HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 06/23/2023� I NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
MAY 4, 2023
i,�•�:i�:i�:�,ia.��uiaa �i.���.��i
970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS
GREELEY
This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF. Please
consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety.
When a hard copy is necessary, we recommend double-sided printing.
May 4, 2023
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR
FORTY-THREE PRIME
Dear Staff:
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report foryour review. This report accompanies
the combined Final Plan submittal for the proposed Forty-Three Prime.
This report has been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) and
serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed Forty-Three Prime multifamily
project. We understand that review by the City of Fort Collins 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.
Si ncerely,
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
,PpO L/�F�
'.r`.(. SCOjT � • �(S�
: � ' p ��
" 45018 �' '
��s�4�zoz3•��,��
�S .�
T
�, `S��NAL ��G
Frederick S. Wegert, PE
Project Engineer
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY COVER LETTER
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..........................................................1
II. DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS .....................................................................3
III, DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ..........................................................................4
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITIf DESIGN ...........................................................................7
V. CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................9
VI. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................10
TABLESAND FIGURES
FIGURE 1-VICINITY MAP .................................................................................................1
FIGURE 2 - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ...................................................................................2
FIGURE 3- FEMA FIRMETTE (MAP NUMBER 08069C1200F) ............................................3
TABLE 1: ONSITE WATER QUALITYVOLUMES .................................................................8
APPENDICES
APPENDIXA- HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS
APPENDIX B - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C -WATER QUALITY/LID COMPUTATIONS
APPENDIX D- EROSION CONTROL REPORT
APPENDIX E- USDA SOILS REPORT
APPENDIX F - FEMA FIRMETTE
APPENDIX G- EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS
MAP POCKET
DR1- DRAINAGE EXHIBIT
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. LOCATION
1. Vicinity Map
2. The Forty-Three Primeproject site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 13, Township 6
North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State
of Colorado. The project site is Tract A of the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing 2, which was
approved in 2001.
3. The project site (refer to Figure 1) is bordered to the north by East Trilby Road; to the south by
Candlewood Drive; to the east by Brittany Drive and to the west by Autumn Ridge Drive.
4. A regional detention pond for Provincetowne Subdivision is located on the east quarter of the
site.
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
1. The Forty-Three Prime project is comprised of ±4.87acres.
2. The site is currently occupied by a small asphalt parking lot and native grasses.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 1 � 10
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
�T_��.�-= r'�s�'t��_ :_�� =v�s_ � �D'-���-:p _.� ��l , _-. -
-- -;-r _ - � -._--� --- - ---- -i. — _ ..._
� �� �-�-- - :
�'-- ---, }_� . _ -��� --. _.._- .' ---_- '.J��! .� -_ � .
-- ^ -- � � - --�� . .-� '��' �� �� �-�-'� .
,i--.;. �-s . > _ � ' _ - _ _w _ _;,:P .
� - r, � ��� �. �.. . .. - . _. . -- -. — _ - �'ar,� - -1
�� ,h� � � � � �
. � �
i �
�'�°' . , ���� , �
�� ;.
, . _ �. � _: ,�,_
:�"�` '' . r �"� �.
�" x==? �E'� . . - � (14 L �IA'�� _ '� t � � . �\�
1 � �
'"��-�� - . _ � � .. r�. :_.'
9� "� �a' � ' y� ,� _ �
� �r��
L � � -��
� � , ,
- �� , .,i �=� _ - . � -�
�\ � - \\ S �� '� f: �� ... .:j.
/
-1 : 'i:,� ... '� 5 '%:
'� X'.
`�. �.. �' .. `, i 4 .' l'•�..,�.,� . I � :� �.
�' .. _� :: _ .<< y---.�-�= � �
�\ 6. . ��1 ri '_ .. .
t � ' ' � ���
`y � 1, ..� � t �. ���. L C� .�
�,��x� \ � � � ���., _' 9 � .>
`1 � :� h �` ) ;i
�k� �ii 1�'- /. ,.c, !�n 'L�;• ���` �� �`�1
��] b
...� ���„. �, ._. "- �� �1i � ...� �
r � . , �
� � � •
v R
.. _ �. .. 'r� .�� <<::�'� � � �s � � 3!4
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph
3. The existing groundcover consists of native grasses. A regional detention pond with
established vegetation is on the east quarter of the site.
4. The original Provincetowne drainage design divided the site into five (5) basins - Basins 212,
220, 221, 225 and 406. In general, all of the basins drained from south to north, where they
were intercepted by a swale along the north boundary. The exception was Basin 212, which
drained west to Autumn Ridge Drive and then collected by an inlet located on Trilby. Once
captured, the flows from all of the basins were conveyed to the northeast corner of the site and
detained in Detention Pond 306 in the Provincetowne drainage design. Drainage will then be
conveyed via storm sewerto Detention Pond 307 in the Provincetowne drainage design. The
Provincetowne drainage design ultimately discharges into Fossil Creek. An Existing Drainage
Exhibit has been provided at the back of this report for reference, along with excerpts from the
original report in the appendix.
5. According to the United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey website:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), the site consists of Cushman
fine sandy loam (Hydrologic Soil Group C), Kim loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B), and Renohill
clay loam (Hydrologic Soil Group D).
6. There is 36" storm sewer along the north property line and a regional detention pond for
Provincetowne Subdivision within the project site.
7. The proposed development will consist of five multifamily buildings and one clubhouse. Other
proposed improvements include: a new parking lot, sidewalks and landscaping.
8. The proposed land use is multifamily attached. This is use is permitted with administrative
review in the Low-Density Mixed-Use District (LMN).
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 2 � 10
C. FLOODPLAIN
1. The subject property is within FEMA regulatory floodplain for Fossil Creek. In particular, the
project site is not located within Area of Minimal Flood Hazard, Zone X, per Map Number
08069C1200F (Effective date: December 19, 2006). The project site is not located within a City of
Fort Collins regulated floodplain.
�
� �� � �
. � , ' _ �,
` � ��
. �
� �. .
.
.� � _
f
� � ��� . �
.. � `y :
� , � � -• • :,.
�� r �• ♦ r �Y, .
,,,i� - - -1 ;: :� ,�
� - '� �
� �- ��
a `,�rT�
l i. l l� l �� ��l i i l �•� :;;
���
r. y
. , '_' . _
• . w
� � �
.
`-� , _ • ��..
�� w p� � _.� �i �,ir �i�
�(�'• aF:E�� �F f�:11�J11��.1AL�F:L!_}r-
� � '.� •-_. � ,...
� � .
�.�
�`� .,s �
�•
i � �' '
t� 1
_ � • ��, � / i
, `
� �
• • • I I I I '
r� �� �
' � �a; � �„1`' �'�
a _�RM �� i � ` �'
�
.
'�:�' '�_�'�Tl\
-NF. C � � �
T � ,�
Figure 3- FEMA Firmette (Map Number 08069C1200F)
II. DRAIN BASINSAND SUB-BASINS
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION
Forty-Three Prime is within the City of Fort Collins Fossil Creek major drainage basin.
Specifically, the project site is situated in the western half of this major drainage basin. The
Fossil Creek drainage basin extends along the south end of Fort Collins, from the foothills
across Interstate 25 past County Road 5. It encompasses thirty-two square miles in the city
of Fort Collins and Larimer County. Historically, the basin consisted of agricultural land, but
the basin has experienced significant development in the recent past. Runofffrom the major
drainage basin drains to Fossil Creek Reservoir.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 3 � 10
B. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION
1. The project site was included in the drainage study for Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing Two by
Manhard Consulting and dated March 22, 2001.
2. The outfall for the project site is Detention Pond 306 (on the eastern third of the site) of the
Provincetowne drainage study.
3. The existing subject site can be defined with five (5) sub-basin that encompasses the entire
project site.
4. The existing site runoff generally drains from south to north to be collected by either a
drainage swale orthe Trilby Road curb and gutter and discharging into Detention Pond 306.
5. Existing storm sewer from Provincetowne Filing 3 conveys stormwater along the north side of
the site and into Detention Pond 306. Detention Pond 306 is on the eastern third of the site.
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. ORIGINAL PROVISIONS
There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with Forty-Three Prime.
Off-site drainage from Provincetowne Subdivision passes through the site and into a
regional detention pond (Detention Pond 306) on the east side of the site.
B. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The overall stormwater management strategy employed with Forty-Three Prime utilizes the
"Four Step Process" to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters. The
following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each step.
Step 1- Employ Runoff Reduction Practices. The first consideration taken in trying to
reduce the stormwater impacts of this development is the site selection itself. By choosing
an already developed site with public storm sewer currently in place, the burden is
significantly less than developing a vacant parcel absent of any infrastructure.
The Forty-Three Prime project aims to reduce runoff peaks, volumes and pollutant loads
from frequently occurring storm events (i.e., water quality (i.e., 80th percentile) and 2-year
storm events) by implementing Low Impact Development (LID) strategies. Wherever
practical, runoff will be routed across landscaped areas or through rain gardens. These LID
practices reduce the overall amount of impervious area, while at the same time Minimizing
Directly Connected ImperviousAreas (MDCIA). The combined LID/MDCIAtechniques will be
implemented, where practical, throughout the development, thereby slowing runoff and
increasing opportunities for infiltration.
Step 2- Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with
Slow Release. The efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize excess runoff from frequently
occurring storm events; however, urban development of this intensity will still have
stormwater runoff leaving the site. The primary water quality treatment will occur in the rain
gardens located at the east and north end of the project, prior to discharging into an existing
regional detention pond, and within the green space along Trilby Road.
Step 3- Stabilize Drainageways. As stated in Section 1.B.5, above, the site is in the Fossil
Creek Major Basin, however no changes to the channel are proposed with this project. While
this step may not seem applicable to Forty-Three Prime, the proposed project indirectly
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 4 � 10
helps achieve stabilized drainageways, nonetheless. Once again, site selection has a positive
effect on stream stabilization. By developing an infill site with existing stormwater
infrastructure, combined with LID and MDCIA strategies, the likelihood of bed and bank
erosion is reduced. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development
fees, as well as ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve
Citywide drainageway stability.
Step 4- Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs. Site specific needs
such as material storage or other site operations require design consideration or targeted
source control BMP's. Trash collection facilities are an example requiring site specific
erosion control within a residential development.
At Forty-Three Prime, trash dumpsters are located within the middle of the parking lot away
from the large rain garden between Buildings D and E. In addition, concrete forebays are
provided at the storm drain outfalls and the 7.5' wide sidewalk culvert to collect any trash,
sediment, or debris prior to discharging into the rain garden. The rain gardens along Trilby
Road are located within landscaped areas to provide filtration oftrash, sediment, and debris
of stormwater prior to treatment.
C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS
1. The subject property is part of the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
Provincetowne PUD Filing Two prepared by Manhard Consulting and dated March 22, 2001.
2. The site plan is constrained by a public street on all sides. A regional detention pond is on the
east third of the site.
D. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA
1. The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in Figure 3.4-
1 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations associated with The Forty-
Three Primedevelopment. Tabulated data contained in Table 3.4-1 has been utilized for
Rational Method runoffcalculations.
2. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing coefficients
contained in Table 3.2-2 ofthe FCSCM.
3. The Rational Formula-based FederalAviation Administration (FAA) procedure has not been
utilized for detention storage calculations since detention is not required for the project.
4. Two separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios. 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 intervaf.
E. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA
1. The drainage facilities proposed with The Forty-Three Prime project are designed in
accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District's (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE
1. As previously mentioned, this project within an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard, Zone X, per
FEMA.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 5 � 10
G. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA
No formal modifications are requested at this time.
H. CONFORMANCE WITH WATER QUALITY TREATMENT CRITERIA
City Code requires that 100% of runoff from a project site receive water quality treatment.
This project proposes to provide water quality treatment using rain gardens at east of the
parking lot and a�ong the north property line. Rain gardens are considered a LID treatment
method. Due to the physical constraints associated with an infill project ofthis nature and
the prohibition of providing water quality facilities within the public right-of-way, there are
some small, narrow areas around the perimeter of the project that cannot be captured. The
uncaptured areas tend to be narrow strips of concrete flatwork that link the building
entrances to the public sidewalks as well as small planter beds between the building and
public sidewalks or property lines. However, 100% of the site will discharge, either through
internal storm sewer or public curb and gutter, into the existi ng regional detention pond.
I. CONFORMANCE WITH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID)
Although stormwater quantity detention is not required, stormwater quality will be
addressed by permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development
(LID) requirements. City LID requirements specify that either 75%of all newly added
impermeable areas receive water quality treatment from a LID facility OR 50% of new
pavements be treated by a LID method along with 25% of drivable surfaces being permeable
pavers. This project proposes to treat at least 75% of the new impervious areas through a
combination of a large rain garden on the east side of the project site and three small rain
gardens along Trilby Road.
The large rain garden will treat 78,285 square-feet of impervious area on the site. Three
small rain gardens along the north property line will treat 12,093 square feet. The total
treated impervious area is 90,377 square feet. This is 93.32% of the total impervious area
within the project area, which exceeds the amount of LID treatment required by City Code.
The large rain garden will be designed as a single feature that will treat most of the parking
lot, concrete flatwork and rooftops by conveying flows from the parking area into the rain
garden. Two 12" pipe will allow both sides of the large rain garden to equalize. The facility
will have 12" of ponding, at which point stormwater will flow out the east side of the facility,
down a reinforced rundown and into the existing detention pond. A LID Treatment Exhibit is
provided with this report detailing the treatment areas and methods.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 6 � 10
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
1. The main objective ofThe Forty-Three Prime drainage design is to maintain existing drainage
patterns, while not adversely impacting adjacent properties.
2. A 36" storm sewer from Provincetowne Subdivision conveys storm water along the north
property line and into a regional detention pond on the east third of the site.
3. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of Contents at the
front of the document. The tables and figures are located within the sections to which the
content best applies.
4. Drainage forthe project site has been analyzed using seven (7) drainage sub-basins,
designated as sub-basins OS1, A, B1- B4, and C. The drainage patterns anticipated forthe
basins are further described below.
Sub-Basin OS1
Sub-Basin OS1 encompasses the west edge of the site that drains directly into the Autumn
Ridge Drive curb and gutter. Runoff from Sub-Basin OS1 will collect with the Autumn Ridge
curb and gutter, flow into the Trilby Road curb and gutter, and into an inlet atthe
intersection of Trilby Road and Brittany Drive. The inlet discharges into the regional
detention pond (Pond 306) along the east third of the site. Pond 306 discharges into the
Provincetowne storm sewer and detention system and into Fossil Creek.
Sub-Basin A
Sub-Basin A encompasses the parking lot and the large rain garden. Runoff will sheet flow
across the parking lot to be collected by onsite curb and gutter. The curb and gutter will
convey the stormwater to a 7.5 ft wide sidewalk culvert. The sidewalk culvert will discharge
the runoff into the rain garden. Two 12-inch pipes are located within the rain garden to
convey stormwater past a firepit and into the other half of the rain garden. The 12-inch pipes
will equalize the flow between the two halves of the large rain garden. Stormwater will
overtop the east wall of the rain garden, travel down a turf reinforced spillway, and into the
Pond 306. Pond 306 discharges into the Provincetowne storm sewer and detention system
and into Fossil Creek.
Sub-Basins B1- B4
Sub-Basins B1 to B4 consist of the apartment buildings and surrounding landscaping. A
storm drain system is provided to collect as much roof runoff as possible and convey it to
the large rain garden described in Sub-Basin A. Runoff will then overtop the east wall of the
rain garden, travel down a turf reinforced spillway, and into Pond 306. Pond 306 discharges
into the Provincetowne storm sewer and detention system and into Fossil Creek.
Sub-Basin C
Sub-Basin C consist of that area of the site that drains directly into Pond 306. Roof runoff
along the north buildings (Buildings A, B, C, and D) will sheet flow into a drainage swale
along the north property line where three small rain gardens will provide water quality
treatment. The three rain gardens will discharge into an existing 36" storm sewer, and the
storm sewer discharges into Pond 306. Pond 306 discharges into the Provincetowne storm
sewer and detention system and into Fossil Creek.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 7 � 10
A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report.
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS
1. Stormwater detention for this site is provided by the regional detention pond located on site
(Pond 306). While the drainage patterns of the proposed project generally conform with the
previously approved drainage design, the drainage basins themselves do not have the same
extents or areas. Since a direct comparison cannot be made between the original and
proposed basins, a weighted percent imperviousness was developed. Using this approach, we
find the original drainage plan had a Composite Percent Imperviousness of 42.6% (C1oo=0.56)
while the proposed project will have a Composite Percent Imperviousness of 39.5% (C1oo=0.44).
This is an overall imperviousness decrease of 3.1%, which will result in decreased runoff from
the project than the original report anticipated.
2. As shown in the analysis of overall site imperviousness, the proposed project will decrease the
imperviousness of the project site when compared to the originally approved Provincetowne
drainage study, thereby decreasing the runoff from the project site. This decrease in
imperviousness and runoff also results in a decrease in the required detention volume
identified in the original Provincetowne report. Since detention was accounted for in the
original drainage report, and the detention required by this project is less than originally
assumed, no additional detention is required as a part of this project, and no changes to the
existing facilities are proposed. No additional detention is required because the site conforms
to the Provincetowne Filing Two drainage study.
3. Similar to the analysis performed for detention, all areas draining to existing inlets have a
decrease in imperviousness and area from what was projected in the original Provincetowne
report. This results in decreased runoff to the existing inlets that were designed and approved
with the earlier project, so no additional inlet calculations from the proposed infrastructure is
provided as a part of this report.
4. The majority of the water quality for Forty-Three Prime is provided by the onsite rain gardens
shown in Table 1. The majority of the site will be treated by the large double rain gardens
between Buildings D and E. The north side of Buildings A, B, C, and D will be treated by three
smaller rain gardens along Trilby Road. Together, all four rain gardens will provide water
quality for 93.2% of the site.
Required Design Volume
Description Volume (cu. ft) (cu. ft.)
Large Double Rain Gardens 1457 1904
Rain Garden C1 122 171
Rain Garden C2 152 200
Rain Garden C3 122 197
Table i: Onsite Water Quality Volumes
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 8 � 10
However, Basin OS 1 and portions of Basin C, due to grading constraints and proximity to the
existing detention pond (Pond 306), wil not drain towards the onsite rain gardens. Instead,
these basins will drain into Detention Pond 306.
• Basin OS1 will drain into the existing curb and gutter alongAutumn Ridge Drive and
Trilby Road where a Type-R inlet will collect and direct drainage into Pond 306.
• The eastern half of Basin C, including Pond 306, drains directly into Pond 306.
The required water quality volume, per City of Fort Collins criteria, for the area of Basins C and
OS1 bypassing the rain gardens is 493 cu. ft. While constructed prior to recent Fort Collins
Stormwater requirements, Pond 306 will provide some sedimentation and water quality
treatment to occur by slowing down velocities within the pond. Furthermore, landscaping
within the Basins C and OS1 will provide additional water quality treatment. Finally, Pond 306
discharges into Pond 307 to provide a water quality treatment train prior to discharging into
the Fossil Creek Basin.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
1. The design elements comply without variation and meet all LID requirements.
2. The drainage design proposed with The Forty-Three Prime complies with the City of Fort
Collins Master Drainage Plan for Fossi Creek and the Provincetowne P.U.D. Filing 2 Drainage
Report.
3. The site is located with an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard, Zone X, per FEMA.
4. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with The Forty-Three
Prime project are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing
stormwater discharge.
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT
1. The proposed grading concept closely matches the original drainage patterns and decreases
overall site imperviousness and additional detention is proven to be unnecessary. Stormwater
quality has been provided and meets the city requirements for Low Impact Development
treatment. Therefore, it is my professional opinion that Forty-Three Prime satisfies all
applicable stormwater criteria and will effectively limit potential damage associated with its
stormwater runoff.
2. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit potential damage
associated with its stormwater runoff.
3. The Forty-Three Prime development will not impact the Master Drainage Plan
recommendations forthe Fossil Creek major drainage basin.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 9 � 10
VI. REFERENCES
1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance
No. 159, 2018, and referenced in Section 26-500 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code.
2. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture.
3. Urban Storm Draina�e Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District,
Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised Apri12008.
4. Final Draina�e and Erosion Control Report for Provincetowne PUD Filing Two, March 22, 2001,
Manhard Consulting, Ltd.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY 10 � 10
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL
Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5)
3.0 Rational Method
Table 3.4-1. IDF Table for Rational Method
Duration
Intensity Intensity Intensity
(min) 2'Year 10-year 100-year
(in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
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
16 1.81 3.08 6.30
17 1.75 2.99 6.10
18 1.70 2.90 5.92
19 1.65 2.82 5.75
20 1.61 2.74 5.60
21 1.56 2.67 5.46
22 1.53 2.61 5.32
23 1.49 2.55 5.20
24 1.46 2.49 5.09
25 1.43 2.44 4.98
26 1.4 2.39 4.87
27 1.37 2.34 4.78
28 1.34 2.29 4.69
29 1.32 2.25 4.60
30 1.30 2.21 4.52
31 1.27 2.16 4.42
32 1.24 2.12 4.33
33 1.22 2.08 4.24
34 1.19 2.04 4.16
35 1.17 2.00 4.08
36 1.15 1.96 4.01
37 1.16 1.93 3.93
38 1.11 1.89 3.87
�`�rt��
Duration
Intensity Intensity Intensity
2-year 10-year 100-year
(min) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
39 1.09 1.86 3.8
40 1.07 1.83 3.74
41 1.05 1.80 3.68
42 1.04 1.77 3.62
43 1.02 1.74 3.56
44 1.01 1.72 3.51
45 0.99 1.69 3.46
46 0.98 1.67 3.41
47 0.96 1.64 3.36
48 0.95 1.62 3.31
49 0.94 1.6 3.27
50 0.92 1.58 3.23
51 0.91 1.56 3.18
52 0.9 1.54 3.14
53 0.89 1.52 3.10
54 0.88 1.50 3.07
55 0.87 1.48 3.03
56 0.86 1.47 2.99
57 0.85 1.45 2.96
58 0.84 1.43 2.92
59 0.83 1.42 2.89
60 0.82 1.4 2.86
65 0.78 1.32 2.71
70 0.73 1.25 2.59
75 0.70 1.19 2.48
80 0.66 1.14 2.38
85 0.64 1.09 2.29
90 0.61 1.05 2.21
95 0.58 1.01 2.13
100 0.56 0.97 2.06
105 0.54 0.94 2.00
110 0.52 0.91 1.94
115 0.51 0.88 1.88
120 0.49 0.86 1.84
3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method
Page 8
FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL
Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5)
3.0 Rational Method
Figure 3.4-1. Rainfall IDF Curve — Fort Collins
io.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
�
0
� 6.00
m
L
C
� 5.�
C
N
C
1O 4.00
c
.�
z
3.00
2.00
_ ! ! . . I��I�.' . . . . . . . _����� . .
. . . ! _. , . ��� . . . . . . . . ������ . . . .
�� �
. . — i--. _.— �_. . .. . . . . ����� . . . .
1.00 �� �" j --- � � � � � � �.�_��_� � �
-k _ i ,, , �, — �,--------- -------�----------- -- = —
_— .—�— — — , - ----
o.� _ ---- - _ .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Storm Duration (minutes)
c�tyof 3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method
�„�rt� S Page 9
SITE IMPERVIOUSNESS COMPARISON
EXISTING MASTER PLANNED COMPOSITE °o IMPERVIOUSNESS
Basin Area 100-year
Basin ID �a�� Composite % Imperv. Composite Runoff
Coefficient
212 0.68 33% 0.71
220 0.52 45% 0.74
221 2.18 45% 0.74
224 0.08 96% 1.00
225 1.30 39% 0.73
406 0.11 45 % 0.74
Total Site 4.87 42.6% 0.56
PROPOSED COMPOSITE % IMPERV/OUSNESS
Basin Area 100-year
Basin ID �a�� Composite % Imperv. Composite Runoff
Coefficient
OS1 0.23 43% 0.69
A 1.64 82 % 1.00
61 0.15 69 % 0.98
B2 0.03 60% 0.89
63 0.15 41% 0.69
B4 0.45 41 % 0.70
C 2.21 10% 0.39
Total Site 4.87 41.9% 0.44
DEVELOPED COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CAL
CHARACTER OF SURFACE: Runoff Percentage
Coefficient Impervious
Streefs, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Calcula
Asphalt................................................................................ 0.95 100%
Concrete.............................................................................. 0.95 100%
Gravel................................................................................ 0.50 40%
Roofs................................................................................. 0.95 90%
Pavers................................................................................. 0.50 40%
Lawns and Landscaping
SandySoil ........................................................................... 0.15 2%
Clayey Soil ........................................................................... 0.25 2% 2-Year Cf = 1.00 10-Year C, = 1.0
Runoff Coefficients are from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) Table 3.2-2. % Impervious are from Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Table 4.1-3.
Basin ID
A
B1
B2
B3
B4
C
Rain Garden
Basin Area
(ac)
1.64
0.15
0.03
0.15
0.45
2.21
2.42
Area of
Asphalt
(ac)
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
Area of
Concrete
(ac)
� :
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
Area of Area of Area of 2-year
Roofs Gravel Area of Lawns and Composite
(ac) (ac) Pavers (ac) Landscaping Runoff
(ac) Coefficient
0.23
0.11
0.02
0.05
0.17
0.12
0.58
� 11
� �1
� 11
� ��
� �1
��
� ��
� ��
� �1
� ��
� ��
� �1
� ��
1 ��
� :
� ��
��
� �•
�
�
� ..
0.83
0.78
0.71
0.55
0.56
0.31
0.76
Cor
Coe
DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS
7, _ 1.87(1.1-C*Cf),lL
1 �
S' 3
T� = L / 60V
T� = T; + Tt (Equation 5-3 FCSCM) 1
Velocity (Gutter Flow), V= 20�S�� l(Equation 5-1 FCSCM)
Velocity (Swale Flow), V= 15•S�� J
NOTE: C-value for overland flows over grassy surfaces; C= 0.25
Overland Flow
Design gasin C*Cf C*Cf C*Cf Length, Slope,
Point �s Length �2�yr (10-yr (100-yr L S
>500'? Ct=1.00) Cf=1.00) Cf=1.25) (ft) (%)
OS1 OS1 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 0 N/A
A A No 0.25 0.25 0.31 23 22.78%
B1 B1 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 0 N/A
B2 62 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 0 N/A
B3 63 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 53 6.64%
B4 64 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 23 22.78%
Ta61m 3-4
RRTIONAL METHd'� �EQO$NCi ADTJSTMLNT FdC'PORS
stoz�n ReCurn Pariod Fxequancy Factor
lv 'e:ars) C
2 Co 10 1.00
�i co z� i.io
-s co sc :.zc
51 to LGO �,25
Tiote: Tt.e prccucc of C Cimes C. sha11 not axceeti 1.UG
T;
2-yr
(min)
N/A
2.7
N/A
N/A
6.2
2.7
T;
10-yr
(min)
N/A
2.7
N/A
N/A
6.2
2.7
T;
100-yr
(min)
N/A
2.5
N/A
N/A
5.7
2.5
Gutter Flow
Length, Slope, Velocity,
L S V
(ft) (%) (ft/s)
99 4.88 % 4.42
563 0.50 % 1.41
143 0.50% 1.41
61 0.50% 1.41
138 0.50% 1.41
563 0.50 % 1.41
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
Swale Flow
Length, Slope, Velo�
L S �
(ft) (%) (�
0 NA Ni
91 1J9% 2.(
21 2.00 % 2.:
20 4.85 % 3.:
76 1.96% 2.:
91 1J9% 2.(
Q = C f (C�(i��A�
From Section 3.0 of FCSCM.
Rainfall Int
Design
Point
OS1
A
B1
B2
B3
B4
C
taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
Area, A
2-yr
Basin(s) (acres) T`
(min)
OS1 0.23 5
A 1.64 10
B1 0.15 5
B2 0.03 5
B3 0.15 8
B4 0.45 10
C 2.21 26
DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS
Table 3-4
RATI�ID3. METHOD ?RT�QUI`sNCl' ADJUSTME2dT FsiCl'ORS
Storm Retarn Poriod Fx+vqu�ncy Factor
(years) C�
z ca io i.oc
:L to zs 1.1C
26 to SC _.2C
51 LO 1C0 _.2j
riots: The or��uc= of C Cim=s G sh�il r.ot axceeci 1. U(:
re 3.4-1.
Project: Forty-ThrE
Calculations By: F. Wegert
Date: October 2
10-yr 100-yr Intensity, Intensity, Intensity,
T� T� CZ Clo �ioo �z �io �ioo
(min) (min) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
5 5 0.55 0.55 0.69 2.85 4.87 9.95
10 10 0.83 0.83 1.00 2.21 3.78 7.88
5 5 0.78 0.78 0.98 2.85 4.87 9.95
5 5 0.71 0.71 0.89 2.85 4.87 9.95
8 8 0.55 0.55 0.69 2.40 4.10 8.59
10 10 0.56 0.56 0.70 2.21 3.78 7.88
26 25 0.31 0.31 0.39 1.40 2.39 5.04
Flow,
QZ
(cfs)
0.4
3.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.6
1.0
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
STORM SEWER CALCULATIONS
NNORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D0 Plan
Storm Sewer A- 100-Year � Number of lines: 19
Storm Sewer Summary Report
Line LinelD Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line
No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope
(cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%)
1 Storm Pipe A1 3.93 15 Cir 15.379 4959.88 4959.94 0.365
2 Storm Pipe A2 3.73 15 Cir 33.117 4959.94 4960.07 0.392
3 Storm Pipe A3 3.51 15 Cir 57.625 4960.07 4960.30 0.401
4 Storm Pipe A4 3.51 15 Cir 6.176 4960.30 4960.33 0.490
5 Storm Pipe A5 3.06 12 Cir 2.828 4960.33 4960.34 0.397
6 Storm Pipe A6 3.06 12 Cir 79.844 4960.34 4960.66 0.400
7 Storm Pipe A7 2.60 12 Cir 129.003 4960.66 4961.17 0.400
8 Storm Pipe A8 1.66 12 Cir 24.840 4961.17 4961.27 0.403
9 Storm Pipe A9 0.83 8 Cir 29.187 4961.91 4962.06 0.500
10 Storm Pipe A10 0.83 8 Cir 77.170 4962.06 4962.44 0.500
11 Storm Pipe A11 0.83 8 Cir 23.758 4962.44 4962.56 0.506
12 Storm Pipe A8-1 0.94 8 Cir 45.555 4961.34 4961.79 1.000
13 Storm PipeA8-1-1 0.10 6 Cir 13.300 4961.88 4962.14 1.957
14 Storm PipeA8-1-2 0.05 6 Cir 18.309 4962.14 4962.51 2.019
15 Storm Pipe A8-2 0.84 8 Cir 29.987 4961.79 4962.09 1.000
16 Storm Pipe A8-3 0.42 8 Cir 24.553 4962.09 4962.34 1.018
17 Storm Pipe A7-1 0.46 8 Cir 4.188 4960.82 4960.84 0.478
18 Storm Pipe A7-2 0.23 8 Cir 45.483 4960.84 4961.07 0.506
19 Storm Pipe A2-1 0.20 8 Cir 19.562 4960.10 4960.30 1.021
Storm Sewer A - 100-Year
NOTES: Return period = 100 Yrs. ;*Surcharged (HGL above crown).
HGL HGL Minor
Down Up loss
(ft) (ft) (ft)
4960.68 4960.84 0.27
4961.10 4961.18 0.02
4961.20 4961.31 0.13
4961.44 4961.45 0.02
4961.47" 4961.49" 0.18
4961.66" 4962.17" 0.24
4962.40" 4962.99" 0.17
4963.16" 4963.21 " 0.01
4963.22" 4963.33" 0.04
4963.37" 4963.68" 0.09
4963.77" 4963.87" 0.09
4963.16" 4963.39" 0.11
4963.51" 4963.51" 0.00
4963.51" 4963.51" 0.00
4963.51" 4963.63" 0.02
4963.65" 4963.67" 0.02
4962.40" 4962.41" 0.00
4962.41" 4962.43" 0.01
4961.10" 4961.11" 0.01
Number of lines: 19
Storm Sewer Profile
Proj. file
Elev. (ft)
�
w C
� �
� � W
W
Op�j�
O � �
O W �
p � W
m c �
!n C� �
� N d' � (O h OD O)
7 7 C'7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
c op c c �p c .. �p c c�p c c pp c c Np c c�p c c �p c c Mp c
J�V� J�I�1� J�00 J�MM J�VV J�CO(O J Mf�l� J^I�r J�(flC0
�� ' NOO MM � NMl"J � (hM � (O(O � N�� � VNO) � NOO
p] �p � �q � �q I� �q �Ci �q � �p CV �p . . N CO ' ' � CO
� ��� � �00 �y �00 � �00 �y �00 �q �00 � �r� ��� � �NN
M � �s'� �fi � � (fl (fl � � (fl (fl N � [O Cfl � � (9 Cfl p� � CS) Cfl � � CS) Cfl ap d. C4 (L) 6i � (4 (fl
C C
�� �� �� �� � m� �� �� �� ��
� �V V � �V V � �V V N �d'V � �V V � �V V m �V V � �V V � �V V
� W. V W. � W. � W. � W. m W. N W. V W. � W.
p�WW p�WW ��WW ��WW ��WW ��WW �.+j �WW �.+j �WW �.+j .aWW
� � > > @ � > > � � > > m � > > � � > > � � > > � � > > � � > > @ � > >
dJ C�cc � �cc � �cc � �cc � �c c � �cc � �cc � Ur cc � �cc
� 1 �����
- ����-�
-�-�-�--�
�-�-�-�--�
-�-�-�-��
� 1 �-�-�-�--�
�-�-�-�--�
�-�-�-�--�
�-�-�-�--�
-�-�-�-��
�-�-�-�--�
�-�-�-�--�
. • � 1 �-�-�-�--�
�-�-�-�--�
�-�-�-�--�
�-�-�-�--�
�-�-�-�-� �
-�-�-�--_�
-�-�-�_--�
-�-_-��-�
. � 1 �-�---��_-�
�-�--���-�
�-�'--�1-�
�� �--_�_-�
-�-���--�
���r.i���
����i.r����.
��� ��►.e����=
�� �."�_'�_.���■i
���i��■n��■�■�
�������--"' �
�.�� , , :,., �
��: 8 s z i
��snr� � � � . . ■
�� � _ ■
� � �� � ��
� - - � 11
250 300 350 400
Reach (ft)
Storm Sewer Profile
Proj. file
�
� � �
0 0 = J �o
��o . �o
Elev. (ft)
4973.00
4970.00
4967.00
4964.00
4961.00
4958.00
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Storm Sewer A2 - 100-Year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Storm Sewer Profile
Proj. file
� �
_ � _ � _
N O � J aoO � J MO
� (ON . �V V . �f�
Elev. (ft)
4974.00
4971.00
4968.00
4965.00
4962.00
4959.00
Storm Sewer A7 - 100-Year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Storm Sewer Profile
Proj. file
�
M �-
7 � � �
co O � � v0 � J�O
`�? rn ao � �vv . ��
Elev. (ft)
4975.00
4972.00
4969.00
4966.00
4963.00
4960.00
Storm Sewer A8-1 - 100-Year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Storm Sewer Profile
Proj. file
N �
7 � 7 � �
vO � J coO� J �O�
M I�. V . � 6� 67 . � m 6�
Elev. (ft)
4974.00
4971.00
4968.00
4965.00
4962.00
4959.00
Storm Sewer A8 - 100-Year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D0 Plan
Storm Sewer B- 100-Year � Number of lines: 7
Storm Sewer Summary Report
Line LinelD Flow Line Line
No. rate Size shape
(cfs) (in)
1 Storm Pipe B1 1.60 12 Cir
2 Storm Pipe 62 1.60 12 Cir
3 Storm Pipe B3 1.60 12 Cir
4 Storm Pipe 64 1.10 8 Cir
5 Storm Pipe B5 0.85 8 Cir
6 Storm Pipe 66 0.50 8 Cir
7 Storm Pipe 66-1 0.10 6 Cir
Storm Sewer B - 100-Year
NOTES: Return period = 100 Yrs. ;*Surcharged (HGL above crown).
Line Invert Invert Line
length EL Dn EL Up Slope
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%)
8.000 4959.87 4959.90 0.372
5.726 4959.90 4959.93 0.529
9.782 4959.93 4959.96 0.304
63.237 4959.96 4960.22 0.412
43.749 4960.22 4960.39 0.388
44.787 4960.39 4960.57 0.401
10.978 4960.39 4960.50 1.001
HGL HGL Minor
Down Up loss
(ft) (ft) (ft)
4960.46 4960.50 0.13
4960.62 4960.63 0.09
4960.71 4960.73 0.01
4960.74" 4961.19" 0.15
4961.34" 4961.53" 0.09
4961.62" 4961.69" 0.03
4961.62" 4961.62" 0.00
Number of lines: 7
Storm Sewer Profile
�
w c
��
�
O � W
O � �
O � �
Elev. (ft) o w �
p � W
m c �
!n C� �
N M
� � > >
� �O� � rn0� � v0�
C � J � J N
J 0�6) � 0�07 � �07
O p�j�� N p�j�� O p�j��
p � �s7 � � � �Ci �s7 � � �Ci �s7
� � V V M � V V M � V V
O W. � W. N W.
p �WW p �WW p �WW
� � > > @ � > > m � > >
fn ('cc � �cc � �cc
V
�
� �0 �
�NN
� N N
� �00
� W��
o �WW
� c � �
� � c c
�
�
� �� �
� � �
M CJ
p�j �00
� �rnrn
o Wvv
+ .�WW
� c � �
(n C7 c c
4973.00
4970.00
4967.00
4964.00
4961.00
4958.00 �
0
� b3.L3 LI - o Lw �.� � i�
0
- . o
25 50 75
HGL EGL
100
Reach (ft)
125
150
.40%
Storm Sewer B - 100-Year
Storm Sewer Profile
�
� �
v O � J o0
`�? rn rn . � o
Elev. (ft)
4973.00
4970.00
4967.00
4964.00
4961.00
4958.00
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Storm Sewer B6 - 100-Year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D0 Plan
Storm Sewer Summary Report
Line LinelD Flow Line Line
No. rate Size shape
(cfs) (in)
1 Pipe -(53) 0.73 8 Cir
Storm Sewer C1 - 100-Year
NOTES: Return period = 100 Yrs.
Line Invert Invert Line
length EL Dn EL Up Slope
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%)
20.468 4951.16 4952.39 6.009
HGL HGL Minor
Down Up loss
(ft) (ft) (ft)
4951.56 4952.79 0.17
Number of lines: 1
Storm Sewer Profile
� � �
� � c � rno
.. CO ._ J N _
Elev. (ft)
4968.00
4964.00
4960.00
4956.00
4952.00
4948.00
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Storm Sewer C1 - 100-Year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D0 Plan
Storm Sewer Summary Report
Line LinelD Flow Line Line
No. rate Size shape
(cfs) (in)
1 Pipe -(55) 0.73 8 Cir
Storm Sewer C2 - 100-Year
NOTES: Return period = 100 Yrs.
Line Invert Invert Line
length EL Dn EL Up Slope
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%)
23.186 4951.87 4953.26 5.993
HGL HGL Minor
Down Up loss
(ft) (ft) (ft)
4952.27 4953.66 0.17
Number of lines: 1
Storm Sewer Profile
� � �
� m � � �n o
.. 6) ' J I� __
Elev. (ft)
4964.00
4961.00
4958.00
4955.00
4952.00
4949.00
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Storm Sewer C2 - 100-Year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D0 Plan
Storm Sewer C3 - 100-Year � Number of lines: 1
Storm Sewer Summary Report
Line LinelD Flow Line Line
No. rate Size shape
(cfs) (in)
1 Pipe -(57) 0.73 8 Cir
Storm Sewer C3 - 100-Year
NOTES: Return period = 100 Yrs.
Line Invert Invert Line
length EL Dn EL Up Slope
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%)
25.256 4953.06 4954.58 6.018
HGL HGL Minor
Down Up loss
(ft) (ft) (ft)
4953.46 4954.98 0.17
Number of lines: 1
Storm Sewer Profile
� � �
� �o = _ � o
_ J O __
Elev. (ft)
4966.00
4963.00
4960.00
4957.00
4954.00
4951.00
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Storm Sewer C3 - 100-Year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
INLET CALCULATIONS
Project #: 1328-010
Project Name: Forty-Three Prime
Project Loc.: Fort Collins, Colorado
Inlet
A2-1
A3
A5
A7-1
A7-2
A8-1-1
A8-1-2
A8-2
A8-3
A9
Al2
B4
B5
B6
B6-1
B7
C1
C2
C3
Basins / Design Notes
Basin B2
1/4 of the roof from Bldg E
1/2 of Basin B3
1/4 of Basin B3
1/4 of Basin B3
185 sq. ft. of landscaping in Basin B4
340 sq. ft. of landscaping in Basin B4
1/6 of Basin B4
1/6 of Basin B4
1/3 of Basin B4
1/3 of Basin B4
1/3 of Basin B1
1/6 of Basin B1
1/6 of Basin B1
235 sq. ft. of landscaping in Basin A
1/3 of Basin B1
1/6 of Basin C
1/6 of Basin C
1/6 of Basin C
TypeZ
8" Drain Basin
15" Drain Basin
15" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
12" Drain Basin
12" Drain Basin
12" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
8" Drain Basin
Design
Flowrate
0.10 cfs
0.07 cfs
0.10 cfs
0.05 cfs
0.05 cfs
0.01 cfs
0.01 cfs
0.10 cfs
0.10 cfs
0.20 cfs
0.20 cfs
0.10 cfs
0.05 cfs
0.05 cfs
0.01 cfs
0.10 cfs
0.17 cfs
0.17 cfs
0.17 cfs
2-Year
Allowable
Flowratel
0.54 cfs
1.49 cfs
0.69 cfs
0.62 cfs
0.66 cfs
0.44 cfs
0.69 cfs
0.55 cfs
1.17 cfs
1.07 cfs
1.52 cfs
0.75 cfs
0.63 cfs
0.64 cfs
0.10 cfs
0.64 cfs
0.94 cfs
1.12 cfs
1.33 cfs
Overflow
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
0.00 cfs
Flc
Notes:
1) Allowable flowrate calculated per Urban Drainage Inlet 5.01.
2) Drain basins are assumed to be a Nyloplast Drain Basin.
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
n let N a m e: I n let A2-1 P roj ect: 1328-010
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.10 Location: Forty-Three Prime
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.20 Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
0.00
0.10
0.16
0.20
0.30
0.33
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.83
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ic v�ci aica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
�
Nyloplast 8" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
0.67 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,962.56
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
(ft) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
4,962.56 0.00 0.00 0.00
4,962.66 0.10 0.30 0.10 10-Year Storm
4,962.72 0.20 0.38 0.20 100-Year Storm
4,962.76 0.28 0.42 0.28
4,962.86 0.52 0.51 0.51
4,962.89 0.60 0.54 0.54 Overflow to the east
4,962.96 0.79 0.59 0.59
4,963.06 1.11 0.66 0.66
4,963.16 1.46 0.73 0.73
4,963.26 1.84 0.78 0.78
4,963.36 2.25 0.84 0.84
4,963.39 2.38 0.85 0.85 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: InletA3
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.20
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.45
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
sectional area (A).
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.11
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.60
1.02
Nyloplast 15" Dome
1.25
Elevation
(ft)
4,962.37
4,962.42
4,962.47
4,962.48
4,962.52
4,962.57
4,962.62
4,962.67
4,962.72
4,962.77
4,962.97
4,963.39
Open Area of Grate (ftz)
Rim Elevation (ft):
Reduction Factor:
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 0.00
0.07 0.74
0.19 1.04
0.22 1.10
0.34 1.28
0.53 1.47
0.74 1.65
0.97 1.81
1.22 1.95
1.49 2.09
2.74 2.55
6.07 3.33
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
1.23
4,962.37
0.50
Actual Flow
Notes
(cfs)
0.00
0.07 10-Year Storm
0.19
0.22 100-Year Storm
0.34
0.53
0.74
0.97
1.22
1.49 Overflow to the east
2.55
3.33 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
i n� l.�y� �r�/r�, uieii uie K�a�e vueraiea uree aii viin�e; vuiervvi�e i� �ue�a�ea uKe a wei�.
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: InletA5
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.20
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.45
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
o.00
0.10
0.11
0.18
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.54
0.60
0.70
0.98
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ic v�ci aica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
�
Nyloplast 15" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 1.23
1.25 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,962.41
Elevation
(ft)
4,962.41
4,962.51
4,962.52
4,962.59
4,962.61
4,962.71
4,962.81
4,962.91
4,962.95
4,963.01
4,963.11
4,963.39
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.19 1.04 0.19
0.21 1.09 0.21 10-Year Storm
0.45 1.40 0.45 100-Year Storm
0.53 1.47 0.53
0.97 1.81 0.97
1.49 2.09 1.49
2.08 2.33 2.08
2.34 2.42 2.34 Overflow to the east
2.74 2.55 2.55
3.45 2.76 2.76
5.71 3.26 3.26 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet A7-1 Project: 1328-010
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.10 Location: Forty-Three Prime
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.23 Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
cartinnal araa (O1
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
,,,- �.,.,��„�, �,,,,,,,,,,,,,s,u�,..,r"..«�,,,.,...,,.,,,,,..�,.,�„"..,�"�.,r..,,.«�,,.....,..",.
.
-ype of Grate: Nyloplast 8" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
)iameter of Grate (ft): 0.67 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,962.48
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Depth Above Inlet (ft) Notes
(ft) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 4,962.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 4,962.58 0.10 0.30 0.10 10-Year Storm
0.18 4,962.66 0.24 0.40 0.24 100-Year Storm
0.20 4,962.68 0.28 0.42 0.28
0.30 4,962.78 0.52 0.51 0.51
0.40 4,962.88 0.79 0.59 0.59
0.43 4,962.91 0.89 0.62 0.62 Overflow to Inlet 6-2
0.50 4,962.98 1.11 0.66 0.66
0.60 4,963.08 1.46 0.73 0.73
0.70 4,963.18 1.84 0.78 0.78
0.80 4,963.28 2.25 0.84 0.84
0.91 4,963.39 2.73 0.89 0.89 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
n let N a m e: I n let A7-2 P roj ect: 1328-010
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.10 Location: Forty-Three Prime
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.23 Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
o.00
0.10
0.18
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.49
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.96
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
Nyloplast 8" Dome
0.67
Elevation
(ft)
4,962.43
4,962.53
4,962.61
4,962.63
4,962.73
4,962.83
4,962.92
4,962.93
4,963.03
4,963.13
4,963.23
4,963.39
�
Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
Rim Elevation (ft): 4,962.43
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 0.30 0.10 10-Year Storm
0.24 0.40 0.24 100-Year Storm
0.28 0.42 0.28
0.52 0.51 0.51
0.79 0.59 0.59
1.08 0.66 0.66 Overflow to Inlet 6-1
1.11 0.66 0.66
1.46 0.73 0.73
1.84 0.78 0.78
2.25 0.84 0.84
2.96 0.92 0.92 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet A8-1-1 Project: 1328-010
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.02 Location: Forty-Three Prime
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.05 Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
o.00
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.20
0.27
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
Nyloplast 8" Dome
0.67
Elevation
(ft)
4,966.44
4,966.47
4,966.50
4,966.54
4,966.64
4,966.71
4,966.74
4,966.84
4,966.94
4,967.04
4,967.14
4,967.24
�
Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
Rim Elevation (ft): 4,966.44
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.02 0.16 0.02 10-Year Storm
0.05 0.23 0.05 100-Year Storm
0.10 0.30 0.10
0.28 0.42 0.28
0.44 0.49 0.44 Low Point in Sidewalk
0.52 0.51 0.51
0.79 0.59 0.59
1.11 0.66 0.66
1.46 0.73 0.73
1.84 0.78 0.78
2.25 0.84 0.84
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet A8-1-2 Project: 1328-010
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.02 Location: Forty-Three Prime
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.05 Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
o.00
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.54
0.60
0.70
0.80
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
Nyloplast 8" Dome
0.67
Elevation
(ft)
4,966.43
4,966.46
4,966.49
4,966.53
4,966.63
4,966.73
4,966.83
4,966.93
4,966.97
4,967.03
4,967.13
4,967.23
�
Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
Rim Elevation (ft): 4,966.43
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.02 0.16 0.02 10-Year Storm
0.05 0.23 0.05 100-Year Storm
0.10 0.30 0.10
0.28 0.42 0.28
0.52 0.51 0.51
0.79 0.59 0.59
1.11 0.66 0.66
1.25 0.69 0.69 Low Point in Sidewalk
1.46 0.73 0.73
1.84 0.78 0.78
2.25 0.84 0.84
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
n let N a m e: I n let A8-2 P roj ect: 1328-010
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.15 Location: Forty-Three Prime
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.42 Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
o.00
0.10
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.30
0.34
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.84
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
Nyloplast 8" Dome
0.67
Elevation
(ft)
4,965.67
4,965.77
4,965.80
4,965.87
4,965.93
4,965.97
4,966.01
4,966.07
4,966.17
4,966.27
4,966.37
4,966.51
�
Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
Rim Elevation (ft): 4,965.67
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 0.30 0.10
0.15 0.34 0.15 10-Year Storm
0.28 0.42 0.28
0.42 0.48 0.42 100-Year Storm
0.52 0.51 0.51
0.62 0.55 0.55 Overflow to Inlet A8
0.79 0.59 0.59
1.11 0.66 0.66
1.46 0.73 0.73
1.84 0.78 0.78
2.42 0.86 0.86 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
n let N a m e: I n let A8-3 P roj ect: 1328-010
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.15 Location: Forty-Three Prime
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.42 Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
sectional area (A).
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
0.00
0.10
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.56
1.80
2.06
Nyloplast 8" Dome
0.67
Elevation
(ft)
4,964.45
4,964.55
4,964.58
4,964.65
4,964.71
4,964.95
4,965.20
4,965.45
4,965.70
4,966.01
4,966.25
4,966.51
Open Area of Grate (ftz)
Rim Elevation (ft):
Reduction Factor:
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 0.00
0.10 0.30
0.15 0.34
0.28 0.42
0.42 0.48
1.11 0.66
2.04 0.81
3.14 0.94
4.39 1.05
6.12 1.17
7.59 1.26
9.29 1.35
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
0.35
4,964.45
0.50
Actual Flow
Notes
(cfs)
0.00
0.10
0.15 10-Year Storm
0.28
0.42 100-Year Storm
0.66
0.81
0.94
1.05
1.17 Overflow to Inlet All
1.26
1.35 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
i n� l.�y� �r�/r�, uieii uie K�a�e vueraiea uree aii viin�e; vuiervvi�e i� �ue�a�ea uKe a wei�.
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: InletA9
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.30
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.83
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
cartinnal araa (O1
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
,,,- �.,.,��„�, �,,,,,,,,,,,,,s,u�,..,r"..«�,,,.,...,,.,,,,,..�,.,�„"..,�"�.,r..,,.«�,,.....,..",.
.
-ype of Grate: Nyloplast 12" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.79
)iameter of Grate (ft): 1.00 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,964.71
Reduction Factor: 0.50
-. .
Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Depth Above Inlet (ft) Notes
(ft) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 4,964.71 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 4,964.81 0.15 0.67 0.15
0.16 4,964.87 0.30 0.84 0.30 10-Year Storm
0.20 4,964.91 0.42 0.94 0.42
0.30 4,965.01 0.77 1.16 0.77
0.32 4,965.03 0.85 1.19 0.85 100-Year Storm
0.40 4,965.11 1.19 1.33 1.19
0.50 4,965.21 1.67 1.49 1.49
0.76 4,965.47 3.12 1.84 1.84 Overflow to InletAll
1.00 4,965.71 4.71 2.11 2.11
1.25 4,965.96 6.59 2.36 2.36
1.80 4,966.51 11.38 2.83 2.83 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet Al2 Project: 1328-010
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.30 Location: Forty-Three Prime
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.83 Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
o.00
0.10
0.16
0.20
0.30
0.32
0.40
0.52
0.80
125
1.75
2.18
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ic v�ci aica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
�
Nyloplast 12" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.79
1.00 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,964.33
Elevation
(ft)
4,964.33
4,964.43
4,964.49
4,964.53
4,964.63
4,964.65
4,964.73
4,964.85
4,965.13
4,965.58
4,966.08
4,966.51
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.15 0.67 0.15
0.30 0.84 0.30 10-Year Storm
0.42 0.94 0.42
0.77 1.16 0.77
0.85 1.19 0.85 100-Year Storm
1.19 1.33 1.19
1.77 1.52 1.52 Overflow to the west
3.37 1.89 1.89
6.59 2.36 2.36
10.91 2.79 2.79
15.17 3.12 3.12 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet 64
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.20
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.50
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
o.00
0.10
0.12
0.20
0.23
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.63
0.75
1.00
1.25
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ic v�ci aica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
�
Nyloplast 12" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.79
1.00 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,961.24
Elevation
(ft)
4,961.24
4,961.34
4,961.36
4,961.44
4,961.47
4,961.54
4,961.64
4,961.74
4,961.87
4,961.99
4,962.24
4,962.49
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.15 0.67 0.15
0.20 0.73 0.20 10-Year Storm
0.42 0.94 0.42
0.52 1.01 0.52 100-Year Storm
0.77 1.16 0.77
1.19 1.33 1.19
1.67 1.49 1.49
2.36 1.68 1.68 Overflow to the east
3.06 1.83 1.83
4.71 2.11 2.11
6.59 2.36 2.36 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet 65
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.10
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.25
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
cartinnal araa (O1
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
,,,- �.,.,��„�, �,,,,,,,,,,,,,s,u�,..,r"..«�,,,.,...,,.,,,,,..�,.,�„"..,�"�.,r..,,.«�,,.....,..",.
.
-ype of Grate: Nyloplast 8" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
)iameter of Grate (ft): 0.67 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,961.55
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Depth Above Inlet (ft) Notes
(ft) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 4,961.55 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 4,961.65 0.10 0.30 0.10 10-Year Storm
0.19 4,961.74 0.26 0.41 0.26 100-Year Storm
0.30 4,961.85 0.52 0.52 0.52
0.40 4,961.95 0.80 0.60 0.60
0.44 4,961.99 0.92 0.63 0.63 Overflow to Inlet 66
0.50 4,962.05 1.12 0.67 0.67
0.60 4,962.15 1.47 0.73 0.73
0.70 4,962.25 1.85 0.79 0.79
0.80 4,962.35 2.26 0.85 0.85
0.90 4,962.45 2.70 0.90 0.90
0.94 4,962.49 2.88 0.92 0.92 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet 66
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.10
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.25
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
cartinnal araa (O1
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
,,,- �.,.,��„�, �,,,,,,,,,,,,,s,u�,..,r"..«�,,,.,...,,.,,,,,..�,.,�„"..,�"�.,r..,,.«�,,.....,..",.
.
-ype of Grate: Nyloplast 8" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
)iameter of Grate (ft): 0.67 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,961.54
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Depth Above Inlet (ft) Notes
(ft) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 4,961.54 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 4,961.64 0.10 0.30 0.10 10-Year Storm
0.19 4,961.73 0.26 0.41 0.26 100-Year Storm
0.30 4,961.84 0.52 0.52 0.52
0.40 4,961.94 0.80 0.60 0.60
0.45 4,961.99 0.95 0.64 0.64 Overflow to Inlet 66
0.51 4,962.05 1.15 0.68 0.68
0.61 4,962.15 1.50 0.74 0.74
0.71 4,962.25 1.89 0.80 0.80
0.81 4,962.35 2.30 0.85 0.85
0.91 4,962.45 2.74 0.90 0.90
0.95 4,962.49 2.92 0.92 0.92 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet 66-1 Project: 1328-010
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.02 Location: Forty-Three Prime
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.05 Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
cartinnal araa (O1
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
,,,- �.,.,��„�, �,,,,,,,,,,,,,s,u�,..,r"..«�,,,.,...,,.,,,,,..�,.,�„"..,�"�.,r..,,.«�,,.....,..",.
.
-ype of Grate: Nyloplast 8" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
)iameter of Grate (ft): 0.67 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,962.99
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Depth Above Inlet (ft) Notes
(ft) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 4,962.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.03 4,963.02 0.02 0.16 0.02 10-Year Storm
0.06 4,963.05 0.05 0.23 0.05 100-Year Storm
0.10 4,963.09 0.10 0.30 0.10 Overflow to Inlet 66
0.20 4,963.19 0.28 0.42 0.28
0.30 4,963.29 0.52 0.52 0.52
0.40 4,963.39 0.80 0.60 0.60
0.50 4,963.49 1.12 0.67 0.67
0.60 4,963.59 1.47 0.73 0.73
0.70 4,963.69 1.85 0.79 0.79
0.80 4,963.79 2.26 0.85 0.85
0.89 4,963.88 2.65 0.89 0.89 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet 67
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.20
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.50
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
cartinnal araa (O1
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
,,,- �.,.,��„�, �,,,,,,,,,,,,,s,u�,..,r"..«�,,,.,...,,.,,,,,..�,.,�„"..,�"�.,r..,,.«�,,.....,..",.
.
-ype of Grate: Nyloplast 8" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
)iameter of Grate (ft): 0.67 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,961.54
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Depth Above Inlet (ft) Notes
(ft) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 4,961.54 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 4,961.64 0.10 0.30 0.10
0.16 4,961.70 0.20 0.38 0.20 10-Year Storm
0.20 4,961.74 0.28 0.42 0.28
0.30 4,961.84 0.52 0.52 0.52 100-Year Storm
0.40 4,961.94 0.80 0.60 0.60
0.45 4,961.99 0.95 0.64 0.64 Overflow to Inlet B6
0.50 4,962.04 1.12 0.67 0.67
0.60 4,962.14 1.47 0.73 0.73
0.70 4,962.24 1.85 0.79 0.79
0.80 4,962.34 2.26 0.85 0.85
0.95 4,962.49 2.92 0.92 0.92 FG at Buildin�
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet C1
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.28
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.73
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
o.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
Nyloplast 8" Dome
0.67
Elevation
(ft)
4,955.29
4,955.39
4,955.49
4,955.59
4,955.69
4,955.79
4,955.89
4,955.99
4,956.09
4,956.19
4,956.29
�
Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
Rim Elevation (ft): 4,955.29
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 0.30 0.10
0.28 0.42 0.28 10-Year Storm
0.52 0.51 0.51
0.79 0.59 0.59
1.11 0.66 0.66
1.46 0.73 0.73 100-Year Storm
1.84 0.78 0.78
2.25 0.84 0.84
2.68 0.89 0.89
3.14 0.94 0.94 Overflow to the east
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet C2
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.28
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.73
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
cartinnal araa (O1
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
,,,- �.,.,��„�, �,,,,,,,,,,,,,s,u�,..,r"..«�,,,.,...,,.,,,,,..�,.,�„"..,�"�.,r..,,.«�,,.....,..",.
.
-ype of Grate: Nyloplast 8" Dome Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
)iameter of Grate (ft): 0.67 Rim Elevation (ft): 4,957.75
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Depth Above Inlet (ft) Notes
(ft) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 4,957.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 4,957.85 0.10 0.30 0.10
0.20 4,957.95 0.28 0.42 0.28 10-Year Storm
0.30 4,958.05 0.52 0.51 0.51
0.40 4,958.15 0.79 0.59 0.59
0.50 4,958.25 1.11 0.66 0.66
0.60 4,958.35 1.46 0.73 0.73 100-Year Storm
0.75 4,958.50 2.04 0.81 0.81
0.90 4,958.65 2.68 0.89 0.89
1.05 4,958.80 3.38 0.96 0.96
1.20 4,958.95 4.13 1.03 1.03
1.43 4,959.18 5.37 1.12 1.12 Overflow to the east
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
nlet Name: Inlet C3
_0-Year Design Flow (cfs) 0.28
_00-Year Desi�n Flow (cfsl 0.73
Project: 1328-010
Location: Forty-Three Prime
Calc. Bv: F. We�ert
At low flow dephs, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation
" where P= n'` 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 teh inlet grate
* where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-
tPctinnal arPa (Al.
i i i- i.i✓c �n�r�, u�cii uic
ype of Grate:
�iameter of Grate (ft)
Depth Above Inlet (ft)
o.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.75
1.00
125
1.50
2.01
Q = 3.OPH1.s
Q = 0.67A(2gH)o.s
ica unc aii vi iii�c� vuici vvi�c �� vNcia�ca iinc a wcii.
Nyloplast 8" Dome
0.67
Elevation
(ft)
4,958.09
4,958.19
4,958.29
4,958.39
4,958.49
4,958.59
4,958.69
4,958.84
4,959.09
4,959.34
4,959.59
4,960.10
�
Open Area of Grate (ftz): 0.35
Rim Elevation (ft): 4,958.09
Reduction Factor: 0.50
�-. .
Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow
Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Notes
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 0.30 0.10
0.28 0.42 0.28 10-Year Storm
0.52 0.51 0.51
0.79 0.59 0.59
1.11 0.66 0.66
1.46 0.73 0.73 100-Year Storm
2.04 0.81 0.81
3.14 0.94 0.94
4.39 1.05 1.05
5.77 1.15 1.15
8.95 1.33 1.33 Overflow to the east
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
OVERFLOW PATH
NOVEMBER 14, 2018
n� I NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
BUILDING F
D:�PROJECTS\1328-010\DWG\E%HIBITS\FORTY THREE PRIME-OVEFFLOW PNTH.DWG
RIPRAP & TURF REINFORCEMENT MATS
CALCULATIONS FOR RIPRAP PROTECTIO�
Project: 1328-010
Date: 10/20/2021
Bv: F. We�ert
INPUT CALCULATE
Culvert Parameters Circular Rectangular
Pipe Pipe
Circular Box Culvert (Figure MD-21) (Figure MD-22)
Storm Yt�
Design Tailwater
Line/Culvert Discharge D or Da, H or Ha, W� Depth
Label Pipe Culvert Culvert ls zs os
(cfs) Diameter Height Width (ft) Yt/D q/D Q/D Yc/H Q/WH
(ft) (ft) (ft)
Underdrain 2.08 0.50 0.20 0.40 5.88 11.77 N/A N/A
See the following sheets from Urban Drainage Volume 1(2011) for how riprap was sized.
The current Mile High Flood Control criteria do not adequately how to size riprap.
This is from UDFCD Vol 1.
From 2011
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) MAJOR DRAINAGE
7.0 PROTECTION DOWNSTREAM OF PIPE OUTLETS
This section is intended to address the use of riprap for erosion protection downstream of conduit and
culvert outlets that are in-line with major drainageway channels. Inadequate protection at conduit and
culvert outlets has long been a major problem. The designer should refer to Section 4.4 for additional
information on major drainage applications utilizing riprap. In addition, the criteria and guidance in
Section 4.4 may be useful in design of erosion protection for conduit outlets. The reader is referred to
Section 7.0 of the HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES chapter of this Manual for information on rundowns, and
to Section 3.0 of the HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES chapter for additional discussion on culvert outfall
protection.
Scour resulting from highly turbulent, rapidly decelerating flow is a common problem at conduit outlets.
The riprap protection design protocol is suggested for conduit and culvert outlet Froude numbers up to
2.5 (i.e., Froude parameters Q/d�2 5 or Q/WH' S up to 14 ft° 5/sec) where the channel and conduit slopes are
parallel with the channel gradient and the conduit outlet invert is flush with the riprap channel protection.
Here, Q is the discharge in cfs, do is the diameter of a circular conduit in feet and W and H are the width
and height, respectively, of a rectangular conduit in feet.
7.1 Confiquration of Riprap Protection
Figure MD-25 illustrates typical riprap protection of culverts and major drainageway conduit outlets. The
additional thickness of the riprap just downstream from the outlet is to assure protection from flow
conditions that might precipitate rock movement in this region.
7.2 Required Rock Size
The required rock size may be selected from Fiqure MD-21 for circular conduits and from Figure MD-22
for rectangular conduits. Figure MD-21 is valid for Q/D�Z 5 of 6 or less and Fiqure MD-22 is valid for
Q/WH' S of 8.0 or less. The parameters in these two figures are:
1. Q/D'' or Q/WH° 5 in which Q is the design discharge in cfs, D�. is the diameter of a circular conduit
in feet, and W and H are the width and height of a rectangular conduit in feet.
2. Yt/D� or Y,/H in which Y, is the tailwater depth in feet, D� is the diameter of a circular conduit in feet,
and H is the height of a rectangular conduit in feet. In cases where Y� is unknown or a hydraulic
jump is suspected downstream of the outlet, use Y�ID, = YtIH = 0.40 when using Fiqures MD-21
and MD-22.
Rev. 04/2008 M D-103
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1)
�
a
0
Yt/D
MAJOR DRAINAGE
Use Da instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel.
�� Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream .
Figure MD-21—Riprap Erosion Protection at Circular Conduit Outlet Valid for Q1D2�5 <_ 6.0
Rev. 04/2008 M D-107
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
`�O .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1)
9 = Expansion Angle
m
c
� v
�
N
�
O
H
U
�
Z
O
�
Z
Q
d
x
w
Figure MD-23—Expansion Factor for Circular Conduits
Rev. 04/2008
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
MAJOR DRAINAGE
MD-109
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . � . t�
TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUfT HEIGHT, Yt/D
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1)
MAJOR DRAINAGE
Table MD-7—Classification and Gradation of Ordinary Riprap
% Smaller Than Given Intermediate Rock
Riprap Designation Size by Weight Dimensions (inches) dso (inches)*
Type VL 70-100 12
50-70 9
35-50 6 6**
2-10 2
Type L 70-100 15
50-70 12
35-50 9 9**
2-10 3
Type M 70-100 21
50-70 18
35-50 12 12**
2-10 4
Type H 70-100 30
50-70 24
35-50 18 18
2-10 6
Type VH 70-100 42
50-70 33
35-50 24 24
2-10 9
* d50 = mean particle size (intermediate dimension) by weight.
** Mix VL, L and M riprap with 35% topsoil (by volume) and bury it with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil, all
vibration compacted, and revegetate.
Basic requirements for riprap stone are as follows:
• Rock shall be hard, durable, angular in shape, and free from cracks, overburden, shale, and organic
matter.
• Neither breadth nor thickness of a single stone should be less than one-third its length, and rounded
stone should be avoided.
• The rock should sustain a loss of not more than 40% after 500 revolutions in an abrasion test (Los
Angeles machin�ASTM C-535-69) and should sustain a loss of not more than 10% after 12 cycles
of freezing and thawing (AASHTO test 103 for ledge rock procedure A).
• Rock having a minimum specific gravity of 2.65 is preferred; however, in no case should rock have a
specific gravity less than 2.50.
4.4.1.2 Grouted Boulders
Table MD-8 provides the classification and size requirements for boulders. When grouted boulders are
used, they provide a relatively impervious channel lining which is less subject to vandalism than ordinary
riprap. Grouted boulders require less routine maintenance by reducing silt and trash accumulation and
Rev. 04/2008 M D-61
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
j�l R!�� �! ��l��:,
` ROLLED EROSION CONTROL
Specification Sheet
EroNetT" P300° Permanent
Erosion Control Blanl<et
DESCF2IPTION
The permanent erosion control blanl<et shall be a machine-produced
mat of 100% UV stable polypropylene fiber. The matting shall be of
�onsistent thi�l<ness with the synthetic fibers evenly distributed over
the entire area of the mat. The mattin� shall be �overed on the top
side with bla�l< heavyweight UV-stabilized polypropylene nettin�
having ultraviolet additives to delay breal<down and an approximate
0.50 x 0.50 in�h (1.27 x 1.27 cm) mesh. The bottom net shall also be UV-
stabilized polypropylene with a 0.63 x 0.63 in�h (1.57 x 1.57 cm) mesh
size. The blanl<et shall be sewn to�ether on 1.5 in�h (3.81 �m) centers
with non-degradable thread. All mats shall be manufactured with a
�olored thread stit�hed alon� both outer ed�es as an overlap guide for
adjacent mats. The P300 shall meet Type 5A, 5B, specification
requirements established by the Erosion Control Te�hnolo�y Coun�il
(ECTC) and Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) FP-03
Se�tion 713.18
Matrix 100% UV stable 0.71bs/sq yd
Polypropylene Fiber (0.38 I<g/sm)
Top: UV-stabilized Polypropylene 5 Ibs/1000 sq ft
Netting (24.4 g/sm)
Bottom: UV-stabilized Polypropylene 3 Ibs/1000 sq ft
(14.7 g/sm)
Thread Polypropylene, UV stable
Width 6.67 ft(2.03 m) 8 ft (2.44 m)
Length 108 ft (32.92 m) 112 ft (35.14 m)
Weight±10% 61 Ibs (27.661<g) 76.25 Ibs (34.59 I<g)
Area 80 sq yd (66.0 sm) 100 sq yd (83.61 sm)
Slope Gradients (5)
Slope Length (L) <_ 3:1 3:1 - 2.1 >_ 2:1
<_ 20 ft(6 m) 0.001 0.029 0.082
20-50 ft 0.036 0.060 0.086
_> 50 ft (15.2 m) 0.070 0.090 0.110
Thidcness
Resiliency
Density
Mass/Unit Area
UV Stability
Porosity
Stiffness
Light Penetration
Tensile Strength - MD
Elongation - MD
Tensile Strength - TD
Elongation - TD
Biomass Improvement
ASTM D6525
ASTM D6524
ASTM D792
ASTM 6566
ASTM D4355/
1000 hr
ECTC Guidelines
ASTM D1388
ASTM D6567
ASTM D6818
ASTM D6818
ASTM D6818
ASTM D6818
ASTM D7322
0.47 in.
(11.94 mm)
91.5%
0.916 g/�m3
13.03 oz/sy
(443 g/m2)
90%
95.89%
0.94 in-Ib
(1085378 mg-�m)
17.9%
438 Ibs/ft
(6.49 I<N/m)
28.1%
291.9 Ibs/ft
(4.32 I<N/m)
26.7°/a
497%
Short Duration Long Duration
Phase 1: Unvegetated 3.0 psf (144 Pa) 2.0 psf (96 Pa)
Phase 2: Partially Veg. 8.0 psf (383 Pa) 8.0 psf (383 Pa)
Phase 3: Fully Veg. 8.0 psf (383 Pa) 8.0 PSF (383 Pa)
Unvegetated Velocity 9.0 fps (2.7 m/s)
Vegetaged Velocity 16 fps (4.9 m/s)
Flow Depth
<_ 0.50 ft (0.15 m)
0.50 - 2.0 ft
>_ 2.0 ft (0.60 m)
Manning's n
0.034
0.034-0.020
0.020
WeSter� �ree� OO Z019, North Ameri�an Green is a re�istered trademarl<from Westem Green. Certain
NORT� 4609 E BOO�ville-NEw HarRlOfly Rd products and/or applications described or illustrated herein are protected under one or more
Evansville, IN 477Z5 U.S patents, Other U.S. patents are pending, and �ertain foreign patents and patent
AMER �� appli�ations may also existTrademarl< rights also apply as indi�ated herein Final
determination of the suitability of any information or material for the use mntemplated, and
G REE1� nagreen �om its manner of use is the sole responsibility of the user Printed in the U S A
800 772 2040
EC_RMX_MP�S_P300_1.19
ECMDS 7.0
NORTH
�� AMERICAN
GREEN
SLOPE ANALYSIS
> > > Rain Garden Spillway
Country United States
State/Region Colorado
City Ft. Collins
Annual R Factor 30.00
Adjusted R Factor 0.00
Total Slope Length 46
Protection Type Permanent
Protection Period 0
Beginning Month
Slope Gradient (H:1) 7
Soil Type Clay Loam
K Factor 0.21
https://ecmds.com/proj ect/148940/slope-analysi s/207531 /show
Reach 1
Start: Oft End: 46 ft
Vegetation Type: >95%
Material ASL bare ASL mat MSL bare MSL mat
P300 0.1 in 0.0 in
P550 0.1 in 0.0 in
C350 0.1 in 0.0 in
SC250 0.1 in 0.0 in
W3000 0.1 in 0.0 in
TMax 0.1 in 0.0 in
Estb. Veg. 0.1 in 0.0 in
P300 0.1 in 0.0 in
Reinf. Veg
SC250 0.1 in 0.0 in
Reinf. Veg
C350 0.1 in 0.0 in
Reinf. Veg
P550 0.1 in 0.0 in
Reinf. Veg
0.1 in
0.1 in
0.1 in
0.1 in
0.1 in
0.1 in
N/A in
0.1 in
0.1 in
0.1 in
0.1 in
0.0 in
0.0 in
0.0 in
0.0 in
0.0 in
0.0 in
N/A in
0.0 in
0.0 in
0.0 in
0.0 in
Soil Loss
Tolerance
0.25 in
0.25 in
0.25 in
0.25 in
0.25 in
0.25 in
0.03 in
0.03 in
0.03 in
0.03 in
0.03 in
SF
>10
0
>10
>10
>10
>10
>10
>10
>10
>10
0
North American Green
5401 St. Wendel-Cynthiana Rd.
Poseyville, Indiana 47633
Tel. 800.772.2040
> Fax 812.867.0247
www.nagreen.com
ECMDS v7.0
Remarks
STABLE
UNSTABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
UNSTABLE
Staple / App
Rate
D
D
D
D
B
B
D
D
D
D
] of 1 7/26/2021, 1 l:06 AM
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
RAIN GARDEN, WATER QUALITY, & LID CALCUALTIONS
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
UD-BMP (Version 3.06, November 2016) Sheet 1 of 2
Designer: F. Wegert
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: April 18, 2022
Project: Forty-Three Prime
Location: Fort Collins, CO
1. Basin Storage Volume
A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, la la = 68.0 %
(100 % if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden)
B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = I�/100) i= 0.680
C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.21 watershed inches
(WQCV= O.S' (0.91' i3- 1.19' i2+ 0.78 ` i)
D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 107,107 sq ft
E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQ�� = 1,901 cu ft
Vol = (WQCV / 12) ` Area
F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of ds = in
Average Runoff Producing Storm
G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, �wocvoTHeR = cu ft
Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume
H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQcv usea = cu ft
(Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired)
2. Basin Geometry
A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) DWo�� = 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 AM;� = 1457 sq ft
D) Actual Flat SurFace Area AA���ai = 1904 sq ft
E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) AToP = 1904 sq ft
F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 1,904 cu ft
(Vr= ((AmP + An�mai) / 2)' Depth)
3. Growing Media - Choose ne
's� 18" Rain Garden Growing Media
�� Other (Explain):
4. Underdrain System
Choose dn
(�J YES
A) Are underdrains provided?
� NO
B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time
i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= ft
Volume to the Center of the Orifice
ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours VoI�Z= N/A cu ft
iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum Do = N/A in
UD-BMP v3.06 Double Rain Garden WQVoI-FSW.xism, RG 4/21/2022, 10:11 AM
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
Sheet 2 of 2
Designer: F. Wegert
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: April 18, 2022
Project: Forty-Three Prime
Location: Fort Collins, CO
5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric Choose
��YES
A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity � N�
of structures or groundwater contamination?
PROVIDE A 30 MIL (MIN) PVC LINER WITH CDOT CLASS B
GEOTEXTILE ABOVE IT. USE THE SAME GEOTEXTILE BELOW
THE LINER IF THE SUBGRADE IS ANGULAR
6. Inlet / Outlet Control Cheose ne
L,? Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required
A) Inlet Control (�) Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided
Choose ne
7. Vegetation � Seed (Plan for frequent weed control)
0 Plantings
(j Sand Grown or Other High Infltration Sod
8. I rrigation r_hoose
�� YES
A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? �; N�
Nates:
UD-BMP v3.06 Double Rain Garden WQVoI-FSW.xism, RG 4/21/2022, 10:11 AM
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
UD-BMP (Version 3.06, November 2016) Sheet 1 of 2
Designer: F. Wegert
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: April 18, 2022
Project: Forty-Three Prime-Rain Garden C1
Location: Fort Collins, CO
1. Basin Storage Volume
A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, la la = 31.4 %
(100 % if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden)
B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = I�/100) i= 0.314
C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.12 watershed inches
(WQCV= O.S' (0.91' i3- 1.19' i2+ 0.78 ` i)
D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 11,749 sq ft
E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQ�� = 122 cu ft
Vol = (WQCV / 12) ` Area
F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of ds = in
Average Runoff Producing Storm
G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, �wocvoTHeR = cu ft
Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume
H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQcv usea = cu ft
(Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired)
2. Basin Geometry
A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) DWo�� = 12 in
B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z= 4.00 ft/ ft
(Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls)
C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;� = 74 sq ft
D) Actual Flat SurFace Area AA���ai = 74 sq ft
E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) AToP = 267 sq ft
F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 171 cu ft
(Vr= ((AmP + An�mai) / 2)' Depth)
3. Growing Media - Choose ne
's� 18" Rain Garden Growing Media
�� Other (Explain):
4. Underdrain System
Choose dn
(�J YES
A) Are underdrains provided?
� NO
B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time
i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= ft
Volume to the Center of the Orifice
ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours VoI�Z= N/A cu ft
iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum Do = N/A in
UD-BMP v3.06 Rain Garden-C1 WQVol.xlsm, RG 4/21/2022, 10:14 AM
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
Sheet 2 of 2
Designer: F. Wegert
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: April 18, 2022
Project: Forty-Three Prime-Rain Garden C1
Location: Fort Collins, CO
5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric Choose
:,J YES
A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity '� N�
of structures or groundwater contamination?
6. Inlet / Outlet Control Cheose ne
L,? Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required
A) Inlet Control (�) Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided
Choose ne
7. Vegetation � Seed (Plan for frequent weed control)
0 Plantings
(j Sand Grown or Other High Infltration Sod
8. I rrigation r_hoose
�� YES
A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? �; N�
Nates:
UD-BMP v3.06 Rain Garden-C1 WQVol.xlsm, RG 4/21/2022, 10:14 AM
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
UD-BMP (Version 3.06, November 2016) Sheet 1 of 2
Designer: F. Wegert
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: April 18, 2022
Project: Forty-Three Prime - Rain Garden C2
Location: Fort Collins, CO
1. Basin Storage Volume
A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, la la = 45.2 %
(100 % if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden)
B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = I�/100) i= 0.452
C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.15 watershed inches
(WQCV= O.S' (0.91' i3- 1.19' i2+ 0.78 ` i)
D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 11,749 sq ft
E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQ�� = 152 cu ft
Vol = (WQCV / 12) ` Area
F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of ds = in
Average Runoff Producing Storm
G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, �wocvoTHeR = cu ft
Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume
H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQcv usea = cu ft
(Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired)
2. Basin Geometry
A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) DWo�� = 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 AM;� = 106 sq ft
D) Actual Flat SurFace Area AA���ai = 111 sq ft
E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) AToP = 333 sq ft
F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 222 cu ft
(Vr= ((AmP + An�mai) / 2)' Depth)
3. Growing Media - Choose ne
's� 18" Rain Garden Growing Media
�� Other (Explain):
4. Underdrain System
Choose dn
(�J YES
A) Are underdrains provided?
� NO
B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time
i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= ft
Volume to the Center of the Orifice
ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours VoI�Z= N/A cu ft
iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum Do = N/A in
UD-BMP v3.06 Rain Garden-C2 WQVol.xlsm, RG 4/21/2022, 10:15 AM
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
Sheet 2 of 2
Designer: F. Wegert
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: April 18, 2022
Project: Forty-Three Prime - Rain Garden C2
Location: Fort Collins, CO
5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric Choose
:,J YES
A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity '� N�
of structures or groundwater contamination?
6. Inlet / Outlet Control Cheose ne
L,? Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required
A) Inlet Control (�) Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided
Choose ne
7. Vegetation � Seed (Plan for frequent weed control)
0 Plantings
(j Sand Grown or Other High Infltration Sod
8. I rrigation r_hoose
�� YES
A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? �; N�
Nates:
UD-BMP v3.06 Rain Garden-C2 WQVol.xlsm, RG 4/21/2022, 10:15 AM
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
UD-BMP (Version 3.06, November 2016) Sheet 1 of 2
Designer: F. Wegert
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: April 18, 2022
Project: Forty-Three Prime - Rain Garden C3
Location: Fort Collins, CO
1. Basin Storage Volume
A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, la la = 31.5 %
(100 % if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden)
B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = I�/100) i= 0.315
C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.12 watershed inches
(WQCV= O.S' (0.91' i3- 1.19' i2+ 0.78 ` i)
D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 11,749 sq ft
E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQ�� = 122 cu ft
Vol = (WQCV / 12) ` Area
F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of ds = in
Average Runoff Producing Storm
G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, �wocvoTHeR = cu ft
Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume
H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQcv usea = cu ft
(Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired)
2. Basin Geometry
A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) DWo�� = 12 in
B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z= 4.00 ft/ ft
(Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls)
C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;� = 74 sq ft
D) Actual Flat SurFace Area AA���ai = 92 sq ft
E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) AToP = 301 sq ft
F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 197 cu ft
(Vr= ((AmP + An�mai) / 2)' Depth)
3. Growing Media - Choose ne
's� 18" Rain Garden Growing Media
�� Other (Explain):
4. Underdrain System
Choose dn
(�J YES
A) Are underdrains provided?
� NO
B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time
i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= ft
Volume to the Center of the Orifice
ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours VoI�Z= N/A cu ft
iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum Do = N/A in
UD-BMP v3.06 Rain Garden-C3 WQVol.xlsm, RG 4/21/2022, 10:16 AM
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
Sheet 2 of 2
Designer: F. Wegert
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: April 18, 2022
Project: Forty-Three Prime - Rain Garden C3
Location: Fort Collins, CO
5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric Choose
:,J YES
A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity '� N�
of structures or groundwater contamination?
6. Inlet / Outlet Control Cheose ne
L,? Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required
A) Inlet Control (�) Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided
Choose ne
7. Vegetation � Seed (Plan for frequent weed control)
0 Plantings
(j Sand Grown or Other High Infltration Sod
8. I rrigation r_hoose
�� YES
A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? �; N�
Nates:
UD-BMP v3.06 Rain Garden-C3 WQVol.xlsm, RG 4/21/2022, 10:16 AM
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
CONVEYANCE OF 100-STORM THROUGH DOUBLE RAIN GARDENS
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutodeskOO Civil 3DOO by Autodesk, Inc. Monday, Oct 18 2021
Capacity of 1 Barrel at 7.5-ft Wide Sidewalk Culvert for 100-Year Storm
Rectangular Highlighted
Bottom Width (ft) = 3.50 Depth (ft) = 0.28
Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q(cfs) = 6.450
Area (sqft) = 0.98
Invert Elev (ft) = 60.87 Velocity (ft/s) = 6.58
Slope (%) = 2.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 4.06
N-Value = 0.012 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.48
Top Width (ft) = 3.50
Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.95
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 6.45
Note: Above calculation is for 2 barrel at the 7.5 ft wide sidewalk culvert. There are two
barrels, and each barrel is 3.5 ft wide and 0.5 ft in depth. Therefore, the total capacity at the
7.5 ft sidewalk culvert is 6.45 cfs X 2 barrels = 12.9 cfs.
Elev (ft)
62.00
v
61.50
61.00
60.50
.1 11
Section
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Reach (ft)
Depth (ft)
1.13
0.63
0.13
-0.37
-0.87
4.5
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutodeskOO Civil 3DOO by Autodesk, Inc.
Conveyance of 100-Year Storm Through Double Rain Garden
Rectangular Highlighted
Bottom Width (ft) = 15.00 Depth (ft)
Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Q (cfs)
Area (sqft)
Invert Elev (ft) = 4960.87 Velocity (ft/s)
Slope (%) = 0.10 Wetted Perim (ft)
N-Value = 0.012 Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
Top Width (ft)
Calculations EGL (ft)
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 12.90
Elev (ft)
4962.00
v
4961.50
4961.00
4960.50
4960.00
Section
Monday, Oct 18 2021
= 0.42
= 12.90
= 6.30
= 2.05
= 15.84
= 0.29
= 15.00
= 0.49
D 2 4 6 8
10
Reach (ft)
12 14 16 18
Depth (ft)
1.13
0.63
0.13
-0.37
-0.87
20
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
� . . , .
1• � ' �
Project Number: 1328-010
Project Name: Forty-Three Prime
Project Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Pond No: Double Rain Garden Calc. By: F. Wegert
� - �- �.
Orifice Dia (in): 12
Orifice Area (sf): 0.79 Note: Assume 6.45 cfs for 100-Year Storm at
each culvert. 6.45 cfs x 2 culverts = 12.9 cfs.
Orifice invert (ft): 4,959.87
Orifice Coefficient: 0.65
•
Elevation Stage (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Flow Rate (cfs) Comments
4,959.87 0.00 0.00 0.00
4,959.97 0.10 1.65 1.29
4,960.07 0.20 2.33 1.83
4,960.17 0.30 2.86 2.24
4,960.27 0.40 3.30 2.59
4,960.37 0.50 3.69 2.90
4,960.47 0.60 4.04 3.17
4,960.57 0.70 4.36 3.43
4,960.67 0.80 4.66 3.66
4,960.77 0.90 4.95 3.88
4,960.87 1.00 5.21 4.09 <- Spillway/WQV
4,960.97 1.10 5.47 4.29
4,961.07 1.20 5.71 4.49
4,961.17 1.30 5.94 4.67
4,961.27 1.40 6.17 4.85
4,961.37 1.50 6.39 5.02
4,961.47 1.60 6.59 5.18
4,961.57 1.70 6.80 5.34
4,961.67 1.80 7.00 5.49
4,961.77 1.90 7.19 5.64
4,961.87 2.00 7.37 5.79
4,961.97 2.10 7.56 5.93
4,962.07 2.20 7.73 6.07
4,962.17 2.30 7.91 6.21
4,962.27 2.40 8.08 6.34
4,962.37 2.50 8.24 6.47 <-100 Year Elev.
4,962.47 2.60 8.41 6.60
4,962.57 2.70 8.57 6.73
4,962.67 2.80 8.72 6.85
4,962.77 2.90 8.88 6.97
4,962.80 2.93 8.92 7.01 <-Top of Pond
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
Storm Sewer Profile
� � �
j M S �� MO
.. c0 _' � [fl _'
Elev. (ft)
4973.00
4970.00
4967.00
4964.00
4961.00
4958.00
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Rain Garden Culverts - 100-Year
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D0 Plan
Storm Sewer Summary Report
Line LinelD Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line
No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope
(cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%)
1 Pipe -(46) 12.90 12 Cir(2b) 18.660 4959.88 4959.88 0.000
Note: 2 barrels are assumed.
Rain Garden Culverts - 100-Year
NOTES: Return period = 100 Yrs. ;*Surcharged (HGL above crown).
HGL HGL Minor
Down Up loss
(ft) (ft) (ft)
4960.77" 4961.40" 1.05
Number of lines: 1
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutodeskOO Civil 3DOO by Autodesk, Inc.
Spillway for pouble Rain Garden
Rectangular
Bottom Width (ft) = 13.00
Total Depth (ft) = 1.00
Invert Elev (ft) = 4960.87
Slope (%) = 0.10
N-Value = 0.012
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 12.90
Elev (ft)
4962.00
v
4961.50
4961.00
4960.50
4960.00
Section
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
Q (cfs)
Area (sqft)
Velocity (ft/s)
Wetted Perim (ft)
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
Top Width (ft)
EGL (ft)
Monday, Oct 18 2021
= 0.46
= 12.90
= 5.98
= 2.16
= 13.92
= 0.32
= 13.00
= 0.53
D 2 4 6
8 10
Reach (ft)
12 14 16
Depth (ft)
1.13
0.63
0.13
-0.37
-0.87
18
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) has been included with the
final construction drawings. It should be noted; however, any such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves
only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted, and additional or
different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction, or as required by the authorities
havingjurisdiction.
It shall be the responsibility ofthe Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and
followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document, constantly adapting to
site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed, removed, or
modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site
conditions at all times.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during
construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices from the Volume 3,
Chapter 7- Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing and/or
wattles along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways, and inlet protection at
existing and proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill containment and clean-up procedures,
designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor.
Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on Sheet CS2 of the Utility Plans. The Final Utility Plans will also
contain a full-size Erosion Control Plan as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In
addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere to, the
applicable requirements outlined in any existing Development Agreement(s) of record, as well as the
Development Agreement, to be recorded prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit. Also, the
Site Contractor for this project may be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division - Stormwater
Program, before commencing any earth disturbing activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor
shall develop a comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and
guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance
of construction BMPs.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY EROSION CONTROL REPORT
NNORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
USDA United States
= Department of
Agriculture
I� RCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
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, Colorado
. . � �,
�,.. ��_ , _�,..,_...__ _
. ,� � - , i
.'' '"! . � I
�w
, � r,
_ ;�_� �,
_ . � `�. �
� +�
r
�
t �.
� I
� •
I'� ar'
� �� ���� � �
`� `,. 5 �, .
�k �. " -�
�,. �� � ,
+� 3 �.t�
� �� � , �i�
'f� ► J�'
_ 0 ��2UU ft
� °�
� ti-�'
. � _
�
w � �
��� � .
�� y�� �` � x
� �
1
December 20, 2021
�� � �`����� ���
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.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
appiications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_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 pooriy 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, marita� 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 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.
Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2
How Soil Surveys Are Made ..................................................................................5
SoilMap .................................................................................................................. 8
SoilMap ................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
MapUnit Legend ................................................................................................ 11
MapUnit Descriptions .........................................................................................11
Larimer County Area, Colorado ...................................................................... 13
27—Cushman fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes ................................13
54—Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes .......................................................... 14
90—Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes ............................................ 15
Soil Information for All Uses ...............................................................................17
Soil Properties and Qualities .............................................................................. 17
Soil Erosion Factors ........................................................................................17
K Factor, Whole Soil ....................................................................................17
Wind Erodibility Group .................................................................................20
Soil Qualities and Features .............................................................................23
HydrologicSoil Group ................................................................................. 23
References............................................................................................................ 28
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 miscel�aneous 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
Custom Soil Resource Report
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 ineasurements 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
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
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.
E:3
Custom Soil Resource Report
3 Soil Map
�
m
494�?0 494�lJ 494590 494620 � 494C�+@7 494710 494740 �
40° 29' 41" N � ___—� _—�. .. � � _ �
�— . ._ __'_ __ �'�
ll
�� F �l/ _.�_ .._.__ — `- ' - � -. 'r �
� �a7 .�r� I J 4� � � . ., z,�
;��'� ��, � , . �
,�� M�' � � ; .
a,, _
� ; F � , ,,^�,k ., �iw'
� �,
�� ,:;�; �-,.i
--� « �, '� � ��
� - .
��
► �
�Ir
�
�.., .��','� ��
� � _. .. # - S� M ��T . . .
� — � tAJ -
f'�,�� � ' � . - .
�'� � � � �o �� � � � '
I � ^y � ` .iM'
;u_ � `•'� '� '
�� i '�,.'� n � ,o-'l �� �
��' � , �: : "� \ � ` � - t -'
�
-� R..�;Ct` \� � � o+�� • �1
•� .�� � :: � • • � �"i{�!-���
a' . y -, --. R>
� A "A'� • i!R '
�' � �� �
♦ � a+�► � 1 �`� ' � ''� � '�
� � �, � � � \1 �. �` � •
� ����(,
:�\!.�` ^�' � � ' 1 . � .. _ r�
. j "1'... � , ✓ . , ! ��_ - -a _ Y� _ "' '- �� �� �.^ . . � - ��"' .
, tiY _ r � — sr=� =�Ss � �{ � ;�#.
• ` : ,�,p — ;,:'^y� ,_ �*— = � � � �'`� �:�'�"
� So�i�l■Map may�be valid at this scale. � �` �± �'��` .�'; �
�� � ��� _"r���1._.,.�_-� t'- �_ _ 'e � �!� '.�� � ,�
40� �� �"�" � ' I 1 I � � I I
49A530 494560 494590 494620 494fi.FA 494G@:J 494710 494740 �
3
-��' Map Scale� 1:1,370 if printed on A landscape (ll" x 8.5") �eet
° N Meters
� 0 20 40 80 120
/V �
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator CAmer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tia: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
� _� Soil Map Unit Lines
0 Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
v Blowout
C`� Borrow Pit
j�' Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
• Lava Fiow
_ Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
' Saline Spot
lSandy Spot
= Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
oa Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
, Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canais
Trensportation
,+* Rails
ti Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
� Aerial Photography
MAPINFORMA
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI �
1:24, 000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at thi
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale o
misunderstanding of the detail of mappin�
line placement. The maps do not show th
contrasting soils that could have been sh
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each maF
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Con
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EP
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are base
projection, which preserves direction and
distance and area. A projection that pres�
Albers equal-area conic projection, shoul
accurate calculations of distance or area
This product is generated from the USOP
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 2, 2
Soil map units are labeled (as space allo�
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographec
12, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on wh
compiled and digitized probably differs fr�
imagery displayed on these maps. As a r
shiftinq of map unit boundaries may be e
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
27
54
90
Totals for Area of Interest
Map Unit Name
Cushman fine sandy loam, 3 to
9 percent slopes
Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9
percent slopes
Acres in AOI
2.2
0.1
6.2
8.5
Percent of AOI
26.1 %
1.1%
72.8%
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 miscelianeous 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
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
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.
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
Larimer County Area, Colorado
27—Cushman fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpvz
Elevation: 4,800 to 5,800 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: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Cushman and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Cushman
Setting
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Material weathered from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 2 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 2 to 13 inches: clay loam
H3 - 13 to 31 inches: loam
H4 - 31 to 35 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Stoneham
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
54�Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpwy
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: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Kim and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Kim
Setting
Landform: Fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 60 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Thedalund
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Stoneham
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Fort collins
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Ecological site: R067BZ008C0 - Loamy Slopes
Hydric soil rating: No
Aquic haplustolls
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Swales
Hydric soil rating: Yes
90—Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpy7
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: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Renohill and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Renohill
Setting
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Material weathered from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: clay loam
H2 - 7 to 19 inches: clay
H3 - 19 to 29 inches: clay loam
H4 - 29 to 33 inches: unweathered bedrock
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R067BZ008C0 - Loamy Slopes
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Midway
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Ecological site: R067BY045C0 - Shaly Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Heldt
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Ulm
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Ecological site: R067BY042C0 - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
�
Soil Information forAll 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 Erosion Factors
Soil Erosion Factors are soil properties and interpretations used in evaluating the
soil for potential erosion. Example soil erosion factors can include K factor for the
whole soil or on a rock free basis, T factor, wind erodibility group and wind erodibility
index.
K Factor, Whole Soil
Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by
water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the
average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year.
The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter
and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range
from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more
susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water.
"Erosion factor Kw (whole soil)" indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The
estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments.
Factor K does not apply to organic horizons and is not reported for those layers.
17
�
�
m
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—K Factor, Whole Soil
494�?0 494�lJ 494590 494620 � 494C�+@7 494710 494740 �
40° 29' 41" N � ___—� _—�. .. � � � —��
� -_ �_'- _ �— ' _ �'�..
ll I �-
v q/,1 GI
k, l°tJ
. . '� �.
����. � �
.�
0
�
1'r'
r
9d
:�=
��
�3�
:; .
y.
•� .
� � �'- , ,
� , ..� , ,� , .-
�`�y r-.�` ��' _
� � � " ^ `�� �°�
r�.�, ,:,�''" � �`
.� '
�
� �
� � h � � • s �•. �
1 ��y
y� ;� . ��y - -. - '��_.� �� -. i_ Q
♦ ' r Y '
� �.. .. �.. , �P ' "�v�.,��-�-`��-����-�� � iyY i
� Soid■Map may n;ot be valid at this scale. �� �`.� �p°''� - Ir �;�
' .
� - _. __, � r.. i . �.'._...,...__� � 1' �, � 'e � ��,t��� � � .
40° 29 34 N ' '� I � � I � I I ..
49A530 494560 494590 494620 494fi.FA 494G@:J 494710 494740 �
3
-��' Map Scale� 1:1,370 if printed on A landscape (ll" x 8.5") �eet
° N Meters
� 0 20 40 80 120
/V �
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator CAmer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tia: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
18
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (A01)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
� .02
� .05
Q .10
� .15
� 17
� 20
� 24
0 .2s
� .32
� .37
� .43
� .49
� .55
� .64
Q Not rated or not availabie
Soil Rating Lines
„y .02
�,,i .05
� r .10
. r .15
r � .17
. . .20
. . .24
+ � .28
. r .32
• r .37
. r .43
�,,� .49
„y .55
r.y .64
. w Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
� .02
� .05
0 .10
� 15
0 17
p .20
� .24
O •2$
� .32
0 .37
� .43
a .49
� .55
� .64
� Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canais
Transportation
� Rails
�.,i Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
� Aerial Photography
MAPINFORMA
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI �
1:24, 000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at thi
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale o
misunderstanding of the detail of mappin�
line placement. The maps do not show th
contrasting soils that could have been sh
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each maF
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Con
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EP
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are base
projection, which preserves direction and
distance and area. A projection that pres�
Albers equal-area conic projection, shoul
accurate calculations of distance or area
This product is generated from the USOP
as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 2, 2
Soil map units are labeled (as space allo�
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographec
12, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on wh
compiled and digitized probably differs fr�
imagery displayed on these maps. As a r
shiftinq of map unit boundaries may be e
19
Custom Soil Resource Report
Table—K Factor, Whole Soil
Map unit symbol Map unit name
27 Cushman fine sandy .20
loam, 3 to 9 percent
slopes
54 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent .28
slopes
90 Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9.24
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
Rating I Acres in AOI I Percent of AOI
2.2 26.1 %
0.1
6.2
8.5
Rating Options—K Factor, Whole Soil
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.� None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Surface Layer (Not applicable)
Wind Erodibility Group
A wind erodibility group (WEG) consists of soils that have similar properties
affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned
to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8
are the least susceptible.
1.1%
72.8%
100.0%
20
�
�
m
40° 29' 41" N
�
�
494�?0 494,��'fJ 494590
� ------- —�.. . . �
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Wind Erodibility Group
494620 � 494C�+@7 494710 494740 �
� � —��
_ �_'- _ '__ _ _ _ "" __���_.
ll
��<1 - �
�
1
���
a��
��
o �
� •—i7 k
. t
I �-
i°J-J,.- ���.
*�
�� .
., .c�-�- �-
� ;�''t- -: � �
� �� �
��
I �
�5 I
�
�i
_ ���
� �Q et`
� eh
O
�;'
t '�'
/ � ` � .,�"
_ r -- - �
• ' ^. �r
_� _� I
�,
,
� ��
'. �
r '�
.'✓
�0'
�`4,
rre �r
�'
�► /
�
, � �� �
. .� , .� y�
Y� ; ��� �� �
� -
` f " -.�
l����� �3,�i��" i� '�" �3� �
... -
�Vi� \�� 13`+'!i"..d�11ilR�' �� j�� a
� � -■ ay not be vali�d at this scale. � � �` � �`' �
{�� � '
s � ,. : . . r � ��..
�� Oli� 1Y1� r..� i I ��,..��:,,...__ r3.�� 1' I� _�'e �� ��,t���.',� I : .
40° 29� 34" N , � .
49A530 494560 494590 494620 494fi.FA 494G@:J 494710 494740 �
3
-��' Map Scale� 1:1,370 if printed on A landscape (ll" x 8.5") �eet
° N Meters
� 0 20 40 80 120
/V �
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator CAmer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tia: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
21
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
soils
Soil Rating Polygons
� 1
� Z
� 3
� 4
� 4�
� 5
� 6
0 �
0 $
0 Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
� 1
• r 2
. . 3
. r 4
. . 4L
. . 5
� ♦ 6
r,� �
�+/ 8
.. Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
� 1
0 2
0 3
� 4
� 4L
� 5
0 6
� �
■ 8
0 Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canais
Transportation
� Rails
N Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
� Aeriai Photography
MAPINFORMA
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI �
1:24, 000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at thi
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale o
misunderstanding of the detail of mappin�
line placement. The maps do not show th
contrasting soils that could have been sh
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each maF
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Con
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EP
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are base
projection, which preserves direction and
distance and area. A projection that pres�
Albers equal-area conic projection, shoul
accurate calculations of distance or area
This product is generated from the USOP
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 2, 2
Soil map units are labeled (as space allo�
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographec
12, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on wh
compiled and digitized probably differs fr�
imagery displayed on these maps. As a r
shiftinq of map unit boundaries may be e
22
Custom Soil Resource Report
Table—Wind Erodibility Group
Map unit symbol
27
54
Map unit name
Cushman fine sandy
loam, 3 to 9 percent
slopes
Rating
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
2.2 26.1 %
0.1 1.1%
Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent 4l.
slopes
90 Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 6
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
Rating Options—Wind Erodibility Group
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.� None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Soil Qualities and Features
6.2
8.5
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 (Iow 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
72.8%
100.0%
23
Custom Soil Resource Report
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
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, soiis 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. Oniy the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
24
�
�
m
40° 29' 41" N
�
�
�`
��
�
�i
�'��r
� ��
�, �r� .I
� ;
a��,-
•!
r
- _ -,. —.a
' `'i I
�
. �
- r.' �
, f'�
P� �
h�' f ��
. �t '�• _ � _� .
' . l✓
t'�l'!/ �
�����
.i�""_ �/,. �
i� �
� �
�, y�:
�` �°? . �
,.�- � � ,a
��'" `` � �ji1 �,
� � t , � ,,�
� �s,�l���" �. �� �i
�-\� ::1��s"..�i�l�' �� i�y a
� �_,��■ p ay�be vali�d at this scale. ,_,_: _, � �, �`' � �
_ = s �
s � : {��
r •
' ' r
�� Oli� 1Y1� r..� i I . �,.� . _ ri�� � 1' I� _ � e �,��� �.�� t�`�� I � ��,' .
qo� zy, �° N , . _ _ � .
49A530 494560 494590 494620 494fi.FA 494G@:J 494710 494740 �
3
-��' Map Scale� 1:1,370 if printed on A landscape (ll" x 8.5") �eet
° N Meters
� 0 20 40 80 120
/V �
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator CAmer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tia: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
25
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group
494�?0 494,��'fJ 494590
� ------- —�.. . . �
� �
� ;�-,..� � II'
��
, —
-��
a��
� �
o �
� •-i7 k
, �
� �� �.'.
��
I �
i
�
494620 � 494C�+@7 494710 494740 �
� � —��
_ �_'- _ ._-- -- "—'-� _���_.
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
� A
0 A/D
0 g
0 aio
Q C
0 cio
� D
0 Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
. s A
�,� A/D
ry B
�y B/D
. . C
�-,� C/D
..�s D
.. Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
O A
� A��
■ B
� B/D
o �
0 C/D
0 D
� Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canais
Transportation
� Raiis
ti Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
� Aeriai Photography
MAPINFORMA
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI �
1:24, 000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at thi
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale o
misunderstanding of the detail of mappin�
line placement. The maps do not show th
contrasting soils that could have been sh
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each maF
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Con
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EP
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are base
projection, which preserves direction and
distance and area. A projection that pres�
Albers equal-area conic projection, shoul
accurate calculations of distance or area
This product is generated from the USOP
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 2, 2
Soil map units are labeled (as space allo�
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographec
12, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on wh
compiled and digitized probably differs fr�
imagery displayed on these maps. As a r
shiftinq of map unit boundaries may be e
26
Custom Soil Resource Report
Table—Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name
27 Cushman fine sandy C
loam, 3 to 9 percent
slopes
54 Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent B
slopes
90 Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 D
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
Rating I Acres in AOI I Percent of AOI
2.2 26.1 %
0.1
6.2
8.5
Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.� None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
1.1%
72.8%
100.0%
27
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. Wet�ands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_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. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=n res142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_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, Natura� Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/
home/?cid=n res 142 p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture!?cid=stelprdb 1043084
28
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nres142p2_052290. pdf
29
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette ,���; FEMA Legen�
40°29'50.10��N SEE FIS REPORT I
� I �� a. � + � - �,, �.
� . ;� t. � , � � �I
�
�; . �
� � � � ♦ � R SPECIAL FLC
�r, , f_ � �� � � HAZARD ARI
� � �
� � �
�i.. ;r1'
� �. � � �►. : �,,v � , -1 �
.-' � � �►'�
,�► . � , �� -
. � • ` f— .
�� � . _ �.�i,i � � ,_ .. .
e� �
r b � OTHER AREAS
r
, � .� t � w -, _ M , � , � FLOOD HAZP
. , * �� � � . • � � '� � � ::
�� � . '� � '�� * '
• " � � a1 OTHER ARE
�
�� � � � �
�. ♦ _ . � 1 GENEf
� � �-� • "� ��..�it 1� STRUCTUF
� , ,'�•� " � T � o�. �
v �.;.e. �� •.�.
, - � c�. �� iik� � �i�i � i:i �„ ,i �-iri� � �ti .
''' ._ , , � � i �;; i�� � � `� � .- � �>y � � _.
I �•,I:IP�.I1�1:����•� �I 11Jl l + �`• ;�REM�=;F 1;111�JIf��.1HL� �L�_'��_>C� H�+-HF,C�`�� �' �- '
� � �....M .�' � �
I)��Ij�li� r �.� ; S � � :�
_ r"� �'� ` � . . Q �"�.�,,, ` .� �,� . " ,
_ ,.�� � � �.1 � ;,. r , � ::
. , �,.
' �� - . � . � . . ort
• '+ � I : I � ' 0+ I ! r � � . + FEATUF
�' �
;�, ;� ��� � �:.
. . ��„"`
� _, . �,. � r , . , . 1 . � .�
''� - �, „�. •�. �`. ,
` � � � ' �'�' a
� ��, � :�r�.�� i - ��C
� • " MAP PAN
. � , � � �
, • � ��:j����j�',� �,�;e� ,!+
=t�� �'"� �� ; n.: � � � Q
r � '• �� ' � , „ `j -'
v � • ,''�` �..� - �' ` �
F �' �` tf1�� "� ' � `'
� j � This map
^ ,+ � �. ♦ � ` � digital flo
,y . � . � . . . �, The basei
a ' /� � � � , � , accuracy
� � � ���, � L ;�"'' r r � The flood
r r .r� •� �.� � _ "�'�� � � � � ' authorital
� � ' - .� � ' -- + �� � ` was expoi
reflect ch
�s���., • � �_ � time.The
4 �' � become s
. • . • � � + -. W
�1 N
r�• _ .��' '� _ � � � co Thismap
' — "'�� • � �� �` a � ; elements
y. � � • USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery, Dat�a refreshed OcFober 2017. � legend, s�
FIRM pan
Feet 1:6,000 c 40°29'22.74��N unmappe
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 regu�aton
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
�
�
�
�
,�
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
1J
�
,
Total Basin Lis#
Basin Connecting Basin Basin °la Imperv. Avg.
.Conveyance Width Area Slope
Eiement ft ac . ft/ft
201 305 280 0.54 52 Q.030
202 101 43Q 0.45 96 0.020
203 304 1$0 0.32 1 0.010
204 305 170 0.31 1 0.060
2Q5 107 850 1.16 67 0.050
246 396 330 1.02 59 0.020
207 103 100 0.20 67 0.010
20$ 111 140 0.21 71 0.010
209 393 210 ,0.68 65 0.020
210 303 270 0.$9 17 O.Q20
� 211 105 14Q 1.03 53 . 0.020
212 102 500 0.46 33 0.050
213 417 460 Q.74 68 0.017
214 302 270 0.88 23 0.020
215 392 330 1.54 54 O.d2Q
216 104 740 0.17 77 0.02Q
217 389 $0 0.40 63 Q.020
218 301 650 9.40 20 0.050
219 385 19 50 1.28 76 0.030
220 112 330 1.07 45 0.061
221 306 400 1.64 45 O.Q61
222 112 290 0.33 96 0.020
223 418 420 0.46 96 0.020
224 421 360 0.35 96 0.020
225 128 530 1.09 39 0.040
226 132 250 0.23 96 0.025
227_ 133 460 0.75 76 0.020
228 130 240 Q.71 29 0.020
229 138 320 0.99 15 0.020
230 134 5Q0 0.8$ 35 0.02Q
231 139 250 0.99 32 0.02Q
232 135 380 0.28 96 0.020
233 137 170 0.09 $9 0.040
234 143 310 0.51 25 0.020
235 404 400 1.77 29 0.020
236 145 410 1.51 54 0.020
237 151 320 0.$3 57 0.020
238 149 270 0.46 46 0.010
239 148 850 1.71 39 0.010
240 153 330 0.57 11 0.020
241 382 720 0.87 64 0.030
242 381 520 3.41 37 O.Q12
243 380 500 2.89 17 0.020
This unofficial copy was downloaded on Sep-] 0-2018 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com
For additional inforination or an official copy, please contact City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA
�'
�
�
'
�
�I
�1
! _j
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
'
�
�
�
,
297 20 25 0.33 1 QO 0.015
298 383 330 0.52 55 0.015
299 152 520 0.45 96 0.020
401 401 430 86.20 34 0.016
406 426 350 2.98 45 Q.020
407 152 . 540 1.18 1 0. 020
408 405 150 0.40 43 0.020
409 406 270 0.37 32 0.020
410 407 140 0.35 40 . 0.020
411 411 310 0.23 96 0.020
412 412 450 Q.31 97 O.Q20
413 413 590 0.67 55 0.020
414 414 380 1.05 50 0.020
415 415 540 1.9Q 44 0.020
416 422 200 0.94 35 O.p20
246 88 750 19.88 45 0.020
417 427 140 0.94 32 0.017
his unoff`icial copy was downloaded on Sep-10-201 R from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com
For additional information or an official copy, please conCact City of Port Collins UtiliYies 700 Wood StreeC ForY Collins, CO 80524 USA
LEGEND
/°m' �
200
�0 � BASIN ID
1,��, .�
� DETEMION POND
�7a CONVEYANCE EI.EMENT
-- FLOW DIRECTWN
�
�
E
g
$
__ _ _ _ _. .. _ _ _. _ _,t�'�...
c — �__
� d ', :
—"- -- -- ,�_ ��_+s�.+*.[.�
sa2 1 � ,' �, � a =
.93 98 1 i ��,�
� 'i� � t''��
i � I� .
I ;� ��1�;%/
I�i I ��.� ,��
�� Ij, �,
I I ' '�: ��
� %/
�,���
� � �;; i
� � �,
I, a'l'�
i� �,,',�
_ I � ' �
� �:
---- -�-,,'- �_ ��� ���_ ,
3�W3�� AYN31 M1fq8
� � � � �Jla�_�_� � �_�.�_� � 1ltwL�_ nl.�l�..���5� �ti��J�J�I�. ..� � � � �
. '_ — . -. __.—_.Z__.. �
." _ _..._ -"___ __. .__._ .__- -._.p,.__- _.. . _._.. _..._.... -�n.. _. .
_ ' — —._ . � _ ._. . - .. . . __ ._ _'
.,_l' �"T= �l�+iw. �- ..-��.G ��� r�_ � ��a:�_�_r�� _�a—�-r-r�.� �.�'T�.
' -' ? —=���=�--�-_� - _-t-- ------�►—
- — � ��- T--� , -
� ��� ��_% '�� —_ �— � � �� �
� 1'88 �\ � �i � j �l
♦ � V � �, �/� �% %�
� 1�� � S6 ��� � � �
1 ��i� i � - �� , / ,
� 297 ,� �.'X � � i � �'���' � � I�
.02 90 �>�" ���:� \\ \, � I,,
��\\ � ' � / �\I�i
y /, ' � � � �
,.;� � � ,` �,/� /
_�... ��j�� ��'! �
�(' h//- - —� ,
_ /'
, �
,��o / � /,
��� � � ' /%%
� /
� : :% % �
�
i' f�in
c/ �
� � � � i I �I I [ �
�'.�:�r � , � %��;� �,-- �
�. �
Z24
�
223
��I�
1
�II� p
�
� R'
��
222 i � '
� � ` !�
� � �PI
e^�
v z ��� ' � � �I
I
�.
/�� r ��. i-c , - ,- �� t�;
j'i�yi �� � � � � � � ♦`�
���� . ' /��
�� � , / �j� � �� -�', --J / �\\
i/� / ��_ '-- � 'i'�i:�
-� ��= , �
� %� O , , / ��I J� / � �,
� j
��� �� �� , � � /: ��� / ��;
� ^�-y� .. •`-.. . ' �--�- I � "�\ � %��� % -
� �� i'� i ! 1 � �� A %
�ir � ��'3 i � / / / 1 - ' �� � / � '-
� � � �-� '_—_ ,,,
�L' /�� � ��= �
// , —� -�i �1 . � � - ; � / � _ �
" 1---=- - � �-
/ 289 � � 1_�1� ��, , � � ; � i -'1861/ ,,�.
� .22 28 i� f � �j �- , _ � " � � � � � 9.T 4d _�—
�� � �� � �
// l;l1��1 ;.,— �� _ ---//;.
i6/ -/��V/�/ `j , --� ,._—�; i __ i�; /
/ _
% �/' 232�' � _ I � � 96 —'"' - I / _ —
- 287 , ;, ; , � f
: �
/, � - , - _ _, -�_
= = � � %� �_ �" ' � "=-
o� ,
- ~ :�.L ifi ,'T � T �� ��
�_ �_7:1�: � ��� �� {s�� � � � � ...•i: S� -
��_ '
_- `q*11 � .— . � . • - e . �
_ ... _`�'�� IT ' :rT� . . . - ,. - . _ ..T. .
�
�__ _
_.
� ,
�
__. =-+ .'7fZii%�..�'��.� ,�arl�%�Y{r�'�'�at.• n\\`a\�7 �,:v+�._�_�._"' .r . . .. ��� e'" . � i
�`�♦
\ �.
��
'�, �'�
�
�
�
�
i��iq���.�\���l���►����A� :�
�����a - --��=�ar��_ - �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
'
�
�
�
�
�
PROVINCETOWNE
POND RATING CURVES
WSE
�. f tj�
4939.48
4940.�0
4941.00
4942.00
4943.00
4944.00
4945.00
4946.00
4947.Q0
494$.OQ
4948.63
Pond 308 Area Inlet "Pond" 309 Area lnlet "Pond" 310
Volume Discharge pepth of Volume Discharge Depth of Volume Discharge
(ac. ft.} (cfs) Water (ft) ac. ft.} cfs) Water (ftj (ac. ft.) (cfs)
O.d36 0.00 Q.10 0.000 1.79 0.10 0.000 1.79
0.159 18A0 0.50 0.001 �9.98 0.50 O.OQO 19.9$
0.432 53.OQ 1.OQ 0.003 5fi.52 1.40 O.Q01 56.52
Q.757 122.00
1.133 205.04
1.568 275.Oa�
2.121 332.00
2.881 378.00
3.930 4 i 9.00
5.376 459.00
6.551 479.30
� unofficial copy was downloaded on Sep-10-2018 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com
additional information or an official copy, please contact City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA
,
'
,
'
�
1
'
,
1
1
1
i
,
,
�
,
;,
1
'
\�
v 295 1QQ �
--•- 304 �
�,�� 104 3 48 ���
, ._._. o o �
�-� � t .
145 � 20 C
�` � v � 221
1Q1��� i
109 pUTLET ^
--.- —.- 30 -- TO NORTHEASi CONVEYANCE
`Q �J�'j EtEMENT #22
����
4T1
� �a
�
___«.
� � 135
,,.^ 2;
1 0 '`�...
�
�` c,+
t33 r J
w
,34 t D
�
� z:
�
404 141
--•. '
—f,
143
311
��
t��
��
� �
�a145 '�'
��2 �A
� is
� �
148 � �
��en d 239 "� 41 �� 0 151
238
263 Sasin � �
52 Conveyance
Element
_.�,,. Flow
Direction
• Concentration I� o rt h ���� I l..,l �
Point
; unofficial copy was downloaded on Sep-10-2018 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com
additional information or an official copy, please contact City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: FORTY-THREE PRIME
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
EXISTING INLET
22�
4g58
ti
�
EXISTING INLET
w
>
0
w
0
Z
�
H
�
Q
221
�
�
4Q�9
i
,- -�- -
��
— r--�� �'`
`'---,J �`�
' l �'
I � � ) i -'
1 ` , ��
/ �
`i �
I � i
�--I------ �-------------
II
�
II � �
II � `
II '
1 ; � �� �
II � j
� � I � ` 220
� II i � �'r , 0.52 AC
I�� ,� � 2�2 , �/
� s
� � 0.68 AC , �
i
s
�, 1 ; 1/ ..� ►�,
�� � � i � ��
�� � 1 I � � J
►� , I I I � � , �
, �
i� � � j � ,
, � I I � �� ,
�A 'l,� i
I\ ' ,
1 �� \ �� �
4 ' ,
� � � �� �
� ,�
\ �� �� ,
EXISTING INLET
W
�
�
�
w
c�
0
�
z
�
� �
Q �
�: I
�
EXISTING INLET
4gsg _�
_ � �
i � %
� PROPOSED � - -
/ RAIN GARDEN C3 � '
� PROPOSED
UNDERDRAIN - -
�� �E�� �'
;:
4�::, - - r
.,.. -...-..._
, . :., __�.
�, �-'iii �- — — -�. � . . . . �
I
1
�
�- �
��
��
� �
i
� !
-�
,-
� �
� LOT 2 � BLDG A
� � j
� �
���
� .
� •�- � ----�.-�
�
I►-� � �
� �r
/ ���' �„�i����
4Q�9
� � ,
�
\ i, , ,
/ � - - �
� �
I \
�
1 �
I � \ ��
� ,
\ � �
� � l 1 � �� �\\\