......................... 0.60 .......................................... 3 to 5 300.......................... .. .1.00 0.50 6 to 8 200..........................................................................1.00 0.50 9 to 12 120..........................................................................1.00 0.70 13 to 16 80. .1.00 0.70 17 to 20 60..........................................................................1.00 0.80 > 20 50 ..................................................................... 1.00 0.90 ' TERRACING Must contain 10-year runoff volumes, without overflowing, as determined by applicable hydrologic methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Basin Slope M 1 to 2.....................................................................................1.00 0.12 9 to 12. . 1.00 0.12 13 to 16..................................................................................... 1.00 0.14 17 to 20.....................................................................................1.00 0.16 ' >20..................................................................................... 1.00 0.18 NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation. I 1] I 1 1 1 ' MARCH 1991 8.7 DESIGN CRITERIA 1 38/ o 0 m 0 0 0 o va�ntlU� o rnota,rn000000 o vvvv�nlnuliilultn O wof0tmmofofmm0tofm000 . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v�rV�vvvvvVVvtnuiln M w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ' O r w w w at 01 01 01 01 Ot Ot Ot Ot Ot 01 Ot 01 01 Ot Ot . . O. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N w w N w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ' O OMsrl['110t0�0�Orrrrrrrrrrrr0000[OCO fOCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � wcOwcOcocOCOwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ' o wNM�r�n�nlnto��to��rrrrrrrrrrwww p a Mvv<rd vvv v�rsr�v�vv �vvvvvvsry v 0 c000cococo00coco0omcocococococococ000cococococococo O w O N M V' v In In In to 1D tD t0 b t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 r r r r r r z wwwwwwwwwwc0wwwwwww00cowwwwwco H a o -qr01ricvmmv v cry LnLnLnLn1nLnLnlnln10w101010 t0r u w w w w w w w w w w w Co w w w w w w w w w w w w w w a o OtOwOririNNMMMM V sr srai V V V V lnlfllntntOtO . .......................... w wwwwCocowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ..0 lnNinrwOtOOriri.-iNNNNNMMMMM V, V V V V rl O dP . . . . . . . . . . . . ' co w -- �!'1 N M M M M M V' V' v V' v V .,r v wcococococococowwwwwwwwwwDowwwwwww $4 N W a0 w1r1 riwriM V'Inlnt0t0rrrwwwwwwOt0lOt000OO to� a� O v N N tM C1 C1 c1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M V 4 V'd' ; ' H w co 0 w CD co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co w w co w w co co 0 10 Ln co o A N M v r w to Ln to 0 0.to 10 r r r r co co w m 0% H (n V' riNNMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 1 W In r4.-1lnr wOOriNNMMMarsrV' vs7'tntntnt0t0t0rr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M riNNNNP'1 c")MC1 t°1 M f")MMMMMMMMMMMM MM ' O O M N w w 00.i N N M M M v v v v v rIn In to to w w wt0 LYi c7 Oririri.iNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN wa wwwwwwwwwwwww0wwwwwwwwwwww �f1 to toO1NM V'0wrrrwwwM010101CAm000000 a N01oOri4r♦riri.-i.-irlriririririr-lri.4riNNNNNN w rCDcoCIO wwwwwwww.ww00wwwwwwwwwww 7.., Cl VIn0Mln1Dww01000rir4riHNNNNMMMMMM q W N w 01 O O O O O O O ri ri ri ri ri rroococowcocomoowc000wwwwwwwwwwwww In wNwri V'tnrrwOt OtOOri.-1.-dr-i riNNNMMMMM ri tOww 010101010tCt010t00o000000000000 rrrrrrrrrrrcocowwwwwwwwwwwww O . 10c'10 V r010riNMM V vLnlninintOt %otOrrt010t0 . . . ' ri �t0r. r. r. rwawCo Co . CO Co . . Cowwwwwwwww. w rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr to 010%rtDr wwrrrt0wt0ln V rMMNNOtw V'ri0110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' O O N N N N N N N N N N C4 N N N N N N ri H ri ri 00 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr x 3 E+-• 00000000000000000000000000 ' OCH 00000000000000000000000000 azw riNMvintorwOtOriNM V lnt0rw010tt1011fOu10 wa`-' rirlriririririri,-{riNNMMsf V'tl1 MARCH 1991 8.4 nccir:u raircoie S�x CHARTS, TABLES, FIGURES DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF 1 1 1 1 1 50 30 1- 20 z w U W . 10 Z W 0- 0 5 W ¢ 3 O CU 2 W f- 3 1 -`4V _=NNNNI1I_A-I �NIFAI1I�_ _MN011111WA 211,1FM_ MEN M , I � � • • I ���1111� MEMO SEEN e■ 5' .1 .2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING" UNDEVELOPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975. 5 -1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRCOG 41/ INTERPOLATED VALUES FOR 100 YEAR INTENSITIES Tc Value s,Aµ7-, 5.00 9.0 5.10 9.0 5.20 8.9 5.30 8.9 5.40 8.9 5.50 8.8 5.60 8.8 5.70 8.7 5.80 8.7 5.90 8.7 6.00 8.6 6.10 8.6 6.20 8.6 6.30 8.5 6.40 8.5 6.50 8.5 6.60 8.4 6.70 8.4 6.80 8.4 6.90 8.3 7.00 8.3 7.10 8.2 7.20 8.2 7.30 8.2 7.40 8.1 7.50 8.1 7.60 8.1 7.70 8.0 7.80 8.0 7.90 8.0 8.00 7.9 8.10 7.9 8.20 7.8 j 8.30 7.8 8.40 7.8 8.50 7.7 8.60 7.7 8.70 7.7 8.80 7.6 8.90 7.6 9.00 7.6 9.10 7.5 9.20 7.5 9.30 7.5 9.40 7.4 9.50 7.4 9.60 7.3 9.70 7.3 9.80 7.3 9.90 7.2 10.00 7.2 No Text I 4 3/ Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major and Minor Storms ' per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria RESIDENTIAL with drive over curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc. 0 is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 2.63 sq.ft. Area = 20.11 sq.ft. ' Minor Storm : Major Storm Slope Red. • Minor • G V Major • C V (X) :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) : X : (cfs) (fps) ' 0.40 : 0.50 : 86.71 : •2.74-i 2.09 : 696.73 : 22.03 : 2.19 : 0.50 : 0.65 : 86.71 : 3.99 : 2.33 : 696.73 : 32.02 : 2.45 : 0.60 : 0.80 : 116.71 5.37 : 2.55 : 696.73 : 43.17 : 2.68 : 0.70 : 0.80 : 86.71 5.80-: 2.76 : 696.73 : 46.63 : 2.90 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 86.71 6.20 : 2.95 : 696.73 : 49.85 : 3.10 : 0.90 : 0.80 : 86.71 6.58 : 3.13 : 696.73 : 52.88 : 3.29 : 1.00 : 0.80 : 86.71 6.94 : 3.30 : 696.73 : 55.74 : 3.46 : 1.25 : 0.80 : 86.71 7.76 3.69 : 696.73 : 62.32 : 3.87 : 1.50 : 0.80 : 86.71 8.50 : 4.04 : 696.73 : 68.27 : 4.24 : 1.75 : 0.80 : 86.71 9.18 : 4.36 : 696.73 : 73.73 : 4.58 : 2.00 0.80 : 86.71 9.81 : 4.66 : 696.73 : 78.83 : 4.90 : 2.25 0.78 : 86.71 : 10.15 : 4.95 : 696.73 : 81.52 : 5.20 : 2.50 0.76 : 86.71 : 10.42 : 5.21 : 696.73 : 83.72 : 5.48 : 2.75 0.74 : 86.71 : 10.64 : 5.47 : 696.73 : 85.50 : 5.75 3.00 : 0.72 : 86.71 : 10.81 : 5.71 : 696.73 : 86.89 : 6.00 3.25 0.69 : 86.71 : 10.79 : 5.94 : 696.73 : 86.67 : 6.25 ' 3.50 0.66 : 86.71 : 10.71 : 6.17 : 696.73 : 86.03 : 6.48 3.75 0.63 : 86.71 : 10.58 : 6.38 : 696.73 : 85.00 : 6.71 4.00 : 0.60 : 86.71 : 10.41 : 6.59 : 696.73 : 83.61 : 6.93 4.25 0.58 : 86.71 : 10.37 : 6.80 : 696.73 : 83.31 : 7.14 4.50 0.54 : 116.71 : 9.93 : 6.99 : 696.73 : 79.81 : 7.35 4.75 0.52 : 86.71 : 9.83 : 7.19 : 696.73 : 78.96 : 7.55 5.00 0.49 : 86.71 : 9.50 : 7.37 : 696.73 : 76.34 : 7.75 ' 5.25 0.46 : 86.71 : 9.14 : 7.55 : 696.73 : 73.43 : 7.94 5.50 0.44 : 86.71 : 8.95 : 7.73 : 696.73 : 71.89 : 8.13 5.75 : 0.42 : 86.71 : 8.73 : 7.91 : 696.73 : 70.17 : 8.31 ' 6.00 : 0.40 : 86.71 : 8.50 : 8.08 : 696.73 : 68.27 : 8.49 1 1 I d i 44Z CLIENT i-r'q OF t'-o�i C� t l SIUS JOB NO. 1 ■��INC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FORULTrT-HZ F k-� Engineering Consultants MADE BYDATE7.9Z CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET OF 771 IT, 1 ISJ� �2JVC_OVi=F'_ L'L)F_B [�L7T'T.EFZ _:SIDE=LLdt� : J 1 - r F_r�,�wna1 F_ STe.EEF' caP�c-IrI�S + 1 - r t ' ! L 1 j P.F=.1✓, S.t=CllolJ: .fir Z.Z Z._GtSY D>= 3---oT=T�.G1�W11S 17>=S1G�N i-Abti]l�dL .i i J - 1 I n� -� - �LL/44HP H r ' 4 l T}-�E=aZc.TlCbl-_ �UT'.7-t✓Z_C'.dPdG�ZY.-. ! l_._ 1 1 LI1 c-ur T.1 i T ; _ 1 _ 1 �� --a�TaTo� L - - I - - + - — } - 1 +�F�z�('2ax14) �F t�X 28� 1_ _ _ .17 9 43%i Z 1 - Z'63 ;-r- - - 1., I 1 I - O Est �, ' S l/Z -. -� 1 i � �o 39 8'A --t _ I I - a I i \Co Za �3� _ I2 4s _ o old > i 1 ___} 0 01� -: - 1 j - - - J 1 —_- �__- CLIENT ` ' J­T­4 nr t-__ r l lr�,t l jQs, JOB NO. INC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR��-- �� �", F� Engineering Consultants MADE BY�DATE Z•9z CHECKED BY DATE SHEET Z OF Z 11 11 I Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major and Minor Storms per City of.Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria RESIDENTIAL u/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RED, Inc. a is for one side of the road only November 23, 1993 V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 3.37 sq.ft. Area = 18.495 sq.ft. Minor Storm . Major Storm Slope : Red. . Minor . G V . Major . C V (%) :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) : X : (cfs) (fps) 0.40 : 0.50 : 129.87 : 4.11 2.31 : 647.33 : 20.47 : 1.41 0.50 : 0.65 : 129.87 : 5.97 2.59 : 647.33 : 29.75 1.58 : 0.60 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 8.05 2.83 : 647.33 : 40.11 1.73 : 0.70 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 8.69 : 3.06 : 647.33 : 43.33 1.87 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 9.29 3.27 : 647.33 : 46.32 2.00 : 0.90 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 9.86 3.47 : 647.33 : 49.13 2.12 1.00 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 10.39 3.66 : 647.33 : 51.79 : 2.24 1.25 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 11.62 4.09 : 647.33 : 57.90 2.50 1.50 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 12.72 4.48 : 647.33 : 63.43 2.74 1.75 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 13.74 4.84 : 647.33 : 68.51 2.96 2.00 : 0.80 : 129.87 : 14.69 5.17 : 647.33 : 73.24 r. 3.16 2.25 : 0.78 : 129.87 : 15.19 5.49 : 647.33 : 75.74 : 3.35 2.50 : 0.76 : 129.87 : 15.61 5.78 : 647.33 : 77.79 : 3.53 2.75 : 0.74 : 129.87 : 15.94 6.07 : 647.33 : 79.44 : 3.71 3.00 : 0.72 : 129.87 : 16.20 6.34 : 647.33 : 80.73 : 3.87 : 3.25 : 0.69 : 129.87 : 16.15 6.60 : 647.33 : 80.52 : 4.03 : 3.50 : 0.66 : 129.87 : 16.04 6.84 : 647.33 : 79.93 : 4.18.: 3.75 0.63 : 129.87 : 15.84 : 7.08 : 647.33 : 78.97 : 4.33 : 4.00 0.60 : 129.87 : 15.58 : 7.32 : 647.33 : 77.68 : 4.47 : 4.25 0.58 : 129.87 : 15.53 : 7.54 : 647.33 : 77.40 : 4.61 : 4.50 0.54 129.87 : 14.88 : 7.76 : 647.33 : 74.15 : 4.74 : 4.75 0.52 : 129.87 : 14.72 : 7.97 : 647.33 : 73.36 : 4.87 : 5.00 0.49 : 129.87 : 14.23 : 8.18 : 647.33 : 70.93 : 5.00 : 5.25 0.46 : 129.87 : 13.69 : 8.38 : 647.33 : 68.23 : 5.12 : 5.50 0.44 : 129.87 : 13.40 : 8.58 : 647.33 : 66.80 : 5.24 : 5.75 0.42 : 129.87 : 13.08 : 8.77 : 647.33 : 65.19 : 5.36 : 6.00 0.40 : 129.87 : 12.72 : 8.96 : 647.33 : 63.43 : 5.48 : 4V CLIENT (f 1Z'M CITH E�1-'9 t. +,t JOB NO. ■��INC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR c-_{ ?\C,. Engineering Consultants MADEBY-220-- DATE CHECKEDBY_DATE -SHEET-OF 17 ­771 1._..-S10 � r..l � 'IO.Le_ .ST�.��+LL �i/- , � L-� 1j _� �.ij>✓R'rl G.D.L'.._ � i �73 �. C�,.71T�L. � - L 1 r T i -. SS'21=.T___ -__ i--`--r-- I I _ tVcN + _ _�— LIi/L4N� tZ4�4u Nam! I _ 'R O 7 - i _r j 1 -. - 77 _ r� 1 d.Jo 2. - ro�.M � >=_'P 7�-� � F-�-_v./�.T>,=�2. � �A�� 1JOT• - c•� r- � � __ �`t Ov �fL� I I i 1�' II - - Q T _n - r�}+s_ oToi _'1.�1v r r � � E � •. � I -�. r. -'-- � } 1 , 1 t i � I T I } l k } I 1 � I i._ - : Y1724OW L S)s , L �. _ .l + T .. +, ! _' I'T-- I L -_' i.,.. __' r GI_.31 S f,'i T Cz y T __ h L I- I r 1 I I C� -�Z�3 1 1 - -— K 47 33 o oZcL �. Y ' I - 1 7 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I 4fl�/ � CLIENT V/( Y �� ���T L `rY %% Ii l JOB NO. ■AINC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR —M siTgp 1= -�.I / Engineering Consultants MADEBY_EV�DATE 7•9'Z CHECKED BY- DATE SHEETOF i {�GSt L7E�J7'1L\L� \.S./� 61L V E2.TGOL_. U' .�e-F3 L51 F=...'S IP�.ET CbP�G1Tt �S� I: PE-Z. SE-GTtc=>Q. 4.Z.Z.2. C-1T/ or= J=pzsQS ZES+L-.tJ G2+rE2J0 C.) - iTl-4.ELGFS) Via +' op . F=L-A=,w <20—F— 2,=> 41JESs G��FP+C I�IJT C' USE C.clb� 4G11t lEL_', .=�LoPE . �T��T a,aTol_ b a Ca -roro l: I ;.:a Z + b, o.s Si3� = 12.9.87 i C�zXp.3Zx I(�' )a LD32x2) 3, 3-7 gF C,)- X ',s Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major and Minor Storms per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria ARTERIAL u/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RED, Inc. 0 is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 3.55 sq.ft. Area = 47.52 sq.ft. ' Minor Storm : Major Storm Slope Red. • Minor • 0 V Major • 0 V M :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) : X : (cfs) (fps) 0.40 : 0.50 : 135.32 : 4.28 : 0.50 : 0.65 : 135.32 : 6.22 : 0.60 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 8.39 : 0.70 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.06 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.68 : 0.90 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.27 : 1.00 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.83 : 1.25 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 12.10 : 1.50 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 13.26 : 1.75 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 14.32 : 2.00 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 15.31 : 2.25 : 0.78 : 135.32 : 15.83 : 2.50 : 0.76 : 135.32 : 16.26 : 2.75 : 0.74 : 135.32 : 16.61 : 3.00 : 0.72 : 135.32 : 16.88 : 3.25 : 0.69 : 135.32 : 16.83 : 3.50 0.66 : 135.32 : 16.71 : 3.75 0.63 : 135.32 : 16.51 : 4.00 0.60 : 135.32 : 16.24 : 4.25 0.58 : 135.32 : 16.18 : 4.50 0.54 : 135.32 : 15.50 : 4.75 0.52 : 135.32 : 15.34 : 5.00 0.49 : 135.32 : 14.83 : 5.25 0.46 : 135.32 : 14.26 : 5.50 0.44 : 135.32 : 13.96 : 5.75 0.42 : 135.32 : 13.63 : 6.00 0.40 : 135.32 : 13.26 : 2.41 : 2031.62 : 64'.25 : 2.70 : 2.70 : 2031.62 : 93.38 : 3.02 : 2.95 : 2031.62 : 125.89 : 3.31 : 3.19 : 2031.62 : 135.98 : 3.58 : 3.41 : 2031.62 : 145.37 : 3.82 : 3.62,: 2031.62 : 154.19 : 4.06 3.81 : 2031.62 : 162.53 : 4.28 4.26 : 2031.62 : 181.71 : 4.78 4.67 : 2031.62 : 199.06 : 5.24 5.04 : 2031.62 : 215.01 : 5.66 5.39 : 2031.62 : 229.85 : 6.05 5.72 : 2031.62 : 237.70 : 6.41 6.03 : 2031.62 : 244.13 : 6.76 6.32 : 2031.62 : 249.31 : 7.09 :- 6.60 : 2031.62 : 253.36 : 7.41 6.87 : 2031.62 : 252.72 : 7.71 7.13 : 2031.62 : 250.85 8.00 7.38 : 2031.62 : 247.86 8.28 7.62 : 2031.62 : 243.79 : 8.55 7.86 : 2031.62 : 242.92 8.81 8.09 : 2031.62 : 232.72 9.07 : 8.31 : 2031.62 : 230.25 9.32 : 8.52 : 2031.62 : 222.60 9.56 6.73 : 2031.62 : 214.13 9.80 8.94 : 2031.62 : 209.64 : 10.03 9.14 : 2031.62 : 204.61 : 10.25 9.34 : 2031.62 : 199.06 : 10.47 ,50/ CLIENT <L TY 4t �9-- 4fMt LA145, JOB NO. NG PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR�Vp Engineering Consultants MADEBY-aC,-DATE 7-SM CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET OF _J - - - - --------- 7_77-7 --j L_.C>' wzh-IE51 --------- - L-1 ----------- --- 'r C_c:*� ZSilsl I . L-4j_ S7 _4 r 2j. ... ... . ..... j - l.7 o V77 tC -NJT- _j... T 7-7­1 --- T-*,-7 77 ---------- 7 1 1 1 1 ■■rYiNG Engineering Consultants CLIENT ('I !—,—y Or— T::�>ZT JOB NO. PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR C lJ cY� / MADE BY DATE 2--9Z CHECKED BY DATE SHEET Z OF Z_ e yu-T-r�T J_1 �. i I �poCin�s l_ 1.i+.dJ _ 0 L I . - 7� 1 - 7 - 1 lI al �_1 _u W a� r a� I- -- - �I I -• 1 f. - t _y IyJo�--S�Z.L.l1 : G.l�L>=�_1�F1 OT >=v�I�Fn 1'r3'��VE = LO�ib 1-- - L —. UJ�T�.2- M�A.lor �XC_bED 1 �� -...�3dt-c l GE.aU,! BOO S� per_ C_D.NE 1 _ � S10E O'c S2ST �Nt Y,%ZZ2? _17�1 + LZX1� So _`j934 z �o, sxJDa �9 67�r�z?Z351= - I lOo S I ' S>'` S ' - ��yoecuue I p_1\alUSi5���5': 1 ._ I - I �rloUri�N�SWc�r]o,.l eZ� Sl�z Q xl S/z .�C�� n a 47 szx _ o cc> I _ - r DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3) STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT S2/ 9-1-1992 UDFCD 0.5 Extenc ed De entior Basl (Dry) 10-HOL r Dral time 0.4 0.3 0.2 D Aentic n Pon Is (Wet) 1 -Hour Drain nme 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Impervious Area in Tributary Watershed Souroe: Urbanos, Guo, Tucker (1989) Note: Watershed inches of runoff shall ato the entire watershed tributary to the Spply. Facility. FIGURE 5-1. WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) I i EXIS EROSION CONTROL NOTES Total Di SITE HAreaoer acres After me overot gall has 6completed,of III aft areas, zno noyer TRotpondotal Olatoroee Area _20.2 p ♦ 51 Acres orrauf a Temporary ye9emlbn seM applied Per to City of Fort Ca nsaspec rm Fon. DRAINAGE C• O.xo f d \ After rf may o ^tro, m n t applied oyv the seed at a ,ate IMAINACE BA9N $iAn5nL5 / 1 2 t / C d the of shall be a t ly larchored. tack" es i! - p d 1 t p t methods Moody Drainage -and Earrow ^I Grose Platted Area 30.96 0 _ Control PI All t temporary d applied ( Icif Arl� I'T' Gross Area C 050 acres Net Platted Area 26.8T 1-utilitiesn n t retailer, d, a d y I. fl curthe P MI Net Area "C 0.43 acres stuff An installation T to 'd or t I a 6- b DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY TO they nl E filtered In combination 1 blocks,Ito inch ee At E Uwe r 3ee cn g edfud r P 1 1 1 1 h t M Clark e^ DESIGN BASIN AREA C. 0p Qm Favi Creel shall ne installed a par I of the o r 1 y d'rg process � ( LONG Y VALE POINT _ (da) 1 (r) (Cis) j'�• V � 2 IT ASS 6 - SCALE PLAIN' if l _- 067 0.63 fPgP I JO a.9a- II'CCc' I 7101_ 165 Q6A 260 10.56 CLASS A t BEDDING J y _ 6' MDE ONCRFT( 117 BURY A MIN Or 3 }}I 103 _ 2J] 0.50 255 9.63 4DEWAL .ULvtNI f .'/ TOPSOIL NOTE: GRADING ADJACENT TO LOTS 51-K SHALL { I 104 - 229 0.50 208 7.66- ♦ OESCN =oN 1' A NOT AFFECT AN AREA 20' MINIMUM SOONIr . 5 11 105 -. 302 050 33{ 1277 OF THE EXISTING SOUTH TOP OF BANK Of 6 103 IN 1055 050 865 31 64 _ THE MAIL CREEK IRRIGAncN DITCH 7 t_ 1pJ 107 __- -T11 68 , Sc 6 102 10B _ 13 53 0 < 2e 46 tOY� A�'•� 118 O 1 r 110 I69 050 1561 5825 T e7 94 AC A a0s.• _ f 10 110-112 261 0.50 227 6.21 --7 FIT 103 ,//a}`/ _ 2 o crs 37 AC fi 113-114 39e T0.50r SOt ILW �� _ _ - . , ,�$� LEGEND -� ,. T6 zJs o5o sss 17,10 ... - Az \ •. r, TWO 019 1T9 05fi 083' dayid 082 53013 02`t30 <h �_�_�"T`^.\�" =r�_�- .. _ as - .Nrn R 06s ]1Ot tlts 01 �03 3♦.2910.40 1m 3.e3 :. - .. T C 1053 021F90)^11I{� 1 s BASIS a 1 -- -_- � e $ OU 1, tt9 2t16 0.281 230 8.13 INLEI yr PFRE Brt0 :ruNw.N r. oN nF ILION 6s—' 's' HOPE IT 1. ,-.. w-3 If, I � •° • �- 1 t 1 rr IMBEL endi . .NH a a a QZ=z.a cra 1.30 AC 63 AC s'OtOO=n.04 cis - rvEau:fi _, rM[n'1 eR' �� .A INtEi J- •. LSB AC - .tee A --is I S 105 �. —.— e MH — • ' IB (i E$ BOTH D5 52 Ae MR� V fifid J 112 r ' 119 59 A + - ��' 56 AC If _ v� oAnlnuLE e:H.. LH „E�zao ITS 02-985.cii'n. / Rm .�.. oz_2sa <h K _ -� --� w E t D /5 _` - Ad f -1 O SHEET FLOV; aeCN1Ra E$TWa$ EASMENT RN TOp1E0 AND MOO_9. 9 en s -_ _- - rp. _. TS is 00.� ' ' I'\ OISNRBED FOR EROSION DRAINAGE EASEMENT M N MIS 0?00.17.51s<as , --- 1�-NN)- EMT. ,. yAT lkA1T5 OF AREA i0 8 /ONTO TEMPORARY-37AEGRADING AND _ o _ - 1 -�j ¢ \PURPOSES FUTURE RUNG IS DEVELOEO SIDE 13Y ,AO a YH Y \` YARD DRAINAGE EASEMENTS MLL '' ,nx.offer - Mx T { T i 0.m 3 oti .:.\\ K / . / BE LOCATED TO GUIDE RUNOFF I •• _ _ / - 1 W/ ES D/S 1 r�� e�.xo Be _ A FROM MIRAMCNT P.V,D. THIRD .' ,, \ LINE' VULL) "LING. L_ _ SECTION II r Bill*SEE OTF r ` uA O-1 \ / 0_F1L0 _ 0I-LSJ ch eg[rort 3 ... OIOD.S of F ra C6V IK aY TO gad' EMT 7 03 AC _ _ �' 15M Vuacs p n' fulx) [MT e , AAC �/� n IMxRHr ' - �. t ll.--Ve� 1ia NTs a. so Or fz.7e cre � ...... + 1 I MAX "" i s _ iei Ioc (/ w 1 1 5 o-3 \ G `1/ ABANDONED. THISONE EASEMENT '$ NgLpp MS f e 4BANDCNEO. AND THE I I SECTIDN L KWM TIED x0O1pRAW •SECTION / - FUTURE FILING IS DEVELOPF , ATOY IMR PER IAAIL SHEET IO bey )am 7 1 SB AC / SDEYARD DRAINAGE EASEMENTS _ i SEE AS 7 tin1�T wUH ''/ `010� rch / / / / _ •' WILL E LOCA ED TO GUIDE I (Sum.). -_ - E_A4MT If add on. fall I be undvi A Iney of, at, do oa ASTLERIOCF P U.D. Cy1- _ \ r / _ _ o DO NOT DISTURB AREA \ HIRD RUNG I H d e came a. r He m. Im Peon, P.... NEST IF THIS LME I \ / �nr mv.nwre d,m • T L li to if LJ CWw�%ev �W. — 1 m - 32]0 m n .ua V 0-A T 5 _ 1ds , .� (`LMOriPTS O WCTTON BERM) # NOTE: ' 166 AC _ r .o �.�di_� FOR EROSION PROTECTION, - ` /� I 9 BEQTIDN s iddy.f 2 bar, IANTL CHANNEL SECTION AR_C, - f .�p sr Hos d rod �_. ♦ PROTECigN A ` NAIL ��1 1-800-922-1987 fri RSEE APT 20 tIfnI t — As 534-6700 NATO T, I /! & TEMPORARY SEED APPLIED /( _ H qm_ r, -IL'AYGN B[R L / OVER GEOTE%PEE APPLY PER / ,. , 1'W'S�1 s • osa �e \_i� _°anMxis2s°„sve` \ 02=Test cm DETAIL, SHEET 20, r, TOY Ad, of an j W FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SOUTH " \ -- a 1=6B.6D Its - I , ` �EEnd m 111 a OF MAIL CREEK NULL TRIGGER \...�- `... '• ( 1 (-J PERFORATED uxgwe \ \3� 1 PER MTW SHEET 20 Cityof Fort Coi Colorado THE NEED FOR A CULVERT HERE l \\ F. ♦ 1 SEE CHANNEL "' "`iff"di / / [J'DfFjr /�/ fMEH.)_.._.. Cass,Ti3O� \`` Z� IV\ 'rl\\ DETAIL ON / :,, µ...cm .,-r. o,=dd ... n•. ,.f e,.'T .-,.. ../ /'I _ =}ce' W APPROVED: � µ4[<iyq} s I 9EcnoN ' br ,6' A a'�.K� Q dwor It 'pi♦` I BEE SHT. 20 y / / 0e zOT MAIL CREEKa� Qz=9.Js a. Slide `" - � / I - ^= _ CHECKED Br V� Cate Her T. n o,s-wep .e 01N CHANNEL A--nn4.s �xT�3 L� -2�� $ . 11n � ./ 0100.]1.x0 cis 1 1 mo. a ,o , . , ms.. ,er. e•� 4025.s`- CHECKED BY: a`� Y Ivy i __.__ IOU M - 1055 cis ?^ 9a\ y4\ .� _M a I 9larmnter !it WM 9ECigN tg"J- is \��/+ �.. • / •~ CHECKED BY. ,✓A — ��♦ i / fe) xe.meeww I .. H _ __ - _ _ Perlo a eree-� lido Ihte , •I' • y' a eON ECNED BY .-,,_,___,____ )_._�, _ \fA _ �. �_ PROTECTIVE SILTATION BERM_ He) nnnv, Ofdardiff LIMITS OF PROffCTK SILTATION �� r u w� s CL ' T ♦l v ^cr., a .. n ...,...ra,-Risi-'BERM iiiiaTif-_� - - SECTION x M w eNANHE: PRoreeipfH CHECKED BY: ee Dole - c ro n+ o cs.os F IF IF FAIL RA! K Enyhwerhly Coneultents MIRAMONT P.U.D. THIRD FILING -- - -- _- '..< 10° e,0. e ""- FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 20 5 —-- n0. I By I LATE V, RE_OU n O[SH mrnN To "' '