The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 04/06/1994IPROPERTY OF FORT COLUNS qWA r FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D. SECOND FILING FORT COLLINS, COLORADO December 15, 1993 Prepared for: Robert Dildine New Western Horizon L.L.C. 2690 Joyce Street Golden, CO 80401 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 553-001 RMINC. Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 303/482-5922 FAX: 303/482-6368 December 15, 1993 Mr. Glen Schleuter City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235 Mathews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control . Study for Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Second Filing Dear Glen: We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Second Filing. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Stor Drainage Design Criteria. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants Tim J. Ba ey i`��IIIIIIIIIIJII/�, Design Engineer O DEN C� 27362 Roger. Curtiss, P.E. Project Manager ''��,66�Gas ... i91; Other Offices: Denver 303/458-5526 • Vail 303/476-6340 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 A. LOCATION 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS 1 A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 1 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 2 A. REGULATIONS 2 B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 2 C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 2 D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 2 E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 2 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 3 A. GENERAL CONCEPT 3 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 3 V. STORM WATER QUALITY 5 A. GENERAL CONCEPT 5 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 5 V. EROSION CONTROL 5 A. GENERAL CONCEPT 5 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 6 VI. CONCLUSIONS 6 A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 6 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 6 C. STORM WATER QUALITY 6 D. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 7 REFERENCES 7 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP 1 HYDROLOGY 2 DETENTION 8 DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM SEWER AND SWALES 17 EXCERPTS FROM THE McCLELLANDS BASIN MASTER PLAN 42 EXCERPTS FROM THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL DRAINAGE STUDY 47 EROSION CONTROL 53 CHARTS, FIGURES AND TABLES 57 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D. SECOND FILING ' FORT COLLINS, COLORADO GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ' A. Location The Wild Wood. Farm P.U.D. Second Filing development is located in the southeast part of Fort Collins, south of Harmony Road and west of County Road 9. A vicinity map of the proposed site is included in the appendix. More particularly, the site is situated in the northeast quarter of Section 5, ' Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. ' B. Description of Propertx The Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Second Filing contains 17.3 acres more or less. The area is currently being used for agricultural purposes and is being proposed for single-family residential construction with 64 lots. The site generally slopes from the northwest to the southeast at approximately 0.8%. Runoff has historically been a fairly constant sheet flow across the site to County Road 9, where it enters an existing roadside ditch. The ditch ' transports the water southerly towards the McClellands Basin Drainageway. DRAINAGE BASINS ' A. Maior Basin Descriotion The Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Second Filing lies within the McClellands Drainage Basin and is described in the report entitled McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc. 1986. As ' a part of the Master Plan, a SWMM model was developed for the basin, A schematic of the SWMM model is included in the appendix. In the SWMM model the site was modeled as a portion of basin 216, which flows into conveyance element 36 and then into conveyance element 32. Conveyance element 32 then drains south along County Road 9 to the McClellands Basin Drainageway. I11. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations ' The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. ' B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan criteria and constraints.,are ' being utilized in this Drainage Study. Drainage criteria not specified in the McClellands Master Drainage Plan will be in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards Manual. ' The Master Drainage Plan for the McClellands Basin recommends on -site detention using a staged release of 0.2 cfs/acre for the 10 year design ' storm and 0.5 cfs/acre for the 100 year design storm. ' C. Hydrological Criteria The Rational method is being used to determine runoff peak flows from the ' site. The 2 and 100 year rainfall criteria, and the 10 year for the detention pond, which was obtained from the City of Fort Collins, is the criteria which was utilized. The criteria is included inthe appendix. D. Hydraulic Criteria All calculations within this study have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria. E. Variances from Criteria ' No variances are being sought for this project. 1 2 I IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept ' Most of the on -site runoff produced by the proposed development will flow northeasterly to a detention pond located at the northeast corner of the site. Detained developed released flows will be combined with flows from the ' north and routed in a pipe southerly along County Road 9 into an existing storm sewer system which flows into the McClellands Drainageway. A small portion of the site drains back onto Corbett Drive or onto County Road 9. ' The portion draining onto Corbett Drive is accounted for in the design of Corbett Drive done with the Junior High School Development project. The ' area draining onto County Road 9, basin 0-1, will flow along County Road. 9 to the inlet structure built with the Junior High School project. This will be an interim condition until County Road 9 is improved in this area. When the ' road is developed the flow will be intercepted in a curb inlet and enter the detention pond for the Third Filing. B. Specific Details The project site has been broken into 9 sub -basins, all but 1, basin 0-1, drain into the detention pond located in the northeast corner of the site. A piping system is required along the streets to meet the requirements of a minor storm of not overtopping the curb. The pipes are sized to convey the ' minor storm. The major storm will be conveyed along the streets and in the pipes. The depth of street flow for the major storm is under the capacity ' allowed per the City of Fort Collins criteria up to the low point in the street adjacent to the detention pond. The water at this point is to overtop the curb and flow into the detention pond. Basin 1 contains lots 1 through 12 and the northern half of Indigo Circle that fronts these lots. The lots drain toward the streets and flow is directed ' easterly to the low point in the street where is joins flow from basin 6 and the 2 year storm is intercepted by a curb inlet, while the 100 year storm joins other runoff and overtops the walk to enter the detention pond. ' Basin 2 contains lots 18 through 28 and the southern half of Indigo Circle fronting these lots. Runoff from the lots flow toward the street where it is directed easterly to the low point in the road, where it joins flows from basins 3,3A,4 and 5. The 2 year storm is intercepted by a curb inlet, while the 100 year storm overtops the crown to combine with flow from basins 1 and 6 to overtop the walk and enter the detention pond. ' 3 Basin 3 consists of Indigo Court and all lots fronting it. The lots all drain toward the street where flow is directed easterly onto Indigo Circle. It combines with flows from basin 3A, which contains the western half of Indigo Circle between Ninebark Drive and Indigo Court. Basin 3A also includes overflow from basins 4 and 5. The 2 year runoff is intercepted by an at.grade curb inlet, while the 100 year runoff continues northerly to the low point in the street. Basin 4 contains lots 42 through 54, Ninebark Court and the northern half of Ninebark Drive from the westerly highpoint in the road near Corbett Drive, to Indigo. Circle. Flow is directed easterly where the 2 year runoff is intercepted by a curb inlet. The 100 year runoff continues onto Indigo Circle where it combines with flow from basin 5. Flow continues to the north to the low point in Indigo Circle. Basin 5 contains lots 55 through 64 and the southern half of Ninebark Drive from the highpoint in the road near Corbett Drive to Indigo Circle. Lots 55 through 64 are all graded to drain towards the street. Flow is directed to the east onto Indigo Circle where it continues to the north. Basin 6 contains lots 13 through 17, 65, future lot south of lot 65 and the east half of Indigo Circle fronting these lots. Flow from the lots is directed towards the street where it heads north to the low point in Indigo Circle. A portion of the rear of the lots drains towards County Road 9. Basin 7 contains the west half of County Road 9 from Harmony Road to the high point located adjacent to lot 1.6. The flow is intercepted by a 7' curb inlet located at the low point. The flow then enters the detention pond. Basin 8 contains the area of the detention pond. Flows from the other basins are all directed to basin 8. The outlet for the pond has been ' designed for multiple release rates. All flow enters the storm sewer system along County Road 9 which has been designed to convey the 100•year storm runoff to the existing system located near Farm Road. This: flow ' continues to the south to where it outlets in the McClellands Basin Drainageway. The F.A.A. method has been utilized to size the detention pond at the northeast corner of the site. Pond models were developed for the 10 year ' and the 100 year storm events, and are included in the appendix. The required size of the pond is 2.92 acre-feet for the 100 year storm event. The pond is to be built with 1 foot of freeboard and an emergency overflow weir. ' Flow from Basin E of the Wild Wood Farm Overall Drainage Plan is to be 1 4 routed along a grass lined swale along the northern boundary of the site. This flow will enter into an area inlet which begins the. piping system along County Road 9. The swale and pipe system have been sized to convey the 100 year historic flow rate from basin E. Development of basin E in the future will provide for lower detained flows along County Road 9. Included in the back pocket of the report is the Overall Drainage Plan for Wild Wood Farm, which shows Basin E. The flows from the project detention pond will combine with the flows from Basin E and routed in a piping system to the south. They will combine with the existing storm sewer system which was constructed with the.Junior High School site. The combined flow is then routed along County Road 9, in conveyance element 32 of the SWMM model into McClellands Basin Drainageway to the south. V. STORM WATER QUALITY A. General Concept Beginning in October of 1992, the water quality of storm water runoff was required to be addressed on all final design utility plans. The Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Second Filing development is anticipating construction beginning in the Fall of 1993. Therefore practices for treatment of storm water quality runoff has. been incorporated in the design process. B. Specific Details ' The concept of storm water quality should address the treatment of the initial first flush runoff. By capturing the initial first flush runoff in a water quality pond, the pollutants can be filtered out of the storm water runoff. ' Included on sheet 20 of the Utility Plan set is a detail for a detention pond with a water quality component. The water quality pond is designed to ' release storm water runoff over a 40 hour period in order to filter out pollutants. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility does not currently have adopted water quality standard design criteria, therefore the Denver Urban ' Drainage and Flood Control Districts published criteria was used for this project. The water quality pond features were incorporated with the design of the detention pond in the northeast corner of the site. VI. EROSION CONTROL A. General Concept C ' VI. The Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Second Filing is in the Moderate Rainfall and Moderate Wind Erodibility Zones per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. The potential exists for erosion problems during construction, and after construction until the disturbed ground is again vegetated. It is anticipated that construction will begin in the Fall of 1993. Per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites and related calculations included in the appendix, the erosion control performance standard, for the site is 75.4%. From the calculations in the appendix, the effectiveness of the proposed erosion control plan is 87.2% during the construction portion of this development. Therefore the erosion control plan will meet the City of Fort Collins requirements. B. Specific Details Before overlot grading, the detention pond shall be constructed with the water quality outlet. After the overlot grading has been completed, all disturbed areas, not in roadway, shall have a temporary vegetation seed applied per the. City of Fort Collins specification. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre, minimum, and the mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked or crimped into the soil per the methods shown on the Drainage and. Erosion Control plan. After the utilities have been installed, the roadway surfaces should receive the pavement structure. After installation of the curb inlets, the inlets shall be filtered with a combination of concrete blocks, 1 /2 inch wire screen, and a 3/4 inch course gravel. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City.of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. B. Drainage Concept The proposed drainage concepts adequately provide for the transmission of developed on site run-off to the proposed detention pond and on to the McClellands Drainageway. C. Water Quality Control Because storm water quality has become a requirement, the site has addressed this storm water aspect. The detention pond acts as a storm water quality pond releasing the first flush of storm water runoff over a ' period of 40 hours in order for pollutants to settle out of the runoff. D. Erosion Control Concept The City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Standards and Specifications will be utilized during and after construction to minimize the impacts of ' development of this site. n ' REFERENCES 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1984, Revised January 1992. 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. ' 3. McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan, by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc. 1986 4. Master Drainage Study for Wild Wood Farm, by RBD, Inc. July, 1988 5. Amended Overall Drainage Study for the Wild Wood Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., June 26,1992. I 1 7 APPENDIX EAST HARMONY ROAD PROJECT SITE 1 0 0 a 1 A O7 1 Q' z U VICINITY MAP F 1 HYDROLOGY 0 k 1 LL) cr + C4 Lo U 0 I.Q NJ 1 A � ;ti, CO 11� :D 0 u C14 kL It 31 N N g W. A - W 3U I J to u • \I QI O -Z o H H q j a a. 4) ' ¢ U U N. O LL)` ` U C' _ LL F- t— ,� O '-} ` v O W E' > LL U w Q c) ' ram- o '!LP 0co Q �` 8 z LP LL NCO j Q J cc _ _ W. U a�_ s.� ;�`Z N v N z M Q F- }- ., �. } L`, . ll l p . a LL v NMI�P I'S'" Oi Q W Q v N �P y' 00 Q cr ao O Z'j Q M 4 Q — �+ 0 wT�' O o N X a cis 'zoo's-I"� +;�l-�j- �!o�TtiC�r �.Sd�htt•c�^S w�� ' 1 SYSTEM PRELIMINARYDESIGN DATA STORM DRAINAGE Location of Design Point SON a _ o — U C_ �.FIo'w Time o o c> E O ,G �- __ 5 0 o U o O C o rt U U o L C 4 O CC ti E o E C Street Pipe Street Pipe Remarks o e F C 0 O. C C' p C 3 o n. CO a O ea N o Ci N N H u O y cam. •y Vf O H I 2 3 I 4 I 1.:5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I 14 I 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21' 22 23 7 1. L, ono Z, ?4 2.4 7,,. 195 h, Z, ! l74 6,47 I.95 S2 0,4 1 -r- )IJo z, 74 D., 4 is l 4,3 0.41.4 2.4 - _ - Z .. t r, 1 t'Y:=r ::�,5(o f^.., � :.: �• � I r Cn ..-, - r �.. . ^'t 1 1':1, �1 �_ I I , Jv� c `1"i''d nf'� �' �.�\ :`� L M' 'f ' %f,4:zaA 1 7{ Ton '� ry �f 4 fo �1 i>s - 3 >� .5.3,�1 . I t 7,4 l I i� { ='� Y l i �� . Ts�. 3r 7 ✓• 401 7-•74 '�-•A��/a.( „r•� -r•1`� rn_ 1) F S -r �1 P �� xr•`t.� i %' ! J,� ! � , x i , .�.. 3. 3 T I �-I- _� -i . I . I — zss . 4i <%�� = 3. b rn,�,n.. ' [7ef.T: • , g I I �) , 0 , ZS ,.S lJ. ( I ' �.1 _! i;; rti -1=i- s rn D p; . I,- . S �. z ? / Qo 11, ---7D 5,018 . , S z I�± ? �cc'irea , 3A.< ?3.!' 3. D z!,. !',�' R l , 5� -(, 7, I !4;4> ;2- 9,4 Z.,?_I J,d. i 7rC> I ��..; ti 3,3A45 ,� 17 28. 10.4`I I-5 i2,04 8. (6.?) �.2 lol�l�t `r D•S I z,$; 3A, 5 i 28 , ( z8, Z D, .56 ,3z 2, D, zs ,,l Q, S ZS,G 49, 51 l• SD ,(03 (q.3 U-I 6-i io.-7 6,50 Z.47= 0,4-� 0.60 0•(-o 0,40 4.28 I.4 I-7• 1 O,76 Z.00 1,Si3 2.810 2•eG D.bo a:� ?• I -6 Pie S.E. le.i{tc�+x+1o�-+.. STORM D AINAGE SYSTEM PRELIMINARY. DESIGN DATA ; Flow Time Street Pipe Street i Pipe Location o s c E o n >,Lo' of E o ' - L .� o - a _ w Remarks Design Point �. o+ o 0 o U - e o c 0 o E G a 30 o a c> a �' c5 c E c m _ E :. c� E a E I— 0 E 0 — _ ¢ = o M uCr rn � N o ¢ c� � to2 C C' C O_ C_ E C C O— 5_ o—"tc ` '++rF-6,4( 3 4 '1 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 13 1 14 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 , 7. D,5' S,Sz 85 9,3 4� ZZ,b 3 g Tr-av�l 1701C2� nf7,5 �. �3 5.55 2, 9,f .915.4 9, i 5, 7 3,ZG ,5 IzZ,0 ?,7 2--,13 e1T•,ti e_-/ 'n\r.ti L)pp 1�I)F S. 4 315& 0162 ,5 2, 7 ;-1, 3, 5.7/ = I e A7rr.:r: 3 �,�,0 7�,� <� ,? /J 7 I81 1. 3 S, �!.z8 1 ,5 0, 3 6-75 1 Tw�ve I TT were nn DPI �"o D PL --z;l -3, 3�A 1 115,4- 7- 1 5.6 -4, �9 S 4 t9,, r r'. �! 7. `� O, 4D1 Me- e,A b F 3 -A L?F , 3 4.3 H 7.45 Q, 5 ,4 �•e•n�-to n I . 4• 3A 3. = , 2,19 :7, 6C r_, L" 32 5) i ✓ 2 I ? !.. 3: 5 A; 7 04 z 3 zZ.�D: 3 Z, .� ,87 ZZ.G D. S z3. I D.o4 .80 8,43 S Z 9:,1 0,62 7,0o a.49 2,IZ Z•12 0,4-o e4.25 Z.12 1.4 0-4- o-44E= 17-1 0.`9S 5,6o 1.88' 10.c0 10•0o a,Go 0Ki4••1'4� �+1ooc- DETENTION u V V I 1 r I I I I 11 I I I I I 1 i I INC Engineering Consultants CLIENT PROJECT j'.� %Qf- `' �-�� 1 �7k- 10.V fY \- CALCULATIONS FOR MADE BY - "�"DATED CHECKED BY DATE _. JOB NO.S5 -5-05-J--�� SHEET / OF R ,. ANC ! Engineering Consultants CLIENT /ll'QW =S i�J•%�_'.�� C'7? �'.�! JOB NO. VA PROJECT '�6 I�:%�y r�3 E1� i iJ-5`U�?-• CALCULATIONS FOR MADE BY�DATED_/4�93CHECKED BY- DATE SHEET OF -I -- iy 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 10-12-1993 AT TIME 16:06:50 PROJECT TITLE: WILD WOOD FARM SECOND FILING 10 YEAR DETENTION **** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 18.68 RUNOFF COEF = 0.51 ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 10.00 INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 INTENSITY 5.7 4.4 3.2 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 ***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 3.7 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .95 AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 3.515 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. ***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE ----------------------------------------------------- RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE ----------------------------------------------------- INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.70 0.38 0.02 0.35 10.00 4.40 0.58 0.05 0.53 15.00 3.80 0.75 0.07 0.68 20.00 3.20 0.85 0.10 0.75 25.00 2.90 0.96 0.12 0.84 30.00 2.60 1.03 0.15 0.89 35.00 2.40 1.11 0.17 0.94 40.00 2.20 1.16 0.19 0.97 45.00 2.05 1.22 0.22 1.00 50.00 1.90 1.26 0.24 1.01 55.00 1.75 1.27 0.27 1.01 60.00 1.60 1.27 0.29 0.98 65.00 1.52 1.31 0.31 1.00 70.00 1.45 1.34 0.34 1.00 75.00 1.38 1.36 0.36 1.00 80.00 1.30 1.38 0.39 0.99 ----------- ---- ---- -------- THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = 1.014928 ACRE -FT THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 50 MINUTEST ***** GEOMETRIES OF AN EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR POND 1 �/ STAGE CONTOUR CONTOUR POND POND (DEPTH) DIAMETER AREA SIDE SLP STORAGE FEET ---------------------------------- FEET ACRE FT/FT ACRE -FT 0.00 74.47 0.10 ------------------ 4.00 0.00 0.50 78.47 0.11 4.00 0.05 1.00 82.47 0.12 4.00 0.11 1.50 86.47 0.13 4.00 0.18 2.00 90.47 0.15 4.00 0.25 2.50 94.47 0.16 4.00 0.32 3.00 98.47 0.17 4.00 0.41 3.50 102.47 0.19 4.00 0.50 4.00 106.47 0.20 4.00 0.60 4.50 110.47 0.22 4.00 0.70 5.00 114.47 0.24 4.00 0.82 5.50 118.47 0.25 4.00 0.94 6.00 122.47 0.27 4.00 1.07 6.50 126.47 0.29 4.00 1.21 7.00 ----------------------------------------------------- 130.47 0.31 4.00 1.36 1 .1 1 DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHO, P.E. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER EXECUTED ON 10-12-1993 AT TIME 16:10:07 PROJECT TITLE: WILD WOOD FARM SECOND FILING 100 YEAR DETENTION **** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 18.68 RUNOFF COEF = 0.64 ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00 INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 INTENSITY 9.0 7.3 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 ***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 9.3 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .94 AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 8.742001 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. ***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE ---------------------------------- RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW ------------------- OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME .STORAGE MINUTE INCH/HR ------------------------------------------- ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 9.00 0.75 0.06 0.69 10.00 7.30 1.21 0.12 1.09 15.00 6.25 1.56 0.18 1.38 20.00 5.20 1.73 0.24 1.49 25.00 4.70 1.95 0.30 1.65 30.00 4.20 2.09 0.36 1.73 35.00 3.85 2.24 0.42 1.82 40.00 3.50 2.32 0.48 1.84 45.00 3.25 2.43 0.54 1.89 50.00 3.00 2.49 .0.60 1.89 55.00 2.80 2.56 0.66 1.89 60.00 2.60 2.59 0.72 1.87 65.00 2.47 2.67 0.78 1.89 70.00 2.35 2.73 .0.84 1.89 75.00 2.22 2.77 0.90 1.87 80.DO 2.10 2.79 0.96 1.83 85.00 2.00 2.82 1.02 1.80 ----------------------------------------------------- Ke,%J bee-CV1 0 A THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = 1.894812 ACRE -FT q (� -p1,% THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND S &AGE= 55 MINUTES � 0 j" t A ® 1 eo-r 6 ***** GEOMETRIES OF AN EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR POND 1 3/ ---------------------------------- STAGE CONTOUR CONTOUR 7------------------ POND POND (DEPTH) DIAMETER AREA SIDE SLP STORAGE FEET ----------------------------------------------------- FEET ACRE FT/FT ACRE -FT 0.00 74.47 0.10 4.00 0.00 0.50 78.47 0.11 .4.00 0.05 1.00 82.47 0.12 4.00 0.11 1.50 86.47 0.13 ;4.00 0.18 2.00 90.47 0.15 4.00 0.25 2.50 94.47 0.16 4.00 0.32 3.00 98.47 0.17 4.00 0.41 3.50 102.47 0.19 4.00 0.50 4.00 106.47 0.20 4.00 0.60 4.50 110.47 0.22 4.00 0.70 5.00 114.47 0.24 4.00 0.82 5.50 118.47 0.25 4.00 0.94 6.00 122.47 0.27 4.00 1.07 6.50 126.47 0.29 4.00 1.21 7.00 130.47 0.31 4.00 1.36 7.50 134.47 0.33 4.00 1.52 8.00 138.47 0.35 4.00 1.68 8.50 142.47 0.37 4.00 1.86 9.00 146.47 0.39 4.00 2.05 9.50 150.47 0.41 4.00 2.25 10.00 ----------------------------------------------------- 154.47 0.43 .4.00 2.46 c 1.. 1 1 .1 1 11 F J I J s J� .}JOB NO' INC PROJECT ,/.J{� �1-�9d� Fa.„-V�. CALCULATIONS FOR J/�/P�i / ),A fn C a Engineering Consultants MADE BY7�ATE CHECKED By -DATE SHEET OF y. 1s/ RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA WILD WOOD FARM DETENTION OVERFLOW WEIR WEIR COEF. 3.000 -STA- -ELEV ZZ. 7Z Z Z.7L 0.0 22.72 1 \ 4.0 21.72 zl.7Z 4 24.0 28.0 21.72 22.72. ELEVATION DISCHARGE (feet) --------- (cfs) 21.72 0.0 21.82 1.9 21.92 5.5 22.02 10.3 22.12 16.0 22.22 22.7 22.32 30.3 22.42 38.6 22.52 47.8_-�j7� - 22.62 ,�.,�—eo E�eV' Zz.GI 22.72 68.5 CLIENT '' �!J1 Eic JOB NO. : 3 -66( 1 _\ IN+ PROJECTI^J�!A Wn-J- F;�'-ry"/\ CALCULATIONSFOR , Engineering Consultants MADE BY�z DATE��-CHECKED BY -DATE SHEET OF No Text I {o ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHD, P.E. OF ENGINEERING ' UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER COLORAD-------------------------------- ------------- -DEPARTMENT -CIVIL EXECUTED ON 10-14-1993 AT TIME 08:38:43 ' PROJECT TITLE: THIRD FILING CONCEPTUAL DETENTION POND DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 10.50 ' RUNOFF COEF = 0.64 - ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS ' DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00 INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 ' INTENSITY 9.0 7.3 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 ***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: ' MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 5.3 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .95 ' AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 5.035 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. ***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE - ----------- --'---- --- RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE ' MINUTE INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 9.00 0.42 0.03 0.39 10.00 7.30 0.68 0.07 0.61 ' 15.00 6.25 0.88 0.10 0.77 20.00 5.20 0.97 0.14 0.83 25.00 4.70 1.10 0.17 0.92 30.00 4.20 1.18 0.21 0.97 35.00 3.85 1.26 0.24 1.01 ' 40.00 3.50 1.31 0.28 1.03 45.00 3.25 1.37 0.31 1.05 50.00 3.00 1.40 0.35 1.05 55.00 2.80 1.44 0.38 1.06 60.00 2.60 1.46 0.42 1.04 ' 65.00 2.47 1.50 0.45 1.05 70.00 2.35 1.54 0.49 1.05 75.00 2.22 1.56 0.52 1.04 80.00 2.10 1.57 0.55 1.01 ' 85.00 2.00 1.59 0.59 1.00 ----------- ---- ---- --------- ------- THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = 1.055894 ACRE -FT ' THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 55 MINUTES ***** GEOMETRIES OF AN EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR POND , 1 --------------------------=- STAGE CONTOUR -- CONTOUR ---------- POND ------------- POND (DEPTH) DIAMETER AREA SIDE SLP STORAGE FEET ----------------------------------------------------- FEET ACRE FT/FT ACRE -FT 0.00 105.32 0.20 4.00 0.00 0.50 109.32 0.22 .4.00 0.10 1.00 113.32 0.23 4.00 0.22 1.50 117.32 0.25 4.00 0.34 2.00 121.32 0.27 4.00 0.46 2.50 125.32 0.28 4.00 0.60 3.00 129.32 0.30 4.00 0.75 3.50 133.32 0.32 4.00 0.90 4.00 137.32 0.34 4.00 1.07 4.50 141.32 0.36 4.00 1.24 5.00 ----------------------------------------------------- 145.32 0.38 4.00 1.43 P6NcL 0 0_ de. A vg. Aces- _ Q. 3 3 0- I= 11 1 1 No Text 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 12-14-1993 AT TIME 10:46:29 ** PROJECT TITLE : COUNTY ROAD 9 STORM SEWER W/ 3RD FILING DETENTION CONCEPT * SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ---------------------------------------' IMANHOLE D NUMBER - - - -- CNTRBTING AREA * C ----- -----MINUTES RAINFALL DURATION ------------------------------------------------------- RAINFALL INTENSITY INCH/MR DESIGN PEAK FLOW CFS GROUND ELEVATION FEET WATER COMMENTS ELEVATION FEET '15.00 14:00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 -' 7.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 MEANS WATER 1.90 1.90 6.53 6.53 (8.43 &.43 j8.43 1-4:10. 0.001 _ 18.43,' 1.08 1.08 ELEVATION 5.00 4.90 9.30 21.25 5.00 4.90 9.30 21.25 5.00 4.90 32.00 21.06 5.00 4.90 32.00 21.06 5.66 4.90 ti41�30 22.00 5.94 4.90 41.30 21.90 9.82 4.90 41.30 19.61 10.08 4.90 69.10 .20.00 0.00 0.00 69.10 20.50 7.88 4.90 41.30 20.60 10.00 4.90 5.30 23.00 5.00 4.90 5.30 23.00 IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION 20.45 OK 20.41 OK 22.10 NO 21.93 NO 20.24 OK 19.90 OK 18.14 - Ok 17.36 OK 17.51 OK 19.05 OK 18.15 OK 18.16 OK '* SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS '- THE GIVEN'FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 ID --NOTE: '-- ----------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER UPSTREAM --------------- NUMBER DNSTREAM SEWER SHAPE ----- --- REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ----- ID NO. ---- ID NO. ---- DIA(HIGH) (IN) (FT) DIA(HIGH) (IN),(FT) DIA(HIGH) (IN) (FT) WIDTH (FT) 19.00 17.00 9.00 ROUND 42.93 48.00 42.00 0.00 20.00 10.00 17.00 ROUND 42.93 48.00 42.00 0.00 '21.00 22.00 11.00 12.00 10.00 11.00 ROUND ROUND 42.93 30.79 48.00 33.00 42.00 30.00 0.00 23.00 13.00 12.00 ROUND 30.58 33.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 14.00 11.00 ROUND 12.93 15.00 24.00 0.00 18.00 9.00 8.00 ROUND " 42.93 48.00 42.00 0.00 8.00 7.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 '17.00 25.00 15.00 14.00 ROUND 13.26 15.00 24.00 0.00 26.00 18.00 8.00 ROUND 10.34 l 15.00 I 24.00 0.00 27.00 19.00 18.00 ROUND 10.34' 15.00 24.00 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 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 19.0 41.3 39.1 3.50 4.29 2.00 1.64 4.29 0.00 V-OK 20.0 41.3 39.1 3.50 4.29 2.00 1.64 4.29 0.00 V-OK 21.0 41.3 39.1 3.50 4.29 2.00 5.64 4.29 0.00 V-OK 22.0 32.0 29.9 2.50 6.52 1.93 7.88 6.52 0.00 V-OK 23.0 32.0 30.5 2.50 6.52 1.93 10.17 6.52 0.00 V-OK ' 24.0 9.3 48.5 0.59 11.91 1.09 23.49 2.96 3.21 V-OK 18.0 41.3 39.1 3.50 4.29 2.00 7.27 4.29 0.00 V-OK 17.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2:61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK 25.0 9.3 45.4 0.61 11.35 1.09 39.30 2.96 3.00 V-OK ' 26.0 5.3 50.2 0.44 10.38 0.83 33.43 1.69 3.29 V-OK 27.0 5.3 50.2 0.44 10.38 0.83 4.29 1.69 3.29 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS t---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) ------ 19.00 - -X-- 0.15 ------------------- 11.39 10.64 ---------- 5.71 -'------------------ 5.47 OK 20.00 0.15 12.14 11.39 6.26 5.71 OK 21.00 0.15 12.25- 12.15 6.25 6.25 OK ' 22.00 0.53 13.64 12.26 4.92 7.24 OK 23.00 0.55 13.64 13.64 4.92 4.92 OK 24.00 4.58 12.80 12.25 6.45 7.75 OK 18.00 0.15 10.64 10.59 5.47 5.91 OK 17.00 0.25 10.55 10.23 5.95 6.77 OK ' 25.00 4.00 12.80 12.80 6.45 6.45 OK 26.00 4.90 13.00 10.55 8.00 7.45 OK z 27.00 4.90 13.00 13.00 8.00 8.00 OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1.5 FEET t*** 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 19.00 500.00 500.00 14.89 14.14 19.05 08.14 PRSS'ED 20.00 500.00 500.00 15.64 14.89 19:90 19.05 PRSS'ED 21.00 70.00 70.00 15.75 15.65 20.24 19.90 PRSS'ED 22.00 260.00 260.00 16.14 14.76 21.93 20.24 PRSS'ED 23.00 0.10 0.10 16.14 16.14 22.10 21,93 PRSS'ED 24.00 12.00 12.00 14.80 14.25 20.41 20.24 PRSS'ED 18.00 33.00 33.00 14.14 14.09 18.14 17.36 PRSS'ED 17.00 130.00 130.00 14.05 13.73 17.36 17.51 PRSS'ED 25.00 0.10 0.10 14.80 14.86 20.45 20.41 PRSS'ED ' 26.00 50:00 50.00 15.00 12.55 18.15 17.36 PRSS'ED 27.00 0.10 0.10 15.00 15.00 18.16 18.15 PRSS'ED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW .1 14/ 1** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ---------------------------------------- UPSi 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 1D FT ___ 19.0 17.00 19.34 0.84 0.25 0.07 0.00 0.00 9.00 18.43 20.0 10.00 20.19 0.84 0.05 0.01 .0.00 0.00 17.00 19.34 21.0 11.00 20.52 0.12 0.75 0.21 0.00 0.00 10.00 20.19 -'22.0 12.00 22.59 1.57 0.75 0.49 0.00 0.00 11.00 20.52 23.0 13.00 22.76 0.00 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.00 12.00 22.59 24.0 14.00 20.55 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 11.00 20.52 18.0 9.00 18.43 0.06 0.75 0.21 0.00 0.00 8.00 18.16 '17.0 8.00 18.16 0.61 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 7.00 .17.51 25.0 15.00 20.58 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 14.00 20.55 26.0 18.00 18.20 0.03 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 8.00 18.16 27.0 19.00 18.21 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 18.00 18.20 'BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS 1T IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. ' A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. .1 1. 1 I DESIGN OF INLETS. STORM SEWER AND SWALES <<STREET.DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -' *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: to Des �gA Po , At 4 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. t 1 GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.78 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.99 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.94 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.40 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 11.31 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.39 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 1.92 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.45 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 15.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 2.78 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.80 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.63 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.17 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.80 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.36 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.44 1 y 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- «STREET DRAINAGE INLET-DESIGN:-DEVELOPED-BY-CU-DENVER»--- UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: 1 INLET ID NUMBER: 11 Des iq 1'T•� INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. .3 1 GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: 1 GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 9.86 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 1.00 ' ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.97 STREET GEOMETRIES: 1 STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.40 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 1 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR ($)= CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.56 0.38 1.87 1.28 50.00 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 2.40 (cfs)= 2.40. (cfs)= 2.33 (cfs)= 0.07 (cfs)= 2.40 (cfs)= 2.04 (cfs)= 0.36 1 '------------------------------------------------------------------- <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>> UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING -------------------------- ------------------------------------------ *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING INLET ID NUMBER: 12 Des i gv% Po n3,1� INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.00 ' REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.55 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 1.00 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.95 STREET GEOMETRIES: ' STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.40 STREET CROSS SLOPE ($) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 '1 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 11.13 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.39 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 1.90 ' FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq.ft)= 1.40 = GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 •'� CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 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 (cfs)= 2.70 (cfs)= 2.56 (cfs)= 0.14 (cfs)= 2.70 (cfs)= 2.28 (cfs)= 0.42 ra nC � CLIENT e—LA3 kN) V-i ;F-O A S JOB NO. j L�> R3D,NC PROJECTWt - LJS�&�- E:�-( CALCULATIONSFOR (49�7 Engineering Consultants MADEBY]�—DATE� �-W-I&ECKED By— DATE —SHEET— OF IN FM + - lie j� L 7 - - - - - - - - - - m No Text z -3/ .I RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA Wild Wood farm detention ado DPZ = 36,Q--4s 7-7, S 6:�7s D e—r (&Ljt nno, Gf owd�, WEIR COEF. 3.000 STA ELEV e•4% d% ----- - 0.0 22.66 ZL,z l ov►Poi�'�C_ 105.0 22.21 168.0 22.66 ' ELEVATION --(feet)- 22.21 ' 22.31 22.41 22.51 ' 22.61 1 I DISCHARGE --(cfs)-- 0.0 1.3 7.1 19;Scs 40. RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA IQiao�DP � B•Sc�"s 1 �z,,3cFs;� �tPe 49, S -1 z, 3 1p V&,rim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WILD WOOD FARM DETENTION WEIR COEF. 3.000 STA ELEV 0.0 22.75 105.0 22.30 168.0 22.75 6Uer-111o� wet+,10 ELEVATION DISCHARGE (feet) --------- (cfs) --------- 22.30 0.0 22.40 1.3 22.50 7.1 22.60 19.5 , Z L S 22.70 40. 1 I CLIENT /1)4LW ljaa . JOB NO. PROJECT fA CALCULATIONS FOR Engineering Consultants MADE BY -�ATE`a�-'O-`CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF I I I 11 I I I I XD/ -4- 4 It "V1 - - - - - - 156, - -- - ------- zj ��?CLIENT I� 9 I� J I r , ..-- T �D1 � ��, :-- JOB NO. ✓ RWINC PROJECT tI(�1�VA Lipp✓ma y �y j1^ CALCULATIONS FOR Engineering Consultants MADE BY�L•• -DATED- pLHECKED BY_ DATE SHEET -OF Z {11{ 77 - { t ' } t - __ CLIENT '�..\ LL i' .WIC L�✓± J,;z6y /}' JOB NO.T�S3-661 Iw NC PROJECTS/ �� 1644_ �- CALCULATIONS FOR Arad_ z;, zl_ Engineering Consultants MADEBY MS DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF 1 1 f Z. z� RINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT , )f--L I QP'S+ C'�D r '�BI�S 1 JOB NO. SS -661 PROJECT -}QI11 WMID f �`'�� CALCULATIONS FOR .s fo rim er MADE BY Iyv DATES CHECKED BV DATE SHEET OF z/ 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 10-15-1993 AT TIME 09:22:52 *** PROJECT TITLE : COUNTY ROAD 9 STORM SEWER *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES '"----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS 1D NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION i. INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET 15.00 1.90 ---MINUTES- 5.00 ---- 4.90 ---- 9.30 ----- 21.25 ----- 20.45 OK 14.00 1.90 5.00 4.90 9.30 21.25 20.41 OK 1 13.00 6.53 5.00 4.90 32.00 21.06 22.10 NO :' ' 12.00 11.00 6.53 8.43 5.00 5.66 4.90 4.90 32.00 41.30 21.06 22.00 21.93 20.24 NO OK 10.00 8.43 5.94 4.90 41.30 21.90 19.90 OK 9.00 8.43 9.82 4.90 41.30 19.61 18.14 OK 8.00 14..10 9.95 4.90 69.10 20.00 17.36 OK 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.10 20.50 17.51 OK . ' 17.00 8.43 7.88 4.90 41.30 20.60 19.05 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(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH 19.00 ID NO. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 17.00 ID NO. 9.00 (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) ROUND 42.93 48.00 42.00 0.00 20.00 10.00 17.00 ROUND 42.93 48.00 42.00 0.00 21.00 11.00 10.00 ROUND 42.93 48.00 42.00 0.00 22.00 12.00 11.00 ROUND 30.79 33.00 30.00 0.00 ' 23.00 13.00 12.00 ROUND 30.58 33.00 30.00 0.00 24.00 14.00 11.00 ROUND 12.93 15.00 24.00 0.00 18.00 9.00 8.00 ROUND 42.93 48.00 42.00 0.00 ' 17.00 25.00 8.00 15.00 7.00 14.00 ROUND ROUND 47.32 13.26 48.00 15.00 42.00 24.00 0.00 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 ' -------------------------------------------------------------------------`----- SEWER ID DESIGN FLOW NORMAL FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH NORAAL VLCITY CRITIC .CRITIC DEPTH FULL FROUDE COMMENT VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS 19.0 41.3 39.1 3.50 4.29 2.00 1.64 4.29 0.00 V-OK 20.0 41.3 39.1 3.50 4.29 2.00 1.64 4.29 0.00 V-OK ' 21.0 41.3 39.1 3.50 4.29 2.00 5.64 4.29 0.00 V-OK 22.0 32.0 29.9 2.50 6.52 1.93 7.88 6.52 0.00 V-OK 23.0 32.0 30.5 2.50 6.52 1.93 10.17 6.52 0.00 V-OK 24.0 9.3 48.5 0.59 11.91 1.09 23.49 2.96 3.21 V-OK ' 18.0 41.3 39.1 3.50 4.29 2.00 7.27 4.29 0.00 V-OK 17.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK 25.0 9.3 45.4 0.61 11.35 1.09 39.30 2.96 3.00 V-OK ' FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM. DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM ' ------------------z-^ ----(FT) ' -----------'-'-----'---'-------------'--- (FT) (FT) (FT) 19.00 0.15 11.39 10.64 5.71 5.47 OK ' 20.00 21.00 0.15 0.15 12.14 12.25 11.39 12.15 6.26 6.25 5.71 6.25 OK OK 22.00 0.53 13.64 12.26 4.92 7.24 OK 23.00 0.55 13.64 13.64 4.92 4.92 OK 24.00 4.58 12.80 12.25 6.45 7.75 OK 18.00 0.15 10.64 10.59 5.47 5.91 OK ' 17.00 0.25 10.55 10.23 5.95 6.77 OK 25.00 4.00 12.80 12.80 6.45 6.45 OK ' OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1.5 FEET ' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER ID NUMBER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM WATER ELEVATION FLOW UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET 19.00 500.00 500.00 14.89 14.14 19.05 18.14 PRSSIED 20.00 500.00 500.00 15.64 14.89 19.90 19.05 PRSSIED ' 21.00 70.00 70.00 15.75 15.65 20.24 19.90 PRSSIED 22.00 260.00 260.00 16.14 14.76 21.93 20.24 PRSSIED 23.00 0.10 0.10 16.14 16.14 22.10 21.93 PRSSIED 24.00 18.00 12.00 33.00 12.00 33.00 14.80 14.14 14.25 14.09 20.41 18.14 20.24 PRSSIED 17.36 PRSSIED 17.00 130.00 130.00 14.05 13.73 17.36 17.51 PRSSIED . 25.00 0.10 0.10 14.80 14.80 20.45 20.41 PRSSIED ' PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUSCR=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 1D NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ----------------------------------- 19.0 17.00 19.34 ---------- 0.84 0.25 =--------------------------------- 0.07 0.00 0.00 9.00 18.43 ' 20.0 10.00 20.19 0.84 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 17.00 19.34 21.0 11.00 20.52 0.12 0.75 0.21 0.00 0.00. 10.00 20.19 22.0 12.00 22.59 1.57 0.75 0.49 0.00 0.00 11.00 20.52 23.0 13.00 22.76 0.00 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.00 12.00 22.59 ' 24.0 14.00 20.55 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 11.00 20.52 18.0 9.00 18.43 0.06 0.75 0.21 0.00 0.00 8.00 18.16 17.0 8.00 18.16 0.61 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 7.00 17.51 25.0 15.00 20.58 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 14.00 20.55 ' 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. No Text No Text CLIENT -JOBNO. INC PROJECT r CALCULATIONS FOR Ir— Engineering Consultants MADEBY7Z-FDATE CHECKED BY DATE - SHEET- OF PAI.Nt -------- -- ------ 0-5 T lop, _7 i-4 ........... tj 'k ' � aaaaaaaaaaaaa==aaaa=aaaaaaae-e--��_=aaaaaaaaaaaaeeaaaaaa=aaaaaaea==ea .aaea REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN ' USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY DAMES 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 EXECUTEDBY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 08-26.1993 AT TIME 11:37:27 *" PROJECT TITLE : WILD WOOD FARM STORM SEWER 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 15.00 0.00 0.00 - ---- 0.00 ----- 12.30 ----- 22.00 -----.. 18.98 OK 14.00 2.51 6.92 4.90 12.30 21.75 19.14 OK 13.00 1.84 6.711 4.90 9,00 21.77 19.84 OK 12.00 1.37 6.17 4.90 6.70 22.33 20.69 OK ' 11.00 0.92 5.12 4.90 4.50 23.60 21.03 OK 10.00 0.49 5.00 4.90 2.40 23.99 21.16 OK 9.00 0.49 5.00 4.90 2.40 23.99 21.21 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(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 1.00 14.00 15.00 ROUND 18.70 21.00 21.00 0.00 2.00 13.00 14.00 ROUND 20.17 21.00 21.00 0.00 ' 3.00 12.00 13.00 ROUND 18.06 21.00 18.00 0.00 4.00 11.00 12.00 ROUND 15.56 18.00 18.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 11.00 ROUND 12.29 15.00 15.00 0.00 ' 6.00 9.00 10.00 ROUND 12.29 15.00 15.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. EUIRED GGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED u 35 '----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL. FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. '-_NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS 1.0 12.3 16.8 1.11 7.64 1.31 6.38 5.11 1.38 V-OK 2.0 9.0 10.0 1.29 4.73 1.11 7.63 3.74 0.75 V-OK ' 3.0 6.7 6.7 1.50 3.79 1.00 7.19 3.79 DAD V-OK 4.0 4.5 6.7 0.90 4.05 0.82 6.80 2.55 0.82 V-OK 5.0 2.4 4.1 0.69 3.47 0.63 7.20 1.96 0.82 V-OK 6.0 2.4 4.1 0.69 3.47 0.63 3.84 1.96 0.82 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) ' -----------------------------_..._.-_-- 1.00 1.12 17.83 17.45 2.17 2.80 OK ' 2.00 0.40 17.99 17.83 2.03 2.17 OK 3.00 0.40 18.54 17.99 2.29 2.28 OK 4.00 0.40 19.56 18.54 2.54 2.29 OK 5.00 0.40 19.66 19.56 3.08 2.79 OK 6.00 0.40 19.66 19.66 3.08 3.08 OK 'OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1.5 FEET t** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW 1D NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET 1.00 34.00 0.00 19.58 19.20 19.14 18.98 JUMP 2.00 40.00 40.00 19.74 19.58 19.84 19.14 PRSS'ED 3.00 138.00 138.00 20.04 19.49 20.69 19.84 PRSS'ED 4.00 256.00 157.58 21.06 20.04 21.03 20.69 SUBCR 5.00 25.00 25.00 20.91 20.81 21:16 21.03 PRSS'ED 6.00 0.10 0.00 20.91 20.91 21.21 21.16 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 -- -- -- --- ---- -- --- --' - ---- ---- -- - ----'---- - 1.0 14.00 20.04 0.66 1.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 15.00 18.98 '2.0 13.00 20.19 0.14 0.05 0.01 0*00 0.00 14.00 20.04 3.0 12.00 20.92 0.56 0.75 0.17 0.00 0.00 13.00 20.19 4.0 11.00 21.28 0.36 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 12.00 20.92 5.0 10.00 21.35 0.03 0.50 0.03 0.00 0.00 11.00 21.28 6.0 9.00 21.40 0.04 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 10.00 21.35 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW 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. INC �} Engineering Consultants CLIENT I/ 1Vt�& lI1 WGS-SZt C1Y V%, S JOB NO. SAS PROJECT "" �"� V.JDD� I 0.f_M CALCULATIONS FOR F_t � gr=+ MADEBY�ATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET I OF I INC Engineering Consultants 1 1 .1 CLIENT PROJECT MADE BY DATE CALCULATIONS FOR CHECKED BY DATE JOB NO. OF 1- 3v INC j Engineering Consultants 1 1 1 1 1 CLIENT Q w LVJI . `- W�1St ! ') t' l © �.7 / JOB NO. �3 L" PROJECT A't �L �Gl.'rV`� CALCULATIONS FOR �?�O r✓h. -4, U 54_r MADE BY =L'OATE CHECKED BY DATE - SHEET OF I .T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 12-14-1993 AT TIME 11:00:59 ** PROJECT TITLE COUNTY ROAD 9 INLET AT STA. 11+60 ** 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 21.25 21.72 NO 2.00 2.55 5.00 4.90 12.50 20.58 21,-&j NO 3.00 2.55 5.00 4.90 12.50 20.58 2=1.94 NO tK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION 1** 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 12.00 1D NO. ------------------ 3.00 ID NO. 2.00 ------(IN) ROUND (FT) 19.44 (IN)(FT)(IN) 21.00 (FT) --------- 24.00 (FT) ----- 0.00 11.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 19.44 21.00 24.00 0.00 IMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES IMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. UGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. OR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, XISITNG SIZE WAS USED SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT 1D FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY N0. ,NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '12.0 12.5 22.0 1.08 7.23 1.27 5.96 3.98 1.37 V-OK 11.0 12.5 22.0 1.08 7.23 1.27 5.96 3.98 1.37 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS :z1.9s E 4/ 1---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION . BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM .DNSTREAM % -------------------------------------------------- (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) -- 12.00 0.94 17.50 17.50 1.08 1.08 NO 11.00 0.94 17.50 17.00 1.08 2.25 NO lK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET e-1** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 12.00 0.10 0.10 19.50 19.50 21.94 21.88 PRSS'ED 11.00 53.00 53.00 19.50 19.00 21.88 21.72 PRSSIED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUSCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW i *** 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 3.00 22.19 0.00 0.25 0.06 0.00 0.00 2.00 22.13 11.0 2.00 22.13 0.16 1.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 21.72 ,1 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 1 NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¢`i CLIENT1��-�-sC� JOB NO.R INC PROJECTTkj- ',' �wOA� ` 0. � CALCULATIONS FOR�1�2o_ Engineering Consultants MADEBYT 13DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF td Zy EXCERPTS FROM THE McCLELLANDS BASIN MASTER PLAN 0 I 1" 1 1 IJ 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study The City of Fort Collins has undertaken a program of comprehensive drainage . master planning to define safe, economical, system -wide approaches for the collection and conveyance of storm water runoff. This study represents a continuation of such master planning efforts for the McClellands Basin, located in portions of the City of Fort .Collins and unincorporated Larimer County. Presented in this report is a recommended plan of improvements to existing facilities as well as drainage requirements that must be met for future development within the McClellands Basin. Storm drainage master planning for the McClellands basin has been completed in two phases. In 1980, Cornell Consulting Company (Cornell) developed' a master drainage plan for the upper portion of the McClellands Basin between Timberline Road and the upstream basin limit. This study expands upon the earlier work completed by Cornell and extends the drainage master planning effort from Timber- line Road to its confluence with the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID). In addition, hydrologic analysis of the entire McClellands basin was undertaken to redefine runoff response associated with more up-to-date projections for land use. This report incorporates all information developed for the entire McClellands Basin. Basin Description Located at the southern edge of Fort Collins, Colorado and extending into unincorporated Larimer County, the McClellands basin encompasses an area of approximately 2800 acres. The basin originates north of Harmony Road near Warren Lake and drains in an easterly direction to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. The McClellands Basin is bounded on the north by the Foothills basin, on the west by Mail Creek, on the south by Fossil Creek and by the FCRID on the -west. Figure 1 shows the general location and configuration of the McClellands Basin. The area that is noted as the "East_Harmony Portion of McClellands Basin" in Figure 1 is not geophysically part of the McClellands Basin since runoff from this area drains easterly into the FCRID. From the standpoint of drainage master planning, however, this area. has been considered as part of of the McClellands Basin and any general provisions given herein apply to this area as well. 1 AA/ s/ 1 Historically, land in the basin has been used predominantly for agricultural ' purposes. The City is experiencing fairly rapid growth in a southeasterly direction and development is at various stages in much of -the basin. Residential and light commercial development has already been completed in the ' portion of the basin north of Harmony Road. ' Significant features influencing. drainage patterns in the McClellands Basin include the Larimer County No. 2 Canal, the Union Pacific Railroad and the ' FCRID. The Larimer County No. 2 Canal, which follows a somewhat irregular alignment east of College Avenue, defines the western limit of the McClellands ' Basin. The Union Pacific Railroad is an important feature because significant storage potential is created upstream of the relatively high railroad ' embankment. The FCRID cuts across the historic McClellands Basin drainageway about 0.5 miles west of Interstate 25 and presently intercepts storm water runoff from the basin, conveying it south to Fossil Creek Reservoir. Summary of Basin Master Plan Incorporation of on -site detention measures into all new development plans for the McClellands Basin was the approach utilized to evaluate and develop a master drainage plan for the basin. Within the McClellands Basin, the maximum release rate of stormwater from detention storage was established during this study as ' equal to 0.5 cfs per acre of drainage area for the 100-year storm event below. Harmony Road. This release rate approximates the average 100-year historic ' runoff rate from the basin as a whole. Above Harmony Road, flow rates were taken from the Cornell Study, since proposed basin improvements have been constructed. Below Harmony Road, proposed improvements to the drainageway and road crossing structures were sized to convey runoff at a rate equal to 0.5 cfs per acre of drainage basin above a given point in the system. Consequently, it is required that all runoff from developed areas pass through a detention structure prior to being discharged to a drainageway. These provisions will keep peak runoff rates_ ' to a manageable level and provide a consistent basin -wide approach for storm water planning and management. The overall plan of storm drainage improvements to the McClellands Basin entails construction of grass -lined trapezoidal channels capable of conveying .the ' 3 41�;l 41 100-year developed discharge, in combination with improved culvert crossings at all major roads. Several channel drop structures are also incorporated in the plan to develop acceptable hydraulic conditions in the grass -lined channels. Map 1 provides an inventory of channel improvements, road culvert crossings and detention storage facilities in the McClellands Basin, constructed. under the basin master. plan. Since this inventory will be updated as improvements take place, the City of Fort Collins Storm Water Utility should be contacted to obtain the most up-to-date version of this map. Sheet 1, contained in the Appendix, indexes the plan and profile sheet numbers on which preliminary design and floodplain information can be found. All proposed channel and road crossing improvements were sized in accordance with criteria set forth in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. The total estimated cost to complete the recommended master plan improvements in the lower portion of the McClellands basin between the FCRID and Timberline Road equals $2,138,000. Upstream of Timberline Road, Cornell estimated the total cost of the recommended master plan improvements to equal $926,150 (1980 Costs). Detailed cost information and a breakdown of items included in the overall cost estimate can be found in the Technical Addendum to this report, copies of which are available at the City of Fort Collins Storm Water Utility. It should be emphasized that the master drainage plan set forth in this report relates to future developed conditions with on -site detention. During the period. prior to completion of the required system improvements, the Storm Water Utility should be contacted to determine if any special interim storm drainage criteria are in effect. IMPROVEMENTS General Three major catagories of drainage improvements are proposed under the master drainage plan developed for the McClellands Basin: 1) detention storage, 2) channelization and 3) hydraulic structures. The following sections discuss the design data utilized and the specific considerations given to each of these components of the drainage system. Proposed improvements are presented on Sheets i through 11, contained in the Appendix. It should be noted that master plan 4 7/ improvements proposed. by Cornell and shown on Sheets 6 through 9, correspond to ' flowrates which have been revised for this study. Consequently, master plan improvements shown on the aforementioned sheets should be reviewed and revised as ' necessary to convey the updated flowrates. ' Detention Storage As discussed previously, on -site detention of storm water is a fundamental ' requirement in the stormwater management plan for the McClellands Basin. New development within the basin must provide on -site detention facilities with sufficient capacity to store the .100-year runoff for developed conditions in ' excess of the maximum allowable release rate of 0.5 cfs per acre of land. Detention facilities must also be sized to detain the 10-year runoff with a tmaximum allowable release rate of 0.2 cfs per acre corresponding to this event. Since proposed improvements to the drainageway and road crossings have been sized to this rate of release from.storage, it must not be exceeded. Development that has already taken place north of Harmony Road has incorporated sound drainage practices and presently meets the aforementioned criteria.. ■ Channelization Due to the relatively undeveloped nature of the McClellands Basin, right-of-way was not assumed to constrain channel improvements. Although they require a greater right-of-way, grass -lined channels provide for a more natural appearance than lined channels. Topography and hydraulic characteristics are also conducive to use of a grass lined trapezoidal channel shape for the improved drainageway. Such a concept is consistent with improvements that have already been made to the ' drainageway north of Harmony Road. Table 1 summarizes the channel properties required for conveyance of the 100-year ' developed flows with on -site detention. Mannings equation was utilized to determine the required channel size for a design flow depth limited to four feet. ' Channel slope was evaluated considering the existing channel configuration and surrounding topography, road crossings, and the need to limit flow velocities to 1 1- j 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXCERPTS FROM THE FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No Text 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 zza_zaa_za__zaazaa__azaa_za__zaa_as_aa_za_za_za_azaaeez ezaa_za=z-aezaez-a--- _ "* EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY .............. ON DATA 02-03-1993 AT TIME 12:43:59 PROJECT TITLE : 1994 JUNIOR HIGH - STORM SEWER IN COUNTY ROAD 9 TO MCCLELLANDS •"• SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES .. -- -------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL ..... WA RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA " C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS IFEET FEET ................. ------ 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 4.00 6.30 NO 2.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 4.75 6.39 NO 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 7.00 7.22 NO 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 17.75 10.03 OK 5.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 18.50 14.40 OK 6.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 18.50 15.85 OK 7.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 20.50 17.51 OK 8.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 16.85 18.25 NO 9.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 16.85 18.47 NO MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION " SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ` NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 N------------------------ ----------- SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER SEWER REWIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING UMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(H1GH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(H1GH) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (1N) (FT) (IN) (FT).(IN) (FT) (FT) ------ ----- 11.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 49.34 54.00 48.00 0.00 12.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 49.34 54.00 48.00 0.00 13.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 33.22 36.00 42.00 0.00 14.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 '15.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 16.00 7.00 6.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 17.00 8.00 7.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 18.DO 9.00 8.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 ENS10N UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES D MENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. ]GESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, STING SIZE WAS USED J :_ 1 sW -------------------------------------....................................... SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORMAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITT DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS 11.0 69.1 64.4 4.00 5.50 2.50 8.35 5.50 0.00 V-OK 12.0 69.1 64.4 4.00 .5.50 2.50 8.35 5.50 0.00 V-OK 13.0 69.1 129.6 :1.82 13.69 2.61 8.99 7.18 . 2.01 V-DK 14.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V•OK 15.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK 16.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK 17.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.13 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK 18.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS .....----- ---•----------- ------------ '----- .•-.-.-.....^ j, SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM .DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % ,(FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) ..........................................'........---•----....---•--- 11.00 0.20 -0.86 -0.94 1.61 0.94 NO 12.00 0.20 -0.26 '-0.B6 3.26 1.61 OK 13.00 0.25 8.61 7.42 6.39 3.83 OK 14.00 0.25 8.61 7.42 6.39 6.83 OK 15.00 0.25 9.36 8.61 5.64 6.39 OK 16.00 0.25 10.22 9.36 6.78 5.64 OK 17.00 0.25 10.55 10.23 2.80 6.77 OK 18.00 0.25 10.55 10:55 2.80 2.80 OK MEANS ,BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH YPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11.00 .40.00 40.00 3.14 3.06 6.39 6.30 PRSSIED 12.00 300.00 300.00 3.74 3.14 7.22 6.39 PRSSIED 13.00 435.00 65.44 10.92 3.74 10.03 7.22 JUMP 14.00 475.00 475.00 12.11 10.92 .14.40 10.03 PRSSIED 15.00 300.00 300.00 12.86 12.11 15.85 14.40 PRSSIED 16.00 345.00 345.00 13.72 12.96 17.51 15.85 PRSSIED 17.00 130.00 130.00 14.05 13.73 18.25 17.51 PRSSIED 18.00 0.10 0.00 14.05 14.05 18.47 18.25 PRSSIED �RSS'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 CdEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT '---..^ ------------------•-..........-..---------------..---------------- 11.0 2.00 6.96 0.09 1.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.30 12.0 3.00 7.69 0.69 0.30 0.14 0.00 0.00 2.00 6.86 13.0 4.00 12.94 5.20 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 3.00 7.69 14.0 5.00 15.21 2.23 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 12.94 15.0 6.00 16.65 1.41 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.00 15.21 16.0 7.00 18.31 1.62 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 6.00 16.65 17.0 8.00 19.05 0.61 0.16 0.13. 0.00 0.00 7.00 18.31 18.0 9.00 19.27 0.02 0.25 0.20 0.00 0.00 8.00 19.05 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. !, .1 s/ D. HYdraulic Criteria All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are also included in the appendix. E. Variances from Criteria No variances are being sought for the proposed project site. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept All on site runoff produced by the proposed development of the Southeast Junior High School site will flow southeasterly to a detention pond located at the southeast corner of the site. Also to be detained in the pond will be developed flows from the future Elementary School west of this project, and from the future City Park, which is southwest of this project. Detained developed staged released flows will be routed east to County Road 9, and . then south to the McClellands Drainageway by a combination of open channels and pipe flow.. Detained flows from the Charter Hospital Site and from the parcel between the Charter Hospital and the Junior High School .site will.be bypassed through the project detention pond and released along with the detained developed flows from this site. Detained developed flows from the Charter Hospital and the parcel to the south will be released onto Corbett Drive. From there it will flow south in the curb and gutter to a low point in Corbett Drive, where it will be intercepted by this developments storm sewer system and conveyed to the detention pond being built with this project. B. Specific Details This project has been broken into 15 sub -basins; Basins A through J, and 0-1 through 0-5. Basins A, C, E, and F represent the roof area of the proposed Junior High School. Runoff from the roof will be directed by gutters, downspouts, and underground piping to the proposed inlets and piping system conveying flows to the detention pond. 3 i y n S Z1 Basins B, D, G. H, I, and J represent the remainder of the site. and are composed of open space, access roads and parking lots, sports fields (permeable and impermeable surfaces), concrete sidewalks, and the detention pond. Developed runoff from these basins is conveyed to the Detention Pond by any combination of overland flows, open channels, curb and gutter, or storm sewer systems. Offsite Basin 0-1 represents the drainage basin containing the Charter Hospital Site and the parcel immediately south of the Charter Hospital and north of Preston Parkway. Detained flows (0.2 cfs/acre for the 10 year storm event and 0.5 cfs/acre for the 100 year event) will be released onto Corbett Drive and conveyed south by curb and gutter to the curb inlets at the southeast corner of the site, and bypassed through the Junior High School Detention Pond, once the property is built out. Offsite Basins 0-2 and 0-3 represent the future. Elementary School site and. the Future City Park. No construction is proposed on these parcels at this time. The Detention Pond associated with this project will detain developed flows from these two areas. Runoff from these undisturbed areas will be routed to the Detention Pond. GorLe H- Offsite Basin 0 -4 and 0-5 represent Corbett Drive and Preston Parkway. Developed runoff from these two public roads will be detained in the I [detention pond associated with this project. The detention pond to be built for this project will contain approximately 7.72 ac.ft. of storage capacity. Only 4.22 ac.ft. of storage is required for detention; the additional 3.5 ac. ft. of volume is being provided for the future storage of irrigation water for the .school. A staged release outlet structure will be built in phase 2 construction, possibly in April 1993, with a calculated release rate of 0.2 cfs/acre for the 10 year and 0.5 cfs/acre for the 100 year events. An emergency overflow structure will also be built into the pond. Irrigation water will be provided for by a lateral from Harmony Road that use to supply irrigation water for this area. A pipe and headwall will be built on the lateral and the irrigation water will be piped to the swale which runs from the softball fields to the detention pond. A backup water supply tap has been included in the domestic water supply system. Phase 1 construction will consist of overlot grading, the construction of Corbett Drive and Preston Parkway; the installation of the water and sanitary sewer, and the storm sewer and curb inlets at the south end of Corbett Drive. Prior to overlot grading, the detention pond as shown will be constructed to act as a temporary siltation basin. During the overlot grading process, the entire 7.72 ac.ft. of volume will be excavated, and the pond will 4 I »j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EROSION CONTROL L 1 1 1 1 1 1 6041 RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: 0D Fay, STANDARD FORM A i COMPLETED BY: TS"3 DATE:-z..zo-93 DEVELOPED SUBBAgIN ERODIBILITY ZONE Asb (ac) Lsb (ft) Ssb Lb (feet) Sb M PS (�) Z 2,-74 qS 7' �)• 59 -7U 6,76.. 5 2 , 3Z 1,43 750 A44 7 1, 7,2- 1057 D S� 3A o. l6 Z 7 3 0, 4-D Table 2 fib:_=-- �Ase �sb h, 5(q5� z, (9 13,Zc(�o�fz,3z<"; ;+1•!jj!�x ; (,7 ilo,:3 As ss� ff5(•�7�+z74G_9�+3.zGG s��?S� '�.,3_(.=1s4 S9(",�;L. 1 -Z fib= o MARCH 1991 8.14 DESIGN CRITERIA L, .1 I sj 11 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: �� (�SD�- ��-tom STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: T'_r3-- 5S -Drj I DATE: Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment ' MAJOR PS BASIN ($) 0 75.4X 1 BASINI (Ac) CALCULATIONS +!S.- (/, o; 18.(0:3 N�� _�z.�(!,o;1(a.a�Co•�)--I-S; 3(D.So1�0,�1 fp,59 /,� 4,46 MARCH 1991 8-15 DESIGN CRITERIA I CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE !9� ' PROJECT: [A) `A- 05cj— STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 19904- ONLY COMPLETED BY: TTS DATE: be installed. Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols w`en erosion control measures will Major modifications to an approved, schedule may require submitting a new schedule for 1 approval by the City Engineer. C' 3 MOAR NTTM ki 0 OVERLOT GRADING ' WIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier ' Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant ' Other RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL ' STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters ' Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation ' Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving ' Other ' VEGETATIVE; Permanent Seed Planting Y-ulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting ' Sod Installation Nettings/Hate/Blankets Other STRUCTURES: INSTAL= BY ' VZGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR DATE SUBMITTED 1 ' MARCH 1991 MAINTAINED BY APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON DESIGN CRITERIA S� CHARTS, TABLES AND FIGURES No Text DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL Ia 1— 20 z w U w a 10 z w a 0 5 N w cc 3 M 0 U 2 Cr w F- Q C- 1 RUNOFF _■■■■1111_, 0�■1111ff0 _■■■■""-,11.3„1",_ MEN FA ON ON I- No 5' .1 2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELOPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975. 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE 3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRCOG o rnDl000 O -w N N N N cO q q cO c0 O 01 01 O m O O O O O O O vvvvNNNNNt11 v g q q C O q q q q q q o cac�c�rnD1Dlc�rnrnrn01c1000 O vvvvvvvvvvv vtNNIn M g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q w 01 n 01 01 01 C1 C1 C% C1 01 0 C1 c1 01 01 01 N q q c0 q q q'p g q q q q q q q q q q q q O OMvIntDwt0or-t-t`t`t`t`nt`t`r-t`t-gq cDggq O o. V 44 v v v4 VV"c4 v v v v v vv a v 444 v vv Oy r{ g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q qq q q q q q q q q W O q N n v N IA to tD t0 tD 1C tD tD I` I` t` t` t` t` t` t` t` t` q co co p • . . • . • • . . . . • • . . • • . . . • . a at nvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv O g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q to q q q q q.co g q q q U o tDONMvvIntnInIntD%0 V' tDtDtDtDtDtD0t--t`NI-l-l- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N q M v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v vvv v� V� v v .: co coggcococococococogqqqqqqq'gqqqqqq 1i a O V G. . . . . . . . . .tl. . . . .NNNtDtDtDtDtDtDt. O t` vinv-Ivvvvvvv -avvv-0vvvvvvvvvv U co co ca co co g q q m w w m 0 0 q q q q q q q q q q q q H O 0ww0HrtNNMMMM V v V vV V V'vNNU1NtD%D O %D MMColl vvvvvvvvvvvv V 10vv10Cav10d'a W coggqcocoDocOCOqqIXlqcoqqqqqqqcococococa gtDp .-.0 NNNI-gC100Hr-IHNNNNNMMMMMvvV'vv 1 O da . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . CO P4 N N n M M M M v v v v v vvv v v.v v v v v v v v v v co q c0 c0 g co co OD co q q q q q w q q q q q w q w q W to W - a0 ado H W H M VMM%D0t�t-t-gWWMMM0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 Qi av NN P1 t4Mc4c4c4 f1 c4 c499 C19 n r1 M c4 n fl v v v vv E-40 to ggqpqqqqqqNco qqqqqqqqqqqqqq O tD In co O ri NMvv to to N O tD tD tD%o t� t� I- t- q q co C1 C1 H• . . . . . . . . Ui v ri N N M M M n n n M M n n n n n M M M M n M M M M n . ggqqqCDqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqcoqqq W U N r{riIAt-gOOriNNMMnvvvvvNIANtDtDtDt-t-. M r{ N N N N c'1 c4t'1 c'f c'1 c4c'1 n CI c4n n n n n n M n M n M co q W coc0 co co q .q co co co q q co co co co co co coNJ coc0 coq O O co) NtD q Cl o ri NNMnn v v v v vv N In to 111 tD tD to %D (i4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 M 0rlr-trirlNNNNNNNNNNNLNNNNNNNNNN a ggqcJqqqtDqcDqqqqqqqqq WCOCOgcOcO W to tnlllClNMVNV' I�t�hcOgcOG�Cl01C1C101000000 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . N C1 00 rt ri ri r{ ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri rI rt ri ri ri N N N N N N q c0 co q q q co q q co co q co q co g q q q q q q co q q L4 Z O vIll OMN0gg01000r1r♦rirINNNNcol nMMM M N co C1 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 ri ri ri ri ri rI rt H H ri r{ ri ri ri ri ri ri t` t- g q q q q q q g q q q q q q q q q q q c3 0 0 q q N gNgrlvNi�t�gG1GlOOr{rirlrtrlNNNMMMMM r♦ Oc qc 1c1C1C1 + c1 c c0 C;000000000000 l�t`r- t-h�t-Nt-t-ggqqqqqqqqqqMcaq O IC r! O v t- Gl o ri N M M v v N U1 N N tD %D w tD t-. r` w %D to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ri vtDl�t�t�t�ggcDc00Dqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq N OlovtDt,ggltJTt,tD VtDNv.vMMNNC %Dvrt0%W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N. . . . . . . O ONNNNN41NNc NNNNNNNNNNr-ir'IriH00 t�rrrrrr�rrrrnrrrrrrrrrrrrrr x o0000000000000000000000000 O l7 H o 0000,000000000000000000000 � W LL riNMVNVI�gC10rlfVnvU'1tDt�g010NO1110U'10 v ri.-i.-trlriririri��NN M My V'N . a I: ARCH 1991 8.4 DESIGN CRITERIA �y 1.0 12 5 .9 11 10 4 8 10 6 3 8 ~o � 2 9 U. 4 'tom 7 _ 8 w 3 U. a z 1.5 =' 6 7 Pore , w 2/ o 1.0 -.8- _ _ w ' 5.5 Q --- __— o .8 . t- W 5 = z o .7 z •4 z wn6 z. .4 4.5 z 0 3 W t tL x 0 4 0 .2 0 .5 z " _ �- _ z E- 3 0 w 3.5 w a w 4 0 0 w >: a a w 0 .25 3 0 0 • .08 0 .06 .3 U U- z = 2.5 = w .04 x .25 LU ' .2 r .03 a t- 3 ' a .02 0 2 2 aa. x U F- ' 15 .01 0 .15 L 0 ' o --- -- - -- -- 1.5 Y0 a x ' 0_2" h .10 .I 1.2 Figure 5-2 NOMOGRPXH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2' ' Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph 0 MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA 7 ev G/ I i I I I I I n I I i RM1.1c Engineering Consultants CLIENT —JOB NO. FAOJECT CALCULATIONS FCR(•• 71—,— 7_ 5=i (JADE sy�DA,7E Z57 CHECKED BY —*DATE _SHEET Z- OF 7- U_C>W,_ j "77-77-1 jw. :-"7 7— ------ 177 . pj Gr- o - :'7 7 ...... 7 7 -7-7 T7 7 _77-1 7 LiQ -y- t44 W-N r _:j7 .. ... .... 1-7' 2:A 177-4, a7"'. c� 4 1 lb:5,s:s 991 16. B3,x 0 4- `7 - ----- ----- ---- -4 V:.:22; Atli �13 I �jc .......... j- 7 K,--F 77-- > 771 —1 .'dT 4 - 7- 1 CLIENT(-, IT`/— 0 ,4 1 I:!c_ JOE 1!JC PROJECT 7 a� CALCULATIONSFORU% UT'Z 1= L, ' Engineering Consultants N.ADEEY3..I DATE%•:iZ CHECkEDEY DATE SHEET OF �— 2-3',-C�IJn'c'L_.yL_Si�ELS/��_ li �.t= : � _ ?c'Z._S �Q�1_;.G�-• Z. Z. Z.'. G1.T`7._Cf=:_..=.j i:T L'7 C_l1.VS_ ��SI:�'�l_�-1.FJ t=-d�.:-v _.J , ._.:.� _i.4�aZ�TCd6U,..Ti.�-_C�it�dCJ'Y_. ;.,._..�. ;.__.. .. ....;__._. __.,._.il.=_?•�L�H!`.11=SS:_-Ci>E?Pa=-•lUv.lr __.�l:S _O:. �lf�'_ ----• J vw 1 �u�w^ aL�; ��u�..-,�.. i�._oi=;.._cuti✓a ..._ _0:39�_ 27 1 A SJ . , .;. 1 i 1 _ 7*177- 8�3= 1 �_ ' ' '--_ - o►�- -- - --_ - ------ - -j - --- 4 77 :'OMG ! i 1 J- t lT ��-___'_ I _ •�: t f :._�— _! : i 1 i 1 P _�_ _--1.__._.�_'__J_�___— J_,-_JJ • J_-._--� yI i 1---:-O.Q __Ii1:Z +_ii 1•_.� t,1 L -�i. —'L' :: �oi1Z_,Z-4S _S8.7Zr Lo�3Z_= :86:7G-J.� . II I -1 I , I 1 •, 1, I i- [ 1 t 7-7 Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major and Minor Storms per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria RESIDENTIAL With drive over curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc. 'o is for one side of the read only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities ^' Area = 2.63 sq.ft. Area = 20.11 sq.ft. Minor Storm : Y.ajor Storm slope Red. . Minor . 0 V . Major . 0 V (X) :Factor : X . (cfs) (fps) . X . (cfs) (fps) 0.40 : 0.50 : 66.71 : 2.74 : 2.09 : 696.73 . 22.03 2.19 0.50 : 0.65 : 66.71 : 3.99 : 2.33 : 696.73 : 32.02 2.45 ' 0.60 : 0.60 : 66.71 : 5.37 : 2.55 : 696.73 : 43.17 : 2.68 0.70 : 0.60 : 66.71 : 5.60 : 2.76 : 696.73 : 46.63 : 2.90 0.60 : 0.80 : 66.71 6.20 : 2.95 : 696.73 : 49.E5 : 3.10 D.90 : 0.80 : W 71 6.58 : 3.13 : 696.73 : 52.68 : 3.29 1.00 : 0.80 : 86.71 6.94 : 3.30 : 696.73 : 55.74 : 3.46 1.25 : 0.80 : 66.71 7.76 : 3.69 : 696.73 : 62.32 : 3.87 1.50 : 0.50 : 66.71 8.50 : 4.04 :' 696.73 : 69.27 : 4.24 1.75 : 0.80 : 65.71 9.18 : 4.36 696.73 : 73.73 4,58 2.00 : 0.80 : 66.71 9.81 : .4.66 696.73 : 78.E3 4.90 x 2.25 : 0.78 : E6.71 : 10.15 : 4.95 696.73 : 81.52 : 5.20 ' 2.50 : 0.76 : 66.71 : 10.42 : 5.21 696.73 : E3.72 : 5.48 7 2.75 : 0.74 : 66.71 : 10.64 : 5.47 : 696.73 : 85.50 : 5.75 3.00 : 0.72 : 65.71 : 10.51 : 5.71 : 696.73 : 65.E9 : 6.00 3.25 : 0.69 : 66.71 : 10.79 : 5.74 : 696.73 : 66.67 : 6.25 3.50 : 0.66 : 66.71 : 10.71 : 6.17 : 696.73 : E6.03 : 6.18 3.75 : 0.63 : 66.71 : 10.58 : 6.38 : 696,73 : E5.00 : 6.71 4.00 : 0.60 : E5.71 : 10.41 : 6.59 : 696.73 : E3.61 : 6.93 4.25 : 0.58 : 86.71 : 10.37 : 6.E0 : 696.73 : E3.31 7.14 4.50 : 0.54 : 86.71 : 9.93 : 6.99 : 696.73 : 79.81 7.35 4.75 . 0.52 . 66.71 : 9.E3 : 7.19 : 696.73 . 78.96 7.55 . 5.00 : 0.49 : Eb.71 : 9.50 : 7.37 : 696.73 : 76.34 7.75 5.25 : 0.46 : 66.71 : 9.14 : 7.55 : 696.73 : 73.43 7.94 5.50 : 0.44 : M.71 : 8.95 : 7.73 : 696.73 : 71.89 : 8.13 '5,75.: 0,42 : 66.71 : 8.73 7*11 : 696.73 : 71,17 : 8.31 6.00 : 0.40 : 66.71 : 8.50 8.03 : 696.73 : 68.27 : 8.49 1 0 MAY 1984 .7 U- Cr o .6 f- v LL Z 0 .5 F. U W ..4 c' .3 .2 a 9 s-06°/ F: 0.a 8 I -N s.0.4% F:0.5 I I I BELOW MINIMUM ALLOWABLE I STREET GRADE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 SLOPE OF GUTTER (%) Figure 4-2 REDUCTION FACTOR FOR ALLOWABLE GUTTER CAPACITY Apply reduction factor for applicable slope to the theoretical gutter capacity to obtain allowable gutter capacity. (From: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads,1965) 4-4 DESIGN CRITERIA O O .4 Q O 14 O w -"' p O'er ro w O n � fu O O 44 a3 4J � O � � Q" 3 c. O w v w o y � o mr 0) r t� 7 00 co � N rn DO LD d N 00 Ci) (7) 0') 0-) C� 00 00 00 O O O O O O O O x — .zo-}ava,3 ITaxu4snCP-v MoTjlnO n ' Table 813 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. _ Treatment C-Factor P-Factor ' BARE SOIL Packed and smooth ..... :.......................................................... 1.00 1.00 Freshlydisked :........................... 1.00 0.90 ............................................ Rough irregular surface........................................................... 1.00 0.90 ' SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP................................................................. 1.00 0.501ii ' STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00 0.80. SILTFENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00 0.50 ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01 1.00 ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 8-A 1.00 SODGRASS.....................................................I............................ 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.451=1•. 1.00 HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE........................................... 0.10' 1.00 SOIL SEALANT.....................................................................0.01-0.60"' 1.00 ' EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS............................................ 0.10 1.00 GRAVEL MULCH Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately ' 1/4" to 1 1/2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05 1.00 HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH After olantino grass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately anchor, tack or crimp material into the. soil. ' Slope M 1 to 05.............................................................................0.06 0.06 1.00 1.00 6 to 10............................................................................. 11 to 15........................................................................... 0.07- 1.00 ' 16 to 20 21 to 25 . 0.14 1.00 1.00 .............................................................................0.11 25 to 33............................................................................0.17 1.00 > 33.......................................................................... 0.20 1.00 ' NOTE: Use of oar C-Factor or P-Factor values repDne-d in this table must be substantiated by documentation. (1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading. (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required. (3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated. (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. 1 MARCH 1931 8.6 DESIGN CRITERIA a n 1 Table 8-B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from previous page). Treatment C-Factor P-Factor CONTOUR FURROWED SURFACE Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Maximum length refers to the down slope length. Basin Maximum Slope Length (feet) 1 to 2 400..........................................................................1.00 0.60 3 to 5 300..........................................................................1.00 0.50 6 to 8 200....................... ............ ....... 1.00 0.50 9 to 12 120.......................:........................... 1.00 0.60 13 to 16 80...........................................................................1.00 0.70 17 to 20 60........................................................................... 1.00' 0.80 >20 50..........................................................................1.00 0.0.0 TERRACING Must contain 10-year runoff volumes, vehhout overflowing, as determined by applicable hydrologic methods, otherwise P•Factor = 1.00. Basin Slope M 1 to 2.:................................................................................... 1.00 0.12 3 to 8. 1.00 0.10 9 to 12...............................................................:..................... 1.00 0.12 13 to 16..................................................................................... 1.00 0.14 17 to 20.....................................................................................1.00 0.16 > 20..................................................................................... 1.00 0.18 NOTE: Use of o-Jr_r C-Faclor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentaSon. 1 ' MARCH 1991 8.7 DESIGN CRITERIA DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP 1 1 i 1 . i60 o� 0 20 0 Emommommom NEEN� momm ■o - .nEA ' 0 2 4 Y /D .6 .8 1.0 t ' Use Da instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream. z.s 1 FIGURE 5-7.'RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 1 1 tt-ts-e2 URBAN DRAINAGE a FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL f I G = Expansion Angle mmmmmmmm EVANAINAA, rAA MAI W-� mmummmum EVESNAPERINE 0119019AAMENE RIPRAP 1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 ` ..7 .8 TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT,' Yf/D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE B& FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT I i. STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA TABLE 803 j; MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES O/ P1 AN NOT[ Iw i•T i/N O/ P A USE EQUATION 005 0, N 1-j k vet , ' •E�j CTION o.o SECTION -kSE EQUATION 001 K J. CASE I CASE U INLET ON MAIN LINE yr INLET ON MAIN LINE y k J+CS 111,tAbet- 7 MA41 ine. WITH BRANCH LATERAL PLAN aim USE EQUATION 001 fi PLAN USE EQUATION 005 �_k� SECTION Use z Mqs CASE IT L%k""IE�)S�� Vt 64.1 °+�+ �' INLET OR MANHOLE AT BEGINNING OF LINE ' °, I, ES CTION CASE III MANHOLE ON MAIN LINE CASE III ' A WITH ' BRANCH LATERAL ;CASE NO. K 9° KK... I 0.05 22 11/2 0.15 ' II 0.25 .45 0.50 - IV 1.25 60 0.35 90 0.25 I' No Lateral See Case. I ate: NOV 1984 REFERENCE:. APWA Special Report No. 49, 1981 eY. A7.25614. r Beehrve U 4 F.Grate y Designed to fit in bell of 24" sewer pipe.. Total Weight 200 Pounds Furnished standard with }- ground bearing surfaces. ze-tea { R-2564 ' Beive Grate eh „ t . and Frame S M� Designed to fit in bell of 24" sewer pipe. Total Weight 275 Pounds �:.IVEENAH' POUN047Y COMPANY Furnished standard with ground bearing surfaces. zey-►j r [R-2565- Series;:,w Catch Basin =-" Frameand Grate Heavy Duty Catalog Not recommended for bicycle traffic. For safety standards see pages 88 to 93. Wt. -^ R-2565-C z i 23 Y72 1'/A 18 20 27'/2 29'/2 5 4 1% 1 27/e 1 330* R-2565-E 27 1'/. 23� 33'h 4 1 % 1 11/2 1 2'/2 2'/. 1 230* s/. R-2565-F R-2S65-G 27 27 2'/2 24 331h 5 11/2 1 2'/e 35* 1 370* R-2565-H 29 2'1 1 s/. 24 27 33'/2 35_ 5 6 1'/2 1 2'/e 1 445* R-2565-J /e 32� 2 30 39' 2 6 1'/2 1 1'/2 1 2r/8 e 1 460* 1 *Furnished standard with ground bearing surfaces. 550 ' .{S� 4' to-�,,, r _' _ � J�N• R 2569 Y=Ga chi Basin�Frame Grate` Light Duty Total Weight 155 Pounds 16 x 16 Note: Small grote openings. Espe- 1 2x6ilr9-7 t cially suited for use in walk. ways, park shelter buildings and commerciol basement _ drains. 14 ■ 14- 27 oia.� ..........eWL �.. 'age FREE OPEN AREAS OF NEENAH GRATES " 1 L 1 1 0 r CATALOG SO. - NO. TYPE OPEN R-1792-AG ..... G ....... 0.2 R-1792-BG ..... G....... 0.3 R-1792-CG..:..G ....... 0.5. . _ R-1792-DG ..... G... :... 0.7 R-1792-EG :.... G ..."..1.0. R-1792-FG ..... G ..:....1.7'" R-1792-GG --..G......... 2.0 R-1792-HG ....G.......2.7 - R-1792-JG .....G.......3.7 R-1878-AIG .... A or C...0.5 R-1878-A2G.... A or C ... 0.8 R-1878-A3G....A orC... 1.0 R-1878-A4G.... A or C ...1.1 R-1878-A5G .... A or C...2.2 R-1878-A6G .... A orC... 2.7 R-1878-A7G .... AorC... 1.9 R-1878-ABG .... A or C...2.3 R-1878-A9G .... A orC...2.5 R-1878-A10G... A orC... 3.0 R-1878-BIG ...A .......0.6 R-1878-B2G ...A .......0.9 R-1878-B3G ...A .......1.2 R-1878-84G ...A .......2.1 R-1878-B5G ...A .......2.5 R-1878-86G ...0 .......2.6 R-1878-87G ...A .......2.6 R-1878-B8G ...A .......3.7 R-1878-69G ...0 .......3.3 R-1878-81OG ... C .......4.9 R-1879-A 1 G .... A or C ... 0.4 R-1879-A2G.... A or C ...0.8 R-1879-A3G.... A or C ...1.2 R-1879-A4G.... A or C ...1.4 R-1879-ASG .... A or C ... 1.9 R-1679-A6G.... A or C ...2.0 R-1879-A7G.... A or C ...1.7 R-1879-ABG.... A orC... 2.2 R-1879-A9G.... A orC... 2.8 R-1879-AlDG ... A orC...3.7 R-1879.B1G ...A .......0.6 R-1879-B2G ...0 .......0.9 R-1879-B3G ...0 .......1.0 R-1879-84G ...A .......1:4 R-1879-B5G ...A .......1.9 R-1879-B6G ...A .......2.4 R-1879-B7G ...A .......3.0 R-1879-88G ...A .......3.2 R-1879.89G ...A .......3.2 R-1879-81OG... C .......4.2 R-2014 ........0 ....... 1.3 R-2014 ........E .......1.3 R-2015 ........D .......0.9 R-2015 ........0 .....:.1.3 R-2015 ........G .......1.2 R-2030 ........D.......1.1 R-2030 ........0 ......-.1.3 R-2031 ........D .......1.1 R-2031 ........E .......1.3 R-2040 ........0 .......0.9 R-2040 ........0 .......1.3 R-2040 ........E.......1.1 R-2040 ........F .......0.7 R-2050 ........D .......0.9 R-2050 ........0 .......1.3 R-2050 ........E.......1.1 R-2050 ........F ......-.0.7 R-2060 ........A ....... 1.1 R-2060 ........13 ....... 1.2 R-2060 ... .....0 .......1.3 R-2060 ........E ....... 1.1 . R-2070 ........ D....... 0.9 R-2070 ........ B ....... 1.2 R-2070 ........E .......1.1 R-2077-A ......0 .......1.3 R-2077-3 ......0 .......1.3 R-2077-C ......0 .......1-3 R-2077 ........ B .......1.2 R-2077 ........0 .......1.3 R-2077 ........D.......1.0 R-2077 ........ E ....... 1.1 R-2077 ........F .......0.6 R-2080 ........D .......1.0 R-2080 ........0 .......1.2 R-2090 ........A .......1.1 CATALOG SO. .' NO. TYPE OPEN R-2090 ........B .......1.2 R-2090 ........0 .......1.2 R-2090 ........D.......1.0.. R-2090 ........ E:. :1.1 .- ''- R-2090 ....::.. G- ..:'...1.0'. �.; R-2100 ::......A .:...... .:...:: 1.1 .. . R-2100...... :..C:-- --..1.3 ' . R-2100.....:.-.E".:.....1 `..' R-2100 ........F ..:....0:6 R-2110 ........A :.:....1.1 R-2110 ........E .......1.1. R-2112 ........A .......1.1 R-2112 ........B .......1.2 R-2112 ....... .0 ....... 1.3 R-2112 ........E .......1.1 R-2112 ........F ....0.6 R-2112 ....... .G ..........0.6 R-2120 ........A .......1.1 R-2120 ........0 .......1.3 R-2120 ........F .......0.6 3-2120 ........G .......1.1 R-2250 .... ....G .......3.1 3-2251 ........ G ....... 2.9 3-2255 ........ C .......1.4 3-2255 ........ G .......1.9 3-2270 ........ G 1_9 1.2275 ........ ........ G .......1.9 1 t-2290 ........K .......1.2 1 1-2290-A ...... K ....... 1.2 I I.2290-B ...... K .......1.0 { 1-2293 ........ G .......1.6 F -2296 ........B .......1.2 F -2296 ........F .......1.2 F -2297 ........B .......1.2 F -2297........ F .......1.2 F -2298 ........ B .......1.2 F: -2298 ........F .......1.2 F: •2299 ........ B .......1.2 F: •2299....... .F .......1.2 F 2300 ........ G ..:....12 R 2300 ........0 .......1.6 R 2370 ........8 .......1.2 R 2370 ........F .......1.3 R 2370........G ....... 1.1 R 2370 ........A .......1.1 R 2370 ........G .......1.2 R. 2371 ........G .......1.2 R. 2390........G .......1.4 R. 2390........0 .......1.5 R. 2392 ........0 .......1.4 R. 2392 ........ G ....... 1.4 FR. ?394 ........G .......1.2 R. ?395.1 .. G .......1.6 R. ?398 ........ G .......1.4 R- ?401 ........G ....... 1.4 R- 1401........ ?401-A ......G C .......1.6 R- ;401-B ...... .......1.2 E .......0.9 R.; R_; '402 ........ G ....... 0.7 R-; '402 ........0 .......1.1 R.; 404 ........G ..... .-. 1.1 R-; 405 ........ A .......1.0 R.; 405 ........ C .......1.6 R_; 410........K.......0.9 R-; 41 1-A ...... G ....... 0.7 R-2 412-A ..... .G ....... 1.0 R-2 412-Al .....E ....... 1.0 R-2 412-A2 ..... G ....... 0.7 R-2 412-A3 .....0 .......1.1 R-2 412-A3 ..... E ........ 1.0 R.2 :12-A4 .....0 ....... 1.0 R-2 02-A5 ......K .......0.8 R-2 112-A6..... 04........ G ....... D....... 1.1 1.0 QU CATALOG NO. TYPE OPEN -' 428 ........D .......1.0 128 ........0 .......1.3 128 ........F .......0.6 129........D.......1.0 129..... .:.E.......1.3 129........G.......1.2 135........ G....... 0.9 ,37 ........ D .......1.0 37 ........ E ..1.3 37-8 ...... G .......... .. 0.9 38........D.......1.0 38........E.......1.3 53 ........ K .......0.8 61-A ..... A .B.......1.2 1.1 61-A .... 61-A ......0 .......1.3 54........D.......1.0 56-A ...... B .......1.2 56-A ...... E ....... 1.1 57 ........0 .......1.0 57 ........ D .......0.9 r1 ........ D..... 0'0.9 11-B 0.....D.......0.9 '4 ........A .......1.1 '4 ........G ....... 1.2. '5........ A .......1.1 11 ........A .... ... 1.1 �6........ G... ....0.6 8 ........G .......0.4 8-A ... ... G .......0.'4 8-B .... -G. ......0.4 9........G .......0.2 0 ........G .......0.9 1 ........ G....... 1.3 2-A ......D.......0.9 2-8 ......D.......0.9 2-C ...... D.......0.9 3-0...... G....... 1.3 3-E ......G.......1.3 3-F ......G.......1.3 1........G .......1.3 i........D .......0.9 )........0 .......1.3" VI .. ...G......-.0.4 1-2 ......G.......1.6 �A ......C.......1.1 -A ......E .......0.2 C ......G.......0.4 -D ......G .......0.4 -E...... E....... 0.6 -F ......G .......0.8 -G ......G.......0.8 ........A ....... 1.1 ........0 .......0.9 C ...... .1.1 . D.. 1.1 ........K .......0.4 ........K.......0.4 ........V .......0-8 ........D.....0.0.9 ..K .......0.8 41......K.......0.8 B ......K.....0.8 4 ... ...G... ...... 0.9 :......G ......:1.2 _......G.......1.8 =...... G....... 1.8 3 ......G.......1.7 i ...... G....... 1.2 ,18........G.......1.0 18•A ......K 1.0 ...., R-2571-A ......F 26A ...... ....... A .......1.0 R-2571-B ...... F R-2571-C 20-B ......G 21-A ......A .......1.1 .... ..F R-2571-D ......F 22-A ......K .......1.0 R-257.....F 22-C ...... .......1.0 G R-2571--02..... F 23........ .......1.0 G 1.0 R-257 -D3.....F 24-A ......G ....... R-2571-......F 27........D .......0.9 R•257 ......F 27-A ......G .......0.9 .......1.0 R .E -2572 ........F R-2573 ........F 7� CATALOG SO. NO. TYPE OPEN H-2574 .........a ....... 0.9 R-2577 ........B .......1.0 R-2578 ........C-:.c:...1.0 R-2579::...::.8":..:r ..1.3 R-2580-A1 .:.:. C ....: ,'' 1.1 R-2580-A ......G ........1.9 R-2580-C ......G .......2.8 R-2586-A ...... E..:,:..04 R-2586-B ....:.G ...... .o:5 R-2586-C ......E :......0.6 R-2586-D ......G .......0.8 R-2586-E ......G.......0.8 R-2586-F ......G.......0.8 R-2586-G ... ....G .......1.0 R-2586-H ......E .......1.3 R-2586-K ......G .......1.3 . R-2586-M ...... G....... 1:8 R-2586-N ...... G....... 1.7 R-2586-0 ...... G .......1.9 R-2588-A ......G ....... 1.1 R-2588-B ......G.......1.0 3-2588-C ......G .......1.9 R-2595 ........D.......1.2 R-2600 ........K .......1.1 i-2650 ........G .......1.1 3.2668 ........0 .......0.9 3-2680 ........G .......1.1 1-3010 ........S .... ... 1.0 i-3010 .....,..A .......1.0 1.30104.......L ...:...0.9 1-3010 ........ DR/DL... 1.3 1-3010........ D....... 1.3 3015 ........L .......0.9 -3015 ........R .......1.3 -3030 ........A .......1.0 -3030 ........D.......1.3 -3030......... DR/DL... 1.3 -3030 ........L .......0.9 -3031-B ......S .......0.8 •3032.8 ......S .......0.8 3033-B ..... .S .......0.8 3034-8 ......S .......1.1 3035-A ...... S .......1.1 3036-B ......S ....... 1.1 3037-A ......S .......L6 3038-A ......S .......1.5 3039-A ... ... S .......1.5 3040 ........A .......1.0 3042 ........A .......0.3 3065 ........ DR/DL...0.9 3065-LL .....L .... :..0.8 3065-V ......V .......0.9 3066 ........ DR/DL... 1.4 3D67 ........ DR/DL... 1.9 3067-LL .....L .......1.6 3067-V ......V .......1.8 WO........A .......0.9 3070 ........D.......1.0 1070 ........L .......1.8 1070 ........ DR/DL...1.0 1070 ........V .......2.2 075 ........ DR/DL... 1.0 075-L ..... .L .......0.8 075-V ..... .V .......0. 9 076 ........V .......1. 077 ........V ....... 3.0 077-L ......V .......1.5 D77-R ......V .......1.5 D78........ V .......1.5 )79 ..:..... L ....... 1.4 )80 ........A......0.9 )80........D.. ......1.0 )80 ........ DR/DL... 1.0 )81 ........A .......0.9 )81 ........D.......1.0 )81 ........ DR/DL... 1.0 )85 ........ DR/DL....1.0 00 ........A .......0.9 190........D.......1.0 90 .:..... DR/DL... 1.0 20 ........A .......0.7 30 ........A .......0.7 50 ........A ....... 1.1 51 ........A .......1.1 Type K indicates "Special" grate style and is not among standard types as illustrated. ss " NEENAH ' DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3) STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ^ - however, when using the practice of minimizing directly connected impervious areas in combination with extended detention basins, retention ponds, wetlands, and other practices depended on a design capture volume. Whenever applicable, the needed modifications are described in the appropriate Structural BMP section.. 5.4.2 Water Quality Capture Volume. Extended detention facilities (dry), retention ponds (wet), and ' wetland basins should be designed to capture and treat runoff equal to the Both percentile event. This is achieved by draining the design capture volume over a specified time. Extended detention ' basins need to be designed to drain their design volume in approximately 40 hours. Retention ponds require only a 12-hour drain time because the sedimentation process is more efficient and some ' mixing and dilutionbetween a permanent dry weather pool and storm runoff occurs. The wet pond also provides for treatment between storms, which provides long periods of time for fine particles to settle out and for biological activity to occur. Wetland basins should be designed to drain the design ' capture volume in no less than 24 hours, thereby providing for some biological uptake during the contact time with wetland media Infiltration -type structural BMPs such as porous pavement shall be designed to capture and treat the runoff from at least a 2-year storm. The use of a 2-year storm is also recommended for the design of slow -moving grass -lined swales and of wetland channels. The following is a step-by-step procedure for determining the water quality capture volume needed to size extended detention basins, retention ponds, and wetland basins: 1. Determine basin imperviousness. 2. Select either a 12- or 40-hour brim -full volume drain time for the proposed facility. Use ' a 40-hour detention time for extended detention basins and a 12-hour detention time for retention ponds. For wetland basins, use the arithmetic average of the 12- and ' 40-hour drain time volumes. 3. Estimate the brim -full storage volume in watershed inches of runoff from Figure 5-1. ' 9-1-92 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District .1. I 'STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3) 7s/ } 4. Determine the water quality capture volume (WQCV) in acre-feet as follows: 1 l WQCV (Required Storage) (Area) 1 ' in which, ' Required Storage = Required storage from Figure 5-1 in watershed inches ' Area = The tributary drainage area upstream of the water quality enhancement facility in acres 1 1 ' 9-1-92 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3) 10 13 0 0 c O 0 m L U 0. LO C m iQ 3 CM A O 0. v m CT CD cc 0. 1 ' 9.1-1992 UDFCD STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT . 7V 5 xten 0-1-10 ed De r Draft entio time Basi (Dry) t t , D?tentic t ;Hour n Pon Drain Js (Wet) nme 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Impervious Area in Tributary Watershed Source: Urbanos, Guo, Tucker (1989) Note: Watershed inches of runoff shall apply to the entire watershed tributary to the BMP Facility. FIGURE 5-1. WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) I I 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 10. 6.1 4.1 1:( m 0.6( m 0.4C E: m M 0.2( 0 m 0.1c 9 0.0E Me l 0.02 WEEMENEWspyropAl ! EXAMPLE: DWO - 4.5 ft WOOV - 2-1 acre-feet SOLUTION: Required Are ar 0 AVIN FIMA 2 PA 50 'All 10 PA Ail 01, /2, OMAN A a IfA rAFF N I PA �I F1100A FA VA 44 Wr MENA �I WAF,A 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Required Area per Row (in.2 ) Source: Douglas County Storm Drainage and Technical Criteria, 1986. FIGURE 5-3. WATER QUALITY OUTLET SIZING: DRY EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN WITH A 40-HOUR DRAIN TIME OF THE CAPTURE VOLUME 9-1-1992 UDFCD 7/ Timberline �- CHARTER HOSPITAL East... _.. HARMONY ROAD I - mi 222 .221 a NIOR HIGH SCH Ob,&Jj / 220 /6 215 PJ WILD 217 � 2/4 2/8 2/.3 '�6 I_ s 2120 / 3� 219 1211 I I � 0 ! /07 fZcoom) PROJECT SiTE E i 210 \ 5 206 , .2Q;(� 208 ~3/1 TAN OF THE SWMMSLHEMATIC F I. TH ram. DS BASIN---------._ I Al" 6,ee- 1.99' VIM- Z02 roe 4 4 IS -am 32.0 cis SECTION A 8 SCALE 1'=100' FAA i� a Al All ��A^1 An AD AAF EROSION CONTROL NOTES. AFTER• i I WE OVERLY, GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED. ALL DISTURBED AREAS. NOT NOT SPECIFICATIONS A ROADWAY, SHALL HAVE A IEMPoRMY VECETAHAY SEED APPDED PER THE BEAPPLEDON THIS SHEET. AFTER W OF 2 A MAY CR . MINI MULCH SHALL LC APPLIED OVER THE SEED AT A RATE TA 2 TDOR ACRE. MINIMUM, AND THE MULCH SHALL O ADEQUATELY ANCHORED, TACKED OR CRIMPED INTO THE SCRL PER THE METHODS DESCRIBED ON ES SHEET. RE IEFl THE UTILITIES T BEEN INSTALLED, FT IN ROADWAY SURFACES THE CURB XNE TASA ME THE PA SHALL STRUCTURE AFTER COMBINATION OF CO THE WBB MLETS, TRIE IH W SHALE BEFILT' AND 3 4INC A LAIRSE GRAY OF PER THESE BLpG(S SHOWN INCH N1RE SCREEN AND 3/4 INCH CWRSE GRAVEL, PER THE pETAI SHOWN ON THE DETAIL SHEET. VOLUME PROVIDED Am 1,92 AC -FT 20' ODE EMERGENCY OVERFLOW MIR 10' COON TYPE / 1 �\ I MCI _ II i 'Kals�� yyy p, i la LRDFa,, CURB INLET �AAa L 1 1 I- Il1 Iiii3 011 it l,'JNIOR HIGH An FFD SCHOOL IA g 1In YJ S 1 11I p _ t Coal f II r/ / �� 11�- i/;., IIv� �,:.� o ° CURB I An C/ / 1 l [! A A, An/ l / I �-\�I I EXIST \ y P.P. �- maga OF OF ��,v �u iti �� OFF 9�I --�� --- FTuwLDl waD EARM it I� -- I tt'a' THIRDI FILIN 1 IIAn Ig�T%gp0'TE I II '.II as C It FT i-r- T, T �= T-- ° = - -- 0-4 J1 �,� ----f I 1 IIago Arm II!F�_ _I) I II EXIST. I !I �---J)L«--- 1 _ -- _.�/ II P.P. ---- - -_- --- - -- I Half 'l II ''I {♦2s RCP I I .l -� I__l s ♦01, IN CHANNEL-3♦.6 C1e EXIST. INLET DRAMI - 9EFIaFD aEExm GOT, 1993 553-Wt APPRDv[L- OATS PROJECT N0. Engineering Consultants EXIST. 42s RCP-/ -0 IN I Trial Am 0 IN I Of FULL EKISTNG s HYDROLOGY Total DielV M Arm - 19.OD acres Ralbnal ' - 0.20 DRAINAGE ISM STATISTICS Grog Pla< eE Area - 16.70 avee Grove Ar 'C, - 0.51 Net Platte Area - 12.36 acres Net Arco bs - 0.37 DEVELOPED SIIE HYDROLOGY DESIGN POINT BASIN ARE, C IcGO e) once 1 2.B5 0.47 24 9.3 2 2-5 12.09 0.48 8.9 3115 } 3 3.26 0.47 3.0 11.5 3A 3-5 1 Ob 7.1 27.9 ♦ 4 3.56 OAB 2.8 10.6 5 4.p 5.88 0." 4.8 _ 16.1 6 1-6 16.37 0.49 12.0 45.5 7 71 1.72 0.81 3.3 12.5 8 1-8 18.68 0.51 14.3 57.2 0-4 0-4 IN0.76 2.86 10.00 0-1 0-1 0.49 D 0.60 212 OF PER FINAL DRAINAGE IS EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SIZE FT. COLLNS COLORADO OF I -G- Ivy.` -89 PROPOSED CONT R --- - FLOWTUKE PROPOSED STLR DRAIN DIRECTION OF R DESIGN POINT re• No A .s DRNAGE BASIN OUNDARY CIS 1 BASIN NUMBER CIS 166 AC BASIN AREA 1 AT) C� 100 YEAR STORM�INUNDARON AREA HOLE /ST1 CURB/AREA INLET GRAVEL FILTER IN PIPE-69.10 CIS I •DEVELOPED FLOW RATES PER APPIROVEO OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY FOR WILDW000 J_J.. FARMS BY Ran INC. WILD WOOD FARM, SECOND FILyNG P.U.D. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ° Posner Pose. ��iiFargo w :avaamio `�ia Fulue°eenP u�.n. m... iM.. Pa naa.a a Mato, ae.eim am ma*w m 11" MDwrsaltraw .mm aa. rattm.eanaet Home ar.nim euno omn.'A 1. rwiy° wv remai to. froating to bar' Mi and relays' .re whom m . l e n Man ima�a t. be � ' to t at . se,ne amnmvvea� me A No Phor All tall PAPPAM Ong III AW In, him MAP z, ozs M. Drainage ma a as Comprol Plea bob grall I III Carry,' None, one S.qAWlt real. Me 'hear � the to m Of. the ntly, Pred Arms ..Ludly anal to mANCOWIgmands leachnse stay IMIM lorl .If . pill Argyraya.I..a.aae®..M w°.e .a_� ` a wPehe Jul annual W III .ne In eoat III Fory Arm Among Carty notes a, NO A simet for final Aol mou� to IdIvidund IF We be Manned jf the daystrang sets of ease Inmearepal lot Mail A contral PoINAMN per this Asset had be .1di so gal beat, .1 P.M •eu.6 of Mer A II omal as ems Carl NO no Illustrate, .I.. IF hal �/, Inner' Out, one 70 core' 10 1 40 Int one w g"It arroo so Amg,ewarn 10 mtthoeraroma ,.yth a,P;,°t,"An,� ease Names. daa w. /ea., Con CWN, rage - - .D,� JM OF lor 10 IN. FAA No No ,am An Jul 31 No N1 AM 11 Mapping says ft used by wl In cal�ll�N�l Of Pill eye or gral P or be 10 graph go safe a length Man appen, INK not Far QPOS� Jay AN, A lot As a11 o d,,,ae Pam a. ma„ w.. � rather 10 AM Al be to Jose I iney". I league to the pay s ,a M,mP An no w1v.,aaP. Aal AND, My . was Ty~�sw.m aJul, e z NOTE: CITY SHALL BE RESPONSBIE FOR MAINTENANCE OF ONSITE STORM DRAINMGE FACILITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE OFFSITE SWALES. 22 1-800-9-1987 age 534-6700 DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN I 20 I 4 MINn MIN. I SCALE 1"=1G9' mI Far IFI SECTION fi e I EROSION CONTROL NOTES AFTER ME GVERLOT GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, AI..1. DISTURBED AREAS NOT IN A ROADWAY. SHALL HAYS A TEMPORARY VEGETMTION %ED APPLIED PER • ME SPECIFICATIONS ON MIS SHEET. AFTER SEEDING. A HAY OR STRAW MULCH ' SHALL BE APPLIED OVER ME SEED AT A RAZE OF 2 TY NSFAF MINIMUM, AND I d,AA ` 1.99 ME MULCH SHALL BE ADEQUATELY ANCHORED. TACKED GH CRIMPED INTO ME vlpp = 202 Ns ME PER ME METHODS DESCRIBED ON MIS SHEET. AFTICR ME UIEUTIES HAVE It e do I S - 0.7% BEEN INSTALLED, ME ROADWAY SURFACES SHOULD RECEIVE ME PAVEMENT 0 an Qua he320 cis STRUCTURE. AFTER INSTALLATION OF ME CURB INLETS, ME INLETS SHALL DEIt A FILTEREMITH A COMBINATION OF CONCRETE BLOOtS, t/2 NCH WIRE SCREEN AND 3/4 INCH COURSE GRAVEL. PER ME DETAIL Q1Op Y GN THE DETAIL SHEET s Y A i I 1 • Irvyj I SAL 4 AREA III V LONG a 6• WIDE INLET I y 6 'III Its DEEP CLASS 6 f \ 4 RIPRAP 11Y 3G" RCP S TYPE II BEDDING a t1 n mh OF fir 1or VOLUME REQUIRED 1.92 AC FI( VOLUME PROVIDED - 1,92 AC FT 100 YR. OUSEL 21.72 10 M. WSEL - 19.51 SURFACE AREA O EL 21.72 or L)4B AC 100 M. RELEASE RATE As 9.3 cps 10 M. RELEASE RATE = 37 Cis, 20' WIDE EMERGENCY OVERFLOW HEIR --10' CDCH TYPE •R• CURB INLLT E ELEV-20.58 NV CUT-1Z50_ _24V RWA EXIST. III �^��F� 70 L.F. - 34DF REACH 21" PCP w/ REFS 5COBH TYPE or CURB INLET MANHOLE 14< MANHOLE Ph DEIENTON LFROF ainlT ATRPIR,Hn (SEE LET TAIL ON TH, H) EXIST VV EXISTING 51",E HYDROLOGY Tot I Distureed Area FROM acres Roll C - 0,20 DRAINAGE BASIN STATISTICS Gross PI It IE Area I6.78 acres Gross Area C - 0.51 Net PI tttl Area - 1236 acres Net M tl - 037 OEVELLOM SITE HYDROLOGY CESGN EARN AREA "C" q 0im POINT (oc) (cN) (RAN) 1 1 2.85 047 24 9.3 1 2 5 1209 0 49 8.9 _ 365 3 3 3.26 047 3.0_ 115 3A 3-5 9..H1 0.48 7.1 27.9 ♦ 4 3 56 0.46 _ 2.8 _ 10.5 _.. 5 -. S..3 O.4B _.- __.__-_ 4.8 18.1 _ 6 1- 1 8 - i1 72 V2 Oil 051 Mb ] T 3. 12.5 8 1 18.6E 051 14.3 _ 04 4 0w _ 2,88 10.00 o _0-4 U-1 0 � divi O.a9 O.SD 0.fi0 - 2.12 1 32 its OWOM o. �Mw " •I 1'R' OURBL INLET T - )` .. MANHOLE ITS T2 aI EXIST. red, .1110" FIX romi or Ol e PER FINAL DRAINAGE M EROSION CONTRM STUDY FOR ME SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SEE FT. COLLINS COLORADO EXISTING CONTOUP !+ -B9-� PROPOSED OON IR FLOWLWE � �• PROPOSED BTOH1 , EXIST 3 r j DIRECTION OF FL h P P TI Q1 DESIGN POINT - -IF,., DRAINAGE BASIN jOUN0F I. 0 IN PIPE-41.30 FIX a RCP 1 1 BASIN NUMBER k ,(MPURARY) 0 IN PIPE-36 W c/s 1.66 4 BASIN AREA TO FULL DEVELOPMENT) I IBD YEAR s oqn' _�- _, -��- s MANHOLE IIIi� F CURB/AREA NLEI rRA[EL FILTER IF - •D1W IN PILL OR 10 c15 IIr` DEVELOPED FLOW RATES PER AA,PRUVED OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY FOR •MIOWOOD FARMS, BY RHO INC. he t injected Is Add o no up c ra I al Anchor a r Fri or t00% FIR ad IF AIR land I FI ad I Oriental onnar arm leaned Am, ad A Indian Find Alloorn Control pords. RALF14 be Fair I. OF bi Mi Ono door And vi ro soared. Form reform dr, ..... ad Idea ar di mind Famous Dy-pr�Oa shorld AN da, arearseged Its tire H mite di 1. and droo ond mand He) notion the mi parend IF He Ron' Y "not settle 'A Old across androonorty 1. nothrome to or control sediments in AFF amendment Find mIi It the role on 11 air, nine .. n ""...,U.. .., w_o-" n r.1 an. . LI small no IF nnn is a mt OFF an, .n x a. o . _.. e. .. NOTE CITY 5 rL '.1 LULL r q iN FNDN'[ Oi ONSTE'i "Alf I TO I1 )A`. ONTHESE P,AN I I I FII'.IVEw E NLIALL FOR MAINTENANL OFF I I. Y As --� IF 1A I sa, As W' 1-800-922-1987 Am 534-6700 eac.,. � irmee __F IF -- Engineering Consultants n 1 199s i ITT VVELu wuuu rAHM, xLAvrvu r'dING P.U.D. FORT COLLINS, COL DRAINAGE DRAINAGE &EROSION CONTROL PLAN 9=01121 0 WEST HALF OF I NTT R 9 LRa NS MTO THE RO/A31De DITCH UNDETAINED AZ IT 00 HISTORICALLY. 36 PRom swmm RNN uTleF 30 EMIR swmm FDd CITY OF FORT COLLINS COLORADO ENGINEERING DIVISION a NOTE LEGEND 1, POND AFEAZ ME Sc4EIAATIC ONW, ,i THE POND AREAS AND VOWDIES AFE PR AND COULD CHANGE IN SIZE FOR RIIGfuJXCT FINAL LOCATIONS PND VOLUm E$ 61,0IGS DEPENDING ON OEPTH 4 BOTTOM 5LOPE5. E TO THE Z&FER iD OForf FRI G 6ASIN CESIGNATION 06 IAL 9 RBD COGISJ a N06PIiPL LT PoFT fUNe Z DEVEID FLAW THAT ENTER THE ENG WEFR WG roNSULTpNTS DUNE 1989. NEE. TUAS y61N ACREPGE CANYON DITCH W1 LL QE(]IIIRE SP CA 90V APPROVAL (C.LSW 6). �— snEErs SHEET 77o N� X DESIOHED CHECKED J:M ENIPRR rinp Con ftnto NL.R.L s.n. ]m WILD WOOD FARM MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN 1 1 T/v/ee ?2U,00s 9900 Saah c°11.9, m,• • 1209 N..u°Xlly 9Ha.. S..l°v0 VATS°."°^'°SS PTION PRO DATE PROTECT XQ Fon Cwlnl C111,16e SUS25 C°Y.°a° sPNY•. C°wnae 90007 IO0474-6I93135T 303I216-4955 �R.,. . wA.•- _ = - .� / -+c _- .f- _ :r w p: • fop�l r..w of y�. s v w 7Z 1/ of •. 't ��.. frf if ` `,LF It y, 41 Iq■ off, 34d3SC�,'fvff6. '.�I of / \ n '� ^,.. Y p J pyp^d fl tf �'k`�h� y .yam. _ at y� �J L9r 1 firr � (k� •'Cx r F ` ^t% If If . %;;t o'4N. a p If ,� it : S• rR �� 4 ?t14 1t L TNo L Lof t L ret i 1 L tog. LL rill '`t.( Y„� 'J'� 'y* l '�v Y )R• off fo�L, 5eL t If of If ff.�'-:� A.Y M rt LLL ILI'` Zo, lz fol 41, If r xa *-��