HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 06/28/2023� I NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
JUNE 2, 2023
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM
970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS
GREELEY
This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF.
Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety.
When a hard copy is necessary, we recommend double-sided printing.
J u n e 2, 2023
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR
IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
Dear Staff,
City of Fort Collins Approved Plans
Approved by: sagenbroad
Date: 06/28/2023
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for your review. This report
accompanies the Preliminary Development Plan submittal for the proposed Impala Redevelopment.
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 Impala
Redevelopment 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.
Sincerely,
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
SHAN RIT HI , PE
Project Engineer
. 1 �z � �/" �---�„�
- � . -
DANNY WEBER, PE
Project Manager
Compliance Statement
I hereby attest that this report for the final drainage design for Impala Redevelopment was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision, in accordance with the provisions of the Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual. I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume
liability for drainage facilities designed by c�t��_
L :_'' S�4 =:
�':`� 2023-06-02�'.�� �
o�,FSS��NA��G��
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
Cd•l�/�:�9:[�I#�
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................4
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ............................................................................................6
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................................................6
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .......................................................................................................8
V. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................10
VI. REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................11
TABLESAND FIGURES
Figure1- Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................4
Figure2- Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................................................... 5
Figure3 - Existing Floodplains ..................................................................................................................5
Table1- LID Summary ............................................................................................................................... 8
Table2- Detention Summary ................................................................................................................... 9
APPENDICES
APPENDIXA- HYDROLOGIC & POND COMPUTATIONS
APPENDIX B - HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS
APPENDIX C- LID & WATER QUALITY EXHIBITS
APPENDIX D- USDA SOILS REPORT
APPENDIX E - FEMA FIRMETTE
MAP POCKET
IMPV- IMPERVIOUS AREA EXHIBIT
HILL CREST PUD
POND SIZING EXHIBIT
C 500 - HISTORIC DRAINAGE EXHIBIT
C 501- DRAIANGE EXHIBIT
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. LOCATION
1. Vicinity Map
2. The Impala Redevelopment project site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 9, Township 7
North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado.
3. The project site (refer to Figure 1) is bordered to the north and west by Poudre High School; to the
east by single family homes; and to the south by W Mulberry Street and a future park tract.
4. There is existing storm drainage infrastructure that was constructed with Hill Crest PUD and Impala
Subdivision.
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
1. The Impala Redevelopment is comprised of 7.20 acres.
2. The site is currently comprised of single-family and single-family attached housing, as well as
associated parking, roadways, and open space.
3. The project site resides in the City of Fort Colfins Canal Importation Master Drainage Basin. The
detention requirements of the subject area were considered in the design of the detention ponds
for Impala Redevelopment and have been factored into the LID requirements, which are described
in further detaif throughout this report.
4. The existing on-site runoff generally drains from the Northwest to the Southeast across flat grades
(e.g., 0.50%- 2.00%) to West Mulberry Street.
5. According to the United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Soil Survey website: (htt�://websoilsurvev.nres.usda.gov/a�p/WebSoilSurvey.aspx),
the site consists primarily of Altvan-Satanta loams (Hydrologic Soil Group B) and Nunn clay loam
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY I 4
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
(Hydrologic Soil Group C).
�f � � �' �F� � 'iMy t�� 9
Impala Redevelopment ' �� "� � - r ,, a_ �' �e e"a
R :o, r' �? , P�o;e�i sae
w�i e��rur� r����,�v s� aO� �j�„d^ � i
� ,A t � �''i'S�` � ' .
� ��^ \. •�"�iF'��s �•� � _� -� iri �. } � .. • �
� � {� �, `n� .i ol,+ '��f+`.� �^.rt ��'� lR�.�.� f—'. � i �
j�;� � ', � �� ��¢ �� 4k o� � �/j-��h.��������
i �, � + ^ �a��,� ���, - +5�� �. � �y �
I� � �dA ..�F� f� ' . �c�4 5� Yil�/ �i'+�! ia
a� 4 i r
, ' �, w _ � _,.��;� � _ fi`�'� �� ';�
f� �
� � �' . � `�'`"� 7��"� ;��-`'"'�-� �
<� �" ,- � r�� s � �� % '
� ��� �' _ : r��_ . �,� ; ;�,,��
.� . . . �` �; � � "�.1�` � �r►4 �, � . ,. _ � "�-��
6. The proposed development will consist of four (4) multi-family residential buildings containing 56
units with onsite and street parking, and a clubhouse.
7. The proposed land use is multi-family. This is a permitted use in the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood District (LMN).
C. FLOODPLAIN
1. No portions of the site are located in a FEMA regulatory floodplain.
m. '> �,
i /� _
Figure 3 - Existing Floodplains
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
, �. I`
�� :�
� J� �.:� �,���.�.
� ;1=I _ , �
I . .�
� .R...,
_: ,� _
= FIRM
L a
� ,.r�.�.mw.n�,.�,�
I �i .
�i
� � m�i.��
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
�5
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph
2. The City of Fort Collins High-Risk Canal Importation 100-year floodpfain extends into the SE corner
of the project site and the subject property will be required to comply with Chapter 10 of the City
Municipal code and the development review floodplain checklist.
3. There are no special floodplain considerations required regarding finished floor elevations of
building footprints.
4. A floodplain use permit will be required prior to construction for any work in the floodplain.
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
The project area of the Impala Redevelopment is located within the City of Fort Collins Canal
Importation Drainage Basin. Detention requirements for this basin are to detain the difference
between the 100-yr developed inflow rate and the historic 2-year release rate. However, outflow
from this property is limited by the previously established Hill Crest PUD using an orifice restricted
total release rate of 5.8 cubic feet per second and existing storm infrastructure in W Mulberry
Street. An excerpt from the Hill Crest PUD and Pond Sizing Exhibit have been provided in the Map
Pocket for clarification.
B. Sub-Basin Description
1. The outfall for the project site is at the south end of the project site to existing storm infrastructure
in West Mulberry Street.
2. The existing subject site can be defined with 9 distinct drainage basins (see DR1 in the provided
map pocket).
3. The existing site runoff generally drains from Northwest to Southeast towards West Mufberry
Street.
4. The project area receives offsite runoff from the north. This was accounted for in the previous
drainage report for the project and will continue to be accounted for with the proposed design.
II1. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. OPTIONAL PROVISIONS
There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with Impala Redevelopment.
B. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The overall stormwater management strategy employed with Impala Redevelopment 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
devefoped site with public storm sewer currently in place, the burden is significantly less than
developing a vacant parcel absent of any infrastructure.
Impala Redevelopment aims to reduce runoff peaks, vofumes and poflutant 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 a rain garden or water quafity pond. These LID practices reduce
the overall amount of impervious area, while at the same time Minimizing Directly Connected
Impervious Areas (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
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY I 6
Release. The efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize excess runoff from frequently occurring
storm events; however, urban development of this intensity wifl still have stormwater runoff
leaving the site. The primary water quality treatment will occur between several rain gardens
between major parking areas of the property and the existing detention ponds installed for Impala
Redevelopment.
Step 3- Stabilize Drainageways. While not directly applicable to this site, the 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. This step typically applies to
industrial and commercial developments.
C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS
1. The subject property is not part of an overall development plan.
2. The project area is constrained to the north and west by Poudre High Schoof; to the east by singfe
family homes; and to the south by W Mulberry Street and a future park tract.
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 Impala
Redevelopment project. Tabulated data contained in Table 3.4-1 has been utilized for Rational
Method runoffcalculations.
2. The Rational Method has been used to estimate peak developed stormwater runoff from drainage
basins within the developed site for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year design storms. Peak runoff
discharges determined using this methodology have been used to check the street capacities,
inlets, swales, and storm drain (ines.
3. 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 interval.
E. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA
1. The drainage facilities proposed with the Impala Redevelopment project are designed in
accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM.
2. As stated in Section I.C.1, above, the subject property is not located next to a FEMA designated
floodplain, however, it is located within the Canal Importation High-Risk City Floodplain.
F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE
As previously mentioned, this project is not adjacent to a FEMA regufated floodplain, but a portion
of the project falls within a City 100-yr Floodplain and will be subject to these regulations.
G. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA
There are no formal modifications outside of the FCSCM proposed with Impala Redevelopment.
H. CONFORMANCE WITH WATER QUALITY TREATMENT CRITERIA
City Code requires that 100% of runoff from new or modified areas in a project site shall receive
some sort of water quality treatment, of which a majority of the site is receiving. There are several
smalf areas that flow directfy offsite, without treatment. While these small areas will not receive
formal water quality treatment, most areas will still see some treatment as runoff is directed
through the landscaped areas or through extended detention basins before leaving the site. The
existing Pond 2 does not have a multiple stage outlet configuration that includes a water quality
plate. The Pond 2 water quality volume will be provided in Pond 1 to reduce unnecessary
modifications to the Pond 2 outlet structure.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY I 7
I. CONFORMANCE WITH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID)
The project site will conform with the requirement to treat a minimum of 75% of new or modified
impervious area using a LID technique. The proposed project site will treat 95% of modified area
with LID, with small portions of the site flowing directly offsite. One rain garden will be used to
capture and treat most of the impervious area on the project site.
J. SIZING OF LID & WQ FACILITIES
Rain Gardens
1. The rain gardens were sized by first determining the required water quality capture volume (WQCV)
forSub-basin 100.
2. Once the WQCV was identified, the rain garden area was sized for its respective WQCV. The rain
garden will be constructed with a biomedia filter and underdrain. An overflow inlet and spillway
will be provided to provide safe conveyance of storms greater than the WQCV.
LID ID
Rain Garden 1
Table 1- LID Summary
Area (ft2) Weighted % Volume per
Impervious UD-BMP (ft3)
111,708 � 72% � 1,798
Vol. w/ 20%
increase per
FC Manual
(ft3)
2,158
Impervious
area (ft2)
80,430
Water Quality
3. The existing Pond 2 does not have a water quafity plate and is only constrained by an orifice pfate.
4. In leu of modifying Pond 2 to accommodate the required increased water quality in Pond 2 the
required volume is being added to the modified Pond 1.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
1. The main objective of the Impala Redevelopment drainage design is to maintain existing drainage
patterns, while not adversely impacting adjacent properties.
2. All storm drains on the site have been designed to convey 100-yr flows with the exception of basin
OSl, which conveys the minor storm only.
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 for the project site has been analyzed using 9 drainage sub-basins, designated as sub-
basins 100-102, 200, ad OSl-OS5. All sub-basins aside from OS2 are on-site basins. OS2 is an off-site
basin whose flow are collected in Detention Pond 1. Sub-basins OS1, OS3, OS4, and OS5 flow off-
site and are not treated with any form of water quality.
Sub-Basin 100
Sub-basin 100 is comprised of multi-family residential, asphalt drives and parking, and landscaped
areas. The flows from this basin travel via overland flow, curb and gutter, and storm pipe to Rain
Garden 1. From Rain Garden 1, flows are discharged via an underdrain and overflow weir into
Detention Pond 1, which was modified to accommodate the needs of the modified site area.
Sub-Basin 101
Sub-Basin 101 is composed of existing duplexes, landscaped area, Rain Garden 1, and modified
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY I g
Detention Pond 1. Flows travel via overland flow to Detention Pond 1.
Sub-Basin 102
Sub-Basin 102 is comprised of existing duplexes, paved drives and parking, and (andscaped area.
The flows from this basin are conveyed via overland flow, curb and gutter flow, and concrete pan to
Detention Pond 1.
Sub-Basin 200
Sub-Basin 200 is comprised of existing duplexes, asphalt drives and parking, landscaped areas, and
proposed multi-family. Sub-Basin 200 contains Detention Pond 2. Detention Pond 2 was previously
proposed with Hill Crest P.U.D but is being modified to accommodate additional pond volume.
Sub-Basin OS1
Sub-Basin OS1 is composed of multi-family buifdings, concrete walks, and landscaped areas. The
flows from this basin travel via overland flow directly offsite and are not treated for water quality or
captured. This follows historic patterns and will still aflow for 75% of the modified site area to be
treated with LID.
Sub-Basin OS2
Sub-Basin OS2 Is comprised of existing off-site soccer and baseball fields whose flow is accounted
for in Detention Pond 1's sizing. Overland flow is the primary method in which these flows travel to
Detention Pond 1. These flows are not treated by LID.
Sub-Basins OS3 and OS4
Sub-Basins OS3 and OS4 are composed of existing and proposed buildings, landscaped area, and
paved roadways. Flows from these basins travel via overland flow and curb and gutter flow to W
Mulberry Street. These flows are not captured nor were they planned to be captured with Hill Crest
P.U.D.
Sub-Basins OS5
Sub-Basin OS5 is composed of a small portion of proposed roadway and sidewalk. These flows
travel directly offsite and are not captured or treated.
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. There are 2 existing detention ponds on the project site, both of which are being modified to
accommodate the additional impervious area being added to the existing site. These ponds will
detain up to the 100-yr storm event and release at or below the previously calculated release rates.
See Table 2 for detention summary.
Table 2 - Detention Summary
Tributary Ave Percent 100-Yr. 100-Yr.
Area � Imperviousness � WQCV � Detentian � Detention � Peak Release
Pond Ib {Ac) {90} {Ac-Ft} Vol. {Ac-Ft) WSEL{Ft} (cfs}
Pond 1 2.56 72 0.06 0.80 5086.26 4.50
Pond 2 1.99 24 0 0.28 5082.46 5.79
2. LID treatment is being provided within Rain Garden 1. These treat approximately 77% of the
modified site impervious runoff, which is more than the required 75% LID treatment. Please see the
LID exhibit and calculations in Appendix C.
3. Detention allowable release rate is based on computed 100-year historic flow for the overall
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY � g
property as proposed with Hill Crest P.U.D.
4. The existing ponds are being modified to provide the required increase in detention, LID and water
quality volumes. Pond 1 requires 0.30 acre-feet of detention increase and 0.06 acre-feet of water
quality vofume which is greater than the volume required for Pond 2 water quality. Pond 2 requires
0.03 acre-feet of increase.
5. Stormwater facility Standard Operations Procedures (SOP) will be provided by the City of Fort
Collins in the Development Agreement.
6. Final Design details, and construction documentation shall be provided to the City of Fort Collins
for review prior to Final Development Plan approval.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
1. The drainage design proposed with Impala Redevelopment complies with the City of Fort Collins
Master Drainage Plan for the Canal Importation Basin.
2. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the Impala
Redevelopment project are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing
stormwater discharge.
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT
1. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the Impala
Redevelopment project are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing
stormwater discharge.
2. Impala Redevelopment will not impact the Master Drainage Plan recommendations for the City of
Fort Collins Canal Importation Major Drainage Basin.
3. The proposed drainage plan for the Impala Redevelopment complies with the previously proposed
impervious values for the site from the Hill Crest P.U.D plan dated February 1995. The proposed
project will also release at the same rates proposed with Hill Crest P.U.D. For this reason, it is
believed the downstream infrastructure will continue to be sufficient as this portion of the site is
developed.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY � 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 Municipaf Code.
2. Soifs Resource Report for Larimer Count�rArea, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States DepartmentofAgriculture.
3. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District,
Wright- McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008.
4. Final Storm Drainage Report for Hill Crest P.U.D, Stewart & Associates, Fort Collins, Colorado, dated
February 1995.
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY � 11
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
N � I NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
CHARACTER OF SURFACE': rercentage z_yr
Impervious Coe1
Developed
Asphalt_._..____.._.........__.._ ................................_..____..____.._................................................._..__...__.._........................ 100% [
Concrete......................................................................................................................................................................... _ ... 100 % C
Rooftop................................................................................................................................................................................................ 90% C
Gravel 50% C
Pavers 40% C
Residential(Low Density) ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 50 % C
Landscape or Pervious Surface
Playgrounds.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 % C
LawnsClayeySoil.._ ............._........_..............._.._..__.._.._.._.._.........._...._.._........_.._..__.._....._..__.._.._.._.._............._........_....._..__.. 2% C
LawnsSandySoil .,.,.,._. .____. .__.____ .............. ............. .... ............... ............. _..._.,.,.,.,._ ................. 2% C
....._....._. .... ...._...
___
Notes:
1) Percenlage impervious taken irom lhe FOA Collins Slormwater Criteria ManuaL. Chapter 5, Table 4.1-2 and Table 4.1-3
2) Runoff Coefficienis are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria ManuaL Chapler 3. Ta61e 32-1 and 3.&2
Area of Area of Area of Area of Area of Area of Area of 2-
Basin Area AsphalUCo Area of Lawns Composite
Basin ID Concrete Rooftop Singie Famiiy Gravel Pavers Playgrounds Compos
(ac) ncrete (ac) % Imperv.
ac (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) Coe1
100 2.420 0.54 0.41 028 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 51 % C
101 0.838 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 9% C
102 1.948 0.49 0.31 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 54 % C
200 1.992 0.13 0.07 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 20 % C
OS1 0.359 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 30% C
OS2 4.929 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.93 2% C
OS3 0.343 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 024 32 % C
OS4 0287 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 5S % C
Total On-Site 7.20 1.16 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.46 38 % C
� I NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
7'� -. � � � � � - �����"� �' (Equation 3.3-2 FCSCM)
',s
Ti = � �o �(Equation 5-5 FCSCM)
V = �-�y R=�'35��'= } (Equation 5-4 FCSCM�
HISTORIC D/RECT TtME OF�'��%I�TRATION
Frequencv Adiustment Factor:
Storm Return Period Frequency Adjustment
(years) Factor (Cr)
2, 5, 30 l00
25 110
50 1.20
100 1.25
Table 3.23 FCSCM
Therefore Tc2=Tc10 N°�ee: wa�er aep��, oF r, [��ea s�ae s��F
1) Adci 5000 to all elevaHons- diannellzed flow- Assume a wa
2)f'ecFo�tCollins5mcmwaterManu�I,minimumTc=Smin. panforchannelizedflowinava
3) Assume a water depth o( 6" and a tvpical cu�6 and y�tter per Lazime� Countv
Urban Sneet Srondard Detail 701 foc cucb and guttec channelized flow, Assame a
T� = iao + 10 }(Equation 33-5 FCSCM)
I'� is the lesser of the values of Tc calculated using T�= T; + T�
Overland Flow
Design gasin
Point Length, Slope,
CZ C�aa L S
(nl (i)
' 102 0.63 0.69 52 3.85 %
200 0.39 0.45 0 N/A
1 200 0.39 0.45 0 N/A
Offsite Basins
OS1 0.49 Q55 71 024%
OS2 0.25 0.31 300 2.06 %
I OS3 0.47 0.53 92 3.26 %
I OS4 0.65 070 58 255%
Channelized Flow
Length, Slope, Roughness Assumed Velocity,
T;Z T;�oo L 5 Coefficient Hydraulic V
(ft) (%) Radius (ftls)
V/A N/A 739 1.24 % 0.015 0.59 7.80
4.0 N/A 404 0.45 % 0.015 0.59 4.69
15.5 14.0 0 N/A 0.015 0.59 N/A
21.6 20.1 410 0.91 % 0.015 0.59 6.66
7.6 6.9 102 0.13 % 0.015 0.59 2.49
4.7 42 136 1.54 % 0.038 0.50 3.06
T` T� (Eq. 3.3-5) T�z = T� *
(min)
1.6 N/A 1.6
1.4 12.5 5.5
1.2 N/A 1.2
1.1 N/A 1.1
N/A 10.4 15.5
1.0 13.9 22]
0.7 11.1 8.3
0.7 11.1 5.4
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Q = cf (c)(i)(A)
IDF Table for Rational Method - Table 3.4-1 FCSCM
Design Basin(s) Area, A
Point (acres)
100 100 2.42
101 102 0.84
102 200 1.95
200 200 1.99
os1 OS1 0.36
os2 OS2 4.93
os3 OS3 0.34
os4 OS4 0.29
HISTOR/C RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS
Tcz
(min)
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Tc�oo
(min)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.4
13.9
7.6
5.0
Cz � Ctoo
0.65 0.71
0.31 0.37
0.63 0.69
0.39 0.45
Offsite Basins
0.49 0.55
0.25 0.31
0.47 0.53
0.65 0.70
Intensity, Intensity, Intensity,
�2 ��o ��oo
(inlhr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
2.85 4.87 7.00
2.85 4.87 7.00
2.85 4.87 7.00
2.85 2.85 7.00
2.21 2.21 6.80
1.95 1.95 6.24
2.46 2.46 6.94
2.85 2.85 7.00
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
R OF SURFACE':
IMPER
CALCUL4T/ONS
Percentage
Impervious
,,.,. .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 100 %
rete........................................................................................................................................................................... 100 %
top.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 90 %
el.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 40%
�rs .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 40 %
dential(Low Density) .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 50%
dscape or Pervious Surface
grounds................................................................................................................
�s Clayey Soil ...................................................................................................................
�s Sandy Soil ....................................................................................
°s:
I) Percentage impervious taken from the Fort Coilins Stormwater Criteria Manua�, Chapter 5, Table 4.1-2 and Table 4.13
2) Runoff Coefflcients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 3. Ta6Ie 3.2-1 and 32-2
Area of Area of Area of Area of
Basin Area AsphalUCon Area of Single
Basin ID Concrete Rooftop Gravel
(ac) crete Family (ac)
,__, (ac) (ac) (ac)
101
102
200
Offsite Basins
Pond 1
Tota I 0 n-SI te
0.84
1.95
1.99
0.20
4.93
0.04
0.29
0.01
7J2
7.34
� ��
,����
,.�._:
�
� ��
� �
� ��
1 �
�
�
� �.
�
� ��
�
�
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
1�
� 1
�
�
�
0.07
0.27
0.20
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
1.09
� ��
�
� �
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
1�
1 �1
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
� �
� ��
�
� ��
� �
� ��
1 �1
1 �1
�
��
� ��
.............................................................. 25%
.............. 2 %
................................................................ 2 %
Area of
Pavers
(ac)
� ��
� �
� �
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
1�
1 �1
�
� ��
� ��
A�ea of prea of Lawns CompoSite
Playgrounds �a�� % Imperv. ComK
(ac) C�
� ��
�
��
�
� ��
��
� ��
�1
� 1�
�
� ��
� ��
0.77
0.88
1.65
0.05
4.93
0.04
0.12
0.00
6.58
3.87
9%
54 %
24 %
72 %
2%
2%
58%
100 %
16%
47 %
� I NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
7'� - � � ' �� 3-�-'��"` � (Equation 33-2 FCSCM�
.s
T� �x�o } (Equation 5-5 FCSCM)
I
V = �-�9 RZ'35��'= } (Equation 5-4 FCSCM)
Frequencv Adiustment Factor.
Storm Return Period Frequency Adjustment
(year5) FactOr�G)
2, 5, 10 l00
25 1.10
SO 1.20
100 1.25
Table 3.2-3 PCSCM
Therefore Tc2=Tc10 No�es: warer depe, �f r, e�aea s��ae si<>F
]) Add SU00 io olI elevations. channelized Flow. Aseume a w�
2)PerPortCollinsSn,nnwaterManual,minimumTc=Sinli�, panforchannellzeAFl�winava
3) Assun��� u water AepNi of fi" and a cvpical airF and guttzr per Larimer Countv
Urban St�eet Standard Uetail 707 For cucb and guiter channelized flow. Aseume �
T� = iRo + 10 }(Equation 3.3-5 FCSCM)
'� is the lesser of the values of Tc calcu/ated using T�= T; + T �
Overland Flow
Design gasin
Point Length, Slope,
CZ Cioo L S
(ft) ( % )
100 100 0.80 0.86 0 N/A
101 101 0.31 0.39 82 2.38 %
102 102 0.63 OJ9 0 N/A
200 200 0.43 0.54 0 N/A
Offsite Basins
osl OSI 0.79 0.99 55 2.47°0
os2 OS2 0.25 0.31 300 2.0690
os3 OS3 0.25 0.31 92 3.26 %
os4 OS4 0.65 0.81 5S 1J9%
os5 OS5 095 1.00 58 1J9%
T;Z
N/A
10.0
N/A
N/A
3.2
21.6
10.3
5.3
1.8
Channelized Flow
Length, Slope, Assumed Velocity,
T�ioo L S Roughness Hydraulic V
�ft� ��� Coefficient Radius (Ws)
N/A 515 1.34°6 0.015 0.59 8.09
N/A 323 0.52°% 0.015 0.59 5.02
N/A 362 0.54 % 0.015 0.59 5.13
N/A 521 L23% 0.016 0.59 7J4
1.2 0 N/A 0.015 0.59 N/A
20.1 410 0.91°% 0.015 0.59 6.66
9.5 102 0.13 % 0.015 0.59 2.49
3.4 136 1.54 % 0.038 0.50 3.06
1.2 136 1.54 % 0.038 0.50 3.06
T� T� (Eq. 3.3-5) Ta = T; t
(min)
1.1 N/A 1.1
1.1 12.3 11.1
1.2 N/A 1.2
1.1 N/A l.l
N/A 10.3 3.2
1.0 13.9 22.7
0.7 11.1 11.0
0.7 11.1 6.0
0.7 11.1 2.5
�NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Rational Method Equation:
Q = C f (C)(i)(A)
Rainfall Intensity:
IDF Table for Rational Method - Table 3.4-1 FCSCM
Design gasin(s) Area, A
Point (acres)
100 100 2.56
101 101 0.84
102 102 1.95
200 200 1.99
T�z Taoo
(min) (min)
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
osl OS1 0.20 5.0
os2 OS2 4.93 13.9
os3 OS3 0.04 10.2
os4 OS4 0.29 5.0
os5 OS5 0.01 5.0
5.0
13.9
10.2
5.0
5.0
RUNOFF COM
�z � �ioo
0.80 0.86
0.31 0.39
0.63 0.79
0.43 0.54
Offsite Basins
0.79 0.99
0.25 0.31
0.25 0.31
0.65 0.81
0.95 1.00
Intensity,
i2
(in/hr)
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
1.95
2.21
2.85
2.85
S
Intensity,
�io
(in/hr)
4.87
4.87
4.87
2.85
2.85
1.95
2.21
2.85
2.85
Intensity,
�ioo
(in/hr)
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
6.82
7J2
9.95
9.95
DETENTION POND CALCULATION; MODIFIED FAA METHOD w/ Ft Collins IDF
Project Number : 1914-001
Project Name : Impala Redevelopment
Project Location : Fort Collins, CO
Pond No : 1
Input Variables Results
Design Point 1
Design Storm 100-yr Required Detention Volume Increase
C= 0.86 B101&B102 WQCV 2748 ft3
Tc = 5.00 min Pond 1 Detention 13042 ft3
A= 2.56 acres 0.36 ac-ft
Max Release Rate = 2.80 cfs
Ft Collins Inflow Outflow Storage
Outflow Volume
Time (min) 100-yr Volume Adjustment Qa� 3 Volume
Intensity �fts� Factor (cfs) (ft ) ��s�
in/hr
5 9.950 6572 1.00 2.80 840 5732
10 7.720 10198 1.00 2.80 1680 8518
15 6.520 12919 1.00 2.80 2520 10399
20 5.600 14795 1.00 2.80 3360 11435
25 4.980 16446 1.00 2.80 4200 12246
30 4.520 17912 1.00 2.80 5040 12872
35 4.080 18863 1.00 2.80 5880 12983
40 3.740 19762 1.00 2.80 6720 13042
45 3.460 20567 1.00 2.80 7560 13007
50 3.230 21334 1.00 2.80 8400 12934
55 3.030 22014 1.00 2,80 9240 12774
60 2.860 22668 1.00 2.80 10080 12588
65 2.720 23355 1.00 2.80 10920 12435
70 2.590 23949 1.00 2.80 11760 12189
75 2.480 24570 1.00 2.80 12600 11970
80 2.380 25151 1.00 2.80 13440 11711
85 2.290 25712 1.00 2.80 14280 11432
90 2.210 26274 1.00 2.80 15120 11154
95 2.130 26730 1.00 2.80 15960 10770
100 2.060 27212 1.00 2.80 16800 10412
105 2.000 27740 1.00 2.80 17640 10100
110 1.940 28189 1.00 2.80 18480 9709
115 1.890 28711 1.00 2.80 19320 9391
120 1.840 29167 1.00 2.80 20160 9007
*Note: Using the method described in Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 2.
2/22/2023
11:09 AM
1914-001_FAA_Pond 1 (north)
Northern Engineering Services
FAA
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
NORTH ERN
ENGINEERING
DETENTION POND CALCULATION; MODIFIED FAA METHOD w/ Ft Collins IDF
Project Number : 1914-001
Project Name : Impala Housing Catalyst
Project Location : Fort Collins, CO
Pond No : 2
Input Variables Results
Design Point 1
Design Storm 100-yr Required Detention Volume Increase
C = 1.00
Tc = 5.00 min 1338 ft3
A= 0.12 acres 0.03 ac-ft
Max Release Rate = 0.04 cfs
Ft Collins Inflow Outflow Storage
Outflow Volume
Time (min) 100-yr Volume Adjustment Qa� 3 Volume
Intensity �fts� Factor (cfs) (ft ) �fts�
in/hr
5 9.950 358 1.00 0.04 11 348
10 7.720 556 1.00 0.04 21 535
15 6.520 704 1.00 0.04 32 673
20 5.600 806 1.00 0.04 42 764
25 4.980 896 1.00 0.04 53 844
30 4.520 976 1.00 0.04 63 913
35 4.080 1028 1.00 0.04 74 955
40 3.740 1077 1.00 0.04 84 993
45 3.460 1121 1.00 0.04 95 1026
50 3.230 1163 1.00 0.04 105 1058
55 3.030 1200 1.00 0.04 116 1084
60 2.860 1236 1.00 0.04 126 1109
65 2.720 1273 1.00 0.04 137 1136
70 2.590 1305 1.00 0.04 147 1158
75 2.480 1339 1.00 0.04 158 1182
80 2.380 1371 1.00 0.04 168 1203
85 2.290 1401 1.00 0.04 179 1223
90 2.210 1432 1.00 0.04 189 1243
95 2.130 1457 1.00 0.04 200 1257
100 2.060 1483 1.00 0.04 210 1273
105 2.000 1512 1.00 0.04 221 1291
110 1.940 1536 1.00 0.04 231 1305
115 1.890 1565 1.00 0.04 242 1323
120 1.840 1590 1.00 0.04 252 1338
*Note: Using the method described in Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 2.
1 /11 /2023
11:24 AM
1914-001_FAA_Pond 2 (south)
FAA
Northern Engineering Services
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D0 Plan
Outfall
Project File: Storm 1-100 yr new.stm � Number of lines: 4
Structure Report
Struct Structure ID Junction
No. Type
1
2
3
4
CLEANOUT 1-2 None
STMH 1-3 (FLAT TOP) None
STMH 1-4 (FLAT TOP) None
OUTLET 1-5 None
Rim
Elev
Shape
(ft)
5082.64 n/a
5083.49 n/a
5085.16 n/a
5084.92 n/a
Structure
Length Width Size
(ft) (ft) (in)
n/a n/a 15
n/a n/a 15
n/a n/a 15
n/a n/a 15
Line Out
Shape Invert
(ft)
Cir 5080.2;
Cir 5080.7(
Cir 5082.7(
Cir 5082.7;
Project File: Storm 1-100 yr new.stm � Number of Structures: 4
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 -(22) 4.50 15 Cir 17.954 5080.21 5080.27 0.335
2 Pipe -(21) (1) 4.50 15 Cir 144.406 5080.27 5080.70 0.298
3 Pipe -(21) 4.50 15 Cir 400.000 5080.70 5082.70 0.500
4 Pipe -(20) 4.50 15 Cir 13.978 5082.70 5082.77 0.500
Project File: Storm 1-100 yr new.stm
NOTES: Return period = 100 Yrs. ;*Surcharged (HGL above crown).
HGL HGL Minor
Down Up loss
(ft) (ft) (ft)
5081.07 5081.30 0.20
5081.52" 5082.22" 0.03
5082.25" 5084.20" 0.21
5084.41" 5084.47" 0.21
Number of lines: 4
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations
Line Size Q Downstream
Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL
elev elev head elev
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft)
Len
Invert
elev
) (ft) (ft)
Upstream
HGL Depth Area Vel Vel
elev head
(ft) (ft) (sqft) (fUs) (ft)
1 15 4.50 5080.21 5081.07 0.86 0.90 5.01 0.39 5081.46 0.728 17.954 5080.27 5081.30 1.03 1.08 4.17 0.27
2 15 4.50 5080.27 5081.52 1.25' 1.23 3.67 0.21 5081.73 0.486 144.40 5080.70 5082.22 1.25 1.23 3.67 0.21
3 15 4.50 5080.70 5082.25 1.25 1.23 3.67 0.21 5082.46 0.486 400.00 5082.70 5084.20 1.25 1.23 3.67 0.21
4 15 4.50 5082.70 5084.41 1.25 1.23 3.67 0.21 5084.61 0.486 13.978 5082.77 5084.47 1.25 1.23 3.67 0.21
Project File: Storm 1-100 yr new.stm
Notes: ' depth assumed ; c= cir e= ellip b= box
Number of lines: 4
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D0 Plan
�N]
�
Outfall
Project File: Storm 2-100 yr.stm � Number of lines: 17
Structure Report
Struct StructurelD
No.
1 BASIN 2-2
2 BASIN 2-3
3 BASIN 2-4
4 BASIN 2-5
5 BASIN 2-6
6 BASIN 2-7
7 BASIN 2-8
8 BASIN 2-9
9 BASIN 2-10
10 BASIN 2-4.1
11 BASIN 2-4.2
12 BASIN 2-2.1
13 BASIN 2-2.2
14 BASIN 2-2.3
15 BASIN 2-2.4
16 BASIN 2-2.2.1
17 BASIN 2-2.1.1
Junction
Type
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Rim
Elev
Shape
(ft)
5089.79 n/a
5092.10 n/a
5093.17 n/a
5094.03 n/a
5094.50 n/a
5094.58 n/a
5094.70 n/a
5095.05 n/a
5095.14 n/a
5093.03 n/a
5092.51 n/a
5090.58 n/a
5090.48 n/a
5090.50 n/a
5092.93 n/a
5092.04 n/a
5089.84 n/a
Structure
Length Width
(ft) (ft)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Size
(in)
15
12
12
12
8
8
8
8
8
12
12
12
8
8
8
8
8
Line Out
Shape Invert
(ft)
Cir 5088.6:
Cir 5089.1t
Cir 5089.5f
Cir 5089.6t
Cir 5090.2'
Cir 5090.4!
Cir 5090.7�
Cir 5090.95
Cir 5091.2F
Cir 5089.7E
Cir 5089.95
Cir 5088.7F
Cir 5089.7�
Cir 5089.8:
Cir 5089.8;
Cir 5089.8(
Cir 5089.1!
Project File: Storm 2-100 yr.stm � Number of Structures: 17
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 -(24) 6.44 15 Cir 81.364 5088.50 5088.62 0.148
2 Pipe -(25) 1.65 12 Cir 74.250 5088.62 5089.18 0.754
3 Pipe -(25) (1) 1.65 12 Cir 53.673 5089.18 5089.58 0.745
4 Pipe -(26) 1.32 12 Cir 12.770 5089.58 5089.68 0.784
5 Pipe -(27) 1.32 8 Cir 26.235 5090.01 5090.21 0.763
6 Pipe -(27) (1) 1.05 8 Cir 31.846 5090.21 5090.45 0.754
7 Pipe -(27) (1) (1) 0.79 8 Cir 39.442 5090.45 5090.74 0.735
8 Pipe -(27) (1) (1) (1) 0.53 8 Cir 32.787 5090.74 5090.99 0.763
9 Pipe -(27) (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.26 8 Cir 38.781 5090.99 5091.28 0.747
10 Pipe -(32) 0.33 12 Cir 34.763 5089.58 5089.76 0.517
11 Pipe -(33) 0.17 12 Cir 47.521 5089.76 5089.99 0.485
12 Pipe -(28) 4.79 12 Cir 32.040 5088.62 5088.78 0.498
13 Pipe -(29) 0.74 8 Cir 134.610 5089.12 5089.79 0.498
14 Pipe -(30) 0.50 8 Cir 5.797 5089.79 5089.82 0.514
15 Pipe -(31) 0.50 8 Cir 11.298 5089.82 5089.87 0.445
16 Pipe -(34) 0.25 8 Cir 5.050 5089.78 5089.80 0.396
17 Pipe -(35) 4.05 8 Cir 6.835 5089.12 5089.15 0.436
Project File: Storm 2-100 yr.stm
NOTES: Return period = 100 Yrs. ;*Surcharged (HGL above crown).
HGL HGL Minor
Down Up loss
(ft) (ft) (ft)
5089.52" 5090.46" 0.43
5090.89" 5091.05" 0.01
5091.06" 5091.18" 0.07
5091.24" 5091.26" 0.02
5091.28" 5091.59" 0.03
5091.62" 5091.86" 0.02
5091.89" 5092.05" 0.01
5092.07" 5092.13" 0.01
5092.13" 5092.15" 0.01
5091.24" 5091.25" 0.00
5091.25" 5091.25" 0.00
5090.89" 5091.47" 0.58
5092.05" 5092.56" 0.07
5092.63" 5092.64" 0.02
5092.67" 5092.69" 0.03
5092.63" 5092.64" 0.01
5092.05" 5092.82" 2.09
Number of lines: 17
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations
Line Size Q Downstream
Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL
elev elev head elev
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
15
12
12
12
8
8
8
8
8
12
12
12
8
8
8
8
8
6.44 5088.50 5089.52 1.02 1.07 6.00 0.56
1.65 5088.62 5090.89 1.00 0.79 2.10 0.07
1.65 5089.18 5091.06 1.00 0.79 2.10 0.07
1.32 5089.58 5091.24 1.00 0.79 1.68 0.04
1.32 5090.01 5091.28 0.67 0.35 3.77 0.22
1.05 5090.21 5091.62 0.67 0.35 3.01 0.14
0.79 5090.45 5091.89 0.67 0.35 2.26 0.08
0.53 5090.74 5092.07 0.67 0.35 1.51 0.04
0.26 5090.99 5092.13 0.67 0.35 0.76 0.01
0.33 5089.58 5091.24 1.00 0.79 0.42 0.00
0.17 5089.76 5091.25 1.00 0.79 0.21 0.00
4.79 5088.62 5090.89 1.00 0.79 6.10 0.58
0.74 5089.12 5092.05 0.67 0.35 2.13 0.07
0.50 5089.79 5092.63 0.67 0.35 1.42 0.03
0.50 5089.82 5092.67 0.67 0.35 1.42 0.03
0.25 5089.78 5092.63 0.67 0.35 0.71 0.01
4.05 5089.12 5092.05 0.67 0.35 11.60 2.09
Project File: Storm 2-100 yr.stm
Len
Invert
elev
) (ft) (ft)
Upstream
HGL Depth Area Vel Vel
elev head
(ft) (ft) (sqft) (fUs) (ft)
5090.08 0.999 81.364 5088.62 5090.46 1.25 1.23 5.25 0.43
5090.96 0.214 74.250 5089.18 5091.05 1.00 0.79 2.10 0.07
5091.13 0.214 53.673 5089.58 5091.18 1.00 0.79 2.10 0.07
5091.29 0.137 12.770 5089.68 5091.26 1.00 0.79 1.68 0.04
5091.50 1.188 26.235 5090.21 5091.59 0.67 0.35 3.77 0.22
5091.76 0.759 31.846 5090.45 5091.86 0.67 0.35 3.01 0.14
5091.96 0.426 39.442 5090.74 5092.05 0.67 0.35 2.26 0.08
5092.10 0.191 32.787 5090.99 5092.13 0.67 0.35 1.51 0.04
5092.14 0.048 38.781 5091.28 5092.15 0.67 0.35 0.76 0.01
5091.25 0.009 34.763 5089.76 5091.25 1.00 0.79 0.42 0.00
5091.25 0.002 47.521 5089.99 5091.25 1.00 0.79 0.21 0.00
5091.47 1.813 32.040 5088.78 5091.47 1.00 0.79 6.10 0.58
5092.12 0.379 134.61 5089.79 5092.56 0.67 0.35 2.13 0.07
5092.67 0.168 5.797 5089.82 5092.64 0.67 0.35 1.42 0.03
5092.70 0.168 11.298 5089.87 5092.69 0.67 0.35 1.42 0.03
5092.64 0.042 5.050 5089.80 5092.64 0.67 0.35 0.71 0.01
5094.15 11.250 6.835 5089.15 5092.82 0.67" 0.35 11.60 2.09
Number of lines: 17
Notes: ;`° Critical depth. ; c= cir e= ellip b= box
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
LID Summary
Project Number: 1914-001 Project: Impala Redevelopment
Project Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Calculations By: S. Ritchie Date: 1/11/2023
LID Summary per Basin
Percent Required Total
Basin ID Area LID ID Treatment Type 3 Impervious
Sq. Ft. Acres �mpervious Volume (ft ) Area ftZ
100 111,708 2.56 72% Rain Garden 1 Rain Garden 2,158 80,430
101 36,520 0.84 9% n/a n/a 0 3,287
200 (NEW or 100% n/a n/a
Modified 11,638 0.27 877 11,638
OS1 10,135 0.20 72% n/a n/a 0 7,297
OS5 590 0.01 100% n/a n/a 0 590
Total 170,591 1.31 103,242
i.I� ° arY
Project Number: 1914-001 Project: Impala Redevelopment
Project Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Calculations By: S. Ritchie Date: 1/11/2023
LID Summary
per LID
Structure
Area Vol. w/20%
Weighted Volume per Increase per Impervious
° Subbasin ID Treatment Type 3 Fort Collins
� Sq. Ft. Acres �mpervious UD-BMP (ft ) 3 Area (ft2)
Manual (ft )
Rain Garden 1 111,708 2.56 72% 101 Rain Garden 1,798 2,158 80,430
Total 111,708 2.56 2,158 80,430
LID Site Summary - New Impervious Area
Total Area of Current Development 170,591 ftZ
Total Impervious Area 103,242 ftZ
Total Impervious Area without LID Treatment 10,584 ft
01-07
75% Requried Minimum Area to be Treated 77,431 ft
Total Treated Area 80,430 ft
Percent Impervious Treated by LID 77.90%
(N�
120 0 120 Feet
(IN FEET)
1 inch =120ft.
LEGEND:
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSEDINLET
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
DESIGN POINT
DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
RAIN GARDEN LIMITS
0
FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
�
BASIN
DESIGNATION A
os2 BASIN
AREA (AC)
� � � �
�+ +
Total Area of Current Development 168,153 ft2
Total Impervious Area 92,745 ft2
Total Impervious Area without LID Treatment 10,584 ft2
01-07
75% Requried Minimum Area to be Treated 69,559 tt2
Total Treated Area 71,493 ft2
Percent Impervious Treated by LID 77.09%
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 970.221.4158
GREELEY: S20 8th Street, 80631 northernengineering.com
L
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Sheet 1 of 2
Designer: S. Ritchie
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: March 20, 2023
Project: Impala Redevelopment
Location: Rain garden 1
1. Basin Storage Volume
A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia = 72.0 %
(100 % if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden)
B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = la/100) i= 0.720
C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.23 watershed inches
(WQCV=0.8*(0.91*i3-1.19'iZ+0.78*i)
D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 111,708 sq ft
E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQ�� = 2,118 cu ft
Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area
F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =� in
Average Runoff Producing Storm
G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWocv ornEe =�cu ft
Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume
H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQcvuseR =�cu ft
(Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired)
2. Basin Geometry
A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) DWQ�� = 12 in
B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz, dist per unit vertical) Z= 5.00 ft/ ft
(Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls)
C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;,, = 1609 sq ft
D) Actual Flat Surface Area AA�t„ai = 1668 sq ft
E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) AToP = 2693 sq ft
F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 2,181 cu ft
iVr= iiAroc + An�t„aJ / 2) * Depth)
Choose One
3. Growing Media Q 18" Rain Garden Growing Media
Q Other (Explain):
4. Underdrain System
Choose One
A) Are underdrains provided? � YES
Q NO
B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time
i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= 1.6 ft
Volume to the Center of the Orifice
ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol�2= 2,118 cu ft
iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum Do = 1 1/8 in
UD-BMP_v3.07_Rain Garden 1, RG 3/20/2023, 10:25 AM
Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG)
Sheet 2 of 2
Designer. S. Ritchie
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: March 20, 2023
Project: Impala Redevelopment
Location: Rain garden 1
5. Impermeable Geomembra�e Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric Choose One
Q YES
A) Is an impermeable �iner provided due to proximity � NO
of structures or groundwater contamination?
6. Inlet / Outlet Control Choose One
Q Sheet Flow- No Energy Di55ipation Required
A) Inlet Control Q Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided
Choose One
7. Vegetation Q Seed (Plan for frequent weed controi)
Q Plantings
� Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod
8. Irrigation Choose One
Q YES
A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? � NO
Notes:
UD-BMP_v3.07_Rain Garden 1, RG 3/20/2023, 10:25 AM
1914-001 N ��"`" Impala Redevelopment
Forebay Calculations
Project Number: � �����1 , �,. : :� �;;�
Project Location: ���ri Collins, CO
Calculations By: S. Hallauer Date: 2/22/2023
Total Undetained percent WQCV (From Rain Garden Forebay Forebay Forebay
Basin ID Area Contributing Release
to Pond Impervious Design) Depth Area �2��
(ac) (%) (ftZ) 1% of WQCV (ft) (ftZ) (cfs)
100 2.56 72% 2118 21.18 1 21.18 0.439
Forebay Dimensions
Area (ftZ) Width (ft) Length (ft)
21.18 3 7
Release Notch Sizing
A= Q/(C*i) Area (inZ) Width (in) Depth (in)
0.051 7.39 2.5 3
From Rational Calculations
Intensity (i) 9.95
C (Cloo) 0.86
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
� ' • � ' • 1 1 � � •
• '• �
Project: Impala Redevelopment
Calc. By: S. Ritchie
Date: January 11, 2023
-. -� . - � .
Basin Area (acres) = 7.72 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs
Basin Percent Imperviousness = 16% <-- INPUT from impervious calcs
Basin Imperviousness Ratio = 0.16 <-- CALCULATED
Drain Time = 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1
Drain Time Coefficient = 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1
WQCV (watershed inches) = 0.10 <-- MHFD Vol. 3 Equation 3-1
WQCV (ac-ft) = 0.06 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2
WQCV (cu. ft.) = 2,748 <-- Calculated from above
WQ Depth (ft) = 1.19 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table
Area Required Per Row, a(in2) = 0.24 <-- CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3
. �
dia (in) = 2/8
number of columns= 1.00
number of rows = 2.00
number of holes = 2.00
Area Per Row = 0.05
Total Outlet Area (in2) = 0.10 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158
FORTCOLLINS � GREELEY
� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4155
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
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
.�, �
R
� � � � � - �,r•, . _.
_ : �°` � t �'� �' _
.�� �'��''� � �
�� ��� -
�, .
� � . �'�� =-�
� .�� � .:,
'��� - ._:.
�
� �� � {, " .�
'° ��i .'�-_ '-� ��►���
�� _^, _ • �`� � �*_�� �
�'� "'� ''�� ;-��:
, F.���- " Y ,. • � _ �
�6 � n .��
_ • , �•� . _ �-�� � . . � -- � , Y�'
. . _:
- � � � ;r,� - - � : ' !w;�•�� _ � . �
. ! ;:
. �..:� �► � = .� � , :�� ,.
• ,ry� 4 "
't�' C'�RI� ��. 'i� t%. ��'.'* ~' ,I�i.�-...�� I�, �,w • F tf
A. � . � � � i.� �
�ti t� �';. � ��, r , �,� . � . — • _ . � • ,.
I f. � _ �-- .�' ��
� '.� �� _`{ � �" �� Jr' :,�
si i� � :,�,�� �.�� �' � _ /► � � � � ' —
y � �Y'� ... ' � ,� <'� �� • � � K
'_ ir't�� _.. f` .���e. � _� /� "�_ �✓ 1 �' .�
�p��' �•+,, � ' '�'�� � +' . .2' +� ,.
� �+� .9"� ?''= �' _ � �� 1
��.:1' -- — - ---
�- ;�,�. � �,', . —�-- , � -- ��
�r T ��J - �
' `=- t ' , : '» �� � � � �
�" �. R � , a. . . � ��---`...
r �� !' .�.. _�
.�t ' � � �� '_ � ..
� � ����� 50[l ft ,��. + -
�
�J
_,
�
� � 3�
� � �_�,
�y �
f ��� �
r
�-�l i1�
�t
March 29, 2022
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
3—Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes ......................................... 13
35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes .............................................. 15
74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes .................................................16
76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes .........................................17
Soil Information for All Uses ...............................................................................20
Soil Properties and Qualities .............................................................................. 20
Soil Erosion Factors ........................................................................................20
KFactor, Whole Soi1 ....................................................................................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
Soil Map
��� ���
40° 35� 7'� N I I
�. �� `�\, :� ���'
o ', �..
� ��Q.'A�I' �:��'.,i.
� \\
�.
J �i��`
4�
��1
� �r., r . � .
'��� �
` �.
--� �
:i.� �R
� �� ��,�; � .
o ,� f��� � �
e
� �: � �
: �
��
• ;
��. �
� �� �.
o �. �_ �� ,.i � .
� J �f
� -
�' + ,
�
�— , ��F �I. �'
t,�
. R��. ,� � �
,� � �= �-
o ei'�r�'".
� � .
�� r �. .;��, ;;:.,�
,
�.�-��,, �.
♦ .. �
�� ti �
�� �
'.� r
'. 1.r
��
���
o _•��k
L:
� �Sgl�
� ,
40° 34' S3�� N , �"•`
4�700
aa�o a8�aso a�oo aas�o as0000
� . � � ,..'�►� �ai�.-_�4 .
/� +�+�►�,�..� ���.
J�.�, r � - qA o
rM1 � _�- . -,,;�; �; - �
��. ;� — ✓L �*, �- - `�'� •�1�M. y�• ' �
_ ... . __ 1 � N���-.r�.�s�� �•[ � � . rt.�
� ��
� �.
.. •. . �� �'a \ ..
� ��F � _ � �_ . r ', � ��
-- --- � Y .li i�)t:sen3)f�l }'S�� 1��
�.
_ ".'} _ _ ' _�'�—�?. I �A - . �.�.a1F
`'Y� Y�• � -- �+ } � 'X.
_� � ' i:�-� � w •.�
_ � � „► s �
., ...
�
} ':, r ' o
� �
. ��� - �, .. .. �„
n.h� �j��i •- �►�r ;r ::n+
..,�'�-. c,__-�.�"r��� n� .
4�' . _ — _-= f ,,� ' o_
�-�1 . ♦ -� �
.� ..
�- : .�+�. _ � ,e,.J � # �� � .. �
_ , , � : �. � :.� � i �
- ������� �' ' � ,;:. �
, � t � �•
� _ ..-- �- � ._...!'_
I � - ��+ ry ;. i�: *'• a_
- - �4��I� �- o
. �' ' � - �"� u`" �f ';�F �
I"'�' . , � ,.l • • �.� ; -- :•�, �s '' � �
,'� � -`
' � � . �Y*4 �. � 'r�: w �f �-�:r S �O ; <V �.
���, y� � � *~�� , � �� ' �l �
�' .� •
� �_•�' 1
-�� � � �.,� � � :+� � w, , �
Rl�� . . � � � I. -. T• i� ,— �
_ r ; �J1 � +";}� . �� ��C � ' ; �
.w• � n .
� �. �,��
�� � �::. � �, ; �� -
c'i�1 '16
�115 SCc'1�2:r. �r
*. � t+' 1l�.
• � — � � �� - - --� T —
489750 4�0 4�50 � 48�i0
_ I`
� r � • � MI
w� ,
-� �r� � �
� � ...��
�
m
� Map Scale: 1:2,100 if printed on A poitiait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
° N Meters
� 0 30 60 120 180
� Feet
0 100 200 400 600
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge dcs: U1T1 Zone 13N WGS84
9
Rw � �.'� o
:� �
� �� �
, ;�•.�4
9
�"t�.�
�:_
490000
0
�
40° 35 7" N
40° 34' S3" N
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
35
74
76
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
9.3
1.9
6.3
3.3
20.8
Percent of AOI
44.7%
9.0%
30.4°/a
16.0%
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3
percent slopes
Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3
percent slopes
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
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
3—Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpw2
Elevation: 5,200 to 6,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Altvan and similar soils: 45 percent
Satanta and similar soils: 30 percent
Minor components: 25 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Altvan
Setting
Landform: Terraces, benches
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam
H2 - 10 to 18 inches: clay loam
H3 - 18 to 30 inches: loam
H4 - 30 to 60 inches: gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 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: 10 percent
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R067BY002C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Satanta
Setting
Landform: Structural benches, terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 9 inches: loam
H2 - 9 to 18 inches: loam
H3 - 18 to 60 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 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: 10 percent
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R067BY002C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Larim
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Ecological site: R067BY063C0 - Gravel Breaks
Hydric soil rating: No
Stoneham
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tlnc
Elevation: 4,020 to 6,730 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 160 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Fort collins and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Fort Collins
Setting
Landform: Interfluves, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Pleistocene or older alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam
Bt1 - 4 to 9 inches: clay loam
Bt2 - 9 to 16 inches: clay loam
Bk1 - 16 to 29 inches: loam
Bk2 - 29 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.20 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 12 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
Ecological site: R067BY002C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Nunn
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: R067BY002C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Vona
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, interfluve
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: R067BY024C0 - Sandy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tlpl
Elevation: 3,900 to 5,840 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 160 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Nunn
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam
Bt - 9 to 13 inches: clay loam
Btk - 13 to 25 inches: clay loam
rL:
Custom Soil Resource Report
Bk1 - 25 to 38 inches: clay loam
Bk2 - 38 to 80 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately Iow 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: 7 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R067BY042C0 - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Heldt
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: R067BY042C0 - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Satanta
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: R067BY002C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpxq
Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
17
Custom Soil Resource Report
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Nunn, wet, and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Nunn, Wet
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces, alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: clay loam
H2 - 10 to 47 inches: clay
H3 - 47 to 60 inches: gravelly loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: NoneRare
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: High (about 9.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Heldt
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Ecological site: R067BZ902C0 - Loamy Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Dacono
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Ecological site: R067BY042C0 - Clayey Plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Mollic halaquepts
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
18
Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform: Swales
Hydric soil rating: Yes
19
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.
20
40° 35' 7 N
3
�
�
aag�w a2s�5o
I I
�. `��\�\\, :� ��,'
o ',
.A°.;
�—��Q _ �� ������,�:.
�. ��
��� E:
��
� ,. r
� ����j �
� �� .�,
o � -�, ��`
_p e
� - -
ti:. � �" ,
s �.
• ='�
��,� ��
�
�
o �; :�;,
�J
�
. R��, �,� ,I
� '�._
r'. �_, i
o ��i!y f �r"� .
��' r
�
,���
�,'�''` k
�� � � r
f
�`��
���� � .�
� r
�� 1r i �
_�!s _ �
�W�MUI�ry�$tj
•��� � ,--�•,�- . - --�
, 6j ��
F f � � ' i . _
� _ �yL. i .. r"r � �1 '. �: ���i �t
�So`11�Ma�� ni;ay no,t b�e vali.d.at�[his scaler.
� ��L •JFe � N , I ' �1 � r' � � f���� � �et �
I �
40° 34' S3�� N , � .
Q��� Q��� Q� Q� Q�
�
m
� Map Scale: 1:2,100 if printed on A poitiait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
° N Meters
� 0 30 60 120 180
� Feet
0 100 200 400 600
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge dcs: U1T1 Zone 13N WGS84
21
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—K Factor, Whole Soil
aa�o a89eso a�oo
� ' I �� I
— T, _, , — .-, — — r� ,
�
�
0
aas�o as0000
_��„A /= t�_ —�Q � 40° 35 7" N
,. ��. ��.
��..•;��'�� 1 yT o
���� � — �
`. �; /
u-- ,
-�1 - �M
' �•�' .<
,� .
:-�: a �
.'�� r ��� ,� �
�� ..�
� s �`�.. .�' o
_ _ � ±�r^r'' �
� � ,
�
��� • , -+�-
� � A�� �
0 � �
� _
� _.
♦� - , ..
�i�jY f
'��' � �•
� � •
.. � �* ";1''�
, � f _ -
� _' _+�
�:.�7�.�
��
0
�
� 't �
� �l �
iA �w.c � �
��f�h ' t �
� c�'�
5 � .. y �j1., _�.0
� r Nl�
F'��
�� ii '.
� f j,
� ' o
. _�:�
�G •� �
� __ •• �e
�.�� �
0
M
1�Z� � �
-..�:_ _ �° �' S3" N
4�J0000
3
"v
F
0
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (A01)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
� .02
� .05
Q .10
� .15
� 17
� 20
� 24
0 .2s
� .32
� .37
� .43
� .49
� .55
� .64
Q Not rated or not availabie
Soil Rating Lines
„y .02
�,,i .05
� r .10
. r .15
r � .17
. . .20
. . .24
+ � .28
. r .32
• r .37
. r .43
�,,� .49
„y .55
r.y .64
. w Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
� .02
� .05
0 .10
� 15
0 17
p .20
� .24
O •2$
� .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
22
Custom Soil Resource Report
Table—K Factor, Whole Soil
Map unit symbol Map unit name
3 Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 .28
to 3 percent slopes
35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 .43
percent slopes
74 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 .28
percent slopes
76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to .24
3 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
Rating I Acres in AOI I Percent of AOI
9.3 44.7%
1.9
6.3
3.3
20.8
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)
Soil Qualities and Features
Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly
measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil
properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil
features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features
include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the
use and management of the soil.
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
9.0%
30.4%
16.0%
100.0%
23
Custom Soil Resource Report
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
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. Soiis having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at
or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
24
3
�
�
��� ���
40° 35� 7'� N I I
o— �.'.A°,, �� :l��1-
� ��Q =; ;� \��.�:.
�� ��
`\�T i
��
� R,�r
��
�� � �
� ��
o � (� �'�
�— - =e�C�zam-
ti:. �� �
! �JJ
� --(
��
� �
1 �
�-� �` �
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group
aa�o a89eso a�oo aas�o
� . � � ��„A /� t._—�!Q
�� ��' . '?.`.;' ��
r - /.�
J
_ — —
. �. _ _ -.y/. — — — _ . _
�V
�
� �
0
�
�.r=�` � . � � � � ;:�,����
� � --
� ���� ��, �. .,. �
� j �,..� �,: ,` ''.� �> , �
� "-- r �, � ._ _. •_�,,c � ; �
� = � �,-��`;
�` � _ ,-
'R��+�C�J;�}`-s I '':. ;'.� i� �f �ry� , � +�i�)
r, � ;�--- � Y � �' ..� � �� � � ,I�� � f. � � "
�� �r � :!u _ �t � ---- � r � �I�� �,—_. � � - � ,� a
--� �� •� ,� �
� _„�� :. -_. _ _ _ . �� >�.
,�,a�'` �!' � �� � • �, ."'`
� .,�[�� -- - — - -- �Q3 ' � - - ' ' -
�� `��[�� r � .,r = - 4���
,.� �j„{7��
�. 3�,/ 1 ~ � � R � � �.
� f I
1
_. ��.. I' �_ _iw �t�'�l� �- . " -�
` �'� '� �
,.�,�� �
�— •�' �7 � .� �1 � ���M1� ` t,�
So`11�Ma�� ni,ay no,t b�e vali.d.at�[his scaler.
� ��L •JFe � N , I ' �1 � I ' � � � ���� � �et �
40° 34' S3�� N , � .
Q��� Q��� Q� Q� Q�
�
m
� Map Scale: 1:2,100 if printed on A poitiait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
° N Meters
� 0 30 60 120 180
� Feet
0 100 200 400 600
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge dcs: U1T1 Zone 13N WGS84
25
�:.�7�.�
�
�
0
as0000
0
M
1�Z� � �
-..�:_ _ �° �' S3" N
4�J0000
3
"v
F
0
40° 35 7" N
0
�
���
�: .,
0
,�- �M,
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
3 Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 B
to 3 percent slopes
35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 C
percent slopes
74 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 C
percent slopes
76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to C
3 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
Rating � Acres in AOI
Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.� None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
9.3
1.9
6.3
3.3
20.8
Percent of AOI
44.7%
9.0%
30.4%
16.0%
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
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
National Flood Hazard Layer FI RMette _�: FEMA
105°7'3D"W 40°35'15"N
' �' � � ' � � ! � ,
� � �' �• �' �
� � � �
;'
"'. i «
� � � F - � ':� � _ � -., �
� � �, � � �� - — �
, � . , �� � � ��
,� f �� � ,
� � ,� �..�
' � � � �r ' �
�. '�` ,��+ '''� - _ � = .. �,- '� �„
F � y �..
,
— * � �
„ � ,,��, . �'�' �
r � � �� �
- h � A { '�� '� '�. � .
_ � # � �'d� , � _ 4 i
4 . ..
. �
'. . .M1. . i _ . . � �. r . ' -
�
�' i
� ��r° o_ p ,� �
� ��' �
. t
� s�� ' - � A�.. • -
� _� � . . _ .. . ,. _ . _: Y.� .
��RE� �F r���If��dlf��1AL�FL����r�`E-�����;F�;f� �
, .. �.
� � �� � �
^� ` "�
y
�, �� , - q
� -
'�r' " �
� � � .
'� r�:<i :� ti � 6,,� _ , „ 4
i � _ _ t�
_ �' ,�!' ' �� ��
�� � `
� ��
� � � ,� .
�' �► ' � .� ,..� �� � � ' � � ` �
• ; � � � � � � . : . - �
� - �
,�'� �
� �
��, _�,� -4 �
�,� . �
E � � �� � �
�
� �� �
� � �
1 I 11 111
Legeni
SEE FIS REPORT I
SPECIAL FLC
NAZARD ARI
OTHER AREAS
FLOOD HAZP
OTHER ARI
GENEf
STRUCTUF
OTt
FEATUF
� ' *�' �
•
��
" � . ,� . ,�ir. _ - '�
.� +li
� �
1� �
� _ is map
w digital flo
� —i ` The basei
� accuracy
� a The flood
+ � authoritai
hW M1 � �
F eflect ch
.;
� time. The
become s
This map
1 elements
� - ' legend, sc
Feet 105°6'S3"w a0°34'47"nl unR apae
1:6,000 Pp
1,500 2,000 regu�aton
Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020
FORT COLLINS � GREELEY APPENDIX
NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM � 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: IMPALA REDEVELOPMENT
EXISTING
SURFACE � IMPERV. IMPERV.
AREA (SF) AREA (SF)
ROOFTOP 5,271 90% 4,744
CONCRETE 4,249 100% 4,249
ASPHALT 6,115 100% 6,115
GRAVEL 0 50% 0
ARTIFICIAL 0 50% 0
TURF
LANDSCAPE 48,052 2% 961
TOTALS 63,687 TOTAL= 15,108
�
� I
� _
r
� '
� �
��
T 3 �
� i �
- � � ���
� \ -' .
� I
J � ��
L,F.�--. M
I X -
� �
I �
J .x
r-��---�
w=-
�
'. �� � _
�
` �
�
��
r�
���
�
YW r_ ��� i i� i� i�i
�
�
� �
x �
i
�
�
X
✓ GI I
t y �
� � - � .� � �-- - ', � T � �-�}-�-�-� � � �
NORTH ERN
ENGINEERING
Port Callins: 301 N. Howes St., Ste. 100, 80521 PHONE: 970.221.4158
Greeley: 820 8th Street, 80631 www.northernenglneering.com
IMPALA RED
FORT i
COL�
�!M +� w
:.`��.'' .. . '-
WOODF01
COURT
(CUL-DE-SAC
�
� ( %'�
M � I��/� L■ I .i � f iC.� l T T�-�L1 \_ ��CJ�( �1
`�0 �. , �A i-t,.5 � B� �'�i ot �
N
�p Niu. � REST �'�.if�DARr �
� �
� �
\
� �-t� : 'CE. . _ !--,�.:, N a � . -
� ��A � �; Z� -,,. I _ \
� �
PROPOSED EASEMENT, �
_ _ � FOR PR-1 PROPERTY _ _ _ _ _ _ x _ " ,� _
�_ '�� d 2 -- -- _ _ _
�� --- - - - d
�.
, �•I
_._... d,� .,.._ .�..�.. _..�...���
�
�.. . . .. . .. � . ^ �-��K � o
a.�
,I�'r
<. .`t�,%'�✓`� �" r„1 ! /�,�„-.�"�, �,
.s��r�>r�1�� r �'��
�
��S
�
� � ".
t \ � r,�, '. ,� j
�
� \ �` �.
`a�
� � �,
� �: �� l
� �-- '�� �
� � '�
�
� W : ��
` � . �� �
. .�,
� � `
� �
�\ � _
�
� �
� (
PR-► � �
+ �i�Mn � C�.
�
� �� . \ W
�
�.r,_
Qo
� ,
���
�
o,�
�v .
B4 �' �,. _
, �
i „
i
\ / �- `
\\ �\ �\ � I �
�\ � �—���\ �\ � ` � �
� \ � �� � \ \ � �
� 1 /�� �i—� � �� �\ �
� 1 �� � � \� � ��
' \ / � � � � � —' �
� ` � � �
_ _-_ � � — � �
�
��- � � � l \ 1
--� —��—� �
_ J \� (> `— � \`� / ` � �
/---� � �--� � �
/ -- \ �d �
-- ��� �_ � \ ,/--��
� � � � � - . - - - � � � � �
� f �
L. / J � \
� � i �^J
I � � k �;
�\ �
�� '�` — �
� �r_ ( ' �
) /� ��
' `�, f � �
�� r
� � ti� i :
, ( � �� I
j�
i� l �
� // /—Ji �.
/ / ( � —� 1 �
� � �— \
- �- _ --�--� =-_-4 -- - �- �j�1
� �_ f � ,— � � d
__� _� 1 I
� � : I
OLIVE STREET l �
, / / �1 \I . �
-- --�— -/v � �.
� c_� -- �-- 1�.
I_ J 1 I I � \I j,
� � � , �
4 � � � � �� I��� �
�� �F �� �
° / � , ,
/
� � �
� ' I - - — ) ��
� ` /
/ �- - � l � .--_ � ' '
/ 1-- ,--�=-�-�
I 1
� � OS5
� i �
� / o.o�
� ` � �
�� I�� �
; � � f I-- I
� ` -'
, � ' � /�
� �
�/
�
�
_�
�-�.
��
� •
I �
�1`1
OS1
\\ � � � % ��r '.
�
\ \ \ � � I
,\\ \ \-�//\\ \ \ ` \
� \ � � � \\ �J�
� 1 ��,i-� � �� �\
� ��/ /� � \� � ��
1 \ i � � � � �' \
�� ��_ � �� ��� �
_ �� � ( � � 1
,\ � \ � `_�������—
__� \ c� �-- � `� \ 1
—_ i , �___ \ 1
_�
�
� _�-- -- -- � -- — —�_��-�
� L _ —+- I
_� � r �
� , ,.
� � -- f
� �)r
�
�r �
� � r � �'
� �_
I � ��� I
� (
i / � .,( i
r
j I���� I
i \ /� _�i
/ i
I \ -,_�--� � \ I
--_�-1--�— ��—� — -- ��—�"/�;
j , ,
�\ / �
� OL VE STREET �� � � �
/
> lt f
/
— ��-- — — ,.
l ' � I I
i i i I ;
! „ � � ��
4 � > �--
�� I
� / i i i.
/ i i;
I r �
1 �
�_�
� ` —
� I� —
/ — —
I
\ , �—
I �
I
�
� � I .- , i
� �
1 ��-
\
/
/ �
`
I
�
♦
1
��
\ / �- `
\\ �\ �\ � I �
�\ � �-���\ �\ � ` � �
� \ � �� � \ \ ���
\ 1 ,i� ��-� \ �� ��
� �� // \ �� � ��
� / � � �`��-' �
� � � — � \� \\ \
___,, � ( _ � 1
--,� � � � `_�—�� � �
_—� \ t> �-- � �\ �— \ 1
,—�—� � � ___--. \ 1
� � � � >
-- --�
I
j
;
— —�---- -- — — --�-+� � ,
L
�
� � � �, /
I � I �� /
� /,, i `� ,l
,� ��\
if ( � � �
, � � _ �' I
1 i � ��
�; � ��� t ti �� � �
i / �� i
f r - --��
J � �
i � �i
\ /� / i
--- _ --�_/_\�-�_� �� _—/ ���` � .
- { �- �� �� �
�� � 1
� � � :
OLIVE STREET '
i ` 1i
; � � �` \
— - ,� ,\ I I . I
-- — — \
�—
-- I�
-, \ : �
1 ; , � I i
f ^ I. �
4 L�
�r. � I
° / i i i
� i
� I
i I� '
, ,In � -
� I� -
� - -- --
i
� � OS5
I
� o.oi
\ '
�� I. I . ^
J '
I �,� ` �
,' % � :
�
��
�
� /
/
7
OS
o.2c
OS1