Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAPSTONE COTTAGES - FDP - FDP150046 - REPORTS - DRAINAGE REPORTMarch 30, 2016 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR CAPSTONE COTTAGES Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: Capstone Collegiate Communities 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35223 Prepared by: 200 South College Avenue, Suite 10 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com Project Number: 939-001  This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF. Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety. When a hard copy is absolutely necessary, we recommend double-sided printing. March 30, 2016 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for CAPSTONE COTTAGES Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review. This report accompanies the Project Development Plan submittal for the proposed Capstone Cottages development. This report has been prepared in accordance to Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed project. We understand that review by the City is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM. If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Aaron Cvar, PhD, PE Senior Project Engineer Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 1 A. Location ..................................................................................................................................1 B. Description of Property ............................................................................................................3 C. Floodplain ...............................................................................................................................5 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS................................................................................ 5 A. Major Basin Description ...........................................................................................................5 B. Sub-Basin Description ..............................................................................................................6 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 6 A. Regulations .............................................................................................................................6 B. Four Step Process ....................................................................................................................6 C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ......................................................................7 D. Hydrological Criteria ................................................................................................................7 E. Hydraulic Criteria .....................................................................................................................7 F. Modifications of Criteria ..........................................................................................................7 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .............................................................................................. 8 A. General Concept......................................................................................................................8 B. Specific Details ........................................................................................................................9 V. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 10 A. Compliance with Standards .................................................................................................... 10 B. Drainage Concept .................................................................................................................. 11 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations APPENDIX B – Street Capacity Computations APPENDIX C – Inlet Computations APPENDIX D – Storm Line Computations APPENDIX E – LID Design Information APPENDIX F – Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) APPENDIX G – Erosion Control Report APPENDIX H – Larimer County Correspondence-Lincoln Channel Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report LIST OF FIGURES: Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 – Existing Floodplains ......................................................................................................... 5 MAP POCKET: Proposed Drainage Exhibit Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1. Vicinity Map 2. The project site is located in the west half of Section 7, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado . 3. The project site is located just northeast of the intersection of Lemay Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. 4. The project site lies within the Dry Creek Basin. Detention requirements are to detain the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate. The historic release rate for this basin is 0.20 cfs per acre. 5. The Mulberry Street Walmart and the Buffalo Run Apartment complex exist just to the south of the site, on the south side of Lincoln Avenue. The San Criso residential development exists to the north of the site. The Sunward Condos development exists to the east of the site. The Lincoln Channel (Storm Drainage) runs along the southern boundary of the project site, and will be utilized as the storm outfall for the majority of Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 2 developed site runoff. 6. No offsite flows enter the site from the west, south, or east. Currently, offsite flows along the north side of the site are conveyed east via overland flow; however, as shown on the Drainage Exhibit, we are anticipating some form of detention pond in the future to occur at the northwest corner of the intersection of International Blvd. and Duff Dr. We will design the proposed storm line in international Blvd. to take 5.0 cfs from this point through the site, based on an allowable release rate of 0.20 cfs per acre per the the Dry Creek Basin Master Plan. We are not detaining this offsite flow, and we will not increase site release rate to compensate for this offsite flow; rather, we have designed the emergency spillway to safely pass flows from the offsite area in both the future anticipated condition as well as the current existing condition. 7. The Lincoln Channel conveys regional flows from the west; this channel conveys flows east along the southern boundary of the project site. The proposed site will release into the Lincoln Channel at a rate of 0.20 cfs per acre per the Dry Creek Basin Master Plan. We have met with the Larimer County Engineering Department and they have indicated acceptance of this master planned release rate into the Lincoln Channel. 8. An existing 36-inch diameter storm line runs along the west side of the site, which will be utilized in the proposed site design to serve as an outfall for the proposed paver detention system shown in drainage Basin 4 on the proposed drainage exhibit. The existing storm line will also serve as an outfall for the proposed inlets within the future Realigned Lemay Avenue (drainage Basins 14a and 14b). The existing 36-inch diameter line begins to the north of the proposed site and serves as the outfall for the existing San Cristo neighborhood detention pond. Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 3 B. Description of Property 1. The project area is roughly 25.9 net acres. Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph 2. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel with native ground cover. Existing ground slopes are mild to moderate (i.e., 1 - 6±%) through the interior of the property. General topography slopes from northwest to southeast. The Lincoln Channel, running along the southern boundary of the project site, collects the majority of historic site runoff. 3. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey website: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, the site consists of Caruso Clay Loam, Loveland Clay Loam, and Nunn Clay Loam, which all fall into Hydrologic Soil Group C. 4. The proposed project site plan is composed of residential and commercial development. Associated roadways, water and sewer lines will be constructed with the development. Onsite detention for a portion of the site is proposed within the subgrade of a permeable paver system. The remainder of onsite detention will be provided within a surface detention pond located at the southeast corner of the site. Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 4 Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan 5. There are no known irrigation laterals crossing the site. 6. The proposed land use is residential and commercial. Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 5 C. Floodplain 1. The project site is not encroached by any City or FEMA 100-year floodplain. The site is located within the FEMA-Regulatory 500-year floodplain (shaded Zone X) of the Cache La Poudre River. As such, At-Risk Population and Essential Service Critical Facilities are not allowed within the limits of the 500-year floodplain. Figure 3 –Area Floodplain Mapping II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. Major Basin Description 2. The project site lies within the Dry Creek Basin. Detention requirements are to detain the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate. The historic release rate for this basin is 0.20 cfs per acre. The site outfall is the existing Lincoln Channel, running along the southern boundary of the site. We have met with Larimer County and communicated the concerns that the City of Fort Collins has regarding discharge into the Lincoln Channel. Larimer County’s position, as documented in the February 20, 2015 email from Larimer County (copy provided in Appendix), is that Larimer County is in agreement with discharging into the Channel as long as the release rate specified in the Dry Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan is maintained. Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 6 B. Sub-Basin Description 1. The subject property historically drains overland from northwest to southeast. Runoff from the majority of the site has historically been collected in the Lincoln Channel, running along the southern boundary of the site. The Lincoln Channel captures regional flows from the west and conveys these flows east. 2. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns follows in Section IV.A.4., below. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the proposed project. B. Four Step Process The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the proposed project utilizes the “Four Step Process” to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters. The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each step. Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development to facilitate the reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the current use by implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID) strategies including: Conserving existing amenities in the site including the existing vegetated areas. Providing vegetated open areas throughout the site to reduce the overall impervious area and to minimize directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA). Routing flows, to the extent feasible, through vegetated swales to increase time of concentration, promote infiltration and provide initial water quality. Step 2 – Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with Slow Release The efforts taken in Step 1 will facilitate the reduction of runoff; however, urban development of this intensity will still generate stormwater runoff that will require additional BMPs and water quality. The majority of stormwater runoff from the site will be intercepted and treated using rain gardens prior to exiting the site. Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways There are no major drainageways within the subject property (the Lincoln Channel is located outside of the property boundary). While this step may not seem applicable to proposed development, the project indirectly helps achieve stabilized drainageways nonetheless. By providing water quality where none previously existed, sediment with erosion potential is removed from the downstream drainageway systems. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as well as ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City-wide drainageway stability. Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs. The proposed project will improve upon site specific source controls compared to historic conditions: Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 7 Trash, waste products, etc. that were previously left exposed with the historic trailer park will no longer be allowed to exposure to runoff and transport to receiving drainageways. The proposed development will eliminate these sources of potential pollution. C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The subject property is surrounded by currently developed properties. Thus, several constraints have been identified during the course of this analysis that will impact the proposed drainage system including: Existing elevations along the property lines will generally be maintained. As previously mentioned, overall drainage patterns of the existing site will be maintained. Elevations of existing downstream facilities that the subject property will release to will be maintained. D. Hydrological Criteria 1. The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in Figure RA-16 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations associated with the proposed development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7 has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. 2. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing coefficients contained in Tables RO-11 and RO-12 of the FCSCM. 3. Three separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios. A fourth design storm has also been computed for comparison purposes. The first design storm considered is the 80th percentile rain event, which has been employed to design the project’s water quality features. The second event analyzed is the “Minor,” or “Initial” Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The third event considered is the “Major Storm,” which has a 100-year recurrence interval. The fourth storm computed, for comparison purposes only, is the 10-year event. 4. No other assumptions or calculation methods have been used with this development that are not referenced by current City of Fort Collins criteria. E. Hydraulic Criteria 1. As previously noted, the subject property maintains historic drainage patterns. 2. All drainage facilities proposed with the project are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. 3. As stated above, the subject property is not located in a City or FEMA regulatory floodplain. 4. The proposed project does not propose to modify any natural drainageways. F. Modifications of Criteria 1. The proposed development is not requesting any modifications to criteria at this time. Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 8 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept 1. The main objectives of the project drainage design are to maintain existing drainage patterns, and to ensure no adverse impacts to any adjacent properties. 2. Onsite detention will be provided within the subgrade of the proposed permeable pavement systems for Basin 2, and in the pond within Basin 7 for the majority of the site (please see exceptions discussed below). Detention release rates will be controlled through sub-surface control structures. 3. The site has been broken into 14 sub-basins for preliminary design purposes. Anticipated drainage patterns for proposed drainage basins are described below. Basins 1, 5, 10, 13 Basins 1, 5, 10, and 13 consist of residential and commercial development, and will generally drain via overland flow and curb and gutter flow into permeable paver systems (Basins 10 and 13 will not have a paver system), and a series of rain gardens for pre-treatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the constructed wetland. The proposed series of permeable paver systems shown on the Drainage Exhibit will be designed to both capture and collect runoff and then direct flows into storm line systems via a subdrain system, connecting to the proposed storm line system. Detention for Basins 1, 5, 10,and 13 will be provided within the detention pond/constructed wetland in the southeast corner of the site. Basins 2, 3, 6, 12 Basins 2, 3, 6, 12 consist of public right of way areas that will generally drain via curb and gutter flow into inlets and storm line systems within the project site. The storm main collecting all runoff from these basins will include a Snout for pre- treatment of runoff prior to discharge into the constructed wetland. Detention for Basins 2, 3, 6, and 12 will be provided within the detention pond/constructed wetland in the southeast corner of the site. LID treatment will be provided for these basins as outlined in Appendix E. Basin 4 Basin 4 consists of residential development, and will generally drain via overland flow and curb and gutter flow into a permeable paver system, and underground storage vault system. The permeable paver sub-grade material as well as the underground vault system will be utilized for 0.99 acre-feet of onsite detention volume. Basins 6c and 11 Due to grading constraints Basins 6c and 11 will be directed offsite undetained. Basin 6c is 0.23 acre and will sheet flow primarily into the adjacent Lincoln Avenue. In a 100-year event this basin produces 1.1 cfs. Basin 11 is 0.04 acre and will flow from curb and gutter to offsite property to the north. In a 100-year event this basin produces 0.4 cfs. Release from the detention pond has been reduced by the total undetained flow of 1.5 cfs from Basins 6c and 11. Basin 7 Basin 7 consist of the proposed detention/constructed wetland area, and will drain directly into the detention pond. Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 9 Basins 8 and 9 Basin 8 will be directed into a rain garden through a 5-foot curb cut, and will drain via the rain garden’s subdrain system into the adjacent detention pond/constructed wetland in the southeast corner of the site. Basin 9 will be directed into a rain garden through a 10-foot curb cut, and will drain via the rain garden’s subdrain system into the adjacent detention pond/constructed wetland in the southeast corner of the site. Detention Basins 8 and 9 will be provided within the detention pond/constructed wetland. Basins 14a through 14e Basins 14a defines future Lemay Avenue Right of way and will drain into proposed inlets shown within the future Realigned Lemay Avenue, which will convey flows into the existing 36-inch diameter storm line extending from the north and running along the west side of the site (discussed above in Section I.A). Analysis of the capacity of this line has been provided in Appendix D which shows the existing storm line has capacity for this flow. The line does have additional capacity for additional flow as well. Future flows from Basin 14e may also be accommodated in this line. Future analysis will need to occur when this area is developed. Basin 14b also defines future Lemay Right of Way and will drain into proposed inlets shown within the future Realigned Lemay Avenue, which will convey flows into the existing 18-inch diameter storm line running along the west side of the site. Analysis of the capacity of this line has been provided in Appendix D which shows the existing storm line has capacity for this flow. Basins 14c and 14d define onsite areas adjacent to the future Lemay Avenue Right of Way and are primarily composed of landscaped areas and rooftops. We have designed small pockets of detention cells to capture flows prior to discharge into Right of Way. These small detention cells will release back into the existing 36-inch pipe extending from the north and running along the west side of the site (discussed above in Section I.A). Please see further discussion of water quality and detention requirements in Section IV.B, below. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. B. Specific Details 1. Quantity detention is a requirement for the site, and portion (0.98 acre-feet) of quantity detention is proposed to be provided within the underground vault system and permeable paver sub-grade material within Basin 4. The majority of the site will be directed into the onsite pond within Basin 7 to maintain the required site release rate. The current stipulation for release rate is 0.20 cfs per acre per the Dry Creek Master Plan. The project site encompasses 25.9 acres, thus, a release rate of 5.2 cfs for the overall site is required by this criteria. A total detention volume of 4.80 acre-feet with a release rate of 3.70 cfs has been calculated for the detention/water quality pond in Basin 7. This release rate accounts for Basins 6c and 11 releasing from the site undetained as described above. 2. A detention volume of 0.98 acre-feet with a release rate of 1.25 cfs has been Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 10 calculated for the paver system detention in Basin 4. Detention volumes have been estimated using the computer program EPA SWMM. Table 1 – Detention Summary Table Pond ID 100-Yr. Detention Vol. (Cu-Ft) 100-Yr. Detention Vol. (Ac-Ft) 100-Yr. WSEL (Ft) Peak Release (cfs) Paver Subgrade (Within Drainage Basin 4) 42579 0.98 N/A 1.25 Detention Pond (Within Drainage Basin 7) 208744 4.79 4938.90 3.70 3. The site plan currently shows LID measures proposed with the development plan consisting a “treatment train” involving permeable paver systems, and rain gardens, prior to discharge into the detention pond/constructed wetland located at the southeast corner of the site. The constructed wetland component in the bottom stage of the detention pond will provide significant water quality treatment benefits as well. Please see Appendix E for LID table, design information, and an LID exhibit. 4. The site plan ensures a minimum of 25% of paved drive and parking areas to consist of permeable pavers. The paver system will greatly enhance filtration of storm runoff, and will provide significant storm runoff infiltration. 5. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual shall be provided by the City of Fort Collins in the Development Agreement. 6. Proper maintenance of the drainage facilities designed with the proposed development is a critical component of their ongoing performance and effectiveness. The constructed wetland within Basin 7 has been designed to be easily accessed by maintenance staff via gentle slopes provided to the bottom of the pond. 7. The drainage features associated with the proposed project are all private facilities, located on private property. V. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards 1. The drainage design proposed with the proposed project complies with the City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater Criteria Manual. 2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with requirements for the Dry Creek Basin. 3. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the proposed development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 11 B. Drainage Concept 1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential damage associated with its stormwater runoff by providing detention and water quality mitigation features. 2. The drainage concept for the proposed development is consistent with requirements for the Dry Creek Basin. Capstone Cottages Final Drainage Report 12 References 1. City of Fort Collins Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities, November 5, 2009, BHA Design, Inc. with City of Fort Collins Utility Services. 2. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 3. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007. 4. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS CHARACTER OF SURFACE: Runoff Coefficient Percentage Impervious Project: 939-001 Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Calculations By: ATC Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….………………………………… 0.95 100% Date: Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………………… 0.95 90% Gravel ……….…………………….….…………………………..…………………………… 0.50 40% Roofs …….…….………………..……………….……………………………………………. 0.95 90% Pavers…………………………...………………..……………………………………………. 0.40 22% Lawns and Landscaping Sandy Soil ……..……………..……………….…………………………………………….. 0.15 0% Clayey Soil ….….………….…….…………..………………………………………………. 0.25 0% 2-year Cf = 1.00 100-year Cf = 1.25 Basin ID Basin Area (s.f.) Basin Area (ac) Area of Asphalt (ac) Area of Concrete (ac) Area of Roofs (ac) Area of Pavers (ac) Area of Lawns and Landscaping (ac) 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient Composite % Imperv. 1 321748 7.39 4.48 0.50 0.86 0.74 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00 79% 2 51592 1.18 0.98 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.90 0.90 1.00 92% 3 32743 0.75 0.63 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.90 0.90 1.00 92% 4 196020 4.50 3.10 0.19 0.49 0.51 0.21 0.86 0.86 1.00 85% 5 302154 6.94 5.00 0.40 0.60 0.53 0.41 0.87 0.87 1.00 87% 6a 27201 0.62 0.46 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.90 0.90 1.00 91% 6b 13461 0.31 0.28 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.93 1.00 96% 6c 10193 0.23 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.37 0.37 0.46 17% 7 47523 1.09 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.40 0.40 0.51 22% 8 8364 0.19 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 98% 9 15856 0.36 0.29 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 98% Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Project: 939-001 Calculations By: Date: Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration: Tt = L / 60V Tc = Ti + Tt (Equation RO-2) Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S½ Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S½ NOTE: C-value for overland flows over grassy surfaces; C = 0.25 Is Length >500' ? C*Cf (2-yr Cf=1.00) C*Cf (10-yr Cf=1.00) C*Cf (100-yr Cf=1.25) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti 2-yr (min) Ti 10-yr (min) Ti 100-yr (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min) 2-yr Tc Rational Method Equation: Project: 939-001 Calculations By: Date: From Section 3.2.1 of the CFCSDDC Rainfall Intensity: 1 1 7.39 18 18 17 0.82 0.82 1.00 1.70 2.90 6.10 10.3 17.5 45.1 2 2 1.18 5 5 5 0.90 0.90 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 3.0 5.2 11.8 3 3 0.75 13 13 12 0.90 0.90 1.00 2.02 3.45 7.16 1.4 2.3 5.4 4 4 4.50 13 13 12 0.86 0.86 1.00 2.02 3.45 7.29 7.8 13.3 32.8 5 5 6.94 24 24 22 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.48 2.52 5.32 8.9 15.2 36.9 6a 6a 0.62 10 10 10 0.90 0.90 1.00 2.26 3.86 7.88 1.3 2.2 4.9 6b 6b 0.31 5 5 5 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.8 1.4 3.1 6c 6c 0.23 5 5 5 0.37 0.37 0.46 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.2 0.4 1.1 7 7 1.09 12 12 11 0.40 0.40 0.51 2.05 3.50 7.42 0.9 1.5 4.1 8 8 0.19 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.5 0.9 1.9 9 9 0.36 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.0 1.7 3.6 10 10 1.14 5 5 5 0.76 0.76 0.96 2.85 4.87 9.95 2.5 4.3 10.9 11 11 0.04 5 5 5 0.88 0.88 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.1 0.2 0.4 12 12 0.35 5 5 5 0.87 0.87 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.9 1.5 3.5 13 13 0.60 11 11 10 0.62 0.62 0.77 2.13 3.63 7.72 0.8 1.3 3.6 14a 14a 1.95 10 10 9 0.65 0.65 0.82 2.26 3.86 8.03 2.9 4.9 12.8 14b 14b 1.00 10 10 9 0.73 0.73 0.91 2.26 3.86 8.21 1.6 2.8 7.5 14c 14c 1.12 12 12 11 0.68 0.68 0.85 2.05 3.50 7.42 1.6 2.7 7.0 14d 14d 0.56 15 15 14 0.50 0.50 0.62 1.90 3.24 6.82 0.5 0.9 2.4 14e 14e 1.92 32 32 30 0.25 0.25 0.31 1.24 2.12 4.52 0.6 1.0 2.7 Intensity, i10 (in/hr) Rainfall Intensity taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria (CFCSDDC), Figure 3.1 C10 Area, A (acres) Intensity, i2 (in/hr) 100-yr Tc (min) DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS C100 Design Point Flow, Q100 (cfs) Flow, Q2 (cfs) 10-yr Tc (min) 2-yr Tc (min) C2 Flow, Q10 (cfs) Intensity, i100 APPENDIX B WATER WAWASSTREET CAPACITY COMPUTATIONS Project: 939‐001 By: ATC Date: 12/1/2015 Design Street Street Street 2‐Yr 2‐Yr 100‐Yr 100‐Yr Comment Point Name Section Slope Flow Capacity Flow Capacity w/Reduction w/Reduction (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) 2 Duff Drive Minor Collector 0.80% 3.04 4.9 11.78 128.20 Flow < Cap. 3 Duff Drive Local Residential 0.80% 1.37 4.9 5.38 128.20 Flow < Cap. 6a International Boulevard Local Residential 0.60% 1.9 4.2 7.8 111.20 Flow < Cap. STREET CAPACITY SUMMARY Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb T BACK = 10.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S BACK = 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb n BACK = 0.016 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line H CURB = 3.90 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown T CROWN = 17.0 ft Gutter Width W = 1.44 ft Street Transverse Slope S X = 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) S W = 0.060 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition S O = 0.008 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section n STREET = 0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm T MAX = 17.0 17.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm d MAX = 3.9 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) check = yes MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow = 4.9 128.2 cfs Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak' ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) 939-001 Design Point 2 (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak' dp2-StrtCap-UDFCD.xlsm, Q-Allow 12/15/2015, 1:32 PM Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb T BACK = 10.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S BACK = 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb n BACK = 0.016 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line H CURB = 3.90 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown T CROWN = 17.0 ft Gutter Width W = 1.44 ft Street Transverse Slope S X = 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) S W = 0.060 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition S O = 0.008 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section n STREET = 0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm T MAX = 17.0 17.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm d MAX = 3.9 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) check = yes MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow = 4.9 128.2 cfs Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak' ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) 939-001 Design Point 3 (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak' dp3-StrtCap-UDFCD.xlsm, Q-Allow 12/15/2015, 1:34 PM Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb T BACK = 10.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S BACK = 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb n BACK = 0.016 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line H CURB = 3.90 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown T CROWN = 17.0 ft Gutter Width W = 1.44 ft Street Transverse Slope S X = 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) S W = 0.060 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition S O = 0.006 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section n STREET = 0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm T MAX = 17.0 17.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm d MAX = 3.9 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) check = yes MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow = 4.2 111.1 cfs Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak' ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) 939-001 Design Point 6a (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet 'Q-Peak' dp6a-StrtCap-UDFCD.xlsm, Q-Allow 12/15/2015, 1:36 PM APPENDIX C WAWASINLET COMPUTATIONS Project: 939‐001 By: ATC Date: 12/1/2015 Design Inlet Inlet Design Design Point Type Condition Storm Flow Inlet Capacity (CFS) (CFS) Comments 1 Quadruple (4) Combo Sump 100‐yr 45.10 46.20 100‐yr flow taken in w/max 4‐inch over top of curb 2 Quadruple (4) Combo Sump 100‐yr 11.80 46.20 Inlet oversized to accommodate triple pipe configuration 3 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 5.40 8.90 4 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 7.80 8.90 Inlet works to capture 100‐yr in conjunction w/pavers, paver detention 5 Quadruple (4) Combo Sump 100‐yr 36.90 46.20 100‐yr flow taken in w/max 2‐inch over top of curb 6a Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 7.80 17.90 Inlet oversized to accommodate pipe configuration 6b Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 7.80 17.90 Inlet oversized to accommodate pipe configuration 10 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 10.90 11.00 100‐yr flow taken in w/max 9.5‐inch over top of curb (partial overflow to raingarden) 13 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 3.60 8.90 14a Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 20.60 20.70 14b Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 7.90 20.70 Inlet oversized to accommodate pipe configuration OS1 Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 20.70 20.70 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow OS2 Double (2) Combo Sump 100‐yr 20.70 20.70 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow OS2 Single (1) Area Inlet Sump 100‐yr 5.50 5.50 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow OS4 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 8.90 8.90 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow OS5 Single (1) Combo Sump 100‐yr 8.90 8.90 Inlet sized for specified capacity of offsite flow Inlet Summary Table Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 4 4 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 24.4 46.2 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 15.0 46.0 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.1 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP1.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:09 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 4 4 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 24.4 46.2 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 3.0 11.8 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.2 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP2.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:15 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 6.3 8.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 1.4 5.4 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.3 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP3.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:21 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 6.3 8.9 cfs WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Minor Storm Q PEAK REQUIRED = 7.8 7.8 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.4 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP4.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:23 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 4 4 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 10.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 24.4 38.4 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 8.9 36.9 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.5 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP5.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:28 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 10.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 13.9 17.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 1.9 7.8 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.6a Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP6a.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:36 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 10.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 13.9 17.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 0.8 3.1 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.6b Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP6b.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:45 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 17.5 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 6.3 11.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 2.5 10.9 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.10 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP10.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:46 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 6.3 8.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 0.8 3.6 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.13 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP13.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 12:49 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 13.9 20.7 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 4.6 20.6 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.14a Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP14a.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:08 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 13.9 20.7 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 1.9 7.9 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt.14b Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-DP14b..xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:10 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 13.9 20.7 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 10.0 20.7 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt. OS1 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-OS1.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:32 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 13.9 20.7 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 10.0 20.7 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt. OS2 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-OS2.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:33 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 6.3 8.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 5.0 8.9 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt. OS4 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-OS4.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:33 PM Project = Inlet ID = Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') a local = 2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 8.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate L o (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W o = 1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A ratio = 0.31 0.31 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C f (G) = 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) C w (G) = 3.60 3.60 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) C o (G) = 0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening L o (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H vert = 6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H throat = 5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W p = 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C f (C) = 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) C w (C) = 3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) C o (C) = 0.66 0.66 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Q a = 6.3 8.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 5.0 8.9 cfs Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 939-001 Design Pt. OS5 Denver No. 16 Combination H-Vert H-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-OS5.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/11/2015, 1:33 PM APPENDIX D RIPRAP & STORM LINE DESIGN COMPUTATIONS Project: 939-001 Date: Calculation by: ATC Circular D or Da, Pipe Diameter (ft) H or Ha, Culvert Height (ft) W, Culvert Width (ft) Yt/D Q/D1.5 Q/D2.5 Yt/H Q/WH0.5 Storm Line 1 98.00 4.50 2.25 0.50 10.27 2.28 N/A N/A 5.37 2.28 16.33 14.82 Type M 16.00 14.00 1.5 Exist Storm Extended 105.0 4.00 2.00 0.50 13.13 3.28 N/A N/A 4.37 3.28 21.00 28.40 Type M 30.00 20.00 1.5 OUTPUT Storm Line/Culvert Label Culvert Parameters Yt, Tailwater Depth (ft) Urban Drainage pg MD-107 Box Culvert CALCULATIONS FOR RIPRAP PROTECTION AT PIPE OUTLETS Circular Pipe (Figure MD-21) Rectangular Pipe (Figure MD-22) Spec Width of Riprap (ft) 2*d50, Depth of Riprap (ft) for L/2 Froude Parameter Q/D2.5 Max 6.0 or Q/WH1.5 Max 8.0 Riprap Type (From Figure MD-21 or MD-22) L= Hydraflow Plan View Project File: Storm1REV.stm No. Lines: 17 02-15-2016 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 Storm Sewer Summary Report Page 1 Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss Junct line (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 STRM PIPE 1.0 98.00 54 c 32.5 4929.96 4930.07 0.338 4932.80 4933.12 1.12 4934.24 End 2 STRM PIPE 1-2B 60.40 48 c 148.2 4930.27 4930.79 0.351 4935.02* 4935.24* 0.05 4935.29 1 3 STRM PIPE 1-3 60.40 48 c 348.0 4930.79 4932.01 0.350 4935.29 4935.76 0.06 4935.82 2 4 STRM PIPE 1-4 60.40 48 c 101.2 4932.01 4932.36 0.346 4935.82 4935.91 0.41 4936.32 3 5 STRM PIPE 1-5 60.40 48 c 23.7 4932.36 4933.08 3.040 4936.32 4936.21 0.08 4936.29 4 6 STRM PIPE 1-5a 24.90 42 c 48.0 4933.27 4933.44 0.354 4936.67 4936.69 0.09 4936.78 5 7 STRM PIPE 1-7A 18.10 24 c 62.8 4933.44 4933.76 0.509 4936.78* 4937.12* 0.24 4937.36 6 8 STRM PIPE 1-8 18.10 24 c 113.4 4933.76 4934.32 0.494 4937.36* 4937.98* 0.52 4938.50 7 9 PIPE 1-7 4.00 18 c 46.4 4933.71 4934.17 0.991 4936.81* 4936.87* 0.06 4936.93 6 10 PIPE 1-7A 4.00 18 c 50.0 4934.18 4934.43 0.500 4936.93* 4936.99* 0.01 4937.00 9 11 PIPE A-7A.2 2.00 18 c 10.7 4935.82 4937.42 14.940 4937.06 4937.96 n/a 4937.96 j 10 12 STRM PIPE 1-2A 37.60 30 c 23.1 4931.46 4931.58 0.520 4934.46* 4934.63* 0.42 4935.05 1 13 STRM PIPE 1-2A.1 25.60 30 c 25.4 4931.58 4931.71 0.512 4935.54* 4935.62* 0.06 4935.68 12 14 STRM PIPE 1-2A.1 ( 12.10 30 c 6.4 4931.71 4931.74 0.474 4936.01* 4936.02* 0.01 4936.03 13 15 STRM PIPE 1-2A.1 ( 12.10 30 c 21.5 4931.74 4931.84 0.464 4936.03* 4936.05* 0.01 4936.06 14 16 STRM PIPE 1-2A.2 ( 12.10 24 c 94.2 4932.04 4932.99 1.009 4936.06* 4936.29* 0.22 4936.52 15 17 STRM PIPE 1-2A.3 12.10 24 c 64.1 4932.99 4933.63 0.999 4936.52* 4936.67* 0.23 4936.90 16 Project File: Storm1REV.stm Number of lines: 17 Run Date: 02-15-2016 NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 2 Yrs. ; *Surcharged (HGL above crown). ; j - Line contains hyd. jump. Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 54 98.00 4929.96 4932.80 2.84 10.58 9.27 1.34 4934.14 0.403 32.5 4930.07 4933.12 3.05 11.49 8.53 1.13 4934.25 0.328 0.365 0.119 0.99 1.12 2 48 60.40 4930.27 4935.02 4.00 12.56 4.81 0.36 4935.37 0.151 148 4930.79 4935.24 4.00 12.57 4.81 0.36 4935.60 0.151 0.151 0.223 0.15 0.05 3 48 60.40 4930.79 4935.29 4.00 12.56 4.81 0.36 4935.65 0.151 348 4932.01 4935.76 3.75 12.24 4.94 0.38 4936.14 0.130 0.140 0.489 0.15 0.06 4 48 60.40 4932.01 4935.82 3.81 12.34 4.89 0.37 4936.19 0.131 101 4932.36 4935.91 3.55 11.80 5.12 0.41 4936.32 0.134 0.132 0.134 1.00 0.41 5 48 60.40 4932.36 4936.32 3.96 12.55 4.81 0.36 4936.68 0.139 23.7 4933.08 4936.21 3.13 10.55 5.73 0.51 4936.72 0.165 0.152 0.036 0.15 0.08 6 42 24.90 4933.27 4936.67 3.40 9.55 2.61 0.11 4936.78 0.046 48.0 4933.44 4936.69 3.25 9.32 2.67 0.11 4936.80 0.045 0.046 0.022 0.77 0.09 7 24 18.10 4933.44 4936.78 2.00 3.14 5.76 0.52 4937.29 0.546 62.8 4933.76 4937.12 2.00 3.14 5.76 0.52 4937.64 0.546 0.546 0.343 0.47 0.24 8 24 18.10 4933.76 4937.36 2.00 3.14 5.76 0.52 4937.88 0.546 113 4934.32 4937.98 2.00 3.14 5.76 0.52 4938.50 0.546 0.546 0.619 1.00 0.52 9 18 4.00 4933.71 4936.81 1.50 1.77 2.26 0.08 4936.89 0.124 46.4 4934.17 4936.87 1.50 1.77 2.26 0.08 4936.95 0.124 0.124 0.057 0.73 0.06 10 18 4.00 4934.18 4936.93 1.50 1.77 2.26 0.08 4937.01 0.124 50.0 4934.43 4936.99 1.50 1.77 2.26 0.08 4937.07 0.124 0.124 0.062 0.15 0.01 11 18 2.00 4935.82 4937.06 1.24 1.56 1.28 0.03 4937.08 0.030 10.7 4937.42 4937.96 j 0.54** 0.57 3.49 0.19 4938.15 0.403 0.217 n/a 1.00 n/a 12 30 37.60 4931.46 4934.46 2.50 4.91 7.66 0.91 4935.37 0.717 23.1 4931.58 4934.63 2.50 4.91 7.66 0.91 4935.54 0.716 0.716 0.166 0.46 0.42 13 30 25.60 4931.58 4935.54 2.50 4.91 5.22 0.42 4935.96 0.332 25.4 4931.71 4935.62 2.50 4.91 5.22 0.42 4936.04 0.332 0.332 0.084 0.15 0.06 14 30 12.10 4931.71 4936.01 2.50 4.91 2.47 0.09 4936.11 0.074 6.4 4931.74 4936.02 2.50 4.91 2.46 0.09 4936.11 0.074 0.074 0.005 0.15 0.01 15 30 12.10 4931.74 4936.03 2.50 4.91 2.47 0.09 4936.13 0.074 21.5 4931.84 4936.05 2.50 4.91 2.46 0.09 4936.14 0.074 0.074 0.016 0.15 0.01 16 24 12.10 4932.04 4936.06 2.00 3.14 3.85 0.23 4936.29 0.244 94.2 4932.99 4936.29 2.00 3.14 3.85 0.23 4936.52 0.244 0.244 0.230 0.97 0.22 17 24 12.10 4932.99 4936.52 2.00 3.14 3.85 0.23 4936.75 0.244 64.1 4933.63 4936.67 2.00 3.14 3.85 0.23 4936.90 0.244 0.244 0.156 1.00 0.23 Project File: Storm1REV.stm Number of lines: 17 Run Date: 02-15-2016 Notes: ; ** Critical depth.; j-Line contains hyd. jump. Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraflow Plan View Project File: storm3.stm No. Lines: 3 12-15-2015 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Storm Sewer Summary Report Page 1 Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss Junct line (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 Pipe - (105) 23.30 24 c 55.1 4931.42 4934.60 5.776 4932.41 4936.32 n/a 4936.32 End 2 Pipe - (112) 17.80 18 c 63.9 4934.80 4935.12 0.501 4936.32* 4937.89* 0.38 4938.26 1 3 Pipe - (113) 8.90 18 c 37.9 4935.12 4935.30 0.475 4939.45* 4939.68* 0.39 4940.07 2 Project File: storm3.stm Number of lines: 3 Run Date: 12-15-2015 NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 2 Yrs. ; *Surcharged (HGL above crown). You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.Hydraflow com) Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 24 23.30 4931.42 4932.41 0.99 1.55 15.04 3.52 4935.93 0.837 55.1 4934.60 4936.32 1.72** 2.87 8.11 1.02 4937.34 0.837 0.837 n/a 0.91 n/a 2 18 17.80 4934.80 4936.32 1.50 1.77 10.07 1.58 4937.90 2.449 63.9 4935.12 4937.89 1.50 1.77 10.07 1.58 4939.46 2.448 2.449 1.565 0.24 0.38 3 18 8.90 4935.12 4939.45 1.50 1.77 5.04 0.39 4939.84 0.612 37.9 4935.30 4939.68 1.50 1.77 5.04 0.39 4940.07 0.612 0.612 0.232 1.00 0.39 Project File: storm3.stm Number of lines: 3 Run Date: 12-15-2015 Notes: ; ** Critical depth. Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Hydraflow Plan View Project File: storm4.stm No. Lines: 4 12-15-2015 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Storm Sewer Summary Report Page 1 Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss Junct line (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 Pipe - (26) 32.80 36 c 123.6 4933.67 4934.09 0.340 4935.50 4936.17 0.61 4936.78 End 2 UD PIPE 4 0.40 6 c 139.9 4934.39 4935.79 1.001 4937.33* 4937.94* 0.06 4938.00 1 3 Pipe - (26) (2) 0.40 36 c 57.4 4934.09 4934.28 0.331 4937.39* 4937.39* 0.00 4937.39 1 4 PIPE 4 32.00 18 c 8.3 4934.09 4934.17 0.967 4936.78* 4937.44* 5.10 4942.54 1 Project File: storm4.stm Number of lines: 4 Run Date: 12-15-2015 NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 2 Yrs. ; *Surcharged (HGL above crown). You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.Hydraflow com) Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 36 32.80 4933.67 4935.50 1.83 4.50 7.28 0.82 4936.32 0.437 124 4934.09 4936.17 2.08 5.22 6.29 0.61 4936.78 0.303 0.370 0.458 1.00 0.61 2 6 0.40 4934.39 4937.33 0.50 0.20 2.04 0.06 4937.39 0.434 140 4935.79 4937.94 0.50 0.20 2.04 0.06 4938.00 0.434 0.434 0.607 1.00 0.06 3 36 0.40 4934.09 4937.39 3.00 7.07 0.06 0.00 4937.39 0.000 57.4 4934.28 4937.39 3.00 7.07 0.06 0.00 4937.39 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.00 0.00 4 18 32.00 4934.09 4936.78 1.50 1.77 18.11 5.10 4941.88 7.916 8.3 4934.17 4937.44 1.50** 1.77 18.11 5.10 4942.54 7.913 7.914 0.655 1.00 5.10 Project File: storm4.stm Number of lines: 4 Run Date: 12-15-2015 Notes: ; ** Critical depth. Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Hydraflow Plan View Project File: storm5.stm No. Lines: 1 12-15-2015 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Storm Sewer Summary Report Page 1 Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss Junct line (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 PIPE 5 7.90 15 c 83.2 4933.68 4937.79 4.943 4934.32 4938.90 n/a 4938.90 End Project File: storm5.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 12-15-2015 NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 2 Yrs. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.Hydraflow com) Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 15 7.90 4933.68 4934.32 0.64 0.64 12.41 2.40 4936.72 1.134 83.2 4937.79 4938.90 1.11** 1.15 6.85 0.73 4939.63 1.134 1.134 n/a 1.00 n/a Project File: storm5.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 12-15-2015 Notes: ; ** Critical depth. Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Hydraflow Plan View Project File: storm6.stm No. Lines: 1 12-15-2015 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Storm Sewer Summary Report Page 1 Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss Junct line (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 PIPE 6 3.90 15 c 6.3 4934.65 4934.68 0.483 4935.44 4935.52 0.31 4935.83 End Project File: storm6.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 12-15-2015 NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 2 Yrs. You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.Hydraflow com) Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 15 3.90 4934.65 4935.44 0.79 0.82 4.77 0.35 4935.79 0.588 6.3 4934.68 4935.52 0.84 0.88 4.44 0.31 4935.83 0.493 0.541 0.034 1.00 0.31 Project File: storm6.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 12-15-2015 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) EXISTING STORM LINE ANALYSES (Existing North Storm Line and Existing West Storm Line) Hydraflow Plan View Project File: ExistN.stm No. Lines: 7 02-15-2016 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 36 29.00 4933.67 4936.67 3.00 7.07 4.10 0.26 4936.93 0.161 181 4934.28 4936.91 2.63 6.56 4.42 0.30 4937.21 0.146 0.153 0.278 0.00 0.00 2 36 29.00 4934.28 4936.95 2.67 6.64 4.37 0.30 4937.25 0.143 221 4935.02 4937.21 2.19 5.52 5.26 0.43 4937.64 0.208 0.175 0.388 0.00 0.00 3 36 29.00 4935.08 4937.37 2.29 5.80 5.00 0.39 4937.76 0.185 165 4935.41 4937.68 2.26 5.72 5.07 0.40 4938.07 0.191 0.188 0.310 0.00 0.00 4 36 29.00 4935.41 4937.81 2.40 6.07 4.78 0.36 4938.17 0.168 239 4935.88 4938.21 2.33 5.89 4.93 0.38 4938.59 0.179 0.174 0.416 0.00 0.00 5 36 29.00 4935.88 4938.32 2.44 6.17 4.70 0.34 4938.67 0.163 134 4936.15 4938.53 2.38 6.01 4.83 0.36 4938.89 0.172 0.167 0.224 0.00 0.00 6 30 14.50 4936.15 4938.74 2.50 4.91 2.95 0.14 4938.88 0.107 162 4936.32 4938.92 2.50 4.91 2.95 0.14 4939.05 0.107 0.107 0.173 0.00 0.00 7 30 11.80 4936.32 4938.96 2.50 4.91 2.40 0.09 4939.05 0.071 280 4936.98 4939.13 2.15 4.50 2.62 0.11 4939.24 0.065 0.068 0.190 0.00 0.00 Project File: ExistN.stm Number of lines: 7 Run Date: 02-15-2016 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraflow Plan View Project File: ExistW.stm No. Lines: 6 02-15-2016 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 18 7.50 4934.00 4935.50 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4935.78 0.435 21.4 4934.05 4935.55 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4935.83 0.434 0.434 0.093 0.40 0.11 2 18 7.50 4934.05 4935.66 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4935.94 0.435 58.9 4934.28 4935.92 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4936.20 0.435 0.435 0.256 0.30 0.08 3 18 7.50 4934.28 4936.00 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4936.28 0.435 208 4935.01 4936.91 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.19 0.435 0.435 0.906 0.15 0.04 4 18 7.50 4935.01 4936.95 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.23 0.435 37.4 4935.14 4937.11 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.39 0.435 0.435 0.162 0.15 0.04 5 18 7.50 4935.14 4937.15 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.44 0.435 105 4935.56 4937.61 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4937.89 0.435 0.435 0.455 0.80 0.22 6 18 7.50 4935.56 4937.83 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4938.11 0.435 83.5 4935.50 4938.20 1.50 1.77 4.24 0.28 4938.48 0.435 0.435 0.363 0.60 0.17 Project File: ExistW.stm Number of lines: 6 Run Date: 02-15-2016 Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 APPENDIX E LID DESIGN INFORMATION Project No: 939‐001 By: N. Haws Date: 11.13.2015 Receiving Treatment? LID Technique Receiving Treatment? Asphalt to PICP Run‐on Ratio Receiving Treatment? Raingarden ID Receiving Treatment? Snout® (or equal) 1 321,748 7.39 partial (low) grass buffers yes 2.6:1 partial (low) 3 yes yes YES 3 84,335 1.94 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ yes yes n/a 4 196,020 4.50 partial (low) grass buffers yes 1.9:1 partial (low) 1 & 2 yes yes YES 5 302,154 6.94 partial (low) grass buffers yes 2.8:1 partial (low) 5 yes yes YES 6 43,211 0.99 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ yes yes n/a 7 60,984 1.40 yes multiple yes ‐ yes all yes yes YES 8 8,364 0.19 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ n/a 9 15,856 0.36 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ n/a 10 49,827 1.14 yes rain garden no ‐ yes 6 yes yes YES 11 3,136 0.07 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ n/a 12 15,333 0.35 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ yes yes n/a 13 26,063 0.60 yes rain garden no ‐ yes 4 yes yes YES 14a 227,295 5.22 no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ no ‐ n/a 14b 47,780 1.10 partial (med.) rain garden no ‐ partial (med.) 1 yes yes YES WATER QUALITY | LOW‐IMPACT DEVELOPMENT | TREATMENT TRAIN SUMMARY TABLE Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement (PICP) Bioretention Rain Gardens Minimized Directly Connected Impervious Areas (MDCIA) Basin ID Basin Area (sq.ft.) Basin Area (ac) Underground Proprietary BMP 100% Treatment Train REVEGETATION SCHEDULES Excavation and grading may ordinarily occur during any month of the year. However, revegetation activities are typically more limited with respect to the time of year in which they should be completed and must be timed to coincide with a recognized planting season. The following tables depict two revegetation schedules that can be followed to achieve the mitigation objectives set for this project. Site conditions and/or climatic variations may require that these schedules be modified somewhat to achieve revegetation success. The schedules do not reflect any weed control activities that may be employed on site and would be amended to incorporate such a program if required. TABLE 1: FALL (DORMANT SEEDING) MITIGATION SCHEDULE Month Reclamation Technique J F M A M J J A S O N D Excavation/Grading Any month Resoiling and/or Ripping (if necessary) XXX Seedbed Material Sampling XXX Fertilization XXX Seedbed Preparation XXX Seeding XX Mulching (as specified) XX Shrub Seedling and Tree Planting (following year) XX Willow Cutting and Planting (following year before XX breaking bud) TABLE 2: SPRING MITIGATION SCHEDULE Month Reclamation Technique J F M A M J J A S O N D Excavation/Grading Any month Resoiling and/or Ripping (if necessary) XXX Seedbed Material Sampling XXX Fertilization XX Seedbed Preparation XX Seeding XX Mulching (as specified) XX Shrub Seedling and Tree Planting XX Willow Cutting and Planting (before breaking bud) XX Note: Weather and surface conditions permitting, the earlier in the season spring planting is completed the higher the potential for revegetation success. MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE No earth-moving activities will be permitted outside the boundaries of the mitigation area except as provided for in the site development plans. Adjunct disturbances related to the installation of emergency erosion control or site stabilization measures are also excepted. All erosion control measures will be kept in good condition until the mitigation plan is deemed acceptable by the City or it is obvious that the site is stable and the installed measures are no longer required as per City direction. Within this time frame, any erosion control measure removed prematurely or damaged will be immediately replaced / repaired. The permanent mitigation plantings will be inspected at least bi-monthly during the first three growing seasons following planting and immediately following intense rainstorms. Areas of poor “seed take” will be noted. Any area remaining unvegetated by desirable species throughout the first four growing seasons will be reseeded following the application of appropriate seedbed preparation techniques during the next Fall planting season. Shrub seedlings or tree plantings judged to be dead will be replaced as necessary to meet success requirements. If nutrient deficiency symptoms develop on revegetated areas, this condition will be remedied by adding the proper nutrients in the proper amounts. Where slips, slides, or slumps occur on slopes, such will be remedied as soon as soil conditions permit access. No mowing, trimming, or other similar vegetation modification activities will be permitted in the wetland mitigation area unless directly associated with a planned weed control activity. MONITORING Monitoring Overview At the end of each of the first three full growing seasons following initial planting, the wetland mitigation site will be monitored quantitatively to determine the overall level of construction success, site stability, and vegetation establishment. The results of this assessment will be submitted to the City of Fort Collins in a report on or about December 31. Mitigation and revegetation success will be judged based on four criteria. These criteria include the size of the mitigation areas successfully established, the wetland soil moisture regimes created, the percent ground cover of wetland-classed species present in the wetland mitigation area, and the percent success of the shrub and tree plantings. The mitigation size criterion will be met if the mitigation site qualifying as vegetated wetlands totals 0.22 acres. The soil moisture regime criteria will be met if the wetland mitigation area surface dedicated to the establishment of hydric species exhibits saturated conditions in the upper 12.0 inches of the soil profile and/or shallow flooding throughout the majority of the growing season as evidenced either by soil characteristics or the presence of sufficient wetland indicator species. Small ridges and potholes that enhance species diversity will be acceptable so long as these features do not compromise the overall integrity of the vegetated wetlands to be created. The average depth of free water over the mitigation sites will be reported as will an estimate of the percent of the vegetated mitigation area overlain by free surface water. (Surface water occurring in a mosaic with wetland species and representing a typical marsh community will not be included in the estimate of percent of open water present.) The ground cover criterion will be met if, after three growing seasons, the total ground cover contributed by all grass, forb, and shrub species (including willow cuttings) present in the wetland mitigation area (point intercept method) is equal to or greater than 80 percent, on average, and wetland-classed species (FAC, FACW, and OBL) are dominant on site (51+ percent relative cover) as compared to upland-classed (FACU and UPL) species. In addition, there will be no evidence of erosion detrimental to vegetation establishment or site stability. The percent of open water occurring over the surface of the mitigation basin will be considered a “null set” when calculating percent herbaceous ground cover, so long as such surface water does not indicate the formation of an "open water" system. Shrub (excluding willow cuttings which will be evaluated as a part of ground cover) and tree species planted as a part of wetland mitigation construction will be tallied by a simple count of viable species present at the time of monitoring fieldwork. Any indications of insect or animal damage will be noted as will any indications of nutrient deficiencies. Shrub and tree plantings will be considered successful where 90 percent of the numbers planted are present on site. In the case of shrubs and trees, volunteer plants will be included in the tally. Any actions deemed necessary to enhance mitigation success and / or site stability will be taken as a result of each annual monitoring assessment. Specific vegetation sampling and analysis protocols will be developed prior to the first annual assessment. Information and showings to be submitted with each annual quantitative monitoring report include a project location map, a discussion of the conditions of the mitigation sites, a summary of the data collected, a list of all species observed within the mitigation areas, copies of all data sheets completed in the field, and a continuation of the photographic record submitted with the first annual report. As appropriate, recommendations will be made with respect to the continued maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation area. Monitoring will continue on an annual basis until the City judges this mitigation program to be successful. Disturbed areas revegetated to upland conditions will not be included in the annual monitoring assessments. Soil and Plant Cover Sampling Technique Specifics Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Area To determine the depth to which non-inundated soils are saturated, soil sample pits will be dug at two to three representative locations in the wetland mitigation area. Each pit will be dug to a depth of 12.0-16.0 inches. The depth to saturation or flooding, if occurring, will be recorded. Soil matrix colors will be recorded to assess soil moisture regime characteristics. The presence of gleying or mottling will be noted and the color and percent of mottles in the matrix will be recorded, if present. A sulfidic (H2S) odor will also be noted, if observed. Plant cover will be evaluated using the point-intercept method. A 100-foot tape will be laid out along the surface at two to three locations in the created wetlands. Transects will be sited to represent the vegetation conditions common within the mitigation and enhancement area. At each one-foot interval along each transect, a "hit" will be recorded. A hit will consist of vegetation (by species), “free water”, floating algae, or bare ground/rock/litter combined. The percent total plant cover will then be calculated for each transect. The relative cover contributed by both hydric and upland plant species will also calculated for the wetland transects. Shrub and tree planting success will be assessed by a simple tally of the shrubs and trees (by species) alive at the end of each growing season. Plant vigor will be recorded for each individual planting as “ viable”, “stressed”, or “dead”. Both viable and moderately stressed plants will be included in the success calculation. Seriously stressed plants will be selected for remedial planting on a case-by-case basis. APPENDIX F STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM) EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0 (Build 5.0.022) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE Starting Date ............ NOV-21-2012 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. NOV-21-2012 06:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00 Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 7.910 3.669 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 1.328 0.616 Surface Runoff ........... 6.507 3.018 Final Surface Storage .... 0.127 0.059 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.654 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 6.507 2.121 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 2.204 0.718 Internal Outflow ......... 0.000 0.000 Storage Losses ........... 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 4.304 1.402 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.003 ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 30.00 sec Average Time Step : 30.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 30.00 sec Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basins 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.64 3.00 1.74 160.64 0.817 Basin2 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.51 3.12 0.38 36.63 0.850 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min --------------------------------------------------------------------- Outlet_Overall OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 96.00 0 00:00 Pond STORAGE 2.45 2.89 99.89 0 02:13 Detention_Pavers STORAGE 2.33 2.81 99.81 0 02:09 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Outlet_Overall OUTFALL 0.00 4.95 0 02:13 0.000 0.718 Pond STORAGE 160.64 160.64 0 00:40 1.739 1.739 Detention_Pavers STORAGE 36.63 36.63 0 00:40 0.381 0.381 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- Pond STORAGE 6.01 2.890 7.110 Detention_Pavers STORAGE 6.01 2.809 7.191 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg E&I Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pond 163.730 7 0 208.843 8 0 02:12 3.70 Detention_Pavers 31.596 5 0 42.724 7 0 02:09 1.25 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg. Max. Total Freq. Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt. CFS CFS 10^6 gal ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Outlet DUMMY 3.70 0 02:13 Outlet_Pavers DUMMY 1.25 0 00:43 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Mon Feb 08 15:30:50 2016 Analysis ended on: Mon Feb 08 15:30:50 2016 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec SWMM 5 Page 3 Node Detention_Pavers Volume Elapsed Time (hours) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volume (ft3) 45000.0 40000.0 35000.0 30000.0 25000.0 20000.0 15000.0 10000.0 5000.0 0.0 SWMM 5 Page 1 Link Outlet_Pavers Flow Elapsed Time (hours) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Flow (CFS) 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 SWMM 5 Page 1 Node Pond Volume Elapsed Time (hours) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volume (ft3) 250000.0 200000.0 150000.0 100000.0 50000.0 0.0 SWMM 5 Page 1 Link Outlet Flow Elapsed Time (hours) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Flow (CFS) 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 SWMM 5 Page 1 DETENTION STAGE STORAGE CURVE PROJECT: 939-001 DATE: 12/1/15 BY: ATC Contour Contour Depth Incremental Cumulative Cumulative Elevation Area (ft) Volume Volume Volume (FT) (SF) (FT) (CU‐FT) (CU‐FT) (AC‐FT) 4,930.00 9,600.72 N/A N/A 0 0.000 4,930.20 10,373.62 0.2 1997 1997 0.046 4,930.40 11,135.60 0.2 2150 4147 0.095 4,930.60 11,868.64 0.2 2300 6447 0.148 4,930.80 12,564.73 0.2 2443 8890 0.204 4,931.00 13,580.22 0.2 2614 11504 0.264 4,931.20 14,833.57 0.2 2840 14345 0.329 4,931.40 15,307.82 0.2 3014 17359 0.399 4,931.60 15,783.04 0.2 3109 20468 0.470 4,931.80 16,259.16 0.2 3204 23672 0.543 4,932.00 16,736.63 0.2 3299 26971 0.619 4,932.20 17,217.37 0.2 3395 30367 0.697 4,932.40 17,702.50 0.2 3492 33858 0.777 4,932.60 18,193.55 0.2 3589 37448 0.860 4,932.80 18,690.98 0.2 3688 41136 0.944 4,933.00 19,195.42 0.2 3789 44925 1.031 4,933.20 19,707.02 0.2 3890 48815 1.121 4,933.40 20,226.11 0.2 3993 52808 1.212 4,933.60 20,752.19 0.2 4098 56906 1.306 4,933.80 21,284.11 0.2 4204 61109 1.403 4,934.00 21,821.91 0.2 4310 65420 1.502 4,934.20 22,365.61 0.2 4419 69839 1.603 4,934.40 22,915.40 0.2 4528 74367 1.707 4,934.60 23,471.25 0.2 4639 79005 1.814 4,934.80 24,033.40 0.2 4750 83755 1.923 4,935.00 24,601.69 0.2 4863 88619 2.034 4,935.20 25,175.76 0.2 4978 93596 2.149 4,935.40 25,755.35 0.2 5093 98689 2.266 4,935.60 26,341.37 0.2 5210 103899 2.385 4,935.80 26,934.65 0.2 5327 109227 2.507 4,936.00 27,533.98 0.2 5447 114673 2.633 4,936.20 28,140.50 0.2 5567 120241 2.760 4,936.40 28,752.53 0.2 5689 125930 2.891 4,936.60 29,372.46 0.2 5812 131742 3.024 4,936.80 29,998.65 0.2 5937 137679 3.161 4,937.00 30,651.84 0.2 6065 143744 3.300 4,937.20 31,315.16 0.2 6197 149941 3.442 4,937.40 31,983.98 0.2 6330 156270 3.587 4,937.60 32,659.16 0.2 6464 162735 3.736 4,937.80 33,341.16 0.2 6600 169335 3.887 4,938.00 34,030.32 0.2 6737 176072 4.042 4,938.20 34,726.83 0.2 6876 182947 4.200 4,938.40 35,431.57 0.2 7016 189963 4.361 4,938.60 36,152.78 0.2 7158 197121 4.525 4,938.80 36,892.19 0.2 7304 204426 4.693 4,939.00 37,648.14 0.2 7454 211880 4.864 4,939.20 38,448.14 0.2 7610 219489 5.039 4,939.40 39,248.14 0.2 7770 227259 5.217 ORIFICE RATING CURVE 100-yr Orifice PROJECT: 939-001 DATE: 12/1/15 BY: ATC ORIFICE RATING Orifice Dia (in) 7.25 Orifice Area (sf) 0.29 Orifice invert (ft) 4930.00 Orifice Coefficient 0.65 Outlet Stage release (FT) (CFS) 4930.00 0.00 4930.20 0.00 4930.40 0.00 4930.60 0.00 4930.80 1.06 4931.00 1.25 4931.20 1.42 4931.40 1.57 4931.60 1.70 4931.80 1.83 4932.00 1.95 4932.20 2.06 4932.40 2.17 4932.60 2.27 4932.80 2.36 4933.00 2.46 4933.20 2.55 4933.40 2.63 4933.60 2.72 4933.80 2.80 4934.00 2.88 4934.20 2.95 4934.40 3.03 4934.60 3.10 4934.80 3.17 4935.00 3.24 4935.20 3.31 4935.40 3.38 4935.60 3.44 4935.80 3.51 4936.00 3.57 4936.20 3.63 4936.40 3.69 4936.60 3.75 4936.80 3.81 4937.00 3.87 4937.20 3.93 4937.40 3.98 4937.60 4.04 4937.80 4.09 4938.00 4.15 4938.20 4.20 4938.40 4.26 4938.60 4.31 4938.80 4.36 4939.00 4.41 4939.20 4.46 APPENDIX G EROSION CONTROL REPORT Capstone Cottages Final Erosion Control Report EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT. It should be noted, however, that any such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction, or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed, removed or modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 – Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways and inlet protection at existing and proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor. Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on the Utility Plans. The Final Plans will contain a full-size Erosion Control sheet as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere to, the applicable requirements outlined in the Development Agreement for the development. Also, the Site Contractor for this project will be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division – Stormwater Program, prior to any earth disturbance activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive StormWater Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs. APPENDIX H LARIMER COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE-LINCOLN CHANNEL 1 Aaron Cvar From: Traci Shambo <shambotl@co.larimer.co.us> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 5:18 PM To: Aaron Cvar Cc: tshambo@larimer.org; Nick Haws Subject: Re: Capstone Project Aaron - Yes we are in agreement with the release rate that is consistent with the master plan. Thanks for checking. On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Aaron Cvar <aaron@northernengineering.com> wrote: Hello Traci, I have attached the preliminary drainage sketch that we discussed today, as well as portions of the City of Fort Collins review comments relevant to site drainage. Specifically, the City would like your confirmation regarding the Lincoln Channel and release rate into the channel (COFC Comment # 5, January 2014; Comment #2, January 2015), and wants to ensure that Larimer County is in agreement with allowing the development to release at the Dry Creek Basin Master Plan rate of 0.20 cfs per acre (2-year historic rate). So we would like your confirmation that Larimer County is in agreement with our preliminary design, using the Master Plan release rate for the site of 0.20 cfs per acre. Thank you! Aaron Cvar, PE NORTHERN ENGINEERING 970-568-5401 -- Traci Shambo, P.E. Larimer County Engineering Department 200 West Oak St, Suite 3000 P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 MAP POCKET DRAINAGE EXHIBITS 4939.40 4.51 ----------------------------------------------------------- Outlet_Overall 97.23 4.57 4.95 0.718 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 97.23 4.57 4.95 0.718 SWMM 5 Page 2 Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 1.00 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff SWMM 5 Page 1 1/(2tanq)* [At/Yt)-W] (ft) Design Discharge (cfs) February 1, 2016 INPUT CALCULATE At=Q/V (ft) Expansion Factor 1/(2tanq) (From Figure MD-23 or MD-24) Spec Length of Riprap (ft) (in/hr) Basin(s) ATC March 1, 2016 Q  C f  C i  A (min) 10-yr Tc (min) 100-yr Tc (min) 11No0.25 0.25 0.31 120 2.00% 13.8 13.8 12.8 520 1.00% 2.00 4.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 18 18 17 22No0.95 0.95 1.00 25 2.00% 1.1 1.1 0.7 460 1.00% 2.00 3.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 33No0.25 0.25 0.31 25 2.00% 6.3 6.3 5.8 790 1.00% 2.00 6.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 13 13 12 44No0.25 0.25 0.31 70 2.00% 10.6 10.6 9.8 250 1.00% 2.00 2.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 13 13 12 55No0.25 0.25 0.31 265 2.00% 20.5 20.5 19.0 410 1.00% 2.00 3.4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 24 24 22 6a 6a No 0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 1030 1.00% 2.00 8.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10 10 10 6b 6b No 0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 280 1.00% 2.00 2.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 6c 6c No 0.95 0.95 1.00 25 2.00% 1.1 1.1 0.7 0 1.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 77No0.25 0.25 0.31 95 2.00% 12.3 12.3 11.4 0 1.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 12 12 11 88No0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 188 1.00% 2.00 1.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 99No0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 416 1.00% 2.00 3.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 10 10 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 120 2.00% 2.4 2.4 1.6 193 1.00% 2.00 1.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 11 11 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 35 1.00% 2.00 0.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 12 12 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 40 2.00% 1.4 1.4 0.9 190 1.00% 2.00 1.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 13 13 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 80 2.00% 11.3 11.3 10.5 0 1.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 11 11 10 14a 14a No 0.25 0.25 0.31 25 1.50% 6.9 6.9 6.5 330 1.00% 2.00 2.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10 10 9 14b 14b No 0.25 0.25 0.31 25 1.20% 7.5 7.5 7.0 245 1.00% 2.00 2.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10 10 9 14c 14c No 0.25 0.25 0.31 75 2.00% 10.9 10.9 10.2 130 1.00% 2.00 1.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 12 12 11 14d 14d No 0.25 0.25 0.31 95 1.40% 13.8 13.8 12.9 110 1.00% 2.00 0.9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 15 15 14 14e 14e No 0.25 0.25 0.31 319 0.68% 32.3 32.3 30.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 32 32 30 DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS Gutter Flow Swale Flow Design Point Basin Overland Flow ATC March 1, 2016 Time of Concentration (Equation RO-4)  3 1 1 . 87 1 . 1 * S Ti C Cf L   10 49827 1.14 0.76 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.76 0.76 0.96 73% 11 1931 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 1.00 90% 12 15333 0.35 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.87 0.87 1.00 88% 13 26063 0.60 0.28 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.28 0.62 0.62 0.77 52% 14a 84942 1.95 0.950 0.150 0.00 0.10 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.82 57% 14b 43707 1.00 0.600 0.083 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.73 0.73 0.91 67% 14c 48787 1.12 0.600 0.083 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.68 0.68 0.85 60% 14d 24494 0.56 0.050 0.050 0.10 0.00 0.36 0.50 0.50 0.62 33% 14e 83756 1.92 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.25 0.25 0.31 0% DEVELOPED COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS Runoff Coefficients are taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, Table 3-3. % Impervious taken from UDFCD USDCM, Volume I. 10-year Cf = 1.00 March 1, 2016