Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 09/04/2013 (3)City of Ft Col liitlrov Plans Approved By. Date - — 3 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT Prospect Station Prepared for: r4 Architects 17 E. Mountain Ave., Suite 205 Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 224-0630 Prepared by: Interwest Consulting Group 1218 West Ash, Suite C Windsor, Colorado 80550 (970)674-3300 May 29, 2013 Job Number 1068-069-01 I CI, 1 May 29, 2013 Mr. Wes Lamarque City of Fort Collins Stormwater 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Final Drainage Report for Prospect Station INTERWEST 0 CONSULTINGGROUP ' Dear Wes, I am pleased to submit for your review and approval, this Final Drainage Report for the Prospect ' Station development. I certify that this report for the drainage design was prepared in accordance with the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Manual. One variance related to water quality capture volume is included. F I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, E Erika Schneider, P.E. Colorado Professional Engineer No. 41777 Reviewed By: Michael Oberlander, P.E. Colorado Professional Engineer No. 34288 1 1218 WEST ASH, SUITE C WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 1[l. 970.67d.3300 • 1i.t. 970.674.3303 n TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS............................................................................................................ iii ' 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................................................................ 1 1.1 Location...........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Description of Property................................................................................................. 1 ' 1.3 Floodplain Submittal Requirements............................................................................. 1 ' 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS.......................................................................... 2 2.1 Major Basin Description................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Sub -basin Description.................................................................................................... 2 ' 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA...................................................................................... 2 3.1 Regulations......................................................................................................................2 ' 3.2 Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) Discussion .......................................... 3 3.3 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints...................................................... 4 3.4 Hydrological Criteria..................................................................................................... 4 ' 3.5 Hydraulic Criteria.......................................................................................................... 5 3.6 Floodplain Regulations Compliance............................................................................. 5 3.7 Modifications of Criteria............................................................................................... 5 ' 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN....................................................................................... 6 4.1 General Concept............................................................................................................. 6 ' 4.2 Specific Details................................................................................................................ 6 ' 5. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................7 5.1 Compliance with Standards.......................................................................................... 7 5.2 Drainage Concept........................................................................................................... 8 ' 5.3 Drainage System Maintenance Standard Operating Procedure ............................... 8 t6. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX ' VICINITY MAP AND DRAINAGE PLAN.............................................................................. A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS..........................................................................................B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS..............................................................................................0 ' WATER QUALITY INFORMATION...................................................................................... D EXCERPTS FROM REFERENCE REPORTS.........................................................................E iii 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ' 1.1 Location ' The Prospect Station development is located in Fort Collins. It is located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, ' in the City of Fort Collins, Latimer County, Colorado. Please refer to the vicinity map in Appendix A. ' The project site is located at the southwest corner of West Prospect Road and the Burlington Northern (BNSF) Railroad. The property is bounded by the vacated Tamasag ' Drive on the west, West Prospect Road on the north, the Mason Trail and BNSF on the east and Lot 9 and 11 of Griffin Plaza Subdivision on the south. The legal description of the site is Prospect Station Subdivision being a replat of Lot 10, Griffin Plaza Subdivision and a portion of vacated Tamasag Drive. ' 1.2 Description of Property ' The property consists of 0.84 acres of land with 0.1 acres being dedicated to West Prospect Road. The project will consists of a new building replacing the existing building and a new parking and drive configuration. The northerly 0.6 acres drains ' northeast to West Prospect Road and the remainder sheets south at a range of approximately 0.5% to 1.5%. The land is currently occupied by an existing building and ' parking areas. The majority of the ground cover is asphalt. There is no offsite flow contributing to the site. tSpring Creek Floodway has been mapped by the City and is located just east of the ' project. There are no improvements that are proposed in the Floodway. 1.3 Floodplain Submittal Requirements Floodplain Submittal is not required. No work shall occur within the City's floodway; ' therefore, a "City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist for 50% Submittals" has not been included with this report. r I 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS ' 2.1 Major Basin Description ' The proposed development lies within the Old Town (a small part of the northern portion of the site) and Spring Creek (the remainder of the site) Master Drainage Basins. Today, the entire site locally drains to Spring Creek via inlets and pipe in Prospect Road and BNSF ROW and not to the Old Town Basin. The development has also been accounted ' for in the design of the Mason Street Outfall (MSO) pond (showing the entire site in Spring Creek Basin). ' The site is considered to be basin 804 of the Griffin Plaza in the Mason Street Outfall report and a part of Spring Creek Basin 126 in the Spring Creek Master Plan. ' Please refer to Appendix F for an explanation of the division of Spring Creek and Old Town basins. 2.2 Sub -basin Description The northern portion of the site that is included in the Old Town Master Drainage Basin drains to the north where it is intercepted by West Prospect Road and then piped back to Spring Creek. The remainder of the site (included in the Spring Creek Master Drainage Basin) drains south through adjacent Lots 9 and 11 of Griffin Plaza Subdivision. There are no offsite flows associated with this site however Lot 1 and 2 of Griffin Plaza Subdivision will continue to flow south. Flow will sheet to a curb opening and into a new swale in the existing drainage easement south of the site. 1 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1 Regulations 1 This report was prepared to meet or exceed the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual' specifications. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD), developed by the Denver Regional ' Council of Governments, has been used. 1 2 I 1 1 3.2 Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) Discussion Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) recommends a Four Step Process for receiving water protection that focuses on reducing runoff volumes, treating the water quality capture volume (WQCV), stabilizing drainageways and implementing long-term source controls. The Four Step Process applies to the management of smaller, frequently occurring events. ' Step I: Employ Runoff Reduction Practices To reduce runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads from urbanizing areas, implement Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, including Minimizing Directly Connected ' Impervious Areas (MDCIA). ' Runoff for the northern and eastern portions of the site will be routed through vegetated areas through sheet flow thereby reducing runoff from impervious surfaces over ' permeable areas to slow runoff and increase the time of concentration and promote infiltration. Runoff from the parking lot shall drain directly to two rain gardens thereby slowing runoff and also promoting infiltration. Runoff from building roofs shall drain directly to a sump manhole that incorporates the SNOUT® water quality system from Best Management Products, Inc. device. 1 Step 2: Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume with Slow ' Release Once runoff has been minimized, the remaining runoff shall be treated through the rain gardens and a sump manhole with SNOUT® water quality system from Best Management Products, Inc. device. Both the rain gardens and the device allow for settlement of sediments. Step 3: Stabilize Drainageways ' Natural Drainageways are subject to bed and bank erosion due to increases in frequency, duration, rate and volume of runoff during and following development. Because the site ' will drain to an existing storm system and water quality and detention pond, bank stabilization is unnecessary with this project. 3 1 L I LJ Ci Step 4: Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs Proactively controlling pollutants at their source by preventing pollution rather than removing contaminants once they have entered the stormwater system or receiving waters is important when protecting storm systems and receiving waters. This can be accomplished through site specific needs such as construction site runoff control, post - construction runoff control and pollution prevention / good housekeeping. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to develop a procedural best management practice for the site. 3.3 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The runoff from this site has been routed to conform to the requirements of the City Stormwater Department. Because water quality capture volume from this site will not be provided for in the BNRR pond, water quality facilities are required for the new construction proposed on the site. Water quality will be met through the use of two rain gardens and a sump manhole with the SNOUT® water quality system from Best Management Products, Inc. device. Impervious area for the site has already been accounted for in the hydrology for Spring Creek and the MSO project, detention is not required for this development. Please refer to excerpts from the Mason Street Outfall report in Appendix E. 3.4 Hydrologic Criteria Runoff computations were prepared for the 10-year minor and 100-year major storm frequency utilizing the rational method. All hydrologic calculations associated with the basins are included in Appendix B of this report. Standard Form 8 (SF-8) provides time of concentration calculations for all sub - basins. Standard Form 9 (SF-9) provides a summary of the design flows for all Sub - basins and Design Points associated with this site. Water quality volume was calculated in the Master Plan using the method recommended in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual". Rather than achieving this volume, we are requesting a variance to use 2 rain gardens and a SNOUT® system in series. All related information is located in Appendix D. 4 F 11 11 i C 1 1 3.5 Hydraulic Criteria All hydraulic calculations are prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and included in Appendix C of this report. 3.6 Floodplain Regulations Compliance Floodplain Regulations Compliance is not required. No work shall occur within the City's floodway. 3.7 Modifications of Criteria A variance for water quality mitigation requirements is being requested. The site will not meet the full water quality volume requirement but as much drainage as is physically possible from the site will be treated in two bio-retention facilities (rain gardens) and a sump manhole with SNOUT® water quality system from Best Management Products, Inc. The reason for this is that the site is a redeveloped Brownfield site and it is preferred to minimize exposure to leftover contaminants on -site after the cleanup occurred. The water will eventually reach the BNRR water quality pond via the storm system but will be pretreated on site. The entire site's required water quality capture volume is 0.022 ac-ft and the BNRR pond has ample volume (but will technically be treated on site). Please refer to Appendix F for supporting information regarding water quality and the BNRR pond. Please refer to Appendix D for SNOUT@ information. Following the Urban Drainage design procedure for sizing rain gardens, the required water quality capture volume for the proposed area to be treated (Basin A-1) is 455 cubic feet. The proposed rain gardens provide 256 cubic feet of volume, which is approximately 56% of the required water quality capture volume. We have maximized the area of the rain gardens with the existing constraints that are associated with the site. Please see the attached Urban Drainage Design Procedure form in Appendix D for more information. The rain gardens will be filled with a 12" rain garden growing media with granular material following the guidelines in Urban Drainage and the City of Fort Collins. The rain gardens will be lined with an impermeable geomembrane liner. Once the rain gardens are completely saturated, water will overtop into the two rain garden inlets then 5 Cl L ' be conveyed north and east to the existing storm sewer in West Prospect Road via a new ' 18-inch storm system. During extreme events or complete failure of the storm sewer system, water will overtop the rain gardens and flow south to a 8' curb cut with a ' maximum ponding depth of 6 inches. 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ' 4.1 General Concept ' The majority of the proposed development will be collected and conveyed to the proposed storm drain system where it will be treated for water quality via rain gardens ' and a SNOUT® water quality system from Best Management Products, Inc. before being released into the existing storm system. ' 4.2 Specific Details A summary of the drainage patterns within each basin is provided in the following ' paragraphs. Please refer to Appendix A for the drainage plan. Basin A-1 is 0.39 acres and is calculated to have a 10-year discharge of 1.7 cfs and a 100- year discharge of 3.9 cfs. Flows from Basin A-1 are captured by the proposed rain gardens before being released into the existing storm system located in West Prospect ' Road. This system then releases flow into the BNRR pond. ' Basin A-2 is 0.11acres, contains the north half of the roof and is calculated to have a 10- year discharge of 0.5 cfs and a 100-year discharge of 1.1 cfs. Flows from Basin A-2 are captured by the proposed roof drains before being released into the existing storm system ' located in West Prospect Road. This system then releases flow into the BNRR pond. ' Basin A-3 is 0.05 acres, contains a portion of the southeast roof and is calculated to have a 10-year discharge of 0.2 cfs and a 100-year discharge of 0.5 cfs. Flows from Basin A-3 ' are captured by the proposed roof drains that direct flow to the manhole containing a sump and the SNOUT® water quality system from Best Management Products, Inc. ' before being released into the existing storm system located in West Prospect Road. This system then releases flow into the BNRR pond. 1 6 The areas of Basins A-1 through A-3 were not included in the Mason Street Outfall SWMM model; therefore, impact to the existing storm system was analyzed. The hydrograph for this area was added to the model which shows that the area peaks at the same time as the entire system which is unlikely. It seems that the model does not account for several thousand feet of pipe in the system. However, maximum flow in the system increases from 137.5 cfs to 141.8 cfs at the downstream 60" RCP causing negligible change to the system. Please refer to Appendix C for the modified MSO SWMM analysis and comparison. Basin B is 0.18 acres and has a 10-year discharge of 0.5 cfs and 1.3 cfs. Flows from this basin will continue current conditions and sheet north to West Prospect Road where it will be conveyed east via curb and gutter to the existing storm inlet in West Prospect Road. This inlet is part of the existing storm system that discharges to the BNRR pond. Basin C is 0.10 acres and is calculated to have a 10-year discharge of 0.3 cfs and a 100- year discharge of 0.8 cfs. Flows from this basin will continue current conditions and sheet east to the ditch adjacent to the Mason Trail. The percent impervious weighted average of the entire site is 75% which is below the Mason Street Outfall assumption of 85%; therefore, detention is not required. CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Compliance with Standards All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. 7 k ' 5.2 Drainage Concept ' The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction plans adequately provides for stormwater quantity and quality treatment of proposed ' impervious areas. Conveyance elements have been designed to pass required flows and to minimize future maintenance. If, at the time of construction, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of ' Health Construction Dewatering Permit will be required. 5.3 Drainage System Maintenance Standard Operating Procedure ' Records shall be kept regarding perpetual maintenance activities. The records shall show ' when and which facilities have been inspected and cleaned. Spill and illegal dumping incidents and responses to both incidents shall also be documented and tracked. ' Rain Garden Inspect the infiltrating surfaces at least twice annually following precipitation events to ' determine if the bioretention area is providing acceptable infiltration. If standing water persists for more than 24 hours after runoff has ceased, clogging should be further ' investigated and remedied. Additionally, check for erosion and repair as necessary. ' Remove debris and litter from the infiltrating surfaces to minimize clogging of media. Remove debris and litter from the overflow structure. ' Maintain healthy, weed -free vegetation. ' If ponded water is observed in a bioretention cell more than 24 hours after the end of a runoff event, check underdrain outfall location and clean -outs for blockages. If clogging ' is primarily related to sediment accumulation of the filter surface, remove excess accumulated sediment and scarify the surface of the filter with a rake. If the clogging is due to migration of sediments deeper into the pore spaces of the media, remove and ' replace all or a portion of the media. Full media removal and replacement is anticipated every 5-10 years. E 6. Storm Drain System Inspect and clean as needed area inlets, ADS drain basins, roof drains, clean -outs and the sidewalk chases at least once a year. Remove as much debris, silt, trash and sediment as possible from the storm drain system when cleaning. Prevent material from washing into adjacent storm sewers, streams or channels. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins, "Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual", adopted December 2011. 2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2601, and Volume 3 dated November 2010. 3. Ayers Associates, "Alternative Analysis for the Design of the Mason Street Outfall", dated November 2010. 0 I u t I t 1 APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP AND DRAINAGE PLAN A L! Elm I■ I'm ..MINION ME ■ �mmn:::: -WE � iniss k INS son �iimiiiii VICINITY MAP SCALE: I" = 1000' ------��-.._---''---------- I 9 \ ".99>� N � NrESTPROSPECTROAO � I I '' -' i / _.aar / srtwv mtr uuz srzwv lw[cr i E ' 1 ..�_:.. ... _. --� I I. - _ _ -- - _ -F ,- _ T ---o-f----_- _---I II�g1III zo 10 0 20 ao Nn o SCALE: 1 20\ N O Is DL a x �wog �a„ 1 l o W oVN ° DIAN PIPING\'0 I �. aanw.rl,P/12 1 I 4 I Z i b 6 4� DIE 1 3e 1 0 I � I'/, $ 1 I I < U Q�m� AG FAiM ie Ll 1 a r I2��° p " u z' GA / NTPUZw I r I, I I':1 I I I I p \ e� ' I I 1 I II I I O �C III I n 'L a LL I I I \ LOT l I ! I 12 1 I - 3(JRo/V/8/OM 1 1 � GR//TIN PUZA '- �. a PIxPlAiY Ire I.• 1 999` -� '. � I I I I � I 1 I OxP) I � � Su2eamsiov 1 � � I PMxM)4e � I � •' I $ / I' I I I , m ' � II ;I / \ III `pAIeA NET I�I. •. I I b a•NET•/+ EI,XiI I I a AM.T Ire I (I I F----J // I `" /_I __ _, 0_ I j Q •I xa I h\ j 1 :1;m pw I I r cum.Cu \ ... re CUTa05 11 • Y I I ` I I Y a/ 011001�� li-;�, i I I ! I I � 'I'II I I jAC vc D[ a am n91 / r Pro roa %. -�: ,I #II I I P i I I I I Z Z C aRe art • I . I I I (I 1 I < a. m^air i I I 4 t7 _ m.cros e+ew�w.'r \ \� -.9sd- \ Er rlmRnn ,.: i I �:'I '� ; II I ' j W a Z \ - x (T.)-7s• nc Rai ✓kisasb' o I aonF - - - - - - - \ I m c�a�x rvcxrsvc.DIDI V1 e LoTll LOT9 ill `I I III j I - a i \ GRPP"/wR PtwlwAJROINsroN 1sTJJJnlvecroAr I � II I I � � � / I If•�''::I I I I I I i i NOTES: 1. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTINGSTHROUGHOUTTHE SITE. 2. THE TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION SHOWN IS HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM ELEVATION REQUIRED FOR PROTECTION FROM THE I O YR STORM. LEGEND w� arowsEoawrvnccasswwcewe � 1 Hmu.wc[avu..mw wrirr.�xr Qoc•xrvivur DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE DESIGN PONT BASIN ID I ANEA AOPES C 10 C 100 Tc 10 MI T. 100 (MIN)CFS 010 0 WO OS Al A-1 0.39 0.91 1.00 5.0 5.0 I.] 3.9 A2 A-2 0.11 6961 1.00 1 5.0 1 5.0 0.5 1.1 A3 A-3 0.05 O.B6 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.5 B B O.1B O.SB 0.73 5.0 5.0 C C .0.10 0.61 1 0.]] 1 5.0 1 5.0 1 O.J 1 0.0 O W 8 Y u OTY OF FORT COLLINS. COLORADO a O U UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: an pwam DAM NOLORA DON CALL UlFTER CENTER OF CHECKED BY: 81D1aDRADO 8 wAM A wASME Al UnUW DAM •• CHECKED BY: SING 2- DI D.4 DAIS N ADVANCE YW DID. OIADE CN pGVAR slabwARA UIUTY DAMB601E �" ne a' uwpmDERD CHECKED BY: PROD. NO. 10880/001 M� uO1BFA um1 -lr $ A x[O IW DALE CHECKED BY: - murk ENmI[m DAIS 7 CHECKED BY: xAnmu xEsaxcTs DAM w XI 1 10, .Bt .P 901 .CV.V .SOL K my fl m Z 2 $ } � � ■i � \ § !d 7 )(! $ M C ) ! ƒt` » | 0 !._ / a §!§ ko ®t k E4E k} \\ �.\(k ■# E t, ovam ) !:§ !) 24 } £${; ■: |a! !_ m !§ Jk \) 2 3\f{ co, ={ . | | { \k q Hydrologic Soil Group—Larinner County Area. Colorado Prospect Station Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Larimer County Area, Colorado (C0644) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3 Altvan-Satanta learns, 0 to 3 B 1.3 86.8 % percent slopes 4 Altvan-Satanta loams, 3 to 9 B 0.2 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 1.9 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A. B, C. and D) and three dual classes (AID. BID, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows. ' Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep. well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. ' Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils ' have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or ' soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. ' Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer ' at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission ' If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, BID, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. ' Rating Options Aggregation Method. Dominant Condition I'tiD.k Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 612712013 Page 3 of 4 ' Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Prospect Station Component Percent Cutoff None Specified tTie -break Rule: Higher 1 I Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/27/2013 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 I 1 LI 1� 1 1 1 1 1 i 11 1 1 H 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i } C m 3 3 U H y E E a W o x ¢ o 0 3 a 0 v) N o rn 0 0 0 LU m Q Q m m m 0 0 < v ¢ ¢ m ¢ Q 0 p N M N M 6 Q 0 C N I, N N N M Q 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 U c o 0 0 0 0 U E N N N N N po 000�� 0 o M n U 00 o_ W Co N co M m N t0 U o 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 m U a < Q ¢ N C � c y a Q Q Q m U G R 3 /) /§ \/ \\ f \ \/ \ /0 aCL § / *)[ )) ([[ §k 1ua )cr #{ )m$� £ }\°§§§§ )�)\k )�)\k j \\\\\ !\ 277 <<gWW 0 LM C, ( o \\\\ \4: \ \ }\01>1 k {)E #«1 ) 0 \ C j ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y a m O O O O O .Ea zE LL m o o - o c c o c o i m y E ` a Ti m u Q V� N IA N N N J m u Q 3 0 0 �?0000 0 0 0 LL a x U a �c is coNo m 0 p O o 0 0 0 m C R � o O O O O O W kN N N O W N O O O O m J W @ Y h a J V y O O O O O e y Q O N N N N Z L N N N JC r O � m — J� 6�y U m mm muNi �p t f o 0 o d d Zf m A N M H O z ¢m a a Q m U y z z ti S2 0 Q Na MmU GGI m¢om N Q T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 0 Z O Q N Q m Z W o U LL Z O Q o U LL f 0 m cW L Y Q f m J O N O h O N O VI O N LL 0 m 0 o 0 o o c o w � E a Y�- m � O V= J N N N V ¢ F — u � M M M N N O O N N V — O O O O O LL "' x U m N N O N O a o 0 0 0 0 0 'o 0 0 0 0 0 W m � ` m O o N N — W F m o 0 0 0 J W L Mtn ¢ J — L f n M M N N O O O N fV .E m 0 0 0 0 0 d O e N N N N N N N N N N N mtv Z o 0 o n o n 0 U R U W � mmmuNim W U n M � O d A N O O O O O Q — — z < C ? m U m — m N Z a 't ¢ a a m U m f m 0 N G U m e CO C J U U zZ O a n u. II U W r z Interest Consulting Group RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 10-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Prospect Station PROJECT NO: 1068-069-01 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: #>tri 10 yr storm, Ct = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRYOVER TOTAL REMARKS Design Point Tributary Suabasm A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (inthr) O (10) (cis) from Design Point O (10) (cfs) O(10)tot (cis) Al A-1 0.39 0.91 5.0 4.87 1.7 1.7 A2 A-2 0.11 0.96 5.0 4.87 0.5 0.5 A3 A-3 0.05 0.86 5.0 4.87 0.2 0.2 B B 0.18 0.58 5.0 4.87 0.5 0.5 C C 0.10 0.61 5.0 4.87 0.3 0.3 O=CICiA O = peak discharge (cis) C = runoff coefficient C, = frequency adjustment factor i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins OF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) 1.41.44 / (10r tc)o.nr. 03-25-13 Flow.xls 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 100-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Prospect Station PROJECT NO: 1068-069-01 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: NNNOMOi 100 yr storm, Ct = 1.25 Interest Consulting Group DIRECT RUNOFF CARRYOVER TOTAL REMARKS Des. Point Area Design. A (ac) CCf Ic (min) 1 (ir✓hr) 0(100) (cfs) from Design Point 0(100) (cfs) O(loopot (cfs) Al A-i 0.39 1.00 5.0 9.95 3.9 3.9 A2 A-2 0.11 1.00 5.0 9.95 1.1 1.1 A3 A-3 0.05 1.00 5.0 9.95 0.5 0.5 B B 0.18 0.73 5.0 9.95 1.3 1.3 C C 0.10 0.77 5.0 9.95 0.8 0.8 O=CIA 03-25-13 Fl"As 0 = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins OF curve (4/16/99) A= drainage area (acres) I- 84.682 J(10. tc)'n7, 1 1 1 1Im 1 1 1 1.. 1 t ' RAINFALL INTENSITY -DURATION -FREQUENCY CURVE ,e.w 5.00 8.00 7m m 8.00 SOD 4.00 LL a 3.00 u 20D 1.01) 0.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 STORM DURATION (minutes) —2Year Stain • - • 10-Ymr Slam f06Year Stain. Figure RA-16 City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensiq-Duration-Frequency Curves (13) . Section 5.0 is deleted in its entirety. (14) Section 6.0 is deleted in its entirety. (15) Section 7.0 is deleted in its entirety. (16) Section 7.1 is deleted in its entirety. (17) Section 7.2 is deleted in its entirety. (18) Section 7.3 is deleted in its entirety. (19) Section 8.0 is deleted in its entirety. (20) ` Table R9-1 is deleted in its entirety. 00.00 Table RO.11 Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis Character of Surface Runoff Coefficient . Streets, Parking Lots, Dives: Asphalt 0.95 Concrete 0.95 Gravel 0.5 Roofs 0.95. Recycled Asphalt 0.8 Lawns, Sandy Soil: Flat Q% 0.1 Average 2 to 7% 0.15 Steep>7% 0.2 Lawns, Heavy Soil: Flat <% 0.2 Average 2 to 7% 0.25 Steep >7% 0.35 (4) A new Section 2 9 is added, to read as follows: 2.9 Composite Runoff Coefficient Drainage sub -basins are frequently composed of land that has multiple surfaces or zoning classifications. In such cases a composite runoffooeffcient must.be calculated.for any given drainage sub -basin: The composite runoff coefficient is obtained using the following formula: C_ r_i A.. - (RO-8) Where: C = Composite Runoff Coefficient Q Runoff Coefficient for Specific Area (4 ) A; = Area of Surface with Runoff Coefficient of C,,:acres or feet, n = Number of different surfaces to be considered A;= Total Area. over which Cis applicable, acres or feetr (5) A new Section 2.10 is added, to read as follows: I APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS L 1 I-1 1 _1 1 1 C 1 LOCATION: PROJECT NO: COMPUTATIONS BY: SUBMITTED BY: DATE: Inlet Data: Weir Length Open Area Circular Area Inlet Capacity 24" ADS Area Inlet (A-1) PROSPECT STATION 1068-069-01 ES INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP 3/25/2013 6.3 ft 1.4 ftA2 Solve for h using Orifice Equation Q = C.Aosgn(2gh) where Q,= flow through orifice (cfs) Co = orifice discharge coefficient g = gravitational acceleration = A„ = effective area of the orifice (ft2) h = head on the orifice (ft) 32.2 f /s Q = 2.50 cfs 100-yr Event A = 0.68 It (Assume 50% clogged) C. = 0.65 Solve for h: 0.50 ft Q= Required Head d= Available Head Prior to Overtopping 2.50 cfs 0.50 ft 0.50 It Rectangular Area Inlet Capacity City of Fort Collins Area Inlet LOCATION: PROSPECT STATION PROJECT NO: 1068-069-01 COMPUTATIONS BY: ES SUBMITTED BY: INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP DATE: 3/25/2013 Inlet Data: Weir Length 6.7 It Open Area 2.2 ftA2 Solve for h using Orifice Equation Q = C„A„sgrt(2gh) where Qo= Flow through orifice (cfs) C = orifice discharge coefficient g = gravitational acceleration = 32.2 fds A. = effective area of the orifice (ft) h = head on the orifice (ft) Q. = 4.10 cfs 100-yr Event Ao = 1.12 fC (Assume 50% clogged) C = 0.65 Solve for h: 0.49 ft Solve for h using Weir Equation Q = CLH31 where C = weir coefficient H = overflow height L = length of the weir Q = 4.10 cfs C = 3.00 L = 6.7 ft Solve for H: 0.35 It ORIFICE CONTROLS Q= 4.10 cfs Required Head d= 0.49 It Available Head Prior to Overtopping 0.50 ft O E N E m a CN C O y m N N n M 0 N Q ' 0 0 N O o O N � MN o C N N a N � ' O U V E o N ' m v c_ rn c ' W v 0 1 00 1 1 � H o 0 0 l o 0 0 l us Y W w I I I N H D l o 0 o I E l o m .y io m I N N I O O O I U N I O� M OJ O O I Y H W I O O O I N N H^ I M C C N N I N t9 [q I I N N N W I I — 1 D 9 3 (Q I I >. O C >, 1 000 1 x Ct 1 I o G u 1 1 1 F C G v c H v I o o 0 o 0 o I I I — — — — — — — — —— I I I O,U Y U oW 1 _H E O N O r V1 N ro w I I O D v^ 1 m a rn N N I ord o w I I ro ro H Y 1 m m m m m 1 V H 0 3 -- I I I I p C N 0 0 0 1 Q Y N H O O. w 0 II 61 H O Y I 1 = 0 II W > 0 — O a— m U ii D o 0 o I N I O O O I I II � ii rl p, -. i o 0 o i H E i o 000o II N N 3 N 1 1 N 3 N in a In m l 'U II Y U O w l I O O 0 0 Y l I O II O H N U I I Y m .i W I N ✓� v o m I I � II F v W— I I •• O >� W U I I I I II Y I I F F fn -' I I U I O M N M N l0 I H — I H N C I I L II I I a I I 1 d^ aN d° 1 F 0` ✓ I 1 D U' C — 1 1 'O — — — — — — — — — — 1 i 2 O M m O O N Q II A.I a ✓ ro N ro l F C N ro ro ro ro l H N I-1 II Y O N I W W W I w O N I -1 •-I --I -1 -1 I 7 D ^ I m m m� if1 N I II D ro 3 rl I W N N I 2 .,i O. I O C❑ 0 0 1 N N N Y I m m m m m m I U L I H H H H 11 If O Y > O .ti N Z U U U u N NtiH.i.1ti U U U U U 2 a.I w H H H 1 w 1 E II o1 L u I N N N I a — — — III N N N N N L L L 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OH w OC 0 II Y N N V1 — N W N.I.i.i.i.i G Y^ io r CO N N W II N G 3 U.ti pW m m m m m m1 O I Z FC a I✓ Y ✓ I a N N I W N c0 N W I OW > I y II N W U W H H H w U' H II O U G I G C C I --- — ---- I W I I II ro m v >+ Y H H H N N --—— — — — — — —— I W O I I E I o 0 0 0 0 0 I II I s s c D 1 v v v 1 D E o Y 1 1 N N Y o m 1 GO 14 ro a II O C C O U1 C C C !A 0 U Y N .i W N N N v O M jp U f0 II O N N U N N N 2 N O A W U E H 1III I9I NZO F �-- N O III O wp O W W W.. 0 0 0 F FZ — — — — — — — — — — —U] — -- — — — — — — I 0 C p m N C] s M N ri D N N M Ifl V s N N N N M N d v C n n n U N U N N l l l l l l l a II N n n n I11 n n n U - I U ' w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — — — — — ! — — — — — — — — — — H x o a1N 1 010 'o M IfJ o � N N a N � 1 C p U a U m E 1 5 N m 0 c 1 W U N Q 1 a` 1 1 N a N 1 0 R � aU N (7 a � Y C H s3 N o a � U m O �a II m = O II ci II m 11 II II V II II C II - � II Q II II � 1 II II p II II N y II N II II 2 1 l II II II o E I I I t'1 d II N y II •• O T N I � E II m o II o y II II rn m IIo II N N 1 N N n o II E E m rn o 0 1 n II N H W o II Y II W Q m M n a II V F x O voi o � c co `..o ro y "m co VJ o a_ E J �(7 p O O O ' W ON m p I _ O O N � D1 ��6w "O G if E O O U d N a10 op 2C^ Np O T E J lr !n L O T rnrn � o CL L Y W I N--tO aj L O.CO NO T L.L Q �L ca ' A LL ifE �_ »p°� o = J�fn -8 O J�OJNfn _ O + ' N � O ' a E_ E J�ln 0 M aN— O 00 O a i0 MN m c0ui N i C 0 �U v€ O mW C E E m i. N O m N N N M N C O LLq O LU �O U� � C dcli N NON C COO O NnC�N Ln (7 rn � O m �o Ln N �Qj ..O j E E m N T N O N M N N r O N u I L J IJ 1 I I 1 1 1 J u 1 d EPA SHAM s0k= MUQkG91®1T MODEL • VERSION 5.0 IBuild 5.0.021) ___________________�__�_____ ______r___--.--__._,.-__..___ J\\ Nora: TTe summary statistics displayed* in this report are Eased* on results found at every computational time step. not just on results from each reporting time step. Analysis Options «.............. Plrw units ............... CPS Proea8P Models: Rainfall/Runoff ... ..... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Oroundsater ............ NO slow Routing ........... YES ponding AllO ed ........ M water Quality .......... NO Plw Routing Method ...... DYNNAVE Starting Data ............ JM-12-2010 00:00:00 Baling Date ......'........ .TAN-13.2010 01:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:05:00 Routing Time Step ........ 1.00 SIC Element Count ' Number of rain gages 0 Number of aubratchmelts 0 u Nmber of nudes ...........'24 Number of links ........... 23 Number of pollutants ...... 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 Node Summary "•••'•••••` lnvlrt MAX. PIXN3 d* External Nema Type Elev_____ Depth Area Inflcu ._.._.__.... .._.... ---------------- M-m. JURICTION 4989.00 - ______________._.___- 20.00 0.0 Yes CSURP-DL JURRrxw 4986.50 10.00 0.0 Yes M-01 J 1011 4984.220 >.49 0.0 M-02 J1R 100 4984.52 >.86 0.0 M-03 AMPMON 4985.15 11.10 0.0 Yes M-04 JUNC`rION 4p85.31 10.15 0.0 M-05 JtN w 49B5.56 3.35 0.0 M-07 JUNCTION 4986.07 13.14 0.0 Yee M-08 MNCTICN 4986.35 14.09 0.0 M-09 JONCTICN 4906.74 10.29 0.0 M-10 J1RICTION 4907.34 11.30 0.0 M-11 JINCTZON 4997.75 13.53 0.0. Yes M•14 JUNCTION 49BB.99 9.06 0.0 M-16 JUNCTION 4989.04 10.62 0.0 Yes MOTOR -POOL JON w 4989.17 9.63 0.0 Yes M-06 J CTION 4986.00 10.71 0.0 M-15 JUNCTION 4989.46 10.38 0.0 HE 3 J ZON 4988.26 12.19 0.0 M-12 JUNCTION 49BB. 02 12.75 0.0 INLET-02 JUNCTION 4985.12 12.18 0.0 INLET-01 JUNCf10N 4985.03 11.17 0.0 M-08A JUNCTION 4986.62 14.57 0.0 M-sea JtDC w 4986.72 11.09 0.0 54in-PES O'JfPALL 4983.08 'S.00 0.0 Lln9 Summary ♦........... . Named! Prom Node Mde Type Length tslope Roughness .To .. .. ........ PIPE-02 M-01 54in-Plt9 .. CO2D.V1T 163.0 0.2025 0.0230 PIPE-02 M-02 M•01 CON WIT 156.0 0.1987 0.0130 PIP¢-03 ZNLM-01 M-02 CONDUIT 256.0 04000 0.0130 PIPB-06 M-04 M-03 CONDUIT .>9.0 0.2025 0.0130 PIPE-07 M-OS M-04 CONDUIT 224.0 0.2016 0.0130 PIPS-09 M-07 M-06 cow 3S.0 0,2000 0.0130 PIPE-30 M-08 M-07 CVND T 140.0 0.2000 0.0130 PIPE-11 M-088 M-08 CONDUIT 187.0 0.1979 0.0130 PIPE-13 M-10 M-09 C wDvlT 304.0 0.1974 0.0130 PIPE-14 M-11 M-10 CONDUIT 203.0 0.2020 0.0130 DIPS-17 M-14 M-13 CONDUIT 365.0 0.2000 0.0130 C6URP-PL CEURP-M M-04 CONDUIT 250.0 0.4760 0.0130 CSU-PL CM-M M-11 CWiWIT 250.0 0.5000 0.0130 NUTOR-POOL MOTOR -POOL M•OBA CONDUIT 550.0 0.5000 0.0130 PIPS-l9 M-16 M-15 CDWIT 189.0 0.2011 0.0120 PIPE -OS M-06 M-05 CONDUIT 218.0 0.201E 0.1130 PIPE-28 M-15 M-14 CONDUIT 235.0 0.2000 0.0130 I ' PIPE-16 MH-13 ME-22 CONDUIT 119.0 0.2017 0.0130 pipe is MN-12 M-11 CONDUIT 135.0 0.2000 0.0130 PIPE-04 INLET-02 INLET -OS C%SDUIT 46.0 0.1957 0.0130 PIPR-05 MH-03 INLET-02 CONDUIT 13.0 0.2308 0.0130 ' MR FIFE-20 -o" MH-08 CONDUIT 54.0 0. Soto 0. 0230 PIPE-12 W-09 MN -On CONDUIT 9.0 0.2222 0.0130 "S section si♦smairy Full Full eyd. Max. No. Of Full Conduit Shape --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depth Area Red, Width Barrels Flow PIPE-01 CIRNIAR 5.00 19.63 LAS 5.00 1 217.29 PIPE-02 CIRCULAR 5.00 19.63 LAS 5.00 1 216.10 ' PIPE-03 CIRCUSAR 5.00 19.63 1.25 5.00 1 216.47 PIPE-06 CIRCULAR 5.00 19.63 1.25 5.00 1 117.21 PIPE-07 CIRCU1,AR S.00 19.63 1.25 5.00 1 126.94 PIDB-09 CIRCUTAR 4.50 15.90 2.23 4.50 1 87.94 PIPE-10 CIRCXSM 4.50 25.90 1.13 4.50 1 $7.94 PIPE-11 CIRCULAR 3.00 7.07 0.05 3.00 1 29.67 ' FIFE-13 CIRCULAR 3.00 7.07 O.TS 3.00 1 29.63 PIPE-24 CIRCULAR 3.00 7.07 O.TS 3.00 1 29.90 PIPE-17 CIRMAR 2.50 4.91 0.63 2.50 1 10.34 CSURF-PL CIRCULAR 2.00 3.24 0.50 2.00 1 15.61 CSO-PL CIRCUSAR 1.50 1.70 0.3E 2.50 1 7.43 MOTOR -POOL CIRCULAR 3.50 9.62 0.80 3.50 1 71.14 ' PE PI-19 CIRCULAR 2.00 3.14 0.50 2.00 1 10.14 'PIPE-08 CIRCAAR 4.50 15.90 1.13 4.50 1 88.35 PIPE-18 CIRCUTAR 2.00 3.14 0.50 2.00 1 10.12 PIPE-16 CIRCULAR 2.SO 4.91 0.63 2.50 1 18.12 PIPE -is CIRC 2.50 4.92 0.63 2.50 l 18.34 PIPE-04 CIRCTEAR 5.00 11.:3 1.25 5.00 1 115.20 ' PIDE-OS CIRCULAR 5.00 19.63 1.25 5.00 1 125.11 PIPS-20 RIC'i'_CLOSED 2.00 10.00 0.71 5.00 1 64.59 PIPE-12 NORIb ELL2FSE 1.83 4.27 0.55 3.10 2 15.64 ' u.....•u. uuuou .. Volute VP1uM -Fla: Routing Continuity acre-feet o.r.rr«............«u- 10^6 gal ----- Dry Weather Inflow ....... ---- 0.000 --------- 0.000 Mat Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Groundwater Inflow...... 0.000 0.000 ' ....... EDII Inflow .. mix Inflow External Inflow .. 3.322 12.311 4.000 341 External Outflow, ......... 10.010 1.142 Internal Outflow ......... 0.000 0.000 0.003 Storage Wsaee ........... 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume 0.037 0.012 ' Final Stored Volume 0.628 0.205 Continuity SSrer (k) 0.069 ' .... ••.........ru.... Highest Continuity or Errs t Node MN-OeA(1.83k)•••••• Node MH-23 (1.42k) Node ME-12 (1.06k) Tim -Step Critical slemeats ♦ v.. .......... u.. a..... ' Nm�e Highest Flow InStability Incest$ •........................... .. ' All links are stable. ' • Baiting Tim Step Senvary .. «..................... Miaimm Time 9CeD 0.50 see Average Time Stop 1.00 sac Maximum Tim Stay 1.00 sec ' Percent in Steady State 0.00 Average iterations per step r 2.03 ' Na0e Dept . • ... . ..................................•---------------------------------- Average Maxi. Maximen Tim of Max ' Depth Depth - SOL Occurrence Node Type - Feet FtC[ Feet days hr:min ----------------------------'--------------------.-..------- I 1 t u 1 n I CSU-PL JUNCTION 0.54 30.00 4999.00 0 Be:" CSURF-FL JUNCTION]4994.99 0 OD:13 M-02 JUNCTION 4.83 6.87 4991.09 0 00:32 9N-02 JONCTZON 4.54 7.40 4:91.92 0 00: 32 MR-03 J(DNCTZON 3.95 9.05 4%.20 0 00:32 MN-04 JUNCTION 3.80 9.42 4994.73 0 00:32 MI -OS JUNCTION 3.56 12.17 4997.73 0 00:31 M-07 JUNCTION 3.07 11.69 4997.76 0 00:21 NO-08 JUNCTION 2.80 11.35 4998.10 0 00:31 2N-09 JUNCTION 2.43 11.22 4097.96 0 00:32 MR-1 0 JUNCTION 1.84 16.14 5003.48 0 00:31 MI-12 JONCTTO4 1.47 21.59 5009.34 0 00:32 MR-14 JUNCTION 0.25 45.06 5034.05 0 00131 M-26 JUNCI'I011 0.14 63.91 5053.45 0 0001 MMR-POOL JUNCTION 0.16 9.63 4999.00 0 00:32 MN-06 JUNCTION 3.13 10.93 4996.93 0 00:31 M8-15 JUNCTION 0.15 45.18 5034.64 0 00:31 HH-13 JINMON 0.97 31.08 5019. 34 0 00:31 MI-22 JUNCTION 2.20 27.58 5015.60 0 00:31 ZNLBT-02 MNMON 3.97 8.79 4993.92 0 00: 32 INLZr-D1 JUNCTION 4.05 8.40 4993-13 0 00.32 MN-08A JUBKTZON 2.54 12.92 4999.54 0 00:31 MI-085 JUNCTION 2.44 11.09 4997.81 0 00:32 543n-FES O137FALL 5.20 5.20 4989.08 0 00:00 .00u•..ouu... Node Tnf low Summary Node Type CSU-SM. CSURP-PL MN-01 MR-02 Mi-03 MI-04 MI-05 MI-0] MI-08 Mi-09 MI-10 Mf-11 Mf 14 M -16 MY1pR-POOL MB-06 M3-15 MI-13 W-12 1N -02 1NLST-01 M-08A M3-O8B 541n-M JORTION JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCT30N J NNCTZON JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCTION JT3 CTICN JUNCTION JMNCTIou JUNCTION JNNCTION jm=loff JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCnw JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCTION ON3FALL Neural Enteral Inflow CFS 12.00 12.20 0.00 0.00 26.60 0.00 0.00 ].00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.$0 0.00 24.90 63.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M6ri9sm Total Time -Of H" Inilw OCNSreane CPS _�__________________ days hr:min 12.00 0 00:51 12.20 D 00:49 137.44 0 00:36 237.44 0 00:26 13].2] 0 00:36 108.93 0 00:36 100.41 0 00:35 100.33 0 00:36 93.84 0 00:36 32.15 0 00:34 32.16 0 00:34 32.16 0 00:34 15.31 0 00:30 14.90 0 M35 63.00 0 00:36 100. 37 0 00:35 14.90 0 00:35 14.90 0 00:35 14.90 0 00:35 137.36 0 00:36 117.44 0 00:36 63.00 0 00:36 33.08 0 00:35 137.45 0 00:36 tateral Total Inflow Inflow V02am4 Volume 20.6 gal 10.6 gal ____________________ OAD4 0.S05 0.692 0.692 0.000 4.167 0.000 4.200 1.538 4.240 0.000 2.724 0.000 2.046 0.079 2.061 0.000 2.013 0.000 1.100 0.000 1.099 0.226 1.108 0.600 0.169 0.164 0.164 1.131 0.919 0. or 2.051 0.000 0.264 0.000 0.180 0.000 0.267 0.000 4.225 0.000 4.221 0.000 0.945 0.000 2.100 0.000 4.142 •. u.u............... Nod. Surcharge Summary Surcharging occurs when water ................----------------------------------------------------- rises above the top of the highest conduit. Max . Bright Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet--------------------------------------------------------------------- C8U-PL JUNCTION 2.08 0.500 0.000 C6 -PL JUNCTIw 24.59 6.493 1.507 MR-01 JUNCTION 0.79 1. 8T3 0.61] MN-02 JUNCTION 0.41 2.400 0.460 MN-03 JUNCTION 0.35 4.050 2.050 Mi-04 JUNCTION 0.34 .4.423 0.]2] MI-05 JONCIION 0.32 7.160 0.000 MI-07 J TIm 0.34 7.184 1.454 4N-08 .TA4CTIM 0.32 7.253 2.337 MN-09 JUNCTION 1.15 6.221 0.000 MI-10 JUNCTION 0.65 13.144 0.000 MI-11 JUNCTION 0.50 10.587 0.000 MI-14 JUNCTION 0.35 42.563 0.000 MN-16 JUNCTION 0.33 61.609 0.000 MO'10R-POOL JUNC3'Zw 0.25 6.130 0.000 NR-04 JU Cffl, 0.34 6.426 0.000 MN-15 JUNCTION 0.37 43.191 0.000 MN-13 JUNCTION 0.50 20.576 0.000 6N-22 MNOTION 0.61 25.001 0.000 Z -02 JUNCTION 0.32 3.]8] 2.392 INLET-01 JUNCTION 0.30 3.401 2.769 MB-08A JUNCTIw o.52 9.415 1.655 MR-08B JUNCTION 1.10 0.005 0.005 i I 1 ..................... NCO.......ig Summery Flooding raft" to ___________________________ all water ------------------------------------------- that overflows a node, whether it polls or not. Inta1 - Meximme Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded ' AOnrs Rate Occurrence Volume nepth Node ----------------- CF8 days tried. 10^6 gal Feet CSU-PL -Flooded ---__---_ 0.12 __ 3.27 -_I-----_._.-____-______------ 0 00:31 0.003 10.00 MOTOR -POOL 0.01 14.03 0 00:32 0.000 9.63 ' * Out I l.oedingEumoary ...... u . u ............ .__...------•------------------------------------------ Flow Avg. Mar,. Total Preg. Plow Flw, Volume Outfall Node ___________________________________________________ Pont. CFS CFS 10^6 gal 54in-PES 46.42 13.S] 137.45 4 ,142 ___•___...-•--------------------------------------------- System 46.42 13.57 137.45 4.142 Link Plw Summary -------------- ___________------- __---- ____ --- __ Maximum Time of Nax Neximma Nex/ Max/ IPlwl OOCOrrence Ivelool Full Full Link Type CPS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth __•______•-_________•_____ _Y___________ _______________________ PIPE-01 CONDOTT 13].95 D D0:3fi ].00 1.}] 3.00 PIPE-02 CONOUTT 13].44 0 00:36 7.00 1.19 1.00 PIPS-03 CtlNDUIT 13T.44 0 00:36 , 7.00 1.18 1.00 PIPE-06 CMNUIT 4 0 M36 5.55 0.93 1.00 PIPE-07 CONDUTT 100.42 0 00:35 5.11 0.86 1.00 PIPE-09 COMUIT 100.3] 0 00:35 6.31 1.14 1,00 ' PIPE -Io CONWTT 93.84 0 00:36 5.90 1.07 1.00 PIPE-11 CON WIT 32.09 0 00!35 4.54 1.08 1.00 PIPE-13 CCNWIT 32.15 0 00:34 4.55 1.08 1.00 PIPE-14 CONDUIT 32.16 0 00:34 4.55 1.07 1.00 PIPE-17 CONDUIT 24.90 0 00:35 3.03 0.81 1.00 CSUEF-PL CONDUIT 12.10 0 00:49 3.85 0.]8 1.00 CSU-FL CONDUTT 12.00 0 00:5. 6.'l9 1.62 1.00 M01VR-POOL COEDDIT 63.00 0 00:36 6.55 0.89 1.00 PIPS-19 CCRINMI1 14.90 0 00:35 4.74 1.47 1.00 PIPE-08 CONOVIT 100.42 0 00,35 6.31 1.14 1.DO ➢IPE-16 CONDUIF 14.89 0 00:35 4.74 1.47 1.00 PIPE-l6 CON003T 14.90 0 OD:35 3.04 0.81 1.00 ' PIPE-15 CONDUIT 14.91 0 D0:35 3.04 0.81 1.00 PIPE-04 CONOIIIT 137.44 0 00:36 7.00 1.19 1.00 PIPS-05 CO141DIT 137.36 000:36 7.00 1.10 1.00 PIPE-20 CONDUTT 63.03 0 00.36 6.30 0.98 1.00 PIPE-12 CONDUIT 32.00 0 00.35 3.76 . 1.03 140 :........................ now Classification summary .............»............ /jutted _____________________Avg. FupCLipn Of Time in Row C1des ---- A __ /ltualength up Donn Sub Sup t Dow.' Conduit length ______________________________________ Dry Dry Dry Crit Cris xuamrProude Number Man Change PIPE-01 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.0D 0.001 -�it--- 0.00 -�it--- 0.00 0.01 0.0000 PIPE-03 1.00 1:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 ' PIPE-06 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.0000 PIPS-06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.0000 PIPE-09 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00. 0.99 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000 PIPE-09 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000 PIPE-11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0001 PIM-23 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0001 ' PIPE-24 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0001 PIPE-14 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0001 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001 cSuRr-] CSVRF-FL 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.0001 CSO-PL. 0.00. 0.63 0.00 0.99' 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.0000 2.06 1.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.OD00 ' PIM-1POOL PIPS-19 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000 PIM-18 1.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.0001 - PIPE-18 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0001 PIPE -if 2.00 .0. 01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0001 PIps-15 2.00 0.00 0.so 0.99 0.0. 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.0000 PIPS-04 2.01 1.41 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.0000 ' PIPE -OS 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.0000 ' PIPE-20 1.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0000 PIM-12 2.26 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0002 ____________________________________________________________________________ Haar/ ' --------- AW Le tVll-------- Ow above Pull Capacity COrdait _______ Hat! P.IIO/ Vpat"m matrem Nor al 71w Linite - PIPE-01 ....... __-------- 0.78 __-------- 0.78 ___...... 0.70 _.... ___------- 0.16 0.30 PIPE-02 0.41 0.41 0.61 0.16 0.31 PIPE-03 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.21 ' PIPE-16 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.34 PIPE-01 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.01 0.21 PIPE-09 0.34 0.34 0.16 0.16 0.32 PIPE-10 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.19 PIPE-11 1.10 1.20 1.10 0.05 0.17 PIPE-13 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.05 0.15 ' PIM-14 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.07 PIPE-17 0.35 0.35 0.)5 0.01 0.01 CSOBP-PL 21.59 26.59 24.59 0.01 0.01 C80-FL 2.0a 2.00 2.08 1.77 1.95 HO/ L 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.01 0.01 ..PIPE-19 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.22 ' '4IPE-08 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.14 0.26 PIPE-18 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.12 0.21 PIPE-16 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.01 0.01 PIPE-15 0.61 0.62 0.61 0.02 0.01 PIPE-" 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.30 PIPE-05 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.32 PIPE-20 24.58 26.58 24.58 0.01 0.32 PIPE-12 24.50 24.56 24.50 0.70 2.09 a 1"ie began w: Fri aag 05 10:55:21 2011 aaalyaie ee on: Pri 3 g 05 10,55:29 2011 ' t tal elawa time: 00:00:08 I I ' MSO-Final-Design (add Prospect Station), 02-11-13, es, Interwest Consulting Group ' SWMM 5 Page 1 t I I I I t MSO-Final-Design (add Prospect Station), 02-11-13, es, Interwest Consulting Group EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0 (Build 5.0.022) -------------------------------------------------------------- of ff}!lRRlklxlxxwxa}}}}}}f }f!!}!!ff}lf elxxx xR xx Haxf kx H4 NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. 1x w11rw+1wf+lww+w++!•e++•+fewwf ewllw efw11wx1ww wwaa+aaaala ++a+a+waarafaaa« Analysis Options .f++f++lf aa4a4w« Flow Units ..............: CPS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Pending Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ JAN-12-2010 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. JAW-13-2010 01:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:05:00 Routing Time Step ........ 1.00 sec f}•+f if }}++1w Element Count •xwwaa««a«444 Number of rain gages ...... 0 Number of subcatchments ... 0 Number of nodes ........... 25 Number of links ........... 24 Number of pollutants ...... 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 aa+lu ulf a! Node Summary f 1w Invert Max. Ponded External Name ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow CSU-PL JUNCTION 4989.00 10.00 0.0 Yes CSURF-PL JUNCTION 4986.50 10.00 0.0 Yes MH-01 JUNCTION 4984.22 7.49 0.0 MR-02 JUNCTION 4984.52 7.86 0.0 MH-03 JUNCTION 4985.15 11.10 0.0 Yes MH-04 JUNCTION 4985.31 10.15 0.0 MH-05 JUNCTION 4985.56 8.85 - 0.0 MH-07 JUNCTION 4906.07 13.14 0.0 Yes - -' MH-08 JUNCTION 4986.35 14.09 0.0 MH-09 JUNCTION 4986.74 10.29 0.0 MH-10 JUNCTION 4987.34 11.30 0.0 MH-il JUNCTION 4987.75 13.53 0.0 Yes MH-14 JUNCTION 4988.99 9.06 0.0 MH-16 JUNCTION 4989.84 20.61 0.0 Yes MOTOR -POOL JUNCTION 4989.37 9.63 0:0 Yee MH-06 JUNCTION 4986.00 10.77 0.0 MH-15 JUNCTION 4989.46 10.38 0.0 MH-13 JUNCTION 4988.26 12:18 0.0 MH-12 JUNCTION 4988.02 12.75 0.0- INLET-02 JUNCTION 4985.12 11.18 0.0 INLET-01 JUNCTION 4985.03 11.17 0.0. MH-08A JUNCTION 4986.62 14.57 0.0 MH-08B JUNCTION 4986.72 11.09 0.0 PROSP-STA JUNCTION 4994.00 4.40 0.0 Yes 54in-FES OUTFALL 4983.88 5.00 0.0 SWMM5 Page 1 I ' MSO-Final-Design (add Prospect Station), 02-11-13, es, Interwest Consulting Group J' ' Link Summary Name From Node TO Node I I 1 [1 L I PIPE-01 PIPE-02 PIPE-03 PIPE-06 PIPE-07 PIPS-09 PIPE-10 PIPE-11 PIPE-13 PIPE-14 PIPE-17 CSURF-PL CSU-PL MOTOR -POOL PIPE-19 PIPE-08 PIPE-18 PIPE-16 PIPE-15 PIPE-04 PIPE-05 PIPE-20 PIPE-12 PROSP-STA MH-01 MH-02 INLET-01 MH-04 MH-05 MR-07 MH-08 MH-08B MH-10 MH-11 MH-14 CSURF-PL CSU-PL MOTOR -POOL MH-16 MH-06 NH-15 MH-23 MH-12 INLET-02 MH-03 MH-08A MH-09 PROSP-STA ,1.#..RR1,11#.#.###.# Ci066 SECtiOn Summary Conduit PIPE-01 PIPE-02 PIPE-03 PIPE-06 PIPE-07 PIPE-09 PIPE-10 PIPE-11 PIPE-13 PIPE-14 PIPE-17 CSURF-PL CSU-PL MOTOR -POOL PIPE-19 PIPE-08 PIPE-18 PIPE-16 PIPE-15 PIPE-04 PIPE -OS PIPE-20 PIPE-12 PROSP-STA Shape CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR. CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR RECT CLOSED HORIZ ELLIPSE CIRCULAR •R##1#,.f RRR######R#RfR,1. Flow Routing Continuity #1111##f##########R##RRRI♦ Dry Weather Inflow ....... Wet Weather Inflow ....... Groundwater Inflow ....... ---------------- 541n-FES !fit-01 MH-02 MH-03 MR-04 MH-06 MH-07 MH-08 MH-09 MH-10 MH-13 MH-04 MH-11 MH-08A MH-15 MH-05 MH-14 MH-12 MH-11 INLET-01 INLET-02 MH-08 MH-08B INLET-01 CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT Length 163.0 156.0 255.0 79.0 124.0 35.0 140.0 187.0 304.0 203.0 365.0 250.0 250.0 550.0 189.0 218.0 235.0 119.0 135.0 46.0 13.0 54.0 9.0 320.0 %Slope Roughness ---------------- 0.2025 0.1987 0.2000 0.2025 0.2016 0.2000 0.2000 0.1979 0.1974 0.2020 0.2000 0.4760 0.5000 0.5000 0.2011 0.2018 0.2000 0.2017 0.2000 0.1957 0.2308 0.5000 0.2222 0.6156 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Depth-- Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow - 5.00 ------------------------------------------ 19.63 - 1.25 5.00 1 117.19 5.00 19.63 1.25 5.00 1 116.10 5.00 19.63 1.25 5.00 1 116.47 5.00 19.63 1.25 5.00 1 117.21 5.00 19.63 1.25 5.00 1 116.94 ' 4.50 15-90 1.13 4.50 1 87.94 4.50 15.90 1.13 4.50 1 87.94 3.00 7.07 0.75- 3.00 1 29.67 3.00 7.07 0.75 3.00 1 29.63 3.00 7.07 0.75 3.00 1 29.98 2.50 4.91 0.63 2.50 1 18.34 2.D0 3.14 0.50 2.00 1 15.61 1.50 1.77 0.38 1.50 1 7.43 3.50 9.62 0.88 3.50 1 71.14 .2.00 3.14 0.50 2.00 1 10.14 4.50 15.90 1.13 4.50 1 "" 88.35 2.00 3.14 0.50 2.00 1 10.12 2.50 4.91 0.63 2.50 1 18.42 2.50 4.91 0.63 2.50 1 18.34 5.00 29.63 1.25 5.00 1.' 115.20 5.00 19.63 1.25 5.00 1 125.11 2.00 10.00 0.71 5.00 1 64.59 1.83 4.27 0.56 3.17 2 15.64 1.50 1.77 0.38 1:50 1 8.24 Volume Volume acre- feet 10=- 6gal - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ' SWMM 5 Page 2 I I I 1 I i 11 MSO-Final-Design (add Prospect Station), 02-11-13, es, Interwest Consulting Group RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 13.555 4:417 External Outflow ......... 12.940, 4:217 Internal Outflow ......... 0.013 0.004 Storage Losses ........... 0.000 0:000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.037 0.012 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.628 0.205 Continuity Error (t) ..... 0.081 raaaakYtrrR wf a•rrktakf afa Highest Continuity Errors }a aYwa xll Yf YwRrkkYkYwkYYw Node MH-08A (1.830 Node MH-13 (1.430 Node MH-12 (1.060 rw}aa}a sass}sass aaaaaaaaaax Time -Step Critical Elements rfrrxr}aaa as aaaaa:}xxxaxara None w aer4•rrfarrar •rrrerf}4fxf4wlfw! Highest Flow Instability Indexes }a}i}44iwt!!r}H }www}twl wf114 tf4 All links are stable. t}}t}}}a a##}}}#}}}}}RY}R} Routing Time Step Summary •r•rr•}x xa axraarflxfrrrrr Minimum Time Step 0.50 see Average Time Step 1.00 sec Maximum Time Step 1.00 sec Percent in Steady State 0.00 Average Iterations per Step 2.03 f staff affftaf a}fff Node Depth Summary r }kaaa r•afrra••ff• -------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Node Type Feet Feet- Feet days hr:m¢n --------------------------------------------------------------------- CSU-PL JUNCTION 0.54 10.00 4999.00 0 00:29 CSURF-PL JUNCTION 2.68 7.75 4994.25. 0 00:36 MH-01 JUNCTION 4.83 5.92 4990.13 0 00:36 MR-02 JUNCTION 4.54 6.65 4991.17 0 00:36 MH-03 JUNCTION 3.95 7.98 4993.13 .. 0 00:36 MH-04 JUNCTION 3.80 8.42 4993.73 " 0 00:36 MH-05 JUNCTION 3.56 6.72 4994.28 0 00:36 hH3-07 JUNCTION 3.07 9.18 4995.25 0 00:35 MH-08 JUNCTION 2.80 9.41 4995.76 0 00:35 MH-09 JUNCTION 2.43 10.48 '4997.22 0 00:31 MH-10 JUNCTION 1.86 12.44 4999.78 0 00:31 NH-I1 JUNCTION 1.47 16.26 5004:01 0 00:31 MH-14 JUNCTION .0.26 23.39 5012.38 0 00:31 MR-16 JUNCTION 0.14 33.67 5023.51 0 00:31 MOTOR -POOL JUNCTION 0.16 9.63 4999.00 0 00:31 MR-06 JUNCTION 3.13 8.93 4994.93 0 00:35 MH-15 JUNCTION '0.15 31.92 5021.38 0 00:31 MH-13 JUNCTION 0.97 21.14 5009.40 0 00:31 MR-12 JUNCTION 1.20 19.26 5007.28 0 00:31 iNLRT-02 JUNCTION 3.97 7.59 4992.71 0 00:36 INLET-01 JUNCTION. 4.05 7.18 4992.21 0 00:36 MR-OSA JUNCTION '2.54 10.03 4996.65 0 00:35 MH-08B JUNCTION 2.45 10.36 4997.08 0 00:31 SWMM5 Page 3 I ' MSO-Final-Design (add Prospect Station), 02-11-13, es, Interwest Consulting Group ' PROSP-STA JUNCTION 54in-FES OUTFALL ' afaaarr♦ Node -Inflow -Summary a aaa ra rra««aaraaraa 0.03 0.98 4994.98 0 00:31 5.20 5.20 4989.08 0 00:00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Node Type CFS CPS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CSU-PL JUNCTION 12.00 12.00 0 00:51 0.804 0.805 CSURF-PL JUNCTION 12.10 12.10 0 00:49 0.692 0.692 MH-01 JUNCTION 0.00 142.77 0 00:36 0.000 4.241 MH-02 JUNCTION 0.00 141.75 0 00:36 0.000 4.274 MH-03 JUNCTION 28.60 136.60 0 00:36 1.538 4.242 ' MH-04 JUNCTION 0.00 108.37 0 00:35 0.000 2.730 FHI-05 JUNCTION .0.00 100.14 0 00:35 0.000 2.049 MH-07 JUNCTION 7.00 100.11 0 00:35 0.079 2.060 MH-08 JUNCTION 0.00 93.31 0 00:35 0.000 2.014 ' MR-09 JUNCTION 0.00 31.85 0 00:35 0.000 1.101 NH-10 JUNCTION 0.00 31.85 0 00:34 0.000 2.100 MH-12 JUNCTION 10.80 31.86 0 00:34 0.126 1.108 MH-14 JUNCTION 0.00 15.07 0 00:29 0.000 0.169 MH-16 JUNCTION 14.90 14.90 0 00:35 0.164 0.164 ' MOTOR -POOL JUNCTION 63.00 63.00 0 00:36 0.939 0.939 MH-06 JUNCTION 0.00 100.14 0 00:35 0.000 2.053 MH-15 JUNCTION 0.00 14.89 0 00:35 0.000 0.164 MH-13 JUNCTION 0.00 14.90 0 00:35 0.000 0.181 NH-12 JUNCTION 0.00 14.91 0 00:35 0.000 0.188 t INLET-02 JUNCTION 0.00 136.62 0 00:36 0.000 4.223 INLET-01 JUNCTION 0.00 141.71 0 00:36 0.000 4.295 MH-08A JUNCTION 0.00 63.01 0 00:36 0.000 0.945 MH-08E JUNCTION 0.00 31.82 0 00:35 0.000 1.102 PROSP-STA JUNCTION 5.80 5.80 0 00:30 0.076 0.076 ' 541n-FES OUTFALL 0.00 141.76 0 00:36 0.000 4.216 ' ♦aaaaaaaaaaaaaarraaray Node Surcharge Summary a aafaaaaaaaaaraaaraaaa Surcharging occurs.when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- CSU-PL JUNCTION 2.0a 8.500 0.000 ' CSURF-PL JUNCTION 24.60 5.752 2.248 MH-01 JUNCTION 0.82 0.924 1.566 MH-02 JUNCTION 0.44 2.652 1.208 " MH-03 JUNCTION 0.36 2.978 3.122 - MR-04 "JUNCTION 0.36 3.422 1.728 ' MH-05 JUNCTION 0.33 3.718 0.132 poi-07 JUNCTION 0.35 4.677 3.963 MH-08 JUNCTION 0.33 4.906 4.684 ' NH-09 MH-10 JUNCTION JUNCTION 1.16 0.67 7.484 9.442 0.000 0.000 MH-11 JUNCTION 0.51 13.262 0.000 MH-14 JUNCTION 0.36 20:893 0.000 MH-16 JUNCTION - 0.33 31.671 0.000 MOTOR -POOL JUNCTION 0.25 6.130 0.000 ' MR-06 JUNCTION 0.36 4.433 1.837 MH-lS JUNCTION 0.37 29.921 0.000 MH-23 JUNCTION- 0.52 18.641 0.000 .MH-12 JUNCTION 0.63 16.758 0.000 INLET-02 JUNCTION 0.34 2.594 3.586 ' poi-08A JUNCTION 0.54 6.533 4.537 ' SKIMM 5 Page 4 I ' MSO-Final-Design (add Prospect Station), 02-11-13, es, Interwest Consulting Group ' MH-08H JUNCTION 1.12 7.364 0.726 Node Flooding Summary #a#R##R#Raa+aeaaaf af+ Flooding refers to all water that overflows a node, whether it ponds or not. t -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Maximum Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded Hours Rate Occurrence Volume Depth Node Flooded CPS days hr:min 10"6 gal Feet ----------------------------------------""--"__--------------------- -----POOL CSU-PL 0.13 2.35 0 00:31 0.004 10.00 MOTOR 0.02 15:70 0 00:31 0.001 9.63 Outfall Loading Summary _________________________________'�----------------------- Flow A Max. Total Freq. Flow Flaw Volume Outfall Node Pcnt. CFS CPS 10^6 gal ' S4in-FES---_-_-- __-- 46-44_----13-78- ------------------ System 46.44 13.78 141.76 4.216 ' flff###1f 11i1i1a1 a1• :ink Flow Summary _____________________________________________________________________________ Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ ' IFlow1 Occurrence IVelocl Full Full Link Type CPS days br:min ft/sec Flow Depth _________________________ _____________________________________ ' PIPE-01 PIPE-02 CONDUIT CONDUIT 141.76 141.77 0 0 00:36 00:36 7.22 7.22 1.21 1.22 1.00 1.00 PIPE-03 CONDOIT 191.75 0 00:36 7.22 1.22 1.00 PIPE CONDUIT 0 00:35 5.52 0.92 1.00 PIPE-07 CONDUIT 100.14 0 00:35 5.10 0.86 1.00 PIPE-09 CONDUIT 100.14 0 00:35 6.30 1.14 1.00 ' PIPE-10 CONDUIT 93.33 0_ 00:35 5.87 1.06 1.00 PIPE-21 CONDUIT 31.87 6 00:35 4.51. 1.07 1.00 PIPE-13 CONDUIT 31.85 0 00:35 4.51 1.07 1.00 PIPE-14 CONDUIT 31.85 0 00:34 4.51 1.06 1.00 PIPE-27 - CONDUIT 14.90 0 00:35 3.04 0.81 1.00 ' CSURF-PL CONDUIT 12.10 0 00:49 3.85 0.78 1.00 CSU-PL CONDUIT 12.00 0 00:51 6.79 1.62 1.00 MOTOR -POOL CONDUIT 63.01 0 00:36 6.55 0.89 1.00 PIPE-19 CONDUIT 14.89 0 00:35 4.74 1.47 1.00 PIPE-08 CONDUIT 100.14 0 00:35 6.30 1.13 1.00 ' PIPE-18 CONDUIT 14.90 0 00:35 4-.74. 1.47 1.00 PIPE-16 CONDUIT 24.91 0 00:35 3.04 0.81 1.00 PIPE-15 CONDUIT 14.92 0 00:35 3.04 0.82 1.00 PIPE-04 CONDUIT 136.62 0 00:36. 6,96 . 1.19 1.00 PIPE-05 CONDUIT 136.62 0 00:36 6.96 1.09 1.00 ' PIPE-20 CONDUIT 63.03 0 00:36 6.30 0.98 1.00 PIPE-12 CONDUIT 31.82 0 00:35 3.73 1.02 1.00 PROSP-STA CONDUIT 5.64 0 00:31 4.81 . 0.68 0.63 ' flfflllfflf+iaaif is aa!lR lf! Flow Classification Summary 1------------ ' SWMM 5 Page 5 ' MSO-Final-Design (add Prospect Station), 02-11-13, es, Interwest Consulting Group ' Adjusted --- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---- Avg. Avg. /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Froude Flow Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Number Change ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIPE-01 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0000 PIPE-02 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000 PIPE-03 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000 PIPE-06 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0000 PIPE-07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0000 ' PIPE-09 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000 PIPE-10 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000 PIPE-11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0001 PIPE-13 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0001 PIPE-14 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.0001 ' PIPfi-17 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0001 CSURF-PL 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 CSU-PL 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.0001 MOTOR -POOL 1.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.35 0.01 0.00 0,00 0.03 0.0000 PIPE-19 1.00 0.78 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.0000 ' PIPS-08 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000 PIPE-18 1.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.0001 PIPE-16 1.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0001 ' PIPE-15 PIPE-04 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.0001 0.0000 PIPE-05 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.0000 PIPE-20 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.0000 PIPE-12 1.26 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001 ' PROSP-STA 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.13 0.0000 •Mill}}1}11}f♦}}}}�}}1}Q♦ Conduit Surcharge Summary ' •}R Y1f}111}11}}}}}f t}R}}}} ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Hours Hours ----------Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity ' Conduit - ________ Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited ----- ------ PIPE-01 __________---- 0.82 ______---- 0.82 ______---- 0.82 _________---- 0.1.7 _ 0.32 PIPE-02 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.32 ' PIPE-03 PIPE-06 0.32 0.36 0.32 0.36 0.32 0.36 0.18 0.01 0.23 0.35 PIPE-07 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.01 0.21 PIPE-09 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.14 0.32 PIPE-10 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.20 PIPE-11 1.12 1.12 1.12 0.05 0.17 ' PIPE-13 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.05 0.14 PIPE-14 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.04 0.07 PIPfi-17 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.01 0.01 CSURF-PL 24.60 24.60 24.60 0.01 0.01 CSU-PL 2.08 2.08 2.08 1.77 1.93 ' MOTOR -POOL 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.01 0.01 PIPE-19 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.12 PIPE-08 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.16 PIPE-18 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.12 PIPE-26 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.01 ' PIPE-15 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.01 0.01 PIPE-04 0.32 0.32 0:32 0.16 0.32 PIPE-05 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.34 PIPE-20 24.59 24.59 24.59 0.01 0.32 ' PIPfi-12 24.59 24.59 24.59 0.70 1.75 Analysis begun on: Mon Feb 11 13:19:24 2013 Analysis ended on: Mon Feb 11 13:19:28 2013 ' Total elapsed time: 00:00:04 1 SWMM 5 Page 6 I ' PROSPECT STATION Table 1. Comparison of existing and proposed HGL. 1 11 [1 k t ELEMENT RIM EXISTING HGL PROPOSED HGL MH-07 4999.21 4997.76 4995.25 MH-06 4996.77 4996.93 4994.93 MH-05 4994.41 4994.06 4994.28 MH-04 4995.46 4994.73 4993.73 MH-03 1 4996.25 4994.2 4993.13 MH-02 4992.38 4991.92 4991.17 MH-01 4991.7 4991.08 4990.13 INLET-02 4996.3 4993.91 4992.71 INLET-01 4996.2 4993.43 4992.21 1 CUHP 2005 rcarenseuain, uwcviv ' Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2480 West 26th Avenue, Suite 156-13; Denver, Colorado 80211 Telephone: 303-455-6277, E-mail: udfcd@udfcd.org ' Purpose This program produces hydrographs using the Colorado Unit Hydrograph Procedure Content Change title, description, and other settings ' Add/Remove Raingages and change names Add a new basin using the basin setup sheet Setup associations between CUHP and SWM Simulate the basins and generate the hydrogr Load an older CUHP 2005 workbook into this ' Acknowledgements:: Daniel Miller (Programmer) Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Gerald Blackler (Model Consultant) CH2MHill `John -Michael O'Brien (Programmer) - :-_ Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ben Urbonas, P.E. (Model Consultant) ' Urban Drainage and Flood Control District • . Dr. James C.Y. Guo, PhD P.E. (Computational Methods and Mathematics Advis University of Colorado at Denver ' John T. O'Brien (Model Consultant) ¢ . ; Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Ken MacKenzie, P.E. (GUI Design Consultant) . .: ......., •.::..:::..: .::::`. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District I I I I I I I 11 fJ I I j I I I I I 1 1 Printouts for user Selected Storm Hvdroeraohs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Printouts for User Selected Unit Hydro -graphs ' flow in cfs N d V 3 Q ' E E H c y N d E z 4.98 ' 5 2.39 10 1.05 15 t 20 0.57 0.12 25 30 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 q a Y y _ V q q C a E N q C m � A 3�0 q Nee fll a S E L 6 aa ;• 3md � x C v N � � E W N ' N y •Id V 0 W N W :.i C W E ' o q m IJ m E f W u' '0 a ' " r W a ` O o a � a S a c m O E Z W E� E � N a L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d ' d �i C Y c x 'c 0 ti CL o c N C O N o � O ati c o Z ro L' a a � ' 0 N • a� o ' o N Z' N N O CO •c J � � E e• � a mc Y C O a 5 �$ C C LL a x o U o Zmw e a E~^ B o N � d M I 1 11 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX D WATER QUALITY INFORMATION Vol 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Alternative Analysis for the Design of the Mason Street Outfall Prepared for City of Fort Collins CSU CSURF Mason Street BRT Mom ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 270460 Fort Collins, Colorado 80527 (976) 223-5556, FAX (970) 223-5578 Ayres Project No. 32-1226.19 MASONI1T.DOC November 2010 ' CSURF ANALYSIS ' 1. include lots 1, 2 and 3 in.the BNRR pond. Assuming the following: . • Lot 1 would have the same amount.of.impervious area that it has today (old Gasamat site). Use aerial photo to determinehow much impervious area currently exists and include that data in ' technical.rnemorandurn. • Lots 2 and 3.would.have approximately .75 acres of impervious area (split -between the two lots) built outside thefioodway • The circle drive'(Tamasag Drive) would be shortened up to stop above the floodway and the impervious area for it is included in Jots 2 and 3 CSUFF prefers to have Lot 1 provide their own water quality • CSUFF would like to know how much additional water quality volume would need to be added to She BNRR water quality pond to provide water quality for Lots 2 and 3, Determine if. adding Jots 1, 2 and 3 would cause a rise in the BNRR pond above the Master Plan ' condition Proposed Grading 1 ' WATER QUALITY SIZING COMPUTATIONS ' 40-Hour Drain Time Basins Contributing to the BNRR Pond With the CSU Alternative Analysis CSU Alternative Analysis 2002 UDFCD METHOD ' All ponds sized using.this:method'are sized according to Urban Drainage and Flood Control District' guidelines in the Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol. 3, Revised 06/2002. ' location Basin Area Volume Motor Pool Paddng Lot 41 (CSU) 10.10 a0 _ 0.308 ac-ft ' BRT:Prospect to Lake 199-(SC) 0.41 ac 0.021 ac-ft BRT: Lake to Pitldn 200 (SC) 0.52 ac = 0.026 ac-ft BRT: Pitkin to University 201 (SC) 0.72 ac = 0.036 aft CSU University Square Parking Lot 140 (SC) 8.60 ac = 0:345 ac-ft ' CSURF Parking Lot 643 (SC) 740 ac = 0.291 ac-ft Lake and Center 46-49, 103:(CSU) 24.20 ac = 0.764 ao-ft BNRR and Prospect &(CSU) 6.20 ac = 0249 ac-ft Griffin Plaza 802,:803 (SC) 3.13. ac 0.041 ac-it Old Gasamat Site 804 (SC) 0.62 ac 0.022 ac-ft Total Required Store go.S 61.28 - 2.087 acre-feet a I I Introduction to Design and Maintenance 1 Considerations for SNOUT' Stormwater Quality Systems Background: ' The SNOUT system from Best Management Products, Inc. (BMP, Inc.) is based on a vented hood that can reduce floatable trash and debris, free oils, and other ' solids from stormwater discharges. In its most basic application, a SNOUT hood is installed over the outlet pipe of a catch basin or other stormwater quality structure which incorporates a deep sump (see Installation Drawing). The ' SNOUT forms a baffle in.the structure which collects floatable debris and free oils on the surface of the captured stormwater, while permitting heavier solids to sink to the bottom of the sump. The clarified intermediate layer is forced out of the structure through the open bottom of the SNOUT by displacement from incoming flow. The resultant discharge contains considerably less unsightly trash and other gross pollutants, and can also offer reductions of free -oils and finer solids. ' As with any structural stormwater quality BMP (Best Management Practice), design and maintenance considerations will have a dramatic impact on SNOUT system performance over the life of the facility. The most important factor to consider when designing structures which will incorporate a SNOUT is the depth ' of the sump (the sump is defined as the depth from beneath the invert of the outlet pipe to the bottom of the structure). Simply put, the deeper the sump, the effective the unit will be both in terms of pollutant removals and reducing _more frequency of maintenance. More volume in a structure means more quiescence, thus allowing the pollutant constituents a better chance to separate out. Secondly, more volume means fewer cycles between maintenance operations, ' because the structure has a greater capacity. Of equal importance to good performance is putting SNOUTs in every inlet whenever possible. The closer one captures pollution to where it enters the infrastructure (e.g. at the inlet), the less mixing of runoff there is, and the easier it will be to separate out pollutants. ' Putting SNOUTs and deep sumps in every inlet develops a powerful structural treatment train with a great deal of effective storage volume where even finer ' particles may have chance to settle out. Design Notes: ' ❖ The SNOUT size is ALWAYS greater than the nominal pipe size. The SNOUT should cover the pipe OD plus the grouted area around the pipe ' (e.g. for a 12" pipe, an 18" SNOUT is the correct choice). I 1 d I 1 1 ❖ As a rule of thumb, BMP, Inc. recommends minimum sump depths based on outlet pipe inside diameters of 2.5 to 3 times the outlet pipe size. ❖ Special Note for Smaller Pipes: A minimum sump depth of 36 inches for all pipe sizes 12 inches ID or less, and 48 inches for pipe 15-18 inches ID is required if collection of finer solids is desired. ❖ The plan dimension of the structure should be up to 6 to 7 times the flow area of the outlet pipe. ❖ To optimize pollutant removals establish a "treatment train" with SNOUTs placed in every inlet where it is feasible to do so (this protocol applies to most commercial, institutional or municipal applications and any application with direct discharge to surface waters). ❖ At a minimum, SNOUTS should be used in every third structure for less critical applications (less critical areas might include flow over grassy surfaces, very low traffic areas in private, non-commercial or non - institutional settings, single family residential sites). ❖ Bio-Skirts'" (for hydrocarbons and/or bacteria reduction in any structure) and flow deflectors (for settleable solids in a final polishing structure) can increase pollutant removals. Bio-Skirts are highly recommended for gas or vehicle service stations, convenience stores, restaurants, loading docks, marinas, beaches, schools or high traffic applications. ❖ The "R" series SNOUTs (12R, 18R, 24R, 30R, and 54R/72) are available for round manhole type structures of up to 72" ID; the "F" series SNOUTs (12F, 18F, 24F, 30F, 36F, 48F, 72F and 96F) are available for flat walled box type structures; the "NP" series SNOUTs (NP1218R, NP1524R, NP1830R, and NP2430R) are available for PVC NyloplastO type structures up to 30" ID. Example Structure Sizing Calculation: A SNOUT equipped structure with a 15 inch ID outlet pipe (1.23 sgft. flow area) will offer best performance with a minimum plan area of 7.4 sgft. and 48 inch sump. Thus, a readily available 48 inch diameter manhole -type structure, or a rectangular structure of 2 feet x 4 feet will offer sufficient size when combined with a sump depth of 48 inches or greater. Maintenance Recommendations: ❖ Monthly monitoring for the first year of a new installation after the site has been stabilized. ❖ Measurements should be taken after each rain event of .5 inches or more, or monthly, as determined by local weather conditions. ❖ Checking sediment depth and noting the surface pollutants in the structure will be helpful in planning maintenance. ❖ The pollutants collected in SNOUT equipped structures will consist of floatable debris and oils on the surface of the captured water, and grit and sediment on the bottom of the structure. ' ❖ It is best to schedule maintenance based on the solids collected in the sump. ¢• Optimally, the structure should be cleaned when the sump is half full (e.g. when 2 feet of material collects in a 4 foot sump, clean it out). ❖ Structures should also be cleaned if a spill or other incident causes a larger than normal accumulation of pollutants in a structure. ❖ Maintenance is best done with a vacuum truck. ❖ If Bio-Skirts'" are being used in the structure to enhance hydrocarbon capture and/or bacteria removals, they should be checked on a monthly basis, and serviced or replaced when more than 2/3 of the boom is submerged, indicating a nearly saturated state. Assuming a typical ' pollutant -loading environment exists, Bio-Skirts should be serviced* or replaced annually. ❖ In the case of an oil spill, the structure should be serviced and Bio-Skirts ' replaced (if any) immediately ❖ All collected wastes must be handled and disposed of according to local environmental requirements. ❖ To maintain the SNOUT hoods themselves, an annual inspection of the anti -siphon vent and access hatch are recommended. A simple flushing ' of the vent, or a gentle rodding with a flexible wire are all that's typically needed to maintain the anti -siphon properties. Opening and closing the access hatch once a year ensures a lifetime of trouble -free service. Further structural design guidelines including CAD drawings, hydraulic spreadsheets, and site inspection and maintenance field reports and installation inspection sheets are available from BMP, Inc. *To extend the service life of a Bio-Skirt, the unit may be "wrung out" to remove ' accumulated oils and washed in an industrial washing machine in warm water. The Bio-Skirt may then be re -deployed as long the material maintains it's structural integrity. 11 1 I I IFitment Guide: Based on SNOUT inlet area vs. pipe inlet area. I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I % OF SNOUT INLET AREA vs. PIPE INSIDE DIAMETER MODEL 12F 12R 18F JOR 24F 24R 30F 30R 36F 48F 54R 72F 96F (SQFT,) 0.393 0.455 1.091 1.264 1.843 2.118 Z 793 3.210 3.534 6.278 9.045 14.13702 25.132 PIPE I.D. 4 450.3% 521.4% WOMnr 7,:,- . `1VICT.E§, Mia 24 As, 4,* WNW ids -10 6 200.2% 231.7% 555.6% 643.8% : li�Hi:',-;, N ' W L" L, 9 8 112.6% 130.3% 1 312.6% 362.1% 528.1% 606.8% & Nil' (ik 04MN N-Me 10 72.1% 83.4% 200.0% 231.8% 338.0% 388.3% WWN:;7-/76! map"i 12 ij, *010:! 138.9% 160.9% 234.7% 269.7% 355.6% 409% 450%'�*A-'C��;;-rigM " '�.,,"i!rk Ilm"R 15 88.9% 103.0% 150.2% 172.6% 227.6% 262% 28864 FJCV 18 10 15% 104.3% 119.9% 158.1% 182% 200% 355% S, 21 N',t- k/ 7 W 01 VMW A 76.6% 88.1% 116.1% 133% 14r/. 261% 376% WR� d F�, VVKt�� 4, ... ,. 24 854CM, CR FWW r;LOWV�li M1- Af 88.9% 102% 112% 1 200% 288% 27 70.2% 81% 89% 158% 227% -101 30 65% 72% 128% 184% 288% M" R 36 6�'N'WJ14 WWWW"IRWOR so% 89% 128% 200% 355.5% 42 VZ �19 65% 94% 147% 1261.2% 48 -P �615 72% 113% 1 200.0% 54 R MOOR 2&Aa W4 89% 158.0 % 60 iq- Wk -11"M WWW -i R Q�MW EWA 72 128.0% 66 kmg) Fear W m 1 60% 105.8% 72 k,0 so% 88..9 % WAN H,-AZ,W 178 �W f s 1A7jj 757% 94 '20 81�4� ".16, NIA V90 S' 5L Use "Ffor flat back SNOUT in rectangular structure Use "R" for round back SNOUT in cylindrical structure 1WQ2(%%H => Marginal Sizing g�:'@ => Not Applicable => Not Optimal Design Note: The SNOUT size will always be bigger than the pipe size as the SNOUT must cover the pipe O.D. (i.e. Use an 18" SNOUT for 12" pipe.) 1 .t fir r a� ( t 3ty� ztrry� tl t , q spa y�tv�.T ;3w Hrr� i f 1 i PASOS {Y 1 � T h fl3 i I TYPICAL INSTALLATION 11 i I 0 Il I OUTLET PIPE (HIDDEN) FRONT VIEW SNOUT OIL -WATER -DEBRIS SEPARATOR SIDEVIEW NOTES: 1. ALL HOODS AND TRAPS FOR CATCH BASINS AND WATER QUALITY STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY: BEST MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS, INC. S3 MT. ARCHER RD. LYME, CT 06371 (860) 434-42". (SSG) 434-3195 FAX TOLL FREE (800) 604 8008 OR (SW) 354.766.5 WEB SITE: w ,besbnp.= OR PRE -APPROVED EQUAL 2. ALL HOODS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A GLASS REINFORCED RESIN COMPOSITE WITH ISO GEL COAT EXTERIOR FINISH WITH A MINIMUM 0.125 LAMINATE THICKNESS. 3. ALL HOODS SHALL BE EQUIPPED W" A WATERTIGHT ACCESS PORT, A MOUNTING FLANGE, AND AN ANThSIPHON VENT AS DRAWN. (SEE CONFIGURATION DETAIL) 4. THE SIZE AND POSITION OF THE HOOD SHALL BE DETERMINED BY OUTLET PIPE SIZE AS PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATION, S. THE BOTTOM OF THE HOOD SHALL EXTEND DOWNWARD A DISTANCE EQUAL TO 12 THE OUTLET PIPE DIAMETER WITH A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF W FOR PIPES <12' I.D. S. THE ANTPSIPHON VENT SHALL EXTEND ABOVE HOOD BY MINIMUM OF WAND A MAXIMUM OF 24' ACCORDING TO STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION. 7. THE SURFACE OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE THE HOOD IS MOUNTED SHALL BE FINISHED SMOOTH AND FREE OF LOOSE MATERIAL S. THE HOOD SHALL BE SECURELY ATTACHED TO STRUCTURE WALL WITH 30STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS AND OR -RESISTANT GASKET AS SUPPLIED BY MANUFACTURER. (SEE INSTALLATION DETAIL) 9. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH MANUFACTURER SUPPLIED INSTALLATION IOU'. INSTALLATION KIT SHALL INCLUDE A INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS B. PVC ANTI -SIPHON VENT PIPE AND ADAPTER C. OIL- RESISTANT CRUSHED CELL FOAM GASKET WITH PEA BACKING D. 3/S' STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS E ANCHOR SHIELDS US Patent # 6126817 < SNRIS OUT • I OIL -DEB 1 HOOD .i t Lo O DEBRIS OUTLET PIPE y}, � 4 e SEE OTE• , SOLIDS SETTLE ONJ . 4 e • BOTTOM -NOTE- SUMP DEPTH OF SIT MIN. FOR <OR=12' DNA. OUTLET FOR OUTLETS .OR=IS*, DEPTH-2.63XDIAM INSTALLATION DETAIL DETAIL B r FOAM GASKETw/ • I PSA BACI@lD--- JI (TRIM TO LENGTH) • �; ANCHOR W/BOLT ���I DII 11� INSTALLATION NOTE POSITION HOODS" THAT BOTTOM FLANGE 0 A nD DISTANCE OF 112 OUTLET 1 PIPE DMETER(MIN.) BELOW THE PIPE INVERT. GASKET MINIMUM DISTANCE FOR COMPRESSED PIPES< 12' I.D. IS S'. BETWEEN HOOD ANDSTRUCTURE DETAIL (SEE DETAIL B) FEW, • , DRILLED ANCHOR HOLE SHIELD AINLESS BOLT DWANSION CONE MARROW END OUT) CATCH BASINS AND WATER QUALITY STRUCTURES DESCRIPTION OIL- DEBRIS HOOD SPECIFICATION AND INSTALLATION (TYPICAL) 09/08/001 NONE W P Q J W O Z m M N © a z O 0 LL y O K LL Zz U z y � F F G N N a O ®z Z lerll-lo zz Oi u Wa' ate} LLLL MO Q }2 N z M p° O m 4� N LL N z Z f 2: 0 0 0 oILIL zy �Q ~ TTT} WpOZO yQC _ JZJZ JJ iNNyy Wg W fj�g0000 Oiobwg _k 2QQK2ZgQ W•-eD itiW yN 00 KWW T� �L O O G�O W a 1 (y grow}'},� �aaLLa 3n • gry 1�0 �`+OO�NtTf yOroGN QO y CHmyNi�d�f�$NHn%LLZIL ILZZIL �GZH�0e�r�V W 1r^�R- y a: W � %a00 LLLETEmgmDyyzzg! e� ZZ-o.a 1O2JQ �C �Nt7Hm• 2 I o 1 � Quick -Start Application Guide with 1 SNOUT° to Structure Ratio (STSR) Methodology Background: 1 The SNOUT system from Best Management Products, Inc. (BMP, Inc.) is based on a vented hood that can reduce floatable trash and debris, free oils, and other 1 solids from stormwater discharges. In its most basic application, a SNOUT hood is installed over the outlet pipe of a catch basin or other stormwater quality structure which incorporates a deep sump (see Installation Drawing). The 1 SNOUT forms a baffle in the structure which collects floatable debris and free oils on the surface of the captured stormwater, while permitting heavier solids to sink to the bottom of the sump. The clarified intermediate layer is forced out of the 1 structure through the open bottom of the SNOUT by displacement from incoming flow. The resultant discharge contains considerablyless unsightly trash and other gross pollutants, and can also offer reductions of free -oils and finer solids. What follows are basic design tips to optimize the performance of SNOUT systems. 1 Design Recommendations for Site: 1 ❖ Establish SNOUT to Structure Ratio (STSR) for site as follows: Heavy Traffic and Pollutant Loading Applications (STSR 1:1): This includes gas stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants, vehicle repair facilities, 1 stores with "drive through" service (e.g. banks, drug stores, dry cleaners, coffee shops), loading docks, distribution facilities, marinas, hospitals, transportation terminals (air, bus, train, sea, shipping),. school bus loading areas, maintenance "dumpster 1 facilities, light industrial sites, waste.disposal facilities or areas", parking and roadway areas of shopping centers close to the stores, etc. In 1 (STSR 1:1). The exception will be where an inlet can not be maintained. In this case, and where additional treatment is desired, non -inlet polishing structures can be added to the drainage network prior to discharge (e.g. with a cover not a 1 grate thus it receives no surface flow). An oil absorbing boom may also be deployed in structures that will receive heavy hydrocarbon loading and flow 1 deflectors may be added to a polishing structure to increase solids removals. Moderate Traffic and Pollutant Loading Applications (STSR 1:2): This 1 includes office buildings, multi -residential complexes, schools (other than bus i ' areas), most shopping mall parking areas, mixed retail commercial facilities, ' municipal/government buildings, athletic/entertainment/recreational facilities, non -fast food restaurants, special event/remote parking areas, etc. In "Mode ' indicated (STSR 1:2). The downstream structures (prior to discharge) are most critical, and oil absorbing booms may be useful if heavier hydrocarbon loading is expected. Flow deflectors may be employed in a polishing structure to increase ' solids separation. Low Traffic and Pollutant Loading Applications (STSR 1:3): This includes t grassy or vegetated areas, single family residences, parks*, parking for offices within residences, flow excess from permeable paving areas, etc. In Low Traffic and Pollutant Load areas one SNOUT in every three structures may be adequate t (STSR 1:3). The need for oil booms or flow deflectors is unlikely as such a need would indicate a Moderate or Heavy Pollutant load scenario. * if discharge in a park setting is to a "high -value" water body, additional ' treatment may be indicated even if it is otherwise defined as a low traffic low load area. ' STSR Note: A large site may have different STSR areas, just like it may have different runoff coefficients. For instance, a shopping mall may have an STSR of 1:1 in heavy traffic roadways and loading/unloading areas, but may have a STSR ' 1:2 in a remote parking area. Therefore apply the appropriate STSR to each area of the site to arrive at the total number of SNOUT equipped structures for the project. ' Design Recommendations for Individual Structures: ❖ The SNOUT size will always be bigger than the nominal pipe size as the t SNOUT must over the pipe OD (e.g. use an 18" SNOUT for 12" pipe). ❖ As a rule of thumb, BMP, Inc. recommends minimum sump depths based on outlet pipe inside diameters of 2.5 to 3 times the outlet pipe size. (Special Note for Smaller Pipes: A minimum sump depth of 36 inches for all pipe sizes 12 inches ID or less, and 48 inches for pipe 15-18 inches ID is required if collection of finer solids is desired.) ' ❖ The plan dimension of the structure should be up to 6 to 7 times the flow area of the outlet pipe. ❖ Bio-Skirts (for hydrocarbon and bacteria reduction in any structure) and ' flow deflectors (for settleable solids in a final polishing structure) can increase pollutant removals. Bio-Skirts are highly recommended for gas or vehicle service stations, convenience stores, restaurants, loading t docks, marinas, or high traffic applications. Bio-Skirts are most effective when used in coniunction with a SNOUT. ❖ The "R" series SNOUTs are available for round manhole type structures of ' up to 72" ID with Dioes up to 50" OD; the "F" series SNOUTs are available for flat walled box type structures for pipes up to 94" OD; the "NP" series SNOUTs are available for PVC Nyloplast® type structures up to 30" ID. I U I_J 1 1 h Further structural design guidelines including CAD drawings, hydraulic spreadsheets, and site inspection and maintenance field reports and installation inspection sheets are available from BMP, Inc. APPLICATION DRAWINGS: TYPICAL INSTALLATION m�DftALE . �.• 4�,AY.9ADDRp •`. OUTLET �.. .�. 8EL i OWSOLKISSETTLEON pd CM, .. . 'a0'{D-6�M OFF'la 9s74 YbI,A4�RKo1F 1$CIAY. OVU:EL FDp owft m GAS W. ven"UZA. DW. Contact Information: Please contact us if we can offer further assistance. 53 Mt. Archer Rd. Lyme, CT 06371. Technical Assistance: T. J. Mullen (800-504-8008, tjm@bmpinc.com) or Lee Duran (888-434-0277). Website: www.bmoinc.com The SNOUT® is protected by: US PATENT # 6126817 CANADIAN PATENT # 2285146 . ' SNOUTO is a registered trademark of Best Management Products, Inc. Nyloplasto is a registered trademark of ADS Structures, Inc. Ll I I 1 t 1 APPENDIX E EXCERPTS FROM REFERENCE REPORTS Alternative Analysis .for the Design of the .Mason Street Outfall ' Prepared for City of Fort Collins CSU ' CSURF. Mason Street BRT 1.. ' AVM5 ASSOCIATES . . ' P.O. Box 270460 FortCollins, Colorado 80527 (970) 223-5556, FAX (970) 223-5578 ' Ayres Project No. 32-1226.19 MASONIMDOC November 2010 F iI I h To calculate the effects the development has on the BNRR Pond west of Centre Avenue, the WSEL for the BNRR Pond was calculated using the equation created by ACE based on the ModSWMM results; see previous section for further information on the equation. The results of the model showed that the water surface elevation for the BNRR Pond west of Centre Avenue for the Proposed Project was less than the Effective Condition water surface elevation. If any significant changes are made during final design of the development, The Grove engineers will need to adjust the modeling to ensure that there is no rise in the BNRR Pond. Basin 832 drains to conveyance element 831 which drains to conveyance element 130. Basin 831 drains to conveyance element 130. Conveyance element 130 drains to the BNRR Pond. Conveyance elements 130 and 831 represent a channel just north of the Grove. The Grove development needs to ensure that the channels (conveyance elements 130 and 831) can convey the flows from the development, as well as flows currently draining to the channel, to the BNRR Pond. CSURF Development — The Griffin Plaza CSURF owns a piece of property which lies north of the BNRR Pond and includes the old Gasamat site. This property may be redeveloping at some point in the future. The Griffin Plaza was divided into four basins: 801, 802, 803, and BDA These basins are part of Spring Creek Basin 126. Basin 126 contains the BNRR Pond along with the area that drains directly to the pond. Table 7.14 summaries the basin parameters. Table 7.14. Griffin Plaza Proposed Project Basin Parameters. Original Basin 126 Revised Basin 126 Basin 801 Basin 802 Basin 803 Basin 804 Area 72.6 acres 67.5 acres 0:70 acres 1.81 acres 1.56 acres 0.91 acres Width 7 900 ft 7,400 ft 304 ft 788 ft 680 ft 395 ft % Impervious 25% 25%. 80% 24% 24% 85% Basin Sloe 1.5% 1.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Model Spring Creek Spring Creek Spring I Creek Spring Creek I Spring Creek Spring Creek Description Above Griffin Plaza Gruen Plaza Griffin Plaza Old Gasamat Site Basin 801 is routed through basin 802 using conveyance element 802. Basin 804 is routed through Basin 803 using conveyance element 803. The added conveyance elements represent overland flow to the BNRR Pond. Basins 802 and 803 drain directly into the BNRR Pond. Proposed Project Hydrology: ModSWMM Modeling Parameters The ModSWMM modeling parameters were left unchanged for the majority of the Proposed Project model. The only basin parameters that were modified were those that were affected by the proposed MSO outfall. These changes are discussed in detail in previous sections. I 7.12 Ayres Associates I ' Water quality for The Grove will be provided in a water quality pond on The Grove project site. Water quality will not be provided in the proposed water quality pond within the BNRR Pond. For more information pertaining to The Grove, refer to Appendix H. CSURF Development — Griffin Plaza CSURF owns a piece of property which sits on the south side of Prospect Road just north of the BNRR Pond called the Griffin Plaza. Lot 1 of the Griffin Plaza is the former Gasamat site ' on Prospect Road. Because the impervious area for the Gasamat site has already been accounted for in the hydrology for Spring Creek, Lot 1 can re -develop without providing on - site detention as long as they match the existing percent impervious value (85%) for the site. ' o an were assume to have a uture percent impervious value of 24% based on direction given to Ayres by CSURF staff. Model results show that lots 2 and 3 of the Griffin Plaza can also discharge into the BNRR Pond un{ietained. If the percent impervious value changes for lots 2 and 3, the modeling will need to be updated. Water Quality for the Griffin Plaza will be provided in the water quality pond on the BNRR Pond (refer to Section 2.3 for more information on the water quality pond and water quality requirements). The final design for the water quality pond will be completed with the Mason Street BRT project. For more information pertaining to the Griffin Plaza, refer to Appendix 1. I I I 1I 1 I 1 1.18 Ayres Associates I 1 1 1 L 1 The Proposed Project Master Plan Condition ModSWMM schematic can be found in a pocket in the back of the report. 7.8 Water Quality Ayres was also asked to determine if water quality could be provided for those areas draining to the MSO, for both the proposed project conditions and the Proposed Project Master Plan conditions, within the BNRR Pond. The area that Ayres investigated is generally located on the north tip of the BNRR Pond west of the railroad. CSURF currently owns this property. The required volume for the water quality pond was determined using the Urban Drainage Flood Control District (UDFCD) method. The total volume required for the contributing project area is 2.1 ac-ft. The water quality pond will be designed to have a 40-hour drain time and will therefore meet CDOTs MS4 permit requirements of 80% TSS removal. The water quality pond will be constructed within the 100-year floodway of the BNRR Pond. The floodway and floodplain boundary for the BNRR Pond are the same. The final pond grading and design of the outfall will need to be done as part of the Mason Street BRT final design (see Figure 7.2 for the approximate location of the proposed water quality pond). Table 7.16 summarizes the areas that have been accounted for in the. sizing of the water quality pond. Table 7.16. Summary of Areas Contributing to the Water Quality Pond. Location Basin Model ( Volume Required ac-ft Motor Pool parking lot 41 CSU 10.10 0.308 BRT: Prospect to Lake 199 Spring Creek 0.41 0.021 BRT: Lake to Pitkin 200 Spring Creek 0.52 0.026 BRT: Pitkin to University 201 Spring Creek 0.72. 0.036 CSU University Square parking lot 140 Spring Creek 8.60 0.345 CSURF Parkin Lot '643 Spring Creek 7.40 0.297 Lake and Center 46-49 103 CSU 24.20 0.764 BNRR and Prospect 45 CSU 6.20 0.249. Griffin Plaza 802 803. Spring Creek 3.13 0.041 CSURF — the Grove The water quality volume for the CSURF development, The Grove, will be provided on Basins 831 and 832 and not in this water quality pond. Lot 1 of Griffin Plaza The water quality volume for this development, will be provided on Basin 804 and not in this water uality.pond. Total 61.28 2.087 The rating curve for the water quality pond was not added into the BNRR Pond rating curve. ' No fill can be placed in the BNRR Pond with the grading of the water quality pond_ Only excavation is allowed in a FEMA designated floodway. 1 t7.20 Ayres Associates I I All water quality calculations for the conceptual design are included in the Appendix K. The pond grading as shown in Figure 7.2 is conceptual. Final design for the water quality pond will occur with the Mason Street BRT project. is assumed that the site will not 7.9 Hydraulics In order to accurately determine the size of the Mason Street Outfail a hydraulic model of the ' project was created. EPA SWMM version 5.0 .0018 was used to analyze the proposed storm sewer system including the proposed water quality pond. EPA SWMM was chosen because of its ability to model various hydraulic flow regimes including backwater, ' surcharging, reverse flow, and surface ponding. Of particular concern were the effects of the tailwater from the BNRR Pond. ' EPA SWMM uses a series of links, nodes and ponds to represent the components of the storm sewer system. Exit and entrance losses were assigned to each pipe according to documentation from the ' UDSewer program developed by Urban Drainage. Both EPA SWMM and UDSewer calculate friction losses through the pipe and through the structures (i.e., manholes, inlets etc.) with the same equations. Because EPA SWMM does not provide any documentation ' on loss values, the values documented in UDSewer were used. Table 7.17 shows the values used for exit and entrance losses. n t 1 Table 7.1.7. Entrance and Exit Loss Values Used in EPA SWMM. Angle in Degree Bend Loss Coefficient for Curved Deflector Manhole Bend Loss Coefficient for Non -shaping Manhole Straight Through 0.05 0.05 22.5 0.08 0.1 45 0.28 0.4 60 0.46 0.64 90 1.01 1.32 The results of the EPA SWMM model verified that the diameters chosen for the Mason Street Outfall are adequate to convey the design inflows without creating surcharging within the system (refer to Appendix L for the EPASWMM calculations and model and Appendix M for a preliminary plan and profile). ' 7.22 Ayres Associates Erika Schneider From: Shane Boyle <SBOYLE@fcgov.com> Serra Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:01 PM To: 'Mike Oberlander' Cc: Glen Schlueter Subject: RE: MAster Drainage Basin at Prospect Attachments: spring creek master plan basin.pdf Hi Mike, The map Glen showed you is a GIS coverage and is how the basins were originally divided years ago. In some instances, such as the SWMM model in this area of Spring Creek, subsequent modeling efforts (and often better topo) have resulted in a slightly different basin boundary. Usually, these changes are slight and are not often a concern so we haven't made a habit of updating the GIS coverage. In this case, the change is fairly significant, so definitely use the Osin delineation shown in the SWMM model. Thanks, Shane From: Mike Oberlander rmailt6:moberlander(cbinterwestarp.com1 Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:56 AM To: Shane Boyle Subject: MAster Drainage Basin at Prospect Shane - This is the model that I have overlaid on the parcel map. It shows about 4000 SF of my site draining to Old Town (most of this will be ROW dedication): The map Glen brought to the conceptual review meeting showed more that the site was split in half north and south. My problem is that the only way I can drain is north because CSUF wont take the historic drainage to the south and I don't want to get into the railroad ROW on the east... I think I am in a pickle, but there must be a way with such a minor amount of water... Michael Oberlander, PE, LEED AP Interwest Consulting Group 970-674-3300x102 970-631-2671(cell) Information contained herein is neither necessarily complete nor accurate. Final stamped and signed documents govern. Use of these data is solely at the user's risk. By accessing the data contained In these files the user agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Interwest Consulting Group, their employees, officers and agents from any and all claims arising from the use of the data. L I 1 11 1 1 1 IJ 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 M 43 c9 N N T 1 wtPW.-t-,.Z-,I LIT-7�_,!�J1,1" 4%.; ;;l. n:Ij�),--.,l,O",-,r." "0C."1'- ��.-,�----.:=-;Ti"LK,1�,-1I:. ,,Z..",,-'..-,�-�TZ--� I,--1,-I.,,1,,I-..,.*..:,.--7-,T-,�i- iT",tI%a,ti,,,-.'1.:Z--1,.,11��--I--;,jT.I�ir,4- .--I,�,. I,I,.. ..�-1, -.t..- �.,�.1t,�`-,,-- ,�T!1,-,.-.1-1, ( ,-,,,I ,-,9 / I ttrII,�-4,,i��7�4 -1if,\e.W,��,��C �,-II,i14�-"-1,,. 4 -T,;'-z,,., ,j", , ,-.i - --,,I-", ; . -,,T , ,I -1 , f I. , - iI--:,1 C, .-I.",- O. . � LOit.TR`if , 1I " 14.T.' :1,iT�I I j,,"",-j -,� / ,' 1 1,-'-,.I-1fT.!�,L`I�,,4.,".-�,�.'- :- ,.�".l.4 ,-9-. 0,1.I gtIN -_ 1 4-1l-;t',ti�,c - T "' T, ­ .-1.I,_ : _ .1,.. :1 � ,� . - - -. l , * _ �r,�a 1 ,,"-,51- .VT! It�4`2,I,) ,l;I- - ... .I f. , . ',. I -1(r�,,-, 7--�-[11-V-Il�,)�i ,.I ,4ttV �g��lzfI"Q724 1 j , �� 1t �1" 1"4 "-lN$ j 1I ,,,,, ; IN1 �-)� -L -f, �4 I-11 ,� I. , I 4� r1 I a-. :--- .1 �M;--,1;4 -" NIM 1t�-�" �I-i1 I- " - -: n� �-m- ;�i�i � - rs- ��, j1I iq I�*I4"• f ',"�..j , ,, � � ", - � . I ,,I , t", 1�I I �"11U52`Ii, 1, t{f Y,�I 1 .1 ;,I �>,�" ,,j;1 ,) I Tiy� �-! ; w,,1-,, � M ,, .�" I M-.-,II 1 fii1 ,,k,,_iTAf1 Z! l j�1, p 01 ,,� "_� "1 �S I 411t1 :�ti,L1� I, ,-, �v ' . , �+f , ,�U:t,�4"�,k.I[-. , , -- �� - L; FT,;, t,-11If..1� tjg,�!�1 �')� �2�LT!!! I i---'.-,�. I, - , L I .' I .�I-,.i ,­, .jrI, -I�,,,1,L,jI i;l",; ,4-1I7 , ,, I , ,4�.,,, I , s k,J. , S- , S -i.� cam[�--. j�I d��II l II Z;z1." F;4:p,�i-.41T.i1R;r drM, ," ,' t .�t 1"z��:1 � IiQ I LQ1�l P'pO-,8�t��i,4. � If I ,;',} ­ - 11 .l1C.-.'. ji.-m,�T,,", -,,--" , ,­j,..110-.1 ,-.1Ii�o ;� j.r A �*q-,,,. liI N-,U'T,,' - ; ol, I I i- 1 , - - , I , I 4,- I I 2"7k- i l , V4i �11 i - I .•fp I �; V-I4,,aI {.L,�, � ",� -,.P- OpEC5 ROAD" - ........ --.� , , 11-I VI I , ­ -- .,,.,. .�- ., � ; .- I-- �IS �"r-, � ", Q ,I, IT � j,, ., ,-g ,I� ',I�Lt. i ,I) .'�,� ' , VF,jL,;;I �j " ,j.t 1 � -.,a �J4; j ? k , . 1) .. 1I CI ,- , I I - �. l 5 r ,2�i ,m?802�8L3�1,j!,5��I k � " 1". i, ,✓ j"­ I , 1 J3-3t2I6I ��t T,,�� �I� �k�7, g A,,I . I I , �IsIV-I 56�t ;1, ,,IV In4TL ',X, *�Vt, f1, I ,. , ;- . ,I1,4_jd- I,a""I ,.1�, �4,11 ,j",".,PTr �-`i4,��Ir, , ,1,�1 " ' !-,I,lit"oPj�Id j -,-� rI,-,[1I�"r- � :. t II 11 1,-w�L�-y-.,�t,�,C,m,-,t�j,j �,,�Z, f,jII�", T p. I k i- i � kT- � -,- ,.,.- , : I �_�I I(L.j4,Y.i"�,,,L1�',�- ,'.JL,x �.' 3 )"- ,.',7TI % "i ..-- tf I � " j f:,. 1,. -. , :Ii�,.1 Z� -1 "-I I Z I I1 --4��fL , I ""��°-t I V_, . ., , .,]L' ' - "- T' 1, I, .. -- 7, t _ I, I.L It, ." . fir' 1! V "j"'1 3��Wild_ 2i �,. � 21. 121 ; � ,�I -,1r"�l,f,4 I �,6; v. F-Y7"y I . II 12 I,in,,7�27 )' � X I j,,I, � !jI ZIL I �l27 (I�--$ ;tod�,1 Yt �c1Q,., --�-� 4.N,,, " J, 400, I"jtj1:1m;N1j ,y kz_ 61- 1,I If I V' L ,227 - ,327 .I 1 L "--L,i.-" �,A, -, 1 �- , ,-i-�; / I .�ZIA� / l}P, m�i1261 _,-0-�\ 4t IIJ�=i ;'', 'I�k,t ���I �,,I 1i", 076 �I ���(_ -, ,/ ,t,�� , .�., ,�,-X j -,,, ", �, T V,�eY"I!IE., , I , 1 �(-i ,1.4 �­" /, .- , �, I�I �i l�'­,t- -�"n,g i .X< E&5", 5." , --1,t_/,;­/ - I �,v,i�:. - W, --I-,.�_bt" " ��v ,' ,9!;i ',I74,,1 . 'j ,� , I P �I s , ,-ITR4 _ �T", ,; ��' ;� t"1t;I�I!�v -".I,-�I",-�.: .,. -,�I,-Z -I - . - 1 �I11Y'a. I �: II ;-, a.. �CI,4n._gSM^ "�, �1 /I ) 1A ;T�� �,��-I-,;Z,�.-,, ,- ,, 1. ..1k'�'� ,. 831T I,, � -A;�-r�," I,7I'"-�"f1 � ,:.111I �-,,/"! ,f "*��­,CKI �I:LI - ,II.�4 .�/, 4**-2�1i , Z,, �. _ LII �2-, ,- 831 *4,my1 "/­ A­,-1-J22t6T ���II �,- I ," ­" .,-, 71 I t� I , ,. .," ,- QC '' L , I�T­�", I - 20- I f13,3 ,�I T", �#,Y� I 1, �I I.:{: a. :- I �L�,%I ---"),J-",aI j n- " � I " - �,v1IWoI j! j qS_�-I"i '",2w ",. -,, - � f =f L--- "1�_�;;,��,�I .' I- " / II -,,`::.. !. I1�, - , e. 11 -.v7 -.-, , . , ,� . ' L M , � 2 1, ... __ - - I I � Z 1- 'L . ,j'j�,. ,. , ' L L , w � `-" " , l�L,�'t'� , ; ,-- . I , I� I, - � �':n", 7,,;T L- T 'I' fj"' * .Y -' " f,.-��W "Z- fLi, ` I., , a' -,- --- _­­ '. , . .. .... ... . �. . � "j t "j" - , i ', - -�, I L. L , .. :1 . - - - :-- �, - , "N', r,2 , ,,-, �- ­-­ : ; -, - , 2- I .-;��.-� - I --, �-L I I I L � I ' � L. . . ' � I , ', . . � ,-IL,,,,- --I ,�- . , , -, - . - . . -- , , "'T, it " �" _­ ,L 7.� � , 'L - , � . I >. " ", L" . - , � m aiv � , ,,5 iU I . V �f, . �' "' I � IT, . I I -- 11 , - .N , T�L �,. ' ' '�, " i.�; : ,,::,P.*;;,,;it,-t,�Q � I , " . � � , j, , - --- . � ;"':� . . . . . I I . � " - L I" $'I'tt ' ' - � , " , , . � � . . - ,. , , � } -;I I , �, , " A! , , 1},- ,; ; , �! , ,,. _' ,_'i,j' T --­ -.'I IL -i-' - �.a -I , [, I 7 L- �. . - rt I I I I I I i I I I I I I u i I 1 t 11 LEGEND ]Q BASIN 171 CONVEYANCE ELEMENT R 3 273 NODE D DETENTION371 POND Lip / ` P 230 430 730 CJ5 O 7 LJ 0: N DIVERSION 73 NODE LJLEI Z _ r.__ RE.3d INCO QN%L.A ti ! j a 830 N[09 W 397 INFLOW HYDROGRAPH Y L.J i��i` 3�• p;_F LJ P. _ N INFLOW HYDROGRAPHS C)—l-a 530 FROM csu PROSPECT ROAD L) 299 298 Eg Er- CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN CHANNEL k: 2- ;;3F'RIi DROGRAPH 199 5. . 'PI7l_ Cyrr 93i5 229HYINFLOW 35 \ r 01 122 O.2;.fi3Ti 128 DITCH 8c., 3 -5ARTHUR 5 429— ;r-------. . i I g2- � \6vS_ CONFLUENCE_966:— '0Pid.3 =727—.27..Fe w/ cl BASIN —6 r2 ------ ,SI; 218—:321 726:�ti , I 222-433—j533:432' 427 227 328. 53 330 229' ----- SHIELDS "228•' 88 189 126 261 228 42 528 STREET 129 88 221 234 43 THE GRnvc, 125 �312 161 0 121 Mason Street Outfall AVMS SPRING CREEK MODSWMM Master Plan Proposed Project Conditions -" Schematic ASSOCIATES