HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE LYRIC CINEMA CAFE - FDP - FDP160036 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORTAugust 24, 2016
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR
LYRIC CINEMA
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
Lyric Cinema Café
300 E. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Prepared by:
301 N. Howes, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
Project Number: 1089-001
This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF.
Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety.
When a hard copy is absolutely necessary, we recommend double-sided printing.
August 24, 2016
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
LYRIC CINEMA
Dear Staff:
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your
review. This report accompanies the Final Plan submittal for the proposed Lyric Cinema
development.
This report has been prepared in accordance to Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM),
and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed project. We
understand that review by the City is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria
contained in the FCSCM.
If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
Aaron Cvar, PE
Senior Project Engineer
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................... 1
A. Location ............................................................................................................................................. 1
B. Description of Property ..................................................................................................................... 2
C. Floodplain.......................................................................................................................................... 3
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ....................................................................... 4
A. Major Basin Description .................................................................................................................... 4
B. Sub-Basin Description ....................................................................................................................... 4
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................... 4
A. Regulations........................................................................................................................................ 4
B. Four Step Process .............................................................................................................................. 5
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ............................................................................ 5
D. Hydrological Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6
E. Hydraulic Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 6
F. Modifications of Criteria ................................................................................................................... 6
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .................................................................................... 6
A. General Concept ............................................................................................................................... 6
B. Specific Details .................................................................................................................................. 7
V. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 8
A. Compliance with Standards .............................................................................................................. 8
B. Drainage Concept .............................................................................................................................. 8
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations, Offsite Drainage Exhibit and Computations
APPENDIX B - USDA Soils Information
APPENDIX C - SWMM Modeling; Detention Computations
APPENDIX D - Inlet Computations
APPENDIX E - Storm Line Computations
APPENDIX F - LID Information
APPENDIX G – Erosion Control Report
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3 – Existing Floodplains ............................................................................................. 4
MAP POCKET:
Proposed Drainage Exhibit
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report 1
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
1. Vicinity Map
2. The project site is located in the southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 7 North,
Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer,
State of Colorado.
3. The project site is located at 1209 N. College Avenue, just south of the intersection of
College Avenue and Conifer St.
4. The project site lies within the Dry Creek Basin. Onsite detention is required for the
runoff volume difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the basin
allowable discharge rate of 0.2 cfs per acre. Additionally, the site must provide water
quality treatment. Water quality treatment methods are proposed for the site, and are
described in further detail below.
5. As this is an infill site, much of the area surrounding the site is fully developed.
6. Offsite flows enter the site from the west and south. Offsite runoff peak flow rates
have been calculated, and an offsite drainage basin exhibit is provided in Appendix A.
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report 2
B. Description of Property
1. The development area is roughly 1.6 net acres.
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph
2. The subject property is currently composed of existing buildings, and landscaped
areas. Existing ground slopes are mild to moderate (i.e., 1 - 6±%) through the
interior of the property. General topography slopes from northwest to southeast.
3. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey website:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx,
the site consists of Nunn Clay Loam, which falls into Hydrologic Soil Group C.
4. The proposed project site plan is composed of the development of a commercial
building and amenities. Associated site work, water, and sewer lines will be
constructed with the development. Onsite detention water quality treatment is
proposed and will consist of several features which are discussed in Section IV,
below.
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report 3
Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan
5. There are no known irrigation laterals crossing the site.
6. The proposed land use is commercial.
C. Floodplain
1. The project site is not encroached by any City designated or FEMA 100-year
floodplain.
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report 4
Figure 3 –Area Floodplain Mapping
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
1. The project site lies within the Dry Creek Basin. Detention requirement for this basin
are to release at or below the allowable runoff rate of 0.20 cfs per acre, calculated at
0.33 cfs for this site. As discussed further in this report, there is a small amount of
area that releases undetained from the site, and is compensated for in the overall site
release rate. An existing storm line in N. College Avenue will serve as the outfall for
the proposed detention pond.
B. Sub-Basin Description
1. The subject property historically drains overland from northwest to southeast. Runoff
from the majority of the site has historically been collected in N. College Avenue
Avenue and directed into the storm system running along the eastern boundary of the
site within N. College Avenue Right of Way.
2. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns is provided below.
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Regulations
There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the proposed
project.
SITE
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report 5
B. Four Step Process
The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the proposed project utilizes
the “Four Step Process” to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters.
The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each
step.
Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices
Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development to facilitate the
reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the
current use by implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID) strategies including:
Conserving existing amenities in the site including the existing vegetated areas.
Providing vegetated open areas throughout the site to reduce the overall impervious
area and to minimize directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA).
Routing flows, to the extent feasible, through vegetated swales to increase time of
concentration, promote infiltration and provide initial water quality.
Step 2 – Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with
Slow Release
The efforts taken in Step 1 will facilitate the reduction of runoff; however, urban
development of this intensity will still generate stormwater runoff that will require
additional BMPs and water quality. The majority of stormwater runoff from the site will
ultimately be intercepted and treated using detention and LID treatment methods prior to
exiting the site.
Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways
There are no major drainageways within the subject property. While this step may not
seem applicable to proposed development, the project indirectly helps achieve stabilized
drainageways nonetheless. By providing water quality treatment, where none previously
existed, sediment with erosion potential is removed from downstream drainageway
systems. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as
well as ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City-wide
drainageway stability.
Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs.
The proposed project will improve upon site specific source controls compared to historic
conditions:
The proposed development will provide LID and water quality treatment; thus,
eliminating sources of potential pollution previously left exposed to weathering and
runoff processes.
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The subject property is surrounded by currently developed properties. Thus, several
constraints have been identified during the course of this analysis that will impact the
proposed drainage system including:
Existing elevations along the property lines will generally be maintained.
As previously mentioned, overall drainage patterns of the existing site will be
maintained.
Elevations of existing downstream facilities that the subject property will release to
will be maintained.
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report 6
D. Hydrological Criteria
1. The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in
Figure RA-16 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations
associated with the proposed development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7
has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations.
2. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing
coefficients contained in Tables RO-11 and RO-12 of the FCSCM.
3. Three separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage
scenarios. A fourth design storm has also been computed for comparison purposes.
The first design storm considered is the 80th percentile rain event, which has been
employed to design the project’s water quality features. The second event analyzed is
the “Minor,” or “Initial” Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The third
event considered is the “Major Storm,” which has a 100-year recurrence interval.
The fourth storm computed, for comparison purposes only, is the 10-year event.
4. No other assumptions or calculation methods have been used with this development
that are not referenced by current City of Fort Collins criteria.
E. Hydraulic Criteria
1. As previously noted, the subject property maintains historic drainage patterns.
2. All drainage facilities proposed with the project are designed in accordance with
criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
(UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
3. As stated above, the subject property is located in a City designated floodplain. The
proposed project does not propose to modify any natural drainageways.
F. Modifications of Criteria
1. The proposed development is not requesting any modifications to criteria at this time.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concept
1. The main objectives of the project drainage design are to maintain existing drainage
patterns, and to ensure no adverse impacts to any adjacent properties.
2. LID treatment will be provided in the bottom of the detention pond, as discussed
further below. Water quality treatment conforming to porous landscape detention
(PLD) criteria will be provided within the proposed pond.
3. Drainage patterns anticipated for drainage basins shown in the Drainage Exhibit are
described below.
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report 7
Basin 1
Basin 1 will generally drain via overland flow and parking lot curb and gutter into the
proposed detention and LID feature located on the west side of the site. A porous
landscape detention (PLD) basin will be incorporated in the bottom stage of the
proposed detention pond and will satisfy the onsite LID treatment requirement. Please
see further discussion of water quality and LID features in Section IV.B, below.
Basin 2
Basin 2 will generally drain via sheet flow into a series of area drains as shown on the
Drainage Exhibit. The drain system will daylight to the proposed PLD feature located
on the west side of the site.
Basins 3 through 5
Basins 3 and 4 will generally drain via sheet flow into the adjacent N. College Avenue.
Basin 5 will be captured by the onsite storm drain system and be conveyed via storm
sewer to the existing N. College Avenue storm system. This undetained runoff will be
compensated for in the release rate of the detention pond as discussed below.
Basin OS1
Basin OS1 consists primarily of offsite areas to the south and west of the site that do
drain onto the site. An offsite drainage basin exhibit is provided in Appendix A, along
with offsite runoff calculations. We have calculated 17.4 cfs in a 100-year event,
which will enter the site and be directed into the detention pond. A spill structure will
be designed at Final, which will allow for this flow to overtop the onsite control
structure and enter the pond outfall pipe. The outfall pipe will discharge to the
existing 30-inch storm line in N. College Avenue. A SWMM model of onsite plus
offsite areas is provided in Appendix C, which shows that the attenuation which will
occur with the proposed pond causes the peak offsite flow to be reduced to 8.8 cfs as
it is released through the spill structure.
A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of
this report.
B. Specific Details
1. A detention basin is proposed in the west portion of the site and will detain up
to the 100-year storm event and release at or below the allowable (for Dry
Creek Basin) runoff rate of 0.20 cfs per acre, calculated at 0.33 cfs.
Compensation for undetained runoff from Basins 3 and 4 (100-year combined
runoff = 0.29 cfs), results in an allowable release rate of 0.04 cfs. The pond
will detain 0.37 acre-feet in a 100-year event, per the onsite SWMM modeling
provided in Appendix C.
2. A porous landscape detention (PLD) holding cell is proposed as the primary
LID treatment method for the site. The PLD will provide standard 12-hour
porous landscape detention (PLD) treatment. The PLD basin will be
incorporated in the bottom stage of the proposed detention pond and will
satisfy the onsite LID treatment requirement of as close as possible to 100% of
the site, specific to this project as agreed to in discussions with City of Fort
Collins Stormwater Utility staff. The PLD will provide 1616 cubic feet of
storage, based on a 12-hour holding time. A small portion of the site (Basins 3
and 4, totaling 0.03 acre) does drain offsite into N. College Avenue.
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report 8
3. With the PLD being located in the bottom stage of the detention pond, we are
deviating from the typical requirement of elevating the treatment area above
the normal operating level of the detention pond. This has been discussed
with Stormwater Staff, and due to the unique nature and desired use of the
pond area as an amphitheater, we have worked out this as a solution. The
paved area draining into the PLD is relatively minimal (0.34 acre), and there
will be concentrated landscaping of the remaining areas draining into the PLD.
The PLD is in a high visibility and high pedestrian traffic zone. Maintenance of
the PLD area will naturally be very frequent and intensive, as this area will be
the Lyric Cinemas’ amphitheater.
4. Final design details, and construction documentation shall be provided to the
City of Fort Collins for review prior to Final Development Plan approval.
5. Stormwater facility Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) will be provided by
the City of Fort Collins in the Development Agreement.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with Standards
1. The drainage design proposed with the proposed project complies with the City of Fort
Collins’ Stormwater Criteria Manual.
2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with requirements for the Old
Town Basin.
3. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the
proposed development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations
governing stormwater discharge.
B. Drainage Concept
1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential
damage associated with its stormwater runoff by providing detention and water
quality mitigation features.
2. The drainage concept for the proposed development is consistent with requirements
for the Old Town Basin.
Lyric Cinema
Final Drainage Report 9
References
1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No.
174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code.
2. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and
Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007.
3. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
4. Old Town Master Drainage Plan, Baseline Hydraulics, Volume II, Anderson Consulting,
July 15, 2003.
5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008.
APPENDIX A
HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS
CHARACTER OF SURFACE: Runoff
Coefficient
Percentage
Impervious Project: 1089-001
Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Calculations By: ATC
Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….………………………………….. 0.95 100% Date:
Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………………………0.95 90%
Gravel ……….…………………….….…………………………..……………………………….. 0.50 40%
Roofs …….…….………………..……………….…………………………………………….. 0.95 90%
Lawns Pavers………………………….and Landscaping ..………………..…………………………………………….. 0.40 22%
Sandy Soil ……..……………..……………….…………………………………………….. 0.15 0%
Clayey Soil ….….………….…….…………..………………………………………………. 0.25 0% 2-year Cf = 1.00 100-year Cf
= 1.25
Basin ID Basin Area
(s.f.)
Basin Area
(ac)
Area of
Asphalt
(ac)
Area of
Concrete
(ac)
Area of
Roofs
(ac)
Area of
Gravel
(ac)
Area of
Lawn, Rain
Garden, or
Landscaping
(ac)
2-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
10-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
100-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
Composite
% Imperv.
1 2 56628 12632 1.0.30 29 0.0.35 00 0.0.15 01 0.0.12 11 0.0.00 02 0.0.68 15 0.0.58 51 0.0.58 51 0.0.73 64 45.40.4% 2%
3 4 378 963 0.0.01 02 0.0.00 018 0.0.00 002 0.0.00 000 0.0.005 000 0.0.003 002 0.0.09 89 0.0.09 89 0.1.12 00 25.90.0% 6%
OS1 5 153517 871 0.3.02 52 0.0.00 82 0.0.01 30 0.0.00 17 0.0.00 00 0.2.01 23 0.0.50 51 0.0.50 51 0.0.62 63 31.35.6% 3%
Historic Site 70601 1.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 0.25 0.25 0.31 0.0%
COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS
Runoff Coefficients are taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, Table 3-3. % Impervious taken from UDFCD USDCM, Volume I.
10-year Cf = 1.00
8/22/16
Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:
Project: 1089-001
Calculations By:
Date:
Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration:
Tt = L / 60V
Tc = Ti + T
t (Equation RO-2)
Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S½
Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S½
NOTE: C-value for overland flows over grassy surfaces; C = 0.25
Is Length
>500' ?
C*Cf
(2-yr
Cf=1.00)
C*Cf
(10-yr
Cf=1.00)
C*Cf
(100-yr
Cf=1.25)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Ti
2-yr
(min)
Ti
10-yr
(min)
Ti
100-yr
(min)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
2-yr
Rational Method Equation: Project: 1089-001
Calculations By:
Date:
From Section 3.2.1 of the CFCSDDC
Rainfall Intensity:
1 1 1.30 8 8 7 0.58 0.58 0.73 2.46 4.21 8.80 1.86 3.18 8.33
2 2 0.29 8 8 8 0.51 0.51 0.64 2.40 4.10 8.59 0.36 0.61 1.60
3 3 0.009 7 7 6 0.09 0.09 0.12 2.60 4.44 9.31 0.00 0.00 0.009
4 4 0.022 9 9 8 0.89 0.89 1.00 2.35 4.02 8.38 0.05 0.08 0.185
5 5 0.020 11 11 11 0.50 0.50 0.62 2.13 3.63 7.57 0.02 0.04 0.094
OS1 OS1 3.52 27 27 26 0.51 0.51 0.63 1.37 2.34 4.93 2.44 4.17 10.98
Historic Site Historic Site 1.62 35 35 32 0.25 0.25 0.31 1.18 2.02 4.33 0.48 0.82 2.19
RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS
Design C100
Point
Flow,
(Q100 cfs)
Flow,
(cfs) Q2
10-yr
(min) Tc
2-yr
(min) Tc
C2
Flow,
(Q10 cfs)
Intensity,
(in/i100 hr)
Basin(s)
ATC
8/22/16
Intensity,
(in/i10 hr)
Rainfall Intensity taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria (CFCSDDC), Figure 3.1
Area, A C10
(acres)
Intensity,
(in/i2 hr)
100-yr
(min) Tc
Q C f C i A
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF
Figure RO-1—Estimate of Average Overland Flow Velocity for Use With the Rational Formula
2007-01 RO-13
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF
Table RO-3—Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Values
Land Use or
Surface Characteristics
Percentage
Imperviousness
Business:
Commercial areas 95
Neighborhood areas 85
Residential:
Single-family *
Multi-unit (detached) 60
Multi-unit (attached) 75
Half-acre lot or larger *
Apartments 80
Industrial:
Light areas 80
Heavy areas 90
Parks, cemeteries 5
Playgrounds 10
Schools 50
Railroad yard areas 15
Undeveloped Areas:
Historic flow analysis 2
Greenbelts, agricultural 2
Off-site flow analysis
(when land use not defined)
45
Streets:
Paved 100
Gravel (packed) 40
Drive and walks 90
Roofs 90
Lawns, sandy soil 0
Lawns, clayey soil 0
* See Figures RO-3 through RO-5 for percentage imperviousness.
C A = K A + ( 1 . 31 i 3 − 1 . 44 i 2 + 1 . 135 i − 0 . 12 ) for CA ≥ 0, otherwise CA = 0 (RO-6)
C CD = K CD + ( 0 . 858 i 3 − 0 . 786 i 2 + 0 . 774 i + 0 . 04 ) (RO-7)
C B = (CA + C CD ) 2
2007-01 RO-9
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF
Table RO-5— Runoff Coefficients, C
Percentage
Imperviousness Type C and D NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups
2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr
0% 0.04 0.15 0.25 0.37 0.44 0.50
5% 0.08 0.18 0.28 0.39 0.46 0.52
10% 0.11 0.21 0.30 0.41 0.47 0.53
15% 0.14 0.24 0.32 0.43 0.49 0.54
20% 0.17 0.26 0.34 0.44 0.50 0.55
25% 0.20 0.28 0.36 0.46 0.51 0.56
30% 0.22 0.30 0.38 0.47 0.52 0.57
35% 0.25 0.33 0.40 0.48 0.53 0.57
40% 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.50 0.54 0.58
45% 0.31 0.37 0.44 0.51 0.55 0.59
50% 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.57 0.60
55% 0.37 0.43 0.48 0.55 0.58 0.62
60% 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.57 0.60 0.63
65% 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.59 0.62 0.65
70% 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.62 0.65 0.68
75% 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.68 0.71
80% 0.60 0.63 0.66 0.70 0.72 0.74
85% 0.66 0.68 0.71 0.75 0.77 0.79
90% 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.83
95% 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.88 0.89
100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96
TYPE B NRCS HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP
0% 0.02 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.30 0.35
5% 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.28 0.33 0.38
10% 0.06 0.14 0.22 0.31 0.36 0.40
15% 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.38 0.42
20% 0.12 0.20 0.27 0.35 0.40 0.44
25% 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.41 0.46
30% 0.18 0.25 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.47
35% 0.20 0.27 0.34 0.41 0.44 0.48
40% 0.23 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50
45% 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.48 0.51
50% 0.29 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.49 0.52
55% 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.51 0.54
60% 0.37 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.54 0.56
65% 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.57 0.59
70% 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.58 0.60 0.62
75% 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.64 0.66
80% 0.57 0.59 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.70
85% 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.75
90% 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.81
95% 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88
100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96
2007-01 RO-11
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
RUNOFF DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1)
TABLE RO-5 (Continued)—Runoff Coefficients, C
Percentage
Imperviousness Type A NRCS Hydrologic Soils Group
2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr
0% 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.20
5% 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.24
10% 0.00 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.24 0.28
15% 0.02 0.10 0.17 0.23 0.27 0.30
20% 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.26 0.30 0.33
25% 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.29 0.32 0.35
30% 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.34 0.37
35% 0.16 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.36 0.39
40% 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.38 0.41
45% 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.37 0.40 0.43
50% 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.45
55% 0.29 0.33 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.47
60% 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.47 0.50
65% 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.53
70% 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.54 0.56
75% 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.61
80% 0.54 0.56 0.60 0.63 0.64 0.66
85% 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.70 0.72
90% 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.79
95% 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.86
100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96
RO-12 2007-01
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF
Figure RO-3— Watershed Imperviousness, Single-Family Residential Ranch Style Houses
2007-01 RO-15
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
RUNOFF DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1)
Figure RO-4—Watershed Imperviousness, Single-Family Residential Split-Level Houses
RO-16 2007-01
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF
Figure RO-5—Watershed Imperviousness, Single-Family Residential Two-Story Houses
Figure RO-6—Runoff Coefficient, C, vs. Watershed Percentage Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic
Soil Group A
2007-01 RO-17
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
RUNOFF DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1)
Figure RO-7—Runoff Coefficient, C, vs. Watershed Percentage Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic
Soil Group B
Figure RO-8—Runoff Coefficient, C, vs. Watershed Percentage Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic
Soil Groups C and D
RO-18 2007-01
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
WATER UUUSDA APPENDIX SOILS INFORMATION B
United States
Department of
Agriculture
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
Larimer County
Natural Area, Colorado
Resources
Conservation
Service
March 14, 2016
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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For
more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_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 NRCS 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 alternative means
2
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 Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................7
Soil Map................................................................................................................8
Legend..................................................................................................................9
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................10
Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................10
Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................12
73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................12
References............................................................................................................14
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
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
5
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
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
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.
7
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4494600 4494610 4494620 4494630 4494640 4494650 4494660 4494670 4494680 4494690
4494600 4494610 4494620 4494630 4494640 4494650 4494660 4494670 4494680 4494690
493370 493380 493390 493400 493410 493420 493430 493440 493450 493460 493470 493480 493490 493500 493510 493520
493370 493380 493390 493400 493410 493420 493430 493440 493450 493460 493470 493480 493490 493500 493510 493520
40° 36' 11'' N
105° 4' 42'' W
40° 36' 11'' N
105° 4' 35'' W
40° 36' 7'' N
105° 4' 42'' W
40° 36' 7'' N
105° 4' 35'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0 35 70 140 210
Feet
0 10 20 40 60
Meters
Map Scale: 1:728 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
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
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
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: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
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
Map Unit Legend
Larimer County Area, Colorado (CO644)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes
2.1 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 2.1 100.0%
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 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.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
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.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
Larimer County Area, Colorado
73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tlng
Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 152 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Nunn
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and
sedimentary rock and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam
Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam
Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam
Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam
Bk1 - 31 to 47 inches: loam
Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 7 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 0.5
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO)
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
Minor Components
Heldt
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO)
Wages
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO)
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
14
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
APPENDIX C
SWMM MODELING; DETENTION COMPUTATIONS
EPA SWMM MODEL
Onsite Basin Routing
EPA ----STORM ------WATER ------MANAGEMENT -----------MODEL ------- --VERSION --------5.--0 --(-Build ------5.--0.--015) ----
*********************************************************
NOTE: based The on results summary found statistics at every displayed computational in this time report step, are
not ****just *****on ***results ********from *****each *****reporting **********time *****step. ************
****************
Analysis *********Options *******
Flow Process Units Models: ............... CFS
Rainfall/Snowmelt Runoff ...................... . YES NO
Groundwater Flow Routing ...................... . NO YES
Infiltration Water Quality Method ............... . NO HORTON
Flow Starting Routing Date Method ................. . KINWAVE NOV-21-2012 00:00:00
Ending Antecedent Date Dry ....Days ............... . NOV-0.0 21-2012 06:00:00
Report Wet Time Time Step Step .................... . 00:00:15:05:00 00
Dry Routing Time Time Step Step ................... . 01:30.00:00 00 sec
*Runoff *******Quantity *********Continuity ********* acre-Volume feet inches Depth
*Total ******Precipitation **************.*.*.*.*.* . -----0.--486 -- ---3.--669 --
Evaporation Infiltration Loss Loss ................ . 0.0.000 107 0.0.000 805
Surface Final Surface Runoff Storage .............. . 0.0.376 006 2.0.841 044
Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.565
************************** Volume Volume
Flow *****Routing ********Continuity ************* acre------feet ---- -10^---6 --gal ---
Dry Wet Weather Weather Inflow Inflow ............. . 0.0.000 377 0.0.000 123
Groundwater RDII Inflow Inflow .................... . 0.0.000 000 0.0.000 000
External External Inflow Outflow .................. . 0.0.000 018 0.0.000 006
Internal Evaporation Outflow Loss ................. . 0.0.000 000 0.0.000 000
Initial Final Stored Stored Volume Volume ......... . 0.0.000 359 0.0.000 117
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.013
********************************
Highest ********Flow *****Instability ************Indexes *******
All links are stable.
*************************
Routing ********Time *****Step *****Summary *******
Minimum Average Time Time Step Step : : 30.30.00 00 sec sec
Maximum Percent Time in Steady Step State : : 30.0.00 00 sec
SWMM 5 Page 1
Average Iterations per Step : 1.00
***************************
Subcatchment *************Runoff *******Summary *******
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precip Total Total Runon Total Evap Total Infil Runoff Total Runoff Total Runoff Peak Runoff Coeff
Subcatchment ---------------------------in ---------in ---------in ---------in ---------in ------10^---6 --gal ---------CFS -----------
Onsite1 ------------------------3.--669 -------0.--000 -------0.--000 -------0.--805 -------2.--841 ----------0.--123 ------11.---743 ------0.--774 -
System 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.805 2.841 0.123 11.743 0.774
******************
Node *****Depth ******Summary *******
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Depth Maximum Depth Maximum HGL Time Occurrence of Max
Node ---------------------Type -------------Feet ---------Feet ---------Feet ------days -----hr:---min ---
JCT1 Exist_Storm JUNCTION OUTFALL 0.0.05 00 0.0.31 00 98.96.31 00 0 0 00:00:40 00
P1 STORAGE 2.88 3.28 100.28 0 02:19
*******************
Node *****InFlow *******Summary *******
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Lateral Maximum Total Time of Max Lateral Inflow Inflow Total
Node Type Inflow CFS Inflow CFS days Occurrence hr:min 10^Volume 6 gal 10^Volume 6 gal
-JCT1 ---------------------JUNCTION -------------11.---74 ------11.---74 -------0 ---00:---40 ---------0.--123 ----------0.--123 --
Exist_P1 Storm OUTFALL STORAGE 0.0.00 00 11.0.04 74 0 0 02:00:19 40 0.0.000 000 0.0.006 123
*Node *****Surcharge **********Summary ******
**********************
No nodes were surcharged.
*********************
Node *****Flooding *********Summary *******
No nodes were flooded.
*Storage ********Volume *******Summary ******
**********************
------------------------Average ------------Avg ----------Maximum ------------Max -------Time -----of ---Max -------Maximum ------
Storage Unit 1000 Volume ft3 Pcnt Full 1000 Volume ft3 Pcnt Full days Occurrence hr:min Outflow CFS
-P1 ------------------------13.---561 ---------10 ----------16.---151 ---------12 ---------0 ---02:---19 ---------0.--04 -
SWMM 5 Page 2
*Outfall ********Loading ********Summary ******
***********************
-----------------------Flow -----------Avg. ----------Max. -----------Total ----
Outfall Node Freq. Pcnt. Flow CFS Flow CFS 10^Volume 6 gal
-Exist_------Storm ----------------96.---95 --------0.--04 --------0.--04 ---------0.--006 --
-System ----------------------96.---95 --------0.--04 --------0.--04 ---------0.--006 --
*Link *****Flow *****Summary *********
********************
--------------------------------Maximum ---------Time -----of ---Max ------Maximum -----------Max/ --------Max/ ---
Link Type |Flow| CFS days Occurrence hr:min Velocity ft/sec Full Flow Depth Full
-CONV1 ---------------------CONDUIT ------------11.---74 -------0 ---00:---40 -------16.---26 ------0.--00 ------0.--03 -
OUT1 DUMMY 0.04 0 02:19
*************************
Conduit ********Surcharge **********Summary *******
No conduits were surcharged.
Analysis Analysis begun ended on: on: Mon Mon Aug Aug 22 22 14:14:44:44:04 04 2016 2016
Total elapsed time: < 1 sec
SWMM 5 Page 3
Node P1 Volume
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Volume (ft3)
18000.0
16000.0
14000.0
12000.0
10000.0
8000.0
6000.0
4000.0
2000.0
0.0
SWMM 5 Page 1
Link OUT1 Flow
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Flow (CFS)
0.04
0.02
0.0
SWMM 5 Page 1
EPA SWMM MODEL
Onsite plus Offsite Basin Routing
EPA ----STORM ------WATER ------MANAGEMENT -----------MODEL ------- --VERSION --------5.--0 --(-Build ------5.--0.--015) ----
*********************************************************
NOTE: based The on results summary found statistics at every displayed computational in this time report step, are
not ****just *****on ***results ********from *****each *****reporting **********time *****step. ************
****************
Analysis *********Options *******
Flow Process Units Models: ............... CFS
Rainfall/Snowmelt Runoff ...................... . YES NO
Groundwater Flow Routing ...................... . NO YES
Infiltration Water Quality Method ............... . NO HORTON
Flow Starting Routing Date Method ................. . KINWAVE NOV-21-2012 00:00:00
Ending Antecedent Date Dry ....Days ............... . NOV-0.0 21-2012 06:00:00
Report Wet Time Time Step Step .................... . 00:00:15:05:00 00
Dry Routing Time Time Step Step ................... . 01:30.00:00 00 sec
*Runoff *******Quantity *********Continuity ********* acre-Volume feet inches Depth
*Total ******Precipitation **************.*.*.*.*.* . -----1.--562 -- ---3.--669 --
Evaporation Infiltration Loss Loss ................ . 0.0.000 421 0.0.000 988
Surface Final Surface Runoff Storage .............. . 1.0.132 016 2.0.659 038
Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.454
************************** Volume Volume
Flow *****Routing ********Continuity ************* acre------feet ---- -10^---6 --gal ---
Dry Wet Weather Weather Inflow Inflow ............. . 0.1.000 133 0.0.000 369
Groundwater RDII Inflow Inflow .................... . 0.0.000 000 0.0.000 000
External External Inflow Outflow .................. . 0.0.000 594 0.0.000 193
Internal Evaporation Outflow Loss ................. . 0.0.000 000 0.0.000 000
Initial Final Stored Stored Volume Volume ......... . 0.0.000 539 0.0.000 176
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.002
********************************
Highest ********Flow *****Instability ************Indexes *******
All links are stable.
*************************
Routing ********Time *****Step *****Summary *******
Minimum Average Time Time Step Step : : 30.30.00 00 sec sec
Maximum Percent Time in Steady Step State : : 30.0.00 00 sec
SWMM 5 Page 1
Average Iterations per Step : 1.00
***************************
Subcatchment *************Runoff *******Summary *******
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precip Total Total Runon Total Evap Total Infil Runoff Total Runoff Total Runoff Peak Runoff Coeff
Subcatchment ---------------------------in ---------in ---------in ---------in ---------in ------10^---6 --gal ---------CFS -----------
Onsite1 1 3.3.669 669 0.0.000 000 0.0.000 000 0.1.805 071 2.2.841 577 0.0.123 246 11.17.743 673 0.0.774 702
-System ------------------------3.--669 -------0.--000 -------0.--000 -------0.--988 -------2.--659 ----------0.--369 ------29.---416 ------0.-- 725
*Node *****Depth ******Summary ******
******************
--------------------------------Average ---------Maximum ---------Maximum ---------Time -----of ---Max --
Node Type Depth Feet Depth Feet Feet HGL days Occurrence hr:min
-JCT1 ---------------------JUNCTION -------------0.--08 -------0.--48 ------98.---48 -------0 ---00:---40 -
Exist_P1 Storm OUTFALL STORAGE 0.3.00 64 0.4.00 08 101.96.00 08 0 0 00:00:00 53
*Node *****InFlow *******Summary ******
*******************
---------------------------------Maximum ---------Maximum -------------------------Lateral --------------Total ----
Lateral Inflow Inflow Total Time Occurrence of Max Inflow Volume Inflow Volume
Node ---------------------Type ---------------CFS ---------CFS -----days -----hr:---min -------10^---6 --gal -------10^---6 --gal ---
JCT1 Exist_Storm JUNCTION OUTFALL 29.0.42 00 29.11.42 61 0 0 00:00:40 53 0.0.369 000 0.0.369 193
P1 STORAGE 0.00 29.41 0 00:40 0.000 0.369
**********************
Node *****Surcharge **********Summary *******
No nodes were surcharged.
*Node *****Flooding *********Summary ******
*********************
No nodes were flooded.
**********************
Storage ********Volume *******Summary *******
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Volume Pcnt Avg Maximum Volume Pcnt Max Time Occurrence of Max Maximum Outflow
Storage --------Unit --------------1000 -----ft3 -------Full ----------1000 -----ft3 -------Full --------days -----hr:---min -----------CFS ---
P1 21.424 15 25.006 18 0 00:53 11.61
SWMM 5 Page 2
***********************
Outfall ********Loading ********Summary *******
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flow Freq. Avg. Flow Max. Flow Volume Total
Outfall --------Node --------------Pcnt. ------------CFS ----------CFS -------10^---6 --gal ---
Exist_------Storm ----------------97.---09 --------1.--23 -------11.---61 ---------0.--193 ---
System 97.09 1.23 11.61 0.193
********************
Link *****Flow *****Summary **********
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum |Flow| Time Occurrence of Max Velocity Maximum Max/ Full Max/ Full
Link ---------------------Type --------------CFS -----days -----hr:---min -------ft/---sec -------Flow -------Depth -----
CONV1 OUT1 CONDUIT DUMMY 29.11.41 61 0 0 00:00:40 53 21.30 0.00 0.05
*Conduit ********Surcharge **********Summary ******
*************************
No conduits were surcharged.
Analysis Analysis begun ended on: on: Mon Mon Aug Aug 22 22 14:14:49:49:36 36 2016 2016
Total elapsed time: < 1 sec
SWMM 5 Page 3
Node P1 Volume
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Volume (ft3)
25000.0
20000.0
15000.0
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
SWMM 5 Page 1
Link OUT1 Flow
Elapsed Time (hours)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Flow (CFS)
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
SWMM 5 Page 1
Date:
Maximum
Elevation
Minimum
Elevation sq. ft. acre ft sq. ft. acre ft
4971.25 N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00
4971.5 4971.25 359.5 0.25 44.9 0.00 44.9 0.00
4972.0 4971.5 2,898.8 0.5 814.6 0.02 859.5 0.02
4972.5 4972.0 4,101.3 0.5 1,750.0 0.04 2,609.5 0.06
4973.0 4972.5 4,705.9 0.5 2,201.8 0.05 4,811.3 0.11
4973.5 4973.0 6,181.4 0.5 2,721.8 0.06 7,533.2 0.17
4974.0 4973.5 8,339.0 0.5 3,630.1 0.08 11,163.3 0.26
4974.5 4974.0 10,026.7 0.5 4,591.4 0.11 15,754.7 0.36
4975.0 4974.5 11,459.5 0.5 5,371.5 0.12 21,126.2 0.48
4975.5 4975.0 12,643.3 0.5 6,025.7 0.14 27,151.9 0.62
Project Number:
Project Location:
Calculations By:
Pond No.:
Detention Pond Stage Storage Curve
Contour Contour
Surface Area
(ft2)
Depth
Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume
Proposed Pond Stage Storage Curve
1089-001
Fort Collins, Colorado
F. Wegert
Detention Pond
8/22/2016
ORIFICE RATING CURVE
PLD / Detention Pond
100-yr Orifice
PROJECT: 1089-001
DATE: 8/22/16
BY: ATC
ORIFICE RATING
Orifice Dia (in) 1.00
Orifice Area (sf) 0.01
Orifice invert (ft) 4972.25
Orifice Coefficient 0.65
Outlet
Stage release
(FT) (CFS)
4972.25 0.00
4972.35 0.00
4972.60 0.00
4972.85 0.02
4973.10 0.03
4973.35 0.03
4973.60 0.03
4973.85 0.04
4974.10 0.04
4974.35 0.04
4974.50 0.04
APPENDIX D
INLET COMPUTATIONS
Area Inlet Performance Curve:
CDOT Type C Area Inlet
Governing Equations:
At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation:
* where P = 2(L + W)
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline
At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation:
* where A equals the open area of the inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A)
The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown.
However, what is known, is that the stage-discharge curves of the weir equation and the orifice equation
will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below:
If H > 1.792 (A/P), then the grate operates like an orifice; otherwise it operates like a weir.
Input Parameters:
Type of Grate: CDOT Close Mesh
Length of Grate (ft): 3.354
Width of Grate (ft): 2.625
Open Area of Grate (ft2): 7.48
Flowline Elevation (ft): 100.000
Allowable Capacity: 50%
Depth vs. Flow:
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Shallow
Weir Flow
(cfs)
Orifice
Flow
(cfs)
Actual
Flow
(cfs)
0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.25 100.25 2.24 10.06 2.24
0.50 100.50 6.34 14.22 6.34
0.75 100.75 11.65 17.42 11.65
1.00 101.00 17.94 20.11 17.94
1.25 101.25 25.07 22.48 22.48
1.50 101.50 32.95 24.63 24.63
Q 3 . 0 P H 1 . 5
Q 0 . 67 A ( 2 gH ) 0 . 5
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
Discharge (cfs)
Stage (ft)
Stage - Discharge Curves
Weir Flow
Orifice Flow
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow') alocal = 2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Flow Depth = 6.0 12.0 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Warning 1 Width of a Unit Grate Wo = 2.00 2.00 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Aratio = 0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Cf (G) = 0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Cw (G) = 3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Co (G) = 0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) = 3.00 3.00 feet
Warning 1 Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert = 6.50 6.50 inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat = 5.25 5.25 inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.00 0.00 degrees
Warning 1 Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp = 2.00 2.00 feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cf (C) = 0.10 0.10
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.6) Cw (C) = 3.70 3.70
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) Co (C) = 0.66 0.66
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Qa = 4.5 9.5 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK) Q PEAK REQUIRED = 4.0 8.0 cfs
Warning 1: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified.
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
1089-001
Single Combo Inlet - Sump Condition
Denver No. 16 Combination
H-VertCurb H-
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
UD Inlet 3.1-comboinlet-sump-single.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 8/22/2016, 3:56 PM
APPENDIX E
STORM LINE COMPUTATIONS
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: StormA.stm No. Lines: 3 08-22-2016
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1
Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor
coeff loss
Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy
elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft)
1 18 8.89 4969.46 4970.60 1.14 1.44 6.18 0.59 4971.19 0.715 168 4969.79 4971.91 1.50 1.77 5.03 0.39 4972.30 0.611 0.663 1.111 0.00 0.00
2 18 8.80 4969.89 4971.92 1.50 1.77 4.98 0.39 4972.30 0.599 170 4970.23 4972.94 1.50 1.77 4.98 0.39 4973.32 0.598 0.599 1.019 0.00 0.00
3 8 0.09 4970.29 4972.30 0.67 0.35 0.26 0.00 4972.30 0.005 7.8 4970.37 4972.30 0.67 0.35 0.26 0.00 4972.30 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.00 0.00
Project File: StormA.stm Number of lines: 3 Run Date: 08-22-2016
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: StormB.stm No. Lines: 4 08-22-2016
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1
Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor
coeff loss
Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy
elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft)
1 18 3.00 4972.56 4973.22 0.66 0.75 4.00 0.25 4973.47 0.431 51.4 4972.66 4973.49 0.83 1.01 2.98 0.14 4973.63 0.196 0.314 0.161 0.00 0.00
2 12 0.80 4972.76 4973.59 0.83 0.70 1.15 0.02 4973.61 0.042 83.2 4972.93 4973.62 0.69 0.58 1.38 0.03 4973.65 0.063 0.053 0.044 0.00 0.00
3 12 0.80 4972.93 4973.62 0.69 0.58 1.38 0.03 4973.65 0.063 31.9 4972.99 4973.64 0.65 0.54 1.48 0.03 4973.68 0.075 0.069 0.022 0.00 0.00
4 12 2.20 4972.85 4973.85 1.00* 0.79 2.80 0.12 4973.97 0.325 17.1 4972.76 4973.91 1.00 0.79 2.80 0.12 4974.03 0.325 0.325 0.056 0.00 0.00
Project File: StormB.stm Number of lines: 4 Run Date: 08-22-2016
Notes: * Normal depth assumed.
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraflow Plan View
Project File: StormD.stm No. Lines: 1 08-22-2016
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page 1
Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor
coeff loss
Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy
elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft)
1 18 11.00 4971.79 4973.06 1.27 1.59 6.91 0.74 4973.80 0.890 19.1 4971.89 4973.35 1.46 1.76 6.26 0.61 4973.96 0.831 0.860 0.165 0.00 0.00
Project File: StormD.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 08-22-2016
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
APPENDIX F
LID INFORMATION
Project No.: 1089-001
By: ATC
Date: 8/22/16
Project Area
Total Site Area 71,438 sf
Total Impervious Area 34,412 sf
Paver Area N/A sf
Landscape Area 37,026 sf
Required Minimum Area to be Treated by LID measures 25,809 sf
PLD (w/Underdrains and Drywells)
PLD Area 3,759 sf
Run-on area for PLD 65,501.40 sf
Area Treated by PLD 69,260 sf
Total Area Treated 69,260 sf
Percent of Impervious Area Treated by LID measures 96.95 %
On-Site Treatment by LID
WATER Water Quality QUALITY Capture DESIGN Volume CALCULATIONS (12-Hr. PLD)
Project: 1089-001
By: ATC
Date: 8/22/16
REQUIRED STORAGE & OUTLET WORKS:
BASIN AREA (ac) = 1.590 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs
BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENT = 44.40 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs
BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS RATIO = 0.4440 <-- CALCULATED
WQCV (watershed inches) = 0.280 <-- CALCULATED from Figure EDB-2
WQCV (cu-ft) = 1616 <-- CALCULATED from UDFCD DCM V.3 Section 6.5
EROSION APPENDIX CONTROL REPORT G
Lyric Cinema
Final Erosion Control Report
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) HAS BEEN
PROVIDED BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT. It should be noted, however, that any such Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of
the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during
construction, or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction.
It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly
maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living
document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the
location of BMPs as they are installed, removed or modified in conjunction with construction
activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented
during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices
from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 – Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are
not limited to, silt fencing along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways
and inlet protection at existing and proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill
containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site
restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor.
Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on the Utility Plans. The Final Plans contain a
full-size Erosion Control sheet as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In
addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere
to, the applicable requirements outlined in the Development Agreement for the development. Also,
the Site Contractor for this project will be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General
Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality
Control Division – Stormwater Program, prior to any earth disturbance activities. Prior to securing
said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive StormWater Management Plan
(SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and
document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs.
MAP POCKET
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
ST ST ST ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST
ST ST ST
TF.O.
X X X
X
X X
X
X
X X X X X X X X
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
V.P.
V.P.
D
D
S
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
T
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD UD
30' UTILITY
EASEMENT
33' WIDE ROW
9' WIDE UTILITY
EASEMENT
15' UTILITY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
COLLEGE AVENUE
PROPOSED PARKING LOT
PROPOSED PLAZA (RE:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT)
PROPOSED
SIDEWALK
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EXISTING RAILROAD ROW
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECTOR
PROPOSED LID
TREATMENT /
PLD (POROUS
LANDSCAPE
DETENTION)
PROPOSED FIRE
AND TRUCK LANE
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING BUILDING
S89°21'28"E 165.15'
N87°36'29"E 182.74'
N84°10'02"E 52.04'
N01°10'43"E 166.48'
S00°47'32"E 182.07'
(EXISTING PROPERTY LINE)
SIDEWALK
1
2
1
2
3
3
PROPOSED MOVIE
SCREEN (RE: OWNER)
PROPOSED RAISED PLATFORM
FOR MOVIE PROJECTOR HOUSING
(RE: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT)
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE (TYP.)
PROPOSED TOP OF
DETENTION POND
PROPOSED BOULDER
RETAINING WALL (TYP. - RE:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT)
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREES (TYP.)
EXISTING
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING
RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED SIGN
(RE: ARCHITECT)
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED STORM
SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
ACCESS EASEMENT
N89°21'28"E 405.45'
PROPOSED
BUILDING
4
4
PROPOSED BOULDERS (TYP. -
RE: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
MASON STREET
(FUTURE)
TEMPORARY GRAVEL
TURNAROUND
PROPOSED
NYLOPLAST INLET
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
PROPOSED POND OUTLET
PROPOSED STORM
SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED
STORM SEWER
PROPOSED
NYLOPLAST INLET
PROPOSED AREA INLET PROPOSED INLET
PROPOSED
STORM SEWER
PROPOSED
STORM SEWER
PROPOSED
NYLOPLAST INLET
PROPOSED DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
NYLOPLAST INLET
PROPOSED FES
PROPOSED FES PROPOSED FES
PROPOSED
STORM SEWER
CONNECT TO PROPOSED
ROOF DRAIN. (RE: MEP)
CONNECT TO PROPOSED
ROOF DRAIN. (RE: MEP)
CONNECT TO PROPOSED
ROOF DRAIN. (RE: MEP)
CONNECT TO PROPOSED
ROOF DRAIN. (RE: MEP)
PROPOSED
NYLOPLAST
INLET
PROPOSED 5' DEEP
DRYWELL (SEE DETAIL)
PROPOSED 5' DEEP
DRYWELL (SEE DETAIL)
PROPOSED 6" RISER WITH CAP
FOR FUTURE ROOF DRAIN
CONNECT TO PROPOSED
ROOF DRAIN. (RE: MEP)
PROPOSED
NYLOPLAST INLET
PROPOSED GRAVEL SWALE
(RE: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT)
PROPOSED GRAVEL SWALE
(RE: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT)
PROPOSED
COMBINATION INLET
5 5
A
B2
1.45 ac
1. EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
UTILITIES AS SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST
INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. EXISTING UTILITY
MAINS AND SERVICES MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED
ON THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO
CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) PRIOR TO ANY
CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY EXACT UTILITY LOCATIONS.
2. REFER TO THE "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR LYRIC CINEMA" BY
NORTHERN ENGINEERING, DATED AUGUST 24, 2016 FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
NOTES:
UD
VAULT
ELEC
RD
T
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW SET
LEGEND:
FIELD SURVEY BY:
ORIGINAL FIELD SURVEY
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
PROJECT NUMBER: 1089-001
DATE: JANUARY 2015
( IN FEET )
0
1 INCH = 20 FEET
20 20 40 60
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU
DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF
UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
C500
DRAINAGE PLAN
1" = 20'
FSW
FSW
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW SET
1089-001
AUGUST 24, 2016
N ENGI O R NEER T H E RN I N G
u|r
Scale
Project number
Date
Drawn by
Checked by
urban|rural design inc.
252 linden street
fort collins, colorado
970.846.0267
brian@urbanruralarch.com
merl@urbanruralarch.com
Lyric Cinema
Glover, LLC
No. Description Date
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
ARCHITECT:
CIVIL ENGINEER:
PLUMBING CONSULTANT:
301 North Howes Street
Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado
970.221.4158
RD
DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE
DESIGN
POINT
BASIN
ID
TOTAL
AREA
(acres)
C2 C100 2-yr
Tc
(min)
100-yr
Tc
(min)
Q2
(cfs)
Q100
(cfs)
1 1 1.30 0.58 0.73 7.9 7.4 1.9 8.3
2 2 0.29 0.51 0.64 8.2 7.8 0.4 1.6
3 3 0.01 0.09 0.12 6.9 6.5 0.0 0.0
4 4 0.02 0.89 1.00 8.8 8.1 0.0 0.2
5 5 0.02 0.50 0.62 11.2 10.6 0.0 0.1
OS1 OS1 3.52 0.51 0.63 27.4 25.7 2.4 11.0
POND SUMMARY TABLE
Pond ID
100-Yr. Detention Vol.
(Ac-Ft) 100-Yr. WSEL (Ft) Peak Release (cfs)
PLD/Detention 0.37 4974.53 0.04
On-Site Treatment by LID
Project Area
Total Site Area 71,438 sf
Total Impervious Area 34,412 sf
Paver Area N/A sf
Landscape Area 37,026 sf
Required Minimum Area to be Treated by LID measures 25,809 sf
PLD (w/Underdrains and Drywells)
PLD Area 3,759 sf
Run-on area for PLD 65,501 sf
Area Treated by PLD 69,260 sf
Total Area Treated 69,260 sf
Percent of Impervious Area Treated by LID measures 97 %
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado
Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 22, 2015
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.
Custom Soil Resource Report
9
Tc
(min)
10-yr
Tc
(min)
100-yr
Tc
(min)
1 1 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 35 2.00% 7.5 7.5 6.9 53 1.00% 2.00 0.4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 8 8 7
2 2 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 20 2.00% 5.6 5.6 5.2 307 1.00% 2.00 2.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 8 8 8
3 3 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 18 2.00% 5.4 5.4 5.0 183 1.00% 2.00 1.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 7 7 6
4 4 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 45 2.00% 8.5 8.5 7.8 25 0.50% 1.41 0.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 9 9 8
5 5 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 40 2.00% 8.0 8.0 7.4 271 0.50% 1.41 3.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 11 11 11
OS1 OS1 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 233 1.00% 24.3 24.3 22.6 266 0.50% 1.41 3.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 27 27 26
Historic Site Historic Site No 0.25 0.25 0.31 410 0.80% 34.7 34.7 32.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 35 35 32
TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS
Gutter Flow Swale Flow
Design
Point Basin
Overland Flow
ATC
8/22/16
Time of Concentration
(Equation RO-4)
1 3
1 . 87 1 . 1 *
S
Ti C Cf L