The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER LOT 4 - FDP200011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 5 - Drainage Related Document November 15, 2023 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: Salud Family Health Centers 203 S. Rollie Ave. Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Prepared by: 301 N. Howes, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com Project Number: 1067-001  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 absolutely necessary, we recommend double-sided printing. November 15, 2023 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review. This report accompanies the Project Development Plan submittal for the proposed Salud Family Health Center development. This report has been prepared in accordance to Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed project. We understand that review by the City is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM. If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Mason Ruebel, PE Project Engineer Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 1 A. Location ............................................................................................................................................. 1 B. Description of Property ..................................................................................................................... 2 C. Floodplain ......................................................................................................................................... 3 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ........................................................................ 4 A. Major Basin Description .................................................................................................................... 4 B. Sub-Basin Description ....................................................................................................................... 4 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................... 5 A. Regulations ........................................................................................................................................ 5 B. Four Step Process .............................................................................................................................. 5 C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ............................................................................ 6 D. Hydrological Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6 E. Hydraulic Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 6 F. Modifications of Criteria ................................................................................................................... 6 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ..................................................................................... 7 A. General Concept ............................................................................................................................... 7 B. Specific Details .................................................................................................................................. 8 V. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 9 A. Compliance with Standards .............................................................................................................. 9 B. Drainage Concept .............................................................................................................................. 9 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations A.2 - Inlet Computations A.3 - Storm Line Computations A.4 - Rip Rap & Forebay Calculations APPENDIX B - USDA Soils Information APPENDIX C – SWMM Modeling; Detention Computations APPENDIX D – LID/Water Quality Treatment Information APPENDIX E – Erosion Control Report APPENDIX F – Stormwater Alternative Compliance/Variance Application-Pumped Detention Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report LIST OF FIGURES: Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 – Existing Floodplains ............................................................................................... 4 MAP POCKET: Proposed Drainage Exhibit Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1. Vicinity Map 2. The project site is located in the northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. 3. The project site is located just east of the intersection of Laporte Ave. and North Taft Hill Rd. 4. The proposed development site is in the City of Fort Collins West Vine Master Basin. Detention requirements for this basin are to detain the difference between the 100- year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate. However, due to site constraints, the proposed drainage concept for the site is to place an interim pumped detention pond in the northwest corner of Lot 6. 5. The pumped detention pond is to be located so that in the future a gravity tie-in to a future City of Fort Collins Regional Pond, which is anticipated to be constructed just northwest of the project site. In the interim period, the onsite detention pond will be pumped. The pump will be sized to discharge at a rate that adequately evacuates all Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 2 storm runoff from the pond to meet State of Colorado revised Statute 37-92-602(8). This states that 97% of all the stormwater runoff from a 5-year or less event be released within 72 hours of the storm event, and 99% of all of the stormwater runoff from greater than a 5-year event be released within 120 hours of the storm event. Water quality treatment methods are proposed for the site and are described in further detail below. 6. As this is an infill site, much of the area surrounding the site is fully developed. 7. A small amount of offsite flows enters the site from the east. Offsite runoff peak flow rates have been calculated and are provided in Appendix A. B. Description of Property 1. The development area is roughly 22.7 net acres. Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph 2. The subject property is currently composed of existing buildings, and landscaped areas. Existing ground slopes are mild to moderate (i.e., 1 - 6±%) through the interior of the property. General topography slopes from south to north; however, the front portion of the property has an existing parking lot that slopes from north to south, towards Laporte Avenue. 3. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey website: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, the site consists of Nunn Clay Loam, and Fort Collins Loam which fall into Hydrologic Soil Group C. SITE Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 3 4. The proposed project site plan is composed of the development of a medical building, associated parking and extension of a public roadway which will serve as access to the building and parking areas. Associated site work, water, and sewer lines will be constructed with the development. Onsite detention and water quality treatment is proposed and will consist of several features which are discussed in Section IV, below. Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan 5. There are no known irrigation laterals crossing the site. 6. The proposed land use is commercial. C. Floodplain 1. The project site is encroached by a City of Fort Collins designated floodplain (West Vine 100-year floodplain and floodway). No FEMA 100-year floodplains encroach the site. 2. It is noted that the West Vine floodplain spills from the Larimer Canal No. 2 irrigation ditch and enters the project site at two locations along the ditch. Grading within the project site allows for this spill to safely pass along the east and west side of the proposed building. The building finish floor will be raised a minimum of 18” above the 100-yr water surface elevation. Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 4 3. A separate Floodplain Modeling Report will be submitted to address proposed changes to the current floodplain and floodway through the site which will incorporate the grading within the site. The report will detail how floodplain will be routed to ensure no impact to surrounding properties. Figure 3 –Current City of Fort Collins Floodplain Mapping II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. Major Basin Description 1. The proposed development site is in the City of Fort Collins West Vine Master Basin. Detention requirements for this basin are to detain the difference between the 100- year developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate. However, due to site constraints, the proposed drainage concept for the site is to place an interim pumped detention pond in the northwest corner of Lot 6. B. Sub-Basin Description 1. The overall subject property historically drains overland from south to north. However, the front portion of the property has an existing parking lot that slopes from north to south, towards Laporte Avenue. 2. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns is provided below. Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 5 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the proposed project. B. Four Step Process The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the proposed 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 Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development to facilitate the reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the current use by implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID) strategies including: Conserving existing amenities in the site including the existing vegetated areas. Providing vegetated open areas throughout the site to reduce the overall impervious area and to minimize directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA). Routing flows, to the extent feasible, through vegetated swales to increase time of concentration, promote infiltration and provide initial water quality. Step 2 – Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with Slow Release The efforts taken in Step 1 will facilitate the reduction of runoff; however, urban development of this intensity will still generate stormwater runoff that will require additional BMPs and water quality. The majority of stormwater runoff from the site will ultimately be intercepted and treated using detention and LID treatment methods prior to exiting the site. Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways There are no major drainageways within the subject property. While this step may not seem applicable to proposed development, the project indirectly helps achieve stabilized drainageways, nonetheless. By providing water quality treatment, where none previously existed, sediment with erosion potential is removed from downstream drainageway systems. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as well as ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City-wide drainageway stability. Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs. The proposed project will improve upon site specific source controls compared to historic conditions: The proposed development will provide LID and water quality treatment; thus, eliminating sources of potential pollution previously left exposed to weathering and runoff processes. Standard Operating procedures (SOPs) will be implemented to remove sediment accumulation regularly and prolong the design life of the BMPs. Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 6 C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The subject property is surrounded by currently developed properties. Thus, several constraints have been identified during the course of this analysis that will impact the proposed drainage system including: Existing elevations along the property lines will generally be maintained. As previously mentioned, overall drainage patterns of the existing site will be maintained. Elevations of existing downstream facilities that the subject property will release to will be maintained. D. Hydrological Criteria 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 1. 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. F. Modifications of Criteria 1. The proposed development is not requesting any modifications to criteria at this time. Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 7 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept 1. The main objectives of the project drainage design are to maintain existing drainage patterns, and to ensure no adverse impacts to any adjacent properties. 2. LID will be provided in rain gardens upstream of the proposed detention pond. Water quality capture volume will be provided in the lower stage of the detention pond. Forebay volume and water quality capture volume computations are provided in Appendix D. 3. Drainage patterns anticipated for drainage basins shown in the Drainage Exhibit are described below. Drainage basins have been defined for preliminary design purposes and are subject to change at Final design; however, general drainage patterns and concepts are not expected to be significantly altered. Basins 1 and 6 Basin 1 is composed of primarily undeveloped and landscaped areas. Runoff will generally sheet flow to the north into the proposed detention pond. Basins 2 and 3 Basins 2 and 3 are composed of the current development areas which include the proposed roadway, parking areas, landscaped areas. Runoff from these basins will be conveyed into proposed LID rain gardens prior to discharge into Pond 1via proposed parking lot curb and gutter, inlets and storm systems shown on the Drainage Exhibit. Basin 4 Basin 4 is composed of primarily of the proposed building’s roof top. Runoff from the building will be captured in adjacent storm sewers and conveyed to proposed LID rain gardens prior to discharge into Pond 1. Basins 5 Basin 5 is composed of primarily undeveloped and landscaped areas. Runoff will generally sheet flow to the north into the adjacent property. We are not increasing land slope or drainage area and are not concentrating flow within this basin; therefore, no increase in runoff to offsite properties will be experienced. Basin 6 Basin 6 consists of the undeveloped area adjacent to the proposed parking lot. There is no stormwater discharge into this basin and flow will not be concentrated into a conveyance. This area will overland flow to Rain Garden 1. Basin 7 Basins 15 is anticipated to be developed in the future. The general drainage pattern is overland flow to the north. Runoff will be captured in Detention pond 1. LID treatment for this basin will be provided in the future when developed. Basins 8 and 9 Basins 8 and 9 are anticipated to be developed in the future. A future LID feature and detention pond is to be provided within Basin 9 which will detain and release into the currently proposed storm line running from this basin into proposed Pond 1. Basin 8, however, has been accounted for in the design of the proposed Pond 1 at the Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 8 northwest corner of the site, and future development of this basin will only need to create some form of acceptable LID at such time as the basin develops. Also, when this basin develops, conveyance will need to be constructed from the basin into the Pond 1. Basins 10, 11, and 12 Basins 10, 11, and 12 are anticipated to be developed in the future. General drainage patterns, based on existing topography are from south to north, into the Larimer Canal No. 2 irrigation ditch. These future development sites will be required to meet all City and Ditch standards when developed. We anticipate that these sites will need to detain flows as well as provide water quality treatment prior to discharge into the Larimer Canal No. 2. We are showing a “future” LID feature and detention pond on the Drainage Exhibit within Basin 11 and Basin 12 as a placeholder for LID and detention. We anticipate that in the future the LID feature and pond shown in Basin 12 will treat and detain runoff from Basins 11 and 12, and the LID feature and pond shown in Basin 10 will treat and detain runoff from Basin 10. It is noted, however, at which time the development occurs, current detention and water quality standards at the time of development will apply. Basin 13 Area within Basin 13 is currently composed of an existing parking lot and landscaped area, and historically drains south into Laporte Avenue. We anticipate future development of this area to maintain this drainage pattern. We understand that currently, in such a case, as long as imperviousness does not increase from historic conditions, detention would not be required, and we have noted the historic drainage quantity on the Drainage Exhibit. However, at which time development occurs, current City standards will apply. Basins 14 Basin 14 is composed of dedicated Right of Way that will serve as access for the proposed parking area and building in Basins 2 and 3. Runoff from this basin will be conveyed via curb and gutter south to Laporte Avenue. Basin OS1 Basin OS1 consists primarily of offsite area to the east of the site which historically drains across the project site. This offsite drainage will be accounted for, and the proposed storm system will be designed with the future development of Lot 5 to safely convey the 100-year flows from this offsite area. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. B. Specific Details 1. A detention basin is proposed in the west portion of the site and will detain up to the 100-year storm event and release at or below the allowable (for West Vine Basin) 2-year historic runoff rate calculated as 0.31 cfs per acre (Please see calculations provided in Appendix A). A lowered release rate is anticipated, as the release from the pond will be pumped. The pump will be sized to discharge at a rate of 0.60 cfs based on current design, requiring a 100-year detention volume of 4.03 acre-feet. This release rate has been Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 9 determined in order that both Pond 1 and a future interconnected Pond 2, as shown on the Drainage Exhibit will adequately evacuate all storm runoff from the interconnected pond system to meet State of Colorado revised Statute 37- 92-602(8). This states that 97% of all the stormwater runoff from a 5-year or less event be released within 72 hours of the storm event, and 99% of all of the stormwater runoff from greater than a 5-year event be released within 120 hours of the storm event. 2. A Stormwater Alternative Compliance/Variance Application for pumped detention is provided in Appendix F. 3. LID treatment is being provided within Rain Gardens 1, 2 and 3. These will provide more than the required LID treatment of 75% of the impervious site runoff. Please see Water Rain Garden computations provided in Appendix D. 4. Final design details, and construction documentation shall be provided to the City of Fort Collins for review prior to Final Development Plan approval. 5. Stormwater facility Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) will be provided by the City of Fort Collins in the Development Agreement. 6. Please see Table 1, below, for detention summary TABLE 1 – Detention Summary POND SUMMARY TABLE Pond ID 100-Yr. Detention Vol. (Ac-Ft) Total Vol. (Ac-Ft) 100-Yr. Detention WSEL (Ft) Peak Release (cfs) Total Req’d WQ Vol. (Ac-Ft) Pond 1 4.03 4.08 5041.17 0.61 0.028 V. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards 1. The drainage design proposed with the proposed project complies with the City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater Criteria Manual. 2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with requirements for the West Vine Basin. 3. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the proposed development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. B. Drainage Concept 1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential damage associated with its stormwater runoff by providing detention and water quality mitigation features. 2. The drainage concept for the proposed development is consistent with requirements for the West Vine Basin. Salud Family Health Center Final Drainage Report 10 References 1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 2. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007. 3. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 4. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. 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 1 105,115 2.41 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 2.38 3% 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.26 2.1 46,082 1.06 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 64% 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.84 2.2 7,719 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 47% 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.68 2.3 9,060 0.21 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 41% 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.62 2.4 42,914 0.99 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 73% 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.93 3.1 24,488 0.56 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 62% 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.82 3.2 28,043 0.64 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 80% 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.99 3.3 42,950 0.99 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 50% 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.71 4.1 5,399 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 90% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 4.2 16,853 0.39 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 90% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 4.3 23,991 0.55 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.11 73% 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 5 117,123 2.69 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.00 2.50 5% 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.28 6 26,753 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 3% 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.26 7 79,234 1.82 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 80% 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.99 8 102,629 2.36 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 80% 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 9 116,348 2.67 0.21 0.22 0.00 0.00 2.24 17% 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.40 10 30,750 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 2% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 11 64,369 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48 2% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 12 53,198 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22 2% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 13 18,313 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 2% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 14 10,033 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 71% 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.91 15 19,986 0.46 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 80% 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 OS1 46,928 1.08 0.34 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.39 62% 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.85 Rain Garden 1 178,771 4.10 1.58 0.92 0.00 0.00 1.60 59% 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.82 Rain Garden 2 42,950 0.99 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 50% 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 Rain Garden 3 24,488 0.56 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 62% 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.00 Detention Pond 1 745,267 17.11 7.00 1.28 0.17 0.00 8.66 49%2.87 2.87 2.87 1.00 Future Detention Pond 2 116,348 2.67 0.21 0.22 0.00 0.00 2.24 17% 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.40 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. Combined Basins DEVELOPED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS Asphalt, Concrete Rooftop Gravel Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Character of Surface:Salud Family Health Center Fort Collins M. Ruebel November 15, 2023 Lawns and Landscaping: Notes: 1) Rain Garden 1 consists of Basins 2.1-2.4, 4.1-4.3, & 6 2) Rain Garden 2 consists of Basins 3.3 2) Rain Garden 3 consists of Basins 3.1 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) 1 1 80 2.00%11.86 11.86 11.17 250 0.50%Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 0.59 4.92 0.85 11.83 12.70 11.83 12.70 11.83 12.02 11.83 2.1 2.1 25 2.00%3.17 3.17 1.93 530 2.00%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 4.62 1.91 13.08 5.09 5.09 5.09 5.09 3.84 5.00 2.2 2.2 110 2.00%8.68 8.68 6.57 40 0.50%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 2.31 0.29 10.83 8.97 8.97 8.97 8.97 6.86 6.86 2.3 2.3 110 2.00%9.42 9.42 7.50 60 0.50%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 2.31 0.43 10.94 9.85 9.85 9.85 9.85 7.93 7.93 2.4 2.4 100 2.00%5.24 5.24 2.46 215 0.70%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 2.73 1.31 11.75 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55 3.78 5.00 3.1 3.1 25 2.00%3.28 3.28 2.07 240 1.00%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 3.26 1.23 11.47 4.51 5.00 4.51 5.00 3.29 5.00 3.2 3.2 25 2.00%2.27 2.27 0.80 600 2.00%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 4.62 2.17 13.47 4.44 5.00 4.44 5.00 2.97 5.00 3.3 3.3 25 2.00%3.93 3.93 2.87 220 1.00%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 3.26 1.12 11.36 5.05 5.05 5.05 5.05 3.99 5.00 4.1 4.1 50 2.00%1.57 1.57 1.05 0 0.00%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 N/A N/A 0.00 10.28 1.57 5.00 1.57 5.00 1.05 5.00 4.2 4.2 230 2.00%3.38 3.38 2.25 0 0.00% Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 N/A N/A 0.00 11.28 3.38 5.00 3.38 5.00 2.25 5.00 4.3 4.3 85 2.00%4.15 4.15 1.43 255 2.00% Swale (4:1)0.03 4.00 8.25 0.48 5.20 0.82 11.89 4.97 5.00 4.97 5.00 2.24 5.00 5 5 350 0.50%38.49 38.49 35.99 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 11.94 38.49 11.94 38.49 11.94 35.99 11.94 6 6 290 1.50%24.87 24.87 23.44 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 11.61 24.87 11.61 24.87 11.61 23.44 11.61 7 7 400 1.50%9.98 9.98 3.49 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 12.22 9.98 9.98 9.98 9.98 3.49 5.00 8 8 400 2.80%7.98 7.98 2.68 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 12.22 7.98 7.98 7.98 7.98 2.68 5.00 9 9 300 3.20%17.12 17.12 15.35 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 11.67 17.12 11.67 17.12 11.67 15.35 11.67 10 10 200 2.50%17.54 17.54 16.56 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 11.11 17.54 11.11 17.54 11.11 16.56 11.11 11 11 250 2.00%21.12 21.12 19.95 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 11.39 21.12 11.39 21.12 11.39 19.95 11.39 12 12 140 4.50%12.06 12.06 11.39 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.78 12.06 10.78 12.06 10.78 11.39 10.78 13 13 150 2.00%16.36 16.36 15.45 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.83 16.36 10.83 16.36 10.83 15.45 10.83 14 14 25 2.00%2.77 2.77 1.42 120 0.70% Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 2.73 0.73 10.81 3.50 5.00 3.50 5.00 2.15 5.00 15 15 220 4.00%5.23 5.23 1.75 0 0.00% Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 11.22 5.23 5.23 5.23 5.23 1.75 5.00 os1 OS1 120 1.00%8.57 8.57 5.08 144 0.50% Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 2.31 1.04 11.47 9.61 9.61 9.61 9.61 6.12 6.12 Notes S = Longitudinal Slope, feet/feet R = Hydraulic Radius (feet) n = Roughness Coefficient V = Velocity (ft/sec) WP = Wetted Perimeter (ft) DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS Location: Maximum Tc:Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Channelized Flow, Velocity: Channelized Flow, Time of Concentration: Salud Family Health Center Fort Collins M. Ruebel November 15, 2023 Project: Calculations By: Date: Design Point Basin ID Overland Flow Channelized Flow Time of Concentration (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 1 1 2.41 11.8 11.8 11.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 3.6 7.3 0.5 1.0 1.8 4.6 2.1 2.1 1.06 5.1 5.1 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 2.9 4.9 10.0 1.0 2.0 3.5 8.8 2.2 2.2 0.18 9.0 9.0 6.9 0.5 0.5 0.7 2.4 4.0 9.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 2.3 2.3 0.21 9.9 9.9 7.9 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.3 3.9 8.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 2.4 2.4 0.99 6.5 6.5 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 2.6 4.4 10.0 1.0 1.9 3.3 9.2 3.1 3.1 0.56 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.5 1.1 1.8 4.6 3.2 3.2 0.64 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.7 1.5 2.5 6.4 3.3 3.3 0.99 5.1 5.1 5.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.8 1.6 2.7 7.0 4.1 4.1 0.12 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.2 4.2 4.2 0.39 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.5 1.0 1.8 3.8 4.3 4.3 0.55 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.6 1.3 2.1 5.5 5 5 2.69 11.9 11.9 11.9 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 3.6 7.3 0.6 1.3 2.2 5.6 6 6 0.61 11.6 11.6 11.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 3.6 7.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.2 7 7 1.82 10.0 10.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.3 3.9 10.0 1.6 3.3 5.6 18.0 8 8 2.36 8.0 8.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.5 4.2 10.0 2.3 4.6 7.9 23.4 9 9 2.67 11.7 11.7 11.7 0.3 0.3 0.4 2.1 3.6 7.3 0.9 1.8 3.1 7.8 10 10 0.71 11.1 11.1 11.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 3.6 7.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.3 11 11 1.48 11.4 11.4 11.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 3.6 7.4 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.7 12 12 1.22 10.8 10.8 10.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.2 3.7 7.6 0.3 0.5 0.9 2.3 13 13 0.42 10.8 10.8 10.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.2 3.7 7.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 14 14 0.23 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 2.1 15 15 0.46 5.2 5.2 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.5 1.0 1.8 4.6 os1 OS1 1.08 9.6 9.6 6.1 0.7 0.7 0.9 2.3 3.9 9.3 0.8 1.7 2.8 8.5 Fort Collins Project: Location: Calc. By: Flow (cfs) Intensity, I from Fig. 3.4.1 Fort Collins Stormwater Manual Rational Equation: Q = CiA (Equation 6-1 per MHFD) DEVELOPED DIRECT RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS Intensity Salud Family Health Center M. Ruebel November 15, 2023 Design Point Basin Area (acres) Runoff CTc (Min) Date: FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5) 3.0 Rational Method 3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method Page 8 Table 3.4-1. IDF Table for Rational Method Duration (min) Intensity 2-year (in/hr) Intensity 10-year (in/hr) Intensity 100-year (in/hr) Duration (min) Intensity 2-year (in/hr) Intensity 10-year (in/hr) Intensity 100-year (in/hr) 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 39 1.09 1.86 3.8 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 7 2.52 4.31 8.80 41 1.05 1.80 3.68 8 2.40 4.10 8.38 42 1.04 1.77 3.62 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 43 1.02 1.74 3.56 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 44 1.01 1.72 3.51 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 45 0.99 1.69 3.46 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 46 0.98 1.67 3.41 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 47 0.96 1.64 3.36 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 48 0.95 1.62 3.31 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 49 0.94 1.6 3.27 16 1.81 3.08 6.30 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 17 1.75 2.99 6.10 51 0.91 1.56 3.18 18 1.70 2.90 5.92 52 0.9 1.54 3.14 19 1.65 2.82 5.75 53 0.89 1.52 3.10 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 54 0.88 1.50 3.07 21 1.56 2.67 5.46 55 0.87 1.48 3.03 22 1.53 2.61 5.32 56 0.86 1.47 2.99 23 1.49 2.55 5.20 57 0.85 1.45 2.96 24 1.46 2.49 5.09 58 0.84 1.43 2.92 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 59 0.83 1.42 2.89 26 1.4 2.39 4.87 60 0.82 1.4 2.86 27 1.37 2.34 4.78 65 0.78 1.32 2.71 28 1.34 2.29 4.69 70 0.73 1.25 2.59 29 1.32 2.25 4.60 75 0.70 1.19 2.48 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 80 0.66 1.14 2.38 31 1.27 2.16 4.42 85 0.64 1.09 2.29 32 1.24 2.12 4.33 90 0.61 1.05 2.21 33 1.22 2.08 4.24 95 0.58 1.01 2.13 34 1.19 2.04 4.16 100 0.56 0.97 2.06 35 1.17 2.00 4.08 105 0.54 0.94 2.00 36 1.15 1.96 4.01 110 0.52 0.91 1.94 37 1.16 1.93 3.93 115 0.51 0.88 1.88 38 1.11 1.89 3.87 120 0.49 0.86 1.84 FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5) 3.0 Rational Method 3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method Page 9 Figure 3.4-1. Rainfall IDF Curve – Fort Collins APPENDIX A.2 INLET COMPUTATIONS Q2 Q10 Q100 Q2 Q10 Q100 Minor Major OUTLET 2C-1 NYLOPLAST 30" DOME 3.3 1.60 2.70 7.00 0 0 0 1.60 7.00 Inlet designed for 100-year flow OUTLET 2D-1 NYLOPLAST 30" DOME 3.1 1.10 1.80 4.60 0 0 0 1.10 4.60 Inlet designed for 100-year flow INLET 2E COMBO SINGLE 3.2 1.50 2.50 6.40 0 0 0 1.50 6.40 Inlet designed for 100-year flow INLET 3B-1 COMBO SINGLE 2.3 0.20 0.40 1.10 0 0 0 0.40 1.10 Inlet designed for 100-year flow INLET 3C NYLOPLAST 24" DOME 2.2 0.01 0.02 0.10 0 0 0 0.01 0.10 Inlet designed for 100-year flow INLET 3D COMBO SINGLE 2.2 0.20 0.40 1.10 0 0 0 0.20 1.10 Inlet designed for 100-year flow INLET 3F TYPE 13 DOUBLE 2.1 2.00 3.50 8.80 0 0 0 2.00 8.80 During 100-year flow 0.9 cfs will spill to Inlet 3G. Ponding Depth over inlet = 0.46 ft INLET 3G COMBO SINGLE 2.1 0.13 0.22 0.57 0 0 0.9 0.13 1.47 Inlet designed for 100-year flow and bypass flow from Inlet 3F. 100-yr flow calculated from portion of Basin 2.1 BASIN 3E-1 NYLOPLAST 8" DOME 2.1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0 0.0 0.01 0.02 Inlet designed for 100-year flow BASIN 3E-2 NYLOPLAST 8" DOME 2.1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0 0.0 0.01 0.02 Inlet designed for 100-year flow BASIN 5B NYLOPLAST 8" DOME 2.1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0 0.0 0.01 0.02 Inlet designed for 100-year flow BASIN 5C NYLOPLAST 8" DOME 2.1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0 0.0 0.01 0.02 Inlet designed for 100-year flow Inlet Summary Notes Qdesign (cfs)Base Flow (cfs) Bypass Flow (cfs)Inlet Inlet Type Inlet Size Design Point Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =10.0 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 =0.012 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.023 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 =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions 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) Salud Family Health Center Inlet 2E 1 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 8.3 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =0.43 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =3.30 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =0.00 0.00 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) =3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.66 0.66 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =0.523 0.718 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.53 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.94 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =0.94 1.00 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =3.6 6.4 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =1.5 6.4 cfs CDOT/Denver 13 Combination 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/Denver 13 Combination Override Depths 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 =ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.012 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =24.0 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 =24.0 24.0 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 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) Salud Family Health Center Inlet 3B-1 1 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =0.43 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =3.30 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =0.00 0.00 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) =3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.66 0.66 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =0.523 0.523 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.33 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.94 0.94 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =0.94 0.94 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =3.6 3.6 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.2 1.1 cfs CDOT/Denver 13 Combination 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/Denver 13 Combination Override Depths 1 Area Inlet Performance Curve: Salud - Inlet 3F Governing Equations: At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation: * where P = 2(L + W) * where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation: * where A equals the open area of the inlet grate * where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A) The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown. However, what is known, is that the stage-discharge curves of the weir equation and the orifice equation will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below: If H > 1.792 (A/P), then the grate operates like an orifice; otherwise it operates like a weir. Input Parameters: Type of Grate: CDOT Type 13 Inlet Shape Rectangular Length of Grate (ft): 1.92 Width of Grate (ft): 6.66 Open Area of Grate (ft2):10.87 Flowline Elevation (ft): 4941.970 Allowable Capacity: 50% Depth vs. Flow: Depth Above Inlet (ft) Elevation (ft) Shallow Weir Flow (cfs) Orifice Flow (cfs) Actual Flow (cfs) 0.00 4941.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 4942.07 0.81 9.24 0.81 0.20 4942.17 2.30 13.06 2.30 0.30 4942.27 4.23 16.00 4.23 0.40 4942.37 6.51 18.47 6.51 Q = 8.1 cfs 0.50 4942.47 9.10 20.65 9.10 Spill = 0.46' 0.60 4942.57 11.96 22.62 11.96 0.70 4942.67 15.07 24.44 15.07 0.80 4942.77 18.42 26.12 18.42 0.90 4942.87 21.98 27.71 21.98 1.00 4942.970 25.74 29.21 25.74 100-Year Design Flow = 9 cfs -- Spill elevation to Inlet 3F = 0.46' 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Di s c h a r g e ( c f s ) Stage (ft) Stage - Discharge Curves Series1 Series2 5.10.3 HPQ= 5.0)2(67.0 gHAQ= Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =10.0 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 =0.012 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 =21.0 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 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) Salud Family Health Center Inlet 3G 1 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =2.00 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 6.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =3.00 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =1.73 1.73 feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =0.43 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =3.30 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =0.60 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =3.00 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.50 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =5.25 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =0.00 0.00 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) =3.70 3.70 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.66 0.66 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =0.523 0.523 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.33 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.94 0.94 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =0.94 0.94 MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =3.6 3.6 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.1 1.5 cfs CDOT/Denver 13 Combination 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/Denver 13 Combination Override Depths 1 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 30" Dome Grate Inlet Capacity Chart Outlet 2C-1 100-yr Q = 7-cfs w/ 50% Clogging Q = 10.5 cfs 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 30" Dome Grate Inlet Capacity Chart Outlet 2D-1 100-yr Q = 4.4-cfs w/ 50% Clogging Q = 6.6 cfs 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 8" Dome Grate Inlet Capacity Chart BASIN 3E-1, 3E-2, 5B, & 5C 100-yr Q = 0.02-cfs w/ 50% Clogging Q = 0.03 cfs 3130 Verona Avenue • Buford, GA 30518 (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932-2443 • Fax: (770) 932-2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 24" Dome Grate Inlet Capacity Chart BASIN 3C 100-yr Q = 0.02-cfs w/ 50% Clogging Q = 0.03 cfs APPENDIX A.3 STORM LINE COMPUTATIONS WATER USU STORM DRAIN 2 STORM DRAIN 2 Storm Sewer Summary Report Page1 Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 Pipe-(50) 19.50 30 Cir 347.383 5037.33 5038.03 0.201 5038.83 5040.22 0.25 5040.47 End None 2 Pipe-(52) 12.50 24 Cir 241.670 5038.03 5039.64 0.666 5040.47 5041.04 0.07 5041.10 1 None 3 Pipe-(53) 7.90 24 Cir 82.638 5039.64 5039.80 0.193 5041.10 5041.20 0.04 5041.24 2 None 4 Pipe-(54) 1.50 15 Cir 27.382 5039.80 5039.94 0.512 5041.24' 5041.25` 0.02 5041.27 3 None Project File: Storm 2.stm Number of lines:4 Run Date: 11/14/2023 NOTES: Return period= 100 Yrs. : "Surcharged (HGL above crown). Srorm Sewers v2023 00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) {ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) {ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 30 19.50 5037.33 5038.83 1.50 3.07 6.36 0.63 5039.46 0.430 347.38 5038.03 5040.22 2.19 4.56 4.28 0.28 5040.50 0.174 0.302 1.049 0.88 0.25 2 24 12.50 5038.03 5040.47 2.00 3.14 3.98 0.25 5040.71 0.260 241.67 5039.64 5041.04 1.40 2.34 5.33 0.44 5041.48 0.373 0.317 0.766 0.15 0.07 3 24 7.90 5039.64 5041.10 1.46 2.46 3.21 0.16 5041.26 0.133 82.638 5039.80 5041.20 1.40 2.35 3.36 0.18 5041.38 0.148 0.140 0.116 0.20 0.04 4 15 1.50 5039.80 5041.24 1.25 1.23 1.22 0.02 5041.26 0.046 27.382 5039.94 5041.25 1.25 1.23 1.22 0.02 5041.27 0.046 0.046 0.013 1.00 0.02 Project File: Storm 2.stm Number of lines:4 Run Date: 11/14/2023 : c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2023.00 STORM DRAIN 2C STORM DRAIN 2C Storm Sewer Summary Report Page1 Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 Pipe-(69) 7.00 15 Cir 56.988 5038.26 5038.75 0.860 5039.32 5039.92 0.53 5040.46 End None Project File: Storm 2C.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 11/14/2023 NOTES: Return period= 100 Yrs. Srorm Sewers v2023 00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) {ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) {ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 15 7.00 5038.26 5039.32 1.06 1.11 6.31 0.62 5039.94 0.947 56.988 5038.75 5039.92 1.17 1.19 5.86 0.53 5040.46 0.865 0.906 0.517 1.00 0.53 Project File: Storm 2C.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 11/14/2023 : c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2023.00 STORM DRAIN 2D STORM DRAIN 2D Storm Sewer Summary Report Page1 Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 Pipe-(60) 4.60 12 Cir 11.000 5039.64 5039.71 0.635 5040.53 5040.71 0.53 5041.24 End None Project File: Storm 2D.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 11/14/2023 NOTES: Return period= 100 Yrs. Srorm Sewers v2023 00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) {ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) {ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 12 4.60 5039.64 5040.53 0.89 0.74 6.22 0.60 5041.13 1.261 11.000 5039.71 5040.71 1.00 0.79 5.86 0.53 5041.24 1.361 1.311 0.144 1.00 0.53 Project File: Storm 2D.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 11/14/2023 : c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2023.00 STORM DRAIN 3 STORM DRAIN 3 Storm Sewer Summary Report Page1 Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 Pipe-(46) 11.24 24 Cir 291.320 5040.20 5040.78 0.199 5041.40 5042.64 0.15 5042.79 End None 2 Pipe-(47) 10.14 24 Cir 55.978 5040.78 5040.90 0.215 5042.79 5042.88 0.02 5042.90 1 None 3 Pipe-(78) 10.12 24 Cir 57.101 5040.90 5041.01 0.192 5042.90 5042.99 0.13 5043.13 2 None 4 Pipe-(48) 9.02 24 Cir 49.369 5041.01 5041.11 0.203 5043.13' 5043.20` 0.02 5043.21 3 None 5 Pipe-(65) 9.00 24 Cir 84.568 5041.11 5041.28 0.201 5043.21 5043.28 0.11 5043.39 4 None 6 Pipe-(62) 0.37 15 Cir 37.662 5041.28 5041.47 0.506 5043.39" 5043.40' 0.00 5043.40 5 None Project File: Storm 3.stm Number of lines:6 Run Date: 11/14/2023 NOTES: Return period= 100 Yrs. : "Surcharged (HGL above crown). Srorm Sewers v2023 00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page1 Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) {ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) {ft/s) (ft) (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (K) (ft) 1 24 11.24 5040.20 5041.40 1.20 1.97 5.70 0.51 5041.91 0.464 291.32 5040.78 5042.64 1.86 3.04 3.70 0.21 5042.85 0.182 0.323 0.941 0.70 0.15 2 24 10.14 5040.78 5042.79 2.00 3.14 3.23 0.16 5042.95 0.171 55.978 5040.90 5042.88 1.98 3.13 3.24 0.16 5043.04 0.157 0.164 0.092 0.15 0.02 3 24 10.12 5040.90 5042-90 2.00� 3.14 3.22 0.16 5043.06 0.171 57.101 5041.01 5042.99 1.98 3.14 3.23 0.16 5043.16 0.158 0.164 0.094 0.83 0.13 4 24 9.02 5041.01 5043.13 2.00 3.14 2.87 0.13 5043.26 0.136 49.369 5041.11 5043.20 2.00 3.14 2.87 0.13 5043.32 0.136 0.136 0.067 0.15 0.02 5 24 9.00 5041.11 5043.21 2.00 3.14 2.87 0.13 5043.34 0.135 84.568 5041.28 5043.28 2.00 3.14 2.86 0.13 5043.41 0.132 0.134 0.113 0.90 0.11 6 15 0.37 5041.28 5043.39 1.25 1.23 0.30 0.00 5043.40 0.003 37.662 5041.47 5043.40 1.25 1.23 0.30 0.00 5043.40 0.003 0.003 0.001 1.00 0.00 Project File: Storm 3.stm Number of lines:6 Run Date: 11/14/2023 Notes:* depth assumed ; c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2023.00 APPENDIX A.4 RIP RAP & FOREBAY COMPUTATIONS Circular D or Da, Pipe Diameter (ft) H or Ha, Culvert Height (ft) W, Culvert Width (ft) Yt/D Q/D1.5 Q/D2.5 Yt/H Q/WH0.5 Storm Line 1 0.60 0.25 0.10 0.40 4.80 19.20 N/A N/A -11.60 19.20 0.12 -11.02 Type L 5.00 5.00 1.5 Storm Line 2 19.50 2.50 1.00 0.40 4.93 1.97 N/A N/A 5.68 1.97 3.90 7.95 Type L 8.00 10.00 1.5 Storm Line 4 (RG1) 5.70 0.50 0.20 0.40 16.12 32.24 N/A N/A -24.68 32.24 1.14 -128.32 Type L 5.00 5.00 1.5 Project: 1067-001 Urban Drainage pg MD-107 L= 1/(2tanq)* [At/Yt)-W] (ft) Design Discharge (cfs) Expansion Factor 1/(2tanq) (From Figure MD-23 or MD-24) Yt, Tailwater Depth (ft) CALCULATIONS FOR RIPRAP PROTECTION AT PIPE OUTLETS Circular Pipe (Figure MD-21) Rectangular Pipe (Figure MD-22)Spec Width of Riprap (ft) 2*d50, Depth of Riprap (ft) for L/2 Froude Parameter Q/D2.5 Max 6.0 or Q/WH1.5 Max 8.0 Riprap Type (From Figure MD-21 or MD-22) By: M. Ruebel CALCULATE Date: 11/15/2023 Culvert Parameters At=Q/V (ft) INPUT Storm Line/Culvert Label OUTPUT Spec Length of Riprap (ft) Box Culvert 1067-001 Fort Collins, CO M. Ruebel Date:11/14/2023 ID Total Undetained Area Contributing to Pond Percent Impervious WQCV Forebay Volume Forebay Depth Forebay Area Length Width Forebay Release (2%) (ac) (%) (ac-ft) 1% of WQCV (ft)(ft2)(ft) (ft) (cfs) RG 1 0.96 73% 0.027768 0.000277684 1 12 3 4 0.18 RG 2 0.98 50% 0.020213 0.000202125 1 9 4.5 2 0.14 RG 3 0.58 62% 0.014096 0.000140965 1 6 3 4 0.09 STM 3 1.44 58% 0.033068 0.000330676 1 14 3 6 0.22 Urban Drainage Equation 3-1 Urban Drainage Equation 3-3 Urban Drainage Table 3-2 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By: Forebay Calculations () ( ) ( ) ( )hoursa hoursa hoursa AWQCVV IIIaWQCV 400.1 249.0 128.0 12 78.019.191.0 23 = = =   = +-= Turf Reinforcement Mat -100yr Spillway from Rain Garden 1 into Detention Pond 1 APPENDIX B WATER USUUSDA SOILS INFORMATION United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Larimer County Area, ColoradoNatural Resources Conservation Service May 17, 2016 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 (http:// 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 alternative means 2 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..................................................................................................................7 Soil Map................................................................................................................8 Legend..................................................................................................................9 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................10 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................10 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................12 35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................................12 36—Fort Collins loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes..............................................13 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 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 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 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 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 6 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. 7 8 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 9 3 1 5 0 44 9 3 2 1 0 44 9 3 2 7 0 44 9 3 3 3 0 44 9 3 3 9 0 44 9 3 4 5 0 44 9 3 5 1 0 44 9 3 1 5 0 44 9 3 2 1 0 44 9 3 2 7 0 44 9 3 3 3 0 44 9 3 3 9 0 44 9 3 4 5 0 44 9 3 5 1 0 490470 490530 490590 490650 490710 490770 490830 490890 490950 491010 491070 490470 490530 490590 490650 490710 490770 490830 490890 490950 491010 491070 40° 35' 33'' N 10 5 ° 6 ' 4 5 ' ' W 40° 35' 33'' N 10 5 ° 6 ' 1 9 ' ' W 40° 35' 19'' N 10 5 ° 6 ' 4 5 ' ' W 40° 35' 19'' N 10 5 ° 6 ' 1 9 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 40 80 160 240 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,850 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. 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: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov 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 10, Sep 22, 2015 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 22, 2011—Apr 28, 2011 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 9 Map Unit Legend Larimer County Area, Colorado (CO644) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 10.8 30.4% 36 Fort Collins loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 9.5 26.5% 74 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 15.3 43.1% Totals for Area of Interest 35.6 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 10 on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Larimer County Area, Colorado 35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlnc Elevation: 4,020 to 6,730 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 143 to 154 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Fort collins and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Fort Collins Setting Landform: Interfluves Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene or older alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam Bt1 - 4 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 16 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 16 to 29 inches: loam Bk2 - 29 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 12 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 0.5 Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Minor Components Nunn Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, base slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO) 36—Fort Collins loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpw9 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 Fort collins and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Fort Collins Setting Landform: Terraces, fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, riser Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: loam H2 - 9 to 20 inches: loam, clay loam H2 - 9 to 20 inches: loam, silt loam, fine sandy loam H3 - 20 to 60 inches: H3 - 20 to 60 inches: H3 - 20 to 60 inches: Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 25.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067XY002CO) Minor Components Ascalon Percent of map unit: 5 percent Kim Percent of map unit: 3 percent Stoneham Percent of map unit: 2 percent 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxn Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn 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, fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, tread Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: clay loam H2 - 10 to 60 inches: clay loam, clay H2 - 10 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well 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: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 18.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Minor Components Ulm Percent of map unit: 10 percent Satanta Percent of map unit: 5 percent 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 APPENDIX C SWMM Modeling; Detention Computations SUB-1 SUB2 FORNEYPOND POND1 POND2 FORTCOLLINS 03/15/2016 00:40:00 SWMM 5.1 Page 1 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.2 (Build 5.2.2) ------------------------------------------------------------ **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE Starting Date ............ 03/15/2016 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 03/20/2016 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:05:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00 Routing Time Step ........ 30.00 sec ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 6.048 3.669 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 1.456 0.883 Surface Runoff ........... 4.531 2.749 Final Storage ............ 0.089 0.054 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.453 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 4.531 1.476 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 4.530 1.476 SWMM 5.1 Page 1 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.014 ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 30.00 sec Average Time Step : 30.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 30.00 sec % of Time in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 1.00 % of Steps Not Converging : 0.00 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUB-1 3.67 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.76 0.87 2.64 1.22 79.77 0.718 SUB2 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 3.24 0.23 3.47 0.25 25.60 0.946 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FORNEYPOND OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 5037.10 0 00:00 0.00 SWMM 5.1 Page 2 POND1 STORAGE 2.09 3.98 5041.18 0 06:53 3.98 POND2 STORAGE 0.14 3.20 5043.14 0 01:27 3.20 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FORNEYPOND OUTFALL 0.00 0.60 0 00:00 0 1.48 0.000 POND1 STORAGE 79.77 80.71 0 00:00 1.01 1.48 0.004 POND2 STORAGE 25.60 25.60 0 00:00 0.171 0.252 0.055 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft³ Full Loss Loss 1000 ft³ Full days hr:min CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ POND1 73.312 41.4 0.0 0.0 175.716 99.3 0 06:53 0.60 POND2 1.106 3.5 0.0 0.0 25.602 80.0 0 01:27 1.38 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- SWMM 5.1 Page 3 FORNEYPOND 81.42 0.56 0.60 1.476 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 81.42 0.56 0.60 1.476 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND2_OUTFALL DUMMY 1.38 0 01:27 POND1_OUTFALL DUMMY 0.60 0 00:00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Tue Nov 14 08:07:35 2023 Analysis ended on: Tue Nov 14 08:07:35 2023 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec SWMM 5.1 Page 4 Elapsed Time (hours) 120100806040200 Vo l u m e ( f t ³ ) 180000.0 160000.0 140000.0 120000.0 100000.0 80000.0 60000.0 40000.0 20000.0 0.0 Node POND1 Volume (ft³) SWMM 5.1 Page 1 Elapsed Time (hours) 120100806040200 Fl o w ( C F S ) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Link POND1_OUTFALL Flow (CFS) SWMM 5.1 Page 1 Project: Date: Pond No.: 5,037.00 1,219.00 cu. ft. 5,038.00 5,037.61 5,599.80 cu. ft.0.61 ft. 5,042.00 175,716 cu. ft. 5,041.17 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 5,037.20 N/A 443 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,037.40 5,037.20 2,492 0.20 293.51 0.01 293.51 0.01 5,037.60 5,037.40 6,175 0.20 866.69 0.02 1,160.20 0.03 5,037.80 5,037.60 11,028 0.20 1,720.29 0.04 2,880.48 0.07 5,038.00 5,037.80 16,165 0.20 2,719.32 0.06 5,599.80 0.13 5,038.20 5,038.00 22,083 0.20 3,824.78 0.09 9,424.58 0.22 5,038.40 5,038.20 28,862 0.20 5,094.48 0.12 14,519.07 0.33 5,038.60 5,038.40 35,666 0.20 6,452.83 0.15 20,971.89 0.48 5,038.80 5,038.60 41,653 0.20 7,731.96 0.18 28,703.85 0.66 5,039.00 5,038.80 46,986 0.20 8,863.91 0.20 37,567.76 0.86 5,039.20 5,039.00 51,705 0.20 9,869.12 0.23 47,436.88 1.09 5,039.40 5,039.20 55,841 0.20 10,754.66 0.25 58,191.54 1.34 5,039.60 5,039.40 59,221 0.20 11,506.24 0.26 69,697.78 1.60 5,039.80 5,039.60 61,916 0.20 12,113.69 0.28 81,811.46 1.88 5,040.00 5,039.80 64,261 0.20 12,617.67 0.29 94,429.13 2.17 5,040.20 5,040.00 66,361 0.20 13,062.22 0.30 107,491.35 2.47 5,040.40 5,040.20 68,212 0.20 13,457.34 0.31 120,948.68 2.78 5,040.60 5,040.40 69,727 0.20 13,793.95 0.32 134,742.63 3.09 5,040.80 5,040.60 70,920 0.20 14,064.70 0.32 148,807.33 3.42 5,041.00 5,040.80 72,063 0.20 14,298.24 0.33 163,105.57 3.74 5,041.20 5,041.00 73,214 0.20 14,527.64 0.33 177,633.21 4.08 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: Salud Family Health Center November 15, 2023 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Detention Pond 1 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:Detention Pond 1 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: 1 Stormwater Facility Name: Facility Location & Jurisdiction: User Input: Watershed Characteristics User Defined User Defined User Defined User Defined Selected BMP Type = EDB Stage [ft] Area [ft^2] Stage [ft] Discharge [cfs] Watershed Area = 17.50 acres 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Watershed Length =900 ft 0.20 478 0.20 0.59 Watershed Length to Centroid = 400 ft 1.00 10,022 1.00 0.60 Watershed Slope =0.020 ft/ft 2.00 34,981 2.00 0.60 Watershed Imperviousness = 39.0%percent 3.00 57,303 3.00 0.60 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A = 0.0%percent 4.00 67,767 4.00 0.60 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group B = 26.5%percent 5.00 72,924 5.00 0.61 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D = 73.5%percent Target WQCV Drain Time = 40.0 hours Front Range Airport After completing and printing this worksheet to a pdf, go to: https://maperture.digitaldataservices.com/gvh/?viewer=cswdif Create a new stormwater facility, and attach the PDF of this worksheet to that record. Routed Hydrograph Results Design Storm Return Period =WQCV 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 50 Year 100 Year One-Hour Rainfall Depth =N/A 0.85 1.14 1.41 2.17 2.55 in CUHP Runoff Volume =0.258 0.412 0.663 0.979 2.124 2.740 acre-ft Inflow Hydrograph Volume =N/A 0.412 0.663 0.979 2.124 2.740 acre-ft Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume =5.1 8.3 13.2 19.3 41.8 53.8 hours Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume =5.2 8.5 13.4 19.8 42.6 54.9 hours Maximum Ponding Depth =1.45 1.55 1.93 2.29 3.25 3.68 ft Maximum Ponded Area =0.49 0.54 0.76 0.95 1.38 1.48 acres Maximum Volume Stored =0.258 0.309 0.553 0.868 2.008 2.623 acre-ft Once CUHP has been run and the Stage-Area-Discharge information has been provided, click 'Process Data' to interpolate the Stage-Area-Volume-Discharge data and generate summary results in the table below. Once this is complete, click 'Print to PDF'. Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet Salud Fort Collins, CO SDI-Design Data v2.00, Released January 2020 Location for 1-hr Rainfall Depths (use dropdown): After providing required inputs above including 1-hour rainfall depths, click 'Run CUHP' to generate runoff hydrographs using the embedded Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure. SDI_Design_Data_v2.00, Design Data 4/7/2021, 7:40 AM Booleans for Message Booleans for CUHP Watershed L:W 1 CUHP Inputs Complete Watershed Lc:L 1 CUHP Results Calculated Watershed Slope FALSE Time Interval RunOnce 1 CountA 1 Draintime Coeff 1.0 User Precip 1 Equal SA Inputs 1 Equal SD Inputs 1 Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.1 1 10 FL O W [ c f s ] TIME [hr] 100YR IN 100YR OUT 50YR IN 50YR OUT 10YR IN 10YR OUT 5YR IN 5YR OUT 2YR IN 2YR OUT WQCV IN WQCV OUT 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0.1 1 10 100 PO N D I N G D E P T H [ f t ] DRAIN TIME [hr] 100YR 50YR 10YR 5YR 2YR WQCV SDI_Design_Data_v2.00, Design Data 4/7/2021, 7:40 AM SECTION PAGE DATE USA: (937) 778-8947 • Canada: (905) 457-6223 • International: (937) 615-3598A Crane Co. Company 1½", 2" & 3" Discharge 57 1B www.cranepumps.com Series 3SE-L 2½" Spherical Solids Handling Single Seal DISCHARGE ...............................3” NPT, Female, Vertical 3” Flanged, Horizontal LIQUID TEMPERATURE .............104°F (40°C) Continuous VOLUTE .......................................Cast Iron ASTM, Class 30 MOTOR HOUSING ......................Cast Iron ASTM A-48, Class 30 SEAL PLATE ..............................Cast Iron, Class 30 IMPELLER: Design ....................2 Vane, semi-open with pump out vanes on back side. Dynamically balanced, ISO G6.3 Material ..................Cast Iron, Class 30 SHAFT ........................................416 Stainless Steel SQUARE RINGS ..........................Buna-N HARDWARE ................................300 Series Stainless Steel PAINT ...........................................Air Dry Enamel SEAL: Design ....................Single Mechanical, Oil filled reservoir Material ...................Carbon/Ceramic/Buna-N Hardware -300 Series Stainless CORD ENTRY ..............................30 ft. (9.1m) Cord. Quick connect custom molded for sealing and strain relief. SPEED .........................................1750 RPM (Nominal) UPPER BEARING ........................Single Row, Ball, Oil lubricated Load ........................Radial LOWER BEARING .......................Single Row, Ball, Oil lubricated Load ........................Radial & Thrust MOTOR: Design ....................NEMA L -Single Phase, NEMA B -Three phase Torque Curve, Oil Filled, Squirrel Cage Induction Insulation.................Class B Class F on selected models SINGLE PHASE ...........................Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) Includes Overload Protection in Motor THREE PHASE ............................230/460 is Dual Voltage. 575. Requires overload Protection to be included in control panel OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT .............Seal Material, Impeller Trims, Additional cord. Temperature Sensor Normally Closed, Requires relay in control panel. RECOMMENDED: Accessories .............Break Away Fitting (BAF) Check Valve Control Panel Seal Kit PN .............130182 Service Kit PN .........130209 3/20 DESCRIPTION: SUBMERSIBLE NON-CLOG SEWAGE PUMP DESIGNED FOR TYPICAL RAW SEWAGE APPLICATIONS Series: 3SE-L 3HP, 1750RPM, 60Hz Series: 3SEH-L 3HP, 1750RPM, 60Hz Sample Specifications: Section 1 Page 3. WARNING: CANCER AND REPRODUCTIVE HARM - WWW.P65WARNINGS.CA.GOV LR16567 ® C US SECTION PAGE DATE 1½", 2" & 3" Discharge USA: (937) 778-8947 • Canada: (905) 457-6223 • International: (937) 615-3598A Crane Co. Company 58 1B www.cranepumps.com 24.38 (619) 9.60 (244) 8.25 (210) 14.56 (370) 2.15 (55) 12.63 (321) 6.32 (161) 3.00 N.P.T. DISCHARGE 24.38 (619) 5.94 (244) 8.25 (210) 15.36 (390) 12.72 (323) 6.35 (161) 3.00 125# FLANGE Series 3SE-L 2½" Spherical Solids Handling Single Seal IMPORTANT ! 1.) PUMP MAY BE OPERATED “DRY” FOR EXTENDED PERIODS WITHOUT DAMAGE TO MOTOR AND/OR SEALS. 2.) INSTALLATIONS SUCH AS DECORATIVE FOUNTAINS OR WATER FEATURES PROVIDED FOR VISUAL ENJOYMENT MUST BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE ANSI/NFPA 70 AND/OR THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. THIS PUMP IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN SWIMMING POOLS, RECREATIONAL WATER PARKS, OR INSTALLATIONS IN WHICH HUMAN CONTACT WITH PUMPED MEDIA IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE. inches (mm) MODEL NO PART NO HP VOLT/PH Hz RPM (Nom) NEMA START CODE INSUL. CLASS FULL LOAD AMPS LOCKED ROTOR AMPS CORD SIZE CORD TYPE CORD O.D inch (mm) VERTICAL Series 3SE3024L 133115 3.0 230/1 60 1750 A F 28.0 59.0 10/3 SOOW/SOW .66 (16.8) 3SE3034L 133116 3.0 230/3 60 1750 D F 19.0 56.0 12/4 SOOW/SOW .68 (17.4) 3SE3044L 133117 3.0 460/3 60 1750 D F 9.0 28.0 14/4 SOOW/SOW .57 (14.5) 3SE3054L 133118 3.0 575/3 60 1750 E B 5.9 23.0 14/4 SOOW/SOW .57 (14.5) HORIZONTAL Series 3SEH3024L 133115H 3.0 230/1 60 1750 A F 28.0 59.0 10/3 SOOW/SOW .66 (16.8) 3SEH3034L 133116H 3.0 230/3 60 1750 D F 19.0 56.0 12/4 SOOW/SOW .68 (17.4) 3SEH3044L 133117H 3.0 460/3 60 1750 D F 9.0 28.0 14/4 SOOW/SOW .57 (14.5) 3SEH3054L 133118H 3.0 575/3 60 1750 E B 5.9 23.0 14/4 SOOW/SOW .57 (14.5) OPTIONAL - Temperature sensor cord for 3 phase models is 18/5 SOOW/SOW, 0.470 (11.9mm) O.D. 3/20 1½", 2" & 3" Discharge SECTION PAGE DATE USA: (937) 778-8947 • Canada: (905) 457-6223 • International: (937) 615-3598A Crane Co. Company 59 1B www.cranepumps.com Series 3SE-L Performance Curve 3HP, 1750RPM, 60Hz 100 200 300 400 500 600 20 40 60 80 100 4 16 20 24 28 30510152025 35 8 12 STANDARD IMPELLER SIZES Service Factor: 1.85 3.0 Pump HP Impeller Dia. 7.75 (197) HEAD FEET TOTAL METERS 7.75 (197) 45% U.S. GALLONS PER MINUTE LITERS PER SECOND V88799 50% 55% 60% 55% 50% 45% 7.50 (191) 7.25 (184) 6.75 (171) 6.25 (159) 5.88 (149) inches (mm) Testing is performed with water, specific gravity 1.0 @ 68º F @ (20ºC), other fluids may vary performance 12/19 270 Gpm @ 13' TDH APPENDIX D LID/WATER QUALITY TREATMENT INFORMATION X X X X X X X X X GV X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S S X X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX S MMM MH M MH M X X util M X X SS X X X X X X X X X GATE G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G TF G G G G G E G GABRIEL PROPERTIES, LLC DAVID & GRETCHEN OSBORN 1760 W. LAPORTE AVE, LLC WILLIAM S. ECKERT ERNEST M. & KRISTEN K. SCHMIDTBERGER ERNEST M. & KRISTEN K. SCHMIDTBERGER CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAPORTE AVENUE LLC LAPORTE AVENUE LLC JACOB BROADCASTING OF COLORADO DAVID & GRETCHEN OSBORN PROPOSED BUILDING DAVID & GRETCHEN OSBORN GABRIEL PROPERTIES, LLC PROPOSED INLET PROPOSED INLET DETENTION / EXTENDED DETENTION POND 1 RAIN GARDEN 1 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 6 LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 5 LOT 7 OUTLET STRUCTURE RAIN GARDEN 2 RAIN GARDEN 3 OUTLET STRUCTURE OUTLET STRUCTURE LID PROVIDED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LID PROVIDED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LID PROVIDED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LID PROVIDED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LID PROVIDED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LID PROVIDED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LID PROVIDED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LID PROVIDED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED INLET 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 8 12 9 13 10 11 14 1 5 OS1 15 6 7 FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 60 FEET 60 60 120 180 NORTH E N G I N E E R N GI EHTRON R N LID EXHIBIT 01.30.2021 FORT COLLINS, CO SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER P:\1067-001\DWG\DRNG\1067-001_LID.DWG OS1 LEGEND: PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED VERTICAL PROPOSED OVERLAND FLOW DIRECTION CURB & GUTTER EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING INLET GRATE UDPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED RIBBON CURB BASIN ACREAGE BASIN DELINEATION PROPOSED BASIN LINES Water Quailty Summary per Basin Basin ID Area Percent Impervious LID ID Treatment Type Total Impervious Area (sq. ft.)Sq. Ft.Acres 1 105,115 2.41 3%n/a n/a 3,053 2.1 46,082 1.06 64%RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 29,362 2.2 7,719 0.18 47%RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 3,606 2.3 9,060 0.21 41%RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 3,671 2.4 42,914 0.99 73%RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 31,540 3.1 24,488 0.56 62%RAIN GARDEN 3 Rain Garden 15,124 3.2 28,043 0.64 80%n/a n/a 22,308 3.3 42,950 0.99 50%RAIN GARDEN 2 Rain Garden 21,670 4.1 5,399 0.12 90%RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 4,859 4.2 16,853 0.39 90%RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 15,168 4.3 23,991 0.55 73%RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 17,395 5 117,123 2.69 5%n/a n/a 6,362 6 26,753 0.61 3%RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 741 14 10,033 0.23 71%n/a n/a 7,115 LID Summary Per LID Method LID ID Area Weighted % Impervious Treatment Type Required Volume (cu. ft.) Total Impervious Area (sq. ft.)Sq. Ft.Acres RAIN GARDEN 1 178,771 4.10 59%Rain Garden 2,775 106,342 RAIN GARDEN 2 42,950 0.99 50%Rain Garden 591 21,670 RAIN GARDEN 3 24,488 0.56 62%Rain Garden 397 15,124 Total 246,209 5.65 3,763 143,136 LID Site Summary Total Site Area 506,523 sq. ft. Total Impervious Area with LID Treatment 143,136 sq. ft. Total Impervious Area without LID Treatment 38,837 sq. ft. Total Impervious Area 181,973 sq. ft. 75% Requried Minium Area to be Treated 136,480 cu. ft. Total Treated Area 143,136 sq. ft. Percent Impervious Treated by LID 79% Project Number:Project: Project Location: Calculations By:Date: Sq. Ft.Acres 1 105,115 2.41 3% n/a n/a 0 3,053 2.1 46,082 1.06 64% RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 2,775 29,362 2.2 7,719 0.18 47% RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 2,775 3,606 2.3 9,060 0.21 41% RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 2,775 3,671 2.4 42,914 0.99 73% RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 2,775 31,540 3.1 24,488 0.56 62% RAIN GARDEN 3 Rain Garden 397 15,124 3.2 28,043 0.64 80% n/a n/a 0 22,308 3.3 42,950 0.99 50% RAIN GARDEN 2 Rain Garden 591 21,670 4.1 5,399 0.12 90% RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 2,775 4,859 4.2 16,853 0.39 90% RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 2,775 15,168 4.3 23,991 0.55 73% RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 2,775 17,395 5 117,123 2.69 5% n/a n/a 0 6,362 6 26,753 0.61 3% RAIN GARDEN 1 Rain Garden 2,775 741 14 10,033 0.23 71% n/a n/a 0 7,115 Total 506,523 11.63 181,973 Sq. Ft. Acres RAIN GARDEN 1 178,771 4.10 59% RG1 Rain Garden 2,775 106,342 RAIN GARDEN 2 42,950 0.99 50% RG2 Rain Garden 591 21,670 RAIN GARDEN 3 24,488 0.56 62% RG3 Rain Garden 397 15,124 Total 246,209 5.65 3,763 143,136 506,523 ft2 143,136 ft3 38,837 ft2 181,973 ft2 136,480 ft3 143,136 ft2 79% LID SUMMARY AreaBasin ID Treatment Type Percent Impervious LID ID Salud Family Health Center November 15, 2023 1067-001 Fort Collins, Colorado M. Ruebel Total Impervious Area (ft2) Treatment Volume (ft3) LID Summary per Basin Weighted % Impervious LID Summary per LID Structure Impervious Area (ft2)Subbasin ID Treatment TypeLID ID Required Volume (ft3) Area ` LID Site Summary Total Site Area Total Impervious Area with LID Treatment Total Impervious Area without LID Treatment Total Impervious Area 75% Requried Minium Area to be Treated Total Treated Area Percent Impervious Treated by LID Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =59.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.590 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.19 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 178,771 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =2,775 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =2109 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Mason Ruebel Northern Engineering November 14, 2023 Salud Family Health Center Rain Garden 1 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO RG 1_UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 11/14/2023, 4:27 AM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Mason Ruebel Northern Engineering November 14, 2023 Salud Family Health Center Rain Garden 1 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO RG 1_UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 11/14/2023, 4:27 AM Project: Date: Pond No.: 5,040.20 2,775.00 cu. ft. n/a 5,040.86 n/a cu. ft.0.66 ft. 5,041.20 cu. ft. Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 5,040.20 N/A 3,785 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,040.40 5,040.20 4,048 0.20 783.30 0.02 783.30 0.02 5,040.60 5,040.40 4,319 0.20 836.70 0.02 1,620.00 0.04 5,040.80 5,040.60 4,596 0.20 891.50 0.02 2,511.50 0.06 5,041.00 5,040.80 4,874 0.20 947.00 0.02 3,458.50 0.08 5,041.20 5,041.00 5,159 0.20 1,003.30 0.02 4,461.80 0.10 Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Rain Garden 1 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:Rain Garden 1 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: 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: Salud Family Health Center November 15, 2023 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: 1 Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =50.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.500 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.17 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 42,950 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =591 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =430 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Mason Ruebel Northern Engineering November 14, 2023 Salud Family Health Center Rain Garden 2 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO RG 2_UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 11/14/2023, 3:45 AM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Mason Ruebel Northern Engineering November 14, 2023 Salud Family Health Center Rain Garden 2 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO RG 2_UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 11/14/2023, 3:45 AM Project: Date: Pond No.: 5,041.00 591.00 cu. ft. 5,042.00 5,041.93 652.30 cu. ft.0.93 ft. 5,042.72 cu. ft. Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 5,041.00 N/A 463 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,041.20 5,041.00 534 0.20 99.70 0.00 99.70 0.00 5,041.40 5,041.20 608 0.20 114.20 0.00 213.90 0.00 5,041.60 5,041.40 684 0.20 129.20 0.00 343.10 0.01 5,041.80 5,041.60 769 0.20 145.30 0.00 488.40 0.01 5,042.00 5,041.80 870 0.20 163.90 0.00 652.30 0.01 Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Rain Garden 2 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:Rain Garden 2 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: 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: Salud Family Health Center November 15, 2023 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: 1 Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =62.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.620 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.19 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 24,488 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =397 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =304 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Mason Ruebel Northern Engineering November 14, 2023 Salud Family Health Center Rain Garden 3 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO RG 3_UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 11/14/2023, 4:21 AM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Mason Ruebel Northern Engineering November 14, 2023 Salud Family Health Center Rain Garden 3 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO RG 3_UD-BMP_v3.07.xlsm, RG 11/14/2023, 4:21 AM Project: Date: Pond No.: 5,043.00 397.00 cu. ft. 5,044.00 5,043.70 621.90 cu. ft.0.70 ft. 5,044.50 cu. ft. Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 5,043.00 N/A 455 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,043.20 5,043.00 517 0.20 97.20 0.00 97.20 0.00 5,043.40 5,043.20 581 0.20 109.80 0.00 207.00 0.00 5,043.60 5,043.40 650 0.20 123.10 0.00 330.10 0.01 5,043.80 5,043.60 726 0.20 137.60 0.00 467.70 0.01 5,044.00 5,043.80 816 0.20 154.20 0.00 621.90 0.01 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: Salud Family Health Center November 15, 2023 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Rain Garden 3 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:Rain Garden 3 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: 1 Project Number:1067-001 Project:Salud Date:11/15/2023 Prepared By:MCR 3.060 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs Basins 1, 3.2 19.00 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.1900 <-- CALCULATED 0.111 <-- CALCULATED from UDFCD Figure 3-2 WQCV (ac-ft) =0.028 <-- CALCULATED from UDFCD DCM V.3 Section 3.0 WQ Depth (ft) =0.700 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 0.131 <-- CALCULATED from Figure EDB-3 dia (in) =7/16 <-- INPUT from Figure 5 number of holes =2 <-- INPUT from Figure 5 t (in) =0.500 <-- INPUT from Figure 5 number of rows =2.000 <-- CALCULATED from WQ Depth and row spacing WQCV (watershed inches) = AREA REQUIRED PER ROW, a (in 2) = CIRCULAR PERFORATION SIZING: WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Pond 1 REQUIRED STORAGE & OUTLET WORKS: BASIN AREA = BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENT = BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS RATIO = APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL REPORT Salud Family Health Center Preliminary 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, that 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 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 the Utility Plans. The Final Plans will contain a full-size Erosion Control sheet 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 the Development Agreement for the development. Also, the Site Contractor for this project will 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, prior to any earth disturbance activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive StormWater 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. APPENDIX F STORMWATER ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE/VARIANCE APPLICATION PUMPED DETENTION Stormwater Alternative Compliance/Variance Application City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Engineering Section A: Engineer/Owner Information Engineer Name____________________________________________Phone___________________________ Street Address_____________________________________________________________________________ City__________________________________________State________________________Zip_____________ Owner Name______________________________________________Phone___________________________ Street Address_____________________________________________________________________________ City__________________________________________State________________________Zip_____________ Section C: Alternative Compliance/Variance Information Section B: Proposed Project Information Legal description and/or address of property____________________________________________________ Project Name______________________________________________________________________________ Project/Application Number from Development Review (i.e. FDP123456)__________________________ Description of Project_______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ Existing Use (check one): ☐ residential ☐ non-residential ☐ mixed-use ☐ vacant ground Proposed Use (check one): ☐ residential ☐ non-residential ☐ mixed-use ☐ other____________________ If non-residential or mixed use, describe in detail_______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ State the requirement from which alternative compliance/variance is sought. (Please include applicable Drainage Criteria Manual volume, chapter and section.) What hardship prevents this site from meeting the requirement? What alternative is proposed for the site? Attach separate sheet if necessary Attach separate sheet if necessary Aaron Cvar 970-221-4158 301 N. Howes, Suite 100 Fort Collins CO 80521 Salud Family Health Centers 303-892-6401 203 S. Rollie Ave. Fort Lupton CO 80621 Salud Northwest Quarter Section 10, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, City of Fort Collins (PLEASE SEE ATTAHCED VICINITY MAP) Medical Clinic and Commercial Development Development of medical clinic and associated utility work, parking, roadway improvements Variance from detention gravity outfall requirements. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SHEET - SECTION C, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ITEM 1 PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SHEET - SECTION C, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ITEM 2 page 2 The owner agrees to comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance, building code and all other applicable sections of the City Code, Land Use Code, City Plan and all other laws and ordinances affecting the construction and occupancy of the proposed building that are not directiy approved by this variance. The owner understands that if this variance is approved, the structure and its occupants may be more susceptible to flood or,runoff damage as well as other adverse drainage issues. ,- Signature of owner: Date: '% The enginee�Kereby certifies that the above information, along with the reference plans and project descriptions is correct. �, /� i Signature of engineer: Date: ��/�'`` �6 h J({a"-� ��,� : \j� ��,�� .�• �� H ,i't ,`� F':.11 / !V , ;:, ;, PE STAMP Date complete application submitted: Date of approvalldenial: Variance: ❑ approved ❑ denied Stafijustificationlnotes/conditions: • Approved by: Entered in UtilityFile Database? �y85 �no � • . . . -. . • . • . � . - ' � - • � . �� • � � .�� • • � •� � � .r .� • • � STORMWATER ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE /VARIANCE APPLICATION City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Engineering Section C – Additional Information, Item 1 Hardship due to lack of outfall for detention pond. The nearby irrigation ditch (Larimer Canal No. 2) is too high to for the pond to drain into. Fort Collins currently allows pumped detention for up to 5 years; however, this variance would allow the pump to be in place longer than this, as the future City of Fort Collins regional pond, the “Forney Regional Detention Pond”, is anticipated to take longer than this time frame to construct (current anticipated construction to occur roughly in 2025). Section C – Additional Information, Item 2 Provide a pumped outfall for proposed detention pond that will tie to future City of Fort Collins regional pond, "Forney Regional Detention Pond". When future regional pond is complete, currently proposed pond will tie in and have gravity outfall to City regional pond. Please see Figure 1 (Attached). N T A F T H I L L R D LAPORTE AVE S S H I E L D S S T W VINE DR PROJECT LOCATION VICINITY MAP FORT COLLINS, CO SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER E N G I N E E R N GI EHTRON RN 05.19.16 D:\PROJECTS\1067-001\DWG\EXHIBITS\VICINITY MAP.DWG NORTH ( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 500 FEET 500 500 G ELEC C.O.V.P. V.P.C.O. ELEC ELEC V.P.C.O. V.P. T T S S SW W F PROPOSED PUMPED DETENTION POND OUTLET TO OPEN SPACE W/ FLOW SPREADER. WHEN FUTURE REGIONAL POND IS CONSTRUCTED, FLOW SPREADER WILL BE REMOVED AND OUTLET PIPE WILL DRAIN INTO REGIONAL POND PUMP STATION. WHEN FUTURE REGIONAL POND IS CONSTRUCTED PUMP STATION WILL NO LONGER BE NECESSARY, AS POND WILL DRAIN VIA GRAVITY INTO REGIONAL POND. FUTURE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REGIONAL POND ("FORNEY REGIONAL POND") TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THIS AREA. EXISTING BUILDING TO BE RENOVATED EHTRON R N FIGURE 1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN -PUMPED DETENTION March 15, 2016 NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet0100100 MAP POCKET DRAINAGE EXHIBITS X X X X X X X X X GV X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X S S X X XXXX X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X XXX S MMM MH M MH M X X util M X X SS X X X X X X X X GATE PH PH G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G TF G G G G G E G GABRIEL PROPERTIES, LLC 1760 W. LAPORTE AVE, LLC WILLIAM S. ECKERT ERNEST M. & KRISTEN K. SCHMIDTBERGER ERNEST M. & KRISTEN K. SCHMIDTBERGER CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAPORTE AVENUE LLC LAPORTE AVENUE LLC JACOB BROADCASTING OF COLORADO DAVID & GRETCHEN OSBORN PROPOSED BUILDING DAVID & GRETCHEN OSBORN 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 6 LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 5 LOT 7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 8 12 9 13 10 11 14 1 5 OS1 15 6 7 DETENTION POND 1 REQUIRED VOLUME = 4.03 AC.FT. REQUIRED WSEL = 5041.17 WATER QUALITY VOLUME = 1,219 CU.FT. WATER QUALITY WSEL = 5037.61 PROVIDED VOLUME = 4.08 AC.FT. 1 8 13 3.2 14 2' CONCRETE PAN PROPOSED INLET PROPOSED INLET OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED INLET PROPOSED POND OUTFALL PROPOSED STORM MH WITH PUMP FUTURE DETENTION/EXTENDED DETENTION POND FUTURE LID FEATURE FUTURE LID FEATURE FUTURE LID FEATURE TO TREAT BASIN 4 PRIOR TO DISCHARGE INTO FUTURE CONVEYANCE PROPERTY LINE (TYP) LOT LINE (TYP) 9 FUTURE DETENTION/EXTENDED DETENTION POND 2 12 2.4 5 11 FUTURE LID FEATURE FUTURE LID FEATURE FUTURE DETENTION/EXTENDED DETENTION POND 10 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN BASIN 10 ALLOWED TO MATCH HISTORIC 100-YEAR RUNOFF FROM EXISTING PARKING LOT OF 4.3 CFS OS1 CITY FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY (TYP) CITY FLOODWAY BOUNDARY (TYP) OUTLET STRUCTURE 3.1 3.3 6 2.14.1 4.2 4.3 2.3 2.2 PROPSOED 100-YR FLOODPLAIN (TYP) PROPOSED 100-YR FLOODWAY (TYP) 7 PROPOSED SPILLWAY FUTURE LID FEATURE 3 PROPOSED SPILLWAY 100-YR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION RAIN GARDEN 1 REQUIRED VOLUME = 2,775 CU.FT. FLAT AREA = 3725 SQ.FT. RAIN GARDEN 2 REQUIRED VOLUME = 591 CU.FT. FLAT AREA = 428 SQ.FT. RAIN GARDEN 3 REQUIRED VOLUME = 397 CU.FT. FLAT AREA = 463 SQ.FT. PROPOSED INLET PROPOSED STORM STUB OS1 FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: 1.THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2.REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 3.ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS VERTICAL DATUM; NAVD 88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARKS. NOTES: PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED VERTICAL PROPOSED OVERLAND FLOW DIRECTION CURB & GUTTER EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING INLET GRATE UDPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED RIBBON CURB PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVERS a BASIN ACREAGE DESIGN POINT BASIN DELINEATION PROPOSED BASIN LINES Sheet SA L U D F A M I L Y H E A L T H C E N T E R - L O T 4 DR A W I N G F I L E N A M E : P : \ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 \ D w g \ D r n g \ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 _ D R N G . d w g L A Y O U T N A M E : D R 1 D A T E : J u l 3 0 , 2 0 2 4 - 1 : 0 7 p m C A D O P E R A T O R : M R u e b e l LI S T O F X R E F S : [ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 _ x E X S T ] [ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 _ x S I T E ] [ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 _ x T O P O ] [ N E S - x b o r d e r ] [ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 _ x P U T I L ] [ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 _ K E Y M A P ] [ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 _ x G R A D _ O V E R L O T ] [ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 _ x F L D ] [ 1 0 6 7 - 0 0 1 _ x G R A D ] 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 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 4 of 42 ( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 60 FEET 60 60 120 180 NORTH KEYMAP DR1 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 C2 C100 Q2 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PATH