HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 09/29/19925 Z211 c47�'
I ottr ��:•�. i I s�,w rnt.�Tu[�s
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
:ROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR
NE RIDGE P.U.D. FIRST FILING
ORT COLLINS, COLORADO
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR
STONE RIDGE P.U.D. FIRST FILING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
September 23, 1992
Prepared for:
Client:
The Kaplan Company
1060 Sailors Reef
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Prepared by:
RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants
2900 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(303) 226-4955
RBD Job No. 503-001
1
NC.
' Engineering Consultants
2900 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
303/226-4955
FAX: 303/226-4971
' September 23, 1992
' Ms. Kathy Malers
City of Fort Collins
' Utility Services Stormwater
235 Mathews
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
' RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
for Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing
' Dear Kathy:
' We are pleased to resubmit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and
Erosion Control Study for the Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing. All computations within this
' report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage
Design Criteria.
' We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you
have any questions.
' Respectfully,
RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants
' � '% o`�Utnttuntrrggri
Kevin W. Gingery, P.E. =y°
Project Manager _i 24766
1
.' Other offices: Denver 303/458-5526 • Vail 303/476-6340 • Longmont 303/678-9584
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. LOCATION
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
DRAINAGE BASINS
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. REGULATIONS
B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS
C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA
D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA
E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS
V. EROSION CONTROL
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS
VI. CONCLUSIONS
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT
C. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
VICINITY MAP
HYDROLOGY
DETENTION
DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM SEWERS AND SWALES
RIPRAP DESIGN
EROSION CONTROL
CHARTS, TABLES & FIGURES
REVISIONS FROM ORIGINAL REPORT
1. Minor text modifications.
2. Change Basin 1,5,7,8 & 0-2 sizes.
3. Add off -site easements.
4. Revise Riprap channel design.
5. Minor clarifications on the drainage plan.
6`'Re�i"se.text__& calculations on=irrigation_IaferaV
PAGE
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
7
7
7
7
1
2
12
20
23
28
' FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
' FOR
STONE RIDGE P.U.D. FIRST FILING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
' A. Location
The Stone Ridge P.U.D. development is located immediately northwest of
' the intersection of Horsetooth Road and County Road 9. The site is
bounded on the north and west by the proposed Pinecone P.U.D. project.
The site is shown on the Vicinity Map in the appendix. More specifically,-
' the site is situated in the South 1 /2 of the Southeast 1 /4 of Section 29,
Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., City of Fort Collins,
Larimer County, Colorado.
B. Description of Property
' The Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing contains 22.4 acres more or less of
which all of the area is currently undeveloped and being proposed for
' residential development. The majority of the property has consisted of
cultivated farm land with an existing farm house also on the site.
Topography at the site is generally sloping from the southwest to the
' northeast at approximately 0.5%.
II. DRAINAGE BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
' The site is located in the Foothills Basin. The drainage area is specifically
described in the report entitled "Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master
Plan prepared by Resource Consultants, Inc. dated February of 1981. Off -
site drainage is effectively controlled as follows: To the West of the Stone
Ridge P.U.D. First Filing property, minor and major storm flows are diverted
away from the site by the existing farmers irrigation ditches. To the south,
storm drainage flows are effectively carried by the Horsetooth Road
drainage system which carries storm water runoff east.
11
' 111. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
'
A.
Regulations
The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the
'
subject site.
B.
Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
'
The Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan criteria and constraints
indicate that the entire Stone Ridge P.U.D. site is to contain a permanent
on -site detention facility in the northeast corner of the site. Ultimately the
permanent detention pond will be required to release no more than 33 cfs
of storm water runoff during a storm event.
Temporary storm water detention ponds are to be designed to release up
to the 2 year historic runoff rate for the site. Storage volume is to be the
difference between the 100 year developed runoff and the 2 year historic
runoff.
'
C.
Hydrological Criteria
The rational method was used to determine runoff peak flows from the site
'
and the surrounding off -site tributary areas. The 2 and 100 year rainfall
criteria, which was obtained from the City of Fort Collins, is the criteria
which was utilized. This criteria is included in the Appendix.
D.
Hydraulic Criteria
'
All calculations within this study have been prepared in accordance with the
City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria.
E.
Variances from Criteria
' No variances are being sought for the proposed project site.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
' A. General Concept
' The Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing is planned as a single family residential
housing development. The First Filing will include 42 single family residential
lots and 26 patio home sites. Storm water flows will be generally routed
along historic drainage patterns. Included in the back pocket of this report
2
� I
`' is the drainage plan for the First Filing.
' B. Specific Details
Basins 1 and 2 are proposed to utilize the street conveyance system to
' transport their developed runoff to the corner of Fieldstone Drive and
Kingsley Drive where the runoff will then be collected in a temporary swale
and redirected to the temporary detention pond. The street conveyance
' system is adequate to transport the 2 and 100 year storm water runoff
generated from basins 1 and 2.
Basin 3 consists of back yards and greenbelt area with the storm water
runoff being directed to an area inlet at design point 3. An area inlet is
proposed at this location due to the underdrain system through the
greenbelt area, and the need for an inlet to drain the surface runoff into the
underground storm sewer system. An underdrain system is being
proposed through the center of the greenbe!t area as the slope is only 0.5
%. Storm water runoff generated within basin 3 is planned to exit the basin
by either the area inlet at design point 3, or after ponding up, exit by the
' area inlet and curb drain at Kingsley Drive. Storm water runoff leaving basin
3 will be directed to the corner of Fieldstone Drive and Kingsley Drive where
the water will enter the temporary swale and be redirected to the temporary
' detention pond. Included in the appendix are the hydraulic calculations of
the storm sewer system.
' Basin 4 is proposed to utilize the street conveyance system to transport
developed runoff to the corner of Kingsley Drive and Blackstone Court
where the runoff will then be collected in a temporary swale and redirected
to the temporary detention pond. The street conveyance system is
adequate to transport the 2 and 100 year storm water runoff generated from
basin 4.
' Basin 5 consists of back yards and greenbelt area. The existing farmers
irrigation ditch, along the north side of Horsetooth Road, has been
abandoned with the development of the Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing.
A new permanent drainage swale, through basin 5, connects into the
temporary swale east of Kingsley Drive. A 15" culvert will direct storm water
' from basin 5, under Kingsley Drive. All on -site storm water runoff from
basin 5, entering the swale, will be redirected to the temporary detention
pond.
' Basin 6 consists of the north half of Horsetooth Road. Runoff is proposed
to be conveyed by the street system to the east end of the Stone Ridge
P.U.D. First Filing. At design point 6 on the drainage plan, runoff from the
developed portion of Horsetooth Road will. be redirected north into the
temporary swale and to the temporary detention pond.
Basin 7 and 8 contain the patio homes and developed runoff is proposed
to be conveyed to the northeast corner of the patio home development
' where a temporary swale will redirect the runoff to the temporary detention
pond. The street conveyance system is adequate to convey the 2 and 100
year storm water runoff to the temporary swale. The site grading of basins
' 7 and 8 is designed to ensure that no off -site historic runoff from the
property to the west of the First Filing will drain onto the First Filing.
Coordination with the Dakota Ridge development adjacent to the Stone
' Ridge development has been completed to ensure the grading between the
two new developments is compatible. The intent of the proposed grading
is to ensure that the off -site storm water runoff is routed northerly in the
' proposed Dakota Ridge concrete drainage swale and then easterly in the
existing concrete irrigation ditch along the north property line of the Stone
Ridge P.U.D. site.
Basin 9 contains a small portion of Kingsley Drive which will direct storm
water runoff to the corner of Kingsley Drive and Fieldstone Drive where
water will enter the temporary swale and be redirected to the temporary
detention pond.
' Temporary swales A, B, and C have been sized to convey the developed
storm water runoff from basins 1 - 9 of the Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing
' as well as developed basins 0-1 and 0-2 (future). The hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations are included in the appendix for the routing of
developed runoff from the Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing to the temporary
' detention pond.
The owner of the Stone Ridge P.U.D. site did not wish to use the existing
' pond at the northeast corner of the site for storm water detention at this
time. Instead a temporary detention pond is being proposed uphill from the
existing pond. The temporary detention pond was sized using the FAA
' Method to accommodate developed runoff from the Stone Ridge P.U.D.
First Filing and the future anticipated developed runoff from off -site basins
0-1 and 0-2. The detention pond is proposed to contain a Type "C" area
' inlet and orifice plate in the pond bottom. The area inlet is planned to act
as a sediment collection barrier to help prevent sediment from entering the
existing pond at the northeast corner of the site. The area inlet will need to
' be cleaned out on a regular basis to ensure its maximum benefit to the
existing downstream pond. The area inlet is temporary with this temporary
detention pond and will need to be removed once the permanent detention
' pond is constructed in the future. This will limit storm water runoff leaving
' 4
the temporary detention pond to the 2 year historic rate for the developed
portion of the site and the 100 year historic rate for the undeveloped portion
of the site. In the future when basins 0-1 and 0-2 are developed, the
orifice plate over the outlet pipe can be changed out and an appropriate
sized orifice plate installed to control the allowable release rate at that time.
' Storm water exiting the temporary detention pond will be transported down
the approximate 10% slope by a riprap channel and enter into the existing
' pond at the northeast corner of the site. The existing pond has an outlet
pipe which discharges into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. Without
' the riprap channel, severe erosion of the existing slope between the ponds
would occur due to the steep slope. An overflow weir has also been
included on the northeast side of the temporary detention pond in the event
the outlet pipe becomes plugged with sediment. The overflow weir is being
underlaid with 12 inch minimum diameter boulders and bedding material to
protect the pond embankment from undercutting and eroding of the pond
' embankment into the existing pond downstream. As development occurs
in the future, the temporary detention pond will someday be removed and
the existing pond in the northeast corner of the site will be utilized after
' upgrading to the City Stormwater Utility standards.
V. EROSION CONTROL
A. General Concept
The Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing lies within the Moderate Rainfall and
Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. The potential
exists for erosion problems during construction of the First Filing and after
' construction until the disturbed ground is revegetated. It is anticipated that
the First Filing improvements will be completed during the summer of 1992.
Thus the new improvements will be subjected to both wind and rainfall
' erosion.
Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for
t Construction Sites and related calculations in the appendix, the erosion
control performance standard for the subject site is 74.5 %. From the
calculations in the appendix, the effectiveness of the proposed erosion
' control plan is 85.6 % during the construction portion of the development.
Therefore the erosion control plan as specifically detailed below, most
nearly meets the City of Fort Collins requirements.
n
1 5
B. Specific Details
' The City of Fort Collins has recently instituted new guidelines for
determination of the effectiveness of a proposed erosion control plan. The
City has indicated that if the curb, gutter, sidewalks, and asphalt are not
installed within 6 weeks after construction begins, then these improvements
may not be included in the erosion control effectiveness calculations. Given
l our experience and the anticipated construction time frame for a
development of this size, we have assumed that the curb, gutter, sidewalks,
and asphalt will not be installed within 6 weeks after construction begins.
' The erosion control effectiveness calculations were completed initially
assuming that the roadways contain bare ground for the first six weeks and
' all other disturbed areas are seeded and mulched immediately after overlot
grading. The effectiveness of this plan was 71.5 % and thus did not meet
the City's criteria. Therefore a sediment trap was proposed in the bottom
' of the temporary detention pond to collect sediment leaving the disturbed
portion of the site,. and the effectiveness of the erosion control plan rose to
85.6 % . Included below is a discussion of the erosion control measures
to be taken during construction of the Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing.
As the first step in overlot grading, the detention pond should be
constructed including the outlet pipe, riprap channel, and overflow weir.
The detention pond bottom should be over excavated by 73.6 cubic yards
for the estimated sediment load. Next the temporary swales should be
constructed. After grading of the detention pond and swales has been
completed, all disturbed areas should have a permanent seed applied.
After seeding, a hay or straw mulch should be applied over the seed at a
' rate of 2 tons/acre (min.) and the mulch should be adequately anchored,
tacked, or crimped into the soil. Erosion bale check dams and the erosion
control area inlet gravel filter should be installed immediately after the
' improvements they protect have been constructed.
Once the detention pond and swales have been completed, the remainder
' of the site can be overlot graded. After the overlot grading has been
completed, all disturbed areas, not in a roadway, should have a temporary
vegetation seed applied. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch should be
applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre (min.) and the mulch should
be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. After the utilities
have been installed, the roadway surfaces should receive the pavement
' structure. Erosion bale check dams and the erosion control area inlet
gravel filters should be installed immediately after the improvements they
protect have been constructed.
1 6
II
FVI. CONCLUSIONS
I� A. Compliance with Standards
All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with
I� the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria.
B. Drainage Concept
1� The temporary detention pond will adequately provide for the detention of
developed on -site flows from the Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing. The street
conveyance systems will adequately transport developed runoff from the
I-� First Filing to the temporary swales. The developed storm water runoff has
been controlled in order to eliminate off -site downstream damage from up
j to and including the 100 year storm event.
The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and shown on the
IJdrainage plan are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins drainage
J criteria.
C. Erosion Control Concept
The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control
I� of wind and rainfall erosion from the Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing.
Through construction of the proposed erosion control concepts, the City of
I� Fort Collins performance standards will be met. The proposed erosion
control concepts presented in this report and shown on the erosion control
plan are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins erosion control criteria.
Hay or straw mulch is being proposed as it has recently proven to be the
IJ most economical and efficient method available to control erosion.
REFERENCES
IJ 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, May 1984 , Revised January 1992.
2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort
1 Collins, Colorado, January 1991.
IJ
3. Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan, Fort Collins, Colorado, by
I� Resource Consultants Inc., February 1981.
4. Master Drainage Study for the Pinecone P.U.D., Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD,
I� Inc., March 1992.
11 7
1_1
' VI. CONCLUSIONS
' A. Compliance with Standards
All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with
the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria.
B. Drainage Conceit
The temporary detention pond will adequately provide for the detention of
developed on -site flows from the Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing. The street
' conveyance systems will adequately transport developed runoff from the
First Filing to the temporary swales. The developed storm water runoff has
been controlled in order to eliminate off -site downstream damage from up
to and including the 100 year storm event.
The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and shown on the
' drainage plan are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins drainage
criteria.
' C. Erosion Control Concept
' The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control
of wind and rainfall erosion from the Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing.
Through construction of the proposed erosion control concepts, the City of
' Fort Collins performance standards will be met. The proposed erosion
control concepts presented in this report and shown on the erosion control
plan are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins erosion control criteria.
Hay or straw mulch is being proposed as it has recently proven to be the
' most economical and efficient method available to control erosion.
REFERENCES
' 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, May 1984 , Revised January 1992.
t2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, January 1991.
3. Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan, Fort Collins, Colorado, by
' Resource Consultants Inc., February 1981.
4. Master Drainage Study for the Pinecone P.U.D., Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD,
' Inc., March 1992.
1 7
1
I
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX
1
11
1
I
1
1
1
r
a.
T Q
0.
a
3.
C
ME
6
B o
I s
,m
ct
C.O.
� 1
� 1
STOKERIDGE
-� FIRST FILING)
3!
no--Sr---
I----11
—
3
I VICINITY
L
HYDROLOGY
I
1
1
1
1
1
N
N
O
ILL
cc
t-
x
N
N
N
(NJ
N
N
N
O
o
0
0
�N
Q
c
6�
cp
CA
N
t<1
a
O
p)
If)
—
N
M
M
rn
N
m
a
N
N
ILL.
M
—
N
M
Cd
NU
p
O
11'
p
p
z
'
u
O
^
O
^
(Hr [Wi
1-4
�N
41
Z.
0O
m
n!
m
.9
..a
?
'�- N
�. M
-• N
Q O
U U
N
O
o
N
o
N
N
v
N
tin
a
N
�
Vl
y c O
N
N
N
+� ..
N
r
U1
ap
rYi
.9
N
r
W
F-
j
in
In
= N
Ln
Lj)
N
�9
tai
o
n
.9
�9
-Z
o
oN
z
.J
w-
>+�
w
p o co
�n
V1
In
in
to
}—
to
O
O
p
O
o
C p
C o
b
p
O
Q
p
p
4 2
1
r`
s
o
V1
�
z
J
r
a
?
s
r
a
ro-
f�
ch
(�
f�
a-
n
�9
r
Z
•�l
.
-N
O
N
o-
Q
___1
W^
>v
W
O i
o
O
p
O
O
)
o
o
p
b
O
o
o
a
p
\O w
V)
N
N
ti
N
N
�i
(U
NI
N
0
1U
n
N
N
N
N
S
Q�
F— F'
—
(i, v
.ln
',Am
N
o
Ln
In
Ln
Ln
rn
Z
W
N
In
m
T
0
to
m
a
Z
p
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Q Q
Q •-
N
N
n1
O-
CO
�
r
N
CA
0-T
�J
a'
—
�9
N
M
o-
�-
N
coc
a--
co Q
Q `�
ti
m
a
N
N
m
N
N
D'1
T
N
N
-
(<1
N
c�
W
0
U
z
v
z_
rr
W
w
z
0
z
W
V
tr
C�
Q
w
t
U
J
Q
U
z
S
U
W
F-
O
z
Q
z
C7
W
O
u1
C7
Q
z_
Q
N"
V
�
O
0
t`
N
�
� N
'I II
II 11
N
LL
U7
O
u.
cc
Z
U)
��v'N,
w
O
°
h
j0
p
cr
a
c
r
o
m
.19
0
Z•�.V
�
�
\
o
n
rh
N
�
O
�
a
LLB
O
w
En U
O
i uW
�
F+ F
1�
:D O
U P.
^� _
u
U OU
v
M
y�
nl
I
N
l)
In
W
�,
'9
r—
�
N
T
o
o
xO
p
:.J
WCL
O p w
h
I
M
m
In
r
fn
m
th
m
r
Q-
(S)
Zr-
O
a
r
m
In
m
M
m
N
I"
CL
0O
to
o°
o°
°
I`
m
�9
�W
co
Q�
Z
Z
rZ tL `'
O
a—
Q'
S
�
T
O
to
J
M
r
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
VI
0
ut
Z
V v
o
0
0
0
p
o
a
o
0
aQ
Q
Ll
11
r
W
Go
cv
�9
�9
O
.�
O
a—
m O
Q a v
N
O
rn
N
N
m
M
(z
(n
..
cy)
N
w
O
U
z
c�
z
w
w
_z
V
z
W
v
a
Q
EE
w
F-
CC
U
J
Q
U
Z
U
W
F-
O
z
Q
z
C7
N
W
O
w
0
Q
z
it
O
O
co
I
51,gy.
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiII=11111111
��9�1�111�11611111g111�11�111�1�111�
�I011111�IIIII�III�IIIII01�1�1�1�1�1�
MAY 1984
5-3
Q
0
z
0
U)
W.
0
}
cr
Z�
J �
Cc
a�
W01 to ~w
Ln Nr
d
Lij cm
aJ
Z�
aL
o�
o
U)�
Q LL
O
LL
0
LL
J
Q
U
a
N
DESIGN CRITERIA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�811111111111111111111�1�11�1�1111111
�BI�II��I�I�II�III��IBI�111�1111�1�1�1I�
�011111�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYIYIIIIIIIYI
�Ol�ll�ll�il�il�
11��1�1
i1111�6��1�11
rz
N
J
?
p
Q
0 5 3
MAY 1984
0
o
�
�
fJ
p
I
0
z
c�
w
0
J �
zc-)
LD
J ,
t1J
� N
2 a m
LLJ � g c
o)
U) ul
} c
N co
L11 a)
� � A
Z0Q.
� L
O rn
OE
N o
In LL
O
LL
2
cc
0
LL
J
U
F-
�[ x
G
o j DESIGN CRITERIA
o g
DETENTION
' DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD
DEVELOPED BY
JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHD, P.E.
'--------------DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
EXECUTED ON 05-27-1992 AT TIME 13:07:36
,PROJECT TITLE: STONERIDGE TEMPORARY DETENTION POND
'*** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION
BASINID NUMBER 1.00
BASIN AREA (acre)= 59.88
RUNOFF COEF = 0.40
***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS
' DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00
INTENSITY (IN/HR) -DURATION (MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN
DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180
'INTENSITY 9.0 7.3 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0
***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS:
IMAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 18.6 CFS
OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .93
' AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 17.298 CFS
AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR.
COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE
----------------------------------------------
RAINFALL
RAINFALL
INFLOW
OUTFLOW
REQUIRED
DURATION
INTENSITY
VOLUME
VOLUME
STORAGE
'---MINUTE
--------------------------------------------
INCH/HR
ACRE -FT
ACRE -FT
ACRE -FT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
9.00
7.30
1.50
2.43
0.12
0.24
1.38
2.19
15.00
6.25
3.12
0.36
2.76
20.00
5.20
3.46
0.48
2.98
25.00
4.68
3.89
0.60
3.29
30.00
4.15
4.14
0.71
3.43
35.00
3.83
4.45
0.83
3.62
40.00
3.50
4.66
0.95
3.70
'
45.00
3.25
4.87
1.07
3.79
50.00
3.00
4.99
1.19
3.80
55.00
2.80
5.12
1.31
3.81
60.00
2.60
5.19
1.43
3.76
65.00
2.46
5.32
1.55
3.78
70.00
2.32
5.41
1.67
3.75
'
75.00
2.19
5.46
1.79
3.67
80.00
2.05
5.46
1.91
3.55
'
-----------------------------------------------------
85.00
1.91
5.41
2.03
3.38
REQUIREW YUNU 51Gr; = J.Ulzb1L AUX.6-rT
RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 55 MINUTES
***** GEOMETRIES OF
AN EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR POND
'-----------------------------------------------------
STAGE
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
POND
POND
DIAMETER
AREA
SIDE SLP
STORAGE
FEET
FEETACRE------FT/FT
--------------
ACRE -FT
--(DEPTH)
0.00
166.53
--------
0.50
3.00
0.00
0.50
169.53
0.52
3.00
0.25
1.00
172.53
0.54
3.00
0.52
1.50
175.53
0.56
3.00
0.79
2.00
178.53
0.57
3.00
1.07
'
2.50
181.53
0.59
3.00
1.37
3.00
184.53
0.61
3.00
1.67
3.50
187.53
0.63
3.00
1.98
'
4.00
190.53
0.65
3.00
2.30
4.50
193.53
0.68
3.00
2.63
5.00
196.53
0.70
3.00
2.98
5.50
199.53
0.72
3.00
3.33
'
6.00
202.53
0.74
3.00
3.70
6.50
205.53
0.76
3.00
4.07
7.00
7.50
208.53
211.53
0.78
0.81
3.00
3.00
4.46
4.85
-----------------------------------------------------
I
11
1
kEQ. VOL,
C
' 9Al�y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
' DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD
DEVELOPED BY
JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHD, P.E.
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
EXECUTED ON 05-27-1992 AT TIME 13:51:39
1
�ROJECT TITLE:.STONERIDGE ULTIMATE TEMPORARY DETENTION POND SIZE
*** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION
BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00
BASIN AREA (acre)= 59.88
RUNOFF COEF = 0.47
***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS
' DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00
INTENSITY (IN/HR) -DURATION (MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN
'DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180
INTENSITY 9.0 7.3 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0
'***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 14.8 CFS
OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .96
' AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 14.208 CFS
AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR*
**** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE
rRAINFALL
RAINFALL
DURATION
INTENSITY
MINUTE
-------------------
INCH/HR
0.00
0.00
5.00
9.00
'
10.00
7.30
15.00
6.25
20.00
5.20
25.00
4.68
'
30.00
4.15
35.00
3.83
'
40.00
45.00
3.50
3.25
50.00
3.00
55.00
2.80
--------------------------
INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED
VOLUME
VOLUME
STORAGE
ACRE -FT
ACRE -FT
ACRE -FT
-------------------------------
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.78
0.10
1.68
2.88
0.20
2.69
3.70
0.29
3.41
4.11
0.39
3.72
4.62
0.49
4.13
4.92
0.59
4.33
5.29
0.68
4.60
5.53
0.78
4.75
5.78
0.88
4.90
5.93
0.98
4.95
6.08
1.08
5.01
1
"&l
I
1---
THE
60.00
2.60
6.16
1.17
4.99
65.00
2.46
6.32
1.27
5.05
70.00
2.32
6.43
1.37
5.06
75.00
2.19
6.48
1.47
5.01
80.00
2.05
6.48
1.57
4.91
85.00
1.91
6.42
1.66
4.76
90.00
1.77
6.31
1.76
4.55
95.00
1.64
6.15
1.86
4.29
100.00
1.50
5.93
1.96
3.97
-----------------------------------
IRED POND SIZE = 5.059386 ACRE -FT
***** GEOMETRIES OF AN EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR POND
'
STAGE
(DEPTH)
FEET
0.00
'
.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
' 2.50
3.00
3.50
4.0
'
4.50
5.00
5.0
6.00
6.50
7.00
' 7.50
8.00
8.50
' 9.00
n
-----------------
CONTOUR CONTOUR
DIAMETER AREA
FEET ACRE
166.53
0.50
169.53
0.52
172.53
0.54
175.53
0.56
178.53
0.57
181.53
0.59
184.53
0.61
187.53
0.63
190.53
0.65
193.53
0.68
196.53
0.70
199.53
0.72
202.53
0.74
205.53
0.76
208.53
0.78
211.53
0.81
214.53
0.83
217.53
0.85
220.53
0.88
70
----------------------
POND
POND
SIDE SLP
STORAGE
ACRE -FT
---FT/FT
----------------
3.00
0.00
3.00
0.25
3.00
0.52
3.00
0.79
3.00
1.07
3.00
1.37
3.00
1.67
3.00
1.98
3.00
2.30
3.00
2.63
3.00
2.98
3.00
3.33
3.00
3.70
3.00
4.07
3.00
4.46
3.00
4.85
3.00
5.26
3.00
5.68
3.00
6.12
I
I
lvgq
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA
STONERIDGE TEMPORARY POND OVERFLOW WEIR
WEIR COEF.
Frorv, K inJ° �-
Bra{er- UamdbwK e� Nydrar,lics 119103
3 .200 �~�
STA
ELEV
0.0
12.40
yy/Z,y
4.0
11.40
iY y _y9l/y
54.0
11.40
So
58.0
12.40
ELEVATION
DISCHARGE
(feet)_
__(cfs)__
Front Rafionai Cq/cv(a fians�
11.4
0.0
Qroo in�(ow r�aX= /o0,/cfs
11.5
5.1
11.6
14.5
11.7
26.7
11.8
41.4
11.9
58.2
12.0
76.9
12.1
97.4 CAS _
PA55 /00 lcFs w�0.3�0 �ree(�oare�
12.2
119.7
remo niny
12.3
143.6
cAni PAssJ/lS-9asCFv7V94
�ree.boal c�
12.4
169.1
w� O. Z r o f
�rogran�
uses C�=CLN3/z
E�✓0.fian
DESIGN OF INLETS,
STORM SEWERS AND SWALES
■rYiNC
' Engineering Consultants
11
1
1
I
CLIENT _ 110 1 a 0 JOB NO. So3-001
PROJECT 51-ot le-r' i d CALCULATIONS FOR T m0 • Swa IES
MADEBVI<W6 DATE5-24'-9ZCHECKED BY— DATE —SHEET 13_OF yq
138_ yc
r
. y
,
l
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
STORM WATER DITCH THROUGH BASIN 5 (DITCH "D')
STA ELEV
0.00 100.00
8.00 98.00 y y
16.00 100.00
'N' VALUE- SLOPE (ft/ft) `
0.035 0.0060 ,or
ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCJHARGE FROUDE l�
(feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO.
--------- ------- -------- --------- ------
98.20 0.2 0.7 0.11 0.39
98.40 0.6 1.1 0.71 0.44
98.60 1.4 1.4 2.09 0.47
98.80 2.6 1.8 4.49 �,y�s 0.49
99.00 4.0 2.0 8.15 4- 0.51
99.20 5.8 2.3 13.25 0.52
99.40 7.8 2.5 19.98 0.54
99.60 10.2 2.8 28.52 0.55
99.80 13.0 3.0 39.04 0.56
100.00 16.0 3.2 51.70 0.57
Ctie manain,s E9v�Pion Q= /Y86 z�S`/zy
aic�la'f�ons USE / h
Af�da.P�l oQ lJO¢� Q= /o.SIcfs whch equals /,c/2 �7,ycfs), Thus fhc
d-,fC11I }lay y290 more CaPae'i �r TNan rel �i red ,
tJu/�y
it
a
CHART
10
ISO168
10,000
-
168
8,000
EXAMPLE
('Z) (3)
6.
156
6000
D•42 incnu (3.3 fall
6.
144
3,,0o0
a-120 cis
5.
4,000
ttw
6,
s.
132
D fact
4.
3,000
(1) 2.3 8.8
5'
4.
120
(2) 2.1 7.4
2,000
(3) 2.2 7.7
4•
3.
108
3'
196
e0 in reel
t
1,000
3.
-800
84
600
2
2
5002.
=
300
Eyj/
1.5
1.5 1.(0= p
I to �IZS�
Z
60
u
200
//
I.5
1{UJ=
NI/•=� Z. TI
Z
/
LU
0
54
/
a
u<_e js Pipe
v
0'
100
o
w
48
-
o
/
u
60
W
I.0
I.0 IA
,
U.
0
2U�_J/
N
50 HW ENTRANCE o
SCALE
1.0
�J t
40
p TYPE ¢
9
F
36
30
(1) Square edge with 9
.9
W
headwall
.9
Q
33
20
12) tree.. and with W
�
30
headwall S
•6
,6
U
p) Groove end
8
.
27
projecting
8
T
T
24
.7
6
To use scale (2) of (3) project
2I
5
to wined then
use
4
straighontallyt
line r
use stralghl Inclined line through
D and O scaled, or rover so as
6
3
Illustrated.
6
.6
18
DeSi�l %y(•S
2 (R
=7,yG{S StOrr F'Cow ✓
00
Is
s
.s
.s
r.o
IZ
HEADWATER
DEPTH
FOR
CONCRETE
PIPE CULVERTS
HEADWATER SCALES 253
INLET CONTROL
REVISED
MAY1964 WITH
BUREAU
OF PUBLIC ROAOS JAK 1963
181
Preceding page blank
CLIENT /�2 P! 4 n JOB NO. 'S403-00 /�
' INC PROJECT �TopC `��7 r%�-- CALCULATIONS FOR 5�7i fM Sewers Sy57=
Engineering Consultants MADE BY KuIG DATE . 26 9zCHECKED BY DATE SHEET I0 OF' y l
k
REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
' USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 3
DEVELOPED
BY
' JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
IN COOPERATION WITH
URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DENVER, COLORADO
a aaaa�aa��aa�aaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavaaaaaaaaaveee
'*** EXECUTED BY DENVER UD AND FCD POOL FUND STUDY - DENVER METRO AREA
ON DATA 05-26-1992 AT TIME 17:19:24
*** PROJECT TITLE :
' STONERIDGE STORM SEWER SYSTEM
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION
MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET
--- --- ---
... ..................... .............
1.00 N/A N/A N/A 6.00 17.50 16.16 OK
2.00 N/A N/A N/A 6.00 18.50 17.42 OK
3.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.80 18.33 18.27 OK
4.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.80 18.33 18.35 NO
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1
-----------------------------------------------..--.----------..--..'----------
SEWER
' ID NUMBER
MANHOLE
UPSTREAM
NUMBER
DNSTREAM
SEWER REQUIRED
SHAPE DIA(HIGH)
SUGGESTED
DIA(HIGH)
EXISTING
DIA(HIGH) WIDTH
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT) (FT)
--------------------------------'..--------------------------------------------
1.00
2.00
1.00
ROUND 17.33
18.00
15.00 0.00
2.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 7.81 15.00 8.00 0.00
3.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 7.81 15.00 8.00 0.00
IMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
IMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
EOUIRED DIAMETER = COMPUTED; SUGGESTED DIAMETER = COMMERCIAL
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW IS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE IS USED
-- ------ - --------" '----- ---- ----- -------- ------ --------
SEWER DESIGN Q P-FULL Q DEPTH CRTC DEPTH VELOCITY FROUDE COMMENTS
ID NUMBER IN CFS IN CFS YN FEET YC FEET 1N FPS NUMBER
1.00 6.00 4.10 1.25 0.99 4.89 0.00 V-OK
----- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
2.00 0.80 0.86 0.51 0.42 2.79 0.69 V-LOW
3.00 0.80 0.86 0.51 0.42 2.79 0.69 V-LOW
IROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
STORW SEWER 1719y
SYSrEm fir D, P.3
I
lolgq
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
SLOPE
INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED
DEPTH
COMMENTS
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
--%
(FT)
--------------
(FT)
------------
(FT)
---
(FT)
-----------------
---
--------
1.00
0.40
15.50
14.91
1.75
1.34
NO
2.00
0.50
16.22
15.60
1.44
2.23
NO
3.00
0.50
16.22
16.22
1.44
1.44
NO
OF
2 FEET
OK
MEANS BURIED
DEPTH
IS GREATER
THAN REQUIRED
SOIL
COVER
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
1.00 147.00 147.00 16.75 16.16 17.42 16.16 PRSSIED
2.00 125.00 125.00 16.89 16.26 18.27 17.42 PRSS'ED
3.00 0.10 0.00 16.89 16.89 18.35 18.27 SUBCR
' PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
' *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM MANHOLE
FRICTION
DOWNSTREAM MANHOLE
'SEWER
ID NO.
MANHOLE
ENERGY
WATER
LOSS
MANHOLE
BEND
MAIN
JCT
ENERGY
ID NO.
ELEV FT
ELEV FT
FT
1D
K
K
LOSS
FT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.00
2.00
17.79
17.42
1.26
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.37
16.16
'
2.00
3.00
18.39
18.27
0.54
2.00
0.48
0.00
0.06
17.79
3.00
4.00
18.47
18.35
0.05
3.00
0.25
0.00
0.03
18.39
BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER.
'MAINLINE LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD
JUNCTURE LOSS= 0 1F THE ABOVE DIFFERENCE IS LESS THAN ZERO
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT 1S NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES DROP AT MANHOLE
1
T:JDINC
' Engineering Consultants
1
t
1
11
0
I I
CLIENT ICfI/°L f%N JOB NO. 5 O3-0 1
PROJECT Sfon e.r i d4 CALCULATIONS FOR DLfen�f-o j 100,7d
MADE BY KU�` DATE Z Z-I CHECKED BY_ DATE SHEET 11 OF ��
I
z0bot
1
RIPRAP DESIGN
I
H
1
1
11
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
CLIENT K CLP /,R;, JOB NO. 5-D 3 -0'0
T:WINC PROJECT -54orgl CALCULATIONS FOR k'e r� .0
Engineering Consultants MADEBYkWG DATE 5E=9Z-CHECKEDBY- DATE SHEET ZI OF yy
-A) eFw le i g c i;F 76�5 -w
CFS �5i - -------- -
4' -YIA)(-
7- . . ....
----------- . .......
-71
'L-9'osio1J C6&rmozj P:Upio
;5T 3 ct,.,5-j Y
J.
OUT -Er 4-7
F�pc-- car c%� , s per
OFee Af I alk ll 77 P-1
F.A
TP ila 19 6 ac��
F:
No Text
RY)OR19-1,y Cony POTI:F- PROGRAM
22 AlYy
' ****** HYCHL ****** (Version 2.0) ******
' Commands Read From File: R:\HYDRO\MCTRANS\HYCHL\50300107.DAT
JOB STONE RIDGE RIPRAP CHANNEL
CHL 0.0984 18.6
TRP 3 3 3
' ** LEFT SIDE SLOPE 3.0 AND RIGHT SIDE SLOPE 3.0
** THE BASE WIDTH OF THE TRAPEZOID (FT) 3.00
LRR -1.2 2 0 2.65 0.047
' ** STABILITY FACTOR 1.20
** SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.65
** SHIELDS PARAMETER .047
END
***************END OF COMMAND FILE************
'
STONE RIDGERIPRAP CHANNEL
-
INPUT REVIEW
'
------------
DESIGN PARAMETERS:
DESIGN DISCHARGE
(CFS):
CHANNEL SHAPE:
'
SLOPE (FT/FT):
------CHANNEL
------------------------------
HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
USING BATHURST
-------------------------------------
FLOW (CFS)
18.60
MAX DEPTH (FT)
.83
'AREA
(FT ^2)
4.54
WETTED PERIMETER (FT)
8.23
HYDRAULIC RADIUS (FT)
.55
VELOCITY (FT/SEC)
4.10
'AVG
MANNINGS EQUIVALENT
.078
Davg / D50
.46
NUMBER
.79
'FROUDE
REYNOLDS NUMBER (10^5)
1.78
18.60
TRAPEZOIDAL
.098
Date 07-01-92
RIPRAP DESIGN
-------------
LINING
PERMIS SHR
CALC. SHR
STAB.
CONDITION
TYPE
(LB/FT^2)
(LB/FT^2)
FACTOR D50(FT)
---------
BOTTOM; STRAIGHT
------
RIPRAP
----------
6.04
---------
5.07
- -------
1.20 1.25 )9615
SIDE; STRAIGHT
RIPRAP
5.15
4.33
1.20 1.21 MIA),
' *** NORMAL END OF HYCHL ***
1
USE CLASS l8 RIPRAP
max. der-m= 2J,SG=20j?)_ 3( "
an 7`410 of /Z " Ti!K cooH
CGA55 .9� 77YPE,17 BEooin/G
in7Z
Z31gq
r
1
[J
M41110I=11 to) zml1g9 .v4l%]f1
1
I�
11
1
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
2y/` q
PROJECT: STO"ER1066- FIRST-FruA)G -VS03-4al STANDARD FORM A
COMPLETED BY: 1� w G RR80 DATE: S/27/9Z
DEVELOPED
ERODIBILITY
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Lb
Sb
PS
SUBBA§IN
ZONE
(ac)
(ft)
00
(feet)
(1%)
M
.�v e ,
/
mompo-rC
6y
Z
rn0L96RgTE
3,84
ISlS
0,5s
3
MaDERg>—E
v,yl
930
y
MOpERarE
2,7s
703'
O,CoZ
S
rnoDEQg� +.
2,9Z
loos
O,6b
rrlooEQgrE
! 89
Jy03
61,63
'7
M OOEr2ATE
3.g y
8.so
a, 7 Z
8
IYIODERATE
z .6�
Li 00
0, 4/
9
rNODErE
�, 6s
3 9 o
O, 9S
251ze
qyy
o, 66
7y.S
From Tk b
Lb_ 5UM
(LSb xAsb )1 s
„''Asb
9-19
Ly = 815(2.
Z)+/S(5C3,89)�83
Cv,vr�7o5C2,.5)troo5(Z,
2)t/483(I,59
t85o(5,94)t
k8oC2,cl)f35o(o,65�
•
25,
Ly= qy4
rj b= U 5
\\
C S56 x f%Sb J
/.Sun, SSG
'
6yCZ32it,55(3,89)f.62(y,lr)f,6Z
27S)f,6o(
.62)f.63(I
Q9}�i72(?..9y)t.91(2•bl)
r85(G55
56
zs.
8
Sb
MARCH 1991
8-14
DESIGN CRITERIA
2s/q
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT: STONERI.06E F/k57-F161A16 S-03-00/ STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: Il W 6 a7 DATE: S/07 y z
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor
Method Value Value Comment
Roads 1'- Curb O' 0 / //00 At Oa 7- COn577-v zfJq
Grovel F/Her-S /r00 61r80 ATSn/e7`s
HoL or Sir -a w // 00
O,OCo
Mulch ej/see,Q
Sdraw Bale Barrier 1'00 0,50
a5 'f%
5ed3'nenf easin Tro.P /'0o O' S'o Mu5'FCer
l f
n ouer of 9rod)ray
f ir5'1' '1P�in
S
MAJOR
PS
SUB
AREA
BASIN
(%)
BASIN
(Ac)
CALCULATIONS
-7 IV,
2132
Roads 9,curb5 a.5oAC 4fa55e*,e nefconStrcele w/in6weeks)
'I"OLC// - 2,3Z-0'50 = /, 82A c-
1,82('0&)1
NET a Facfer = n 0,2G
Z
/)ET P Fac{or= /'oo x,5=.5
EFFZ (/-cXF)XloOZC1-(,Z(ax.S))Xroo= 97.07o
Z
3.$9
Road5 4 CorbS -- 1,Y7 AC (455ame of caws n.a a r✓ in 6 weer(s
mulclk =3,"-/'Y7=Z•YZAC
NBTC Fac{or= 2 YLC.o6)t l•47C1•oo) = O,YZ
NET P Fa 3.89
Eff= (1-c)eP)x ioo = 0-('Y2u. 5))x10a = 79'090
mut CH Y,41 F9c Grove( Sn/ef lcilier
NET C F'aclor= OIL)( -
/,00 x ,80 X,50 = . YO
NET P Factor=
E-r{ _ (/-CxPJ x reo = (I -000Y •9o)X/Oo m
G%
2.7S
Road s 9' Curb ^- /'/Z AC (a55&me no'( ea'+Sfr.e-le w/ir, (a wee Ks
.MULCH = 2,TS- /,/Z> /'6312C
NET C Facior� /'63C'o6)V' _ O,YY
2 ,75
NET P Facior = 1100 x.s=,5
(l - lo0 = 78,o 90
Eff= Cl cxPJxlpO- ,YYx,5))x
S
2,92
MULCH 2,BZ AC s-{ruw 84(2 8arricrS 7n Swa/e
NET c FACTOR =0,6G
NET P Facfor = l,00z.2oX.5o= .YO
m>= 97,690
Eff= C1-cxrlx/oa
(D
/'89
Road5 (curb = LG9 19r- Siraw dale 44rr',er al erdofCd6
Cassumed naf Cons{, w/in 6 wes-,eoa✓s�
Mu[CN x /,89-h49- O'Z/ qC
NET C Fac{-or = a, 21 ('O6)-}/'Ca CsC/.00J = 0., 90
9
NET PFaa4or - /'oox,80z,50=,Y0
Eff: (1-GXP)x/oo=C1-C,90x,90)z/00= 6Y,090
7
3,9Y
Roads V Curb = 0.9 AC ( a55 umc not crn5 ru a w/in owe0Ks
/nuccH=3,9Y-0,9=3.0yAC
NET c Fac{-cr = 3.01C,a(e)f 6.90"),_ 0,27
3 ,94
NET P Facfor=
Eff = C/-cxP)xloo= C1-(,Z-7 x .soUx /06 = 86•s 90
MARCH1991
9-15
DESIGN CRITERIA
26/yy
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT: s7-0n/ER1V6C-- F/Asr FlG/A/G xlS03-oo/ STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: ICU) 6 0) P2 B.D DATE: S/z 7 /57Z
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor
Method Value Value Comment
Roads ¢- Curb 61,17 / // oa Aaccd * F-Tg rmcles(
6roLcl /100 D,80 97--7nle7`s
l-f a y d .Sfi tt uJ O. 0
.y7 /cG cv/seed
sfrowfSale- ,84rricr el
Sed;nen C3asinTra hod O,So rnusfbe CocsfrvcfPdas
f /� +Ft First syep in over/of
' rodln
MAJOR
PS
SUB
AREA
BASIN
(%)
BASIN
(Ac)
CALCULATIONS
7y•S
8
2.(0f
Kaadsc� curbs0,5Z 4c La55ume no t can . tr/il�G&,eeles
mvlch Z.101- 0.52 = 2.09 //G
Net c Faclar = Z,oa C•aG)t,sZC/.e>) = 0,Z.S
0,41 -
/ve% PFactor= /.oc1 x,S=,S
Eff= (/-cxp)X/00=(1-(25x,s3)x100 = 87.jy0
01
0 (os
/IcodS V- Curbs = 0.3.54e (a ssvmeW npy-rens " in 6weeKs)
/nvlc�+ 0,G5-i35=0.30Ac
Ncf G Fa�ar= .3oG06)t,3SC/•m) v p,S7
a •6S
,Ve4 to Facior = 7/,SJo
Eft= Cl-�xP)X/oo= Cl-iS7x.5o))'xloo
EfFN� _ ?,32(07.0)i 3•fr4C79•o }/ 9.y/(97•b�' 2.75(78.a}+`2.82(97.6)1/•89CGvo)�39Y(86,
2S;Z8
EFFA)Cr 85.670 7y,590 oK .
Ca/cv/�f'1pn3 -For Sedime�f Trap in Bo{iOrn a Defenfion
Fbnd bye5fimafe,( Sea(imento
pond S over excavate �ermaneny
Load , /,/Z
�cCT= 0,7y X G eL, x i7
(Ba3ins /'9)
A = 25,29 qc
laa�inq r�+,a5)'
G Kb = 2. G7 /.12
5edT = o,-7Y X 2.6-7 X 25,20
{' an'fie7Cvafej dur;nq a /O
$edT- 73.6 year S-lor,n cvc"f 7"om ba e prounc/.
Pend volume stiall bet /Do yo(3lacr' o{ conC' uia%r5�c�
V= lao(2s.2s) = Z5-20 Cr � zsoo `y
ZSoO cy {21) r y3S6o = /,55 ACY d 1 n
Ste/p in overlo% 91/vSiN%
No-fe: As f6e /Jrsf e
n SNQ/f !�' constrvt�e� inc
channel,1a
de- en7kon rbnc�
l fat a ri ra
outlet Sfruc�vrt'� ou%ef' P � P i nd' ba�o,-ns/ra11
The Oefenflon 4r esfima'd
overflow ve',,r, f%e
be over exeav,rlr,� by 73,(o eY
,5ekme,i /oo�•
r)
1"vL MGI:§1F1il
B-15
11*3kP.[7:1Y4:1:17n
Z7/y y
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
' PROJECT: S i-an e r i 4 e. F r5+ Fit i h STANDARD FORM C
' SEQUENCE FOR 19 ONLY COMPLETED BY: kU)& 4D JB DATE: TUNE /) 199 2
Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed.
Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for
' approval by the City Engineer.
YEAR
t 99Z
. MONT
H H I- A I s l O I Al l o l7 I F I m I»
OVERLOT GRADING
'WIND EROSION CONTROL
Soil Roughening
Perimeter Barrier
'Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant
' Other
INFALL EROSION CONTROL
STRUCTURAL:
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
' Straw Barriers
Silt Fence Barriers
Sand Bags
' Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving
' Other
' VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
' Temporary Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Mate/Blankets
other
ITRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR
FTE SUBMITTED
MAINTAINED BY
APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON
' MARCH 1991 8-16 DESIGN CRITERIA
I
-2 gl"
I
CHARTS, TABLES
hl�mlm 4 ceill .4 DF-I
I
I
I
I
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RUNOFF
50
30
F- 20
z
w
U
w
a 10
z
w
a
O 5
w
3
O
U 2
w
Q
t-
1
�
�■■■■1111//
I
�I
/IUII/
• / r
�n�InI1■I.���/�nnn■■■���
5 -
.1
2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR
USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA.
*MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING `UNDEVELOPED"
LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION.
REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical
Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975.
5-1-84
URBAN DRAINAGE 3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
No Text
311gq
1
1
1
1
0
.9
W-1
.7
U-
Cr
o .6
U
U-
Z .
0 5
U
0
wCr .4
3
2
s=0'6
F o 0.8
-IN
s=0.4%
F=0.5
I BELOW MINIMUM
ALLOWABLE
I STREET GRADE
I
I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
SLOPE OF GUTTER (%)
Figure 4-2
REDUCTION FACTOR FOR ALLOWABLE GUTTER CAPACITY
Apply reduction factor for applicable slope to the theoretical gutter capacity to obtain
allowable gutter capacity.
(From: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Rablic Roads, 1965)
MAY 1984 4-4 DESIGN CRITERIA
1 3z�`f`i
Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities
Major and Minor Storms
' per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria
RESIDENTIAL with drive over curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc.
C is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992
V is based on theoretical capacities
Area = 2.63 sq.ft. Area = 20.11 sq.ft.
Minor Storm : Major Storm
Slope Red. • Minor • 0 V Major • C V
(%) :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) : X : (cfs) (fps)
0.40 : 0.50 : 86.71 : 2.74 2.09 : 696.73 : 22.03 2.19
0.50 : 0.65 : 86.71 : 3.99 2.33 : 696.73 : 32.02 2.45
0.60 0.80 : 86.71 : 5.37 2.55 : 696.73 : 43.17 2.611
0.70 0.80 : 86.71 : 5.80 2.76 : 696.73 : 46.63 2.90
0.80 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 6.20 2.95 : 696.73 : 49.85 3.10
0.90 0.80 : 86.71 : 6.58 3.13 : 696.73 : 52.88 3.29 :
1.00 0.80 : 86.71 : 6.94 3.30 : 696.73 : 55.74 3.46 :
1.25 0.80 : 86.71 : 7.76 3.69 : 696.73 : 62.32 3.87 :
1.50 0.80 : 86.71 : 8.50 4.04 : 696.73 : 68.27 : 4.24 :
1.75 0.80 : 86.71 : 9.18 4.36 : 696.73 : 73.73 : 4.58 :
2.00 0.80 : 86.71 : 9.81 4.66 : 696.73 : 78.83 : 4.90 :
2.25 0.78 : 86.71 : 10.15 4.95 : 696.73 : 81.52 : 5.20 :
2.50 0.76 : 86.71 : 10.42 5.21 : 696.73 : 83.72 : 5.48 :
2.75 0.74 : 66.71 : 10.64 5.47 : 696.73 : 85.50 : 5.75 :
3.00 0.72 : 86.71 : 10.81 5.71 : 696.73 : 86.89 : 6.00 :
3.25 0.69 : 86.71 : 10.79 5.94 : 696.73 : 86.67 : 6.25 :
3.50 0.66 : 86.71 : 10.71 6.17 : 696.73 : 96.03 : 6.48 :
3.75 0.63 : 86.71 : 10.58 6.38 : 696.73 : 85.00 : 6.71 :
4.00 0.60 : 86.71 : 10.41 : 6.59 : 696.73 : 83.61 : 6.93 :
4.25 : 0.58 : 86.71 : 10.37 : 6.80 : 696.73 : 83.31 : 7.14 :
4.50 : 0.54 86.71 : 9.93 : 6.99 : 696.73 : 79.81 : 7.35 :
4.75 : 0.52 86.71 : 9.83 : 7.19 : 696.73 : 78.96 : 7.55 :
5.00 : 0.49 86.71 : 9.50 : 7.37 : 696.73 : 76.34 : 7.75 :
5.25 : 0.46 96.71 : 9.14 : 7.55 : 696.73 : 73.43 : 7.94 :
5.50 : 0.44 86.71 : 8.95 : 7.73 : 696.73 : 71.89 : 8.13 :
5.75 : 0.42 86.71 : 8.73 : 7.91 : 696.73 : 70.17 : 8.31 :
6.00 : 0.40 86.71 : 8.50 : 8.08 : 696.73 : 68.27 : 8.49 :
I
I
I
I
I
' CLIENT (' "N OE QS, JOB NO. 33/yy
' RMINC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FORUUTiEp- R-c�ku
Engineering Consultants MADEBY 1 I)ATEZ-51 CHECKEDBY DATE SHEET_OF Z_
1 ' - - -- --
_ _ - - _ ...
No Text
35IqH
�J
Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities
Major and Minor Storms
per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria
ARTERIAL w/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter
' 0 is for one side of the road only
V is based on theoretical capacities
Prepared by: RBD, Inc.
February 28, 1992
Area = 3.55 sq.ft.
Area = 47.52 sq.ft.
Minor
Storm
Major
Storm
'
Slope
Red. •
Minor
• 0
V :
Major
• 0
V
(X) :Factor :
X
: (cfs)
(fps) .
X
: (cfs)
(fps)
'
0.40 :
0.50 :
135.32
: 4.28
2.41 :
2031.62
: 64.25
2.70 :
0.50 :
0.65 :
135.32
: 6.22
2.70 :
2031.62
: 93.38 :
3.02 :
0.60 :
0.80
135.32
: 8.39
2.95 :
2031.62
: 125.89 :
3.31 :
0.70 :
0.80
135.32
: 9.06
3.19 :
2031.62
: 135.98 :
3.58 :
0.80 :
0.80
135.32
: 9.68
3.41 :
2031.62
: 145.37 :
3.82 :
0.90 :
0.80
135.32
: 10.27 :
3.62 :
2031.62
: 154.19 :
4.06 :
1.00 :
0.80
135.32
: 10.83 :
3.81 :
2031.62
: 162.53 :
4.28 :
1.25 :
0.80
135.32
: 12.10 :
4.26 :
2031.62
: 181.71 :
4.78 :
1.50
0.80
135.32
: 13.26 :
4.67 :
2031.62
: 199.06 :
5.24 :
'
1.75
2.00
0.80
0.80
135.32
135.32
: 14.32 :
: 15.31
5.04 :
5.39 :
2031.62
2031.62
: 215.01 :
: 229.85 :
5.66 :
6.05 :
2.25
0.78
135.32
: 15.83
5.72 :
2031.62
: 237.70 :
6.41 :
2.50
0.76
135.32
: 16.26
6.03 :
2031.62
: 244.13 :
6.76 :
'
2.75
0.74
135.32
: 16.61
6.32 :
2031.62
: 249.31 :
7.09 :
3.00
0.72
135.32
: 16.88
6.60 :
2031.62
: 253.36 :
7.41 :
3.25 :
0.69
135.32
: 16.83
6.87 :
2031.62
: 252.72 :
7.71 :
3.50 :
0.66 :
135.32
: 16.71
7.13 :
2031.62
: 250.85 :
8.00 :
'
3.75 :
0.63 :
135.32
: 16.51
7.38 :
2031.62
: 247.86 :
8.28 :
4.00 :
0.60 :
135.32
: 16.24
7.62 :
2031.62
: 243.79 :
8.55 :
4.25 :
0.58 :
135.32
: 16.18
7.86 :
2031.62
: 242.92 :
8.81 :
'
4.50 :
0.54 :
135.32
: 15.50
8.09 :
2031.62
: 232.72 :
9.07 :
4.75 :
0.52 :
135.32
: 15.34
8.31 :
2031.62
: 230.25 :
9.32 :
5.00 :
0.49 :
135.32
: 14.83
8.52 :
2031.62
: 222.60 :
9.56 :
5.25 :
0.46 :
135.32
: 14.26
8.73 :
2031.62
: 214.13 :
9.80 :
'
5.50 :
0.44 :
135.32
: 13.96
8.94 :
2031.62
: 209.64 :
10.03 :
5.75 :
0.42 :
135.32
: 13.63
9.14 :
2031.62
: 204.61 :
10.25 :
6.00 :
0.40 :
135.32
: 13.26
9.34 :
2031.62
: 199.06 :
10.47 :
11
No Text
37/yy
' RWINC
Engineering Consultants
11
I
1
I
I
11
F
CLIENT ( 1 1-1—/ O''- T=�>tZT Cl^k I.A � 1G JOB NO.
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR eSi 7 cx�
MADE BY Z20 DATE Z"9z CHECKED BV DATE SHEET z OF Z
30/gq
1
1AY 1984
0.7
I-
LL- 0.6
I-
w
Z 0.5
w
> 0.4
O
x
~a 0.3
w
0
? 0.2
n
z
O
s
EXAMPLE
O.011IfIIII IIIfIIfIfIIII IIIIIIIfIIIIIIIIIIII IIII II
0 1 2 3 4
FLOW INTO INLET PER SO. FT. OF OPEN AREA (CFS/FT2)
Figure 5-3
CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP
(From: Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, 1969)
Ac,-vAII-
too. IZ
GftATr_p
INI_E.T ;
Tr
5
Svrp�IE2 ; cclmMC2cE CITE SIf I_/; Row E� 7-al-IgZ.S�
fI
5-11
DESIGN CRITERIA
1
1
1
1
r
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
all
37/yN
RIPRAP
■
PAA,Mr
■
■
M.
■
�i
■
2 Yt/D
Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the borrel.
**Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream.
FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR
CONDUIT OUTLET.
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RIPRAP yVgLf
1
1
1
1
1
E
7
E
—1
f9 = Expansion ngle
ENAWAWN
EEMON46
EAAMAME
ON
MEN
-ME
11
MEMO
MENEM
SOMME
.1 .2
.3 .4
.5
.6 .1
.d
TAILWATER
DEPTH/ CONDUIT
HEIGHT, Yt;
D
FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
O 0
4
4J
CD
Qo
w
o� b
w
c
41
�;=L, 4J
CD
M 4-)
c3 b
O � �4
A'' 3
O' 0
w
'-
4J
N :j
0
O
'-i
0
00 C0 d' N 0) DO LO N
m CD m m O DO DO 00 00
O O O O O O O O
x — ao}ae3 -4uau 4,cnCPV MoUlnO
'
O
A
a
'
1
W
z
H
a
O
U
a
O
k.
1 O
OD LX.
O
w
W
a
a
W
z
H
A�
0 0%a%000
O v v U) U) U)
In co W co co W
0 C1mmm000000
O v v v v U) U) U) U) U) U)
W W W W W W W W W W
o W c1 c1 c1 01 01 01 01 01 c1 01 01 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O vvvvvvV'vvvvvU)U)U)
M co W co co co Co co co co co OD co co Co Co
o �Wcacaa! co olofolrnmola,�rnolrnrnrn
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
o vvvvvvv.vvvvvvvvvvvvv
N CO CO Co CO CO OD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO OD W CD CO
0 oMvu��o�o1D1c��rr. �r. rrrnrrcoCDcocococo
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
v IT IT v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
r-i CO CO CO CO W CO W W W CO CO CO W CO W CO CO W CO CO CO CO CO CO W W
O CO N M v In In In 0 0 01D %0 0 r- I� I, I, I- 1, 1, l- I- t, co co Co
. .......................
co co co co co co co w co OD Wcococa taco W co coWoocococD W co
0 10 O (14 M v v U) U) In U) kD %D 1D 1D 0 ID 1D 0 10 0 t` t` t` t` t` t`
W Mv v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
mcacocococococowmmcocococococomcamcococoCD00
O vW.-iNMMvvvvnU)0U)U10U)InIn1D101DtD1D10I`
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
O 0 0 w 0HHNNMMMMvvv1414vvvNrm0 n 0D
lD M M M v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
O In N U) t- W D\ O O ri H ri N N N N N M M M M M v v IT v v
U) N M M M M M v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
In .-IOD.-4Mvin0%D0r,r,r,InwCDOO W Commm00000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
v N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M v v v v v
W W W W W W W W W W W W CO W W W W W W W W W W W W W
0 V 0 Co0'-INMv-q04 0 tD%D10 0101-t-f-r,wwco 0101
v ri N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M c4 M M M M M M M MM
co co co CO Co Co W W co co c0 CD co co co co co co co W co co co co co co
U) .HHInI-ODc)or4NNMMMvvvvvInlnU)10101DI,I-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M ri N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M c1 M M M M
CO W CO CO W CO CO CO CO CO W CO CO W CD CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
O . IMN. 10 W. C. 9 NNMMM.vvvvvI1)U U)U)1D1D1010
M 0 ri ri ri ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN
W W W W CO W W W W W W CO W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
U) U) ) 0.N M v U) 1
0 t` t` t` W W.N C1 C1 W.0
1 0.1 C.O O.O.O O O
N a% 0 0 r-4 H H rq H Hr 4ririHHHHrIHt-4riNNNNNN
O vU)OMU)\OCOCO0.1
100or•iriIIci cNNNMMMMMM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N W 000000001-I H HH ri Hri r-I r-i H H H ri 4 44 r-i
t- t, W CD CD CD W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
U) W N W t� t� W C1 C1 0 0 ri ri ri ri ri N N N M M M M M
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ri lD W W 01 C1o10101o1o1C1000000000000000
t, t- t- t- t� t, t, t- t- N t, W CO CO CO CO CO W CO W W W W CO CO W
O J%D M O v t` cn O ri N I M M v v 0 In In to %D 10 10 %0 t` t` 10 10 �D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H v1D�nt�nWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
10 1010vt0I:W Wnhlt`1fl V VUn"'iMMNNC11DiI- .,10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ri H r4 H 00
t- t- t- t- I- t- 1� t- t- t- t- t- � I` t- t, t, t, t. t- t, t- t- t, t- n
3 Ex.. 00000000000000000000000000
O U P 00000000000000000000000000
I-a,7.f� riNMVU)10t� WC10riNMVU)\Dt� W010U)OU)OU)O
Ilk pqri H H ri H H H N N M M v v0
a
MARCH 1991
8-4
DESIGN CRITERIA
FORT COLLINS EROSION CONTROL MANUAL
Moderate Erodibility Zone Loading Ratios.
O 1"n icori I I I I I I I i I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1
I 0C) O Co \O I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
LCD
1 0`'Ci°`°� I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I
0 1 C\0C)u)tnC\ON CNco I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1
1 OCM NONMCMC)Mtfl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O 1 •NMCCtn\D\O\Dr-r- I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
C I O 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 Cu)u-ICor mC)CoM\OCoCt 'T0"0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
• I Ctnri0r -V rl)Mr`n Min o I 1 I I I I I I I I I
0 1 riNNMMMCCCCC'tl)tnlntn I I I I I I I I I I I
M I O I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1
1 0 • ri M to I� 0 M C In \C q C) C) O I 1 I I I I
N I O I� ~~ ri ~^ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M m M m M I I I I I
O i Cc%r-NC�LnC�,oLr) �.--�CrNtnco C�cor-L10q[TC%cgti
• I C • • • • • _• • • • . - C O ri ri N N M
I C N cn C to IlO � r- n rCo q Q M OC) 0 n0,%n ~�~�
C 1 0NMMN0 ri rl C)=Ln G)NMM ri C)\0"%D rl M Ln ri in q ri
1 O . . . . . . . . .
C) I NNC)In Cri'1-OM\Ogr-.M L) r: Q O NM Lr).+.
C N M r7 C to Ln to \D tD \D kD r r- r Co q Co Co n n
O I CC\cnRZ.--ivfu'f,--i"Dggt,d•z.--ccl-Or z N m to
I 0
Co I •gr�MCortL Coc iMulr�c).:MC\Dr-: c 0 �LDOCr� rN
1 Cri N M M C C C to to M to N LD to �.o �0tfl lO r, r-nggqn C)
O 1 C rl r- r-\O q\O O N N O\.O N LD n N Mt',' M u)C%D rti OM r tD
1 C
r 1 •tn Nr-ri CrlON-C7 t9 r- C)O r-i M C N k� r, Co N iD r" cn
1 O r-1 N N M M M C• C• C C C C M M M Mtn to N to l0 Z \D r- n h
O 1 0Cl%MM\.ONCCl--ir-"1q, 0 mcom IlkO V NOMONNC�m
lD I 0NCrNtng6N4LP)r�Coc61iNM4 Ink�t�OnMtnr�g0
I Crir NNNMMMMMM C)CC I'C G•CC ul In to In
�O 1 Ocnr-COMtn0Mn -4NCN -4C=In NC%Lr) i l N M 0 M = 0
d°M I - OCr- ONCM\.O CO G)O tiNNM 4 C Ln%O kO C)ri (4,� u)r�
-i NNNNNNN r`')r' M M C') M M(n M M M C C C IT C'
LOLIn 1 0Nr-\O0" iCOM ri\0ri\OCM\OOMtngOOgCG)Cr-
�]�' I - - C)to tO h r- c"O.n O Ori ri r-+NN NNM44 uI In LO tO
LO 1 OCori ri r-i r1 r-f.--Ir-ir-tr-tNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN
0 1 0 M M n r� O q N .--i � O C q ri C r` O N N r` m r- C 0 M r` 0
I - O ri MC' C tn\O lO rr r-r� qCo C)O.�M
M I O ri to N M r4 rl M co NO C\ N M Co C NC ID CoOPN r-O M LO
• 1 O r, Co . . . . . . . . . .
M I 0riNNMMCCG"t!)9)M%D �,o \D\Ol0[-r-coCOc\ON )
1 0 lD Co i ri r-1 r-1 r-i ri ri ri 1-1 r-1 ri ri ri
0 1 0 r- C r- co to to co co M tT ri N N O% O O ri N N M 'C to LD r th P
M I OlflgtnOCI�C).-.MC. . . . .000000000000
I OMLOr CoCo Coco MC)C)Glkc�0 C)r-i r-I ri r-i ri ri r-ir-1 ri r-lr-1 r-1
Ir) I O r-i to u) LO tO O C) C CO C) C) r- to r-1 r-' N r` ri to q ri 0 u) co 0 ri
• I or-r1Mr, OM C\Or-coC)OriN N MMCCC\Dr-r-r-Coco
N I .
I O ,t to \.o \D r r` r- r- r- r- r` co co co Co co CO co co co co co Co g co Co
1
0 1 0ONr-C Lr)rin��ICN Cr) V �IInn��t-r-ipgQCOG)00000
N I
1 OMC<n to u)tn to tO lO tO to �lO lO IO LD IO IO 9tD tfln r r�r�r:
V) 1 0coMG)C1iu)%.0MN00vC)rgMco mi Dr-(nM00C)OOC\
O ri Co r-I C 1,0 h CO G) 0 0 ri " N N N M M M M M C C C M In V
I O MMd'd'C C'd'd' to to Lf1 Lt u) In to to to to to u) to to u1 to u) u)
O I O ri MM M to C N CO M r� O (n\O q M riNCtotoM00MM1-
• 1 O0 G)N V M) Dr-r-McoG)G)G)G)ON 000000ri.-4000
I ONNM MMMMMMMMM cM Mc 4 C'C V'4"d'44444"
to I OCOr-0NNN N N 100a\mr-\OM C MMgCTOr-C ri
• 1 0m 00 ririri 14 ri1.4rir-I1400000000tS000mco
1 0.-i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nri, irir ri ri
•r•
5^ 1 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00000000000
Zv 1 1-4NMCu)\Or-mm0riNMCtn\Or-mn0 n0M0u)0
r-i 1-1 ri 1-4 11 ri ri ri .-i ri N N M M QT V u)
'
Table 8B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values.
Treatment C-Factor
P-Factor
1
BARE SOIL
Packed and smooth................................................................ 1.00
1.00
Freshlydisked........................................................................ 1.00
0.90
Rough irregular surface........................................................... 1.00
0.90
'
SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP................................................................. 1.00
0.50"'
STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00
0.80
SILT FENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00
0.50
'
ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01
1.00
ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 8-A
1.00
'
SOD GRASS................................................................................. 0.01
1.00
TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.4512'
1.00
HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE........................................... 0.10"'
1.00
SOIL SEALANT....................................................................0.01-0.60141
1.00
'
EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS............................................ 0.10
1.00
GRAVEL MULCH
'
Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately
1 /4" to 1 1 /2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05
1.00
HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH
After olantino crass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately
tack into the soil.
anchor,
or crimp material
Slope M
1 to 05.............................................................................0.06
1.00
'
6 to 10............................................................................. 0.06
1.00
11 to 15............................................................................. 0.07
1.00
16 to 20.............................................................................0.11
1.00
'
21 to 25 . . 0.14
1.00
25 to 33.... .0.17
1.00
> 33.......................................................................... 0.20
1.00
'
NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation.
(1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading.
(2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are
(3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated.
not required.
(4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation.
IJ
1
' MARCH 1991 8-6 DESIGN CRITERIA
4 4
K N P u>
34 1L: -- VARIES C yg iRpq YRM
VARIES z
ti 11T 118 11M "0 tL �s —JI yl \GREATESTE°1iEh'i
I — e zI � � ] n �, 4 4 loll,** �i / �
z.R _ Ixl1 ��c
SECTION A -A �/j7T� yi�/�vA�i
1S IF. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n ; �C /� 1LI SPL
A A V A
a� 118 n 21 ., •� v' WASTES RON
TF 2 $ J j1 CHANNEL FROM
_ L SUGAR aIR°AAASHTO POLYETHYLENEz
__ - _NORTH - D.5% . PERFORATED HEAVY Wn
�/ �U stuE r=s0 o i �—
T a 4 rl - EQUAL.
ADS N-12 NO APPROVED
s I RAn FLEW
se o inenx; ion CNN
it zAs - C SECTION B-B
n4 'e
r
Yi.
TF 1
V i VCU EN
• - ROOM DRAIN PIPE ( xi.S
r ry
]Ss ~ .. FIE(OST ' SIT OROillk AhB, SHELF 10' \
]fie 1 '.D _ .. .. \
p 123 122 " 121
DRIVE .
i LEGEND
22
zER 112 '. 2 2
-� � ]��y! 890 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
.. ,, 9L �� ` ` O � —]B— PROPOSED CONTOUR
N
tn� TF'2cS� 5096 EXISTING CONTOUR
'-S T.F. TOP OF CONCRETE
\I
TF 0 .I( 125 t5 f{-, - FOUNDATION WALL
• O� �. Yo �g '27
0.50E 20 21 'S iF,213
2 '3
l ] I 1 -_ S NOTES
- - _ - - i ALL DKRLSTALL BE DRAW GE STABE GAINED
,
tOR A SG h n e 2J dte / 83 \ _ g S (�} - m. o . uww amE rc u.
�zi.R TF 6 '.1 i� v ' 2 N __ _ x Amu Lurs 9mu BE v+�rttD Nw A MWANw
OR OS ME T TO A
j
.I. a ♦A .N �..__ h' r LOSS - F FFpxuATONS.A HAY
1R \
s GTE WAIMMUM uOVE FOUDsi TO
LOWEST OF FOUNDATION WALL
24
TOF swia»
\ gy; 4.OF m oLwaw ft MY K END
GAsx umwW
C IXL.. J I U D VhR SMAMTAWEpt
p TO
AC -
AIR PRortamE sw.AKs As LON
10] 1 1 10 -/ 13 2. In a. THERMI HOD M DE SHIA. x E.rosxrt .eon
9GLD OAK 914E E F.
O 20 T 25 - B. K xT a RAATER 914E K zmKD
N MNWS ERD99G
N
IF 2 tlz - v ]- MOT vDEa THE LOT A°ALALL CAMS UUu>irs
106 > I 24 - - p P°U" ALSO DRIVEWAY cONSIATiiinN OTONY<vNs.A
m $
III \ Fr 25 > ] n 21 - - - 4 e OOTS NTH oTOTAL GRADING W IN GREATER OF
DID o5oz A � 2M a ACCORDANCE WTx DATA ONNET TON (FHq
eB A AAY SEWER KRMCE EWES SHALL K
TR2].6 lF', 'i TF.2B.2 \ 35 9c'Fs0 t• �\ 28 2] 26 �T SIRDARYNYB[F ANi. sGXEKaro
JoJ F` NE MAXIMUM DRNMEWAY CREATURE MADE
Or / �� r 2,j� ` x NRERS SEPARATE sCf WADI[ TO
W 'O t F _ D EHwsE IS INSST LLED AT 11100% ANSI CASE
Ol C=23.2 TF-23.0 TF-230 I.L
X - _ oa - M NNM
BE vxW
T. ua LOT SHAu BEncVUUATED BY A RE&STMED
H N ` S0L5 ENGINEER ♦ E TMA AN
BROWNSTONE CT. ^ '' - m Al%SYYS SYSTEM TAN AND TEAT of THE
iv 38 � - t� >.� _ 9wxAx srssH REaxcDCOP
crosaocnox.
THER WARNER RETAIL FROM
qD 1 3F 3 3 �I I 1 _ '^ 5 ?? TF`O ..FLOOR
TORT ELEVATION To 12 SANITARY sAER u i
91 ALLY
A 26 �-��. T9 1}. WHoiTSGrtD G'AnDE .x Fxv�ED TND \ D F
GNpLEATRSAID
BASED ONA
AD _ - y4ED GIL D TF-261 TF=28-?, 00 n. \ Tp,2 _1 ° B __ i a PROPER WE AND ANASSvMm FROM
'm �2 37 4.0 SETBACPE K ]e,w a OF
AN AND
SETBACK OR NE BVILONG
SHED Mh L MQUE T
WAY
6 n �- 1E a o TF_23> T F=23.2 L23 2 Tin OF FOUNDATION TRAINING
a/ V I L. 101E I T7 TF=2B3 I
CAry I I 2 x. APPLICABLE TO Lars O H126
29 -- 27 V\ M1S �� S 1 S i R 1 41 A NOT Aw mPNCN p
Y 3 \ 38 40 22
42
osaz r0.6Gx m
m SEP 2 01992
m 0.60E - 160a
tV A��
LEE City a
APPROVED iL�jddL49
FOR fML.O%�_ �O FBND GRADING- _ _ - _ - n.wae.P+rnNNE
_—_ —
- m THE AREA, )Y MILL A
—_ B _ BROTH RS_LANDSCADSCAJI 7 L CIECXEO BY: IV
NA3C Hn A wrwm. wn ON.
EAST HORSETOOTH ROAD ,S;° - r� ,p sioRA r AN Pet
oHEcr.ED9
o' SEE PRDFILE n `„IFFT 10
® -- `CHECKED BY:
NOR SAM, OCH SAM
DRAIN DES GN-o - Engineering Consultants STONE RIDGE P.U.D.
WSYD2A
2 BEHOVEk ADJUST IRRIGATION PIPE k SWAL A G H T T SAM SEPTP 11992 5m-De1 - -FIRST FILINGGRADING PLANN0. RENSION DESCRIPTION APPROVED :T11 �'