Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReports - Drainage - 10/22/2025 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT Harmony Lakes Infrastructure Prepared for: Serfer Land Ventures, LLC 6776 CR 74 Windsor, CO 80550 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 3325 South Timberline Road - Suite 130 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 822-7911 KH Project #: 196731002 City Project #:: BDR Prepared: October 22, 2025 kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970 822 7911 October 22, 2025 City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Development Review 700 Wood St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Harmony Lakes Infrastructure Final Drainage Report Dear Reviewer: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review as part of the Basic Development Review (BDR) submittal for the above referenced project. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the proposed drainage design for Harmony Lakes Infrastructure conforms to the drainage patterns set forth by the master drainage report on file with the City of Fort Collins. This report and attached drainage plans have been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and the latest Mile High Flood District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Please contact us with any questions or concerns. Thank You, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Mary Carlson, P.E. Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970 822 7911 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPLIANCE STATEMENT I. GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISTING SITE INFORMATION ................................ 1 II. FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION ............................................................................. 1 III. EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE ................................................................................. 1 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 2 V. PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS ........................................................................ 2 VI. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES .................................................................. 4 VII. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................... 5 VIII. VARIANCE REQUESTS .................................................................................... 6 IX. EROSION CONTROL ........................................................................................... 6 X. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 6 XI. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Referenced Criteria Appendix B – Exhibits & Hydrologic Calculations Appendix C – Hydraulic Calculations Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970 822 7911 Compliance Statement “I hereby attest that this report for the final drainage design for the Harmony Lakes Infrastructure project was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, in accordance with the provisions of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others.” _______________________________________ By: Mary Carlson, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 56766 Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure 1 | P a g e I. General Location and Existing Site Information Harmony Lakes (the “Project”), a 17.92 acre project is located in the northwest quarter of Section 3, Township 6 North, Range 68 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, State of Colorado. The property currently has a gas station on it and is generally bounded by a proposed residential development to the West, undeveloped farmstead to the South, Harmony Road to the North and the I-25 Frontage Road to the East. A Vicinity Map is included in Appendix A. Surrounding properties include transit station to the North, a future multi-family residential development to the West, an undeveloped farmstead to the South and a big box retail development to the East. The Project is located within the Poudre River Basin, see copy of the City of Fort Collins Drainage Basins image included in Appendix A. There is an existing irrigation pond (Existing Pond A) in the southeast corner of the property. The site generally slopes from the northwest corner to the southeast corner with slopes ranging from 0 to 2.5 percent. A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for the project area was obtained to determine the soil characteristics of the site. The results of this study show that the site is split into thirds that consist of hydrologic soil groups (HSG) Type B, Type C, and Type D with soils including Caruso clay loam, Loveland clay loam, and Table Mountain loam. A copy of the Custom Soil Resource Report is provided in Appendix A. A Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report dated October 21, 2025, was prepared by Terracon. Per the report, there are no known significant geologic features at this site. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 7 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface in all of the test holes. Groundwater levels will not likely affect planned development at this site. II. FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION The Harmony Lakes site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 08069C1013F dated December 19, 2006 and number 08069C0994F dated December 19, 2006, and lies within Zones A and AE. Zone AE is defined as a regulatory floodplain and Zone A is defined as a special flood hazard area without a base flood elevation (BFE). A copy of the FEMA FIRMette is included in Appendix A. Additionally, the Project is not located within any City of Fort Collins floodplains. A copy of the City of Fort Collins Flood Map is included in Appendix A. III. EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE Historically, the site drains to three different outfall points. In general, the site slopes from the northwest to the southeast, towards Existing Pond A. The Project site is located within the Harmony Corridor (HC) Zone District. No other major irrigation facilities are known to influence the local drainage. The historic site was evaluated as eight major basins: Basin S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z which split into ten sub-basins. See the Existing Drainage Exhibit in Appendix B. Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure 2 | P a g e Major Basin S: Major basin S consists of Sub-basin OS-S which drains from Harmony Road to Existing Pond B with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 5%. Impervious areas consist of asphalt pavement, concrete pavement, curb gutter and sidewalk. Major Basin T: Major basin T consists of Sub-basin EX-T that drains to Existing Pond A with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 5%. Impervious areas consist of roof areas and concrete pavement. Major Basin U: Major basin U consists of Sub-basin EX-U that drains to Existing Pond A with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 5%. Sub-basin EX-U consists of landscape area. Major Basin V: Major basin V consists of Sub-basin EX-V that drains to Existing Pond A with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 5%. Sub-basin EX-V consists of landscape area. Major Basin W: Major basin W consists of Sub-basin EX-W that drains to Existing Pond B with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 5%. Impervious areas consist of roof areas and concrete pavement. Major Basin X: Major basin X consists of Sub-basin EX-X that drains to Existing Pond A via existing curb and gutter along the frontage road with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 5%. Impervious areas consist of roof areas and concrete pavement. Major Basin Y: Major basin Y consists of Sub-basins EX-Y and OS-Y that drain to Existing Pond A via existing curb and gutter along the frontage road with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 5%. Impervious areas consist of roof areas and concrete pavement. Major Basin Z: Major basin Z consists of Sub-basins EX-Z and OS-Z that drain to Existing Pond A via an unmaintained concrete channel with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 5%. Impervious areas consist of asphalt and concrete pavement. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Serfer Land Ventures, LLC is proposing to develop the site with roadway and utility improvements for future commercial pad sites. The proposed improvements consist of roadway, sidewalks, access drives, and landscaping to support the development. In the interim condition, a proposed roadway will be constructed with temporary access to the existing gas station and existing cell tower. The Project will provide Low Impact Development (LID) and water quality treatment for the roadway improvements, while each respective future lot is anticipated to provide separate LID and water quality treatment. V. PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS The proposed condition has nine Major basins: R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z, which are described below and depicted on the Proposed Drainage Exhibit included in Appendix B. The rational calculations within Appendix B include areas, imperviousness, and other applicable information. Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure 3 | P a g e Major Basin R: Major basin R consists of Sub-basin OS-R that drains offsite to onsite from Harmony Road via existing and proposed curb and gutter. Impervious area consists of concrete pavement. Major Basin S: Major basin S consists of Sub-basin OS-S that drains offsite to onsite from Harmony Road and ultimately flows to Existing Pond B via the proposed channel. Impervious areas consist of a proposed concrete right turn lane and sidewalk. Major Basin T: Major basin T consists of Sub-basins T1, T2, T3 and T4 that drain to Existing Pond A via the proposed channel that runs along the northern and eastern property lines. Sub-basin T1 consists of the proposed channel and Sub-basin T2 consists of the existing cell tower. Sub- basins T3 and T4 are assumed to have 80% imperviousness per the future commercial land use in Fort Collins. Drainage is anticipated to flow southeast where it will be collected via the proposed channel and routed to Existing Pond A at design point T. Major Basin U: Major basin U consists of Sub-basins U1, U2, and U3 that drain to Existing Pond A via proposed channel that runs along the southern property line. Sub-basin U1 consists of the proposed channel. Sub-basin U2 consists of the proposed lift station and half of the access road, in addition to acreage reserved for commercial land use at 80% imperviousness. Sub- basin U3 is assumed to have 80% imperviousness per the commercial land use in Fort Collins. Drainage is anticipated to flow southeast where it will be collected via the proposed channel and routed to Existing Pond A at design point U. Major Basin V: Major basin V consists of Sub-basin V which is the same as EX-V in the historic condition that drains to Existing Pond A. Impervious areas are the same between the existing and proposed condition. Major Basin W: Major basin W consists of Sub-basin W1 that drains to Existing Pond B via proposed channel that runs along the western property line. Sub-basin W1 consists of the proposed channel. Drainage is anticipated to flow southwest where it will be collected via channel and routed to Existing Pond B at design point W. Major Basin X: Major basin X consists of Sub-basins X1, X2, X3 and X4 that drain to Existing Pond A via proposed curb and gutter along Street A. Sub-basins X1, X2, X3, and X4 consist of the proposed roadway. Drainage is anticipated to flow south where it will be collected via curb and gutter, routed to curb cuts to proposed rain gardens, then piped to the southern channel to Existing Pond A at design point X. Major Basin Y: Major basin Y consists of Sub-basin OS-Y that drains to Existing Pond A. Sub-basin OS-Y consists of the proposed channel running along the northern property line to Existing Pond A. Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure 4 | P a g e Major Basin Z: Major basin Z consists of Sub-basin OS-Z that drains to Existing Pond A. Sub-basin OS-Z consists of the offsite slope that drains into the proposed channel running along the eastern property line to Existing Pond A. VI. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES Proposed Site Description Site grading is designed to convey stormwater to proposed inlets, storm drain lines, and channels via grass swales and curb and gutter. The proposed storm sewer system will convey runoff to LID rain gardens located throughout the site before runoff outfalls to the proposed channels. The rain gardens will discharge into proposed inlets and eventually outfall to Existing Pond A. Minor and major flows will be conveyed to the rain gardens via curb cuts in the proposed roadway. Street conveyance will be minimized wherever possible and will be designed to maintain access for emergency vehicles. Drainage easements encompassing the entire footprint of the rain gardens will be dedicated to the City of Fort Collins. The proposed rain gardens are placed in locations such that they are accessible for inspections. Proposed Detention Facilities The modified FAA method was used to calculate the total detention volume from the developed site to Existing Pond A and Existing Pond B which serve as detention and water quality volume. The developed detention and water quality volume was calculated to be approximately 4.52 acre-feet for Existing Pond A, which is greater than the existing required storage of 2.38 acre-feet. This increase in required storage causes the 100-year water surface elevation of the existing pond to increase by approximately 0.57 feet. A summary of Existing Pond A’s storage is summarized in Table 1 below. Existing Pond A Detention Summary Existing Flows to Pond A 51.22 CFS Proposed Flows to Pond A 88.23 CFS Change in Required Storage 2.14 AC-FT Change in 100-Year Water Surface Elevation 0.57 FT Table 1: Existing Pond A Detention Summary The developed detention and water quality volume was calculated to be approximately 0.30 acre-feet for Existing Pond B, which is slightly larger than the existing required storage of 0.29 acre-feet. As a result, Existing Pond B has an increase in 100-YR water surface elevation of 0.0002 feet, which is negligible compared to the size of the pond. A summary of Existing Pond B’s storage is summarized in Table 2 below. Existing Pond B Detention Summary Existing Flows to Pond B 6.35 CFS Proposed Flows to Pond B 6.44 CFS Change in Required Storage 0.01 AC-FT Change in 100-Year Water Surface Elevation 0.0002 FT Table 2: Existing Pond B Detention Summary Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure 5 | P a g e Proposed LID and Water Quality Treatment The area required to be treated with LID is calculated as 75% of the added or modified impervious area. These impervious areas are depicted within the Proposed Impervious Exhibit as a part of Appendix B. Note that the roadway drainage for sub-basins X1, X2, X3, and X4 will route to rain gardens A, B, C, and D respectively, that will serve as LID treatment. Additionally, sub-basin U2 sheet flows to rain garden E which will serve as LID treatment. The rain gardens are proposed to treat approximately 76.5% of the added or modified impervious area from the ultimate condition. The ultimate condition includes the proposed roadway, emergency access to the west, and lift station. A summary of the LID is shown in Table 3 below and calculations are included with the Rational Calculations in Appendix B. Calculation Summary Impervious Area for Proposed Roadway Improvements in Ultimate Condition 1.64 acres Required LID Impervious Area 1.23 acres Provided LID Impervious Area 1.26 acres Table 3: Calculation Summary The UD-BMP spreadsheet from MHFD was used to size the rain gardens. Each rain garden was sized to treat the required volumes by adjusting the minimum filter media surface area for a 12-inch maximum WQCV depth. Copies of the UD-BMP spreadsheets are included in Appendix B. An exhibit showing the LID areas and summary table is included in Appendix B. VII. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA The Project was designed to conform to the requirements outlined in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) and the latest Mile High Flood District (MHFD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM). A Four Step Process was implemented for the drainage design and protection of receiving water bodies: Step 1 - Runoff Reduction Practices Runoff is routed through vegetated buffers via sheet flow wherever reasonably possible to increase time of concentration and promote infiltration. By Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Areas (MDCIA), peak runoff volumes and pollutant loads are reduced. Step 2 – Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to treat the WQCV Rain gardens are proposed that will provide treatment for the WQCV with slow release and partial infiltration. Step 3 – Stabilizing Streams Stream stabilization was considered but not implemented due to open channels being minimized for site accessibility. Step 4 – Implementing Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs Site specific controls that will be implemented include locating material storage away from storm drainage facilities and installing construction fencing around Existing Pond B. Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure 6 | P a g e The Rational Method was used for all subbasins since the areas are less than 90 acres. Per the FCSCM, the storm frequencies used to analyze the drainage design were the 2-year and the 100-year storms. Rainfall intensities used for the rational calculations were obtained from Table 3.4-1 in the FCSCM. Rainfall depths for the 2-year, 1-hour and 100-year, 1-hour storm events are 0.82 and 2.86 inches, respectively. Hydraulic calculations are included in Appendix C. VIII. VARIANCE REQUESTS No variances are requested at this time. IX. EROSION CONTROL During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control practices will be used to limit soil erosion and migration of sediment off site. An Erosion Control Report is included with the BDR. X. CONCLUSION The Harmony Lakes site is designed to conform to the criteria in the FCSCM and the USDCM. The proposed rain gardens will provide LID and are designed to treat the water quality for the proposed imperviousness within the Project. Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure 7 | P a g e XI. REFERENCES City of Fort Collins Flood Maps, City of Fort Collins GIS, Accessed October 22, 2024, at <https://gisweb.fcgov.com/HTML5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=FCMaps&LayerTheme=floodpl ains> Custom Soil Resource Report, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. October 22, 2024. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, December 2018. National Flood Hazard Layer Firmette, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Accessed October 28, 2024. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Mile High Flood District, Updated March 2024. Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970 822 7911 Appendix A – Referenced Criteria Vicinity Map This map was created by Larimer County GIS using data from multiple sources for informal purposes only. This map may not reflect recent updates prior to the date of printing. Larimer County makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content represented.Date Prepared: 9/12/2025 8:14:31 AM Miles0.0 0.0 2,400 0 Legend 1: Notes Scale Addresses Subdivisions Tax Parcels Recorded Dimensions Railroads Major Road System Road System Lakes and Ponds Major Rivers and Streams Rivers and Streams County Boundary Rocky Mountain National Park Incorporated Areas PLSS Township and Range PLSS Sections PLSS Quarter Sections City or Town County State Federal Other 30969E146467N.sid Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 30969E144091N.sid Red: Band_1 FO SSIL CR EEK BA SIN Horsetooth Reservoir MA IL CREEK BA SIN Mc CLELLAND S CR EEK B ASIN FO X MEADOW S BA SIN FO OTHILLS B ASINSPRING C REEK B ASIN CAN AL IMPO RTATIO N BASIN OLD TOWN BASIN WEST VIN E BA SIN UPPER COOPERSLOUGH BASIN DRY CR EEK B ASIN POU DRE RIVERBASIN BOXELD ER CREEK BASIN LO WER COOPERSLOUGH BASIN INTERSTATE 25 S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE S TAFT HILL RD E VINE DR S TIMBERLINE RD E PROSPECT RD LAPORTE AVE S LEMAY AVE E MULBERRY ST W DRAKE RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 E TRILBY RD N SHIELDS ST S OVERLAND TRL ZIEGLER RD E COUNTY ROAD 30 E HORSETOOTH RD CARPENTER RD E LINCOLN AVE RIVERSIDE AVE W HARMONY RD COUNTRY CLUB RD MAIN ST N LEMAY AVE S COUNTY ROAD 19 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR W VINE DR N COUNTY ROAD 5 KECHTER RD S SUMMIT VIEW DR S COUNTY ROAD 9 S US HIGHWAY 287 9TH ST Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User CommunityK United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Larimer County Area, ColoradoNatural Resources Conservation Service September 15, 2025 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................13 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope...............................................13 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...........................................14 105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes......................................15 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................17 Soil Reports........................................................................................................17 Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................17 Soil Features...............................................................................................17 References............................................................................................................20 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 8 5 5 6 0 44 8 5 6 0 0 44 8 5 6 4 0 44 8 5 6 8 0 44 8 5 7 2 0 44 8 5 7 6 0 44 8 5 8 0 0 44 8 5 8 4 0 44 8 5 5 6 0 44 8 5 6 0 0 44 8 5 6 4 0 44 8 5 6 8 0 44 8 5 7 2 0 44 8 5 7 6 0 44 8 5 8 0 0 44 8 5 8 4 0 500190 500230 500270 500310 500350 500390 500430 500470 500510 500550 500590 500630 500190 500230 500270 500310 500350 500390 500430 500470 500510 500550 500590 500630 40° 31' 24'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 5 2 ' ' W 40° 31' 24'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 3 2 ' ' W 40° 31' 14'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 5 2 ' ' W 40° 31' 14'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 3 2 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 30 60 120 180 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,100 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 19, Aug 29, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 2, 2021—Aug 25, 2021 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 22 Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope 6.1 31.3% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 6.1 31.5% 105 Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 7.2 37.2% Totals for Area of Interest 19.5 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or Custom Soil Resource Report 11 landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Larimer County Area, Colorado 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpvt Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Caruso and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Caruso Setting Landform:Stream terraces, flood-plain steps Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 35 inches: clay loam H2 - 35 to 44 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 44 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 48 inches Frequency of flooding:Occasional Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Loveland Percent of map unit:9 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Landform:Terraces Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: Yes Fluvaquents Percent of map unit:6 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpx9 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 Loveland and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Loveland Setting Landform:Stream terraces, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: clay loam H2 - 15 to 32 inches: loam H3 - 32 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:Occasional Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Very slightly saline to slightly saline (2.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Aquolls Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes Poudre Percent of map unit:5 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No 105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpty 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 Table mountain and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Table Mountain Setting Landform:Stream terraces, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 36 inches: loam H2 - 36 to 60 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:5.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Caruso Percent of map unit:7 percent Hydric soil rating: No Fluvaquentic haplustolls Percent of map unit:4 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Paoli Percent of map unit:4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Soil Qualities and Features This folder contains tabular reports that present various soil qualities and features. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Soil Features This table gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. A restrictive layer is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical, chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and frozen layers. The table indicates the hardness and thickness of the restrictive layer, both of which significantly affect the ease of excavation. Depth to top is the vertical distance from the soil surface to the upper boundary of the restrictive layer. Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence generally results from either desiccation and shrinkage, or oxidation of organic material, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years. The table shows the expected 17 initial subsidence, which usually is a result of drainage, and total subsidence, which results from a combination of factors. Potential for frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent collapse of the soil and loss of strength on thawing. Frost action occurs when moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature, texture, density, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by vegetation or snow and is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured, clayey soils that have a high water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action. Well drained, very gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soil strength during thawing cause damage to pavements and other rigid structures. Risk of corrosion pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle-size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel or concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel or concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer. For uncoated steel, the risk of corrosion, expressed as low, moderate, or high, is based on soil drainage class, total acidity, electrical resistivity near field capacity, and electrical conductivity of the saturation extract. For concrete, the risk of corrosion also is expressed as low, moderate, or high. It is based on soil texture, acidity, and amount of sulfates in the saturation extract. Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Soil Features–Larimer County Area, Colorado Map symbol and soil name Restrictive Layer Subsidence Potential for frost action Risk of corrosion Kind Depth to top Thickness Hardness Initial Total Uncoated steel Concrete Low-RV- High Range Low- High Low- High In In In In 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope Caruso ——0 —Moderate Moderate Low 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Loveland ——0 —High Moderate 105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Table mountain ——0 —Moderate Moderate Low Custom Soil Resource Report 19 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 20 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 21 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 9/12/2025 at 2:07 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 105°0'5"W 40°31'35"N 104°59'27"W 40°31'8"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 8,816 1,469.4 CoFC Flood Maps This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. City of Fort Collins - GIS 1,116.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet1,116.00558.00 Notes Legend 6,699 Street Names City Floodplains City High Risk - Floodway City High Risk - 100 Year City Moderate Risk - 100 Year City Limits Approximate Site Boundary Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970 822 7911 Appendix B – Exhibits & Hydrologic Calculations 4850 485 0 48 5 5 4848 4848 484 9 4849 48 5 1 48 5 2 48 5 3 48 5 4 48 5 6 48 5 7 48 5 8 48 5 9 484 6 48464846 48474848 4849 4849 4849 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 4840 48 4 5 48 4 5 48 4 1 48 4 2 48 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 0 48 4 5 4845 48 4 5 484 5 48 4 5 4841 48 4 248 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 4847 484 7 4847 4847 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 9 4849 4845 484 1 4842 4843 4844 4846 4847 4848 4850 4848 484 9 4851 48 5 1 4851 4849 48494849 4848 4849 4848 4849 48484848 4848 4848 48474847 4847 4847 48474847 4846 4846 4847 4847 4847 4848 484 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 4850 4849 ELEC ELECELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC BRKR ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC D D D DDDDD T S T S T S CABLE VAULT T S F.O. VAULT F.O. VAULT F.O. VAULT F.O. VAULT CABLE VAULT CABLE VAULT WH2O H2O MH E COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COM M COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COM M COMM COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM CO M M COM M COMMCOMM COMM COMM CO M M COM M COMM COMM E E E E E E E E E E EEEEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E XXXXXXX X X W W W W W W WWWW W W ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W WEEEEEEE E E E E E E E E E T EX-T EX-W EX-Y W Y HARMONY ROAD EX-X EX-Z OS-Y Z OS-Z EX-V EX-U UV OS-S S EXISTING POND B EXISTING POND A TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY DA T E © 2 0 2 5 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S O U T H T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION K: \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 7 3 1 0 0 2 _ H a r m o n y - I 2 5 \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ V - D R N G . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET HA R M O N Y L A K E S OCT 22, 2025 AGR 196731002 PRELIMINARY R EX I S T I N G D R A I N A G E E X H I B I T C14.0 MEC OAT 43 OF 44 PROPERTY LINE LEGEND: PROPOSED CATCH CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STORM LINE # = BASIN DESIGNATION AC = AREA IN ACRES I = % IMPERVIOUSNESS # = DESIGN POINT NORTH PROPOSED BASIN BOUNDARY EXISTING FLOW ARROW EXISTING FEMA 100-YR FLOODPLAIN EXISTING FEMA 100-YR FLOODWAY 4850 485 0 48 5 5 4848 4848 484 9 4849 48 5 1 48 5 2 48 5 3 48 5 4 48 5 6 48 5 7 48 5 8 48 5 9 484 6 48464846 48474848 4849 4849 4849 484 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 4840 48 4 5 48 4 5 48 4 1 48 4 2 48 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 0 48 4 5 4845 48 4 5 484 5 48 4 5 4841 48 4 248 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 4847 484 7 4847 4847 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 9 4849 4845 484 1 4842 4843 4844 4846 4847 4848 4850 4848 484 9 4851 48 5 1 4851 4849 48494849 4848 4849 4848 4849 48484848 4848 4848 48474847 4847 4847 48474847 4846 4846 4847 4847 4847 4848 484 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 4850 4849 4850 485 0 48 5 5 4848 4848 484 9 4849 48 5 1 48 5 2 48 5 3 48 5 4 48 5 6 48 5 7 48 5 8 48 5 9 484 6 48464846 48474848 4849 4849 4849 484 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 4840 48 4 5 48 4 5 48 4 1 48 4 2 48 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 0 48 4 5 4845 48 4 5 484 5 48 4 5 4841 48 4 248 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 4847 484 7 4847 4847 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 9 4849 4845 484 1 4842 4843 4844 4846 4847 4848 4850 4848 484 9 4851 48 5 1 4851 4849 48494849 4848 4849 4848 4849 48484848 4848 4848 48474847 4847 4847 48474847 4846 4846 4847 4847 4847 4848 484 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 4850 4849 4840 484 5 4839 48 3 9 484 1 4842 48434844 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 48 5 0 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 48 5 1 484 8 48 4 9 4846 484 7 484 8 484 9 485 0 48 5 0 48 5 0 485 0 485 0 4851 4847 48 4 8 4849 4848 48 4 9 484 8 484 9 48 4 0 4840 4840 4845 4845 4839 4841 48 4 1 4841 4842 4842 48424843 4843 4844 48444846 48464847 4847 4840 484 5 4839 48 3 9 484 1 4842 48434844 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 48 5 0 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 48 5 1 484 8 48 4 9 4846 484 7 484 8 484 9 485 0 48 5 0 48 5 0 485 0 485 0 4851 4847 48 4 8 4849 4848 48 4 9 484 8 484 9 48 4 0 4840 4840 4845 4845 4839 4841 48 4 1 4841 4842 4842 48424843 4843 4844 48444846 48464847 4847 ELEC ELECELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC BRKR ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC D D D DDDDD T S T S T S CABLE VAULT T S F.O. VAULT F.O. VAULT F.O. VAULT F.O. VAULT CABLE VAULT CABLE VAULT CCCC WH2O H2O MH E COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COM M COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COM M COMM COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM CO M M COM M COMMCOMM COMM COMM CO M M COM M COMM COMM E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E E E XXXXXXX X X W W W ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W WEEEEEEE E E E E E E E E E / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / X X X X / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / RAIN GARDEN A RAIN GARDEN B ST R E E T A HARMONY ROAD T4 V X3 X4 U2 W1 U3 OS-S T3 T2 T1 U1 OS-Y OS-Z W S V U Y Z T X OS-R R RAIN GARDEN C RAIN GARDEN D RAIN GARDEN E X2 X1 EXISTING POND B EXISTING POND A TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY DA T E © 2 0 2 5 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S O U T H T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION K: \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 7 3 1 0 0 2 _ H a r m o n y - I 2 5 \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - D R N G . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET HA R M O N Y L A K E S OCT 22, 2025 AGR 196731002 PRELIMINARY R PR O P O S E D D R A I N A G E E X H I B I T C15.1 MEC OAT PROPERTY LINE LEGEND: PROPOSED CATCH CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STORM LINE # = BASIN DESIGNATION AC = AREA IN ACRES I = % IMPERVIOUSNESS # = DESIGN POINT PROPOSED BASIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED FLOW ARROW EXISTING FLOW ARROW NORTH 44 OF 44 EXISTING FEMA 100-YR FLOODPLAIN EXISTING FEMA 100-YR FLOODWAY 4850 485 0 48 5 5 4848 4848 484 9 4849 48 5 1 48 5 2 48 5 3 48 5 4 48 5 6 48 5 7 48 5 8 48 5 9 484 6 48464846 48474848 4849 4849 4849 484 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 4840 48 4 5 48 4 5 48 4 1 48 4 2 48 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 0 48 4 5 4845 48 4 5 484 5 48 4 5 4841 48 4 248 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 4847 484 7 4847 4847 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 9 4849 4845 484 1 4842 4843 4844 4846 4847 4848 4850 4848 484 9 4851 48 5 1 4851 4849 48494849 4848 4849 4848 4849 48484848 4848 4848 48474847 4847 4847 48474847 4846 4846 4847 4847 4847 4848 484 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 4850 4849 4850 485 0 48 5 5 4848 4848 484 9 4849 48 5 1 48 5 2 48 5 3 48 5 4 48 5 6 48 5 7 48 5 8 48 5 9 484 6 48464846 48474848 4849 4849 4849 484 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 4840 48 4 5 48 4 5 48 4 1 48 4 2 48 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 0 48 4 5 4845 48 4 5 484 5 48 4 5 4841 48 4 248 4 3 48 4 4 48 4 6 48 4 6 4847 484 7 4847 4847 48 4 7 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 8 48 4 9 4849 4845 484 1 4842 4843 4844 4846 4847 4848 4850 4848 484 9 4851 48 5 1 4851 4849 48494849 4848 4849 4848 4849 48484848 4848 4848 48474847 4847 4847 48474847 4846 4846 4847 4847 4847 4848 484 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 4850 4849 4840 484 5 4839 48 3 9 484 1 4842 48434844 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 48 5 0 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 48 5 1 484 8 48 4 9 4846 484 7 484 8 484 9 485 0 48 5 0 48 5 0 485 0 485 0 4851 4847 48 4 8 4849 4848 48 4 9 484 8 484 9 48 4 0 4840 4840 4845 4845 4839 4841 48 4 1 4841 4842 4842 48424843 4843 4844 48444846 48464847 4847 4840 484 5 4839 48 3 9 484 1 4842 48434844 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 48 5 0 48 4 6 48 4 7 48 4 8 48 4 9 48 5 1 484 8 48 4 9 4846 484 7 484 8 484 9 485 0 48 5 0 48 5 0 485 0 485 0 4851 4847 48 4 8 4849 4848 48 4 9 484 8 484 9 48 4 0 4840 4840 4845 4845 4839 4841 48 4 1 4841 4842 4842 48424843 4843 4844 48444846 48464847 4847 ELEC ELECELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC BRKR ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC ELEC EE ELEC BRKRELEC BRKR ELEC ELEC BRKR E ELEC BRKR D D D DDDDD T S T S T S CABLE VAULT T S F.O. VAULT F.O. VAULT T F.O. VAULT F.O. VAULT CABLE VAULT CABLE VAULT WH2O TEST STA H2O MH MH MH MH MH MH MHMH MH LIDLIDLIDLIDLIDLID LIDLID LID LID MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW M E V.P. COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COM M COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COM M COMM COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM CO M M COM M COMMCOMM COMM CO M M COMM CO M M COM M COMM COMM E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E XXXXXXX X X W W W W W W WWWW W W ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W WEEEEEEE E E E E E E E E E X X X X / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ST R E E T A HARMONY ROAD RAIN GARDEN C TREATMENT AREA: 13,939 sf REQ'D VOL: 323 cf PROVIDED VOL.: 325 cf RAIN GARDEN D TREATMENT AREA: 13,068 sf REQ'D VOL: 322 cf PROVIDED VOL.: 325 cf RAIN GARDEN B TREATMENT AREA: 6970 sf REQ'D VOL: 153 cf PROVIDED VOL.: 250 cf RAIN GARDEN E TREATMENT AREA: 20,909 sf REQ'D VOL: 441 cf PROVIDED VOL.: 600 cf RAIN GARDEN A TREATMENT AREA: 7,405 sf REQ'D VOL: 153 cf PROVIDED VOL.: 280 cf TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY DA T E © 2 0 2 5 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S O U T H T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION K: \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 7 3 1 0 0 2 _ H a r m o n y - I 2 5 \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - L I D . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET HA R M O N Y L A K E S OCT 22, 2025 AGR 196731002 PRELIMINARY R LI D E X H I B I T EXH-1 MEC OAT PROPERTY LINE LEGEND: PROPOSED CATCH CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STORM LINE NORTH AREA TO BE TREATED BY INDIVIDUAL LOT TRADITIONAL WQ TREATMENT AREA RAIN GARDEN TREATMENT AREA PROJECT LID SUMMARY TOTAL ROADWAY IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.64 AC MINIMUM AREA TO BE TREATED BY LID MEASURES TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA TO LID 1.26 AC 76.5% MINIMUM REQUIRED IMPERVIOUS AREA TO LID 1.23 AC 75.0% TIME 2 YR 10 YR 100 YR 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 7 2.52 4.31 8.80 8 2.40 4.10 8.38 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 60 0.82 1.40 2.86 120 0.49 0.86 1.84 Note: Time Intensity Frequency Tabulation Intensity values from the City of Fort Collins Intensity-Duration-Frequency Tables; Chapter 5, Section 3.4 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, 2018 Edition. RAINFALL INTENSITY K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx PROJECT NAME: Harmony I-25 Infrastructure 10/21/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 196731002 CALCULATED BY: OAT CHECKED BY:MEC SOIL: GROUP B, C, D Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers LAND USE:AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF. 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 100-YEAR COEFF. 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 IMPERVIOUS %2%90%100%40% Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)C(2)C(100)Imp % EX-T T 13.02 0.15 0.39 0.00 13.56 0.23 0.29 6% EX-U U 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.20 0.25 2% EX-V V 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.20 0.25 2% EX-W W 1.96 0.04 0.34 0.00 2.34 0.32 0.40 18% EX-X X 0.17 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.75 0.78 0.98 78% EX-Y Y 1.43 0.13 0.25 0.00 1.81 0.36 0.45 22% EX-Z Z 0.36 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.45 0.35 0.44 22% 17.44 0.36 1.61 0.00 19.41 0.28 0.35 12% 90%2%8%0% OS-S S 0.76 0.00 0.32 0.00 1.08 0.42 0.52 31% OS-Y Y 0.72 0.00 0.93 0.00 1.66 0.62 0.78 57% OS-Z Z 0.83 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.84 0.21 0.26 4% 2.31 0.00 1.26 0.00 3.57 0.46 0.58 37% 65%0%35%0% TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 19.75 0.36 2.87 0.00 22.98 0.31 0.38 16% EX-T T 13.02 0.15 0.39 0.00 13.56 0.23 0.29 6% EX-U U 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.20 0.25 2% EX-V V 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.20 0.25 2% EX-X X 0.17 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.75 0.78 0.98 78% EX-Y Y 1.43 0.13 0.25 0.00 1.81 0.36 0.45 22% EX-Z Z 0.36 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.45 0.35 0.44 22% OS-S S 0.76 0.00 0.32 0.00 1.08 0.42 0.52 31% OS-Y Y 0.72 0.00 0.93 0.00 1.66 0.62 0.78 57% OS-Z Z 0.83 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.84 0.21 0.26 4% 17.79 0.32 2.53 0.00 20.64 0.30 0.38 15% 86%2%12%0% EX-W W 1.96 0.04 0.34 0.00 2.34 0.32 0.40 18% 1.96 0.04 0.34 0.00 2.34 0.32 0.40 18% 84%2%15%0% Notes: BASIN SUBTOTAL On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - EX. IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION BASIN SUBTOTAL 1. Imperviousness, I, values per UDFCD Criteria Manual Volume 1, Table 6-3 2. Runoff Coefficient values are from the City of Fort Collins Runoff Coefficient Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3; Chapter 5, Section 3.2 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, 2018 Edition. Frequency adjustment factor has been applied to composite C values per Table 3.2-3. Off-Site Basins Flowing On-Site BASIN SUBTOTAL Existing Pond A BASIN SUBTOTAL Existing Pond B K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Harmony I-25 Infrastructure DATE: 10/21/2025 196731002 OAT MEC FINAL Tc DESIGN AREA C2 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft %Min.Ft.%fps Min.tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP.Min.Min. EX-T 13.56 0.23 854 1.1% 45.7 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 45.7 854 1.1% 6% 14.7 14.7 EX-U 0.13 0.20 39 15.4% 4.2 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 4.2 39 15.4% 2% 10.2 5.0 EX-V 0.38 0.20 577 0.6% 47.9 138 4.0% 0.195 2.9 0.8 48.7 715 1.3% 2% 14.0 14.0 EX-W 2.34 0.32 329 0.7% 29.7 347 2.7% 0.195 2.4 2.5 32.2 676 1.7% 18% 13.8 13.8 EX-X 0.75 0.78 235 0.6% 10.7 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 10.7 235 0.6% 78% 11.3 10.7 EX-Y 1.81 0.36 614 0.5% 42.6 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 42.6 614 0.5% 22% 13.4 13.4 EX-Z 0.45 0.35 0 0.0% 0.0 440 0.7% 0.195 1.2 5.9 5.9 440 0.7% 22% 12.4 5.9 OS-S 1.08 0.42 76 0.5% 14.0 899 0.5% 0.195 2.7 5.5 19.5 975 0.5% 31% 15.4 15.4 OS-Y 1.66 0.62 0 0.0% 0.0 720 0.6% 0.195 3.1 3.9 3.9 720 0.6% 57% 14.0 5.0 OS-Z 0.84 0.21 93 21.0% 5.8 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 5.8 93 21.0% 4% 10.5 5.8 Existing Pond A 20.64 0.30 76 0.5% 16.4 1,633 0.7% 0.195 3.3 8.3 24.7 1709 0.7% 15% 19.5 19.5 Existing Pond B 2.34 0.32 329 0.7% 29.7 347 2.7% 0.195 6.3 0.9 30.7 676 1.7% 18% 13.8 13.8 CHECKED BY: On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site 2-Year Time of Concentration Off-Site Basins Flowing On-Site Existing Pond Basins Tc CHECK (URBANIZED BASINS) PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: DATA INITIAL TIME (Ti) TRAVEL TIME (Tt) SUB-BASIN CALCULATED BY: K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Harmony I-25 Infrastructure DATE: 10/21/2025 196731002 OAT MEC FINAL Tc DESIGN AREA C100 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft %Min.Ft.%fps Min.tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP.Min.Min. EX-T 13.56 0.29 854 1.1% 42.7 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 42.7 854 1.1% 6% 14.7 14.7 EX-U 0.13 0.25 39 15.4% 4.0 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 4.0 39 15.4% 2% 10.2 5.0 EX-V 0.38 0.25 577 0.6% 45.3 138 4.0% 0.195 2.9 0.8 46.1 715 1.3% 2% 14.0 14.0 EX-W 2.34 0.40 329 0.7% 26.7 347 2.7% 0.195 2.4 2.5 29.1 676 1.7% 18% 13.8 13.8 EX-X 0.75 0.98 235 0.6% 4.1 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 4.1 235 0.6% 78% 11.3 5.0 EX-Y 1.81 0.45 614 0.5% 37.4 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 37.4 614 0.5% 22% 13.4 13.4 EX-Z 0.45 0.44 0 0.0% 0.0 440 0.7% 0.195 1.2 5.9 5.9 440 0.7% 22% 12.4 5.9 OS-S 1.08 0.52 76 0.5% 11.8 899 0.5% 0.195 2.7 5.5 17.3 975 0.5% 31% 15.4 15.4 OS-Y 1.66 0.78 0 0.0% 0.0 720 0.6% 0.195 3.1 3.9 3.9 720 0.6% 57% 14.0 5.0 OS-Z 0.84 0.26 93 21.0% 5.5 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 5.5 93 21.0% 4% 10.5 5.5 Existing Pond A 20.64 0.38 76 0.5% 14.8 1,633 0.7% 0.000 0.0 0.0 14.8 1709 0.7% 15% 19.5 14.8 Existing Pond B 2.34 0.40 329 0.7% 26.7 347 2.7% 0.000 0.0 0.0 26.7 676 1.7% 18% 13.8 13.8 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site Off-Site Basins Flowing On-Site SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK DATA TIME (Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Existing Pond Basins CHECKED BY: 100-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY: K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx DATE: 10/21/2025 Harmony I-25 Infrastructure 196731002 OAT P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) =0.82 MEC REMARKS DE S I G N PO I N T AR E A (A C ) RU N O F F CO E F F tc (m i n ) C* A ( a c ) I (i n / h r ) Q (c f s ) T 13.56 0.23 14.74 3.12 1.88 5.85 Existing Pond A U 0.13 0.20 5.00 0.03 2.78 0.07 Existing Pond A V 0.38 0.20 13.97 0.08 1.92 0.15 Existing Pond A W 2.34 0.32 13.76 0.75 1.94 1.46 Existing Pond B X 0.75 0.78 10.72 0.58 2.16 1.26 Existing Pond A Y 1.81 0.36 13.41 0.65 1.96 1.27 Existing Pond A Z 0.45 0.35 5.95 0.16 2.65 0.41 Existing Pond A S 1.08 0.42 15.42 0.45 1.84 0.83 Existing Pond A Y 1.66 0.62 5.00 1.03 2.78 2.87 Existing Pond A Z 0.84 0.21 5.81 0.18 2.67 0.47 Existing Pond A 20.64 0.30 19.49 6.27 1.63 10.25 Existing Pond A 2.34 0.32 13.76 0.75 1.94 1.46 Existing Pond A On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS-Y EX-Z OS-Z Off-Site Basins Flowing On-Site EX-Y EX-T EX-U EX-V EX-W EX-X OS-S Existing Pond Basins Existing Pond A Existing Pond B DE S G I N BA S I N STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 2 YEAR EVENT PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY: K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx DATE: 10/21/2025 Harmony I-25 Infrastructure 196731002 OAT P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) =2.86 MEC REMARKS DE S I G N PO I N T AR E A (A C ) RU N O F F CO E F F tc (m i n ) C* A ( a c ) I (i n / h r ) Q (c f s ) T 13.56 0.29 14.74 3.90 6.55 25.52 Existing Pond A U 0.13 0.25 5.00 0.03 9.70 0.31 Existing Pond A V 0.38 0.25 13.97 0.09 6.71 0.63 Existing Pond A W 2.34 0.40 13.76 0.94 6.76 6.35 Existing Pond B X 0.75 0.98 5.00 0.73 9.70 7.08 Existing Pond A Y 1.81 0.45 13.41 0.81 6.84 5.55 Existing Pond A Z 0.45 0.44 5.95 0.20 9.24 1.81 Existing Pond A S 1.08 0.52 15.42 0.57 6.41 3.63 Existing Pond A Y 1.66 0.78 5.00 1.29 9.70 12.50 Existing Pond A Z 0.84 0.26 5.46 0.22 9.47 2.10 Existing Pond A 20.64 0.38 14.79 7.84 6.53 51.22 Existing Pond A 2.34 0.40 13.76 0.94 6.76 6.35 Existing Pond A OS-Z Existing Pond A Existing Pond Basins Existing Pond B OS-Y DE S G I N BA S I N On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site EX-T EX-U EX-V EX-W EX-X EX-Y EX-Z Off-Site Basins Flowing On-Site OS-S STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY: K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx PROJECT NAME: Harmony I-25 Infrastructure 10/21/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 196731002 CALCULATED BY: OAT CHECKED BY:MEC SOIL: GROUP B, C, D Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers Commercial LAND USE:AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF. 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.85 100-YEAR COEFF. 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.85 IMPERVIOUS %2%90%100%40%80% Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers Commercial TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)C(2)C(100)Imp % T1 T 4.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.85 0.20 0.25 2% T2 T 0.40 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.22 0.28 5% T3 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.52 2.52 0.85 1.00 80% T4 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.98 4.98 0.85 1.00 80% U1 U 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.20 0.25 2% U2 U 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.36 0.48 0.82 1.00 78% U3 U 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 1.51 0.85 1.00 80% V V 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.20 0.25 2% W1 W 1.39 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.23 0.28 5% X1 X 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.77 0.97 77% X2 X 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.80 1.00 80% X3 X 0.05 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.82 1.00 83% X4 X 0.04 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.84 1.00 86% 8.98 0.01 0.89 0.06 9.37 19.31 0.55 0.69 45% 47%0%5%0%49% OS-R R 0.04 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.89 1.00 92% OS-S S 0.68 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.45 0.56 34% OS-Y Y 1.78 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.22 0.27 4% OS-Z Z 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.20 0.25 2% 2.90 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 3.67 0.36 0.45 22% 79%0%21%0%0% TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 11.88 0.01 1.66 0.06 9.37 22.98 0.52 0.65 41% T1 T 4.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.85 0.20 0.25 2% T2 T 0.40 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.22 0.28 5% T3 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.52 2.52 0.85 1.00 80% T4 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.98 4.98 0.85 1.00 80% U1 U 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.20 0.25 2% U2 U 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.36 0.48 0.82 1.00 78% U3 U 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 1.51 0.85 1.00 80% V V 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.20 0.25 2% X1 X 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.77 0.97 77% X2 X 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.80 1.00 80% X3 X 0.05 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.82 1.00 83% X4 X 0.04 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.84 1.00 86% OS-Y Y 1.78 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.22 0.27 4% OS-Z Z 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.20 0.25 2% 9.77 0.01 0.89 0.06 9.37 20.10 0.54 0.67 43% 49%0%4%0%47% W1 W 1.39 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.23 0.28 5% OS-S S 0.68 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.45 0.56 34% 2.07 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 2.46 0.32 0.40 17% 84%0%16%0%0% Notes: 1. Imperviousness, I, values per UDFCD Criteria Manual Volume 1, Table 6-3 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-site RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION Off-Site Basins Flowing On-site BASIN SUBTOTAL 2. Runoff Coefficient values are from the City of Fort Collins Runoff Coefficient Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3; Chapter 5, Section 3.2 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, 2018 Edition. Frequency adjustment factor has been applied to composite C values per Table 3.2-3. BASIN SUBTOTAL Existing Pond A BASIN SUBTOTAL Existing Pond B BASIN SUBTOTAL K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\PR CIA Calcs - Ultimate.xlsx Harmony I-25 Infrastructure DATE: 10/21/2025 196731002 OAT MEC FINAL Tc DESIGN AREA C2 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft %Min.Ft.%fps Min.tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP.Min.Min. T1 4.85 0.20 79 6.2% 8.1 1,483 0.5% 0.195 2.6 9.6 17.7 1562 0.7% 2% 18.7 17.7 T2 0.41 0.22 145 2.6% 14.4 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 14.4 145 2.6% 5% 10.8 10.8 T3 2.52 0.85 0 0.0% 0.0 411 1.0% 0.195 3.9 1.8 1.8 411 1.0% 80% 12.3 5.0 T4 4.98 0.85 0 0.0% 0.0 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0% 80% 10.0 5.0 U1 1.78 0.20 24 13.8% 3.4 828 0.5% 0.195 2.7 5.1 8.5 852 0.9% 2% 14.7 8.5 U2 0.48 0.82 68 1.1% 4.2 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 4.2 68 1.1% 78% 10.4 5.0 U3 1.51 0.85 0 0.0% 0.0 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0% 80% 10.0 5.0 V 0.38 0.20 577 0.6% 47.9 138 4.0% 0.195 7.7 0.3 48.2 715 1.3% 2% 14.0 14.0 W1 1.44 0.23 732 0.4% 60.0 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 60.0 732 0.4% 5% 14.1 14.1 X1 0.17 0.77 0 0.0% 0.0 144 0.6% 0.195 3.0 0.8 0.8 144 0.6% 77% 10.8 5.0 X2 0.16 0.80 0 0.0% 0.0 143 0.6% 0.195 3.0 0.8 0.8 143 0.6% 80% 10.8 5.0 X3 0.32 0.82 0 0.0% 0.0 247 0.6% 0.195 3.0 1.4 1.4 247 0.6% 83% 11.4 5.0 X4 0.30 0.84 0 0.0% 0.0 243 0.6% 0.195 3.0 1.4 1.4 243 0.6% 86% 11.4 5.0 OS-R 0.42 0.89 0 0.0% 0.0 448 1.0% 0.195 3.9 1.9 1.9 448 1.0% 92% 12.5 5.0 OS-S 1.01 0.45 75 0.5% 13.3 908 0.5% 0.195 2.7 5.5 18.9 983 0.5% 34% 15.5 15.5 OS-Y 1.83 0.22 0 0.0% 0.0 748 0.5% 0.195 2.6 4.8 4.8 748 0.4% 4% 14.2 5.0 OS-Z 0.41 0.20 93 21.0% 5.9 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 5.9 93 21.0% 2% 10.5 5.9 Existing Pond A 20.10 0.54 167 5.9% 7.5 1,483 0.5% 0.195 2.7 9.1 16.6 1650 1.0% 5% 19.2 16.6 Existing Pond B 2.46 0.32 75 0.5% 16.0 732 0.4% 0.195 2.4 5.0 21.0 807 0.4% 80% 14.5 14.5 Tc CHECK (URBANIZED BASINS) PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: DATA INITIAL TIME (Ti) TRAVEL TIME (Tt) SUB-BASIN CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY: On-Site Basins Flowing Off-site 2-Year Time of Concentration Off-Site Basins Flowing On-site Existing Pond Basins K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\PR CIA Calcs - Ultimate.xlsx Harmony I-25 Infrastructure DATE: 10/21/2025 196731002 OAT MEC FINAL Tc DESIGN AREA C100 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft %Min.Ft.%fps Min.tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP.Min.Min. T1 4.85 0.25 79 6.2% 7.7 1,483 0.5% 0.195 2.6 9.6 17.2 1562 0.7% 2% 18.7 17.2 T2 0.41 0.28 145 2.6% 13.5 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 13.5 145 2.6% 5% 10.8 10.8 T3 2.52 1.00 0 0.0% 0.0 411 1.0% 0.195 3.9 1.8 1.8 411 1.0% 80% 12.3 5.0 T4 4.98 1.00 0 0.0% 0.0 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0% 80% 10.0 5.0 U1 1.78 0.25 24 13.8% 3.2 828 0.5% 0.195 2.7 5.1 8.3 852 0.9% 2% 14.7 8.3 U2 0.48 1.00 68 1.1% 1.5 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 1.5 68 1.1% 78% 10.4 5.0 U3 1.51 1.00 0 0.0% 0.0 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0% 80% 10.0 5.0 V 0.38 0.25 577 0.6% 45.3 138 4.0% 0.195 7.7 0.3 45.6 715 1.3% 2% 14.0 14.0 W1 1.44 0.28 732 0.4% 56.1 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 56.1 732 0.4% 5% 14.1 14.1 X1 0.17 0.97 0 0.0% 0.0 144 0.6% 0.195 3.0 0.8 0.8 144 0.6% 77% 10.8 5.0 X2 0.16 1.00 0 0.0% 0.0 143 0.6% 0.195 3.0 0.8 0.8 143 0.6% 80% 10.8 5.0 X3 0.32 1.00 0 0.0% 0.0 247 0.6% 0.195 3.0 1.4 1.4 247 0.6% 83% 11.4 5.0 X4 0.30 1.00 0 0.0% 0.0 243 0.6% 0.195 3.0 1.4 1.4 243 0.6% 86% 11.4 5.0 OS-R 0.42 1.00 0 0.0% 0.0 448 1.0% 0.195 3.9 1.9 1.9 448 1.0% 92% 12.5 5.0 OS-S 1.01 0.56 75 0.5% 11.0 908 0.5% 0.195 2.7 5.5 16.6 983 0.5% 34% 15.5 15.5 OS-Y 1.83 0.27 0 0.0% 0.0 748 0.5% 0.195 2.6 4.8 4.8 748 0.4% 4% 14.2 5.0 OS-Z 0.41 0.25 93 21.0% 5.6 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 5.6 93 21.0% 2% 10.5 5.6 Existing Pond A 20.10 0.67 167 5.9% 5.7 1,483 0.5% 0.195 2.7 9.1 14.8 1650 1.0% 5% 19.2 14.8 Existing Pond B 2.46 0.40 75 0.5% 14.3 732 0.4% 0.195 2.4 5.0 19.3 807 0.4% 80% 14.5 14.5 TIME (Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) CHECKED BY: Existing Pond Basins On-Site Basins Flowing Off-site Off-Site Basins Flowing On-site SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK DATA 100-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY: K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\PR CIA Calcs - Ultimate.xlsx DATE: 10/21/2025 Harmony I-25 Infrastructure 196731002 OAT P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) =0.82 MEC REMARKS DE S I G N PO I N T AR E A (A C ) RU N O F F CO E F F tc (m i n ) C* A ( a c ) I (i n / h r ) Q (c f s ) T 4.85 0.20 17.70 0.97 1.75 1.70 Existing Pond A T 0.41 0.22 10.81 0.09 2.21 0.20 Existing Pond A T 2.52 0.85 5.00 2.14 2.85 6.10 Existing Pond A T 4.98 0.85 5.00 4.23 2.85 12.06 Existing Pond A U 1.78 0.20 8.50 0.36 2.40 0.86 Existing Pond A U 0.48 0.82 5.00 0.39 2.85 1.12 Existing Pond A U 1.51 0.85 5.00 1.28 2.85 3.66 Existing Pond A V 0.38 0.20 13.97 0.08 1.98 0.15 Existing Pond A W 1.44 0.23 14.07 0.33 1.92 0.63 Existing Pond B X 0.17 0.77 5.00 0.13 2.85 0.38 Existing Pond A X 0.16 0.80 5.00 0.13 2.85 0.37 Existing Pond A X 0.32 0.82 5.00 0.26 2.85 0.74 Existing Pond A X 0.30 0.84 5.00 0.25 2.85 0.72 Existing Pond A R 0.42 0.89 5.00 0.37 2.85 1.06 Harmony Road S 1.01 0.45 15.46 0.45 1.87 0.85 Existing Pond B Y 1.83 0.22 5.00 0.40 2.85 1.14 Existing Pond A Z 0.41 0.20 5.88 0.08 2.85 0.23 Existing Pond A 20.10 0.54 16.59 10.80 1.77 19.15 Existing Pond A 2.46 0.32 14.48 0.78 1.89 1.48 Existing Pond B Existing Pond Basins U2 W1 V U3 X1 X4 OS-S OS-Y OS-R X2 X3 DE S G I N BA S I N T3 T4 U1 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-site T1 T2 Existing Pond B Existing Pond A Off-Site Basins Flowing On-site OS-Z STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 2 YEAR EVENT PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY: K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\PR CIA Calcs - Ultimate.xlsx DATE: 10/21/2025 Harmony I-25 Infrastructure 196731002 OAT P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) =2.86 MEC REMARKS DE S I G N PO I N T AR E A (A C ) RU N O F F CO E F F tc (m i n ) C* A ( a c ) I (i n / h r ) Q (c f s ) T 4.85 0.25 17.24 1.21 6.10 7.39 Existing Pond A T 0.41 0.28 10.81 0.12 7.72 0.89 Existing Pond A T 2.52 1.00 5.00 2.52 9.95 25.07 Existing Pond A T 4.98 1.00 5.00 4.98 9.95 49.52 Existing Pond A U 1.78 0.25 8.31 0.45 8.38 3.74 Existing Pond A U 0.48 1.00 5.00 0.48 9.95 4.74 Existing Pond A U 1.51 1.00 5.00 1.51 9.95 15.03 Existing Pond A V 0.38 0.25 13.97 0.10 6.92 0.66 Existing Pond A W 1.44 0.28 14.07 0.41 6.71 2.74 Existing Pond B X 0.17 0.97 5.00 0.17 9.95 1.65 Existing Pond A X 0.16 1.00 5.00 0.16 9.95 1.63 Existing Pond A X 0.32 1.00 5.00 0.32 9.95 3.15 Existing Pond A X 0.30 1.00 5.00 0.30 9.95 3.01 Existing Pond A R 0.42 1.00 5.00 0.42 2.85 1.20 Harmony Road S 1.01 0.56 15.46 0.57 1.87 1.06 Existing Pond B Y 1.83 0.27 5.00 0.50 2.85 1.42 Existing Pond A Z 0.41 0.25 5.56 0.10 2.85 0.29 Existing Pond A 20.10 0.67 14.79 13.50 6.54 88.23 Existing Pond A 2.46 0.40 14.48 0.98 6.60 6.44 Existing Pond B Existing Pond A X4 Off-Site Basins Flowing On-site OS-S OS-Y OS-Z U2 V W1 U3 Existing Pond Basin OS-R X2 X3 T1 T2 T3 T4 U1 Existing Pond B STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY: X1 DE S G I N BA S I N On-Site Basins Flowing Off-site K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\PR CIA Calcs - Ultimate.xlsx PROJECT NAME: Harmony I-25 Infrastructure DATE: 10/21/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 196731002 CALCULATED BY: OAT CHECKED BY: AGR Total Site Area: 22.98 acres Imperviousness 41% 1 Total Roadway Impervious Area: 1.64 acres 0.183 Total Impervious Area to LID 1.26 acres 18267 CF Required Impervious Area to LID 1.23 acres 47916 CF WQCV & LID Calculations Total WQCV Provided (Existing) a: (40 hours draintime) WQCV Total WQCV Req. PROJECT NAME: Harmony I-25 Infrastructure DATE: 10/21/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 196731002 CALCULATED BY: OAT CHECKED BY: MEC Design Point: 1 WQCV: 18267 ft3 Design Storm: 100-yr Det. Vol.: 178844 ft3 Developed "C": 0.67 197111 ft3 Area (A): 20.10 acres 4.53 ac-ft Max. Release (QOUT):0 cfs Provided Vol. 5.50 ac-ft Time Time 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (Minutes) (Seconds) (in/hr) (cfs)(ft3)(ft3)(ft3) 5 300 9.95 134.32 40297 0 40297 10 600 7.72 104.22 62531 0 62531 15 900 6.52 88.02 79216 0 79216 20 1200 5.60 75.60 90718 0 90718 25 1500 4.98 67.23 100843 0 100843 30 1800 4.52 61.02 109834 0 109834 35 2100 4.08 55.08 115666 0 115666 40 2400 3.74 50.49 121173 0 121173 45 2700 3.46 46.71 126114 0 126114 50 3000 3.23 43.60 130812 0 130812 55 3300 3.06 41.31 136320 0 136320 60 3600 2.86 38.61 138993 0 138993 65 3900 2.71 36.58 142678 0 142678 70 4200 2.59 34.96 146850 0 146850 75 4500 2.47 33.34 150049 0 150049 80 4800 2.38 32.13 154221 0 154221 85 5100 2.29 30.91 157663 0 157663 90 5400 2.21 29.83 161106 0 161106 95 5700 2.13 28.75 163900 0 163900 100 6000 2.06 27.81 166856 0 166856 105 6300 2.00 27.00 170096 0 170096 110 6600 1.94 26.19 172850 0 172850 115 6900 1.88 25.38 175118 0 175118 120 7200 1.84 24.84 178844 0 178844 FAA Detention Pond Volume Calculation Developed Total Volume to Regional Pond Total Vol. Inputs Results K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\PR CIA Calcs - Ultimate.xlsx PROJECT NAME: Harmony I-25 Infrastructure DATE: 10/21/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 196731002 CALCULATED BY: OAT CHECKED BY: MEC Design Point: 1 WQCV: 0 ft3 Design Storm: 100-yr Det. Vol.: 12926 ft3 Developed "C": 0.40 12926 ft3 Area (A): 2.46 acres 0.30 ac-ft Max. Release (QOUT):0 cfs Provided Vol. 5.50 ac-ft Time Time 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (Minutes) (Seconds) (in/hr) (cfs)(ft3)(ft3)(ft3) 5 300 9.95 9.71 2912 0 2912 10 600 7.72 7.53 4519 0 4519 15 900 6.52 6.36 5725 0 5725 20 1200 5.60 5.46 6557 0 6557 25 1500 4.98 4.86 7288 0 7288 30 1800 4.52 4.41 7938 0 7938 35 2100 4.08 3.98 8360 0 8360 40 2400 3.74 3.65 8758 0 8758 45 2700 3.46 3.38 9115 0 9115 50 3000 3.23 3.15 9454 0 9454 55 3300 3.06 2.99 9853 0 9853 60 3600 2.86 2.79 10046 0 10046 65 3900 2.71 2.64 10312 0 10312 70 4200 2.59 2.53 10614 0 10614 75 4500 2.47 2.41 10845 0 10845 80 4800 2.38 2.32 11146 0 11146 85 5100 2.29 2.23 11395 0 11395 90 5400 2.21 2.16 11644 0 11644 95 5700 2.13 2.08 11846 0 11846 100 6000 2.06 2.01 12060 0 12060 105 6300 2.00 1.95 12294 0 12294 110 6600 1.94 1.89 12493 0 12493 115 6900 1.88 1.83 12657 0 12657 120 7200 1.84 1.80 12926 0 12926 FAA Detention Pond Volume Calculation Developed Total Volume to Regional Pond Inputs Results Total Vol. K:\NCO_Civil\196731002_Harmony-I25\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Calculations\PR CIA Calcs - Ultimate.xlsx Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =77.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.770 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.25 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 7,405 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =153 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 =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 = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =114 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =280 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =280 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=280 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 =2.7 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =153 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =1/4 in LESS THAN MINIMUM. USE DIAMETER OF 3/8" Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) MEC KH October 21, 2025 Harmony I25 RG A (X1) UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO UD-BMP_v3.07 RG A.xlsm, RG 10/21/2025, 1:57 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =80.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.800 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.26 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 6,970 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =153 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 =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 = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =112 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =250 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =250 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=250 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 =2.7 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =153 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =1/4 in LESS THAN MINIMUM. USE DIAMETER OF 3/8" Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) MEC KH October 21, 2025 Harmony I25 RG B (X2) UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO UD-BMP_v3.07 RG B.xlsm, RG 10/21/2025, 2:03 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =83.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.830 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.28 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 13,939 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =323 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 =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 = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =231 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =325 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =325 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=325 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 =2.7 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =323 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =3/8 in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) MEC KH October 21, 2025 Harmony I25 RG C (X3) UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO UD-BMP_v3.07 RG C.xlsm, RG 10/21/2025, 2:22 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =86.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.860 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.30 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 13,068 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =322 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 =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 = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =225 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =325 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =325 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=325 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 =2.7 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =322 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =3/8 in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) MEC KH October 21, 2025 Harmony I25 RG D (X4) UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO UD-BMP_v3.07 RG D.xlsm, RG 10/21/2025, 2:29 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =78.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.780 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.25 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 20,909 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =441 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 =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 = 0.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =326 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =600 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =600 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=600 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 =2.7 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =441 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =7/16 in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) MEC KH October 21, 2025 Harmony I25 RG E (U2) UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO UD-BMP_v3.07 RG E.xlsm, RG 10/21/2025, 2:30 PM Final Drainage Report Harmony Lakes Infrastructure kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970 822 7911 Appendix C – Hydraulic Calculations MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) Project:196731002 Harmony Lakes Minor:2-year Major:100-year Worksheet Protected INLET NAME Inlet X1 Inlet X2 Inlet Application (Street or Area)STREET STREET Hydraulic Condition In Sump In Sump Inlet Type CDOT Type R Curb Opening CDOT Type R Curb Opening Number of Inlet Units 1 1 USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Peak Flows Minor Peak Flow, Q (cfs)0.38 0.37 Major Peak Flow, Q (cfs)1.65 1.63 Bypass (Carry-Over) Flow from Upstream Inlets must be organized from upstream (left) to downstream (right) in order for bypass flows to be linked. Receive Bypass Flow from:User-Defined User-Defined Bypass Flow Description (Optional): Minor Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs)0.00 0.00 Major Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs)0.00 0.00 CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs)0.38 0.37 Major Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs)1.65 1.63 Minor Inlet Interception Capacity, Qa (cfs)4.04 4.04 Major Inlet Interception Capacity, Qa (cfs)4.04 4.04 Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs)N/A N/A Major Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs)N/A N/A Minor Flow Capture Percentage, C%100%100% Major Flow Capture Percentage, C%100%100% INLET MANAGEMENT MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) Project:196731002 Harmony Lakes Minor:2-year Major:100-year Worksheet Protected INLET NAME Inlet Application (Street or Area) Hydraulic Condition Inlet Type Number of Inlet Units USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Peak Flows Minor Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Major Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Bypass (Carry-Over) Flow from Upstream Inlets must be organized from upstream (left) to downstream (right) in order for bypass flows to be linked. Receive Bypass Flow from: Bypass Flow Description (Optional): Minor Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs) Major Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Major Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Minor Inlet Interception Capacity, Qa (cfs) Major Inlet Interception Capacity, Qa (cfs) Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) Major Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) Minor Flow Capture Percentage, C% Major Flow Capture Percentage, C% INLET MANAGEMENT Inlet X3 Inlet X4 STREET STREET In Sump In Sump CDOT Type R Curb Opening CDOT Type R Curb Opening 1 1 0.74 0.72 3.15 3.01 Bypass (Carry-Over) Flow from Upstream Inlets must be organized from upstream (left) to downstream (right) in order for bypass flows to be linked. User-Defined User-Defined 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.72 3.15 3.01 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.04 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100%100% 100%100% ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project:196731002 Harmony Lakes Inlet ID:Inlet X1 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 =0.013 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =7.50 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =21.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.022 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 =0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =15.0 15.0 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 not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) MHFD-Inlet_v6.00.xlsm, Inlet X1 10/16/2025, 9:33 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type =CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =1.50 1.50 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =5.1 5.1 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.30 0.30 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =4.0 4.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q Peak)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.4 1.7 cfs H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP Override Depths MHFD-Inlet_v6.00.xlsm, Inlet X1 10/16/2025, 9:33 AM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project:196731002 Harmony Lakes Inlet ID:Inlet X2 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 =0.013 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =7.50 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =21.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.022 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 =0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =15.0 15.0 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 not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) MHFD-Inlet_v6.00.xlsm, Inlet X2 10/16/2025, 9:33 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type =CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =1.50 1.50 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =5.1 5.1 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.30 0.30 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =4.0 4.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q Peak)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.4 1.6 cfs H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP Override Depths MHFD-Inlet_v6.00.xlsm, Inlet X2 10/16/2025, 9:33 AM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project:196731002 Harmony Lakes Inlet ID:Inlet X3 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 =0.013 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =7.50 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =21.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.022 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 =0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =15.0 15.0 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 not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) MHFD-Inlet_v6.00.xlsm, Inlet X3 10/16/2025, 9:33 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type =CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =1.50 1.50 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =5.1 5.1 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.30 0.30 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =4.0 4.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q Peak)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.7 3.2 cfs H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP Override Depths MHFD-Inlet_v6.00.xlsm, Inlet X3 10/16/2025, 9:33 AM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project:196731002 Harmony Lakes Inlet ID:Inlet X4 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 =0.013 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =7.50 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =21.0 ft Gutter Width W =1.50 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =0.022 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 =0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =15.0 15.0 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 not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) MHFD-Inlet_v6.00.xlsm, Inlet X4 10/16/2025, 9:33 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 6.00 (August 2025) Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type =CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =1.50 1.50 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =1 1 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =5.1 5.1 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =1.50 1.50 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)Cf (C) =0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.30 0.30 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =4.0 4.0 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms (>Q Peak)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.7 3.0 cfs H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP Override Depths MHFD-Inlet_v6.00.xlsm, Inlet X4 10/16/2025, 9:33 AM STORM LINE A STORM LINE A1-1 STORM LINE A1-2 STORM LINE A3 STORM LINE C