HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 05/30/2000 (2)00
_1 0 �
"3 0
� � 0
100 °
Ch o 0
O
\ �O
D
Final Drainage and
Ci d
MAY 25�.
n Control
uy
Civic Center Office Building
O O O Fort Collins, Colorado
�1 O O M O
n May, 2000
0
-� 0 00 0 0
_l0 O 0 0
CO o O
1 � o
1
1
1
1
1
THE
SEAR -BROWN
GROUP
Standards in Excellence
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP
FULL -SERVICE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
209 SOUTH MELDRUM
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521-2603
970482-5922 FAX: 970482-6368
May 19, 2000
Mr. Basil Harridan
City of Fort Collins
Water Utilities--Stormwater
235 Matthews Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Civic Center Office Park
Dear Basil:
We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control
Study for Civic Center Office Building. 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,
The Sear -Brown Group p�`� REc1SA
O•�t`
Prepaled by: pal O� a
V N336 r
Michael ;i'. Carr. E.I.T.
cc: File 875-001
City of Fort Collins
NEW YORK-PENNSYLVANIA
COLORADO-UTAH-WYOMING
STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE
i
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
I.
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1
A. Location
1
B. Description of Property
1
II.
DRAINAGE BASINS
2
A. Major Basin Description
2
B. Sub -basin Description
2
III.
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
3
A. Regulations
3
B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
3
C. Hydrologic Criteria
4
D. Hydraulic Criteria
4
E. Variances from Criteria
4
IV.
DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
4
A. General Concept
4
B. Specific Details
4
V.
STORMWATER QUALITY
6
A. General Concept
6
B. Specific Details
6
VI.
EROSION CONTROL
6
A. General Concept
6
B. Specific Details
7
VII.
CONCLUSIONS
7
A. Compliance with Standards
7
B. Drainage Concept
7
C. Stormwater Quality Concept
7
D. Erosion Control Concept
8
VIII.
REFERENCES
8
F.111 W 9 U
VICINITY MAP I
HYDROLOGY 3
WATER QUALITY POND 11
DESIGN OF INLETS AND STORM DRAIN 16
iii
I
'
(not used)
(not used)
t
EROSION CONTROL
CITY CORRESPONDENCE
DATA
'
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
Iv
18-19
27-28
34
40
43
F
1 I.
1
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
The Civic Center Office Park is bounded by an alley on the west, Maple Street on
the north, Mason Street to the east and by Laporte Avenue on the south.
' The site location can also be described as situated in Lots 1 through 21, Block 32,
City of Fort Collins, Latimer County, Colorado. The site location can be seen on
the second page of the Appendix.
' B. Description of Property
The Civic Center Office Park contains approximately 2.20 acres, more or less.
The property is being proposed for a municipal office building within the
Downtown Zoning District and the Civic Center subdistrict.
Existing Conditions
Temporary construction offices at the southern end of the site, in use for the
Latimer County Justice Center (currently under construction at the northeast comer
of Mason and Laporte), and temporary parking lots over the northern portion of the
site presently occupy the property. The topography of the site generally slopes
from the property lines toward area inlets more or less centrally located on the
property at approximately 1 to 1.5 percent.
Proposed Conditions
The proposed development consists of one office building located at the southeast
corner of Mason and Laporte, associated parking on most of the remainder of the
site, and some landscaped areas near the building and around the parking lot. The
building will occupy approximately 24,200 square feet. The proposed site can be
seen on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan included in the back pocket of this
report.
1
I
II. DRAINAGE BASINS
'
A. Major Basin Description
The proposed development lies within Basin l of the Old Town Master Drainage
Basin Plan prepared by Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc, December, 1992.
Runoff from the site is routed to the west by means of curb & gutters, overland
flow and underground pipes. Portions of the site are subject to flooding as stated
'
in this Plan, however, this Plan is currently being updated by the City of Fort
Collins to incorporate revised IDF criteria, storm drainage improvements that have
been constructed subsequent to the Plan; and the proposed Howes Street Outfall.
The revised flood plain is expected to be less than 4982.0 as stated in the June 24,
1999 letter from Glenn Schlueter to Jack Gianola (See Appendix).
1
1
1
1
The updated Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan is expected to be completed by
September, 1999. The Howes Street Outfall Plans (by Icon Engineering, Inc.)
include a proposed underground 6' by 12' reinforced concrete box culvert running
north from Laporte along the western property line of the project site, across Maple
and Cherry Streets, thence northeast to a proposed water quality pond and
discharge to the Poudre River. The Howes Street Outfall is expected to be
constructed and functional prior to construction of this project, and the majority of
runoff from the site will be drained to this outfall. Construction for this project
will not commence prior to the completion of the Howes Outfall Project. A very
small portion of runoff will continue to be directed to the existing 36" storm sewer
in Mason Street for subsequent discharge to the Poudre River.
B. Sub -basin Description
The Civic Center Office Building has been divided into 12 sub -basins, all of which
are within the Old Town Drainage Basin. Basin 1 is an almost entirely landscaped
area within the site including an extended -detention water quality feature (WQCV),
which will accept flows from basins 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Flows from basin 12
and the southern portion of basin 1 will flow through a swale to an area inlet and
thence piped to the WQCV. Basins 2 and 3 are off -site basins comprised of
existing alleyway and buildings from which runoff is directed to the northeast and
southeast, respectively, onto the project site. Basin 4 combines flows from a
narrow area adjacent to the southwest side of the building and from the south end
of the alley, which are directed to the Howes Outfall inlet system at the intersection
of the alley and Laporte. Basin 5 includes the narrow areas adjacent to the east and
south sides of the building and the west half of Mason Street from the highpoint
south to the centerline of Laporte and the north half of Laporte west to the Howes
Outfall inlet system at the intersection of the alley and Laporte. Basin 6 includes
the south half of the Maple Street R.O.W. from the highpoint east to the railroad
2
'
track in Mason and the west half of the Mason Street R.O.W. from the highpoint
north to the centerline of Maple Street where the flow is collected in a curb inlet.
'
Basins 7 and 8 are off -site basins comprised of the south half of the Maple Street
R.O.W. from which runoff is directed to the Howes Outfall inlet system at the
'
intersection of the alley and Maple. Basins 9 and 10 are on -site basins comprised
mostly of the parking lot area and discharge to basin 1. Basin 11 consists of the
building and discharges to Basin 1. Basin 12 consists of an asphalt alley and
'
parking, the runoff from this area flows overland to Basin 1.
The on -site portions of basins 4 and 5, with a combined area of approximately
t
10,340 square feet, were not distinguished from the off -site portions of those basins
because their combined area is substantially less than that of the off -site basins 2
and 3, which contribute all flows to the project site and have a combined area of
'
approximately 28,900 square feet..
These sub -basins are shown on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in the back
'
pocket of this report.
The building finish floor elevation is set at 1.5 feet (4983.5) above the expected
'
100 year flood elevation (4982.0 feet). The 4982.0 flood elevation is an estimated
maximum water surface elevation that has been stated in a letter from Glen
'
Schleuter, Stormwater Development Review Manager, dated June 24, 1999. See
the letter in the City Correspondence the Appendix.
section of
' III. 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 drainage criteria used herein is in accordance with the City of Fort Collins
' Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standard Manual.
3
C. Hydrologic Criteria
' The Rational Method for determining surface runoff was used for the project site.
The 10-year and 100-year storm event intensities, provided by the City of Fort
' Collins, were used in calculating runoff values. The City of Fort Collins is
currently completing regional hydrologic modeling. These calculations and criteria
are included in the Appendix of this report.
' D. Hydraulic Criteria
All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with
the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are also included in the Appendix.
' E. Variances from Criteria
A variance is sought for a variance from the erosion control performance standard.
' The performance standard (PS) during construction is required to be 74.2 %; the
computed performance standard is 68.9%. The project has provided a sediment
basin and silt fence. In order to provide a higher PS gravel mulch would need to
' be used. This would be impractical for a site of this small size.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concept
' The majority of on -site runoff produced by the proposed development of the Civic
Center Office Building flows westerly to a water quality enhancement feature and
' will subsequently discharge into the Howes Street Outfall. A very small portion
of the remaining runoff will drain into a curb inlet discharging to the 36" storm
drain in Mason Street.
It is also proposed that three existing inlets along Mason Street and two inlets in
Laporte Avenue near Mason Street be removed. The inlet at design point 5 will
' be relocated to accommodate the revised curbline.
The proposed drainage and erosion control plan is included in the back pocket of
this report.
' B. Specific Details
The Civic Center Office Building site has been broken down into twelve sub -
basins.
4
1
'
Runoff from off -site sub -basins 2 and 3 will flow overland across the alley on the
West Side of the site and into on -site sub -basin 10 at the entrance to the parking lot.
'
Runoff from sub -basins 4 and 5, which are comprised of flows from sidewalks on
the west, south and east sides of the building and the adjoining streets, will flow
through gutters to a system of inlets at the intersection of Laporte Avenue and the
alley to the west of the site. This system of inlets is directly connected to the
Howes Street Outfall. Runoff from sub -basins 6, 7 and 8, which are also comprised
' of flows from sidewalks adjacent to the site on the north and east and those adjacent
streets, will flow through gutters to storm drain inlets. The inlet connected to a
36" storm drain system in Mason Street will intercept the flow from sub -basin 6,
' while a system of inlets at the intersection of Maple Street and the alley to the west
of the site will intercept flows from sub -basins 7 and 8. Runoff from sub -basins
9 and 10 will flow overland to the north and east boundaries of sub -basin 1, where
they will be conveyed by gutters to concrete sidewalk culverts and swales directing
the flows into sub -basin 1. Runoff from sub -basin 11, which comes off the roof
of the building, will flow through a drainage pipe to be discharged into the
' extended detention pond located in sub -basin 1. Runoff from off -site sub -basin 12
will flow overland onto the site into sub -basin 1 and continue overland to the
detention pond.
Because the curb line of Mason Street adjacent to the site is being moved
' approximately 2.5 feet to the east, and because of the addition of the Howes Street
Outfall inlets and regrading in LaPorte Avenue, it is proposed that all of the inlets
on Mason Street except the inlet near the corner of Mason and Maple will be
' abandoned as they are unnecessary. There are presently three inlets along the West
Side of Mason Street and two inlets just west of Mason Street on LaPorte Avenue.
The Curb capacity of Laporte Avenue and Mason is represented by the calculation
for basin 5. The street capacity for Mason Street during the Minor Storm is 2.84
cfs and for the Major Storm is 57.9 cfs. The calculated runoff for basin 5 to design
point 1 is 2.69 cfs for the Minor Storm and 6.66 cfs for the Major Storm. This
justifies the removal of these inlets. The existing 36-inch diameter pipe, which
these inlets tie into, will remain intact to carry storm flows generated on the East
Side of Mason near Laporte Avenue. The Howes Street Outfall design will include
' a large inlet system in Laporte Avenue that will accept flows from basin 5.
' In the event of flows to the site in excess of the 100-year design event, the site is
graded such that excess flows will travel northward from the WQCF through the
alley and into LaPorte Avenue. The proposed detention facility will accommodate
' flows far in excess of the 100-year storm as the 100-year surface elevation in the
pond is 4979.23, the top of the pond grading is at 4981.0, and the majority of the
parking area can be inundated to higher than 4982.0 over a large area with no
damage to structures. In the event that the water surface rises above 4982.5 on the
' site, the water will flow south through the alley into Laporte Avenue and thence
5
11
' east. The City's consultant analyzing future hydrology including this basin has
stated that the water surface elevation at the intersection of Mason and Laporte will
' not be expected to be above 4982.0, so excess flows from the project site will be
conveyed away from the site even in such extreme situations.
V. STORMWATER QUALITY
' A. General Concept
'
The Civic Center Office Building is anticipating construction beginning in spring
2000. Therefore, for this project, we have sought to find various Best Management
Practices for the treatment of stormwater runoff. The Civic Center Office Building
'
will be providing extended detention in the pond during and after construction.
The pond feature will provide a mechanism for pollutants to be filtered out of the
stormwater runoff before flows are directed to the Howes Street Outfall.
'
B. Specific Details
'
The pond will provide more than adequate volume for detention of the 100-year
design event for on site flows as well as the off -site flows contributed to the site
'
from the west. The pond will be equipped with an underdrain system that will
provide filtration through a wetland -type growth media and an eighteen inch (18")
thick sand bed to a network of drain piping which will convey the detained flows
'
to the Howes Outfall. An area inlet is provided to convey overtopping flows from
the pond directly to the Howes Outfall.
VI
1
EROSION CONTROL
A. General Concept
This development lies within the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the
Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. It is also
anticipated that the project site improvements will be subject to both wind and
rainfall erosion before new vegetation can take hold.
The Erosion Control Performance Standard (PS) during construction for this
project was computed to be 74.2 % per the criteria in the City of Fort Collins
Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites. The Effectiveness
6
I
' (EFF) of the proposed erosion control plan was calculated to be 68.9 %. Though,
this is below the Erosion Performance Standard required, it is not practical to do
' more to prevent erosion on a site of this small size. Therefore, we are requesting
a variance to the erosion control standards for the site. The Erosion Control
' Performance Standard (PS) after construction for this project was computed to be
87.2 % per the criteria in the City of For Collins Reference Manual for
Construction Sites. The EFF of the proposed erosion control plan was calculated
to be 98.64 %. A copy of the calculations has been included in the Appendix. An
erosion control escrow cost estimate of $2,099 is also included in the Erosion
Control section of the Appendix.
' B. Specific Details
' Initially the Silt Fence must be place around the site. Then demolition and overlot
grading will occur. Following the overlot grading the sediment pond will be
installed. These will stay in place until final landscaping is installed. The sediment
' pond will then be replaced with the water quality feature following landscaping
installation.
' 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 has been obtained such that
construction grading can continue within this development.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with Standards
' All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance
with the Citv of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction
' Sites and the Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual.
B. Drainage Concept
' The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction
plans adequately provide for the transmission of developed on -site runoff to the
existing and proposed drainage facilities. The combination of onsite street
capacities in the curb and gutter and the onsite storm drain system will provide for
' the 10-year and the 100-year developed flows to reach proposed Howes OutFall.
If, at the time of construction for some unforeseen reason, groundwater is
' encountered, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit
would be required.
7
1
I
C. Stormwater Quality Concept
' The proposed design has addressed the water quality aspect of stormwater runoff.
' A water quality feature has been sized to accept onsite and offsite flows. Accepting
other off -site storm water from the west compensates for the small amount of onsite
flow that does not go to the water quality pond.
' D. Erosion Control Concept
' The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control of wind
and rainfall erosion from the Civic Center Office Building. Through the
construction of the proposed erosion control concepts, the City of Fort Collins
' performance standard 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.
VIII. REFERENCES
' 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, May 1984, interim revision January 1997.
' 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, January 1991.
' 3. Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan for the City of Fort Collins, By Recource
Consultants and Engineers Inc, January 7, 1993.
3
I
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VICINITY MAP
0
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CIVIC CENTER OFFICE
BUILDING
WAI
��
WTIMR
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1 " = 2000'
n
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
0
I
HYDROLOGY
al
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LL
U
O
3
O LL
AUU
c o 3
m m m
mad
�50
o m >
2 m v
E 6 nm 'o
e H K
N Yf N 1` 1� N N N IlI N In IA
n m m m m m m m m m m m{Tp�
o e o o c o 0 0 0 0 0 o Xu
.000000
0 o o o C o 0
O0000000 000 oi,;�
(my � � OJ N � �� P N ��•
C C C O O O O O O O C F
viNo� o Qa off o'
(Of O N mP N Cmi V N t7
O O O O O O O O O O O
V] N N N N m N N N V] 1n
N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O
29
Q
w
t
O
�
_
O
U
n
u
r
00
^
II
ti
Z
O
a E a
o
F�m
Z U
w tO O
Z h
O 9
U `m Z O
LL aU
00 U
W
� U
F
Y
..
Q
ce)LU
j
LU
3k
J
Q
cN
<f
cq OOM? 000000 C"..�'Tiv'
?
E
0 (06Ld(60LriLri06uiM,Lo'
I
}
O o N co O O O O.rp:
O�- O
..;.
m coM. co co M M M M m M' N
J
O r
1
it
W
y
_j
w
!h?
J
O
N LL1 1n 1n 1n 1A Lo to O $�Xj
W
J v
i
J
w m
FL
Z W co
J Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
�aan.aaaaaaaaa..,
c�
s%
~
(0000 R
0
w r
O O .- (o o m N M M O O
J
C
O Lo N ClO M N N (O (o 00
_
O
E
O M N C N N N co M± ti
W
H
z
Z
Q
J
W
W
Lo O O o 0 0 00 0 0 0 0..
>
O o O
LO
nLn00000000o.:
O
J
—0 0 N N N N N N N N
J
U)
Q
Z
2
O O 0 0 0 0
ZH
v
t V co O M N N
W
J
Q
N h n Ln Lo IM Lo Ln Ln Ln L L
H
U coM
m m(O(O m m m m m m m..
Q
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
Z
WFn U N
7 Lo O CO V V N I� O M
(� CON CO N M V Lo CO.
Q
Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
Z
Z)
Q O�
�NMV LO(Orcom���
m
a)
N
C N
O 0
[0
U
co
c
O
J
> ca
U'
N
9
5
+
LO
ti
oq
<
Cl)
1.
2
. I
LLI
<
C -4
0� 0 0 0 C-4 0 0
Z
.
Lo Lo 0 0 0 0
LL
T7 T7 "I: "J:
0 C14 00 0 0 0 0�"
rncl C? c? C,?
0
— — —cr�
0 — — — — — —
w
>
0
0 LO 0 "r m 1n 1A 1n 0 to
w
—000600000 0"
LLJ co
z—
z w co
< < < < < <
CL (L M IL 0. a. CL LL 0- 0- Q-',
<
0 LO 0 0
Z
o o 1* 0 m o o
LLI
co
(D N N ci 6 6 ci cli N
w
z
w
w
LLJ
CL
U)00000000000
>
0 to
Un 0 9 q q q q q 0 0 0
0
0 0 C14 N CIJ C\l N C\l N N
z
Z'T
N 0 r t MM M M 'It 0) 04
LLJ
<
N LO 0 r-- r-- 0 0 0 LO LO U) Ln
C? O) M CR cq M M M M M M M
000000000000
z
N
-'r 0 0 M -It -It = Co m
M N CO cq CO IT to CO
�5
w cc
<
6
<
z
0
to co co 0) 04
mz
ca
a)
00
2 m
<
t 6 i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
e88888888888888888888881.�
_cd6666cc666600000eaoo6fi
5
zg g
o
8888888888888888888888'
coccccccceeeeeeeeeoee c4c
r�
$3o�eoo
°o eog eo eemmeoe_o oeo$$�
�._
o 00 000wa000 oow
2056000
g.60e e... e e o oo g o 88e 8N�a
s
N
N
h�
p
�p
hi
aN
N
O
iF
�.
a
I rvry
a=
s
YN1 {{
bOpf:
.ri
°. .�
0.6 o'N-�ooni- n �waro�4'�
dp L$o888.eO8$vo
e.
Ce8S888`�
¢
Q
m ��mmnnmmmmm
s�' nv9�a�a
U
OmgbmsPmiln Tw wGOe
^88«^888888- n`.88�8^.8,
yEm
_
FE
ow w w wwwwwww- amemeee
U
E>
IIII I
J
> _
ry ��
E
a �
�
N
m
nnemmns -_- .m m--
3
0
88
0
z
�
R
-------------naoumm
�
8
°u
a
a -
3'
8
7
I
r
I
I
I
I
�
,!§
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
\|\
®®°K
\
dteaat! ...
)2eeteR.
tat\
oeeaeR�
`
/
\
`
�
\
R
! 5
!
/
j
"
2
:
|vaee9e!
ea5\
|A2xtev!
•
|«vaeee!
Bay\
/aeeeee
eee§
9222Ge2
eed»
!!
I
2
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
L
3
c
c
c
m
�
N
U
m
�
O
�
m ma
m
v
C
c
U
`m
w
rm.m
m
m
v
L
c ¢ m
m
v
N U m
N
T
'
3
0
a
0
U
0
000eo
nmmcc
0 0 0 0 0
In N O N
N
�
N
R
C C •r .rL
m 0 3
2�.r �
- Om 'uO c'
> > o
> O mu
'do
r
o
$='m'
Eov
N ¢
�cnILL
�U
a�cF
�
o=r
U
A O
3
cZ
Y
`o
a
m
n=
m
>
v
O m
m
Q Q
N
O G
v
h.�
J
O�
"M`
N
ao
N
do 3"9
a 'l
Q
�I'1bM
�0 1Noy�
N'Tvp^
;do 71.)yg
ti
9
I
I
p
1
'
O
O
U
m
N
3
�
00 �° co
c
V cm
d
'
c
CL
o
m 3 U
N
N U
m
c
5
m
E
o
p
U
c
3
p
or�ov000000
o!� OOKNOOON
-moo
roNNm
N O
000-00o
'
m
O
m£ O Y
t0 «LL «
t
0.- � C
._ m m
3 i o 0 3 3 3 E 3
" 'U 'U C 'U
v m o m
tD
J m m N O O V�o
_o
m m >dm
mm
ot
m Ja m
UE�mmd
3 m m
x
m
my°
° TZ
m93"N o
.oU
8
atl
0oa=
o o 0 L
0 o
o°LL U o wa_
acoc
J
tF� Q
m>
p
c
oU
U_aJ
d
m
ro
m
c
0
'� N
O
U G
U y
L
O
m
C L
>
U
oho
o
e❑
p
0
U
L
U
I
'J
1
I
I
1
I
d
I
I
L
I
I
I
WATER QUALITY POND
FA
to
I
Aug-17-99 03:40P
P.02
IF
1
CI'
t
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3)
BMP PLANNING FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
AND SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT
Porous Landscape Detention (PLD)
Porous landscape detention consists of a low
lying vegetated area underlain by a sand bed
with an underdrain. A shallow surcharge zone
exists above the porous landscape detention
for temporary storage of the WQCV. This
BMP allows small amounts of WQCV to be
provided on parking lots or adjacent to
buildings without requiring the setaside of
significant developable land areas.
Extended Detention Basin (EDB)
An extended detention basin is appropriate for
larger sites and is designed to totally empty
out sometime after stormwater runoff ends,
The extended basin uses a much smaller
outlet than a Ilood control detention basin
which extends the emptying time for the more
frequently occurring runoff events to facilitate
Pollutant removal.
Sand Filter Extended Detention Basin
(SFB)
A Sand filter extended detention basin
consists of a sand bed and underdrain
system. Above the vegetated sand bed is an
extended detention basin sized to capture the
WQCV. A sand filter extended detention basin
provides pollutant removal through settling
and filtering and is generally suited to ottline,
onsite configurations where there is no base
flow and the sediment load is relatively low.
-_a N p_ t 3
Drona,e.nd Flood Control Uigvi i
Aug-17-99 O3:4OP
t' JRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3)
+'o perfwCted
F•weboy aedim emotion Dann —HOPE pipe on
outlet• offset to in -et 12^loot centers
Type L rprap = 40s40
' where 0 = diameter of
fcrehay ouCe` pope.
Collection manifold
6•a solid HDPC pipe
5ubsurface area of the
' so-_ndtiller
Inlet �_
A-
// _Mein tanenee access
1
♦-orebay surcharge storage volume
57. to 1C_- or WOCV
7— Tyae L riprap berm
'ype L riprap
STRUCTURAL BMPS
L/ A \
Plan 4•0 perf.. �-
-- HOPE pipe '•
3• .. '•.-
A• 9•
5ecti,)n A —A
- -lcltion
—ev tie[ protection Spillwoy crest-
_ Brlm-full WVCV
5ubsurfuce area of the 3 ma-il-um `
a,ncr1Iter (A.)
L
�•..... 1C mir:. ASTM C 33 sand `.
Hard
a vas Lpubet sized to droin
bn tl Orn forebay surcharge
in one heu�
1
/ L4'e perforated HDPC pipe
Impermeable 2-4 mil membrane
or non -woven geotestile fooric
Profile
' FIGURE SFB-1 SAND FILTER BASIN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3)
9-1-1992
UDFCD
Q
0.
0
c
2 03
0
a,
'm
3
a:
0.1
L
STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ?
47/
5
-xtenc
0-Ho
ad De
r Drai
entlor
i time
Basi
(Dry)
7-7
3
; 16
D?tentic
1
•Hour
In Pon
Drain
i
Js (W
Time
t)
I
0 10 20 30 40 s0 60 70 s0 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 5-1. WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV)
IZ
t0QCV = ( 0,18V9o,/,36 IqC—FT tva-ler QyaIJ4 Caere.yofvmr Pon 373
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
THE
SEAR -BROWN
GROUP
CLIENT: Project No: 875 oo I N,
Project: gvw- cegrez oFncv- SLID Checked By:
may: MTc Date: li 9 Sheet: I. Of: I
1%efErZll�Nar i�EQa�2�ti
STozgC,6 Vo1-0HE OF WQ CF
To ra azEa Tz�aurArzY ro WQ cF = 2.7 3 ac
t
�o IMt'er2YlouS . AREA-M-au-rARY -rb WIG CF = 152,23 - -
-
F2o1�t FICauR.E ,S - 1
�
..
P.EQUIRSD STo�kGE
_-
{-
2e.Qulit6D %JO-uM6
c 0.03 4-t 2.73 ac = o. 082
_j
.cac-fE-
AvAILAVOLE• Yal-UM6
lAl WQCF wiTN I FReC joAXD`
l S o.13 aL--Ft >
0.082- «c -4-t
==-;> ST0RA6E `loLu"e IS Sc>FFIUElIT
MOO
1
1
.1
1
1
RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants
Civic Center Office Building Water Quality Pond
Pond Rating Curve
Water Quality Pond
Cumulative
Elev
Area
Area
Storage
Storage
(ft)
(ft2)
(ac)
(ac-ft)
(ac-ft)
4978
2160
0.05
0.00
0.00
4979
2,733
0.06
0.06
0.06
4980.0
3,502
0.08
0.07
0.13
4981.0
9,996
0.23
0.15
0.22
Area -Capacity Curve
0.24
0.22
0.2
=0.18
m
0.16
u
m
t 0.14
N
0.12
0A
0.08
4980 4980.2 4980.4 4980.6
Stage (8 el)
-�- Area --- Capacity
V=1 /3d(A+B+(AB)^.5
0.22
�0.2
c
0.18 y
i
0.16 u
! 0.14
0.12
4980.8 4981
I5
06-Dec-99
1
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
DESIGN OF INLETS AND
STORM DRAINS
-11
I
---------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT
DENVER
'
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND
UD&FCD
--------------------------------------------- ________________________________
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.................:............
ON DATE 04-16-2000 AT TIME 13:56:28
PROJECT TITLE: Civic Center Office Bldg
**' CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
'
INLET ID NUMBER: DP5 100-yr 5' Typr R inlet
INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
'
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00
'
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00
-
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00
SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25
Note: The sup depth is additional depth to flow
depth.
'
STREET GEOMETRIES:
STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M = 1.53
STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 4.00
'
STREET MANNING N 0.016
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00
'
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 4.70
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.35
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.94
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 0.61
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M= 50.00
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTORM= 20.00
'
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 9.30
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
2.39
'
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
2.39
0.00
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
2.39
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
2.39
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
1
CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING
LID Sewer: LINE A.dat
Legend
AManhole
12 Storm Sewer 1�7 FES
tot Inlet
fez Dummy Node
2
11 32
3
IN YR WSEL = 4980
Node Data
Ground
Node Drawing Node Elev. O
# ID. Type (ft) (cfs)
1 EXISTING SDMH MANHOLE 4982.10 2.39
2 LINE A INLET INLET 4981.60 2.39
3 — DUMMY 4981.60 2.39
Sewer Data
Angle
Bend Lateral
U/S
D/S
Reach
Number Diameter
Marl
Length
Slope
U/S Crown between
Loss Loss
Invert
Invert
Ofull
#
of Pipes (in)
(ft)
(fUfl)
(ft) pipes
Kb KI
(ft)
(ft)
(cfsl
21
1 .15
RCP
9.00
2.0%
4979.99 0
1,00 --
4.978.74
4.978.54
9.1
32
1 15
RCP
0.01
2o%
4979.99 0
0,05 —
4.978.74
4,978.74
9.1
`T
I
'
STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver
'
Metro Denver Cities/Counties 8 UDFCO Foot
-Fund -Study
---------___ -------------
USER:RDB-Fort Collins -Colorado ..... ......... ......... ......... .........
ON DATA 04-16-2000 AT TIME 14:05:04 VERSION=01.17-1997
'
*** PROJECT TITLE :Civic Center Office Building, Line A
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS
(Design flow hydrology not calculated using UDSEWER)
'
*** 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 2.39 4982.10 4980.00
OK
2.00 2.39 4981.60 4979.95
OK
'
3.00 2.39 4981.60 4979.96
OK
.
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8
____________________________________________________________________________
SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE)
WIDTH
ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT)
(FT)
_______________________________________________________________________________
21.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 9.33 18.00 15.00
0.00
'
32.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 9.33 18.00 15.00
0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY,
'
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISTTNG SIZE WAS USED
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE
COMMENT
[D FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY N0.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
______________________________------__________________________
21.0 2.4 8.5 0.45 5.95 0.63 3.83 1.95 1.81
V-OK
32.0 2.4 8.5 0.45 5.95 0.63 3.83 1.95 1.81
V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
X (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT)
__------- ___------- ______---- __________
'
21.00 2.00 4978.74 4978.56 1.61 2.29 NO
32.00 2.00 4978.74 4978.74 1.61 1.61 NO
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET
'
**' SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION
FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
'
_______________________________________________________________________________
21.00 9.00 7.10 4979.99 4979.81 4979.95 4980.00
JUMP
1 Z,
'
32.00 0.01
0.00 4979.99 4979.99 4979.96 4979.95
JUMP
PRSS-ED=PRESSURED FLOW;
JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL
FLOW
'
'** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
...............................................................................
UPST MANHOLE
SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST
MANHOLE
'
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY
FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE
ENERGY
ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT
FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID
FT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.0 2.00 4980.01
0.01 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
4980.00
32.0 3.00 4980.01
0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00
4980.01
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW
FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS
IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
'
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES
SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES
THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
A MINIMUM JUCTION
LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS
LATERAL K=O.
FRICTION LOSS
WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
1
1
LZ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT
DENVER
'
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND
______________________________________________________________
UDBFCD
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO..............................
ON DATE 05-19-2000 AT TIME 12:05:00
'•• PROJECT TITLE: Civic Center Office Building
CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: DP6 10-yr 5' Concrete Sidewalk
Culvert
INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (it)= 2.00
SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25
Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth.
'
STREET GEOMETRIES:
'
STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M = 3.30
STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 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) = 8.28
'
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.33
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 4.99
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 0.85
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M= 50.00
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00
'
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 8.79
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
4.27
'
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
4.27
0.00
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
4.27
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
4.27
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
n
I
I
1 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING
DEVELOPED BY
DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER
SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UDBFCD
'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINSCOLORADO ..............................
ON DATE 05-19-2000 AT TIME 12:06:01
*** PROJECT TITLE: Civic Center Office Building
'
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: DP7 10-yr 5- Concrete Sidewalk
Culvert
'
INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
- GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00
HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00
INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00
LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00
'
SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25
Note: The swap depth is additional depth to flow
depth.
STREET GEOMETRIES:
'
STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M = 1.80
STREET CROSS SLOPE (Y.) = 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) = 5.84
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.28
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.48
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 0.51
GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M= 50.00
'
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
'
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 7.71
BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
1.77
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
1.77
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=
1.77
FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
1.77
'
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
0.00
11
Z A
I
.1
i
1
Swale A
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel
Project Description
Project File
I:\jobs\875-001\data\drainage\fcobswl.fm2
Worksheet
swale capacity
Flow Element
Trapezoidal Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.060
1
Channel Slope
0.020000 ft/ft.
Left Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
Right Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
1
Bottom Width
2.00 ft
Discharge
5.08 cfs
1
Results
Depth
0.61 ft
1
Flow Area
2.73 ft'
Wetted Perimeter
7.06 ft
1
Top Width
Critical Depth
6.91 ft
0.44 ft
Critical Slope
0.080571 ft/ft
Velocity
1,86 ft/s
1
Velocity Head
0.05 ft
Specific Energy
0.67 ft
Froude Number
0.52
1
Flow is subcritical.
i
i
1
.1
i
1
Zs
9/0
11:57:29 AM
FlowMaster v5.15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Swale B
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel
'
Project Description
Project File
I:\jobs\875-001\data\drainage\fcobswl.fm2
Worksheet
swale capacity
'
Flow Element
Trapezoidal Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.060
Channel Slope
0.020000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
Right Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
'
Bottom Width
2.00 ft
Discharge
12.22 cfs
Results
Depth
0.92 ft
'
Flow Area
5.23 ft'
Wetted Perimeter
9.59 ft
'
Top Width
Critical Depth
9.36 ft
0.69 ft
Critical Slope
0.071303 ft/ft
Velocity
2.34 ft/s
'
Velocity Head
0.08 ft
Specific Energy
1.01 ft
Froude Number
0.55
'
Flow is subcritical.
C'
05/19/00
11:57:58 AM Haes[atl Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1866
2 (,.::,
FlowMaster v5.15
Page 1 of 1
I
1
11
Swale C
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel
Project Description
Project File
I:\jobs\875-001\data\drainage\fcobswl.fm2
Worksheet
swale capacity
Flow Element
Trapezoidal Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.060
Channel Slope
0.020000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
Right Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
Bottom Width
2.00 ft
Discharge
4.08 cfs
1
Results
Depth
0.55 ft
'
Flow Area
2.32 ft'
Wetted Perimeter
6.55 ft
Top Width
6.42 ft
'
Critical Depth
0.39 ft
Critical Slope
0.083141 ft/ft
Velocity
Velocity Head
1.75 ft/s
0.05 ft
Specific Energy
0.60 ft
Froude Number
0.51
'
Flow is subcritical.
1
Z9
' 04/03/00
11:52:57 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666
FlowMaster v5.15
Page 1 of 1
AREA INLET TO POND
' Worksheet for Circular Channel
'
Project Description
Project File
1:\jobs\875-001\data\drainage\fcobswl.fm2
Worksheet
AREA INLET TO POND
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.009
Channel Slope
0.006000 ft/ft
Diameter
12.00 in
Results
Depth
1.00
It
Discharge
3.99
cfs
Flow Area
0.79
ft'
'
Wetted Perimeter
Top Width
3.14
0.00
ft
ft
Critical Depth
0.85
ft
'
Percent Full
Critical Slope
100,00
0.005688
ft/ft
Velocity
5.08
fUs
Velocity Head
0.40
ft
Specific Energy
FULL
ft
Froude Number
FULL
Maximum Discharge
4.29
cfs
'
Full Flow Capacity
3.99
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.006000 ft/ft
r
3o
' 04/03/00 12:03:572:57 PM
FlowMaster v5.15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 or 1
Worksheet for Outfall Pipe
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
c:\haestad\fmw\fcobswl.fm2
Worksheet
Civic Center Offc Bldg Outfall @ D.P. 8
' Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Discharge
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft
Depth 2.00 ft
Diameter 24.00 in
'
Results
Discharge
31.99
cfs _
Flow Area
3.14
ft2
Wetted Perimeter
6,28
ft
'
Top Width
0.6e-7
It
Critical Depth
1.89
ft
Percent Full
100,00
'
Critical Slope
0.017296 ft/ft
Velocity
10.18
ft/s
Velocity Head
1.61
ft
'
Specific Energy
3.61
ft
Froude Number
0.25e-3
Maximum Discharge
34.41
cfs
'
Full Flow Capacity
31.99
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0.020000 ft/ft
Flow is subcritical.
DESIGN Ft -Ow (roo-YR) Q D.P.8 1%
23.90 cFS L.6% THAN► CAPAC%-(y
T�
91
FlowMaster v5.15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
The Sear -Brown Group
I
1
1
1
1
1
Project: Project Title
Project #: 875001
Location: POND OUTLET
Designer: MTC
Date: 06-Dec-99
Checked:
Rectangular Area Inlet in Sumo
Grate: (specify)
Open length, L =
Open width, W =
Clogging, c =
Stage interval, dh =
Weir eouation:
Qw = C Pc HA1.5
C = 3.0
Pc = c 2(L+W)
Pc = 10.1 ft
H
Qw
Qo
(ft)
(cfs)
(cfs)
0.00
, 0
0.00
0.40;-
' '`7.69t
20.06
0.80
21 74
28.37
1.20
; : 3994
34.75
1.60
-..'61.49.
40.12
2.00
85.94
44.86
2.40
112.97
49.14'
2.80
142.36
53.08
3.20
173.93
56.74
3.60
207.54
60.19
4.00
243.07
63.44
4.40
280.43
66.54
3-NEENAH R-3469
4.5 ft
1.8 ft
20%
0.4 ft
Orifice eouation:
Qo = C Ac (2gH)A0.5
C = 0.6
Ac = c(LW)
Ac = 6.6 ft2
Q(100) = 23.9 cfs
d(100) = 0.87 ft
300
250 ^•
200 }
e 150
� t00
50
0
0 1 2 3 <
H.d (n)
-• Weir -- Orifice Controlling
y
5
Z
I
I
�J
EROSION CONTROL
I
I
I
1
i
I
I
�J
I
1
1 3¢
The Sear -Brown Group
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
Asi-nn1
Project: CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING STANDARD FORM
Calculated BY' JAM Date: 12/07
DEVELOPED
ERODIBILITY
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Lb
Sb
PS
SUBBASIN
ZONE
(ac)
(ft
°h
ft
%
°/
1
Moderate
0.54
240
1.8
31.7
0.2
2
Moderate
0.28
215
0.5
14.7
0.0
3
Moderate
0.10
156
0.5
3.8
0.0
4
Moderate
0.20
197
0.5
9.6
0.0
5
Moderate
0.83
633
0.4
128.5
0.1
6
Moderate
0.29
183
0.9
13.0
0.1
7
Moderate
6.07
50
0.5
0.9
0.0
8
Moderate
0.09
115
0.5
2.5
0.0
9
Moderate
0.38
300
0.5
27.9
0.0
10
Moderate
0.47
300
0.5
34.5
0.1
11
Moderate
0.56
290
1.0
39.7
0.1
12
Moderate
0.28
160
0.5
11.0
0.0
Total
4.09
317.68
0.75
74.2
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Lb = sum(AiLiysum(Ai) _ (0.54 x 240 +... + 0.28 x 160y 4.09
= 317.7 It
Sib = sum(AiSi)/sum(Ai) _ (0.54 x 1.80 +... + 0.28 x 0.50y 4.09
= 0.7 %
PS (during constructor) = 74.2 (from Table 8A)
PS (after construction) = 74.2/0.85 = 87.2
-3s
' The Sear -Brown Group
1
ARt Ant
1
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
Project: CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING STANDARD FORM B
Calculated By., JAM Date: 12/07
Erosion Control
C-Facto
P-Factoi
Comment
Number Method
Value
Value
3 Bare Soil- Rough Irregular Surface
1
0.9
4 Sediment/Basin Trap
1
0.5
8 Silt Fence Barrier
1
0.5
9 AsphaltlConcrete Pavement
0.01
1
21 Temporary Vegetation
0.45
1
38 Gravel Mulch
0.05
1
39 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch 11-5%slope)
0.06
1
SUB
PS
AREA
BASIN
%
ac
Site
74.2
4.09
SUB
SUB
AREA
Practice C'A P-A Remarks
BASIN
AREA
ac
DURING CONSTRUCTION
1
Impervious
0.05
4 0.05 0.03 SedimenuBasin Trap
1
Pervious
0.49
4 0.49 0.25 SedimenuBasin Trap
2
Impervious undisturbed
0.28
9 0.00 0.28 AsphaltlConcrete Pavement
2
Impervious disturbed
0.00
4 0.00 0.00 Sediment/Basin Trap
3
Impervious undisturbed
0.05
9 0.00 0.05 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
3
Impervious disturbed
0.05
3 0.05 0.05 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface
4
Impervious undisturbed
0.10
9 0.00 0.10 AsphaltlConcrete Pavement
4
Impervious disturbed
0.10
4 0.10 0.05 Sediment/Basin Trap
5
Impervious undisturbed
0.60
9 0.01 0.60 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
5
Impervious disturbed
0.23
3 0.23 0.21 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface
6
Impervious undisturbed
0.15
9 0.00 0.15 AsphalVConcrefe Pavement
6
Impervious disturbed
0.14
3 OA4 0.13 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface
7
Impervious undisturbed
0.07
9 0.00 0.07 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
7
Impervious disturbed
0.00
3 0.00 Ogg Bare Soil- Rough Irregular Surface
8
Impervious undisturbed
0.05
9 0.00 0.05 AsphaltlConcrete Pavement
8
Impervious disturbed
0.04
3 0.04 0.04 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface
9
Impervious
0.38
4 0.38 0.19 Sediment/Basin Trap
9
Pervious
0.00
4 Ogg 0.00 Sediment/Basin Trap
10
Impervious
0.47
4 OA7 0.24 Sediment/Basin Trap
10
Pervious
0.00
4 0.00 0.00 Sediment/Basin Trap
11
Impervious
0.56
9 0.01 0.56 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
11
Pervious
0.00
9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
12
Impervious undisturbed
0.28
9 0.00 0.28 AsphaltlConcrete Pavement
12
Impervious disturbed
0.00
9 0.00 0.00 AsphaltlConcrete Pavement
Cnet = (0.05x 1.00+._+0.00x0.01 V4.09
= 0.48
Fret = 0.8x(0.05x0.50+...+0.00xl.00J/4.09
= 0.65
EFF = (1-C-P)100 = (1-0.48-0.65)100
= 68.90
««< 74.2 (PS)
' The Sear -Brown Group
861-001
1
1
1
1
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
Project: CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING STANDARD FORM B
Calculated By., JAM Date: 12/07
Erosion Control
C-Facto
P-Factoi
Comment
Number Method
Value
Value
9 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
0.01
1
0.15
1
12 Established Grass Ground Cover- 30%
14 Established Grass Ground Cover- 50%
0.08
1
16 Established Grass Ground Cover- 70%
0.04
1
18 Established Grass Ground Cover- 90%
0.025
1
SUB
PS
AREA
BASIN
%
ac
Site
87.2
4.09
SUB
SUB
AREA
Practice C *A P' A Remarks
BASIN
AREA
ac
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
1
Impervious
0.05
9 0.00 0.05 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
1
Pervious
0.49
16 0.02 0.49 Established Grass Ground Cover -70°
2
Impervious undisturbe
0.28
9 0.00 0.28 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
2
Impervious disturbed
0
9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
3
Impervious undisturbe
0.05
9 0.00 0.05 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
3
Impervious disturbed
0.05
9 0.00 0.05 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
4
Impervious undisturbe
0.1
9 0.00 0.10 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
4
Impervious disturbed
0.1
9 0.00 0.10 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
5
Impervious undisturbe
0.6
9 0.01 0.60 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
5
Impervious disturbed
0.23
9 0.00 0.23 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
6
Impervious undisturbe
0.15
9 0.00 0.15 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
6
Impervious disturbed
0.14
9 0.00 0.14 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
7
Impervious undisturbE
0.07
9 0.00 0.07 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
7
Impervious disturbed
0
9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
8
Impervious undisturbe
0.05
9 0.00 0.05 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
8
Impervious disturbed
0.04
9 0.00 0.04 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
9
Impervious
0.38
9 0.00 0.38 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
9
Pervious
0
16 0.00 0.00 Established Grass Ground Cover -70%
10
Impervious
0.47
9 0.00 0.47 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
10
Pervious
0
16 0.00 000 Established Grass Ground Cover -70
11
Impervious
0.56
9 0.01 0.56 AsphalUConcrete Pavement
11
Pervious
0
9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
12
Impervious undisturbE
0.28
9 o.00 0.28 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
12
Impervious disturbed
0
9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement
Cnet = t0.054.01+.. lO.00X0.011/4.09
= 0.01
Fret = (0.05x1 d0+._+0.00x1.001/4.09
= 1.00
EFF = (1-C-P)100 = (1-0.01.1.00)100
98.64
> 87.2 (PS)
37
The Sear -Brown Group
1
1
1
1
1
EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
861-001
'Project: CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING STANDARD FORM C
Calculated By: JAM Date: 12/07
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 2000 2001
MONTH A M J J A S 0 N D J F M
OVERLOT GRADING
WIND EROSION CONTROL
Soil Roughening
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant
Other
RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL
STRUCTURAL:
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
Straw Barriers
Silt Fence Barriers''
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
AsphaltlConcrete Paving
Other
VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
'
Mulching/Sealant
Temporary Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Netting s/Mats/Blankets
Other
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY MAINTAINED BY
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR _
DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS C
315
The Sear -Brown Group
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE
Project: CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING 861-001
Prepared By., JAM
Date: 12107
CITY R DING COST -
Unit
Total
Method Quantity Unit
Cost
Cost Notes
Reseed/mulch 2.20 ac
$636
$1,399 See Note 1.
Subtotal
$1,399
Contingency
50%
$700
Total
$2.099
Notes: 1. Ac=5 ac=$636/acc A>5 ac=$531/ac.
Total Security
$2,099
NOTE: It is our understanding that the City of Fort Collins Storm Water Utility only requires the
cost to seed the site.
I
1
1
' CITY CORRESPONDENCE
0
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
1 1*-"
06/28/99 13:02 303 495 6303 1 NEENAN - FTC
JUN 281999
"
June 24, 1999
CITY OFACORTIrE.SOWNS
Facility Services
Jack Gianola
117 North Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Jack:
Subject: Request for information by the Neenan Company
I will address each issue in the order they were prosontod in the June 14, 1999 letter from The Neenan
Company. I am preparing this letter with input from several people so I will mention them with their
appropriate item.
- To understand the LaPorte Avenue reconstruction please refer to the pretiminmy design.
According to Jay Rose the ptelitnfrtary elevations are still correct and probably will not change_
The emergency overflow design has not been designed at this point. There are several items that
influence this decision. Jay suggested the design team keep in touch ducting the final design phase
in order to have the most recent information on this issue.
The 18 foot easement is sufficient as long as the 18 foot easement is on the Administration
Building property so that there is the alley plus the 18 feet to construct the box culvert.
The Was on the west side of Mason do not affect the Howes Outfall project, so if there is a desire
to eliminate them the design engineer for the project will need to show that the sheet has sufficient
capacity without them and can still meet Stormwatcr criteria.
According to Jay the final 100 year water surface elevation after the Howes Outfall is constructed,
will be 4981.5. Marsha spoke with the Ciry's consultant, Brad Anderson and shared the following
information with me,
The worst case that we can see at this point is a water surface
elevation at Mason and LaPorte of 82.0: Therefore, based on this
preliminary analysis, the building having a.finished floor of 83.5
would appear to be fine. There does appear to be some spilling to
the northeast at the comer of Mountain and Howes that will
probably need to be addressed by some street regrading. This
doesn't appear to directly impact the office building site, but it has
not been fully analyzed at this point.
The roof drains can tie into the Howes OudkU but only after the runoff is treated for water quality.
The cic ation and location may be dictated by the type of water quality feature used. Jay Rose
would prefer that a location and elevation be proposed for him to review,
Onsite detection for flood control is not a requirement since this site would drain out before the
upstream peak flow of the basin reaches this area. Water quality extended detention for the water
quality capture volume is the required method throughom the City. The request for information
1 '
1� 002
I 41
06/28/99 13:03 $303 495 6303 NEENAN - FTC
I
U 003
' asked what BMps are acceptable. It is actually an integration of several BMN and hopali ly
some Wended detention as well to design a water quality treaanent system. Kevin McBride
' showed you some of the newer methods being implemented in the rest of the Country and will
work with the design consultant as accdcd to aid in the design of the system Kevin did send me
the following information.
Treatment of storm water is a requirement of new development in
the City Land Use Code. The volume of water that needs to be
treated tan be calculated by using Volume 3 of the UDFCD criteria
y manual. A new proposed manual has several different pond and
✓ outlet configurations that are alternatives to the extended detention
' basin. Contact Urban Drainage for a copy of the proposed manual.
Please note that these volumes are much much smaller than
volumes required for flood control and should be able to be
•ncorporated into your landscaping plan.
If your consultant would like to propose some other alternative
treatment measure we are open to that. However, it would need to
be thoroughly researched and documented.
I have tried to answer the questions. I'm sure some answers are not as clear as you had hoped but this is
' the best information at this point in time, If fact some of these answers may have generated additional
questions. So if you do have questions please feel I= to call me or the people mentioned above. We want
to help in the design process to avoid rework, so if you need clari5cation.betore proceeding let us know.
' Sincerely,
' Glen Schlueter
Storinwater Development Review Manager
1
1
t
1
1
a'L
DATA
MI
4-3
0
C%C)000
�
N
tl q q q q
O
nn 0 D1000000
O
rrr r 0 0 0 0 M Ll
1
r
tl q CD g q q q q q q
0
mom C1 omm nD10 n 0000
O
rrr<<«rr<r<L'1NN
1
n
g q q q tl q q q q q q q q q q
o
o
r<r<<<<<rrr<<<<rrr<r
1
N
g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q
O
O n< N g q q V n n n n n n n n n n n n q q co q 0 q
O
0
v r r r r< r r<< «<< « r r<<< r r r r r
0
r- I
q q q qqq tl g q q q q q q q q g q q q q q q q q q
1-
N N I.Cl
O
0
.
tl N n r N Q V 17 V' 17 n n n n n n n n n n q q q
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r7
n< r v< r< r r< r r< r< r<< r<< r<<< r
O
co co co co co co q g co co q q q g q q q q q q q q q q q q
1 U
o
%DoNnr<NNNv�ul7v1717%0`7ko %0vonnrnnr
In
q
rI r r r r r r< r< r r r< r< r r r r r< r r r r
2
CO co CO :CO CD q CO qqq q CO CO CO qq CO Mqq q CO qq CO q
�l
0
< 01i rNnnr<rrNNNNNNNNN1a1atotDVJOn
1
.............. .... .....
On
nnrrrrrrrrrrrrcrrrr�rr<<rr
U
q q q co g q q q w 0 0 q q 0 q q w 0 q 0 q q q q q
O
OU' q Ori ri NNnn nnr«rrrrrlllNNN
1
O
t�
nnnrrr<r« <<rrrrr<rrrrrrrr
L'r
g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q
.-.o
NNLot-co loorir-iriNNNNNnnnC)r r
I o
h.
. .
co44
1
�L')
Nnnnnnrrr«r<rrr<«<rrrrrr
g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q W q q q q
W to
W'
a.
ri C3 ri n rll711110 V' rrr, co qq Q1n C, 00000
�O
aa
0'
Get
NNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnrrrrr
_ F 0
to
g q co q q co g q q q W q q q q q q q q q q co q q q q
.,TC•
O
.D N q o 1-1 Nn r r In V) N 10 10U D%D nnnrr co tlgmn
F
vJ
<
ri N N n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
q q q q q co g co 0 q q co q co q q q co g q q q q q q co
W
.0
N
ri ri N n g O O ri N N n n n r r r r r 011101D nn
.Tyy
n
rHN N N Nnn nnn n n nn n nnnnnn n n nnn
+y
1 LG
g q q q q q q q q C q C7 g q q Q q q q q q O q q q q
O
O
nN W q G10 riNNn n n r r «r<NU1 L'1 L)U0 U' �
1 Li
Ell
f'1
Or{rH ri rINNN N N N N N N-NN N N NN N N NN N N
q qqq q q g q q q 0 q q O q qqq tl g c D g q q 0 q
G
N
n n 000000
a
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-a
N
n 0 0 1-1 r-I ri ri ri . i ri .-1 ri 14 r-I r-1 ri r-1 -41�. r� N N N N N N
ram.
n q g q q q q O q q g q q q q q q C7 qqq g q q q q
1
Z
O
<00mmQggCIA 000rtHHHNNNNnnnnnn
N
gD1O OOOOOO ri ri r444 ri 44 r-i 4 r14 4 ri 444
n n g q q tl q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q
1
rlr Nnn q D1000 rl ri rt ri ri N NN n nnn n
ri 1D
qq D\NL Cl G1 D1 D1 C1 O 0 o 0000000 Oo000
nnnnnnnnnnn coq co q=q cD qqq q qqq q
1
0
c1 O r n n 0 r{ N n rr r< N Li I,) N 1700 V nn V' V L7
nn nnq tlgOq ggqqqqqqqqqqqq q
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnlrnnnnnnrrn
1
Ll C)0<lD
nq gnnn V' V' V' 111)r<nnNN0 V' <ri 0)Q
O
O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r-i r- I r l r 1 0 0
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
x
1
3H-.•00000000000000000000000000
OC�F
00000000000000000000000000
.-7 .'G LL riNnrN
V ng010 r-iNn<NtDn q(,10NONONO
F.a�
ririciririririri iriNNnn<<Ll
44
1
MARCH 1991 8-4 DESIGN CRITERIA
I
Table 8-8 C Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from previous page).
Treatment C-Factor
P-Factor
CONTOUR FURROWED SURFACE
'
Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P-Factor =
1.00.
Maximum
length refers to the down slope length.
Basin Maximum
'
Slope Length
l°hF (feet)
1 to 2 400..........................................................................1.00
0.60
3 to 5 300..........................................................1.00
0.50
'
6 to 8 200...........................................I.........................1.00
0.50
0.60
9 to 12 120..............................................................................1.00
13 to 16 80.............................................................:............1.00
0.70
'
17 to 20 60...............:..........................................................1.00
:..........
1.00
0.80
0.90
> 20 50............... ...................................................
TERRACING
'
Must contain 10-year runoff volumes, without overflowing, as determined by applicable
hydrologic
methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00.
Basin
'
slope (°hl
1 to 2.....................................................................................
1.00
0.12
3 to: 8.....................................................................................
1.00
0.10
9 to 12.....................................................................................1.00
0.12
'
13 to 16.....................................................................................
1.00
0.14
17 to 20.....................................................................................
1.00
.0.16
>20.....................................................................................
1.00
0.13
NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation.
L
1
4-S
' MARCH 1591 8.7 DESIGN CRI7ERIA
I
'
Table 8B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values.
Treatment C-Factor
P-Factor
BARE SOIL
'
Packed and smooth................................................................ 1.00
Freshlydisked........................................................................ 1.00
Rough irregular surface...................................:....................... 1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP................................................................. 1.00
0.50111
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
SODGRASS................................................................................. 0.01
1.00
'
TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.451:'
1.00
HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE ........................................... 0.1 Ool
1.00
'
SOIL SEALANT....................................................................0.01.0.60" 1
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 1 112" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05
HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH
1.00
After Planting grass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately
anchor,
'
tack or crimp material into the soil.
Slone (%)
'
1 to 05.............................................................................0.06
6 to 10.............................................................................0.06
11 to 15............................................................................. 0.07
15 to 20............................................................................. 0.11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
21 to 25............................................................................. 0.14
1.00
'
25 to 33.............................................................................0.17
> 33.......................................................................... 0.20
1.00
1.00
' NCit: Use of cu o-r C-Fac-,,or o- P•Fac-tor values raponed in tuis able must bP subserir,=-,J by documentation.
(1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading.
/ (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11.4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required.
' (3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated.
(4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation.
t
n
4(�
' M.ARCH 1991 E-6 DESIGN CRITERIA
1 •
1 L�-
Engineering Consultants
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
i
I-
I
1
1
1
1
1
CLIENT c—' T'i Or f_�.—. 1 1 VG JOB NO.
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR fin, nr—�— Z
MADEBY a' l DATE 237 CHECKED BY —DATE —SHEET _t_OF
L.�Ot_A..EGTOe L`✓� b'� v C.�TlGCI- '' i�3 •?
rog':.elc�i-;•T_'o= �UJ.tiY:-;-__..� _: Ft�u.run�E.'�ra..>=i.
f.'ti1
.e� 1
y `.I �'EZp'il•L: ��.: F'{..OW. L�.I FGG�_ CF
C.:.: .n ! I2O1X.•FFtJ ES•n i CJ�F-F.'''i=1U Ew.1T ...
• . •..: �..__i��T/_T. . .
. ...: �. �.q',IZ,ECJ`PPrv'n L(pp �r-de�cc � 6t..DP
:i i
1'..... �li:'
'�rSiC�J
D.DSE...C'.•O.
....... F.T..
.: LET' MITJO2'j?C•;=C�. Cvtol) CUi /•�') y��'X•
�c;,'s6 IZ:o I Co.S'8'3)
1
az.
Co:33.ty"
G
Tip ' n
CLIENTS 'J T-4 01= PoZT CI. L I l U G JOB NO.
' INC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR 611 Tr=, P. =1 n V
Engineering Consultants MADE BY�L_ DATE I 3.7-CHECKED BY -DATE SKEETOF
I 1 YT
I�U.1�lVGSI.E!_is,.2.E.o'T .-CdPdGJTIES�
' -orb Z.ILF-.T' OF u✓b� SD_r-tA u�JE -TQ Fwwuu� - _
ai 7-
7.i
_ ,0 1�
N I
;
r I
_...�
- - --t - -- r_
_
T-, 1 - � -r - I r
_�j_KA GJC1L 5-1-'o Q.A.1 �J EP,�fI-t O�.1LLlbTBZ. oV c1r..CZ.ol1t 1.1,:_.SL1G.L1:...1.1oT, -
77
._ a - udQ.
D A. ; -1_
r.
I-r
T^ 1 , I I _ I I f_. (-t 11'
SiD�OF_5'2e6T 41�1L_Y) '-
-
�??-L�
lil C 7.
z
1 _I
' 7a�6—Z —
}aianJNJ nlc�S:.; II. C1" I •.3t.o O.ctt�>_.I 57:-31>(0.0351
- —
5
1 ,
71
Si a
it T
96
ISL IrI So
I I 1
-1 ..; I -
1.
71
+
-=t
MA 50Q I>c /c I d 2 Z.3
.i
I
48
I
Calculations for
Curb Capacities and
Velocities
,jor and Minor Storms
er City
of Fort
Collins
Storm Drainage Design Criteria
'
COLLECTOR c/ 6= Vertical
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 = 3.55
sq.ft.
Area = 28.96
sq.ft.
Minor
Storm :
Major Storm
'
S tope
Red. :
Minor
: 0
V :
Major
: g
V
(:).:Factor :
X
: (cfs) :
(fps) :
%
: (cfs) : (fps)
0.40 :
0.50 :
135.32
: 4.28 :
2.41 :
1129.59
: 35.72 :
2.47.:
'
0.50 :
0.65 :
135.32
: 6.22 :
2.70 :
1129.59
: 51.92 :
2.76 :
0.60 :
0.80 :
135.32
: 8.39
2.95 :
1129.59
: 70.00 :
3.02 :
0.70 :
0.80 :
135.32
: 9.06 :
3.19 :
1129.59
: 7-5.61 :
3.26 :
'
0.80 :
0.80 :
135.32
: 9.68
3.41 :
1129.59
: 80.83 :-
3.49 :
0.90 :
0.80 :
135.32
: 10.27 :
3.62 :
1129.59
: 85.73 :
3.70 :
1.00 :
0.80 :
135.32
: 10.83 :
3.81
1129.59
: 90.37 :
3.90 :
'
1.25 :
0.80 :
135.32
: 12.10 :
4.26 :
1129.59
: 101.03 :
4.36
1.50 :
0.80 :
135.32
:- 13.26 :
4.67 :
1129.59
110.68 :
4.78
1.75 :
0.80 :
135.32
: 14.32 :
5.04 :
1129.59
: 119.54 :
5.16
2.00 :.
0.80 :
135.32
: 15.31 :
5.39 :
1129.59
: 127.90 :
5.52
'
2.25 :
0.78 :
135.32
: 15.83 :
5.72 :
1129.59
: 132.16 :
5.85
2.50.:
0.76 :
135.32
: 16.26 :
6.03 :
1129.59
: 135.74 :
6.17 :.
2,71 :
0.74 :
135.32
: 11,11 :
6,11 :
1119*19
: 138.62 :
6.47
'
3.00 :
0.72 :
135.32
: 16.88 :
6.60 :
1129.59
: 140.87 :
6.76
3.25
0.69 :
135.32
: 16.83 :
6.87 :
1129.59
: 140.51 :
7.03
3.50 :
0.66 :
135.32
: 16.71 :
7.13 :
1129.59
: 139.48 :
7.30
3.75 :
0.63 :
135.32
: 16.51 :
7.38 :
1129.59
: 137.81 :
7.55
4.00
0.60 :
135.32
: 16.24 :
7.62 :
1129.59
: 135.55 :
7.80
4.25
0.58 :
135.32
: 16.18 :
7.66 :
1129.59
: 135.07 :
8.04
'
4.50
4.75 :
0.54 :
0.52 :
135.32
135.32
: 15.50 :
: 15.34 :
8.09 :
8.31 :
1129.59
1129.59
: 129.40 :
: 128.02 :
8.27
8.50
5.00 :
0.49 :
135.32
: 14.83 :
8.52 :
1129.59
: 123.77 :
8.72
5.25 :
0.46 :
135.32
: 14.26 :
8.73 :
1129.59
: 119.06 :
8.94
'
5.50 :
0.44 :
135.32
: 13.96 :
8.94 :
1129.59
: 116.56 :
9.15
5.75 :
0.42 :
135.32
: 13.63 :
9.14 :
1129.59
: 113.76 :
9.35
6.00 :
0.40 :
135.32
: 13.26 :
9.34 :
1129.59
: 11o.68 :
9.55
I
j
8g
h
AN eaalM parrenoduff st a shot be Industrial My to any land disturbing airily
( awp�9 IM
at the xWoriental
Ite-eyearthavel eyeastrary st be oriented Ld ideal
additional
of neural e capnm1low v
Al va to me area rev..m .mm am a coon nl
eal
und toy
aura If Old'
AM saftvrpoave durnq Iona disturbing pm� Anshanq. Aa ud Ay n l
a tplirpl
Hill *toJ the wmgM1y nal of el alongla e
paps Around e ranging, n,fully
bMslnbrry rental or low MI aea/nolaanaac pina:Iois indinea, ohs chanvappaM ]t Slwm.id V ,
e p,aerly Mop hew maintained elyLLmes o as to
ler wa pina o oar .udd M
present . Iraqi I pawon r Tend nth cmtn
yroad
w wilily ast 4np«H oapml p,a^l+s. s e.le,mnea by In. air a rylaewlra
Fnginw,ieq pgwMmt.
Allempwvy (Irta ) rawm can donall All be studdrod" and real or
infornary
their mnlmdM funcliour all Intel midwayins. particularly those an royal ... deny aradiandeat
adds
No 1111 . aa,w All a .0 IIo) lee mheart ul sw awpuesMdl beproul flan
ceee 1y anyl , roughened; l.at a wa p.l.Mw MI taro. r . anp•
�mmm to M can Mal n r Pe m„ llhAd
City It
pppnq, flag they m to
City peen by pW Or A •. Any nmw,till deposed matmrl she be d•onAdd
wmMlwely by the cenbanw
eB'LCx41
qix/Wm pq'15
1�u
a
> idMy
lolm C�///�/ua�jF/^
s
pq
WT yar pass Ad 1/4
«
DTAL
L
co-PACTm elomu
t
say
My
ror
»Aa.T nt
o
NITK 50.
HEVA [N
lmicT.W I m Rx3 AFTER ual 9NN EUNf. wloK Yflurt'ww
Of
My OF Or NOON M ME SANCE xK NO BILLEDM m T 91.W
Tapva u
as lW IsAs
$
SED W CONTROL FENCE
NITS of
2036
0%
WI
NAXIWY WATER SURFACE ELEVATION A, I9B007
YEAR
2000
2001
UM
AIMIJIJIAISIOIN D
JIFIM
] l GRADING
ID EROSION CONTRIJL
the Roughmmg
'er OW Banter
mamma Barren
,l9ltative MCMods
All Sealant
Itw
III EROSION CONER0.
TRUCTURAL:
B meat Trop/Bayn
Inlet FdtY
Saoe Borers
91 Fence Boni
Sand Bags
Bore Sell PrepOalian
Contour Furrpe!
Einstein
i nacmy
other-Gra nPoring
)
Al
other-GrandMUIM
ECETATIVE:
Pwmmmt Seed Painting (Pi
Grant Ymce
Nay of Stan Dry Mulch
Sou Installm ati
lat faeOcurb atls
Erasion cont
Other
STRUCTURES: NSTM BY YANTNBED BY
WMTAMI /LULCNNG CONTRACTOR
DATE WERWITTEDI APPROVD BY OEY OF EMT GOWNS ON
EXCAVATE DETENTION POND PRIM TO ANY OTHER
SITE WORK. LNDEREXCAVATE END FLOOR BY
EIGHTEEN INCHES (11r). WATER WALITY FEATURES
IN POND (UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM AND WETI.AND
VEGETATION) SHALL BE INSTALLED AFTER
LANDSCAPING IS COIPLETED.e
e •C
DE961 PONT
BASN(S)
AREA (aoa)
CON•PpS
( 1
( 100
8
1
0.54
0,3
0OA9
1.33
3
2
am
0.95
1.62
3.18
3
3
0.10
0,95
0.18
0.99
1
1
(20
0.67
0.85
233
1
5
0.84
O.Bg
2.69
5,66
5
8
024
0.95
1.11
2.39
♦
g
0.11
0.95
0.51
1.10
1
8
1 0.11
0.95
1 0,51
1 1.09
g
9
0.38
0.95
1J7
182
6
10
Dal
0.95
2.19
1
2
11
0.56
0.95
2.57
5.53
9
12
0,33
0.95
1.43
3.07
-ww___
EXISIINC CONTOURS
-BBB
PROPOSED CONTOUR
'DIRECTION OF FLOW
DESIGN POINT
M1�ee=
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
NUMBER
eBASIN
1.Mac
BASIN AREA
-_X
AKRAGE STREET SLOPE
- -9 SWAIE/DITCH N/ ROW ARROW
ATL EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE
PROPOSED STORY DRAIN PIPE
-R-III SILT FENCE
EXISTING RAJLROAD
SCALE I'll
My
of
CAU URfTY NOT ATICN
CENTER OF COLORADO
1-800-922-1987
MYOU Non emwvlrt
>,A M�wOI o IluwFo
outs
City
of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILM
PLAN APPROVAL
APPROVED:
IXr RZO v
DNA -
Call BY:
Ether R Ieyet w fair
dM
NECKED BY:
BMrmeela Ul
w-.
CHECKED BY:
Pub t BsveeOon
Del
CHECKED BY:
9ltae der
USY
NECKED BY:
�v
MOXCT All
875-001
wAWNC No.
5