HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLUE SKY SELF STORAGE AT RUDOLPH FARM - PDP230013 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - DRAINAGE REPORT (2)
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
BLUE SKY SELF STORAGE
AT RUDOLPH FARM
Fort Collins, CO
PREPARED FOR OWNER/DEVELOPER:
UPLIFT DEVELOPMENT, LLC
P.O. Box 153607
Lufkin, TX 75915
Phone: 970‐420‐1521
Contact: Tony Ollila
Email: tony@upliftdg.com
PREPARED BY:
KELLY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
9301 Scrub Oak Drive
Lone Tree, Colorado 80124
Phone: 303‐888‐6338
Contact: Greg Kelly, PE
Email: greg@kellydev.com
December 6, 2023
I hereby attest that this report for the Preliminary Drainage design of the Blue Sky Self Storage
at Rudolph Farm project was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, in accordance
with the provisions of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. I understand that the City
of Fort Collins does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others.
Greg S. Kelly
Registered Professional Engineer
State of Colorado No. 15813
Date
1
PRELMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
BLUE SKY STORGE AT RUDOLPH FARM
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
1. Vicinity Map
FIGURE 1
2. The overall Rudolph Farm project site is located in a tract of land located in Section 15,
Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins,
County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
3. The Blue Sky Self Storage project site is located on Lot 11 of the Rudolph Farm
Subdivision, just north of the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) along the proposed
Carriage Parkway.
4. The site is zoned Industrial (I).
B. Description of Property
1. The site area is 3.07 acres, bordered on the west and north by Carriage Parkway, TRIC to
2
the south, and Prospect Middle/High School property to the east.
2. The site is part of the Official Development Plan (ODP) and Infrastructure Final
Development Plan (FDP) for Rudolph Farm. All detention, standard water quality, LID,
and all associated storm water infrastructure will be installed with the FDP
improvements. The reference and guiding report is “Final Drainage Report for Rudolph
Farm, prepared by Northern Engineering, dated June 22, 2023” (FDR).
3. The site is vacant farm land. Per the NCRS Soils Report (copy in report appendix), the
site is comprised of Garret loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B), Fort Collins loam (Hydrologic
Soil Group C), with some Nunn clay loams (Hydrologic Soil Group C).
4. The proposed development will be in two Phases: Phase 1 will be a 3‐story climate‐
controlled building with a footprint of 34,075‐sf. Phase 2 will be a total of 13,860‐sf of
single‐story self‐storage, including one 6,650‐sf climate controlled building. Also
proposed are access drives with parking and landscaping.
5. No modifications to the TRIC, offsite or regional stormwater facilities are proposed with
this project.
6. The site is not within a FEMA 100‐year floodplain as shown on Flood Insurance Rate
Map Number 08069C1003G (included in the Appendix of this report) as a LOMR was
approved by FEMA on February 21, 2019 (Case No. 17‐08‐1354P) removing the majority
of Rudolph Farm from the floodplain.
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB‐BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
1. The site is located in Basin 11 of the FDR which drains to design point r6 as depicted on
the FDR Drainage Plan, a copy of which is included in the Appendix of this report.
B. Sub‐Basin Descriptions
1. Historically, the drainage patterns on‐site are generally from northeast to southwest.
2. The proposed grading for the site as part of the FDP will maintain a general flow
direction of northeast to southwest.
3. Basin A is a 0.13‐ac basin at the southwest corner of the site, containing the southern
drive entry, parking and landscape area. Basin imperviousness is 59.3%. Flow from this
basin will be collected by two Type R inlets on‐grade. The 2‐year flow is 0.23‐cfs and the
100‐year flow is 1.01 cfs.
4. Basin B is a 0.31‐ac basin on the southern portion of the site containing a small portion
of roof area, some drive area, and landscaping. Basin imperviousness is 79%. Flow from
this basin will be collected at design point 3, a Type R inlet at the southeast corner of
the site. 2‐year flow is 0.71‐cfs and 100‐year flow is 3.01‐cfs.
3
5. Basin C is 0.72‐ac and is the majority of the roof area for the Phase 1 (A) building. Basin
imperviousness is 90%. Flow from this basin will be collected in a roof drain leader
along the east side of Building A in the access drive, which will then connect to the inlets
on the east side of the drive aisle. 2‐year flow from this basin is 1.91‐cfs, while the 100‐
year flow is 7.00‐cfs.
6. Basin D is a 0.42‐ac basin along the eastern border of the project. As part of the
proposed FDP grading, this portion of the property will be graded up from the adjacent
school property at an approximate 5:1 slope. Slight modification to this slope along the
northern portion of the site will increase the slope to 4:1 in that area, but will maintain
the character of the overlot grading plan. The entirety of this basin is landscape area
with an imperviousness of 2%. 2‐year flow is 0.22‐cfs, while the 100‐year flow is 0.96‐
cfs.
7. Basin E is a 0.25‐ac basin adjacent to Carriage Parkway. Runoff from this basin will have
to flow to the proposed Type R inlet as part of the FDP infrastructure package as there is
no opportunity to capture runoff onsite. At 11% imperviousness, the runoff from this
basin is primarily from landscape areas, with minimal flow of 0.17‐cfs in the minor storm
and 0.75‐cfs in the 100‐year major event. The proposed inlet at design point r6 per the
FDR has more than ample capacity to handle this basin and is the same inlet that will be
receiving the collected water from the other sub‐basins onsite via storm sewer flow.
8. Basin F is 1.23‐ac and is the largest basin onsite, comprising the majority of the Phase 2
building roof area and drives, a large portion of the Phase 1 drive area, and some
landscaping. Basin imperviousness is 79%. Flow from this basin will be collected in Type
16 inlets east of Building A in the access drive. 2‐year flow from this basin is 2.72‐cfs,
while the 100‐year flow is 11.95‐cfs.
The Basin runoff summary is as follows:
BASIN RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE
Basin
Designation
Basin
Area (ac)
Impervious
% C2 C100 Tc2
(min)
Tc100
(min)
Q2
(cfs)
Q100
(cfs)
A 0.13 59% 0.64 0.69 5.0 5.0 0.23 0.87
B 0.31 79% 0.83 0.88 5.0 5.0 0.71 2.64
C 0.72 90% 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.91 7.00
D 0.42 2% 0.20 0.25 6.7 6.3 0.22 0.96
E 0.25 11% 0.27 0.32 7.3 6.9 0.17 0.71
F 1.23 79% 0.82 0.87 5.6 5.0 2.72 10.36
4
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Regulations
The Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and the Mile High Flood District’s Urban
Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manuals were followed in the design of the stormwater
facilities for the project. MHFD’s spreadsheets UD‐Culvert_v3.05 and UD‐Inlet_v3.14
were used in calculating pipe sizing and inlet capacities in this report.
B. Hydrological Criteria
1. The Precipitation Data from the FCSCM was used for the 1‐hour design flow storm
depth. These depths are:
2‐year: 0.82 inches
100‐year: 2.86 inches
2. Stormwater facilities are designed for the 2‐year and 100‐year rainfall events.
3. Runoff was calculated using the Rational method.
4. The overall calculated percent imperviousness for the site is 65%, less than the assumed
value of 90% in the FDR, which correctly assumed Industrial land use for the property.
5. The overall runoff totals as calculated in this report are 5.96 cfs (2‐yr) and 24.68 cfs
(100‐yr) as compared to the value in the FDR for this basin of 8.87 cfs (2‐yr) and 32.61
cfs (100‐yr).
C. Hydraulic Criteria
1. Storm sewers and storm inlets were designed using MHFD’s spreadsheets UD‐
Culvert_v3.05 and UD‐Inlet_v3.14.
III. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Proposed Concept
1. Runoff will be collected onsite via storm inlets and conveyed to the FDP inlet R6 per the
FDR.
2. No onsite water quality or Low‐Impact Development (LID) facilities have been designed
onsite as the requirements for such are met in the offsite facility Pond 2 per the FDR.
5
B. Specific Detail
1. Summarized Design Point flows are:
DESIGN POINT RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE
Design
Point
Contributing
Basins
Contributing
Area
(acres)
Tc2
(min)
Tc100
(min)
Q2
(cfs)
Q100
(cfs)
1 E 0.25 7.3 6.9 0.17 0.75
2 A 0.13 5.0 5.0 0.23 1.01
3 B 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.71 3.01
4 F 1.23 5.0 5.0 2.72 11.95
5 D 0.42 6.7 6.3 0.22 0.96
6 C 0.72 5.0 5.0 1.91 7.00
Inlet and pipe sizing calculations are included in the Appendix of this report. Copies of the
approved offsite FDR design point r6 inlet and offsite pond design are also included in the
Appendix of this report.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The final drainage design for the Blue Sky Self Storage at Rudolph Farm site is in conformance
to acceptable engineering standards, practices and criteria established by the city of Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual and the Mile High Flood District’s Urban Storm Drainage Design
Criteria Manuals. No adverse impacts to downstream facilities and/or adjacent properties are
expected as a result of the development of the site.
6
VII. APPENDICES
1. Hydrologic Calculations
a. FCSCM Table 3.4‐1 IDF Table for Rational Method
b. Land use assumptions, composite “C” and % Impervious calculations
c. Initial and major storm runoff computations for developed runoff conditions
2. Hydraulic Calculations
a. Inlet Capacity Calculations
b. Storm Sewer Pipe Flow Calculations
3. Referenced Information
a. FEMA Firmette
b. NCRS Soil Report
c. Rudolph Farm FDR Water Quality Summary
d. Rudolph Farm FDR LID Exhibit
e. Rudolph Farm Pond 2 Design information
f. FDR Proposed Runoff Computations
g. FDR Proposed Rational Flow Summary
h. FDR Inlet Design Point r6 Inlet Capacity
4. Drainage Plan
a. Rudolph Farm Drainage Plan (DR1), Northern Engineering, 05‐16‐23
b. Preliminary Drainage Plan
APPENDIX 1
HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS
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
LOCATION: City of Ft. Collins B BY: AT DATE: 10/12/2023
SUB-BASIN PERCENT
IMPERVIOUS
DESIGNATION PAVED ROOFS LAWNS TOTAL 2YR 100 YR 2YR 100 YR 2YR 100 YR 2YR 100 YR
Imperviousness =
A 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.64 0.80 59.3%
B 0.11 0.15 0.05 0.31 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.83 1.00 78.9%
C 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.72 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.95 1.00 90.0%
D 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.25 2.0%
E 0.02 0.00 0.23 0.25 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.27 0.34 11.1%
F 0.53 0.48 0.22 1.23 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.82 1.00 78.7%
Overall Site 0.73 1.36 0.97 3.07 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 0.25 0.71 0.89 64.5%
COMPOSITE 'C' FACTORS (DEVELOPED)
COMPOSITE C FACTORAcreage
SOIL TYPE:Blue Sky Self Storage
100 90 2
PAVED ROOFS LAWNS
12/06/2023 Blue Sky Storage
at Rudolph Farm Preliminary Drainage Report
LOCATION: Blue Sky Self Storage Prelminary Drainage Report BY:AT DATE: 10/12/2023
BASIN
DESIGNATION C2 C100 LENGTH
(FT)
SLOPE
%
Ti2(min)
Ti100(min)
LENGTH
(FT)
SLOPE
%
Roughness
Coefficient
Assumed
Hydraulic
Radius
VELOCITY
V (fps)
Tt(min)
Tc(min)
Tc2 = Ti + Tt
(min)
Tc100 = Ti + Tt
(min)
Tc2(min)
Tc100(min)
A 0.64 0.80 25 1.40 3.9 2.5 50 1.2 0.012 0.15 3.84 0.2 10.4 4.1 2.7 5.0 5.0
B 0.83 1.00 35 0.50 3.8 1.4 105 0.5 0.012 0.15 2.48 0.7 10.8 4.5 2.1 5.0 5.0
C 0.95 1.00 20 0.50 1.6 1.1 325 0.5 0.012 0.15 2.48 2.2 11.9 3.8 3.2 5.0 5.0
D 0.20 0.25 25 2.00 6.7 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 10.1 6.7 6.3 6.7 6.3
E 0.27 0.34 35 2.00 7.3 6.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 10.2 7.3 6.7 7.3 6.7
F 0.82 1.00 175 2.00 5.6 2.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 11.0 5.6 2.0 5.6 5.0
FORMULAS:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION (DEVELOPED)
OVERLAND FLOW CHANNELIZED FLOW TIME OF CONCENTRATION
12/06/2023 Blue Sky Storage
at Rudolph Farm Preliminary Drainage Report
Table 603
Storm Drainage System Design
(Rational Method Procedure)
Subdivision Blue Sky Self Storage
Designer AT I=28.5*P1
Date (10+TC)0.786
Design Storm 2 -YR DEVELOPED Where: P1 =0.82
Direct Runoff Total Runoff
Su
b
b
a
s
i
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n Ar
e
a
Ru
n
o
f
f
Co
e
f
f
e
c
i
e
n
t
tc
C
x
A
I Q tc
C
x
A
I Q
Comment
ac. min. ac. in/hr cfs min. ac. in/hr cfs
(1)(2)(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1 E 0.25 0.27 7.3 0.07 2.49 0.17 7.3 0.07 2.49 0.17 Flow to Inlet R6 Per Final Dr Rept Rudolph Farm
2 A 0.13 0.64 5.0 0.08 2.78 0.23 5.0 0.08 2.78 0.23 Flow to onsite Type R inlets
3 B 0.31 0.83 5.0 0.26 2.78 0.71 5.0 0.26 2.78 0.71 Flow to onsite Type R inlet
4 F 1.23 0.82 5.6 1.01 2.70 2.72 5.6 1.01 2.70 2.72 Flow to onsite Type 16 inlets
5 D 0.42 0.20 6.7 0.08 2.56 0.22 6.7 0.08 2.56 0.22 Landscape area flows offsite
6 C 0.72 0.95 5.0 0.69 2.78 1.91 5.0 0.69 2.78 1.91 Roof Drain Leader
10/12/2023
De
s
i
g
n
P
o
i
n
t
12/06/2023 Blue Sky Storage
at Rudolph Farm Preliminary Drainage Report
Table 603
Storm Drainage System Design
(Rational Method Procedure)
Subdivision Blue Sky Self Storage
Designer AT I=28.5*P1
Date (10+TC)0.786
Design Storm 100-YR DEVELOPED Where: P1 =2.86
Direct Runoff Total Runoff
Su
b
b
a
s
i
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n Ar
e
a
Ru
n
o
f
f
Co
e
f
f
e
c
i
e
n
t
tc
C
x
A
I Q tc
C
x
A
I Q
Comment
ac. min. ac. in/hr cfs min. ac. in/hr cfs
(1)(2)(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1 E 0.25 0.34 6.7 0.08 8.92 0.75 6.7 0.08 8.92 0.75 Flow to Inlet R6 Per Final Dr Rept Rudolph Farm
2 A 0.13 0.80 5.0 0.10 9.70 1.01 5.0 0.10 9.70 1.01 Flow to onsite Type R inlets
3 B 0.31 1.00 5.0 0.31 9.70 3.01 5.0 0.31 9.70 3.01 Flow to onsite Type R inlet
4 F 1.23 1.00 5.0 1.23 9.70 11.95 5.0 1.23 9.70 11.95 Flow to onsite Type C inlets
5 D 0.42 0.25 6.3 0.11 9.08 0.96 6.3 0.11 9.08 0.96 Landscape area flows offsite
6 C 0.72 1.00 5.0 0.72 9.70 7.00 5.0 0.72 9.70 7.00 Roof Drain Leader
10/12/2023
De
s
i
g
n
P
o
i
n
t
12/06/2023 Blue Sky Storage
at Rudolph Farm Preliminary Drainage Report
Basin
Designation
Basin
Area (ac)
Impervious
%C2 C100
Tc2
(min)
Tc100
(min)
Q2
(cfs)
Q100
(cfs)
A 0.13 59% 0.64 0.80 5.0 5.0 0.23 1.01
B 0.31 79% 0.83 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.71 3.01
C 0.72 90% 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.91 7.00
D 0.42 2% 0.20 0.25 6.7 6.3 0.22 0.96
E 0.25 11% 0.27 0.34 7.3 6.7 0.17 0.75
F 1.23 79% 0.82 1.00 5.6 5.0 2.72 11.95
BASIN RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE
12/06/2023 Blue Sky Storage
at Rudolph Farm Preliminary Drainage Report
Design
Point
Contributing
Basins
Contributing
Area
(acres)
Tc2
(min)
Tc100
(min)
Q2
(cfs)
Q100
(cfs)
1 E 0.25 7.3 6.7 0.17 0.75
2 A 0.13 5.0 5.0 0.23 1.01
3 B 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.71 3.01
4 F 1.23 5.0 5.0 2.72 11.95
5 D 0.42 6.7 6.3 0.22 0.96
6 C 0.72 5.0 5.0 1.91 7.00
DESIGN POINT RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE
12/06/2023 Blue Sky Storage
at Rudolph Farm Preliminary Drainage Report
APPENDIX 2
HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
Project:
Inlet ID:
Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow')aLOCAL =3.0 3.0 inches
Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 1
Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)Lo =5.00 5.00 ft
Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q-Allow) Wo =N/A N/A ft
Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)Cf-G =N/A N/A
Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1)Cf-C =0.10 0.10
Street Hydraulics: OK - Q < maximum allowable from sheet 'Q-Allow'MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q = 0.12 0.50 cfs
Total Inlet Carry-Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet)Qb =0.0 0.0 cfs
Capture Percentage = Qa/Qo =C% = 104 99 %
INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE
Blue Sky Storage at Rudolph Farm
Type R Inlets Design Point 2a/2b (1/2 flow split each inlet assumed)
CDOT Type R Curb Opening
UD-Inlet_v3.14 DP 2.xlsm, Inlet On Grade 12/12/2023, 10:53 AM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow')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 = 6.0 6.0 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 =1.00 1.00 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
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =5.9 5.9 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.7 3.0 cfs
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
Blue Sky Storage at Rudolph Farm
Type R Inlet Design Point 3
CDOT Type R Curb Opening
H-VertH-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
Override Depths
UD-Inlet_v3.14 DP 3.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/12/2023, 10:53 AM
Project =
Inlet ID =
Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR
Type of Inlet Inlet Type =
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from 'Q-Allow')alocal =2.00 2.00 inches
Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 6 6
Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Ponding Depth = 3.5 6.3 inches
Grate Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =3.00 3.00 feet
Width of a Unit Grate Wo =1.73 1.73 feet
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =0.31 0.31
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =0.50 0.50
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =3.60 3.60
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =0.60 0.60
Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR
Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =N/A N/A feet
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =N/A N/A inches
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =N/A N/A inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = N/A N/A degrees
Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =N/A N/A feet
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =N/A N/A
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =N/A N/A
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =N/A N/A
MINOR MAJOR
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =3.1 12.1 cfs
Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =2.7 11.9 cfs
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
Blue Sky Storage at Rudolph Farm
Inlet Design Point 4
Denver No. 16 Valley Grate
H-VertH-Curb
W
Lo (C)
Lo (G)
Wo
WP
Override Depths
UD-Inlet_v3.14 DP 4.xlsm, Inlet In Sump 12/12/2023, 10:53 AM
Project:
Pipe ID:
Design Information (Input)
Pipe Invert Slope So = 0.0070 ft/ft
Pipe Manning's n-value n = 0.0120
Pipe Diameter D = 30.00 inches
Design discharge Q = 22.96 cfs
Full-flow Capacity (Calculated)
Full-flow area Af = 4.91 sq ft
Full-flow wetted perimeter Pf = 7.85 ft
Half Central Angle Theta = 3.14 radians
Full-flow capacity Qf = 37.28 cfs
Calculation of Normal Flow Condition
Half Central Angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 1.64 radians
Flow area An = 2.67 sq ft
Top width Tn = 2.49 ft
Wetted perimeter Pn = 4.10 ft
Flow depth Yn = 1.34 ft
Flow velocity Vn = 7.81 fps
Discharge Qn = 20.87 cfs
Percent Full Flow Flow = 56.0% of full flow
Normal Depth Froude Number Frn =1.33 supercritical
Calculation of Critical Flow Condition
Half Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 1.81 radians
Critical flow area Ac = 3.20 sq ft
Critical top width Tc = 2.43 ft
Critical flow depth Yc = 1.55 ft
Critical flow velocity Vc = 6.52 fps
Critical Depth Froude Number Frc =1.00
CIRCULAR CONDUIT FLOW (Normal & Critical Depth Computation)
Blue Sky Storage at Rudolph Farm
Storm Sewer from DP 1 -2
UD-Culvert_v3.05 DP 1-2.xlsm, Pipe 12/12/2023, 10:49 AM
Project:
Pipe ID:
Design Information (Input)
Pipe Invert Slope So = 0.0070 ft/ft
Pipe Manning's n-value n = 0.0120
Pipe Diameter D = 30.00 inches
Design discharge Q = 21.96 cfs
Full-flow Capacity (Calculated)
Full-flow area Af = 4.91 sq ft
Full-flow wetted perimeter Pf = 7.85 ft
Half Central Angle Theta = 3.14 radians
Full-flow capacity Qf = 37.28 cfs
Calculation of Normal Flow Condition
Half Central Angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 1.61 radians
Flow area An = 2.59 sq ft
Top width Tn = 2.50 ft
Wetted perimeter Pn = 4.03 ft
Flow depth Yn = 1.30 ft
Flow velocity Vn = 7.73 fps
Discharge Qn = 20.00 cfs
Percent Full Flow Flow = 53.6% of full flow
Normal Depth Froude Number Frn =1.34 supercritical
Calculation of Critical Flow Condition
Half Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 1.79 radians
Critical flow area Ac = 3.12 sq ft
Critical top width Tc = 2.44 ft
Critical flow depth Yc = 1.52 ft
Critical flow velocity Vc = 6.41 fps
Critical Depth Froude Number Frc =1.00
CIRCULAR CONDUIT FLOW (Normal & Critical Depth Computation)
Blue Sky Storage at Rudolph Farm
Storm Sewer from DP 2 - 3
UD-Culvert_v3.05 DP 2-3.xlsm, Pipe 12/12/2023, 10:49 AM
Project:
Pipe ID:
Design Information (Input)
Pipe Invert Slope So = 0.0050 ft/ft
Pipe Manning's n-value n = 0.0120
Pipe Diameter D = 24.00 inches
Design discharge Q = 18.95 cfs
Full-flow Capacity (Calculated)
Full-flow area Af = 3.14 sq ft
Full-flow wetted perimeter Pf = 6.28 ft
Half Central Angle Theta = 3.14 radians
Full-flow capacity Qf = 17.38 cfs
Calculation of Normal Flow Condition
Half Central Angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 2.26 radians
Flow area An = 2.75 sq ft
Top width Tn = 1.54 ft
Wetted perimeter Pn = 4.53 ft
Flow depth Yn = 1.64 ft
Flow velocity Vn = 6.31 fps
Discharge Qn = 17.37 cfs
Percent Full Flow Flow = 99.9% of full flow
Normal Depth Froude Number Frn =0.83 subcritical
Calculation of Critical Flow Condition
Half Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 2.10 radians
Critical flow area Ac = 2.53 sq ft
Critical top width Tc = 1.73 ft
Critical flow depth Yc = 1.50 ft
Critical flow velocity Vc = 6.86 fps
Critical Depth Froude Number Frc =1.00
CIRCULAR CONDUIT FLOW (Normal & Critical Depth Computation)
Blue Sky Storage at Rudolph Farm
Storm Sewer from DP 3 - 4
UD-Culvert_v3.05 DP 3-4.xlsm, Pipe 12/12/2023, 10:50 AM
Project:
Pipe ID:
Design Information (Input)
Pipe Invert Slope So = 0.0100 ft/ft
Pipe Manning's n-value n = 0.0120
Pipe Diameter D = 15.00 inches
Design discharge Q = 7.00 cfs
Full-flow Capacity (Calculated)
Full-flow area Af = 1.23 sq ft
Full-flow wetted perimeter Pf = 3.93 ft
Half Central Angle Theta = 3.14 radians
Full-flow capacity Qf = 7.02 cfs
Calculation of Normal Flow Condition
Half Central Angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 2.26 radians
Flow area An = 1.07 sq ft
Top width Tn = 0.96 ft
Wetted perimeter Pn = 2.82 ft
Flow depth Yn = 1.02 ft
Flow velocity Vn = 6.52 fps
Discharge Qn = 7.00 cfs
Percent Full Flow Flow = 99.7% of full flow
Normal Depth Froude Number Frn =1.09 supercritical
Calculation of Critical Flow Condition
Half Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 2.34 radians
Critical flow area Ac = 1.11 sq ft
Critical top width Tc = 0.90 ft
Critical flow depth Yc = 1.06 ft
Critical flow velocity Vc = 6.31 fps
Critical Depth Froude Number Frc =1.00
CIRCULAR CONDUIT FLOW (Normal & Critical Depth Computation)
Blue Sky Storage at Rudolph Farm
Storm Sewer from DP 6-4 (Roof Drain Leader)
UD-Culvert_v3.05 DP 6.xlsm, Pipe 12/12/2023, 10:50 AM
APPENDIX 3
REFERENCED INFORMATION
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
August 24, 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
35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................................13
40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.....................................................14
76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes.........................................15
References............................................................................................................18
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
0
8
9
0
44
9
0
9
1
0
44
9
0
9
3
0
44
9
0
9
5
0
44
9
0
9
7
0
44
9
0
9
9
0
44
9
1
0
1
0
44
9
1
0
3
0
44
9
1
0
5
0
44
9
0
8
9
0
44
9
0
9
1
0
44
9
0
9
3
0
44
9
0
9
5
0
44
9
0
9
7
0
44
9
0
9
9
0
44
9
1
0
1
0
44
9
1
0
3
0
44
9
1
0
5
0
500290 500310 500330 500350 500370 500390 500410
500290 500310 500330 500350 500370 500390 500410
40° 34' 13'' N
10
4
°
5
9
'
4
8
'
'
W
40° 34' 13'' N
10
4
°
5
9
'
4
2
'
'
W
40° 34' 7'' N
10
4
°
5
9
'
4
8
'
'
W
40° 34' 7'' N
10
4
°
5
9
'
4
2
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0 40 80 160 240
Feet
0 10 20 40 60
Meters
Map Scale: 1:880 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado
Survey Area Data: Version 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
35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
0.1 4.6%
40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes
2.8 88.1%
76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3
percent slopes
0.2 7.3%
Totals for Area of Interest 3.2 100.0%
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
Larimer County Area, Colorado
35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tlnc
Elevation: 4,020 to 6,730 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 160 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Fort collins and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Fort Collins
Setting
Landform:Stream terraces, interfluves
Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve, tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Pleistocene or older alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam
Bt1 - 4 to 9 inches: clay loam
Bt2 - 9 to 16 inches: clay loam
Bk1 - 16 to 29 inches: loam
Bk2 - 29 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.20 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:12 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit:10 percent
Landform:Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Vona
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Landform:Interfluves
Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve, side slope
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Ecological site:R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpwg
Elevation: 5,200 to 6,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Garrett and similar soils:85 percent
Minor components:15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Garrett
Setting
Landform:Fans, terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loam
H2 - 8 to 39 inches: sandy clay loam
H3 - 39 to 60 inches: sandy loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Properties and qualities
Slope:0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Harlan
Percent of map unit:6 percent
Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Barnum
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow
Hydric soil rating: No
Connerton
Percent of map unit:4 percent
Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpxq
Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Nunn, wet, and similar soils:90 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
Minor components:10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Nunn, Wet
Setting
Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: clay loam
H2 - 10 to 47 inches: clay
H3 - 47 to 60 inches: gravelly loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 24 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding:NoneRare
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R067BY038CO - Wet Meadow
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Heldt
Percent of map unit:6 percent
Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Dacono
Percent of map unit:3 percent
Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Mollic halaquepts
Percent of map unit:1 percent
Landform:Swales
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
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
18
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
19
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)Zone A, V, A99With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areasof 1% annual chance flood with averagedepth less than one foot or with drainageareas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemapaccuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from theauthoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This mapwas exported on 8/2/2022 at 3:28 PM and does notreflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date andtime. The NFHL and effective information may change orbecome superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximatepoint selected by the user and does not representan authoritative property location.
1:6,000
105°0'14"W 40°34'30"N
104°59'36"W 40°34'3"N
Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020
RELEVANT REFERENCED INFORMATION EXCERPTED FROM THE
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR RUDOLPH FARM
2YHUODQG)ORZ7LPHRI&RQFHQWUDWLRQ 7RWDO7LPHRI&RQFHQWUDWLRQ
&KDQQHOL]HG)ORZ7LPHRI&RQFHQWUDWLRQ 7FLVWKHOHVVHURIWKHYDOXHVRI7FFDOFXODWHGXVLQJ7F 7L7W
&&
/HQJWK/
IW
6ORSH6
7L7L
/HQJWK/
IW
6ORSH6
5RXJKQHVV
&RHIILFLHQW
$VVXPHG+\GUDXOLF
5DGLXV
9HORFLW\9
IWV
7W PLQ 7F (T 7F 7L7W 7F 7L7W 7F7F
1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ $ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
% 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
3RQG 5* $ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
% 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ $ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ % 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
5* 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 5* 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 5
5 5
U5 U5 U5
U5 U5
5 5 5
U5 5
26 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 26 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 26 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
26 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 26 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$
RV26 RV26 '&
'& '& )*
U'3U %DVLQ%DQG5
U'3U %DVLQ 5 5*5* %DVLQ55 5
3RQG6WDQGDUG:43RQG %DVLQ526 26
U'3U %DVLQ $ 5
5*5* %DVLQ$ $ 5 5*5* %DVLQ5 5
3RQG6WDQGDUG:43RQG %DVLQ% %5555 55262626
26
U '3U %DVLQ $5 5 U'3U %DVLQ5 5
U'3U %DVLQ5 5 U'3U %DVLQ5 $
&RPELQHG%DVLQV
352326(''(9(/23('',5(&77,0(2)&21&(175$7,21
&KDQQHOL]HG)ORZ
'HVLJQ
3RLQW %DVLQ
2YHUODQG)ORZ 7LPHRI&RQFHQWUDWLRQ
; ƋƵĂƚŝŽŶϯ͘ϯͲϮ&^DͿ
; ƋƵĂƚŝŽŶϱͲϱ&^DͿ
; ƋƵĂƚŝŽŶϱͲϰ&^DͿ
; ƋƵĂƚŝŽŶϯ͘ϯͲϱ&^DͿ
Project:
Inlet ID:
Gutter Geometry:
Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =15.0 ft
Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft
Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015
Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches
Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 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 =0.006 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 =27.0 27.0 ft
Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches
Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no)
MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =14.2 139.2 cfs
Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management'
Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management'
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)
Rudolph Farm
Design Point r6
1
5DWLRQDO0HWKRG(TXDWLRQ
5DLQIDOO,QWHQVLW\
$
%
3RQG 5*
$
%
$
%
5* 5* 5
5
5
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
5
5 5
U5
5
26
26
26
26
26 RV26 RV26 '&
'&
'& )*
U'3U %DVLQ%DQG5
U'3U %DVLQ 5
5*5* %DVLQ55
5
3RQG6WDQGDUG:43RQG %DVLQ
526 26
U'3U %DVLQ $ 5 5*5* %DVLQ$ $ 5 5*5* %DVLQ5 5
3RQG
6WDQGDUG:43RQG %DVLQ%
%5555 5
5262626 26
U '3U %DVLQ $5 5 U'3U %DVLQ5 5
U'3U %DVLQ5 5
U'3U %DVLQ5 $
352326(''(9(/23('5812))&20387$7,216
'HVLJQ
3RLQW %DVLQ V $UHD$
DFUHV
7F PLQ
)ORZ
4
FIV
)ORZ
4
FIV
&&
,')7DEOHIRU5DWLRQDO0HWKRG7DEOH)&6&0
&RPELQHG%DVLQV
7F PLQ
,QWHQVLW\
L
LQKU
,QWHQVLW\
L
LQKU
()()()$L&&4 I=
%$6,1
727$/
$5($
DFUHV
7F
PLQ
7F
PLQ
&&4
FIV
4
FIV
$
%
$
% $
%
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 26
26
26
26
26
26
26
'&
'&
'&
)*
'3U %DVLQ%DQG5
'3U %DVLQ 5
5* %DVLQ55 5
6WDQGDUG:43RQG %DVLQ526 26
'3U %DVLQ $ 5
5* %DVLQ$ $ 5
5* %DVLQ5 5
6WDQGDUG:43RQG %DVLQ% %5555 5
5262626 26
'3U %DVLQ $5 5
'3U %DVLQ5 5
'3U %DVLQ5 5
'3U %DVLQ5 $
5DWLRQDO)ORZ6XPPDU\_3URSRVHG'HYHORSHG%DVLQ)ORZ5DWHV
&RPELQHG%DVLQV
$0 3 ? ?'UDLQDJH?+\GURORJ\? B3URSRVHG5DWLRQDO&DOFV[OV[?6XPPDU\7DEOHV
W
W
SS
NO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
NO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
/ / / / / / / /
KIT DEN DR.HUNTSMAN DR.
8"
S
S
G G G
G
G
G
G
T
G
12" SS8" W 8" W
8" W
F F
12
"
S
S
8"
W
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
UD
UD
UUUDDDUUUDDDDDDUUUDDDUUUUUUDDDUUUUUUDDDUUDD
UDDDDDUDUDUDUUUUUUDDDDDDDUDUDUDUUUUUUUUUDDDDUDUDUUDDDUUUUDDDDDUDDDDUDUUUU
GGGGGGGGG
POND 1 -
DETENTION
AND STANDARD
WATER QUALITY
RAIN GARDEN 1
POND 2 -
DETENTION
AND STANDARD
WATER QUALITY
AIN GARDEN 2
RAIN GARDEN 4
RAIN
GARDEN 5
POND 3 - DETENTION ONLY
RAIN GARDEN 3
UUUDDDDDDUDDDDDUUUUUUDDDUUUDDDDUUUDDDDDDDUUUDDDUUUUUUDDDUUUUUUDDDUDUD
LOT 1
LOT 2 LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 11
LOT 8
LOT 9
LOT 10
LOT 12
LOT 13
LOT 7
PROS
P
E
C
T
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
I
V
E
V
I
X
E
N
D
R
I
V
E
CARR
I
A
G
E
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
PROSPECT ROAD
LID EXHIBITEHTRONRN
02.22.2023
P:\1896-001\DWG\SHEETS\DRAINAGE\1896-001_LID.DWG
Design Point Area of Impervious (ac)
RG1 11.66
Standard WQ Pond 1 5.66
RG 2 15.97
RG 3 11.53
Standard WQ Pond 2 12.76
RG 4 12.15
RG 5 2.66
Standard WQ Totals 18.42 25%
Rain Garden Totals 53.96 75%
TOTAL AREA (ac)
PERCENTAGE OF
IMPERVIOUS
AREA
NOTES:
1. Refer to Rudolph Farm Utility Plans for additional clarification on
basin breakdowns, grading, and utility sizing.
2. Refer to Rudolph Farm Drainage Report for additional clarification
on basin break downs, LID and standard water quality calculations.
LID SUMMARY AND LEGEND:
NORTH
( IN FEET )
0
1 INCH = 300 FEET
300 300 600 900
LOT 7 WILL PROVIDE INTERIM WATER QUALITY
BUT AT THE TIME OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOT
7 WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE LID
SITE
Project:
Date:
Pond No.:
4,911.00 22,638.00 cu. ft.
4,911.25 4,911.25
22,638.00 cu. ft.0.25 ft.
4,916.00 618,699 cu. ft.
4,915.66
Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft
4,911.00 N/A 65,470 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4,912.00 4,911.00 113,984 1.00 89,727.00 2.06 89,727.00 2.06
4,913.00 4,912.00 128,362 1.00 121,173.00 2.78 210,900.00 4.84
4,914.00 4,913.00 143,258 1.00 135,810.00 3.12 346,710.00 7.96
4,915.00 4,914.00 158,672 1.00 150,965.00 3.47 497,675.00 11.43
4,916.00 4,915.00 174,603 1.00 166,637.50 3.83 664,312.50 15.25
Elev at 100-yr Volume:
Crest of Pond Elev.:
Volume at Grate:
Grate Elevation:
Storage and Water Quality Pond 2
Project Number:
Project Location:
Calculations By:2
Water Quality Depth:
100-yr WQ Volume:
STAGE STORAGE CURVE
Contour Contour
Surface Area
(ft2)
Depth (ft)
Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume
Pond Stage Storage Curve
1896-001
Fort Collins, CO
B. Mathisen
Elev at WQ Volume:
Rudolph Farm
January 16, 2023
Pond Outlet and Volume Data
Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume:
1
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Pond No:Calc. By:B. Mathisen
Orifice Dia (in):10 11/16
Orifice Area (sf):0.62
Orifice invert (ft):4,911.00
Orifice Coefficient:0.65
Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments
4,911.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4,912.00 1.00 5.21 3.24
4,913.00 2.00 7.37 4.58
4,914.00 3.00 9.03 5.61
4,915.00 4.00 10.43 6.48
4,915.66 4.66 11.26 7.00 100-YR WSEL
4,916.00 5.00 11.66 7.25
Orifice Rating Curve
ORIFICE RATING CURVE
1896-001
Rudolph Farm
Fort Collins
Pond 2
Orifice Design Data
Detention Pond 2
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS | GREELEY
Stormwater Facility Name:
Facility Location & Jurisdiction:
User Input: Watershed Characteristics User Defined User Defined User Defined User Defined
Selected BMP Type = EDB Stage [ft] Area [ft^2] Stage [ft] Discharge [cfs]
Watershed Area = 55.53 acres 0.00 65,470 0.00 0.00
Watershed Length =2,400 ft 1.00 113,984 1.00 3.24
Watershed Length to Centroid = 1,200 ft 2.00 128,362 2.00 4.58
Watershed Slope =0.020 ft/ft 3.00 143,258 3.00 5.61
Watershed Imperviousness = 50.0%percent 4.00 158,672 4.00 6.48
Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A = 0.0%percent 5.00 174,603 5.00 7.00
Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group B = 50.0%percent
Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D = 50.0%percent
Target WQCV Drain Time = 40.0 hours
User Input
After completing and printing this worksheet to a pdf, go to:
https://maperture.digitaldataservices.com/gvh/?viewer=cswdif
Create a new stormwater facility, and attach the PDF of this
worksheet to that record.
Routed Hydrograph Results
Design Storm Return Period =WQCV 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 50 Year 100 Year
One-Hour Rainfall Depth =N/A 0.86 1.14 1.43 2.39 2.91 in
CUHP Runoff Volume =0.954 1.800 2.669 3.821 8.540 11.238 acre-ft
Inflow Hydrograph Volume =N/A 1.800 2.669 3.821 8.540 11.238 acre-ft
Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume =20.9 22.7 23.5 25.0 31.8 35.5 hours
Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume =27.2 28.9 29.8 31.3 38.2 42.0 hours
Maximum Ponding Depth =0.53 0.76 1.06 1.44 2.93 3.69 ft
Maximum Ponded Area =2.10 2.35 2.63 2.76 3.26 3.53 acres
Maximum Volume Stored =0.959 1.462 2.200 3.247 7.716 10.310 acre-ft
Once CUHP has been run and the Stage-Area-Discharge
information has been provided, click 'Process Data' to
interpolate the Stage-Area-Volume-Discharge data and
generate summary results in the table below. Once this
is complete, click 'Print to PDF'.
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet
Rudolph Farm Pond 2
Fort Collins
SDI-Design Data v2.00, Released January 2020
Location for 1-hr Rainfall Depths (use dropdown):
After providing required inputs above including 1-hour
rainfall depths, click 'Run CUHP' to generate runoff
hydrographs using the embedded Colorado Urban
Hydrograph Procedure.
Pond 2.xlsm, Design Data 10/31/2022, 12:10 PM
Booleans for Message Booleans for CUHP
Watershed L:W 1 CUHP Inputs Complete
Watershed Lc:L 1 CUHP Results Calculated
Watershed Slope FALSE Time Interval
RunOnce 1
CountA 1
Draintime Coeff 1.0
User Precip 1
Equal SA Inputs 1
Equal SD Inputs 1
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0.1 1 10
FL
O
W
[
c
f
s
]
TIME [hr]
100YR IN
100YR OUT
50YR IN
50YR OUT
10YR IN
10YR OUT
5YR IN
5YR OUT
2YR IN
2YR OUT
WQCV IN
WQCV OUT
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0.1 1 10 100
PO
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
H
[
f
t
]
DRAIN TIME [hr]
100YR
50YR
10YR
5YR
2YR
WQCV
Pond 2.xlsm, Design Data 10/31/2022, 12:10 PM
Project:
Inlet ID:
Gutter Geometry:
Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =15.0 ft
Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft
Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015
Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches
Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 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 =0.006 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 =27.0 27.0 ft
Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches
Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no)
MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =14.2 139.2 cfs
Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management'
Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management'
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)
Rudolph Farm
Design Point r6
1
APPENDIX 4
DRAINAGE PLANS
EE
DD
D
GAS
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
X
X
X
X
G
G
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
X
X
X
X
X
B MB M
C
CT
C
CT
TC
C
T
C
LID
E
E
D
D
CT
V
CT
V
EE
D D
D
D
DD
MM
/ / / / / / / /
X
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ / / / / / / /G G G G
X
G GCTV/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /
U
D
UD UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
FO
S S
H2O
H2OH2O
H2O
H2OH2O
H2OWV
WV
W
S
C C
C W CCW
E MMCW M
H2O
WVWV
W
W
W
W
SS
SS SS SS SS SS
MMC
S
MMM
WT H2O
M
NO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
NO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /
SB
SB SB
SB
8"
S
S
8"
S
S
8"
S
S
G G G G G G G G G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
8"
W
8"
W
12
"
S
S
G
G
TT
T
T
G G G
12" SS 12" SS
12"
S
S
8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W
8" W
8"
W
W W W
8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W
WF FW
12"
S
S
12"
S
S
8" W
8"
W
LOT 1
LOT 2 LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 11
LOT 8
LOT 9
LOT 10
LOT 12
LOT 13
LOT 7
r1
r2
r5
r6
r3
r4
POND 2
(HYDRAULICALLY CONNECTED)
RAIN GARDEN 2
FLAT AREA = 24,349 SQ. FT.
VOLUME = 26,422 CU. FT.
RAIN GARDEN 3
FLAT AREA = 16,617 SQ. FT.
VOLUME = 19,079 CU. FT.
RAIN GARDEN 4
FLAT AREA = 18,589 SQ. FT.
VOLUME = 20,211 CU. FT.
RAIN GARDEN 5
FLAT AREA = 4,164 SQ. FT.
VOLUME = 4,918 CU. FT.
RAIN GARDEN 1
FLAT AREA = 15,780 SQ. FT.
VOLUME = 19,709 CU. CT.
PROS
P
E
C
T
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
I
V
E
V
I
X
E
N
D
R
I
V
E
CARR
I
A
G
E
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
r7
r8
SWALE BEHIND
LOTS 8 AND 9
os7
OVERTOPPING EXTENTS
DURING 100-YR EVENT
100-YEAR
BOXELDER
FLOODPLAIN
SWALE
SWALE
BOXELDER
FLOODWAY
11
1
2 6
5
4A
R1 R2
9B
R4
R6
R5
OS1
OS3
DC1
DC2
DC3
7
OS4
OS5
8B
R3
10
13
12
3
8A
9A
R7
R8
OS6 OS7
R9
R10 R11
r9 r10
r11
POND OUTLET 1
SEE SHEET ST6
POND OUTLET 2
SEE SHEET ST6
STORM DRAIN C
SEE SHEET ST3
STORM DRAIN E
SEE SHEET ST4
CULVERT H
SEE SHEET ST7
POND CULVERT 1
SEE SHEET ST7
STORM DRAIN D
SEE SHEET ST4
STORM DRAIN A
SEE SHEET ST1
STORM DRAIN B
SEE SHEET ST2
STORM DRAIN I
SEE SHEET ST3
GREGG S SCHMIDTKE
4607 KITCHELL WAY,
FORT COLLINS
POUDRE SCHOOL
DISTRICT PROSPECT
6-12 SCHOOLS
PROSPECT ROAD
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
2
5
THOMAS J SKILLMAN
4608 KITCHELL WAY,
FORT COLLINS
CDOT
1012 SE FRONTAGE RD,
FORT COLLINS
FOX GROVE HOA
4345 FOX GROVE DR,
FORT COLLINS
OS2
STORM DRAIN F
SEE SHEET ST5
STORM DRAIN G
SEE SHEET ST5
LAKE CANAL CULVERT A
SEE SHEET LC2
LAKE CANAL CULVERT B
SEE SHEET LC3
LAKE CANAL CULVERT C
SEE SHEET LC3
TRIC CULVERT A
SEE SHEET TRIC1
TRIC CULVERT B
SEE SHEET TRIC1
RAIN GARDEN 2
OVERTOPPING
(150 LF WEIR)
RAIN GARDEN 3
OVERTOPPING
(100 LF WEIR)
RAIN GARDEN 4
OVERTOPPING
(123 LF WEIR)
RAIN GARDEN 5
OVERTOPPING
RAIN GARDEN 1
OVERTOPPING
(242 LF WEIR)
EROSION
BUFFER
LIMITS
OVERTOPPING EXTENTS
DURING 100-YR EVENT
POND 1
POND 2
POND 3
POND 3
(HYDRAULICALLY
CONNECTED)
R12
R13
r12
r13
4B
FG1
SWALE
(BETWEEN LOT 1 AND 2)
100-YR WSEL
100-YR WSEL
100-YR WSEL
100-YR WSEL
100-YR WSEL
100-YR WSEL
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
POND 3
OVERTOPPING
LOCATION
POND 2
OVERTOPPING
LOCATION
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
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED SWALE
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PROPOSED INLET
A
DESIGN POINT
FLOW ARROW
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
RUNOFF SUMMARY:
1. REFER TO THE RUDOLPH FARM - FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
2. ALL RAIN GARDENS WILL OVERTOP THE 100-YR EVENT INTO THEIR ADJACENT
PONDS. REFER TO EROSION CONTROL SHEET FOR EROSION PROTECTION
INFORMATION.
3. POND LINERS FOR POND1, POND 2, AND POND 3 ARE DESIGNED BY OTHERS.
LEGEND:
BASIN AREA
A
BASIN ID
BASIN MINOR AND MAJOR C COEFFICIENTS
NOTES:
NORTH
DR1
146
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0150150
150
300 450
BASIN
TOTAL
AREA
(acres)
Tc2
(min)
Tc100
(min)
C2 C100
Q2
(cfs)
Q100
(cfs)
1 6.80 7.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 14.22 67.68
2 1.47 7.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 3.07 14.60
31.437.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.99 14.22
4A 1.43 7.2 5.0 0.85 1.00 3.05 14.18
4B 0.99 7.2 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.12 9.87
5 1.10 7.4 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.37 10.99
6 2.59 7.4 5.0 0.85 1.00 5.54 25.74
7 6.67 11.7 11.7 0.27 0.34 3.76 16.41
8A 5.74 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 15.53 57.07
8B 2.16 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 5.86 21.54
9A 10.76 5.4 5.0 0.95 1.00 29.14 107.09
9B 3.97 5.4 5.0 0.95 1.00 10.74 39.48
10 9.47 6.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 24.84 94.27
11 3.28 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 8.87 32.61
12 13.50 6.3 5.0 0.95 1.00 34.25 134.35
13 8.85 12.8 12.8 0.30 0.38 5.35 23.37
R1 1.31 8.4 7.3 0.81 1.00 2.55 11.54
R2 1.36 5.0 5.0 0.84 1.00 3.26 13.54
R3 1.44 13.1 12.0 0.79 0.99 2.26 10.39
R4 1.11 7.9 6.8 0.80 1.00 2.17 10.01
R5 2.83 13.9 12.9 0.78 0.98 4.30 19.40
R6 1.98 13.9 12.9 0.78 0.98 3.01 13.60
R7 0.94 5.0 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.27 9.33
R8 0.86 6.1 5.0 0.71 0.89 1.62 7.56
R9 0.40 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 0.91 3.98
R10 0.27 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 0.62 2.72
R11 0.24 5.0 5.0 0.78 0.98 0.53 2.30
R12 0.59 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 1.35 5.88
R13 0.54 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 1.22 5.34
OS1 5.16 9.0 8.4 0.24 0.30 2.85 12.98
OS2 1.33 5.0 5.0 0.86 1.00 3.27 13.27
OS3 3.76 11.2 11.2 0.20 0.25 1.60 6.97
OS4 5.55 8.9 8.3 0.25 0.31 3.26 14.54
OS5 3.10 9.4 8.9 0.20 0.25 1.43 6.36
OS6 1.23 5.4 5.2 0.20 0.25 0.70 3.06
OS7 0.42 5.0 5.0 0.20 0.25 0.24 1.04
DC1 2.02 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 1.15 5.03
DC2 2.21 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 1.26 5.50
DC3 3.54 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.02 8.82
FG1 0.27 5.0 5.0 0.78 0.98 0.60 2.63
Pond Summary
Pond ID WQCV
(cu. ft.)WQCV WSEL 100-YR Volume
(cu. ft.)100-YR WSEL Max Release Rate
(cfs)
1 10,241 4904.41 201,893 4908.43 14.68
2 22,638 4911.25 618,699 4915.66 7
3 N/A N/A 197,769 4921.97 7
4 2,100 4911.46 31,231 4913.07 3.96
SITE
T
49
2
0
4920
49
1
9
4919
4920
4920
492
0
4920
4920
4920
4919
4
9
1
9
49
1
9
LOT 11
133,572 SF
(3.07 AC)
BUILDING A
34,075 SF
CA
R
R
I
A
G
E
P
K
W
Y
.
(84
'
R
.
O
.
W
.
)
PROSPECT
MIDDLE/HIGH
SCHOOL
LOT 3
LOT 10
TRACT K
B
10
,
0
0
0
S
F
F
2,10
0
S
F
TRACT J
REGIONAL
DETENTION
RAIN
G
A
R
D
E
N
∆
E
2,100
S
F
G
6,650 SF
C
1,5
0
0
S
F
D
1,
5
0
0
S
F
T
VAUL
TELEC
VAUL
TELEC
kcmil
750kc
m
i
l
750kc
m
i
l
750k
c
m
i
l
750k
c
m
i
l
750k
c
m
i
l
750k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
49
2
0
4920
49
1
9
4919
4920
4920
492
0
4920
4920
4920
4919
4
9
1
9
49
1
9
4921
4
9
2
1
49
1
9
49
1
8
49
1
7
49
1
9
492
0
4920
VAUL
TELEC
VAUL
TELEC
kcmil
750kc
m
i
l
750kc
m
i
l
750k
c
m
i
l
750k
c
m
i
l
750k
c
m
i
l
750k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
750
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
75
0
k
c
m
i
l
1.2%
0.4%
0.5%
0.7
%
1.4%
3.3
%
3.2%
0.5
%
0.
1
%
0.5
%
0.5%
5.3
%
0.5%
C
1
E
A D
5
3
r6RF FDR DP
2b
2a
4
B
F
6
A
1
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
1 INCH = FEET
30 30
30
15
NORTHNORTH
SHEET
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
PREPARED FOR:
FAX:
PH:
KELLY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
9301 SCRUB OAK DR
LONE TREE, CO 80124
303-888-6338
greg@kellydev.com
CAUTION NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY
CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR
ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN
ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF
THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND,
WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT
TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUCH CALL 811
AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD
LOCATIONS OF THE UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATED ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.
BLUE SKY SELF STORAGE
2207.01
UPLIFT DEVELOPMENT, LLC
791 COPPER CENTER PARKWAY
970-420-1521
COLORADO SPRINGS. COLORADO 80921
AT RUDOLPH FARMTONY OLLILA PDR
1 of 1PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)
STORM SEWER1
2
3
TYPE R INLET
POND 2 - DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY POND
DRAINAGE PLAN LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
1"=1000'NORTH
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3