The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT - FDP230016 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 6 - Drainage Related Document’ ’ ’ FINAL’DRAINAGE’REPORT’ ’ .ASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO APRIL 24TH, 2024 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 April’24th,’2024’ City’of’Fort’Collins’ Stormwater’Utility’ 700’Wood’Street’ Fort’Collins,’CO’80526’ RE: FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE .ASON 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. .ASON RUEBEL, PE BLAINE .ATHISEN, PE Project’Engineer’’’’Project’Manager’ ’ ’ ’’’ NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 1 | 11 GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 2 DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ..................................................................... 5 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................... 6 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ........................................................................... 9 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 12 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 13 TABLES AND FIGURES FIGURE’1’-’VICINITY’MAP’..................................................................................................2 FIGURE’2’-’AERIAL’PHOTO’................................................................................................3 FIGURE’3’-’FIRMETTE’MAP’08069C0977G’........................................................................4 TABLE’1’–’INLET’SUMMARY’..............................................................................................9 TABLE’2’–’DETENTION’&’WQCV’SUMMARY’....................................................................’12 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’ APPENDIX’F’–’STORMWATER’ALTERNATIVE’COMPLIANCE/VARIANCE’APPLICATION’’ .AP POCKET DR1’–’DRAINAGE’EXHIBIT’ NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 2 | 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’±13.13’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 3 | 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’has’performed’regional’drainage’analysis’for’the’North’Mason’drainage’area’and’further’ refinement’of’the’stormwater’model’will’be’done’with’the’final’design’of’the’regional’Hickory’ 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 4 | 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.’The’Geotech’analysis’provided’an’assumed’elevation’at’4’’to’8’’based’ on’the’cave’in’elevations.’Ongoing’monitoring’will’be’provided’on’a’regular’basis’through’the’ construction’of’the’Mason’Street’Infrastructure’Project.’’ 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’ Figure 3 - FIR.ette .ap 08069C0977G NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 5 | 11 alignment’of’Mason’Street’from’the’south’property’line’to’Hibdon’Court.’The’road’ improvements’include’asphalt’paving,’sidewalks,’and’landscaping.’ DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. .AJOR 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.’The’Mason’Street’ Infrastructure’project’will’replace’the’connection’to’the’existing’storm’infrastructure’in’College’ Ave’and’maintain’the’historic’site’outfall.’An’ultimate’outfall’for’these’lots’and’the’Hickory’ Regional’Detention’Pond’will’be’designed’and’constructed’by’the’City’of’Fort’Collins.’ 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’and’standard’water’quality’treatment’required’with’the’development’of’Lot’1,’2,’3’&’ Tract’A.’An’interim’storm’conveyance’will’be’provided’in’Mason’Street’for’Lot’3’and’Tract’A.’ NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 6 | 11 The’city’has’performed’regional’drainage’analysis’for’the’North’Mason’drainage’area,’west’of’ College’Avenue.’This’includes’analysis’of’the’upstream’basins’for’the’infrastructure’project.’ Previous’City’drainage’studies’include:’ a. West’Side’of’North’College’Drainage’Improvements’Project’(NCDID)’Preliminary’Design’ (Ayres,’2017)’ b. Preliminary’Design’Report’North’Mason’Area’Drainage’Improvements,’Phase’1’(HDR,’April’ 29,’2020)’ c. North’Mason’Drainage’Design’–’Technical’Memorandum’Design’Addendum’For’60’ Percent’Design’(HDR,’February’10,’2022)’ d. North’Mason’Storm’Drainage’Outfall’Improvements’60%’Design’(HDR,’February’2022)’ Further’refinement’of’the’stormwater’modeling’will’be’done’with’the’final’design’of’the’North’ Mason’corridor’drainage’improvmenets’and’the’final’design’of’the’regional’Hickory’detention’ pond.’’ A’more’detailed’description’of’the’project’drainage’patterns’is’provided’below.’ DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. ORIGINAL PROVISIONS AND PREVIOUS STUDIES There’are’no’optional’provisions’outside’the’Fort’Collins’Stormwater’Manual’(FCSM)’ B. STOR.WATER .ANAGE.ENT 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.’ 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.’This’will’be’done’mainly’by’implementing’Low’Impact’ Development’(LID)’strategies.’These’LID’practices’reduce’the’overall’amount’of’impervious’ area,’while’at’the’same’time’minimizing’directly’connected’impervious’areas’(MDCIA).’The’ combined’LID/MDCIA’techniques’will’slow’runoff’and’increase’opportunities’for’infiltration.’ 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 B.Ps 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’ NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 7 | 11 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 B.Ps.’’ This’step’typically’applies’to’industrial’and’commercial’developments.’ ’ C. DEVELOP.ENT 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.’The’existing’outfall’ pipe’is’deficient’and’will’be’reconstructed’with’this’project.’The’outfall’will’be’replaced’with’a’ 24”’storm’drain’and’the’connection’with’N’College’Avenue’storm’system’will’be’maintained.’ Detention’requirements’for’this’basin’are’to’release’at’or’below’the’allowable’runoff’rate’of’ 0.20’cfs’per’acre.’Lots’1,’2,’3’&’Tract’A’will’utilize’the’interim’Hickory’Regional’Detention’Pond’ and’the’interim’release’rate’is’calculated’as’2.63’cfs’(13.13ac’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,’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.’ The’site’plan’is’constrained’on’all’sides’by’developed’properties’and’public’roads.’Existing’ elevations’along’the’property’lines’will’be’maintained.’’ Groundwater’measurements’have’been’taken’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’this’report’groundwater’is’ roughly’4’’to’8’’based’on’cave-in’elevations’(assumed’groundwater’elevation’around’4973.5).’ Ongoing’monitoring’will’be’provided’on’a’regular’basis’through’construction.’With’the’ excavation’of’the’Interim’Hickory’Regional’Detention’Pond’the’pond’bottom’will’be’lowered’ around’2’to’4ft’to’an’outlet’elevation’of’4974.75.’Groundwater’conflicts’with’the’ultimate’ Hickory’Pond’elevations’will’be’coordinated’by’the’City’of’Fort’Collins.’A’portion’of’the’report’ and’exhibit’showing’the’boring’locations’and’elevations’are’shown’in’appendix’E.’’’ NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 8 | 11 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.’ Area’Inlets’A1’&’A2’are’located’offsite’to’the’east’of’the’project’site.’With’the’reconstruction’of’ the’24”’storm’drain’outfall’pipe’to’N’College’Ave,’these’inlets’will’replace’the’existing’area’ inlets’on’the’adjacent’property.’No’additional’drainage’analysis’is’included’with’this’report.’’ Inlets’B2-S2’&’’B2-S3’are’located’in’the’N’Mason’Street’Right-of-Way.’These’on-grade’single’ combination’inlets’will’collect’runoff’from’the’interim’N’Mason’Street’alignment’and’prevent’ any’concentrated’overflow’to’adjacent’properties.’These’inlets’are’sized’to’intercept’the’ majority’of’flows,’but’during’major’storm’events’0.1-cfs’will’bypass’the’inlets.’These’inlets’are’ interim’solutions’to’the’flows’along’N’Mason’Street’and’additional’storm’infrastructure’will’be’ designed’with’the’ultimate’construction’of’N’Mason’Street.’These’bypass’flows’are’very’minor’ and’will’not’have’any’impact’on’properties’to’the’south.’See’Appendix’B.2’for’additional’ information’and’capacity’calculations.’ Inlet’B4-1’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’ NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 9 | 11 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.’’ During’the’minor’event’N’Mason’Street’has’a’capacity’of’1.5’cfs’which’is’4’times’greater’than’ the’required’0.4’cfs.’During’the’major’event’N’Mason’Street’has’a’max’capacity’of’5.4’cfs’which’ is’4’times’greater’than’the’required’1.3’cfs.’Therefore,’it’has’been’shown’that’N’Mason’Street’ drainage’design’meets’all’the’requirements’set’forth’by’the’FCSCM.’Refer’to’Appendix’B.2’for’ additional’information.’ Inlet ID Required 100-yr capacity (CFS) Designed capacity (cfs) A1 Replacement of Existing Inlets A2 Replacement of Existing Inlets B2-S2 0.6 0.5 B2-S3 0.9 0.8 B4-1 1.3 5.4 Table 1 – Inlet Summary F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS CO.PLIANCE 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. .ODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA No’formal’modifications’are’requested’at’this’time.’’ H. CONFOR.ANCE WITH WATER QUAILTY TREAT.ENT CRITERIA In’the’interim’condition’the’Hickory’Regional’Detention’Pond’will’provide’standard’water’ quality’treatment’for’Lots’1,’2,’3,’Tract’A,’and’a’portion’of’N’Mason’Street.’An’assumed’80%’ impervious’was’assumed’for’Lot’2’and’90%’for’Lot’3.’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. CONFOR.ANCE WITH LOW I.PACT DEVELOP.ENT (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.’’ ’ 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.’This’report’does’ not’quantify’the’flows’from’offsite’basins’discharging’to’the’interim’Hickory’Regional’Pond.’ NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 10 | 11 Offsite’flows’will’be’routed’through’the’Hickory’Pond’through’the’interim’outfall’pipe’ connection’to’N’College’Ave’and’excess’flows’will’overtop’the’Hickory’Pond’towards’N’Mason’ Street.’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.’The’City’of’Fort’Collins’has’ performed’a’reginal’analysis’of’upstream’flows.’The’peak’inflow’to’the’Hickory’Pond’is’700-cfs’ in’future’conditions’and’390-cfs’in’existing’conditions.’’ Due’to’flat’slopes’through’the’interim’Hickory’Regional’Detention’Pond’an’underdrain’system’ is’proposed’along’the’flowline’of’the’pond.’This’underdrain’will’connect’to’the’proposed’outfall’ structure’and’conveyed’via’the’24”’storm’drain’to’the’existing’N’College’Ave’storm’system.’’ Detention’and’water’quality’treatment’for’Lots’1,’2,’3,’Tract’A,’and’a’portion’of’N’Mason’Street’ will’be’provided’in’the’interim’Hickory’Detention’Pond.’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.’The’interim’overflow’spillway’has’been’sized’to’convey’390-cfs’based’on’the’analysis’ of’flows’performed’by’the’Fort’Collins’Stormwater’Department.’The’overflow’crest’will’be’60-ft’ in’width’and’2-ft’in’flow’depth.’Calculations’are’provided’in’appendix’B.’Flows’will’be’conveyed’ south’towards’Hickory’Street.’The’ultimate’location’and’size’will’be’determined’by’the’City’of’ Fort’Collins’with’the’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.’These’basins’have’associated’sub-basins.’The’drainage’patterns’anticipated’ for’the’basins’are’further’described’below.’’ .ajor Basin A Major’Basin’A’has’8’sub-basins’(A1-A7)’and’has’a’total’area’of’10.17’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’the’proposed’24”’storm’drain’outfall.’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 11 | 11 Sub-Basins A6-A7’include’the’Mason’Street’Improvements’along’the’Lot’2’frontage’and’ have’a’total’area’of’0.42’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.’ .ajor Basin B Major’Basin’B’has’7’sub-basins’(B1-B7)’and’has’a’total’area’of’2.42’acres.’All’sub-basins’will’ be’conveyed’via’an’interim’storm’drain’in’N’Mason’Street’and’discharge’to’the’Hickory’ Regional’Detention’Pond.’The’detention’pond’will’provide’standard’water’quality’and’ discharge’directly’to’the’proposed’24”’RCP’outfall’pipe.’There’is’a’further’description’of’ each’sub-basin’below.’ Sub-Basin B1 – B3’includes’a’portion’of’N’Mason’Street,’the’existing’Hibdon’Court’and’Lot’ 3.’These’sub-basins’have’a’total’area’of’1.79’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’proposed’storm’drain’in’N’Mason’Street.’Lot’3’will’maintain’ the’historic’drainage’path’to’the’east,’but’a’90%’impervious’value’is’assumed’for’future’ development.’LID’for’these’basins’will’be’provided’with’the’future’development’of’Lot’3.’ Sub-Basin B4’includes’the’existing’roadside’ditch’along’the’east’side’of’N’Mason’Street’and’ has’a’total’area’of’0.35’acres.’The’access’road’will’be’maintained,’but’there’will’be’no’other’ improvements’proposed’in’this’area.’The’City’of’Fort’Collins’will’remain’as’the’owner’of’this’ tract.’Any’runoff’to’this’tract’will’be’conveyed’to’the’Hickory’Regional’Detention’Pond.’’ Sub-Basin B5 – B7’include’the’Mason’Street’Improvements’along’the’Lot’1’frontage’and’ have’a’total’area’of’0.28’acres.’This’sub-basin’primarily’consists’of’asphalt’paving,’concrete,’ and’landscaping’associated’with’N’Mason’Street’and’discharges’directly’to’the’proposed’ storm’drain’in’N’Mason’Street’and’the’Hickory’Regional’Pond.’The’Hickory’Pond’will’provide’ standard’water’quality’and’detention’for’these’basins. .ajor Basin C Major’Basin’C’only’has’1’sub-basins’(C1)’and’has’a’total’area’of’0.85’acres.’This’basin’ includes’the’area’in’between’the’south’property’line’and’the’Interim’Hickory’Regional’ Detention’Pond.’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.’This’basin’will’generally’maintain’historic’drainage’paths’and’no’ additional’flows’will’be’discharged’to’the’south’properties.’ 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’ NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 12 | 11 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. CO.PLIANCE 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.’ 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’’ Description Provided Notes Interim’Hicko ry’Regional’Detention’Pon d 1.84 ac.’f t.9.99’’ac.’ft.Volume’for’Mason’Street’Infrastructre’project’and’development’of ’Lot’2’ in’the’Interim’Hickory’Regional’Deten tion’Pond’ Interim’Hicko ry’Po nd ’Release’Rate 2.63 cfs Release’rate’fo r’o n-site’flows’p er’Dry’Creek’Basin’Criteria (13.13’acres’*’0.2’cf s/acre) Description Volume Provided Notes Interim’Stand ard’Water’Quailty’9,346 cu.’f t.9,346’cu.’ft.Standard ’water’quailty’treatment’for’lots’1,’2,’3’&’Tract’A Notes: Summary of Water Qu ality Volumes Volume Required Su mmary of Detention Volumes Required 1)LID’Treatment’for’Lot’2,’3’and’Mason’Street’will’be’pro vided’with’future’development’of’lots. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 13 | 11 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 304,260 6.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.98 2% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 A2 57,532 1.32 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.15 80% 0.86 0.86 0.86 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 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 77% 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.96 A7 10,192 0.23 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 86% 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.00 B1 60,638 1.39 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 90% 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 B2 3,507 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 B3 13,731 0.32 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 65% 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.86 B4 15,070 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.31 6% 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.29 B5 5,844 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 B6 2,470 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 B7 3,996 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 79% 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.98 C1 37,654 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.61 13% 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 Hickory Pond 572,027 13.13 1.93 2.45 0.29 0.00 8.46 34% 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.57 Total 585,758 13.45 2.13 2.45 0.29 0.00 8.57 34% 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.58 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. 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 January 31, 2024 Notes: 1) Basins A2, A3, A4, & A5 use an assumed 80% impervious percentage for future development. 2) Basin B1 uses an assumed 90% impervious percentage for future development. 3)Hickory Pond Combined Basin includes all basin except C1 & B3 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 25.13 950 0.10%Swale (8:1)0.03 8.00 16.12 0.50 0.98 16.08 16.67 42.69 16.67 42.69 16.67 41.21 16.67 a2 A2 150 4.00%3.41 3.41 1.44 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.83 3.41 5.00 3.41 5.00 1.44 5.00 a3 A3 80 6.00%2.20 2.20 0.92 100 0.50%Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 0.59 4.92 0.34 11.00 2.54 5.00 2.54 5.00 1.26 5.00 a4 A4 100 2.50%3.30 3.30 1.38 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.56 3.30 5.00 3.30 5.00 1.38 5.00 a5 A5 100 2.50%3.19 3.19 1.38 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.56 3.19 5.00 3.19 5.00 1.38 5.00 a6 A6 21 2.20%2.17 2.17 0.90 186 1.50%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 4.00 0.78 11.15 2.95 5.00 2.95 5.00 1.68 5.00 a7 A7 21 2.20%1.71 1.71 0.66 200 0.80%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 2.92 1.14 11.23 2.85 5.00 2.85 5.00 1.80 5.00 b1 B1 285 0.50%8.99 8.99 3.98 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 11.58 8.99 8.99 8.99 8.99 3.98 5.00 b2 B2 21 2.20%0.99 0.99 0.66 155 1.75% Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 3.24 0.80 10.98 1.79 5.00 1.79 5.00 1.46 5.00 b3 B3 30 2.50%3.13 3.13 1.84 190 0.40%Swale (8:1)0.03 8.00 16.12 0.50 1.97 1.61 11.22 4.74 5.00 4.74 5.00 3.44 5.00 b4 B4 20 25.00%2.48 2.48 2.31 225 0.50% Swale (4:1)0.03 4.00 8.25 0.48 2.17 1.73 11.36 4.21 5.00 4.21 5.00 4.04 5.00 b5 B5 21 2.20%0.99 0.99 0.66 120 1.00%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 3.26 0.61 10.78 1.60 5.00 1.60 5.00 1.27 5.00 b6 B6 21 2.20%0.99 0.99 0.66 110 1.80% Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 4.38 0.42 10.73 1.41 5.00 1.41 5.00 1.08 5.00 b7 B7 21 2.20%2.06 2.06 0.76 110 1.80% Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 4.38 0.42 10.73 2.48 5.00 2.48 5.00 1.18 5.00 c1 C1 40 2.00%7.61 7.61 6.94 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.22 7.61 7.61 7.61 7.61 6.94 6.94 Design Point Basin ID Overland Flow Channelized Flow Time of Concentration 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 January 31, 2024 Project: Calculations By: Date: Notes S = Longitudinal Slope, feet/feet R = Hydraulic Radius (feet) n = Roughness Coefficient V = Velocity (ft/sec) WP = Wetted Perimeter (ft) (Equation 3.3-2 per Fort Collins StormwaterManual) 1.87 1.1 ∗ 1.49 ∗ / ∗ (Equation 5-4 per Fort Collins StormwaterManual) 180 10 (Equation 3.3-5 per Fort Collins StormwaterManual) ∗ 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 6.98 16.7 16.7 16.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.8 3.0 6.2 1.2 2.5 4.2 10.8 a2 A2 1.32 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 1.6 3.3 5.6 13.1 a3 A3 0.41 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.5 1.0 1.7 4.1 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 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.7 a7 A7 0.23 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 2.3 b1 B1 1.39 9.0 9.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.4 4.0 10.0 1.4 2.9 4.9 13.9 b2 B2 0.08 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 b3 B3 0.32 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.7 b4 B4 0.35 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 b5 B5 0.13 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.3 b6 B6 0.06 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 b7 B7 0.09 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 c1 C1 0.86 7.6 7.6 6.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 2.5 4.2 9.1 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.8 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 January 31, 2024 Design Point Basin Area (acres) Runoff CTc (Min) Date: Fort Collins Project: Location: Calc. By: Flow (cfs) 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:January 31, 2024 Description Provided Notes Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond 1.84 ac. ft. 9.99 ac. ft.Volume for Mason Street Infrastructre project and development of Lot 2 in the Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond Interim Hickory Pond Release Rate 2.63 cfs Release rate for on-site flows per Dry Creek Basin Criteria (13.13 acres * 0.2 cfs/acre) Description Volume Provided Notes Interim Standard Water Quailty 9,346 cu. ft. 9,346 cu. ft. Standard water quailty treatment for lots 1, 2, 3 & Tract 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. 1 Date:01/31/24 Pond No.: A1 100-yr WQCV 9346 ft3 0.57 Quantity Detention 80242 ft3 13.13 acres Total Volume 89588 ft3 2.63 cfs Total Volume 2.057 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 74.5 22340 788 21552 10 600 7.72 57.8 34666 1576 33091 15 900 6.52 48.8 43917 2363 41553 20 1200 5.60 41.9 50293 3151 47142 25 1500 4.98 37.3 55906 3939 51967 30 1800 4.52 33.8 60891 4727 56164 35 2100 4.08 30.5 64124 5515 58609 40 2400 3.74 28.0 67177 6302 60875 45 2700 3.46 25.9 69916 7090 62826 50 3000 3.23 24.2 72521 7878 64643 55 3300 3.03 22.7 74834 8666 66168 60 3600 2.86 21.4 77056 9454 67603 65 3900 2.72 20.4 79391 10241 69150 70 4200 2.59 19.4 81412 11029 70383 75 4500 2.48 18.6 83523 11817 71706 80 4800 2.38 17.8 85498 12605 72894 85 5100 2.29 17.1 87407 13393 74014 90 5400 2.21 16.5 89315 14180 75135 95 5700 2.13 15.9 90864 14968 75896 100 6000 2.06 15.4 92503 15756 76747 105 6300 2.00 15.0 94300 16544 77756 110 6600 1.94 14.5 95826 17332 78495 115 6900 1.89 14.1 97600 18119 79481 120 7200 1.84 13.8 99149 18907 80242 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 = Input Variables Results Design Point Required Detention Volume Design Storm 1 Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,974.75 9,346.00 cu. ft. 4,976.00 4,975.28 32,313.50 cu. ft.0.53 ft. 4,978.40 89,588 cu. ft. 4,976.49 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,974.80 N/A 125 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,975.00 4,974.80 3,010 0.20 313.50 0.01 313.50 0.01 4,976.00 4,975.00 60,990 1.00 32,000.00 0.73 32,313.50 0.74 4,977.00 4,976.00 171,880 1.00 116,435.00 2.67 148,748.50 3.41 4,978.00 4,977.00 221,264 1.00 196,572.00 4.51 345,320.50 7.93 4,978.40 4,978.00 226,940 0.40 89,640.80 2.06 434,961.30 9.99 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 January 31, 2024 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):7 Orifice Area (sf):0.26 Orifice invert (ft):4,974.75 Orifice Coefficient:0.65 Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments 4,974.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,975.75 1.00 5.21 1.37 4,976.75 2.00 7.37 1.94 4,977.75 3.00 9.03 2.38 4,978.40 3.65 9.96 2.62 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 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 A1 Offsite Basin CDOT Type C Inlet A2 Offsite Basin CDOT Type C Inlet B2-S2 Basin B6 Single Combo Inlet 0.20 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.10 cfs 0.10 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.50 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.60 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.60 cfs 0.50 cfs 0.10 cfs Inlet B2-S3 Basin B7 Single Combo Inlet 0.20 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.10 cfs 0.10 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.80 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.90 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.90 cfs 0.80 cfs 0.10 cfs Inlet B4-1 Basin B5 CDOT 5' Type R 0.40 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.40 cfs 1.50 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.40 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.40 cfs 5.40 cfs 0.00 cfs 1.30 cfs 0.00 cfs 1.30 cfs 5.40 cfs 0.00 cfs REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AREA INLET REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AREA INLET 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 =0.0 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 =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 =0.015 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =9.0 21.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 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 =2.16 5.04 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 =3.67 6.55 inches Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)TX =7.0 19.0 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)EO =0.629 0.282 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 18.7 ft Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)TX TH =16.7 16.7 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)EO =0.318 0.318 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 B4-1 1 STORM B4-1 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 =3.7 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 =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 =1.6 6.0 cfs Interception with Clogging Qwa =1.5 5.4 cfs Curb Opening as an Orifice (based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qoi =7.8 9.8 cfs Interception with Clogging Qoa =7.0 8.8 cfs Curb Opening Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qmi =3.3 7.1 cfs Interception with Clogging Qma =3.0 6.4 cfs Resulting Curb Opening Capacity (assumes clogged condition)QCurb =1.5 5.4 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 =9.0 18.7 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 =0.14 0.33 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.47 0.77 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 =1.5 5.4 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.4 1.3 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 B4-1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =0.0 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 =21.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.025 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 =0.018 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.015 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =9.0 21.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =4.8 17.0 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-S2 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' 1 STORM B2-S2 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a')aLOCAL =2.0 2.0 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 =3.00 3.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W, Gutter Width) Wo =1.73 1.73 ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)Cf-G =0.50 0.50 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1)Cf-C =0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics: OK - Q < Allowable Street Capacity'MINOR MAJOR Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Inlet Management )Qo =0.2 0.6 cfs Water Spread Width T = 1.4 2.2 ft Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)d = 1.4 2.0 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at TMAX)dCROWN =0.0 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow Eo =1.008 1.003 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Qx =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W Qw =0.2 0.6 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face QBACK =0.0 0.0 cfs Flow Area within the Gutter Section W AW =0.07 0.17 sq ft Velocity within the Gutter Section W VW =2.9 3.5 fps Water Depth for Design Condition dLOCAL =3.4 4.0 inches Grate Analysis (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = 3.00 3.00 ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eo-GRATE =0.865 0.979 Under No-Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Minimum Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins Vo =1.56 1.56 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rf =0.93 0.83 Interception Rate of Side Flow Rx =0.30 0.18 Interception Capacity Qi =0.2 0.5 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = 0.50 0.50 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Le =1.50 1.50 ft Minimum Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins Vo =0.89 0.89 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rf =0.87 0.77 Interception Rate of Side Flow Rx =0.08 0.04 Actual Interception Capacity Qa =0.2 0.5 cfs Carry-Over Flow = Qo-Qa (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet)Qb =0.0 0.1 cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Equivalent Slope Se (based on grate carry-over) Se =0.166 0.166 ft/ft Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception LT =1.01 1.79 ft Under No-Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, LT)L = 1.01 1.79 ft Interception Capacity Qi =0.0 0.1 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0.17 0.17 Effective (Unclogged) Length Le =2.70 2.70 ft Actual Interception Capacity Qa =0.0 0.1 cfs Carry-Over Flow = Qb(GRATE)-Qa Qb =0.0 0.1 cfs Summary MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q = 0.2 0.5 cfs Total Inlet Carry-Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet)Qb =0.0 0.1 cfs Capture Percentage = Qa/Qo =C% = 90 89 % INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) CDOT/Denver 13 CombinationCDOT/Denver 13 Combination 1 STORM B2-S2 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =0.0 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 =21.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.025 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 =0.018 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.015 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =9.0 21.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 6.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) Maximum Capacity for 1/2 Street based On Allowable Spread Minor Storm Major Storm Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2)y =2.70 6.30 inches Vertical Depth between Gutter Lip and Gutter Flowline (usually 2")dC =2.0 2.0 inches Gutter Depression (dC - (W * Sx * 12))a =1.39 1.39 inches Water Depth at Gutter Flowline d =4.09 7.69 inches Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)TX =7.0 19.0 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)EO =0.597 0.269 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section TX QX =1.9 27.5 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W (QT - QX)QW =2.8 10.1 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns)QBACK =0.0 0.0 cfs Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Spread QT =4.8 37.7 cfs Flow Velocity within the Gutter Section V =5.5 9.1 fps V*d Product: Flow Velocity times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d =1.9 5.8 Maximum Capacity for 1/2 Street based on Allowable Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Theoretical Water Spread TTH =15.4 15.4 ft Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W)TX TH =13.4 13.4 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7)EO =0.368 0.368 Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section TX TH QX TH =10.8 10.8 cfs Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCROWN)QX =10.8 10.8 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - QX)QW =6.3 6.3 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 =17.0 17.0 cfs Average Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V =7.5 7.5 fps V*d Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d =3.8 3.8 Slope-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6") Storm R =1.00 1.00 Max Flow Based on Allowable Depth (Safety Factor Applied)Qd =17.0 17.0 cfs Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied)d =6.00 6.00 inches Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied)dCROWN =0.00 0.00 inches MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =4.8 17.0 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-S3 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' 1 STORM B2-S3 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a')aLOCAL =2.0 2.0 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 =3.00 3.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W, Gutter Width) Wo =1.73 1.73 ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)Cf-G =0.50 0.50 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1)Cf-C =0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics: OK - Q < Allowable Street Capacity'MINOR MAJOR Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Inlet Management )Qo =0.2 0.9 cfs Water Spread Width T = 1.4 3.6 ft Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)d = 1.4 2.5 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at TMAX)dCROWN =0.0 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow Eo =1.008 0.965 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx Qx =0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W Qw =0.2 0.9 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face QBACK =0.0 0.0 cfs Flow Area within the Gutter Section W AW =0.07 0.24 sq ft Velocity within the Gutter Section W VW =2.9 3.6 fps Water Depth for Design Condition dLOCAL =3.4 4.5 inches Grate Analysis (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = 3.00 3.00 ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eo-GRATE =0.865 0.923 Under No-Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Minimum Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins Vo =1.56 1.56 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rf =0.93 0.84 Interception Rate of Side Flow Rx =0.30 0.20 Interception Capacity Qi =0.2 0.7 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = 0.50 0.50 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Le =1.50 1.50 ft Minimum Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins Vo =0.89 0.89 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rf =0.87 0.78 Interception Rate of Side Flow Rx =0.08 0.05 Actual Interception Capacity Qa =0.2 0.7 cfs Carry-Over Flow = Qo-Qa (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet)Qb =0.0 0.2 cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Equivalent Slope Se (based on grate carry-over) Se =0.166 0.161 ft/ft Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception LT =1.01 2.35 ft Under No-Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, LT)L = 1.01 2.35 ft Interception Capacity Qi =0.0 0.1 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0.17 0.17 Effective (Unclogged) Length Le =2.70 2.70 ft Actual Interception Capacity Qa =0.0 0.1 cfs Carry-Over Flow = Qb(GRATE)-Qa Qb =0.0 0.1 cfs Summary MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q = 0.2 0.8 cfs Total Inlet Carry-Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet)Qb =0.0 0.1 cfs Capture Percentage = Qa/Qo =C% = 90 86 % INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) CDOT/Denver 13 CombinationCDOT/Denver 13 Combination 1 STORM B2-S3 STORM B STORM B STORM B2-E STORM B2-S STORM B2-S1 STORM C STORM C Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Thursday, Dec 14 2023 SWALE A-A Trapezoidal Bottom Width (ft) = 2.00 Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Invert Elev (ft) = 78.18 Slope (%) = 0.50 N-Value = 0.030 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 12.93 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.95 Q (cfs) = 12.93 Area (sqft) = 5.51 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.35 Wetted Perim (ft) = 9.83 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.71 Top Width (ft) = 9.60 EGL (ft) = 1.04 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Elev (ft) Depth (ft)Section 77.50 -0.68 78.00 -0.18 78.50 0.32 79.00 0.82 79.50 1.32 80.00 1.82 Reach (ft) 100-YR Q = 9.7 X 1.33 (Freeboard) = 12.93 cfs Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Monday, Jan 29 2024 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) = 11.62 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.87 Q (cfs) = 11.62 Area (sqft) = 3.03 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.84 Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.17 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.88 Top Width (ft) = 6.96 EGL (ft) = 1.10 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 = 8.74 X 1.33 (Freeboard) = 11.62 cfs Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Monday, Jan 29 2024 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) = 11.62 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.48 Q (cfs) = 11.62 Area (sqft) = 1.92 Velocity (ft/s) = 6.05 Wetted Perim (ft) = 4.96 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.50 Top Width (ft) = 4.00 EGL (ft) = 1.05 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 = 8.74 X 1.33 (Freeboard) = 11.62 cfs Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Thursday, Feb 1 2024 Spillway Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 60.00 Total Depth (ft) = 1.60 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 390.00 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 1.56 Q (cfs) = 390.00 Area (sqft) = 103.33 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.77 Top Width (ft) = 72.48 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Depth (ft) Depth (ft)Spillway -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. 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: 13.13 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 34%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.34 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.16 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1 0.21 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 9,346 <-- Calculated from above 0.53 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 1.06 <-- CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3 dia (in) =1 1/8 number of columns=1.00 number of rows =3.00 number of holes =3.00 Area Per Row =1.06 Total Outlet Area (in2) =3.17 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in 2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Water Quality for Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond N Mason Street Infrastructure M. Ruebel March 13, 2024 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 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 H Y D S FES FES W W W W W W W W W XXXXXX OHU OHU X X X X X S W W D UDUDUD UD U D U D UD UD a1 SITE OUTFALL LOCATION 6.98 ac. A1 0.40 ac. A4 1.32 ac. A2 0.32 ac. B3 0.35 ac. B4 0.06 ac. B6 0.23 ac. A7 0.18 ac. A6 1.39 ac. B1 0.64 ac. A5 0.41 ac. A3 0.09 ac. B7 0.13 ac. B5 0.86 ac. C1 0.08 ac. B2 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 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 _ 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 _ L I D . D W G MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE FORT COLLINS COLORADO MCR 1" = 100' 01/31/2024 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-A7, B1-B7) ·STANDARD WATER QUALITY AREA OF WATER QUALITY RESPONSIBILITY LOT 2 (BASINS A2-A7) ·LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT LOT 3 (BASINS B1, B2, B3) ·LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT F ES F ES F ES D X X UDUD F ES F ES F ES D X X 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 37,329 100% 100% 42,103TOTAL= 0 37,329 GRAVEL 11,936 40%4,774 LANDSCAPING 536,527 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 C1 (18" HDPE)8 8 4 9.70 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 CTL|Thompson, Inc. Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Glenwood Springs, Pueblo, Summit County – Colorado Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bozeman, Montana HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER SWC HIBDON COURT AND MASON STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Prepared for: DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 West 45th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80216 Attention: Chad Holtzinger Project No. FC10,520.000-125-R1 November 20, 2023 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MAXQ MAXQ MAXQ MAXQ HIBDON CT E. WILLOX LN. HICKORY ST. CO L L E G E A V E . SITE MA S O N S T . | UP DN DN DN MAXQ MAXQ MAXQ MAXQ 24EVR 23EVR 22EVR 21EVR 20EVR 29EVC 15EVC 13EVC 14EVC 16EVC 17EVC 18EVC 19EVC 12EV 11EV 10EV 9EV 25EVR 26EVR 27EVR 28EVR 31EVC 30EVC32EVC33EVC 35EVC 34EVC 36EVC 37EVC 38EVC 39EVC 40EVC | EL E V A T I O N - F E E T EL E V A T I O N - F E E T SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS LEGEND: BULK SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS. DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL 10/12 INDICATES 10 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.5-INCH O.D. SAMPLER 12 INCHES. WATER LEVEL MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING. CLAYSTONE, MOIST, VERY HARD, GREY CLAY, SANDY AND/OR SILTY, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO WET, MEDIUM STIFF TO VERY STIFF, BROWN (CL) SAND, GRAVELLY, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, WET, MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE, BROWN (SP) INDICATES DEPTH WHERE HOLE CAVED. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. FOUNDATION ELEVATION. THE BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON AUGUST 18TH, 2022 USING 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT AUGERS AND A TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILL RIG. NOTES: WATER LEVEL MEASURED AFTER DRILLING ON AUGUST 31, 2022. BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND WERE DETERMINED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR FIRM USING A LEICA GS18 GPS UNITREFERENCINGTHENORTHAMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD 83). INDICATES MOISTURE CONTENT (%). INDICATES DRY DENSITY (PCF). INDICATES SWELL WHEN WETTED UNDER APPROXIMATE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (%). INDICATES COMPRESSION WHEN WETTED UNDER APPROXIMATE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (%). INDICATES LIQUID LIMIT. INDICATES PLASTICITY INDEX. INDICATES PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (%). INDICATES UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf). INDICATES WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT (%). 4. WC DD SW COM LL PI -200 UC SS - - - - - - - - - HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE FIG. A-3 4,940 4,945 4,950 4,955 4,960 4,965 4,970 4,975 4,980 4,985 4,940 4,945 4,950 4,955 4,960 4,965 4,970 4,975 4,980 4,985 CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10520-125-R1 THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT. 1. 3. 2. WC=14.5DD=103LL=44 PI=24-200=91 WC=3.1-200=7 19/12 30/12 44/12 D-1 El. 4980.4 WC=7.0DD=98-200=73 14/12 WC=4.4-200=7 9/12 44/12 7/12 D-2 El. 4976.3 WC=15.0DD=97-200=82 WC=10.0DD=105-200=84 25/12 WC=4.9-200=5 10/12 24/12 50/8 D-3 El. 4981.6 S ELEC F ES M VAULT ELEC VAULTELEC VAULT ELEC CABLE CABLE VAULT ELEC CELEC ELEC ELEC CTV OH U OH U OHU E X X X X CT V CT V CTVCTV OHU XXXXX X X X CTV CTV CT V CTVCTVGGGGG CTVG SS SS SS SS SS SS SS H2O H2O ARV H2O H2O D H Y D S F ES FES W W W W W W W W W W W XXXXXXX OHU OHU OHU X X X X X W W W W W W W W W W W X W W W S S SS SS SS SS D W W W E (76.23) 74. 8 0 D-3 OBSERVED GWEL = 4973.5 CAVE IN ELEV.= 4974 D-1 OBSERVED GWEL = 4969.50 CAVE IN ELEV.= 4973.50 D-2 OBSERVED GWEL = 4968.5 CAVE IN ELEV.= 4973.50 (7 6 . 4 9 ) 75. 6 8 (79 . 5 1 ) 77. 1 0 (80 . 8 4 ) ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet08080 80 160 240 GROUNDWATER EXHIBIT FORT COLLINS, CO MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE E N G I N E E R N GI EHTRON R N XX.XX.XX C:\USERS\MASON\DESKTOP\GROUNDWATER EXHIBIT.DWG 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 APPENDIX F STORMWATER’ALTERNATIVE’ COMPLIANCE/VARIANCE’APPLICATION’ 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 ARV H2O H2O H Y D S F E S FE 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 X X 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 SS S S S S W W S XXX X X X X X SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 8" W X SSSS UDUDUDUDUDUDUD UD UD UD UD U D U D UD UD UD UD UD E V 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 80 . 1 8 80 . 7 7 b4 a1 b7 b5 a6 b3 a3 b6 a4 a2 a7 b2 2' CONCRETE PAN WATER QUALITY OUTLET STRUCTURE WITH RESTRICTOR PLATE 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 STORM DRAIN A SEE SHEET 16 STORM DRAIN B SEE SHEET 19 ONSITE 100-YR REQUIRED WSEL (4976.47) ONSITE 100-YR REQUIRED WSEL (4976.47) PROPOSED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE STORM DRAIN C SEE SHEET 18 DRAINAGE EASEMENT 4222 SQ. FT. of TMAX 1030 SQ. FT. of TMAX HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND (INTERIM) REQUIRED VOLUME= 2.06 AC.FT. REQUIRED WSEL = 4976.47 WATER QUALITY VOLUME = 9,346 CU.FT. WATER QUALITY WSEL = 4975.27 PROVIDED VOLUME = 9.99 AC.FT. LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 6.98 ac. A1 0.40 ac. A4 1.32 ac. A2 0.32 ac. B3 0.35 ac. B4 0.06 ac. B6 0.23 ac. A7 0.18 ac. A6 1.39 ac. B1 0.64 ac. A5 0.41 ac. A3 0.09 ac. B7 0.13 ac. B5 0.86 ac. C1 0.08 ac. B2 EXISTING 20' WATERLINE ALIGNMENT 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 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 10' UTILITY ALIGNMENT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 3' POWER LINE EASEMENT TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS BK 1475 PG 941 30' STORMWATER EASEMENT 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT S CO L L E G E A V E EXISTING 36" PIPE STORM DRAIN A SEE SHEET 16 DR1 DR A I N A G E E X H I B I T 41 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 42 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 HIBDON CT. M A S O N S T . HICKORY ST. 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 APRIL 24, 2024 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2.THE VOLUME SHOWN FOR THE INTERIM HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND DO 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 GRAVEL GEOGRID TURF REINFORCEMENT (TMAX) 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 SWALE SECTIONS SWALE SUMMARY TABLE C2 C100 Q2 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS S ELEC F E S 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 H YD 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 S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS D W W W W W SS S S S S W W S XXX X X X X X SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 8" W X SSSS 8" W S E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G G I UDUDUDUDUDUDUD UD UD U D U D U D U D UD UD UD UD UD 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 1 2 " S S 1 2 " S S 1 2 " S S 1 2 " S S 1 2 " S S 1 2 " S S 1 2 " S S 1 2 " S S 12" SS 12" SS 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8 " W 8" W 8" W 8" W SC E EEEEE E E T F S C E V W F 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 N M A S O N S T R E E T SSMH A2 EX SSMH A0 SSMH A3 SSMH A4 SSMH A5 SSMH A7 (5'Ø) N M A S O N S T R E E T HICKORY STREET EXISTING 20' WATERLINE ALIGNMENT 20' UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT OF BREW SUB. FIRST FILING RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT BK 929 PG 30 (WIDTH VARIES) 6' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1658 PG 746 6' UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT OF BREW SUB. FIRST FILING 30' NON-EXCLUSIVE ROADWAY/ACCESS EASEMENT BK 2125 PG 1500 10' ROW PSC EASEMENT BK 1430 PG 930 EXISTING 10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1658 PG 746 45' ROW BK 1743 PG 632 10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1572 PG 322 53.5' PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION LINE BK 923 PG 282 HIBDON COURT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1429 PG 750 20' IRRIGATION DITCH EASEMENT BK 1429 PG 750 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 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD EXISTING STORM DRAIN EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING 12" SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM INLET EXISTING 36" WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATERLINE 71' ROW LOT LINE FUTURE 42' FL-FL HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND CURB CUT AND SIDEWALK CHASE LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 PROPOSED WATER CAP EXISTING 8" WATER 20' UTILITY EASEMENT PER VALLEY STEEL & WIRE SUBDIVISION PLAT EXISTING 6' UTILITY ALIGNMENT R.O.W 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 9' UTILITY EASEMENT 9' UTILITY EASEMENT 71' ROW RELOCATED ELECTRIC LINE TIE INTO EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE 42'' FL-FL 42'' FL-FL 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 10' UTILITY ALIGNMENT 10' UTILITY ALIGNMENT STREET LIGHT & SINGLE PHASE TRANSFORMER SWITCH CABINET (TO BE COORDINATED WITH CITY OF FORT COLLINS LIGHT AND POWER) 2" METER PIT 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 12' GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 3' POWER LINE EASEMENT TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS BK 1475 PG 941 SWITCH CABINET 3 PHASE ELECTRIC BOX 3/4" IRRIGATION METER PROPOSED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE TRACT A 6" FIRE SERVICE SSMH A1 30' STORMWATER & UTILITY EASEMENT 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT 24' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT 6" SANITARY SERVICE 10' UTILITY EASEMENT CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER LINE ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT (BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT) 26' A C C E S S EAS E M E N T EXISTING CULVERT STUB A8 EXISTING AIR RELEASE VALVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT 15' GRAVEL GEOGRID ACCESS ROAD CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER LINE SSMH A6 71' ROW (BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT) MONITORING WELL MONITORING WELL STREET LIGHT & SINGLE PHASE TRANSFORMER STREET LIGHT & SINGLE PHASE TRANSFORMER STREET LIGHT & SINGLE PHASE TRANSFORMER 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ULTIMATE HICKORY POND OUTFALL PIPE (CONCEPTUAL 60"X38" HERCP) ULTIMATE MASON STREET CONVEYANCE PIPE (CONCEPTUAL 91"X58" HERCP) 10' 9. 1 7 ' 8' 6' 5.32'10' 8 . 1 1 ' 9' 8' 11' 17' ULTIMATE MASON STREET CONVEYANCE PIPE (CONCEPTUAL 91"X58" HERCP) EXISTING 12" SANITARY SEWER 18.5' SANITARY SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT 20' UTILITY EASEMENT PER MUSTANG SUBDIVISION 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT PER TRI-CO SUBDIVISION SANITARY SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet05050 50 100 150 KEYMAP HIBDON CT. M A S O N S T . HICKORY ST. EXISTING LOT LINE EASEMENT LINE SPROPOSED SEWER SERVICE WPROPOSED WATER SERVICE EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER LEGEND: G T EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING TELEPHONE EXISTING GAS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL PROPOSED STREET LIGHT W SS PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED ROW EXISTING ROW EXISTING CABLE CTV PROPOSED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ULTIMATE UTILITY PLANS FOR REFERENCE ONLY FORT COLLINS, CO MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE 4960 4965 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4995 4960 4965 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4995 9+50 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 16+50 98.95 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% JU N C T I O N 1 E ST A 1 3 + 0 0 . 8 9 RI M 4 9 8 1 . 9 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 1 . 8 3 ( N ) IN V . I N 4 9 7 6 . 5 6 ( N E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 4 . 0 5 ( S E ) 104.20 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% 11 . 2 5 ° B E N D 1 D ST A 1 2 + 0 1 . 9 4 RI M 4 9 7 9 . 6 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 3 . 8 5 ( N W ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 3 . 8 5 ( S E ) 29.68 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% JU N C T I O N 1 C ST A 1 1 + 7 2 . 2 5 RI M 4 9 8 0 . 8 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 3 . 7 9 ( N W ) IN V . I N 4 9 7 5 . 6 6 ( N E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 3 . 4 0 ( S E ) 27.18 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% 45 ° B E N D 1 B ST A 1 1 + 4 5 . 0 8 RI M 4 9 7 8 . 6 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 3 . 3 4 ( N W ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 3 . 3 4 ( S ) 72.05 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% HE A D W A L L 1 A ST A 1 0 + 7 3 . 0 3 IN V . 4 9 7 3 . 2 0 ( N ) 179.75 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% 11 . 2 5 ° B E N D 1 F ST A 1 4 + 0 5 . 0 9 RI M 4 9 7 7 . 8 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 2 . 0 4 ( N ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 2 . 0 4 ( S ) EXISTING GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE PROPOSED GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE 6" PVC SANITARY w/ 12" STEEL CASING PIPE 10FT EACH SIDE OF CROSSING STA.=12+14.69 INV.=4972.25 FUTURE GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE 0.48-FT 1.5-FT COVER2-FT COVER 2-FT COVER 8" W S E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E GGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G I 12" SS12" SS12" SS12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W E E E E E E E E TF EV WF 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S EL E C CT V CT V CT V CT V OH U OH U OH U CT V G G G G G G G SS SS SS SS H Y D S FE S FE S XX X W W W W W W W SS SS SS W W 45' ROW BK 1743 PG 632 71' ROW 71' ROW 26' ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ULTIMATE SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATERLINE 6" FIRE SERVICE 6" SANITARY SERVICE ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT (BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT) EXISTING CULVERT 2" WATER SERVICE WOOD RONALD G/ JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E 122 HIBDON COURT FORT COLLINS, CO THOMPSON PROPERTIES LLC 1319 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO LOT 2 LOT 3 N MAS O N S T R E E T HI B D O N C O U R T LOT 1 JUNCTION 1E STA 13+00.89 N: 137690.01 E: 194267.98 STMH 1E-1 INV. OUT=4976.68 (SW) FG=4980.12 11.25° BEND 1D STA 12+01.94 N: 137599.65 E: 194308.31 45° BEND 1B STA 11+45.08 N: 137553.17 E: 194341.06 HEADWALL 1A STA 10+73.03 N: 137482.18 E: 194328.75 11.25° BEND 1F STA 14+05.09 N: 137791.57 E: 194244.64 72.05 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% 27.18 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% 98.95 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% 104.20 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% 179.75 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% 31.18 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.40% JUNCTION 1C STA 11+72.25 N: 137575.39 E: 194325.41 INLET 1C-1 INV. OUT=4975.86 (SW) FG=4980.18 29.68 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 0.20% 20.20 LF 91"X58" HERCP @ 1.00% 8.0' 9.5' 10.0' 10.0' 8.7' 10.0' 10.4'10.0' 4.0' NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet03030 30 60 90 PROFILE SCALE: ULTIMATE STORM DRAIN 1 KEYMAP HIBDON CT. M A S O N S T . HICKORY ST. EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER LEGEND: W EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SS PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED LOT LINE PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING STORM SEWER EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION E N G I N E E R N GI EHTRON R N ULTIMATE STORM DRAIN PLAN & PROFILE FOR REFERENCE ONLY FORT COLLINS, CO MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE P:\1971-001\DWG\SHEETS_MASON STREET\DRAINAGE\1971-001_ULT_STRM 1 EXHIBIT_MASON STREET.DWG