HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE GARAGE - BDR160007 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - DRAINAGE REPORTMay 25, 2016
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR
POUDRE GARAGE
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
Poudre Garage, LLC
148 Remington Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Prepared by:
200 South College Avenue, Suite 10
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
Project Number: 998-002
This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF.
Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety.
When a hard copy is absolutely necessary, we recommend double-sided printing.
May 25, 2016
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Preliminary Drainage Report for
POUDRE GARAGE
Dear Staff:
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for your review. This report
accompanies the Project Development Plan submittal for the proposed Poudre Garage.
This report has been prepared in accordance to Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM),
and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed project. We
understand that review by the City is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria
contained in the FCSCM.
If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
Frederick S. Wegert, PE
Project Engineer
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................... 1
A. Location ............................................................................................................................................. 1
B. Description of Property ..................................................................................................................... 2
C. Floodplain.......................................................................................................................................... 3
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ....................................................................... 4
A. Major Basin Description .................................................................................................................... 4
B. Sub-Basin Description ....................................................................................................................... 4
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................... 5
A. Regulations........................................................................................................................................ 5
B. Four Step Process .............................................................................................................................. 5
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ............................................................................ 6
D. Hydrological Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6
E. Hydraulic Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 6
F. Modifications of Criteria ................................................................................................................... 6
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .................................................................................... 6
A. General Concept ............................................................................................................................... 6
B. Specific Details .................................................................................................................................. 7
V. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 8
A. Compliance with Standards .............................................................................................................. 8
B. Drainage Concept .............................................................................................................................. 8
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A.1 – Hydrologic Computations
APPENDIX A.2 – NRCS Soils Report
APPENDIX B.1 – LID Design Computations
APPENDIX C.1 – Inlet Computations
APPENDIX C.2 – Storm Line Computations
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................ 2
Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................... 3
Figure 4 – Area Floodplain Mapping ...................................................................................... 4
MAP POCKET:
Proposed Drainage Plan
Proposed Drainage Plan with Disturbed Areas
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report 1
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
1. The project site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North,
Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer,
State of Colorado.
2. The project site is located at 148 Remington Street at northwest corner of the
intersection of Remington Street and Oak Street.
3. The project site lies within the Old Town Basin. The site drains to the storm sewer
system in Oak Street, which is conveyed east to the Udall Water Quality Treatment
Area, and ultimately discharging into the Cache La Poudre River. The proposed
impervious area for the site is 3,294 square feet, and detention is not required since
the proposed impervious area is less than the required 5,000 square feet. However,
the site still must provide current City Low Impact Design (LID) requirements. Water
quality treatment methods are described in further detail below.
4. As this is an infill site, the area surrounding the site is fully developed.
5. No offsite flows enter the site from the north, south, east or west.
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report 2
B. Description of Property
1. The development area is roughly 0.16 net acres (6,995 square feet).
Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph
2. The subject property is currently composed of existing buildings and a hard-packed
dirt parking lot. Existing ground slopes are mild (i.e., 1 - 4±%) through the interior of
the property. General topography slopes from north to south.
3. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey website:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx,
the site consists of Satanta loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B). The NRCS Soils Report is
provided in Appendix A.2.
4. The proposed project site plan is composed of expanding the existing building to
include a mixed use of commercial, residential, and covered parking for the residential
units. Associated site work, water, and sewer lines will be constructed with the
development. Current City Low Impact Design (LID) requirements will be
implemented with the project, and will consist of several LID features which are
discussed in Section IV, below.
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report 3
Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan
5. There are no known irrigation laterals crossing the site.
6. The proposed land use is mixed use.
7. Total site disturbance is 8,500 square feet and does not require an Erosion Control
Plan and Report per the FCSCM. However, it’s strongly encouraged the developer
implements Best Management Practices during construction to reduce sediment into
the City’s storm sewer system. At a minimum, the site must be swept and maintained
to prevent dirt, saw cuttings, concrete wash, trash and debris, landscape materials
and other pollutants from entering the storm sewer at all times.
C. Floodplain
1. The project site is not encroached by any City or FEMA designated 100-year
floodplain.
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report 4
Figure 4 – Area Floodplain Mapping
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
1. The project site lies within the Old Town Basin. Generally, detention requirements for
this basin are to detain the difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate
and the historic 2-year release rate. The City of Fort Collins allows up to 5,000
square feet of new impervious without requiring detention. New impervious area for
the site is 3,294 square feet, and therefore, detention is not required.
2. The site drains into the Oak Street storm sewer system and conveyed to the Udall
Water Quality Treatment Area. However, the site must comply with current City Low
Impact Design (LID) requirements. Water quality treatment methods are described in
further detail below.
B. Sub-Basin Description
1. The subject property historically drains overland from north to south. Runoff from the
majority of the site has historically been collected in existing inlets located within
Remington Street and Oak Street.
2. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns is provided below.
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report 5
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Regulations
There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the proposed
project.
B. Four Step Process
The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the proposed project utilizes
the “Four Step Process” to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters.
The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each
step.
Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices
Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development to facilitate the
reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the
current use by implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID) strategies including:
Conserving existing amenities in the site including the existing vegetated areas.
Providing vegetated open areas throughout the site to reduce the overall impervious
area and to minimize directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA).
Routing flows, to the extent feasible, through vegetated areas to increase time of
concentration, promote infiltration and provide initial water quality.
Step 2 – Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with
Slow Release
The efforts taken in Step 1 will facilitate the reduction of runoff; however, urban
development of this intensity will still generate stormwater runoff that will require
additional BMPs and water quality. The stormwater runoff from the site will be
intercepted and treated using rain gardens.
Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways
There are no major drainageways within the subject property. While this step may not
seem applicable to proposed development, the project indirectly helps achieve stabilized
drainageways nonetheless. By providing water quality treatment, where none previously
existed, sediment with erosion potential is removed from downstream drainageway
systems. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as
well as ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City-wide
drainageway stability.
Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs.
The proposed project will improve upon site specific source controls compared to historic
conditions:
The proposed development will provide LID features which enhance water quality;
thus, eliminating sources of potential pollution previously left exposed to weathering
and runoff processes.
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report 6
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The subject property is surrounded by currently developed properties. Thus, several
constraints have been identified during the course of this analysis that will impact the
proposed drainage system including:
Existing elevations along the property lines will generally be maintained.
As previously mentioned, overall drainage patterns of the existing site will be
maintained.
Elevations of existing downstream facilities that the subject property will release to
will be maintained.
D. Hydrological Criteria
1. The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration Curves, as depicted in Figure RA-
16 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations associated with
the proposed development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7 has been utilized
for Rational Method runoff calculations.
2. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing
coefficients contained in Tables RO-11 and RO-12 of the FCSCM.
3. Two separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios.
A third design storm has also been computed for comparison purposes. The first
event analyzed is the “Minor,” or “Initial” Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence
interval. The second event considered is the “Major Storm,” which has a 100-year
recurrence interval. The third storm computed, for comparison purposes only, is the
10-year event.
4. No other assumptions or calculation methods have been used with this development
that are not referenced by current City of Fort Collins criteria.
E. Hydraulic Criteria
1. As previously noted, the subject property maintains historic drainage patterns.
2. All drainage facilities proposed with the project are designed in accordance with
criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
(UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
3. As stated above, the subject property is not located in a City or FEMA designated
floodplain. The proposed project does not propose to modify any natural
drainageways.
F. Modifications of Criteria
1. The proposed development is not requesting any modifications to criteria at this time.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concept
1. The main objectives of the project drainage design are to maintain existing drainage
patterns, and to ensure no adverse impacts to any adjacent properties.
2. Onsite LID features will be provided and will enhance water quality. These measures
are discussed further below.
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report 7
3. Drainage patterns for proposed drainage basins as shown in the Drainage Exhibit are
described below.
Basin A
Basin A will generally follow historic drainage patterns. Basin A will drain via overland
flow, roof drains, and proposed storm sewer into the existing storm drain system
within Oak Street. A proposed rain garden located within Basin A will discharge into
the proposed building’s storm drain system.
Basin OSA
Basin OSA will follow historic drainage patterns via overland flow into the existing
storm drain system within Oak Street.
Basins B & OSB
Minimal development will occur with Basins B and OSB. Basins B and OSB will
generally drain via overland flow into the existing storm drain system within
Remington Street. The emergency overflow for the rain garden will occur through
Basins B & OSB.
A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of
this report. Runoff computations for these basins based on the Rational Method is
provided in Appendix A.1.
B. Specific Details
1. Low Impact Development (LID) measures will consist of a rain garden in the
northeast corner of the site. The rain garden was designed with a drain system
that will outfall to the existing Oak Street storm drain. The rain garden was
designed to treat 75% of the new impervious area for the site. Details of this
design are provided within the Final plan set.
The design spreadsheet “Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)” by the
Urban Drainage and Flood Contol District (UDFCD) was utilized to compute
the required LID treatment areas, and the design sheet is provided in Appendix
B.1. This sheet shows the rain gardens are sized to treat 2,471 ft2, which
meets the requirement shown in Table 1. Please also see additional
information provided in the LID Requirement Table below (Table 1).
The rain garden was designed with three overflow inlets. Each overflow inlet
was sized to handle 50% of the 100-Year Storm Event with 50% of the grate
opening clogged by debris (see Appendix C.1). Only two inlets are required to
safely pass the 100-Year Storm Event; however, the third inlet provides an
additional factor of safety for the 100-Year Storm Event in the constrained
space in the northeast corner of the site.
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report 8
2. The following table summarizes proposed LID features and overall percentage
of the basin being treated by the proposed LID features
75% On-Site Treatment by LID Requirements
New Impervious Area 3,294 ft2 0.076 Ac.
Traditional Pavement Area 59 ft2 0.001 Ac.
Other Impervious Surfaces (Roofs, Concrete Walks, etc.) 3,235 ft2 0.075 Ac.
Required Minimum Impervious Area to be Treated 2,471 ft2 0.057 Ac.
Required Minimum Volume to be Treated 101 ft3 3.74 yd3
Design Volume of Rain Garden 113 ft3 4.18 yd3
Contributing Area to Rain Garden 2,471 ft2 0.057 Ac.
Percent of Treatment of New Impervious Area (by area) 75%
Table 1 – LID Treatment Requirements
3. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual shall be provided to the City of
Fort Collins and included in the site Development Agreement. A final copy of
the approved SOP manual shall be provided to City and must be maintained
on-site by the entity responsible for the facility maintenance. Annual reports
must also be prepared and submitted to the City discussing the results of the
maintenance program (i.e. inspection dates, inspection frequency, volume loss
due to sedimentation, corrective actions taken, etc.).
4. Proper maintenance of the drainage facilities designed with the proposed
development is a critical component of their ongoing performance and
effectiveness.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with Standards
1. The drainage design proposed with the proposed project complies with the City of Fort
Collins’ Stormwater Criteria Manual.
2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with requirements for the Old
Town Basin.
3. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the
proposed development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations
governing stormwater discharge.
B. Drainage Concept
1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential
damage associated with its stormwater runoff by compliance with requirements set
forth in current City master plans.
2. The drainage concept for the proposed development is consistent with requirements
for the Old Town Basin and the Downtown River District Final Design Report.
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Drainage Report 9
References
1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No.
174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code.
2. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and
Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007.
3. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
4. Old Town Master Drainage Plan, Baseline Hydraulics, Volume II, Anderson Consulting,
July 15, 2003.
5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised August 2013.
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Erosion Control Report
APPENDIX A.1
HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS
Percent
Impervious
Developed
50%
10% Date:
95%
Basin ID
Basin Area
(sq. ft.)
Basin Area
(ac)
Gravel Area
(ac.)
Area of
Lawns (ac.)
Area of
Impervious
(ac.)
Composite
Percent
Impervious
2-year
Runoff
Coefficient
2
5-year
Runoff
Coefficient
2
10-year
Runoff
Coefficient
2
100-year
Runoff
Coefficient
2
A 6,995 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.07 70.95% 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.62
OS-A 5,491 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.12 94.21% 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.87
OS-B 8,929 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 93.76% 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.85
Notes:
2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Chapter 5, Table RO-5.
Calculations By: F. Wegert
EXISTING % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS
Project: Poudre Garage
Gravel
Lawns
Impervious Area
1) Percent impervious are taken from Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Table RO-11, pg. 41.
CHARACTER OF SURFACE
1
:
May 25, 2016
5/23/2016 9:42 AM D:\Projects\998-002\Drainage\Hydrology\998-002_Pre-Developed_UDFCD_RM.xlsx\Basin Runoff Coefficient
Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:
Project:
Calculations By:
Date:
Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration:
T
t
= L / 60V
T
c
= T
i
+ T
t
(Equation RO-2)
Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S
½
Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S
½
Is Length
>500' ?
C
5
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
T
i
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
T
t
(min)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
T
t
(min)
Urban Tc
Check
T
c
(min)
Rational Method Equation: Project: Poudre Garage
Calculations By: F. Wegert
Date: May 25, 2016
Rainfall Intensity:
A A 0.16 10.9 0.45 0.53 0.62 2.17 3.71 7.57 0.16 0.32 0.75
OS-A OS-A 0.13 10.6 0.77 0.81 0.87 2.17 3.71 7.57 0.21 0.38 0.83
OS-B OS-B 0.20
11.0 0.76 0.80 0.85 2.13 3.63 7.42 0.33 0.59 1.30
Notes
EXISTING RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL BASINS
Rainfall Intensity taken from the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, Adopted June 20, 2005, Figure RA-3.
Design
Point
Basin(s)
Area, A
(acres)
T
c
(min)
C
2
C
10
C
100
Intensity,
i
2
(in/hr)
Intensity,
i
10
(in/hr)
Intensity,
i
100
(in/hr)
Flow,
Q
2
(cfs)
Flow,
Q
10
(cfs)
Flow,
Q
100
(cfs)
Q C f C i A
5/23/2016 9:43 AM D:\Projects\998-002\Drainage\Hydrology\998-002_Pre-Developed_UDFCD_RM.xlsx\Runoff
Percent
Impervious
Developed
50%
10% Date:
95%
Basin ID
Basin Area
(sq. ft.)
Basin Area
(ac)
Gravel Area
(ac.)
Area of
Lawns (ac.)
Area of
Impervious
(ac.)
Composite
Percent
Impervious
2-year
Runoff
Coefficient
2
5-year
Runoff
Coefficient
2
10-year
Runoff
Coefficient
2
100-year
Runoff
Coefficient
2
A 6,618 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.14 91.11% 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.82
B 377 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 95.00% 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.88
OS-A 5,491 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.12 88.31% 0.68 0.70 0.73 0.79
OS-B 8,929 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 93.76% 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.85
Notes:
2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Chapter 5, Table RO-5.
Calculations By: F. Wegert
DEVELOPED BASIN % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS
Project: Poudre Garage
Gravel
Lawns
Impervious Area
1) Percent impervious are taken from Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Table RO-11, pg. 41.
CHARACTER OF SURFACE
1
:
May 25, 2016
5/23/2016 9:39 AM D:\Projects\998-002\Drainage\Hydrology\998-002_Post-Developed_UDFCD_RM.xlsx\Basin Runoff Coefficient
Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:
Project:
Calculations By:
Date:
Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration:
T
t
= L / 60V
T
c
= T
i
+ T
t
(Equation RO-2)
Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S
½
Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S
½
Is Length
>500' ?
C
5
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
T
i
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
T
t
(min)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
T
t
(min)
Urban Tc
Check
T
c
(min)
Rational Method Equation: Project: Poudre Garage
Calculations By: F. Wegert
Date: May 25, 2016
Rainfall Intensity:
A A 0.15 10.8 0.73 0.77 0.82 2.17 3.71 7.57 0.24 0.43 0.95
B B 0.01 5.0 0.79 0.83 0.88 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.02 0.03 0.08
OS-A OS-A 0.13 10.6 0.68 0.73 0.79 2.17 3.71 7.57 0.19 0.34 0.75
OS-B OS-B 0.20
11.0 0.76 0.80 0.85 2.13 3.63 7.42 0.33 0.59 1.30
Notes
DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL BASINS
Rainfall Intensity taken from the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, Adopted June 20, 2005, Figure RA-3.
Design
Point
Basin(s)
Area, A
(acres)
T
c
(min)
C
2
C
10
C
100
Intensity,
i
2
(in/hr)
Intensity,
i
10
(in/hr)
Intensity,
i
100
(in/hr)
Flow,
Q
2
(cfs)
Flow,
Q
10
(cfs)
Flow,
Q
100
(cfs)
Q C f C i A
5/23/2016 9:40 AM D:\Projects\998-002\Drainage\Hydrology\998-002_Post-Developed_UDFCD_RM.xlsx\Runoff
Project Number: Project:
Project Location:
Calculations By: Date:
Percent
Impervious
● roof & concrete 3,257 ft
2
95% 3,094 ft
2
● gravel
1
3,738 ft
2
50% 1,869 ft
2
4,963 ft
2
● new roof & concrete
1
3,294 ft
2
95% 3,129 ft
2
3,129 ft
2
Note:
1) Gravel parking lot to be replaced with proposed building, concrete, and rain garden.
Total New Impervious Area
Existing
Proposed
Impervious Area for the Site
998-002 Poudre Garage
Fort Collins, Colorado
F. Wegert 5/25/2016
Area Weighted Area
Total Existing Impervious Area
5/23/2016 9:44 AM D:\Projects\998-002\Drainage\Hydrology\998-002_Pre-Developed_UDFCD_RM.xlsx\New Impv Area
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Erosion Control Report
APPENDIX A.2
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SOILS REPORT
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Larimer County
Natural Area, Colorado
Resources
Conservation
Service
January 28, 2016
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For
more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
2
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272
(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................7
Soil Map................................................................................................................8
Legend..................................................................................................................9
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................10
Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................10
Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................12
35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................................12
94—Satanta loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes....................................................13
Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................15
Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................15
Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................15
Hydrologic Soil Group.................................................................................15
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
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
5
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
7
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4492730 4492740 4492750 4492760 4492770 4492780 4492790 4492800 4492810 4492820 4492830 4492840 4492850
4492730 4492740 4492750 4492760 4492770 4492780 4492790 4492800 4492810 4492820 4492830 4492840 4492850
493600 493610 493620 493630 493640 493650 493660 493670 493680
493600 493610 493620 493630 493640 493650 493660 493670 493680
40° 35' 11'' N
105° 4' 32'' W
40° 35' 11'' N
105° 4' 28'' W
40° 35' 7'' N
105° 4' 32'' W
40° 35' 7'' N
105° 4' 28'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0 25 50 100 150
Feet
0 5 10 20 30
Meters
Map Scale: 1:616 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
Map Unit Legend
Larimer County Area, Colorado (CO644)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
0.0 0.1%
94 Satanta loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes
1.7 99.9%
Totals for Area of Interest 1.8 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
Larimer County Area, Colorado
35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tlnc
Elevation: 4,020 to 6,730 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F
Frost-free period: 143 to 154 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Fort collins and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Fort Collins
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Pleistocene or older alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic
and sedimentary rock and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam
Bt1 - 4 to 9 inches: clay loam
Bt2 - 9 to 16 inches: clay loam
Bk1 - 16 to 29 inches: loam
Bk2 - 29 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.20 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 12 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 0.5
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO)
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO)
Vona
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO)
94—Satanta loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpyc
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
Satanta and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Satanta
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam
H2 - 12 to 18 inches: loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam
H2 - 12 to 18 inches: loam, clay loam, fine sandy loam
H2 - 12 to 18 inches:
H3 - 18 to 60 inches:
H3 - 18 to 60 inches:
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
H3 - 18 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 26.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Minor Components
Stoneham
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Fort collins
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Nunn
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Properties and Qualities
The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities
displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected
area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating
the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process
is defined for each property or quality.
Soil Qualities and Features
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.
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned
to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not
protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-
duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three
dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that
have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a
moderate rate of water transmission.
15
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils
of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential,
soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the
surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have
a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for
drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural
condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
17
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group
4492730 4492740 4492750 4492760 4492770 4492780 4492790 4492800 4492810 4492820 4492830 4492840 4492850
4492730 4492740 4492750 4492760 4492770 4492780 4492790 4492800 4492810 4492820 4492830 4492840 4492850
493600 493610 493620 493630 493640 493650 493660 493670 493680
493600 493610 493620 493630 493640 493650 493660 493670 493680
40° 35' 11'' N
105° 4' 32'' W
40° 35' 11'' N
105° 4' 28'' W
40° 35' 7'' N
105° 4' 32'' W
40° 35' 7'' N
105° 4' 28'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0 25 50 100 150
Feet
0 5 10 20 30
Meters
Map Scale: 1:616 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado
Table—Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Larimer County Area, Colorado (CO644)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes
C 0.0 0.1%
94 Satanta loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes
B 1.7 99.9%
Totals for Area of Interest 1.8 100.0%
Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
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
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Erosion Control Report
APPENDIX B.1
WATER WAWALID DESIGN COMPUTATIONS
Sheet 1 of 2
Designer:
Company:
Date:
Project:
Location:
1. Basin Storage Volume
A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia = 100.0 %
(100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden)
B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100) i = 1.000
C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.40 watershed inches
(WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i)
D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 2,471 sq ft
E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV = 82 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 = 0.0 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 = 4.0 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 = 55 sq ft
D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual = 303 sq ft
E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) ATop = 303 sq ft
F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 101 cu ft
(VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth)
3. Growing Media
4. Underdrain System
A) Are underdrains provided?
B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time
i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y = 1.7 ft
Volume to the Center of the Orifice
ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 = 82 cu ft
iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = 0.22 in MINIMUM DIAMETER = 3/8"
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
Frederick Wegert
Northern Engineering
May 25, 2016
998-002
Rain Garden Onsite
Choose One
Choose One
18" Rain Garden Growing Media
Other (Explain):
YES
NO
UD-BMP_v3.02_Rngdn 75% Treatment.xls, RG 5/23/2016, 9:46 AM
Sheet 2 of 2
Designer:
Company:
Date:
Project:
Location:
5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric
A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity
of structures or groundwater contamination?
6. Inlet / Outlet Control
A) Inlet Control
7. Vegetation
8. Irrigation
A) Will the rain garden be irrigated?
Notes:
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
Frederick Wegert
Northern Engineering
May 25, 2016
998-002
Rain Garden Onsite
Choose One
Choose One
Choose One
Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required
Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided
Plantings
Seed (Plan for frequent weed control)
Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod
Choose One
YES
NO
YES
NO
UD-BMP_v3.02_Rngdn 75% Treatment.xls, RG 5/23/2016, 9:46 AM
S
C
S
H
Y
D
D
W
D
C
S
G
EX. ELEC
VAULT
RD RD
UD UD UD UD UD
C T
REMMINGTON STREET
(100' ROW)
20' WIDE ALLEY
EXISTING 1-STORY
BRICK BUILDING
EXISTING 1-STORY
BRICK BUILDING
EXISTING 2-STORY
BRICK BUILDING
OAK STREET
(100' ROW)
(M) N00°18'49"E 99.99'
(R) NORTH 100'
(M) S00°20'34"W 99.97'
(R) SOUTH 100'
(M) N89°42'10"W 69.94'
(R) WEST 70'
(M) S89°41'11"E 69.99'
(R) EAST 70'
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.52
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.44
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4983.99
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4984.04
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.56
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.46
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.42
EXISTING TREE WELL (TYP.)
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Erosion Control Report
APPENDIX C.1
WATER WAWAINLET COMPUTATIONS
Area Inlet Performance Curve:
Rain Garden Inlet (North)
Governing Equations:
At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation:
* where P = 3.1416*Dia.of grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline
At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation:
* where A equals the open area of the inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A)
The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown.
However, what is known, is that the stage-discharge curves of the weir equation and the orifice equation
will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below:
If H > 1.792 (A/P), then the grate operates like an orifice; otherwise it operates like a weir.
Input Parameters:
Type of Grate: Nyloplast 8" Dome
Diameter of Grate (ft): 0.666666667
Open Area of Grate (ft2): 0.21
Rim Elevation (ft): 4987.750
Reduction Factor: 50%
Depth vs. Flow:
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Shallow
Weir Flow
(cfs)
Orifice
Flow
(cfs)
Actual
Flow
(cfs)
0.00 4987.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.20 4987.95 0.28 0.25 0.25
0.40 4988.15 0.79 0.36 0.36
0.60 4988.35 1.46 0.44 0.44
0.80 4988.55 2.25 0.50 0.50
1.00 4988.75 3.14 0.56 0.56
1.20 4988.95 4.13 0.62 0.62
1.40 4989.15 5.20 0.67 0.67
1.60 4989.35 6.36 0.71 0.71
1.80 4989.55 7.59 0.76 0.76
2.00 4989.75 8.89 0.80 0.80
Design Flow = 0.22 cfs
Q 3 . 0 P H 1 . 5
Q 0 . 67 A ( 2 gH ) 0 . 5
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Discharge (cfs)
Stage (ft)
Stage - Discharge Curves
Weir Flow
Area Inlet Performance Curve:
Rain Garden Inlet (Middle)
Governing Equations:
At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation:
* where P = 3.1416*Dia.of grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline
At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation:
* where A equals the open area of the inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A)
The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown.
However, what is known, is that the stage-discharge curves of the weir equation and the orifice equation
will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below:
If H > 1.792 (A/P), then the grate operates like an orifice; otherwise it operates like a weir.
Input Parameters:
Type of Grate: Nyloplast 8" Dome
Diameter of Grate (ft): 0.666666667
Open Area of Grate (ft2): 0.21
Rim Elevation (ft): 4981.750
Reduction Factor: 50%
Depth vs. Flow:
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Shallow
Weir Flow
(cfs)
Orifice
Flow
(cfs)
Actual
Flow
(cfs)
0.00 4981.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.20 4981.95 0.28 0.25 0.25
0.40 4982.15 0.79 0.36 0.36
0.60 4982.35 1.46 0.44 0.44
0.80 4982.55 2.25 0.50 0.50
1.00 4982.75 3.14 0.56 0.56
1.20 4982.95 4.13 0.62 0.62
1.40 4983.15 5.20 0.67 0.67
1.60 4983.35 6.36 0.71 0.71
1.80 4983.55 7.59 0.76 0.76
2.00 4983.75 8.89 0.80 0.80
Design Flow = 0.22 cfs
Q 3 . 0 P H 1 . 5
Q 0 . 67 A ( 2 gH ) 0 . 5
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Discharge (cfs)
Stage (ft)
Stage - Discharge Curves
Weir Flow
Area Inlet Performance Curve:
Rain Garden Inlet (South)
Governing Equations:
At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation:
* where P = 3.1416*Dia.of grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline
At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation:
* where A equals the open area of the inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A)
The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown.
However, what is known, is that the stage-discharge curves of the weir equation and the orifice equation
will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below:
If H > 1.792 (A/P), then the grate operates like an orifice; otherwise it operates like a weir.
Input Parameters:
Type of Grate: Nyloplast 8" Dome
Diameter of Grate (ft): 0.666666667
Open Area of Grate (ft2): 0.21
Rim Elevation (ft): 4981.750
Reduction Factor: 50%
Depth vs. Flow:
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Shallow
Weir Flow
(cfs)
Orifice
Flow
(cfs)
Actual
Flow
(cfs)
0.00 4981.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.20 4981.95 0.28 0.25 0.25
0.40 4982.15 0.79 0.36 0.36
0.60 4982.35 1.46 0.44 0.44
0.80 4982.55 2.25 0.50 0.50
1.00 4982.75 3.14 0.56 0.56
1.20 4982.95 4.13 0.62 0.62
1.40 4983.15 5.20 0.67 0.67
1.60 4983.35 6.36 0.71 0.71
1.80 4983.55 7.59 0.76 0.76
2.00 4983.75 8.89 0.80 0.80
Design Flow = 0.22 cfs
Q 3 . 0 P H 1 . 5
Q 0 . 67 A ( 2 gH ) 0 . 5
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Discharge (cfs)
Stage (ft)
Stage - Discharge Curves
Weir Flow
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Erosion Control Report
APPENDIX C.2
WATER WAWASTORM LINE COMPUTATIONS
Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Alternative
Preliminary Erosion Control Report
MAP POCKET
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS
S
C
S
H
Y
D
D
W
D
C
S
G
EX. ELEC
VAULT
RD RD
UD UD UD UD UD
C T
REMMINGTON STREET
(100' ROW)
20' WIDE ALLEY
EXISTING 1-STORY
BRICK BUILDING
EXISTING 1-STORY
BRICK BUILDING
EXISTING 2-STORY
BRICK BUILDING
OAK STREET
(100' ROW)
(M) N00°18'49"E 99.99'
(R) NORTH 100'
(M) S00°20'34"W 99.97'
(R) SOUTH 100'
(M) N89°42'10"W 69.94'
(R) WEST 70'
(M) S89°41'11"E 69.99'
(R) EAST 70'
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.52
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.44
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4983.99
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4984.04
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.56
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.46
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.42
EXISTING TREE WELL (TYP.)
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
S
C
S
H
Y
D
D
W
D
C
S
G
EX. ELEC
VAULT
RD RD
UD UD UD UD UD
C T
REMMINGTON STREET
(100' ROW)
20' WIDE ALLEY
EXISTING 1-STORY
BRICK BUILDING
EXISTING 1-STORY
BRICK BUILDING
EXISTING 2-STORY
BRICK BUILDING
OAK STREET
(100' ROW)
(M) N00°18'49"E 99.99'
(R) NORTH 100'
(M) S00°20'34"W 99.97'
(R) SOUTH 100'
(M) N89°42'10"W 69.94'
(R) WEST 70'
(M) S89°41'11"E 69.99'
(R) EAST 70'
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.52
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.44
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4983.99
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4984.04
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.56
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.46
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4982.42
EXISTING TREE WELL (TYP.)
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EX. RAMP WITH HANDRAIL
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
PRESERVE & PROTECT EXISTING
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC VAULT
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
OS-A
0.13 AC.
A
0.15 AC.
OS-B
0.20 AC.
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREES
B
0.01 AC.
OSA
OSB
A
PROPOSED BUILDING
FF = 4982.50
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN
PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4981.46
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4981.47
RD
No. Revisions:
By: Date:
REVIEWED BY:
R. Provencio
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
SCALE:
DATE:
5/25/2016
PROJECT:
998-002
Sheet
Of 13 Sheets
POUDRE GARAGE
These drawings are
instruments of service
provided by Northern
Engineering Services, Inc.
and are not to be used for
any type of construction
unless signed and sealed by
a Professional Engineer in
the employ of Northern
Engineering Services, Inc.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW SET
5/25/2016
301 North Howes Street, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
E N G I N E E R I N G
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158
www.northernengineering.com
Fig.5
with DISTURBED AREA
DRAINAGE PLAN F. Wegert
F. Wegert
1" = 10'
City UTILITY of Fort PLAN Collins, APPROVAL Colorado
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
APPROVED:
City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Parks & Recreation
Stormwater Utility
Water & Wastewater Utility
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU
DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF
UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
( IN FEET )
10 0 10 20 30
1 INCH = 10 FEET
A
DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL
BASIN
DESIGNATION
BASIN
AREA (AC)
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
B2
1.45 ac
80
79
5015
5013
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOURS
DESIGN POINT
FLOW ARROWS
1.EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES AS SHOWN
ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER.
THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. EXISTING
UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THESE
DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES
(PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY EXACT UTILITY
LOCATIONS.
2.REFER TO THE "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR POUDRE GARAGE" BY NORTHERN
ENGINEERING, DATED MAY 25, 2016 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
3.TOTAL DISTURBED AREA FOR PROJECT IS 8,500 FT{}.
NOTES:
LEGEND:
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY/PROPERTY LINE
VAULT
ELEC
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT
PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT
PROPOSED VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER
RD
PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN/LID TREATMENT
EXISTING BUILDING
SAWCUT LINE
EXISTING ELECTRIC VAULT
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING TREES
PROPOSED ROOF DRAIN
PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU
DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF
UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
FIELD SURVEY BY:
ORIGINAL FIELD SURVEY
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
PROJECT NUMBER: 998-002
DATE: DECEMBER 2015
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN
UD
DEVELOPED BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID BASIN AREA (FT
2) BASIN AREA (AC.) % IMPERVIOUS Q
2-YR (CFS) Q
10-YR (CFS) Q
100-YR (CFS)
A 6,618 FT2
0.15 ACRES 91.11% 0.24 CFS 0.43 CFS 0.95 CFS
B 377 FT2
0.01 ACRES 95.00% 0.02 CFS 0.03 CFS 0.08 CFS
OS-A 5,491 FT2
0.13 ACRES 88.31% 0.19 CFS 0.34 CFS 0.75 CFS
OS-B 8,929 FT2
0.20 ACRES 93.76% 0.33 CFS 0.59 CFS 1.30 CFS
EXISTING BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID BASIN AREA (FT
2) BASIN AREA (AC.) % IMPERVIOUS Q
2-YR (CFS) Q
10-YR (CFS) Q
100-YR (CFS)
A 6,995 FT2
0.16 ACRES 70.95% 0.16 CFS 0.32 CFS 0.75 CFS
OS-A 5,491 FT2
0.13 ACRES 94.21% 0.21 CFS 0.38 CFS 0.83 CFS
OS-B 8,929 FT2
0.20 ACRES 93.76% 0.33 CFS 0.59 CFS 1.30 CFS
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 8,500 SQ. FT
NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,294 FT2
0.076 AC.
TRADITIONAL PAVEMENT AREA 59 FT2
0.001 AC.
OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES (ROOFS, CONCRETE, WALKS, ETC.) 3,235 FT2
0.075 AC.
REQUIRED MINIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA TO BE TREATED 2,471 FT2
0.057 AC.
REQUIRED MINIMUM VOLUME TO BE TREATED 101 FT3
3.74 YD3
DESIGN VOLUME OF RAIN GARDEN 113 FT3
4.18 YD3
CONTRIBUTING AREA TO RAIN GARDEN 2,471 FT2
0.057 AC.
PERCENT OF TREATMENT OF NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA 75%
75% ON-SITE TREATMENT BY LID REQUIREMENTS
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EX. RAMP WITH HANDRAIL
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
PRESERVE & PROTECT EXISTING
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC VAULT
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
OS-A
0.13 AC.
A
0.15 AC.
OS-B
0.20 AC.
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREES
B
0.01 AC.
OSA
OSB
A
PROPOSED BUILDING
FF = 4982.50
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN
PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4981.46
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4981.47
RD
No. Revisions:
By: Date:
REVIEWED BY:
R. Provencio
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
SCALE:
DATE:
5/25/2016
PROJECT:
998-002
Sheet
Of 13 Sheets
POUDRE GARAGE
These drawings are
instruments of service
provided by Northern
Engineering Services, Inc.
and are not to be used for
any type of construction
unless signed and sealed by
a Professional Engineer in
the employ of Northern
Engineering Services, Inc.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW SET
5/25/2016
301 North Howes Street, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
E N G I N E E R I N G
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158
www.northernengineering.com
C500
DRAINAGE PLAN F. Wegert
F. Wegert
1" = 10'
City UTILITY of Fort PLAN Collins, APPROVAL Colorado
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
APPROVED:
City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Parks & Recreation
Stormwater Utility
Water & Wastewater Utility
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU
DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF
UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
( IN FEET )
10 0 10 20 30
1 INCH = 10 FEET
A
DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL
BASIN
DESIGNATION
BASIN
AREA (AC)
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
B2
1.45 ac
80
79
5015
5013
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOURS
DESIGN POINT
FLOW ARROWS
NOTES:
LEGEND:
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY/PROPERTY LINE
VAULT
ELEC
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT
PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT
PROPOSED VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER
RD
PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN/LID TREATMENT
EXISTING BUILDING
SAWCUT LINE
EXISTING ELECTRIC VAULT
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING TREES
PROPOSED ROOF DRAIN
PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU
DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF
UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
FIELD SURVEY BY:
ORIGINAL FIELD SURVEY
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
PROJECT NUMBER: 998-002
DATE: DECEMBER 2015
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN
UD
NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,294 FT2
0.076 AC.
TRADITIONAL PAVEMENT AREA 59 FT2
0.001 AC.
OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES (ROOFS, CONCRETE, WALKS, ETC.) 3,235 FT2
0.075 AC.
REQUIRED MINIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA TO BE TREATED 2,471 FT2
0.057 AC.
REQUIRED MINIMUM VOLUME TO BE TREATED 101 FT3
3.74 YD3
DESIGN VOLUME OF RAIN GARDEN 113 FT3
4.18 YD3
CONTRIBUTING AREA TO RAIN GARDEN 2,471 FT2
0.057 AC.
PERCENT OF TREATMENT OF NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA 75%
75% ON-SITE TREATMENT BY LID REQUIREMENTS
DEVELOPED BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID BASIN AREA (FT
2) BASIN AREA (AC.) % IMPERVIOUS Q
2-YR (CFS) Q
10-YR (CFS) Q
100-YR (CFS)
A 6,618 FT2
0.15 ACRES 91.11% 0.24 CFS 0.43 CFS 0.95 CFS
B 377 FT2
0.01 ACRES 95.00% 0.02 CFS 0.03 CFS 0.08 CFS
OS-A 5,491 FT2
0.13 ACRES 88.31% 0.19 CFS 0.34 CFS 0.75 CFS
OS-B 8,929 FT2
0.20 ACRES 93.76% 0.33 CFS 0.59 CFS 1.30 CFS
EXISTING BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID BASIN AREA (FT
2) BASIN AREA (AC.) % IMPERVIOUS Q
2-YR (CFS) Q
10-YR (CFS) Q
100-YR (CFS)
A 6,995 FT2
0.16 ACRES 70.95% 0.16 CFS 0.32 CFS 0.75 CFS
OS-A 5,491 FT2
0.13 ACRES 94.21% 0.21 CFS 0.38 CFS 0.83 CFS
OS-B 8,929 FT2
0.20 ACRES 93.76% 0.33 CFS 0.59 CFS 1.30 CFS
1.EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES AS SHOWN
ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER.
THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. EXISTING
UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THESE
DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES
(PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY EXACT UTILITY
LOCATIONS.
2.REFER TO THE "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR POUDRE GARAGE" BY NORTHERN
ENGINEERING, DATED MAY 25, 2016 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
3.TOTAL DISTURBED AREA FOR PROJECT IS 8,500 FT{}.
{4.THE SITE MUST BE SWEPT AND MAINTAINED TO PREVENT DIRT, SAW CUTTINGS,
CONCRETE WASH, TRASH & DEBRIS, LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS
FROM ENTERING THE STORM SEWER AT ALL TIMES OR BMP'S WILL BE REQUIRED PER CITY
OF FORT COLLINS REGULATIONS.}
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 8,500 SQ. FT
Orifice Flow
Orifice Flow
Orifice Flow
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EX. RAMP WITH HANDRAIL
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
PRESERVE & PROTECT EXISTING
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC VAULT
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREE
OS-A
A
OS-B
PRESERVE & PROTECT
EXISTING TREES
B
OSA
OSB
A
PROPOSED BUILDING
FF = 4982.50
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN
PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4981.46
EXISTING DOOR
THRESHOLD
ELEV. = 4981.47
RD
Sheet
Of 13 Sheets
POUDRE GARAGE These drawings are
instruments of service
provided by Northern
Engineering Services, Inc.
and are not to be used for
any type of construction
unless signed and sealed by
a Professional Engineer in
the employ of Northern
Engineering Services, Inc.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW SET
301 North Howes Street, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
E NGINEER ING
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158
www.northernengineering.com
Fig B.1
with DISTURBED AREA
DRAINAGE PLAN
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU
DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF
UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
( IN FEET )
10 0 10 20 30
1 INCH = 10 FEET
A
B2
1.45 ac
NOTES:
LEGEND:
VAULT
ELEC
RD
CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU
DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF
UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
FIELD SURVEY BY:
UD
DEVELOPED BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID BASIN AREA (FT
2) BASIN AREA (AC.) % IMPERVIOUS Q
2-YR (CFS) Q10-YR
(CFS) Q100-YR (CFS)
A 6,618 FT2
0.15 ACRES 91.11% 0.24 CFS 0.43 CFS 0.95 CFS
B 377 FT2
0.01 ACRES 95.00% 0.02 CFS 0.03 CFS 0.08 CFS
OS-A 5,491 FT
2
0.13 ACRES 88.31% 0.19 CFS 0.34 CFS 0.75 CFS
OS-B 8,929 FT
2
0.20 ACRES 93.76% 0.33 CFS 0.59 CFS 1.30 CFS
EXISTING BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID BASIN AREA (FT
2) BASIN AREA (AC.) % IMPERVIOUS Q
2-YR (CFS) Q10-YR
(CFS) Q100-YR (CFS)
A 6,995 FT2
0.16 ACRES 70.95% 0.16 CFS 0.32 CFS 0.75 CFS
OS-A 5,491 FT2
0.13 ACRES 94.21% 0.21 CFS 0.38 CFS 0.83 CFS
OS-B 8,929 FT2
0.20 ACRES 93.76% 0.33 CFS 0.59 CFS 1.30 CFS
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 8,500 SQ. FT
NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,294 FT2
0.076 AC.
TRADITIONAL PAVEMENT AREA 59 FT2
0.001 AC.
OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES (ROOFS, CONCRETE, WALKS, ETC.) 3,235 FT2
0.075 AC.
REQUIRED MINIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA TO BE TREATED 2,471 FT
2
0.057 AC.
REQUIRED MINIMUM VOLUME TO BE TREATED 101 FT3
3.74 YD3
DESIGN VOLUME OF RAIN GARDEN 113 FT3
4.18 YD3
CONTRIBUTING AREA TO RAIN GARDEN 2,471 FT2
0.057 AC.
PERCENT OF TREATMENT OF NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA 75%
75% ON-SITE TREATMENT BY LID REQUIREMENTS
CONTRIBUTING AREA
TO RAIN GARDEN
Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 22, 2015
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 22, 2011—Apr 28,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
18
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado
Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 22, 2015
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 22, 2011—Apr 28,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
9
A A No 0.75 137 0.18% 63.4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10.8 10.8
B B No 0.81 8 6.25% 3.9 60 0.83% 1.82 0.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10.4 5.0
OS-A OS-A No 0.70 23 1.65% 14.0 93 0.87% 1.87 0.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10.6 10.6
OS-B OS-B No 0.78 23 1.65% 11.4 159 0.78% 1.77 1.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 11.0 11.0
DEVELOPED DIRECT TIME OF CONCENTRATION FOR INDIVIDUAL BASINS
Gutter Flow 1 Swale Flow
Design
Point
Basin
Overland Flow Time of Concentration
Poudre Garage
F. Wegert
May 25, 2016
(Equation RO-4)
3
1
1 . 87 1 . 1 5
S
C L
Ti
5/23/2016 9:40 AM D:\Projects\998-002\Drainage\Hydrology\998-002_Post-Developed_UDFCD_RM.xlsx\Tc
A A No 0.49 170 0.32% 101.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10.9 10.9
OS-A OS-A No 0.79 23 1.65% 10.8 93 0.87% 1.87 0.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 10.6 10.6
OS-B OS-B No
0.78 23 1.65% 11.3 159 0.78% 1.77 1.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 11.0 11.0
EXISTING DIRECT TIME OF CONCENTRATION FOR INDIVIDUAL BASINS
Gutter Flow 1 Swale Flow
Design
Point
Basin
Overland Flow Time of Concentration
Poudre Garage
F. Wegert
May 25, 2016
(Equation RO-4)
3
1
1 . 87 1 . 1 5
S
C L
Ti
5/23/2016 9:42 AM D:\Projects\998-002\Drainage\Hydrology\998-002_Pre-Developed_UDFCD_RM.xlsx\Tc