Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage StudyJANDA/ARK CIVILOENGINEERING SURVEYING rk•co.com 0.871.9494 • Fax: 970.871.9299 • ndma 774943 • 141 91h Str. • Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477 DRAINAGE STUDY FOR GRHD BATTLEMENT MESA MOB ORIGINAL DATE: DECEMBER 17, 2012 REVISED: N/A P.O. Box 774943 141 9th Street Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477 (970) 871-9494 www.Landmark-CO.com Prepared by: Deborah Spaustat, P.E. a 4 Drainage Report -- GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 4 PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS 5 CONCLUSIONS 8 LIMITATIONS 8 REFERENCES 10 APPENDIX A Hydrologic Calculations APPENDIX B APPENDIX C FIGURES Hydraulic Calculations Detention/Stormwater Quality FEMA FIRM Map Existing Conditions Drainage Plan Existing Conditions Drainage Basins w/ Google Earth Contours Proposed Conditions Drainage Plan Storm Sewer Profiles LANDMARK] CONSULTANTS, INC. `IC._ J Drainage Report — GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION This report is an analysis of the stormwater runoff and details the drainage structures required for the proposed Battlement Mesa Medical Office Building (the project). This report includes all the base data, methods, assumptions and calculations used by Landmark Consultants, Inc. (Landmark) to design the stormwater management system for the project. Landmark prepared this report in accordance with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Drainage Criteria Manual (Volumes 1-3) for the purpose of designing the storm water infrastructure required by the project at the time of this report. This report may not be used by other parties without the express written consent of Landmark. If the location or configuration of the improvements changes, Landmark should be contacted to determine if this report needs updating. The facts and opinions expressed in this report are based on Landmark's understanding of the project and data gathered from: • Site visits (July and October 2012) • NRCS soil maps • Detailed field survey by Bookcliff Survey Services, Inc., January 21, 2009 • Offsite contour data from Google Earth • References listed at the end of this report The subject property is approximately 11.807 acres of undeveloped developed land located on Lot 1 of Town Center Filing no. 6 in Garfield County, Colorado. It is part of the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development and is zoned Business Center. It is located at the corner of Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive. A significant drainage way borders the site to the north and is contained in a 60 -foot drainage and utility easement. It conveys onsite and offsite runoff from east to west and eventually discharges to the Colorado River. No other easements exist on site. The Project proposes to construct a medical office building with a footprint of approximately 24,100 -square feet and approximately 142,000 -SF of asphalt driveway, parking and sidewalks. DRAINAGE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY Landmark prepared this report in accordance with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Districts (UDFCD) Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3. The methods used by Landmark are described below and the actual calculations are presented in the Appendices. Landmark used the 2 -year, 24 hour storm to analyze the minor storm event and the 100 -year, 24 hour storm to analyze the major storm event. 1 NDcarsuMARK]i K Drainage Report —GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB SMALL BASIN PEAK RUNOFF ANALYSIS Landmark used the Rational Method to determine the peak runoff of small basins (less than 160 -acres) and to design the on-site storm water runoff infrastructure associated with this project. The Rational Formula is: Q = C r A Eq -1 Where: Q= runoff, cubic feet per second' C = runoff coefficient, dimensionless i = rainfall intensity, inches per hour A = basin area, acres Runoff Coefficient (C)—is the ratio of excess precipitation to the total precipitation. Landmark determined the runoff coefficient based on the total basin imperviousness; NRCS hydrologic soil group (NRCS HSG); and the design storm return period. This procedure is in accordance with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's practices (Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1, 2001). Rainfall Intensity (i)—is determined from local rainfall data in the form of intensity - duration -frequency (IDF) curves at a time equal to the time of concentration. The IDF curve for Battlement Mesa was generated based on methodology presented in Urban Drainage and published isopluvial maps. A copy of the IDF curve is included in Appendix A. Time of Concentration—is the amount of time is takes a water droplet to travel from the most hydraulically remote point in the basin to the point of study (outfall of the basin). The time of concentration is the resultant of overland flow time plus travel time flow. The overland flow time is assumed to occur as sheet flow or very shallow flow with a maximum flow length up to 300 feet. Travel time flow occurs as channel flow or as a combined flow condition. The time of concentration is calculated by: Tc=T;+Tt Eq -2 Dimensionally, Q is in units of ac*in/hr; however, since the rate of ac*in/hr differs from cubic feet per second (cfs) by less than one percent, the units of cfs are used. 2 I NDMARK, COMrSULTaHTS,lNC. Drainage Report – GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB Where: Tc = time of concentration, minutes T, = initial, inlet, or overland flow time, minutes (300 -foot maximum) Tt = channel flow/combination flow travel time, minutes Overland flow time can be calculated by: T;=1.$ (1.1-K) L1/2/ S1/3 Eq -3 Where: T; = initial, inlet, or overland flow time, minutes K = flow resistance coefficient Lo = length of overland flow, (300 -foot maximum) S = average watershed slope (percent) Channel flow/combination flow occurs in any defined channel, swale, gutter or pipe plus any overland flow time which occurs at a length greater than 300 feet and is calculated by: T, = L / (CvSw112) Eq -4 Where: Tt = time of channel flow/combination flow, minutes L = length of channel, feet Cv = conveyance coefficient Sw = watercourse slope, foot/foot Time of concentration is subject to a minimum time to account for initial abstractions in small basins—usually 5 minutes for urbanized basins, and 10 minutes for non -urbanized basins (less than 20% impervious). CULVERT DESIGN Landmark used the methods published in "Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts" FHWA HDS-5 (2001) to design and analyze the culverts for this project. DETENTION DESIGN LCI used the modified Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) method (Airport Drainage, 1966) to size the stormwater detention. The method approximates an inflow hydrograph by setting it equal to the Rational Method total runoff for the return period being investigated. The outflow hydrograph is based on the allowable release rate for the pond. The maximum allowable release rate was determined by limiting the pond release to the historic peak flow at the point of discharge. The modified FAA method equation can be written as: 3 L&NDMARK] CG' WITANT3, mC Drainage Report —GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB V(ts) = C*A*i*ts-O*ts Eq -6 Where: V(ts) = Volume, cubic feet C = basin imperviousness, dimensionless A = basin area, acres i = rainfall intensity at time ts, inches/hour ts = time from start of inflow, ts 0 = outflow, cfs intensity, i is written in terms of ts for local rainfall then the equation is maximized to find the maximum pond storage requirement for the return period. For this site Landmark detained flow from the proposed developed portion only (Design Point 4). The allowable release rate for the pond was set as the historical 25 -year peak flow for the contributing drainage basin to the pond. The detention pond also provides water quality treatment for the project by providing a water quality storage volume and a sand filter bottom with a perforated collection pipe. The water quality portion of the pond design was based on the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's "Sand Filter Extended Detention Basin". In this report the term "historic condition" refers to the conditions of the site at the time of this report and may also be referred to as "pre -development condition" or "existing condition". Currently the site is an 11.807 -acre parcel of undeveloped land. The site currently contains no structures and no utilities, however water, sewer, telephone, electric and fiber optic lines are located in both Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive. A 42 -inch culvert conveys water from the major drainage under Spencer Parkway. Curb and gutter in both Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive capture runoff from the street and the project property and convey it to the southwest corner of the property where it crosses Sipprelle Drive and continues west on Spencer Parkway to a curb inlet and storm sewer system that discharges to a different drainage west of the site. That drainage and the major drainage located on site merge at a point downstream below the golf course. There is no valley pan at the intersection of Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive. The soils onsite are a combination of Ildefonso stony loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B), Potts loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B), and Potts-Ildefonso complex (Hydrologic Soil Group B). The NRCS 4 NDMARKJ ta+u runts.I C. K ? Drainage Report — GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB web soil survey map is included in Appendix A and shows the location of each soil type. Landmark used a Hydrologic Soil Group B for all calculations. Landmark delineated the existing drainage basins as shown on the attached "Existing Conditions Drainage Plan". Runoff was calculated at two design point locations: DP1 — Combined runoff from Basins Hi and H2 leaving the site at the intersection of Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive. DP2 — Runoff from Basin H3, which is runoff from the site that contributes to the total flow in the major drainage. This basin was created to calculate flow from the portions of the site affected by the project in order to compare pre and post project flows for detention purposes. The north border of the basin was chosen as the centerline of the drainage. Areas of the property north of basin H3 are not affected by the project and were not included in calculations for this drainage study. FEMA FLOODPLAIN Landmark consulted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Garfield County, Colorado, Community Panel Number 0802051315B which shows the major drainage as being included in a special flood hazard area (SFHA), Zone A. Zone A are areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood event with no base flood elevation determined. A LOMR dated October 1, 1992 removed this drainage and several other drainages from the SFHA based on minimal resulting topwidth of the 100 -year floodplain and depth of flow. Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc performed a drainage study dated June 2007 for the Town Center, Filing 6 Battlement Mesa PUD, which established "the natural 100 -year floodplain for the ephemeral stream channel that crosses the Town Center". This delineation was for use in site planning and determining building envelopes. Although the drainage is not contained in a regulatory floodplain it is practical to restrict all development to outside of the 100 -year floodplain boundary developed by SGM in the 2007 report. The boundary is shown on the attached "Ex Drainage Plan" exhibit. The Project proposes to construct a medical office building with a footprint of approximately 24,100 -square foot and approximately 142,000 -SF of asphalt driveway, parking and sidewalks. Landmark delineated ten developed drainage basins as shown on the attached "Proposed Conditions Drainage Plan". Table 1 summarizes the pre and post development hydrologic characteristics of each drainage basin: 5 [ LANDMARK] comunv n.fNc. Table 1: Drainage Basin Hydrologic Characteristics Pre Development ("H" prefix) Post Development ("D" Prefix) Basin Area Imperv. Tc Q2 Q25 Q100 Area Imperv. Tc Q2 0.25 0100 (acre) (%) (min) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (acre) (%) (min) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1 2.27 30% 20.8 0.5 2.2 3.5 2.51 37% 20.8 0.7 2.6 4.0 2 11.13 5% 35.2 0.2 5.7 10.3 0.71 46% 11.2 0.3 1.0 1.6 3b 0.98 37% 16.5 0.3 1.1 1.8 3c 1.00 85% 5.0 1.4 3.1 4.2 3d 1.22 79% 13.9 1.0 2.4 3.3 3e 0.70 79% 8.4 0.7 1.7 2.3 3f 0.43 43% 5.0 0.2 0.8 1.2 3g 1 0.27 20% 10.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 3h 0.57 2% 13.5 0.0 0.5 0.8 3 1.96 2% 15.7 0.1 1.5 2.7 6.98 2% 29.3 0.1 3.8 6.9 Total 15.37 8% 15.37 28% Drainage Report - GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB The Project will increase the imperviousness of the total site from 8% to 28%. In addition to the design points 1 and 2, Landmark designated three more design points where runoff flows were calculated for the purpose of designing drainage infrastructure. All five design points are described below: DP1 - Combined runoff from Basins 01 and D2 leaving the site at the intersection of Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive. Same location as historical. DP2 - Runoff from Basin 03 combined with discharge from the detention pond, which leaves the site via the existing 42inch culvert. Same location as historical. DP3 - Combined runoff from basins D3g and D3d for the purpose of sizing the south storm sewer system. DP4 - Combined runoff from basins D3b, D3c, D3d, D3e, D3f, D3g and D3h for the purpose of sizing the detention pond. DP5 - Combined runoff from basins D3e and D3h for the purpose of designing the northeast storm sewer system and swale. Table 2 summarizes the pre and post development hydrologic characteristics of each design point: 6 LANDMARK] [cr+Suariwis.. Drainage Report - GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB Table 2: Design Point Hydrologic Characteristics Pre Development ("H" prefix Post Development ("D" Prefix) Design Point Area Imperv. Tc Q2 Q25 0100 Area Imperv. Tc 02 Q25 Q100 (acre) (%) (min) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (acre) (%) (min) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1 13.41 9% 20.8 1.0 10.2 17.7 3.22 39% 20.8 0.9 3.4 5.2 2 1.96 2% 15.7 0.1 1.5 2.7 NA NA NA 1.6 6.2 17.5 3 1.49 68% 12.9 1.0 2.6 3.7 4 5.17 2% 37.5 0.1 2.4 4.4 5.17 58% 16.5 2.5 7.3 10.6 5 1.27 i 44% 13.5 0.5 1.7 2.6 Notes 1. Developed flow to design point 2 includes direct runoff from basin D3 plus discharge from the detention pond outlet 2 . Predevelopement flow to design point 4 is for detention pond calculations only The project proposes to divert runoff from a portion of undeveloped land upstream of the project on the same property north to the major drainage increasing the runoff to DP2 and decreasing the total runoff to DP1. The increase in flow to DP2 is due to a diversion of runoff from undeveloped areas only. The intersection of Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive does not contain any stormwater infrastructure to convey runoff. Reducing the flow to this intersection decreases the risk of flooding during major storm events. The 2007 SGM Drainage Report used HEC -HMS to create a model for estimating the 100 -year flow in the major drainage. Landmark re-created this HEC -HMS model using the same parameters presented in that report in order to evaluate the effects of increasing the area of the drainage basin as proposed by this project. The Battlement Mesa MOB is contained in basin A2 in the model. Landmark increased the basin area from 0.0533 -square miles to 0.0613 -square miles - an increase of 222,597 -square feet - and adjusted the SCS curve number to reflect the addition area with a CN of 80. Although the area is undeveloped at the moment Landmark assumed an imperviousness of 58%, the same as for the current project, in order to be conservative. The model predicted a 100 -year flow of 88.9-cfs, an increase of 5.7-cfs, to the major drainage due to the proposed diversion. Results from Landmark's HEC -HMS model are included in Appendix A. Landmark evaluated the existing 42 -inch culvert in Spencer Parkway and determined that it has the capacity to handle this increase in flow in the 100 -year event. The calculation predicts a headwater surface elevation of 5464.76 leaving a freeboard of 0.57 -feet before the road overtops. Supporting calculations are included in Appendix B. Three storm sewer systems are proposed to collect runoff from the parking area and driveways and convey it to a detention pond located in the northwest corner of the lot. The storm systems all have the capacity to pass the 100 -year storm. Roof drains will be connected into the storm 7 D a� CQ`+SUtian75. �+:C. Drainage Report—GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB systems and have been accounted for in the calculations. The southern storm system includes a stub for future development to connect to. The full capacity of the southern storm system is 14.85-cfs. Supporting calculations are included in Appendix B. Profiles of the storm sewer systems are included in the Figures section. The detention pond receives runoff from the majority of the developed portion of the lot and discharges to the major drainage just upstream of Spencer Parkway. The detention pond is Sized to limit discharge during the 25 -year storm to the pre -development rates from the contributing area. The pond will be constructed with a sand filter bottom with a perforated underdrain and the elevations of the orifice holes in the concrete outlet are set to provide the required water quality capture volume (WQCV) prior to discharge through the outlet. The WQCV was calculated using the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's standards for a sand filter detention basin with a 40 -hour drain time. The pond outlet is a CDOT Type D inlet with eight 4 -inch orifice holes and a close mesh grate. The close mesh grate and the 18" HDPE outflow pipe have the capacity to pass the 100 -year storm. An emergency spillway is also provided in case the sand -filter or outlet becomes clogged. Detention and WQCV calculations as well as details of the pond and outlet structure are included in Appendix C. The stormwater system design presented in this report effectively and safely conveys runoff away from structures and into swales and culverts. iThe proposed improvements result in an,/ increase in imperviousness of 20%, however, the proposed detention pond will detain runoff from developed portions of the site to the 25 -year historical rate. A cutoff swale will be constructed that will redirect runoff from upstream areas to the major drainage. The existing 42 -inch culvert has the capacity to handle the resulting increase in runoff and the decrease in flow to design point 1 will reduce the risk of flooding at the intersection of Spencer Parkway and Sipprelle Drive. The detention pond will also provide water quality for the site. All culverts and swales as well as the detention/water quality pond will require routine inspection and maintenance to ensure they are functioning properly. Maintenance of the detention/water quality pond should include annual inspections for hydraulic performance and annual scarifying of the top 3 inches of the sand filter by raking. It is recommended that the top 3 -inches of sand be removed and replaced every two to five years depending on observed hydraulic performance. 1'.tI,F.?i Basin delineations, areas, and soil characteristics are based on the best available information listed in the INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION section of the report. Actual conditions may vary. Landmark's assumptions, recommendations and opinions are based on this information and the 8 LANDMARK) t Drainage Report — GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB proposed site plan. If any of the data is found to be inaccurate or the proposed site plan is changed, Landmark should be contacted to review this report and make any necessary revisions. The 100 -year event is defines as the rainfall, runoff, or flooding event which has a probability of 1 -percent of occurring in any given year based on available data. The 100 -year event could occur in successive years or even multiple times in a single year. Events greater than the 100 - year event or lesser events combined with malfunctioning drainage works can occur on rare occasion and may cause flooding damage. 9 LNDMARKRKj CCNSU1r. C. � Drainage Report—GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB 1. Drainage Criteria Manual (Volumes 1 — 3), Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, June 2001 2. Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels (HEC 14), Federal Highway Administration, September 1983 3. Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts (HDS-5), Federal Highway Administration, September 2001 4. Procedures for Determining Peak Flows in Colorado, Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1984 5. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (TR -55), Natural Resource Conservation Service, June 1986 6. Town Center, Filing 6 Battlement MESA PUD Preliminary Plan Section 4:80 Drainage Report, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., June 2007. 7. Unified Land Use Resolution Section 7-206 Drainage, Garfield County, 2008. 8. Battlement Mesa Central Core Preliminary Stormwater Detention Analysis, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., May 20, 2008. 10 NDMARKJ i-�CONSULTANTS .INC. APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS 39° 27' 22" 39° 26' 18" 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 O 0 0 Hydrologic Soil Group -Rifle Are, COforado, Parts of GaFfield and Mesa Counties (Battlement Mesa Medical Office Building) 107° 59' 39' 3Fi 583 S v 755700 756000 756300 756600 Map Scale: 1:14,300 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. 756900 Meters 0 150 300 600 900 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 USDA Natural Resources MIN Conservation Service 757200 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 757500 757890 758100 758400 107° 59' 41" 11/27/2012 Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (Battlement Mesa Medical Office Building) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Soil Ratings 0 A A/D B/D Q C El C/D Map Scale: 1:14,300 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOlwere mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available. Not rated or not avaikable The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Political Features imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting Q Cities of map unit boundaries may be evident. D Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation i ++ Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National roop?rative Soil Survey 11/27/2012 Pare 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group–Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Battlement Mesa Medical Office Building Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group-- Summary by Map Unit — Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (C0683) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOl 33 56 58 Ildefonso stony loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes B Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes B Potts-Ildefonso complex, 12 to 25 B percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest Description 280.6 289.9 218.5 35.6% 36.7% 27.7% 789.0 100.0% Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, BID, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 11)27/2012 Page3of4 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF TABLE RO-5 Runoff Coefficients, C Percentage Imperviousness Type C and D NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups 2 -yr 5 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 0% 0.04 0.15 0.25 0.37 0.44 0.50 5% 0.08 0.18 0.28 0.39 0.46 0.52 10% 0.11 0.21 0.30 0.41 0.47 0.53 15% 0.14 0.24 0.32 0.43 0.49 0.54 20% 0.17 0.26 0.34 0.44 0.50 0.55 25% 0.20 0.28 0.36 0.46 0.51 0.56 30% 0.22 0.30 0.38 0.47 0.52 0.57 35% 0.25 0.33 0.40 0.48 0.53 0.57 40% 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.50 0.54 0.58 45% 0.31 0.37 0.44 0.51 0.55 0.59 50% 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.57 0.60 55% 0.37 0.43 0.48 0,55 0.58 0.62 60% 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.57 0.60 0.63 65% 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.59 0.62 0.65 70% 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.62 0.65 0.68 75% 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.68 0.71 80% 0.60 0.63 0.66 0.70 0.72 0.74 85% 0.66 0.68 0.71 0.75 0.77 0.79 90% 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.83 95% 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.88 0.89 100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 Type B NRCS Hydrologic Soils Group 0% 0.02 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.30 0.35 5% 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.28 0.33 0.38 10% 0.06 0.14 0.22 0.31 0.36 0.40 15% 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.38 0.42 20% 0.12 0.20 0.27 0.35 0.40 0.44 25% 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.41 0.46 30% 0.18 0.25 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.47 35% 0.20 0.27 0.34 0.41 0.44 0.48 40% 0.23 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 45% 026 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.48 0.51 50% 0.29 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.49 0.52 55% 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.51 0.54 60% 0.37 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.54 0.56 65% 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.57 0.59 70% 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.58 0.60 0.62 75% 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.64 0.66 80% 0.57 0.59 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.70 85% 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.75 90% 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.81 95% 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 06/2001 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RO-11 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF TABLE RO-5 (CONTINUED) Runoff Coefficients, C Percentage Imperviousness Type A NRCS Hydrologic Soils Group 2 -yr 5 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 0% 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.20 5% 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.24 10% 0.00 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.24 0.28 15% 0.02 0.10 0.17 0.23 0.27 0.30 20% 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.26 0.30 0.33 25% 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.29 0.32 0.35 30% 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.34 0.37 35% 0.16 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.36 0.39 40% 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.38 0.41 45% 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.37 0.40 0.43 50% 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.45 55% 0.29 0.33 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.47 60% 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.47 0.50 65% 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.53 70% 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.54 0.56 75% 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.61 80% 0.54 0.56 0.60 0.63 0.64 0.66 85% 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.70 0.72 90% 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.79 95% 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.86 100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 - 0.95 0.96 06/2001 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RO-12 IDF TABLE FOR ZONE TWO IN THE STATE OF COLORADO Zone 2; San Juan, Upper Rio Grande, Upper Colorado, and Gunnison River Basins, and Green River Basin below Confluence with the Yampa River Project: Parachute Enter the elevation at the center of the watershed: Elev = 5,490 (input) 1. Rainfall Depth -Duration -Frequency Table Enter the 6 -hour and 24-hour rainfall depths from the NOAA Atlas 2 Volume 111 in rightmost blue columns Return Period Rainfall Depth in Inches at Time Duration 5 -min 10 -min 15 -min 30 -min 1 -hr 2 -hr 3 -hr 6 -hr 24 -hr (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) output output output output output output output input input 2 -yr 0.18 0.28 0.36 0.49 0.62 0.72 0.78 0.90 1.20 5 -yr 0.26 0.40 0.50 0.70 0.88 0.96 1.01 1.10 1.60 10 -yr 0.30 0.47 0.60 0.83 1.05 1.17 1.25 1.40 1.80 25 -yr 0.37 0.57 0.72 1.00 1.27 1.38 1.46 1.60 2.20 50 -yr 0.43 0.66 0.84 1.16 1.47 1.58 1.66 1.80 2.40 100 -yr 0.48 0.74 0.94 1.31 1.66 1.77 1.85 2.00 2.60 Note: Refer to NOAA Atlas 2 Volume 111 isopluvial maps for 6 -hr and 24 -hr rainfall depths. 2. Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency Table Return Period Rainfall Intensity in Inches Per Hour at Time Duration 5 -min 10 -min 15 -min 30 -min 1 -hr 2 -hr 3 -hr 6 -hr 24 -hr (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) output output output output output output output output output 2 -yr 2.17 1.69 1.42 0.99 0.62 0.36 0.26 0.15 0.05 5 -yr 3.07 2.38 2.01 1.39 0.88 0.48 0.34 0.18 0.07 10 -yr 3.66 2.84 2.40 1.66 1.05 0.59 0.42 0.23 0.08 25 -yr 4.40 3.42 2.88 2.00 1.27 0.69 0.49 0.27 0.09 50 -yr 5.10 3.96 3.34 2.32 1.47 0.79 0.55 0.30 0.10 100 -yr 5.76 4.47 3.77 2.62 1.66 0.89 0.62 0.33 0.11 UD-Rainfall-Parachute.xls, Z-2 12/14/2012, 2:55 PM RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF ANALYSIS - BASINS Job ff Job Name Designed by: Checked by: 2152-003 Date: Battlement Mesa MOB Revised: EG RS September 28, 2012 MARK 0ONSULTAN7S,INC. CIVIC ENGINEERING SURVEYING 970,871 9494 • 1188970.871.9299 • wwwlmdmwk-co.com P.O. B0.. 77.943 • 141 98158. • 5 ..,lwol SP4'^90. Colw..dv 80.77 1-11 - Predevetopment BASIN NFU I I IME OF CONCENTFFiSTION RES JL I S Area. sf Area, sf Area. ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel FIowlAdd't Travel Time Tc, min Event C i, inlhr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 70268.42 1.61 2% B Surface !mom0.02 Land Surface Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.18 1.2 2.27 0.5 Asphalt/Pavement 28812.3 0,66 100% Length, ft 300 Length, ft 110 5 -YR 0.25 1.8 2.27 1.0 Other 0.00 0.00 0% Slope, percent Slope, percent 7.2000 Slope, FVft 0.0720 10 -YR 0.32 2.1 2.27 1.5 Other 0.00 0.00 0% Runoff Coeffici Runoff Coeffici 0.162 Conveyance C 2.5 Final Tc, min 20.8 25 -YR 0.39 2.5 2.27 2.2 Other 0.00 0.00 0% Velocity, Ws Vetocity,Ws 0.7 484871.9 11.13 5% 99080.72 2.27 30% Ti, min= 15.4 Tt, min= 2.7 100 -YR 0.47 3.3 2.27 3.5 Channel Ftow/Add'I Travel Time Channel FlowJAdd'I Travel Time Land Surface Land Surface td Areas and Shallow Swales Length,ft 712 ope, . Conveyance C 20 Velocity, Ws 4.4 Tt, min= 2.7 H2 - Predevetopment BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area. sf Area. ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Adds Travel Time Tc, min Event C 1, mlhr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 470902.8 10.81 2% i B Surface Inver,0.02 B Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.02 0.9 11.13 0.2 As.halvPavement 13969.06 0.32 190% Length. ft 300 Length, ft 642 5 -YR 0.10 1.3 11.13 1.4 Roof 0% 0.00 0% Slope, percent 7,4000 Slope, ftfft 0.0740 10 -YR 0.19 1.5 11.13 3.2 Landscaping 85544.63 1.96 2% 0.00 0% 3.8 Runoff Coeffici 0.162 Conveyance C 2.5 Final Tc, min 35.2 25 -YR 0.25 1.9 11.13 5.7 Other 0.00 0% Velocity, Ws 0.7 484871.9 11.13 5% Ti, min= 15.3 Tt, min= 15.7 100 -YR 0.38 2.4 11.13 10.3 Channel Ftow/Add'I Travel Time Land Surface rd Areas and Shallow Swales Length, ft 473 Slope, tuft 0.0090 Conveyance C. 20 Velocity, Ws 1.9 Tt, min= 4.2 T-13 - Predevetopment BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Surface Impery Flow 0.02 Channel Flow/Add! Land Surface Travel Time Grassed Waterways Tc, min Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc, min 15.7 Event 2 -YR C 0.02 I, in/hr 1.4 A. acres 1.96 R, cfs 0.1 Native Grass 85544.63 1.96 2% B AsphalUPavcment 0.00 0.00 100% 0% Length, ft Slope. percent Runoff Coeffici 236 10.2000 0.162 Length, ft Slope. ftfft Conveyance C 758 0.0570 15 5 -YR 0,08 2.0 1.96 0.3 Roof 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.17 0.26 2.4 2.9 1,96 1.96 0.8 1.5 Landscaping 0.00 0% Other 0.00 0% Ti, min= 12.2 Velocity, itis Tt, min= 3.6 3.5 85544.63 1.96 2% 100 -YR 0.36 3.8 1.96 2.7 -7 2152-7110.1 I ladro Calcs-P111-1>NLY.,k Banns 1 of4 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF ANALYSIS - BASINS Job # Job Name Designed by: Checked by: 2152-003 Date: Battlement Mesa MOB Revised: EG RS September 28, 2012 MARK CONSULTANTS. INC. - CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING Phonal 970.871,9494 • Fa-, 970-871.9299 • ww,-,londmcrk.co.com P.O. Bux 774943 - 141 9r1. 5. • 5,e ..Loin 51.r:,,y. C.1.4.41... 110477 Df - Development BASIN INPU IM S ONCENTRATION RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow ChannerFlowfAdd'I Travel Time Tc, min Event C 1. inlhr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 70375.01 1.62 2% B Surface Imper 1 0.02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc. min 20.8 2 -YR 0.22 1.2 2.51 0.7 Asphalt/Pavement 39000.73 0.90 100% Length, ft Slope, percent Runoff Coeffici 300 7 2000 0.162 Length, ft Slope, tuft Conveyance C 110 -- 0.0720 2.5 5 -YR 0.28 1.8 2.51 1.2 Root 11927.81 0.00 90% 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.35 0.41 2.1 2.5 2,51 2.51 1.8 2.6 GraveliSand 10755.89 0.00 40% Landscape Riprap 0.162 0.00 25% Final Tc, min 11.2 Velocity, fits 0.7 3.3 0.71 1.0 Riprap 2274.1 109375.7 2.51 37% Ti, min= 15.4 Tt, min= 2.7 100 -YR 0.49 3.3 2.51 4.0 0.75 Channel Flow/Add'I Travel Time 30805.19 0.71 46% Land Surface =d Areas and Shallow Swales Length ft 712 Slope, ftlft 0.0490 Conveyance C 20 Velocity, fits 4,4 Tt. min- 2.7 D2 - Development BASIN -INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area. sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel FIowfAddl Travel Time Tc. min • Event C r, inlhr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 16836.13 0.39 2% B Surface Impery 0.02 Land Surface >d Areas and Shallow Sva Minimum Tc. min 5.0 2 -YR 0.27 1.6 0.71 0.3 AAphaltfPavement 13969.06 0.32 100% Length, ft Slope, percent 35 3,0000 Length. ft Slope, ft/ft 473 0.0090 5 -YR 0.33 2.3 0.71 0.5 Root 11927.81 0.00 90% 10 -YR 0.39 2.7 0.71 0.8 GravellSand 10755.89 0.00 40% Landscape Runoff Coeffici 0.162 Conveyance C 20 Final Tc, min 11.2 25 -YR 0.45 3.3 0.71 1.0 Riprap 2274.1 0.00 25% Velocity, ft/s 1.9 Ti, min= 2.7 Ti, min= 0.7 100 -YR 0.75 5.7 30805.19 0.71 46% Ti, min= 7.1 Tt, min= 4.2 100 -YR 0.51 4.3 0.71 1.6 D3b - Development -CONCENTRATION BASIN INPUT TIME OF RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add'l Travel Time Tc, min Event C 1, mlhr A, acres 0, cfs Native Grass 15712.54 0.36 2% B Surface Impery 0-02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.22 1.4 0.98 0.3 Asphalt/Pavement 13969.06 0.32 100% Length, ft 300 Length, ft Slope, ft/ft 49 0.0740 5 -YR 0.28 2.0 0.98 0.98 0.5 0.8 Roof 11927.81 0.00 90% Slope, percent 7.4000 10 -YR 0.35 2.3 Landscape 10755.89 0.25 10% Landscape Runoff Goethe' 0.162 Conveyance C 2.5 Final Tc, min 16.5 25 -YR 0.41 2.8 0.98 1.1 Riprap 2274.1 0.05 25% Velocity, Ws 0.7 Ti, min= 2.7 Ti, min= 0.7 100 -YR 0.75 5.7 42711.59 0.98 37% Ti, min= 15.3 TY, min= 1.2 100 -YR 0.49 3.7 0.98 1.8 D3c - Development BASI INPUT TIME OFCONCENTRA ISN UL g Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel FIowlAdd' Travel Time Tc, min Event C +, inlhr A, acres Q, cis Native Grass 0.00 2% B Surface lmpery 1 Land Surface td Areas and Shallow Sy, Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.63 2.1 1.00 1.4 Asphall/Pavernent 25627.8 0.59 100 % Length, ft 87 Length, ft 122 5 -YR 0.66 3.0 1.00 2.0 Roof 11927.81 0.27 90% Slope, percent Runoff Coefrci 2.0000 0.9 Slope, ft/ft Conveyance C 0.0200 20 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.69 0.72 3.6 4.3 1.00 1.00 2.5 3.1 Landscape 5866.12 0.13 10% Riprap 0.00 25% Velocity. Ws 2.8 43421.73 1.00 85% Ti, min= 2.7 Ti, min= 0.7 100 -YR 0.75 5.7 1.00 4.2 2152-1103-I Irdro C:alcs-PI 11.l NLY.xls Basin. 2 of RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF ANALYSIS - BASINS Job 8 Job Name Designed by: 2152-003 Battlement Mesa MOB EG Date: Revised: September 28, 2012 CQNSU" t�.1NC. ! CIVIL ENGINEERING ' SURVEYING Filen*: 970.&71.9494 - Fa.: 970.871.9299 Iondmah�c.cam Bo. 774943 ' 141 911, 5,,. • 5l ,..nbu.1 Sq,ny., Cui..,. do 00477 D3d - Development BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area. sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add'I Travel Time Tc, min Event C 1, in/hr A, acres 0, cfs Native Grass 8227.08 0.00 2/ B Surface lmpery 0.05 Land Surface ld Areas and Shallow Ss Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc, min 13.9 2 -YR 0.55 1.5 1.22 1.0 Asphalt/Pavement 34326.67 0.79 100% Length, fl 76 Length, ft 14 5 -YR 0.58 2.1 1.22 1.5 Roof 7010.04 0.16 90% Slope,percent Runoff Coeffici 3.4000 0.18 Slope, ft/ft Conveyance Cr 0.0450 20 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.81 0.65 2.5 3.0 1.22 122 1.9 2.4 Landscape 11904.47 0.27 10% 25% Riprap Velocity, ft/s 0.00 25% 0.43 Velocity, ftfs 4.2 0.8 30394A5 0.70 79% Ti, min= 5.7 Tt, min= 0,0. 100 -YR 53241.18 1.22 79% Ti, min= 9.8 Tt, min= 0,1 100 -YR 0.69 4.0 1.22 3.3 Overland Flow Pipe Flow Surface lmpery 1 Diam (in) 18 Length, ft 85 Area (ft2) 1.8 Slope. percent Runoff Coeffici 4.5000 0.9 Velocity, ft/s Length, ft 1.9 228.24 Tt, min= 2.0 Ti, min= 2.0 D3e - Development BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add' Travel Time Tc, min Event C ' 1, rnlhr ' A, acres Q, cfs Nalive Grass 8227.08 0.00 2% B Surface lmpery 0.05 Land Surface Id Areas and Shallow Su Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc, min 8.4 2 -YR 0.55 1.8 0.70 0.7 AspharPavement 19264.47 0.44 100% Length, ft Slope. percent Runoff Coeffici 31 4.3000 0.18 Length, ft Slope, fVf0 Conveyance C 0 0.0450 20 5 -YR 0.58 2.6 0.70 1.0 Roof 4395.46 0.10 900.4, 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.61 0.65 3.0 3.7 0.70 0.70 1.3 1.7 Landscape 6734.52 0.15 10% 0,28 Riprap _ 0.00 25% ConveyanceC Velocity, ft/s 4.2 25 -YR 0.43 4.3 0.43 0.8 30394A5 0.70 79% Ti, min= 5.7 Tt, min= 0,0. 100 -YR 0.69 4.8 0.70 2.3 Overland Flow Surface Impery Length, ft Slope, percent Runoff Coeffici Pipe Flow 1 Diam (in) 18 75 Areaft(h_ 1.8 4.2000 1Velocity, Ws 1,3 0.9 Ti, min= 2.8 Length, ft Tt, min= 57 0.7 D3f - Development BASIN INPUT TIME -OF CONCENTRAT4ON RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add'I Travel Time Tc, min Event C +, mlhr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 8227.08 0,00 2% B Surface Impers 0.05 Land Surface Grassed Waterways Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.25 2.1 0.43 0.2 AsphalL'Pavement 6889.71 0,16 100% Length, ft 46 Length, ft Slope, ftJft 99 0.0800 5 -YR 0.31 3,0 0.43 0.4 Roof 0.00 90% Slope, percent 16.7000 10 -YR 0.37 3.6 0.43 0.6 Landscape 12039.18 0,28 10% _ Runoff Coeffici 0.18 ConveyanceC 15 Final Tc, min 5.0 25 -YR 0.43 4.3 0.43 0.8 Riprap 4.5 0,00 25% 11732.58 0.27 20% Velocity, Ws 4.2 100 -YR 18928.89 0.43 43% Ti, min= 4.5 Tt, min= 0.4 100 -YR 0.50 5.7 0.43 1.2 D3g- Development BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESUL1 S Area. sf Area. ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel FlewfAdd'I Travel Time Tc, min Event C 1. inlhr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 8227.08 0,19 2% 13 Surface lmpery 0.02 Land Surface Grassed Waterways Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc, min 10.2 2 -YR 0.11 1.7 0.27 0.1 As.halt/Pavemeot 1970.67 0.05 100% Len.th, fl 103 Length, ft 0 5 -YR 0.19 2.4 0.27 0.1 Roof 0.00 90% Slope,percent Runoff Coeffici 5,0000 0.162 Slope, ft!fl Conveyance C 0.0800 15 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.27 0.35 2.8 3.4 0.27 0.27 0.2 0.3 Landscape 1534.83 0.04 10% Riprap 0.00 25% Velocity, Ws 4,2 0A4 4.5 0.27 0.5 11732.58 0.27 20% Ti, min= 102 Tt, min= 0.0 100 -YR 2153003-I lydru CsIcs-P111-ON I.Y.xls Basin. 3 of 4 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF ANALYSIS - BASINS Job 8 Job Name Designed by: Checked by: 2152-003 Date: Battlement Mesa MOB Revised: EG RS September 28, 2012 MARK CONSULTANTS, INC CIVIL ENGINEERING ' SURVEYING P1.9887 970,871.9494 • Fox 970.8719299 .lo.,d,..o94co.com P.0, B..w 774943 • 141 98, Sr.,. • 5.....,b...., Syrw,ll., C..Iwudu 80477 D3h- Development BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add'I Travel Time Tc, min Event C r, in/hr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 24918,26 0.57 2%B R Surface Inver,/0.02 0.02 Land Surface Grassed Waterways Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc, min 13.5 2 -YR 0.02 1.5 0.57 0.0 Asphalt/Pavement 0.00 100% Length, ft 177 Length, ft 157_8 5 -YR 0.08 2.1 0.57 0.1 Root 0.00 90% Slope, percent Runoff Coeffici 5.7000 0.162 Slope, fila Conveyance C 0.0570 15 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.17 0.26 2.5 3.1 0.57 0.2 Landscape 0.00 10% 0.57 0.5 Riprap 2.5 0.00 25% 0.26 Velocity, ft/s 3.6 3.8 Riprap 0.00 25% 24918.26 0.57 2% Ti, min= 12.8 Tt, min= 0.7 100 -YR 0.36 4.0 0.57 0.8 D3- Development BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add'l Travel Time Tc, min Event C r, mlhr A, acres Q, cts Native Grass 303971.1 6.98 2% R Surface Impery 0.02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.02 1.0 6.98 0.1 Asphalt/Pavement 0.00 100% Length. ft 300 Length, 66 266 5 -YR 0.08 1.5 6.98 0.8 Root 0.00 90% Slope, percent 6_0000 Slope, ft/ft 0.0600 10 -YR 0.17 1.7 6.98 2.0 Landscape 0.00 10% Runoff Coeffici 0.162 Conveyance C 2.5 Final Tc, min 29.3 25 -YR 0.26 2.1 6.98 3.8 Riprap 0.00 25% Velocity,ffls 0.6 303971.1 6.98 2% Ti, min= 16.4 Tt, min= 7.2 100 -YR 0.36 2.7 6.96 6.9 Channel FIowfAdd'I Travel Time Channel Flow/Add'l Travel Time Land Surface Grassed Waterways Land Surface Grassed Waterways Length, ft 529 Length, ft 376 Slope, fbft 0.0260 Slope, ft/ft 0.0440 Conveyance G 15 Conveyance G 15 Velocity, ft/s 2.4 Velocity, ftls 3,1 Tt, min= 3.6 Tt, min= 2.0 2152-(1113-I lvdre C:dcs-Pl n-ONl..'1.xls Basins 4 of 4 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF ANALYSIS - DESIGN POINTS Job # Job Name Designed by: Checked by: 2152-003 Date: Battlement Mesa MOB Revised: EG RS September28, 2012 MARK CONSULTANTS, INC. CIYIE ENGINEERING SURVEYING Phony: 970.873.9494 • Fo>.:970.871. 9799 • w.vw.landmorkco.com P.O. b. 774941 • 1.11 9th So. • 5lxomrwwr, SPr w,ylr, Culoroch• e0477 1 - Predevelopment (Basin H1+H2) HASIN INF'U I I [Mb OF GUNCEN I HA I ION FttSUL 15 'i. ' Area, sf Area, ac % imp- Soil Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add' Travel Time Tc, min Event C in/hr A. acres Q. cfs Native Grass 541171.3 12.42 2%B B Surface Impery 0.02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc. min 20.8 2 -YR 0.06 1.2 13.41 1.0 A5phalt/Pavement 42781.36 0.08 100% Length, ft 300 Length, ft Slope, ftfft Conveyance C 110 0.0720 2.5 5 -YR 0.13 1.8 13.41 3.1 Other 0 00 0% Slope, percent Runoff Coefficii 72000 0.162 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.21 0.30 2,1 2.5 13.41 13._41 6.0 10.2 Other 0.8- .8Other 0.00 0% 0.00 Other 0.00 07 Conveyance C Velocity, Ws 0.7 25 -YR 0.26 2.9 1.96 1.5 583952.6 13.41 9% Ti, min= 15.4 T1, min= 2.7 100 -YR 0.40 3.3 13.41 17.7 Channel Flow/Adel Travel Time Land Surface 'd Areas and Shallow Sw4Ies Length, ft 712 Slope, ft/ft 0.0490 Conveyance C 20 Velocity, Ws 4.4 Tt, min= 2.7 2 - Predevelopment (basin H3) BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area, sf Area, ao % imp Sot Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add'I Travel Time Tc, min "vent C 1, inlhr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 85544.63 1.96 2% B Surface lmpery 0-02 Land Surface Grassed Waterways Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.02 1.4 1.96 0.1 Asphalt/Pavement 0.00 100% Length. R 236 Length, ft 758 5 -YR 0.08 2.0 1.96 0.3 Other 0.00 0% Slope, percent 10.2000 Slope, ft/ft 0.0570 10 -YR 0.17 2.4 1.96 0.8- .8Other Other 0.00 0% Runoff Coeffici 0.162 Conveyance C 15 Final Tc, min 15.7 25 -YR 0.26 2.9 1.96 1.5 Other 0.00 0% Velocity, Ws 3.6 85544.63 1.96 2% Ti, min= 12.2 Tt, min= 3.5 100 -YR 0.36 3.8 1.96 2.7 21524103-I lydm Calcs-21 I1-ONLY.xls Design Points 1 ccf4 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF ANALYSIS - DESIGN POINTS Job 4 Job Name Designed by: Checked by: 2152-003 Date: Battlement Mesa MOB Revised: EG RS September 28, 2012 MARK CONSULTANTS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING Ph.n.. 970,871,949A • fo.7 970.871.9299 • www.landmark<o,com P.O. Ba. 77.947 • 141 55, 5r, - 5ruun,b, 5 5r.n,y�, Cuk., u.S.' 90477 1 - Predevelopment (Basin 111+H2) BASIN .NPU 1 I IME 01- CONCEN1 RAl ION RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel FlowlAdd'I Travel Time Tc, min Event C i, inlhr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 541171.3 12.42 2% B Surface impery 0,02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.06 1.2 13.41 1.0 Asphalt/Pavement 42781 36 0.98 100% Length, ft 300 Length, ft 110 5 -YR 0.13 1.8 1341 3.1 Other 0.00 0% Slope, percent 7.2000 Slope, ft/ft 0,0720 10 -YR 0.21 2.1 13.41 6.0 Other 0.00 0% Runoff Coeffici 0.162 Conveyance C 2.5 Final Tc, min 20.8 25 -YR 0.30 2.5 13.41 10.2 Other 0.00 0% Velocity, kis 0.7 583952.6 13.41 9% 11, min= 15.4 Tt, min= 2.7 100 -YR 0.40 3.3 13.41 17.7 Channel Flow/Add'. Travel Time les Land Surface. d Areas and Shallow Suva Length, ft 712 Slope, ttttt 0.0490 Conveyance C 20 Velocity, ft/s 4.4 Tt, min= 2.7 2 - Predevelopment (basin H3) BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION LFESULTS Area. sf Area, as % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add'. Travel Time Tc, min Event C }, in/hr A, acres Q, cfs Native Grass 85544.63 1.96 2% B Surface Impery 0,02 Land Surface Grassed Waterways Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.02 1.4 1.96 0.1 Asphalt/Pavement 0.00 100% Length, ft 236 Length, ft 758 5 -YR 0.08 2.0 1.96 0.3 Other 0.00 0% Slope, percent 10.2000 Slope, ftift 0.0570 10 -YR 0.17 2.4 1.96 0.8 Other 0,00 0% Runoff Coeffici 0.162 Conveyance C 15 Final Tc, min 15.7 25 -YR 0.26 2.9 1.96 1.5 Other 0,00 0% Velocity, ft/s 3.6 85544.63 1.96 2% Ti, min= 12.2 Tt, min= 3.5 100 -YR 0.36 3.8 1.96 2.7 2152-103-}Ivdro Calcs-PII1-i)NI-YsIs Dcsit,q.I en I of 3 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF ANALYSIS - DESIGN POINTS Job # Job Name Designed by: Checked by: 2152-003 Date: Battlement Mesa MOB Revised: EG RS September 28, 2012 MARK wCIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING Mon, 970,871.9 9/ • 970,871 9299 • ,w.w.londm. 6-ca.com 74943 • 1•111 9,1, Sv. • Srwrntwur ColurrxW 80477 CONSUt.TANT S. INC. 1 - Post Development (Basins D1+D2) BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow Channel FlowfAdeTravel Time Tc, min Event C i, in/hr A, acres 0, cfs Native Grass 87211.14 2.00 2% B Surface Impery 0.02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.23 1.2 3.22 0.9 Asphalt/Pavement 52969.79 1.22 100% Length, ft 300 Length, ft 110 5 -YR 0,29 1.8 3.22 1.7 Other 23333.31 0.00 0% 0.0720 Slope, percent 7.2000 Slope, ft/ft 0.0720 10 -YR 0.35 2.1 3.22 2.4 Other Runoff Coef lci 0.00 0% 2.5 Runoff Coeffici 0.162 Conveyance C 2.5 Final Tc, min 20.8 25 -YR 0.42 2.5 3.22 3.4 Other Velocity, fls 0.00 0% Velocity, !Vs 0.7 529319.8 12.15 26% Ti, min= 16.4 Tt, min= 7.2, 100 -YR 5.2 140180.9 3.22 39% Ti, min= 15.4 Tt, min= 2.7 100 -YR 0.49 3.3 3.22 Channel FlowfAddl-Travel Time Land Surface ,d Areas and Shallow Swalcs Length, ft 712 Slope ft/ft 0.0490 Conveyance C. 20 Velocity, ft/s 4.4 Tt, min= 2.7 2 - Post Development (Basin D3+basins D3b+D3c+D3d+D3e+D3f+D3g+D3h) (Does not account for detention) BASIN INPUT Overland Flow TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area. sf Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Channel Flow/Addl Travel Time Tc, min Event C i, mlhr A, acres 0, cfs Native Grass 352829 8.10 2% B Surface Impery 0.02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.15 1.0 12.15 1.9 Asphalt/Pavement avement 102048.4 2.34 100% Length, ft Slope, percent 300 6.0000 Length, ft Slope, ft/ft 266 0.0600 5 -YR 0.23 1.5 12.15 4.0 Roof 23333.31 0.54 90% 0.0720 10 -YR 0.30 1.7 12,15 6.3 Landscape 48835.01 1.12 10% Runoff Coef lci 0.162 Conveyance C 2.5 Final Tc, min 29.3 25 -YR 0.37 2.1 12.15 9.5 Riprap 2274.1 0.05 401 Velocity, fls _ 0.6 0.7 529319.8 12.15 26% Ti, min= 16.4 Tt, min= 7.2, 100 -YR 0.46 2.7 12.15 15.2 Channel Flow/Add'I Travel Time Channel Flaw/Add'I Travel Time Land Surface Grassed Waterways Land Surface Grassed Waterways J Length, ft 529 Length, ft 376 Slope, ftlft 0.0260 Slope, ftlft 0.0440 Conveyance C 15 Conveyance C 15 Velocity, Ws 2.4 Velocity, ft/s 3.1 Tt, min= 3.6 Tt, min= 2.0 3 - Post Development (basins 03g+D3d BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RbSULTS Area. sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Overland Flow 1 Channel Flow/Add'I Travel Time Tc, min Event C 1, in/hr A, acres (S, cfs Native Grass 8227.08 0.19 2%13 Surface Impery 0.02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 2 -YR 0.43 1.5 1.49 1.0 Asphalt/Pavement 36297 34 0.83 100% Length, ft 103 Length, ft 0 5 -YR 0.47 2.2 1.49 1.5 Roof 7010.04 0.16 90% Slope, percent 5-0000 Slope, ftlft 0.0720 10 -YR 0.52 2.6 1.49 2.0 Landscape 13439.3 0.31 10,Y Runoff Coeffici 0.162 Conve ante C 2.5 Final Tc, min 12.9 25 -YR 0.56 3.1 1.49 2.6 Other 0.00 0% Velocity, ft/s 0.7 64973.76 1.49 68% It, min= 10.2 Tt, min= 0.0 100 -YR 0.61 4.1 1.49 3.7 ipe Flow Diam lin) Area (f12) Velocity, ft/s Length, ft Tt, min= 18 1.8 2.1 343 2.7 2152-083-1 ivdru Calcs-PI I1-1 )NI.Y.xls Design Points 2 of RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF ANALYSIS - DESIGN POINTS Job 11 Job Name Designed by: Checked bv: 2152-003 Date: Battlement Mesa MOB Revised: EG RS September 28, 2012 MARK CONSULTANTS. INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING Phon.: 970,871.9494 • Fey, 970.871 9299 • www.londmorl-co.snm 4.0. 774963 • 141 98156. - Slw,n[wol 60477 4 - Post Development (basins D3b+03c+D3d+133e+D3f+D3g+D3h) 'BASIN INPUT Overland Flow TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESJLTS Area, sf Area. sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Channel Flow/Add! Travel Time Tc, min Event C 1, inihr A, acres Q, cfs Naive Crass 48857.88 1.12 2% B Surface Impen 0_02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc, min 16.5 2 -YR 0.35 1.4 5.17 2.5 AsphaitfPement yv 102045.4 2.34 100 % Length, ft 300 Length, ft Slope, [tib Conveyance C 49 0.0740 2.5 5 -YR 0.40 2.0 5.17 4.0 Roof 23333.31 0.54 90% Slope, percent Runoff Coeffici Slope, percent Runoff Coeffici 7.4000 0.162 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.45 0.50 2.3 2.8 5.17 5.17 5.4 7.3 Landscape 48835.01 1.12 10/ Riprap 2274,1 0.05 40% 2.4 Velocity, fits 0.7 0.05 21 Velocity, Ws 0.7 225348.7 5.17 58% Ti, min= 15.3 Tt, min= 1.2 100 -YR 0.55 3.7 5.17 10.6 4 - Pre Development (basins D3b+D3c+D3d+D3e+D3f+D3g+133hj for detention purposes only BASIN INPUT Overland Flow TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Soil Type Channel Flow/Add'I Travel Time Tc, min Event C 1, inlhr A, acres 0, cfs Native Grass 48857.88 3-12 2% B Surface Impery 0.02 Land Surface Heavy Meadow Minimum Tc, min 5.0 Final Tc, min 37.5 2 -YR 0.02 0.9 5.17 0.1 Native Grass 102048.4 2.34 2% Length, ft 300 Length, ft 905 5 -YR 0.08 1.2 5.17 0.5 Native Grass _ 23333.31 0.54 2% Slope, percent Runoff Coeffici 7.4000 0,162 Slope, 5/6 Conveyance C. 0.0740 2.5 10 -YR 5-Y'-� 0.17 26 1.5 5.17 1.3 Native Grass 48835-01 1.12 2% 1.8 5.17 2.4 Native Grass 2274.1 0.05 21 Velocity, Ws 0.7 225348.7 5.17 2% Ti, min= 15.3 Tt, min= 22.2 100 -YR 0.36 2.3 5.17 4.4 5 - Post Development (basins D3e+D3h) -BASIN INPUT TIME OF CONCENTRATION RESULTS Area, sf Area, ac % imp Sod Type Overland Flow Channel Flow/Add'I Travel Time Tc, min Event C I, in/hr A acres 0, cfs Native Grass 2491828 0.57 2% B Surface Impery 0.02 Land Surface Grassed Waterways Minimum 7c, min 5.0 Final Tc, min 13.5 2 -YR 0.26 1.5 117 0.5 Asphalt/Pavement 19264.47 4395-46 0.44 0-10 100 % 90% Length, ft Slope, percent 177 5,7000 Length, ft Slope, ftfft Conveyance C 157.8 0-0570 15 5 -YR 0.32 2.1 1.27 0.9 Roof 10 -YR 25 -YR 0.38 0.44 2.5 3.1 1.27 1.2 Landscape 6734.52 0.15 10% Runoff Coeffici 0.162 1.27 1.7 Riprap 0.00 40% Velocity, Ws 3.6 55312.71 1.27 44% Ti. min= 12.8 Tt, min= 0.7 100 -YR 0.51 4.0 1.27 2.6 2152.003-I h -dr„ Cadcs-PI II-1SNI.Y.xls 1)csrg Pninrs 3 of HEC -HMS SUMMARY AND RESULTS Job # 2152-003 Job Name Battlement Mesa MOB Designed by: DCS Checked by: RS A3 Outlet ReachA3 L NDMARK� .. CIVIL INo,.3I,Noniur ��a 0 CONSULTANTS, INC. 943 • i. �• s,..-., c..i...,,,4, eo,r/ c � Date: December 14, 2012 Revised: Reach -A -3c Junction -A1 HEC -HMS Sub -Basin Input Reach -A2 HEC -HMS Reach Input Reach -Al Al Reach EX Conditions Developed Conditions Input Variable Sub Basin Al A2 A3 Al A2 A3 la (in) 0.72 0.17 0.05 0.72 0.17 0.05 CN 74 92 98 74 89 98 Tlag (min) 34.7 4.0 2.3 34.7 4.0 2.3 Area (m12) 0.1221 0.0533 0.0075 0.1221 0.0613 0.0075 HEC -HMS Reach Input Reach -Al Al Reach Length (ft) Slope (ft/ft) Manning's n Sub- reaches Shape Diameter (ft) Bottom Width (ft) 5Ic e Slopes xH:1V Reach -A-1 100 0.02 0.013 2 Circle 2.5 3.5 0,1221 Reach -A-2 L 2534 0.07 0.035 2 Trapazoid 11:58 5 3 Reach -A -3c 100 0.02 0.013 2 Circle 3.5 0.9 0.0075 Reach -A3 743 0.09 0.035 2 Trapazoid 11:58 5 3 Storm Data Event Description 2 -Year 24 -Hour Storm Precipitation Depth (ink r 1.0 100 -Year 24 -Hour Storm 2.4 HEC -HMS Model Results 2152 -003 -Hydro Calcs-PH1-ONLY.xls HEC -HMS 1of1 Existing Conditions Developed Conditions Model Element Drainage Area (mi2) Peak Discharge (cfs) Time of Peak Volume (af) Drainage Area (mi2) Peak Discharge (cfs) Time of Peak Volume (af) Al 0.1221 20 12:32 3.5 0,1221 20 12:32 3.5 A2 0.0533 83.2 11:58 4.6 0.0613 85.7 11:58 4.7 A3 0.0075 15.2 11:54 0.9 0.0075 15.2 11:54 0.9 Junction -A-1 0.1754 83.2 11:58 8.1 0.1834 85.7 11:58 8.2 Outlet 0.1829 96.2 11:58 9 0.1909 98.3 11:58 9.1 Reach -A1 0.1221 20 12:32 3.5 0.1221 20 12:32 3.5 Reach -A2 0.1221 20 12:38 3.5 0.1221 20 12:38 3.5 Reach -A3 0.1754 82.6 11:58 8.1 0.1834 84.7 11:58 8.2 Reach-A3c 0.1754 83.2 11:58 8.1 0.1834 85.6 11:58 8.2 2152 -003 -Hydro Calcs-PH1-ONLY.xls HEC -HMS 1of1 APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2009 by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Dec 12 2012 Cutoff Swale Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 2.00, 2.00 Depth (ft) = 0.90 Total Depth (ft) = 1.50 Q (cfs) = 6.900 Area (sqft) = 1.62 Invert Elev (ft) = 5495.00 Velocity (Ws) = 4.26 Slope (%) = 2.60 Wetted Perim (ft) = 4.02 N -Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.95 Calculations Compute by: Known Q (cfs) Elev (ft) 5497.00 5496.50 5496.00 5495.50 5495.00 5494.50 Known Q = 6.90 Section Top Width (ft) = 3.60 EGL (ft) = 1.18 C7 0 1 2 3 4 Reach (ft) 5 6 7 8 Depth (ft) 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 30® 2009 by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Dec 12 2012 Swale DP5 Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 2.00, 2.00 Depth (ft) = 0.52 Total Depth (ft) = 1.50 Q (cfs) = 2.600 Area (sqft) = 0.54 Invert Elev (ft) = 5495.00 Velocity (ftls) = 4.81 Slope (%) = 6.80 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.33 N -Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.64 Calculations Compute by: Known Q (cfs) Known Q = 2.60 Top Width (ft) = 2.08 EGL (ft) = 0.88 Elev (ft) Section Depth (f 5497.00 5496.50 5496.00 5495.50 5495.00 5494.50 0 2 3 4 Reach (ft) 5 6 7 8 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report EXISTING 42" CMP - EXISTING CONDITIONS Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Ex 42" Culvert Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) ex 42" Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5465.33 96.39 96.39 0.00 Overtopping Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: ex 42" Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert Discharge (cfs) Headwater Elevation (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwater Velocity (ft/s) 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0' 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 36.082 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 _ 0.0' 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 - 36.082 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0' 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 36.082 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0"5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 - 14.263 36.082 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0' ! 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 36.082 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0' 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 36.082 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0' 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 36.082 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0' 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 36.082 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0* 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 36.082 83.30 83.30 _ 5464.37 5.169 _ 0.0' 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 36.082 83.30 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0' 5-S2n 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 _ 36.082 Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: ex 42" Crossing - Ex 42" (-'invert, Deign Discharge - 83.3 cfs Culvert - ex 42", Culvert Discharge - 83.3 cfs 5464 - 5462 - 4 5460 - 0 a 5458 - • 5456 - 5454- 0 50 100 Station (ft) Site Data - ex 42" Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 5459.20 ft Outlet Station: 113.19 ft Outlet Elevation: 5452.80 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - ex 42" Barrel Shape: Circular Barrel Diameter: 3.50 ft Barrel Material: Corrugated Steel Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0240 Inlet Type: Conventional Inlet Edge Condition: Square Edge with Headwall Inlet Depression: NONE 150 Tailwater Channel Data - Ex 42" Culvert Tailwater Channel Option: Triangular Channel Side Slope (H:V): 8.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 5.5000 Channel Manning's n: 0.0400 Channel Invert Elevation: 5452.80 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Ex 42" Culvert Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 20.00 ft Crest Elevation: 5465.33 ft Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 71.41 ft HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report EXISTING 42" CMP - DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Ex 42" Culvert PR CONDITIONS Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) ex 42" Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) iterations 5464.37 83.30 83.30 0.00 1 5464.41 83.86 83.86 0.00 1 5464.45 84.42 84.42 0.00 1 5464.48 84.98 84.98 0.00 1 5464.52 85.54 85.54 0.00 1 5464.56 86.10 86.10 0.00 1 5464.60 86.66 86.66 0.00 1 5464.64 87.22 87.22 0.00 1 5464.68 87.78 87.78 0.00 1 5464.72 88.34 88.34 0.00 1 5464.76 88.90 88.90 0.00 1 5465.33 96.39 96.39 0.00 Overtopping Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: ex 42" Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert Discharge (cfs) Headwater Elevation (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwater Velocity (ftls) 83.30 _ 83.30 5464.37 5.169 0.0' 5-S2n 2.038 2.038 2.837 2.046 0.537 14.263 36.082 83.86 83.86 5464.41 5.207 0.0* 5-S2n 2.047 2.844 2.053 0.539 14.298 36.143 84.42 84.42 5464.45 5.245 - 0.0* 5-S2n 2.056 2.851 2.060 0.540 14.333 36.203 84.98 84.98 5464.48 5.284_ 0.0' 5-S2n 2.065 2.859 2.068 0.541 14.367 36.263 85.54 85.54 5464.52 5.323 0.0* 5-S2n 2.073 2.866 2.075 0.543 14.402 36.323 86.10 86.10 5464.56 5.362 0.0* 5-S2n 2.082 2.873 2.085 0.544 14.406 36.382 86.66 86.66 5464.60 5.401 0.0* 5-S2n 2.091 2.880 2.093 0.545 14.433 36.441 87.22 87.22 5464.64 5.441 - 0.0* 5-S2n 2.100 2.887 2.101 0.547 14.461 36.500 87.78 87.78 L 5464.68 5.481 0.0* 5-S2n 2.109 2.894 2.109 0.548 14.486 36.558 A 88.34 88.34 5464.72 ' 5.521 0.0' 5-S2n 2.118 2.901 2.118 0.549 , 14.503 36.616 88.90 88.90 5464.76 5.562 0.0' 5-S2n 2.127 2.909 2.127 0.550 14.522 36.674 Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: ex 42" Crossing - Ex 42" Culvert FR CONDITIONS, Desi -01 IDischarge - 88.9 cfs Culvert - ex 42", Culvert Discharge - 88.9 cfs 0 Site Data - ex 42" Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 5459.20 ft Outlet Station: 113.19 ft Outlet Elevation: 5452.80 ft Number of Barrels: 1 50 100 Station (ft) Culvert Data Summary - ex 42" Barrel Shape: Circular Barrel Diameter: 3.50 ft Barrel Material: Corrugated Steel Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0240 Inlet Type: Conventional Inlet Edge Condition: Square Edge with Headwall Inlet Depression: NONE 150 Tailwater Channel Data - Ex 42" Culvert PR CONDITIONS Tailwater Channel Option: Triangular Channel Side Slope (H:V): 8.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 5.5000 Channel Manning's n: 0.0400 Channel Invert Elevation: 5452.80 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Ex 42" Culvert PR CONDITIONS Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 20.00 ft Crest Elevation: 5465.33 ft Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 71.41 ft Scenario: 100 -yr Southern Stormsewer O-1 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:1...ticilengineeringldrainagelbattlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:08:03 AM I- 4 P-2 J-1 1 I- 1 Landmark Consultants © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:1...1lcilengineeringldrainagelbattlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:08:21 AM Scenario: 100 -yr Noerthwest and Northeast Stormsewer 0-3 0-2 1-4 Landmark Consultants © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 Scenario: 2 -yr LC1 Upstream Node Downstream Node Length (ft) Section Size Mannings n Total Flow (cfs) Full Capacity (cfs) Average Velocity (ft/s) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Constructed Slope (ftlft) Hydraulic Grade Line In (ft) Hydraulic Grade Line Out (ft) Energy Grade Line In (ft) Energy Grade Line Out (ft) 1-1 J-1 18.79 18 inch 0.012 1.00 16.39 5.13 5,484.41 5,484.02 0.021 5,484.78 5,484.28 5,484.92 5,484.66 J-1 J-2 90.68 18 inch 0.012 1.00 15.81 5.00 5,483.82 5,482.07 0.019 5,484.19 5,482.33 5,484.33 5,482.71 J-2 J-3 56.37 18 inch 0.012 1.00 14.85 4.78 5,481.87 5,480.91 0.017 5,482.24 5,481.17 5,482.38 5,481.53 J-3 J-4 169.35 18 inch 0.012 1.00 28.35 7.53 5,480.71 5,470.20 0.062 5,481.08 5,470.39 5,481.22 5,471.27 J-4 1-3 18.94 18 inch 0.012 1.00 16.12 5.07 5,470.00 5,469.62 0.020 5,470.37 5,469.88 5,470.51 5,470.25 1-3 0-1 84.86 18 inch 0.012 1.00 19.22 5.73 5,469.42 5,467.00 0.029 5,469.79 5,467.23 5,469.93 5,467.74 1-4 J-5 54.49 12 inch 0.012 0.70 7.96 6.24 5,484.85 5,482.53 0.043 5,485.20 5,482.73 5,485.33 5,483.34 J-5 0-2 70.50 12 inch 0.012 0.70 8.39 6.48 5,482.33 5,479.00 0.047 5,482.68 5,479.20 5,482.81 5,479.85 1-5 J-6 12.80 12 inch 0.012 0.20 5.28 3.23 5,470.82 5,470.58 0.019 5,471.00 5,470.71 5,471.07 5,470.87 J-6 J-7 19.00 12 inch 0.012 0.20 5.31 3.24 5,470.38 5,470.02 0.019 5,470.56 5,470.15 5,470.63 5,470.32 J-7 0-3 52.50 12 inch 0.012 0.20 5.59 3.36 5,469.82 5,468.72 0.021 5,470.00 5,468.85 5,470.07 5,469.02 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:1...11cilengineeringldrainage\battlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:09:28 AM Landmark Consultants © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 15.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 P-2 90.68 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE {Smooth Interior) @S = 0.019 ft/ft P- 1 18.79 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S =0.021 ft/ft Profile Scenario: 2 -yr Profile: Storm Sewer South Scenario: 2- yr r,. kS hoo 56.37 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S =9.017 ft/ft 0+00 1+00 2+00 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:1...11cilengineeringldrainagelbattlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:14:04 AM 1 it '-5 18.94 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S =0.020 ft / ft 3+00 Station (ft) P- 6 84.86 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.029 ftlft 5,465.00 4+00 5+00 5,490.00 5,48 5.00 5,480.00 5,475.00 5,470.00 Landmark Consultants O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Elevation (ft) Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003-gej Page 1 of 1 P- 9 12.80 ft 12 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.019 ft/ft Profile Scenario: 2 -yr Profile: Storm Sewer Northwest Scenario: 2- yr 4 - (NI C C- P- 10 19.00 ft 12 inch 5,470.00 Elevation (ft) P- 11 52.50 ft 12 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.021 ft/ft Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.019 ft / ft 5,465.00 0+00 1+00 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:ti...Ucilengineeringldrainagelbattrement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:18:09 AM Station (ft) Landmark Consultants © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 15.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 Profile Scenario: 2 -yr Profile: Storm Sewer Northeast Lo Scenario: 2- yr 73- trrgio. o°NS? '711 L° Q Lo O .. CO CZ CO Cr? CO Id') NC,.) C`') 4-N O O N • LO L) COnu)cECCu) Q 04.-t0 OO O — —mom In�� N c'i E oin5rrtn P-7 54.49 ft 12 inch Corrugated HDP E (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.043 ft/ ft 0+00 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:1...11cilengineeringldrainagelbattlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:15:40 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. P- 8 70.50 ft 12 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.047 ft/ ft 1+00 Station (ft) 5,490.00 5,485.00 5,480.00 5,475.00 2+00 Landmark Consultants 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Elevation (ft) Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 Scenario: 25 -yr V LCI Upstream Node Downstream Node Length (ft) Section Size Mannings n Total Flow (cfs) Full Capacity (cfs) Average Velocity (ft/s) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Constructed Slope (ft/ft) Hydraulic Grade Line In (ft) Hydraulic Grade Line Out (ft) Energy Grade Line In (ft) Energy Grade Line Out (ft) 1-1 J-1 18.79 18 inch 0.012 2.60 16.39 6.78 5,484.41 5,484.02 0.021 5,485.02 5,484.46 5,485.25 5,485.03 J-1 J-2 90.68 18 inch 0.012 2.60 15.81 6.61 5,483.82 5,482.07 0.019 5,484.43 5,482.48 5,484.66 5,483.16 J-2 J-3 56.37 18 inch 0.012 2.60 14.85 6.32 5,481.87 5,480.91 0.017 5,482.48 5,481.33 5,482.71 5,481.96 J-3 J-4 169.35 18 inch 0.012 2.60 28.35 10.00 5,480.71 5,470.20 0.062 5,481.32 5,470.51 5,481.55 5,472.06 J-4 1-3 18.94 18 inch 0.012 2.60 16.12 6.70 5,470.00 5,469.62 0.020 5,470.61 5,470.06 5,470.84 5,470.63 1-3 0-1 84.86 18 inch 0.012 2.60 19.22 7.59 5,469.42 5,467.00 0.029 5,470.03 5,467.37 5,470.26 5,468.27 1-4 J-5 54.49 12 inch 0.012 1.70 7.96 8.06 5,484.85 5,482.53 0.043 5,485.40 5,482.84 5,485.63 5,483.85 J-5 0-2 70.50 12 inch 0.012 1.70 8.39 8.37 5,482.33 5,479.00 0.047 5,482.88 5,479.31 5,483.11 5,480.39 1-5 J-6 12.80 12 inch 0.012 0.80 5.28 4.85 5,470.82 5,470.58 0.019 5,471.19 5,470.86 5,471.33 5,471.18 J-6 J-7 19.00 12 inch 0.012 0.80 5.31 4.87 5,470.38 5,470.02 0.019 5,470.75 5,470.29 5,470.89 5,470.64 J-7 0-3 52.50 12 inch 0.012 0.80 5.59 5.05 5,469.82 5,468.72 0.021 5,470.19 5,468.98 5,470.33 5,469.37 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:l...llcilengineeringldrainagelbattlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:09:49 AM Landmark Consultants © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 r` - LNyo,- a,Vu, cod._ a � E O .1' N W » E S - . Edo) - P- 2 90.68 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE {Smooth Interior) @S=0.019ft/ft P- 1 18.79 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S =0.021 ft/ft 0+00 1+00 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:1---11cilengineeringldrainage\battlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:14:22 AM Profile Scenario: 25 -yr Profile: Storm Sewer South Scenario: 25- yr r149a 60' o c P- 3 •06, 56.37 ft 18 inch 4i %to Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S =0.017 ft/ft N w L0- • ' Mc0•• M ?>E _ tri E E 2 O 1 2+00 Station (ft) �P- 5 18.94 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.020 fttft 3+00 0o 00 000 "- ▪ .-• 0) t ▪ •'a E 5,490.00 5,48 5.00 5,480.00 5,475.00 5,470.00 P- 6 �.. 84.86 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.029 ft/ft 5,465.00 4+00 5+00 Landmark Consultants © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Elevation (ft) Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5-5 [5.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 Profile Scenario: 25 -yr Profile: Storm Sewer Northwest N 4- 4t. (NI - (NI OO cO • 04 1- F2 o O••Ea Lo >E Lti5 Effu) Scenario: 25- yr 4 - co Cr? r4t LC) O OMO 4- C 0 0 O•0�EL �O » EE N = COrs q c)c• 0000 N7t1"°ti71: Cr) ;'Cr 1-r) o c `" a ~ »EE �CT") P- 11 52.50 ft P-10 12 inch 19.00 ft Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) 12 inch @S .021 ft/ ft Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) P- 9 a@S = 0.019 ft/ ft 5,465.00 12.80 ft 0+Q0 1+00 12 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) gS= 0.019 ft/ft 5,470.00 Elevation (ft) Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:LJci1engineeringldrainagelbattrement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:17:52 AM Station (ft) Landmark Consultants Q Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 co. zit in Lc) cq .rr0�0 oLC) cr-6� `1. -Lr) o ii L ( Q:: c/) Profile Scenario: 25 -yr Profile: Storm Sewer Northeast Scenario: 25- yr P-7 54.49 ft 12 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.043 ft/ ft 0+00 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:1...11cilengineeringldrainagelbattlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:15:53 AM O Haestad Methods, Inc. P- 8 70.50 ft 12 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.047 ft/ft 1+00 Station (ft) 5,490.00 5,485.00 5,480.00 5,475.00 2+00 Landmark Consultants 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Elevation (ft) Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003-ge] Pace 1 of 1 Scenario: 100 -yr LCI Upstream Node Downstream Node Length (ft) Section Size Mannings n Total Flow (cfs) Full Capacity (cfs) Average Velocity (fls) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Constructed Slope (ft/ft) Hydraulic Grade Line In (ft) Hydraulic Grade Line Out (ft) Energy Grade Line In (ft) Energy Grade Line Out (ft) 1-1 J-1 18.79 18 inch 0.012 3.70 16.39 7.49 5,484.41 5,484.02 0.021 5,485.15 5,484.55 5,485.43 5,485.23 J-1 J-2 90.68 18 inch 0.012 3.70 15.81 7.30 5,483.82 5,482.07 0.019 5,484.56 5,482.56 3,484.84 5,483.39 J-2 J-3 56.37 18 inch 0.012 3.70 14.85 6.98 5,481.87 5,480.91 0.017 5,482.61 5,481.42 5,482.89 5,482.16 J-3 J-4 169.35 18 inch 0.012 3.70 28.35 11.08 5,480.71 5,470.20 0.062 5,481.45 5,470.57 5,481.73 3,472.48 J-4 1-3 18.94 18 inch 0.012 3.70 16.12 7.40 5,470.00 5,469.62 0.020 5,470.74 5,470.15 5,471.02 5,470.82 1-3 0-1 84.86 18 inch 0.012 3.70 19.22 8.40 5,469.42 5,467.00 0.029 5,470.16 5,467.45 3,470.44 5,468.54 1-4 J-5 54.49 12 inch 0.012 2.30 7.96 8.77 5,484.85 5,482.53 0.043 5,485.50 5,482.90 5,485.78 5,484.09 J-5 0-2 70.50 12 inch 0.012 2.30 8.39 9.11 5,482.33 5,479.00 0.047 5,482.98 5,479.36 5,483.26 5,480.65 1-5 J-6 12.80 12 inch 0.012 1.20 5.28 5.44 5,470.82 5,470.58 0.019 5,471.28 5,470.92 5,471.46 5,471.31 J-6 J-7 19.00 12 inch 0.012 1.20 5.31 5.47 5,470.38 5,470.02 0.019 5,470.84 5,470.35 5,471.02 5,470.78 J-7 0-3 52.50 12 inch 0.012 1.20 5.59 5.67 5,469.82 5,468.72 0.021 5,470.28 5,469.03 5,470.46 5,469.53 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:l...llcilengineeringldrainagelbattlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:10:15 AM Landmark Consultants Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 `P-1 1879 ft 18 inch �v Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Inferior) yard @S =0.021 ft/ft 06, P-3osis 56.37 ft 18 inch ?fri�oofh7 Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) �E @S =0.017 ft/ft r-- 61.= - ao10 - rnvLnmv 0u C0� rcon,EE 2 90.68 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth interior). @S = 0.019 ft! ft Profile Scenario: 100 -yr Profile: Storm Sewer South Scenario: 100- yr 41. N. 10103CO 0Lri > > E j cri C CItEco 0+00 1+00 2+00 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:l...11cilengineeringldrainage\battlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:14:36 AM A- 5 18.94 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE{Smoothinterior) @S = 0.020 ft/ft 3+00 Station {ft) P- 6 84.86 ft 18 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.029 ft/ft 5,465.00 4+00 5+00 5,490.00 5,485.00 5,480.00 5,475.00 5,470.00 Landmark Consultants © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Elevation {ft) Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003-ge] Pace 1 of 1 LP- 9 12.80 ft 12 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.019 ft/ft Profile Scenario: 100 -yr Profile: Storm Sewer Northwest C°. N Ococo o t° O};�tl) O �Lo O••E w > E .(71)5:i2(75 (7 I E U) Scenario: 100- yr COZit CO I co CI .44f (2 +.04-00 © s= LC) i? m » EE -.7iEEiu) C\.1 N W475.00 o��� c? — E Oco cEcn P- 11 52.50 ft P-10 12 inch 19.00 ft Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) 12 inch @S .021 ft/ft Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.019 ft/ft 5,465.00 0+00 1+00 5,470.00 Elevat ion (ft) Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:l...llcilengineeringldrainagelbattlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:17:39 AM Station (ft) Landmark Consultants © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAD v5.5 15.5003-ge] Page 1 of 1 Profile Scenario: 100 -yr Profile: Storm Sewer Northeast ▪ �- Scenario: 100- yr au) cq 'rs po � � oo L(/) CQ{n 4.t. • 4- C? �. LONmC'') 4- c0 o CO a c0 LO its > E P- 7 54.49 ft 12 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.043 ft/ft 0+00 Title: Battlement Mesa MOB h:1...11cilengineeringldrainagelbattlement mob.stm 12/12/12 10:16:08 AM P- 8 70.50 ft 12 inch Corrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) @S = 0.047 ft/ft 1+00 Station (ft) 5,490.00 5,485.00 5,480.00 5,475.00 2+00 Landmark Consultants © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Elevation (ft) Project Engineer: Landmark Consultants StormCAl7 v5.5 [5.5003 -gel Page 1 of 1 Project: Inlet ID: ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Battlement Mesa MOB D3d Street Crown Gutter Geometry (Enter data In the blue cells( Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Depression Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section Max. Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter now Line for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) TeACK = SBACK = n BACK = HcuRB = TCROWN = a= W= Sx = So = nSTREET TMAx dmm = 0.0 6.00 25.5 2.00 2.00 0.0200 0.0400 00150 ft ft. vert. / ft. horiz inches ft inches ft ft. vert, ! ft. horiz ft. vert. 1 ft. horiz Minor Storm Major Storm 12.0 12.0 6.00 6.00 ft inches X = yes Maximum Gutter Capacity Based On Allowable Water Spread Gutter Cross Slope (Eq. ST -8) Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST -2) Water Depth with a Gutter Depression Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Discharge within the Gutter Section W (QT - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & fawns) Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V'd Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Maximum Cutter Capacity Based on Allowable Gutter Depth Theoretical Water Spread Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carred in Section Tx TH Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCROWN) Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Total Discharge for Major & Minor Storm Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section Ard Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Slope -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d n 6") Storm Max Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) Sw = y= d= Tx = 00 = Qx = Qw = QBACK = QT = V= V*d = TTH = Tx TH = E0 = QX TH = Qx = Qw = ()BACK = Q= V= V`d = R= Qd = d= dCROWN = Max. Allowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q. or Qd ()allow = MIN 0R STORM max. allowable capnclty OK - greater !liar flow 9iV00 0 sreet'0-Peak N1AJOR STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than Flom gree• on sheet 'Q-Puy+k' Minor Storm Major Storm 0.1033 0.1033 2.88 2.88 4.88 4.88 10.0 10.0 0.522 0.522 5.1 5.1 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 10.7 10.7 9.2 9.2 3.7 3.7 Minor Storm Major Storm 16.7 16.7 14.7 14.7 0.378 0.378 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 8.6 8.6 0.0 0.0 22.8 22.8 10.9 10.9 5.4 5.4 0.59 0.59 13.5 13.5 5.20 5.20 0.00 0.00 Minor Storm Major Storm 10.71 10.71 fuft inches inches 6 cfs cfs cfs cfs fps ft 6 cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs fps cfs inches inches cfs Inlet 3d.xls, Q -Allow 12/14/2012, 2:14 PM Project: Inlet ID: INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Battlement Mesa MOB 03d Deslrtninformation (input) Type = MINOR MAJOR . Type of Inlet Denver No. 16 Combination Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'Et' from'Q-AItoo) auxµ = 2.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = __________2_4____.0 1 1 Length of a Single Unit Intel (Grate or Curb Opening) Lo = 3.00 3.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q -Allow) We = 1.73 1.73 ft Clogging Factor fora Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) CrG = 0.59 0.50 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) CrC = 0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics: OK -0 r maximum allowable trom sheer0-Ansa MINOR MAJOR Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Sheet Q•Peak) O. = 1.00 2.41 cfs Water Spread Width T = 2.0 5.2 ft Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) d = 2.4 3.3 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at T0„x) dcaoww = 0.0 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow Eo = 1.000 0.899 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T„ 0,= 0.00 0.24 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W O.= 1.01 2.16 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face Oeacx = 0.00 0.00 cls Street Flow Area As = 0.20 0.44 sq ft Street Flow Velocity V, = 5.08 5.52 fps Water Depth for Design Condition dux.. = 4.4 5.2 inches Grate Analysts (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Totat Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = 3.00 3.00 ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow E.-ow,rE = 0.984 0.856 Under No -Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Minimum Velocity Whore Grate Spash-Over Begins a = 7.11 7.11 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow RI = 1.00 1.00 nterception Rate of Side Flow R, = 0.08 0.07 nterception Capacity Q, = 0.99 2.09 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = 0.00. 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = 0.50 0.50 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet I- = 1.50 1.50 ft Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spesh-Over Begins Vo = 5.13 5.13 fps Interception Rale of Frontal Flow W = 1.00 0.97 Interception Rate of Side Flow Rx= 0.02 0.02 Actual Interception Capacity Q = 0.98 2.00 cfs Carry -Over Flow = 0..-Q (to be applied to curb opening or next di's inlet) Q.= 0.02 0.41 cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis !Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Equivalent Slope Se (based on grate carryover) S.= 0.1867 0.1699 11/11 Required Length LT to Have 1001 Interception LT= 1.34 5.67 11 Under No -Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, L r) L = 1.33 3.00 11 Interception Capacity 0; = 0.01 0.15 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient CurbCoel = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0,10 0.10 Effective (Unclogged) Length LQ = 1.33 2.70 ft Actual Interception Capacity Cl.. 0.01 0.14 cfs Carry -Over Flow = abtORATEI Q. Qb = 0.01 0.27 cfs Summary MINOR MAJOR W_ Totat Inlet Interception Capacity 0 = 0.09 2.14 cfs Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow (Flow bypassing inlet) CII. a 0.01 0.27 cfs Capture Percentage =QJ0 = C%= 98.9 88.9 Inlet 3d.xls, Inlet On Grade 12f14/2012, 2:14 PM Project: Inlet ID: ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Battlement Mesa MOB D3e (on grade) TBACIS S e4C { ~ T, TMnx Tx TCRO W N HCURB d a Street Crown Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the bli,e cells} Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Depression Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section Max, Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) TBACK = `BACK' nBACK HCURB = TCROWN a= W= Sx Sc = %STREET = TMAx = d MAx = 0.0 6.00 25.5 2.00 2.00 0.0200 0.0300 0.0150 ft ft. vert.1 ft. horiz inches ft inches ft ft. vert.1 ft. horiz ft. vert. / ft. horiz Minor Storm Major Storm 12.0 12.0 6.00 6.00 ft nches X = yes Maximum Gutter Capacity Based On Allowable Water Spread Minor Storm Major Storm Gutter Cross Slope (Eq. ST -8) Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST -2) Water Depth with a Gutter Depression Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Discharge within the Gutter Section W (QT - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V'd Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Sw = y= d= Tx = Ec = Qx = Qw = °SACK QT = V= V'd = 0.1033 0.1033 2.88 2.88 4.88 4.88 10.0 10.0 0.522 0.522 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 9.2 9.2 8.0 8.0 3.23 .2 Maximum Gutter Capacity Based on Allowable Gutter Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Theoretical Water Spread Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx TH Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCRowN) Discharge within the Gutter Section W (ad - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Total Discharge for Major & Minor Storm Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V'd Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Slope -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d n 6") Storm Max Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) TTH = TxTH= Eo = Qx TH Qx = Qw = QBACK Q= V= V'd = R= ad = d= dcRowN = Max. Allowabie Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Qr or (4 %Pow' MINOR S rORM max. alhowable capacity OK • greater than flow given on sheet CI -Peak' :A 1JOR STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'O-Peak' 16.7 16.7 14.7 14.7 0.378 0.378 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 7.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 19.8 19.8 9.4 9.4 4.7 4.7 0.74 0.74 14.7 14.7 5.53 5.53 0.00 0.00 Minor Storm Major Storm 9.21 9.2 ft/ft inches inches ft Cfs cfs cfs cfs fps ft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs fps cfs inches nches cfs inlet 3e grade.xls, Q -Allow 12/14/2012, 2:19 PM Project: Inlet ID: INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Battlement Mesa MOB D3e (on grade) Lo (C) Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Denver No. 16 Combination Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from'Q-Allow') eioce = 2.0 2.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Le = 3.00 3.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q -Allow) We = 1.73 1.73 ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) CrG = 0.50 0.50 Clogging Factor fora Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) CrC = 0.10. 0.10 Street Hydraulics. OK - Q < maximum allowable from sheet Q.Allr,vr' MINOR MAJOR Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Sheet 4 -Peak) Q. = 0.69 1.66 ate Water Spread Width T = 1.8 4.3 ft Water Depth at Flowline (outside of focal depression) d = 2.2 3.0 inches Water Depth et Street Crown (or at TMS) dceown = 0.0 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E0 = 1.000 0.948 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T , Q, = 0.00 0.09 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W 44 = 0.70 1.58 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face ()BACK = 0.00 0.00 cis Street Flow Area A, = 0.17 0.35 sq ft Street Flow Velocity Va = 4.15 4.74 fps Water Depth for Design Condition d.cca = 4.2 5.0 inches Grate Analysis (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = 3.00 3.00 ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eo -GRATE = 0.996 0.909 Under No -Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins '4 = 7.11 7.11 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow K.= 1.00 1.00 Interception Rate of Side Flow R„= 0.11 0.09 Interception Capacity (1; = 0.69 1.52 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grata Inlet GrateClog = 0.50 0.50 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet Le = 1.50 1.50 ft Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V, = 5.13 5.13 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow R}= 1.00 1.00 Interception Rate of Side Flow R,= 0.03 0.02 Actual Interception Capacity Q. = 0.69 1.51 cfs Carry -Over Flow = Q, -Q, (to be applied to curb opening or next dls inlet) all = 0.00 0.15 cfs Curb or Stoned Inlet Opening Analysis (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Equivalent Slope Se (based on grate carryover) S, = 0.1867 0.1780 tuft Required Length LT to Have 100% fnterceplion LT= 0.57 3.29 fl Under No -Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Intel (minimum of L, L T) L = 0.56 3.00 fl Interception Capacity 0, = 0.00 0.07 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef - 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbCleg = 0.10 0.10 Effective (Unclogged) Length 4 = 0.56 2.70 fl Actual Interception Capacity Q = 0.00 0.07 cfs Carry -Over Flow = $IarsATel-Q. Qb = 0.00 0.08 cfs Summary MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity 0 = 0.69 1.58 cfs Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet) Gib = 0.00 0.08 cfs Capture Percentage = Q,1Q, = C% = 99.3 95.2 % inlet 3e grade.xls, Inlet On Grade 1211412012, 2:18 PM Project = Inlet ID = Battlement Mesa MOB Curb Inlet Dae (sump) Lo (C)-' Design Information (Input) Type = au�i= No = Lo (G) = Wo = Aral° = Cr (G) = Cly (G) = Co (G) = L, (C) = Hy.„ - Rm,°,,= Theta = W, = CAC) = Ow (C) = Ca (C) = MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'CI-Allowl Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Grate Information . Length pia Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.150.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) Grate Orifice Coef iicient (typical value 0.67) Curb Opening information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) Curb Opening Orfice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) Denver No. 16 Combination 2.00 2.00 inches feet feet feet inches inches degrees feet 1 1 MINOR MAJOR 3.00 3.00 1.73 1.73 0.15 0.15 0.50 0.50 3.00 3.00 0.67 0.67 MINOR MAJOR 3.00 3.00 6.50 6.50 5.25 5.25 0.0 0.0 2.00 2.00 0.10 0.10 2.30 2.30 0,67 0.67 Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Grate Inlet Capacity in a Sump Coef = Clog = Curb d,, = MINOR MAJOR VVeir inches Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Grate as a Weir: The Controlling Factor Will Be: Flow Depth et Local Depression without Clogging (0.69 cfs grate, 0 cls curb) 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.50 Opening as Weir Curb Opening As IIIIMCIMIIIEEI Flow Depth (Curb Opening Only) without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 0.69 cfs curb) Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0.69 cfs grate, 0 cfs curb) dwmw°= dy,. = MIME 1111MIE ® MIME inches inches Flow Depth (Curb Opening Only) with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 0.69 cfs curb) dwa.a = IIIMIllal =NEE inches Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0.69 cfs grate, 6 cfs curb) Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0.61 cfs grate, 0.09 cfs curb) Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d„„ = d,. = da.u,.u= MINOR MAJOR inches inches Inches 1.53 2.75 1.58 2.83 0.00 0.83 Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Curb Opening tnteLCapacity in a Sump Coef = Clog = d,e = d.,. = d, = do, = d..cm,' MINOR MAJOR inches inches inches inches Inches Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0.25 cfs grate, 0.44 cfs curb) Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0.17 cfs grata, 0.53 cfs curb) Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0.69 cfs grate, 0 cfs curb) Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0.61 cfs grate, 0.09 cfs curb) Resulting Gutter Ftow Depth Outside of Local Depression 1.00 1,00 0.10 0.10 MINOR MAJOR 1.15 2.05 1.39 2.47 MINOR MAJOR 1.53 2.75 1.58 2.83 0.00 0.83 Resultant Street Conditions L = Q. = d = T = draowa = MINOR MAJOR feet cfs Inches feet inches Total Inlet Length Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q -Peak) Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q -Allow geometry) Resultant Street Flow Spread (based an sheet Q -Allow geometry) Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown 3.0 3.0 0.7 1.7 0.00 0.83 0.0 0.7 0.00 0.00 inlet 3e sump xis, Inlet In Sump 12!14/2012, 2:17 PM 11.9j 11.91 Project: Inlet ID: ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Battlement Mesa MOB D3f TRACK SBACK T, TMAx Q w Tx TCROWN Street Crown Gutter Geometry (Enter data In the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Depression Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section Max. Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) TBACK `BACK = n BACK = HCUR8 TCRowN = a= W= Sx = So = nSTREET = TrdAx = dMAx 0.0 6.00 25.5 2.00 2.00 0.0200 0.0500 0.0150 ft ft. vert. ! ft. horiz inches ft inches ft ft. vert / ft, horiz ft. vert. l ft. horiz Minor Storm Major Storm 12.0 12.0 6.00 6.00 ft inches X = yes Maximum Gutter Capacity Based On Allowable Water Spread Minor Storm Major Storm Gutter Cross Slope (Eq. ST -8) Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST -2) Water Depth with a Gutter Depression Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Discharge within the Gutter Section W (QT - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V*d Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Sw = y= d= Tx = Eo ax = Qw = ABACK QT V= V'd = 0.1033 0.1033 2.88 2.88 4.88 4.88 10,0 10.0 0.522 0.522 5.7 5.7 6.2 6.2 0.0 0.0 11.91 11.9 10.3 10.3 4.2 4.2 Maximum Gutter Capacity Based on Allowable Gutter Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Theoretical Water Spread Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx TH Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCROwn} Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Qct - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Total Discharge for Major & Minor Storm Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section rd Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Slope -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d> 6") Storm Max Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) TTH = TxTH = Eo = QCTH= Qx Qw = ABACK = Q= V= V*d = R= Qd d= dcRowN = Max. Allowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of QT or Q., QaBow = AINOR STORM max. allowable capacity OK -greater Than f'ow given 'O -Peak' AAJOR STORM rnax. allowable capacity OK - greater than f!o•a given on s0eet'1]-Poak' 16.7 16.7 14.7 14.7 0.378 0.378 15.9 15.9' 15.9 15.9 9.7 9.7 - 0.0 0.0 25.5 25.5 12.2 12.2 _ 6.1 6.1 0.49 0.49 12.6 12.6 4.95 4.95 0.00 0.00 Minor Storm Major Storm ftlft inches inches ft cfs cfs cfs cfs fps ft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cls fps cfs inches inches cfs inlet 3f.xIS, Q -Allow 12/14/2012, 2:20 PM Project: Inlet ID: INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Battlement Mese MOB D3f Deakin Information llnputl MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Denver No. 16 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q -Allow) acocAL= 2.0 2.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) L, = 3.00 3.00 11 Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q -Allow) W. = 1.73 1.73 ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) Cr -G = 0.50 0.50 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) Cr -C = 0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics: OK - Q < maximum allowable from sheet'Q-A[low MINOR MAJOR Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Sheet Q•Peak) O,, = 0.23 0.82 cfs Water Spread Width T = 1.1 1.7 ft Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) d = 1.4 2.2 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at TMAx) dcnown = 0.0 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E. = 1.000 1.000 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T, Q, = 0.00 0.00 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W Q„, = 0.23 0.82 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face Q%ACK = 0.00 0.00 cfs Street Flow Area N= 0.06 0.16 sq ft Street Flow Velocity V.= 3.80 5.24 fps Water Depth for Oesign Condition dLoc,n. = 3.4 4.2 inches Grate Analysis (Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = 3.00 3.00 fl Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eo.GFATE = 1.100 1.002 Under No -Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V, = 7.11 7.11 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow R1= 1.00 1.00 Interception Rate of Side Flaw R, = 0.13 0.08 Interception Capacity Q = 0.25 0.82 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClag = 0.59 0.50 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet LQ = 1.50 1.50 ft Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V, = 5.13 5.13 fps Interception Rale of Frontal Flow Rr = 1.00 0.99 Interception Rate of Side Flow R,= 0.03 0.02 Actual Interception Capacity Q, = 0.23 0.81 efs Carry -Over Flow = Q,42(to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet) Ob = 0.00 0.01 cfs Curb or Slotted inlet Opening Analysis tCalcuratbd) MINOR MAJOR Equivalent Slope S, (based on grate carry-over) S. = 0.1867 0.1867 Wit Required Length Lr to Have 100% Interception Lr = 0.00 1.01 fl Under No-Crogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, L c) L = 0.00 1.00 11 Interception Capacity Q, = 0.00 0.00 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0.10 0.10 Effective (Unclogged) Length L.= 0.00 1.00 ft Actual Interception Capacity Q.= 0.00 0.00 cfs Carry -Over Flow = oelcanrerQ CI,, = 0.00 0.00 cfs Summary MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q = 0.25 0.82 cfs Total rntet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing Inlet) Q, = -0.02 0.00 cfs Capture Percentage = OJQ, = C% 100.0 100.0 inlet 3f,xls, Inlet On Grade 12/14/2012, 2:21 PM Project: Inlet ID: ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Battlement Mesa MOB D3g TRACK X T, TMA) Tx TCRow+u i Y ' CURB d Street Crown Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue collas. Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Depression Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section Max. Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storni Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) TRACK = SBACK = 5BACK HCURB TcRowu = a= W= S. = So = STREET = TMA._ dMAx = 0.0 6.00 25.5 2.00 2.00 0.0200 0.0300 0.0150 ft ft. vert. / ft. horiz inches ft nches ft ft. vert. / ft. horiz ft. vert. ! tt. horiz Minor Storm Major Storm 2.6 7.0 6.00 6.00 ft inches X = yes Maximum Gutter Capacity Based On Allowable Water Spread Minor Storm Major Storni Gutter Cross Slope (Eq. ST -8) Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST -2) Water Depth with a Gutter Depression Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Discharge within the Gutter Section W {QT - Qx} Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V`d Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Sw = y= d= T.= Eo Qx= Qw = QRACK QT = V= V'd 0.1033 0.1033 0.62 1.68 2.62 3.66 0.6 5.0 0.998 0.785 0.0 0.7 1.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.2 4.7 6.2 1.0 1.9 Maximum Gutter Capacity Based on Allowable Gutter Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Theoretical Water Spread Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method {Eq. ST -7) Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx TH Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCRowN) Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - Q%) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Total Discharge for Major & Minor Storm Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V*d Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Slope -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Storm Max Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) T1 = Tx.TH = Eo = Qx TI -1 = 0x = Qw = QUACK = Q= V= V'd = R= Qd d= dcRowru = Max. Allowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Or or Qd Qsuow = MINOR STORM max, allowable capacity OK - greater this- no•. -i g veil or 5hcet'Q-Peak' 'A7JOR STORM nix allowable capac'Hy OK • greater filen flux, give.( on sheet'O-Peron' 16.7 16.7 14.7 14.7 0.378 0.378 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 7.5 7,5 0.0 0.0 19.8 19.8 9.4 0.4 4.7 4.7 0.74 0.74 14.7 14.7 5.53 5.53 0.00 0.00 Minor Storm Major Storm 1.11 3.2 ft/ft inches inches ft cfs cfs cfs cfs fps 6 6 cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs fps cfs inches inches cfs General Inlet Capacity.xls, Q -Allow 12/14/2012, 2:10 PM Project: Inlet ID: INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Battlement Mesa MOB D3g X Lo (C) --,r Design Information 'Input) - MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Denver No. 16 Combination Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression's' from 'Q -Allow') 0 oce = 2.0 2.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1 Length of a Single Unit Inlet {Grate nr Curb Opening) L, = 3.00 3.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from 0 -Allow) W.= 1.73 1.73 ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) Cr -G = 0.50 0.50 Clogging Factor fora Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) CHC = 0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics OK - 0 < maximum allowable from sheet 'Q -Allow' MINOR MAJOR Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Sheet Q•Peak) Q, = 0.05 0.32 cfs Water Spread Width T = 0.7 1.4 ft Water Depth at Flowline {outside of local depression) d = 0.9 1.7 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at T.) dcaevm = 0.0 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E, = 1.000 1.000 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T . Q,= 0.00 0.00 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W Cl. = 0.05 0.33 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face QRACK' 0.00 0.00 cfs Street Flow Area A. = 0.02 0.10 sq ft Street Flow Velocity Vn = 2.14 3.43 fps Water Depth for Design Condition dry = 2.9 3.7 inches Grate Analysts (Calculated] MINOR MAJOR Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = 3.00 3.00 ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow E,.eeaTE = 1.290 1.046 Under No -Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins Vo = 7.11 7.11 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr= 1.00 1.00 Interception Rate of Side Flow R,,= 0.30 0.15 Interception Capacity Q; = 0.06 0.33 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = 0.50 0.50 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet L, = 1.50 1.50 f1 Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins o = 5.13 5.13 fps interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr = 1.00 1.00 interception Rate of Side Flow R„= 0.08 0.04 Actual Interception Capacity Q, = 0.05 0.32 cfs Carry -Over Flow = Q, -Q, (to be applied to curb opening or next dis inlet) an = 0.00 0.00 cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysts 1Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Equivalent Slope So (based on grate carry-over) So = 0.1867 0.1867 ftlft Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception LT = 0.00 0.00 ft Under No -Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L. L T) L = 0.00r 0.00 ft interception Cepacity 0; = 0.00 0.00 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR logging Coefficient CurbCeaf= 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Intel CurbClog = 0.10 0.10 Effective (Unclogged) Length Le= 0.00 500 ft Actual Interception Capacity 0,= 0.00 0.00 cfs Carry.Over Flow = Qtcsprel-Q, ab = 0.00 0.00 cfs Summary MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity 0 = 0.06 0.33 cfs Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing Infer) On' -0.01 -0.01 cfs Capture Percentage • Q/0, = C% = 100.0 100.0 General Inlet Capacity.xls, Inlet On Grade 12/14)2012, 2:10 PM Project: Inlet ID: ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Battlement Mesa MOB Sipprelle Drive Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cellst Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Depression Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section Max. Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm j111ow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) TRACK SRACK = WRACK = HCURB = TCRUWN = a= Sx = So = nSTREET TMAx = dMAx = 0.0 6.00 25.5 2.00 1.00 0.0200 0.0350 0.0150 ft ft. vert. / ft. horiz inches ft inches ft ft . vert. /ft. horiz ft. vert. 1 ft. horiz Minor Storm Major Storm 2.6 7.0 6.00 6.00 ft inches X = yes Maximum Gutter Capacity Based On Allowable Water Spread Minor Storm Major Storm Gutter Cross Slope (Eq. ST -8) ater Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST -2) Water Depth with a Gutter Depression towable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Discharge within the Gutter Section W (QT - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V'd Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Sw = y= d= Tx = Eo = Qx = Qw = °BACK = QT V= V'd = 0.1867 0.1867 0.62 1.68 2.62 3.68 1.6 6.0 0.947 0.546 0.0 1.2 0.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7. 2.7 1.3 1.7 0.3 0.5 Maximum Gutter Capacity Based on Allowable Gutter Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Theoretical Water Spread Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx TH dual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TcRowN) Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Total Discharge for Major & Minor Storm Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section 'd Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Slope -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Storm Max Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) TTH Tx TH E0 = QX TH= Qx = Qw = °BACK = Q' V= V'd = R= Qa = d= dceaw' = Max. Allowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of CI, or Qa Qaiiow = MINOR STORM maxallowabfn. rapacity OK - grnatm heet'R-Peak' 'MAJOR STORM ma.. 3110svable capacity OK - yr^atel'than flo., gi,,,,, ori shoot 'Q -Peak' 16.7 16.7 15.7 15.7 0.210 0.210 15.8 15,8 15.8 15.8 4.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 2.6 2.6 1.3 1.3 0.66 0.66 13.2 13.2 5.38 5.38 0.00 0.00 Minor Storm Major Storm 0.71 2.7 fVfl inches inches ft cfs cfs cfs cfs fps ft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs fps cfs inches inches cfs Sipprelle Drive - gutter flow.xls, Q -Allow 12/14/2012, 1:56 PM Project: Inlet ID: ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Battlement Mesa MOB Spencer Parkway Street Crown Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Depression Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section Max. Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) TBACK = SBACK = nBACK HCJRB = TCROWN = a= W= Sx = So %STREET = 0.0 6.00 25.5 2,00 1.00 0.0190 0.0060 0.0150 ft ft. vert. / ft. horiz inches ft inches ft ft. vert. / ft. horiz ft. vert. / ft. horiz Minor Storm Major Storm 3.1 7.1 6.00 6.00 ft inches X = yes Maximum Gutter Capacity Based On Allowable Water Spread Minor Storm Major Storm Gutter Cross Slope (Eq. ST -8) Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST -2) Water Depth with a Gutter Depression Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Discharge within the Gutter Section W (QT - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V'd Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Maximum Gutter Capacity Based on Allowable Gutter Depth Theoretical Water Spread Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC -22 method (Eq. ST -7) Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T5TH Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCRowN) Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Qtl - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Total Discharge for Major & Minor Storm Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V'd Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth Slope -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d n 6") Storm Max Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) Sw = y= d= Tx = Eo Qx = Ow = QBACK QT = V= V'd = TTH = Tx = Eo = Qx TH = Qx= Qw = QBACS = V= V*d = R= Qa d= dCROWN = Max. Allowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q, or Q., %Bow = 1INOR STORM max_ allowable capac,ly OK - u•nat;'i Ih;,,• tlaw r,1F1 0.1 ;Fret O -Peak' MAJOR STORM max. allowahlc capacity OK • greater than Flow given on sheet 'Q -f cak` 0.1857 0.1857 0.71 1.62 2.71 3.62 2.1 6.1 0.911.- 0.547 0.0_ 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.2 Minor Storm Major Storm 17.5 17.5 16.5 16.5 0.200 0.200 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 8.7 8.7 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.5 1.00 1.00 8.7 8.7 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 Minor Storm Major Storm 0.31 1.1 ft/ft inches inches ft cfs cfs cfs cfs fps 8 ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs fps cfs inches inches cfs Spencer Parkway - gutter flow.xls, Q -Allow 12/14/2012, 1:52 PM APPENDIX C DETENTION / STORMWATER QUALITY RATIONAL Job # Job Name Designed by: Checked by: POND VOLUME - PROPOSED POND (DESIGN PO' " 2152-003 Battlement Mesa MOB E Griepentrog D Spaustat 2 -YR C*A (ac) 25 -YR C*A (ac) 100 -YR C*A (ac) 2 -YR Allowable Release (cfs) 25 -YR Allowable Release (cfs) 100 -YR Allowable Release (cfs) 1.80 2.57 2.8(1 U.0°} 2.30 4.37 Date: Revised: September 30, 2012 ######### CONSULTR I(ANTS. INC. WQCV (cf): CIVIL ENGINEERING , SURVEYING 9ha.: 970.871.9494 • Fay' 970.8719799 • Ww•..landmarksre,nnm P0_ Bos 774943 • 141 99159. • Sroambeal Springs, Coiorodo 80477 2,871 2 -YEAR EVENT 25 -YEAR EVENT DURATION (min) RAINFALL INTENSITY (in/hr) INFLOW VOLUME' (cf) DISCHARGE VOLUME2 (cf) DETENTION VOLUME3 (cf) DURATION (min) RAINFALL INTENSITY (in/hr) INFLOW VOLUME' (cf) DISCHARGE VOLUME2 (cf) DETENTION VOLUME3 (cf) 5 2.14 1153 27 1126 5 4.33 3339 716 2623 10 1.70 1838 54 1783 10 3.45 5327 _ 1433 _ 3894 15 L45 2347 82 2265 15 2.94 6805 2149 4656 20 1.27 2741 109 2632 20 2.58 7951 2865 5086 25 1.13 3050 136 2913 25 2.29 8851 3582 5269 30 1.02 3290 163 3127 30 2.06 9555 4298 5257 35 0.92 3475 191 3284 35 1.87 10095 5014 5081 40 0.84 3611 218 3393 40 1.70 10496 5731 4765 45 0.76 3705 245 3460 45 1.55 10774 6447 4327 50 0.70 3761 272 3489 50 1.42 10944 7163 3781 55 0.64 3783 300 3484 55 1.30 11016 7879 3137 60 0.58 3775 327 3448 60 1.19 11000 8596 2404 Tmax 283 Tmax 52.0 0.67 3774 3491 27.0 2.20 9154 3868 5286 2 -YEAR DETENTION VOLUME (CF) (AC -FT) 3491 0.08 25 -YEAR DETENTION VOLUME (CF) (AC -FT) 5286 0.12 1 Inflow Volume(cf) = Duration(s)*Intensity(in/hr)*CA(ac) 2 Discharge Volume(cf) = Release(cfs)*Duration(s) 3 Detention Volume(cf) = Inflow Volume(cf) - Outflow Volume(cf) Design Procedure Form: Water Quality Capture Volume MODIFIED BY LANDMARK Designer: E Griepentrog & Deb Spaustat ieet 1 of 1 Company: Landmark Consultants, Inc Date: December 14, 2012 Project: Battlement Mesa MOB Location: Battlement Mesa MOB Notes: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Tributary Area's imperviousness Ratio (i = b! 100) B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) (WQCV =1.0"(0.91 *13-1.19*12+0.78* I)) D) Adjustment factor for Battlement Mesa based on average runoff depth E) Adjusted WQCV (WQCV0=d6 (WQCV/0.43)) F) Design Volume: Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area * 1.2 la = i = Area = WQCV = d6 WQCV0 Vol = Vol= 58 0.58 5.17 0.18 0.30 0.13 0.07 2,870.60 % acres watershed inches ' 2 acre-feet cubic feet 2. SFB Surface Area (ASFB) and Average Depth (day) (from 2870.6 square feet to 5741.21 square feet) (clay: = (Vol / Afro), Min=0.5', Max=1.0') AFL! = day = 3,309 0.87 square feet feet 1 From Figure SQ -3 2 Drainage Criteria Manual, Vol 3, Stormwater Quality Management, pg SQ -24 STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3) o.so Figure SQ-3—Map of the Average Runoff Producing Storm's Precipitation Depth in the United States, in inches (Ref.: Driscoll et.al., 1989) SQ -26 10-2005 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District POND VOLUME Job: Battlement Mesa MOB Job # 2152-003 Jurisdiction Garfield County, CO Engr EG Date Oct -12 LANDMARK Cc4 S[RTANTS, IMC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING Shone 970.871.9494 • Far. 970 871 9299 • vow., landmark to. corn P.O. Bo, 771913 • 141 9t115tr • Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80177 V=0.333*(A1 + A2 + (A1*A2)^0.5) * D Contour Cumulative Cumulative Volume Elevation (ft) Area (sf) (cf) Volume (cf) Volume (ac -ft) 5463 3,308.56 691 691 0.02 5463.2 3,599.66 750 1,441 0.03 5463.4 3,905.51 813 2,254 0.05 5463.6 4,226.10 879 3,132 0.07 Approximate elevation of required 5463.8 4,561.43 \VQCV (2,870 -CF ) 929 4,062 0.09 Approximate elevation of 2 -YR 5464 4,730.22 Detention Volume (3,490 -CF ) 977 5,038 0.12 5464.2 5,037.48 512 5,550 0.13 Approximate elevation of required 5464.3 5,193.13 25 -YR Detention Volume (5,286-cf) 533 6,082 0.14 5464.4 5,464.40 1,093 7,175 0.16 5464.6 5,464.60 1,093 8,268 0.19 5464.8 5,464.80 1,379 9,648 0.22 5465 8,436.68 859 10,507 0.24 5465.1 8,745,22 890 11,397 0.26 5465.2 9,054.52 921 12,318 0.28 5465.3 9,364.57 952 13,270 0.30 5465.4 9,675.36 983 14,253 0.33 5465.5 9,986.90 POND OUTLET Job # Job Name Designed by: Checked by: - TYPED INLET CAPACITY 2152-003 Battiement Mesa MOB DCS Date: December 10, 2012 Revised: Assume Orifice flow for depths greater than 0.4 ft, Weir flow for depths of 0.4 ft or less *Double grate shown. Calculations below are for both single and double grate Orifice Equation: Q = f * C,t. A * (2 * g* d) ^ 0.5 Total Slot Area (ftp) 7.03 Single grate Cd 0.6 Orifice coefficient g (Eris) 32.2 Gravitational acceleration 1 GRATE 2 GRATES Weir Equation: Q=f*Cw* Ld Cw L (ft) L (ft) 2.6 Weir coefficient 9.25 Single Grate Length 16.2 Doable Grate d (0) Q (f0/s) Q (ft'/s) Q (ft'/s) f=0.5 f=1 f=0.5 f=0.1 0.10 0.4 0.8 0.7 1.3 ce 0.20 1.1 2.2 1.9 3.8 0.23 1.3 2.6 2.2 45 0.40 3.0 6,1 5.3 10.7 0.41 10.8 21.7 21.7 43.3 it :+- P 0.60 13.1 26.2 262 524 0.62 13.3 26.6 26.6 53.3 0.70 14.2 28.3 28.3 56.6 0.80 15.1 30.3 30.3 60.5 0.90 16.1 32.1 32.1 64.2 1.00 16.9 33.8 33.8 67.7 ORIFICE PLATE 25 -Year Depth (ft 0.5 100 -YR Flow (10.6 cis -4.9 cis) 100 -Year Depth (ft) 2.1 Q ft3/s) #Holes Diameter (in) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 0.17 0.33 0.513 0.67 0.83 1.09 1.17 1.33 1.50 1.67 4 0.30 0.59 0.89 1.19 1.48 1.78 2.07 2.37 2.67 2.96 5 0.46 0.93 1.39 1.85 2.31 2.78 3.24 3.70 4.16 4.63 6 0.67 1,33 2.00 2.66 3.33 4.00 4.66 5.33 5.99 6.66 100 -Year Depth (ft) 2.1 25.ycar 100 -year Qallow Qorificc Qgratc 2.4 2.4 0.0 Qallow Qnri lice Qgratc 10.6 4.9 5.7 Q ft3/s) #Holes Diameter (in) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 0.34 0.68 1.03 1.37 1.71 2.05 2.40 2.74 3.08 3.42 4 0.61 1.22 1.83 2.43 3.04 3.65 4.26 -1.5.; 5.48 6.09 5 0.95 1.90 2.85 3.80 4.75 5.70 6.63 7.61 8.56 9.51 6 1.37 2.74 4,11 5.48 6.84 8.21 9.58 10.95 12.32 13.69 25.ycar 100 -year Qallow Qorificc Qgratc 2.4 2.4 0.0 Qallow Qnri lice Qgratc 10.6 4.9 5.7 Pond outlet culvert.txt Culvert calculator 18" RCP Pond Outlet All calculator output should be verified Entered Data: Shape Number of Barrels Solving for Chart Number Scale Number Chart Description ENTRANCE Scale Description Overtopping Flowrate Manning's n Roadway Elevation Inlet Elevation Outlet Elevation Diameter Length Entrance Loss Tailwater prior to design use Circular 1 Headwater 1 1 CONCRETE PIPE CULVERT; NO BEVELED RING SQUARE EDGE ENTRANCE off 10.6000 cfs 0.0240 5467.0000 ft 5460.0000 ft 5459.8000 ft 18.0000 in 24.0000 ft 0.0000 1.0000 ft WITH HEADWALL Computed Results: Headwater 5462.8095 ft outlet Control Slope 0.0083 ft/ft velocity 6.7336 fps Messages: outlet head > Inlet head. Computing Outlet Control headwater. outlet not submerged. Normal Depth: 18.0000 in Critical Depth: 15.0068 in Flow is subcritical. Normal depth > critical depth. Tailwater depth < normal depth. M2 drawdown profile. Tailwater depth <= critical depth. Depth computed with direct step method Headwater: 5462.8095 ft 1 starting at critical depth. DIS- HEAD- INLET OUTLET CHARGE WATER CONTROL CONTROL FLOW NORMAL CRITICAL Flow ELEV. DEPTH DEPTH TYPE DEPTH DEPTH cfs ft ft ft in in 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 10.00 1.00 12.00 1.00 14.00 5460.74 5461.11 5462.09 5462.42 5462.71 5463.09 5463.61 0.74 1.11 1.79 1.98 2.27 2.83 3.50 0.71 NA 0.38 NA 2.09 M2 2.42 M2 2.71 M2 3.09 M2 3.61 M2 7.76 11.86 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 Page 1 6.40 9.19 9.19 9.19 9.19 9.19 9.19 OUTLET VEL. DEPTH fps ft 2.75 3.24 3.40 4.53 5.66 6.79 7.92 0.65 0.99 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Computed Headwater is less than actual available heacl: Culvert has capacity for 100 - year event TAILWATER VEL. DEPTH fps ft 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TUDY ZONE A LIMIT OF STUDY ZONE A ZONE A 130S Approximate �p Project Location I ®. ZONE A ZONE C APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 {---1 I ----H I ----H ZONE A rir 1300 J 11 I I 17 EDI NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) PANEL 1315 OF 1900 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PHINTEOY COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 080205 1315 MAP REVISED: JANUARY 3, 1986 Federal Emergency Management Agency 1 This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F -MIT On -Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at ww.msc.fema.gov RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECTION FOR INLET SWALE OR PIPE I I -I-1 111111111111111 11 -ISI ISI I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11-11 III -I -I _. II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� I I-111 111 III -III I � `� +� III -III III I � 1-I 1 I 7 II -111 111 III III III f=1 III III -III -I 1=1-I 1=1 11=1 I -I -III-III III -I i -1-I 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1= 1 1-1 1-1 1-1 11=1 11=111=1 1=1 -'11;1 I I t I SPILLWAY CREST ELEV=5466 CDOT TYPE D OVERFLOW OUTLET GRATE=5465.5 SURFACE 3,300 SF AREA OF SANDFILTER ELEV=5463 12" MIN ASTM C 33 SAND. " t " �r " f>.7 " raise Ti[�iiT► airs �T� is �Triais ger•ry � ai�7sTriT•riinT#T.S • Lf �� `s .� tie ti� e llnt t `">.' t �IIIII 1-1 I Ii ,J —iii—iii-111- 111-I I I=111-111-111=1 111-111-111-111 =1 1 1- 1-III=111-111-1 1 1-1 1 1 -1 11-I l I -I -1 1 1-1 II -ISI -ISI -111-111-111- -111-1 1 I -I 1 1=1 1 I-111 I -111-111-I III 111-I11-111- -I11-,;111_„111„ 1111 1 -1 11-1 1-1 1j1111,;,111-1' I.. I 1 III 1=111=111=1 �I111111111I1111111111111111111111111 -1I1-111 1I -11I -I I1=1 FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI 140N, OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE 111-111-11 1-111-111-1 � 1�1 1 4” DIA PERFORATED PVC PIPE SAND FILTER BASIN 111=11I=I11-II I=IIII=111=111=111-111=111-11=1 1-111 -III-III III -III -I 1=1 I III-IIIIII111-1 1=111-111-111-111-111-111-111-111,,-111-11-I GRAVEL LAYER SHALL MEET CDOT :Ill -111= SPECIFICATION 703 FOR CONCRETE = 11 - COARSE AGGREGATE NO. 8 (ASSHTO M43 -N0. 8) N.T.S. GRATE ELEVATION=5465.5 EIGHT 4" DIA ORIFICE ON 8" CENTERS 3• WASHED ROCK I D.... i.... i O.OrO.o. I FILTER FABRIC 18" HDPE " PERF HDPE INV=5460.20 8" HDPE INV=5460.00 TYPE D INLET MODIFICATION N.T.S. 111=111111_ II111�111EI11= 11=SOLID 18" PIPE UNDER BERM ittl/LSIONS INT Battlement Mesa Garfield County, CO GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB PR 100 YR WSEL=5465.9 Detention Pond Details PR 25 YR WSEL=5464.3 RELEASE RATE=2.4-CFS WQCV WSEL=5463.8 WQCV=2,870 CF POND BOTTOM=5463 1012,2012 WTI ITT ()CS 215240NT: �.�— Vertical Scale: 1" = NA Contour Interval = 1 Foot Horizontal Scale 50 0 50 100 1" = 100' 'ONS�J 141 9th steer, P.O. Box 774943 s,eemboat Springs. Colorado 80477 Phone (970) 871-9494 Fax (970) 871.9299 www.LANOMARR-CO.cam SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 Approximate 16" Waterline Location Per As -Built Map By Gingery Associates, Inc. Job No. 1631.142 42" CMP Inv. In El = 5459.2' Inv. Out El - 5452.8' Battlement Mesa Land Investments 73 G Sipprelle Drive Battlement Mesa, CO 81636 (Zoned P.U.D. Subdivision) / , , /1 4/� c !_T` 1•. d; 1 Battlement Mesa Land Investments 73 G Sipprelle Drive Battlement Mesa, CO 81636 n) (Zoned P.U.D. Subdivision) 24" Concrete Pipe Inv. In El= 5515.3' Inv. Out El= 5512.0' LEGEND — —6800— — 6800 Zone A Area of 100 r Year Flood / r / / / / / / / 1 / // ei /' /// / / /' ,./ / /Dr¢ inat/e &,Utility , / / ,' EasemenfNo: 3 / / "'Rricepl on,No. , 410(33 7 r/ r r' / \ 1 / / / r / i / r 1 1 1' / l 1' i 1 / / / 1 / r r 11 /' / / / r; ( % 1 )1 / ' 1 / r L' / r /' // / r/ I I 1 I / f / ! ( / / / 1 1 I 1 1 r1 I ' ) r 11 / r ,r ; / // I 1 / / I 1 rr 1 r / 1 / ! / r / / // r / I // / I ,1 1 i / / 1 I I l l 11 / r! l I / / l 1 / / / 1 , � � 7 I I l / / 1 / r/.' / /1 / , l ' / /r l ' _• ,/ r 1 // / r 1 % % / //' / r/ / ' / // : I % 11 ! / / '' / !r 1 /1 11 i 11 1 ' i I t1 ,// / / , ,/ /,/ ,r /) {l // /r/ /,' / // ,r /r II !1 r1 II I I 11 1 I 11 / ! 1' r / / / , / / / /' / / / r / I // /77 4007 ( r / // r / , / - // /'' ' �/ // / i / ; R� //1 ; I r/ ' r / ;�� ' 6r r' / 1 r i / / I / ,r / ty ,/ / r / 1 1 / , /' 1 / / 1 ,7/ , LOt 1 / r r r Oi / ,/ // 1 7` r / / 'II r ; r p 11.807 t Acres) ; / , 1 !I / l' l / 'vacant and , I r 11 ' i 1 r 1 i r, l / , / 1 // cy . r /' / ) ' r r / / /r / / l 1 / 1 / / r' r' / / r' / i / / `PA i r' / /'/ /r/ /` 1' /1 1! / l r1 r,1 1/ i / / 111 1 �r / i/ i / /r i ///1 / j /71 /// /' J' i /i i / ///1 i i i )/ / 1 1 1 [ / I1 r , / , I! / rr / , , / // / / / ; / r ,/ If / l f ,k /. \1 A/11 1 1. I I r� r ,' 7 r ! / / 1 rl r/1 / / / r' / / , 1 / 1 p 1 1 I 1 I , 7 , l r I 11 / r i 1 ' '/ - / 1 ! 'A / ti I 1 , ' 1 ' i 1 11 Il '� r I f % 'l f r/' �1 i i ! %` I ) I I i I 1 ; 1 � r r / 11 �' i i I l 11/ 11 // // , r !/ I r 7 / 1 II I II I I ' 1 f I I . / /r r r1 r , , 1 .7 1'\ 1 I`1 1 ' I i 11 1f, / I I.1 1 1 5 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 \, ` 1 I 7 1 ` 1 1 \ 1 '1\ \ I 1 I \ \ \ \ 1 ` \ \ \ \sk la • • BASIN AREA ACRES PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED BACK OF CURB AND FLOWLINE EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED DITCH / SWALE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN PROPOSED BASIN BOUNDARY EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED CULVERT EXISTING CULVERTP PROPOSED STORM DRAINS AND STORM MANHOLE FLOW ARROW DESIGN POINT BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS NO. DAIS Garfield County School Distad 16 PO Box 68 Parachute, CO 81635-0068 (Zoned P.U.D. Subdivision) HEN81Ors Battlement Mesa Garfield County, CO GRHD Battlement Mesa MOB Existing Conditions Drainage Plan INT DATE.. 1812/2012 OGN.8Y: DD3 JOB NO. 2152.009 OWN. BY: DCS DWG. NO. DING 8900,8Y: Battlement Mesa Land Investments Town Center 3 LLC P.O. Box 6000 Parachute, CO 81635 (Zoned P.U.D. Subdivision) Vertical Scale: 1" = NA Contour Interval = 1 Foot Horizontal Scale 50 0 50 100 Approximate 12" Waterline Location Per As -Built Map By Gingery Associates, Inc Job No. 1631.142 :; V \ Sanitaryeriirie Battlement Plaza Town Center, LLC PO Box 6000 Battlement Mesa, CO 81635 (Zoned P.U.D. Subdivision) The Bishop & Diocese of Colorado 1300 Washington Street Denver, CO 80203 (Zoned P.U.D. Subdivision) 1r'g XS 1" = 100' CONSULTANTS, INC. T 141 9th 5 — P.O. Box 774941 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477 Phone (970) 871.9494 — Fax (970) 871-9299 wee w. L A N D M A R R- C O. c o m SHEET N0. 1 OF 1 ( ` `\ / / / /[/ / / ~. / � /r / ' ' / / / ,// / , � . , '' /' / / //. // / ' / / 1 1 / / / /'//� ) | | \ \' ` \ ` `\ / / / �\\`\.\\.\ ` \\ // \ ` / \ \\ `\ `` �` `\i \) `` � \ ` '`r\ ` � . \ \^ \ . `.i\ \ ` ```'�\°\\\�\`\\ \`` `` \\\` \`,!\\`. \ .\`.\\\\� `.\ :\ \ \ \ `) \ � \ \ ` /! / // / / / / i / /i/`/� ' / /''/ / / // ~ ' '�m \� /' '•1����, 4 ./ J /'�/ /' // ' ' /,, / � / v11v,/ / 1/. / ' ��1 � / /�' ./ ' / . . .� ///� / �,i y/1� // ii -it // ''/' .//.// 1 / /.�// / // 1 //// / 1 // / ` / / / // ' // / � ' / � / / / /1 . / / /' / I'/// / ' //// ' /// ' ///// // , ,�/ ,/.'///// 1 i / // !�/ /////^(/ i ) 1 1111, 11,1.t '^1'-/,r I � / /'./// / ^ `` /�~`�.°��r���r v`��� NO. DATE PENSIONS INT Battlement Mesa Garfield County, CO mR_HDBattlement Mesa MOB Existing Drainage Basins w/ Google Earth Contours DATE: 12/12/2012 MB NO. 2152-003 DWG. NO. 513110 = BY: u61__— DM. BY: _In__ SURV. BY: Vertical Scale: 1" = NA Contour Interval =1 Foot Horizontal Scale NDMARKI CONSULTANTS, INC. 141 ,.^".... ,.v.Box n.,w ,...~^^.�����v.. w/°.^, ^o^,,WWW .LANDMARH-CO.com Phone (970) SHEET NO. OF 1 5403 5485 5450 un 5470 5465 atm STORM SEWER 1400 2,70 NW Mine L SCALE 5471 5470 5465 5420 5480 5476 54NORTHEAST STORM SEWER LisI91 / / / 05700 wel / / / i T d�P iv is' 2iw / iw I Ina _ 7 77 / 7 �— 5440 Iw / — -p9g N''lt 1r w96R`p5 B5abx0:a:606�/ 7 / / / mesa awe / / / c 807 s 76 441111111111111111 i 1C Hn P9A 0 uro isg a c E b pap A R x 5WE atm STORM SEWER 1400 2,70 NW Mine L SCALE 5471 5470 5465 5420 5480 5476 54NORTHEAST STORM SEWER NORTHWEST STORY SEWER +00104= 50Be : ra 2d LisI91 / / / 05700 wel / / / i T d�P iv is' 2iw NORTHWEST STORY SEWER +00104= 50Be : ra 2d 1100 90900nu SOME : 0 3C HA084. 50401:1•.1 5475 alvsa:10 INT Battlement Mesa Garfield County, CO GRFID Battlement Mesa MOB Storm Sewer Profiles 5018: 121162072 DEN BY. yb_ AB NO 5152803 21701. 6r. DM Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' Contour Interval = NA Horizontal Scale 25 0 25 50 1" = 50' 9 CONSULTANTS, INC. IJ 141 9.12 Street P.O. Box 774943 Blesmbovl Springs. Colorado 80477 Phone (970) 071-9496 Pax (970) 871-9299 4444 w.LANDMABB-CO.com SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 r5aED / / / 05700 wel / / / i T d�P / RJ 2iw iw I Ina 1100 90900nu SOME : 0 3C HA084. 50401:1•.1 5475 alvsa:10 INT Battlement Mesa Garfield County, CO GRFID Battlement Mesa MOB Storm Sewer Profiles 5018: 121162072 DEN BY. yb_ AB NO 5152803 21701. 6r. DM Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' Contour Interval = NA Horizontal Scale 25 0 25 50 1" = 50' 9 CONSULTANTS, INC. IJ 141 9.12 Street P.O. Box 774943 Blesmbovl Springs. Colorado 80477 Phone (970) 071-9496 Pax (970) 871-9299 4444 w.LANDMABB-CO.com SHEET NO. 1 OF 1