Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Drainage Reports - 06/20/2007
Oily of Ft. Collins ApprQyW Plans Approved By "S • Nwd a-- W%op>RTY OF Final Drainage and)te 6 1 �/a7 1,ToRT cos "T""ffosion Control Study for II Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements for Front Range Village Development Fort Collins, Colorado May 2007 PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins, Colorado PREPARED BY: Stantec Consulting Inc. 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements for Front Range Village Development Fort Collins, Colorado May 2007 PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins, Colorado PREPARED BY: Stantec Consulting Inc. 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 ' Stantec Consulting Inc 209 South Meldrum Street ' Fort Collins CO 80521-2603 Tel: (970) 482-5922 Fax: (970) 482-6368 stantec.com 1 StanWc 1 May 11, 2007 ' Mr. Basil Hamden ' City of Fort Collins Water Utilities--Stormwater 700 Wood Street ' Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements for ' Front Range Village Development. Dear Mr. Hamden: ' We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements for Front Range Village ' Development. 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, Stantec Prepared by: ` ' Anthony Wi omm, PE Senior Project Engineer ' d Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements City of Fort Collins Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study TABLE OF CONTENTS ' DESCRIPTION PAGE ' 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................................................................ I A. Location.............................................................................................................................1 ' B. Description of Property.................................................................................................... I C. Drainage Concept..............................................................................................................1 ' C.1 Existing Drainage Conditions..................................................................................... 1 C.2 Developed Drainage Concept..................................................................................... 2 II. DRAINAGE BASINS....................................................................................................... 2 ' A. Major Basin Description.................................................................................................. 2 B. Sub -basin Description....................................................................................................... 2 ' III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA................................................................................. 2 A. Regulations........................................................................................................................ 2 B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints......................................................... 2 C. Hydrologic Criteria........................................................................................................... 3 ' D. Hydraulic Criteria............................................................................................................ 3 E. Variance.............................................................................................................................3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN.................................................................................. 3 A. General Concept................................................................................................................ 3 ' A.1 Harmony Road............................................................................................................ 3 A.2 Ziegler Road................................................................................................................ 3 A.3 Storm Sewer Design................................................................................................... 4 A.4 Street Capacity ............................................................................................................ 4 V. EROSION CONTROL......................................................................................................... 5 ' VI. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................5 A. Compliance with Standards............................................................................................. 5 ' B. Drainage Concept.............................................................................................................. 6 C. Stormwater Quality Concept........................................................................................... 6 ' D. Erosion Control Concept.................................................................................................. 6 VII. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................7 Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements City of Fort Collins Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study ' APPENDICES APPENDIX A - CITY OF FORT COLLINS STORMWATER BASINS ' APPENDIX B - RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY DEVELOPED 10-YEAR STORM EVENT DEVELOPED 100-YEAR STORM EVENT ' APPENDIX C - STREET CAPACITY DEVELOPED 10-YEAR STORM EVENT ' DEVELOPED 100-YEAR STORM EVENT APPENDIX D - INLET SIZING UDINLET APPENDIX E - STORM SEWER DESIGN APPENDIX F - SOIL TYPES APPENDIX G - EROSION CONTROL ' PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, EFFECTIVENESS, CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE, COST ESTIMATE ' PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN MAP...............................................................BACK POCKET ' ii I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ' A. Location The Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements are located near the Southeast _quarter of Section 32, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 61h Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. This project includes improvements to Harmony Road between the intersection with Timberline Road and the main entrance of HP and improvements to Ziegler Road from the intersection of Harmony Road to the intersection of Horsetooth Road. B. Description of Property Harmony Road is an East-West four -lane major arterial road that vanes in width due to the exclusive turn lanes at the major intersections. Currently, there is no curb and gutter on ' either side of Harmony Road except at major intersections. Improvements to Harmony Road will consist of construction of new landscaped medians with curb & gutter and widening of outside lanes to accommodate three lanes of traffic in each direction with turn lanes. ' Improvements are constructed in part to accommodate the proposed Front Range Village site. A roadside ditch will be constructed along the north side of Harmony Road to collect runoff from the north half of Harmony Road. The existing concrete lined irrigation ditch on the south side of Harmony Road will receive stormwater as it has under current conditions. Modifications to the ditch are necessary to widen the road. ' Ziegler Road is a North -South two-lane arterial road approximately 70 ft wide flowline to flowline. Currently, southbound Ziegler Road has curb and gutter from the Harmony intersection to the Horsetooth intersection except for a small portion of roadway in front of the former Dietz property and the Young property. Northbound Ziegler has curb and gutter from the Harmony intersection to just north of the current Fellowship Church property. Improvements to Ziegler Road include lane widening and reconfiguration to accommodate two lanes of traffic in each direction in addition to exclusive left and right only turn lanes. Ziegler Road will have curb and gutter along its entire length in its proposed condition. In ' addition, a curbed median will be added from just north of the Harmony intersection to the Front Range Village entrance to direct traffic. C. Drainage Concept CA Existing Drainage Conditions ■ The westbound lanes of Harmony Road from Timberline to Ziegler currently drain to the north into a roadside ditch that conveys flows to the east. The westbound lanes from Ziegler t Road to the eastern limits of the project drain to a grassed lined median and flow east. The entire eastbound lanes except for a portion between the Paragon entrance and Ziegler Road drain to the south into an existing irrigation ditch. The eastbound lanes along the Paragon frontage drain to the undeveloped center median. This runoff is piped to the Paragon pond. ' Both the northbound and southbound lanes of Ziegler drain from the crown at the center of the road to existing curb and gutter or edge -of -pavement. The existing curb and gutter conveys flow to low points in the road where it is captured by CDOT Type R inlets and direct to the east into the existing HP swale in the Avago property east of Ziegler. Portions of Ziegler to the north without curb and gutter drain to roadside swales. C.2 Developed Drainage Concept tRunoff from the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements will be conveyed via overland flow, swales, curb and gutter, cross -pans, inlets and storm sewer systems. See the proposed ' drainage basin map located in the map pocket of the Appendix. II. DRAINAGE BASINS A. Major Basin Description The Front Range Village development is located within the Fox Meadows Drainage Basin. The Fox Meadows Drainage Basin generally flows south to north. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Basins can be seen in the Drainage Exhibit found in Appendix A. B. Sub -basin Description The Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements were broken into twelve sub -basins in order to size inlets and check street capacity. Areas of Harmony Road and Ziegler Road that were not ' significantly modified by the proposed improvements were not modeled. These areas will drain as they have historically and have been accounted for in the master drainage plan for ' the area. A copy of the rational sub -basin map is located in the map pockets of the Appendix. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (published by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District — Denver, Colorado) and the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria have been used to calculate the stormwater runoff and to size the on -site storm sewer facilities. 1 B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ' The design criteria, constraints, and recommendations utilized for this Drainage Study were obtained from the City of Fort Collins Master Plan and the Fox Meadows Basin Drainage Master Plan Update. ' 2 C. Hydrologic Criteria Since the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements are less than 160-acres, the Rational Method was used to calculate developed stormwater runoff. The 10-year and 100-year storm events were used in calculating rational runoff values and the City of Fort Collins intensity duration frequency curves were used to obtain rainfall data for each storm specified. Rational Method computations are provided in Appendix B. D. Hydraulic Criteria ' All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are included in the Appendix. ' E. Variance IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept A.1 Harmony Road ' Due to the widening of Harmony Road, the existing median storm pipe west of Corbett will be removed. Runoff from the westbound lanes of Harmony Road will drain to a proposed ' swale along the North side of the road. New median with curb and gutter will be constructed with the improvements on Harmony Road. Basins 102, 103, 106 and 107 drain to the center median in the proposed condition. Basin 2 drains to a proposed Type 13 combination inlet ' that conveys flows to the east and connects to an existing storm drain system. Basin 103 drains to a proposed Type 13 inlet at a low point in the median. These flows will be conveyed to the north and will be discharged into the existing Paragon detention pond. Basin 106 consists of two proposed left turn lanes that will drain to a proposed Type R inlet which will tie into the proposed Front Range Village drainage system. Basin 107 drains the proposed left turn lane into the Pads at Harmony site. Flows will be directed to a CDOT ' Type R inlet and will be conveyed to a proposed detention pond on the Pads at Harmony site. Basins 104 and 105 drain to area inlets along Harmony road and into a proposed culvert. These flows will continue east along the existing roadside ditch. All other areas will drain as ' they have historically. A.2 Ziegler Road The existing drainage patterns of Ziegler Road will be maintained with the construction of the proposed roadway improvements. Basins 109 and 110 will drain to proposed CDOT t Type R inlets located at approximately the same low points that exist today. Basin 109 drains directly to Pond F of the proposed Front Range Village site and is released into the ' existing HP swale. Basin 108 drains runoff to a low point just south of the Avago entrance where it is collected by 2 Type 13 combination inlets. These flows combine with runoff from basins 109 & 110 and are discharged into the existing HP swale. Basin I I I flows are ' 3 ' collected by a proposed Type 13 combination inlet that will be connected to an existing 18" RCP that directs flows to the south and eventually into the HP swale. The existing 18" RCP ' is part of the English Ranch storm drain system. Basin 112 drains to a proposed CDOT Type R inlet where flows will be directed to the south. A.3 Storm Sewer Design ' The storm drain design for the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements will meet the 10-year storm drainage inlet and pipe design criteria set forth by the City of Fort Collins. NeoUDSewer was utilized for computing the hydraulic grade lines for the proposed storm ' sewer systems. The minimum velocity in the proposed storm sewer systems was set at 2 feet/second (fps) to prevent silting. Based on the results of NeoUDSewer, the hydraulic grade line along the length of the pipe is below the ground surface. Inflows to the storm ' sewer were calculated using the rational method. CDOT Type R and Type 13 combination inlets were sized based on flows computed using ' the rational method and using UDInlet, a spreadsheet created by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Gutter flows during the 10-year storm event are maintained within the curb and gutter section and do not exceed 18-inches during the 100-year storm event. If ' overtopping were to occur during a 100-year event, existing and proposed building pad elevations will not be inundated. Clogging factors of 0.2, 0.15, and 0.1 were applied to 5', 10' and 15' Type R inlets, respectively. ' A.4 Street Capacity t The flows for the street capacities for the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements were calculated using the Rational Method and FlowMaster. The proposed street designs the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements meet the required 10-year and 100-year street capacity requirements set forth in the City of Fort Collins Standards. During the minor 10- year storm event the storm water runoff does not overtop the curb and at least one-half of the roadway width is free of water in each direction. During the major 100-year storm event the storm runoff does not overtop the crown of the road and the depth of the storm runoff is below 18 inches at the flowline of the gutter. Supporting calculations for the street analyses ' are provided in Appendix C. ' 4 V. EROSION CONTROL This development lies within the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. There should be minimal to no erosion problems after completion of the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements. Silt fence will be installed in strategic locations along Harmony and Ziegler Road to prevent sediment transport. Wattle inlet filters will be placed at the opening of the proposed Type R and Type 13 combination inlets. During the construction of the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements, all disturbed areas will be permanently landscaped or temporarily seeded and mulched within 30 days of initial disturbance. North American Green geotextile fabric will be used as necessary to stabilize slopes along Harmony Road and Ziegler Road. All disturbed areas not in a roadway or greenbelt area shall have temporary vegetation seed applied within 30 days of initial disturbance. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a rate of 1.5-tons/acre minimum, and the mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. The new pavement sections that are to be added as part of the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements must have a 1-inch layer of gravel mulch applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre immediately after overlot grading is completed. The pavement structure shall be applied within 30 days after the utilities have been installed. If the disturbed areas will not be constructed upon within one growing season, a permanent seed shall be applied. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a minimum rate of 1.5 tons/acre, and the mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked or crimped into the soil. In the event a portion of the roadway pavement surface and utilities ' will not be constructed for an extended period of time after overlot grading, a temporary vegetation seed and mulch shall also be applied to the roadway areas as previously discussed. All construction activities must also comply with the State of Colorado permitting process for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. A Colorado Department of Health NPDES permit shall be obtained so that construction grading may commence within this development. a VI. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards All assumptions, computations and design criteria utilized for the completion of this report are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites and the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. The site drainage design corresponds with and adheres to the recommendations stipulated in the City of Fort Collins Master Drainage Plan. B. Drainage Concept The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report will adequately provide for the conveyance of developed on -site stormwater runoff as well as off -site flows to the proposed drainage facilities of the proposed project site. The combination of the proposed curb and gutter, cross -pans, inlets, and storm pipes will provide conveyance for the 10-year and the 100-year flows. If, at the time of construction, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit will be required. C. Stormwater Quality Concept No new water quality facilities will be provided by the Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements. Water quality control structures are currently provided by Front Range Village improvements to the north and west of these improvements. D. Erosion Control Concept The proposed erosion control concepts mitigate the control of wind and rainfall erosion for the Front Range Village. Through the construction of the proposed erosion control concepts, the City of Fort Collins performance standard will be met. The proposed erosion control concepts presented in this report and shown on the erosion control plan are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control criteria. G7 VII. REFERENCES 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1984, interim revision January 1997. 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. 3. Fox Meadows Basin Drainage Master Plan Update Selected Plan Report by ICON Engineering Inc, December 24, 2002, revised February 2003. 4. The Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (published by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District — Denver, Colorado — June 2001). 7 \) � { ! l ) ) |k|mu-6d! §a2 !� | � q| § . �! �, �■ §f guilt. �jg ) §� i h� aThl � 1` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX — A May 2007 Stantec HARMONY & ZIEGLER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS City of Fort Collins Stormwater Basins OF .- twi,ff Co Drmwafer Bay �� I;Y/.�/ I'Jq•{; ' ..1;i% ��' �� - a,'il IJ,r 75i ',� 'it ,1 17 As I,.I r :II 'Vill- �71PI16Y+1 Il,r` 1I I,I r'r+rJl , CJY.. 330 FF'll I+� aU�Y' I�-i`I I,✓,IILI A r. � �u .ful �I I 1�•yy�„�YY1�yyr(''r1,I j�y, a ' ^Ii11►IIICI111 ��,,�,'� 711 - " - 'sii�l�. ��21a r y v,`v Y�'orn111��I1Ye:1'�111111111.111/ 1` � mi l 1 1117` O - fir_gumvi1lo.1 `�Illl�un IIIIIIIIIG�'��� I�11� '�y 1 ._,`•, ., fl•r iJ r MI o ��N !1��'�'lllllll 11111�IIII�11111111 � ����`�_,...•r����1 I 'I )I i �� 111111MIJU i111111111111111:a �� J11j•, II• ryry.� 'I '�" i'' rli':'•Lfir✓; �IVr � m ` �I>•IIIIIII:.:.11] <7 °.qf ,1Ji'�i11 PI Alll•L. ill,.lir. t.. v c_ 1^�� TJv uaruule:,(j �6\\ r.l.l.l.11rl:Jla. I� '�oil ■ 1'FZ � r ' p I' I!111111. \ i � r I Il�•L, 'r),' j° I� ,L.} n a'' �If �GuJiZi .,.r1i�i��.�. Mlw 1 P I^■11� .l:.f�... •,Inel r r r ('1 r t � 1 � - .� I III �Me24o;• 11,�I� i�, J;1'JY7pIll"NlY! I I a..' , ;.) II Il ry I , I Moil I , +'Y il' 1�1 ' 'I I I '„ � �� ■I'� a Irr a `�`I�Y:S �jr IIJIdl6 ' y\M d+, +f �y� (r rr � �`7 ���• . '� I , IfILJ , n Iv , J 'I ► ''; yi^1�'lt ��, �l . }�� r' :'li i. �11/ In •I) ,)I I II'' I�Illillrl 1)` 'I II9 i I ':j,�`�Ie _ •+:'' III pin r r►;' �,;1�' ,�11 I ; :, ,IIi I '1' I! I I ,I It' IAN , 4r �tl I. rl4r, 1. ,I1.113r 1r1 III 7 r l I {!o rr•• ! 1 I 1 i.. III . I r it r II `1 1 � M11 .III iti v I • { 111 nr, I, x7 Ya.n nfli'..,'U IL���°► +� �I I I l I Il • ry I I r a r, of l I: Ill l.���/.IrQ�l�i��:,L.'o'�,li ImIl in, Tcz f' L.i- ''iI, 71r .. c I_1 ��7Q&7u9�Y'Ptl��� ®p �/ �°•���a 'Q®�iy\�� 11 r� '' IAIf rf �i;I t;.; fi� v'.v1 , • \!j7 'ii� W51vT.V 7A9„�EIes Bluy �h!� / II '�. J•�� , ��e����r?F..�1�'�� ���rY-.'�iJI�MQ r � 1, :': I ,, i ' ''i +� J,l+'!x f .-/,�� ��w�M�Cu r=4�VY.•�iiiv'�,i.J�•Jti+W®.IR.iP=6°'.l:'3 !1'�..'m�ir'�)_... er_.wn.....,.'..�I_��.. ,r�i,rrlvll.,i .,�NN1'. n iW 1 � '/y �- i/' .. _ rat 71 y }l e.a �ti NL r* .X,`i ��' a•. 1a, �a l •� - �. Ft • •rr�a fl. y.. •Z V. J' - • .• �./Z ..r- «.«. 1a•.-'.•1i7 J�f._�'tta <� .a�� y •a/ T �[ '� i� �s. `\`\\\t .•?t. x' �,:1f .i•a-`` .j • �F�[� .��w'J%• =•,�`r N�'.r• r'.fw4�.(!•�K'iy .) 4' '.i i Ms }' J [a)...;L. r ••r_� y~ • V �'r ,1t1 \\ �i. `. a- >��� • >'• ��{' ♦ t~Ti•iila �s/�' � a1J. � a•Y�aIM 1_�.. ��., .{n''\� + `A.'1 n 1.J:: _ L.•%'- -i •i' _ �. 't V C•�• r a [af ._-/ �1 f �_ r.e, a '��M• •• +l.w.r. tfa'r 1 -}+� �! a r�`< l:,i l: w� ! /.\.:�F 'iT ra� •iyy �. a as a.'. .�..0 ' E. •1� y+�,f ^� y �n S''L7"�'~�•� �l�: Y�.� FP• � .s �.�i3 ' .-�L�j ,, fs�'�i ♦ r..�'••• � ♦ ,t• \\s� • p1• .a: G •iIN ... ICt'.y fs ,� •t.- l4_�jr,«,♦ a ��:.r ..; ` :5 , {�i•' .•-; '�� > > •(�•� � ' t il' � +�, '� .-� w.. 'r[+: t'K, G: !err•' ar. F �. -Sr•_i w 1J71p 'S a'^: �,tz'Ffi:a .�a �•a J y 1JI ,�3•� ( ._ y lk•'�1 •J' �',�i ';. /c •[.- Yv. / �s�F_ { - .1 a .; �.. 4 yF1 T a i. •i• ca ! - S � \. �•,'f! ' ti. _•'a�' ` �!3 %•i•-SY�f • _ ✓ -'a 1wg' C .♦ •. •a .A+••,a, a ia'� !F r ± • -a .vl _. - , { f - ` �MT.a .h.�.� sya. a��•-• ••7 j}-y • tr .t a •' ,r\ _ =• _'•e..�-..-7 •� as G •!.[ 1 ��1.. .. '�- •1 i!.v �► 7.i+?aa<L=F.sl,�W�=�f��-.�Wl;i� 'swLE .4:c�.=yta �y :(%i-_L{:I:�'.E 1 �• .1 is'.lay. sae_v ff C _ 1^•1A•a s.••�r,. ' f: Ja: •a. 'mod': �1 .�t�"l.. r.:' �•�'r''!ra i�i�� / " q.,- rw/ � i•.��,••t-' {. f �:� ..�•_ \ ..:-.1.�' .•1��[�5a i i • 'tr !• .+. ar•.S_'•t]fl.+•. (f u.r'y Mrr 1`wx'•': i:.. •a�J VliF I'ii FK:<� r•� '�'' •ay F:K' _ * j%. \� •:F s+.� _/ .... - • :`• �YIw' ": 1Si' r.��•a i/ ,-1t.(�•[ 'lfTi:r� �Ly. .,+� J ,•�i �G'/ _ Y•���' .at a r \ �i1� [y 1' •` a. ` . r fail-'„3-f "4<• �1 < i'. 4y'(T- M. ._sw_._. V• �,f 'its 1•�i/ • '• •Ji, a ,�71,� fla ��3 -i�$.. �•llGlr�! t�.t,a 1;`f'ia.a-�� .- 1 f - •1 .M..£ .�rJ � _t s. J_ :t ♦ ; .[ '`-{�• .�• �, , !,• •t' .. - J. ', 4.: ..Krry, s�.ti ins ,. aa�. e� '3� KyM•r• t. c' ,•� -E•= � 1. •F�j / [ 1�^\_. .. •y.:.f.y! 1 II:.J-i'.. ..�,e,-1' .a .e .al'.i'e ,.al :,.a �a31. •:,_' z t_ - '�:. ti - _ j• a�1J` r -' [ r: •�^{Lr ..e.r +%n`_ 4. !L 3G :dA•rl si: ! t - _ ira%Jt e.a/rr11 l .I• f"s �'� �:+jJ•? ..�..•�h }.- • _ - 1a w`- \'-:-�`'-•. l•ll.n �,�a .�'Y . �+4 1��_, ..-. 1-. 1 ��_ _ __�•`� .�� -�-.� _ ._ Y} .<iqq .•Sd ♦ it n .'. _ -.e. _s._•��"`� � � y1�`wih {If f•ati �, �•}T' a{I ���x GC7l (i�_�i ,', T �� .,,fit_ ��[ a '. .dal a J.a a ,fit��- a✓1 - {�t.i• .Er -e - - �t pia S' !Ae ) '}'F ,• i"•{-+.f'sE. 'a f: �i};. +G�\�••1 !� 'v�•ti j.• K,•�i }�;'1 , ! a,+a `� hy\ *.1 ^'..�_ � �. _ % +' ;/ ►.t� �. 1'\• :[• � ,< - !T. `,t: c: t ai , � !p tf `t�a: p:"� �• • � _ � �•}.�_-•:_r''' e ' .N� a -��{'' . ��:�:, . •�;� �a +a- ��. -' � , � �i •7 .:� '.f. -1 �_. { I..•sy`� :� < .�� •. �•��• ^•iy r': .l .,i[lt. _.��.�Ji - 4i!'• •. -. -�'.l � •�� A�. ett j14 ♦ i' i ft`. s� f ♦ _y ,t.�w, _ ".[ �. � p , ..iaM` j_:lt .1. a a•. S _�. .'' ''� l ♦ s.-('a' � qt /': Mj,� - . g-•' _ � .K' -•-.. f '.•'• : '+{j��- _ � �1� _ �P. i a. 1t! 'r•:�i'' r _ c • A i ; ���)r�y` .r... _ cVr���i ^.3 � -• / ...G��.. �• [ ♦ � - / sC. Yi• �� i J'r _• .{],$r► _ :[../"' •s a •' .4d.Yal�y lr+'�^;; ,1�. t' ate- ,"�` w •• .+V '-�� •��� srt t�_ -yl 7`�' - _ r... \.. -� '�� ��r' i _ K .7 i a,$-) �.1.�.�w� a ait_ aw1�4`L'_► r�Vr r ,�ALtiY _t� Z, +�j� .'`��. .. ♦.. - � �•. lY`.a \`�___ �, s"c\ s:R' `- 1.. � [-• �+�1.' K: '•f�-'-2L•�� vj • A N' � _a,• •ta aG ■ `'. . r .. ASS \ �''- _'• �- �a �' .t. ._. r.. ,,•.a�,Glf_ a�t^e--+ r„•� "..:a•_e•N_•y�~',��•y��•'►'-iG: .a• .� �•y... a -i �.,.•'.-.. � k y 'M'r. ...�, ....{I` L ^�_ iF:'4• Cy- y .j- -r. a•f. a fit( 5++. -) r \: . :• .•>3 / r-c ff •h'ic•:.�' ._' a -. .. ra. ':'7"� '*�' '. T <•' A4l ,-.�•-'��,7F,;: �kf '•}�� < :l.• a °' -----^ a' Y •, _ _ 4.• �s <:LS!- - 1a: •� a a�'- r aye. t.. :..• �, <•�. v - I' :.•.. } f[ i-•are' �i,� `'�i!- 1 .. • - u • -!' _ ' V J t!, - T -?� • � `7 �`%' K_`� a.! - s s� u. - !j' ♦�' a .+:G. fir ?a � .+` X 'syl'J:1 . • - { 4"<�. ram. • _ _ -}� ." I f ��ti a,l_ a w•.a.�a ;i.-a a..a't' a .1: C.:..i; .._ ,: t!. r`� r_' r.`►. r �' .•fie -s'.s-��FF•+� ., i` '•' L-. e_ � ^-.e�� � ram• �:5-- .J• `` 'a• :' =Y� � i -'4�� .�..•+,••at�� a1;71• �:V �'^a(�J, ; !, = t~+t �e:afa• �.f!•. �`",' ! e��' • !:, F F' '-_� - Ri 'y •s Jr __sa •'4 a •ti� - d T al. , _-Vci_"�[� aAr ! • � f'. l•- • � 1� 'i �- Y - `��. �s' :a• .7•.. t..J t' ,\- k4 pr•B" iR�. t f• _` -•a _ �', �• (•: • ry _�� � �- � •.3 =.i 'a .-�s �_ ��F �i, c • .s :i•i-aill i+a.; -1 fpte-•rr� 1 ::• n...�nl_� v._.,_... �.=J��IW .fJ e ♦ ; i •� i_.i..+l 'i max. i^:''�''-- • 3 �.-sc• a _ - 1 `� -r•'r-ta+•r�.-s•{I l.`i�R 'a. !? I 1pp1'' _ :'tip _2 '' _ t ;t,r .�.•+'Y7 a..- y�[��•�. �L 'Lj: a_1 4.a �.. i •t�llllll - _ •.r M'a *_ �• -\ - rt,_ i Y v`1� 1 _t _��s ~�1.0 t`' .! �- fr��.li _Y {teem shy n +` I,�.a�• i •;J �f .t. . tl. � ..\ 1• � t. '••`.a1• .�� 'i�Y! R�'i`'; r Z _!A;.s; �. [R< j - a•t.'�c a k, _{ :�•' _;„•3 - i•-_i i'�11 I _•'-'_K � - }F.';il .a�tN.'• .• : 3 -�':� "�� .a,u _.0 '„'' 'C•1( `\iV .(}s?.t. I. � '%+''�. 'l _ T.� '.r.. r - .Y�ar�%��.ti-s{, a I•. �•iJ�_•��I- •`4, �.�i4jy •ti .s ii;._ _ .���•a i / T(V�.0 ?'I aT• 1,a.y, .,'\� -ter .n c.Gi. ��.a =?a 1 +1 +.. tr.._ + _ .J y ��� � •\ • t -{- ,jam} ' 4 �>�•�l e . . i - '--`� �� T.• M - , i Sc ' "t'�fr- _ -. 1 . ♦ �`. .1;�-'i �. .: /:_ :•a Y}' S.r % `6�•. i ri ply{..�, •{ ( >•{ r. {�. .'`[` �.4''` s" � - _ -!h � l ':r` •a 3 .F?�• a. _•a a•;ti Yi;-�,f'• \`i !•a ♦[`` :ry .�! � 1 Y _ •�.T-.'1 4\ .a•TY.<� %�.{ 417 \ ^y •}. � 't �j��f i`I1 _ �. ';•ya'-` l .f { ` \\l-e--t.• �� -. � yT�[�t�e^•v µ `a �--..�••e[\� Lk.'r a+ '�' . '�L1}�,''!y:�{'+'Ffi[�.< j .'i'��e�:_ -�_.��i t 1 r�= �\ *:. • •! } hlb Fa, ... �s:♦ ,�: h-ya� ..!°Ja:S'�,Y� a T \� -_!- •4 �''-_. _. `may. `\ '\ c Jr. i• :N t' .u`^W�a�["R'Y-1• ya�j�� •�,.tsG: i`5,.��'1:_�.a.•�et•'di 1. M.tr: { ..r'. S�A4 :f - _ •J !z_i'•r �. ._ _C.. "::'`..iic i %:a' •. r, �. is l•.-'-.�- A .r..,'.; .y1'2 •'t: T] �.�'7.. •.�?• _ ��f+�l� �_` - ,• -�•a � .1; ► � a - 4.•. '•'-c��.: _i' a va•'. sty f - +•t+`!f.i"+/ .!H<�'•....•r.e t I.L: ei., .-4. - :•+�'t..",N T. _>� r� r •%� f 'c= f"ji '•'�'•+'1V .'f� � .L:tlr�'• - _� >i... _��� aaa �S.yIG } ,� + '`M _ 'y`� �� �.Y :J = -\-y_1 y�l �f a- ai""mil• 'ti(,L '- �• _i ¢4,..� ':e'i.•- i..,a.� t�`iti` - � :�-.:... ::. >"' �:.-J - �-tyr -7� 1 �.. .i - 4 ai =e R.R' --yy� J '�. ,t;t{• �ti; -:rj - ? "';, �f _ �.r �'. �{ �, *'T s•...yc• .i e�. _� ��iiii _ � � • �.f✓� f' � ., u• H r� r l �gj1[j. �: .! c _/'\ w•J'' •�- .•r. ,1 •sty( L •YwZ <1'4' '�' ��� ��__:e,>�: _ Y� - i _'�iTj�., r J �? - >Z �.!� aa. r3 = l!%�,•;Ts�i.=/ �{� :r't• _ ��� le �-� i�r • e :`` - i 1 � "s • , • 'ti a¢Sr a � - .+` ' :'. :+' � .- L : L.,µ, f \ - j'h 1 f1 1:.«' �- d'-�r��,i' ; J f J t $/ .. •, •r _ 7 „` - -� -:- ?/Is s•.j> LrY , .y �.� �" 'rJ � -.ia �.''g.0 a. _' _. rf'�a "^.1• • 4\. `'. (ri ` •E .; -♦' ti y s- �r1t•., � E •�rw r_+ •Zv rs [� 1 Sr c ai a-•Ys• v..:- /`.�,-[� � • oaf ., !•EaY„v�Y n •,.\ \ _ ._ i ..a '. � r. 4 �� ['. _ �. :\' .1r ,. • �F v ?`. f •gin 1' f• ti� {. "a[�"+a-� V .. �- G. ,i+d�� tr .1a• *G7+fr•t+ 'S f .•: J ^♦ _a'/ a S aT!.ti1LtY. ^. -5l� Y^.G l i'�¢t J:• -,r_ ?.,. .t •\, :.wii-,r{ .•� s .. !-�r'� -} .�� - �'?{I r ^ < a'.�.. r�Lg'� a. .. +1 -F• <. aSit.•, .. �. ..•.. 1 �\. ✓•r•'�ai'=-•�� a� '1M1 i. Ya.f. i*L a12 •i1• f j=`-(=Zr '1}w t..���i. r+• 5�. i.. ^1..,� � r: � •-��'. r' � 4.• c r -_•_y' �, �a.-�•t:,�y.w- i .?'�'_•i_�L: �d;x �..a . a — �__.d. py�,� • 1�,•• :•4 i�' \` \►, a e. .• r t'aT aa. ��/ r )' _�� �T i.c. _:.•�iti /a�:rM1w. �"�.i_. •�L •.a-•_._ L' �L�_ _ _ __ 1 t 1f 1 1 .°'.•.f'i .,y� a..�.ra, �• {:ya...•1+I]U r, '� r "' ..ef."FC te`yt,.�' 1', ,�. • a. .:n �Tv a _ -Q�'' '-� r1��. ,7 S_✓•.'�c t1J1/�H,C i'%r'vwm AY "",i• :',.� _ _ -.Y -<'. �i '•a.- '!•r1= S`. '.V•�{I�?�V'.`raJi'♦'r , •r,•, - ���. _ .ia� a r�`•.. ' •t AY_ ,l�r:i J t` f•��r✓Y r _ _ -i _- +. •••;• ` 1�� i._•-• ' •�=r r• j �,}1 - •,-�•r,,,_yiYi`+i: i`�' :,.�Y. Tl: ",'. :,.: _ .415';_S jjam�. 7 '�:a. af.►.p �._t+'.- a 7�, _ - ,� , _ 'r'at _ �.:n'�-'><--=J'^'=s __ : ,. � - �, • ar-/.J-M v j};!^Y.aty� �-., .1j^ 1 s ��� a�3�il�jw �Lj ri a t�,f~ •it' •.a ° 'K t. ��+ t' zw' t! r • ' ' ^\ / rt r ' . •SiM iar� '/•r. � jL'Gl.:_,• � L� • •�,r+-��''�* i 1 �` 1. \ •��T � ♦F. L •� it _fir 1 a.a �'=',� rG�'y�:��rLy. �y��♦.1, ,��jy.;•+ :�I I -� '�.:•r.s�i•1 Yi <.Y .ES a T \�_ .�.F :=� �{•�..� .'i � • fI• y {a • �47., `S� ... � ti:���T.,-^.�� �f t � �1 I�' r jC � (•i='� -• ' f'•`+v�:_ t ',r�i ..� tq � ' S' `"\ ; _ - t F - � ' . 'L /.�]�♦.�� Lyr .J' ♦r y'+ r+:iY �< r�.14 L. ...,r. ...M: ,. t.✓•i '�'fa �. � \ •` a _ v4s —_w' YYY �iF•r 'aysa �1At-� h1+RlJT'11 y1� xt,'a,Jlc•j VF.n� r • .L tL� .a✓.•J`. .i.�.L •.--"-I•V.0 � -�' � r � -.E� :�.`I _ --"�'� ' r �m.;X "x�it '>e . r �-jl �.'ti r+', �'.. �..t a { .t _ ..���'+"e � .r+�•� •• � 'o„'�_.:+•+. _ :.+rr.� � _ r ('. _ ri 2=_T�� ,y�.. . _.v:=���r{ t �-?'},�; tlrr aY'.- fir: �.i� >-.'y .'.=7y (b , �._ -� r.. - : . ,.". •4' � "'1'� K : _ • 1 t � ._+'i .•� . � : h.!( _-♦^ 7�j Vxa �.�-�� �� T c: i- �• ".•. ir+ .ir ~..�. t '.•,., 'i'iti •r-r;�( '1. .{- �.. �;.� ,r. �• - -.} i aw. `J♦ ii:i - Ly :^ i t-/r_•uf - f`.t10 '`.�tf.�,l Tfr•►C'�.a raC.. .•: �r+L •: ;1 _-.a� _t. c•f.r: •c:`♦ - ,a •7 W,7 w. �� _ .cy��. •.+� : e • a' eJ 4,• _�1�'a.� •f �' Lra-. !� .. �a•1 It •. T. L • . • . it' � '. 1 - •.e Th. `W, -.i '�• - •.`s.C`l .l-/.,•1.n��3 ��r• ��-fl..•' iif t "r•?s JFi•__'a• F. �•Y. '4 - 1 . �a"r. -� `.� •"'---:G--. le. _ .:. +7� 1 ��✓ • II4t.I T L S'��C�J.�c��•..r�r �t`.~.tii'�' -/< •� y. N C _ '1••: .yi a..'. ` a ,I r'• t~ a y. �!'fa • -- Y. J s a •ems<� _ �;�. 1 ad O'1^ .. r�a. \a .w Y.. t„a ✓'3 J'r'.t..3'. �,z. -_, .+'.: '\' :`s �'ta. -. ,—: 6. r x _ to 1y%- _ �. '', z an _ 7 L •. # a IV ♦:, ''� 1^j i 'i1�Y..iv t4ta.r�.y. ^Tle ul-H:-�,i '•.iti •l.. av ...." j a.w' r ,i a tZ rr12f7 \•. r '{i i•' - • � � r` r .F .,.•r r• a ..i-�ti- •�`r . • f �� � �rj(,,,, YF: • .. .i\- i. �a � t . _ , rn-F 1J. . 1i T. T'•I ��- -.Y \ ar!r.l S•j �A •tm_ _- _ - L:' t'• .:, l -% i. i .T�,��-^•T��a ��C'J `: �`��r':� _ '•r�[ aw,�L"v. f�"''4�i' �a� lit � _ p�a.a Q. �-,�_�e u=. ."_3 �•ii�... .r.. 1. ,'a� - :.._ w` _. 1 y lr'`I y.4. • 'L I^• Yi+:.-s.i t �"17ia2 --I ; _.vim. .i4 a ♦ . �'•:j .� '�.M-..V..l•.' 1,,` ~ill: -=•�: M1 ••' iw.Ja:f.�: :Y'^•',••,r+�.:s:� ` ♦ `�`_ ..�•J:' _4..�^,, i '<• .4= `.L :.t.- %_.i•. ' • s.):Ii''jj a$•a:-.. `C �' . { - Y i y - -i `- _ Ta:�- _ •t7ir"K'.`'� -� r ll� :>�`�F.w.,.,a� _ 1 ' 1� - •-�sL••„ -'a tii.• r Y.. _ $. �=,-`r. .K •t' af� ��,•-�� -�' �r ,y .:1.� .1 ..�-• ^.. C — [.y t� y�•_4' .: .i. Ct� '•4 �+°��• J-+i.. 1=s! , Y •. t•- fir•: '. w f u`JT� °j. i�'� •+�f: _ 1 J: L• •.:r•. t .A. "T--. _a �p-,�,�i.wi- ��r 1 ,1 1' p•_ f\`♦ys .''v nrovw•G 7 c+'S= T `)9 a. a .�'jr]] 7 r�F .'Vi' /, yi`3'C7"``5.�,��. al t._ T. - y.• .Lp .`Yi; ..r...% �� (~:•r{T=._•. _ , ...• .� y . �t,��t •S� t -i. :. 'ra `i�"�I��_ - - 1 �a�l���. 'y�� �! I •� '�'Il�xi4tRlQ` __ --. - - 'a f,• •tee 1 .•.: _ � -�_ - _ 1 \ -1 1 - - .. - - _%', 'wl.^_r ��N. �' ,� • ?a c{ -� �..: r � li `' t-'�_' rJ�__ ,+ yi. r' it r _ � - iti::'• _'�' .i,� ( _ _ -i •�-''=1sr,1Y_' 'fy-r'+`�.fV,w ��. (� jj _�w�Y...� :f: ��.:_'I .•i _ ,F �! - '.il.t.':_ -< -`;•if+/. 'Z.T -.�. e. :�11., a .... a.:ei r s-aT:i.•• •.. ^�III�I�L -Y- t y-i _`` ••�-� - _ >_J - > 10 i� t^ ti n,`J.. ..a " a!, i !".'•'� !_ ;A���. „ _.IMt X z�+L(( t• : wrT � � ryi 2' "�aM1�. - a• '. .. - .S. �:c. �5IC�:.•y4:_. •T' T �.na i t '1p y- ..: TC ., "t �,? ? .. 4 's. ... • • 'r.'"`w ri r -- ..� y� ,• ..�• _-' . r. �I �`'wl+����.'-y4 7."'. !•l_,� a-- �'� �s•� a I •a _ �• �-. v 1, {, Q _ r 1�.^ _ 1 1. - .�' �/•jt!'s�1 ,Z' • �<+rp .,'1 1 �i.`•a.'1.'- � :" ♦`•'!.:T4:•(•�';: � lt�:�i_. � r 1 - - .' Jam,; ,'� \_. '.?. ��`� '-•� � � - r' r � . `� r.4/r _'_S--'II`��� a••c`"' - i � 'es.i �n'�'�' � � �l�'-�j�s_!tL' _ '�� : - f a !<' : Y t i i �S!T �.. •.• v'.jl.• mow/ ^mil �c \'-.� 1 i„�. �- �•t� �Tr.r a, .� 1 _ � y...S'`L` ' .•'v'• � � •'� -. _ �.. 1 M ♦.o. VSN•4 �t� f •.'a'w • y-r 4� ..'S..' l+ :\`♦ _Anf!: _••C: �'r,, •'• �.�.��--`' • 3rr�. _ _ . }. .l a • Ur q�t•Tvyi+�% _ _ .j l 'lei_-` '• ..t � N.`_ 1 Z. 1 C}r •. J. /Sy� \.. Tow. . f '-n�' :..-:wj� �l• ew'y'ia,V - _ ^• atc .$ t. r T {j L-' r. r � a J. : -.a' = �i3•fd.ilC: J:.i.�l� (� �- -•. _..�e. v •.r°-gip a:Y. r�i•t0i� _ ,- °n�. -`a i t 4 ;a^iw^` LL�+si+M•\�a.a// '-'IY��iii��•:� -'ti; J(����{ _ \� - .rMaiilll ✓j. .1.. f.{':-3. 41 ,ram- T I!!y._ - .T .•'... _ _aY4'ti-'-rj i .cr•- ��]2 - i ' e-.:54r ;-'a�+.� _ "yrSC- n�y iT,�.r.y ' �-» •i r ,' -i .�•'-tea+ : -'.yg$•;:% •�' vF- �.°-'•"'"• _ ��•5•I`8.. . �. �"'�� r . 7"+ � ;il%��i; l.•1Sct� i' � . ��• _ -T d : i-".r - •,r;• ;- \ � .-'�'� . s _ •r .ire .ie• _ • /f 1 i�--•. . .- , t ; :}t �j��?-•�-'� �. -r -_ ���itiw. 1.�:-.• ,n=�.r _ _ il. �>Ar� _ "'• .. �f th .cPr Y..T•r'"� _. i:rt.__y.-y, `. r.% �<�.S ".�:T}A C �^ -��• - W `f 4 .-' - - .i - - - '_c _ ., `ate - - �. u .. F"% r 4:i , :. �� :i 'yj \ . �„ i a• a, ter+-.a.� �.r, x�� -� d � -i y _ u (t 11'J�.^ i a•1- c,t; - `� �(a. 's � '_S. - , 1 1. INTRODUCTION The Fox Meadows Drainage Basin is generally located west of Interstate 25, east of Warren Lake, north of Harmony Road, and south of Hoorsetooth Road. Figure 1 presents the location ' map for the Fox Meadows Drainage Basin. The Fox Meadows Drainage Basin does not include a major drainage way to convey flow from the upper end of the basin to the downstream ' discharge points along the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID). Instead, a network of storm sewers, local drainage channels, and detention ponds control and transport the storm runoff through the basin. The majority of area within the Fox Meadows Basin has previously ' been developed and few locations remain for new development. Much of the current development has occurred after stormwater development criteria had been established by the City of Fort Collins. However, several drainage problems have been still been identified in the ' basin mainly due to increases in flow data due to rainfall updates. These problems include overtopping of existing detention facilities, ponding behind railroad embankments, roadway overtopping, and lack of freeboard for flood conveyance structures. Up to fourteen residential structures are estimated as being damaged throughout the basin during the 100-year event. The specific problem area locations are presented in Figure 2. The selected improvement plan combines 100-year drainage improvements with additional public safety and maintenance improvements throughout the basin. The Selected Plan focuses on both alleviating flooding for existing drainage problems, as well as preventing damages that could potentially result due to potential embankment failures. Elements within the selected improvement plan include structural, non-structural, and ' development criteria components. Structural components' include construction of new detention facilities, modifications to existing detention facilities, addition of spillways to existing detention facilities, and the construction of culverts and other drainage conveyance systems. ' Structural improvements may also include riprap installation for erosion and scour protection at critical locations within the basin. Non-structural components of the Selected Plan may include the installation of flood warning devices to warn area residents of potential flood conditions. ' The non-structural improvements are recommended at problem locations where potential failure of an embankment during a storm event could lead to significant damage or loss of life. Development criteria recommendations have also been included in the selected improvement ' plan to provide guidance for any new development that may occur. Habitat and floodplain criteria components were not included in the Selected Plan, since a natural stream, or drainageway, does not exist within the Fox Meadows Basin. 2. SELECTED 01PROVEMENT PLAN DESCRIPTION tThree improvement reaches have been defined in the Fox Meadows Basin for the Selected Plan. The first reach extends west from the Poudre River to Ziegler Road. The second reach encompasses the drainage basin between Ziegler Road and Timberline Road. The final reach includes the remainder of the basin from Timberline Road, west, to South Lemay Avenue. The reach limits are defined, along with the selected improvement plan, on Figure 3. Table 1 provides a basin wide discharge comparison between existing conditions flows and discharges ' after the implementation of the selected improvement plan. Fox Meadows Master Plan ICON Engineering, Inc. December 2002 TABLE 1: SELECTED PLAN DISCHARGE COMPARISON TABLE 100-YEAR Existing Selected Plan Conditions Conditions Lneatinn fli'W, i HP Site FCRID Bypass 367 380 Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID) at Harmony Road 595 595 Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID) t Woodland Park 416 416 Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID) at Horsetooth Road 336 300 ewlett-Packard Drainage Channel 305 311 Overflow Through English Ranch South 180 0 orsetooth Road / Ziegler Road Intersection* 301 174 Kingsley Drive 209 158 unstone Village Pond #5 (46 / 39)** (40 / 0)** Sunstone Village Regional Detention Pond (27 / 212)** (27 / 160)** ' Reflects discharge in roadway, pipe flow not included ** Reflects (Pipe Outflow/Spill Outflow) at detention facilities 5 = -- Fox Meadows Master Plan ICON Engineering, Inc. December 2002 2.1 Reach 1 (Poudre River to Ziegler Road) Two problem areas have been identified along the first reach. First, the FCRID (Location A, shown on Figure 2) does not have capacity to pass the 100-year existing conditions flows while meeting the City's freeboard requirements of 1-foot. Channel freeboard, along the east canal bank, is as low as 0.5-ft for over 550 feet of channel. Second, overflow from the Hewlett- Packard site (Location B) currently discharges across the FCRID over a bypass flume. Additionally, a spill structure for the FCRID (Location B) has been proposed in the East Harmony portion of the McClellands Creek Master Plan Update immediately upstream of Harmony Road. This spill structure is proposed to limit flow under the roadway to 444-cfs. This will enable the FCRID to meet freeboard requirements within the McClellands Drainage Basin. The spill structure and the bypass flume release a combination of up to 367-cfs of discharge during the 100-year event. This release occurs along the FCRID bank. Erosion and scour from the overflow could potentially lead to a FCRID bank failure at this location. The selected improvement plan recommends drainage improvements at both of these locations. First, along the FCRID Channel it is recommended that the portions of the east channel bank that do not meet the City's. freeboard requirements be improved to meet criteria. Improvements are assumed to consist primarily of the installation of acceptable fill material along the crest and sides of the existing canal embankment. Second, the selected improvement plan proposes to reinforce the FCRID bank at the FCRID/bypass flume spill location with riprap protection in order to help reduce the risk of bank failure during large storm events. JA specific sequence of construction is not required for this reach. It is recommended that the riprap protection at the FCRID/bypass flume spill location be permanently. installed after the completion of the Harmony Road FCRID spill structure. New development within this reach shall meet criteria recommended under the Development Criteria section of this report. 2.2 Reach 2 (Ziegler Road to Timberline Road Several problem locations have been identified within the second basin reach. First, Sunstone tVillage Pond #4 (Location C) displays overtopping during storm events greater than the 50- XW. During overtopping, this pond overflows at two locations simultaneously. The majority ' of the flow, 33-cfs during the 100-year event, spills along the west bank and travels overland to the north. A smaller volume of flow, around 3-cfs, also spills through low points in the eastern embankment into the Mobile Home Park. ' The capacity of the Sunstone Village Pond #5 (Location D) is also exceeded during stone events greater than the 50-year frequency. Spill flow rates approach 39-cfs during the 100-year event. Since a defined spillway for the pond was not constructed, flows are expected to overtop the north embankment and sheet flow around the adjacent residential structures. Without a designated spillway, significant damage could result to the embankment. Significant backwater also develops upstream in the adjacent Mobile Home Park. Significant damage to the mobile ' homes is not expected since the mobile homes are typically raised approximately 2-feet higher 6 ' Fox Meadows Master Plan ICON Engineering, Inc. December 2002 then the ground surface. The flow depth downstream of the pond is not anticipated to impact adjacent structures. The capacity of the Sunstone Village Regional Detention Pond (Location E) is exceeded during ' the 100-year event. Existing pond spills are anticipated to approach 209-cfs during the 100- year event. Overflow from this pond contributes to flooding of three residential structures along Kingsley Drive and significantly contributes to flood problems at other locations, such as ' English Ranch Detention Ponds #2 through #5. ' The capacity of the Fox Meadows Pond (Location F) is exceeded during the 100-year event. Although no structures are impacted due to the backwater from the pond, the overflow does contribute to flooding at the Ziegler Road/Hoorsetooth Road intersection. ' During major flow events, English Ranch Ponds #2 through #5 (Location G) function together as upstream ponds spill overland into the subsequent downstream ponds. Overflows from the Sunstone Village Regional Pond travel north on Kinsley Drive and combine with additional runoff at English Ranch Pond #2. The combined flow continues east through each of the remaining detention ponds. Kingsley Drive and Antelope Drive are overtopped and significant ' overflows are expected to collect at the intersection of Horsetooth Road and Ziegler Road before sheet flowing to the FCRID. As much as 301-cfs collects in the intersection during the 100-year event. Five residential structures adjacent to the ponds have been identified as potentially impacted during the 100-year event. In addition to residential structure damages, ' additional damages are anticipated at Kingsley Drive, Ashmount Drive, the Horsetooth Road/Ziegler Road intersection, and other locations where flow overtops the embankments. ' During the existing conditions, the runoff from the Harmony Mobile Home Park that does not enter the local storm sewer to Sunstone Village Pond #5 will overflow through English Ranch ' South. Up to 180-cfs is anticipated to overflow through English Ranch South (Location H) during the 100-year event. Overflow from the Harmony Mobile Home Park occurs for storm events greater than or equal to the 5-year event. Additionally, the overflow contributes to the ' volume of water in the English Ranch South detention ponds. Pond overtopping is expected during the 100-year event. The inadvertent detention occurs upstream of Ziegler Road (Location I). The inadvertent detention area primarily exists only on undeveloped land. However, two residential structures located to the south of the English Ranch South development are impacted from the ponded ' water. Damage to the residential structures is expected for events equal to or exceeding the 5- year frequency. Improvements proposed for Reach 2 primarily consist of structural improvements to alleviate flooding. The improvements are discussed below in more detail. A detention improvement summary for Reach 2 is presented in Table 2. Sunstone Village Pond #4: The selected improvement plan proposes to formalize a spillway for tSunstone Village Pond #4 along the north end of the pond, following the outlet pipe. The plan J assumes the existing detention volume will remain unchanged. 7 Fox Meadows Master Plan ICON Engineering, Inc. December 2002 TABLE 2: REACH 2 - DETENTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY ' EXISTINC CnNn1TrnNS Volume Before Location Overtopping (acre-ft) English Ranch Pond #3 4.5 Overtopping Elevation (feet) 4919.0 Discharge at Overtopping Elevation (cfs) 5 Vol 100-Year EVolume Event Before Water Surface Total Discharge Spill Discharge Overtopping (feet) (cfs) (cfs) (acre-ft) 4920.2 222 217 4.7 SELECTED Overtopping Elevation (feet) 4919.0 IMPROVEMENT Discharge at Overtopping Elevation (cfs) 5 PLAN 100-Year Event Water Surface (feet) 4920.0 Total Discharge (cfs) 168 Spill Discharge (cfs) ) 163 Fox Meadows Pond 5.8 4931.0 30 4931.3 103 73 10.8 4931.0 34 4930.0 34 0 Ziegler Pond • jJ/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * « 15.8 N/A 25 N/A* 25 0 *New detention facility. 100-year water surface shall beset as to not impact adjacent or upstream structures. ' * * Reflects 1-foot freeboard. Fox Meadows Master Plan 8 ? ICON Engineering, Inc. December 2002 Sunstone Village Pond #5 & Ziegler Pond: The selected improvement plan proposes to divert flow from the Harmony Mobile Home Park to a new detention facility, located upstream of Ziegler Road by redirecting the existing 36-inch storm sewer outfall to a new location. With this flow diversion, flooding downstream of Sunstone Village Pond #5 is greatly reduced. As a t result of the improvements, Sunstone Village Pond #5 only overtops during the 100-year event and the resultant overflow discharge is not great enough to cause significant damage downstream. Additionally, damages are also reduced downstream of the Sunstone Village ' Regional Detention Pond since overflow discharges along Kingsley Drive and English Ranch Detention Ponds #2 through #5 are reduced as a result of the improvements. A recommendation for the installation of a formalized spillway is recommended at Sunstone Village Pond #5 to protect the embankment during periods of overflow. In order to minimize damages from the overflows exceeding the capacity of the Harmony ' Mobile Home Park, a new detention facility, Ziegler Pond, is proposed to be located within the undeveloped basin to the east of the mobile home park. The pond is proposed to be sized for the 100-Year event in order to eliminate all overflows, and associated damages within English Ranch South. The outlet from the new detention facility is proposed to be connected directly to the drainage channel along the north side of the Hewlett Packard site. It is assumed that the outlet system will consist of a drainage channel. However, as the downstream basins develop, a storm sewer system may be considered. It is anticipated that drainage from Ziegler Pond will cross Ziegler Road through an existing 30-inch pipe that is currently4iluggcd. The pipe stub out is located immediately across of Ziegler Road from the Hewlett Packard drainage channel. ' Ziegler Pond will be required to provide detention for Harmony Mobile Home Park flows to a 1 level that downstream facilities are not impacted above their capacity. Additional volume for ' J water quality is recommended, but has not been included in the size and cost of this improvement. It is anticipated that improvements downstream of the Ziegler Pond could effectively be used to mitigate flood damages at the two residences, located to the south of t English Ranch South. It is recommended that the improvements downstream of the Ziegler Pond be completed in a manner that either intercepts inadvertent flows before they reach the residences, or provides a berm or levee to prohibit the flooding from reaching the homes. Fox Meadows Pond: The selected improvement plan recommends grading modifications to the Fox Meadows Pond in order to increase the overall pond volume by up to 5 acre-feet in order to ' eliminate a portion of roadway flooding along Horsetooth Road. Construction is anticipated to involve excavating the pond deeper and rebuilding the outlet structure between the pond and downstream storm sewer manhole. Pond improvements at this location will eliminate the ' overtopping during the 100-year event and provide 1-foot of additional freeboard. English Ranch Detention Ponds #2 through #5• The selected improvement plan recommends ' the installation of a double 3-foot by 8-foot box culvert below Kingsley Drive, between English Ranch Detention Ponds #2 and #3. The box culvert would allow flow from Pond #2 to travel freely into Pond #3 without backwater. This will help eliminate flooding to homes adjacent to ' Pond #2. This improvement will also help maintain an additional point of access into the subdivision during flooding events. A direct connection between the existing 27-inch storm sewer in Kingsley Road and the box culvert is also recommended with this improvement. J 9 Fox Meadows Master Plan ICON Engineering, Inc. December 2002 Improvement construction sequencing is not required in this reach. However, it is 1 recommended that the Ziegler Pond improvements be implemented as soon as possible in order to reduce the flood potential in English Ranch South. Layout and design of this pond should be closely coordinated with any development that may occur in the adjacent basins. Similarly, the box culvert installation below Kingsley Drive would help alleviate some existing flood problems. The Fox Meadows Pond improvements should be coordinated with any roadway improvements that may occur along Ziegler Road. After the pond improvements are completed, the required discharge to be conveyed by Ziegler Road can be reduced. There are not any specific sequencing requirements for the installation of spillways at existing detention facilities. Groundwater elevations were not available at the time of this report and should be considered with the construction of the detention pond improvements. New development within this reach shall meet criteria recommended under the Development Criteria section of this report. 2.3 Reach 3 (Timberline Road to South Lemay Avenue) One main problem area has been identified along Reach 3. Several factors contribute to the ' flood problems at the Golden Meadows Detention Pond (Location J). The first factor is the presence of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) immediately downstream of the detention pond. The Golden Meadows pond only has capacity for 9 acre-feet of storm -water detention before overtopping. Once the capacity of the pond is exceeded, water will continue to build up behind the UPRR embankment until the storm -water passes through a 36=in pipe outlet or overtops the embankment. The hydrology completed for this study, indicated that the 100-year ' existing conditions storm flow would not overtop the UPRR embankment. However, almost 52 acre-feet of volume (10.1-feet deep) are detained behind the railroad embankment during the 100-year event. The estimated water surface is within 1.3-ft of the embankment crest. Given ' that the upper portion of the railroad embankment is usually ballast, and there is the potential for storing significant volume, the railroad embankment could have significant damage, or even ' fail, during a large storm event. In addition, there is not a designated spillway for flows greater than the 100-year event since this location has not been designed as a detention pond. Finally, a potential exists for significant damage downstream if the embankment is breached after a ' large volume of water has collected upstream. Backwater (behind the UPRR embankment during the 100-year event) extends into the various roadways within the subdivision, however, there are no impacts to the residential structures from this backwater. J The selected improvement plan recommends that flood warning be provided at this location. As discussed above, significant damage could result downstream in the event of an embankment failure. It is assumed for this improvement that the flood waming device will consist of a combination rain and flow gage, including a pressure transducer and stand pipe. The devise will also be tied into the existing City flood warning network. Even with the installation of a flood warning device at this location, it is also recommended that the current stability of the embankment be analyzed and the potential downstream damages be estimated based on those findings. 10 Fox Meadows Master Plan ICON Engineering, Inc. December 2002 1 Specific construction sequencing is not required in this reach. ;1 New development within this reach shall meet criteria recommended under the Development Criteria section of this report. ' 3. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Development within the drainage basin can have major impacts to existing flood hazards. Development typically increases the volume of storm -water runoff and decreases the storm - water travel time, which can result in increased peak discharges. In general, the existing ' development within the basin has provided on -site detention. However, as determined by this study, many of the existing ponds are undersized and overtop during the larger storm events. ' Given the development potential remaining within the Fox Meadows basin, development regulations must minimize the impacts to downstream facilities. Areas of particular concern ' include development tributary to Sunstone Village Pond #3 (Hydrologic Basin 335) and within the Collindale Business Park (Hydrologic Basins 345 and 350), where development without adequate on -site detention could result in overtopping of ponds that currently do not overflow. Development of areas (Hydrologic Basins 200 and 210) contributing to the inadvertent detention upstream of Ziegler Road could potentially increase damages at the adjacent homes if runoff is not controlled through on -site detention. Finally, there is the potential for additional ' development between the FCRID and Ziegler Road in Hydrologic Basins 135, 140, 145 and 150. Without on -site detention, discharges could be increased in the FCRID. As a result, the City's freeboard requirements may not be met. Development regulations for these areas should require on -site detention to offset the impacts of increased discharge peaks and volumes and decreased travel times. Detention at a minimum ' shall meet the City's standard of detaining to the 2-year historic storm level. Detention shall also be regulated so that downstream facilities are not adversely impacted. The allowable release rate for new development in the Fox Meadows'Basin shall not excee�Q 3-cfs/acre. ' Extended detention, for the benefit of water quality, should also be considered in any new ' development. By detaining the runoff for an extended amount of time, one can decrease the amount of pollutants in the water before releasing the runoff back into the natural ecosystem. The City's standards should be referred to in order to design adequate water -quality features within each detention pond: 4. BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS A Benefit -Cost analysis has been performed in order to compare the expenditures of the selected improvement plan with the benefits of the plan. For the purposes of this analysis, the benefits and costs have been measured in present worth dollars. Only direct benefits have been included in the B/C ratios. "Intangible" damages including: loss of life, business and sales tax losses, loss of employees' salaries, and damages due to failure of an embankment impounding Jfloodwaters, have not been included in the B/C analysis. Fox Meadows Master -Plan ICON Engineering,' Inc. December 2002 J The benefits included in the B/C ratio are the reductions in potential damages from the problems described in the selected improvement plan description section .of this report. Because of the proposed improvements, damages may be reduced or eliminated all together. These potential damages include: direct damage to residential or commercial structures and contents, damages to roadways and utilities, any costs associated with clean-up activities, and the indirect damages associated with emergency response. Table 3 presents a summary of the benefits, costs, and B/C ratio for the Selected Plan. Table 4 presents a detailed summary of costs for the Selected Plan. According to the results presented in the table, the B/C ratios indicate the costs exceed the benefits for this plan. Regardless of the low B/C ratio, the selected improvement plan does greatly reduce flood damages within the basin. Incidental and intangible damages such as loss of life, loss of income, etc., will also be greatly reduced as a result of this plan Table 3: Summary of Benefit -Cost Analysis Golden Meadows Pond $14,100 Sunstone Village Pond #4 $49,198 Sunstone Village Pond #5 $63,701 English Ranch Ponds 02 through #5 $33%570 Fox Meadows Pond $161,528 Ziegler Pond $673,205 Hewlet Packard Site - FCRID Bypass Channel / FCRID Spill Structure $34,222 FCRID Bank Modifications $20,189 Total $1,355,712 Basin Damages (Present Worth) $6749829 Approximate Benefits (Damages Reduced) $630,557 Alternative Costs $1,355,712 Benefit -Cost Ratio (All Improvements) 0.47 Benefit -Cost Ratio (Flood Control Improvements)* 0.60 • B/C ratio computed using only Flood Control Improvement costs at Sunstone Village Pond #5, English Ranch Ponds #2 through #5, and Ziegler Pond. 12 Fox Meadows Master Plan ICON Engineering, Inc. December 2002 Ek Cl. i V. I, % x i1c, MX! Oki 009 7 M� lk IWI APPENDIX — B 1 1 1 1 May 2007 Stantec HARMONY & ZIEGLER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Rational Method Hydrology 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Developed Weighted Runoff Coefficients \ Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements /j 1 J 187010590 This sheet calculates the composite "C' values for the Rational Method. 1 Basin Impervious Pervious Impervious Impervious Total Area Total Area Area 1 acre = Area Percent 43,560 ftz Percent Compo- 1 102 0.95 0.25 33,652 0.77 33,652 Impervious 0.77 100 0 0.95 103 0.95 0.25 53,540 1.23 53,540 1.23 100 0 0.95 104 0.95 0.25 11,270 0.26 5,757 0.13 51 49 0.61 105 0.95 0.25 16,755 0.38 8,842 0.20 53 47 0.62 1 106 0.95 0.25 14,946 0.34 14,946 0.34 100 0 0.95 107 0.95 0.25 12,949 0.30 12,949 0.30 100 0 0.95 108 0.95 0.25 53,142 1.22 49,829 1.14 94 6 0.91 109 0.95 0.25 126,503 2.90 109,699 2.52 87 13 0.86 110 0.95 0.25 45.254 1.04 36,592 0.84 81 19 0.82 1 111 0.95 0.25 27,268 0.63 21,727 0.50 80 20 0.81 112 0.95 0.25 11,655 0.27 10,227 0.23 88 12 0.86 113 0.95 0.25 43,649 1.00 43,349 1.00 99 1 0.95 1 $RE-.: '-` _ - 0.95.' ' •'<.:.. 0.25 •_ ...' 450,5831-; - '_-10.34." c 't=-:i401:109 �+ : '. _..9.21 _ 89.0 . 1. �J 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1:J 1 The Sear -Brown Group 6:52 AM 519/2007 TIME OF CONCENTRATION 10 year design storm Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements 187010590 1.87(l.l - CC f )✓D ti = sO.333 t� = tr+lL Cr = 1.00 SUB -BASIN DATA INITIAL/OVERLAND TIME TRAVEL TIME FINAL REMARKS BASIN AREA C LENGTH SLOPE 4 LENGTH CHANNEL SLOPE VELOCITY lL tc NO. (ac) (ft) M (min) (ft) TYPE(a) N (fvs) (min) (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 102 0.77 0.95 92 2 2.1 242 PA 0.5 1.34 3.0 5.2 103 1.23 0.95 1 2 0.2 794 PA 1.33 2.21 6.0 6.2 104 0.26 0.61 65 2 5.9 53 GW 2 2.18 0.4 6.3 105 0.38 0.62 65 2 5.8 114 GW 2 2.18 0.9 6.6 106 0.34 0.95 1 2 0.2 610 PA 0.8 1.70 6.0 6.2 107 0.30 0.95 1 2 0.2 850 PA 0.51 1.35 10.5 10.7 108 1.22 0.91 33 2 1.7 955 PA 0.63 1.50 10.6 12.2 109 2.90 0.86 45 2 2.4 1157 PA 0.45 1.27 15.2 17.7 110 1.04 0.82 35 2 2.5 618 PA 0.56 1.42 7.3 9.8 111 0.63 0.81 35 2 2.6 520 PA 0.5 1.34 6.5 9.1 112 0.27 0.86 35 2 2.1 148 PA 0.5 1.34 1.8 5.0 113 1.00 0.95 35 2 1.4 1033 PA 0.79 1.69 10.2 11.6 �- Note: a) Codes the channel type for velocity calculations. PA = Paved, PL = Pasture & Lawns, GW = Grassed Waterway 7807 The Sear -Brown Group 5/:46 12 AM TIME OF CONCENTRATION 100 year design storm Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements 187010590 1.87(1.1 - CC r )-JD I; = So.3n I, = l; + I, Cr = 1.25 SUB -BASIN DATA INITIALIOVERLAND TIME TRAVEL TIME FINAL REMARKS BASIN AREA C LENGTH SLOPE t; LENGTH CHANNEL SLOPE VELOCITY tL tc NO. (ac) (ft) N (min) (ft) TYPE(a) N (ft/s) (min) (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 102 0.77 0.95 92 2.0 1.4 242 PA 0.5 1.34 3.0 5.0 103 1.23 0.95 1 2.0 0.1 794 PA 1.3 2.21 6.0 6.1 104 0.26 0.61 65 2.0 4.1 53 GW 2.0 2.18 0.4 5.0 105 0.38 0.62 65 2.0 3.9 114 GW 2.0 2.18 0.9 5.0 106 0.34 0.95 1 2.0 0.1 610 PA 0.8 1.70 6.0 6.1 107 0.30 0.95 1 2.0 0.1 850 PA 0.5 1.35 10.5 10.6 108 1.22 0.91 33 2.0 0.9 955 PA 0.6 1.50 10.6 11.4 109 2.90 0.86 45 2.0 1.0 1157 PA 0.5 1.27 15.2 16.2 110 1.04 0.82 35 2.0 0.9 618 PA 0.6 1.42 7.3 8.2 Ill 0.63 0.81 35 2.0 0.9 520 PA 0.5 1.34 6.5 7.4 112 0.27 0.86 35 2.0 0.9 148 PA 0.5 1.34 1.8 5.0 113 1.00 0.95 35 2.0 0.9 1033 PA 0.8 1.69 10.2 11.1 17 Note: a) Codes the channel type for velocity calculations. PA = Paved, PL = Pasture & Lawns, GW = Grassed Waterway 7:46 AM 1 The Sear -Brown Group 5/6/2007 I rl Y E rc �. gr "$ �888888888888,�`� �� cooc00000000� n EoE8$888888So88 `o;0000c00000co mI� ppppppppppp p{L�: U O O O O O O O O O O O O C� u m � i m 'E LL �" N _ C yyy � qN' C O i m o � N @ C m `� �8s.8s.s8s�8g88Fttr` m� m00000aoo��oo� Y mE.�YNo$<B�R��f 6 � d Q mO�000GLLN�-COJI- mm pp aa ryry OO pp p ANNt�1�11�N 4�0�01rV O: N �mNNO pp ryry p pp {p NiO v,NOO�m N: m 2 OOO((OVV O�n �n m��vpp ao�' N �Npp ttVn PONi�00Ni O�P9mm0 PF'• O OOOOOOOOOO Oii! �NNl7 IpNrNrm�O aF E — > c `` E o00000000000[p[p 000ccc000cc cl` LL •: O m n a ~m s p y G E NN(7 'ONr N,r 0�0 �}✓. vi lc ld cc �o���oi of ui �!f It -- 0`80-00----� w m n oo$--o-o----`6' 8 I\) [ � � [ ,k � � ( /! [ !-! !: | [ ! [ ! \'' [ k [ � /lggbge!\ glHaaRR!ƒ glCRggg§\ ,l6e9ggR\ �{lSg685!ƒ eee9g#§\ �l222w2;ƒ �! [ 2.72222=\ !!- < ' ! \ [ !« �lSSGSQ=\ |gg2Rs:\ )| � | APPENDIX - C IStantec J May 2007 1 Stantec HARMONY & ZIEGLER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1 ) Street Capacity Calculations 1j ' Design Point 102 - Major ' Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 102 - h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Channel Slc 005000 ft/ft Discharge 7.69 cfs ' Options Current Roughness Methc rved Lotters Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotters Method ' Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.4980 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.70 Flow Area 3.6 f12 ' Wetted Perimeter 19.12 It Top Width 18.63 It Actual Depth 0.50 ft t Critical Elevation 0.48 ft Critical Slope 0.006826 ft/ft JVelocity 2.15 ft/s Velocity Head 0.07 ft ' Specific Energy 0.5698 ft Froude Number 0.86 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+79 0.016 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) ' 0+00 0,50 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+79 1.70 _ Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:10:24 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description ' Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Design Point 102 - h Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.4980 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.70 ' Discharge 7.69 cfs 1 LOU 1.20 ' 0.60 0.00 0+00 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 V:4.0L\ HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 05/07/07 04:10:41 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description Worksheet Design Point 102 - h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ■ Solve For Channel Depth Design Point 102 - Minor Worksheet for Irregular Channel Input Data ' Channel Slc 005000 ft/ft Discharge 3.54 cfs ' Options Current Roughness Methr Nved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting Nved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.3995 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.70 Flow Area 2.0 ft' Wetted Perimeter 14.08 ft ' Top Width 13.68 ft Actual Depth 0.40 ft Critical Elevation 0.38 ft Critical Slope 0.007582 ft/ft Velocity 1.78 ft/s Velocity Head 0.05 ft Specific Energy 0.4488 ft Froude Number 0.82 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+79 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0,50 ' 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+79 1.70 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony &.ziegler_road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group _ — FlowMaster v7.0 (7.00051 05/07/07 04:10:50 PM.®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708-USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel 1 Project Description 1 Worksheet Design Point 102 - h — Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula 1 Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.3995 ft Elevation Range 00101,70 i 1 Discharge 3.54 cfs 1 1 1.80 ; 1.20 1 0.60;' 0.00 - 1 i 0+00 0+10 0+20 i 1 1 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 V:4.0' HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony 8, ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 1 05/07/07 04:11:01 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-.755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description ' Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Design Point 103 -1% Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Input Data Channel SIc 005000 ft/ft Discharge 11.44 cfs ■ upl1ur15 Design Point 103 - Major Worksheet for Irregular Channel Current Roughness Methr rved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting Ived Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weightirn Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.5600 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.56 Flow Area 4.8 ft' Wetted Perimeter 22.31 ft ' Top Width 21.75 ft Actual Depth 0.56 ft Critical Elevation 0.54 ft ' Critical Slope 0.006465 ft/ft Velocity 2.37 ft1s Velocity Head 0.09 ft Specific Energy 0.6471 ft ' Froude Number 0.89 Flow Type Subcritical tRoughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+72 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0,60 ' 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+72 1.56 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:11:12.PM .© Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 103 - A Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.5600 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.56 ' Discharge 11.44 cfs l 1.60 -- 1.2 0 ;--- ' 0.60" 0.00 - 0+00 0+08 0+16 0+24 0+32 0+40 0+48 0+56 0+64 0+72 V:4.0LS HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 .Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 05/07/07 04:1.1:27 PM 0 Haestad. Methods,. Inc. 37.Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 103 - h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel Slc 005000 ft/ft ' Discharge 5.30 cfs Design Point 103 - Minor Worksheet for Irregular Channel ' Options Current Roughness Methcrved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.4554 It Elevation Range .00 to 1.70 Flow Area 2.6 ft' Wetted Perimeter 15.62 It t Top Width 15.17 ft Actual Depth 0.46 It Critical Elevation 0.43 ft ' Critical Slope 0.007081 ft/ft Velocity 2,01 fits /1 Velocity Head 0.06 ft Specific Energy 0.5180 It ' Froude Number 0.85 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+72 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (it) (ft) 0+00 0.60 ' 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 1 0+72 1.70 1 r Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler. road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:11:39 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description Worksheet Flow Element Method ' Solve For Design Point 103 - h Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiel 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.4554 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.70 ' Discharge 5.30 cfs 1 1 l 1.80 ' J 1.20 0.60 0.00 0+00 r Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel 0+08 0+16 0+24 0+32 0+40 0+48 0+56 0+64 0+72 V:4.0!, HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward vA... \harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:11:47 PM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Design Point 106 - Major Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description ' ) Worksheet Design Point 106- K Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula . Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Channel Slr 005000 ft/ft Discharge 3.20 cfs Options Current Roughness Methc rved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method ' Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results ' Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.3892 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.65 Flow Area 1.8 ft' ' Wetted Perimeter 13.43 ft Top Width 13.04 ft Actual Depth 0.39 ft Critical Elevation 0.37 ft Critical Slope 0.007665 ft/ft \ Velocity 1.74 ft/s `JI Velocity Head 0.05 ft Specific Energy 0.4364 ft Froude Number 0.82 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings ' Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+26 0.016 ' Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) ' 0+00 0.60 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+26 0.65 �J Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:11:56 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description Worksheet Flow Element Method ' Solve For Design Point 106- h Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Section Data ' Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.3892 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.65 Discharge 3.20 cfs 8:98 0.30 0.00 0+00 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 V:4.0 H:1 N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 05/07/07 04:12:03 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. -37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 106- k Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula tSolve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Channel SI(005000 ft/ft Discharge 1.48 cfs Design Point 106 - Minor Worksheet for Irregular Channel upuons ' Current Roughness Methc rved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method tClosed Channel Weightin{ Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.3161 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.65 Flow Area 1.0 ft' Wetted Perimeter 9.72 ft ' Top Width 9.40 ft Actual Depth 0.32 ft Critical Elevation 0.29 ft Critical Slope t 0.008447 ft/ft 1.46 ft/s �JVelocity Velocity Head 0.03 ft Specific Energy 0.3491 ft ' Froude Number 0.78 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+26 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0.60 0+00 t 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+26 0.65 v Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 05/07/07 04*12:11 P_M�=© Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' Cross Section ' Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 106- k Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For . Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.3161 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0,65 ' Discharge 1.48 cfs t , ' 0.30 0 00 0+00 0+05 1 v 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 V:4.01� HA N TS Project Engineer: -Alicia Forward .v:\... \harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 .Sear -Brown. Group I FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] -05/07/07 04--12:18 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37:BrooksideRoad .Waterbury,,CT 0670&USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' Design Point 107 - Major ' Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 107- h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel Sic 005000 ft/ft ' Discharge 2.24 cfs Options ' Current Roughness Meth(oved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting ived Lotter's Method ' Closed Channel Weightim Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.3533 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.60 Flow Area 1.4 ft' Wetted Perimeter 11.56 ft ' Top Width 11.21 ft Actual Depth 0.35 ft critical Elevation 0.33 ft t Critical Slope 0.008013 ft/ft Velocity 1.60 ft/s Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 0.3933 ft ' Froude Number 0.60 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+15 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0,60 ' 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+15 0.43 Project Engineer:.Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear-Brown.Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:12:28 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 067087USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Design Point 107- h V) Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.3533 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.60 Discharge 2.24 cfs 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0+00 0+02 0+04 0+06 0+08 0+10 0+12 0+14 0+16 V:4.0 HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0:[7.0005j 05/07/07 04:12:36 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1665 Page 1 of 1 ' Design Point 107 - Minor ' Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description t Worksheet Design Point 107- K Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Salve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel Slc 005000 ft/ft ' Discharge 1.04 cfs Options ' Current Roughness Meth(rved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting wed Lotters Method ' Closed Channel Weightinc Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.2882 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.60 Flow Area 0.8 ft' Wetted Perimeter 8.28 ft ' Top Width 7.98 ft Actual Depth 0.29 ft Critical Elevation 0.27 ft ' Critical Slope 0.008810 ft/ft Velocity 1.35 ft/s Velocity Head 0.03 ft Specific Energy 0.3165 ft ' Froude Number 0.77 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+15 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0,60 0+00 0.00 a+02 0.17 0+15 0.43 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group - FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ,' .. _05/02QZ ^":g2A6 PM ©.Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,.CT 06708:USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description ' J Worksheet Flow Element Method ' Solve For Design Point 107- P Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.2882 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.60 ' Discharge 1.04 cfs ' 1 0. M , 0.40 ' 0.20 -- 0.00 - ' 0+00 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel 0+02 0+04 0+06 0+08 0+10 0+12 0+14 0+16 V:4.0N HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward vA... \harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.00051 05/07/07 04:12:54 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 1 Project Description Worksheet Design Point 108- h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel SI(004700 tuft ' Discharge 8.91 cfs ■ Options Design Point 108 - Major Worksheet for Irregular Channel . Current Roughness Methr rved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method ' Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results ' Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.5256 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.16 Flow Area 4.1 ft' ' Wetted Perimeter 20.40 ft Top Width 19.88 ft Actual Depth 0.53 It ' Critical Elevation 0.50 ft Critical Slope 0.006711 ft/ft Velocity 2.18 ft/s Velocity Head 0.07 ft ' Specific Energy 0.5995 It Froude Number 0.85 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+52 0.016 ' Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) ' 0+00 0.60 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+52 1.16 t Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:13:08 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37-Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' Cross Section ' Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 108- k Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.004700 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.5256 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.16 Discharge 8.91 cfs 1.20 - 0.80. ---! ! ---- 0.40 - ----r--- -- --i — - ---- .. - 0.00 -- --- '---------' 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55 V:4.0, HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward .v:\... \harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:13:16 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37-Brookside-Road Waterbury, CT-06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description ' ) Worksheet Design Point 108- k Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel Slr 004700 ft/ft ' Discharge 3.84 cfs Design Point 108 - Minor Worksheet for Irregular Channel ' Options Current Roughness Methr rved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.4127 It Elevation Range .00 to 1.16 Flow Area 2.2 ft' Wetted Perimeter 14.66 It ' Top Width 14.24 ft Actual Depth 0.41 It Critical Elevation 0.39 It Critical Slope t 0.007480 ft/ft 1.78 ft/s JVelocity Velocity Head 0.05 It Specific Energy 0.4618 ft ' Froude Number 0.80 Flow Type Subcritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+52 0.016 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0.60 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+52 1.16 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005) .05/07/07 04:13:36 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37.Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708.USA +1-203-755-1666 Page t of 1 ' Cross Section ' Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description \` J Worksheet Design Point 108- N Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.004700 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.4127 ft Elevation Range 00 to 1.16 ' Discharge 1 1 3.84 cfs 1.20 7T-- ' 0. 0 ,' ! — -- - - --- -- —� 0.40 0.0 0 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+135 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+155 V:4.0 HA ' N TS 1 1 � I Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler. road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:13:47.PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37-Brookside. Road Waterbury, CT 06708,USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Design Point 109 - Major Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Design Point 109- h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel SI(006500 ft/ft Discharge 18.20 cfs ' Options Current Roughness Meth(oved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weightint Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.6204 ft Elevation Range ).00 to 1.27 Flow Area 6.2 ft' ' Wetted Perimeter 25.23 It Top Width 24.61 ft Actual Depth 0.62 ft Critical Elevation 0.63 It ' Critical Slope 0.006095 ft/ft 2.94 f 1s JVelocity Velocity Head 0.13 ft ' Specific Energy 0.7545 ft Froude Number 1.03 Flow Type )upercritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+57 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0,70 t 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 1 0+57 1.27 v Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:13:54 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37,Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' Cross Section ' Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description \ ' J Worksheet Design Point 109- IN Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.006500 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.6204 ft Elevation Range .011 to 1,27 Discharge 18.20 cfs 'J 0.60--; - --j 0.00 ---- ; ---- - =- - 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55 0+60 V:4.0� HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.00051 O5/07/07 04:14:00 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 109- I\ Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel Sic 006500 ft/ft ' Discharge 7.30 cfs . Options Design Point 109 - Minor Worksheet for Irregular Channel . Current Roughness Methc oved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method r Closed Channel Weightini Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.4730 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.27 Flow Area 3.1 ft' ' Wetted Perimeter 17.73 ft Top Width 17.25 ft Actual Depth 0.47 ft Critical Elevation 0.47 ft Critical Slope 0.006872 ft/ft 2.35 fUs JVelocity Velocity Head 0.09 ft Specific Energy 0.5586 ft Froude Number 0.97 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+57 0.016 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0,70 ' 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+57 1.27 1 v Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:14:09 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' Cross Section ' Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description 1 ' Worksheet Design Point 109- h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.006500 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.4730 ft Elevation Range .00 to 1.27 ' Discharge 7.30 cfs 0.60 i 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55 0+60 1 v:4.0 H:1 N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:14*16 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Design Point 110 - Major Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description ' 1 Worksheet Flow Element Method ' Solve For Design Point 110- h Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Input Data ' Channel Slc 004000 ft/ft Discharge 8.71 cfs ' Options Current Roughness Meth(rved Lotters Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotters Method Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method ' Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.5350 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.70 Flow Area 4.3 ft' Wetted Perimeter 20.83 ft ' Top Width 20.30 ft Actual Depth 0.53 ft Critical Elevation 0.50 ft ' Critical Slope 0.006710 ft/ft Velocity i 2.04 ft/s Velocity Head 0.06 ft Specific Energy 0.5997 ft ' Froude Number 0.78 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+29 0.016 ' Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) ' 0+00 0.60 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+29 0.70 V Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony &. ziegler. road. improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:14:26 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside -Road Waterbury, CT 06708,USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel 1 Project Description 1 ' Worksheet Design Point 110- k Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.5350 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.70 ' Discharge 8.71 cfs ' 0.30 - 0.00 --i-- t 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 V:4.0L\ HA N TS Project. Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony 8.ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 05/07/07 04:14:32 PM 0 Haestad.Methods, Inc. 37-BrooksideRoad Waterbury,.CT 06708•USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Design Point 110 - Minor Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Design Point 110- N Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel SI(004000 Wit Discharge 3.24 cfs ■ VpUVO5 ■ Current Roughness Methoved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting wed Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.4027 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.70 Flow Area 2.0 ft' Wetted Perimeter 14.12 ft Top Width 13.72 ft Actual Depth 0.40 ft ' Critical Elevation 0,37 ft Critical Slope 0.007638 Wit Velocity 1.61 ft/s Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 0.4428 ft Froude Number 0.74 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings ' Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+29 0.016 ' Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0,60 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+29 0.70 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 (7.0005) ' 05/07/07 04:14:40 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 1 Cross Section ' Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description ' > Worksheet Design Point 110- h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth t t v Section Data Mannings Coefflciei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.4027 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.70 Discharge 3.24 cfs 8:98 0.30 0.00 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 V:4.0i\�, H:1 N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005[ 05/07/07 04:14:47 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 t Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 111- h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Channel Slr 005000 ft/ft Discharge 5.46 cfs Options Design Point 111 - Major Worksheet for Irregular Channel Current Roughness Methc rved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weightirn Horton's Method ' Results Mannings Coefficiel 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.4520 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.87 Flow Area 2.8 ft' Wetted Perimeter 16.64 ft ' Top Width 16.19 ft Actual Depth 0.45 ft Critical Elevation 0.43 ft Critical Slope t 0.007119 f tft Velocity 1.98 ft/s Velocity Head 0.06 ft Specific Energy 0.5129 ft ' Froude Number 0.85 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+37 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0.60 ' 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+37 1 0.87 1 � Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony 8-ziegler-road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group -- FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:.14:54-P_M_ 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT=06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 1 Project Description ' ) Worksheet Design Point 111- h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula tSolve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiel 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.4520 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0-87 ' Discharge 5.46 cfs 1 t 0.90 — . / 0.60 0.30 -- -- --- 0.00 -- Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 V:4.0! HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7-0 17.0005] 05/07/07 04:15-01 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Design Point 111 - Minor Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description 1 Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Input Data Design Point 111- h Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth ChannelSl(005000 ft/ft Discharge 1.99 cfs Options Current Roughness Methc)ved Lotters Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotters Method Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.3419 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.87 Flow Area 1.3 ft' Wetted Perimeter 11.05 ft Top Width 10.71 ft Actual Depth 0.34 ft Critical Elevation 0.32 ft ' Critical Slope 0.008141 ft/ft \ Velocity 1.56 ft/s J Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 0.3797 ft Froude Number 0.80 t Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient t0+00 0+37 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0.60 ' 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+37 0.87 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:15:11 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description Worksheet l Flow Element Method ' Solve For Section Data ' Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Design Point 111- h Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Water Surface Elev 0.3419 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.87 Discharge 1.99 cfs 0.90 0.60 0.30 0.00 0+00 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 V:4.0—\ H:1 N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 05/07/07 04:15:18 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside. Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Design Point 112 - Major Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Design Point 112- h Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel SIr 005000 ft/ft ' Discharge 3.91 cfs Options Current Roughness Meftwed Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weightint Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.4113 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.87 Flow Area 2.1 ft' Wetted Perimeter 14.57 ft Top Width 14.16 ft Actual Depth 0.41 ft Critical Elevation 0.39 ft Critical Slope 0.007489 ft/ft Velocity 1.83 ft/s Velocity Head 0.05 ft Specific Energy 0.4632 It Froude Number 0.83 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+37 0.016 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0,60 ' 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+37 0.87 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward •• � `harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 0=05/11107- 09:46:33 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Design Point 112- IN Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.4113 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.87 Discharge 3.91 cfs 0.90 0.60 0.30 0.00 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 V:4.0j� HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 05/11/07 09:46:40 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 112- k Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel Slc 005000 ft/ft ' Discharge 1.34 cfs Design Point 112 - Minor Worksheet for Irregular Channel Options Current Roughness Methc rved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weightin{ Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.3078 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.87 Flow Area 0.9 ft' Wetted Perimeter 9.32 ft Top Width 9.01 ft Actual Depth 0.31 ft Critical Elevation 0.29 ft Critical Slope 0.008552 ft/ft Velocity 1.42 ft/s Velocity Head 0.03 ft Specific Energy 0.3394 ft Froude Number 0.78 Flow Type Subcritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+37 0.016 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0.60 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+37 0.87 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7:0 (7.0005] ' 05/11/07 09:48:44 AM 0 Haestad Methods,,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Design Point 112- A Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.3078 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.87 Discharge 1.34 cfs 0.9" 0.6 0.3 0.0 _ 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 V:4.0� H:1 N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road-improvements:fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] —05/11 /07 09:48:50 AM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Design Point 113 - Major Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description ' Worksheet Design Point 113- k Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula . Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Channel Sic 006700 ft/ft Discharge 7.42 cfs ' Options Current Roughness Meth(oved Loiters Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method - Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method ' Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Water Surface Elev 0.4733 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.80 Flow Area 3.1 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 17.72 ft ' Top Width 17.24 ft Actual Depth 0.47 ft Critical Elevation 0,47 ft ' Critical Slope 0.006856 ft/ft Velocity 2.38 ft/s Velocity Head 0.09 ft Specific Energy 0.5617 ft Froude Number 0.99 Flow Type Subcritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient ' 0+00 0+34 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0,60 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+34 0.80 Project Engineer: Alicia.Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/07/07 04:16:03 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37.Brookside.Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Flow Element Method ' Solve For Section Data Design Point 113- h Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.006700 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.4733 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.80 Discharge 7.42 cfs 1 t 0.0 0.60 0.30 0.00 0+00 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 05/07/07 04:16:10 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37.13rooksideRoad Waterbury, CT 06708USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 V:4.0'\ HA N TS Project Description Worksheet Design Point 113- R Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula ' Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Channel SI(006700 ft/ft Discharge 3.37 cfs Design Point 113 - Minor Worksheet for Irregular Channel ' Options Current Roughness Methr rved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method ' Results Mannings Coeffciei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.3791 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.80 Flow Area 1.7 ft' Wetted Perimeter 12.93 ft ' Top Width 12.55 ft Actual Depth 0.38 ft Critical Elevation 0,37 ft ' Critical Slope 0.007617 ft/ft Velocity 1.97 ft/s Velocity Head 0.06 It Specific Energy 0.4395 ft Froude Number 0.94 Flow Type Subcritical ' Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+34 0.016 Natural Channel Points ' Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0.60 0+00 0.00 0+02 0.17 0+34 r 0.80 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005) ' 05/07/07 04:16:20 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708.USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Description Worksheet Flow Element Method ' Solve For Section Data Design Point 113- K Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Mannings Coefficiet 0.016 ' Channel Slope 0.006700 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.3791 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.80 Discharge 3.37 cfs 0.80 0.60"' t 0.30 0.00 0+00 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 V:4.0IN HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler mad.improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group — FlowMaster v7.0 (7.0005j ' 05/07/07 04:16:29 PM=C -Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708.USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Private Drive - Major Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Private Drive - Ma Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formul Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ChannelSlr005000 ft/ft Discharge 1.25 cis Options Current Roughness Methoved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting rved Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 0.1736 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.87 Flow Area 1.0 ft' Wetted Perimeter 11.60 It Top Width 11.59 It Actual Depth 0.17 ft Critical Elevation 0.16 It Critical Slope 0.008703 ft/ft Velocity 1.27 ft/s Velocity Head 0.03 ft Specific Energy 0.1986 ft Froude Number 0.77 Flow Type Subcritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+53 0.016 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0.30 0+16 0.00 0+18 0.17 0+53 0.87 Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\...\harmony & ziegler road improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005) ' 05/11/07 09:46:04 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet Private Drive - Me Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formul Salve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Water Surface Elev 0.1736 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.87 Discharge 1.25 cfs 0.40:k- I 0.00' I 0+00 0+05 0+10 0+15 0+20 0+25 0+30 0+35 0+40 0+45 0+50 0+55 V:4.0L�l HA N TS Project Engineer: Alicia Forward v:\.-.\harmony & ziegler road•improvements.fm2 Sear -Brown Group FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] ' 05/11/07 09:46:12 AM m'Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j APPENDIX - D May 2007 ' Stantec HARMONY & ZIEGLER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Inlet Sizing DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD Baver STIN-AA01-1 Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow Qr WI i "LDS :;'N12y 21VI.R _1_7W NE '._'-'.^; � Gi:-,�E•'�- 4 L1_�/ Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): "Q = 2.24 cfs " If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): Subcatchment Area = Acres Percent Imperviousness = % NRCS Soil Type JA, B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope (ftlft Length (ft) Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C1 ` P1 I ( C2 + T� A C3 Design Storm Return Period, Tr = years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P1= inches C1= C2 = C+3' User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), G = Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Q = cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C = N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = N/A Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = N/A fps Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = N/A fps Overland Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Gutter Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Calculated Time of Concentration, Tc = N/A minutes Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T, = N/A minutes Recommended T, = N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, Tc = NIA minutes Design Rainfall Intensity, I = N/A inch/hr Calculated Local Peak Flow, Cp = N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q =1 2.24 cfs STIN-AA01-1.xls, Q-Peak 518/2007, 7:52 AM ' INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE _ Project: Bayer ' Inlet ID: STIN-AA01.1 i ---Lo (C)---,r H-Curb i H-Von - - WP \ -� W \ Lo (G) Design Information (Input Type of Inlet Type = COOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (in add lJon to upstream gutter depresslon'S from'Q-Allow') 8t-00 = 3.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) La = 5.00 It Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from O-Allow) W. = WA It Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) CrG = WA Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) CrC = 0.20 Streetdrauli s (Calculated). Capacity OK • 0 is less than maximum allowable from sh -AIIOW Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Q-Peak) Q. = 224 cfs Water Spread Width T = 9.6 it Water Depth at Flowline (excluding local depression) d = 4.3 inches Ater Depth at Street Crown (or at T..) dmosr, = 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E. = 0.631 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T, %= 0.83 cis Discharge within the Gutter Section W O„ = 1.42 cis Discharge Behind the Curb Face Oencx = 0.00 CIS Street Flow Area A. = 1.09 sq ff Street Flow Velocity V. = 2.05 fps ater Depth for Design Condition dl. c = 7.3 inches Gratena is (Calculat Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = It Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eecanre = Under No -Clogging Condition Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. = fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow R, _ Interception Rate of Side Flow R. = Interception Capacity O, = cis Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient for Mulfipl"nit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet L. = It Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. = fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow R = Interception Rate of Side Flow R. = Actual Interception Capacity 0,= WA cfs Carry -Over Flow = 06-0, (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet) Os = WA cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening na si (Calculated Equivalent Slope S. (based on grate carryover) S. = 0.1514 Wit Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception LT = 6.42 It Under No -Clogging Condition Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L. LT) L = 5.00 it Interception Capacity O, = 2.10 cis Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0.20 Effective (Unclogged) Length L. = 4.00 It Actual Interception Capacity D, = 1.86 cfs Carry -Over Flow = eae -0, Oe = 0.39 cfs mm Total Inlet Interception Capacity O = 1.86 cfs olet Inlet Carty-OvFlow (flow bypassing Inlet) Dy = 0.38 cfs Capture Percentaerge = 0,10, = C%= 82.9 % 1 J 1 STIN-AA01-1.xls, Inlet On Grade 518/2007. 7:52 AM I c� 3 3 /.. \ c 3 3 I — ;m 2 O 2 LL 2 j z c 2 3 V2 2 ~ 2 v m rn O I it i - , ' 9 1 ' 0 a , n � T 1 m 1 ra j 1 m I n i I u I I i o i 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 401 '• Q for 112 Street (cfs) ' i ! 0 01ntercepled(c(s) -O—O Bypassed(cls) n SpreadT(fl), Limited 1 byT-CROWN i -o-Spread T (ft). Not Limlled by-=x-= Flow Depth tl (irwhes) —---- -- -- — - -- - T-CROWN STIN-AA01-1.xls, Inlet On Grade 5/8/2007, 7:52 AM 11 DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD Bayer STIN-AD01-3 Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow l \J S FR [.IW P,_;,S i:AChY-._V _:� F i�__�._ F G.0 T:=R ^`.J L i lNtE T. !NLt. i i/2 Lid STRE_.r Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): *Q = 11.44 cfs * If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): Area Snt Percent Imperviousness = Imperviousness =Acres NRCS Soil Type = A, B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope fUft) Length (ft) Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, ' P1 I ( C2 + T� A C3 Design Storm Return Period, T, = years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, = inches C,= CZ = C3= User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), q _ Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, 0, = cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C = N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = N/A Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = N/A fps Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = N/A fps Overland Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Gutter Flow Time, tc = N/A minutes Calculated Time of Concentration, T, = N/A minutes Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, Tc = N/A minutes Recommended Tc = N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, T, = NIA minutes Design Rainfall Intensity, I = N/A inch/hr Calculated Local Peak Flow, 4 = N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q =1 11.44 cfs STIN-AD01.xls, Q-Peak 5/8/2007, 7:53 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Project = Bayer Inlet ID = STIN-AD01-3 f----'-Lo (C) -- H-Curb '. H-Vert —'-------- - _ _ two _ \w \"ip Lo kG) Design Information In ut Type of Inlet Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (in addition to gutter depression 'a' from'Q-Allow') al..1= 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate L. (G) = N/A feet [Width of a Unit Grate W. = N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A„y,= N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50) Cr (G) = WA Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) C„, (G) = N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C, (G) = N/A Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening L. (C) = 10.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H,,,,, = 6.00 inches Height of Curb Onfice Throat in Inches H, . = 5.96 inches gle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 63.4 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP = 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cr (C) = 0.15 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) C„, (C) = 2.30 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (C) = 0.67 Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Grate Inlet Capacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = N/A Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = NIA s a Weir Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 11.44 cis curb) d. = N/A inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, I l.44 cfs curb) d„ = NIA inches s an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate. 11.44 cfs curb) rid = WA inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 11.44 cis curb) d„ = N/A inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d,y„u = NIA inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Curb Opening Inlet Capacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Cost = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = OAS Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate. 11.44 cis curb) d„, = 6.1 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 11.44 cis curb) d„ = 6.6 inches Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 11.44 cfs curb) dw = 4.9 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 11.44 cfs curb) d„ = 5.7 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d,.c,,,e = 3.6 Inches Resultant Street Conditions Total Inlet Length L = 10.0 feet Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q-Peak) Q. = 11.4 cis Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) d = 3.6 inches Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) T = 6.8 feet Resultant Flow Depth at Maximum Allowable Spread d9PREAD = 0.0 inches STIN-AD01.xls, Inlet In Sump 518/2007. 7:53 AM Vj I 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 LL 17 LB 16 U) �z 15 S 0 14 13 O 12 it 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 h -4-L -- ------ -- All I T L 0 2 4 6 a 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 a (cfs) Curb Weir 0 Curb Onf. E3 Not Used 0 Reported Design 0 Reported Design; Flow Depth (in.) Flow Depth (in.) Flow Depth (in.) Spread (ft.) STIN-AD01.xis, Inlet In Sump 5/8/2007, 7:53 AM DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD Bayer STIN-AE01-2 Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow II � ii S VERLANJ W 11 _R _OW P; S CARRY-L1VCR C\J F �—�;' E—LU' "_12 '=L:=4/ Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): *Q cfs * If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): Subcatchment Area = Acres Percent Imperviousness = % NRCS Soil Type =1 JA, B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope ft/ft) Length (ft) Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, * P1 I ( C2 + Tc) ^ C3 Design Storm Return Period, Tr = years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, = inches C,= CZ = C3 = User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), G = Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, 4 = cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C = N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = N/A Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = N/A fps Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = N/A fps Overland Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Gutter Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Calculated Time of Concentration, Tc = N/A minutes Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T, = N/A minutes Recommended T, = N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, Tc = N/A minutes Design Rainfall Intensity, I = N/A inch/hr Calculated Local Peak Flow, 4 = N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q =1 7.69 cfs ' STIN-AE01-2.xls, Q-Peak 5/8/2007, 7:54 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Project = Bayer Inlet ID = STIN-AE01.2 H-Curb H-Vert Lo (O_) Design Information In ut Type of Inlet Type = CDOT Type 13 Combination Local Depression (in addition to gutter depression'a' from'Q-Allow') a� = 1.50 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate L. (G) = 3.00 feet idth of a Unit Grate W. = 1.73 feet ea Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A„w = 0.47 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50) Cr (G) = 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) Cw (G) = 3.00 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (G) = 0.67 Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening L. (C) = 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H,,,r = 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H,K,,,= 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.0 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP = 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cr (C) = 0.20 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) Cw(C)= 2.30 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (C) = 0.67 Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Grate Inlet Capacity in a Sump Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.50 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.38 s a Weir Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (7.69 cis grate, 0 cis curb) d,,, = 6.9 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (7.69 cis grate, 0 cis curb) dw, = 8.6 inches s an OriOce Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (7.69 cfs grate, 0 cis curb) de, = 2.9 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (5.68 cis grate, 2.01 cis curb) d„ = 3.2 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d".w = 7.1 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Curb Opening Inlet Cavacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.25 Clogging Factor for Mullple Units Clog = 0.13 Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (5.87 cis grate, 1.82 cis curb) cl � = 2.4 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (5.19 cis grate, 2.5 cfs curb) dw. = 3.1 inches Curb as an OriOce, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (7.69 cis grate, 0 cis curb) d, = 2.9 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (5.68 cis grate, 2.01 cis curb) d„ = 3.2 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d.c„r = 1.7 Inches Resultant Street Conditions Total Inlet Length L = 6.0 feet Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q-Peak) Q. = 7.7 cfs Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) d = 4.5 Inches Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) T = 10.2 feet Resultant Flow Depth at Maximum Allowable Spread dsPeE,D= 0.0 inches STIN-AE01-2.xls, inlet In Sump _ 5/9/2007, 8:35 AM 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 • 19 18 LL 17 16 CL 4) 0 14 13 O 4) 12 It 10 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 0� T /Y Ile T 0 2 4 .6 a 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Q (cfs) 6 Grate Weir Comb. Onf./ E3 Comb. Orif./ Flow Depth (in.) Weir Flow Depth (in.) Orif. Flow Depth (in.) • Reported Design 0 Reported Design Row Depth (in.) Spread (ft.) STIN-AE01 -2.xis, Inlet In Sump 5/912007,8:35AM 11 DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD Baver STIN-AF01-2 Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow I VCiR. A\D I S;DL E•VLRL AND y ::-L11\J Y ! I S'R_E I I yIliW Y Y %Y= .7iFGui?='i i LCiW P_US CARRY-DVER-I_C1b/ F j.' uCTT=R . , !_W 112 ❑F STR_-T Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): 'Q = 8.71 cfs . If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): hment Area Snt Percent Imperviousness = Imp =Acres NRCS Soil Type = A, B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Onl) Slope (ft/ft) Length ft) Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, ' P1 / ( C2 + Tc ) A C3 Design Storm Return Period, T, = years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, = inches C, _ C2 = C3= User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), q = Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Q = cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C - N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = N/A Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = N/A fps Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = N/A fps Overland Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Gutter Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Calculated Time of Concentration, Tc = N/A minutes Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T, = N/A minutes Recommended Tc = N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, T, = NIA minutes Design Rainfall Intensity, I = N/A inch/hr Calculated Local Peak Flow, 0. = N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q =1 8.71 cfs STIN-AF01-2.xls,. Q-Peak 5/8/2007, 7:54 AM J INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Project = Bayer Inlet ID = STIN-AF01-2 r, -- -- Lo (C) -- - -� H-Curb 1 _. Design Information (input) Type of Inlet Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (in addition to gutter depression'a' frem'Q-Allow') a� = 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate L. (G) = N/A feet Idth of a Unit Grate W. = WA feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A, = N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50) CI (G) = WA Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) C. (G) = N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) Ca (G) = N/A Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening L. (C) = 10.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H,.,,, = 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H� t = 5.96 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 63.4 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP = 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cr (C) = 0.15 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) C. (C) = 2.30 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (C) = 0.67 Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Grate Intel Capacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = N/A Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = WA s a Weir Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 8.71 cis curb) d.a = WA inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 8.71 cfe curb) cl. = WA inches s an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 8.71 cis curb) da = N/A inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 8.71 cis curb) d„ = N/A inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d,.or=. = NIA inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Curb Opening Inlet Capacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.15 Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 8.71 cis curb) d„h = 5.1 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 8.71 cis curb) d„ = 5.5 inches Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 8.71 cis curb) da = 3.9 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 8.71 cis curb) d„ = 4.4 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression dsc.n 2 2.5 inches Resultant Street Conditions Total Inlet Length L = 10.0 feet Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q-Peak) Q. = 8.7 cis Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) d = 2.5 Inches Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) T = 2.2 feet Resultant Flow Depth at Maximum Allowable Spread dSPREAD= 0.0 inches STIN-AF01-2.xls, Inlet In Sump 5/8/2007, 7:54 AM 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 LL 17 16 cX U) —Z 15 c U 14 13 CL 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 01 --4 iI —T ------ --- ------- A 0 2 4 6 a 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Q (cfs) —a—Curb Weir 0 Curb Orif. 8 Not Used 0 Reported Design 0 Reported Design; Flow Depth (in.) Flow Depth (in.) Flow Depth (in.) Spread (ft.) STIN-AF01-2.xis, Inlet In Sump 5/8/2007, 7:54 AM rDESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD Bayer STIN-AH01-2 ' Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow ,L i TFR l_C'W ':_ S CARRY-r!WIR b/ F F r .\1 =i- 1NI-FT rI/2 ❑ S 4EET Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): *Q = 18.20 cfs * If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): Area SntImp Percent Imperviousness = Imperviousness =Acres NRCS Soil Type = A, B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Onl) Slope fUft Length (ft) Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, * P1 / ( C2 + Tc) ^ C3 Design Storm Return Period, T, = years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, = inches C,= C2 = C3 = User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), q = Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Q = cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C = N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = N/A Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = N/A fps Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = N/A fps Overland Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Gutter Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Calculated Time of Concentration, Tc = N/A minutes Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T. = N/A minutes Recommended T, = N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, T, = NIA minutes Design Rainfall Intensity, I = N/A inch/hr Calculated Local Peak Flow, 4 = N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q =1 18.20 cfs STIN-AH01-2.xls, Q-Peak 5/8/2007, 7:55 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Project = Bayer Inlet ID = STIN-AH01-2 H-Curb___ H-Vert_- --two -- �W P Lo Design Information In ut Type of Inlet Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (in addition to gutter depression'a' from'Q-Allow') au = 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = i Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate L. (G) = WA feet kith of a Unit Grate W. = NIA feet Area Opening Ratio fora Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Ar„� = N/A Clogging Factor fora Single Grate (typical value 0.50) Cf (G) = WA Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) C„. (G) = NIA Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (G) = WA Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening L. (C) = 15.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H,.,,r = 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H� t = 5.96 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = - 63A degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp = 2000 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cr (C) = 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) Cw (C) = 2.30 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (C) = 0.67 Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Grate Inlet Ca act in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = N/A Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = N/A s a Weir Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 18.2 cis curb) dM = WA inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 18.2 cis curb) d,,.. = N/A inches s an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 18.2 cfs curb) cl ; = N/A inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 18.2 cis curb) d. = WA inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression cl . . = N/A inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Curb Opening Inlet Capacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.10 Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 18.2 cis curb) d.„ _, 7.8 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 18.2 cfs curb) d„, = 8.4 inches Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 18.2 cls curb) dd = 5A inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 18.2 cis curb) d„ = 5.7 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d,.an = 5.4 inches Resultant Street Conditions Total Inlet Length L = 15.0 feet Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from O-Peak) Q, = 18.2 cis Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) d = 5.4 inches tResultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet O-Allow geometry) T = 14.2 feet Resultant Flow Depth at Maximum Allowable Spread d5PREM = 0.0 Inches J STIN-AH01-2.xls, Inlet In Sump 5/8/2007, 7:55 AM 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 LL 17 —0 M 10 16 CL rn —Z 15 Us 4) .0 0 14 E M. 13 12 11 10 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 • Z�- T Tr t 7j A I 0 2 4 STIN-AH01 -2.xls, Inlet In Sump 6 8 10 12 14 16 16 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 0 (c(s) 6 Curb Weir —Curb 061 E3 Not Used • Reported Design O ReportedDesign) Row Depth (in.) Flow Depth (in.) Row Depth (in.) Spread (ft.) 5/8/2007. 7:55 AM 1 1 1 1 1 11 DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD STIN-AI01-2 Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow IL V1. I W S1REE y — ----j F—GUTT_.'�� i_--W _i.S ii__R F LLiW LNLE iNl_' T Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): "Q = 5.46 cfs . If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): Area Snt =Acres Percent Imperviousness = Imperviousness NRCS Soil Type = A, B. C, or D Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope (ft/ft) Length (ft) Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C� ` P1 I ( C2 + Tc ) A C3 Design Storm Return Period, Tr = years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, = inches C,= CZ = C3 = User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), q = Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Q = cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = N/A Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = N/A fps Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = N/A fps Overland Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Gutter Flow Time, tG = N/A minutes Calculated Time of Concentration, Tc = N/A minutes Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, Tc = N/A minutes Recommended T, = N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, T, = NIA minutes Design Rainfall Intensity, I = N/A inch/hr Calculated Local Peak Flow, 4 =1 N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q =1 5.46 cfs STIN-A101-2.xls, Q-Peak 5/8/2007, 7:57 AM INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Project: Bayer Inlet ID: STIN-AI01-2 -f---Lo (C)_-...,r I H-Curb ( H-Vert Wo WP W 9_� Lo (G) Design information In u Type of Inlet Type = CDOT Type 13 Combination Local Depression (in addition to upstream gutter depression'a aom'Q-AIW) aL� = 1.5 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) I., = 3.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q-Allow) W. = 1.73 it Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) CrG = 0.50 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) CSC = 0.20 Street Hydraulics (Calculated). C less hmaximum allowablef shee ' - I Design Discharge for Halt of Street (from 0-Peek) Q. = 5.46 cfs Water Spread Width T = 14.5 It Water Depth at Flowline (excluding local depression) d = 5.5 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at TL,) dmom = 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E, = 0.435 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T, Q. = - 3.09 cis Discharge within the Gutter Section W Q. = 2.37 cis Discharge Behind the Curb Face Oescx = 0.00 cfs Street Flow Area A. = 2.28 so It Street Flow Velocity V. = 2.40 fps Water Depth for Design Condition :LO L = 7.0 inches Grate Analysis I Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = 6.00 ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow E� m = 0.396 Under No -Clogging Condition Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. = 9.98 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow W = 1.00 Interception Rate of Side Flow R. = 0.63 Interception Capacity Qi= 4.24 cis Under Clogging Condition clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = 1.50 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = 0.38 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet L. = 3.75 It Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. = 7.15 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr = 1.00 Interception Rate of Side Flow R, = 0.37 Actual Interception Capacity Q,= 3.37 cfs Parry -Over Flow= Qe-0, (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet) Q, = 2.09 cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis (Calculallm Equivalent Slope S. (based on grate carry-over) S. = 0.0834 ft/ft Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception LT = 8.85 It Untler No -Clogging Condition Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, LT) L = 6.00 It Interception Capacity Q; = 0.91 cis Under Clogging Condition clogging Coefficlenl CurbCoef = 1.25 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0.13 Effective (Unclogged) Length L. = 5.25 It Actual Interception Capacity Q,= 0.84 cfs Carry -Over Flow = ,,, -0, Q, = 125 cfs Summa Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q = 421 cfs Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow (Flow bypassing Inlet) Q, = 1.25 cfs Capture Percentage = Q,IQ, = C%= 77.1 % STIN-A101-2.xls, Inlet On Grade 5/11/2007, 9:17 AM 40 39 38 j 37 36 35 34 a 33 t 32 � 31 30 ! m 29 2e LL 27 r 26 25 Q24 f 23 ,y 22 1 a 21 20 fn 19 0 18 LL 17 16 u y 15 m is 14 r13 12 11 a 10 m � g. c 8 O 7 6. 5 4- 3 2 1 a --t..7_ T—i—_j—_T _I i I � i I - r ` '' _ I I �— 0 2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Q for 112 Street (cfs) O Olntercepted(ofe) —e3-0 Bypassed(cfs) G Spread T(ft), Limited by T-CROWN -o Spread T (ft). Not Limited by —x— Flow Depth d (inches) T-CROWN ' STIN-A101-2.xls, Inlet On Grade 5/1112007, 9:17-AM DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD Bayer STIN-AJ01 ' Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow I � I I R n V R ; I _JF�. L', :r_2 ._._W _JS C4, y-_�V_:2 ''r!.LAW F j•= ='�i F u.�! r_R r:_�W L _ _ _J Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak Flow for 1/2 of street, plus Flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): "Q = 5.12 cfs If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): Subcatchment Area = Acres Percent Imperviousness = % NRCS Soil Type =1 JA, B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope fUft Length (ft) Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, ' P, / ( C2 + T� A C3 Design Storm Return Period, Tr = years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, = inches C,= C2= C3= User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), G = Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, 4 = cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C = N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = N/A Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = N/A fps Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = N/A fps Overland Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Gutter Flow Time, tG = N/A minutes Calculated Time of Concentration, Tr = N/A minutes Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T, = N/A minutes Recommended T, = N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, Tc = NIA minutes Design Rainfall Intensity, I = N/A inch/hr Calculated Local Peak Flow, 4 = N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q =1 5.12 cfs STIN-AJ01-1.xls, Q-Peak 5/8/2007, 7:58 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Project= Bayer Inlet ID = STIN-AJ01 ---Lo(C)----� I H-Curb H-Vert VYP s- Design Information (input) Type of Inlet Type = COOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (in addition to gutter depression'a' from'Q-Allow') a,., 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate L. (G) = N/A feet Idth of a Unit Grate W. = N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A,, = N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50) C, (G) = . WA Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) C„(G)= N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C, (G) = WA Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening L. (C) = 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H,,,,, = 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H,,,,, = 5.96 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 63A degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP = 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C, (C) = 0.20 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) Cw (C) = 2.30 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (C) = 0.67 Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Grate Inlet Capacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = N/A Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = NIA s a Weir Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 5.12 cfs curb) d„, = NIA inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 5.12 cfs curb) d,,, = N/A inches s an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 5.12 cfs curb) d,l = WA inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 5.12 cfs curb) d„ = N/A inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d,.cr,,, = NIA inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Curb Opening Inlet Capacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.20 Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 5.12 cfs curb) d. = 4.9 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 5.12 cfs curb) d. = 5.3 inches Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 5.12 cfs curb) da = 4.4 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 5.12 cfs curb) d„ = 5.4 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d,.c„b = 2.3 inches Resultant Street Conditions Total Inlet Length L = 5.0 feet Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q-Peak) Q, = 5.1 cfs Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) d = 2.3 inches Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet 0-Allow geometry) T = 1.2 feet Resultant Flow Depth at Maximum Allowable Spread d9PaEAD = 0.0 inches STIN-AJ01-1.xls, Inlet In Sump 518/2007, 7:58 AM JV 29 1 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 LL 17 16 1 CL 15 4) 14 13 In 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -4. --4-- 4— 4 —2—L v F--Tj T 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Q (cfs) —6 Curb Weir 0 Curb Orif. 9 Not Used 0 Reported Design 0 Reported Design Row Depth (in.) Flow Depth (in.) Row Depth (in.) Spread (ft.) STIN-AJ01 -1.xis, Inlet In Sump 5/8/2007. 7:58 AM DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD Bayer STIN-AK01-1 Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow I V P; ANE ❑V-2LAN C:J?'EK' F. f_`W '_US CA`'i2v-JUi1T iER j-CW 11VL;_, iN L__ 1/2 C SiR_=T Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak Flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): `Q = 8.91 cfs • If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): Area SntImp Percent Imperviousness = Imperviousness =Acres NRCS Soil Type = A, B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Only Slope (ft/ft) Length ft) Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, ' P1 / ( C2 + T, ) A C3 Design Storm Return Period, Tr = years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, Pi = inches C,= C2 = C3 = User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), q = Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Q = cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C = N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = N/A Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = N/A fps Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = N/A fps Overland Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Gutter Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Calculated Time of Concentration, T, = N/A minutes Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, Tc = N/A minutes Recommended Tc = N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, Tc = N/A minutes Design Rainfall Intensity, I = N/A inch/hr Calculated Local Peak Flow, 4 = N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q =1 L__ 8.91 cfs I STIN-AK01-1.xls, Q-Peak 5/8/2007, 7:58 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION .Project= Bayer Inlet ID = STIN-AK01-1 •`----Lo (C)--� H-Curb H-Vert lGl� Design Information (input) Type of Inlet Type = CDOT Type 13 Combination Local Depression (in addition to gutter depression'a' from'Q-Allow') a� = - 1.50 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate LP (G) = 3.00 feet idth of a Unit Grate W. = - 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A„d, = 0.47 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0,50) Cr (G) = 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) C. (G) = 3.00 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) CP (G) = 0.67 Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening L,(C)=- 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H,,,,i = 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hy tP 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.0 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W, =- 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Ci (C) = 0.20 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) C„. (C) = 2.30 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (C) = 0.67 Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Grate Inlet Capacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.50 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.38 s a Weir Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (8.91 cls grate, 0 cfs curb) d. = 7.5 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (8.91 cfs grate, 0 cfs curb) d,,, = 9.2 inches s an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (8.3 cfs grate, 0.61 cfs curb) dd = 3.1 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (6.14 cfs grate, 2.77 cfs curb) d. = 3.5 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d,.o„i, = 7.7 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Curb Opening Inlet Capacity in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.25 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.13 Curb as a Weir. Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (6.94 cfs grate, 1.97 cfs curb) CIM = 2.7 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (6.14 cfs grate, 2.77 cfs curb) d.. = 3.5 inches Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (8.3 cfs grate, 0.61 cfs curb) da = 3.1inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (5.91 cfs grate, 3 cfs curb) dw = 3.5 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression cl . = 2.0 inches Resultant Street Conditions Total Inlet Length L = 6.0 feet Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q-Peak) Q. = 8.9 cfs Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) d = 4.7 inches Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) T = 11.2 feet Resultant Flow Depth at Maximum Allowable Spread d9PREM = 0.0 inches STIN-AK01-1.xls, Inlet In Sump 5/812007. 7:58 AM 30 29 28 27 26 24 23 22 21 20 19 4) LL 17 M E! 16 CL 15 a) r U 14 13 a 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 3 2 1 0 T - xil it t 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Q (cfs) Grate Weir Flow Depth (in.) • Reported Design Flow Depth (in.) STIN-AK01-1.xis, Inlet In Sump 0 Comb. Orif./ a Comb. OrifJ Weir Flow Depth (in.) Onf. Flow Depth (in.) —a--Reported Design Spread (ft.) 518/2007, 7:58 AM 11 DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD Bayer STIN-Al-01-1 ' Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow it I � II WI rL'�W j I ST r F ' Lr l✓ L_;I _'v$ nn':V'ER LEVIF i _R F'_ vJ :77 _ —_ Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): *Q = 3.20 cfs * If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): Subcatchment Area = Acres Percent Imperviousness = % NRCS Soil Type =1 IA. B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope (fUft) Len th (ft) Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, ' P, I ( C2 + T� ) A C3 Design Storm Return Period, Tr = years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, = inches C,= C2 = C3 = User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), q = Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, 4 = cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C = N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = N/A Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = N/A fps Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = N/A fps Overland Flow Time, to = N/A minutes Gutter Flow Time, tc = N/A minutes Calculated Time of Concentration, T, = N/A minutes Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, Tc = N/A minutes Recommended T, = N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, Tc = NIA minutes Design Rainfall Intensity, I = N/A inch/hr Calculated Local Peak Flow, 4 =1 N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q =1 3.20 cfs ' STIN-AL01-1.xIs, Q-Peak 5/8/2007, 7:59 AM ' INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Project: Bayer Inlet ID: STIN-AL01-1 �-.. __.. Lo (C) ' H-Cur i—..--_ H-Vert VOo — WP �_ W \ _ De i n Information linput Type of Inlet Type = COOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (in addition to upstream gutter depression'a'from'O-Allow) ai.o!-= 3.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) L, = 5.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q-Allow) W. = WA ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) CrG = WA Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) CrC = 0.20 Street Hydraulics CalculatedCapacity O is less than maximum allowable from sh -AII oY Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Q•Peak) Q. = 3.20 cfs Water Spread Width T= 10.3 ft Water Depth at Flowline (excluding local depression) d = 4.5 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at T..,) dcaowe = 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E. = 0.599 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T, Q. = 1.29 cis Discharge within the Gutter Section W Q. = 1.92 cis Discharge Behind the Curb Face amm = 0.00 cis Street Flow Area A. = 1.22 sq It Street Flow Velocity V. = 2.63 fps Water Depth for Design Condition dLoo,L = 7.5 inches Grate Analysis (Calculated Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow E,.o,,Te = Under No -Clogging Condition Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. = fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr = Interception Rate of Side Flow R. = Interception Capacity Q, = cts Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = Effective (unclogged) Length of Multple-unit Grate Inlet L. = it Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. = fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow R, = Interception Rate of Side Flow R. = ctual Interception Capacity Q.= NIA cfs Carry -Over Flow = Q.-Q. (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet) O. = WA cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Ovenina Analysis(Calculated) Equivalent Slope S. (based on grate carry-over) S. = 0.1447 ft/ft Required Length LT to Have 100 % Interception LT = 8.76 ft Under No -Clogging Condition Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, LT) L = 5.00 ft Interception Capacity Qi = 2.50 cfs Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0.20 Effective (Unclogged) Length L. = 4.00 ft Actual Interception Capacity Q,= 2.13 cfs Carry -Over Flow= ,,Ts-0, Q.= 1.07 cfs Summa Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q = 2.13 cfs Total Inlet Carty -Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet) Q. = 1.07 cfs Capture Percentage =Q,IQ.= C%= 66.7% is ' STIN-AL01-1.xls, Inlet On Grade 5/812007, 7:59 AM 39 38 37 36 35 I34 4 33 � c 32 u I c 31 I £ 30 m 29 28 LL 27 26 25 p24 923 I a 22 V 21 m 20 y 19 l 30 18 LL 17 16 v 15 0 I � 14 a 13 -6 12 iO 11 m 10 9 c 8 O 7 6 5 4. 3 2 1 0 - it b° ©.Qo.o°o- -� - -t- �— _I o a Q•Oa' 9 - -- !--ItR 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Lt for 1l2 Street (cfs) i 0 Olntercepted (cfs) —o-- 0 Bypassed (cfs) n Spread T (ft), limited j i by T-CROWN 0-- Spread T (ft). Not Limited by --x-- Fbw Depth d (inches) T-CROWN i ' STIN-AL01-1.xls, Inlet On Grade 5/812007, 7:59 AM APPENDIX — E May 2007 1 Stantec HARMONY & ZIEGLER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 11 Storm Sewer Design STRM-A AW io" air 1j 1 NeoUDS Results Summary t Project Title: STRM-AA01 Project Description: Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Output Created On: 5/3/2007 at 2:19:34 PM ' Using NeoUDSewer Version 1.5. Rainfall Intensity Formula Used. Return Period of Flood is 100 Years. ' Sub Basin Information Time of Concentration �— Manhole: Basin Overland Gutter Basin Rain I JPeak Flow In # Area * C (Minutes) (Minutes). (Minutes) (Inch/Hour) (CFS) ' �lF70.001 —r — 0.0 560.00 2.2 15.0: 0.0 ' i G 0.00 F 5.0: 0.0" 0.0 F 5-60.001 2.2 The shortest design rainfall duration is 5 minutes. For rural areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 10 minutes. r:. For urban areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 5 minutes. ' J At the first design point, the time constant is <_ (l O+Total Length/180) in minutes. When the weighted runoff coefficient => 0.2, then the basin is considered to be urbanized. When the Overland Tc plus the Gutter Tc does not equal the catchment Tc, the above criteria supersedes the calculated values. Summary of Manhole Hydraulics Design Manhole Contributing Rainfall Rainfall peak Ground Water ID # Area * C Duration" Intensity Elevation Elevation. Comments (Minutes), (Inch/Hour) (Feet) (Feet) (CFS) —F—o 0.0 0.00 2.2 F4954.43F 4954.00 2 F 0 r—�.0 560.00. 2.2 4960.46 4954.02 F— Summary of Sewer Hydraulics Note: The given depth to flow ratio is 0.9. F-1 Manhole ID Number [— Calculated Suggested Existing Diameter Diameter Diameter Sewer stream Upownstream D Sewer (Rise) (Rise) (Rise) Width ID # Shape (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) r 1 FF 1 - Round'F 11.5 F 18118 N/A Round and arch sewers are measured in inches. Box sewers are measured in feet. Calculated diameter was determined by sewer hydraulic capacity. Suggested diameter was rounded up to the nearest commercially available size All hydraulics where calculated using the existing parameters. If sewer was sized mathematically, the suggested diameter was used for hydraulic calculations. Design Full 'Normal Normal Critical[(FPS) ritical .[Full wer Flow Flow Depth Velociy_ Depth elocity,elocity[Froude umber CommentID (CFS) (CFS) (Feet) (FPS) (Feet) (FPS) 1 2.2 7-41 0.56 3.7 0.59 3.5 1.3 1 A Froude number = 0 indicated that a pressured flow occurs. Summary of Sewer Design Information Invert Elevation I Buried Depth rSlope U stream Downstream e) U stream p jDownstreamSewer IDp (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) ( (Feet) Comment 1 1 0.501 4953.431 4952.93 ( 5.531 0.00 ISewer Too Shallow Summary of Hydraulic Grade Line F—F—F Invert Elevation Water Elevation Fee Sewerrcharged ength pstream Downstream Upstream DownstreamLength Condition 1 (Feet) LFeet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 1— 100.98 F— 0 4953.43. 4952.93 4954.02 4954.00 Jump Summary of Energy Grade Line Upstream Downstream Manhole Juncture Losses Manhole Energy Sewer : Bend Lateral Energy Sewer Manhole Elevation Friction Bend K Loss Lateral ,Loss Loss Manhole Elevation ID # ID # (Feet) (Feet) Coefficient (Feet) Coefficient (Feet) ID # (Feet) F —IF —2- 4954.21: 0.21 0.05' 0.00, 0.00 0.00F 7 1- 4954.00 Bend loss = Bend K * Flowing full vhead in sewer. Lateral loss = Outflow full vhead - Junction Loss K * Inflow full vhead. A friction loss of 0 means it was negligible or possible error due to jump. Friction loss includes sewer invert drop at manhole. Notice: Vhead denotes the velocity head of the full flow condition. A minimum junction loss of 0.05 Feet would be introduced unless Lateral K is 0. Friction loss was estimated by backwater curve computations. Summary of Earth Excavation Volume for Cost Estimate The user given trench side slope is 1. Manhole Rim Elevation Invert Elevation Manhole Height ID # I (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 4954.43 . 4952.931 —1.50 2 4960.461 4953.43---�-- 7.03 � -J Upstream Trench Width Downstream Trench Width F Sewer On At On At Trench Wall Earth Volume ID # Ground Invert Ground Invert Length Thickness (Cubic (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Inches) Yards) 1 14.1 3.9 3.1 3.9 1 100.98 2.50 126 Total earth volume for sewer trenches = 126.36 Cubic Yards. The earth volume was estimated to have a bottom width equal to the diameter (or width) of the sewer plus two times either 1 foot for diameters less than 48 inches or 2 feet for pipes larger than 48 inches. If the bottom width is less than the minimum width, the minimum width was used. The backfill depth under the sewer was assumed to be 1 foot. The sewer wall thickness is equal to: (equivalent diameter in inches/12)+1 i STeM - Abol AD01- FES 2 ACOI -3 3 W Tyf •0 V NeoUDS Results Summary ' Project Title: C-STRM-AD01 Project Description: Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Output Created On: 5/11/2007 at 8:43:55 AM Using NeoUDSewer Version 1.5. Rainfall Intensity Formula Used. Return Period of Flood is 100 Years. Sub Basin Information —� Time of Concentration F—) ri�ID nhole Basm verland F(minutes) Gutter Basin [(Minutes). Rain I Peak Flow # Area * C (Minutes) (Inch/Hour) (CFS) 1 O.00:I 5.0.1 ' 1 2 0.00 S.OI F 3—F-6-66F 5.01 0.0] 0.0'1 2860.00:1 11.4 0.0 0.0' 2860.00 11.4 0.0 0.0 F 2860.00 11.4 The shortest design rainfall duration is 5 minutes. For rural areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 10 minutes. For urban areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 5 minutes. At the first design point, the time constant is <= (1 O+Total Length/180) in minutes. When the weighted runoff coefficient => 0.2, then the basin is considered to be urbanized. When the Overland Tc plus the Gutter Tc does not equal the catchment Tc, the above criteria supersedes the calculated values. Summary of Manhole Hydraulics Manhole ID # Contributing Area * C Rainfall Duration Rainfall Intensity Design Peak Flow Ground Elevation Water Elevation Comments (Minutes) (Inch/Hour) (CFS) (Feet) (Feet) Surface 1 0 0.0 0.00 11.4 4922.50 4928.29 Water Present F 2 F 0.01 5.0 1430.00 11.4 4929.83 F4928.97 F— F —3F— 0 5.0 2860.00 11.4 4931.35 4930.50 r!^— Summary of Sewer Hydraulics Note: The given depth to flow ratio is 0.9. F— Manhole ID Number Calculated Suggested Existing Sewer ID # —F--Y7F Upstream Downstream Sewer Shape Diameter (Rise) (Inches) (FT) Diameter (Rise) (Inches) (FT) Diameter (Rise) (Inches) (FT) Width (IT) [-1 1 - Round _ 1—--21.31 _ 24 _ —18] N/A I G I ' I G Round F 18.6F 21.F 18 N/A. Round and arch sewers are measured in inches. Box sewers are measured in feet. Calculated diameter was determined by sewer hydraulic capacity. Suggested diameter was rounded up to the nearest commercially available size All hydraulics where calculated using the existing parameters. If sewer was sized mathematically, the suggested diameter was used for hydraulic calculations. Design Full Normal:FFee Critical Full Sewer Flow Flow rormal epthVelocityVelocity VelocityFroude Number CommentID (CFS) (CFSjFeet) (FPS) (FPS) (FPS) i 11.4. 7.3 1.50 6.5 1.28 7.1 6.5 N/A F 2 11.4 10.5 1.50. 6.5. 1.28, 7.1 6.5 N/A A Froude number = 0 indicated that a pressured flow occurs. Summary of Sewer Design Information r1 Invert Elevation Buried Depth rSlope U stream Downstream U stream Downstream SewerIDI (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Comment 1 1 0.481 4921.541 4921.001 6.791 0.00 ISewer Too Shallow I 1.00 F 4928.25 F 4927.27 F 1.60 1.06 Sewer Too Shallow Summary of Hydraulic Grade Line F—F-7-1 Invert Elevation Water Elevation Sewer Sewer Length Surcharged Length Upstream Downstream Upstream_ Downstream Condition' ID # (Feet) (Feet) Feet ( ) Feet ( ) (Feet) (Feet) F 1 112.83 112.83 4921.54 4921.00 4928.97 4928.29 Pressured I G 98.43 98.43 9928.25 4927.27' 4930.50 4928.97. Pressured Summary of Energy Grade Line Upstream Downstream Manhole FJuncture Losses Manhole Fee Manhole ID # Energy Elevation (Feet) Sewer Friction (Feet) , Bend K Coefficient Bend. Loss (Feet)' Lateral K Coefficient Lateral Loss (Feet) Manhole ID # Energy [Elevation (Feet) 1 2 4929.62` ���� 1.33, 0.05' 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 F 1 4928.29 F2 � 493I 5T 1.16 0.57` 0.37 _ ��0.00 0.00'� 2 -V 4929.62 Bend loss = Bend K * Flowing full vhead in sewer. Lateral loss = Outflow full vhead - Junction Loss K * Inflow full vhead. A friction loss of 0 means it was negligible or possible error due to jump. Friction loss includes. sewer invert drop at manhole. Notice: Vhead denotes the velocity head of the full flow condition. A minimum junction loss of 0.05 Feet would be introduced unless Lateral K is 0. Friction loss was estimated by backwater curve computations. Summary of Earth Excavation Volume for Cost Estimate The user given trench side slope is 1. hole ff# Rim Elevation (Feet) Invert Elevation (Feet) Manhole Height (Feet) F 1-1 4922.501 4921.00 1.50: 2 4929.831 4921.54 8.29 3 1 4931.35 1 4928.25 r 3.10 FPU stream Trench Downstream Width Trench Width On At On At Trench Wall Earth Sewer Ground Invert Ground Invert Length Thickness Volume ID # (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Inches) yCubic , ards) 16.7" 3.9 3.1 3.9 112.83 F 2.5ol 182 I 6.3 3.91 5.2.1 3.91 98.43 2.501 58 ' Total earth volume for sewer trenches = 239.77 Cubic Yards. The earth volume was . estimated to have a bottom width equal to the diameter (or width) of the sewer plus two times either 1 foot for diameters less than 48 inches or 2 feet for pipes larger than 48 ' inches. If the bottom width is less than the minimum width, the minimum width was used. The backfill depth under the sewer was assumed to be 1 foot. ' The sewer wall thickness is equal to: (equivalent diameter in inches/12)+l STAW-AcoI Ko 1-3 7P 1 C� C?xis-hm FEES NeoUDS Results Summary ' Project Title: STRM-AE01 Project Description: Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Output Created On: 6/13/2007 at 8:39:05 AM ' Using NeoUDSewer Version 1.5. Rainfall Intensity Formula Used. Return Period of Flood is 100 Years. Sub Basin Information —� Time of Concentration FI Manhole Basin Overland Gutter Basin Ram I Peak Flow ID # Area * C I(Minutes) I(Minutes) I(Minutes) (Inch/Hour) (CFS) 1 1 0.001 5.01 0.01 0.01 1922.501 7.7 2 0.00 5.0 0.0 F-6-61 1922.50 7.7 ' The shortest design rainfall duration is 5 minutes. For rural areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 10 minutes. For urban areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 5 minutes. At the first design point, the time constant is <_ (IO+Total Length/180) in minutes. When the weighted runoff coefficient => 0.2, then the basin is considered to be urbanized. ' When the Overland Tc plus the Gutter Tc does not equal the catchment Tc, the above criteria supersedes the calculated values. Summary of Manhole Hydraulics Manhole ID # CArea * C ontributing Rainfall Duration Design Rainfall Ground Flow Peak Intensity Elevation � Water Elevation Comments (Minutes) (Inch/Hour) (CFS) I (Feet) (Feet) F 1 1 0 0.0 0.00 l 7.7 j 4927.00 4924.80 j 2 i 0 _5.0 1922_50 7.7 I 4928_81 1 4928.24 —� --� Summary of Sewer Hydraulics Note: The given depth to flow ratio is 0.9. F --- Manhole ID Number Calculated Suggested F Existing Diameter Diameter Diameter Sewer ID # Upstream Downstream Sewer Shape (Rise) (Inches) (Rise) (Inches) (Rise) (Inches) Width (FT) -�� (Fr) (Fr) (Fr) 1 Round 18.2 21 18 N/A Round and arch sewers are measured in inches. Box sewers are measured in feet. Calculated diameter was determined by sewer hydraulic capacity. Suggested diameter was rounded up to the nearest commercially available size All hydraulics where calculated using the existing parameters. If sewer was sized mathematically, the suggested diameter was used for hydraulic calculations. Design Full Normal. Normal Critical Critical Full Sewer Flow Flow Depth Velocity Depth Velocity Velocity[Fronde CompID (CFS)(CFS) (Feet) (FPS) (Feet) (FPS) (FPS)umber 1-- 7.7 7.4 1.50 4.4 1.06 5.7 4.4 F N/A ' A Froude number = 0 indicated that a pressured flow occurs. Summary of Sewer Design Information F—F—I Invert Elevation Buried Depth r-- Slope Upstream Downstream rUpstie�m Do(nstr)amSewer ID ( t ( ) et)Feet ��—Commento1--I 0.50 4926.60 4924.53 0.71 r 0.97 'Sep ver Too Shallow Summary of Hydraulic, Grade Line F—F--F-1 Invert Elevation Water Elevation �-- Sewer Sewer 'Surcharged Length Length Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream ID # (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Condition r-1 1414.841 414.84 4926.60 F-4924.53 1 4928.24 4924.80 F Pressured Summary of Energy Grade Line Upstream Juncture Losses Manhole Downstream Manhole Energy Sewer Bend Lateral Energy Sewer Manhole Elevation Friction Bend K Loss Lateral K Loss Manhole Elevation ID # ID # Feet Coefficient Coefficient ID # ( ) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) F 1 F —24928.53 -3-731 0.031 0.001 0.001 0.001 I-F 4924.80 Bend loss = Bend K * Flowing full vhead in sewer. Lateral loss = Outflow full vhead - Junction Loss K * Inflow full vhead. A friction loss of 0 means it was negligible or possible error due to jump. Friction loss includes sewer invert drop at manhole. Notice: Vhead denotes the velocity head of the full flow condition. A minimum junction loss of 0.05 Feet would be introduced unless Lateral K is 0. Friction loss was estimated by backwater curve computations. ' Summary of Earth Excavation Volume for Cost Estimate The user given trench side slope is 1. ' [Manhole Rim Elevation Invert Elevation ID # (Feet) (Feet) ' I 4927.001 4924.53 F 2-1 4928.811 4926.60 anhole Height (Feet) 2.47 2.21 FUpstream Trench Width Downstream Trench Width FTF�I Earth On At On At Trench Wall Sewer Ground Invert Ground Invert Length Thickness Volume ID # (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Inches) (Cubic Yards) F~ 1 (� 4.5 3.9 5.0 -T3.9 ^- ^414.84 2.501 204 Total earth volume for sewer trenches = 204.16 Cubic Yards. The earth volume was ' estimated to have a bottom width equal to the diameter (or width) of the sewer plus two times either I foot for diameters less than 48 inches or 2 feet for pipes larger than 48 inches. ' If the bottom width is less than the minimum width, the minimum width was used. The backfill depth under the sewer was assumed to be 1 foot. The sewer wall thickness is equal to: (equivalent diameter in inches/ 12)+1 J'j .STR /A -A Fot ST9M - AKot x o"Mck 2 3 ---- ----- -- -- Act IV u I AfO FES tLL z c f-W Z' 6ax) 2 A FO%- 10 T Y? 3 AKoi- i oo.,blc -rife 13 CoM6 ��Ie+ NeoUDS Results Summary Project Title: STRM-AFO1 ' Project Description: Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Output Created On: 5/3/2007 at 3:25:49 PM Using NeoUDSewer Version 1.5. ' Rainfall Intensity Formula Used. Return Period of Flood is 100 Years. Sub Basin Information --F-- Time of Concentration I --_------I Manhole Basin . Overland: Gutter Basin Rain I Peak Flow ID # Area * C (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes) [(Inch/Hour) (CFS) 1 1 0.0041 5.01 0.01 0.01 7055.001 28.2 2 0.00 5.0 0.0.1 0.0 7055.00 28:2 I 'F 0.00 5.0' 0.0. 0.0 2650.00. 10.6 0.00 5.0 0.0 0.0 F 2227.50 F 8.9 The shortest design rainfall duration is 5 minutes. For rural areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 10 minutes. For urban areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 5 minutes. At the first design point, the time constant is <= (1 O+Total Length/180) in minutes. When the weighted runoff coefficient => 0.2, then the basin is considered to be urbanized. When the Overland Tc plus the Gutter Tc does not equal the catchment Tc, the above criteria supersedes the calculated values. Summary of Manhole Hydraulics Manhole ID # Contributing Area * C Rainfall Duration Rainfall Intensity Design Peak Ground Elevation Water Elevation Comments Flow (Minutes): (Inch/Hour) (CFS) (Feet) (Feet) F o 0.0 0.00 28.2 4923.56 4922.80 I G 0.01 5.0 2351.67 F 28.2: 4924.90 4923.47 Surface 3 0 5.0• 2650.00 1 0.6 4923.90 4924.90 Water Present F--�-F 0 5.0 2227.50. 8.9 4926.07 F4924.43 F ' Summary of Sewer Hydraulics Note: The given depth to flow ratio is 0.9. 2- Manhole ID Number I - Calculated Suggested Existing Diameter Diameter Diameter Sewer ID # Upstream Downstream Sewer: Shape (Rise) (Inches) (Rise) (Inches) (Rise) Width (Inches) (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) F-17F 2 -� 1 Box 1 1.7-� 2 F-- 21 3 F-2F -3-F 2 Round: 22.8F 24F 18 N/A F -3F -4I 2 _ Arch 20.11 21.F^ 1_9 30 Round and arch sewers are measured in inches. Box sewers are measured in feet. Calculated diameter was determined by sewer hydraulic capacity. Suggested diameter was rounded up to the nearest commercially available size All hydraulics where calculated using the existing parameters. If sewer was sized mathematically, the suggested diameter was used for hydraulic calculations. Design Full Normal Normal Critical Critical Full Sewer ID Flow Flow Depth Velocity. Depth Velocity Velocity Fronde Number Comment (CFS) (CFS) (Feet) (FPS) (Feet) (FPS) (FPS) -28.2F-27.9F 1.67F 5AF 1.36F 6.6 F 4.5F 6.73 F 2 10-6F 5.7F 1.50 F 6.6F 1.24F 6.8 6.0 N/A F 8.9 15.2 1.13 4-8F 1.07F 5.1F 2.7F 6.89 F A Froude number = 0 indicated that a pressured flow occurs. Summary of Sewer Design Information F--F-1 Invert Elevation ��Buried Depth FSewer ID: [Slope Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Comment I % (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 1 - 0.29 4921.901-Y-- 4921.80_ 1.00 -0.24 I Sewer Too Shallow F__2_ 0.29 4922.40 4922.00 0.00 1.40 Sewer Too Shallow F 3 - 0.40 4923.15 4922.21 1.34 1.11 Sewer Too Shallow Summary of Hydraulic Grade Line F'F-F- Invert Elevations Water Elevation ---- --s� Sewer Sewer Surcharged Upstream. Downstream Upstream Downstream: ID # Length Length (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Condition (Feet) (Feet) 1 34.24 0: 4921.90 4921.80 �---4-92--3-4-7 4922.80 �Su-b--cri i-cal I G 137.82 137.82 4922.40 F. i922.00 4924.90 4923.47 Pressured 3- 235.94 F- 0 F 4923A 4922.21 492 A 4923.47 Subcritical Summary of Energy Grade Line Upstream (� Downstream _ Manhole EJuncture LossesManhole Sewer ID # Manhole ID # Energy Elevation (Feet) Sewer Bend Lateral Energy Bend K [Lateral K Manhole Friction Coefficient Loss oeffC1nt Loss ID # Elevation (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) F 1 F 2 4923.96 1.16F 0.�05 0.00 0 0.09F -1-- 4922.80 �-- 2 3 - 4925.45 1.4T� 7- 05 0.03F - - 0.00F 0.00 F 2 4923.96 F3 -F--�- 4924.79. 0.68.F-1.32 0.15 F 0.00 F 0.00 F_-2 -..-F 4923.96 Bend loss = Bend K * Flowing full vhead in sewer. Lateral loss = Outflow full vhead - Junction Loss K * Inflow full vhead. A friction loss of 0 means it was negligible or possible error due to jump. Friction loss includes sewer invert drop at manhole. t rNotice: Vhead denotes the velocity head of the full flow condition. A minimum junction loss of 0.05 Feet would be introduced unless Lateral K is 0. Friction loss was estimated by backwater curve computations. r rSummary of Earth Excavation Volume for Cost Estimate The user given trench side slope is 1. Manhole ID # Rim Elevation Inv ter Elevation Manhole Height (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 1—F- 4923.561 4921.801 1.76 2 4924.901 4921.90 3.60 I 3 4923.90, 4922.40 1.50 4926.071 4923.151 2.92 Upstream Trench Downstream -F-1 Width Trench Width Earth Sewer On At On At Trench Wall Volume ID # Ground Invert Ground Invert Length Thickness (Cubic (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Inches) Yards) 1 6.5 5.8 4.0 5.8 34.24 3.83 25 I G 3.1 F 3.9 5.9 3.9 137.82 F 2.56 67 1 6.7. 5-oF 6.2 5.0 F235.94 F3.04 F 171 ' Total earth volume for sewer trenches = 263.41 Cubic Yards. The earth volume was estimated to have a bottom width equal to the diameter (or width) of the sewer plus two ' times either 1 foot for diameters less than 48 inches or 2 feet for pipes larger than 48 inches. If the bottom width is less than the minimum width, the minimum width was used. ' The backfill depth under the sewer was assumed to be 1 foot. The sewer wall thickness is equal to: (equivalent diameter in inches/12)+1 5.ig M - AN c)t AHOi"� z FES 2 is" Acp + e it ! .AHo1-Z I5' -ryfe le NeoUDS Results Summary Project Title: STRM-AHO1 ' Project Description: Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Output Created On: 5/3/2007 at 2:42:34 PM Using NeoUDSewer Version 1.5. ' Rainfall Intensity Formula Used. Return Period of Flood is 100 Years. ' Sub Basin Information Time of Concentration Manhole Basm Overland Gutter Basin Rain I Peak Flow ID # Area * C (Minutes) (Minutes) (Minutes). (Inch/Hour) (CFS) 1 0.001 5.01 0.0.1 0.01 2275.001 9.1 I G 0.00 5.0 0.0E-6-61 2275.00 9.1 The shortest design rainfall duration is 5 minutes. For rural areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 10 minutes. For urban areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 5 minutes. At the first design point, the time constant is <_ (1 O+Total Length/180) in minutes. When the weighted runoff coefficient => 0.2, then the basin is considered to be urbanized. When the Overland Tc plus the Gutter Tc does not equal the catchment Tc, the above criteria supersedes the calculated values. Summary of Manhole Hydraulics sign Manhole Contributing Rainfall Rainfall peak Ground Water ID # Area * C Duration Intensity Fe Elevation Elevation Comments (Minutes) (Inch/Hour). (Feet) (Feet) (CFS) urface 1F 0 0.0 l 0.00 9.1 4924.25 4925.00 [Water resent F -2F 0 5.0 2275.00 9.1 4924.97 4924.88 ' J ' j 1 t J U Summary of Sewer Hydraulics Note: The given depth to flow ratio is 0.9. I — Manhole ID Number F— Calculated FSuggested Existing Diameter Diameter Diameter Sewer Upstream Downstream Sewer (Rise) (Rise) (Rise) Width ID # Shape (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (Fr) (FT) (FT) (FT) F -IF —2F—I — Round 1 19.4 21 F— 18 N/A Round and arch sewers are measured in inches. Box sewers are measured in feet. Calculated diameter was determined by sewer hydraulic capacity. Suggested diameter was rounded up to the nearest commercially available size All hydraulics where calculated using the existing parameters. If sewer was sized mathematically, the suggested diameter was used for hydraulic calculations. Design Full Normal Normal ' Critical. Critical Full . Sewer Flow Flow Depth Velocity Depth Velocity. [(FPS) Velocity Fronde Comment ID (CFS) (CFS) (Feet) (FPS) (Feet) (Feet). (FPS) Number r 1 9.1 7.4 1.50 5.1 1.17 6.2 5.1 N/A A Froude number = 0 indicated that a pressured flow occurs. Summary of Sewer Design Information �— Invert Elevation Buried Depth--^ rSilope Ustream Downstream U stream DownstreamSewer ID p p Comment (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) I 1 1 0.501 4922.94] 4922.751 0.531 0.00 (Sewer Too Shallow Summary of Hydraulic Grade Line —r� Invert Elevation Water Elevation FSewer eer Length Surcharged Length F(Feet)tream Downstream Upstream Downstream Condition (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 1 F38.551 38.551 4922.94 4922.75 4924.881 4925.00 Pressured ' Summary of Energy Grade Line Upstream ' Manhole =,����, �,� Energy FSewer r j Juncture Losses Bend K Bend Lateral K I Latera ID # ID #-- --_-- Coefficient Loss Coefficient Loss - -- (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 1, (Feet) r -IF —2 4925 29'1 0.29:1 0.051 0.001 0.00 0.01 Bend loss = Bend K * Flowing full vhead in sewer. Lateral loss = Outflow full vhead - Junction Loss K * Inflow full vhead. A friction loss of 0 means it was negligible or possible error due to jump. Friction loss includes sewer invert drop at manhole. Notice: Vhead denotes the velocity head of the full flow condition. A minimum junction loss of 0.05 Feet would be introduced unless Lateral K is 0. Friction loss was estimated by backwater curve computations. Summary of Earth Excavation Volume for Cost Estimate The user given trench side slope is 1. Manhole Rim Elevation Invert Elevation Manhole Height ID # (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) � 4924.251 4922.751 1.50 I G 1 4924.971 4922.94 r 2.03 Downstream Manhole lanhole Energy ID # [El evation (Feet) 1 4925.00 Upstream Trench Width Downstream Trench Width F-F-1- Sewer ID # On Ground (Feet) At Invert (Feet) On Ground (Feet) At Invert (Feet) Trench Length (Feet) Wall Thickness (Inches) Earth Volume (Cubic Yards) r 1 4.1 3.9 3.1 3.9 38.55 2.5o 16 Total earth volume for sewer trenches = 15.6 Cubic Yards. The earth volume was estimated to have a bottom width equal to the diameter (or width) of the sewer plus two times either 1 foot for diameters less than 48 inches or 2 feet for pipes larger than 48 inches. If the bottom width is less than the minimum width, the minimum width was used. The backfill depth under the sewer was assumed to be 1 foot. The sewer wall thickness is equal to: (equivalent diameter in inches/12)+1 'rJ (j No Text 1 NeoUDS Results Summary � y Project Title: STRM-ALO1 ' Project Description: Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Output Created On: 5/3/2007 at 2:11:45 PM Using NeoUDSewer Version 1.5. 1 Rainfall Intensity Formula Used. Return Period of Flood is 100 Years. 1 Sub Basin Information 1 F----1 Time of Concentration r l Manhole Basm Overland: Gutter Basin Rain I Peak Flow ID # Area * C (Minutes) (Minutes). (Minutes) (Inch/Hour) (CFS) 1 1 0.001 5.01 0.01 0.01 800.001 3.2 �— 0.001 5.01 0.0 0.0 800.00 3.2 The shortest design rainfall duration is 5 minutes. For rural areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 10 minutes. For urban areas, the catchment time of concentration is always => 5 minutes. At the first design point, the time constant is <= (1 O+Total Length/180) in minutes. When the weighted runoff coefficient => 0.2, then the basin is considered to be urbanized. When the Overland Tc plus the Gutter Tc does not equal the catchment Tc, the above criteria supersedes the calculated values. Summary of Manhole Hydraulics Design Manhole Contributing Rainfall Rainfall Peak Ground[leva Water # Area * C Duration Intensity Elevation tion. CommentsID (Minutes)(Inch/Hour) (CFS) Feet) Feet) 1 —F— 0 0.01 0.00 3.2 4949.35 4943.10 �---- 2 F 0 5-6F 800.00F 3.2F 4950.53 4944.77 F Summary of Sewer Hydraulics Note: The given depth to flow ratio is 0.9. F— Manhole ID Number Calculated Suggested Existing Diameter Diameter Diameter Sewer Upstream Downstream Sewer (Rise) (Rise) (Rise) Width ID # Shape (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) F —1�1 1 FRoundl 9.91 181 18 N/A Round and arch sewers are measured in inches. Box sewers are measured in feet. Calculated diameter was determined by sewer hydraulic capacity. Suggested diameter was rounded up to the nearest commercially available size All hydraulics where calculated using the existing parameters. If sewer was sized mathematically, the suggested diameter was used for hydraulic calculations. Design Full Normal Normal Critical[Cri tical Full Sewer. ID Flow Flow Depth Velocity Depth elocity Velocity Fro de Comment (CFS) (CFS) (Feet) (FPS) (Feet) (FPS) (FPS) Number. I ' 3.2 16.0 F 0.46 7.1, 0.68 4.1 1-81 2.17F A Froude number = 0 indicated that a pressured flow occurs. Summary of Sewer Design Information F—F-1 Invert Elevation Buried Depth-1 [Sewer Slope Upstream Downstream U stream Downstream ID (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Comment 1 ( 2.301 4944.09 ( 4941.961 4.941 5.89 Summary of Hydraulic Grade Line —�— Invert Elevation Water Elevation---` Sewer Surcharged Sewer ength [(Feet Length eam F(Fee Downstream Upstream Downstream [Condition ID # ) (Feet) t) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 1 92.8 F 0 4944.09 4941.96. 4944.77 4943.10 Jump Summary of Energy Grade Line Upstream Downstream Manhole Juncture Losses Manhole Sewer Manhole Energy Sewer Bend K Bend Lateral K Lateral Manhole Energy Elevation Friction Loss Loss Elevation ID # ID # (Feet) (Feet) Coefficient (Feet) Coefficient (Feet) ID # (Feet) 11 1 2 1 4945.031 1.931 0.941 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 1 4943.101 Bend loss = Bend K * Flowing full vhead in sewer. Lateral loss = Outflow full vhead - Junction Loss K * Inflow full vhead. A friction loss of 0 means it was negligible or possible error due to jump. Friction loss includes sewer invert drop at manhole. Notice: Vhead denotes the velocity head of the full flow condition. A minimum junction loss of 0.05 Feet would be introduced unless Lateral K is 0. Friction loss was estimated by backwater curve computations. Summary of Earth Excavation Volume for Cost Estimate The user given trench side slope is 1. ' Manhole m Elevation Invert Elevation ID # I (Feet) (Feet) I 1 4949.35,1 4941.96 ' r 2-1 4950.53 4944.09 Tole Height (Feet) 7.39 6.44 F IUpstream Trench Width Downstream FTrench Width On At On At Trench Wall Earth Sewer Ground Invert Ground Invert Length Thickness Volume ID # (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Inches) (Cubic Yards) 1 —_ 13.0 3.9 F 14.9 F— 3.9F-928F-25ol 193 Total earth volume for sewer trenches = 193.31 Cubic Yards. The earth volume was estimated to have a bottom width equal to the diameter (or width) of the sewer plus two times either 1 foot for diameters less than 48 inches or 2 feet for pipes larger than 48 inches. If the bottom width is less than the minimum width, the minimum width was used. The backfill depth under the sewer was assumed to be 1 foot. The sewer wall thickness is equal to: (equivalent diameter in inches/12)+1 t �: APPENDIX - F 1 Stantec May ' Stantec HARMONY & ZIEGLER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Riprap Sizing SEAR -BROWN Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements ' Riprap Rundown at STRM-AA01 Outlet Updated: 8-May-07 Pipe Diameter: D 18 in ' Discharge: Q 2.24 cfs ailwater*: V 0.6 ft (unknown) * Assume that y=0.4*D if tailwater conditions are unknown 1. Required riprap type: 2. Expansion Factor: 3. Riprap Length: By: JOZ 187010251 Checked: Soil Type: Erosion Resistant Soil (Clay) Max Velocity: V 7.7 ft/sec 11 O/D2.5 = 0.81 < 6 --> use design charts D= 1.50 ft YUD = 0.40 Q/D^1.5 = 1.22 d50 = 1.01 in -------> 0 in ----> Use geotextile or minimum riprap gradation. 1/2tan0= 6.68 At=QN= L = 1/2tanO * (At/Yt - D) = 4. Governing Limits: L>3D ' L<1OD 5. Maximum Depth: Depth = 2d50 = 2 (0 in / 12) _ 0.29 ft2 -7 ft 5 ft 15 ft 0 ft increase length to 5 ft =>-7ft-->OK 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. 7. Riprap Width: Width =3D=3(18in112)= 5 ft ' (Extend riprap to minimum of culvert height or normal channel depth.) Summary: ' geotextile or minimum riprap gradation. ' Length = 5 ft Depth = 0 ft Width = 5 ft Reference: UDFCD USDCM, Vol. 1, Major Drainage, Page MD-105 ' V:\52870F\ACTIVE\187010590\REPORTS\DRAINAGE\RIPRAP\STRM-AA01.XLS SEAR -BROWN Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Riprap Rundown at STRM-AD01 Outlet Updated: 8-May-07 Pipe Diameter: D 18 in ' Discharge: Q 11.44 cfs ailwater*: v 0.6 ft (unknown) * Assume that y=0.4*D if tailwater conditions are unknown By: JOZ 187010251 Checked: IF-o'5TYpe: Erosion Resistant Soil (Clay) Max Velocity: v 7.7 ft/sec 1. Required riprap type: ' Q/D2.5 = 4.15 < 6 --> use design charts D= 1.50 ft ' Yt/D = 0.40 Q/D11.5 = 6.23 d50 = 5.16 in -------> 6 in ----> Use Type VL (Class 6) riprap ' 2. Expansion Factor: ' 1/2tan0= 3.35 3. Riprap Length: ' At = QN = 1.49 ft2 L = 1/2tan0 * (At/Yt - D) = 3 ft 4. Governing Limits: L> 3D 5 ft increase length to 5 ft ' L<1OD 15 ft =>3ft-->OK 5. Maximum Depth: ' Depth = 2d50 = 2 (6 in / 12) = 1 ft 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. ' 7. Riprap Width: Width = 3D = 3 (18 in /12) = 5 ft ' (Extend riprap to minimum of culvert height or normal channel depth.) Summary: Type VL (Class 6) riprap ' Length = 5 ft Depth = 1 ft Width = 5 ft i Reference: UDFCD USDCM, Vol. 1, Major Drainage, Page MD-105 ' V:\52870F\ACTIVE\187010590\REPORTS\DRAINAGE\RIPRAP\STRM-AD0I.XLS SEAR -BROWN Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Riprap Rundown at STRM-AE01 Outlet Updated: 11-May-07 Pipe Diameter: D 18 in Discharge: Q 7.69 cfs ailwater*: v 0.6 ft (unknown) * Assume that y=0.4*D if tailwater conditions are unknown 1. Required riprap type: By: JOZ 187010251 Checked: PSoil Type: Erosion Resistant Soil (Clay) ax Velocity: v 7.7 ft/sec ' O/D2.5 = 2.79 < 6 --> use design charts D = 1.50 ft ' Yt/D = 0.40 Q/D^1.5 = 4.19 d50 = 3.47 in ---- --> 6 in ' ---> Use Type VL (Class 6) riprap 2. Expansion Factor: 1/2tanO = 4.70 3. Riprap Length: ' At = Q/V = 1.00 ft2 L = 1 /2tanO * (At/Yt - D) = 1 ft 'y 4. Governing Limits: ' L> 3D 5 ft increase length to 5 ft L<1OD 15 ft =>1ft-->OK 5. Maximum Depth: ' Depth = 2d50 = 2 (6 in / 12) = 1 ft ' 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. ' 7. Riprap Width: Width = 3D = 3 (18 in /12) = 5 ft ' (Extend riprap to minimum of culvert height or normal channel depth.) Summary: Type VL (Class 6) riprap ' Length = 5 ft Depth = 1 ft Width = 5 ft Reference: UDFCD USDCM, Vol. 1, Major Drainage, -Page MD-105 V:\52870F\ACTIVE\187010590\REPORTS\DRAINAGE\RIPRAP\STRM-AEOI.XLS=-- — . SEAR -BROWN Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Riprap Rundown at STRM-AF01 Outlet Updated: 8-May-07 Pipe Diameter: D 24 in Discharge: Q 14.11 cfs Taiwwater*: v 0.8 ft (unknown) * Assume that y=0.4*D if tailwater conditions are unknown 1. Required riprap type: By: JOZ 187010251 Checked: Soil Type: Erosion Resistant Soil (Clay) Max Velocity: v 7.7 ft/sec ' Q/D2.5 = 2.49 < 6 --> use design charts D = 2.00 ft ' YUD = 0.40 Q/D^1.5 = 4.99 d50 = 4.13 in -------> 6 in - ----> Use Type VL (Class 6) riprap ' 2. Expansion Factor: ' 1/2tanO = 5.06 3. Riprap Length: ' At = Q/V = 1.83 ft2 L = 1 /2tanO * (At/Yt - D) = 1 ft 4. Governing Limits: L > 3D 6 ft increase length to 6 ft L<1OD 20 ft =>1ft-->OK 5. Maximum Depth: ' Depth = 2d50 = 2 (6 in / 12) = 1 ft ' 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. ' 7. Riprap Width: Width = 3D = 3 (24 in /12) = 6 ft ' (Extend riprap to minimum of culvert -height or normal channel depth.) --_ Summary: ' Type VL (Class 6) riprap ' Length = 6 ft Depth = 1 ft Width = 6 ft Reference: UDFCD USDCM, Vol. 1, Major Drainage, Page MD-105 ' V:\52870F\ACTIVE\187010590\REPORTS\DRAINAGE\RIPRAP\STRM-AF0I.XLS �� _ SEAR -BROWN Harmony & Ziegler Road Improvements Riprap Rundown at STRM-AH01 Outlet Updated: 8-May-07 Pipe Diameter: D 18 in Discharge: Q 9.1 cfs ailwater*: v 0.6 ft (unknown) * Assume that y=0.4*D if tailwater conditions are unknown 1. Required riprap type: By: JOZ 187010251 Checked: Soil Type: Erosion Resistant Soil (Clay) Max Velocity: V 7.7 ft/sec ' Q/D2.5 = 3.30 < 6 --> use design charts D = 1.50 ft YUD = 0.40 Q/D11.5 = 4.95 d50 = 4.11 in -------> 6 in ----> Use Type VL (Class 6) riprap ' 2. Expansion Factor: 1/2tan0= 4.16 3. Riprap Length: At = Q/V = 1.18 ft2 L = 1/2tan0 * (At/Yt - D) = 2 ft ' 4. Governing Limits: L> 3D 5 ft increase length to 5 ft ' L<1OD 15 ft =>2ft-->OK 5. Maximum Depth: ' Depth =2d50=2(6in/12)= 1 ft ' 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. ' 7. Riprap Width: Width = 3D = 3 (18 in /12) = 5 ft ' (Extend riprap to minimum of culvert height or normal channel depth.) Summary: Type VL (Class 6) riprap ' Length = 5 ft Depth = 1 ft Width = 5 ft Reference: UDFCD USDCM, Vol. 1, Major Drainage, Page MD-105 J V:\52870F\ACTIVE\187010590\REPORTS\DRAINAGE\RIPRAP\STRM-AH0I.XLS ___ — APPENDIX - G 1 1 StanWC 1 May 2007 ' Stantec HARMONY & ZIEGLER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Soil Type SOIL SURVEY OF � Larimer County Area, Colorado 1 ■ United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service In cooperation with Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station u No Text ' 42 SOIL SURVEY 4/3) moist; moderate medium and coarse prismatic structure parting to moderate 30 inches. Sand and medium subangular block very inches in some gravel are below a depth In. firm, very y p Profiles. Some profiles have y stick and veryy Y hard, with a redder hue. subs nearly continuous clay lmsaotnc' thin 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slop, noncalcareous; mildly alkaline . peds level soil is on high terraces and ans. This oil smooth boundary. , clear profile similar to the one described as representative B3ca-24 to 29 inches; pale brown (10YR 6 3 the series, but the combined thickness of the surf clay loam, brown (1OYR 5 3 /) layer and subsoil is about 35 inches. weak medium subangular block strut- Included with this soil in ma ture; very hard, firm, veryy of soils that are more sloping. mapping are small ar thin patchy films. on plastic; few small areas of Satanta, Frt olins,lso Iael U m aoiLz an calcium carbonate oceurrinaCeSas visible a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer nodules; calcareousg small subsoil of silty clay loam. line; gradual smooth boundary. moderately alka Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight.am Clca-29 to 47 inches; light yellowish brown If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar �' (10YR 6/4) clay loam, dark beans, barley, wheat, and alfalfa. � brown (10YR 4 Yellowish management it is suited to wheat or UnedrYlati hard, /4) moist; massive; very suited to firm, sticky and plastic; visible II ite irrigated, and nd III native barley.It is a� calcium carbonate occur '� Capability tatii{s thin seams, and streaks; as nodules, range site; windbreak sui}zliili�land; Clayey Foot)�j moderately alkaline; �' calcareous; 74—Nunn clan loam, 1 it 3 group 1. soil boundary, gradual smooth nearly level soil is on high terraces and fans This C2ca-47 to 60 inches; light yellowish brown has profile described as representative the (2.5Y 6/3) clay loam, light olive brown firm, tic moist; massive; very areas of soils that aremoresloatn firm, stick rY hardluded with piling are a few small Y and plastic; some visible a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer calcium carbonate but I p g or less sloping Clca horizon . uss than in the subsoil of silty clay loam Also included are small areas alkaline. calcareous; moderately of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Y and The A horizon is light clay loam or clay loam 10 to Runoff is slow to medium, the hazed of 12 inches thick in cultivated areas. The combined thick_ ns slight, and the hazard pf water erosion is d erosion mess of the A and B horizons ranges from 16 to 40 If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn sugar beet ness •The A horizon is heavy clay loam 6 -light o was' barley, alfalfa, and wheat. Under beets ay. Depth to calcareous material ranges from 1to management it is suited to wheat and barle Idryland ( well suited 1- j_ to pasture or native J. t is also grasses (fig. 10). Ptsure 10'Alfel" bales on Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent .elopea. LARIMER COUNTY AREA, COLORADO ra'W,bility units IIe-1 irrigated, and III", dryland; 'Iayey Foothill range site; windbreak suitability group ' 175—Nunn clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. Thi ,ently sloping soil is on high terraces and fans. Thi soil .has a profile similar to the one described as rep resentative of the series, but the combined thickne of the surface layer and subsoil is about 24 inches. Included with this soil in mapping are small are of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and a fe ;mill areas of soils that have a surface layer of lig clay. Also included are a few small areas of Satant and Ulm soils. Runoff is medium. The hazard of water erosion i moderate, and the hazard of wind erosion is slight. If irrigated, this soil is suited to barley, alfalfa, an wheat and, to a lesser extent, corn, sugar beets, an beans: Under dryland management it is suited to whea or barley. It is also well suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units IIIe-2, irrigated, and IIIe-7 dryland; Clayey Foothill range site; windbreak suit- ability group 1. 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This nearly level, somewhat poorly dramed soil is on to terraces and alluvial fans, commonly adjacent to drainageways. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but a seasonal high water table is at a depth of 20 to 30 inches during part of the growing season. Included with this soil in mapping are a few small areas of soils that have a strongly alkaline surface 'Ayer and a few small areas of soils that are moderately ll drained. Also included are a few areas of soils "A have a surface layer of loam or clay and a few 'ss of soils that are less sloping. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. This soil is suited to pasture and hay. If the water table is lowered by management practices, corn, sugar 'beets, wheat, and barley can be grown. Capability unit LMW-1, irrigated; Wet Meadow range site; windbreak suitability group 5. v Series ie Otero series consists of deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium and wind -deposited material. e soils are on alluvial fans and terraces. Elevation es from 4,800 to 5,600 feet. Slopes are 0 to 15 Mt. The native vegetation is mainly blue grams, egrass, bluestems: and some forbs and shrubs. i annual precipitation ranges from 13 to 15 inches- annual air es from 480 to , id the frost-freeseasonranges from 135 to 160 s representative profile the surface layer is brown 1' loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying ;!al is pale brown sandy loam about 13 inches over light brownish gray sandy loam. Inability is rapid, and the available .water ca- ls medium. Reaction is mildly alkaline above a Eth. about 4 inches and moderately alkaline below Soils are used mainly for native grasses and ed crops. A few areas are used for ir- Kcrn„e 43 Representative profile of Otero sandy loam in an area of Otero -Nelson sandy loams, 3 to 25 percent slopes, in native grass, about 300 feet south and 1,420 feet west of the northeast corner of sec. 11, T. 10 N., R. 68 W. : Al-0 to 4 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) sandy ss loam, dark brown (10YR 3/3) moist; weak very fine granular structure; soft, as very friable; calcareous; mildly alka- li' line; clear smooth boundary. ht Clea-4 to 17 inches; pale brown (10YR, 6/3) a sandy loam, brown (10YR 5/3) moist; weak medium and coarse subangular s blocky structure; hard, very friable; cal- careous; visible calcium carbonate as few d soft spots; moderately alkaline; gradual t smooth boundary. C2ca-17 to 60 inches; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) sandy loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) moist; massive; hard, very friable; calcareous; visible calcium carbonate as few soft spots; moderately s alkaline. w The A horizon is sandy loam or fine sandy loam 8 to 12 inches thick in cultivated areas. The C horizon is sandy loam or fine sandy loam. The soil is generally calcareous throughout, but the surface layer is leached in places. Distribution of lime in the profile is erratic. Soft sandstone is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches in some profiles. 77—Otero sandy loam, 6 to 3 percent slopes. This nearly level soil is on uplands and fans. This soil has a Profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but the surface layer is about 10 to 12 inches thick. Included with this soil in mapping are some small areas of soils that have a surface layer of loam or fine sandy loam. Also included are some areas of soils that are redder and a few small areas of Ascalon, Nelson, and Kim soils. Runoff is slow. The hazard of water erosion is slight, and the hazard of wind erosion is moderate. If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, barley, sugar. beets, wheat, and beans. Under dryland management it is suited lesser extent° wheats and barley. native C Capability asses d units III", irrigated, and IVe-5, dryland; Sandy Plains range site; windbreak suitability group 2. 78—•Otero •sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slos. This gently sloping sope oil is on uplands and fans. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representa- tive of the series, but the surface layer is about 8 inches thick. Included with this soil in mapping are a few small areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping Also included are some small areas of soils in which sandstone is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches and a few small areas of Ascalon, Nelson, and Kim soils. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate. If irrigated, this soil is suited to barley, wheat, alfalfa, and beans. Under dryland msture a gemen e t is w ll suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units IIIe-4, irrigated, and VIe-2, dryland; Sandy Plains range site; windbreak suitability group 2. 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX - H May 2007 1 1 1 1, 'J Stantec HARMONY & ZIEGLER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Erosion Control Calculations 1 RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION ' 187010590 1 roject 4Harmairy:8"pegler Road'_" a STANDARD,FORM' .--: _. ., culatedB - - JOZ . .,'d P»h-. c..F. -, DateS:_ '-a.98/2007 DEVELOPED ERODIBILITY Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN ZONE (ac) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) %) 202 Moderate 0.77 242 0.50 18.0 0.04 203 Moderate 1.23 794 1.33 94.5 0.16 204 Moderate 0.26 53 2.00 1.3 0.05 205 Moderate 0.38 114 2.00 4.2 0.07 206 Moderate 0.34 610 0.80 20.1 0.03 207 Moderate 0.30 850 0.51 24.7 0.01 208 Moderate 1.22 955 0.63 112.7 0.07 209 Moderate 2.90 1157 0.45 324.5 0.13 210 Moderate 1.04 618 0.56 62.2 0.06 211 Moderate 0.63 520 0.50 31.7 0.03 212 Moderate 0.27 148 0.50 3.9 0.01 213 Moderate 1.00 1 1033 1 0.79 1 99.9 1 0.08 Total 10.34 ' 797.50 ' - 0.74 75.6 ' EQUATIONS Lb = sum(AiLi)/sum(Ai) 797.5 ft Sb = sum(AiSi)/sum(Ai) 0.74 S (during construction) = 75.6 - from Table 8A PS (after construction) = 76.6 10.85 = 88.9 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 187010590 Pnroject _ .' Harinony.B Z/eg/er Road ' STANDARD FORM`8 -: Calculated B :: JOZ - = Date - ,, _n-;',SW2007 Erosion Control C•Factor P•Factor I Comment Number Method Value Value 9Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 0.01 1 6 Gravel Filter 1 0.8 5 Straw Bale Barrier 1 0.8 6 Gravel Filter 1 0.8 8 Silt Fence Barrier 1 0.5 38 Gravel Mulch 0.05 1 39 lHay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 1 0.06 1 1 SUB PS AREA BASIN % ac ,Site�j 75.60 10.34 SUB SUB AREA Practice C' A P • A Remarks BASIN AREA ac DURING CONSTRUCTION 9 0.01 0.77 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 202 Impervious 0.77 202 Pervious 0.00 39 0.00 0.00 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 203 Impervious 1.23 9 0.01 1.23 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 203 Pervious 0.00 39 0.00 0.00 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1.5% slope) 204 Impervious 0.13 9 0.00 0.13 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 204 Pervious 0.13 39 0.01 0.13 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 205 Impervious 0.20 9 0.00 0.20 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 205 Pervious 0.18 39 0.01 0.18 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 206 Impervious 0.34 9 0.00 0.34 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 206 Pervious 0.00 39 0.00 0.00 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 207 Impervious 0.30 9 0.00 0.30 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 207 Pervious 0.00 39 0.00 0.00 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 208 Impervious 1.14 9 0.01 1.14 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 208 Pervious 0.08 39 0.00 0.08 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 209 Impervious 2.52 9 0.03 2.52 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 209 Pervious 0.38 39 0.02 0.38 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 210 Impervious 0.84 9 0.01 0.84 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 210 Pervious 0.20 39 0.01 0.20 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 211 Impervious 0.50 9 0.01 0.50 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 211 Pervious 0.13 39 0.01 0.13 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 212 Impervious 0.23 9 0.00 0.23 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 212 Pervious 0.04 39 0.00 0.04 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 213 Impervious 1.00 9 0.01 1.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 213 Pervious 0.00 39 1 0.00 1 0.00 jHay or Straw Dry Mulch 1-5% slope) Cnet 0.02 Pnet 0.8 rEF:-7(1.C-P)100 EFF = 98.8 > 75.6 PS Before 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS •ra7n•rnsnn iojedi _--HarrrmonyBZ/eglerRoad .;''.x ' ''' - �-�_�- STANDAROFO_RMB tea.__- Calculated 8 - - " JOZ ;. Date: 5/8/2007 Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor I Comment Number Method Value Value 9Asphalt/Concrete P Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 0.01 1 12 Established Grass Ground Cover - 30% 0.15 1 14 Established Grass Ground Cover - 50% 0.08 1 16 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 0.04 1 18 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 0.025 1 SUB BASIN PS % El Site 88.94 SUB BASIN SUB AREA AREA (ac Practice C`A P'A Remarks AFTER CONSTRUCTION 202 Impervious 0.77 9 0.0077 0.77 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 202 Pervious 0.00 18 0.01925 0 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 203 Impervious 1.23 9 0.0077 1.23 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 203 Pervious 0.00 9 0.0077 0 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 204 Impervious 0.13 18 0.01925 0.13 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 204 Pervious 0.13 9 0.0077 0.13 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 205 Impervious 0.20 9 0.0077 0.2 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 205 Pervious 0.18 18 0.01925 0.18 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 206 Impervious 0.34 9 0.0077 0.34 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 206 Pervious 0.00 9 0.0077 0 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 207 Impervious 0.30 18 0.01925 0.3 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 207 Pervious 0.00 9 0.0077 0 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 208 Impervious 1.14 9 0.0077 1.14 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 208 Pervious 0.08 18 0.01925 0.08 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 209 Impervious 2.52 9 0.0077 2.52 AsphalUConcrete Pavement 209 Pervious 0.38 18 0.01925 0.38 Established Grass Ground Cover- 90% 210 Impervious 0.84 9 0.0077 0.84 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 210 Pervious 0.20 18 0.01925 0.2 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 211 Impervious 0.50 9 0.0077 0.5 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 211 Pervious 0.13 18 0.01925 0.13 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 212 Impervious 0.23 9 0.0077 0.23 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 212 Pervious 0.04 18 0.01925 0.04 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 213 Impervious 1.00 9 0.0077 1 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 213 Pervious 0.00 18 0.01925 0 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% Cnet = 0.0271809 Pnet = 1.00 EFF = 1-C•P 100 FF EFF = 97.3 > 88.9 PS Aker 1) EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE Project Harmony & Ziegler Road }_' 18701059 Pre0ared By:- . - Date ,, _ "5181200 CITY RESEEDING COST Unit Total Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes Reseed/mulch 1.14 ac $723 $824.22 Subtotal $824 Contingency 50% $412 Total $1,236 Notes: 1. A<=5 ac=$655/ac; A>5 ac=$615/ac. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES Unit Total Number Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes 6 Wattle Inlet Filter 10 ea $300 $3,000 8 Silt Fence Barrier 2835 LF $3 $8,505 39 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 1.14 ac $500 $570 Subtotal $12,075 Contingency 50% $6,038 Total $18,113 .Total Security $18,113 . 1 -T o-T .coco cocow 0mm ' O m Q) O O Q) Q) W D1 O) Q) m O O l0 )O � c coww00 m 0 co o n m m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rna a 7 m co m m m m m m m m m co co m ' N O v M V M m m m m r r r r r r n n r r r r m m m m m m o m o _ m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o m N M v, rn rn rn m m m m m m r r r n n r r n n r m m m 0 ri v v c v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v �;mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m co co co m m m m co m m m m m m m m co m m m m m m m m m O R M N M M V 7 V V u] 10 0M 10 0 0 00 m m m m m m r v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v r�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm O M m m 4 N N M M M M 7 C C C R 7 V C l0 m m m m W 4 g 4 co m co co m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m �O ONo w m oo w m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O— m, M V 0 10 m m r r r m M m m m m 0 m m ' � N N M ci M cli of CM Ci CM M M M Ci Pi 0i M M M M M m m m m m O cli N m M M M�i M M th to M M M fh C6 fh f i t i C i CM M M C7 M V m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ' -It IT'IT R C M N O m m n n N N N N m m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M .0 O N m m O N � N N M M M� R� 7 7 7 cO t0 t0 cO f0 m (O � O 6 m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (V of N N M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O �O 10 M N M C l0 m r r r CO eD aD D) O) W D) N N N N N N M W O O m m m m m m N r m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O V M O M N m m m rn N N N N M M M M M M m m m m N w w w w W w m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 m N m � R 0 n n m M M 0 0 , � , � , N N N M M M M M m Oo m 6 O) O) 6 W 6 6 6 m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n r n r n r r r r r m m m m m m m m m m m m m ' O m M n IT rn 0 m � N M M v It 0 0 N 0 m m m m m m m m 4 v <d )` r,: r-: r,: r 6 o cd ao co o ao ao o co m co o c6 c6 co o m r r n r r n r n r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r n n O m N V (D r m m r n r (0 m m LO 7 C M M N N 0) r0 V O m ID U) O r N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N q,- O O 0 o r r r r r r r n rn r r r r r r r r rn rn rn rn r r� r r .-. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' ` ` J 0 0 N 0 M 0 V 0 LO 0 CO 0 n 0 m 0 0 0 0) O 0 N 0 M 0 V 0 )O 0 CO 0 0 r m O 0) o O 0 10 0 O 0 in 0 0 0 O LO O O LL HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY TABLE Design Point Basin(s) Area (acre) Composite "C" Clio cfs Cl1w c(s 102 102 0.77 0.96 3.54 7.69 103 103 1.23 0.95 5.30 11.44 104 104 0.26 0.61 0.71 1.96 105 106 0.38 0.62 1.06 2.96 106 106 0.34 0.95 1.48 3.20 107 107 0.30 0.95 1.04 2.24 108 108 1 1.22 0.91 3.84 8.91 109 109 2.90 0.86 7.30 18.20 1107112 10 1.04 0.82 3.24 8.71 11111 0.63 0.81 1.99 5.46 112 0.27 0.8611313 1.00 0.95 3.37 7.42 XORSETOOTH RDA➢ _ � I I 'CHINN �II 113 I WARREN L EPSTGATE IPNE MICHELIf 1ANE _ �.. STROBEL 113 m j CHNWE WE ...-. �ll n I\ \7 '1 jI E T..a�l..'�I: .:2j I / I I I 1 I I I I / I I 1 I � / / / / / i I I I I I 1 \ I I \ \ 1 11 1 t \ I t \ 1 1 t \ 1 1 t I I 1 1 t I 1 1 1 I 1 1 \ 1 I 1 I t t 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I \ I I I I 1 FRONT RANGE VILLAGE .-.\� \♦1 \\ aI v �♦ PODINGRAND .Tm1E1 TONi AG£q YOUNG I:eNI..LEGEND O_ I RIGHT-OF-WAY }I -"-'---'- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE / I.. 110 SILT FENCE ,.,,,. II 1) f toe ---4953--- EXISTING CONTWR I I TI`k \ \ 1 1 I I' �' II -4953- PROPOSED CONTOUR I ) \ 1 I I 109 I I PROPOSED STORM DRAIN I 1 \ \ 1 1 I 2AID EXISTING STORM DRAIN 1\ I I I I 1\ 1 1 I I PROPOSED STORM INLET \ I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I l\ I 1 1 11 II II 1 11 1 I FRONT RANGE Q NO. BARN NUMBER \\ I ( I 1 11 I\ I VILLAGE IlI �.IQ AC. BASIN AREA (ACRES) I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ':',•` DESIGN PgNT aIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIewm IIIIIIIIm BARN BOUNDARY I \ vv♦♦v\ II A Av A\ vv n1 \ 1� AVAGO CALL UTRRY NODRCATION CENTER OFGWDRADO � � - PARA(, N 1-800.92214 98E -- _ FI A ums A, CRy o1 Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL IPPRONEO: Gty Ergrrxr Date CHECKED BY: Water k Wasle.ater UOlity Dote CHECKED BY: Sloml.Mer UbTAy Date CHECKED W. PaI k Re nation Dote CHECKED w-. Traffic Engineer Date CHECKED W.. Date E IN S w SLL�y �E 2g�ge� mum+ gg'E1= Eka2y5a da dx1 -.� 011e�� I IIIII� MUM 9a 0 0- m �O 0 z(D cg ILL! J7� Zc ON V V5 ww Cw ors C LL0�cZQ7 0 ZR O JZ 015 C ¢w¢ M0 >� UNI�i 02 PBIIIIIFBBB Heil N,m . 1 7010 M 51, e:IX-I _. , rrlruo DwN NonmEX;.,.. Revision SIW)I 0 1d6 INSTALL. INLET STORM AL01\ PROTECTION PER DETML C-105SEE SHEET C-110 �\ \ A006.34 - \,AO01-3yy0/ i0 12 ADS' — T AREA INLET 3 — - ---- IRRIGATION A001 SEE SHEET C-112 SEE M105 0.39 � \ FRONT RANGE \ \ I II \ VILLAGE U � W Semi o 12- ADS y. . y AREA INLET YLA STORM INtE litir A001-2 SEE SHEET C-112 104 0.26 IRRIGATION PIPE 3404Y HERCP loa*i \'.\\ 4 \/ J Ot I N I tl• 1 I I ..: 1�' ` —(map— — _ — /� a932l— _ AVAGO _SEE SHUT F110_/EyT09oN coHTRaSrM _ _ FABRIC O I I IRIN TICH ( � QQQq WSTAL \\ _ Y I E%S NG ' RCIP �i� _—! 1®5 RPRAP 9 1 7 BODt _ 1 . L 1B' RCP — -- i — Y+Y.r� \! \ — _ \ \ / o' N, _SEE SHEET C-113— s _ e INSTALL P INi / \ PLBFR �' • / `0�= � �_�-- — W Bi — = — � W / _ �- � L f a✓e'.. t !` � PRDETNLOC-1 ON NO — IS. .�. _ \ ! DOUBLETYPE MONV \ \—(ma41� _(e9'y'Tl' i E \ \ \ MWfICATON N _ — — � -- INSTALL INLET IRwCATON SIRUCN PROTECTION PER ,�En, J \ DETAIL C-105 T " J IRRIIGATON PIPE 0.%% 07 \ IRRIGATION O / SEE SHEET C-113-113 34'.53' HERCP 0 `4' PERFORATED. 10J EXISTING g£ U RDRAW— IRRIGATOR PIPE W f 0 1.23� L- INTEL v / ie U W 1,1 W 1M LEGEND ® RIPRAP ® EROSION CONTROL FABRIC HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH (1-5� — WATTLE •LE (AREA INLET) EXISTING DIRECTION OF ROW H PROPOSED DIRECDON OF FLOW RIGHT-OF-WAY ------- PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE SILT FENCE - -4953- - EXISTING CONTOUR —4953— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET NO BASIN NUMBER AC. BASIN AREA (ACRES) QDESIGN POINT :W� Its aW� BASIN BOUNDARY CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTEROFCOLORADO 1-800-922-1987 City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROY D: City Englmer We CHECKED W. Water 4 Womeii WIRy Date CHECKED W. Starmwter Utility Dote CHECKED BY: PaHv B Rftmik i Date CHECKED BY: TmfSc Elgineer Dab CHECKED BY: — me P,eepn x,.m.: 18 M Ynv IX-2 n nm N nrvY.ro Dvon9No. EX-2 Rwwan SAed 0 3d6 111101 \ EASTNG CONCRETE _ = � AVAGO _(a2T _ — = = = \ ` — ` i ) / ' (Wj / \ v IRRIGATION \ \ `'YT- — — — .— — — � DITCH _ — _ _ — — — \ — --�___ -- — — — — — _ ___INI_ --_ --- we DO 102 ' INSTALL \ ~aL \ 4w r• b i VX5' RIPRAP �\ ,L STORM AE01 J� SEE SHEET 0.77 _ C-111 -_ --__ — ---_-- --- ---- --_— /l \ HARMONY - - - _.. -------___—-----_-- _ ---- - - — - --------------- INTEL q �I LE 63 sn HARMONY ROAD B IRCI OF WALK TO - —PARAGON / L b \ �SLOPESff DETAIL C-105 1 -- 4- PERFORATED I) y • ` \ _ _ / // ' \ NDERDR\IN i• U A SILT GO C C O \ —0 J \ \ MATTING EAST OF _ \ IRRIGATION BOOT / WA DIN S 105 I' SEE SHEET C-113 Q- SEE SDEWAU( CHASE tN,N�1 a I I I l Ile I 4CRIGATCC 1 DITCH TI01� R DITCH O A� T1 I It I AVAGO k1.122 NF ROTECT 101l'— DETAIL C-105 40 -- -- - ZIEGLER ROAD -- T �+ ' '• N P e p Alo DOUBLE TYPE 13 INLET PROPOSED 1 SIOPM INLET 1 \ PROTECTION PER DETAIL \` \C-105 �SOEWAtK CHASE STORM MOT SEE SHEET C-112 nc 1r mmrw LEGEND ® RIPRAP ® EROSION CONTROL FABRIC HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH (1-5a7 — WATTLE `CURB INLET) %ATRE +. `AREA INLET) 1 — EXISTING DIRECTION OF FLOW y PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW RIGHT-OF-WAY y �••—••� PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE SILT FENCE _ -4953- - EXISTING CONTOUR —4953— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM ORAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET It N o.BASIN NUMBER ` BASIN AREA (ACRES) ' Q DESIGN PUNT iiiiii OWN BASIN BOUNDARY CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORApO 3 1-800-922-1987 CJILL 2 NI DAYS IN ADVANCE MINI YOU DIG GRINDE ON IIACAVI ... P0n WOODEN ounu R°'•W City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPRAED: Uty E;Tnmr Dote CHECKED BY: We W Woe"aler Uft Dote CIECNED BY: Stormeater Utility Dote CHECKED BY: Parts It Recreo9m Dote CHECKED BY: Traffic EIN;i a Dote CHECKED BY: Dote b N, I , 187010M -An- -'Am im WJ w Dmw No. EX-3 RaMslan Sheet 0 4d8 z r KEY MAP g ur w 1m 1mMJWW.- LEGEND ® RIPRAP ® EROSION CONTROL FABRIC NAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH (1-5%) pRAVEL INLET FILTER — (CURB INLET) • (AREA LININLET LET) FILTER =i EXISTING DIRECTION OF ROW �► PROPOSED DIRECTON OF FLOW --------- RIGHT—OF—WAY ----••— PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE SILT FENCE — —4953— — EXISTING CONTOUR —A953— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET No BASIN NUMBER AD, BASIN AREA (ACRES) QDESIGN POINT s� BASIN BOUNDARY CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 City of Fort Collins. Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPR E¢ Liry Enginwr Date CHECKED BI: Water itWastesater Utility Dole CHECKED BY: Stormwater Utility Date CHECKED BY: Peft k Recreation Data CHECKED BY: Tmffic E1 1mv Dote CHECKED BY: Dote 2 J = N U y ILL O0 LU Ow )Ca U N Pa mitSW nslyd Irv: Y67010590 nab IX-e Y YY JRL YI.MLW ftm4 o. EX-4 Rar®m 6hm 0 Sa16 KEY MAP EZ p w n• Epp• LEGEND ® RIPRAP ®1 EROSION CONTROL FABRIC J� HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH — (OURBLINLET) FILTER CRATE INLET FILTER (AREA INLET) EXISTING DIRECTION OF FLOW y PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW -------- RIGIIT-OF-WAY ------- PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE ,r SILT FENCE —4953— — EXISTING CONTOUR —I953— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING STORM ORAN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET No. BASIN NUMBER AC. - BASIN AREA (ACRES) 1! DESIGN PONT w� BASIN BOUNDARY CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 FOR WE SEEKING MI UTUTES City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL .-...-. _. City Eng' r Dote CHECKED BY: Water ! Wastewater Utility Dab CHECKED BY: Sbrmwater Utility Dale CHECKED BY: Paris 4 Recreation Dab CHECKED W. Traffic Engineer Opte Otte � yang; g� a €i Iywoimy ei ffi� E =B ge Wor ikAe�� IIIIII� TITTER IIIIIIlly IIIIII� IIIIII� Illlllr H Z W W XO aw 9ZU N W ED 7W� = pJpZ Uy W_>LU K W 00 Q W Q OWE 2K$ 0 B OUWU�I O~ Li Z—i Ium MW ON a Pemi1SBM Project Number 1870105B11 rk New, U-5 JIB AB UK pm. aMa. LYn yrsa Drawing No. EX-5 Revison Shag 0 6M6 s v4•m 71r_i� I I e w 751 rar ® RILEGGENND PRAIR ® EROSION CONTROL FABRIC MAY OR STRAW MY MULCH W(I—SW) — (CURB INLET) •A (EAI (AREA INLET) EXISTING DIRECTION OF ROW H PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW --------- RIGHT —OP —WAY —••---- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE —N--N�— SILT FENCE — —4953— — EXISTING CONTOUR --4953— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET No. BASIN NUMBER AC. BASIN AREA (ACRES) QDESIGN PANT M BASIN BOUNDARY CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTEROFCOLORADO 1-800-922-1987 FILL 2 BRUNEI DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU BY GFUNCE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MI OF UNDERG RETIRE City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL A➢PXOED: Dote City En9lRear CHECKED BY' Water 9 Waatewter Way Date CHECKED BY: Stortmaler Utility Data CHECKED BY: %ft B R«rwtion Data CHECKED BY: Troll Erpirw Oota CHECKED BY: Dote y5 E 1' g s &3I w�R nq p etiS� vSIi� ??C A.°yygggejj 88 i IIIII� IIIIII� 9 IIIIII� Illlllr H I! Z f W W E �O 2 W KO K4 JoN �J Uy WW �OOZ Yg U OWBE O UN u 1. r;; N 1870118T01059D h IYn,e IX-t/. AIR Al AIR Own. 011RI, DENY, rrww Dranirg No. EX-1A Reuislon Sheet 0 2of6 •y-'�.].�,if�a'�%�.ii�Yi1.CMI�3bj.Y�(�tfCuiy�A� /W^1111'fi'p'.�I: T 1'�.. ,: .. _- f KtY MAN LEGEND ® RIPRAP ® EROSION CONTROL FABRIC NAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH AY — WAT E (CURB INLET) • (AREAEINLET) EXISTING DIRECTION OF FLOW �► PROPOSED DIRECTION OF ROW --------- RIWT-OF-WAY ------- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE —N--�M— SILT PENCE —4953— — EXISTING CONTOUR —1983— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EMSTNG STORM DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET No. BASIN NUMBER AC. BASIN AREA (ACRES) QDESIGN POINT NONNI aillN WIN Willillillillill BASIN BOUNDARY CALL UTILRY NOTINfATION CENTER OF COLIXUW 1-800-922-1987 �2 & City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL City Engineer Iota WOter & WI UMRy will BY: Storrnlmter Utility Dote BY: POrke A Re Nwtim Dote BY: Traffic Engineer Oats BY - me W Z � W IO aw Op N �0 w W w5 1- Jz JJ m0 U� HW XO W CE p� ) W} WOwMg pa ZO � SUN 2LL LL OS a 11TI M emoct x .. 187010590 FY Mbna: IX -IA I NY J6 WWO Onryi o. EX-1A Relson Sliest 0 1016 a EXISTING STORM I J..L ,B R�� .. ..�.�K&Y1rru. .w.e.i;:rmfRA�62Yi4Y4$�.'.Xluai 4li::-r ••••� .:..... ..... ... 5'X5'IR RAP \ r jj J��II(i�il� IT ICI iPARAGON�ewT STDRM ADO1 Wei SEE SHEET C-110 /0090N CONIII Of — FABRIC \ —— r .4� \ �� E _ — — — — Xs INSTALL INLET PRDETAIL C-05 pg3 0 U 4• PERFORATED �— 1 0 I EXISTING I�� IRRIGATION PIPE e� 1.23 LL \V/ ie All 10' TYPE R INLET —..__ nc s mmr � l- (a93'U- ---. l` O jp AVAGO I MODIFICATION 0 EXISWNG Lu / RRIGATOIN STRUT M S EX STING 'Y IRRIGATION PIPE 34•x53• HERCP W L7 IN / \ i INTEL a w le' tar ..6. I�If�.�rr-I LEGEND ■ RIPRAP ® EROSION CONTROL FABRIC HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH (1-SW) — ATTLE CURB INLET) WATTLE (AREA INLET) EXISTING DIRECTION OF FLOW y PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW --------- RIGHT-OF-WAY ----••— PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE SILT FENCE - -4953 - - EXISTING CONTOUR —4953— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET No BASIN NUMBER Al BASIN AREA (ACRES) Yh Q DESIGN POINT FWei e� Wam eissmisms BASIN W BOUNDARY /°'•-� CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION — — CENTEROFCOLORPDO 1-80UHNNES 987 >DOUet£ E �aeuugessaaysin.w�w¢ 102 0.77 City of Fort Collins, Coloredo UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROAM: CBy Engineer Date CHECKED BY: Water B Waaterabr Utg'Ay Dot. CHECKED BY: maIn.ater willty Dam CHECKED BY: Parlu & Rearsalion Dom CHECKED BY: Traffic Engineer Date CHECKED BY: Date z� K� o� 0z W J�j Uy W� W ZQZQ 0 � 0 Zz 10 Permil Sol PAwN Ieenera 187010590 M1 Nme IX-3 Gw. tYlYm DrNWIg Nn EX-2 ReNsim SWA 0 3of6 HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY TABLE Design Point Basins Area acre Composite "C" Qm cTs Ditty cfs 102 102 0.77 0.95 3.54 7.69 103 103 1.23 0.95 5.30 11.44 104 104 0.26 0.61 0.71 1.96 105 106 0.38 0.62 1.06 2.96 106 106 0.34 0.95 1.48 3.20 107 107 0.30 0.95 1.04 2.24 106 108 1.22 0.91 3.84 8.91 109 109 2.90 0.86 7.30 18.20 110 110 1.04 0.82 3.24 8.71 111 111 0.63 0.81 1.99 5,46 112 112 0.27 0.86 1.13 2.66 113 113 1.00 0.95 3.37 7.42 \ 1 1 I / 1 1 I PADS AT HARMONY I I 1 1 / 1 / 1 I / I / INN ` \ ` I DIErz \ 1 \ YOUNG 1 \ \ \ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 FRONT VILLAGE II 1 1 I 1 I 1 II 1 L__ LEGEND -•----- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE SILT FENCE ---6G53--- EXISTING CONTOUR -AB53- PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET No. BASIN NUMBER '&`O' BASIN AREA (ACRES) QDESIGN POINT BASIN BOUNDARY CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTEROFCOLORADO 1FA800922-1987 City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: DNa City Engineer CHECKS➢ Bt Water & Waeteeater INity Dote CHECKED BY: Stoimrnter Utility Date CHECKED W. Parlu & Recreatim Dote CHECKED BY: Tmffc Dgineer Dote MOCKED BY: Dula 9N °g$ V 4i°93Q 31 71 6@� y $ ° I 1 Illlli�� H >a O H aw m 6Q d ?O w ON a- Z� ID W- W W QO E 00 p O� 2O }� w �Z 0w OK O w zo ¢ w K U u~i �u LL Ox b PWmi1SW N.M �, 151010.ri90 \ EXSTING F70� -- —1i9as — _ ` _— _ / / _ W MESITA DITCH "MIN '-- __ MI 102 ' NSTALL \` \Ylv Y9�J 7J \Y49AY STORM AEOt 5'X5' RIPRAP \ \ \ ` n. / \ 0.77 \ SEE SHEET __ —'a9 1 � / — — � — — _ — _ — _ C-111 '---- — -- — — _---_- 025) _ — — _— I\ \ HARMONY \ — - -. ROAD-..— T ------------------- ------ INTEL \ I 9 63 S� HARMONY ROAD IIlit EROSION CONTROL k'J'IR�!q:LN riiRIC ORDP OM roRUADED E WE DETAILC-105PEAFD A ED - w E, D F _ log F _ — — ` ZIEGLER ROAD /s I ly I SILT FENCE (� — MATTING FAST OF — � IRRIGATION IB00r / / SEE DUAL C-105 - I SEE SHEETIC-113 Q- — SIDEWALK CHASE II II 4COINSTING CI SPP� S S J I I DICTIO i 0 II III AVAGO i i I\\1 ) G ZIEGLER ROAD INSTALL PROPOSED STORM INLE PROTECTION \ PER DETAIL �\ 'r �SIDEWAII( CHASE STORM Mor-) SEE SHEET C-112 HORSETOOTH ROAD KEY MAP I 0 9r n' ia9' LEGEND ® RIBAP ® EROSION CONTROL FABRIC HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH (1-5%) WATTLE (CURB INLET) p (ARENA INLET) _II -EASTING DIRECTION OF FLOW y PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE .. .. SILT FENCE ( — —4953— — EXISTING CONTOUR —4953— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 1 EXISTING STOW DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET ye No.BASIN NUMBER AC. BARN AREA (ACRES) f BIG / Q DESIGN PONT yeXIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS ONES WIN r— BASIN Vpl BOUNDARY CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTEROFCOLORADO 1N EQCAVA� �800 RE YOU THE ERGROUND �922G OF IN 1987 PION R ON City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL I: City Engineer Dote BY: waM It wasumm er Utility Dote BY: Storm"Iter Utility Date BY: FBI & Recreation Date By: Traffic Engineer Date a Date G G Sv w rTi uSiary- � 'n0 1. E 6? Zan €Soo 6.6 2SEA g a e e a@ STEA; Sy$pP�E¢egg¢yyipip 9 4 1 I LU IIII I LU Lu &0 y ILL!ij 9 Q p z �LW9 U y W� S p W %� ZWE Q �O Y�� $ (7Z F 2Q� U y SQQQS u li p PelmilSeal .AKM umEm.. T OW— ne Ma EI As Y9 JP¢ ON, CNIIL ^W.W.W Dawn No. EX-3 . fleYti191 SM& 0 4d8 UU LU ITS 0 Ll- H - OF -- ZIEGLERROAD s .�...�.--�� _y�i�rs��aTr._.y.r+i�.l e�Yrt.- ..�.vt• 'k'J' rrJ r'avxas �'• e��.s� , ._ iZS�—ram •0 0 F°illo -aialL iSl't•W�' / \�- P s ar.i')tE'�9'i.�1 �lY SILT PENCE SILT PENCE TREE PROTECTION 111 4 •j STR.: ILI CHARLIE LANE UU KEY MAP J$ a9 mza gg 0'.=�oa� �LLaa a flat saKai K£- a Z* 1 IIIIII� Illlllr W Troo' IIIIII� LEGEND ® RIPRAP Ir ® EROSION CONTROL FABRIC HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH (1-5R) r_ U B IINLLL�EET)) FILTER ptAeEL INLET FILTER (AREA INLET) ENSTNG DIRECTION OF FLOW y PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW --------- RIGHT—OF—WAY N —•----- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE z — SILT FENCE W W — —4953— — EXISTING CONTOUR W M —4953— PROPOSED CONTOUR a PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 0- EXISTING STORM DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET N W KF��TGUG No BASIN NUMBER O N id j =_5C U O W W W AC. BASIN AREA (ACRES) EDO Q Y Z U W K z� w 20 UJ 1qaw Q DESIGN POINT U N ME IS N mummomii — — BASIN BOUNDARY PeImilSeal CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATCN CENTER OF CWORRDO 1-800-922-1987 FOR TM �MNG OF UldNEIaROUND MEMERUMFIPa City of Fort Collins, Colorado (UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: Cary Engineer Dote CHECKED BY: Water k Woeteeoter NiIRy Dote CHECKED W: Smnnwter UDIIty UaM CHECKED BY: Parlu k Recreation Date CHECKED TiaEngineer 1fic Bate CHECKED BY: Dote PM�t lYrnnv: 1W01059D %X IXd kIB LL JRc nLlno UOWiIA Nk EX-5 Ranson She 0 6Of6 i6l HORSETOOIHROAD 0 KEY MAP o WP w Imp rwir�-r LEGEND ® RIPRAP ®1 EROSION CONTROL FABRIC HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH 5R) — GRAVEL INLET FILTER (CURB INLET) GRAVEL INLET FILTER (AREA INLET) —) EXISTING DIRECTION OF FLOW �► PROPOSED OHRECTION OF FLOW --------- RIGHT—OF—WAY ----•-- PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ,r SILT FENCE — —4953— — EXISTING CONTOUR —4953— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM GRAIN EXISTING STORM DRAIN _ PROPOSED STORM INLET tNQ• BASIN NUMBER AL`, BASIN AREA (ACRES) QDESIGN POINT mom som BASIN BOUNDARY CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 &MMENER UTILITIES Oily of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROhD: City En9lnea Dote CHECKED W.- Water & Waetewter Utility Gate CHECKED BY: Swrmeoler U9NtY Gate CHECKED BY: Parin At Recroolim Dow CHECKED BY: fr—dk F.gimer Dote dy a rnE ep $c� 3YNU�ma� gp{pa$ Ba=pppp�� ���iggggggb• 6a a 6a IIIIII$ 9 IIIIII H W Z � W W WI N WWI Z DOt7 J� m ON LDS _pp r¢U CC to WW S�Q u. Ya V 0� Z a $OLU we, o 8 ZUr Um mu $ OM LL PBrmIISeW Hm�r x�mw: l�� eXD� Own DINIAL wIW Ormig No.FeY EX-0 Re'Ashi Sheet 0 5W6