HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 04/05/1995PROPERTY OF
COLLINS UTIMITS
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
COUNTY ROAD S IMPROVEMENTS
COLLINS, COLORADO
Fib.' `1"I'll Report
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 9 IMPROVEMENTS
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
April 4, 1995
Prepared for:
Client:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Prepared by:
RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 482-5922
RBD Job No. 020-121
TOINC.
Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
303/482-5922
'
FAX: 303/482-6368
April 4, 1995
1
Mr. Basil Harridan
'
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services, Stormwater
235 Matthews
'
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
for the County Road 9 Street Improvements
Dear Basil:
We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this proposed
Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the County Road 9 Street Improvements. All
computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of
Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. All comments from the Stormwater
Utility's original review to date have been addressed.
We are requesting a variance from the City of Fort Collins criteria for storm sewer pipe
within this report. It is described more fully in the text.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if
you have any questions.
Respectfully,
RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
' Perry bot
Project Engineer
fiv��
Kevin W. Gingery, E.
Project Manager, Water Resources
Denver303/458-5526
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
I.
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1
A. LOCATION
1
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
1
II.
DRAINAGE BASINS
1
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION
1
III.
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
2
A. REGULATIONS
2
B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS
2
C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA
2-
D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA
2
E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA
2
IV.
DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
3
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
3
V.
STRUCTURAL CONCERNS ADDRESSED
4
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
4
VI.
EROSION CONTROL
4
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
4
VII.
CONCLUSIONS
5
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
5
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT
5
C. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT
5
REFERENCES 6
APPENDIX
VICINITY MAP 1
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS 3
DESIGN OF STORM SEWER AND TYPE 'R' INLETS 11
CHANNEL DESIGN 19
DESIGN OF RIP RAP 21
EXCERPTS FROM THE OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY FOR THE NCR SITE 26
EROSION CONTROL DESIGN 34
CHARTS, TABLES, GRAPHS 40
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
' EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 9 IMPROVEMENTS
1
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
' The County Road 9 Improvements are located along County Road 9
starting at the intersection of County Road 9 and Harmony Road. From
that intersection, the improvements concerning this drainage report
' proceed north for a distance of approximately 2250 feet along a 70'
wide arterial, to be called County Road 9. The site can also be described
as running along the West Section Line of Section 33, Township 7N,
Range 68W, of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer,
State of Colorado, containing approximately 3.40 acres of roadway. A
site location plan is included in the appendix of this report.
' B. Description of Property
' This road is presently developed. A portion of County Road 9 is being
proposed to be widened to arterial status (70 feet wide) from Harmony
' Road to a station approximately 2250 feet north of Harmony Road. The
remaining length, approximately 2900 feet, proceeds from the point
2250 feet north of Harmony -to a station located about 150 feet south of
' Horsetooth Road. This section will be 36 feet wide and will not have
curb and gutter.
' II. DRAINAGE BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
The County Road 9 improvements lie entirely within the Fox Meadows
Drainage Master Plan as shown in the Master Plan Report by Resource
' Consultants Inc. dated 1981. In addition, this area was studied again by
Nolte and Associates in May of 1990 during the preparation of the
Master Drainage Plan for the Hewlett Packard Site, Preston Kelly
' Subdivision which lies to the East of the County Road 9 Improvements.
' The Master Drainage Report by Nolte and Associates did not alter any of
the assumptions or conclusions which were made in the Fox Meadows
' Master Drainage Plan. This report incorporates the recommendations
that the Master Drainage Plan for Fox Meadows had called for in the
design of the Hewlett Packard site. These recommendations included the
' construction of a drainage swale which runs along the North side of the
presently developed Hewlett Packard site and eventually drains into
Hewlett Packard's North pond. This proposed drainage swale has been
' utilized in the design of the storm sewer which passes beneath County
Road 9 at approximately 1250 feet north of Harmony Road. This pipe
is called out and located on the plan set in the back pocket of this report.
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Regulations
' The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for
this project site.
' B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
From the Master Drainage Plan, 10 and 100 year developed flows from
the new County Road 9 will be routed through curb inlets and a storm
sewer, then into an open channel on the Hewlett Packard site.
C. Hydrologic Criteria
' The rational method for determining surface runoff was used for the
project site. The 10 and 100 year storm event criteria, obtained from the
' City of Fort Collins, was used in calculating surface runoff values. These
calculations and criteria are included in the appendix.
' 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. Variances from Criteria
As can be seen from the profile, the twin barrel storm sewer pipes
' passing beneath County Road 9 are sloped at 0.20%, therefore
' 2
I
violating the City of Fort Collins criteria of 0.4%. For this condition, we
are requesting a variance from the set criteria. The invert of the Hewlett-
Packard channel on the east side of County Road 9, which our proposed
section must tie to, exists at an elevation which is less than 0.2' below
the elevation proposed in the NCR report .for the pond on the west side
' of the road.
The Hewlett-Packard channel cannot be altered, otherwise it will flow in
' the wrong direction. The pipe cannot be sloped greater beneath the
road, otherwise its crown will conflict with the construction of the inlets.
Finally, the entrance cannot be raised, otherwise the proposed NCR pond
' will not drain or contain its designed volume.
We feel that these existing conditions are enough to warrant a variance
from criteria, especially since the pressured condition resulting from the
flat slope will not be enough to cause backwater problems and
' overtopping of the inlet flowline. (See hydraulic grade line on profile.)
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
' A. General Concept
A drainage and erosion control plan has been included in the back pocket
of this report. In order'to calculate runoff, County Road 9 was divided
into four basins, denoted as E1, W1, E2, and W2, pertaining to "East"
and "West". These basins were arrived at by splitting the street down
its centerline for the entire 1900 foot length in question. The overland
flow distance used was the longest distance to the inlet coming from the
t southerly direction. Basins W1 and E1 were used in the sizing of the
inlets and pipes. Basins E2 and W2 were used for erosion control
calculations only.
' As it pertains to the storm sewer system being designed per this report,
stormwater runoff will be collected by curb and gutter along the
' improved County Road 9 from the intersection of Harmony Road and
County Road 9 to a high point located approximately 1900 feet north of
this intersection. All of the runoff from County Road 9 along this 1900
' feet of roadway has been designed to be captured in two Type 'R' inlets,
one on each side of the street. These inlets are to be located at a station
approximately 1300 feet north of the same intersection mentioned
' before. For exact location and detailing, see the accompanying Drainage
and Erosion Control plan.
' In order to take into account the design concerns for the adjacent NCR
1 3
site, we have sized the piping beneath County Road 9 to accommodate
the maximum release rate of 24 cfs from the proposed wetlands on the
NCR site. We have tried to eliminate unnecessary excavation in the
future by sizing this now.
The system begins on the proposed NCR site as two barrel lengths of
18" RCP, (side by side twin barrels) connecting to the first inlet
structure. From there, the system passes beneath the street as two
more 18" RCP's, 72 feet long, to connect to the downstream inlet
structure. Coming out of this downstream inlet structure are two 30"
RCP's which outlet into an existing channel at the site of the proposed
HP channel shown in the Nolte and Associates Master Plan.
STRUCTURAL CONCERNS ADDRESSED
A. General Concept
Included in this report is a printout from our D-load calculation program.
This program calculates the proposed loading condition, in terms of the
three edged bearing test. The pipes beneath County Road 9 were found
to fall in accordance with their requirements.
EROSION CONTROL
A. General Concept
This. development lies with the Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone and the
Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps.
The Erosion Control Performance Standard (PS) for the site was
computed to be 72.2 % during construction and 84.9% after
construction per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference
Manual for Construction Sites. The Effectiveness (EEF) of the proposed
erosion control plan was calculated to be 82.0% during construction and
99.0% after construction. Therefore, the erosion control plan as detailed
in the appendix and on the grading, drainage and erosion control plan
meets the City of Fort Collins requirements. This plan assumes that
asphalt and gravel surfaces will be in place within three months of
roadway excavation. Also, straw bales will be located in the non -sodded
channels alongside the road at no more than 200 feet apart and the
channel slopes will receive a temporary vegetation cover crop. Finally,
a silt fence will be installed along the west property line of the Hewlett-
Packard site to protect their existing sod and landscaping. The City of
4
' Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design. Criteria is being used for the subject
site.
' VII. CONCLUSIONS
' A. Compliance with Standards
All computations that have been completed within this report are in
' compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference
Manual and the Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual.
B. Drainage Concept
1
t
C
1
1
The proposed drainage concepts adequately provides for the transmission
of developed on -site runoff to the open channel on the Hewlett Packard
Site. This company was asked not to pursue any concerns upstream or
downstream of this road improvement by it's client, the City of Fort
Collins, which is why the Hewlett Packard channel is addressed, but not
fully described.
C. Erosion Control Concept
The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control
of wind and rainfall erosion from the County Road 9 Improvement site.
Through the construction of the proposed erosion control concepts, the
City of Fort Collins performance standards will be met.
5
1
REFERENCES
1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, May 1984.
2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, January 1991.
3. Overall Drainage Study for the NCR Site and Preliminary Drainage Study for the
first phase of the NCR Site, RBD, Inc., May 2, 1994.
4. Master Drainage Report, Hewlett-Packard Site, Preston Kelly Subdivision,
Fort Collins, CO, Nolte Associates, May, 1990.
a
0
APPENDIX
C
VICINTITY MAP
1
11
E
F
�9
r
a
DRAKE RD.
�O
OG
O�
6
}
6
SITE
HORSETOOTH RD.
<
o
a
a
L
C
W
41
U
c
C
O
K
n
O
U
Q
W
Z
}
N
}K
}
a
z
m
U
Z
F
U
HARMONY RD.
L�L
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1 "=1000'
I
[J
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
1
1
1
m
rn
C6
'
aw. o
J
I'
III
�s
��A
LO
O
(O
U
W
d o
Z
O
H
N
Z
Z
N
W
LU
�O
>
U
CL
O
u-
O
wul
a°
E
0
ap
�Z
a}
C
O
N
rn
rn
rn
rn
m
co
m
co
N
»>1
0
D
D
D
U
U
U
U
c
m
m
m
0
0
0
0
m
F
m
'cu
0
0
0
0
Y
w
w
w
v=
10
v
v
IT
uj
✓
(D
+
u
C
C�
C
0
(0
O
O
co
M
m
LO
LO
LO
> Q
r
�.
~
U)
to
(n
Lo
n c
O
O
O
O
I—
L
0
to
7a)-
C
M
M
'
cu
J
�_
M
c+i
M
O
O
O
O
C
N o
N
N
N
N
c0
>
0
to
0
LO
O N
w
M
M
M
M
E
rn
m
(D w
J
0
0
O
O
ti
ti
U
o
0
0
0
co
N
cQ
N
m
�
IT
Q
(N
0
0
cu
m
._
L
_m
N
N
Clq
0
O<L
N �p
.f 0)
Co
YC > 0
LL
N 0 m
C
3 0
cO N E cu
(D
0 W L
0 = ..
m "=
a) m 3
a)
rn �
iL
m o
o
LUL 0
O
Z>>
I
1
u')
0
rn
' U o
w
a. o
1
t
'
Z
O
H
Z
w
w
LL:
N
Z
>
U
LLB
�0
0
0
00
LL
02
a~
aoz
w
rn
rn
rn
rn
v
v
v
v
0
0
0
0
w
U
U
U
U
c
m
c
c
O
O
o
O
m
m
cc
0
0
0
0
w
w
w
w
co
E
0
LO
0
L0
O
v
0
m
O
v
m
0
co
m
rn
c
v
v
vi
6
Lo
L,)
L'�
L'�
~
Lq
N o
0
06
ai
1=
t
LO
�
m
M
M
>
N
.J
It
M
O
O
�_
•-
O
N
N
p
O
O
O
O
C
(0
(n a
CV
N
N
N
j
0
0
ul
0
0
L
M
M
M
M
E
rn
co
J
IT
O
w
00
m
O
w
w
U
o
�
o
0
O
N
d'
N
N
cu
O
N
0
'V'
lq-
0
Q N
(V
�-
0
0
c
L0
cu
m
Cn
o
w
w
E
O (D (a
«' N 3
C L
(D >
w Q LL
N O (p
C
3 coca o
v7 E f4
y
Es w (D
o
> N
aD ai 3
L
r
co o
~ o
O LL O
z:D>
is
I �
�ii°Pnui'
Ci
I�
i�iiiiii�iiiiiiii
IIIIIIIIIIII
will
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
MINIMUM
11
Milli
III
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
oil
111111111111111111
1111111
i�'�iA�iiiiiiiii��o�
I
III
HIM
111
Millillilimillillooll
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
millollii
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
11=11111111
Hill
11111111
11111111
III
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Hill
11111111111
NO
IIIIIIII
11111111
111111111111111
MINIMUM
I
I
I
1
11111111
III
NO
IIII
IIIIIII11III'
I
I
I
I
I
I
:MNC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT 40-4 1251" 4t>—M- L 1`64"t JOB NO.
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR 1==1zn:1u/
MiDiBY-aO--DATE 7-3Z. CHECKED BY DATE —SHEET OF 7
1
--7-�-
A I
cc--A-ry-
-- - ------ -
- ----- - ----- -- -----
'r ax=:f<�L noTFie - ------
+7 -- - ---
--7 - ----- I
ol 4— f:
z-T--- ------------ - -17
p— SA.
-a. 17)
� ---- -------
L
------- - -- -
LL
Y,
-7 ------
777- ------
------------
C�, c:,--
j
A
i.
=>
---------- ----
RWINC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT JOB NO.
PROJECT tt����11 CALCULATIONS FOR tll YTTEfZ R IY1 1
MADE BY_ta_ DATE Z-9Z CHECKEDBY_DATE SHEET Z OF
1, I
- I
rTT
T• i I,
o
i
���
1 r I 1' I
�T
r I
'^--T
I
�S� �_'
fi�1 i I -:
��
h +-
,' -'
I � �_
-'-i_
I !_
' i
i 'T'�--1'-• �--�
.-
-�
SL11r!
1 J i I I i
r t ' ,_ 1-1
1 j I rL I r I
:...
1
Z� F
AJ
44.
TF
!
_
I
_}
r
.
_
1
-i' •
'
-
..
..'_
Lt ,
},L
t t '
III
E .G2c�tar
l c>o
_ I
T i
L
Nor '�
�-i ' ;�+_L
i I
..�
�.
I 1"
-� ,
• _� I L_ '
� I.FYSIOE
.... -y-1__-_•_
- 1 1
ST2�ET
_1_ j .i_.
>_.i.
t�u�
l
<C
z . z, D' 117.
.. �_-,
oo•--
+if 1
p�
�i�
i
� �'
:
� i�l �
� I ( I T j-
j�-L I
So
��
�
� •--mot �--7- �
I � ; .. �� �
rf
_
a
o:ot�
+
9 .5y}0.
.... .
!I.-..�-
11
4 I i f =: i
1;-
'
I I I I I
l r
1
I I L }
I:
I
_
L.L
1.
`� 1Q
t
I
1 ,_
} L
1-
' Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities
Major and Minor Storms
' per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria
ARTERIAL w/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc.
'0 is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992
V is based on theoretical capacities
Area = 3.55 sq.ft. Area = 47.52 sq.ft.
t Minor Storm : Major Storm
Slope Red. • Minor • 0 V Major • 0 V
(X) :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) : X : (cfs) (fps)
0.40 : 0.50 : 135.32 : 4.28 : 2.41 : 2031.62 : 64.25 : 2.70 :
0.50 : 0.65 : 135.32 : 6.22 : 2.70 : 2031.62 : 93.38 : 3.02 :
0.60 : 0.80 : 135.32 : .8.39 : 2.95 : 2031.62 : 125.89 : 3.31 :
' 0.70 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.06 : 3.19 : 2031.62 : 135.98 : 3.58 :
0.80 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.68 : 3.41 : 2031.62 : 145.37 : 3.82 :
0.90 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.27 : 3.62 : 2031.62 : 154.19 : 4.06
1.00 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.83 : 3.81 : 2031.62 : 162.53 : 4.28
1.25 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 12.10 : 4.26 : 2031.62 : 181.71 : 4.78
1.50 : 0.80 135.32 : 13.26 : 4.67 : 2031.62 : 199.06 : 5.24
' 1.75 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 14.32 : 5.04 : 2131.62 : 215.01 : 5.66
2.00 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 15.31 : 5.39 : 2031.62 : 229.85 : 6.05
2.25 : 0.78 : 135.32 : 15.83 : 5.72 : 2031.62 : 237.70 : 6.41
2.50 : 0.76 : 135.32 : 16.26 : 6.03 : 2031.62 : 244.13 : 6.76.:
2.75 : 0.74 : 135.32 : 16.61 : 6.32 : 2031.62 : 249.31 : 7.09
3.00 : 0.72 : 135.32 : 16.88 : 6.60 : 2031.62 : 253.36 : 7.41
3.25 : 0.69 : 135.32 : 16.83 : 6.87 : 2031.62 : 252.72 : 7.71
' 3.50 : 0.66 : 135.32 : 16.71 : 7.13 : 2031.62 : 250.85 : 8.00
3.75 : 0.63 : 135.32 : 16.51 : 7.38 : 2031.62 : 247.66 : 8.28
4.00 : 0.60 : 135.32 : 16.24 : 7.62 : 2031.62 : 243.79 : 8.55
4.25 : 0.58 : 135.32 : 16.18 : 7.86 : 2031.62 : 242.92 : 8.81
' 4.50 : 0.54 : 135.32 : 15.50 : 8.09 : 2031.62 : 232.72 : 9.07
4.75 : 0.52 : 135.32 : 15.34 : 8.31 : 2031.62 : 230.25 : 9.32
5.00 : 0.49 : 135.32 : 14.83 : 8.52 : 2031.62 : 222.60 : 9.56
' 5.25 : 0.46 : 135.32 : 14.26 : 8.73 : 2031.62 : 214.13 : 9.80
5.50 : 0.44 : 135.32 : 13.96 : 8.94 : 2031.62 : 209.64 : 10.03
5.75 : 0.42 : 135.32 : 13.63 : 9.14 : 2031.62 : 204.61 : 10.25
' 6.00 : 0.40 : 135.32 : 13.26 : 9.34 : 2031.62 : 199.06 : 10.47
I
I
I
I
1
1
11
H
1
DESIGN OF STORM SEWER
AND TYPE 'R' INLETS
COUNTY ROAD 9 IMPROVEMENTS
020-010
Inlet @ DPW1
Weir equation: Orifice equation:
Qw = C L H^1.5 Qo = C A (2gH)10.5
C = 3.0 C = 0.6
L = 10.00 ft A = 10.72 ft2
(85% efficiency) (50% clogged)
H
Qw
Qo
(ft)
(cfs)
(cfs)
0.00
0.00
NA
0.10
0.81
NA
0.20
2.28
NA
0.30
4.19
NA
0.40
6.45
NA
0.50
9.02
NA
0.60
11.85
NA
0.70
14.93
NA
0.80
18.25
NA
0.90
21.77
NA
1.00
25.50
NA- o,cx, 12 1 �{'s
3o
2s
20
m 15
c
10
5
0
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Head (ft)
s- Weir -+. Orifice �Controllinp
USE LPA2E1E-7 IK3L-e-T
povalz ar,n�cL Pt�tt,-
GO rJP t-T t c. rj .
COUNTY ROAD 9 IMPROVEMENTS
020-010
Inlet @ DP E1
Weir equation: Orifice equation:
Qw = C L 1-111.5 Qo = C A (2gH)10.5
C = 3.0 C = 0.6
L = 15.00 ft A = 10.72 ft2
(85% efficiency) (50% clogged)
H
Qw
Qo
(ft)
(cfs)
(cfs)
0.00
0.00
NA
0.10
1.21
NA
0.20
3.42
NA
0.30
6.29
NA
0.40
9.68
NA
0.50
13.52
NAB
0.60
17.78
NA
0.70
22.40
NA
0.80
27.37
NA
0.90
32.66
NA
1.00
38.25
NA
40
T
m 20
c
x
O
10
04
0
USE Lt>L�G--jam Itilt�E.'T D"SG
-ro
PIPItJE,1 c.o.�al-1�o,J.
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1
Head (ft)
Av Weir -+- Orifice -Controlling
I
I
1
1
n
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
USING UDSEWER-M6DEL VERSION 4
DEVELOPED
BY
JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
IN COOPERATION WITH
URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DENVER, COLORADO
*** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY .............................................
ON DATA 04-04-1995 AT TIME 12:29:59
*** PROJECT TITLE :
COUNTY ROAD 9
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 5 YEARS
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
-------------------------------------------------------_-----------------------
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION
-- - MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET
------------._------------------------------------
1.00 47.50 4925.78 4924.08 OK
2.00 47.50 4925.36 4924.10 OK
3.00 36.10 4925.36 4924.08 OK
4.00 24.00 4925.78 4924.26 OK
5.00 24.00 4925.78 4924.44 OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH
ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.00 2.00 1.00 2 CIRC 2.26 2.50 30
23.00 3.00 2.00 2 CIRC 2.06 2.50 18
34.00 4.00 3.00 2 CIRC 2.33 2.50 18
45.00 5.00 4.00 2 CIRC 2.33 2.50 18
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT
'
10 FLOW Q FULL D DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET
FPS
FEET FPS FPS
---------"--------------------------------------------------------------------
12.0 47.5 42.1 2.26
5.34
1.66 7.30 4.83 0.62 V-OK
'
23.0 36.1 17.7 1.50
6.81
1.50 0.00 6.81 0.00 V-OK
34.0 24.0 10.8 1.50
6.79
1.50 0.00 6.79 0.00 V-OK
45.0 24.0 10.8 1.50
6.79
1.50 0.00 6.79 0.00 V-OK
'
FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A
PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS
'
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
% (FT)
(FT)
(FT) (FT)
----------------------------'.-------.--------------------------------
12.00 0.20 4922.04
4921.99
0.82 1.29 OK
23.00 0.20 4922.18
4922.04
1.68 1.82 OK
'
34.00 0.20 4922.24
4922.18
2.04 1.68 OK
45.00 0.20 4922.24
4922.24
2.04 2.04 OK
'
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER
THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF .5 FEET
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED
CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
'
10 NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREA14 CONDITION
FEET FEET
FEET
FEET FEET FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.00 25.00 0.00
4924.54
4924.49 4924.10 4924.08 SUBCR
23.00 72.00 72.00
4923.68
4923.54 4924.08 4924.10 PRSSIED
'
34.00 29.00 29.00
4923.74
4923.68 4924.26 '4924.08 PRSSIED
45.00 0.10 0.10
4923.74
4923.74 4924.44 4924.26 PRSSIED
PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUSCRITICAL FLOW
'
'
*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE
ALONG SEWERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPST MANHOLE SEWER
'
JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION
BEND
BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
10 NO 1D NO. ELEV FT FT
K COEF-LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.0 2.00 4924.46 0.38
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4924.08
23.0 3.00 4924.80 0.34
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 4924.46
'
34.0 4.00 4924.98 0.18
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 4924.80
45.0 5.00 4925.16 0.00
0.25
0.18 0.00 0.00 4.00 4924.98
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL
VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE
OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY
HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS
OF 0.05
FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O.
'
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY
BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
1
No Text
TABLE 12 - ENTRANCE LOSS COEFFICIENTS
Outlet Control, Full or Partly Full Entrance he8d loss
He = k,
g�
/
Type of Structure and Dccion of Entrance
Coefficient ke-
Pipe. Concrete
Projecting from fill, socket end (groove -end) . . . .
0.2.
Projecting from fill, sq. cut end . . . . . . . .
. . 0.5
Headwall or headwall and wingwalls
Socket end of pipe (groove -end) . . .
. . 0.2
Square -edge . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0.5,
Rounded (radius - 1/12D) . . . . . . . .
. 02
Mitered to conform to fill slope
. 0.7
*End -Section conforming to fill slope . . . . . . . .
0.5 (F.ES�
Beveled edges, 33.7° or 451 bevels
0.2
Side -or slope -tapered inlet . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 0.2
Pioe. or Pipe -Arch Corrugated Metal
Projecting from fill (no headwall) , , , . . . 0.9
Headwall or headwall and wingwalls square -edge . . . . 0.5
Mitered to conform to fill slope, paved or unpaved slope . . , 0.7
"End -Section conforming to fill slope . . . . . 0.5
Beveled edges, 33.7° or 450 bevels . . . . . . . . . 0.2
Side -or slope -tapered inlet . . . . . ... . . . . 02
Box, Reinforced Concrete
Headwall parallel to embankment (no wingwalls)
Square -edged on 3 edges . . . . . . .
0.5
Rounded on 3 edges to radius of 1/12 barrel
dimension, or beveled edges on 3 sides . ,
02
Wingwalls at 300 to 750 to barrel
Square -edged at crown .
0.4
Crown edge rounded to radius of 1/12 barrel �~
dimension, or beveled top edge .... , ,
0.2
Wingwall at 100 to 250 to barrel
Square -edged at crown . . . . . . . .
0.5
Wingwalls parallel (extension of sides)
Square -edged at crown . . . . . . . ... . .
0.7
Side -or slope -tapered inlet . . . . . . . . . .
02
*Note: "End Section conforming to fill slope," made of either metal or
are the sections commonly available from
concrete,
manufacturers. From limited hydrau-
lic tests they are equivalent in operation to a headwall in both inlet and
outlet control. Some end sections, incorporating a closed taper in their
design have a superior hydraulic performance. These Tatter
sections
can be
179
'PROGRAM SAMM- COUNTY ROAD 9
PAGE 2
PROGRAM SAMM
D-LOAD REQUIREMENTS FOR A 18 IN. DIAMETER CIRCULAR
PIPE
********************************************************************************
P I
P E D A T A
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAMETER (in.)
18.00
WALL THICKNESS (in.)
2.750
'I N
S T A L L A T I O N C O N D I T I O N S
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINIMUM DEPTH OF FILL (ft.)
0.50
'
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF FILL (ft.)
5.00
SOIL DENSITY (lb/cu. ft.)
120.0,
BEDDING CLASS
C
'
INSTALLATION TYPE
TRENCH
TRENCH WIDTH (ft.)
6.00
SOIL LATERAL PRESSURE/FRICTION TERM (KMU')
0.1924
PARAMETERS TO COMPUTE TRANSITION WIDTH
'
POSITIVE PROJECTION RATIO
0.70
POSITIVE SETTLEMENT RATIO
0.70
'
SOIL LATERAL PRESSURE/FRICTION TERM (KMU)
SOIL LATERAL PRESSURE COEFICIENT
0.1924
0.33
A D
D I T I O N A L L 0 A D S
-------------------------------------------=----------------------------------
LIVE LOAD
AASHTO HS-20
NO SURCHARGE LOAD
IA
C T 0 R S O F S A F E T Y
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR OF SAFETY ON 0.01 INCH CRACK D-LOAD (EARTH,LIVE)
1.00; 1.00
'
FACTOR OF SAFETY ON ULTIMATE LOAD (EARTH,LIVE) IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C 76
DL.01 LESS THAN 2000 LBS/FT/FT
1.5
DL.01 GREATER THAN 3000 LBS/FT/FT
1.25
DL.01 BETWEEN 2000 AND 3000 LBS/FT/FT
INTERPOLATED
R E
S U L T S O F A N A L Y S I S
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIPE
------EARTH LOAD----- LIVE SURCH TOTAL BED
D-LOAD
DEPTH ARCHING >TRANS LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD FACT
(REQUIRED
0.01 in. ULT.
' (ft.) FACTOR (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft)
(lb/ft/ft)
0.5
1.05
Y
123.
4066.
1.0
1.11
Y
260.
2636.
1.5
1.16
Y
410.
2003.
2.0
1.22
Y
576.
1479.
t2.5
3.0
1.29
1.36
Y
Y
759,
960.
1050.
764.
3.5
1.44
Y
1183.
627.
4.0
1.46
Y
1372.
525.
'4.5
1.47
Y
1550.
447.
5.0
1.47
Y
1727.
385.
Fob
C l p
I l l o t
0.
4190.
2.36
0.
2895.
2.27
0.
2413.
2.14
0.
2055.
2.0
0.
1808.
2.0
0.
1724.
2.0
0.
1810.
1.9
0.
1897.
1.9
0.
1997.
1.9
0.
2112.
1.9
1 55u
t Ib/rt�4'
118 4 . L7-7-6-.
851 �276 )
751. 1�.
8 660. 990.
3 594. 8.90.
0 575. 863.
7 612. 918.
6 645. 967.
5 681. 1022.
5 722. 1083.
F-0L G�-K t
I ZDO0 1b /f / f > I2"76 . o,4
F-0L G�-K t
I ZDO0 1b /f / f > I2"76 . o,4
CHANNEL DESIGN
0
r
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
COUNTY ROAD 9 - HEWLETT PACKARD CHANNEL
STA
ELEV
0.00
20.00
20.00
15.00
40.00
20.00
IN' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft)
---------- -------------
0.060 0.0100
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(feet)
---------
(sq ft)
-------
(fps)
--------
(cfs)
---------
NO.
------
15.50
1.0
1.0
0.97
0.34
16.00
4.0
1.5
6.14
0.38
16.50
9.0
2.0
18.08
0.41
17.00
16.0
2.4
38.94
0.43
17.50
25.0
2.8
70.59
0.45
18.00
36.0
3.2
114.77
0.46
18.50
49.0
3.5
173.11
0.47
19.00
64.0
3.9
247.13
0.48
19.50
81.0
4.2
338.30
0.49
20.00
100.0
4.5
448.02
0.50
Q,00 = 2.14 PEEP
@ -47. S cFs
C
DESIGN OF RIP RAP
[J
' CLIENT JOB NO. C)ZO ' C I O
RMINC PROJECTG'JVPJ '." Gi CALCULATIONS FOR .-• �.:
�•"� Engineering Consultants MADEBYn�' DATE01''ZCHECKED BY DATE SHEET % OF 3
CLIENT G.IT)/ bF F"T. LfJLI.IMS, JOBNO.C20' C 01
■�'INC PROJECT_G0.')IJ"TY eAAO 9 CALCULATIONS FORT:)
' Engineering Consultants MADE BY PC' DATE 09'26CHECKED BY- DATE 3 3
SHEET_ OF
1
i
1�
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
6C
KI
RIPRAP
NONE■
VAAWA�
MEN
-
!',IMP
M�
s■
ME
Fr_�•..__t......®�_
Be,
7
\2
2 -- A .6 .8 lA
Yt/D
Use Da instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel.
**Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream.
z.s
FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR
CONDUIT OUTLET.
11-15-82
URBAN. DRAINAGE a FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
(.�.70
0 = Expansion Angle
so
EIVANA,
m
MEN%
0
MEMO
MENEM
MEN
0 .1 .2 ' .3 ..4 .5 .6 .7 .8
TAILWATER bEPTH/CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D
RIPRAP.
FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGE 6 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
I
1
EXCERPTS FROM THE OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY
' FOR THE NATIONAL CASH REGISTER (NCR) SITE
1
1
F
L
1
OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY
FOR THE NCR SITE AND
PRELIlIHNARY DRAINAGE STUDY
FIRST PHASE NCR SITE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
May 2, 1994
Prepared for:
Client:
NCR Corporation
Microelectronics Division
2001 Danfield Ct.
Fort Collins, Co 80525
Prepared by:
RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303)482-5922
RBD Job No. 622-002
' OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY FOR THE NCR SITE
PRELEIHNARY DRAINAGE STUDY FIRST PHASE FOR THE NCR SITE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
' A. Location
The NCR site is located North of Harmony Road and West of County Road 9
' (Minor Road) in Southeastern Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is shown on the
Vicinity Map in the Appendix. More particularly, the site is situated in the
Southeasterly portion of section 22, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the
' Sixth P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County Colorado.
B. Description of Propgrty
The NCR site contains 102 acres of land, more or less, of which all of the area
is currently undeveloped and being proposed for an Industrial Park for the NCR
Company. The majority of the property has consisted of cultivated farm land.
Topography at the site is generally sloping from West to East at approximately
0.8%.
IL DRAINAGE BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
' The NCR site lies entirely within the Fox Meadows Drainage Master Plan (Basin
H) as shown in the Master Plan Report by Resource Consultants Inc. dated 1981.
' In addition, this area was studied again by Nolte and Associates in May of 1990
when they prepared a master drainage plan for the Hewlett-Packard (H-P) site
which lies to the East of the NCR site. Applicable portions of both of these
' studies are included in the Appendix. The Master Drainage Report which was
done by Nolte and Associates did not alter any of the assumptions or conclusions
which were made in the Fox Meadows Master Drainage Plan. In effect, this
' report simply incorporated the recommendations that the Master Drainage Plan
for Fox Meadows had called for in the design of the H-P site. These
recommendations included the design of a drainage swale which runs along the
' North side of the H-P site and eventually drains into H-P's North pond.
The drainage swale to be ultimately constructed across the H-P site has been
' preliminarily designed by H-P as shown on page 46 in the appendix. The Master
Drainage Plan for the H-P site is shown in the Appendix. The NCR site
currently drains to a plugged up and squashed cmp pipe and also sheet flows
1
across County Road 9 and onto the H-P site. According to the Master Drainage
Plan done for the H-P site (see page 45 in the Appendix) the NCR site falls
' within. both basins 31 and 23. However, the shape of. these basins do not
correspond to the shape of the NCR site. It appears that NCR would have pond
#215 on their site and pond #214 also. The total area draining to these two ponds
' on the master plan is equal to 149.2 acres. This is more than the NCR site area
of approximately 102 acres. Both ponds #215 and #214 were shown as having
an allowable release rate of 24 cfs each. Because of the way the NCR site is
' being developed, and because it is unclear as to how much of the total 48 cfs
NCR could use, it was conservatively assumed that they could discharge only 24
cfs for the fully developed 100 year condition.
B. Sub -Basin Description
' Historic drainage patterns on the subject site are in an easterly direction per
Figure 2 (Fox Meadows Drainage Master Plan) on page 31 in the appendix.
Upstream off -site areas lying West of Corbet Road contribute storm water runoff
' which crosses the NCR site at the present time. When the NCR site is
developed, off -site flows will be conveyed in a drainage swale around the North
side of the site and onto the H-P site by a proposed culvert under County Rd. 9.
' This culvert will discharge those off -site flows into the proposed drainage ditch
on the North side of the Hewlett-Packard site. No off -site runoff from properties
North and South of the NCR site, traverse through the site.
' M. Drainage Basin Criteria
' A. Regulations
' No deviation from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is
being sought for the subject site. Some deviation from the Fox Meadows Master
Drainage Master Plan is being sought, since NCR is only constructing one pond
' adjacent to County Rd. 9, instead of two as shown in the Fox Meadows Master
Plan. However, the NCR site is conservatively only releasing 24 cfs which is
actually less than the Master Drainage Plan allows for the area.
B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The Fox Meadows Basin (Basin H) Drainage Master Plan and the subsequent H-P
Master Drainage Plan criteria and constraints are being utilized in this Overall
Drainage Study. Since the NCR site is currently being utilized as agricultural
' land, the Fox Meadows Master Plan for the site included on -site detention
facilities for the future development. As can be seen from the Fox Meadows
Drainage Master Plan report (Figure 5), detention was planned for 3 locations on
' the West side of County Road 9. Two of those ponds, which are labeled as pond
' 2
1
0
1
C.
r
n
D.
E.
#3 and #4 in the Fox Meadows Drainage MasterFlan, are located entirely within
the NCR site. However, the drainage area which drains to those ponds in the
Fox Meadows Master Plan does not correspond to the area of the NCR site. In
fact, the area which was proposed to drain to ponds #3 and #4 is larger than the
NCR site by approximately 47.2 acres. Because of this and because of the way
the NCR site is laid out, NCR will only construct one pond and that pond will
release 24 cfs which is actually somewhat less than is technically allowed for in
the Fox Meadows Drainage Master Plan.
The second design constraint which was placed on the NCR site was caused by
the relatively high outlet point for discharge from the proposed on -site detention
pond. The proposed swale within the Hewlett-Packard site was preliminarily
designed to have an elevation of 4922 at the upstream end of the channel where
NCR is proposing to tie into. Until the proposed swale is actually built, the new
outlet pipe from the NCR detention pond will have to "bubble up" at the outlet
and cross the H-P site as is historically occurring.
Hydrological Criteria
The SWMM hydrological model was previously used in the Fox Meadows Basin
Master Drainage Plan. A copy of the SWMM model for the 2 year and 100 year
storm is included in the Appendix on pages 60 and 61. These models were
obtained from the Hewlett-Packard Master Drainage Plan report which utilized
the exact same SWMM Model as the Fox Meadows Basin Master Drainage Plan
and simply expanded on it. During the time of final design these SWMM models
will be updated to include the two retention ponds and one detention pond which
are proposed for the NCR site.
Hydraulic Criteria
All calculations within this study have been prepared in accordance with the City
of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria.
Variances from Criteria
A variance is being requested to build only detention pond number 3 (page 38 in
the appendix) which is pond number 215 (page 45 in the appendix) with the NCR
site. Because of the way in which the original property has been sold and is
being proposed for development, it is not appropriate to construct detention pond
number 4 (page 38 in the appendix) which is pond number 214 (page 45 in the
appendix) with the NCR site. Detention pond number 4 (214) should be
constructed when the remainder of the property lying west of the NCR site
develops at some future date. To accommodate future development of the
property lying west of the NCR site, a drainage Swale has been shown along the
�]
r
west and north property lines of the NCR site to transport off -site storm water
runoff around the NCR site and downstream to the H-P swale. With reference
to the above variance request, the NCR site is proposing to detain all developed
storm water runoff and release these detained flows at a peak rate of 24 cfs onto
the downstream H-P swale.
DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concert
As development occurs within the NCR site, the drainage concepts shown on the
Overall Drainage Plan in the back pocket of this report should be followed.
There are three ponds shown within the site to handle the stormwater runoff.
Two of these ponds are proposed as permanent wet ponds which will retain the
stormwater which drains to them. The two retention ponds will need to be sized
in excess of the required amount of permanent water 'storage to allow for the
periodic inflows of stormwater and the ultimate inflow of the 100 year storm.
Even though these ponds are permanent retention ponds they will need some
overflow mechanism to allow for a situation where complete inundation of the
pond volume occurs. The third pond will discharge under County Road 9 and
onto the H-P site at the allowable release rate of 24 cfs. On -site stormwater will
be conveyed to the three on -site ponds through the use of drainage swales, curb
cuts and cross pans.
B. Specific Details
Overall Site Development
Per the Fox Meadows Basin Drainage Master Plan and the approved Hewlett-
Packard Master Drainage Plan the NCR site must have on -site detention. The
Fox Meadows Master Plan showed two ponds within the NCR site. As was
stated earlier, because of the way the NCR site is being developed, only one
detention pond is planned and it will release only 24 cfs which is less than the
Fox Meadows Master Plan called for. In addition, the Hewlett-Packard site is
proposing to have, at some future point, a drainage swale which will handle
NCR's off -site flows as well as its' own.
The Overall Drainage Plan for the NCR site includes utilizing two proposed
permanent pool ponds within the site for retention. These ponds will not release
storm water flows at a controlled release as normal detention ponds do. Instead,
an additional volume will be provided within these two ponds which allows for
the permanent retention of the 100 year runoff for the drainage area which drains
to them. There will however, be an emergency overflow provided in each of
4
Table 9.
Onsite Detention Requirements
for Fox Meadows Basin
Pond 11 Location
1 Improvement to existing pond north of
Hewlett-Packard site
2 Pond capturing drainage water east of County
Road 9
3 Pond west of County Road 9
4 Pond west of County Road 9
5 Pond west of County Road 9
6 Pond west of County Road 9
7 Pond south of Fox Meadows Subdivision
8 Improvements to Pond north of Harmony Road
Mobile Home Park
9 Pond east of Timberline Road
1/For exact location of pond, see Fig. 7•
-30-
Maximum
Maximum
storage
outflow
(ac-ft)
(cfs)
4.05
11
6.84
9.32
5. 70
5.33
12.43
28.74
6.67
8.53
11
24 ��
24
24
17
24
24
24
RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC
//
y�`.�/tf�
CLIENT - NC % JOB NO. 6?2-t_J,J`
INC PROJECT N` 1 ([yy�� CALCULATIONS FOR L i.
Engineering Consultants MADEBY DATE�TCHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF
r
I
[l
DESIGN OF EROSION CONTROL
[J
n
7
L
1
1
J
1
1
Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
303/482-5922
FAX: 303/482-6368
April 4, 1995
Mr. Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services Stormwater
235 Matthews
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: County Road 9 Improvements
Erosion Control Cost Estimate
Dear Basil:
This portion of the report is to satisfy the City of Fort Collins requirements for an
erosion control security deposit for the County Road 9 Improvements. The City of
Fort Collins Current Cost Factors will be used in this estimate. There will be
approximately 5 acres disturbed within this project.
Using the city criteria of $650.00 per acre for reseeding sites less than 10 acres, and
a 150% contingency, the total obligation of the City of Fort Collins for a security
deposit would be :
(5.00) x ($650.00 per acre) x (1.5) = $4875
A cost breakdown of the erosion control measures that will need to be installed is
listed below:
Temp seed & Mulch (1.04 ac. @ $500 per acre) = $ 520
Straw Bale check dams. (20 @ $150 apiece) = $3000
Inlet Filters (2 @ $300 apiece) = $ 600
Silt Fence (1100 L.F. @ 2 L.F.) = $2200
TOTAL = $6320
Contingiency = TOTAL x 1.5 = $9480
' Denver303/458-5526
1
Therefore, the larger amount, or the amount of security deposit obligation should be
' in the amount of $9480.00. Please call if you have any questions regarding this
estimate.
Respectfully,
RBD Inc., Engineering Consultants
Perry E. Cabot
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT: STANDARD FORM A
COMPLETED BY: DATE: IZ 1�94
DEVELOPED
SUBBA§IN
ERODIBILITY
ZONE
Asb
(ac)
Lsb
(ft)
Ssb
M
Lb
(feet)
Sb
PS
M
VJI
FtCiDc-1;�;�
2.22
i`100
O•`5'
—
—
7a.2
�I
wI1JDI�.Op
O,�
W2•
?,ice, BALL
0.4Z
1350-
C),
E2
0.42.
AFTE 2 uo
tJbT2-uC.-T I
D N
.oCE
WI
84.E
E I
----
---
8 4,9
wZ
—
- -- --
-
6S•3
F-2
—
— -
8S•3
IAARCH 1991 8.14 DESIGN CRITERIA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT: STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: Imo. Ci,�BO—( DATE: 12. 1 (o •94
Erosion Control* C-Factor P-Factor
Method -Value Value Cominent
I WLF.-T F IL•TE CS> 1.00 0.80 N-T 'T`/P& ' 2' IMF.-fs
S 7 rPin� 8AL=_S 1.00 0.80. �veey qoo' IrJ �� icjl
�.MONE OIJ�E LUfy
aspu AL j PAv INCa O.O I 1. 00 -
wr-y E"Kcj\\jN-T!<7N.
VEt:;c7�.7�D L�(�G �u0,�,5 I.00 - l�Sc OIJ NOIJ'SpD
G1-iAIJNc 1. �.!.C�E.S
GIFT Fe),30--- 1,00 C).So - I�SE GTJ �-l'•P. R
BASc cove •05 I00 -� 2E ����!t� >�e!�
MAJOR
PS
SUB
AREA
oNS e z ti
BASIN
(t)
BASIN
(Ac)
CALCULATIONS
72 .'L
1= 1
'P0?_7101J O` dCk�C:. 7v J� 1G41 l I = tJG>✓-
72.2
WI
Z•ZZ
b•PPLIE� = O•�l8
7G,5
EZ
O.'iZ,
L7lleI�JF� C�o1�S�.
5.0-0.99iiO4=iCU.OS� +�O •`101(OSo1;J05)
7Z,S
W2
0.4Z-
= o.0Z2
S.00
c-T= EC,i1VE. ��� Ofl�l(0.80�i0.80�.+(o•9BKO:So
—
=;5.0
5•0
ET=F
G,o.
- O.OI
�� �L-rI'•r P' = 1100
EFF 7 = I - C. 100>
_ 1 - /O•C�!
MARCH1991
8.15
DESIGN CRITERIA
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
' PROJECT: Gr�UtJ7y P_O�O 9 II dP�OV� 1 dcN—f S STANDARD FORK C
SEQUENCE FOR 19 ')S ONLY COMPLETED BY: P C-P-0 07 DATE: 12 • 1 b 4
Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed.
Major modifications to an approved. schedule may require submitting a new schedule for
' approval by the City Engineer.
YEAR
-1
MONTH
J I-F IMI p. I M I J I,
OVERLOT GRADING
WIND EROSION CONTROL
Soil Roughening
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant.
Other
ZAINFALL EROSION CONTROL
STRUCTURAL:
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
Straw Barriers
Silt Fence Barriers
Sand Bags
,
Bare Soil Preparation
'
Contour Furrows
'
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving
'
•
Other
VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
Temporary.Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Kate/Blankets
Other
' STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY MAINTAINED BY
VILGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR
' DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON
1
' MARCH 1991
8-16
DESIGN CRITERIA
0
01D10oo
0
wwInInIn
�
WWWWW
'
0 •g101o10%000000
.
o
. . . . . . . . . .
vwwwlnlnlnlnlnln
v
W W W W W W W W W W
o
Wrnrnofof010,ofmofG!clo00
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'
o
wwwwww.wwwwwwlnulln
M
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
O
W W W 01010101C71W 01O101C1101O10101�01
N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
O
o m tr In w.t0 w w r- I` I- I- r- r- r- I` I` I- W W W W W W
O
O
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
'
C]
r-I
W cocomcoo�aom0000cocococ000coc000cocoaocococococo
0
WNM1W0n0WVDW%DtDtDrrrrrrrrrrWWW
p
. . . . . . .
UW
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
.
O tD
O N M w w to 1n to <n t0 1D t0 1D 10 W t0 tD tD tD t` � � � l� �
. . . .
In
W
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .
Mwwwwwwwwwwww-I:r wt ww'd'www'd'
z
WWWWmom WWmwwWWWWCOCOCO'COOOCO0000WW
'
a
0
wOlr-i N M M w ww w In in In In to In In In In W tD tD W tD t0 t.
o
n
MM44444444444444444444444 r
U
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
'
O
Ot0 W Or-IrINNMMMMst s! s! V s1 wd wUllnlnlntOtD
a
• • . •
O
t0
M M M w w w w w.w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
w
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
'
ao
r.0 II1NInI�
W 0100r•-Ir-IriNNNNNMMMMMwwwd'd'
�
...... ....... ....
W w
Mtn
N M M M M M w w w w w v w w or or w w w w w w w w w w
W W co W W W W W W W W co co W co co co W W W W W W W W W
In
W'
00
No ri
W riMwlnll)totD.l�I�I� W W W W W W 01010100000
�w
aw
N N M PI M M M M M t4 M 9 M M M M M M M c4 M www ww
E10
rn
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
O %D
In co O r/ N Cr) w w In In In %D %D W 0 %D r� r� I- I� W W W O1 01
E1
.
I'n
w r-I
N N M M M M M M r'f r4 M M c4 M M M M M M M M M M MM
W W W W CO W W CO W W CO W CD W W 00 W W CO W W W CO CO CO 00
W
U
(n rgr,,InI,
W OOrINNMMMwwwww1nInInwwwt-N
.
.- .
'
M�
4 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�
W W co W co co W W co W co W co W co W W W W W W W co W W c6 .
WO
MN%D
co 010r4NNMMMwwwwwwlnInlnIn%0%D%D%D
Ri
l'!1 Or-1
ri r♦riNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
co
W W W W W W co W W co co W co W W W W co co W W co W co W
wW
In InMCANMw
WtDr-r � W W W 01010101O1G1000000
a
N c18c
4 4 141;1irlrlr-Irlriririririr-l'iHC4NNNNN
N
W W W W CO W CO W W W W W W W W W CO CO CO W W W W W CO
w
O wln
oM In tO co W Ol O o o H H rl HN N N N M M M M MM
�zJ
^
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N W
mOOOOOOOHHr1Hr-IH44rir-IrIr-I'1rir-i.44
'
n
n W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
. In W
N W r-I w In r-N W O10 O O rq rl H rl rq N N N M M M MM
14 1D
W W 0101010;01010;01000000000000000
O t0thO;wNMOr•INMMww0000ww
0Wt-I`t0VD%0
ri wwr)rr9WWWWWc
W cWwwWWWWWWWWW
In C%0VADrWWt`rr%0%0%0Inv-41MMNNrn%o.rr•I0%W
. ..........................
O ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNrIrlrirlOO
rl-
nIrrrrrrrrrnnnl`rrrrnrrrrr-
'
x
'
0 0 p o
0 z w r1
MARCH 1991
0000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000
NMsrInt0I.00a10ANMwIntD.I-W 010to6In6Ino
HH H HH H H H H H N N M C1 v v In
8-4
DESIGN CRITERIA
1
' Table 8B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values.
Treatment C-Factor
P-Factor
BARE SOIL
' Packed and smooth................................................................ 1.00 1.00
Freshlydisked........................................................................ 1.00 0.90
Roughirregular surface........................................................... 1.00 0.90
SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP 111
STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................
1.00
0.80
'
SILT FENCE BARRIER.....................................................................
1.00
0.50
ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ...................................................
0.01
1.00
'
ESTABLISHED. DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS See Fig.
8-A
..........................
1.00
SOD GRASS................................................................................
0.01
1.00
TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.45,21
1.00
HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE........................................... 0.10131
1.00
'
SOIL SEALANT ............... ..................................................... 0.01-0.60
1.00
'
EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS............................................
0.10
1.00
GRAVEL MULCH
-
Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately
'
1 /4" to 1 1 /2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre..............
0.05
1.00
HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH
After olantino crass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately
anchor,
'
tack or crimp material into the soil.
Slope I%)
1 to 05.... .........................................................................
0.06
1.00
6 to 10............................................................................
0.06
1.00
11 to 15 .......................................................................
0.07
1.00
16 to 20.............................................................................
0.11
1.00
21 to 25.............................................................................
0.14
1.00
25 to 33.............................................................................0.17
1.00
> 33..........................................................................
0.20
1.00
' NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation.
(1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading.
(2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required.
' (3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated.
(4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation.
l
tMARCH 1991 8.6 DESIGN CRITERIA
' CHARTS, FIGURES, AND TABLES
1
11
k
No Text
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RUNOFF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
.1
5C
3C
I- 2 C
Z
w
0
lr
W
a 10
Z
w
a
0 5
N
W
¢ 3
0
0 2
D:
W
3
i
�CCCC�111�0
'iiiwrfieiirm
'
I■/I11/M
=OMEN
��io
M0C1111
FA
M
ON
IN
-
I+/■■ I
FAN
.• I�� /■���I�
.■■■■�
�mm
ACC
�WMFAW
W■WIIriaCCCmeu■l��
.2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
10 20
FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR
USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA.
*MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELQPED"
LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION.
REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical
Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975.
5 -1-84
URBAN DRAINAGE 3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DRCOG
No Text
R
f
EXISTING EDCIF
Of PAVEMMI
SCALE I'=50'
LEGEND
i%r .. '�rNrlt.F •.
h
W
S1RAW BALL Z
A':CHECK CAM
.re NEW
F Rfi AL U
CARE AND GDETER If
_ __
.:L ATi...•rIF , __ _ _ _ = 96 1• "m._' _ _ qMY p._ —_-
Hof A
IX
� \ �""
S
Ulir .1111 :n1:N1-
vww,L.FI GVH-h NIArww___ _4yFKKwyr��-.,— _ _ �_ 105+09 _._ _y ••_" - 11w0'1 `_ "_. ___ _ __
> :
1 r
DR f(AG[ BASIN HIIII
.� 1, �" COUNTY ROAD B__. .Y1R—.. w.• j -.rP f ,41' " II
(••yvF a __ ' ___ qP N h VBEP 1 - '� - -
Nit. t
< TIN 0;
I'llJrFI % \1 > r EE
%i Rrn A:.0 4N r IN
91!
)'x_ 5f A •11 ...r, 0 :1`) •. SEC MEN '1x,IL N PENCE
Q I.a ' DI MAIL
VRY AI 4''.jF'eA �[ G.
Z! I PENCE '0
';'4Aw HA:f ':nif+ A :.1 y t f%191N. "tin
I
I
I
_I
Tin
Q
E
1 I.
RE
Hr
AD
N
r.IN
I
w
GIN
t
kYl
N
Yl2
<
CloRlim AN A"[ R
4925
14944up.
.......a
r. .. _
/.
UNTy iifl7kD
9
0'.la
I'I<
4
_ 1
� . .
49)5 9=L ...
—__
_
P_ .
fit US
_
�_..
-
,-
-
A/.���
[S'10v
as i .;%5
49)J-
NEW
'S' W+F R IN' E l
e)
LP
LI
411i
R I. "PL
••1
vt1+t C
I
,
(qN>IgUiI Nil DR414AU
SWPLE
10,ff MA', 12' Clnv; e
R'PRAP lellRlfN) qN'2-
TYPE 9 BEDDING ON
�y
:fO'ExIn.E. FABRIC
_MCA Ow- 12 CFS
_
v�
Own= 47.5 DES
0,,,,. 2.1 FT
FRE680AR0 0"!
SECTION
'A'
SIM
REVISION DESCR'PnON
DES Engineering" Consultants
FL5 1995 021J-121 -
> S' MAY, f IA!, '. RIPRAP
11 I'll FB A Q.Tio
pl.'RJ 1 NF W N F
I'LRUC lRE
-CelliN•El,
k%TENT iEN0 9"
F(MR FS)
1 O'1R W
ELEC. 4972 60
vEME 1'
%ISTING IiI B
vC �ARl)
Fill , .b :x15 TINE ti
A _:III IfN clip
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
COUNTY ROAD 9 IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING
ENTRANCE !0
VIII i 1-PAOTARD
'm
w
w
w
x
_N
O
O
Ni O
iMP
.aiA. 114+75 3U
LT
�
ELF 'I 4922.40
INSTALL le•v40
CMP
INSTALL
To
46+3)
30' LT I
18%30' CMP
W
ELEV.
STA. 47a15
Z
4922 J^
EL4o,
28'LL
Z
FUTURE
W2J.ID
92220
H
. LOWLINE
ELEV.
FLEv
492240
i
4974
4922.Go
;Q \k
foal ., ri feI ELEV .—All
NIF
"
r
111 5- CMP
(BOTH) 497:.-0
IxcNN,
"'MY NE
15' CNP :
I.'E
OF PAVEMENT
REMOVE EXISTING
le" Cup
INSTALL IB'v56' REP.
City
Y
of Fort Collins, Colorado
CLASS III W/PES ! In
(SEE SHLEY 9)
UT=
PLAN APPROVAL
APPROVED
—
Prreeckr IT Drioneell
Dek
CHECKED BY:
te h
R+ekeekr IJILI
Date
CHECKED eY:
"
9krmKewe UWILI
Due
CHECKED BY:
Perive k Recreation
Date
CHECKED BY
Date
CHECKED BY:
Date
COUNTY ROAD
9
RADING.
DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
13