Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Drainage Reports - 06/20/2024
0 A. AVANT v CIVIL GROUP FINAL NT DRAINAGE REPORT AVA v CIVIL GROUP THE LANDING AT LEMAY FORT COLLINS, CO City of Fort Collins Approved Plans May 28, 2024 Approved by: Wes Lamarque Date: 6/20/2024 ort Coy" Owner: Thompson Thrift Residential Planner: Ripley Design, Inc. 970.224.5828 Design Engineer: Avant Civil Group 970.286.7995 AVANTCIVILGROUP.COM FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP May 28, 2024 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE LANDING AT LEMAY Dear Staff: Avant Civil Group is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for The Landing at Lemay for your review.This report accompanies the FDP 05 submittal for the project. 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 Landing at Lemay project.We understand that review by the City of Fort Collins is to ensure general compliance with FCSCM drainage criteria. If you should have any questions as you review this report,please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, AVANT CIVIL GROUP Austin Snow,PE Project Engineer A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP Engineer Certification: "I hereby attest that this report for the Final drainage design of The Landing at Lemay was prepared by me,or under my direct supervision,in accordance with the provisions of the FCSCM.I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and shall not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others." ,pC) REGIST moo\���D ER/��•F�'o CD Austin Snow, PE State of Colorado License No.53340 A. AVM CIVIL GROUP Table of Contents GeneralLocation and Description..................................................................................................................................................................6 Location................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Descriptionof Property..................................................................................................................................................................................6 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................................................................................7 DrainageBasins.....................................................................................................................................................................................................7 MajorBasin Description.................................................................................................................................................................................7 Sub-Basin Description ....................................................................................................................................................................................8 DrainageDesign Criteria....................................................................................................................................................................................8 OptionalProvisions..........................................................................................................................................................................................8 StormwaterManagement Strategy...........................................................................................................................................................8 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints...............................................................................................................................9 HydrologicDesign Criteria...........................................................................................................................................................................9 HydraulicDesign Criteria...............................................................................................................................................................................9 Conformance with Water Quality Treatment Criteria........................................................................................................................9 Conformance with Low Impact Development (LID) Requirements..............................................................................................9 Sizingof LID and WQ Facilities.................................................................................................................................................................10 RainGardens...............................................................................................................................................................................................10 StormtechChambers................................................................................................................................................................................10 WaterQuality..............................................................................................................................................................................................10 DrainageFacility Design..............................................................................................................................................................................10 GeneralProposed Concept(s)...............................................................................................................................................................10 Sub-Basin Descriptions............................................................................................................................................................................11 DetentionDetails............................................................................................................................................................................................12 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................................................................13 A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP ComplianceWith Standards.......................................................................................................................................................................13 DrainageConcepts........................................................................................................................................................................................13 References..............................................................................................................................................................................................................14 APPENDIX A— HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS.................................................................................................................................................A APPENDIX B— HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS....................................................................................................................................................B APPENDIX C— LID AND WATER QUALITY......................................................................................................................................................0 APPENDIXD— USDA SOILS REPORT..............................................................................................................................................................D APPENDIXE— FEMA FIRMETTE........................................................................................................................................................................E APPENDIX F— DRAINAGE EXHIBIT....................................................................................................................................................................F e A. CML GROUP General Location and Description Location The Landing at Lemay project site is located in a tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Fri VINE DRIVE SITE Lt AP v Figure 1 -Site Location The project site (see Figure 1) is bordered to the north by open space and E Vine Drive, to the east by Cordova Road (proposed and future), to the south by The Cottages of Fort Collins, and to the west by South Lemay Avenue. There is existing storm drainage infrastructure to the south that was constructed with the Cottages of Fort Collins project. Description of Property The Landing at Lemay site is comprised of 27.38 acres — a portion of the parcel(s) to the north will remain undeveloped while the multifamily development(-17.5 acres) is constructed.The site is currently comprised of undeveloped open space. The project site resides in the City of Fort Collins Dry Creek Master Drainage 0 A. AVANT 'WI CIVIL GROUP Basin. The detention requirements and release rates of the subject area were considered in the design of the detention ponds for The Landing at Lemay and have been factored into the LID requirements,which are described in further detail throughout this report. The proposed development will consist of ten (10) multi-family residential buildings containing 336 units with on-site and street parking,and a clubhouse.The proposed land use is multi-family,which is a permitted land use for this area. Existing Conditions The existing on-site runoff generally drains from the Northwest to the Southeast across flat grades (e.g., 0.50% - 2.00%) towards the intersection of Duff Drive and Cordova Road. According to the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)Soil Survey website: (http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), the site consists primarily of Caruso Clay Loam (Hydrologic Soil Group D). Groundwater was found to be present approximately 7-10 feet below existing ground elevations. Proposed site development will maintain a minimum of 2 feet between existing groundwater levels and proposed ground levels. The highest amount of cut on the site occurs where the proposed detention ponds will be placed. Table 1 - Groundwater Elevations vs. Proposed Elevations Pond 1 Pond 2 Existing Ground Elevation 4940.80 4941.15 Groundwater Elevation 4932.80 4932.15 Proposed Elevation 4936.40 4935.00 Floodploin The entirety of the site is located in a FEMA moderate-risk floodplain zone. There are no special floodplain considerations required regarding finished floor elevations of building footprints.A floodplain use permit will be required prior to construction for any work in the floodplain. Drainage Basins Major Basin Description The project area of The Landing at Lemay is located within the City of Fort Collins Dry Creek 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 release rates determined for the Dry Creek Basin which are 0.2 cfs/acre. (17.5 ac *0.2 cfs/ac = 3.5 cfs). e A. CIVIL GROUP Sub-Basin Description The outfall for the project site is at the south end of the project site to existing storm infrastructure in Duff Drive.The existing subject site can be defined with 10 distinct drainage basins(see DR1 in the provided map pocket). The existing site runoff generally drains from Northwest to Southeast towards proposed Cordova Road.The project area receives offsite runoff from the northeast.This is accounted for in the drainage design for this project site. Drainage Design Criteria Optional Provisions There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with Landing at Lemay. Stormwater Management Strategy The overall stormwater management strategy employed with The Landing at Lemay utilizes the "Four Step Process" to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters. The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each step. Step 1—Employ Runoff Reduction Practices.The first consideration taken in trying to reduce the stormwater impacts of this development is the site selection itself. By choosing an already developed site with public storm sewer currently in place,the burden is significantly less than developing a vacant parcel absent of any infrastructure. The Landing at Lemay aims to reduce runoff peaks, volumes and pollutant loads from frequently occurring storm events (i.e.,water quality(i.e., 80th percentile)and 2-year storm events) by implementing Low Impact Development (LID) strategies.Wherever practical, runoff will be routed across landscaped areas or through a rain garden or water quality 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/MDCIA techniques will be implemented, where practical, throughout the development, thereby slowing runoff and increasing opportunities for infiltration. Step 2 — Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with Slow Release. The efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize excess runoff from frequently occurring storm events; however, urban development of this intensity will still have stormwater runoff leaving the site. The primary water quality treatment will occur 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. e CIVIL GROUP Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The subject property is not part of an overall development plan. The project area is constrained to the west by N Lemay Avenue, to the north by undeveloped open space, to the east by industrial buildings, and to south by The Cottages of Fort Collins. Hydrologic Design Criteria 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 Landing at Lemay project. Tabulated data contained in Table 3.4-1 has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. 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 will be used to check the street capacities, inlets, swales, and storm drain lines at final design. 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. Hydraulic Design Criteria The drainage facilities proposed with The Landing at Lemay project are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM. As stated above, the subject property is located within a FEMA moderate-risk floodplain, but is not located within a City regulated floodplain. There are no formal modifications outside of the FCSCM proposed with Landing at Lemay. 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. Each proposed drainage basin features or drains to an LID facility to treat runoff for water quality. All onsite basins will receive water quality treatment either via a rain garden, underground chambers, or within a detention pond. Conformance with Low Impact Development (LID) Requirements 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 approximately 89.5% of new/modified impervious area with LID. Four rain gardens and two banks of Stormtech chambers are responsible for treating a majority of the impervious area on the site. e A. CML GROUP Sizing of LID and WQ Facilities Rain Gardens The rain gardens were sized by first determining the required water quality capture volume (WQCV)for Sub-Basins A, B, C, D, E, and M. Once the WQCV was identified, the rain garden area was sized for its respective WQCV. The rain gardens will be constructed with a biomedia filter and underdrain. An overflow inlet/spillway will be provided to provide safe conveyance of storms greater than the WQCV. Stormtech Chambers Stormtech chambers were used where rain gardens were not feasible due to available space - Sub- Basins C & E in this instance. The chambers were sized by first determining the required WQCV for the basin. Once the WQCV was identified, the chamber area was sized for its respective WQCV. The chambers will be constructed with stone beds/backfill and underdrain. Overflows will spill directly into the downstream detention pond. Table 2- LID Summary LID Summary per Basin Area Percent Required Provided Total Impervious Basin ID Sq. Ft. Acres LID ID Impervious Volume (ft3) Volume (ft3) Area Treated (ftz) A 97,267 2.23 61% Rain Garden A 1,600 2,039 59,333 B 66,289 1.52 78% Rain Garden B 1,398 1,507 51,705 C 151,371 3.48 53% Chambers C 2,169 2,226 80,227 D 69,230 1.59 63% Rain Garden D 1,138 1,401 43,615 E 166,253 3.82 62% Chambers E 2,696 2,771 103,077 J 13,363 0.31 82% n/a 0 0 n/a K 19,755 0.45 77% n/a 0 0 n/a L 27,767 0.64 57% n/a 0 0 n/a M 107,554 2.47 79% Rain Garden M 2,310 2,377 84,968 N 43,656 1.00 16% n/a 0 0 n/a Total 762,505 15.27 62% 11,311 12,321 422,924 Water Quality WQCV was calculated for the site using UDFCD equations - Pond 1 does not treat for water quality; Pond 2 provides the remaining water quality treatment for areas not already treated by LID facilities. Drainage Facility Design General Proposed Concept(s) The main objective of The Landing at Lemay drainage design is to maintain existing drainage patterns, while not adversely impacting adjacent properties. All storm drains on the site (which will be a private utility) have been designed to convey 100-yr flows except for underground chamber networks which 0 A. AVANT v CIVIL GROUP are designed to convey minor-event flows. Sub-Basin Descriptions Drainage for the project site has been analyzed using 16 drainage sub-basins, designated as sub-basins A-E,J-N, and OS1. Sub-basins A-N are on-site basins. OS1 is an off-site basin whose flows are collected in Detention Pond 2. Sub-Basin A Sub-Basin A is composed of multi-family residential rooftops, paved roadways, and a clubhouse and pool. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow and curb and gutter flow to Rain Garden A where they are treated for water quality. Sub-Basin B Sub-Basin B contains multi-family residential rooftops, garages, paved roadways, and a dog park. These flows travel via overland flow and curb and gutter flow to Rain Garden B where they are treated for water quality. From here, flows are routed to Detention Pond 1. Sub-Basin C Sub-Basin C is composed of multi-family residential rooftops, paved roadways and parking lots, Rain Garden C and Detention Pond 2. Runoff travels via overland flow/curb and gutter to Chamber Bank C, which treats these flows for water quality. Runoff will then be routed to Detention Pond 2 and then will be released via proposed outlet structure to existing storm drain offsite. Sub-Basin D Sub-Basin D consists of multi-family residential rooftops, paved roadways, parking, open space, and Rain Garden D. Runoff travels via overland flow, curb and gutter, and storm pipe to Rain Garden D where it is treated for water quality. Rain Garden D then releases to Detention Pond 2. Overflows from Sub-Basin D are conveyed via surface drainage to Sub-Basin C and Pond 2. Sub-Basin E Sub-Basin E contains multi-family residential rooftops,garages, paved roadways and parking, Rain Garden E, and Detention Pond 1. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow, curb and gutter northeast towards a curb cut that conveys flows to Chamber Bank E.After being treated for water quality, these flows continue into Detention Pond 1 which outfalls into Detention Pond 2 (ponds in series), then to existing storm drain infrastructure offsite. Sub-Basin J and K Sub-Basins J and K are composed of a paved roadway on the east side of the proposed multifamily development. Sub-basins J and K are captured and routed directly to Detention Pond 1 where they will be treated for water quality before they are routed offsite. These sub-basins have been evaluated for their future/ultimate condition, even though a portion of Cordova Road will not be constructed with this project. 0 A. AVANT v CIVIL GROUP Sub-Basin L contains multi-family residential rooftops and open space. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow into area inlets, where they are conveyed to Detention Pond 2 via storm drains. Sub-Basin M contains multi-family residential, garages, paved roadways and parking, and Rain Garden M. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow and curb and gutter to the center of the site where a curb cut conveys flows to Rain Garden E.After being treated for water quality, these flows continue into Detention Pond 2 which outfalls to existing storm drain infrastructure offsite. Overflows from Sub-Basin M are conveyed via surface drainage to Sub-Basin D. Sub-Basin N Sub-Basin N contains open space and walkways. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow and a Swale/concrete pan south towards an inlet that conveys flows via storm drain to Detention Pond 2. Sub-Basin OS1 Sub-Basin OS1 is composed of open space to the northwest of the proposed project site. The natural landscape of this basin directs flow onto the project site and for this reason, they will be routed through the site in a proposed swale with concrete pan. These flows are then captured in a storm pipe and directed to Detention Pond 2. Detention Details There are 2 proposed detention ponds on the project site that will detain up to the 100-year storm event and release at or below the allowed historic release for the Dry Creek Basin. See Table 3 for detention summary. Table 3-Detention Summary 1791-003 By:ARS Date: 3/1/24 POND SUMMARY TABLE Tributary Weighted% Extended WQCV Volume Extended 100-Yr. 100-Yr. Area Imperviousness Detention WQCV provided by LID Detention WQCV Detention Detention Peak Release Pond ID (Ac)1 M (cu-ft) facilities (cu-ft) Provded (cu-ft)z Vol. (Ac-Ft) WSEL(Ft) (cfs)3 Pond 1 6.10 68 4,716 1.27 4942.20 2.50 11,311 Pond 2 1 11.41 59 7,713 1,118 2.76 4942.10 1.00 Notes: 1.Tributary area shown does not include off-site basin(s) 2.Total WQCV for site will be provded in Pond 2 3.Overall site release rate of 3.5 cfs divided between Ponds 1 and 2 A. AVM .4- oo. CIVIL GROUP Detention Ponds 1 and 2 will be constructed in series; Pond 1 will capture flows from sub-basins B,J, and K. Pond 2 will capture flows from sub-basins A, C, D, L, M, N, and OS1. The site has a previously established allowed release rate of 3.5 cfs based on the master drainage basin; Pond 1 will release at 2.5 cfs, and Pond 2 will release at 1.0 cfs. Both Pond 1 and Pond 2 utilize outlet structures to achieve the desired release rate; the outfall pipe into existing storm infrastructure for Pond 2 features a 2"d inlet/spill point downstream of the outlet structure which has been set at the 100-year WSEL of Pond 1 (which is higher in elevation than the 100-year WSEL of Pond 2) and will act as the overflow point for Pond 1. LID treatment is being provided within rain gardens and underground chambers.These treat approximately 92.15% 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.The required WQCV for areas not treated by LID facilities - 1,115 cubic feet -will be provided in Pond 2. The detention allowable release rate is based on the allowed release rate from the Dry Creek Basin, which is 0.2 cfs/acre. Stormwater facility Standard Operations Procedures (SOP) will be provided by the City of Fort Collins in the Development Agreement. Conclusions Compliance With Standards The drainage design proposed with The Landing at Lemay complies with the City of Fort Collins Master Drainage Plan for the Canal Importation Basin. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with The Landing at Lemay project are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. Drainage Concepts The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with The Landing at Lemay project are compliant with all applicable regulations governing stormwater discharge. The Landing at Lemay will not impact the Master Drainage Plan recommendations for the Fort Collins Dry Creek Major Drainage Basin. A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP References 1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 159, 2018, and referenced in Section 26-500 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 2. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 3. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright- McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. �A AVANT v CIVIL GROUP APPENDIX A - HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS A. AVM-- 000. CIVIL GROUP APPENDIX B - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS A. AVM-- 000. CIVIL GROUP APPENDIX C - LID AND WATER QUALITY A. AVM CIVIL GROUP Table of Contents GeneralLocation and Description..................................................................................................................................................................6 Location................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Descriptionof Property..................................................................................................................................................................................6 ExistingConditions......................................................................................................................................................................................7 DrainageBasins.....................................................................................................................................................................................................7 MajorBasin Description.................................................................................................................................................................................7 Sub-Basin Description ....................................................................................................................................................................................8 DrainageDesign Criteria....................................................................................................................................................................................8 OptionalProvisions..........................................................................................................................................................................................8 StormwaterManagement Strategy...........................................................................................................................................................8 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints...............................................................................................................................9 HydrologicDesign Criteria...........................................................................................................................................................................9 HydraulicDesign Criteria...............................................................................................................................................................................9 Conformance with Water Quality Treatment Criteria........................................................................................................................9 Conformance with Low Impact Development (LID) Requirements..............................................................................................9 Sizingof LID and WQ Facilities.................................................................................................................................................................10 RainGardens...............................................................................................................................................................................................10 StormtechChambers................................................................................................................................................................................10 WaterQuality..............................................................................................................................................................................................10 DrainageFacility Design..............................................................................................................................................................................10 GeneralProposed Concept(s)...............................................................................................................................................................10 Sub-Basin Descriptions............................................................................................................................................................................11 DetentionDetails............................................................................................................................................................................................12 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................................................................13 A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP ComplianceWith Standards.......................................................................................................................................................................13 DrainageConcepts........................................................................................................................................................................................13 References..............................................................................................................................................................................................................14 APPENDIX A— HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS.................................................................................................................................................A APPENDIX B— HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS....................................................................................................................................................B APPENDIX C— LID AND WATER QUALITY......................................................................................................................................................0 APPENDIXD— USDA SOILS REPORT..............................................................................................................................................................D APPENDIXE— FEMA FIRMETTE........................................................................................................................................................................E APPENDIX F— DRAINAGE EXHIBIT....................................................................................................................................................................F e A. CML GROUP General Location and Description Location The Landing at Lemay project site is located in a tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Fri VINE DRIVE SITE Lt AP v Figure 1 -Site Location The project site (see Figure 1) is bordered to the north by open space and E Vine Drive, to the east by Cordova Road (proposed and future), to the south by The Cottages of Fort Collins, and to the west by South Lemay Avenue. There is existing storm drainage infrastructure to the south that was constructed with the Cottages of Fort Collins project. Description of Property The Landing at Lemay site is comprised of 27.38 acres — a portion of the parcel(s) to the north will remain undeveloped while the multifamily development(-17.5 acres) is constructed.The site is currently comprised of undeveloped open space. The project site resides in the City of Fort Collins Dry Creek Master Drainage 0 A. AVANT 'WI CIVIL GROUP Basin. The detention requirements and release rates of the subject area were considered in the design of the detention ponds for The Landing at Lemay and have been factored into the LID requirements,which are described in further detail throughout this report. The proposed development will consist of ten (10) multi-family residential buildings containing 336 units with on-site and street parking,and a clubhouse.The proposed land use is multi-family,which is a permitted land use for this area. Existing Conditions The existing on-site runoff generally drains from the Northwest to the Southeast across flat grades (e.g., 0.50% - 2.00%) towards the intersection of Duff Drive and Cordova Road. According to the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)Soil Survey website: (http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), the site consists primarily of Caruso Clay Loam (Hydrologic Soil Group D). Groundwater was found to be present approximately 7-10 feet below existing ground elevations. Proposed site development will maintain a minimum of 2 feet between existing groundwater levels and proposed ground levels. The highest amount of cut on the site occurs where the proposed detention ponds will be placed. Table 1 - Groundwater Elevations vs. Proposed Elevations Pond 1 Pond 2 Existing Ground Elevation 4940.80 4941.15 Groundwater Elevation 4932.80 4932.15 Proposed Elevation 4936.40 4935.00 Floodploin The entirety of the site is located in a FEMA moderate-risk floodplain zone. There are no special floodplain considerations required regarding finished floor elevations of building footprints.A floodplain use permit will be required prior to construction for any work in the floodplain. Drainage Basins Major Basin Description The project area of The Landing at Lemay is located within the City of Fort Collins Dry Creek 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 release rates determined for the Dry Creek Basin which are 0.2 cfs/acre. (17.5 ac *0.2 cfs/ac = 3.5 cfs). e A. CIVIL GROUP Sub-Basin Description The outfall for the project site is at the south end of the project site to existing storm infrastructure in Duff Drive.The existing subject site can be defined with 10 distinct drainage basins(see DR1 in the provided map pocket). The existing site runoff generally drains from Northwest to Southeast towards proposed Cordova Road.The project area receives offsite runoff from the northeast.This is accounted for in the drainage design for this project site. Drainage Design Criteria Optional Provisions There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with Landing at Lemay. Stormwater Management Strategy The overall stormwater management strategy employed with The Landing at Lemay utilizes the "Four Step Process" to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters. The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each step. Step 1—Employ Runoff Reduction Practices.The first consideration taken in trying to reduce the stormwater impacts of this development is the site selection itself. By choosing an already developed site with public storm sewer currently in place,the burden is significantly less than developing a vacant parcel absent of any infrastructure. The Landing at Lemay aims to reduce runoff peaks, volumes and pollutant loads from frequently occurring storm events (i.e.,water quality(i.e., 80th percentile)and 2-year storm events) by implementing Low Impact Development (LID) strategies.Wherever practical, runoff will be routed across landscaped areas or through a rain garden or water quality 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/MDCIA techniques will be implemented, where practical, throughout the development, thereby slowing runoff and increasing opportunities for infiltration. Step 2 — Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with Slow Release. The efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize excess runoff from frequently occurring storm events; however, urban development of this intensity will still have stormwater runoff leaving the site. The primary water quality treatment will occur 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. e CIVIL GROUP Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The subject property is not part of an overall development plan. The project area is constrained to the west by N Lemay Avenue, to the north by undeveloped open space, to the east by industrial buildings, and to south by The Cottages of Fort Collins. Hydrologic Design Criteria 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 Landing at Lemay project. Tabulated data contained in Table 3.4-1 has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. 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 will be used to check the street capacities, inlets, swales, and storm drain lines at final design. 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. Hydraulic Design Criteria The drainage facilities proposed with The Landing at Lemay project are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM. As stated above, the subject property is located within a FEMA moderate-risk floodplain, but is not located within a City regulated floodplain. There are no formal modifications outside of the FCSCM proposed with Landing at Lemay. 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. Each proposed drainage basin features or drains to an LID facility to treat runoff for water quality. All onsite basins will receive water quality treatment either via a rain garden, underground chambers, or within a detention pond. Conformance with Low Impact Development (LID) Requirements 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 approximately 89.5% of new/modified impervious area with LID. Four rain gardens and two banks of Stormtech chambers are responsible for treating a majority of the impervious area on the site. e A. CML GROUP Sizing of LID and WQ Facilities Rain Gardens The rain gardens were sized by first determining the required water quality capture volume (WQCV)for Sub-Basins A, B, C, D, E, and M. Once the WQCV was identified, the rain garden area was sized for its respective WQCV. The rain gardens will be constructed with a biomedia filter and underdrain. An overflow inlet/spillway will be provided to provide safe conveyance of storms greater than the WQCV. Stormtech Chambers Stormtech chambers were used where rain gardens were not feasible due to available space - Sub- Basins C & E in this instance. The chambers were sized by first determining the required WQCV for the basin. Once the WQCV was identified, the chamber area was sized for its respective WQCV. The chambers will be constructed with stone beds/backfill and underdrain. Overflows will spill directly into the downstream detention pond. Table 2- LID Summary LID Summary per Basin Area Percent Required Provided Total Impervious Basin ID Sq. Ft. Acres LID ID Impervious Volume (ft3) Volume (ft3) Area Treated (ftz) A 97,267 2.23 61% Rain Garden A 1,600 2,039 59,333 B 66,289 1.52 78% Rain Garden B 1,398 1,507 51,705 C 151,371 3.48 53% Chambers C 2,169 2,226 80,227 D 69,230 1.59 63% Rain Garden D 1,138 1,401 43,615 E 166,253 3.82 62% Chambers E 2,696 2,771 103,077 J 13,363 0.31 82% n/a 0 0 n/a K 19,755 0.45 77% n/a 0 0 n/a L 27,767 0.64 57% n/a 0 0 n/a M 107,554 2.47 79% Rain Garden M 2,310 2,377 84,968 N 43,656 1.00 16% n/a 0 0 n/a Total 762,505 15.27 62% 11,311 12,321 422,924 Water Quality WQCV was calculated for the site using UDFCD equations - Pond 1 does not treat for water quality; Pond 2 provides the remaining water quality treatment for areas not already treated by LID facilities. Drainage Facility Design General Proposed Concept(s) The main objective of The Landing at Lemay drainage design is to maintain existing drainage patterns, while not adversely impacting adjacent properties. All storm drains on the site (which will be a private utility) have been designed to convey 100-yr flows except for underground chamber networks which 0 A. AVANT v CIVIL GROUP are designed to convey minor-event flows. Sub-Basin Descriptions Drainage for the project site has been analyzed using 16 drainage sub-basins, designated as sub-basins A-E,J-N, and OS1. Sub-basins A-N are on-site basins. OS1 is an off-site basin whose flows are collected in Detention Pond 2. Sub-Basin A Sub-Basin A is composed of multi-family residential rooftops, paved roadways, and a clubhouse and pool. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow and curb and gutter flow to Rain Garden A where they are treated for water quality. Sub-Basin B Sub-Basin B contains multi-family residential rooftops, garages, paved roadways, and a dog park. These flows travel via overland flow and curb and gutter flow to Rain Garden B where they are treated for water quality. From here, flows are routed to Detention Pond 1. Sub-Basin C Sub-Basin C is composed of multi-family residential rooftops, paved roadways and parking lots, Rain Garden C and Detention Pond 2. Runoff travels via overland flow/curb and gutter to Chamber Bank C, which treats these flows for water quality. Runoff will then be routed to Detention Pond 2 and then will be released via proposed outlet structure to existing storm drain offsite. Sub-Basin D Sub-Basin D consists of multi-family residential rooftops, paved roadways, parking, open space, and Rain Garden D. Runoff travels via overland flow, curb and gutter, and storm pipe to Rain Garden D where it is treated for water quality. Rain Garden D then releases to Detention Pond 2. Overflows from Sub-Basin D are conveyed via surface drainage to Sub-Basin C and Pond 2. Sub-Basin E Sub-Basin E contains multi-family residential rooftops,garages, paved roadways and parking, Rain Garden E, and Detention Pond 1. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow, curb and gutter northeast towards a curb cut that conveys flows to Chamber Bank E.After being treated for water quality, these flows continue into Detention Pond 1 which outfalls into Detention Pond 2 (ponds in series), then to existing storm drain infrastructure offsite. Sub-Basin J and K Sub-Basins J and K are composed of a paved roadway on the east side of the proposed multifamily development. Sub-basins J and K are captured and routed directly to Detention Pond 1 where they will be treated for water quality before they are routed offsite. These sub-basins have been evaluated for their future/ultimate condition, even though a portion of Cordova Road will not be constructed with this project. 0 A. AVANT v CIVIL GROUP Sub-Basin L contains multi-family residential rooftops and open space. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow into area inlets, where they are conveyed to Detention Pond 2 via storm drains. Sub-Basin M contains multi-family residential, garages, paved roadways and parking, and Rain Garden M. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow and curb and gutter to the center of the site where a curb cut conveys flows to Rain Garden E.After being treated for water quality, these flows continue into Detention Pond 2 which outfalls to existing storm drain infrastructure offsite. Overflows from Sub-Basin M are conveyed via surface drainage to Sub-Basin D. Sub-Basin N Sub-Basin N contains open space and walkways. Flows from this basin travel via overland flow and a Swale/concrete pan south towards an inlet that conveys flows via storm drain to Detention Pond 2. Sub-Basin OS1 Sub-Basin OS1 is composed of open space to the northwest of the proposed project site. The natural landscape of this basin directs flow onto the project site and for this reason, they will be routed through the site in a proposed swale with concrete pan. These flows are then captured in a storm pipe and directed to Detention Pond 2. Detention Details There are 2 proposed detention ponds on the project site that will detain up to the 100-year storm event and release at or below the allowed historic release for the Dry Creek Basin. See Table 3 for detention summary. Table 3-Detention Summary 1791-003 By:ARS Date: 3/1/24 POND SUMMARY TABLE Tributary Weighted% Extended WQCV Volume Extended 100-Yr. 100-Yr. Area Imperviousness Detention WQCV provided by LID Detention WQCV Detention Detention Peak Release Pond ID (Ac)1 M (cu-ft) facilities (cu-ft) Provded (cu-ft)z Vol. (Ac-Ft) WSEL(Ft) (cfs)3 Pond 1 6.10 68 4,716 1.27 4942.20 2.50 11,311 Pond 2 1 11.41 59 7,713 1,118 2.76 494210 1.00 Notes: 1.Tributary area shown does not include off-site basin(s) 2.Total WQCV for site will be provded in Pond 2 3.Overall site release rate of 3.5 cfs divided between Ponds 1 and 2 A. AVM .4- oo. CIVIL GROUP Detention Ponds 1 and 2 will be constructed in series; Pond 1 will capture flows from sub-basins B,J, and K. Pond 2 will capture flows from sub-basins A, C, D, L, M, N, and OS1. The site has a previously established allowed release rate of 3.5 cfs based on the master drainage basin; Pond 1 will release at 2.5 cfs, and Pond 2 will release at 1.0 cfs. Both Pond 1 and Pond 2 utilize outlet structures to achieve the desired release rate; the outfall pipe into existing storm infrastructure for Pond 2 features a 2"d inlet/spill point downstream of the outlet structure which has been set at the 100-year WSEL of Pond 1 (which is higher in elevation than the 100-year WSEL of Pond 2) and will act as the overflow point for Pond 1. LID treatment is being provided within rain gardens and underground chambers.These treat approximately 92.15% 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.The required WQCV for areas not treated by LID facilities - 1,115 cubic feet -will be provided in Pond 2. The detention allowable release rate is based on the allowed release rate from the Dry Creek Basin, which is 0.2 cfs/acre. Stormwater facility Standard Operations Procedures (SOP) will be provided by the City of Fort Collins in the Development Agreement. Conclusions Compliance With Standards The drainage design proposed with The Landing at Lemay complies with the City of Fort Collins Master Drainage Plan for the Canal Importation Basin. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with The Landing at Lemay project are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. Drainage Concepts The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with The Landing at Lemay project are compliant with all applicable regulations governing stormwater discharge. The Landing at Lemay will not impact the Master Drainage Plan recommendations for the Fort Collins Dry Creek Major Drainage Basin. A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP References 1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 159, 2018, and referenced in Section 26-500 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 2. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 3. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright- McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. �A AVANT v CIVIL GROUP APPENDIX A - HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS DEVELOPED BASIN % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS Percentage 2-yr Runoff -yr Runof CHARACTER OF SURFACE: Impervious Coefficient Coefficient Developed Asphalt ......................................................................................................................................................................... 100% 0.95 1.00 Concrete ........................................................................................................................................................ 100% 0.95 1.00 Rooftop ......................................................................................................................................................................... 90% 0.95 1.00 Gravel ......................................................................................................................................................................... 40% 0.50 0.63 Pavers ......................................................................................................................................................................... 40% 0.50 0.63 Landscape or Pervious Surface Playgrounds ................................................................................................................................................................... 25% 0.35 0.44 LawnsClayey Soil ....................................................................................................................................I...............I.............. 2% 0.25 0.31 LawnsSandy Soil ................................................................................................................................................................... 2% 0.15 0.19 Notes: 1) Percentage impervious taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual,Chapter 5,Table 4.1-2 and Table 4.1-3 2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual,Chapter 3.Table 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 Area of Area of Area of Area of Area of Area of 2-year 100-year Basin Area Area of Lawns Composite/o Composite Basin ID Asphalt Concrete Rooftop Gravel Pavers Playgrounds o Composite Runoff (ac) (ac) Imperv. Runoff (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) Coefficient Coefficient A 2.267 0.780 0.181 0.485 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.821 62% 0.70 0.88 B 1.522 0.771 0.09 0.359 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.300 78% 0.81 1.00 C 3.475 1 1.040 0.21 0.617 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1.609 53% 0.63 0.79 D 1.589 0.409 0.17 0.459 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.553 63% 0.71 0.89 E 3.817 1.431 0.34 0.644 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.398 62% 0.69 0.86 J 0.307 0.209 0.04 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.055 82% 0.82 1.00 K 0.454 0.346 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.107 77% 0.78 0.98 L 0.637 0.000 0.06 0.332 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.244 57% 0.68 0.85 M 2.469 1.061 0.27 0.682 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.458 79% 1 0.82 1.00 N 0.968 0.029 0.08 0.000 0.862 13% 0.33 0.41 0S1 0.906 0.000 0.00 0.000 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.906 2% 0.25 0.31 Combined Basins Detention Pond 1 B,E,J,K 6.099 2.757 0.478 1.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.861 68% 0.73 0.91 Detention Pond 2 A,C,D,L,M N 11.406 3.319 0.965 2.575 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.547 59% 0.67 0.84 v��m DEVELOPED DIRECT TIME OF CONCENTRATION Overland Flow.Time of Concentration: Frequency Adiustment Factor: 1.87(1-L-CnG).rL (Equation 3.3-2 FCSCM) Storm Return Period Frequency Adjustment (years) Factor(Cf) 2,5,10 1.00 Channelized Flow.Time of Concentration: 25 1.10 so 1.20 Tt=VX66 1 (Equation 5-5 FCSCM) 100 1.25 V= L49 R2/3St/2 }(Equation 5-4 FCSCM) Table 3.2-3 FCSCM UPDATE Therefore Tc2=TC10 Notes: flow.Assume a water depth of 1',fixed side slopes,and a triangular Swale 1)Add 4900 to all elevations. section for grass channeGzed flow.Assume a water depth of 1',4:1 side 2)Per Fort Collins Stormwater Manual,minimum Te=5 min. slopes,and a T wide galley pan for channelized flow in a Malley pan. Total Time of Concentration: 3)Assume a water depth of 6 and a typical curb and gutter per Latimer County Urban Street Standard Detail 701 for curb and gutter channelved T=tau+10 } (Equation 3.3-5 FCSCM) T.is the lesser of the values of Tc calculated using T, =T;+Tt Overland Flow Channelized Flow Time of Concentration Design Basin Length, Slope, Length, Slope, Rou hness Assumed Velocity, T Point Cs C140 L S T;5 Tnau L S g Hydraulic V t Tc(Eq.3.3-5) Tc2=T;+Tt Totuu=T;+Tt Tcs Totoo Coefficient (min) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) Radius (fUs) a A 0.70 0.88 46 0.87% 5.3 3.0 376 0.51% 0.015 0.15 4.41 2.0 12.3 7.3 5.0 7.3 5.0 b B 0.81 1.00 192 0.55% 9.2 1.3 351 0.56% U15 0.15 3.92 2.1 13.0 11.3 3.4 11.3 5.0 C C 0.63 0.79 81 0.60% 9.4 4.2 403 0.76% 0.015 0.15 3.86 2.4 12.7 11.8 6.6 11.8 6.6 d D 0.71 1 0.89 49 1 1.43% 4.5 2.8 346 0.58% 1 0.015 0.15 1 3.79 2.1 12.2 1 6.7 5.0 6.7 1 5.0 e E 0.69 0.86 64 1.74% 5.1 3.2 149 1.47% 0.015 0.15 1.02 3.4 11.2 8.5 6.6 8.5 6.6 j 1 0.82 1.00 26 2.46% 2.0 1.3 198 0.49% 0.015 0.15 2.36 2.0 11.2 3.9 3.3 5.0 5.0 k K 0.78 0.98 26 2.38% 2.3 1.7 201 0.50% 0.015 0.15 2.36 2.0 11.3 4.3 3.6 5.0 5.0 1 L 0.68 0.85 249 0.80% 13.3 3.3 0 N/A 0.015 0.15 N/A N/A 11.4 13.3 3.3 11.4 5.0 m M 0.82 1.00 25 1.20% 2.5 1.3 444 0.52% 0.015 0.15 5.13 2.0 12.6 4.5 3.4 5.0 5.0 n N 0.33 0.41 38 1.97% 7.1 9.1 824 0.28% 0.015 0.59 12.97 3.7 14.8 10.8 12.8 10.8 12.8 / AVANT ,� CIVIL GROUP DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS Rational Method Equation: Q = Cr (C)(l)(A) Rainfall Intensity: OF Table for Rational Method -Table 3.4-1 FCSCM Design Area, A Tcloo Intensity, Intensity, Flow, Flow, Point (acres) (min) C'oo i2 i100 Q2 Q100 (in/hr) (in/hr) (cfs) (cfs) a 2.27 5.0 0.88 2.85 9.95 4.52 19.73 b 1.52 5.0 1.00 2.85 9.95 3.51 15.14 C 3.48 6.6 0.79 2.60 9.06 5.68 24.78 d 1.59 5.0 0.89 2.85 9.95 3.22 14.03 e 3.82 6.6 0.86 2.60 9.06 6.83 29.81 j 0.31 5.0 1.00 1 2.85 9.95 0.72 3.05 k 0.45 5.0 0.98 2.85 9.95 1.01 4.40 1 0.64 5.0 0.85 2.85 9.95 1.24 5.39 m 2.47 5.0 1.00 2.85 9.95 5.77 24.57 n 1 0.97 12.8 0.41 2.02 1 7.04 1 0.64 1 2.81 0S1 1 0.91 14.2 0.31 1 1.92 1 6.71 1 0.43 1 1.90 A. AVM-- 000. CIVIL GROUP APPENDIX B - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS AVANT .%op, CIVIL GROUP Project: 1791-003 By:ARS Date: 3/1/24 POND SUMMARY TABLE Tributary Weighted % Extended WQCV Volume Extended 100-Yr. 100-Yr. Area Imperviousness Detention WQCV provided by LID Detention WQCV Detention Detention Peak Release Pond ID (Ac)1 (%) (cu-ft) facilities (cu-ft) Provded (cu-ft)2 Vol. (Ac-Ft) WSEL(Ft) (cfs)3 Pond 1 6.10 68 4,716 --11,311 1.27 4942.20 2.50 Pond 2 11.41 59 7,713 1,118 2.76 4942.10 1.00 Notes: 1.Tributary area shown does not include off-site basin(s) 2.Total WQCV for site will be provded in Pond 2 3.Overall site release rate of 3.5 cfs divided between Ponds 1 and 2 A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP POND 1 nAVANT r CIVIL GROUP DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD Project Number 1791-003 Project Location Fort Collins Calculations By: AS Pond No : Pond 1 Input Variables Results Design Storm 100-yr Required Detention Volume Developed "C" = 0.91 Area (A)= 6.09 acres 55419 ft3 Max Release Rate = 2.50 cfs 1.27 ac-ft 100-yr Inflow Outflow Storage Time Time Intensity Q100 (Runoff) (Release) Detention Volume Volume Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft ) (ft ) (ft ) 5 300 9.950 55.14 16543 750.0 15792.6 10 600 7.720 42.78 25670 1500.0 24170.1 15 900 6.520 36.13 32520 2250.0 30269.9 20 1200 5.600 31.03 37242 3000.0 34241.6 25 1500 4.980 27.60 41398 3750.0 37648.0 30 1800 4.520 25.05 45089 4500.0 40588.9 35 2100 4.080 22.61 47483 5250.0 42233.0 40 2400 3.740 20.73 49744 6000.0 43744.1 45 2700 3.460 19.17 51772 6750.0 45022.4 50 3000 3.230 17.90 53701 7500.0 46201.0 55 3300 3.030 16.79 55413 8250.0 47163.5 60 3600 2.860 15.85 57059 9000.0 48059.4 65 3900 2.720 15.07 58788 9750.0 49038.5 70 4200 2.590 14.35 60285 10500.0 49784.8 75 4500 2.480 13.74 61848 11250.0 50597.6 80 4800 2.380 13.19 63311 12000.0 51310.7 85 5100 2.290 12.69 64724 12750.0 51973.9 90 5400 2.210 12.25 66137 13500.0 52637.0 95 5700 2.130 11.80 67284 14250.0 53034.2 100 6000 2.060 11.42 68498 15000.0 53497.9 105 6300 2.000 11.08 69828 15750.0 54077.9 110 6600 1.940 10.75 70958 16500.0 54458.5 115 6900 1.890 10.47 72272 17250.0 55021.9 120 7200 1.840 10.20 73419 18000.0 55419.1 DETENTIONSTAGE-STORAGE •MHFD-Detenda,✓ers 4.06(July 2022) Project:Landing at Leman, Basin to:Pond 1 17, ea De Incr ment= 0.20 R Optional peons POOL Example Zone Configuration(Retention Pond) Stege-Storege Stage Ovenide Length Width Area Ovenlde Area Volume V"lume Desch 'o ft sung.(R) (ft) ft R' Area(ft2) (ft') (-ft) Watershed Information Top of Mkropo.1 - 0.00 - - - 0 0.000 Selected BMP Type= E0I4 4,937.60 0.20 121 0.003 12 0.000 Watershed Area= 6.09 es 4,937.80 0.90 690 0.016 93 0.002 Watershed Length= 875 ft 4,938.00 0.60 1,685 0.039 331 0.008 Watershed Length to Cenbold= 550 R 4,938.20 0.80 3,141 0.072 82 0.019 Watershed Slope= 0.009 ft/ft 4,936.40 1.00 4,882 0.112 1,616 0.037 Watershed Imperviousness= 68.00% percent 4,938.fi0 1.20 6,]9] 0.156 2,784 0.064 Percenbge Hydroogic Soil Greup A= 0.0% .percent 4,938.80 1.W 8,630 0.198 4,326 OA99 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group B= 0.0% percent 4,939.00 1.80 10,414 0.239 6,231 0.143 Percedage Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D= 100.0% percent 4,939.20 1.W 11,856 01M 8,458 0.194 T.M.WQCV Drain Time= Q.0 hours 4,11-40 2.00 12,04 0.295 10,927 0.251 Location for lfir Rainfall Depths.=User Input 4,939.60 2.20 0,456 0309. 13,556 0.311 After pmviding required inputs above including 1-hour rzinfall 4,939.80 - 2.40 - - - 13,858 0318 16,287 0.374 depths,di&'Run CUHP'to gen-le runoff hydrogaphs using 4,940.00 2.60 14,255 0327 19,098 0.438 the embedded Colorado Urban Hydrogmph Procedure. Optional User Overrides 4,9M.20 2.80 14,655 0336 21,%9 0.505 Water Quality CapWre VOlume(WQCV)= 0.135 ene-feet eoefear 4,940.40 3.00 H,057 0396 24,%1 0.573 Excess Urban Runoff Volume(WRV)= 0:402 c faet creftet 4,940.60 3.20 15,M3 0355 28,013 0.643 2-yr Run iff Volume(P1=0.82 in.)= 0.260 cre-ftet 0.. Inches 4;940,80 I.. 15,871 0364 31,146 0.715 5-yr Runoff Volume(PI=1.14 in.)= 0.399 crnftd 1.14 inches 4,941.00 3.0 16,284 0374 34,362 0.789 10-yr Runoff Vdume(P1=1.41n.)= 0.527 -feet 1.Q inches 4,941.20 3.W 16,819 03M 37,6R 0.865 25-yr Runoff Vdume(PI=1.81 In.)= 0.753 cre-ftd 1.81 incM1a 4;941.40 4.00 17,478 0.401 41,102 0.944 50-yr Runoff Volume(P1=L27 in.)= 0.9% cre-fed 2.27 inches 4,94 60 4.20 18,025 0.414 44,652 1.025 100Nr Runoff Vdume(P1=2.86 In.)= 1322 auhe4eet 2.86 inches 4,941.80 4.90 18,456 0.424 48,300 1.109 500-yr Runoff Volume(P1=439 in.)= 2.155 aoa ket 4.39 inches 4,942.00 4.60 18,890 0.434 52,034 1.195 Approximde 21,Detedlon Volume= 0.248 acre4ed 4,947.20 4.W 19,327 0.444 55,856 1.282 Approximate 5-yr Datedlon Volume= 0384 acrefied Approximate 10yr Detention Volume= 0.463 aoe*ed Approximate 25-Yr Datentlon Volume= 0.558 ao.4vi t Approximate S0jr Detention Volume= 0.639 aor d Approiamate 100yr Detention Volume= 0.3W .-fter Define Zones and Basin Georrletry Zone 1 Vdume(User Defined)= 0.037 c faet WQCV nut provided! Zone 2 Volume(User Defined-Zone 1)= 1.233 cre-ftet Select Zone 3 Storage Volume(Optional)= -fed Total Detention Basin Volume= 1.270 .-feet mNal Surcharge Volume(ISV)= ft' Initial Sucharge Depth(ISD)= x.r ft Total Available Detention Depth(Ht )= ft Depth d Tn,He Chanel(Hrc)= Ueer It Slope of Triclde Channd(6m) Slopes d Main Basin Sides(S ir)= user H:V Basin Langth-to-Wdth Ratio(Ry) Initial Surcharge Area(A-)= R' S--huge Vdume Length(L1sv)= R Surcharge Vdume Width(W1sv) R If DePth Basin Haor(Hnaoe)= U,,r R Length of Basin Raor(L_.)= ft Width of Basin Roor(Wr.nb0= R rea d B Aasin Raor(AF,00e)= R' Volume d Basin Raor(Vf,aoe)= Ra Depth of Mal"BaHrvan aln( )= ft Length of Main Basin(Croon)= R Width f Main Badn(W..). R Area of Main Basin(A.-)= it,Volume of Main Basin(VH h)= ft' Calculated Totel Basin Volume(V"= a-hat .11-an!ion-v4.O6-Pond 1,Basin 3/5/ N,10:43 AM DETENTIONSTAGE-STORAGE ANFD-Detention,✓e-on 4 06(u/y 2022) 20 9 00 15 14)f10 '3 10 sego S 0 OAO 1.50 3.00 450 6.OD ...if) — gt6(ft) —WMdM(ft) —Are(W.ft.) 0.- .300 0.345 1 0.9'/5 p 0.230 0.650 u 3 � 0-1 0.315. 0.000 0.000 0.. 1.50 3A0 4.50 6.W gdge(ft) —Area(ane) —Volume(ac-� MHF0.0atanlion_v4A0-Pond 1,Basin W&RO24.10:'43 AM DETENTIONOUTLET MHFD-Detention, Version 4.06(July 2022) Project:Landing at Lemay Basin ID:Pond 1 r E] Estimated Estimated zoNEf . Stage(ft) Volume(ac-ft) Outlet Type vowxElEI Zone 1(User) 1.00 0.037 Rectangular Orifice Zone 2(User) 4.78 1.233 Weir&Pipe(Circular) ZONE I OND2 OFiF,Ct nmruNENr oaln°Es Zone 3 Not Utilized °0OL Example Zone Configuration(Retention Pond) Total(all zones) 1.270 User Input:Orifice at Underdrain Outlet(typically used to drain WOCV in a Filtration BMP) Calculated Parameters for Underdrain Underdrain Orifice Invert Depth= N/A ft(distance below the filtration media surface Orifice Area= N/A ftz P ) Underdrain Ori Underdrain Orifice Diameter= N/A inches Underdrain Orifice Centroid= N/A feet User Input: Orifice Plate with one or more orifices or Elliptical Slot Weir(typically used to drain WOCV and/or EURV in a sedimentation BMP) Calculated Parameters for Plate Centroid of Lowest Orifice= N/A ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) WQ Orifice Area per Row= "N/Aftz ftZ Depth at top of Zone using Orifice Plate= N/A ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Elliptical Half-Width= feet Orifice Plate:Orifice Vertical Spacing= N/A inches Elliptical Slot Centroid= feet Orifice Plate:Orifice Area per Row= N/A sq.inches Elliptical Slot Area= User Input: Stage and Total Area of Each Orifice Row(numbered from lowest to highest) Row 1(optional) I Row 2(optional) I Row 3(optional) I Row 4(optional) I Row 5(optional) I Row 6(optional) Row 7(optional) I Row 8(optional) Stage of Orifice Centroid(ft) N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A Orifice Area(sq.inches) N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A N/A Row 9(optional) Row 10(optional) Row 11(optional) Row 12(optional) Row 13(optional) Row 14(optional) Row 15(optional) Row 16(optional) Stage of Orifice Centroid(ft) N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A Orifice Area(sq.inches) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I N/A User Input: Vertical Orifice(Circular or Rectangular) Calculated Parameters for Vertical Orifice Zone 1 Rectangulai Not Selected Zone 1 Rectangulai Not Selected Invert of Vertical Orifice= 0.00 N/A ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Vertical Orifice Area= 0.25 N/A Ift, Depth at top of Zone using Vertical Orifice= 1.00 N/A ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Vertical Orifice Centroid= 0.50 N/A feet Vertical Orifice Height= 12.0i N/A inches Vertical Orifice Width= 3.00 inches User Input: Overflow Weir(Droobox with Flat or Sloped Grate and Outlet Pipe OR RectangularfTrapezoidal Weir and No Outlet Pipe) Calculated Parameters for Overflow Weir Zone 2 Weir Not Selected Zone 2 Weir Not Selected Overflow Weir Front Edge Height,Ho= 1.00 N/A ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Height of Grate Upper Edge,Ht= 1.75 N/A feet Overflow Weir Front Edge Length= 3.00 N/A feet Overflow Weir Slope Length= 3.09 N/A feet Overflow Weir Grate Slope= 4.00 N/A H:V Grate Open Area/100-yr Orifice Area= 27.46 N/A Horiz.Length of Weir Sides= 3.00 N/A feet Overflow Grate Open Area w/o Debris= 7.34 N/A ftz Overflow Grate Type= Close Mesh Grate N/A Overflow Grate Open Area w/Debris= 3.67 N/A ft2 Debris Clogging%=1 50% N/A % User Input:Outlet Pipe w/Flow Restriction Plate(Circular Orifice.Restrictor Plate.or Rectangular Orifice) Calculated Parameters for Outlet Pipe w/Flow Restriction Plate Zone 2 Circular Not Selected Zone 2 Circular Not Selected Depth to Invert of Outlet Pipe= 0.01 N/A ft(distance below basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Outlet Orifice Area= 0.27 N/A ftz Circular Orifice Diameter= 7.00 N/A inches Outlet Orifice Centroid= 0.29 N/A feet Half-Central Angle of Restrior Plate on Pipe= N/A N/A radians User Input:Emergency Spillway(Rectangular or Trapezoidal) Calculated Parameters for Spillway Spillway Invert Stage= ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Spillway Design Flow Depth= feet Spillway Crest Length= feet Stage at Top of Freeboard= feet Spillway End Slopes= H:V Basin Area at Top of Freeboard= acres Freeboard above Max Water Surface= feet Basin Volume at Top of Freeboard= acre-ft Routed Hvdroara0h Results The user can override the default CUHP h dro ra hs and runoff volumes by entering new values in the Inflow H dio raphs table Columns W through AF. Design Storm Return Period= W CV EURV 2 Year 5 Year iiiiiiiikELLOYear 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year 500 Year One-Hour Rainfall Depth(in)= N/A N/A 0.82 1,14 1.40 1.81 2.27 2.86 4.39 CUHP Runoff Volume(acre-ft)= 0.135 0.402 0.260 0.399 0.527 0.753 0.996 1.322 2.155 Inflow Hydrograph Volume(acre-ft)= N/A N/A 0.260 0.399 0.527 0.753 0.996 1.322 2.155 CUHP Predevelopment Peak Q(cfs)= N/A N/A 0.0 0.5 1.3 3.3 5.0 7.5 13.3 OPTIONAL Override Predevelopment Peak Q(cfs)= N/A N/A Predevelopment Unit Peak Flow,q(cfs/acre)= N/A N/A 0.01 0.09 0.21 0.54 0.82 1.23 2.18 Peak Inflow Q(cfs)= N/A N/A 3.3 5.1 6.7 9.9 13.1 17.5 28.1 Peak Outflow Q(cfs)= 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.7 1 2.0 2.2 2.5 1 2.7 Ratio Peak Outflow to Predevelopment Q= N/A N/A N/A 3.0 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 Structure Controlling Flow= Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 N/A Max Velocity through Grate 1(fps)= 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Max Velocity through Grate 2(fps)= N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Time to Drain 97%of Inflow Volume(hours)= 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 Time to Drain 99%of Inflow Volume(hours)= 2 4 3 4 5 6 7 9 12 Maximum Ponding Depth(it)= 1.57 2.49 1.39 1.79 2.11 2.74 3.32 4.09 4.80 Area at Maximum Pending Depth(acres)= 0.23 0.32 0.20 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.41 0.44 Maximum Volume Stored(acre-ft)= 0.136 0.403 0.097 0.191 0.284 0.485 0.686 1 0.976 1 1.282 MHFD-Detention_v4-06-Pond 1,Outlet Structure 3/5/2024,10:43 AM DETENTIONOUTLET MHFD-Detention Version 4.06(July 2022 30 �SOOVR IN 500YR OUr -100YRIN 25 IMYR OUT �50YR IN 5MR OUT �25YR IN NL 20 25YROUT �IMR IN 10YR OUT �5YR IN 5YROUT 3 15 �2YRIN O EURV IN 1017:�'UV 5 UT ----------- - -a ��■ e� 0.1 1 10 TIME[hr] 6 -500YR -100YR -SOUR 5 -2511 -10YR -Im c2m 4 -EURV -wOCV S 0 3 O z 00, 0 z O 2 of 01 0 0.1 1 10 100 DRAIN TIME[hr] 60,000 SO O User Area]ft-2] Interpolated Area[ft-2] q 50,000 -t-Summary Area[W2] -Volume[ft-3] 8 -4F-Summary Volume[ft-3] -Outflow [cfs] 7 40,000 --*--Summary Outflow[cfs] 6 j 30,000 5 O > 5 O 4 20,000 C 3 2 10,000 1 0 0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 PONDING DEPTH[fit] S-A-V-D Chart Axis Override X-axis LeftY-Axis Ri ht Y-Axis minimum bound maximum bound MHFD-Detention_V4-06-Pond 1,Outlet Structure 3/5/2024,10:43 AM A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP POND 2 nAVANT r CIVIL GROUP DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD Project Number 1791-003 Project Location Fort Collins Calculations By: AIRS Pond No : Pond 2 Input Variables Results Design Storm 100-yr Required Detention Volume Developed "C" = 0.84 Area (A)= 11.46 acres 120331 ft3 Max Release Rate = 1.00 cfs 2.76 ac-ft 100-yr Inflow Outflow Storage Time Time Intensity Q100 (Runoff) (Release) Detention Volume Volume Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft ) (ft ) (ft ) 5 300 9.950 95.78 28735 300.0 28434.8 10 600 7.720 74.32 44589 600.0 43989.5 15 900 6.520 62.76 56488 900.0 55587.7 20 1200 5.600 53.91 64689 1200.0 63489.4 25 1500 4.980 47.94 71909 1500.0 70409.2 30 1800 4.520 43.51 78320 1800.0 76520.4 35 2100 4.080 39.28 82479 2100.0 80379.0 40 2400 3.740 36.00 86407 2400.0 84006.6 45 2700 3.460 33.31 89930 2700.0 87229.8 50 3000 3.230 31.09 93280 3000.0 90279.8 55 3300 3.030 29.17 96254 3300.0 92954.4 60 3600 2.860 27.53 99113 3600.0 95513.4 65 3900 2.720 26.18 102117 3900.0 98216.9 70 4200 2.590 24.93 104716 4200.0 100516.0 75 4500 2.480 23.87 107431 4500.0 102930.6 80 4800 2.380 22.91 109972 4800.0 105172.0 85 5100 2.290 22.04 112427 5100.0 107326.7 90 5400 2.210 21.27 114881 5400.0 109481.5 95 5700 2.130 20.50 116874 5700.0 111174.1 100 6000 2.060 19.83 118982 6000.0 112982.3 105 6300 2.000 19.25 121293 6300.0 114992.6 110 6600 1 1.940 18.68 123256 6600.0 116656.4 115 6900 1.890 1 18.19 125538 1 6900.0 1 118637.9 120 7200 1.840 1 17.71 127531 1 7200.0 1 120330.5 • STAGE-STORAGE MHFO-Detention,Version 4.06(July 2022) Project:Landing at Lemay Basin ID:Pond 2 Ke oxemc Depth Increment= 0.20 R OptionalOptional POO1 Example Zone Configuration(Retention Pond) Stage-Storage Stage Override Length Width Area Override Area Volume Volume Desch io R StageR ft ft (it) Area R2 acre R' ac-R Watershed Information Top of Micropool - 0.00 - - - 59 0.001 Selected BMP Type= EDS 4935.20 - 0.20 - - - 252 0.006 31 O.ODI Watershed Area= 11.40 acres 4,935.40 " 0.40 -- - -- 1,207 0.028 177 O.OD4 Watershed Length= 918 ft 4,935.60 - 0.60 - - - 2,898 0.067 597 0.013 Watershed Length to Centroid= 437 R 4,935.90 -- 0.80 -- -- -- 4,949 0.114 1,372 0.032 Watershed Slope= 0.007 ft/ft 4,936.00 -- 1.0D -- -- -- 6,946 0.159 2,562 0.059 Watershed Imperiousness= 59.00% percent 4,936.20 - 1.20 - - - 8,737 0.201 4,130 0.095 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A= 0.0% percent 4,936.40 1.40 10,360 0.238 6,040 0.139 Percentage Hytlrdogic Soil Group B= 0.0% percent 4,936.60 1.60 -- - -- 11,778 0.270 8,253 0.189 Percentage Hydrologic Soll Groups C/D= 10D4% Percent 4,936.80 -- 1.80 -- - -- 12,763 0.293 10,708 0.245 Target WQC.V Drain Time 40.0 hours 4,937.00 2.0D 13,662 0.314 13,35D 0.3D6 Location for 1-hr Rainfall Depth=User Input 4,937.20 - 2.20 - - - 14,382 0.33D 16,154 0.371 After providing required inputs above including 1-hour rainfall 4,937.40 2.40 -' -' -- 14,928 0.343 19,086 0.438 depths,click'Run CUHP'to generate ruroff hydrographs using 4,937.60 2.60 15,478 0.355 22,126 0.508 the embedded Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure. Optional User Overrides 4,937.90 - 2.80 - - - 16,032 0.358 25,277 0.580 Water Quality Capture Volume(WQLV)= 0.025 cre-feet 0.025acre-feet 4,938.00 -- 3.00 -- -- -- 16,590 0.381 28,539 0.655 Excess Urban Rurwff Volume(EURV)= 0.645acre-feet acre-feet 4,938.20 3.20 17,153 0.394 31,914 0.733 2-yr Ruroff Volume(PI=0.82 in.)= 0.417acre-feet 0.82 Inches 4,938.40 -- 3.40 -- - -- 17,720 0.407 35,4D1 0.813 5-yr RuncR Volume(P1=1.14 in.)= 0.657acre-feet 1.14 Inches 4,939.60 3.60 18,292 0.420 39,002 1 0.895 10yr RuncR Volume(P1=1.4 In.)= 0.887acre-feet 1.40 inches 4,938.60 3.80 18,86E 0.433 42,718 0.981 25-yr Runcff Volume(PI=1.81 in.)= 1.310 cre-feet 1.81 inches 4,939.00 -- 4.00 -- -- -- 19,448 0.446 46,55D 1.069 50-yr Runoff Volume IN=2.27.In.)= 1.760 acre-feet 2.27 inches 4,939.20 4.20 20,032 0.460 50,498 1.159 100'yr Runoff Volume(PI=2.86 in.)= 2.372 acre-feet 2.86 Inches 4,939.40 - 4.40 - - - 20,621 0.473 54,563 1.253 500-yr Runoff Volume IN=4.39 in.)= 3.926acre-feet 4.39 inches 4,939.60 -- 4.60 -- -- -- 21,214 0.487 58,746 1.349 Approximate 2-yr Detention Volume= 0.396 cre-feet 4,939.80 4.80 21,812 0.5D1 63,049 1.447 Approximate 5yr Detention Volume= 0.629 acre-feet 4,940.00 -- 5.00 -- - -- 22,414 0.515 67,472 1.549 Approximate 10-yr Detention Volume= 0.756 acre-feet 4,940.20 5.20 23,020 0.528 72,015 1.653 Approximate 25-yr Detention Volume= 0916 acre-feet 4,940.40 5.40 23,631 0.542 76,680 1.760 Approximate 5D-yr Detention Volume= 1.054 acre-feet 4,940.60 5.60 24,246 0.557 81,468 1.870 Approximate 100-W Detention Volume= 1.315 acre- 4,940,BO 5.80 24,865 0.171 86,379 1.983 4,941.00 6.00 25,489 0.585 91,414 2.099 Define Zones and Basin Geometry 4,'41.20 6.20 26,117 0.600 96,575 1217 Zone I Volume(WQLV)= 0.025acre-feet 4,941.40 6.40 26,749 0.614 101,861 2.338 Zone 2 Volume(User Defined-Zone 1)= 2.760acre-feet 4,941.60 640 27,386 0.629 107,275 2.463 Select Zone 3 Storage Volume(Optional)= acre-feet 4,941.80 6.80 28,027 0.643 112,816 2.590 Total Detention Basin Volume= 2.785acre-feet 4,942.00 7.00 28,672 0.658 118,486 1 2.720 Initial Surcharge Volume(DW)= user R' 4,942.20 7.20 31,444 0.722 124,498 2.858 Initial Surcharge Depth(ISD)= user R Total Available Detention Depth(Hm )= user R Depth ofTncke Channel(HR)= User R Slope ofTrl[Ide Channel(Snc)= user ft/ft Slopes of Maln Basin SldPs(S�i�)= user H:V Basin Lengttfto-Width Ratio(Ri y)= user Initial Surcharge Area(Any)= user R4 Surcharge Volume Length(Lsv)= user ft Surcharge Volume Width(Wsv)= user R Depth of Basin Floor(HF=R)= User ft Length of Basin Floor(LF=R)= User ft Width of Basin Floor(WF=R)= User R Area of Basin Floor(AFLooR)= User R2 Volume of Basin Floor(VM )= User R' Depth of Main Basin(HMARI)= user R Length.of Main Basin(LMARU)= user R Width of Main Basin(WMAH)= User R Area of Main Basin(AMAM)= user R� Volume of Main Basin NAM)= User ft' Calculated Total Basin Volume(Vt )= useracre-feet MHFD-Detention v408-Pond 2,Basin 3/5/2024,11:19 AM. • STAGE-STORAGE MHFD-Detention,Persian 4.06(July 2022) 31600 15 23]00 d "j in 15800$y 5 19t10 0 0 Mo 2A0 4- 6.00 8A0: stage ift) —Length(ftlWidth(ft) —Area(sq.R) 0.]40 2 W 0— 2146 C a Y 0aW aW E 3 '0",000 OA00 0, 2A0 4A0 6.00 •8:00 .. Scq•(R.) —Area.�aQasJ —Volume�auft) MHFDI]t,Nion,405-Pond 2,Basin 3/5/2024,11:19 AM. DETENTIONBASIN OUTLET MHFD-Detention, Version 4.06(July 2022) Project:Landing at Lemay Basin ID:Pond 2 zaaes Estimated Estimated Loam "'- Stage(ft) Volume(ac-ft) Outlet Type vawxe °1RP1 Zone 1(WQCV) qzone.$) 0.025 Orifice Plate - Zone 2(User) 2.760 Weir&Pipe(Circular) ZONE I AND O 11- PmruNvrt ORIFICES Zone 3 Not Utilized POOL Example Zone Configuration(Retention Pond) Tota2.785 User Input:Orifice at Underdrain Outlet(typically used to drain WOCV in a Filtration BMP) Calculated Parameters for Underdrain Underdrain Orifice Invert Depth= N/A ft(distance below the filtration media surface) Underdrain Orifice Area= N/A ft Underdrain Orifice Diameter= N/A linches Underdrain Orifice Centroid= N/A Ifeet User Input: Orifice Plate with one or more orifices or Elliptical Slot Weir(typically used to drain WOCV and/or EURV in a sedimentation BMP) Calculated Parameters for Plate Centroid of Lowest Orifice= 0.00 ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) WQ Orifice Area per Row= "N/Aft, ft Depth at top of Zone using Or Plate= 0.74 ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Elliptical Half-Width= feet Orifice Plate:Orifice Vertical Spacing= N/A inches Elliptical Slot Centroid= feet Orifice Plate:Orifice Area per Row= N/A sci.inches Elliptical Slot Area= User Input: Stacie and Total Area of Each Orifice Row(numbered from lowest to hiohest) Row 1(required) I Row 2(optional) I Row 3(optional) I Row 4(optional) Row 5(optional) Row 6(optional) Row 7(optional) Row 8(optional) Stage of Orifice Centroid(ft)l 0.00 1 0.30 1 0.60 Orifice Area(sq.inches)l 0.78 0.99 0.99 Row 9(optional) Row 10(optional) Row 11(optional) Row 12(optional) Row 13(optional) Row 14(optional) Row 15(optional) Row 16(optional) Stage of Orifice Centrox(ft) Orifice Area(sq.inches) User Input: Vertical Orifice(Circular or Rectangular) Calculated Parameters for Vertical Orifice Not Selected Not Selected Not Selected Not Selected Invert of Vertical Orifice= N/A N/A ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Vertical Orifice Area= N/A N/A if Depth at top of Zone using Vertical Orifice= N/A N/A ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Vertical Orifice Centroid= N/A N/A feet Vertical Orifice Diameter= N/A N/A inches User Input: Overflow Weir(Dropbox with Flat or Sloped Grate and Outlet Pipe OR Rectangular/Trapezoidal Weir and No Outlet Pipe Calculated Parameters for Overflow Weir Zone 2 Weir Not Selected Zone 2 Weir Not Selected Overflow Weir Front Edge Height,Ho= 1.00 N/A ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Height of Grate Upper Edge,Ht= 1.75 N/A feet Overflow Weir Front Edge Length= 3.00 N/A feet Overflow Weir Slope Length= 3.09 N/A feet Overflow Weir Grate Slope= 4.00 N/A H:V Grate Open Area/100-yr Orifice Area= 84.09 N/A Horiz.Length of Weir Sides= 3.00 N/A feet Overflow Grate Open Area w/o Debris= 7.34 N/A ft Overflow Grate Type= Close Mesh Grate N/A Overflow Grate Open Area w/Debris= 3.67 N/A fL Debris Clogging%= 50% N/A O/o User Input:Outlet Pipe w/Flow Restriction Plate(Circular Orifice.Restrior Plate,or Rectangular Orifice) Calculated Parameters for Outlet Pipe w/Flow Restriction Plate Zone 2 Circular Not Selected Zone 2 Circular Not Selected Depth to Invert of Outlet Pipe= 0.00 N/A ft(distance below basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Outlet Orifice Area= 0.09 N/A ft Circular Orifice Diameter= 4.00 N/A inches Outlet Orifice Centroid= 0.17 N/A feet Half-Central Angle of Restrictor Plate on Pipe= N/A N/A radians User Input:Emergency Spillway(Rectangular or Trapezoidal) Calculated Parameters for Spillway Spillway Invert Stage= ft(relative to basin bottom at Stage=0 ft) Spillway Design Flow Depth= feet Spillway Crest Length= feet Stage at Top of Freeboard= feet Spillway End Slopes= H:V Basin Area at Top of Freeboard= acres Freeboard above Max Water Surface= feet Basin Volume at Top of Freeboard= acre-ft Routed Hydroaraph Results The user can override the default CUHP h dro ra hs and runoff volumes by entering new values in the Inflow Hydrographs table Columns W through AF. Design Storm Return Period= W CV EURV 2Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year 100 Year 500 Year One-Hour Rainfall Depth(in)= N/A N/A 0.82 1.14 1.40 1.81 2.27 2.86 4.39 CUHP Runoff Volume(acre-ft)= 0.025 0.645 0.417 0.657 0.887 1.310 1.760 2.372 3.926 Inflow Hydrograph Volume(acre-ft)= N/A N/A 0.417 0.657 0.887 1.310 1.760 2.372 3.926 CUHP Predevelopment Peak Q(cfs)= N/A N/A 0.1 1.3 3.1 7.7 11.6 17.4 30.9 OPTIONAL Override Predevelopment Peak Q(cfs)= N/A N/A Predevelopment Unit Peak Flow,q(cis/acre)= N/A N/A 0.01 0.11 0.27 0.67 1.02 1.53 2.71 Peak Inflow Q(cfs)= N/A N/A 6.2 9.9 13.3 20.3 27.2 36.8 59.7 Peak Outflow Q(cfs)= 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 1 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 Ratio Peak Outflow to Predevelopment Q= N/A N/A N/A 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Structure Controlling Flow= Plate Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 Outlet Plate 1 N/A Max Velocity through Grate 1(fps)= N/A 0.08 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Max Velocity through Grate 2(fps)= N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Time to Drain 97%of Inflow Volume(hours)= 8 21 20 22 24 28 32 37 52 Time to Drain 99%of Inflow Volume(hours)= 9 25 23 26 29 34 39 44 58 Maximum Ponding Depth(ft)= 0.74 2.98 2.08 2.72 3.29 4.24 5.12 6.18 7.20 Area at Maximum Ponding Depth(acres)= 0.10 0.38 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.46 0.52 0.60 0.72 Maximum Volume Stored(acre-ft)= 0.025 0.648 0.329 0.551 0.768 1.178 1.611 2.205 2.858 MHFD-Detention_v4-06-Pond 2,Outlet Structure 315/2024,11:19 AM DETENTIONOUTLET MHFD-Detention Version 4.06 July 2022 70 �SOOYRIN 500YR OUT -100YRIN 60 1oOVR our 50YR IN 50YR OUr 50 25YRIN 25YROUr �IWR IN --MYR Our 40 —SYRIN ___5YROUT 30 —2YRIN u.30 2YROUr EURV IN -EURVOUT WOCV IN 20 ___WO 11 ELL 10 0 0.1 1 10 TIME[hr] 8 _MoYP _1WYP 7 �50YR �25YR R 6 _SfR _2YR �EURV S 0 4 O 2 O 2 O a 3 2 1 0 I 0.1 1 10 100 DRAIN TIME[hr] 30 O User Area[ft^2] 120,000 —Interpolated Area[ft^2] 9 --*--Summary Area[ft^2] Volume[ft^3] 8 100,000 —t-Summary Volume[ft^3] Outflow[cFs] 7 80,000 --*--Summary Outflow[cfs] 6 5 O p 60,000 O 4 x a 40,000 3 2 20,000 1 0 0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 PONDING DEPTH[ft] S-A-V-D Chart Axis Override X-axis Left Y-Axis RightY-Axis minimum bound maximum bound MHFD-Detention_v4-06-Pond 2,Outlet Structure 315/2024,11:19AM A. AVM-- e 000. CIVIL GROUP STORM SEWERS Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® Plan 5 RG Inlets 4 7 Storm 3-2 6 3 2 1 Outfall Project File: Storm3_Main.stm Number of lines:7 Date:3/6/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Inventory Report Page Line Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Line ID No. Dnstr Line Defl Junc Known Drng Runoff Inlet Invert Line Invert Line Line N J-Loss Inlet/ Line Length angle Type Q Area Coeff Time El Dn Slope El Up Size Shape Value Coeff Rim El No. (ft) (deg) (cfs) (ac) (C) (min) (ft) M (ft) (in) (n) (K) (ft) 1 End 37.792 -14.932 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4935.83 0.40 4935.98 36 Cir 0.012 0.73 4942.65 ST PIPE 3-1 2 1 167.062 -43.470 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4935.98 0.40 4936.65 36 Cir 0.012 1.00 4942.28 ST PIPE 3-2 3 2 77.952 -88.722 None 14.03 0.00 0.00 0.0 4936.79 0.50 4937.18 30 Cir 0.012 0.15 4942.23 ST PIPE 3-4 4 3 233.171 -0.860 None 24.57 0.00 0.00 0.0 4937.18 0.50 4938.34 30 Cir 0.012 0.15 4943.75 Pipe-(73) 5 4 159.617 6.799 None 5.39 0.00 0.00 0.0 4938.38 1.50 4940.77 15 Cir 0.012 1.00 4945.17 Pipe-(88) 6 2 125.402 0.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4936.64 0.40 4937.14 12 Cir 0.012 0.88 4944.06 ST PIPE 3-3 7 6 40.375 59.389 None 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.0 4937.14 0.42 4937.31 12 Cir 0.012 1.00 4938.71 Pipe-(71) Storm 3-2 Project File: Storm3_Main.stm Number of lines:7 Date: 3/6/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) N N (ft) (K) (ft) 1 36 46.49 4935.83 4938.08 2.25 5.69 8.18 1.04 4939.12 0.498 37.792 4935.98 4938.38 2.40 6.07 7.66 0.91 4939.30 0.433 0.465 0.176 0.73 0.67 2 36 46.49 4935.98 4939.05 3.00 7.07 6.58 0.67 4939.72 0.414 167.06 4936.65 4939.74 3.00 7.07 6.58 0.67 4940.41 0.414 0.414 0.692 1.00 0.67 3 30 43.99 4936.79 4940.41 2.50 4.91 8.96 1.25 4941.66 0.981 77.952 4937.18 4941.18 2.50 4.91 8.96 1.25 4942.43 0.980 0.981 0.764 0.15 0.19 4 30 29.96 4937.18 4941.37 2.50 4.91 6.10 0.58 4941.95 0.455 233.17 14938.34 4942.43 2.50 4.91 6.10 0.58 4943.01 0.455 0.455 1.061 0.15 0.09 5 15 5.39 4938.38 4942.51 1.25 1.23 4.39 0.30 4942.81 0.594 159.61 14940.77 4943.46 1.25 1.23 4.39 0.30 4943.76 0.594 0.594 0.948 1.00 0.30 6 12 2.50 4936.64 4940.41 1.00 0.79 3.18 0.16 4940.57 0.420 125.40 4937.14 4940.94 1.00 0.79 3.18 0.16 4941.10 0.420 0.420 0.527 0.88 0.14 7 12 2.50 4937.14 4941.08 1.00 0.79 3.18 0.16 4941.24 0.420 40.375 4937.31 4941.25 1.00 0.79 3.18 0.16 4941.41 0.420 0.420 0.170 1.00 0.16 Storm 3-2 Project File: Storm3_Main.stm Number of lines:7 Run Date: 3/6/2024 c=cir a=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: Storm3_Main.stm N CO Ln 7 7 7 7 7 LO c c LO 0 = 000 c M O = LO 0 S 1` 0 (p J (O J N J (y J ti J M CO 00 01 00 00 V W r- 00 00 N m G) N(O� N M M M �r— N V M ^ V O M LO M ��� LO NCO CO O ��ti N �N[O � �O p CO r, M CO 00 CO CO 00 CO CO Q> M M In V Elev. (ft) o w (�, wv� o wv� C wv� wv� w� ( -p W C W W N -6 W W N -6 W W u-) -6 W W CO -6 W Co E > E > > @ E > > E > > E > > E > �n(� CO t7 S 5 to (7 S Ecn C7 C� cn C7 4957.00 4957.00 4952.00 4952.00 4947.00 4947.00 4942.00 4942.00 — --- v Du 9.6 4937.00 - 0" 0.5 % 4937.00 0 6 a o 4932.00 4932.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Storm Sewer Profile Proj. M : S=Main.stm Storm 3-2 000 c J CD S E zQ N �� 04 4 CO CO O � 6,6 O CO CO � �CO� n �� LO Elev. (ft) CDw t T N Co W� o p W W + pWW + pW cn(� cn (D cn 0 4954.00 4954.00 4950.00 4950.00 4946.00 4946.00 4942.00 4942.00 4938.00 4938.00 o - � 4934.00 4934.00 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® Plan Pond 2 Outlet Structure 4 Pond 1 Overflow 3 Inlet 2 1 Outfall Storm 1 Project File Storm3 Pond 1 Outfall. tm Number of lines:4 Date:3/1/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Inventory Report Page Line Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Line ID No. Dnstr Line DO Junc Known Drng Runoff Inlet Invert Line Invert Line Line N J-Loss Inlet/ Line Length angle Type Q Area Coeff Time El Dn Slope El Up Size Shape Value Coeff Rim El No. (ft) (deg) (cfs) (ac) (C) (min) (ft) M (ft) (in) (n) (K) (ft) 1 End 50.189 -61.035 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4934.13 0.70 4934.48 15 Cir 0.012 1.00 4935.92 Pipe-(46) 2 1 46.849 -85.981 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4934.48 0.49 4934.71 15 Cir 0.012 0.85 4942.00 ST PIPE 1-1 3 2 24.949 54.679 None 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.0 4934.71 0.52 4934.84 15 Cir 0.012 0.15 4943.28 ST PIPE 1-1 (2)(1 4 3 30.411 -0.521 None 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4934.84 0.49 4934.99 15 Cir 0.012 1.00 4936.43 ST PIPE 1-1 (1) Storm 1 Project Fil Storm3 Pond 1 Outfall. tm Number of lines:4 Date: 3/1/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) N N (ft) (K) (ft) 1 15 3.50 4934.13 4934.88 0.75 0.77 4.55 0.32 4935.20 0.000 50.189 4934.48 4935.23 0.75** 0.77 4.52 0.32 4935.55 0.000 0.000 n/a 1.00 n/a 2 15 3.50 4934.48 4935.26 0.78* 0.81 4.34 0.29 4935.55 0.490 46.849 4934.71 4935.49 0.78 0.81 4.33 0.29 4935.78 0.489 0.490 0.229 0.85 0.25 3 15 3.50 4934.71 4935.74 1.03 1.08 3.24 0.16 4935.90 0.248 24.949 4934.84 4935.78 0.94 0.98 3.56 0.20 4935.97 0.303 0.276 0.069 0.15 0.03 4 15 1.00 4934.84 4935.80 0.96 0.33 0.98 0.14 4935.95 0.000 30.411 4934.99 4935.38 0.39** 0.33 3.03 0.14 4935.53 0.000 0.000 n/a 1.00 n/a Storm 1 Project File: Storm3 Pond 1 Outfall.s m Number of lines:4 Run Date: 3/1/2024 - j Notes:* depth assumed:**Critical depth. ; c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: Storm3_Pond 1 Outfall.stm N M V ao NO E 00 E MO 0 M M °)Co 00 o (N v M O MVV -rl� r SOD CO Co M4 OO V 00 O)VV M Mid' Co OV4 M MV p CO MM O MM CI) �MM M It Elev. (ft) C w Lo wv� rn w�� N wv� to wv o p w o -6ww o -;ww + oww + �;w t�(� S to O S E to C7 E E <n CD E E in C7 E 4951.00 4951.00 4947.00 4947.00 4943.00 4943.00 IZ 4939.00 4939.00 4935.00 0 4935.00 -1 0 0 4931.00 4931.00 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® Plan 1 2 Type-R Inlets on Cordova Project File: Storm4.stm Number of lines:2 Date:9/24/2023 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Inventory Report Page Line Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Line ID No. Dnstr Line DO Junc Known Drng Runoff Inlet Invert Line Invert Line Line N J-Loss Inlet/ Line Length angle Type Q Area Coeff Time El Dn Slope El Up Size Shape Value Coeff Rim El No. (ft) (deg) (cfs) (ac) (C) (min) (ft) M (ft) (in) (n) (K) (ft) 1 End 40.496 5.843 None 4.67 0.00 0.00 0.0 4938.02 0.49 4938.22 15 Cir 0.012 0.56 4941.72 ST PIPE 4-1 2 1 54.334 30.503 None 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.0 4938.32 0.52 4938.60 15 Cir 0.012 1.00 4941.73 ST PIPE 4-2 Project File: Storm4.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 9/24/2023 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) N N (ft) (K) (ft) 1 15 8.06 4938.02 4939.14 1.12 1.16 6.95 0.75 4939.89 1.173 40.496 4938.22 4939.73 1.25 1.23 6.57 0.67 4940.40 1.328 1.250 0.506 0.56 0.38 2 15 3.39 4938.32 4940.10 1.25 1.23 2.76 0.12 4940.22 0.235 54.334 4938.60 4940.23 1.25 1.23 2.76 0.12 4940.35 0.235 0.235 0.128 1.00 0.12 Project File: Storm4.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 9/24/2023 c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: Storm4.stm @ 7 N 7 � M J NOS C MO O O N ~NN J ~O O O N M (O O O O MOM M MO p M V CO CO CO ACM Elev. (ft) g w w M M w o p w (D qww o w (a E .2 E > > M E5 C) E U) cD S E cn (D S 4951.00 4951.00 4948.00 4948.00 4945.00 4945.00 4942.00 4942.00 4939.00 4939.00 15' 0.52% 4936.00 4936.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® Plan 8 RG Inlet 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ' Outfall Project File: Storm5.stm Number of lines:8 Date:2/29/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Inventory Report Page Line Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Line ID No. Dnstr Line Defl Junc Known Drng Runoff Inlet Invert Line Invert Line Line N J-Loss Inlet/ Line Length angle Type Q Area Coeff Time El Dn Slope El Up Size Shape Value Coeff Rim El No. (ft) (deg) (cfs) (ac) (C) (min) (ft) M (ft) (in) (n) (K) (ft) 1 End 68.499 -60.702 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4935.66 1.99 4937.02 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 4944.28 ST PIPE 5-1 2 1 242.279 -90.137 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4937.02 0.50 4938.23 24 Cir 0.012 0.15 4944.35 ST PIPE 5-2 3 2 18.675 0.003 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4938.23 0.48 4938.32 24 Cir 0.012 0.15 4944.40 Pipe-(23) 4 3 75.391 0.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4938.32 0.50 4938.70 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 4945.46 Pipe-(25) 5 4 92.019 -0.102 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4939.57 0.50 4940.03 15 Cir 0.012 0.15 4946.00 ST PIPE 5-3 6 5 126.881 0.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4940.03 0.50 4940.66 15 Cir 0.012 1.00 4946.39 ST PIPE 5-3(1) 7 6 65.044 90.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4940.66 0.49 4940.98 15 Cir 0.012 0.99 4947.24 ST PIPE 5-4 8 7 119.059 -80.596 None 2.98 0.00 0.00 0.0 4940.98 0.50 4941.58 15 Cir 0.012 1.00 4943.03 ST PIPE 5-4(1) Project File: Storm5.stm Number of lines:8 Date: 2/29/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M M (ft) (K) (ft) 1 24 22.43 4935.66 4937.35 1.69 2.83 7.92 0.98 4938.33 0.000 68.499 4937.02 4938.71 j 1.69** 2.83 7.93 0.98 4939.69 0.000 0.000 n/a 1.00 n/a 2 24 22.43 4937.02 4939.02 2.00" 3.14 7.14 0.79 4939.81 0.838 242.27 4938.23 4941.05 2.00 3.14 7.14 0.79 4941.84 0.838 0.838 2.031 0.15 0.12 3 24 22.43 4938.23 4941.17 2.00 3.14 7.14 0.79 4941.96 0.838 18.675 4938.32 4941.33 2.00 3.14 7.14 0.79 4942.12 0.838 0.838 0.157 0.15 0.12 4 24 22.43 4938.32 4941.45 2.00 3.14 7.14 0.79 4942.24 0.838 75.391 4938.70 4942.08 2.00 3.14 7.14 0.79 4942.87 0.838 0.838 0.632 1.00 0.79 5 15 2.98 4939.57 4942.87 1.25 1.23 2.43 0.09 4942.96 0.182 92.019 4940.03 4943.04 1.25 1.23 2.43 0.09 4943.13 0.181 0.182 0.167 0.15 0.01 6 15 2.98 4940.03 4943.05 1.25 1.23 2.43 0.09 4943.14 0.182 126.88 14940.66 4943.28 1.25 1.23 2.43 0.09 4943.37 0.181 0.182 0.230 1.00 0.09 7 15 2.98 4940.66 4943.37 1.25 1.23 2.43 0.09 4943.47 0.182 65.044 4940.98 4943.49 1.25 1.23 2.43 0.09 4943.58 0.181 0.182 0.118 0.99 0.09 8 15 2.98 4940.98 4943.58 1.25 1.23 2.43 0.09 4943.67 0.182 119.05 4941.58 4943.80 1.25 1.23 2.43 0.09 4943.89 0.181 0.182 0.216 1.00 0.09 Project File: Storm5.stm Number of lines:8 Run Date: 2/29/2024 Notes:. depth assumed;„Critical depth.;j-Line contains hyd.jump ; c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: Storm5.stm r N Co V LO Cfl 1- Co 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 v J 000 u>O 00 coo -, 00 w0� v0 MO O O Co NNN MMCO �NCN �Or.- OM CO MOO Co CoOM CO �00 CNN �MM �I�� 000 ' OCO Co rMM ' MLo M m � Co t M � V � M � V V � � CO � O M In O Or-r- r— M0000 LO 0060 V OCOM Co MOO V OOO 00 0) V D7� a � CO 7 CM CO r- "t C')cM 7 �}M CO 00 �M CO CO �V V I� V V r_ ct V 00 'V O _ O OO O OO O OHO OO O CnO OO O OO m Elev. (ft) O W Cfl WVV W7V N W7V O W�V O W�V N WVV M W�V O W7 W O -p W W aM -p W W M -6 W W -q W W V -p W W to .6 W W 0 -r j W W Co -p W fa U) C.D Co (D E cn (D to 0 E to 0 cn C7 cn C7 cn (D cn (D E 4957.00 4957.00 4952.00 4952.00 4947.00 4947.00 4942.00 4942.00 ------------ 119. 59U-15" 0.5 % b 4937.00 0.5000 b 4937.00 a - a 18.675Lf 24"@ 0.48% 4932.00 4932.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® Plan 7 6 5 Area Inlets 4 3 2 1 Outfall Project File: Storm6_New.stm Number of lines:7 Date:3/4/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Inventory Report Page Line Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Line ID No. Dnstr Line Defl Junc Known Drng Runoff Inlet Invert Line Invert Line Line N J-Loss Inlet/ Line Length angle Type Q Area Coeff Time El Dn Slope El Up Size Shape Value Coeff Rim El No. (ft) (deg) (cfs) (ac) (C) (min) (ft) M (ft) (in) (n) (K) (ft) 1 End 18.477 -50.037 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4938.38 0.49 4938.47 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 4942.47 ST PIPE 6-1 2 1 205.174 -91.407 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4938.68 0.50 4939.70 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 4943.00 ST PIPE 6-2(1) 3 2 67.646 0.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4939.70 0.50 4940.04 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 4943.50 ST PIPE 6-2(1)(3 4 3 67.854 0.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4940.04 0.50 4940.38 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 4944.00 ST PIPE 6-2(1)(2 5 4 56.716 0.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4940.38 0.49 4940.66 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 4944.75 ST PIPE 6-2(1)(1 6 5 87.035 12.813 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4940.76 0.51 4941.20 24 Cir 0.012 0.29 4946.19 Pipe-(86) 7 6 101.085 -14.112 None 15.14 0.00 0.00 0.0 4941.30 0.49 4941.80 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 4945.00 Pipe-(87) Project File: Storm6_New.stm Number of lines:7 Date: 3/4/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) N N (ft) (K) (ft) 1 24 17.14 4938.38 4939.87 1.49 2.51 6.83 0.72 4940.60 0.597 18.477 4938.47 4940.06 1.59 2.68 6.39 0.64 4940.70 0.517 0.557 0.103 1.00 0.64 2 24 17.14 4938.68 4940.70 2.00 3.14 5.46 0.46 4941.16 0.490 205.17 1.4939.70 4941.63 1.93 3.10 5.52 0.47 4942.10 0.427 0.458 0.941 1.00 0.47 3 24 16.64 4939.70 4942.10 2.00 3.14 5.30 0.44 4942.54 0.461 67.646 4940.04 4942.41 2.00 3.14 5.30 0.44 4942.85 0.461 0.461 0.312 1.00 0.44 4 24 16.14 4940.04 4942.85 2.00 3.14 5.14 0.41 4943.26 0.434 67.854 4940.38 4943.14 2.00 3.14 5.14 0.41 4943.55 0.434 0.434 0.294 1.00 0.41 5 24 15.64 4940.38 4943.55 2.00 3.14 4.98 0.39 4943.94 0.408 56.716 4940.66 4943.79 2.00 3.14 4.98 0.39 4944.17 0.407 0.408 0.231 1.00 0.39 6 24 15.14 4940.76 4944.17 2.00 3.14 4.82 0.36 4944.53 0.382 87.035 4941.20 4944.50 2.00 3.14 4.82 0.36 4944.86 0.382 0.382 0.332 0.29 0.10 7 24 15.14 4941.30 4944.61 2.00 3.14 4.82 0.36 4944.97 0.382 101.08 i4941.80 4944.99 2.00 3.14 4.82 0.36 4945.36 0.382 0.382 0.386 1.00 0.36 Project File: Storm6_New.stm Number of lines:7 Run Date: 3/4/2024 c=cir a=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: Storm6_New.stm r N CO v LO co r �O (O O 00 ' 0� 'Do E0 ^OS rn0S ^ 00 °o 0 r--°0 0o 0 O I 0�V0cM NV(4 O �OWOW 1l- MN°0 LO W0)M O WOO LO WOO M Co W O CO MM CO VMM N 'VV CO TV dl OC)M N Elev. (ft) ' M O '7 W O ' W Lu O -pWW N ZjWW N -pWW cM .6WW V .6WW Lo -pWW co .6W In U' cn t7 In CD E cn CD S.E In C7 S.E to t7 S.S CO 0 S E In U' S 4955.00 4955.00 4951.00 4951.00 4947.00 4947.00 4943.00 4943.00 .49% 4939.00 _ ° 7 - 4 5 ° 4939.00 - ° a 4935.00 4935.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Culvert Crossing: Storm 7 Culvert Summary Table-Storm 7 Discharge Total Culvert Headwater Inlet Outlet Flow Normal Critical Outlet Tailwater Outlet Tailwater Names Discharge Discharge Elevation Control Control Type Depth Depth Depth Depth Velocity Velocity (cfs) (cfs) (ft) Depth(ft) Depth(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) Q2 0.71 0.71 4943.61 0.47 0.20 1-S2n 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.14 2.88 1.92 Q100 3.08 3.08 4944.33 1.07 1.19 2- 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.32 4.31 2.98 M2c Crossing Summary Table Headwater Discharge Total Storm 7 Roadway Iterations Elevation Names Discharge Discharge Discharge (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 4943.61 Q2 0.71 0.71 0.00 1 4944.33 Q100 3.08 3.08 0.00 1 4946.10 Overtopping 8.09 8.09 0.00 Overtopping Crossing - Stornn 7, Design Discharge - 0.0 cfs Cuh•ert- Storm 7,Culvert Discharge- 3.1 cfs 4946.0 4945.5 4945.0 c 0 4944.5 0 W 4944.0 4943.5 4943.0 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Station(ft) A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP INLETS INLET SUMMARY ^AVANT r CIVIL GROUP Design Contributing QZ Flow Inlet Qioo Flow Qioo Flow Not Inlet Point Basin/Area (cfs)Inlet Type Inlet Size ) Capacity Intercepted Intercepted Notes (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1-2 c Pond 1 Type-C 3'x 3' n/a 2.5 -- Pond 1 Release Rate(2.5 cfs) 3-4 d Basin D Type-C 3'x 3' 3.22 14.03 - 3-5 m Basin M Type-C Tx 3' 5.77 - 24.57 - Inlet modeled with combined flows from Basins 1&K;in ultimate 4-1 j Basin J/K Type-R 5' 1.85 - 8.06 -- condition,an additional inlet will be installed on the east side of Cordova Rd.for Basin K 5-2.1 a Basin A Type-C Tx 3' 4.53 - 19.75 -- 6-8 b Basin B Type-C 3'x 3' 3.4 - 14.65 -- Basin E WQ flows are captured by inlet and routed to chambers. 8-4 a Basin E Type-R 5' 7.61 5.4 9.3 24.41 Basin E Qioo is 29.81 cfs; Interception is limited to inlet/chambers capacity(5.4 cfs);remaining 24.42 cfs of Qsoo overtops walk directly into Pond 1 Basin C WQ flows are captured by inlet and routed to chambers. 9-1 c Basin C Type-R 3'x 3' 5.68 5.4 5.4 19.38 Basin C Qioo is 24.78 cfs; Interception limited to inlet/chambers capacity(9.3 cfs);remaining 15.48 cfs of Qioo overtops walk directly into Pond 2 Area Inlet(s)around Area Inlet 8" Dome N/A -- 0.94 -- Building 1 Area Inlet(s) around Area Inlet 8" Dome N/A -- 0.94 -- Building 3 Area Inlet(s) around Area Inlet 8" Dome N/A -- 0.94 -- Building 4 Area Inlet(s) around Area Inlet 8" Dome N/A -- 0.94 -- Building 5 1 8" Dome capacity @ 1'of depth.Area inlet+pipe capacities are for n a n a Area Inlet(s) around Area Inlet 8" Dome N/A - 0.94 -- drainage onl •total flows are assigned at design points for primary / / Building 8 / g y� g g p Area Inlet(s) around pipe sizing. Area Inlet 8" Dome N/A -- 0.94 -- Building 9 Area Inlet(s) around Area Inlet 8" Dome N/A -- 0.94 -- Building 14 Area Inlet(s) around Area Inlet 8" Dome N/A -- 0.94 -- Building 17 Area Inlet(s) around Area Inlet 8" Dome N/A -- 0.94 Clubhouse -- MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.02 LAu ust 2022 INLET MANAGEMENT INLET NAME Inlet 4-1 Inlet 8-4 Inlet 9-1 Site Type Urban or Rural URBAN URBAN URBAN Inlet Application Street or Area STREET STREET STREET Hydraulic Condition In Sump In Sump In Sum Inlet Type CDOT Type R Curb Opening CDOT Type R Curb Opening. CDOT Type R Curb Opening USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Design Flows Minor QK,...(cfs) 1.9 7.6 5.7 Major QKmm WS) 8.1 29.8 24.8 Bypass(Carry-Over)Flow from Upstream Inlets must be organized from u stream left to downstream(right)in order for bypass flows to be linked. Receive Bypass Flow from: No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received Minor Bypass Flow Received,Qb(cfs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Major Bypass Flow Received,Qb(cfs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Watershed Characteristics Subcatchment Area acres Percent Impervious IN RCS Soil Type Watershed Profile Overland Slope ft/ft Overland Length ft Channel Slope ft/ft Channel Length ft Minor Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period,Tr(years) One-Hour Precipitation,Pl(inches) Major Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period,Tr(years) One-Hour Precipitation,Pl(inches) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, cfs 1.9 7.6 5.7 Major Total Design Peak Flow, cfs 8.1 29.8 24.8 Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream,Qb(cfs) N/A N/A N/A Major Flow Bypassed Downstream,Qb(cfs) N/A N/A N/A MHM-Inlet Version 5.02(August 2022 (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Landing at Lemay Inlet ID:Inlet 4-1 T T, T.Tw STREET CROWN e Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb T-CK= 15.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) $BACK= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nBACK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Hcua = 6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCRowN= 23.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope S.= 0.022 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�= 0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM ax= 23.0 23.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dMnx= 6.0 12.0 nches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions r r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,i„w= SUMP SUMP cfs 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, hers/on 5.02(August 2022) ,r--Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information In ut MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet cDor type R curb opening Type= CDOT T R Curb Opening Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) a,1= 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 7.5 nches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR r Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate L.(G)= N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo= N/A N/A feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Ar,h = N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) CF(G)= N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Ca(G)= N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening La(C)= 5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,n= 6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H,= 6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat(see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta= 63.40 5?,90 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) C,„(C)= 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Co(C)= 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth der,f,= N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dc,b= 0.33 0.46 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFD„.= N/A N/A Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFD;rb= 1.00 1.00 Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFC—bin e.n= N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) Q.= ds Inlet Ca aci IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms > Peak Q PEAK REQUIRED= 1. 1 ds 1 MHM-Inlet Version 5.02(August 2022 (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Landing at Lemay Inlet ID:Inlet 8-4 T T, T.Tw STREET CROWN e Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Te CK= 25.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S9ACK= 0.060 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nBACK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Hcua = 6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCRowN= 41.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope S.= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�= 0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 41.0 41.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm d,H x= 6.0 8.0 nches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions f- (- MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q„„w= SUMP SUMP cfs 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, hers/on 5.02(August 2022) ,r--Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information In ut CDOTTypeRCurbOpening MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type=1 CDOT T R Curb(pening Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) am,,= 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No=1 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 8.0 Inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR r-Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate L.(G)= N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo= N/A N/A feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Argo= N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Ca(G)= N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening La(C)= 5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,n= 6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H,= 6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat(see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta= 63.40 5?,90 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) C,„(C)= 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Co(C)= 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth der,f,= N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dc,b= 0.33 0.50 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFD„.= N/A N/A Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFD;rb= 1.00 1.00 Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFca bina.o = N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) Q.= 5.4 9.3 ds WARNING:Inlet Capacity< Peak for Minor and Major Storms Q PEAK REQUIRED= 7. cfs Only need to pass the WQ event through this inlet MHM-Inlet Version 5.02(August 2022 (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Landing at Lemay Inlet ID:Inlet 9-1 T T, T.Tw STREET CROWN e Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb T-CK= 1.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S9ACK= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nBACK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Hcua = 6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCRowN= 62.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope S.= 0.008 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�= 0.016 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM ax= 62.0 62.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dMnx= 6.0 6.0 nches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions (- MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,i„w= SUMP SUMP cfs 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, hers/on 5.02(August 2022) ,r--Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information(In out) CDOTType R C Opening MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type=1 CDOT T R Curb(pening Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) am,,= 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No=1 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 6.0 Inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR r Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate L.(G)= N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo= N/A N/A feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Argo= N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Ca(G)= N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening La(C)= 5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,n= 6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H,= 6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat(see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta= 63.40 5?,90 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp= 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) C,„(C)= 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Co(C)= 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth de,,= N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dc,b= 0.33 0.33 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFC„.= N/A N/A Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFC;rb= 1.00 1.00 Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFC,mbin„on= N/A MINOR tMtAAJ0nR ' otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) Q,= S.4 cfs WARNING:Inlet Ca ci < Peak for Minor and Ma'or Storms Q P1.Rl,w o= 5.7 24cfs Only need to pass the WQ event through this inlet AVANT v CINIL GROUP Inlet Name: 1-2 Project: 1791-003 2-Year Design Flow(cfs) 12.50 1 Location: Landing 100-Year Design Flow(cfs) 12.50 1 Calc.By: A.Snow At low flow dephs,the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation: Q - MPH"' • where P=2(L+W) • where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline At higher flow depths,the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation: •where A equals the open area of the inlet grate Q = 0.67A(29H)0.5 •where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A). Stage - Discharge Curves 60.00 tSeries1 50.00 Series2 w 40.00 U 30.00 `m t y 20.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Stage(ft) If H>1.792(A/P),then the grate operates like an orifice;otherwise it operates like a weir. Type of Grate: Fabricated Open Area of Grate(ft): 9.00 Length of Grate(ft): 3.0 Rim Elevation(ft): 4,941.10 Width of Grate(ft): 3.0 Reduction Factor: 0.50 Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow Depth Above Inlet(ft) Notes (ft) Flow(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 4,941.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 4,941.30 1.61 10.82 1.61 Pond 1 Release Rate interpolated at 0.26'; 0.40 4,941.50 4.55 15.30 4.55 0.3'of depth available before Pond 2 spill 0.60 4,941.70 8.37 18.73 8.37 at 4941.4'. 0.80 4,941.90 12.88 21.63 12.88 1.00 4,942.10 18.00 24.18 18.00 1.20 4,942.30 23.66 26.49 23.66 1.40 4,942.50 29.82 28.61 29.82 1.60 4,942.70 36.43 30.59 36.43 1.80 4,942.90 43.47 32.45 32.45 2.00 4,943.10 50.91 34.20 34.20 AVANT CIVIL GROUP Inlet Name: 3-4 Project: 1791-003 2-Year Design Flow(cfs) 3.29 Location: Landing 100-Year Design Flow(cfs) 14.35 Calc.By: A.Snow At low flow dephs,the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation: Q - 3.0PH1.5 * where P=2(L+W) * where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline At higher flow depths,the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation: "where A equals the open area of the inlet grate Q = 0.67A(2gH)0.5 *where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area(A). Stage - Discharge Curves 30.00 Series1 25.00 Series2 y 20.00 u 15.00 rn s H 10.00 0 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Stage(ft) If H>1.792(A/P),then the grate operates like an orifice;otherwise it operates like a weir. Type of Grate: Fabricated Open Area of Grate(ft 2): 9.00 Length of Grate(ft): 3.0 Rim Elevation(ft): 4,942.10 Width of Grate(ft): 3.0 Reduction Factor: 0.50 Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow Depth Above Inlet(ft) Notes (ft) Flow(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 4,942.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 4,942.20 0.57 7.65 0.57 0.20 4,942.30 1.61 10.82 1.61 0.30 4,942.40 2.96 13.25 2.96 0.40 4,942.50 4.55 15.30 4.55 0.50 4,942.60 6.36 17.10 6.36 0.60 4,942.70 8.37 18.73 8.37 0.70 4,942.80 10.54 20.23 10.54 0.80 4,942.90 12.88 21.63 12.88 0.90 1 4,943.00 15.37 22.94 15.37 100-yr flow interpolated at 0.86' 1.00 1 4,943.10 18.00 24.18 18.00 AVANT CIVIL GROUP Inlet Name: 3-5 Project: 1791-003 2-Year Design Flow(cfs) 6.08 Location: Landing 100-Year Design Flow(cfs) 26.54 CA.By: A.Snow At low flow dephs,the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation: Q - 3.0PH1.5 * where P=2(L+W) * where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline At higher flow depths,the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation: "where A equals the open area of the inlet grate Q = 0.67A(2gH)0.5 *where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area(A). Stage - Discharge Curves 60.00 Series1 50.00 Series2 w 40.00 °' CM �a s H 2O.00 0 10.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Stage(ft) If H>1.792(A/P),then the grate operates like an orifice;otherwise it operates like a weir. IMIT" n Type of Grate: Fabricated Open Area of Grate(ft 2): 9.00 Length of Grate(ft): 3.0 Rim Elevation(ft): 4,943.75 Width of Grate(ft): 3.0 Reduction Factor: 0.50 Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow Depth Above Inlet(ft) Notes (ft) Flow(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 4,943.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 4,943.95 1.61 10.82 1.61 0.40 4,944.15 4.55 15.30 4.55 0.60 4,944.35 8.37 18.73 8.37 0.80 4,944.55 12.88 21.63 12.88 1.00 4,944.75 18.00 24.18 18.00 1.20 4,944.95 23.66 26.49 23.66 1.40 4,945.15 29.82 28.61 29.82 100-yr flow interpolated at 1.29' 1.60 4,945.35 36.43 30.59 36.43 1.80 4,945.55 43.47 32.45 32.45 t77 2.00 4,945.75 50.91 34.20 34.20 AVANT 4w. CIVIL GROUP Inlet Name: 5-2.1 Project: 1791-003 2-Year Design Flow(cfs) 4.52 Location: Landing 100-Year Design Flow(cfs) 19.73 calc.By: A.Snow At low flow dephs,the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation: Q - 3.0PH1.5 • where P=2(L+W) • where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline At higher flow depths,the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation: *where A equals the open area of the inlet grate Q = 0.67A(2gH)0.5 where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A). Stage - Discharge Curves 60.00 - t Series1 50.00 Series2 w 40.00 - 30.00 .c y 20.00 0 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Stage(ft) If H>1.792(A/P),then the grate operates like an orifice;otherwise it operates like a weir. Type of Grate: Fabricated Open Area of Grate(fe): 9.00 Length of Grate(ft): 3.0 Rim Elevation(ft): 4,944.50 Width of Grate(ft): 3.0 Reduction Factor: 0.50 Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow Depth Above Inlet(ft) Notes (ft) Flow(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 4,944.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 4,944.70 1.61 10.82 1.61 0.40 4,944.90 4.55 15.30 4.55 0.60 4,945.10 8.37 18.73 8.37 0.80 4,945.30 12.88 21.63 12.88 1.00 4,945.50 18.00 24.18 18.00 1.20 4,945.70 23.66 26.49 23.66 100-yr flow interpolated at 1.06' 1.40 4,945.90 29.82 28.61 29.82 1.60 4,946.10 36.43 30.59 36.43 1.80 4,946.30 43.47 32.45 32.45 2.00 4,946.50 50.91 34.20 r 34.20 AVANT 4w. CIVIL GROUP Inlet Name: 6-8 Project: 1791-003 2-Year Design Flow(cfs) 3.40 Location: Landing 100-Year Design Flow(cfs) 14.65 calc.By: A.Snow At low flow dephs,the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation: Q - 3.0PH1.5 • where P=2(L+W) • where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline At higher flow depths,the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation: *where A equals the open area of the inlet grate Q = 0.67A(2gH)0.5 where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A). Stage - Discharge Curves 60.00 t Series1 50.00 Series2 w 40.00 30.00 .c y 20.00 0 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Stage(ft) If H>1.792(A/P),then the grate operates like an orifice;otherwise it operates like a weir. Type of Grate: Fabricated Open Area of Grate(fe): 9.00 Length of Grate(ft): 3.0 Rim Elevation(ft): 4,944.50 Width of Grate(ft): 3.0 Reduction Factor: 0.50 Elevation Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow Depth Above Inlet(ft) Notes (ft) Flow(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 4,944.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 4,944.70 1.61 10.82 1.61 0.40 4,944.90 4.55 15.30 4.55 0.60 4,945.10 8.37 18.73 8.37 0.80 4,945.30 12.88 21.63 12.88 1.00 4,945.50 18.00 24.18 18.00 100-yr flow interpolated at 0.87' 1.20 4,945.70 23.66 26.49 23.66 1.40 4,945.90 29.82 28.61 29.82 1.60 4,946.10 36.43 30.59 36.43 1.80 4,946.30 43.47 32.45 32.45 2.00 4,946.50 50.91 34.20 34.20 AVANT CIVIL GROUP ■ • • • ■ ■ lima Inlet Name: Area Inlets Project: 1791-003 10-Year Design Flow(cfs) n/a Location: Landing at Lemay 100-Year Design Flow(cfs) n/a Calc.By: A.Snow • • • At low flow dephs,the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation:• Q = 3,OPH1.5 where P=rr'Dia.of grate • where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flowline At higher flow depths,the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following Q = 0,67A(29H)0.5 equation: "where A equals the open area of teh inlet grate "where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional Stage -Discharge Curves 7.00 6.00 - tSeriesl Series2 5.00 - - h 4.00 d rn m 3.00 L V H 2.00 1.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Stage(ft) If H>1.792(A/P),then the grate operates like an orifice;otherwise it operates like a weir. Type of Grate: Nyloplast 8"Dome Open Area of Grate(ft 2): 0.35 Diameter of Grate(ft): 0.67 Rim Elevation(ft.): Varies Reduction Factor: 0.50 Shallow Weir Orifice Flow Actual Flow Depth Above Inlet(ft) Notes Flow(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.28 0.42 0.28 0.30 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.40 0.79 0.59 0.59 0.50 1.11 0.66 0.66 0.60 1.46 0.73 0.73 0.70 1.84 0.78 0.78 0.80 2.25 0.84 0.84 0.90 2.68 0.89 0.89 1.00 3.14 0.94 0.94 1.50 5.77 1.15 1.15 A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP SWALES Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Sep 26 2023 West Swale/Trickle Channel Trapezoidal Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 2.00 Depth (ft) = 0.30 Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 10.00 Q (cfs) = 3.080 Total Depth (ft) = 2.00 Area (sqft) = 1.19 Invert Elev (ft) = 4943.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.60 Slope (%) = 0.50 Wetted Perim (ft) = 5.96 N-Value = 0.013 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.31 Top Width (ft) = 5.90 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.41 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 3.08 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 4946.00 3.00 4945.50 2.50 4945.00 2.00 4944.50 1.50 4944.00 1.00 4943.50 0.50 v 4943.00 0.00 4942.50 -0.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Reach (ft) �A AVANT v CIVIL GROUP SCOURSTOP SUMMARY ::k�NT CROUP Forebay Calculations Project: Landing at Lemay Project Location: Fort Collins,CO Calculations By:A.Snow Date: 3/4/2024 Forebay/Rain Forebay Design Garden Basin WQCV(ft') Volume(ft) Forebay Depth Forebay Length Forebay Width Forebay Area Basin Q100(cfs) Release(cfs) Pipe Size as calculated/shown in LID Summary Table 1%of WQCV (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft ) see hydrology tables 2%of Qloo (in) A 1600 16 1 4.5 4 18 19.73 0.39 3.5 B 1398 13.98 1 3.5 4 14 1 15.14 0.30 3 D 1138 11.38 1 6 2 12 14.03 0.28 3 M 2310 23.1 1 6 4 24 24.57 0.49 4 SCOURSTOP CALCULATIONS ::;AVANT .two. CIVIL GROUP SCOURSTOP PROTECTION CALCULATIONS Storm Diameter Flow Velocity Mat Length Mat Width Quantity of Line (in.) (cfs) (ft) (ft) Mats 3/9 36 8.18 12 8 6 5 24 7.92 8 8 4 4/6 1 30 1 6.0 1 12 1 8 1 6 Note:Mat orientations at outlets have been modified to account for concrete pans This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF. Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. ScourStop° DESIGN GUIDE Circular Culvert Outlet Protection 1 1 ' so 1000000, se so ••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••• • •GI 00•0090 G•• 1•• r _ roe• •••GGoo• Goo • _ l•••, ••••••••• 1••• '• Goof•o GG000 Go• GGoo,00000000000000000000 � � :�� .. - _ __ "-. "o �oGoo/GGoo 000 Goy •Goo♦ 0000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 _. - gin- �_i� � ai• t� .. ... .. � � � ��. ••� ♦o0••••1•••. lo•• 1 • 1 1 0000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 1 1 1 I00000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 •00000 GOG000000000 G• TRANSITIONPIPE DIAMETER OF MATS I i i / i • •I I • z' 't 4R the green solution to riprap PERFORMANCE o AESTHETICS scoursto p NPDES-COMPLIANT o COST-EFFECTIVE — scourstop.com �� ScourStop@ InstallationI 1 . 1 1. ScourStop mats must be installed over a soil cover: sod,seeded turf reinforcement mat(TRM),geotextile,or a combination thereof. 2. For steep slopes (>10%) or higher velocities (>10 ft/sec),sod is the recommended soil cover. 3. Follow manufacturer's ScourStop Installation Guidelines to ensure proper installation. 4. Install ScourStop mats at maximum 1-2"below flowline of culvert or culvert apron. (No waterfall impacts onto ScourStop mats.) 5. Performance of protected area assumes stable downstream conditions. LENGTH OF PROTECTION WIDTH OF PROTECTION* TRANSITION MAT APRON LENGTH A Transition mat apron protects 000000000 000000000 000003000 culvert outlet. 000000000 000000000 000003000 000000000 000000000 000 00 Width of protection: 0 0 O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 00 O O O O O O O 00 O O O 0 0 0 0 Bottom width of channel and up O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O both side slopes to a depth at 00 00 00 000 000000000 O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 least half the culvert diameter. 000000000 000000 O 000 O O O O O j0e0qqD 0 0 0 0 0 700000000 0 00000 000 Protect bare/disturbed downstream �D 000000 00000000 000 soils from erosion with a ro riate 0 0 0 O0 0 O pp P OO O 000003000 D00000 •00000000 soil cover. ?ON O 00 •00000000 00000 000 J000000 •00000000 00000 000 Use normal-depth calculator to D O 000000 O O O 00 000 O O p D=CULVERT DIAMETER compute for downstream protection. A CULVERT OUTLET PROTECTION - PLAN VIEW MAX. 1"-2" DROP OUTLET AND CHANNEL SCOUR PROTECTION FROM CULVERT FLOWLINE (TRANSITION MATS) CULVERT FLOWLINE ONTO SCOURST0 MATS PROFILE VIEW SECTION VIEW AA SOIL COVER 00 0000000 O 00000000000000 0 RECESSED O� • 0 0 0 00 • 0 0 0 0 00 LOCK O -00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0�WASHER 000000000000-0 0000000000 00 \�j 000000000000000 00000000.000000 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 000000000000000 DIRECTION_ 10000000000 000000000000 TRANSITION MAT • 000 00000000 • o 0 0000,0M OF FLOW J0000000000000 000000000000000 000000000000000 000000000000000 36"ANCHOR STRAP 00000000•000000 00000000.000000 BULLET ANCHOR 000000000000000 000000000000000 0.00000000000.0 0•000000000000 000000000000000 000000000000000 ANCHOR PATTERN Abut transition mats to end of culvert or culvert apron. ANCHOR ILLUSTRATION Adjacent mats abut together laterally and longitudinally. Install anchors per ScourStop Installation Guidelines. Minimum 8 anchors per mat. Minimum depth 24" in compacted, cohesive soil. Extra anchors as needed for loose or wet soils. Minimum depth 30" in loose, sandy, or wet soil. Extra anchors as needed for uneven soil surface. Extra anchors as needed to secure mat tightly over soil cover. the green solution to riprap eHANESOGEO (COMPONENTS" A LEADER in the GEOSYNTHETIC and EROSION CONTROL industries A�Cf/-P. ���®COMPANY Learn more about our products at: HanesGeo.com 1888.239.4539 scourstop" 02014 Leggett&Platt,Incorporated 1169591114 A. AVM-- 000. CIVIL GROUP APPENDIX C - LID AND WATER QUALITY Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden(RG) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: A.S. Company: Date: April8,2024 UD-BMP CALCULATION FOR Project: Landing at Lemay WQCV REQUIRED IN POND 2, Location: Fort Collins INCLUDING ALL AREAS ON SITE NOT TREATED BY LID 1.Basin Storage Volume A)Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area,la la= 18.4 (100%if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio(i=la/100) i= 0.184 C) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV= 0.09 watershed inches (WQCV=0.8-(0.91'0-1.19'iZ+0.78"i) D) Contributing Watershed Area(including rain garden area) Area= 153,821 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWocV= 1,115 cu ft Vol=(WQCV/12)'Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,Depth of dS=0 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER= cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV USER= cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) UD-BMP_v3.07,RG 4/8/2024,4:04 PM OA AVANT CIVIL GROUP LID Summary 14 Project Number: 1791-003 Project: Landing at Lemay Project Location: Fort Collins,Colorado Calculations By: ARS Date: 2/26/2024 LID Summary per Basin Basin ID Area Percent LID ID Required Provided Total Impervious Sq. Ft. Acres Impervious Volume (ft) Volume (ft3) Area Treated (ft) A 97,267 2.23 61% Rain Garden A 1,600 2,039 59,333 B 66,289 1.52 78% Rain Garden B 1,398 1,507 51,705 C 151,371 3.48 53% Chambers C 2,169 2,226 80,227 D 69,230 1 1.59 63% Rain Garden D 1,138 1,401 43,615 E 166,253 3.82 62% Chambers E 2,696 2,771 103,077 1 13,363 0.31 82% n/a 0 0 n/a K 19,755 0.45 77% n/a 0 0 n/a L 27,767 0.64 57% n/a 0 0 n/a M 107,554 2.47 79% Rain Garden M 2,310 2,377 84,968 N 43,656 1.00 16% n/a 0 0 n/a Total 762,505 15.27 62% 11,311 12,321 422,924 LID Summary per LID Structure Weighted Area Volume per Impervious Area LID ID % Subbasin ID Treatment Type UD-BMP(ft3) (ft) Sq. Ft. Acres Impervious Rain Garden A 97,267 2.23 61% A Rain Garden 1,600 59,333 Rain Garden B 66,289 1.52 78% B Rain Garden 1,398 51,705 Chambers C 151,371 3.48 53% C Chambers 2,169 80,227 Rain Garden D 69,230 1.59 63% D Rain Garden 1,183 43,615 Chambers E 166,253 3.82 62% E Chambers 2,696 103,077 Rain Garden M 107,554 2.47 79% 1 M Rain Garden 2,310 84,968 Total 657,9641 15.10 1 422,924 LID Site Summary - New Impervious Area Total Area of Current Development 762,505 ftz Total Impervious Area 472,753 ft2 Total Impervious Area without LID Treatment: 0 2 ft Sub-basins J, K, L, N 75% Required Minimum Area to be Treated 354,565 ft3 Total Treated Area 422,9241 ft2 Percent Impervious Treated by LID 89.5% Q ' NORTH 1 I 0 50 too 150 Fee[ 1 � 1 1 t nFE so n. o — m l \ I f ` RAN\\\\\ 1 p GARDEN B \\\\ 1 / d I / : ;• \ ... ... / / --- LINK LANE z O Ap a\ Er l � \ •• / H m D PTENTION / ON01 / \ `c l I % •.. \\\a •: \ .• \�\/ ///// LID SUMMARY TABLE ` / N TOTAL NEW(IMPROVED) o \ \1 IMPERVIOUS AREA,(SF) 458,951 a TARGET TREATMENT AREA 344,213 N •a / \ RAIN \ RAIN / \ /• \ GARDEN M \ GARDEN D \` \p TOTAL AREA TREATED BY G \\\\\\` N I LID(SF)(GREEN HATCH) 422,924 LLI \ \ \\ \ \I PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 92.15% ~\ F\ Q j A V V I TOTAL AREA NOT TREATED 0 z BY LID(SF)(RED HATCH) 36,027 Z w W u PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 7.85/o Z Lu g / 1 J \ I Lu Z I / I I / / \ DETENTION POND 2 R 1 I \ •„ ••• \\ \ \ - ,••\\ The en9 eeUre plpDaringthese m pl—alnotberespsnsible •• for,or llabw for.una dth—E / \ RAIN -- —— - plans.hll changes must be / 1 GARDENA\ / r---------- app by Pro eaabnal /• \ \ \ / I tM1e Engineer of these plain 0 g 'm I / \ \ ••••••• / SCALE HORI 1"=50' DUFF DRIVE 0 -T: NA d Q �11 SHEET: --- LID of 71 —T 7r �7 f--------- - (-- -ate --- --- - --- --�, n -- PROJECT NO. 1781-0 Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden(RG) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: AS Company: Avant Civil Group Date: March 1,2024 Project: Landing at Lemay Location: Rain Garden A 1.Basin Storage Volume A)Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area,la la= 61.0 (100%if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio(i=la/100) i= 0.610 C) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV= 0.19 watershed inches (WQCV=0.8*(0.91*0-1.19'iZ+0.78*i) D) Contributing Watershed Area(including rain garden area) Area= 97,267 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VwocV= 1,553 cu ft Vol=(WQCV/12)*Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,Depth of ds in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER= Cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV USER= cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2.Basin Geometry A)WQCV Depth(12-inch maximum) Dwqcv= 1-2--7 in B)Rain Garden Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.dist per unit vertical) Z= 4.00 ft/ft (Use"0"if rain garden has vertical walls) C)Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;,,= 1187 sq ft D)Actual Flat Surface Area AAI a= 1376 sq ft E)Area at Design Depth(Top Surface Area) ATop= 2702 sq ft F)Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 2,039 cu ft (VT=((AT.,+AA,�)/2)*Depth) Choose One 3.Growing Media *18"Rain Garden Growing Media Q Other(Explain): 4. Underdrain System Choose One A)Are underdrains provided? Q YES Q NO B)Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time I)Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= 50.0 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii)Volume to Drain in 12 Hours VOI12= cu ft iii)Orifice Diameter,3/8"Minimum Do= 1/2 in UD-BMP_v3.07_Rain Garden A,RG 3/1/2024,10:21 AM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden(RG) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: AS Company: Avant Civil Group Date: March 1,2024 Project: Landing at Lemay Location: Rain Garden B 1.Basin Storage Volume A)Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area,la la= 78.0 (100%if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio(i=la/100) i= 0.780 C) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV= 0.25 watershed inches (WQCV=0.8*(0.91*0-1.19'iZ+0.78*i) D) Contributing Watershed Area(including rain garden area) Area= 66,289 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VwocV= 1,398 cu ft Vol=(WQCV/12)*Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,Depth of ds in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER= Cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV USER= cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2.Basin Geometry A)WQCV Depth(12-inch maximum) Dwocv= 1-2--7 in B)Rain Garden Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.dist per unit vertical) Z= 4.00 ft/ft (Use"0"if rain garden has vertical walls) C)Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;,,= 1034 sq ft D)Actual Flat Surface Area AAI a= 1038 sq ft E)Area at Design Depth(Top Surface Area) ATop= 2179 sq ft F)Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 1,609 cu ft (VT=((AT.,+AA,�)/2)*Depth) Choose One 3.Growing Media *18"Rain Garden Growing Media Q Other(Explain): 4. Underdrain System Choose One A)Are underdrains provided? Q YES Q NO B)Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time I)Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= 50.0 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii)Volume to Drain in 12 Hours VOI12= cu ft iii)Orifice Diameter,3/8"Minimum Do= 7/16 in UD-BMP_v3.07_Rain Garden B,RG 3/1/2024,10:31 AM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden(RG) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: AS Company: Avant Civil Group Date: March 1,2024 Project: Landing at Lemay Location: Rain Garden D 1.Basin Storage Volume A)Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area,la la= 63.0 (100%if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio(i=la/100) i= 0.630 C) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV= 0.20 watershed inches (WQCV=0.8*(0.91*0-1.19'iZ+0.78*i) D) Contributing Watershed Area(including rain garden area) Area= 69,230 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VwocV= 1,138 cu ft Vol=(WQCV/12)*Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,Depth of ds in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER= Cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV USER= cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2.Basin Geometry A)WQCV Depth(12-inch maximum) Dwqcv= 1-2--7 in B)Rain Garden Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.dist per unit vertical) Z= 4.00 ft/ft (Use"0"if rain garden has vertical walls) C)Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;,,= 872 sq ft D)Actual Flat Surface Area AAI a= 983 sq ft E)Area at Design Depth(Top Surface Area) ATop= 1818 sq ft F)Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 1,401 cu ft (VT=((AT.,+AA,�)/2)*Depth) Choose One 3.Growing Media *18"Rain Garden Growing Media Q Other(Explain): 4. Underdrain System Choose One A)Are underdrains provided? Q YES Q NO B)Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time I)Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= 50.0 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii)Volume to Drain in 12 Hours VOI12= cu ft iii)Orifice Diameter,3/8"Minimum Do= 3/8 in UD-BMP_v3.07_Rain Garden D,RG 3/1/2024,10:32 AM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden(RG) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: AS Company: Avant Civil Group Date: March 1,2024 Project: Landing at Lemay Location: Rain Garden M 1.Basin Storage Volume A)Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area,la la= 79.0 (100%if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio(i=la/100) i= 0.790 C) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV= 0.26 watershed inches (WQCV=0.8*(0.91*0-1.19'iZ+0.78*i) D) Contributing Watershed Area(including rain garden area) Area= 107,554 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VwocV= 2,310 cu ft Vol=(WQCV/12)*Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,Depth of ds in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER= Cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV USER= cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2.Basin Geometry A)WQCV Depth(12-inch maximum) Dwocv=F in B)Rain Garden Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.dist per unit vertical) Z= 0.00 ft/ft (Use"0"if rain garden has vertical walls) C)Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;,,= 1699 sq ft D)Actual Flat Surface Area AAI a= 2377 sq ft E)Area at Design Depth(Top Surface Area) ATop= 2377 sq ft F)Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 2,377 cu ft (VT=((AT.,+AA,�)/2)*Depth) Choose One 3.Growing Media *18"Rain Garden Growing Media Q Other(Explain): 4. Underdrain System Choose One A)Are underdrains provided? Q YES Q NO B)Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time I)Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= 50.0 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii)Volume to Drain in 12 Hours VOI12= cu ft iii)Orifice Diameter,3/8"Minimum Do= 9/16 in UD-BMP_v3.07_Rain Garden M,RG 3/1/2024,10:33 AM Project Title The Landing at Lemay Date: March 1, 2024 Project Number 1791-003 Calcs By: AIRS City Fort Collins Basins Stormtech Chambers C WQCV=a 0.91i' —1.19i2 +0.78i Drain Time 12 hr a= 0.8 WQCV=Watershed inches of Runoff(inches) i = 53% a=Runoff Volume Reduction(constant) i =Total imperviousness Ratio(i =IWq/100) WQCV= 0.172 in Water Quality Capture Volume 0.5 F0.45 WQCV=a(0.91i' —1.19i' +0.78i) v 0.4 s c 0.35 01, v 0.3 -10001 r 0.25 ,00001 0.2 —w 3 > 0.15 '" 0.1 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N F� NJ W A L l Ol J 0o tD Total Imperviousness Ratio(i=IWq/100) Figure EDB-2-Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV),80th Percentile Runoff Event V _ WQCV A A= 1 3.48 ac 12 V= 1 0.0498 ac-ft 2169 cu.ft. V=Water Quality Design Volume(ac-ft) WQCV=Water Quality Capture Volume(inches) A=Watershed Area(acres) AADS. User Inputs Results Chamber Model: SC-740 System Volume and Bed Size Outlet Control Structure: Yes Installed Storage Volume: 2226.37 cubic ft. Project Name: Landing at Lemay- South Storage Volume Per Chamber: 45.90 cubic ft. Engineer: Austin Snow Number Of Chambers Required: 25 Project Location: Colorado Number Of End Caps Required: 6 Measurement Type: Imperial Chamber Rows: 3 Required Storage Volume: 2169 cubic ft. Maximum Length: 71.58 ft. Stone Porosity: 40% Maximum Width: 16.35 ft. Stone Foundation Depth: 6 in. Approx. Bed Size Required: 1098.48 square ft. Stone Above Chambers: 6 in, System Components Average Cover Over Chambers: 18 in. Amount Of Stone Required: 100 cubic yards Design Constraint Dimensions: (17 ft.x 70 ft.) Volume Of Excavation(Not Including 143 cubic yards Fill): Total Non-woven Geotextile Required:375 square yards Woven Geotextile Required(excluding1 square yards Isolator Row): Woven Geotextile Required(Isolator 44 square yards Row): Total Woven Geotextile Required: 44 square yards Impervious Liner Required: 0 square yards EMBEDMENT STONE SHALL BE A CLEAN,CRUSHED AND ANGULAR GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOILIAGGREGATE MIXTURES,<35% STONE WITH AN AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION BETWEEN#3 AND#57 FINES,COMPACT IN 6"(150 MM)MAX LIFTS TO 95%PROCTOR CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DENSITY.SEETHE TABLE OF ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS. ASTM F2418 POLYPROPLENE(PP)CHAMBERS OR ASTM F922 POLYETHYLENE(PE)CHAMBERS CHAMBERS SHALL BE BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC ADS GEOSYTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN,CRUSHED, ANGULAR EMBEDMENT STONE PAVEMENT LAYER(DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) (2.4 m) (450 mm)MIN' MAX 61(150 mm)MIN PERIMETER STONE- 30' (760 mm) EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED 12"(300 mm)MIN I DI BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 6"(150 MM)MIN I i ENNDD CAP P SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6" 51"(1295 mm) 12"(300 mm)TVP THE ENSURING THE REQUIRED BEARING (150 mm)MIN CAPACITY OF SUBGRADE SOILS 'MINIMUM COVER TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT.FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR,INCREASE COVER TO 24"(600 mm). Project Title The Landing at Lemay Date: March 1, 2024 Project Number 1791-003 Calcs By: AIRS City Fort Collins Basins Stormtech Chambers E WQCV=a 0.91i' —1.19i2 +0.78i Drain Time 12 hr a= 0.8 WQCV=Watershed inches of Runoff(inches) i = 61% a=Runoff Volume Reduction(constant) i =Total imperviousness Ratio(i =IWq/100) WQCV= 0.194 in Water Quality Capture Volume 0.5 F0.45 WQCV=a(0.9li' —1.19i' +0.78i) v 0.4 s c 0.35 01, v 0.3 r 0.25 0.2 —wit, 3 - > 0.15 u 0.1 —aoMr � 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N I-- N W dP Un Ol V 00 tD Total Imperviousness Ratio(i=IWq/100) Figure EDB-2-Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV),80th Percentile Runoff Event V _ WQCV A A= 1 3.82 ac 12 V= 1 0.0619 ac-ft 2696 cu.ft. V=Water Quality Design Volume(ac-ft) WQCV=Water Quality Capture Volume(inches) A=Watershed Area(acres) AADS. User Inputs Results Chamber Model: SC-740 System Volume and Bed Size Outlet Control Structure: Yes Installed Storage Volume: 2785.56 cubic ft. Project Name: Landing @ Lemay Engineer: Austin Snow Storage Volume Per Chamber: 45.90 cubic ft. Number Of Chambers Required: 32 Project Location: Colorado Number Of End Caps Required: 8 Measurement Type: Imperial Chamber Rows: 4 Required Storage Volume: 2696 cubic ft. Stone Porosity: 40% Maximum Length: 64.46 ft. Maximum Width: 21.10 ft. Stone Foundation Depth: 6 in. Approx. Bed Size Required: 1360.20 square ft. Stone Above Chambers: 6 in. Average Cover Over Chambers: 18 in. System Components Design Constraint Dimensions: (30 ft.x 75 ft.) Amount Of Stone Required: 122 cubic yards Volume Of Excavation(Not Including 177 cubic yards Fill): Total Non-woven Geotextile Required:443 square yards Woven Geotextile Required(excluding1 square yards Isolator Row): Woven Geotextile Required(Isolator 40 square yards Row): Total Woven Geotextile Required: 40 square yards Impervious Liner Required: 0 square yards EMBEDMENT STONE SHALL BE A CLEAN,CRUSHED AND ANGULAR GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOILIAGGREGATE MIXTURES,<35% STONE WITH AN AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION BETWEEN#3 AND#57 FINES,COMPACT IN 6"(150 MM)MAX LIFTS TO 95%PROCTOR CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DENSITY.SEETHE TABLE OF ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS. ASTM F2418 POLYPROPLENE(PP)CHAMBERS OR ASTM F922 POLYETHYLENE(PE)CHAMBERS CHAMBERS SHALL BE BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC ADS GEOSYTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN,CRUSHED, ANGULAR EMBEDMENT STONE PAVEMENT LAYER(DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) (2.4 m) (450 mm)MIN' MAX 61(150 mm)MIN PERIMETER STONE- 30' (760 mm) EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED 12"(300 mm)MIN I DI BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 6"(150 MM)MIN I i ENNDD CAP P SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 6" 51"(1295 mm) 12"(300 mm)TVP THE ENSURING THE REQUIRED BEARING (150 mm)MIN CAPACITY OF SUBGRADE SOILS 'MINIMUM COVER TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT.FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR,INCREASE COVER TO 24"(600 mm). PROJECT INFORMATION ENGINEERED JEROME MAGSINO Apw.PRODUCT 303-349-7555 MANAGER: JEROME.MAGSINO@ADSPIPE.COM SiteAssisf MARK KAELBERER FOREH STORMTECH ADS SALES REP: 720-256-8225 INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS MARK.KAELBERER@ADSPIPE.COM VISIT OUR WEBSITE .� PROJECT NO: IS377242 //fig)*_ TM Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. THE LANDING AT LEMAY FORT COLLINS - CO SC-740 STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF THE SC-740 SYSTEM 1. CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH SC-740. 1. STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. 2. CHAMBERS SHALL BE ARCH-SHAPED AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN,IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. 2. STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE"STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/SC-800/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 3. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418,"STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE(PP)CORRUGATED 3. CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR AN EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS. WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: 4. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS,UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORTS THAT WOULD • STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. • BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. • BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. 5. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS,THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL,AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE 4. THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS,SECTION 12.12,ARE MET FOR:1) LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2)SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS,BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. 5. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. 6. CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED,TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, 6. MAINTAIN MINIMUM-6"(150 mm)SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS. "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 7 EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE 3/4-2"(20-50 mm). LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE:1)INSTANTANEOUS(<1 MIN)AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM COVER 2) MAXIMUM PERMANENT(75-YR)COVER LOAD AND 3)ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED(1-WEEK) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK. 8. THE CONTRACTOR MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH CHAMBER FOUNDATION MATERIALS BEARING CAPACITIES TO THE SITE DESIGN 7. REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: ENGINEER. • TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING,CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL,INTERLOCKING g ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF"FLEXSTORM CATCH IT"INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STACKING LUGS. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. • TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL,THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 2". • TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION,a)THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 550 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418. AND b)TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES(ABOVE 73°F/23°C),CHAMBERS SHALL BE 1. STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE"STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/SC-800/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS. GUIDE". 8. ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED.UPON REQUEST BY THE SITE DESIGN 2. THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OVER SC-740 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: ENGINEER OR OWNER,THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR APPROVAL BEFORE • NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE AS FOLLOWS: • NO RUBBER TIRED LOADERS,DUMP TRUCKS,OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE • THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL BE SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. WITH THE"STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/SC-800/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". • THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR • WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE"STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/SC-800/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD,THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY SECTIONS 3 AND 12.12 OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. 3. FULL 36"(900 mm)OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. • THE TEST DERIVED CREEP MODULUS AS SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 SHALL BE USED FOR PERMANENT DEAD LOAD DESIGN EXCEPT THAT IT SHALL BE THE 75-YEAR MODULUS USED FOR DESIGN. USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD.ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY THE"DUMP AND PUSH"METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH 9. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. STANDARD WARRANTY. CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR PROPOSED CONVERSION OR SYSTEM BUDGETING AND COMPARISON ONLY. NOT INTENDED FOR ESTIMATING, BIDDING, OR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS APPROVED BUY ENGINEER OF RECORD. ©2M ADS,INC. PROPOSED LAYOUT - NORTH SYSTEM NOTES 32 STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBERS • MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER.SEE TECHNICAL NOTE 6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE. 8 STORMTECH SC-740 END CAPS • DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS,IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD Q 2 U F 6 STONE ABOVE(in) COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD. c� w w 6 STONE BELOW(in) • THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE LLI O o Z SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS.THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAY BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION IS PROVIDED. J U o 40 %STONE VOID Z y 1387 SYSTEM AREA(ft2) • THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. �— U 173 SYSTEM PERIMETER(ft) Z = Z • ATTENTION: THIS DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT'S ENGINEER OF RECORD(EOR).AS WITH ALL C� J U o PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - NORTH SYSTEM PROPOSED ADS LAYOUTS,THE FOR SHOULD REVIEW AND APPROVE THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO USE IN BIDDING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION.IT IS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FOR TO Z O N o 4949.36 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED) ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S)DEPICTED AND THE ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS,REGULATIONS,AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. o V N w 4943.36 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC) Q x � a 4942.86 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC) J O z LL a 4942.86 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT) W o 4942.86 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(TOP OF RIGID PAVEMENT) = U 4941.86 TOP OF STONE ~ w - w 4941.36 TOP OF SC-740 CHAMBER Q W u' 4938.87 24"BOTTOM MANIFOLD INVERT a 4938.87 24"ISOLATOR ROW PLUS CONNECTION INVERT Z 4938.86 BOTTOM OF SC-740 CHAMBER W w 4938.36 UNDERDRAIN INVERT w zD zo 4938.36 BOTTOM OF STONE a z z 9. a 0 w'o w F ° d �o z Z = W W Q G =N z j r z O Lj Q O O r w _ w 0 -N 65.40' a W g U w U = U m 58.54' o z 3 g n � < c �a 7 — PROPOSED 30"NYLOPLAST BASIN Q VVV (24"SUMP MIN) a w INSPECTION PORT(TYP 4 PLACES) o W'w w- STRUCTURE PER PLAN W (DESIGN BY ENGINEER/PROVIDED BY OTHERS) z W O 'a U w0 24"X 24"ADS N-12 BOTTOM MANIFOLD = ° wN INVERT 0.1"ABOVE CHAMBER BASE I I F w J (SEE NOTES) ® 3:o 0 oa 24"EZ END CAP,PART#SC740ECEZ o o = o w TYP OF ALL SC-740 24"CONNECTIONS& N N W a 24"ISOLATOR ROW PLUS CONNECTIONS N o w w, VJ r U OUTLET STRUCTURE PER PLAN W/WEIR w o (DESIGN BY ENGINEER/PROVIDED BY OTHERS) W///// � I '� N z w CC N �w O(All C � T r U oW �. w �_< 6"ADS N-12 DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAIN w z SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER/SOLID OUTSIDE PERIMETER STONE > ° z o ( ) — PROPOSED 30"NYLOPLAST BASIN J o o r INSTALL FLAMP ON 24"ACCESS PIPE (24"SUMP MIN) z v g w �z PART#SC74024RAMP 2 =O z w (TYP 2 PLACES) Lu 0 o N Q .o V J mF o (p ❑y _ w w Q H w w O \\\ a ' w zi ISOLATOR ROW PLUS(SEE DETAIL) w m m_ az =o 0 va PLACE MINIMUM 12.5'OF ADSPLUS625 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE 3 W OVER BEDDING STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET r a FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL CHAMBER INLET ROWS o I m I 1 _� r� BED LIMITS SHEET 2 OF 7 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT -SOUTH SYSTEM NOTES 25 STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBERS . MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER.SEE TECHNICAL NOTE 6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE. 6 STORMTECH SC-740 END CAPS DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS,IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD Q g U 6 STONE ABOVE(in) COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD. Lu w 6 STONE BELOW(in) 0 THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE W 40 %STONE VOID SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS.THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAY BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION IS PROVIDED. J U z o 1122 SYSTEM AREA(ft2) 0THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. Q Z w • THE STORMTECH SYSTEM DEPICTED DOES NOT CONTAIN PROPER WATER QUALITY MEASURES.ABSENCE OF WATER QUALITY MEASURES CAN RESULT IN UNTREATED STORMWATER.ADS 178 SYSTEM PERIMETER(ft) J o U o RECOMMENDS THE USE OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUS AND AN UPSTREAM HIGH FLOW BYPASS ON ALL STORMTECH SYSTEMS TO PROPERLY DIRECT THE FIRST FLUSH. (� J z CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS -SOUTH SYSTEM ATTENTION: THIS DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT'S ENGINEER OF RECORD(EOR).AS WITH ALL 0 O N v 11.00 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED) • Z �' � o r a 5.00 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC) PROPOSED ADS LAYOUTS,THE FOR SHOULD REVIEW AND APPROVE THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO USE IN BIDDING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION.IT IS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FOR TO Q F_ u 4.50 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC) ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S)DEPICTED AND THE ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS,REGULATIONS,AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. J O z LL 4.50 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT) W 4.50 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE(TOP OF RIGID PAVEMENT) • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT&THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE. w ~ 3.50 TOP OF STONE H O w 3.00 TOP OF SC-740 CHAMBER Q w u' 0.50 BOTTOM OF SC-740 CHAMBER a ° 0.00 BOTTOM OF STONE =w ,2 �W W K a zD O W w a z z 9. a e w'o w F ° d �o z Z = W W Q G =N z j r z O ui Q O 72.31' N o W S x � a wg 65.66' 0 Q J Sw wm z U ry a r 4 24"EZ END CAP,PART#SC740ECEZ a °�W TYP OF ALL SC-740 24"CONNECTIONS& N 24"ISOLATOR ROW PLUS CONNECTIONS W J ZF w0 INSPECTION PORT TYP 3 PLACES 6"ADS N-12 DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAIN ( ) z Q (SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER/SOLID OUTSIDE PERIMETER STONE) = 0 0 wN =a ® LLZ o¢ INLET/OUTLET STRUCTURE PER PLAN o W SHOWN AS 30"NYLOPLAST BASIN z w a (24"SUMP MIN) ` cn o io 18"PREFABRICATED END CAP,PART#SC740EPE18B `° TYP OF ALL SC-740 18"BOTTOM CONNECTIONS L m w o 30"NYLOPLAST BASIN PER PLAN N �a 18"X18"BOTTOM MANIFOLD (24"SUMP MIN) m �0.1 N o INVERT 1.6"ABOVE CHAMBER BASE °o o Q (SEE NOTES) m U O W oW >a: own wz — INSTALL FLAMP ON 24"ACCESS PIPE fl oN z o o 30"NYLOPLAST BASIN PER PLAN PART#SC74024RAMP -PLACES m v g W (24"SUMP MIN) (TYP 3 ) z �z Q = 00 58.54' w z w zz om Q �o 65.20' 7.13' m F 2 o W w a= a1 w O \\\ a ' w zi ISOLATOR ROW PLUS(SEE DETAIL) w m m_ az =o w PLACE MINIMUM 12.5'OF ADSPLUS625 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE 3 W OVER BEDDING STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET 'w FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL CHAMBER INLET ROWS o I m I 1 _� r� BED LIMITS SHEET 3 OF 7 ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBER SYSTEMS Q 2 ° F AASHTO MATERIAL o W MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION COMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENT J U W o CLASSIFICATIONS z V FINAL FILL:FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER'D'STARTS FROM THE Q Z >' w PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS.PAVED TOP OF THE'C'LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE ANY SOIUROCK MATERIALS,NATIVE SOILS,OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS. J 0 (=j z D N/A INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND C7 J PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED GRADE ABOVE.NOTE THAT CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. Z M o PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE'D'LAYER. U N v o N AASHTO M145' BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 12"(300 mm)OF MATERIAL OVER Q � a GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES,<35%FINES OR A-1,A-2-4,A-3 THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED.COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN J O (`n z INITIAL FILL:FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER'C'STARTS FROM THE PROCESSED AGGREGATE. 6"(150 mm)MAX LIFTS TO A MIN.95%PROCTOR DENSITY FOR IJJILL C TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT STONE('B'LAYER)TO 18"(450 mm) OR WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95%RELATIVE DENSITY FOR o ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER.NOTE THAT PAVEMENT = U MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THIS PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS.ROLLER GROSS H SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE'C'LAYER. LAYER. AASHTO M43' VEHICLE WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 12,000 Ibis(53 kN).DYNAMIC H w 3,357,4,467,5,56,57,6,67,68,7,78,8,89,9,10 FORCE NOT TO EXCEED 20,000 Ibs(89 kN). < a EMBEDMENT STONE:FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS M z B FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE('A'LAYER)TO THE'C'LAYER CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE OR RECYCLED CONCRETES AASHTO M43' NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. W ABOVE. 3,357,4,467,5,56,57 W X a zD � �O w FOUNDATION STONE:FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE AASHTO M43' < z A CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE OR RECYCLED CONCRETES PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.z's z w SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT(BOTTOM)OF THE CHAMBER. 3,357,4,467,5,56,57 Q o 'o w w ° w w PLEASE NOTE: W ° W 55 a 1. THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY.THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR.FOR EXAMPLE,A SPECIFICATION FOR#4 STONE WOULD STATE:"CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR NO.4(AASHTO M43)STONE". z x m N 2. STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FORA'LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 6"(150 mm)(MAX)LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. w o w o 3. WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION,FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS,A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT.FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS,CONTACT STORMTECH FOR W o COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. W o z W 4. ONCE LAYER'C'IS PLACED,ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER'D'UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE.MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER'C'OR'D'AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. ~ N X 5. WHERE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE IS USED IN LAYERS'A'OR'B'THE MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO MEET THE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN TECHNICAL NOTE 6.20"RECYCLED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL". W < Q 5 S = U m ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL w o< AROUND CLEAN,CRUSHED,ANGULAR STONE IN A&B LAYERS N i 3 a a PAVEMENT LAYER(DESIGNED ~ c < BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) N �, o 0 \\\�\\��\\�\\��\\\\\\\\- \��\\\i��\\��\\�\ \\\\\\\ \`\�\``\\`\\�\\\�`�`\\ \\\�\\�\\\ \ *TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT.FOR UNPAVED \\� W PERIMETER STONE \ \ \W. \\1� 7/ y)�\ �1� D ` � INSTALLATIONS WHERE 1, ` % .�. ` % ` 18" (2.4 m) W (SEE NOTE 4) INCREASE COVER T024"(600 mm)./ / /III// / II wo (450 mm)MIN` MAX o 6„(150 mm)MIN p Q 11=1 f U w0 00 i 2 � EXCAVATION WALL j , o w © J (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) - 30" F- i a 1- 762 mm "THIS CROSS SECTION DETAIL REPRESENTS ® LL z ( ) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION. = O o a ow PLEASE SEE THE LAYOUT SHEET(S)FOR 0 E 11 -Iil PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. Ww j, o N _III-1 1=1 III III-1 I- I- I I -I 1 (A - -I I-111=111=11I-1I= -I I1=111-III-I I-I I2.-1�1 1111-111-1 -LI1-1 I- � DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED - x -T i 11 T=1 I-1,=1 I- -_= - - - _- -I-111 III- a) ((0 0°o ;Ili„ - LI-III- -II I-ITI-IZi- Ll l ITI-III- "- - BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 6"(150 mm)MIN L N z w III- -III III III III I I III III C l 1 ,,- _. SC-740 END CAP 6" Q E rn .w 12"(300 mm)MIN 51"(1295 mm) 12"(300 mm)MIN 00 o SUBGRADE SOILS (150 mm)MIN (SEE NOTE 3) U m o ow >a: O 0 Mw C,4 z Po J O O ca H¢ Z K w < = 0 0 NOTES: � ° zw W zz �Lr o� 1. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418,"STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE(PP)CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". o a W 2. SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787"STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". = W W W_ 3. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE(ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY)OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH w 1 CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. M o ' z F w- 4. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. m m �N 5. REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: =o • TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING,CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL,INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS. z w aw • TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL,THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 2". a o� • TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION,a)THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418 SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 550 r� LBS/FT/%.AND b)TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES(ABOVE 73°F/23°C),CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS. SHEET 4 OF 7 } W Q 2i 0 c� w w `n w O J C) LLI o z Y Q W z_ OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT J C-) o STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS SC-740 CHAMBER O N v o FLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM �n w a STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES "_ _ ,•-a'- - -o,l - - - . ,Ccr<.\7i:uir.o Cari ra;nur/in ril,nn ,rllyr/iIr- cn a Z co Z >r,y�itt xar ypf,/il n.ny rn�rllU ln, ruri�ruy�iu my^r0,j^'i it�ny__ryuy�rn��!ru nuy�!q Lqu apylii4 e i'•o..may. ..v a iu /orll Ju'`nu<nlr J LL ��//�`/rll�Ulf r//p r711�/I�rJ,lf�r�ll trlll�/ina/lL r//ik�rFl r/II r/n'r//Il-wI15Gll�l/11'rrr'r/III�//It�rrl'Cr�l�c'//'`'r/r 11 �11/�/ll>��N llri-lpT�f��,�lr�ylir=/!{I .�\7I/\�\\/i�L/i��S✓/�C\\n\'\�n'n�irFl.+g(��" LU r ��>'y 6,a�Z r y�J y=� rtiy���•� r.=.�.ti/x p.�:..a..r F!r�(�N.r�y - � r � -i �'k o...0 rriKwv. '\\J..v yr r, .�/��r-�✓ r �r'vv� fir' N yr yv< .'0 w�.r �\/'�'iv, n v 9-a m / hCayri�Cv�aYrhCvSri�\�Un`akri�:\S/;,Cv /II�_iil�rru qlr`r(Ilr/i.0�N llti!j!%!pti �i- ':-.\ram\r sv w\ s = F N " rrq fin w!II��Jn-`hn hlt`ylt,`r+u rrn`u grciil�ro-IF;ruts,/n -nurannj,fn'�rial;ailA'Cnu- n-n olill pll_rriyc9n_ir - =lo_� r �o,�o_� Syr*\Y(a1y{�. !a 1t�..rlia kroa.Brio1 x II;C//✓-M'4. ? „'�.--a'riJ-i•r -il-i rr5 r- H - •�. _ O - 'b':D.�Jr/��\\//1 /! \�Jr��\%��irl��1M\ 41 _r/t4�,VFII�J/II��nR N4_(Ili�>r 11 /!!ly U I- �r=.�u� />.\ynn'Y`�no:�s/!a)s/[..\li .va...v/i�ilrra»;ahi \\/i v�rral�(e:C\�n ylr.�:y2 v�,riav\ri �ji v x�/r..vynovSq ar/tr�Nia¢il�`rll-eu:xl�ni'oiir. %\-%.v:!�_ av,'.v: _ W +ilCrz..cilrr/in rhp.rt It r/mrUrv�lr.n-rrinr�n vrlr hlrr n4iu rrrp vul.r!ia�-hp rrrp ok.p'�/ilr�gar/L,p rin /rll�r y=rl ���--- L�:•r�rlT�l a\�httyeaC,�ri.�q�\y!t \r/'���. yyC,�\,, SC 740 END CAP W w !=•�ioYV<1�ao�lyr C\�n�.yn�}�rh\e g3v1X` %.egq F O j �/rn vnf�r!.II J/n r/n•�ItII /rpaItI rvrll rrlli`rlp n" nn`n1�+�7i ELEVATED BYPASS MANIFOLD a L r y y b �r y eY/io:.yrr hu�i,y/i�y'n.\wr: ngyx!eH /ru�!rn;/nl nn rzn;.rnrrl _ a -/• \�Dvy/RO\t it\U .\�qa L/i.�\�/i \\u���7�\\ Sri�\�/ia vl/i��Sy7r hj/i\1\n14 \q \\n yir.lin \ //II•vrll'.1i.-Nkrl�rr tf'Cn{I�UII�//'14�rr 1l �\%'6 �' l��.n� / ,YM.// \. =w W 'w w zW �'-*0 w�w B a z U J ¢ O W O SUMP DEPTH TBD BY J y 3 ` t!,U i Ry i w w w w SITE DESIGN ENGINEER NYLOPLAST 9 T Z (24"[600 mm]MIN RECOMMENDED) w ° 24"(600 mm)HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED a z ONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS625 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN o zo USE EZ END CAP PART#:SC740ECEZ w °-° wit FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS 5'(1.5 m)MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS U Q 5 SC-740 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL z W = a, NTS c ry a lw� I O H ap on IY w \ o N W� Z F 3 W zo INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE 12"(300 mm)MIN WIDTH NYLOPLAST 8"LOCKING SOLID z W COVER AND FRAME pwo Q w- STEP 1) INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENT CONCRETE COLLAR/ASPHALT OVERLAY = 00 w. A. INSPECTION PORTS(IF PRESENT) NOT REQUIRED FOR GREENSPACE OR w N J A.1. REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN + NON-TRAFFIC APPLICATIONS W a A.2. REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED 8"(200 mm)MIN THICKNESS OF ASPHALT � w z A.3. USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD,MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG OVERLAYAND CONCRETE COLLAR �\/ �I it = O- o W A.4. LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS(OPTIONAL) - o_ E °a A.5. IF SEDIMENT IS AT,OR ABOVE,3"(80 mm)PROCEED TO STEP 2.IF NOT,PROCEED TO STEP 3. j 8"NYLOPLAST UNIVERSAL INLINE DRAIN `� 0 w B. ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS / // BODY(PART#2708AG41PKIT)OR TRAFFIC F T _ _ B.1. REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUS / I RATED BOX W/SOLID LOCKING COVER �. v B.2. USING A FLASHLIGHT,INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPE /i w 0 / II i) MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAYBE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY ASPHALT OVERLAY FOR N a ii) FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE TRAFFIC APPLICATIONS Q N 0) o w B.3. IF SEDIMENT IS AT,OR ABOVE,3" 80 mm PROCEED TO STEP 2.IF NOT,PROCEED TO STEP 3. 4"(100 mm)SDR 35 PIPE m o I- ( ) CONCRETE COLLAR V� U m o` W F STEP 2) CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS USING THE JETVAC PROCESS STORMTECH CHAMBER "'"' o N A. A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45"(1.1 m)OR MORE IS PREFERRED w w B. APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN 4"(100 mm)INSERTA TEE > N o o C. VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED TO BE CENTERED ON CORRUGATION CREST ca z v g w xZ STEP 3) REPLACE ALL COVERS,GRATES,FILTERS,AND LIDS;RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS. w O z w ZZ STEP 4) INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM. Lr W W Q �o J ¢w co co J m F NOTES k' K _ W r1 � r w� wo Z, 1. INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION.ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS. NOTE: N INSPECTION PORTS MAY BE CONNECTED THROUGH ANY CHAMBER CORRUGATION CREST. fo 2. CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY. z W Sal \ aw of 4" PVC INSPECTION PORT DETAIL (SC SERIES CHAMBER) SHEET NTS 5 OF 7 UNDERDRAIN DETAIL SC-740 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NTS NTS } STORMTECH STORMTECH < w 0 x CHAMBERS STORMTECH CHAMBER END CAP J C) w o p z 90.7" 2304 mm ACTUAL LENGTH 85.4" 2169 mm INSTALLED LENGTH z Y OUTLET MANIFOLD ( ) ( ) Q Z w � U ° 0 G� BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION Ur J 0 U o J o w w (] O N V 0 N FOUNDATION STONE Q m M BENEATH CHAMBERS J O w �# o START END = U ui ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T o a NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE SECTION A-A DUAL WALL a PERFORATED Elm OVERLAP NEXT CHAMBER HERE 'w HDPE (OVER SMALL CORRUGATION) w w STORMTECH UNDERDRAIN W za END CAP W W a z, U Q 9. ¢ 0 W O w ° °a B B w w w 55z Z W W Q G x N e I4 z p ~O 29.3" 30.0" FOUNDATION STONE >a A (744 mm) (762 mm) W o BENEATH CHAMBERS W o ?W > o W. //\//\//\// / //\//\/j 12.2" IL w 5 A ANON-WOV NDS TGEOTEXTIILE \\\\%\ /j�//\// (310 mm) ff 45.9"(1166 mm) (1 95 mm) 3 w m Z �U NUMBER AND SIZE OF UNDERDRAINS PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER m a 4"(100 mm)TYP FOR SC-310&SC-16OLP SYSTEMS SECTION B-B NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS ~ ° W ry a r4 6"(150 mm)TYP FOR SC-740,SC-800,DC-780,MC-3500,MC-4500&MC-7200 SYSTEMS SIZE(W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 51.0"X 30.0"X 85.4" (1295 mm X 762 mm X 2169 mm) a 'w CHAMBER STORAGE 45.9 CUBIC FEET (1.30 ml) ° °�N MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE* 74.9 CUBIC FEET (2.12 ml) W J ZF WEIGHT 75.0 lbs. (33.6 kg) Z o WW Z A A *ASSUMES 6"(152 mm)STONE ABOVE,BELOW,AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS W _ 00 U wN W 55 ~ is 0 0<U a ~ p W � PRE-FAB STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH"B" B N I F F w a PRE-FAB STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH"T" ` cn o PRE-CORED END CAPS END WITH"PC" C U - F L W° PART # STUB A B C "N =a C C SC740EPE06T/SC740EPE06TPC 18 .5"(470 mm) --- }� M oo °P 6"(150 mm) 10.9"(277 mm) +_ m o SC740EPE06B/SC740EPE06BPC --- 0.5"(13 mm) U m o W SC740EPE08T/SC740EPE08TPC 16.5"(419 mm) --- ° r SC740EPE08B/SC740EPE08BPC 8"(200 mm) 12.2"(310 mm) 0.6"(15 mm) O x W SC740EPE10T/SC740EPE10TPC 14.5"(368 mm) --- > c°i o Po 10"(250 mm) 13.4"(340 mm) m a w SC740EPE10B/SC740EPE10BPC --- 0.7"(18 mm) z cl It W SC740EPE12T/SC740EPE12TPC 12.5"(318 mm) --- Q = o o 12"(300 mm) 14.7"(373 mm) 2 O z Z SC740EPE12B/SC740EPE12BPC --- 1.2"(30 mm) w SC740EPE15T/SC740EPE15TPC 9.0"(229 mm) w � om 15"(375 mm) 18.4"(467 mm) ¢ .o SC740EPE15B/SC740EPE15BPC --- 1.3"(33 mm) v J m F SC740EPE18T/SC740EPE18TPC 5.0"(127 mm) -- = W W 18"(450 mm) 19.7"(500 mm) W x SC740EPE18B/SC740EPE18BPC --- 1.6"(41 mm) w LL SC740ECEZ* 24"(600 mm) 18.5"(470 mm) --- 0.1"(3 mm) . z o W- W m ALL STUBS,EXCEPT FOR THE SC740ECEZ ARE PLACED AT BOTTOM OF END CAP SUCH THAT THE OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF THE <Z STUB IS FLUSH WITH THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT STORMTECH AT f o 1-888-892-2694. zw 3 al wW < *FOR THE SC740ECEZ THE 24"(600 mm)STUB LIES BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP APPROXIMATELY 1.75"(44 mm). ° BACKFILL MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM BELOW THE N-12 STUB SO THAT THE FITTING SITS LEVEL. I D NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL SHEET 6 of 7 NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN wco NTS LLI O J C) Y 2 o Z INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRON Q C; w F FRAME&GRATE/SOLID TO — z 2 Z MATCH BASIN O.D. Z J U o O N O N ¢ 0 18"(457 mm) zZ H Lo - a MIN WIDTH Q IY z-- 'a J O z W LL AASHTO H-20 CONCRETE SLAB 2 S2 8"(203 mm)MIN THICKNESS w W 12"(610 mm)MIN TRAFFIC LOADS:CONCRETE DIMENSIONS o a n (FOR AASHTO H-20) ARE FOR GUIDELINE PUPOSES ONLY. N ACTUAL CONCRETE SLAB MUST BE DESIGNED GIVING CONSIDERATION FOR w W INVERT ACCORDING TO LOCAL SOIL CONDITIONS,TRAFFIC z'o PLANS/TAKE OFF LOADING&OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN w FACTORS z I W o m a ADAPTER ANGLES VARIABLE 0°-360' W w a °a ACCORDING TO PLANS W w m a Z = G =4 VARIABLE SUMP DEPTH W 0 ~z AV ACCORDING TO PLANS W o [6"(152 mm)MIN ON 8-24"(200-600 mm), o o Z W VARIOUS TYPES OF INLET AND 10"(254 mm)MIN ON 30"(750 mm)] W ~ W OUTLET ADAPTERS AVAILABLE: w a a Ste" 4-30"(100-750 mm)FOR o W CORRUGATED HDPE 4"(102 mm)MIN ON 8-24"(200-600 mm) w 6"(152 mm)MIN ON 30"(750 mm) z 3- O H � w WATERTIGHT JOINT a ° (CORRUGATED HDPE SHOWN) A BACKFILL MATERIAL BELOW AND TO SIDES z F OF STRUCTURE SHALL BE ASTM D2321 g z o CLASS I OR II CRUSHED STONE OR GRAVEL 0 z W AND BE PLACED UNIFORMLY IN 12"(305 mm) vi W LIFTS AND COMPACTED TO MIN OF 90% m 00 g a �¢ LL O Z Q ® } oo Z NOTES N wW 1. 8-30"(200-750 mm)GRATES/SOLID COVERS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 _ w GRADE 70-50-05 r) x 2. 12-30"(300-750 mm)FRAMES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-05 N °z 0 3. DRAIN BASIN TO BE CUSTOM MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAILS cL 'a ww 4. DRAINAGE CONNECTION STUB JOINT TIGHTNESS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3212 T °a FOR CORRUGATED HDPE(ADS&HANCOR DUAL WALL)&SDR 35 PVC Z ° 5. FOR COMPLETE DESIGN AND PRODUCT INFORMATION: WWW.NYLOPLAST-US.COM ^ o 6. TO ORDER CALL: 800-821-6710 p iw > N oo A PART # GRATE/SOLID COVER OPTIONS m o <w z v mw 8" PEDESTRIAN LIGHT STANDARD LIGHT Q = 20 2808AG SOLID LIGHT DUTY (200 mm) DUTY DUTY w z w 10" PEDESTRIAN LIGHT STANDARD LIGHT z z 2810AG SOLID LIGHT DUTY Q www m (250 mm) DUTY DUTY o J a o 7 J mF 12" PEDESTRIAN STANDARD AASHTO SOLID v = W W (300 mm) 2812AG AASHTO H-10 H-20 AASHTO H-20 9� 15" PEDESTRIAN STANDARD AASHTO SOLID a o (375 mm) 2815AG AASHTO H-10 H-20 AASHTO H-20 W m m- 18 2818AG PEDESTRIAN STANDARD AASHTO SOLID =o (450 mm) AASHTO H-10 H-20 AASHTO H-20 c�W zw 24" PEDESTRIAN STANDARD AASHTO SOLID �W (600 mm) 2824AG AASHTO H-10 H-20 AASHTO H-20 30" 2830AG PEDESTRIAN STANDARD AASHTO SOLID (750 mm) AASHTO H-20 H-20 AASHTO H-20 =7 � NORTH SYSTEM SOUTH SYSTEM 26' EAR -,, r 1- ,i3.5' E SIB E _ I I � IIT _ I I � I \- STO.R.MTECH CHA SEE SHEETS C . f SSMH B2-1 'Eq ND-99' J A. AVM-- 000. CIVIL GROUP APPENDIX D - USDA SOILS REPORT USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for N ��� States Department of Agriculture and other Larimer County Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Area, Colorado Conservation Stations, and local Service participants .r, x pw' January 31, 2023 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 applications. 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 poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado...................................................................... 13 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope............................................... 13 35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................................. 14 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...........................................15 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes.........................................16 105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...................................... 18 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................20 Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................20 Soil Erosion Factors........................................................................................20 KFactor, Whole Soil....................................................................................20 References............................................................................................................24 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 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 measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 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. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map N M - N F1 O O 495200 4953M 495400 4955W 4956M 495700 495800 40°35 5T N 40°35 5T N 8 8 16, 1 � g j _ t 1 '�11 e .� .. Y' J 49 Soil Map Xn�ay=not.be valid aft ley 40°35 21"N "-, _ .I _. I _ ( 3 40°35 21"N 495200 495300 495400 495500 495600 4957M 4958M m Map Scale:1:4,750 i printed on A portrait(8.5'x 11")sheet. N Meters 0 0 50 100 200 300 /V 0 200 400 800 1200 Map projection:Web Mercator Comer coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UfM Zone 13N WGS84 9 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) #y Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 1:24,000. Q Stony Spot Soils Very Stony Spot Soil Map Unit Polygons Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot .,.. Soil Map Unit Lines Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Other misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil � Soil Map Unit Points g pp g y Special Line Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of Special Point Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed V Blowout Water Features scale. Streams and Canals I� Borrow Pit Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Clay Spot Rails measurements. Closed Depression Interstate Highways Gravel Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service � � US Routes Web Soil Survey URL: Gravelly Spot Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) Landfill Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Lava Flow Background projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more Mine or Quarry accurate calculations of distance or area are required. ® Miscellaneous Water This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as ® Perennial Water of the version dates)listed below. h, Rock Outcrop Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area,Colorado + Saline Spot Survey Area Data: Version 17,Sep 7,2022 . . Sandy Spot Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 4W Severely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger. 9 Sinkhole Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Jul 2,2021—Aug 25, Slide or Slip 2021 Sodic Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 22 Caruso clay loam,0 to 1 53.1 52.9% percent slope 35 Fort Collins loam,0 to 3 percent 14.4 14.4% slopes 64 Loveland clay loam,0 to 1 10.2 10.2% percent slopes 76 Nunn clay loam,wet, 1 to 3 18.6 18.5% percent slopes 105 Table Mountain loam,0 to 1 4.0 4.0% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 100.2 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. 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 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpvt Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Caruso and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Caruso Setting Landform: Flood-plain steps, stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 35 inches: clay loam H2-35 to 44 inches: fine sandy loam H3- 44 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 48 inches Frequency of flooding: NoneOccasional Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY036CO -Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Loveland Percent of map unit: 9 percent 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Landform: Terraces Ecological site. R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: Yes Fluvaquents Percent of map unit: 6 percent Landform: Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes 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: Stream terraces, interfluves 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 14 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 Ecological site: R067BY002CO - 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. R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Interfluves Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY024CO-Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpx9 Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Loveland and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Loveland Setting Landform: Flood plains, stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: clay loam H2- 15 to 32 inches: loam H3-32 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: OccasionalNone Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity:Very slightly saline to slightly saline (2.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY036CO -Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Aquolls Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes Poudre Percent of map unit: 5 percent Ecological site: R067BY036CO-Overflow Hydric soil rating: No 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 Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated 16 Custom Soil Resource Report 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:Alluvial fans, stream terraces 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: R067BY038CO -Wet Meadow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 6 percent Ecological site: R067BY042CO-Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Dacono Percent of map unit: 3 percent Ecological site: R067BY042CO-Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Mollic halaquepts Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Swales Hydric soil rating: Yes 17 Custom Soil Resource Report 105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol. jpty Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period. 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Table mountain and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Table Mountain Setting Landform: Flood plains, stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 36 inches: loam H2-36 to 60 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XY036CO -Overflow Hydric soil rating: No 18 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Caruso Percent of map unit: 7 percent Hydric soil rating: No Fluvaquentic haplustolls Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Paoli Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No 19 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil 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 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—K Factor, Whole Soil M - a, F, 0 0 495200 495300 495400 495500 4956M 495700 495800 40°35 52"N 40°35 52"N 8 8 fit~ 90E3 i I 3 r- oil � Il Soil Map may not be v+alid at t is-scNajls�" � ''��" ,�.-. :_ 40°35 21"N I I 40°35 21"N 495200 495300 495400 495500 495600 495700 495870 m Map Scale:1:4,750 V printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet. N Meters 0 0 50 100 200 300 Feet /V 0 200 400 800 1200 Map projection:Web Mercator Corner coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UfM Zone 13N WGS84 21 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) .24 Streams and Canals The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 1:24,000. r .28 Transportation Soils r 32 +++ Rails Soil Rating Polygons Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. .02 • r 37 „✓ Interstate Highways US Routes Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause 0 .05 • • .43 misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil 0 .10 49 Major Roads line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of Local Roads contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed 0 .15 +'� .55 scale. 64 Background 0 .17 •~ . Aerial Photography 0 .20 r Not rated or not available Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. 0 24 Soil Rating Points 0 28 ■ •02 Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service ® 05 Web Soil Survey URL: 0 .32 Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) 13 .10 13 0 .37 15 Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator .43 projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts 0 .17 distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the 0 .49 Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more 0 .55 20 accurate calculations of distance or area are required. � .24 0 .64 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data 0 � 28 Not rated or not available as of the version date(s)listed below. 1-] .32 Soil Rating Lines Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area,Colorado .02 a .37 Survey Area Data: Version 17,Sep 7,2022 .� .05 13 .43 49 Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales • r .10 ■ 1:50,000 or larger. r .15 ■ .55 s4 Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Jul 2,2021—Aug . . .17 ■ 25,2021 . , .20 Cl Not rated or not available Water Features The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 22 Custom Soil Resource Report Table—K Factor, Whole Soil Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 22 Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 .32 53.1 52.9% percent slope 35 Fort Collins loam,0 to 3 .43 14.4 14.4% percent slopes 64 Loveland clay loam,0 to .20 10.2 10.2% 1 percent slopes 76 Nunn clay loam,wet, 1 to .24 18.6 18.5% 3 percent slopes 105 Table Mountain loam,0 .37 4.0 4.0% to 1 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 100.2 100.0% 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) 23 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.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=nres142p2_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, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_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=stelprdb1043084 24 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.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf 25 A. AVAP-'- v CML GROUP APPENDIX E - FEMA FIRMETTE National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette yFEMA Legend 105°3'31"W 40°35'47"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Lu � � ,,,, LL_ y q*� - I"JE'`.AIF_{ z4 .rl� Without Base Flood Elevation BFE ry ry o .-.r' 4945:7 F� ��',4� „+,l - ( ) ss`" Zone A.V.A99 { SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone Ae.AO.AH.ve.AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas of 1%annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone x � Future Conditions 1%Annual Z017e 4rcr (� �® . Chance Flood Hazard zone x * Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to { OTHER AREAS OF Levee.See Notes.zone x 12 - �017A, FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard z-ox +' Q Effective LOMRS OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D GENERAL -—-- Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer 1 STRUCTURES IIIIIII Levee,Dike,or Floodwall 1$ (}f Fait CQ11in5 � Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation 0- +FCTJ NNU G EIFL(]QD RD 080102 i e- - - Coastal Transect MR 20 L su Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE) * " 5�207 Limit of Study Off. Jurisdiction Boundary ---- Coastal Transect Baseline 17N r t Sid OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature �3 ` '1 Digital Data Available N No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped Q4 � r The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. MR a-��3sw � 054101 AD t , This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of eff� 10 a i ti� digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. i dw - The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards f - The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA.This map was exported on 2/3/2023 at 11:33 AM and does not IMP T ° reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time.The NFHL and effective information may change or • , + . " _ ! become superseded by new data over time. i iiii _ + j 1 This map image is void if the one or more of the following map I � � k elements do not appear:basemap imagery,flood zone labels, ! r legend,scale bar,map creation date,community identifiers, 105°2'S4"W 40°35'20"N FIRM panel number,and FIRM effective date.Map images for Feet 1:6 000 unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 regulatory purposes. Basemap:USGS National Map:Orthoimagery.Data refreshed October,2020 A. AVM-- 000. CIVIL GROUP APPENDIX F - DRAINAGE EXHIBIT g POND SUMMARY TABLE F 1 g Tributary Weighted% Extended 100-Yr. 100.Yr. Peak Rational FIOW Summary Developed BOSi FIOW ROLES Q "�'•�s' Area Imperviousness Detention WQCY Detention Vol. Detention Release TOTAL O Pond ID. (AC)1 (%) (<u-ft) (AI-Ft) WSEL(Ft) (<fs)3 AREA Tc2 Tcl 00 C2 C100 Q2 0100 BASIN (acres) (min) (min) (Cf5) (C}9) 50 0 50 100 160 Feai m Pond 1. 6.1 61 4111 1.27 4942.20 2.5 A 2.27 5.0 5.0 0.70 0.88 4.52 19.73 Pond 2 11.41 59 7713 2.76 4942.10 1 B 1.52 5,0 5.0 0.81 1.00 3.51 15.14 (IN FEET) Notes: 0 3,45 6.6 6.6 0.63 0.79 5.68 24.78 1lhih=50 ft. 1.Tributary area shown does not include off-site basin(s) D 1.59 5.0 5.0 0.71 0.89 3.22 14.03 1 2.Total WQCV for site Will be provided in Pond 2 E 3.82 6.6 6.6 0:69 0.86 6.83 29.81 N 1 3.OveraII site release mte of 3.5 Cfs divided bemeen Ponds 1 and 2 J 0,31 5.0 5.0 0.52 1.00 0.72 3.05 LEGEND K 0.45 5,0 5.0 0.78 0,98 1.01 4.40 L 0.54 5.0 5.0 0.58 0.85 1.24 5.39 PROPOSED STORM SEWER W M 2.47 5.0 5.0 0.82 1.00 5.77 24.57 PROPOSED INLET E5 O N 0.97 12.8 12.5 0.33 0.41 0.64 2.81 PROPOSED CONTOUR 93 y EXISTING CONTOUR ----4953----- W PROPOSED SWALE ¢ aw PROPOSED CURB 4 GUTTER - r PROPERTYBOUNDARY r. DESIGN POINT A PROPOSED _ FLOWARROW •�,i Z 1 RA -_-- STORM DRAIN - N sAS 1 DRA oeocNNAGE BASIN LABEL BABN AOR C �LL $ 'Il DO Pf� B 1 - --7 I = � ace �Joc DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY O O N U PROPOSED SWALE SECTION i i z Er �¢ osi 1 .eos P< 1 1 NOTES J l - - -- 1. REF ER TO THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT,DATED APRIL 1D,20M BY AVANT CIVIL GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. LINK E 2. BASINS J AND K HAVE BEEN DELINEATED AND ANALYZED FOR THE / m_ 1 I PROPOSED L ��;_ FUTUREIULTIMATE CONDITION OF CORDOVA ROAD. u I I � I I I •► I B I 1 - I I I STORM DRAIN -� 1 _ _ U STORM DRAIN # / �s IT- 1 >g 0 o: o I � �♦ ♦I �I II I 1 I I I TENTION K � POND1 I I + 0.37 ac I I -- , I I I ' ♦ I , I IV /OPOSED 2' I I I � 1 , I I ; I I I , I I CONCRETE PAN A o POND OUTLET F STRUCTURE Q I • m P NCRUE PAN • I I I I I I 1 y - - Q I - � . ah_-_- M LLl = I RA N � J w I i - = Ds4a< i I A qEN Mom- I LIJ Ur I I I __ ..:•..: 1.58.< GARDEN D I Q Q i ::•. ftesaaaaaaaaaaaa I I y I I I aaasee. as I j I - D as I Z � Q r _ . eas�assasLU I Z D_.....I............�( Q 0 I EKI.TING STORM DRAIN I - 1 1 _ I LLI LL � Imo- � j JI I I -� I O �� __-- �----_. ----_ I I - - 4F 4 n W I I II I II I I 1 3'__i_" S PROPOSED DRAIN ❑ I _ I I I I Z I PROPOSED I STORM DRAIN - I� I O all I 395 ac I CAUTION ENTION The ea pl<palpn lose N Tans all _not be responsible 4 0 P - I D 2 rol,or namR for.NRaNmoriz<a All ph Dl Paes Drthasa 3 ^ plans.Al lchan9esmusibe aPEn9neef both se plansnal FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED2 1 I I A CONCRETE PAN SCALE. 1 - If •!. O N, CALL UTILITY COLORADO NOTIFICATION CENTER OF HORIZ: V-S N I VERT: NIA GA D _-__ a E 37 38 3a POND OUTLET • r. I _ _ PROPOSED 40 4 STRUCTURE • I _ _ I SHEET:---POND OUTFALL------02 - - -- �_ 43 w. C701 n i EXISTING y_L 6 r DUFF DRIVE STORM GRAIN ----_- CI Cr '---------- --------------- -- aL«aD Call befboee you dig.Rn�o�. 58 of 71 ------------------------- ------------------ 1.aNAoe<NE,IA1ATEFONTNENANNI uuC[acRCUND tit[waFN unUTlas. ---- PROJECT NO. 1791-0IX1