HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 06/15/1995Final
1 ,• ' * r ,
ort
imitormTy
ate
O.
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR
WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D.
THIRD FILING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
vt
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR
WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D.
THIRD FILING
FORT.COLLINS, COLORADO
,March 13, 1995
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. 553-002
TMINC.
Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
303/482-5922
FAX:303/482-6368
March 13, 1995
Mr. Basil Harridan
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. Third Filing
Dear Basil:
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. Third Filing. All computations
within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins
Storm Drainage Design Criteria.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if
you have any questions.
Respectfully,
RBD Inc. Engineering CqUag
Prepared by:
Tim J. iley�
Design Engineer
Reviewed by:
d4
# 3 0, 3zs�
y'E:`Kevin W. Gingery, P.E.
Water Resources Project Manager
Denver303/458-5526
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
6
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
6
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS
6
V. EROSION CONTROL
6
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
6
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS
7
VI. CONCLUSIONS
7
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
7
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT
7
C. STORM WATER QUALITY
7
D. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT
7
REFERENCES
8
APPENDIX
VICINITY MAP 1
HYDROLOGY 2
DETENTION 10
DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM SEWER AND SWALES 20
EXCERPTS FROM THE McCLELLANDS BASIN MASTER PLAN 42
EXCERPTS FROM THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL DRAINAGE STUDY 47
EROSION CONTROL 57
CHARTS, FIGURES AND TABLES, 64
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR
WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D. THIRD FILING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
The Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Third Filing development is located in the
southeast part of .Fort Collins, south of Harmony Road. and west of
County Road 9. Located immediately to the north of the site is the Wild
Wood Farm P.U.D. .Second Filing. To the west of the site is the
Southeast Junior High School. The properties to the south and east of
the site are currently used for agricultural purposes. 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 Properly
The Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Third Filing contains 12.2 acres more or
less. The area is currently used for agricultural purposes and is being
proposed for single-family residential construction with 45 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. Major Basin Description
The Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Third 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
1
I
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.
111. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
tA. Regulations
The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for
the subject site.
B. Develooment 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 fort he 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 in the appendix.
ID. Hydraulic Criteria
All calculations. within this study, have been prepared in accordance with
the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria.
' E. Variances from Criteria
tNo variances are being sought for this project.
1 2
.1
' IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concept
Most of the on -site runoff produced by the proposed development will
flow southeasterly to a detention pond located at the southeast corner
of the site. Detained developed released flows will be combined with
' offsite 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. The portion draining onto Corbett Drive is accounted for
in the design of Corbett Drive and is to be detained in the Junior High
School site detention pond.
B. S2ecific Details
' The project site has been broken into 12 sub -basins, most of which drain
into the detention pond located in the southeast corner of the site. The
site runoff is conveyed via the streets to a low point in Indigo Circle
" South in the southeast corner of the site. The depth of street flow for the
street is under the capacity allowed per the City of Fort Collins criteria.
The minor storm is to be intercepted in curb inlets at the low point in
' Indigo Circle and enter into a storm sewer system which outlets into the
detention pond. The 100 year storm runoff is to'overtop the curb and
walk and flow directly into the detention pond.
' Basin 100 contains lots 1 through 6 and half of lot 7 as well as the
northern half of Avena Court. The lots drain toward the streets and flow
is directed easterly onto Indigo Circle South where it flows to the south.
Basin 101 contains lots 8 through 12 and half of lots 7 and 13 as well
' as the southern half of Avena Court. Runoff from the lots flow toward
the street where it is directed to the east and onto Indigo Circle South,
where it combines with flows from basin 100.
Basin 104 consists of half of lots 13 and 14 and a portion of Indigo
Circle South. Flow is directed to the -street and combines with flow from
basins 100 and 101 and. flows to the south to the low point in Indigo
Circle South.
Basin 0-4 is from the Junior High site. The area has been increased with
the grading of the Wild Wood Farm Third Filing which has flows
drainaing onto Corbett Drive. The flow rate for this Basin has increased
from calculated rates of 2.86 cfs to 3.25 cfs for the 2 year storm and
3
from 10.00 cfs to 11.38 cfs for the 100 year storm. The existing 5' curb
inlet capacity is able to accept the increased flow. The runoff from this
Basin is to be detained in the detention pond for the Junior High School
site which was designed to detain a larger area than is actually flowing
to it so the increased area from the Third Filing site has no effect on the
existing Junior High School pond. Calculations, for the existing pond are
included in the appendix for the sizing of the pond.
Basin 102 consists of lots 15 through 20 and half of lots 14 and 21 as
well as the north half of Indigo Circle South fronting these lots. The lots
all drain toward the street where flow combines with runoff from Basin
103 and is directed easterly to the low point in Indigo Circle South. Flow
at this low point combines with runoff from Basins 100, 101 and 104
and the 2 year storm event, 6.72 cfs, is to be intercepted in a 5' Type
'R' curb inlet. The 100 year storm event, 25.06 cfs, exceeds the
capacity of the storm sewer pipe by 18.27 cfs. This excess runoff is to
overtop the crown of the street at.a depth of 0.25' which is below the
city's allowable depth of 0.50'.
' Basin 103 contains Wild Rose Court and all lots fronting the street. Flow
is directed southerly onto Indigo Circle South where it is directed to the
east to the low point in Indigo Circle South.
Basin 200 contains the front half of 30 through 40 and the southern half
of Indigo Circle South from the highpoint in the road near Corbett Drive.
to the low point in Indigo Circle South adjacent to the detention pond.
Flow is directed to the east to the low point in the street where it
combines with 1.65 cfs 2 year runoff and 6.17 cfs 100 year runoff from
basin 201.
Basin 201 contains lots 41 through 44 and the east half of Indigo Circle
South fronting these lots. Flow from the tots is directed towards the
street where it heads south to the low point in Indigo Circle South. The
2 year storm storm is to be intercepted in a 5' curb inlet, while the major
storm is to combine with flows from design point 3 which overtop the
crown. The flow which exceeds the pipe capacity of 9.53 cfs is then to
overtop the curb and walk at a depth of 0.36' and.a rate of 25.97 cfs
and flow directly into the detention pond.
Basin 300 contains the west half of County Road 9 from the high point
located near the northern boundary of the site to the high point located
near the southern boundary of the site. Runoff from basin 0-1 from the
Second Filing flows into basin 300. The flow rates from Basin 0-1 are
0.73 cfs and 2.86 cfs for the 2 and 100year storms. This runoff is
iH
accounted for -in the calculations. The flow from these two basins, 1.94
cfs for the 2 year storm and 8.55 cfs for the 100 year storm, is
intercepted by a proposed 5' curb inlet located at the low point in County
Road 9 located adjacent to the north end of the detention pond. The flow
then enters the detention pond through a 15" RCP.
Basin 301 contains the area of the detention pond. Flows from the other
basins are all directed to basin,301. The outlet for the pond has been
designed for multiple release rates. These release rates have been
determined from the allowable 0.2 cfs/acre for the 10 year storm and 0.5
cfs/ acre for the 100 year storm events. These release rates were
calculated to be 2.35 cfs minus 1.01 cfs for Basin 302 being undetained
for the 10 year year storm and 5.88 cfs minus 1.99 cfs for Basin 302 for
the 100 year storm. All flow is released from the pond and enters the
existing storm sewer system along County Road 9. This flow continues
to the south to where.it outlets in the McClellands Basin Drainageway.
' Basin 302 contains the rear half of lots 30 through 40. Flow is directed
to the south and is to be released undetained into the existing swale
' south of the site which carries flows from the Junior High School
detention pond.
' The F.A.A. method has been utilized to size the detention pond at the
southeast corner of the site. Pond models were developed for the 10
year and the 100 year storm events. The required size of the pond is
' 1.328 acre-feet for the 100 year storm event with a release rate of 3.89
cfs and 0.736 acre-feet for the 10 year storm event with a release rate
of 1.34 cfs. The pond is to be built with 1 foot of freeboard and an
' emergency overflow weir. Releases from the pond are to an existing
storm sewer system along County Road 9 which conveys water to the
south into the McClellands drainageway. The storm sewer system was
' designed to carry detained developed flows from all areas draining to it.
This rate of 69.1 cfs which it was designed for has been recalculated to
be 70.53 cfs due to an increase in the area which is to be detained and
' released into the system. A new storm sewer analysis has been done for
this increased flow rate and is included in the appendix.
V. STORM WATER QUALITY
' A. General Concept
' Beginning in October of 1992, the water quality of storm water runoff
5 •
1
'
was required to be addressed on all final design utility plans. The Wild
Wood Farm P.U.D. Third Filing development is anticipating construction
beginning in the Fall of 1994. Therefore practices for treatment of storm
water quality runoff have been incorporated in the design process.
'
B. Specific Details
The concept of storm water quality should address the treatment of the
'
initial first flush of runoff. By capturing.the initial first flush of runoff in
a water quality pond, the pollutants can be filtered out of the storm
'
water runoff.
Included on sheet 18 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 southeast
corner of the site.
' VI. EROSION CONTROL
A. General Concept
' The Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Third 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 1994.
' 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 77.9% during
construction and 91.6% after construction. From the calculations in the
appendix, the effectiveness of the proposed erosion -control plan is
88.5% during the construction portion of this development and 99.0%
' after construction. Therefore the erosion control plan will meet the City
of Fort Collins requirements.
' B. Specific Details
' Before overlot grading, the detention pond shall be over excavated to
provide a sediment trap with 0.73 acre feet of volume and constructed
' 6
I
with the water quality outlet per detail on sheet 18 of the plans. After
the overlot grading has been completed, all disturbed areas, not in a
' 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 coarse gravel.
' The estimate of probable costs for -erosion control is ($5,880)x(1.5) _
' $8,820 for an escrow amount. .
VI. CONCLUSIONS
' A. Compliance with Standards
' All computations within this report have been completed in compliance
with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria.
' B. Drainage Conceot
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 Co'ncent
' 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.
7
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.
6. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Wild Wood Farm P.U.D. Second
Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., December 1993.
7. Final drainage and Erosion Control Study for Southeast Junior High School, Fort
Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., April 1993.
N.
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX
EAST HARMONY ROAD
-------------------
PROJECT
SITE
rav®�sr�m dE
cr
� Q
O
Z
O
U
VICINITY MAP
I
z/
0
Wild Wood Faun Third Filing
This sheet calculates the composite "C" values.
TJ B
9-23-94
rov A�17_QS
Design
Area
Impervious
"C"
Pervious
"C"
A,total
ac.
A,imp
ac.
Percent
Im erviou
Percent
Pervious
Composite
"C"
100
0.95
0.25
1.79
0.62
34.6
65.4
0.49
101
0.95
0.25
1.37
0.53
38.7
61.3
0.52
1021
0.95
0.25
1.741
0.72
41.4
58.6
0.54
103
0.95
0.25
1.741
0.73
42.0
58.0
0.54
104
0.95
0.25
0.31
0.13
43.3
56.7
0.55
200
0.95
0.25
1.69
0.92
54.4
45.6
0.63
201
0.95
0.25
0.59
0.38
64.4
35.6
0.70
300
0.95
0.25
0.99
0.5
50.5
49.5
0.60
301
0.95
0.25
0.52
0
0.0
100.0
0.25
302
0.95
0.25
0.54
0.06
11.1
88.9
0.33
0-4
0.95
0.2
2.61
1.41
54.2
45.8
0.61
0-1
0.95
0.25
0.491
0.23
46.9
53.1
0.58
IN
RMINC
Engineering. Consultants
CLIENT Me-&3 Qf4t_ rj 9'0 t- i Zo h 5 / JOB NO. SS 3 -66L
PROJECT
^w-�� C��`-' emq//� r CALCULATIONS FOR
7-`O T/OLV\�G
MADEBY ' !' DATE ` LtA+CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
51
i K,
_
o
M
_
�
�
o
4
00
M
N
N
�
J
0
co
W a v
N
M
1
jQ
Q(n�
'
•
V
o
4
11
U)
v
In N M W uy-
4
V --
00
\
z N
d �, . N1 N Cd
1= • --,
e, Cr Q F F
cd
� 0
U W
• Q 0
N z�•`4 .
1LL•oOW
h- W V
CC Z �" w a o^,tp
0 LU > LPl(1 US }-
LL
1 Z W
cC O
a � m o% '
cr
Ir ° 0 0C O O o
L I z y in ♦ b' Q
F .
U
J � Z
a0 U W --- uj nW IQQ 1
Cl 00 U o V O W a �w ''+-
1 x o
F... z
N o°
1 N' Mo 0 _ W
M UN t D LA
U N a u
z
_n N OOaa o0 � Oo �
�.
0 �a a �- a z
1 v � Q qWq a M Imo` `9 Ui ,n <
^ m0 4
u d O O
• o -- a o I I h..
No Text
No Text
Timbers rie CHARTER HOSPITAL
Eov .
' HARMONY ROAD
i
3 222
♦
gl
-Q
.221
1994 NIOR HIGH SCHOOL�SQl.E
220
219
WILD
/Jv
_\`\
)D FARM
Rood
107
PROJECT
S I TE
210
5 206
208 31 f i
ION-OFTH $WMM.SCHEMATICbF
_TH c
DS._BASIN_________--
AID
r1A ,5b
I
0
J
0
DETENTION
1
TDINC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT P15f t
JOB NO.
PROJECT k)'I 9
Lk-61FCk-rf"\- 3; �LULATIONS FOR
MADE SYT-75DATE 4L-Y--VCHECKED BY - DATE
SHEETOF
H it I
J
-1 -L-i 4-i-
4
It
Fr T
it
7 7, 1-.
;It
--------- --
-L-L-
r7
..........
7
]A-0
- ------
L J-
4
J
-j-d-L
41,
--- --- I
it I 1
4-1
:It
-I T-7-
If
--j
1-d-
+
17
It
it
1, A-L" ---------
J
------ -
-4-
----------
------ ...
A-
JN .
--- - -- - -----
-.1
--------------
-----
-------
... ... .....
------
L. _J---
---
----- --- - ---------
T-
- -
-----
-------
--- ------
'
DETENTION POND S121NG BY FAA METH00
Developed by
Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng.
Supported by Denver Metro Cities/Counties
Dept., U. of Colorado
Pool Fund Study
'
Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Colorado
USER=KEVIN GINGERY RBD INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO ..............................
'
EXECUTED ON 05-15-1995 AT TIME 08:07:39
PROJECT TITLE: WILD WOOD FARM 3RD FILING 10 YEAR POND
'
**** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION
BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00
BASIN AREA (acre)= 11.22
RUNOFF COEF = 0.53
DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS
DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 10.00
'
INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS
DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50
GIVEN
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
= 1.34 CFS
'
OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
= .95
AVERAGE RELEASE RATE
= 1.273 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 0.24 0.01
0.23
10.00 4.40 0.36 0.02
0.35
15.00 3.80 0.47 0.03
20.00 3.20 0.53 0.04
0.44
0.49
25.00 2.90 0.60 0.04
0.55
30.00 2.60 0.64 0.05
0.59
35.00 2.40 0.69 0.06
0.63
40.00 2.20 0.73 0.07
0.66
'
45.00 2.05 0.76 0.08
0.68
50.00 1.90 0.78 0.09
0.70
55.00 1.75 0.79 0.10
0.70
'
60.00 1.60 0.79 0.11
65.00 1.52 0.82 0.11
0.69
0.70
70.00 1.45 0.84 0.12
0.72
75.00 1.38 0.85 0.13
0.72
80.00 1.30 0.86 0.14
0.72
85.00 1.25 0.88 0.15
0.73
'
90.00 1.20 0.89 0.16
0.73
95.00 1.15 0.90 0.17
0.74
100.00 1.10 0.91 0.18
0.73
'
105.00 1.05 0.91 0,18
110.00 1.00 0.91 0.19
0,73
0.72
115.00 0.95 0.90 0.20
0.70
120.00 0.90 0.89 0.21
0.68
125.00 0.88 0.91 0.22
0.69
'
THE REQUIRED POND S12E _ .7357367 ACRE
l D 7Ca f tic I� V e li rn�
-FT
THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND
STORAGE= 95 MINUTES
1 3/
I
J
I
1
DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD
Developed by
Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept., U. of Colorado
Supported by Denver Metro Cities/Counties Pool Fund Study
Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Colorado
USER=KEVIN GINGERY RBD INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO ..............................
EXECUTED ON 05-12-1995 AT TIME 14:37:42
PROJECT TITLE: WILD WOOD FARM 3RD FILING
**** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION
BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00
BASIN AREA (acre)= 11.22
RUNOFF COEF = 0.66
***** 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 = 3.89 CFS
OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .97
AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 3.7733 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
0.46
0.03
0."
MOO
7.30
0.75
0.05
0.70
15.00
6.25
0.96
0.08
0.89
20.00
5.20
1.07
0.10
0.97
25.00
4.70
1.21
0.13
1.08
30.00
4.20
1.30
0.16
1.14
35.00
3.85
1.39
0.18
1.20
40.00
3.50
1.44
0.21
1.23
45.00
3.25
1.50
0.23
1.27
50.00
3.00
1.54
0.26
1.28
55.00
2.80
1.58
0.29
1.30
60.00
2.60
1.60
0.31
1.29
65.00
2.47
1.65
0.34
1.32
70.00
2.35
1.69
0.36
1.33
75.00
2.22
1.72
0.39
1.33
80.00
2.10
1.73
0.42
1.31
85.00
2.00
1.75
0.44
1.31
90.00
1.90
1.76
0.47
1.29
95.00
1.80
1.76
0.49
1.26
100.00
1.70
1.75
0.52
1.23
-----------------------------------------------------
THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = 1.328066 ACRE -FT r ' jzgl.I U61L3
THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 70 MINUTES
1
11
I
r
I
I
I
11
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMNC
Engineering Consultants
p,,,-r kj W�f-;.7-6\(4
CLIENT JOB No 5S3-eck
PROJECT b30A FO-r" ULATIONSFOR U6, �6 ej
MADE BY60ATEL-;Z—R-UCHECKED BY DATE —SHEET— OF
EL
rt
:7-5:
L L-
TO- �--I
7-
F
11
i-I 7.
r- j I
1-H
------ ---
----- - J
-T-
I I I I I if
L' L
iTt
IS
7,
1T TT
4.
.........
...
I -A
1 1-4
L
it _7
T
-------
I I
i
1 L
�4-1112
LL-i-
--f- U ipj
[if
ILL.
A --- i-E-E
Ei
t
I A!
1 !IT,!:
A
-T-
: Yk.j..
L
e-.
--
- ---------
--- - -----
7-
T
7
i
-- ---------
Y
CLIENT '' '. \` ki ', \\ �1e '` b�`�'� �(s� JOB NO. SS -3 -eM
■AINC PROJECT S/�I l� W6�T0.1 MS 'CALCULATIONS FOR I do'- MIL
t Engineering Consultants MADE BY fxaATE CHECKED BY- DATE SHEET OF
I
NC
Engineering Consultants
1
I
r
1
J
CLIENT l Iy �� ,w` ���G'rh w7 r� �Dltii JOB NO. SS 3 �Q IOC
PROJECT
-�U� 1�� W�LVAA FO-rV" 7 �CULATIONS FOR o �e11���� L
MADE BY I .i 'JDATE' �MHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
_6 , :
1-7/
CLIENT P& v; Eck's JOBNO. 5S.3--0,57-
NC PROJECT 'CALCULATIONS FOR E>n t, A, 6 A��
Engineering Consultants MADE BY ��ATE j_-9L9CHECKED BY -DATE -SHEET OF -
EVIN
RMINC
Engineering Consultants
I JJ
CLIENT /1/'L-LO r�. 156�r �D 1�(Z�6 Yi. 5 JOB NO. S1SI 3 — B 6 Z
PROJECT
'�s✓�--� 1 I� W bi9k 5—1 A S, J CAA�LCULATIONS FOR.�K
MADEBY +� 5DATE�HCHECKEO BY DATE SHEET OF
/p
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1�
1
1
1
1
1
1
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA
WILD WOOD FARM - 3RD fILING
DETENTION POND EMERGENCY OVERFLOW WEIR
ii. i
ice,
WEIR
COEF.
7
3.000
ELEV
4
4
-STA-
-----
.0
21.50
4.0
20.50
s
19.0
20.50
23.0
21.50
ELEVATION
DISCHARGE
(feet)
(cfs)
---------
20.50
---------
0.0
20.60
1.4
20.70
4.2
20.80
7.8
20.90
12.2
21.00
17.4
21.10
23.321.20
n
3Z��s
a e-y, - zi 35
21.30
37.s�oe=4�
21.40
44.9<
21.50
53.5
DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM SEWER AND SWALES
10 12
5
II 10 4
.9 8
3
8 10 6,/ tJ"
p �-7 G 5�0� U. 2
l 9 LL 4 DO ��I �'w
- a 3. G �� Z
e a
6 /N2�
I
1-0
z jP�-{—Stor-rA Z
.5 Example_Part a 1'0 .9
J Z
w
5.5 0 — o .8
us v .6
F- w U W
w 5 s o 7
w z-
i.. .4 Z w .4 _
z 4.5 z. 0 3 w .6
t ^. U- s
q 0 5
� s .2
z z
a'3 3.5w w '.4
o a. O J .I w
W
o .25 3 0 0 .08 t~-
F- F- o~ .06 3
s s
co c� o z
_ _ s .04 cc ..
2.5 UJIn. - w 25 '.
.2 .03 a
a .02 0 2
a
2 a =
U 1-- •
n.
.15 .01 o .15
L ti
0
1.5 - --
a=2h 10
n
Figure 5-2
NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2"
Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph
MAY 19114 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA
qmNi
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT (��ejrf H JOBNO. r;;15-3-66
PROJECT �)tbk r6rI`AP 3F%LCULATIONS FOR C Q (_ 6 ri\ \e_t�'
MADE BY=5 DATE03� 14CHECKED BY —DATE SHEET— OF —
_j
j
-j
L
Urz,
L
I-E
A!Lt
------
1
X -4
-7
L
ILI_-
_:J
I F-I
�'i T
T
Til
t
-44
T
f
7II
-
77:t�� L
L
-.4
)E-
4
IL-L
--- -
--__TF
t--- --- - ---
-
------
-----
A
A;J�
............
- ---------- ----
-i
-------
--i ------
I
9/
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
T:DINC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT LZW O'e61- Her;moons —JOB NO. '5 5 5 -6
I '7S
MADE BY 1
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR CO t -r&0 1(n_�
15 DATB9__3"4 CHECKED BY -DATE -SHEET- OF
1
M
L
_Ll�_
4---
7
T
4
41
- --- - ------ - - -
_L__
7:
F
T
3
4_1 _17
'I
-7-
vrOA4;
Tl
T
7
c_
-----
-----
14-
_7
4-
-� =n l�
� I p p fig$
, � 1 e1 4
�_��,�`�{'i is
I C��s li�`� -
. �s o.-dam �
- -r i - j �
t1t
_-T
------
'd-
4
--------------
...-------
[4-
1
I
X/
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS G`, ZO-L130 Q VE.r-ToPPI !JQ IAJ
WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA WILO t, 66tp LIlr-C k F: Z..nOTH
P- Lb U3 P61 N T I tj 5Tr-EE?
WILD WOOD FARMS THIRD FILING # 3
WEIR COEF.
3.000
STA
ELEV
0.0
23.10
��2z•%(' �6uS
00.0
2.0
�
200.0
23.10
8�
ELEVATION
DISCHARGE
(feet)
---------
---------
(cfs)
22.70
0.0
22.80
22.90
1.7
9.5�
QQ
g •� cy GS zZa9 S
23.00
26.'1-
, 1
gy
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA
Desigv�. Qe i ��
WILD WOOD FARMS
Laf'041
WEIR COEF.
3.000
-STA- -ELEV
---- z3�,
0.0 23.11 ,
70.0 22.70 L
122.0 23.11
ELEVATION DISCHARGE
(feet) (cfs)
--------- ---------
22.70 0.0
22.80 1.0
2.0 5.6 �!�GG L, rs @ EL
23.00 .15.6 Q.�eD� z.7'J7
23.10 31.9
U
I
F7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
RmNC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT J 0 8 N 0. '1
PROJECT011)" Q� &E12 ALCULATIONS FOR Q L2!5f-Q EJ?-
MADE ByDATEk�CHIECKED MBY -DATE -SHEET- OF
SE.o
L
F -4-
w
Lj
-J
L-L An
PL
L3
T T
LAT
4
-7-
4 U
3 S-i-464
tlf 1
TIC
L 71.
E7
L
D
I AJ-
-L! LL
4
-7
J_
.... ..
4-
Ll
77.
-Lj-
T 7
L
T-1
71
-7
J-
7 F
i
j- -d
Z-4-41- _j_�____Lj
--t --
----- --- ---
-- ----
A
1-4
�--I- -
.2
1
U - - - -
_4 !
- -----------
L
4-
F� ------
-
I
7
- --------- - ---
-L
T-1
- ---
---------
t----
i
z/
1
--------------
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
-----------------------
1 *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY .............................................
ON DATA 05-15-1995 AT TIME 10:58:48
*** PROJECT TITLE
' WILD WOOD FARMS THIRD FILING
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 2 YEARS
*** 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
9.48
19.00
17.15
OK.
2.00
0.00
5.11
0.00
9.48
22.25
20.01
OK
3.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
6.72
22.25
20.87
OK
4.00
0.01
5.00
672.00
6.72
22.25
20.99
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
1
TO NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
WIDTH
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.00
2.00
1.00
ROUND
11.68
15.00
15.00
0.00
12.00
3.00
2.00
ROUND
14.96
18.00
15.00
0.00
'
13.00
4.00
3.00
ROUND
14.96
18.00
15.00
0.00
' DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
' FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT
' ID FLOW Q FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' 11.0 9.5 18.5 0.63 15.19 1.15 8.02 7.72 3.79 V-OK
12.0 6.7 6.8 1.01 6.31 1.04 8.71 5.48 1.07 V-OK
13.0 6.7 6.8 1.01 6.31 1.04 6.17 5.48 1.07 V-OK
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION I BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
% (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.00 8.17 18.86 16.00 2.14 1.75 NO
12.00 1.10 19.30 18.86 1.70 2.14 NO
' 13.00 1.10 19.30 19.30 1.70 1.70 NO
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
' FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
11.00 35.00 0.00 20.11 17.25 20.01 17.15 JUMP
12.00 40.00 34.98 20.55 20.11 20.87 20.01 JUMP
13.00 0.10 0.10 20.55 20.55 20.99 20.87 PRSSIED
PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
' *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT 10 FT
-------------------------------------------------------`-----------------------
' 11.0 2.00 20.94 2.86 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 1.00 17.15
12.0 3.00 21.34 0.38 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.00 20.94
13.0 4.00 21.45 0.00 0.25 0.12 0.00 0.00 3.00 21.34
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
' A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O.
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
1
RWINC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT Qe-d JOB NO.
- rj
PROJECTO" 11 OtAl FOXPA 25 )c), p
MADE By 7:73 DAT4:9j-fCHECKED BY -DATE -SHEET -OF
I
T, -tee
r
_q
L
+W
J. t
f-A
I T
i
-7 1
I-T-
j
-7
-L L
Z-
i7l -I
T
1-4
L
I'
-
7
A.J f
7-
-J---
------ -
t
i 7
Ll
7
J- -4-1.
t-+
4
4 L
77
. ..... j
3 U
-- --- -- ----- 7.4
r
Nb
Ll
_41
pc A
'LA
--
----- ------ ----
-.w
b
-
0
---------
------
A 1
-- i; -i- -
At ........ .
------- ------
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENTOe-u3 0 e,�t, R� �t � nA!5 JOB NO. '5.5 5 -66 Z
PROJECT V1%U U)6WI &N'A'> '`CALCULATIONS FOR UQ65_Lja?L
MADE BY m> DATE _!�__2_"HECKED BY -DATE -SHEET- OF
-7
L
1 LI 1
L
_J
14
----- -
4-
_IL! L 1 i i
7
1 L
J-1
+
_ILI
Ni VNd_
Sam
14
A
F 7_7
-----
- ------
-7-
LIL
---------------
4
TT---
F_
L
41-
_-L_L
T
ET,
'j
T_
+4 . . . . . . . . .
_AILL14-
__j ---- -
- -------
T
. ..... ....
t
_r_,__
_T
4-
T
L
T
T
7-
7
_.T
---------- --
... ...... ... ....
!_J ---
------ --
J-i
j,
---
J.
L
T�
----- ----- - -----
1
--------------- -----------------------------------
REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
USING UDSEWER-MOOEL VERSION 4
DEVELOPED
BY
JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHO, 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 05-15-1995 AT TIME 11:14:58
*** PROJECT TITLE
' WILD WOOD FARMS - THRD FILING
*** 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
----
8.55 22.00 19.20
----
OK
2.00 0.00 5.00
0.00
8.55 20.07 19.36
OK
3.00 0.01 5.00
855.00
8.55 20.07 19.55
OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER
THAN GROUND
ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH
-TO -SEWER
SIZE RAT10= .8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH)
WIDTH
'
NO. ID NO.--------_--(IN)-(FT)
(IN) (FT) (IN) (FT)
.---- _---- ._.__----
(FT)
-----------ID
--------------
11.00 2.00 1.00
ROUND
__-_---- _----
12.27 15.00 15.00
0.00
'
12.00 3.00 2.00
ROUND
12.27 15.00 15.00
0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH
SEWER
ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE
IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED
BY SEWER
HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
'
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED
BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE
SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISTTNG SIZE WAS USED
1
-----"'---------------------"'------------------.._...-----------------------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL
NORAML
CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE
COMMENT
ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
'
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET
FPS
FEET FPS FPS
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0 8.6 14.7 0.69
12.41
1.12 7.36 6.97 2.94
V-OK
12.0 8.6 14.7 0.69
12.41
1.12 7.36 6.97 2.94
V-OK
v
37�
' 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
' 11.00 5.13 17.32 14.50 1.50 6.25 NO
12.00 5.13 17.32 17.31 1.50 1.51 NO
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
1 ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
' ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.00 55.00 52.59 18.57 15.75 19.36 19.20 JUMP
12.00 0.10 0.10 18.57 18.56 19.55 19.36 PRSSIED
PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
' *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
1D NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
---------'---------------------------------------------------------------------
' 11.0 2.00 20.12 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 19.20
12.0 3.00 20.31 0.00 0.25 0.19 0.00 0.00 2.00 20.12
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.
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7
I
I
RWNG
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT JOBNO. 55
PROJECT "-"a W&J- SX-I 3CALCULATIONS FOR �; It' g
MADE BY� DATEAL29-71-ACHECKED BY -DATE -SHEET- OF
1
Pko
L i
P
---
_4T
TC:
_J
L-1
1 L
--- ---
_4_4
-
_t L
r
T
LA
e_
_LL
rl
71 1
L:
Ll i
_1 L
LL-.;
- -----
Ati
T T
__4 LLL
1-j-
j
-j-
---------- --
_4
-4
J
i..
--------
-- -
--- ---
-,i �1
4 ......
...
-4-
-ELL
----- --- -----
--
. .........
------
- ---
---- -- ---
..
........
J..
--------- --
-----
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 09-30-1994 AT TIME 11:25:17
*** PROJECT TITLE
' COUNTY ROAD 9 STORM SEWER W/ 3RD FILING DETENTION CONCEPT
' *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS
*** 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
--------
"""""-""'-------""-------------------".'.-
5.00
4.
9.30
21.25
18.36
OK
14.00
5.00
.90
9.30
21.25
18.32
OK
13.00
5.00
4.90
32.00
21.06
20.00
OK
12.00
5.00
4.90
32.00
21.06
19.84
OK
11.00
5. 6
. 4.90
41.30
22.00
18.14
OK
10.00
'
4.90
41.30
21.90
17.81
OK
9.00
�4
w
XLOWE.
4.90
41.30
19.61
16.05
OK
8.00
0.3
4.90
70.53
20.00
15.23
OK
7.00
0.00
0.00
70.53
20.50
15.39
OK
17.00
7.88
.90
41.30
20.60
16.96
OK
18.00
10.00
4. 0
5.88
23.00
16.06
OK
19.00
5.00
4.9
5.98
23.00
16.07
OK
OK MEANS WATER
1
N IS LOWER THAN GR UND 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(H1GH)
WIDTH
'
ID NO.
ID NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(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
1
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
8.00
7.00
ROUND
47.68
54.00
42.00
0.00
25.00 15.00 14.00 ROUND 13.26 15.00 24.00 0.00
26.00 18.00 8.00 ROUND 17.20 18.00 36.00 0.00
27.00 19.00 18.00 ROUND 17.20 18.00 36.00 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 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH 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 70.5 50.4 3.50 7.33 2.63 9.08 7.33 0.00 V-OK
25.0 9.3 45.4 0.61 11.35 1.09 40.11 2.96 3.00 V-OK
26.0 5.9 42.3 0.76 4.21 0.80 27.44 0.83 1.01 V-OK
27.0 5.9 42.3 0.76 4.21 0.80 3.91 0.83 1.01 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)
19.00
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
0.40
8.47
8.15
11.53
8.85
OK
27.00
0.40
8.47
8.47
11.53
11.53
OK
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1.5 FEET
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET
FEET
FEET -
FEET
FEET
FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.00
500.00
500.00
14.89
14.14
16.96
16.05
PRSSIED
20.00
500.00
500.00
15.64
14.89
17.81
16.96
PRSSIED
21.00
70.00
70.00
15.75
15.65
18.14
17.81
PRSSIEO
22.00
260.00
.260.00
16.14
14.76
19.84
18.14
PRSSIED
23.00
0.10
0.10
16.14
16.14
20.00
19.84
PRSSIED
24.00
12.00
12.00
14.80
14.25
18.32
18.14
PRSSIED
18.00
33.00
33.00
14.14
14.09
16.05
.15.23
PRSSIED
17.00
130.00
130.00
14.05
13.73
15.23
15.39
PRSSfED
25.00
0.10
0.10
14.80
14.80
18.36
18.32
PRSSIED
26.00 80.00 80.00 11.47 11.15 16.06 15.23 PRSSIED
27.00 0.10 0.10 11.47 11.47 16.07 16.06 PRSSIED
PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
----------------------------------------------------------------"....-"------
-PST 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
19.0
- _ ------""---------------------""---------------"'----""-""--
17.00 ' 17.25 0.84
0.25 0.07 . 0.00 0.00
9.00
16.34
20.0
10.00 18.10 0.84
0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00
17.00
17.25
21.0
11.00 18.43 0.12
0.75 0.21 0.00 0.00
10.00
18.10
22.0
12.00 20.50 1.57
0.75 0.49 0.00 0.00
11.00
18.43
v'S
23.0
13.00 20.66 0.00
0.25 0.16 0.00 0.00
12.00
20.50
�
24.0
14.00 18.46 0.02
0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00
11.00
18.43
�j ��r+.1
18.0
17.0
9.00 16.34 0.06
8.00 16.07 0.64
0.75 0.21 0.00 0.00
0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00
8.00
7.00(i5
16
39�
6 M ��� 5 eA
r y
25.0
15.00 18.49 0.00
0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00
14.00
DS E LjEr. B
26.0
18.00 16.08 0.01
0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.00
16.07
4-0
27.0
19.00 16.08 0.00
0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
18.00
16.08
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL
VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL
LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT
LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE
OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO
JUMP.
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT
DROP AT MANHOLE
NOTICE:
VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS
OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O.
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED
BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
WILD WOOD FARMS THIRD FILING SWALE 302
STA
0.00
4.80
9.60
•N• VALUE
0.060
ELEV
1.20
0.00
1.20
SLOPE (ft/ft)
-------------
0.0040
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
(feet)
---------
(sq ft)
-------
(fps)
--------
(cfs)
---------
0.10
0.0
0.2
0.01
0.20
0.2
0.3
0.05
0.30
0.4
0.4
0.16
0.40
0.6
0.5
0.34
0.50
1.0
0.6
0.61
0.60
1.4
0.7
0.99
0.70
2.0
0.8
1.50
0.80
2.6
0.8
2.14
0.90
3.2
0.9
2.93
1.00
4.0
1.0
3.88
1.10
4.8
1.0
5.00
Pro�ra�n. �se5 Mo.+.��+.�'s �•
I
7•
�
9z,
FROUDE
NO.
0.16 -
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23 - f
0. 24 A I DO 3• l 0'CV-,
0.24
'Q
100+ 3 3�fe -.. 4.+ 1-7
C�S
9
TIDING
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT A J p1 yj w e��� rI 'LO ✓� �l JOB NO.
PROJECT.�A�1I�-VJ9 LCULATIONSFOR
MADE BYm DATE /�1 mcHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
49.1
�flSe- a
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 09-29-1994 AT TIME 16:23:09
*** PROJECT TITLE :
' 1994 JUNIOR HIGH - STORM SEWER IN COUNTY ROAD 9 TO MCCLELLANDS
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS
' *** 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 .00 0.00 0. 70.53 4.00 6.30 NO
2.00 0. 14.26 .00 70.53 4.75 6.40 NO
3.00 0.00 13.3 0.00 70.53 7.00 7.26 NO
4.00 0.00 2. 0.00 70.53 17.75 12,15 OK
' 1.00 0.00- 6 0.00 70.53 18.50 12.15 OK
6.00 0.00 .0 0.00 70.53 18.50 $
7.00 0.00 10.30 0.00 70.53 20.50 .3 OK (-t! ✓ti 6 �'
8.00 0. ,0.00 00 70.53 16.85 .16 OK
9.00 .10 5.00 705. 70.53 16.85 16.36 OK p
' OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION iS LOWER THAN GR NO ELEVATION 1
' *** 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)
---.-.'------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 49.72 54.00 48.00 0.00
12.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 49.72 54.00 48.00 0.00
13.004.00 3.00 ROUND 33.47 36.00 42.00 0.00
14.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 47.68 54.00 42.00 0.00
15.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 47.68 54.00 42.00 0.00
' 16.00 7.00 6.00 ROUND 47.68 54.00 42.00 0.00
17.00 8.00 7.00 ROUND 47.68 54.00 42.00 0.00
18.00 9.00 8.00 ROUND 47.68 54.00 42.00 0.00
' DIMENSION UNITS FOR POUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
I�
4j
' 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
1D FLOW 0 FULL Q DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER
CFS CFS FEET
FPS
FEET
FPS FPS
---------'.'---------------"'------------.-,-----------------------------------
11.0
70.5 64.4 4.00
5.61
2.53
8.41 5.61 0.00 V-OK
'
12.0
70.5 64.4 4.00
5.61
2.53
8.41 5.61 0.00 V-OK
13.0
70.5 129.6 1.84
13.76
2.63
9.08 7.33 2.00 V-OK
14.0.
70.5 50.4 3.50
7.33
2.63
9.08 7.33 0.00 V-OK
15.0 '
70.5 50.4 3.50
7.33
2.63
9.08 7.33 0.00 V-OK
'
16.0
70.5 50.4 3.50
7.33
2.63
9.08 7.33 0.00 V-OK
17.0
70.5 50.4 3.50
7.33
2.63
9.08 7.33 0.00 V-OK
18.0
70.5 50.4 3.50
7.33
2.63
9.08 7.33 0.00 V-OK
'
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A
PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
-------." ------------------"'.-"."--------------------------------
SEWER
SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED
DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
% (FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
-----"."'------."'.-----------"..'--------------------------------
11.00
0.20 -0.86
-0.94
1.61
0.94 NO
12.00
0.20 -0.26
-0.86
3.26
1.61 OK
'
13.00
1.65 7.42
0.24
6.83
3.26 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
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 UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM. DNSTREAM CONDITION
'
FEET FEET
FEET
FEET
FEET FEET
-
11.00
40.00 40.00
3.14
3.06
6.40 6.30 PRSSIED
12.00
300.00 300.00
3.74
3.14
7.26 6.40 PRSSIED
13.00
435.00 194.89
10.92
3.74
10.05 7.26 JUMP
'
14.00
475.00 0.00
12.11
10.92
12.15 10.05 PRSSIED
15.00
3DO.00 300.00
12.86
12.11
13.66 12.15 PRSSIED
16.00
345.00 345.00
13.72
12.86
15.39 13.66 PRSSIED
17.00
130.00 130.00
14.05
13.73
16.16 15.39 PRSSIED
'
18.00
0.10 0.10
14.05
14.05
16.36 16.16 PRSSIED
PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUSCRITICAL FLOW
*** SUMMARY
OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE
ALONG
SEWERS
------------------'.-----'..---------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER
JUNCTURE
LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION
BEND
BEND LATERAL
LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
'
ID NO ID
NO. ELEV FT FT
K COEF LOSS
FT K
COEF LOSS FT ID FT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0 2.00 6.89 0.10 1.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.30
12.0 3.00 7.75 0.72 0.30 0.15 0.00 0.00 2.00 6.89
•13.0 4.00 10.89 3.09 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 3.00 7.75
14.0 5.00 12.99 2.06 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 10.89
15.0 6.00 14.49 1.47 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.00 12.99
16.0 7.00 16.22 1.69 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 6.00 14.49
17.0 8.00 16.99 0.64 0.16 O 13 0.00 0.00 7.00 16.22
18.0 9.00 17.20 0.00 0.25 0.21 0.00 0.00 8.00 16.99
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.
4 z�
EXCERPTS FROM THE McCLELLANDS BASIN MASTER PLAN
f
INTRODUCTION
' Purpose of Study
The City of Fort Collins has undertaken a program of comprehensive drainage
' master planning to define safe, economical, system -wide approaches for the
collection and conveyance of storm water runoff. This study represents a
' continuation of such master planning efforts for the McClellands Basin, located
in portions of the City of Fort .Collins and unincorporated Larimer County.
' Presented in this report is a recommended plan of improvements to existing
facilities as well -as drainage requirements 'that must .be met for. future
-development within the McClellands Basin.
Storm drainage master planning for the McClellands basin has. been completed in
' two phases. In 1980, Cornell Consulting Company (Cornell). developed a master
drainage planforthe 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 (FCR.ID).
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 aneasterlydirection 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
wrest 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
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.
i 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
K
t
!
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
1
Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual.
The total estimated cost to complete the recommended master plan improvements in
1 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
1 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
1 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
1 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.
1 IMPROVEMENTS
General
1 Three major catagories of drainage improvements are proposed under the master
drainage plan developed for the McClellands Basin: 1) detention storage, 2)
channelization .and 3) hydraulic structures. The following sections discuss the
! design data utilized and the specific considerations given to each of these
' components of the drainage system. Proposed improvements are presented on Sheets
1 through 11, contained in the Appendix. It should be noted that master plan
4.
!
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
maximum allowable release rate of 0.2 cfs per acre corresponding to this event.
Since proposed improvements to the drainageway and road crossings have been sized
to this rate of release from storage, it must not be exceeded. Development that
has already taken place north of Harmony Road has incorporated sound drainage
'j 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. Althoughthey. 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' mproved drainageway.
Such a concept is consistent with improvements that have already been made to the
' drainageway north of Harmony Road.
' Table 1 summarizes the channel properties required for conveyance of the 100-year
developed flows with on -site detention. Mannings equation was utilized to
' determine the required channel size for a design flow depth limited to four feet.
Channel slope was evaluated considering the existing channel configuration and
surrounding topography, road crossings, and the need to limit flow velocities to
5
■
EXCERPTS FROM THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL DRAINAGE STUDY
9
� CLIENT �2C1�1�-1 TT� �1-•L]t7i r� C+�JOB �'� NO.=-0
J�3 ' ■AINC PROJECT L-W If=0 -L16- •d CALCULATIONS FOR 2M C,: Vr cZQZ14
Engineering Consultants MADEBY ..- DATE l229 1Z CHECKED BY I DATE SHEET- OF
' �/1- F=Tr-0M •ll••1$ O V 211L.L.. 3) e11 I N6.C=E ?I.-1I'A h=A V- W I _ ...
CIoo.Y2)LErJez;r-r}.. OE= ?IPg)
I
T STPlX1U2E.laP_-
6�� 14. oS
�1 130 R ��. - 2S
1 `I•ZN O. ZS�j MANO
+!l_E3•I�I O. OtJ
10.22
% .345. u=;
S ou Pi�1- s ' 1� q
4
,...._.... : ;
{.... O I
C2olvr.l
4Z'1
ZSlOS
�___
4�S Lam- O
O_
- -•---- --• .--• :_LAail)•Joc�' No 3 one Pt�.*J.S
��. I11AQ - -7. 4Z
I. . .
' ollini - lo.9z
O 1 j
' � �-�� @.O.ZI :. ..�� ;-: � MGI.l h•}OL.�...t.1Q. I i...ON :PL.-^NS ,� i �� .
! 1
i
• i
7 h
• i 1
I� I
. GAO
3
E3�sE� oNJ i iv�ccL�Ll�&ai ;6A4a Z>2-4
,
. ...... .... .C.. _.: .__..---:_. ._.. ;_;..Gz, F.>3'Zo cPs.._.�L:<.:6:`.�.
I
�j REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
USING UDSEWER•MOOEL 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
zzzzanazazeaeaazazazzasazzzaazasaazzszzaezaezzaazzaazzaaz=aszzazza=zer_aaeazaa
•** 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
J
*•* SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
................................
MANHOLE
CNTRBTING
--------------------
RAINFALL RAINFALL
DESIGN
ID NUMBER
AREA * C
DURATION
INTENSITY
PEAK FLOW E
-----------------'
MINUTES
.INCH/HR
1.00
N/A
------------------
N/A
N/A
-
69.10
2.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
69.10
3.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
69.10
4.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
69.10
5.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
69.10
6.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
69.10
7.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
69.10
8.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
69.10
9.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
69.10
- •-------------•-•--------
GROUND
WATER
COMMENTS
LEVATION ELEVATION
---FEET
----------------
FEET
4.00
6.30
NO
4.75
6.39
NO
7.00
7.22
NO
17.75
10.03
OK
18.50
14.40
OK
18.50
' 15.85
OK
20.50
17.51
OK
16.85
18.25
NO
16.85
18.47
NO
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
�`• SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8
----------------------------------------------
SEWER MANHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER
REWIRED SUGGESTED
EXISTING -.
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(MIGH)
D1A(HIGH)
DIA(HIGH)
WIDTH
ID NO.
.............................
ID NO.
...................
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT).(1N)
(FT)
(FT)
11.00 2.00
12.00 3.00
1.00
ROUND
49.34
54.00
48.00
0.00
13.00 4.00
2.00
3.00
ROUND
ROUND
49.34
33.22
54.00
36.00
48.00
0.00
14.00 5.00
4.00
ROUND
47.32
48.00
42.00
42.00
0.00
0.00
15.00 6.00
16.00 7.00
5.00
ROUND
47.32
48.00
42.00
0.00
17.00 8.00
6.00
7.00
ROUND
ROUND
47.32
47.32
48.00
48.00
42.00
0.00
' 18.00 9.00
8.00
ROUND
47.32
48.00
42.00
42.00
0.00
0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH
SEWER
ARE IN INCHES
UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE
IN FEET
OMENSION
OUIRED DIAMETER WAS
DETERMINED BY
SEWER
HYDRAULIC
CAPACITY.
GGESTED DIAMETER WAS
DETERMINED
BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
R A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED
EXISTING
BY THE
SUGGESTED
SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
SIZE WAS USED
4%.
�B/
.---------- ---- ----------------
SEVER- - - DESIGN.. -- FLOW- NORMAL----NDRAML------ CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE- COMMENT
ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY . NO.
NUMBER- CFS Cf5 -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 7.18 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=0 INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM .DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
..._...X._ . ..(FT) (FT) (FT) (FT)
..."..... ------'---------------------'-'--'--------'-'----
11.00 0.20 -0.86 -0.94 1.61 0.94 NO
12.00 0.20 -0.26 -0.86 3.26 1.61 OK
13.00 1.65 .7.42 0.24 6.83 3.26 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 DK
17.00 0.21 10.55 10.23 2.80 6.77 OK
18.00 0.25 10.55 10.55 2.80 2.80 OK
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REOUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET
*'• SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEVERS
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
.
11.00 40.00 40.00 3.14 3.06 6.39 6.30 PRSSIED
12.00 300.00 300:DO 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 12.86 17.51 15.85 PRSSIED
17.00 130.00 130.00 14.05 13.73 18.25 17.51 PRSSIED
�1 18.00 0.10 0.00 14.05 . 14.05 18.47 18.25 PRSSIED
PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUSCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
•** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEVERS
'
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 C6EF LOSS
FT
K COEF LOSS FT
ID
FT
11.0
2.00
6.86
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 SEVER.
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.
5P
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 Conceot
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.
LM
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
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.
Garbe ti- Offsite Basin 0
-4 and'O-5 represent Corbett Drive and Preston Parkway.
Dr. I �, . 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
:MING
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT ' 1` e,, ITT-- 37- qTt n I e� JOB NO.
PROJECT)) Z-Jj 11-44 <Z;> ( CALCULATIONS FOR
MADE SY--a5:1� DATE aA"- CHECKED EY DATE -SHEET- OF
�� IASL�1"'rJ � Co�S-'IT �21v=. C.OP'PP�yG. STd 2�5+�2
v IN41=N1 SU)„IP I w1 L5
ITs Pc'��Sl�l—G .TL7 t pVa7 � Z7P O� CTJ>�fi�
o.so
>=Ponn �I��u2= S-Z �SToe�n ItilJ-=rs IQ SULAP�:
�_Ar�LY_iTY Pie Lr-=
-7._43
USA 1(!:::>I +—<� 7-t(P= IaI Cu�i3 Iut F=T'
'n=Slc�.] fir' 3 �I�>= . 1=oe Z • . Y�,z ...�t��v Q Z = Z. B�
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA
CROWN OVERFLOW ON CORBETT DRIVE e, D P 6-4
WEIR COEF.
3.000
STA ELEV
0.0 0.25
50.0 0.00
100.0 0.25
ELEVATION DISCHARGE
(feet) (cfs)
0.00 0.0 11
0.10 1.3 71JA, Fb
0.20 7.
��.3g -tl,M.=
CUENT���'i ITT�T'C�lo JOBNO. 330- 3
:MNC PROJECT 15 4 Jam- &!l CALCULATIONS FOR _ M-,M=�� I
Engineering Consultants MADE BY32a, DATE41 -4 CHECKEDBY DATE SHEET OF
�WC
Engineering Consultants
3Z Al
CLIENT Gr L11T'�`��i7�D l0 JOB NO.-Agn' m-'';
PROJECT Zn2o CALCULATIONS FOR fe_,s1JO =
MADE BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET Z- OF 3
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
OPEN CHANNEL FROM CORBETT DRIVE TO THE COUNTY ROAD 9
ELEVATION
(feet)
• 15.17
1.7
16.17
16.67
17.17
1.7
18.17
18.67
19.17
19.67
�1
STA
ELEV
0.00
20.00
20.00 _
15.00
22.00
14.67
24.00
15.00
44.00
20.00
'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft)
0.035 0.0027
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
(sq ft)
(fps).
(cfs)..
1.5
0.9
1.34
5.1
1.5
7.50
10.8
1.9
20.44
18.5
2.3
41.93
28.2
2.6
73.61
39.9 :
2.9
116.96
53.5
3.2
173.41
69.2
3.5
244.30
86.9
3.8
330.90
106.6
4.1
434.45
1 i• i�i �n es c-r� O� � i
s- l
EROSION CONTROL
1
RAINFALL
PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT:
STANDARD FORM A
J
LOI LD 006D FAl?, M 3—
r1L /Nj 4.
1
COMPLETED BY: 7f5
DATE:
DEVELOPED
ERODIBILITY
Sb
PS
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Lb
1
SUBBAgIN
ZONE
(ac)
(ft)
($)
(feet)
1
IUD
H6DF—ZATE.
jp79
70
I, 3 7
545
D, 7. .
1
loZ
i,-71
cla95
D,:S
375
0.9
,-
1
zol
0, s9
4.zD
D/7
466
0, 9
30 I
0/ 5 Lgo
s, d
1
Lb =
b �F �5 6
FKBM
t e 8 -A
4
Ge
-A�I'
:CAI�S�rt�'C.�1ov1
1
9Asb
556
S b As
,
; l ,
-• . .
1
MARCH 1991
DESIGN CRITERIA.
8-14
s/
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT: ILD Wp0 D FAR 3 �- F/L 014 STANDARD FORM B.
COMPLETED BY: %JS DATE: G-30-94
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor
Method Value Value Comment
Nav, or Slr-avJ MoICA. / 4 L,to e�
Tq--a
MAJOR
PS
SUB
AREA
BASIN
BASIN
(Ac)
CALCULATIONS
77,
11, 7lp
ell acres t, kle, tew,�, eA
i n le_+ 4:
1, Qs
aA+
)vim- G`= 3zC► Goy (.o + i,�s� o`)(�.o)� z,�q(�.o)(r, c
z8
��.1-' �'_ %, 3z�6�(I,B,iiS�-t�,to5(I.a�(S�-I-2•�l.g�(5� .
D0f fd, ILotist Je�iaJ1.
1K.
MARCH 1991
9-15
DESIGN CRITERIA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
59Aj
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
RMINC
Engineering Consultants
�
CLIENT ��/ 7I ' (�vve����� �iQ�� "F:-3yk+ JOB NO. -9, ^3-�6 z.
PROJECT WI Il.,, �ID�I-i�> �CALCULATIONSFOR
MADE BYi=)3- DATE - 0- / G HECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
fL
:
cry-
a_-
:
L
1 I
-
01-
Cll7G>_°off,
= 117
G.
I '
T
1-- f
_
1
i_
'
'
1
r
��_
P�
��
__I-J
-I
if
-t } LA
( 1
1
F
1
� 1
-
-
f
3
I -
i
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
'PROJECT: OILD WDDD FA(zMS VRv F1L,104 STANDARD FORM C
SEQUENCE FOR 19' ONLY COMPLETED BY: T.TIS DATE: 4 - 3D -9¢
,SEQUENCE
by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed.
Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for
approval by the City Engineer.
MONTH OH
t .
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
Mulching/Sealant
Temporary Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Hate/Blankets
Other
(RUCTURES: .INSTALLED BY
GETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR
�TE SUBMITTED
MAINTAINED BY ^
APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON
' MARCH 1991 8-16 DESIGN CRITERIA
October 4, 1994
Mr. Basil Harridan
'
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services Stormwater
'
235 Mathews
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
' Re: Wild Wood Farm Third Filing
Erosion Control Estimate of Probable Costs
' Dear Basil:
This letter is intended to satisfy the City of Fort Collins requirements for an erosion
' control security deposit for the Wild Wood Farm Third Filing. The City of Fort Collins
current cost factors will be used for this estimate.
' There will be approximately 11.76 acres disturbed within this project. Using the City
criteria of $500 per acre for construction sites over 10 acres, and using a 150%
contingency, the total obligation for a security deposit would be:
' (11.76 acres) • ($500.00 per acre) * (150% contingency) = $8820
' An estimate was prepared using all improvements shown on the construction plans
using current bid prices.. The amount estimated was $4288 (see attached cost
breakdown). Using the City criteria of 150% of estimated costs, the total obligation
' would be $6432.
' Therefore, the total obligation required.will be $8820
Please call if you have any questions regarding this estimate.
' Respectfully,
RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants
Tim J. Baile,
W
WILD WOOD FARMS
THIRD FILING
EROSION CONTROL
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS
EROSION CONTROL ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
Gravel Inlet Filters
3 Each
$200
$600
Hay or Straw Mulch w/
Temporary Seed
8.97 Acres
$400
$3588
Straw Bale Check Dams
1 1 Each
1 $100
$100
,.r01Lat = ,74625a
+ 150% Contingency = $6432
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHARTS, FIGURES AND TABLES
No Text
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RUNOFF -
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
50
30
1- 20
z
w
U
Ir
w
a 10
Z
w
a,
OJ 8
W
cc 3
0
U 2
CC
w
Q
3
1
=MNEIIII�A
Nr
N►,e��i�e
=00011111WA
Ia
031111MMi
ME�1111
YAMS
/� � • / • I�tllll�
MINES=
I
�W"MIWAIMIM
■III
I�I♦MMI■I■■■�
�F511011011MINIIIII■F
�"A�mmmmons�
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"UNDEVELQPED"
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
' 0 (A a1 O 0 0
o 44IltAtA
' In coaCo. coco
O MMC1a)000000
O v44; tAU IAtAtA
WWWWWWOMOM
0 co MIM Mal MC1OOC1MC1000
O• v VVVVv 4 VVVVV.1A• In*
'I cocococoggq.cocoCJcocococoC)
' O r co Co 01 01 C1 at C1 C% a% C1 C1 C1 01 01 C1 01 C1 a1
O .
V' V' V' tT V' V' v V' '7
N g co co g co q co q q co co g co q q q co co co q
' O Oc^IvtntDOgtOrrrrrrrrrrrrgqqcDqq
• . . . . . • • • • . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . ...
O O eI'va vvvv ave v cra vvvvvva'v� v�v
O ri co co g co q q q q q q q co q q q co co co co co q q q q q co
O CJ N 0 v n 00 tD tD tD tD V' t9 r r r r r r r r r rco coco
op C1 g;s;;4 4 v d' v 444 v 44 v 4 4 ; 444 4 -r Cv
O co co co co co co co co co co g co co co co co co co co co to co q co co co
U
O tD O N cl V' v IA IA in to to U' tD tD tD tD tD tD t0 o r r r r r r
to co A v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v a v v v v •r v v
.: g co co q co co co co co co co 0 0 0 co q co q co -co g co q co co co
H
a O v m ri N M C) v V V' -�r 0 0 to IA IA to In IA IA tD tD tD 0 tD tD r
' O r nnavvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvav
U g co co co co co co co co co co co co co q co co co co co co co co co co co
a O O tD co O ri C! C9 C1 C9 v v V' V' v v.V' V' IA IA IA IA 1
0 tD
O %a mCOW n-0vvvv'vsrvvvvvvvvvvvvvv'Nav
'. N - co co co co co co 0 co co co co co g q q q co co co co co co. co co co co
.SRi . o IANIArga%OoriHHr;r4NNNCfC1t" mmvv v V"C
1 O d0 .
' ...N Nnc9nnnvv'vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
p q q t'A co g q q co CD co a g a q q q q co co q q co CO co co
W to W
►aa0ft aN rigric9 V U1V11DtDrrraggqqqalLlm00000
'C r] VN N r9 c') r'l C9 n 9 c9 C) r4 9 9c4 c4 c4 7 C9 C9 rn A 4 4444
Ei0 y cogcocogqqqcococoqcoqqcococococococococococo
O tD V1 co O rl N C1 V V' to to IA to tD tD 10 tD r r r r q CO q a1 C1
t3 v ri N N N c4 C) r9 C9 r9 r9 r') C) 9t9 n 9r9 r7 c4 Ar9 C) 9r9 A r9
' - cogcotocogcocoqqcoqcococococoqqcococococococo .
W
U - IA ririIArc000riNNt")nnvvvvvInInIn%D%atDrr
Z • • • c9• • • 9.. • • • . • . • • . .
C) r•1 NNNNCt 99 9949 C) t9 C) M C) m m C9 n C) m C9
' O 0 C9 N tD co a1 O ri N N C) m C9 v V' v v -w w to In It1. to tJ, tD tD tD
TZ+ • . . . . . • . . . . . . . .
P4 C) 0ririririNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
W - co co co co co co co co g co co co. co g co q co co co q q co co co Coco
a
N tAinC1NC9 V'in%Drrrcococoa%Glatata1G10oo00o
W tV " C1 0 o ri r-I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r ( ri r•1 .-1 r•1 .i ri N N N N N N
�i Nwwwwggqqqqqqcoqqqcoqqqcoco co, qq
L-a
Z o vIn0 c j to tD co co a% O o o ri ri ri HN N N N C9 C) C) In mn
N coa%0000000 ri ri r-tH ri ri ri H ri ri ri ti ri ri ri ri r-1
to CD NMri V'0r-r-0 0 m00Hr4r4r4riNNC-4cl m(^1MCl
r{ t7co gG1G1G101G1G1G1G1000000000000000
r r r r r r r r r r r g o co co q co co q q O co w 0 q 0
O t7 Pl O v r C1 o ,r; N c9 C9 v v m IA In In tD tD to to r, r tD tD. to
rrrrrrc»'���c•rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
N a%0vt7rcoCCit- r-.oQ%otnvvmricaNci%ovrialtD
. • . • • . . ... . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . .
O ONNNNNNINNINNNNNNNNNrgCA ririri00
rrrrrrr•rr_rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Exi. O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' 0t E-4 o0000"000000000a00000000000
WGL rgC,mvm% rcoalor4Mmvn%or-wmonomoLno
v rir'iriHriHHHHHNNmmvvto .
a
i Ame-u loot 2.4 DESIGN CRITERIA
1.0 12 5
.9 11 10 4
8
' 10 6 3
.8 H
g 0 4 ',LL 2
' ,7cc 3 �.
8 w z 1.5
' a
.6 7 pot% j;-��y 2
1.0
.5 -- -€� prate part o „1.0. z 9
L
' 5.5 0, — 0 .8 .
6
F-
w
w 5 i z 0 7
' w..4 z z 4
z 40 .3 .6
.5 z w
.c • ,tL x
' 4 0 •2 0 .5
z 0 x F-
z
Z co
' w .3 3.5 w w
n. '� .4
0 0
U. w w w
' 08
0 .25 3 0, 0..tf-
_ = 0 .06 3
c� o z
x 2.5 = w .04 _ x .25
2 } .03 a
~ �
a .02 0
a
2 a x
a
.15 .01 0 .15
L
' o
o'
1.5 --- -- - - - - Yo a
' It
h .10
Figure 5-2
NOMOGRF BAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2"
' ! Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph
0
' MAY1984 5-lu DESIGN CRITERIA
CLIENT ` ' j-,i n= P--, -r 1 \ JOS NO.
I!JC FPOJECT . CALCULATIONS FOP.( Su T• -- 7 .111/
Engineering Consultants MADE 6Y �DaTE?--"1?CMECKEDSY DATE $MEET Z OF Z
177
'i-�!-��iv,_.nor-'w�.y__'-.--•-`6--�t�uwui��_�_�r=ti»..�Uv�—:------------;
r---==-------- -- r - '-=--�--- -_ -- - �--r is •'-�n1 •---=---- --_ _. � ._
1 --- -
Z-
�.---:--- -- -. - - J _ - ---- -- - -
_. .. --
�./11So2 . S•roZr.�t .. �c_:PT.L_ U.!nS-Q:.oV >=e. .: ....:....
Excs��_._ C '� °..:.-;. _ lU=>'t=...:-� i �:•=.'_ti:r:^,T��. L_LV E=-.ico: So
5,��.ot=_.STz6ErD�160 .:'C�Zxla�.50.:}c>✓.0:� 45.17.-73.1i
(..: /,/a�( iax3: i"s�r C.3: rSXloo:s�;-ibo.00�: �i/zx:,a9x1- Z�' �i:4zxlb�,GS
I._c. (�ZX:11Xj. I?)'_ Cl I7XjL�..=�i9.C�l.i= Ci�i;c�:-S9.X1c.33�. C16.33x0,!��
_ -__
-- -
i
7:-
r {
.__;. ` -.
..;.�-T,._._�•20..17:1-...?--
'-�
Ll
(
-_i
- �_
o j IT-: �'] j t. i -,.'T I , �
-----i^•�
-
�
i ___-i !!� � _1 �_1-i
! 7 _
�_--�.'1-'--
:—_
f
i---_�-
--_ I , ! !-+ ! i i
7 ', i i f i ' !_
i ! i-7
1- J. ! ,
11 ---f i I I: !! I 1 I.• � __�-
_-t !
1 I I ! t ! , 7 ', 1 � t i ! 1 : . ; ! � ! C..=' • t . Q-8o7 7 � '. ?-j--'TT-
i fT �
� ! i t ! � T + �
__i i( y i i 7 7_, : i, I� i
_! i 1_?:-, ! , i ! 1 1 ! i : I
I �•i ! 1� i_,_ � 1 7
' ! , i ; e ! i ; f i r •-1 1
I,, i i 1 i 1 __
� t _� ! i
I
,_ � 1 � ��
! 1 ; 1 _
V
,: t [!
�----
1 1
i i -C21
2 : i
-��:f�_�_3
=! _I�! I i
': i; ! 11_A 1
'i!•:
:'. 1 '_
iT,
i }Ci i 1
1
_t �'i i f i i
if 1
_ l
-� 1
1 1 ! t
I J I ITl: :-� 7 I i i
r tj : t�1 , _' I t
t !- ! r r- : I ! i :=
:_� f! I
ice.?•iS�-�.�
1 i"� � ri
? :.
(il I: I 1
1_�_1 i 1 I� 1 I
I ! i
! 1 7_i1 I_• t
_t
t : e-; J t 1 1 i ! t
: ?_=+•-�! i`=-' --
�---.
1-3! ' !
, I ; i i i J__
='_'
TAT
.I
G.
70/
CLIENT U —JOB NO.
LNC PROJECT -CALCVLATJONSFOAC �_-t_ -,=L_L• L1
Engineering Consultants h0.A.DEEY_-j_,'DATE?-cZ CHECkEDEY-DATIS SHEET I OF 7
_j.
L 15T_E�E_= e:r— e-
1 =7
L , * t
5&!= 57-JE 43T
r 7`-
-7-7--
L
U..1 %a
1-'7-
TT
T
tE�:S;_ j
LISC-r-,
7-
77
j
7"
r
ILL
C>�
_17
t2_77
------- ---
Qc)
r1V F
-�'iv��r:i��J_;�b _�Io:moo_'.. 1�98�•s,-T--''�3oslz -- _ , -- ---
cJ
7
-.7 j
-T-7 -
... . ......
T;
L
_V7
-7 17 1
_ZA
4_1
-'TT777!
C5�7 WT 7
L
E;Ja
-177 i -T
*T-;
-T 3--L
T
Lj
-1 ;J-,
T'7:
for
Curb Capacities and
Velocities
'Calculations
Major and Minor
Storrs
per City
of Fort
Collins
Storm Drainage Design
Criteria
'RESIDENTIAL
with
drive over curb and
Sutter
Prepared
by: ROD, Inc.
C 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 .
Major
Storm
Slope
Red. ,
M.inor
. a
V
Major
a
V
'
(:) :Factor :
X
: (cfs)
(fees) :
X :
(cfs) :
(fps)
0.40
0.50 :
86.71
, 2.74
2.07 :
696.73 ,
. 22.03
2.19
'
0.50 :
0.65 .
ES.71
3.99 :
2.33 :
696.73
32.02
2.45
0.60
0.60 :
6$.71
: 5.37 :
2.55 :
696.73 :
45.17 :
2.68
0.70
0.60 :
66.71
: 5.60
2.76 :
696.73 :
46.63
2.90
0.60 :
0.80 :
6$.71
6.20 :
_2.95 :
696.73 :
49.E5
3.10
0.90 :
0.80 :
65.71
: 6.58
3.13 :
696.73
52.68 :
3.29
1.00 :
0.F0 :
86.71
6.94
3.30 :
696.73 :
55.74
3.46
1.25 :
0.60 :
SS.71
: 7.76 :
3.62 :
696.73 :
62.32E
3.87
'
1.50 :
0.80 :
85.71
: 8.50
4.04 :'
696.73 :
63.27 :
4.24
1.75 :
0.60 :
65.71
, 9.18 :
4.36 :
696.3 :
73.73
4.58
2.00 :
0.60 :
.66.71
: 9.81
4.65 :
696.3 :
78.E3
4.90
'
2.2S :
0.78 :
55.71
. 10.15
4.95
696.73
61.52 :
5.20
2.50 :
0.76 :
66.71
10.42 :
5.21 :
696.73
E3.72 :
5.48
2.75 :
0.74 :
66.71
: 10.64 :
5.47 :
696.73
85.50 :
5.75
3.00 :
0.72 :
55.71
: 10.61 :
5.71 :
696.3
SS.E9 :
6.00
'
3.25 :
0.69 :
8$.71
: 10.79 :
5.74 ;
696.73
S5.67 :
6.25
3.50 :
0.66 :
55.71
: 10.71 ,
6.17 :
696.73.:
ES.03 :
6.48
3.75 :
0.63 :
65.71
. 10.58 :
6.33 :
696.3 :
85.00 :
6.71 .
'
4.00 :
6.60 :
S5.71
, 10.41 :
6.59 ;'
696.3 :
E3.61 :
6.93 _
4.25
0.58 :
55.71
: 10.37 :
6.80 ::
696.73
E3.31 :
7.14
4.50 ;.
0.54 :
6S.71
: 9.93 :
. 6.97 :
696.3 :.
79.81 :
7.35
4.75
0.52 :
86.71
9.E3 .
7.19 :
696.7378.96
:
7.55
'
5.00 :
0.49 :
E5.71
: 9.50 :
7.37 :
696.73
76.34
7.75 :
5.25 :
0.46 .
S5.71
9.14 .
7.55 :
696.3 .
73.43
7.94 .
5.50 :
0.44 :
56.71
: 8.95 :
7.73 :
696.73 :
71.89
8.13
'
5.75 :
0.42 :..
55.71
: 8.73 :
7.91 :
696.3 :
70.17 :
8.31
6.D0 :
0.40 :
86.71
. 8.50 :.
8.08 :
696.3 ,
63.27 :
8.49
1
1
1
C
1
.e
1
.7
o .6
f-
U
1
Q
0 .5
1
_Z
U
W
1
.4
1
.3
i
,,.2
1
-1
e
s=06
F= 0.8
s-0.4%
F:0.5 I
11111IL111111111
BELOW MINIMUM'
ALLOWABLE
STREET GRADE
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
1 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.
1 (From: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, 1965)
i
' MAY 1984 4-4 DESIGN CRITERIA
0
0
0
41
c�
o
w
o
°
w
41
w
d A.
V.
O �
n
0
a�
ram.
V
o _
$4
3
�.
o
44
w
N
►n
mr
rzH
b+
�
w
I I I, I I I I I I I t0
- co c0 Ir -d- N (n CO w d N Co
a? rn ' rn rn 00 D0 00 00
O p
O O O O O O O O
x — ao4oia3 -4uauz-}snfpV MoUlnO
'
Table 8B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values.
Treatment C Factor
f
7¢/
P Factor
BARE SOIL
'
Picked and smooth . ..... . 1.00
............................................................
1.00
Freshly disked ................. . 1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
Rough irregular suHace...........................................................
'
SEDIIAENT BASIN[TRAP................................................................. 1.00
0.50"l
STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SANDBAG ........................ 1.00
0.80 .
fSILT
FENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00
0.50.
ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ............. :..................................... 0.01
1.00
ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE).GRASS ........................... See Fig. 8•A
1.00
SOD GRASS
0.45 1-
1.00
TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .
HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE "'
,
1.00
SOIL SEALANT .................................................... I ................ 0.01-0.66"
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 olanting grass seed, apply mulch at a rate oftons[acre (minimum) and adequately anchor,
'
.2
tack or crimp material into the soil.
Slooe (°�)
'
... .......
, to 05.............................................................................0.06
6 to 10. . 0.06
1.00
.1.00
11 to 15...... ............0.07•
1.00
.... 0.11
1.00
21 .to 25... 0.14
33 .0.17
1.00
1.00
..........................................................................
25 to .. ....
> 33.......................................................................... 0.20
1.00
NOTE: Use of ou'rer C-Factor a P•Factor values repo red in ulis table must be substen;iz;ed by docvmen;��ion.
(1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading.
(2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 114, 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.
' MARCH 1991 8.6 DESIGN CRITERIA
7/
Table 8-8 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from
previous page).
-
Treatment C•Factor
P-Factor
CONTOUR.FURROVJED SURFACE
Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P•Factor =
1.00.
Maximum
length refers to the dov,+n slope length.
'
Basin Maximum '
Slope Length
l°,G1 (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
0.00
TERRACING
- Must contain 10-year runoff volumes; without overflowing; as determined by applicable
hydrologic
methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00.
'
Basin
Slope i%)
1 to: - 2.:...................................................................................
1.00
0.12
3 to 3..:..................................................................................
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 other C-Factor or ?-Factor vah)es reported in this table must be. substantiated by doc umenta'ion.
1
' MARCH 1991 8.7 DESIGN CRITERIA
I
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP
60
�40
20
mmmmmmm
FAAMi
NONE®
.
mom®
OME-
nP
ME
ME
MWANAPA::ESE■
4 -- --6-- -- 8 1.0
' YI/D
' Use. Da insleod of D whenever_; flow.is supercriticol in the barrel.
Use.. Type L., for: a:' distance . of .3D . downstrebm .
z.s
Flvu?�_. 5�7._._IS__. _VdU.D_J-oS�._ ./� �� • a
FIGURE 5-7.-'RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR
CONDUIT OUTLET.
11-15-82
' URBAN DRAINAGE a FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1
7��
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL. RIPRAP �7. 7
6 = Expansion Angle
0
RA
RAI
VA A
M A
PAN
m-�
ENNEWENE
MEMENWHE
NONE
MEMO
0
So
no
- I
TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT.. HEIGHT, Y1 / D
FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR. CIRCULAR CONDUITS
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGE a FLOOD CONTROL. DISTRICT
IV
TORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIAI TABLE 803
MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES r
o • ------ dllllllllll- _ o" °.�:1'- - -- ''. - --- °r••t
.• r d11111111ll -- -
o/ PLAN 100TL /i.J TJM
of t•Irt.
o,
' 4.•1 A
RISE EQUATION 001 SECTION
_
t�CASE I
' IaL Y 7
` INLET ON MAINLINE Jr
k= 010!L /fit( -1 1 . .
JSE EQUATION 005
a�
.�,,t.It. °i1•r
PLAN
,SECTION
CASE lII
' MANHOLE ON MAIN LINE
Wrtil A' BRANCH LAMAL.
USE EQUATION 005
SECTION
CASE II
o.
PLAN
USE EQUATION 001
• i a,r k' 1. Z�
• SECTION UsP Z. MLI's
' CASE *JT
INLET OR MANHOLE AT
BEGINNING OF LINE
CASE
III
:CASE NO. K�
8°
K.
V
I 0.05
22 11/2
0
II 0.25
.45
0.50
IV 1.25
60
0.35
90
0.25
No Lateral See Casa I
to: NOV 1984. REFERENCE:.
ev: APWA Speclal Report No. 49, 1981
' 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 dilution between 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.
t ..
1
9-1-92
' Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3)
4. Determine the water quality capture volume (WQCV) in acre-feet as follows:
WQCV.. (Required Storage (Area)
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
9-1-92
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
' DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3)
1
0
c
V
0
N
0
L
U
C '
m
L
N
w.
m
ro
m
rn
R
0
N
v
m
o-
m
STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
0.5
I:xtenc ed De entior Basl (Dry)
�O-Hoi. r Drai time
0.4
0.3
0.2 100,
D tentl in Po
s (W t)
12 iHour Drain Ime
0.1
0
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)
9-1-1992
UDFCD
' 10.
s.
4.
t 2.
m
' m 0.4
E
Q . 0.2.
' cc
a
cc
a
m 0.10
3
0.06
' 0.04
_.. 0.02
0.01
SOLUTION: Required Are
in
NINE
FAR
Ful
IMPAIRVA01
ENEVIA
rAIJAVA04
FP
gi
MEN.
V20AWAVIANA
ME
01,42,
FAR
9, A
VA
WA
0
0
1
m
I
I
VNEW.
11molmol
NJ
PA
E11011011
11111mll
PAIPAPPS
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 CAPTUREVOLUME
9-1-1992
' UDFCD
50
53 16 1 1 11
it
¢p
POUDRE P 1
LU
JUNIOR HIGH 54 ? 46 45 44 43 42 t7 I,
SCHOOL z 49 48 47
µlI
iI
NINEeARK DRIVE - �I 1 I III
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 83 84
ss It
45 I,'1 II III
I 1
I
of t _ ry p III = fin
c SCALE
ti
,-
.. �..r _ I ... ] /T r . 4 _ _ _.
°.
LEGEND
A �� I 1 rt9 8 � i 'e
�/{ A or B FHA GRADING OFSICNADON
1Fe30.1 961 TF-27.6 TF -27.3 . 1F-z].o
26 P / - \\ — A � m m_N PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
I �I —83 �� PROPOSED CONTOUR
UJI
°h4 e�:24 1 1 __ I I W N 43 1
Q' 9 ,0 1 yMy �1 EXISTING CONTIXdR
O m / AVEMA CT. m 1 iF TOP OF CONCRE IB FOUNDATION WALL
F I _ � I A P Q _...-.- ._— —. -�- 24 — f ~ j' III ' EXISTING CONTIXJR
m \I u I 1 m _- �� I '� 1 TOP OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL
CIE
o N� \ c~ip aN 11 III - - s= --
'3 / I CO ° 42
27 "� -azz —z6.e I by 1
OVERLOT GRADING NOTES
1. All owam drainage Mal be grades In ° arkiii slope Of zx
R' Q D v 22 Q% — C'— — ryR J I W 41 I '�j 2. A11 role anol be goal old a minimum ml ad Oe m me first 10 Cindy Cam
Any k _ — _ — — — — - — — — — — — 1 fn li III manumans cover for faw
N' /I 1 3. ID pl o ros ee grade ro the loset extremity or me loranso0m wall
'cl I V I hall be 36,
l a \ 2] 18 17 18 15 /4 IP,La 1 4. Ther tl,Nng de sand me laver ens or noa«e on clew aimed, may be
R) 1 I I' a, pm, to m e, ue slope do., to the aralecnw I'll" a1 119 ae M'
3 I 1 11 I�20 �r �� e r•L r .� 2t p 1 leal 61e.
Q I i� I D u `21 7-2).0 TF-26J 7-26.5 TF-26.1 1 �I III r 5 p 11 rwaaoron e,poaa,e aaaw rolebea grade coal be W.
- 20 k m TF-2Zg TF Z8 I TF-2].3 I j Y
1 T I A A A A A A e. slw .I r greater eta he cooled l silo. 'mein lot
ae be ao,str,,t,d or the all Side of the lot
oll
> nca y di goes m allow a v Construction otherwiset°e
a. 9All dl� Ny �rlscg on fill, at y a gm ShOl be constructed m accordance
_ WK110 CIRCLE / — n 1 "A) In a minimal r
_ Tt_ _._.�._ _ __. gin 5 ; pill Inm anet l be "n°ta windslave o 2S to the
son
�J M``b(6 a 24 23 v n. m v.
II 10 ID srlwed t I a hime Ma • aawarte salsa" to
" ______ _______ ___ __ ___ ___ __ _ In m m s 1
STREET
i — � .—. W 1.
ZVI`_ - rLear
OS I
11 In' III
I--h=28.5 1F-20.2 TF=278 1F=2].5 "I TF=2].2 TF-28.9 TF- g'.a. Ilen r :mee
4` A A A A A A A n`" may ,
om property Inn Any variation of sefloack or i I� 33 , b%' 977— 4% —� t� 39 gam' 40 I III
argement Ire thenee too o mCan to change building
TYPE A • 9 1 ( NOM
1 i I LOTS .].8. AND 19 THROUGH 20 WILL REQUIRE GRADING CER9RCAlIIXJ — --- ---•� ---W DIN
E.G.P. S o a �; PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
b
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ III
\
If
J�-_— i`20' ACCESS ROAD____/
—_
A1xE83 8- TIRE N BAY COURSE Fort Col - - 1 EMERGENCY
TYPE B �� f 011Y OitaPLAN P DROVALT ACCESS
�B ACCESS
�; APPRovEa: 011Y
B4acmr a �� wle
CHECKED BY:
CALL UTILITYNOATION
tsy k I1n UWl1 pc CENTER OF COL.ORA00 G1EQ(m BY: I
1=800-922-1987
I: CBlwmwsler UWii Nibe534.6700 N1EIR]
STREET TYPE A TYPE B 'CHECKED BY: Porn A iaeel pis � You .SOME,' REXCAVATE
SUCTON raftlm ev or rM,Enwo,n,
— CHECKED BY:
ELAB TYPICAL LOT GRADING DETAILS 0e1e
ptEtlfEO BY:
p
'YEEi
BRAM - TM Engineering Consultan'tS WILD WOOD FARM, THIRD FILING P.U.D. FHA GRADING PLAN
UESICMEO :MEC%E9
_ aAN 1sv53-2oz FORT COLLINS, COLORADQ 18 6
REN AM DESCRIPTION WPROVEIi OATS PROJECT NO
N0. BY DA
AnMW NI SLED MI"
wnawlM AM L+ar"w At seeee Taw arr w r rm rmlorw. rw, r.4 a nw we .n wa nn
Al the ow.. sr
iw. n rvwhell A, Im.1 qs u _l)me .Mn
Awded
new RD
I! e...Y.w..A we(AA AM ..r.ml`^ al ftl e ne, he
feel 11
14.
"Ablefe
P wr.r
a ^i4Y 9Mr a..r Wr. ur.puw xn u.+r.nr Yb O/. Mw V. we la ohnp
weNr n nw .n y wr.
e'I nnNn n mun m.. ew-u um.wgwm
11� Et a rs .e a
I` Mw. Ma w +�hA 0 Alr n lal Alw w- su n
III
Y °y- a
4' n .M. Al o.rn..� nf0eeren .•e.
14AwAl a m^'r (�^ a anm u... let n.Mnmfewur •wweened. 1W IRA AM sumo nneuA. MARAMARA,....riti sea:
If
AMLAI
SCALE 1'=100' yl w.'.mn M L'.mm 310 WAR It Al MAIRA .w r.. em al ^we.a MARMA
knew Affeent e.I w� es I M , III -✓uM III
._ �m•".eN..e rwM rmM.ewe ^rv. amun.wate.•.. M.•rwwre.rwer MAIL �Mffis�
I : };� Id,A, IRA e•e°MM9i.e.�a w•m+w w.'At swn III e - MIA m
emY.rMmrew mewu'1� An e
At NAL IRA
Ah sm -sn
LOP = At n - all v At rM Ne •^
I �11 32.58 -i1� III -
0-1
MIN. _
4
_
ll
" O j. DRAINAGEIEMP:. ONAGE !DYNAMICS
4}M1 aIf(BID PACKAGE I CONST. ONLY) _ -. --- .-.
/ \ GRADE O 1% MIN. .
SECTION C-C .41
wish
-r EROSION CONTROL NOTES _ I-
0-5thre
BEFORE E INMAT G'RADIN T ICE PERMANENT T IT WON POND
SHALL BE INITIALLY IN.CONSTRUCTED SUCH THAT IT WW1. FUNCTION
3 35 i 6 AS A SEDIMENT BASIN. ME INITIAL. COOT DETENTION POND. FOR
6M' v SEDIMENT COLLECTION, EMOSTMERGENCY
CONTAIN AT LEAST iDE ACRE FEET
1 tl VOLUME. AND AN EMERLOTG SPILLWAY PER THE DETAIL ON
PRESFON PARKIN j - \ SHEET A AFTER VEGETATION
T GRADING C INSTAULA-ION OF THE
TEMPORARY VEGETATION :BAST A MULCH E ALL OPEN SPACES AND
•,, \ 267 - \ THE SOCCER FIELD (AT LEAST ND ACRES OF ER DISTURBED
1 i SITE TEMPORARY
RETENTIDETON
PONDCANBE CONVERTED INTO A
- ` IEMPCRAR RE Nilgl (plp CONTAININGAT LEnSi ] ]2 AC Fi
awf.wMa.m-!e.WW�rWrwn. __ -
P
-- - - - 1EMPORW Y SEED A BUILDING
IS NOT FOOTBALL
IN FUTURE PARKING
F,.. �' B y $ k ROADWAY AREAS, BUILUIS AREA, FOOTBALL h TRACK
r. -s1 AREAS, TENNIS TEMPORARY SEED he MULCH
I OR SOFTBALL
FIELDS. APPLY TEMPORARY SEED h MULCX IN ALL OTHER OPEN
it --4942 U / \ ' 1 B8 SPACES AND SOCCER FIELD (AT LEAST 16.25 ACRES, OF THE
\� . \ TOTAL DISTURBED AREA
a
^! �941e - 31 Her L \\1 LEGEND
�
1 ° _j 3 68 1{ .' g he BASINS A. C. E, h F ARE ( o'rg -- k I $O I DRAINED BY ROOF GRAIN i1k EXISTING CONTOLN
a ..-
SHEET 10
I' <)38....'.. 2` .� 1 �,... y(� I AM I , ROOSYSF DRAM. IN LOCATIONS
29� PROPOSED CONTOUR
II g~AM,a .. ,I 'TDRAIN ALE \ Jr ti y - BASIN BWNDAR.
�yy1 c 26 a
Y'l agj/A 9.43 i }� Ewa _ PROPOSED STORM SEWER
.e; _& -. J �F as
a�
CpI <99c. LL. \ w "� e-shi B e I. - Op L47 Ch Q 4 B451N NUMBER
Y,:it 1 _ _ ".'(BID PACKAGE I O.m- 6A] ch
419 I FLARR t CCNSr GNU) OA 1.ag BASIN AREA IN ACRES
wAT dl EY DIRECTION OF FLAN
INDEyg D eAT O CURB/AREA INLET GRAVEL FILER
n _
" ATEMP. SWALE TO
1� , __.2]5 y r -I �L :— �.. -I , ' F :'$ DRAIN BASIN G STRAW BALE CHICK DAM
CONTROL
T A30 E -. 'eieC: '.b • � , I .�: w FW SI TIVI-- 3�azCanGE 1 coNST) EW STORM SUBJECT II 1W YR.
CURB Iii AREA STORM UBJECTT73
I N-12 IRRIGATION e _ N110.E _ 0m- 452 CIA �� DAYLIGHT PtOP(IiEO-OeM11M
G ; C PIPE a 093%, e , - " \ Wig• _ MATCH E%ISi.., 0 ELEV.
5 ON - 1q.H cls - TN` g ane. ar u" m M m. LIMITS °f CONSTRUCTION
i _ � .1 .- P' Cl ch
N - C O ..= a— di am- zz 30 chle , / Al I.7'n z.T MIN. a dl - l.e' 2 er
_ u
4. 6 _ _
SEE
p` Mw.
i SEE DETAIL SHL 12 + p �' A926 CU _ - - - - D,m- 1000`OR SLOPE O.BR ROPE - 0,8% i_ 6
1 INV. 12" PIPE 31.00�.kP�-
12A ADS N 12 5 _ T
I "RED END SECTION 5 p SECTION A -A SECTION B-0 Z
INV, 27,00
CLASS 6 5 J 8 - (ARMS WEFT AREA INLET
L VIDE L d
3 g6 10' LONG A 12" Q TP • A a 1D 7rJ IMNNME / MA 6 10' OFF 'fl' GRAVEL FILTER 0
RIPRAP A/ 12' C°OTfl -� 50' OFFSIE
CLASS A BEDDING n _ _ .+ / i DRAINAGE EASEMENT
3A0' /L//-/�\\ \ 1
i�� /, B l` �-"���-_�_----: !a( �e` I Hot rPEE`M A � FOR OFFSITE DRAINAGE ICA. SEE UNNE OUREi�+
ON AM 2
Om 12 9 to IIIPRRP i - - - - - - I_ . C- NL SHL 8
}pULASS6 END YCIION
010 _
(Wi OF PON°) 13.8e TOM r
POND OUTLET STRUCTURE , -
X 0.AS3 6 RIPRAP
qm=
(OUT OF POND) 33,67 the
SEE DETAIL GOT, 8
DETENTION POND --/
AREA INLET
BID PACKAGE 1 CONSTRUCTION
IRRIGATION STORAGE WSEL - 20.70
GRAVEL FRIER
RETENTION POND A/ OVERFLOW WEIR
10 YR. STORM WSEL - 22.M
VOLUME - 7,72 AGFT.
100 YR. STORM WSEL - 23.70
32' WIDE EMERGENCY-
(NO CUTLET STRUCTURE
VOLUME - 7.72 AGFT.
INCLUDED IN BID PACKAGE 1 CONSTRUCTON)
OVERFLOW WEIR
SEDIMENT BASIN - 1.72 All
MIN.
Total Area: Includes Future Drhite Gity Park,
Future Elementary Spent Site W
Perimeter Rhoods - e9,53 AN,
Rational eC 0.45 (Developed)
Total Flows to Detention Pond One 'fe 49,03 OR (Developed)
0 pg, - 105.40 cts (Developed)
ll AM t
Ill
13"
the
1,51
alb
A
III
in
2234
o r
30
. Indicates Flow for 2-year Storm F"nt
DETENTION SUMMARY
Basins Deal 0 2 Through O S A Through I
Basins Bypassed Through Pond 0 t
Marmum Releaes Rate 10 Or 0.2 eh/Acre (13.84 Are)
100 Yr. - 05 ch/Acre (3450 cts)
Required VOlume' In4gat On 35 Act Ft.
10 Yr. 2.31 Ac Ft
100 Yr. 022 Me Ft
PreMted Volume 172 Ac Ft (o-.gaton + IN Yr.)
_..-.. 42' RCP Y %
APPROVED•
. 43
lvdard Lngn dn5
CHECKED BY.
aM
W.T4
enter Dull
Allj
CHECKED BY:
Slum✓+Ier Unilly
CIA
CHECKED BY:
DPI.
v. W AM RReePe llon
CHECKED BY:
p�1r
reACKEO BY,
__
—net. —
REVISION DESCRIPTION
JB6 SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH S(
DHIAN RAC ,HOOL
�1e1 Engineering Consultants d Mt So FORT COLLINS, COLORII
OEBCNCD a±(c%m _ 9 9 .�1�
Lwh SUM YUd 9,nt s e. lm Ad. ]role 4%B. PoEa a YU S •xuW 90
APPROV MAR.1�_1993 330-003 ul 1 ve caevao eosT. US / M 552 ^°T`1 va, r +x-Arlo
-.- ...... o. un ... .o `64/4N-546 bJ
DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 12 2
PROP. AREA INtFT-, 1 �I
-• 111
_. x—_ a 1 a 11 I it 11
__- _I-..�_. ETENTIO _ _
_ ��S 7 �8 -� 9 12 16
REM
PAN, REPLACE CURB 4- A L�J-A 1 � POND Rc T _-
4 w6 j7 _ _ MIR t� �t Vmr 2.02 ba
h ens\ ___. ._+y 28.9 _ __F-2� - _ ��.. \\ 2C11 ` ♦ e 5
/ GUTTERS AND CROSS 1 P �__ _�_ 1_1 +--.-__— __ _ _ A__ I I 1' _ _ . qm^ 320 cre
WITH NEW 6 `e Ir
CURB & ,�. _ 3 °n• �.. _� -- _ INDIGO CIRCLE NORTH 23 _ __ cURg INUT ®�1�- 1� SECTION A
\ / �`a �� . 5 �•%.. Y� a - '1F�16.0 Tf-26 ♦ N
\ e 2 Aw 2 .,r25 1 1 l
`\ \ ,-T n � P /• � � \I P _ -J�--_ A- � \_ aA.. x, a,E � ry l _MH 116R
vYI �I
\ `1 26 / 0 J i .. .n 6 N
23 1 e 6 " 8� URB w �'' N LEGEND
} / _ �1 PROP 5' Id.
9 � 1 2� 27 S
z. 27 —�e� "
`_ �1. / 10 T A or B FHA GRADING DESIGNATION
ELEVATION
C d.• /�/2B _ 1 : 31 30 r B 5-'+` PROPOSED SPOT ucvA mON
33 V I _
CON' OUR
1 •1 n-ze. 1 _ D �. w r ~3 '� � B3 PROPOSEDcan�sila_ -
;p/•N' - �L>- rl�" .1 _ '} I, uH �T3 - 1F TOP OF CONCRETE iIXW0A11QV wAu
24 --- INDIGO COURT 23 o
18 ,x o 29- 61 Z
.a t
It
1 max' _ �tE_260 « II OVERLOT GRADING NOTES min
D w x3, nT5 tF-D.Y N' 4=26.8 A P
/j 1I � ! ry I. All overlot drainage Shall be graded to a mum elope of 2x
9 L-. ♦11 1.1 T 1 '_ �• f �i I'� P. All lots shall be graded with a mnlmum fall of 0.5' In tMT first 10' away from
foundations.
6 36x r.. x ... �4 x s �� <g 1. P,
• M , \ a 1 1 37 1 4A ""�9.. 4 I I I a - I' ! S. ihn minimum cow, m. nnlened grade to me lowest eabMnur or the foundallon wall
F 12 1 e 38 16 q0 .-t 41
/ \ - Mall be J6'
1 ( m I a 1 I I - e. The finished grade around the lower end of houses on steep streets may he
, l \ 1 O I 47 48 46 d x 43 p I dropped to minimize the slope down to the protal swalee oe tong de 06"
\\O 48 ra PROP. to `II 17 I. I minimum cover • maintained.
U I/ 1 'y"0> a - nt'1 a 1 x" RB INLET Y
� A \ y In 1 a1 x x x- 11 1 TF=280 -D } I� I SIN 5 File minimum foundation exposure above finished grade el be 8".
4n �w < 8 1 11 , 1 1p-29.6 IF-2a.5 �=minimize
m n 1i=29A rr' 1 A 6. Slapss of 4I « 9renter shall be Sodded la'erMian.
w ; r 1 n A A 1 A _—A-- a ry a e driveway Fan be constructed on the high side of the lot In di casesunless lot
13; grading Is specifically designed to allow dr wwoY <an•Imclllon otherwise.
is
�
- h I I Is of B greater shall be constructed In accordance
x
---_�----_- - - PROP. 10 F f ICI B All lode ells ovedot grading EII « r
� CURB INLET a'v 65 with date set 79C (pNA)
-a) 26 NINEBARK (RIVEE 9. sanitary service Ines shall be Installed with a minhoum elope of 2% to the
and se Tram.
Y.v -. =2) } N O 10 ID drveway centerline grade shall be I= unless separate sdewal9 to
Axi
_ 4 �\ I < me n«,ae a natdlea of dax 1n which case maamum ar rewar cente.rne grade
28
6=29u 1 if -]B9 - 1T-29} / "f=ieC iv= =28.5s }i I O Mall be tax
L - , x 1 ' a' x x 2 �I A L
¢ 11. Each lot shall be evallmled by a registered soils engineer at the time of
N0
A)
A '' ; P j1 1 . r construction to dedermne the two and extent of the suladran system required.
_ 1 1 l �
I Z
A:. 1 is _ " a
_ x a � 1.y l,. I J i5 The InaFetl grade and finished top foundation elsygtwn• are ea..a an scaled
64 V U weMenl ..l6aR-Mown'-trmtrpthe finished
tin top of Shan «f ewbah g building
66"� 6g qq 57 6 58.g d 59 60 81 '��J�@2 -63 - - O a Iargement may require the nn Shea too of rounaar on m change.
SEE DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET 4
.��
AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN &
PROFILE SHEETS 17 & 18 FOR
Mr •srz
DETAILED DRAINAGE DESIGN
m
f
O
'
I,
N
j
I'
I:
I
I
city of W coli alrcillu,
ulniarr rc.e Ar"a
:
,AwL
SCAILE 1'=511'
j
�w'� Give TVA
®
�l
PAUL
CENTER of ow:no"
1-800-922-1987
I
Irl
534 8700 h= I
n<o<�x.a�
c�KED By
JBB
SHEETS SHEET
WILD WOOD
FARM, SECOND FILLING
P.U.D.
deh
En ineain Consultants
g g
FORT
COLLINS, COLORAG,O
FHA GRADING PLAN20
8
REVISION DESCRIPTION
p'F0;11 OCT. 1993 563 qo1
r wl i f r:r