Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 09/10/1997 (2):gpgT=�COLL�NS d4l, Overall �Drainag� �� Fi�ial�Drainage:: Synrbios Lop il Fort Collins, Colorado July 1997 �' . � � ICJ and Phase I THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP Standards in Excellence THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP FULIrSERVICE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS FORMERLY RBD, INC. 209 SOUTH MELDRUM FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521-2603 970-482-5922 FAX:970-482-6368 July 23,1997 Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235 Mathews Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Overall Drainage Study and Final Phase I Drainage Study for the Symbios Logic Site Dear Basil: We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Overall Drainage Study and Phase I Final Drainage Study for the Symbios Logic site. 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 Prepared B (/�V; , L Project Manager Reviewed By: Kevin W. Gingery, Water Resources Project Manager NEW YORK • PENNSYLVANIA COLORADO•UTAH STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY AND PHASE I FINAL DRAINAGE STUDY FOR THE SYMBIOS LOGIC SITE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO July 23, 1997 Prepared for: RNL Design Seventeenth Street Plaza 1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Prepared by: The Sear -Brown Group 209 S Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (970) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 714-001 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 H. DRAINAGE BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 1 B. SUB -BASIN DESCRIPTION 2 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS 3_ B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 3_, C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 3.. . D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 3 E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 4 .. _ . IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 5 OVERALL SITE DEVELOPMENT 5 :..,. PHASE I DEVELOPMENT V. STORM WATER QUALITY A. GENERAL CONCEPT 17 ..:'.=:.:..."- ' .. .. B. SPECIFIC .DETAILS VI. EROSION CONTROL A. GENERAL CONCEPT 8 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 8 :.. VII. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT C. STORM WATER QUALITY D. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT REFERENCES 9 :. 9 9 9 Ede; PAGE VICINITY MAP I HYDROLOGY 3 INLET SIZING AND STORM DRAIN SIZING 9 EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS AND RIPRAP SIZING 27 TABLES AND FIGURES 37 FOX MEADOWS BASIN H DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN INFORMATION 41 EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS DRAINAGE REPORTS 58 UPDATED 100-YEAR SWMM MODEL INPUT DATA FOR THE SOUTH FOX MEADOWS BASIN 72 UPDATED 100-YEAR SWMM MODEL OUTPUT FILE FOR THE SOUTH FOX MEADOWS BASIN 78 SWMM MODEL FOR PHASE I -INTERIM CONDITIONS 86 'I OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY AND PHASE I.FINAL DRAINAGE STUDY FOR THE SYMBIOS LOGIC SITE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. lion The Symbios Logic site is located north of Harmony Road and west of County Road 9 (Minor Road) in southeastern Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is shown ' on the Vicinity Map in the Appendix. More particularly, the site is situated in the southeasterly portion of Section 22, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. B. Description of Property The Symbios Logic site contains 102 acres of land, more or less, of which all of _ the area is currently undeveloped and being proposed for an Industrial Park for the Symbios Logic Company. The majority of the property currently consists of cultivated farm land. Topography at the:site_is generally sloping from west to east at approximately 0.7%. _ There is a concrete irrigation ditch in the southeast corner of this site which is a portion of the Dixon Canyon Lateral. This .ditch -will be replaced by a pipe during s Phase I construction as approved by the ditch`company. There is also an irrigation lateral that runs north -south through the west portion of the site. This lateral will be maintained in its current location with the Phase I development. With future development, if the lateral is to be preserved, it will be rerouted as necessary. A. MaJor Basin Description The Symbios Logic site lies entirely within the Fox Meadows Drainage Master Plan (Basin H) as shown in the Master Plan Report by Resource Consultants Inc., dated 1981. In addition, this area was studied again by Nolte and Associates in May 1990 when they prepared a. master drainage plan for the Hewlett-Packard (H-P) site which lies to the East of the Symbios Logic site. This site was recently investigated in the Final Drainage Study for Hewlett-Packard Building 5 by RBD, 1 1 1 1 1 B. Inc. in February 1996. Applicable portions of all of these studies are included in the Appendix. The Master Drainage Report which was done by Nolte and Associates did not alter any of the assumptions or conclusions which were made in the Fox Meadows Master Drainage Plan. In effect, this report simply incorporated the recommendations that the Master Drainage Plan for Fox Meadows had called for in the design of the Hewlett-Packard (H-P) site. These recommendations included the design of a drainage swale which runs along the North side of the H-P site and eventually drains into H-P's North pond. This drainage swale has been sized and final designed with the H-P Building 5 drainage report. The drainage swale across the H-P site has been constructed. The Master Drainage Plan for the H-P site is shown in the Appendix. The Symbios Logic site currently drains to two existing 18" RCP and onto the H-P site. According to the Master Drainage Plan. done for the H-P site the Symbios Logic site falls within both basins 31 and 23. Symbios Logic will have pond #215 on their site and pond #214 also. The total area draining to these two ponds on the master plan is equal to 149.2 acres (calculated area is 150.41 acres). This area includes the Symbios site and the area to the west of this site. Both ponds #215 and #214 were shown as having an allowable release rate of 24 cfs each or a total release of 48 cfs. Historic drainage patterns on the subject site are in an easterly direction per Figure 2 (Fox Meadows Drainage Master Plan) on page 46 in the appendix. Upstream, off -site areas lying west of proposed Corbett Drive (Basin 0-1) contribute storm water runoff which crosses the Symbios Logic site at the present .time. With Phase • I construction, the flows from the off: site areas lying west of proposed Corbett Drive will continue to sheet flow across the Symbios site as they have historically done. When the Symbios Logic site is fully developed, off -site flows will be conveyed in a drainage swale around the site and detained in the proposed detention pond #2 at the north end of the Symbios site. The flows will combine with on -site runoff and be released at 24 cfs under County Road 9 in the 30" pipe that was constructed with the English Ranch construction. This storm pipe will discharge ._ ::those off -site flows into the proposed drainage swale on the north -side_ of...the Hewlett-Packard site. No off -site runoff from properties north and south -of-the Symbios Logic site traverse through the site. 2 tIII. DRAINAGE BASIN 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 Fox Meadows Basin (Basin H) Drainage Master Plan and the subsequent H-P Master Drainage Plan criteria and constraints are being utilized in this Overall Drainage Study. The recent Final Drainage Study for H-P Building 5 is also .being used -to determine criteria for this site. Since the Symbios Logic site is currently being, -utilized as agricultural land, the Fox Meadows Master Plan for the. site included. on -site detention facilities for the future development. As can be seen -= from the Fox Meadows Drainage Master Plan report (Figure 5), detention was planned for 3 locations on the West side of County Road 9. Two of those ponds, which are labeled as pond #3 and #4 in the Fox Meadows Drainage Master Plan, a -L are -located entirely within the Symbios Logic site. However, the drainage area -,,.....- which drains to those ponds in the Fox Meadows Master Plan includes; not only:-,-" the:S.ymbios Logic site, but also includes the 50.3 acres to the westof this site. These. ponds will be sized to accept runoff from the entire 150.41 acres and both pondswillhave a combined restricted release rate of 48 cfs. C. Hydrologic Criteria The SWMM hydrologic model was previously used in the Fox Meadows Basin Master Drainage:Plan. The Hewlett-Packard Master Drainage Plan report utilized: the Fox Meadows Basin Master Drainage Plan SWMM model and simply expanded on it. .The SWMM model was updated recently for the H-P Building 5 project..;_:::....: ' This SWMM model has again been updated to include the two detention ponds _ which are proposed for the Symbios Logic site. A copy of the SWMM model for the 100-year storm is included in the Appendix.: ` D. Hydraulic Criteria;,.;;;. All calculations within this study have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria and are included in the appendix. E. Variances from Criteria No variances from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria are being sought for this project. 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept As development occurs within the.Symbios Logic site, the drainage concepts shown on the Overall Drainage Plan in the back pocket of this report should be followed. There are three ponds shown within the site to handle the stormwater runoff. Two of these ponds are proposed as permanent wet ponds which will be fed by irrigation water and runoff from.the adjacent area. Water in these ponds will be utilized for irrigating the site. The retention pond (pond #3) will need to be sized in excess of the required amount of permanent water storage to allow for the periodic inflows of stormwater and the ultimate inflow of the 100 year storm. Even though this pond is a permanent retention pond, it will need some overflow mechanism to allow for a situation where complete inundation of the pond volume occurs. The other two ponds will discharge under County Road 9 and onto the H-P site at the allowable release rate of 48 cfs combined. On -site stormwater will be conveyed to the three on -site ponds through the use of inlets, storm drain pipes, and cross pans. ' For the updated SWMM model, the sub -basins within and. tributary to the Symbios Logic site were, revised to match proposed developed conditions. This included revising sub -basin areas,to match proposed site layout and revising the theoretical detention pond rating. curves -for ponds 214 and 215. Both of these ponds are master -planned to discharge 24 cfs each. The sub -basin to the west of the proposed Symbios Logic site contains approximately 50.3 acres .and.was modeled with a restricted release rate of .0.32 cfs_ per acre or approximately 162 cfs (per:direction from the City Storm Drainage Department). The release from this sub -basin will be routed through the north detention. pond and has beenaccountedfor in the calculations for this detention ' area. Note that, when that area is developed, additional runoff from this sub -basin will have to be detained beforereleasingthese flows downstream to the Symbios Logic site. As the Symbios Logic si.te-.develops in future phases, the swale to ' convey the release from this sub -basin will: be designed and constructed. If the site to the west develops prior to future --development of Symbios, the design and ' construction of this swale would be the responsibility of the development to the west. Refer to the Appendix for the supporting calculations for this SWMM model update. 4 B. Per the Fox. Meadows Basin Drainage Master Plan and the approved Hewlett- Packard Master Drainage Plan the Symbios Logic site must have on -site detention. .The Fox Meadows Master Plan showed two ponds within the Symbios Logic site which each release 24 cfs. In addition, the Hewlett-Packard site has constructed a drainage swale which has been sized to accommodate Symbios Logic's off -site flows as well as its' own. . The Overall Drainage Plan for the Symbios Logic site includes utilizing a proposed permanent pool pond within the site for retention. An additional volume above the permanent pool will be provided within this pond which allows for the permanent retention of the 100-year runoff for the drainage area which drains to it. There will however, be an emergency overflow provided for this pond. The additional stormwater volume needed in pond # 3 will be approximately 0.58 acre-feet plus one foot of.freeboard. This is in addition to whatever "wet pond" volume is needed for irrigation purposes and to maintain an attractive water feature for the Symbios Logic site. The second pond (pond #2) will be located in the northeast comer of this site. This pond will outlet under County Road 9 through a:30 storm pipe which will outlet _ into the Hewlett-Packard drainage channel with a restricted release of 24 cfs. This pond will need a minimum volume of approximately 5.7 acre-feet plus one foot of freeboard. The third pond (pond #1) proposed on the Symbios Logic site is located to the west of County Road 9. Because of the desire which Symbios Logic has to be environmentally sensitive, this pond will containa wetlands area which will help filter out pollutants from the site. The pond itself will be on both sides of the main entrance off of County Road 9, with a stone pipe. located under the entry -way which will allow 24 cfs to pass through and access the two existing 18" RCP's _ (designed with the County Road 9 project, excerpts in appendix) which. are located on the North side of the entryway. This pond will need a minimum volume of 6.1 acre-feet plus one foot of freeboard. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility has requested that a SWMM Model be submitted and include the three proposed on -site ponds. -The Hewlett-Packard site developed a SWMM Model for the entire area, and we have updated this model for the Overall Symbios Site and used this model to size the detention ponds on the Symbios Site. The SWMM Model is a conservative approach to ensure all detention ponds within the. City of Fort Collins have sufficient capacity. The fast phase of the Symbios Logic site will include the, construction of a portion of detention pond#1 (labeled pond #215 and #212.on drainage and erosion control plan). Pond #1 will serve as an irrigation pond for Phase I as well as detention. The storm water runoff from the .site will reach this pond by conveyance methods such as inlets, storm drain pipe, curb and gutter, and cross. pans. The irrigation volume will be in addition to the required detention volume. A portion of detention pond #2 (labeled pond #214 on the drainage and erosion control plan) will be constucted with Phase I and the outfall for this pond was constructed with the development of English Ranch South P.U.D. to the north of the Symbios site. Detention pond #2 will be strictly for detention (not irrigation) and runoff from the undeveloped portion of this site will reach .this pond by overland flow. As this site develops, ponds #1 and #2 will be enlarged and pond .#3 will be constructed to accommodate the increased runoff. Pond #3 will be used primarilyfor irrigation water and as a water feature. This pond will be constructed as the site is developed around the proposed pond location. Pond #3 is not proposed to be constructed with Phase L. This site has been broken into eight on -site drainage basins and two off --site basins. Basin 1 includes a portion of the motor court in front of the -office building and runoff from this basin will flow into an 5 foot curb inlet (Inlet. 10) at design pont 1. Basin 2 includes the remainder of the motor court and runoff from this basin will flow via curb and. gutter to Inlet 20 (10' type R). Basin 3 includes .the _. southwest half of the employee parking lot and runoff from .basin 3 sheet flows across the lot to Inlet 30 (10' type R). Runoff from basins 1,2, and 3 combine and flow. via a storm drain system (Storm Pipe A) into basin 8. Basin.8 is in the southeast comer of the site and contains an irrigation pond and a portion of detention pond #1. The remainder of basin 8 is grassed and landscaped. The flow from basin 8 will be released into basin 9 through a 36. inch RCP (Storm Pipe C) under the entrance. Basin 5 contains the north half of the loop road. Runoff from this basin wiil,:flow in the curb and gutter to the location of a future concrete pan at the entrance. Basin 7 includes the south half of the: loop road. Drainage from this basin will flow in the curb and gutter to combine with runoff from basin 5 and flow in a swale into the detention area north of the entrance. The combined flow from basins 5 and 7 enters basin 9 and detention pond #1. Basin 4 includes the northeast half of the employee parking lot. Drainage from basin 4 flows into a 12 foot curb inlet (Inlet 40) and flows via pipe into the detention area in basin 9. The off -site basin 9 is a portion of the Symbios property that will remain mostly undisturbed 6 with the Phase I construction. The area in basin 9 will be allowed to sheet flow to the east as it has historically done. Basin 6 is the west half of County Road 9 along the frontage of the site. The runoff from this basin flows into an existing curb inlet in County Road 9. The Symbios site is responsible for detaining this area and it is accounted for in the. SWMM model. .Basin 10 is in the northeast corner of the site and contains detention pond #2. The area in basin 10 which drains to pond #2 is primarily undisturbed farm land.and will flow as 'it historically done to the northeast comer *of the site. Basin 10 will release under County Road 9 in a newly constructed 30" pipe. See the Appendix for detention pond, inlet and storm pipe sizing calculations.' V. STORM WATER QUALITY ....::. A. General Concert The State of Colorado requires Stormwater Management Plans as part of their permit process. The Symbios Logic site development is anticipating construction beginning. in.the Fall of 1996. Therefore for this study, we have sought to find various Best Management Practices for the treatment of storm water runoff which could be -implemented in the construction phase of the project. B. Specific Details Best Management Practices (BMP) for the treatment of storm water runoff have been incorporated into the design for this project. The first BMP will be in place prior to overlot grading of Phase I. This will be the construction of the irrigation pond which will also function as a water quality feature during the construction phase of this project. This pond will provide a mechanism for pollutants to settle out of the storm water runoff prior to being released into the Hewlett-Packard drainage swale and _eventually into Fossil Creek. The BMP's for this site also include the installation of silt fence and gravel inlet filters during construction. After the construction is completed, the Symbios Logic site will have on -going Best Management Practices. The on -site detention area constructed with Phase I is being proposed with a wetlands area. This wetlands area will serve many purposes. Because the area is held flat, the runoff will be slowed down in these areas and this will allow pollutants and other transported materials to be filtered out. In addition, the wetlands native grass species also "treat" the polluted runoff 7 water and allow for a much cleaner discharge from the Symbios Logic site onto Hewlett-Packard. All construction activities must comply with the State of Colorado permitting process for Storm water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity.. A Colorado. Department of Health NPDES Permit will be required before any construction grading can begin. VI. EROSION CONTROL A. General Concert The Symbios Logic site lies within the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone. maps. The potential exists for erosion problems during construction, and after construction until the disturbed ground is revegetated or paved. It is anticipated that construction will begin in September of 1996. B. Specific Details Erosion control for this site during construction includes the construction of the irrigation pond which will act as a water quality pond until it is filled with irrigation water. Additional erosion_ control measures include gravel filters for all of the inlets on the site, silf:fence to be installed along the downstream perimeter of the site, and straw bale check dams installed in all of the swales and the detention area. All areas that remain disturbed for more than four weeks will require seeding and mulching to prevent excessive erosion. During the four week period, disturbed areas shall be roughened. After construction of utilities, the loop road will have a paved surface and the foundation of the office building will be constructed. The open areas will be seeded to reduce the erosion potential. Calculations for erosion control performance standards were completed per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites and are included in the appendix.. The erosion control performance standard for this site during construction is 74.6%. The effectiveness of the proposed erosion control plan during construction is 91.4%. The erosion control performance standard after construction was calculated to be 87.8%.The effectiveness of the proposed erosion control plan after construction is 97.5 %. Therefore, the erosion control plan will meet the City of Fort Collins criteria. 8 A. Compliance Kith Standards All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility will not maintain the on -site storm drainage facilities within the Symbios Logic site. The owners of the Symbios Logic site will need to maintain their on -site storm drainage facilities on a regular basis. The proposed drainage concepts presented in this study and shown on the final utility plans adequately provide for the transmission of developed on -site runoff to the proposed detention pond. The combination of on -site street capacities and the on -site storm sewer system will provide for the developed flows to reach the proposed detention pond. The size, location and release rate of this pond will allow the Symbios Logic site to develop in conformance with the Fox Meadows Basin Drainage Master Planning concepts accepted by the City of Fort Collins and the H-P Master Drainage Plan. The on -site detention ponds shall provide one foot of freeboard and an emergency overflow outlet in the event the outlet becomes plugged. If groundwater is encountered at the time of construction, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit will be required. The wetlands area proposed within the on -site detention pond is an excellent way to allow storm water pollutants an opportunity to be filtered out of the storm water. as the pollutants are carried by the storm water across the site.. Periodic maintenance may be required to remove sediment deposits as they accumulate in the on -site detention pond. D. Erosion Control Concept The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control of wind and rainfall erosion from Symbios Logic. 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. 9 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado,.May 1984. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. Fox Meadows Basin (Basin H) Drainage Master Plan, Fort Collins, Colorado, by Resource Consultants Ind., 1981. Master Drainage Report, Hewlett Packard Site, Preston Kelly Subdivision, Fort Collins, Colorado by Nolte and Associates, May 1990. Final Drainage Study for Hewlett-Packard Company Building 5, Fort Collins, Colorado by RBD, Inc., February 1996. 10 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP D DRAKE RD.rn. � A�Go �F i a a N HORSETOOTH RD. a o Z cr- PROJECT ; m 0 z SITE 7� � a � - z. U j z � F U HARMONY RD. VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 2000'. HYDROLOGY 0 'O O d N c O •o O .rs. O w y N 7 U m N O n C d r N v y V y O O r O3 y W o v a. co 5 ED c lJJ d O J ik y w � N c = Im _ U a) N E N a` U) cc) 0) NOVc)O OODO 0_ �00O0M0vC'4MNN co f� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O oU y OOtt)N�MwT- gCMOO OR Q) c 7 u) aj pj O (O co* co, ti C) LO p to CM U NMI-r-0�M1�00M0 M N a +- ON V 00(OI�NOn.(DI�00 N N ON000M 00 0 t0 ` O) 0 (O aE 1 M�I -000M N VOMn VV N E 0 0V N0NO-0 0 m TW Q NIA V totnOCDLn V- LoLoO V In f0 ON ORONMMNOO't- M O��CV�N�- �A L6NO V qq: Qtj to OOOOOOO0000 V) to O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O �2 0 0 0 0 0 Cf 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O y LO O O LO O O O O O O LO LO LO LOrnrn0000mm0)m0)CD rn rn O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �U n` E �� -NM IV O(OI�OD0)< EW 0 Q 0 t- Q a N c c cu O c 12 •3 O o c c0 U rnQ c E g 6 (D u CL T 1... y (D c c 0 m a) `p . > •d a)O O y tm 3 O c LLL C 0 II E s LL co w Z O L Q >' F- T- rn Z CO W U v Z o O LL W W F- W 0 L a t U O J N O_ E Y U) a I Y UU CN `- 00 W H F- �_ cn 2S I�-Cn ci CR 9 C9 Cl?q 0N(O0M tO Q C T-� tLjtCjCOCAM00NNN�cc;NCO a �- N N CDO N�r-OMMOr-NaDN� co r- fM Rt m N 'Lo. �. LO � CO M co co tCj C ' O } OO �R�s-000�CA�CACA F- NN CD Uh mac- N �-e- O W O ~ > JW 0 0 0.0 O o 0 0 0 0 o M 0 0 0 - LU co co 0to00vvvLON01%- 0 �o0000�. ]Oo O 00 OOr'00 J Ui I° as aaaaaaCaML. a = Oo OOOOLOO000000 0 OM coIgVLO0)vgTLOCMOCMO N CAI NNN VONOI-LOf�CD (O z n .. W J CAO W W MWOtONMA W CAO O CO O N N tO tO CD e- V (O � �. . . O CA M c W cm P 1 00 0000000000OLO o ZW 00 o00ou)ooOr�Or�O O JCL NN NN�r r'NNNO�:0* N v LLJ CO i O= 00 0000totOLOLO0N00 0 �F- U)LO LO HZ� �i- ZW J LoLo oD��- NO V ODOf�00DtO NN CD U M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U') O0MU)to00 V QQ �O tONCOtONMMNtOCA�M r- QW UN liO O1: r-NlrNO C r L6Cd1O.4 OQ:Q Z � m U) W N Co m u� ain �NMc}tOCOt�aornrnO LLLL.. N C 0 N 75 U c� U O w N Cl N C C N L U N w to V 8 co c E 0 U (D 0 Z 5 § � 2 ! � � § . BAR LP Ci sic . . �� - R WFm } f�'; 77 \ §§ �,j } N - - - 2 ® , , , - ■ § m m S3 E§ 3 § § o.� S ® ` � � !& d" �. ® o 2 5 _ _. �� §� ; k q | § § § § § _ & _ mz . cd § � CJL. ., o 0 _ \ �K _ � _ ovi dW 6 6 . 6 & K 2 - , § § • , 0 / coa co ; ! , &%- ,m - 0 _ « e ; ■ � . k. !! � !k ■ � � !) . � !! | 3! 32 | cc §!. ® ! �| . If 4a EY Y UU N W H F- a' c_n cn 2= �O OOOO.O0U-) 0 Mt0(O U-)J • • f� t0 L6 t0 to (O O fl� cO O 6 V• 6 0 s-N NNT- N� E lL coo N�r-OMMO�NCDN V 0011: 6C7N 4Ujth-L6Ce5OOOMCOC6 Wj J O .. E } 00 V V O)O)O V O)�00 F- r� I� CO CV) M �- Cr) LO N. LO UA (3) W�c-e- T- �T-- a-��cq O W W H J O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O 0 O W CO CC) LO U')0 0 V' � V't0 h M l� f� LU o co O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a'Jv O r° as a-CL a.aaa.aaaaaa a = oo 000L0000.00000 0 OM N 0)r� NNN V•ON0I�t000 CO T--��- e- w J CA0 CRC?g00 0mN1�ON 0 co co NN0oCV�00�� LLJ E co H 00 000000000000 o ZW 00 0000to000r�0r�0 0 IX —0 N CV N N N N O N J .N v LU i U) O= 00 o060001000N00 o n P L0 U'). M N N N O 'IT V' V• 0 V• V• LO <Z V �r- ZJ tf)tn OOO�NO V 0001`OOOtO NN t�(OCOOOCOCO�N,MNN co U (,) 00 000000000000 0 0 0 N I� V Lo M 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 d QQ 00 tONWU')NMMNMMC M Q� NN Op OrrN�Nr-ttjt[)Nt0 V Q � r Z m 9 CO r N D W L! e Q O� U) a.cn �NMV•tn(oi�cornrn�O IL N c O N c(° .0 O d 0 0) CIL 0) � N U U � t� U) F- 0) v O m 0 c (0 to I N C Cc (1 m O c :? E Z o r r 0 U d 0: N U w � � O W 2 _ l_q n n tC (i o � Y1 .d fG n 0 m 0 G4 N IA N qQ 01 Ip F n In W O Q 1(S/S2 1 W 0 0 O p0q� b ry qqO ry N C O � N O N fQV 1 In c cs ry �v o 0 d 0 o d td 3 WQ pp N pp IA pp N ffJll!! O o N Yf Q m N w" IG pQ� mN Ol H O� Q .� Q O N ty0� A Q fV O N 1A m N 10 Q W' Ot � v N t0 N OI O � O O .0d ' n g m m N A 8 C4 A A 0 8 w n s N v 8 A `y 4 R 8 N 8 88 88 8 a e Q 8 8 vm � vi o 0 o ce o o o 9i . vi vi vi d a o 0 o I' 0 � p� Sn 0 A m o8 a m b p Q Q N Q M N N {7 O O O O O Od O O O O O E n n ut O Id N Om Ii Id Om o Id O W 0 N 0 Z o cd o 1i pm fV 17 cd N N 0) IV fi E to f d O � N d d w o n � E LL Q a QaaI� 5U� yC�9 all E n IA O 0 0 00 � o N O q N i O 0 W R 0 ' N m O 6 O Oi q n N 4 — 'd 0w ' al fV M' N m o d a � N J I �q Y q U �5 d �Y. � 8 09 S" C L V N m Fa $O av U U � fV 2 INLET SIZING AND STORM DRAIN SIZING RBD INC.-ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION Offsite swale on west side of site (SWA.I.F,: A) STA ELEV 0.00 4.00 100.00 3.00 125.00 4.00 N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) ---------- ------------- 0.006 0.0133 �t 2 goo � d,eo dmti ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) --------- (sq ft) ------- (fps) -------- (cfs) --------- NO: ------ 3.10 0.6 3.9 2.43 3.07 3.20 .2.5 6.2 15.45 3.44 Dt^n ` 3.30 5.6 8.1 45:5V 3.68 3.40 10.0 9.8 98.04 3.86 3.50 15.6 11.4 177.73 4.01 3.60 22.5 12.8 288.97 4.13 3:70 30.6 14.2 435.84 4.24 3.80 40.0 15.6 622.21 4.33 3.90 50.6 16..8 851.74 4.42 4.00 62.5 18.0 1127.97 4.50 Q100" 13.5 cfs Qmax= 1.33� 13.5= l8.0cfS D00= O,►8� DmaX = 0.2 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 VR:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO ..................::.......... DATE 11-14-1996 AT TIME 11:16:47 ** PROJECT TITLE: Symbios Logic *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 10 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)= 0.17 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. -STREET GEOMETRIES: ._.STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE 0.50 --STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 _- STREET MANNING N 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 -STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 13.94 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.36 FLOW VELOCITY -ON STREET (fps)= 2.22 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.03 --- GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 7.68 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.-50=- FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.50 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 .BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.50 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.50 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 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 ------------------------ SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO :.:........ .. .......... N DATE 11-14-1996 AT TIME 11:18:09 ** PROJECT TITLE: Symbios Logic *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 20. INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree).= 45.00 ;..... LATERAL. -WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 ". SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.17 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M) = 0.50 STREET CROSS SLOPE M) = 2:00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 19.00 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.46 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.66 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 3.69 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%-)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTORO= 15.00 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 18.17 (cfs) = 9.80 (cfs)= 9.80 ..(cfs)= 0.00 (cfs)= 9.80 (cfs)= 9.80 (cfs)= 0.00 ----------------------------- 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 SER:KEVI-N--GINGERY-RDB-------------I INC---FT.---- - COLLINS-------.COLORADO------- ......... ... .:...:.........:. N DATE 11-14-1996 AT TIME 11:52:55 ** PROJECT TITLE: Symbios Logic *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 30 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= .10.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 --- LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.17 Note: The sump depth_.is additional depth to -flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 0.50 STREET CROSS SLOPE O _ 1.10 STREET MANNING N. = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD.ON STREET (ft) = 33.44 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.53 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.62 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA- (sq ft)= 6.31 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%-)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR()= 15.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 19.53 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD:. DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 16.60 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 16.60 CARRY-OVER FLOW ..(cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 16.60 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 16.60 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 fSER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO ................ N DATE 11-14-1996 AT TIME 11:53:42 ** PROJECT TITLE: Symbios Logic *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 40. 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: 12.00 6.00 45.00 2.00 0.17 depth to flow depth. STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M = 0..50 STREET CROSS SLOPE0.0 STREET MANNING N = -0=0.16 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= :'.2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 25.56 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.68 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.26 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 6.69 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (g)= 50..00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTORO= 13.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 26.43 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 21.90 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 21.90 CARRY-OVER FLOW .(cfs)= .0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 21.90 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 21.90 CARRY -OVERFLOW. (cfs)= 0.010 14 ------------=---------------------------=------------------------------------ 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 ;ER:KEVIN.GINGERY-RDB N.DATE 12-10-1996 AT TIME 17:28.:54 ** PROJECT TITLE: Symbios Logic *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 100 �FUTU2E P14^SQ INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 7.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= .6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0,17 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (s) _ 0.50 STREET CROSS SLOPE 1.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.00 STREET"FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 47.50 :.... GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.64 . FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.06 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 11:44 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 -_._.. CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: ._._._ IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 15.00 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 35.02 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 12.00 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 23.02�--- FbND W BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 35.02 LOT FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 12.00 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 23.02 ----=-------=----- ----------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD -SUPPORTED ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................. �N DATE 12-10-1996 AT TIME 11:29:05 DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHD, P.E. , DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER -------------- EXECUTED ON 12-10-1996 AT TIME 17:43:20 PROJECT TITLE: FUTURE PONDING IN PARKING LOT - PRASE 2 ****.DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = F1 BASIN AREA (acre)= 4.13 - RUNOFF COEF = 1.00 ***** 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 7.2 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 = 12 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENTFACTOR = .96 AVERAGE RELEASE.RATE = 11.52 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT YACTOR. ***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE ----------------------------------------------------- RAINFALL RAINFALL ---=`INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED - = DURATION INTENSITY ,=-VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE INCH/HR ACRE -FT' ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ----------------------------------------------------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 9.00 0.26 0.08 0.18 10.00 7.20 0.41 0.16 0.25 15.00 6.19 0.53 0.24 0.29 20.00 5.18 0.59 0.32 0.28 25.00 4.68 0.67 0.40 0.27 30.00 4.17 0.72 0.48 0.24 35.00 3.84 0.77 0.56 0.21 40.00 .3.50 0.80 0.63 0.17 45.00 3.25 0.84 .0.71 0.12 ----------------------------------------------------- THE REQUIRED POND SIZE _ .2945813 ACRE -FT -0 THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 15 MINUTES O mLj =-' r PROPOSED CAFET� z fl fl. ERIA r. it . �__ Q� � � � r �z I � Z m j /REC ROOM z I ��p�yW 08i� ea�IIamaIl� W f I. zm ° ;--t -- - - PHASE' -ter ---------- ----- LINE - it II I ✓� � >c —j 106 mu Z ' I • .. � �,�.�.�' f Gi � - iI I/ • r t .O rn rn ----- _- D D —1 — - —}rn > -- - - ....- . - •.ram-.... -__ - - -- - - ' - - I' 'ONY ROAD r D (COLORAPC E HIGHWAY NO. 68) o m m o- m n _ 9x CLIENT" 'G\�J` JOB NO. —wi INC. PROJECT `,�MBIOS WCa ICJ CALCULATIONSFOR Engineering Consultants MADE BY rr DATE�HECKED BY DATE SHEET I OF I A division of The Star -Brown Group O ., • a> r _ 0 - - ..� w - — --- -- ---� _!i. x .x- CD- _ t ........ .... -------- i_.. ._ r t r 0 p _ �7� — D ... l . _ s .4 Z;.Z..a 11 OW 0) v%P.: v -----=----------- ---------------------------------------------------------- STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL Developed by Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver Metro Denver Cities/Counties 8 UDFCD Pool Fund Study USER:RDB-Fort Collins -Colorado :..........:.................................... ON DATA 07-17-1997 AT.T)ME 08:07:29 VERSION=01-17-1997 *** PROJECT TITLE :Storm Pipe A - Revised - Phase 1 conditions *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 5 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 ----- - - - - ------------ ------ 300.00 30.90 4925.62 4926.00 NO 30.00 ' 30.90 4929.40 4927.57 OK �he .�.�s 20.00 14.30 4930.65 4929.05 OK 10.00 4.50 4931.00 4929.50 OK 110.00 4.50 4932.00 4929.50 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION 1S LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) WIDTH ID NO. -ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 3.00 30.00 300.00 ARCH 2O.76 21.00 29.00 45.00 2.00 20.00 30.00 ARCH 24.00 27.00 24.00 38.00 1.00 10.00 20.00 ARCH 14.92 18.00 24.00 38.00 110.00 110.00 10.00 ARCH 14.92 18.00 24.00 38.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.0 30.9 144.8 0.97 15.42 1.78 6.90 4.14 3.25 V-OK 2.0 14.3 28.4 1.30 5.43 1.30 5.43 2.73 0.95 V-OK 1.0 4.5 31.7 0.66 4.28 0.74 '3.63 0.86 1.11 V-OK 110.0 4.5 31.7 0.66 4.28 0.74 3.63 0.86 1.11 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) -------.... ------.... ---------- -------------------- 3.00 4.05 4925.78 4921.00 1.20 2.20 NO 2.00 0.40 4927.72 4926.19 0.93 1.21 NO 1.00 0.50 4928.32 4927.72 0.68 0.93 NO 110.00 0.50 4928.32 4928.32 1.68 0.68 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.00 118.00 59.82 4928.20 4923.42 4927.57 4926.00 JUMP 2.00 381.40 0.00 4929.72 4928.19 4920.05 4927.57 SUBCR 1.00 120.20 0.00 4930.32 4929.72 4929.50 4929.05 JUMP 110.00 0.10 0.00 4930.32 4930.32 4929.50 4929.50 JUMP PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCT16N BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ---------•-•-----------------••----------------`------------------------•-•---- 3.0 30.00 4928.31 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 4926.00 2.0 20.00 4929.51 1.17 0.28 0.03 0.00 0.00 30.00 4928.31 1.0 10.00 4929.51 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 4929.51 110.0 110.00 4929.51 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 4929.51 ' 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. Z.v STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL Developed by Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Study -Fund _-__-__----_ - USER:RDB-Fort Collins -Colorado .................................. ON DATA 07-15-1997 . AT TIME 13:15:35 VERSION=01-17-1997 ' *** PROJECT TITLE :Storm Pipe A - Revised - al,41,A f< ec,i, 4o, *** RETURN PERIOD OF. FLOOD IS 5 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 300.00 41.40 4921.00 4927.79 NO �" /L�in7 G05 bL 30.00 41.40 4929.40 4927.86 OK ' 20.00 26.20 4936.65 4929.79 OK 10.00 16.50. 4931.00 4930.90 OK 100.00 12.00 4932.50 4931.42 OK 110.00 12.00 4932.50 4931.44 OK ' OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 -..-------'-------------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) WIDTH 1D N0, ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) -------------------------------------- ..........------------------- (1N) (FT) (FT) 3.00 30.00 300.00 ARCH 23.16 24.00 29.00 45.00 2.00 20.00 30.00 ARCH 30.12 33.00 24.00 38.00 1.00 10.00 20.00 ARCH 24.28 27.00 24.00 38.00 100.00 100.00 10.00 ARCH 21.55 24.00 24.00 38.00 110.00 110.00 100.00 ARCH 21.55 24.00 24.00 .38.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY .VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ---... -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----.... -.... -- 3.0 41.4 144.8 1.13 16.72 2.08 7.74 5.54 3.23 V-OK 2.0 26.2 28.4 1.96 6.15 1.73 7.04 5.00 0.78 V-OK 1.0 16.5 31.7 1.32 6.12 1.37 5.83 3,15 1.05 V-01 100.0 12.0 31.7 1.10 5.63 1.16 5.27 2.29 1.09 V-OK 110.0 12.0 31.7 1.10 5.63 1.16 5.27 2.29 1.09 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS --------------------- s-.-..-.------........-------............--- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM X --...... (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) ----------- --------------------------------------- 3.00 4.05 4925.78 4921.00 1.20 -2.42 NO 2.00 0.40 4927.72 4926.19 0.93 1.21 NO 1.00 0.50 4928.32 4927.72 0.68 0.93 NO O 100.00 0.50 4928.84 4928.32 1.66 0.68 NO "-I ' 110.00 0.50 4928.84 4928.84 1.66 1.66 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.00 118.00 104.63 4928.20 4923.42 4927.86 4927.79 JUMP 2.00 381.40 0.00 4929.72 4928.19 4929.79 4927.86 SUBCR ' 1.00 120.20 120.20 4930.32 4929.72 4930.90 4929.79 PRSSIED . 100.00 103.00 103.00 4930.84 4930.32 4931.42 4930.90 PRSSIED 110.00 0.10 0.10 4930.84 4930.84 4931.44 4931.42 PRSSIED ' PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 3.0 30.00 4928.79 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 4927.79 2.0 20.00 4930.37 1.47 0.28 0.11 0.00 0.00 30.00 4928.79 1.0 10.00 4931.06 0.64 0.28 0.04 0.00 0.00 20.00 4930.37 100.0 100.00 4931.50 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 4931.06 110.0 110.00 4931.53 0.00 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 100.00 4931.50 ' 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. RISE CLIENT "� JOB NO. INC. PROJECT S-J v� (,G. OG L CALCULATIONS FOR (I 'v �?✓JJJ�` Engineering Consultants a MADE BY" � � DATE � � '� CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF _ - A divisim of The Sear -Brown Group _ Z3 STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL Developed'by Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool -Fund Study _ _ - USER:RDB-Fort Collins -Colorado .................................. ON DATA 07-16-1997 AT TIME 09:21:07 VERSION=01-17-1997 *'* PROJECT TITLE :Storm Sewer B Revised RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 5 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 21.90 4923.66 4924.67 NO 2.00 21.90 4927.33 4925.98 OK 3.00 21.90 4927.33 4926.29 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) "'. -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 12.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 27.00 30.00 27.00 0.00 23.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 27.00 30.00 27.00 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 ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY N0. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS . FPS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 21.9 22.0 1.84 6.29 1.59 7.28 5.51 0.78 V-OK 23.0 21.9 22.0 1.84 6.29 1.59 7.28 5.51 0.78 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH . COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM 11 (FT). (FT) (FT) (FT) ----- 12.00 0.50 4924.16 4923.66 0.92 -2.25 NO 23.00 0.50 4924.16 4924.16 0.92 0.92 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS -------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW -ID-NUMBER--LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.00 100.00 0.00 4926.41 4925.91 4925.98 4924.67 SUBCR J-� 23.00 0.10 0.00 4926.41 4926.41 4926.29 4925.98 SUBCR 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 .... ----------- ---- .... ---- ---- ---- -- ------- c✓s iC 12.0 2.00 4926.59 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4924.67+ 23.0 3.00 4926.76 0.05 0.25 0.12 0.00 0.00 2.00 4926.59 �OiY� t1y� Z BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K'INFLOII 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. �S STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIAI TABLE 803 MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES p/ PLRH NOTE for A-1 TrN p/ PLAN •1 1.101. A 4.•, SECTION USE EQUATION 801 _ K J CASE I INLET ON MAIN LINE yr k= v:OS /11.InjulG c.7 Mn;nLina USE EQUATION 805 NL'-k gce, PLAN SECTION CASE M MANHOLE ON MAIN LINE WITH 60 BRANCH LATERAL USE EQUATION 805 z °' N� k v�Z - SECTION _ CASE II INLET ON MAIN LINE WITH BRANCH LATERAL PLAN °=•' USE EQUATION 801 N a� j o,y Kal.zs SECTION CASE 77 INLET OR MANHOLE AT S BEGINNING OF LINE CASE III .CASE NO. K. Q° K. I 0.05 C' 22-1/2 0.75 II 0.25 45 0.50 IV 1.25 60 0.35 90 0.25 No Lateral See Case I Date: NOV 1984 REFERENCE: Rev: I APWA Special Report No. 49, 19131 Z!o STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA TABLE 802c STORM SEWER ENERGY LOSS COEFFICIENT .(BENDS AT MANHOLES) 1.1 IJ i• � 1.2 t It r.oB 1.0 0° 20° 400 6D° so* g0° 10o° DefleetlonAngle Y,Degrees NOTE: Head loss applied of outlet of monhole. DATE: B A N. 1 9 8 8 REFERENCE: REV: Modern Sewer Design, A IS I , Washington D.C., 1980. EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS RIPRAP SIZING R13D, Inc. G0 RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION lf7 l d_nn l PROJECT: Symbios Logic . STANDARD FORM CALCULATED BY: PPK DATE: 06/23/96 DEVELOPE ERODIBILIT Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN ZONE ac ft % ft 1 moderate 0.52 290 0.5 2 moderate 1.27. 265 0.5 3 moderate 1.84 360 1.0 4 moderate 1.59 390 1.0 5 moderate 1.29 1190 0.4 6 moderate 0.96 470 -0.5 7 moderate 1.20 1185 0.4 8 moderate 4.61 1095 0.5 9 moderate 85.52 1770 0.7 Total 98.80 1636 0.7 74.6 EXAMPLt L:ALL;ULAI IUNS Lb = sum(AiLi)/sum(Ai) = (0.52 x 290 + .,. + 85.52 x 1770)/ 98.80 = 1636 ft Sb = sum(AiSi)/sum(Ai) = (0.52 x 0.50 +... + 85.52 x 0.70)/ 98.80 0.7 % PS (during construction) = 74.6 (from Table 8A) PS (after construction) = 74.6/0.85 = 87.8 RBD. Inc. EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS �9 871A-nn1 PROJECT: Symbios Logic STANDARD FORM B CALCULATED BY: PPK DATE: 06/2366 Erosion Control C-Facto P-Factor Comment Number Method Value Value 4 sediment/Basin Trap 1 0.5 Installed at beginning of construction 6 Gravel Inlet Filter 1 0.8 placed at inlets 8 SIR Fence Barrier 1 0.5 placed at downstream perimeter 18 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 0.025 1 existing, not disturbed with construction 23 Hydraulic Mulch @ 2 tonstacre 0.1 1 used in areas not to be paved 47 Contoured Furrow Surface (3.5% basin s 1 0.5 SUB PS AREA BASIN % ac Site 74.6 98.80 SUB SUB AREA Practice C'A . P'A Remarks BASIN AREA ac DURING CONSTRUCTION 1 Total 0.52 Seed & Mulch 0.13 23 0.01 0.13 Hydraulic Mulch @ 2 tons/acre Remain. 0.39 6 0.39 0.31 Gravel Inlet Filter 2 Total 1.27 Seed & Mulch 0.48 23 0.05 0.48 Hydraulic Mulch C 2 ionstacre Remain. 0.79 6 0.79 0.63 Gravel Inlet Filter 3 Total 1.84 Seed & Mulch 0.36 23 0.04 0.36 Hydraulic Mulch @ 2.tons/acre Remain. 1.48 6 1.48 1.18 Gravel Inlet Filter 4 Total 1.59 - Seed & Mulch 0.35 23 0.04 0.35 Hydraulic Mulch @ 2 tons/acre Remain. 1.24 6 124 0.99 Gravel Inlet Fitter 5 Total 1.29 Seed & Mulch 0.65 23 0.07 0.65 Hydraulic Mulch @ 2 tonstacre: Remain. 0.64 8 0.64 0.32 Sift Fence Barrier 6 Total 0.96 Seed & Mulch 0.15 23 0.02 0.16 Hydraulic Mulch @ 2lons/acre Remain. 0.81 8 0.81 0.41 Sift Fence Barrier 7 Total 1.20 Seed & Mulch 0.40 23 0.04 0.40 Hydraulic Mulch C 2 tons/acre Remain. 0.80 a 0.80 0.40 Sift Fence Barrier a Total 4.61 Seed & Mulch 3.76 23 0.38 3.76 Hydraulic Mulch @ 2lons/acre Remain. 0.85 8 0.85 0.43 Silt Fence Barrier 9 Total 85.52 Existing Vegetation 84.26 18 2.11 84.26,Established Gress Ground Cover- 90 Remain. 1.26 8 126 0.63 SIR Fence Barrier Cnet = I0.79x0.0D+...+1260.001/8,126 = 0.11 Pnet =10.794.00+..+1.26x0.0D]/84.26 = 0.78 EFF = (1-C-P)100 = (T-0.1 1 -0.78)100 = 91.36 > 14.6 (PS) Assume paving not constructed within 6 weeks; use gravel inlet lifters at all inlets & sift fence at downstream perimeters. RBD, Inc. 30 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS It 1 1 PROJECT: Symbios Logic STANDARD FORM B CALCULATED BY: PPK DATE: 06/23196 Erosion Control C-Facto P-Factor Comment Number Method Value Value 9 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 0.01 1 paved and constructed 18 Established Grass Ground Cover - 904' 0.025 1 Existing, not disturbed with construction 20 Sod Grass 0.01 1 Around Building 39 Seed & Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% 0.06 1 In detention area SUB PS AREA BASIN % ac Site 87.8 98.80 SUB SUB AREA Practice C *A P' A Remarks BASIN AREA ac AFTER CONSTRUCTION 1 Total 0.52 Paved 0.39 9 0.00 0,39 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement Remain. 0.13 20 0.00 0.13 Sod Grass 2 Total 1.27 Paved & Building 0.79 9 0.01 0.79 AsphaH/Concrete Pavement Remain. 0.48 20 0.00 0.48 Sod Grass 3 Total 1.84 Paved & Building 1.48 9 0.01 1.48 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement Remain. 0.36 20 0.00 0.36 Sod Grass - 4 Total 1.59 Paved & Building 1.25 9 0.01 1.25 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement Remain. 0.34 20 0.00 0.34 Sod Grass 5 Total 1.29 Paved 0.64 9 0.01 0.64 AsphalVConcrete Pavement Remain. 0.65 20 0.01 0.65 Sod Grass 6 Total 0.96 Paved 0.81 9 0.01 0.81 AsphalUConcrele Pavement Remain. 0.15 20 0.00 0.15 Sod Grass - 7 Total 1.20 Paved 0.80 9 0.01 0.80 AsphalUConcrete Pavement Remain. 0.40 39 0.02 0.40 Seed & Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (15% 8 Total 4.61 Paved 0.85 9 0.01 0.85 AsphalVConcrete Pavement Remain. _ 3.76 39 0.23 3.76 Seed & Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% 9 Total 85.52 Building 1.26 9 0.01 1.26 AsphatUConcrete Pavement Remain. 84.26 18 2.11 84.26 Established Grass Ground Cover- 90 Cnet =10.39x0.01+„ +1,26x0.01]l85.52 = 0.02 Pnel =10.39x1.00+., +1.26x1.00y85.52 1.00 EFF = (1-C-P)100 = (1-0.02-1.00)100 = 97.51 > 87.8 (PS) RBD, Inc. 31 EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE to by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for ral by the City Engineer. YEARS 97 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 Sift Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphaft/Concrets Paving Other VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/Mats/Blankets Other STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY- VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR DATE SUBMITTED 98 MAINTAINED BY APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON STANDARD DATE: RBD, Inc. EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE PROJECT: Symbios Logic #714-001 PREPARED BY: PPK DATE: 06/23/96 CITY RESEEDING COST Unit ota Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes Reseed/mulch 14.25 ac $500 $7,125 See Note 1. Subtotal $7,125 Contingency 50% $3,563 Total . $10,688 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES Unit Total Number Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes 5 Straw Bale Barrier 4 ea $150 $600 6 Gravel Inlet Filter 4 ea $300 $1,200 8 Silt Fence Barrier 760 LF $3 $2,280 39 Seed & Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-56/o slo 5.2 ac $500 $2,600 Subtotal $6,680 Contingency 50% $3,340 . Total $10,020 Total SecuHty $10,688 Notes: 1. A<1 ac=$1300/ac; A=1-10 ac=$650/ac; A>10 ac=$500/ac. RI3D, Inc., Engineering Consultants Riprap Design 33 Project: Symbios Logic Designer. PPK Project #: 714-001 Date: 12/05/96 Location: Storm system A Pipe dia.: 36 in Tailwater. 1.2 ft Discharge 42.9 cfs (I LT FLovi) Max. V.ft/s 1. Required riprap type: Q/DA2.5 = 2.75 < 6 --> use design charts D = 3.00 ft 1.04 Yt/D = 0.40 Q/D"1.5 = 8.26 d50 = 6 in ----> Use Class 6 riprap 2. Expansion factor. 1 / [2 tan(theta)] = 1.8 3. Riprap length: At = QW = 8.58 ft2 L = 1/[2tan(theta)]'(At/Yt - D) = 7 ft 4. Goveming limits: L.> 3D = 9 ft increase length to 9 ft L<10D= 30ft =>7ft—>OK 5. Maximum depth: Depth = 2d50 = 2 (6 in / 12) = 1 ft 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. 7. Riprap width: Width = 3D = 3 (36 in /12) = 9 ft Summary., Class 6 riprap Length = 9 ft Depth = 1 ft Width = 9 ft 05-Dec-96 RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants Riprap Design Project: Symbios Logic Designer. PPK Project #. 714-001 Date: 08/07/96 Location: Storm Pipe B Pipe dia.: 27 in Tailwater. 0.9 ft Discharge 21.9 cfs Max. V.• 5 ft/s 1. Required riprap type: Q/DA2.5 = 2.88 < 6 --> use design charts D = 2.25 ft 1.04 YUD = 0.40 Q/D"1.5 = 6.49 d50 = 6 in ----> Use Class 6 riprap 2. Expansion factor. 1 / [2 tan(theta)] _ . 1.8 3. Riprap length: At = CW = 4.38 ft2 L = 1/[2tah(theta)]'(At/Yt - D) = 5 ft 4. Governing limits. L.> 3D = 7 ft increase length to 7 ft L<10D= 23 ft =>5ft—>OK 5. Maximum depth: Depth =2d50=2(6in/12)= 1 ft 6. Bedding., Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. 7. Riprap width: Width =3D=3(27in/12)= 7 ft Summary. Class 6 riprap Length = 7 ft Depth = 1 ft Width = 7 ft 07-Aug-96 RI3D, Inc., Engineering Consultants Riprap Design 35 Project: Symbios.Logic Designer., PPK Project #. 714-001 Date: 08/07/96 .Location: Storm pipe C Pipe dia.: 36 in TaNvater. 1.2 ft Discharge 19.3. cfs Max. V. . 5 ft/s 1. Required riprap type: Q/D12.5 = 1.24 < 6 --> use design charts D = 3.00 ft 1.04 Yt/D = 0.40 Q/D^1.5 = 3.71 d50 = 6 in ---> Use Class 6 riprap 2. Expansion factor: 1 / [2 tan(theta)] _ 1.8 3. Riprap length: At = Q/V = 3.86 f12 L = 1/[2tan(theta)]•(At/Yt - D) = 0 ft 4. Governing limits: L >.3D = 9 ft increase length to 9 ft L<10D= 30 ft =>Oft -=>OK 5. Maximum.depth: Depth =2d50=2(6in/12)= 1 ft _ 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. 7. Riprap width: Width = 3D = 3 (36 in /12),= 9 ft Summary: Class 6 riprap Length = 9 ft Depth = 1 ft Width = 9 ft 07-Aug-96 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP =/ A = Expansion Angle 00 .1 .2 .3 A 5 6 .7 . .8 TAILWATER DEPTH/CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TABLES AND FIGURES No Text DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF 3� F- 20 z W U It W d 10 z W a O 5 to W N 3 cr M O U 2 lr W Q 3 1 �eeieieeEN�ee��e�e►� ill FAN 1►' ��IOIIII Ie■ I�ee��® - �� •, Il I' .2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND - FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELOPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Walersheda" Technical Release No. 55. USDA. SCS Jan. 1975. 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE A FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 41 a) D w O w +� $4 n41 U r4 b .. 44 J� O GL) 41 d' 41 cr Z �0 O � o �$4 3 O W 41 N O O O _. rq O 00 (D 0o co v �� c a o 0-) 00 DO o0 00 p O O O O O O O. O }i _ �0�0�3 �uauz�snfp� ALOUInp FOX MEADOWS BASIN H DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN INFORMATION MIL 10 1 r 1�Reservoir Fort Collins, Colorado Fox Meadows Basin (Basin HI DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN RESOURCE CM ULWTS INC 43 _ FOX MEADOWS BASIN (BASIN H) _ DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN INTRODUCTION This report summarizes investigations to develop a drainage master plan for the Fox Meadows Basin (Basin H). in and near the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. It presents a recommended drainage improvement plan for the entire basin based on anticipated fully developed conditions within the basin. The general location and limits of the Fox Meadows Basin are shown in Fig. 1. The report consists of five major sections which are: (1) Basin Characteristics (2) Existing Basin Drainage Analysis (3) Storm -Water Management Alternatives . (4) Economic Analysis (S) Implementation Plans The report also contains an appendix which presents the preliminary design for the necessary basin improvements. - - The basin characteristics section of the report presents general drainage patterns, major drainage features within the basin, and existing levels of development. The hydrologic analysis section discusses the methods used and the results of the analysis for the existing basin conditions, as well as the hydraulic analysis which includes floodwater profiles for major pon ding areas and for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. The third section discusses the two best alternatives for drainageway improvements along with the results of the hydrologic analysis of these two alternatives which were developed for anticipated fully developed conditions within the basin. Fourth, an economic analysis of these improvement plans is presented dui W along with a brief cost -benefit analysis of the existing drainage problems. fl The final section discusses a recommended improvement plan and specific. implementation recommendations for development of these drainage improvements. N -1- RC50URCC CONSULTANTS INC 4-4 aS U) .z .0 LLJ ow LL LL 0 < 0 LIJ < 2 w ui x z 0 LL. Ld (D Ri ZO t: 0�- 0� 0 < z t x< ou Om LL. z LLJ WC) Basic data utilized for this study were from 1-to-100 scale 2-foot contour mapping supplied by the City of Fort Collins. Where more detailed information was necessary, actual field surveying was done by this firm. ' The anticipated fully developed conditions were taken from zoning maps for the City of Fort Collins. To coordinate the study with persons affected by drainage improvements within the basin, meetings were conducted with the following people: ' (1) Ben Dumler and Duane Arancy, North Poudre Irrigation Company 11 (2) .John Weitzel, Boxelder Ditch Company (3) Glen Johnson, Larimer County No. 2 Ditch Company Met (4) Rex Burns, Larimer County.Planning Department ' Discussions.with these persons provided valuable input for the develop- ment of the overall drainage master plan. Continued coordination of efforts with these people during the design and construction phase of drainage improvements should be maintained. BASIN CHARACTERISTICS The general location and limits of the drainage basin are shown in Fig. 1. A more detailed presentation of the basin limits and existing _ drainage.patterns in the basin are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The general basin limits extend from Lemay Avenue on the west to the Cache la Poudre River on the east and from Harmony Road on the south to Horsetooth Road on the north. In order to facilitate analysis, the drainage basin was divided into three major reaches. The first reach is from the Poudre River to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. The second reach is from the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch to Timberline Road, and the third reach is from Tim- berline Road to Lemay Avenue. ain W fit Ci _3- RESOURCE COM UCTMTS IhC M F 2 0 0 Z C 0 a� y .o m U 0 Z � N `� acc) m.a rn Vi i J Q c .� 7 Z N U LLI W � X o' � cc c cc v m o n o O a W o tr o co o m 00 m t C g p ro 0 00 �- � r C a Q'F O` .-. C m C .i. q 0 C 7 0V m� PO a9 V- 4) a 4-�7 Reach 2--Foss.il Creek Res. Inlet Ditch to Timberline Road The reach of the basin between the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch and Timberline Road is the portion that will probably experience the greatest change in the future. Therefore adequate planning of drainage at this time will significantly reduce. the cost of drainage facilities as development occurs. Currently, the major part of this reach is undeveloped and is in a rural, irrigated, farmland type use. Three developments exist here= -one is the Fox Meadows Subdivision in the northwest corner of Section 32; the second is the Harmony Road Mobile Home Park along Harmony Road in the southwest portion of Section 32; the third major development is the Hewlett-Packard industrial site in the southwest portion of Section 33. The remainder of this basin is essentially rural, and it is anticipated that future `develop- ment will change the land use significantly. Current drainage within this basin is conducted along numerous irriga- tion laterals which are used for irrigating farm fields. These laterals also capture irrigation tailwater and runoff water and transport them further downstream where they are either reused as irrigation water or eventually discharged into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. The high amount of pervious area, flat slopes, and the ability to pond water at numerous -loca- tions in this basin tend to eliminate the danger of peak flows overtopping-. the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. Within the existing developments -of the basin signficant onsite detention reduces peak flows and discharges the water.either onto farmland or into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch at a reduced flow rate. A more detailed view of the existing drainage pattern is presented in Fig. 2. - Reach 3--Timberline Road to Lemay Avenue The upper reach of this basin consists of the area bounded by Lemay Avenue, Horsetooth Road, Harmony Road, and Timberline Road. Through the eastern portion of this reach running from north to south is the Union Pacific Railroad. The embankment created by this railroad significantly controls storm water discharged to the east. Two major drainage thalwegs cross the -7- RC50URCC CON U MTS INC IN Table 3 Computed Peak Flows at Various Points within the Fox Meadows Basin (Existing Conditions) Peak flow (cfs) Pointy Location 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr A Fossil Creek Res ervoir.V 35 110 199 270 340 Inlet.Ditch and Harmony Rd. B Fossil Creek Reservoir2/ 20 89 136 180 240 Inlet Ditch between Harmony Rd. and-Horsetooth Rd.. C Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet 22 76 117 160 210 Ditch at Horsetooth Rd. D Horsetooth Rd. and County 7 53 45 120 160 Rd. 9 E County Rd. 9 between Horse- 2 4 5 6 32 tooth Rd. and Harmony Rd. F Same as above 2 10 15 22 28 G Southeast corner of Fox 3 43 69 97 130 Meadows Subdivision H. Timberline Rd. south of 2 7 9 10 10 Horsetooth Rd. I Union Pacific Railroad 1 3 5 7 9 south of Horsetooth Rd. J Union Pacific Railroad 10 44 67 80 89 near Harmony Drive 1/The exact locationsof these points are indicated on Fig. 2. -Z/The flows for Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch are storm -water flows only and do not include normal ditch diversions. -12- STORM -WATER MANAGEMENT PLAITS The planning of drainage improvements is dependent upon the ultimate amount of development within the basin. Therefore before storm -water management plans were developed, a hydrologic analysis was made for fully. developed conditions within the basin. Once these conditions were deter- mined, two alternate storm -water management plans were developed and analyzed in order to determine the most feasible plan. Based on the drainage improvements proposed, a detailed hydrologic analysis was made of the fully developed basin with these improvements. .To develop future basin conditions the anticipated future land use in the basin was determined. A figure in the Technical Addendum shows the expected land use for the upper two reaches of the basin only, since the lower reach is in the County and is within the Cache la Poudre flood plain and future land use of that area is somewhat uncertain at this time. For the hydrologic analysis assumptions were made as to onsite deten-. tion requirements for the basin. Since it is -uncertain how each tract will develop, detention facilities were assumed at points where drainage water from the subbasins entered major drainageways. These storm -water detention areas were given a constant discharge outlet in order to facilitate hydrologic analysis. The storm -water outlets assumed would release water -in excess of the historic 2-year floods, but would .control peak flows within the major drainage outfall channels so that the 2-year and 100-year peak flows would be approximately the same. In order to get maximum utilization of drainage outfall facilities, the control of peak flows for minor and major -storms must be sufficient in order to minimize the difference in peak flows,of`the 2-year and 100-year storms. Storm -Water Management Alternatives The development of a storm -water management plan for this basin con- sisted of developing drainage improvements for two separate drainageways. The north drainageway:begins at Timberline Road approximately 1/4 mile south of Horsetooth Road and proceeds to the corner of Horsetooth Road and County -16- RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC 50 Road 9, then proceeds along the north side of Horsetooth Road to the Poudre River. The south drainageway begins at the outlet of the Hewlett-Packard detention pond spillway along the north side of Harmony Road and proceeds northeasterly to,the Poudre River. Two storm -water management plans were analyzed for each of these drainageways. (Numerous alternatives were con- sidered for possible improvements,.but after discussions with City staff most were eliminated due to physical and economic constraints.) Alternative 1 The first management alternative considered was construction of a major drainage outfall channel for the north drainageway which would consist of an open -channel swale 5 feet wide and 3 feet deep with 4:1 sideslopes. Parallel to this swale for nuisance flows and small -storm flows, a storm - sewer would be constructed which would begin at Timberline Road and would be 24 inches at this point (Fig. 5). It would increase in size until it intersected the existing 36-inch storm sewer along the south side of Horse - tooth Road to the intersection of County Road 9. At that point this open channel and storm sewer would proceed along the north side of Horsetooth Road down the hill to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch where portions of the flows could be intercepted by the ditch and the remainder of the flow would be taken under the ditch and empty into a drainage outfall channel carrying a portion of the Foothills Basin storm drainage which would outfall to the Poudre River (Fig. 6). The southern channel of this first alternative would consist of cap- turing overflow water from the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch and the spillway flows from the Hewlett-Packard detention pond and carrying them north of Harmony Road to an existing .pond on the east side of County Road 7 (see Fig. 6). This pond would then have an overflow constructed to allow major drainage overflows into the Poudre.River. The area between County Road 9 and Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch will drain directly into the ditch and be discharged at the spillway north of Harmony Road. Drain- age water from areas west of County Road 9 will be carried through a 36-inch storm sewer with a parallel major drainage swale from County Road 9 into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. -17- RESOURCE CON ULTNNE INC �.. o v . � o i i c C L 0 L � � Z co 0 fn > •. a Q U. Z F ' a �. j z U W 0 C � 0 L LL. C] c III Alternative 2 The second management alternative that was considered utilized essen- tially the same scheme for the north drainageway as. in Alternative 1 with the exception that the drainageway from County Road .9 to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch would be contained entirely within a 48-inch storm sewer (Fig. 7). This was considered because of the steep slopes in this area which would create problems in.maintaining a grass -lined channel down the.hill to the ditch. The south drainageway is essentially the same in the second alter native as the first with the exception that drainage water from the yp�er reach of this drainageway would be diverted from its existingdra nage,,,,�e _ course into a proposed maior drainage channel on the Hewlett-Packard site. Adequate capacity exists on the site to carry these additional_ flows (James H. Stewart & Associates, Inc., 1979). This drainage channel would then carry water into the Hewlett-Packard detention_ basin and the spillway would then allow overflow down into the soutthern drainage channelFi6� In addition, this alternative considered the use of onsite detention facil- ities along the area between County Road 9 and Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet - Ditch in order to minimize peak inflow to the ditch between Horsetooth Road and Harmony Road. Hydrologic Analysis of Storm -Water Management Alternatives The effectiveness of each of these storm -water management alternatives was evaluated through the use of a hydrologic analysis of the basin. Table 4 summarizes peak flows at various points within the basin for each alter- native. As can be seen from this table peak flows into the Fossil Creek. Reservoir Inlet Ditch (Point D, Figures 5 and 7) are greatly reduced in improvement alternative 2 because of the use of onsite detention immediately above the dtich. It also can be seen that the peak flows for the 2-year and the 100-year storms are more nearly the same magnitude as compared to the peak flows developed for existing basin conditions that are presented in Table 3. This analysis indicates that the peak flow into the Poudre River (Point A, Fig. 7) from the north drainageway would be approximately 150 cfs (from Fox Meadows Basin only, 330 cfs total, including drainage water from the Foothills Basin --see "Foothills Basin [Basin.G] Drainage Master Plan") while the discharge into the pond east of County Road 7 along the .south drain- ageway would be about 120 cfs (Pt. B, Fig. 7). -20- RESOURCE CONSULTANTS U` 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 U N C O U 0 U. U Z F- Z I" J Z O U w U cc O w cc W o a `o o S 0 a. _Wc W W m W 00 Eo 3 W c o W o m �ol c ° c m o 0 0 0a oaa C Y 0 9 p C V W OA W O m o = n Vy C m ; 0. G Y 6 0 6 C b 9 W N a /A Table 4 Computed Peak Flows for Fully Developed Conditions Storm -water Storm=water management management alternative 1 alternative 2 Point!/ Location peak flow (cfs) peak flow (cfs) 2-yr 100-yr 2-yr 100-vr A North drainage channel at. 191 330 187 330 inflow to Poudre River B South drainage at County Rd. 7 73 340 45 210 C Fossil Creek Reservoir 'Inlet 3/ 64 250 23 69. Ditch at spill point north of Harmony Rd. D Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet 3/ 59 240 24 59. . Ditch at inflow point south of.Horsetooth Rd. E North drainage channel at 98. 150 93 150. Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch F North.drainage west.of County 80 140 76 14.0.- Rd. 9 G Drainage outfall to Fossil Creek 49 69 — -- Reservoir Inlet Ditch H Outfall channel through 24 24 72 95 Hewlett-Packard Droner v - I North drainage channel east 67 .88 62 88 of Fox Meadows Subdivision J North drainage channel south 43 64 43 64 of Fox Meadows Subdivision !/The exact location of these points are indicated on Figures 5 and 7. /Includes discharge from Foothills Basin,south drainageway. 3/The flows for Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch are storm -water flows only and do not include normal ditch diversions. -22- =5 The second type of drainage improvements are those facilities that are required to carry runoff from new developments in the basin. Table 7 summarizes the cost estimates for these facilities in each reach of the basin for each alternative. These cost estimates include construction of the improvements indicated in Figures 6 and 7. Right-of-way costs are. also included. The costs are broken down for the total .acreages drained and also for the total undeveloped acreage drained. .These.figures do not include the cost of onsite improvements for a development (such as storm sewers, detention ponds, etc.). They do include some provisions for addi- tional road crossings on the major drainageways as indicated in Table .7. If additional_ road crossings or other costs are incurred as a result of developing properties adjacent to the major drainageways, then these costs should not be included in the basin drainage fees. This is because these fees should only pay for necessary improvements and not for any excess costs required by.a single development. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Based on the investigations conducted for the Fox Meadows Basin it is recommended that the City of Fort Collins adopt improvement alternative 2 as an element of the drainage master plan within this basin. Preliminary plans for these improvements are presented in the appendix to this report. Table 7 presents the cost estimates for these improvements. The following list specifies the items which should be considered as part of the overall drainage master plan for this basin. Design flows for the proposed improvements are presented in Table 8. Onsite Detention Requirements Based on the analysis conducted for this basin, onsite detention require- ments should be implemented for -the areas indicated in Fig. 7. Table 9 specifies the storage and outflow requirements for each detention basin modeled within the basin hydrology. These onsite detention requirements should be utilized as criteria for future developments within the basin. -27- RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC Table 8 Design Flows for Drainage Improvements for Fox Meadows Basin Pointy Location 2-yr Peak 10-yr Flows 25-yr (cfs) 507yr 100-yr A North drainage channel at�/. 187 249 208 292 330 inflow to Poudre River B South drainage at County 45 59 160 180 210 Road 7 C Fossil Creek Reservoirs 23 37 47 58 69 Inlet Ditch at spill point. north of Harmony Road D Fossil Creek Reservo' 24 34 41 50 59 Inlet Ditch at inflow point - south of Horsetooth Road E North drainage channel at 93 120 125 130 150 Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch - F North drainage west of 76 100 110 120 140- County Road 9 H Outfall channel through 72 81 85 91 95- Hewlett-Packard property =— I North drainage channel east 62 88 88 88 of Fox Meadows Subdivision J North drainage channel 43 64 64 64 64 - south of Fox Meadows Sub- division - 1�The exact locations of these points are indicated on Figures 6 and 7. 2/Includes discharge from Foothills Basin south drainageway. 3/The flows for Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch are storm -water flows only and do not include normal ditch diversions. -29- RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC 57 Table 9 Onsite Detention Requirements for Fox Meadows Basin. Pond 1l Location .1 Improvement to existing pond north of Hewlett-Packard site 2 Pond capturing drainage water east of County Road 9 3 Pond west of County Road 9 4 Pond west of County Road 9 5 Pond west of County Road 9 6 Pond west of County Road 9 7 Pond south of Fox Meadows Subdivision 8 Improvements to Pond north of Harmony Road Mobile Home Park 9 Pond east of Timberline Road 1/For exact location of pond, see Fig. j. Maximum Maximum storage outflow (ac-ft) (cfs) 4.05 11 6.84 11 9.32 5.70 1274 24 I s �+ 5.33 24 12.43 17 28.74 24 6.67 24 8.53 24 -30- RESOURCE CON ULTMTS INC EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS DRAINAGE REPORTS r r _g rMASTER r DRAINAGE REPORT , r HEWLETT PACKARD SITE r r PRESTON KELLY SUBDIVISION r fr r PREPARED FOR HEWLETT [hp:j PACKARD Fort Collins Systems DIVIsion " . 3404 East Harmony Road Fort Collins, Colorado 86525 . nBY: NOLTE and ASSOCIATES .8955 SOUTH RIDGELINE BOULEVARD, UNIT P. n HIGHLANDS RANCH, COLORADO 80126 I I "/&At "Iff roan oJmfxw ,W Af ANAW AUV 4WWX0j. A k k T__ -SECTION A -A FUTURE CHANNEL T N,rirur �FeZ V 0 r 494,91 MAN Ar /Foe" e ....... . \. XC If J70&W r14& ,%Wff AV M /ow marr, Nor Arwf ^AV ro all WAAW, 10 C-i t 100 w .,ir.4 ltffJ (A LLI SOUTH POND A 2 40079001 (a Z FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 9 IMPROVEMENTS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO April 4, 1995 Prepared for: Client: CITY OF FORT COLLINS 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-5922 RBD Job No..020-121 ��J 0 - STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL _---------- Developed by Civilo Deets U. -of Colorado at Denver-------- --_ - Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study USER:RDB-Fort Collins. -Colorado........ .. ..................................... ON DATA 02-27-1997 AT TIME 09:28:31 VERSION=01-17-1997 ***.PROJECT TITLE :COUNTY ROAD 9 (Symbios detention pond 212 outlet) M OdeltA c.&m i na *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS STZ e-M Vj > cr`. ---P4o (Design flow hydrology not calculated using UDSEWER) �lti✓�/ 4 a S *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES / I�`(Ar` o %Flirt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS P{ ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET "•-••- 1.00 19.50 4925.78 4923.43 OK 2.00 19.50 4925.45 4923.44 OK 3.00 19.50 4925.45 4924.00 OK 4.00 19.50 4925.78 4924.08 OK 5.00 19.50 4925.78 4924.20 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1 SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE D1A(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) WIDTH -- 1D NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) -------•--••---•----•__---------•--------------- ' , 12.00 2.00 1.00 BOX 1.19 1.50 2.50 3.93 23.00 3.00 2.00 BOX 1.97 2.00 1.50 2.36 34.00 4.00 3.00 BOX 1.97 2.00 1.50 2.36 45.00 5.00 4.00 BOX 1.97 2.00 1.50 2.36 ' 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 ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS -------- •-•------•------••-•------------•-------------------------------------- 12,0 19.5 42.1 1-19 4,111 0,91 5.43 1.911 0*611 V-OK 23.0 19.5 10.8 1.50 5.51 1.50 0.00 5.51 0.00 V-OK 34.0 19.5 10.8, 1.50 5.51 1.50 0.00 5.51 0.00 V-OK 45.0 19.5 10.8 1.50 5.51 1.50 .0.00 5.51 0.00 V-OK ' FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A -PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS 1D NUMBER. UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) -----•--•------ -----------------•------------------------------ 12.00 0.20 4922.04 4922.02 0.91 1.26 NO 23.00 0.20 4922.17 4922.03 1.78 1.92 NO ' 34.00 0.20 4922.20 4922.18 2.08 1.77. NO 45.00 0.20 4922.20 4922.20 2.08 2.08 OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS 6S ----- --------------- ----- ------ -- ----------------- ---- ' SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET . FEET FEET ---------------- 12.00 10.00 0.00 4924.54 4924.52 4923.44 4923.43 SUBCR 23.00 72:00 72.00 4923.67 4923.53 4924.00 4923.44 PRSSfEO 1 34.00 10.00 10.00 4923.70 4923.68 4924.08 4924.00 PRSSIEO 45.00 0.10 0.10 4923.70 4923.70 4924.20 4924.08 PRSSIED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUSCRITICAL FLOW, ' *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ............................................................................. UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT - 12.0 2.00 4923.65 0.21 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4923.43 23.0 3.00 4924.47 0.80 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.00 4923.65 34.0 4.00 92 56 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 4924.47 45.0 5.00i4924.67 0.00 0.25 0.12 0.00 0.00 4.00 4924.56 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. poNZ) z1-a Jl 4 FINAL DRAINAGE STUDY FOR BEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BUILDING 5 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO October 4, 1996 Prepared for: H + L Architecture 1621 18th Street, Suite 100 Denver, Colorado 80202 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants A Division of Sear Brown 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (970) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 282-015 REV. 3 0- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 REGIONAL STORM DRAINAGE CHANNEL 10 Conveyance Element 36 Cross Section for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:Ulaestad\fmw1282013.fm2 Worksheet Conveyance Element 36 Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.005700 ft/ft Depth 1.52 ft Left Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Bottom Width 3.00 ft Discharge 24.00 cfs t 0arz9196 09:14:17 AM 3.00 ft Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 1.52 ft 1 V N, H 1 NTS FlowMastei v5.13 Page 1 of 1 Table Rating Table for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:lhaestadlfmw1282013.fm2 Worksheet Conveyance Element 36 Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.005700 ft/ft Left Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Bottom Width 3.00 ft Input Data Minimum Mabmum Increment ' Depth 1.00 2.00 0.10 ft ' Rating Table Depth Discharge Velocity (ft) (cfs) ON 1.00 9.54 1,16 ' 1.10 11.70 1.44 . 1.20 14.13 1.51 1.30 16.85 1.58 1.40 19.85 1.65j . 5 Z �S -"` 1.50 23.15 1.71�' 1.60 26.77 1.78 3\ 1.70 30.71 1.84,00 x \ 33 •9.�.�-s 1.80 34.99 1.91 1.90 39.61 1.97 2.00 44.59 2.03 08/29/96 Flow er vof13 09:15:57 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Pa Page 1 of 1 S70 REGIONAL CHANNEL CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 35 AND 38 Cross Section for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description 1 P Project File 0haestadlfmw1282015.fni2 Worksheet conveyance element 38 M- 3�5' Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.035 Channel Slope 0.004360 ft/ft Depth 3.41 ft Left Side Slope 4,000000 H : V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Bottom Width .5.00 ft Discharge 274.00. cfs a 3.41 ft 1 5.00 ft V H 1 NTS 08/19/96 - FIOWMaster v5.13 _ 03:08:56 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 -7I Table Rating Table for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\fmw\282015.frh2 Worksheet conveyance element 38435 Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth _. Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0.035 Channel Slope 0.004300 ft/ft q- - Left Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H : V Bottom Width 5.00 ft Input Data __.._. Minimum Maximum Increment Discharge 150.00 300.00 25.00 cfs Rating -Table Discharge Depth Velocity (cfs) (ft) (ems) 150.00 2.62 3.69� Q,00 alr«, 35 ' I l�4 •!0) l7n(�` ` 2'� 175.00 2.81 3.84 ' 200.00 2.98 3.97 �� n �s x�.33 = z i� •�''� �7Q e`` 3 : o� 225.00 3.13 4.0— 3.oZl 250.00 3.28 4.20 3g = off• 3 • Qz 4 - 275.00 3.42 4.3X133_ �a-SG&S� 3•� 300.00 3.55 4.40 08/19/96 FIOWMaster v5.13 03:15:12 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside.Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 / UPDATED 100-YEAR SWMM MODEL INPUT DATA FOR THE SOUTH FOX MEADOWS BASIN 1 COUNTY ROAD 9 �- —..eG .. +- ^+b:- _ .a' `.s. ��, .ram - - - •- - - :.a- ~ _ _ �.-� - _ _ -_ - - - POND *1 N �1 1 P0 POND :1 POND •2 �� 1 `� I LEGEND t 1 49e9 EXISTING CONTOUR � I 0 0 j 128 m 89 -� PROPOSED CONTOUR HIGH POINT "i c DIRECTION OF .FLOW le - - �- ^' ' II IG < 21 BASIN O :O= 126 CONVEYANCE ELEMENT POND 1zw p F- DETENTION- POND ,' ♦ . ~ ~. i " ,', / Q CO DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY 12 0 _ _ + ' , '� '� - ' - '' - p I • • $ SWALE/DITCH w/ FLOW ARROW op o cc 4f- NOT TO SCALE 14 .ol ' _ •• ' ,' 01 fr-- - -- - - - - - op - so 20 MN #r # `� • 1MloRETi 24 , ' w j i gy r SWMM EXHIBIT &tea We L 'ImmosAaftepa) 1sm, J • .a .. �. Engineering Consultants 74 11 11 0 CLIENT R t V `- JOB NO. 7 I4- DO I RMINC PROJECTG1-4 14af ,JZ- LDG I L CALCULATIONS FOR Dec Engineering Consultants MADE BY�Y // A DATCNECKED BVDATE-SHEET OF - _�:....(2ES� 2-iCT ,-ttE1� s,=r�, 2:1..��!c�-t-, To . P� �:�.l�.E•--2�;�s�E� 40cF5�149 2 Q 32 e�s�s c 0- - - x 3 l!0 2c 5 [PER DItQrLT+oN FIZ& C�T -J SC Oi2 CLIENT Ye S:; %1 JOB NO./ � ■AINC PROJECT 151 M."�I G 5 LG 4 f G CALCULATIONS FOR Efl91fleefInj COr1SUIt8f1'S MADEBY�15! DATE6�6CMECNEDBY- DATE -SHEET- OF ■ �� INC Engineering Consultants u � (o CLIENT eNL ',J_.rS�GJ"1 JOB NO.711 -00I PROJECT p�5.�yt1yi O �� CALCULATIONS FOR lN/�1 �l`1 —OD 10 MADE BY Per . DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET -OF A(a)=5.00 ac 1 L<1)=1257 F7 L(2)=1801 Ft I I I 12G-r: 5WMM vc--, 'i Usc/s /�!a1",U,till )pp. 102. ocf. 11`IZ. .-7-7 CLIENT L 6e n n JOB NO.7/ NC PROJECT p r LOo1C CALCULATIONS FOR, to Engineering Consultants MADE BY DATE CHECKED BY- DATE -SHEET- OF 647--7- - � 0 1 ..... 0--f- It -T . ...... ...... -- -------- ------ . . . . . . . . . . . . z*. 4 r 1-,�.W-01 Ok. LX;, ------ --- ----- -- - UPDATED 100-YEAR SWMM MODEL OUTPUT DATA FOR THE SOUTH FOX MEADOWS BASIN SVVNM input rile 714001S1.DAT: 2 t t z 3 4 WATERSHED 0 SYMBIOS LOGIC OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100 YR DEVELOPED REVISED 19 JUN 96; RBD, INC./SBG Oki) FILE: 714001S1.DAT 96 .5.0 1 10. 1 25 5.0 0.60 0.96 1.44 1.68 3.00 5.04 9.00 3.72 2.16 1.56 1.20 0.84 0.60 0.48 0.36 0:36 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.12 0.00 • Prepared for: RML Design * SWMM proposed developed condition,100-yr recurrence interval * Updated from Hewlett-Packard Master Drainage Study (28201351.DAT) * 2 .016 .25 .1 .3 .51 .5 .0018 t 21 125 3200 66.3 40 .004 27 t 24 12600 10.6 40 .003 * Symbios Logic property 1 23 1263717.46.93 17.0 .008 1 31 1282303.51.87 49.7 .008 * Off -site to west of Symbios t 20 1242578. 50.3 5 .008 * Hewlett-Packard property 1 32 35 3200 31.3 60 .003 1 33 42. 600 13.3 10 .050 1 34 39 4800 78.6 70 .005 1 30 38 1630 18.7 72 .007 0 0 1 36 35 0 1 3.0 900.0 .0037 4.0 4.0 .060 . 10.00. 1: 35 38 0 1 5.0 1300.0 .0037 4.0 4.0 .035 10.00 1 38 40 0 1 5.0 1900.0 .0046 4.0 4.0 .035 10.00 0 40 43 10 2 .01 100.0 .01 .023 .01 0.00 0.00 0.44 20.00 0.98 20.00 1.61 20.0 2.35 24.0 3.25 50.0 4.74 80.0 7.03 100.0 - 8.23 110.0 9.86 250.0 1 43 42 0 5 4.0 656.0 .025 0.0' 0.0 .016 4.00 50.0 650.0 .025 50.0 50.0 .035 100.0 0 39 41 11 2 .01 100.0 .01 .023 .01 0.00 0.00 0.06 2.00 1.04 31.0 2.10 38.0 3.23 46.00- 4.45 52.00 5.37 54.0 5.78 56.0 -- 7.16 60.0 8.66 64.00 10.28 68.0 1 41 42 0 5 4.7 306.0 .050 0.0 0.0 .016 4.70 50.0 300.0 .025 50.0 50.0 .035 100.00 0 42 203 8 2 .01 0.1 .11 .001 100.0 .0 .0 2.0 21.0 4.2 22.5 6.90 23.5 9.9 24.2 13.4 25.0 16.4 214.5 19.6 575.6 1 124 212 0 1 0.0 850.0 .008 30.0 30.0 .035 10.00 t 125 213 0 1 2.0 2600.0 .004 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 1 126 214 0 1 0.0 1600.0 .008 4.0 4.0 .035 10.00 1 127 35 0 t 2.0 1300.0 .006 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 1 128 215 0 4 0.0 1513. .008 12.0 12.0 .016 0.50 10.0 1513. .008 50.0 50.0 .020 10.00 * THEORETICAL 3-POINT RATING CURVES FOR FUTURE UPSTREAM DETENTION PONDS- - 213 35 3 2 0.1 100.0 .010 .013 0.1 .0 .0 5.33 24.0 7.0 24.0 214 35 3 2 0.1 100.0 .010 .013 0.1 .0 .0 5.70 30.5 8.0 30.5 211 36 3 2 0.1 100.0 010 .013 0.1 .0 .0 6.70 17.5 8.0 17.5 * Future off -site detention pond to west of Symbios * THEORETICAL 3-POINT RATING CURVE 212 126 3 2 0.1 100.0 .010 .013 0.1 0. .0 0.0 15.8 10.0 15.8 0 10 1 35 38 42 40 43 213 214 215 36 '212 ENDPROGRAM SVv7vM output file 714001SLOUT: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION PCJ DEVELOPED BY METCALF + EDDY, INC. ' UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970) UPDATED BY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (JUNE.1973) HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 1974) BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1985, JULY 1985) TAPE OR DISK ASSIGNMENTS JIN(1) JIN(2) JIN(3) JIN(4) JIN(5) JIN(6) JIN(7) JIN(8) JIN(9) JINGO) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 JOUT(1) JOUT(2) JOUT(3) JOUT(4) JOUT(5) JOUT(6) JOUT(7) JOUT(8) JOUT(9) JOUT(10) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NSCRAT(1) NSCRAT(2) .__ NSCRAT(3) NSCRAT(4) NSCRAT(5) 3 4 0 0 0 WATERSHED PROGRAM CALLED *** ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL *** �SYMBIOS LOGIC OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-YR DEVELOPED REVISED 19 JUN 96; RBD, INC./SSG (dkt) FILE: 714001S1.DAT NUMBER OF TIME STEPS 96 INTEGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) 5.00 10.0 PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA.HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH FOR 25 RAINFALL STEPS, THE TIME INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTES FOR RAINGAGE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL HISTORY IN INCHES PER HOUR .60 .96 1.44 1.68 3.00 M4 9.00 3.72 1.20 .84 .60 .48 36 .36 .24 .24 24 .24 .12 .12 :00 ,SYMIIOS LOGIC OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-.YR DEVELOPED REVISED 19 JUN 96; RBD, INC./SBG (dkt) FILE: 714001S1.DAT 2.16 1.56 .24 .24 00 LsuRARFA cUTTFR WIDTH AREA . PERCENT SLOPE RESISTANCE FACTOR SURFACE STORAGE(IN) INFILTRATION RATE(IN/HR) GAGE NUMBER OR MANHOLE (FT) (AC) IMPERV. -2 0 : .0 .0 .0 21 125 3200:0 66.3 40.0 24 127 2600.0 10.6 40.0 23 126 3717.0 .46.9 17.0 31 128 2303.0 51.9 49.7 20 124 2578.0 50.3 5.0 32 35 3200.0 31.3 .60:O 33 42 600.0 13.3 10.0 34 39 4800.0 78.6 70.0 30 38 1630.0 18.7 72.0 NUMBER OF SUBCATCHMENTS, 9 �OTAL DIAL TRIBUTARY AREA (ACRES), 367.90 (FT/FT) IMPERV. PERV. IMPERV. PERV. MAXIMUM MINIMUM DECAY RATE NO .0300 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 .0040 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .0030 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .0080 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 . .0080 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .0080 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .0030 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50. .00180 1 .0500 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .0050 .016 .250 . 100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .0070 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 YMBIOS LOGIC OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-YR DEVELOPED EVISED 19 JUN 96; RBD, INC./SBG (dkt) FILE: 714001S1.DAT +* CONTINUITY CHECK FOR SUBCATCHMEMT ROUTING IN UDSWM2-PC MODEL ATERSHED AREA (ACRES) 367.900 OTAL RAINFALL (INCHES) 2.890" . TOTAL INFILTRATION (INCHES) .538 TOTAL WATERSHED OUTFLOW (INCHES) 2.106 TOTAL SURFACE STORAGE AT END OF STROM (INCHES) .246' RROR IN CONTINUITY, PERCENTAGE OF RAINFALL .004 LOGIC OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H)..100-YR DEVELOPED �YMBIOS EVISED 19 JUN 96; RBD, INC./SBG (dkt) FILE: 714001S1.DAT WIDTH INVERT UTTER GUTTER NDP NP OR DIAN LENGTH SLOPE UMBER CONNECTION (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) 35 0 1 CHANNEL 3.0 -.900. 38 0 1 CHANNEL 5.0 �':1300.- 40 0 1 CHANNEL 5.0 1900:" 43 10 2 PIPE .0 100. RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .4 20.0 1.0 20.0 4.7 80.0 7.0 100.0 8.2 110.0 42 0 5 PIPE 4.0 650. OVERFLOW 50.0 650. 41 11 2 PIPE .0 100. RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .1 2.0 1.0 31.0 5.4 54.0 5.8 56.0 7.2 60.0 42 0 5 PIPE 4.7 300. OVERFLOW 50.0 300. 203 8 2 PIPE . .0 0. RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 2.0 21.0 4.2 22.5 16.4 214.5 19.6 575.6 212 0 1 CHANNEL .0 850. 213 0 1 CHANNEL 2.0 2600. 214 0 1 CHANNEL .0 1600. 35 0 1 CHANNEL .2.0 1300. 215 0 4 CHANNEL .0 .1513. OVERFLOW 10.0 1513. 35 3 2 PIPE .1 100. RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 5.3 24.0 7.0 24.0 35 3 2 PIPE .1 100. RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 5.7 30.5 8.0 30.5 36 3 2 PIPE .1 100. RESERVOIR STORAGE IN.ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0037 .0037 .0046 .0100 SIDE SLOPES OVERBANK/SURCHARGE HORIZ TO VERT MANNING DEPTH JK L R N (FT) 4.6 4.0 .060 10.00 1 4.0 4.0 .035 .10.00 1 4.0 4.0 .035 10.00 1 .0 .0 .023 .01 .0 1.6 20.0 2.4 24.0 3.3 50.0 9.9 250.0 .0250 .0 .0 .016 4.00 .0250 50.0 50.0 .035 100.00 .0100 .0 .0 .023 :01 2.1 38.0 3.2 46.0 4.5. 52.0 8.7 64.0 10.3 68.0 .0500 .0 .0 .016 4.70 .0500 50.0 50.0.. .035 100.00 .1100 .0 .0 .001 100.00 6.9 23.5 9.9 24.2 13.4 .25.0 .0080 30.0 30.0 .035 10.00 .0040 .30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 .0080 4.0 4.0 .035 10.00 .0060 30.0 30.0 .016 100.00 .0080 12.0 12.0 .016 .50 .0080 50.0 50.0 .020 10.00 .0100 .0 .0 .013 .10 .0100 .0 .0 .013 .10 .0100 .0 .0 .013 .10 1 0 1 0. 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 .0 .0 . 6.7 17.5 8.0 17.5 212 126 3 2 PIPE .1 100 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .0 15.8 10.0 15.8 TOTAL NUMBER OF GUTTERS/PIPES, 17 .0100 .0 .0 .013 .10 .0 SYMBIOS LOGIC OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H).100-YR DEVELOPED REVISED 19 JUN 96; RBD, INC./SBG (dkt) FILE: 714001S1.DAT . ARRANGEMENT OF SUBCATCHMENTS AND GUTTERS/PIPES GUTTER TRIBUTARY GUTTER/PIPE TRIBUTARY SUBAREA D.A.(AC) 35 36 127 213 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 257.3 36 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51.9 38 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 276.0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78.6 40 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 276.0 41 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78.6 42 43 41 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 367.9 43 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 276.0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.3 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66.3 126 212 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97.2 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.6 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51.9 212 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.3 213 125 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66.3 214 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97.2 215 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51.9 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 65 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 ' �NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 67 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE 1N GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 69 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 71 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 73 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 �NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 75 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 77 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 ; NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 79 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 81 AT CONVEYANCE -ELEMENT 212 --_ NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 83 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 �NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 85 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 87 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 89 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 91 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 93 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 �NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 95 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 97 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 212 ®SYMBIOS LOGIC OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100cYR DEVELOPED REVISED 19 JUN 96; RBD, INC./SBG (dkt) FILE: 714001S1.DAT - ®HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 10 CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS THE UPPER NUMBER IS DISCHARGE IN CFS THE LOWER NUMBER IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASES: ( ) DENOTES DEPTH ABOVE INVERT IN FEET (S) DENOTES STORAGE IN AC -FT FOR DETENTION DAM. DISCHARGE INCLUDES SPILLWAY OUTFLOW. (1).DENOTES GUTTER INFLOW IN CFS FROM SPECIFIED INFLOW HYDROGRAPH (D) DENOTES DISCHARGE IN CFS DIVERTED FROM THIS GUTTER (0) DENOTES STORAGE IN AC -FT FOR SURCHARGED GUTTER TIME(HR/MIN) 35 36 38 40 42 43 212 213 214 215 1 0 .5. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00(S) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) .00( ) 0 10. .02 .00 .01 00 .01 .00 .02 .01 .01 .01 .02( ) .00( ) .01( ) .00(S) .00(S) .00( ) 00( ) .00(S) .00(S) .00(S) 0 15. .92 .00 .43 .06 .17 .01 .61 .02 .04 .03 .20( ) .00( ) .12( ) .00(S) .020) .03( ) .00( ) .00(S) .01(S) .01(S) 0 20. 5.95 .00 3.46 .57 .63 .25 1.81 .09 .17 .14 .56( ) .01( ) .39( ). AIM .06(S) .11( ) .00( ) .02(S) .03(S) .05(S) 0 25. 18.67 .02 13.38 2.70 1.78. 1.78 3.65 .34 .50 .46 33 30. 35. 40. 45. 50. 55. 0. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 40. 45. 50. 55. 0. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 40. 45. 50. 55. 0. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 40. 45. 1.02( ) .04( ) .81( ) .06(S) .17(S) .28( ). .00( ) .07(S) .09(S) .17(S) 47.66 .12 40.02 9.19 4.33 7.32 8.83 1.05 1.26 1.18 1.61( ) .11( ) 1.40( ) .20(S) .41(S) .54( ) .00( ) .23(S) .23(S) .45(S) 113.65 .47 106.32 20'.00 9.10 .17.96 15.81 2.86 3.04 2.81 2.40( ) .24( ) 2.21( ) .61(S) .87(S) .84( ) .03(S) .63(S) .57(S) 1.07(S) 163.33 1.38 181.63 20.00 15.11 21.05 15.81 .6.14 5.97 5.43 2.82( ) ..43( ) 2.81( ) 1.46(S) 1.44(S) .91( ) .14(S) 1:36(S) 1.11(S) 2.08(S) 151.02 .3.03 204.95 31.60 21.02 28.35 15.81 10.08 9.13 8.15 2.72( ). .64( ) 2.97( ) 2.61(S) 2.03(S) 1.06( ) .31(S) 2.24(S) 1.70(S) 3.12(S) 131.58 5.19 193.39 58.54 21.50 54.80 15.81 13.71 11.96 10.29 2.56( ) .83( ) 2.89( ) 3.67(S) 2.74(S) 1.49( ) .50(S) 3.04(S) 2.23(S) 3.94(S) 118.10 7.45 172.72 74.69 22.09 73.90, 15.81 .16.77 14.49 11.92 .2.44( ) .99( ) 2.75( ) 4.48(S) 3.60(S) 1.76( ) .70(S) 3.72(S) 2.71(S) 4.56(S) 108.91 9.52 153.45 82.77 22.63 81.76 15.81 19.28 16.73 13.19 2.35( ) 1.10( ) 2.61( ) 5.06(S) 4.54(S) 1.86( ) .90(S) 4.28(S) 3.12(S) 5.05(S) 101.94 11.27 137.48 86.43 22.99 86.40 15.81 21.29 18.65 14.17 2.28( ) 1.19( ) 2.49( ) 5.48(S) 5.52(S) 1.92( ) 1.08(S) 4.73(S) 3.48(S) 5.42(S) 96.69 12.70 124.83 89.04 23.35 88.59 .15.81 22.89 20.29 14.94 2.23( ) 1.26( ) '2.38( ) 5.78(S) 6.50(S) 1.95( ) 1.24(S) 5.08(S) 3.79(S) 5.72(S) 92.77 13.82 .115.05 90.85 23.64 90.81 15.81 24.01 21.66 15.53 2.19( ) 1.31( ) 2.30(.) 5.98(S) 7.48(S) 1.98( ) 1.39(S) , 5.36(S) -. 4.05(S) 5.94(S) 89.70 14.69 107.61 92.04 23.87 91.85 15.81 24.01 22.80 15.98 2.15( ) .1.35( ) .2.23( ) 6.12(S) 8.46(S) 1.99( ) 1.52(S) 5.58(S).•- 4.26(S) 6.11(S) 87.05 15.35 101.81 92.78 24.09 92.77 15.81 24.01 23.76 16.33 2.12( ) 1.37( ) 2.17( ) 6.20(S) 9.44(S) 2.01( ) 1.63(S) 5.75(S) ' 4.44(S) 6.25(S) 84.82 15.86 97.12 93.17 24.32 93.11 15.81 24.01 .24.55 16.59 2.10( ) 1.39( ) 2.13( ) 6.25(S) 10.41(S) 2.01( ) 1.72(S) 5.89(S)::--4.59(S) 6.35(S) 83.16 16.24 93.44. 93.30 24.54 93.31 15.81 24.01 25.21 16.78 2.08( ) 1.41( ) 2.09( ) 6.26(S) 11.37(S) 2.01( ) 1.80(S) 5.99(S)-..--4.71(S) 6.42(S) 81.96 16.52 90.64 93.22 24.76 93.22 15.81 24.01 25.75 16.91 2.07( ) 1.42( ) 2.06( ) 6.25(S) 12.32(S) 2.01( ) 1.87(S) 6.07(S): 4.81(S) 6.47(S) 81.08 16.72 68.54 93.01 24.97 93.05 15.81 24.01 26.20 17.01 2.06( ) 1.43( ) 2.04( ) 6.23(S) 13.27(S) 2.01( ) 1.93(S) .6.13(S) 4-.89(S) 6.51(S) 80.41 16.87 86.97 92.70 66.29 92.73 15.81 24.01-.26.57 17.07 2.05( ) 1.43( ) 2.02( ) 6.19(S) 14.05(S) 2.01( ) 1.97(S) 6.17(S) .':'.. 4.96(S) 6.53(S) 79.64 16.97 85.58 92.33 99.23 92.38 15.81 24.01 26.86 .17.10 2.04( ) 1.44( ) 2.01( ) 6.15(S) 14.58(S) 2.00( ) 2.01(S) 6.20(S). •5.02(S) 6.54(S) 78.68 17.03 84.15 91.89 119.83 91.94 15.81 24.01 -27.08 17.10 2.03( ) 1.44( ) 1.99( ) 6.10(S) 14.90(S) .2.00( ) 2.04(S) 6.21(S) ::. 5.06(S) 6.54(S) 77.55 17.06 82.58 91.39 132.47 91.45 15.81 24.01 .27.24 17.08 2:02( ) 1.44(.) 1.97( ) 6.04(S) 15.10(S) 1.99( ) 2.06(S) 6.21(Sj-':.:.?°5.09(S)' 6.53(S) 76.31 17.05 80.86 90.83 139.96 90.89 15.81 24.01 7-27.34 -- 17.02 2.00( ) 1.44( ) 1.95( ) 5.98(S) 15.22(S) 1.98( ) 2.08(S) 6.19(S) - 5:11(S) 6.51(S) 75.18 17.02 79.19 90.20 144.12 90.27 15.81 24.01 " 2739 16.94 1.99( ) 1.44( ) - 1.94( ) 5.91(S) 15.29(S) 1.97( ) 2.08(S) 6.16(S) 5.12(S) -- 6.48(S) 74:21 16.96. 77.66 89.51 146.14 89.59 15.81 24.01 27.39 -16.83 1.98( ) 1.44( ) 1.92(.) 5.83(S) 15.32(S) 1.97( ) 2.08(S) 6.13(S) r.' 5AUS) 6.44(S) 73.36 16.87 . 76.32 .88.78 146.72 88.86 15.81 24.01 27.36 16.70 1.96( ) _1.43C-) 1.90( ) 5.75(S) 15.33(S) 1.96( ) 2.07(S) 6.08(S) 5.11(S). .'-6.39(S) 72.60 16.76 75.16 88.02 146.28 88.10 15.81 24.01 27.30 16.56 1.96( ) 1.43( ) 1.89( ). 5.66(S) 15.32(S) 1.95( ) 2.06(S) 6.02(S) 5:10(S) 6.34(S) 71.91 16.63 74.15 87.24 145.26 87.33 15.81 24.01 27.21 16.40 1.95( ) 1.42( ) 1.88( ) 5.57(S) 15.30(S) 1.94( ) 2.04(S) 5.95(S) 5.08(S)-.6.28(S) 71.27 16.49 73.25 86.45 144.01 86.54 15.81 24.01 27.11 - 16.24 1.94( ) 1.42( ) 1.87( ) 5.48(S) 15.28(S) 1.93( ) 2.02(S) 5.88(S) " 5.06CS) 6.21(S) 70.65 - 16.33 72.44 85.65 142.57 85.74 15.81 24.01 26.98-16.06 ..__ 1.93( ) 1.4.1( ) 1.86( ) 5.39(S) 15.26(S) 1.92( ) 1.99(S) 5.80(S) 5.04(S) 6:15(S) 70.07 16.17 71.69 84.86 140.88 84.95 15.81 24.01 26.64 15.88 1.92( ) 1.41( ) 1.85( ) 5.30(S) 15.23(S) 1.91( ) 1.96(S) 5.71(S) 5.01(S)--'6:08(S) 69.50 15.99 71.00 84.07 138.91 84.16 15.81 24.01 26.69 -15.69 1.92( ) 1.40(.) -1.84( ) 5.21(S) 15.20(S) 1.90( ) 1.92(S) 5.62(S) 4.99(S)- 6.01(S) 68.95 15.81 70.34 83.29 136:78 83.38 15.81 24.01 1. 26.52 15.51 1.91( ) 1.39( ) 1.83( ) 5.12(S) 15.17(S) 1.89( ) 1.88(S) 5.53(S) 4.96(S) 5.93(S) 68.40 15.63 69.71 82.51 134.54 82.60 15.81 24.01 26.35 15.31 1.90( ) 1.39( ) 1.83( ) 5.03(S) 15.13(S) 1.88( ) 1.84(S) 5.43(S) 4.92(S) 5.86(S) 67.87 15.44 69.11 81.75 132.14 81.83 15.81 23.99 26.17 15.12 1.90( ) 1.38( ) 1.82( ) 4.94(S) 15.10(S) 1.87( ) 1.79(S) 5.33(S) 4.89(S) 5.79(S) 67.19 15.25 68.49, 80.99 129.60 81.08 15.81 23.52 25.98 14.92 1.89( ) 1.37( ) 1.81( ) 4.85(S) 15.06(S) 1.86( ), 1.74(S) 5.22(S) 4.85(S) 5.71(S) 66.33 15.06 67.77 80.24 126.99 80.33 15.81 23.05 25.79 14.73 1.88( ) 1:36( ) 1.80( ) 4.77(S) 15.01(S) 1.85( ) 1.69(S) 5.12(S) 4.82(S) 5.63(S) 65.40 14.86 66.96 78.87 124.28 79.07 15.81 22.58 25.60 14.53 1.66( ) 1.35( ) 1.79( ) 4.68(S) 14.97(S) 1.83( ) 1.64(S) 5.01(S) 4.78(S) 5.56(S) 64.45 14.67 66.07 77.26 121.40 77.44 15.81 22.11 25.40 14.33 1.85( ) 1.35( ) 1.78( ) 4:60(S) 14.93(S) 1.81( ) 1.58(S) 4.91(S) 4.75(S) 5.48(S) 63.49 14.47 65.14 75.75 118.41 75.93 15.81 21.65 25.20 14.13 1.84( ) 1.34( ) 1.77( ) 4.53(S) 14.88(S) 1.79( ) 1.52(S) 4.81(S) 4.71(S) 5.41(S) 62.55 14.27 64.19 74.32 115.41 74.47 15.81 21.19 . 25.00 13.93 1.83( ) 1.33( ) 1.76( ) 4.46(S) 14.83(S) 1.77( ) 1.46(S) 4.70(S) 4.67(S) 5.33(S) 61.61 14.08 63.24 72.94 112.45 73.10 15.81 20.73 24.79 13.73 1.81( ) 1.32( ) 1.74C ) 4.39(S) 14.78(S) 1.75C ), 1.39(S) 4.60(S) 4.63(S) 3 50. 60.68 13.88 62.29 71.62 109.27 71.77 15.81 20.28 24.59 1.80( ) 1.31( ) 1.73C ) 4.32(S) 14.73(S) 1.73( ) 1.33(S) 4.50(S) 4.59(S) 3 55. 59.76 13.68 61.35 70.35 105.33 70.50 15.81 19.83 24.39 1.79( ) 1.30( ) 1.72( ) 4.26(S) 14.67(S) 1.71C ) 1.26(S) 4.40(S) 4.56(S) 4 0. 58.85 13.49 60.42 69.12 100.69 69.26 15.81 19.39 24.19 1.77( ) 1.30( ) 1.71C ) 4.20CS) 14.60(S) - 1.70( ) 1.19(S) 4.31(S) 4.52(S) 4 5. 57.96 13.29 59.50 67.93 95.91 68.07 15.81 18.96 23.99 1.76( ) 1.29( ) 1.70( ) 4. MS) 14.52(S) 1.68( ) 1.12(S) 4.21(S) 4.48(S) 4 10. 57.08 13.10 58.59 66.78 91:29 66.92 15.81 18.53 23.79 1.75C ) 1.28( ) 1.68( ) 4.08(S) 14.45(S) 1.67( ) 1.05(S) 4.11(S) 4.44(S) 4 15. 56.21 12.91 57.70 65.66 87.00 65.79 15.81 18.11 23.59 1.74( ) 1.27( ) 1.67( ) 4.03CS) 14.38(S) 1.65( ) .97(S) . 4.02CS) 4.41(S) 4 20. 55.35 12.71 56.82 64.57 83.08 64.70 15.81 17.69 23.40 1.72C ) 1.26( ) 1.66C ) 3.97(S) 14.32(S) 1.64( ) .90(S) 3.93(S) 4.37(S) 4 25. 14.51 12.52 15.95 63.51 79.55 63.63 15.81 17.28 23.21 1.71( ) 1.25( ) 1.65( ) 3.92(S). 14.26(S) 1.62( ) .82(S) 3.84(S) 4.34(S) 4 30. 53.68 12.34 55.09 62.47 76.39 62.60 15.81 16.88 23.02 1.70( ) 1.24( ) 1.64( ) 3.87(S) 14.21(S) 1.61( ) .74(S) 3.75(S) 4.30(S) 4 35. 52.86 12.15 54.26 61.46 73.57 61.58 15.81 16.49 22.83 . 1.69( ) 1.24( ) 1.62( ) 3.82(S) 14.17(S) 1.59( ) .66(S) 3.66(S) 4.26(S) ' 4 40. 52.06 11.96 53.43 60.47 71.05 60.59 15.81 16.10 22.65 1.68( ) 1.23( ) 1.61C ) 3.77(S) 14.13CS) 1.58( ) .58(S) 3.57(S) 4:23(S) 4 45. 51.27 11.78 52.62 59.51 68.78 59.62 15.81 15.72 22.46 1.66( ) 1.22( ) 1.60( ) 3.72(S) 14.09(S) 1.56( ) .50(S) 3.49(S) 4.20(S) 4 50. 50.50 11.60 51.82 58.56 66.74 58.68 15.81 15.35 22.29 ' 1.65( ) 1.21( ) 1.59( ) 3:68(S) 14.06(S) 1.55C ) .42(S) 3.41(S) 4.16(S) 4 55. 49.73 11.42 51.04 57.64 64.89 57.75 15.81 14.98 22.11. 1.64( ) 1.20( ) 1.58( ) 3.63CS) 14.03(S) 1.54( ) .33(S) 3.32(S) 4.13(S) 5 0. 48.99 11.24 50.27 56.73 63.21. 56.84 15.81 14.62 21.94 ' 1.63( ) 1.19( ) 1.57( ) 3.58(S) 14.00(S) 1.52( ) .25(S) 3:24(S) 4.10(S) 5 5. 48.25 11.07 49.51 55.84 61.66 55.95 15.81 14.27 21.77 1.62( ) 1.18( ) 1.55( ) 3.54(S) 13.98(S) 1.51( ) .16(S) 3.17(S) 4.07(S) S 10, 47.54 10.89 48.77 54.98 60.23 55.08 15.81 13.92 21.60 1.61( ) 1.18( ) 1.54( ) 3.50(S) 13.96(S) 1.50( ) .08(S) 3.09(S) 4.04(S) ' 5 15. 46.82 10.72 48.04 54.12 58.90 54.23 12.18 13.58 . 21.43 1.59( ) 1.17( ) 1.53( ) 3.45(S) 13.94(S) 1.49( ) 00( ) 3.01(S) 4.00(S) 5 20. 46.09 10.55 47.32 53.29 57.65 53.39 .00 13.25 21.16 1.58( ) 1.16( ) 1.52( ) 3.41(S) 13.92(S) 1.47( ) .00( ) 2.94(S) 3:95(S) 5 25. 45.30 10.38 46.58 52.47 56.47 52.57 5.71 12.93 20.75 1.57( ) 1.15( ) 1.51( ) 3.37(S) 13.90(S) 1.46( ) .00( ) 2.87(S) 3.88(S) 5 30. 44.41 10.22 45.79 51:65 55.36 51.75 .00 12.61 20.27 1.55( ) 1.14( ) 1.50( ) 3.33(S) 13.88(S) 1.45( ) .00( ) 2.80(S) 3.79(S) 5 35. 43.47 10.05 44.95 50.84 54.30 50.94 5.29 12.30 19.74 t 1.54( ) 1.13( ) 1.48( ) 3.29(S) 13.86(S) 1.44( ) .00( ) 2.73(S) 3.69(S) 5 40. 42.49 9.89 44.06 50.02 53.28 50.12 .00 11.99 19.20 1.52( ) 1.12( ) 1.47( ) 3.25(S) 13.85CS) 1.42( ) .00( ) 2.66(S) 3.59(S) 5 45. 41.49 9.73 43.12 48.66 52.25 . 49.03 4.89 11.69 18.66 1.51( ) 1.12( ) 1.46( ) 3.21(S) 13.83(S) 1.41( ) .00( ) 2.60(S) 3.49(S) 5 50. 40.50 9.58 42.16 47.74 51.15. 47.86 .00 11.40 18.13 1.49( ) 1.11( ) 1.44( ) 3.17(S) 13.81(S) 1.39( ) .00(.) 2.53(S) 3.39(S) 5 55. 39.51 9.42 41.20 46.64 50.02 46.79 4.53 11.12 17.61 1.47( ) 1.10( ) 1.42( ) 3.13(S) 13.80(S) 1.37( ) .00( ) 2.47(S) 3.29(S) 6 0. 38.54 9.27 40.23 45.57 48.68 45.70 .00 10.84 17.09 1.45( ) 1.09( ) 1.41( ) 3.10(S) 13.78(S) 1.36C ) .00( ) 2.41(S) 3.19(S) 6 5. 37.59 9.12 39.27 44.51 47.74 44.65 4.20 10.57 16.59 1.44( ) 1.08( ) 1.39( ) 3.06(S) 13.76(S) 1.34( ) .00( ) 2.34(S) 3.10(S) 6 10. 36.66 8.97 38.32 43.46 46.62 43.61 .00 10.30 16.10 . 1.42C ) 1.07( ) 1.38( ) 3.02(S) 13.74(S) 1.32( ) .00( ) 2.29(S) 3.010) 6 15. 35.74 8.82 37.39 42.46 45.52 42.59 3.89 10.04 15.62 1.40( ) 1.07( ) 1.36( ) 2.99(S) 13.72(S) 1.31( ) .00( ) 2.23(S) 2.92(S) 6 20. 34.85 8.67 36.47 41.46 44.43 41.59 .00 9.78 15.16 1.38( ) 1.06( ) 1.34( ) 2.95(S) 13.71(S) 1.29C ) .00( ) 2.17(S) 2.83(S) 6 25. 33.98 8.53 35.57 40.48 43.36 40.60 3.61 9.54 14.71 1.37( ). 1.05( ) 1.33( ) 2.92(S) 13.69(S) 1.27( ) 00( ) 2.12(S). 2.75.(S) 6 30. 33.13 8.39 34.70 39.51 42.32 39.64 .10 9.29 14.27 1.35( ) 1.04( ) 1.31( ) 2.89(S) 13.67(S) 1.26( ) 00( ) 2.06(S) 2.66(S) 6 35. 32.30 8.25 33.84 38.56 41.29 38.69 3.35 9.06 13.84 1.34( ) 1.03( ) 1.30( ) 2.85(S) 13.66(S). 1.24( ) .00(.) 2.01(S) 2.58(S) 6 40. 31.49 8.11 33.00 37.63 40.29 37.76 .00 8.82 13.42 1.32( ) 1.03( ) 1.28( ) 2.82(S) 13.64(S) 1.23( ) 00( ) 1.96(S) 2.51CS) 6 45. 30.70 7.98 32.19 36.72 39.30 36.84 3.10 8.60 13.02 . 1.30( ) 1.02( ) 1.26( ) 2.79(S) 13.63(S) 1.21( ) 00( ) 1.91(S) 2.43(S) 6 50. 29.93 7.85 31.39 35.83 38.34 35.95 .00 8.38 12.62 1.29C ) 1.01( ) 1.25C ) 2.76(S) 13,61(S) 1.20C ) .00( ) 1.86(S) 2.36(S) 6 55. 29.18 7.71 30.61 34.95 37.40 35.07 2.87 8.16 12.24 1.27( ) 1.00( ) 1.23C ) 2.73(S) 13.60(S) 1:18C ) OOC ) .1.81(S) 2.29(S) 7 0. 28.44 7.59 29.85 34.10 36.48 34.22 .00 7.95 11.87 1.26( ) .99( ) 1.22( ) 2.70(S) 13.58(S) 1.17( ) .00( ) 1.76(S) 2.22(S) 7 5. 27.73 7.46 _ 29.11 33.26 35.58 33.38 2.66 7.74 11.51 mill 5.26(S) 13.54 5.18(S) 13.34 5.10(S) 13.14 5.03(S) 12.95 4.96(S) . 12.76 4.88(S) 12.57 4.81(S) 12.38 4.74(S) 12.19 4.66(S) 12.00 4.59(S) 11.82 . 4.52(S) 11.63 4.45(S) 11.45 - 4.38(S) 11.27 -,- 4.31(S) 11.09 -- 10.92 4.18(S) 10.75 4.11(S) - 10.57 4.05(S) 10.40 3.98(S) -- 10.24 --- 3.92(S) 10.07 3.85(S) 9.91 3.79(S) 9.75 3.73(S) 9.59 3.67(S) - 9.43 3.61(S) -- 9.28 3:55(S) 9.12 3.49(S) 8.97 3.43(S) 8.83 3.38(S) 8.68 3.32(S) 8.53 3.26(S) 8.39 3.21(S) 8.25 3.16(S) 8.11 3.10(S) 7.98 3.05(S) 7.84 3.00(S) 7.71 2.95(S) 7.58 2.90(S) 7.45 2.85(S) .7.33 2.80(S) 7.20 1.24( ) .99( ) 1.20( ) 2.67(S) 7 10. 27.03 7.3.3 28.39 32.45 1.22( ) .98( ) 1.19( ) 2.64(S) 7 15. 26.35 7.21 27.68 31.65 1.21( ) .97( ) 1.17( ) 2.61(S) 7 20. 25.68 7.09 26.99 30.87 1.19( ) .96( ) 1.16( ) 2.59(S) 7 25. 25.04 6.97. 26.32 30.11 1.18( ) .95( ) 1.15( ) 2.56(S) 7 30. 24.41 6.85 25.67 29.36 1.16( ) .95( ) 1.13( ) 2.54(S) 7 35. 23.79 6.73 25.03 28.63 1.15( ) .94( ) 1.12( ) 2.51(S) 7 40. 23.19 6.62 24.40 27.93 1.14( ) .93( ) 1.10( ) 2.49(S) 7 45. 22.61 6.51 23,10 27,23 1.12( ) .92( ) 1.09( ) 2.46(S) 7 50. 22.03 6.39 23.20 26.56 1.11( ) .92( ) 1.08( ) 2.44(S) 7 . 55. 21.48 6.29 22.63 25.90 1.09( ) .91( ) 1.06( ) 2.42(S) 8 0. 20.93 6.18 22.06 25.26 1.08( ) .90( ) 1.05( ) 2.39(S) THE FOLLOWING CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS HAVE NUMERICAL STABILITY PROBLEMS THAT LEAD TO HYDRAULIC DURING THE SIMULATION. �OSCILLLATIONS 39 40 41 42 43 212 213 214 215 13.57(S) 1.15( ): .00( ) 1.72(S) 2.15(S) 2.75(S) 34.70 32.56 .00 7.54 11.16 7.08 13.55(S) 1.14( ) .00( ) 1.67(S) 2.08(S) 2.71(S) 33.84 31.76 2.47 7.35 10.82 1 6.96 13.54(S) 1.12( ) .00( ) 1.63(S) 2.02(S). 2.66(S) 33.00 . 30.98 .00 .7.16 10.48 6.84 13.53(S) 1.11( ) .00( ) 1.59(S) 1.96(S) 2.62(S) 32.18 30.21 2.28 6.97 10.16 6.72 13.51(S) 1.09( ) .00( ) 1.55(S) 1.90(S) 2.57(S) 31.38 29.47 .00 6.79 9.85 6.61 13.50(S) 1.08( ) .00( ) 1.51(S) 1.84(S) 2.53(S) 30.60 28.74 . 2.11 6.61 9.55 6.49 13.49(S) 1.07( ) .00( ) 1.47(S) 1.78(S) 2.48(S) 29.83 28.03 .00 6.43 9.25 6.38 13.48(S) 1.05( ) .00( ) 1.43(S) 1.73(S) 2.44(S) 29.09 27.33 1.95 6.27 8.96 6.27 13.46(S) 1.04( ) .00( ) 1.39(S) 1.67(S) 2.40(S) 28.37 26.66 .00 6.10 8.68 6.16 13.45(S) 1.03( ) .00( ) . 1.35(S) 1.62(S) 2.36(S) 27.66 26.00 1.80 5.94 8.41 6.06 13.44(S) 1.01( ) .00( ) ' 1.32(S) 1.57(S) 2.32(S) 26.97 25.35 .00 5.78 8.15 5.95 13.43(S) 1.00( ) .00( ) 1.28(S) 1.52(S) 2.28(S) �SYMBIOS LOGIC OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-YR DEVELOPED REVISED 19 JUN 96; RBD,.INC./SBG (dkt) FILE: 71400lSl.DAT *** PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENSION DAMS *** 05 CONVEYANCE PEAK STAGE STORAGE TIME ELEMENT (CFS) (FT) (AC -FT) (HR/MIN) 35 163.3 2.8 0 40. 1,�S 4- P CNan/NEC. Pieu/1OLl5 Q= f 6 y. e CFS 36 17.1 1.4 2 5. 38 204.9 3.0 0 45. 39 65.5 .0 9.3 1 10. 40 93.3 .0 6.3 1 35. 41 65.5 1.3 1 10. 42 146.7 .0 15.3 2 25. 43 . 2. 1 . 124 44 44.9 .8 50 0 50. 125 135.8 1.0 0 45. 126 96.8 2.4 0 40. 127 38.0 .6 0 40. 146.7 0 40. 203 203 212 146.7 15.8 (DIRECT (DI t FLOW) 2.1 2 25. 2 15. �VT�' 0-5�7 p�TENTioN�JD _ -� 213 24.0 .1 6.2 2 0. 217. 215 17.1 A .1 5.1 6.5 2 20. 2 . 0.3 PFaIC LOM*3fnVEil pE'"fE7iVrl6/V P oNj DJTF/-avv t'=- 4f8 CF"a NENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED SWMM MODEL FOR PHASE I INTERIM CONDITIONS No Text NJ km Q TT CLIENT R�JL !�'C�-li\� � � 1�.'JOB NO. If�-OO NC PROJECT' /!- j M I-) GS (V CALCULATIONS FOR �V MJi� - I �,Q �� L. Engineering Consultants MADE SYL'F 1 DATEO �R 9LNECKEDBY_DATE SHEET OF No Text RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants Symbios Logic ® Interim Detention Pond 214 Capacity -Discharge Rating Curve Elevation Storage Outlet Q (ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (�) (2) 4919.50 0 0.00 4920.00 0.02 2:38 4921.00 0.19 11.04 4922.00 .0.60 18.00 4923.00 1.45 23.45 4924.00 3.12 28.09 4925.00 6.65 32.30 Notes: 714-001 (1) Storage — see Area -Capacity Rating Curve. e (2) Outlet discharge interpolated from iterative UDSEWER model ( from information provided by Stewart & Associates). 35 30 25 " � 20 m � 15 10 5 0 4919 4920 4921 4922 4923 4924 4925 Stage (ft eq —a-- Discharge + Capacity 97 26-Nov-96 M RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants SY mbios Logic Interim Detention Pond 21.4 Area -"a aft Rating Curve (northeast corner) 714-001 V = d/3*(A+(AB)^(1/2)+B) Cumulative .Elev Area Volume Volume (ft) (ac) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) -- 4919.5 ---�� 0.00 0.00 0.00 4920.0 0.09 0:02 0.02 4921.0 0.27 0.17 0.19 4922.0 0.59 0.42 0.60 4923.0 1.14. 0.85 1.45/ = Z. 4924.0 2.26 1.67 3.12 4925.0 4.97 3.53 6.65 4 V 3 07 2 CO 1 0 I 4919 4920 4921 4922 4923 4924 4925 Stage (ft elevation) -a-,area Capacity A 25-Nov-96 a 1 �1 RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants Symbios Logic 714-001 Interim Pond 214 Outlet Rating Curve Summarized from iterative UDSEWER output. ,. Pond D/S Stage Discharge U/S Stage 19.65 0 19.45 19.66 1 19.84 19M 6 20.42 19.74 12 21.11 19.79 18 22.00 19.82 24c-FS (;VYcWL_ 19.85 30 24.42 goo' 19.88 35 25.68 19.91 40 26.89 26-Nov-96 0 REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 03-01.1997 AT TIME 11:31:56 *** PROJECT TITLE Storm drain pipe under County Road 9 *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD. IS 5 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 --------------------------------------^'------ 10.00 27.00 21.95 `21.22 OK 20.00 27.00 27.00 20.29 OK 30.00 27.00 19.76 19.83 NO 1.00 27.00 21.95 22.59 NO OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN. GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN),(FT) (FT) ---------------------------------------------------------•---------•----------- 110.00 1.00 10.00 ROUND 26.44 27.00 24.00 0.00 1020.00 10.00 20.00 ROUND 26.44 27.00 30.00 0.00 2030.00 20.00 30.00 ROUND 24.11 27.00 30.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED 01ib ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN. FLOW .NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS . FEET FPS. FPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 110.0 27.0 20.9 2.00 8.59 1.78 9.13 8.59 0.00 V-OK 1020.0 27.0 37.9 1.56 8.39 1.77 7.27 _ 5.50 1.28 V-OK 2030.0 27.0, 48.5 1.33 10:14 1.77 7.27 5.50 1.73 V-OK, FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS -----------------------------------------------------•--.----•------ SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) ---------------------------------------------------------•-----•-•---' 110.00 0.85 19.45 19.45 0.50 0.50 NO. .1020.00 0.85 19.45 18.52 0.00 5.98 NO 2030.00 1.39 18.52 17.27 5.98 -0.01 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET I*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEVERS SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM .UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET .. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110.00 0.10 0.10 21.45 21.45 22.59 21.22 PRSStED 1020.00 110.00 0.00 21.95 21.02 21.22 20.29 JUMP 2030.00 90.00 -22.65 21.02 19.77 20.29 19.83 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110.0 1.00 r23.731 0.00 1.78 2.04 0.00 0.00 10.00 .-.... _ _.. .... 21.69 PEK- POND Z 14 l.JSEI. 1020.0 10.00 21.69 0.84 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.76 2030.0 20.00 20.76 0.84 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.00 30.00 19.83 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. RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants Symbios Logic Interim Detention Pond 212 Capacity -Discharge Rating Curve Elevation Storage Outlet.Q (ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (1) .(2) 0.00 4922.20 ~ 0.00 4923.00 0.05 6.15 4923.50 0.53. 10.00 4924.00 1.00 14.07 4924.50 2.49 18.13 4925.00 3.98, 21.79 Notes: (1) Storage -- see Area -Capacity Rating Curve. (2) Outlet discharge interpolated from iterative UDSEWER model ( from County Road 9 design information). 25 20 �' 15 m c A c10 ' S 0 ' 4922 4922.5 4923 4923.5 4924 4924.5 4925 Stage. (ft el) ' -w-- Discharge + capacity a n U 714-001 27-Feb-97 9Za RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants Symbios-Logic 714-001 Interim Detention Pond 212 Area -Capacity Rating Curve (north of east entrance) V = d/3'(A+(AB)A(1/2)+B) Cumulative Elev . Area Volume Volume (ft) (ac) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 4922.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 4923.0 0.20 0.05 0.05 4924.0 2.01 0.95 1.00<4 = 3, I ac—fit ;�q, 6-T 4925.0 4.07 2.98 3.98 1O° 3 2.5 U f6 t0 2 aNa�� Q 1.5 .1 CO 0.5 0 U 4922 49225 4923 4923.5 4924 4924.5 4925 Stage (ft elevation) y— Area f Capacity 25-Nov-96 qzb ' RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants 1. S mbios Logic 714-001 Y 9 Interim Pond 212 Outlet Rating Curve tSummarized from iterative UDSEWER output. Peak Pond D/S Stage Discharge Discharge U/S Stage (ft el) (cfs) (cfs) _ �(ff el) -� 23.18 0 0 22.20 23.02. 10 10 23.50�Q1�` iq.5 c�5 @ WSI_ 23.45 20 20 24.73 ��c F°� �¢ �r 23. 23.91 91 30 40 30 40 28.24 Up�,Ez oktpit 28:35 �q' 6 :7- 27-Feb-97 q3 RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants Symbios Logic Interim Detention Pond 215 Capacity-Discharae Ratina Cury . Elevation Storage Outlet Q (ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (U (2) 4923.97 0 O 4924.00 0.00 0.37 4925.00 0.04 7.75 4926.00 0.30 19.33 4927.00 1.84 33.06 4928.00 4.02 50.81 Notes: (i) Storage -- see Area -Capacity Rating Curve. (2) Outlet discharge interpolated from HY-8 model output. E 60 50 _ 40 m � 30 20 10 0 5 A 1L m U i 4923 4924 4925 4926 4927 4928 Stage (ft el) -mi- Discharge -i— Capacity 714-001 24-Jun-96 qua RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants Symbios. Logic 714-001 Interim Detention Pond 216 Area -Capacity Rating Curve (south of entrance) V = d/3'(A+(AB)1(1/2)+B) Cumulative Cumulative Elev . Area Volume Volume Volume - (ft) (ft2) (ft3) (ft3) (ac-ft) 4924.0 0 0.00 0 0.00 4925.0 4,842 .1,662 .1,662 0.04 4926.0 19,341 11,287 12,949 0.30-.4— p.3 AFT �`ti9�E, o 4926.3 67,634 12,314 25,263 0.58 4927.0 89,448 54,801 80,064 1.84 _ 4928.0 100,767 95,051 175,116 4.02 10000.0 80000 U v 60000 y� U 40000 C) 20000 0 4923 4924. 4925 4926 4927 4928 Stage (ft elevation) Aw f Caaa� 24-Jun-96 �NTEr21/vl } 0/Vi; I S7 q4- 1 URRENT DATE: 08-07-1996 URRENT TIME: 13:07:31 FILE DATE: 06-19-1996 FILE NAME: 714001PI i+++++++++++++++++++++++++ FHWA CULVERT ANALYSIS ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ HY-8, VERSION 4.0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++t++++_+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.++++ C SITE DATA CULVERT SHAPE, MATERIAL, INLET U-------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------ L INLET. OUTLET CULVERT BARRELS V ELEV. ELEV. LENGTH SHAPE SPAN RISE MANNING INLET # (FT) (FT) (FT) MATERIAL (FT) (FT) n TYPE 1 3 4 5 6 -------------------------- 23.95 23.50 90.00 ----------------------------------------------- 1 RCP 3.00 3.00 .013 CONVENTIONAL ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. q++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++#++++++++++++++++++++++++ UMMARY OF CULVERT FLOWS (CFS) FILE: 714001Pl DATE: 06-19-1996 �ELEV (FT) TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROADWAY ITR 25.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25.17 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25:86 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 26.40 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 27.08 34 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 27.54 43. 43 0. 0 0 0 0 0 1 28.07 _ 52 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 28.31 60 55 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 28.40 69 56 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 28.47 77 56 0 0 0 0 0 21 4 28.53 86 57 0 0 0 0 0 29 4 28.20 53 53 0 0 0 0 0 OVERTOPPING ®+++++++++++++++++++.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SUMMARY OF ITERATIVE SOLUTION ERRORS FILE: 714001P1 DATE: 06-19-1996 ® HEAD HEAD TOTAL FLOW % FLOW ELEV(FT) ERROR(FT) FLOW(CFS) ERROR(CFS) ERROR' 25.04 0.00 0 0 0.00 ® 25.17 0.00 9 0 0.00 25.86 0.00 17 0 0.00 26.40 0.00 26 0 0.00 27.08 0.00 34 0 0.00 27.54 0.00 43 0 0.00 28.07 0.00 52 0 0.00 ® 28.31 -0.01 60 0 0.73 28.40 -0.00 69 0 0.54 28.47 -0.01 77 1 0.68 28.53 -0.01 86 0 0.44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ <1> TOLERANCE (FT) = 0.010 <2> TOLERANCE (%) = 1.000 +++++t+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ q5 2. CURRENT DATE: 08-07-1996 FILE DATE: 06-19-1996 CURRENT TIME: 13:07:31 FILE NAME: 714001Pl +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++#+++++++++++++ PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR CULVERT # 1 - 1 ( 3 BY 3 ) RCP ++.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++f+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DIS- HEAD- INLET OUTLET CHARGE WATER CONTROL CONTROL FLOW NORMAL CRITICAL OUTLET TAILWATER FLOW ELEV. DEPTH DEPTH TYPE DEPTH DEPTH VEL. DEPTH VEL. DEPTH (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) <F4> (ft) (ft) (fps) (ft) (fps). (ft) 0 25.04 0.00 1.09 0-NF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 9 25.17 1.22 1.22 1-S2n 0.86 0.92 5.11 0.86 0.00 1.54 17 25.86 1.91 1.91 1-S2n 1.25 1.32 6.18 1.25 0.00 1.54 26 26.40 2.45 2.45 1-S2n 1.58 1.63 6.84 1.58 0.00 1.54 34 27.08 2.95 3.13 2-M2c 1.90 1.90 7.29 1.90 0.00 1:54 43 27.54 3.49 3.59 2-M2c 2.26 2.13 8.00 2.13 0.00 1.54 52 28.07 .4.12 3.99 6-FFn 3.00 2.33 7.30 3.00. 0.00 1.54 55 28.31 4.36 4.23 6-FFn 3.00 2.40 7.71 3.00 0.00 1.54 56 28.40 4.45 4.32 6-FFn 3.00 2.41 7.86 3.00 0.00 1.54 56 28.47 4.52 4.38 6-FFn 3.00 2.43 7.97 3.00 0.00 1.54 57 28.53 4.58 4.45 6-FFn 3.00 2.44 8.08 3.00 0.00 1.54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ El. inlet face invert 23.95 ft El. outlet invert 23.50 ft El. inlet throat invert 0.00 ft El. inlet crest 0.00 ft **** SITE DATA ***** CULVERT INVERT ************** INLET STATION (FT) 90.00. INLET ELEVATION (FT) 23.95 OUTLET STATION (FT) 0.00 OUTLET ELEVATION (FT) 23.50 NUMBER OF BARRELS 1 SLOPE (V-FT/H-FT) 0.0050 .-CULVERT LENGTH ALONG SLOPE (FT) 90.00 ***** CULVERT DATA SUMMARY ************************ BARREL SHAPE CIRCULAR BARREL DIAMETER 3.00 FT BARREL MATERIAL CONCRETE BARREL MANNING'S N 0.013. INLET TYPE CONVENTIONAL INLET EDGE AND WALL SQUARE EDGE WITH HEADWALL ' INLET DEPRESSION NONE t+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 CURRENT DATE: 08-07-1996 FILE DATE: 06-19-1996 CURRENT TIME: 13:07:31 FILE NAME: 714001Pl t............................................................................... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ TAILWATER ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CONSTANT WATER SURFACE ELEVATION 25.04 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ ROADWAY OVERTOPPING DATA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.+++++++++++++++++++-++++++++++++++++++++++ ROADWAY SURFACE EMBANKMENT TOP WIDTH (FT) CREST LENGTH (FT) OVERTOPPING CREST ELEVATION PAVED 70.00. 50.00 (FT) 28.20 94 SV*INM input file 714001P1.DAT: 2 1 1 2 ®3 4 IATERSHED 0 SYMBIOS LOGIC PHASE 1 INTERIM DRAINAGE (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-YR DEVELOPED REVISED 27 FES 97; SEAR-BROWN/RBD (dkt) FILE: 714001P1.DAT 96 5.0 1 10. 1 25 5.0 0.60 0.96 1.44 1.68 3.00 5.04 9.00 3.72 2.16 1.56 1.20 0.84 0.60 0.48 0.36 0.36 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.11 0.00 Prepared for: RNL Design * SWMM Phase 1 interim condition, 100-yr recurrence interval w 2 ...016 .25 .1 .3 .51 .5 .0018 Symbios Logic property: 1=Phase 1, 2=remainder 1 . 1 128 879. 8.88 42.9 .007 1 2 1301503.59.69 8.73 .008 1 3 306941, 2.39 83.7 .02 1 4 126 734.29.15 5 .008 Off -site to west of Symbios 1 20 1242578. 50.3 5 .008 0 0 Off -site to west presently routed through site with no detention 1 124 126 0 1 0.0 850.0 .008 30.0 30.0 .035 10.00 1 126 214 0 1 0.0 1600.0 .0011 4.0 4.0 035 10.00 1 130 212 .0 1 0.0 1600.0 .008 4.0 4.0 .035 10.00 CE 128.length.reduced for Phase I only 1 128 215 0 4 0.0 1180. .008 12.0 12.0 .016 0.50 10.0 1180. .008 50.0 50.0 .020 10.00 County Road 9 (half -street adjacent to site) 1 30 36 0 4 0.0 900. .00" 12.0 12.0 .016 0.50 10.0 900. .0044 50.0 50.0 .020 10.00 * Upper portion of Hewlett-Packard channel 1 36 35 0 1 3.0 900.0 .0037 4.0 4.0 .060 10.00 Interim partial construction of Pond 214 214 35 7 2 0 100.0 .010 .013 0 .0 .0 0.02 2.38 0.19:., 11.04 0.60 18.00 1.45 23.45 3.12 28.09 6.65 32.30 Pond 215 modeled in two portions for Phase I model: Interim partial. construction of north portion of Pond 215 labeled as Pond 212 212 36 6 2 0 100.0 .010 .013 0 .0 .0 0.05 6.15 0.53 10.00 1.00 14.07 2.49 18.13 3.98 21.79 Interim partial construction of south portion of Pond 215, temporarily routed to interim Pond 212 215 212 6 2 0 100.0 .010 .013 0 .0 .0 .0 0.37 0.04 7.75 0.30 19.33 1.84 33.06 4.02 50.81 2 1 2% 212 7 1 214 215 124 126 128 212 130 NDPROGRAM SWMM output file 714001P1.OUT: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION PC.1 DEVELOPED BY METCALF r EDDY, INC. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970) .. UPDATED BY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (DUNE 1973) HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ' MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 1974) BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1985, JULY 1985) !WATERSHED PROGRAM CALLED *** ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL *** �SYMBIOS LOGIC PHASE 1 INTERIM DRAINAGE (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-YR DEVELOPED REVISED 27 FEB 97;.SEAR-BROWN/RBD (dkt) FILE: .714001P1.DAT NUMBER OF TIME STEPS 96 INTEGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) 5.00 10.0 PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH FOR 25 RAINFALL STEPS, THE.TIME INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTES FOR RAINGAGE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL HISTORY IN INCHES PER HOUR .60 .96 1.44 1.68 3.00 5.04 9.00 ._ - 3.72 1.20 .84 .60 .48 .36 .36 .24 .24 24 .24 .12 .12 .00 SYMBIOS LOGIC PHASE 1 INTERIM DRAINAGE (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 101-YR DEVELOPED REVISED 27 FEB.97; SEAR-BROWN/RBD (dkt) FILE: 714001P1.DAT SUBAREA GUTTER WIDTH AREA PERCENT NUMBER OR MANHOLE (FT) (AC) IMPERV. .2 0 .0 .0 .0 1 128 879.0 8.9 42.9 2 130 1503.0 19.7 8.7 3 30 6941.0 2.4 83.7 4 126 734.0 29.1 5.0 20 124 .2578.0 50.3 5.0 TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBCATCHMENTS, 5 TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA (ACRES), 150.41 2.16 .24 SLOPE .RESISTANCE FACTOR SURFACE STORAGE(1N) (FT/FT) IMPERV. PERV. IMPERV. PERV. .0300 .016 .250 .100 .300 .0070 .016 .250 .100 .300 .0080 .016 .250 .100 .300 .0200 .016 .250 .100 .300 .0080 .016 .250 .100 .300 .0080 .016 .250 .100 .300 ,IYMIIOS LOGIC PHASE 1 INTERIM DRAINAGE (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-YR DEVELOPED REVISED 27 FEB 97; SEAR-BROWN/RBD (dkt) FILE: 714001P1.DAT *** CONTINUITY CHECK FOR SUBCATCHMEMT ROUTING IN UDSWM2-PC MODEL *** 1.56 .24 .INFILTRATION RATE(IN/HR) GAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM DECAY RATE . NO .51 .50 .00180 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 1 WATERSHED AREA.(ACRES) 110,411 1 TOTAL RAINFALL (INCHES) 2.800 TOTAL INFILTRATION (INCHES) .840 ,TOTAL WATERSHED OUTFLOW (INCHES) 1.546 TOTAL SURFACE STORAGE AT END OF STROM (INCHES) .504 ,ERROR IN CONTINUITY, PERCENTAGE OF RAINFALL .000 q1 SYMBIOS LOGIC PHASE 1 INTERIM DRAINAGE (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-YR DEVELOPED (REVISED 27 FEB 97; SEAR-BROWN/RBD.(dkt) FILE: 714001P1.DAT WIDTH INVERT SIDE'SLOPES OVERBANK/SURCHARGE GUTTER GUTTER NDP NP OR DIAM LENGTH SLOPE HOR12 TO VERT MANNING DEPTH JK NUMBER CONNECTION (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) L R N (FT) 124 126 0 1 CHANNEL .0 850. .0080 30.0 30.0 .035 10.00 126 214 0 1 CHANNEL .0 1600. .0080 4.0 4.0 .035 10.00 130 212 0 1 CHANNEL .0 1600. .0080 4.0 4.0 .035 10.00 128 215 0 4 CHANNEL .0 1180. .0080 12.0 12.0 .016 .50 OVERFLOW 10.0 1180. .0080 50.0 50.0 .020 10.00 30 36 0 4 CHANNEL .0 900. .0044 12.0 12.0. .016 .50 OVERFLOW. 10.0 900. .0644 50.0 50.0 .020 10.00 36 35 0 1 CHANNEL 3.0 900. .0037 4.0 4.0 .060 10.00 214 35 7 2 PIPE .0 100. .0100 .0 .0 .013 .00 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .0 2.4 .2 11.0 .6 18.0 1.5 23.4 6.7 32.3 212 36 6 2 PIPE .0 100. .0100 - - .0 .0 .013 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .1 6.2 .5 10.0 1.0 14.1 2.5 18.1 0.215 212 6 2 PIPE .0 100. .0100 .0 .0 .013 3.1 28.1 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 4.0 21.8 .00 . 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 7.8 .3 19.3 1.8 33.1 4.0 50.8 TOTAL NUMBER OF GUTTERS/PIPES, 9 SYMBIOS LOGIC PHASE 1 INTERIM DRAINAGE (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-YR DEVELOPED EVISED 27 FEB 97; SEAR-BROWN/RBD (dkt) FILE: 714001P1.DAT --1 - ARRANGEMENT OF SUBCATCHMENTS AND GUTTERS/PIPES GUTTER TRIBUTARY GUTTER/PIPE 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 30 212 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1266 124 0 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 130 215 0 0 0 0 214 126 0 0 0 0 0 215 1HYDROGRAPHS 128 0 0 0 0 0 WILL BE STORED FOR THE FOLLOWING 214 212 TRIBUTARY SUBAREA-" D.A.(AC) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 71.0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 '= 0 0 0 0 0 79.4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'' 0 0 0 0 0 68.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 79.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 2 POINTS NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 83 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 215 �NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 85 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 215 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 87 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 215 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 89 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 215 NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER.DURING TIME STEP 91 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 215 �NONCONVERGENCE IN GUTTER DURING TIME STEP 93 AT CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 215 SYMBIOS LOGIC PHASE 1 INTERIM DRAINAGE (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H) 100-YR DEVELOPED REVISED 27 FEB 97; SEAR-BROWN/RBD'(dkt) FILE: 714001P1.DAT �HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 7 CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS THE UPPER NUMBER IS DISCHARGE IN CFS - - THE LOWER NUMBER IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASES:- ( ) DENOTES DEPTH ABOVE INVERT IN FEET (S) DENOTES STORAGE IN AC -FT FOR DETENTION DAM. DISCHARGE INCLUDES SPILLWAY OUTFLOW. (1) DENOTES GUTTER INFLOW IN CFS FROM SPECIFIED INFLOW HYDROGRAPH - (D) DENOTES DISCHARGE IN CFS DIVERTED FROM THIS GUTTER (0) DENOTES.STORAGE.IN AC -FT FOR SURCHARGED GUTTER TIME(HR/MIN) 124 126 128 130 212 214 215 .0 5. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ' .02( ) .03( ) .02( ) .04( ) .00(S) 00( ) .00( ) 0 10. .03 .01, .03 .02 .02 .00 .03 .05.( ) .07( ) .05( ) .11( ) .00(S) .00(S) .00(.) 0 15. .60 .23 .60 .57 .33 .07 .46 .17( ) .25( ) .17( ) .35( ) .00(S) .00(S) .00(S) 0 26. 1.81 1.04 2.51 2.45 1.56 .40 1.31 .25( ) .44( ) .30( ) .60( ) .01(S) .. .00(S) .01(S) .0 25. 3.65 2.74 5.83 5.94 4.56 1.27 3.53 33( ) .63( ) .41( ) .84( ) .04(S) .01(S). .02(S) 0 30. 8.83 6.97 12.08 13.59 6.59 2.88 7.74 .46( ) .89( ) .53( ) 1.15( ) :10(S) .03(S) .04(S) 0 35. 24.56 19.37 24.43 32.00 7.95 5.95 10.54 67( ) 1.31( ) . .64( ) 1.58( ) .27(S) .09(S) .10(S) 0 40. 38.77 36.47 30.39 44.25 10.28 11.58 15.03 .79( ) 1.66( ) .68( ) 1.79( ) .56(S) .22(S) .20(S) 0 45. 42.55 48.26 24.51 41.23 13.13 14.98 18.33 .82( ) 1.85( ) .64( ) 1.74( ) .89(S) .42(S) .28(S) 0 50. 44.93 55.24 19.73 38.63 14.62 18.41 19.33 - .84( ) 1.94( ) .61( ) 1.70( ) 1.20(S) .66(S) .30(S) 0 55. 44.86 58.55 16..27 36.67 15.40 20.07 18.98 .84( ) 1.99(.) .57( ) 1.67(') 1.49(5) .92(S) .29(S) 1 0. 43.47 59.02 13.52 34.81 16.12 21.74 17.89 .83( ) 1.99(.) .55( ) 1.64( ) 1.75(S) 1.18(S) .27(S) 1 5. 41.04 57.53 11.17 32.79 16.77 23.32 16.42 .81( ) 1.97(' ) .52( ) 1.60( ) 1.99(S) 1.43(S) . .23(S) 1 10. 38.22 54.86 9.11 30.78 17.34 24.02 14.75 .79( ) 1.94( ) .49( ) 1.56( ) 2.20(S) 1.65(S) .20(S) 1 15. 35.42 51.70 7.29 28.92 17.83 24.57 13.01 .77( ) 1.90( ) .45( ) 1.53( ) 2.38(S) 1.85(S) 16(S) 1 20. 32.87 48.51 6.09 27.32 18.23 25.06 11.33 -- .75( ) 1.85( ) .42( ) 1.49(') 2.53(S) 2.03(S) .12(S) 1 25. 30.56 45.49 5.20 25.90 18.55 25.47 9.82 .73( ) 1.81( ) .39( ) 1.46( ) 2.66(S) 2.18(S) .09(S) 1 30. 28.44 42.67 4.48 24.60 18.82 25.82 8.49 .71( ) 1.76( ) 37( ) 1.44( ) 2.77(S) 2.30(S). .06(S) 1 35, 26.511 40.12 3.93 23.49 19.03. 26.12 6.59 .69( ) 1.72( ) 35( ) 1.41( ) 2.86(S) 2.41(S) 03(S) 1 40. 24.92 37.82 3.51 22.51 19.19 .26.36 4.36 .67( ) 1.69( ) 34( ) 1.39( ) 2.92(S) 2.50(S) .02(S) 1 45. 23.41 35.75 3.18 21.64 19.31 26.56 3.57 .66( ) 1.65( ) 33( ) 1.37(.) 2.97(S) 2.57(S) .02(S) 1 50. 22.04 33.86 2.92 20.84 19.39 26.72 3.17 ` .64( ) 1.62( ) 32( ) 1.35( ) 3.00(S) 2.63(S) .02(S) 1 55. 20.70 32.07 2.64 20.01 19.46 26.84 2.87 .63( ) 1.59( ) 30( ). 1.33( ) 3.03(S) 2.67(S) 01(S) 2 0. 19.44 30.35 2.35 19.17 19.51 26.92 2.58 .61( ) 1.55( ) .29( ) 1.31() 3.05(S) 2.70(S) O1(S) 2 5. 18.23 28.70 2.05 18.30 19.54 26'.97 2.28 .60( ) 1.52( ) .28( ) 1.28( ) 3.06(S) 2.72(S) .01(S)- 2 W. 17.08 27.12 1.76 17.43 19.55 26.99 1.99 .58( ) 1.49( ) .26( ) 1.26( ) 3.07(S) 2.72(S) .61(S) 2 15. 16.05 25.65 1.51 16.64 19.53 26.97 1.71 .57( ) 1.46( ) ..25( ) 1.24( ) 3.06(S) 2.72(S) .01(S) 2 10, 15.11 24.29 1.32 15.92 19.51 26.94 1.411 56( ) 1.43( ) 23( ) 1.22( ) 3.05(S) 2.70(S) .01(S) 2 25. 14.26 23.05 1.16 15.27 19.46 26.87 1.29 .55( ) 1.40( ) .22( ) 1.20( ) 3.03(S) 2.68(S) .01(S) 2 30. 13.47 21.90 1.03 14.67 19.41 26.79 1.14 .53( ) 1.37( ) .21( ) 1.18( ) 3.01(S) 2.65(S) .00(8) 2 35. 12.75 20.84 .92 14.12 19.34 . 26.69 1.01 .52( ) 1.35( ) .21( ) 1.17( ) 2.98(S) 2.62(S) .00(S) 2 40. 12.07 19.86 .83 13.59 19.27 26.57 .91 .51( ) 1.32( ) .20( ) 1.15( ) 2.95(S) 2.57(S) .00(S) 2 45. 11.45 18:94 .76 13.10 19.18 26.43 .82 50( ) 1.30( ) .19( ) 1.13( ) 2.92(S) 2.52(S) .00(S) 2 50. 10.86 18.08 .69 12.64 19.09 26.28 .74 .49(.) 1.28( ) .18( ) 1.12( ) 2.88(S) 2.47(S) . .00(S) 2 55. 10.32 17.27 .63 12.20 18.99 26.12 .68 po loI .48( ) 1.26( ) .18( ) 1.10( ) 2.84(S) 2.41(S). .00(S) 3 0. 9.81 16.51 .58 11.78 18.88 25.94 .62 47( ) 1.24( ) .17( ) 1.09( ) 2.80(S) 2.35(S) .00(S) 3 5. 9.33 15.80 .53 11.38 18.77 25.76 . .57 .47( ) 1:22( ) .17( ) 1.08( ) 2.75(S) 2.28(S) .00(S) 3 10. 8.88 15.12 .49 11.00 18.65 25.56 .52 46( ) 1.20( ) .16( ) 1.06( ) 2.70(S) 2.21(S) .00(S) 3 15. 8.46 14.49 .45 10.63 18.53 25.36 .48 .45( ) 1.18( ) .16( ) 1.05( ) 2.65(S) 2.14(S) 00(S) 3 20. 8.06 13.89 .41 10.28 18.40 25.15 .44 .44( ) 1.16( ) .15( ) 1.04( ) 2.60(S) 2.06(S) .00(S) 3 25. 7.69 13.32 .38 9.95 18.27 24.93 .41 AR ) 1.14( ) .15( ) 1.02( ) 2.55(S) 1.98(S). .00(S) 3 30. 7.34 12.79 .35 9.63 18.13 24.70 .38 .43( ) 1.12( ) .14(.) 1.01( ) 2.49(S) 1.90(S) .00(S) 3 35. 7.01 12.28 .33 9.32 17.98 24.47 .34 .42( ) 1.11( ) .14( ) 1.00( ) 2.44(S) 1.82(S) .00( ) 3 40. 6.69 11.79 .30 9.03 17.82 24.24 .29 41( ) 1.09( ) .14( ) .99C ) . 2.38(S) 1:73(S) .00( ) 3 45. 6.40 11.33 .28 8.75 17.66 24.00 .30 40( ) 1.07( ). .13( ) .97( ) 2.32(S) . 1.65(S) .00( ) 3 50. 6.12 10.90 .26 8.47 17.50 23.75 .25 .40( ) 1.06( ) .13( ) .96( ) 2.26(S) 1.56(S) .00( ) 3 55. 5.86 10.48 .24 8.21 17.33 23.51 .26 39(.) 1.04( ) .12( ) .95( ) 2.20(S) 1.47(S) 001 ) 4 0. 5.60 10.09 .23 7.96 17.17 23.00 .21 .38( ) 1.03( ) .12( ) .94( ) 2.14(S) 1.38(S) .00( ) 4 5. 5.37 9.71 .21 7.72 17.00 22.44 .22 .38( ) 1.01( ) .12( ) .93( ) 2.07(S) 1.29(S) .00( ) 4 10. 5.14 9.36 .20 7.49 16.83 21.88 18 .37( ) 1.00( ) .12( ). .92( ) 2.01(S) 1.21(S) .00( ) 4 15. 4.93 9.01 .18 7.27 16.65 21.33 .20 .37( ) .99( ) .11( ) .91( ) 1.95(S) 1.12(S). .00( ) 4 20. 4.72 8.69 .17 7.05 16.48 20.79 .16 .36( ) .97( ) .11( .90( ) 1.88(S) 1.04(S) .00( ) 4 25. 4.53 8.38 .16 6.84 16.31 20.26 .17 .35( ) .96( ) .11( ) 89( ) 1.82(S) .95(S) .00( ) 4 30. 4.35 8.08 .15 6.64 16.13 19.74 .13 .35( ) 95( ) 10( ) .88( ) 1.76(S) .87(S) .00( ) �. 4 35. 4.17 7.80 .14 6.45 15.96 . 19.23 .15 .34( ) .93(.) .10( ) .87( ) 1.69(S) 79(S) .00( ) 4 40. 4.00 7.52 .13 6.27 15.78 18.73 .11 .34( ) .92( ) .10(.) .86( ) 1.63(S) 710) .00( ) 4 45. 3.85 7.26 .12 6.09 15.60 18.24 .13 _ ' 33( ) .91( ) 10(.) .85( ) 1.56(S) .64(S) .00( ) 4 50. 3.69 7.01 Al 5.91 15.43 17.40 .10 .33( ) .90( ) .09( ) .84( ) 1.50(S) .56(S) .00( ) _ 4 55. 3.55 6.77 .10 5.75 15.25 16.24 .11 .32( ) .89( ) .09( ) .83( ) 1.43(S) 50(S) .00( ) ' 5 0. 3.41 6.54 .09 5.58 15.07. 15.18 .08 32( ) .87( ) 09( ) .82( ) 1.37(S) .43(S) 00( ) 5 5, 3.28 6.32 .09 5.43 14.90 14.21 .10 .31( ) .86( ) .09( ) .81( ) 1.30M. .38(S) .00( ) 5 10. 3.15 6.11 .08 5.28 14.72 13.33 .07 31( ) 85( ) .08( ) .81( ) 1.24(S) .32(S) .00( ) 5 15. 3.03 5.91 .08 5.13 14.55 12.52 .09 .31C ) .84( ) .08( ) .80( ) 1.17(S) .28(S) 00( ) 5 20. 2.91 5.71 .07 4.99 14.37 11.78 .06 .30( ) .83( ) 08( ) .79(') 1.11(S) .23(S) .00( ) 5 25. 2.80 5.53 .06 4.85 14.20 11.10 .08 .30( ) .82( ) .08( ) .78( ) 1.05(S) .19(S) .00( ) 5 30. 2.70 5.35 .06 4.72 13.92 9.51 .05 .29( ) .81( ) .07( ) 77( ) .98(S) .16(S) 00( ) 5 35. 2.59 5.17 .05 4.59 13.39 8.24 .07 .29( ). .80( ) .07( ) .77( ) .92(S) .14(S) 00( ) 5 40. 2.50 5.00 .05 4.47 12.88 7.30 .04 .28( ) .79( ) .07( ) .76(.) .86(S) .12(S) .00( ) 5 45. 2.40 4.84 .05 4.35 12.39 6.59 .06 .28( ) 78( .07( ) .75( ) .81(5) .10(S) .00( ) 5 50. 2.31 4.69 .04 4.23 11.93 6.05 .03 . 28( ) .77( ) .06( ) .74( ) .75(S) 09(S) .00( ) 5 55. 2.23 4.54 .04 4.12 11.48 5.62 .05 27( ) .76( ) .06( ) .73( ) .70(S) .08(S) .00( ) 6 0. 2.14 4.40 .03 4.01 11.05 5.28 .02 .27( ) .75( ) .06( ) .73( ) .65(S) .08(S) .00( ) 6 5. 2.06 4.26 .03 3.91 10.64 4.99 .04 .26( ) .74( ) 06( ) .72( ) .60(S). .07(S) 00( 6 10. 1.99 4.12 .03 3.80 10.25 4.75 .02 .26( ) .73( ) .06( ) .71( ) .56(S) .07(S) .00( ) 6 15. 1.91 3.99_ .03 3.70 9.89 4.55 .04 i .26( ) .73( ) 05( ) .71( ) .52(S) .06(S). .00( ) 6 20. 1.84 3.87 .02 3.61 9.55 4.36 .01 :25(,) .72( ) .05( ) .70( )'. .47(S) .06(S) .00( ) 6 25. 1.77 3.75 .02 3.51 9.23 4.20 - .03 .25( ) .71( ) .05( ) .69( ) .43(S) .06(S) .00( ) 6 30. 1.71 3.63 .02 3.42 8.92 4.05 .01 .25( ) .70( ) .05( ) .69( ) .40(S) .05(S) .00( ). 6 35. 1.64 3.52 .02 3.33 8.63 3.90 .03 .24( ) .69( ) .05( ) .68( ) .36(S) 05(S) .00( ) 6 40. 1.58 3.41 .01 3.25 8.34 3.77 .00 .24( ) .68( ) .04( ) .67( ) .32(S) .05(S) .00( ) 6 45. 1.52 3.30 .01 3:16 8.06 3.65 .03 .24( ) .68( ) .04( ) .67( ) .29(S) .04(S) .00( ) 6 50. 1.47 3.20 .01 3.08 7.80 3.53 .00 .23( ) .67( ) .04( ) .66( ) .26(S) .04(S) .00( ) 6 55. 1,41 3.10 .01 3.00 7,54 3.42 .02 .23( ) .66( ). .04( ) .65( Y .22(S) .04(S) .00( ) 7 0. 1.36 3:01 .01 2.93 7.30 3.31 .00 .23( ) .65( ) .04( ) .65( ) .19(S) . .04(S) .00( ) 7 5. 1.31 2.92 .01. 2.85 7.06 3.21 .02 22( ) .65(.) .03( ) .64( ) .16(S) .04(S) .00( ) 7 10. 1.26 2.83 01 2.78 6.83 3.11 .00 .22( ) 64( ) .03( ) .63( ) 14(S) .03(S) .00( ) 7 15. 1.21 2.74 .01 2.71 6.62 3.01 .01 122( ) .63( ) .03( ) .63( ) 11(S) .03(S) .00( ) 7 20. 1.17 2.66 .00 2.64 6.40 2.92 .00 .21( ) .62( ) .03( ) .62( ) .08(S) 03(S) .00( ) 7 25. 1.12 2.58 .00 2.57 6.20 2.83 .01 .21( ) .62( ) .03( ) .62( ) .06(S) .03(S) 00( ) 7 30. 1.08 2.50 .00 2.51 .4.53 2.74 .00 .21( ) .61( ) .03( ), .61( ) .04(S) .03(S) .00( ) 7 35. 1.04 2.42 .00 -=.-2.45 3.31 2.66 .01 .20( ) .60( ) .02( ) _,,- .60( ) .03(S) .03(S) .00( ) 7 40. 1.00 2.35 .00 2.38 2.78 2.57 .00 .20( ) .59( ) .02( ) .60( ) .02(S) .02(S) :00( ) 7 45. .96 2.27 .00 2.32 2.53 2.50 .01 .20( ) .59( ) .02( ) .59( ) .02(S) .02(S) .00( ) 7 50. .92 2.20 .00 2.26 2.39 2.42 .00 20( ) .58( ) .02( ) .59( ) .02(S) .02(S) .00( ) 7 55. .89 2.14 .00 2.21 2.30 2.31 00 .19( ) .57( ) .02( ) 58( ) .02(S) :02(S) 00( ) 8 0. .85 2.07 .00 2.15 2.23 2.19 .00 .19( ) .57( ) .02( ) .58( ) .02(S) .02(S) :00( ) FOLLOWING CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS HAVE NUMERICAL [HE TABILITY PROBLEMS THAT LEAD TO HYDRAULIC SCILLLATIONS DURING THE SIMULATION. 212 214 215 -- �YMBIOS LOGIC PHASE 1 INTERIM DRAINAGE (FOX MEADOWS BASIN H)'100-YR DEVELOPED REVISED 27 FEB 97; SEAR-BROWN/RBD (dkt) FILE: 714001P1.DAT •"� PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENSION DAMS «*" CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 30 35 PEAK (CFS) 16.0 46.8 STAGE (FT). .6 (DIRECT STORAGE (AC -FT) FLOW) TIME (MR/MIN) 0 35.' 2 5. 36 19.9 1.5 0 50. 124 44.9 .8 0 50: 126 59.0 2.0 1 0. 1. .7 0 40, 130 30 4444.2 1.8 0 40. 212 19.5 .0 -^ - 3_1 2 10.,E 214 27.0 _0 2_.7 10. 215 19.3 .0 _2 .3 00 50 INDPROGRAN PROGRAM CALLED a '0 /off .cw "1iNW®8! M� will in kNrlllls+�' k �111I �11\`INS \ti RJ``@e. e``� N 1 SAS CLASS 6 RIPRAP TO DEEP OVER 1' Door ' �CIA�S A BEDDING -- JOPOSED 30' RCP CUTLET $Y15DNG DO' DIP WRET - PROPOSED th CHANNEL -- PIPE INSTALLED N/ (DESIGN BY OTHERS) ENWSH RANCH ODii 8 141411, 179 _ rlr-- gelr" -.. _.._._ STANDARD'EROSION -CONTROL CONSTRUCTION PLAN 'NOTES \�\ _W4 Glr i CSI SI (JNln k Am um bipe<tw moat be tied t t 24 d hi 9 1F t Y Im t this site N re?had pfkn t anWI forcing Amid to In IaIM DLN to any land afW ymr1my (ale im 4 g T din} ) Ad oO ry r weaken womm mi awl be'wtaMd 1 We epbrs t*,twe in We Wetion apron to As Inamlad F We asixismol pral sat K.two I pens. and ""a, 9Nua rippart. pre-cMurli taii still be Piawtod and retained all w D W. Romoval we atmomossa his ""form Iran no fluid to We awk m ked b.Immediate volmormtkon Warations. and for We Mvtent pdraka pyicd of time. NI «was -opposed Arx9 land dishobin9 adM1Y (at,"" goolong. utoltY I'shmatmanal olmkpoh% fl IF0n1 ) Mdl 4 kept x a ragnened gbaylbn by roping or Owing card land contacts unIE inukA, "t tl tbw Mrameot wows 1 1, kn N No 9009 Faces mlakb • prbpcl 1 l rights I say AW remain epofed by land disturbAl Mi my la mwa Man wtY (Jo) dap bM eq Nf temporary or allotment wool can" (cl saM/mWM 10 Mdaaapin0. .tu) 4 In to a mines omwwlw apprmp by the stwmsotw, Uuny a- lift E SARPoERS AV END INSTALL SOD IN .' ID TACK FULLN AM -� G ERDSIDN coppil OL in DEVELOPED' SITE. HYD19OLOGpY DESIGN BASIN �; C (cote) (Me) 1 1- 0.52 0.81 21 III 2 1.2 1479 0.71 6.6 ' 1 .2 3 1 2r3 363 -0.78 13.5 .4 4 4 255 0.82 92 21.9 5- 5 L29 0.80 23 _.4.9 6 6 2139 0.84 - 61 13.1 7 7 1W Djas BO K4 8 8 1-38 1-8,0-1' B,BB 4 .28 . 0.80 0.3t . 12 5 840 25.8 1715 9A. 4A. 595 - 0:3p 8.5 t3.5 10 10 2915'--"0.28 2 IM 1 shop b : i rod malnl Its • t CWwY aW1 gaLIImFb AF WWn IW pa p ¢ml airs y lFwd N Imo dblUMP9 o ele 0\ bn l ad 1 1 l s l IFs. taOn es a City of Collins M1M paC %K ppp an telephones b U City F 1 Y Yl yl _. _ Eq FW=� ilr U'p bbnt Elg g .. Iwr4 w Y (lw� d)' woo " 010 m oMl b Fp«NS OM Wad ar hat tmec 'e way nN .hen t In wake 1 rill " Hlwwman or iM NPbES PERMIT NOTES than me how oil nfallbd aanNol pwtmlvlY lase p n y <a<IawP SILT FENCE J a red pod dowsed 1 An mysy god knUm t to case unY Heox Into 1 AIR OESC pP : " R T SEEDING CHIB w a q v la Corn - W c. Fucllm Fse bog d - m Wally act ana"<nan wfla .ale aan a tam d r M w Seem. Table II R. r R«cmm<nded I and laalkn Raus o sM sP Apo ore \ n rt 1 w! 0 1 p ( ) 1 to 't. NI eCR ION IN WHIN e of«\ ban hdN P p F Tanned ct IM D (w Temporary Wpeta\Im and/or Caw Crcps moment \ apse) CY KKeoutstanding.'pl Fq, d p t Dl IM Inb My eW s�l«NWp b. male a<Il t w d ad F IM Fq NNq n ]0 re mall a MM grid altlled. 'talky \aatM paranm\ wq Orwlol grad l I t $�Iw Sacsm(I1 alM FacnM/Ae Fla 1 aq All co C Ca Pm` he 1 YJ g draft q w,daWFU 9 r my 1 alald mb C. m 1aF 14.25 1 s19ah all b b sego Al l Oppress Ma M City all by Iran nY r id M 11odwrlml deposited males wallbe aamM a 9 im pending Oohs Coo 70 Mmedi by nn <mFacla d, R bnd C 0 256 ammunition. IR the Cw s Cold Rp Cont a ON 1 Um m \ M slow od alo 1M«I Mllx Cool 40 Other not" whowed by InarNOa da¢wgpmmis. Rama mocks' Y R and YW to Amid Er b IY week - String Cut RO S D U C'1 1 t GN S ems n , 91U the ' All C"I IND etlsl•p HER dopes of approN Wy U:JY. Us tire Hera Sudan earn JO DETENTION POND SUMMARY- (PRDN SW13W) awl hew' wN 6e w1.ns Ia tram +"d d mils). worm a er ., $a�ham Cos ya poke IM alv growth F We vptn9. Nam amvm pace« make q their map p m Id data stand and or min Ease 11 ♦ le UR« wri datN Am permits wN 1 P a y/ Ran greases Table IIA. pI too9 PoI for Pwenn a grid TM y/Cow Oman Wmaam, PFRENNAL TEYPCtNT/COMA DATE GRASSES CROP WUSY5 Worm Ud Nmm CM Jan 01'- FR M Yes Yee No No POND / VIX. REO'D (AC Fr) VOL. FROV. (AC IT) 100 Yfi HWL SURFACE ARE/r (AC), RELEASE RAZE (Cte) 215 0.3 0.3 4828.00 Ox 193 214 2.7 2.'/ 4923.78 1.4 27.0 212-.. 3.1 3.1 4924.67 35 19.5 TheW y <Tsbta of pan Tam lane Ni ems tie. m IH Meant, a form law aM wand ^ Um seasonal N. be m pal tN p tm swm« as G lad nW tM IN r A. N smnetw c mpanmis main an' spin" Ord M9ea 41 lac n • thewM OIo Rpwmb one omWtly tin C LouP N6s RFs. 51 1 X man U et ' V^ toy mtar Us Fo Dart R« , Net at Which drvx to " Fm . GMt RM . Ow'n tan U o Gawk Ra 1 IY raises We Cacti' La P ms RIW Strom now aN M1 We Ww W mwa wi of tre alo eW M Vmpw\H Ion m Al blmlbn pm4 by oab 4 9uthr plpM and m d N t flow. Yw 01 - WY IS Yaa yes No Yen ofNo 2 SEE YN: may MAY31 a. Stu DrMope k Loeb^ CmYd %m (UI/ " OB - Jul No Yes No - No Y&Ie OPNSImN,Dp SEDSA<2 3 El FOR S1pNIN,9IER X MU MEI MW M9 01 - M9 31 WNo yes Na No Yale -' a Lmbr 0 Sad t Cm" , Sq 01 - 5p b 199] 19M Sew Owl Cm" Na d Se wa 9Wa (NF Oct 01 - 0« 31 Y Yen N No ypep need) _ NDNi J A. z.l. 0 1 I i F I l a i. 0, m, o X dbil ill Prsmlbr, � mmini � "' 0 - - Y OWN to dN i caidRa'ta Y Itlll<q nail b a•Id l meet M 1 6 5 \ 01 _¢del <kn M weof the 'vend d l' -. a IGI rq am a na1 be age IIh a peemi &Amd Toes epee maker.'a D ER09A1 CCM1mA r Hart W4 Wad a Week trH A ayl Ua all )memory wgaatke or cow cri Sy.N will and antterbW a4 ti mocia PwImi OrM r u E Crew, AaINUpI pink, Asso"Nm Rate A oT Mark t M t d III bread H anwW MUIN Dvla of 11 a 1 " divan qd l $lrH a Na J 01 D 31 2 lac /am Sam, or Im and 1 pl 1 Mi (oWd pWPo) 15 May 15 2 l /amOth d t - J F n 0 EroNm <m4a ( u b X la) J. 01 0 3 War male how 1 Intosh b 1 floom lower RAINAT El0 1RQ' tsa r. dal rhadown Nay m shoo wY A,, al bed e b of ant Sox al Ua Tor sew a}'. - Wd Nyy to Al vas prevent W 10 Inches e - 9U I adN9 '1 tv grosses hay fire^ a ndb Intl p/ n to re wall, am, me Tom 6 e wog ed IaM 9 at - Ell OR FINAL STMUZATEN AND LONG lE 3 A ATEN Y.VIA@ PI I IWoOmann h M. " II< malty« may be app-ad from Ill 15 Urw{N Sphwmber 30. - { ol run,A a. - f IopR zvl m / dischargers. Jars aIin mmwre¢ to <anbdNpd 1 1 NY w SFas Mulch m i OTHER CONTROLS f Sur sa `dab rod Im m ,mare 11 NY to o ch aX be mAgad to the «II by me of T aw<h¢ hfwh We who and disparkemme 0f onsee male w Ion N W ^g etFNa: the 11e pewlp md'rtls o F a vp m low_ N - other m mmwas dwa b, aaanlmeR a bob ea a urn nlm ul wlmp the leer w (a) A ump> s atone pa n 1wk S te a one dMntr p woe A'It lmwe to the All, PI beet SOF d On how 1[gTsO a q 1 dl Mud and dto ¢ Ned a e rat peal) one 101ncne¢ or mine In engU ISMhpblwip �- 9 odd p Sup M v n pool«tad hlualY owmm 9 mach - sego Jets Me (Me La (p) 9:vnulmlurN mulch ne11Inq Fe\tl M o¢s Ue nay Twn� Y Ssea,plmt N p R, d< seas atorely to mmaf=tImm FeWnlms Sal He sum G. IHSPE lox 0 NR EE - o Iww,tOnmadmommi owed Ank u akm an a (a) {ori pope OR We muse to Ua WhenheHolol all ovu¢da¢ ell aad'n 6 off Me Tromp and owin faatum a mewammMum conditions or U. bass Cmwd FwmIE z At straw Be boy must be *a: of noeloue mds - JBB PAN p THE - - DRAWN - DESIGNED CIECKED ,W - - aw.nn, m. SEAR;BROWNMyfo`WYgnI.Am. �w.n'�°�;e<D�D imn HEWLETT-PACKARD COMP+AN TRAP, 3' Di SW�hl %I 9�--------------------- mmmai SET "M PON ME Cmi WA life "711 SON. 114'PLOW PROAss As we is RobMIN NIn all Ni INLEVA110111 IIII' AE Anne ; �II�lll\\11117 InAll AND WPM FIENCE WORD EACH mm, AR"WIT0 Me �mmi "Ll. .l�� Ask AMIX° h� CONTROL. 1\��♦FIST L ]e is I_89� PROPROSED CONTOUR DIRECTION W ROW 'a DESIGN POINT y+ iI DRAINAGE 1� 1BASIN N AREA IA)ERAoE STREET SLOPE PROPOSED STORM MAIN PIPE �LF �w 1 Y a ,� 'IR1Paes (�IWRCP KI Z�'� �f[` STRAW''x m�i��I �� _--, . lose I 6. SYMBIOS LOGIC OFFICE BUILC)ING FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Irk/ I dI I NACENTM OF COLOHAD0 i g Y 1 800-922wii �1534-6700It " ' • _ WdR T(9URaEBe01�A[EF NYAME OUM umgpAOF I.I'I I r '.. IOR9A 1.11FILrtR11. - City 64 Fort CoWos Colorado 'A UFOA P4 PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: <.,__, anpbr i nwneeM{ Date -- Sy l9 J---- CHECKED By'. 18r - I1n• eta k WedeHleL Party Bete SNP ) 1 CHECKED BY: wets Dmy Date r1� -�- RCP CHECKED BY: a ReveetbD Dale 1•=SIP i 1 cam + I CHECKED BY: CA, CHECKED BY: _ pets-- - SHEETS SHEET DRAINAGE AND EROSION . CONTROL PLAN 17 5 TDN emi JAIL I•Nt2Lt NV-"pm'tr_ v,ufeos-w/m PROPOSEO OUTLET PIPE TO BE INSTALLED w/ HEW.ETT-PACKARD \ cusH RANCH. oDTEAu.PROPOSED CHANNEL LEFT Ill BAY TO BE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY :I L{ 1IF STWPED CITY BY TRAFFIC >�\. •••1 I'1 �• •• �DEPARTLKNT F 'iY J Yny�A „y�i xl �1L�C_— _.ifs"'- - r„ �'�' ��_ __J II _— — —hrdr =-_ — --- — ----- ----� Cas ws - 2�-E1LyT--,6' RCP �s — cns r / Mr GAS Ap PROPOSED ENCUSH N�A EATNG\\# NERANDS RANCH OUIFALL PIPE UM1Y EA IN m \ \ NW 4924 \ ' \\ x I' CONCRETE IRRIGATION DITCH TO BE PIPED I I DETENIIP�\ POND P2 \ { (POND .afar / R r \ II i _ HxYR 02.0 00t'-T14ezz0 EMERIGEN '- t ORH- 5 t EASEM I EWTION-POND SUMMARY � �•, w4 � '•_,.- - - -,.-_. — O -- PROPOSED.-'- ...DETENTION/RET MANUFACTURLNG le �I I II BLLDG l� I -U6 POND VOL. VOL IN YR SURFACE RELEASE 0 REO'D PROJ.. NWL ARE{ RATE (AC FT) (AC FY) (AC) (de) - 1 6d* 6.5 4927.0 4.6 17.5 2 5J* 7.0 4924.9 4.3 30.5" 3 0.5 0.6 4928.0 0.9 0 ON,'� O ., OF PROPOSED EDGE *DE1dtMINEO fAgA SWMM $ I llll ,,•�e�OZ ._•-.- ...-�G—• y Q- /� 51 q I OF PAVEMENT Z • < _ _b ' g STOP GN 11 P I cs� 1 W _ - , \ f Exlsnn0 EDGE 1 w all / Nd: NT OF PAVEMENT LEGEND __ ypp 1Y1��IU N • LINE —1 i I� � ` Q�a A �/� Ci¢ aa\ �• _}_--'' '�--wt�-_._ E505TINC CONTWR ,A y�5 I� -%- ~\ 55.•b / --89—� PROPOSED CONTWR b HIICH POINT ® STOP-. .__-_ `- - DI6iECTION OF FLOW a� -' I •\ Iry I ..'• V' ly' �I gE51CN PUNT . AT, �b�u� DPAINACE BASIN BOUNDARY 1 { r {� a1>�.. K. BASIN NUMBER d I Q I OPOS PRB�GED y Q �p [� 1c �' 1 'l I I ¢ MANUFACTURING O9�V i 0 U �• : O CIA BASIN AREA \II..-. QQ4�' ^I ICI a •-s- smuENITCH w/ FLOW ARROW PIROPOBFD STORM GRAIN PIPE voislinr -- 1 .. ^I) yy„ -,:.2rzu t- x r•i'sa �s�l ss� a - ,.9e- �.> -a - .� it <G \ \ \ 100 YEAR MAl FOR POND ul I ^ geSie x\ �• \p r .+'z9Mzy+b+�"' ffff �- - -\ f \ .i .'.N i ¢;< WEFANOS AREA IP r% 9 iAll 41 PROPOSED 12' a \\ �'� '� �: - swALEJ -•i .wee n�I .w .i %ice �E0XERnON ATION LANE \ \ / +EASEMFu nLITY EASEAFN r9 U T _ —. _ III PROPOSED D V w - _-_ __-____ Ij ____ _-- __— i OF PAVEMENT I I 5 B � ------------ �� i S V Id B O S 1p FYIW�xdLFI�IIEWl�f9l�x.pq ifP9R.Y x6/YYlleinule�eEll�le.IleYF\�II�.U��EIIe�illle�.Y1�xI1�Ile1�.EYe�.Ele�ll.le�xYloe�l9YxE1W�11Ew..IW�e �IW�.tMe.�f.�.Elbe]I�eUI�uaRKl,tuft.x.l�e.le�Fue�eilA+exU�i.�/lYY. e.i+Wlwo uumi. "dg8_ ppN N-lrs SH�el DRAMS 9E9mED alEam ERglnebFNg'Con6Mltaeots - SYMBIOS LOGIC OVERALL 9A Srvd IIYr^'AeM ]No w. '�q p. 9A1. 4 s le IEC r APR+ g ns-ooi-�3�Inc z^\+z' �ga°°a4o 4°"' FORT COLLINS, COLORAD©/ 1 TNOSYTDAIV ' REvtsoN -DESCNIPnON ^P°I+�-'.:. WIE«z-snz sosrsa-�zc DRAINAGE PLAN V