HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 03/13/2018I
I
L
11
.1
1]
I
A This Drainage Report Is consciously provided as a PDF.
t Please consider the environment before printing this document in Its entirety.
When a hard copy Is absolutely necessary, we recommend double -aided printing.
City of F rt Collins Approved PI ns
Approved b
Date; /3 14e
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR
UNION ON ELIZABETH
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
Plum Owner Ft Collins CO LLC
999 South Shady Grove Road, Suite 600
Memphis, TN 38120
Prepared by:
■� I NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
301 N. Howes, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159
www.iwdhemmWineedng.com
Project Number: 1252-005
' NorthernEnolneerina.corn H 970.221.4158
NORTHERN
'
ENGINEERING
'
March 9, 2018
City of Fort Collins
1
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
UNION ON ELIZABETH
'
Dear Staff:
1
I
I
I
I
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your
review. This report accompanies the Final Plan submittal for the proposed "Union on Elizabeth"
development.
This report has been prepared in accordance to Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM),
and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed project. We
understand that review by the City is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria
contained in the FCSCM.
If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
ama.
Aaron Cvar, PhD, PE
Senior Project Engineer
FORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521 1 970.221.4158
GREELEY: 820 8 m Street, 80631 1970.395.98801 WEB: www.northernengineedng.com
'
■y INORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Union on Elizabeth
'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...................................................................
1
'
A. Location.............................................................................................................................................1
B. Description of Property.....................................................................................................................2
'
C. Floodplain..........................................................................................................................................4
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS.......................................................................
6
'
A. Major Basin Description....................................................................................................................6
B. Sub -Basin Description.......................................................................................................................6
'
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA................................................................................... 7
A. Regulations........................................................................................................................................7
IC.
B. Four Step Process..............................................................................................................................
Development Criteria Reference and Constraints............................................................................7
7
D. Hydrological Criteria.........................................................................................................................8
'
E. Hydraulic Criteria..............................................................................................................................8
F. Modifications of Criteria................................................................................................................... 8
eIV.
DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN....................................................................................
9
A. General Concept...............................................................................................................................9
'
B. Specific Details................................................................................................................................10
V. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................11
'
A. Compliance with Standards............................................................................................................11
B. Drainage Concept............................................................................................................................11
'
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A — Hydrologic Computations, Historic Drainage Exhibit
APPENDIX B - USDA Soils Information
'
APPENDIX C — Hydraulic Computations
APPENDIX D — Water Quality Calculations, LID Information
APPENDIX E — Detention Calculations
APPENDIX F — Erosion Control Report
APPENDIX G — Current Effective FIRM Panel
APPENDIX H — Approved Stormater Variance Application
'
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1 — Aerial Photograph................................................................................................
2
'
Figure 2— Proposed Site Plan................................................................................................
Figure 3 — Existing Floodplains.............................................................................................
3
4
MAP POCKET:
Proposed Drainage Exhibit
Floodplain Exhibit
Final Drainage Report
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Union on Elizabeth
1
1
1
1
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
1. Vicinity Map
t v NORTH LOCATION
2. The project site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North,
Range 69 West of the 61"Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer,
State of Colorado.
3. The project site is located west of the intersection of South Shields St. and West
Elizabeth Street.
4. The project site lies within the Old Town Master Drainage Basin. Per the Old Town
Master Drainage Plan, onsite detention is required. Onsite detention is required for the
runoff volume difference between the 100 year developed inflow rate and the 2 year
historic release rate.
5. LID water quality treatment will be provided on site, as described in further detail
below.
Final Drainage Report
1
' ■� NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Union on Elizabeth
C]
I
1
1
1
I
J
1
6. As this is an infill site, much of the area surrounding the site is fully developed.
7. Offsite flows enter the site from the north and west. We have accounted for these
offsite flows and will safely convey 100-year offsite flows through the site and
discharge flows into the adjacent W. Elizabeth Street Right of Way. Offsite flows will
be treated as a "pass -through" design and will not receive water quality treatment or
detention. We have defined two offsite basins as shown in the Historic Drainage
Exhibit provided in Appendix A. Further discussion of these basins and flow
quantities are provided below.
B. Description of Property
1. The development area is roughly 2.2 net acres.
Figure 1 — Aerial Photograph
' 2. The subject property is currently composed of existing buildings, and landscaped
areas. Existing ground slopes are mild to moderate (i.e., 1 - 3±%) through the
interior of the property. General topography slopes from northwest to southeast.
1
3. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey website:
hftp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx,
the site consists of Nunn Clay Loam, which falls into Hydrologic Soil Group C.
4. The proposed project site plan is composed of the development of a student housing
development and amenities. Associated site work, water, and sewer lines will be
constructed with the development. Onsite water quality treatment is proposed and
will consist of several features which are discussed in Section IV, below.
Final Drainage Report
2
■� INORTHERN
ENGINEERING
on Elizabeth
F—
.
Ku NORTH
Figure 2— Proposed Site Plan
5. There are no known irrigation laterals crossing the site.
6. The proposed land use is mixed -use.
Final Drainage Report 3
' (NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Union on Elizabeth
I�
1
1
I
C. F000dplain
1. The project site is not encroached by any FEMA 100-year floodplain, please see
Appendix G for a copy of FIRM Map Number 08069CO978G (Revised 5/2/2012).
However, the City -designated 100-year flood fringe of W. Elizabeth does encroach
along the southern border of the site. Additionally, the project site is affected by the
CSU Underpass CLOMR, which, at the direction of City Stormwater Staff, is to be
considered best available data. We have obtained the data from this CLOMR, and
have utilized the data for establishing base (100-year) flood elevations through the
site.
Figure 3 —Area F000dplain Mapping (9 NORTH
2. A minimum of 18-inches of freeboard will be provided from base (100-year) flood
elevation (BFE) in adjacent Right of Way. This freeboard level will be applied to
either the design of finished floor elevations, or the minimum level of flood proofing
measures.
3. The base (100-year) flood elevation in the vicinity of the west building is 5029.30
(NAVD 88), which set the flood elevation for the entire site. This flood elevation was
interpolated at the upstream (southwest) corner of the proposed west building.
Please see Table 1 and Figure 1, below.
Final Drainage Report 4
' (NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
on Elizabeth
1
I
' MINIMUM FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
(FFE) - C (FFE VARIES, SEE PLAN)
1
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION
( - A v
TABLE 1— West Building Flood Summary Table
MIXED -USE BUILDING
SUMMARY - WEST
BUILDING
ELEV. DESIGNATION
PROJECT ELEV.
(NAVD 88)
A
5029.30 FT
B
5030.80 FT
C
5030.80 FT
REGULATORY FLOOD
PROTECTION
5030.80 FT
ELEVATION
FIGURE 1 — Foundation Detail
-1 MINIMUM HVAC EQUIPMENT
ELEVATION = B
78*
MIN.
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION
fl
4. The vertical datum utilized for site survey work is the City of Fort Collins Benchmark
#20-97 (Elevation=5050.15; NAVD 88).
5. It is noted that some of the surrounding developments have used the NGVD 29
(unadjusted) datum. The conversion from NAVD 88 to NGVD 29 (unadjusted) datum
is-3.18-ft.
6. Foundation for the retaiVresidential structures will be a combination of slab on grade
and a basement foundation.
7. A floodplain use permit will be required for each structure and each site construction
element in the floodplain. The floodplain use permit for each building will be
approved at the time of building permit application.
8. Critical Facilities are not allowed in the floodplain. There will be no Critical Facilities
in the floodplain associated with this project.
9. An elevation certificate will be completed before the Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) is
issued.
Final Drainage Report
5
■QUI INORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Union on Elizabeth
11. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
1. The project site lies within the Old Town Master Drainage Basin. Per the Old Town
Master Drainage Plan, onsite detention is required. Onsite detention is required for the
runoff volume difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the 2-year
historic release rate.
B. Sub -Basin Description
1. The subject property historically drains overland from the northwest to the southeast.
Runoff from the majority of the site has historically been collected in the adjacent W.
Elizabeth Street.
2. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns is provided below.
Final Drainage Report 6
'INORTHERN
EN RTHEIN6
Union on Elizabeth
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
'
A. Regulations
There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the proposed
project.
1
B. Four Step Process
The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the proposed project utilizes
"Four
the Step Process" to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters.
The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each
step.
Step 1 — Employ Runoff Reduction Practices
Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development to facilitate the
reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the
current use by implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID) strategies including:
Paver System with StormTech Chambers
'
Sand Filter
Step 2 — Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with
Slow Release
The efforts taken in Step 1 will facilitate the reduction of runoff; however, urban
development of this intensity will still generate stormwater runoff that will require
1 additional BMPs and water quality. The majority of stormwater runoff from the site will
ultimately be intercepted and treated using LID treatment methods prior to exiting the site.
' Step 3 — Stabilize Drainageways
There are no major drainageways within the subject property. While this step may not
seem applicable to proposed development, the project indirectly helps achieve stabilized
drainageways nonetheless. By providing water quality treatment, where none previously
existed, sediment with erosion potential is removed from downstream drainageway
systems. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as
' well as ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City-wide
drainageway stability.
Step 4 — Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs.
The proposed project will improve upon site specific source controls compared to historic
conditions:
m A portion of the site will be treated via a paver system with StormTech chambers,
providing filtration of suspended solids.
M The upper level of the proposed parking garage will be treated via a sand filter
provided in the lower level of the structure.
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The subject property is surrounded by currently developed properties. Thus, several
constraints have been identified during the course of this analysis that will impact the
proposed drainage system including:
Existing elevations along the property lines will generally be maintained.
As previously mentioned, overall drainage patterns of the existing site will be
maintained.
Final Drainage Report 7
1 .V (NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Union on Elizabeth
Elevations of existing downstream facilities that the subject property will release to
will be maintained.
1 Existing flows from the north and west will need to be safely conveyed through the
proposed site.
1
D. Hydrological Criteria
1.
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 the proposed development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7
1
has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations.
2.
The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing
1
coefficients contained in Tables RO-11 and RO-12 of the FCSCM.
3.
Three separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage
I
scenarios. A fourth design storm has also been computed for comparison purposes.
The first design storm considered is the 801' percentile rain event, which has been
employed to design the projecrs water quality features. The second event analyzed is
1
the "Minor," or "Initial" Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The third
event considered is the "Major Storm," which has a 100-year recurrence interval.
The fourth storm computed, for comparison purposes only, is the 10-year event.
4.
No other assumptions or calculation methods have been used with this development
that are not referenced by current City of Fort Collins criteria.
'
E. Hydraulic Criteria
1.
As previously noted, the subject property maintains historic drainage patterns.
2.
All drainage facilities proposed with the project are designed in accordance with
criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
(UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
3.
As discussed above, the subject property is located in a 100-year floodplain. The
proposed project does not propose to modify any natural drainageways.
1
F. Modifications of Criteria
1
I
I
1
1
1. The proposed development is not requesting any modifications to criteria at this time.
1
Final Drainage Report
8
■� (NORTHERN
ENGINEERING Union on Elizabeth
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
' A. General Concept
1. The main objectives of the project drainage design are to maintain existing drainage
patterns, and to ensure no adverse impacts to any adjacent properties.
2. LID treatment will be provided using a combination of a paver system, StormTech
chambers, and a sand filter within the parking structure, as discussed further below.
j 3. Drainage patterns anticipated for drainage basins shown in the Drainage Exhibit are
described below.
' Basin 1
Basin 1 is primarily composed of landscaped areas and an alleyway. This basin will
drain via alleyway curb and gutter into a curb chase, which will direct runoff into W.
Elizabeth Street. Runoff from this basin will not be detained; therefore, the overall site
release rate will reduced to compensate for this undetained release.
Basins 2a, 2b. 2c & 3
'
Basins 2a, 2b, 2c and 3 are composed primarily of rooftop and parking garage areas,
as well as the courtyard paseo. These basins will generally drain via internal piping
systems within the proposed buildings or via surface conveyance. Runoff from Basin
'
2a and 2c will be treated by isolator rows within the StormTech system and detained
within the overall StormTech chamber system underneath the proposed paver system.
Runoff from Basin 2b will be treated by the paver system and detained within the
I
aggregate subbase and StormTech chambers. Runoff from Basin 3 will be detained
and will receive LID treatment within the sand filter in the concrete vault, as discussed
further below. The proposed concrete vault in Basin 3 will release into a storm line
system which will outfall to the adjacent north curb and gutter of W. Elizabeth Street.
The paver subdrain system will also outfall to this storm line system and be conveyed
to the adjacent north curb and gutter of W. Elizabeth Street.
1 Basin 4
Basin 4 is composed of landscaped areas and an access drive. This basin will
' generally drain via swale flow to a curb chase into W. Elizabeth Street. Runoff from
this basin will not be detained; therefore, the overall site release rate will be reduced
to compensate for this undetained release.
Basins OSl and OS2
Basin OS1 is composed of offsite drainage areas to the west of the site. These areas
are fully developed with portions of the basin consisting of multi -family development
and portions consisting of paved parking areas. An offsite basin exhibit has been
provided in Appendix A, as well as peak 100-year discharge calculations. Peak 100-
year discharge from this basin will be conveyed in a proposed alley section with pan,
and will be safely conveyed south along the site western boundary into the north curb
and gutter of W. Elizabeth Street.
Basin OS2 consists of the recently developed "Scott Plaza" (Ref. 7). The offsite basin
exhibit provided in Appendix A shows the extents of this basin and peak 100-year
discharge calculations are also provided in this appendix section. Peak 100-year
1 discharge from this basin will be conveyed south as sheet flow across the proposed
paver system within Basin 2 and into the north curb and gutter of W. Elizabeth Street.
' Final Drainage Report 9
(NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
Union on Elizabeth
n
[1
I
I
I
I
A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of
this report.
B. Specific Details
1. Two onsite detention facilities will be provided within the site. A chamber
detention system will be utilized in conjunction with the aggregate subgrade of
the paver system proposed within Drainage Basins 2a and 2b. The underlying
StormTech chamber system will provide detention as well as LID treatment in
the Isolator Row for Basins 2a and 2b. The paver system will serve as LID
treatment and provide detetion for Basin 2b. A concrete vault detention
system will be provided within the building envelope shown within Drainage
Basin 3.
2. Based on calculations provided in Appendix E, the required detention volume
for the proposed concrete vault is 0.038 Ac-Ft, with a peak 100-year release
rate of 5.20 cfs, which is below the allowable release rate discussed above.
3. Based on calculations provided in Appendix E, the required detention volume
for the proposed chamber system within the subgrade of the paver system is
0.069 Ac-Ft, with a peak 100-year release rate of 0.75 cfs
4. Emergency overflow conveyance paths and calculations for both detention
facilities is provided in Appendix E.
5. A total combined release rate has been determined for the proposed detention
facilities has been set at 6.39 cfs. This release rate has been determined
based on the methodology utilized for previous projects in close proximity to
the current project (approved Final Drainage Report for "The Retreat at 1200
Plum", Ref. 6; approved Final Drainage Report for "Scott Plaza", Ref. 7). The
methodology accounts for impervious area that is allowed to be
"grandfathered". There is 1.42 acres of impervious area within the
development site which drains to W. Elizabeth Street. A 100-year discharge
from this impervious area of 9.84 cfs has been calculated. There is 0.80
acres of pervious area within the development site which also drains to W.
Elizabeth Street. A 2-year discharge of 0.36 cfs has been calculated from this
pervious area. The sum of "grandfathered" impervious area discharge into W.
Elizabeth Street combined with 2-year pervious area discharge is 10.20 cfs,
which is considered as the allowable peak release rate for the site. We have
subtracted the 100-year undetained discharge computed from Basins 1, and 4
(3.81 cfs total) for an allowable release rate of 10.20-3.81=6.39 cfs.
6. LID features within the site include a StormTech chamber system for Basins
2aand 2c, a paver system in Basin 2b, and a sand filter in Basin 3. Please
refer to Appendix C for an LID Exhibit and all pertinent calculations and
information. As shown in Appendix C, the proposed LID treatment design
exceeds the 75% treatment requirement.
7. Stormwater facility Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) will be provided by
the City of Fort Collins in the Development Agreement.
Final Drainage Report 10
' INORTHERN
EN IN6
Union on Elizabeth
V. CONCLUSIONS
' A. Compliance with Standards
1. The drainage design proposed with the proposed project complies with the City of Fort
Collins' Stormwater Criteria Manual.
' 2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with requirements for the Old
Town Master Drainage Basin.
' 3. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the
proposed development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations
governing stormwater discharge.
B. Drainage Concept
1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential
damage associated with its stormwater runoff by providing detention and water
quality mitigation features.
' 2. The drainage concept for the proposed development is consistent with requirements
for the Old Town Master Drainage Basin.
H
1
I
I
I
IL
References
1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No.
174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code.
2. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and
Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007.
3. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
4. Downtown River District (DTRD) Final Design Report, Ayres Associates, February 2012.
5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District, Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado.
6. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for The Retreat at 1200 Plum Northern
Engineering, April 22, 2009.
7. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Scott Plaza, Northern Engineering June
10, 2014.
Final Drainage Report
11
I
APPENDIX A
' Hydrologic Computations, Historic Drainage Exhibit
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I�
u
r
I
ap yZ
000
000
00
0
C n
6
NO
V•�0001
O1�
0
a
ornM
^
o
m
a00oo
rnn
00t0�
3°
N N
O N 0
C
c.Y
cn
Cn
0
010MOc0
0^
O
.--i
00
00
M
O
0
0
CM
LO
o
Cl
.r Q LL O
as 0 W
C
Z
Q C
y d
M
tO
00
O1
In
O
d 0
pyp
a c Y
^
01
It
N
st
CA
to
M
M
Ln
In
N
to
(1
o
0 om
OOOOOO
OO
O
O
C.1 tOi
�Wpp
G7 cS
E
m yyp V
M
^01�N(n
Ln
00
0)
.4
In
lO
M
In
In
In
Q
p c -
y
0100
N
01
V
N m
000000
00
O
O
U
C07
2
O
L
(�V6
to
m a
LL
cS
E
Q;E9v
N c
Ic".
(n
1+)
C)o
00000000
co
O
0
O
C�
t9
BO
o
_O
,Z
O
Ccj
0
�0000
0
0
!C� C Y
Z'
.m.
d
E
00�000
0
0
00
0
�;
o00000
00
0
0
�
M
Q
y
c
m
2
c Y
cn
01
M
01
O
In
01
0
O
In
(n
.-�
Ln
N
H
..
Y
Q
0
00000
00
Q y�
IC5
vs
Ci
0m00o0
0
00
W
y
o
61616
.;
o
in0
o
C5
o
MCA
Q�
MOo0000
^rn
o
m
'cc
000000
00
CD
Q.m
C N
i.
10
2`
0
c m
a�v
o00000
coo
0
Lnl
0
000000
NO
CD
( O
•
O
CJ
C;
0
0
0
N
O
O
O
W
:o
€
A
y
N
M
Q Y
CA
c0MN
Ln
In
In
N
O
N
O
C V
•�
M..
Om
Cn
N
00
ct
-
y
OOOO.rO
NO
O
.+
C
v �
8
to
G
Y
v
a
Qw
NIDW
NM
��
w
0
W
ra
ins
O0�u�7�u7(n
NO�i
a
01
,�
m
v~
M
tp
ci K eb
ix
:n
H 9B12
m
C'o
in ¢`
in Q
Ln �, T
m
.y
"
N
N
N
M
V
N CO
•C
o 'C
O
N
m
000.2
i'0n0�
0'
Y
dQI
y�cgaira"W
I�
1
co
o
a
f E
m
N
n
in
r'
N
tg
00
�gg
N
N
m
In
n
N
O
@ r
E
F
INn G a
f E
In
m
n
.a.
ti ¢ ILL
^c
¢
a
a¢
a¢
¢¢
a
a
s
$ y v
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
JJ g
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
c
aaaoIe
In
..
..
¢
cp
YOf
Q
ram+
,
o
oi
�
V
u
uoi
a
uoi
o
C
y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
2
J�
N
O
O
l�0
100
fp
O
O
in0
y�y
J
N
V
C
10
O
n
(O
M
CD
n
O
O
E
ui
..
o
.:
ro
M
m
o
..
F
o
Lq
w
a
m
N
v
2
d E
10
N
I.:
N
m
M
ti
O
N
V
LL
N
O
t0m
~ N E
u
N
IN:N
O
M
ti
W
.Ni
el
Qy
O
O
II
G
m
A
N
O
co
N
N
N
O
O
ti
O
^+
.-;
N
o
ti
U.
qJ
N
N
n
O
Iq
11[
O
0�1
000
10
LO
y
CS H
M
O
lM
0
M
t0
M
O
O
Y
f.1 1
O.
O
O
O
O
O
I~.)
C
O
O
moo
Olr
10
0
N
m
10
N
10
N
m
N
0
N
Wfl
v
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
0
�•~ n
0
a
N .-I
m II
N
O
0100
o
0
N
0
100
0
N
o
m0Of
G
O
N
G
N
o
c it
L r,
U
s S
cog
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*, qo N
N
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
p
\
y ir»
&»�
ry C
ON
0 z
L
(n GO
C
oo
Z
SCL
t EI
2 ...
00
.W.. W
rl +
T
M
O
N
L
N O _Iq�
II II
1
O
O
m¢
E¢
H F='> > 2
S V
Ste.
I
LI
C
0
O
LO
In
N
00
INn
O
O
.Ln+
N
ch
M
O
O
.�
3
e ..
0 =
Lc)
d
.y
00
N
r,
tO
d
.--�
to
.-�
..
d
m
LO
O
rn
ID
d
00
fn
O
O
00
N
N
..
L
n
N
in
00
0
n
N
00
to
a
00
r� Q
O.
-�
O
O
rn
0
2;
O
O
d
O
N
00
Ln N
O
N
d
In
0
O
rl
O
n
to
Or
cnLn
O
O
N
O
to
O
O
N
rN°
a
m W
C
g
Or
a
rn
M
In
r1
N
ch
a
r1
N
N
m
OL
C -
01
t0
131
N
a
M
t0
.
_
&
00
Of
Of
cn
00
r`
00
0;
to
tO
p =
O
—
r�
00
.+
cn
n
00
cn
tO
O
a
1n
01
.+
M
00
O
O1
N
cn
M
cn
a
M
of
C
O
d
a
co
N
Lo
a
00
In
-i
a
O
O
m
N
Ln
.�
00
N
Of
H
N
N
N
Ci
N
N
N
N
.+
N
2
C
m
a
o
to
m
o
co
0
o
cn
o
rM.maNmtao
m00
N
m
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z
rl
T
It
Od
1
tO
m
O0
N
Or
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
e$~�E
r
�aWa�,�
00w
to
m
As
a
cF E
00cnr,Un
o,�
.d.
z
�" E
00
mN
in
CIJ
c+
r`
tV
0
<
p
g
A
�c°0n.m.�ocan
mN
co
a
QV
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
Y
0
LL
en O
N
a
N
U
N
M
d
fn
N
u N
C O
u
00
n Q
>.<
Y.0 5
c
fq
N O
ti &
C �„
'CO
N
N
fV
M
d
cn
yj
uq?
0
_
j
O
O
Q
e Q
E —
Tno
E
Runoff Chapter 6
1
r
11
[]
I
Table 6-3. Recommended percentage imperviousness values
Land Use or
Surface Characteristics
Percentage Imperviousness
N
Business:
Downtown Areas
95
Suburban Areas
75
Residential:
Single-family
2.5 acres or larger
12
0.75 — 2.5 acres
20
0.25 — 0.75 acres
30
0.25 acres or less
45
Apartments
75
Industrial:
Light areas
80
Heavy areas
90
Parks, cemeteries
10
Playgrounds
25
Schools
55
Railroad yard areas
50
Undeveloped Areas:
Historic flow analysis
2
Greenbelts, agricultural
2
Off -site flow analysis (when land use not
defined
45
Streets:
Paved
100
Gravel (packed)
40
Drive and walks
90
Roofs
90
Lawns, sandy soil
2
Lawns, clayey soil
2
6-8 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District January 2016
Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1
I
i
1
1
11
1
i
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
W�
=We
Hz�
CD i
ZW C
C�
1
APPENDIX B
USDA Soils Information
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
7
J
I
I
1
I
USDA United States
Department of
Agriculture
MRCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Larimer County
Area, Colorado
August 14, 2017
J
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
'
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
'
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.govtwps/
portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
'
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(hftps://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.govtwps/portal/nres/detaiVsoils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
'
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
'
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
I
' 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.
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
Contents
' Preface ........................ ........ .................................................................................... 2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
' Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8
SoilMap................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11
' Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11
Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................13
74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes.................................................13
76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes.........................................14
References............................................................................................................16
1
1
1
1 4
I
1
1
i
i
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
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 landforrn 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
1
Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
'
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
'
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
'
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
'
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
'
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
'
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
'
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
'
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
'
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
'
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
Custom Soil Resource Report
' identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
t
�II
1
L
i 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.
I
1
I
1 8
039WbC M WW OC9L6W OZ9L6Vt Ol9l6W OWL6W 06mo 099w" OLM" 099W" MlBm
M .8c ,5 o50T
k
1
1
O
CL
1 O
PY
N
O N
' N
tU
O
O�
cn
O
y
7
U
' M.955 o90T
V I
M.MbS o50I
p
Y
w
pp x
0 a
�
J
c
c
CL
p
p
z Q
— -
M.995 e90l
059L6" Ma" Of9le"
OZ9L86V OL91" 009LW Owww 089u" OL9Lw 099LeVC wgim
m
k
m m
r0 «
m
U
LD
$ o, m
$
� C m
�
m
�
3 c o
m
v
o L
-0y
NE
v
p
N
m=
m
E
m
YE°
a r;
LD0*=
v
m
c
c
o
N a m
O
_
M
C
�E
2
O w
�E
—;0
0,m
oa
Om
Z
ry
>
m
E
U W
° E
LD N
0
L
3C
yO
ac
I
o
D
Q
cLa
>o
0
o m
T o
�
=
o
cm�mE
m0
U.
�c
EdUa
�
tEm
° L
v
m
a
m
=
a
= v
on
dam=EyrL)
aa E
>
La
u=
0)
LmuaECL
an�-emmm
W
E
i
N N y
197
m>
N
LN p
m
E
a
a
m
Z Em
a F2 Q c
o
m
Wa
-
m
Op
Mm
m
m
E
°L
O
VE
m m_
9
0) 04mp
E
�ay
m
o
°'
og�
Qcmdu
oa>
mo
Ec
m
oEt1CN
y2m
Ld
o-4
N
ei
m
=a°
° m °
y
—t—p
°
m E m
w E
a E
0)
av¢m
o
crn
iN
o
8E y
g
N
N
U
N
r
T
12
v a
< T
o
N
a
w
F
m o
m V'o tr
o L
s a
W N
>
3 o cn
;n
o
= f
a
Q
A
A
O
v
C
W/�
€� y
a
C
O
0
A
A
h
A
m
W
Jw
CL
a
<
N
T
N
y
8
�
'o
a
0.
� a
'uNi
E �,
m
m
a??
o
30 O
c
$
S
N
°n
a
m
n n
m W
O
N
O a �.
LL o
m
T
o 0
we
m m
�m
,G L
C >
�
m
O �
C >
Y
O m
Z Q
O
to
O O E O
to to G f0
coO
N
U
O
U (7 U
_c
J J rG
0
a
fr to
co fn
O_
w N
V
0
IL
e
e
w
a
Q
N
t0
Custom Soil Resource Report
I
1
Map Unit Legend
e m� -,
Map Unk Symbol
.y _.
74
--T.� Lrle 111�1
1:111)Aao
----®-C�
o�1C84
Map Unit Name.
Nunn day loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
Q s , Acres In AOI
Paercent of A01
2.2
91.9%a
76
Nunn day loam, wet, 1 to 3
percent slopes
0.2
8.1 %
Totals for Area of Interest
2A
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
'
delineation of such segments on the.map provides sufficient information for the
11
ICustom Soil Resource Report
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 the map in the
precedes unit name map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have that
profiles 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.
I
1
12
'
1 Custom Soil Resource Report
Larimer County Area, Colorado
1 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tlpl
Elevation: 3,900 to 5,840 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F
I Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
1 Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit.
Description of Nunn
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landforrn position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Linear
' Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: day loam
Bt - 9 to 13 inches: clay loam
Btk - 13 to 25 inches: day loam
Bk1 - 25 to 38 inches: clay loam
Bk2 - 38 to 80 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
' Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural 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 in profile: 7 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 0.5
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
' Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO)
Hydric soil rating: No
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Heldt
1
Percent of map unit. 10 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO)
1
Hydric soil rating. No
Satanta
Percent of map unit. 5 percent
Landform. Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
1
Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO)
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
1
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: Alluvial fans, stream terraces
Landfonn 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 loam, clay
H2 - 10 to 47 inches: clay loam, loam, gravelly sandy loam
H3 - 47 to 60 inches.
iH3 - 47 to 60 inches:
14
ICustom Soil Resource Report
1 H3 - 47 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
1
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural 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. Rare
Frequency of ponding. None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 19.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
I
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w
Land capability classfcation (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
'
Hydric soil rating. No
Minor Components
Heldt
Percent of map unit. 6 percent
_
Hydric soil rating. No
Dacono
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
' Mollic halaquepts
Percent of map unit. 1 percent
Landform: Swales
Hydric soil rating: Yes
I
i
1
1 15
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.govtwps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres l42p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www. nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detaii/soils/
home/?cid=nres 142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.govtwps/portal/nres/
detail/nationalAand use/rangepasture/?cid=steiprdb 1043084
16
Custom Soil Resource Report
iUnited States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.govtwps/portal/
1 nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
' the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/lntemeVFSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf
I
1
I
17
I
APPENDIX C
1 Water Quality Computations, LID Information
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
[1
I
1
1
1
1
\�\ice \ � \
- m
y d d
m �
dam°'
� u >
is y
> 01 m
a �
v u a
a '^
p E E
6 � L
2 U
a d C ry
C a �
r u G —
> LL
d
E
E N �
m
E f
E
9
V�1 E w Go
r
O E 6 E
u
L
m ` �
m v
d
d _
0 9 d E E o
A
> —
E
m a
m
U v E E m
c u
A
a N �d
> E L M O
y d w — o
u w
b
d �
E d� $
E
uu �+
LL 3 o
c
d
d E
= —'
LO
S �> w
H cr
- � 3
G
A n
j 'O
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
L_J
I
L
1
I
StormTech Chamber Data
Chamber Dimensions
SC-16OLP
SC-310
SC-740
Width (in)
25
34.00
51.00
Length (in)
85.4
85.40
85.40
Height (in)
12
16.00
30.00
Floor Area (so
14.83
20.16
30.25
Chamber Volume (cf)
6.85
14.70
45.90
Chamber/Aggregate Volume (cf)
15.00
31.00
74.90
Chamber Flow Rate Conversion (gpm/sf to cfs)
Flow Rate`*
0.35
gpm/sf
1 cf =
7.48052
gal
1 gallon =
0.133681
cf
1 GPM =
0.002228
cfs
"Flow rate based on 1/2 of Nov 07 CL., in Figure 17 of UNH Testing Report
Chamber Flow Rate
SC-160LP
I SC-310
SC-740
Flow Rate/chamber (cfs)
0.011S621
0.0157241
0.023586
' NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
1
1
1
I
I
i
I
Chamber Volume Calculation I FAA Method
Project: Union on Elizabeth
Project Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Calculations By: A. Reese Date: February 16, 2018
Pond No.: Paseo ChamberE.
Input Variables
Results
Design Point 2
Design Storm WQ
Developed "C" = 1.00
Area (A)= 0.45 acres
Max Release Rate = 0.50 cfs
Required Detention Volume
Quantity Detention 42 ft3
Time
Time
Ft.Collins
WQ
Intensity
Q100
Inflow
(Runoff)
Volume
Outflow
(Release) Volume
Storage
Detention
Volume
(mins)
(secs)
(in/h0
(Cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
5
300
1.43
0.6
192
150
42
10
600
1.11
0.5
298
300
-2
15
900
0.94
0.4
379
450
-71
20
1200
0.81
0.4
435
600
-165
25
1500
0.72
0.3
483
750
-267
30
1800
0.65
0.3
527
900
-374
35
2100
0.59
0.3
1 553
1050
-497
40
2400
0.54
0.2
578
1200
-622
45
2700
0.50
0.2
601
1350
-749
50
3000
0.46
0.2
621
1500
-879
55
3300
0.44
0.2
646
1650
-1004
60
3600
0.41
0.2
664
1800
-1136
65
3900
0.39
0.2
676
1950
-1274
70
4200
0.37
0.2
1 690
2100
-1410
75
4500
0.35
0.2
1 699
2250
-1551
80
4800
0.33
0.1
713
2400
-1687
85
5100
0.32
0.1
723
2550
-1827
90
5400
0.31
0.1
741
2700
-1959
95
5700
0.29
0.1
744
2850
-2106
100
6000
0.28
0.1
756
3000
-2244
105
6300
0.27
0.1
765
3150
-2385
110
6600
0.26
0.1
772
3300
-2528
115
6900
0.3
0.1
792
3450
-2658
120
7200
0.25
0.1
794
3600
-2806
D:lProjects11252-0051DrainagelL/D11252-005 FAA Vault l.xisml
WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS
STORMTECH ISOLATOR ROW
Project: 1252-001
By: A. Reese
2/16/2018
REQUIRED STORAGE & OUTLET WORKS:
BASIN AREA =
0.455
<— INPUT from impervious talcs
BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENT =
78.80
<— INPUT from impervious calcs
BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS RATIO =
0.7880
<— CALCULATED
WQCV (watershed inches) =
0.321
<— CALCULATED from Figure EDB-2
WQCV (ac-ft) =
0.015
<— CALCULATED from UDFCD DCM V.3 Section 6.5
WQCV (cu-ft) =
636
<— CALCULATED from UDFCD DCM V.3 Section 6.5
II Design Procedure Form: Sand Filter (SF)
JD-BMP (Version 3.06, November 2016) Sheet 1 of 2
Designer: A. Reeser
Company: Northern Engineering
Date: February 13, 2018
Project: The Union on Elizabeth
Locabon: Fort Collins, Colorado
1. Basin Storage Volume
A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I,
I, =
90.0
%
(100% it and paved and roofed areas upstream of sand fitter)
B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = 1 J100)
i =
0,900
C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Based on 12-hour Drain Time
WQCV =
0.32
watershed inches
WQCV= 0.8 - (0.91- i'- 1.19 - i°+ 0.78 - it
D) Contributing Watershed Area (including sand fitter area)
Area =—
45,115
so ft
E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume
Vwocv =
1,208
cu It
Vwocv = WQCV / 12' Area
F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of
dr =
in
Average Runoff Producing Stone
G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,
Vwocvon R =
cu ft
Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume
H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume
Vwocvusm =
cu ft
(Only H a different WQCV Design Volume is desired)
2. Basin Geometry
A) WQCV Depth
Dv c , =
1.3
ft
B) Sand Fitter Side Slopes (Horizontal distance per unit vertical,
Z =
0.00
it I ft
4:1 or flatter preferred). Use'()' if sand filter has vertical walls.
C) Minimum Fitter Area (Flat Surface Area)
Ara, =
508
sq it
D) Actual Filter Area
Pve,w =
928
sq tt
E) Volume Provided
VT =
1216
cu ft
rChoose One
3. Filter Maternal
*t8' (D0T Oars 8 a C Filter Material
C)Jthe+ (Explain):
I
4. Underdraln System
one
A) Are underdrains provided'?
Fe
ES W
(-)No
B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time
i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage
y=
fi
Volume to the Center of the Orifice
li) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours
V0117=
N/A
cu ft
lii) Orifice Diameter, 318' Minimum
Do =
in
Sand Ftter_U0-BMP_v3.06.xlsm, SF 2/13/2018, 5:26 PM
APPENDIX D
i Hydraulic Calculations
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
7
I
I
J
I
SIDEWALK CULVERT CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
Channel Report BASIN 1 + BASIN OS1 2YR FLOW=6.54 CFS
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AuloCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.
Sidewalk Cullvert-Basin 1 Outfall
iRectangular
Bottom Width (ft)
= 2.00
Total Depth (ft)
= 0.47
Invert Elev (ft)
= 100.00
Slope (%)
= 2.00
N-Value
= 0.013
'Calculations
Compute by:
Known Q
Known Q (cfs)
= 6.54
1
Elev (ft)
Section
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
Q (cfs)
Area (sqft)
Velocity (fbs)
Wetted Perim (ft)
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
Top Width (ft)
EGL (ft)
Friday, Dec 29 2017
= 0.45
= 6.540
= 0.90
= 7.27
= 2.90
= 0.47
= 2.00
= 1.27
I i.uu
1
100.75
i
' 100.50
i
100.25
'
' 100.00
44 7-r,
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Reach (ft)
Depth (ft)
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0M
-0.25
SIDEWALK CULVERT CAPACITY CALCULATIONS CONC.VAULT;
' Channel Report CHAMBER SYSTEM 100-YR COMBINED FLOW=5.95 CFS
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3138 by Autodesk, Inc.
Sidewalk Cullvert-ConcNault Outfall
Rectangular
Bottom Width (ft)
= 2.00
Total Depth (ft)
= 0.47
Invert Elev (ft)
= 100.00
Slope (%)
= 2.00
N-Value
= 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:
Known Q
Known Q (cfs)
= 5.95
Elev (ft)
Section
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
Q (cis)
Area (sqft)
Velocity (ft/s)
Wetted Perim (ft)
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
Top Width (ft)
EGL (ft)
Tuesday, Nov 28 2017
= 0.42
= 5.950
= 0.84
= 7.08
= 2.84
= 0.47
= 2.00
= 1.20
' iu1.uu
100.75
100.50
' 100.25
100.00
1
99.75
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
' Reach (ft)
Depth (ft)
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
,,.
-0.25
'WEST ALLEY SWALE/ALLEY CONVEYANCE SECTION
Channel Report - OFFSITE + ONSITE 100-YR FLOW=27.00 CFS
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Thursday, Dec 28 2017
<Name>
User -defined
Highlighted
Invert Elev (ft)
= 28.90
Depth (ft)
= 0.62
(%)
= 0.50
Q (cfs)
= 27.00
'Slope
N-Value
= 0.018
Area (sqft)
= 9.39
Velocity (ftls)
= 2.88
Calculations
Wetted Perim (ft)
= 26.18
Compute by:
Known Q
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
= 0.58
Known Q (cfs)
= 27.00
Top Width (ft)
= 26.01
EGL (ft)
= 0.75
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
(0.00, 29.75)-(6.00, 29.20, 0.016}(24.50, 29.00, 0.016}(25.50, 28.90, 0.016}(26.00, 29.30, 0.016)-(34.00, 30.00, 0.035)
'
Elev (ft)
Section
' 31.00
' 30.50
1
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sta (ft)
Depth (ft;
2.10
1.60
1.10
0.60
0.10
-0.40
-0.90
Channel Report CURB CUT CAPACITY CALCULATIONS BASIN 4
p (PORTION; 0.18 ACRE) 100-YR FLOW=1.10 CFS
1
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Auto CAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.
Curb Cut - Basin 4
Rectangular
Bottom Width (ft)
= 2.00
1
Total Depth (ft)
= 0.47
Invert Elev (ft)
= 100.00
Slope (%)
= 2.00
N-Value
= 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:
Known Q
Known Q (cfs)
= 1.10
Elev (ft)
Section
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
Q (cfs)
Area (sqft)
Velocity (ft/s)
Wetted Perim (ft)
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
Top Width (ft)
EGL (ft)
Thursday, Dec 28 2017
= 0.14
= 1.100
= 0.28
= 3.93
= 2.28
= 0.22
= 2.00
= 0.38
iui.uu
1
100.75
1
' 100.50
1
1 100,25
' 100.00
99.7s
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Reach (ft)
Depth (ft) I
.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
M
-0.25
I
I
I
I
M
11
[1
1
N
N
O
G
@
�
q
/
I
I]
@
I
�
e
0
low
�
E
0
@
E
@
re
L2
�
�
�
�
2� £
4%
E
q §
c
aLu
--
o
k
J&F
i 7
w
§
k
■
2 k
■2E
� �
B
to § §
§ § § §
■
IA
>CD
m
—
_
2
0
z
� E
(92£
C) CD 1
§ k
Ln B .
co r-
2co
a£co
k k k
I-
§
E
R § 2 V
§ § k k
IRt
��
\ /
.
a=«
Go
§ §
§ §
k
§ § § §
&
icn
E
—
A
02E
k B
Ln §
`■—
E
■_.
9
_
2
°
€
r- r- w w
2
a
_
'
(
.
ƒ
� V) V
N
I
m
O
ch
L.
CD
�co
E
L
'O
co
I
0
0
0
0
CD
0
O
N
N
cli
01Cl)
f0
LO
N 1�
LO
Ln
O
O
W
O
O
O
n
0
m
O U
f0
N
Q'
1n0 9L'6ZO9 '13 AUI
9Z'L£OS'13 TWO
L :u-I - 60ti'OV+p e1Scn
0
<
O
Cl
Cl
O J
N
W
i
O J
c�
x
uI £9'8ZOS '13 '^UI
£Z'LE09'13 TWO
IIeRnO - 00 00+0 e1S
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
L
W
11
I
u
u
1
1
N
O
1
E
. �S
0
MO
r�n
V
to
75
L`
1
O
M
yNy
O
f O
�
o
co
LD
W Ox
O
C
N
Y
N
O
N
L
U
> .
O
o
N
o
�
w
o
J >
(U CI �^.
�
W 0.r
N
/0
t
M
O
>
y
R
u
C
7
O.
10
o
O
E
a w
L
:
0
z
n
�coo
p x
o
J >
Obi
= m
to
fD
O1
c
a
O
O
o
O
O
O
J >
N
(7 m ^
m
CD
to
W
M
> L x
O
a^ay
N
WO
m
C
Od
fO
O
Q N
O
O
L
Y
Go
X
OQ
II
a
i7
G
J >
O)
N
N
II
S m
N
N
E
IU
Q
m
01
F
Q
L
d
tly
F
N
L
D
v
N
0
O
g
Z
.0
V
N
Ui
N C_
LL
y
b
W
0
c
O
N
z
J
a`
l'
APPENDIX E
' Detention Calculations
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
i
1
I
DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD
Project Number : 1252-005
Date : 2/18/18
Project Location : Fort Collins
Calculations By: ATC
Pond No : Concrete Vault
Input Variables 7 Results
Design Point 3
Design Storm 100-yr
Developed "C" = 1.00
Area (A)= 1.04 acres
Max Release Rate = 5.20 cfs
Required Detention Volume
1677 ft3
0.038 ac-ft
Time
Time
100-yr
Intensity
Q100
Inflow
(Runoff)
Volume
Outflow
(Release)
Volume
Storage
Detention
Volume
mins
secs
in/hr
cfs
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
5
300
9.950
10.30
3091
1560.0
1531.4
10
600
7.720
8.00
4797
3120.0
1677.0
15
900
6.520
6.75
6077
4680.0
1397.1
20
1200
5.600
5.80
6959
6240.0
719.4
25
1500
4.980
5.16
7736
7800.0
-63.9
30
1800
4.520
4.68
8426
9360.0
-934.1
35
2100
4.080
4.23
8873
10920.0
-2046.7
40
2400
3.740
3.87
9296
12480.0
-3184.2
45
2700
3.460
3.58
9675
14040.0
-4365.2
50
3000
3.230
3.35
10035
15600.0
-5564.8
55
3300
3.030
3.14
10355
17160.0
-6804.7
60
3600
2.860
2.96
10663
18720.0
-8057.2
65
3900
2.720
2.82
10986
20280.0
-9294.0
70
4200
2.590
2.68
11266
21840.0
-10574.4
75
4500
2.480
2.57
11558
23400.0
-11842.4
80
4800
2.380
2.46
11831
24960.0
-13129.0
85
5100
2.290
2.37
12095
26520.0
-14424.9
90
5400
2.210
2.29
12359
28080.0
-15720.8
95
5700
2.130
2.21
12574
29640.0
-17066.4
100
6000
2.060
2.13
12800
31200.0
-18399.6
105
6300
2.000
2.07
13049
32760.0
-19711.1
110
6600
1.940
2.01
13260
34320.0
-21059.8
115
6900
1.890
1.96
13506 1
35880.0
-22374.4
120
7200
1.840
1.91
13720 1
37440.0
-23720.0
I
11
1
OUTLET RATING CURVE
Concrete Vault Detention Orifice
Project: 1252-005
Date: 10/15/2017
By: ATC
100-YR ORIFICE RATING
Orifice Dia (in) 9.50
Orifice Area (sf) 0.4922
Orifice invert (ft) 0.00
Orifice Coefficient 0.65
Orifice Area
(SF)
Stage
(FT)
Outlet
release
(CFS)
0.4922
0.00
0.00
0.4922
0.25
1.28
0.4922
0.50
1.82
0.4922
0.75
2.22
0.4922
1.00
2.57
0.4922
1.25
2.87
0.4922
1.50
3.14
0.4922
1.75
3.40
0.4922
2.00
3.63
0.4922
2.2S
3.85
0.4922
2.50
4.06
0.4922
2.75
4.26
0.4922
3.00
4.45
0.4922
3.25
4.63
0.4922
3.50
4.80
0.4922
3.75
4.97
0.4922
4.00
5.14
I
1
11
1]
I
IJ
DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD
Project Number : 1252-005
Date : 2/16/18
Project Location : Fort Collins
Calculations By: ATC
Pond No : Paver Subgrade (Chamber System)
Input Variables Results
Design Point 2
Design Storrs 100-yr
Developed "C" = 0.92
Area (A)= 0.58 acres
Max Release Rate = 0.75 cfs
i .ao
Required Detention Volume
2997 ft'
0.069 ac-ft
Time
Time
100-yr
Intensity
Q100
Inflow
(Runoff)
Volume
Outflow
(Release)
Volume
Storage
Detention
Volume
mins
secs
in/hr
cfs
(f1
(ft)
(ft)
5
300
9.950
5.31
1593
225.0
1367.9
10
600
7.720
4.12
2472
450.0
2021.8
15
900
6.520
3.48
3131
675.0
2456.3
20
1200
5.600
2.99
3586
900.0
2686.0
25
1500
4.980
2.66
3986
1125.0
2861.2
30
1800
4.520
2.41
4342
1350.0
2991.6
35
2100
4.080
2.18
4572
1575.0
2997.1
40
2400
3.740
2.00
4790
1800.0
2989.8
45
2700
3.460
1.85
4985
2025.0
2960.1
50
3000
3.230
1.72
5171
2250.0
2920.8
55
3300
3.030
1.62
5336
2475.0
2860.7
60
3600
2.860
1.53
5494
2700.0
2794.2
65
3900
2.720
1.45
5661
2925.0
2735.7
70
4200
2.590
1.38
5805
3150.0
2654.8
75
4500
2.480
1.32
5955
3375.0
2580.3
80
4800
2.380
1.27
6096
3600.0
2496.1
85
5100
2.290
1.22
6232
3825.0
2407.2
90
5400
2.210
1.18
6368
4050.0
2318.3
95
5700
2.130
1.14
6479
4275.0
2203.7
100
6000
2.060
1.10
6596
4500.0
2095.6
105
6300
2.000
1.07
6724
4725.0
1998.7
110
6600
1.940
1.04
6833
4950.0
1882.5
115 1
6900
1.890
1.01
6959
5175.0
1784.0
120 1
7200
1.840
0.98
7069
5400.0
1669.5
1
i
[1
I
1
I
OUTLET RATING CURVE
Pavers Subgrade Detention Orifice
Project: 1252-005
Date: 10/15/2017
By: ATC
100-YR ORIFICE RATING
Orifice Dia (in) 4.25
Orifice Area (sf) 0.0985
Orifice invert (ft) 0.00
Orifice Coefficient 0.65
Orifice Area
(SF)
Stage
(FT)
Outlet
release
(CFS)
0.0985
0.00
0.00
0.0985
0.25
0.26
0.0985
0.50
0.36
0.0985
0.75
0.45
0.0985
1.00
0.51
0.0985
1.25
0.57,
0.0985
1.50
0.63
0.0985
1.75
0.68
0.0985
2.00
0.73
EMERGENCY ---
OVERFLOW FROM
BASIN 2 (FULLY
CLOGGED PAVER
SCENARIO) SHEET _
FLOWS THROUGH
DRIVE AISLE AND
SOUTH TO \
W.ELIZABETH.
EMERGENCY
OVERFLOW SHEET
FLOWS THROUGH
DRIVE AISLE AND
SOUTH TO
W ELIZABETH
..mom..
EMERGENCY
OVERFLOW WEIR
DESIGNED FOR
BASIN 3 Q700. SEE
FOLLOWING
CALCULATIONS -
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EXHIBIT
(COMBINED BASINS 2 AND 3; PAVER SYSTEM AND CONCRETE North
VAULT OVERFLOW) N T S
EMERGENCY SPILL CALCULATIONS - CLOGGED PAVER
Channel Report SCENARIO, 0100=BASIN 2 + BASIN 3 + BASIN OS2 = 17.04 CFS
1
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.
<Name>
Rectangular
Bottom Width (ft)
= 30.70
'
Total Depth (ft)
= 0.50
Invert Elev (ft)
= 29.50
Slope (%)
= 0.20
N-Value
= 0.016
'Calculations
Compute by:
Known Q
Known Q (cfs)
= 17.04
1
'
Elev
(ft)
Section
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
Q (cfs)
Area(sgft)
Velocity (ft/s)
Wetted Perim (ft)
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
Top Width (ft)
EGL (ft)
Monday, Nov 27 2017
= 0.31
= 17.04
= 9.52
= 1.79
= 31.32
= 0.22
= 30.70
= 0.36
31.UU
30.50
30.00
29.50
1
29.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Reach (ft)
30 35 40 45
Depth (ft, I
1.50
1.00
0.50
WE
-0.50
L
EMERGENCY SPILL CALCULATIONS - CONCRETE VAULT
SPILLWAY Q100= BASIN 3 = 10.30 CFS
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
i
i
1
r
t
Sharp -Crested Weir:
Project: 1252-005
By: ATC
Date: 2/16/18
Governing Equations:
This equation can be used to derive the stage -discharge relationship for a sharp crested weir where the depth of flow is small
compared to the length of weir. Reference 1) Hydrologic Analysis and Design, Richard H McCuen, Prentice Hall, 1989.
Pg.549.
Q=3.3LH 1.5
' where Q is flow rate in CFS
' where L is the crest length of the weir (F)
' where H is the height of flow over the crest (FT)
L
SHARP —CRESTED WEIR
Input Parameters:
Length (L)= 8.00
FT
Crest Elevation = 0.00
IFT
Depth vs. Flow:
Depth Above Elevation Flow
Crest (ft) (ft) cfs
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.15 0.15 1.53
0.30 0.30 4.34
0.45 0.45 7.97
0.54 0.54 10.33
.0— Q100
0.69 0.69 14.97
Q100 = 10.3 CFS (Max inflow from Basin 3)
I
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet
Project #:MZ-WS
Stormwater Facility Name: Concrete Vault Detention
Facility Location & Jurisdiction:
User (Input) Watershed Characteristics
Watershed Slope =
0.015
ft/ft
Watershed Length -to -Width Ratio =
1.10
L:W
Watershed Area =
0.97
acres
Watershed Imperviousness =
90.0%
percent
Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A =
percent
Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group B =
percent
Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D =1
100.0%
percent
User Input: Detention Basin Characteristics
WQCV Design Drain Time = 12.00 hours
After completing and printing this worksheet to a pdf, go to:
httos:llmaperture.diizitaidatasemices.com/evh/?viewer--cswdif
create a new stormwater facility, and
attach the pdf of this worksheet to that record.
Routed Hydrograph Results
Design Storm Return Period =
Two -Hour Rainfall Depth =
Calculated Runoff Volume =
OPTIONAL Override Runoff Volume =
Inflow Hydrograph Volume =
Time to Drain 97%of Inflow Volume =
Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume =
Maximum Ponding Depth =
Maximum Ponded Area =
' Maximum Volume Stored =
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design CRS Spdsht-ConcVault.xlsm, Design Data
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
Stage [it]
Area [ft-21
Stage Ift]
Discharge [cfsl
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
2.00
1,205
2.00
3.60
3.00
1,206
3.00
4.50
4.00
1,207
4.00
5.20
WQCV
2 Year
5 Year
10 Year
25 Year
50 Year
100 Year
0.53
0.98
1.36
1.71
2.31
2.91
3.67
0.026
0.071
0.102
0.131
0.182
0.233
D.3DD
0.025
0.070
0.101
0.131
0.182
0.233
0.299
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.36
0.90
1.24
1.53
1.99
2.57
3.41
0.005
0.012
0.017
0,021
0.027
0.028
0.028
0.001
0.006
0.011
0.016
0.027
0.043
0.066
n
acre-ft
acre-ft
cre-ft
lours
lours
t
acres
cre-ft
12/29/2017, 12:47 PM
I
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet
1
TIME (hr]
i
i
100
1
10
DRAIN 7NdE Ihrl
■
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design CRS Spdsht-ConcVault.xlsm, Design Data
12/29/2017,12:47 PM I
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet
Project M:1252-WS
Stormwater Facility Name: Paver Detention (Chamber System)
Facility Location & Jurisdiction:
User (Input) Watershed
Watershed Slope
Watershed Length -to -Width Ratio
Watershed Area
Watershed Imperviousness
Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group A
Percentage Hydrologic Soil Group 8
Percentage Hydrologic Soil Groups C/D
0.008 ft/ft
2.80 L: W
0.61 acres
64.9% percent
0.0% percent
0.0% percent
100.0% percent
User Input: Detention Basin Characteristics
WQCV Design Drain Time = 12.00 hours
After completing and printing this worksheet to a pdf, go to:
https://maperture.digitaidataservices.com/gvh/?viewer--uwdif.
create a new stormwater facility, and
attach the pdf of this worksheet to that record.
Routed Hydrograph Results
Design Storm Return Period =
Two -Hour Rainfall Depth =
Calculated Runoff Volume =
OPTIONAL Override Runoff Volume =
Inflow Hydrograph Volume =
Time to Drain 97%of Inflow Volume =
Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume =
Maximum Fondling Depth =
Maximum Forded Area =
Maximum Volume Stored =
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design CRS Spdsht-Pavers.xlsm, Design Data
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
Stage [ft]
Area Ift-2)
Stage [it]
I Discharge (cfs)
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.75
5,136
0.75
0.45
1.50
5,137
1.50
0.63
2.00
5,138
2.00
0.73
WQCV
2 Year
5 Year
10 Year
25 Year
50 Year
100 Year
0.53
0.98
1.36
1.71
2.31
2.91
3.67
0.010
0.031
0.049
0.066
0.097
0.127
0.167
0.010
0.031
0.049
0.066
0.097
0.127
0.167
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
2
3
3
3
4
S
5
0.18
0.40
0.53
0.65
0.83
1.01
1.28
0.028
0.062
0.083
0.102
0.118
0.118
0.118
O.IX12
0.012
0.022
0.033
0.053
0.075
0.10E
n
acre-ft
icre-ft
acre-ft
lours
lours
t
cres
cre-ft
11/28/2017, 1:30 PM
1
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design Data Sheet
DRAIN TIME ]hr]
10
100
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Design CRS Spdsht-Pavers.,dsn, Design Data
11/28nO17, 1:30 PM
I
APPENDIX F
' Erosion Control Report
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
k
I
I
I
1
I
■� NORTHERN
NORT ENGINEERING
Union on Elizabeth
' EROSION CONTROL REPORT
A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) has been
included with the final construction drawings. It should be noted, however, 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 existing and proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill
containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site
restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor.
1
Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on the Utility Plans. The Final Plan set contains a
full-size Erosion Control sheet 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 the Development Agreement for the development. 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, prior to any earth disturbance 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.
Final Erosion Control Repot
APPENDIX G
' Current Effective FIRM Panel
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
Ci
I
i
1
1
1
I
1
1
i IUI 1 n l( li 1 1 �I ICI
Pdl1 Nu 1, Il Id i
N'ql h t. 1 1111
I•,.
jil,�;
I !' l i 1' i E t
1 t t 1 :E `
I
"
3 L. II E 1
3 E 4. I ��
:i @ i 1It i 19
it
4 1 l
e ` '. i
�1;r E:'El:•�i`i !',lrl I
jstl E' I`'E!•' I `11�
i,i��i
I !, , , 1 ,, !
! tt !di l I I' �1 j'
1 E,,IY, � ,lay
1t11111!'1iEIIil1,1' E�. t;�t 1
r f
� r/yei E
��� 6 lll��l� 111,
1
114+.i;ij/�1i11 1 ►,:t1tr. ,�1�
11 ginl 1 1 it Ithi Oiilall
U
w
�w
lift'
1
i
� !
1
c
4
,
1
+
1
!
5
lei
t
�
!
1
�
BI
�
is
s
�
f
CT
&O 1
i � I ►
`
e
Plju•' ( vaP1 �jil ','i '!li ►`1'.Ei
f t I . �, I EI 1',�
rl�; itj .,r
�" I ':Ei 11! :�!' .I `i
,i,� I' li 1 '�E,�` !I 1 !:' ''111` :`l,l�
lFr ,1$1,1 ,i=1:. 11 •
Ei,l,�(�tM
1� `'1 !,tl11;
,i •`�' 1,, ! 1,,l E�
Id,
�trl if�hEE�i+ i11ll!,�E�E�j rii lit :�ljj; l;I{l� i j fli �E, 1�E'�t+ all Ei i 't tr
{,111,11`{1jE 1�,1 •��1� E!}E�il
iii l iEl lid I'�l;ii l�iif 1Lt iE,ii iilE� i idlit, !il f11 1,;fii,l i°►1
APPENDIX H
Approved Stormwater Variance Application
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Stormwater
Alternative Complianceffiriance Application
City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Engineering
Engineer Name Aaron Cvar Phone 970-221-4158
Street Address 301 N. Howes, Suite 100
City Fort Collins State CO Zip 80521
Owner Name Plum Owner Ft Collins CO LLC Phone
Street Address 999 South Shady Grove Road, Suite 600
City Memphis She TN Zip 38120
'Section 8: ProposedProject
Project Name Union on Elizabeth �
Project/Appl!cation Number from Development Review (i.e. FDP123456)
' Legal description and/or address of property Replat of Portions of Lots 3 and 4, Campus West Shopping
Center
Description of Project Mixed -Use building development
' Existing Use (check one): r: residential C:; non-residential r., mixed -use r vacant ground
Proposed Use (check one): r. residential r, non-residential G: mixed -use C, other
If non-residential or mixed use, describe in detail Development of a mixed -use building a associated
utility work, adjacent sidewalk and Stormwater improvements
'Section C: Alternative ComplianceNarianceInformation
State the requirement from which alternative compliance/variance is sought. (Please include
' applicable Drainage Criteria Manual volume, chapter and section.)
Variance from providing water quality treatment for 1001yo of the site.
What hardship prevents this site from meeting the requirement?
The proposed site is constrained by a lack of a below -grade outfall, floodplain elevation requirements
along Elizabeth and grading tie -In constraints with the adjacent property to the east of the site.
' Additionally, there is a significant offsfte flow (25.3 CFS) that passes through the west side of the site
that precludes treatment facilities along that flowpath through the project.
What alternative is proposed for the site?
Attach sepw►ate sheet N necarary
Water quality treatment is being provided for the majority of the site (82.6%). Drainage along the
east will be captured and routed through landscape beds prior to leaving the site, providing some
treatment. Pavements along the south are non -vehicular, with minimal pollutants expected in
stormwater runoff from those areas.
Attach separate sheet N necassW
pop 2
I
1
The owner agrees to comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance, building code and all other
applicable sections of the City Code, Land Use Code, City Plan and all other laws and ordinances
affecting the construction and occupancy of the proposed building that are not directly approved by
this variance. The owner understands that if this variance is approved, the structure and its occupants
may be more susceptible to flood or runoff damage as well as other adverse drainage issues.
Signature of owner:,
The engeler"'1Ser"eby ci
descriptions is correct.
' Signature of
1
LCC
s, to c
information, along with the reference plans and project
We complete application submitted: 3 the t%
We of approval/denial: J4 / -ZO 4 Variance:
t
�.t a sunal !v
' Approved by
' Entered In UtilityFile
❑ no
approved ❑ denied
3/zI1 B
PE STAMP
I
MAP POCKET
I
I
I
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OSz
I m Dr
mwawr rlea LNG rE reoa
I eHHDAWDaP•TewLmxunOx RUMORED? / \ — 11.a �Er _
-- Ost COMAEIE.NI ' / /
IF
THEEKSH GREEN
SUISSE FEE
NO 0
If
I PRERECORD \
I cGxciTERAN \ D I FRDro® IA I l \
If IWEEI
OIL-- _ I I PBUrosEDz
if \7 81 1 ..
1 1 II --
« 1 — \i; ou: ■ 411 ..� __ ■ - I I 1 1 EDT toXam
AaI I \ I msSXELDa LLC —
\ � ■ p ___ ___ �_ I I me9HIBm Br \--
N.
1 \ I I I /� I ■ l
\ \ I I 11 I / ■ I I /'LL � I
-qt --
I
i l i � �� Ic % I n� I. - �/ r` i � /
I 11 1 / �,I 1 3 A If
IF I V-e y�. \ / t«. � eIDEWWXovgx '�' ' / \ \mil
if If
I i II It
I
7 IF
\V Lm t.GM.weWxdr i E7 LTV ; 1 2b I I_
QClUC DIN
waxtrn I 1 1 I 01;; n I� .—� -1 I /mar DRrxa
HBuWpi I I 1 I I _ .1 -..-
I-- CONCRETE r IS
DETENTION VAULT — /I F �♦ wTEcusCanER
` — eHwivwD CENTER
=A �- I 3 II tmmxas:0=7 _ / �H i mawaox I I umwiuiuimar
I BXxB'.RDEG9R+E
j I I PAVE RICHAMSERYRH i I I r
/ 1 1 DETENTION AREA %
tmRIFE. I \ULU
FEEIRFACNl0.CNRI/ # s u a ; I: I� -- ----- — / II
I FEE
waaleni
■ U)//I ® ■ / FNDIrosEn XmRUsm II • \ `� awwr
IF
DHR1ET 81MICNIE /
—`\`H I mEi OPODaw / I i
HE
1 ■ - - _ .��I 1 / jay — / ® \ % ______
a.■■.■i■■i IN iii a■i ■.i■ ® I \ / / /
,lr{, r ♦ I / I tmm naaDPLm
\ ____ PTLORmmz 11 ■ � 1 --t— — _ ___ _ B _ __m / IH.HCIV0.PN
_—_ aHawr
III
FICHE' eII9161 WE
waEDED --- FwvxEoz 11
PRo
--� LwFnr --_ SXIEWXKpILWAI `` \ EmII
WEST ELIZABETH STREET _
(ea ROW)
WERE
HmmFLwDPINN RARE____—_`
aMHm DHI.HBI I � I \\ ELSTIN6N•RCPSIV1YpUIN \� \) I
MUNAGE
SUMMHUIy
TABLE
DEAIXI
ID
TOFK
AREA
ITW
CIDD
2-.
BE
I84
D
IN: h
1111ie
(b)
IN
IS
�
d3
A
A
ObNO
I
28
O.II
ON
PW
71
SIT
3[
E[
SEA?
SURE03)
SO
SA
33
1 135
1 aN
I I SO
DI
8.9
SIDEJ
® NORTH
• DNA
'MAST. ,
LEGEND:
UUMOSED sraa swBl
—
FERNISTINGOONTOUR
WRITE —
PROPERTY BOUNDARY R WE .�FEREEREEI
DESreH NIGHT Q
GENERATE BASIN InDFE- aao« xBE)
MIGA
DRAMAAHE BASIN BOUNDARY ■ ■
I.RGGFDEEDBwALEEEGTDTa u
NOTES:
1. GWWAEI TFOHUHICHMReIIETHWTEDM H9,Af8FR
,H�`DDITIlaui miowuTw,
BENCHMARK
ATT� SOUTIM£9T CORNER OF WEST EULBETIND CpIBrIr1111CN AWL ON AGGRESSOR TRAFFICusE.
ELUIRSONGIS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BENCHMARK 19,97
AT NEBWMEAS CMHEROF WEST INIZARTH.W OHIELOa SIT CNACONCRETETRAFFICafNN
BASE
ELEVRE
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS
PAYE ONO NGwR UNADJUSTED lEW THE RISFFOR
IC4 WTMa.
IF INTRICKII UWLIUBTED¢ATUM IS REQUIRED F WR ANY NPAOSE THE FOLLOW NO SCRATCH 9HODEBE
USED
NOROZ INADNETED•HAUX S1S
DOES BE MEANINGS
THE BASIS OF BE ER HGS HE THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT S US[SWUNG NORTH a9'0i']9' WEST.
NNNNNNNNN
FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
f,N1 UNKLA I ' NOTIHaTICN CENM BE
C LORADD
KnmwRWsbe1M
Cw
OWN EINxER REN
EDINAMEOUNG FOR
RME MI WA
City
of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
APPROVED:
CItY ENEbw
AY
CHECKED EYE
xebr a Fulmebr Uumi,
DF4
CHI BY:
a�emwebe WILD
DE4
CHECKED BY:
—Te.TF�f�
py
WEpXD BY
DeY
CHECKED BT.
�i Yeem°^ en o�
Deb
LAN
LL-
`. ,OP,R.DIMRE ® IN Br
w \ 3 ! a
— — — — — — — — —
IN
_..
. _____ __ ______.. _...—_. _...—..._
1
n
FFE 3290
r
--
i`
\\ I
-------------
=m
- - —WEST ELIZASETH STREET
MIXED -USE BUILDING
SUMMARY
ELEY.0 4MMVp1N
MAECrEPEV.
INAY➢YI
A
YRYR
B
Nuclei
C
PEwwTary Roc°
EIEVAIRM
�.Y IT
\
I
I
I
/
® NORTH
m Y
I.IIN FEET)
LEGEND:
PROMISED ST�� x
WHARDEORM INLET
NOTTINGCMIOVR _pq}
FN>, E°PRANDOLOCONTIOUR
...
{
O
%OPOSEDBW CURE&CUTTER
WO
\
RVV➢9
\
ROESiPVNnCCE99
T—
sW wcTEm
__�__
C�RWPOPANITW l
��
/
tlER8H =
c
ELEvailax wwr 5p00
O�cy�Iil`/CFH
(�
—
BAY PLDODELEVArNIXIG}IGLOIq M/WW\^
�2
O �FV VYYaalll\\\
<'
IWYW GGPUY
...... ... •:
uaDMRI
NMtCSU
,WNORW°W) •�._. . .__
VX-YN
/ ,�\
IPEN WRI
— i \\
FIELD SURVEY BY:
r \
-
- — �'-
NOR RING
—
PROM aB
METE MUTSU W17
LLJ fY
HOME,
W
_
IFI.
(OWNER
POECITIDle mDATE
`=
Wki
rz
/ ; `\
BENCHMARKS:
cv
\
Z
\
FBI WNM'. REVIEWS
Q
ZW
,
/
EV�HC9C�BCIGCRALBUfE�Mm"`M1F�ELVLeEm PM CM9111VFCN avE.(wa
Y
ONCRE
CONCRETE
j
OF WEBi ELQ.RYTHNMCMQD9ST., ONACCHCARE
(
TRAFRCWSIGTPWDSfl09COPxEP
Lar>CPMN9ME8f
ELE.
ESC
YCKMTLIMS R
°DLviYr�sw
0 SET Ixc XA LonTNA axc
B
--
FEgiaR THOR CATUM
of s AVE ueED GwzBDUPausreDFoamE RVERTIrx oamMs.
HAVE
111° EIPMFIXY
WIII VNODlV9R➢ CWTUM IB REQUIRED FOR MY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOMNO
DOMINION SHO.Rn ME DIED
NI USUAUSTED• ruVIAST$ NF
\
—EaDFY
RwQ
YssoFBEAwucB isnE Bwnxwar DIP LOT sIY SEAMING rvaxmero°x WEm.
t
NOTES:
mriv
ky
IF
1 gEFERiOTEMiFORLOi.VEA9,1MCi Sl E. MB, LOi°MEXBSWB,UMIIV
CH
I
WNn OTHER OHEI MAHD 0,11EP SURVEY NrgYNTI N
/
• THIS PROTECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A CIn.REWurEO 1 WYFM 0.CCMYAY MO RUO FRNGE
y
—
COMPLY MUST WTH CHARTER 10 OF n@GTV C°CE.
I
3. ALL ELEVAVONS DIRECTED IN PLAN VIEW AND BEFCHMPTMB LILTED PERSON ARE FOR THE CRY OF
WWWGW
I
FONT COLLINS VE RTICAL CONTROL EATON IWSE)VN
�g xIt Ed
iiii F�1
i ITEMS LOCATED IN THE FLWDWAY THAT CAN FLOAT IE.G., RCNIC tADES.BE¢'0.K.HS, ElC.1
VBi BE ANCHORED.
M
I_
'� PERMIT SHAL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH SIZE CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT W TIE
I
agR�HPLAINY
xI INCLUDINGWILDING. HE FLOOCRAx USE RPWi FOR THE EASIER WILL SE
IF
®
RDED,T,NETMEDFWL°xGEYT PUnaN.
/
/
S. AFCCOVILNx USE OWNER AND NO CONFETTICSFUNEU ED PRIOR To REPROCESSING MY
CUM
WORK WITH N THE FLODOWAY I- - REMOVN LAHOsf NGL
\
]
WSTR PBENTSHILL BENLOWEDW THE ROJLL'IaY N1EIHFA
TEMPO RYOPMATE
E Nv (SUNK U ANEXi. SCAM1x65XN.LNWNEETLXE
FOR0 THE WAY
REFER
1IIr'I I) /
REFER FOR VxWOX ELIYBETX, DATEDMWCH B, ENSIGN
S TO THE U% A
L
_,T
B A CONSTRUCTIONaSOWILLU NEv.T ox cERrFwEwnaEAL9xweDYFaREI.cFnnFIC/.TEa
r
r
_
OCCVFNNCYw LLSE ISSA°.
TDo
1 _
�� ��
° ALL 1NYAKM C EOLENLYIOYPLACED Ar°PPSOVETHE PEWUttTRYfLCW PROMOTION
y
_
EIEVALN.W.
W
11, PpXIZIMRN CONTROL, CHIP OF FORT WWx s GROUND MASTER CCMRM.
rVB
Iy X
is' —
urN.e
T
FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
City
of Fort CoI Colorado
UT1LMY PLAN APPROVAL
APPROVED:
OtB mOmFY
D.M
CHECKED ST.
I.IFF k EU M.tlrt YtWtr
DFte
CHECKED Or
TWn..4eY Om�
ALF
pIEG3D BY:
D",
CHECKED OF
IF Engineer
o.v
CHECKED Or.
��
Dsi.
w
z
J
d
0
0
O
Sheet
CODS
11
s of 20