Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
EAST PARK DISTRICT MAINTENANCE FACILITY - FDP210010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - DRAINAGE REPORT
May 12, 2021 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR East Park District Maintenance Facility Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: City of Fort Collins Attn: Matt Schaefer PO Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Prepared by: 200 South College Avenue, Suite 10 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com Project Number: 1748-002 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 necessary, we recommend double-sided printing. May 12, 2021 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for East Park District Maintenance Facility Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review. This report accompanies the Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal for the proposed East Park District Maintenance Facility development. This report was prepared in accordance with 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. Carlos Ortiz García Shane Ritchie, PE Project Engineer Project Manager East Park District Maintenance Facility Finaly Drainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 1 A. Location................................................................................................................... 1 B. Description of Property ............................................................................................... 2 C. Floodplain ................................................................................................................ 3 II. DRAINAGE BASIN AND SUB-BASIN ................................................................................ 4 A. Major Basin Description ............................................................................................. 4 B. Sub-Basin Description ............................................................................................... 4 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 5 A. Regulations .............................................................................................................. 5 B. Hydrological Criteria .................................................................................................. 5 C. Hydraulic Criteria ...................................................................................................... 5 D. Modifications of Criteria ............................................................................................. 5 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ......................................................................................... 5 A. General Concept ....................................................................................................... 5 B. Specific Details ......................................................................................................... 6 V. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 7 A. Compliance with Standards ........................................................................................ 7 VI. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 8 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations APPENDIX B– Detention Pond Computation APPENDIX C– Water Quality/LID Design Computations APPENDIX D– Hydraulic Computations APPENDIX E– Erosion Control Report APPENDIX F– USDA Soils Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 – Area Floodplain Mapping ...................................................................................... 4 MAP POCKET Proposed Drainage Exhibit East Park District Maintenance Facility Final Drainage Report 1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1. Vicinity Map 2. The project site is located in the Southeast ¼ of Section 20, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. 3. The project site is located just north of Environmental Drive and south of the Great Western Railroad. 4. The East Park District Maintenance Facility is located on the southeast side of Detention Pond 215. An existing storm drain runs along the east boundary of the site, directing water out of Detention Pond 215. This storm drain conveys runoff from the existing Bucking Horse Filings 1-4 and was from the current site. 5. Offsite flows are minimal, and they enter the site from the west. Refer to the Drainage Exhibit for offsite basins location. East Park District Maintenance Facility Final Drainage Report 2 B. Description of Property 1. The project area is roughly 3.60 acres. Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph 2. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel with native ground cover. The existing ground slopes in three different directions; the north side of the site slopes with a mild to moderate grade (i.e., 1 - 3±%) through the interior to the northeast, the south middle portion of the site slopes with a mild to moderate grade (i.e., 1 – 2.5±%) through the interior to a low point located at the southeast corner of the site, and a small portion of area on the south side of the site slopes south with a mild to moderate grade (i.e., 1 – 2±%). General topography slopes from the west to the northeast, southeast, and south. 3. A soils report (Project No. FC09344-125) was completed by CTL Thompson, Inc. on May 4, 2020. The report contains the results of a complete geotechnical subsurface exploration as well as pertinent geotechnical recommendations. 4. The proposed project site plan is composed of one building, parking areas, and open spaces. Please see Figure 2, on the following page, showing the proposed site plan. East Park District Maintenance Facility Final Drainage Report 3 Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan 5. There are existing utility easements crossing the property at a northeast bearing on the east one-third side of the site. C. Floodplain 1. The East Park District Maintenance Facility is located within a FEMA Moderate Risk Flood Hazard Area for the Cache la Poudre River. This area is designated as Zone X on Firm Panel 0992G, Revised May 2, 2012. Therefore, it falls outside of the regulated 100-year floodway and floodplain fringe. Chapter 10 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code does regulate critical facilities within this Moderated Risk Flood Hazard Zone. However, no critical facilities are proposed. It should be noted that FEMA is remapping the Cache Poudre River in the next one to two years in a process that may affect this property. FEMA released preliminary maps on January 26, 2021 and the majority of this parcel is shown in the Zone X (shaded) floodplain. The finished floor of the building, and all ductwork, heating, ventilation, electrical systems, etc. will be elevated 24 inches above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). This elevation is known as the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). RFPE = BFE + 24 inches. Preliminary results from the new modeling indicate the BFE will be 4885.1 and the RFPE would be 4887.1 East Park District Maintenance Facility Final Drainage Report 4 Figure 3 – Area Floodplain Mapping 2. While the area referenced above currently falls outside of the current 100-year floodplain, it should be noted that the subject property is protected from the 1% annual chance or greater flood hazard by a levee system. Overtopping or failure of any levee system is possible. Current and future landowners should check with the local floodplain administrator at the City of Fort Collins to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of protection provided (which may exceed the 1% annual chance level) and the Emergency Action Plan, on the levee system(s) protecting this area. To mitigate flood risk in residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested parties should visit the FEMA Website. II. DRAINAGE BASIN AND SUB-BASIN A. Major Basin Description 1. The East Park District Maintenance Facility lays in Basin 57 of the Foothills Drainage Basin. According to the updated Foothills Master Drainage Plan by Anderson Consulting Engineers, (ACE) dated July 15, 1999, the project site was was limited to a 100-year developed discharge of 85 CFS, which equated to the 2-yr historic rate. B. Sub-Basin Description The subject property is located within the Bucking Horse development, and has historically drained overland from west to northeast, southeast, and south. The design of Pond 215 accounted for the water quality and detention for the project. Because of the grade differential between the Detention Pond 215 water surface elevation and existing site East Park District Maintenance Facility Final Drainage Report 5 topography, we believe it is not practical for this site to drain to Detention Pond 215. As such, the project site is proposed to follow the existing drainage pattern to the southeast and be released into the existing storm drain along the east side of the property. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns follows in Section IV.A., below. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM with the proposed project. B. 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 was utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. 2. The Rational Method was employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing coefficients contained in Tables RO-11 and RO-12 of the FCSCM. 3. Two separate design storms were utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios. The first event analyzed is the “Minor” or “Initial” Storm, which has a two-year recurrence interval. The second event considered is the “Major” Storm, which has a 100-year recurrence interval. 4. No other assumptions or calculation methods were used with this development that are not referenced by the current City of Fort Collins criteria. C. 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 the criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. 3. As previously mentioned, this project is not subject to any floodplain regulations. D. Modifications of Criteria No modifications are requested 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. Onsite detention and water quality treatment will be provided within the detention pond located at the southeast corner of the project. The pond will treat the majority of developed runoff prior to discharge into the existing storm pipe. 3. The site was broken into four onsite basins, and basin two was broken into 5 sub-basins for final design purposes. Anticipated drainage patterns for proposed drainage basins are described below. East Park District Maintenance Facility Final Drainage Report 6 Basin 1 Basin 1 consists of concrete, gravel, landscape areas, and a portion of the building area. This basin will generally drain via overland flow to a concrete pan and into a rain garden. It will then drain via storm drain into the proposed detention pond located on the southeast corner of the project. The proposed detention pond will release to an existing storm drain pipe designed with Bucking Horse Filing One located along the east boundary of the property. Basin 2a to 2e Basin 2a to 2e consists of asphalt, landscape areas and a portion of the building area. This basin will generally drain via overland flow across the parking lot to a curb cut and via inlet and storm drain into a rain garden. It will then drain via storm drain into the proposed detention pond on the southeast corner of the project. The proposed detention pond will release to an existing storm drain pipe designed with Bucking Horse Filing One located along the east boundary of the property. Basin 3 Basin 3 consists primarily of open space. This basin will generally drain via overland flow to the northeast and will not be detained. Basin 4 Basin 4 consists primarily of open space and concrete walks areas. This basin will generally drain via overland flow to Environmental Drive. It will then drain via curb and gutter to existing drainage facilities to the south and will not be detained. Basins OS1 and OS2 Basins OS1 and OS2, as shown on the Drainage Exhibit, consist of open space and concrete walks along the east side of Detention Pond 215 that drain onto the current site. OS1 and OS2 runoff will receive LID treatment and will be released according to the historic 2-yr release rate. 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. As noted above, there is the possibility of the front parking area to be expanded in the future. Therefore, the rational calcs, along with detention, water quality and LID, were completed for the Future Condition in order to provide adequate treatment and detention if the expansion were to happen. 2. The detention pond volume of 0.59 AC-FT was calculated using the FAA Method. The requirements for this basin are to detain the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the historic two-year release rate. A historic two-year release rate of 1.41 CFS was calculated for the overall East Park District Maintenance Facility site (3.6 acres). 3. City code requires LID treatment for all projects, and this project is proposing to meet the requirement using rain gardens. The rain gardens are situated towards the bottom of the paved areas and will treat stormwater prior to it entering the detention facility. This configuration will treat 96.2% of the onsite impervious area, far exceeding the City requirement to treat more than 75% of the site. 4. Water quality for the project will be provided by the rain gardens. A water quality volume of 0.075 AC-FT was calculated using the Mile High Flood District method for East Park District Maintenance Facility Final Drainage Report 7 Rain Gardens. 5. The allowable release rate from the entire Bucking Horse project was identified by Anderson Consulting Engineers (ACE) in their original report dated July 15, 1999 as 85 cfs. Bucking Horse Filing Two used a release rate of 83 CFS, leaving 2 cfs of available release from the basin without exceeding the original design. The proposed release rate for the project is 1.41 cfs. Therefore the project is in conformance with the previous designs. 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, as well as previous drainage studies from which downstream stormwater infrastructure was constructed 2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with requirements for the Foothills 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. 4. Additional information and detail will be provided with future submittals, as is customary during the Final Plan review and approval process. East Park District Maintenance Facility Final Drainage Report 8 VI. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities, November 5, 2009, BHA Design, Inc. with City of Fort Collins Utility Services. 2. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 3. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007. 4. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. 6. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report, Bucking Horse Development - Southeast (Johnson Farm, Working Farm, Urban Estate), Fort Collins, Colorado, July 19, 2012, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC Project No. 1122025C) 7. Final Drainage Report Bucking Horse Filing One, Dated September 19, 2012, by Northern Engineering. 8. Final Drainage Report Bucking Horse Filing Two, Dated December 17, 2012, by Northern Engineering APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS CHARACTER OF SURFACE: Runoff Coefficient Percentage Impervious Project:1748-002 Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives:Calculations By:C. Ortiz Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….…………………………………..0.95 100%Date: Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………………………0.95 100% Gravel ……….…………………….….…………………………..………………………………..0.50 40% Roofs …….…….………………..……………….…………………………………………….. 0.95 90% Pavers…………………………...………………..……………………………………………..0.50 40% Lawns and Landscaping Sandy Soil ……..……………..……………….……………………………………………..0.15 2% Clayey Soil ….….………….…….…………..……………………………………………….0.25 2%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. Historic Basins: H1 43021 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.0% H2 113859 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.61 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.0% Developed Basins: 1 77380 1.78 0.00 1.07 0.09 0.22 0.40 0.74 0.74 0.92 70.1% 2a 12823 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.42 0.42 0.53 24.6% 2b 1715 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.61 0.61 0.76 50.0% 2c 7459 0.17 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.40 0.40 0.49 22.3% 2d 21487 0.49 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.58 0.58 0.73 48.6% 2e 24684 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.27 0.27 0.33 4.3% 3 8526 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.0% 4 3860 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.35 6.1% OS1 4040 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.62 0.62 0.78 54.4% OS2 5002 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.55 28.6% Basins to Detention 1, 2, OS1 & OS2 154590 3.55 0.22 1.24 0.16 0.24 1.70 0.58 0.58 0.73 48.6% Basins to South Rain Graden 2a to 2d & OS2 48486 1.11 0.22 0.10 0.06 0.02 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.62 36.2% 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 April 6, 2021 Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Project:1748-002 Calculations By: Date: Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration: Tt = L / 60V Tc = Ti + Tt (Equation RO-2) Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S½ Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S½ NOTE: C-value for overland flows over grassy surfaces; C = 0.25 Is Length >500' ? C*Cf (2-yr Cf=1.00) C*Cf (10-yr Cf=1.00) C*Cf (100-yr Cf=1.25) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti 2-yr (min) Ti 10-yr (min) Ti 100-yr (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min) 2-yr Tc (min) 10-yr Tc (min) 100-yr Tc (min) Historic Basins: H1 H1 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 89 1.45% 13.2 13.2 12.3 132 2.00% 2.83 0.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 14 14 13 H2 H2 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 270 1.65% 22.1 22.1 20.5 304 1.00% 2.00 2.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 25 25 23 Developed Basins: 1 1 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 26 5.57% 0.8 0.8 0.5 403 0.91% 1.91 3.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 2a 2a No 0.25 0.25 0.31 33 2.16% 7.1 7.1 6.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 158 1.85% 2.04 1.3 8 8 8 2b 2b No 0.25 0.25 0.31 9 2.66% 3.4 3.4 3.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 44 1.11% 1.58 0.5 5 5 5 2c 2c No 0.25 0.25 0.31 21 1.46% 6.4 6.4 5.9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 87 1.75% 1.98 0.7 7 7 7 2d 2d No 0.95 0.95 1.00 13 5.43% 0.6 0.6 0.4 182 1.88% 2.74 1.1 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 2e 2e No 0.25 0.25 0.31 44 3.09% 7.2 7.2 6.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 117 4.96% 3.34 0.6 8 8 7 3 3 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 25 6.04% 4.3 4.3 4.0 28 4.85% 4.40 0.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 4 4 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 10 2.00% 4.0 4.0 3.7 10 2.00% 2.83 0.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 OS1 OS1 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 10 2.00% 4.0 4.0 3.7 10 2.00% 2.83 0.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 OS2 OS2 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 10 2.00% 4.0 4.0 3.7 10 2.00% 2.83 0.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5 TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS Gutter Flow Swale Flow Design Point Basin Overland Flow C. Ortiz April 6, 2021 Time of Concentration (Equation RO-4) () 3 1 *1.187.1 S LCfCTi -= Rational Method Equation:Project:1748-002 Calculations By:44292.0 Date: From Section 3.2.1 of the CFCSDDC Rainfall Intensity: Historic Basins: H1 H1 0.99 14 14 13 0.25 0.25 0.31 1.92 3.29 6.92 0.47 0.81 2.14 0.24 H2 H2 2.61 25 25 23 0.25 0.25 0.31 1.45 2.47 5.20 0.94 1.61 4.25 0.47 3.60 Developed Basins: 1 1 1.78 5 5 5 0.74 0.74 0.92 2.85 4.87 9.95 3.73 6.38 16.30 1.87 2a 2a 0.29 8 8 8 0.42 0.42 0.53 2.40 4.10 8.59 0.30 0.51 1.33 0.15 2b 2b 0.04 5 5 5 0.61 0.61 0.76 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.07 0.12 0.30 0.03 2c 2c 0.17 7 7 7 0.40 0.40 0.49 2.52 4.31 9.06 0.17 0.29 0.77 0.09 2d 2d 0.49 5 5 5 0.58 0.58 0.73 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.82 1.40 3.57 0.41 2e 2e 0.57 8 8 7 0.27 0.27 0.33 2.46 4.21 8.80 0.37 0.64 1.66 0.19 3 3 0.20 5 5 5 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.14 0.24 0.61 0.07 4 4 0.09 5 5 5 0.28 0.28 0.35 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.07 0.12 0.31 0.04 OS1 OS1 0.09 5 5 5 0.62 0.62 0.78 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.16 0.28 0.72 0.08 OS2 OS2 0.11 5 5 5 0.44 0.44 0.55 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.14 0.25 0.63 0.07 WQ Flow (cfs) RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS C100 Design Point Flow, Q100 (cfs) Flow, Q2 (cfs) 10-yr Tc (min) 2-yr Tc (min) C2 Flow, Q10 (cfs) Intensity, i100 (in/hr) Basin(s) C. Ortiz April 6, 2021 Intensity, i10 (in/hr) Rainfall Intensity taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria (CFCSDDC), Figure 3.1 C10 Area, A (acres) Intensity, i2 (in/hr) 100-yr Tc (min) ()()()AiCCQf= APPENDIX B Detention Pond Computation COG Pond No :South 100-yr 0.73 Area (A)=3.55 acres 24180 ft3 Max Release Rate =1.41 cfs 0.56 ac-ft Time Time 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 5 300 9.950 25.79 7736 423.0 7312.6 10 600 7.720 20.01 12004 846.0 11157.8 15 900 6.520 16.90 15207 1269.0 13937.9 20 1200 5.600 14.51 17415 1692.0 15722.9 25 1500 4.980 12.91 19359 2115.0 17243.5 30 1800 4.520 11.71 21084 2538.0 18546.4 35 2100 4.080 10.57 22204 2961.0 19243.0 40 2400 3.740 9.69 23261 3384.0 19877.3 45 2700 3.460 8.97 24210 3807.0 20402.8 50 3000 3.230 8.37 25112 4230.0 20881.6 55 3300 3.030 7.85 25912 4653.0 21259.4 60 3600 2.860 7.41 26682 5076.0 21606.1 65 3900 2.720 7.05 27491 5499.0 21991.6 70 4200 2.590 6.71 28190 5922.0 22268.3 75 4500 2.480 6.43 28921 6345.0 22576.1 80 4800 2.380 6.17 29605 6768.0 22837.3 85 5100 2.290 5.93 30266 7191.0 23075.1 90 5400 2.210 5.73 30927 7614.0 23313.0 95 5700 2.130 5.52 31463 8037.0 23426.4 100 6000 2.060 5.34 32031 8460.0 23570.9 105 6300 2.000 5.18 32653 8883.0 23769.9 110 6600 1.940 5.03 33182 9306.0 23875.6 115 6900 1.890 4.90 33796 9729.0 24066.8 120 7200 1.840 4.77 34332 10152.0 24180.2 Developed "C" = 1.35 Calculations By: Input Variables Results Design Point Design Storm Required Detention Volume DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD Project Number : 1748-002 Date : April 6, 2021 Project Location : Fort Collins, CO. 1 Project:East Park District Maintenance Facility Date:4/6/2021 Detention Pond ACTUAL STORAGE : (A) (B) (C) (D) Elevation Depth Area Volume Σ Volume Σ Volume (Sf.) (Cf.) (Cf.) (Ac.-ft.) Outlet Elevation:4,877.80 1.00 0.20 7.09 7.09 0.00 4,878.00 69.88 1.00 1,400.04 1,407.13 0.03 Total Volume Detention = 24,179.97 0.56 Ac. 4,879.00 2,730.20 Elev. (A1) = 4,882.00 1.00 4,048.19 5,455.32 0.13 Σ Volume (D1) = 19,356.43 4,880.00 5,366.18 Partial volume (C2) = 9,448.31 1.00 6,147.35 11,602.67 0.27 Depth, partial volume = 1.00 4,881.00 6,928.52 Detention Req'd 1.00 7,753.76 19,356.43 0.44 High water level (HWL) = 4882.51 >>>>>>>>> 4,882.00 8,579.00 Free board = 0.49 1.00 9,448.31 28,804.74 0.66 Top pond bank elevation = 4883.00 4,883.00 10,317.62 Pond No.:A Detention Pond Stage Storage Curve Pond Stage Storage Curve Project Number:1748-002 Project Location:Fort Collins, Colorado Calculations By:C. Ortiz 1748-002 - D-pond_Capacity.xlsx, Det. Pond-A1 2020-07-0, 5/10/2021, 12:01 PM Project Number :1748-002 Date :April 6, 2021 Project Location :Fort Collins, CO. Calculations By: COG Pond No :A 100-YR ORIFICE RATING Orifice Dia (in) 4.83 Orifice Area (sf) 0.1272 Orifice invert (ft) 0.00 Orifice Coefficient 0.65 Outlet Orifice Area Stage release (SF) (FT) (CFS) 0.1272 0.00 0.1272 0.25 0.33 0.1272 0.50 0.47 0.1272 0.75 0.57 0.1272 1.00 0.66 0.1272 1.25 0.74 0.1272 1.50 0.81 0.1272 1.75 0.88 0.1272 2.00 0.94 0.1272 2.25 1.00 0.1272 2.50 1.05 0.1272 2.75 1.10 0.1272 3.00 1.15 0.1272 3.25 1.20 0.1272 3.50 1.24 0.1272 3.75 1.29 0.1272 4.00 1.33 0.1272 4.25 1.37 0.1272 4.50 1.41 0.1272 4.51 1.41 OUTLET RATING CURVE APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY/LID DESIGN COMPUTATIONS WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME DESIGN CALCULATIONS 40-Hour Extended Detention Project: 1748-002 By: COG Date: 09/17/20 REQUIRED STORAGE & OUTLET WORKS: BASIN AREA =3.550 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENT =48.60 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS RATIO =0.49 <-- CALCULATED WQCV (watershed inches) =0.202 <-- CALCULATED from USDCM Vol.3, Figure 3-2 WQCV (ac-ft) =0.072 <-- CALCULATED from USDCM Vol.3, EQ 3-3 WQ Depth (ft) =3.000 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table AREA REQUIRED PER ROW, a (in 2) =0.203 <-- CALCULATED from Figure EDB-3 CIRCULAR PERFORATION SIZING: dia (in) =4/8 <-- INPUT from Figure 5 n =0 <-- INPUT from Figure 5 t (in) =0 <-- INPUT from Figure 5 number of rows =0 <-- CALCULATED from WQ Depth and row spacing Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =70.1 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.701 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.22 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 77,380 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =1,421 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 5.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =1085 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =1378 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =2005 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=1,692 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided? B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =N/A ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =N/A cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =N/A in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Carlos Ortiz Northern Engineering April 4, 2021 East Park District Maintenance Facility North Rain Garden UD-BMP (Version 3.06, November 2016) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 1748-002_RG-North_UD-BMP_v3.06.xlsm, RG 4/4/2021, 12:54 PM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Carlos Ortiz Northern Engineering April 4, 2021 East Park District Maintenance Facility North Rain Garden Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO 1748-002_RG-North_UD-BMP_v3.06.xlsm, RG 4/4/2021, 12:54 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =36.2 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.362 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.14 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 48,486 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =548 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =351 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =1195 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1945 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=1,570 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided? B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =N/A ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =N/A cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =N/A in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) C. Ortiz Northern Engineering May 10, 2021 East Park District Maintenance Facility South Rain Garden UD-BMP (Version 3.06, November 2016) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 1748-002_RG-South_UD-BMP_v3.06.xlsm, RG 5/10/2021, 10:32 PM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) C. Ortiz Northern Engineering May 10, 2021 East Park District Maintenance Facility South Rain Garden Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO 1748-002_RG-South_UD-BMP_v3.06.xlsm, RG 5/10/2021, 10:32 PM SDSDSDSDSDX X X X XXXXXXXNORTH RAIN GARDENREQUIRED VOLUME: 1,611 CU. FT.MINIMUM FLAT AREA: 1193 SFPROVIDED VOLUME: 1,621 CU. FT.PROVIDED FLAT AREA: 1,236 SFTREATMENT AREA: 59,666 SFSOUTH RAIN GARDENREQUIRED VOLUME: 627 CU. FT.MINIMUM FLAT AREA: 344 SFPROVIDED VOLUME: 1,252 CU. FT.PROVIDED FLAT AREA: 892 SFTREATMENT AREA: 17,166 SFEAST PARK DISTRICTMAINTENANCE FACILITYSHEET NO:P:\1748-002\DWG\DRNG\1748-002_LID.DWG301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100Fort Collins, Colorado 80521ENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNPHONE: 970.221.4158www.northernengineering.comDRAWING REFERENCE:LID TREATMENT EXHIBITA. Reese1 in = 80 ftSeptember 23, 2020LID-1DRAWN BY:SCALE:ISSUED:( IN FEET )01 INCH = 80 FEET8080LEGENDUNTREATED AREAPERMEABLE PAVER AREAPAVER TREATMENT AREAEast Park District Maintenance On-Site LIDTreatmentProject SummaryTotal Impervious Area 79,864sfTarget Treatment Percentage75%Minimum Area to be Treated by LID measures 59,898.00sfRain GardenRain Garden Treatment Area76,832sfTotal Treatment Area76,832sfPercent Total Project Area Treated96.2%P:\1748-002\Dwg\Drng\1748-002_LID.dwg, 9/23/2020 9:37:13 AM, 1:1 APPENDIX D Hydraulic Calculations 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10Capacity (cfs)Head (ft) Nyloplast 12" Standard Grate Inlet Capacity Chart Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, May 11 2021 Detention Pond Spillway Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 25.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 30 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.48 Q (cfs) = 27.65 Area (sqft) = 13.02 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.12 Top Width (ft) = 28.87 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Detention Pond Spillway -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, May 11 2021 North Rain Garden Spillway Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 15.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 16.30 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.47 Q (cfs) = 16.30 Area (sqft) = 7.93 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.05 Top Width (ft) = 18.76 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)North Rain Garden Spillway -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Apr 5 2021 Channel From Overflow North Rain Garden Trapezoidal Bottom Width (ft) = 15.00 Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.30 Invert Elev (ft) = 1.00 Slope (%) = 2.96 N-Value = 0.030 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 16.30 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.29 Q (cfs) = 16.30 Area (sqft) = 4.69 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.48 Wetted Perim (ft) = 17.39 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.30 Top Width (ft) = 17.32 EGL (ft) = 0.48 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 0.75 -0.25 1.00 0.00 1.25 0.25 1.50 0.50 1.75 0.75 2.00 1.00 Reach (ft) Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, May 10 2021 South Rain Garden Spillway Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 10.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 3.57 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.23 Q (cfs) = 3.570 Area (sqft) = 2.51 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.42 Top Width (ft) = 11.84 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)South Rain Garden Spillway -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Apr 5 2021 Curb Opening for Basin 1 Rectangular Weir Crest = Broad Bottom Length (ft) = 10.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 2.60 Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 16 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q (cfs) = 9.192 Area (sqft) = 5.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 Top Width (ft) = 10.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Curb Opening for Basin 1 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, May 10 2021 Curb Opening for Basin 2d Rectangular Weir Crest = Broad Bottom Length (ft) = 7.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 2.60 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 3.57 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.34 Q (cfs) = 3.570 Area (sqft) = 2.36 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.51 Top Width (ft) = 7.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Curb Opening for Basin 2d -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Circular D or Da, Pipe Diameter (ft) H or H a, Culvert Height (ft) W, Culvert Width (ft) Yt/D Q/D1.5 Q/D2.5 Yt/H Q/WH0.5 Storm Line A 2.17 1.00 0.40 0.40 2.17 2.17 N/A N/A 5.30 2.17 0.43 0.45 Type L 3.00 3.00 1.5 By: COG Expansion Factor 1/(2tanq) (From Figure MD-23 or MD-24) Date: April 6, 2021 OUTPUTINPUTCALCULATE Yt, Tailwater Depth (ft) Storm Line/Culvert Label Design Discharge (cfs) L= 1/(2tanq)* [At/Yt)-W] (ft) At=Q/V (ft) Spec Length of Riprap (ft) Box Culvert CALCULATIONS FOR RIPRAP PROTECTION Circular Pipe (Figure MD-21) Rectangular Pipe (Figure MD-22)Spec Width of Riprap (ft) 2*d50, Depth of Riprap (ft) for L/2 Froude Parameter Q/D2.5 Max 6.0 or Q/WH1.5 Max 8.0 Riprap Type (From Figure MD-21 or MD-22) Project: East Park District Maint. Facility Urban Drainage pg MD-107Culvert Parameters Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL REPORT East Park District Maintenance Facility Final Erosion Control Report EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) will be included with the final construction drawings. 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 Volume 3, Chapter 7 – Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways, and inlet protection at existing and proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor. Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on the Utility Plans. The Final Plans will contain a full-size Erosion Control sheet as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere to, the applicable requirements outlined in the Development Agreement for the development. Also, the Site Contractor for this project will be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division – Stormwater Program, prior to any earth disturbance activities. Prior to securing the said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive StormWater Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs. APPENDIX F USDA SOILS REPORT 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 Area, Colorado 1748-002 East Park District Maint. Natural Resources Conservation Service April 4, 2021 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 (https://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 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 Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................13 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope...............................................13 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...........................................14 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.......................................15 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................17 Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................17 Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................17 Hydrologic Soil Group (1748-002 East Park District Maint)........................17 Hydrologic Soil Group (1748-002 East Park District Maint)........................21 References............................................................................................................26 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 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 6 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 7 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 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44890704489110448915044891904489230448927044893104489070448911044891504489190448923044892704489310497930 497970 498010 498050 498090 498130 498170 498210 498250 498290 498330 497930 497970 498010 498050 498090 498130 498170 498210 498250 498290 498330 40° 33' 16'' N 105° 1' 28'' W40° 33' 16'' N105° 1' 10'' W40° 33' 7'' N 105° 1' 28'' W40° 33' 7'' N 105° 1' 10'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 25 50 100 150 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,960 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 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: 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: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 15, Jun 9, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018—Aug 12, 2018 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 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 22 Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope 3.5 50.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.1 1.1% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 3.3 48.3% Totals for Area of Interest 6.8 100.0% 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 11 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. 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 12 Larimer County Area, Colorado 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpvt Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Caruso and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Caruso Setting Landform:Stream terraces, flood-plain steps Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 35 inches: clay loam H2 - 35 to 44 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam H2 - 35 to 44 inches: sand, gravelly sand H3 - 44 to 60 inches: H3 - 44 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: High 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:About 24 to 48 inches Frequency of flooding:OccasionalNone Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity:High (about 9.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Minor Components Loveland Percent of map unit:9 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Fluvaquents Percent of map unit:6 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpx9 Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Loveland and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Loveland Setting Landform:Flood plains, stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: clay loam H2 - 15 to 32 inches: clay loam, silty clay loam, loam H2 - 15 to 32 inches: very gravelly sand, gravelly sand, gravelly coarse sand H2 - 15 to 32 inches: H3 - 32 to 60 inches: H3 - 32 to 60 inches: H3 - 32 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Runoff class: Medium Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:OccasionalNone Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Very slightly saline to slightly saline (2.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity:Very high (about 16.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Aquolls Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes Poudre Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxx Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Paoli and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Paoli Setting Landform:Stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 30 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loamy sand H2 - 30 to 60 inches: H2 - 30 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity:Very high (about 16.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Caruso Percent of map unit:6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Table mountain Percent of map unit:6 percent Hydric soil rating: No Fluvaquentic haplustolls Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Qualities and Features Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Hydrologic Soil Group (1748-002 East Park District Maint) Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. 17 Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Custom Soil Resource Report 18 19 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Hydrologic Soil Group (1748-002 East Park District Maint)44890704489110448915044891904489230448927044893104489070448911044891504489190448923044892704489310497930 497970 498010 498050 498090 498130 498170 498210 498250 498290 498330 497930 497970 498010 498050 498090 498130 498170 498210 498250 498290 498330 40° 33' 16'' N 105° 1' 28'' W40° 33' 16'' N105° 1' 10'' W40° 33' 7'' N 105° 1' 28'' W40° 33' 7'' N 105° 1' 10'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 25 50 100 150 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,960 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available 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: 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: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 15, Jun 9, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018—Aug 12, 2018 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 20 Table—Hydrologic Soil Group (1748-002 East Park District Maint) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 22 Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope D 3.5 50.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes C 0.1 1.1% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes A 3.3 48.3% Totals for Area of Interest 6.8 100.0% Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group (1748-002 East Park District Maint) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group (1748-002 East Park District Maint) Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Custom Soil Resource Report 21 Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Custom Soil Resource Report 22 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 26 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 27 MAP POCKET DR1 –DRAINAGE EXHIBIT ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVEUDUDUD U D U D U D EEEEXXSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / /XXXXXXXXXXXXX/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /XXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /TFTF EM/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /60' ROW100' ROW GREAT WESTERN RAIL ROAD EXISTING DETENTION POND 215 DETENTION POND: DETENTION VOLUME = 0.59 AC-FT MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE , 2-Yr. HISTORIC = 1.41 CFS. G R E A T W E S T E R N R A I L R O A D OWNER SIDE HILL RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION OWNER AGGEREGATE INDUSTRIES-WCR INC OS2 2d 1 OS1 FFE=88.00 OVERFLOW WEIR PROPOSED AREA DRAIN EXISTING 36"x96" STORM DRAIN CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM PROPOSED OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED CONCRETE PAN PROPOSED POND OUTLET NORTH RAIN GARDEN DRAINAGE EASEMENT PROPOSED AREA DRAIN PROPOSED AREA DRAIN EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE TOP OF DITCH BANK PROPOSED 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 10' PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT 3 4 PROPERTY BOUNDARY SLOPE PROTECTION (SCOUR-STOP) SLOPE PROTECTION (SCOUR-STOP) OVERFLOW WEIR OVERFLOW WEIR 1 4 OS1 OS2 2d 3 2a 2b 2c 2e SOUTH RAIN GARDEN: DESIGN WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME =548 cu ft PROVIDED WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME =1,570 cu ft NORTH RAIN GARDEN: DESIGN WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME =1,421 cu ft PROVIDED WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME =1,692 cu ft 2a 2b 2c 2e 7' CURB CUT 10' CURB CUT GROUTED RIPRAP RUNDOWN w/FOREBAY GROUTED RIPRAP RUNDOWN w/FOREBAY SLOPE PROTECTION (SCOUR-STOP) TRACT D BUCKING HORSE 2nd FILING OUT LOT C BUCKING HORSE 2nd FILING PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT POUDRE RIVER 500-YR FLOODPLAIN (PER RiskMAP) PROPOSED ZONE X POUDRE RIVER 500-YR FLOODPLAIN (PER RiskMAP) SheetEAST PARK DISTRICT MAINTENANCE FACILITYThese drawings areinstruments of serviceprovided by NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.and are not to be used forany type of constructionunless signed and sealed bya Professional Engineer inthe employ of NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONGMPENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNFORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631970.221.4158northernengineering.comof 13 DR1 FINAL DRAINAGE EXHIBIT13 NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet03030 30 60 90 NOTES: 1.REFER TO THE FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR EAST PARK DISTRICT, DATED APRIL 5TH, 2021 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2.THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE FEMA_REGULATED, 500_YEAR POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN. ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN MUST COMPLY WITH THE SAFETY REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER 10 OF CITY MUNICIPAL CODE. 3.ESSENTIAL SERVICES CRITICAL FACILITIES AND AT_RISK POPULATION CRITICAL FACILITIES ARE PROHIBITED IN THE 500_YEAR FLOODPLAIN. LEGEND: PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED INLET ADESIGN POINT FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED SWALE SECTION 11 B2 1.45 ac BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (AC) 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. before you dig.Call R EMERGENCY OVERFLOW WEIRS POND ID WEIR CREST LENGTH (L) WEIR CREST ELEVATION TOP OF BERM ELEVATION FLOW DEPTH (D) Q100 (CFS) DETENTION 25.0 4882.50 4883.00 0.48 25.2 NORTH RAIN GARDEN 15.0 4884.50 4885.00 0.47 16.3 SOUTH RAIN GARDEN 10.0 4882.50 4883.00 0.23 3.6 OVERFLOW WEIR 2' TOP OF WEIR WEIR CREST ELEV. 2'2'L2' 2-#5 BARS 1 4 (SEE NOTE) 8" MINIMUM THICKNESS 2-#5 BARS 1 4 3" CLR3" CLRNOTE: TRENCH FOR WEIR OUTLET STRUCTURE USING NATIVE GROUND AS FORM WORK. CONSTRUCT WEIR 8" MINIMUM THICKNESS. UPON COMPLETION OF TRENCHING, PLACE TEMPERATURE STEEL AND CONCRETE IMMEDIATELY. FORM TOP 4". TOP OF BERM/EMBANKMENT 30" MIN. DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE DESIGN POINT BASIN ID TOTAL AREA (acres) C2 C100 2-yr Tc (min) 100-yr Tc (min) Q2 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) Historic Basins: H1 H1 0.99 0.25 0.31 14.0 13.1 0.47 2.14 H2 H2 2.61 0.25 0.31 24.7 23.0 0.94 4.25 Developed Basins: 1 1 1.78 0.74 0.92 5.0 5.0 3.73 16.30 2a 2a 0.29 0.42 0.53 8.4 7.9 0.30 1.33 2b 2b 0.04 0.61 0.76 5.0 5.0 0.07 0.30 2c 2c 0.17 0.40 0.49 7.1 6.6 0.17 0.77 2d 2d 0.49 0.58 0.73 5.0 5.0 0.82 3.57 2e 2e 0.57 0.27 0.33 7.8 7.3 0.37 1.66 3 3 0.20 0.25 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.14 0.61 4 4 0.09 0.28 0.35 5.0 5.0 0.07 0.31 OS1 OS1 0.09 0.62 0.78 5.0 5.0 0.16 0.72 OS2 OS2 0.11 0.44 0.55 5.0 5.0 0.14 0.63