Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE - FDP230016 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - DRAINAGE REPORT
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO OCTOBER 4TH, 2023 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS GREELEY This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF. Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety. When a hard copy is necessary, we recommend double-sided printing. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY COVER LETTER October 4th, 2023 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80526 RE: FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE (1971-001) Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for your review. This report accompanies the Final Development Review submittal for the Mason Street Infrastructure. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed Mason Street Infrastructure project. We understand the review by the City of Fort Collins is to ensure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM. If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. MASON RUEBEL, PE BLAINE MATHISEN, PE Project Engineer Project Manager NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 1 DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ..................................................................... 3 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................... 4 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ........................................................................... 8 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 10 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 11 TABLES AND FIGURES FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................1 FIGURE 2 - AERIAL PHOTO ................................................................................................2 FIGURE 3 - FIRMETTE MAP 08069C0977G ........................................................................3 TABLE 1 – INLET SUMMARY ..............................................................................................7 TABLE 2 – DETENTION & WQCV SUMMARY .................................................................... 10 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS APPENDIX B – HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C –WATER QUALITY/LID COMPUTATIONS APPENDIX D – EROSION CONTROL REPORT APPENDIX E – EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS AND USDA SOILS REPORT MAP POCKET DR1 – DRAINAGE EXHIBIT NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 1 | 11 GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION Vicinity Map The Mason Street Infrastructure project site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. The project site (refer to Figure 1) is bordered to the west by residential homes, to the north and south by commercial businesses and to the east by a mixture of residential and commercial businesses. This project includes N Mason Street from Hickory Street to Hibdon Court and the surrounding parcels. The nearest existing major streets are Hickory Street and N College Ave. B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The Mason Street Infrastructure project is comprised of ±13.45 acres. The project area consists of two existing parcels surrounding Mason Street and Hibdon Court. The current owners are N College 1311 LLC & the City of Fort Collins (refer to Figure 2). Figure 1 - Vicinity map NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 2 | 11 The site is currently vacant with native grasses. The project site is the regional drainage point for several upstream properties. The existing on- site runoff generally drains from north to south across flat grades (e.g. <1.00%) into adjacent properties to the south & east. There is an existing detention pond located on the Fort Collins property that is the drainage point for the offsite basins to the north. This pond has an existing volume of 4ac.ft. The outfall for the detention pond is conveyed through an 8” PVC pipe to the east side of Mason Street to an existing roadside ditch and conveyed to College Ave. The existing storm drain is currently blocked and does not connect to the storm infrastructure in College Ave. Storm runoff collects in the offsite storm drain and spills into College Ave from two offsite inlets in the property east of the project site. The Mason Street Infrastructure project will maintain historical drainage patterns by routing runoff to College Ave and repairing the connection to the existing infrastructure in College Ave. This development will provide the interim condition for the Hickory Regional Detention Pond and maintain the existing volume and provide any additional detention required with the development of Lot 2. The City of Fort Collins will perform the analysis of upstream basins and flow with the design of the ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond. The ultimate regional pond will also include the realignment of the site outfall and discharge directly to the Cache La Poudre River. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey website: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), 83.3% of the site consists of Nunn Clay loam (Hydrologic Soil Group C) and 16.7% of the site consists of Caruso clay loam Figure 2 - Aerial Photo NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 3 | 11 (Hydrologic Soil Group D). The calculations assume a Hydrologic Soil Group C. Hydrologic Soil Group C has a slow rate of water absorption and infiltration. A subsurface exploration report was completed by CTL Thompson “Geotechnical Investigation Hibdon/Mason 24/7 Shelter SWC Hibdon Court and Mason Street Fort Collins, Colorado” on October 25, 2022 (Project No. FC10,520.000-125-R1). According to the report the site generally consists of Sandy Clay with groundwater at roughly 8’ to 11’ depths from existing ground. The site is currently zoned as Service Commercial District (CS) in Fort Collins. Developments to the north, south, and east are zoned as Service Commercial as well. The west properties are zoned as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N). FLOODPLAIN The subject property is not located in a FEMA or City of Fort Collins regulatory floodplain. C. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The project site will include the widening of N Mason Street, Right of Way dedication and the two current parcels will be subdivided into three lots. Lot 1 (±8 acres) will be owned by the City of Fort Collins and will be the location of the Hickory Regional Detention Pond. Lot 2 (±2.77 acres) & Lot 3 (±1.39 acres) will remain undeveloped and additional drainage and WQ design will be required with future development. The proposed infrastructure improvements will consist of the construction of the interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond, overlot grading of adjacent properties, and the ultimate alignment of Mason Street from the south property line to Hibdon Court. The road improvements include asphalt paving, sidewalks, and landscaping. Figure 3 - FIRMette Map 08069C0977G NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 4 | 11 DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION The Mason Street Infrastructure project is located in the Dry Creek Major Basin. Dry Creek, which is tributary to the Poudre River, extends from near the Wyoming border to where it joins the river near Mulberry and Timberline. The Dry Creek Basin is approximately 23 miles long and six miles wide and encompasses approximately 62 square miles. The land use in the upper and middle portion of the basin are primarily rangeland and irrigated hay meadows and pastures. The majority of the lower basin is developed and includes commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Detention requirements for this basin are to release at or below the allowable runoff rate of 0.20 cfs per acre. An existing storm line in N. College Ave will serve as the outfall for the proposed detention ponds. B. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION The existing subject site can be defined with three (3) major sub-basins that encompass the entire project site. Historically runoff from the site overland flows to the south and east properties. There is an existing detention pond centrally located on the site that is the main drainage point for several upstream properties. Runoff that is collected in the existing detention pond outfalls to an 8” PVC pipe that discharges to a roadside ditch on the east side of N Mason Street. This ditch discharges to an existing 21” RCP pipe that leaves the east side of the site towards N College Ave. This outfall pipe is connected to two additional inlets in the adjacent property to the east. This outfall is currently blocked and does not connect to the storm infrastructure in N College Ave. This project will repair the connection to the existing storm infrastructure in College Ave and maintain the historic site outfall. The project site does receive runoff from contiguous off-site properties. This project will propose an interim condition for the Hickory Regional Detention Pond to replace the existing detention pond. This interim pond will maintain the existing volume and provide any additional detention required with the development of Lot 2. Lot 3 will provide separate water quality and detention with future development. Fort Collins will provide analysis of the upstream basins and design of the ultimate regional Detention Pond. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns is provided below. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. ORIGINAL PROVISIONS AND PREVIOUS STUDIES There is no optional provisions outside the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual (FCSM) B. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the Mason Street Infrastructure project utilizes the "Four Step Process" to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters. The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each step. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 5 | 11 Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices. The existing property is being subdivided into 3 lots. Lot 1 will be the location of the Hickory Regional Detention Pond. This will remain vegetated and provide standard water quality and extended detention for the project site and surrounding properties. The 2 remining lots will remain undeveloped with the Mason Infrastructure project. With the future development of lots 2 & 3 additional methods will be required to reduce runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads. Runoff from the adjacent Mason Street Improvements will also be taken into account with the future development of Lots 2 & 3. In the interim, vegetated open areas are provided throughout the site to reduce the overall impervious area. Step 2 – Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with Slow Release. The efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize excess runoff from frequently occurring storm events; however, urban development of this intensity will still have stormwater runoff leaving the site. The primary standard water quality treatment and volume control will occur in the Hickory Regional Detention Pond. The project will design the interim condition for the proposed properties. Additional design and analysis will be performed by the City of Fort Collins with the ultimate design of the regional pond. Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways. As stated in Section II. A. 1. above, the site will discharge to the storm infrastructure in N College Ave and ultimately the Cache La Poudre River. This project will improve the connection to the existing storm infrastructure and indirectly help achieve stabilized drainageways downstream. By providing water quality treatment, where none previously existed, sediment with erosion potential is removed from downstream drainage way systems. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees and ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve Citywide drainageway stability. Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs. The proposed project will provide site specific source controls and improve historic conditions. Standard Operating procedures (SOPs) will be implemented for BMP maintenance of detention ponds and other associated drainage infrastructure to remove sediment accumulation regularly and prolong the design life of the BMPs. C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS The subject property is part of a Master Drainage Plan for the properties adjacent to N Mason Street. An Overall Development Plan (ODP) drainage study is also submitted concurrently with this project. However, stormwater from this site will generally follow historic patterns and discharge into storm drains established with previous surrounding developments. This project proposes to utilize existing infrastructure as the site outfall. Detention requirements for this basin are to release at or below the allowable runoff rate of 0.20 cfs per acre. Lots 1 & 2 will utilize the interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond and the interim release rate is calculated as 2.02cfs (10.12ac x 0.2cfs/ac). This is a very conservative release rate due to the unaccounted flow from upstream properties. Additional volume will be provided to maintain the historic drainage point from these properties. As discussed further in this report, NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 6 | 11 the total release rate from the detention pond will be designed with the ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond by the City of Fort Collins. This project will improve the existing drainage facilities and bring the interim site outfall up to compliance with the city code. There is a small amount of area that will not be detained and will be taken into account with future development per the Mason Street Infrastructure Master Drainage Plan. Detention and water quality design will be required with the future development of Lot 3 and will bypass the interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond. This property will remain undeveloped with this project and maintain existing conveyance. The maximum release rate from this future development will be 0.36cfs (1.79ac x 0.2cfs/ac). In the interim this runoff will be routed to the existing 21” RCP storm outfall, but in the future will connect to the ultimate Hickory Pond outfall designed by the City of Fort Collins. The site plan is constrained on all sides by developed properties and public roads. Existing elevations along the property lines will be maintained. The existing 21” RCP storm drain will function as the interim outfall for the project site. The connection from the 21” RCP to storm infrastructure in N College Ave will be replaced to provide positive drainage and repair any blocked pipes or damage. D. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in Figure 3.4-1 of the FCSCM, serves as the source for all hydrologic computations associated with the Mason Street Infrastructure development. Tabulated data contained in Table 3.4-1 has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing coefficients contained in Tables 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3 of the FCSCM. The Rational Method will be used to estimate peak developed stormwater runoff from drainage basins within the developed site for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year design storms. Peak runoff discharges determined using this methodology have been used to check the street capacities, inlets, swales, and storm drain lines. Three separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios. The first event analyzed is the "Minor" or "Initial" Storm, with a 2-year recurrence interval. The second event considered is the "Major Storm," which has a 100-year recurrence interval. The final event analyzed was the 10-year recurrence interval for comparative analysis only. E. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA The hydraulic analyses of street capacities, inlets, storm drain lines, culverts, and swales are per the FCSM criteria and provided during Final Plan. The following computer programs and methods were utilized: · The storm drain lines were analyzed using Hydraflow Storm Sewer Extension for AutoCAD Civil 3D. · The inlets were analyzed using the Urban Drainage Inlet and proprietary area inlet spreadsheets. · Swales and street capacities were analyzed using the Urban Drainage Channels spreadsheets. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 7 | 11 Inlet B2 is located in N Mason Street which is a Minor Collector. Runoff encroachments were verified to meet requirements set forth in Chapter 9 Section 2.1 of FCSCM. Per “Table 2.1- 1:Street Encroachment Standards for the Minor (2-year) Storm” the minor storm has a maximum encroachment of no-curb-overtopping and flow may spread to the crown of street. Per “Table 2.1-2:Street Encroachment Standards for the Major (100-year)” the most restrictive maximum encroachment is based on depth for Mason Street, which is 12” at flowline for the major event. For a detailed summary and comprehensive calculation see Appendix B.2. Additionally, elevation labels have been included on the Drainage Exhibit at Inlet B2, the crown, and the adjacent utility easement for additional clarity. Inlet ID Required 100-yr capacity (CFS) Designed capacity (cfs) B2 1.0 5.0 Table 1 – Inlet Summary During the minor event N Mason Street has a capacity of 2.5 cfs which is 8.3 times greater than the required 0.3 cfs. During the major event N Mason Street has a max capacity of 5 cfs which is 5 times greater than the required 1 cfs. Therefore, it has been shown that N Mason Street meets all the requirements set forth by the FCSCM. Refer to Appendix B.2 for additional information. F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE As stated in Section I. B. 9. above, the subject property is not located within a FEMA 100-year or a City of Fort Collins designated floodplain. G. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA No formal modifications are requested at this time. H. CONFORMANCE WITH WATER QUAILTY TREATMENT CRITERIA In the interim condition the Hickory Regional Detention Pond will provide standard water quality treatment for Lots 1, 2 and a portion of N Mason Street. An assumed 80% impervious was assumed for Lot 2. No water quality treatment will be provided for Lot 3. It will remain undeveloped with no additional Imperious area added. Per city code, 100% of runoff from the project site will be required to receive some sort of water quality treatment with the future development of Lots 2 & 3. I. CONFORMANCE WITH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) LID will not be provided with the Mason Street Infrastructure project. The project site will provide standard water quality treatment for the added impervious area in the interim condition. The future development of Lots 2 & 3 will conform with the requirement to treat a minimum of 75% of newly or modified impervious area, including the Mason Street and Hibdon Court frontage, using an LID technique. Runoff from N Mason Street will be conveyed by swale to allow for flexibility with future LID methods prior to discharging to the regional pond. Lot 1 will remain the Hickory Regional Detention Pond and there will be no impervious area proposed with this lot. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 8 | 11 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT The main objective of the Mason Street Infrastructure drainage design is to maintain existing drainage patterns and to not adversely impact downstream infrastructure. There is notable off-site runoff that passes directly through the project site. It will not be accounted for with the drainage design but this project does improve the existing drainage facilities onsite and the increased pond volume will be able to detain the offsite runoff in the interim. Analysis of the upstream basins and flow will be required by the City of Fort Collins with the design of the ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond. Detention and water quality treatment for Lots 1, 2 and a portion of N Mason Street will be provided in the interim Hickory Detention Pond. An estimated detention and water quality volume will be calculated for Lot 3 and the Mason Street frontage, but it will not be constructed with this project. Further drainage design will be required with the development of Lots 2 and 3. The emergency overflow location will be located along N Mason Street at the southeast corner of the site. Flows will be conveyed over the proposed sidewalk and south towards Hickory Street. An interim grading of the overflow location will be constructed with this project, but the ultimate location and size will be determined by the City of Fort Collins with design of the Ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of Contents at the front of this document. The tables and figures are located within the sections to which the content best applies. Drainage for the project site has been analyzed using four (4) Major Drainage Basins, designated as Basins A, B, C, & D. These basins have associated sub-basins. The drainage patterns anticipated for the basins are further described below. Major Basin A Major Basin A has 8 sub-basins (A1-A8) and has a total area of 10.12 acres. All sub-basins discharge to the interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond, located in basin A1. The detention pond will provide standard water quality for the Mason Street improvements and undeveloped Lot 2. An assumed impervious percentage will be used for Lot 2. After Detention and treatment, flows will discharge to and existing 21” RCP outfall pipe on the east side of N Mason Street. The City of Fort Collins will construct the ultimate outfall for these basins with the ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond. There is a further description of each sub-basin below. Sub-Basins A2-A5 include all of Lot 2 and have a total area of 2.77 acres. Lot 2 will remain undeveloped with this project. To size conveyance methods, detention, and water quality volumes an assumed 80% impervious value is used for future development. Swales are currently designed to convey runoff from N Mason Street through these sub-basins to the regional pond in the interim. See appendix B.2 for further analysis of swale A-A & Swale B-B. Lot 2 will be required to meet the City water quality and LID requirements with future development. Runoff from the N Mason Street frontage and swales will need to be treated prior to discharge into the regional pond. The designed swales will allow for more flexibility with the certain LID methods with future development of Lot 2. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 9 | 11 Sub-Basins A6-A8 include the Mason Street Improvements along the Lot 2 frontage and have a total area of 0.55 acres. These sub-basins primarily consist of asphalt paving, concrete, and landscaping associated with N Mason Street and discharges to the Hickory Regional Detention Pond via storm drain, curb cut, or swale. Major Basin B Major Basin B has 2 sub-basins (B1-B2) and has a total area of 0.85 acres. All sub-basins will remain undeveloped and maintain historic drainage paths. Runoff will bypass the interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond and discharge directly to the existing 21” RCP outfall pipe on the east side of N Mason Street. There is a further description of each sub-basin below. Sub-Basin B1 includes the existing roadside ditch along the east side of N Mason Street and has a total area of 0.35 acres. No improvements are being proposed in this area and in the interim it will remain the outfall location for the Hickory Regional Detention Pond. The City of Fort Collins will construct the ultimate outfall for this basin with the ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond. Sub-Basin B2 includes a portion of N Mason Street and the existing Hibdon Court. This sub- basin has a total area of 0.4 acres. Runoff is collected in an existing roadside ditch and FES south of Hibdon Court. An existing 12” RCP follows the perimeter of the property and discharges to the roadside ditch in Sub-Basin B1. This sub-basin will maintain the historic drainage path to the existing site outfall. With Future development of Lot 3 and Hibdon Court, detention and water quality will be required prior to discharge offsite. Major Basin C Major Basin C has 3 sub-basins (C1-C3) and has a total area of 2.59 acres. All sub-basins within major basin C will not be treated or detained and will follow historic drainage paths off-site. There is a further description of each sub-basin below. Sub-Basin C1 & C2 includes the Mason Street improvements and has a total area of 0.25 acres. This sub-basin consists of primarily asphalt paving, concrete and landscaping associated with N Mason Street. This sub-basin will release un-detained to the southeast similar to existing conditions. With the future construction of N Mason Street to Hickory Street, runoff from this sub-basin will be treated and detained with the re-development of the surrounding properties to the south. The elevation of this basin is lower than the planned highwater elevation of the Hickory Regional Detention Pond and will not be detained in the interim pond. Sub-Basin C3 includes the area in between the south property line and the Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond and has a total area of 0.95 acres. The majority of this basin will remain landscaped with a 12’ gravel access road to service electric and water utilities along the south property line. Due to the elevation difference between the regional pond and the existing tie-in elevations this basin will drain offsite un-detained. Major Basin D Major Basin D is only a single basin with a total area of 1.39 acres. This basin consists of Lot 3 and will remain undeveloped with the Mason Street Infrastructure improvements. No additional impervious area has been added to this basin and it will maintain its historic path. The existing basin sheet flows to the east property line with no concentration point. The elevation of this basin is lower than the planned highwater elevation of the Hickory Pond NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 10 | 11 and will not be detained with the interim pond. With future development of Lot 3, water quality treatment and detention will be required and, in the interim, will discharge to the existing 21” RCP outfall pipe. The City of Fort Collins will construct the ultimate outfall for this basin with the ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. In addition, excerpts from earlier drainage reports referenced in this Section can be found in Appendix E. B. SPECIFIC DETAILS As mentioned in Section III.C.2 The detention requirements for this project site are to release at or below the allowable runoff rate of 0.20 cfs per acre, per the Dry Creek Master Plan. The table below summarizes the Interim Detention and release rates for the project site. The interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond will provide 100% standard water quality treatment and LID will be provided with the future development of Lots 2 & 3 as required in the overall development plan. Table 2 – Detention & WQCV Summary CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS The design elements comply without the need for variances. The drainage design proposed for the Mason Street Infrastructure project complies with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual as well as the associated master drainage plan. There are no City or FEMA 100-year regulatory floodplains associated with the Mason Street Infrastructure development. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the Mason Street Infrastructure project are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. Description Provided Notes Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond 1.36 ac. ft. 18.9 ac. ft. Volume for Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond Interim Hickory Pond Release Rate 2.02 cfs Release rate per Dry Creek Basin Criteria (Basins A1-A8) Lot 3 Future Detention Pond 0.49 ac. ft. n/a Approximate Future Detention Volume (Basins B2 & D1) A future Imperviouness of 80% assumed for Basin D1 Lot 3 Future Release Rate 0.36 cfs Release rate with future development (Basins B2 & D1) Total Site Release Rate 2.38 cfs Does not include basins that will not be detained o r that are the responsibility of off-site properties (Basin C1,C2,C3, & B1) Description Volume Provided Notes Interim Standard Water Quailty 6,813 cu. ft. 6,813 cu . ft. Standard water quailty treatment for Major Basin A Notes: Summary of Water Quality Volumes Volume Required Summary of Detention Volumes Required 1)LID Treatment for Lot 2, 3 and Mason Street will be provided with future development of lots. 2)Detention, Water Quailty, LID for Lot 3 will be deterimed with the development of Lot 3. The shown values are an estimate NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 11 | 11 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT The drainage design proposed with this project will ensure that all downstream infrastructure is not adversely impacted by this development. All existing downstream drainage facilities are expected to not be impacted negatively by this development. The Mason Street Infrastructure project will not impact the Master Drainage Plan recommendations for the Dry Creek Major Drainage Basin and the Mason Street Infrastructure Overall Development Plan. The drainage design will improve existing drainage facilities and bring immediate offsite storm infrastructure into compliance with the current Fort Collins REFERENCES 1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, adopted by Ordinance No. 159, 2018, and referenced in Section 26-500 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 2. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 3. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. 4. Geotechnical Investigation Hibdon/Mason 24/7 shelter SWC Hibdon Court and Mason Street Fort Collins, Colorado, CTL Thompson, Fort Collins, Colorado, October 2022 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS Runoff Coefficient1 Percent Impervious1 Project: Location: 0.95 100%Calc. By: 0.95 90%Date: 0.50 40% 0.20 2% 0.20 2% Basin ID Basin Area (sq.ft.) Basin Area (acres) Asphalt, Concrete (acres)Rooftop (acres) Gravel (acres) Undeveloped: Greenbelts, Agriculture (acres) Lawns, Clayey Soil, Flat Slope < 2% (acres) Percent Impervious C2*Cf Cf = 1.00 C5*Cf Cf = 1.00 C10*Cf Cf = 1.00 C100*Cf Cf = 1.25 A1 295,938 6.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.79 2% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 A2 57,532 1.32 0.37 1.17 0.00 0.00 -0.22 107% 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.00 A3 17,921 0.41 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.05 80% 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 A4 17,259 0.40 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.05 80% 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 A5 28,061 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.07 80% 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 A6 7,623 0.18 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 80% 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.99 A7 10,519 0.24 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 77% 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.97 A8 5,844 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 B1 15,070 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 2% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 B2 17,239 0.40 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 72% 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.92 C1 2,950 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 C2 7,880 0.18 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 42% 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.63 C3 41,334 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.69 12% 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.35 D1 60,638 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 2% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 Hickory Pond 440,697 10.12 0.83 2.46 0.00 0.00 6.83 31% 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.55 Lot 3 Development 77,877 1.79 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 80% 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 Total 585,808 13.45 1.25 2.46 0.26 0.00 9.49 28% 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.52 DEVELOPED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS Asphalt, Concrete Rooftop Gravel Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Character of Surface:N Mason Street Infrastructure Fort Collins M. Ruebel October 4, 2023 Lawns and Landscaping: Combined Basins 2) Composite Runoff Coefficient adjusted per Table 3.2-3 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual (FCSM). Lawns, Clayey Soil, Flat Slope < 2% USDA SOIL TYPE: C Undeveloped: Greenbelts, Agriculture Composite Runoff Coefficient2 1) Runoff coefficients per Tables 3.2-1 & 3.2 of the FCSM. Percent impervious per Tables 4.1-2 & 4.1-3 of the FCSM. Notes: 1) Basin A2, A3, A4, & A5 use an assumed 80% impervious percentage for future development. 2)Hickory Pond Combined Basin includes basin A1-A8 3)Lot 3 Development Combined Basin includes basin B2 & D1. Basin D1 uses an assumed 80% Impervious value for the Combined basin calculation 5/18/2022 Where: Length (ft) Slope (%) Ti 2-Yr (min) Ti 10-Yr (min) Ti 100-Yr (min) Length (ft) Slope (%)Surface n Flow Area3 (sq.ft.)WP3 (ft)R (ft)V (ft/s) Tt (min) Max. Tc (min) Comp. Tc 2-Yr (min) Tc 2-Yr (min) Comp. Tc 10-Yr (min) Tc 10-Yr (min) Comp. Tc 100- Yr (min) Tc 100-Yr (min) a1 A1 250 1.00%26.61 26.61 25.13 1,105 1.00%Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 0.59 6.95 2.65 17.53 29.26 17.53 29.26 17.53 27.78 17.53 a2 A2 150 2.00%0.48 0.48 1.82 0.00%Valley Pan 1.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.83 0.48 5.00 0.48 5.00 1.82 5.00 a3 A3 60 4.00%2.18 2.18 0.91 230 0.50%Swale (8:1)2.02 8.00 16.12 0.50 0.03 116.96 11.61 119.14 11.61 119.14 11.61 117.87 11.61 a4 A4 110 2.00%3.73 3.73 1.56 0.00%Valley Pan 3.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.61 3.73 5.00 3.73 5.00 1.56 5.00 a5 A5 100 2.00%3.44 3.44 1.48 0.00%Valley Pan 4.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.56 3.44 5.00 3.44 5.00 1.48 5.00 a6 A6 21 2.20%2.01 2.01 0.71 190 2.00%Gutter 5.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 0.01 229.39 11.17 231.40 11.17 231.40 11.17 230.09 11.17 a7 A7 21 2.20%2.13 2.13 0.85 210 1.00%Gutter 6.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 0.01 430.05 11.28 432.18 11.28 432.18 11.28 430.90 11.28 a8 A8 21 2.20%0.99 0.99 0.66 210 1.00%Gutter 7.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 0.01 501.55 11.28 502.53 11.28 502.53 11.28 502.20 11.28 b1 B1 23 25.00%2.76 2.76 2.61 250 1.00%Gutter 8.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 0.01 682.19 11.52 684.95 11.52 684.95 11.52 684.80 11.52 b2 B2 21 2.20%2.41 2.41 1.20 400 1.00% Valley Pan 10.02 6.00 10.25 0.59 0.01 640.36 12.34 642.77 12.34 642.77 12.34 641.56 12.34 c1 C1 21 2.20%0.99 0.99 0.66 125 1.70% Valley Pan 11.02 6.00 10.25 0.59 0.01 168.80 10.81 169.79 10.81 169.79 10.81 169.46 10.81 c2 C2 21 2.20%3.91 3.91 3.08 65 1.30% Valley Pan 12.02 6.00 10.25 0.59 0.01 109.49 10.48 113.40 10.48 113.40 10.48 112.57 10.48 c3 C3 40 2.00%7.69 7.69 7.03 0.00% Valley Pan 13.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.22 7.69 7.69 7.69 7.69 7.03 7.03 d1 D1 270 0.70%31.15 31.15 29.42 0.00% Valley Pan 9.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 11.50 31.15 11.50 31.15 11.50 29.42 11.50 Notes S = Longitudinal Slope, feet/feet R = Hydraulic Radius (feet) n = Roughness Coefficient V = Velocity (ft/sec) WP = Wetted Perimeter (ft) DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS Location: Maximum Tc:Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Channelized Flow, Velocity: Channelized Flow, Time of Concentration: N Mason Street Infrastructure Fort Collins M. Ruebel October 4, 2023 Project: Calculations By: Date: Design Point Basin ID Overland Flow Channelized Flow Time of Concentration (Equation 3.3-2 per Fort Collins Stormwater Manual) 1.87 1.1 ∗ 1.49 ∗ / ∗ (Equation 5-4 per Fort Collins Stormwater Manual) 180 10 (Equation 3.3-5 per Fort Collins Stormwater Manual) ∗ 60 (Equation 5-5 per Fort Collins 1) Add 4900 to all elevations. 2) Per Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, minimum Tc = 5 min. 3) Assume a water depth of 6" and a typical curb and gutter per Larimer County Urban Street Standard Detail 701 for curb and gutter channelized flow. Assume a water depth of 1', fixed side slopes, and a triangular swale section for grass channelized flow. Assume a water depth of 1', 4:1 side slopes, and a 2' wide valley pan for channelized flow in a valley pan. Tc2 Tc10 Tc100 C2 C10 C100 I2 I10 I100 QWQ Q2 Q10 Q100 a1 A1 6.79 17.5 17.5 17.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.7 2.9 6.0 1.2 2.3 4.0 10.2 a2 A2 1.32 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 2.0 4.0 6.9 13.1 a3 A3 0.41 11.6 11.6 11.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.1 3.6 7.3 0.4 0.7 1.3 3.0 a4 A4 0.40 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.5 1.0 1.7 3.9 a5 A5 0.64 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.8 1.6 2.7 6.4 a6 A6 0.18 11.2 11.2 11.2 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.1 3.6 7.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.3 a7 A7 0.24 11.3 11.3 11.3 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.1 3.6 7.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.7 a8 A8 0.13 11.3 11.3 11.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 3.6 7.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.0 b1 B1 0.35 11.5 11.5 11.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 3.6 7.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 b2 B2 0.40 12.3 12.3 12.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 2.1 3.5 7.2 0.3 0.6 1.0 2.6 c1 C1 0.07 10.8 10.8 10.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.2 3.7 7.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 c2 C2 0.18 10.5 10.5 10.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.2 3.8 7.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 c3 C3 0.95 7.7 7.7 7.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 2.5 4.2 8.8 0.3 0.7 1.1 2.9 d1 D1 1.39 11.5 11.5 11.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 3.6 7.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 2.5 Fort Collins Project: Location: Calc. By: Flow (cfs) Intensity, I from Fig. 3.4.1 Fort Collins Stormwater Manual Rational Equation: Q = CiA (Equation 6-1 per MHFD) DEVELOPED DIRECT RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS Intensity N Mason Street Infrastructure M. Ruebel October 4, 2023 Design Point Basin Area (acres) Runoff CTc (Min) Date: FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5) 3.0 Rational Method 3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method Page 8 Table 3.4-1. IDF Table for Rational Method Duration (min) Intensity 2-year (in/hr) Intensity 10-year (in/hr) Intensity 100-year (in/hr) Duration (min) Intensity 2-year (in/hr) Intensity 10-year (in/hr) Intensity 100-year (in/hr) 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 39 1.09 1.86 3.8 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 7 2.52 4.31 8.80 41 1.05 1.80 3.68 8 2.40 4.10 8.38 42 1.04 1.77 3.62 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 43 1.02 1.74 3.56 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 44 1.01 1.72 3.51 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 45 0.99 1.69 3.46 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 46 0.98 1.67 3.41 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 47 0.96 1.64 3.36 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 48 0.95 1.62 3.31 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 49 0.94 1.6 3.27 16 1.81 3.08 6.30 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 17 1.75 2.99 6.10 51 0.91 1.56 3.18 18 1.70 2.90 5.92 52 0.9 1.54 3.14 19 1.65 2.82 5.75 53 0.89 1.52 3.10 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 54 0.88 1.50 3.07 21 1.56 2.67 5.46 55 0.87 1.48 3.03 22 1.53 2.61 5.32 56 0.86 1.47 2.99 23 1.49 2.55 5.20 57 0.85 1.45 2.96 24 1.46 2.49 5.09 58 0.84 1.43 2.92 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 59 0.83 1.42 2.89 26 1.4 2.39 4.87 60 0.82 1.4 2.86 27 1.37 2.34 4.78 65 0.78 1.32 2.71 28 1.34 2.29 4.69 70 0.73 1.25 2.59 29 1.32 2.25 4.60 75 0.70 1.19 2.48 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 80 0.66 1.14 2.38 31 1.27 2.16 4.42 85 0.64 1.09 2.29 32 1.24 2.12 4.33 90 0.61 1.05 2.21 33 1.22 2.08 4.24 95 0.58 1.01 2.13 34 1.19 2.04 4.16 100 0.56 0.97 2.06 35 1.17 2.00 4.08 105 0.54 0.94 2.00 36 1.15 1.96 4.01 110 0.52 0.91 1.94 37 1.16 1.93 3.93 115 0.51 0.88 1.88 38 1.11 1.89 3.87 120 0.49 0.86 1.84 FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5) 3.0 Rational Method 3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method Page 9 Figure 3.4-1. Rainfall IDF Curve – Fort Collins NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B B.1 - DETENTION SYSTEM CALCULATIONS B.2 - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B.1 DETENTION SYSTEM CALCULATIONS Project Number:Project:Mason Infrastructure Project Location:Date:October 4, 2023 Description Provided Notes Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond 1.36 ac. ft. 18.9 ac. ft. Volume for Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond Interim Hickory Pond Release Rate 2.02 cfs Release rate per Dry Creek Basin Criteria (Basins A1-A8) Lot 3 Future Detention Pond 0.49 ac. ft. n/a Approximate Future Detention Volume (Basins B2 & D1) A future Imperviouness of 80% assumed for Basin D1 Lot 3 Future Release Rate 0.36 cfs Release rate with future development (Basins B2 & D1) Total Site Release Rate 2.38 cfs Does not include basins that will not be detained or that are the responsibility of off-site properties (Basin C1,C2,C3, & B1) Description Volume Provided Notes Interim Standard Water Quailty 6,813 cu. ft. 6,813 cu. ft. Standard water quailty treatment for Major Basin A Notes: Summary of Water Quality Volumes Volume Required RELEASE RATE AND SUMMARY OF DETENTION VOLUMES 1971-001 Fort Colins Summary of Detention Volumes Required 1)LID Treatment for Lot 2, 3 and Mason Street will be provided with future development of lots. 2)Detention, Water Quailty, LID for Lot 3 will be deterimed with the development of Lot 3. The shown values are an estimate 1 Date:10/04/23 Pond No.: A 100-yr WQCV 6813 ft3 0.55 Quantity Detention 59166 ft3 10.12 acres Total Volume 65979 ft3 2.02 cfs Total Volume 1.515 ac-ft Time Time Ft.Collins 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 5 300 9.95 55.4 16615 607 16007 10 600 7.72 43.0 25782 1214 24567 15 900 6.52 36.3 32661 1822 30840 20 1200 5.60 31.2 37404 2429 34975 25 1500 4.98 27.7 41578 3036 38542 30 1800 4.52 25.2 45285 3643 41642 35 2100 4.08 22.7 47689 4250 43439 40 2400 3.74 20.8 49960 4858 45103 45 2700 3.46 19.3 51998 5465 46533 50 3000 3.23 18.0 53935 6072 47863 55 3300 3.03 16.9 55654 6679 48975 60 3600 2.86 15.9 57308 7286 50021 65 3900 2.72 15.1 59044 7894 51151 70 4200 2.59 14.4 60547 8501 52046 75 4500 2.48 13.8 62117 9108 53009 80 4800 2.38 13.2 63586 9715 53871 85 5100 2.29 12.7 65005 10322 54683 90 5400 2.21 12.3 66425 10930 55495 95 5700 2.13 11.9 67577 11537 56040 100 6000 2.06 11.5 68796 12144 56652 105 6300 2.00 11.1 70132 12751 57380 110 6600 1.94 10.8 71267 13358 57909 115 6900 1.89 10.5 72586 13966 58621 120 7200 1.84 10.2 73738 14573 59166 Input Variables Results Design Point Required Detention Volume Design Storm Detention Pond Calculation | FAA Method Project: Project Location: Calculations By: Mason Street Infrastructure Fort Collins, Colorado M. Ruebel Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond Developed "C" = Area (A)= Max Release Rate = 1 Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,974.56 6,813.00 cu. ft. 4,975.56 4,975.11 26,367.04 cu. ft.0.55 ft. 4,979.80 65,979 cu. ft. 4,976.16 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,974.60 N/A 106 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,975.00 4,974.60 10,254 0.40 2,072.00 0.05 2,072.00 0.05 4,976.00 4,975.00 76,514 1.00 43,384.00 1.00 45,456.00 1.04 4,977.00 4,976.00 181,808 1.00 129,161.00 2.97 174,617.00 4.01 4,978.00 4,977.00 224,278 1.00 203,043.00 4.66 377,660.00 8.67 4,979.00 4,978.00 248,736 1.00 236,507.00 5.43 614,167.00 14.10 4,979.80 4,979.00 273,127 0.80 208,745.20 4.79 822,912.20 18.89 STAGE STORAGE CURVE Contour Contour Surface Area (ft2) Depth (ft) Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Pond Stage Storage Curve 1971-001 Fort Collins, CO M. Ruebel Elev at WQ Volume: N Mason Street Infrastructure October 4, 2023 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: INTERIM HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:Hickory Pond Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: 1 Project Number: Project Name: Project Location: Pond No:Calc. By:M. Ruebel Orifice Dia (in):5 4/8 Orifice Area (sf):0.16 Orifice invert (ft):4,974.56 Orifice Coefficient:0.65 Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments 4,974.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,975.56 1.00 5.21 0.86 4,976.56 2.00 7.37 1.22 4,977.56 3.00 9.03 1.49 4,978.56 4.00 10.43 1.72 4,979.56 5.00 11.66 1.92 4,980.00 5.44 12.16 2.01 Orifice Rating Curve ORIFICE RATING CURVE 1971-001 Mason Street Infrastructure Fort Collins Hickory Pond Orifice Design Data Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Date:10/04/23 Pond No.: C4, B2 100-yr WQCV ft 3 1.00 Quantity Detention 21122 ft3 1.79 acres Total Volume 21122 ft3 0.36 cfs Total Volume 0.485 ac-ft Time Time Ft.Collins 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft3) (ft 3) (ft 3) 5 300 9.95 17.8 5343 108 5235 10 600 7.72 13.8 8291 216 8075 15 900 6.52 11.7 10504 324 10180 20 1200 5.60 10.0 12029 432 11597 25 1500 4.98 8.9 13371 540 12831 30 1800 4.52 8.1 14563 648 13915 35 2100 4.08 7.3 15337 756 14581 40 2400 3.74 6.7 16067 864 15203 45 2700 3.46 6.2 16722 972 15750 50 3000 3.23 5.8 17345 1080 16265 55 3300 3.03 5.4 17898 1188 16710 60 3600 2.86 5.1 18430 1296 17134 65 3900 2.72 4.9 18988 1404 17584 70 4200 2.59 4.6 19472 1512 17960 75 4500 2.48 4.4 19976 1620 18356 80 4800 2.38 4.3 20449 1728 18721 85 5100 2.29 4.1 20905 1836 19069 90 5400 2.21 4.0 21362 1944 19418 95 5700 2.13 3.8 21732 2052 19680 100 6000 2.06 3.7 22124 2160 19964 105 6300 2.00 3.6 22554 2268 20286 110 6600 1.94 3.5 22919 2376 20543 115 6900 1.89 3.4 23343 2484 20859 120 7200 1.84 3.3 23714 2592 21122 Input Variables Results Design Point Required Detention Volume Design Storm Detention Pond Calculation | FAA Method Project: Project Location: Calculations By: Mason Street Infrastructure Fort Collins, Colorado M. Ruebel Future Lot 3 Detention Pond Developed "C" = Area (A)= Max Release Rate = 1 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B.2 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS Project #: Project Name: Project Loc.: Design Flowrate Upstream Flowrate Total Flowrate Allowable Flowrate Overflow Design Flowrate Upstream Flowrate Total Flowrate Allowable Flowrate Overflow Design Flowrate Upstream Flowrate Total Flowrate Allowable Flowrate Overflow Inlet B2 Designed for Basins A8 CDOT 5' Type R 0.30 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.30 cfs 2.50 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.50 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.50 cfs 5.00 cfs 0.00 cfs 1.00 cfs 0.00 cfs 1.00 cfs 5.00 cfs 0.00 cfs INLET CAPACITIES SUMMARY Inlet Type Inlet and Area Drain Capacities 2-Year 100-Year 1971-001 Mason Street Infrastructure Fort Collins, Colorado Basins / Design Notes 10-Year Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK = Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =21.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)SW =0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition SO =0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =12.0 18.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 7.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions Maximum Capacity for 1/2 Street based On Allowable Spread Minor Storm Major Storm Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)y =2.88 4.32 inches Vertical Depth between Gutter Lip and Gutter Flowline (usually 2")dC =2.0 2.0 inches Gutter Depression (dC - (W * Sx * 12))a =1.51 1.51 inches Water Depth at Gutter Flowline d =4.39 5.83 inches Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)TX =10.0 16.0 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)EO =0.491 0.330 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section TX QX =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W (QT - QX)QW =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)QBACK =0.0 0.0 cfs Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Spread QT =SUMP SUMP cfs Flow Velocity within the Gutter Section V =0.0 0.0 fps V*d Product: Flow Velocity times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d =0.0 0.0 Maximum Capacity for 1/2 Street based on Allowable Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Theoretical Water Spread TTH =18.7 22.9 ft Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)TX TH =16.7 20.9 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)EO =0.318 0.258 Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section TX TH QX TH =0.0 0.0 cfs Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCROWN)QX =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - QX)QW =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)QBACK =0.0 0.0 cfs Total Discharge for Major & Minor Storm (Pre-Safety Factor)Q =0.0 0.0 cfs Average Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V =0.0 0.0 fps V*d Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d =0.0 0.0 Slope-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Storm R =SUMP SUMP Max Flow Based on Allowable Depth (Safety Factor Applied)Qd =SUMP SUMP cfs Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)d =inches Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)dCROWN =inches MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Mason Street Infrastructure Inlet B2 1 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =4.4 5.8 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Grate Flow Analysis (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog =N/A N/A Grate Capacity as a Weir (based on Modified HEC22 Method)MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qwi =N/A N/A cfs Interception with Clogging Qwa =N/A N/A cfs Grate Capacity as a Orifice (based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qoi =N/A N/A cfs Interception with Clogging Qoa =N/A N/A cfs Grate Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qmi =N/A N/A cfs Interception with Clogging Qma =N/A N/A cfs Resulting Grate Capacity (assumes clogged condition)QGrate =N/A N/A cfs Curb Opening Flow Analysis (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef =1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening as a Weir (based on Modified HEC22 Method)MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qwi =2.8 5.6 cfs Interception with Clogging Qwa =2.5 5.0 cfs Curb Opening as an Orifice (based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qoi =8.4 9.6 cfs Interception with Clogging Qoa =7.6 8.7 cfs Curb Opening Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qmi =4.5 6.8 cfs Interception with Clogging Qma =4.0 6.1 cfs Resulting Curb Opening Capacity (assumes clogged condition)QCurb =2.5 5.0 cfs Resultant Street Conditions MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Length L =5.00 5.00 feet Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on street geometry from above)T =12.0 18.0 ft Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown dCROWN =0.0 0.0 inches Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.20 0.32 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.56 0.75 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =2.5 5.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.3 1.0 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 STORM DRAIN A STORM DRAIN B Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Monday, Oct 2 2023 Swale A-A Triangular Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Invert Elev (ft) = 80.18 Slope (%) = 2.00 N-Value = 0.030 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 10.95 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.85 Q (cfs) = 10.95 Area (sqft) = 2.89 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.79 Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.01 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.86 Top Width (ft) = 6.80 EGL (ft) = 1.07 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Elev (ft) Depth (ft)Section 79.50 -0.68 80.00 -0.18 80.50 0.32 81.00 0.82 81.50 1.32 82.00 1.82 Reach (ft) 100-YR Q = 8.23 X 1.33 (Freeboard) = 10.95 cfs Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Monday, Oct 2 2023 Swale B-B Triangular Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Invert Elev (ft) = 80.18 Slope (%) = 2.00 N-Value = 0.030 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 10.84 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.84 Q (cfs) = 10.84 Area (sqft) = 2.82 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.84 Wetted Perim (ft) = 6.93 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.86 Top Width (ft) = 6.72 EGL (ft) = 1.07 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Elev (ft) Depth (ft)Section 79.50 -0.68 80.00 -0.18 80.50 0.32 81.00 0.82 81.50 1.32 82.00 1.82 Reach (ft) 100-YR Q = 8.15 X 1.33 (Freeboard) = 10.84 cfs Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Monday, Oct 2 2023 Curb Cut - Swale B-B Rectangular Bottom Width (ft) = 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Invert Elev (ft) = 80.18 Slope (%) = 1.00 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 10.84 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.46 Q (cfs) = 10.84 Area (sqft) = 1.84 Velocity (ft/s) = 5.89 Wetted Perim (ft) = 4.92 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.50 Top Width (ft) = 4.00 EGL (ft) = 1.00 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Elev (ft) Depth (ft)Section 79.75 -0.43 80.00 -0.18 80.25 0.07 80.50 0.32 80.75 0.57 81.00 0.82 Reach (ft) 100-YR Q = 8.15 X 1.33 (Freeboard) = 10.84 cfs NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY/LID COMPUTATIONS Project: Calc. By: Date: 10.12 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 31%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.31 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.15 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.16 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 6,813 <-- Calculated from above 0.08 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 1.52 <-- CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3 dia (in) =1 number of columns=2.00 number of rows =2.00 number of holes =4.00 Area Per Row =1.57 Total Outlet Area (in2) =3.14 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Water Quality for Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond N Mason Street Infrastructure M. Ruebel October 4, 2023 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in 2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY ELEC FES M VAULTELEC CABLE ELEC X CT V CT V CTVCTV OHU XXXX X X CTVCTVCTVGGG SS SS SS H2O H2O ARV H2O H2O D H Y D S FES FES W W W W W W W W W XXXXXX OHU OHU X X X X W W W W W W W W W X W W D 6.79 ac. A1 0.40 ac. A4 1.32 ac. A2 0.25 ac. B2 0.35 ac. B1 0.07 ac. C1 0.24 ac. A7 0.18 ac. A6 1.39 ac. D1 0.64 ac. A5 0.41 ac. A3 0.18 ac. C2 0.13 ac. A8 0.95 ac. C3 a1 LOT 1 HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND LOT 2 LOT 3 TRACT A HIBDON COURT N M A S O N S T R E E T SITE OUTFALL LOCATION DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: WQ EXHIBIT SHEET NO: FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 E N G I N E E R N GI EHTRON R N 970.221.4158 northernengineering.com P: \ 1 9 7 1 - 0 0 1 \ D W G \ S H E E T S _ O D P \ D R A I N A G E \ 1 9 7 1 - 0 0 1 _ L I D . D W G MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE FORT COLLINS COLORADO MCR 1" = 100' 10/04/2023 LID 1 PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED INLET ADESIGN POINT DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY A LEGEND: FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet0100100 100 LOT 1 (BASINS A1) ·STANDARD WATER QUALITY AREA OF WATER QUALITY RESPONSIBILITY LOT 2 (BASINS A2-A7) ·LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT LOT 3 (BASINS B2 & D1) ·STANDARD WATER QUAILITY ·LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT FES D F ES F ES D F ES D F ES F ES D DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: EXISTING VS PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA SHEET NO: FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631 E N G I N E E R N GI EHTRON R N 970.221.4158 northernengineering.com P: \ 1 9 7 1 - 0 0 1 \ D W G \ S H E E T S _ M A S O N S T R E E T \ D R A I N A G E \ 1 9 7 1 - 0 0 1 _ I M P V - E X H I B I T - P R O P O S E D . D W G MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE FORT COLLINS COLORADO MCR EXISTING PROPOSED ( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 150 FEET 150 150 21,848TOTAL= 1" = 150' 9/29/2023 IMP 1 ROOFTOP ASPHALT OR CONCRETE SURFACE AREA (SF)% IMPERV.IMPERV. AREA (SF) 0 40,037 100% 100% 44,811TOTAL= 0 40,037 GRAVEL 11,936 40%4,774 LANDSCAPING 533,860 0%0 ROOFTOP ASPHALT OR CONCRETE SURFACE AREA (SF)% IMPERV.IMPERV. AREA (SF) 0 21,848 100% 100% 0 21,848 GRAVEL 0 40%0 LANDSCAPING 563,944 0%0( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 150 FEET 150 150 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX D EROSION CONTROL REPORT NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY EROSION CONTROL REPORT EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) will be included with the final construction drawings. It should be noted; however, any such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction, or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed, removed, or modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 – Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing and/or wattles along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways, and inlet protection at existing and proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor. Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on Sheet CS2 of the Utility Plans. The Final Utility Plans will also contain a full-size Erosion Control Plan as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere to, the applicable requirements outlined in any existing Development Agreement(s) of record, as well as the Development Agreement, to be recorded prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit. Also, the Site Contractor for this project may be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division – Stormwater Program, before commencing any earth disturbing activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs. Specification Sheet TMax™ High-Performance Turf Reinforcement Mat RMX_MPDS_TMAX_1.19 Material Content Woven Structure 100% UV stable Polypropylene Monofilament yarns Black/Green or Black/Tan Standard Roll Sizes Width 11.5 ft (3.5 m) 11.5 ft (3.5 m) Length 78 ft (23.8 m) 156 ft (47.5 m) Weight ± 10%72 lbs (32.7 kg)143.5 lbs (65.1 kg) Area 100 yd2 (83.6 m2)200 yd2 (167 m2) DESCRIPTION The TMax™ high-performance turf reinforcement mat (HP-TRM) shall be a machine-produced mat of 100% UV-stabilized, high denier polypropylene monofilament yarns woven into permanent, high-strength, three-dimensional turf reinforcement matting. Available in either a green/black or a tan/black coloring, the mat shall be composed of polypropylene yarns woven into a uniform configuration of resilient, pyramid-like projections. The mat provides sufficient thickness, optimum open area, and three- dimensionality for effective erosion control and vegetation reinforcement against high flow induced shear forces. The mat has high tensile strength for excellent damage resistance and for increasing the bearing capacity of vegetated soils subject to heavy loads from maintenance equipment and other vehicular traffic. The material has very high interlock and reinforcement capacities with both soil and root systems, and is designed for erosion control applications on steep slopes and vegetated waterways. Index Property Test Method Typical Thickness ASTM D6525 0.4 in (10 mm) Resiliency ASTM D6524 75% Mass/Unit Area ASTM D6566 11.3 oz/yd2 (382 g/m2) Tensile Strength – MD ASTM D6818 4,400 lbs/ft (64 kN/m) Elongation – MD ASTM D6818 35% Tensile Strength – TD ASTM D6818 3,300 lbs/ft (48.2 kN/m) Elongation – TD ASTM D6818 30% Light Penetration ASTM D6567 75% coverage UV Stability ASTM D4355 >90% @ 3000 hr Design Permissible Shear Stress* Vegetated Shear 16 psf (766 Pa) Vegetated Velocity 25 fps (7.6 m/s) + Minimum Average Roll VAlue *Design values extrapolated from large scale ASTM D6460 testing ©2019, North American Green is a registered trademark from Western Green. Certain products and/or applications described or illustrated herein are protected under one or more U.S. patents. Other U.S. patents are pending, and certain foreign patents and patent applications may also exist.Trademark rights also apply as indicated herein. Final determination of the suitability of any information or material for the use contemplated, and its manner of use, is the sole responsibility of the user. Printed in the U.S.A. Western Green 4609 E. Boonville-New Harmony Rd. Evansville, IN 47725 nagreen.com 800-772-2040 Disclaimer: The information contained herein may represent product index data, performance ratings, bench scale testing or other material utility quantifications. Each representation may have unique utility and limitations. Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, however, no warranty is claimed and no liability shall be assumed by North American Green (NAG) or its affiliates regarding the completeness, accurracy or fitness of these values for any particular application or interpretation. While testing methods are provided for reference, values shown may be derived from intrpolation or adjustment to be representatvie of intended use. For further information, please feel free to contact NAG. 4609 E Boonville-New Harmony Rd Evansville, IN 47725 866-540-9810 12/7/21 Technical Bulletin: Comparison of TRM Design Life Estimates In the process of design, a relative frame of reference for the estimation of design life for Turf Reinforcement Mats (TRMs) and High Performance TRMS (HPTRMs) is often desired. To that end, this document has been developed to provide context and recommendations for a series of Western Excelsior and North American Green materials. Specifically, the longevity of a TRM in the field is a function of factors that are intrinsic to the material and many factors that are site specific. TRMs are typically constructed of any variety of filaments that may be bonded, woven or bound to create a cohesive matrix that is formed into a rolled product. The base synthetic product (ie polyester, nylon or polypropylene), chemical additives and dimensions can all, among other factors, influence the longevity of the material. Once installed in the field, degradation is a function of: • Exposure to ultra-violet (UV) radiation (sunlight) • Moisture • Mechanical Loading • Temperature • Exposure to chemicals and/or pollution • Definition of acceptable performance (i.e. tensile strength, coverage, etc.) Further, exposure to UV radiation naturally varies by: • Location • Facing Direction (North, East, West, South) • Elevation • Inclination (slope angle) • Coverage by soil, debris, foliage, vegetation or other shade Based on these factors, any material will degrade at different rates, depending on the field-specific situation. Even within a given project, the direction and inclination of one area compared to another may reduce the lifespan by fifty percent. Thus, it is important to realize that, absent a detailed, site-specific analysis, any design life estimate should be considered an estimate for informational purposes. With this background, general guidance for North American Green (NAG) and Western Excelsior (WEC) produced TRMs are provided for consideration in product selection: • S200, SC250, C350 – Up to ten years (synthetic portion) • PP5-8, PP5-10, PP5-12, P300 – Up to ten years • P550 – Up to fifteen years • PP5-Pro, TMax 3k – Up to fifty years • PP5-Xtreme, TMax – Up to seventy-five years These estimates may or may not be reasonable for any specific condition or location and represent a maximum duration where it would be reasonable to expect acceptable performance. This estimation is exclusive of fastener performance. Consult Western Green or NAG directly for more specific recommendations. FES ID W (FT)L (FT)Quantity of Mats Velocity (ft/s) FES A1 (15" RCP)8 8 4 3.03 FES B1 (15" RCP)8 8 4 3.03 Notes: 1. Refer to Scourstop design brochure for sizing requirments Scourstop Summary ScourStop® DESIGN GUIDE Circular Culvert Outlet Protection scourstop.com PERFORMANCE AESTHETICS NPDES-COMPLIANT COST-EFFECTIVE the green solution to riprap ® ScourStop transition mats protect against erosion and scour at culvert outlets with a vegetated solution in areas traditionally protected with rock or other hard armor. ScourStop is part of a system that includes semi-rigid transition mats installed over sod or turf reinforcement mats. Each 4’ x 4’ x 1/2” mat is made of high-density polyethylene and secured tightly to the ground with anchors. why use the SCOURSTOP SYSTEM? - If velocity is greater than 16 fps, contact manufacturer for design assistance. - ScourStop mats have been shown to at least double the effectiveness of turf reinforcement mats. - ScourStop fully vegetated channel (2:1 slope): velocity = 31 fps, shear stress = 16 psf. PIPE DIAMETER VELOCITY < 10 FT/SEC 10 < VELOCITY < 16 FT/SEC TRANSITION MAT W x L QUANTITY OF MATS TRANSITION MAT W x L QUANTITY OF MATS 12”4’ x 4’1 4’ x 8’2 24”8’ x 8’4 8’ x 12’6 36”8’ x 12’6 12’ x 20’15 48”12’ x 16’12 12’ x 24’18 60”12’ x 20’15 16’ x 32’32 72”16’ x 24’24 20’ x 36’45 Circular Culvert Outlet Protection These are minimum recommendations. More ScourStop protection may be needed depending upon site and soil conditions, per project engineer. 1. ScourStop mats must be installed over a soil cover: sod, seeded turf reinforcement mat (TRM), geotextile, or a combination thereof. 2. For steep slopes (>10%) or higher velocities (>10 ft/sec), sod is the recommended soil cover. 3. Follow manufacturer’s ScourStop Installation Guidelines to ensure proper installation. 4. Install ScourStop mats at maximum 1-2” below flowline of culvert or culvert apron. (No waterfall impacts onto ScourStop mats.) 5. Performance of protected area assumes stable downstream conditions. Transition mat apron protects culvert outlet. *Width of protection: Bottom width of channel and up both side slopes to a depth at least half the culvert diameter. Protect bare/disturbed downstream soils from erosion with appropriate soil cover. Use normal-depth calculator to compute for downstream protection. Install anchors per ScourStop Installation Guidelines. Minimum depth 24” in compacted, cohesive soil. Minimum depth 30” in loose, sandy, or wet soil. Extra anchors as needed to secure mat tightly over soil cover. Abut transition mats to end of culvert or culvert apron. Adjacent mats abut together laterally and longitudinally. Minimum 8 anchors per mat. Extra anchors as needed for loose or wet soils. Extra anchors as needed for uneven soil surface. ScourStop® Installation Recommendations A A MAX. 1"-2" DROP FROM CULVERT FLOWLINE ONTO SCOURSTOP MATSCULVERT FLOWLINE PROFILE VIEW A LEADER in the GEOSYNTHETIC and EROSION CONTROL industries Learn more about our products at: HanesGeo.com | 888.239.4539 the green solution to riprap ©2014 Leggett & Platt, Incorporated | 16959_1114 AA NNORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX E EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS AND USDA SOILS REPORT United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Larimer County Area, ColoradoNatural Resources Conservation Service September 27, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................13 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope...............................................13 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................14 References............................................................................................................16 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 44 9 4 8 3 0 44 9 4 8 7 0 44 9 4 9 1 0 44 9 4 9 5 0 44 9 4 9 9 0 44 9 5 0 3 0 44 9 4 8 3 0 44 9 4 8 7 0 44 9 4 9 1 0 44 9 4 9 5 0 44 9 4 9 9 0 44 9 5 0 3 0 493090 493130 493170 493210 493250 493290 493330 493370 493410 493450 493090 493130 493170 493210 493250 493290 493330 493370 493410 493450 40° 36' 22'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 5 4 ' ' W 40° 36' 22'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 3 8 ' ' W 40° 36' 14'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 5 4 ' ' W 40° 36' 14'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 3 8 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 25 50 100 150 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,730 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 17, Sep 7, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 2, 2021—Aug 25, 2021 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 22 Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope 2.4 16.7% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 11.9 83.3% Totals for Area of Interest 14.2 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report 11 onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Larimer County Area, Colorado 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 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Landform:Terraces Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: Yes Fluvaquents Percent of map unit:6 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlng Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Calcium carbonate, maximum content:7 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:0.5 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Wages Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 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 16 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 17 parcel no. 9702100918 owner: city of fort collins parcel no. 970210007 owner: n college 1311 llc parcel no. 970210006 owner: wankier lance parcel no. 9702100954 owner: city of fort collins Parcel: 9702100022 Owner: WOOD RONALD G/JENNIFER L/WILLARD E Parcel: 9702100022 Owner: WOOD RONALD G/JENNIFER L/WILLARD E NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E N U E THE BREW, PATRICIA A HIBDON, VIRGINIA L FAMILY TRUST REC. NO. 2002015477 U N I O N P A C I F I C R A I L R O A D C O M P A N Y HAROLD A. FASICK, III REC. NO. 96053206 NORTH COLLEGE, LLC REC. NO. 98079957 VALLEY STEEL & WIRE SUBDIVISION REC. NO. 2006-0015105 MARTINS FIRST ADDITION aka MUSTANG SUBDIVISION BOOK 1429 PAGE 750 VALLEY STEEL & QR, INC. STONCREST INC. REC. NO. 99097888 THE BREW, PATRICIA A HIBDON, VIRGINIA L FAMILY TRUST REC. NO. 2002015477 49 7 8 49 7 9 4 9 8 0 498 2 4 9 8 1 4981 498 1 4 9 8 1 4 9 8 1 49 8 0 49 8 0 49 7 9 4979 497 8 497 7 497 8 49794978 49784979 4979 49 8 0 49 8 1 0+001+002+003+00 4+00 5+00 6+ 0 0 7 + 0 0 8+ 0 0 9+0 0 10+ 0 0 11 + 0 0 1 2 + 0 0 13 + 0 0 14+ 0 0 1 5 + 0 0 1 6 + 0 0 17 + 0 0 4 9 7 5 4 9 7 6 49 7 7 49 7 8 4 9 7 9 49 8 0 49 8 1 49 8 1 49 8 0 49 8 0 4975 49 7 6 4974 4973 4977 49784979 4980 4981 498149804979 4 9 7 7 497 8 497 9 49 8 0 4981 4981 4980 4979 4978 4977 2"1"0 C: \ p w w o r k i n g \ c e n t r a l 0 1 \ d 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 \ H i c k o r y _ R e v . d w g , L a y o u t X , 2 / 4 / 2 0 2 2 3 : 0 1 : 0 5 P M , S R A C E 5.8ac 1.8ac 3.4ac2.5ac FILL OVER EXISTING 36" PCCP WATERLINE WILL NEED TO BE EVALUATED FURTHER DURING DESIGN RESULTING IN POND AND GRADING SHIFTING NORTH APPROXIMATELY 15' EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS PARCEL BOUNDARIES EASEMENT BOUNDARIES LEGEND EST LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION 100-YR HWL CENTERLINE OF DRY CREEK AND POND TRICKLE CHANNEL CONCEPTUAL HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX MAP POCKET DR1 – PROPOSED DRAINAGE EXHIBIT S ELEC F ES M VAULT ELEC VAULT CABLEVAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC CABLE CABLE VAULT ELEC CELEC ELEC ELEC CTV CTV CTV OH U OH U OH U OH U E E E E OHU E E X X X X X X CT V CT V CT V CT V CTV CT V CTV CTV CTV OHU OHU X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CTV CTV CTV CT V CTV CTV CT V CTV CTV G G G G G G G G CTV CTV G G SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS H2O H2O A RV H2O H2O D H Y D S F E S F E S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W XXXXXXXXXXXXX OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU X X X X X X X X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W X X W W W W W S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS D ELEC X X X X XX X X X X W W W W W XXX X X X X X X SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 8" W b1 a1 c2 a8 a6 b2 NCFS LLC 300 HICKORY STREET FORT COLLINS, CO QR INC. 280 HICKORY STREET FORT COLLINS, CO QR INC. 200 HICKORY STREET FORT COLLINS, CO R AND S HOLDINGS 1235 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO HAINES BRANDON KUHRT 1295 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO GRATITUDE LLC 1303 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO HOYT JOHN R 1307 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 1311 N. COLLEGE LLC HIBON CT. FORT COLLINS, CO 1311 N. COLLEGE LLC 1311 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO WANKIER LANCE 1401 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO WOOD RONALD G/ JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E 122 HIBDON COURT FORT COLLINS, CO THOMPSON PROPERTIES LLC 1319 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO D AND S MOTELS INC 1405 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO RI C H E Y A D D I E 16 0 1 N . C O L L E G E A V E N U E FO R T C O L L I N S , C O MA S O N S T R E E T N M A S O N S T R E E T HICKORY STREET HIBDON COURT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND (INTERIM) REQUIRED VOLUME= 65,979 CU.FT. REQUIRED WSEL = 4976.16 WATER QUALITY VOLUME = 6,813 CU.FT. WATER QUALITY WSEL = 4975.11 PROVIDED VOLUME = 18.89 AC.FT. 2' CONCRETE PAN WATER QUALITY OUTLET STRUCTURE WITH RESTRICTOR PLATE a3 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 SWALE 4' CURB CUT & SIDEWALK CHASE ROW AGREEMENT WITH UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF IRRIGATION DITCH & IRRIGATION WATER UNSPECIFIED WIDTH BK 813 PG 27 TO BE VACATED PER LANGUAGE FOUND ON PAGE 28 OF SAID DOCUMENT c1 6.79 ac. A1 0.40 ac. A4 1.32 ac. A2 0.40 ac. B2 0.35 ac. B1 0.07 ac. C1 0.24 ac. A7 0.18 ac. A6 1.39 ac. D1 0.64 ac. A5 0.41 ac. A3 0.18 ac. C2 0.13 ac. A8 0.95 ac. C3 d1 a4 a2 STORM DRAIN A SEE SHEET ST1 STORM DRAIN B SEE SHEET ST1 OFFSITE STORM DRAIN C SEE SHEET ST2 a7ULTIMATE PLANNED WSEL (4980) PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ULTIMATE PLANNED WSEL (4980) PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ULTIMATE PLANNED WSEL (4980) PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS 20' WATERLINE AND ROW EASEMENT REC. NO. 85040113 6' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1658 PG 746 6' UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT OF BREW SUB. FIRST FILING 10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1658 PG 746 45' ROW BK 1743 PG 632 10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1572 PG 322 45' ROW BK 1743 PG 632 10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1572 PG 321 53.5' PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION LINE BK 923 PG 282 24' ACCESS EASEMENT REC. NO. 20140036292 30' EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES BK 1143 PG 187 (EXCEPTION PARCEL PIB FCIF25205400) 30' UPRR TRACK EASEMENT BK 2027 PG 988 REC. NO. 98091992 REC. NO. 20060019203 20' UTILITY EASEMENT PER VALLEY STEEL & WIRE SUBDIVISION PLAT 6' UTILITY EASEMENT REC. NO. 2006-0068858 REC. NO. 2006-0068859 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 3' POWER LINE EASEMENT TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS BK 1475 PG 941 EXISTING AREA INLET 40' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ONSITE 100-YR REQUIRED WSEL (4976.16) ONSITE 100-YR REQUIRED WSEL (4976.16) PROPOSED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE 80 . 1 8 80 . 7 7 S CO L L E G E A V E EXISTING 36" PIPE EXISTING 18" PIPE EXISTING AREA INLET DR1 DR A I N A G E E X H I B I T 26 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet05050 50 100 150 Sheet Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d b y a P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r i n th e e m p l o y o f N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N R E V I E W S E T of 26 MA S O N S T R E E T I N F R A S T R U C T U R E KEYMAP DEVELOPED DRAINAGE SUMMARY Design Point Basin ID Total Area (acres) C2 C100 2-Yr Tc (min) 100-Yr Tc (min) Q2 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) a1 A1 6.794 0.20 0.25 17.53 17.53 2.34 10.21 a2 A2 1.321 1.07 1.00 5.00 5.00 4.04 13.14 a3 A3 0.411 0.86 1.00 11.61 11.61 0.74 3.00 a4 A4 0.396 0.86 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.97 3.94 a5 A5 0.644 0.87 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.59 6.41 a6 A6 0.175 0.79 0.99 11.17 11.17 0.30 1.29 a7 A7 0.241 0.78 0.97 11.28 11.28 0.40 1.74 a8 A8 0.134 0.95 1.00 11.28 11.28 0.27 1.00 b1 B1 0.346 0.20 0.25 11.52 11.52 0.14 0.63 b2 B2 0.396 0.73 0.92 12.34 12.34 0.60 2.60 c1 C1 0.068 0.95 1.00 10.81 10.81 0.14 0.51 c2 C2 0.181 0.51 0.63 10.48 10.48 0.20 0.88 c3 C3 0.949 0.28 0.35 7.69 7.69 0.66 2.93 d1 D1 1.392 0.20 0.25 11.50 11.50 0.58 2.54 PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED INLET A DESIGN POINT FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED SWALE SECTION 11 NOTES: 1.REFER TO THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT, DATED OCTOBER 4, 2023 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2.THE INTERIM HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR OFFSITE RUNOFF. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF OFFSITE BASINS AND THE ULTIMATE DESIGN OF THE HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND. A LEGEND: FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PATH PROPOSED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond Volume Contour Elev.Contour Surface Area (ft2) Cummalitive Volume cu. ft.acre ft 4,974.60 106 0 0.0 4,975.00 10,254 2072 0.0 4,976.00 76,514 45456 1.0 4,977.00 181,808 174617 4.0 4,978.00 224,278 377660 8.7 4,979.00 248,736 614167 14.1 4,979.80 273,127 822912 18.9 MA T C H L I N E - S E E B O T T O M L E F T MA T C H L I N E - S E E T O P R I G H T A A BB