The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 01/24/2025 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS, COLORADO OCTOBER 11, 2024 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS GREELEY City of Fort Collins Approved Plans Approved by: Date: Dan Mogen 01/24/2025 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY COVER LETTER October 11, 2024 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR RUDOLPH FARM Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for your review. This report accompanies the Final Development Review submittal for the proposed Rudolph Farm project. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) in conjunction with Mile High Flood Control District Stormwater Criteria as well as the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed Rudolph Farm project. We understand review by the City is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM, Mile High Flood Control District Stormwater Criteria Manual, and Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. BLAINE MATHISEN, PE Project Manager NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 1 A. LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ............................................................................................................. 2 C. FLOODPLAIN ....................................................................................................................................... 2 DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ..................................................................... 3 A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 3 B. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 4 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................... 6 A. REGULATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 6 B. FOUR STEP PROCESS ......................................................................................................................... 6 C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS .............................................................. 7 D. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA .................................................................................................................. 7 E. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA ......................................................................................................................... 7 F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................... 8 G. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 8 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ........................................................................... 8 A. GENERAL CONCEPT ............................................................................................................................ 8 B. DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SPECIFICS ................................................................................. 14 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 17 A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 17 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT ........................................................................................................................ 17 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 18 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS (EXISTING SWMM & RATIONAL) APPENDIX B – HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 – STORM SEWERS AND BOX CULVERTS B.2 – INLETS, SIDEWALK CULVERTS, AND STREET CAPACITIES B.3 – DETENTION FACILITIES (SWMM AND ORIFICE RATINGS) B.4 – SCOURSTOP AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS APPENDIX C – STANDARD WATER QUALITY AND LID APPENDIX D – TIMNATH STORMWATER MASTER PLAN PERTINENT INFORMATION APPENDIX E – EROSION CONTROL REPORT, SOILS REPORT, AND FLOODPLAIN MAPS NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP ....................................................................................................1 FIGURE 2 - FEMA FIRM 08069C984H AND 08069C1003G .................................................3 TABLE 1 - PERCENT IMPERVIOUS PER TABLE 4.1.2 FCSCM ............................................5 TABLE 2 - WQCV AND LID SUMMARY .............................................................................. 15 TABLE 3 - POND SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 3 - STORMWATER FLOWS TO BOXELDER CREEK FROM POND 1 ..................... 16 MAP POCKET DR1 – DRAINAGE EXHIBIT DR2 – EXISTING DRAINAGE EXHIBIT NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 1 | 18 GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION Vicinity Map The Rudolph Farm project site is located in a tract of land located in Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. The project site is located north of Prospect Road, east of I-25, to the north is the Fox Grove Subdivision, and to the east is the Timnath High School. Splitting the site in two is the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) drainage channel and the Lake Canal irrigation ditch. There will be two TRIC box culverts installed as well as three Lake Canal box culverts associated with this development. Zoning across the site includes Commercial (CG), Industrial (I), and Urban Estate (UE). The existing lot does not have any stormwater or water quality facilities. Figure 1 Vicinity Map NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 2 | 18 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Rudolph Farm is approximately 119.09 net acres, including a portion of the north side of Prospect Road and the area associated with the TRIC and Lake Canal. Rudolph Farm is proposing developing twelve (12) pad ready lots. Therefore, all detention, standard water quality, LID, and all associated storm water infrastructure will be installed with this package. The project will consist of two local roads and one major road. However, Lot 7 will not be getting developed with this project because the site layout is highly unknown at the time of this report. Lot 7 is zoned as industrial and this report takes an inital stab at some conceptual stormwater detention, water quality, and LID sizings using an assumed impervious value from the FCSCM Land Use Table. It should be noted again that these are conceptual and at the time of Lot 7’s development all criteria per the FCSCM needs to be met. The site is currently an undeveloped parcel with an existing groundcover consisting of short grasses. The existing on-site runoff generally drains from the northeast to the southwest across flat grades (e.g., <1.00%). The north half of the site drains into the TRIC, the southwest portion sheet flows to an existing 36” RCP that drains toward Boxelder Creek, and the southeast portion of the site sheet flows into Lake Canal. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Survey classifies the site as primarily Garret loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B) and Fort Collins loam (Hydrological Soil Group C). The TRIC and Lake Canal are the only irrigation ditches that act as drainageways within or adjacent to the project site. The only modifications to these channels that the Rudolph Farm development is proposing are installing box culverts underneath the proposed road crossings. Per the “Supplemental Preliminary Subsurface Exploration Report Proposed Mixed Use Development – Rudolph Farms Property” by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC dated June 3rd, 2022 observed groundwater between 8’ and 12’ deep. A perimeter drain is not being proposed at this time. Additionally, there will be a clay liner at the bottom of Pond 1, Pond 2, and Pond 3. The clay liner will be designed by the Geotech Engineer and it will prevent groundwater from seeping into the ponds. There will be no clay liners for the rain gardens because there is greater than 2’ separation between the invert of the underdrain and top of groundwater. C. FLOODPLAIN The far northwest corner of the site is located within the existing Boxelder Creek Flood fringe, floodway, and erosion buffer zone. The southeast and southwest portions of the site are in an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X). A copy of the FEMA Firmette (Map Numbers 08069C0984H and 08069C1003G and effective date of May 2, 2012) is provided in Appendix E. A LOMR was approved by FEMA dated February 21, 2019 (Case No. 17-08-1354P), and these improvements have removed much of this property from the flood fringe and floodway. No work is being proposed in the floodplain, floodway, or erosion buffer. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 3 | 18 DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION Rudolph Farm is located within the City of Fort Collins city limits, and it is not located within any defined major basin. However, Rudolph Farm will have three different outfall locations. One outfall will discharge into the Boxelder Basin at the historic 2-year rate. The other discharge location will be at the Lake Canal connection which will have the historic 2-year rate conveyed to it. Runoff being routed to Lake Canal will be detained and treated following FCSCM requirements. Lastly, the north portion of Rudolph Farm will be discharging into the TRIC at 7 cfs which is below the historic 2-year rate. According to the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan the area to the north of the TRIC is 67 acres and has a 2-year runoff rate of 4 cfs. However, the area to the north of the TRIC is actually 77.63 acres and has a 2-year runoff rate of 11.05 cfs (see Appendix A). The 7 cfs corresponds to the 10-year historic according to the Timnath Master Plan. The existing TRIC has a capacity issue as described in the Timnath Master Drainage Plan and the Timnath Master Plan identified one of the potential solutions is to have very restrictive release rates into the TRIC to help alleviate downstream issues. Therefore, the Timnath Master Drainage Report identifies a future 7.00 cfs release rate from this property into the TRIC, this is described in greater detail in section II.B.1. Rudolph Farms is associated with Basins 2, 3, and 6 within the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. Additionally, New Cache Irrigation Company has approved the use of the 7 cfs release rate. Figure 2 - FEMA FIRM 08069C984H and 08069C1003G NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 4 | 18 B. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION Historically the property has generally drained northeast to southwest. The site is split near the middle by the TRIC and Lake Canal. Therefore, the area to the north of the TRIC has historically sheet flowed into the TRIC. As specified in the SWMM results of the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan, the north side of the site has historically discharged 52 cfs into the TRIC (Link 102). However, the TRIC has capacity issues, as discussed in the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. In order to improve the TRIC, the Timnath Stormwater Master Plans specifies the north side of the property (Basin 2 – From the Master Plan) can have a maximum release rate of 7 cfs. The maximum release rate is associated with Link 102 from the SWMM results found in the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. Pertinent information from the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan has been included in Appendix D of this report. A Stormwater Discharge Agreement will be supplied at the time of recording. The area south of the TRIC also sheet flows northeast to southwest. However, instead of entering the TRIC, this runoff has been routed to Boxelder Creek via a 36” RCP at the southwest corner of the site. The Timnath Stormwater Master Plan says this area actually makes it to the Timnath Reservoir; however, this is incorrect. This flow has been historically conveyed to Boxelder Creek through a series of swales and pipes. Therefore, this portion of the site’s release rate is controlled by the FCSCM. FCSCM specifies that this portion of the site must detain the difference between the historic 2-year and proposed 100-year. CDOT was responsible for making improvements along the I-25 Frontage Road to Boxelder Creek and they have confirmed that this 36” RCP has a max release rate of 35 cfs which is greater than the historic 2. Correspondence with CDOT has been supplied in Appendix B right after the orifice sizing for Pond 1. Lastly, there is a portion of the site on the east side of the Lake Canal, south side of the TRIC, north of Prospect, and west of the new school. This area is associated with Lot 7, which as previously stated, has no known site plans at the time of this report. Lot 7 has historically drained from northeast to southwest, via sheet flow into Lake Canal. Therefore, when Lot 7 develops it will be responsible for providing LID, water quality, and detention that meets the FCSCM. During the interim condition Lot 7 will provide standard water quality and detention which will restrict the release rate to match the max release rate which is equal to the historic 2-yr runoff rate (3.96 cfs). Pond 4, shown on the Drainage Exhibit and Utility Plans, represents the interim pond described above. A Stormwater Discharge Agreement will be supplied at the time of recording. The Stormwater Discharge Agreement will specify ownership, maintenance responsibility, and max discharge rate into the Lake Canal. Included in this package at the back is an Existing Drainage exhibit. Below are brief descriptions of the existing basins shown in the exhibit. Basin EX1 Basin EX1 is associated with the runoff that sheet flows from northeast to southwest into the existing 36” RCP at the southwest corner of the site. Runoff from Basin EX1 is routed to Boxelder Creek. CDOT was responsible for the improvements to route this runoff to Boxelder. Correspondence with CDOT on max allowable release rate from this location is shown in Appendix B.3. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 5 | 18 Basin EX2 Basin EX2 is associated with the runoff that sheet flows from northeast to southwest into the Lake Canal irrigation ditch. Basin EX2 is associated with Lot 7 and was used as the basis for setting the max release rate for Pond 4. Basin EX3 Basin EX3 is associated with the runoff that sheet flows northeast to southwest into the TRIC. Basin EX4 Basin EX4 is associated with the portion of the project site that sits in the floodplain. However, there is no proposed work associated with this basin and it is included to highlight where the floodplain is. Basin EX5 Basin EX5 is associated with the TRIC and Lake Canal ditches. The only work being proposed in this basin is the installation of some box culverts underneath the proposed street crossings. There are some important basins and links to take note of within the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. As previously stated, Rudolph Farm is associated with Basins 2, 3, and 6. Link 102 shows the allowable release rate (7 cfs) into the TRIC from the north side of the project site. Link 103 shows the southern portion of Rudolph Farm draining towards the Timnath Reservoir, and that is incorrect. Link 103 should be shown as going to the Boxelder Creek, per CDOT’s improvements. Pertinent information has been provided in Appendix D, but if the entire report is needed, please reach out to the Town of Timnath or Northern Engineering. All standard water quality and LID have been sized for future developments. Future developments must verify that they are below the assumption made in this report. If future developments do not exceed the assumed percent imperviousness then they do not have to detain or provided additional water quality and LID. However, if future developments exceed the assumed percent imperviousness of their lots, they must make up the difference in detention, water quality, and LID per the FCSCM. Assumed percent imperviousness was based on zoning percent imperviousness from the FCSCM. The project area north of the TRIC is zoned as mostly industrial, with one lot being zoned as Urban Estate. All the area to the south of the TRIC is zoned as commercial except Lot 7 which is industrial. Table 1 - Percent Impervious Per Table 4.1.2 FCSCM NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 6 | 18 A full-size copy of the Proposed Drainage Exhibit and Existing Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. This Proposed Drainage Exhibit represents the interim condition. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS Rudolph Farm will be using a combination of criteria from FCSCM as well as the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan with respect to detention. As previously described, the southern portion of Rudolph Farm will be detaining the difference between the historic 2-year and proposed 100-year. The northern portion of Rudolph Farm will be following the requirements set forth by the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan as previously discussed in Section II.A above. Rudolph Farm will have three detention ponds, with two of them having ponds in series to meet the required volumes. A SWMM model was assembled to show the routing and detention of the proposed site. Section IV.B of this report will go into greater depth on the SWMM model and results. Rudolph Farm will be utilizing FCSCM for all standard water quality and LID requirements. There will be no interim LID or standard water quality infrastructure. For standard water quality, a 40-hour drain time was used, and for LID, a 12-hour drain time was used. B. FOUR STEP PROCESS The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the Rudolph Farm project utilizes the “Four Step Process” to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters. The following describes how the proposed development has incorporated each step. Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development and future developments to facilitate the reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the current use and implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, including: · Providing vegetated open areas throughout the site to reduce the overall impervious area and minimize directly connected impervious areas. · Routing runoff through the biomedia within the rain gardens to increase concentration time and promote infiltration. Step 2 – Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with Slow Release Water quality will be provided via standard water quality per FCSCM. Utilizing standard water quality and the efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize excess runoff from frequently occurring storm events. Treating frequently occurring storm events will have beneficial impacts on downstream infrastructure. Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways Rudolph Farm proposes to limit the amount of disturbance to the TRIC as well as the Lake Canal. By limiting disturbance to the ditch banks, the project will effectively maintain the existing vegetation. In areas of disturbance, the banks will be stabilized via methods that include erosion control blankets and ScourStop pads. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 7 | 18 Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs This step typically applies to industrial and commercial developments. Rudolph Farm is zoned as mostly industrial and commercial, but at the time of this infrastructure package, no site-specific or other source-control BMPs will be considered. When those future lots come online, they will need to implement site-specific and other source control BMPs, such as sand-oil separators, localized trash locations, going below the assumed percent imperviousness, etc. Additionally, Rudolph Farms is treating all the proposed impervious areas including the streets. C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS There are no known drainage studies for this specific property. However, it is a part of the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. As previously stated, the project area north of the TRIC will be abiding by the release rate specified by the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. The remaining portion of the project site will abide by the FCSCM. Standard water quality and LID will be provided as a part of this infrastructure package using assumed percent impervious values as specified in the FCSCM. Standard water quality and LID sizing follow the FCSCM for the entire site. As the twelve lots begin their design process they must verify their percent impervious. If their lot is below or at the assumed percent impervious no further stormwater infrastructure needs to be installed. However, if the percent impervious is higher than what was assumed then that lot is responsible for providing additional detention, water quality, and LID per the FCSCM. D. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in Figure RA-16 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations associated with this development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7 has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing coefficients contained in Tables 4.1-2 and 4.1-3 of the FCSCM. The project area north of the TRIC will meet the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan specified maximum release rate. The remaining portion of the site will utilize FCSCM criteria to detain the difference between the historic 2-year and proposed 100-year. A SWMM model has been provided that shows compliance with both criteria. 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. No other assumptions or calculation methods have been used with this development that is not referenced by current City of Fort Collins criteria, Mile High Flood District criteria, or Timnath Master Stormwater Plan criteria. E. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA As previously noted, the subject property historically drains towards the southwest. However, the site is split near the center by the TRIC where the north portion of the site drains to. The southern portion of the site mainly drains to the southwest corner of the site to an existing 36” RCP that starts to convey the runoff to Boxelder Creek. There is a small portion of the project site (Lot 7) NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 8 | 18 that drains to the Lake Canal. A Stormwater Discharge Agreement with Lake Canal and New Cache will be provided at final recordation. All drainage facilities proposed with the Rudolph Farm project are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM and Timnath Stormwater Master Plan. As stated in Section I.C.1 above, the subject property has a small portion of regulatory floodplain restrictions and development code at the northeast corner of the site. However, no development is proposed to take place in this area. Rudolph Farm will be providing full standard water quality and LID for all future developments. Future developments cannot exceed the assumed percent impervious values. See Section I.VA of this report for additional clarification. F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE No occupied structures are being proposed with the Rudolph Farm project. G. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA Rudolph Farm is seeking a modifications to criteria. Rudolph Farm is seeking to utilize a discharge rate of 7 cfs for the northern portion of the site which follows the Timnath Master Plan. This discharge rate is below the historic 2-year rate as shown in Appendix A. This will improve downstream function of the TRIC and alleviate some of the overtopping. An updated exhibit and memo “TRIC Analysis for Rudolph Farm Development” by Galloway showing the reduction to downstream overtopping spills has been included at the start of Appendix C. Confirmation and agreement from the Town of Timnath that Rudolph Farm is not adversely impacting the TRIC downstream from the site is required prior to approval/construction. The Town of Timnath will be signing the development plans to indicate their approval. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT The main objectives of Rudolph Farm are to provide detention, water quality, and LID for the proposed infrastructure package as well as all future developments. Excluding the TRIC and Lake Canal, there are minor off-site flows draining onto the existing property from Prospect Road. These flows are being routed to Pond 1 for standard water quality and detention. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of Contents at the front of the document. The tables and figures are located within the sections to which the content best applies. Rudolph Farm project comprises forty (40) drainage basins, designated as Basins 1-13, R1-R13, OS1-OS7, FG1, and DC1-DC3. The drainage patterns for each basin are described below. Basin 1 Basin 1 is at the southwest corner of the project site. It is zoned as commercial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Detention for Basin 1 is provided in Pond 1. Rain Garden 1 provides LID for Basin 1. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 9 | 18 Basin 2 Basin 2 is near the southwest corner of the project site. It is zoned as commercial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Detention for Basin 2 is provided in Pond 1. Rain Garden 1 provides LID for Basin 2. Basin 3 Basin 3 is near the southwest corner of the project site. It is zoned as commercial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Detention for Basin 3 is provided in Pond 1. Rain Garden 1 provides LID for Basin 3. Basin 4A Basin 4A is north of Basins 1 and 2 and zoned as commercial thus, it has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Runoff from Basin 4A is allowed to enter the adjacent ROW in Street A. From there, the runoff will be routed to design point r13 (see Drainage Exhibit), where it will enter Rain Garden 1. Detention and for Basin 4A is provided in Pond 1. Basin 4B Basin 4B is north of Basins 2 and 3 and zoned as commercial thus, it has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Runoff from Basin 4A is allowed to enter the adjacent ROW in Street A. From there, the runoff will be routed to design point r1 (see Drainage Exhibit), where it will enter Rain Garden 1. Detention and for Basin 4B is provided in Pond 1. Basin 5 Basin 5 is east of Basin 4 and north of Basin 6 and zoned as commercial thus, it has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Runoff from Basin 5 is allowed to enter the adjacent ROW in Carriage Parkway. However, Basin 5 is also allowed to flow through Basin 6 because of its grading constraints. From there the runoff will be routed to design point r2 (see Drainage Exhibit). Runoff from Basin 5 will not receive LID treatment and will be routed directly to Pond 1. Detention and standard water quality for Basin 5 are provided in Pond 1. Basin 6 Basin 6 is east of Basin 4 and south of Basin 5 and zoned as commercial thus, it has an assumed percent impervious of 80%. Runoff from Basin 6 is allowed to enter the adjacent ROW in Carriage Parkway. Basin 5 has some grading constraints and thus may need to drain a portion of the future development in Lot 5 through Basin 6 (Lot 6). Basin 6 must account for this flow to bypass through it at the time of future development. From there, the runoff will be routed to design point r2 (see Drainage Exhibit), Runoff from Basin 6 will not receive LID treatment and will be routed directly to Pond 1. Detention and standard water quality for Basin 5 are provided in Pond 1. Basin 7 Basin 7 is east of Lake Canal, north of Prospect, west of the school, and south of the TRIC. Basin 7 is associated with existing Basin EX2. Basin 7 includes a portion of the northside of Prospect Road, which will need to be detained and treated on Lot 7 during the interim condition. At the time of Lot 7 development Lot 7 will be responsible for updating the interim pond and provide LID for future on-site improvements. All proposed improvements must follow FCSCM. Lot 7 is the only lot in the Rudolph Farm Development that will not be allowed to rely on the regional detention and LID features. Therefore, Lot 7 will need to follow the FCSCM for detention, water quality, and LID at the time of development. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 10 | 18 Basin 8A Basin 8A is north of the TRIC along the west side of the project site. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Basin 8A is not allowed to discharge to the ROW. Basin 8A must discharge directly to Rain Garden 2. Detention for Basin 8A is provided in Pond 2. Rain Garden 2 provides LID for Basin 8A. Basin 8B Basin 8B is north of the TRIC along the west side of the project site. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 8B is routed to a swale that is adjacent to the back lot line of Lots 8 and 9. This swale will route runoff directly to Pond 2. Runoff from Basin 8B will not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality for Basin 8B is provided in Pond 2. Basin 9A Basin 9A is north of the TRIC along the west side of the project site and north of Basin 8A. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 9A is allowed to enter the ROW of Street A. Once in Street A, runoff is routed to Rain Garden 2. Detention for Basin 9A is provided in Pond 2. Basin 9B Basin 9B is north of the TRIC along the west side of the project site. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 9B is routed to a swale that is adjacent to the back lot line of Lots 8 and 9. This swale will route runoff directly to Pond 2. Runoff from Basin 9B will not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality for Basin 9B is provided in Pond 2. Basin 10 Basin 10 is north of the TRIC and centrally located. It is bound to the west by Street A, Street B to the north, and Carriageway to the east. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 10 is not allowed to enter the ROW of any of the surrounding streets. All runoff needs to be routed directly to Rain Garden 3. Detention and for Basin 10 is provided in Pond 2. Basin 11 Basin 11 is north of the TRIC along the east side of the project site. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 11 is not allowed to enter the ROW of Carriage Parkway. Basin 11 will not receive LID treatment. Basin 11 is required to route runoff to Storm Line A by a stub out from Inlet A3. Detention for Basin 11 is provided in Pond 2. Basin 12 Basin 12 is north of the TRIC, centrally located, and adjacent to the northern project boundary. It is zoned as industrial and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 90%. Runoff from Basin 12 is not allowed to enter the ROW of any of the surrounding streets. All runoff needs to be routed directly to Rain Garden 4. Detention for Basin 12 is provided in Pond 3. Basin 13 Basin 13 is north of the TRIC and is the northeastern most lot of the Rudolph Farm development. It is zoned as urban estates and thus has an assumed percent impervious of 30%. Runoff from Basin 13 is not allowed to enter the ROW of any of the surrounding streets. All runoff needs to be routed directly to Rain Garden 5. Detention for Basin 13 is provided in Pond 3. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 11 | 18 All basins that start with “R” denote a basin that is associated with roadways only. Basin R1 Basin R1 is composed of a collector and commercial ROW. Basin R1 drains north to south and the WQ event enters Rain Garden 1, at design point r1, for its LID treatment. Design point r1 is a 8’ chase which is adequately sized for the WQ event. Flows greater than the WQ event will continue south to Prospect Road where they are routed to Inlet I3. From there the runoff is routed to Pond 1 for detention. Basin R2 Basin R2 is composed of collector ROW. Basin R2 drains north to south and enters Inlet C3. From there Basin R2 is routed directly to Pond 1 for detention and standard water quality. Basin R2 does not receive LID treatment. Basin R3 Basin R3 is composed of a commercial local and industrial local ROW. Basin R3 drains north to south and the WQ event enters Rain Garden 2 via a 12’ sidewalk chase, at design point r3, for its LID treatment. The remaining flows will by-pass the 12’ sidewalk chase and enter Inlet H3 which is a 15’ Type R inlet and is associated with Design Point r9. Refer to Basin R9 description for additional information. Runoff from Basin R3 will be detained in Pond 2. Basin R4 Basin R4 is composed of commercial local ROW. Basin R4 drains north to south and the WQ event enters Rain Garden 3 via a 4’ chase, at design point r4, for its LID treatment. Like Basin R3 the remaining flows will continue south and enter Inlet H2, at Design Point r10, which will route the remaining runoff to Pond 2 for detention. Basin R5 Basin R5 is composed of commercial and collector ROW. Basin R5 drains north to south and the WQ event enters Rain Garden 3, at design point r5, for its LID treatment. The remaining runoff will continue to drain south where it will enter Inlet A2, at Design Point r11, which will route the remaining runoff directly to Pond 2 for detention. Basin R6 Basin R6 is composed of collector ROW. Basin R6 drains north to south and enters Storm Line A, specifically Inlet A3. Basin R6 does not receive LID treatment. Runoff from Basin R6 is routed directly to Pond 2 for detention and standard water quality. Basin R7 Basin R7 is composed of industrial ROW and a portion of industrial development from Lot 12. Basin R7 is routed to Storm Line F which conveys the flows to the swale that runs along the north side of Lots 8 and 9. Runoff from Basin R7 does not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality are provided in Pond 2 for Basin R7. Basin R8 Basin R8 is composed of collector ROW and a portion of industrial development from Lot 12 and some urban estate development from Lot 13. Basin R8 is routed to Storm Line G which conveys the flows to the swale that runs along the north side of Lots 8 and 9. Runoff from Basin R8 does not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality are provided in Pond 2 for Basin R8. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 12 | 18 Basin R9 Basin R9 is composed of commercial ROW. Basin R9 drains south to north to Inlet H3, Design Point r9. Inlet H3 is also taking bypassed flows from Design Point r3. However, Inlet H3 does not have adequate capacity for the 100-year event so there is some overtopping in the ROW during the 100-yr event. A portion of the overtopping flow heads east across the crown to Inlet H2, Design Point r10, which has been upsized to take some of this overtopping flow. However, there is still some additional flow that will overtop the ROW and back of walk on both the west and east sides of Street A. An HY-8 model was put together to calculate the spread of the spill and this can be found in Appendix B.2. The HY-8 model has an in-depth explanation of how the remaining overtopping flows were calculated. Additionally, these spill locations are shown on the Drainage Exhibit. The spill locations are reinforced with an SC250 Erosion Control Blanket. Refer to Appendix B.4 for erosion control calculations. From there runoff will then be routed directly to Pond 2 for detention. Overtopping conformance meets Table 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 from chapter 9 of the FCSCM. The street classification for Street A is considered a local. Therefore, during the 100-yr event the maximum allowable depth at flowline is 12 inches because it is the most restrictive of the criteria in Table 2.1-2. The total depth of the overtopping at Design Point r9 is exactly one foot. It overtops the crown at this location by 3.36 inches. Additionally, during the 2-yr event there is no curb overtopping. Lastly, it should be noted that the street in question (Street A) is a private road that will be owned and maintained by the Metro District. Basin R10 Basin R10 is composed of commercial ROW. Basin R10 drains south to north to Inlet H2, Design Point r10. Inlet H2 is also taking bypassed flows from Design Point r4. Inlet H2 was greatly oversized to accommodate flows from the overtopping scenario in Basin R9. Even though Inlet H2 was oversized there is still overtopping occurring at Design Point r4 because of flows from Basin R9. An HY-8 model was put together to calculate the spread of the spill and this can be found in Appendix B.2. The HY-8 model has an in-depth explanation of how the remaining overtopping flows were calculated. Additionally, these spill locations are shown on the Drainage Exhibit. The spill locations are reinforced with an SC150 Erosion Control Blanket. Refer to Appendix B.4 for erosion control calculations. From there runoff will then be routed directly to Pond 2 for detention. Overtopping conformance meets Table 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 from chapter 9 of the FCSCM. The street classification for Street A is considered a local. Therefore, during the 100-yr event the maximum allowable depth at flowline is 12 inches because it is the most restrictive of the criteria in Table 2.1-2. The total depth of the overtopping at Design Point r9 is exactly one foot. It overtops the crown at this location by 3.36 inches. Additionally, during the 2-yr event there is no curb overtopping. Lastly, it should be noted that the street in question (Street A) is a private road that will be owned and maintained by the Metro District. Basin R11 Basin R11 is composed of collector ROW. Basin R11 drains south to north to Inlet A2, Design Point r11. Inlet A2 is taking bypassed flows from Design Point r5. Runoff from Basin R11 will not receive NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 13 | 18 LID treatment. Runoff from Basin R11 will be detained and receive standard water quality in Pond 2. Basin R12 Basin R12 is composed of a collector and commercial ROW. Basin R12 drains north to south and routed to a swale that runs north to south between Lots 1 and 2. The swale will route runoff to Rain Garden 1, for LID treatment. Pond 1 will provide detention for Basin R12. Basin R13 Basin R13 is composed of a collector and commercial ROW. Basin R13 drains north to south and routed to a swale that runs north to south between Lots 1 and 2. The swale will route runoff to Rain Garden 1, for LID treatment. Pond 1 will provide detention for Basin R12. Basin OS1 Basin OS1 is the area associated with Pond 1 and Rain Garden 1. The portion of area associated with Rain Garden 1 will receive LID treatment and has been accounted for in the WQCV calculations. However, the remaining portion of Basin OS1 does not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality for Basin OS1 is provided in Pond 1 Basin OS2 Basin OS2 is on the north side of Prospect Road that has historically entered Rudolph Farm Property. Runoff from Basin OS2 is routed to Pond 1 for detention and standard water quality via Storm Drain C. Basin OS2 does not receive LID treatment. Basin OS3 Basin OS3 is the area associated with the floodplain at the northwest corner of the site. Basin OS3 will remain undeveloped. Basin OS3 will not receive LID, detention, or standard water quality. Basin OS3 is the same as existing Basin EX4. Basin OS4 Basin OS4 is the area associated with the west side of Pond 2, Rain Garden 2, and the swale along the north side of Lots 8 and 9. The portion of area associated with Rain Garden 2 will receive LID treatment and this area has been accounted for in the WQCV calculation. However, the remaining portion of Basin OS4 does not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality for Basin OS4 is provided in Pond 2. Basin OS5 Basin OS5 is the area associated with the central portion of Pond 2 and Rain Garden 3. The portion of area associated with Rain Garden 3 will receive LID treatment and this area has been accounted for in the WQCV calculation. However, the remaining portion of Basin OS5 does not receive LID treatment. Detention and standard water quality for Basin OS5 is provided in Pond 2. Basin OS6 Basin OS6 is the area north of Lot 12 and between Carriage Parkway and Vixen Drive. Basin OS6 is an undeveloped tract that is routed to Pond 2 for detention and standard water quality. Basin OS6 does not receive LID treatment. Basin OS7 Basin OS7 is the area north of Lot 13 and east of Carriage Parkway. This is another undeveloped tract that is routed to Pond 2 for detention and standard water quality. Basin OS7 does not receive LID treatment. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 14 | 18 Basin FG1 Basin FG1 is an area offsite associated with Fox Grove, hence the annotation of FG1. Runoff generated in Basin FG1 will be collected at inlets in Carriage Parkway. From there runoff will be routed in the swale that runs behind Lots 8 and 9. Basin FG1 will be routed to Pond 1 for water quality and detention. All basins that start with “DC” (Drainage Channel) denote a basin that is associated with the TRIC and Lake Canal. Basins DC1-DC3 Basins DC1, DC2, and DC3 are all associated with the TRIC and Lake Canal. No development is proposed within these drainage basins. They are simply delineated for information, but no infrastructure is being sized off the rational calculations. The box culverts that are associated with Rudolph Farm were sized to carry their max irrigation flow in addition to stormwater. Max irrigation flows for the TRIC and Lake Canal come from correspondence. Correspondence letters can be found in Appendix B.1. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. B. DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SPECIFICS The Rudolph Farm project will be installing five (5) rain gardens. Per Chapter 7 of FCSCM new developments must treat 75% of their new or modified impervious area with LID. Because of grading constraints and historic drainage outfalls several basins will not be receiving LID treatment but instead receive standard water quality in either Pond 1 or Pond 2. Rudolph Farm is proposing to treat 75% of the new impervious area via rain gardens. Therefore, 25% of the new impervious area of project site will be receiving standard water quality. Water quality, LID calculations, and LID Exhibit are provided in Appendix D of this report. As previously mentioned in the basin descriptions above several basins are reaching design points where there is a sidewalk chase that pulls off the WQ event and routes the WQ event to rain gardens. The WQ event equals 50% of the 2-year event. Design Points r1, r3, r4, and r5 are all on grade sidewalk chases that are sized for the WQ event or larger. Runoff from the ROW’s will go down a concrete rundown into a forebay that will collect sediment to reduce rain garden maintenance. Sidewalk chase sizing can be found in Appendix B. The Rudolph Farm project will be installing three (3) ponds. Two of the ponds specifically Pond 1 and 2 will also provide standard water quality. Pond 3 is providing only detention. Pond 2 is located in two areas, south of Lot 8 and south of Lot 10. However, a 15’x4’ box culvert connects these two portions of the pond so that it hydraulically acts as one. Pond 3 is also located in two separate lots similar to Pond 2 and these two “ponds” are connected via a series of pipes so that the pond acts as one. SWMM 5.1 was utilized to adequately size the ponds as well as the culverts that connect the ponds. SWMM results have been included in Appendix B.3 of this report. Below is a standard water quality and LID summary table. The design points correlate to the combined basin calculations found in the rational calculations (Appendix A). Rudolph Farm will be installing five rain gardens, which will be utilized by future developments for their LID. All future developments must verify their percent impervious. As mentioned above if a Lots percent impervious exceeds the assumed percent impervious they must then provide additional detention, water quality, and LID on their site. Rain Garden sizing can be found in Appendix C. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 15 | 18 Additionally, there is an LID exhibit in Appendix C that shows where all the rain gardens are located. Table 2 - WQCV AND LID SUMMARY Pond 1 provides standard water quality for Basins 5, 6, OS1, and OS2. Pond 1 provides detention for Basins 1-6, R1, R2, OS1, and OS2. Pond 1 has a maximum release rate of 14.68 cfs, which is the historic 2-year runoff (Basin EX1). Pond 2 provides standard water quality for Basins 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, OS4, OS5, OS6, and OS7. Pond 2 provides detention for Basins 8-11, R3-R11, OS4, OS5, OS6, and OS7. Pond 2 has a maximum release rate of 7.00 cfs as described in Section II.A of this report. Pond 3 provides detention for Basins 12 and 13. Pond 3 does not have standard water quality because Basins 12 and 13 are both receiving 100% WQCV via LID treatments. Pond 3 discharges into Pond 2. In order to minimize the footprint of Pond 2, Pond 3 has a maximum release rate of 7.00 cfs which matches the maximum release rate of Pond 2. A fourth pond was sized for Lot 7 in the SWMM analysis as shown in Appendix B.3. Pond 4 has a maximum release rate of 3.69 cfs, which is the historic 2-year rate (Basin EX2). Interim Pond 4 is getting constructed with this development. When Lot 7 is developed it must follow all of the criteria set forth in FCSCM for the ultimate Pond 4 configuration using the maximum release rate set in this report. At the time of the ultimate configuration of Pond 4, the developer/engineer of Lot 7 will need to re-register the pond with the state based on the modifactions. Pond ID Max Release Rate (cfs) Max Volume (1000 cu. ft.) 1 14.68 201.893 2 7.00 618.699 3 7.00 197.769 4 3.69 31.231 Table 3 - Pond Summary Ponds 1, 2, and 3 will all be used as combination retention ponds, irrigation ponds, and detention ponds. Hines, INC. is responsible for designing the retention ponds and irrigation ponds and a memo has been supplied describing how these retention/irrigation ponds interact below the detention ponds. Essentially, the retention/irrigation ponds working surface elevation is the Design Point (Basin Id)1 Total Area (ac) Treatment Method Area Treated (ac) Percent Impervious (%) Area of Impervious (ac)2 Required Standard Water Quality (cu. ft.) Required LID (cu. ft.) Provided LID (cu. ft.) RG1 14.57 Rain Garden 14.57 80% 11.66 N/A 13,892 19,709 Standard WQ Pond 1 11.55 Standard WQ 11.55 49% 5.66 10,241 N/A RG 2 17.94 Rain Garden 17.94 89% 15.97 N/A 20,481 26,422 RG 3 13.41 Rain Garden 13.41 86% 11.53 N/A 14,389 19,079 Standard WQ Pond 2 24.54 Standard WQ 24.54 52% 12.76 22,638 N/A RG 4 13.50 Rain Garden 13.50 90% 12.15 N/A 15,740 20,211 RG 5 8.85 Rain Garden 8.85 30% 2.66 N/A 3,893 4,918 Percent of Impervious Area Standard WQ Totals 36.09 Standard WQ 36.09 N/A 18.42 25% Rain Garden Totals 68.27 Rain Garden 68.27 N/A 53.96 75% Standard Water Quality and LID Summary Table NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 16 | 18 invert of the detention pond. There is going to be a series of pumps and floats that pull water from surrounding wells that will maintain this working surface elevation during irrigation operations and account for evaporation losses for the retention pond. At no point shall stormwater ever be used for irrigation or retention purposes. Refer to Appendix B.3 for the memo from Hines Inc. Standard water quality depths were calculated and input as initial depth within the SWMM model so the ponds would be adequately sized for both detention and water quality. Additionally, the rating curves for each pond incorporated the 40-hour drain time for the WQCV. For additional insight into how these volumes were calculated, please refer to the SWMM results found in Appendix B. Lot 7 will be developed to an interim condition. The interim condition includes Pond 4 which will provide detention and standard water quality. Once Lot 7 developes to it’s ultimate condition it will need to reevaluate Pond 4 as well as include LID treatment for onsite runoff and a portion of runoff generated in Prospect Road along it’s frontage. Refer to Basin 7 delination in the Drainage Exhibit for clarification on what portion of Prospect Road Lot 7 is responsible for treating and detaining. The ultimate design of Lot 7 will need to follow FCSCM. Pond 1 has no concrete emergency spillway structure proposed; however, pond slopes are being stabilized with the concrete trail. The west side pond berm is designed with a low point elevation of 4909.37 to allow emergency stormwater to spill at this location and flow towards the existing 24" RCP culvert in the CDOT lot that is west of the pond and shown in red in Figure 3 below. If stormwater spills over the pond and into the offsite existing 24”culvert; flows will continue downstream to the same storm network system (shown in green) that conveys flows to Boxelder Creek from Pond 1. These offsite stormwater flows were discussed in email communication between Kimley Horn and CDOT Region 4 representatives Timothy Bilibran and Brian Varrella in November 2024 to verify the downstream outfall is the Boxelder Creek. This is the existing overflow location. If it backs up due to poor maintenance of the outlet structure it will cause backwater conditions along Prospect Road. Finished floors on Lot 1, 2, and 3 will need to have a minimum finish floor elevation of 4910.50. Correspondence with CDOT for Pond 1 emergency overflow path has been included in Pond 1 calculations in Appendix B.3. Figure 3 - Stormwater flows to Boxelder Creek from Pond 1 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 17 | 18 Pond 2 has an emergency spill location located near the outlet structure. The trail along the north side of the TRIC was designed to stabilize this overtopping location. If Pond 2 begins to overtop the runoff will overtop the southern bank of Pond 2 and discharge into the TRIC. No weir is needed to direct emergency flows to the south into the TRIC. Pond 3 has an emergency spill location at the northwest corner of Vixen Drive and Carriage Parkway. A berm was designed on the eastern portion of the pond, south of Lot 13, so that all overtopping occurs at the intersection and does not discharge into adjacent properties. The sidwalk along the right-of-way will serve as the stablazing spillway location. No weir is needed to direct emergency flows to the northwest corner of Vixen Drive and Carriage Parkway. Pond 4 has no concrete emergency spillway structure proposed for the interim condition. In the event the outlet structure would become blocked flow would pond in the southern area of Lot 7 until it overtops south and east. Stromwater would overtop south across Prospect Road at the existing roadway low point and east into the TRIC at the existing inlet on the east side of PSD Lot 1. The existing roaway low point along the crown of Prospect Road and the existing inlet into TRIC are nearly the same elevation of 4914.4. At the time of development of Lot 7 the ultimate pond will need to take into account that there is no adequate spill location. Finished floor elevations on Lot 7 will be determined at the time of development of Lot 7. All the rain gardens have designed overflow weirs. The drainage exhibit should be used as a reference as to where these weirs are located. However, for additional clarity on these weirs please refer to sheets RG1-RG4 in the utility plans. For finish grade elevations please refer to the sheets G1-G9 of the utility plans. All spill locations associated with either the ponds or rain gardens have also been reinforced with a turf reinforcement that has been designed to handle all the 100-year flows. The turf reinforcement has a warranty of 10+ years. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS The drainage design proposed with the Rudolph Farm project does comply with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Timnath Stormwater Master Plan, and Mile High Flood Control District Criteria Manual. There are regulatory floodplains associated with the Rudolph Farm development. However, the floodplains will be unaltered by this development. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with Rudolph Farm development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. At the time of Pond 4’s ultimate construction the State Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet needs to be re-submitted to the state based on the modifications. B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit potential damage associated with its stormwater runoff. Rudolph Farm will install all LID, standard water quality, and detention infrastructure for future developments to utilize except for Lot 7. Lot 7 must follow FCSCM at the time of development. Rudolph Farm is zoned as industrial, commercial, and urban estate, and assumed percent impervious values were taken from FCSCM. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY 18 | 18 The proposed Rudolph Farm development will impact the Timnath Stormwater Master Plan because it is reducing the runoff rate entering the TRIC. The proposed detention will reduce runoff into the TRIC from the existing rate of 89.41 cfs in the 100-year storm to a proposed rate of 7.00 cfs in the 100-year storm, which is less than the 2-year historic (11.05 cfs). An updated TRIC model by Galloway is included at the start of Appendix C which shows the impacts of this reduction on the spills in the TRIC. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities, November 5, 2009, BHA Design, Inc. with City of Fort Collins Utility Services. 2. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 3. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007. 4. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Mile High Flood District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised September 2017. 5. Town of Timnath Master Drainage Plan Update, by Ayres Associates, August 2018. 6. Supplemental Preliminary Subsurface Exploration Report Proposed Mixed Use Development – Rudolph Farms Property, by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC, June 2022. 7. Kimley Horn (Andy Reese), email communication: Rudolph Farm Emergency Spill, November 15, 2024, recipients Timothy Bilobran, Brian Verrella, et al. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT: GATEWAY TO PROSPECT FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS (EXISTING SWMM AND RATIONAL) CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Percentage Impervious 2-yr Runoff Coefficient 10-yr Runoff Coefficient 100-yr Runoff Coefficient Developed Asphalt .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………100%0.95 0.95 1.00 Concrete .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………100%0.95 0.95 1.00 Rooftop .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………90%0.95 0.95 1.00 Gravel .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………40%0.50 0.50 0.63 Pavers .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………40%0.50 0.50 0.63 Landscape or Pervious Surface Playgrounds .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………25%0.35 0.35 0.44 Lawns Clayey Soil .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.25 0.25 0.31 Lawns Sandy Soil .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.15 0.15 0.19 Notes: Basin ID Basin Area (ac) Area of Asphalt (ac) Area of Concrete (ac) Area of Rooftop (ac) Area of Gravel (ac) Area of Playgrounds (ac) Area of Lawns (ac) Composite % Imperv. 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient EX1 25.86 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.25 8% 0.29 0.29 0.36 EX2 6.67 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.49 5% 0.27 0.27 0.33 EX3 77.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.63 2% 0.25 0.25 0.31 EX4 3.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.76 2% 0.25 0.25 0.31 EX5 8.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.39 2% 0.25 0.25 0.31 EXISTING BASIN % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS 2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 3. Table 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 1) Percentage impervious taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 5, Table 4.1-2 and Table 4.1-3 SWMM MODEL INCLUDED FOR BASIN EX3 PER FCSCM CHAPTER 5 SECTION 2 CRITERIA. RATIONAL CALCS FOR BASIN EX3 SHOWN FOR COMPARRISION PURPOSES ONLY. Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Channelized Flow, Time of Concentration: Total Time of Concentration : T c is the lesser of the values of Tc calculated using T c = T i + T t C2 C100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti2 Ti100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Roughness Coefficient Assumed Hydraulic Radius Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min)Tc (Eq. 3.3-5) Tc2 = Ti +Tt Tc100 = Ti +Tt Tc2 Tc100 ex1 EX1 0.29 0.36 710 0.50%50.9 46.5 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.9 50.9 46.5 13.9 13.9 ex2 EX2 0.27 0.33 365 1.10%28.8 26.7 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.0 28.8 26.7 12.0 12.0 ex3 EX3 0.25 0.31 1750 0.80%71.6 66.6 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19.7 71.6 66.6 19.7 19.7 ex4 EX4 0.25 0.31 250 0.60%29.8 27.7 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.4 29.8 27.7 11.4 11.4 ex5 EX5 0.25 0.31 50 22.00% 4.0 3.7 1000 0.13% 0.030 4.40 4.72 3.5 15.8 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.3 EXISTING DIRECT TIME OF CONCENTRATION Channelized Flow Design Point Basin Overland Flow Time of Concentration Frequency Adjustment Factor: (Equation 3.3-2 FCSCM) (Equation 5-5 FCSCM) (Equation 5-4 FCSCM) (Equation 3.3-5 FCSCM) Table 3.2-3 FCSCM Therefore Tc2=Tc10 SWMM MODEL INCLUDED FOR BASIN EX3 PER FCSCM CHAPTER 5 SECTION 2 CRITERIA. RATIONAL CALCS FOR BASIN EX3 SHOWN FOR COMPARRISION PURPOSES ONLY. Rational Method Equation: Rainfall Intensity: e1 EX1 25.86 13.9 13.9 0.29 0.36 1.95 3.34 6.82 14.63 25.05 63.45 ex2 EX2 6.67 12.0 12.0 0.27 0.33 2.05 3.50 7.16 3.69 6.30 15.76 ex3 EX3 77.63 19.7 19.7 0.25 0.31 1.63 2.78 5.68 31.64 53.96 136.58 ex4 EX4 3.76 11.4 11.4 0.25 0.31 2.13 3.63 7.42 2.00 3.41 8.64 ex5 EX5 8.39 7.3 7.3 0.25 0.31 2.52 4.31 8.80 5.29 9.04 22.90 Intensity, i2 (in/hr) Intensity, i100 (in/hr) EXISTING RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS Design Point Basin(s)Area, A (acres) Tc2 (min) Flow, Q2 (cfs) Flow, Q100 (cfs) C2 C100 IDF Table for Rational Method - Table 3.4-1 FCSCM Intensity, i10 (in/hr) Flow, Q10 (cfs) Tc100 (min) ()()()AiCCQf= SWMM MODEL INCLUDED FOR BASIN EX3 PER FCSCM CHAPTER 5 SECTION 2 CRITERIA. RATIONAL CALCS FOR BASIN EX3 SHOWN FOR COMPARRISION PURPOSES ONLY. BASIN TOTAL AREA (acres) Tc2 (min) Tc100 (min) C2 C100 Q2 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) EX1 25.86 13.9 13.9 0.29 0.36 14.63 63.45 EX2 6.67 12.0 12.0 0.27 0.33 3.69 15.76 EX3 77.63 19.7 19.7 0.25 0.31 31.64 136.58 EX4 3.76 11.4 11.4 0.25 0.31 2.00 8.64 EX5 8.39 7.3 7.3 0.25 0.31 5.29 22.90 Rational Flow Summary | Existing Basin Flow Rates 10/31/20225:43 PM P:\1896-001\Drainage\Hydrology\1896-001_Existing Rational Calcs.xlsx\Summary Tables SWMM MODEL INCLUDED FOR BASIN EX3 PER FCSCM CHAPTER 5 SECTION 2 CRITERIA. RATIONAL CALCS FOR BASIN EX3 SHOWN FOR COMPARRISION PURPOSES ONLY. EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.015) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Starting Date ............ 03/15/2016 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 03/20/2016 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:05:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00 ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 6.329 0.978 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 5.997 0.927 Surface Runoff ........... 0.305 0.047 Final Storage ............ 0.032 0.005 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.071 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.305 0.099 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 0.305 0.099 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000 BASIN EX3 IS 77.63 ACRES SO A 2-YR SWMM MODEL WAS DONE PER FCSCM CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4 TO DETERIMNE A MORE ACCURATE 2-YR RUNOFF RATE *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EX3 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.10 11.05 0.048 Analysis begun on: Tue Nov 1 12:22:29 2022 Analysis ended on: Tue Nov 1 12:22:29 2022 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.015) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Starting Date ............ 03/15/2016 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 03/20/2016 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:05:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00 ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 23.736 3.669 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 13.535 2.092 Surface Runoff ........... 10.197 1.576 Final Storage ............ 0.032 0.005 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.117 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal BASIN EX3 IS 77.63 ACRES SO A 100-YR SWMM MODEL WAS DONE PER FCSCM CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4 TO DETERIMNE A MORE ACCURATE 100-YR RUNOFF RATE ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 10.197 3.323 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 10.197 3.323 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EX3 3.67 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.18 1.40 1.58 3.32 89.41 0.430 Analysis begun on: Tue Jan 17 13:12:37 2023 Analysis ended on: Tue Jan 17 13:12:37 2023 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec 9,028 1,504.7 Rudolph Farms - Zoning This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. City of Fort Collins - GIS 1,143.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet1,143.00571.50 Notes Legend 6,859 Parcels City Zoning Community Commercial Community Commercial North College Community Commercial Poudre River General Commercial Limited Commercial Service Commercial CSU Downtown Employment Harmony Corridor Industrial High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Manufactured Housing Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Public Open Lands River Conservation River Downtown Redevelopment Residential Foothills Low Density Residential Rural Lands District Transition Urban Estate World Hillshade Project:Rudolph Farm Calculations By:B. Mathisen Date:May 1, 2023 CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Percentage Impervious 2-yr Runoff Coefficient 100-yr Runoff Coefficient Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….….…………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………..100%0.95 1.00 Concrete …….......……………….….……….…….…………………………..…………………………………………………………..….……………………………………………………..100%0.95 1.00 Gravel ……….…………………….….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………………40%0.50 0.63 Roofs …….…….………………..……………….…………………………………………………………………...............................................………90%0.95 1.00 Lawns and Landscaping Sandy Soil - Avg. Slope (2% - 7%)…...................................................................................................................................2%0.15 0.19 Clayey Soil - Avg. Slope (2% - 7%)…........................................................................................................................2%0.25 0.31 ROW Width Asphalt Concrete Area Landscaped Area Percent Impervious LF LF LF SF % ROW (Collector w/ Parking 84' ROW)84 54 10 20 77% 0.78 0.98 ROW (Collector 118' ROW - Prospect Intersection)118 91 10 17 86% 0.85 1.00 ROW (Commercail Local 77' ROW)77 50 10 17 78% 0.80 0.99 ROW (Industrial Local 71' ROW)71 44 10 17 77% 0.78 0.98 ROW (Prospect Frontage (Half ROW))72 57.5 6 8.5 88%0.87 1.00 UPDATED TO FCSCM 2018 RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (FROM CHAPTER 3 OF FCSCM) SITE SPECIFIC % IMPERVIOUSNESS Right of Way Classification C2 C100 5/1/202310:40 AM P:\1896-001\Drainage\Hydrology\1896-001_Proposed Rational Calcs.xlsx CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Percentage Impervious 2-yr Runoff Coefficient 100-yr Runoff Coefficient Developed ROW (Collector w/ Parking 84' ROW).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………77%0.78 0.98 ROW (Collector 118' ROW - Prospect Intersection).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………86%0.85 1.00 ROW (Commercail Local 77' ROW).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………78%0.80 0.99 ROW (Industrial Local 71' ROW).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………77%0.78 0.98 ROW (Prospect Frontage (Half ROW)).…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………88%0.87 1.00 Urban Estate .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………30%0.30 0.38 Commercial .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………80%0.85 1.00 Industrial .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………90%0.95 1.00 Concrete and Asphalt .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………100%0.95 1.00 Unimproved Areas Undeveloped, Greenbelts, agricultural .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.20 0.25 Lawns Sandy Soil .…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..……………………………………………….…………………………..………………………………………………2%0.20 0.25 Notes: Basin ID Basin Area (ac) Area of Collector 84' R.O.W (ac) Area of Collector 110' R.O.W (ac) Area of Commercial 77' R.O.W (ac) Area of Industrial 71' R.O.W (ac) Area of Urban Estate (ac) Area of Commercial (ac) Area of Industrial (ac) Area of Half ROW Prospect (ac) Area of Concrete/A sphalt (ac) Area of Undeveloped, Greenbelts, Agricultural (ac) Composite % Imperv. 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 1 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.85 1.00 2 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.85 1.00 3 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.85 1.00 4A 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.85 1.00 4B 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.85 1.00 5 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.85 1.00 6 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80%0.85 1.00 7 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 5.94 11% 0.27 0.34 8A 5.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 90% 0.95 1.00 8B 2.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 90% 0.95 1.00 9A 10.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 90% 0.95 1.00 9B 3.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 90% 0.95 1.00 10 9.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 90% 0.95 1.00 11 3.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 90% 0.95 1.00 12 13.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 90% 0.95 1.00 13 8.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30% 0.30 0.38 R1 1.31 0.39 0.42 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.81 1.00 R2 1.36 0.41 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 84% 0.84 1.00 R3 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78% 0.79 0.99 R4 1.11 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78% 0.80 1.00 R5 2.83 1.73 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77% 0.78 0.98 R6 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77% 0.78 0.98 R7 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 82% 0.85 1.00 R8 0.86 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 69% 0.71 0.89 R9 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78% 0.80 1.00 R10 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78% 0.80 1.00 R11 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77% 0.78 0.98 R12 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78% 0.80 1.00 R13 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78% 0.80 1.00 OS1 5.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 4.89 7% 0.24 0.30 OS2 1.33 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 88% 0.86 1.00 OS3 3.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.76 2% 0.20 0.25 OS4 5.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 5.20 8% 0.25 0.31 OS5 3.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10 2% 0.20 0.25 OS6 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 2% 0.20 0.25 OS7 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 2% 0.20 0.25 DC1 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 2% 0.20 0.25 DC2 2.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.21 2% 0.20 0.25 DC3 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.54 2% 0.20 0.25 FG1 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77% 0.78 0.98 DP r1 (Basin 4B and R1)2.30 0.39 0.42 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80%0.83 1.00 DP r2 (Basin 5, 6 & R2)5.05 0.41 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.69 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 81%0.85 1.00 RG 1 (Basin 1-4, R1, R12, & R13)14.56 0.39 0.42 1.64 0.00 0.00 11.12 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 80%0.84 1.00 Standard WQ Pond 1 (Basin 5, 6, R2, OS1, & OS2)11.55 0.41 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.69 0 1.65 0.27 4.89 49% 0.58 0.73 DP r3 (Basin 9A & R3)12.21 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.43 0.00 0.00 10.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 89%0.93 1.00 RG 2 (Basin 8A, 9A, & R3)17.94 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.43 0.00 0.00 16.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 89%0.94 1.00 RG 3 (Basin 10, R4, & R5)13.41 1.73 0.00 1.11 1.09 0.00 0.00 9.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 86%0.90 1.00 Standard WQ Pond 2 (Basin 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, OS4, OS5, OS6, & OS7)24.39 2.66 0.00 0.67 0.57 0.21 0.00 9.98 0.00 0.35 9.94 52% 0.61 0.76 DP r9 (Basin 9A, R3, & R9)12.61 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.43 0.00 0.00 10.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 88%0.93 1.00 DP r10 (Basin R4 & R10)1.38 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78%0.80 1.00 DP r11 (Basin R5 & R11)3.06 1.97 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77%0.78 0.98 DP r13 (Basin R13 & 4A) 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80% 0.84 1.00 PROPOSED BASIN % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS 2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 3. Table 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 1) Percentage impervious taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Chapter 5, Table 4.1-2 and Table 4.1-3 Combined Basins Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:Total Time of Concentration : Channelized Flow, Time of Concentration:T c is the lesser of the values of Tc calculated using T c = T i + T t C2 C100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti2 Ti100 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Roughness Coefficient Assumed Hydraulic Radius Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min)Tc (Eq. 3.3-5) Tc2 = Ti +Tt Tc100 = Ti +Tt Tc2 Tc100 1 0.85 1.00 260 1.00%7.5 3.0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.4 7.5 3.0 7.5 5.0 2 0.85 1.00 260 1.00%7.5 3.0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.4 7.5 3.0 7.5 5.0 3 0.85 1.00 260 1.00%7.5 3.0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.4 7.5 3.0 7.5 5.0 4A 0.85 1.00 240 1.00%7.2 2.9 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.3 7.2 2.9 7.2 5.0 4B 0.85 1.00 240 1.00%7.2 2.9 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.3 7.2 2.9 7.2 5.0 5 0.85 1.00 250 1.00%7.4 3.0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.4 7.4 3.0 7.4 5.0 6 0.85 1.00 250 1.00%7.4 3.0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.4 7.4 3.0 7.4 5.0 Pond 4 & RG 6 7 0.27 0.34 150 2.00%15.1 13.9 150 1.00%0.012 0.15 3.51 0.7 11.7 15.8 14.6 11.7 11.7 8A 0.95 1.00 200 2.00%3.1 2.1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.1 3.1 2.1 5.0 5.0 8B 0.95 1.00 200 2.00%3.1 2.1 0 N/A N/A 0.15 N/A N/A 11.1 3.1 2.1 5.0 5.0 9A 0.95 1.00 500 1.60%5.4 3.6 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.8 5.4 3.6 5.4 5.0 9B 0.95 1.00 500 1.60%5.4 3.6 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.8 5.4 3.6 5.4 5.0 10 0.95 1.00 450 1.00%6.0 4.0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.5 6.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 11 0.95 1.00 320 1.00%5.0 3.3 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.8 5.0 3.3 5.0 5.0 RG 4 12 0.95 1.00 500 1.00%6.3 4.2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.8 6.3 4.2 6.3 5.0 RG 5 13 0.30 0.38 500 1.00%33.5 30.3 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.8 33.5 30.3 12.8 12.8 R1 0.81 1.00 14 2.00%1.6 0.5 1200 0.70%0.012 0.15 2.94 6.8 16.7 8.4 7.3 8.4 7.3 R2 0.84 1.00 14 2.00%1.4 0.5 450 1.11%0.012 0.15 3.69 2.0 12.6 3.4 2.6 5.0 5.0 R3 0.79 0.99 14 2.00%1.7 0.6 2000 0.70%0.012 0.15 2.93 11.4 21.2 13.1 12.0 13.1 12.0 r4 R4 0.80 1.00 14 2.00%1.6 0.5 1100 0.70%0.012 0.15 2.93 6.3 16.2 7.9 6.8 7.9 6.8 r5 R5 0.78 0.98 14 2.00%1.7 0.7 1980 0.60%0.012 0.15 2.71 12.2 21.1 13.9 12.9 13.9 12.9 r6 R6 0.78 0.98 14 2.00%1.7 0.7 1980 0.60%0.012 0.15 2.71 12.2 21.1 13.9 12.9 13.9 12.9 r7 R7 0.85 1.00 90 2.00%3.5 1.4 180 1.00%0.012 0.15 3.51 0.9 11.5 4.4 2.3 5.0 5.0 r8 R8 0.71 0.89 90 2.00%5.5 3.0 180 2.25%0.012 0.15 5.26 0.6 11.5 6.1 3.6 6.1 5.0 R9 0.80 1.00 14 2.00%1.6 0.5 350 1.40%0.012 0.15 4.15 1.4 12.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 R10 0.80 1.00 14 2.00%1.6 0.5 180 2.25%0.012 0.15 5.26 0.6 11.1 2.2 1.1 5.0 5.0 R11 0.78 0.98 14 2.00%1.7 0.7 150 0.60%0.012 0.15 2.72 0.9 10.9 2.7 1.6 5.0 5.0 r12 R12 0.80 1.00 14 2.00%1.6 0.5 500 0.50%0.012 0.15 2.48 3.4 12.9 5.0 3.9 5.0 5.0 R13 0.80 1.00 14 2.00%1.6 0.5 500 0.50%0.012 0.15 2.48 3.4 12.9 5.0 3.9 5.0 5.0 OS1 0.24 0.30 50 2.00%9.0 8.4 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.3 9.0 8.4 9.0 8.4 OS2 0.86 1.00 45 2.24%2.3 1.0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.3 2.3 1.0 5.0 5.0 OS3 0.20 0.25 210 0.60%29.0 27.4 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.2 29.0 27.4 11.2 11.2 OS4 0.25 0.31 50 2.00%8.9 8.3 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.3 8.9 8.3 8.9 8.3 OS5 0.20 0.25 50 2.00%9.4 8.9 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.3 9.4 8.9 9.4 8.9 os6 OS6 0.20 0.25 25 20.00%3.1 2.9 1000 0.50%0.012 0.77 7.38 2.3 15.7 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.2 os7 OS7 0.20 0.25 25 20.00%3.1 2.9 350 0.50%0.012 0.77 7.38 0.8 12.1 3.9 3.7 5.0 5.0 DC1 0.20 0.25 50 22.00%4.2 4.0 333 0.13%0.025 4.40 5.68 1.0 12.1 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.0 DC2 0.20 0.25 50 22.00%4.2 4.0 333 0.13%0.025 4.40 5.68 1.0 12.1 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.0 DC3 0.20 0.25 50 22.00%4.2 4.0 333 0.13%0.025 4.40 5.68 1.0 12.1 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.0 FG1 0.78 0.98 20 2.00% 2.1 0.8 150 0.50% 0.025 4.40 11.32 0.2 10.9 2.3 1.1 5.0 5.0 r1 DP r1 (Basin 4B and R1)0.83 1.00 240 1.00%7.8 2.9 1200 0.70%0.012 0.15 2.94 6.8 18.0 14.6 9.7 14.6 9.7 r2 DP r2 (Basin 5, 6 & R2)0.85 1.00 250 1.00%7.4 3.0 750 0.67%0.012 0.15 2.86 4.4 15.6 11.8 7.3 11.8 7.3 RG 1 RG 1 (Basin 1-4, R1, R12, & R13)0.84 1.00 250 1.00%7.7 3.0 1200 0.70%0.012 0.15 2.94 6.8 18.1 14.5 9.8 14.5 9.8 Pond 1 Standard WQ Pond 1 (Basin 5, 6, R2, OS1, & OS2)0.58 0.73 250 1.00% 15.4 11.1 1200 0.70% 0.012 0.15 2.94 6.8 18.1 22.2 17.9 18.1 17.9 r3 DP r3 (Basin 9A & R3)0.93 1.00 500 1.60%6.1 3.6 2000 0.70%0.012 0.15 2.93 11.4 23.9 17.4 14.9 17.4 14.9 RG 2 RG 2 (Basin 8A, 9A, & R3)0.94 1.00 500 1.60%5.7 3.6 2000 0.70%0.012 0.15 2.93 11.4 23.9 17.1 14.9 17.1 14.9 RG 3 RG 3 (Basin 10, R4, & R5)0.90 1.00 450 1.00%7.9 4.0 1980 0.60%0.012 0.15 2.71 12.2 23.5 20.1 16.2 20.1 16.2 Pond 2 Standard WQ Pond 2 (Basin 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, OS4, OS5, OS6, & OS7) 0.61 0.76 500 1.60% 17.5 12.1 1980 0.60% 0.012 0.15 2.71 12.2 23.8 29.7 24.3 23.8 23.8 r9 DP r9 (Basin 9A, R3, & R9)0.93 1.00 14 2.00%0.9 0.5 2000 0.70%0.012 0.15 2.93 11.4 21.2 12.3 11.9 12.3 11.9 r10 DP r10 (Basin R4 & R10)0.80 1.00 14 2.00%1.6 0.5 1100 0.70%0.012 0.15 2.93 6.3 16.2 7.9 6.8 7.9 6.8 r11 DP r11 (Basin R5 & R11)0.78 0.98 14 2.00%1.7 0.7 1980 0.60%0.012 0.15 2.71 12.2 21.1 13.9 12.9 13.9 12.9 r13 DP r13 (Basin R13 & 4A) 0.84 1.00 240 1.00% 7.5 2.9 500 0.50% 0.012 0.15 2.48 3.4 14.1 10.9 6.3 10.9 6.3 Combined Basins PROPOSED DEVELOPED DIRECT TIME OF CONCENTRATION Channelized Flow Design Point Basin Overland Flow Time of Concentration (Equation 3.3-2 FCSCM) (Equation 5-5 FCSCM) (Equation 5-4 FCSCM) (Equation 3.3-5 FCSCM) Rational Method Equation: Rainfall Intensity: 1 6.80 7.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.46 9.95 14.22 67.68 2 1.47 7.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.46 9.95 3.07 14.60 3 1.43 7.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.46 9.95 2.99 14.22 4A 1.43 7.2 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.52 9.95 3.05 14.18 4B 0.99 7.2 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.52 9.95 2.12 9.87 5 1.10 7.4 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.52 9.95 2.37 10.99 6 2.59 7.4 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.52 9.95 5.54 25.74 Pond 4 & RG 6 7 6.67 11.7 11.7 0.27 0.34 2.09 7.29 3.76 16.41 8A 5.74 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 15.53 57.07 8B 2.16 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 5.86 21.54 9A 10.76 5.4 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 29.14 107.09 9B 3.97 5.4 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 10.74 39.48 10 9.47 6.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.76 9.95 24.84 94.27 11 3.28 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.85 9.95 8.87 32.61 RG 4 12 13.50 6.3 5.0 0.95 1.00 2.67 9.95 34.25 134.35 RG 5 13 8.85 12.8 12.8 0.30 0.38 2.02 7.04 5.35 23.37 R1 1.31 8.4 7.3 0.81 1.00 2.40 8.80 2.55 11.54 R2 1.36 5.0 5.0 0.84 1.00 2.85 9.95 3.26 13.54 R3 1.44 13.1 12.0 0.79 0.99 1.98 7.29 2.26 10.39 r4 R4 1.11 7.9 6.8 0.80 1.00 2.46 9.06 2.17 10.01 r5 R5 2.83 13.9 12.9 0.78 0.98 1.95 7.04 4.30 19.40 r6 R6 1.98 13.9 12.9 0.78 0.98 1.95 7.04 3.01 13.60 r7 R7 0.94 5.0 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.85 9.95 2.27 9.33 r8 R8 0.86 6.1 5.0 0.71 0.89 2.67 9.95 1.62 7.56 R9 0.40 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 2.85 9.95 0.91 3.98 R10 0.27 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 2.85 9.95 0.62 2.72 R11 0.24 5.0 5.0 0.78 0.98 2.85 9.95 0.53 2.30 r12 R12 0.59 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 2.85 9.95 1.35 5.88 R13 0.54 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 2.85 9.95 1.22 5.34 OS1 5.16 9.0 8.4 0.24 0.30 2.30 8.38 2.85 12.98 OS2 1.33 5.0 5.0 0.86 1.00 2.85 9.95 3.27 13.27 OS3 3.76 11.2 11.2 0.20 0.25 2.13 7.42 1.60 6.97 OS4 5.55 8.9 8.3 0.25 0.31 2.35 8.38 3.26 14.54 OS5 3.10 9.4 8.9 0.20 0.25 2.30 8.21 1.43 6.36 os6 OS6 1.23 5.4 5.2 0.20 0.25 2.85 9.95 0.70 3.06 os7 OS7 0.42 5.0 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.85 9.95 0.24 1.04 DC1 2.02 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.85 9.95 1.15 5.03 DC2 2.21 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.85 9.95 1.26 5.50 DC3 3.54 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.85 9.95 2.02 8.82 FG1 0.27 5.0 5.0 0.78 0.98 2.85 9.95 0.60 2.63 r1 DP r1 (Basin 4B and R1)2.30 14.6 9.7 0.83 1.00 1.90 7.88 3.62 18.14 r2 DP r2 (Basin 5, 6 & R2)5.05 11.8 7.3 0.85 1.00 2.09 8.80 8.98 44.47 RG 1 RG 1 (Basin 1-4, R1, R12, & R13)14.56 14.5 9.8 0.84 1.00 1.92 7.88 23.47 114.62 Pond 1 Standard WQ Pond 1 (Basin 5, 6, R2, OS1, & OS2)11.55 18.1 17.9 0.58 0.73 1.70 6.01 11.39 50.32 r3 DP r3 (Basin 9A & R3)12.21 17.4 14.9 0.93 1.00 1.75 6.62 19.86 80.74 RG 2 RG 2 (Basin 8A, 9A, & R3)17.94 17.1 14.9 0.94 1.00 1.75 6.62 29.51 118.68 RG 3 RG 3 (Basin 10, R4, & R5)13.41 20.1 16.2 0.90 1.00 1.61 6.30 19.43 84.46 Pond 2 Standard WQ Pond 2 (Basin 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, OS4, OS5, OS6, & OS7) 24.39 23.8 23.8 0.61 0.76 1.48 5.15 21.95 95.69 r9 DP r9 (Basin 9A, R3, & R9)12.61 12.3 11.9 0.93 1.00 2.05 7.29 24.03 91.89 r10 DP r10 (Basin R4 & R10)1.38 7.9 6.8 0.80 1.00 2.46 9.06 2.71 12.49 r11 DP r11 (Basin R5 & R11)3.06 13.9 12.9 0.78 0.98 1.95 7.04 4.66 21.03 r13 DP r13 (Basin R13 & 4A) 1.96 10.9 6.3 0.84 1.00 2.17 9.31 3.58 18.27 PROPOSED DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS Design Point Basin(s)Area, A (acres) Tc2 (min) Flow, Q2 (cfs) Flow, Q100 (cfs) C2 C100 IDF Table for Rational Method - Table 3.4-1 FCSCM Combined Basins Tc100 (min) Intensity, i2 (in/hr) Intensity, i100 (in/hr) ()()()AiCCQf= BASIN TOTAL AREA (acres) Tc2 (min) Tc100 (min) C2 C100 Q2 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) 1 6.80 7.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 14.22 67.68 2 1.47 7.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 3.07 14.60 3 1.43 7.5 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.99 14.22 4A 1.43 7.2 5.0 0.85 1.00 3.05 14.18 4B 0.99 7.2 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.12 9.87 5 1.10 7.4 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.37 10.99 6 2.59 7.4 5.0 0.85 1.00 5.54 25.74 7 6.67 11.7 11.7 0.27 0.34 3.76 16.41 8A 5.74 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 15.53 57.07 8B 2.16 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 5.86 21.54 9A 10.76 5.4 5.0 0.95 1.00 29.14 107.09 9B 3.97 5.4 5.0 0.95 1.00 10.74 39.48 10 9.47 6.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 24.84 94.27 11 3.28 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 8.87 32.61 12 13.50 6.3 5.0 0.95 1.00 34.25 134.35 13 8.85 12.8 12.8 0.30 0.38 5.35 23.37 R1 1.31 8.4 7.3 0.81 1.00 2.55 11.54 R2 1.36 5.0 5.0 0.84 1.00 3.26 13.54 R3 1.44 13.1 12.0 0.79 0.99 2.26 10.39 R4 1.11 7.9 6.8 0.80 1.00 2.17 10.01 R5 2.83 13.9 12.9 0.78 0.98 4.30 19.40 R6 1.98 13.9 12.9 0.78 0.98 3.01 13.60 R7 0.94 5.0 5.0 0.85 1.00 2.27 9.33 R8 0.86 6.1 5.0 0.71 0.89 1.62 7.56 R9 0.40 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 0.91 3.98 R10 0.27 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 0.62 2.72 R11 0.24 5.0 5.0 0.78 0.98 0.53 2.30 R12 0.59 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 1.35 5.88 R13 0.54 5.0 5.0 0.80 1.00 1.22 5.34 OS1 5.16 9.0 8.4 0.24 0.30 2.85 12.98 OS2 1.33 5.0 5.0 0.86 1.00 3.27 13.27 OS3 3.76 11.2 11.2 0.20 0.25 1.60 6.97 OS4 5.55 8.9 8.3 0.25 0.31 3.26 14.54 OS5 3.10 9.4 8.9 0.20 0.25 1.43 6.36 OS6 1.23 5.4 5.2 0.20 0.25 0.70 3.06 OS7 0.42 5.0 5.0 0.20 0.25 0.24 1.04 DC1 2.02 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 1.15 5.03 DC2 2.21 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 1.26 5.50 DC3 3.54 5.2 5.0 0.20 0.25 2.02 8.82 FG1 0.27 5.0 5.0 0.78 0.98 0.60 2.63 DP r1 (Basin 4B and R1)2.30 14.6 9.7 0.83 1.00 3.62 18.14 DP r2 (Basin 5, 6 & R2)5.05 11.8 7.3 0.85 1.00 8.98 44.47 RG 1 (Basin 1-4, R1, R12, & R13)14.56 14.5 9.8 0.84 1.00 23.47 114.62 Standard WQ Pond 1 (Basin 5, 6, R2, OS1, & OS2)11.55 18.1 17.9 0.58 0.73 11.39 50.32 DP r3 (Basin 9A & R3)12.21 17.4 14.9 0.93 1.00 19.86 80.74 RG 2 (Basin 8A, 9A, & R3)17.94 17.1 14.9 0.94 1.00 29.51 118.68 RG 3 (Basin 10, R4, & R5)13.41 20.1 16.2 0.90 1.00 19.43 84.46 Standard WQ Pond 2 (Basin 8B, 9B, 11, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, OS4, OS5, OS6, & OS7)24.39 23.8 23.8 0.61 0.76 21.95 95.69 DP r9 (Basin 9A, R3, & R9)12.61 12.3 11.9 0.93 1.00 24.03 91.89 DP r10 (Basin R4 & R10)1.38 7.9 6.8 0.80 1.00 2.71 12.49 DP r11 (Basin R5 & R11)3.06 13.9 12.9 0.78 0.98 4.66 21.03 DP r13 (Basin R13 & 4A) 1.96 10.9 6.3 0.84 1.00 3.58 18.27 Rational Flow Summary |Proposed Developed Basin Flow Rates Combined Basins 5/1/202310:40 AM P:\1896-001\Drainage\Hydrology\1896-001_Proposed Rational Calcs.xlsx\Summary Tables NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 – STORM SEWERS AND BOX CULVERTS B.2 – INLETS AND SIDEWALK CULVERTS B.3 – DETENTION FACILITIES B.4 – SCOURSTOP AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 – STORM SEWERS AND BOX CULVERTS Water Elevation Profile: Node POND2_WEST - POND2 03/15/2016 00:40:00 Distance (ft) 2001901801701601501401301201101009080706050403020100 PO N D 2 _ W E S T PO N D 2 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 15 14.5 14 13.5 13 12.5 12 11.5 11 10.5 10 9.5 9 SWMM 5.1 Page 1 15'x4' BOX CULVERT Water Elevation Profile: Node POND3_EAST - POND3 03/15/2016 00:40:00 Distance (ft) 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PO N D 3 _ E A S T PO N D 3 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 24 23.8 23.6 23.4 23.2 23 22.8 22.6 22.4 22.2 22 21.8 21.6 21.4 21.2 21 20.8 20.6 20.4 20.2 20 19.8 19.6 19.4 19.2 19 SWMM 5.1 Page 1 3 36" CULVERTS 100-YR flow comes from CDOT memo. See memo in Section B.3 after Rudolph Farm Pond 1 "State Drain Time" spreadhseet 1 Blaine Mathisen From:Andy Reese Sent:Tuesday, October 4, 2022 4:49 PM To:Blaine Mathisen Subject:FW: Rudolph Submittal - 2.0 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hey – can you follow up with Scott on Rudolph/Lake Canal? Andy Reese Director of Land Development/Vice-President Please note that I will be out of the office 10/7 – 10/12, and returning 10/14. Survey | Municipal | Land Development D: 970.568.5403 | O: 970.221.4158 From: Scott Parker <Scott.Parker@acewater.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 4:46 PM To: Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com> Subject: RE: Rudolph Submittal - 2.0 Andy, What was the maximum design discharge for the proposed box culverts on Lake Canal? I noticed in the drainage report that the maximum design discharge in the HY-8 model was 200 CFS, which included a 50 CFS safety factor over the 150 CFS maximum discharge provided by the ditch company. This was accomplished in Lake Canal Crossing A with a design slope of 0.0004 ft/ft over 780 feet of culvert (page 81 of the PDF). The proposed plans show a slope of 0.0002 ft/ft over 862 feet of culvert on Crossing A (sheets LC1 and LC2). The decree for the ditch company is 158 CFS, which would be the maximum discharge I would have recommended. Can you confirm that the culverts as shown on the design plans will carry at least the 150 CFS discharge noted or, preferably, the 158 CFS decree, with reasonable freeboard upstream? Feel free to call if you would like to discuss, I should be in the office most of the day tomorrow. Regards, Scott R. Parker, P.E. Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. 375 E. Horsetooth Rd., Bldg. 5 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Ph. 970-226-0120 From: Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2022 4:22 PM To: Scott Parker <Scott.Parker@acewater.com> Subject: Rudolph Submittal - 2.0 This email shows the basis for the 158 cfs for the Lake Canal culvert sizing. We are working with Scott Parker, from Anderson Consulting, for the Lake Canal culverts. 2 Hey Scott – It looks like our system just isn’t going to send the files, so I’ve created a different share using OneDrive. Here is a link to the files: Round 1 Final The folder contains our Utility Plans, Plat and Drainage Report. I’ve also included a conceptual land use file that shows the current thinking for the various parcels out there. Those are definitely subject to change! Sorry for the trouble with Newforma – hopefully this gets you what you need! Andy Reese Director of Land Development/Vice-President Survey | Municipal | Land Development D: 970.568.5403 | O: 970.221.4158 HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10.00 cfs Design Flow: 158.00 cfs Maximum Flow: 158.00 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: PROSPECT ROAD Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) LAKE CANAL-A Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 11.16 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 11.70 24.80 24.80 0.00 1 12.10 39.60 39.60 0.00 1 12.44 54.40 54.40 0.00 1 12.74 69.20 69.20 0.00 1 13.01 84.00 84.00 0.00 1 13.26 98.80 98.80 0.00 1 13.49 113.60 113.60 0.00 1 13.71 128.40 128.40 0.00 1 13.92 143.20 143.20 0.00 1 14.11 158.00 158.00 0.00 1 16.82 320.40 320.40 0.00 Overtopping LAKE CANAL - CROSSING A Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: PROSPECT ROAD Culvert Data: LAKE CANAL-A Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: LAKE CANAL-A Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert Discharge (cfs) Headwater Elevation (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwater Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 cfs 10.00 cfs 11.16 0.37 0.683 0.60 0.24 0.73 0.73 0.91 0.71 24.80 cfs 24.80 cfs 11.70 0.68 1.215 1.05 0.44 1.24 1.24 1.34 0.97 39.60 cfs 39.60 cfs 12.10 0.92 1.619 1.42 0.60 1.61 1.61 1.64 1.13 54.40 cfs 54.40 cfs 12.44 1.14 1.958 1.74 0.74 1.92 1.92 1.89 1.24 69.20 cfs 69.20 cfs 12.74 1.34 2.258 2.04 0.87 2.19 2.19 2.10 1.34 84.00 cfs 84.00 cfs 13.01 1.52 2.529 2.31 0.99 2.44 2.44 2.30 1.42 98.80 cfs 98.80 cfs 13.26 1.70 2.778 2.58 1.10 2.66 2.66 2.48 1.49 113.60 cfs 113.60 cfs 13.49 1.86 3.011 2.83 1.21 2.86 2.86 2.65 1.55 128.40 cfs 128.40 cfs 13.71 2.02 3.230 3.08 1.32 3.06 3.06 2.80 1.61 143.20 cfs 143.20 cfs 13.92 2.18 3.437 3.31 1.41 3.24 3.24 2.95 1.66 158.00 cfs 158.00 cfs 14.11 2.33 3.634 3.54 1.51 3.41 3.41 3.09 1.70 Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 10.48 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 10.30 ft Culvert Length: 862.47 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0002 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: LAKE CANAL-A Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: LAKE CANAL-A Site Data - LAKE CANAL-A Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 10.48 ft Outlet Station: 862.47 ft Outlet Elevation: 10.30 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - LAKE CANAL-A Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 15.00 ft Barrel Rise: 4.00 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (30-75º flare) Wingwall (Ke=0.4) Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: PROSPECT ROAD Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: PROSPECT ROAD) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 11.03 0.73 0.71 0.02 0.15 24.80 11.54 1.24 0.97 0.04 0.17 39.60 11.91 1.61 1.13 0.05 0.17 54.40 12.22 1.92 1.24 0.06 0.18 69.20 12.49 2.19 1.34 0.07 0.18 84.00 12.74 2.44 1.42 0.08 0.18 98.80 12.96 2.66 1.49 0.08 0.18 113.60 13.16 2.86 1.55 0.09 0.19 128.40 13.36 3.06 1.61 0.10 0.19 143.20 13.54 3.24 1.66 0.10 0.19 158.00 13.71 3.41 1.70 0.11 0.19 Tailwater Channel Data - PROSPECT ROAD Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 17.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0005 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 10.30 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: PROSPECT ROAD Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 17.57 1 20.00 17.53 2 40.00 16.82 Roadway Surface: Gravel Roadway Top Width: 40.00 ft HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10.00 cfs Design Flow: 158.00 cfs Maximum Flow: 158.00 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Carriage Parkway Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Lake Canal-B Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 11.76 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 12.31 24.80 24.80 0.00 1 12.72 39.60 39.60 0.00 1 13.06 54.40 54.40 0.00 1 13.36 69.20 69.20 0.00 1 13.63 84.00 84.00 0.00 1 13.88 98.80 98.80 0.00 1 14.11 113.60 113.60 0.00 1 14.33 128.40 128.40 0.00 1 14.53 143.20 143.20 0.00 1 14.72 158.00 158.00 0.00 1 17.40 370.91 370.91 0.00 Overtopping LAKE CANAL - CROSSING B Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Carriage Parkway Culvert Data: Lake Canal-B Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: Lake Canal-B Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert Discharge (cfs) Headwater Elevation (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwater Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 cfs 10.00 cfs 11.76 0.37 0.806 0.42 0.24 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.74 24.80 cfs 24.80 cfs 12.31 0.68 1.359 0.73 0.44 1.39 1.32 1.19 0.99 39.60 cfs 39.60 cfs 12.72 0.92 1.771 0.98 0.60 1.78 1.71 1.48 1.15 54.40 cfs 54.40 cfs 13.06 1.14 2.114 1.20 0.74 2.10 2.03 1.72 1.27 69.20 cfs 69.20 cfs 13.36 1.34 2.414 1.40 0.87 2.39 2.32 1.93 1.36 84.00 cfs 84.00 cfs 13.63 1.52 2.684 1.59 0.99 2.64 2.57 2.12 1.44 98.80 cfs 98.80 cfs 13.88 1.70 2.932 1.76 1.10 2.87 2.80 2.30 1.51 113.60 cfs 113.60 cfs 14.11 1.86 3.162 1.93 1.21 3.08 3.01 2.46 1.57 128.40 cfs 128.40 cfs 14.33 2.02 3.378 2.09 1.32 3.28 3.21 2.61 1.62 143.20 cfs 143.20 cfs 14.53 2.18 3.581 2.25 1.41 3.46 3.39 2.76 1.68 158.00 cfs 158.00 cfs 14.72 2.33 3.774 2.40 1.51 3.64 3.57 2.89 1.72 Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 10.95 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 10.88 ft Culvert Length: 124.50 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0006 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Lake Canal-B Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Lake Canal-B Site Data - Lake Canal-B Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 10.95 ft Outlet Station: 124.50 ft Outlet Elevation: 10.88 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - Lake Canal-B Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 15.00 ft Barrel Rise: 4.00 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0120 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (30-75º flare) Wingwall (Ke=0.4) Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Carriage Parkway Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Carriage Parkway) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 11.73 0.78 0.74 0.02 0.16 24.80 12.27 1.32 0.99 0.04 0.17 39.60 12.66 1.71 1.15 0.05 0.17 54.40 12.98 2.03 1.27 0.06 0.18 69.20 13.27 2.32 1.36 0.07 0.18 84.00 13.52 2.57 1.44 0.08 0.18 98.80 13.75 2.80 1.51 0.09 0.19 113.60 13.96 3.01 1.57 0.09 0.19 128.40 14.16 3.21 1.62 0.10 0.19 143.20 14.34 3.39 1.68 0.11 0.19 158.00 14.52 3.57 1.72 0.11 0.19 Tailwater Channel Data - Carriage Parkway Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 15.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0005 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 10.95 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Carriage Parkway Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 19.29 1 20.00 17.40 2 45.00 18.08 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 45.00 ft HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10.00 cfs Design Flow: 158.00 cfs Maximum Flow: 158.00 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Street A Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Lake Canal-C Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 12.17 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 12.75 24.80 24.80 0.00 1 13.18 39.60 39.60 0.00 1 13.54 54.40 54.40 0.00 1 13.86 69.20 69.20 0.00 1 14.14 84.00 84.00 0.00 1 14.40 98.80 98.80 0.00 1 14.64 113.60 113.60 0.00 1 14.86 128.40 128.40 0.00 1 15.07 143.20 143.20 0.00 1 15.27 158.00 158.00 0.00 1 17.81 349.57 349.57 0.00 Overtopping Lake Canal - Crossing C Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Street A Culvert Data: Lake Canal-C Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: Lake Canal-C Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert Discharge (cfs) Headwater Elevation (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwater Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 cfs 10.00 cfs 12.17 0.37 0.856 0.44 0.24 0.91 0.84 0.74 0.68 24.80 cfs 24.80 cfs 12.75 0.68 1.440 0.77 0.44 1.47 1.40 1.12 0.92 39.60 cfs 39.60 cfs 13.18 0.92 1.873 1.03 0.60 1.89 1.82 1.40 1.06 54.40 cfs 54.40 cfs 13.54 1.14 2.233 1.26 0.74 2.23 2.16 1.62 1.17 69.20 cfs 69.20 cfs 13.86 1.34 2.547 1.47 0.87 2.53 2.46 1.82 1.26 84.00 cfs 84.00 cfs 14.14 1.52 2.829 1.66 0.99 2.80 2.73 2.00 1.33 98.80 cfs 98.80 cfs 14.40 1.70 3.087 1.85 1.10 3.04 2.97 2.17 1.39 113.60 cfs 113.60 cfs 14.64 1.86 3.327 2.02 1.21 3.26 3.19 2.32 1.45 128.40 cfs 128.40 cfs 14.86 2.02 3.551 2.19 1.32 3.47 3.40 2.47 1.50 143.20 cfs 143.20 cfs 15.07 2.18 3.762 2.36 1.41 3.66 3.59 2.61 1.55 158.00 cfs 158.00 cfs 15.27 2.33 3.963 2.52 1.51 3.85 3.78 2.74 1.59 Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 11.31 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 11.24 ft Culvert Length: 143.40 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0005 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Lake Canal-C Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Lake Canal-C Site Data - Lake Canal-C Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 11.31 ft Outlet Station: 143.40 ft Outlet Elevation: 11.24 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - Lake Canal-C Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 15.00 ft Barrel Rise: 4.00 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0120 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (30-75º flare) Wingwall (Ke=0.4) Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Street A Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Street A) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 12.15 0.84 0.68 0.02 0.14 24.80 12.71 1.40 0.92 0.04 0.15 39.60 13.13 1.82 1.06 0.05 0.16 54.40 13.47 2.16 1.17 0.05 0.16 69.20 13.77 2.46 1.26 0.06 0.16 84.00 14.04 2.73 1.33 0.07 0.17 98.80 14.28 2.97 1.39 0.07 0.17 113.60 14.50 3.19 1.45 0.08 0.17 128.40 14.71 3.40 1.50 0.08 0.17 143.20 14.90 3.59 1.55 0.09 0.17 158.00 15.09 3.78 1.59 0.09 0.17 Tailwater Channel Data - Street A Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 15.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0004 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 11.31 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Street A Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 18.61 1 25.00 17.81 2 45.00 17.88 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 45.00 ft Date: December 9, 2019 Project: Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal Relocation Project No. 100-019 Fort Collins, Colorado Re: TRIC Flow Depths Memo To whom it may concern: This memo is intended to document the conversations and design process regarding the design of the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) box culvert and the associated pond design for the Poudre School District site at the corner of Prospect Road and County Road 5 (Main Street) in Fort Collins. Dale Trowbridge, the manager of the Cache La Poudre Reservoir Company and operator of the TRIC was contacted to determine the irrigation flows that are present in the ditch during normal operations. The TRIC runs off-season (November-April typically) to refill the Timnath Reservoir. In the conversation with Dale, we were informed that normal flows are typically between 25-50 cfs. In the spring, there can be flows of up to 100 cfs, but this flow is generally limited to no more than a week before reducing back to normal flow rates. If needed, the flows in the ditch can be increased up to 150 cfs, but this only occurs if the reservoir is lower than expected and the winter flows were deficient. In the event of a 150 cfs flow in the ditch being needed for operations, it would only be at that flow for few days before decreasing again. Please refer to the Drainage Letter Report for the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) Relocation dated December 5, 2019 for information regarding ditch performance during storm events. We took the flowrates provided by Dale and ran them through Hydraflow to determine the operational water surface elevation in the box culvert under different conditions. It is worth noting that flap gates are provided at the pond outlets and that ditch operations should not cause ponding in the ponds, regardless of flow rate. Ponding would only occur if a rain or snow event were to occur while the higher operational levels were present, thereby preventing the flap gates from opening and draining the ponds. The analysis, illustrated in the TRIC Operational Flow Summary below, showed varying flow depths in the culvert which have could different implications to the project, with the lower flows having no impact on the ponds and the higher flows resulting in potential ponding within the ponds that would not be able to drain until flows in the ditch subsided. Using this analysis, it was decided that the optimal pond bottom elevation would be designed to minimize ponding with the more common 100 cfs flow in mind. This results in a minimum pond bottom elevation of 4911.0 that would see approximately three inches of ponding if a storm event were to occur the ditch is running at that flow. The duration of the ponding would typically be for a few days, but no more than a week. In the event that a storm event occurred while the ditch was flowing at the more unusual 150 cfs, it is possible that the ponds would see up to 1.37’ of ponding that would not drain until the flow in the ditch subsided. This condition was viewed as acceptable when balancing the relative infrequency of the event (per Dale) and relatively short duration of the ponding against the significant reduction to site earthwork and improved overall drainage performance that can be achieved by having a lower pond bottom. THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS WHERE THE TRIC FLOWRATES ARE COMING FROM FOR THE HY-8 MODELING. A FACTOR OF SAFETY (FS = 1.67) WAS INCLUDED TO INCREASE THE 150 CFS TO 250 CFS Page 2 TRIC Operational Flow Summary Flow (cfs) Flow Depth in Culvert* (ft) WSEL (ft) Ponding** (ft) Frequency/Duration 50 2.07 4909.97 0 Normal Winter Flow 100 3.35 4911.25 0.25 Spring Final Fill-up - Week Max 150 4.47 4912.37 1.37 Spring Pond top off on dry years - Few Days Max *Connection 5 used, Inv=4907.9, **Pond Bottom = 4911.0 Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Andy Reese Project Manager Benjamin Ruch, PE Project Engineer HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10.00 cfs Design Flow: 250.00 cfs Maximum Flow: 250.00 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Carriage Parkway Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) TRIC A Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 8.94 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 9.76 34.00 34.00 0.00 1 10.32 58.00 58.00 0.00 1 10.78 82.00 82.00 0.00 1 11.17 106.00 106.00 0.00 1 11.53 130.00 130.00 0.00 1 11.85 154.00 154.00 0.00 1 12.15 178.00 178.00 0.00 1 12.42 202.00 202.00 0.00 1 12.69 226.00 226.00 0.00 1 12.93 250.00 250.00 0.00 1 14.63 415.56 415.53 0.00 Overtopping TRIC - Crossing A Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Carriage Parkway Culvert Data: TRIC A Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: TRIC A Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert Discharge (cfs) Headwater Elevation (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwater Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 cfs 10.00 cfs 8.94 0.39 0.808 0.78 0.23 0.79 0.78 0.79 0.74 34.00 cfs 34.00 cfs 9.76 0.89 1.626 1.69 0.52 1.58 1.57 1.34 1.10 58.00 cfs 58.00 cfs 10.32 1.27 2.190 2.39 0.74 2.12 2.11 1.71 1.29 82.00 cfs 82.00 cfs 10.78 1.60 2.648 3.01 0.93 2.55 2.54 2.01 1.43 106.00 cfs 106.00 cfs 11.17 1.90 3.043 3.59 1.11 2.91 2.90 2.27 1.54 130.00 cfs 130.00 cfs 11.53 2.18 3.396 4.13 1.27 3.24 3.23 2.51 1.63 154.00 cfs 154.00 cfs 11.85 2.44 3.718 4.65 1.42 3.53 3.52 2.72 1.71 178.00 cfs 178.00 cfs 12.15 2.68 4.015 5.00 1.57 3.80 3.79 2.93 1.78 202.00 cfs 202.00 cfs 12.42 2.91 4.293 5.00 1.70 4.05 4.04 3.12 1.84 226.00 cfs 226.00 cfs 12.69 3.13 4.555 5.00 1.84 4.29 4.28 3.30 1.90 250.00 cfs 250.00 cfs 12.93 3.34 4.804 5.00 1.96 4.51 4.50 3.47 1.95 Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 8.13 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 8.12 ft Culvert Length: 151.56 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0001 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: TRIC A Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: TRIC A Site Data - TRIC A Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 8.13 ft Outlet Station: 151.56 ft Outlet Elevation: 8.12 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - TRIC A Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 16.00 ft Barrel Rise: 5.00 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0120 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (90º) Headwall (Ke=0.5) Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Carriage Parkway Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Carriage Parkway) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 8.91 0.78 0.74 0.02 0.16 34.00 9.70 1.57 1.10 0.05 0.17 58.00 10.24 2.11 1.29 0.07 0.18 82.00 10.67 2.54 1.43 0.08 0.18 106.00 11.03 2.90 1.54 0.09 0.19 130.00 11.36 3.23 1.63 0.10 0.19 154.00 11.65 3.52 1.71 0.11 0.19 178.00 11.92 3.79 1.78 0.12 0.19 202.00 12.17 4.04 1.84 0.13 0.19 226.00 12.41 4.28 1.90 0.13 0.20 250.00 12.63 4.50 1.95 0.14 0.20 Tailwater Channel Data - Carriage Parkway Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 15.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0005 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 8.13 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Carriage Parkway Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 16.07 1 20.00 14.63 2 40.00 15.47 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 40.00 ft HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 10.00 cfs Design Flow: 250.00 cfs Maximum Flow: 250.00 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Street A Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) TRIC B Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 8.95 10.00 10.00 0.00 1 9.73 34.00 34.00 0.00 1 10.27 58.00 58.00 0.00 1 10.71 82.00 82.00 0.00 1 11.09 106.00 106.00 0.00 1 11.43 130.00 130.00 0.00 1 11.75 154.00 154.00 0.00 1 12.03 178.00 178.00 0.00 1 12.30 202.00 202.00 0.00 1 12.56 226.00 226.00 0.00 1 12.80 250.00 250.00 0.00 1 14.68 444.62 444.62 0.00 Overtopping TRIC - Crossing B Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Street A Culvert Data: TRIC B Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: TRIC B Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert Discharge (cfs) Headwater Elevation (ft) Inlet Control Depth (ft) Outlet Control Depth (ft) Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/s) Tailwater Velocity (ft/s) 10.00 cfs 10.00 cfs 8.95 0.35 0.769 -1.00 0.23 0.75 0.74 0.83 0.78 34.00 cfs 34.00 cfs 9.73 0.80 1.552 -1.00 0.52 1.50 1.49 1.41 1.17 58.00 cfs 58.00 cfs 10.27 1.14 2.093 -1.00 0.74 2.02 2.01 1.80 1.38 82.00 cfs 82.00 cfs 10.71 1.44 2.533 -1.00 0.93 2.43 2.42 2.11 1.52 106.00 cfs 106.00 cfs 11.09 1.70 2.914 -1.00 1.11 2.78 2.77 2.38 1.64 130.00 cfs 130.00 cfs 11.43 1.95 3.255 -1.00 1.27 3.09 3.08 2.63 1.74 154.00 cfs 154.00 cfs 11.75 2.19 3.565 -1.00 1.42 3.37 3.36 2.85 1.83 178.00 cfs 178.00 cfs 12.03 2.41 3.853 -1.00 1.57 3.63 3.62 3.06 1.90 202.00 cfs 202.00 cfs 12.30 2.62 4.122 -1.00 1.70 3.87 3.86 3.26 1.97 226.00 cfs 226.00 cfs 12.56 2.83 4.375 -1.00 1.84 4.10 4.09 3.45 2.03 250.00 cfs 250.00 cfs 12.80 3.03 4.616 -1.00 1.96 4.31 4.30 3.63 2.09 Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 8.18 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 8.17 ft Culvert Length: 157.72 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0001 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: TRIC B Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: TRIC B Site Data - TRIC B Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 8.18 ft Outlet Station: 157.72 ft Outlet Elevation: 8.17 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - TRIC B Barrel Shape: Concrete Box Barrel Span: 16.00 ft Barrel Rise: 5.00 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0120 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (30-75º flare) Wingwall (Ke=0.4) Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Street A Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Street A) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 10.00 8.92 0.74 0.78 0.03 0.17 34.00 9.67 1.49 1.17 0.06 0.19 58.00 10.19 2.01 1.38 0.08 0.19 82.00 10.60 2.42 1.52 0.09 0.20 106.00 10.95 2.77 1.64 0.10 0.20 130.00 11.26 3.08 1.74 0.12 0.21 154.00 11.54 3.36 1.83 0.13 0.21 178.00 11.80 3.62 1.90 0.14 0.21 202.00 12.04 3.86 1.97 0.14 0.21 226.00 12.27 4.09 2.03 0.15 0.21 250.00 12.48 4.30 2.09 0.16 0.21 Tailwater Channel Data - Street A Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel Bottom Width: 15.00 ft Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0006 Channel Manning's n: 0.0350 Channel Invert Elevation: 8.18 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Street A Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 17.59 1 40.00 14.68 2 60.00 16.72 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 60.00 ft NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.2 – INLETS, SIDEWALK CULVERTS, AND STREET CAPACITIES Purpose:This workbook can be used to size a variety of inlets based on allowable spread and depth in a street or swale. Function:1. To calculate peak discharge for the tributary area to each inlet. 2. To calculate allowable half-street capacity based on allowable depth and spread. 3. To determine the inlet capacity for selected inlet types. 4. To manage inlet information and connect inlets in series to account for bypass flow. Content:The workbook consists of the following sheets: Q-Peak Inlet Management Inlet [#] Inlet Pictures Acknowledgements:Spreadsheet Development Team: Ken A. MacKenzie, P.E., Holly Piza, P.E., Chris Carandang Mile High Flood District Derek N. Rapp, P.E. Peak Stormwater Engineering, LLC Dr. James C.Y. Guo, Ph.D., P.E. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado at Denver Comments?Direct all comments regarding this spreadsheet workbook to:MHFD E-mail Revisions?Check for revised versions of this or any other workbook at:Downloads Imports information from the Q-Peak sheet and Inlet [#] sheets and can be used to connect inlets in series so that bypass flow from an upstream inlet is added to flow calculated for the next downstream inlet. This sheet can also be used to modify design information from the Q-peak sheet. Inlet [#] sheets are created each time the user exports information from the Q-Peak sheet to the Inlet Management sheet. The Inlet [#] sheets calculate allowable half-street capacity based on allowable depth and allowable spread for the minor and major storm events. This is also where the user selects an inlet type and calculates the capacity of that inlet. Contains a library of photographs of the various types of inlets contained in MHFD-Inlet and referenced in the USDCM. Calculates the peak discharge for the inlet tributary area based on the Rational Method for the minor and major storm events. Alternatively, the user can enter a known flow. Information from this sheet is then exported to the Inlet Management sheet. STREET AND INLET HYDRAULICS WORKBOOK MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) Mile High Flood District Denver, Colorado www.mhfd.org 1 STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) Worksheet Protected INLET NAME Design Point r1 Desing Point r2 Design Point r3 Site Type (Urban or Rural)URBAN URBAN URBAN Inlet Application (Street or Area)STREET STREET STREET Hydraulic Condition On Grade On Grade On Grade Inlet Type USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Design Flows Minor QKnown (cfs)3.6 9.0 19.9 Major QKnown (cfs)18.1 44.5 80.7 Bypass (Carry-Over) Flow from Upstream 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 NRCS 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, P1 (inches) Major Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period, Tr (years) One-Hour Precipitation, P1 (inches) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs)3.6 9.0 19.9 Major Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs)18.1 44.5 80.7 Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) Major Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) INLET MANAGEMENT MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) Worksheet Protected INLET NAME Site Type (Urban or Rural) Inlet Application (Street or Area) Hydraulic Condition Inlet Type USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Design Flows Minor QKnown (cfs) Major QKnown (cfs) Bypass (Carry-Over) Flow from Upstream Receive Bypass Flow from: Minor Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs) Major Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs) Watershed Characteristics Subcatchment Area (acres) Percent Impervious NRCS 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, P1 (inches) Major Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period, Tr (years) One-Hour Precipitation, P1 (inches) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Major Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) Major Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) INLET MANAGEMENT Design Point r4 Design Point r5 Design Point r6 URBAN URBAN URBAN STREET STREET STREET On Grade On Grade On Grade 2.2 4.3 3.0 10.0 49.4 13.6 No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 4.3 3.0 10.0 49.4 13.6 MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) Worksheet Protected INLET NAME Site Type (Urban or Rural) Inlet Application (Street or Area) Hydraulic Condition Inlet Type USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Design Flows Minor QKnown (cfs) Major QKnown (cfs) Bypass (Carry-Over) Flow from Upstream Receive Bypass Flow from: Minor Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs) Major Bypass Flow Received, Qb (cfs) Watershed Characteristics Subcatchment Area (acres) Percent Impervious NRCS 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, P1 (inches) Major Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period, Tr (years) One-Hour Precipitation, P1 (inches) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Major Total Design Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) Major Flow Bypassed Downstream, Qb (cfs) INLET MANAGEMENT Design Point r7 Design Point r8 Design Point r13 User-Defined URBAN URBAN URBAN STREET STREET STREET On Grade On Grade On Grade 2.3 1.6 3.6 9.3 7.6 18.3 No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.6 3.6 9.3 7.6 18.3 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.010 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =18.4 174.1 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r1 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =15.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.012 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =20.1 196.8 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Desing Point r2 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.015 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =22.5 213.3 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r3 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.010 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =18.4 174.1 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r4 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =15.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.006 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =14.2 139.2 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r5 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =15.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.006 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =14.2 139.2 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r6 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =22.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.015 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =22.0 22.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =22.5 203.2 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r7 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =15.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.030 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =23.7 187.7 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r8 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.050 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =20.3 156.1 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Design Point r13 1 Purpose:This workbook can be used to size a variety of inlets based on allowable spread and depth in a street or swale. Function:1. To calculate peak discharge for the tributary area to each inlet. 2. To calculate allowable half-street capacity based on allowable depth and spread. 3. To determine the inlet capacity for selected inlet types. 4. To manage inlet information and connect inlets in series to account for bypass flow. Content:The workbook consists of the following sheets: Q-Peak Inlet Management Inlet [#] Inlet Pictures Acknowledgements:Spreadsheet Development Team: Ken A. MacKenzie, P.E., Holly Piza, P.E., Chris Carandang Mile High Flood District Derek N. Rapp, P.E. Peak Stormwater Engineering, LLC Dr. James C.Y. Guo, Ph.D., P.E. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado at Denver Comments?Direct all comments regarding this spreadsheet workbook to:MHFD E-mail Revisions?Check for revised versions of this or any other workbook at:Downloads Imports information from the Q-Peak sheet and Inlet [#] sheets and can be used to connect inlets in series so that bypass flow from an upstream inlet is added to flow calculated for the next downstream inlet. This sheet can also be used to modify design information from the Q-peak sheet. Inlet [#] sheets are created each time the user exports information from the Q-Peak sheet to the Inlet Management sheet. The Inlet [#] sheets calculate allowable half-street capacity based on allowable depth and allowable spread for the minor and major storm events. This is also where the user selects an inlet type and calculates the capacity of that inlet. Contains a library of photographs of the various types of inlets contained in MHFD-Inlet and referenced in the USDCM. Calculates the peak discharge for the inlet tributary area based on the Rational Method for the minor and major storm events. Alternatively, the user can enter a known flow. Information from this sheet is then exported to the Inlet Management sheet. STREET AND INLET HYDRAULICS WORKBOOK MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) Mile High Flood District Denver, Colorado www.mhfd.org 1 INLET CALCULATIONS INLET ID TYPE A1 15' TYPE R A2 10' TYPE R C3 20' TYPE R F2 15' TYPE R F3 15' TYPE R G2 5' TYPE R G3 5' TYPE R H2 15' TYPE R H3 15' TYPE R I3 15' TYPE R J1 10' TYPE R J2 15' TYPE R INLET SUMMARY Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =15.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet A1 1 Design Point r11 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =3 3 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 8.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 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)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.50 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.75 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 0.89 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =13.5 27.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =4.7 21.0 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =15.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet A2 1 Design Point r6 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 8.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 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)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.50 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.75 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.93 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =10.5 19.3 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =3.0 13.6 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet C3 1 Design Point r2 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =4 4 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 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)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.83 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =18.2 52.7 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =9.0 44.5 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =22.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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 =0.010 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =22.0 22.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (check box for yes, leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =18.4 165.9 cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet F2 & F3 1 Design Point r7 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a')aLOCAL =3.0 3.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)No =3 3 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening)Lo =5.00 5.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W, Gutter Width) Wo =N/A N/A ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5)Cf-G =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1)Cf-C =0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics: OK - Q < Allowable Street Capacity'MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q =1.1 4.7 cfs Total Inlet Carry-Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet)Qb =0.0 0.0 cfs Capture Percentage = Qa/Qo =C% =100 100 % INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) CDOT Type R Curb Opening CDOT Type R Curb Opening 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =15.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =27.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =27.0 27.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet G2 & G3 1 Design Point r8 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 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 Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 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)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.50 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.77 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =5.4 9.3 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =0.8 5.1 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet H3 1 Design Point r9 (Design Point r3 WQ flow (9.93 cfs) is captured in upstream sidewalk chase) Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =3 3 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 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)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.83 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =13.5 39.1 cfs WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Minor and Major Storms Q PEAK REQUIRED =14.1 82.0 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 OVERTOPPING 42.9 CFS. 27.7 CFS WILL ENTER INLET H2 (SEE INLET H2 CALCULATION FOR ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION) THEREFORE, A TOTAL OF 15.2 (82.0- 39.1 + 27.7 = 15.2) CFS WILL BE OVERTOPPING THE ROW ALONG BOTH WEST AND EAST SIDES OF STREET A. 15.2/2 = 7.60 CFS FOR BOTH SIDES. REFER TO DESIGN POINT r9 AND r10 OVERTOPPING DESIGN HY-8 CALC FOR SPREAD OF 7.60 CFS. STREET A IS PRIVATE Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet H2 1 Design Point r10 (Design Point r4 WQ flow (1.09 cfs) is captured in upstream sidewalk chase 4) Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =3 3 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 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)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.83 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =13.5 39.1 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =1.6 11.4 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 INLET H2 IS GREATLY OVERSIZED TO TAKE IN ADDITIONAL FLOW FROM THE WEST SIDE OF STREET A (INLET H3). ADDITIONAL CAPACITY = 39.1 - 11.4 = 27.7 CFS Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =16.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =44.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =32.0 32.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet I3 1 Basin OS2 + Design Point r1 Q2 = 6.89 cfs Q100 = 31.41 cfs Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =3 3 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 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)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.83 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =13.5 39.1 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =6.9 31.4 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet J1 1 Design Point r12 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =2 2 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 7.5 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 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)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.46 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.71 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.93 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =10.5 17.9 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =1.4 5.9 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 Project: Inlet ID: Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TBACK =13.5 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)SBACK =0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)nBACK =0.015 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB =6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN =25.0 ft Gutter Width W =2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope SX =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)nSTREET =0.012 Minor Storm Major Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm TMAX =25.0 25.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm dMAX =6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qallow =SUMP SUMP cfs MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Rudolph Farm Inlet J2 1 Design Point r13 Design Information (Input)MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type = Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above)alocal =3.00 3.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening)No =3 3 Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression)Ponding Depth =6.0 7.5 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Grate Lo (G) =N/A N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate Wo =N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90)Aratio =N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)Cf (G) =N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60)Cw (G) =N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80)Co (G) =N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo (C) =5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert =6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hthroat =6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)Theta =63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet)Wp =2.00 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)Cw (C) =3.60 3.60 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70)Co (C) =0.67 0.67 Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated)MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate =N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation dCurb =0.33 0.46 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCombination =0.57 0.71 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFCurb =0.79 0.87 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFGrate =N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition)Qa =13.5 24.1 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK)Q PEAK REQUIRED =3.6 18.3 cfs CDOT Type R Curb Opening INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.01 (April 2021) H-VertH-Curb W Lo (C) Lo (G) Wo WP CDOT Type R Curb Opening Override Depths 1 CDOT Type R Curb Opening Denver No. 14 Curb Opening Colorado Springs D-10-R CDOT/Denver 13 Valley Grate CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Denver No. 16 Combination Wheat Ridge Combination Inlet Denver No. 16 Valley Grate Directional Cast Vane Grate Directional 30-Degree Bar Grate (courtesy HEC-22)Directional 45-Degree Bar Grate Reticuline Riveted Grate 1-7/8" Bar Grate, Crossbars @ 8"1-7/8" Bar Grate, Crossbars @ 4" (courtesy HEC-22)1-1/8 in. Bar Grate, Crossbars @ 8 in. (courtesy HEC-22)Slotted Inlet Parallel to Flow CDOT Type C Grate (Close Mesh)CDOT Type C Grate CDOT Type C Inlet CDOT Type C Inlet in Depression CDOT Type D Inlet In Series (Flat & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet In Series (10° Incline & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet In Series (20° Incline & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet In Series (30° Incline & Depressed) CDOT Type D Inlet Parallel (Flat & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet Parallel (10° Incline & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet Parallel (20° Incline & Depressed)CDOT Type D Inlet Parallel (30° Incline & Depressed) INLET PICTURES Street Capacity Calcs.xlsm, Inlet Pictures 8/25/2022, 12:24 PM HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 0.00 cfs Design Flow: 8.15 cfs Maximum Flow: 8.15 cfs Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Overtopping at Design Point r9 and r10 Headwater Elevation (ft) Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert 1 Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations 15.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 16.54 0.82 0.01 0.80 27 16.57 1.63 0.01 1.61 7 16.59 2.45 0.01 2.42 5 16.61 3.26 0.01 3.23 4 16.63 4.08 0.01 4.02 3 16.64 4.89 0.01 4.85 3 16.65 5.71 0.01 5.68 3 16.66 6.52 0.01 6.50 3 16.67 7.34 0.01 7.29 2 16.68 8.15 0.01 8.08 2 16.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overtopping OVERTOPPING AT DESIGN POINT r9 AND r10 OVERTOPPING AT INLET H3 = 82.5 - 39.1 = 43.4 CFS ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AT INLET H2 = 39.1 - 12.0 = 27.1 CFS OVERTOPPING FLOWS ROUTED FROM INLET H3 TO INLET H2 = 43.4 - 27.1 = 16.3 CFS REMAINING UNIFORM OVERTOPPING FLOWS AT DESIGN POINT r9 AND r10 = 16.3/2 = 8.15 CFS 1' ABOVE FLOWLINE. MEETS CHAPTER 9 OF FCSCM REQUIRMENTS Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Overtopping at Design Point r9 and r10 Culvert Data: Culvert 1 Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: Culvert 1 Total Discharg e (cfs) Culvert Discharg e (cfs) Headwate r Elevation (ft) Inlet Contro l Depth (ft) Outlet Contro l Depth (ft) Norma l Depth (ft) Critica l Depth (ft) Outle t Dept h (ft) Tailwate r Depth (ft) Outlet Velocit y (ft/s) Tailwate r Velocity (ft/s) 0.00 cfs 0.00 cfs 15.73 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.54 0.16 0.812 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.23 1.63 1.79 1.63 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.57 0.16 0.842 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.28 1.61 2.06 2.45 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.59 0.16 0.864 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.32 1.59 2.25 3.26 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.61 0.16 0.881 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.34 1.58 2.40 4.08 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.63 0.15 0.896 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.37 1.57 2.53 4.89 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.64 0.15 0.909 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.39 1.56 2.64 5.71 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.65 0.15 0.922 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.40 1.55 2.74 6.52 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.66 0.15 0.933 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.42 1.55 2.83 7.34 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.67 0.15 0.943 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.44 1.54 2.91 8.15 cfs 0.01 cfs 16.68 0.15 0.952 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.45 1.53 2.99 Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 15.73 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 11.00 ft Culvert Length: 25.44 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.1892 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Culvert 1 Site Data - Culvert 1 Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 15.73 ft Outlet Station: 25.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 11.00 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - Culvert 1 Barrel Shape: Circular Barrel Diameter: 0.10 ft Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0120 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge with Headwall (Ke=0.5) Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Overtopping at Design Point r9 and r10 Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Overtopping at Design Point r9 and r10) Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Shear (psf) Froude Number 0.00 15.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 15.96 0.23 1.79 0.09 1.10 1.63 16.01 0.28 2.06 0.11 1.14 2.45 16.05 0.32 2.25 0.12 1.17 3.26 16.07 0.34 2.40 0.13 1.19 4.08 16.10 0.37 2.53 0.14 1.20 4.89 16.12 0.39 2.64 0.14 1.22 5.71 16.13 0.40 2.74 0.15 1.23 6.52 16.15 0.42 2.83 0.16 1.24 7.34 16.17 0.44 2.91 0.16 1.25 8.15 16.18 0.45 2.99 0.17 1.25 Tailwater Channel Data - Overtopping at Design Point r9 and r10 Tailwater Channel Option: Irregular Channel Channel Slope: Irregular Channel User Defined Channel Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Manning's n 1 0.00 16.49 0.0150 2 13.00 16.23 0.0120 3 13.50 15.73 0.0120 4 15.50 15.89 0.0120 5 38.50 16.40 0.0120 6 38.50 17.40 0.0000 Roadway Data for Crossing: Overtopping at Design Point r9 and r10 Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates) Irregular Roadway Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 0.00 17.51 1 100.00 16.45 2 200.00 16.94 Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 200.00 ft Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Feb 21 2023 Rain Garden 1 - 2-yr Flow - DP r1 Rectangular Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 8.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 3.62 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.26 Q (cfs) = 3.620 Area (sqft) = 2.11 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.71 Top Width (ft) = 8.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 1 - 2-yr Flow - DP r1 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. SIDEWALK CULVERT AT DESIGN POINT r1 Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Jan 9 2023 Rain Garden 2 - WQCV Flow (0.5 x 2-yr Runoff) - DP r3 Rectangular Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 12.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 9.93 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.40 Q (cfs) = 9.930 Area (sqft) = 4.74 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.09 Top Width (ft) = 12.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 2 - WQCV Flow (0.5 x 2-yr Runoff) - DP r3 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. SIDEWALK CULVERT AT DESIGN POINT r3 Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Jan 9 2023 Rain Garden 3 - 2-yr Flow - DP r4 Rectangular Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 2.17 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.30 Q (cfs) = 2.170 Area (sqft) = 1.19 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.82 Top Width (ft) = 4.00 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 3 - 2-yr Flow - DP r4 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. SIDEWALK CULVERT AT DESIGN POINT r4 Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Jan 9 2023 Rain Garden 3 - 2-yr Flow - DP r5 Rectangular Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 4.30 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.47 Q (cfs) = 4.300 Area (sqft) = 1.88 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.29 Top Width (ft) = 4.00 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 3 - 2-yr Flow - DP r5 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. SIDEWALK CULVERT AT DESIGN POINT r5 Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, May 8 2023 Prospect Road Chase Adjacent to Lot 7 Rectangular Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 8.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 7.26 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.42 Q (cfs) = 7.260 Area (sqft) = 3.36 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.16 Top Width (ft) = 8.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Prospect Road Chase Adjacent to Lot 7 -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Q=CIA A = .73 acres (Prospect Road Half R.O.W from Basin 7) I = 9.95 in/hr C = 1.00 REFER TO RATIONAL CALCS FOR CLARIFICATION Q= 7.26 cfs SIDEWALK CULVERT IN PROSPECT ROAD ADJACENT TO LOT 7 C Sidewalk Culvert ID Width RG 1 8' RG 2 12' RG 3 - dp 4 4' RG 3 - dp 5 4' Prospect Road 8' Sidewalk Culvert Summary Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Monday, Feb 20 2023 SWALE BEHIND LOT 8 AND 9 User-defined Invert Elev (ft) = 1.00 Slope (%) = 0.30 N-Value = 0.017 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 116.56 (Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( 0.00, 3.50)-(4.00, 2.50, 0.023)-(7.00, 1.00, 0.012)-(10.00, 1.00, 0.012)-(13.00, 2.50, 0.012)-(17.00, 3.50, 0.023) Highlighted Depth (ft) = 2.50 Q (cfs) = 116.56 Area (sqft) = 22.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 5.30 Wetted Perim (ft) = 17.95 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 2.30 Top Width (ft) = 17.00 EGL (ft) = 2.94 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 0.50 -0.50 1.00 0.00 1.50 0.50 2.00 1.00 2.50 1.50 3.00 2.00 3.50 2.50 4.00 3.00 Sta (ft) Flow from Basins... 8B, 9B, R7, R8, OS6, OS7, AND FG1 1.33x(21.54+39.48+9.33+7.56+3.06+1.04+2.63) =116.56 cfs 1.33 multiplier is from Chapter 9 Section 5.1 from FCSCM Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Feb 21 2023 Swale Between Lot 1 and 2 Trapezoidal Bottom Width (ft) = 2.00 Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Total Depth (ft) = 2.00 Invert Elev (ft) = 1.00 Slope (%) = 1.00 N-Value = 0.030 Calculations Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 32.12 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 1.22 Q (cfs) = 32.12 Area (sqft) = 8.39 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.83 Wetted Perim (ft) = 12.06 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.10 Top Width (ft) = 11.76 EGL (ft) = 1.45 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 0.50 -0.50 1.00 0.00 1.50 0.50 2.00 1.00 2.50 1.50 3.00 2.00 3.50 2.50 4.00 3.00 Reach (ft) Flow from Design Points... r12 and r13 1.33x(5.88+18.27) = 32.12 cfs 1.33 multiplier is from Chapter 9 Section 5.1 from FCSCM Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, May 3 2023 Rain Garden 1 Overtopping Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 241.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.33 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 114.62 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.29 Q (cfs) = 114.62 Area (sqft) = 70.23 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.63 Top Width (ft) = 243.32 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 1 Overtopping -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, May 3 2023 Rain Garden 2 Overtopping Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 150.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 118.68 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.41 Q (cfs) = 118.68 Area (sqft) = 62.17 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.91 Top Width (ft) = 153.28 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 2 Overtopping -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, May 3 2023 Rain Garden 3 Overtopping Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 100.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 84.46 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.42 Q (cfs) = 84.46 Area (sqft) = 42.71 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.98 Top Width (ft) = 103.36 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 3 Overtopping -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, May 3 2023 Rain Garden 4 Overtopping Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 123.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 134.35 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q (cfs) = 134.35 Area (sqft) = 62.50 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.15 Top Width (ft) = 127.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 4 Overtopping -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, May 3 2023 Rain Garden 5 Overtopping Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 50.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.33 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 23.37 Highlighted Depth (ft) = 0.28 Q (cfs) = 23.37 Area (sqft) = 14.31 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.63 Top Width (ft) = 52.24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)Rain Garden 5 Overtopping -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.3 – DETENTION FACILITIES(SWMM AND ORIFICE RATINGS) [TITLE] ;;Project Title/Notes [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW_UNITS CFS INFILTRATION HORTON FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH MIN_SLOPE 0 ALLOW_PONDING NO SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO START_DATE 03/15/2016 START_TIME 00:00:00 REPORT_START_DATE 03/15/2016 REPORT_START_TIME 00:40:00 END_DATE 03/20/2016 END_TIME 00:00:00 SWEEP_START 01/01 SWEEP_END 12/31 DRY_DAYS 0 REPORT_STEP 00:05:00 WET_STEP 00:05:00 DRY_STEP 01:00:00 ROUTING_STEP 0:00:15 RULE_STEP 00:00:00 INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W VARIABLE_STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING_STEP 0 MIN_SURFAREA 12.557 MAX_TRIALS 8 HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005 SYS_FLOW_TOL 5 LAT_FLOW_TOL 5 MINIMUM_STEP 0.5 THREADS 1 [EVAPORATION] ;;Data Source Parameters ;;-------------- ---------------- INPUT CONSTANT 0.0 DRY_ONLY NO [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF Source ;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ---------- FORTCOLLINS INTENSITY 0:05 1.0 TIMESERIES 100-YR [SUBCATCHMENTS] ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Imperv Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- 1 FORTCOLLINS POND1 6.80 80 250 .75 0 2 FORTCOLLINS POND1 1.47 80 190 .75 0 3 FORTCOLLINS POND1 1.43 80 190 .75 0 7 FORTCOLLINS POND4 6.67 11 450 1.20 0 10 FORTCOLLINS POND2 9.47 90 352 1 0 11 FORTCOLLINS POND2 3.28 90 250 .75 0 12 FORTCOLLINS POND3 13.62 90 650 1 0 13 FORTCOLLINS POND3_EAST 8.85 30 250 1 0 8A FORTCOLLINS POND2_WEST 5.31 90 470 1 0 8B FORTCOLLINS POND2_WEST 2.59 90 350 2 0 9B FORTCOLLINS POND2_WEST 4.19 90 320 2 0 DP_r1 FORTCOLLINS POND1 4.87 80 240 0.75 0 DP_r2 FORTCOLLINS POND1 5.05 73 290 0.75 0 DP_r3 FORTCOLLINS POND2_WEST 12.41 88 500 .75 0 OS1 FORTCOLLINS POND1 5.16 7 200 0.5 0 OS2 FORTCOLLINS POND1 1.33 88 75 2 0 OS4 FORTCOLLINS POND2_WEST 5.55 8 150 1 0 OS5 FORTCOLLINS POND2 3.10 2 200 0.5 0 OS6 FORTCOLLINS POND2_WEST 1.23 2 750 0.5 0 OS7 FORTCOLLINS POND2_WEST .42 2 350 0.5 0 R4 FORTCOLLINS POND2 1.33 78 40 0.5 0 R5 FORTCOLLINS POND2 3.13 77 40 .75 0 R6 FORTCOLLINS POND2 1.98 77 40 .75 0 R7 FORTCOLLINS POND2_WEST .68 82 75 2 0 R8 FORTCOLLINS POND2_WEST .86 69 75 2 0 [SUBAREAS] ;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 2 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 3 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 7 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 10 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 11 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 12 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 13 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 8A .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 8B .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET 9B .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET DP_r1 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET DP_r2 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET DP_r3 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET OS1 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET OS2 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET OS4 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET OS5 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET OS6 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET OS7 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET R4 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET R5 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET R6 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET R7 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET R8 .016 .25 .1 .3 1 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] ;;Subcatchment Param1 Param2 Param3 Param4 Param5 ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 2 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 3 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 7 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 10 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 11 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 12 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 13 .51 .5 6.48 7 0 8A .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 8B .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 9B .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 DP_r1 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 DP_r2 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 DP_r3 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 OS1 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 OS2 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 OS4 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 OS5 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 OS6 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 OS7 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 R4 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 R5 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 R6 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 R7 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 R8 .51 0.5 6.48 7 0 [JUNCTIONS] ;;Name Elevation MaxDepth InitDepth SurDepth Aponded ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- POND2_WEST 9.1 5 0 0 0 POND3_EAST 19.1 4 0 0 0 POND3_OUTFALL 19 4 0 0 0 [OUTFALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- POND1_OUTFALL 4 FREE NO POND2_OUTFALL 8.99 FREE NO POND4_OUTFALL 10 FREE NO [STORAGE] ;;Name Elev. MaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Name/Params N/A Fevap Psi Ksat IMD ;;-------------- -------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- POND1 4.05 5 .30 TABULAR POND_1 0 0 POND2 9 5 .24 TABULAR POND_2 0 0 POND3 19 4 0 TABULAR POND_3 0 0 POND4 11 2.6 .48 TABULAR POND_4 0 0 [CONDUITS] ;;Name From Node To Node Length Roughness InOffset OutOffset InitFlow MaxFlow ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- POND2_WEST_CULVERT POND2_WEST POND2 200 .012 0 0 0 0 POND3_EAST_CULVERT POND3_EAST POND3 200 .012 0 0 0 0 POND3_OUTFALL_PIPE POND3_OUTFALL POND2 1100 0.012 0 0 0 0 [OUTLETS] ;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------- ---------- -------- POND1_OUT POND1 POND1_OUTFALL 0 TABULAR/HEAD POND1_OUT NO POND2_OUT POND2 POND2_OUTFALL 0 TABULAR/HEAD POND2_OUT NO POND3_OUT POND3 POND3_OUTFALL 0 TABULAR/HEAD POND3_OUT NO POND4_OUT POND4 POND4_OUTFALL 0 TABULAR/HEAD POND4_OUT NO [XSECTIONS] ;;Link Shape Geom1 Geom2 Geom3 Geom4 Barrels Culvert ;;-------------- ------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- POND2_WEST_CULVERT RECT_OPEN 4 15 0 0 1 POND3_EAST_CULVERT CIRCULAR 3 0 0 0 3 POND3_OUTFALL_PIPE CIRCULAR 1.25 0 0 0 1 [CURVES] ;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- POND1_OUT Rating 0 0 POND1_OUT .30 .55 POND1_OUT 5 14.68 ; POND2_OUT Rating 0 0 POND2_OUT .24 .15 POND2_OUT 5 7 ; POND3_OUT Rating 0 0 POND3_OUT 4 7 ; POND4_OUT Rating 0 0 POND4_OUT .48 .01 POND4_OUT 2.2 3.69 ; POND_1 Storage 0 30216 POND_1 .9 35797 POND_1 1.9 42273 POND_1 2.9 49040 POND_1 3.9 56098 POND_1 5 64188 ; POND_2 Storage 0 65470 POND_2 1 113984 POND_2 2 128362 POND_2 3 143258 POND_2 4 158672 POND_2 5 174603 ; POND_3 Storage 0 45016 POND_3 1 57489 POND_3 2 66703 POND_3 3 76344 POND_3 4 86413 ; POND_4 Storage 0 360 POND_4 1 13104 POND_4 2 44994 POND_4 2.6 74172 [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 100-YR 0:05 1 100-YR 0:10 1.14 100-YR 0:15 1.33 100-YR 0:20 2.23 100-YR 0:25 2.84 100-YR 0:30 5.49 100-YR 0:35 9.95 100-YR 0:40 4.12 100-YR 0:45 2.48 100-YR 0:50 1.46 100-YR 0:55 1.22 100-YR 1:00 1.06 100-YR 1:05 1 100-YR 1:10 .95 100-YR 1:15 .91 100-YR 1:20 .87 100-YR 1:25 .84 100-YR 1:30 .81 100-YR 1:35 .78 100-YR 1:40 .75 100-YR 1:45 .73 100-YR 1:50 .71 100-YR 1:55 .69 100-YR 2:00 .67 ; 5-YR 0:05 .4 5-YR 0:10 .45 5-YR 0:15 .53 5-YR 0:20 .89 5-YR 0:25 1.13 5-YR 0:30 2.19 5-YR 0:35 3.97 5-YR 0:40 1.64 5-YR 0:45 .99 5-YR 0:50 .58 5-YR 0:55 .49 5-YR 1:00 .42 5-YR 1:05 .28 5-YR 1:10 .27 5-YR 1:15 .25 5-YR 1:20 .24 5-YR 1:25 .23 5-YR 1:30 .22 5-YR 1:35 .21 5-YR 1:40 .20 5-YR 1:45 .19 5-YR 1:50 .19 5-YR 1:55 .18 5-YR 2:00 .18 ; 10-YR 0:05 .49 10-YR 0:10 .56 10-YR 0:15 .65 10-YR 0:20 1.09 10-YR 0:25 1.39 10-YR 0:30 2.69 10-YR 0:35 4.87 10-YR 0:40 2.02 10-YR 0:45 1.21 10-YR 0:50 .71 10-YR 0:55 .6 10-YR 1:00 .52 10-YR 1:05 .39 10-YR 1:10 .37 10-YR 1:15 .35 10-YR 1:20 .34 10-YR 1:25 .32 10-YR 1:30 .31 10-YR 1:35 .3 10-YR 1:40 .29 10-YR 1:45 .28 10-YR 1:50 .27 10-YR 1:55 .26 10-YR 2:00 .25 ; 50-YR 0:05 .79 50-YR 0:10 .9 50-YR 0:15 1.05 50-YR 0:20 1.77 50-YR 0:25 2.25 50-YR 0:30 4.36 50-YR 0:35 7.9 50-YR 0:40 3.27 50-YR 0:45 1.97 50-YR 0:50 1.16 50-YR 0:55 .97 50-YR 1:00 .84 50-YR 1:05 .79 50-YR 1:10 .75 50-YR 1:15 .72 50-YR 1:20 .69 50-YR 1:25 .66 50-YR 1:30 .64 50-YR 1:35 .62 50-YR 1:40 .6 50-YR 1:45 .58 50-YR 1:50 .56 50-YR 1:55 .54 50-YR 2:00 .53 [REPORT] ;;Reporting Options SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ POND2_WEST 3844.484 914.312 POND3_EAST 5696.724 1647.373 POND3_OUTFALL 5123.637 1554.749 POND1_OUTFALL 4848.824 -1646.137 POND2_OUTFALL 4818.169 433.065 POND4_OUTFALL 6516.851 -1544.465 POND1 4736.842 -1108.623 POND2 4678.040 914.826 POND3 5125.943 1658.565 POND4 6715.176 -1133.785 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ 1 4871.221 -414.334 2 5330.347 -403.135 3 5419.933 -694.289 7 7112.484 -798.031 10 4538.374 1294.832 11 5711.371 1012.930 12 5047.600 2039.086 13 5870.197 1960.743 8A 3583.427 1746.920 8B 3478.344 1541.232 9B 3867.762 1663.776 DP_r1 5106.383 -123.180 DP_r2 5856.663 -739.082 DP_r3 4006.765 1485.093 OS1 4367.301 -593.505 OS1 4378.499 -593.505 OS2 4487.780 -1256.381 OS4 3113.102 1220.605 OS5 4370.498 684.880 OS6 4656.639 1960.226 OS7 4743.327 1963.023 R4 4314.539 1244.469 R5 4717.443 1233.277 R6 5308.337 1282.528 R7 4319.814 1925.204 R8 4504.992 1938.820 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------ FORTCOLLINS 1189.889 7435.265 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.015) -------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE Starting Date ............ 03/15/2016 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 03/20/2016 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:05:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00 Routing Time Step ........ 15.00 sec ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 33.873 3.669 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 6.367 0.690 Surface Runoff ........... 27.068 2.932 Final Storage ............ 0.598 0.065 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.475 RESULTS ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 27.068 8.821 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 27.543 8.975 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.645 0.210 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.164 0.053 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.022 ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 15.00 sec Average Time Step : 15.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 15.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.55 Average Iterations per Step : 1.01 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.34 2.87 0.40 3.27 0.60 40.57 0.892 2 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.29 2.88 0.45 3.33 0.13 12.47 0.907 3 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.29 2.88 0.45 3.33 0.13 12.19 0.907 7 3.67 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.40 1.57 1.97 0.36 14.81 0.537 10 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.15 3.23 0.22 3.45 0.89 63.62 0.940 11 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 3.24 0.23 3.46 0.31 26.38 0.944 12 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.15 3.23 0.22 3.46 1.28 99.91 0.942 13 3.67 0.00 0.00 1.57 1.08 1.01 2.08 0.50 27.14 0.568 8A 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 3.24 0.23 3.47 0.50 45.56 0.945 8B 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 3.24 0.23 3.47 0.24 24.64 0.946 9B 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 3.24 0.23 3.47 0.39 37.23 0.945 DP_r1 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.32 2.87 0.42 3.29 0.43 32.42 0.897 DP_r2 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.44 2.62 0.55 3.17 0.44 33.43 0.865 DP_r3 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.18 3.16 0.26 3.42 1.15 80.56 0.931 OS1 3.67 0.00 0.00 2.23 0.25 1.19 1.44 0.20 5.86 0.392 OS2 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.17 3.16 0.27 3.44 0.12 11.07 0.937 OS4 3.67 0.00 0.00 2.21 0.29 1.17 1.46 0.22 6.80 0.398 OS5 3.67 0.00 0.00 2.12 0.07 1.48 1.55 0.13 3.32 0.422 OS6 3.67 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.07 2.17 2.24 0.07 5.88 0.612 OS7 3.67 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.07 2.21 2.28 0.03 2.38 0.622 R4 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.41 2.80 0.40 3.20 0.12 6.52 0.872 R5 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.49 2.76 0.35 3.11 0.26 10.62 0.847 R6 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.45 2.76 0.40 3.16 0.17 8.70 0.861 R7 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.25 2.95 0.41 3.36 0.06 6.14 0.917 R8 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.46 2.48 0.68 3.16 0.07 6.81 0.863 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND2_WEST JUNCTION 0.02 3.09 12.19 0 00:40 3.03 POND3_EAST JUNCTION 0.02 1.61 20.71 0 00:40 1.58 POND3_OUTFALL JUNCTION 0.14 0.87 19.87 0 02:23 0.87 POND1_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 4.00 0 00:00 0.00 POND2_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 8.99 0 00:00 0.00 POND4_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 10.00 0 00:00 0.00 POND1 STORAGE 0.24 4.50 8.55 0 02:08 4.50 POND2 STORAGE 1.52 4.74 13.74 0 03:37 4.74 POND3 STORAGE 0.32 3.17 22.17 0 02:23 3.17 POND4 STORAGE 0.27 1.89 12.89 0 02:09 1.89 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND2_WEST JUNCTION 216.01 216.01 0 00:40 2.1 2.75 0.000 POND3_EAST JUNCTION 27.14 27.14 0 00:40 0.421 0.501 0.000 POND3_OUTFALL JUNCTION 0.00 5.54 0 02:23 0 1.78 0.000 POND1_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 13.17 0 02:08 0 2.13 0.000 POND2_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 6.62 0 03:37 0 6.47 0.000 POND4_OUTFALL OUTFALL 0.00 3.04 0 02:09 0 0.369 0.000 POND1 STORAGE 148.01 148.01 0 00:40 1.63 2.13 0.025 POND2 STORAGE 118.49 329.96 0 00:40 1.54 6.53 0.003 POND3 STORAGE 99.91 123.79 0 00:40 0.989 1.78 0.010 POND4 STORAGE 14.81 14.81 0 00:40 0.317 0.369 0.015 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND1 9.291 4 0 0 201.893 87 0 02:08 13.17 POND2 172.147 26 0 0 618.698 93 0 03:37 6.62 POND3 17.628 7 0 0 197.769 74 0 02:23 5.54 POND4 1.391 2 0 0 31.231 44 0 02:09 3.04 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- POND1_OUTFALL 36.79 1.78 13.17 2.131 POND2_OUTFALL 100.00 2.01 6.62 6.475 POND4_OUTFALL 79.02 0.14 3.04 0.369 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 71.94 3.94 22.58 8.975 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- POND2_WEST_CULVERT CONDUIT 212.41 0 00:40 4.67 0.67 0.76 POND3_EAST_CULVERT CONDUIT 26.12 0 00:41 2.36 0.54 0.52 POND3_OUTFALL_PIPE CONDUIT 5.54 0 02:26 6.08 0.83 0.70 POND1_OUT DUMMY 13.17 0 02:08 POND2_OUT DUMMY 6.62 0 03:37 POND3_OUT DUMMY 5.54 0 02:23 POND4_OUT DUMMY 3.04 0 02:09 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Mon May 1 16:08:40 2023 Analysis ended on: Mon May 1 16:08:41 2023 Total elapsed time: 00:00:01 Elapsed Time (hours) 120100806040200 Vo l u m e ( f t 3 ) 700000.0 600000.0 500000.0 400000.0 300000.0 200000.0 100000.0 0.0 Node POND1 Volume (ft3)Node POND2 Volume (ft3)Node POND3 Volume (ft3)Node POND4 Volume (ft3) SWMM 5.1 Page 1 Elapsed Time (hours) 120100806040200 Fl o w ( C F S ) 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Link POND1_OUT Flow (CFS)Link POND2_OUT Flow (CFS)Link POND3_OUT Flow (CFS)Link POND4_OUT Flow (CFS) SWMM 5.1 Page 1 1 2 3 7 10 11 12 13 8A 8B 9B DP_r1 DP_r2 DP_r3 OS1 OS2 OS4 OS5 OS6OS7 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 POND2_WEST POND3_EAST POND3_OUTFALL POND1_OUTFALL POND2_OUTFALL POND4_OUTFALL POND1 POND2 POND3 POND4 03/15/2016 00:40:00 SWMM 5.1 Page 1 Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,904.50 10,241.00 cu. ft. 4,907.30 4,904.80 96,530.71 cu. ft.0.30 ft. 4,909.10 201,893 cu. ft. 4,908.71 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,904.50 N/A 33,154 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,905.00 4,904.50 35,797 0.50 17,237.63 0.40 17,237.63 0.40 4,906.00 4,905.00 42,273 1.00 39,035.00 0.90 56,272.63 1.29 4,907.00 4,906.00 49,041 1.00 45,657.00 1.05 101,929.63 2.34 4,908.00 4,907.00 56,098 1.00 52,569.50 1.21 154,499.13 3.55 4,909.10 4,908.00 64,188 1.10 66,157.30 1.52 220,656.43 5.07 Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Storage and Water Quality Pond 1 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:1 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: STAGE STORAGE CURVE Contour Contour Surface Area (ft2) Depth (ft) Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Pond Stage Storage Curve 1896-001 Fort Collins, CO B. Mathisen Elev at WQ Volume: Rudolph Farm September 18, 2024 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: 1 Project Number: Project Name: Project Location: Pond No:Calc. By:B. Mathisen Orifice Dia (in):15 14/16 Orifice Area (sf):1.37 Orifice invert (ft):4,904.50 Orifice Coefficient:0.65 Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments 4,904.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,905.40 0.90 4.95 6.78 4,906.40 1.90 7.19 9.85 4,907.40 2.90 8.88 12.17 4,908.40 3.90 10.30 14.11 4,908.71 4.21 10.70 14.66 100-YR WSEL 4,909.40 4.90 11.54 15.81 4,909.50 5.00 11.66 15.97 Orifice Rating Curve ORIFICE RATING CURVE 1896-001 Rudolph Farm Fort Collins Pond 1 Orifice Design Data Detention Pond 1 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Stormwater Facility Name: Facility Location & Jurisdiction: User Input: Watershed Characteristics User Defined User Defined User Defined User Defined Selected BMP Type = EDB Stage [ft] Area [ft^2] Stage [ft] Discharge [cfs] Watershed Area = 26.12 acres 0.00 30,217 0.00 0.00 Watershed Length =1,100 ft 1.00 35,797 1.00 6.67 Watershed Length to Centroid = 520 ft 2.00 42,273 2.00 9.72 Watershed Slope =0.020 ft/ft 3.00 49,041 3.00 12.01 Watershed Imperviousness = 49.0%percent 4.00 56,098 4.00 13.93 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A = 0.0%percent 5.00 64,188 5.00 15.61 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group B = 50.0%percent Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D = 50.0%percent Target WQCV Drain Time = 40.0 hours User Input After completing and printing this worksheet to a pdf, go to: https://maperture.digitaldataservices.com/gvh/?viewer=cswdif Create a new stormwater facility, and attach the PDF of this worksheet to that record. Routed Hydrograph Results Design Storm Return Period =WQCV 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 50 Year 100 Year One-Hour Rainfall Depth =N/A 0.86 1.14 1.43 2.39 2.91 in CUHP Runoff Volume =0.443 0.802 1.192 1.713 3.860 5.091 acre-ft Inflow Hydrograph Volume =N/A 0.802 1.192 1.713 3.860 5.091 acre-ft Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume =4.5 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.7 7.3 hours Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume =5.9 6.8 6.8 7.0 8.1 8.8 hours Maximum Ponding Depth =0.61 0.59 0.86 1.24 2.99 3.89 ft Maximum Ponded Area =0.77 0.77 0.80 0.86 1.12 1.27 acres Maximum Volume Stored =0.444 0.427 0.645 0.960 2.691 3.768 acre-ft Once CUHP has been run and the Stage-Area-Discharge information has been provided, click 'Process Data' to interpolate the Stage-Area-Volume-Discharge data and generate summary results in the table below. Once this is complete, click 'Print to PDF'. Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet Rudolph Farm Pond 1 Fort Collins SDI-Design Data v2.00, Released January 2020 Location for 1-hr Rainfall Depths (use dropdown): After providing required inputs above including 1-hour rainfall depths, click 'Run CUHP' to generate runoff hydrographs using the embedded Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure. Pond 1.xlsm, Design Data 1/16/2023, 3:07 PM Booleans for Message Booleans for CUHP Watershed L:W 1 CUHP Inputs Complete Watershed Lc:L 1 CUHP Results Calculated Watershed Slope FALSE Time Interval RunOnce 1 CountA 1 Draintime Coeff 1.0 User Precip 1 Equal SA Inputs 1 Equal SD Inputs 1 Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0.1 1 10 FL O W [ c f s ] TIME [hr] 100YR IN 100YR OUT 50YR IN 50YR OUT 10YR IN 10YR OUT 5YR IN 5YR OUT 2YR IN 2YR OUT WQCV IN WQCV OUT 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0.1 1 10 100 PO N D I N G D E P T H [ f t ] DRAIN TIME [hr] 100YR 50YR 10YR 5YR 2YR WQCV Pond 1.xlsm, Design Data 1/16/2023, 3:07 PM 1 Blaine Mathisen From:Yesia, Jo Ann <JoAnn.Yesia@rsandh.com> Sent:Sunday, July 24, 2022 10:31 PM To:Blaine Mathisen; Hammond, Chad; Boespflug - CDOT, Chris Cc:Aguirre, Matt T; Shintaku, Justin Subject:RE: FW: I25 & Prospect Drainage Question Attachments:I25 Prospect Drainage - RSH.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Blaine, Thank you for the graphic. It was helpful in determining flow rates. I have added the design flows for the existing 36” pipe and existing 18” pipe. The 36” culvert was sized based on cross culvert criteria not on pipe capacity. The flow through the 36” pipe can not exceed 35 cfs (in the major storm event) due to the pipe downstream that conveys flows west to Boxelder acting as the limiting factor. The 36” RCP receives flows not only from Prospect Road but also the parcel east of the Rudolph Farms, Frontage Road, I-25 and of course Rudolph Farms. They are routed to the 36” pipe via roadside drains at the toe of slope. I have also attached the graphic with the updated information regarding the designed flow rates. I am unsure if this helps but if you have any other questions or need clarification please let me know. Thank you, Jo Ann Jo Ann Yesia, PE Water Resources Engineer 4582 South Ulster Street, Suite 1100, Denver, CO 80237 720-586-6634 JoAnn.Yesia@rsandh.com rsandh.com | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog Stay up-to-date with our latest news and insights. From: Blaine Mathisen <blaine@northernengineering.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 11:12 AM To: Hammond, Chad <Chad.Hammond@rsandh.com>; Boespflug - CDOT, Chris <chris.boespflug@state.co.us> Cc: Aguirre, Matt T <Matthew.Aguirre@atkinsglobal.com>; Shintaku, Justin <Justin.Shintaku@rsandh.com>; Yesia, Jo Ann <JoAnn.Yesia@rsandh.com> Subject: RE: FW: I25 & Prospect Drainage Question THIS EMAIL THREAD, WITH CDOT, SHOWS APPROVED MAX DISCHARGE RATE FROM POND 1. Qmax = 35 CFS Qactual = 14.68 CFS SEE NEXT PAGE OF THIS REPORT FOR THE GRAPHIC 800 ft N ➤➤ N EXISTING 36" Qmax = +/- 50 cfs EXISTING 20" RUNOFF IS ROUTED TO BOXELDER CREEK Q10 = 2.6 cfs Q100 = 4.1 cfs Q10 = 12.3 cfs Q100 = 35.0 cfs 18" 1 Blaine Mathisen From:Reese, Andy <Andy.Reese@kimley-horn.com> Sent:Monday, November 18, 2024 12:44 PM To:dmogen@fcgov.com Cc:Blaine Mathisen; Brandy Bethurem Harras (BBethuremHarras@fcgov.com); Sophie Buckingham; Heidi Hansen Subject:FW: Rudolph Farm Emergency Spill Hello Dan – I hope you had (or are having) a great break! In response to your request, I reached out to CDOT regarding the emergency spill path from Pond 1 of Rudolph Farm. The full correspondence is below. Aside from being very complementary of the design team (nice work, Blaine!), Brian states that CDOT is aware of the potential for pipes to clog and he does not raise any concerns about what is proposed. As a reminder, our proposed emergency flow path is the very same that exists today, so we are not actually changing anything in that regard. I hope this information satisfies your concerns, but let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, Andy Reese | Kimley-Horn 3325 South Timberline Road, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Direct: 970-852-6858 | www.kimley-horn.com Celebrating 17 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For From: Varrella - CDOT, Brian <brian.varrella@state.co.us> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 10:43 AM To: Reese, Andy <Andy.Reese@kimley-horn.com> Cc: Bilobran - CDOT, Timothy <timothy.bilobran@state.co.us>; Abra Geissler - CDOT <abra.geissler@state.co.us>; Chris Boespflug - CDOT <chris.boespflug@state.co.us> Subject: Re: Rudolph Farm Emergency Spill Hi Andy, good to hear from you again. The team that put the work together at Prospect and I-25 is top notch, and so was our QA/QC team. I was not personnally involved in this interchange design because I was working at the Boulder Residency while it was being design and constructed. If you would like a copy of the drainage report you are welcome to submit a CORA and get what you need. We have more than 12,000 pipes this size across the northeast corner of the state, and all of them are at some risk of clogging or failure, and most of the pipes like these are designed for something between the minor and major storm. Otherwise, we really offer no assurances to how rain and gravity might impact our infrastructure. Probably not the answers you were hoping for, but give me a shout if you have questions. Brian THIS EMAIL THREAD SHOWS CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DESIGN TEAM AND CDOT FOR EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PATH FROM POND 1. 2 Brian K. Varrella, PE, CFM Resident Engineer, CDOT R4 brian.varrella@state.co.us 970-373-6121 mobile On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:29 PM Reese, Andy <Andy.Reese@kimley-horn.com> wrote: Thanks Tim! Brian – it is nice to cross paths with you again! Please let me know if there is any additional info you need. Andy Reese | Kimley-Horn 3325 South Timberline Road, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Direct: 970-852-6858 | www.kimley-horn.com Celebrating 17 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For From: Bilobran - CDOT, Timothy <timothy.bilobran@state.co.us> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 12:16 PM To: Reese, Andy <Andy.Reese@kimley-horn.com>; Brian Varrella - CDOT <brian.varrella@state.co.us>; Abra Geissler - CDOT <abra.geissler@state.co.us>; Chris Boespflug - CDOT <chris.boespflug@state.co.us> Subject: Re: Rudolph Farm Emergency Spill Andy, I'm afraid your concerns are a bit out of my wheelhouse unfortunately. I've added in the I25 project staff and the regional hydraulic staff as well. They should be the ones who can hopefully weigh in. For Brian- this is a 2023 report that Kalli approved (see attached and link). Tim 3 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__drive.google.com_drive_folders_1bGLCRww922Tpt-2Dk6wgOD2AiEAiO6-2Db09-3Fusp-3Dshare- 5Flink&d=DwMFaQ&c=sdnEM9SRGFuMt5z5w3AhsPNahmNicq64TgF1JwNR0cs&r=CqHooZ- MeUKfkrrDcsLdpD4EihmVqVHI5VoEzwz98BA&m=gTQDThka8QKUrJXdQd75fKgvC5fcrasGscZtGsLMqcc V_Y2wRyieOpIykABjvEXD&s=1TaijVTq_TKY1rnrDHHJcP67VzTeH9sBOuTR6JsXJDI&e= On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 11:44 AM Reese, Andy <Andy.Reese@kimley-horn.com> wrote: Good morning Tim, I have a somewhat random question for you about the Prospect/I-25 interchange. As you probably recall, we are working on a development that is at the northeast corner of the interchange. That project will be using the existing 36” culvert that was installed as part of the overpass project for the project outfall. The City of Fort Collins has raised a question about what happens in an emergency condition if that outfall were to become clogged. We have looked at this, and we see that water would pond up on our property until it spills to the west and into CDOT ROW along the NB onramp. From there, it would enter an existing 24” FES in the CDOT ROW, pass under the onramp, and then flow south and rejoin the original flow path. This is depicted in the two images below. In addition to the images, I’m also attaching our final grading plan that shows what is happening on our site. Does CDOT have any concerns about this emergency condition? 4 5 Andy Reese | Kimley-Horn 3325 South Timberline Road, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Direct: 970-852-6858 | www.kimley-horn.com Celebrating 17 years as one of FORTUNE’s 100 Best Companies to Work For -- Tim Bilobran Region 4 Permits Manager 6 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. O 970.350.2163 | C 970.302.4022 | F 970.350.2198 timothy.bilobran@state.co.us | codot.gov | www.cotrip.org 10601 W. 10th Street, Greeley, CO 80634 CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL Phishing? Forward to Helpdesk Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,911.00 22,638.00 cu. ft. 4,912.20 4,911.25 107,672.40 cu. ft.0.25 ft. 4,916.00 618,699 cu. ft. 4,915.66 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,911.00 N/A 65,470 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,912.00 4,911.00 113,984 1.00 89,727.00 2.06 89,727.00 2.06 4,913.00 4,912.00 128,362 1.00 121,173.00 2.78 210,900.00 4.84 4,914.00 4,913.00 143,258 1.00 135,810.00 3.12 346,710.00 7.96 4,915.00 4,914.00 158,672 1.00 150,965.00 3.47 497,675.00 11.43 4,916.00 4,915.00 174,603 1.00 166,637.50 3.83 664,312.50 15.25 Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Storage and Water Quality Pond 2 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:2 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: STAGE STORAGE CURVE Contour Contour Surface Area (ft2) Depth (ft) Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Pond Stage Storage Curve 1896-001 Fort Collins, CO B. Mathisen Elev at WQ Volume: Rudolph Farm September 18, 2024 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: 1 Project Number: Project Name: Project Location: Pond No:Calc. By:B. Mathisen Orifice Dia (in):10 11/16 Orifice Area (sf):0.62 Orifice invert (ft):4,911.00 Orifice Coefficient:0.65 Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments 4,911.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,912.00 1.00 5.21 3.24 4,913.00 2.00 7.37 4.58 4,914.00 3.00 9.03 5.61 4,915.00 4.00 10.43 6.48 4,915.66 4.66 11.26 7.00 100-YR WSEL 4,916.00 5.00 11.66 7.25 Orifice Rating Curve ORIFICE RATING CURVE 1896-001 Rudolph Farm Fort Collins Pond 2 Orifice Design Data Detention Pond 2 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Stormwater Facility Name: Facility Location & Jurisdiction: User Input: Watershed Characteristics User Defined User Defined User Defined User Defined Selected BMP Type = EDB Stage [ft] Area [ft^2] Stage [ft] Discharge [cfs] Watershed Area = 55.53 acres 0.00 65,470 0.00 0.00 Watershed Length =2,400 ft 1.00 113,984 1.00 3.24 Watershed Length to Centroid = 1,200 ft 2.00 128,362 2.00 4.58 Watershed Slope =0.020 ft/ft 3.00 143,258 3.00 5.61 Watershed Imperviousness = 50.0%percent 4.00 158,672 4.00 6.48 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A = 0.0%percent 5.00 174,603 5.00 7.00 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group B = 50.0%percent Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D = 50.0%percent Target WQCV Drain Time = 40.0 hours User Input After completing and printing this worksheet to a pdf, go to: https://maperture.digitaldataservices.com/gvh/?viewer=cswdif Create a new stormwater facility, and attach the PDF of this worksheet to that record. Routed Hydrograph Results Design Storm Return Period =WQCV 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 50 Year 100 Year One-Hour Rainfall Depth =N/A 0.86 1.14 1.43 2.39 2.91 in CUHP Runoff Volume =0.954 1.800 2.669 3.821 8.540 11.238 acre-ft Inflow Hydrograph Volume =N/A 1.800 2.669 3.821 8.540 11.238 acre-ft Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume =20.9 22.7 23.5 25.0 31.8 35.5 hours Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume =27.2 28.9 29.8 31.3 38.2 42.0 hours Maximum Ponding Depth =0.53 0.76 1.06 1.44 2.93 3.69 ft Maximum Ponded Area =2.10 2.35 2.63 2.76 3.26 3.53 acres Maximum Volume Stored =0.959 1.462 2.200 3.247 7.716 10.310 acre-ft Once CUHP has been run and the Stage-Area-Discharge information has been provided, click 'Process Data' to interpolate the Stage-Area-Volume-Discharge data and generate summary results in the table below. Once this is complete, click 'Print to PDF'. Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet Rudolph Farm Pond 2 Fort Collins SDI-Design Data v2.00, Released January 2020 Location for 1-hr Rainfall Depths (use dropdown): After providing required inputs above including 1-hour rainfall depths, click 'Run CUHP' to generate runoff hydrographs using the embedded Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure. Pond 2.xlsm, Design Data 10/31/2022, 12:10 PM Booleans for Message Booleans for CUHP Watershed L:W 1 CUHP Inputs Complete Watershed Lc:L 1 CUHP Results Calculated Watershed Slope FALSE Time Interval RunOnce 1 CountA 1 Draintime Coeff 1.0 User Precip 1 Equal SA Inputs 1 Equal SD Inputs 1 Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0.1 1 10 FL O W [ c f s ] TIME [hr] 100YR IN 100YR OUT 50YR IN 50YR OUT 10YR IN 10YR OUT 5YR IN 5YR OUT 2YR IN 2YR OUT WQCV IN WQCV OUT 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0.1 1 10 100 PO N D I N G D E P T H [ f t ] DRAIN TIME [hr] 100YR 50YR 10YR 5YR 2YR WQCV Pond 2.xlsm, Design Data 10/31/2022, 12:10 PM Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,919.00 N/A cu. ft. 4,920.20 N/A 61,503.60 cu. ft.N/A ft. 4,923.00 197,769 cu. ft. 4,921.97 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,919.00 N/A 45,017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,920.00 4,919.00 57,489 1.00 51,253.00 1.18 51,253.00 1.18 4,921.00 4,920.00 66,703 1.00 62,096.00 1.43 113,349.00 2.60 4,922.00 4,921.00 76,344 1.00 71,523.50 1.64 184,872.50 4.24 4,923.00 4,922.00 86,413 1.00 81,378.50 1.87 266,251.00 6.11 Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Storage Pond 3 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:3 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: STAGE STORAGE CURVE Contour Contour Surface Area (ft2) Depth (ft) Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Pond Stage Storage Curve 1896-001 Fort Collins, CO B. Mathisen Elev at WQ Volume: Rudolph Farm September 18, 2024 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: 1 Project Number: Project Name: Project Location: Pond No:Calc. By:B. Mathisen Orifice Dia (in):11 15/16 Orifice Area (sf):0.78 Orifice invert (ft):4,919.00 Orifice Coefficient:0.65 Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments 4,919.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,920.00 1.00 5.21 4.06 4,921.00 2.00 7.37 5.74 4,921.97 2.97 8.99 7.00 100-YR WSEL 4,922.00 3.00 9.03 7.03 4,923.00 4.00 10.43 8.12 Orifice Rating Curve ORIFICE RATING CURVE 1896-001 Rudolph Farm Fort Collins Pond 3 Orifice Design Data Detention Pond 3 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Stormwater Facility Name: Facility Location & Jurisdiction: User Input: Watershed Characteristics User Defined User Defined User Defined User Defined Selected BMP Type = EDB Stage [ft] Area [ft^2] Stage [ft] Discharge [cfs] Watershed Area = 26.12 acres 0.00 45,017 0.00 0.00 Watershed Length =1,250 ft 1.00 57,489 1.00 4.06 Watershed Length to Centroid = 480 ft 2.00 66,703 2.00 5.74 Watershed Slope =0.020 ft/ft 3.00 76,344 3.00 7.03 Watershed Imperviousness = 66.0%percent 4.00 86,413 4.00 8.12 Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A = 0.0%percent Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group B = 50.0%percent Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D = 50.0%percent Target WQCV Drain Time = 40.0 hours User Input After completing and printing this worksheet to a pdf, go to: https://maperture.digitaldataservices.com/gvh/?viewer=cswdif Create a new stormwater facility, and attach the PDF of this worksheet to that record. Routed Hydrograph Results Design Storm Return Period =WQCV 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 50 Year 100 Year One-Hour Rainfall Depth =N/A 0.86 1.14 1.43 2.39 2.91 in CUHP Runoff Volume =0.562 1.122 1.599 2.174 4.344 5.564 acre-ft Inflow Hydrograph Volume =N/A 1.122 1.599 2.174 4.344 5.564 acre-ft Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume =11.1 12.1 12.2 12.6 14.7 15.8 hours Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume =14.5 15.5 15.6 16.0 18.1 19.3 hours Maximum Ponding Depth =0.51 0.69 0.96 1.30 2.57 3.23 ft Maximum Ponded Area =1.18 1.23 1.31 1.38 1.66 1.80 acres Maximum Volume Stored =0.562 0.776 1.122 1.577 3.504 4.643 acre-ft Once CUHP has been run and the Stage-Area-Discharge information has been provided, click 'Process Data' to interpolate the Stage-Area-Volume-Discharge data and generate summary results in the table below. Once this is complete, click 'Print to PDF'. Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet Rudolph Farm Pond 3 Fort Collins SDI-Design Data v2.00, Released January 2020 Location for 1-hr Rainfall Depths (use dropdown): After providing required inputs above including 1-hour rainfall depths, click 'Run CUHP' to generate runoff hydrographs using the embedded Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure. Pond 3.xlsm, Design Data 1/16/2023, 4:00 PM Booleans for Message Booleans for CUHP Watershed L:W 1 CUHP Inputs Complete Watershed Lc:L 1 CUHP Results Calculated Watershed Slope FALSE Time Interval RunOnce 1 CountA 1 Draintime Coeff 1.0 User Precip 1 Equal SA Inputs 1 Equal SD Inputs 1 Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0.1 1 10 FL O W [ c f s ] TIME [hr] 100YR IN 100YR OUT 50YR IN 50YR OUT 10YR IN 10YR OUT 5YR IN 5YR OUT 2YR IN 2YR OUT WQCV IN WQCV OUT 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0.1 1 10 100 PO N D I N G D E P T H [ f t ] DRAIN TIME [hr] 100YR 50YR 10YR 5YR 2YR WQCV Pond 3.xlsm, Design Data 1/16/2023, 4:00 PM Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,911.00 2,100.00 cu. ft. 4,912.40 4,911.46 6,351.80 cu. ft.0.46 ft. 4,913.80 31,231 cu. ft. 4,913.07 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,911.00 N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,912.00 4,911.00 9,074 1.00 4,537.00 0.10 4,537.00 0.10 4,913.00 4,912.00 36,986 1.00 23,030.00 0.53 27,567.00 0.63 4,913.80 4,913.00 74,172 0.80 44,463.20 1.02 72,030.20 1.65 Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Storage and Water Quality Pond 4 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:4 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr WQ Volume: STAGE STORAGE CURVE Contour Contour Surface Area (ft2) Depth (ft) Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Pond Stage Storage Curve 1896-001 Fort Collins, CO B. Mathisen Elev at WQ Volume: Rudolph Farm September 18, 2024 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: 1 Project Number: Project Name: Project Location: Pond No:Calc. By:B. Mathisen Orifice Dia (in):9 8/16 Orifice Area (sf):0.49 Orifice invert (ft):4,911.00 Orifice Coefficient:0.65 Elevation Stage (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Rate (cfs)Comments 4,911.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,912.00 1.00 5.21 2.57 4,913.00 2.00 7.37 3.63 4,913.07 2.07 7.50 3.69 100-YR WSEL 4,914.00 3.00 9.03 4.45 Orifice Rating Curve ORIFICE RATING CURVE 1896-001 Rudolph Farm Fort Collins Pond 4 Orifice Design Data Detention Pond 4 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Stormwater Facility Name: Facility Location & Jurisdiction: User Input: Watershed Characteristics User Defined User Defined User Defined User Defined Selected BMP Type = EDB Stage [ft] Area [ft^2] Stage [ft] Discharge [cfs] Watershed Area = 6.67 acres 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Watershed Length =650 ft 1.00 9,074 1.00 2.57 Watershed Length to Centroid = 430 ft 2.00 36,986 2.00 3.63 Watershed Slope =0.012 ft/ft 2.80 74,172 2.80 4.25 Watershed Imperviousness = 11.0%percent Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A = 0.0%percent Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group B = 50.0%percent Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D = 50.0%percent Target WQCV Drain Time = 40.0 hours User Input After completing and printing this worksheet to a pdf, go to: https://maperture.digitaldataservices.com/gvh/?viewer=cswdif Create a new stormwater facility, and attach the PDF of this worksheet to that record. Routed Hydrograph Results Design Storm Return Period =WQCV 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 50 Year 100 Year One-Hour Rainfall Depth =N/A 0.86 1.14 1.43 2.39 2.91 in CUHP Runoff Volume =0.040 0.032 0.083 0.188 0.741 1.072 acre-ft Inflow Hydrograph Volume =N/A 0.032 0.083 0.188 0.741 1.072 acre-ft Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume =0.5 1.1 1.7 2.2 3.6 4.5 hours Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume =0.6 1.5 2.0 2.4 3.8 4.8 hours Maximum Ponding Depth =0.62 0.13 0.30 0.58 1.56 1.91 ft Maximum Ponded Area =0.13 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.56 0.79 acres Maximum Volume Stored =0.040 0.002 0.009 0.035 0.318 0.557 acre-ft Once CUHP has been run and the Stage-Area-Discharge information has been provided, click 'Process Data' to interpolate the Stage-Area-Volume-Discharge data and generate summary results in the table below. Once this is complete, click 'Print to PDF'. Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet Rudolph Farm Pond 4 Fort Collins SDI-Design Data v2.00, Released January 2020 Location for 1-hr Rainfall Depths (use dropdown): After providing required inputs above including 1-hour rainfall depths, click 'Run CUHP' to generate runoff hydrographs using the embedded Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure. Pond 4.xlsm, Design Data 6/21/2023, 9:43 AM Booleans for Message Booleans for CUHP Watershed L:W 1 CUHP Inputs Complete Watershed Lc:L 1 CUHP Results Calculated Watershed Slope FALSE Time Interval RunOnce 1 CountA 1 Draintime Coeff 1.0 User Precip 1 Equal SA Inputs 1 Equal SD Inputs 1 Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.1 1 10 FL O W [ c f s ] TIME [hr] 100YR IN 100YR OUT 50YR IN 50YR OUT 10YR IN 10YR OUT 5YR IN 5YR OUT 2YR IN 2YR OUT WQCV IN WQCV OUT 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.1 1 10 100 PO N D I N G D E P T H [ f t ] DRAIN TIME [hr] 100YR 50YR 10YR 5YR 2YR WQCV Pond 4.xlsm, Design Data 6/21/2023, 9:43 AM Pond ID WQCV (cu. ft.)WQCV WSEL 100-YR Volume (cu. ft.)100-YR WSEL Max Release Rate (cfs) 1 10,241 4,905 201,893 4,908.71 14.68 2 22,638 4,911 618,699 4,915.66 7.00 3 N/A N/A 197,769 4,921.97 7.00 4 2,100 4,911 31,231 4,913.07 3.69 Pond Summary IRRIGATION MEMO NORTHERN ENGINEERING IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS MEMO. Memorandum The Rudolph Farm project will utilize available well and surface water to serve all landscape areas within the development and to fill the three on-site ponds. System Overview Irrigation water from the well and surface water sources, as well as site stormwater will be directed to three on-site pond locations, as detailed in the current drainage plan prepared by Northern Engineering. Pond 2, with a proposed surface area of 2.42 acres, will serve as the primary collection pond for storage of irrigation water and pond make-up water to be distributed to the secondary ponds 1 and 3. Pond 2 will receive water from the surface water sources and from the on-site wells such that water delivery will be available to maintain the target water level. Water will enter from the existing surface ditch, located on the West side of the site, that will convey the available surface and well water. Make-up water will be transferred to ponds 1 and 3 via an irrigation pumping station which will draw water from pond 2 and into distribution piping to serve irrigation needs and maintain the water elevation in each of the ponds. The irrigation pump station will employ multiple variable speed pumps to provide system redundancy and to enable the system to respond efficiently to a wide range of system flow rates. The pumps will maintain pressure in the system in order to provide a ready supply for the various irrigation systems throughout the site and for the pond fill needs. The ponds are intended to function as wet ponds with storm detention capacity. Pond water levels will be maintained continuously by a float fill system so that storm flows will pass over and will not be held beyond the stormwater detention limits. The proposed pond wet elevations are as follows. (See the Northern Engineering Drainage Plans for more information). Pond 1 = 4904.10 Pond 2 = 4911 Pond 3 = 4919 It is expected that water levels in pond 2 would recede only during peak season irrigation operations. Water delivered from each source will be measured upon delivery to the pond system as will the volume of water transferred through the pump station. In the event that stormwater is received during irrigation operations or at any time when the pond is below the maintenance level, the water volumes received in the pond and the water volume discharged through the pumping system can be tracked via appropriate telemetry to transfer the appropriate volume of stormwater for discharge directly to the TRIC. Date: January 12, 2023 To: Mr. Blaine Mathison, Northern Engineering From: Hines Inc Re: Rudolph Farm - Non-Potable Water Supply Overview Colorado Office 323 West Drake Road, Suite 204 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Phone: 970-282-1800 Fax: 970-226-4662 Rudolph Farms – Non-Potable Water Supply Overview January 12, 2023 2 Water Supply The project will be supplied from a combination of well and surface water sources which will be delivered to the irrigation pond for distribution. (See the attached 2020 Irrigation Water Value Review memo which references and includes, attached, the 2016 Water Rights Investigation prepare by White Sands Water Engineers) Based on previous analysis referenced above, up to 304 acre-feet of water may be available in an average year from the various sources provided. Compared with the approximately 78 acre- feet required for irrigation, an excess of native waters will be available for the site. Currently, two of the existing wells are permitted for residential use & only offer the right to irrigate up to one (1) acre at the original home sites. We do not believe it will be cost effective or practical to maintain these wells for on-going site irrigation. There are two wells in the northwest corner of the property that have been discharged to a point in the onsite lateral just east of Vixen Dr. for delivery to the irrigation pond. As described in our 2016 irrigation water use analysis, the following water resources are available. 1. Well # 2-11993 a. Decreed for a substantial pumping rate of 1.65 CFS however, b. Production records state the well only operates for 15 days per season then runs dry c. Additionally, this well is decreed to be used for a 40-acre section at the northeast portion of the project site. 2. Well #’s 8-19642-1 & 7-19642-2 a. Together these wells are permitted for 240 acre-feet of water per year. b. This well is decreed to be used for a 40-acre section at the northwest portion of the project site. From the East, the property is provided Kitchel Reservoir water via an open ditch that runs northwest from the reservoir, crosses CR5, runs along the North and then West side of several 10 acre lots, then West along the North side of Kitchel Estates to the northeast corner of the Rudolph property. It is reported that this water source has rarely been used in the last 10 years. From the North, the property is able to receive Eaton Ditch, Larimer-Weld and No. 10 water. This water is delivered via ditches that start where the Larimer-Weld ditch crosses Hwy 14, and then run West along the South side of Hwy 14, then turn South near Sunchase Dr and continue South along the West side of the Clydesdale neighborhood via a combination of pipes and open ditches. This is the primary delivery route for ditch water to the property. a. In an average year both surface rights (Kitchell & Larimer & Weld) provide an estimated 61 acre-feet of water. (Larimer & Weld must be used in 72 hrs. Kitchell rights may be stored at will) b. This water can be used anywhere on the property c. In a dry year, an estimated 14 acre-feet may be available for use. d. *Please note: Kitchell does not have good records for available water & effective delivery rates for the property. While up to 74 acre-feet may be available as a maximum allowance, historic notation indicates that none of the current delivery infrastructure to the property is metered. Delivery structure efficiency should be Rudolph Farms – Non-Potable Water Supply Overview January 12, 2023 3 researched and reviewed. It may be necessary to lease additional water with storage rights to maintain pond levels. Surface water and well water will be conveyed through the on-site ditch which flows from the NE corner of the site to the West and then South to the proposed irrigation pond location. Water Source Management Strategies Surface Water o Surface water supplies will be delivered to the site via surface ditch delivery. o A measurement structure meter, meeting ditch company standards, will be utilized to chart water deliveries to the site o The community water manager will coordinate deliveries with the ditch company ditch rider and irrigation system manager o Pond water levels will be managed utilizing water level sensors located at the pond Well Water Supplies o Use of well water will be prioritized during irrigation shoulder seasons, when surface water supplies may not yet be available and when minor mid-season irrigation water requirements arise. o Delivery from each well to the pond will be controlled via lake water level sensor and coordinated electronically with surface water deliveries. o Each well will include a meter with remote read and monitoring capabilities to manage water supplies. A surface water delivery schedule, utilizing average year yields and deliveries by month, should be developed by a water resource engineer as a general guideline. A monthly recording of irrigation demand requirements will be kept by community management. Water deliveries amounts, from both well & surface water sources will also be provided for reconciliation of supply and demand calculations and reporting. The non-potable water system, storage, distribution and irrigation will be designed to match the decreed area requirements for each water source. Irrigation water dedication will be required for each residential lot to serve exterior lot landscape irrigation purposes & open space landscape irrigation requirements. Hines has provided the following to facilitate more detailed water planning, raw water dedication negotiation, improved water conservation planning & a reduction of developer costs. Rudolph Farms – Non-Potable Water Supply Overview January 12, 2023 4 Estimated Water Demand Based on Hines analysis of combined irrigation demands to serve both open space & residential (on-lot) water use calculations, the total irrigation water demand for the project is estimated to be approximately 78 acre-feet. Interior water use dedication requirements for this project are estimated at 203 acre-feet. ELCO does not provide final tap sizing for commercial taps until final building design. The above amounts are an estimate based on historic projects and discussion with ELCO. The exact amount may vary with some significance depending on usage and tenant needs. The following parameters have been utilized to estimate irrigation water use for the project site. Please refer to the attachment below for Water Use Estimates organized by Project Area. Landscape water use and irrigation water demands have been calculated using: o Regional evapotranspiration (ET) rates averaged over 30-years o Specific plant coefficients based on proposed landscape material o Irrigation equipment efficiency data based on Rotor sprinklers serving large turf and native grass Spray sprinklers serving small turf areas Drip irrigation serving trees and shrubs o 8-10 hour watering window on common landscape areas Turf, shrub, & tree plant material will be permanently irrigated Turf is assumed to be a bluegrass/fescue blend Native areas will be irrigated for establishment o Irrigate only during an establishment period of approximately 3 years I E A M P R M W M W P R M R M U P R M R M U J 0 0 -0 0 -0 0 - F 0 0 -0 0 -0 0 - M 0 0 -0 0 -0 0 - A 1 2 5 0 1 2 0 0 4 M 3 6 1 2 3 8 1 2 1 J 4 7 2 3 4 1 1 2 1 J 5 8 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 A 4 7 2 3 3 9 1 2 1 S 3 5 1 2 2 7 1 1 1 O 1 2 5 0 1 2 0 0 4 N 0 0 -0 0 -0 0 - D 0 0 -0 0 -0 0 - S S S P P T S N I 4 1 2 G 2 9 1 A 7 3 4 P 4 1 2 I G 5 2 3 1 9 18 21 5 2 1 3 3 1 N 2 T 1 S 9 I A P G C J $ 4 2 2 $ 2 9 9 1 2 1 1 1 E P P P R R Rudolph Farms – Non-Potable Water Supply Overview January 12, 2023 5 o Following the time for establishment, Native Grasses will be removed from seasonal irrigation pending significant drought. o Removing Native Grass from long-term supplemental irrigation may reduce on- going irrigation water requirements by nearly 40-acre feet annually. o We recommend allotting a portion of annual water use to maintain native grasses in a healthy state of dormancy during significant drought. This may equate to 30% of the above amount noted depending on the quality of establishment, maintenance practices, & severity of drought. Open Space Landscape Area Please refer to the attachments below for a specific breakdown of landscape areas as provided by the project Landscape Architect. Additional clarifications are provided below. The total landscaped area for the project is 44-acres, 28-acres of which is dedicated to common area open space. 16-acres consist of landscape areas located within private areas of the project. Landscape typologies include: Manicured turf Mulched planted beds ‘Dryland’ Native Seed areas o Receive establishment water for 2-5 years after which supplemental irrigation will be turned off pending severe drought Annual Project Estimated Water Use: 78 acre-feet The South portion: o 30 acre-feet to meet annual irrigation requirements The North portion: o 48 acre-feet to meet annual irrigation requirements Please refer to the attached Water Budget tables and the Irrigation Masterplan which document landscape assumptions, & overall water use requirements by landscape type for residential lots & open space areas as described by the landscape architect. FES CONTROLIRR CONTROLIRR V.P.FES DD D TRAFFIC VAULT VAULTF.O. ELEC HYD TRAFFIC VAULT GAS / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / EE E EEEE X X X X E G G / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / W X X X X X FO FO B M ELEC C VAULTF.O. CT C CT VAULTF.O. ELEC ELEC TC C T VAULTF.O. C C VAULTF.O. T C ELEC C ELEC VAULTF.O.CABLE CABLE ELEC BRKR HYD HYD HYD HYD W ELEC FO HYD H2O ELEC ELEC HYD CELEC LID LID util LID ELEC FESFES FES FES FES S S D S D S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS ST FOCTV E E FO FO CT V CT V E E E EE E E E E E E FESFES HYD ELEC D D D D DD VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC ELEC F.O. ELEC FOF.O.F.O. F.O.F.O. M H2O FO M ELEC ELECELEC ELEC FO VAULTF.O. VAULTF.O. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FOFO W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW WW ST E E E E E X / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / OHU OHU OHU G G G STST SS SS SS SS S SS / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / X / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / /G G G GCTV H2O H2O H2O H2O H2OH2O H2O WV WV W C C C W CCW E CABLE H2O WVWV W W W W W W W W W W W W W W V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMM W T H2O M 1 2 3 4 5 G 0 G 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 G 0 G 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / / / / / / / / W W W W SB SB SB SB KIT DEN DR.HUNTSMAN DR. W W W W W W 8" S S 8" S S 8" S S 8" S S G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 12 " S S T G G G 12" SS 12" SS 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W WF FW T 8" W 8" W 23 22 21 18 16 17 15 14 1 13 11 12 10 7 54 3 19 2 24 M M M M M M M 6 98 20 / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / 400' BAY TAPER FOR LEFT TURN (2 x 200') 84.38' TRANS MATCHES EX. 200' TRANS./BAY TAPER / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 200' / / / / / / / / IRRIGATION PUMP STATION PERMANENT PUMP STATION WITH AUTO-FLUSHING FILTER WITH 200 MICRON SCREEN PRESSURE: 95 PSI FLOW: 800 GPM POWER REQUIRED: 460V/3Ph/60Hz CANAL CROSSING POND 1 POND 2 EAST POND 2 WEST POND 3 WEST POND 3 EAST EXISTING WATER SUPPLY CONVEYANCE DITCH WELL WATER SUPPLY OUTLET INTO DITCH PA-5 PA-8 PA-9 PA-6 PA-7 PA-3 PA-4 PA-2 PA-1 P IRRIGATION LEGEND BASKET FILTER AND INTAKE PIPE FROM POND POND FILL FLOAT VALVE ASSEMBLY TO MAINTAIN WATER LEVEL Irrigation water from the well and surface water sources, as well as site stormwater will be directed to three on-site pond locations, as detailed in the current drainage plan prepared by Northern Engineering. Pond 2, with a proposed surface area of 2.42 acres, will serve as the primary collection pond for storage of irrigation water and pond make-up water to be distributed to the secondary ponds 1 and 3. Pond 2 will receive water from the surface water sources and from the on-site wells such that water delivery will be available to maintain the target water level. Water will enter from the existing surface ditch, located on the West side of the site, that will convey the available surface and well water. Make-up water will be transferred to ponds 1 and 3 via an irrigation pumping station which will draw water from pond 2 and into distribution piping to serve irrigation needs and maintain the water elevation in each of the ponds. The irrigation pump station will employ multiple variable speed pumps to provide system redundancy and to enable the system to respond efficiently to a wide range of system flow rates. The pumps will maintain pressure in the system in order to provide a ready supply for the various irrigation systems throughout the site and for the pond fill needs. The ponds are intended to function as wet ponds with storm detention capacity. Pond water levels will be maintained continuously by a float fill system so that storm flows will pass over and will not be held beyond the stormwater detention limits. The proposed pond wet elevations are as follows. (See the Northern Engineering Drainage Plans for more information). ·Pond 1 = 4904.10 ·Pond 2 = 4911 ·Pond 3 = 4919 It is expected that water levels in pond 2 would recede only during peak season irrigation operations. Water delivered from each source will be measured upon delivery to the pond system as will the volume of water transferred through the pump station. In the event that stormwater is received during irrigation operations or at any time when the pond is below the maintenance level, the water volumes received in the pond and the water volume discharged through the pumping system can be tracked via appropriate telemetry to transfer the appropriate volume of stormwater for discharge. SYSTEM OVERVIEW POINT-OF-CONNECTION ASSEMBLYPOINT-OF-CONNECTION ASSEMBLY SLEEVES:CLASS 200 PVC DISTRIBUTION PIPE:CLASS 200 PVC X-INCH SIZE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED OWNER: DATE: SHEET TITLE: CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : RU D O L P H F A R M IN F R A S T R U C T U R E F I N A L D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N ( F D P ) FO R T C O L L I N S , C O PNE PROPSECT ROAD HOLDINGS, LLC 900 CASTLETON RD, STE. 118 CASTLE ROCK, CO 80109 (303) 892-1166 (REP.) ZM , L F CS 05/25/22 SUBMITTAL 08/31/22 SUBMITTAL R 244 North College Avenue #165 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 P 970.409.3414 www.norris-design.com NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH 0 15075 300 SCALE 1" = 150' OVERALL IRRIGATION IR100 Memorandum The Prospect & I25 project is a water rich project providing substantially more water for irrigation than landscape water requirements demand. The value of this water may be assessed in various ways, however, one key metric for assessing value may be reviewing the cost of developing a potable irrigation water source through the local water provider, ELCO. The cost of developing water through ELCO will include the cost of Plant Investment Fees & Raw Water Dedication (cost of purchasing appropriate water rights to turn over to the Water District). Utilizing ELCO’s PIF calculation metrics, we assume that the irrigation related PIF cost for this project will be approximately $1.4M. As described in our 2016 irrigation water use analysis, the likely long-term annual landscape water requirement for the project site is approximately 58 acre-feet (AF). ELCO would require purchase and dedication of 40-50% more water to meet current raw water dedication requirements which would cover potential, future drought year conditions. This would indicate the developer plan for purchase and dedication of 80- 90AF to develop a potable irrigation water source via ELCO. Acceptable water shares include CB+T, which is currently priced at $58,000 per share ($83,000/AF). Jackson Ditch, WSSC, New Mercer, Larimer Canal #2, Arthur Ditch, & Pleasant Valley are also accepted for dedication and can be priced at $50,000/AF. Assuming the above, costs for Raw Water Dedication would range from $4.5M - $7.5M. If we incorporate PIF costs discussed above, the total increases to $5.9M - $8.9M. Date: August 11, 2020 To: Mr. Rick White, Mr. Dave White From: Nate Hines Re: Prospect & I25 Irrigation Water Value Review Colorado Office 323 West Drake Road, Suite 204 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Phone: 970-282-1800 Fax: 970-226-4662 Memorandum Utilizing the water rights documentation & the site planning & density study documents provided by BHA Design Group, Hines Engineers have developed the following Opinion of Probable Estimated Landscape Water Use for the above referenced project. Additionally, our water resources team has conducted a review of the water rights associated with the property & provided a detailed review of available waters, their uses, conveyance, & a typical water rights yield schedule by month. Site & Landscape Assumptions: 1. For the purposes of this report, Hines utilized the Prospect & I25 Potential Development Plan (see attached) to provide area product type & gross square footages. 2. Each product type is assumed to include 25% Open Space. a. Open Space within developed areas is assumed to be comprise of: i. 15% Planting beds ii. 15% Turf iii. 70% Native grasses 3. Streetscapes within the development are assumed to include 20% landscape area: a. Landscape area associated with streetscapes are assumed to be comprise of: i. 20% Planting beds ii. 80% Turf iii. 0% Native grasses 4. Common areas are assumed to include 100% Native Grass 5. Highway & Ditch Buffer areas are assumed to include 100% Native Grass Please review the following project summary for a review of estimated irrigation water use & area of the project. A specific breakdown of estimated irrigation water use by specific area, plant type, & month of the year is provided in the attached project appendix. Date: April 12, 2016 To: Mr. Rick White, Mr. Dave White From: Nate Hines Re: Prospect & I25 Landscape Irrigation Water Use Analysis Colorado Office 323 West Drake Road, Suite 204 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Phone: 970-282-1800 Fax: 970-226-4662 RE: Prospect & I25 Irrigation Analysis April 12, 2016 2 Although we found the water resources analysis positive, there is two challenges to be discussed & overcome. We have outlined the following the following primary items of note: 1. Upon initial review, up to 304 acre-feet of water may be available in an average year from the various sources provided. Compared with the approximately 58AF required for irrigation, an excess of native waters will be available for the site. 2. Currently, two of the existing wells are permitted for residential use & only offer the right to irrigate up to one (1) acre at the original home sites. We do not believe it will be cost effective or practical to maintain these wells for on-going site irrigation. 3. Well # 2-11993 a. Decreed for a substantial pumping rate of 1.65 CFS however, b. Production records state the well only operates for 15 days per season then runs dry c. Additionally, this well is decreed to be used for a 40-acre section at the north east portion of the project site. See Figure 2 of the WR report attached. 4. Well #’s 8-19642-1 & 7-19642-2 a. Together these wells are permitted for 240AF of water per year. b. This well is decreed to be used for a 40-acre section at the north west portion of the project site. See Figure 2 of the WR report attached. 5. Surface Water Rights a. In an average year both surface rights (Kitchell & Larimer & Weld) provide an estimated 61AF of water. b. This water can be used anywhere on the property c. In a dry year, an estimated 14AF may be available for use. d. *Please note: Kitchell does not have good records for available water & effective delivery rates for the property. While up to 74AF may be available as a maximum allowance, historic notation indicates that none of the current delivery infrastructure to the property is metered. Delivery structure efficiency should be researched and reviewed as it may be very poor to non-existant. e. Hines Engineers currently are working with Kitchell to prepare for proper lake level monitoring & potential storage expansion. Both of these efforts positively impact this project. 6. Project Challenges: a. Well Water Usage i. The three primary water wells are limited to providing irrigation to the northern 80-acres of the project site by decree. ii. Annual accounting procedures may be utilized to show well pumping rates match the irrigation water requirements of landscape in this zone. iii. One well (#2-11993) is decreed to irrigate the NW 40-acres of the top portion of the site & suffers from poor production with an unknown cause. iv. It may be important to rehab this well to provide irrigation to meet the irrigation demands for this section of the property during a dry year when surface rights will not be adequate to serve this portion of the project. b. Surface Water Usage: i. Surface water can be utilized anywhere on the project site. ii. This allows the Client to use surface rights to irrigate the lower portions of the site which cannot utilize well water. RE: Prospect & I25 Irrigation Analysis April 12, 2016 3 iii. Currently, we estimate the southern portion of the site may require approximately 20-25AF of water. iv. In an average year, assuming 61AF is available, we see no reason why surface water might be used to irrigate the southern portion of the site unaddressed by wells & potentially the NW 40- acres with a non-functioning well. v. Please note that while Kitchell rights may be used or stored at will, shares of water from Larimer & Weld must be utilized within 72- hours of receipt. Please review the following water resources memorandum, prepared by White Sands Water & Hines Inc, as well as the detailed Appendix of estimated site irrigation water use data. Do not hesitate to contact Hines with any comments or questions. Details ZONING CONCEPT PROSPECT & I-25 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I - AFFORDABLE HOUSINGI - AFFORDABLE HOUSING26.16 ac I - IndustrialI - Industrial I - IndustrialI - Industrial 11.26 ac 15.42 ac OPEN SPACEOPEN SPACE 4.81 ac I - IndustrialI - Industrial I - Industrial I - Industrial 7.68 ac 3.89 ac CG - Retail CG - Retail 3.04 ac CG - Commercial Retail CG - Commercial Retail 14.59 ac IN T E R S T A T E 2 5 PROSPECT GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) POTENTIAL USES: Commercial/Retail - Lodging - Retail - Office - Health Clubs - Recreation Facilities - Entertainment Facilities - Restaurants - Fast Food - Grocery - Gas/ Convenience - Animal Facilities - Adult/Child Care Residential - Mixed Use - Multi-family INDUSTRIAL (I) Industrial: - Wholesale Distribution - Research Labs - Workshops - Warehouses - Storage Facilities - Showrooms Light Industrial: - Enclosed Mini-Storage - Office - Flex Office - Services - Recreation Facilities - Animal Facilities - Adult/Child Care Residential - Mixed Use URBAN ESTATE (UE) Residential - Single-family - Duplex - Small group homes Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: - Education Facilities - Places of worship - Child/Adult care LAKE C A N A L BOXE L D E R C R E E K TIMN A T H I N L E T C A N A L TIMNATH INLET CANAL 1/ 4 m i l e I- 2 5 S e t b a c k LA K E C A N A L UE - Institutional UE - Institutional Trail System UE - Residential UE - Residential 5.82 ac 10.74 ac memorandum The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of our investigation of the water rights associated with the property at the northeast corner of the intersection of Prospect and I‐25 (Property) in Fort Collins. The Property is located in the SW ¼ of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West; a general location map for the parcel and its various water rights is included with this letter as Figure 1. By performing this investigation, we aimed to determine the water rights the developer owns, the average and dry year yields of these rights, as well as any potential limitations on future use of said water rights on the Property. In conducting this investigation, we have relied upon the following:  Decree for Case No. W‐6376, Water Division No. 1, January 27, 1976  Decree for Case No. W‐7921(75), Water Division No. 1, February 10, 1976.  Decree for Case No. CA‐11217, Water Division No. 1, September 10, 1953.  Well permit records from the Colorado Division of Water Resources website.  Letter to David B. White from Steven P. Jeffers RE: Summary of Water Rights Associated with the Horton/Rudolph Property in Larimer County, dated July 1, 2005.  Phone discussion with Mark Simpson (District 3 Water Commissioner) on March 17, 2016.  Phone discussion with Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company staff on March 17, 2016.  Email correspondence with Lesa Graber (main contact for the Kitchell Reservoir Company) on March 16 and 17, 2016.  Bylaws of the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, dated October 4, 1991.  Bylaws of the Kitchell Reservoir Company, dated October 25, 1915.  Diversion records and structure summary reports from the State Engineer’s Office website (“http://cdss.state.co.us/Pages/CDSSHome.aspx”).  South Platte Decision Support System Task 5 Memorandum ‐ Key Structure, Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company. March 5, 2005. To: Nate Hines Hines, Inc. From: Jennifer Ashworth and Evon Harmon White Sands Water Engineers, Inc. CC: Date: 4/11/2016 Re: I‐25 and Prospect Property Water Rights Investigation Nate Hines April 11, 2016 Page 2 1 Summary of Investigation The following outlines our investigation of the future potential uses and limitations of the Property’s water rights based on the information reviewed. Given the lack of available information with regard to specific yield, conveyance efficiencies, and deliveries, conservative assumptions were made to effectively determine historical average and dry year yields that may be relied upon in the future. 1.1 Wells and Groundwater Rights Based on the letter by Steven Jeffers, the deed transferring ownership of the Property also conveyed all surface and groundwater rights appurtenant to the Property. The groundwater rights identified included three (3) irrigation wells and two (2) domestic wells located within the SW ¼ of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. A map showing the location of these wells is attached to this letter as Figure 1. Four of the wells on the Property were decreed together in 1976 in Case No. W‐6376 in Water Division 1. The fifth well (Well Permit No. 3734) was permitted for domestic use as an exempt well, but does not have a decreed groundwater right associated with it. Since the domestic well is exempt, it may operate under the terms of the permit without being subject to administration. The same is true for the decreed domestic well, Well No. 5‐RN‐192. Each of the wells on the property possesses a different date of appropriation, decreed flowrate, and specified use. The following table summarizes the attributes of each well (Table 1). Nate Hines April 11, 2016 Page 3 Table 1. I‐25 & Prospect Property Well Attributes Well Name WDID Decreed Appropriation Date Amount (cfs) Decreed Use Well No. 2‐11993 0306724 May 9, 1955 1.65 Irrigation of 40 acres in the NE ¼ of SW ¼ of Section 15 Well No. 5‐RN‐192 0306871 November 14, 1956 0.0666 Domestic and stock watering Well No. 7‐19642‐2 0305441 January 31, 1930 1.0 Irrigation of 40 acres in the NW ¼ of SW ¼ of Section 15 Well No. 8‐19642‐1 0305447 January 31, 1930 2.15 Well Permit No. 3734 N/A N/A 0.0445 (permitted, not decreed) Domestic (permitted, not decreed) 1.1.1 Uses and Potential Limitations In terms of limitations of use associated with these wells, three of the four wells are decreed for irrigation use on at least a portion of the Property (Well Nos. 2‐11993, 7‐19642‐2, and 8‐19642‐ 1). Well No. 2‐11993, is the only well decreed to irrigate the 40 acres in the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the Property, as shown on Figure 2. However, according to the letter from Steven Jeffers, the well has limited production and is only able to run for approximately 15 days at a rate of 0.22 cfs before going dry for the remainder of the irrigation season. This well was rehabilitated in 2003, but the rehabilitation did not improve production. At a rate of 0.22 cfs for 15 days, this well may be able to produce 6.5 acre‐feet during the irrigation season before going dry. Further investigation could be done to determine why this well is running dry after 15 days of minimal pumping and whether further rehabilitation could resolve the issue and allow the well to pump closer to its decreed rate of 1.65 cfs. Due to the current production problems associated with this well, we have not included the yield from this well as an irrigation supply for the future development of the Property. Nate Hines April 11, 2016 Page 4 The other two irrigation wells (7‐19642‐2 and 8‐19642‐1) are decreed to irrigate the 40 acres in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15, as shown on Figure 2. It is our understanding these wells serve as the primary supply for the entire Property and are pumped at a combined rate of 2.0 cfs from mid‐March through September. Although the wells have the capacity to provide a reliable supply to the entire Property, there is some risk the State or Division Engineers Office could require the use of the wells to be limited to just the 40 acres in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15. All three irrigation wells on the Property are part of the Cache La Poudre Water Users Association’s plan for augmentation (Case No. W‐7921). According to the previous owners’ 2001 application to include the wells in the augmentation plan, the three wells are limited to irrigating the 80 acres in the N ½ of the SW ¼ of the Property, with an anticipated diversion of 240 acre‐ feet per year. So long as the irrigation wells continue to be used for their decreed irrigation uses on the lands specified in the decree plan, they will not need to be changed in Water Court. Additionally, assuming the augmentation plan continues to be operated by the Cache La Poudre Water Users Association, the three irrigation wells may continue to operate as alternate points of diversion for the more senior surface water rights described in the augmentation plan. In summary, so long as the augmentation plan decree and the well decrees remain operational and unchanged, the three irrigation wells may continue to provide water to the N ½ of the SW ¼ of the Property. Given the potential for considerable opposition to any change of water rights, it may not be advantageous to try to change the location of use of the irrigation wells. For the purpose of this investigation, we have assumed the 240 acre‐feet per year volume associated with the productive irrigation wells is a reasonable estimate of the yield of the wells that can be covered under the existing augmentation plan. The other two wells on the Property, Well No. 5‐RN‐192 and Well Permit No. 3734, are for domestic uses and are exempt from administration. Given that the houses on the property were served by taps from East Larimer County Water District, the domestic wells could continue to be used for limited irrigation around the two home sites. Although not specified in the older domestic well permits, the outdoor use of domestic wells permitted today is limited to one acre or less of lawn or garden area. For the purpose of this investigation, we have assumed a demand of 2 feet per acre per year, resulting in each domestic well providing approximately 2 acre‐feet per year for the irrigation to up to one acre of lawn or landscaped area around the home sites, as shown in Figure 2. Nate Hines April 11, 2016 Page 5 1.2 Kitchell Reservoir Company Shares Four, out of a total of 22 shares in the Kitchell Reservoir Company, are held under Certificate No. 69 in the name of Prospect Interchange, LLC and are associated with the Property. Kitchell Reservoir is located in the W ½ of the NE ¼, the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, and the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 14, Township 7N, Range 68W, as shown on Figure 3. Under the decree in Case No. CA11217, the Kitchell Reservoir Company possesses a storage right in the Kitchell Reservoir in the amount of 410 acre‐feet, which is the decreed capacity of the reservoir. The current actual capacity of the reservoir is unknown, but may be less than the decreed 410 acre‐feet. The decree also states the water from Kitchell Reservoir was historically used to irrigate 446 acres, but does not define the location these acres. Water is delivered to storage in Kitchell Reservoir via a system of seepage sloughs known as the Duck Slough Seepage Ditch System which originates northeast of the Property in Section 36, Township 8 North, Range 68 West. The slough system (originally decreed in the same case as Kitchell Reservoir) has a decreed carrying capacity of 4.75 cfs. Based on the decreed volume of the reservoir, the 4 shares associated with the Property result in a pro‐rata interest of 74.5 acre‐feet. This would be the maximum yield (less any conveyance losses) that could be provided to the property. Kitchell Reservoir water is delivered to the Property at the northeast corner of the Property where it is then distributed to the rest of the farm. Notes from the Steven Jeffers letter indicate the reservoir delivered water to shareholders on a rotational basis such that the four shares would have been delivered water on 2 out of every 11 days, and that very little of this water could physically be delivered to the Property. Neither the Reservoir nor the Duck Slough system have their deliveries measured quantitatively; the extent of available data indicates some years when water was taken and sparse records identify the number of acres irrigated with diverted water. Additionally, it is our understanding through personal communication with Lesa Graber that no ditch rider exists for the Duck Slough system or Kitchell Reservoir. Nate Hines April 11, 2016 Page 6 Based on readily available aerial photography from Google Earth, spanning from 1999 through 2014, it is apparent that Kitchell Reservoir is not full during periods of drought and does not always begin the irrigation season with a full capacity, such as in 2002, 2004, and 2006. Without diversion, delivery, or storage records, it is impossible to determine an accurate average or dry year yield supply from these shares. However, generally, a junior reservoir can yield an average of 1/3 to ¼ of its capacity, but zero in a dry year. Given that the aerial photos reflect some sensitivity to dry years, and the comments from the Steven Jeffers letter, we have assumed these rules‐of‐thumb to be reasonable for Kitchell Reservoir. Based on an average yield of ¼ of the reservoir volume (assumed to be 410 acre‐feet), the four shares likely yield an average of approximately 19 acre‐feet per year, but nothing in a dry year. Since the water is being delivered from a reservoir, it is likely the water would have historically been used to supplement other direct flow supplies during the peak irrigation season (June through August). 1.3 Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company Shares Four shares in the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company are associated with the Property under Certificate No. 5540; with an undivided 90 percent interest in Mary A. Horton’s name, and an undivided 10 percent in Prospect Interchange, LLC’s name. Based on the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company bylaws, a total of 1,419 shares have been issued. Water under the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company’s four direct flow water rights is delivered through the canal throughout the irrigation season. This water is delivered to the Property through a lateral that crosses Mulberry Street and enters the Property from the north at the northeast corner of the Property. We have approximated the location of this lateral as shown on Figure 3. In addition to the four direct flow rights owned by the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, other types of water, not associated with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company’s water rights is also run through the canal. Although daily diversion records for the Larimer and Weld Canal were available for the time period extending from 1950 through 2014 from the Colorado Division of Water Resources HydroBase database, only the records coded as Source:1, Use:1 (source from the river and use to irrigation) were used to estimate yield and monthly distribution of the water deliveries. These records were only available from 1950 through 1973. The Source:1, Use:1 records generally reflect the direct flow water associated with just the company’s water rights, and exclude other water run through the canal. A table summarizing the average and dry year river headgate diversions for the Larimer and Weld Canal, along with the percent distribution throughout the irrigation season, are summarized below (Table 2). Nate Hines April 11, 2016 Page 7 Table 2. Larimer and Weld Canal River Headgate Average and Dry Year Direct Flow Diversions (1950‐1973) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total Average Year Diversions (ac‐ft) 131 7,487 17,972 5,410 1,257 853 65 33,175 % of Annual 0.4% 22.6% 54.2% 16.3% 3.8% 2.6% 0.2% 100% Dry Year (1954) Diversions (ac‐ft) 0 2,610 2,033 573 208 254 1,220 6,898 % of Annual 0% 37.8% 29.5% 8.3% 3.0% 3.7% 17.7% 100% Bill Johnston, Superintendent for the Larimer and Weld Canal, thought the average river headgate diversion per share is between 20 and 22 acre‐feet per year, and the lowest yield was 7 acre‐feet per year for each share. The average river headgate diversion from the State’s records (33,175 acre‐feet) shown in Table 2, result in approximately 23.4 acre‐feet per share, which is similar to Mr. Johnston’s average annual estimate per share. The letter from Steven Jeffers notes an average yield of approximately 18.1 acre‐feet per year for each share, but it is unclear where that information was obtained. From personal communication with ditch company personnel as well as Mark Simpson, the Water Commissioner in District 3, it has come to our attention that a ditch loss study is currently being conducted on the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Canal to determine what the overall conveyance efficiency may be. Although an approximate ditch loss is unknown at this time, Mr. Simpson added that, while ditch loss varies considerably between wet and dry years, several ditch companies within his district suffer a ditch loss of up to 50 percent. In the interest of being conservative, a 50 percent ditch loss was assumed for our investigation. To estimate the average monthly farm headgate deliveries associated with the four shares applied to the Property, an average river headgate yield of 21 acre‐feet per year per share was distributed throughout the irrigation season using the distribution pattern determined from the State’s diversion records, and an estimated 50 percent ditch loss was then applied. The same approach was used to estimate the yield in a dry year, based on the smallest yield estimate provided by Mr. Johnston. The table below summarizes potential delivery from these four shares in both an average and dry year (Table 3). Table 3. Estimated Larimer and Weld Canal Farm Headgate Delivery for 4 Shares (ac‐ft) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total Average Year 0.16 9.48 22.75 6.85 1.59 1.08 0.08 42 Dry Year 0.00 5.30 4.13 1.16 0.42 0.52 2.48 14 Nate Hines April 11, 2016 Page 8 2 Future Uses Based on the various groundwater and surface water supplies historically used on the property, it appears the total demands can be met using the yield from the existing supplies associated with the Property. Given the estimated demand by Hines, Inc. of 58.4 acre‐feet of water per year for the developed site, the existing water supplies are sufficient to meet demands. Note the groundwater rights and yield from Kitchell Reservoir may be pumped or released out of the reservoir to meet demands. The direct flow rights associated with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Canal are only available when they are delivered. Table 4 summarizes the demands and estimated available supplies in an average year, and Table 5 summarizes the demands and estimated available supplies in a dry year. Table 4. Total Demands vs. Supplies in an Average Year (ac‐ft) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total Demand 3.2 9.1 11.6 12.5 10.9 7.9 3.2 58.4 Total Supply 35.0 44.2 62.3 51.1 41.2 35.9 34.9 304.6  Wells1 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 243.6  Kitchell2 0 0 4.7 9.5 4.8 0 0 19.0  Larimer & Weld 0.2 9.4 22.8 6.8 1.6 1.1 0.1 42.0 Notes: 1) Assumes the yield from the wells is evenly distributed 2) Assumes the yield from Kitchell Reservoir is distributed during the peak irrigation months (June through August) Table 5. Total Demands vs. Supplies in a Dry Year (ac‐ft) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total Demand 3.2 9.1 11.6 12.5 10.9 7.9 3.2 58.4 Total Supply 34.8 40.1 38.9 36.0 35.2 35.3 37.3 257.6  Wells1 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 243.6  Kitchell2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Larimer & Weld 0 5.3 4.1 1.2 0.4 0.5 2.5 14.0 Notes: 1) Assumes the yield from the wells is evenly distributed 2) Assumes zero yield from Kitchell Reservoir Nate Hines April 11, 2016 Page 9 The most reliable supply is from the two irrigation wells located in the northwest corner of the Property. Although these two wells alone can provide up to 240 acre‐feet per year, if the State or Division Engineer require the wells operate consistent with the terms of their decree, this supply could be limited for use on only the 40 acres located in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15. The yield from the remaining irrigation well on the Property (which is limited to irrigating the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15) was assumed to be zero due to production problems with the well. The yield from the two domestic wells was assumed to total 4 acre‐feet per year, but each well is also limited to irrigating one‐acre lawn or landscaped areas around the home sites (located in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15). The combination of all the groundwater rights totals approximately 244 acre‐feet per year, but again, the location of use may be limited in the future per the decrees associated with these rights. The surface water rights through the ownership of 4 Larimer and Weld Irrigation Canal Company shares and 4 Kitchell Reservoir Company shares results in an average annual yield of approximately 61 acre‐feet (42 acre‐feet and 19 acre‐feet, respectively). However, in a dry year, the yield may be as low as 14 acre‐feet from just the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Canal shares. These surface water rights do not appear to be bounded for use on any specific acreage, and could be used anywhere within the Property. Although the total supply is sufficient to meet the total demand, there may be some risk in the location of demand versus the location of the supply. If, for example, the entire demand of the developed site is located outside of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15, and the State or Division Engineer’s Office enforces the terms of the decree for the well rights, then additional water may be needed to meet demands. Nate Hines April 11, 2016 Page 10 3 Conclusions In summary, and based on readily available data, we estimate the total irrigation supply available at the Property in an average year is approximately 305 acre‐feet, and in a dry year is approximately 258 acre‐feet. Although the estimated supply is greater than the projected demand, as determined by Hines, Inc., there are some decreed limitations on where approximately 244 acre‐feet of the supply can be used. Specifically, the 244 acre‐feet is limited to use in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15, Township 7N, Range 68W. Depending upon the location of the demands for the developed property, additional water supplies may be required. If additional water supplies are required, an alternative could be to change the location of use of the groundwater rights, but since those rights are in an older augmentation plan, it is doubtful they could be changed without significant opposition or being removed from the augmentation plan. We reserve the right to supplement or revise this memorandum and the associated analysis in the case that any additional relevant information is received. % Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 7N 7N 68W 68W - 0 0.06 0.12 Miles LARIMER WELD The ma ppi ng co nta in ed w ith in t his d ocumen t is in ten ded to b e u se d fo r re feren ce pu rp oses o nly a nd i s not su ita ble for co nstructio n a nd /or surveyin g p urpo ses. F IG U R E 1 - H O R TO N PA R C E LWELL LO CATION M AP ProjectLocation April 2016 Well No. 2-11993 Well No. 5-RN-192 Well No. 7-19642-2 Well No. 8-19642-1 %Well Perm it No. 3734 East Larim er C ounty Water District Taps #Kitchell R eservoir Inlet from Duck Slough Seepage Ditch System (4 Shares) Larim er and Weld County C anal (4 Shares) Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet (No A ssociated Water Rights) Horton Parcel CacheLaPoudreReservoirInlet % Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Copyright:© 2013National Geographic Society, i-cubed 7N 7N 68W 68W - 0 0.1 0.2 Miles LARIMER WELD The mapping contained within this document is intended to be used for reference purposes only and is not suitable for construction and/or surveying purposes. FIGURE 2 - HORTON PARCEL GENERAL LOCATION MAPProjectLocation March 2016 Well No. 2-11993 Well No. 5-RN-192 Well No. 7-19642-2 Well No. 8-19642-1 %Well Permit No. 3734 East Larimer County Water District Taps #Kitchell Reservoir Inlet from Duck Slough Seepage Ditch System (4 Shares) Larimer and Weld County Canal (4 Shares) Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet (No Associated Water Rights) Well Nos. 7-19642-2 and 8-19642-1 Irrigated Area Well No. 2-11993 Irrigated Area Horton Parcel Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet Text*Irrigation of up to 1 acre around original home site* # % Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 7N 7N 68W 68W - 0 0.25 0.5 Miles LARIMER WELD The mapping contained within this document is intended to be used for reference purposes only and is not suitable for construction and/or surveying purposes. FIGURE 3 - IRRIGATION SUPPLY LOCATION MAP ProjectLocation April 2016 Well No. 2-11993 Well No. 5-RN-192 Well No. 7-19642-2 Well No. 8-19642-1 %Well Permit No. 3734 East Larimer County Water District Taps #Kitchell Reservoir Inlet from Duck Slough Seepage Ditch System (4 Shares) Larimer and Weld County Canal (4 Shares) Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet (No Associated Water Rights) Horton Parcel Lateral from Kitchell ReservoirLateral from Larimer an d WeldCanal Cache La Poudre ReservoirInlet KitchellRes. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX B.4 - SCOURSTROP AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS ScourStop® DESIGN GUIDE Circular Culvert Outlet Protection scourstop.com PERFORMANCE AESTHETICS NPDES-COMPLIANT COST-EFFECTIVE the green solution to riprap ® ScourStop transition mats protect against erosion and scour at culvert outlets with a vegetated solution in areas traditionally protected with rock or other hard armor. ScourStop is part of a system that includes semi-rigid transition mats installed over sod or turf reinforcement mats. Each 4™ x 4™ x ˜/˚ﬂ mat is made of high-density polyethylene and secured tightly to the ground with anchors. why use the SCOURSTOP SYSTEM? - If velocity is greater than 16 fps, contact manufacturer for design assistance. - ScourStop mats have been shown to at least double the e˛ectiveness of turf reinforcement mats. - ScourStop fully vegetated channel (2:1 slope): velocity = 31 fps, shear stress = 16 psf. PIPE DIAMETER VELOCITY < 10 FT/SEC 10 < VELOCITY < 16 FT/SEC TRANSITION MAT W x L QUANTITY OF MATS TRANSITION MAT W x L QUANTITY OF MATS 12ﬂ 4™ x 4™1 4™ x 8™2 24ﬂ 8™ x 8™4 8™ x 12™6 36ﬂ 8™ x 12™6 12™ x 20™15 48ﬂ 12™ x 16™12 12™ x 24™18 60ﬂ 12™ x 20™15 16™ x 32™32 72ﬂ 16™ x 24™24 20™ x 36™45 Circular Culvert Outlet Protection These are minimum recommendations. More ScourStop protection may be needed depending upon site and soil conditions, per project engineer. 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 ˝/sec), sod is the recommended soil cover. 3. Follow manufacturer™s ScourStop Installation Guidelines to ensure proper installation. 4. Install ScourStop mats at maximum 1-2ﬂ below ˙owline of culvert or culvert apron. (No waterfall impacts onto ScourStop mats.) 5. Performance of protected area assumes stable downstream conditions. Transition mat apron protects culvert outlet. *Width of protection: Bottom width of channel and up both side slopes to a depth at least half the culvert diameter. Protect bare/disturbed downstream soils from erosion with appropriate soil cover. Use normal-depth calculator to compute for downstream protection. Install anchors per ScourStop Installation Guidelines. Minimum depth 24” in compacted, cohesive soil. Minimum depth 30” in loose, sandy, or wet soil. Extra anchors as needed to secure mat tightly over soil cover. Abut transition mats to end of culvert or culvert apron. Adjacent mats abut together laterally and longitudinally. Minimum 8 anchors per mat. Extra anchors as needed for loose or wet soils. Extra anchors as needed for uneven soil surface. ScourStop® Installation Recommendations A A MAX. 1"-2" DROP FROM CULVERT FLOWLINE ONTO SCOURSTOP MATSCULVERT FLOWLINE PROFILE VIEW A LEADER in the GEOSYNTHETIC and EROSION CONTROL industries Learn more about our products at: HanesGeo.com | 888.239.4539 the green solution to riprap ©2014 Leggett & Platt, Incorporated | 16959_1114 AA Design Point/Storm Line W (FT)L (FT)Quantity of Mats Velocity (ft/s) Pond 1 Outlet (36" RCP)8 12 6 5.76 Pond 2 Outlet (FES P2 - 18" RCP)8 8 4 5.45 FES A (30" RCP)12 20 15 13.74 FES B (18" RCP)8 8 4 6.01 FES C (36" RCP)12 12 6 6.36 FES D (18" RCP)8 8 4 2.32 FES I (42" RCP)12 20 12 7.30 FES J (24" RCP)8 8 4 7.69 Notes: 1. Refer to Scourstop design brochure for sizing requirments 2. DP = Design Point - Refer to Drainage Exhibit for clarification 3. Velocity for FES D comes from CDOT of 4.1 cfs max for an 18" RCP (V=Q/A) Scourstop Summary Specification Sheet TMax™ High-Performance Turf Reinforcement Mat RMX_MPDS_TMAX_1.19 Material Content Woven Structure 100% UV stable Polypropylene Monofilament yarns Black/Green or Black/Tan Standard Roll Sizes Width 11.5 ft (3.5 m) 11.5 ft (3.5 m) Length 78 ft (23.8 m) 156 ft (47.5 m) Weight ± 10%72 lbs (32.7 kg)143.5 lbs (65.1 kg) Area 100 yd2 (83.6 m2)200 yd2 (167 m2) DESCRIPTION The TMax™ high-performance turf reinforcement mat (HP-TRM) shall be a machine-produced mat of 100% UV-stabilized, high denier polypropylene monofilament yarns woven into permanent, high-strength, three-dimensional turf reinforcement matting. Available in either a green/black or a tan/black coloring, the mat shall be composed of polypropylene yarns woven into a uniform configuration of resilient, pyramid-like projections. The mat provides sufficient thickness, optimum open area, and three- dimensionality for effective erosion control and vegetation reinforcement against high flow induced shear forces. The mat has high tensile strength for excellent damage resistance and for increasing the bearing capacity of vegetated soils subject to heavy loads from maintenance equipment and other vehicular traffic. The material has very high interlock and reinforcement capacities with both soil and root systems, and is designed for erosion control applications on steep slopes and vegetated waterways. Index Property Test Method Typical Thickness ASTM D6525 0.4 in (10 mm) Resiliency ASTM D6524 75% Mass/Unit Area ASTM D6566 11.3 oz/yd2 (382 g/m2) Tensile Strength – MD ASTM D6818 4,400 lbs/ft (64 kN/m) Elongation – MD ASTM D6818 35% Tensile Strength – TD ASTM D6818 3,300 lbs/ft (48.2 kN/m) Elongation – TD ASTM D6818 30% Light Penetration ASTM D6567 75% coverage UV Stability ASTM D4355 >90% @ 3000 hr Design Permissible Shear Stress* Vegetated Shear 16 psf (766 Pa) Vegetated Velocity 25 fps (7.6 m/s) + Minimum Average Roll VAlue *Design values extrapolated from large scale ASTM D6460 testing ©2019, North American Green is a registered trademark from Western Green. Certain products and/or applications described or illustrated herein are protected under one or more U.S. patents. Other U.S. patents are pending, and certain foreign patents and patent applications may also exist.Trademark rights also apply as indicated herein. Final determination of the suitability of any information or material for the use contemplated, and its manner of use, is the sole responsibility of the user. Printed in the U.S.A. Western Green 4609 E. Boonville-New Harmony Rd. Evansville, IN 47725 nagreen.com 800-772-2040 Disclaimer: The information contained herein may represent product index data, performance ratings, bench scale testing or other material utility quantifications. Each representation may have unique utility and limitations. Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, however, no warranty is claimed and no liability shall be assumed by North American Green (NAG) or its affiliates regarding the completeness, accurracy or fitness of these values for any particular application or interpretation. While testing methods are provided for reference, values shown may be derived from intrpolation or adjustment to be representatvie of intended use. For further information, please feel free to contact NAG. 4609 E Boonville-New Harmony Rd Evansville, IN 47725 866-540-9810 12/7/21 Technical Bulletin: Comparison of TRM Design Life Estimates In the process of design, a relative frame of reference for the estimation of design life for Turf Reinforcement Mats (TRMs) and High Performance TRMS (HPTRMs) is often desired. To that end, this document has been developed to provide context and recommendations for a series of Western Excelsior and North American Green materials. Specifically, the longevity of a TRM in the field is a function of factors that are intrinsic to the material and many factors that are site specific. TRMs are typically constructed of any variety of filaments that may be bonded, woven or bound to create a cohesive matrix that is formed into a rolled product. The base synthetic product (ie polyester, nylon or polypropylene), chemical additives and dimensions can all, among other factors, influence the longevity of the material. Once installed in the field, degradation is a function of: • Exposure to ultra-violet (UV) radiation (sunlight) • Moisture • Mechanical Loading • Temperature • Exposure to chemicals and/or pollution • Definition of acceptable performance (i.e. tensile strength, coverage, etc.) Further, exposure to UV radiation naturally varies by: • Location • Facing Direction (North, East, West, South) • Elevation • Inclination (slope angle) • Coverage by soil, debris, foliage, vegetation or other shade Based on these factors, any material will degrade at different rates, depending on the field-specific situation. Even within a given project, the direction and inclination of one area compared to another may reduce the lifespan by fifty percent. Thus, it is important to realize that, absent a detailed, site-specific analysis, any design life estimate should be considered an estimate for informational purposes. With this background, general guidance for North American Green (NAG) and Western Excelsior (WEC) produced TRMs are provided for consideration in product selection: • S200, SC250, C350 – Up to ten years (synthetic portion) • PP5-8, PP5-10, PP5-12, P300 – Up to ten years • P550 – Up to fifteen years • PP5-Pro, TMax 3k – Up to fifty years • PP5-Xtreme, TMax – Up to seventy-five years These estimates may or may not be reasonable for any specific condition or location and represent a maximum duration where it would be reasonable to expect acceptable performance. This estimation is exclusive of fastener performance. Consult Western Green or NAG directly for more specific recommendations. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX C - STANDARD WATER QUALITY AND LID Design Point (Basin Id)1 Total Area (ac) Treatment Method Area Treated (ac) Percent Impervious (%) Area of Impervious (ac)2 Required Standard Water Quality (cu. ft.) Required LID (cu. ft.) Provided LID (cu. ft.) RG1 14.57 Rain Garden 14.57 80%11.66 N/A 13,892 19,709 Standard WQ Pond 1 11.55 Standard WQ 11.55 49%5.66 10,241 N/A RG 2 17.94 Rain Garden 17.94 89%15.97 N/A 20,481 26,422 RG 3 13.41 Rain Garden 13.41 86%11.53 N/A 14,389 19,079 Standard WQ Pond 2 24.54 Standard WQ 24.54 52%12.76 22,638 N/A RG 4 13.50 Rain Garden 13.50 90%12.15 N/A 15,740 20,211 RG 5 8.85 Rain Garden 8.85 30%2.66 N/A 3,893 4,918 Impervious Area Treated Standard WQ Totals 36.09 Standard WQ 36.09 N/A 18.42 25% Rain Garden Totals 68.27 Rain Garden 68.27 N/A 53.96 75% 1. Refer to Rational Calculations for additional clarification. Some are stand alone basins and some are part of combined basins. * indicates a combined basin. 2. Calculated by multiplying the percent impervious by area treated 3. RG = Raingarden WQ = Water Quality Standard Water Quality and LID Summary Table S H2O H2O H2O H2O H2OH2O H2O WV WV W S C C C W CCW E CABLE H2O WVWV W W SS V.P. V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMM WT H2O M 1 2 3 4 5 G 0 G 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 G 0 G 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G / / / / / / / / SB SB KIT DEN DR.HUNTSMAN DR. 8" S S G G G G G G G T G 12ŕ SS TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON 8" W 8" W 8" W F F 12" S S T 8" W FESFES DD B MB M util LID FES FES D D FESFES D D D D DD MM / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / A A A UD UD FO POND 1 - DETENTION AND STANDARD WATER QUALITY RAIN GARDEN 1 POND 2 - DETENTION AND STANDARD WATER QUALITY RAIN GARDEN 2 RAIN GARDEN 4 RAIN GARDEN 5 POND 3 - DETENTION ONLY RAIN GARDEN 3 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 11 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 7 PRO S P E C T R I D G E D R I V E VIX E N D R I V E CARR I A G E P A R K W A Y PROSPECT ROAD LID EXHIBIT FORT COLLINS, CO RUDOLPH FARM E N G I N E E R N GI EHTRON R N 12.20.2023 P:\1896-001\DWG\SHEETS\DRAINAGE\1896-001_LID.DWG Design Point Area of Impervious (ac) RG1 11.66 Standard WQ Pond 1 5.66 RG 2 15.97 RG 3 11.53 Standard WQ Pond 2 12.76 RG 4 12.15 RG 5 2.66 Standard WQ Totals 18.42 25% Rain Garden Totals 53.96 75% TOTAL AREA (ac) PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA NOTES: 1.Refer to Rudolph Farm Utility Plans for additional clarification on basin breakdowns, grading, and utility sizing. 2.Refer to Rudolph Farm Drainage Report for additional clarification on basin break downs, LID and standard water quality calculations. LID SUMMARY AND LEGEND: NORTH ( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 300 FEET 300 300 600 900 LOT 7 WILL PROVIDE INTERIM WATER QUALITY BUT AT THE TIME OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOT 7 WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE LID FOR ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS. Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,904.50 10,241.00 cu. ft. 4,907.30 4,904.80 96,530.71 cu. ft.0.30 ft. 4,909.10 201,893 cu. ft. 4,908.71 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,904.50 N/A 33,154 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,905.00 4,904.50 35,797 0.50 17,237.63 0.40 17,237.63 0.40 4,906.00 4,905.00 42,273 1.00 39,035.00 0.90 56,272.63 1.29 4,907.00 4,906.00 49,041 1.00 45,657.00 1.05 101,929.63 2.34 4,908.00 4,907.00 56,098 1.00 52,569.50 1.21 154,499.13 3.55 4,909.10 4,908.00 64,188 1.10 66,157.30 1.52 220,656.43 5.07 Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Storage and Water Quality Pond 1 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:1 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: STAGE STORAGE CURVE Contour Contour Surface Area (ft2) Depth (ft) Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Pond Stage Storage Curve 1896-001 Fort Collins, CO B. Mathisen Elev at WQ Volume: Rudolph Farm September 18, 2024 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: 1 Project: Calc. By: Date: 11.55 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 49%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.49 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.20 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-1 0.24 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 10,241 <-- Calculated from above 0.31 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 0.95 <-- CALCULATED from FCSCM Equation 6-7 dia (in) =6/8 number of columns=2.00 number of rows =2.00 number of holes =4.00 Area Per Row =0.93 Total Outlet Area (in2) =1.86 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Standard Water Quality Pond 1 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen October 25, 2022 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,911.00 22,638.00 cu. ft. 4,912.20 4,911.25 107,672.40 cu. ft.0.25 ft. 4,916.00 618,699 cu. ft. 4,915.66 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,911.00 N/A 65,470 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,912.00 4,911.00 113,984 1.00 89,727.00 2.06 89,727.00 2.06 4,913.00 4,912.00 128,362 1.00 121,173.00 2.78 210,900.00 4.84 4,914.00 4,913.00 143,258 1.00 135,810.00 3.12 346,710.00 7.96 4,915.00 4,914.00 158,672 1.00 150,965.00 3.47 497,675.00 11.43 4,916.00 4,915.00 174,603 1.00 166,637.50 3.83 664,312.50 15.25 Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Storage and Water Quality Pond 2 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:2 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr Volume: STAGE STORAGE CURVE Contour Contour Surface Area (ft2) Depth (ft) Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Pond Stage Storage Curve 1896-001 Fort Collins, CO B. Mathisen Elev at WQ Volume: Rudolph Farm September 18, 2024 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: 1 Project: Calc. By: Date: 24.54 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 52%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.52 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 0.21 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-1 0.52 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 22,638 <-- Calculated from above 0.25 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 2.05 <-- CALCULATED from FCSCM Equation 6-7 dia (in) =7/8 number of columns=3.00 number of rows =2.00 number of holes =6.00 Area Per Row =1.36 Total Outlet Area (in2) =4.08 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Standard Water Quality Pond 2 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen September 18, 2024 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in 2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Project: Calc. By: Date: 14.57 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs & footprint of RG 80%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.80 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 0.26 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-1 0.32 13,892 <-- Calculated from above WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 1 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen May 10, 2023 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =80.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.800 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.26 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 634,729 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 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 =13,892 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =10156 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =15780 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =23637 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=19,709 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 1 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 1.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:41 PM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 1 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 1.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:41 PM Project: Calc. By: Date: 17.94 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs & footprint of RG 89% 0.89 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 0.31 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-1 0.47 20,481 <-- Calculated from above Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 2 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen May 10, 2023 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs & weighted with 2% from RG footprint WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =86.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.860 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.30 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 781,466 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 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 =20,481 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =13441 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =24349 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =28495 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=26,422 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 2 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 2.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:44 PM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 2 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 2.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:44 PM Project: Calc. By: Date: 13.41 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs & footprint of RG 86%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.86 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 0.30 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-1 0.33 14,389 <-- Calculated from above Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 3 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen May 10, 2023 WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =86.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.860 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.30 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 584,140 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 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 =14,389 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =10047 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =16617 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =21541 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=19,079 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 3 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 3.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:45 PM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 3 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 3.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:45 PM Project: Calc. By: Date: 13.50 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 90%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.90 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSCM Figure 5.4-1 0.32 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-1 0.36 15,740 <-- Calculated from above Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 4 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen May 10, 2023 WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =90.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.900 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.32 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 588,171 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 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 =15,740 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =10587 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =18589 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =21832 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=20,211 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 4 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 4.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:52 PM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 4 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 4.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:52 PM Project: Calc. By: Date: 8.85 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 30%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.30 <-- CALCULATED 12 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.80 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.12 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-1 0.09 3,893 <-- Calculated from above Required Storage & Outlet Works WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Rain Garden 5 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen May 10, 2023 WQCV (ac-ft) = WQCV (cu. ft.) = Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (watershed inches) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =30.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.300 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.12 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 385,506 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 =0.43 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 =3,893 cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =2313 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =4164 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =5671 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=4,918 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 5 UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Choose One Choose One 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): YES NO Raingarden 5.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:56 PM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Blaine Mathisen Northern Engineering May 10, 2023 Rudolph Farm Rain Garden 5 Choose One Choose One Choose One Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Plantings Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod Choose One YES NO YES NO Raingarden 5.xlsm, RG 5/10/2023, 3:56 PM Project: Date: Pond No.: 4,911.00 2,100.00 cu. ft. 4,912.40 4,911.46 6,351.80 cu. ft.0.46 ft. 4,913.80 31,231 cu. ft. 4,913.07 Max. Elev. Min. Elev. cu. ft. acre ft cu. ft. acre ft 4,911.00 N/A 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,912.00 4,911.00 9,074 1.00 4,537.00 0.10 4,537.00 0.10 4,913.00 4,912.00 36,986 1.00 23,030.00 0.53 27,567.00 0.63 4,913.80 4,913.00 74,172 0.80 44,463.20 1.02 72,030.20 1.65 Elev at 100-yr Volume: Crest of Pond Elev.: Volume at Grate: Grate Elevation: Storage and Water Quality Pond 4 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By:4 Water Quality Depth: 100-yr WQ Volume: STAGE STORAGE CURVE Contour Contour Surface Area (ft2) Depth (ft) Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Pond Stage Storage Curve 1896-001 Fort Collins, CO B. Mathisen Elev at WQ Volume: Rudolph Farm September 18, 2024 Pond Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: Water Quality Volume: 1 Project: Calc. By: Date: 6.67 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs 11%<-- INPUT from impervious calcs 0.11 <-- CALCULATED 40 hours <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 1.00 <-- from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 0.07 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-1 0.05 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 2,110 <-- Calculated from above 0.46 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table 0.20 <-- CALCULATED from FCSCM Equation 6-7 dia (in) =3/8 number of columns=2.00 number of rows =2.00 number of holes =4.00 Area Per Row =0.20 Total Outlet Area (in2) =0.41 <-- CALCULATED from total number of holes WQCV (watershed inches) = WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Standard Water Quality Pond 4 Rudolph Farm B. Mathisen May 1, 2023 Required Storage & Outlet Works Basin Area (acres) = Basin Percent Imperviousness = Basin Imperviousness Ratio = Drain Time = Drain Time Coefficient = WQCV (ac-ft) = WQ Depth (ft) = Area Required Per Row, a (in2) = Circular Perforation Sizing WQCV (cu. ft.) = NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS | GREELEY Forebay ID WQCV (cu. ft.) 1% WQCV (cu. ft.) DEPTH (in) Length (ft) Width (ft) Volume (cu. ft.)Notes RG 1 16,670 166.70 12 21 8 168 Design Point RG 1 RG 1.2 2,920 29.20 12 9.5 4 38 WQCV for RG1.2 was calculated by taking the weighted average from design points r12 and r13 (the areas going to this forebay) against the total area going to Rain Garden 1 (design point RG 1). Calculation is...((.59+1.96)/14.56)*16,670)=2,920 cu. ft. Refer to rational calcs and drainage exhibit for additinal clarification RG 2 24,577 245.77 12 21 12 252 Design Point RG 2 RG 3 - dp 4 8,634 86.34 12 22 4 88 Half of Rain Garden 3's volume. This is still conservative because Basin 10 will not be routed to this forebay. RG 3 - dp 5 8,634 86.34 12 22 4 88 Half of Rain Garden 3's volume. This is still conservative because Basin 10 will not be routed to this forebay. Forebay Summary NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX D - TIMNATH STORMWATE RMATER PLANPERTINENT INFORMATINO 5265 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 210 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 • GallowayUS.com Memorandum Rudolph TRIC Analysis Memo-20230502.docx Page 1 of 4 To: Whom It May Concern From: Suleyman Akalin, PE Date: May 2, 2023 Re: TRIC Analysis for Rudolph Farm Development This memo summarizes the analysis that was conducted by Galloway & Company, Inc. (Galloway) to assess the impact of the proposed Rudolph Farm development on spills from the Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal (TRIC) that were identified in the Town of Timnath Master Drainage Plan (MDP) prepared by Ayres Associates in 2018. The hydraulic capacity of the TRIC was documented in the 2018 MDP using the hydraulic modeling software Sedimentation and River Hydraulics – Two-Dimension (SRH 2D) Version 3.1.1, run inside of the Aquaveo Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) Version 12.2.9. Models were created by Ayres Associates to represent the existing condition (as of 2018) and the future (fully developed and overdetained) condition. The modeling determined that the TRIC is currently undersized and overtops the right bank of the canal in multiple locations during the 1% Annual Chance (1-PAC) storm event. A map showing the locations of spills from the TRIC, and the peak flow rate associated with each spill was presented in Appendix E of the 2018 MDP and is included with this memo as Attachment A. The existing condition SRH-2D model was obtained and updated for the current analysis as described in the following sections. Model Revisions There have been several significant design updates to the TRIC, summarized below, that have occurred since the existing condition model was created in 2018. · Development of the Poudre School District (PSD) site, including a new middle school and high school. As part of this project, approximately 2,500 linear feet of the TRIC channel on the north side of Prospect Road was undergrounded into a 12’W x 6’H horizontal concrete box culvert. · Development of the Serratoga Falls subdivision, including a new 12’W x 6’H horizontal concrete box culvert to convey the TRIC beneath Prospect Road. In addition to the new culverts, the developed PSD and Serratoga Falls sites have provided on-site detention that reduces the surface runoff entering the TRIC. The hydrographs in the SRH-2D model associated with these sites were scaled back such that the peak runoff into the TRIC matched the detained peak runoff indicated in their respective drainage reports. An updated computational mesh was generated for the current SRH 2D analysis. The new mesh incorporates design grading for the PSD, Serratoga Falls, and Rudolph Farm sites. Although the Rudolph Farm site has not yet been developed, the design grading was Rudolph Farm TRIC Analysis May 2, 2023 Rudolph TRIC Analysis Memo-20230502.docx Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 2 of 4 incorporated into the model for all scenarios to better assess the impacts of detaining the runoff from that site. Two 16’WX5’H box culverts are proposed on the TRIC with the Rudolph Farm development to accommodate two road crossings. These culverts were incorporated into the model using a linked HY-8 (culvert hydraulic analysis) model. The new culvert at Prospect Road and the 2,500-foot-long culvert on the PSD site were also modeled using an HY-8 model linked to the SRH 2D model. In addition to incorporating the updated grading and culverts, the mesh was refined along the south side of the TRIC to better capture the location and magnitude of any spills. The existing TRIC channel was surveyed west of the PSD site and south of Prospect Road and that survey data was also incorporated into the mesh. After several model runs, it was observed that some water on the Rudolph Farm site would spill from the right (or south) bank of the TRIC into the Lake Canal which runs parallel to the TRIC in that area. To prevent spills from the TRIC into the Lake Canal, berms between the channels were added to the scatter data used to generate the computational mesh. A 520- foot-long berm with crest elevation 4917.0 was added on the right bank of TRIC between the two culverts on Rudolph Farm, and a 130-foot-long berm with crest elevation 4916.5 was added downstream of the TRIC east or downstream culvert. This mesh with the two berms was used for all model scenarios described in the following section. Model Scenarios Three scenarios were modeled for the current analysis all utilizing the same mesh with different boundary conditions. The scenarios are described as follows: 1. Current 100-YR: This scenario incorporates the design grading for the PSD, Serratoga Falls, and Rudolph Farm sites, including four new culverts modeled in HY- 8. The hydrograph representing inflow from the Serratoga Falls site was reduced such that the peak flow from that site matched the detained peak flow rate indicated in the drainage report. The hydrograph for the PSD site was reduced to a peak flow rate of 85 cfs to account for the existing peak of 81.1 cfs from the site (identified in the drainage report) plus an additional 3.9 cfs to account for the future maximum allowable release rate from the undeveloped PSD site. The hydrograph for Rudolph Farm was not reduced from the existing condition in this scenario. 2. Improvement #1 100-YR: This scenario builds on the Current 100-YR scenario by updating the Rudolph Farm hydrograph such that the peak flow from the development matches the maximum developed flow rate specified by the 2018 MDP. 3. Improvement #2 100-YR: This scenario builds on the Improvement #1 scenario by reducing the two hydrographs that enter the TRIC on the south side of Prospect Road from the east by 75% to represent the future diversion of stormwater from the TRIC for those adjacent properties. All scenarios included a base flow in the TRIC of 190 cfs prior to the runoff hydrographs from contributing developments entering the channel. The base flow and peak flow rates modeled in each scenario are summarized in Table 1 below. Rudolph Farm TRIC Analysis May 2, 2023 Rudolph TRIC Analysis Memo-20230502.docx Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 3 of 4 Table 1. Summary of Peak Flow Rates in SRH-2D Location Peak Flow Entering TRIC, cfs Current Improvement #1 Improvement #2 Base Flow in TRIC 190 190 190 Rudolph Farm 52.7 7.0 7.0 PSD Site 85.0 85.0 85.0 Serratoga Falls 50.0 50.0 50.0 East Inflow 1 200.3 200.3 50.1 East Inflow 2 81.2 81.2 20.3 Results and Conclusions The exhibit in Attachment B was prepared to compare the modeled scenarios to the existing and future condition results documented in the 2018 MDP. This exhibit shows the maximum inundation extents from the existing (MDP) 100-YR model in purple to the maximum inundation extents of the Improvement #1 100-YR model in blue. Inundated areas north of the TRIC are generally the result of inflow from the boundary condition arcs as indicated by the flow arrows and do not indicate spill from the TRIC, except in the area between the PSD and Rudolph Farm sites. As documented in the 2018 MDP and shown on the exhibit in Attachment A, some water will pond on the north bank of the TRIC near Spill A as the channel capacity in that location is only 185 cfs. Most of the ponded water re-enters the TRIC by the end of the 8-hour model run, but several isolated sumps in the topography cause some of the water to infiltrate instead of flowing elsewhere. This ponding occurs in all scenarios, both from the MDP and the current analysis, and is not quantified as a spill in the MDP. Table 2 below compares the peak flow rates of the spills from the 2018 MDP to the peak flow rates of the spills in the three modeled scenarios. Table 2. Peak Flow Rates at TRIC Spill Locations SRH 2-D Peak Q, cfs Existing 100-YR (MDP) Future 100-YR (MDP) Current 100-YR Improvement #1 100-YR Improvement #2 100-YR Base Flow 190 190 190 190 190 SPILL A 0 0 0 0 0 SPILL B 49 0 0 0 0 SPILL C 116 40 93 84 39 SPILL D 170 90 41 28 0 SPILL E 18 0 0 0 0 Rudolph Farm TRIC Analysis May 2, 2023 Rudolph TRIC Analysis Memo-20230502.docx Galloway & Company, Inc. Page 4 of 4 The peak discharges in the first two columns (EX 100-YR and FUT 100-YR) were obtained from the 2018 MDP; however, the values in the last three columns represent results from the three model scenarios (Current, Improvement #1, and Improvement #2) defined in the previous section. In the Current scenario, Spills A, B, and E are eliminated due to on-site detention on the PSD and Serratoga Falls sites. While spills still occur at locations C and D, the magnitude is reduced in the Current scenario. Improvement #1 (incorporating detention on the Rudolph Farm site) reduces the peak flow rate from Spill C by 9 cfs and reduces the peak flow rate of Spill D by 13 cfs compared to the Current scenario. Improvement #2 (incorporating detention on the two hydrographs that enter the TRIC from the east) further reduces the peak flow rate of Spill C by an additional 45 cfs and eliminates Spill D entirely. The reduction of spills from the TRIC associated with the Current and Improvement #1 scenarios indicate that the Rudolph Farm project would not adversely affect the operation of the TRIC during the 1-PAC event. If you have any questions about this analysis, please feel free to contact me at 970-800- 3300. Sincerely, Suleyman Akalin, PE, CFM Water Resources Project Manager SuleymanAkalin@GallowayUS.com Attachments: A – TRIC Spills Map from the 2018 Town of Timnath MDP Update B – TRIC Existing & Improvement #1 100-YR Maximum WSE Extents Exhibit prepared by Galloway & Company CC: TRIC SPILL B TRIC SPILL C TRIC SPILL D TRIC SPILL E TRIC TRIC 100yr Spill Boundary (E.C.) Timnath Reservoir 190 c f s I r r i g a t i o n Base F l o w TRIC SPILL A 350 cfs Max Capacity 27 5 c f s M a x C a p a c i t y 19 0 c f s M a x Ca p a c i t y 20 0 c f s M a x C a p a c i t y Lake C a n a l Capacity:185cfs - North B a n k S p i l l / P o n d i n g 244cfs - South B a n k S p i l l S C O U N T Y R O A D 5 CARR I A G E PKW Y E PROSPECT RD SW F R O N T A G E R D IN T E R S T A T E 2 5 SE FRONTAGE RD SE FRON T A G E R D 4914 4915 . 5 49 1 4 . 5 49 1 5 4913 4913.5 4912 4912.5 491 0 . 7 7 Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal Spills Map q SRH-2D Model Results (Existing 100-year) Document Path: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\TRIC Spills\TRIC Spills_100yr Existing.mxd Date: 8/21/2018 MC L A U G H L I N L N . Legend TRIC 100-year WSEL Contours (Existing) TRIC 100-year Boundary (Existing) 850 Feet Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY:DATE: PROJECT FILE: PROJECT NUMBER: TRIC EXISTING & IMPROVEMENT #1 100-YEAR MAXIMUM WSE EXTENTS EXH-1 Doc u m e n t P a t h : H : \ P a c i f i c N o r t h E n t e r p r i s e s \ C O F o r t C o l l i n s P N E 0 1 - R u d o l p h F a r m T R I C E v a l u a t i o n \ 0 W T R S \ 4 - G I S \ A r c P r o \ 1 0 0 - Y R - S P I L L . a p r x 5265 Ronald Reagan Blvd., Suite 210 Johnstown, CO 80534 970.800.3300 GallowayUS.com CHL CHL SA PNE01.25 4/28/2023 100-YR-SPILL.mxd EX & REV COND. TRIC INFLOW TRIC BASEFLOW 190 CFS TRIC SPILL A (ELIMINATED) TRIC SPILL C PEAK Q = 84 CFS TRIC SPILL D PEAK Q = 28 CFS TRIC SPILL B (ELIMINATED) TRIC SPILL E (ELIMINATED) 4911 4911.5 4912 4912.5 4915.5 4915 4914 4913 4916 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet 4915 4914.5 4913.5 4914 4915.5 EX COND. TRIC INFLOW EX COND. TRIC SPILL EX COND. TRIC INFLOW EX COND. TRIC INFLOW EX & REV COND. TRIC INFLOW & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & && &&& & && & &&&&&&&&&& & & && & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & & & & & & 4915.2 4915.4 IMPROVEMENT #1 100-YR Maximum WSE Extents EX 100-YR Maximum WSE Extents EX 100-YR WSE IMPROVEMENT #1 100-YR WSE 4915 4915 Legend 4913 4912.5 4912 NOTES: 1. EX 100-YR AND FUT 100-YR VALUES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 2018 TIMNATH MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN. 2. THE “CURRENT 100-YR” CONDITION INCORPORATES UPDATED GRADING AND INFLOWS FROM THE TIMNATH HS/MS & SERRATOGA FALLS SUBDIVISION AND PROPOSED GRADING FOR RUDOLPH FARM. 3. IMPROVEMENT #1 REPLICATES “CURRENT 100-YR” BUT INCORPORATES THE REDUCED PEAK FLOW FROM RUDOPLH FARM. 4. IMPROVEMENT #2 REPLICATES “IMPROVEMENT #1” BUT INCORPORATES A 75% REDUCTION OF THE EXISTING TRIC INFLOWS FROM THE EAST. EX 100-YR1 FUT 100-YR1 CURRENT 100-YR2 IMPROVEMENT #1 100-YR3 IMPROVEMENT #2 100-YR4 Base Flow 190 190 190 190 190 SPILL A 0 0 0 0 0 SPILL B 49 0 0 0 0 SPILL C 116 40 93 84 39 SPILL D 170 90 41 28 0 SPILL E 18 0 0 0 0 SRH 2-D Peak Q, cfs 1,2,3,4 See notes for additional explanation Town of Timnath Master Drainage Plan Update 2018 Prepared for: Town of Timnath 4800 Goodman Rd, Timnath, CO 80547 August 2018 - FINAL 18 In addition to modifying impervious values, other subbasin parameters were modified to represent developed conditions. For subbasins where the average ground slope was less than 1.0%, it was assumed that site grading would result in an average ground slope of 1.0% for the overland flow. For urbanized subbasins, the overland flow length was limited to a maximum of 300 feet. The hydrologic parameters for each of the developed condition subbasins are presented in Appendix B. Conceptual Detention for Future Development In a similar manner as the 2005 Study, each subbasin with proposed future development (i.e. undeveloped land that is assumed to be developed according to the 2016 Land Use Plan) was routed directly into a conceptual on-site detention pond. The conceptual detention ponds were modeled with a function storage rating curve (storage equation in EPA SWMM), that was developed based on the developed hydrograph volumes and an iterative sizing procedure. Consistent with Timnath criteria, the 100-year design discharge was set at the 10-year existing condition peak flow rate and an outlet orifice was iteratively sized. These 10-year outlet controls also met the Timnath 2-year flow control requirement. No specific future developments were considered in the developed model. A summary of the conceptual detention pond release rates is given in Appendix B. Routing Changes for Future Conditions In addition to the modification of the subbasin and on-site detention parameters for the developed condition, the conveyance elements were also modified to reflect a developed condition. In contrast to the existing condition, where the majority of the conveyance is over broad, shallow valleys with tall grasses, it was presumed that regional conveyance will be in grass-lined trapezoidal channels. The channel shapes and roughness were modified to replicate conceptual design conditions. Also, routing network was slightly modified to represent the future alignment of the Clark Drainage Channel. The future conditions routing map is provided in Appendix B. Downtown Timnath Two future options were considered for Downtown Timnath, north of the Great Western Railroad, consisting of 100-year storm drain conveyance and two options for future detention on the Timnath Elementary School parcel/ subbasin. Both options assumed a future regional detention pond, located just north of 5th Avenue and Kern Street, restricting 100-year future flows to the 10-year existing flow rate. Details of these options are discussed in Section 5.3. Summary of Developed Condition Hydrology Results The results of the developed condition analysis are summarized in Table 2.8. These results show that the 100-year discharges would decrease from the baseline flows at nearly every location. Along the future Clark Channel, immediately upstream of the TROC, 100-year flows would decrease from 1,269-cfs to 869- cfs. Discharges along the TROC would also decrease from 1,629-cfs to 1,264-cfs at Harmony Road and from 1,735-cfs to 1,379-cfs at the outfall to the Greeley No. 2 Canal. Although on-site detention lowers the individual subbasin discharge for all frequencies (refer to tables provided in Appendix B), the 2-year through 50-year results along the Clark Drainage show increases in future discharge. This effect is due to superposition of the prolonged detention hydrographs and the increased runoff volume from urban development. Appendix A Baseline Condition Hydrology Maps: 1) A-1 – Existing Basin Map – North 2) A-2 – Existing Basin Map – South 3) A-3 – Existing Routing Map – North 4) A-4 – Existing Routing Map – South 5) A-5 – Existing Downtown SWMM Map 6) A-6 – Existing Overall SWMM Map Tables: 1) A-1 – SWMM Subbasin Parameters – Existing Conditions 2) A-2 – SWMM Routing Link Shapes 3) A-3 – Summary of Detention Pond Storage and Outlet Ratings 4) A-4 – Timnath Reservoir Storage and Outlet Ratings 5) A-5 – SWMM Results – Links 6) A-6 – SWMM Results – Nodes 7) A-7 – SWMM Results – Subbasins 8) A-8 – Summary and Comparison of Results MAIN ST. COUNTY ROAD 5 HIGHWAY 14 Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-2 TIMNATHRESERVOIR E COUNTY ROAD 44 E MULBERRY ST E COUNTY ROAD 40E HORSETOOTH RD E PROSPECT RD INTERSTATE 25 !(SB 1251047 ac.43% !(SB 1263423 ac.15% !(SB 2634 ac.66% !(SB 2733 ac.20% !(SB 2835 ac.20% !(SB 3145 ac.25% !(SB 309 ac.30%!(SB 2537 ac.15% !(SB 3444 ac.61% !(SB 432 ac.80%!(SB 732 ac.40% !(SB 69 ac.90% !(SB 337 ac.80%!(SB 15A43 ac.55% !(SB 582 ac.55% !(SB 237 ac.30% !(SB 5A33 ac.15% !(SB 1587 ac.20% !(SB 1326 ac.38%!(SB 1643 ac.25% !(SB 3256 ac.20% !(SB 9143 ac.50% !(SB 8197 ac.67% !(SB 4A30 ac.70% !(SB 1876 ac.51% !(SB 1136 ac.39% !(SB 1242 ac.44% !(SB 10115 ac.55% !(SB 14103 ac.33% !(SB 1737 ac.45% !(SB 2036 ac.40%!(SB 2154 ac.45% !(SB 50A7 ac.50% !(SB 506 ac.50% !(SB 5214 ac.78% !(SB 5121 ac.78% !(SB 4884 ac.68% !(SB 4932 ac.64% !(SB 3310 ac.29% !(SB 37117 ac.37% !(SB 4420 ac.5% !(SB 43A41 ac.44%!(SB 4656 ac.38% !(SB 47A23 ac.43% !(SB 4719 ac.34%!(SB 4566 ac.42%!(SB 7679 ac.35%!(SB 7928 ac.5% !(SB 7872 ac.5% !(SB 3948 ac.21% !(SB 3582 ac.45% !(SB 77A2 ac.10%!(SB 77B2 ac.10%!(SB 80B1 ac.10%!(SB 80A4 ac.10% !(SB 808 ac.15%!(SB 72A5 ac.30% !(SB 7288 ac.32%!(SB 6730 ac.49% !(SB 6851 ac.36% !(SB 7117 ac.30% !(SB 1201225 ac.65% !(SB 8145 ac.25% !(SB 8221 ac.30%!(SB 82A16 ac.10%!(SB 82B3 ac.10% !(SB 81A6 ac.30% !(SB 77C9 ac.25%!(SB 77D27 ac.30% !(SB 80D10 ac.10% !(SB 80C10 ac.10% !(SB 8449 ac.25% !(SB 8449 ac.25%!(SB 82C8 ac.10%!(SB 82D109 ac.30%!(SB 7055 ac.50%!(SB 73159 ac.50% !(SB 2247 ac.20% !(SB 25A17 ac.10% !(SB 2421 ac.15% !(SB 2922 ac.20% !(SB 267 ac.90% !(SB 3866 ac.30% !(SB 9A23 ac.25% !(SB 21A77 ac.42% !(SB 43107 ac.22% !(SB 70A30 ac.67% Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update EXHIBIT B-1 - SWMM Subbasin MapDeveloped Condition - North Map Legend SWMM Subbasins Developed Imperv. 0 - 6% 7 - 20% 21 - 35% 36 - 50% 51 - 65% 66 - 80% 81 - 100% SWMM Subbasin (Name, Area - Ac, % Imp.) SWMM Routing Link q 600 Feet File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-1 - FUT_BasinMap_North.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 MAIN ST. MAIN ST. Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-1 TIMNATHRESERVOIR !(SB 1212570 ac.45% !(SB 8197 ac.67%!(SB 1876 ac.51% !(SB 1136 ac.39% !(SB 1242 ac.44% !(SB 10115 ac.55%!(SB 14103 ac.33% !(SB 2036 ac.40%!(SB 2154 ac.45% !(SB 50A7 ac.50% !(SB 506 ac.50% !(SB 5214 ac.78% !(SB 5121 ac.78% !(SB 4884 ac.68% !(SB 4932 ac.64% !(SB 4420 ac.5% !(SB 43A41 ac.44%!(SB 4656 ac.38% !(SB 47A23 ac.43% !(SB 4719 ac.34%!(SB 4566 ac.42%!(SB 7679 ac.35%!(SB 7928 ac.5% !(SB 7872 ac.5% !(SB 7777 ac.15% !(SB 77A2 ac.10%!(SB 77B2 ac.10%!(SB 80B1 ac.10%!(SB 80A4 ac.10% !(SB 808 ac.15%!(SB 72A5 ac.30% !(SB 7288 ac.32%!(SB 6730 ac.49% !(SB 6851 ac.36% !(SB 7117 ac.30% !(SB 1201225 ac.65% !(SB 86B21 ac.10% !(SB 86C5 ac.20% !(SB 86A13 ac.30%!(SB 8145 ac.25% !(SB 8221 ac.30%!(SB 82A16 ac.10%!(SB 82B3 ac.10% !(SB 81A6 ac.30% !(SB 77C9 ac.25%!(SB 77D27 ac.30% !(SB 80D10 ac.10% !(SB 80C10 ac.10% !(SB 7534 ac.30% !(SB 8449 ac.25% !(SB 75A24 ac.30%!(SB 75B27 ac.10% !(SB 7432 ac.20% !(SB 8668 ac.30% !(SB 82C8 ac.10% !(SB 75C8 ac.5% !(SB 82D109 ac.30% !(SB 7055 ac.50% !(SB 11027 ac.73%!(SB 6940 ac.75% !(SB 73159 ac.50% !(SB 9228 ac.80% !(SB 92A20 ac.50%!(SB 9117 ac.80% !(SB 9399 ac.51% !(SB 10931 ac.75% !(SB 10239 ac.50% !(SB 9472 ac.45% !(SB 10183 ac.45% !(SB 10325 ac.45%!(SB 103A21 ac.45%!(SB 103B5 ac.45% !(SB 103D18 ac.45%!(SB 103C16 ac.45% !(SB 10462 ac.50% !(SB 106A103 ac.35% !(SB 10817 ac.35% !(SB 10624 ac.45% !(SB 100A44 ac.27% !(SB 107A15 ac.45% !(SB 10757 ac.40% !(SB 9920 ac.25% !(SB 9876 ac.30%!(SB 10044 ac.27% !(SB 98A34 ac.30% !(SB 85A13 ac.90% !(SB 9612 ac.10% !(SB 85B30 ac.90% !(SB 9561 ac.45% !(SB 9761 ac.35% !(SB 8914 ac.31% !(SB 8716 ac.45% !(SB 8372 ac.72% !(SB 85C45 ac.50% !(SB 85141 ac.54% !(SB 8898 ac.35% !(SB 83A12 ac.47%!(SB 9051 ac.34% !(SB 75D3 ac.5% !(SB 3866 ac.30% !(SB 9A23 ac.25% !(SB 21A77 ac.42% !(SB 43107 ac.22% !(SB 70A30 ac.67% !(SB 10542 ac.30% !(SB 108A8 ac.25% Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update EXHIBIT B-2 - SWMM Subbasin MapDeveloped Condition - South Map q600 Feet File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-2 -FUT_BasinMap_South.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 Legend SWMM Subbasins - Deve loped Impver. Percent 0 - 6% 7 - 20% 21 - 35% 36 - 50% 51 - 65% 66 - 80% 81 - 100% SWMM Subbasin (Name, Area - Ac, % Imp.) SWMM Routing Link !( !( !( !( #*!( !( !( !( !( ") !(!( !( !( ")") ") !( !(!(!( !( ")!( XW !(!(!(!(XW !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( XW!(") !( !( !( !( XW!(!( !( !( !( #* !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(")!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(")")!( ") !( ") ") !(") !(!(!(!( !( !( ")")!(!( !( ") !( !(!(!( !(!(!( ")!( !( !( !( !(XWXWXWXW XWXW XWXW XW XW XWXW !( ") !( !( !( ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 TIMNATHRESERVOIR E PROSPECT RD E MULBERRY ST INTERSTATE 25 E HORSETOOTH RD E COUNTY ROAD 40 MAIN ST. COUNTY ROAD 5 HIGHWAY 14 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-4 CacheLaPoudreRiver TROC TRIC Larimer-WeldCanal LakeCanal 125 26 27 28 31 3025 34 4 7 6 3 15A 5 23 5A 15 13 16 32 9 8 4A 18 11 12 10 14 17 20 21 50A 50 526566 635859 60 55 51 48 49 33 37 44 43A46 47A 4745 79 78 39 35 77B80B80A 80 72A 72 67 68 71 120 82 82A 82B 81A 77C 77D 80D 80C 57 62 64 22 25A 24 29 2 38 9A 21A 43 60A 51A 208 177A DTN-5-SF OP-77C 267A 219 210 39 134A 206 53 OP-50 105A OP-15 209 OP-77B CLARK3 DTN-13-PF DTN-13-SF 64 10 234 277A CLARK6 CLARK8 155 111A CLARK7 31 OP-25103 1611 121A OP-5A 175 OP-50A OP-4A 226 128 162 203 TRICL7A 153 OP-31 OP-43 105C 209B TROCL4 127 135 OP-29 246 OP-31_WEIR 264 OP-28 178 104 251 149 TROCL3 TRICL6 176 115 35 152 151 OP-81 5 156 TROCL5 61 118 115AB 349 14 TRICL7 163 OP-77D 249 OP-51 102 OP-120 33 TRICL5 134 125A 212 122 214 CLARK4 171 63 46 160 218 600 220 159 TRICL1 59 172 TRICL3 CLARK5 111B 158 165 164 161 119 TRICL2 209A TRICL8 224 114 108 166 211 137 223 217 1125 1126 J-CLARK5 J-CLARK4 J-CLARK3 165 169 170 166 171 173 P-28 164149 53 127 P-29P-15 P-5A 151 163TRIC1129 54 P-25 177 TRIC2 TRIC3 TRIC4115133 TRIC4ATRIC4-SPILL 132 117 180 LAKECANAL1 183182 TRIC5 116 LAKECANAL2 LAKECANAL4LAKECANAL3 TRIC5ATRIC5A_SPILL P-4A 500 179 118 153 TRIC6A137154 134 147 187 TRIC-OUTFALL 156135136 146 155 193 186 LAKECANAL7P-43142138158144 143 140 196 LAKECANAL8 197159 201157 LAKECANAL9 162 161 LAKECANAL12200 199 160 LAKECANAL10 TROC1 254P-50 P-77B TROC2 P-77C LAKECANAL11 P-50A P-80TROC3 P-77D 207 206 234225 204 213 P-80DTROC4 353 217 P-51 214 224216 LAKECANAL16TROC5 226221 TROC_1A 178 181 DTN15DTN10DTN12 DTN11 DTN13 DTN14 DTN8DTN7 DTN6 DTN5 DTN4 ResOutlet P-31 194 TRIC6_Spill TRIC6 Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update q 590 Feet EXHIBIT B-3 - SWMM Routing MapDeveloped Condition - North Map File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-3 - FUT_RoutingMap_North.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 Legend SWMM Nodes XW DIVIDER !(JUNCTION #*OUTFALL ")POND (EXIST.) SWMM Conveyance Links Link Orifice; Outlet; W eir Subbasin Boundary ^_Subasin Label Subbasin Connnection Irrigation or Drainage Canal Future Clark Channel Alignment !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( ") !( !(!( !( !(")!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(")!(!(")!( ") ") !( ") ") !(") !(!(!(!( !( !( ")")!(!( !( ")")") !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( ")!(!( !(")!( ") !( !( #*") !(!(!(!( !( #* !(") ") ")")!(")!(!(!(!(!( #*!( #* !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( #* ")!( !(!( ")!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(") !(!( !( !( !( ") ")!(!(!( ")!(#* !(") !( ") ") ")!(")") #* ") !(") !(!( !( !( !( !(#* ") ")#*!( #* #* !( !( !( !(XWXWXWXW XWXW XWXW XW XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW !(#* !( !( !( ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ Downtown Timnath AreaSee Map B-5 TIMNATHRESERVOIR E COUNTY ROAD 40 MAIN ST. COUNTY ROAD 5 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B-3 E HARMONY RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 KECHTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 1 S COUNTY ROAD 3 E COUNTY ROAD 36 Future Clark Drainage ChannelRequired Routing Adjustments CacheLa PoudreRiver GreeleyNo.2Canal TROC Lake Canal 11 14 20 21 50A 50 52 65 66 635859 60 55 51 4849 44 43A46 47A 4745 7679 78 77 77A77B80B80A 80 72A 72 67 68 71 120 86B86C 86A81 82 82A 82B 81A 77C 77D 80D 80C 75 84 75A 75B 74 86 82C 75C 82D 61 113A 57 62 64 114 119 111B 70 110 69 73 92 92A91 93 109 102 94 101 103103A 103B 103D 103C 104 106A 108 106 100A 107A 107 99 98 100 98A 85A 96 85B 95 97 89 87 83 85C 85 88 83A 90 75D 38 21A 43 70A 105 108A 113B 111A 112 130 60A 51A 211 138 DTS-5-SF 210 DTN-5-SF DTN-4-SF OP-103 OP-77C 219 OP-92 OP-97 39 OP-77 TROCL18 OP-85C DTS-3-SF OP-82D3 OP-50 209 OP-77B DTN-13-PF DTN-13-SF 53 70 277A DTS-4-SF CLARK6 CLARK8 OP-84 OP-98A OP-95 OP-86 155 111A OP-103A CLARK3 147 CLARK7 31 177A OP-98A_WEIR 145 121A 174 361 98 283 OP-86C OP-106A 123 175 OP-50A OP-82D1 TROCL15 5960 88 OP-75D 292 OP-110 186 153 OP-43 OP-106A_WEIR 209B TROCL4 143 175A 133 246 120A OP-98 177 185C OP-88 1121 251 OP-75 149 TROCL3 114 176 184 TROCL17 217 35 152 151 TROCL8 144 156 TROCL5 118 349 OP-77D249 282D 146 OP-51 75 OP-104 OP-81 292A 183 OP-104_WEIR 33 109 L-90 76 212 214 601 270 291 173 124 107 97 CLARK4 267A 286A OP-107 171 TROCL16 OP-107_WEIR TROCL11 261 89 46 160 116_SF 218 94 116_pipe 101 137 220 159 99 112 172 169 170 71 OP-105 CLARK5 TROCL9 CLARK2 111B 185 286C 158 119 209A 61 286B 87 95 193 CLARK1 264 TROCL14 142 TROCL6 TROCL10 62 120 OP-120 J-CLARK5 J-CLARK4 J-CLARK3 J-CLARK2 J-CLARK1 156 136 P-120146 155 193 186 LAKECANAL7P-43142158144 143 140 196 LAKECANAL8 197159 201 157 LAKECANAL9 162 161 250 LAKECANAL12200 199 160 LAKECANAL10 TROC1 254P-50 252 253P-77BTROC2 P-77 P-77CLAKECANAL11 P-50A P-80 TROC3 P-77D 207 206 234225 204 213 P-80D P-81 TROC4 353217 P-51 P-86A P-86C 214 356 297 224 216 LAKECANAL16 TROC5226 221 298P-84 279 LAKECANAL17 350 P-82D1220 P-75 349 296352P-82D2 243231355 LAKECANAL18229 351 LAKECANAL19 P-86P-75A P-82D3 P-75D 248P-110 230 237 274238 LAKECANAL20 295 TROC6 348 LAKECANAL21TROC7 309310 307 LAKECANAL22276283 346 P-92 293 311 291 P-85B TROC8 275 P-85C312 284 277 285 314 303 J-90 327 P-95 TROC9 287 316317 326 P-88 P-97 TROC10a 328 TROC11 P-103A 329330 324P-103 321 P-104 P-98 P-107 TROC12P-103D1P-103C 338 P-103D2 339 P-98A 341 TROC-12A 323 342501 TROC13 G3-1 P-105 P-106A 335 TROC14 TROC-OUTFALL G3-2 TROC_1A 323-surf 191 DTN15DTN10DTN12DTN11DTN13DTN14 DTN9 DTN7 DTN6 DTN5 DTN4 DTN3 DTS2 DTS3 DTS4 DTS5 DTS6 DTS7DTSO1 360 ResOutlet G3-2_A Timnath Drainage Master Plan 2018 Update q 600 Feet EXHIBIT B-4 - SWMM Routing MapDeveloped Condition - South Map File: F:\32-1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\GIS\MXD\AppendixMaps\AppB_Future\B-4 - EX_RoutingMap_South.mxd - Plot By: SimpsonM - Date: 8/21/2018 Legend SWMM Nodes XW DIVIDER !(JUNCTION #*OUTFALL ")POND (EXIST.) SWMM Conveyance Links Link Orifice; Outlet; W eir Subbasin Boundary ^_Subasin Label Subbasin Connection Irrigation or Drainage Canal Future Clark Channel Alignment Notes Subbasins with Land Use Change Pond Name Outlet Link Outlet Node Existing Impervious (%) Future Impervious (%) Target Outflow Rate (cfs) (Exist 10yr) Model Pond Outlet Discharge (cfs) (Future 100‐yr Pond Outflows)100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr Future Concept Pond Storage Volume (AF) 2 CP‐2 L‐CP‐2 53 2 9 58 7 4 7 4 2 ‐51 ‐3 ‐2 17.7 3 CP‐3 L‐CP‐3 54 5 8 1 1 34 9 5 10 5 2 ‐24 ‐4 ‐3 8.4 4 CP‐4 L‐CP‐4 117 2 8 31 32 76 30 17 32 18 10 ‐45 ‐13 ‐7 5.0 5 CP‐5 L‐CP‐5 129 2 55 9 9 71 9 5 9 4 1 ‐62 ‐5 ‐3 17.5 6 CP‐6 L‐CP‐6 133 2 9 1 1 8 1 0 1 1 0 ‐7 0 0 2.3 7 CP‐7 L‐CP‐7 132 2 4 3 32 81 30 17 32 14 7 ‐49 ‐16 ‐10 3.1 8 CP‐8 L‐CP‐8 134 5 6 49 49 187 49 28 49 24 11 ‐137 ‐24 ‐17 41.7 9 CP‐9 L‐CP‐9 500 5 5 3 3 137 35 20 37 16 7 ‐100 ‐19 ‐13 25.6 10 CP‐10 L‐CP‐10 138 12 55 6 6 185 67 38 67 33 18 ‐118 ‐34 ‐20 16.8 11 CP‐11 L‐CP‐11 142 2 39 4 4 27 4 2 4 2 1 ‐23 ‐2 ‐1 6.3 12 CP‐12 L‐CP‐12 143 5 44 11 11 44 10 6 11 4 2 ‐34 ‐7 ‐4 6.9 13 CP‐13 L‐CP‐13 LAKECANAL2 2 3 2 2 77 26 15 27 12 6 ‐50 ‐14 ‐9 2.4 14 CP‐14 L‐CP‐14 146 2 33 11 11 78 10 6 11 3 1 ‐67 ‐7 ‐5 16.7 15 CP‐15 L‐CP‐15 149 5 2 22 22 96 22 12 22 5 2 ‐74 ‐16 ‐10 10.9 17 CP‐17 L‐CP‐17 153 2 45 4 4 45 4 2 4 2 1 ‐41 ‐2 ‐1 6.9 18 CP‐18 L‐CP‐18 156 2 51 8 8 63 8 4 8 3 1 ‐56 ‐4 ‐3 15.0 20 CP‐20 L‐CP‐20 159 12 4 22 22 63 21 12 22 9 5 ‐41 ‐12 ‐8 4.2 21 CP‐21 L‐CP‐21 162 12 45 32 32 86 31 18 32 14 6 ‐54 ‐17 ‐12 6.9 26 CP‐26 L‐CP‐26 169 1 6 1 1 49 16 9 18 9 6 ‐31 ‐7 ‐4 5.7 30 CP‐30 L‐CP‐30 177 5 3 3 3 18 2 1 3 1 0 ‐16 ‐1 ‐1 1.3 33 CP‐33 L‐CP‐33 179 12 29 18 6 3 6 2 1 ‐12 ‐4 ‐3 1.0 34 CP‐34 L‐CP‐34 180 1 61 24 24 93 23 13 24 12 6 ‐69 ‐11 ‐7 7.7 35 CP‐35 L‐CP‐35 182 5 45 22 22 125 22 12 22 10 4 ‐103 ‐12 ‐8 14.7 37 CP‐37 L‐CP‐37 187 5 3 29 29 104 29 17 29 11 5 ‐75 ‐18 ‐12 17.8 38 CP‐38 L‐CP‐38 186 5 3 1 1 59 16 9 17 6 3 ‐42 ‐10 ‐7 9.1 39 CP‐39 L‐CP‐39 TRIC6 5 21 12 12 83 12 7 12 4 1 ‐71 ‐8 ‐6 6.5 43 CP‐43 L‐CP‐43 193 5 22 2 2 120 26 15 27 7 3 ‐93 ‐19 ‐12 13.1 45 CP‐45 L‐CP‐45 199 2 42 88 7 4 7 3 1 ‐81 ‐4 ‐3 12.4 46 CP‐46 L‐CP‐46 201 12 3 33 33 92 32 19 33 13 6 ‐59 ‐19 ‐13 6.7 47 CP‐47 L‐CP‐47 LAKECANAL9 5 34 5 5 70 5 3 5 2 1 ‐65 ‐3 ‐2 3.0 48 CP‐48 L‐CP‐48 204 5 6 21 21 80 21 12 21 11 6 ‐60 ‐10 ‐6 17.9 49 CP‐49 L‐CP‐49 207 12 64 19 19 55 19 11 19 10 5 ‐36 ‐9 ‐6 5.2 51 CP‐51 L‐CP‐51 213 5 7 21 5 3 6 3 2 ‐15 ‐2 ‐1 4.6 52 CP‐52 L‐CP‐52 216 2 7 14 14 39 14 8 14 8 5 ‐26 ‐6 ‐3 2.2 Timnath Elem 55 CP‐55 L‐CP‐55 217 45 75 22 22 53 21 12 22 12 7 ‐31 ‐10 ‐5 1.2 61 CP‐61 L‐CP‐61 220 4 7 5.4.13 5 3 5 2 1 ‐8 ‐3 ‐2 0.3 64 CP‐64 L‐CP‐64 221 5 7 5 15 5 3 5 3 1 ‐10 ‐3 ‐2 0.3 67 CP‐67 L‐CP‐67 J‐CLARK3 2 49 3 3 24 3 2 3 1 1 ‐21 ‐1 ‐1 5.9 68 CP‐68 L‐CP‐68 225 2 3 46 5 3 6 2 1 ‐41 ‐3 ‐2 9.0 69 CP‐69 L‐CP‐69 229 2 75 4 4 33 4 2 4 2 1 ‐29 ‐2 ‐1 9.6 70 CP‐70 L‐CP‐70 230 2 5 41 5 3 6 3 1 ‐35 ‐3 ‐2 10.8 71 CP‐71 L‐CP‐71 LAKECANAL11 5 3 5 5 29 4 2 5 1 1 ‐24 ‐3 ‐2 2.4 72 CP‐72 L‐CP‐72 234 2 32 1 1 124 10 5 10 3 1 ‐114 ‐7 ‐4 15.4 73 CP‐73 L‐CP‐73 J‐CLARK1 2 5 1 1 134 17 9 17 8 4 ‐117 ‐8 ‐5 32.2 76 CP‐76 L‐CP‐76 250 5 35 2 2 161 19 11 20 7 3 ‐142 ‐12 ‐8 12.3 83 CP‐83 L‐CP‐83 276 5 72 19 19 91 18 10 19 10 6 ‐73 ‐8 ‐5 15.8 85 CP‐85 L‐CP‐85 283 5 54 35 35 125 34 20 35 16 7 ‐90 ‐19 ‐13 25.9 87 CP‐87 L‐CP‐87 LAKECANAL21 2 45 2 2 39 2 1 2 1 1 ‐37 ‐1 0 3.0 89 CP‐89 L‐CP‐89 LAKECANAL22 2 31 2 2 19 1 1 2 1 0 ‐17 ‐1 0 2.1 90 CP‐90 L‐CP‐90 J‐90 2 34 52 5 3 6 2 1 ‐46 ‐3 ‐2 8.2 91 CP‐91 L‐CP‐91 307 5 8 5 5 19 4 2 5 3 1 ‐15 ‐2 ‐1 3.9 92 CP‐92 L‐CP‐92 P‐92 1 8 14 14 67 14 8 14 7 3 ‐53 ‐7 ‐5 5.8 93 CP‐93 L‐CP‐93 310 2 51 1 1 71 10 6 10 4 2 ‐62 ‐6 ‐4 19.5 94 CP‐94 L‐CP‐94 312 2 45 8 8 52 7 4 8 3 1 ‐44 ‐4 ‐3 13.3 99 CP‐99 L‐CP‐99 324 2 25 3 3 20 2 1 3 1 0 ‐17 ‐1 ‐1 3.0 100 CP‐100 L‐CP‐100 TROC12 5 2 11 11 47 11 6 11 2 1 ‐37 ‐8 ‐5 6.0 101 CP‐101 L‐CP‐101 327 2 45 9 9 69 8 5 9 3 1 ‐61 ‐5 ‐3 15.5 102 CP‐102 L‐CP‐102 328 5 5 1 1 41 10 6 10 4 2 ‐32 ‐6 ‐4 6.9 106 CP‐106 L‐CP‐106 501 1 45 13 12 53 12 7 12 4 2 ‐40 ‐8 ‐5 3.7 108 CP‐108 L‐CP‐108 G3‐2_A 1 35 9 8 30 8 5 8 2 1 ‐22 ‐6 ‐4 2.2 109 CP‐109 L‐CP‐109 346 1 75 15 14 43 15 9 14 6 3 ‐29 ‐9 ‐6 6.1 Existing Subbasin Outflows (cfs) Future Pond Outlet Flows (cfs) Discharge Comparison EX ‐‐> FUT (cfs) Table B‐2 ‐ Summary of Conceptual Detention Basin Flow Rates F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Future Pond Calcs.xlsx 8/21/2018 Notes Subbasins with Land Use Change Pond Name Outlet Link Outlet Node Existing Impervious (%) Future Impervious (%) Target Outflow Rate (cfs) (Exist 10yr) Model Pond Outlet Discharge (cfs) (Future 100‐yr Pond Outflows)100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr 10‐yr 2‐yr 100‐yr Future Concept Pond Storage Volume (AF) Existing Subbasin Outflows (cfs) Future Pond Outlet Flows (cfs) Discharge Comparison EX ‐‐> FUT (cfs) Table B‐2 ‐ Summary of Conceptual Detention Basin Flow Rates 110 CP‐110 L‐CP‐110 P‐110 6 73 8 8 30 8 5 8 4 2 ‐22 ‐4 ‐3 5.7 Upstream of Tim Res 121 CP‐121 L‐CP‐121 190 1 45 1231 123 3402 1231 702 1238 558 259 ‐2164 ‐673 ‐443 310.5 122 CP‐122 L‐CP‐122 189 2 45 73 72 465 73 43 72 36 21 ‐393 ‐37 ‐22 125.8 123 CP‐123 L‐CP‐123 185 2 39 69 6 437 68 40 68 33 18 ‐368 ‐36 ‐22 108. 124 CP‐124 L‐CP‐124 184 2 4 16 15 1019 160 93 159 76 36 ‐859 ‐83 ‐57 286.7 125 CP‐125 L‐CP‐125 178 15 43 732 73 1886 731 409 730 362 194 ‐1156 ‐369 ‐215 94.9 126 CP‐126 L‐CP‐126 176 1 15 163 1641 4530 1639 935 1641 465 203 ‐2889 ‐1174 ‐732 164.3 100 CP‐100 L‐CP‐100A TROC13 5 2 11 11 42 11 6 11 3 1 ‐31 ‐8 ‐5 5.9 108 CP‐108 L‐CP‐108A 335 5 25 2 1.10 2 1 2 1 0 ‐8 ‐1 ‐1 1.0 113 CP‐113 L‐CP‐113A DTS2 1 72 3 3 9 2 1 3 1 1 ‐7 ‐1 ‐1 0.8 15A CP‐15A L‐CP‐15A 151 3 55 40 6 4 7 3 1 ‐33 ‐3 ‐2 8.6 21A CP‐21A L‐CP‐21A 140 2 42 8 8 57 8 4 8 3 1 ‐49 ‐5 ‐3 13.8 43A CP‐43A L‐CP‐43A 196 5 44 1 1 47 10 6 10 3 1 ‐38 ‐7 ‐4 6.9 47A CP‐47A L‐CP‐47A LAKECANAL10 5 43 42 6 3 6 2 1 ‐37 ‐3 ‐2 3.9 70A CP‐70A L‐CP‐70A 231 2 6 3 3 22 3 2 3 2 1 ‐19 ‐1 ‐1 6.8 72A CP‐72A L‐CP‐72A P‐80 1 3 3 3 10 2 1 3 1 0 ‐7 ‐2 ‐1 0.6 83A CP‐83A L‐CP‐83A 277 5 4 3 3 16 3 2 3 1 1 ‐13 ‐2 ‐1 2.0 85C CP‐85C L‐CP‐85C 293 5 5 12 12 51 11 7 12 5 2 ‐39 ‐7 ‐5 8.1 9A CP‐9A L‐CP‐9A 136 5 25 22 6 3 6 1 1 ‐16 ‐4 ‐3 3.0 Subasins with LU Change & No Detention Pond Downtown 57 DTN4 8 8 21 9 4 Downtown 58 DTN6 5 8 7 3 2 Downtown 59 DTN7 5 5 20 8 4 Downtown 60 DTN7 5 5 10 3 2 Downtown 60A DTN10 5 5 10 4 2 Downtown 62 DTN3 7 79 20 8 5 Downtown 63 DTN6 5 8 7 2 1 Downtown 65 DTN14 5 8 12 5 3 Downtown 66 DTN13 5 8 17 7 4 Tim Res. 120 P‐120 52 65 5829 2331 1144 Downtown 51A 1 8 11 3 2 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Future Pond Calcs.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Y 5‐Y 10‐Y 25‐Y 50‐Y 100‐Y 2‐Y 5‐Y 10‐Y 25‐Y 50‐Y 100‐Y 2‐Y 5‐Y 10‐Y 25‐Y 50‐Y 100‐Y 2 L‐CP‐2 4 5 7 12 28 58 139 206 260 352 463 607 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 L‐CP‐3 5 7 9 14 21 34 70 102 129 176 233 309 2 4 5 7 8 10 4 L‐CP‐4 17 24 30 41 55 76 62 91 114 155 204 272 10 15 18 22 27 32 5 L‐CP‐5 5 7 9 17 37 71 116 167 210 290 391 534 1 2 4 6 7 9 6 L‐CP‐6 0 1 1 2 4 8 18 26 33 46 60 78 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 L‐CP‐7 17 24 30 42 57 81 34 48 60 84 116 162 7 11 14 19 25 32 8 L‐CP‐8 28 39 49 74 116 187 327 476 597 815 1,089 1,466 11 18 24 33 41 49 9 L‐CP‐9 20 29 35 53 83 137 186 267 333 454 613 842 7 12 16 23 30 37 10 L‐CP‐10 38 54 67 92 128 185 163 235 293 396 531 725 18 27 33 44 55 67 11 L‐CP‐11 2 3 4 6 13 27 38 54 67 92 126 176 1 1 2 2 3 4 12 L‐CP‐12 6 8 10 16 26 44 49 69 86 117 158 219 2 3 4 6 8 11 13 L‐CP‐13 15 21 26 37 53 77 27 38 48 67 93 130 6 10 12 16 21 27 14 L‐CP‐1 6 8 10 18 38 78 93 132 163 223 309 438 1 2 3 6 8 11 15 L‐CP‐15 12 17 22 34 57 96 49 69 85 123 179 269 2 3 5 12 17 22 16 ‐29 41 51 70 97 138 29 41 51 70 97 138 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17 L‐CP‐17 2 3 4 9 22 45 44 63 79 107 145 201 1 1 2 3 3 4 18 L‐CP‐18 4 6 8 13 31 63 101 145 181 245 330 452 1 2 3 5 6 8 20 L‐CP‐20 12 17 21 29 42 63 39 56 69 94 128 178 5 8 9 13 17 22 21 L‐CP‐21 18 25 31 43 60 86 65 93 115 156 211 292 6 11 14 19 25 32 22 ‐27 38 46 68 103 160 27 38 46 68 103 160 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 23 ‐5 8 10 13 18 25 5 8 10 13 18 25 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 24 ‐9 13 16 24 37 61 9 13 16 24 37 61 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 ‐15 22 27 37 51 74 15 22 27 37 51 74 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 26 L‐CP‐26 9 13 16 23 32 49 55 80 100 135 180 242 6 8 9 12 15 18 27 ‐17 25 31 42 56 78 17 25 31 42 56 78 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 28 ‐20 28 34 47 66 97 20 28 34 47 66 97 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 29 ‐12 18 22 30 43 65 12 18 22 30 43 65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30 L‐CP‐30 1 2 2 4 9 18 8 11 14 19 27 40 0 1 1 2 2 3 31 ‐32 45 56 80 116 171 32 45 56 80 116 171 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 32 ‐31 44 55 75 106 155 31 44 55 75 106 155 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 33 L‐CP‐33 3 5 6 8 12 18 8 12 14 20 28 40 1 1 2 3 5 6 34 L‐CP‐3 13 18 23 37 58 93 71 102 129 180 244 332 6 9 12 16 20 24 35 L‐CP‐35 12 16 22 40 70 125 99 141 178 251 346 482 4 7 10 14 18 22 37 L‐CP‐37 17 23 29 42 64 104 117 167 206 281 384 540 5 8 11 17 22 29 38 L‐CP‐38 9 13 16 24 36 59 55 78 96 131 182 261 3 5 6 10 13 17 39 L‐CP‐39 7 10 12 22 44 83 29 40 49 75 117 184 1 2 4 6 9 12 43 L‐CP‐43 15 21 26 41 69 120 66 93 115 160 230 341 3 5 7 14 21 27 44 ‐3 4 6 21 43 79 3 4 6 21 43 79 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 45 L‐CP‐45 4 5 7 20 46 88 76 107 133 185 256 360 1 2 3 4 6 7 46 L‐CP‐46 19 26 32 45 63 92 58 82 102 140 193 271 6 9 13 19 26 33 47 L‐CP‐47 3 4 5 16 36 70 19 26 32 47 70 106 1 1 2 3 4 5 48 L‐CP‐48 12 17 21 31 49 80 141 206 258 352 469 631 6 9 11 14 17 21 49 L‐CP‐49 11 15 19 26 37 55 52 75 94 127 169 229 5 8 10 12 15 19 50 ‐8 12 14 20 29 42 8 12 14 20 29 42 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51 L‐CP‐51 3 4 5 8 12 21 38 57 71 96 127 170 2 2 3 4 5 6 52 L‐CP‐52 8 11 14 19 27 39 27 39 49 67 89 118 5 6 8 10 11 14 55 L‐CP‐55 12 17 21 29 39 53 19 28 36 48 64 85 7 10 12 15 18 22 57 ‐4 7 9 12 16 21 5 8 9 13 17 23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 58 ‐2 2 3 4 5 7 2 3 4 6 8 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 59 ‐4 6 8 10 14 20 4 6 8 11 14 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 ‐2 3 3 5 7 10 2 3 4 5 8 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 61 L‐CP‐61 3 4 5 7 9 13 5 7 8 11 15 20 1 2 2 3 4 5 62 ‐5 7 8 11 15 20 5 8 10 13 17 23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 63 ‐1 2 2 3 5 7 2 3 4 5 7 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 64 L‐CP‐6 3 4 5 7 11 15 5 7 8 11 15 20 1 2 3 3 4 5 65 ‐3 4 5 6 9 12 4 6 7 10 13 17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 66 ‐4 5 7 9 12 17 6 8 10 14 18 24 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 67 L‐CP‐67 2 2 3 5 12 24 38 55 69 94 127 174 1 1 1 2 3 3 68 L‐CP‐68 3 4 5 11 24 46 50 70 88 123 170 240 1 1 2 4 5 6 69 L‐CP‐69 2 3 4 7 16 33 72 106 133 180 239 319 1 2 2 3 3 4 70 L‐CP‐70 3 4 5 9 20 41 72 103 129 175 235 323 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 L‐CP‐71 2 3 4 7 15 29 14 20 25 35 52 79 1 1 1 2 3 5 72 L‐CP‐72 5 7 10 31 67 124 78 111 139 198 282 406 1 2 3 5 8 10 73 L‐CP‐73 9 13 17 32 70 134 207 298 373 515 698 959 4 7 8 11 14 17 74 ‐18 25 31 46 72 116 18 25 31 46 72 116 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 75 ‐28 39 48 68 95 135 28 39 48 68 95 135 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 76 L‐CP‐76 11 16 19 39 84 161 77 109 134 188 265 383 3 5 7 12 15 20 77 ‐33 46 58 86 129 198 33 46 58 86 129 198 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 78 ‐10 15 18 41 93 177 10 15 18 41 93 177 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 79 ‐4 6 7 14 29 54 4 6 7 14 29 54 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 80 ‐3 5 6 11 18 30 3 5 6 11 18 30 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 81 ‐32 44 55 81 120 180 32 44 55 81 120 180 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 82 ‐18 25 30 45 68 106 18 25 30 45 68 106 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 83 L‐CP‐83 10 14 18 30 52 91 128 187 235 321 427 573 6 8 10 13 16 19 84 ‐35 49 60 95 160 264 35 49 60 95 160 264 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 85 L‐CP‐85 20 28 34 50 77 125 195 282 351 475 637 870 7 12 16 22 28 35 86 ‐55 78 97 132 181 256 55 78 97 132 181 256 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 87 L‐CP‐87 1 1 2 8 20 39 20 28 35 49 69 100 1 1 1 1 2 2 88 ‐93 132 163 224 307 432 93 132 163 224 307 432 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 89 L‐CP‐89 1 1 1 4 9 19 12 17 21 29 41 61 0 1 1 1 2 2 90 L‐CP‐90 3 4 5 10 25 52 47 67 83 113 156 221 1 1 2 3 5 6 91 L‐CP‐91 2 3 4 7 11 19 32 47 60 81 107 142 1 2 3 3 4 5 92 L‐CP‐92 8 11 14 22 38 67 58 84 104 141 187 249 3 5 7 9 11 14 93 L‐CP‐93 6 8 10 16 34 71 131 188 234 317 426 585 2 3 4 6 8 10 94 L‐CP‐9 4 6 7 12 25 52 86 123 153 207 280 388 1 2 3 5 6 8 95 ‐76 108 133 183 254 361 76 108 133 183 254 361 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 96 ‐3 5 6 14 31 60 3 5 6 14 31 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 97 ‐60 85 104 148 217 325 60 85 104 148 217 325 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 98 ‐63 89 110 153 213 304 63 89 110 153 213 304 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 99 L‐CP‐99 1 2 2 5 10 20 14 20 25 35 50 73 0 1 1 2 2 3 100 L‐CP‐10 6 9 11 17 28 47 33 46 57 80 112 163 1 2 2 6 8 11 101 L‐CP‐101 5 7 8 15 34 69 99 142 176 239 324 449 1 2 3 5 7 9 102 L‐CP‐102 6 8 10 15 24 41 51 73 90 122 164 226 2 3 4 6 8 10 103 ‐30 43 53 72 97 134 30 43 53 72 97 134 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 104 ‐86 121 150 206 284 398 86 121 150 206 284 398 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 105 ‐31 45 57 77 103 141 31 45 57 77 103 141 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 106 L‐CP‐106 7 10 12 19 32 53 30 43 53 74 103 145 2 3 4 7 10 12 107 ‐63 89 110 152 211 300 63 89 110 152 211 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 108 L‐CP‐108 5 7 8 12 19 30 16 23 29 40 55 77 1 2 2 4 6 8 109 L‐CP‐109 9 12 15 21 30 43 56 82 102 139 185 247 3 4 6 9 12 14 110 L‐CP‐11 5 6 8 12 18 30 47 69 87 117 156 209 2 3 4 5 6 8 112 ‐2 2 3 4 7 9 2 2 3 4 7 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 114 ‐5 6 8 11 15 22 5 6 8 11 15 22 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 119 ‐5 8 9 13 19 27 5 8 9 13 19 27 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 120 ‐1,144 1,796 2,331 3,237 4,328 5,829 1,277 2,049 2,691 3,774 5,073 6,847 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 121 L‐CP‐121 702 995 1,231 1,700 2,364 3,402 2,216 3,433 4,425 6,109 8,149 10,971 259 431 558 754 974 1,238 122 L‐CP‐122 43 59 73 122 231 465 640 992 1,278 1,765 2,354 3,170 21 30 36 47 59 72 123 L‐CP‐123 40 56 68 114 217 437 552 845 1,082 1,486 1,980 2,668 18 27 33 44 55 68 124 L‐CP‐12 93 130 160 267 506 1,019 1,454 2,265 2,929 4,053 5,411 7,285 36 61 76 103 130 159 125 L‐CP‐125 409 588 731 998 1,354 1,886 880 1,357 1,745 2,406 3,207 4,319 194 298 362 464 579 730 126 L‐CP‐126 935 1,325 1,639 2,263 3,148 4,530 1,336 1,920 2,389 3,261 4,424 6,163 203 337 465 753 1,112 1,641 130 ‐3 5 6 8 12 17 3 5 6 8 12 17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Future SWMM Model Results ‐ Concept Detention Discharge Discharge (cfs)Subbasin Concept Detention Outlet Link Table B‐3 ‐ Subbasin Discharge Results Existing SWMM Model Results ‐ Subbasin Discharge Future SWMM Model Results ‐ Subbasin Discharge Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Subbasin Results.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Y 5‐Y 10‐Y 25‐Y 50‐Y 100‐Y 2‐Y 5‐Y 10‐Y 25‐Y 50‐Y 100‐Y 2‐Y 5‐Y 10‐Y 25‐Y 50‐Y 100‐Y Future SWMM Model Results ‐ Concept Detention Discharge Discharge (cfs)Subbasin Concept Detention Outlet Link Table B‐3 ‐ Subbasin Discharge Results Existing SWMM Model Results ‐ Subbasin Discharge Future SWMM Model Results ‐ Subbasin Discharge Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) 100A L‐CP‐100 6 9 11 16 26 42 33 46 57 79 112 162 1 2 3 6 8 11 103A ‐26 36 45 62 86 121 26 36 45 62 86 121 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 103B ‐7 9 12 17 26 38 7 9 12 17 26 38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 103C ‐20 28 35 48 67 94 20 28 35 48 67 94 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 103D ‐23 32 39 57 85 124 23 32 39 57 85 124 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 106A ‐85 125 158 215 286 389 85 125 158 215 286 389 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 107A ‐19 26 32 46 67 98 19 26 32 46 67 98 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 108A L‐CP‐108 1 2 2 3 6 10 5 8 10 13 19 28 0 0 1 1 1 2 111A ‐2 3 4 6 8 11 2 3 4 6 8 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 111B ‐7 10 13 18 24 33 7 10 13 18 24 33 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 113A L‐CP‐113 1 2 2 3 6 9 8 12 15 20 27 36 1 1 1 2 2 3 113B ‐5 7 9 12 16 22 5 7 9 12 16 22 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15A L‐CP‐15 4 5 6 11 20 40 61 88 110 149 201 274 1 2 3 4 6 7 21A L‐CP‐21 4 6 8 13 28 57 86 122 152 207 281 391 1 2 3 5 6 8 25A ‐5 7 8 12 17 26 5 7 8 12 17 26 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 43A L‐CP‐43 6 8 10 16 27 47 47 68 84 115 156 217 1 2 3 6 8 10 47A L‐CP‐47 3 5 6 11 22 42 27 38 47 67 95 137 1 1 2 3 4 6 4A ‐46 69 87 119 159 212 46 69 87 119 159 212 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50A ‐10 14 17 24 34 48 10 14 17 24 34 48 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51A ‐2 2 3 4 7 11 11 16 20 28 37 49 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5A ‐14 20 24 35 50 76 14 20 24 35 50 76 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60A ‐2 3 4 5 7 10 3 4 4 6 8 12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 70A L‐CP‐70 2 2 3 5 11 22 50 73 91 124 165 222 1 1 2 2 3 3 72A L‐CP‐72 1 2 2 4 6 10 4 6 7 10 15 22 0 1 1 1 2 3 75A ‐20 28 35 48 68 99 20 28 35 48 68 99 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 75B ‐8 11 13 24 43 78 8 11 13 24 43 78 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 75C ‐1 2 2 4 9 16 1 2 2 4 9 16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 75D ‐0 1 1 3 6 12 0 1 1 3 6 12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 77A ‐1 1 1 2 5 9 1 1 1 2 5 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 77B ‐1 1 1 2 4 7 1 1 1 2 4 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 77C ‐7 9 11 21 38 62 7 9 11 21 38 62 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 77D ‐23 33 40 58 87 131 23 33 40 58 87 131 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 80A ‐1 2 2 5 11 20 1 2 2 5 11 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 80B ‐0 1 1 2 4 7 0 1 1 2 4 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 80C ‐3 4 5 10 19 34 3 4 5 10 19 34 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 80D ‐3 4 5 10 22 40 3 4 5 10 22 40 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 81A ‐5 7 9 13 20 31 5 7 9 13 20 31 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 82A ‐5 7 8 13 22 39 5 7 8 13 22 39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 82B ‐1 1 2 6 14 24 1 1 2 6 14 24 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 82C ‐2 3 4 20 42 66 2 3 4 20 42 66 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 82D ‐93 131 160 238 363 558 93 131 160 238 363 558 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 83A L‐CP‐83 2 2 3 5 9 16 15 21 26 36 49 68 1 1 1 2 2 3 85A ‐26 39 49 67 89 117 26 39 49 67 89 117 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 85B ‐58 88 111 152 200 263 58 88 111 152 200 263 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 85C L‐CP‐85 7 9 11 18 29 51 59 85 106 144 194 267 2 3 5 7 10 12 86A ‐11 16 19 28 43 65 11 16 19 28 43 65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 86B ‐6 8 10 16 24 39 6 8 10 16 24 39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 86C ‐3 4 5 8 14 23 3 4 5 8 14 23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 92A ‐26 38 47 64 86 118 26 38 47 64 86 118 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 98A ‐29 40 50 70 99 144 29 40 50 70 99 144 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9A L‐CP‐9 3 5 6 8 13 22 16 22 27 38 54 80 1 1 1 3 4 6 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Subbasin Results.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 5 10 16 21 29 39 55 11 17 21 28 34 40 10 10 16 20 28 39 94 7 12 15 20 26 34 14 16 23 30 50 84 140 19 30 38 54 76 110 31 14 20 32 90 213 423 23 38 55 100 153 227 33 8 11 13 23 52 103 3 5 7 14 21 27 35 3 7 21 91 223 466 28 45 65 119 181 264 37 30 41 65 236 586 1,192 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 39 28 40 59 162 364 701 0 0 1 1 1 4 45 30 42 64 236 591 1,224 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 46 2 2 4 16 36 69 2 3 4 7 9 11 53 2 2 4 16 36 69 2 3 4 7 9 11 59 372 549 702 1,054 1,732 3,035 260 436 614 1,065 1,617 2,313 60 28 40 56 203 573 1,213 46 79 101 140 178 222 61 6 8 10 30 70 133 3 5 7 12 15 19 62 295 438 553 771 1,149 2,007 247 406 543 772 1,009 1,283 63 1 2 3 9 25 55 2 3 4 5 10 13 64 15 21 33 91 205 379 17 27 38 74 118 182 67 29 43 63 231 589 1,269 4 7 9 13 16 20 70 7 10 13 22 46 84 7 10 13 22 46 84 71 14 20 26 48 90 160 14 20 26 48 90 160 75 15 22 28 52 126 249 15 24 32 44 55 68 76 13 19 25 52 125 247 15 24 31 44 55 68 87 10 15 20 51 122 240 15 24 31 44 55 67 88 2 2 3 4 8 16 1 1 1 2 2 3 89 75 114 145 198 269 379 74 112 143 196 266 374 94 2 3 3 11 27 55 2 3 4 6 8 10 95 2 3 4 12 37 83 3 5 7 11 14 17 97 6 7 8 17 42 89 6 9 11 16 20 23 98 62 88 109 149 213 318 62 88 109 149 213 318 99 38 53 64 81 123 199 38 53 65 82 125 201 101 50 76 97 133 183 260 50 76 97 133 183 260 102 2 3 3 9 25 52 2 3 4 5 6 7 103 3 5 6 8 15 29 2 4 5 7 8 10 104 12 19 25 34 46 61 11 17 21 28 34 40 107 0 1 1 4 9 17 0 1 1 2 2 3 108 13 20 30 71 133 227 25 41 54 77 106 150 109 2 3 3 12 31 62 1 2 3 5 7 9 112 5 6 8 27 61 111 5 7 10 20 45 82 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 12 17 21 30 49 93 2 3 5 12 17 22 118 2 3 4 10 28 57 1 2 3 5 6 8 119 12 17 23 58 123 230 13 21 29 46 69 101 120 9 12 13 15 19 34 9 12 13 15 19 34 122 23 35 45 63 94 157 23 35 45 63 94 157 123 19 27 34 46 66 97 19 27 34 46 66 97 124 74 113 147 200 262 335 74 113 147 200 262 335 127 22 33 41 56 76 104 15 23 30 42 57 80 128 18 26 34 54 83 132 21 34 44 63 93 139 133 6 9 12 16 22 30 6 9 12 16 22 30 134 1 1 1 3 7 14 0 1 1 2 2 3 135 11 18 27 59 113 199 10 17 22 32 40 49 137 14 20 32 90 211 410 21 34 49 91 140 211 138 5 7 9 12 15 21 5 7 9 12 15 21 142 0 0 1 3 8 17 0 1 1 1 2 2 143 0 1 1 7 18 35 1 1 1 1 2 2 144 1 1 2 2 2 23 1 1 2 2 2 23 145 7 10 13 18 37 68 7 10 13 18 37 68 146 11 16 21 29 48 81 11 16 21 29 48 81 147 3 4 5 9 13 18 3 4 5 9 13 18 148 29 41 64 234 583 1,199 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 149 6 8 10 14 21 34 5 8 10 12 15 19 151 11 17 22 29 45 73 11 17 22 29 45 73 152 5 8 10 14 20 29 5 6 8 10 11 14 153 5 7 9 13 19 29 5 7 9 13 19 29 155 11 17 21 28 38 52 7 10 12 15 18 22 156 7 11 13 37 85 162 7 11 13 37 85 162 158 1 2 2 10 25 47 1 1 2 3 4 5 159 1 2 4 15 31 54 2 3 5 19 39 69 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 49 117 0 0 0 0 0 25 162 26 38 45 56 74 148 26 38 45 56 74 110 163 15 23 29 41 57 84 24 37 46 63 86 122 164 7 9 11 16 24 39 5 9 11 16 21 27 Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 201 B‐4 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Link Flows Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results Element ID Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 201 B‐4 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Link Flows Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results Element ID Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) 165 6 9 12 17 31 87 7 11 14 20 26 34 166 10 20 30 48 73 106 15 24 32 52 81 122 169 1 2 2 6 15 32 1 2 2 3 3 4 170 3 4 5 10 19 34 2 4 5 7 9 12 171 2 2 3 8 19 35 1 1 2 3 4 6 172 4 7 10 35 75 138 1 2 4 8 11 14 173 29 43 63 231 589 1,269 4 7 9 13 16 20 174 5 8 10 17 45 90 3 5 7 11 14 18 175 3 4 5 7 15 28 1 1 1 2 3 5 176 4 7 21 91 224 469 28 45 65 119 183 267 177 17 25 32 49 81 136 17 25 32 49 81 136 178 14 21 27 38 53 81 13 20 26 37 51 72 183 5 8 9 25 58 111 6 9 11 14 17 21 184 24 38 48 65 112 190 24 38 48 65 112 190 185 14 22 28 38 56 108 7 12 16 22 28 35 186 48 72 91 123 166 234 48 72 91 123 166 234 193 2 4 4 11 28 56 2 3 4 6 8 10 203 2 3 4 7 15 28 2 4 5 7 8 10 206 0 0 1 2 16 66 0 1 1 1 1 4 208 10 18 28 67 124 216 25 41 54 77 106 150 209 9 13 16 22 32 52 6 9 13 19 26 33 210 38 54 68 92 150 271 18 27 33 44 55 67 211 7 10 14 34 74 162 13 21 29 41 54 68 212 3 4 5 7 17 33 2 3 4 6 8 11 214 3 4 5 13 33 69 1 2 3 6 8 11 217 14 21 28 47 80 135 14 21 28 42 62 93 218 15 21 28 56 106 189 13 21 28 43 64 95 219 27 39 57 156 347 665 65 108 147 217 287 377 220 6 8 10 13 19 34 4 7 9 13 17 22 223 14 20 30 84 188 341 17 27 35 69 109 169 224 6 9 11 16 26 46 6 9 11 16 26 46 226 9 13 16 22 30 44 6 8 9 12 15 18 234 9 13 16 26 48 84 6 10 13 18 22 27 246 29 41 59 166 377 726 0 0 1 1 1 4 249 4 5 7 10 17 30 5 8 10 12 15 19 251 30 42 64 236 591 1,221 17 28 36 50 62 76 261 2 2 3 4 6 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 264 1 2 2 3 4 7 1 1 2 3 4 4 268 28 42 63 230 580 1,216 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 270 3 4 6 19 47 95 5 7 9 13 16 20 283 4 6 8 25 57 109 6 9 11 14 17 21 291 1 2 2 4 9 18 1 2 3 3 4 5 292 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 349 3 5 6 12 23 43 7 10 12 16 20 24 361 8 12 15 21 30 42 8 12 15 21 30 42 600 9 13 16 38 75 166 13 21 29 42 54 68 601 3 4 5 13 32 63 1 2 3 5 7 9 1121 295 438 553 771 1,149 2,007 247 406 543 772 1,009 1,283 1122 15 21 26 77 194 405 19 28 34 46 58 71 1123 28 40 56 203 573 1,213 46 79 101 140 178 222 1124 33 47 57 171 420 876 32 56 72 99 126 156 1125 372 549 702 1,054 1,732 3,035 260 436 614 1,065 1,617 2,313 1126 363 532 666 901 1,361 2,353 145 237 334 660 1,091 1,630 1611 11 15 26 73 141 218 11 19 29 59 85 110 105A 14 20 25 35 50 74 14 20 25 35 50 74 105C 3 4 5 22 58 114 1 2 4 13 29 57 111A 24 36 47 106 223 436 53 87 116 165 210 265 111B 16 28 42 106 236 472 55 91 122 175 224 281 115AB 2 3 3 7 47 107 1 2 3 12 20 28 116_pipe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 116_SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120A 7 10 13 18 28 46 2 3 4 7 10 12 121A 16 24 30 41 56 75 11 18 23 32 42 54 121B 28 40 58 161 363 698 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 125A 19 29 38 56 91 153 19 29 38 56 91 153 134A 11 17 21 31 49 85 6 10 13 18 22 27 175A 19 28 34 47 65 94 19 28 34 47 65 94 177A 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 185C 6 9 11 15 26 49 2 3 5 7 10 12 209A 7 10 14 35 76 168 38 62 84 119 152 195 209B 33 49 61 108 224 438 53 87 116 165 210 265 267A 2 3 7 25 59 104 1 2 4 8 11 14 277A 1 1 1 3 5 13 1 1 1 3 5 13 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 201 B‐4 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Link Flows Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results Element ID Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) OP‐50A 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 OP‐51 0 0 0 12 43 99 14 22 28 37 46 56 OP‐5A 0 0 0 8 25 52 0 0 0 8 25 52 OP‐75 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 OP‐75A 8 12 15 19 24 29 8 12 15 19 24 29 OP‐75A_WEIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OP‐75D 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 OP‐75D_WEIR 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 OP‐77 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 OP‐77B 1 1 1 2 4 11 1 1 1 2 4 11 OP‐77C 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 OP‐77C_WEIR 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 OP‐77D 1 1 1 3 4 12 1 1 1 3 4 12 OP‐80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OP‐80D 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 OP‐80D_WEIR 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 1 14 OP‐81 2 2 2 3 5 10 2 2 2 3 5 10 OP‐82D1 10 12 14 21 29 31 10 12 14 21 29 31 OP‐82D1_WEIR 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 80 OP‐82D2 8 11 12 18 26 62 8 11 12 18 26 62 OP‐82D2_WEIR 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 OP‐82D3 9 10 12 16 21 32 9 10 12 16 21 32 OP‐84 3 4 5 9 13 18 3 4 5 9 13 18 OP‐85B 3 4 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 OP‐85B‐WEIR 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 OP‐85C 6 8 11 33 78 151 8 12 16 22 27 33 OP‐86 1 2 4 10 19 28 1 2 4 10 19 28 OP‐86A 2 2 3 4 5 6 2 2 3 4 5 6 OP‐86C 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OP‐88 1 3 4 15 35 41 6 10 15 26 36 41 OP‐92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 OP‐95 4 4 5 5 6 6 4 4 5 5 6 6 OP‐97 18 20 21 24 66 115 18 20 21 24 54 97 OP‐98 4 4 5 5 6 6 4 4 5 5 6 6 OP‐98A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OP‐98A_WEIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRICL1 191 191 192 198 213 240 191 192 193 194 195 196 TRICL2 192 193 196 219 252 276 192 195 197 205 218 236 TRICL3 193 195 198 225 297 380 194 197 200 211 223 241 TRICL4 212 218 225 261 343 445 209 216 223 246 268 311 TRICL5 212 218 225 261 293 326 209 216 223 246 267 286 TRICL6 218 227 242 294 369 453 219 232 246 278 307 334 TRICL7 207 211 215 221 227 235 208 213 216 219 222 224 TRICL7A 207 212 217 233 256 292 209 215 220 225 231 236 TRICL8 205 209 213 222 227 229 207 212 216 220 222 223 TROC_1B 214 219 223 242 273 322 226 238 249 274 306 409 TROCL1 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROCL1_A 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROCL10 254 276 304 495 888 1,632 363 460 552 749 975 1,280 TROCL11 254 276 304 495 888 1,631 363 460 552 749 975 1,280 TROCL13 256 278 307 508 921 1,669 365 464 558 761 995 1,309 TROCL14 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 371 472 576 784 1,021 1,355 TROCL15 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,031 1,369 TROCL16 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,030 1,369 TROCL17 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROCL18 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROCL3 216 223 230 290 395 561 226 238 250 276 335 446 TROCL4 216 224 232 295 404 578 226 238 250 276 346 465 TROCL5 217 224 232 296 405 578 227 239 251 278 346 464 TROCL6 224 235 246 314 439 635 227 239 251 292 385 531 TROCL8 252 273 301 491 885 1,629 360 456 549 744 969 1,264 TROCL9 252 273 301 491 884 1,628 360 457 549 745 971 1,267 CLARK1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 132 217 298 467 653 869 CLARK2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 127 208 287 448 628 838 CLARK3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 125 206 283 442 619 827 CLARK4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 112 185 254 400 559 747 CLARK5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 107 177 244 386 542 727 CLARK6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 105 174 240 378 533 711 CLARK7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 78 129 177 267 355 462 CLARK8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 73 122 167 249 330 430 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 115 3 5 6 8 15 29 2 4 5 7 8 10 116 12 19 25 34 46 61 11 17 21 28 34 40 117 17 24 30 41 55 76 11 17 21 28 34 40 118 16 34 52 86 120 150 15 25 38 66 104 136 127 14 20 24 35 50 76 14 20 24 35 50 76 129 5 7 9 23 61 122 1 2 4 13 30 58 132 17 24 30 42 58 96 7 12 15 20 26 34 133 0 1 1 2 16 66 0 1 1 1 1 4 134 28 39 49 82 151 253 25 41 55 80 114 162 135 13 20 30 71 133 227 25 41 54 77 106 150 136 7 10 14 36 76 168 38 62 84 119 152 197 137 9 13 16 38 75 166 13 21 29 42 54 68 138 38 54 67 92 150 271 18 27 33 44 55 67 140 27 41 53 115 248 487 55 91 123 175 224 282 142 40 57 71 109 225 439 53 87 117 165 210 265 143 6 8 10 16 26 44 2 3 4 6 8 11 144 33 49 61 108 224 438 53 87 116 165 210 265 146 6 8 10 18 38 78 1 2 3 6 8 11 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 12 17 22 34 57 96 2 3 5 12 17 22 151 4 5 6 11 51 117 1 2 3 12 21 28 153 22 32 40 62 98 158 25 37 47 65 90 128 154 16 23 30 50 84 140 19 30 38 54 76 110 155 15 22 29 58 107 191 14 23 30 45 67 99 156 4 6 8 13 31 63 1 2 3 5 6 8 157 27 39 57 156 347 665 65 108 147 217 287 377 158 16 23 31 69 140 258 14 22 30 47 70 103 159 12 17 21 29 42 63 5 8 9 13 17 22 160 28 40 59 162 364 701 0 0 1 1 1 4 161 28 40 58 161 363 698 74 122 167 249 330 430 162 18 26 32 43 60 86 11 18 23 32 42 54 163 23 35 45 63 94 157 23 35 45 63 94 157 164 29 42 53 77 115 179 29 42 53 77 115 179 165 5 8 10 13 18 25 5 8 10 13 18 25 166 9 13 16 24 37 61 9 13 16 24 37 61 169 9 13 16 23 32 49 6 8 9 12 15 18 170 24 35 44 60 81 115 17 25 32 45 62 86 171 22 33 41 56 76 104 15 23 30 42 57 80 173 20 28 37 57 87 139 23 36 46 66 94 139 176 935 1,325 1,639 2,263 3,148 4,530 203 337 465 753 1,112 1,641 177 1 2 2 4 9 18 0 1 1 2 2 3 178 454 666 840 1,187 1,802 3,088 267 455 630 1,078 1,620 2,319 179 28 42 49 87 192 358 27 40 48 69 109 169 180 13 18 23 37 58 93 6 10 13 18 22 27 181 372 549 702 1,054 1,732 3,035 260 436 614 1,065 1,617 2,313 182 13 20 30 62 116 204 10 17 22 32 40 49 183 11 17 21 31 49 85 6 10 13 18 22 27 184 93 130 160 267 506 1,019 36 61 76 103 130 159 185 40 57 70 212 584 1,231 47 79 102 140 179 222 186 14 20 32 90 213 424 23 38 55 100 153 227 187 17 24 35 95 215 427 21 34 49 91 140 210 188 28 40 56 203 573 1,213 46 79 101 140 178 222 189 43 59 73 122 231 465 21 30 36 47 59 72 190 702 996 1,231 1,700 2,364 3,402 260 433 561 773 1,012 1,288 191 295 438 553 771 1,149 2,007 247 406 543 772 1,009 1,283 193 15 21 26 41 69 120 3 5 7 14 21 27 194 15 21 33 91 206 379 17 27 38 74 118 182 196 6 8 23 91 224 469 28 45 65 119 181 264 197 4 7 21 91 224 470 28 45 65 119 183 267 199 30 42 66 239 596 1,200 107 177 244 386 543 727 200 29 41 59 166 378 726 0 0 1 1 1 4 201 19 26 32 45 63 92 6 9 13 19 26 33 204 30 41 65 236 586 1,203 112 185 255 400 560 747 206 6 8 10 14 21 34 5 8 10 12 15 19 207 11 15 19 26 37 55 5 8 10 12 15 19 213 4 6 7 14 25 46 7 10 12 16 20 24 214 30 42 64 237 593 1,224 17 28 37 50 62 76 216 8 11 14 19 27 39 5 6 8 10 11 14 217 12 17 21 29 39 53 7 10 12 15 18 22 220 3 4 5 7 9 13 1 2 2 3 4 5 221 3 4 5 7 11 15 1 2 3 3 4 5 223 30 42 64 236 591 1,224 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 224 2 2 4 16 36 69 2 3 4 7 9 11 Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 201 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 201 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results 225 3 4 6 18 42 80 2 3 4 7 9 11 226 4 7 10 35 75 138 1 2 4 8 11 14 229 2 3 4 7 16 33 1 2 2 3 3 4 230 4 6 8 22 53 104 5 7 9 13 17 20 231 3 5 6 11 20 35 3 4 5 7 10 12 234 7 10 14 37 81 151 1 2 4 8 11 14 237 29 43 63 231 589 1,269 4 7 9 13 16 20 238 29 43 64 233 592 1,273 5 7 9 13 16 20 239 30 42 64 237 597 1,246 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 243 20 28 35 48 68 99 20 28 35 48 68 99 248 7 11 14 22 46 85 7 11 14 22 46 85 250 11 16 19 39 84 161 3 5 7 12 15 20 252 33 46 58 86 129 198 33 46 58 86 129 198 253 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 254 1 1 1 3 5 13 1 1 1 3 5 13 274 17 26 34 50 94 164 17 26 34 50 94 164 275 5 8 9 25 58 111 6 9 11 14 17 21 276 10 15 18 30 63 123 6 9 11 14 17 21 277 2 2 3 5 9 16 1 1 1 2 2 3 279 35 49 61 97 162 266 35 49 61 97 162 266 283 20 28 34 50 77 125 7 12 16 22 28 35 284 19 29 38 52 127 250 15 24 32 44 55 68 285 15 22 28 52 126 249 15 24 32 44 55 68 287 13 19 25 52 125 247 15 24 31 44 55 68 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 293 7 9 11 18 29 51 2 3 5 7 10 12 295 1 2 4 10 19 28 1 2 4 10 19 28 296 55 78 97 132 181 256 55 78 97 132 181 256 297 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 298 6 8 10 16 24 39 6 8 10 16 24 39 303 94 133 165 227 312 440 93 132 163 224 307 432 307 2 3 4 7 11 19 1 2 3 3 4 5 309 26 38 47 64 86 118 26 38 47 64 86 118 310 6 8 10 16 34 71 2 3 4 6 8 10 311 2 4 4 11 28 56 2 3 4 6 8 10 312 4 6 7 12 37 82 3 5 7 11 14 17 314 6 7 8 17 43 89 6 9 11 16 20 24 316 62 88 109 150 214 319 62 89 110 150 215 320 317 60 85 104 148 217 325 60 85 104 148 217 325 321 63 89 110 153 213 304 63 89 110 153 213 304 323 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 323‐surf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 324 1 2 2 5 10 20 0 1 1 2 2 3 326 3 4 5 13 32 63 1 2 3 5 7 9 327 5 7 8 15 34 69 1 2 3 5 7 9 328 6 8 10 17 45 90 3 5 7 11 14 18 329 7 10 12 33 74 146 5 7 10 26 58 114 330 21 26 30 38 48 63 21 26 30 38 48 63 335 1 2 2 3 6 10 0 0 1 1 1 2 338 8 10 11 14 18 33 8 10 11 14 18 33 339 10 12 13 16 23 41 10 12 13 16 23 41 341 19 26 32 46 67 98 19 26 32 46 67 98 342 102 150 188 256 346 477 102 150 188 256 346 477 346 9 12 15 21 30 43 3 4 6 9 12 14 348 10 15 18 26 38 54 8 13 16 22 29 39 349 7 10 13 18 24 33 7 10 13 18 24 33 350 5 7 9 12 16 22 5 7 9 12 16 22 351 5 8 9 13 19 27 5 8 9 13 19 27 352 5 6 8 11 15 22 5 6 8 11 15 22 353 5 7 9 13 20 31 5 7 9 13 20 31 355 8 11 12 18 26 80 8 11 12 18 26 80 356 2 2 3 4 5 6 2 2 3 4 5 6 360 8 12 16 22 30 43 8 12 16 22 30 43 500 20 29 35 53 83 169 13 22 30 42 54 68 501 7 10 12 19 32 53 2 3 4 7 10 12 53 4 5 7 12 28 58 2 3 4 5 6 7 54 5 7 9 14 21 34 2 4 5 7 8 10 DTN10 13 19 24 33 44 60 7 11 13 17 21 27 DTN11 12 19 24 33 44 60 7 11 13 17 21 26 DTN12 12 18 21 28 37 53 7 11 13 17 21 26 DTN13 32 44 51 66 91 128 30 45 55 76 91 115 DTN14 33 46 56 69 95 134 33 49 61 83 101 133 DTN15 33 46 55 74 93 132 33 49 60 80 94 125 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 201 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results DTN3 5 7 8 11 15 20 5 8 10 13 17 23 DTN4 9 13 17 23 31 41 11 15 19 26 34 46 DTN5 9 13 17 24 30 38 10 15 19 26 33 43 DTN6 11 17 21 28 35 46 14 21 26 34 40 53 DTN7 6 9 11 15 21 30 7 9 11 16 22 31 DTN8 17 25 32 42 54 70 21 30 38 49 60 81 DTN9 18 25 31 42 53 70 21 30 37 52 60 80 DTS2 5 8 10 14 20 29 5 7 9 13 17 23 DTS3 7 11 14 19 27 33 6 9 12 17 23 31 DTS4 7 11 13 19 26 33 6 9 12 17 22 31 DTS5 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 27 37 DTS6 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 26 37 DTS7 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 26 37 DTSO1 8 12 15 21 30 40 7 10 13 19 26 37 G3‐1 7 10 13 18 28 46 2 3 4 7 10 12 G3‐2 5 7 9 13 20 68 3 4 5 8 10 72 G3‐2_A 5 7 9 13 20 68 3 4 5 8 10 72 J‐90 3 4 5 11 31 65 1 2 3 5 6 8 LAKECANAL1 10 16 20 28 39 94 7 12 15 20 26 34 LAKECANAL10 3 5 6 11 22 42 1 1 2 3 4 6 LAKECANAL11 2 3 4 7 15 29 1 1 1 2 3 5 LAKECANAL12 10 15 18 41 93 177 10 15 18 41 93 177 LAKECANAL16 18 25 30 45 68 106 18 25 30 45 68 106 LAKECANAL17 3 4 5 9 13 18 3 4 5 9 13 18 LAKECANAL18 18 25 31 46 72 116 18 25 31 46 72 116 LAKECANAL19 8 11 13 24 43 78 8 11 13 24 43 78 LAKECANAL2 15 21 26 37 53 77 6 10 12 16 21 27 LAKECANAL20 1 1 2 2 2 23 1 1 2 2 2 23 LAKECANAL21 1 1 2 8 20 39 1 1 1 1 2 2 LAKECANAL22 1 1 1 4 9 19 0 1 1 1 2 2 LAKECANAL3 29 41 51 70 97 138 29 41 51 70 97 138 LAKECANAL4 31 44 55 75 106 155 31 44 55 75 106 155 LAKECANAL7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LAKECANAL8 3 4 6 21 43 79 3 4 6 21 43 79 LAKECANAL9 3 4 5 16 36 70 1 1 2 3 4 5 P‐103 30 43 53 72 97 134 30 43 53 72 97 134 P‐103A 26 36 45 62 86 121 26 36 45 62 86 121 P‐103C 20 28 35 48 67 94 20 28 35 48 67 94 P‐103D1 23 32 39 57 85 124 23 32 39 57 85 124 P‐103D2 11 13 14 16 30 66 11 13 14 16 30 66 P‐104 86 122 151 209 288 398 86 121 150 207 285 398 P‐105 31 45 57 77 103 141 31 45 57 77 103 141 P‐106A 76 115 149 203 267 338 76 115 149 203 267 338 P‐107 63 89 110 153 212 301 63 89 110 153 212 301 P‐110 10 15 20 29 42 66 8 13 17 24 33 47 P‐120 1,161 1,825 2,381 3,311 4,431 7,073 1,277 2,049 2,691 3,774 5,073 6,848 P‐15 12 17 21 30 49 93 2 3 5 12 17 22 P‐25 34 51 66 98 154 247 34 51 66 98 154 247 P‐28 18 26 34 54 83 132 21 34 44 63 93 139 P‐29 13 18 22 31 44 66 13 19 23 32 45 66 P‐31 33 46 57 81 117 173 33 46 57 81 117 173 P‐43 15 21 32 92 224 463 26 43 61 114 173 255 P‐4A 46 70 90 126 169 225 46 69 87 119 159 213 P‐50 8 12 14 20 29 42 8 12 14 20 29 42 P‐50A 10 14 17 24 34 48 10 14 17 24 34 48 P‐51 34 47 56 76 98 141 43 63 78 96 120 157 P‐5A 14 20 25 35 50 74 14 20 25 35 50 74 P‐75 28 39 48 68 95 135 28 39 48 68 95 135 P‐75A 19 28 34 47 65 94 19 28 34 47 65 94 P‐75D 9 12 15 22 28 36 9 12 15 22 28 36 P‐77 17 25 32 49 81 136 17 25 32 49 81 136 P‐77B 1 2 2 4 8 16 1 2 2 4 8 16 P‐77C 7 9 11 21 38 62 7 9 11 21 38 62 P‐77D 25 34 42 60 89 134 25 34 42 60 89 134 P‐80 5 7 8 14 24 40 3 5 6 11 19 32 P‐80D 7 10 13 21 38 67 7 10 13 21 38 67 P‐81 32 44 55 81 120 180 32 44 55 81 120 180 P‐82D1 94 131 161 239 364 559 94 131 161 239 364 559 P‐82D2 10 12 14 21 29 110 10 12 14 21 29 110 P‐82D3 16 23 29 53 96 166 16 23 29 53 96 166 P‐84 24 38 48 65 112 190 24 38 48 65 112 190 P‐85B 58 88 111 152 200 263 58 88 111 152 200 263 P‐85C 6 9 11 33 78 151 8 12 16 22 27 33 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 201 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results P‐86 52 78 99 134 181 258 52 78 99 134 181 258 P‐86A 11 16 19 28 43 65 11 16 19 28 43 65 P‐86C 3 4 5 8 14 23 3 4 5 8 14 23 P‐88 77 117 149 204 279 403 74 112 143 196 266 374 P‐92 25 39 50 73 109 167 22 34 44 61 83 114 P‐95 76 108 133 183 254 361 76 108 133 183 254 361 P‐97 38 53 64 81 123 199 38 53 65 82 125 201 P‐98 50 76 97 133 183 260 50 76 97 133 183 260 P‐98A 30 42 52 72 102 148 30 42 52 72 102 148 ResOutlet 214 219 223 242 273 322 226 238 249 274 306 409 TRIC1 191 192 192 198 214 241 191 192 193 194 195 196 TRIC2 193 194 197 220 266 337 192 195 197 206 221 247 TRIC3 193 195 198 225 298 382 194 197 200 211 223 242 TRIC4 212 218 225 261 343 445 209 216 223 246 268 311 TRIC4A 212 218 225 261 343 445 209 216 223 246 268 311 TRIC4‐SPILL 0 0 0 0 50 119 0 0 0 0 0 26 TRIC5 218 227 242 294 369 454 219 232 246 278 307 334 TRIC5A 218 227 242 294 369 453 219 232 246 278 307 334 TRIC5A_SPILL 11 15 27 73 141 218 11 19 29 59 85 110 TRIC6 207 212 217 233 257 294 209 215 220 225 231 236 TRIC6_Spill 1 2 4 11 29 63 2 3 4 5 10 13 TRIC6A 207 212 217 233 256 292 209 215 220 225 231 236 TRIC‐OUTFALL 205 209 213 222 227 229 207 212 216 220 222 223 TROC_1A 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROC1 216 223 229 287 387 546 226 238 249 275 326 430 TROC10a 256 278 307 508 921 1,669 365 464 558 761 995 1,309 TROC11 260 283 312 529 946 1,736 371 472 576 785 1,021 1,356 TROC12 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,031 1,369 TROC‐12A 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 372 474 579 791 1,031 1,369 TROC13 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROC14 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 TROC2 216 223 230 290 395 562 226 238 250 276 335 448 TROC3 217 224 232 295 405 579 226 238 250 276 346 467 TROC4 217 225 232 296 406 580 227 239 251 278 347 468 TROC5 226 237 248 316 443 645 227 239 251 294 389 540 TROC6 252 273 301 491 885 1,629 360 456 549 745 969 1,264 TROC7 252 273 301 491 885 1,629 360 457 549 745 971 1,267 TROC8 254 276 304 495 889 1,634 363 460 553 750 976 1,281 TROC9 254 276 304 495 888 1,632 363 460 552 749 975 1,280 TROC‐OUTFALL 260 283 312 529 946 1,735 373 476 581 796 1,038 1,379 CP‐10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 163 235 293 396 531 725 CP‐100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 33 46 57 80 112 163 CP‐100A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 33 46 57 79 112 162 CP‐101 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 99 142 176 239 324 449 CP‐102 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51 73 90 122 164 226 CP‐106 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30 43 53 74 103 145 CP‐108 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16 23 29 40 55 77 CP‐108A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 8 10 13 19 28 CP‐109 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 56 82 102 139 185 247 CP‐11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 38 54 67 92 126 176 CP‐110 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47 69 87 117 156 209 CP‐113A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 12 15 20 27 36 CP‐12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 49 69 86 117 158 219 CP‐121 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐2,216 3,433 4,425 6,109 8,149 10,971 CP‐122 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 640 992 1,278 1,765 2,354 3,170 CP‐123 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 552 845 1,082 1,486 1,980 2,668 CP‐124 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1,454 2,265 2,929 4,053 5,411 7,285 CP‐125 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 880 1,357 1,745 2,406 3,207 4,319 CP‐126 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1,336 1,920 2,389 3,261 4,424 6,163 CP‐13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 27 38 48 67 93 130 CP‐14 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 93 132 163 223 309 438 CP‐15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 49 69 85 123 179 269 CP‐15A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 61 88 110 149 201 274 CP‐17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 44 63 79 107 145 201 CP‐18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 101 145 181 245 330 452 CP‐2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 139 206 260 352 463 607 CP‐20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 39 56 69 94 128 178 CP‐21 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 65 93 115 156 211 292 CP‐21A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 86 122 152 207 281 391 CP‐26 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 55 80 100 135 180 242 CP‐3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 70 102 129 176 233 309 CP‐30 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 11 14 19 27 40 CP‐33 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 12 14 20 28 40 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr 2‐Yr 5‐Yr 10‐Yr 25‐Yr 50‐Yr 100‐Yr Timnath Stormwater Master Plan Update ‐ 201 B‐5 ‐ SWMM Model Results ‐ Node Flows Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs)Element ID Existing SWMM Model Results Future SWMM Model Results CP‐34 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 71 102 129 180 244 332 CP‐35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 99 141 178 251 346 482 CP‐37 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 117 167 206 281 384 540 CP‐38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 55 78 96 131 182 261 CP‐39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 29 40 49 75 117 184 CP‐4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 62 91 114 155 204 272 CP‐43 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 66 93 115 160 230 341 CP‐43A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47 68 84 115 156 217 CP‐45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 76 107 133 185 256 360 CP‐46 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 58 82 102 140 193 271 CP‐47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 19 26 32 47 70 106 CP‐47A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 27 38 47 67 95 137 CP‐48 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 141 206 258 352 469 631 CP‐49 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 52 75 94 127 169 229 CP‐5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 116 167 210 290 391 534 CP‐51 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 38 57 71 96 127 170 CP‐52 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 27 39 49 67 89 118 CP‐55 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 19 28 36 48 64 85 CP‐6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18 26 33 46 60 78 CP‐61 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 7 8 11 15 20 CP‐64 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 7 8 11 15 20 CP‐67 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 38 55 69 94 127 174 CP‐68 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 70 88 123 170 240 CP‐69 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 72 106 133 180 239 319 CP‐7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 34 48 60 84 116 162 CP‐70 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 72 103 129 175 235 323 CP‐70A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 73 91 124 165 222 CP‐71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14 20 25 35 52 79 CP‐72 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 78 111 139 198 282 406 CP‐72A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 6 7 10 15 22 CP‐73 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 207 298 373 515 698 959 CP‐76 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 77 109 134 188 265 383 CP‐8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 327 476 597 815 1,089 1,466 CP‐83 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 128 187 235 321 427 573 CP‐83A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15 21 26 36 49 68 CP‐85 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 195 282 351 475 637 870 CP‐85C ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 59 85 106 144 194 267 CP‐87 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 28 35 49 69 100 CP‐89 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 12 17 21 29 41 61 CP‐9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 186 267 333 454 613 842 CP‐90 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47 67 83 113 156 221 CP‐91 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 32 47 60 81 107 142 CP‐92 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 58 84 104 141 187 249 CP‐93 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 131 188 234 317 426 585 CP‐94 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 86 123 153 207 280 388 CP‐99 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14 20 25 35 50 73 CP‐9A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16 22 27 38 54 80 J‐CLARK1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 132 217 299 467 653 869 J‐CLARK2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 127 209 287 449 628 839 J‐CLARK3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 125 206 283 442 619 827 J‐CLARK4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 105 174 240 378 533 711 J‐CLARK5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 78 129 177 267 355 463 F:\32‐1881.00 Timnath Master Plan Update\Hydrology\EPA SWMM\Results\Results Comparison.xlsx 8/21/2018 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL REPORT, SOILS REPORT, AND FLOODPLAIN MAP NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY EROSION CONTROL REPORT EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) is included with the final construction drawings. It should be noted, however, that any such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction, or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed, removed or modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 – Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways and inlet protection at proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor. Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on Sheet EC1 and EC2 of the Utility Plans. The Utility Plans at final design will also contain a full-size Erosion Control Plan as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere to, the applicable requirements outlined in any existing Development Agreement(s) of record, as well as the Development Agreement, to be recorded prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit. Also, the Site Contractor for this project will be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division – Stormwater Program, before commencing any earth disturbing activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive StormWater Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs. United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service May 10, 2022 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................13 24—Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................13 35—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................................14 40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.....................................................16 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...........................................17 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................18 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes.........................................20 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.......................................21 92—Riverwash............................................................................................22 References............................................................................................................23 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 9 0 5 0 0 44 9 0 6 0 0 44 9 0 7 0 0 44 9 0 8 0 0 44 9 0 9 0 0 44 9 1 0 0 0 44 9 1 1 0 0 44 9 1 2 0 0 44 9 1 3 0 0 44 9 1 4 0 0 44 9 1 5 0 0 44 9 1 6 0 0 44 9 0 5 0 0 44 9 0 6 0 0 44 9 0 7 0 0 44 9 0 8 0 0 44 9 0 9 0 0 44 9 1 0 0 0 44 9 1 1 0 0 44 9 1 2 0 0 44 9 1 3 0 0 44 9 1 4 0 0 44 9 1 5 0 0 44 9 1 6 0 0 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 40° 34' 33'' N 10 5 ° 0 ' 7 ' ' W 40° 34' 33'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 2 6 ' ' W 40° 33' 52'' N 10 5 ° 0 ' 7 ' ' W 40° 33' 52'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 2 6 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,230 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 2, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018—Aug 12, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 24 Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.2 1.8% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 34.9 27.9% 40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 57.1 45.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 10.0 8.0% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 0.0 0.0% 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes 13.2 10.5% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 6.4 5.1% 92 Riverwash 1.6 1.2% Totals for Area of Interest 125.2 100.0% 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 11 given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Larimer County Area, Colorado 24—Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpvw Elevation: 5,000 to 6,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 49 degrees F Frost-free period: 115 to 130 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Connerton and similar soils:50 percent Barnum and similar soils:40 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Connerton Setting Landform:Stream terraces, flood plains, fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 8 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R049XB202CO - Loamy Foothill Hydric soil rating: No Description of Barnum Setting Landform:Terraces, valleys, fans Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam H2 - 10 to 60 inches: stratified loamy fine sand to 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: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: High (about 9.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Garrett Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Map Unit Composition Fort collins and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Fort Collins Setting Landform:Interfluves, stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Pleistocene or older alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 4 inches: loam Bt1 - 4 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 9 to 16 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 16 to 29 inches: loam Bk2 - 29 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:12 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope, interfluve Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY024CO - Sandy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpwg Elevation: 5,200 to 6,000 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 Garrett and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Garrett Setting Landform:Terraces, fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loam H2 - 8 to 39 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 39 to 60 inches: sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Harlan Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BZ008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No Barnum Percent of map unit:5 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Connerton Percent of map unit:4 percent Ecological site:R067BZ008CO - Loamy Slopes 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:Stream terraces, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: clay loam H2 - 15 to 32 inches: loam H3 - 32 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Custom Soil Resource Report 17 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:NoneOccasional 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 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlng Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Description of Nunn Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:7 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:0.5 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Wages Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Ecological site:R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxq Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn, wet, and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn, Wet Setting Landform:Stream terraces, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: clay loam H2 - 10 to 47 inches: clay H3 - 47 to 60 inches: gravelly loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:NoneRare Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BZ902CO - Loamy Plains Custom Soil Resource Report 20 Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BZ902CO - Loamy 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 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxx 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 Paoli and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Paoli Setting Landform:Stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 30 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very low Custom Soil Resource Report 21 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (2.00 to 6.00 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) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Caruso Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Table mountain Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Fluvaquentic haplustolls Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes 92—Riverwash Map Unit Composition Riverwash:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Riverwash Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 8 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 22 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 23 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 24 K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 1 of 4 44 9 0 5 0 0 44 9 0 6 0 0 44 9 0 7 0 0 44 9 0 8 0 0 44 9 0 9 0 0 44 9 1 0 0 0 44 9 1 1 0 0 44 9 1 2 0 0 44 9 1 3 0 0 44 9 1 4 0 0 44 9 1 5 0 0 44 9 1 6 0 0 44 9 0 5 0 0 44 9 0 6 0 0 44 9 0 7 0 0 44 9 0 8 0 0 44 9 0 9 0 0 44 9 1 0 0 0 44 9 1 1 0 0 44 9 1 2 0 0 44 9 1 3 0 0 44 9 1 4 0 0 44 9 1 5 0 0 44 9 1 6 0 0 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 40° 34' 33'' N 10 5 ° 0 ' 7 ' ' W 40° 34' 33'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 2 6 ' ' W 40° 33' 52'' N 10 5 ° 0 ' 7 ' ' W 40° 33' 52'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 2 6 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,230 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points .02 .05 .10 .15 .17 .20 .24 .28 .32 .37 .43 .49 .55 .64 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 2, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018—Aug 12, 2018 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. K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 2 of 4 K Factor, Whole Soil Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 24 Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes .37 2.2 1.8% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes .43 34.9 27.9% 40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .32 57.1 45.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .32 10.0 8.0% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .37 0.0 0.0% 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes .24 13.2 10.5% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes .32 6.4 5.1% 92 Riverwash 1.6 1.2% Totals for Area of Interest 125.2 100.0% Description 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. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average) Top Depth: 0 K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 3 of 4 Bottom Depth: 60 Units of Measure: Inches K Factor, Whole Soil—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 4 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 1 of 4 44 9 0 5 0 0 44 9 0 6 0 0 44 9 0 7 0 0 44 9 0 8 0 0 44 9 0 9 0 0 44 9 1 0 0 0 44 9 1 1 0 0 44 9 1 2 0 0 44 9 1 3 0 0 44 9 1 4 0 0 44 9 1 5 0 0 44 9 1 6 0 0 44 9 0 5 0 0 44 9 0 6 0 0 44 9 0 7 0 0 44 9 0 8 0 0 44 9 0 9 0 0 44 9 1 0 0 0 44 9 1 1 0 0 44 9 1 2 0 0 44 9 1 3 0 0 44 9 1 4 0 0 44 9 1 5 0 0 44 9 1 6 0 0 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 499900 500000 500100 500200 500300 500400 500500 500600 500700 40° 34' 33'' N 10 5 ° 0 ' 7 ' ' W 40° 34' 33'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 2 6 ' ' W 40° 33' 52'' N 10 5 ° 0 ' 7 ' ' W 40° 33' 52'' N 10 4 ° 5 9 ' 2 6 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:6,230 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 2, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018—Aug 12, 2018 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. Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado (Rudolph Farms) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 24 Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes C 2.2 1.8% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes C 34.9 27.9% 40 Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes B 57.1 45.6% 64 Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes C 10.0 8.0% 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes C 0.0 0.0% 76 Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes C 13.2 10.5% 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes A 6.4 5.1% 92 Riverwash 1.6 1.2% Totals for Area of Interest 125.2 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 3 of 4 Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Rudolph Farms Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2022 Page 4 of 4 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 8/2/2022 at 3:28 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 105°0'14"W 40°34'30"N 104°59'36"W 40°34'3"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 9,028 1,504.7 Rudolph Farms - Zoning This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. City of Fort Collins - GIS 1,143.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet1,143.00571.50 Notes Legend 6,859 FEMA Floodplain FEMA High Risk - Floodway FEMA High Risk - 100 Year FEMA Moderate Risk - 100 / 500 Year City Floodplains City High Risk - Floodway City High Risk - 100 Year City Moderate Risk - 100 Year City Limits World Hillshade NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM | 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT: RUDOLPH FARM FORT COLLINS | GREELEY APPENDIX MAP POCKET DR1 – DRAINAGE EXHIBIT DR2- EXISTING DRIANGE EXHIBIT FES CONTROL IRR CONTROLIRR FES DD D GAS / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / T T T T LID LID util LID FESFES FES FES FES D D ST FESFES D D D D DD / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / EX1 e1 EX2 EX3 EX4 EX5 S S H2O H2O H2O H2O H2OH2O H2O WV WV W S C C C W CCW E CABLE MM C W M H2O WVWV W W W W SS SS SS SS SS SS CS CONTROLIRR V.P. V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMM W T H2O M 1 2 3 4 5 G 0 G 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 G 0 G 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / W W SB SB SB SB CA R R I A G E P A R K W A Y KIT DEN DR.HUNTSMAN DR. VI X E N D R . W WW W W W W W W W W 8" S S 8" S S 8" S S G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 8" W 8" W 12 " S S G G TT T T G G G 12" SS 12" SS 12" S S TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTI LE IRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYN DUCTILEIRON 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON WF FW 12" S S 12" S S T 8" W 8" W Sheet RU D O L P H F A R M Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d b y a P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r i n th e e m p l o y o f N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N RE V I E W S E T of 125 NORTH DR2 EX I S T I N G D R A I N A G E P L A N N/A ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet0150150 150 300 450 PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED INLET A DESIGN POINT FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED SWALE SECTION 11 RUNOFF SUMMARY: 1.REFER TO THE RUDOLPH FARM - FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. LEGEND: BASIN AREA A BASIN ID BASIN MINOR AND MAJOR C COEFFICIENTS NOTES: KEYMAP / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / EAST PROSPECT ROAD IN T E R S T A T E 2 5 BASIN TOTAL AREA (acres) Tc2 (min) Tc100 (min) C2 C100 Q2 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) EX1 25.86 13.9 13.9 0.29 0.36 14.63 63.45 EX2 6.67 12.0 12.0 0.27 0.33 3.69 15.76 EX3 77.63 19.7 19.7 0.25 0.31 31.64 136.58 EX4 3.76 11.4 11.4 0.25 0.31 2.00 8.64 EX5 8.39 7.3 7.3 0.25 0.31 5.29 22.90 FES V.P.FE S DD D GAS / / / / / / / / X X X X G G / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / X X X X X B MB M C CT C CT TC C T C util LID FES FES D D CT V CT V FESFES D D D D DD MM / / / / / / / / X / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / G G G G X CABLEG GCTV / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / UD UD UD UD UD UD UD FO S S H2O H2O H2O H2O H2OH2O H2O WV WV W S C C C W CCW E CABLE MM C W M H2O WVWV W W W W SS SS SS SS SS SS CS CONTROLIRR V.P. V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMM W T H2O M 1 2 3 4 5 G 0 G 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 G 0 G 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / SB SB SB SB 8" S S 8" S S 8" S S G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 8" W 8" W 12 " S S G G TT T T G G G 12" SS 12" SS 12" S S TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTI LE IRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON TSALPOLYN DUCTILEIRON 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W W W W TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W TSALPOLYNDUCTILEIRON WF FW 12" S S 12" S S T 8" W 8" W LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 11 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 7 r1 r2 r5 r6 r3 r4 POND 2 (HYDRAULICALLY CONNECTED) RAIN GARDEN 2 FLAT AREA = 24,349 SQ. FT. VOLUME = 26,422 CU. FT. RAIN GARDEN 3 FLAT AREA = 16,617 SQ. FT. VOLUME = 19,079 CU. FT. RAIN GARDEN 4 FLAT AREA = 18,589 SQ. FT. VOLUME = 20,211 CU. FT. RAIN GARDEN 5 FLAT AREA = 4,164 SQ. FT. VOLUME = 4,918 CU. FT. RAIN GARDEN 1 FLAT AREA = 15,780 SQ. FT. VOLUME = 19,709 CU. CT. PRO S P E C T R I D G E D R I V E VIX E N D R I V E CAR R I A G E P A R K W A Y r7 r8 SWALE BEHIND LOTS 8 AND 9 os7 OVERTOPPING EXTENTS DURING 100-YR EVENT 16 . 3 9 100-YEAR BOXELDER FLOODPLAIN SWALE SWALE BOXELDER FLOODWAY 11 1 2 6 5 4A R1 R2 9B R4 R6 R5 OS1 OS3 DC1 DC2 DC3 7 OS4 OS5 8B R3 10 13 12 3 8A 9A R7 R8 OS6 OS7 R9 R10 R11 r9 r10 r11 POND OUTLET 1 SEE SHEET ST6 POND OUTLET 2 SEE SHEET ST6 STORM DRAIN C SEE SHEET ST3 STORM DRAIN E SEE SHEET ST4 CULVERT H SEE SHEET ST7 POND CULVERT 1 SEE SHEET ST7 STORM DRAIN D SEE SHEET ST4 STORM DRAIN A SEE SHEET ST1 STORM DRAIN B SEE SHEET ST2 STORM DRAIN I SEE SHEET ST3 GREGG S SCHMIDTKE 4607 KITCHELL WAY, FORT COLLINS POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROSPECT 6-12 SCHOOLS PROSPECT ROAD IN T E R S T A T E 2 5 THOMAS J SKILLMAN 4608 KITCHELL WAY, FORT COLLINS CDOT 1012 SE FRONTAGE RD, FORT COLLINS FOX GROVE HOA 4345 FOX GROVE DR, FORT COLLINS OS2 STORM DRAIN F SEE SHEET ST5 STORM DRAIN G SEE SHEET ST5 LAKE CANAL CULVERT A SEE SHEET LC2 LAKE CANAL CULVERT B SEE SHEET LC3 LAKE CANAL CULVERT C SEE SHEET LC3 TRIC CULVERT A SEE SHEET TRIC1 TRIC CULVERT B SEE SHEET TRIC1 RAIN GARDEN 2 OVERTOPPING (150 LF WEIR) RAIN GARDEN 3 OVERTOPPING (100 LF WEIR) RAIN GARDEN 4 OVERTOPPING (123 LF WEIR) RAIN GARDEN 5 OVERTOPPING (50 LF WEIR) RAIN GARDEN 1 OVERTOPPING (242 LF WEIR) EROSION BUFFER LIMITS 16.6 7 16.6 8 16 . 6 7 16. 6 8 OVERTOPPING EXTENTS DURING 100-YR EVENT POND 1 POND 2 POND 3 POND 3 (HYDRAULICALLY CONNECTED) R12 R13 r12 r13 4B FG1 SWALE (BETWEEN LOT 1 AND 2) 100-YR WSEL 100-YR WSEL 100-YR WSEL 100-YR WSEL 100-YR WSEL 100-YR WSEL DRAINAGE EASEMENT POND 3 OVERTOPPING LOCATION POND 2 OVERTOPPING LOCATION 24.7 8 24 . 7 8 23.93 POND 4 15 . 6 8 Sheet RU D O L P H F A R M of 158 PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED INLET A DESIGN POINT FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY RUNOFF SUMMARY: 1.REFER TO THE RUDOLPH FARM - FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2.ALL RAIN GARDENS WILL OVERTOP THE 100-YR EVENT INTO THEIR ADJACENT PONDS. REFER TO EROSION CONTROL SHEET FOR EROSION PROTECTION INFORMATION. 3.POND LINERS FOR POND1, POND 2, AND POND 3 ARE DESIGNED BY OTHERS. LEGEND: BASIN AREA A BASIN ID BASIN MINOR AND MAJOR C COEFFICIENTS NOTES: NORTH DR1 DR A I N A G E E X H I B I T 147 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet0150150 150 300 450 Pond Summary Pond ID WQCV (cu. ft.)WQCV WSEL 100-YR Volume (cu. ft.)100-YR WSEL Max Release Rate (cfs) 1 10,241 4904.41 201,893 4908.43 14.68 2 22,638 4911.25 618,699 4915.66 7 3 N/A N/A 197,769 4921.97 7 4 2,100 4911.46 31,231 4913.07 3.69