HomeMy WebLinkAboutJEROME STREET STATION - PDP210009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORT
May 26, 2021
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR
Jerome Street Station
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
Black Timber Land Company
Attn: Russell Baker
417 Jefferson Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
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: 1124-005
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 26, 2021
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
Jerome Street Station
Dear Staff:
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
your review. This report accompanies the Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal for the
proposed Jerome Street Station 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
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................... 1
A. Location .......................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Description of Property .............................................................................................................. 2
C. Floodplain ....................................................................................................................................... 4
II. DRAINAGE BASIN AND SUB-BASIN ............................................................................ 5
A. Major Basin Description ............................................................................................................. 5
B. Sub-Basin Description ................................................................................................................ 5
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ..................................................................................... 6
A. Regulations .................................................................................................................................... 6
B. Hydrological Criteria .................................................................................................................... 6
C. Hydraulic Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6
D. Modifications of Criteria ............................................................................................................. 6
E. Storm Management Strategy .................................................................................................... 7
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ..................................................................................... 7
A. General Concept ........................................................................................................................... 7
B. Specific Details ............................................................................................................................. 9
V. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 9
A. Compliance with Standards ...................................................................................................... 9
VI. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 10
EROSION CONTROL REPORT ............................................................................................ 14
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations
APPENDIX B – Detention Pond Computation
APPENDIX C – Erosion Control Report
APPENDIX D – Preliminary LID Design Information
APPENDIX E – USDA Soils Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................ 2
Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................... 3
Figure 4 – Area Floodplain Mapping ...................................................................................... 4
MAP POCKET
Lower Dry Creek Drainage Exhibit (Master Drainage Plan)
Old Town North Drainage Plan (Shear Engineering Corporation)
Old Town North Developed SWMM Exhibit (Northern Engineering)
Jerome Street Station Drainage Exhibit (Northern Engineering)
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 1
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
1. Vicinity Map
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
2. The project site is located in the Southwest ¼ of Section 1, 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 bounded on the north by E. Suniga Road, on the east by
Jerome Street, on the south by the Lake Canal, and on the west by commercial
property.
4. Three existing 14”x23” elliptical concrete culverts under Jerome Street south
of Pascal Street connect the east and west portions of the detention pond
designed for the Old Town North (OTN) development.
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 2
B. Description of Property
1. The project area is roughly 7.14 acres.
Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph
2. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel with native ground cover.
General topography slopes from the north to the south. The existing ground
slopes in two different directions; the north side of the site slopes with a mild
to moderate grade (i.e., 0.5 - 3±%) through the interior to the south; the south
portion of the site slopes with a mild to moderate grade (i.e., 1.3 - 2±%)
through the interior to a low point located at the southeast corner of the site.
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 3
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 predominately of Nunn Clay Loam (Hydrologic Soil Group C) on the
majority of the site upper from north to south of the site, and Table Mountain
Loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B) located in the southwest corner of the site. To
be conservative, the hydrologic calculations assume a Hydraulic Soil Group C.
4. The proposed project site plan is composed of six buildings, parking areas,
and open space. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan.
Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 4
5. There are existing utility easements along the north and east property lines, a
sanitary sewer easement along the western property line, and Drainage and
Lake Canal Company easements on the south side of the property.
C. Floodplain
1. The Jerome Street Station project is located within a FEMA Special Flood
Hazard Area for the Cache la Poudre River. The majority of this area is
designated as With Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or Depth in Zone AE on FIRM
Panel 08069C0997G, Effective June 17, 2008. Therefore, the majority of the
property falls inside the regulated 100-year floodplain. Chapter 10 of the City
of Fort Collins Municipal Code regulates critical facilities within this Flood
Hazard Zone. However, no critical facilities are proposed.
It should be noted FEMA is currently remapping the Cache Poudre River.
Anderson Consulting Engineers (ACE) will provide the updated floodplain
modeling, mapping and report for the site when completed. It is assumed the
project site will continue to be located within the updated 100-year floodplain.
To ensure the proposed buildings have adequate flood protection, the finished
floors of the buildings and all ductwork, heating, ventilation, electrical
systems, etc., will be elevated 24-inches above the new Base Flood Elevation
(BFE). This elevation is known as the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation
(RFPE). The RFPE = BFE + 24 inches.
Figure 4 – Area Floodplain Mapping
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 5
II. DRAINAGE BASIN AND SUB-BASIN
A. Major Basin Description
1. According to the Lower Dry Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan by Anderson
Consulting Engineers (ACE) dated September 10, 1997, the Jerome Street
Station project lies in Basin 409 of the Lower Dry Creek Drainage Basin. See
the Lower Dry Creek Drainage Exhibit in the Map Pocket.
2. According to the Final Drainage Report for Old Town North Phase 1 by Shear
Engineering Corporation, dated March 2002, the Drainage Plan exhibit (sheet
78 of 88) shows the Jerome Street Station project lies in Basins 4 and 12 with
a total area of 6.52 acres. See the Old Town North Drainage Plan in the Map
Pocket.
B. Sub-Basin Description
1. In April 2002, Northern Engineering Services was contracted by Palladian
Construction to provide hydrologic modeling of onsite runoff for the proposed
OTN development. The objective of this modeling was to determine the
required storage volume for the onsite detention facility. The Final modeling
showed that the proposed detention pond provided adequate volume to detain
the 100-year storm and water quality volume for the area including the Jerome
Street development basin. The lower portion of the detention pond was
designed to detain 7.40 ac-ft. The upper portion of the detention pond was
designed based on limited conveyance across Jerome Street and was provided
a maximum storage of 0.6 ac-ft based on a release rate of 21.60 cfs through
the three culverts under Jerome Street.
2. The developed OTN site was broken into 2 basins for the SWMM model. Basins
SW1 and SW3, which are 28.15 and 6.52 acres, respectively, drain to the OTN
detention pond. Refer to the OTN Final Developed SWMM Basins exhibit in the
Map Pocket.
3. The OTN detention pond was divided into two parts by Jerome Street. The two
portions of the pond are hydraulically connected by three 14”x23” horizontal
elliptical reinforced concrete pipe culverts. The lower portion of the detention
pond was considered in the OTN SWMM model created to estimate the
required detention volume (model OTN-100.DAT in the Old Town Drainage
Report, Basin SW1). The upper pond was modeled separately (model OTN-
100A.DAT in the Old Town Drainage Report, Basin SW3) to estimate peak 100-
year flow in the three 14”x23” elliptical culverts under Jerome Street. The
rating curve used for the culverts was based on a tailwater elevation of
4960.25, which is the maximum 100-year water surface elevation in the lower
portion of the detention pond. Output from model OTN- l00A shows a
maximum storage of 0.6 ac-ft occurring in the upper pond with a release rate
of 21.60 cfs. The maximum 100-year water surface elevation in the upper
portion of pond is 4961.18.
4. The Old Town North Subdivision required a water quality capture volume of
0.85 ac-ft, which was in addition to storm water detention.
5. The Jerome Street Station project will account for detention and water quality
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 6
on the additional 1.2 acres of Lot 2, Will Subdivision to the west. The allowable
release rate for the 1.2 acres is based on the master plan for the Lower Dry
Creek Basin, which specifies a maximum release rate of 0.20 cfs/acre in the
100-year storm.
6. The detention pond volumes calculated for SW1 are not reliant of the volumes
required in SW3 and are independent despite being hydraulically connected by
three 14”x23” horizontal elliptical reinforced concrete pipe culverts. The pond
volume required for SW3 is for conveyance purposes.
7. Following the same guidelines that were established in the Old Town North
drainage report, the Jerome Street Station project will provide onsite
detention. This detention will include the additional 1.2 acres from Lot 2 of the
Will Subdivision to the west, and will have a total release rate no greater than
21.60 cfs. See Section IV.B.1 and B.2 for a more detailed explanation of the
detention pond.
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 for 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 historical 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 subject to floodplain regulations.
D. Modifications of Criteria
No modifications are requested at this time.
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 7
E. Storm Management Strategy
The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the Jerome Street
Station development 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. The first consideration taken in
trying to reduce the stormwater impacts of this development is the site selection
itself and selection of developable areas on the site.
The Jerome Street Station development aims to reduce runoff peaks, volumes and
pollutant loads from frequently occurring storm events (i.e., water quality (i.e.,
80th percentile) and 2-year storm events). Site constraints limit the possible Low
Impact Development (LID) techniques; however, a rain garden and additional
chambers for the underground detention have been provided as a LID technique
for storm quality management.
Step 2 – Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that provide a Water
Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with slow release. The efforts taken in Step 1 will
help to minimize excess runoff from frequently occurring storm events; however,
development still generates additional stormwater runoff beyond historic
conditions. The primary water quality treatment and volume control will occur in a
detention pond previously calculated in the Old Town North development by
Northern Engineering dated April 2002.
Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways. As stated in Section I.A.3, the Lake Canal is
located in the south side of the site; however, no changes are proposed to Lake
Canal with this project. While this step may not seem applicable to the Jerome
Street Station development, the proposed project indirectly helps achieve
stabilized drainageways. Once again, site selection has a positive effect on stream
stabilization.
Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs. This step
typically applies to industrial and commercial developments.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concept
1. The main objectives of the project drainage design are to maintain existing
drainage patterns and ensure no adverse impacts to any adjacent properties.
2. Onsite detention, water quality and LID treatment for the Jerome Street
Station project will be provided within the underground detention chambers
located at the south-middle portion of the site (Pond A) and on the south side
of Pascal Street (Pond B). To provide the required LID treatment, additional
chambers have been included in Pond A and Pond B that will treat the majority
of developed runoff prior to discharge into the existing storm pipe.
3. The Jerome Street Station site was broken into thirteen onsite basins for
design purposes. Anticipated drainage patterns for proposed drainage basins
are described below.
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 8
Basin A
Basin A consists of asphalt, concrete, landscape, and building area. A portion
of this basin will generally drain via overland flow to curb and gutter to a rain
garden located at the center of the basin, and to a open detention pond
located in the southwest side of the basin. The rest of the basin will drain into
area inlets. The stormwater will then drain via storm drain into the proposed
Pond A. The proposed Pond A will release to the proposed Pond B and then to
the existing storm drains culverts located under Jerome Street at the
southeast side of the proposed site, which were constructed with Old Town
North, Phase 1.
Basins B1 and B2
Basins B1 and B2 consists of asphalt, concrete, landscape, and building area.
These basins will generally drain via overland flow to curb and gutter along
Pascal Street and into proposed Type R inlets. It will then drain via storm
drain into Pond B. The proposed Pond B will release to the existing storm
drains culverts located under Jerome Street at the southeast side of the
proposed site, which were constructed with Old Town North, Phase 1.
Basin C
Basin C consists of asphalt, open space, and concrete sidewalk. This basin will
generally drain via overland flow to the south and will drain to basin D1.
Basins D1 and D2
Basins D1 and D2 consist of open space and concrete sidewalk. These basins
will generally drain via overland flow into an area inlet. It will then drain via
storm drain into the proposed Pond B. The proposed Pond B will release to the
existing storm drains culverts located under Jerome Street at the southeast
side of the proposed site, which were constructed with Old Town North, Phase
1.
Basin E
Basin E consists of open space. This basin will store runoff from Basin A. It
will then drain via storm drain into the proposed Pond B and then to the
existing storm drains culverts located under Jerome Street at the southeast
side of the proposed site, which were constructed with Old Town North Phase
1.
Basin F
Basin F consists of open space areas. This basin will drain via overland flow to
the western property boundary. This flow will not be detained.
Basin G
Basin G consists of the west half of Jerome street right-of-way (asphalt,
concrete, and open space). This basin will drain overland along Jerome Street
curb and gutter. It will then drain via inlets located at the north entrance of
the site, then via storm drain into the proposed Pond A. The proposed Pond A
will release to the proposed Pond B and then to the existing storm drains
culverts located under Jerome Street at the southeast side of the proposed
site, which were constructed with Old Town North, Phase 1.
Basin H
Basin H consists of the west half of Jerome street right-of-way (asphalt,
concrete, and open space). This basin will drain via overland along Jerome
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 9
Street curb and gutter. It will then drain via inlets located on Jerome Street at
the south entrance of the site and then via storm drain into the proposed Pond
B, then to the existing storm drains culverts located under Jerome Street at
the southeast side of the proposed site, which were constructed with Old Town
North, Phase 1.
Basin I
Basin I consist of the west half of Jerome street right-of-way (asphalt, concrete,
and open space). This basin will drain via overland along Jerome Street curb
and gutter. It will then drain via inlets located on Jerome street on top of the
three 14”x23” horizontal elliptical reinforced concrete pipes, which were
constructed with Old Town North, Phase 1. It will not be detained.
Basin J
Basin J consists of open space and concrete sidewalk. This basin will drain via
overland flow to E. Suniga Road. It will then drain via curb and gutter to
existing drainage facilities to the west and will not be detained.
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. The detention volume required for the site is 0.53 Ac-ft. This volume was
calculated using the FAA Method. The LID in the form of underground
detention will capture the water quality volume (WQCV) for the entire site. The
LID volume of 0.16 ac-ft has added to the detention volume for a total of 0.69
ac-ft. This volume was divided between the proposed Pond A (0.16 ac-ft), the
proposed Pond B (0.43 ac-ft), a rain garden (0.04 ac-ft) located at the center
of the Basin A, and an open detention pond (0.06 ac-ft) located in the
southwest side of the Basin A. The release rate for the proposed Pond A, the
rain garden, and the open detention pond were calculated to be 13.19 cfs. The
release rate for the proposed Pond B was calculated to be 2.11 cfs. The total
release rate calculated for the proposed site, which includes the additional 1.2
acres from Lot 2, Will Subdivision, is 15.30 cfs., which is less than the
21.60cfs calculated by Northern Engineering in the April 2002, SWMM model.
2. City Code requires LID treatment for all projects. This project proposes
meeting that requirement using underground detention with an additional
isolator row chamber. The isolator row will treat stormwater prior to entering
the underground detention. This configuration will treat 94% of the onsite
impervious area, which exceeds the City’s requirement to treat more than 75%
of the site.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with Standards
1. The drainage design proposed with the Jerome Street Station project complies
with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, as well as previous
drainage studies from which downstream stormwater infrastructure has been
constructed.
2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with requirements for
the Lower Dry Creek Basin.
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage Report 10
3. Additional information and detail will be provided with future submittals, as is
customary during the Final Plan review and approval process.
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. Final Drainage Report Old Town North Phase 1, Dated March 2002, by Shear
Engineering Corporation.
APPENDIX A
Hydrologic Computations
CHARACTER OF SURFACE: Runoff
Coefficient
Percentage
Impervious Project:1124-005
Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives:Calculations By:COG
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 310867 7.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.0%
Developed Basins:
A 139367 3.20 1.67 0.38 0.88 0.00 0.27 0.89 0.89 1.00 89.1%
B1 17062 0.39 0.13 0.07 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.91 0.91 1.00 90.7%
B2 37746 0.87 0.24 0.21 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 94.8%
C 6787 0.16 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.69 44.1%
D1 14424 0.33 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.48 21.3%
D2 3070 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.39 11.2%
D3 35472 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.41 0.41 0.51 24.6%
E 5381 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.0%
F 5019 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.0%
G 26884 0.62 0.22 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.64 0.64 0.81 57.2%
H 16605 0.38 0.19 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.70 0.70 0.88 65.7%
I 13337 0.31 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.78 0.78 0.97 75.6%
J 2821 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.43 14.7%
Routed Basins:
A+E+G 171631 3.94 1.89 0.51 0.88 0.00 0.66 0.83 0.83 1.00 81.3%
B1+B2+C+D1+D2+
D3+H 131165 3.01 0.60 0.63 0.58 0.00 1.20 0.67 0.67 0.84 58.9%
A+B1+B2+C+D1+D
2+D3+E+G+H 302796 6.95 2.49 1.14 1.45 0.00 1.86 0.76 0.76 0.95 71.6%
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
May 25, 2021
Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:
Project:1124-005
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% 1.2 13.2 12.3 132 2.00% 2.83 0.8 0 0.00%N/A N/A 5 14 13
Developed Basins:
a1 A No
0.89 0.89 1.00 74 2.91% 2.3 2.3 1.1 454 0.92% 1.92 3.9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 6 6 5
b1 B1 No
0.91 0.91 1.00 13 3.54% 0.8 0.8 0.4 169 0.48% 1.38 2.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
b2 B2
0.95 0.95 1.00 N/A 79 0.85% 1.84 0.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0.7 0.7 0.7
c1 C No
0.55 0.55 0.69 34 3.18% 4.1 4.1 3.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 34 3.76% 2.91 0.2 5 5 5
d1 D1 No
0.39 0.39 0.48 63 4.92% 6.2 6.2 5.4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 174 0.77% 1.32 2.2 8 8 8
d2 D2 No
0.41 0.41 0.51 2 6.00% 1.0 1.0 0.9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 74 3.46% 2.79 0.4 5 5 5
d3 D3 No
0.25 0.25 0.31 86 0.80% 15.9 15.9 14.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 331 1.24%1.67 3.3 19 19 18
e1 E No
0.25 0.25 0.31 32 0.53% 11.1 11.1 10.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 46 4.28% 3.10 0.2 11 11 11
f1 F No
0.25 0.25 0.31 4 6.25% 1.7 1.7 1.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 16 0.94% 1.45 0.2 5 5 5
g1 G No
0.64 0.64 0.81 28 2.29% 3.4 3.4 2.2 348 0.82% 1.81 3.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 7 7 5
h1 H No
0.70 0.70 0.88 38 2.39% 3.4 3.4 1.9 575 0.26% 1.02 9.4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 13 13 11
I1 I No
0.78 0.78 0.97 26 2.50% 2.3 2.3 0.9 251 0.59% 1.53 2.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
J1 J No
0.34 0.34 0.43 3 5.31% 1.5 1.5 1.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 11 5.73% 3.59 0.1 5 5 5
Routed Basins:
a1 A+E+G No 0.83 0.83 1.00 74 2.91% 3.0 3.0 1.1 454 0.92% 1.92 3.9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 7 7 5
b2
B1+B2+C+D1+D2+D
3+H No 0.67 0.67 0.84 13 3.54% 1.9 1.9 1.2 248 0.60% 1.55 2.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
b2
A+B1+B2+C+D1+D2
+D3+E+G+H No 0.76 0.76 0.95 13 3.54% 1.5 1.5 0.7 248 0.60% 1.55 2.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5 5 5
TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS
Gutter Flow Swale Flow
Design
Point Basin
Overland Flow
COG
May 25, 2021
Time of Concentration
(Equation RO-4)
()
31
*1.187.1
S
LCfCTi
-=
Rational Method Equation:Project:1124-005
Calculations By:
Date:
From Section 3.2.1 of the CFCSDDC
Rainfall Intensity:
Historic Basins:
H1 H1 7.14
5 14 13 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.85 3.29 6.92 5.08 5.87 15.43 2.54
Developed Basins:
a1 A 3.20
6 6 5 0.89 0.89 1.00 2.67 4.56 9.95 7.61 13.00 31.83 3.81
b1 B1 0.39
5 5 5 0.91 0.91 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.02 1.74 3.90 0.51
b2 See routed basins
c1 C 0.16
5 5 5 0.55 0.55 0.69 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.24 0.42 1.07 0.12
d1 D1 0.33
8 8 8 0.39 0.39 0.48 2.40 4.10 8.59 0.31 0.53 1.38 0.15
d2 D2 0.07
5 5 5 0.32 0.32 0.39 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.06 0.11 0.28 0.03
d3 D3 0.81
19 19 18 0.41 0.41 0.51 1.65 2.82 5.92 0.55 0.94 2.48 0.28
e1 E 0.12
11 11 11 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.13 3.63 7.57 0.07 0.11 0.29 0.03
f1 F 0.12
5 5 5 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.08 0.14 0.36 0.04
g1 G 0.62
7 7 5 0.64 0.64 0.81 2.60 4.44 9.95 1.03 1.76 4.94 0.52
h1 H 0.38
13 13 11 0.70 0.70 0.88 2.02 3.45 7.42 0.54 0.93 2.49 0.27
I1 I 0.31
5 5 5 0.78 0.78 0.97 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.68 1.16 2.95 0.34
J1 J 0.06
5 5 5 0.34 0.34 0.43 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.06 0.11 0.27 0.03
Routed Basins:
a1 A+E+G 3.94 7 7 5 0.83 0.83 1.00 2.60 4.44 9.95 8.51 14.55 39.20 4.26
b2
B1+B2+C+D1+D2+
D3+H 3.01 5 5 5 0.67 0.67 0.84 2.85 4.87 9.95 5.75 9.83 25.10 2.88
b2
A+B1+B2+C+D1+D
2+D3+E+G+H 6.95 5 5 5 0.76 0.76 0.95 2.85 4.87 9.95 15.10 25.80 65.90 7.55
C10
Area, A
(acres)
Intensity,
i2
(in/hr)
100-yr
Tc
(min)
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)
COG
May 25, 2021
Intensity,
i10
(in/hr)
Rainfall Intensity taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria (CFCSDDC), Figure 3.1
()()()AiCCQf=
APPENDIX B
WATER Detention Pond Computation
Project Name :Jerome Street Station Project Number :1124-005
Location :Fort Collins, CO.Calculated By :COG
Item : Allowable release rates from Developed Basins Checked By :SR
In accordance with Lot 1 release rate (defined by the SWMM design) :3.31 cfs/ac.
however the release rate has been reduced to be able to maintain a total of 21.6 cfs which is the maximum
Developed Developed Release Release
Basin Area Rate Rate
Designation In Use Total Area Total Area
(Ac.)(cfs/ac)(cfs)
A 3.20 2.99 9.57
B2 0.87 2.99 2.60
D2 0.07 2.99 0.21
D3 0.81 2.99 2.42
G 0.62 2.99 1.85
H 0.38 2.99 1.14
5.95 Σ 17.79 17.79 cfs
For Will Subdivision Lot 2 release rate (defined by the master plan):
0.20 cfs/ac
Developed Developed Release Release
Basin Area Rate Rate
Designation In Use Total Area Total Area
(Ac.)(cfs/ac)(cfs)
B1 0.39 0.20 0.08
C 0.16 0.20 0.03
D1 0.33 0.20 0.07
E 0.12 0.20 0.02
1.00 Σ 0.20 0.20 cfs
17.99 = Max. Release Rate
From Detetnion Ponds
Basins not detained :
Release
Developed Developed Rate
Basin Area Total Area
Designation In Use
Q100
(Ac.)(cfs)
F 0.12 0.36
I 0.31 2.95
J 0.06 0.27
0.49 Σ 3.58 3.58 cfs
21.57 = Max. Allow Release Rate
from Site
RELEASE RATES FROM DEVELOPED BASINS
1124-005-Release_Rates.xls_Det. Pond-A&B_5/25/2021
COG
Pond No :Pond A&B
b2
100-yr
0.95
Area (A)=6.95 acres 22921 ft3
Max Release Rate =17.99 cfs 0.53 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 65.90 19771 5397.0 14373.6
10 600 7.720 51.13 30679 10794.0 19885.2
15 900 6.520 43.18 38866 16191.0 22674.6
20 1200 5.600 37.09 44509 21588.0 22920.7
25 1500 4.980 32.98 49476 26985.0 22491.1
30 1800 4.520 29.94 53887 32382.0 21505.3
35 2100 4.080 27.02 56749 37779.0 18969.5
40 2400 3.740 24.77 59451 43176.0 16274.8
45 2700 3.460 22.92 61875 48573.0 13302.0
50 3000 3.230 21.39 64180 53970.0 10209.9
55 3300 3.030 20.07 66226 59367.0 6859.5
60 3600 2.860 18.94 68194 64764.0 3429.6
65 3900 2.720 18.02 70260 70161.0 99.1
70 4200 2.590 17.15 72048 75558.0 -3509.6
75 4500 2.480 16.43 73916 80955.0 -7038.8
80 4800 2.380 15.76 75665 86352.0 -10687.3
85 5100 2.290 15.17 77354 91749.0 -14395.3
90 5400 2.210 14.64 79043 97146.0 -18103.4
95 5700 2.130 14.11 80414 102543.0 -22129.4
100 6000 2.060 13.64 81864 107940.0 -26075.9
105 6300 2.000 13.25 83454 113337.0 -29883.3
110 6600 1.940 12.85 84805 118734.0 -33929.1
115 6900 1.890 12.52 86375 124131.0 -37756.4
120 7200 1.840 12.19 87746 129528.0 -41782.4
Developed "C" =
Calculations By:
Input Variables Results
Design Point
Design Storm Required Detention Volume
DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD
Project Number : 1124-005
Date : May 25, 2021
Project Location : Fort Collins, CO.
1
Project Title Date:
Project Number Calcs By:
City
Basins
1
WQCV = Watershed inches of Runoff (inches)72%
a = Runoff Volume Reduction (constant)
i = Total imperviousness Ratio (i = Iwq/100)0.282 in
A =6.95 ac
V = 0.1636 ac-ft
V = Water Quality Design Volume (ac-ft)
WQCV = Water Quality Capture Volume (inches)
A = Watershed Area (acres)
Jerome Street Station May 25, 2021
1124-005 C. Ortiz
Fort Collins
LID Stormtech Detention A&B
7126 cu. ft.
Drain Time
a =
i =
WQCV =
Figure EDB-2 - Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV), 80th Percentile Runoff Event
0.231
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91WQCV (watershed inches)Total Imperviousness Ratio (i = Iwq/100)
Water Quality Capture Volume
6 hr
12 hr
24 hr
40 hr
()iii78.019.10.91aWQCV 23 +-=
()iii78.019.10.91aWQCV 23 +-=
AV*
12
WQCV
=
40 hr
COG
Pond No :Underground Detention (South Middle Portion of the Site)
a1
100-yr
1.00
Area (D)=3.94 acres 11246 ft3
Max Release Rate =13.19 cfs 0.26 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 39.20 11761 3958.0 7802.9
10 600 7.720 30.42 18250 7915.9 10334.1
15 900 6.520 25.69 23120 11873.9 11246.0
20 1200 5.600 22.06 26477 15831.9 10644.9
25 1500 4.980 19.62 29432 19789.9 9641.9
30 1800 4.520 17.81 32056 23747.8 8308.0
35 2100 4.080 16.08 33758 27705.8 6052.1
40 2400 3.740 14.74 35365 31663.8 3701.7
45 2700 3.460 13.63 36807 35621.8 1185.7
50 3000 3.230 12.73 38179 39579.7 -1401.1
55 3300 3.030 11.94 39396 43537.7 -4141.6
60 3600 2.860 11.27 40566 47495.7 -6929.4
65 3900 2.720 10.72 41796 51453.7 -9658.1
70 4200 2.590 10.20 42859 55411.6 -12552.3
75 4500 2.480 9.77 43970 59369.6 -15399.2
80 4800 2.380 9.38 45011 63327.6 -18317.0
85 5100 2.290 9.02 46015 67285.5 -21270.3
90 5400 2.210 8.71 47020 71243.5 -24223.6
95 5700 2.130 8.39 47836 75201.5 -27366.0
100 6000 2.060 8.12 48698 79159.5 -30461.1
105 6300 2.000 7.88 49644 83117.4 -33473.4
110 6600 1.940 7.64 50448 87075.4 -36627.7
115 6900 1.890 7.45 51382 91033.4 -39651.8
120 7200 1.840 7.25 52197 94991.4 -42794.2
DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD
Project Number : 1124-005
Date : May 25, 2021
Project Location : Fort Collins, CO.
Developed "C" =
Calculations By:
Input Variables Results
Design Point
Design Storm Required Detention Volume
1
User Inputs
Chamber Model: SC-310
Outlet Control Structure: Yes
Project Name: 1124-005 Jerome
Street Station (Basin
A)
Engineer: Carlos NE
Project Location: Colorado
Measurement Type: Imperial
Required Storage Volume: 6931 cubic ft.
Stone Porosity: 40%
Stone Foundation Depth: 6 in.
Stone Above Chambers: 12 in.
Average Cover Over Chambers: 18 in.
Design Constraint Dimensions:(45 ft. x 125 ft.)
Results
System Volume and Bed Size
Installed Storage Volume: 7022.93 cubic ft.
Storage Volume Per Chamber: 14.70 cubic ft.
Number Of Chambers Required: 180
Number Of End Caps Required: 24
Chamber Rows: 12
Maximum Length:117.86 ft.
Maximum Width: 42.10 ft.
Approx. Bed Size Required: 4795.88 square ft.
System Components
Amount Of Stone Required: 405.27 cubic yards
Volume Of Excavation (Not Including
Fill):
503.27 cubic yards
COG
Pond No :Underground Detention (South Side of Pascal Street)
b2
100-yr
0.84
Area (D)=3.01 acres 18800 ft3
Max Release Rate =2.11 cfs 0.43 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 25.16 7547 631.9 6915.4
10 600 7.720 19.52 11712 1263.8 10447.8
15 900 6.520 16.49 14837 1895.7 12941.0
20 1200 5.600 14.16 16991 2527.6 14463.3
25 1500 4.980 12.59 18887 3159.5 15727.7
30 1800 4.520 11.43 20571 3791.3 16779.7
35 2100 4.080 10.32 21663 4423.2 17240.1
40 2400 3.740 9.46 22695 5055.1 17639.8
45 2700 3.460 8.75 23620 5687.0 17933.3
50 3000 3.230 8.17 24500 6318.9 18181.3
55 3300 3.030 7.66 25281 6950.8 18330.7
60 3600 2.860 7.23 26032 7582.7 18449.7
65 3900 2.720 6.88 26821 8214.6 18606.7
70 4200 2.590 6.55 27504 8846.5 18657.5
75 4500 2.480 6.27 28217 9478.4 18738.6
80 4800 2.380 6.02 28884 10110.2 18774.2
85 5100 2.290 5.79 29529 10742.1 18787.1
90 5400 2.210 5.59 30174 11374.0 18799.9
95 5700 2.130 5.39 30697 12005.9 18691.4
100 6000 2.060 5.21 31251 12637.8 18613.2
105 6300 2.000 5.06 31858 13269.7 18588.2
110 6600 1.940 4.91 32374 13901.6 18472.1
115 6900 1.890 4.78 32973 14533.5 18439.4
120 7200 1.840 4.65 33496 15165.4 18330.9
DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD
Project Number : 1124-005
Date : May 25, 2021
Project Location : Fort Collins, CO.
Developed "C" =
Calculations By:
Input Variables Results
Design Point
Design Storm Required Detention Volume
1
User Inputs
Chamber Model: SC-740
Outlet Control Structure: Yes
Project Name: 1124-005 Jerome
Street Station (Basin
B)
Engineer: Carlos NE
Project Location: Colorado
Measurement Type: Imperial
Required Storage Volume: 18800 cubic ft.
Stone Porosity: 40%
Stone Foundation Depth: 6 in.
Stone Above Chambers: 12 in.
Average Cover Over Chambers: 18 in.
Design Constraint Dimensions:(50 ft. x 170 ft.)
Results
System Volume and Bed Size
Installed Storage Volume: 19200.81 cubic ft.
Storage Volume Per Chamber: 45.90 cubic ft.
Number Of Chambers Required: 220
Number Of End Caps Required: 20
Chamber Rows: 10
Maximum Length:169.14 ft.
Maximum Width: 49.60 ft.
Approx. Bed Size Required: 8213.76 square ft.
System Components
Amount Of Stone Required: 842.85 cubic yards
Volume Of Excavation (Not Including
Fill):
1216.85 cubic yards
APPENDIX C
Erosion Control Report
Jerome Street Station
Preliminary Drainage 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 D
Preliminary LID Design Information
(Underground Detention) Pond AVolume Provided = 0.16 Ac-ft.26'-42'ROWNORTH COLLEGE AVENUE(PUBLIC R.O.W. VARIES)85'ROW50'-PROJECT BOUNDARYBUILDING BBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING EBUILDING FEXISTING 30' UTILITY& DRAINAGE EASEMENTEXISTING 20' SEWERLINE EASEMENTLAKE CANAL COMPANY EASEMENTPER PLAT OF OLD TOWN NORTHEXISTING 10'DRAINAGE EASEMENTLAKE CANAL EASEMENT PERPLAT OF OLD TOWN NORTHEXISTING 30' GASLINE EASEMENTBUILDING ASANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (TYP.)PROPOSED STORMINLET (TYP.)PROPOSED STORMINLET (TYP.)STORM MANHOLE (TYP.)PROPOSED STORM LINEPROPOSED STORM LINEPROPOSED STORM LINEPROPOSED STORM LINEPROPOSED STORM LINEPROPOSED STORM LINEPROPOSED STORM LINEPROPOSED STORM LINEPROPOSED STORM LINEPROPOSED STORM LINE(Underground Detention) Pond BVolume Provided with LID = 0.43 Ac-ft.T
TSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTEEEET TTOpen Detention PondVolume Provided = 0.06 Ac-ft. Rain GardenVolume Provided = 0.04 Ac-ft.JEROME STREET STATIONSHEET NO:P:\1124-005\DWG\DRNG\1124-005_LID.DWG301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100Fort Collins, Colorado 80521ENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNPHONE: 970.221.4158www.northernengineering.comDRAWING REFERENCE:LID TREATMENT EXHIBITC. Ortiz1 in = 100 ftMay 4, 2021LID-1DRAWN BY:SCALE:ISSUED:( IN FEET )01 INCH = 100 FEET100100LEGENDUNTREATED AREAPERMEABLE PAVER AREAPAVER TREATMENT AREAJerome Street Station On-Site LID TreatmentProject SummaryTotal Impervious Area231,970sfTarget Treatment Percentage75%Minimum Area to be Treated by LIDmeasures 173,977.40sfUnderground DetentionRain Gardenopen detention pond221,586sfTotal Treatment Area221,586sfPercent Total Project Area Treated95.5%
APPENDIX E
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
JEROME STREET STATION
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
May 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
73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................13
105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes......................................14
Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................16
Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................16
Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................16
Hydrologic Soil Group (JEROME STREET STATION)................................16
References............................................................................................................21
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
44939904494030449407044941104494150449419044942304494270449431044943504493990449403044940704494110449415044941904494230449427044943104494350493550 493590 493630 493670 493710 493750 493790 493830
493550 493590 493630 493670 493710 493750 493790 493830
40° 36' 0'' N 105° 4' 34'' W40° 36' 0'' N105° 4' 22'' W40° 35' 47'' N
105° 4' 34'' W40° 35' 47'' N
105° 4' 22'' 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: 1:1,920 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") 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
73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes
7.1 93.6%
105 Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes
0.5 6.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 7.5 100.0%
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,
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
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
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 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
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 content:7 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:0.5
Available water capacity:High (about 9.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
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:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Wages
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpty
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
Table mountain and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Table Mountain
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 36 inches: loam
H2 - 36 to 60 inches: loam, clay loam, silt loam
H2 - 36 to 60 inches:
H2 - 36 to 60 inches:
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 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)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:5.0
Available water capacity:Very high (about 18.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Caruso
Percent of map unit:7 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Fluvaquentic haplustolls
Percent of map unit:4 percent
Landform:Terraces
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Paoli
Percent of map unit:4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
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 (JEROME STREET STATION)
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.
16
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
17
18
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group (JEROME STREET STATION)44939904494030449407044941104494150449419044942304494270449431044943504493990449403044940704494110449415044941904494230449427044943104494350493550 493590 493630 493670 493710 493750 493790 493830
493550 493590 493630 493670 493710 493750 493790 493830
40° 36' 0'' N 105° 4' 34'' W40° 36' 0'' N105° 4' 22'' W40° 35' 47'' N
105° 4' 34'' W40° 35' 47'' N
105° 4' 22'' 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: 1:1,920 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") 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
19
Table—Hydrologic Soil Group (JEROME STREET STATION)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes
C 7.1 93.6%
105 Table Mountain loam, 0
to 1 percent slopes
B 0.5 6.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 7.5 100.0%
Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group (JEROME STREET
STATION)
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Custom Soil Resource Report
20
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
21
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
22
MAP POCKET
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS
This unofficial copy was downloaded on Aug-20-2020 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com
For additional information or an official copy, please contact City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA
This unofficial copy was downloaded on Aug-20-2020 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com
For additional information or an official copy, please contact City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLE
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLE
TRAFFIC
VAULT
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLE
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLE
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLE
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLE
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
V.P.
V.P.
F E
SF E
SFE
SFE
SD
D
D
D
D
GAS
/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /X/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /XXXXXXEEEEEEEEST ST ST ST
ST
ST
STST
XXXXXXXXXXXXEEEEEFOFOFOFOFOXXEOHUOHU OHU
OHU
VAULT
ELEC
D
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
GAS
LID
ELEC
ELEC
MHE
E
E
E EOHUOHUOHU/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / /
/ / /
// / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /EAST SUNGIA ROAD
JEROME STREET
OSIANDER STREET
CAJETAN STREET
PASCA
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
26'
-
42'
ROW
NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE(PUBLIC R.O.W. VARIES)85'
ROW
50'
-
PROJECT BOUNDARY
BUILDING B
BUILDING C
BUILDING DBUILDING E
BUILDING F
EXISTING 30' UTILITY
& DRAINAGE EASEMENT
EXISTING 20' SEWER
LINE EASEMENT
LAKE CANAL COMPANY EASEMENT
PER PLAT OF OLD TOWN NORTH
EXISTING 10'
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
LAKE CANAL EASEMENT PER
PLAT OF OLD TOWN NORTH
EXISTING 30' GAS
LINE EASEMENT
BUILDING A
B2
D3
C
A
E
G
j1
g1
a1
f1
b1
d1
e1
c1 B1
D1
d3
b2
OS1
OS2
D2
H
i1
I
h1
F
J
SANITARY SEWER
MANHOLE (TYP.)
PROPOSED STORM
INLET (TYP.)
PROPOSED STORM
INLET (TYP.)
STORM MANHOLE (TYP.)
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
PROPOSED STORM LINE
(UNDERGROUND DETENTION) POND A
VOLUME PROVIDED = 0.16 AC-FT.
(UNDERGROUND DETENTION) POND B
VOLUME PROVIDED WITH LID = 0.43 AC-FT.
OPEN DETENTION POND
VOLUME PROVIDED = 0.06 AC-FT.
RAIN GARDEN
VOLUME PROVIDED = 0.04 AC-FT.
DR1DRAINAGE EXHIBIT13
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
NORTH
( IN FEET )
0
1 INCH = 50 FEET
50 50 100 150
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED SWALE
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROPOSED INLET
A
DESIGN POINT
FLOW ARROW
DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED SWALE SECTION
11
NOTES:
1.REFER TO THE PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT, DATED MAY 26TH, 2021 FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
A
LEGEND:
FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SheetJEROME STREET STATIONThese 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 CONSTRUCTIONREVIEW SETENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNFORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631970.221.4158northernengineering.comof 13
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 7.14 0.25 0.31 5.0 13.1 5.08 15.43
Developed
Basins:
a1 A 3.20 0.89 1.00 6.3 5.1 7.61 31.83
b1 B1 0.39 0.91 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.02 3.90
b2 B2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
c1 C 0.16 0.55 0.69 5.0 5.0 0.24 1.07
d1 D1 0.33 0.39 0.48 8.4 7.6 0.31 1.38
d2 D2 0.07 0.32 0.39 5.0 5.0 0.06 0.28
d3 D3 0.81 0.41 0.51 19.2 18.0 0.55 2.48
e1 E 0.12 0.25 0.31 11.3 10.5 0.07 0.29
f1 F 0.12 0.25 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.08 0.36
g1 G 0.62 0.64 0.81 6.6 5.4 1.03 4.94
h1 H 0.38 0.70 0.88 12.8 11.3 0.54 2.49
I1 I 0.31 0.78 0.97 5.0 5.0 0.68 2.95
J1 J 0.06 0.34 0.43 5.0 5.0 0.06 0.27
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
Routed Basins:0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
a1 A+E+G 3.94 0.83 1.00 6.9 5.1 8.51 39.20
b2 B1+B2+C+D1+D2+D3
+H 3.01 0.67 0.84 5.0 5.0 5.75 25.10
b2 A+B1+B2+C+D1+D2+
D3+E+G+H 6.95 0.76 0.95 5.0 5.0 15.10 65.90