HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE E TOWN CENTER - BDR220003 - MONTAVA SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORT
1-1 | Page
Preliminary Development Plan (PDP)
Final Drainage Report
For
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center
August 15, 2021
submitted to:
City of Fort Collins,
Colorado
748 Whalers Way
August 15, 2021
Mr. Wes Lamarque
City of Fort Collins
Development Review Engineer
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center
Final Design Drainage Report
Project No. 1230.0005.00
Dear Ms. Lamarque:
TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers (TST) is pleased to submit this Preliminary
Design Drainage Report for the Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center
project to the City of Fort Collins (City) for review and approval.
The purpose of this drainage report is to evaluate the drainage conditions of the
above-referenced proposed Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center project
site. The Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (referred to as FCSCM).
Please review the attached report and provide any questions or comments at your
earliest convenience. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to
the city and look forward to receiving your comments and moving forward on this
important project.
Sincerely,
TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Bryston Anthony M. Gartner, E.I. Jonathan F. Sweet, P.E.
BAMG JFS
I hereby attest that this report for the preliminary drainage design for the Montava
Subdivision Phase E: Town Center 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
______________________________
Jonathan F. Sweet
Registered Professional Engineer
State of Colorado No. 40341
748 Whalers Way
Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970.226.0557 main
970.226.0204 fax
ideas@tstinc.com
www.tstinc.com
Table of Contents
Preliminary Design Drainage Report
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center
Page i
1.0 - GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description ................................................................... 1
1.2 Description of Property ................................................................................... 2
2.0 - DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS .............................................................. 4
2.1 Major Basin Description .................................................................................. 4
2.2 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................... 4
2.3 Proposed Conditions ...................................................................................... 4
3.0 - DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................ 8
3.1 Hydrological and Hydraulic Criteria ............................................................... 8
4.0 - CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 10
5.0 - REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 12
6.0 - APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 13
List of Figures
1.1 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 2
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 1
1.0 - General Location and Description
The purpose of this Final Drainage Report is to present the drainage design for the Montava
Subdivision Phase E: Town Center (Hereinafter referred to as the “Montava Subdivision
Phase E”) project site to the City of Fort Collins (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) for review
and approval.
The design objectives for this drainage report are to present:
Hydrologic analysis of the proposed improvements and surrounding off-site areas to
determine the location and magnitude of the site’s storm runoff.
Hydrologic data used to design storm runoff collection and conveyance facilities.
Hydraulic analysis of proposed on-site and existing downstream storm infrastructure to
ensure sufficient conveyance of stormwater runoff to the existing and proposed
detention areas.
Detention analysis and design of the existing and proposed stormwater detention areas.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) used to prevent erosion and sedimentation before,
during, and after construction of the stormwater infrastructure.
Overall storm drainage plan that meets previously approved drainage plans and the
FCSCM.
The drainage system was designed using the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
(collectively referred as FCSCM).
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Montava Subdivision Phase E project site is located in Section 32, Township 8 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, within the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County,
Colorado. The proposed site is bounded on the north by farmland and Future Montava
Subdivision phases, on the east by farmland, N. Giddings Road, and Future Montava
Subdivision phases, on the south by Mountain Vista Drive and farmland, on the west by the
Number 8 Outlet Ditch and Montava Subdivision Phase G and Future Montava Subdivision
phases. A vicinity map illustrating the project location is provided in Figure 1.1.
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 2
Figure 1.1: Vicinity Map
1.2 Description of Property
The Montava Subdivision Phase E project site contains approximately 48 acres and consisting
of the Multi-Family, Mixed-Use, and Open Space. The Montava Subdivision Phase E Phase E:
Town Center is currently zoned as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District Zone (LMN).
According to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #08069C0982 eff. 12/19/2006 prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Montava Subdivision Phase E is located
in unshaded Zone X, which is not designated as a special flood hazard zone. Copies of the
FEMA maps that apply to the Montava Subdivision Phase E are included in Appendix B.
The types of soils found on the Montava Subdivision Phase E site consist of:
Caruso Clay Loam (22) - 0 to 1 percent slope.
Fort Collins Loam (35) – 0 to 3 percent slopes.
Kim loam (54) – 3 to 5 percent slopes.
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 3
Satanta loam (94) – 0 to 1 percent slopes.
Satanta Variant clay loam (98) – 0 to 3 percent slopes.
Stoneham loam (101) – 1 to 3 percent slopes.
Stoneham loam (102) – 3 to 5 percent slopes.
Stoneham Loam (103) – 5 to 9 percent slopes.
The characteristics of the soil found on the project site include:
Moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet.
Moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
Moderate rate of water transmission.
Majority of the site has a wind erodibility rating of 6 (8 being the least susceptible)
These soils consist of the following hydrologic soil groups as defined in the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Web Soil Survey:
Group B – 15.90%.
Group C – 22.10%.
Group D – 62.00%.
The USDA web soil survey report is included in Appendix C.
The following reports were utilized in the drainage analysis and design of Montava Subdivision
Phase E.
Montava Master Drainage Study Fort Collins, Colorado, prepared by Martin/Martin, Inc.,
dated January 23, 2019.
Hydrologic and hydraulic information was referenced from this report to analyze off-site
areas and conveyance links downstream from the Montava Subdivision Phase E and site.
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 4
2.0 - Drainage Basins and Sub-Basins
2.1 Major Basin Description
According to the FCSCM, Montava Subdivision Phase E is located within the Upper Cooper
Slough Basin. According to the basin master planning states that the Number 8 Ditch is in need
of improvements which will be implemented for the reach that is through the site and Phase G.
All Number 8 Ditch improvements will be handled and designed by others in Phase G and
Montava Master Drainage Plan. The Upper Cooper Slough Basin stormwater generally flows
from north to south which is ultimately being captured by the Larimer and Weld Canal.
According to the Montava Master Drainage Study, Montava Subdivision Phase E is primarily
located in Basin F, Basin G1, and Basin G2.
2.2 Existing Conditions
The Montava Subdivision Phase E is located in an undeveloped lot west of the Anheuser Busch
property. The current land is being used for agricultural purposes and undeveloped land. The
land currently consists of native grasses, bare ground, and crops. Runoff from the undeveloped
site has two flow paths, split by a ridge, and both ends up in the Larimer and Weld Canal that is
located south of the site. The majority of Montava Phase E, northeast of the ridge, sheet flows
southeast into an inadvertent detention area which will overtop Mountain Vista Drive, and
eventually into the Larimer and Weld Canal. The other flow path, southwest of the ridge, sheet
flows southwest into the Number 8 Outlet Ditch and eventually into the Larimer and Weld Canal.
The Number 8 Outlet Ditch is located to the west of the site and conveys offsite flows and
improvements to the ditch will be completed by others.
The existing site does not have any existing ponds or drainage facilities. The site has an
inadvertent detention area near Giddings Road and Mountain Vista Drive. All water is generated
on the existing site sheet flows and ends up in one of the major waterways that are located
close to the site.
There are two major drainage ways that are being utilized for Montava Subdivision Phase E.
One is the Larimer and Weld Canal, which is the waterway that all the water from the proposed
site ends up. The second is the Number 8 Ditch, which is being realigned in a pipe that is
directed around the proposed Timberline Road. This Number 8 Ditch improvement is being
designed by others with Montava Phase G Plans.
2.3 Proposed Conditions
The proposed Montava Subdivision Phase E development generally maintains existing drainage
patterns. To conform to the Master Drainage Plan for the area the proposed site will be broken
into three basins that have been outlined in the Montava Master Drainage Plan. The portion of
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 5
Montava Subdivision Phase E located in Basin F will generally flow southeast into a pond
designed by others with the Master Drainage Study. The portion of Montava Subdivision Phase
E located with Basin G1 will generally flow southeast and into an interim pond proposed by
others with the Master Drainage Study. The portion of Montava Subdivision Phase E located in
Basin G2 will generally flow southwest into a pond proposed by others with the Master Drainage
Study and outfall directly into the Number 8 Ditch.
The following basins were delineated for the Montava Subdivision Phase E site plan, using the
Montava Master Drainage Basins:
P Basin F is a portion of Basin F from the Montava Master Drainage Plan. P Basin F is made up
of proposed streets, single family development, and future commercial development. This basin
is approximately 16.90 acres with an approximate composite imperviousness of roughly 60.4%.
P Basin F is an overall basin that is broken up into subbasins that all end up in the proposed
Pond F, designed by others. The majority of the basin is directed south and east through
various storm infrastructure and into a raingarden that is located off the north corner of Pond F.
After that water has been treated in the Rain Garden, it will discharge into the water quality and
detention Pond F. The other portion of the basin is directed east into a drainage swale that is
captured and spills directly into the water quality and detention Pond F, designed by others.
P Basin G1 is a portion of Basin G1 from the Montava Master Drainage Plan. P Basin G1 is
made up of proposed streets, single family development, and future commercial development.
This basin is approximately 15.76 acres with an approximate composite imperviousness of
roughly 53.7%. P Basin G1 is an overall basin that is broken up into subbasins that all end up in
the proposed Interim Pond 427, designed by others. The majority of the basin is directed toward
various low points across the basin and into the storm line that directs it to the interim Pond 427,
designed by others. Some portions of the basin are treated for water quality, before entering the
storm line, by pervious pavers or depressed landscape medians.
P Basin G2 is a portion of Basin G1 from the Montava Master Drainage Plan. P Basin G2 is
made up of proposed streets and future commercial development. This basin is approximately
5.95 acres with an approximate composite imperviousness of roughly 42.2%. P Basin G2 is an
overall basin that is broken up into subbasins that all end up in the proposed water quality Pond
G2, designed by others. The majority of the basin is directed south and west through various
storm infrastructure and into raingardens located at the end of the proposed storm lines. After
that water has been treated in the Rain Garden, it will discharge into the water quality and
detention Pond G2, ultimately spilling into the piped section of the Number 8 Ditch.
Pond F Basin is a portion of Basin F from the Montava Master Drainage Plan. Pond F Basin is
made up of proposed Pond F (designed by others), future recreation center, and future sports
fields. This basin is approximately 8.26 acres with an approximate composite imperviousness
of roughly 23.9 The entirety of the basin sheetflows directly into the pond or into a Rain Garden
that ultimately ends up in Pond F.
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 6
Off-Site Basins
Basin D from Montava Master Drainage Plan is made up of existing irrigation and detention
pond, future school, future park, future mixed-use lots, and future streets. This basin is
approximately 41.83 acres with an approximate composite imperviousness of roughly 60%.
Generally, runoff will be directed south to the existing irrigation and detention pond. Future
development will have to implement some sort of LID before the runoff will be captured by the
pond. This basin was not analyzed for runoff or conformance to the LID section of the FCSCM.
The only information used from this basin is the outfall of the pond, which is the only offsite
contributing flow for the whole site. The flow that is coming into Phase E is 8.6cfs under
Timberline Road and into a drainage swale that ends up in Pond F.
2.4 Low Impact Development (LID)
Per City of Fort Collins criteria, Low Impact Development (LID) features are proposed to treat
75% of the newly developed area within Phase E. Timberline Right-of-Way Adjacent to Phase E
is discharging to the proposed LID systems and was included in the overall treatment
percentage.
Two LID systems are being proposed for Phase E, Bioretention (Rain Gardens). The location of
these systems is described in Section 2.3 showing the percentage of newly developed area
treated by these systems is included in the Appendix.
The proposed LID systems, water quality, and detention facilities will be located in tracts owned
and maintained by the Montava Metropolitan District.
2.5 MDCIA “Four Step Process”
Step 1 – Employee Runoff Reduction Practices
Montava Phase E is providing LID treatment for 75% of the site, excluding the future
commercial, through various Bioretention (Rain Gardens). The LID systems have been placed
throughout the site to minimize directly connected impervious areas.
Step 2 – Implement BMPs That Provide a WQCV with Slow Release
The remaining 25% if the site not being treated by the LID described is being treated through
traditional water quality control volume extended drainage basins designed to release the water
quality event within a minimum if 40 hours.
Step 3 – Stabilize Streams
Phase E will be spilling into an improved Number 8 Ditch, improved by other designing Phase
G. Piping of the Number 8 is the preferred solution to minimize public interaction with the
existing facilities, as well as reducing the downstream sediment load that was seen with an
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 7
open irrigation channel. Phase E will also be spilling into a couple of Ponds, designed by others,
that are designed to reduce the sediment load to the downstream properties. Phase E only spills
into the improved downstream infrastructure that was designed to lessen or solve the problems
that have been outlined in the 2017 Selected Plan improvement recommendations.
Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs
1. The following practices suggested by City of Fort Collins Criteria will be implemented
throughout the design and construction process:
2. Being a single-family development, trash receptacles will be dispersed throughout the
neighborhood and likely be enclosed containers that minimize concentrated and polluted
runoff from entering the storm sewer system or receiving drainageways prior to being
treated.
3. Phase E of Montava Subdivision does not include a dog park, but any future dog parks
shall be located in areas away from detention basins and educational opportunities to
reinforce pick-up practices for dog owners shall be employed.
4. Phase E of Montava Subdivision does not include any community gardens, but future
community gardens shall be located in areas that are outside of the detention basins to
prevent chemical and sediment loading.
5. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed to located material
storage away from drainage facilities.
2.6 Variance Requests
No drainage variances are being requested at this time.
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 8
3.0 - Drainage Design Criteria
The drainage design presented in this report has been developed in accordance with the
guidelines established by the FCSCM dated December 2018.
Storm system infrastructure including pipes, culverts, inlets, and drainage swales were sized to
convey the 100-year storm event. In areas of concern, storm system infrastructure was sized to
handle the 100-year and any additional bypass flow from upstream infrastructure.
3.1 Hydrological and Hydraulic Criteria
Design Rainfall & Runoff Calculation Method
The hydrology of the project site for developed conditions was evaluated based on the 2-, 10-
and 100-year storm frequencies as dictated within the FCSCM manual. The Rational Method
was used to determine peak runoff rates for each developed basin. Peak storm runoff values
were used to size on-site drainage facilities including storm culverts, sewers, inlets and
channels for the initial or major design storms as specified in the FCSCM criteria and standards.
Within the criteria and standards, the initial design storm was established as the 2-year minor
storm event and the 100-year storm as the major event.
Inlet Design
All inlets within the project area have been designed to collect and convey the 2-year developed
runoff. In areas where flooding is a concern, inlets were upsized to convey much of the 100-
year developed runoff. As stated in FCSCM, Inlet Functions, Types and Appropriate
Applications, the standard inlets for use on City of Loveland streets are:
Inlet Type Permitted Use
Curb Opening Inlet Type R All street types with 6 inches of vertical curb
Type C Inlet All Alleys with reverse crown and Montava Drive/ Big Timber Drive
Storm Sewer and Culvert Design
As stated in the FCSCM, the Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) for all storm sewer pipe
capacity calculations shall be 0.013 regardless of pipe material.
The storm sewers and culverts in the project area were designed in accordance with the criteria
and standards of the FCSCM using a minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches. Where applicable,
storm sewers have been sized to convey the 100-year developed runoff to the existing detention
ponds. Peak runoff for storm sewer design was calculated using the Rational Method per the
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 9
FCSCM. All storm sewers were sized using the Urban Drainage program, UD-Sewer 2009
Version 1.4.0. All culverts were sized using the Federal Highway Administration (FHA)
Program, HY-8 Version 7.30.
Riprap Design
Riprap was designed at the outlet of all storm sewers to dissipate energy and prevent erosion in
the 100-year storm per the FCSCM criteria and standards.
Street Capacity
The criteria and standards set forth in the FCSCM were used to check street capacity for both
the minor (2-year) and major (100-year) storm events. The FCSCM requires that stormwater
overtopping curbs should not occur during the minor storms and the flow spread must meet the
following guidelines for each street designation:
Local – flow may spread to crown of road.
Collector - flow spread must leave a minimum of 6 feet (6’) wide clear travel lane on
each side of the centerline.
Arterial (with median) – flow spread must leave a minimum of 12 feet (12’) wide travel
lane in both directions of travel.
Additionally, the following allowable street flow depths were used for the drainage design:
Local – Minor Storm (0.50-ft), Major Storm (0.67-ft)
Collector - Minor Storm (0.50-ft), Major Storm (0.67-ft)
Minor Arterial - Minor Storm (0.50-ft), Major Storm (0.67-ft)
Swale Design
As defined in Chapter 9 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, open channels are
utilized to preserve, enhance, and restore stream corridors, used in the design of constructed
channels and swales by use of natural concepts.
Per the FCSCM criteria and standards, all open channels must be designed to carry the major
(100-year) storm runoff. The swales were sized to either contain the 100-year developed peak
runoff plus 1 foot of freeboard or 133 percent of the 100-year developed peak runoff.
Drainage swales were designed to be grass-lined, triangular channels with 4:1 side-slopes.
Erosion potential in the swales was analyzed to determine if additional protective measures are
needed within the project area. Based on Froude number calculations.
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 10
Detention Discharge and Storage Calculation
All stormwater detention ponds are being designed by others. Montava Phase E Drains to three
separate water quality control volume extended detention basins. Pond F is located Pond F
Basin and captures the runoff from P Basin F and Pond F Basin. This pond discharges into a
drainage swale that is southeast of the proposed site, this outfall ultimately ends up in the
interim pond 427. Interim Pond 427 is located southeast of the proposed site, near the
intersection of Mountain Vista and Giddings and captures the runoff from P Basin G1. This pond
discharges under Mountain Vista Drive and follows the existing drainage infrastructure and
ultimately ends up in the Larimer and Weld Canal. The remaining area of the proposed site, P
Basin G2, is captured by a water quality pond that is located in the southwest corner of P Basin
G2. This pond discharges directly into the improved pipe section of the number 8 ditch and
ultimately into the Larimer and Weld Ditch.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Montava Phase E has been designed to be in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion
Control Criteria and all Erosion Control Materials will be provided with the Final Drainage
Report. Erosion and sedimentation occurring on-site during construction will be controlled by
use of temporary Best Management Practices (BMPs – i.e., silt fence, gravel inlet filters, vehicle
tracking control pads, and straw wattle barriers). A separate Stormwater Management Plan has
been provided with the PDR Submittal.
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 11
4.0 - Conclusions
This preliminary drainage report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual for a Project Development Plan (PDP) submittal. The PDP plans
have also been prepared to be in compliance with the city’s current drainage criteria.
The Montava Subdivision Phase E has been designed to safely and effectively capture, convey,
and attenuate stormwater runoff in accordance with the FCSCM, Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual, and Montava Master Drainage Study. The analysis indicates that the proposed
development has been designed in a way that is consistent with existing drainage patterns of
both FCSCM and Montava Master Drainage Study. 75% of newly developed areas will be
connected to a LID system, which will treat storms before the traditional water quality and
detention ponds. The traditional water quality and detention ponds will treat the remaining 25%
of the site. The proposed drainage infrastructure will attenuate the flow prior to entering the
downstream properties/ infrastructure.
Additionally, areas of future development adjacent to the project area will have to been analyzed
to ensure that adequate facilities will accommodate future development.
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 12
5.0 - References
1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, as adopted by the city of Fort Collins, as
referenced in Section 26-500 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, December 2018.
2. City of Fort Collins Cooper Slough Alternatives Analysis Update, prepared by Fort
Collins Department of Utilities, prepared by ICON Engineering Inc., October 2017
3. Montava Planned Unit Development Master Drainage Study, by Martin/Martin Inc., dated
January 23, 2019
Montava Subdivision Phase E: Town Center Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 13
6.0 - Appendices
The following appendices are attached to and made part of this final drainage design report:
APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
APPENDIX D USDA HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP MAP
APPENDIX E DRAIANGE PLANS
Appendix A
HYDOLOGIC ANALYSIS
MONTAVA SUBDIVISION PHASE E Preliminary Drainage Report
Composite C
C2 C2 C10 C100
Medium Density 0.50 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.26 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.05 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.09 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.12 0.95 90
Lawn, Sandy, >7% Slope 0.00 0.20 2
Medium Density 0.35 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.10 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.07 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.06 0.95 90
Lawn, Sandy, >7% Slope 0 0.20 2
Medium Density 0.39 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.09 0.95 90
Lawn, Sandy, >7% Slope 0.00 0.20 2
Medium Density 0.17 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.04 0.95 90
Lawn, Sandy, >7% Slope 0.04 0.20 2
Medium Density 0.27 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.14 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.79 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.19 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.36 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.15 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.30 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.49 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.14 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.10 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.10 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.36 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.25 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.31 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.20 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.74 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.00 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 1.06 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.27 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.96 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.65 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.44 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.58 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.80 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.41 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.25 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.35 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 1.06 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.75 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.20 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.12 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.03 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.24 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.19 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.55 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.15 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.07 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.33 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.22 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Total F Basins 16.90 Avg. % Imp. 60.4%Avg. 100-yr C100 =0.89
1.00
21.7% 0.47
1.00
F-17 0.44 90.0% 0.95 0.95 1.00
F-16 0.65
0.47
0.88
0.95
0.95
0.47
F-9 0.81 39.6% 0.59 0.59 0.74
F-8 0.98 57.8% 0.71 0.71
F-10 0.63 58.9% 0.72 0.72
90.0% 0.95 0.95
0.59
F-11 0.20 70.0% 0.80
F-15 1.23 81.2% 0.88
F-18 0.58 90.0%
F-14 1.80
0.82 0.82
F-4 0.13
F-3 0.45 58.9% 0.72 0.72
Onsite Basin Composite Runoff Coefficients
Basin/ Sub-
Basin Area (ac) Attribute
59.9%
Attribute Area
(ac)
Composite Runoff CoefficientsRunoff
Coefficient, C
Percent
ImperviousImpervious
0.73 0.73 0.91
0.63
0.80
0.88
0.95 0.95 0.95
F-1 0.81
F-7 0.41 63.7% 0.75 0.75
F-6 0.25 48.7%
0.79 0.79
0.63
68.5%
F-2 0.21 72.9%
0.75
0.71
0.59
0.72
0.80
0.77
1.00
0.73
0.82
0.72
0.79
0.71
0.63 0.78
F-13 0.51
F-12 0.61 0.77
0.94
1.00
0.97
65.7% 0.77 0.77 0.96
66.4% 0.77
0.77
0.90
0.89
1.00
0.90
0.99
F-5 0.48 57.5% 0.71 0.71 0.88
F-21 2.16 53.0% 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.87
F-19 0.80 90.0% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
F-20 0.66 56.7% 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.90
F-22 0.35 59.6% 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.91
F-23 0.43 72.3% 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00
F-24 0.77 53.4% 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.85
F-25 0.55 66.0% 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.96
Appendix A
MONTAVA SUBDIVISION PHASE E Preliminary Drainage Report
Medium Density 0.73 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.98 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.74 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.31 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.39 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.07 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 1.06 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.22 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.26 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.36 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.66 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.26 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.31 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.10 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.37 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.12 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.06 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.21 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.00 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.17 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.36 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.14 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.04 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.26 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.61 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.04 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.30 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.18 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.06 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.11 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.04 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.02 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.03 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.03 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.04 0.95 90
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.00 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.12 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.62 0.95 90
Streets: Permeable Pavers 0.45 0.30 40
Lawn, Clayey, >7% Slope 0.65 0.35 2
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.20 0.95 90
Streets: Permeable Pavers 0.44 0.30 40
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.00 0.95 90
Open Lands, Transition 3.64 0.20 20
Total F Basins 15.76 Avg. % Imp. 53.7%Avg. 100-yr C100 =0.73
1.00
G1-14 0.15 60.7% 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.91
0.18
0.91
0.54
0.85
G1-2
G1-3
G1-4
G1-5
G1-6
1.00
0.75 0.94
G1-15 0.05 74.0% 0.83
G1-13
0.81 1.00
81.5% 0.89 0.89 0.89
G1-8
G1-9
0.57
0.47
0.18
0.21
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
87.5% 0.93 0.93 0.93
71.7% 0.81 0.81 0.81
75.9% 0.84 0.84
G1-10
G1-11
G1-12
0.53
71.8% 0.81 0.81
0.70
1.13
0.48
1.02
0.82 0.82 0.82
0.72 0.72
51.5% 0.68 0.68 0.68
G1-7
0.84
G1-1 2.45
0.83 0.83
72.3%
63.3% 0.75 0.75
50.0% 0.65 0.65
58.0%
0.65 0.81
77.2% 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00
0.72 0.72 0.72 0.90
74.7% 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.00
G1-16 0.07 72.9% 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00
0.72 0.90
58.9%
G1-17 1.84 44.1% 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.61
G1-18 0.64 55.6% 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.63
G1-19 3.64 20.0% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25
Appendix A
MONTAVA SUBDIVISION PHASE E Preliminary Drainage Report
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.08 0.95 90
Streets: Permeable Pavers 0.16 0.30 40
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.07 0.95 90
Streets: Permeable Pavers 0.12 0.30 40
Medium Density 1.21 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.00 0.95 90
Streets: Permeable Pavers 1.68 0.30 40
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.13 0.95 90
Streets: Permeable Pavers 0.26 0.30 40
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.31 0.95 90
Streets: Permeable Pavers 0.28 0.30 40
Medium Density 0.00 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.00 0.95 90
Open Lands, Transition 1.45 0.20 20
Total F Basins 5.75 Avg. % Imp. 42.2%Avg. 100-yr C100 =0.52
Medium Density 1.08 0.65 50
Streets: Paved 0.00 0.95 90
Open Lands, Transition 7.18 0.20 20
Total F Basins 8.26 Avg. % Imp. 23.9%Avg. 100-yr C100 =0.32
66.3% 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.80
G2-3 2.89 44.2% 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.56
G2-4 0.39 56.7% 0.52 0.52
G2-1 0.24 56.7% 0.52 0.52
G2-5 0.59
0.52
0.52
G2-2 0.19 58.4% 0.54 0.54 0.54
POND F 8.26 23.9% 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.32
G2-6 1.45 20.0% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25
0.65
0.65
0.67
Appendix A
MONTAVA SUBDIVISION PHASE E Preliminary Drainage Report
Overland Flow Average Channelized Channel Channel Channelized
Length, D Overland Slope Tov Tov Tov Flow Length Slope Velocity Time (Tt)
(ft) (%) 2-year 10-year 100-year (ft) (%) (ft/s) (min) 2-year 10-year 100-year
F-1 0.73 0.73 0.91 87 0.5 8 8 4 60 0.5 1.5 0.7 9 9 5
F-2 0.82 0.82 1.00 40 0.5 4 4 1 71 0.5 1.5 0.8 5 5 5
F-3 0.72 0.72 0.90 72 0.5 8 8 4 108 0.5 1.5 1.2 9 9 5
F-4 0.79 0.79 0.99 42 0.5 5 5 2 53 0.5 1.5 0.6 6 6 5
F-5 0.71 0.71 0.88 100 0.5 9 9 5 85 0.5 1.5 0.9 10 10 6
F-6 0.63 0.63 0.78 62 0.5 9 9 6 55 0.5 1.5 0.6 10 10 7
F-7 0.75 0.75 0.94 65 0.5 7 7 3 95 0.5 1.5 1.1 8 8 5
F-8 0.71 0.71 0.89 100 0.5 9 9 5 230 0.5 1.5 2.6 12 12 8
F-9 0.59 0.59 0.74 68 0.5 10 10 7 205 0.5 1.5 2.3 12 12 9
F-10 0.72 0.72 0.90 41 0.5 6 6 3 50 0.5 1.5 0.6 7 7 5
F-11 0.80 0.80 1.00 48 0.5 5 5 2 48 0.5 1.5 0.5 6 6 5
F-12 0.77 0.77 0.97 50 0.5 5 5 2 202 0.5 1.5 2.2 7 7 5
F-13 0.77 0.77 0.96 80 0.5 7 7 3 165 0.5 1.5 1.8 9 9 5
F-14 0.47 0.47 0.59 85 0.5 14 14 11 750 0.5 1.5 8.3 22 22 19
F-15 0.88 0.88 1.00 25 0.5 3 3 1 1077 0.5 1.5 12.0 15 15 13
F-16 0.95 0.95 1.00 20 0.5 2 2 1 507 0.5 1.5 5.6 8 8 7
F-17 0.95 0.95 1.00 10 0.5 1 1 1 450 0.5 1.5 5.0 6 6 6
F-18 0.95 0.95 1.00 62 0.5 3 3 2 465 0.5 1.5 5.2 8 8 7
F-19 0.95 0.95 1.00 63 0.5 3 3 2 280 0.5 1.5 3.1 6 6 5
F-20 0.72 0.72 0.90 64 0.5 7 7 4 287 0.5 1.5 3.2 10 10 7
F-21 0.69 0.69 0.87 53 0.5 7 7 4 406 0.5 1.5 4.5 12 12 9
F-22 0.73 0.73 0.91 105 0.5 9 9 5 20 0.5 1.5 0.2 9 9 5
F-23 0.82 0.82 1.00 84 0.5 6 6 2 75 0.5 1.5 0.8 7 7 5
F-24 0.68 0.68 0.85 54 0.5 7 7 4 55 0.5 1.5 0.6 8 8 5
F-25 0.77 0.77 0.96 45 0.5 5 5 2 167 0.5 1.5 1.9 7 7 5
G1-1 0.68 0.68 0.85 65 0.5 8 8 5 782 0.5 1.5 8.7 17 17 14
G1-2 0.82 0.82 1.00 73 0.5 6 6 2 170 0.5 1.5 1.9 8 8 5
G1-3 0.93 0.93 1.00 48 0.5 3 3 2 190 0.5 1.5 2.1 5 5 5
G1-4 0.81 0.81 1.00 53 0.5 5 5 2 316 0.5 1.5 3.5 9 9 6
G1-5 0.84 0.84 1.00 50 0.5 4 4 2 470 0.5 1.5 5.2 9 9 7
G1-6 0.81 0.81 1.00 80 0.5 6 6 2 260 0.5 1.5 2.9 9 9 5
G1-7 0.89 0.89 1.00 42 0.5 3 3 2 101 0.5 1.5 1.1 5 5 5
G1-8 0.75 0.75 0.94 45 0.5 6 6 3 22 0.5 1.5 0.2 6 6 5
G1-9 0.65 0.65 0.81 43 0.5 7 7 4 72 0.5 1.5 0.8 8 8 5
G1-10 0.85 0.85 1.00 83 0.5 5 5 2 260 0.5 1.5 2.9 8 8 5
G1-11 0.72 0.72 0.90 120 0.5 10 10 5 524 0.5 1.5 5.8 16 16 11
G1-12 0.84 0.84 1.00 60 0.5 5 5 2 353 0.5 1.5 3.9 9 9 6
G1-13 0.72 0.72 0.90 120 0.5 10 10 5 1011 0.5 1.5 11.2 21 21 16
G1-14 0.73 0.73 0.91 38 0.5 5 5 3 412 0.5 1.5 4.6 10 10 8
G1-15 0.83 0.83 1.00 38 0.5 4 4 1 412 0.5 1.5 4.6 9 9 6
G1-16 0.82 0.82 1.00 28 0.5 3 3 1 412 0.5 1.5 4.6 8 8 6
G1-17 0.49 0.49 0.61 50 0.5 10 10 8 412 0.5 1.5 4.6 15 15 13
G1-18 0.50 0.50 0.63 28 0.5 7 7 6 412 0.5 1.5 4.6 12 12 11
G1-19 0.20 0.20 0.25 246 0.5 33 33 31 412 0.5 1.5 4.6 38 38 36
G2-1 0.52 0.52 0.65 20 0.5 6 6 5 160 0.5 1.5 1.8 8 8 7
G2-2 0.54 0.54 0.67 20 0.5 6 6 4 375 0.5 1.5 4.2 10 10 8
G2-3 0.45 0.45 0.56 60 0.5 12 12 10 358 0.5 1.5 4.0 16 16 14
G2-4 0.52 0.52 0.65 18 0.5 6 6 5 359 0.5 1.5 4.0 10 10 9
G2-5 0.64 0.64 0.80 35 0.5 6 6 4 192 0.5 1.5 2.1 8 8 6
G2-6 0.20 0.20 0.25 350 0.5 40 40 37 192 0.5 1.5 2.1 42 42 39
POND F 0.26 0.26 0.32 350 0.5 37 37 34 192 0.5 1.5 2.1 39 39 36
Basin Time of Concentration
Frequency Adj. Runoff Coefficients (C*Cf)
C2 C10 C100
Overland Travel Time Time of Concentration
Tc = Tov + Tt (min)Basin
Appendix A
MONTAVA SUBDIVISION PHASE E Preliminary Drainage Report
2 - year 10 - year 100 - year 2 - year 10 - year 100 - year 2 - Year 10 - Year 100 - Year 2 - Year 10 - Year 100 - Year
F-1 0.81 0.73 0.73 0.91 9 9 5 2.30 3.93 9.95 1.36 2.32 7.33
F-2 0.21 0.82 0.82 1.00 5 5 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.49 0.84 2.09
F-3 0.45 0.72 0.72 0.90 9 9 5 2.30 3.93 9.95 0.74 1.27 4.01
F-4 0.13 0.79 0.79 0.99 6 6 5 2.67 4.56 9.95 0.27 0.47 1.27
F-5 0.48 0.71 0.71 0.88 10 10 6 2.21 3.78 9.31 0.75 1.28 3.95
F-6 0.25 0.63 0.63 0.78 10 10 7 2.21 3.78 8.80 0.35 0.59 1.72
F-7 0.41 0.75 0.75 0.94 8 8 5 2.40 4.10 9.95 0.74 1.26 3.84
F-8 0.98 0.71 0.71 0.89 12 12 8 2.05 3.50 8.38 1.42 2.43 7.27
F-9 0.81 0.59 0.59 0.74 12 12 9 2.05 3.50 8.03 0.99 1.69 4.83
F-10 0.63 0.72 0.72 0.90 7 7 5 2.52 4.31 9.95 1.14 1.95 5.62
F-11 0.20 0.80 0.80 1.00 6 6 5 2.67 4.56 9.95 0.43 0.73 1.99
F-12 0.61 0.77 0.77 0.97 7 7 5 2.52 4.31 9.95 1.19 2.03 5.86
F-13 0.51 0.77 0.77 0.96 9 9 5 2.30 3.93 9.95 0.90 1.54 4.87
F-14 1.80 0.47 0.47 0.59 22 22 19 1.53 2.61 5.75 1.30 2.22 6.12
F-15 1.23 0.88 0.88 1.00 15 15 13 1.87 3.19 6.92 2.03 3.47 8.51
F-16 0.65 0.95 0.95 1.00 8 8 7 2.40 4.10 8.80 1.48 2.53 5.72
F-17 0.44 0.95 0.95 1.00 6 6 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 1.12 1.91 4.10
F-18 0.58 0.95 0.95 1.00 8 8 7 2.40 4.10 8.80 1.32 2.26 5.10
F-19 0.80 0.95 0.95 1.00 6 6 5 2.67 4.56 9.95 2.03 3.47 7.96
F-20 0.66 0.72 0.72 0.90 10 10 7 2.21 3.78 8.80 1.05 1.80 5.25
F-21 2.16 0.69 0.69 0.87 12 12 9 2.05 3.50 8.03 3.07 5.24 15.03
F-22 0.35 0.73 0.73 0.91 9 9 5 2.30 3.93 9.95 0.59 1.00 3.17
F-23 0.43 0.82 0.82 1.00 7 7 5 2.52 4.31 9.95 0.89 1.51 4.28
F-24 0.77 0.68 0.68 0.85 8 8 5 2.40 4.10 9.95 1.26 2.15 6.52
F-25 0.55 0.77 0.77 0.96 7 7 5 2.52 4.31 9.95 1.07 1.83 5.27
G1-1 2.45 0.68 0.68 0.85 17 17 14 1.75 2.99 6.71 2.9 5.0 14.0
G1-2 0.70 0.82 0.82 1.00 8 8 5 2.40 4.10 9.95 1.4 2.3 7.0
G1-3 1.13 0.93 0.93 1.00 5 5 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 3.0 5.1 11.2
G1-4 0.48 0.81 0.81 1.00 9 9 6 2.30 3.93 9.31 0.9 1.5 4.5
G1-5 1.02 0.84 0.84 1.00 9 9 7 2.30 3.93 8.80 2.0 3.4 9.0
G1-6 0.57 0.81 0.81 1.00 9 9 5 2.30 3.93 9.95 1.1 1.8 5.7
G1-7 0.47 0.89 0.89 1.00 5 5 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.2 2.0 4.7
G1-8 0.18 0.75 0.75 0.94 6 6 5 2.67 4.56 9.95 0.4 0.6 1.7
G1-9 0.21 0.65 0.65 0.81 8 8 5 2.40 4.10 9.95 0.3 0.6 1.7
G1-10 0.53 0.85 0.85 1.00 8 8 5 2.40 4.10 9.95 1.1 1.9 5.3
G1-11 0.18 0.72 0.72 0.90 16 16 11 1.81 3.08 7.42 0.2 0.4 1.2
G1-12 0.91 0.84 0.84 1.00 9 9 6 2.30 3.93 9.31 1.8 3.0 8.5
G1-13 0.54 0.72 0.72 0.90 21 21 16 1.56 2.67 6.30 0.6 1.0 3.0
G1-14 0.15 0.73 0.73 0.91 10 10 8 2.21 3.78 8.38 0.2 0.4 1.1
G1-15 0.05 0.83 0.83 1.00 9 9 6 2.30 3.93 9.31 0.1 0.2 0.5
G1-16 0.07 0.82 0.82 1.00 8 8 6 2.40 4.10 9.31 0.1 0.2 0.7
G1-17 1.84 0.49 0.49 0.61 15 15 13 1.87 3.19 6.92 1.7 2.9 7.7
G1-18 0.64 0.50 0.50 0.63 12 12 11 2.05 3.50 7.42 0.7 1.1 3.0
G1-19 3.64 0.20 0.20 0.25 38 38 36 1.11 1.89 4.01 0.8 1.4 3.6
G2-1 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.65 8 8 7 2.40 4.10 8.80 0.3 0.5 1.4
G2-2 0.19 0.54 0.54 0.67 10 10 8 2.21 3.78 8.38 0.2 0.4 1.1
G2-3 2.89 0.45 0.45 0.56 16 16 14 1.81 3.08 6.71 2.3 4.0 10.8
G2-4 0.39 0.52 0.52 0.65 10 10 9 2.21 3.78 8.03 0.4 0.8 2.0
G2-5 0.59 0.64 0.64 0.80 8 8 6 2.40 4.10 9.31 0.9 1.6 4.4
G2-6 1.45 0.20 0.20 0.25 42 42 39 1.04 1.77 3.80 0.3 0.5 1.4
POND F 8.26 0.26 0.26 0.32 39 39 36 1.09 1.86 4.01 2.3 4.0 10.7
Basin Peak Discharge
Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Peak Discharge (cfs)Basin Basin Area
(ac)
Frequency Adj. Runoff Coefficients
P BASIN F
P BASIN G1
P BASIN G2
POND F
Time of Concentration, Tc (min)
Appendix A
Appendix B
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
(LID) CALCULATIONS
MONTAVA SUBDIVISION PHASE E Preliminary Drainage Report
Basin/ Sub-Basin Total Area (acres) Impervious Area (acres) % Impervious TO BE LID TREATED
PERCENT OF
TOTAL SITE
AREA TO BE
TREATED
F-1 0.81 0.49 59.88%YES 1.79% 0.81
F-2 0.21 0.15 72.86%NO 0.46% N/A
F-3 0.45 0.27 58.89%NO 1.00% N/A
F-4 0.13 0.09 68.46%NO 0.29% N/A
F-5 0.48 0.28 57.50%YES 1.06% 0.48
F-6 0.25 0.12 48.72%YES 0.55% 0.25
F-7 0.41 0.26 63.66%NO 0.91% N/A
F-8 0.98 0.57 57.76%YES 2.17% 0.98
F-9 0.81 0.32 39.63%YES 1.79% 0.81
F-10 0.63 0.37 58.89%NO 1.39% N/A
F-11 0.20 0.14 70.00%YES 0.44% 0.20
F-12 0.61 0.41 66.39%NO 1.35% N/A
F-13 0.51 0.34 65.69%YES 1.13% 0.51
F-14 1.80 0.39 21.73%NO 3.98% N/A
F-15 1.23 1.00 81.22%YES 2.72% 1.23
F-16 0.65 0.59 90.00%NO 1.44% N/A
F-17 0.44 0.40 90.00%YES 0.97% 0.44
F-18 0.58 0.52 90.00%NO 1.28% N/A
F-19 0.80 0.72 90.00%NO 1.77% N/A
F-20 0.66 0.37 56.67%NO 1.46% N/A
F-21 2.16 1.14 52.96%NO 4.78% N/A
F-22 0.35 0.21 59.60%YES 0.77% 0.35
F-23 0.43 0.31 72.33%YES 0.95% 0.43
F-24 0.77 0.41 53.43%YES 1.70% 0.77
F-25 0.55 0.36 66.00%YES 1.22% 0.55
Total= 16.90 10.21 60.44%
37.37% 7.81
G1-1 2.45 1.26 51.50%NO 5.42% N/A
G1-2 0.70 0.51 72.29%NO 1.55% N/A
G1-3 1.13 0.99 87.52%NO 2.50% N/A
G1-4 0.48 0.34 71.67%NO 1.06% N/A
G1-5 1.02 0.77 75.88%NO 2.26% N/A
G1-6 0.57 0.41 71.75%NO 1.26% N/A
G1-7 0.47 0.38 81.49%YES 1.04% 0.47
G1-8 0.18 0.11 63.33%NO 0.40% N/A
G1-9 0.21 0.11 50.00%NO 0.46% N/A
G1-10 0.53 0.41 77.17%NO 1.17% N/A
G1-11 0.18 0.11 58.89%NO 0.40% N/A
G1-12 0.91 0.68 74.70%YES 2.01% 0.91
G1-13 0.54 0.31 58.00%YES 1.19% 0.54
G1-14 0.15 0.09 60.67%NO 0.33% N/A
G1-15 0.05 0.04 74.00%NO 0.11% N/A
G1-16 0.07 0.05 72.86%NO 0.15% N/A
G1-17 1.84 0.81 44.08%NO 4.07% N/A
G1-18 0.64 0.36 55.63%NO 1.42% N/A
G1-19 3.64 0.73 20.00%NO 8.05% N/A
Total= 15.76 8.47 53.73%
34.85% 1.92
G2-1 0.24 0.14 56.67%YES 0.53% 0.24
G2-2 0.19 0.11 58.42%YES 0.42% 0.19
G2-3 2.89 1.28 44.19%YES 6.39% 2.89
G2-4 0.39 0.22 56.67%YES 0.86% 0.39
G2-5 0.59 0.39 66.27%YES 1.30% 0.59
G2-6 1.45 0.29 20.00%YES 3.21% 1.45
Total= 4.30 2.43 42.19%
12.72% 5.75
POND F 8.26 1.98 23.92%
YES (1/4 OF BASIN) 4.57% 2.07
Total= 8.26 1.98 23.92%
4.57% 2.07
17.31
*Percent impervious values based on UDFCD Vol 1., Chapter 6, Table 6-3
Low Impact Development (LID)
Per agreements with the City and adjacent property owner, all LID for the H23 project will be handeled offsite on the
adjacent H25 developement.
Total Impervious Area to be Treated Using LID Techniques (acres) =
P BASIN F
P BASIN G1
P BASIN G2
P BASIN G2
Appendix C
FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE
RATE MAP
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 10/12/2021 at 3:48 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
105°1'53"W 40°36'53"N
105°1'16"W 40°36'25"N
Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020
Appendix D
USDA HYDROLOGIC SOIL
GROUP MAP
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, ColoradoNatural
Resources
Conservation
Service
March 25, 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......................................................................14
5—Aquepts, loamy......................................................................................14
22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope...............................................15
35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................................16
53—Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes..........................................................17
54—Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes..........................................................19
94—Satanta loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes....................................................20
95—Satanta loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes....................................................21
98—Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.................................23
101—Stoneham loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes..............................................24
102—Stoneham loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes..............................................25
103—Stoneham loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes..............................................27
References............................................................................................................29
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
449550044956004495700449580044959004496000449610044962004496300449550044956004495700449580044959004496000449610044962004496300497200 497300 497400 497500 497600 497700 497800 497900 498000 498100 498200 498300 498400 498500 498600
497200 497300 497400 497500 497600 497700 497800 497900 498000 498100 498200 498300 498400 498500 498600
40° 37' 5'' N 105° 2' 1'' W40° 37' 5'' N105° 0' 56'' W40° 36' 34'' N
105° 2' 1'' W40° 36' 34'' N
105° 0' 56'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0 300 600 1200 1800
Feet
0 100 200 400 600
Meters
Map Scale: 1:6,950 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado
Survey Area Data: Version 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: Jul 19, 2018—Aug
10, 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
5 Aquepts, loamy 4.8 2.9%
22 Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1
percent slope
25.4 15.2%
35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
48.9 29.3%
53 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.0 0.0%
54 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 0.3 0.2%
94 Satanta loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes
2.3 1.4%
95 Satanta loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
0.0 0.0%
98 Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to
3 percent slopes
57.6 34.6%
101 Stoneham loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
15.6 9.4%
102 Stoneham loam, 3 to 5 percent
slopes
5.3 3.2%
103 Stoneham loam, 5 to 9 percent
slopes
6.5 3.9%
Totals for Area of Interest 166.6 100.0%
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
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.
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
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
13
Larimer County Area, Colorado
5—Aquepts, loamy
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpws
Elevation: 4,500 to 6,700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 80 to 140 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Aquepts and similar soils:80 percent
Minor components:20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Aquepts
Setting
Landform:Stream terraces, depressions, draws
Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread, dip
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 60 inches: variable
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Very poorly drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to very
high (0.60 to 99.90 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 6 to 18 inches
Frequency of flooding:NoneRare
Frequency of ponding:None
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 5w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D
Ecological site: R067BY073CO - Riparian
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Stoneham
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Kim
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Fort collins
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ008CO - Loamy Slopes
Hydric soil rating: No
22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpvt
Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Caruso and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Caruso
Setting
Landform:Flood-plain steps, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 35 inches: clay loam
H2 - 35 to 44 inches: fine sandy loam
H3 - 44 to 60 inches: gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 24 to 48 inches
Frequency of flooding:NoneOccasional
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
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: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Loveland
Percent of map unit:9 percent
Landform:Terraces
Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Fluvaquents
Percent of map unit:6 percent
Landform:Terraces
Hydric soil rating: Yes
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
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
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
Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope, interfluve
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
53—Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpwx
Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
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
Kim and similar soils:90 percent
Minor components:10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Kim
Setting
Landform:Fans
Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 60 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:1 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
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Fort collins
Percent of map unit:6 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ008CO - Loamy Slopes
Hydric soil rating: No
Stoneham
Percent of map unit:3 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Aquic haplustolls
Percent of map unit:1 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
18
Landform:Swales
Hydric soil rating: Yes
54—Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpwy
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: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Kim and similar soils:90 percent
Minor components:10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Kim
Setting
Landform:Fans
Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 60 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:3 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
19
Minor Components
Thedalund
Percent of map unit:4 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Stoneham
Percent of map unit:3 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Fort collins
Percent of map unit:2 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ008CO - Loamy Slopes
Hydric soil rating: No
Aquic haplustolls
Percent of map unit:1 percent
Landform:Swales
Hydric soil rating: Yes
94—Satanta loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2wz89
Elevation: 3,670 to 5,410 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 23 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F
Frost-free period: 105 to 160 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Satanta and similar soils:90 percent
Minor components:10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Satanta
Setting
Landform:Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 10 inches: loam
Bt - 10 to 17 inches: clay loam
C - 17 to 79 inches: loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
20
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Negligible
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:10 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very high (about 12.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R072XY111KS - Sandy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R072XY108KS - Loamy Lowland
Hydric soil rating: No
Fort collins
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R072XY111KS - Sandy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
95—Satanta loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2w5f3
Elevation: 3,670 to 5,410 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 23 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F
Frost-free period: 130 to 163 days
Custom Soil Resource Report
21
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Satanta and similar soils:90 percent
Minor components:10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Satanta
Setting
Landform:Paleoterraces
Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Eolian sands
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: loam
Bt - 9 to 18 inches: clay loam
C - 18 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:1 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 (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:10 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very high (about 12.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Fort collins
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Alluvial fans
Custom Soil Resource Report
22
Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
98—Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpyh
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
Satanta variant and similar soils:90 percent
Minor components:10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Satanta Variant
Setting
Landform:Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam
H2 - 9 to 22 inches: clay loam
H3 - 22 to 60 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 24 to 48 inches
Frequency of flooding:NoneOccasional
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent
Gypsum, maximum content:10 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 8.7 inches)
Custom Soil Resource Report
23
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Caruso
Percent of map unit:3 percent
Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow
Hydric soil rating: No
Loveland
Percent of map unit:2 percent
Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow
Hydric soil rating: No
101—Stoneham loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jptt
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
Stoneham and similar soils:90 percent
Minor components:10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Stoneham
Setting
Landform:Terraces, benches
Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam
H2 - 4 to 10 inches: sandy clay loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
24
H3 - 10 to 60 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:1 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
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Kim
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Fort collins
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
102—Stoneham loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2x0j1
Elevation: 3,500 to 6,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 54 degrees F
Frost-free period: 115 to 155 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Stoneham and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
25
Description of Stoneham
Setting
Landform:Interfluves, low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvial and/or eolian tertiary aged pedisediment
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam
Bt - 4 to 9 inches: clay loam
Btk - 9 to 13 inches: clay loam
Bk1 - 13 to 18 inches: loam
Bk2 - 18 to 34 inches: loam
C - 34 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:3 to 5 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)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:0.5
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Satanta
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Weld
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit
Custom Soil Resource Report
26
Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Kimst
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Low hills, interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope
Down-slope shape:Convex
Across-slope shape:Convex
Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
103—Stoneham loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jptw
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: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Stoneham and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Stoneham
Setting
Landform:Terraces, benches
Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope, tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 3 inches: loam
H2 - 3 to 9 inches: clay loam
H3 - 9 to 60 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:5 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Custom Soil Resource Report
27
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Kim
Percent of map unit:8 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Larimer
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Fort collins
Percent of map unit:2 percent
Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
28
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
29
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
30
Appendix E
DRAINAGE PLANS
842438426POND EPOND A1424430436435OVERFLOW42924274.17477363535297303022925426426_OVER757228POND BPOND D26.1POND F426MAPLE HILLSUBDIVISIONSTORYBOOKSUBDIVISIONSODFARMANHEUSERBUSCHWATERGLENSUBDIVISIONTRAIL HEADSUBDIVISIONL&W CANALNO. 8 DITCHL&W CANALN. GIDDINGS RD.C&S RAILROADI-25RICHARDS LAKE RD. (CR 52)MOUNTAIN VISTA DR. (CR 50)9079099042131.18334357298294317307258418311689143731427.1822427POND C43483424POND A42512499 WEST COLFAX AVENUE, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215303.431.6100 MARTINMARTIN.COMMONTAVAMASTER DRAINAGE PLANDEVELOPED ROUTING SCHEMATICD1
12499 WEST COLFAX AVENUE, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215303.431.6100 MARTINMARTIN.COMMONTAVAMASTER DRAINAGE PLANDEVELOPED ROUTING SCHEMATICD2DIVERSION SUMMARYSWMMELEMENTQ100 INFLOW(CFS)Q100 DIVERTED(CFS)Q100REMAINING(CFS)833.1 408 279125842 1000 617384OUTFALL SUMMARYSWMMELEMENTQ100 (CFS)904 138907 385909 729POND SUMMARYSWMM ELEMENTQ100 IN (CFS) Q100 OUT (CFS) VOLUME (AC-FT)425 883 819 47426 1322 760 307429 1000 390 13.6430 231 295.5435 468 41530436 1562 1548 25438 732 0 88426 OVERFLOW 167 138 59POND A 1807 1042 123POND A1 76122.8POND A2 78 3.5 3.0POND B 627.22.3POND C 1077.14.6POND D1728.6 9.0POND E17491 3.2POND F 166 6.4 11.4BASIN SUMMARYBASIN IDAREA (AC)% IMPQ2 (CFS) Q100 (CFS)A112.1801170A213.3 801278B 16.6 50 10 62C1 27.6 50 17 107C2 82.0 50 38 246D 47.3 60 26 172E 83.9 25 25 159F 46.9 60 25 166G1 80.4 80 36 249G2 10.0 80 9 59H 45.6 10 10 53I1 58.2 10 8 49I2 34.8 2 2 11J1 20.5 50 9 58J2 22.2 50 18 101J344.550 25 158K122.8 601173K260.0 6027180L 110.5 60 55 361M 42.02214N 86.6 80 61 400O 60.8 10 12 65P 30.2 2 2 12OS-1 45.0 20 11 7124 33.74544 28029 268.8 29 192 100030 33.5 49 44 23137 34.6 232214838 290.7 542469200 33.6 5 5 46DESIGN POINT SUMMARYSWMM ELEMENTQ100 (CFS)16 152138531 35531.1 33831.2 277427 319427.1 6427.29431 1312434 7437 333439 1043442 53725 513729415730 28822 249829 513831224833 138834 1781841 396891 418CONVEYANCE ELEMENT SUMMARYSWMMELEMENTQ100 (CFS)21 38524725 51226 23926.1 626.2 927 1780284529 41330 2731 35331.1 33831.2 27631.3 27134 104335 46872 22473 13974 12574.1 39675 39177 1000229 513231 1310237 310242 493426 760426_OVERFLOW167CULVERT SIZE BY DESIGN POINTSWMMELEMENTBARRELS-SIZEQ100 (CFS)HEADWATER DEPTH(FT)21 2-8x4 3854.4312-7x4355 4.631.1 2-8x4 338 4.131.2 4-48"D2774.1427 2-6x4 319 4.7427.1 1-18"D 6 1.6427.2 1-18"D 9 2.64311-15x10 & 1-5x121312 7.6434 1-18"D 7 1.9437 3-6x3 333 4.2822 3-48"D 249 4.6831 3-48"D2244.3833 2-48"D 138 4.18344-10X51781 7.38412-5X5396 6.29041-60"D138 13.0