The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20173508.tiffFINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR SEVERANCE READY MIX AND ASPHALT PLANTS SITE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: Simon Contractors Company 1103 Old Town Lane, Suite 201A Cheyenne, WY 82009 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-E Longmont, CO 80501 Tetra Tech Job No. 133-01756-17001 August 2017 TETRA TECH TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 2 1 Location and Existing Conditions 1 2.2 Proposed Development 1 3.0 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 2 4.0 DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUBBASINS ....3 4.1 Major Basin Description 3 5.0 4.2 Historic Drainage Patterns 3 4.3 Offsite Drainage Patterns 3 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 4 5.1 General Concept 4 5.2 Onsite Drainage 4 5.3 Offsite Drainage 5 5.4 Water Quality and Detention 5 5.5 Drainage Infrastructure Maintenance 6 6.0 CONCLUSION 7 7.0 REFERENCES $ List of Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix A-1 Appendix A-2 Appendix A-3 Appendix A-4 Appendix A-5 Appendix B Site Data Appendix B-1 Appendix B-2 Appendix B-3 Appendix B-4 Appendix B-5 Appendix B-6 Vicinity Map Historic Drainage Plan Offsite Drainage Plan Developed Drainage Plan Drawings FEMA FIRM Map NRCS Site Soil Survey Report NOAA Site Rainfall Data Historic Runoff Calculations Offsite Runoff Calculations Developed Runoff Calculations Appendix C Hydraulic Calculations Appendix C-1 Pipe and Culvert Sizing Calculations Appendix C-2 Appendix C-3 Appendix C-4 Drainage Channel Sizing Calculations Drainage Calculations Detention Pond Sizing Calculations Final Drainage Report i August 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt. Plants P:\O1756\133-01756-17001 Docs\,Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report Sirnon.docx 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to present the proposed storm drainage improvements at Simon Contractors Company's Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site. With the development of a site, one can expect an increase in impervious cover and, therefore, an increase in peak stormwater runoff This report examines the undeveloped flow patterns of offsite and onsite drainage basins and the proposed stormwater facilities designed to mitigate the downstream impact of increased stormwater runoff. The contents of this report are prepared, at a minimum, in accordance with the Weld County Code for a Final Drainage Report. 2.0 GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location and [4:xistin g Conditions The Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site is located on a 30.8 ±1- acre parcel located on Weld County Road (WCR) 80.5 on the east side of State Highway 257, approximately one-half mile south of State Highway 14 in Weld County. More specifically, the site is located in the northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, in Weld County. A vicinity map is provided in Appendix A-1. The site is used for agricultural purposes and is owned by Cactus Hill Ranch Company and is leased by Simon Contractors Company. The facility was granted a Use by Right for a temporary asphalt plant associated with a specific CDOT project. The facility being proposed is for permanent asphalt and ready -mix concrete plants and has been designed to accommodate truck traffic as well as material stock piles. Drainage within the proposed development currently sheet -flows to the south across the agricultural field onsite. Runoff from the site drains into multiple irrigation culverts that discharge into the Larimer County Canal, located to the south of the site. The historic drainage plan for the site is attached to this report as Appendix A-2. A private irrigation lateral that serves the property also runs around the perimeter of the site. 2.2 Proposed Development Improvements to the site include development of a location for an asphalt plant, a ready -mix concrete plant, a crusher, an office and shop, equipment storage, and truck parking areas. The entirety of the site improvements are located within the area occupied by the Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site. Drainage ditches and culverts onsite are designed to convey and direct onsite and offsite flows. Site detention ponds were sized to accommodate 100 -year runoff volumes from the newly developed drainage sub -basins. Because the site is located in an urbanizing area, stormwater discharge from the detention ponds have been designed to not exceed the 5 -year historic runoff rate. The release rate from the detention ponds will be achieved by the use of an outlet structure with an orifice plate or by the discharge pump rate. Detention ponds have been sized to provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard. Detention ponds will also detain the required water quality capture volume (WQCV) for the site. Final Drainage Report 1 August 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:\01756\133-01756-17001 \Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_S imon.docx Drainage channels will be used to convey onsite runoff. Flow from the western portion of the site will drain into Detention Pond A on the south side of the site. Flow from the eastern portion of the site will drain into Detention Pond B on the southeast side of the site. The offsite drainage plan and developed drainage plan are attached to this report as Appendix A-3 and Appendix A-4, respectively. 3.0 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA This report is prepared in compliance with the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1, 2, and 3; Weld County Code; and the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Based on these references, a 100 -year storm is used as the major storm event when evaluating existing and proposed drainage facilities. Runoff Calculations: Because each drainage basin in this analysis is less than 160 acres, the Rational Method was used in stormwater runoff calculations. The time of concentration for the basins was estimated using the methods detailed within Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1, Ch. 6. Rainfall Data: Site rainfall depth information was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2, Precipitation -Frequency Atlas of the United States (2013). Current NOAA data was used for the determination of point rainfall data. The NOAA data formed the basis of the inflow -duration -frequency (IDF)calculations for other storm frequencies and durations using Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) methods. Rainfall data is presented in Appendix B-3. Culls ert Sizing: Culverts onsite have been evaluated using Manning's Equation. Culverts have been designed to convey the 100 -year storm event. Culvert sizes were determined using CulvertMaster software. Culvert sizing calculations are provided in Appendix C-1. Drainage Channel Sizing: Offsite drainage channels are proposed along the perimeter of the proposed development. These channels have been sized for the 100 -year storm event using Manning's Equation. Detailed channel calculations are provided in Appendix C-2. Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM) or Erosion Control Blanket (ECB) is recommended in all vegetated drainage channels. ROLLMAX VMax SC250 TRM. or approved equal, and North American Green RoliMax S150 ECB, or approved equal, is recommended. Riprap will be placed at all culvert outfalls, and has been sized according to the Urban Drainage Flood Control District Manual, Volume 2. A drainage calculation summary describing drainage channel and culvert properties and rip -rap calculations is provided in Appendix C-3. Detention Pond Sizing: The detention pond volumes have been determined using the UDFCD's Detention Design — UD-Detention v3.07 spreadsheet. Water Quality Pond Sizing: Water quality ponds are required prior to releasing stormwater runoff from the development. Detention Pond. A will utilize a stormwater quality component known as an "Aqua -Swirl" to improve water quality before discharging runoff from onsite. Detention Pond B will include a water quality orifice plate on the outlet structure in accordance with the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Water quality volumes are included in the total volume of the detention ponds. Final Drainage Report August 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:\01.756\133-01756-170011Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_S imon.docx 4.0 DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUBBASINS 4.1 Major Basin Description The proposed property is located in rural Weld County and is surrounded by agricultural land. There are a few individual residences in the vicinity. The project site lies in a FEMA designated area Zone A: "no base flood elevations determined." The Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site is located in Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community Panel No. 08123 C1185E, attached to this report as Appendix B-1. According to the Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part, site soils are primarily Kim loam and Thedalund loam, ranging in slope from approximately 1 to 5 percent. A detailed soil survey report is provided in Appendix B-2. Soil types within the project site are predominantly hydrologic soil group A and C. 4.2 Historic Drainage Patterns The project site is located within one historic drainage basin, which has been designated as Historic Basin A. Runoff from Historic Basin A flows south to existing irrigational lateral culverts and is discharged into the Larimer County Canal, which flows to Point of Analysis (POA) A. POA A is located on the southeast side of the site.. The area is currently used as farmland and has gentle slopes. Historic runoff coefficients are calculated for each site soil type using the methods detailed in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, volume 1, Ch. 6. Because the historic drainage basin is less than 160 acres, the Rational Method was used to analyze the historic peak flows. The time of concentration for the basin was estimated using methods detailed within Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1, Ch. 6. Peak flows for the 5 -year and 100 -year storm events for the historic drainage basin are summarized in the table below. Table 1. Historic Peak Flows Peak Flow Peak Flow Basin ID Acres 5 -Year (cfs) 100 -Year (cfs) A 110.97 4.48 75.84 4.3 Offsite Drainage Patterns Offsite Basins OS -1A and OS -1B are located north of the Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site, and in general drain to the south. Runoff from these basins will be routed around the site development through offsite drainage channels and culverts and discharged from the site at POA A. Peak flows for the 5 -year and 100 -year storm events for the offsite drainage basins are provided in the following table. Final Drainage Report 3 August 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:\0175E\133-01756-17001 \Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_S imon.docx Table 2. offsite Peak Flows Peak Flow Basin ID Acres 5 -Year (cfs) Peak Flow Corresponding 100 -Year (cfs) POA 5.0 DRA OS -1A OS -1B 32.21 54.02 0.32 1.78 NAGE FAILITY DESIGN 5.1 General Concept 17.80 33.90 A A Upon development of the site, runoff will continue to follow in its historic drainage paths across the site to the south. Onsite runoff will be detained in two detention ponds onsite and discharged at the historic drainage points on the site. 5.2 Onsite Drainage Proposed development was divided into two drainage basins. The majority of the site development is located on the west side of the site in Developed Basin 1 and contains the ready mix and asphalt plant, as well as aggregate stockpiles, access roads, and a crusher. Runoff from Developed Basin 1 drains to the south into Detention Pond A. Drainage Basin 2 is located to the east of Developed Basin 1 and contains the office, shop, and areas for equipment storage and truck parking. Runoff from Developed Basin 2 drains to the south into Detention Pond B. Detention Pond A will also contain a pump because the detention pond will be excavated to an elevation that is lower than the existing irrigation culverts that it will discharge into. The pump will be designed to drain the pond at a rate that does not exceed the allowable release rate for Detention Pond 1. Discharge from the detention ponds will drain to existing irrigation culverts that flow into the Larimer County Canal at POA A and the combined release will not exceed the allowable release rate. The allowable release rate is determined by adding the discharge from each detention pond and each offsite drainage channel together and ensuring that the total discharge does not exceed the 5 -year historic rate. The following table provides the peak flow rates for the onsite drainage basins. Table 3. Onsite Drainage Basins Peak Flow Basin ID Acres 5 -Year (cfs) 100 -Year (cfs) POA Basin 1 Basin 2. 15.83 8.97 9.41 48.03 2.21 21.22 A A Final Drainage Report 4 August 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:\01.756\133-01756-17001 \Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_S imon.docx 5.3 Offsite Drainage Offsite Drainage Basins OS -1A and OS -1B are located within Historic Basin A. Flows from OS -1A and OS -1B will be routed around the site by drainage channels to the points where the runoff naturally drains on the south side of the project development, POA A. Offsite Basin OS -1A will drain into Drainage Channel OS -1A located on the north side of the site. Runoff in this channel will flow to the west and then to the south along the west edge of the site. Channel OS -1A will discharge into the existing irrigation lateral culvert located near the southwest corner of the site. Offsite Basin OS -1B will drain into Drainage Channel OS -1B located on the north side of the site. Runoff in this channel will flow to the east and then to the southeast on the east side of the site. Culverts will be used at site entrances. Channel OS -1B will discharge into the existing irrigation lateral culvert located near the southeast corner of the site. The existing irrigation lateral culverts drain into the Larirer County Canal. 5.4 Water Quality and Detention There are two proposeddetention ponds onsite. Detention Pond A is designed to detain the 100 -year developed storm event from Developed Basin 1 and discharge to POA A. Detention Pond B is designed to detain the 100 -year developed storm event from Developed Basin 2 and also discharge to POA A. A minimum of one foot of freeboard will be provided for each detention pond. The required WQCV will be contained within the detention volume for each of the detention ponds. An emergency spillway, in the form of a trapezoidal weir, is proposed to convey the 100 -year flow rate from each detention pond. Detention Pond A will utilize a water quality feature known as an "Aqua -Swirl" to improve water quality before the water is discharged from the site. Detention Pond A will require pumping in order to drain. The pump discharge rate will be designed so that the detention pond is drained within 72 hours of the 500 -year, 1 hour storm. Additionally, the pump discharge rate from Detention Pond A is designed so that it does not exceed the 5 -year historic rate. Detention Pond B will utilize a water quality orifice to improve water quality and a restrictor plate on the outlet pipe so that the release rate from the site does not exceed the 5 -year historic flow. Erosion control devices will be provided at all culvert and swale outlets to protect against downstream erosion. Detention pond calculations are presented in Appendix C-4. The following table presents a summary of information pertaining to the detention ponds onsite. Final Drainage Report 5 August 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:101756\133-01756-17001 \Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_S imon.docx Table 4. Detention Pond Summary Pond A Pond B Drainage Area (acres) % Impervious of Drainage Area Time of Concentration (minutes) 100 -Year Water Surface Elevation (feet) Top of Detention Pond Elevation (feet) Release Rate from Pond (cfs) ) Total Storage (ac -ft) 5.5 Drainage Infrastructure Maintenance 15.83 24 16 5181.98 5,183.00 0.63 3.32 8.97 } 14 5181.88 5,183.00 1.70 1.25 Satisfactory operation of onsite drainage components requires scheduled maintenance throughout the life of the site. The following are recommendations for maintenance and inspection that are drawn from the Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSWA) in Denver, Colorado. • Onsite personnel should be tasked with developing a schedule that reminds them to evaluate all drainage components onsite. ■ Routinely (monthly basis) inspect ditches, ponds, culverts, outlet structures, riprap, etc. to ensure locations are free from debris and excess vegetation. ■ Ensure riprap, culverts, and outlet structures are not compromised. Repair if needed. ■ Frequency of inspection may need to be more frequent in the first year• or two as the site is established. Facilities should be inspected following any storm event. • When mowing, collect clippings and all other trimmings and take offsite for disposal or dispose with trash onsite; do not leave in the pond or ditch. • Remove vegetation adjacent to outlet works that may interfere with operation; note if noxious weeds are present and notify supervisor to schedule treatment/removal. • During inspection, report damage/compromise to side slopes, pond banks, inlet pipe, trickle channels, outlet structure. Prepare a repair schedule and complete repairs. • It is important to limit use of fertilizers and pesticides in and around the ponds and ditches to minimize entry into pond and subsequent downstream waters. • For detention ponds, every 6 months or so, the accumulated sediment should be removed from the bottom of the outlet structure and the pond depths checked at several points. If the depth of the accumulated sediment is greater than 25 percent of the original design depth, sediment should be removed. Accumulated sediment, over time, will reduce the capacity of the pond and may cause site flooding if not maintained. A typical checklist for operators to use during inspections is as follows: • Has trash accumulated within the ponds and ditches? • Evaluate vegetative cover to ensure it does not compromise ditch or pond area. • Is there evidence of erosion or instability on pond and ditch slopes? • Is there any sedimentation within the pond, in ditches, and in culverts? • Is there any settling and/or cracking in termed areas? • Are there any upstream or downstream conditions that could impact drainage? Final Drainage Report 6 August 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:\0175E\133-01756-17001 \Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_S imon.docx Depending on the evaluation, discrepancies should be addressed and fixed as soon as possible. Neglecting repairs may compromise drainage through the site. 6.0 CONCLUSION This report was prepared in compliance with the Weld County Code and the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volumes 1, 2, and 3. The proposed drainage system for the improvements to the Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants site will provide detention for the developed section of the site, releasing flows from the site at the 5 -year historic rate. Releases are as near to the points of design as practical and are not expected to increase adverse impacts on downstream property owners. This Final Drainage Report is being submitted to Weld County for review and approval. Final Drainage Report 7 August 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:\01.756\133-01756-17001 \Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_S imon.docx 7.0 REFERENCES Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Weld County, Co, Panel 1185 of 2250, January 2016. United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service. Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado. Southern Part. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1-3, March 2017. Weld County Code. Weld County, Colorado, September 6, 2008. Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria. Weld County Public Works Department, April 2012. NOAA Atlas 14. Volume 8, Precipitation -Frequency Atlas of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013. Final Drainage Report 8 August 2017 Severance Ready Mix and Aphalt Plants P:\01.756\133-01756-17001 \Docs\Reports\Drainage Report\Drainage Report_S imon.docx APPENDIX A - FIGURES APPENDIX A-i VICINITY MAP 1900 S. Sunset Street, Ste. 1-E Longmont, Colorado 80501 PHONE: (303) 772-5282 FAX: (303) 772-7039 APPENDIX A-2 HISTORIC DRAINAGE PLAN 1 F E D w CC w CO - CO CC 0 III 0 cc z C 0 0 T� r a- 0) z C J 0_ W 0 C z D 0 z O C 0 W J I W W 2 CO c 0 r C C N- I LU N r C I co N- r A 0 2 0 C 66 In N- r C C r 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bar Measures 1 inch Copyright: Tetra Tech APPENDIX A-3 OFFSITE DRAINAGE PLAN F E D 2 w a✓ w Ct 3 C ›- CC 0 z C C 0 wi O z O w I I w O z C J 0 W 0 C z C z O C cc W J I W w 2 C/) O C O C I Co LU r C I CO CO r%.• r A 0 2 0 cc co 605 9' N- r O O -63 Bar Measures 1 inch Copyright: Tetra Tech APPENDIX A-4 DEVELOPED DRAINAGE PLAN F E D 2 w W C co C O z C O 0 W C C z ci ci W 0 0 J W W 0 €o z C J 0 W O C z a O z 0 C CC 0 w w W s 0) a C C I Co N r c CO CO r A 0 2 Ncr c' N- r co O r 0O C B Nei N N i r ! r OFFSITE CHANNEL OS -1A C Q FUTURE i CONCRETE PLANT CULVERT 1 �-�` ry �� ! - Car r lsr =•f "7-•••1" =.rte AQUA WI RL OUTLET STRUCTURE P7 CULVERT 2 - OFFSITE CHANNEL OS -1B jr =r I r - —_ r~ =1" OUTLET STRUCTURE ±AC Q 5 Q 100 \ d -1 DRAINAGE BASIN NAME 5 YEAR PEAK DISCHARGE 100 YEAR PEAK DISCHARGE DRAINAGE BASIN ACREAGE I .N, N — J'r e — .rrr--- _ .� .,r'' .- LEGEND: Y Nom' - f � 0 50' 100' t! 200' SCALE: 1" = 100' DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINE POINT OF ANALYSIS PROPOSED GRAVEL SURFACE PROPOSED BUILDING PROPOSED STOCK PILE www.tetratech.com co z 0 C) III 0 w <C 0 OC C O C... CC CO 0 `h0FJ Died 0 I 0 z z 0cc 0 cc a 0 A <z iDC zC 0 0 zw O Wr 00 Lo co (D O N. 4- rn ea, a)a O co 1484 co co LI— EcN co c so O up 0 J essi Ne CO O CO C a CL X 2 co 0 Z EL CC W J W U <C Z W < w "t$ w c7 Q z 0 0 w a O J W J W O Project No.: 133-01756-17001 Designed By: IOU Drawn By: CFW Checked By: ABJ Copyright: Tetra Tech Bar Measures 1 inch APPENDIX A-5 RAWIN GS F E D 2 w w eiC 3 CC 0 C O ofi J w 0 W C C z t co z 0. w C z C cc 0 B 0 0 w J I w 0 Q 0 N- Co 0 CO r r C o_ 2 0 ci C r d r 0 N 0 r 00 A WQCV DETAIL OUTLET STRUCTURE TABLE TOP OF OUTLET STRUCTURE MIN. WSE BOTTOM OPENING OPENING SHAPE OPENING SPACING, CENTER TO OPENINGS OUTLET PIPE DETENTION POND INVERT CENTER (INCHES) ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION 5178.00 5177.58 5177.03 5177.00 CIRCLE 4 2 B (EAST) 3/4 DIAI ETER TOP OF OUTLET STRUCTURE WQCV WSE Ir it - WQCV ORIFICE PLATE MICRO -POOL NOTE: 4 2.5' " 1. OUTLET STRUCTURE SHALL BE OLDCASTLE PRECAST STORM CATCH BASIN OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. MICRO -POOL SHALL BE 4" THICK CONCRETE WITH WELDED WIRE MESH 6X6 W 1.4XW 1.4, 2" CLR R GALVANIZED CLOSE MESH GRATE - SEE CDOT M-604-10 FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MOUNTING DETAILS. CDOT CLOSED MESH GATE RESTRICTOR PLATE OUTLET PIPE OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATION PROFILE OUTLET STRUCTURE 3 OPENINGS 11" DIAMETER TOP OF OUTLET STRUCTURE DETENTION POND B WQCV ORIFICE PLATE 2" DIAMETER WEEP HOLE WQCV ORIFICE PLATE 100 YR RESTRICTOR PLATE DETAIL TABLE DETENTION POND B (EAST) OPENING AREA (SQ. FT.) 0.23 OPENING GAP (FT.) 0.33 BOTTOM RESTRICTOR PLATE ELEVATION (FT.) 5177.33 100 YR RESTRICTOR PLATE OUTLET PIPE SEE TABLE FOR OPENING AREA, OPENING GAP AND BOTTOM RESTRICTOR PLATE ELEVATION 100 YR RESTRICTOR PLATE 4 II WQCV WSE BOTTOM OPENING ELEVATION DETENTION POND B OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL NTS MICROPOOL SPILLWAY DETAIL TABLE TOP OF POND WEIR CREST POND BOTTOM 100 YR WSE DETENTION POND LENGTH (FT) ELEVATION A (WEST) 5183.0 5182.0 5177.0 5182.0 40 B (EAST) • 5183.0 5182.0 5179.0 5181.9 17 18" BURIED TYPE L RIPRAP TOP OF POND WEIR 5' TOP OF PONDLIII-D1 MAX WSE ABOVE WEIR NOTE: 1. CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL AT UPSTREAM END OF THE SPILLWAY AS SHOWN IN DETAIL. CUTOFF WALLS SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 5' PAST THE OPENING OF THE TOP OF SPILLWAY ON EACH SIDE OF THE SPILLWAY AS SHOWN IN DETAIL. CUTOFF WALLS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8" THICK AND MINIMUM 3' DEEP. WALLS SHALL USE 3000 PSI CONCRETE. SPILLWAY LENGTH 4 TYPICAL SPILLWAY SECTION :\>(\ (� '1' _l i \ X\\C- \\\--705\:\ ? O\\\�i 11` COMPACTED EARTH 95% STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY SPILLWAY LENGTH TYPICAL CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL LOCATED AT TOP OF SPILLWAY POND SIDE TOP OF SPILLWAY co TOP OF POND 8" WIDE CONCRETE UTOFF WALL PLAN VIEW OUTLET STRUCTURE 12" TYPE II BEDDING MIRAFI 140 N FABRIC WEIR CREST 5' DETENTION POND EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DETAIL NTS 8" WIDE CONCRETE CUTOFF WALL (SEE TYPICAL SPILLWAY SECTION) PICK HOLE STORM SEWER WARNING - CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PERMIT REQUIRED TOP VIEW 100 YR RESTRICTOR PLATE OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATION OUTLET PIPE OPENING GAP DIMENSION PROFILE BOTTOM VIEW S TORM DRAINAGE S TANDARD MANHOLE COVER DETAIL NTS REINFORCEMENT #4 REBAR @8 O.C., E.W. 8" MIN. 1 12" MAX. REINFORCING PER ASTM C 478 SLOPE 1 " AFT. ,,,,,o.„ ,,-.5fry-A,,,,t_gcdcsoc. cti P7> ALTERNATE BASE 24"RING AND COVER- 400 Lb. DENVER HEAVY OR APPROVED EQUAL 8" MIN. • -IJ[I) '�i l�i ' i I�'?,c,f � ''l ti!�^�tx_r l` ,'� i'..f• �` i 4�`-f ._'yl. C i oo CONCRETE ADJUSTMENT SHIM GROUTED INSIDE AND OUT ASTM C-478 ECCENTRIC CONE GROUT SH IPLAP JOINT INSIDE AND OUT ASTM C-478 MANHOLE SECTION GROUT BASE TO CONE INSIDE AND OUT MAX. 400' APART FOR 15" TO 36" LINES MAX. 500' APART FOT 42 > LINES. POURED CONCRETE BASE POURED INVERT PRECAST MANHOLE BASE 12" BEDDING STORM DRAINAGE STANDARD MANHOLE DETAIL NTS MH RING & CO (RIM ELEVATIC A FINAL GRADETh rt�, .1\ I __ 1 (��I 24e 1�J I __I ff8,oi � F l'i I C ... iL VER __- rh M_ IN UNPAVED AREA USE CEMENT GROUT GRADE RINGS OR BRICK COURSES PRECAST MH SECTIONS 4' M INV MAX. - � :/ f� k- 000000000---1 f- -100000000 T0000000 f' -OO0O111OO TD0❑OO❑�----. nr-anerr � 26" re - 24" 1 H SLOT 1 T8" 34.4J TOTAL WEIGHT: APPROXIMATELY 400 LBS. SHALL BE GRAY OR DUCTILE CAST IRON CONFORMING TO 712.06. A WHEN FINAL GRADE IS PAVEMENT SURFACE RECESS MH RING AND COVER: R SECTION A -A MANHOLE RING AND COVER STORM DRAINAGE FLAT TOP MANHOLE DETAIL NTS www.tetratech.com co I <C 0 C 2 0 I U CC I O U 0 I O z r r~ z ti 0 CC 0 CC a 0 U CC z IO O U 0 w w ai 6.5 I c) CU) ei) { co 0 0) L r.. o co I ÷E; .54 • u_ E N co co O LO J CN P. 01) �C 2 co 0 Z EL CC W J W U <C Z g PO- W < w "t$ Project No.: 133-01756-17001 Designed By: KKJ Drawn By: CFW Checked By: ABJ 4 Copyright: Tetra Tech Bar Measures 1 inch PquaShieid! AQUA INNOVATING R HYDRODYN AMIC SF PARATI ON 1 Floatable debris, oils, .and grease enter the storm drain Contaminated water enters the Aqua -Swirl ° via the main conveyance storm pipe 3 .The Aqua -Swirl - is constructed of durablej lightweight high performance materials 4 Vortex separation is used to remove the gross sediment floating debris and free oil 5 independent validation for TSS removal before discharging into sensitive receiving ing aterrs GOOD CI _ EAN WATER Pipe Connections Systems are designed with custom inlet.-. butlet diameters at various configuration angles ▪ Inlet/outlet stub outs are provided for easy coupling OUTLET Vortex Separation a Utilizes hydrodynamic and gravitational forces with Quiescent setting to remove gross pollutants Extensive luI ascale laboratory and field testing by independent third parties Bypass • Systems are designed to treat water quality flow rtes and bypass peak storm events - Internal and external bypass configurations are available AquaShield ARCHED BAFFLE SEDIMENT srr: RAG E Installation Benefits • Quick and simple installation, resulting in measurable project cost savings H20 loadLng capabilities Small footprint design reduces excavation costs 6 Lightweight and durable construction N Lifting supports & cables provided imer W :TER TREATMENT SOLUTIONS Inspection & Maintenance •AquaShield"' offers an extensive maintenance program that e nsures system performance! efficiency .. Download manuals from the on-line system catalog INLET Storage Capacities Large storage capacities for oil, debris, and sediment extend maintenance ntenance cycles sediment storage capacities u p to 310 it3 R, Oil and debris storage capacities up to 1,986 gallons Aqua-Swirr System Provides customized solutions for project specific requirements Systems designed for specific water quality treatment flows Modular sizes from .5 -1a3 ft diameters with attached risers to finish grade On-line project and system design tool at ii ttp;//pda.aquas hie ld inc,cOm ww .aqy hi& dir . rm * 7733 nasi a Dr4 Ste ill, ChattanoogaChattancoga, TN 37343 886,344,9044 • 42&810, • 423.8262112 i&x) APPENDIX B - SITE DATA APPENDIX B-i FEMA FIRM MAP NOTES TO USERS LEGEND This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. It does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage sources of small size. The community map repository should be consulted for possible updated or additional flood hazard information. To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) and/or floodways have been determined, users are encouraged to consult the Flood P rofiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables contained within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole -foot elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly, flood elevation data presented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management. Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0' North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Users of this FIRM should be aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table in the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction and/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevations shown on this FIRM. Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated between cross sections, The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control structures. Refer to Section 2.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction. The projection used in the preparation of this map was Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 13. The horizontal datum was NAD 83, GRS 1980 spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the production of FIRMs for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not affect the accuracy of this FIRM. Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at http://www.ng.noaa.gov or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following address: N GS Information Services N OAA, N/NGS 12 National Geodetic Survey SSMC -3, #9202 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282 (301) 713-3242 To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the National Geodetic Survey at (301) 713- 3242, or visit its website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov. Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from NAIP Orthophotography produced with a one meter ground resolution from photography dated 2013. The profile baselines depicted on this map represent the hydraulic modeling baselines that match the flood profiles in the FIS report. As a result of improved topographic data, the profile baseline, in some cases, may deviate significantly from the channel centerline or appear outside the SFHA. This map reflects more detailed and up-to-date stream channel configurations than those shown on the previous FIRM for this jurisdiction. The floodplains and floodways that were transferred from the previous FIRM may have been adjusted to conform to these new stream channel configurations. As a result, the Flood Profiles and Floodway Data tables for multiple streams in the Flood Insurance Study Report (which contains authoritative hydraulic data) may reflect stream channel distances that differ from what is shown on this map. Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the time of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de -annexations may have occurred after this map was published, map users should contact appropriate community officials to verify current corporate limit locations. P lease refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the county showing the layout of map panels; community map repository addresses; and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community is located. For information on available products associated with this FIRM visit the Map Service Center (MSC) website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the MSC website. If you have questions about this map, how to order products, or the National Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map information eXchange (FMIX) at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip. 30 104° 56' 15" 40° 37' 30" 449700orx N 4496000mN 4495OOOx» N .4494000111N NS PANEL 1200 0 4493000x, N 4492000x„ N - 4491000111N 40° 33' 45" 506000m E 29 507000m E 508000m E JOINS PANEL 0895 500000x„ E 51 OCC0I" E 104° 57 30" 40° 37' 30" 1470000 FT --BLA MTh' HOLLOW RESER VOI R 0 cN r vIi z z 0 1465000 FT 1460000 FT 1455000 FT 1450000 FT 40° 33' 45" 104° 52' 30" SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAS) SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY THE 1°%© ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD The 1% annual chance flood (100 -year flood)/ also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a l% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard include Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR/ A99, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water -surface elevation of the 1% annual chance flood. ZONE A ZONE AE ZONE AH ZONE AO ZONE AR ZONE A99 ZONE V ZONE VE No Base Flood Elevations determined. Base Flood Elevations determined. Hood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); Base Flood Elevations determined. Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined. Special Flood Hazard Areas formerly protected from the 1% annual chance flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide protection from the 1% annual chance or greater flood. Area to be protected from 1%/Q annual chance flood by a Federal flood protection system under construction; no Base Flood Elevations determined. Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no Base Flood Elevations determined. Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); Base Flood Elevations determined.. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. • • • • S • • • • it • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • I • • • • • • • ZONE X 1 ZONE X ZONE D N'sS OTHER FLOOD AREAS Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. OTHER AREAS Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs) CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. 1°/o Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary •• i i• i i•• i• i i 4 r %513r w. (EL 987) 0.2% Annual Chance Floocplain Boundary Floodway boundary Zone D boundary CBRS and OPA boundary Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Base Flood Elevations, flood depths/ or flood velocities. Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet* Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; elevation in feet* *Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 45° 02' 08", 93° 02' 12' 3100000 FT 4989000m N DX5510 .M1.5 Cross section line Transect line Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) Western Hemisphere 5000 -foot ticks: Colorado State Plane Central Zone (FIPS Zone 0502), Lambert Conformal Conic projection 1000 -meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values/ zone 13 Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM panel) River Mile MAP REPOSITORIES Refer to Map Repositories list on Map Index EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP January 20, 2016 EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO TI -II S PANEL For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, refer to the Community Map History table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in this community. contact your insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. MAP SCALE 1" = 1000' 500 0 1000 300 0 300 2000 FEET METERS 600 PANEL 1185E FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP WELD COUNTY, COLORADO AND INCO'PORATEDAREAS PANEL 1185 OF 2250 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) CONTAI NS: COMMUNITY SEVERANCE. TOWN OF WELD COUNTY NUMBER 080317 080266 PANEL 1185 1185 SUFFIX E E Notice to User: The Map Number shown below should be used when placing map orders; the Community Number shown above should be used on insurance applications for the subject community. MAP NUMBER 08123C1185E 104° 56' 15" 3160000 FT JOINS PANEL 1200 3165000 FT NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN RANGE 67 WEST. 3170000 FT EFFECTIVE DATE JANUARY 20, 2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency APPENDIX B-2 NRCS SITE SOIL SURVEY REPORT USDA United States =�"-- Department of — Agriculture ARCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part July 5, 2017 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gavlwpsl portal/n reslm ain /so i l sf health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.govllacatorlapp?agency=arcs) or your N RCS State Soil Scientist (http://www. nres.0 sda.gov/wps/portal/nresfd etail/soils/contactu sl? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the N RCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys A►re Made 5 Soil Map 8 Soil Map 9 Legend 10 Map Unit Legend 11 Map Unit Descriptions 11 Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 13 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 13 33 —Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 14 6z1—Thedalund loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 15 References 17 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 44° 34' 57" N 8 40° 34' 16" N A 08000 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 50810D 50520D 508300 508400 506500 Map Scale: 1:6,210 if printed on A portrait (83' x 11") shed. Meters 0 50 100 20D 30D Feet 0 300 600 1200 1800 Map p --tion : Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGSS4 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGSS4 50660D 104° 53' 49" W 1040 53' 4911W 8 40° 34'57"N 400 34' 16" N 9 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils O Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features tv Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot .74 4:4 74 0 O V a i • 90 0 324 Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 22, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 22, 2011 Apr 28, 2011 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (CO618) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOl Percent of AOI 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 116.2 58.0% 33 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 49.9 24.9% 64 Thedalund slopes loam, 1 to 3 percent 34.1 17.0% Totals for Area of Interest 200.3 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The 11 Custom Soil Resource Report delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 32 —Kim loam, 'I to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362b Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 inlhr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BYgg2CO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 33Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362c Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (`sat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 inlhr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Loamy Plains (Ro57BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No 64 Thedalund loam, I to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 363g Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 160 days Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance Map Unit Composition Thedalund and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Thedalund Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale Typical profile Hi - 0 to 8 inches: loam 1-12 - 8 to 29 inches: loam H3 - 29 to 33 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 inlhr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline i n e to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhoslcm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.9 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Loamy Plains 067BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components UIrn Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal! nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www. nres. usd a.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www. nres. usd a.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=n res 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres 142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/land use/rang ep astu re/?cid = stel p rd b 10430 84 17 Custom Soil Resource Report UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.goviwpsiportali arcs/d etai llsoils/scientists/?cid = nres l 42 p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.goviwpslportal/nres/detailinationallsoils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 res 142 p2_6 63624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/InternetiFSE DOCU M ENTS/n res 142p2_662290. pd f 18 APPENDIX B-3 NOAA SITE RAINFALL DATA 6/2212017 Precipitation Frequency Data Server NOAA Atlas 14, volume 8, Version 2 Location name: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA* Latitude: 40.574°, Longitude: -104.9015° Elevation: 5103.09 ft** source: ESRI RI Maps source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES 1111110 g Sanja P erica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration 5 -min 10 -min 15 -min 30 -min 60 -min 2 -hr 3 -hr 6 -hr 12 -hr 24 -hr 2 -day 3 -day 4 -day 7 -day 10 -day 20 -day 30 -day 45 -day 60 -day Average recurrence interval (years) 1 0.244 (0.194-0.304) 0.358 (0.284-0.446) 0.436 (0.346-0.543) 0.586 (0.465- 0.730) 0.721 0.573-0.898) 0.856 (0.684-1.06) 0.933 (0.748-1.15) 1.08 (0.868-1.31) 1.28 (1.04-1.54) 1.54 (1.26-1.84) 1.76 (1.45-2.08) 1.92 (1.58-2.26) 2.04 (1.69-2.39) 2.31 (1.92-2.69) 2.56 (2.13-2.96) 3.31 (2.78-3.79) 3.90 (3.29-4.44) 4.59 (3.88-5.20) 5.13 (4.35-5.78) 2 0.293 (0.232-0.365) 0.428 (0.340-0.534) 0.522 (0.414-0.651) 0.700 (0.555-0.873) 0.860 (0.682-1.07) 1.02 (0.814-1.26) 1.19 (0.888-1.36) 1.29 (1.04-1.57) 1.52 (1.23-1.84) 1.79 (1.46-2.14) 2.08 (1.70-2.46) 2.24 (1.85-2.64) 2.38 (1.96-2.79) 2.72 (2.26-3.17) 3.02 (2.52-3.50) 3.84 (3.22-4.41) 449 (3.78-5.12) 5.27 (4.45-5.97) 5.91 (6.01-6.67) 5 0.388 (0.307-0.486) 0.569 (0.450-0.711) 0.693 (0.548-0.867) 0.927 (0.733-1.16) 1.14 (0.903-1.43) 1.36 (1.08-1.68) 1.47 (1.18-1.82) 1.72 (1.38-2.09) 1.99 (1.61-2.41) 2.28 (1.85-2.73) 2.64 (2.16-3.13) 2.82 (2.32-3.33) 2.97 (2.45-3.50) 3.42 (2.83-3.99) 3.80 (3.16-4.41) 4.72 (3.95-5.43) 5.44 (4.57-6.22) 6.36 (5.36-7.23) 7.15 (6.04-8.09) 10 1 0.484 (0.380-0.608) 0.708 (0.557-0.890) 0.864 (0.679-1.09) 1.15 (0.907-1.45) 1.43 (1.12-1.79) 1.70 (1.35-2.12) 1.85 (1.47-2.29) 2.14 (1.71-2.63) 2.44 (1.96-2.97) 2.74 (2.22-3.30) 3.15 (2.57-3.76) 3.35 (2.73-3.97) 3.51 (2.88-4.15) 4.03 ( 3.32-4.72) 4.45 (3.68-5.19) 5.45 (4.53-6.29) 6.23 (5.20-7.15) 7.24 (6.07-$.26) 8.14 (6.84-9.25) 25 0.639 (0.494-0.858) 0.935 (0.724-1.26) 1.14 (0.883-1.53) 1.52 (1.18-2.05) r 1.90 (1.48-2.56) 2.28 (1.78-3.05) 2.48 (1.96-3.31) 2.84 (2.24-3.73) 3.16 (2.50-4.08) 3.48 (2.77-4.43) 3.93 (3.13-4.91) r 4.14 (3.30-5.13) r 4.32 (3.46-5.33) r 4.90 (3.93-5.97) 5.38 (4.31-6.48) 6.45 (5.19-7.66) 7.29 (5.89-8.59) 8.41 (6.82-9.84) 9.44 (7.67-11.0) 50 0.777 (0.581-1.05) 1.14 (0.851-1.53) 1.39 (1.04-1.87) 1.86 (1.39-2.50) 2.33 (1.74-3.15) 2.80 (2.11-3.75) 3.06 (2.32-4.09) 3.47 (2.64-4.57) 3.79 (2.90-4.92) 4.12 (3.18-5.28) 4.58 (3.55-5.79) 4.80 (3.74-6.02) 4.99 (3.90-6.23) 5.61 (4.39-6.91) 6.11 (4.79-7.46) 7.21 (5.70-8.69) 8.10 (6.42-9.68) 9.29 (7.39-11.0) 10.4 (8.29-12.3) 100 0.931 (0.669-1.28) 1.36 (0.980-1.88) 1.66 (1.20-2.29) 2.23 (1.60-3.07) 2.81 (2.02-3.87) 3.39 (2.46-4.64) 3.71 (2.71-5.06) 4.17 (3.06-5.61) 4.48 (3.31-5.95) 4.82 (3.60-6.33) 5.29 (3.96-6.83) 5.51 (4.15-7.07) 5.71 (4.31-7.29) 6.35 (4.81-8.00) 6.85 (5.21-8.57) 7.98 (6.11-9.85) 8.89 (6.84-10.9) 10.1 (7.84-12.3) 11.3 (8.76-13.7) 200 1.10 (0.758-1.56) 1.62 (1.11-2.28) 1.97 (1.35-2.78) 2.64 (1.81-3.73) 3.35 (2.30-4.73) 4.05 (2.81-5.68) 4.45 (3.11-6.20) 4.95 (3.48-6.82) 5.25 (3.72-7.14) 5.61 (4.01-7.54) 6.04 (4.35-8.01) 6.28 (4.54-8.26) 6.48 (4.70-8.49) 7.12 (5.19-9.21) 7.62 (5.58-9.79) 8.76 (6.46-11.1) 9.69 (7.18-12.2) 11.0 (8.18-13.7) 12.2 (9.11-16.1) 500 1.36 (0.892-1.96) 1.99 (1.31-2.87) 2.43 (1.59-3.50) 3.25 (2.14-4.70) 4.15 (2.73-5.99) 5.04 (3.35-7.22) 5.55 (3.71-7.91) 6.11 (4.12-3.61) 6.37 (4.33-8.87) 6.74 (4.63-9.29) 7.12 (4.93-9.68) 7.36 (5.12-9.94) 7.58 (5.29-10.2) 8.19 (5.75-10.9) 8.67 (6.11-11.4) 9.78 (6.96-12.7) 10.7 (7.68-13.9) 12.1 (8.68-15.5) 13.3 (9.61-17.0) 1000 1.57 (0.994-2.27) 2.30 (1.46-3.32) 2.81 (1.78-4.05) 3.76 (2.38-5.43) 4.82 (3.05-6.95) 5.87 (3.75-8.39) 6.47 (4.16-9.20) 7.08 (4.60-9.97) 7.30 (4.79-10.2) 7.68 (5.10-10.6) 8.00 (5.37-10.9) 8.24 (5.57-11.2) 8.46 (5.74-11.5) 9.03 (6.18-12.1) 9.47 (6.52-12.7) 10.6 (7.35-14.0) 11.5 (8.06-15.1) 12.8 (9.06-16.8) 14.1 (9.99-18.4) Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are net checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds printpage.htmI?lat=40.5740&lore=-104.9015&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/4 5/22}2017 Precipitation Frequency Data Server PF graphical PDS-based depth -duration -frequency (DDE) carves Latitude: 4O.574Ofir Longitude: -104.9015 0 16 14 16 14 6 4 E MN EMI I MN ctha LA r Q �3 Duration 5 10 NDAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Cr rN nj r5 c.v.; 1—`14 -) 4 r N 0 0 0 IN on i1 0 rc ro a a 25 50 100 200 500 1000 Average age recurrence interval (years) Created (GMT): Thu jun 22 17:44.30 2O17 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 1OU 200 500 1000 Dar at on Sdinin 10 -min 15 -min 3O -min Ern 2-Inr r 12 -hr � 12 24 -hr 2 day 4 -day a 7.day 10 -day 20 -day 30 -day 45 -day 60day https://hdsc.nws.noaa.govlhdsc/pfds/pfds_pri ntpage.htm I?lat=40.5740&lon=-104.9015&data=depth&units=englIsh&series=pds 2/4 5/22}2017 Precipitation Frequency Data Server Large scale aerial itsk �t 3km 2mi t 4 sio tar s ,__ Large scale terrain {_ - Cheyenne Fur I Co I [ins mis L 01195k Peeks--_ 43 45 n7 • 1' �'` .. Bt.l d ere 100km Greeley Longinent • Denver Large scale map MedicinE BI•i' 14 doh ii EoresL Longmont B IJ. Bouidtr 100km 1 ht-tps://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdscipfds/pfds_pri ntpage.htm I?Iat=40.5740&Ion--104.9015&data- depth&units= engli sh&series=pds 3/4 5/2212017 Precipitation Frequency Data Server Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov Disclaimer https://hdsc.nws.noaa.govlhdsc/pfds/pfds printpage.htmI?lat=40.5740&lon=-104.9015&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 4/4 APPENDIX B-4 HISTORIC RUNOFF CALCULATIONS Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants llrstaric Runoff Cale Elladen: s Basin Basin Area (acres) Basin Imperviousness Runoff Coeficients, c Ltotal Li Si Sw Ti Tt Tc Rainfall Intensity I (in/hr) Basin Flows Q (cis) PO1 Area Soil Type A Soil Type B I Soil Type C Soil Type D Gravel Road (ac) Roof/Tank (ac) Undeveloped (ac) 1% 2 Yr 5 Yr 1.0 Yr 100 Yr (fl) (ft) (ft/ti) (f /fl) (min) (min) (min) 2 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 100 Yr 2 Yr 5 Yr IC Yr 100 Yr c 110.97 87.6 OA 13.4 0.0 0.00 0.00 110.97 2.0 0.012 0.040 0.110 0.277 3562 500 0.036 0.025 28.0 45..9 73.9 0.75 1.00 1.2.5 2A6 0.99 4.48 15.36 75.84 A. POA A (2% Imp.) Soil Type A Soil Type B Soil Type C Soil Type D 2 yr Syr 10yr 100 yr 0.070 0.166 0.262 0.262. Composite: 87.61 0.00 23.36 0.00 78.95% 0.00% 21.05% 0.00% 110.97 100% 0.000 0.028 0.056 0.056 0.008 0.088 0.162 0.162 0.216 0362 0.508 0.508 0.012 0.040 0.110 0177 Site Imperviousness Table Undeveloped. I -hoar Point Rainfall Depth 2Yr 5Yr 10Yr 100Yr PI 0.86 1.14 1.43 2.81 Notes: I. Refer to Table RO-3 for Site Imperviousness. Historic flow analysis = 2% imperviousness. 2. Refer to Urban Drainage Criteria Manual Vol. 1 Table RO.5 for RunofCoefficients, C Equations: Tt=Ti+Tt Ti = (0.395 *(I.I-05)tLi^0.5) / Si^0.33 C5 = 5 Yr Runoff Coefficient Li = 500 fl. maximum Si = average watercourse slope I= (28.5 *F l) / (I 0+Tc)^0.7 86 PI = 1 -hr point rainfall depth Tc = time of conentraction Tt = (Lt -500) / V V = Cv*S^0.5 Cv = Conveyance Coefficient =7, short pasture, lawns (Table RO-2) Sw = average watercourse slope = C*t*A C = RunoffCoefficient I= Rainfall Intensity A = Area P:\01756\133-01756-17001\SupporlDoc.CalcsRunoff Simon.xls APPENDIX B-5 OFFSITE RUNOFF CALCULATIONS Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants Qffsite Runoff f Calculations Basin Basin Area (acres) Basin Imperviousness Runoff Coeficients, c Ltotal Li Si Sn Ti Tt Tc Rainfall Intensity I (inlhr) Basin Flows Q (cfs) POA Area Soil Type A Soil Type B Soil Type C Soil Type D Gravel Road (ac) Roof/Tank lac) Undeveloped (ac) I% 2 Yr 5 Yr 1O Yr 100 Yr (11) (ft) (ft/ft) (ftiii) (min) (min) (min) 2 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 100 Yr 2 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 100 Yr OS -I A ;2.2 t 31.84 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.2 2.0 0.001 0.010 0.072 0.219 3401 500 0.040 0.025 27.86 43.69 71.55 0.77 1.02 1.28 2.52 0.02 0.32 2.98 17.80 A OS -1B :-I.t:i_ 45.14 1.00 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.0 2.0 0.010 0.034 0.103 0.266 3177 500 0.052 0.01416 24.97 53.56 78.53 0.72 0.96 1.20 2.36 0.37 1.78 6.67 33.90 A Basin OS -1A (2% Imp.) Soil Type A Soil Type B Soil Type C Soil Type D 2 yr 5 yr 10 yr 0.070 0.166 0.262 0.262 100 yr 0.216 0.362 0.508 0.508 Modified: 31.84 0.00 0.37 0.00 98.85% 0.00% 1.15% 0.00% 32.21 100.0% 0.000 0.028 0.056 0.056 0.001 0.008 0.0 KS 0. 6) 0.t62 0.010 0.072 0.219 Basin OS -1B (2% Imp.) Soil Type A Soil Type B Soil Type C Soil Type D 2 yr 5 yr 10 yr 0.0 70 0.166 0.262 0.262 too yr 0.216 0.362 0.508 0.508 Modified: 45.14 1.00 8.88 0.00 82.04% 1.82% 16.14% 0.00% 55.02 100.0% 0.000 0.028 0.056 0.056 0.010 0.008 0.088 0.162 0.162 0.034 0.103 0.266 Site Imperviousness Table Undeveloped 1 -hour Point Rainfall Depth 2 Yr 5 Yr IO Yr 100 Yr 0.86 1.14 1.43 2:81 Notes: I. Refer to Table RO.3 for Site Imperviousness. Historic flow analysis = 2% imperviousness. 2. Refer to Urban Drainage Criteria Manual Vol. I Table RO.5 for RunoffCoef icients, C 'Lc nationc: Tt Ti = (0.3959 1.1-05)*LiA0.5) S i^0.33 C5 = 5 Yr Runoff Coefficient L = 500 ft. maximum Si = average watercourse slope Ti = (Ltotal-500) r V V = Cv*S^4.5 Cv = Conveyance Coefficient (Table RO-2) Sw = average watercourse slope I = (28.5*P I)1(10+Tc)^0.786 PI = 1 -hr point rainfall depth Tc = time of conentraction Q = C*I*A C = Runoff Coefficient I = Rainfall Intensity A = Area P:1,0 1 756'1.133-0 I 756-17001\SupportDocs\Calcs\Runoff Siinon.xls APPENDIX B-6 DEVELOPED RUNOFF CALCULATIONS Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants Devdaped Aaanf Cekadedeats halo Area Sol ly eA BsSY Ma (*ere) &IType6 Soil rti)tot salypeD Barth Iatltnlonuer- Gravel Load (act aantiank (aei. Asphai' ac} thdeteloprd (eel 1?0 1 Yr Ramon CatOeleats, a Per 10 Yr 100Yr natal (ft) "it (mini RAW lf lntrnsin 1lm.art 2 V 5 V lit Yr tOil Yr Per lash hoar Oita} 51ir i0Yr 100Yr PUA as$in I I5.433.37 U.W 10.46 0.110 2.41 I.23 1172 10.86 24 (1157 U.2s3 0.31I (1480 1140 IS? 1.91 2.53 3.18 624 4.74 9.41 15.63 4403 A atsm 2 X.9? 5.31 0.fa 543 0.00 143 0.211 0.0U 8.22 6 (1033 0.092 0.179 11339 16 14U 2.M 2.67 3.33 659 U.63 2.21 349 2L22 A Sire inpHtf.utaris Lastk Alpha Lnoelsok Csave4 Load t.ndry ckpcd 1te 40 2 I.eou r raSt Tama2 Depth 2 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr PI 0.26 I.ta l4i ≥x Sails 1 %Impervioar Soil type Sail type Sod type t Sod Type 1) Ohdlbrd. 24 J3? 31% 060 0% 10.46 ens% 6.00 0% 13.x3 1UU% tyr Syr 10yr IOUyr aos4 0.154 112_4 0146 0.144 0.216 0.294 0.456 O. 194 6.2% 0336 O.Ssz awn 62% 6336 0.532 0.137 0.235 0.311 0.426 hill 3 %Impervious Soil type A Soil typo It Soil typeC Soil rypau 6 2 y Syr 10 yr 100 gr Obdifird. 3.54 6)% 0.00 U% 3.63 40% 0.110 0% 2.97 100% 0000 0.0N 0.162 0.347E 0.044 0.111 0.196 0.3'64 0.0%6 0.126 x224 0.522 0.026 0.1 so 0.224 0.322 0035 0.092 0.179 0.539 I. irks its table 40-1 for Sur Impm•musnrn. 2 Lifer to Urban fruitage triaeru hnnuol Vol. I Table Lai Sr Lunoff tiedtuents, C kquatbn: Ft •1.11%0•10 1-(20.3•PI) ti11'Pill).M6 PI - I.hr pnml minhil depth Iris time of tonmrnerion 51 C-1tA C' Lunge CatRiarnt I - Rainfall Intensity A - Arra P:0 17 56433-01756.I700I'Suppua1k.ss,CA i nofi•Sinon.xls APPENDIX C - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C-i PIPE AND CULVERT SIZING CALCULATIONS Culvert Calculator Report Culvert I Solve For: Headwater Elevation Culvert Summary Allowable HW Elevation Computed Headwater ElevE Inlet Control HW Elev. Outlet Control HW Elev. 5,192.00 ft 5,191 .99 ft 5,191 .79 ft 5,191 .99 ft Headwater Depth/Height Discharge Tailwater Elevation Control Type 1.00 23.76 cfs 5,191 .37 ft Outlet Control Grades U pstream Invert Length 5,189.99 ft 135.85 ft Downstream Invert Constructed Slope 5,189.39 ft 0.004417 ft/ft Hydraulic Profile Profile S lope Type Flow Regime Velocity Downstream M1 Mild Subcritical 3.79 ft/s Depth, Downstream Normal Depth Critical Depth Critical Slope 1.98 ft 1.34 ft 1.24 ft 0.005558 ft/ft Section Section Shape Section Material Section Size N umber Sections Circular Concrete 24 inch 2 Mannings Coefficient Span Rise 0.013 2.00 ft 2.00 ft Outlet Control Properties Outlet Control HW Elev. Ke 5,191 .99 ft 0.20 Upstream Velocity Head Entrance Loss 0.28 ft 0.06 ft Inlet Control Properties Inlet Control HW Elev. Inlet Type K M C Y 5,191 .79 ft Beveled ring, 33.7' bevels 0.00180 2.50000 0.02430 0.83000 Flow Control Area Full HDS 5 Chart HDS 5 Scale Equation Form Unsubmerged 6.3 ft2 3 B 1 Title: Simon Severance p:\...\supportdocs\calcs\simon culvertmaster.cvm 08/09/17 04:40:04 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. ECS-IMR-USA Project Engineer: kathy.junglen CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04] Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Culvert Calculator Report Culvert 2 Solve For: Headwater Elevation Culvert Summary Allowable HW Elevation Computed Headwater ElevE Inlet Control HW Elev. Outlet Control HW Elev. 5,192.00 ft 5,191 .84 ft 5,190.75 ft 5,191 .84 ft Headwater Depth/Height Discharge Tailwater Elevation Control Type 173 33.90 cfs 5,190.05 ft Outlet Control Grades U pstream Invert Length 5,187.52 ft 131.54 ft Downstream Invert Constructed Slope 5,187.00 ft 0.003953 ft/ft Hydraulic Profile Profile S lope Type Flow Regime Velocity Downstream Pressure Profile N/A N/A 6.91 ft/s Depth, Downstream Normal Depth Critical Depth Critical Slope 3.05 ft N/A ft 1.98 ft 0.007294 ft/ft Section Section Shape Section Material Section Size N umber Sections Circular Concrete 30 inch 1 Mannings Coefficient Span Rise 0.013 2.50 ft 2.50 ft Outlet Control Properties Outlet Control HW Elev. Ke 5,191 .84 ft 0.20 Upstream Velocity Head Entrance Loss 0.74 ft 0.15 ft Inlet Control Properties Inlet Control HW Elev. Inlet Type K M C Y 5,190.75 ft Beveled ring, 33.7' bevels 0.00180 2.50000 0.02430 0.83000 Flow Control Area Full HDS 5 Chart HDS 5 Scale Equation Form Submerged 4.9 ft2 3 B 1 Title: Simon Severance p:\...\supportdocs\calcs\simon culvertmaster.cvm 08/09/17 04:38:28 PM © Bentley Systems, Inc. ECS-IMR-USA Project Engineer: kathy.junglen CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04] Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX C-2 DRAINAGE CHANNEL SIZING CALCULATIONS Worksheet for Channel OS -61A Maximum Slope Project Description Friction Method Solve For Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Discharge Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Manning Formula Normal Depth Subcritical 0.035 0.01920 ft/ft 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 4.00 ft 17.80 ft3/s 0.78 ft 4.35 ft2 7.50 ft 0.58 ft 7.13 ft 0.75 ft 0.02277 ft/ft 4.09 ft/s 0.26 ft 1.04 ft 0.92 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 0.78 ft 0.75 ft 0.01920 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBliatilejernilawMaster 1f8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.91.03] 7/27/2017 9:35:16 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for Channel OS -1A Minimum Slope Project Description Friction Method Solve For Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Discharge Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Manning Formula Normal Depth Subcritical 0.035 0.01250 ft/ft 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 4.00 ft 17.80 ft3/s 0.88 ft 5.06 ft2 7.93 ft 0.64 ft 7.52 ft 0.75 ft 0.02277 ft/ft 3.52 ft/s 0.19 ft 1.07 ft 0.76 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 0.88 ft 0.75 ft 0.01250 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBliatilejernilawMaster 1f8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.91.03] 7/27/2017 9:34:31 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for Channel OS -61B Maximum Slope Project Description Friction Method Solve For Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Discharge Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Manning Formula Normal Depth Subcritical 0.035 0.00950 ft/ft 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft 33.90 ft3/s 1.64 ft 8.62 ft2 9.32 ft 0.93 ft 8.54 ft 1.36 ft 0.02093 ft/ft 3.93 ftls 0.24 ft 1.88 ft 0.69 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 1.64 ft 1.36 ft 0.00950 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBliatilejernilawMaster 1f8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.91.03] 7/17/2017 12:31:42 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for Channel OS -I B Minimum Slope Project Description Friction Method Solve For Input Data Roughness Coefficient Channel Slope Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Bottom Width Discharge Results Normal Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Top Width Critical Depth Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Flow Type GVF Input Data Downstream Depth Length Number Of Steps GVF Output Data Upstream Depth Profile Description Profile Headloss Downstream Velocity Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Manning Formula Normal Depth Subcritical 0.035 0.00400 ft/ft 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft 33.90 ft3/s 1.99 ft 11.91 ft2 10.90 ft 1.09 ft 9.96 ft 1.36 ft 0.02093 ft/ft 2.85 ft/s 0.13 ft 2.12 ft 0.46 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Infinity ft/s Infinity ft/s 1.99 ft 1.36 ft 0.00400 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBliatilejernilawMaster 1f8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 7/17/2017 12:30:37 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 APPENDIX C-3 RAINAGE CALCULATIONS Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants Culvert Runoff Caktliatians CULVERT ID Contributing Basins 10-yr [cfs) 1.00-yr [crs) 11W EL:: Inv. In Inv. Out Velocity100 Otis) Pipe Dia. [in) Culvert l 05-121 5.42 23.76 5193.77 5191.9 5191.03 5.82 2 - 24' Culvert 05-1132 6.67 33.90 5193.18 5189.51 5188.69 8.13 30' Riprap Apron Calemlaticrns at Culvert Outlets STRUCTURE ID Pipe 0, D (ft) Discharge per Rand. ()am ids) Tai1>water Depth.'Yt (A) Allowable Velocity, i. (fusee) Type of Rip Rap Dep; 1 , ! .:.. 1 ,::i: i ,A. Rip Ran Check i t/D , CA Rip Rap (Figure 9-324 dfo Equation 8-11 (in) 2+d30 (in) , %b; DtS 1/(2.*tunCI {1 :ewe y-35) Al (A2) Length iIt) 3 �D (Min.) 1040 4Max) Use (A) (11) Oft) Culvert I 2 11.88 1.42 3.00 0i1 4.20 L 9 I8 2.1 6.7 C0 Si 6 20 6 Culout 2 2.5 33.90 1.11 3.00 0A4 8.58 L 9 18 3.4 4.3 113 34.6 7.5 25 25 L" - Use Type L for a Distance of3•D Downstream. Urban Drainage. Drainage Criteria Manual. Volume 1. Figure MD -21. No Further Calculations Required Ditch Calculations bitch ID Contributing; Basins 10-yr 1.00-yr Ws) (cfs) Type Side Sbpes Channel Slope Depth of Flow (11) Ite(i'd Depth +Frecbo:rd It:i Planned Mick. Depth (ft) Velocity [rtes) Rongbaes cn C'oellicit I ronde M Hydr. Radius 4II) Shear Os!' ErosionControl t cannel OS- I A (Min. Slope) OS -IA 2.411 17.20 Trapezoidal, 12' Bottom 2:1 1.2% Ill I 1 3.5 0.035 0.73 0.68 0---') TRM Channel 0S -IA Max_ Slope) 0S -1A 2.48 17.80 Trapezoidal, Variable Rattom 2:1 2_4% 0.74 2 4.41 0.033 1.04 0.55 0.82 TRM Channel 05-1114M in. Slope) OS -1R 6.67 33.90 Trapezoidal, 12' Bottom 3:1 0.4% 1.42 _2 2.58 0.033 0.46 0.94 0.23 TRM Cbannel05-If3,Max_ Slope) 05-1 R 6.67 33.90 Trapezoidal. Variable Bottom 3:1 1.1% 1.11 3.67 0.035 0.73 0.77 0.51 TRM P_101756t133-01756-I 7001\SupportDocsSCalcsaunoff Sim.on_xls APPENDIX C-4 DETENTION POND SIZING CALCULATIONS i _ DETENTION BASIN STAGE -STORAGE TABLE BUILDER UD-Detention. Version 3.07 (February 201 7) PrOpt : Severance Ready M x and Asp ha I Pia nts Basin ID: West Pond. Pond A mina Example Zone Configuration }Retention Pond} Required Volume Calculation Selected BMP Type = Watershed rhea = Watershed Length = Watershed Slope Watershed Imperviousness = Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A Percentage Hydrologic Sod Group B Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups CIO = Desired WOCV Drain Time = Location for 1 -hr Rainfall Depths = Water Dually Capture Volume ROC.' = Excess Urban Runoff Volume {Et3RV) _ 2-yr Runoff Volume P 1 =028 in } _ 5-yr Runoff Volume IP1 = 1.14 in.) = 10-yr Runoff Volume 4P1 = 1.43 in = 25-yrRunof Volume (P1 = 1.9 in = 50-yr Runoff Volume IP1 =2:33 in-} = 1O0-yr Runoff Volume IP1 =2.51 in.}= 500-yr Runoff Volume 021 =4.15 in_} _ Approximate 2-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 5-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 10-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 25-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 50-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 100-yr Detention Volume = Stage -Storage Calculation Zone 1 Volume (10O -year) _ Select Zone 2 Storage Volume {Optional} = Select Zone 3 Storage Volume {Optional} = Total Detention Basin Volume = bib' Surcharge Volume IILSV} _ initial Surcharge Depth MD) _ Total Arailahle Detention Depth (Hoa1) = Depth of Trickle Channel {Hoc } = Sbpe of Trickle Channel {S,re = Slopes of Main Basin Sides iS„a;n) = Basin Length -lo -Width Ratio Mime) = Yhdial Surcharge Area %Asp;) = Surcharge Volume Length {Lis) _ Surcharge Volume Width IVY sy) _ Depth of Basin Flee( {Hrwee) = Length of Basin Floor {_rsore) = Width of Basin Floor lW rror.,) = Area of Basal Floor iArror,) = Volume of Basin Floor ,Yrro.,) = Depth of Main Basin +, H F,: sin) = Length of Main Basin ;L M I?, = Width of fain Basin (W tralu) = Area of Main Basin {Ap.1Ya) = Volume of Main Basin (VI") = Calculated Total Basin Volume 4V,0„1) = EDB 15.83 1.026 0.016 — 24.00% 66.Gi: 40..0 Denver - Capitol Budding y1 percent percent Dertent Dement yours 0173 Q345 0.206 0152 0.551 1 039 1483 2-092 3 673 0 13 0.332 0A29 0188 1693 0.944 0.944 0.944 use user user user user user Jser user user user user user user user user user user user user user user acre -teat acre -feat acre-feet acre -feat acre -feat acre -feat acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre -feat acre -feat acre -feel acre -feat acre -feat acre-feet acre -nee" acre -teat acre-feet acre -feat H fill acre -feat Optional User Override I--- Precipitation 0.86 inches • 14 finches 1ches • 90 finches 2.33 finches 2.3' finches 4.15 finches WOCV not pray !de d! Death Increment = Q1 M Stage - Storage Descriatian Stage fit' Optional Override Stage f" Length {1t} Width rt} rues (`'2' Options Creamed e. Area tit" s Area (acre) Volume iN'3' ,. r ,_ Top of M cropoo _- 0 00 _- -- 8 0.000 -- 0.23 -- -- -- 405 0.009 37 0.001 0 Oft -- - -- 1023 0.023 174 O004 0-60 -- -- -- 1.832 0.042 470 0.011 C 80 -- - -- 2.835 0.065 936 0.021 -- 100 -- -- -- 4.007 0.092 '.581 0.036 1 40 -- - -- 6-989 0.160 3.727 0.086 -- 160 -- -- -- 8.733 0.200 5,369 0.123 1-8'0 -- -- 10.679 0.245 7,310 0.168 2 00 -- - -- 12.830 0.295 9.533 0219 -- 2 20 -- -- -- 15.074 0.340 ' 2 30' 0 282 -- 2.40 -- -- -- 16.879 0.387 •5.478 0.355 2 60 -- - - 18.775 0.43' 7 9,212 0441 -- 2.83 -- -- -- 20.769 0_477 2.3.166 0-532 __ ; 00 _- -_ _ 22,356 S ___ ___ _ 0:2 3 20 - - -- 25..036 0.575 32,318 0-742 40 27.3'2 0.627 37,553 0.862 -- 3 60 -- -- - 29.691 0.682 43.253 0.993 3 30 -- - - 32.170 0..739 -19.439 1.135 -- 4 0'0 -- -- -- 34.742 0 79°. 5t 130 1139 -- 4-20 -- -- -- 37.406 0.859 63.345 1.454 4 40 -- - - 39,539 0.908 71,039 1.631 -- 4.6'3 -- -- -- 41.126 Q944 79.106 1.816 - 4 3'3 - -- 2.. f 0 9s' _ :30, _ oils 500 -- -- -- 44.305 1.017 96.192 2208 .5.20 -- -- - 45197 1.054 105212 2.415 -- :5.40 -- -- -- 4 7 4 91 1.090 114,551 Z630 5 60 -- 49.086 1 12 124209 2 851 -- 5 80 -- -- - `3.383 1 104 134.185 1080 -- 6 00 -- -- -- 52.281 1-200 144.482 1-317 Pond 1_xlsm. Basin Simon Contractors Company Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants, West Pond, Pond A 133-01756-17001 100 year, 1 -hour storm volume = 2.092 acre-feet Drain time Minimum = 40 hours Maximum _ 72 hours 72 -Hour Drain Time 43560 ft2 1 min 1 hour 1 2.0►92ACFTx x x AC 60 sec 60 min 72 hours = 0.35 cfs (minimum required pumping rate) 40 -Hour Drain Time 43560 ft2 1 min 1 hour 1 2.092 AC FT x ff AC 60 sec 60 minx 40 hours = 0.63 cfs (maximum allowable pumping rate) Recommended pumping rate = 0.35 cfs — 0.63 cfs Detention Pond A discharge rate = discharge pumping rate Water Quality Recommendation: Detention Pond A will be pumped through Aqua Swirl product before discharging to historic drainage point. i _ DETENTION BASIN STAGE -STORAGE TABLE BUILDER UD-Detention, Version 3.07 (February 201 7) Project: Severance Ready M x andAspha t Pia nts Basin ID: East Pond. Pond B &ilia fl :.ta@el r i iv YaT u Example Zone Configuration {Retention Pond} MCt.l�E"1 was Required Volume Calculation Selected BMP Type = Watershed Area = Watershed Length = Watershed Slope = Watershed Imperviousness = Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A. = Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group B a Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups CO = Desired WOCV Drain Time = EDB 397 716 0.020 6 011 60.ft'r- '0.0 40.0 ISO!I- -n,a. 'lilt percent percent Demerit Dement yours Location for 1 -hr Rainfall Depths = Denver - Capitol Bulling Water Chalky Capture Volume ROC.' = Excess Urban Runoff Volume {EURV} _ 2-yr Runoff Volume tPI =088 in } _ 5-yr Runoff Volume IP1 = 1.14 in.} 10-yr Runoff Volume 4P1 = 1.43 in = 25-yrRunolf Volume (P1 = 1.9 in.)= 50-yr Runoff Volume IP1 =2:33 in.) .= 1O0-yr Runoff Volume IP1 =221 in.}= 500-yr Runoff Volume 4P1 =4.15 in_}= Approximate 2-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 5-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 10-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 25-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 50-yr Detention Volume = Approximate 100-yr Detention Volume = Stage -Storage Calculation Zone 1 Volume (WQCV} = Zone 2 Volume (IOU -year -Zone 1) = Select Zone 3 Storage Volume {Optional} = Total Detention Basin Volume = bib' Surcharge Volume QLSV} _ Initial Surcharge Depth {tSD} = Total'Wailahle Detention Depth{How)= Depth of Trickle Channel {err } = Sbpe of Trickle Channel {SS = Slopes of Main Basin Sides IS„A;"i = Basin Length -bp -Width Rath {R 11 = Initial Surcharge Area %As;,-;) = Surcharge Volume Length {Lw) _ Surcharge Volume Width �W sy) _ Depth of Basin Fleo({HFLnrie) = Length of Basin Floor { rsors) = Width of Basin Floor WV nom) = Area of Basin Floor {Arsorxr) = Volume of Basin Floor iYrso.,) = Depth of Main Basin + tI ?Rea j = Length of Main Basin L MAIN) = Width of Main Bash {W nraltil = Area of Main Basin {A.1n) = Volume of Main Bash (V11,N) = Calculated Total Basin Volume 4V,,,4 1) = 0-012. 0.038 0.020 0.046 0104 0.264 0.430 0.719 1.498 OM18 O 044 T067 0.097 Q 125 0.222 0.032 :190 0.222 user user user user user Jser user user user user user user user user user user user user user user acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet =acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre -feel acre -feel acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet ,:..3 H fill acre-feet Optional User Override I--- Precipitation 0.86 inches 14 finches ic^hes 90 finches 2.33 finches 2.8' finches 4.15 finches oaeoth ►ncrement = 0.1 M Stage - Storage Descria",ion Stage fit!. Optional Override Stage 111, Length Irtl Width et!. Area (`,"2' Optiana Override .Area r,.''' i .-paa (acre: - ,_ Top of M cropoo _. 0 00 .- -. 2IG5 0 052 -- 0 23 -- -- -- 6.306 0.145 797 0.018 0 40 -- -- 10.462 0.240 2,432 0.056 0x60 -- -- -- 14.753 0.339 5,057 0.116 0 30 -- 19.178 0.440 8,460 0.194 -- 1 00 -- -- - 23.368 0.536 '1472 0286 -- 1 2'3 -- -- - 24.253 C _,57 . - 22` 0 395 140 -- -- -- 24,765 0.569 22.12' 0.508 -- I 60 -- -- -- ?5.281 0.580 27.373 0.628 1-a0 -- -- 25.799 0.592 12.48' 0.746 2 00 -- -- 23.320 0.804 37,430 0259 -- 2 20 -- -- 26.843 0.616 .42 74' 0.981 -- 2-40 -- -- -- 27.369 0.628 48,157 1.106 2 60 -- -- -- 27.893 0.840 53.957 1239 -- 2 30 -- -- -- 28.429 Q653 59.590 1.368 Pond 2_xlsm. Bath Detention Basin Outlet Structure Design UD-Detention, Version 3.07 (February 2017) Project: Severance Ready Mix and Asphalt Plants Basin ID: East Pond, Pond B WU DE L waif wod . ---1 ,- cz IY - I 2a' 1 heir=: �GLr�i CariCE Example Zone Configuration (Retention Pond) User Input: Orifice at Underdrain Outlet (typicallyrused to drain WQCV in a Filtration BMP) Underdrain Orifice Invert Depth = Underdrain Orifice Diameter= N/A N/A Zone 1 (WQCV) tone 2 (100 -year) Zone 3 Stage (ft) Zone Volume (ac -ft) Outlet Type 0.58 0.032 orifice Plate 1.59 0.190 Weir&Pipe(Res via) ft {distance below the filtration media surface) inches 0.222 Total Calculated Parameters for Underdrain Underdrain Orifice Area = Underdrain Orifice Centroid = N/A N/A ft2 feet User Input: Orifice Plate with one or more orifices or Elliptical Slot Weir (typically used to drain WQCV and/or EURV in a sedimentation BMP) Invert of Lowest Orifice = Depth at top of Zone using Orifice Plate = Orifice Plate: Orifice Vertical Spacing = Orifice Plate: Orifice Area per Row = 0,00 0.58 4.00 0.44 ft {relative to basin bottom at Stage = Oft) ft {relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) inches sq. inches (diameter = 3/4 inch) User Input: Stage and Total Area of Each Orifice Row (numbered from lowest to highest) Stage of Orifice Centroid (ft) Orifice Area (sq. inches) Stage of Orifice Centroid (ft) Orifice Area (sq. inches) WO Orifice Area per Row = Elliptical Half -Width = Elliptical Slot Ce ntrold = Elliptical Slot Area = Calculated Parameters for Plate ft2 feet feet ft` 3.056E-03 N/A N/A N/A Row 1 (required) Row 2 (optional) Row 3 (optional) Row 4 (optional) Row 5 (optional) Row 6 (optional) Row 7 (optional) Row 8 (optional) 0.00 0.30 0.44 0.44 Row 9 (optional) Row 10 (optional) Row 11 (optional) Row 12 (optional) Row 13 (optional) Row 14 (optional) Row 15 (optional) Raw 16 (optional) User Input: Vertical Orifice (Circular or Rectangular) Invert of Vertical Orifice = Depth at top of Zone using Vertical Orifice = Vertical Orifice Diameter = Not Selected Not Selected ft {relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) ft {relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) inches Calculated Parameters for Vertical Orifice Vertical Orifice Area = Vertical Orifice Centroid = Not Selected Not Selected ft2 feet User Input: Overflow Weir ( Dropbox) and Grate (Flat or Sloped) Overflow Weir Front Edge Height, Ho= Overflow Weir Front Edge Length = Overflow Weir Slope = Horiz. Length of Weir Sides = Overflow Grate Open Area %= Debris Clogging 94= Zone 2 Weir Not Selected 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 10% 50% ft {relative to basin bottom al Stage = aft) feet H:V (enter zero for flat grate) feet %, grate open area/total area 90 User Input: Outlet Pipe wJ Flow Restriction Plate (Circular Orifice, Restrictor Plate, or Rectangular Orifice). Depth to Invert of Outlet Pipe = Outlet Pipe Diameter = Restrictor Plate Height Above Pipe Invert = Zone 2 Restrictor 0.00 12.00 4.00 User Input: Emergency Spillway (Rectangular or Trapezoidal) Spillway Invert Stage= Spillway Crest Length = Spillway End Slopes= Freeboard above Max Water Surface = 3.00 17.00 4.00 1.00 Not Selected ft {d ista nee below basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) inches inches ft {relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft) feet H:V feet Calculated Parameters for Overflow Weir Height of Grate Upper Edge, HC= Over Flow Weir Slope Length = Grate Open Area / 100-yr Orifice Area = Overflow Grate Open Area w/o Debris = Overflow Grate Open Area w/ Debris = Zone 2 Weir Not Selected 1.00 2.00 12.22 2.80 1.40 feet feet should be >4 ft2 ft2 Calculated Parameters for Outlet Pipe w/ Flow Restriction Plate Outlet Orifice Area = Outlet Orifice Centroid = Half -Central Angle of Restrictor Plate on Pipe = Zone 2 Restrictor Not Selected 0.23 0.20 1.23 N/A Calculated Parameters for Spillway Spillway Design Flow Depth= 0,39 feet Stage at Top of Freeboard = 4.39 feet Basin Area at Top of Freeboard = 0.51 acres ft2 feet radians Routed Hydrograph Results Design Storm Return Period = One -Hour Rainfall Depth (in) = Calculated Runoff Volume (acre -ft) = OPTIONAL Override Runoff Volume (acre -ft) = Inflow Hydrograph Volume (acre -ft) = Predevelopment Unit Peak Flow, q (cfslacre) _ Predevelopment Peak Q (cfs) _ Peak Inflow Q (cfs) _ Peak Outflow Q (cfs) _ Ratio Peak Outflow to Predevelopment Q = Structure Controlling Flow = Max Velocity through Grate 1 (fps) = Max Velocity through Grate 2 (fps) = Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume (hours) = Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume (hours) = Maximum Pond ing Depth. (ft) = Area at Maximum Pending Depth (acres) = Maximum Volume Stored (acre -ft)= WQCV EURV 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year 500 Year 0.53 1.07 0,86 1.14 1.43 1.90 2.33 2.81 4.15 0.032 0.038 0.020 0.046 0.104 0.264 0.430 0.719 1.498 0.032 0.037 0.020 0.046 0.103 0.264 0.429 0.719 1.497 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.14 0.37 0,65 1.08 2.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 3.3 5.8 9,7 19.8 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.9 2.0 5.0 8.2 13.6 28.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 13.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.7 Plate Plate Plate Plate Overflow Grate 1. Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Spillway N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.4 0.5 0,6 0.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 37 40 30 44 63 55 49 44 31 40 43 32 47 69 65 63 59 51 0,55 0.61 0.41 0.68 1.03 1.43 1.86 2.49 3.35 0.09 0,10 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.25 0.35 0.41 0.47 0.029 0.034 0.017 0.043 0.094 0.177 0.307 0.552 0.930 Detention Basin Outlet Structure Design UD--Detentlors, Version 3,107 (February 2017) 30 25 20 15 9 10 5 0- 5CQYR IN . .-.++- 5C0YR OUT 1C0YR IN _ ` 1C0YR OUT 50YR IN a a 5QYR OUT - - - 25YRIN - - a 25YR OUT 18YRIN - - - 1QYR OUT SYRIN 15YR OUT 2YRIN -- 2YR OUT EURL'IN L-•. - - EURVOUT . a'` ` Wept IN . • WQCV OUT ' . . . . . li • • A . •.. .... S. Ills 0.1 1 TIME [hr] 10 4 3.5 - 3 - 0.5 0-4 _ 0.1 - 500YR - 1QQYR 5OTh 25YR 10YR - 5YR 2YR EURV - wgcv a 1 DRAIN TIME Ihr] 10 100 AREA Ift"21, VOLUME [K^3] 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0] User Area iftA2I Interpolated Area [ft^2] • - -. • • Summary Area [ftA2I Volume tctA3I +,.f.+. Summary Volume [fM3] Outflow [cfs] --1,-• Summary Outflow [di 1 0.00 0.50 1,00 1.50 2,00 2,50 PONDING DEPTH [ft] 3.00 3.50 4.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.0047 O LL 30.001 20.00 10.00 0.00 4.50 S -A -V -D Chart Axis Override minimum bound maximum bound X-axis Left V -Axis Right Y -Axis TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Simon Contractors Company Severance Ready -Mix Concrete and Asphalt Plants Weld County, Colorado Prepared for: Simon Contractors Company 4819 S. Industrial Rd. Cheyenne, WY 820003 Prepared by: Gene Coppola Tetra Tech 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-E Longmont, Colorado 80501 Tetra Tech Job No. 133-01756-17001 July 2017 TETRATECH Traffic Impact Study SIMON CONTRACTORS Weld County, Colorado July 17, 2017 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION I II. CURRENT CONDITIONS A. Road Network B. Traffic C. Operating Conditions D. Surrounding Land Uses 7 III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS7 A. Agency Discussions 7 B. Development Overview 7 C. Site Traffic 8 D. Trip Distribution 8 F. Future Traffic 12 F. Future Roadway System 12 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS .17 A. Short Term Improvements 17 B. Long Terra 19 V. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS...21 VI, CONCLUSIONS 21 List of Figures Figure 1 Figure Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Vicinity Map 2 Current Roadway Geometry ,..4 Current Peak Hour Traffic 5 Concept Plan Site Traffic Distribution 10 Short Term Site Traffic �. 11 Short Term Background Traffic 13 Short Terra Total Traffic 14 Lang Term Background Traffic 15 Long Term Total Traffic 16 Short Term Roadway Geometry 18 Long Term Roadway Geometry e20 I. INTRODUCTION Simon Contractors is a construction materials supplier located at the SH 257 --- R 80.5 intersection in Weld County, Colorado. It is currently operational but plans to expand consistent with future demand. The site is located in the southeast corner of the SH 257 — CR 80.5 intersection about one-half mile south of SH 14. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. This traffic impact study assesses the current and planned future development. It contains the investigations and analyses typically contained in a full traffic study, Key steps undertaken as part of this study are defined below. • Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Evaluate current traffic operations to establish baseline conditions. • Determine site generated traffic and distribute this traffic to the nearby street sys- tem. • Estimate roadway traffic volumes for both short- and long-term conditions. • Evaluate traffic operations with the Simon Contractors fully operational under both short- and long-term conditions. • identify areas of potential deficiencies. • Recommend measures to mitigate or ease the impact of site generated traffic as appropriate. 1� q 0 mi I 1.5 78 SITE 19 I Copyright @ and (P) 198-8-2012 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers, All rights raserved. htipti/www.microsoft.corristreats/ kip int-a-ms) 2 2.5 Figure 1 2 VICINITY MAP J lip CURRENT CONDITIONS A. Road Network The site is located in the southeast corner of the SH 257 — CR 80.5 intersection. These roadways are under CLOT and Weld County control, respectively. SH 257 is a major north -south arterial roadway having regional significance. It is a two- lane highway extending from SH 14 to Windsor. It has a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour adjacent to the Simon facility. Auxiliary lanes are generally available where needed. CR 80.5 is a two-lane gravel roadway extending east of SH 257. The SH 257 CR — 80.5 intersection is currently under stop sign control with the SH 257 SH 14 intersec- tion to the north under traffic signal control. To the east, CR 80.5 primarily serves rural development. Current roadway geometry is shown on Figure 2. B. Traffic Recent peak hour traffic counts were obtained at the SH 257 intersections with CR 80.5 and SH 14. Directional biases were noted with predominant movements during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Peak hour turning traffic at the SH 257 intersection with CR 80.5 and daily traffic on SH 257 are presented on Figure 3 with count sheets presented in Appendix A. 3 i1v SH14 LSTQP U, co NIte Cis80.5 Figure 2 4 �CURRENTROADWAYGE0METRY r CD '0 CI 0/3 4r--- 4491298 lc 67/40 245/464 -÷ 127/300 —� CO CO N CON “A, LEGEND: ANUPNM Peak Hour c co co N co It- 4/3 lc 3/2 tr CDCO CO CD U) CO SH14 CFA 80.5 Figure 3 S CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC J C. Operating Conditions Existing intersections were evaluated using current traffic loadings and roadway geome- try. For evaluation purposes, acceptable operations are defined as overall level -of - service "D"or better under peak hour conditions at signalized locations. At stop sign controlled intersections, LOS `E/F is considered acceptable for critical traffic move- ments during peak hours along arterial streets. These levels -of -service are considered normal at stop sign controlled intersections during peak hours. During off-peak times, significantly better operating conditions can be expected. Both peak hour periods were analyzed using capacity analysis procedures resulting in the operating levels -of -service (LOS) indicated in the following table. All traffic movements currently operate at ac- ceptable levels -of -service during both peak hour periods. CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS E Intersection Control Movement/ Overall Level -of -Service AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Signal B B 5H 257 H 14 EEL — B B EB T EB R A A WB L B B B A WBTR NB L C NB TR A B SB L C B SB TR C Overall B B SH Stop WBLIB B B SB L A A Capacity analyses work sheets are included in Appendix B. 6 a Surrounding Land Uses Simon Contractors will occupy its current location and expand to the east in concert with demand. The surrounding area is primarily rural with limited residential development in the immediate area of the site. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Agency Discussions At the onset and throughout the course of this study, discussions were held with the County and COOT regarding the contents, assumptions, and evaluations contained in this study. Key points of agreement are identified below. 1. The SH 257 — CR 80.5 and SH 257 — H 14 intersections should be investigated as part of this study. 2. Peak hour counts should be conducted at the above intersections. 3. Published annual traffic growth rates can be used to estimate future traffic, Be Development Overview The current development schedule anticipates on -going operations at the existing facility with future growth to serve area needs. The site currently has several accesses to CR 80.5 which are expected to remain in the future. While subject to local demand, build out is assumed in about 5 years (2022) which represents the short term time frame. At build out, an estimated 250 truck round trips are expected each day with 35 employees reporting to this location. Primary work times will generally be from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM or daylight hours. Site activities are seasonal and will be driven by construc- 7 tion demands, weather, and daylight. A limited amount of nighttime work is typical given activities such as roadway construction and maintenance. A preliminary concept plan for the Simon Contractors is presented on Figure 4. Ca Site Traffic Future site traffic was estimated by Simon Contractors. The estimate was undertaken for representative peak season peak hour conditions. It was determined that 250 trucks per day with the peak hour having up to 20 trucks was reasonable for use in this study. Additionally, 35 employees was determined reasonable during the high seasonal peaks. These trips were assumed to occur at the beginning and end of the primary shift which was assumed to overlap street peak hours. These assumptions lead to a very con- servative evaluation of site impacts and results in a 300 — 400% increase in site traffic over current conditions. a Trip Distribution Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of deliveries and employee work trips. The estimated directional distribution of site traffic was developed with input from Simon Contractors and is shown on Figure 5, As indicated, the distribution reflects the predominance of SH 14 in the area street system and anticipated delivery areas. Peak hour site traffic is shown on Figure 6 for the short term (2022). 8 y:ruylyv_ i4t,ii.4tLc) 6£WL-Zi:':£LOG'' Zeritttt(WO .)uayd n re C ,USIN ula•rpI j'p Midi' IN" 3- -618 elearlE 1691 -NS' 1�3S(•lfil H33.11111131 M3G',3a 3N11A7a'�e'! Itil ( lrU:: . NVld 9l1S - lle1$11-Art3iA9 1 lbloaa$ 1.9 asr) S.Nifld 11VI-IdSV'9 XINI AUV DON'rldDAJS NOLIAL OJC]a 71 z: 'd'dti ty CcordO140'!.: N110r7 4110, ..N'L/MOD 5?ldl: e:dire) NOLIIS C a IO r (N C 2 d ,�� C f orz 1— cir g. It Z O J 0ILIJ C?i ci-°H< GO r� u_o C0_O ri co co c -DE - u r, w 05 () W c3 i CC I -6w J>- z (DIE wWz�s w <w co I -z PZI <El a W u. W<0 o W O_z c. 'U i Co ft W 9 O p'0 a: 81- 7JW 3 3 — II r - D9 vti IL .3 LL ¢c $L f LC fl L L r LYE AMH 1.1/' EHTF<A:?ICE r 1 t tdf r Ir 1+ rr rr r+ ' r r ` re ; rr r .1/ r f / II if I I f -I -r III C') W LM TING t.LiJOR CONTOURS 1.1 INT.; EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS ii' INT.I T b J u if Lit 2 Yu g a itE PROPERTY PENCE 8 ft {'J 1 1 EXISTING' ASPHALT ROAD SECONDARY CONTAINMENT NOTE: z _ 9 '41 trm J J II u -1- s. a- .a < y IL J o Z e a = W • (GRAVEL ROM EXISTING UTILITY POUF A 0 tJ 11 TEMPORARY FACILITY ACCESS ROAD NCTF; PROPOSED PORTOI F PROPO FII TRASH FNCI OSIIRF -r J D 1 Y .l L A :n am as It 2 J C xF IC ( L M Z or 0H OE SECTION CORNER MARKER PRCROSEO GATE f 0 Ear Measi'es 1 inch i CONCEPT PLAN iLL u 1 w e SA APFDRC FOISITOkHf Ma-F)YtTItlrll F'.FR1I- RRHLlc'si.^hLcwL-fIv6(1Fnw6/Lrp +-44Y/Z7h- 1./107,148 N - lc 15% / 20% SH rir 70% / 90% , 0%/10% N- 11, Csi CO LEGEND: Employees/Trucks Er' C i CIS 80.5 Figure 5 10 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION z z 1 ,r- 10/5 35/10 --� len t LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal irg) t C in 30/45 ic 5/10 pia to Cn 11 C SH 14 CR 80.5 Figure 6 SITET1 FFIC E. Future Traffic Short term (2022) background traffic was developed using the earlier noted annual traffic growth rates with long term background traffic estimated using the same growth rates out to 2040. Short term background and total peak hour traffic for the year 2022 are presented on Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Total traffic is the combination of background traffic and site traffic. Long term background traffic and long term total traffic in 2040 is shown on Figures 9 and 10, respectively. F. Future Roadway System The future roadway system (major roadway widening and improvements) was consid- ered for both short- and long-term evaluation years. The assumed roadway improve- ments for each evaluation period are described below. hort term Long term No improvements. No improvements. Site specific improvements related to the Simon Contractors development will be de- termined in the following sections of this report. s 12 0 1.O Z rZZ IC N/5 44- 515/340 75/45 10/15 -14 280/530 � 145/345 0 0) 0 i NA - LEGEND: All PM Peak Hour N = Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. LO CNI 0 0) co jk-- 5/5 *0-- 5/5 thai U, o4 x V SH CR80.5 Figure 7 13 KSHORTTERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CD Z �z z jt- N15 4- 515/340 lc 85/50 10/15 280/530 —DP. 180/355 � 0 0) n LEGEND: AWPM Peak Hour N = Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. crY 175- Ns - 1.O CO It-- 30/45 5/10 0 LLD SH14 CR80.5 Figure8 14 SHORT TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC 0 ro 5/5 4- 700/465 r 115/70 10/20 --14 380/725 -DP 215/515 c NCO r chs LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 'I) At ry uDo r 0 LO CD SH CR80.5 Figure 9 1 5 LONG TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 2 Lt7 r� LO r to 5/5 44- 700/465 �.--- 125/75 10/20 380/725 --► 250/525 C N- LO1.75 N CO Lci LEGEND: ANUPM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 1r) a r o o at— 40/50 15/15 N- In 041 0) (IF tin r to 04 lor SHI4 CR80.5 Figure 10 16 LONG TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC 2 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS In order to assess operating conditions with Simon Contractors fully operational, high- way capacity analysis procedures were utilized at each key intersection. These are the CR 80.5 — SR 257 and the SH 257 — SH 14 intersections. Site access intersections with CR 80.5 were not considered worthy of investigation given minimal traffic on CR 80.5. Analyses were undertaken for both short- and long-term conditions. At the onset of these undertakings, traffic volumes were reviewed at each location to identify the need for auxiliary lanes using COOT State Highway Access Code criteria or an upgrade in intersection controls. Findings for both short- and long-term conditions are docu- mented in the following sections. A. Short Term Improvements Short term peak hour traffic indicates the need for the following auxiliary lanes and traffic control improvements at the intersection(s) shown below. SH 257 — CR 80.5 A southbound left turn lane on SH 257 at CR 80.5. The anticipated short term geometry is shown on Figure 11. No additional improve- ments will be needed in the long term. 17 4k/J, C, ti" in el SH14 CFA 80,5 Figure 1 1 18 HORT TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY Key intersections were analyzed using capacity analysis procedures with the results indicated below. 2022 OPERATING ONDITION (WITH Build Out of Simon Contractors) Intersection Control Movement/ Level -Service -of Overall AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Signal EB L B B SH 257 — SH 14 EB T B B ER R A A WB L B B WB TR B B NB L CI NB TR B B BBL C C SB TR C C Overall C B Stop WB LR B B SH 257 — CR 80.5 BBL A A As shown above, operating levels of service with Simon Contractorsfully built will be acceptable at all locations. Capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix E. it should be noted that capacity analyses were only conducted to the level necessary to indicate acceptable operations. Consequently, added tweaking could result in improved opera- tions. B* Long Term No major roadway improvements are anticipated over the short term; however, a se- cond northbound left turn lane on SH 257 at SH 14 is assumed built in the long term. The need for this lane, if it materializes, is not related to Simon Contractors but to significant background traffic growth associated with primary destinations to the west. The anticipated long term roadway geometry is shown on Figure 12. 19 ito _ 444 7 7 :CU _ lkfi ti" SH 14 CR 80.5 Figure 12 2 0 LONG TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY V Traffic estimates for the long term time frame were analyzed. Operating conditions with long term total traffic including Simon Contractors are presented below. 2040 OPERATING CONDITIONS (WITH Build Out of Simon Contractors) Intersection Control Movement/ Overall Level -of -Service AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr SH 257 H 14 Signal B A EE L B B EE T A A EB R WB L B B WB TR C A NB L D B NB TR B B sB L sB Tl Overall C B sH 257 — R 80.5 Stop WB LR B B BBL A A As shown, all traffic movements and overall operating conditions will be acceptable at all locations. Capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix E. V. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS southbound left turn lane will be needed in conjunction with this development. Based on CDOT State Highway Access Code design criteria, the following parameters are appropriate for a 12 foot wide lane and the existing 65 MPH speed limit. These pa- rameters will need to be confirmed and/or modified during preliminary design. Storage Deceleration Length Length Total 100' 800' 900' Redirect tapers at 65:1 are appropriate for the posted speed limit. 21 VI. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above analyses and investigations, the following are concluded: • Current operating conditions are acceptable in the area of the Simon Contractors site. • Simon Contractors will generate up to 180 peak hour trips and 570 daily trips on the area street system. • A southbound left turn lane on SH 257 at CR 80.5 is needed to serve this devel- opment. • Long term operating conditions will be acceptable with the addition of a second northbound left turn lane on SH 257 at SH 14. The need for this lane, if it materi- alizes, is not related to Simon Contractors but to significant background traffic growth associated with primary destinations to the west. • Long term levels of service will be essentially the same whether or not Simon contractors is developed. • Simon Contractors is viable from a traffic engineering perspective. In summary, the traffic impacts associated with Simon Contractors and a general in- crease in area traffic can be fully accommodated by the identified street system. Ac- cordingly, acceptable traffic conditions are expected in the vicinity of the Simon Contractors site through the long term. 22 APPENDIX A cc CD CIAi C� ntersection: Observer: Vickie r C w Severance, CO ZIA O p CO 0 C= . ■ a i EUGENE G. COPPOLA, P.O. Box 630027 I to C DO 0 O +I� 0 mine ari Phone: (303) 792-2450 N- Oki C C*' CO Cri, in Cpl i 044 t cSil 0 04 r Csii o CM en cm CO Ci Ltd CO CO 0 0) CD In r csi r r '-- r r :punoq;saA r r r r r 0 0 0 0 CSI 0 0 t'4 cc, CNal C I CO Cr I— I w" r r r• 04 CSI CO C)O r 0 CI - 0O ti'? di r cn c! T`� LO co CO to -■ + r re C IA � C CJ C C 3 C LLB 0 €o c'i to CN r r Iota! h/south Ln C CD [� f� CO c--4.1 to QO ' 7 co Ca chi cm csia t i mil Cu e 'K - r Cam! t Z 0 r CJ r r O -0 o 0 Q Q CNI r r r C3 CO O C 0 0 0 0 t r C Ca "Cr cri egal co, U) z LC tO CC Lf 0' to 'f+ me r a O w C 04 0 - r r r r ,.a ..0 t 0 In �_ Ltd C CD CO = 0 • N- 0 LO 0 to a r 0 LO i.: c) ca 0 1n c) Co 0 in ' 00 0 r t+ 0 r c0 0 a m a eq r CA Co tO LC; CD CO C eq Cq ces i C3) to 0 Cal C 0 cal Co C,, CD 0 A C}`, C` ! Lin on CV -*S. CO u) CAI en. N. vi' 0 r ce'7 nzt co co r co C to C) a r 0 C C, CD oo CM C) Cal Cat C Q LL a_ i TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Highway 257 & CR 801/2 Intersection: w 0 a . 4.x C, en 0 t — r 0 Owl N- Severance, CO a a f� CD CU EUGENE G. COPPOLA, Pt, P,0. Box 630027 Littleton, CO 80163 Phone: (303) 792-2450 i E r Q3 Q3 u t U II I, v CO CO Co Cr, CO a 0, Talan o CC th fo Cd) 4'%i ,Rs o MI CD r r -- l p .O C17 C) - 1- - \ . C*> - t- to 7— r it- te I 1 r r r r i Ur) - r - C4 • O -t-- C a n_ 05 0 LLI 0 - 0 0 0 I cti r V CC - t FO 1' J ' Y I' Total north/south i 1.- CO eq CO CO CO :punogyjnog ti'r] Lt3 � 4 fla 0 €] I- i i I I -- c' I FT3 C+'3 4 ..J I C\L r {''s.l L.L Northbound: 0 Cr) 1 If, M *cT 0 "it cr-+ O fIC 0 0 0 1— CO C'+) to tt , qt 01 E Cp - 0 o 0 1OO c' O6 Lt i r 617 lam ,-! cre 0) , co a 0 r - a I wt c r o CJ o r I o n1 o o I a a a a I 0, 03 I I 1 . 11".- CO CO I r Cr, 2 4 to U '+[f a LO • CO LO - o o r- i' e el en mit ■ r a t- r CO Zt N- •- • I i=s • 0 , r J I co a 44 O in Ai U) 0 ■ ■ 0 APPENDIX B HCS 2010 Two General -.In ormationt Analyst _ _________ -Way Stop CSummary Report Intersection 257 - 80.5 Agency/Co. • Jurisdiction • Date Performed 7/12/2017 East/West Street 803 Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street 257 Time Analyzed caz: PM Peak Hour Factor 092 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025 Project Description Lanes • • . _ , ':' �ti'�-sa F:w� till • .i�"t "'; i:: :�:' ��. }t r.1.:....-.:- �. 1-: tt iia •1 :4k: it5•.(•C- _ • ate .•._ . •Y•1c•1 ,-.• _K.. .r;Ls. tr l.i .. �. Yin •..s ..,_ .: } ti, - � Y; is Y/ V 4•y "a. , J^,J1 •.fl �4 t-• .1''r�•5. Lf'�t''4�r' f,: L' .'R:• •• ... 'Y �r'J --2-;:a.,-,•--`:;L• '. 1 �:='';'s's •:' -. r'{'• c :.;22"":.".;:- "s t.-:-_. •'`4 .�iy.jr .•r•_.. J -yam'•=:. .•Lr1:2� '.� ;!'• tlrtcr.VSti', IrkC. t art - -•• rj-. H .d. -...1i..7...:11„... . . .f: -L.-. ii 0:: ii`•,'••Y• +T . •j. •••�.-.�•(••::1t-'C 4�L•••••.•t'' !. •.r \^,--'E.�.•...•'.Ll..; a - .. N..n^rt_'•.1!...•?V i-'7t• r fM1•. t'{i"l ty.'_•..."7.6s-:;;:rt. i•µit,e is ..1...;0! f-_; .1 •-.1 : n. ,�Ti�•;-T,,.:5•.;:;.:t•1:�T.: j� t.t., }'-; J`.. "4-t.-1:-;_.. •..L , c^..• .,,. •r r•• - r r . a ,•.. r •' r!..":". s, ti•• 1.i }.. fir. J:.1r t••:•.♦• �.: ;r•�•..-::`. r-;::.7.. mi r�r.--.- t'w.^1 .',{hr y. :�' r. 9.r.rr r.' i1 1,+} --;*-,..-4.---%.:0; et int _L%' ,'-'4,ill • L•-'..•L•l,Y,. •iy �•L :_•,Y_ Pubi" V'•" -:r• - i .- ') !.....-4.0.S.'•r•.•rf-ere, r�: �....:'r•-..L'. if-': r'rr.7'S- :t - .- Si : . C.' -.1%;'r 4:'•::~ --- .err.•:.::i• ._a`Y;•'_.' I,.'�4' •' t . — --,1.'. • •;'.,.^:,,• lrt•' i*ti ± • Gril ,gffl L m1 .. Major Street Mor5h-South • Vehicle- Volumes and Adjustments . Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement flL T T R RIli LIIII L I Uilla Priority 10 11 1 2 ' 4U 41111. 6 12 7 8 9Ill 0 0 Number of Lanes II. 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MN Configurationmum TR11111 LT LRisimmain In Volume (veh/h)inns imi 4 1111 359 1 7 187 MI 3um Percent Heavy Vehicles 1111 1111 MN IIII 20 2011111 20MI . la IN Proportion Time Blocked 11111111 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type - Undivided Median Storage • Delay, Queue Lengthy and - Level of Service .• " _ Flow Rate (veh/h) 1111 7m iiiimill an imi 8 um Capacity 11111111= 519 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1076 u/c Ratio alas0.01 11111. a urn 0.01 .111111 95% Queue Length =Mem" iiiiiIIIMINIMIIIIII 0.0ISM all 1111 Yao Control Delay (s/veh) MI11011111.1111.1111 8.4 Level of Service (LOS) 11111. 1111 B 11111 A 0,4E Approach Delay siveh)IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 12.0 imminis .immummi Approach LOS B Report - - - _ • , ' ^ ' °- • • • :. r .. - -. - - -, • HCS 2010 Two -Way Stop Control Summary . li ws in -J... -.- F.. i.r 'CI'. 2011 Y • -t' "•'�y.T •• .. "' ..-,a : Nit re S 1:' _ • r - - .J f.; . . I . tr- 'a . i' -_T. ,,1 . e' r firX . - •. • O. a;y-.' - r _ a-• r -So -*.^. Ian 'l '_• '�. • Generat.infckrmat`on • • I• ¢ ._ ' . .• `• _ • • ' . ��r� i• . , - _ _ ..� .. tr- ._ ,, ' • • Site Information ' -- �� ...`� tea_ - - e ,�'•- .. -' -- Analyst Intersection 257 - 80.5 Agency/Co, Jurisdiction - Date Performed 7/12/2017 Ea west Street 803 Analysis Year 2017 a North/South Street 257 lime a Analyzed f ST LT AM . PM Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South• IAnalysis Time Period (hrs) 025 Project Description Lanes '- 1.2i Pt4 fR [13" .- - . •I. '•r•-,. `•'1 " .' .- •'• } 'r;.' ..-.. ...• : •. - -- - - r•,''' r#1#-4�‘k1H!-.'r.�Lyltr�•-—'c.o...,,"wy1.::". r ...n.tc-c.r- .,: 'n.ai' •.C,. r•✓.1. -: 1_.&.1�'r`/+._ {'..• y.::..•q ,-• • .1 —at er:'y in : at •-•\} �`!ee-�L'1'`.. .L -a4•:., tYI!e`r-• �1lS S. .••'w1' ,�ft1.'1: _. •7f•i•1 es -kfIC-''S' 1 ';..';•. .)1•t.„•,`� i-'? fr•�L ` .e•11:S. �1f0 . Lts• { .• `tr'...,C-...... :14 f,....p 'r. t.:t7;2--.:...,A,...,,,. ...-..•:j•7•^yr•. -5•e• --- t -.1:•-•.:4r .•v.•c:S or.a • itr"'`.:-:-.•'r t..' - '.'e •=.'a -1 `' {:''ti` r ..1 4 f:'. fir'!'-. ,. ;11). ' •- - •.' � -'� ..'.'..: .. p•Y • ... ter. vI SFr. • •.,. .'.:,, (3+' j].•. 1N1 :V. ni.;:r: •�aa i3;►ti ::ri. i�'rte. r.r..6.r4•sl,f••'-.,�Tl `,.., = L_.2 •J , f . :•1'L.. C• -,t_.. ..Fr i-J'�-.,:`'r ei b..-,..-itf,tir.' ,. �.. .,i cf; 'r. V,••. -ti T: rr �1, !_' tij •L .e .L-. •_.,e�}}��-. f•. -e •i:;: j_ rr: - •. -•: ate- 'r::r - • r•.{r.4:11il . •r. ." K. Ay.J j 1f, 1't{.` ;•, ter. -t". %`'.. 1r f k- ri }yY':� 1 {S�• r Fri -1. �rTff • .'�' +•L' 4.••••t?rc,°'_F. f.il a•: fr•T�r�k -k GC.-••• St -31..t...::°:3 `.+., t •, 3;, •...-: • •'-�.t-' . f • :�"..f: eic rg: • •'.• .F tI�:'-ti: C.'.: ;'; T �r uwasGVii•^.T'rc;w .7=•'r;r-`?ew•x.:r•-..s: r'�;iir..:; i::'.ra r',''iF. -i• • I." •# :. 7•'• •• .-.. •��. '_.._ a4. - •,'... . .. G.- : 1 , "I. ell: Egg] IT 3 dri Major Street forth -South - - - 4 Vehicle VoltiMes and Ad justments - Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement a - iiii a,lliT R ULIIII R U L T RIII Lmai 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Priority 10I111111111 7 8 9ilia 0 0 Number of Lance iiii. 0NM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 011111 0 Configuration1.1111 Volume (veh/h)is LR IIOIIIIIIII TRnem In 230 3a lail 343 an Percent Heave vehicles 20 20MIS all 20in le Proportion Time Blocked allill imina Right Turn Channelized No No No too Median Type Undivided Median Storage a . •• - belay, -Queue•=Lenith, and Level of Service , - ' Flow Rate (veh/h)iii 1111111111111111111111111111111 2mill Capacity MI IIMI 1214111 MI la 568imiimiluili v/c Ratio Ma 0k01 1111 milli 0,00 1111 IliM 95% Queue Length 0.0sem is 0.0la Control Delay (sehnalliIIIM 11.4 1111.111111 8.0a a mainissiiiiiiii Level of Service (LOS) IIII B111111.1111.11 Aill Approach Delay (s/veh)iiiimmillia 11.4IIIIIIIIIIIIM 0.1 Approach LOS - B HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary en ral Informati n Intersection Information ` 'di_ . , .1.r A�enoy ----------- Duration, h f -- - Pi � 7 Analyst Analysis Date Nov 1 01 Area Type Other urisdictiori Time Period PHF (192 • Urban Street 1111111111111.1111 Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 intersection 14 - 257 File Name 1 _ Is Project Description AM PM e2b ST LT •, MMM Demand Inform_ . EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L L R Demand ( v), veh/h gal 1111111 245 127 67 1111111111 449 0 337 111 3 ..__ 0 NI 9 Cycle, s 48.0 Reference Phase 2 - - 0 Offset, s 0 Reference Point EndI ; Green 0.5 2.6 12.x' 2,0 0.0 { {,-. ••-t, .. - Ewa - YP • .T •_. ti Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EM On 4.0 0:0 4.0 4.0 0.0 d - _.-.�it. _ Force On Red 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 '1.0 0.0 3 --if-.. . { '. -: :, .7 s Timer Results EBL EBT WBL VVBT NBL NBT SBL Sr Assigned Phase Case Number 1 3,0 4.0 I • .. Phase Duration, s 17.4 8.1 20.0 nillEcill ME 7.0 hane Period,'tf, s 5.0 5.0_� Marc ,ilQv+ Headway MAJL1 , s 3.1 3.0 3.'13.0 3.13.3ill C ueue learance Trrie }, s 2,1 7.6 3.4 13,8 11.32.52.3 green tension Time, s 0.0 1.7 0.1 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 Phase Call Probability 0.10 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.99 0.40 Max Out Probability 0.00n_n 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results ES NB SB _Approach Movement T R Ell= R L MaR L Int R Assigned Movement mer t 12 16 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h s 266 138 73 0 366 28 10 Adjusted Saturation Plow Rate ( s ), veil/Win 1810 1863 1610 1810 1859 5 1810 1639 um 1404 1610 Queue Service Time ( gs), s 0.3 ME0.0 0.0 0,3 - Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ) s 0.1 5.6 2.3 1.4 0.0 9.3 0,5 reen FatioC0.27 0.26 0 202 480 802 • S 435 599 -150 i 0.000 0,145 11111 Flolume-fe- ap city Ratio 0.038 0.555 ! i 0.000 0.842 0.047 Back of f ueue O }, ftfln 50 th percentileEel 46.2 12.9 11 0 102.4 3.9 0 2.6 IIIII =In.. I Back of Queue ( Q }, vehf[n (50 th percentile) 0.1 1,8 0.5 (14 0.0 4.1 0.2 Queue Storage Ratio 50 tit p rcentile) 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FlinEll Uniform Delay ( d i ), sfveh 14,1 fl 6.6 11.8 MIMI 17.4 9.9 11111 0.0 ala Increr ental L eiay t< , slvel� 00.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 II In tial Queue De[ay d , slveh f � r 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 Control Daley , s/veh 14.2 13.9 11.9 24.5 • • a 0.0 22.6 l - Level of Service (LOS) BB 1 B III - C A. 119111.111 _ ... Approach Delay, veh LOS 11.5 B 13.9 B C 22.5 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.0 B Multimodal Results EB VVB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score I LOS OEM M. "MIMI Bicycle LOS Score / LOS ME Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, AU Rights Reserved. HCS 2010 na Streets Version 620 Generated: 7/1212017 2:41:30 PM HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information .r ){ ` laI Agency Duration, h 0.25 4 - _ _ Analyst GC Analysis Date Nov 13, 2016 Area Type Other Jurisdiction lime Period PHF 0,92 —.. . c Urban Street �* Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection 14 - 257 File Name i F' Project Description AM PM J ST LT t t.rTvi t; ra Demand Information EB 1 VB NB .- � SB Approach Movement L T R L T R T R R Demand ( v), veh/h fl 464 300 40 298 3 2 59 1 _ , _ 5 9 Signal Information r _� Y .- ;_.._ Cycle, s 45.7 Reference Phase 2 � v Offset, s 0 Reference Point End = Green 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0_t� ..=- � - � .. . � - r ... Unc�oerdinated Yes Sirnult. Gap E�VIf On fellow . [0 _ 01.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 i _ , , : -_.�-- - - . Force Mode Fixed Simult,a NHS Red r On.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 • " 6 a _ �'- 8 Timer Results EBL EBT V"BL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase1111111111111E MEI 6 7 4 - 8 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1.1 4.0 2.0 4.0 6.3 -- - Phase Duration, s a 20,2 7.1 21.6 10.2 18.4 8.3 Change Period,_( Y+R c), s 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway p AI -0, s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g 3), s - __ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Green Extension Time (g e), ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Max Movement Approach Out Probability Movement Group Results 0.00 EB T 0.00 R 0.00 L WB T 0.00 _R 0.00 L NB T 0,00 R SB T 0.00 R Assigned Movement 2 12 1 0 16 7 4 14 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adjusted Saturation Flow lute s ), vehlh�'[n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uue Service Time ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ': 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ycie ueue clearance True ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Green Ratio_( g/C) 0.35 023 0.47 0.38 0.30 0.79 0.29 0.07 0.07 Capacity ( c), vehlh 402 618 752 307 675 245 476 254 122 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.030 0.816 0.434 0.142 0.485 0.764 0.139 0.004 0,125 Back of Queue ( Q ), ftAn (50 th percentile) 1.5 75.7 35.6 5.2 37.6 44.3 10.3 0.2 3.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), vehlin (50 th percentile) 0.1 3.0 1A 0.2 1.5 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ ) (50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1), s/veh 10.2 11.5 8.2 10.4 9.0 19.1 11.9 19.8 19.9 incremental Delay__( d 2), s1veh 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 Initial Queue Delay ( d3), stveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d), slveh 10.2 12.6 3.3 10.5 9.2 21.0 12.0 19.8 20.1 Level of Service (LOS) BB A B A C B B C Approach Delay, slveh I LOS 10.9 B 9.3 A 18.6 B 20.1 C Intersection Multimodal Delay, Results slveh I LOS - ES 11.9 WEB NB B SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS NM. - Bicycle LOS Score I LOS - Copyright O 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved, HGS 2010TM Streets Version 6.80 Generated: 7/12'2017 2:41:30 PM APPEN [xc - --.. — -..... . -.._ _ __-_ HCS 2010 Two Way Stop Control - --- - ---- —_._____._ Summary _ _ I+ Report �i':. 'yky ,i'. -:v,` 1 .,. ..t ,.. - raj, ..; en• r 4. v I 1 M S4 �• �y�._,Lm�r •�'. •• 'i �'i. .a • f•aa / 'T • :Jkr .� ≥ N• •. - "• �x.�• s '1,• ..�; -�• '# } eneraiirktor,i.J i• - a 1 .. • .. 'L "#' '.•�4A: r�:t .Y 45' _ • i` .. a, .%%rte •Analyst •b .'..•'j. .,t' •' .-• P" -.Yr-' •!j� _ •. — _I. f f. li - 1 .� .. •, ea _ i;i ?t' • "} rb s• .i . .. r'+.. _r,•-•., •1 .•�`4 -i• r - - • ' S • ♦• -- i _ • . . A.. _ 4.v - .+._• -i .'> • - . . ar ..! ,. t .1 'r • .. • •�k ', 41 •r�/'Ya•�. �.y . A • i... • •a . •�• •• In form a ♦ _.. • " .. Intersection 257 - 803 Agency/Co, Jurisdiction Date Performed 7/12/2017 East/West Street 80.5 Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street 257 Time Analyzed 1011 PM Peak Hour Factor 0,92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 025 Project Description - ' I •' - .9 - - A_ - '-• r ._-° fir = •• • •-_ _ •• - Cr. r -.4;:i• ih.I•vi.•..rp i;^'cr1-°Tti' ).��ti..;s.:. � 'i" -. � .� �� 2.'r�2a Sr".;. J _• 1.-1' aae11'rJ'ti\. Y_Z1: at :t`Y '7-r."1.;..ir �-.+� I ^�_� '♦'.'.r.i Y �}r..i• i..1 1. =.C -C. •: ..r y fcv ♦:}:- °i"4 :. •' •F (--lr �J_..1I 1- " CAF.e''.. V. 7 •I :-- 7.`,..•7:1;----; •♦', •vim �• !V �e!.t°J•..'•, j*� •y --1 -,i'. •mil' -\'''C' ' 1 e e: 4 F. _' • 1'� ..w �, .`;a.a '•y-••;h.? j'YL:_ v :•�J. v.. rL:: .e•-•: •y �:. era �'r..11;i.•�•:i.I{"-.^�+•a: �'rr •--'mil • c •.. .L'. J": ,K' r:. sft, }a ..c sZ�.•' '... • X�ba •r.l '•''• -''rjJ?•..i�.• Y '-tat '4: fp -.r.'•.. 1..--..„ ={...1_i- ..-i-ii'.` CA.„, t - - Ir', 'I J'a • f ti-�.... ..• 1r.: : PI7. I -s-v :-• "-:1 •'f - - a 're g,;"' e. s: ► yti"4yI•s;Lrr'.!- c-% e.tiy-'�CC•i1-1t ►^�-„g-.:-s..' j1%S • - -.V 1--R;II `kite •••%.,...",:l.`;'::.`..` . -1'' Ip�.'1. ;;;;,:7`.••:•,;•‘&5• .a.T._'r• .1 µ tc: • -S i. ,•••••";-.3,:t."- . f ti t . 5...7 '.. '..5.,•e T - t • • . . '"o r•v -•.I • •C „.••••..:, a 1 -' •.Jr... 1•a �"i'.4,-7..--,..-...-- '•. •f". Y+ ' a7..r.Iv .,... :m- -P�f1�:-�T�.• f.T- '•.;* -:- • .• .f •'.1 :Pw i!r, j•:Jit .• Prune 4LC'TY 1.S•.r•,I • .....: .ni..-,F...: • C:'-.... 7,:12;,7",, ma, !]i J r.�i-5'''!i•7/.,.".W.;'i_ •e•K".� .r'l ti 21r,�.'• y3•ti :-.-:. •..:2 -(�. 1.4.:4'..:41.1 2. it ♦�i• •?-a: : I -.♦., . Y• - :-•.ti '..•l!1 r... -1:.•- ••!- -!- .•.. - -•*' : : J...1:• .. 'r."' �. .f • .•� • •!i'�• I...,• • .•,.•;.=. .. .•a'. : •: :' .`- - • JI-_•, [ill En 1 Ea Major Street_ North -South • 6 - -a Vehicle Volumes -ai t: Ad ustmei P is - . Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement El L T R U L T R U I T R L i R Priority al 10 11 12lal 7 8 9 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11111 0 ConfigurationIN all a LRism. MI TR Volume (veh/h) 30 IIII 41Ell 5 45 210 MI Percent Heavy Vehiclesmimi mi is 20all 20 20 MIN Proportion. Time Blocked MI 1111 IIII IN UM Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay..- Queue• _ Len€gth, _and Level of Service h) Flow Rate (veh/Milillall MEM 38 al II. 49 Ili IIII Capayal , all againimaismi 1007 Ma v/c Ratio 0.07 • 0.05MIN 95% Queue Length= a 02il. i MI I. 0.2 MIS Control Delay (s/reh) IIII 12.6 8.8 I. Level of Senriice (LOS)illiall Bal al MI A al Approach Delay (s eh) 12.6MIIIIIIIIIIIMI 1.5 Approach LOS Copyright © 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved, Ha 2010 TM T iSC version 6.80 TwSC1 SW Generated: 7/12/2017 3:13:02 PM __._ . .,•-._ --_. -• r ari.. C." • .% .- -.0 •Ir "r;.- .0:•04.` .. a3 -'J • - -. 4•r T.it - - ... • b-: • _ .. s- • . • . _ �- . - • ' ________ . _ _. ____ .__________ _ HCS 2010 Two -Way Stop Control Summary Report . . _. __.!. .. , . ..,..... •„,.. „yr,: . _ ..: • .. r • - • • - _ .. • •• 1 - . -• r -- . - r - - - •• . • - - • Analyst Intersection 257 - 803 Agency/Co. - Jurisdiction Date Performed 7/12/2017 East, est Street 80.5 Analysis Year 2017 - North/South Street 257 Time Analyzed EX LT AM PM Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description v .a. 4v - t r. •_ + ifffff/ffYi'•I nes • • °fr ew _ • • • ' _ • r i ' a - - - `• .fr `• - - _ . , ; _ • • •�• _ v • • R •:t 13.4 ��i f�e"G �� ti.Yr•^•' 1J4 1• '7—'•l .. nt:r1�'�n 1s r• r �4' r'4 re..a----. F.•. /. ?ti.71a-•1:'• •S'�•.`.1. r-..r.e-•4'�i1C.•-•:r�4 • I • .tt 11 115-.1.:'1‘1;72; ►�4 i'lr✓:..'1.•-i`i,,a 1f -7. - .h 4•t: rj-5•.•• ti1•�S�--=��-�,.'f•fi:...V r it• -4,- "r'. . r..;1.. 1f•Mi':i�'r 'a." t-'••} ; •r 1��: :7,- .•:•.....1.•%:,-..-,... : Lin .1-.- 1 pp _.f :.i _rte .\t J,.. rl+:,:....;77:.... a✓.4r". �I i�.G i�::ar!' . % •.'R1-'-7 {,- 1f!-Si1 i1 -w•1.5 J*' •r. .1✓ fr,Le —'i e NI r4'7'a'..... ;;;:,-.;;;.:,14-'::„.-; w-t1"i!'- f\ti 1h'f14`a •`:-• mil •`•—: r a *;: •. .�j";�tri �.ar:;.-��:�..�. -. f,-. a,:�`yS�'".T;:ir a`:>!a•a_- ✓_.• a•i •.-:7.4:2:~' r.fi-:•S-- ,.� .. J4 ♦>'[""••�: .'1i: .C:` 7 •.^h. �I-' ti 1-r~i- r`�''! 1'`�+'Y•.C G...f._-mil •' . - } r41: IL.- •r r1: - ti 4'-: it .•'$,' ti. . , R. arl i+�`. 'a• • �: r -T ----.41•,,..'l N.';‘,...;-,--- ;,... -- r5'Y(_`Ti . i • '�• .ti. s sili .,r -- *,}L;r�J7 •. •a(r ••R .144:"..:1°-..•...�__ an-.eJ.� 7. SJ /lam. O-•:7;:-.. _. i-:r ~.!C-.•.'' •: n/ i. .._r. µ '•.7 err.''•-: t1 R• I'a.._ ....":'_+1 iSr.'ti %.r r . :',c•X!r••' Y.C• •f � .{.a ...�J. L.y'.-•- 'a!4:,.. r..6:4; pi` ---,•!•-,-.1.c-••%•;•,"?.. • • k 'f -' ..''.• 7.+' rrr•,. I L. _. _.• •-!'„ • • r • ', • •• ,•r. . 0. tio -' r -• - —".1.-1...“ • +ir .r cf'•. •^. rte'• '. -..,':r • t 1•b • .,f •_3 w� iktilAill.i..nr: .. Major Street Borth -South Vehicle: Volumes -and3Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement T R U L T R U L T F. LI R la III. Priority 7 8 9 iu 1.1111 4U 4 5 6 la 10 11II I 1111 Number of Lanes 0 IIIII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0111inIli Configuration1111 ) Volume (veh/hIola a 1111 LRMIN TR1111 isimm i T 0 5 270 15 390 IIII 1III Percent Hearty VehiclesMN Proportion Time BlockedMI 20 2011.1 20 limn m . mimiiii. im im mill Right Turn Chartnelized No No o o Median Type undivided Median Storage ,.Delay, _ ueUe Lehgt - and Le_ v►el of Service Flow Rate (veh )MI 16 I. 1111 Ills 60 Imiiiii CapacityIIII la mil 592 MI 1111 1168 MIN vi£ Ratiola an 11111ill 0.10 1111 lill IN 0.01 Ilia 95% Queue Lengthlin 03Mill. 11111 IIII a 0.0 1111 Control Delay (s eh)MI Level of Service (LOS1111 11.8 IIIIM 1111 8.1 lel MI lin MO$ Ma 1111 A Illia Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.8 0,3 Approach LOS B Copyright 0 2.017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 20101IN T SC Version 5.50 General- ti General Information HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Intersection Summary Information ;�-' 'r`4 }:.:-4i Agency Duration, h 0.25 _' Analyst GC Analysis Date Nov 13, 2016 Area Type Other L. Jurisdiction Time Period PHF 0.92 - c - Urban Street Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 intersection - 257 File Name , ti I, Project Description AM PM EX SST LT l Demand Information EB WB NB _r_tistifitier SB Approach Movement L R TRIIIIIIMR L T R Demand ( v), veh'h 10 280 180 85 515 5 415 fl .,.,�a._ 30 ,_ f 5 10 Signal information �.'' [. . _:.._- - _______,. : . _ Cycle, s Reference Phase I - ,. _ _.:::: _ Offset, s 0 Reference Point Er �` 1 : SF,:.•~ �: ..{ _• - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . ,- . . . a 0.0 .'� Uncoordinated ..� Yes Simult, Gap ENV On Yellow 1/x.1.0 0.0 0. �0 0.�/'�] lao -- -0.0...._ .- _ - - _T - .__ ::$ Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 :.-5 'K . 6 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 1 6 4 8 Case Phase Number Durations 1.1 5.8 3.0 21.8 8,0 4.0 24.8 19.0 2.0 4.0 27.1 0.8 8.1 Change Perot, ( Y+R c ), s • 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5,0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Green Phase Extension Call Probability Time ( g a ), S 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0,00 0.0 0.00 Me 0M 0.00 Max Movement Out Probability Group Results 0,00 EB 0.00 0.00 _ WB 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 EMI NB. SB 0.00 Approach Movement Ea T R T RIMIT RIME T R Assigned Movement Mena 1 8 16 iggi 4 14Min 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mill 0 0 11111 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 :ME 0 0 0 0 IIIII Queue Service Time ( g s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ell 0.0 0.0 gum 0.0 0.0 gum Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g t ), s 0.0 0.0 P 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IIII 0.0 0.0 Green Ratio (gIC) 0.30 0.29 ; 0.55 0.36 0.34 0.78 0.38 0.05 0.05 Capacity ( c ) veh/h 178 541 886 409 639 ME 470 630 100 91 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio ( 0 0.061 0.563 0.110 0.220 0.885 Ell 0.959 0,000 0.027 0.180 Back of Queue ( Q), ft/In (50th percentile) 63.6 10.2 17.1 119.5 aill 232.7 6.7 5.2 ME Back Queue of Queue Storage ( Q ), vehlin Ratio ( RQ (50 th ) (50 th percentile) percentile) 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.00 0.7 4.8 0.00 a 9.3 IIIIII 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.1 ME 0.00 0.2 0.00 iss Uniform Delay ( d 1), sfveh 16.0 14.8 6.2 13.0 14.5 21.1 11.3 26.0 261 Incremental Delay ( d 2), slveh 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 Mg 31.0 0.0 MI 0.0 0.3 11111 initial Control Queue Delay Delay ( d), ( d a ), s/veh s/veh 16.1 0.0 0.0 a 0.0 6.2 13.1 0.0 0.0 15.3 In 0.0 52.0 0.0 Ens gm 0.0 26.0 0.0 26.5 fl Level of Service (LOS) B. B A BB D B 11111 C C NM Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 13.1 B 15.9 B 48.9 0 26.3 C Intersection Multimodal Delay, Results s/veh I LOS 25,5 ES WB NB C SB Pedestrian LOS Score I LOS Bicycle LOS Score / LOS Copyright 0 2017 University of Florida, All Fights Reserved. HCS 2010 TM Streets Version 6.80 Generated: 7/12/2017 2:35:36 PM HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information 0; Ac°,: c'is' lau Agency � Y Guratl�nr h 0.25 4 . , Analyst GC Analysis Date Nov 13, 2016 Area Type Other r .. Jurisdiction IIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIMI Time Period IIIIIIIIM PHF 0.92 - Urban Street Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection 14 - 25 File Name 1 . ti Project Description AM P ai LT r'L-- tl, it Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R MEM R L Iii S Ma= R Demand ( v), vehlh 15 530 355 50 340 EMI 240 Ila 75 5 10 Signal Information Cycle, s 56.0 Reference Phase 2 _ .. -:., .•'. • . Offset, s 0 Reference Point End ._ .. _ - Green 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 - , . . . `. a . _ Uncoordinated - Simult, Gap E/\ On Yellow 0.0 0.0 I • • . : 0.0 0.0 , 0.0 0.0 . . . ,.1 . Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap /S On Red 0.0 0.0 { .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I - r ,& Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT 881. SBT Assigned Phase 2 6 4 8 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1,1 4.0 2.0 4.0 6.3 Phase Duration, s 6.1 25.2 7.9 26.9 13.0 23.0 9.1 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 ME 5,0 Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NM 0.0 Queue Clearance Time (g s), ), s 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 NM 0.0 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 Mill 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L R L T S L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 5 16 rim 4 14 a 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), vehlh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IIM 0 0 1111 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ME Queue Service Time ( g s)r s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g a ), S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 II. 0.0 0.0 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.38 0,66 0.54 0.41 0.39 0.71 0.32 0.07 0.07 aggi Capacity ( c ), veh/h 395 671 864 273 727 320 MI 226 124 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.041 0.859 0.446 0,190 0.516 Ell 0.816 0.167 0.024 0.132 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft In (60th percentile) 2.6 111.3 50.1 8.4 55.3 82 17.4 a 1.6 4.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), vehlln (50th percentile) 0.1 4.4 2.0 0.3 2.2 Ma in 0.7 111.1 0.1 0.2 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) (60 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), 5/veil 11.4 13.3 7.9 12,0 10.0 Ea 22.2 13.7 24.2 24.3 all Incremental Delay ( d 2), slveh 110 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 am 3.6 0A 0.0 0.2 MIN Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), sfveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ME Control Delay ( d), slveh 11.4 14.6 8.0 12.4 10.2 um 25.8 13.7 24.2 24.5 Mil Level of Service (LOS) BB A BB B — c gm Approach Delay, slveh I LOS 12.0 B 10.5 B 22.8 C 24.4 C Intersection Delay, siveh / LOS 13.9 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Bicycle LOS Score / LOS Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, Alt Rights Reserved. HCS 20101m Streets Version 6.20 Generated: 7/12/2017 2:38:48 PM APPENDIX 0 _ _ ____ , ,.. ..,.. HCS 2010 Two -Way Stop Control -- A`..'.'!' -Y ;a •- r,.f{„ •. •. t" n 41.- -F" a . - +a - °_ 4 •: r - '_ "_ - ... _ • .e. • ••. •J'�,,.,'.. t_ '} _- P. --- -• •• - !P'•f'•1.•F7'F•}�. •~.t �ae' r_ -+■i3 vi .i P• � .)a. a• -I .r' - • f•• - s uenera •Iinorma •Analyst __ __ __. Summary Report, _ .• _ - •-vim• • - s - -•• - +• e EM - * - f• .- •.. j.{-. i E-. Site Ih Intersection 257 ^ 803 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 7/12/2017 East/West Street 80.5 Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street 257 Time Analyzed izintrii AM -' M Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-SouthW Analysis Time Period (hrs) Oa25 Project Description • • - _. '. itteilge,-- I ',.. . • = . - e ERra: •r rdi; •I a.i ... 7 ��}� . 4 !{tR'Ih:f.ri: •,f i•ce.-- T • . T F•. r �I.. Vitt..:1..;...:%i r•, a.. • y. .. . t . c.4C/41.,...:C.: t: + _I. •'+'•4 ,- is 4+• •++j`...1: ;f.••i'. 1 �•:;I.....Ja .�' ---'-.--•.:�n,•:16i.4:26 6* }.n: j+. �f•'-i. '1•�,• •.f••f�S �`-.-'.-.r J yY• e•••.1.., -...L 11: • -F -F41":• Sri. ti `Y I,_ -.-t� lam :�1,-...1..•-•".7.-Li •R•y �� r 1 ;.,; i-��•4l �liiY Mir i.V::. .e•i.-`•I•..,.. :+Sf�':....+•}ty(=L }.. •r ••4 :......cot f•. i >-=',.•--+r_ -1-:'-/..• •. ':. •••••••ft-*.•, ..n •r...':I } �,::1•9,1-t./.-,..:74.1".r.)-it••�y�-.•.� • ♦ 1),,,,, `•M'•J•. j'---., R; t•�:- .-..'4-- - •r._.!:%.-.. 5t _1f r. j. �•'• •.70 .;-j- .�-.; :r+1_.: 5" . •a_.• ? ' -•.t 1.:-S .l4 f.+!. ,. l:': ...-a . tiV di .. •-_ •-7'• iCi.2.•1-a: - 1 ,_ 4 .•i=ti/.... 1;•• f JJ• F r -. •4 i ;- c _ •� ••• •I. -/ -w,• r.y .-I .fir--?i ."•'_ =-1;•a •�14're. •+b.;'- 1.-* s_t}t. 3. 'l•. •. 1 ... -t-,..,.. ,t'•. J :1 i••.. ..'�y +�•, i-f5 i ic.:4 x,,31$3 c4' 3� 1J [at ^',_- - 1.:1: L.•. :f.:14 ..4-.'-�. \. J4; t• •...tit ti. -`S-:•.,:.,..:-.4.• -- -;.- ,C'..- .. �� : �~• :.! '..t . Y 4l+'v1•' ..� - -a .S i'�'La+<.+. l.. � i'`...•....:4,,,, 1 ..ti f l- � �:.Q-• •,• r� ..-•-mil .' • .-' •! ,I •.r. -1 •.'•1'r.'.- _.•. .. _ ..•-^. 2`1•-4. ...,_'� �k.1� Major Street North -South Vehicle Volumesi. and Adjustments • Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound T Movement IDIOM R U1111 T R U111. T R U L1111 R Priority 10 lia 12 11111 8 1 2iii 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes Mill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 o111111111 .1111 ConfigurationIIIIIIM 111111111111 LR lilt ininiiiii TR iiiiiiiiii a. Volume (veh/h) 40al iiiiiMli. 615 20 ,iiiinia:Imi Percent Heavy Vehicles1111 20 201111111 al 1111 20 IIMM Proportion Time Blocked111111111111 . Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage - r - • - .. Delay, , �, . &ie e ter, arid•' Level of Service . Flow Rate (veh/h)1111111.111111 11111111 59 60 .a Mil CapacityNI III 1311111111111111111 Ili! 1.11.1 1111 el 826 MEI v/c Ratio11.1 LIII 8P07 IIIIIIIIIIIIIN 0.191111111111.11. 95% queue Length MI 0.7al 1111 11. IIII 0,2. MI NM= limn= Control Delay (s eh) all 1.11111 191 9.7as Level of Service (LOS)all A1111 ill Approach Delay (s eh) 19.1 1.4 Approach LOS C HCS 2010 Two General- lnhorn at on -Way Stop Control Summary Report - Site Information • _ - Analyst Intersection 257 - 80.5 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 7/12/2017 East/West Street 80.5 Analysis Year 2017 a. North/South Street 257 ,- Time Analyzed EX ST LT AM PM Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis lime Period (hrs) 0.25 , Project Description • 4 Lanes -.H k •�• 'fit "::-.4-:•s v �=i • ., :_? it i.i.,r` `„ + .., i • :A11/2ie 5.. I,.' "'4 .► -.;;;",• .•.:•.. •J•:,.l r( -�w !11. •-. t.,.1,- :• F7E:gip' `,r0'' .4., 4. .' -.-}T t"r.`.•_ :•t17.',:,.�y Vii. r- a"Jy :,Cf•Jrj +ad 7:. ('' ,'-,7,1.1'.....• .•iy �.L S`y.ti.r..:r �.�k.- T•.: •,�.-,4j :S. .Ij� - et," '';:. tf:f ..i:. •• J .'-� T•.. -•:':._.`r_'• .•:-i. -.Y.;q.' F . . nn -.. - #:.�7i' •.:'..-1-':"..'' .'i'".'";.% ,. '.•.' .'-: ~ Iry t."' .r: r. 'i i.7: s :~: K..$. ?- r .ti`i �1 a i ..,A �,..z..,.;0)4:-.1Z.:74.76\ ••.... “.."-%•- 7 J, •.- :,..7. � :. ��f` j • •:";", `t".•'t1 �_+.-'.'.lti_' ... !a-�.Z'.:-'.1','\;k.�-.1 �It't-r'- 1 •G..cr d .1.':`rn-rr+r..,-:±Ze'... 6:,ham••J f.+.+'•^. .. z•.w.~•'[:r .•-•7_. MY.:"' L • c.; ....Jr.'''.' '-,f ;•: • -1...>.::i X' 4fin y. S ��1FL t[" - fir .•. ; ,1•. !r •�S1 �•-"%'.L •a-.�,:��`f ( 4� + �y .. a'•.7Tiii.r'T.1y'}'f-J+/1.-1.ylrr:s...e40.'"`.!i'!/.'4•.fi•r •5.1./AO :`r(b It b y_ • .•(yam -',z . _. - .t, . -' � - ,. ,.i .: �. • 'J �'�-•• Jr}: �~ ter. i': _ r . •P- • `'-•"•"'••,� ` - .: . .ti;:- . ;? :• br •..•'sgilailla ip at;• i h � � Major Street North -South • =� Vehicle Volumes andadjusttents Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement Li L T RIIIIIIIIIII I R Uiiiiiii R Ualio Priority 10 Inn III Ell ° 8 9 1U aimmimmi 4U 4111111 6 6 Number of Lanes 1111 0 0 0 0 a0 :0 0 0 0lin 0 0 1111 11111111 ConfigurationM unii. . IliTR T Volume (veh/h) e 395 10 20 570 MEI 15 50 mil Percent Heavy VehiclesMIN 61.. IIII 20 20 la 20 LIM Proportion Time BlockedIIII 1111 1111 Right Turn Channelized No No Nc No Median Type YP I Undivided Median Storage ,. Delay, Queue Length, and Level of • ervice Flow Rate (veh/h) imi 70 Ill , Capacity ME.1031 1.1 v/c Ratioall 11111111 0.17 IIIIIIIII 0.02 95°l Queue Length MI III 0,611111 1111 0.1 Control Delay (s}veh)is ilmi ea 8.6 Level of Service (LOS)ail am A imi 15.3 03 Approach Delay (s eh)IIIIIIIIIIIMI Approach LOS C HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results - -- Summary --- -- ---- General Information Intersection Information Li 4 Q4.-irq-` ' Agency Duration, h 1x.25 �' - -•-t- _ Analyst GC Analysis Date Nov 137 2016'--- tj Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PHF 0.92 T Urban Street Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 } -; .. Intersection 1- 257 File Name `l' _ . 11 Project Demand Description Information AM PM EX ST EB \i'VB NB its; L, SB .t-tr ri _ Approach Movement L T R T R L R L T R Demand ( v), vehlh 10 380 250 700 5 600 - 45 �. 5 5 15 irral Information _ - r,:..-- , - --: - Cycle, s 68.8 Deference Phase •,: ,+• .. LL s -•.',Ofset, Reference Point End r ;.. 0.9 3.8 26_5 14.5 4,0 0.0 - ..- ::... _ •�. 1 t- "~;1.• _ . Uncoordinated Force Mode Fixed Yes Simult. Simult. Gap Gap Env On N/ On Yellow Red 4.0 1.0 0,0 0,0 4.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 -_-.i. 5 r- ,. -- . : a - :- Timer Results EEL EBT VVBL ' BT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 - 6 7 4 8 Case Number 1.1 3,0 1.1 4.0 2.0 4.0 6.3 Phase Duration, s 5.9 31.5 9.7 35.3 18_5 i 9.0 Change Period, ( Y -FR c), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway ( MALI), s 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.3 Queue Clearance Time ( gs), s 2.2 12.5 5.0 27.9 14.4 3.6 `` 2.9 Green Extension Time ( g e )7 s 0.0 2.5 0.1 2A 0.2 0.1 0.1 Phase Call Probability 0.10 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 0.79 Max Movement Out Probability Group Results 0.00 EB 0,00 0.00 WB 0.02 1.00 NB 0.00 SB 0.00 Approach Movement T R L T R L T RIMIIIIIII R Assigned Movement 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 a a 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 11 413 54 136 766 652 54 1.1 22 MIE 1863 1610 1310 1860 1757 1635 MEI Ea 1674 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), vehfh/ln 1810 Queue Service Time ( gs), s 0.2 10,5 1.0 3.0 25.9 12.4 1.6 0.3 .. R 0.9 IIII Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g a), s 0.2 10.5 1.0 3,0 25.9 12.4 1.6 0.3 0,9 EN Green Ratio ( g/C) 0.40 0.39 0.60 0.47 0.44 0.65 0.33 0.06 1 0.06 Capacity ( a ), vehlh 155 719 962 449 821 743 sia 183 ; 96 la Volume-tc Capacity Ratio 0.575 - 0.056 0.302 0.933 0.877 0.102 0.030 0.226 (X)._ 0.070 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/In (50 th percentile) 2.3 85.7 6.1 25.4 193.4 147.1 13.9 2,1 8.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In (50th percentile) 0.1 3.4 0.2 1.0 7.7 5.9 0.6 0.1 0.3 - - - Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) (50 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 j. 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), slveh 16.8 i 12.8 5.8 11.7 nil 26.3 16.1 30.74 31.0 Incremental Delay ( d 2 )r s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 7.8 MN 10,0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3), slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d), sAveh 16.8 5.8 11.8 Enimm 36.8 16.2 30.7 31,4 Level of Service (LOS) B B A Biel D B C till Approach Delay, s/veh I LOB 12.3 B 19,7 B 35.3 D 31.3 C Intersection Multimodal Delay, Results sfveh / LOS 23.4 EB 'U NB C SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOB lila Bicycle LOB Score / LOS Copyright © 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 20101M Streets Version 6,80 Generated: 71/2/2017 1:12:26 PM General Information HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Intersection Summary Information :TAI '+ 1,4 .14,1 a Agency Duration, h 0.25 4L Analyst GO Analysis Date Nov 13 2016 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period PHF 0.92 : - - ' - Urban I Street Analysis Year Analysis Period 1> 7:00 - Intersection 14 - 257 File Name Project Description AM FM EX .� LT nit r-tY_tr. I Demand Information EB \ B NB SB Approach Movement L ' T R T R L T R L T R Demand Signal Information ( v), veh/h 15 : 530 355 50 34O 240 laillEM T male ,�..•�_�, . 1 - a Cycle, s 48.0 Reference Phase ! = ;- - t Offset, s 0 Reference Point End .. �`- Green 10.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.r :� -. . .,. , . Uncoordinated Yes -- - Simult. Gap EM! On Yellow 10.0 � 0.0 C�.O 0.0 � a.t� �.(� �� s6 -�� ;. :: .� • � 4 �}J _ Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i .'�' ... Timer Results EBL EBT WBL VVBT NBL NBT SBL ...._,..pa. SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 6 7 4 8 Case Number 1.1 3,0 4.0 1.0 4.0 6.3 Phase Duration, s 0.0 22.3 7,6 23.9 9.2 18,1 8,8 - Change Period, ( 'OR c ), 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), a 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _ 0.0 Phase Call Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Max Movement Out Probability Group Results 0.00 EB 0,00 0.00 'R 0.00 B 0.00 NB 0.00 SB 0.00 Approach Movement L T- L T R T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2NEN e 6 16 4 14 3 8 18 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), vehill/In 0 0 0 . 0 0 O 0 O 0 Queue Service Time ( g s), s 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g c), s 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 _ Green Ratio ( glC ) 0.38 036 0.47 0,42 0.39 0.23 0.27 0.08 0.08 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 416 673 312 733 Mil 887 443 256 136 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio ( ) 0.039 0.857 0.222 0.174 0.512 0.294 0.196 MIE 0.021 0.120 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln (50 th percentile) 2 87.8 17.7 6.4 42.4 MI 25.2 15.4 MN 1.3 3.9 Back of Queue ( Q ), vehlin (50 th percentile) 0.1 3.5 0.7 0.3 1.7 1.0 0.6 MO 0.1 0.2 Queue Storage Ratio ( FAQ ) (5O th percentile) 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 all 0.00 000 a 0,00 0.00 Uniforni Delay ( d 1), slveh 0.7 11.4 7.5 10,4 8.4 15.4 13.4 IIIII 20.4 20.5 Incremental Delany ( d 2), sfveh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), sfveh _ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _0.0_ 0.0 0.0 Co ntrol D elay ( d ), s/veh 9.7 12.0 7.6 10.5 8.6 15.5 13,5 20.4 20.7 Level of Service (LOS) A B A B A B B C C 1111 Approach Delay, siveh' LOS 11.4 B 0.0 I A 15.0 B 20.6 C Intersection Multimodal Delay, Results slveh / LOS --- EB 11.6 WB NB B -- SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Mil =111111 Bicycle LOS Score 1 LOS Copyright C 2017 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved, HCS 2010Thi Streets Version 6.80 Generated: 7/12/2017 1:05:39 PM Hello