No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 12/15/1993�J, PROPERTY OF FORT COLLINS UTUIMg LL/PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR STETSON CREEK P.U.D. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1 OVERALL/PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND ' EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR STETSON CREEK P.U.D. ' FORT COLLINS, COLORADO December 15, 1993 1 ' Prepared for. ' Client: Geneva Corporation 344 East Foothills Parkway, Suite 12 ' Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 ' Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants ' 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 395-003 ' M� INC Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins. Colorado 80521 ' 303/482-5922 FAX: 303/482-6368 December 15, 1993 Mr. Glen Schlueter ' City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235 Mathews ' Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Overall/Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Study ' for Stetson Creek P.U.D. Dear Glen: 11 We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Overall/Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Stetson Creek P.U.D.. 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 fivr� Kevin W. Gingery, E. \`��nwttfIfftun���z °`'�� tj REc!s , o;• w. cra•.F 24766 �• °1711 S7�l� k0: uuunu I Other Offices: Denver 303/458-5526 • Vail 303/476-6340 I TABLE OF CONTENTS ' DESCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ' A. LOCATION 1 Be DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 ' II. DRAINAGE BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION Be SUB —BASIN DESCRIPTION ' III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS ' Be DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE 2 AND CONSTRAINTS C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 3 ' D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 3 ' IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT 3 Be SPECIFIC DETAILS ' V. STORM WATER QUALITY ' A. GENERAL CONCEPT r; Be SPECIFIC DETAILS 6 VI. EROSION CONTROL I A. GENERAL CONCEPT 7 ' VII. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 7 Be DRAINAGE CONCEPT 7 ' C. STORM WATER QUALITY 8 D. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 8 ' REFERENCES 8 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP 2 ' EXCERPTS FROM THE McCLELLANDS BASIN MASTER PLAN 3 HYDROLOGY SUBMITTED W/ FIRST FILING SUBMITTAL 12 REMAINING SITE HYDROLOGY 23 ' DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM SEWER AND SWALES 29 DETENTION 49 CHARTS, TABLES AND FIGURES 51 1 ' OVERALL/PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY ' FOR STETSON CREEK P.U.D. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 A. Location ' The Stetson Creek P.U.D. development is located south of Harmony Road and immediately east of Timberline Road. The site is shown on a Vicinity Map in the appendix. The site is located immediately south of the Timber ' Creek P.U.D. development. More particularly, the proposed development is located in the West Half of Section 5, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado. ' Be Description of Property ' The Stetson Creek P.U.D. development contains approximately 79.45 acres of which all of the area is currently undeveloped and being proposed for residential development. Final Utility Plans were recently submitted on the ' Stetson Creek P.U.D. First Filing. The property has consisted of cultivated farm land. An irrigation ditch lies along the east property line of the site ' (directly east of the site) and is being used for off -site irrigation. An irrigation return ditch currently lies along the south property line where drainage swale# 151 is located on the drainage plan. In addition, an ' irrigation ditch lies along the northern property line of the site (for on -site irrigation) and will be removed as development occurs within the site. The eastern irrigation ditch is feed from north of the site and development of the ' site will not disrupt this existing irrigation system. The McClellands Basin Drainageway traverses through the site in a west to east direction. The site generally slopes from the northwest to the southeast at approximately 1% on ' the north side of the McClellands Basin Drainageway and approximately 1% from the southwest to the northeast on the south side of the McClellands Basin Drainageway. The sequence of development for this area must be ' sensitive to the McClellands Basin Drainageway as the drainageway is intended to transport off -site historic storm water runoff through the site. Final design of the McClellands Basin Drainageway was completed along with ' the Stetson Creek P.U.D. First Filing design. III. DRAINAGE BASINS ' A. Major Basin Description The site is located in the McClellands Basin. This drainage area is specifically ' described in the report entitled McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc. 1986. As a part of the Master Plan, a SWMM model was developed for this basin, but the SWMM Model was not ' available from the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility for utilization with this project. Because the SWMM Model was not available from the City, a new SWMM Model was assembled and included with the Stetson Creek ' P.U.D. First Filing submittal. Be Sub -Basin Description ' Historic drainage patterns for the site are southeasterly across the site towards the McClellands Basin Drainageway for land lying north of the drainagway ' and northeasterly across the site for land lying south of the drainageway. Once storm water runoff reaches the drainageway, runoff is collected in the drainageNAray and directed easterly to eventually reach the Cache La Poudre ' River. Off -site areas to the north and south of the site, drain across the existing irrigation ditch on the north property line of the site and onto and across the site in an historic condition. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA tA. Re ulations ' All regulations as established by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility will be used for this Overall/Preliminary Drainage Study. ' Be Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ' The McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan criteria and constraints are being utilized in this Overall/Preliminary Drainage Study. Drainage criteria not specified in the McClellands Master Drainage Plan will be in accordance ' with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards Manual. The Master Plan for the McClellands Basin requires on -site detention using a staged release rate of 0.20 cfs/acre for a 10 I year design storm and 0.50 cfs/acre for a 100 year design storm. IC. Hydrological Criteria The SWMM hydrological model was used in the McClellands Basin Master Plan. The SWMM model analyzed developed flows within the basin with ultimate developments in place. See the Stetson Creek P.U.D. First Filing for ' the current SWMM Modeling being utilized for the site. The rational method was used to determine runoff peak flows from the site. ' The 2 and 100 year rainfall criteria, which was obtained from the City of Fort Collins, is the criteria which was utilized for this study. This criteria is included in the Appendix. The 10 year and 100 year SWMM Models are ' included in the Stetson Creek P.U.D. First Filing Drainage and Erosion Control Report. I D. Hvdraulic Criteria All calculations within this study have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria. ' E. Variances from Criteria No variances are being sought for the subject site. ' IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN I A. General Concept ' As de�lelopment occurs within the Stetson Creek P.U.D. site, the drainage concepts shown on the Overall/Preliminary Drainage Plan, in the back pocket ' of this report, along with the drainage concepts shown on the Stetson Creek P.U.D. First Filing Drainage Plan should be followed. Several permanent detention ponds are planned near the southern portion of the property. ' Along the eastern and southern property lines of the site, easements and swales will be required to transport off -site storm water runoff from north and or south of the site, southerly and easterly respectively to the McClellands ' Basin Drainageway. The detention ponds will be required to drain into the McClellands Basin Drainageway traversing through the site. IBe Specific Details I Groundwater will be encountered during construction of this development, 1 3 ' therefore a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit will be required. ' During the course of preparing the proposed preliminary drainage plan for the subject site, the lack of available fall in elevation across the subject site ' governed establishment of the proposed grading concepts shown on the Drainage Plan. ' The off -site areas to the north of the site include a future Medical Park and the Timber Creek P.U.D. development. Along the eastern property line of the site an on -site easement and swale will be required to transport off -site ' storm water flows from north of the site, southerly through Detention Pond No. 373 and to the McClellands Basin Drainageway. This Swale system along the east property line will need to be constructed along with the Timber ' Creek P.U.D. development in order to redirect existing off -site runoff away from its development. The off -site area storm water runoff will be transported in swale number 159 and will be routed into and out of detention ' pond number 373. See the Stetson Creek P.U.D. First Filing Drainage Plan for specific details and the Timber Creek P.U.D. Final Drainage Plan for actual design. ' The off -site area to the south of the site Basin 901 is not proposed for ( ) P P development at this time and therefore it is not known what future ' development may be placed within this site. Along the southern property line of the site an easement will be required to transport the off -site storm water ' flows (currently irrigation return flows) from south of the site, easterly to the McClellands Basin Drainageway. ' Basins 601, 602 and 603 are designed to drain into Detention Pond No. 372. The 2 and 100 year storm events have been designed to be transported overland via the street system, concrete cross pan, concrete sidewalk culvert ' and grass lined swale to the storm water detention pond. Preliminary grading of the detention pond indicates that adequate detention volume is lacking within the designated site of the detention pond and minor adjustments will ' need to be made to the grading at the time of final design to achieve the required detention volume. The detention pond bottom elevation is controlled by elevations of the McClellands Basin Drainageway. ' Basins 403, 4117 414, 415, 416, 801-807 are designed to drain into Detention Pond No. 373. The 2 and 100 year storm events have been designed to be ' transported overland via the street systems, concrete cross pans, storm sewer system, concrete sidewalk culverts and grass lined swales to the storm water detention pond. Detention pond No. 373 is currently being final designed and ' will be included with the Timber Creek P.U.D. Final Design being submitted ' to the City by the end of December 1993. The detention pond bottom elevation is controlled by elevations of the McClellands Basin Drainageway. ' Basins 802-804 are designed to drain to a swale parallel to the exiting sanitary sewer line near the east property line of the site, swale # 159. Final design of swale # 159 is currently being completed with the Timber Creek P.U.D. ' Final Design. Basins 808 and 809 are proposed to drain directly into the McClellands Basin ' Drainageway in an historic condition. ' Basins 701-706 have been designed to drain into Detention Pond No. 373 by a major swale between the rear of the lots. The Swale will contain an underdrain due to its flat slope of 0.5067o. The underdrain will be carried ' through Detention Pond No. 373 and connected into the water quality outlet works of the pond. The 2 and 100 year storm events have been designed to be transported overland via the street systems, concrete cross pans, 2 year ' storm sewer systems, concrete sidewalk culverts and grass lined swales to the storm water detention pond. ' Off -site basins contained in the Timber Creek P.U.D. development are designed to drain into Detention Pond No. 373. The 2 and 100 year storm t events have been designed to be transported overland by the street systems, concrete cross pans, 2 year storm sewer systems, concrete sidewalk culverts and grass lined swales to the storm water detention pond. The owners of the ' Timber Creek and Stetson Creek developments are working together on the development of Detention Pond No. 373 and the final design of this joint detention pond is being done at this time. Each of the storm water detention ponds requires a staged release rate of 0.20 cfs/acre for a 10 year design storm and 0.50 cfs/acre for a 100 year design ' storm per the McClellands Basin Master Plan. In addition, each detention pond should be fitted with a water quality component (to be discussed later within this study) and an emergency overflow spillway as shown on the detail ' sheets within the back pocket of this report. Also shown on the detail sheets are the drainage swale preliminary designs which will be utilized and modified accordingly during final design of the proposed improvements. The detention ' ponds within the site should also be provided with 1 foot of freeboard per the City of Fort Collins Stormwater criteria. IV. STORM WATER QUALITY ' A. General Concept In October of 1992, the State of Colorado began requiring Stormwater ' Management Plans as part of their permit process. The Stetson Creek P.U.D. development is anticipating construction beginning in 1994. Therefore for this study, we have sought to find various Best Management Practices for the ' treatment of storm water runoff at this preliminary design phase which could be implemented in the final design process. ' Be Specific Details It is our understanding at this preliminary phase, that the concept of storm ' water quality should address the treatment of the initial first flush runoff. By capturing the initial first flush runoff in a water quality pond, the pollutants can be filtered out of the storm water runoff. ' Included in the back pocket of this report is a preliminary detail for the detention ponds with a water quality component. The water quality ponds ' should be designed to release storm water runoff over a 40 hour period in order to filter out pollutants. At this preliminary phase, only a concept has been presented here for the water quality ponds. Because the McClellands ' Basin Drainageway is adjacent to this site, it is of utmost importance to address the water quality issues before the pollutants have an opportunity to ' enter the drainageway and be transported off -site. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility does not currently have adopted water quality standard design criteria, but they recommend the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood ' Control Districts published criteria for use on this project. During final design, the perforated riser outlets and water quality features will need to be designed for each water quality pond. The water quality pond features can ' be easily incorporated into the 10 and 100 year control mechanisms of each storm water detention pond outlet system. ' The Stetson Creek P.U.D. development has been designed with numerous drainage swales to transport 2 and 100 year storm water runoff to the detention ponds. Due to the site grading constraints, minimum slopes were ' attainable within the site. The drainage swale slopes average between 0.50% to 0.60%. These relative flat slopes are ideal from a water quality standpoint as these slopes allow storm water to filter out pollutants into the grass as ' storm water is transported to the detention ponds. Because water quality is of such importance, we are not proposing to construct concrete trickle pans in the bottom of any drainage swales. The natural grass lined drainage swales ' are being proposed as an important water quality feature. At the time of final ' design, the City Stormwater Utility minimum velocity requirements must be met or an underdrain pipe system will need to be installed beneath each swale ' which does not meet the minimum velocity requirements. The underdrain systems can be connected into the detention pond water quality outlet works. ' Vie EROSION CONTROL A. General Concept ' The Stetson Creek P.U.D. development lies within the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of ' Fort Collins zone maps. Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites, at the time of final design of the site, the erosion control performance standard will need to be calculated and ' appropriate measures taken to control erosion from the site. All construction activities must also comply with the State of Colorado ' permitting process for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. A Colorado Department of Health NPDES Permit will be required before any construction grading can begin within this development. ' VII. CONCLUSIONS ' A. Compliance with Standards All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with ' the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. No variances are being sought for the subject site. ' Be Drainage Concept The preliminary size of each detention pond will enable the site to develop ' in conformance with the McClellands Basin Master Plan for detaining developed storm water runoff from the site. The detention ponds within the ' site should be provided with 1 foot of freeboard and an emergency overflow outlet in the event the outlet structure and pipe become plugged. Detention Pond No. 373 will be required to over detain for those basins draining directly ' into the McClellands Basin Drainageway undetained. When groundwater is encountered during the construction of any portion of ' the site and dewatering is used to install utilities, a State of Colorado Construction Dewatering Wastewater Discharge Permit will be required in order for dewatered water to be discharged into any waters of the United ' States. 7 I ' co Storm Water Ouality ' The storm water quality ponds proposed within this report will require regular maintenance to remove deposits as they accumulate. Each storm water quality outlet works will need to release the first flush of storm water runoff ' over a period of 40 hours in order for pollutants to settle out of the runoff. D. Erosion Control Concept ' Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites, at the time of final design of the site, the erosion control ' performance standard will need to be calculated and appropriate measures taken to control erosion from the site. ' REFERENCES 1, Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort ' Collins, Colorado, May 1984, revised March 1991. 2, Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins, ' Colorado, January, 1991. 3, McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan, by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc., 1986. ' 4. Master Drainage Study for Wild Wood Farm, by RBD, Inc. July, 1988. ' 5. Overall/Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Hillside at Rock Creek, by RBD, Inc., August, 1993. ' 6. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Stetson Creek P.U.D. First Filing by RBD, Inc., December, 1993. 1 P APPENDIX I i [J VICINITY MAP NO SCALE FIGURE 1 2 ' 3/ IEXCERPTS FROM THE MCCLELLANDS I BASIN MASTER PLAN r Y/ F INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study The City of Fort Collins has undertaken a program of comprehensive drainage master planning to define safe, economical, system -wide approaches for the collection and conveyance of storm water runoff. This study represents a continuation of such master planning efforts for the McClellands Basin, located in portions of the City of Fort Collins and unincorporated Larimer County. Presented in this report is a recommended plan of improvements to existing facilities as well as drainage requirements that must be met for future development within the McClellands Basin. Storm drainage master planning for the McClellands basin has been completed in two phases. In 1980, Cornell Consulting Company (Cornell) developed a master drainage plan for the upper portion of the McClellands Basin between Timberline Road and the upstream basin limit. This study expands upon the earlier work completed by Cornell and extends the drainage master planning effort from Timber- line Road to its confluence with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID). In addition, hydrologic analysis of the entire McClellands basin was undertaken to redefine runoff response associated with more up-to-date projections for land use. This report incorporates all information developed for the entire McClellands Basin, Basin Description Located at the southern edge of Fort Collins, Colorado and extending into unincorporated Larimer County, the McClellands basin encompasses an area of approximately 2800 acres. The basin originates north of Harmony Road near Marren Lake and drains in an easterly direction to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. The McClellands Basin is bounded on the north by the Foothills basin, on the west by Mail Creek, on the south by Fossil Creek and by the FCRID on the es-c: Figure 1 shows the general location and configuration of the McClellands Basin. The area that is noted as the "East Harmony Portion of McClellands Basin" in Figure 1 is not geophysically part of the McClellands Basin since runoff from this area drains easterly into the FCRID. From the standpoint of drainage master planning, however, this area has been considered as part of of the McClellands Basin and any General provisions given herein apply to this area as well. 0 5� Historically, land in the basin has been used predominantly for agricultural ' purposes. The City is Experiencing fairly rapid growth in a southeasterly direction and development is at various stages in much of the basin. ' Residential and light commercial development has already been completed in the portion of the basin north of Harmony Road. ' Significant features influencing drainage patterns in the McClellands Basin ' include the Larimer County No. 2 Canal, the Union Pacific Railroad and the FCRID. The Larimer County No. 2 Canal, which follows a somewhat irregular alignment east of College Avenue, defines the western limit of the McClellands ' Basin. The Union Pacific Railroad is an important feature because significant storage potential is created upstream of the relatively high railroad tembankment. The FCRID cuts across the historic McClellands Basin drainageway about 0.5 miles west of Interstate 25 and presently intercepts storm water runoff ' from the basin, conveying it south to Fossil Creek Reservoir. ' Summary of Basin Master Plan Incorporation of on -site detention measures into all new development plans for the McClellands Basin was the approach utilized to evaluate and develop a master ' drainage plan for the basin. Within the McClellands Basin, the maximum release rate of stormwater from detention storage was established during this study as ' equal to 0.5 cfs per acre of drainage area for the 100-year storm event below Harmony Road. This release rate approximates the average 100-year historic runoff rate frcm the basin as a whole. Above Harmony Road, flow rates were taken from the Cornell Study since proposed basin improvements have been constructed. Below Harmony Road, proposed improvements to the drainageway and road crossing structures were sized to convey runoff at a rate equal to 0.5 cfs per acre of drainage basin above a given point in the system. Consequently, it is required that all runoff from developed areas "ass through a detention structure prior to being discharged to a drainageway. These provisions will keep peak runoff rates to a manageable level and provide a consistent basin -wide approach for storm water planning and management. The overall plan of store drainage improvements to the McClellands ?asin entails construction of grass -lined trapezoidal channels capable of conveying the 3 I I F 100-year developed discharge, in combination with improved culvert crossings at all major roads. Several channel drop structures are also incorporated in the plan to develop acceptable hydraulic conditions in the grass -lined tunnels. Map I provides an inventory of channel improvements, road culvert crossings and detention storage facilities in the McClellands Basin, constructed under the basin master plan, Since this inventory will be updated as improvements take place, the City of Fort Collins Storm Water Utility should be contacted to obtain the most up-to-date version of this map. Sheet 1, contained in the Appendix, indexes the plan and profile sheet numbers on which preliminary design and floodplain information can be found. All proposed channel and road crossing improvements were sized in accordance with criteria set forth in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. The total estimated cost to complete the recommended master plan improvements in the lower portion of the McClellands basin between the FCRID and Timberline Road equals $2,138,000, Upstream of Timberline Road, Cornell estimated the total cost of the recommended master plan improvements to equal $925,150 (1980 Costs). Detailed cost information and a breakdown of items included in the overall cost estimate can be found in the Technical Addendum to this report, copies of which are available at the City of Fort Collins Storm Water Utility. It should be emphasized that the master drainage plan set forth in this report relates to future developed conditions with cn-site detention. During the period prior to completion of the required system improvements, the Storm rater Utility should be contacted to determine if any special interim storm drainage criteria are in effect. IMPROVEMENTS General Three major catagories of drainage improvements are proposed under the master drainage plan developed for the McClellands Basin: 1) detention storage, 2) channelization and 3) hydraulic structures. The following sections discuss the design data utilized and the specific considerations given to each of these components of the drainage system. Proposed improvements are presented on Sheets 1 through 11, contained in the Appendix. It shculd be noted that master plan E 7/ ' improvements proposed by Cornell and shown on Sheets 6 through ?, correspond to flowrates which have been revised for this study. Consequently, ;raster plan improvements shown on the aforementioned sheets should be reviewed and revised as ' necessary to convey the updated flowrates. ' Detention Storage As discussed previously, on -site detention of storm water is a fundamental ' requirement in the stormwater management plan for the McClellands Basin. New development within the basin must provide on -site detention facilities with sufficient capacity to store the 100-year runoff for developed conditions in ' excess of the maximum allowable release rate of 0.5 cfs per acre of land. Detention facilities must also be sized to detain the 10-year runoff with a ' maximum allowable release rate of 0.2 cfs per acre corresponding to this event. Since proposed improvements to the drainageway and road crossings have been sized ' to this rate of release from storage, it must not be exceeded. Development that has already taken place north of Harmony Road has incorporated sound drainage (' practices and presently meets the aforementioned criteria. Channelization ' Due to the relatively undeveloped nature of the McClellands Basin, right-of-way was not assumed to constrain channel improvements. Although they require a ' greater right-of-way, grass -lined channels provide for a more natural appearance than lined channels. Topography and hydraulic characteristics are also conducive ' to use of a grass lined trapezoidal channel shape for the improved drainageway. Such a concept is consistent with improvements that have already been made to the ' drainageway north of Harmony Road. Table 1 summarizes the channel properties required for conveyance of the 100-year ' developed flows with on -site detention. Mannings equation was utilized to determine the required channel size for a design flow depth limited to four feet. ' Channel slope was evaluated considering the existing channel configuration and surrounding topography, road crossings, and the need to limit flow velocities to 5 M I L 1 7.5 fps. Mannings roughness coefficient "n" was assured to equal 0.035. The required right-of-way indicated in Table 1 includes a 10 foot width for a maintenance access road. TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED GRASS -LINED CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS Design Flow Slope Location (cfs) (ft/ft) Bottom Width (ft) Flow Depth (ft) Right - of Way (ft) East of Timberline Road STA 9+00 to 41+80 11C0 0.005 29 4.0 79 STA 42+40 to 66+70 860 0.005 23 3.9 73 STA 67+30 to 123+00 680 0.005 16 3.9 66 West of Timberline Road STA 0+20 to 2C+25 STA 20+25 to Basin Limit 500 0.005 101 4.0 50 Specific information not tabularized in Cornell report. Hydraulic Structures Structural improvements in the McClellands Basin drainageway are needed to achieve the desired level of stormwater management and include culvert crossings, drop structures and improvements to the embankment of the existing irrigation pond at the downstream end of the basin. Culvert crossings were sized to convey the 100-year peak runoff for developed conditions without overtopping of the roadway. Headwater depth to culvert ' diameter ratios (HW/D) do not exceed 1.5 per City of Fort Collins criteria. Map 1 summarizes the properties and configuration of each major road crossing ' considered. For planning purposes, it was assumed that the roads within the basin will ultimately be improved to a 60 foot width. 1 6 9/ L I To develop acceptable hydraulic conditions along the major drainageway and provide sufficient cover over the culverts at the road crossings, three drop structures are required. Drop structure locations vo re defined considering the existing topography and constraints at the existing road crossings. A maximum drop height of four feet was assumed. Using these criteria, a 4-foot high drop structure is needed at station 63+00 and two, 3-foot high drops are required at stations 94+00 and 122+00. A typical drop structure detail is presented on Sheet 11. At the downstream limit of the McClellands Basin the drainageway passes through an existing irrigation pond (Swift Pond). A local access road to a residence crosses over the pond embankment. The pond has an uncontrolled outlet consisting of a 54" diameter vertical standpipe which connects to a 36" diameter CMP exiting horizontally through the embankment. Presently, the height of the embankment measured relative to the existing outlet pipe exceeds 10 feet, making this impoundment a jurisdictional structure under existing state regulations. However, the structure is not presently regulated by the State Engineers' Office. Under existing conditions, flows in excess of the capacity of the 54" o,itlet will pond to elevation 4872 feet, at which point overtopping of the embankment begins to occur. To stabilize this drainage feature and incorporate it in the master plan, the downstream face of the embankment requires erosion protection with riprap. Additionally, reducing the height of the embankment so that the crest elevation is at 4870 feet as compared to the existing crest elevation of 4872 feet, removes this structure from potentially falling under state jurisdiction. Such a change to the irrigation impoundment will not alter its normal functioning because the top of the standpipe is approximately two feet lower, at elevation 4368.1 feet. After the embankment is lowered, asphalt paving should be used to stabilize the access road which crosses over the crest. Sheet 10 shows details of the proposed improvements to the existing irrigation pond. An existing ditch is currently located adjacent to the west side of Swift Pond. This ditch intercepts flows from the McClellands drainageway (station 23+60) and conveys them to a headgate/turnout at the FCRID (see Sheet 2). Depending on the headgate setting, the flows can either be discharged into the FCRID or piped over the ditch into the agricultural area just west of I-25. Improvements to the 7 r! JO/ FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION ' Existing Conditions Water surface elevations for the 100-year flood under existing conditions of ' basin development were computed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-2 computer model. Cross sectional data used as input to the HEC-2 model were obtained from existing 2-foot contour topographic mapping provided by the City. ' Field measurements were also made at major road crossings to determine culvert geometry. Using this information, rating curves were developed at the major road ' crossings between the FCRID and Timberline Road. ' Hydraulic analysis began at the confluence of the McClellands Basin drainageway and the FCRID. The starting water surface elevation was obtained from hydraulic analysis of the FCRID, performed concurrent with this study by Greenhorne & O'trara, Inc. The starting water surface was set at elevation 4867.1 which is approximately the spillway crest elevation of the Fossil Creek Reservoir. Water ' surface elevations at each road crossing were determined from culvert performance rating curves obtained from Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 5. 1 Sheets 2 through 9 show the existing limits of the 100-year floodplain as well as ' the flood profiles and locations of the cross -sections used in the hydraulic analysis. Backup hydraulic information and copies -of the HEC-2 runs are ' contained in the Technical Addendum to this report, copies of which are on file at the Storm Water Utility. ' Between the irrigation pond (Swift Pond) at the lower end of the basin and County Road 36, the floodplain is fairly broad ranging from 70 to 500 feet in width. ' From County Road 36 to County Road 9 the floodplain is largely contained within the existing channel banks. Immediately upstream of County Road 9, the ' floodplain widens to 360 feet due to backwater caused by the rcadway. The floodplain encompasses a portion of a fenced livestock yard situated along the ' north bank of the drainageway about 300 feet upstream of County Road 9. Over a distance of about one-half mile upstream of the livestock yard, the floodplain is once again contained within the existing channel banks and is only about 30 to 50 feet wide. Approximately midway between County Road 9 and Timberline Road 11 1 TABLE 3 Peak Floxrates for Existing Conditions SWMM PEAK FLOWS (cfs) POINT LOCATION 2-YR 10-YR 25-YR 50-YR 100-YR ' 50 FCRID 35 132 273 432 585 21 Irrigation Pond Inflow 40 225 360 499 645 101 County Road 36 40 202 317 438 564 24 U/S of County Road � 3 LO 33 140 217 296 376 102 County Road 9 31 119 180 _ 243 310 26 U/S of County Road 9 27 83 121 158 232' 2 Timberline Road 21 37 99 127 163. 80 U/S of Timberline Road 39 88 105 123 81 Union Pacific R.R. 39 67 67 76 103 U/S of Union Pacific R.R. 39 158 240 326 86 Harmony Road 33 46 49 52 108 Whalers Cove Detention 31 45 48 50 Pond Outflow 109 The Pier Condominiums 26 35 37 39 Pond Outflow 104 South LeMay Avenue 11 39 62 89 142 81 423 9 4 `57 42 1'3 12 1 IHYDROLOGY SUBMITTED WITH ITHE FIRST FILING SUBMITTAL I RWINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT ✓; •J-� �� %aim JOB NO. PROJECT 1 �l �Z K ' CALCULATIONS FOR MADEBY.n2 DATE Lv , CHECKED BY DATE SHEETAtLOF 13 a , = _ o. 0714--c ��rs�A1 rr 4a/ 3/z O. l07 mac. D a. i074c, 4oz 2 C4 9�z �.2e6m O o.z8'G 7CJ3 0.3`/ O. /11 a %9 O o �. 3! 3 0• 313 4os o. q� n d v. 39S o. 3ys - -- - 40* 4 . S5 ��/2, rv. 53Z o o. 503 z 7 Z . zs i y jz o, s3Z 0• �9 i. z�� 463 z ?5Z o, spy 1.4z1 o. /o( On Z30 D. 531/0 . �oA 0. Z 13 0 062.15 44/Z. 0430 &/Z, D. 2. 1 3 D O , z 13 413 2 • cl G�2 O. 2!3 D. Zl 0.4z3 Of &04 415' (D O. I$7 Do 187 410 .4,(a 4570 �Mp v. 4o¢ o. 42, / O. 8Z5 * l h�Uld'QiJI Stetson Creek First Filing Drainage I r- J This sheet calculates the composite "C" values. TPM 11=19=93 Design Area Imperviousl licit Pervious "C" Ajotal (ac) Ajmp (ac.) Percent Impervio Percent Pervious Compc=i "C" 401 0.95 0.2 1.13 0.107 9.5 90.5 0.27 402 0.95 0.2 2.04 0.284 13.9 86.1 0.30 1 403 ( 0.95 0.2 0.39 0.199 51.0 49,0 0.58 404 0.95 0.2 0.39 0.313 60.3 19.7 0.80 405 0.95 0.2 0.48 0.395 82.3 17.7 0.82 406 0.95 0.2 4.55 0.532 11.7 88.3 0.29 407 0.95 0.2 2.25 1.261 56.0 44.0 0.62 408 I 0.95 ( 0.2 2.9 1.421 49.0 51.0 0.57 409 0.95 0.2 0.46 0.336 73.0 27.0 0.75 410 0.95 0.2 1.13 0.213 18.8 81.2 0.34 411 0.95 0.2 0.99 0.604 61.0 39.0 0.66 412 0.95 0.2 0.88 0.213 24.2 75.8 0.38 413 0.95 0.2 2.01 0.423 21.0 79.0 0.36 414 0.95 0.2 1.1 0.604 54.9 45.1 0. e 1 415 0.95 0.2 0.34 0.187 55.0 45.0 0.61 416 0.95 0.2 1 1.46 1 0.825 56.5 43.5 0.62 M O N CD 0 Z ❑ a z U. O Z O J a L N w CZ7 a U LL N ~ O W ❑ U w a U W O w a r (n O WO F- N N !L O LL in cr Q Z Ia- N N N N N C) a) Q 41 C J C � C J E F E _C E L7 Ln 61 u7 Y II II 0 0 II C: C: C6� II od C �' �' U U U C E C C c U U a) t -; m N a) w C 0 0 a) N a) U N a) a) N `y v u> O OI u O o>> O> -7' tf L7 M r� C � cc + C`7 N N c) C C7 C)u) Lo N O CD V (D C T T T LL N T O N (D CO N N u7 N 0 uO c o c Ln CV) m N o LOLO n r� c L7 y > ? N C'N1. C/ CN C%1 •J /� �\ c �C� Y/ �'�� 0 %C T V 9�1 uI M V/ CND Y/ UI � �1 Y/ Y �N� u• ANY V �N� Ln 1 o 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 6 6 ai E N L7 CC! O O O O O (n O O O O O O n F- N N L7 0 co r� O (n C` Ln 7 r� r� N N > J rs F- O M O O O r� CD u) c7 •C r N O O O C`1 (D - O C� O C"J CJ N u) C co o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M ~ > O N O O O O O O O O O O O L7 O O T t` N q�r V O (D N Ll O W m r� CD N N Em T T T T T 2 _ C V_ F- .: J C ti O O O N m N r� Cn V- O co to N (� N M Lam) . ; CD N (D Ln t� C7 (D c7 C? O (D (D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �3 ri C�j C`7 L7 m c0 Cn Ln O (D m m co T U O m co'7 u) N a) C' T C) O O M 4T C 2 T N O O O V' N N O O O N T O '- NCD r C_CN5 Tv NV (n(D N O m O Nr�2m Ln (TO O O O O O T- V qT L O � ci a z Cl O Z U. J tL Q U. F— ~ z z ct a, U Z F— Z Y �. O W Cn U LIJ W CC ❑ LL p U 2 uJ z LLI F— lJ N F— N N v C L7 Y � II 05 c cd ca as cz a U~ U o U U U U c c c U U U _G L t G: Ol L O O O C) o y w w v 2 v v > � > v � L O > > > > LO) C') Ln 'C C) N q .- q M In r` q V m C) + u .E v C� c, v Li vi �i �r ui rl� Ci Sri of L7 L7 0N N C O r� UU (O r� N to E- co) N N C) r� Ln N O N .- N N Ln Ln C q V' Ln cn cn N O (n (n t` h V :n 7 4 N cV5 N C N N (Ni N r N N N c In N C Q' Ln In Ln L7 In * 0 L7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O E L L7 L7 q O O O O O L7 O O O O O O L7 F— N N L7 to q r� O Un r� to IT r` r` N N T CO C) CO CO q O r` N N N N M N C C > c J M C? O q 17 O L7 (O c N N CD O q C N O C N N N Un q C: � L7 N C) O CV5 r%: C c o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 > ~ O ti J O O 00 q O O CD CD O O 0 C)O Cj y UD N N O q cn r� q N N ra C C U N C) L' q q N UD L7 r` Co. (D C'") C7 �q (D (NUJ O 0101010 O O O O O O O O O O O r3 M U") C, O q mto O (O C) O q O C Lo V O (h co C' Ln N 0) c � 0) CC) O r M C C Q O .- N O O O 4 N N O O O N r O rS C C ,-- N co d to 0 r�-b m O N m �! to 0 in O O O 0 0 O 010 O.— L rs v C "i Q V V Q' V V V V C 'C Q 'T r in ' N 0•r Q � � J 0 r� N .^ `• o` ` N31 L L S 4 p II 11 1 ;• i. .C1 -Or v 1i n f N� G�o 1 ! \ It 1 J 11 � \�oW V ` �1 - (\ -- r �N 4 LPN '� o �•• r G` p 0 v1 s"or Q 1 S v u'S,sw ti I o Q 4001•A R Z rr1 T 1 k000000 W t Ceti m 1 , I ,� Z •OaS u i C) v J W 4 xotj •larva v r - 0► '� po v ' �: `_ >=. ` e of �` Moo- r1 a es *doesCi — co % CC o o 11 c. W sP y;ouny L � E t\f l+l n • � +h } LO cp uouny N 1' I I �� % n I ec W Q Sp �•"7 rit C Too _ CIS 1'r ti Z Q 9.0:t.v. r•.y ° O O t 1 e C V cC ` L \t C r �� t� C 1( 17 ww.a,; j �� C �3 uN• � c L, Z � �, e C c v c s O IV d I-: ury uo t :uovo� to KULL ^ < �} 1: V I + \ V �l tf 0000ko � v � r<. _ 1` _ ado _ t- 'VrW `� I c �•. 000,_ l• �1 1 1 I Pup 4 — C � N coo v ( J n C C voz su;ttg n a Ul t It( 1 IV C N r f c C ti' �a•�' o eo did L1: 1 d C.CS ^�C � Z i � 11 a � �: A 1 .MAY 1964 1 61P, Z V) u 0 Q ZC) �C) c) Wy Q � CL O O u� f... C ru c U) 0 z LJ j L- Z CC O � O �LL 0 v a: O LL CL r DESIGN CRITERIA 0 17l �I �F f' 11'iiilll!I'!Ili!illllllll � }.!AY 1 S54 5-3 E b �1 J r 0 Z U 0 u a z^ c� c) J *" uy a C) U 2.9 uc Lu~ T '- � � C Ll Li u <COJ �- Z c� c> cc3,D OE � L )Z v O LL J U DESIGN CniTEE P•IA r nq cv i = ILI -r — v V y v� NJ V n. C Cl , V � - sm it to �:Aa■A � v6 s■p ■p a 0111111 Q 0 = kx;i� � � Z ■;a U5"O _ < CA ra kP■eep m ki = 'L!1 . >m � .: S _ tr in a0. Z � LU %f) Vt am —C c, ,• cG �` L C _p K ` • Z .»■ ,r_ ra.y o m t) C;\ 1`2 cat c .� N e: N _ N d A .' \c CL O 7uapy;i� a C u• r� <\ � � � �\ C t� H ^ ' % n .t C T +•r. �7 C ^ p.. U) t+y uw•tCvnuC] n \ � r � 1JVI Ni` V , I h IN '� ` cr : , - r VNN � _ pcjA M,AY'-:�4 5.3 G a7 Z LI) u 0 } �0 0 W Vj 2 Q. n u as GOu co LJ L Z i c� O � OE NO cc LL Ov L O L J Q d r DESIGN CRITERIA lot ■ O i ?ol NJ Fj J ? U �1 r,� N 3 — � z w N z z I w � LO U r' o r� L /" f...� i O O U Ga4 0 Q O U U f� W cl W LLJ t- ' ``Li a� a. J o 1 -- U� uj cc U © w rJ ? r1 0 r� n1 .� r a z r� c k z y W 7 1 U Jam. „ p s o `n :� , Q O � cn - W Z Z LL w n � W o M Li cr) v� 2 Li ? fV LO LLI N 0 T N m i o nn IP of to 0) tj cc J1 N h y II N _ r q N rJ W 1 a E U s JN NJ :dJ ll (I!DOICA N 0 � a ` U5.sJD !sop h Q!I!DoloA N dI Jt N �^ N — — d S N tf+ n — tr ? r O o rrl s a m Z u6 ,op O sJD Cc)AlrDDd0' — W R D:IS _ � e w Q odol5 — z SD J � �� •� O n r1 1 r1 G 1 n 7 n — L.Lj V) odols (V .'1 n [1 n n C) (1 rl n n IL :JD JJouna n i0 IN, r in 'oil rn r OJ o 0. N o �— JJouna N I I LO JOt710 I rin sJD nl � J Jounb _ d; � U 'I �. r�I 4 a �; ir,I— poJIp n : r — kt, W O:JD vu fr t(, i ^� 10 in "n O NI yr rrn I (� Dol ty t, r _ z 'N(/'U1 If)n T r) In 0 �� Q In u rrla m r J' r hl dl QI N N N M Q /.I IS�� U I I N _ - r1 _ t t -' rl — rl — rr a f -t fi of J% to it,JI to — ;ua!DiJJDcc op UDII DlIUOD'J t` N T IN In Oill utw I \ r od!d i- IN a u!w N I I \, V I V w 1ooj;S •u!w I -• c d 11 owIl. ;OIUI 1J , J yluu0l r.� n di r� u� III .�. It t,n to it d' it Sul;DO N if (I N N �pp 0• rl ry ii IJ !1 nr , rl SJ ^1 n I' IDI fi ;n �; 10 CI o a 0 0 •OLD Li Ui ��I trl ICI OLD O I s r)I rr;il nl 1 W (f) rJ J {, (i) ,n J — p - r� { n W l J Its .11 i- INF 11 t ICal m r•p Id J 1'I I of rJ •1 J u u Sl f 1 IJ j .dJ N 1(Iloola/, N U(lISOpzdj N ~Q L� J J — kpDoIoA — � u 51 go IS to to 0 S1 o m (/) I(Iloodop - Q u1 n to- ... aZ!S I- } % IIQ odOIS — Z SID nl N O Li r pp '.1 Q n t O ofgo IlV too' CA to) C� rl N t,J t•1 (Jso (•J _ y J in odots I — nl i n ri rj •� !, , r1 ri n o Sp JJouna p1 K, i( n — rl r, rn ,'i uoilowwns I I•.'1 c I �..-I= n v I ;1 ^' J .n _I w S 1 J -D V) Jag10 6 1 l r 1 r) •r n l{ b (I U) J Jouna _ - r1 r c c, el IDaJrp LL.I eJDO '�! r ' rl r. rl n1 IT •!II _. lf1 n �n d� -Pi "� r. O I nj DaJ d — f �,I 111 — n,' r 1 1• uoo' ,( ISIfJ81 1. ! I r l[ .n Irl D d r' -� f rrl Q . n Its N 0 rJ .-, r.1 r' 1 I ..r I r N C I Q Ica��lj )a0� .; uwtulo Y, V rl rl uo!IOJIuoDuo� ti DN; , r1 n N •n i- ? t •n Io uwil 9 _ tool�� - n1 O ulw (n Io s •u„y I \ I I zz IeoJIS " II 1 n�' awU Iglu; v 11 � rb M ; 415u91 SuISOe rJ t\ i ra 7 I r .•. ri n1 ri r• c JI fi Ij; r„ a, r 1 I" N 1� ({I n d Ir. IN r n r.l 1n It l ! 16 d or `c o a r1 .J a oo 2 L� ,� U U 1 Q I, J 0 0 On/ t_ u_ ►I ► M 11 : l .l i41 a I N LL O LL Gm O Y f� of 15 o� N ri N- N C N o N O rJ � � 0 o Ij N N N c Z a �lrn ° �v rl�rnni�ri � nSlr,� oo N� — ° �'ru LLNIn `1 V V N I r", z r, ° o �LO v �o OU + CCU o � c �- o 0 o c c_ I c o, rm� %_ N WCD lT i �� ',� l� Ln �I In V'' �I v o� > LLO f vi �� In ,� M M m m fn r+ ul rn r m m oo N ry K, i w -• I QCC O a cc eci 0 0 r o © T 7 � J- � S T T H ci ti o 0 40 o c o D o e o c o c 6 c o o o c c o o a ��_� o c Lnrn LA Q ° 14� W N h rh rv`, ni \ M M ' J M � L) l 0 G c CIJ C M Q `� �' S QJ •'. E r r OJ S Q' I� Ci r r S r S I rn fh �" e- r� J • Lit ^ LJ In0Ic � Fz o•� n'1 R ,'�, N N ^J iV N N N tv N (� ^ V1 �I Z rt goo p O ,t o c l� in c - L •--� 0 � L1 O O C` 'o o O � �9 o O O O L N L� N In N In 7 U 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 L ` (n w � m QQ w N 6- r o ,• o o ,� a - I CC a" r (N N V)LO [� � U U z Li L x LIJ _z c.7 z w + _ � l o ILI CTO k N z t t 1e. a" a lC N cE 4 L R rn J G~ U O V O 'R O Li �� 6 L'1 V 4 I I Q v `Z N V1 V yl 4 C u1 (Y1 M 0` S m can41 l:fib 6n � I I I I A 6 sp Q ! I li I I I ` 07 0 r N TQ N n N N \ Iv N ti N O co SID ILIA Tut L S,7 I LJ E s r o;:y Vcr V rn (1 LJ� Ta11ou,d :o:ecr_ S C �� ti I � � t�: m .•v � N � SID co W La Q N e::Y Iz.z. Q. nll t LO C C. I' GI G C G C �• S G O , _ IV 'l L- LEI �. CI co VOW vo:;e::wou.� r• �..� Jo null N 1 N �, ^ s,•d 9_), c _ Iat �c VI CIL 14. MAY 1954 Z-j n 04 H Z U (01 u Cz � G C) T /•LLI ci LL r..i S c U C ~ W } C No— L7 G7.- Q J L z Q, LJ O� O L 2 CC O J Q U } DESIGN CRITER A E c m e t _zz L L E c o t c a o � � y � ca'o k:w aA 8 C VR!SaQ ti sdl Q /:UO n 8 � u5�sa4CIO -' SP c %:JPCY� 0 r � UI aas r, � a Q Z y� 2 t;o J q:0eCY� - � e�CCMq;r cr d V odo'S 4 w sp pound S uor,YwwnS O } n mound (n 1au:0 LJ tN rl {iQli^d � S Z ere _v. Q uw C v0,;eru8x107 uo sw+1 it l� C E 'Vlw edld c _ 3 •uwu :ae11$ 'UIIJ i eW,1 laiul .0 4;6ual r. 1 � SUISPa � roc d m o d 0 0 ' Q O Cn LJ O (Z CZ L � C) J T' LJ a. 0 C LLI F C CO Wil N L LLI G) C Ur 7 Q J LL z 0 � OE o �LL 0 O LL U F-- MAY 1984 5-3 DESIGN CRITERIA J I Q A :1 a u A Vy1 N T �, p i••� � ., n _ m 4? Z Y L NoLn QL V VI ,4 o iti _ U_ C N M %A 6 e _ vi C o LZr- LL c� ti - k o a L O` p Z U M V y 6 u �I N o� J f:PO an n I ( I I I I ( I I I ( a p l u5:sasdj I I I I I I I I I I( I I I I I I( Q ^— l.=;an �. s u5lsaj = o 0 ul ZSID S I I I I I I I ( I I c� s• L1..I - " ado-g LL1 s? y;ouny _ o y cG O 6?I o w L, uJi;CWWnS` — M M nl A r — N V1 lf1 O O] NJ S+i y�auny n .� LLI 'Q SID w;JiIIQ v7 Z O'Dr.y. Qta:y Ll) ` C C C C I k I I �, t s .� a ch In CL O I c o .r 1:aio�;,:•c, = Ll In 4ci r.. �� ua L 0.r, _I O c l d N C poolI? � N IW a Id a t 'U!W V:5U6 I S, t` s _ r ` 9 GI NI S I o c `1 e r, C C c, q r, c. s Cam/ L o IL y (ZL. 2. o_ � a � � Q.. 4 C A G Q M.AY 1984 5-3 12Y E b i 3 U N � A v :Zz � 2 Z U U 0 G Zn J *" J CL U U L cJi L7 N u CM C C7 C LL J G_ C Q C m OE f rr� O [i ` i 0 rr 0 J Q a. I— DESIGN CRITERIA x r 94 {M U c - ... n Y— � h d w e lr .` (` � 1. ?� •' S � C �• � ��i � � y y LZ �a kj `•1 ^ y i- Y L V = Vt W S koo aA L S,D u5�sap •, �_ = w Q - Q l:oo:aA �� N _ � ti Q W m ul Z &dotS W ` aipe+ot,v LL L^ aC5 .0 p2h rl,_. I m c� nl ruspJakJ.00 IZ •' an �� fua�ol;;aop c O C In , o - o C O o c o (� I c wu add n 1 c Oulu N 4 C OC \ Oulu rt � auljlawl � o ri m c 9 _ c t G c cL O �• 3 tir � o c 4 8 O C C a qz:. Q ^ j MAY 1984 5-3 DESIGN CRITERIA ' DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM SEWER AND ' SWALES J I -........... -----------------...... --...... ----------------------------------- <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> ---------UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING ---------------------------------------------------------------- *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING. INLET ID NUMBER. 501 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= SUMP DEPTH (ft)= Note: The sump depth is additional STREET GEOMETRIES. STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) _ STREET CROSS SLOPE M _ STREET MANNING N = GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= GUTTER WIDTH (ft) _ ' STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS. Z YQ A/JALy515 10.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 depth to flow depth. 0.48 2.00 0.016 1.17 1.32 WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 16.00 ' GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0. 42 = 013cl fF 03 � OK a5 ujagcr FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET ( fps) = 2 . 3 6 _fyv� .4"'O FLOW CROSS SECTION 1LREA (sq ft)= 2.65 cf'»c��cns '-o low fc'ln ' GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY. ' IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 8.44 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 6.30 2YP.. FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 6.30 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 6.30 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 6.30 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 L I r �I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING ......................................................... ......... *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 508 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION. GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= SUMP DEPTH (ft)= Note: The sump depth is additional STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = STREET CROSS SLOPE M _ STREET MANNING N = GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS. WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) _ GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) _ FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: 2YS/5 4.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 depth to flow depth. 0.40 2.00 0.016 1.32 1.17 10.94 0.33 1.77 1.30 50.00 20.00 FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW 3.29 (cfs) = (cfs) = (cfs) = (cfs) _ (cfs) _ (cfs) _ 2.30 �YQ. 2.30 0.00 2.30 2.30 0.00 <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> ' UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN ........................................ MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB ........ OPENING *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER. 509 /oo YR 7" pR 't ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. An/fIGY5/5 ' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 ' HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 ' SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. ' STREET GEOMETRIES: - STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) 0.48 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 ' STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 ' STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 23.88 ' GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0. 64 -o4— too YR Evapi' FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.07 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 5.87 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10900 ' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 22.12 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (Cfs)= 17.90 100YR, FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 17.90 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD. DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 17.90 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 17.90 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 510 2 YK A�✓ALYS�S ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION. GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 4.00 ' HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 ' SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. ' STREET GEOMETRIES: - STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) 0.40 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 ' STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.32 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.17 ' STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 10.75 ' GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.32 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 1.76 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.26 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 ' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: - IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 3.24 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.20 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.20 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.20 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.20 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ............. - - - - - ........... - ...... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER» UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 511 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION. ' GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)- HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)- ' SUMP DEPTH (ft)- Note: The sump depth is additional ' STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE STREET CROSS SLOPE STREET MANNING N = GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) _ GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) _ FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps) - FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= aY2 NNNLY.5IS 5.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 depth to flow depth. 0.65 2.00 0.016 1.32 1.17 10.38 0.32 2.21 1.18 50.00 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY. IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW 3.54 (cfs)= 2.60 (cfs)= 2.60 (cfs)= 0.00 (cfs) = 2. 60 (cfs) = 2. 60 (cfs)= 0.00 ' �5I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ t «STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING ........... .............................. *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING. INLET ID NUMBER. 512 tINLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. Z Y2 fTi✓A�YSIS ' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION. GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00 ' HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 ' SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: ' STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 0.40 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 ' STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.17 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.32 ' STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 11.97 ' GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.34 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 1.84 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.52 ' GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 ' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY. IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 3.87 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.80 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.80 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.80 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.80 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 1 Fq <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER» ' UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN .......... -------.............................. MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB ----------............ OPENING --------- 1 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING. INLET ID NUMBER. 513 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. 1 GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 1 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)-. INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 1 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= Note: The sump depth is additional 1 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL STREET CROSS SLOPE STREET MANNING N GUTTER DEPRESSION GUTTER WIDTH SLOPE STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET GUTTER FLOW DEPTH FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR CURB OPENNING CLOGGING ( inch) _ (ft) _ (ft) _ (ft) _ (fps)= (sq ft) = (%)_ FACTOR(%)= ' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW Z Yk A/vAL YS/5 8.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 depth to flow depth. 0.48 2.00 0.016 1.17 1.32 14.59 0.39 2.24 2.22 50.00 20.00 FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW 6.48 (cfS) = (cfS)= (cfS)= (cfS) _ (cfS)= (cfS) _ 5.00 2YR, 5.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING .................... --.................... ----................ ---------------- ' *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 516 /oo yE�,Q SToRiYt t ANRc y� i5 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. II GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= SUMP DEPTH (ft)= Note: The sung depth is additional STREET GEOMETRIES. STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) _ STREET CROSS SLOPE M _ STREET MANNING N = GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= GUTTER WIDTH (ft) _ STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) _ ' GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) _ FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= ' GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)_ CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 15.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 depth to flow depth. 0.48 2.00 0.016 2.00 2.00 22.38 0.61 2.95 5.17 50.00 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED ' CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW I ir— IO o ye eva+i i 20.59 (cfs)= 15.40 (cfs)= (cfs) = (cfs)= (cfs)= (cfs) = 15.40 0000 15.40 15.40 0000 gi0c, <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> ' UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING ' *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 517 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. ' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: ' GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= ' SUMP DEPTH (ft)= Note: The sump depth is additional I STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL STREET CROSS SLOPE STREET MANNING N GUTTER DEPRESSION GUTTER WIDTH SLOPE STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: ' WATER SPREAD ON STREET GUTTER FLOW DEPTH FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA ' GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR CURB OPENNING CLOGGING ( inch) _ (ft) = (ft) _ (ft) _ (fps) _ (sq ft)= FACTOR(%)= G YR /gNACY515 4.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 depth to flow depth. 0.40 2.00 0.016 1. 17 1.32 8.56 0.27 1.57 0.82 50.00 20.00 ' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED ' CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED ' CARRY-OVER FLOW 2.44 (cfs)= 1.30 ZYR. (cfs)= 1.30 (cfs)= 0.00 (cfs)= 1.30 (cfs)= 1.30 (cfs)= 0.00 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ' CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION DRAINAGE SWALE N0. 151 h -STA- -ELEV- 0.00 100.00 y 12.00 97.00 24.00 100.00 ' 'N' VALUE- SLOPE (ft/ft) ---------------------- ' 0.035 0.0045 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE I -(feet)-- (sq ft) --(fps) (cfs) NO. ------- ---------- ------ ' 97.20 0.2 0.6 0.10 0.34 97.40 0.6 1.0 0.61 0.38 97.60 1.4 1.3 1.81 0.40 97.80 2.6 1.5 3.89 0.42 ' 98.00 4.0 1.8 7.06 0.44 98.20 5.3 2.0 11.47 0.45 98.40 7.8 2.2 17.30 0.46 ' 98.60 10.2 2.4 24.70 0.48 98.80 13.0 2.6 33.81 0.48 99.00 gq,lo 16.0 2.8 44.78 si,ocrs 0.49 9 9. 2 0� 5 19 . 4 3. 0 5 7. 7 3 ��? a.^s 0.50 ' 99.40 �- 23.0 3.2 72.80 0.51 99.60 27.0 3.3 90.12 0.52 99.80 31.4 3.5 109.81 0.52 ' 100.00 36.0 3.7 131.98 0.53 1 ' l,`l66 7�35 �z P%�,... JSCS /I�anr, in�5 EQ • Q = h 2 CaPac��y �eq . /,33 �5/,0) = 675 cfs L ql/ r RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION DRAINAGE SWALE NO. 152 ELEVATION (feet) 97.70 97.90 98.10 98.30 98.50 98.70 98.90 99.10 99.30 99. 50 4 99,s0 99.70 99.90 STA 0.00 10.00 20.00 'NVALUE 0.060 AREA (sq ft) 0.2 0.6 1.4 2.6 4.0 5.8 7.3 10.2 13.0 16.0 19.4 23.0 /Oroorrom uses ilI anmivny5 Co�aci4� Pam, /,33(23.o)= n ELEV 100.00 97.50 100.00 SLOPE (ft/ft) Y '1 0.0050 Q,po=23.0 C,& VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (fps) (cfs) NO. 0.4 0.06 0.6 0.38 0.8 1.11 0.9 2.39 1.1 4.34 1.2 7.05 1.4 10.64 1.5 15.19 1.6 20.79 1. 7 No+c: Less -fivr, 27.53 le 8 y. , , of ?'' Sj 3 5. 5 0 1. 9 F nal Det•4r1)sccl< 44 . 77 4o prov-ide Vim,•,,, e%r 24ps . 2�3. c crs ?4 0_6 crs 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 ' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION I DRAINAGE SWALE NO. 155 ' STA ELEV ' 0.00 100.00 y r 10.00 97.50 y r�r�r�lc ' 20.00 100.00 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) '----------------------- Qioo- - 0.060 0.0050 ' ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. '--------------------------------- ------ 97.70 0.2 0.4 0.06 0.21 ' 97.90 0.6 0.6 0.38 0.23 98.10 1.4 0.8 loll 0.25 98.30 2.6 0.9 2.39 0.26 98.50 4.0 1.1 4.34 0.27 t 98.70 5.8 1.2 7.05 NvleCess g,Scfs 0.28 98090 °�.°$ 7 . 3 1.4 : 7H�^ 10. 64s 0. 29 99.10 10.2 1.5 v"'"4zf15.19 g- 0.29 ' 99.30 13.0 1.6 p si9�i see 20.79 0.30 99950 16 . 0 1.7 provi je. v;„ ,� 27 . 53 0. 30 99.70 19.4 1.8 2;rs 35.50 0.31 ' 99.90 23.0 1.9 44.77 0.31 'Prc�ra.,,, CaPac14r 3 c45 1 L I iL RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION DRAINAGE SWALE NO. 156 STA ELEV 0.00 100.00 7.50 98.13 7/7_ i 15.00 100.00 y 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) ----------------------- 0.060 0.0050 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) N0. --------------------------------- ------ 98.23 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.18 98.33 0.2 0.4 0.06 0.21 98.43 0.4 0.5 0.18 0.22 98.53 0.6 0.6 0.38 0.23 98.63 1.0 0.7 0.69 0.24 98.73 1.4 0.8 1.11 0.25 98.83 2.0 0.9 1.68 0.25 98.93 2.6 0.9 2.40 0.26 99.03 3.2 1.0 3.28 0.27 99.13 4.0 1.1 4.35 0.27 99.23 4.9 1.2 5.61 0.27 99.33 5.8 1.2 7.07 = 0.28 99.43 9-�-q'ri 6.8 1.31 N°+�: c`Ss�r,"^ 8.76 � �'S�5 0.28 99 . 53 4,58 7. 9 1. 4 �"'^ cf 2�p j Dvr;rS 10067 //.3c-r5 0. 29 9 9. 6 3 9. 0 1. 4 Prourov oPs''tJc V'M�h rf 2;' ;4 p s 12 . 8 2 a 0. 29 99.73 10.3 1.5 15.23 0.29 99.83 11.6 1.5 17.90 0.30 99.93 13.0 1.6 20.85 0.30 ? ri prn�ra� LSeS /��anninys E¢, (�- /l /3S 2/9 Car • R�. /r33 (F,5 i=✓ 11.3 cFS ' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION ' DRAINAGE SWALE NO. 157 STA ELEV 7.50 98.13 r y y 15. 00 100000 Ifiz 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) '----------------------- Q�oo 9,Scfs 0.060 0.0050 ' ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. 98.23 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.18 ' 98.33 0.2 0.4 0.06 0.21 98.43 0.4 0.5 0.18 0.22 98.53 0.6 0.6 0.38 0.23 ' 98.63 1.0 0.7 0.69 0.24 98.73 1.4 0.8 loll 0.25 98.83 2.0 0.9 1.68 0.25 98.93 2.6 0.9 2.40 0.26 ' 99.03 3.2 1.0 3.28 0.27 99.13 4.0 1.1 4.35 0.27 99.23 4.9 1.2 5.61 0.27 ' 99.33 5.8 1.2 7.07 0.28 99 . 43 " �ioY7 6. 8 1 . 3 8. 76 1.5 0.28 99 . 53 '',i�, (c7 7 . 9 1. 4 10967 ,c�cfs 0929 99.63 9.0 1.4 12.82 �- 0.29 ' 99.73 10.3 1.5 15.23 0.29 99.83 11.6 1.5 17.90 0.30 99.93 13.0 1.6 20.85 0.30 Pr`Cgrav^ USf3 /Yj4?r7r7inJS E• �{'- � %1 .SIx ' Ca� Req A 3 3 2 CP5 y3l ' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION I DRAINAGE SWALE NO. 159 ' STA ELEV ' 0.00 100.00 12900 97. 00 24 . 00 100000 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.035 0.0050 Q100= ' ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. '--------------------------------- ------ 97.20 0.2 0.6 0.10 0.35 ' 97.40 0.6 1.0 0.65 0.40 97.60 1.4 1.3 1.91 0.43 97.80 2.6 1.6 4.10 0.45 98.00 4.0 1.9 7.44 0.46 ' 98.20 5.8 2.1 12.09 0.48 98.40 7.8 2.3 18.24 0.49 98.60 10.2 2.5 26.04 0.50 ' 98.80 13.0 2.8 35.64 0.51 99.00 16.0 3.0 47.20 0.52 99.20 19.4 3.1 60.85 0.53 ' 99.40 ,;�0 23.0 3.3 76.74 ; rjy,5 0.54 99.60 27.0 3.5 95.00 0.54 99080 °I� 4,60 31. 4 3. 7 115.75 �� ��1' 0.55 100.00 36.0 3.9 139.12 0.56 ;3 %2 P�bgrct,,i Uses I AtirlirAs CO. (�_ -n�`/p -S ' gel/, , RE9. /133 97.7) = 116.co cT5 �51 I RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION I DRAINAGE SWALE NO. 160 ' STA ELEV ' 0.00 100.00 7.50 98.13 y y 15. 00 100000 ' 'N' VALUE SLOPE ft ft ----------------------- t0.060 0.0050 Qroo= ' ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. 98923 000 0 2 0001 0.18 98.33 0.2 0.4 0.06 0.21 ' 98.43 0.4 0.5 0.18 0.22 98.53 0.6 0.6 0.38 0.23 98.63 1.0 0.7 0.69 0.24 ' 98.73 1.4 0.8 loll 0.25 98.83 2.0 0.9 1.68 0.25 98.93 2.6 0.9 2.40 0.26 ' 99.03 3.2 1.0 3.28 0.27 99.13 4.0 1.1 4.35 0.27 99.23 4.9 1.2 5.61 0.27 99.33 5.8 1.2 7.07 0.28 ' 99.43 '4,53 6.8 1.3 8.76 lo,Scls 0.28 9 9. 5 3 `4 7. 9 194 Node ; �e�z 4 ti a� 10 . 6 7 �- O. 2 9 99. 63 9� 9 45' 9.0 1.4 vM•,".e;z so 12.82� ly.ocfs 0. 29 ' 99 . 73 10 . 3 1.5 uu� rq .� "al �'G5i9"1 159 23 0. 29 99.83 11.6 1.5 5 muode 17.90 0.30 99. 93 13 . 0 1. 6 V� �f�tfPs 20. 85 0. 30 r �I'G�ra� u5e5 /Ylannin9s E9, C>= ' Cap il� 330as) iv.o c{s/ 7 4 L1 ' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION ' DRAINAGE SWALE NO. 161 STA ELEV ' 0.00 100.00 10.00 97.50 20.00 100.00 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.060 0.0050 ' ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. 97.70 0.2 0.4 0.06 0.21 t 97.90 0.6 0.6 0.38 0.23 98.10 1.4 0.8 loll 0.25 98.30 2.6 0.9 2.39 0.26 98.50 4.0 1.1 4.34 0.27 ' 98.70 5.8 l.2 7.05 0.28 98.90 7.8 1.4 10.64 0.29 99010 �q 2S 10. 2 1. 5 1 15. 19 14•0 0.29 ' �_ n,�c{c : [es 5 ,Han E 99.30 99,Y5 13.0 1.6 vr,�n,o-FZ S, 20.79 Z�,3 0.30 99.50�- 16.0 1.7 27.53- 0.30 99.70 19.4 1.8 Des!Im)5etk4a 35.50 0.31 ' 99 . 90 23 . 0 109 pervIia ✓^^'^ 44 . 77 0. 31 0; z fps PrCcdra,m USf /l�le,n4i��S E�, (J= l,`lg R7�S �zf� ' Car • 3 3 C 17 0 ) = 2 5.3 c'i_'$ h ' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION DRAINAGE SWALE NO. 163 ' STA ELEV ' 0000 100000 Y 7. 50 98 . 13 15900 100000 'N' VALUE SLOPE ft ft ' 0.060 0.0050 ' ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. 93*23 000 092 0001 0018 ' 98.33 0.2 0.4 0.06 0921 98e43 0.4 0.5 0.18 0.22 98953 0.6 0.6 0.38 0923 98963 1.0 097 0.69 0.24 98.73 1.4 0.8 loll 0925 98.83 2.0 009 1.68 0.25 98.93 2.6 009 2.40 0.26 99.03 3.2 1.0 3.28 0.27 9 9. 13 g9,2o 4. 0 1. 1 4. 35 s. l cTs 0. 27 59.23 4.9 1.2 5.61 � (,.j3c4^s 0.27 99.33 5.8 le 7.07 0.28 ' 99.43 6.8 1.3 8976 0.28 99e53 799 194 10967 0.29 99.63 9.0 1.4 12.82 0.29 ' 99.73 10.3 1.5 15.23 0.29 99.83 11.6 1.5 17.90 0.30 99.93 1390 196 20o85 0.30 Zl? Ih Pr'Y,�rar�'t USES �l%ar�r,ing5 E� • Q= �, nFa R C ff L4 7� `el ' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION I DRAINAGE SWALE NO. 167 ' STA ELEV 0.00 100.00 15.00 96.25 30.00 100.00 'N' VALUE- SLOPE (ft/ft) Q ---------------------- i0o- 12 8 ,7 cf S ' 0.035 0.0050 ' ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. 96 45 0.2 0 6 0.10 0.35 96.65 0.6 1.0 0.65 0.40 96.85 1.4 1.3 1.91 0.43 97.05 2.6 1.6 4.10 0.45 97.25 4.0 1.9 7.44 0.46 ' 97.45 5.8 2.1 12.09 0.48 97.65 7.8 2.3 18.24 0.49 97.85 10.2 2.5 26.04 0.50 ' 98.05 13.0 2.8 35.64 0.51 98.25 16.0 3.0 47.20 0.52 98.45 19.4 3.1 60.85 0.53 98.65 23.0 3.3 76.74 0.54 ' 98.85 27.0 3.5 95.00 0.54 99.05 g1,20 31.4 3.7 115.75 iza,-7z(5 0.55 99.25 -1 - 36.0 3.9 139.12 �- 0.56 ' 99.45 , VI5-0 41. 0 4. 0 165.24 l7i,z c(s 0.56 99.65 46.2 4.2 194.23 0.57 99.85 51.8 4.4 226.20 0.57 1 fro ra , Uses 1ilannin4s E�. Q= n�6 pZ13S ��zXJ 3 : (1Z6,-77/12 c{s c�cd P l cw 4/7 e C� n S ter'✓ i rJ ve r't 1 rl DETENTION CIS 1 i5Of 11 FOR DETENTION POND 373 DESIGN SEE TIMBER CREEK P.U.D. FINAL DESIGN WHICH INCLUDES THE ENTIRE FINAL DESIGN OF DETENTION POND 373 TO BE SUBMITTED BY DECEMBER 31, 1993 -------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.T. GUO, PHD, P.E. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING -UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER ---------- ---------------------------------------------------- EXECUTED ON 12-09-1993 AT TIME 09:00:40 IPROJECT TITLE: STETSON CREEK PUD DETENTION POND NO. 372 I**** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = 6011602,603 ' BASIN AREA (acre)= 8.73 RUNOFF COEF 0.59 (0.47 X 1.25) ***** 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 = 4.37 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .93 AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 4.0641 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. ***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE 1 - ----------- -- ------- ----- --- - - - 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 9.00 0.32 0.03 0.29 ' 10.00 7.30 0.52 0.06 0.47 15.00 6.25 0.67 0.08 0.59 20.00 5.20 0.74 0.11 0.63 25.00 4.68 0.84 0.14 0.70 30.00 4.15 0.89 0.17 0.72 ' 35.00 3.83 0.96 0.20 0.76 40.00 3.50 1.00 0.22 0.78 45.00 3.25 1.05 0.25 0.79 50.00 3.00 1.07 0.28 0.79 55.00 2.80 1.10 0.31 0.79 60.00 2.60 1.12 0.34 0.78 65.00 2.46 1.15 0.36 0.78 70.00 2.32 1.16 0.39 0.77 75.00 2.19 1.17 0.42 0.75 -------------------------------------------- ----- THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = .7943288 ACRE -FT ITHE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 45 MINUTES ANSWER (To be confirmed by modeling with SWMM, See First Filing SWMM Modeling presently completed) 5Z' r r j 1 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA ROCK CREEK SOUTH POND NO. 350 OVERFLOW SPILLWAY WEIR COEF. 3.200 4V STA 0.0 4.0 14.0 18.0 ELEVATION (feet)_ 99.00 99.10 99.20 99.30 99.:0 99.50 99.60 99.70 99.80 T- 99.90 100.00 ELEV 100.00 99.00 99.00 100.00 Lord raen C 6 H 31?-C. va7 cn Fr a f<'n' 4 Braait! ++�a�d 6ccK of Nydcavl a cs, (?!03 DISCHARGE (cfs)__ 0.0 1.0 3.0 5.7 9.0 12.9 17.4 22.5 28.1 34.3 41.0 Qlc)o= 23,8 -f's From kaflona/ Ct lcvla'fions ! ire an em-le� ercl i� 'fhe ov'lc-f wcrKS PIVjS,t1llhEecC ';D PaSS 41Ca �-/oracJti a n /Ya C /e 1/0 h W.s L;aein I F MRWINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT BNe'JOL 40ry le S JOB NO. 39S-Oo PROJECT 5"""450n Cee WC P U p CALCULATIONS FOR ''et' P&4rot �`^�i'z MADE BY 'ZW 6 DATE1212113 CHECKED By DATE SHEET 51_ OF _ - — — -- --- -- -- — - - - j NOo 72 i_ 111 as GV ryofet-'!/ des7 or cY ( ✓L Pre lln^ina. I� �%esl y/? KEy, 00(urnG/ = D•79y Ate,-�-Fr �'u3 orm r"xf cF fineboard ✓— c� �A7`-& //rrgfjr _ Area r/ Z CIOL. rcur 3--•- yip ios 72 Z 2 y I SZ 3- 25 ZOos 27 59 2 Z y$ S9 7D = 2(op �336 : Y35b0 = 0.60 11C-FT 4 0*794` NC—� I ' { { I X i { 1 � I I CHART 5 2000 `.T__-__ N W no — ¢ W v Slop• Sow 1000 ¢ J SUBMERGED OUTLET CULVERT FLOWING FULL 5 800 120 For outlet crown not wpmOrged, cornpul• HW by 6 manna• described m the aeupn prouour• 600 108 8 500 96 H. 1.0 400 84 300 72 / - 66 200 N .60 / E/ �00 yCj W 2 U. .54 / � � LL i' O C� Z 2 N 0.46 L•110 O x w100 0 /? 42 O ab ���' a � 80%� 2 ti0 = 4 _ 3 6 00 / . 00 S N 60 33 50 *00 500 6 w 30 40 Q too t 8 27 Ic •. •O 30 O a 10 24 J` 20 21 / / / Eton !Pent( /✓O. 35o 18 ar►ay(, rcor'R. Qal�ase=y,37c{'s 120 10 IS 7�0 4e dS SUo"eS0Mle %(m CYai Nth Car a7 Fn.l �lcs>sn e / Use IS"o -j lef P;fie w/ Oriti�L P/afe 6 4 / HEAD FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS FLOWING FULL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1963 n = 0.0 12 185 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3) 5S1 STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 0... 0.� 0 c 0 V) m L U 5 0.: CD m L CM (4 0 0.c U7 � Ig m Cr 0 Cr. 0.1 IC i I xten 0-Ho ed De r Drai entior time Basl (Dry) D?tentic 1 -Hour n Pon Drain s (W ime t) Z00000 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Impervious Area in Tributary Watershed Source: Urbanos, Guo, Tucker (1989) Note: Watershed inches of runoff shall apply to the entire watershed tributary to the BMP Facility. FIGURE 5ml, WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) wq c ✓ = L K^`I—,=T`( Areas WQCV = (°IZ )(8,-73)= 0,13 qC—Fr 6yaTer Qvali Ca,44vn.* (/bons /�lch372 9-1-1992 UDFCD DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF We] .m Li 30 cr Q U) O cc 20 w a i 10 0 C C� ����E� Gw IA 3,2 j 4 5 HOUSING DENSITY — UNITS PER ACRE FIGURE 2-1. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DENSITY vs. IMPERVIOUS AREA 5 1 84 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT I ,n 1 F CHARTS, TABLES AND FIGURES 1 iJ CO LO qt 47 N d4nOH dad S3HON1—NOIIVIldl33dd 3-2 DESIGN CRITERIA 6 v 0 w I- z D D z w T v �r 5-,l DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF S 9� 30 F- 20 z w cc w a 10 z I.:.I O 5 Ln w 3 O U 2 UJI i- Q t C toy — .5 P r A�6 ? Q AZ' e° A. P v e ? s A� O ';Z6 h O 3 � oe�y � I O 4~ I I I I VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND Iiz I 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 S FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT a CHART 8 12 II 600 soo (1) (2) (3) IO EXAMPLE 8 9 10 400 5'■ 2' Box 0 •'S cfe .7 8 0/B • 15 cfe/ft. 1 7 8 9 300 Inlet NW Hw 6 7 D feet 6 S 6 8 (1) 1.75 3.5 5 200 (2) 1.90 3.8 4 S (3) 2.05 4.1 4 7 4 3 3 6 O 100 3 O 1` _ 8o w 3 2 _ 2 5 a - 60 - 2 N 50 � 1.s W Z 40 W W / 1.5 LL DO / = I.S Z 4 a 30 o _ • N X O C 20/ / 3 / t- 1.0 0 o Z _ .9 1.0 1.0 ~ 13 �� Angle of = Wingwall W / 10 Flare w .9 .9 S C p 8 v 8 cc N W o 10- 7 / 6 3 O S o O HW SCALE WINGWALL .7 w 7 2 a 4 D FLARE _ .6 cc (1) 30' to 75' 3 (2) 909ond 156 6 6 (3) 0' (extensions ,5 2 of sides) Pilot 80 Z Q100" 60 c A45 9 = 13 as /ft = e`7/13 = (0. 3 use z rx (Or ec8 c BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1963 801 g100= 1`171 a5i 7g = 13 cfs/Ft 1017.1%13 = 15,Z use 2 1 x 151 Rc8c .'S To use scale (2) or (31 project horizontally to scale (I), then use ■height inclined tins through .4 1 0 and 0 scales, or reverie as Illustrated. .e .4 - .6 - .5 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR BOX CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL ,D,P,70G QIOo=120,7 to P B u;e z IX/0, RcBc 188 MA 4 .35 �f/ �l WNW 0 Ln 0 i O M O N -- 0 — CD ' O 00 CO N 0) DO LO d- N 00 O) (Y) 00 00 00 00 O O O O O CQ O O YJ - J040IRLI 4uauI4,Sn fPV d40Uln0 ro 0 w o w 0 U (4W •-" 4J Q' m ---' 'Ll O a' 3 �J W O 4-) :3 Y o �j � o �: MJni w nl � N N m �d a° �2/ ' Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major anj Minor Storms ' per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria RESIDENTIAL with drive over curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc. 0 is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 2.63 sq.ft. Area = 20.11 sq.ft. ' Minor Storm Major Storm Slope Red. Minor 0 V Major 0 V (X) :Factor X (cfs) (fps) X (cfs) (fps) ' 0.40 0.50 86.71 2.74 2.09 696.73 22.03 2.19 . 0.53 0.65 86.71 3.99 2.33 696.73 32.C2 2.45 ' 0.60 0.80 &6.71 5.37 2.55 696.73 43.17 2.6.8 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 85.71 6.58 3.13 696.73 52.88 3.29 ' 1.00 0.80 &6.71 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 66.71 9.81 4.65 696.73 78.63 4.90 ._.25 0.78 66.71 10.15 4.95 696.73 81.52 5.20 . 2.50 0.76 &6.71 10.42 5.21 696.73 83.72 5.48 ' 2.75 0.74 86.71 10.64 5.47 696.73 : 85.50 5.75 3.00 0.72 86.71 10.81 5.71 696.73 66.89 6.00 3.i5 0.69 66.71 10.79 5.94 696.73 86.67 6.25 ' 3.`0 0.65 86.71 10.71 ; 6.17 696.73 86.03 6.48 3.75 0.63 86.71 10.58 6.33 696.73 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 56.71 9.93 6.99 696.73 79.81 7.35 4.75 0.52 66.71 9.83 7.19 696.73 73.96 7.55 5.00 0.49 F.6.71 9.50 7.37 696.73 76.34 7.75 ' 5.25 0.46 86.71 9.14 7.55 696.73 73.43 7.94 5.50 0.44 86.71 8.95 7.73 696.73 71.89 8.13 5.75 0.42 86.71 8.73 7.91 696.73 70.17 8.31 ' 6.00 0.40 &6.71 8.50 8.C8 696.73 68.27 8.49 1 ' �3f CLIENT �� l- Ot-� n!t 1 J S JOB NO. ' INC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR UiT=E Z R -\ Engineering Consultants WADE SYa�,DATE CHECKED BY CATE SHEET OF s1�E=u.i- 01 LL.ou.1b61.�.__ S'►2EET G�.PdcaT1ES. _._._..I _----.-------..._-_._....-_-------_._..- .____. - 4-- 2c UJ_ G1T.Y.C� .--rb'LTICl7LL11.1S..Y��S1Gs�1 �f.Ad.lJl�dL. z -ZmA_ . 1._ .. _..... . Li ' � :.•� = z � t =. Ta-)• �Z�TG.dL.. CaUTT�� .C1�P.oC_►�'Y.. � L-�s _.. , Q � _ ':.. Z.C�UCs"►JCSS..., CC) E=r=F1Coll +✓►.iT ----�._..,_�5.=-_.Gi-io.t.i►.IE�._S.t•-r�p.�_._,=T�Fr .__ --- — s Z=L+ 1 •Ppp ti'i� o F (2.0 Z' >3 C a� ZaTc6: : aZ. a Z'G �z�� -.-- - - - -- - -- - --- --- -- --- - _ _- —__-C' L•��x1.�-Z�+ ('L�.IX1,Il) 40. Za'x14)r(I.IIJ�� 1.4Z_ rr i cT -M I t*lO ev. VC - CS. SCE _ l {_��3, - - - - 46 Q 9a 3 ' • ._• _-._-= '' i-=-. - - •.,..�. .fir .. d- ,,.r r_ _.i ....� �T --- -_ �).-c>So.�.. � 0�-Z8 ,, - Paz � • mm _ .;.. t -..._ -.•- Mi�oe.�=�Z== '3c;►�- iZ-4S�t.:s8.-Z..a-=1o.3Z `86`."7L - _-- -- - 1 1 Engineering Consultants CLIENT �J `1 �C PbZT (Ire, t t 1t!G �I JOB NO. PROJECT CALCULATIONS FORCti it 7- 50c 17!*11 MADEBYja�DATECHECKEDBY DATE SHEET z- OF 7e cS,-7�'`,T7�.__..: � -.w�-. J7-zilJi=. ova.: Gu>=s, G.��rr�.>Z _.Si�cv✓bl:e_:: I ZI CAI-F=-.03=_- W a-y� elmm uj Lejj4 S.LMa E4� L .1J LUwj in __ _:_ _ . eft, eem +1- - I 01 t=u�8`D. (o" = • U �a :-►-+ �+ _ u.r�'r >_.� �.��.i &te - /� - -- - - - - - - ---- — ------ --- ----- - ----------- ----- -- 1--- -- - - iZEa Cotja SIaE oy= ST2,6ET.p%.JL,Y.)' �l�zxlo�.so-Ics�.o���4S.1-7-Z3.11) ;- AZ13. �e)+ � 3."7rxloo.50-1rxN-c> + C�/zx. 39X1-4Z� +�1.4'ZX1CcI.Sc�-5i�.94) M�mC�Z�. 1 IX l�l?) �- CI_ -►fix l c� `SD _99. C�� . + ('�arl co = S9 A�GX16.33)C l 6.33XO. Sc430 III �C > X c:s. . n . Za. 1-7 o.o,� _+ 4s. (7='Z3.11o.o3s o:ozs ---- •}-- -- -j ---- amb -QYDz:mUuc 2d,�IuS - �j:.l_-7..1= :_ p e.IA I._.:.I&I._" 1 ( 1 •--� _ el -777 .".e, ee.- L7. ftweee ------ gee zeem. _ 1b 4-4, ---- - --- _ �.a. —;-- -�-- __ �5I Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major and Minor Storms per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria RESIDENTIAL w/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter 0 is for one side of the road only V is based on theoretical capacities Slope : Red. (f) :Factor : o.4D : 0.50 : 0.60 : 0.70 : 0.80 : 0.90 : 1.00 : 1.25 : 1.50 : 1.75 . 2.00 : 2.25 : 2.50 : 2.75 . 3.00 : 3.25 : 3.50 : 3.75 : 4.00 : 4.25 : 4.50 : 4.75 : 5.00 : 5.25 : 5.50 : 5.75 : 6.00 : 0.50 : 0.65 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 0.78 : 0.76 0.74 : 0.72 : 0.69 : 0.66 : 0.63 : 0.60 : 0.58 : 0.54 : 0.52 : 0.49 : 0.46 . 0.44 : 0.42 : 0.40 : Area = 3.37 sq.ft. Minor Storm Minor 0 V X (cfs) (fps) 129.87 4.11 2.31 : 129.87 5.97 2.59 : 129.87 8.05 2.83 : 129.87 8.69 3.06 : 129.87 9.29 3.27 : 129.87 9.86 3.47 : 129.87 10.39 3.66 : 129.87 11.62 4.09 : 129.87 12.72 4.48 : 129.87 13.74 4.84 : 129.87 14.69 5.17 : 129.87 15.19 5.49 : 129.87 15.61 5.78 : 129.87 15.94 6.07 : 129.87 16.20 6.34 : 129.87 16.15 6.60 : 129.87 16.04 6.84 : 129.87 15.84 7.08 : 129.87 15.58 7.32 : 129.87 15.53 7.54 : 129.87 14.88 7.76 : 129.87 14.72 7.97 : 129.87 14.23 8.18 : 129.87 13.69 8.38 : 129.87 13.40 8.58 : 129.87 13.08 8.77 : 129.87 12.72 8.96 : Prepared by: RED, Inc. November 23, 1993 Area = 18.495 sq.ft. Major Storm Major 0 V X (cfs) (fps) 647.33 20.47 1.41 : 647.33 647.33 29.75 40.11 1.58 1.73 : : 647.33 43.33 1.87 : 647.33 46.32 2.00 : 647.33 49.13 2.12 : 647.33 51.79 2.24 : 647.33 57.90 2.50 : 647.33 63.43 2.74 : 647.33 68.51 2.96 : 647.33 73.24 .-: 3.16 : 647.33 75.74 3.35 : 647.33 77.79 3.53 : 647.33 79.44 : 3.71 : 647.33 80.73 3.87 : 647.33 80.52 4.03 : 647.33 79.93 4.18 : 647.33 78.97 4.33 : 647.33 77.68 4.47 : 647.33 77.40 4.61 : 647.33 74.15 4.74 : 647.33 73.36 4.87 : 647.33 70.93 5.00 : 647.33 68.23 5.12 : 647.33 65.80 5.24 : 647.33 65.19 5.36 : 647.33 63.43 5.48 : RINC ' Engineering Consultants CLIENT (!!J MY CZE PAZ�T= -r-v t tuG JOB NO. b6/ PROJECT CALCULATIONS FORr-I I " V� MADE BY � DATE 73Z� CHECKED BY DATE SHEET_ OF ' :�CSI p�►.3T1dL 11J� 6rl V GQ-TG.,L�L.� C.IJi'.i3 �- �L:'1""t'EIL I 1 1 .owdC3l� STP��T CdPGG1Tl ES PE7, SE=71C; ..t 4. Z.Z.Z. CITY a= {cpZ7- rzowi I -ItuS ZrSIC�wo GPaTap 14� . Q� O . SC-� •� � �z g/a . n J ►1 eCz ! Ti4oam EaC ^ I 6moTi zm CrdpL`C.11 `� C vErM G S, y - j�s.t7'1i � fit= FI.oW �i F•�C.E 0� CsL.7TT�� C'Fi'� n Q.oL>c-HnIESS C.Jr,!!,m='FIG1E>vT' C, USE o.ofb� S =..G�r+G�1.1NE1..' al.oPE T=r T = IZEG P Pj=:GC I- C:�'F C.epSS 6La1:0E. FT/FT: I CI1-OTC6I. I mom If I \/ I { ` 3.3i aF t X.SI�Z _ I I I IZ.pc Co.S I p.olto) i I ' Engineering Consultants CLIENT'"i if W= � C' JOB NO. `�76�� PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR �."Tel 1� n MADE BY .2321c DATE I I ZS CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF P%J 71 dl� _ JTME ,= _._ _ - -- - - _-- T - - ----- ►mac ST-'-L�'�' G'A»C_l �l `.S - _ i ___ i a, O 1 T-44 _ o F= ► v)�-r ov GAS✓ N USA ,1`7y -t- 1 N: 5� CO.O I X43 j (va)( oo- 59.oSX1'Q\. +. 0,S)16) ( - or c) OIL (4s. (I (:t;� I oz! :- 4 1 � — �P., rn o;s,-; ......q-a ..5 -:� X - 0 4� o .� ZI3 . } Q x- J :! , 1 No Text BROOKSIDE AT ROCK CREEK FLOW @ DESIGN POINTS DES�L$ICIN PUN o•(cla) lyfcl9) Side Sopea No Steeper than a:l T o Partially Top Stage with j 2% 4aping Flaw Nattam 11 1 I Stage Low now 11 Infi w�� ChOanN - t t '-Riprop NoSt menl Side Slalx NO Steeper Nan to �nkment Accede to Outlet i Riprop Emergency Spillway Rood 100 Year Water Surface III 0 Spillway Creel (ii loo-tr, SPF, PMF, etc.) Water Ouanty Capture volume level �lo Year wales societal spdu.,, oe:, r Concrete Inflow iCutoff Secondary ewm _ Collor Faraday Top Of Low Row L11alnN 1'S'- Embonxment Row ^ _ Outlet Pipe ____________________ Outflow Diapasing N RIPRop / Invert OI J Low now Frequent Solid Driving Channel Runoff PON Outlet Waxer Surface 10% to 252 of (tee Jetall CCappMeuVolume arrnON PLAN AND SECTION OF DETENTION POND BROOKSIDE _AT ROCK CREEK DETENTION PONDS Outflow I foot min. aeeboard water surface 10 year water surface to Year olR Opening w/ Troslxack Top of Be.m Crated Inlet Remowble and lgcxable Inlet Steps or Suit in Ladder Read T Max. I III _f T o7,J T, _ 3 3 F o i u GI 1-1/2 100 yew control at 3" Crushed Rock) __& throat f outiet Around Perforated Riser w pipe, office plate may be rewired I � . Filter Fabric Concrete Access Pit (Min. 3 ft) Wide Outlet Pipe 1M Ywor Capacity Water WanlyS ----------- M Piaw Pipe (See Detail) Pipe WATER QUALITY, 10 AND 100 YEAR OULET WORKS Notes: 1. Minimum number of holes - 8 2. Minimum ode diameter - 1/a' die. u. 1-1/2" diameter Air 12 12 vent In mreaded Cap Rows O Water supply _ A• Ou Outlet Nalce If oDo 6" q9Ductile Iran Our ^WIN Steel Pipe yIII r mm E WATER QUALITY RISER PIPE 11 I' Do-AMFf 11E MED CHicen Engineering Consultants BROOKSIDE AT ROCK CREEK DRAINAGE PLAN DETAILS 7-28-93 35-00O CITY OF FORT COLLINS .. 2 NO. BY DATE REN9CN DESCRIPTION PPPROSfD DATE PROJECT NO, Top of Berth Swat SINAI[ 110,163 1 foot min. R«Iwma 11 ,. _.�. .-- -..:. �100 year water surface 0,4 IL_ D 1 a { a {- d - O.w, - 51.0 CIA O d-2.10' E - O,w - 5.1 ch O d-1.10' Dwww- 2.35' (W/FREEBOARD) pw�. 1.20' (W/FRE®OARD) S=0.45% S-0.50R `:WAIF N0152 SWASf N016) 4 d it 4 4 d = Q,w = 23o cis O d-1.90' d = 0,w - 128J cfs O d=295' DwM- 2AG' (W/FREEBOARD) DwM= 3.25(W/FREEBOARD) S - 0.50% __ S = D.50% - SWALE N0155 STETSON CREEK P.U.D. DRAINAGE SWALES xrs D 1 0 I 4 d - 0,. 9.5 cis O d=1.30' D,ww- 1.45' (W/FREEBOARD) S - 0.50% 5WAU N215 U 4 \ dWJX 4 d = 0.w - 8,5 cN O d-I.M' Dew- 1.45' (W/TREEBOARO) S 0.50i SWy0157 �— d d a d - D,w . 9.5 cis O d=1.35' D,ww- 1.50' (W/FREEBOARD) S - 0.50% NO 199 D d d 4 d - Q,w - BZJ CIA O d-3.50' Dee= 2A0' (W/FREEBOARD) 5 cWAIE Nolu 44 4 d J-4 d - ow - 10.5 ale O d-1.40' View- 1.55 (W/EREEBOARD) S - 0,50% cWAI F NO 161 D 1 4 d d = 0. - 19.0 CIA O d=I.75' 0, 1.95' (W/FREEBDARD) 5 - 0.50x 10 year ware. aurace 10 Year airs Opoinn w/ finsibroack - Threaded Cop i Z ' 0 F u / / Orawo (1-1/Y to Y Crushed Rock) , / Arend perforated Riser •.3 / Feter Faterie Water Quality Riser Pipe (See Detan) Embankment Side Slope No Steeper than 4:1 Sloe 4opes No Steeper than 4:1 Embankment T 4:1 saE MAX Forst Top Stage with 1 2% Sloping Floor Bottom Access to Cutlet Ik 1 Stage + Riprap Flow tracer under/ et Pipe Beaten Inlet giprap ' RemovaUe and LOCkoble Cutlet Rip.ap-' woke spillway Inlet Steps or Built n LaCOw Rpd I -- _ 4aw Concrete Emergency J— Overflow Spillway 0 p / 1W Year Water Surface VA / ,-water ouaily capture IDD nor control at I Mume refill throat of culler i Year Water Surface -' pipe. wince plate �' ._to 1 may be required % ! Inflow /. Secondary Berm Fo.ebur Top a1 Low 1.5',ILI Outw Pipe 1D5 year Capacity l RlpRap Invpl of Frequent Low Flow p(�uroff Pad Wtiet Wake - SrDriving Channel I0% to 25% of (s(sere "WAS)$unface WCter ocality capture Volume SECTION WATER QUALITY, PLAN AND SECTION OF DETENTION POND 10 AND 100 YEAR OULET WORKS Notes I. Minimum number o' holes = 8 2. Minimum nnle diameter = 1/8• die. 1-1/2• diameter Aw Vent in lareaded Cap Rowe o o - Welr guWRy 4' Cartel NM« 0 0 0 4' 4 - o w-fre".Pips L "1"f.ee E sal I STETSON CREEK P.U.D. DETENTION POND N0.372 WATER QUALITY EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SPILLWAY RISER PIPE xrs CONCRETE 4 .4� .� DFS KWG DRAM 5l SIPIF1 Dlti Lw - Engineering Consultants _DEC 93 395-003 ).paaDWD - PRmEcl lfa Wes am STETSON CREEK P.U.D. CITY OF FORT COLLINS Emergency Spillway Flood Level O siddway Crest (e.g. 100-yr. SRF, Rep. etc.) Spillway Creed Concrete Cutoff Collar —Emb«km«t i Cutlet Pipe STETSON CREEK P.U.D. FLOW @ DESIGN POINTS Dr PUNT Qyjkl,51 Qm.(cts! DRAINAGE PLAN DETAILS I 2 I 2