The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20130567.tiffEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case USR12-0075 - PLAINS MARKETING, LP, CIO BASELINE CORPORATION Exhibit Submitted By Description A. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation B. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 02/19/2013) C. Planning Services PowerPoint Presentation Baseline Engineering, D. Planning and Surveying Final Drainage Report E. Baseline Corporation Revised Traffic Study F. Applicant PowerPoint Presentation, received 2/27/2013 G. Public Works staff Estimated Trips Summary H. Applicant Proposed Conditions I. Applicant CR 398 Vehicle Trips J. Public Works staff Proposed language, dated 2/27/2013 K. L. M. N. 0. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. W. 2013-0567 C V 0) a) 0 E 0 0 C C C a C O a) a d 2 L 0 C 0 0 c q 0 a O o 1 tL m° EXHIBIT Plains Crude Oil Tank Farm — Manitou Rail Facility, Ross ND r Tr • Plains Manitou Crude Oil Loading Rack, Ross ND View to north — Guttersen Ranch property View to north — Guttersen Ranch property • S 5 ft., is god• - • c -•v a OPN s j . -• • , . . 4 ate "..- • { _ • 471- - tt Ilk so 0 li-s- C'. 1:111:44.4911 ....ke. '.. .1.4 4 '` ▪ "1 1.1 �... M.•• �� Cs•`= _a • If .4 � r 1 C '�. ` asp,. 1 ma. • tit a, • as ,. --L •Y A 1a. T •� ✓ R • . • W a a J ..Fe A. t. - %Awl". 411. Ati • • fts l View into Plains All American site from CR 398 I I • • FT I 1 - L Y ■ I • r— I I I -` •` .4 • � rA `_S Y.\'.Y._•��•. :4 - �• •-i �•� •mil • tit 'IC .1-Ci 1 .1"-� - mil\ .w A - • _ C. � ` - ▪ ..j Nom' i iet •'' .a �. ` is • � i r • �. v. \ ;re.t a \ t i `s .t - om + MS • � � • C ` . r ti • "•. _ ti - - Y. - = �. v _ .•J�•a '� 11 �� R . M . • •A '+• .• a• •:• • - • J l 1 • a• Y./ .. . l •• om. .. .• 1 •' S 'xiY - _ n • • I. _S 4 .• • q• '. - _ - .. r w •Syr' �- • • `�• _ •..-� i 1 . _ tit _ •ate • : - t • �(" D' -' a - - _• ,' .. �� — .'1.41.7.6%;21: ... _ fir-!- ra�1Y1�'f Sri •_�i3O•••- • i � -}.+ YC �'=Y - �•..�'; Z=R - _ - �•I- f I• "hest • View into Plains All American site from CR 398 View into Plains All American site from CR 398 10 •ITT a N. t�G Ifs'_it�. '7 r -;•-... y, i- A- /1� '( ...r v5J A ` _ 1 ^ n;.� ~f .rte: I �C o- V.�f 4.27:07112.1..tom _ I I. �: tia• �`� ..»� �".* . M.y�- �4.. :� -* . 7. .1l� i _'. - r_c e'•�� _ .t" ''� _ s+�- y.. p. L a. J�`4• v.e ' � r ...a .... - rX .s •..er. !' d. t r.�.¢ y ,.� �. i Plains Crud _Oil Rail Facility - Ross ND - Plains Crude Oil Tank Farm _ c-. 4,71,21 ins Crude Oil Loading Rack Karla Ford From: Kim Ogle Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:05 AM To: Karla Ford Cc: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: USR 12-0075 Plains AAP Tampa Facility Final Drainage Attachments: Final Drainage-2-22-13.pdf Final Drainage Report — new submittal. This document is in reviewed and has not been accepted by Public Works Kim Kim Ogle Planner III Department of Planning 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Direct: 970.353.6100 x 3549 Office: 970.353.6100 x 3540 Facsimile: 970.304.6498 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Jennifer Petrik Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 7:54 AM To: Donald Carroll; Kim Ogle Subject: FW: USR 12-0075 Plains AAP Tampa Faclity Final Drainage FYI... Jennifer Petrik Engineer I Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street Greeley, CO 80632 970-304-6496 x3762 1 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Noah Nemmers [mailto:noah@baselinecorp.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:10 PM To: Jennifer Petrik Subject: USR 12-0075 Plains AAP Tampa Faclity Final Drainage Jennifer, Please find attached the revised Final Drainage Report. I will be submitting a hard copy as well but wanted to get this in your hands as soon as possible prior to next weeks hearing. Regards, NOAH NEMMERS, I Civil Engineering Manager, Golden I Baselinm Engineering, Manning, & Surveying I Corporate Headquarters: 700 12th Street, Suite 220 I Golden, CO 80401 I Phone: 303.940.9966 I Fax: 303.940.9959 I Cell: 303.482.7712 I www.baselinecorp.com I blog.baselinecorp.com 2 Final Drainage Study Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Located on Land in Section 17, Township 2N, Range 63W of the 6th P.M., east of the BNSF Railroad Prepared By: Baseline Engineering Corporation 700 12th Street # 220 Golden, Colorado 80401 February 21, 2013 MBASELINE tit Engineering • Planning Surveying 1 I hereby certify that this report for the drainage design of Plains AAP Tampa Transload Facility was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) in accordance with the previsions of the Weld County storm drainage criteria for the owners thereof." Noah Nemmers P.E. State of Colorado No. 39820 3 February 20, 2013 Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street Greeley, CO 80632 RE: USR12-0075 Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility MBASELINE Engineering • Planning • Surveying The purpose of this Final Drainage Report is to present the final design details for the drainage facilities associated with the Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility. The drainage improvements for this project consist of culverts and drainage swales that convey developed flows from the project area to a proposed detention pond. The detention pond is sized to detain runoff from the 100 -year storm falling on the developed area and release the detained water at the 5 -year undeveloped runoff rate. Water quality for the developed area is also provided within this facility. This report has been prepared in conformance with the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Manual and the County Engineering and Construction Criteria. Final grading plans for this site were prepared in coordination with loop track design prepared by Wilson and Company incorporated into the calculations and findings of this report. Sincerely, Baselite Engineering Corporation Noah J Nemmers PE Manager of Civil Engineering\ Golden Corporate Headquarters Downtown Golden 700 12th Street. Suite 220 Golden, Colorado 80401 Ph 303.940.9966 Fax 303.940.9959 High Plains Downtown Greeley 710 11th Avenue, Suite 105 Greeley. Colorado 80631 Ph 970.353.7600 Fax 970.353.7601 Rocky Mountains Ski Village 1815 Central Park Drive, #370 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477 Ph 970.879.1825 Fax 866.242.9106 Baseline Engineering Corp. 700 12th St. Suite 220 Golden CO 80401 Contents General Location and Description 5 Location 5 Description of Property 5 Drainage Basin and Sub -Basin 5 Major Basin Description 5 Sub -Basin Description 6 Drainage Design Criteria 10 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints 10 Hydrological Criteria 10 Hydraulic Criteria 14 Drainage Facility Design 16 General Concept 17 Specific Details 18 Conclusions 19 Compliance with Weld County Code 19 Drainage Concept 19 APPENDIX 20 A. SOILS MAP B. RAINFALL DATA C. HEC-HMS CALCULATIONS AND OUTPUT (HISTORIC) D. HEC-HMS CALCULATIONS AND OUTPUT (PROPOSED) E. RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS (PROPOSED) F. HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS G. HISTORIC DRAINAGE PLAN H. PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN 4 General Location and Description Location All that part of the Section 17, Township 2 North, Range 63 West of the 6`h Principal Meridian, Lying Southerly of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way, County of Weld, State of Colorado ii. The site is adjacent to the east side of Weld County Road 398, also known as the 1-76 Frontage Road. iii. No major drainageways or irrigation facilities are present on the site. iv. The site is bordered to the west by a Burlington Northern Mainline Railroad. All other surrounding properties are undeveloped agricultural land. The closest municipal entity is Keenesburg located to the south. Description of Property i. The property encompasses 356.6 Acres of this approximately 206 Acres will be significantly impacted by the proposed site improvements. ii. Existing ground cover for the on -site basin consists of native grasses and low brush. Soil type is primarily Type C (Osgood Sand). Type A (Valent Sand) and Type D (Loup-Boel Lomy Sand) are also present. Larger concentrations of Type A and Type B soils are located directly upstream and make up the majority of the upstream (off -site) basins. A soil map for the entire drainage basin developed using the online NRCS Web Soil Survey mapping tool can be found in Appendix A. iii. No open channels are present on the site with the exception of roadside swales along County Road 398 and BNSF railway. The property proposed for development is currently owned by Plains Marketing LP. iv. The property will be developed as an intermodal facility for transportation of petroleum products via both truck and rail. Facilities to be installed include gravel roads and parking lots, permanent structures, loading facilities, and a unit -train loop track with connections to the existing BNSF mainline railroad. v. No irrigation facilities are present on or within 200' of the site. vi. Ground water characteristics were not available at the time this report was written. Any dewatering required during construction will need to be properly permitted through CDPHE. Drainage Basin and Sub -Basin Major Basin Description i. No Weld County Master Drainage Plan exists for this basin. ii. The major basin is bounded approximately by Interstate 76 to the west and north, Lost Creek to the east, and CO Rd. 18 to the south. Offsite basins flow to two existing culverts adjacent to the property that convey storm runoff 5 under the BNSF Railway that forms the westerly boundary of the site. These off -site flows are then routed through the site flowing easterly along with the undeveloped flows from this property. All flows sheet flow to the east. iii. No FEMA defined 100 year floodplains/floodways are present in this area. iv. See Drainage Maps (see Appendix G and H) for contours. Off -site basins were defined based on a USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map for the area titled "TAMPA QUADRANGLE". On -Site basins and the conveyance structures for the off -site basins were defined based on ground topography surveyed using GPS and conventional survey methods. Sub -Basin Description I. Historically the site receives offsite flows from the west via culverts under Weld County Road 398 and the existing BNSF railroad. The site drains to the east at grades from 2-10%. All flows are transmitted overland east to Lost Creek. Offsite flows from properties to the north and south are negligent. ii. Historic sub -basins were modeled using HEC-HMS (see Appendix C) and the parameters for those basins are as follows: Basin OS1 is 0.392 square miles (251 acres) and has an imperviousness of less than 1% consisting of the County Road and BNSF track along the eastern border. The average basin slope is 1.3%. The basin contains primarily Type "A" soils with a small area of Type "C" (see Appendix A). For the HEC-HMS model an SCS Curve number of 69 was selected based on a hydrologic soil type of "B" (to be conservative) with "Fair" conditions for Pasture or Rangeland. Flows from this basin are conveyed easterly and flow on -site by means of an existing 30" corrugated metal culvert under Weld County Road 398 and a 30" concrete culvert under the BNSF mainline. Based on an analysis of each culvert the existing structures are only capable of passing 24.63 CFS in the pipe which is roughly equivalent to the 5-yr storm for this basin. The remaining flow is detained before overtopping the rail. Calculations for the culverts can be found in Appendix F " Hydraulic Computations". Basin 0S2 is 0.334 square miles (204 acres) and has an imperviousness of less than 1% consisting of the County Road and BNSF track along the eastern border. The average basin slope is 1.6%. For the HEC-HMS model an SCS Curve number of 69 was selected based on a hydrologic soil type of "B" (see Appendix A) with "Fair" conditions for Pasture or Rangeland. Flows from this basin are conveyed easterly and flow on -site by means of an existing 6'x4' concrete box culvert under Weld County Road 398 and a dual 6'x4'concrete box under the BNSF mainline. Based on an analysis of each culvert the existing single box culvert structure under 392 is capable of passing 169 CFS with the remaining 3.92 CFS overtopping the road. The dual box under the BNSF main line is capable of passing the entre flow within the structure. Calculations for the culverts can be found in Appendix F " Hydraulic Computations". Basin OS3 is 0.019 square miles (12 acres) and has an imperviousness of less than 1% consisting of the County Road and BNSF track along the eastern border. The average basin slope is 2.5%. For the HEC-HMS model an SCS Curve number of 69 was selected based on a hydrologic soil type of "B" (see Appendix A) with "Fair" conditions for Pasture or Rangeland. Flows from this basin are conveyed easterly and flow on -site by means of an existing 24" circular concrete culvert under Weld County Road 398 and a 24" circular concrete culvert under the BNSF mainline. Based on an analysis of each culvert the existing structures are only capable of passing the entire 100 flow of 14.6 CFS in the pipe. Calculations for the culverts can be found in Appendix F " Hydraulic Computations". Basin H1 is 0.582 square miles (356 acres) this basin represents the undeveloped conditions of the site with an imperviousness of less than 1%. The average basin slope is 1.5%. The Basin H1 there is a mix of soil types but the predominant soil is type "C" (see Appendix A). For the HEC-HMS model an SCS Curve number of 79 was selected based on a hydrologic soil type of "C" with "Fair" conditions for Pasture or Rangeland. Flows from this basin are conveyed downstream by sheet flow. This Basin was also modeled as Basin P1 to simulate the runoff from the entire basin in proposed conditions. This model was used as a check in conjunction with the Rational Method calculations for the individual basins. Detailed HEC-HMS Calculations and Output for the 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100- yr storm frequencies can be found in Appendix C and D. Properties to the north and south of the project site contribute a negligent amount of flow being that they drain easterly in parallel with the property line. iii. Proposed sub -basins are described as follows: Basin 1 is 8.19 acres and is located in the southwest corner of the site. This basin will remain undeveloped with the exception of the loop track connections to the BNSF mainline and the switches for inbound and outbound rail traffic. This basin receives offsite flows from an existing dual 6'x4' concrete box culvert under the BNSF mainline. The box culvert conveys off -site flows from Basin O52 as described above, these flows will continue to flow through Basin 1 and will bypass the proposed detention basin. The culvert proposed under the loop track in Basin 1 (Culvert B) has been sized to convey the bypass flow from Basin OS2 which will then flow offsite via rail -side swales that spread out to overland sheet flow. Basin 2 is 49.0 acres adjacent to the west property line and the BNSF right of way. It contains the vehicular entrance to the site and a gravel lot for truck parking and unloading, it also includes a future lined storage pond. Surface flows are routed around the lined pond. The remaining portions of the basin will be undeveloped. Flows are transmitted overland and via swales to Culvert "D". This culvert proposed under the loop track has been sized to convey the bypass flow from Basin OS3 which will then ultimately be conveyed to Basin 7 and detained before outfalling east of the loop track. Basin 3 is 5.83 acres located at the south end of the site, in the triangle formed by three switches for the proposed loop track. Flows are transmitted under the rail bed via Culvert "E" and then offsite via rail -side swales that spread out to overland sheet flow. Basin 4 totals 28.08 acres and is located at the south end of the loop track. It will remain undeveloped with the exception of the railbed that forms its western and southern boundary. Flows will primarily run overland and be transmitted under the track via Culvert "G" where they will flow offsite via rail -side swales that spread out to overland sheet flow. Basin 5 is 45.13 acres adjacent to the west property line & the BNSF right of way and contains the majority of all structural and mechanical development. Features to be installed include an administration building, operations and welfare building, meter skids, inbound manifold, gravel parking area, and two 150' diameter storage tanks. Flows from this basin will be collected in a swale adjacent to the loop track and conveyed to Culvert "J", which flows into Basin 7 and is detained before outfalling east of the loop track. Basin 6 is 17.34 acres adjacent to the west property line & BNSF right of way. It will remain undeveloped except for the proposed loop track and a portion of the proposed bad order track. Flows from this basin will be collected in a swale adjacent to the proposed loop track and conveyed to Culvert "K", which outfalls to Basin 7 and is detained before outfalling east of the loop track. Basin 7 is 94.96 acres located inside the loop track and will remain undeveloped except for the rail loop and the proposed detention pond. Runoff from Basins 2, 5, and 6 will join with flows from this basin and will be transmitted overland and to swales adjacent to the rail loop and conveyed to the proposed detention pond. The detention pond outlet structure connects to Culvert "I", which will transmit all detained flows from the pond under the rail loop and off site via overland flow to the east. The loop track forms the eastern boundary of this basin and also acts as the weir for the detention pond. Basin 8 is 21.01 acres located in the southeast corner of the proposed loop and will remain undeveloped except for track features. Flows will be conveyed overland to Culvert "H" where they will pass under the track and flow offsite via rail -side swales that spread out to overland sheet flow. Basin 9 is 65.45 acres adjacent to the north and east property lines and will remain undeveloped. Off -site flows from Basin OS1 as described above will continue to flow through Basin 9 and will bypass the proposed detention basin. Basin 10 is 21.77 acres adjacent to the south property line and will remain undeveloped. Off -site flows from Basin OS2 as described above will continue to flow through Basin 10 and will bypass the proposed detention basin. In total there is only a 6.8% imperviousness proposed with the improvements and much of the conveyance is done through long overland flows both in rail -side channels and sheet flow across undisturbed rangeland. Detailed Rational Method calculations for the 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-yr storm frequencies for these basins can be found in Appendix E. Drainage Design Criteria Development Criteria Reference and Constraints i. No previous drainage studies are known to exist for the property. ii. In the historic condition all flows travel overland from west to east. The proposed rail loop will interrupt those flows from the southernmost existing culvert. These flows will be collected via swales and a culvert and transmitted through the loop as required to bypass the upstream flow. Flows from the northernmost existing culvert will proceed through the site uninhibited in the proposed condition since the proposed improvements are not within the historic flow path for this discharge. The proposed buildings, mechanical areas, and gravel roads and parking areas were accounted for in the proposed site impervious calculations, as shown in the appendices. Hydrological Criteria i. Precipitation frequency for this site was determined using Colorado Precipitation Frequency Data from NOAA's Website. Using the site specific estimating tool for the sites coordinates yielded the following output from NOAA Atlas 2 data: 10 Map Precipitation (Inches) Intensity (In/Hr) 2 -year, 6 -hour 1.25 0.21 2 -year, 24 -hour 1.69 0.07 100 -year, 6 -hour 3.21 0.54 100 -year, 24 -hour 3.81 0.16 Design storm rainfall amounts for the 5, 10 and 100 year frequencies were generated from this data using the UDFCD Rainfall Workbook . IDF Curves generated from this data along with detailed tables and NOAA Atlas 2 Isopluvial Maps for each of the design storms can be found in Appendix B under the "Rainfall Data". This data and the 1 -hour point rainfall that was generated were used in calculating the runoff in the Rational Method forms. Intensity Value Results are shown below: 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 2-yr 0.25 0.39 0.50 0.57 0.87 1.00 1.10 1.25 1.69 5-yr 0.38 0.60 0.75 0.87 1.33 1.49 1.61 1.80 2.20 10-yr 0.46 0.73 0.92 1.07 1.63 1.79 1.91 2.10 2.60 25-yr 0.57 0.90 1.14 1.32 2.01 2.21 2.36 2.60 3.05 50-yr 0.67 1.07 1.34 1.55 2.36 2.55 2.68 2.90 3.40 100-yr 0.76 1.22 1.53 1.77 2.70 2.87 3.00 3.21 3.81 500-yr 0.97 1.54 1.94 2.24 3.42 3.64 3.80 4.05 4.66 ii. The 5, 10, and 100 year storm recurrence intervals for this site were analyzed per Weld County specification. The 25 and 50 year storm recurrence intervals were analyzed to satisfy BNSF requirements. iii. For basins less than 160 acres the Rational Method was used to determine peak runoff. For basins larger than 160 acres the Hydrologic Modeling Program HEC-HMS was used. HEC-HMS was primarily used on the off -site runoff and for comparison of the site runoff conditions between existing and proposed conditions. Basins O51, O52, and OS3 were routed to the BNSF railway. Beyond the railway each basin was linked to a reach and combined with the flow on -site from H1 in the historic condition and 131 in the proposed. The flows from each the off - site reaches and on -site runoff have been combined in a junction that notes the accumulation of flows. A summary of each of these computed 11 flows for the 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-yr storm frequencies can be found in the appendix along with an output graph and hydrograph output. A runoff summary is noted on the Historic Basin map. The Rational Method was used exclusively for the developed site basins being that they are all less than 160 acres. Spreadsheet results for Rational Method calculations can be found in Appendix E and a runoff summary is noted on the Proposed Basin map as well as below: Runoff Summary Table: DESIGN POINT 5-YR RUNOFF DESIGN BASIN w OIn ce Qa RUNOFF COEFF C5 tc (min) [FROM SF -2] U a U -_ a0 1 1 8.19 0.15 46.88 1.27 1.58 2.00 2 2 49.00 0.19 85.00 9.41 1.06 9.95 3 3 5.83 0.16 40.04 0.92 1.75 1.61 4 4 28.08 0.16 38.94 4.41 1.78 7.86 5 5 45.13 0.19 62.75 8.59 1.30 11.20 6 6 17.34 0.17 50.14 2.92 1.51 4.42 7 7 94.96 0.17 65.03 15.81 1.27 20.13 8 8 21.01 0.16 42.25 3.32 1.69 5.62 9 9 65.45 0.15 109.95 9.82 0.88 8.64 10 10 21.77 0.15 89.88 3.27 1.02 3.32 DESIGN POINT 10-YR RUNOFF DESIGN BASIN _ w O CLQ Q " RUNOFF COEFF C10 tc (min) [FROM SF -2] U :� a U i _ .C c a13 1 1 8.19 0.25 46.88 2.08 1.94 4.03 2 2 49.00 0.29 85.00 14.00 1.30 18.14 3 3 5.83 0,26 40.04 1.49 2.14 3.21 4 4 28.08 0.26 38.94 7.19 2.18 15.69 5 5 45.13 0.29 62.75 12.89 1.60 20.59 6 6 17.34 0.27 50.14 4.61 1.86 8.55 7 7 94.96 0.26 65.03 25.08 1.56 39.12 8 8 21.01 0.26 42.25 5.40 2.07 11.19 9 9 65.45 0.25 109.95 16.36 1.08 17.65 10 10 21.77 0.25 89.88 5.44 1.25 6.78 13 Runoff Summary Table (Continued): DESIGN POINT 100-YR RUNOFF DESIGN BASIN W O cca RUNOFF COEFF Cioo tc (min) [FROM SF -2] a U i E c�v 1 1 8.19 0.50 46.88 4.11 3.21 13.20 2 2 49.00 0.52 85.00 25.32 2.15 54.36 3 3 5.83 0.50 40.04 2.93 3.55 10.42 4 4 28.08 0.50 38.94 14.12 3.62 51.05 5 5 45.13 0.52 62.75 23.63 2.65 62.56 6 6 17.34 0.51 50.14 8.80 3.07 27.05 7 7 94.96 0.51 65.03 48.14 2.58 124.39 8 8 21.01 0.50 42.25 10.57 3.43 36.31 9 9 65.45 0.50 109.95 32.73 1.79 58.48 10 10 21.77 0.50 89.88 10.89 2.06 22.46 iv. Detention calculations were performed using the UDFCD's UD- Detention v2.31 spreadsheet along with the existing and proposed HEC- HMS conditions. v. All offsite flows will be routed through and around the proposed loop track. The detention pond will convey the developed flows from within the loop track and proposed facility. Flows overtopping the pond will ultimately overtop the loop track although only in storms much greater than the 100-yr. Hydraulic Criteria i. A swale is proposed to follow the path of the rail loop to collect runoff as it is transmitted via culverts and overland flow. These swales will be trapezoidal in section with 4:1 side slopes and a 2 foot wide bottom. They will follow the typical grade of the proposed track at 0.50% An analysis of a typical swale section was performed using Hydraflow. The results indicate a 4 foot deep swale with the section outlined above will carry 209 cfs, or over one half of the 100 yr design flow for the entire 14 site. The low point of this swale will be at the east side of the track loop, where the detention pond is located. Culverts were also modeled using Hydraflow. Each culvert was sized to easily pass the 100-yr flow with a head to pipe diameter ratio of less than 1.5 in accordance with County Code on the upstream end of the pipe. The exception to this is Culvert "I" which was sized based on the specific head in the detention pond at the 100-yr storage elevation. Calculations for the swale around the loop track as well as each of the culverts identified on the drainage plan and construction drawings can be found in Appendix C and D. ii. The detention pond was sized using the Hydrograph method based on the 10-yr and 100-yr developed site inflow hyrographs calculated using HEC-HMS for Basins 2, 5, 6, and 7. The basins are noted in the HEC HMS Pond model as P2, P5, P6, and P7. The junction of these flows for the 10yr and 100yr frequency was used as the input for the UD Detention sizing based on the hydrograph method. The total area for these basins is 206.43 acres. The remaining areas of the site are so large that the proposed track improvements do not increase the imperviousness significantly enough to increase the runoff coefficient and therefore they are not routed to the detention basin. The release rate is based on the 5-yr historic runoff for the 206.43 acres tributary to the detention pond. For this large an area HEC HMS was used to determine the appropriate release. The model calculated a peak discharge that is restricted to 47.7 CFS for the contributing area. The minor 10-yr storage based on the hydrograph spreadsheet is 3.51 Ac -Ft and the 100-yr storage volume was calculated to be 18.58 Ac -Ft. The historic and proposed HEC HMS results and hydrograph data can be found in Appendix F " Hydraulic Computations" The detention outlet structure was designed using the UDFCD's UD- Detention v2.31 spreadsheet, the results can be found in Appendix F " Hydraulic Computations". The proposed structure will be as described in the spreadsheet as Routing Order #3, a rectangular box with WQ orifice plate on the front and a single stage open grate on the top. The grate elevation is 4800.00, the 100-yr pond surface (storage) elevation is 4803.20. The pond has been sized with additional capacity below the grate elevation to allow for future expansion, if desired. The ultimate overflow weir elevation occurs at the loop track itself with an elevation of 4805, the loop track elevation provides an additional 2 feet of 15 freeboard beyond the 100-yr storage volume. The 36" outlet culvert has been sized to pass the maximum release rate of 47.7 cfs for the developed site with a restrictor plate designed to achieve this flow. A low talwater basin on the outfall along with riprap protection will return the flow to sheet flow conditions at the release point. See Appendix F " Hydraulic Computations" for all detention storage sizing, outlet calculations, and stage storage tables for the proposed detention pond. iii. The Water Quality outlet will be an orifice plate affixed to the front of the outlet structure. A plate with a single row of 3 holes approximately 1" each in size has been selected. Calculations for the orifice plate opening sizing can be found in the appendices. iv. Culverts will convey flows under the proposed rail loop. CMP with Manning's n -value of 0.024 (max allowed by the program) is the pipe material that has been selected. Diameter and slope vary as needed to convey the 100yr peak flows as shown in the appendices. HGLs and EGLs were calculated using Hydraflow software. Refer to the Appendix F" Hydraulic Computations" for results of those calculations. v. No underground drainage systems will be installed as part of this project. vi. Native seed will be applied to any disturbed areas as a means of permanent erosion control. All culvert and detention outlet points will be protected by rip rap. The outlet for the detention pond has been designed with a low tailwater basin to provide additional erosion and sediment control as well as to dissipate the outflow from the pipe. vii. Only methods approved in the Weld County code or the Weld County Drainage Criteria update to the UDFCD Criteria Manual were used for this analysis. viii. Native seed will be applied to any disturbed areas as a means of permanent erosion control. All culvert and detention outlet points will be protected by rip rap. All rip -rap is proposed to be Type L with dimensions as noted on the construction drawings and summarized below: Calculation for the riprap sizing can be found in Appendix F " Hydraulic Computations". The outlets for each culvert has been designed with a low tailwater basin to provide additional erosion and sediment control as well as to dissipate the outflow from the pipe. The outfall 16 dimensions and velocity call for "Type L" riprap at all outfalls with dimensions as noted below: Location -O 3 V (ft/s) [VELOCITY] d(ft) [DEPTH] Pd [Design Pararnatarl Rock Size [Figure HS -20] D50 (inches) [Figure HS -9] T (feet) [THICKNESS] L (feet) [LENGTH] W (feet) [WIDTH] Area Requred (SY) Area Provided (SY) Culvert A 2 2 6.34 1.38 9.2 Type L 9 1.5 10 10 11.1 15 Culvert B 3.5 10.5 8.56 2.47 12.4 Type L 9 1.5 14 24.5 38.1 40 Culvert C 2 2 5.16 1.69 9.0 Type L 9 1.5 8 10 8.9 10 Culvert D 2.5 7.5 5.3 2.07 5.7 Type L 9 1.5 10 17.5 19.4 20 Culvert E 2 2 3.92 1.58 8.1 Type L 9 1.5 8 10 8.9 10 Culvert F 1.5 1.5 2.5 1 6.2 Type L 9 1.5 6 7.5 5.0 10 Culvert G 3.5 3.5 6.05 2.87 11.4 Type L 9 1.5 14 17.5 27.2 30 Culvert H 3 3 7.43 1.96 10.9 Type L 9 1.5 12 15 20.0 25 Culvert I 3 3 8.4 2.25 12.0 Type L 9 1.5 12 15 20.0 25 Culvert J 3.5 3.5 7.15 2.99 12.1 Type L 9 1.5 14 17.5 27.2 30 Culvert K 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.77 8.0 Type L 9 1.5 10 12.5 13.9 15 ix. Swales are proposed to be located along each side of the loop track. These swales will be trapezoidal in section with A 10 foot wide bottom and 3:1 side slopes. They will follow a minimum slope of 0.50%. An analysis of a typical swale section was performed using Hydraflow. The results indicate a 2.5 foot deep channel will carry 81.97 cfs at a depth of 1.5 feet, easily allowing for 1 foot of freeboard for all developed flows west of and interior to the loop track. The flows that bypass from the upstream basins on the exterior of the loop track from O51 and O52 will be spread out and returned to sheet flow conditions. All swales are compliant with Table 5-9 of the Weld County Engineering Criteria. These swales will ultimately drain either to the proposed detention pond or be spread out to sheet flow conditions before leaving the site. See Appendix F " Hydraulic Computations" for details. Drainage Facility Design General Concept i. Wherever possible, the historic drainage patterns for the site have been preserved. The proposed railroad loop will interrupt the on -site flows in the center of the site. A combination of swales and culverts will be 17 employed to divert water along and through the railbeds to a detention pond at the east side of the interior loop. It is anticipated that flows north, south, and east of the proposed railroad loop will remain in the historic condition. Flows west of and within the loop will generally flow to the east where they will be captured and diverted to the proposed detention pond. An outlet structure will drain the pond to culverts under the loop, returning those flows to the historic pattern. ii. Offsite flows will bypass the site and remain at the historic condition and flow path. iii. The appendices contain copies of all calculations, models, and resources referenced in previous sections that were used in the creation of this analysis. iv. Hydraulic structures present in this design include culverts, swales, and the detention pond outlet structure mentioned in previous sections. No other structures are anticipated for this project. Specific Details i. A maintenance road will be constructed adjacent to each side of the railroad grade, per BNSF specifications for industrial track. This road will also be used for maintenance and access to drainage facilities. The side slopes of the detention pond have been designed to be gradual so that it may be accessed from the west at a 10:1 slope. In addition the following design considerations have been considered for maintenance purposes: • A micropool has been provided. • A design slope of at least 3% in the vegetated bottom of the basin has been provided to help maintain the appearance of the turf grass in the bottom of the basin and reduce the possibility of saturated areas that may produce unwanted species of vegetation and mosquito breeding conditions. Verify slopes during construction, prior to vegetation. • Trash rack sizing recommendations have been implemented per UDFCD. • Access has been provided to the outlet and micropool for maintenance purposes. • Access to the well screen has been provided. • A hard -bottom (concrete) micropool has been provided that allows for removal of sediment. 18 ii. The improvements noted are subject to a Use By Special Review (USR) approval as well as Grading Permit and Building Permit applications through Weld County. Railroad improvements are subject to BNSF approval. Conclusions Compliance with Weld County Code i. This drainage design conforms to all applicable Weld County codes and regulations. Drainage Concept i. This drainage design will be effective in controlling damage due to storm runoff for all storms up to and including the 100 year event. Off -site flows will bypass much of the proposed improvements and flow downstream along the historic flow path. On -site runoff from the 10 - year and 100 -year storm falling on the developed site will be detained within a pond and the detained water will be released at the rate of the runoff of the 5 -year storm falling on the undeveloped pond catchment. Water quality is included for the minor storm to trap sediment and debris. Due to the vast size of the basin and the fact that the improvements only represent a small percentage of imperviousness (6.8%) in the minor storm much of the runoff within the site will infiltrate before getting to the detention pond. What does not infiltrate will be detained and released at the 5-yr historic rate. ii. The proposed development will not impact any existing Weld County Master Drainage Plan recommendations. iii. No approval from offsite jurisdictions is required for this project. iv. References 1. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3; Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, CO. June 2001 (Revised April 2008). 2. Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Strom Drainage Criteria Manuals Volumes 1,2, and 3. Weld County Code Article XI and Appendix 8L. Weld County Public Works Department, Greeley, CO. October 2006 3. Home Rule Charter for the County of Weld, CO. November 6, 2009 19 APPENDIX 20 A. SOILS MAP 21 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part ,.►£ .9Z .901 ..SZ .6Z .P01 .r11 17� 00 N 9 C) co a. Map Scale t t9.300apuntedmAsize (85-x 111 sheet 0 0 0 LL Cp 8 .c 0 0 0 N 0 O O Z ..SZ .6Z .90L Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado. Southern Part MAP INFORMATION MAP LEGEND Map Scale: 1:19,300 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. O. 0 O)m N E m o r m a p O O t C O V m r Co U C 0 O p c w w E o c v) E 7 C N O— V O O U j N co L O p N y y 2 Th U !nom CO LL...: .C co N N m co Q O J a C- Z <Q Z N N L O E U .N 0 O N L 3 GO 7, coN CO C O Q) 7 2 C y ≥Q O Co C a a) c O O 3 C: O E }`cn o o y N E o o c n u) 6 E .a 0.7 a g aD U g ya G T L F- O 03 m c� m d E N 7 N« ?? a L N J fa tn. y N L. r a) cu ZDE c " 0) oNom C A CL) co co @ m m O 0> Cam') C O inm >' C N a }, N Ili N a O CO O O O 7c7i_!a) U D Q O m L C a L 2 O O C_ O N 2 Q Co L y 7 O. y N CI -' •a a a) (/) G) O a O m O N } Z cm E ca E z d E v)U rL—� v)O) O H coE ). o a 0 N Soil Map Units O O � C) a a 03 m U U O ❑O ❑❑!D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Local Roads Ma 00 N C) m a Hydrologic Sail Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic SoII Group— Summary by Map Unit— Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (CO678) i u, N e o O o co N o .- T N , ? 0) m 0 0 O 0 0 O O Q O C Y E a O� AO 77 5 N N O N a VCO T: D C')� N tV O tt00 _C h i Y a e z te Totals for Area of Interest D m m m o a o Map unit symbol I Map unit name Loup-Boel loamy sands, 0 to 3 percent slopes Olney loamy sand 1 to 3 percent slopes Olney loamy sand 3 to 5 percent slopes Olney line sandy loam, Ito 3 percent slopes Osgood sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Vaient sand. 3 to 9 percent slopes S Zia n c, 0 ii o m n 0 0 T S CO J1 r R 49 70 m n ^1 Hydrolog c Soil Group -Weld County, Colorado, Southern part v c Y O N C c c N L n CO m3cu) O> N c ,. 2 O O .j 4! CO `O v m m C ` m T C co O Q C m N n 4) 7 41 o 3 O m 2 > Q) y a 1°a' oo N N 41 it) O O U O y E L O L U v C ~ N@ N CO O co o Q O U O N U m N CO m c m 9 J v 0 O O yj m pp v m 6 .0 E in N 5 o a n U U O "2 11N C C 2a. O Q O n v D C5 O a m 0 - m Cl. J o a o c O) 'O 41 C N 7 U O O a Cl, o CC m N QJ v "y N E 4) m co O 'Lao O )— L T m m N y T 3a)4nE N 6. O 7 C C CO O_ y c n Z aN m O. L U E t U_ m T C L O = 2 m > m 4 > L C O v L L ? N as ro o' L 3 y N O O C C T N m N O m6 CO L y v p m O m C m 3 C CO O Q) TV; U U L y m N L N O To- fu o m u>mz` C N .c v > U m m • Ul o 3.o y t Cl:) >, r m � Q1 (0 � O. 7 C C 0) 7 O N O O .y O 0€ aco N v L y L Or O C O p u m CO m m Tv O m as O C_ Y a 7 m � O -o C U C _U U N rn 0 o T c O L Q J VI O -v o, m € C O 'O 4) D O m C'^ C rn o o m m c n v ou C O m 2 N - CO m c Rating Options Aggregation Method Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified 4) Tie -break Rule. B. RAINFALL DATA 22 Colorado Precipitation Frequency Data -- OUTPUT PAGE Precipitation Frequency Data Output N 0, 0 ta N CO tn O z O 0 0 CO 0 b % Si 0 -4 V Precipitation Intensity (in/hr) .--i r v W N 0 LC) .--I CD 0 0 0 r Precipitation (inches) D 100 -year 3.91 24 -hour u� rn .-+ N W N 2 -year 6 - hour 2 -year 24 - hour 100 -year 6 - hour Nov 25 17:10:10 2012 http://hdsc.nws.noaa_gov/cgi-bin/hdsc/na3.perl?q Iat=+40.138010&qlon=104.458261 &submit=Submit N in N V1 N M 01 N r'9 I- M d Depth -Duration -Frequency and Intensity -Duration -Frequency Tables for Colorado Hydrologic Zones 1 through 4 Project: Carpio Farms Where is the Watershed Located, O Located within UDFCD Boundary Q Located outside of UDFCD Boundary Select a location within the UDFCD boundary; Longitude: Hydrologic Zone (1, 2, 3, or 4) Elevation at Center of Watershed = Watershed Area (Optional) = Latitude: 1 4,830 N/A 1. Rainfall Depth -Duration -Frequency Table If within the UDFCD Boundary, Enter the 1 -hour and 6 -hour rainfall depths from the USDCM Volume 1 Otherwise, Enter the 6 -hour and 24 -hour rainfall depths from the NOAH Atlas 2 Volume III (see map) ft sq. mi. 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 2-yr 0.25 0.39 0.50 0.57 - - 0.87 1.00 1 10 1.25 1.69 5-yr 0.38 0.60 0.75 0.87 1.33 1 49 1.61 1 80 2 20 10-yr 0 46 0.73 0.92 1.07 1.63 1.79 1 91 2.10 2.60 25-yr 0.57 0.90 1.14 1.32 2.01 2.21 2.36 2.60 3 05 50-yr 0.67 1.07 1.34 1.55 2 36 2.55 2.68 2 90 3 40 100-yr 0.76 1 22 1 53 1.77 2 70 2 87 3.00 3.21 3.81 500-yr 0.97 154 194 2.24 3.42 3.64 3.80 4.05 4.66 Note: Refer to Figures 4-1 through 4-12 of USDCM Volume 1 for 1 -hr and 6 -hr rainfall depths Refer to NOAA Atlas 2 Volume Ill isopluvial maps for 6 -hr and 24 -hr rainfall depths Rainfall depths for durations less than 1 -hr are calculated using Equation 4-4 in USDCM Volume 1 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 2-yr 2.96 2 36 1.98 1.37 0.87 0.54 0 40 0 24 0.08 5-yr 4.51 3.60 3.02 2 09 1.33 0 83 0.61 0.36 0.12 10-yr 5.52 4.41 3.70 2.56 1.63 1 01 0.75 0 44 0.15 25-yr 6.81 5.43 4.56 3.15 2 01 1.25 0.93 0.55 0.19 50-yr 8.01 6 39 5.36 3.71 2.36 1 47 1.09 0.65 0.22 100-yr 9.15 7.30 6.12 4.23 2.70 1.68 1.24 0.74 0.25 500-yr 11.61 9.26 7.77 5.37 3.42 2 13 1.58 0.93 0 32 Note: Intensity approximated using 1 -hr rainfall depths and Equal on 4-3 in USDCM Volume 1 UD-Rain_v1.0, DDF & IDF Tables 2/21/2013, 12:11 PM Depth -Duration -Frequency and Intensity -Duration -Frequency Tables for Colorado Hydrologic Zones 1 through 4 4 7 p S1 2 COLORADO _L .w a. j Ilwa 1• R...-, -w" - In,ti w. -r. N J wi.I NFM ql_ J .OlIOJ J/ 5 4.5 4 3.5 N u 3 -c t • 2.5 • 2 ets cc 1.5 1 0.5 Design Rainfall IDF & DDF Chart 0 12 0 - - 14 1 10 100 Return Period (years) 24 -hr depth -0 6 -hr depth +E -3 -hr depth -� 2 -hr depth -f -1 -hr depth G 30 -min depth -e -15 -min depth t 10 -min depth -qtr-5-min depth — 24 -hr intensity —6-hr intensity —3-hr Intensity 2 -hr intensity —1-hr intensity — 30-min intensity — 15-min intensity --10-min intensity —5-min intensity UD-Rain_v1.0, DDF & IDF Tables 2/21/2013, 12:11 PM C. HEC-HMS CALCULATIONS AND OUTPUT (HISTORIC) Reach-OS1 to H1 I c•� 0 ❑ Junction -H1 N 0 d Reach-OS2 to H1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) Table RO-5— Runoff Coefficients, C RUNOFF Percentage Imperviousness Type C and D NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups k 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 OS -3 and H1 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 1< 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 H DROLOGIC SOILS GROUP 0% 0.02 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.30 0.35 OS -2 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% 0.26 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 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RO-11 RUNOFF RO-12 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) 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 3 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 dos -1 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 0) O > 0 W a N HISTORIC RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS Co O N O N N w H ci T3 co 0 C co H co C E Co H a- C Ft ui Q Z H U W O w PROJECT NUMBER: Z z ci W H O J O CHECKED BY: LL< • LLI O Cr • Q a) O 0) as c a J T p Q) c' H - °' `n c°0 > D Q a) 73 c d O) 0) CD O m E f- a u, E 'CD a) CI) JU m o co O) 0 > ct 0) 0) c ._- V r) Tr) > p m • N al U o a ii c vi E m zc U0.2'v ai LL. N 0) Z • D E O O O 0 0 0 O N O M O 0 O O O u) N U U ti l7 O N O to N O O O L(7 0 U KJ O 1 0 O O 0 O IA O O 0 O H W O • Q • H 0 co to M O 0 N N 0 O N O 0 N 0 0 M M CO 0 O U OD Co If) a) rn v N N ti N N N CO N: N CO 0 0) O 0 0 0 0 0 U N L{7 CO N N O O Z • z U O wa 0 N CO z Z O 0) CoQ w m 0 O N O M cc) 0 0 W < CL OO J W m > W N O M O N C_ N I I Time of Concentration 0 S W ▪ • W CO m ZZ• OWC0 wLO O 0 W a. • aUU v T" = velocity (ft/sec) ti cN 0 1p E O U a) O 0 U C >. C O U I I r, = initial or overland flow time (minutes) S'„ = watercourse slope (ft/ft) U, = runoff coefficient for 5 -year frequency (from Table RO-5) -/ Q IL O I' N J Q - ri: C_ 2 th LU f` N o o o f` N TRAVEL TIME (T,) _ _ N r2 - (7 N CO .-~ CO N CO w a '-- Land Surface (10) Grassed Waterway I Grassed Waterway I Grassed Waterway Grassed Waterway I 0 rn 0 to 0 tri 0 vi 0 Iri W a O o co o In 0 M 0 CO 1- LENGTH Ft. (7) C) CO^ fsi CO (4) (0 to Q O J v Q P. W Z ? I - - O M O) co M h N w a Clew) (13 t to '- 0 M - t to N 0 N N LENGTH Ft (4) 500 500 500 O 0 If) SUB -BASIN DATA jM Lt) 6— O 0 O co 0 0 tr) 6- 0 L0 u a' Q " a O (D LO o `- 0 V 0 N DESIGN BASIN (1) 0 0 0 Conveyance Coefficient. C, in N in r- 0 . N- O C'1 Type of Land Surface I Heavy meado•.. v n, Ya th Short pasture and lawns Nearly bare ground 1 Grassed •:.ater:fay Paved areas and shallow paved swales w O rn h O I` N o r 0 O II II II II O r N H1 Tu,G = 0.6' OS1 Tub = 0.6' OS2 TLAG = 0.6' 0S3TLAG= 0.6' HEC-HMS Tc V3ASELINE Engineering • Planning • Surveying MEETING MINUTES Date: Project: By Baseline Employee: Attendants: RE: Subied/Topics Covered/Items Discussed: I Follow UP? Ls = 0.34 * (0.728 - 0.00546 * R) * (A/(Sos)o.2 (Equation 3-6) a4� where: ?eiz. G4t,,tn 'oRaL Ls = Snyder's standard lag time, hours P = Percent urbanization, or the percentage of the watershed that is commercial, industrial, residential, institutional, and otherwise developed. Percent urbanization is not the same as the percent impervious. A = Area of watershed, acres S = Slope of the main channel, feet/fef.t 141 Ls = O.31 *r G:12%) *((35C./(0.015 o.z)):*.2 = 1.21 las W Os r Ls: o.34 x (o712.0 42S1 / ('0.0t3"r.2 r: 1.15 was (0.?28) 421`11(o.e.tc,)°s)o.z 1.09 N2s4 'USED As A CKctK . Lessee VaLuE Sae) c / O.G x Tc WAS U3E. • Snyder's standard lag (hrs)—This value is the time from the centroid of rainfall excess to the peak flow at the point of analysis (see Figure 3-3). • Snyder's peaking coefficient (cfs)—This value represents the peak flow for the unit hydrograph at the point of analysis. A value of 0.45 should be used. One optional data set could be used to describe the time -area relationship of the watershed (the UA record in HEC-1, not available in HEC-HMS), but because this relationship is difficult to develop accurately, use of the UA record is not recommended. If this record is not used, HEC- 1/HEC-HMS automatically uses a default relationship. The Snyder Standard Lag is defined as the time from the centroid of the rainfall to the time of peak flow, as shown in Figure 3-3. Snyder's standard lag can be determined using Figure 3-4 or calculated using Equation 3-6. This equation for L, has been developed so that peak flows from recent large storms in Gibson Canyon Creek match the gaged flows for the creek (see the example in Appendix C). LS = 0.34 * (0.728 - 0.00546 * P) * (A/(Sos)o.z (Equation 3-6) where: L, P A S = Snyder's standard lag time, hours = Percent urbanization, or the percentage of the watershed that is commercial, industrial, residential, institutional, and otherwise developed. Percent urbanization is not the same as the percent impervious. = Area of watershed, acres = Slope of the main channel, feet/feet Hydrograph Routing The Muskingum-Cunge hydrograph routing method is recommended for use (The RD record in HEC-HMS. From the HMS*Schematic window, double-click on a reach element icon, and select "Muskingum Cunge Std" or "Muskingum Cunge 8 Point" from the "Routing Method" drop down list.). This method can be used with the standard channel sections (trapezoidal, square, or circular) or with 8 point channel cross sections (on RC, RX, and RY records). The data required to use this method include: • Channel length (ft) —Measured from drainage system maps or USGS quadrangle maps. • Energy grade line slope (ft/ft)—Approximated with the channel or pipe slope. • Manning's n —Standard values for many pipe materials may be used. For open channels, a site visit is recommended to accurately determine the n value. • Channel shape —Either trapezoidal, square, or circular (or an 8 point channel cross- section on RC, RX, RY records). • Channel bottom width (for trapezoidal channels) or diameter (for pipelines). June 1999 074198-041hydro 3-23 SCWA Hydrology Appendix A CN Tables SCS TR-55 Table 2-2c — Runoff curve numbers for other agricultural lands' Cover description Curve numbers for hydrologic soil group Cover type and hydrologic condition Hydrologic condition A B C D Pasture, grassland, or range — continuous forage for graving.2 Meadow — continuous grass, protected from grazing and generally mowed for hay. Brush — brush -weed mixture with brush the major element.' Woods — grass combination (orchard or tree farm).5 woods .° Poor 68 79 86 89 Fair 49 69 79 84 Good 39 61 74 80 30 58 71 78 Poor 48 67 77 83 Fair 35 56 70 77 Good 30 48 65 73 Poor 57 73 82 86 Fair 43 65 76 82 Good 32 58 72 79 Poor 45 66 77 83 Fair 36 60 73 79 Good 304 55 70 77 Farmsteads — buildings, lanes, driveways, 59 74 82 86 and surrounding lots. Average runoff condition, and 4 = 0.2S. Poor: <50% ground cover or heavily grazed with no mulch. Fair: 50 to 75% ground cover and not heavily grazed. Good: >75% ground cover and lightly or only occasionally grazed. r Poor: <S0% ground cover Fair: 50 to 75% ground cover Good: >75% ground cover. Actual curve number is less than 30; use CN=30 for runoff computations s CN's shown were computed for areas with 50% woods and 50% grass (pasture) cover. Other combinations of conditions may be computed from the CN's for woods and pasture. 6 Poor: Forest litter, small trees, and brush are destroyed by heavy grazing or regular burning. Fair: Woods are grazed but not burned, and some forest litter covers the soil Good: Woods are protected from grazing, and litter and brush adequately cover the soil 117 HEC-HMS HISTORIC MODEL INPUT PERAMETERS Basin Area (M12) SCS Curve Number Imperviousness % Snyder Lag (HR) Peaking Coefficient H1 0.582 79 0.6 0.59 0.6 OS1 0.392 69 0.6 1.03 0.8 OS2 0.334 69 0.6 0.7 0.8 OS3 0.019 69 0.6 0.28 0.8 Project: Plains Simulation Run: 5YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 5yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 14:29:03 Control Specifications: Minor Storm Historic Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak DischargeTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 19.1 01Jan2013, 04:00 2.3 Reach-OS2 to H1 0.334 19.0 01Jan2013, 04:45 2.0 H1 0.582 86.4 01Jan2013, 04:00 11.0 OS1 0.392 17.8 01Jan2013, 04:30 2.5 Reach-OS1 to H1 0.392 17.3 01Jan2013, 05:00 2.1 OS3 0.019 1.6 01Jan2013, 03:45 0.1 Reach-OS3 to H1 0.019 1.5 01Jan2013, 04:15 0.1 Junction -H1 1.327 94.6 01Jan2013, 04:00 15.3 Junction "Junction -Fir Results for Run "5YR FREQ STM" 0 03:00 04:00 05:00 Run:5YR FREQ STM Element:JUNCTION-H1 Result:Outflow — — Run:5YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-OS2 TO H1 Resuft:Outflow Run:5YR FREQ STM Element:H1 Result:Outflow — - — • Run:5YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-OS1 TO H1 Result:Outflow — • - — Run:5YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-0S3 TO H1 Result:Outflow 06:00 01Jan2013 Project: Plains Simulation Run: 10YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 10yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 14:38:36 Control Specifications: Minor Storm Historic Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak DischargeTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 53.1 01Jan2013, 04:00 5.8 Reach-OS2 to H1 0.334 49.6 01Jan2013, 04:45 5.3 H1 0.582 163.6 01Jan2013, 04:00 20.7 OS1 0.392 46.9 01Jan2013, 04:30 6.3 Reach-OS1 to H1 0.392 46.5 01Jan2013, 05:00 5.6 OS3 0.019 4.2 01Jan2013, 03:45 0.3 Reach-OS3 to H1 0.019 4.0 01Jan2013, 04:15 0.3 Junction -H1 1.327 192.4 01Jan2013, 04:00 31.9 Junction "Junction -H1" Results for Run "10YR FREQ STM" 200 �— 180 160- 140- 120- 60- 40- 20- 0 00:00 01:00 02:00 /,/ rte' --. • 03:00 04:00 Run:10YR FREQ STM Element:JUNCTION-H1 Result:Outflow — — — Run:10YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-OS2 TO H1 Result:Outflow Run:10YR FREQ STM Element:H1 Result:Outflow --- Run:10YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-OS1 TO H1 Result:Outflow — - - — Run:10YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-0S3 TO H1 Result:Outflow 05:00 06:00 01Jan2013 Project: Plains Simulation Run: 25YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: Historic End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 25yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 14:29:03 Control Specifications: Minor Storm Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak DischargeTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 93.9 01Jan2013, 04:00 10.1 Reach-OS2 to H1 0.334 89.1 01Jan2013, 04:30 9.3 H1 0.582 245.2 01Jan2013, 03:45 31.4 OS1 0.392 82.1 01Jan2013, 04:15 11.1 Reach-OS1 to H1 0.392 81.8 01Jan2013, 05:00 9.9 OS3 0.019 7.0 01Jan2013, 03:30 0.6 Reach-OS3 to H1 0.019 6.9 01Jan2013, 04:15 0.6 Junction -H1 1.327 309.4 01Jan2013, 04:15 51.1 Junction "Junction -H1" Results for Run "25YR FREQ STM" 350 300- 250- 200- 0 150- u_ 100- , �/ \ 50- � / /• • \ i 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 Run:25YR FREQ STM Element:JUNCTION-H1 Result:Outflow --- Run:25YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-OS2 TO H1 Result:Outflow Run:25YR FREQ STM Element:H1 Result:Outflow ---• Run:25YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-OS1 TO H1 Result:Outflow — - - — Run:25YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-0S3 TO H1 Result:Outflow 04:00 05:00 06:00 01Jan2013 Project: Plains Simulation Run: 50YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: Historic End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 50yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 14:29:03 Control Specifications: Major Storm Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak DischargeTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 131.0 01 Jan2013, 03:55 13.6 Reach-OS2 to H1 0.334 131.0 01Jan2013, 04:30 12.7 H1 0.582 334.9 01Jan2013, 03:50 39.9 OS1 0.392 118.8 01Jan2013, 04:15 15.2 Reach-OS1 to H1 0.392 118.8 01Jan2013, 04:50 13.7 OS3 0.019 11.3 01Jan2013, 03:35 0 8 Reach-OS3 to H1 0.019 11.3 01Jan2013, 04:10 0.8 Junction -H1 1.327 415.7 01Jan2013, 04:20 67.1 Junction "Junction -H1" Results for Run "50YR FREQ STM" 450 400 350- 300- 250- w U 200 - ti 150- 100- 50- 1 _ 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 01 Jan2013 Run:50YR FREQ STM Element:JUNCTION-H1 Result:Outflow — — — Run:50YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-OS2 TO H1 Result:Outflow Run:50YR FREQ STM Element:H1 Result:Outflow - -- Run:50YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-OS1 TO H1 Result:Outflow — - - — Run:50YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-0S3 TO H1 Result:Outflow Project: Plains Simulation Run: 100YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: Historic End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 100yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 14:29:02 Control Specifications: Major Storm Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak DischargieTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 173.6 01Jan2013, 03:55 18.2 Reach-OS2 to H1 0.334 173.6 01Jan2013, 04:30 17.0 H1 0.582 416.3 01Jan2013, 03:50 50.1 OS1 0.392 158.0 01Jan2013, 04:15 20.4 Reach-OS1 to H1 0.392 158.0 01Jan2013, 04:50 18.4 OS3 0.019 14.6 01Jan2013, 03:35 1.1 Reach-OS3 to H1 0.019 14.6 01Jan2013, 04:10 1.0 Junction -H1 1.327 539.2 01Jan2013, 04:20 86.5 Junction 'Junction -H1' Results for Run "100YR FREQ STM" 600 500- 1 3 LL 200- 100 - Or _ 0000 01.00 02:00 - Run:100YRFREQ STMElementJJNC110N-HlResutOutfow Run.1 00YR FREQ STM ElementH1 ResuM.Outflow — — Run:100YR FREQ STM ElementREACH-0S3 TO HI ResutOuflbw 03:00 r/-c' 'N \\\ / / / /\N.\ \ / \ \N // / ./ 0400 0500 — — - Run:100YR FREQ STM ElementREACH-0S2 TO H1 ResultOu iow - — Run:100YR FREQ STM E:ement:REACH-0$1 TO H1 ResultOutflow 0600 01Jan2013 D. HEC-HMS CALCULATIONS AND OUTPUT (PROPOSED) U) O 4 Reach-OS1 to P1 a 4 M co O 4b Junction -P1 ci co 0 4 Reach-OS2 to P1 HEC-HMS PROPOSED MODEL INPUT PERAMETERS Basin Area (M12) SCS Curve Number Imperviousness % Snyder Lag (HR) Peaking Coefficient P1 0.582 79 7.1 0.59 0.6 O51 0.392 69 0.6 1.03 0.8 OS2 0.334 69 0.6 0.7 0.8 O53 0.019 69 0.6 0.28 0.8 Project: Plains_Developed Simulation Run: 5YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01 Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: Proposed End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 5yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 15:32:47 Control Specifications: Minor Storm Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak DischargeTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 19.1 01Jan2013, 04.00 2 3 Reach-OS2 to P1 0.334 19.0 01Jan2013, 04:45 2.0 P1 0.582 100.8 01Jan2013, 04:00 13.6 OS1 0.392 17.8 01Jan2013, 04:30 2.5 Reach-OS1 to P1 0.392 17.3 01Jan2013, 05:00 2.1 OS3 0.019 1.6 01Jan2013, 03:45 0.1 Reach-OS3 to P1 0.019 1.5 01Jan2013, 04:15 0.1 Junction -P1 1.327 108.9 01Jan2013, 04:00 17.9 Junction "Junction -P1" Results for Run'5YR FREQ STM 120 100, 0 60 0 U. OO.0o 01:00 02.00 04.00 Run:5YR FREQ ST l ElementJUNCTION-P1 Resuu:Outllow Run:5YR FREQ STM ElementPI Result:Outflow — • • — Run:5YR FREQ ST l ElementREACH-OS3 TO P1 Resuh Outflow / \ ...` / •` /' N. — — — Run:5YR FREQ STh! 6ementREACH-OS2 TO P1 Resu .Outflow - -- Run:5YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-0S1 TO P1 ResuN:Outflow 0600 01Jan2013 Project: Plains_Developed Simulation Run: 10YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: Proposed End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 10yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 15:32:45 Control Specifications: Minor Storm Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak DischargeTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 53.1 01Jan2013, 04:00 5.8 Reach-OS2 to P1 0.334 49.6 01Jan2013, 04:45 5.3 P1 0.582 179.7 01Jan2013, 04:00 23.8 OS1 0.392 46.9 01Jan2013, 04:30 6.3 Reach-OS1 to P1 0.392 46.5 01 Jan2013, 05:00 5.6 OS3 0.019 4.2 01Jan2013, 03:45 0.3 Reach-OS3 to P1 0.019 4.0 01Jan2013, 04:15 0.3 Junction -Pi 1.327 208.5 01Jan2013, 04:00 35.0 Junction "Juncton•P1" Results for Run'1OYR FREQ STM" 1 50 COCO T •1•� I i 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06 CO 01Jao2013 — Run.10YR FREQ STM ElementJUNCT1ON-P1 Resul .Oulfloow Run:10YR FREQ STM ElementP1 RestiltOdlow - - - - Rua:10YR FREQ STM ElemeetREACH-0S3 TO P1 Resu tOufflow — — — Rua:10YR FREQ STM ElemeotREACH-082TO P1 ResulLOutflow — — RA:10YR FREQ STM ElemeotREACH-0S1 TO P1 ResultCutflow Project: Plains_ Developed Simulation Run: 25YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: Proposed End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 25yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 15:32:46 Control Specifications: Minor Storm Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (Ml2) Peak DischargeTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 93.9 01Jan2013, 04:00 10.1 Reach-OS2 to P1 0.334 89.1 01Jan2013, 04:30 9.3 P1 0.582 266.2 01Jan2013, 03:45 34.8 OS1 0.392 82.1 01Jan2013, 04:15 11.1 Reach-OS1 to P1 0.392 81.8 01Jan2013, 05:00 9.9 OS3 0.019 7.0 01Jan2013, 03:30 0.6 Reach-OS3 to P1 0.019 6.9 01Jan2013, 04:15 0.6 Junction -P1 1.327 322.0 01Jan2013, 04:00 54.5 Junction "Junction -Pt" Results for Run "25YR FREQ STM" 01J8r2013 Run:25YR FREQ SN Elemeot:JUNC11ONLP1 ResultOulflow Run:25YR FREQ Element PI Result:Cut/kw — Run:25YR FREQ SW ElemeotREACH-0S3 TO P1 Resu1Oufflow — — - Run:25YR FREQ STM ElemeotREACH-OS2 TO P1 ResultOutflow - — Ruo25YR FREQ SW ElemeotREACH-OS1 TO P1 Resuh:Outlbw Project: Plains_Developed Simulation Run: 50YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: Proposed End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 50yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 15:32:47 Control Specifications: Major Storm Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak DischargeTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 131.0 01 Jan2013, 03:55 13.6 Reach-OS2 to P1 0.334 131.0 01Jan2013, 04:30 12.7 P1 0.582 355.4 01Jan2013, 03:50 43.4 OS1 0.392 118.8 01Jan2013, 04:15 15.2 Reach-OS1 to P1 0.392 118.8 01Jan2013, 04:50 13.7 OS3 0.019 11.3 01Jan2013, 03:35 0.8 Reach-OS3 to P1 0.019 11.3 01Jan2013, 04:10 0.8 Junction -P1 1.327 427.2 01Jan2013, 04:15 70.7 Junc6on'Junction-P1" Results for Run "50YR FREQ STM" 450 250- 203- o LL 150- 100- 0 / \ / // \ \\ / // \\\� / \ \.. / /. \ �;.. \ / /• /N. 1 I I 00.00 01.00 02:00 03:00 04:00 0500 0500 01Jan2013 Run:50YR FREQ S1M E'emen1JL C11ON.P1 ResultOutflaw Run:50YR FREQ STMM ERmentP1 ResutOutflow -- Rua:50YRFREQ STMElemeotREACH-0S3TOP1ResutO>tflow — — — Run:50YR FREQ STM EfementREACH-OS2 TO P1 Result0uiow - -- Rug 5,YR FREQ STM ElementREACF OS1 TO PI Resu!tCutflow Project: Plains_ Developed Simulation Run: 100YR FREQ STM Start of Run: 01Jan2013, 00:00 Basin Model: Proposed End of Run: 01Jan2013, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 100yr Compute Time: 20Feb2013, 15:32:45 Control Specifications: Major Storm Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak DischargeTime (CFS) of Peak Volume (AC -FT) OS2 0.334 173.6 01Jan2013, 03:55 18.2 Reach-OS2 to P1 0.334 173.6 01Jan2013, 04:30 17.0 P1 0.582 437.0 01Jan2013, 03:50 53.8 OS1 0.392 158.0 01 Jan2013, 04:15 20.4 Reach-OS1 to P1 0.392 158.0 01Jan2013, 04:50 18.4 OS3 0.019 14.6 01Jan2013, 03:35 1 1 Reach-OS3 to P1 0.019 14.6 01Jan2013, 04:10 1.0 Junction -P1 1.327 550.2 01Jan2013, 04:15 90.3 Junction "Junction -P1" Results for Run "100YR FREQ STM" 0000 0100 02 00 03:00 44:00 05.00 -- Run:100YR FREQ STM ElementJUNCTION-P1 Resat Outflow Run:100YR FREQ STM Elemeat:P1 Resufl.OufJkw —. — Run:100YR FREQ STM Elemeot:REACW0S3 TO P1 Resu0:Outfiow — — — Run:100YR FREQ STM Element:REACH-0S2 TO PI ResuR:Outflow — — Rur:100YR FREQ STM ElemeatREACH-0S1 TO P1 ResultOutflow 0600 01,4712013 E. RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS (PROPOSED) DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) Table RO-5— Runoff Coefficients, C RUNOFF 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% 015 0.22 0.30 0.37- 0.41 0.46 30% 018 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% 0.26 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 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RO-11 BASELINE SF -I RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - DEVELOPED PROJECT NAME: Plains AAP Tampa Faclity DATE: 2/21/2013 PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY. CHECKED BY: Note: Composite "C" vaules are derived from UDFCD Table RO-3 (Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Values) and Table RO-5 (Runoff Coefficients, C) for the corresponding Soil Type. a O 1 O ON ID 0 1.0 0 00 CA 0 (1) 0 0.52 I CC) 0 e- N 0 0 CA 0 0 CA 0 0 ID 0 0 N 0 8 v LO N o Cr) N 0 CD N 0O CD N CD N 0 N. N 0 cD N 0 CD N o 0.25 I CD N c cD N o V 1A 0000000000,n C7) CD CD 0) t- N. CD CC) LO CD TOTAL O O O 'I' 0, co o N r) r i 17.34 I co CI) Q) r O N U) CD 21.77 356.76 0 0 e- PAVED GRAVEL ROOF YARD/ LAND USE: AREA AREA AREA LANDSCAPE 100% I 40% 90% I 0% a 0.25 O O YARD/ LAN DSCAPE (AC) 0 O O 0 0 h M CD U) o 0 N 42.45 tf N. (0 OD coo CD r N 65.45 I 21.77 ^ N M o M O 0.75 0.77 co O lL Q O W c[ Q U ¢ co N _' CA M O M to e- o o p 035 N V O 0.58 GRAVEL AREA (AC) a+ e- O O M 0.22 O co. 0 Ca N- 0 CO (D CA CO O CD ' N \° 0) • to p 0) O 0.92 LO 0) O PAVED AREA (AC) O Tr. - O ? - o '. O IMPERVIOUS % 5 -YEAR COEFF. 10 -YEAR COEFF 100 -YEAR COEFF DESIGN POINT r N C7 of CA CO N. CO CO O, DESIGN BASIN L.- N CI d ID CD N. CO 0) DEVELOPED SUBTOTAL 1110BASELINE STANDARD FORM SF -2 - DEVELOPED Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Plains MP Tampa Faclity DATE: 2/21/2013 PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY: / CHECKED BY: GI ; i" ( ti r - 0.395(1.1- C, .ti `'" 1' = velocity (ft/sec: = initial or overland flo•N time (minutes) C, = conveyance coefficient (from Table RO-2) I L — iv r . - / • = runoff coefficient for 5 -year frequency ifrom Table RZ)-5) 5„ = watercourse slope (ft/ft) 1 8O U DOODOOCOOD I I i I I i I I Table RO-2—Conveyance Coefficient, C, Conveyance Coefficient. c, V U) N O 0) N O (0 N O (0 N O 0) N O (- N O CO N O (0 N O U) N O in N O J Q Z ✓ U C co V O OD O V' co C)) co ((00 r ci (1) O N0 ( N V 0 0) COO tc CHECK (URBANIZED BASINS) tc=(L/180)+10 Min. (15) .- U) r CO c0 N M r CO N r (3 N (O to (- 20.8 I (O c0 r CO 0) N 27.2 ID • N ID t--- o o N TOTAL LENGTH (14) M N Ln 512 2052 1002 1935 O r 3482 0) M Type of Land Surface Heavy meadow Short pasture and lawns Nearly bare ground Grassed .. aterr: ay Paved areas and shallow paved v•vales Q. .�. M O — O) co V 85.0 40.0 r 38.9 a0 N c0 r O u) 65.0 N N v 6 O) 0) co OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (T,) C N H_ C4 2 M O) O O in O N MN O O co O N O O.— M CD. r ON r-4- N. U) Tu w O a J U) _-. a v 0.7 0O O 0.7 I 0.7 co O 0.7 0O O O r I- 0 0O 0 P Land Surface (10) Short Pasture/Lawn Short Pasture/Lawn Short Pasture/Lawn Short Pasture/Lawn Short Pasture/Lawn Short Pasture/Lawn Short Pasture/Lawn Short Pasture/Lawn Short Pasture/Lawn LShort Pasture/Lawn > U 0L 70 O n 7.0 7.0 7.0 I 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 w a O o m _ v o- •" r M 0 .- r 0 O r 0 U) r 0 O 0 M r 0 O c.; •0 O r 0 M r LENGTH Ft. (7) V 2.437 — N to r 502 U) V r (MD N co N U) U) N INITIAL TIME (T,) E — 1-- 2 (` U) M T" CO V M N- Co (O M N CO r- M (O 0 O) Co N- Lri M W 0 O o - y o r 0 C") r 0 r r 0 O r o U) r a O r o M r 0 O N 0 O r 0 M r LENGTH Ft (4) O O U) O O in 500 O O in O O in O O in 500 500 I O O U) 500 I SUB -BASIN DATA Ur U) O O r O (O r O O r O 0) r 0 n r O r O O r odd (n r U) r Q W U CC Q �- Q co M O 0) O V M cb to co 0 OD N M '- (n V— V CO n (0 0) C O 0 N U') V' U) (0 N N - N DESIGN BASIN (1) r N CO Q U) (0 (- OO 0) C) Drainage SF -1,2 and 3Developed-REV2-21-13 BASELINE STANDARD FORM SF -3 - DEVELOPED STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 5 YEAR EVENT PROJECT NAME Plains AAP Tampa Faclity DATE: 2/21/2013 PROJECT NUMBER: P1 (1 -Hour Rainfalll, 1.33 CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY: 28.iP J (10 + T. )-so (, u 2 ■ « 2 w CC I (22) 1 TRAVEL TIME (u!w) # 2 3 (s j �Qo 3 \ m) HIONJ1 _ -t- PIPE (u!) 3ZB 3 dI 0 .-- (%) 3dOlS R C- (s13)Mod N OIS3 2 a s STREET (SD)Mod 133b1S a s 1%) 3dOlS $ !---- TOTAL RUNOFF (SP) o R e- ..... 'I \ QI / (3e) { ,o) it \ (u!w)o a \ 5-YR RUNOFF (9m o F ® - ^ § .-- q @ a m $ (.111/U!)g I co - - ..- ..- - .- .- C - \ ()v. R§ m§ 4§§_ n oi re [Z -AS WON di @p)Q — - ` 4 $ 2« # # m ° `,_�_ - 23 g):: doN 9/A -\ e o 6 o 0 0 6 6 o . (Dv) V aV @ c"' a v C . N$ 2 a yI CO\ Zr!w � CO N % NO��c 3- N n 4 co N cc. o) \ \ \ I NIOd NOIS3c — n _ CO CO - \ \ ]NI1 moll - N. \ % \ , BASELINE STANDARD FORM SF -3 - DEVELOPED STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 10 YEAR EVENT PROJECT NAME: Plains AAP Tampa Faclity DAN' F PROJECT NUMBER: P1 (1 -Hour Rainfall). 1.63 CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY: 2S.] P I = O=CLA (10 + T )o -Se 2 Ct < ■ } f I TRAVEL TIME (u,u) n - (kj uGa \ s-1 c - H.ON31 « c PIPE @D3Z $ J did $ r- (70) ado S R Z- (s13)Mod N@s O a s STREET (S o A j sells 2 -7- 0/0 wdo S « s 1 TOTAL RUNOFF (� ) o « — \ / x (-1m@) I a — ) Dm 01.317 7 \ \ @mm \ / 10-YR RUNOFF (s„ o / @ - - ° « ® S cd = f 47, 4A , \ (Jom@) CO .- s- Al 04 ,r .- •- ry N- ., DmKo - r4 •, 't _ § mi } 3 I m2wo2 (u•w)a _ jjjj)#§j\H m °` dd30o dw oN na 4 6 6 6 n o 0 0 0 0 O { by v av \ f _ # ■ ( V _ A - * CA ; 04 CD R _ \ % NISV N OIS G I (3) 4- CNI n _ •\ \ INIod Nes O J- — v4 F _ CO C , CO o O \ \ Nag WHO'S E \ § \ & BASELINE STANDARD FORM SF -3 - DEVELOPED STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT PROJECT NAME: Plains AAP Tampa Faclity DATE. 2/21/2013 PROJECT NUMBER: P, (1 -Hour Rainfall). 2.7 CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY' 18.5 P I —- u sh O=C'LA (10 + T.} cn a E w re N = I TRAVEL TIME (u!w) 3 — = (sd)) AllOOl3A o (u) H1JN31 Cr—, =7- PIPE 0!) 3ZIS 3dld °o (%) 3dOlS n (Sd3)MOl3 NOIS30 m -- STREET (sl0)M01d 133ZI1S u^, 77 - CYO) 3dOlS v — TOTAL RUNOFF (S3o) O - W4lu!) I N (3e) (V.0)Z — = (u!w)74 O 100-YR RUNOFF (slo) N 54.36 Q o O in 62.56 O N M a ,- M cc; H, aO 22.46 °WU!J l N M N Ni M M tD N O M 2 N tM� Q M P r O N (DOI,.0N. _ ;V N M CD N N N N ' M O M: N V °0 V A N a M I, Na M T CO [Z"dS IN08A (ulw) a1 a 0 O O v a, 'OY n m -. N O <D N V in a! o m g '1'0 Ad300 3AONI d L — N O Y7 O N O N O 121, G N O YJ a N a N a 2 0 (cv) V3�� a .... W O O V CO O N In V Q M .- P.. CD a, Oe O N ID V CO A n N NISVB NOIS30 en N M It ,D CD A CO o, O,, 1NIOd NOIS30 <N ,_ N M e v, in r- m m 6, 3NIl INNOIS - F. HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS 26 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc Friday, Feb 22 2013 EX 24in RCP @ BNSF Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) 48451 GC 4848 co 4847.00 4845.X = 4845.50 = 24.00 = 0.83 = 4845.70 = 24.0 = Circular = 24.0 = 1 = 0.013 = Circular Concrete = Square edge w/headwall (C) = 0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5 = 4850.20 = 12.00 = 1000.00 EX 24in RCP @ BNSF Calculations Qmin (cfs) = 14.60 Qmax (cfs) = 14.60 Tailwater Elev (ft) _ (dc+D)/2 Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc Dn (ft/s) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime = 14.60 = 14.60 = 0.00 = 5.16 = 6.31 = 4847.19 = 4847.08 = 4847.90 = 1.10 = Inlet Control ��- In tcontra 0 Clrw of Culvert 10 20 25 Embank 30 5 45 Reach till 3C Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. EX 30in RCP @ 392 Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Ere,. (ft) 403000 _ 4829 00 4828 00 432' X 4826 CO 4825_ = 4826.80 = 66.00 = 0.61 = 4827.20 = 30.0 = Circular = 30.0 =1 = 0.013 = Circular Concrete = Square edge w/headwall (C) = 0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5 = 4829.90 = 24.00 = 1000.00 EX 30in RCP @ 392 Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc Dn (ft/s) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime Friday, Feb 22 2013 = 158.00 = 158.00 = (dc+D)/2 = 158.00 = 24.63 = 133.37 = 5.61 = 6.95 = 4828.90 = 4828.90 = 4829.89 = 1.07 = Inlet Control I -Ow Depth 111, Inlet C an: 10 15 Orwie• Culvert 2D 25 30 Cl 5 40 45 Emban• 88 Reach 'I1: 2 e0 1 80 0 E„ -C27. 1 2C -2 20 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. EX 30in RCP @ BNSF Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Elev (fl) 4824 X _ 4528 4524 . 4826 Y. 4825.0 4824 .0 = 4825.00 = 42.00 = 2.86 = 4826.20 = 30.0 = Circular = 30.0 =1 = 0.013 = Circular Concrete = Square edge w/headwall (C) = 0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5 = 4828.90 = 24.00 = 1000.00 EX 30in RCP @ BNSF Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc Dn (ft/s) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime Friday, Feb 22 2013 = 158.00 = 158.00 = (dc+D)/2 = 158.00 = 24.63 = 133.37 = 5.61 = 6.98 = 4827.10 = 4827.89 = 4828.86 = 1.06 = Inlet Control Inlets ntrat Hw Depth trtt 253 5 IG C ,CWDr Ct.tver. 5 20 25 30 35 HGL Embank 5 65 Reach tR) I 8C 0 53 .0.20 .110 .2.20 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Feb 22 2013 EX 4x6in Box @ 392 Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) EJev kit: 4857 00 _ 4858 CC _ 4055 CU _ 4854 CU _ +053;O _ 4852 CO _ 4851 CO _ 485O00 4849O0 _ = 4850.50 = 44.00 = 0.68 = 4850.80 = 48.0 = Box = 60.0 = 1 = 0.013 = Flared Wingwalls = 30D to 75D wingwall flares = 0.026, 1, 0.0347, 0.81, 0.4 = 4856.50 = 24.00 = 1000.00 EX 4x6in Box 392 Calculations Qmin (cfs) = 173.00 Qmax (cfs) = 173.00 Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2 Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) = 173.00 Qpipe (cfs) = 169.08 Qovertop (cfs) = 3.92 Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 9.28 Veloc Up (ft/s) = 10.30 HGL Dn (ft) = 4854.14 HGL Up (ft) = 4854.08 Hw Elev (ft) = 4856.51 Hw/D (ft) = 1.43 Flow Regime = Inlet Control t'.0n'Jp H., Depth in) 820 10 15 20 25 li 40 45 5i. 5.5 ox Culvert HGL E,,t,r •15C• 65 Reach ft, 520 420 320 220 120 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Feb 22 2013 EX Dual 4x6in Box @ BNSF Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Flev tfl: 48E.1."✓.' 4558 00 4856 CA 4354 .O 4862 CO 485:. 4848 OC 0 = 4850.30 = 24.00 = 0.83 = 4850.50 = 60.0 = Box = 48.0 = 2 = 0.013 = Flared Wingwalls = 30D to 75D wingwall flares = 0.026, 1, 0.0347, 0.81, 0.4 = 4859.20 = 12.00 = 1000.00 EX Dual 4x6in Box @ BNSF Calculations Qmin (cfs) = 173.00 Qmax (cfs) = 173.00 Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2 Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) = 173.00 Qpipe (cfs) = 173.00 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 5.81 Veloc Up (ft/s) = 6.14 HGL Dn (ft) = 4854.02 HGL Up (ft) = 4854.02 Hw Elev (ft) = 4854.39 Hw/D (ft) = 0.78 Flow Regime = Inlet Control tt.v Depth ift, 950 I 1 ft conna 5 Box Culvert 10 15 20 Embank 25 30 35 40 750 550 350 150 .0 50 .2 5C 45 Reach {ft 1415-mtc. 5-1(L c)o,.tp F�CLCA5 c Simulation Run: 5YR FREQ STM Pond Historic Pond Historic Basin Model: O O r O O O C C N C 0 RS W T T r 0 O N Volume (AC -FT) CD ',- CD Time of Peak 0 01Jan2013, 04:00 0 v 0 1- O N C f0 O Peak Discharge (CFS) 47.7 47.7 Drainage Area (MI2) 0.322 N N M O Hydrologic Element H1 Pond Area Junction -H1 N, s +c, * O Junction -Hi it IL PRovoseD yoNQ WORzCSAIN Simulation Run: 10YR FREQ STM Pond Proposed Basin Model: a- ) o E O Q 0 /• // w^ LL L O O O cC C C', C O O O o 2 U U .5,:-3) (' O _ o O O C O oo� 6 co oor co co- - r r r OOO N CC C O C -- • -) - ✓ r r O O N a) 9E ° o 0- -• 0 E Co cl�WU Volume (AC -FT) 5.5 2.9 CO N r- m N ,e - Time of Peak 01 Jan2013, 03:55 L01 Jan2013, 04:05 01Jan2013, 03:55 01Jan2013, 03:45 01Jan2013, 03:55 Peak Discharge (CFS) CV I" - 92.9 C6 O i• M ,:i' N N O Drainage Area (M12) CO 0.076 O 0.027 0.321 "zf• v-- 1"--- O O 6 Hydrologic Element P7 N a P5 CD 0- Junction -H1 Junction -H1 O U c N O O H a_ Cn -o 0 c W 0 d LL U >- a) c) ' O T Q C 0 C/) D a) O Q. O L5., C O . O 2 U_ O) O O D O O a) 2 a C co C6 O 0 O O O O O C2 00 N A— C as N C O c13 C p O t co C/) End of Run: E O C!) O C C O U U a) C1 CJ) O C O U Outflow (CFS) O 00000000000 O O O ,— x— N N C) V 0.5 1 CD O (0 o 0.7 Inflow from P6 (CFS) o O O O O O O O O O o 6 O 6 o O O O O O O O O O O o r-- o r O Inflow from P5 (CFS) o O o O o O O O O O O O o O o - o ‘--. O 1- O - O N O N O N O Inflow from P2 (CFS) O o O O O O O O O O O O O o ,- O T O T O s- O O N O N O N O Inflow from P7 (CFS) O O o O O O a O O O 0 O 1- O T O r O 1- O ,t--' O N O N O N O N o a) o O O LI) O b O o r o o u) e- a o 00:20 00:25 00:30 00:35 0 O o Lo O o 00:50 00:55 o O •-- a in O a 0 c - "L- O o 0 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 co ,- o N C O 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 R.,0?05Q) lo ?or -4 WiMo<ictAM o M LIZ O U ti O CO O CO O O O CA O O O O r O r O - O r r r r r r- 1.' 3-- r N r 1.3 r 1.7 M' N M LO u) Inflow from P6 (CFS) r C) r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O r O N O 'Cl" O N- O Inflow from P5 (CFS) (N O N O N O N O N O 0.3 co O co O co O co O co O co O co O co O co O c) O tt O In O (0 O O .— u) .— Inflow from P2 (CFS) N O N O 0.3 CO O CO O CO O 0.3 CO O 'ct O Nr O O V' O V O Nr O O O Lc") O O 0.7 O O 1.3 Inflow from P7 (CFS) N N 6 COr) b 0.3 0.3 O 0.3 0.3 CO O I0.3 CO 6 CO Ca CO O O O 0.4 O LC) O CO O N r- .- N CD E H LU r C O N O LU N O O CO O LC) CO O O Cr O LU O O u) O LC) u) O 02:00 02:05 O r O LA .— O O N O LU N O 02:30 LC) C7 O 0 V O LC) V O O LO O LU O y.., 03 Q 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 CO T a N C N 1- O 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 M r C N C c6 r O CO r� O N C co r O 01Jan2013 CO 1- O N C CO ) r 0 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 L1Jan2013 N a) Cn 4Rz'iNth D 1�-YR QoNv +l`� 4(IRQYf Outflow (CFS) CO o6 13.6 O — CO N 37.0 47.4 Lc) � 69.5 79.2 N- CO 91.3 92.9 91.7 N CO 83.0 N N- 71.2 Ln (O 1 - CD 55.1 50.6 Inflow from P6 (CFS) N- r co r co CN 3.6 4.7 5.8 7.0 r CU C) O CO O) 9.3 CA CO 8.2 N- (D CD Cr) Ln N in (O [T' r- 4 Co CO Co Inflow from P5 (CFS) Cr) N LC) Co O Ln CA co r' Q) co r r N 'CJ' r N- CD r O) O s- 20.5 LC) .- N N- r N (N r (N 20.1 N- CO r 17.1 N- Ln r CO r CD M r O) r r OD O r Inflow from P2 (CFS) CO r Co N CD Cr) O N' LO CO 8.4 V" O r CD N r N- 4 r CD CD r N- OO r NO) O r OCACA r 20.1 CO r (N r CO M r 17.2 r CD r r Li c r 4 Inflow from P7 (CFS) CD M N- in CD_, Cr) N r 16.7 (O N 26.9 r N Co 36.7 Cr) O 1- LC) N NT (N M V N 40.6 O) r -:d CO O) Co O (Ni Cr) Cr) O N CO Cfl N LO Cr N 'a N.,- N E H 03:00 03:05 03:10 LC) ,-- M O O N M O LO N CO O 03:30 03:35 03:40 LO d Co a 03:50 Ln to M O O O O 04:05 O •- O Ln r O 04:20 LO N 4 a O CO 4 O LC) CO 4 O 04:40 CD CO O co r O (N C CC5 - O 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 co r C) N C CC; O 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 CO N C, 0 kiRcf 10'i 4oN9 o2o i Simulation Run: 100YR FREQ STM Pond Proposed Basin Model: a) a E 0 0 n_ C o O ca a. ,a) • ▪ o a o F_• - c.) .5 a) Q O O a) .-., + ▪ C O O O O O O O O O M M � r O O N N C C C13 CC5 O O C c 4- O 46 -t O (a -c .� (/) w N Cn v - O N 0 a) LL (NI a) E a) E O U Volume (AC -FT) 12.9 co co co (O to N 28.4 Time of Peak 01Jan2013, 03:50 O a O co - 0 N C c13 n 0 01Jan2013, 03:50 01Jan2013, 03:45 _01Jan2013, 03:55 Peak Discharge (CFS) M O 1- CO lf) (A a) NI' CO. e- NN co ,ri A-- Drainage Area (MI2) CO Nt r- O CO I"- O O O i` O O I- N O O 0.321 Hydrologic Element Ld N d U7 d P6 Junction -H1 Pa_o4 � Ice -1- Patio wi clap 05M O co O O_ O C4 O a- p C -o O C +- O a) L.= -0 •U o 2a) a o 0)O O O a) 2 O -a o U 17 t o C/)a) S a) o2 C2T a .( 0 mLLI C) O O O C'7 1L.L Oo0 LL- N i 0 CriL O O p O p O LL p (v)CN a C O . O N _ C(E O � ~ a) o a) 0- E .. cr E o U rY iOL Outflow (CFS) O O O O O O O O .--- O N O N O CO O cr O Lo O CO O 0.7 (b O O O co r- Inflow from P6 (CFS) O 6 O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O ,- O O N- O 0 N- O Inflow from P5 (CFS) O O O O O O O O a O O O .-- O .- O .-- O (N O N O (N O (N O 0.3 C0') O Inflow from P2 (CFS) O 000000000 O O O O O r-- 1- = = N N O 0.2 0.3 0.3 Inflow from P7 (CFS) O O O o O O O O O O o ,- O , O O N O N O N O CO O 0.3 CO a O E H O O 0 o LC) O,- 0 0 O 0 0 LC) = 0 o 00:20 U') N O a 00:30 00:35 0 V. 0 o 00:45 00:50 co in 0 0 co O 0 In O 0 o 0 a) 465 0 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 I01Jan2013 o1Jan2013 a) Q) co w ?Q-oYoP ic°-' . ?oeD NH► (WPH .t- r r r N r CO r C`') r .:1' r In r In r CO r CO r co r r 1.7 0O r O r O N (h (Ni M M co 6 r. -- O s- 18.5 in N-- T. O 01:20 lf) N r O O CO r O U) CO r• O O V r O 01:45 O LC) r O to (n r O 02:00 in 0 N O 02:10 (n r N O 02.20 in N N O 02:30 in CO N O 02:40 U) Nt N O 02:50 In In N O 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 CO 1--- O N C (4 7 r O 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 r01Jan2013 l 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 V oS@7 Jo HQ ?arp W(xl,,K! n t( Outflow (CFS) 29.8 ~ 4 CO N CD 83.6 e- CO O r 129.7 CD C'') to r 176.2 O 6 O) r CO co O N V 6 r N CO 6 r N N O — N 0) O) 0) r 186.7 N N t— r O 0O to r LC) 4 t r O N co r N- O N r O r r Inflow from P6 (CFS) CV `�t r Co 0O CO O r N CO r CO LO r 17.9 0) Ci r CO r (N 0O r (N V r N N O N V CO r V' Co r 14.5 CO N r CO r r O O r (� CO 7.9 O N- Inflow from P5 (CFS) 4 N- O r • r 15.3 co d N 25.6 O r M 36.5 41.6 45.8 48.6 49.9 49.6 47.9 45.1 co r V 0O N- CO V 4 CO N r CO co CO N 25.7 co C1) N Inflow from P2 (CFS) a) V 7.2 r O r CO M r 17.6 N N 26.9 31.7 r CO CO 0O O) CO N- N N- 4 V CD xi 'c' Li) LC) 'I' in 4 Nt co N Cr Co O Nr O 0O CO V tf) co 32.9 r -- O co Inflow from P7 (CFS) '� c6 r- V O N 29.0 38.9 49.7 O r CO CO N 1— O M U) CA r O) T CO 0) co T O r co , O r co o6 0) o, M 0) (D C7o 78.7 r --l!7 — N- 65.3 O) LC) N 4 LC) Nt- O) a) F— O O M O 03:05 O r M O (0 r M O 03:20 Lc) N M O 03:30 tC) M CO O 03:40 LO 'Cr M O O In M O (C) L() M O 04:00 04:05 O 1— O to r O O N O 04:25 O co V O LC) M 4 O O Tt 4 O a) (o 0 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 M r o N C co O 01Jan2013 co r O N C as _) (D 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 co ,-- O (N C ca O 01Jan2013 01Jan2013 co a) O) CO 0 72,09050D K -iQ T6N9 44) K DETENTION VOLUME BY THE HYDROGRAPH METHOD Project Plains AAP Tampa Facility Basin ID- On -Site Detention Desna,* Information 11000(1: Man Allowable Peak Outflow Time to Peak outflow Op-ou1 • Tp-out • Minor Storage Volume (cubic fl (. 153,013 Minor Storage Volume (acre -h } 3 61 MINOR MAJOR 47 70 4710 250 335 eft minutes Major 51ora9e Volume (cub,.. 6 ) 609,340 Mayor 51or.oe YWume S MINOR (e.g. 2-, 1-, OR 10 -year l EVENT MAJOR (e.g. 36-, 50 . or 100,year EVENT Time Inflow Outflow Increm 1 Storage Inflow Outflow Inuem Storage nydrograpR Rising Hy Volwne Volume hydrograpn Rising Hy Volume Volume minutes cfs cfs acre -8 aae-fl eta cfs aeon -ft acre -ft Impur I (lnp;11 (oulp411 (carp li (rut;: l'1 (,rpuf, (oalpul) (oulnal) (culpul) _Q 0.00 000 00 000 000 000 000 000 5 000 0.00 00 000 000 000 000 000 10 000 000 00 000 000 000 000 000 15 000 0 00 00 000 0.00 0 00 000 000 20 0 10 0.10 00 000 0.10 0 10 000 060 25 0 10 0 10 00 000 0.20 0 20 000 000 30 020 0 20 00 000 020 0 20 000 0 00 35 020 020 00 000 0.30 0 30 000 000 40 030 030 00 000 040 040 000 000 45 040 040 00 000 0.50 050 000 000 50 0.40 0 40 00 000 060 060 000 0 00 55 050 050 00 000 070 070 000 000 60 060 060 00 000 080 080 000 000 65 060 060 00 000 090 090 000 000 70 0 70 0 70 00 0 00 100 00 000 0 00 75 070 070 00 000 1.10 10 000 000 80 080 080 00 000 110 10 000 000 85 0 80 0 80 00 000 1 20 20 000 0 00 90 090 0 90 00 000 1.30 30 000 0 00 95 090 0 90 00 000 1 40 40 000 0 00 100 0.90 0 90 00 000 1 50 50 000 0 00 105 100 1 00 00 000 I S0 50 000 0 00 110 100 1 00 00 000 160 60 0 00 0 00 115 100 1 00 00 000 160 60 0 00 0 00 120 100 1 00 00 000 1 60 60 0 00 0 00 125 1 10 1 10 00 000 1 70 70 0 00 0 00 130 1 10 1 10 00 000 1 70 70 0 00 0 00 135 1 10 1 10 00 000 180 80 0 00 0 00 140 1 10 1 10 00 0 00 11X) 90 0 00 000 145 1 20 1 20 00 0 00 200 2 00 0 00 000 I50 130 1 30 00 0 00 230 2 30 000 0 00 155 1 40 1 40 00 000 330 3 30 0 00 0.00 160 1 70 1 70 00 000 580 5 80 0 00 000 165 230 230 00 000 1070 1070 000 000 170 3 40 3 40 00 000 18 50 18 50 0 00 000 175 5S0 550 00 000 2960 2492 003 003 180 8 80 8 80 00 0 00 44 70 25 63 0 13 0 16 185 1360 1360 00 000 6280 2634 025 042 190 1990 1990 00 000 6160 2705 039 081 195 27 60 27 80 00 000 106 10 27 77 0 54 1 34 200 3700 34 07 02 0 02 129 70 28 48 0 70 204 205 47 40 34 92 09 0 11 15360 29 19 086 2 90 210 5650 3578 16 026 17820 2990 101 391 215 69 50 36 63 23 0 49 195 00 30 61 1 13 504 220 70 20 37 48 29 0 78 208.30 31 33 1 22 6 26 225 66 70 38 33 33 1 11 215.40 32 04 1 28 7 52 230 91 30 39 18 36 1 41 215 80 32 75 1 28 8 78 235 92 90 40 03 36 1 83 21020 33 48 1 22 10 00 240 91 70 40 89 35 2 18 199 90 34 17 1 14 11 14 245 88 20 41 74 32 2 50 186 70 34 89 1 05 12 19 250 63 00 42 59 28 2 78 172 20 35 80 094 13 13 255 7720 4344 23 301 15600 3631 084 1396 260 71 20 44 29 19 3 20 144 SO 37 02 0 74 14 70 285 55 50 45 14 14 334 13200 37 73 0 65 15 35 270 8010 4800 10 344 12070 3544 057 1592 275 5510 4685 06 349 11040 3918 049 1841 280 50 80 47 70 02 3 51 101 20 39 87 0 42 18 83 205 4960 RN/A 93.10 40 58 0 36 17 19 290 43.00 *NIA 66 00 41 29 0 31 17 50 295 39.90 #N/A 79 70 42 00 0 26 17 76 300 37 20 *NIA 74 20 42 72 0 22 17 98 305 34 90 RN/A 69 30 45 43 0 18 18 16 310 32 60 eN/A 65 00 44 14 0 14 18 30 115 31.00 RN/A 61 00 44 85 0 11 18 01 320 29 30 eN/A 57 40 4558 0 08 18 49 325 27 60 RN/A 54 10 46 28 0 05 18 55 330 26 40 RN/A 51 10 4899 0 03 18 58 335 25 10 *NIA 48 30 47 70 0 00 18 58 340 23 90 RN/A 45 70 eN/A 345 22 60 RN/A 43 40 RN/A 350 2130 RN/A 4130 674/A 355 20 80 RN/A 39 30 RN/A 380 1990 RN/A RN/A 365 RN/A RNA 370 RN/A eN/A to ?E?- HCc.-1M5 10:)-Y i. ?cp.,kEC - O > 1r. Inflow Hydrograph vs. Outflow Hydrograph ono settron Ills on Ins ,Kevin Int N Inllaw nydlopapnl TIME (minute.( �. WF• ITS,.. Mea'^.'•GT wnce OW... lycl•o•pap, - 1010 la ayy ,fraroy,.pn flowrate Qp out NOTE: THIS IS A FIRST APPROXIMATION ONLY Tp•out Time Plans UO Detenlae_02 31. Hydregr.pn 2121)2013. 3 4C PM STAGE -STORAGE SIZING FOR DETENTION BASINS Project: Basin ID: Design Information (Input): Width of Basin Bottom, W = Length of Base Bottom, L = Dam Side -slope (H:V), Z, = Stage -Storage Relationship: Da. A xT 3.51 Sil4 rip,( 4 U ft ft ft/I1 L SYe Slily 7. Check Basin Shape Right Tnangte Isosceles Triangle Rectangle Circle/ Ellipse Irregular Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Modified FAA': Storage Requiremen from Sheet 'Hydrograph': Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Full -Spectrum': S"' _ —r < 1_ OR.. OR.. OR.. OR.. (Use Ovende values in cells G32 G52) MINOR MAJOR 351 18 58 acre -ft acre -ft acre -ft. Labels for WQCV, Minor. & Ma1or Storage Stages (input) Water Surface Elevation ft i.npuli Side Slope (H V) ft/ft Below El (,np;,:1 Basin Width at Stage ft (output) Basin Length at Stage ft (output) Surface Area at Stage ft= (output) Surface Area at Stage ft' User Overide Volume Below Stage ftt (output) Surface Area at Stage acres (output, Volume Below Stage acre•ft (output) Target Volumes for WQCV, Minor. & Major Storage Volumes (for goal seek' 4798.00 3 51 000 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 0 0.000 2 038 4.133 4.407 4.688 5.174 5 273 5.357 5.441 0.000 1 019 4.105 8 374 12 922 17.853 18 897 21.555 24 254 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4799.00 88384 44,392 178,798 364.789 562,872 777.656 823.160 938.915 1.056.503 #N/A NN/A NN/A NN/A NN/A *NIA eN/A NNIA NNIA NN/A NN/A SN/A NNIA 4800 00 180.027 3 510 4801 00 191.956 4802 00 204.210 4803.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 225.358 4803.20 229.679 18 580 4803.70 233.344 4804.20 237.008 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A OVA NN/A NN/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A NN/A IN/A NNIA NN/A #N/A #N/A NN/A NN/A NN/A IN/A IN/A NN/A NN/A NN/A OVA NN/A NN/A NN/A NN/A NN/A NN/A NN/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A /INA #N/A /*NIA #N/A #N/A Plains UD-Detention_v2 31, Basin 2/21/2013, 3:40 PM STAGE -STORAGE SIZING FOR DETENTION BASINS Project: Basin ID: STAGE -STORAGE CURVE FOR THE POND 4805.00 4804.00 4803.00 4802 00 m ra 2 co 4801.00 4800.00 4799.00 4798.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Storage (acre-feet) Plains UD-Detention_v2 31, Basin 2/21/2013, 3:40 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) OUTLET rttro. to Nato Pe Pond =I 4 oz 8 O 2 T� 2 e 5 rc Er Er C Er K Er Er Er Er a& Eu -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •ta•I •tI Iliago$Iii=giiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 0 0 0 0 o e e e e o 0 0 ............ ............ 8 R 8 R 8 82 8 28 gR 8 8 2121 2013. 340 PM 2M1/2011, 3A0 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) OUTLET H I RESTRICTOR PLATE SIZING FOR CIRCULAR VERTICAL ORIFICES Project: Basin ID: X Sizing the Restrictor Plate for Circular Vertical Orifices or Pipes (Input) Water Surface Elevation at Design Depth PipeNertical Orifice Entrance Invert Elevation Required Peak Flow through Orifice at Design Depth PipeNertical Orifice Diameter (inches) Orifice Coefficient Full -flow Capacity (Calculated) Full -flow area Half Central Angle in Radians Full -flow capacity Calculation of Orifice Flow Condition Half Central Angle (0<Theta<3.1418) Flow area Top width of Orifice (inches) Height from invert of Orifice to Bottom of Plate (feet) Elevation of Bottom of Plate Resultant Peak Flow Through Orifice at Design Depth Elev: WS = Elev: invert = 4= Dia = C, at Vertical Orifice #2 Vertical Orifice 4,803.20 4,798.00 47,70 38.0 0.75 Af= 7.07 Theta = 3.14 Of = 81.8 Percent of Design Flow = 172% Theta = A,= To = V.= Elev Plate Bottom Edge = 0. = 1.83 3.78 35.95 1 58 4,799.58 47.8 Width of Equivalent Rectangular Vertical Orifice Equivalent Width = 2.39 Centroid Elevation of Equivalent Rectangular Vertical Orifice Equiv. Centroid El. = 4,798.79 feet feet cfs nches sq ft rad cfs rad sq ft inches feet feet cfs feet feet Plains UD-Detention_v2 31, Restrictor Plate 2/21/2013. 3:39 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WEIRS AND ORIFICES (INLET CONTROL) Project: Basin ID: Current Routing Order is 03 Design Information (Input): Circular Opening OR Rectangular Opening e,4., • I tsuM.•a tt rsla•V 1.44O.4., .1 a4r. st•e Diameter in Inches Width in Feel Length (Height for Vertical) Percentage of Open Area Alter Trash Rack Reduction Orifice Coefficient Weir Coefficient Orifice Elevation (Bottom for Vertical) Calculation of Collection Capacity Net Opening Area (alter Trash Rack Reduction) OPTIONAL' User-Ovende Net Opening Area Perimeter as Weir Length OPTIONAL User Ovcnde Weir Length Dia = W= L or H= V. open = C,= = E._ ••ry (•N• • 1 ••••`•--•-n Y••• ••...y, ...ry.•.w.w..1..r:i • a• 11 ■ I Hein 12 Hone. /1 Vat 12 Veil. ( 4 00 400 2 39 l 158 l 90 0 50 3 40 100 0 75 4800 00 A,= 1440 A•= L„= 1520 L. a Top Elevation of Vertical Orifice Opening, Top =- Center Elevation of Vertical Orifice Opening. Cer. 4.798 00 I 3 78 I 1 h ft 4799 58 4798 79 Inches 0. 0. Routing 3: Single Stage - Water flows through WQCV plate and #1 horizontal opening into #1 vertical opening. This flow will be applied to culvert sheet (#2 vertical & horizontal openings is not used). Honzontat Orifices Vertical Orifices Label for WQCV. Minor. 6 Major Storage W S Elevators C..1 Water Surface Elevation II , mlede WQCV Plate/Riser Flow cfi IUserGnked) I I Mono I f Honz Wee Orifice Flow Flow Cfs cis (oulpull lovtputl 12 Hon: e2 Hem Wee Orifice Flow Flow till cis 10010011 .output II Vert Collection Capably cis loutpult 12 Vol Collection Capacity O1$ {output) p ! Total Collection Capacity eta (output) tarpel Volumes iaWOCv. ow*, 6 lmjor Statlpe VOt.rnea n.rs !a yet: ueij 4798 00 479900 480000 4801 00 4802 00 4803 00 4003.20 4803 70 4804 20 0.00 0 00 000 000 51 68 146 17 268 54 295 83 367 81 000 000 000 57 78 81 71 100 08 103 36 111 14 118 41 INIA IN/A AIWA IN/A 2N/A IN/A AWA ANIA ON/A IN/A ANIA IN/A IN/A siN/A 17N/A 0 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 IN/A IN/A INIA IN/A INIA IN/A INIA *NIA INIA fiN/A "WA 0 00 1018 2503 33 82 40 76 46 68 4/ 78 50 41 52 92 IN/A AN/A IN/A AN/A INIA ON/A 2N/A 2N/A IN/A 2N/A IN/A INIA 2N/A IN/A IN/A IN/A AIWA IN/A ANNA IN/A INIA INIA IN/A IN/A IN/A ON/A INIA *N/A IWA *NIA *NM INIA *NIA 2N/A MA 0 00 000 0.00 004 0.04 010 000 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 010 0 17 33.82 0 25 40.76 030 000 000 000 46.66 MAJOR 034 47.78 47 7 Cf S 038 0 00 000 000 000 0 DO 0 00 50.41 0 41 444 83 IN/A INIA ON/A 2N/A IN/A INIA 1N/A INIA ANA *NIA INIA INIA ItN/A INIA INIA XN/A IN/A IN/A IN/A IN/A INIA 2N/A IN/A IN/A IIN/A IWA INIA 000 IN/A INIA INIA IN/A IN/A INIA ANNA 261/A INIA illil/A SN/A 52.92 0 44 INCA 047 IN/A 0 50 IN/A ■10/A IWA /WA 0D0 000 000 0 00 000 000 000 000 IN/A IOWA IN/A OVA /N/A /WA INCA IWA IWA IIN/A IWA IN/A IN/A INIA IWA IWA *N/A INIA IN/A *NIA IN/A IN/A IN/A IN/A 'N/A ANIA IN/A 4N/A INIA IN/A INIA IN/A ANNA INIA IN/A MIA ON/A INIA INIA ON/A 2N/A ANNA IIN/A IN/A AN/A *WA ON/A *NIA IIN/A IN/A IN/A 1N/A INIA IIN/A 000 000 000 000 000 000 00D 000 00D 000 000 INIA IN/A INIA iN/A INIA INIA IN/A fIN/A IN/A INIA IN/A IN/A IIN/A IN/A IN/A AWA IWA *N/A INIA *N/A 'NIA *NIA INIA INIA IN/A *NIA INIA IWA IWA INIA MIA INIA IWA IIN/A 000 000 000 000 INIA IWA IWA IN/A INIA *WA IN/A INIA IN/A IN/A IN/A IN/A INNA INIA INIA /WA INIA IWA IN/A INIA IN/A INIA *NIA 000 000 000 000 000 IWA INIA IN/A IN/A *WA ON/A OVA ■WA AN/A OVA OVA INIA INIA /N/A /N/A *N/A 'NIA IWA IN/A 000 INIA IN/A AN/A IWA 000 000 IWA IWA INLA Plains UD•Detention_v2 31. Outlet 2/21/2013, 338 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WEIRS AND ORIFICES (INLET CONTROL) Project: Basin ID: STAGE -DISCHARGE CURVE FOR THE OUTLET STRUCTURE 4805 Stage (feet, elev.) D 10 20 30 40 50 GO Discharge (cfs) I Plans UD-Detenhcn_v2 31 Out:et 2/2112013, 338 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE OUTLET CULVERT (INLET vs. OUTLET CONTROL WITH TAILWATER EFFECTS) Project: Basin ID: Status: Culvert Data is valid! poainn Information (Input); Circular Culvert Barrel Oiameler in Inches Cuculer Culver Intel Edge Type (choose from pull -down list) Box Culven: Barrel Magill (Rise) In Feel Box Culven: Barrel Width (Span) In Feet Box Culvert Inlet Edge Type (choose from pull -down list) Number of Barrels Inlet Elevation al Culvert Invert Outlet Elevation at Culvert Invert Culvert Length in Feel Manning's Roughness Bend Loss Coefficient Exit Loss Coefficient Design Information tca(cu(eted); Entrance Loss CoeMcrent Faction Loss Coefficient Sum of All Loss Coefficients Orifice Inlet Condition Coefficient Minimum Energy Condition Coefficient C0 cu)ationa of Cuty I—, D •I 36 Square Eno until eleadwar Hoighl (Rise) Width (Sown) • IS 10<,M wr 00 Dg Headwall No • O�• L• n• Kb • K, • 4798.00 4797 00 2000 00130 000 100 0.50 144 2 94 0 85 0 02 n n elov It alev Water Surface Elevation From Sheet "Basin" (ft., linked) Tallwater Surface Elevation tt (Input If known( Culvert Inlet -Control Flowrute cfe (output) Culvert Oullet.Conlrol Flowrsla fife (output) Flowrote Into Culvert From Sheet "Outlet" (efs, linked) Controlling Culvert Flowrate fits (Output) Inlet Equation Used (Output) 4798.00 000 0 00 000 0.00 0.00 No Flow 0515 < iIslel) 4799.00 000 5 50 2203 0.04 0.04 Min. Energy Eqn 4800.00 000 18.80 2497 0.10 0.10 Regression Eqn 4801.00 000 35.30 3011 33.82 30.11 Regression Eqn. 4802.00 000 5010 4075 40.76 40.75 Regression Eon. 4603.00 000 61 70 4952 46.88 48.68 Regression Ego 4803.20 000 83 70 51 15 47.78 47.78 Regression Eon 4803.70 000 88 50 54 99 50.41 50.41 Regression Eon. 4804.20 0.00 72.90 58.60 52.92 32.92 Regresslon Egg. 0.00 0.00 000 000 /NIA *NIA No Flow (WS <rmet) 0.00 0.00 040 0 00 IN/A IN/A No Flow (INS < inlet) 0.00 000 000 000 IWA IWA No Flaw (WS < Intel) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 /WA MINA No Flow (WS < Imet) 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 IWA SWA NoFlow (WS treat) 0.00 0.00 000 0 00 INIA IWA No Flow (W5 < inlet) 0.00 000 0.00 000 IWA aN/A No Flow (WS< inlet) 0.00 0.00 000 ego IIN/A IWA NoFlow(WS<inlet) 0.00 000 000 0.00 /NIA IN/A No Flow (WS < inlet) 0.00 000 0.00 000 IWA IN/A No Flow (WS < inlet) 0.00 0.00 000 000 MIA IWA No Flow (WS < inlel) 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 INIA IWA No Flow (WS < inlet) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OW IN/A No Flow (W5 <inlet) 0.00 000 000 000 IWA ON/A No Flow (WS< inlet) 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 IWA *NIA No Flow (WS <Inlet) 0.00 000 000 0.00 /WA IIN/A No Flow (WS <Inlet) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IWA ON/A No Flow (WS < inlet) 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 IWA MIA No Flow (WS < inlet) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /WA IN/A No Flow (WS < mlel) 0.00 000 000 0.00 /NIA NINA No Flow (WS< alai) 0.00 000 000 000 INIA IWA No Flow (WS < inlet) 0.00 000 000 0.00 IWA IWA No Flow (WS <nlel) 0.00 000 000 0.00 IWA IWA No Flow (1NS < avert 0.00 000 000 000 IN/A /WA No Flow(WS <mlet) 0.00 000 000 000 *NIA IN/A No Flow (WS< inlet) 0.00 000 000 0.00 IWA IWA No Flow (WS <inlel) 0.00 0.00 000 000 ON/A MIA NO Flow (WS< Inlet) 0.00 000 0.00 000 IWA INIA No Flow (WS < inlet) 0.00 0.00 000 000 IN/A IWA No Flow (WS < inlet) 0.00 0.00 000 000 "NIA IWA No Flow (WS < Intel) 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 IWA /NIA No Flow (WS< nlet) 0.00 0.00 000 000 INIA IWA NoFlow(WS <inlel 0.00 000 000 O0D INIA /NIA No Flow (WS < inlet) 0.00 0.00 000 000 ON/A MIA No Flow (WS < idol) 0.00 000 0.00 000 ON/A 'NIA No Flow (WS< atlel) Plains UO.Detention_v2 31. Culvert 2/212013.3.38 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIANG OF THE OUTLET CULVERT (INLET vs. OUTLET CONTROL V 711 TAILWATER EFFECTS) Projaet Bash ID: p STAGE -DISCHARGE CURVE FOR THE FINAL OUTLET PIPE CULVERT 4805 00 4804.00 4803 00 Stage (feet, elev.) 20 00 30 00 Discharge (cfs) 40 00 50 00 :_I 00 Plains UD-Delenlian_v2 31. Culvert 2212013.336 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE SPILLWAY Project: Basin ID: Design Information (input): Bottom Length of We :- Angle of Side Slope Weir Elev for Weir Crest Coef for Rectangular Weir Coef for Trapezoidal Weir Calculation of Spillway Capacity (output): L Angle = EL Crest = C.„ = CI = 200 00 75.96 4,804.20 3.00 2 52 Water Surface Elevation ft (linked) Rect Weir Flowrate cfs (output) Triangle Weir Flowrate cfs (output) Total Spillway Release cfs (output) Total Pond Release cfs (output) 4798.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 4799 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 0 04 4800.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 0.10 4801 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 30 11 4802.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 40.75 4803.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 46 68 4803.20 0.00 0 00 0 00 47.78 4803.70 0 00 0.00 0 00 50 41 4804.70 212 13 1 78 213 91 269 22 #N1A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N1A #N1A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N1A #N1A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N1A #N1A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A *NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N1A #N1A #N/A #N/A #N1A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NlA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N1A #N1A #N1A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A UN/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N1A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N1A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N1A feet degrees feet Plains UD-Detention_v2.31, Spillway 2/22/2013, 12:47 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE SPILLWAY Project: Basin ID: Plains UD-Detention_v2.31, Spillway 2/22/2013, 12:47 PM rntn <Me rqux?u0 orc 19g1i xd 1119 t19 WWI 1C 461144 11 MOMS 41110,14 ONIOVO1 tldrttll mv..es us."i6I\w Extended Detention Basins (EDBs) EDBs have low to moderate maintenance requirements on a routine basis, but may require significant maintenance once every 15 to 25 years. Maintenance frequency depends on the amount of construction activity within the tributary watershed, the erosion control measures implemented, the size of the watershed, and the design of the facility. 1 Inspection Inspect the EDB at least twice annually, observing the amount of sediment in the forebay and checking for debris at the outlet structure. 2 Debris and Litter Removal Remove debris and litter from the detention area as required to minimize clogging of the outlet. 3 Mowing and Plant Care When starting from seed, mow native/drought tolerant grasses only when required to deter weeds during the first three years. Following this period, mowing of native/drought tolerant grass may stop or be reduced to maintain a height of no less than 6 inches (higher mowing heights are associated with deeper roots and greater drought tolerance). In general, mowing should be done as needed to maintain appropriate height and control weeds. Mowing of manicured grasses may vary from as frequently as weekly during the summer, to no mowing during the winter. See Section 4 of this chapter for additional recommendations from the CSU Extension. 4 Aeration For EDBs with manicured grass, aeration will supply the soil and roots with air and increase infiltration. It reduces soil compaction and helps control thatch while helping water move into the root zone. Aeration is done by punching holes in the ground using an aerator with hollow punches that pull the soil cores or "plugs" from the ground. Holes should be at least 2 inches deep and no more than 4 inches apart. Aeration should be performed at least once per year when the ground is not frozen. Water the turf thoroughly prior to aeration. Mark sprinkler heads and shallow utilities such as irrigation lines and cable TV lines to ensure those lines will not be damaged. Avoid aerating in extremely hot and dry conditions. Heavy traffic areas may require aeration more frequently. 5 Mosquito Control Although the design provided in this manual implements practices specifically developed to deter mosquito breeding, some level of mosquito control may be necessary if the BMP is located in close proximity to outdoor amenities. The most effective mosquito control programs include weekly inspection for signs of mosquito breeding with treatment provided when breeding is found. These inspections can be performed by a mosquito control service and typically start in mid - May and extend to mid -September. Treatment should be targeted toward mosquito larvae. Mosquitoes are more difficult to control when they are adults. This typically requires neighborhood fogging with an insecticide. The use of larvicidal briquettes or "dunks" may be appropriate. These are typically effective for about one month and perform best when the basin has a hard bottom (e.g., concrete lined micropool). 22 Facts on Mosquito Breeding Although mosquitoes prefer shallow, stagnant water, they can breed within the top 6 to 8 inches of deeper pools. Mosquitoes need nutrients and prefer shelter from direct sunlight. Mosquitoes can go from egg to adult within 72 hours. The most common mosquitoes in Colorado include the Aedes Vexans and the Culex Tarsalis. Both have similar needs for breeding and development. 6 Irrigation Scheduling and Maintenance Native grass and other drought tolerant plantings should not require irrigation after establishment. 7 Sediment Removal from the Forebay, Trickle Channel, and Micropool Remove sediment from the forebay and trickle channel annually. If portions of the watershed are not developed or if roadway or landscaping projects are taking place in the watershed, the required frequency of sediment removal in the forebay may be as often as after each storm event. The forebay should be maintained in such a way that it does not provide a significant source of resuspended sediment in the stormwater runoff. Sediment removal from the micropool is required about once every one to four years, and should occur when the depth of the pool has been reduced to approximately 18 inches. Small micropools may be vacuumed and larger pools may need to be pumped in order to remove all sediment from the micropool bottom. Removing sediment from the micropool will benefit mosquito control. Ensure that the sediment is disposed of properly and not placed elsewhere in the basin. 8 Sediment Removal from the Basin Bottom Remove sediment from the bottom of the basin when accumulated sediment occupies about 20% of the water quality design volume or when sediment accumulation results in poor drainage within the basin. The required frequency may be every 15 to 25 years or more frequently in basins where construction activities are occurring. 9 Erosion and Structural Repairs Repair basin inlets, outlets, trickle channels, and all other structural components required for the basin tooperate as intended. Repair and vegetate eroded areas as needed following inspection. 23 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, 'nc Friday, Feb 22 2013 Culvert A Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Elev (R) 484900 4848 00 4347 W 484600 48: 4844 00 43430 = 4844.50 = 71.90 = 0.61 = 4844.94 = 24.0 Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) = Circular Highlighted = 24.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 0.024 Qovertop (cfs) = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe Veloc Dn (ft/s) = Mitered to slope (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) = 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7 HGL Dn (ft) = 4848.50 = 35.00 = 35.00 0 5 10 15 Circular Culve.4 20 25 30 HGL 35 40 45 50 Embunr 55 60 65 70 75 BO 85 90 95 1. ulvr.•rt A HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime = 14.60 = 14.60 = 0.00 = 14.604- 0S3 = 14.60 100-y2 = 0.00 Q''?Fbs.s = 6.34 = 4.65 = 4845.88 = 4847.44 = 4848.01 = 1.53 = Outlet Control Nn Ceotn ,It,, 4:6 Reach (5I 336 2:6 7,5 94 -194 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc Friday, Feb 22 2013 CULVERT B Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Elev (5) 4841 CO _ 484003 4839 00 1838 CC 4837 CC 4835 CC 4335 00 4334 00 4833 a 0 5 10 IS 20 25 30 35 :C 45 E5 — Cucuta' CYIveft I4GL Embar.Y F :5 7.3 83 86 = 4834.30 Calculations = 73.30 Qmin (cfs) = 186.00 = 0.55 Qmax (cfs) = 186.00 = 4834.70 Tailwater Elev (ft) = 0.00 = 42.0 = Circular Highlighted os2=173cFs = 42.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 186.00 = 3 Qpipe (cfs) = 186.00 i s,� 1= l).2cfs = 0.024 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 8.56 = Mitered to slope (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) = 6.44 = 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7 HGL Dn (ft) = 4836.77 = 4840.90 = 35.00 = 35.00 HGL Up (ft) = 4838.40 Hw Elev (ft) = 4839.26 Hw/D (ft) = 1.30 C 1.5 Flow Regime = Inlet Control CULVERT B My Depth t^.; el contr 90 95 Reich ITC 830 5.30 a30 330 230 1 30 030 •070 170 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc Friday, Feb 22 2013 CULVERT C Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Elm/ (5) 4823 00 _ 4822 00 _ = 4815.32 = 60.00 = 0.50 = 4815.62 = 24.0 Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) = Circular Highlighted = 24.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 0.024 Qovertop (cfs) = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe Veloc Dn (ft/s) = Mitered to slope (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) = 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7 HGL Dn (ft) = 4822.00 = 40.00 = 40.00 CULVERT C HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime = 14.60 = 14.60 = (dc+D)/2 = 14.604-- Cs3 = 14.60 100.R = 0.00 aYRA� = 5.16 = 4.65 = 4817.01 = 4817.92 = 4818.49 = 1.43 4 1,S = Outlet Control My oe)th ;rti 4821 CO -- 4820 00 481900 4818.00 4817 00 4816 00 481500 4814 00 0 5 10 15 20 C rculat Culvert Ou.Jetco Itr04 25 HGL 3a 40 45 Embank 50 56 60 •162 75 C0 Rtec, .9. 7.38 6 38 5 38 4 38 338 2 38 1 38 0 38 082 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Feb 22 2013 CULVERT D Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Ere. 4826 4825 C+ 4824 OC 4823 CO 4822.00 482100 4820 CG 0 10 20 30 Circular Culvert = 4820.30 = 146.00 = 0.50 = 4821.03 = 30.0 Calculations Qmin (cfs) = 68.96 Qmax (cfs) = 68.96 Tailwater Elev (ft) _ (dc+D)/2 = Circular Highlighted = 30.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 3 Qpipe (cfs) = 0.024 Qovertop (cfs) = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe Veloc Dn (ft/s) = Mitered to slope (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) = 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7 HGL Dn (ft) = 4825.00 = 35.00 = 35.00 40 so 60 HGL Sc CULVERT D HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime 13: 13_ 19: 166 17: O53= 14•G = 68.96 < .- = 68.96 $A5,, -(Z7 -593C6, = 0.00 = 5.30 = 4.68 = 4822.37 = 4824.01 = 4824.59 1.434 -LS = Outlet Control He, Depth In, :o. ne ISO 190 Reach (8) 4 97 397 97 197 097 -0.03 1 03 -203 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. CULVERT E Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Eiev (11) 4822.00 _ 4821.00 4820.00 4819.00 4818.00 4817.00 4816.00 4816.00 4814,00 = 4815.20 = 80.00 = 0.37 = 4815.50 = 24.0 = Circular = 24.0 = 1 = 0.024 = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe = Mitered to slope (C) = 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7 = 4821.00 = 50.00 = 50.00 CULVERT E Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc Dn (ft/s) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime Friday, Feb 22 2013 = 10.42 = 10.42 = (dc+D)/2 = 10.42 ISas p-i 3 = 10.42 = 0.00 = 3.92 = 5.54 = 4816.78 = 4816.66 = 4817.27 = 0.88 < t .S = Inlet Control Hw Depth (R( 850 Inlet contra 10 20 Circular Culvert 40 HOL 60 70 Embank 100 110 120 Reach ,81 550 4.50 350 2.50 1.50 0.50 .0.50 •1.50 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc CULVERT G Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope C/o) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) EJev (R) 4818,00 _ 4815.00 4812 00 400900 4806.00 4803 00 480OO0 = 4800.50 = 170.00 = 0.59 = 4801.50 = 42.0 = Circular = 42.0 = 1 = 0.024 = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe = Mitered to slope (C) = 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7 = 4816.00 = 78.00 = 78.00 CULVERT G Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc Dn (ft/s) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime Friday, Feb 22 2013 = 51.05 = 51.05 = (dc+D)/2 = 51.05 - aelsfrq LI = 51.05 = 0.00 = 6.05 = 7.88 = 4803.37 = 4803.73 = 4805.01 = 1.004. 1.5 = Inlet Control Hw Depth rs Inlet :ontroi 479700 0 20 40 Circular Culvert 60 80 100 120 140 HOL Embank 160 180 200 220 240 260 Reach 01) 1350 1050 750 4.60 t.50 1 50 .4.50 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc Friday, Feb 22 2013 CULVERT H Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 4799.80 Calculations Pipe Length (ft) = 140.50 Qmin (cfs) Slope (%) = 0.71 Qmax (cfs) Invert Elev Up (ft) = 4800.80 Tailwater Elev (ft) Rise (in) = 36.0 Shape = Circular Highlighted Span (in) = 36.0 Qtotal (cfs) No. Barrels = 1 Qpipe (cfs) n -Value = 0.024 Qovertop (cfs) Culvert Type = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe Veloc Dn (ft/s) Culvert Entrance = Mitered to slope (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7 HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Embankment Hw Elev (ft) Top Elevation (ft) = 4811.00 Hw/D (ft) Top Width (ft) = 78.00 Flow Regime Crest Width (ft) = 78.00 Elev (8) 4813.00 _ 4811.00 _ 4809 00 _ 480700 _ 4806.00 _ 4803.00 _ 4801 00 _ 479900 _ 4797 00 _ CULVERT H = 36.31 = 36.31 = 0.00 = 36.31 -- 6A5i.4 = 36.31 = 0.00 = 7.43 = 5.14 = 4801.76 = 4804.14 = 4804.84 = 1.35 < IS = Outlet Control 11w Depth (R) 1270 0 10 20 30 Circular Culvert 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 12C 130 140 15" ISO 170 HGL Embank 1020 8 20 6 20 4 20 220 020 .160 .380 I80 IOC Reach ,pi Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc CULVERT I Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Bev (It) 480600 _ 4805 00 _ 4804 00 _ 480300 _ 480200 _ 4801 00 _ 4800 00 _ 4799 00 _ 4798 00 _ 4797 00 _ 4796 00 _ = 4797.00 = 110.00 = 0.91 = 4798.00 = 36.0 = Circular = 36.0 = 1 = 0.024 = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe = Mitered to slope (C) = 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7 = 4805.00 = 78.00 = 78.00 CULVERT I Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc Dn (ft/s) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime Friday, Feb 22 2013 = 47.70 = 47.70 = 0.00 = 47.704-- FOND = 47.70 Zaki3 KA1 ' = 0.00 = 8.40 = 6.75 = 4799.25 = 4801.75 = 4802.38 = 1.46 = Inlet Control Hw Depth LIt 40 50 60 HGL '0 so Embank 11; 170 130 140 160 0 10 20 30 Circular Culvert Reich MI e00 7.00 600 600 400 300 700 1 00 0.00 -1 00 .200 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc Friday, Feb 22 2013 CULVERT J Invert Elev Dn (ft) Pipe Length (ft) Slope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) Shape Span (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Elev (1 1) :828.00 _ 4825.00 _ 4824 00 4823 00 4522 00 4821.00 4820 CO 4819 00 481800 481700 = 4818.00 Calculations = 163.50 Qmin (cfs) = 0.92 Qmax (cfs) = 4819.50 Tailwater Elev (ft) = 42.0 = Circular Highlighted = 42.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 0.024 Qovertop (cfs) = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe Veloc Dn (ft/s) = Headwall Veloc Up (ft/s) = 0.0078, 2, 0.0379, 0.69, 0.5 HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) = 4825.00 Hw/D (ft) = 105.00 Flow Regime = 135.00 uLVFF,F 1 = 62.56 = 62.56 _ (dc+D)/2 = 62.56 = 62.56 = 0.00 = 7.15 = 6.50 = 4820.99 = 4823.21 = 4824.20 = 1.34 < 1. 5 = Outlet Control Hw Depth Itfi 650 550 Outlelc, •' 450 20 40 Cugller Culvert 80 100 120 140 16D 160 HGL Embank -2.60 20 240 260 Resell (5) 350 260 1.50 060 -0.60 -1.50 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc Friday, Feb 22 2013 CULVERT K Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 4816.90 Calculations Pipe Length (ft) = 79.00 Qmin (cfs) Slope (%) = 0.76 Qmax (cfs) Invert Elev Up (ft) = 4817.50 Tailwater Elev (ft) Rise (in) = 30.0 Shape = Circular Highlighted Span (in) = 30.0 Qtotal (cfs) No. Barrels = 1 Qpipe (cfs) n -Value = 0.024 Qovertop (cfs) Culvert Type = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe Veloc Dn (ft/s) Culvert Entrance = Mitered to slope (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.021, 1.33, 0.0463, 0.75, 0.7 HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Embankment Hw Elev (ft) Top Elevation (ft) = 4822.00 Hw/D (ft) Top Width (ft) = 50.00 Flow Regime Crest Width (ft) = 50.00 Elev (0) 4823.00 _ 482200 _ 4821 DO _ 482000 4819.00 _ 4818.00 _ 4317.00 _ 4815 CO 4815.00 _ CULVERT K = 27.05 = 27.05 = 0.00 = 27.05 = 27.05 = 0.00 = 7.27 = 5.51 = 4818.67 = 4820.42 = 4820.79 = 1.324 1.5 = Inlet Control He Depth I8; 550 ""el eonr0l 0 10 20 30 40 50 Circular Culvert HGL 60 70 Embank 80 90 100 110 120 Reach t8) 4 50 3.50 250 1.60 0.50 0.50 -1.50 -2.50 Riprap Sizing W=w+4xD L=5xD T=2xD50 Location T F V (ft/s) [VELOCITY] d(ft) [DEPTH] Pd [Design Perameterl Rock Size [Figure HS -20] Ds0 (inches) [Figure HS -91 T (feet) [THICKNESS] L (feet) [LENGTH] W (feet) [WIDTH] Area Requred (SY) Area Provided (SY) Culvert A 2 2 6.34 1.38 9.2 Type L 9 1.5 10 10 11.1 15 Culvert B 3.5 10.5 8.56 2.47 12.4 Type L 9 1.5 14 24.5 38.1 40 Culvert C 2 2 5.16 1.69 9.0 Type L 9 1.5 8 10 8.9 10 Culvert D 2.5 7.5 5.3 2.07 5.7 Type L 9 1.5 10 17.5 19.4 20 Culvert E 2 2 3.92 1.58 8.1 Type L 9 1.5 8 10 8.9 10 Culvert F 1.5 1.5 2.5 1 6.2 Type L 9 1.5 6 7.5 5.0 10 Culvert G 3.5 3.5 6.05 2.87 11.4 Type L 9 1.5 14 17.5 27.2 30 Culvert H 3 3 7.43 1.96 10.9 Type L 9 1.5 12 15 20.0 25 Culvert I 3 3 8.4 2.25 12.0 Type L 9 1.5 12 15 20.0 25 Culvert J 3.5 3.5 7.15 2.99 12.1 Type L 9 1.5 14 17.5 27.2 30 Culvert K 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.77 8.0 Type L 9 1.5 10 12.5 13.9 15 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 2) 30 25 4 - op L 20 a) -4- a) E io 15 IZ c +_a " 10 a) a 5 HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Storm Sewer Diameter, D, or Height, H, in ft. 8 Figure HS -20c —Low Tailwater Riprap Basins for Storm Sewer Pipe Outlets— Riprap Selection Chart for Low Tailwater Basin at Pipe Outlet (Stevens and Urbonas 1996) Rev. 2008-04 Urban Drainage & Flood Control District HS -83 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 2) HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES ct. See note pv or D 1_ see note ii w A 7 Plan Profile W.S. 9" layer of granular Type 2 bedding I t 0.5D or 0.5H T Perforated underdrain to daylight (optional) Note: For rectangular conduits use a standard design for a headwall with wingwalls, paved bottom between the wingwalls, with an end cutoff wall extending to a minimum depth equal to B Figure HS -19 —Low Tailwater Riprap Basins for Storm Sewer Pipe Outlets — Low Tailwater Basin at Pipe Outlets (Stevens and Urbonas 1996) Rev. 2008-04 Urban Drainage & Flood Control District HS -79 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2012 by Autodesk, Inc. Friday, Feb 22 2013 RAILSIDE LOOP SWALE Trapezoidal Bottom Width (ft) Side Slopes (z:1) Total Depth (ft) Invert Elev (ft) Slope (%) N -Value Calculations Compute by: Known Depth (ft) Elev (ft) 4833.00 4832.50 4832.00 4831.50 4831.00 4830.50 4830.00 4829.50 = 10.00 = 3.00, 3.00 = 2.50 = 4830.00 = 0.50 = 0.030 Known Depth = 1.50 Section Highlighted Depth (ft) Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Velocity (ft/s) Wetted Perim (ft) Crit Depth, Yc (ft) Top Width (ft) EGL (ft) = 1.50 = 81.97 = 21.75 = 3.77 = 19.49 = 1.14 = 19.00 = 1.72 10 Depth (ft) 0 5 15 20 25 30 35 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 Reach (ft) G. HISTORIC DRAINAGE PLAN 27 .m.m..0004 • mlla.ml, . .61a.6ml lam 0040100 NI= • fG Ulf !MIS 1UC mf N MCC is r 3NIl3SV8W A1NOOD 01311 Isprk 400.0 ]Iva L maa®Id IW4YJ630 a0M?I 3ovva3 0P1013w unIOVJ ON10V01 VdWVi dVV SNIVId SNItl'7d )0'804333 1 f 1 1 1 I I • • I ti ce C) v 0 • U • • ♦ ♦ • ♦ • ♦ • • • • •, • • •, • • • • • • • • • • • • • RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE • • m d0 n b R 00 0 lb CO M CPI M N co O, O 0 en 1D M m CO 41) oS w C 0 n M 0 O O lb 0 4.1 aw lru Q N 0 N n ♦ ♦• N O N O N O v „ nv, ♦♦ ♦ [D X GRAPHIC SCALE co I I 0 0 y \--4,965 LF © 1.6% 9.www 40011 .0d Sr LL'tI (IDZ/ZU/Z bOIun kcx4,O I ITVI\4440,OWAd brnm n •,,md 161\DTI Dw Yldt ll H. PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN 28 L iA O Es ` 8 z w 0 as oc°G o� z • 82co cD M o .4 E., g o Iwl ^J lfaUa aaolnr lapl •oaaaD7 aaornu 0 aaam aao«nM ur raw N0vo noissa 104130 S $ S 3 S I ! I 3 3 I I 2 3 S 3 5 $ $ ,86R888f •M•1ws-•00s+ra-1w~MI-.w-•II - . s 3 2 3 3 3 I 3 7 3 w I I R i S S a c 2 3 I 1 2 3 3 I I 2 I 3 S I I I r x. I I r RS OO ♦ ♦ • ♦ • ♦ • f Karla Ford From: Kim Ogle Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:54 AM To: Karla Ford Cc: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Revised Traffic Study for Plains BOCC meeting Attachments: TISR4 Feb 25 2013.pdf Please add to case file USR12-0075 to be heard tomorrow. Thanks! Kim Kim Ogle Planner Ill Department of Planning 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Direct: 970.353.6100 x 3549 Office: 970.353.6100 x 3540 Facsimile: 970.304.6498 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Vince Harris[mailto:vince(abaselinecorp.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:40 PM To: Kim Ogle; Janet Carter Cc: Tom Parko Subject: Revised Traffic Study for Plains BOCC meeting Kim and Janet. Here is the revised traffic study. This will help clarify the Plains commitment to have not more than 20 trucks per day when it opens. As we have discussed, and Anadarko and Noble have provide commitment letters, 2 pipelines will serve this facility. The facility is designed for pipeline loading with a minor operation to accept these few Plains scheduled tank trucks to unload here. The facility is not designed to fill the entire unit trains by tank trucks. It would look and be designed differently if it was. Therefore this report demonstrates the traffic on opening day at 210 PCE's. See page 2 explanation and page 5 chart. Page 2 indicates that if Plains ever needs to increase its daily tank truck traffic, Plains will need to notify Weld County and discuss further improvements at such time. 1 I will have a slide or two explaining the traffic differences between the initial limit of 20 trucks per day and the 50 truck cap potential in the future at the BOCC meeting. Please do not hesitate to ask me if you have any questions. Please each please confirm receipt of this? Thanks and see you each on Wednesday morning. Best regards, VINCENT HARRIS, AICP I Planning Director, Golden I Baseline Engineering, Planning, & Surveying Corporate Headquarters: 700 12th Street, Suite 220 I Golden, CO 80401 I Phone: 303.202.5010 I Fax: 303.940.9959 I Cell: 303.912.1900 I www.baselinecorp.com I blog.baselinecorp.com 2 Traffic Impact Study Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Located on Land in Section 17, Township 2N, Range 63W of the 6th P.M., east of the BNSF Railroad Prepared By: Baseline Engineering Corporation 700 12th Street # 220 Golden, Colorado 80401 Revised February 25, 2013 MBASELINE Engineering Planning • Surveying Traffic Impact Study Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility (Revised Nov 2012 Revised Dec 2012 Revised Feb 2013) Site Information • Description of Use The location of the property is along WCR 398 approximately 3.2 miles northeast of Keenesburg. The BNSF RR runs along the west side of the site. The property is presently agricultural. The site is approximately 356 acres. The proposed development is a crude oil rail facility that serves as a transfer point for oil produced locally onto tanker rail cars for distribution to the market. Oil arrives at the site primarily via pipeline, but occasionally by a tanker truck where it is held in tanks until it is transferred to rail cars. BNSF will deliver a unit train to the facility consisting of 104 empty crude oil tank cars. The facility is designed to accommodate two unit trains simultaneously. To access the site a private rail road crossing will be constructed. Discussions have been held with BNSF concerning this crossing. BNSF is in agreement with the crossing. It is expected that the private crossing will have crossing lights and gates. The access point will have 100' of stacking distance between WCR 398 and the RR right-of-way to store vehicles on the access and not force the vehicles to wait on WCR 398 for a passing train. • Hours of operation The facility will operate 24 hours a day. • Number of Employees As Plains is finalizing the planning for the facility, the number of employees on site has been more formalized. The facility will have a total of 10 contracted rail employees per 12 hour shift. The contracted rail employees operate the loading of the trains. There will be 2 shifts daily for the contracted rail employees, 7 days a week. The shifts are 6am to 6pm and 6pm to 6 am. In addition to the contracted rail employees. Plains will have 2 employees on site. These employees work a typical 8am to 5pm shift 5 days a week. There could also be 2-3 additional employees on site during the day. There would be a total of 25 employees. A maximum of 15 would be on site at any one time. Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE 1 Enpmanng Pknning - Suncying • Potential haul routes Plains has secured two pipe lines to serve the site, thus the estimated number of trucks serving the site has decreased substantially from their earlier planning. Any trucks that come on site would be by reservation and Plains can therefore control the number of trucks. Plains has committed to keeping the initial maximum number of trucks to 20. At any time in the future, if Plains finds a need to add more than the 20 tank trucks per day to their operations for crude oil transport (to a maximum of 50 trucks per day), Plains will notify Weld County of such need. Plains will work with Weld County to provide further needed and warranted improvements to the appropriate road network that are not required with the initial construction of the facility and initial improvements required and associated with the initial limit of 20 tank trucks per day. The site is accessed from WCR 398 and traffic can come from Roggen on the northeast or Keenesburg on the southwest. While an occasional vehicle may come from the northeast, the majority of the traffic to the site will come from Keenesburg, the shortest route to 1-76. At 1-76 the majority of the oil trucks will come and go from the southwest, some will go northeast on 1-76 and some will continue north on Market St and proceed north to the oil field area. The distribution percentages are shown on the Distribution Percentages figure included below. WCR 398 is paved in Keenesburg, but is gravel from Keenesburg to the site. • Vicinity Map Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE 2 Enpmanng Miming - Suncying • Site Plan 1.10021071:0 • WV ac 3NI13Sd84 n3 awe. I. .I 31W uOmar MIL 316 TM MO n1 III M{) 5IM5 li A MY:IL 11 NM Alnou $NIQYO1 YdTY1 was •°'• Ti 1INTIHJId HIMINEINV TIV alarm Maxie =So 1e 1I I I tt. pF gEHail�6- e�ilttg�tt o• • Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 'BASELINE Engineering - Planning - Surveying Existing Site Conditions • Roadway network The site is adjacent to WCR 398, which is a local gravel road northeast of Keenesburg. Traffic will access WCR 398 from Exit 39, Keenesburg on 1-76. Some traffic could come from Exit 48 on 1-76, Roggen, but the majority of traffic will come from Keenesburg. This study will assign 100% of the traffic to the southwest, the most likely direction of traffic accessing the site. Thus this study will present a worst -case condition. • Analysis of Period Daily traffic volumes are included as part of this report. The AM and PM peak hours will be analyzed in this Traffic Study. • Existing Traffic Data The Weld County Transportation Plan recorded 137 vehicles per day on WCR 398 in 2009. The CDOT web site shows 3000 vehicles per day on Market St 5/O 1-76. Peak hour volumes on Market St were obtained from 2010 CDOT counts. These peak hour counts were adjusted to 2012 volumes based upon the growth factor shown on the CDOT web site. The CDOT 20 year growth factor was used to determine 2035 volumes on Market St. AM and PM peak hours on WCR 398 are estimated at 10 vehicles/hour. The Weld County Transportation Plan projects the 2035 volume to be 190 vehicles per day. 2035 AM and PM peak hour traffic is estimated at 13 vehicles/hour. Future Conditions and Impacts • Trip Generation The trips generated by the site are estimated using the number of employees, visitors and oil truck deliveries expected at the site. ITE does not include a land use such as this in its Trip Generation manual. The estimate of Trips is based upon 10 contracted rail employees per shift, 2 Plains employees, and 3 additional employees per day, a maximum of 20 oil delivery trucks per day and 20 miscellaneous trips to the site per day. The contracted rail employees will be the largest number of employees during the day and their arrival and departure times will form the street peak hours. The Plains employees will generally arrive after the contracted rail employees shift change. It will also be assumed that 1 of the additional employee trips occurs during the AM and PM peak hours. This will represent the worst -case condition for the number of employee trips. Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE Enpmanng Pknning - Suncying The maximum number of oil delivery trucks will be 20 per day. Since the oil delivery trucks are scheduled by Plains, is it is assumed that no more than 2 oil delivery trucks will arrive or depart during the peak hours. This equates to 12 passenger car equivalents (pce's) in the peak hours and 120 pce's on a daily basis. It is also assumed that most of the miscellaneous trips do not occur during the peak hours. The following table shows the expected number of trips at the site on a daily and peak hour basis. Estimated Trips (Number of vehicles and Passenger Car Equivalents 1 truck = 3 passenger cars) Type of Trip Daily (50% In/ 50% Out) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Employee 50 veh 11 veh 11 veh 11 veh 11 veh Oil Trucks (pce's) 40 trucks 120 pce's 2 trucks I 6 pce's 2 trucks 6 pce's 2 trucks 6 pce's 2 trucks 6 pce's Misc Trips 40 veh 1 veh 1 veh 1 veh 1 veh Total Vehicles (pce's) 130 veh 210 pce's I 14 veh 18 pce's 14 veh 18 pce's 14 veh 18 pce's 14 veh 18 pce's • Trip Distribution As discussed above 100% of the trips are being assigned to and from the southwest. The distribution is show on the Distribution Figure shown below. • Existing Traffic, Existing + Generated Traffic, 2035 Background Traffic, and 2035 Total Traffic The following drawings show the existing peak hour traffic, the total peak hour traffic with the projected generated traffic, the projected 2035 peak hour background traffic and the 2035 total traffic. Plains has committed to keep the number of oil delivery trucks to a maximum of 20 per day unless they notify the County of an increased number. Thus 20 oil delivery trucks are also assumed for 2035. Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE Engineering - Pining Surreymg • Level of Service (LOS) The LOS of the future intersection is projected at LOS A at initial build out and in 2035 for both AM & PM peak hours. All approaches will be at LOS A with the existing laneage on WCR 398 and a one lane access for the Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility. It is assumed that the site access will have a stop sign. A copy of the LOS analysis as calculated by the computer program Synchro is attached. • Signal Warrant Analysis Traffic volumes will not warrant a traffic signal at the access. • Auxiliary Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Because of the extremely low traffic volumes on WCR 398, and they number of right turns does not meet the 25 vehicle threshold, a northeastbound right turn deceleration lane is not recommended. The large radii at the intersection will enable the trucks to easily make the turn onto the site access roadway. With the majority of traffic coming from and going to the southwest, there is no need for a southwestbound left turn lane on WCR 398. • Sight Distance Analysis There are no restrictions to sight distance at the proposed intersection. The area is relatively flat and visibility is unlimited. • Other Impacts No other impacts are anticipated with this development. Mitigation • Auxiliary Lanes No auxiliary lanes are being proposed for the development at the site access. • Corrections for LOS deficiencies LOS at the site access is projected at LOS A, thus no corrections are necessary. • Correction for any access deficiencies The access is a new access and is being designed to Weld County Specifications with large radii (65') for the trucks. • Signing & Striping A stop sign will be installed on the access roadway. Appropriate RR signing will also be installed once the private RR crossing has been designed and approved by BNSF. Since WCR is gravel, no striping is proposed. Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE 6 Enpmanng Pknning - Suncying • Pavement Maintenance No maintenance is proposed to WCR 398. • Intersection Radii for truck turn movements Large radii (65') are proposed at the intersection of the access and WCR 398 to accommodate the truck traffic. Figures • Letter from Plains regarding pipelines and reduced truck traffic • Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • Distribution Percentages • Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates (vehicles/hour) • Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates (passenger car equivalents) • Existing + Generated Traffic • 2035 Background Volumes • 2035 Total Volumes • LOS Calculations 0,'t�� oo' i, `�� d�; O�sT'�t fir,, q °a e 2341O o Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE Engineering Planning - Surveying PLAINS MARKETING, L.P. December 11, 2012 Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner III Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 176 Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: USR12-0075 Plains Tampa Loading Facility Expected Traffic and Pipelines Dear Mr. Ogle•. On behalf of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Marketing, LP. (Plains) we provide this letter to Weld County in regards to our submitted Use by Special Review permit application for a rail loading facility near Keenesburg referred to as the Plains Tampa Loading Facility (USR12-0075). Recently, contractual obligations have been completed between Plains and two independent area producers. 'Muse two companies plan to bring pipelines to our proposed facility that will deliver crude nil produced in the area. Plains has been working to secure the pipeline delivery to the proposed facility for some time. In light of these two contractual agreements, we will be able to significantly reduce surface truck transport of crude oil from the Wattenberg Field to our proposed loading facility. Recently we submitted with our application a revised traffic study with proposed truck traffic counts of a maximum of 200 trucks per day delivering crude to the site. We hereby amend our application, reducing the proposed number of trucks to a maximum of 50 trucks per day. Given that this facility will be pipeline connected to central gathering systems it is anticipated that the truck traffic would not be significant at any time during the operation of the facility however new production or unforeseen construction delays could cause a short term need for truck Access. We request that this application be processed in as timely a fashion as possible as all of the companies involved face a significant need to construct the facility and the pipelines in order to reduce traffic on roads within Weld County. Sincer 'eater Vice resident — Terminals Plains Marketing, LP. Plains Marketing GP Inc., General Partner 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600 (77002) • P.O. Box 4048 ■ llom.ton, Texas 77210-4648 ■ 7131646-4100 Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 ‘BASELINE 8 Engineering Planning - Surrtying Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE 9 Engineering - Planning - Surveying Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE 10 Engineering - Planning - Surveying Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE 11 Engineering - Planning - Surveying Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE Engineering - Planning - Surveying 12 Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE 13 Engineering - Planning - Surveying Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE 14 Engineering - Planning - Surveying Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 BASELINE 15 Engineering - Planning - Surveying LOS Calculations Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility 2014 Total Traffic (AM & PM Peak Hour) 1: Plains & WCR 398 Passenger Car Equivalents Movement Lane Configurations M j► 4 Volume (veh/h) 18 0 5 18 0 5 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 092 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 0 5 20 0 5 Pedestnans Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (IL's) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 21 15 25 vC1. stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 21 15 25 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 IC. 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 996 1064 1589 Direction. Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 20 25 5 Volume Left 20 0 0 Volume Right 0 20 0 cSH 996 1700 1589 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0 01 0 00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Penod (min) WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT 3.4 13.3% ICU Level of Service A 15 Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 February 2013 Baseline Engineenng BASELINE 16 Enpmeenng Planing - Surveying Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility 2035 Total Traffic (AM & PM Peak Hour) 1: Plains & WCR 398 Passenger Car Equivalents t 1 " Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations M '1+ 4 Volume (veh/h) 18 0 7 18 0 6 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0.92 092 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 0 8 20 0 7 Pedestnans Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft's) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage vehl Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vC. conflicting volume 24 17 27 vC 1. stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 24 17 27 tC. single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC. 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 992 1061 1587 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NS 1 SB 1 Volume Total 20 27 7 Volume Left 20 0 0 Volume Right 0 20 0 cSH 992 1700 1587 Volume to Capacity 0 02 0 02 0 00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (mm) 32 13.3% ICU Level of Service A 15 Plains AAP Tampa Loading Facility Traffic Impact Study February 2013 February 2013 Baseline Engineering BASELINE 17 Enpmcanng Planning - Surrcying O Vto C era 0413 • — a) 'is) 0 II_ C cu c b.13 • - zitW C i 4— I W W (5 4J C in p I - • _ In CUs V) COCCM •— •— M a- CO I a V CD LLJ m a • - C I 0 • > o vt W 4t p a o E a� s Nh E c.) 4-• a cu .. z ea ca 2 a —1 s 64.•.-• -a co th a) o -I L z Emmanue V rr, z Co) cr L.L.J O aJ C • MS O C O u a) C C O N I C O S u r a --r 4— O a) a) 4- O O O S s C OMS ) a) C 4-1 a) CI)a, O ow) S u C • cci O cci u • O MS 4-1 I 00 71- a) r‘ a) -a E O O 4- I O O . O N as ce • ► Crude tanker truck un C O cci ■ . its C a) u a) a) C . cu en= o_ a. a) S tnui 4-Edi olo a) +J 0 ce -t, C et in CU C 41 a... a . • as C Ni O oss 73 4-d " C1) .§ (ZS 1-0 a ,n as 4-d c Q itz ce c >, O � U tf 0) &) 4-0 L. L. cd I IN • X ID 0 O i Z a) C . V) a) oau C cu mem a immo a = E L- as o u .5 u a as ■ s U 1. 4-0 L_ CU S C cd 4-0 >, ID . a) > L— L. Cd O 4-, • O N Imo V N E v) O a) 4-• cn L. oo • 4-, 2), (in •N ce Uc 0 4-, o ' 01 O " 4- = (1)4-a tin ID = 0 O C L. CU a) al ‘4_ = O i a z gi • a • C- 4- 0 4—•a) cu on W VI aS a) 4-1 O . O ized trucks to hau ■ I C cci a . S W O) 73 as c as a) 4-' a, ni ._ u E O aJ u a) i • — O O s .� u c E its ti) • C -o as 0 5- O 4- . tri OF- U N aJ c s •— C ■ a) _o . U) C a) a O . ccu .•- aa) u a) 22 a • °M°`tled 2 -.6S 4-F., S L1 a) 'Li • c (3) a) . c a) . • . C O) • -cm C cd O S V L 4J C a) its a u a tad .— C C C L O C i HI f cm to a 0.. 4- 0 ii, 4-1 4 - cu cu aa . . . O . V cots Li - (ti rcs rd aJ . a) 0 as a) L. V C v) as s . a) a a L. O S V L. C > .O sp 4J _ V -O L O rcs La E a) O 4-E aJ � -4E1 � P W s u as as C 4u 4-, rd a) O E .4-' c 0 0 0 a) a) . _ O s > -o 4J • 0 V) 4-1 . C v) rCi a) • U rvi 4- . S V a) 0 ten a) u x w S O_ . C a) a) aD O y- 0 O a) .- ' - : a) -o V cu c s O u 0 ai V 4--J a L- . _ .V 5 C as as . L a) . 5 rd V) S U 4-1 u S. I - O N cu as ate--+ O � �' O Imo a, E t) mo E c E as O E mo in 0 ti c i crs as ci- E S . O rti in in a) u x a) cy - f,_ rd 4- L. O oi a-, r C = O 4-10 a U 4≥% D C — a, O U . 4 C a) . 4- O V) S U II CU S rvi '--J O E a) N > O L. a E as O Sn a) ID . O a O) C . s >i% • aJ cu a) Ln • - > O cos v) O C s-ni CU - ■ almid Lio) v� 4--a 0 imn CU L. a LL ces down of Keenesburg O a a as D L.. rcs 2 4, u ,V .,_i 4,_, c O 0 u .J v) ) V T v O • V) 4--C C L. Ni as ass > In 0 O ..c.- NJ 4-th' E V) ai C4-1 EOC O0 4 -I in LI < ai E cj, .. cv (3) `" =c'Ec as ID c. a) ammd v) C > .- V) a) C O c� • � 0 5) O- as -a�auC a 0a 0 O Ln 4-1 C cS in C rcs a. au E • . 4-1 V) . -C I— Q • C C 4-1 CD 4-J ._ }, X 0 a0 ac C as _ Q s • 0 > . _ 4-1 . . U CO y— . _ -me -C c o V) . 4-0 >% -.E, 4-1 Z O mo U a) P 2 a) a) 4E' = 4, -Co 4-1 C ■ V) ^ ' 4-1�� W U E 4?: E C o r u O - U r O O CU 4U > O W cn VI L. - CU ...C3s C s limmi "11 • - u t ED in as s in C ccs a_ Protection I J I- I CID a 0 Oa O • jrizs z I E aJ 4-0 a 01 C 0 0 +.r v O — O i� O o0 LO 4-1 C: O O a a 4-0 re I .Cfl in 12 minutes) O S C) a as Cd O 0 re IQZ S Cd to U Please eliminate this reauirement O 00 M ane on Market Street to CR 2 - Left Turn E 4J a C1 C= a) O O rtI ets 4-0 O X LU cd 0 U P/ease eliminate this reauirement O CO M U O C) E tern 3 - Pavement for 3 a via Tank Trucks Cd C O O U V as a) C 01 O O E Cd 2 as v 4Cd a) tan c aJ 4-- O_ ft_ O as U a O r - N II Rf ZS a 0Ci as a O a E a 0 01 U U a) ro vements ro vision in the Im Rs fts 4-E E v Please eliminate this re 0 60 M� 1 O L L v 0 reement to have Plains s 4 v s rti CU a v rtz commitment to a vst- v rti CU LJ rti C rts rti O M a) o. M W a ' S \ v LI 4J E N 4 ic W J 4-0 1 -•..'.nl1:11 If I i l-- unli/ tcas.ati� j �D'it'cuaar,;a�Gl.. l I is r .. ItlNla _l �..,�:uunt�•� _____ ;r iul}IO. kip U!�I%' I' arm Ii. I'us; •Iit!'OW::1111 CIS IR iII'gtew •-•• . ! Sla Il YI',IIiI :ZII Ars1 It I c1 MIl !tit' 1/•'." It raw int il:!'.1Y February 25, 2013 Existing Background Traffic a) ml lisl ao oso Ili 1 II 0 N a) o_ s 0 H O N L c 0 ago U cc n M a L 4_+ 0 6 U U Paving Trigger N I - mug l • 137 Background 2- 5- O O LU 0 0 Ln co Cl cc U C 0 0 m co 5- a) o_ O ' o I N a) U_ a) O 'I W Z Engineering • Planning - Surveying At W a F;i :1 a a" O O lin -C3 � C a) rd E a) a) L_ •" O 5 N 0- N C11a) I N CU I -a M O N U C a) •in 0 +-0 4) aJ E E L-°' c r O CT • a) .4?: u rd U- C a) E — a u — O . _ as a o. 13 as as •(n O 4-1 V)N 4-0I in N a) I a1M O N LA O . (vs ‘aa, 2 Q(n as Resource Deve • eti L. a) C 0 .v) .> O a a) NJ NJ a) 4Q rtS C . 4-1 V' in O U U L La p C O N J Q Ce D J D U ce U Q in 4- O C . 4-1 CU CU 4-1 CV C O U CU N C riCS 4-0 o U 4-1 V' IIin ro Q _c a--' o § L a) • 4-1 N 4-' . II • • • a) rzs CU 4-1 C a) E O > aCV te-► a I a) riCS E O U • • p as ES 4-1 a) = _ 'V O O1 (ICS C (1) •- E V .L Q. O al CV a s C O O U I te O V' a-' 4-0 CU C 4-1 73 a) O 5 70 � O vi w01. L. L. for the County a) al Le - CV ce a t4- MS s 4-1 • C ft C O 0 .• CU c (n ._ O -O Ct. a) O 4-' L.. (n _ -C -O 4-+ O a U 4-I C c O C E r a O O ti) > CU OJ -C3 4-,9 Cl) c s • 4--+ -O cu S--+ (n ■ ■ N 0_ -2 E ci O -O u C � O 4-0 V) In 4-0 CU C CU CU L_ E rts (n O _„,. C a) • > 'V auCI_ 73 • I Li PC E Co ,O CU tii a) 4J C O as .0 a a (Li oC cn D a) > as a) C • L- ai ccS (n = a--+ C i aJ aJ E C a) O > • O (n L_ 0 a .E E u O ' - U Q O r 4--1 O -Cu c� aJ cts O •O 47-0 al O ( �J :9 C1) in u 4.a"0 November 21, 2012 • • Estimated Trips (Number of vehicles and Passenger Car Equivalents 1 truck = 3 passenger cars) Type of Trip Daily (50% In/ 50% Out) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Employee 80 veh 20 veh 20 veh 20 veh 20 veh Oil Trucks (pce's) 400 trucks 1200 pce's 12 trucks 36 pce's 12 trucks 36 pce's 12 trucks 36 pce's 12 trucks 36 pce's Misc Trips 40 veh 1 veh 1 veh 1 veh 1 veh Total Vehicles (pce's) 520 veh 1320 pce's 33 veh 57 pce's 33 veh 57 pce's 33 veh 57 pce's 33 veh 57 pce's December 17, 2012 Estimated Trips (Number of vehicles and Passenger Car Equivalents 1 truck = 3 passenger cars) Type of Trip Daily (50% In/ 50% Out) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Employee 80 veh 20 veh 20 veh 20 veh 20 veh Oil Trucks (pce's) 100 trucks 300 pce's 4 trucks 12 pce's 4 trucks 12 pce's 4 trucks 12 pce's 4 trucks 12 pce's Misc Trips 40 veh 1 veh 1 veh 1 veh 1 veh Total Vehicles (pce's) 220 veh 420 pce's 25 veh 33 pce's 25 veh 33 pce's 25 veh 33 pce's 25 veh 33 pce's February 25, 2013 Estimated Trips (Number of vehicles and Passenger Car Equivalents 1 truck = 3 passenger cars) Type of Trip Daily (50% In/ 50% Out) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Employee 50 veh 11 veh 11 veh 11 veh 11 veh Oil Trucks (pce's) 40 trucks 120 pce's 2 trucks 6 pce's 2 trucks 6 pce's 2 trucks 6 pce's 2 trucks 6 pce's Misc Trips 40 veh 1 veh 1 veh 1 veh 1 veh Total Vehicles (pce's) 130 veh 210 pce's 14 veh 18 pce's 14 veh 18 pce's 14 veh 18 pce's 14 veh 18 pce's 11/21/12 TIS 12/17/12 TIS 2/25/13 TIS W/O Pipeline W/O Pipeline With Pipeline Total PCE Daily 1320 420 210 Total PCE Peak Hour 57 33 18 Total Daily + Background (118VPD) 1438 538 328 Paving if Total > 400vpd Yes Yes No Left Deceleration if Peak Hour> 10vpd Yes Yes Yes Right Deceleration if Peak Hour>25vpd Yes Yes No Right Acceleration if Peak Hour> 50vpd Yes No No - Based upon the traffic study submitted February 25th the only warrant met is the requirement for a left deceleration lane and because the road is not paved that requirement is delayed until the roadway is paved. • - The applicant is proposing that 100% of its traffic will travel southwest towards the town of Keenesburg. The roadway triggers for the northeast section should be included with in the improvements agreement in case the haul route is modified. Options for the BOCC: A. The only roadway requirements would be for mag-chloride and to trigger all other improvements. Assuming the pipelines are in place prior to operation of the facility. B. Require the roadway improvements paving, left deceleration lane, and right deceleration lane because the pipelines are not in place vet. Also trigger the remaining requirements. C. Do not allow the operation of the facility until the pipelines are in place then allow for option A. Public Works recommends Option B because it would allow the facility to operate with or without the pipelines in place. This option gives the developer the most flexibility since the permitting process (ROW and/or USR) for the pipelines has not been submitted at this time. • 2/27/2013 • • • Proposed Conditions P1 A 1 N ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, I I' ► Item 1 - Right Turn deceleration lane Significant expense to construct 600-700 feet road widening Background traffic on roadway in peak hour = 5 trips (1 car every 12 minutes) Please eliminate this requirement Item 2 - Left Turn lane on Market Street to CR 398 Existing roadway width can accommodate restriping G Plains to coordinate with Keenesburg • Please eliminate this requirement ► Item 3 - Pavement for 3 miles of CR 398 Pipelines will bring nearly all crude oil to site, minimal oil via Tank Trucks Traffic Study anticipated a MAXIMUM amount of traffic of 50 Tank Trucks per day Plains commits to 20 Tank Truck Trips & 25 employees per day = 210 trips/day Weld County trigger for pavement is 400 trips/day Please eliminate this requirement and Include a provision in the Improvements Agreement to have Plains provide dust control year-round on CR 398; and a commitment to a pro -rata share of engineering and pavement in future If Plains associated traffic increases to 400+ trips/day AI I AAME:ftICA. PIJ'EIJNK LI' ITEM 1 - Right turn lane'° to site 1 • • February 25, 2013 i a j z N O a) II p O N C 0 tio ca S 0- U f0 m N M 4-+ a.) tio U E -a 1 OD I0 IZ N 4, -O `n ~ o I N M ' I L O O en 1 1 S Au m N M t --I .C r ES O O Ln 471- co Ol en cc U C O O O m 03 0 L a) Q cn Q O O i N a) U C) O O Esther Gesick Orom: ant: To: Cc: Subject: Janet Carter Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:44 PM Commissioners; Brad Yatabe; Kim Ogle; Donald Carroll Esther Gesick; Susan Brown RE: Changes to the resolution 1) A right deceleration lane on CR 398 at the facility entrance will be triggered when 25 vehicles per hour (vph) during a peak hour turning right into the facility. 2) All four parties CDOT, Keenesburg, Weld County, and the applicant will work together to improve the intersection of Market and CR 398. 3) The applicant will be required to pave CR 398 from the existing edge of pavement to the facility entrance. 4) Future roadway improvements on CR 398 will be based upon proportional share based upon ESAL calculated traffic volumes. Janet L Carter Traffic Engineer Weld County Public Works Dept. P.O. Box 758, Greeley, CO 80632 Tele-970.356.4000 ext 3726 Fax- 970.304.6497 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Janet Carter Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:34 PM To: Commissioners; Brad Yatabe; Kim Ogle; Donald Carroll Cc: Esther Gesick; Susan Brown Subject: Changes to the resolution 1) A right deceleration lane on CR 398 at the facility entrance will be triggered when 25 vehicles per hour (vph) during a peak hour turning right into the facility. 2) All four parties CDOT, Keenesburg, Weld County, and Plains trucking will work together to improve the intersection of Market and CR 398. 3) The applicant will be required to pave CR 398 from the existing edge of pavement to the facility entrance. 'Let L Carter Traffic Engineer Weld County Public Works Dept. 1 Hello