The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT - FDP220010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORT PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS, COLORADO May 25, 2022 EPSGROUPINC.COM 480.503.2250 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS 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 25, 2022 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT FOR RUDOLPH FARM Dear Staff, Northern Engineering and EPS Group Inc are pleased to submit this Preliminary Drainage Report for your review. This report accompanies the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) submittal for the proposed Rudolph Farm project. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed Rudolph Farm mixed use project. We understand that review by the City of Fort Collins 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. NATALLIE GABBERT, EIT III JOHN HOLMAN, PE Project Engineer Project Manager I hereby attest that this report for the final drainage design for Rudolph Farm was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, in accordance with the provisions of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY COVER LETTER ` I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................ 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ..................................................................... 3 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................ 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ................................................................................. 6 V. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 10 VI. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 11 TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map........................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................. 2 Figure 3 – FEMA Firmette (Map Numbers 08069CO984H and 08069C1003G) .................. 3 Table 2 - LID Summary ....................................................................................................... 6 Table 3 - Detention Summary .......................................................................................... 10 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS APPENDIX B – HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 – Detention Ponds B.2 – Water Quality B.3 – Storm Sewers B.4 – Inlets B.5 – Overtopping Analysis B.6 – Channels, Weirs, and Swales B.7 – Erosion Control Mat Calculations APPENDIX C – LID EXHIBIT APPENDIX D – SWMM MODELING APPENDIX E – EROSION CONTROL REPORT APPENDIX F – USDA SOILS REPORT APPENDIX G – MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE EXCERPTS APPENDIX H – FEMA FIRMETTE MAP POCKET DR1 – DRAINAGE EXHIBIT Preliminary Drainage Report May 25, 2022 Rudolph Farm Table of Contents NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 1 | 29 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION Vicinity Map Figure 1 – Vicinity Map The Rudolph Farm project site is located in a tract of land located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. The project site (refer to Figure 1) is bordered to the north by residential homes; to the east by Timnath Middle/High School; to the south by Prospect Road; and to the west by Interstate 25. The TRIC and the Lake Canal are major drainageways located within to the project site. There will be additional culvert crossings constructed with this project to maintain the major drainageways. B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Rudolph Farm is comprised of ± 111.64 acres. The site is currently an undeveloped parcel surrounded by single-family homes to the north, Timnath Middle/High School to the west, Prospect Road to the south and Interstate 25 (I-25) to the east. The existing groundcover consists of short grasses. The existing on-site runoff generally drains from the northeast to the southwest across flat grades (e.g., <1.00%). The north half of the site drains into the TRIC, and the southwest and southeast portions of the site drain toward existing 36” culvert crossings across Prospect Road. 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 primarily of Garrett loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B) and Fort Collins loam (Hydrological Soil Group C). NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 2 | 29 Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph The TRIC and the Lake Canal are the only major drainageways within or adjacent to the project site. Boxelder Creek cuts across the northwest corner of the site but is not expected to be impacted by this development. Groundwater has not been evaluated on this site but will be as part of additional geological testing. It should be noted that other sites in the area have relatively shallow groundwater (5'-10' deep) and we would expect to see similar conditions on this site as well. The proposed development will consist of one major road and two local roads. Other proposed improvements include detention ponds, utility infrastructure, sidewalks, and landscaping. The proposed land use is mixed-use and industrial. This is a permitted use in the Industrial (I), Urban Estate (UE), and the General Commercial District (CG). C. FLOODPLAIN 1. The far northwest corner of the site is located within the existing Boxelder Creek Flood fringe, floodway, and erosion buffer zone. The southeast and southwest portions of the site are in an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X). A copy of the FEMA Firmette (Map Numbers 08069CO984H and 08069C1003G and effective date of May 2, 2012) is provided in Appendix G. 2. We have analyzed the FEMA Floodplain map and cross sections for the vicinity of the proposed project and determined that the base flood elevation adjacent to the project site range from 4919.9 and 4920.7 (NAVD88). A LOMR was approved by FEMA dated February 21, 2019 (Case No. 17-08-1354P), and these improvements have removed much of this property from the flood fringe and floodway. Most of the development will avoid the effective floodplain/floodway limits per the LOMR revisions. 3. This project is in compliance with Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code, and it is understood that any development within the Boxelder Creek floodplain will be required to provide a City of Fort Collins floodplain use permit prior to construction. Also, any development with the Boxelder Creek floodway will be required to provide a City of Fort Collins no-rise certification prior to construction, and any disturbance to the mapped erosion buffer will require a stability study. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 3 | 29 Figure 3 – FEMA Firmette (Map Numbers 08069CO984H and 08069C1003G) II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. Major Basin Description Rudolph Farm is located within the City of Fort Collins city limits; however, it is located within the Town of Timnath Master Drainage Plan. Specifically, the project site is sited in the Timnath Master Drainage Plan Subbasins SB 2, 3, 5 and 6. Detention requirements for this basin are to detain the difference between the 100-yr developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate for the south, and the historic 10-year release rate for the north per the Timnath Master Plan. B. Sub-Basin Description The two outfalls for the project site is at the existing culvert crossing across Prospect Road on the southwest corner of the site, and the other is to the TRIC. The existing subject site can be defined with twenty (20) sub-basins that encompasses the entire project site. The existing site runoff generally drains from northeast-to-southwest and into the TRIC or the existing 36” culvert crossing on the southwest corner of the site. The project site receives runoff from the half street of Prospect Road. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. OPTIONAL PROVISIONS There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the Rudolph Farm. B. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The overall stormwater management strategy employed with Rudolph Farm 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. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 4 | 29 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. By choosing an already developed site with public storm sewer currently in place, the burden is significantly less than developing a vacant parcel absent of any infrastructure. Rudolph Farm 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) by implementing Low Impact Development (LID) strategies. Wherever practical, runoff will be routed across landscaped areas or through a rain garden or water quality pond. These LID practices reduce the overall amount of impervious area, while at the same time Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Areas (MDCIA). The combined LID/MDCIA techniques will be implemented, where practical, throughout the development, thereby slowing runoff and increasing opportunities for infiltration. Step 2 – Implement 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, urban development of this intensity will still have stormwater runoff leaving the site. The primary water quality treatment will occur between underground vaults located at the south end of the project and a single rain garden along the east side of the property. The remaining runoff will be treated for water quality in the proposed detention ponds along the Spring Creek. Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways. As stated in Section I.B.6, above, the TRIC and the Lake Canal drainage are within the project site, however no changes to the channels are proposed with this project. While this step may not seem applicable to Rudolph Farm, the proposed project indirectly helps achieve stabilized drainageways, nonetheless. Once again, site selection has a positive effect on stream stabilization. By developing an infill site with stormwater infrastructure, combined with LID and MDCIA strategies, the likelihood of bed and bank erosion and the frequency of erosive flows are reduced. Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs. This step typically applies to industrial and commercial developments. C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS The subject property is a part of the Prospect – I-25 Overall Development Plan (ODP) drainage study or similar “development/project” drainage master plan. The ODP did not establish any drainage parameters for the site due to the issues with the TRIC capacity. The site plan is constrained to the south by public streets, to the north by an existing residential development, to the east by Timnath Middle/High School, and to the west by Interstate 25 (I-25). D. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA The Town of Timanth Master Drainage Plan Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in Table 2.1 of the Master Drainage Plan Update 2018, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations associated with Rudolph Farm development. Tabulated data contained in the table has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. The Rational Method has been used to estimate peak developed stormwater runoff from drainage basins within the developed site for the 2-year, and 100-year design storms. Peak runoff discharges determined using this methodology have been used to check the street capacities, inlets, swales, and storm drain lines. Two separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios. The first event analyzed is the “Minor,” or “Initial” Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The second event considered is the “Major Storm,” which has a 100-year recurrence interval. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 5 | 29 E. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA The drainage facilities proposed with Rudolph Farm project are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM. As stated in Section I.C.1, above, the subject property is not located within the floodplain limits. F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE As previously mentioned, this project is adjacent to a FEMA regulated floodplain. The developable area of the project is located outside of the floodplain, and as such, it will not be subject to any floodplain regulations. Despite the project not being located within the floodplain, consideration has been given to the floodplain elevations as they relate to the proposed finished grade and have been elevated accordingly. G. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the Rudolph Farm. H. CONFORMANCE WITH WATER QUALITY TREATMENT CRITERIA City Code requires that 100% of runoff from impervious surfaces in a project site shall receive some sort of water quality treatment. This project proposes to provide water quality treatment using several methods. Rain gardens will be located along the edges of the roadways onsite. The areas will discharge into proposed detention ponds that will provide water quality for the remainder of the site before discharge into the TRIC and the culvert crossing at Prospect Road. I. CONFORMANCE WITH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) The project site will conform with the requirement to treat a minimum of 75% of the impervious areas on the project site using a LID technique. Rain gardens will be used to capture and filter or infiltrate the required volume. J. SIZING OF LID FACILITIES Rain Gardens/Underground Chambers 1. The rain gardens were sized by first determining the required water quality capture volume (WQCV) for Basins D2-D5, E2-E3, H2-H3, and I3 for the rain gardens. A 40-hour drain time was used in this calculation. 2. Once the WQCV was identified, each rain garden area was sized for its respective WQCV. The rain gardens will be constructed with a biomedia filter and underdrain. An overflow drain will be provided in each rain garden to pass storms greater than the WQCV. Water Quality Pond 1. The water quality pond was sized by first determining the required water quality capture volume (WQCV) for Basins A-H1. Offsite flows from Prospect Road will be treated in the water quality ponds. A 40-hour drain time was used in this calculation. The WQCV that resulted was approximately 13,585 ft3, which includes the additional 20% 2. Once the WQCV was identified, the water quality pond was sized to provide the WQCV. An outlet control structure with overflow will be provided to pass storms greater than the WQCV. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 6 | 29 Table 2 – LID Summary LID ID Area (ft2) Weighted % Impervious Volume per UD-BMP (ft3) Vol. w/ 20% increase per FC Manual (ft3) Impervious area (ft2) Rain Garden A 50,438 46% 658 790 23,202 Rain Garden B 52,359 48% 701 841 25,132 Rain Garden C 42,469 50% 576 691 21,235 Rain Garden D 47,233 54% 685 822 25,506 Rain Garden E 155,651 49% 2,112 2,534 76,269 Rain Garden F 321,805 40% 3,858 4,630 128,722 Rain Garden G 61,611 50% 847 1,016 30,806 Rain Garden H 75,507 48% 1,011 1,213 36,243 Rain Garden I 55,473 60% 873 1,048 33,284 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT 1. The main objective of Rudolph Farm drainage design is to maintain existing drainage patterns, while not adversely impacting adjacent properties. 2. All storm drains on the site have been designed to convey 100-yr flows, except for the outlet storm line which is designed for the 2-yr or 10-yr storm, as appropriate. 3. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of Contents at the front of the document. The tables and figures are located within the sections to which the content best applies. 4. Drainage for the project site has been analyzed using twenty (20) onsite drainage sub- basins, designated as sub-basins A1, B1, C1, D1-D5, E1-E3, F1, G1, H1-H3, I1-I3, and J1. The drainage patterns anticipated for the basins are further described below. 5. Culvert crossings for both the TRIC and the Lake Canal will be installed with this project. Flows on north end are being routed through a series of ponds to a single outfall to the TRIC, while areas to the south will be routed to the existing the 36" pipe under Prospect Road. B. SPECIFIC PROJECT INFORMATION Sub-Basins A1 Sub-Basin A1 encompasses approximately 23% of the total site area. Basin A1 contains Detention Pond A which is the collection point of all the Parcel A area on site before releasing into Detention Pond D. This pond will outlet downstream to Pond D and eventually to Pond E, and the outlet structure in Pond E will moderate the release rate into the TRIC during the Major Storm. The outfall for Pond A will discharge around Pond D. An outlet structure with a restrictor plate will be installed with Pond E and an outfall pipe will be used for the discharge into the TRIC. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub- basin will discharge directly to Detention Pond D. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 7 | 29 Sub-Basin A2 Sub-basin A2 is comprised of an existing self-retaining portion of the site at the northwest corner of the property. This portion of the site is a self-retained vacant area. This is an existing condition and there will be no added flows or change in drainage patterns. Sub-Basin B1 Sub-Basins B1 encompass approximately 12% the total site area. Basin B1 contains Detention Pond B which is the collection point of all the Parcel B area on site before releasing into Detention Pond E. This pond will outlet downstream to Pond E, and the outlet structure in Pond E will moderate the release rate into the TRIC during the Major Storm. The release rate from Pond B to Pond E will be approximately 2.74 cfs. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub- basin will discharge directly to Detention Pond E. Sub-Basin C1 Sub-Basins C1 encompass approximately 8% the total site area. Basin C1 contains Detention Pond C which is the collection point of all the Parcel C area on site before releasing into Detention Pond B. This pond will outlet downstream to Pond E, and the outlet structure in Pond E will moderate the release rate into the TRIC during the Major Storm. The release rate from Pond C to Pond B will be approximately 1.76 cfs. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub- basin will discharge directly to Detention Pond B. Sub-Basin D1 Sub-Basin D1 encompasses approximately 10% the total site area. Basin D1 contains Detention Pond D which is the collection point of all the Parcel D area on site before releasing into Detention Pond E. This pond will outlet downstream to Pond E, and the outlet structure in Pond E will moderate the release rate into the TRIC during the Major Storm. The release rate from Pond D to Pond E will be approximately 3.15 cfs. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub- basin will discharge directly to Detention Pond E. Sub-Basin D2 - D5 Sub-Basin D2-D5 encompasses approximately 4% the total site area. The sub-basins are comprised primarily of the roadway Street A and right-of-way for this project. Minor flows will be treated rain gardens, while flows from larger storms will proceed to Detention Ponds A and D. An underdrain is proposed underneath Rain Gardens A through D and will outfall into Detention Pond D. The sub-basins will drain into curb & gutter along Street A within each sub- basin and towards a common storm sewer. This common storm sewer will discharge into Detention Pond D. Sub-Basin E1 Sub-basin E1 encompasses approximately 3% the total site area. Basin E1 contains Detention Pond E which is the collection point of all the Parcel E area on site before releasing into the TRIC. Detention Pond E will serve as the water quality pond for the remaining basins that are not treated with LID. An outlet structure will be constructed with a water quality plate and restrictor plate. Scour protection will be provided at the outfall into the ditch in order to lessen the site’s impact on the ditch. The scour protection was selected based on its ability to handle the shear stress created by flows in the channel. A 100-yr flow depth in the channel of 6.08 ft and a channel slope of 0.50% were used to determine the shear stress in the channel at NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 8 | 29 the location of the outfall. The outfall for Detention Ponds A-E, has a release rate of 5.13 cfs. Emergency Overflow from this pond will be directed over the emergency spillway and into the TRIC. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub- basin will discharge directly to the TRIC. Sub-Basin E2 – E3 Sub-basin E2 and E3 encompasses approximately 10% the total site area. The sub-basins are comprised primarily of the roadways Street B and Carriage Parkway and right-of-way for this project. Minor flows will be treated rain gardens, while flows from larger storms will proceed to Detention Ponds D and E. An underdrain is proposed underneath Rain Gardens E and F and will outfall into Detention Pond E. The sub-basins will drain into curb & gutter along Street B and Carriage Parkway within each sub-basin and towards a common storm sewer. This common storm sewer will discharge into Detention Pond E. Sub-Basins F1 Sub-Basins F1 encompass approximately 3% the total site area. Sub-basin F1 drains to Detention Pond H which is the collection point of all the Parcels F, G and H areas on site before releasing into an existing culvert crossing. This pond will outlet via the existing 36” culvert crossing under Prospect Road on the southwest corner of the Project site. Sub-basin F1 will drain via overland flow and swales to collect storm water flow into Detention Pond H. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub-basin will discharge directly to Detention Pond H. Sub-Basin G1 Sub-Basins G1 encompass approximately 2% the total site area. Sub-basin G1 drains to Detention Pond H which is the collection point of all the Parcels F, G and H areas on site before releasing into an existing culvert crossing. This pond will outlet via the existing 36” culvert crossing under Prospect Road on the southwest corner of the Project site. Sub-basin G1 will drain via overland flow and swales to collect storm water flow into Detention Pond H. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub-basin will discharge directly to Detention Pond H. Sub-Basin H1 Sub-Basins H1 encompass approximately 11% the total site area. Basin H1 contains Detention Pond H which is the collection point of all the Parcel F, G and H areas on site before releasing into Detention Pond H. This pond will outlet via the existing 36” culvert crossing under Prospect Road on the southwest corner of the Project site. The outlet from Detention Pond H will moderate the release rate into the existing culvert during the Major Storm. Detention Pond H will collect flows from Sub-basins F1 and G1 via overland flow and swales to collect storm water flow into the pond. The release rate from Pond H will be approximately 4.16 cfs. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub- basin will discharge directly to Detention Pond H. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 9 | 29 Sub-Basin H2 – H3 Sub-basin H2 and H3 encompasses approximately 3% the total site area. The sub-basins are comprised primarily of the roadway Street A and right-of-way for this project. Minor flows will be treated rain gardens, while flows from larger storms will proceed to Detention Ponds D and E. An underdrain is proposed underneath Rain Gardens G and H and will outfall into Detention Pond H. The sub-basins will drain into curb & gutter along Street A within each sub-basin and towards a common storm sewer. This common storm sewer will discharge into Detention Pond H. Sub-Basin I1 Sub-Basins I1 encompass approximately 4% the total site area. Basin I1 contains Detention Pond I which is the collection point of all the Parcel I area on site before releasing into Detention Pond I. Detention Pond I will serve as the water quality pond for Sub-Basin I that is not treated with LID. An outlet structure will be constructed with a water quality plate and restrictor plate. The release rate from Pond I will be approximately 1.38 cfs. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub- basin will discharge directly to Detention Pond E. Sub-Basin I2 – I3 Sub-basin I2 and I3 encompasses approximately 2% the total site area. The sub-basins are comprised primarily of the roadway, Carriage Parkway, and right-of-way for this project. Minor flows will be treated via a rain garden, while flows from larger storms will proceed to Detention Ponds I. An underdrain is proposed underneath Rain Garden I and will outfall into Detention Pond I. The sub-basins will drain into curb & gutter along Street A within each sub-basin and towards a common storm sewer. This common storm sewer will discharge into Detention Pond I. Sub-Basin J1 Sub-basin J1 encompasses approximately 5% the total site area. Basin J1 contains Detention Pond J which is the collection point of all the Parcel J area on site before releasing into the TRIC. Detention Pond J will serve as the water quality pond for Parcel J that is not treated with LID. An outlet structure will be constructed with a water quality plate and restrictor plate. The release rate from Pond J will be approximately 1.15 cfs. Detention Pond J will be a dry pond and will not have a permanent water surface elevation. No development is proposed in this area and flows from the sub- basin will discharge directly to the TRIC. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. C. SPECIFIC DETAILS 1. Eight detention ponds are proposed with this development and will detain up to the 100-yr storm event and release at or below the calculated release rate. A SWMM model was created to determine the detention volumes. See Appendix D for more detail. See Table 3 below for detention summary. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 10 | 29 Table 3 – Detention Summary 2. LID treatment is being provided within Rain Gardens A through I. These treat approximately 78% of the site impervious runoff which is more than the required LID treatment of 75%. Please see the LID exhibit and calculations in Appendix C. The remainder of water quality will be provided by extended detention. 3. Detention allowable release rate is based on computed 2-year or 10-year, as appropriate, historic flow for the overall property. We have added historic flow from Right-of-Way area in addition to the property. Thus, we have added 2-year historic flow from these areas to the site allowable release. Based on historic flow computations provided in the Timnath Master Plan, the of onsite historic 2-year flow and 2-year flows from Sub-basins SB 2, 3, 4 and 6 is 7.0 cfs. We propose to release slightly below this rate as shown in Table 3, above. 4. Stormwater facility Standard Operations Procedures (SOP) will be provided by the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath in the Development Agreement. 5. Final Design details, and construction documentation shall be provided to the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath for review prior to Final Development Plan approval. V. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS The drainage design proposed with Rudolph Farm complies with the Town of Timanth Master Drainage Plan for the SB-2,3,5 & 6 Basins, and will not impact the Master Drainage Plan recommendations The development is constructed outside of the floodplains. No improvements are proposed within the FEMA regulated floodplains. All applicable provisions within Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code shall be adhered to. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with Rudolph Farm are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM 11 | 29 VI. REFERENCES Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 159, 2018, and referenced in Section 26-500 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright- McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. Town of Timnath Master Drainage Plan Update, Town of Timnath, Colorado, as prepared for the Town of Timnath by Ayres Associates, Revised November 2018. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM APPENDIX APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Percentage Impervious 2-yr Runoff Coefficient 100-yr Runoff Coefficient Developed Asphalt .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………100%0.95 1.19 Concrete .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………100%0.95 1.19 Rooftop .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………90%0.95 1.19 Gravel .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………40%0.50 0.63 Pavers .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………40%0.50 0.63 Landscape or Pervious Surface Playgrounds .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………25%0.35 0.44 Lawns Clayey Soil .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.25 0.31 Lawns Sandy Soil .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.15 0.19 Notes: Basin ID Basin Area (ac) Area of Asphalt/Con crete (ac) Area of Concrete (ac) Area of Rooftop (ac) Area of Gravel (ac) Area of Pavers (ac) Area of Playgrounds (ac) Area of Lawns (ac) Composite % Imperv. 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient H-A1 77.761 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.761 2%0.25 0.31 H-B1 27.857 1.136 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.721 6%0.28 0.35 H-C1 5.926 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.926 2%0.25 0.31 Total Onsite 111.544 1.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 110.407 3%0.26 0.32 EXISTING BASIN % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS 2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 3. Table 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 1) Percentage impervious taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 5, Table 4.1-2 and Table 4.1-3 Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Channelized Flow, Time of Concentration: Total Time of Concentration : T c is the lesser of the values of Tc calculated using T c = T i + T t C2 C100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti2 Ti100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Roughness Coefficient Assumed Hydraulic Radius Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min)Tc (Eq. 3.3-5)Tc2 = Ti +Tt Tc100 = Ti +Tt Tc2 Tc100 h1 H-A1 0.25 0.31 200 0.05%59.1 54.9 2080 0.48%0.025 0.50 2.60 13.3 22.7 72.4 68.3 22.7 22.7 h2 H-B1 0.28 0.35 200 1.29%19.9 18.2 701 1.29%0.025 0.50 4.27 2.7 15.0 22.7 21.0 15.0 15.0 h3 H-C1 0.25 0.31 200 1.14%21.5 20.0 327 1.14%0.025 0.50 4.02 1.4 12.9 22.9 21.4 12.9 12.9 EXISTING DIRECT TIME OF CONCENTRATION Channelized Flow Design Point Basin Overland Flow Time of Concentration Frequency Adjustment Factor: (Equation 3.3-2 FCSCM) (Equation 5-5 FCSCM) (Equation 5-4 FCSCM) (Equation 3.3-5 FCSCM) Table 3.2-3 FCSCM Therefore Tc2=Tc10 Notes: 1)Add 4900 to all elevations. 2) Per Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, minimum Tc = 5 min. 3) Assume a water depth of 6" and a typical curb and gutter per Larimer County Urban Street Standard Detail 701 for curb and gutter channelized flow. Assume a water depth of 1', fixed side slopes, and a triangular swale section for grass channelized flow. Assume a water depth of 1', 4:1 side slopes, and a 2' wide valley pan for channelized flow in a valley pan. Rational Method Equation: Rainfall Intensity: a1 H-A1 77.76 22.7 22.7 0.25 0.31 0.64 2.23 12.44 53.76 a2 H-B1 27.86 15.0 15.0 0.28 0.35 0.38 1.33 2.96 12.97 a3 H-C1 5.93 12.9 12.9 0.25 0.31 0.33 1.14 0.49 2.09 Tc100 (min) Intensity, i2 (in/hr) Intensity, i100 (in/hr) EXISTING RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS Design Point Basin(s)Area, A (acres) Tc2 (min) Flow, Q2 (cfs) Flow, Q100 (cfs) C2 C100 IDF Table for Rational Method - Table 3.4-1 FCSCM ()()()AiCCQf= CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Percentage Impervious 2-yr Runoff Coefficient 10-yr Runoff Coefficient 100-yr Runoff Coefficient Developed Asphalt .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………100%0.95 0.95 1.19 Concrete .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………100%0.95 0.95 1.19 Rooftop .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………90%0.95 0.95 1.19 Gravel .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………40%0.50 0.50 0.63 Pavers .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………40%0.50 0.50 0.63 Landscape or Pervious Surface Playgrounds .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………25%0.35 0.35 0.44 Lawns Clayey Soil .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.25 0.25 0.31 Lawns Sandy Soil .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.15 0.15 0.19 Notes: Basin ID Basin Area (ac) Area of Asphalt/Con crete (ac) Area of Concrete (ac) Area of Rooftop (ac) Area of Gravel (ac) Area of Pavers (ac) Area of Playgrounds (ac) Area of Lawns (ac) Composite % Imperv. 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient A1 25.669 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.669 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 B1 13.715 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.715 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 C1 8.819 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.819 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 D1 11.353 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.353 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 D2 1.158 0.514 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.644 46%0.56 0.56 0.70 D3 1.202 0.558 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.644 48%0.58 0.58 0.72 D4 0.975 0.478 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.497 50%0.59 0.59 0.74 D5 1.084 0.578 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.506 54%0.62 0.62 0.78 E1 3.222 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.222 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 E2 3.573 1.729 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.844 49%0.59 0.59 0.74 E3 7.388 2.899 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.488 40%0.52 0.52 0.66 F1 3.609 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.609 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 G1 2.243 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.243 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 H1 11.801 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.801 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 H2 1.733 0.811 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.923 48%0.58 0.58 0.72 H3 1.414 0.688 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.726 50%0.59 0.59 0.74 I1 4.254 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.254 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 I2 1.400 0.757 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.642 55%0.63 0.63 0.79 I3 1.273 0.751 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.522 60%0.66 0.66 0.83 J1 5.756 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.756 2%0.25 0.25 0.31 Detention Pond 1 (A1, B1, C1, D1-D5, E1-E3)78.159 6.757 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 71.402 10%0.31 0.31 0.39 Detention Pond 2 (F1, G1, H1-3)20.801 1.499 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 19.302 9%0.30 0.30 0.38 Detention Pond 3 (I1-3)6.927 1.508 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.419 23%0.40 0.40 0.50 DEVELOPED BASIN % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS 2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 3. Table 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 1) Percentage impervious taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 5, Table 4.1-2 and Table 4.1-3 Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Channelized Flow, Time of Concentration: Total Time of Concentration : T c is the lesser of the values of Tc calculated using T c = T i + T t C2 C100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti2 Ti100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Roughness Coefficient Assumed Hydraulic Radius Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min)Tc (Eq. 3.3-5)Tc2 = Ti +Tt Tc100 = Ti +Tt Tc2 Tc100 a1 A1 0.25 0.31 1219 0.68%63.2 58.8 0 N/A 0.015 0.50 N/A N/A 16.8 63.2 58.8 16.8 16.8 a2 A1 0.25 0.31 30 16.67%3.4 3.2 200 0.50%0.015 0.50 4.42 0.8 11.3 4.2 3.9 5.0 5.0 b1 B1 0.25 0.31 798 0.72%50.2 46.6 0 N/A 0.015 0.50 N/A N/A 14.4 50.2 46.6 14.4 14.4 b2 B1 0.25 0.31 24 16.67%3.0 2.8 200 0.50%0.015 0.50 4.42 0.8 11.2 3.8 3.6 5.0 5.0 c1 C1 0.25 0.31 878 0.59%56.2 52.2 0 N/A 0.015 0.50 N/A N/A 14.9 56.2 52.2 14.9 14.9 c2 C1 0.25 0.31 24 16.67%3.0 2.8 190 0.50%0.015 0.50 4.42 0.7 11.2 3.8 3.5 5.0 5.0 d1 D1 0.25 0.31 1032 0.25%81.0 75.3 0 N/A 0.015 0.50 N/A N/A 15.7 81.0 75.3 15.7 15.7 d2 D2 0.56 0.70 595 0.46%31.8 23.6 604 0.90%0.015 0.50 5.94 1.7 16.7 33.5 25.3 16.7 16.7 d3 D3 0.58 0.72 366 0.73%20.7 15.1 652 0.83%0.015 0.50 5.71 1.9 15.7 22.6 17.0 15.7 15.7 d4 D4 0.59 0.74 341 1.36%15.9 11.2 144 3.51%0.015 0.50 11.72 0.2 12.7 16.1 11.4 12.7 11.4 d5 D5 0.62 0.78 374 1.24%16.2 10.8 192 2.63%0.015 0.50 10.15 0.3 13.1 16.5 11.1 13.1 11.1 d6 D1 0.25 0.31 30 16.67%3.4 3.2 200 0.50%0.015 0.50 4.42 0.8 11.3 4.2 3.9 5.0 5.0 e1 E1 0.25 0.31 605 0.37%54.2 50.4 0 N/A 0.015 0.50 N/A N/A 13.4 54.2 50.4 13.4 13.4 e2 E2 0.59 0.74 1848 0.55%50.1 35.4 152 3.03%0.015 0.50 10.89 0.2 21.1 50.3 35.6 21.1 21.1 e3 E3 0.52 0.66 1816 0.56%56.1 42.6 205 2.25%0.015 0.50 9.38 0.4 21.2 56.5 43.0 21.2 21.2 h1 H1 0.25 0.31 547 2.16%28.7 26.7 0 N/A 0.015 0.50 N/A N/A 13.0 28.7 26.7 13.0 13.0 h2 H2 0.58 0.72 605 1.32%21.8 15.9 545 1.77%0.015 0.50 8.33 1.1 16.4 22.9 17.0 16.4 16.4 h3 H3 0.59 0.74 547 1.44%19.8 13.9 594 1.65%0.015 0.50 8.04 1.2 16.3 21.0 15.2 16.3 15.2 i1 I1 0.25 0.31 428 1.53%28.5 26.5 0 N/A 0.015 0.50 N/A N/A 12.4 28.5 26.5 12.4 12.4 i2 I2 0.63 0.79 591 1.45%18.9 12.5 85 7.32%0.015 0.50 16.93 0.1 13.8 19.0 12.5 13.8 12.5 i3 I3 0.66 0.83 591 1.45%17.7 10.8 166 3.74%0.015 0.50 12.10 0.2 14.2 17.9 11.1 14.2 11.1 j1 J1 0.25 0.31 439 0.23%54.5 50.6 0 N/A 0.015 0.50 N/A N/A 12.4 54.5 50.6 12.4 12.4 DEVELOPED DIRECT TIME OF CONCENTRATION Channelized Flow Design Point Basin Overland Flow Time of Concentration Frequency Adjustment Factor: (Equation 3.3-2 FCSCM) (Equation 5-5 FCSCM) (Equation 5-4 FCSCM) (Equation 3.3-5 FCSCM) Table 3.2-3 FCSCM Therefore Tc2=Tc10 Notes: 1)Add 4900 to all elevations. 2) Per Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, minimum Tc = 5 min. 3) Assume a water depth of 6" and a typical curb and gutter per Larimer County Urban Street Standard Detail 701 for curb and gutter channelized flow. Assume a water depth of 1', fixed side slopes, and a triangular swale section for grass channelized flow. Assume a water depth of 1', 4:1 side slopes, and a 2' wide valley pan for channelized flow in a valley pan. Rational Method Equation: Rainfall Intensity: a1 A1 25.67 16.8 16.8 0.25 0.31 0.38 1.33 2.44 10.58 a2 A1 25.67 5.00 5.00 0.25 0.31 0.29 1.00 1.86 7.96 b1 B1 13.72 14.4 14.4 0.25 0.31 0.33 1.14 1.13 4.85 b2 B1 13.72 5.00 5.00 0.25 0.31 0.29 1.00 0.99 4.25 c1 C1 8.82 14.9 14.9 0.25 0.31 0.33 1.14 0.73 3.12 c2 C1 8.82 5.00 5.00 0.25 0.31 0.29 1.00 0.64 2.73 d1 D1 11.35 15.7 15.7 0.25 0.31 0.38 1.33 1.08 4.68 d2 D2 1.16 16.67 16.67 0.56 0.70 0.38 1.33 0.25 1.08 d3 D3 1.20 15.7 15.7 0.58 0.72 0.38 1.33 0.26 1.15 d4 D4 0.97 12.69 11.43 0.59 0.74 0.33 1.14 0.19 0.82 d5 D5 1.08 13.1 11.1 0.62 0.78 0.33 1.14 0.22 0.96 d6 D1 11.35 5.00 5.00 0.25 0.31 0.29 1.00 0.82 3.52 e1 E1 3.22 13.4 13.4 0.25 0.31 0.33 1.14 0.27 1.14 e2 E2 3.57 21.11 21.11 0.59 0.74 0.64 2.23 1.35 5.90 e3 E3 7.39 21.2 21.2 0.52 0.66 0.64 2.23 2.46 10.87 h1 H1 11.80 13.04 13.04 0.25 0.31 0.33 1.14 0.97 4.17 h2 H2 1.73 16.4 16.4 0.58 0.72 0.38 1.33 0.38 1.66 h3 H3 1.41 16.34 15.18 0.59 0.74 0.38 1.33 0.32 1.39 i1 I1 4.25 12.4 12.4 0.25 0.31 0.33 1.14 0.35 1.50 i2 I2 1.40 13.75 12.55 0.63 0.79 0.33 1.14 0.29 1.26 i3 I3 1.27 14.2 11.1 0.66 0.83 0.33 1.14 0.28 1.20 j1 J1 5.76 12.44 12.44 0.25 0.31 0.33 1.14 0.47 2.03 Tc100 (min) Intensity, i2 (in/hr) Intensity, i100 (in/hr) DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS Design Point Basin(s)Area, A (acres) Tc2 (min) Flow, Q2 (cfs) Flow, Q100 (cfs) C2 C100 IDF Table for Rational Method - Table 3.4-1 FCSCM ()()()AiCCQf= NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINRARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS May 25, 2022Preliminary Drainage Report Rudolph Farms This section intentionally left blank. Hydraulic calculations will be completed during final design. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINRARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM APPENDIX APPENDIX C EROSION CONTROL REPORT APPENDIX C LID EXHIBIT Project Number:Project: Project Location: Calculations By:Date: Sq. Ft.Acres A1 1,118,150 25.67 2%n/a n/a 0 22,363 B1 597,446 13.72 2%n/a n/a 0 11,949 C1 384,145 8.82 2%n/a n/a 0 7,683 D1 494,525 11.35 2%n/a n/a 0 9,891 D2 50,438 1.16 46%Rain Garden A Rain Garden 790 23,202 D3 52,359 1.20 48%Rain Garden B Rain Garden 841 25,132 D4 42,469 0.97 50%Rain Garden C Rain Garden 691 21,235 D5 47,233 1.08 54%Rain Garden D Rain Garden 822 25,506 E1 140,372 3.22 2%n/a n/a 0 2,807 E2 155,651 3.57 49%Rain Garden E Rain Garden 2,534 76,269 E3 321,805 7.39 40%Rain Garden F Rain Garden 4,630 128,722 F1 157,226 3.61 2%n/a n/a 0 3,145 G1 97,695 2.24 2%n/a n/a 0 1,954 H1 514,041 11.80 2%n/a n/a 0 10,281 H2 75,507 1.73 48%Rain Garden H Rain Garden 1,213 36,243 H3 61,611 1.41 50%Rain Garden G Rain Garden 1,016 30,806 I1 185,303 4.25 2%n/a n/a 0 3,706 I2 60,974 1.40 55%Rain Garden I Rain Garden 1,048 33,536 I3 55,473 1.27 60%Rain Garden J Rain Garden 1,048 33,284 J1 250,722 5.76 2%n/a n/a 0 5,014 Total 6,405,271 85.97 512,727 Project Number:Project: Project Location: Calculations By:Date: Sq. Ft.Acres Rain Garden A 50,438 1.16 46%D2 Rain Garden 658 790 23,202 Rain Garden B 52,359 1.20 48%D3 Rain Garden 701 841 25,132 Rain Garden C 42,469 0.97 50%D4 Rain Garden 576 691 21,235 Rain Garden D 47,233 1.08 54%D5 Rain Garden 685 822 25,506 Rain Garden E 155,651 3.57 49%E2 Rain Garden 2,112 2,534 76,269 Rain Garden F 321,805 7.39 40%E3 Rain Garden 3,858 4,630 128,722 Rain Garden G 61,611 1.41 50%H3 Rain Garden 847 1,016 30,806 Rain Garden H 75,507 1.73 48%H2 Rain Garden 1,011 1,213 36,243 Rain Garden I 55,473 1.27 60%I3 Rain Garden 873 1,048 33,284 Total 862,547 19.80 13,585 400,399 6,405,271 ft2 512,727 ft2 78,793 ft2 384,545 ft2 400,399 ft2 78.09% Total Treated Area Percent Impervious Treated by LID A1,B1,C1,D1,E1,F1,G1,H1,I1,J1 75% Requried Minium Area to be Treated LID Site Summary - New Impervious Area Total Area of Current Development Total Impervious Area Total Impervious Area without LID Treatment Subbasin ID Treatment TypeLID ID Volume per UD-BMP (ft3) Area Weighted % Impervious 22-0052 Rudolph Farms Fort Collins, Colorado Natallie A. Gabbert 5/16/2022 LID Summary LID Summary per LID Structure Impervious Area (ft2) Vol. w/20% Increase per Fort Collins Manual (ft3) LID Summary AreaBasin ID Treatment TypePercent Impervious LID ID Rudolph Farms 5/16/2022 22-0052 Fort Collins, Colorado Natallie A. Gabbert Total Impervious Area (ft2) Required Volume (ft3) LID Summary per Basin Project: Calc. By: Date: 78.16 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs *Sub-basins A1,B1,C1,D1-5,E1-3 85%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.85 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.36 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 2.83 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 123,273 <-- Calculated from above 1.20 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 8.51 <-- CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3 dia (in) =1 7/8 number of columns=3.00 number of rows =1.00 number of holes =3.00 Area Per Row =8.28 Total Outlet Area (in2) =8.28 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Water Quality Pond 1 Rudolph Farms Natallie A. Gabbert May 24, 2022 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Project: Calc. By: Date: 20.80 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs *Sub-basins F1,G1,H1-3 85%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.85 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.36 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.75 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 32,807 <-- Calculated from above 0.52 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 3.77 <-- CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3 dia (in) =1 5/8 number of columns=2.00 number of rows =1.00 number of holes =2.00 Area Per Row =3.84 Total Outlet Area (in2) =3.84 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Water Quality Pond 2 Rudolph Farms Natallie A. Gabbert May 24, 2022 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Project: Calc. By: Date: 6.93 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs *Sub-basins I1-3 85%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.85 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.36 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.25 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 10,926 <-- Calculated from above 1.17 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 0.89 <-- CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3 dia (in) =7/8 number of columns=2.00 number of rows =1.00 number of holes =2.00 Area Per Row =1.04 Total Outlet Area (in2) =1.04 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Water Quality Pond 3 Rudolph Farms Natallie A. Gabbert May 24, 2022 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I a Ia =46.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i =0.460 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV =0.16 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area =50,438 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =658 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 =464 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =588 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1013 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=801 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 =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden A Fort Collins, Colorado UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGA, RG 5/16/2022, 5:03 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) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden A Fort Collins, Colorado 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 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGA, RG 5/16/2022, 5:03 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I a Ia =48.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i =0.480 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV =0.16 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area =52,359 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =701 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 =503 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =685 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1135 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=910 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 =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden B Fort Collins, Colorado UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGB, RG 5/16/2022, 5:03 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) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden B Fort Collins, Colorado 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 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGB, RG 5/16/2022, 5:03 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I a Ia =49.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i =0.490 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV =0.16 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area =42,469 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =576 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 =416 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =522 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =942 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=732 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 =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden C Fort Collins, Colorado UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGC, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 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) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden C Fort Collins, Colorado 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 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGC, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I a Ia =54.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i =0.540 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV =0.17 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area =47,233 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =685 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 =510 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =699 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1171 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=935 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 =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden D Fort Collins, Colorado UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGD, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 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) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden D Fort Collins, Colorado 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 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGD, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I a Ia =49.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i =0.490 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV =0.16 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area =155,651 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =2,112 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 =1525 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =2198 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =2991 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=2,594 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 =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden E Fort Collins, Colorado UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGE, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 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) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden E Fort Collins, Colorado 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 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGE, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I a Ia =40.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i =0.400 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 =321,805 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =3,858 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 =2574 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =4250 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =5335 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=4,792 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 =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden F Fort Collins, Colorado UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGF, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 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) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden F Fort Collins, Colorado 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 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGF, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I a Ia =50.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i =0.500 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV =0.17 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area =61,611 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =847 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 =616 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =785 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1377 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=1,081 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 =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden G Fort Collins, Colorado UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGG, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 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) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden G Fort Collins, Colorado 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 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGG, RG 5/16/2022, 5:02 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I a Ia =48.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i =0.480 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV =0.16 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area =75,507 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =1,011 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 =725 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =999 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1635 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=1,317 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 =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden H Fort Collins, Colorado UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGH, RG 5/16/2022, 5:01 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) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden H Fort Collins, Colorado 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 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGH, RG 5/16/2022, 5:01 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1.Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I a Ia =60.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i =0.600 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV =0.19 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area =55,473 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =873 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 =666 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =849 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1460 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=1,155 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 =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden J Fort Collins, Colorado UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGI, RG 5/16/2022, 5:03 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) Natallie A, Gabbert EPS Group, Inc. May 16, 2022 Rudolph Farms - Rain Garden J Fort Collins, Colorado 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 22-0052 - UD-BMP_v3.07 - RGI, RG 5/16/2022, 5:03 PM ELEC C VAULTF.O. CT C CT VAULTF.O. ELEC ELEC TC C T VAULTF.O. C C VAULTF.O. T C ELEC C ELEC VAULTF.O.CABLE CABLE ELECBRKR HY DHY DHY D HY DW ELEC FO HY DH2O ELEC ELEC HY D CELEC LID LID util LID ELEC F E SFESFES FE SFE SS D S D SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSS FOCTVEFOCTVEEEE E E FE SF E SHY DELEC D D D D DD VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELECVAULTELEC VAULTELEC ELEC F.O. ELEC FOF.O.F.O. F.O.F.O. M H2OFO M ELEC ELECELEC ELECFO VAULTF.O. ELEC VAULTF.O. HY DFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W WWW WSTE E E E E E E OHU OHU GGG G G GCTV OHU S H2O H2O H2O H2O H2OH2O H2O WV WV W S C C C M CABLE M W CCW E CABLE H2O WVWV WWWW SSSS V.P. V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMC MM WT H2O M NO PARKINGNO PARKING/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /WWWSSSEEESB WWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSS12" W 12" W 12" W 12" W8" SS8" SSSG G G G GGGGGGGFF12" SST 12" SS 12 " S S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W SWF FWW12 " S S T8" WTE/T /CE/T /C E/T/C E/T/C E/T/C E/T/CGGG G G G RAIN GARDEN E POND A POND B POND C POND D POND E POND H POND I POND J RAIN GARDEN D RAIN GARDEN C RAIN GARDEN B RAIN GARDEN A RAIN GARDEN F RAIN GARDEN G RAIN GARDEN H RAIN GARDEN I A1 C1 H1 I1 D1 F1 B1 G1 J1 D3 D5 D4 D2 E1 H3 I2 I3 H2 E3 E2 CARRIAGE PKWYSTREET AS T R E E T B PROSPECT RD NOT A PART NOT A PART INTERSTATE 25PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED INLET ADESIGN POINT DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY A LEGEND: FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY: SCALE: ISSUED: RUDOLPH FARMS SHEET NO:S:\PROJECTS\2022\22-0052\CIVIL\_PRELIMINARY\DESIGN\DRAINAGE\APPENDIX C\22-0052 - LID EXHIBIT.DWGLID EXHIBIT N. Gabbert 1in=200ft 05/25/22 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet0200200 200 RAIN GARDEN LIMITS LID Site Summary - New Impervious Area Total Area of Current Development 6,405,271 ft2 Total Impervious Area 512,727 ft2 Total Impervious Area without LID Treatment 78,793 ft2 A1,B1,C1,D1,E1,F1,G1,H1,I1,J1 75% Requried Minium Area to be Treated 384,545 ft2 Total Treated Area 400,399 ft2 Percent Impervious Treated by LID 78.09% LID ID Area Weighted % Impervious Subbasin ID Treatment Type Volume per UD-BMP (ft3) Vol. w/20% Increase per Fort Collins Manual (ft3) Impervio us Area (ft2) Sq. Ft.Acres Rain Garden A 50,438 1.16 46%D2 Rain Garden 658 790 23,202 Rain Garden B 52,359 1.20 48%D3 Rain Garden 701 841 25,132 Rain Garden C 42,469 0.97 50%D4 Rain Garden 576 691 21,235 Rain Garden D 47,233 1.08 54%D5 Rain Garden 685 822 25,506 Rain Garden E 155,651 3.57 49%E2 Rain Garden 2,112 2,534 76,269 Rain Garden F 321,805 7.39 40%E3 Rain Garden 3,858 4,630 128,722 Rain Garden G 61,611 1.41 50%H3 Rain Garden 847 1,016 30,806 Rain Garden H 75,507 1.73 48%H2 Rain Garden 1,011 1,213 36,243 Rain Garden I 55,473 1.27 60%I3 Rain Garden 873 1,048 33,284 Total 862,547 19.80 13,585 400,399 (Yellow) (Red) (Magenta) (Green) (Dark Green) (Purple) (Orange) (Cyan) (Blue) 47 w w w . e p s g r o u p i n c . c o m T:480.503.2250F:480.503.2258 2045 S. Vineyard Ave, Suite 101 | Mesa, AZ 85210 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINRARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM APPENDIX APPENDIX D SWMM MODELING ELEC C VAULTF.O. CT C CT VAULTF.O. ELEC ELEC TC C T VAULTF.O. C C VAULTF.O. T C ELEC C ELEC VAULTF.O.CABLE CABLE ELEC BRKR HY D HY DHY DHY DW ELEC FO HY D H2O ELEC ELEC HY DCELEC LID LID util LID ELEC FE SFE SFE SF E SF E SS D S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSST FOCTVEEFOFOCTVCTVE EEEEEE E E E E FE SFES HY DELEC D D D D DD VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELECVAULTELEC VAULTELEC ELEC F.O. ELEC FOF.O.F.O. F.O.F.O. M H2OFO M ELEC ELECELEC ELEC FO VAULTF.O. ELEC VAULTF.O.HY DFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWW WWSTE E E E E E E E E E OHU OHU OHU GGGW G G G G GCTVCTV OHU OHU S H2O H2O H2O H2O H2OH2O H2O WV WV W S C C C M CABLE M W CCW E CABLE H2O WVWV WWWW/ / / / / / / / W W SSSS V.P. V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMC MM W T H2O M/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /WWWSSSEEEWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWSSSS12" W 12" W 12" W 12" W8" SS8" SS8" SSSG G G G G GGGGGGGGGFF12" SST 12" SS 12" SS 12 " S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W SWF FWW12 " S S 12 " S S T8" W8" WTE/T /CE/T /CE/T /C E/T/C E/T/C E/T/C E/T/C E/T/CGGGG G G G G A1 C1 E1 H1 I1 D1 F1 B1 G1 D2 I2 I3 H2 E3 E2 D3 D5 D4 J1 POND A POND B POND C POND D POND E POND H POND I POND J H3 150 0 150 300 scale: 1" = 150'feetCARRIAGE PKWYSTREET AS T R E E T B PROSPECT RD NOT A PART NOT A PART INTERSTATE 25TRIC L A K E C A N A N L FOX GROVE SUBDIVISION POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROSPECT 6-12 SCHOOL SWMM EXHIBIT TOWN OF TIMNATH RUDOLPH FARMS May 25, 2022 Project: Rudolph Farms Date:5/24/2022 Prepared by: Natallie Gabbert Pond ID Tributary Area (ac) Avg Percent Imperviousness (%) Extended Detention WQCV (ac-ft) 100-Yr Detention WSEL (ft) Peak Release (cfs) Pond A 25.67 85 0.92 4914.00 2.44 Pond B 13.72 85 0.49 4916.00 1.13 Pond C 8.82 85 0.32 4915.56 0.73 Pond D 15.77 85 0.57 4913.92 1.08 Pond E 14.18 85 0.51 4914.00 7.00 Pond H 19.39 85 0.75 4906.75 0.97 Pond I 6.93 85 0.25 4907.63 0.92 Pond J 5.76 85 0.21 4911.61 3.35 POND SUMMARY TABLE NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM APPENDIX APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL REPORT ` EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) has been included with the final construction drawings. It should be noted; however, any such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction, or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed, removed, or modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 – Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing and/or wattles 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 Sheet CS3 of the Preliminary Improvement Plans. The Final Improvement Plans will also contain a full-size Erosion Control Plan 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 any existing Development Agreement(s) of record, as well as the Development Agreement, to be recorded prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit. Also, the Site Contractor for this project may 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, before commencing any earth disturbing activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive Storm Water 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. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARMS EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY EROSION CONTROL REPORT NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINRARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM APPENDIX 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 Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service May 10, 2022 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 24—Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................13 35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................................14 40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.....................................................16 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...........................................17 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................18 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes.........................................20 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.......................................21 92—Riverwash............................................................................................22 References............................................................................................................23 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 449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 40° 34' 33'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 34' 33'' N104° 59' 26'' W40° 33' 52'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 33' 52'' N 104° 59' 26'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,230 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 16, Sep 2, 2021 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 24 Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.2 1.8% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 34.9 27.9% 40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 57.1 45.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 10.0 8.0% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.0 0.0% 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes 13.2 10.5% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 6.4 5.1% 92 Riverwash 1.6 1.2% Totals for Area of Interest 125.2 100.0% 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 11 given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. 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 24—Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpvw Elevation: 5,000 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 49 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 130 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Connerton and similar soils:50 percent Barnum and similar soils:40 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Connerton Setting Landform:Stream terraces, flood plains, fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 3 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 high (0.20 to 0.60 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 slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R049XB202CO - Loamy Foothill Hydric soil rating: No Description of Barnum Setting Landform:Terraces, valleys, fans Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam H2 - 10 to 60 inches: stratified loamy fine sand to clay loam 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:NoneOccasional 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 supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Garrett Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlnc Elevation: 4,020 to 6,730 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Map Unit Composition Fort collins and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Fort Collins Setting Landform:Interfluves, stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Pleistocene or older alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam Bt1 - 4 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 16 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 16 to 29 inches: loam Bk2 - 29 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 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 (0.20 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:12 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Nunn Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Interfluves Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope, interfluve Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpwg Elevation: 5,200 to 6,000 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 Garrett and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Garrett Setting Landform:Terraces, fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loam H2 - 8 to 39 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 39 to 60 inches: sandy loam 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:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Harlan Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BZ008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No Barnum Percent of map unit:5 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Connerton Percent of map unit:4 percent Ecological site:R067BZ008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No 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:Stream terraces, flood plains 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: loam H3 - 32 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Runoff class: Medium 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:NoneOccasional 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 supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow 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 Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No 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. Custom Soil Resource Report 18 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 supply, 0 to 60 inches: 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 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxq 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 Nunn, wet, and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn, Wet Setting Landform:Stream terraces, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: clay loam H2 - 10 to 47 inches: clay H3 - 47 to 60 inches: gravelly loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:NoneRare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains Custom Soil Resource Report 20 Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Dacono Percent of map unit:3 percent Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Mollic halaquepts Percent of map unit:1 percent Landform:Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes 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 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 30 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very low Custom Soil Resource Report 21 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 supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.7 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 Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Table mountain Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Fluvaquentic haplustolls Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes 92—Riverwash Map Unit Composition Riverwash:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Riverwash Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 8 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No 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 23 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 24 K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 1 of 4449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600499900500000500100500200500300500400500500500600500700 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 40° 34' 33'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 34' 33'' N104° 59' 26'' W40° 33' 52'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 33' 52'' N 104° 59' 26'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,230 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 .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 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 16, Sep 2, 2021 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. K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 2 of 4 K Factor, Whole Soil Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 24 Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes .37 2.2 1.8% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes .43 34.9 27.9% 40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .32 57.1 45.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .32 10.0 8.0% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .37 0.0 0.0% 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes .24 13.2 10.5% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .32 6.4 5.1% 92 Riverwash 1.6 1.2% Totals for Area of Interest 125.2 100.0% Description Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. "Erosion factor Kw (whole soil)" indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Factor K does not apply to organic horizons and is not reported for those layers. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average) Top Depth: 0 K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 3 of 4 Bottom Depth: 60 Units of Measure: Inches K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 4 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 1 of 4449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600449050044906004490700449080044909004491000449110044912004491300449140044915004491600499900500000500100500200500300500400500500500600500700 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 40° 34' 33'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 34' 33'' N104° 59' 26'' W40° 33' 52'' N 105° 0' 7'' W40° 33' 52'' N 104° 59' 26'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,230 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 16, Sep 2, 2021 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. Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 24 Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes C 2.2 1.8% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes C 34.9 27.9% 40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes B 57.1 45.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes C 10.0 8.0% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes C 0.0 0.0% 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes C 13.2 10.5% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes A 6.4 5.1% 92 Riverwash 1.6 1.2% Totals for Area of Interest 125.2 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 3 of 4 Description 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. 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. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 4 of 4 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM APPENDIX APPENDIX G MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE EXCERPTS ` Town of Timnath Master Drainage Plan Update 2018 Prepared for: Town of Timnath 4800 Goodman Rd, Timnath, CO 80547 August 2018 – FINAL Revised – November 2018 3665 JFK Parkway, Bldg. 2, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525-3152 970.223.5556 www.AyresAssociates.com Ayres Associates Project No. 31-1881.00 File: f:\32-1881.00 timnath master plan update\report\timnath master drainage plan - 2018 update.docx Town of Timnath Master Drainage Plan Update 2018 i Contents Page No. 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 3 1.2. Scope of Work .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.4. Previous Studies ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.5. Mapping and Surveying .................................................................................................................... 6 2. Hydrology Plan ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.1. Timnath Basin Description ................................................................................................................ 7 2.2. General Modeling Procedures .......................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Approach .................................................................................................................. 7 Rainfall ...................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3. Baseline Condition Hydrology Model ............................................................................................... 9 Delineation and Definition of Subbasins .................................................................................. 9 Subbasin Hydrology Parameters .............................................................................................. 9 Conveyance Element Routing ................................................................................................ 10 Conveyance Element Parameters .......................................................................................... 10 Node Elevations ...................................................................................................................... 11 External Inflows ...................................................................................................................... 11 Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal ................................................................................................ 11 Timnath Reservoir Outlet Canal ............................................................................................. 12 Timnath Reservoir .................................................................................................................. 12 Downtown Timnath.............................................................................................................. 13 Diversions ............................................................................................................................. 14 Development Since 2005 ..................................................................................................... 14 Outfalls ................................................................................................................................. 14 Results of Baseline Hydrology Model ................................................................................... 15 Comparison of Results to Previous Study ............................................................................ 15 2.4. Developed Condition Hydrology Model ......................................................................................... 17 Future Land Use Conversion .................................................................................................. 17 Conceptual Detention for Future Development .................................................................... 18 Routing Changes for Future Conditions ................................................................................. 18 ii Downtown Timnath ................................................................................................................ 18 Summary of Developed Condition Hydrology Results ........................................................... 18 Comparison of Developed Results to Alternative 3 from Previous Study.............................. 19 3. Hydraulic Evaluation of Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal ............................................................. 21 3.1. SRH-2D Hydraulic Model Parameters ............................................................................................. 21 3.2. TRIC Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................................... 22 3.3. Unsteady Hydraulic Analysis of 10-year and 100-year Flows ......................................................... 22 Tailwater Conditions/ Timnath Reservoir WSEL Discussion ................................................... 23 3.4. Discussion of TRIC Results .............................................................................................................. 23 4. Hydraulic Evaluation of Timnath Reservoir Outlet Canal .......................................................... 26 4.1. Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 26 4.2. SRH-2D Hydraulic Model Parameters ............................................................................................. 26 4.3. Unsteady Analysis of 10- and 100-year Flows ................................................................................ 26 4.4. Discussion of TROC Results ............................................................................................................. 27 5. Alternative Evaluations and Conceptual Design ....................................................................... 29 5.1. Hydrology for Channel Design ........................................................................................................ 29 5.2. Conceptual Hydraulic Design of Clark and TROC Drainage Channels ............................................. 29 5.3. Downtown Area Improvement Alternatives .................................................................................. 33 Land Use and Imperviousness Assumptions .......................................................................... 33 Timnath Elementary School Detention .................................................................................. 33 Storm Drain Sizing Criteria - 100-Year Flows .......................................................................... 33 Recommended Improvements – Existing Condition Flows .................................................... 33 Recommended Improvements – Future Flows ...................................................................... 33 Limitations and Further Study Recommendations ................................................................ 34 6. Hydraulic Evaluation of Greeley No. 2 Canal and Conceptual Spill Weir Design ......................... 36 6.1. Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 36 6.2. SRH-2D Hydraulic Model Parameters ............................................................................................. 36 6.3. Unsteady Hydraulics Analysis ......................................................................................................... 36 6.4. Conceptual Design of Spill Weir ..................................................................................................... 36 Limitations and Further Study Recommendations ................................................................ 37 7. Implementation Plan .............................................................................................................. 38 7.1. Regional Drainage Facilities ............................................................................................................ 38 Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) ..................................................................................... 38 iii Timnath Reservoir Outlet Canal (TROC) ................................................................................. 38 7.2. On-Site Detention ........................................................................................................................... 39 7.3. Minor Lateral Drainage Facilities .................................................................................................... 40 7.4. Downtown Drainage Improvements .............................................................................................. 40 7.5. Timnath Reservoir .......................................................................................................................... 41 7.6. Further Study Recommendations ................................................................................................... 41 8. References ............................................................................................................................. 42 List of Appendices Appendix A Baseline Condition Hydrology Appendix B Developed Condition Hydrology Appendix C Conceptual Hydraulic Design of Clark Channel and Timnath Reservoir Outlet Canal Channel Appendix D Downtown Area Improvement Alternatives Appendix E SRH-2D Hydraulics Results of Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal Appendix F SRH-2D Hydraulics Results of Timnath Reservoir Outlet Canal Appendix G SRH-2D Hydraulics Results of Greeley No. 2 Canal Appendix H Digital Data – Modeling Files and GIS Data List of Figures Page No. Figure 1.1 Timnath Town Limits, GMA, and Study Area ........................................................................ 2 Figure 3.1 Timnath Reservoir Inlet Culvert Gates (Reservoir Side) ..................................................... 21 Figure 5.1 Clark Channel and TROC Channel Conceptual Design Cross Sections ................................ 32 Figure 5.2 North Downtown Storm Drain System Alternatives Map .................................................. 35 List of Tables Page No. Table 2.1 Rainfall Hyetographs ............................................................................................................... 8 Table 2.2 Hydrologic Soil Group Recommended Values. ..................................................................... 10 Table 2.3 Timnath Reservoir Stage-Storage Information ..................................................................... 13 Table 2.4 Timnath Reservoir Outlet Rating .......................................................................................... 13 Table 2.5 Summary of Results for Baseline Condition SWMM Hydrology Model ............................... 16 Table 2.6 Comparison of Baseline Hydrology Model Results to Previous Study ................................. 16 iv Table 2.7 Land Use to Imperviousness Table ....................................................................................... 17 Table 2.8 Summary of Results for Developed Condition SWMM Hydrology Model ........................... 19 Table 2.9 Comparison of Developed Hydrology Model Results to Previous Study ............................. 20 Table 5.1 Summary of Discharge for Design of Clark and Timnath Reservoir Outlet Canal Channels 29 Table 5.2 Clark Channel Design Summary ........................................................................................... 30 Table 5.3 Timnath Reservoir Outlet Canal - Channel Design Summary ............................................... 30 21 3. Hydraulic Evaluation of Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal The goals of the hydraulic analysis of the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) were to quantify the capacity of the canal, identify the natural spill locations, develop spill rating curves to be used in the hydrology model, evaluate the impact of development, and to analyze the performance of the current canal during the 10- and 100-year storm events. This study identified canal spill locations but did not evaluate alternatives, solutions for the spills, or define a floodplain. 3.1. SRH-2D Hydraulic Model Parameters Model input data for the SRH-2D hydraulic model included lidar topography data and hydraulic roughness (Manning’s n) coverages. The manning’s n values used for this model were 0.035 for the channel and 0.04 for the overbank areas. Modeling for the TRIC bridge and culvert structures were performed using the SRH-2D pressure flow routine. Culvert and bridge opening dimensions were verified with survey information. Pressure flow structures were modeled at the County Road 5, Prospect Road, and County Road 42E crossings, as well as at the Timnath Reservoir inlet culvert which consists of twin 5’(W) x 6.5’(H) concrete box culverts. Tailwater conditions in Timnath Reservoir, at the downstream end of the model, were set to match the normal high-water level of the Reservoir (WSEL 4910.77) which is essentially equal to the crown of the inlet culverts (El. 4910.79). This tailwater assumption is discussed further in Section 3.3.1. On the downstream end of the inlet culverts (reservoir side) there are two flap gates which prevent reservoir water from flowing back into the TRIC canal. These flap gates were not discretely modeled with either the hydrology or hydraulics models; essentially the models function such that the flap gates would be open during storm flows. This decision was made for two reasons: 1) There is no design or rating information available for the hydraulic performance of the flap gates, and 2) the counter-weighted flap gates open rather easily and result in relatively small head loss compared with the hydraulic controls of the culvert restriction and the high reservoir tailwater (at the crown of the inlet culverts). The culvert gates are shown in Figure 3.1 below. The TRIC drain into Lake Canal was ignored because the relatively small flow rate was considered negligible (approx. 5 cfs) and because this gate is manually operated. Figure 3.1 Timnath Reservoir Inlet Culvert Gates (Reservoir Side) Photo Credit (Fuhrman, 2017) 22 3.2. TRIC Capacity Analysis To determine capacity of the canal, the TRIC was broken into three reaches: I-25 to Prospect, Prospect to CR42E, and CR42E to Timnath Reservoir. These reaches were analyzed in three separate SRH-2D models with increasing discharge until flows began to spill out of the channel’s downslope embankment (to the southwest). The maximum flow rate that was completely contained within the canal’s banks was considered the channel capacity. A map of the results from this analysis can be found in Appendix E. The maximum capacities for each individual section are as follows: 1. I-25 to Prospect Road (near McLaughlin Lane): 244 cfs. (Note: Ponding in adjacent areas north of the channel begins at approximately 185 cfs.) 2. Prospect Road (near McLaughlin Lane) to TRIC crossing with Prospect Road: 350 cfs 3. Prospect Road to CR42E: a. Upstream Section: 275 cfs b. Downstream Section: 190 cfs 4. CR42E to Timnath Reservoir Inlet: 200 cfs Using the three individual 2D models described above, rating curves were developed for each spill location. These locations are labeled A through E, from upstream to downstream, and are briefly described as follows: • Spill A is an area of ponding on the north side of the channel 1,400 feet east of I-25. At this location, water that spills out of the channel does not leave the model but ponds in the adjacent fields. When the TRIC discharge decreases, most of the ponding in this area will to drain back into the canal leaving a small amount of shallow ponding adjacent to the ditch road. • Spill B is 1500 feet further downstream where the TRIC turns parallel to Prospect Rd. This location begins spilling south when flows in the canal exceed 244 cfs. • Spill C is south of Prospect where flows will spill to the west when flows exceed 275 cfs. • Spill D is just north of CR42E, this is the most limiting area of the channel where water spills to the west when flows exceed 190 cfs. • Spill E is approximately 700 feet downstream of CR42E and spills exit the channel when flows exceed 200 cfs. The spill rating curves were developed by placing model monitoring lines immediately upstream, downstream, and perpendicular to each spill location. Monitor lines are features of SRH-2D which track flow through the line at each timestep. The monitor line data was used to develop channel and spill rating curves at each spill location, the rating curves were then entered to the hydrology model. Appendix E presents these rating curves and spill results for the 10 and 100-year storm events (existing and future conditions). 3.3. Unsteady Hydraulic Analysis of 10-year and 100-year Flows Hydraulic analyses of the 10-year and 100-year TRIC flows were performed in SRH-2D using input hydrographs from the EPA SWMM hydrology model. It was assumed that all upstream drainage would be intercepted by the TRIC. Prior to the storm inflows, irrigation baseflow was run through the model in 23 steady state until equilibrium was reached through the entire channel. The decreed flow for this channel is 200-cfs, but because the TRIC begins to spill flow at 190-cfs, this flow rate was chosen as the baseline condition. The 190-cfs base irrigation flow continued during the storm duration. With these inflows, the 2D model was run in an unsteady condition for an 8-hour period. The canal flow and canal spill results compared reasonably well between the SRH-2D hydraulics model and the EPA SWMM hydrology model, with some variation that would be expected between different models. These comparisons are presented in Appendix E. Tailwater Conditions/ Timnath Reservoir WSEL Discussion The TRIC canal terminates at the Timnath Reservoir inlet, which is the downstream boundary of the SRH- 2D analysis. The SRH analysis assumed a constant water surface in Timnath Reservoir equal to the normal- high water level (normal-HWL) or service spillway crest at WSEL 4910.77. However, the final SWMM hydrology models showed that the reservoir level may rise above the normal HWL, during a 100-year storm event, by 1.93-feet (existing/ baseline conditions) to 2.34-feet (future conditions). These depths correspond to water surface elevations of 4912.70 (existing) and 4913.11 (future). The hydrology model assumed conservatively that the Timnath Reservoir initial conditions would be at Normal-HWL prior to 100-year rainfall. The existing and future SWMM model results show that, given a drainage basin wide storm event, the TRIC would not only have the inability to convey flows into the Reservoir, but that the Reservoir could backflow through the TRIC if the inlet flap gates were left in the fixed open position. Without the Reservoir inlet flap gates in place, these maximum reservoir WSELs would fill the TRIC to 3-feet deep at Prospect Road and 2-feet deep at I-25. These maximum Reservoir WSELs are higher than the TRIC spill crests at the Spill D and E locations and presents a situation where — without the inlet culvert flap gates — reservoir water could backflow through the TRIC and spill over the canal banks (existing and future scenarios). 3.4. Discussion of TRIC Results As presented in the previous sections, the primary purpose of the TRIC hydraulic analyses focused on conveyance of the 10-year and 100-year stormwater flows in addition to the 190-cfs of irrigation base flow. These analyses showed that the TRIC does not have capacity, above the 190-cfs of irrigation base flow, to convey additional stormwater flows without spills from the canal. In addition, the SWMM hydrology models showed that the existing and future 100-yr WSELs in the Reservoir would be higher than portions of the TRIC embankment. At the direction of the Town, a less conservative SRH modeling run was performed which removed the 190-cfs irrigation baseflow and allowed storm flows to be run through a dry TRIC channel. The results showed that, without irrigation flows, the TRIC would be able to convey all of the future condition 100- year flows (or about 70% of existing condition flows) to Timnath Reservoir. This model run assumed the Reservoir level would remain at the normal-HWL. The reduction in canal spills from these runs is due to a combination of two main factors: 1) flow attenuation from the empty TRIC provides storage volume similar to a detention pond, and 2) the hydraulic capacity of the TRIC to convey 190-cfs to the reservoir – assuming the reservoir level would not rise above the normal-HWL. However, the SWMM hydrology results, as discussed in Section 3.3.1. showed that a watershed wide rain event would increase the Timnath Reservoir WSELs such that storm flows could not be conveyed into the Reservoir via the TRIC. 24 Summarizing the overall TRIC modeling results, the following conclusions can be made: 1. The overall capacity of the TRIC is 190-cfs before canal spills begin. This is slightly less than the decreed flow of 200-cfs and with the caveat that at 185-cfs ponding begins in adjacent areas north of the TRIC, between I-25 and Prospect Road. Flows spills to the south/ southwest of the TRIC begin at 190-cfs and are located along the canal section between Prospect Road and CR 42E. 2. The capacity of the TRIC to convey 190-cfs is based on the WSEL of Timnath Reservoir staying at, or below, the normal HWL of the reservoir (4910.77 NAVD 88). 3. In the event of a drainage basin wide 100-year storm event, the water surface of Timnath Reservoir will fill to elevations higher than portions of the TRIC embankment (Existing WSEL: 4912.70; Future WSEL: 4913.11). The reservoir inlet flap gates will prevent back flow in this situation. As-such, the TRIC — along its current alignment and profile — would be unable to convey flows into the Reservoir in this situation. 4. Based on points 1 - 3, the present configuration of the TRIC cannot be relied upon to convey major storm flows. Significant improvements to the TRIC would be required to provide assurance that storm flows can be conveyed to the Reservoir. 5. Future implementation of 100-year to 10-year over-detention (per current Timnath criteria), in developing areas tributary to the TRIC, will reduce but not eliminate the flow spills. The TRIC analyses and the conclusions stated above lay the framework for several TRIC stormwater management scenarios to be considered by the Town, presented in the following list. These scenarios were not modeled or evaluated, but are conceptual in nature. A. Disconnect stormwater discharges from TRIC: This management scenario assumes the most conservative case (being: Timnath Reservoir full, irrigation base flow in the TRIC, and 100-year rainfall event in the drainage basin), for which the TRIC has no capacity to convey storm flows. Under this scenario, all future development, upstream of the TRIC, will need to find a separate outfall for stormwater discharges. This will likely require construction of stormwater channels on the downstream side of the TRIC. B. Convey stormwater through the TRIC to formal spill location(s): This scenario would convey all storm water intercepted by the TRIC to a formalized spill location(s) where excess flows would be routed into the Clark Drainage. This will require constructed drainage channels between the TRIC and the main Clark Drainage channel and improvements to the TRIC to eliminate informal flow spills. The dimensions and sizing of TRIC channel improvements and spill weir configuration would require further hydraulic evaluation with an appropriate backwater model and were beyond the scope of this study. This scenario may need further hydrologic evaluation in EPA SWMM if the formalized spill locations significantly change the existing flow spills. C. Convey stormwater through the TRIC to Timnath Reservoir: This scenario would convey all storm flows through the TRIC into Timnath Reservoir. Significant improvements to the TRIC would be necessary so that the full 100-year flows could be conveyed into the Reservoir, without spills and with assuming the highest tailwater in the Reservoir (as shown in the existing and future 25 hydrology models). The required improvements would include raising the canal embankment height and may include widening the canal or the addition of a second channel along a higher profile grade-line. The dimensions and sizing of these TRIC channel improvements would require further hydraulic evaluation with an appropriate backwater model and were beyond the scope of this study. This scenario would need further evaluation in EPA SWMM hydrology to determine the full TRIC flow rate without spills. Alternative hydrology scenarios for the TRIC were not part of the present study. D. Hydrology Alternatives: In addition to the conveyance alternatives presented in points A-C, hydrology alternatives may also be considered for further evaluation. Scenarios such as more restrictive detention requirements upstream from the TRIC or regional detention facilities would lower peak flow rates and reduce the size of future conveyance improvements. Beyond these options, two other stormwater management scenarios were initially considered but not recommended for further evaluation because of impacts to irrigation flows and storage. These scenarios would increase the effectiveness of the current TRIC and Reservoir facilities for stormwater management but would require significant concessions from the TRIC and Reservoir owners (such as constraints on the timing of TRIC irrigation flows or reduction of the maximum irrigation water storage in the Reservoir), and therefore were not recommended for further consideration. MAIN ST.COUNTY ROAD 5HIGHWAY 14 Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-2TIMNATHRESERVOIR E C E MULBERRY ST E COUNTY ROAD 40E HORSETOOTH RD E PROSPECT RD INTERSTATE 25!(SB 1251047 ac.43% !(SB 1263423 ac.15% !(SB 2634 ac.66% !(SB 2733 ac.20% !(SB 2835 ac.20% !(SB 3145 ac.25% !(SB 309 ac.30%!(SB 2537 ac.15% !(SB 3444 ac.61% !(SB 432 ac.80%!(SB 732 ac.40% !(SB 69 ac.90% !(SB 337 ac.80%!(SB 15A43 ac.55% !(SB 582 ac.55% !(SB 237 ac.30% !(SB 5A33 ac.15% !(SB 1587 ac.20% !(SB 1326 ac.38%!(SB 1643 ac.25% !(SB 3256 ac.20% !(SB 9143 ac.50% !(SB 8197 ac.67% !(SB 4A30 ac.70% !(SB 1876 ac.51% !(SB 1136 ac.39% !(SB 1242 ac.44% !(SB 10115 ac.55% !(SB 14103 ac.33% !(SB 1737 ac.45% !(SB 2036 ac.40%!(SB 2154 ac.45% !(SB 50A7 ac.50% !(SB 506 ac.50% !(SB 5214 ac.78% !(SB 5121 ac.78% !(SB 4884 ac.68% !(SB 4932 ac.64% !(SB 3310 ac.29% !(SB 37117 ac.37% !(SB 4420 ac.5% !(SB 43A41 ac.44%!(SB 4656 ac.38% !(SB 47A23 ac.43% !(SB 4719 ac.34%!(SB 4566 ac.42%!(SB 7679 ac.35%!(SB 7928 ac.5% !(SB 7872 ac.5% !(SB 3948 ac.21% !(SB 3582 ac.45% !(SB 77A2 ac.10%!(SB 77B2 ac.10%!(SB 80B1 ac.10%!(SB 80A4 ac.10% !(SB 808 ac.15%!(SB 72A5 ac.30% !(SB 7288 ac.32%!(SB 6730 ac.49% !(SB 6851 ac.36% !(SB 7117 ac.30% !(SB 1201225 ac.65% !(SB 8145 ac.25% !(SB 8221 ac.30%!(SB 82A16 ac.10%!(SB 82B3 ac.10% !(SB 81A6 ac.30% !(SB 77C9 ac.25%!(SB 77D27 ac.30% !(SB 80D10 ac.10% !(SB 80C10 ac.10% !(SB 8449 ac.25% !(SB 8449 ac.25%!(SB 82C8 ac.10%!(SB 82D109 ac.30%!(SB 7055 ac.50%!(SB 73159 ac.50% !(SB 2247 ac.20% !(SB 25A17 ac.10% !(SB 2421 ac.15% !(SB 2922 ac.20% !(SB 267 ac.90% !(SB 3866 ac.30% !(SB 9A23 ac.25% !(SB 21A77 ac.42% !(SB 43107 ac.22% !(SB 70A30 ac.67% Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update EXHIBIT B-1 - SWMM Subbasin MapDeveloped Condition - North Map Legend SWMM Subbasins Developed Imperv. 0 - 6% 7 - 20% 21 - 35% 36 - 50% 51 - 65% 66 - 80% 81 - 100% SWMM Subbasin (Name, Area - Ac, % Imp.) SWMM Routing Link q 600 Feet File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-1 - FUT_BasinMap_North.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 MAIN ST.COUNTY ROAD 5HIGHWAY 14 Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map A-5 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET A-2TIMNATHRESERVOIR E C E MULBERRY ST E COUNTY ROAD 40E HORSETOOTH RD E PROSPECT RD INTERSTATE 25!(SB 1251047 ac.15% !(SB 1263423 ac.10% !(SB 2634 ac.10% !(SB 2733 ac.20% !(SB 2835 ac.20% !(SB 3145 ac.25% !(SB 309 ac.5%!(SB 2537 ac.15% !(SB 3444 ac.10% !(SB 432 ac.20%!(SB 732 ac.20% !(SB 69 ac.2% !(SB 337 ac.5%!(SB 15A43 ac.3% !(SB 582 ac.2% !(SB 237 ac.30% !(SB 5A33 ac.15% !(SB 1587 ac.5% !(SB 1326 ac.20%!(SB 1643 ac.25% !(SB 3256 ac.20% !(SB 9143 ac.5% !(SB 8197 ac.5% !(SB 4A30 ac.70% !(SB 1876 ac.2% !(SB 1136 ac.2% !(SB 1242 ac.5% !(SB 10115 ac.12% !(SB 14103 ac.2% !(SB 1737 ac.2% !(SB 2036 ac.12%!(SB 2154 ac.12% !(SB 50A7 ac.50% !(SB 506 ac.50% !(SB 5214 ac.20% !(SB 5121 ac.5% !(SB 4884 ac.5% !(SB 4932 ac.12% !(SB 3310 ac.12% !(SB 37117 ac.5% !(SB 4420 ac.5% !(SB 43A41 ac.5%!(SB 4656 ac.12% !(SB 47A23 ac.5% !(SB 4719 ac.5%!(SB 4566 ac.2%!(SB 7679 ac.5%!(SB 7928 ac.5% !(SB 7872 ac.5% !(SB 3948 ac.5% !(SB 3582 ac.5% !(SB 77A2 ac.10%!(SB 77B2 ac.10%!(SB 80B1 ac.10%!(SB 80A4 ac.10% !(SB 808 ac.15%!(SB 72A5 ac.10% !(SB 7288 ac.2% !(SB 6730 ac.2% !(SB 6851 ac.2% !(SB 7117 ac.5% !(SB 1201225 ac.52% !(SB 8145 ac.25% !(SB 8221 ac.30%!(SB 82A16 ac.10%!(SB 82B3 ac.10% !(SB 81A6 ac.30% !(SB 77C9 ac.25%!(SB 77D27 ac.30% !(SB 80D10 ac.10% !(SB 80C10 ac.10% !(SB 8449 ac.25% !(SB 8449 ac.25%!(SB 82C8 ac.10%!(SB 82D109 ac.30%!(SB 7055 ac.2%!(SB 73159 ac.2% !(SB 2247 ac.20% !(SB 25A17 ac.10% !(SB 2421 ac.15% !(SB 2922 ac.20% !(SB 267 ac.2% !(SB 3866 ac.5% !(SB 9A23 ac.5% !(SB 21A77 ac.2% !(SB 43107 ac.5% !(SB 70A30 ac.2% Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update EXHIBIT A-1 - SWMM Subbasin MapBaseline Condition - North Map Legend SWMM Subbsins - Existing Imperv. Percent 0 - 6% 7 - 20% 21 - 35% 36 - 50% 51 - 65% 66 - 80% 81 - 100% SWMM Subbasin (Name, Area - Ac, % Imp.) SWMM Routing Link q 600 Feet File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppA_Existing\A-1 - EX_BasinMap_North.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 5 10 16 21 29 39 55 11 17 21 28 34 40 10 10 16 20 28 39 94 7 12 15 20 26 34 14 16 23 30 50 84 140 19 30 38 54 76 110 31 14 20 32 90 213 423 23 38 55 100 153 227 33 8 11 13 23 52 103 3 5 7 14 21 27 35 3 7 21 91 223 466 28 45 65 119 181 264 37 30 41 65 236 586 1,192 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 39 284059162364701 001114 45 30 42 64 236 591 1,224 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 46 224163669 2347911 53 224163669 2347911 59 372 549 702 1,054 1,732 3,035 260 436 614 1,065 1,617 2,313 60 28 40 56 203 573 1,213 46 79 101 140 178 222 61 6 8 10 30 70 133 3 5 7 12 15 19 62 295 438 553 771 1,149 2,007 247 406 543 772 1,009 1,283 63 12392555 23451013 64 15 21 33 91 205 379 17 27 38 74 118 182 67 29 43 63 231 589 1,269 4 7 9 13 16 20 70 7 10 13 22 46 84 7 10 13 22 46 84 71 14 20 26 48 90 160 14 20 26 48 90 160 75 15 22 28 52 126 249 15 24 32 44 55 68 76 13 19 25 52 125 247 15 24 31 44 55 68 87 10 15 20 51 122 240 15 24 31 44 55 67 88 2234816 111223 89 75 114 145 198 269 379 74 112 143 196 266 374 94 233112755 2346810 95 2 3 4 12 37 83 3 5 7 11 14 17 97 6 7 8 17 42 89 6 9 11 16 20 23 98 62 88 109 149 213 318 62 88 109 149 213 318 99 38 53 64 81 123 199 38 53 65 82 125 201 101 50 76 97 133 183 260 50 76 97 133 183 260 102 23392552 234567 103 35681529 2457810 104 12 19 25 34 46 61 11 17 21 28 34 40 107 0114917 011223 108 13 20 30 71 133 227 25 41 54 77 106 150 109 233123162 123579 112 5 6 8 27 61 111 5 7 10 20 45 82 114 000000 000000 115 12 17 21 30 49 93 2 3 5 12 17 22 118 234102857 123568 119 12 17 23 58 123 230 13 21 29 46 69 101 120 9 12 13 15 19 34 9 12 13 15 19 34 122 23 35 45 63 94 157 23 35 45 63 94 157 123 19 27 34 46 66 97 19 27 34 46 66 97 124 74 113 147 200 262 335 74 113 147 200 262 335 127 22 33 41 56 76 104 15 23 30 42 57 80 128 18 26 34 54 83 132 21 34 44 63 93 139 133 6 9 12 16 22 30 6 9 12 16 22 30 134 1113714 011223 135 11 18 27 59 113 199 10 17 22 32 40 49 137 14 20 32 90 211 410 21 34 49 91 140 211 138 5 7 9 12 15 21 5 7 9 12 15 21 142 0013817 011122 143 01171835 111122 144 1122223 1122223 145 7 10 13 18 37 68 7 10 13 18 37 68 146 11 16 21 29 48 81 11 16 21 29 48 81 147 34591318 34591318 148 29 41 64 234 583 1,199 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 149 6 8 10 14 21 34 5 8 10 12 15 19 151 11 17 22 29 45 73 11 17 22 29 45 73 152 5 8 10 14 20 29 5 6 8 10 11 14 153 5 7 9 13 19 29 5 7 9 13 19 29 155 11 17 21 28 38 52 7 10 12 15 18 22 156 711133785162 711133785162 158 122102547 112345 159 1 2 4 15 31 54 2 3 5 19 39 69 160 000000 000000 161 000049117 0000025 162 26 38 45 56 74 148 26 38 45 56 74 110 163 15 23 29 41 57 84 24 37 46 63 86 122 164 7 9 11 16 24 39 5 9 11 16 21 27 Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐4 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Link Flows Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results Element ID Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐4 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Link Flows Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results Element ID Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) 165 6 9 12 17 31 87 7 11 14 20 26 34 166 10 20 30 48 73 106 15 24 32 52 81 122 169 12261532 122334 170 345101934 2457912 171 22381935 112346 172 47103575138 12481114 173 29 43 63 231 589 1,269 4 7 9 13 16 20 174 5 8 10 17 45 90 3 5 7 11 14 18 175 34571528 111235 176 4 7 21 91 224 469 28 45 65 119 183 267 177 17 25 32 49 81 136 17 25 32 49 81 136 178 14 21 27 38 53 81 13 20 26 37 51 72 183 5 8 9 25 58 111 6 9 11 14 17 21 184 24 38 48 65 112 190 24 38 48 65 112 190 185 14 22 28 38 56 108 7 12 16 22 28 35 186 48 72 91 123 166 234 48 72 91 123 166 234 193 244112856 2346810 203 23471528 2457810 206 00121666 011114 208 10 18 28 67 124 216 25 41 54 77 106 150 209 91316223252 6 913192633 210 38 54 68 92 150 271 18 27 33 44 55 67 211 7 10 14 34 74 162 13 21 29 41 54 68 212 34571733 2346811 214 345133369 1236811 217 14 21 28 47 80 135 14 21 28 42 62 93 218 15 21 28 56 106 189 13 21 28 43 64 95 219 27 39 57 156 347 665 65 108 147 217 287 377 220 6 8 10 13 19 34 4 7 9 13 17 22 223 14 20 30 84 188 341 17 27 35 69 109 169 224 6 9 11 16 26 46 6 9 11 16 26 46 226 91316223044 6 8 9121518 234 9 13 16 26 48 84 6 10 13 18 22 27 246 294159166377726 001114 249 4 5 7 10 17 30 5 8 10 12 15 19 251 30 42 64 236 591 1,221 17 28 36 50 62 76 261 223469 112345 264 122347 112344 268 28 42 63 230 580 1,216 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 270 3 4 6 19 47 95 5 7 9 13 16 20 283 4 6 8 25 57 109 6 9 11 14 17 21 291 1224918 123345 292 000000 0000211 349 3 5 6122343 71012162024 361 8 12 15 21 30 42 8 12 15 21 30 42 600 9 13 16 38 75 166 13 21 29 42 54 68 601 345133263 123579 1121 295 438 553 771 1,149 2,007 247 406 543 772 1,009 1,283 1122 15 21 26 77 194 405 19 28 34 46 58 71 1123 28 40 56 203 573 1,213 46 79 101 140 178 222 1124 33 47 57 171 420 876 32 56 72 99 126 156 1125 372 549 702 1,054 1,732 3,035 260 436 614 1,065 1,617 2,313 1126 363 532 666 901 1,361 2,353 145 237 334 660 1,091 1,630 1611 11 15 26 73 141 218 11 19 29 59 85 110 105A 14 20 25 35 50 74 14 20 25 35 50 74 105C 3 4 5 22 58 114 1 2 4 13 29 57 111A 24 36 47 106 223 436 53 87 116 165 210 265 111B 16 28 42 106 236 472 55 91 122 175 224 281 115AB 233747107 123122028 116_pipe 111111 111111 116_SF 000000 000000 120A 71013182846 23471012 121A 16 24 30 41 56 75 11 18 23 32 42 54 121B 28 40 58 161 363 698 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 125A 19 29 38 56 91 153 19 29 38 56 91 153 134A 11 17 21 31 49 85 6 10 13 18 22 27 175A 19 28 34 47 65 94 19 28 34 47 65 94 177A 011122 011122 185C 6911152649 23571012 209A 7 10 14 35 76 168 38 62 84 119 152 195 209B 33 49 61 108 224 438 53 87 116 165 210 265 267A 2372559104 12481114 277A 1113513 1113513 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐4 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Link Flows Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results Element ID Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) OP‐50A 000004 000004 OP‐51 0 0 0 12 43 99 14 22 28 37 46 56 OP‐5A 00082552 00082552 OP‐75 011112 011112 OP‐75A 8 12 15 19 24 29 8 12 15 19 24 29 OP‐75A_WEIR 000000 000000 OP‐75D 112223 112223 OP‐75D_WEIR 0000021 0000021 OP‐77 011122 011122 OP‐77B 1112411 1112411 OP‐77C 000111 000111 OP‐77C_WEIR 000009 000009 OP‐77D 1113412 1113412 OP‐80 000000 000000 OP‐80D 111233 111233 OP‐80D_WEIR 0000114 0000114 OP‐81 2223510 2223510 OP‐82D1 10 12 14 21 29 31 10 12 14 21 29 31 OP‐82D1_WEIR 0000080 0000080 OP‐82D2 8 11 12 18 26 62 8 11 12 18 26 62 OP‐82D2_WEIR 0000018 0000018 OP‐82D3 9 10 12 16 21 32 9 10 12 16 21 32 OP‐84 34591318 34591318 OP‐85B 344555 344555 OP‐85B‐WEIR 0000014 0000014 OP‐85C 6 8 11 33 78 151 8 12 16 22 27 33 OP‐86 1 2 4 10 19 28 1 2 4 10 19 28 OP‐86A 223456 223456 OP‐86C 000001 000001 OP‐88 1 3 4153541 61015263641 OP‐92 000000 0000211 OP‐95 445566 445566 OP‐97 18 20 21 24 66 115 18 20 21 24 54 97 OP‐98 445566 445566 OP‐98A 111111 111111 OP‐98A_WEIR 000000 000000 TRICL1 191 191 192 198 213 240 191 192 193 194 195 196 TRICL2 192 193 196 219 252 276 192 195 197 205 218 236 TRICL3 193 195 198 225 297 380 194 197 200 211 223 241 TRICL4 212 218 225 261 343 445 209 216 223 246 268 311 TRICL5 212 218 225 261 293 326 209 216 223 246 267 286 TRICL6 218 227 242 294 369 453 219 232 246 278 307 334 TRICL7 207 211 215 221 227 235 208 213 216 219 222 224 TRICL7A 207 212 217 233 256 292 209 215 220 225 231 236 TRICL8 205 209 213 222 227 229 207 212 216 220 222 223 TROC_1B 214 219 223 242 273 322 226 238 249 274 306 409 TROCL1 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROCL1_A 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROCL10 254 276 304 495 888 1,632 363 460 552 749 975 1,280 TROCL11 254 276 304 495 888 1,631 363 460 552 749 975 1,280 TROCL13 256 278 307 508 921 1,669 365 464 558 761 995 1,309 TROCL14 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 371 472 576 784 1,021 1,355 TROCL15 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,031 1,369 TROCL16 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,030 1,369 TROCL17 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROCL18 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROCL3 216 223 230 290 395 561 226 238 250 276 335 446 TROCL4 216 224 232 295 404 578 226 238 250 276 346 465 TROCL5 217 224 232 296 405 578 227 239 251 278 346 464 TROCL6 224 235 246 314 439 635 227 239 251 292 385 531 TROCL8 252 273 301 491 885 1,629 360 456 549 744 969 1,264 TROCL9 252 273 301 491 884 1,628 360 457 549 745 971 1,267 CLARK1 ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 132217298467653869 CLARK2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 127208287448628838 CLARK3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 125206283442619827 CLARK4 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 112185254400559747 CLARK5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 107177244386542727 CLARK6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 105174240378533711 CLARK7 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 78129177267355462 CLARK8 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 73122167249330430 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 115 35681529 2457810 116 12 19 25 34 46 61 11 17 21 28 34 40 117 17 24 30 41 55 76 11 17 21 28 34 40 118 16 34 52 86 120 150 15 25 38 66 104 136 127 14 20 24 35 50 76 14 20 24 35 50 76 129 5 7 9 23 61 122 1 2 4 13 30 58 132 17 24 30 42 58 96 7 12 15 20 26 34 133 01121666 011114 134 28 39 49 82 151 253 25 41 55 80 114 162 135 13 20 30 71 133 227 25 41 54 77 106 150 136 7 10 14 36 76 168 38 62 84 119 152 197 137 9 13 16 38 75 166 13 21 29 42 54 68 138 38 54 67 92 150 271 18 27 33 44 55 67 140 27 41 53 115 248 487 55 91 123 175 224 282 142 40 57 71 109 225 439 53 87 117 165 210 265 143 6810162644 2346811 144 33 49 61 108 224 438 53 87 116 165 210 265 146 6810183878 1236811 147 000000 000000 149 12 17 22 34 57 96 2 3 5 12 17 22 151 4 5 6 11 51 117 1 2 3 12 21 28 153 22 32 40 62 98 158 25 37 47 65 90 128 154 16 23 30 50 84 140 19 30 38 54 76 110 155 15 22 29 58 107 191 14 23 30 45 67 99 156 468133163 123568 157 27 39 57 156 347 665 65 108 147 217 287 377 158 16 23 31 69 140 258 14 22 30 47 70 103 159 12 17 21 29 42 63 5 8 9 13 17 22 160 284059162364701 001114 161 28 40 58 161 363 698 74 122 167 249 330 430 162 18 26 32 43 60 86 11 18 23 32 42 54 163 23 35 45 63 94 157 23 35 45 63 94 157 164 29 42 53 77 115 179 29 42 53 77 115 179 165 5 8 10 13 18 25 5 8 10 13 18 25 166 9 13 16 24 37 61 9 13 16 24 37 61 169 91316233249 6 8 9121518 170 24 35 44 60 81 115 17 25 32 45 62 86 171 22 33 41 56 76 104 15 23 30 42 57 80 173 20 28 37 57 87 139 23 36 46 66 94 139 176 935 1,325 1,639 2,263 3,148 4,530 203 337 465 753 1,112 1,641 177 1224918 011223 178 454 666 840 1,187 1,802 3,088 267 455 630 1,078 1,620 2,319 179 28 42 49 87 192 358 27 40 48 69 109 169 180 13 18 23 37 58 93 6 10 13 18 22 27 181 372 549 702 1,054 1,732 3,035 260 436 614 1,065 1,617 2,313 182 13 20 30 62 116 204 10 17 22 32 40 49 183 11 17 21 31 49 85 6 10 13 18 22 27 184 93 130 160 267 506 1,019 36 61 76 103 130 159 185 40 57 70 212 584 1,231 47 79 102 140 179 222 186 14 20 32 90 213 424 23 38 55 100 153 227 187 17 24 35 95 215 427 21 34 49 91 140 210 188 28 40 56 203 573 1,213 46 79 101 140 178 222 189 43 59 73 122 231 465 21 30 36 47 59 72 190 702 996 1,231 1,700 2,364 3,402 260 433 561 773 1,012 1,288 191 295 438 553 771 1,149 2,007 247 406 543 772 1,009 1,283 193 15 21 26 41 69 120 3 5 7 14 21 27 194 15 21 33 91 206 379 17 27 38 74 118 182 196 6 8 23 91 224 469 28 45 65 119 181 264 197 4 7 21 91 224 470 28 45 65 119 183 267 199 30 42 66 239 596 1,200 107 177 244 386 543 727 200 294159166378726 001114 201 19 26 32 45 63 92 6 9 13 19 26 33 204 30 41 65 236 586 1,203 112 185 255 400 560 747 206 6 8 10 14 21 34 5 8 10 12 15 19 207 11 15 19 26 37 55 5 8 10 12 15 19 213 4 6 7142546 71012162024 214 30 42 64 237 593 1,224 17 28 37 50 62 76 216 81114192739 5 6 8101114 217 12 17 21 29 39 53 7 10 12 15 18 22 220 3457913 122345 221 34571115 123345 223 30 42 64 236 591 1,224 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 224 224163669 2347911 Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results 225 346184280 2347911 226 47103575138 12481114 229 23471633 122334 230 4 6 8 22 53 104 5 7 9 13 17 20 231 356112035 34571012 234 710143781151 12481114 237 29 43 63 231 589 1,269 4 7 9 13 16 20 238 29 43 64 233 592 1,273 5 7 9 13 16 20 239 30 42 64 237 597 1,246 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 243 20 28 35 48 68 99 20 28 35 48 68 99 248 7 11 14 22 46 85 7 11 14 22 46 85 250 11 16 19 39 84 161 3 5 7 12 15 20 252 33 46 58 86 129 198 33 46 58 86 129 198 253 011122 011122 254 1113513 1113513 274 17 26 34 50 94 164 17 26 34 50 94 164 275 5 8 9 25 58 111 6 9 11 14 17 21 276 10 15 18 30 63 123 6 9 11 14 17 21 277 2235916 111223 279 35 49 61 97 162 266 35 49 61 97 162 266 283 20 28 34 50 77 125 7 12 16 22 28 35 284 19 29 38 52 127 250 15 24 32 44 55 68 285 15 22 28 52 126 249 15 24 32 44 55 68 287 13 19 25 52 125 247 15 24 31 44 55 68 291 000000 0000211 293 7911182951 23571012 295 1 2 4 10 19 28 1 2 4 10 19 28 296 55 78 97 132 181 256 55 78 97 132 181 256 297 000001 000001 298 6 8 10 16 24 39 6 8 10 16 24 39 303 94 133 165 227 312 440 93 132 163 224 307 432 307 23471119 123345 309 26 38 47 64 86 118 26 38 47 64 86 118 310 6810163471 2346810 311 244112856 2346810 312 4 6 7 12 37 82 3 5 7 11 14 17 314 6 7 8 17 43 89 6 9 11 16 20 24 316 62 88 109 150 214 319 62 89 110 150 215 320 317 60 85 104 148 217 325 60 85 104 148 217 325 321 63 89 110 153 213 304 63 89 110 153 213 304 323 111111 111111 323‐surf 000000 000000 324 12251020 011223 326 345133263 123579 327 578153469 123579 328 6 8 10 17 45 90 3 5 7 11 14 18 329 7 10 12 33 74 146 5 7 10 26 58 114 330 21 26 30 38 48 63 21 26 30 38 48 63 335 1223610 001112 338 8 10 11 14 18 33 8 10 11 14 18 33 339 10 12 13 16 23 41 10 12 13 16 23 41 341 19 26 32 46 67 98 19 26 32 46 67 98 342 102 150 188 256 346 477 102 150 188 256 346 477 346 91215213043 34691214 348 10 15 18 26 38 54 8 13 16 22 29 39 349 7 10 13 18 24 33 7 10 13 18 24 33 350 5 7 9 12 16 22 5 7 9 12 16 22 351 5 8 9 13 19 27 5 8 9 13 19 27 352 5 6 8 11 15 22 5 6 8 11 15 22 353 5 7 9 13 20 31 5 7 9 13 20 31 355 8 11 12 18 26 80 8 11 12 18 26 80 356 223456 223456 360 8 12 16 22 30 43 8 12 16 22 30 43 500 20 29 35 53 83 169 13 22 30 42 54 68 501 71012193253 23471012 53 457122858 234567 54 579142134 2457810 DTN10 13 19 24 33 44 60 7 11 13 17 21 27 DTN11 12 19 24 33 44 60 7 11 13 17 21 26 DTN12 12 18 21 28 37 53 7 11 13 17 21 26 DTN13 32 44 51 66 91 128 30 45 55 76 91 115 DTN14 33 46 56 69 95 134 33 49 61 83 101 133 DTN15 33 46 55 74 93 132 33 49 60 80 94 125 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results DTN3 5 7 8 11 15 20 5 8 10 13 17 23 DTN4 91317233141 111519263446 DTN5 91317243038 101519263343 DTN6 11 17 21 28 35 46 14 21 26 34 40 53 DTN7 6 9 11 15 21 30 7 9 11 16 22 31 DTN8 17 25 32 42 54 70 21 30 38 49 60 81 DTN9 18 25 31 42 53 70 21 30 37 52 60 80 DTS2 5 8 10 14 20 29 5 7 9 13 17 23 DTS3 71114192733 6 912172331 DTS4 71113192633 6 912172231 DTS5 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 27 37 DTS6 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 26 37 DTS7 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 26 37 DTSO1 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 26 37 G3‐1 71013182846 23471012 G3‐2 579132068 34581072 G3‐2_A 579132068 34581072 J‐90 345113165 123568 LAKECANAL1 10 16 20 28 39 94 7 12 15 20 26 34 LAKECANAL10 356112242 112346 LAKECANAL11 23471529 111235 LAKECANAL12 10 15 18 41 93 177 10 15 18 41 93 177 LAKECANAL16 18 25 30 45 68 106 18 25 30 45 68 106 LAKECANAL17 34591318 34591318 LAKECANAL18 18 25 31 46 72 116 18 25 31 46 72 116 LAKECANAL19 8 11 13 24 43 78 8 11 13 24 43 78 LAKECANAL2 15 21 26 37 53 77 6 10 12 16 21 27 LAKECANAL20 1122223 1122223 LAKECANAL21 11282039 111122 LAKECANAL22 1114919 011122 LAKECANAL3 29 41 51 70 97 138 29 41 51 70 97 138 LAKECANAL4 31 44 55 75 106 155 31 44 55 75 106 155 LAKECANAL7 000000 000000 LAKECANAL8 3 4 6 21 43 79 3 4 6 21 43 79 LAKECANAL9 345163670 112345 P‐103 30 43 53 72 97 134 30 43 53 72 97 134 P‐103A 26 36 45 62 86 121 26 36 45 62 86 121 P‐103C 20 28 35 48 67 94 20 28 35 48 67 94 P‐103D1 23 32 39 57 85 124 23 32 39 57 85 124 P‐103D2 11 13 14 16 30 66 11 13 14 16 30 66 P‐104 86 122 151 209 288 398 86 121 150 207 285 398 P‐105 31 45 57 77 103 141 31 45 57 77 103 141 P‐106A 76 115 149 203 267 338 76 115 149 203 267 338 P‐107 63 89 110 153 212 301 63 89 110 153 212 301 P‐110 10 15 20 29 42 66 8 13 17 24 33 47 P‐120 1,161 1,825 2,381 3,311 4,431 7,073 1,277 2,049 2,691 3,774 5,073 6,848 P‐15 12 17 21 30 49 93 2 3 5 12 17 22 P‐25 34 51 66 98 154 247 34 51 66 98 154 247 P‐28 18 26 34 54 83 132 21 34 44 63 93 139 P‐29 13 18 22 31 44 66 13 19 23 32 45 66 P‐31 33 46 57 81 117 173 33 46 57 81 117 173 P‐43 15 21 32 92 224 463 26 43 61 114 173 255 P‐4A 46 70 90 126 169 225 46 69 87 119 159 213 P‐50 8 12 14 20 29 42 8 12 14 20 29 42 P‐50A 10 14 17 24 34 48 10 14 17 24 34 48 P‐51 34 47 56 76 98 141 43 63 78 96 120 157 P‐5A 14 20 25 35 50 74 14 20 25 35 50 74 P‐75 28 39 48 68 95 135 28 39 48 68 95 135 P‐75A 19 28 34 47 65 94 19 28 34 47 65 94 P‐75D 9 12 15 22 28 36 9 12 15 22 28 36 P‐77 17 25 32 49 81 136 17 25 32 49 81 136 P‐77B 1224816 1224816 P‐77C 7 9 11 21 38 62 7 9 11 21 38 62 P‐77D 25 34 42 60 89 134 25 34 42 60 89 134 P‐80 5 7 8 14 24 40 3 5 6 11 19 32 P‐80D 7 10 13 21 38 67 7 10 13 21 38 67 P‐81 32 44 55 81 120 180 32 44 55 81 120 180 P‐82D1 94 131 161 239 364 559 94 131 161 239 364 559 P‐82D2 10 12 14 21 29 110 10 12 14 21 29 110 P‐82D3 16 23 29 53 96 166 16 23 29 53 96 166 P‐84 24 38 48 65 112 190 24 38 48 65 112 190 P‐85B 58 88 111 152 200 263 58 88 111 152 200 263 P‐85C 6 9 11 33 78 151 8 12 16 22 27 33 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results P‐86 52 78 99 134 181 258 52 78 99 134 181 258 P‐86A 11 16 19 28 43 65 11 16 19 28 43 65 P‐86C 34581423 34581423 P‐88 77 117 149 204 279 403 74 112 143 196 266 374 P‐92 25 39 50 73 109 167 22 34 44 61 83 114 P‐95 76 108 133 183 254 361 76 108 133 183 254 361 P‐97 38 53 64 81 123 199 38 53 65 82 125 201 P‐98 50 76 97 133 183 260 50 76 97 133 183 260 P‐98A 30 42 52 72 102 148 30 42 52 72 102 148 ResOutlet 214 219 223 242 273 322 226 238 249 274 306 409 TRIC1 191 192 192 198 214 241 191 192 193 194 195 196 TRIC2 193 194 197 220 266 337 192 195 197 206 221 247 TRIC3 193 195 198 225 298 382 194 197 200 211 223 242 TRIC4 212 218 225 261 343 445 209 216 223 246 268 311 TRIC4A 212 218 225 261 343 445 209 216 223 246 268 311 TRIC4‐SPILL 000050119 0000026 TRIC5 218 227 242 294 369 454 219 232 246 278 307 334 TRIC5A 218 227 242 294 369 453 219 232 246 278 307 334 TRIC5A_SPILL 11 15 27 73 141 218 11 19 29 59 85 110 TRIC6 207 212 217 233 257 294 209 215 220 225 231 236 TRIC6_Spill 124112963 23451013 TRIC6A 207 212 217 233 256 292 209 215 220 225 231 236 TRIC‐OUTFALL 205 209 213 222 227 229 207 212 216 220 222 223 TROC_1A 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROC1 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROC10a 256 278 307 508 921 1,669 365 464 558 761 995 1,309 TROC11 260 283 312 529 946 1,736 371 472 576 785 1,021 1,356 TROC12 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,031 1,369 TROC‐12A 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,031 1,369 TROC13 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROC14 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROC2 216 223 230 290 395 562 226 238 250 276 335 448 TROC3 217 224 232 295 405 579 226 238 250 276 346 467 TROC4 217 225 232 296 406 580 227 239 251 278 347 468 TROC5 226 237 248 316 443 645 227 239 251 294 389 540 TROC6 252 273 301 491 885 1,629 360 456 549 745 969 1,264 TROC7 252 273 301 491 885 1,629 360 457 549 745 971 1,267 TROC8 254 276 304 495 889 1,634 363 460 553 750 976 1,281 TROC9 254 276 304 495 888 1,632 363 460 552 749 975 1,280 TROC‐OUTFALL 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 CP‐10 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 163235293396531725 CP‐100 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 33465780112163 CP‐100A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 33465779112162 CP‐101 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 99142176239324449 CP‐102 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 517390122164226 CP‐106 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 30435374103145 CP‐108 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 162329405577 CP‐108A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5810131928 CP‐109 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5682102139185247 CP‐11 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 38546792126176 CP‐110 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 476987117156209 CP‐113A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81215202736 CP‐12 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 496986117158219 CP‐121 ‐‐‐‐‐‐2,216 3,433 4,425 6,109 8,149 10,971 CP‐122 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6409921,278 1,765 2,354 3,170 CP‐123 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5528451,082 1,486 1,980 2,668 CP‐124 ‐‐‐‐‐‐1,454 2,265 2,929 4,053 5,411 7,285 CP‐125 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 8801,357 1,745 2,406 3,207 4,319 CP‐126 ‐‐‐‐‐‐1,336 1,920 2,389 3,261 4,424 6,163 CP‐13 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2738486793130 CP‐14 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 93132163223309438 CP‐15 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 496985123179269 CP‐15A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6188110149201274 CP‐17 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 446379107145201 CP‐18 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 101145181245330452 CP‐2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 139206260352463607 CP‐20 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 39566994128178 CP‐21 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6593115156211292 CP‐21A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 86122152207281391 CP‐26 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5580100135180242 CP‐3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 70102129176233309 CP‐30 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81114192740 CP‐33 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 81214202840 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results CP‐34 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 71102129180244332 CP‐35 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 99141178251346482 CP‐37 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 117167206281384540 CP‐38 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 557896131182261 CP‐39 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 29404975117184 CP‐4 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6291114155204272 CP‐43 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6693115160230341 CP‐43A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 476884115156217 CP‐45 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 76107133185256360 CP‐46 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5882102140193271 CP‐47 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1926324770106 CP‐47A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2738476795137 CP‐48 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 141206258352469631 CP‐49 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 527594127169229 CP‐5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 116167210290391534 CP‐51 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 38577196127170 CP‐52 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2739496789118 CP‐55 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 192836486485 CP‐6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 182633466078 CP‐61 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 578111520 CP‐64 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 578111520 CP‐67 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 38556994127174 CP‐68 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 507088123170240 CP‐69 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 72106133180239319 CP‐7 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 34486084116162 CP‐70 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 72103129175235323 CP‐70A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 507391124165222 CP‐71 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 142025355279 CP‐72 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 78111139198282406 CP‐72A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 467101522 CP‐73 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 207298373515698959 CP‐76 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 77109134188265383 CP‐8 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3274765978151,089 1,466 CP‐83 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 128187235321427573 CP‐83A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 152126364968 CP‐85 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 195282351475637870 CP‐85C ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5985106144194267 CP‐87 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2028354969100 CP‐89 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 121721294161 CP‐9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 186267333454613842 CP‐90 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 476783113156221 CP‐91 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 32476081107142 CP‐92 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5884104141187249 CP‐93 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 131188234317426585 CP‐94 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 86123153207280388 CP‐99 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 142025355073 CP‐9A ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 162227385480 J‐CLARK1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 132217299467653869 J‐CLARK2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 127209287449628839 J‐CLARK3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 125206283442619827 J‐CLARK4 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 105174240378533711 J‐CLARK5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 78129177267355463 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 !( !( !( !(#*!( !( !( !( !( ") !(!( !( !( ")") ") !( !(!(!( !( ")!( XW !(!(!(!(XW !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( XW!(") !( !( !( !( XW!(!( !( !( !(#*!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(")!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(")")!( ") !( ") ") !(") !(!(!(!( !( !( ")")!(!( !( ") !( !(!(!( !(!(!( ")!( !( !( !( !(XWXWXWXW XWXW XWXW XW XW XWXW !( ") !( !( !( ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 TIMNATHRESERVOIR E PROSPECT RD E MULBERRY ST INTERSTATE 25E HORSETOOTH RD E COUNTY ROAD 40MAIN ST.COUNTY ROAD 5HIGHWAY 14 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-4CacheLa P o u d reRiver TROCTRIC L ari m er- W eld C a n al LakeCa na l 125 26 27 28 31 3025 34 4 7 6 3 15A 5 23 5A 15 13 16 32 9 8 4A 18 11 12 10 14 17 20 21 50A 50 526566 635859 60 55 51 48 49 33 37 44 43A46 47A 4745 79 78 39 35 77B80B80A 80 72A 72 67 68 71 120 82 82A 82B 81A 77C 77D 80D 80C 57 62 64 22 25A 24 29 2 38 9A 21A 43 60A 51A 208 1 7 7 A DTN-5-SFOP-77C267A219210 39 134A20653OP-50105AOP-152 0 9 OP -77B C L A R K 3 DTN-13-PF DTN-13-SF 6 410 2 3 4 2 7 7 A C L A R K 6 CLARK8 155 111 A CLARK7 31O P-251031611121AOP-5A175OP-50AOP-4A2261281 6 2203 T RI CL 7 A153 O P -3 1 OP- 4 3105C209B TROCL41 2 7 135OP-29246 O P-31_ W EIR 264 OP-28178104251 149 TROCL3TRI CL617611535152 1 5 1 OP-815156 TROCL561118115AB 349 1 4 TRI CL7163OP-77D249 OP-51102 OP-12033TRI CL5134125A 212 122214 CLARK41716346160218600 220 159TRICL1 59172TRICL3 C L A R K 5 1 1 1 B 158165164161119TRICL2 209ATRI CL8224 1141 0 8 1 6 6 2111 3 7 22321711251126 J-CLARK5 J-CLARK4 J-CLARK3 165 169 170 166 171 173 P-28 164149 53 127 P-29P-15 P-5A 151 163TRIC1129 54 P-25 177 TRIC2 TRIC3 TRIC4115133 TRIC4ATRIC4-SPILL 132 117 180 LAKECANAL1 183182 TRIC5 116 LAKECANAL2 LAKECANAL4LAKECANAL3 TRIC5ATRIC5A_SPILL P-4A 500 179 118 153 TRIC6A137154 134 147 187 TRIC-OUTFALL 156135136 146 155 193 186 LAKECANAL7P-43142138158144 143 140 196 LAKECANAL8 197159 201157 LAKECANAL9 162 161 LAKECANAL12200 199 160 LAKECANAL10 TROC1 254P-50 P-77B TROC2 P-77C LAKECANAL11 P-50A P-80TROC3 P-77D 207 206 234225 204 213 P-80DTROC4 353 217 P-51 214 224216 LAKECANAL16TROC5 226221 TROC_1A 178 181 DTN15DTN10DTN12 DTN11 DTN13 DTN14 DTN8DTN7 DTN6 DTN5 DTN4 ResOutlet P-31 194 TRIC6_Spill TRIC6 Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update q 590 Feet EXHIBIT B-3 - SWMM Routing MapDeveloped Condition - North Map File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-3 - FUT_RoutingMap_North.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 Legend SWMM Nodes XW DIVIDER !(JUNCTION #*OUTFALL ")POND (EXIST.) SWMM Conveyance Links Link Orifice; Outlet; W eir Subbasin Boundary ^_Subasin Label Subbasin Connnection Irrigation or Drainage Canal Future Clark Channel Alignment Appendix E SRH-2D Hydraulics Results of Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal 1) TRIC Spills Map 2) TRIC Spills Rating Curves 3) TRIC Analysis Results Summary Tables 4) TRIC Inflows Summary Table 5) Comparison of Spill Hydrographs - SRH-2D vs. SWMM TRIC SPILL B TRIC SPILL C TRIC SPILL D TRIC SPILL E TRIC TRIC 100yr Spill Boundary (E.C.) Timnath Reservoir 190 c f s I r r i g a t i o n Ba s e F l o w TRIC SPILL A 350 cfs Max Capacity 275 c fs Max Capac i ty 190 c fs Max Capaci ty 200 c f s Ma x Capac i ty La k e C a n a l Capacity:185cfs - Nort h B a n k S p i l l / P o n d i n g 244cfs - Sout h B a n k S p i l l S COUNTY ROAD 5CARRIAGE PKWY E PROSPECT RD SW FRONTAGE RDINTERSTATE 25SE FRONTAGE RD SE FRON T A G E R D 49144915.54914.549154913 4913.5 49124912.54910.77Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal Spills Map q SRH-2D Model Results (Existing 100-year) Document Path: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\TRIC Spills\TRIC Spills_100yr Existing.mxd Date: 8/21/2018MCLAUGHLIN LN.Legend TRIC 100-year WSEL Contours (Existing) TRIC 100-year Boundary (Existing) 850 Feet Spill Rating Curves from 2D Analysis for SWMM Qin Qspill Qout Qin Qspill Qout Qin Qspill Qout Qin Qspill Qout 000000000000 190 0 190 200 0 200 190 0 190 188 0 188 199 0 199 225 0 225 200 4 195 200 0 200 222 0 222 250 0 250 225 14 212 225 5 220 244 2 242 275 0 275 250 32 217 250 23 227 270 14 255 300 16 284 284 64 220 275 48 227 296 31 265 325 37 288 295 74 221 300 69 231 321 49 272 350 55 295 344 119 225 325 93 232 343 63 279 500 156 344 411 180 229 350 114 236 448 137 303 750 339 411 500 261 239 500 259 241 TRIC 2 (TRIC UP ‐ Spill 1)TRIC 4A (TRIC DOWN ‐ Spill 1)TRIC 5A (TRIC DOWN ‐ Spill 2)TRIC 6A (TRIC DOWN ‐ Spill 3) Appendix E SRH‐2D Hydraulics Results of Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal Link/ Element ID Element IDNode (E.C.)(F.C.)Location2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐YrLink L‐TRIC2_SPILL L‐TRIC2_SPILLTRIC Spill B00001359000003Link L‐TRIC4A‐SPILL L‐TRIC4A‐SPILLTRIC Spill C0000501190000026Link L‐TRIC5A‐SPILL L‐TRIC5A‐SPILLTRIC Spill D11 15 27 73 141 21811 19 29 59 85 110Link L‐TRIC6A‐SPILL L‐TRIC6A‐SPILLTRIC Spill E1 2 4 11 29 6323451013Node TRIC‐OUTFALL TRIC‐OUTFALLTRIC ‐ Timnath Reservior Inlet205 209 213 222 227 229207 212 216 220 222 223*TRIC Base Flow of 190 cfs.Location10‐Yr100‐Yr100‐yr w/o Base Flow10‐Yr100‐Yr100‐yr w/o Base FlowTRIC Spill B149 000 0TRIC Spill C0116 0040 0TRIC Spill D27170 931990 0TRIC Spill E018 000 0TRIC ‐ Timnath Reservior Inlet207227 213219228 147*TRIC Base Flow of 190 cfs.Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 TRIC Flows SummaryPeak Discharge (cfs)Existing SWMM Model ResultsPeak Discharge (cfs)Peak Discharge (cfs)Existing SRH‐2D Model ResultsPeak Discharge (cfs)Future SRH‐2D Model ResultsFuture SWMM Model ResultsF:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx10/30/2017 Existing SRH Inflows from SWMM Future SRH Inflows from SWMMLink/ Element ID Element IDNode (E.C.) (F.C.)10‐Yr100‐Yr10‐Yr 100‐YrLink 102 102352 4 7Link 105C 105C5114457Link 115AB 115AB3107328Link OP‐25 OP‐2527802780Link 135 135271992249Subcatch 39 391283412Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 2018 TRIC Inflows SummaryPeak Inflow (cfs)Peak Inflow (cfs)F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx10/30/2017 Comparison of Spill Flowrates from SRH‐2D vs. SWMM0102030405060708:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00Q (cfs)Time 100 YR‐TRIC2 Spill ComparisonSWMM‐TRIC2SRH2D‐TRIC20204060801001201408:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00Q (cfs)Time100 YR‐TRIC4A Spill ComparisonSWMM‐TRIC4ASRH2D‐TRIC4A00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.918:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00Q (cfs)Time10 YR‐TRIC2 Spill ComparisonSWMM‐TRIC2SRH2D‐TRIC200.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.918:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00Q (cfs)Time10 YR‐TRIC4A Spill ComparisonSWMM‐TRIC4ASRH2D‐TRIC4AF:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydraulics\SMS\SPILLS\TRIC Spills Hydrographs ‐ EC&FC.xlsx10/30/2017 Comparison of Spill Flowrates from SRH‐2D vs. SWMM0501001502002508:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00Q (cfs)Time100 YR‐TRIC5A Spill ComparisonSWMM‐TRIC5ASRH2D‐TRIC5A0102030405060708:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00Q (cfs)Time100 YR‐TRIC6A Spill ComparisonSWMM‐TRIC6ASRH2D‐TRIC6A0510152025308:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00Q (cfs)Time10 YR‐TRIC5A Spill ComparisonSWMM‐TRIC5ASRH2D‐TRIC5A00.511.522.533.548:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00Q (cfs)Time10 YR‐TRIC6A Spill ComparisonSWMM‐TRIC6ASRH2D‐TRIC6A1801902002102202302408:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00Q (cfs)Time100 YR‐Timnath Reservoir Inflow ComparisonSWMM‐Res. InletSRH2D‐Res. Inlet1801851901952002052102158:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00Q (cfs)Time10 YR‐Timnath Reservoir Inflow ComparisonSWMM‐Res. InletSRH2D‐Res. InletF:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydraulics\SMS\SPILLS\TRIC Spills Hydrographs ‐ EC&FC.xlsx10/30/2017 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINRARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM APPENDIX APPENDIX H FEMA FIRMETTE NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 EPSGROUPINC.COM | 480.503.2250 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY PRELIMINRARY DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM APPENDIX MAP POCKET DR1 – DRAINAGE EXHIBIT ELEC C VAULTF.O. CT C CT VAULTF.O. ELEC ELEC TC C T VAULTF.O. C C VAULTF.O. T C ELEC C ELEC VAULTF.O.CABLE CABLE ELEC BRKR HY D HY DHY DHY DW ELEC FO HY D H2O ELEC ELEC HY DCELEC LID LID util LID ELEC FE SFE SFE SF E SF E SS D S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSST FOCTVEEFOFOCTVCTVE EEEEEE E E E E FE SFES HY DELEC D D D D DD VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELECVAULTELEC VAULTELEC ELEC F.O. ELEC FOF.O.F.O. F.O.F.O. M H2OFO M ELEC ELECELEC ELEC FO VAULTF.O. ELEC VAULTF.O.HY DFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWW WWSTE E E E E E E E E E OHU OHU OHU GGGW OHU OHU S H2O H2O H2O H2O H2OH2O H2O WV WV W S C C C M CABLE M W CCW E CABLE H2O WVWV / / / / / / / / W W SSSS V.P. V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMC MM W T H2O GATEGATE M/ / / / / / / /12345G0G432112345G0G43210000000000000000SSSEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS8" SS8" SS8" SSSSFFSWF F FORT COLLINS SWITCHING CABINETXX XXXX X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXEEEE GAS W W H-A1 H-B1 H-C1 EXISTING DETENTION POND 4917 4916 4915 4914 49154918 4919 4920 4921 4922 49 0 8 4909 4910 4 9 1 1 49 1 2 4 9 1 3 4 9 0 7 49134910 4914491549164917491 6 4911 491 4 4 9 1 5 49 1 5 49 1 3 49 1 4 49 1 6 49 1 6 49204 9 1 8 4 9 1 74917 4917491849164 9 1 7 491649124919 4918 492049204921492149214921 4920 49214922 4921491849114912 4911 4912 4913 4905 4 9 0 7 49154915 490 9 49114912491349114 9 0 9 49 1 0 EXISTING CULVERT OUTFALL TO TRIC EXISTING CULVERT OUTFALL TO TRIC EXISTING CULVERT OUTFALL TO TRIC EXISTING CULVERT OUTFALL TO TRIC EXISTING CULVERT OUTFALL TO TRIC EXISTING 36" CULVERT H1No.Revisions:By:Date:REVIEWED BY:J. HOLMANDESIGNED BY:N. GABBERTDRAWN BY:CC, SD, CMSCALE:1"=200'DATE:05/25/2022PROJECT:22-0052Sheet DRAWING FILENAME: S:\Projects\2022\22-0052\Civil\_Preliminary\Design\Drainage\Pocket Map\22-0052 - Historic Drainage Plan.dwg LAYOUT NAME: H1 DATE: May 24, 2022 - 5:41pm CAD OPERATOR: ngabbertLIST OF XREFS: [1896-001_xADJ] [22-0052 - EX BNDRY (By Others)] [102-002_xEXST] [1896-001_xEXST]These drawings are instruments of serviceprovided by Northern Engineering Services,Inc. and are not to be used for any type ofconstruction unless signed and sealed by aProfessional Engineer in the employ ofNorthern Engineering Services, Inc.REVIEW SETNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION04/22/2022RUDOLPH FARMSof KEYMAP I-25PROSPECT RD FIELD SURVEY BY: NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 100-019 DATE: JULY 2016 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 100-019 DATE MAY 2019 NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 100-024 DATE: AUGUST 2019 NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 100-019 DATE: JULY 2019 NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 694-003 DATE: JUNE 2014 1130 N Alma School RoadSuite 120Mesa, AZ 85201T:480.503.2250F:480.503.2258www.epsgroupinc.com1 150 0 150 300 scale: 1" = 150'feet HISTORIC DRAINAGE PLAN1 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 1.REFER TO THE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR RUDOLPH FARMS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. A FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: NOTES: PROSPECT ROAD ELEC C VAULTF.O. CT C CT VAULTF.O. ELEC ELEC TC C T VAULTF.O. C C VAULTF.O. T C ELEC C ELEC VAULTF.O.CABLE CABLE ELEC BRKR HY D HY DHY DHY DW ELEC FO HY DH2O ELEC ELEC HY DCELEC LID LID util LID ELEC FE SFE SFE SFE SF E SS D S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSST FOCTVFOFOCTVCTVFE SFE SHY DELEC D D D D DD VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELECVAULTELEC VAULTELEC ELEC F.O. ELEC FOF.O.F.O. F.O.F.O. M H2OFO M ELEC ELECELEC ELEC FO VAULTF.O. ELEC VAULTF.O.HY DFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOSTOHU OHU OHU GGGW G G G G GCTVCTV OHU OHU S H2O H2O H2O H2O H2OH2O H2O WV WV W S C C C M CABLE M W CCW E CABLE H2O WVWV WWWW/ / / / / / / / W W SSSS V.P. V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMC MM W T H2O GATEGATE M/ / / / / / / /12345G0G432112345G0G43210000000000000000/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /WWWSSSEEEWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWSSSS12" W 12" W 12" W 12" W8" SS8" SS8" SSSSFF12" SS12" SS 12" SS 12 " S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W SWF FWW12 " S S 12 " S S 8" W8" WFORT COLLINS SWITCHING CABINET POND A POND B POND C POND D POND E POND H POND I POND J RAIN GARDEN D RAIN GARDEN C RAIN GARDEN D RAIN GARDEN A RAIN GARDEN F RAIN GARDEN E 4922 4921 492 0 4919 4918 4917 4916 49234 9 2 2 49214920 49194918491649154915 4914 4912 4910490849094911 4908 490 9 49 0 8 4 9 1 1 49 1 4 49 1 2 4 9 13 4911 49 1 0 491149 1 2 49 1 6 491 6 491549144913491449 1 6 49174914 4908 49 0 8 491049094909 4907 490 8 490749084909 4 9 0 7 49 1 0 4915 4913 4914 4 9 1 6 491 5 491549134914491549154914491549154914 4914 4914 4 9 1 54917 49 1 5 49 1 449204919492149214921492149224922492249224918 4920 49204920492149214922492349234923492349244924 4923 4924 49 2 4 4925 4926 491749184915 RAIN GARDEN G RAIN GARDEN H RAIN GARDEN I4926 492049194921 49 2 0 491649154916491849194 9 1 6 4 9 1 4 4910 491 2 49 1 1 49 1 54918A1 C1 E1 H1 I1 D1 F1 B1 G1 D2 I2 I3 H3 H2 E3 E2 D3 D5 D4 J1491649164 9 1 2 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 49154914 49 1 4 49 1 5 4917 49184919491 6 49 1 7 49 1 8 49 1 9 49 2 1 492 2 492 3 4 9 2 0 4921 4922 4923 4924492549244925492449264922 4923 4924 49 1 6 49154916PROPOSED OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED OUTLET PIPE PROPOSED OUTLET PIPE PROPOSED OUTLET PIPE PROPOSED OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED OUTLET PIPE PROPOSED OUTLET PIPE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN DR1No.Revisions:By:Date:REVIEWED BY:J. HOLMANDESIGNED BY:N. GABBERTDRAWN BY:CC, SD, CMSCALE:1"=150'DATE:05/25/2022PROJECT:22-0052Sheet DRAWING FILENAME: S:\Projects\2022\22-0052\Civil\_Preliminary\Design\Drainage\Pocket Map\22-0052 - Drainage Plan.dwg LAYOUT NAME: DR1 DATE: May 24, 2022 - 6:42pm CAD OPERATOR: ngabbertLIST OF XREFS: [22-0052 - Civil Base] [1896-001_xADJ] [1896-001_xEXST] [22-0052 - Site Plan (By Others)]These drawings are instruments of serviceprovided by Northern Engineering Services,Inc. and are not to be used for any type ofconstruction unless signed and sealed by aProfessional Engineer in the employ ofNorthern Engineering Services, Inc.REVIEW SETNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION04/22/2022RUDOLPH FARMSof FIELD SURVEY BY: NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 100-019 DATE: JULY 2016 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 100-019 DATE MAY 2019 NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 100-024 DATE: AUGUST 2019 NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 100-019 DATE: JULY 2019 NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NO. 694-003 DATE: JUNE 2014 1130 N Alma School RoadSuite 120Mesa, AZ 85201T:480.503.2250F:480.503.2258www.epsgroupinc.com1 150 0 150 300 scale: 1" = 150'feet DEVELOPED DRAINAGE PLAN1 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 1.REFER TO THE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR RUDOLPH FARMS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. A FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: NOTES:CARRIAGE PKWYSTREET AS T R E E T B PROSPECT RD NOT A PART NOT A PART INTERSTATE 25TRIC L A K E C A N A N L FOX GROVE SUBDIVISION POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROSPECT 6-12 SCHOOL