HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.975 Chatfield Rd.0022-2020-BCHO (3)Grading and Drainage Report
Prepared for
975 Chatfield Road, Aspen
P.O. Box 575
Woody Creek, Colorado 81656
970-309-7130
Prepared By
Josh Rice, P.E.
Revised December 12, 2019
Revised July 27, 2018
April 27, 2018
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:50 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
i
I hereby affirm that this report and the accompanying plans for the drainage improvements of “Lot 7, West
Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 3” was prepared by me for the owners thereof in accordance with the provi-
sions of the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan and approved variances and exceptions listed
herein. I understand that it is the policy of the City that the City of Aspen does not and will not assume
liability for drainage facilities designed by others.
Josh Rice, P.E. License No.
1/11/201812/12/2019
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:50 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
ii
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Existing Condition ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Proposed Condition ................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2.1 Determination of Major/Minor .................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Drainage Basins ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3.1 Historical Basin EB : 1 ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Proposed Basin PB : 1 ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Proposed Basin PB : 2 ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.3 Proposed Basin PB : 3 ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.4 Proposed Basin PB : 4 ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.5 Proposed Basin PB : 5 ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.6 Proposed Basin PB : 6 ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.7 Proposed Basin PB : 7 ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.8 Proposed Basin PB : 8 ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.9 Proposed Basin PB : 9 ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.10 Proposed Basin PB : 10 ............................................................................................................................ 5
3. STORMWATER BMPS AND ROUTING ......................................................................................... 5
3.1 General ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Detention Calculation .................................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.2 URMP Sand Filter Requirements Discussion ................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Pipe Calculations ....................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Pipe A ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Pipe B ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Pipe C ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.4 Pipe D ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 Pipe E ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
3.3 Inlet Calculations ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 Inlet A1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.2 Inlet A2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.3 Inlet A3 ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.4 Inlet D1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.5 Inlet E1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Trench Drain Calculations .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.4.1 Trench Drain 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 9
3.4.2 Trench Drain 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 9
3.4.3 Trench Drain 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 9
3.5 Outlet Calculations .................................................................................................................................... 9
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:50 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
iii
3.6 Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 10
APPENDIDX A--NRCS SOILS REPORT .............................................................................................. 1
APPENDIX B--FEMA FIRM MAP ......................................................................................................... 2
APPENDIX C--PLAN SET ....................................................................................................................... 3
APPENDIX D--HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS ............................................................................... 4
APPENDIX E--HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS .................................................................................. 5
APPENDIX F—DETENTION CALCULATIONS ................................................................................. 6
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:50 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
1. Introduction
This report was prepared to meet the requirements of a City of Aspen Engineering Department Grading and
Drainage Report for a Major Design. The report was prepared for a single-family housing project at 975
Chatfield Road, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 (the “Site”). Facilities providing water quality capture volume and
detention have been designed in this report and the associated plan.
2. General Site Description
2.1 Existing Condition
The property was platted as “Lot 7, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 3” Based on the topographical
improvement survey, the lot area is approximately 16,827 square feet.
The Site is located on the east side of aspen (see Figure 1). The hydrologic soil group as “Type B” (See
Appendix A). The lot is currently occupied by a single family home.
Figure 1. 975 Chatfield, Aspen Vicinity Map
(Source: maps.google.com)
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:51 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
2
The site is located well away from all major drainage ways and is not located within the floodplain bound-
aries the Roaring Fork River. The Site is located within Zone X, as shown and described by FEMA (see
FIRM Map, Appendix B.)
2.2 Proposed Condition
Existing structure will be remodeled. A pool and patio will be added to the western face of the home.
The existing patios will be improved. The eastern entrance path will be regraded.
2.2.1 Determination of Major/Minor
The Urban Runoff Management Plan (the “URMP”) has two controlling triggers when determining the
permit requirements: interior demolition and exterior disturbed area. Based on these two triggers, Woody
Creek Engineering (“WCE”) has determined that water quality capture volume (“WQCV”) and detention
is required for the entire property.
The Site is located on an extremely steep slope. On average the site slopes 39.5% to the west. The maxi-
mum slope is approximately 48.5%. Drainage basins are delineated on Plan Sheet C100 (Appendix C,
C100). The basins are described in the following sections. The drainage issues and WQCV treatment BMPs
are also described.
2.3 Drainage Basins
Both Historical and proposed basins are described below. Table 1, below, describes the impervious area,
pervious area, total area, percent imperviousness, flow path length, basin slope, runoff coefficients for the
minor (5-yr) and major (100-yr) storm events and runoff flowrates for the minor (5-yr) and major (100-yr)
storm events. Although the Basins are delineated on Plan Sheet C.1 (Appendix C, C.1), they are also
provided in Figure No. 2 and 3, below.
Historical peak flows for the 5-year and 100-year events were evaluated for the Site using a time of con-
centration based on the flow path length and slope. The proposed improvements to the site will not affect
offsite drainage patterns. Offsite runoff that ran through the property’s drainage easement will still be
routed through the drainage easement.
Table 1. Basin Information
BASIN NO.TOTAL BASIN
AREA
(ACRES)
IMPERVIOUS
AREA
(ACRES)
%
IMPERVIOUS
RUNOFF
COEF. 5YR
RUNOFF
COEF. 100YR
FLOW PATH
LENGTH (FT)
FLOW PATH
SLOPE
(FT/FT)
Tc (min)PEAK FLOW
5YR (CFS)
PEAK FLOW
100YR (CFS)
EB:1 0.386 0.000 0%0.08 0.35 108 0.3796 5.79 0.090 0.810
Total 0.386 0.000 0%-----0.090 0.810
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:51 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
3
Figure 2. Historical Basins
BASIN NO.TOTAL BASIN
AREA
(ACRES)
IMPERVIOUS
AREA
(ACRES)
%
IMPERVIOUS
RUNOFF
COEF. 5YR
RUNOFF
COEF. 100YR
FLOW PATH
LENGTH (FT)
FLOW PATH
SLOPE
(FT/FT)
Tc (min)PEAK FLOW
5YR (CFS)
PEAK FLOW
100YR (CFS)
PB:1 0.051 0.021 42%0.31 0.50 149 0.2081 6.42 0.047 0.147
PB:2 0.016 0.016 100%0.90 0.96 5 0.4500 5.00 0.047 0.097
PB:3 0.024 0.011 46%0.33 0.47 38 0.1974 5.00 0.026 0.078
PB:4 0.024 0.013 51%0.36 0.53 79 0.2152 5.00 0.028 0.080
PB:5 0.119 0.000 0%0.08 0.35 165 0.2606 8.11 0.024 0.216
PB:6 0.006 0.006 100%0.90 0.96 5 0.4500 5.00 0.018 0.036
PB:7 0.066 0.040 60%0.41 0.56 84 0.1779 5.00 0.090 0.236
PB:8 0.023 0.001 5%0.10 0.38 103 0.1773 7.09 0.007 0.048
PB:9 0.017 0.017 100%0.90 0.96 5 0.4500 5.00 0.050 0.103
PB:10 0.040 0.040 100%0.90 0.96 5 0.4500 5.00 0.118 0.242
Total 0.386 0.165 43%0.455 1.283
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:51 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
4
Figure 3. Proposed Basins
2.3.1 Historical Basin EB : 1
Historical Basin EB : 1 the lot with an area of 16,829 sf. Runoff sheet flows for 108 ft with 38% slope,
resulting in a 100-yr flowrate of 0.810 cfs.
2.3.1 Proposed Basin PB : 1
Proposed basin PB:1 is comprised of the north yard, stairs and a portion of the pool deck with an area of
2207 sf. The basin is 42 % impervious. Runoff follows a flow path of 149 feet at a slope of 21 %, result-
ing in a 100-year flowrate of 0.147 cfs.
Basin PB:1 travels by overland flow to Trench Drain 1 to Pipe E and finally to the Sand Filter.
2.3.2 Proposed Basin PB : 2
Proposed basin PB:2 is comprised of the driveway with an area of 683 sf. The basin is 100 % impervi-
ous. Runoff follows a short flow path, resulting in a time of concertation of 5 minutes and a 100-year
flowrate of 0.097 cfs.
Basin PB:2 travels by overland flow to Trench Drain 3 to Pipe A and finally to Sand Filter.
2.3.3 Proposed Basin PB : 3
Proposed basin PB:3 is comprised of the south walkway with an area of 1049 sf. The basin is 46% imper-
vious. Runoff follows a flow path of 38 feet at a slope of 20 %, resulting in a 100-year flowrate of 0.078
cfs.
Basin PB:3 travels by overland flow to Inlets A1 and A2 to Pipe A and finally to Sand Filter.
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:51 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
5
2.3.4 Proposed Basin PB : 4
Proposed basin PB:4 is comprised of the south walkout and a portion of the south yard with an area of
1064 sf. The basin is 51 % impervious. Runoff follows a flow path of 79 feet at a slope of 22 %, result-
ing in a 100-year flowrate of 0.080 cfs.
Basin PB:4 travels by overland flow to Inlet A3 to Pipe A to the Sand Filter.
2.3.5 Proposed Basin PB : 5
Proposed basin PB:5 is comprised of the west yard with an area of 5185 sf. The basin is 0 % impervious.
Runoff follows a flow path of 165 feet at a slope of 26%, resulting in a 100-year flowrate of 0.216 cfs.
Basin PB:5 travels by overland flow and offsite. The basin is untreated and undetained.
2.3.6 Proposed Basin PB : 6
Proposed basin PB:6 is comprised of bamboo deck over a concrete slab next to the pool with an area of
272 sf. The basin is 100 % impervious. Runoff follows a short flow path, resulting in a time of concer-
tation of 5 minutes and a 100-year flowrate of 0.036 cfs.
Basin PB:6 travels by overland flow to Inlet D1 to Pipe D to Pipe A and finally to the Sand Filter
2.3.7 Proposed Basin PB : 7
Proposed basin PB:7 is comprised of a portion of the pool deck, the new landscape steps and a portion of
the south yard with an area of 2888 sf. The basin is 60% impervious. Runoff follows a flow path of 84
feet at a slope of 18%, resulting in a 100-year flowrate of 0.236 cfs.
Basin PB:7 travels by overland flow to Trench Drain No. 2 to Pipe A and finally to the Sand Filter.
2.3.8 Proposed Basin PB : 8
Proposed basin PB:8 is comprised of a garden behind outdoor kitchen and a portion of the south yard with
an area of 994 sf. The basin is 5% impervious. Runoff follows a flow path of 103 feet at a slope of 17%,
resulting in a 100-year flowrate of 0.048 cfs.
Basin PB:8 travels by overland flow to Inlet E1 to Pipe E to the Sand filter.
2.3.9 Proposed Basin PB : 9
Proposed basin PB:9 is comprised of west roof with an area of 733 sf. The basin is 100 % impervious.
Runoff follows a short flow path, resulting in a time of concertation of 5 minutes and a 100-year flowrate
of 0.103 cfs.
Basin PB:9 travels by overland flow to Pipe C and finally to the Sand Filter.
2.3.10 Proposed Basin PB : 10
Proposed basin PB:10 is comprised of the east roof with an area of 1752 sf. The basin is 100 % impervi-
ous. Runoff follows a short flow path, resulting in a time of concertation of 5 minutes and a 100-year
flowrate of 0.242 cfs.
Basin PB:10 travels by overland flow to Pipe B and finally to the Sand Filter.
3. Stormwater BMPs and Routing
Low impact design has been utilized where possible to provide WQCV and detention.
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:51 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
6
9 Principles
1. Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
The landscape architect and owner considered stormwater requirements early in the process.
2. Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment.
Where possible, overland conveyance was utilized to increase the time stromwater is in contact
with natural systems.
3. Avoid unnecessary impervious areas.
Impervious areas were reduced where acceptable to the owner and the design team.
4. Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
The proposed peak runoff rates are no greater than historical runoff rates. The historical flow
paths are followed.
5. Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control.
Through the use of onsite BMPs, stormwater quality management and flood control are integrated
in the project.
6. Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community and the environment.
The site, community and the environment are enhanced by reducing the amount of sediment and
other river pollutants conveyed to the stream system. Hopefully, the use of these stormwater
BMPs on this property and throughout the community will improve the water quality of the Roar-
ing Fork River and its tributaries.
7. Use a treatment train approach.
Where possible, the team utilized partially paved systems such as the south yard landscape steps
and entrance steps to interrupt runoff an encourage infiltration. Many basins are partially imper-
vious and thus encourage infiltration.
8. Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
The stormwater BMPs located onsite can be easily and safely maintained and are readily accessi-
ble.
9. Design and maintain facilities with public safely in mind.
Elevation drops to stormwater BMPs are minimal and designed with public safely in mind.
3.1 General
Low impact design has been utilized where possible to provide WQCV and detention. Basin Routing is
described in Table 2, below.
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:51 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
7
Table 2. Basin Routing
3.1.1 Detention Calculation
Water quality and detention requirements where calculated for all basins except PB:5. To calculate water
quality requirements, WCE calculated the total area of the tributary basins, the impervious area of the ba-
sins, and time of concentration of the basins. Overall, the basins total area equals 0.267 acres, while the
impervious area equals 0.161. The area weighted average time of concentration for existing basins was
found to be 5.45 minutes.
Based on an overall imperviousness of 61.22 percent, the WQCV in watershed inches is 0.12 in (see Ap-
pendix D). In terms of volume, the WQCV over the tributary area of 0.267 acres is 116.4 cf (0.267 ac X
43560 sf/ac X 0.12 in X 1 ft / 12 in).
Detention was calculated using the FAA method. The allowable 100-year flowrate was calculated as the
historical rate minus the flowrate for proposed basin PB:5. The allowable flowrate is 0.594 cfs (0.810 cfs
– 0.216 cfs). In total, 153 cf of detention is required.
The proposed grading and pipe networks of the site route runoff into the proposed Sand Filter. The Sand
Filter provides 160 cf of detention which is adequate for the WQCV.
3.1.2 URMP Sand Filter Requirements Discussion
The bottom area of the sand filter is determined by the equation As=2V/9, where As is the minimum sand
area in square feet and V is the total detention volume in cubic feet. Based on this equation, the minimum
sand area is 34 square feet (2 X 153cf /9). The plans call for a minimum area of 53.33 sf.
3.2 Pipe Calculations
Four primary pipes will be installed in order to route runoff to the Sand Filter Each pipe is described be-
low.
Basin Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5
PB:1 Overland flow Trench Drain 1 Pipe E Sand Filter
PB:2 Overland flow Trench Drain 3 Pipe A Sand Filter
PB:3 Overland flow Inlets A1 and A2 Pipe A Sand Filter
PB:4 Overland flow Sand Filter
PB:5 Overland flow Offsite
PB:6 Overland flow Inlet D1 Pipe D Pipe A Sand Filter
PB:7 Overland flow Trench Drain 2 Pipe A Sand Filter
PB:8 Overland flow Inlet E1 Pipe E Sand Filter
PB:9 Overland flow Roof B1 Pipe B Sand Filter
PB:10 Overland flow Roof C1 Pipe C Sand Filter
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:51 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
8
3.2.1 Pipe A
Pipes A1 through A-4 collect flow from basins PB:2 (0.097 cfs) and PB:3 (0.078 cfs) for a total of 0.175
cfs. The 4-in pipe is laid at a minimum of 2%. The pipe has a flow capacity of 0.370 cfs at 80% full (see
Appendix E, Hydraulic Calculations).
Pipes A5 and A6 collect flows from proposed basin PB:4. PB:4 adds adds 0.080 of flow. In total, Pipe
A5 is required to convey 0.255 cfs. The 6-in pipe is laid at a minimum of 2%. The pipe has a flow ca-
pacity of 0.961 cfs at 80% full (see Appendix E, Hydraulic Calculations).
Pipe A7 collects flows from proposed basins PB:9 and PB:10 via Pipe C1 and Pipe B1, respectively.
PB:9 adds 0.103 cfs of flow and PB:10 adds 0.242 cfs of flow. In total Pipe A7 is required to convey
0.600 cfs. The 6-in pipe is laid at a minimum of 2%. The pipe has a flow capacity of 0.961 cfs at 80%
full (see Appendix E, Hydraulic Calculations).
Pipe A8 collects flows from proposed basins PB:7. PB:7 adds 0.236 of flow. In total, the pipe is required
to convey 0.836 cfs. The 6-in pipe is laid at a minimum of 4%. The pipe has a flow capacity of 1.584 cfs
at 80% full (see Appendix E, Hydraulic Calculations).
Pipes A9-A9a collects flows from proposed basins PB:6. PB:6 adds 0.036 of flow. In total, the pipes are
required to convey 0.872 cfs. The 6-in pipe is laid at a minimum of 4%. The pipe has a flow capacity of
1.584 cfs at 80% full (see Appendix E, Hydraulic Calculations).
Pipe A-10 collects additional flows from proposed basin PB:1 and PB:8 via Pipe E. The basins add 0.147
cfs and 0.048 cfs, respectively,. In total Pipe A10 is required to convey 1.067 cfs. The 6-in pipe is laid at
a minimum of 4%. The pipe has a flow capacity of 1.584 cfs at 80% full (see Appendix E, Hydraulic
Calculations).
3.2.2 Pipe B
Pipe B1 collects runoff from basin PB:10. PB:10 develops 0.242 cfs of runoff during the 100-year event.
The 4-in pipe is laid at a minimum of 4%. The pipe has a flow capacity of 0.523 cfs at 80% full (see Ap-
pendix E, Hydraulic Calculations).
3.2.3 Pipe C
Pipe C1 collects runoff from basin PB:9. PB:9 develops 0.103 cfs of runoff during the 100-year event.
The 4-in pipe is laid at a minimum of 4%. The pipe has a flow capacity of 0.345 cfs at 80% full (see Ap-
pendix E, Hydraulic Calculations).
3.2.4 Pipe D
Pipe D1 collects runoff from basin PB:6. The basin develops 0.036 cfs of runoff during the 100-year
event. The 4-in pipe is laid at a minimum of 2%. The pipe has a flow capacity of 0.370 cfs at 80% full
(see Appendix E, Hydraulic Calculations).
3.2.1 Pipe E
Pipes E1 and E2 and E3 collect flow from basins PB:1 (0.147 cfs) and PB:8 (0.048 cfs) for a total of
0.195 cfs. The 4-in pipe is laid at a minimum of 4%. The pipe has a flow capacity of 0.523 cfs at 80%
full (see Appendix E, Hydraulic Calculations).
3.3 Inlet Calculations
Four inlets will be installed in order to route runoff to the Sand Filter. Each Inlet is described below.
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:51 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
9
3.3.1 Inlet A1
Inlet A1 will be an NDS 8” Round Structural Foam Grate, and will capture half of basin PB:3’s 0.078 cfs
of runoff. This inlet provides a 50% flow capacity of 0.039 cfs according to NDS. As a result, the inlet
has adequate flow capacity.
3.3.2 Inlet A2
Inlet A2 will be an NDS 8” Round Structural Foam Grate, and will capture half of basin PB:3’s 0.078 cfs
of runoff. This inlet provides a 50% flow capacity of 0.039 cfs according to NDS. As a result, the inlet
has adequate flow capacity.
3.3.3 Inlet A3
Inlet A3 will be an NDS 12” Round Structural Foam Grate, and will capture 0.080 cfs of runoff from Ba-
sin PB:4. This inlet provides a 50% flow capacity of 0.157 cfs according to NDS. As a result, the inlet has
adequate flow capacity.
3.3.4 Inlet D1
Inlet D1 will be an NDS 6” Round Structural Foam Grate, and will capture 0.036 cfs of runoff from Basin
PB:6. This inlet provides a 50% flow capacity of 0.038 cfs according to NDS. As a result, the inlet has
adequate flow capacity.
3.3.5 Inlet E1
Inlet E1 will be an NDS 10” Round Structural Foam Grate, and will capture 0.048 cfs of runoff from Ba-
sin PB:8. This inlet provides a 50% flow capacity of 0.074 cfs according to NDS. As a result, the inlet has
adequate flow capacity.
3.4 Trench Drain Calculations
Three trench drains will be installed to route runoff to the Sand Filter. Each trench drain is described be-
low.
3.4.1 Trench Drain 1
Trench Drain 1 will be a grate adequate to provide 10 gpm/ft.
3.4.2 Trench Drain 2
Trench Drain 2 will be a grate adequate to provide 10 gpm/ft.
3.4.3 Trench Drain 3
Trench Drain 2 will be a grate adequate to provide 10 gpm/ft.
3.5 Outlet Calculations
The outlet will be a 6-in stand pipe with a 5.24-in orifice set at the WQCV elevation of 7797.84. As
shown in Table 1, the historical release rate from the site is 0.81 cfs. Since PB:5 flows offsite undetained,
the allowable release rate for the sand filter is 0.594 cfs (0.81 cfs – 0.216 cfs). The pipe will discharge at
the allowable rate of 0.594 cfs at elevation 7795. A capped 6-in stand pipe will serve as the control. In
order to control the discharge to 0.594 cfs, the cap will have a 5.24 in hole as an orifice. The 6-in pipe is
sloped at 3.14% and provides 1.4 cfs of capacity when flowing at 80%. The pipe has adequate capacity to
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:51 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
10
discharge the allowed release rate. A planted scour stop pad will be located downstream of the outlet to
prevent erosion. Additionally, a level spreader is provided at end of the scour stop pad to further spread
the release.
3.6 Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance recommendations for the Sand Filter can be found in Table 4. These standards
were acquired from Table 8.14 in the URMP, respectively. In addition, the weir outlet on the sand filter
should be checked and cleared quarterly for debris buildup.
Table 4. URMP Sand Filter Maintenance Recommendations
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:52 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Appendidx A--NRCS Soils Report
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:52 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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
Aspen-Gypsum Area,
Colorado, Parts of Eagle,
Garfield, and Pitkin
Counties
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
March 9, 2018
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:52 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:52 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:52 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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
Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin
Counties...................................................................................................13
107—Uracca, moist-Mergel complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes, extremely s..13
108—Uracca, moist-Mergel complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, extremely...14
References............................................................................................................17
4 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:52 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:52 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:52 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:53 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:53 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
43
4
1
2
9
0
43
4
1
3
0
0
43
4
1
3
1
0
43
4
1
3
2
0
43
4
1
3
3
0
43
4
1
3
4
0
43
4
1
3
5
0
43
4
1
2
9
0
43
4
1
3
0
0
43
4
1
3
1
0
43
4
1
3
2
0
43
4
1
3
3
0
43
4
1
3
4
0
43
4
1
3
5
0
340630 340640 340650 340660 340670 340680 340690 340700 340710 340720 340730
340630 340640 340650 340660 340670 340680 340690 340700 340710 340720 340730
39° 12' 24'' N
10
6
°
5
0
'
4
5
'
'
W
39° 12' 24'' N
10
6
°
5
0
'
4
0
'
'
W
39° 12' 22'' N
10
6
°
5
0
'
4
5
'
'
W
39° 12' 22'' N
10
6
°
5
0
'
4
0
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0 25 50 100 150
Feet
0 5 10 20 30
Meters
Map Scale: 1:519 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:53 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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: Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of
Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 8, Oct 10, 2017
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available.
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 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:53 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
107 Uracca, moist-Mergel complex,
1 to 6 percent slopes,
extremely s
0.3 53.1%
108 Uracca, moist-Mergel complex,
6 to 12 percent slopes,
extremely
0.3 46.9%
Totals for Area of Interest 0.6 100.0%
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
11 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:53 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:53 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin
Counties
107—Uracca, moist-Mergel complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes, extremely s
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jq4g
Elevation: 6,800 to 8,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 16 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 40 to 43 degrees F
Frost-free period: 75 to 95 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Uracca, moist, and similar soils: 50 percent
Mergel and similar soils: 40 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Uracca, Moist
Setting
Landform: Valley sides, alluvial fans, structural benches
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: cobbly sandy loam
H2 - 8 to 15 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam
H3 - 15 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural 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 in profile: 10 percent
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Stony Loam (R048AY237CO)
Other vegetative classification: Stony Loam (null_82)
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:54 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Description of Mergel
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, structural benches, valley sides
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Glacial outwash
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: cobbly loam
H2 - 8 to 20 inches: very cobbly sandy loam
H3 - 20 to 60 inches: extremely stony sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: Stony Loam (R048AY237CO)
Other vegetative classification: Stony Loam (null_82)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Other soils
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
108—Uracca, moist-Mergel complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, extremely
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jq4h
Elevation: 6,800 to 8,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 16 to 19 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 40 to 43 degrees F
Frost-free period: 75 to 95 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:54 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Map Unit Composition
Uracca, moist, and similar soils: 50 percent
Mergel and similar soils: 40 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Uracca, Moist
Setting
Landform: Valley sides, alluvial fans, structural benches
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: cobbly sandy loam
H2 - 8 to 15 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam
H3 - 15 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 12 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 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 in profile: 10 percent
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Stony Loam (R048AY237CO)
Other vegetative classification: Stony Loam (null_82)
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Mergel
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, structural benches, valley sides
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Glacial outwash
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: cobbly loam
H2 - 8 to 20 inches: very cobbly sandy loam
H3 - 20 to 60 inches: extremely stony sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 12 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:54 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: Stony Loam (R048AY237CO)
Other vegetative classification: Stony Loam (null_82)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Other soils
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:54 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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
17 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:54 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
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
18 03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:54 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
2
Appendix B--FEMA FIRM Map
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:54 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:54 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
3
Appendix C--Plan Set
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:55 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
NOTES:
1.ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL
MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS AND
SPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF ASPEN
("COA") MUNICIPAL CODE, COA TECHNICAL MANUALS,
AND APPLICABLE
STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. WHERE THERE
IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND THE
TECHNICAL MANUAL OR ANY APPLICABLE
STANDARDS, THE HIGHER QUALITY STANDARD SHALL
APPLY. ALL UTILITY WORK SHALL BE INSPECTED AND
APPROVED BY THE UTILITY.
2.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED
THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING
UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON
RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND,
WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE
FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON
AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE.
3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ONE (1) SIGNED
COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS, ONE (1) COPY OF
THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA AND
SPECIFICATIONS, AND A COPY OF ANY PERMITS AND
EXTENSION AGREEMENTS NEEDED FOR THE JOB
ONSITE AT ALL TIMES.
4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, EXCAVATION, TRENCHING,
SHORING,TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND SECURITY.
5.IF DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED WHICH COULD
INDICATE A SITUATION THAT IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN
THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL CONTACT THE WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING,
LLC IMMEDIATELY.
6.ALL REFERENCES TO ANY PUBLISHED
STANDARDS SHALL REFER TO THE LATEST REVISION
OF SAID STANDARD UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED
OTHERWISE.
7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A TRAFFIC
CONTROL PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUTCD TO
THE APPROPRIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
AUTHORITY (TOWN, COUNTY OR STATE) FOR
APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
WITHIN OR AFFECTING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
8.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY
FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE INTENDED
IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS OR AS
DESIGNATED TO BE PROVIDED, INSTALLED, OR
CONSTRUCTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
NOTED OTHERWISE.
9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
KEEPING ROADWAYS FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND DIRT TRACKED FROM
THE SITE.
10.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
RECORDING AS-BUILT INFORMATION ON A SET OF
RECORD DRAWINGS KEPT ON THE
CONSTRUCTION SITE AND AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES.
11.DIMENSIONS FOR LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION
ARE NOT TO BE SCALED FROM ANY DRAWING. IF
PERTINENT DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, CONTACT
WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC FOR
CLARIFICATION AND ANNOTATE THE DIMENSION ON
THE AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS.
15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE COLORADO PERMIT
FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGE, THE STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THE EROSION CONTROL
PLAN.
16.ALL STRUCTURAL EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE LIMITS OF
CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO ANY OTHER
EARTH-DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL EROSION
CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD
REPAIR BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL SUCH TIME AS
THE ENTIRE DISTURBED AREA IS STABILIZED WITH
HARD SURFACE OR LANDSCAPING.
17.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEQUENCE
INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO
MINIMIZE POTENTIAL UTILITY CONFLICTS. IN
GENERAL, STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER
SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
OF THE WATER LINES AND DRY UTILITIES.
18.HEAT TAPE ALL PIPES.VICINITY MAP
0 100 200 400 800
Scale: 1" = 200'
N
12/12/2019 DATE OF PUBLICATION
C000
COVER SHEET
BE
R
N
S
T
E
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
97
5
C
H
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
AS
P
E
N
4/27/2018 PERMT
WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC
557 N MILL ST #201
WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656
(P): 970-429-8297
WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM
7/27/2018 COA REV 1
12/12/2018 CHANGE ORDER
BERNSTEN RESIDENCE
975 CHATFIELD ROAD
ASPEN, CO
1/11/201812/12/2019
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:55 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
P
I
P
E
A
1
INLET A1
RIM:7829.97
INV IN:7828.16 4" PVC
INV OUT:7828.16 4" PVC
PIPE A2
P
I
P
E
A
3
PIPE A4
INLET A2
RIM:7828.71
INV IN:7826.88 4" PVC
INV OUT:7826.88 4" PVC
PIP
E
E
1
P
I
P
E
E
2
INLET D1
RIM:7806.29
INV OUT:7804.34 4" PVC
PIPE D
PIPE A9
INLET E1
RIM:7803.24
INV IN:7801.20 4" PVC
INV OUT:7801.20 4" PVC PIP
E
B
1
P
I
P
E
C
1
PIPE
A
8
PB: (1)
0.05 AC
2206.94 SF
PB: (2)
0.02 AC
683.35 SF
PB: (3)
0.02 AC
1049.40 SF
PB: (4)
0.02 AC
1063.95 SF
PB: (5)
0.12 AC
5185.33 SF
PB: (6)
0.01 AC
272.37 SF
PB: (8)
0.02 AC
994.42 SF
PB: (7)
0.07 AC
2888.31 SF
PB: (10)
0.04 AC
1750.94 SF
PB: (9)
0.02 AC
733.09 SF
P
I
P
E
A
5
PIPE A6
PIP
E
A
7
P
I
P
E
E
3
PIPE A10
EDG
E
O
F
PAV
E
M
E
N
T
CH
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
RO
A
D
SILVER KING DRIVE
S 71 DEGREES 57'00'E 207.23'
N 77 DEGREES 33'54
"
W
1
7
0
.
6
7
'
N
0
2
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
0
6
'
0
0
"
E
4
8
.
0
8
'
N
0
0
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
1
9
'
3
0
"
W
5
3
.
9
0
'
S
2
3
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
0
8
'
0
0
"
W
8
1
.
0
0
'
DECK: 7827.20
EDGE:7826.86
WALKOUT:7827.00
FFE:7837.1
FFE:7814.90
FFE:7814.90
EX:7814.40
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
N
O
.
1
:
7
8
0
6
.
5
6
78
0
7
.
6
5
78
0
8
.
6
5
78
0
9
.
6
5
78
1
0
.
6
5
78
1
1
.
7
1
78
1
2
.
7
1
78
1
3
.
7
1
78
1
4
.
7
1
7814.1
78
1
4
.
8
0
78
1
5
.
8
0
78
1
6
.
8
0
78
1
7
.
8
0
78
1
8
.
8
0
78
2
1
.
5
0
DE
C
K
:
7
8
0
6
.
5
8
78
1
0
.
7
1
TOW:7807
TO
W
:
7
8
0
4
TO
W
:
7
8
1
0
78
2
6
.
9
TO
W
:
7
7
9
8
.
6
5
EXISTING WALL
TOW:7809.09
FFE:7805.5
78
1
4
.
2
7
78
0
7
.
1
5
78
0
8
.
1
5
78
0
9
.
1
5
78
1
0
.
1
5
78
1
3
.
2
7
78
1
2
.
2
7
78
1
1
.
2
7
78
1
0
.
2
7
TOW:7809.50-7812 SLOPED TOW:7812.50
TOW:
7813.50-7815.5 SLOPED
EX
:
7
8
0
6
.
8
9
6
BW:7806.59TRENCH DRAIN NO. 1:7806.56
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
2
:
7
8
0
6
.
5
6
PB: (1)
0.05 AC
2206.94 SF
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
N
O
.
3
INLET A3
RIM:7820.00
INV IN:7816.59 4" PVC
INV OUT:7816.58 6" PVC
JUNCTION 1
RIM:15615.48
INV IN:7805.43 6" PVC
INV IN:7805.50 4" PVC
INV IN:7805.50 4" PVC
INV OUT:7805.43 6" PVC
JUNCTION 3
RIM:7803.77
INV IN:7803.22 6" PVC
INV IN:7803.22 4" PVC
INV OUT:7803.22 6" PVC
PIPE A9a
JUNCTION 4
RIM:7804.12
INV IN:7800.00 4" PVC
INV IN:7800.00 6" PVC
INV OUT:7795.93 6" PVC
TO
W
:
7
8
0
1
.
5
EB: 1
0.39 AC
16828.88 SF
EDG
E
O
F
PAV
E
M
E
N
T
CH
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
SILVER KING DRIVE
S 71 DEGREES 57'00'E 207.23'
N 77 DEGREES 33'5
4
"
W
1
7
0
.
6
7
'
N
0
2
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
0
6
'
0
0
"
E
4
8
.
0
8
'
N
0
0
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
1
9
'
3
0
"
W
5
3
.
9
0
'
S
2
3
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
0
8
'
0
0
"
W
8
1
.
0
0
'
12/12/2019 DATE OF PUBLICATION
C000
COVER SHEET
BE
R
N
S
T
E
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
97
5
C
H
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
AS
P
E
N
4/27/2018 PERMT
WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC
557 N MILL ST #201
WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656
(P): 970-429-8297
WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM
7/27/2018 COA REV 1
12/12/2018 CHANGE ORDER
Feet
1":10'
201005
C100
BASINS
1/11/201812/12/2019
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:55 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
78
1
9
.
8
0
78
2
0
.
8
0
78
2
1
.
3
0
EX:AVG: 39.5%
MAX 48.5%
-45.1%
-38.1%
-25.0%
-14.3%
-31.9%
7806.59 7813.00
7813.00
7806.59
7806.78
7806.99
7806.50
7804.00
7803.00
7801.50
7795.00
7796.00
7806.63
7806.62
7806.21
7806.66
7806.08
7806.21
7
8
0
0
7
8
0
5
7
8
1
0
7
7
9
7
77
9
8
77
9
9
7
8
0
1
7
8
0
2
7
8
0
3
7
8
0
4
7
8
0
6
7807 780
8
78
0
9
7
8
1
1
7
8
1
2
7
8
1
3
7
8
1
4
78
2
0
78
1
9
78
2
1
7
8
1
0
78
1
5
78
2
0
7
8
2
5
782
2
78
2
3
78
2
4
7
8
2
6
782
7
78
2
8
78
2
9
7830
7
8
3
5
78
3
1
7
8
3
2
78
3
3
7
8
3
4
78
3
6
P
I
P
E
A
1
INLET A1
RIM:7829.97
INV IN:7828.16 4" PVC
INV OUT:7828.16 4" PVC
PIPE A2
P
I
P
E
A
3
PIPE A4
INLET A2
RIM:7828.71
INV IN:7826.88 4" PVC
INV OUT:7826.88 4" PVC
PIP
E
E
1
P
I
P
E
E
2
INLET D1
RIM:7806.29
INV OUT:7804.34 4" PVC
PIPE D
PIPE A9
INLET E1
RIM:7803.24
INV IN:7801.20 4" PVC
INV OUT:7801.20 4" PVC PIP
E
B
1
P
I
P
E
C
1
PIPE
A
8
5.
1
%
78
3
6
78
3
6
78
3
5
.
5
0
7835
7834
7833.5
0
783
3
.
5
0
78
3
2
783
2
7831
7829
7829.50
7830
783
0
.
5
0
783
1
.
5
0
78
3
3
78
3
2
.
5
0
7834.5
0
P
I
P
E
A
5
PIPE A6
PI
P
E
A
7
P
I
P
E
E
3
PIPE A10
-38.7
%
-35.3
%
-40.8%
7806.59
EDG
E
O
F
PAV
E
M
E
N
T
CH
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
RO
A
D
S 71 DEGREES 57'00'E 207.23'
N 77 DEGREES 33'5
4
"
W
1
7
0
.
6
7
'
N
0
2
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
0
6
'
0
0
"
E
4
8
.
0
8
'
N
0
0
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
1
9
'
3
0
"
W
5
3
.
9
0
'
S
2
3
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
0
8
'
0
0
"
W
8
1
.
0
0
'
DECK: 7827.20
EDGE:7826.86
WALKOUT:7827.00
FFE:7837.1
FFE:7814.90
FFE:7814.90
EX:7814.40
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
N
O
.
1
:
7
8
0
6
.
5
6
78
0
7
.
6
5
78
0
8
.
6
5
78
0
9
.
6
5
78
1
0
.
6
5
78
1
1
.
7
1
78
1
2
.
7
1
78
1
3
.
7
1
78
1
4
.
7
1
7814.1
78
1
4
.
8
0
78
1
5
.
8
0
78
1
6
.
8
0
78
1
7
.
8
0
78
1
8
.
8
0
78
2
1
.
5
0
DE
C
K
:
7
8
0
6
.
5
8
78
1
0
.
7
1
TOW:7807
TO
W
:
7
8
0
4
TO
W
:
7
8
1
0
78
2
6
.
9
TO
W
:
7
7
9
8
.
6
5
EXISTING WALL
TOW:7809.09
-19.9%
7
7
9
5
78
0
0
7
8
0
0
780
5
7
8
0
5
781
0
7
8
1
0
7
8
1
5
7
8
1
5
7
8
2
0
7
8
2
0
7
8
2
5
7
8
2
5
7
8
3
0
783
0
783
5
7
8
3
5
7
7
9
6
7
7
9
7
7
7
9
8
7
7
9
9
7
7
9
9
78
0
1
7
8
0
1
780
2
7
8
0
2
780
3
7
8
0
3
78
0
4
7
8
0
4
78
0
6
7
8
0
6
7
8
0
7
780
7
780
8
7
8
0
8
780
9
7
8
0
9
7
8
1
1
781
1
7
8
1
2
781
2 781
3
7
8
1
3
7
8
1
4
7
8
1
4
78
1
6
7
8
1
6
7817
78
1
7
7
8
1
8
7
8
1
8
7
8
1
9
7
8
1
9
7
8
2
1
7
8
2
1
7
8
2
2
7
8
2
2
7
8
2
3
7
8
2
3
7
8
2
4
7
8
2
4
7
8
2
6
7
8
2
6
7
8
2
7
7
8
2
7
7
8
2
8
7
8
2
8
782
9
7
8
2
9
7
8
3
1
783
1
7
8
3
2
78
3
2
78
3
3
7
8
3
3
7
8
3
4
783
4
78
3
6
7
8
3
6
7
8
3
7
7
8
3
7
7
8
3
8
78
3
8
7
8
3
8
7806.71
7806.71
FFE:7805.5
78
1
4
.
2
7
78
0
7
.
1
5
78
0
8
.
1
5
78
0
9
.
1
5
78
1
0
.
1
5
78
1
3
.
2
7
78
1
2
.
2
7
78
1
1
.
2
7
78
1
0
.
2
7
TOW:7809.50-7812 SLOPED TOW:7812.50
TOW:
7813.50-7815.5 SLOPED
EX
:
7
8
0
6
.
8
9
6
BW:7806.59TRENCH DRAIN NO. 1:7806.56
7806.66
7806.29
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
2
:
7
8
0
6
.
5
6
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
N
O
.
3
INLET A3
RIM:7820.00
INV IN:7816.59 4" PVC
INV OUT:7816.58 6" PVC
JUNCTION 1
RIM:15615.48
INV IN:7805.43 6" PVC
INV IN:7805.50 4" PVC
INV IN:7805.50 4" PVC
INV OUT:7805.43 6" PVC
JUNCTION 3
RIM:7803.77
INV IN:7803.22 6" PVC
INV IN:7803.22 4" PVC
INV OUT:7803.22 6" PVC
7806.71 7806.71
7806.71
7806.71
7806.717806.71
PIPE A9a
JUNCTION 4
RIM:7804.12
INV IN:7800.00 4" PVC
INV IN:7800.00 6" PVC
INV OUT:7795.93 6" PVC
TO
W
:
7
8
0
1
.
5
12/12/2019 DATE OF PUBLICATION
C000
COVER SHEET
BE
R
N
S
T
E
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
97
5
C
H
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
AS
P
E
N
4/27/2018 PERMT
WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC
557 N MILL ST #201
WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656
(P): 970-429-8297
WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM
7/27/2018 COA REV 1
12/12/2018 CHANGE ORDER
Feet
1:119.99999966
201005
C200
GRADING &
DRAINAGE
SPOT ELEVATION XXXX.XX
CONC. = CONCRETE
HP = HIGH POINT
TD = TRENCH DRAIN
TOW=TOP OF WALL
BW=BOTTOM OF WALL
UTILITY SERVICE
E=ELECTRIC
UG=UNDERGROUND GAS
SS=SANITARY SEWER
W=WATER
Tel=PHONE LINE
Cable=CABLE LINE
PROPERTY LINE
WALL
TRENCH DRAIN (TD)
PIPE
NOTES:
1.INLETS
1.1.A1 SHALL BE NDS 8-IN
ROUND
1.2.A2 SHALL BE NDS 8-IN
ROUND
1.3.A3 SHALL BE NDS 12-IN
ROUND
1.4.D1 SHALL BE NDS 6-IN
ROUND
1.5.E1 SHALL BE NDS 6-IN
ROUND
2.TRENCH DRAINS
2.1.2.1.TRENCH DRAINS
1-3 SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF 10 GPM/FT
3.SITE WALLS
3.1.SEE STRUCTURAL AND
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
1/11/201812/12/2019
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:55 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Station
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
-0+020+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+25 1+50 1+75 2+00 2+18
INLET - (9)
RIM:7836.00
INV IN:7834.50 6" PVC
INV OUT:7834.17 4" PVC
PIPE A1
12.06' of 4"
P
V
C
@
2
.
0
0
%
INLET - (10)
RIM:7836.00
INV IN:7833.93 4" PVC
INV OUT:7833.93 4" PVC
PIP
E
A
2
28
.
0
1
'
o
f
4
"
P
V
C
@
2
0
.
5
7
%
INLET A1
RIM:7829.97
INV IN:7828.16 4" PVC
INV OUT:7828.16 4" PVC
PIPE A3
19.26' of 4" PVC @ 6.66%
INLET A2
RIM:7828.71
INV IN:7826.88 4" PVC
INV OUT:7826.88 4" PVC
PIPE A4a
8.84' of 4" PVC @ 13.41%
PIP
E
A
4
48.
6
9
'
o
f
4
"
P
V
C
@
1
8
.
7
0
%
INLET A3
RIM:7820.00
INV IN:7816.59 4" PVC
INV OUT:7816.58 6" PVC
PIPE
A
5
15.3
7
'
o
f
6
"
P
V
C
@
7
.
4
3
%
INLET - (30)
RIM:7820.00
INV IN:7815.44 6" PVC
INV OUT:7815.43 6" PVC
PIP
E
A
6
32
.
7
2
'
o
f
6
"
P
V
C
@
3
0
.
5
7
%
PIPE A7
4.01' of 6" PVC @ 7.37%
INLET - (26)
RIM:7806.58
INV IN:7805.37 6" PVC
INV IN:7805.14 6" PVC
INV OUT:7805.14 6" PVC
PIPE A8
14.21' of 6" PVC @ 7.79%
INLET - (19)
RIM:7806.28
INV IN:7804.03 6" PVC
INV OUT:7804.03 6" PVC
PIPE A9
10.44' of 6" PVC @ 7.70%
JUNCTION 4
RIM:7804.12INV IN:7800.00 4" PVC
INV IN:7800.00 6" PVC
INV OUT:7795.93 6" PVC
PIPE A10
3.94' of 6" PVC @ 7.17%
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Station
Pipe B PROFILE
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
-0+020+00 0+25 0+500+55
INLET - (24)
RIM:7821.00
INV OUT:7819.50 4" PVC
PIP
E
B
1
55
.
0
1
'
o
f
4
"
P
V
C
@
2
5
.
4
5
%
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Station
Pipe C PROFILE
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
-0+020+00 0+25 0+37
INLET - (25)
RIM:7811.64
INV OUT:7809.00 4" PVC
PIPE
C
1
36.8
0
'
o
f
4
"
P
V
C
@
9
.
5
1
%
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Station
Pipe D PROFILE
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7803
7804
7805
7806
-0+10 0+000+05
PIPE D
8.26' of 4" PVC @ 13.56%
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Station
Pipe E PROFILE
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
-0+020+00 0+25 0+50 0+74
8.26' of 4" PVC @ 13.56%
JUNCTION 4
RIM:7804.12
INV IN:7800.00 4" PVC
INV IN:7800.00 6" PVC
INV OUT:7795.93 6" PVC
INLET - (17)
RIM:7804.11
INV OUT:7802.85 4" PVC
INV OUT:7802.85 4" PVC
PIPE E
2
37.56'
o
f
4
"
P
V
C
@
4
.
4
0
%
INLET E1
RIM:7803.24
INV IN:7801.20 4" PVC
INV OUT:7801.20 4" PVC
PIPE
E
3
20.61
'
o
f
4
"
P
V
C
@
5
.
8
0
%
PIP
E
E
1
16.
0
7
'
o
f
4
"
P
V
C
@
-
1
3
.
8
8
%
PIPE E1
STA: 0+58.17
TOP EL: 7803.20
BOTTOM EL: 7802.83
12/12/2019 DATE OF PUBLICATION
C000
COVER SHEET
BE
R
N
S
T
E
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
97
5
C
H
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
AS
P
E
N
4/27/2018 PERMT
WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC
557 N MILL ST #201
WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656
(P): 970-429-8297
WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM
7/27/2018 COA REV 1
12/12/2018 CHANGE ORDER
Feet
1":20' HORIZONTAL
201005
C300
PIPE
PROFILES
Pipe A PROFILE
NOTES:
1.INLETS
1.1.A1 SHALL BE NDS 8-IN
ROUND
1.2.A2 SHALL BE NDS 8-IN
ROUND
1.3.A3 SHALL BE NDS 12-IN
ROUND
1.4.D1 SHALL BE NDS 6-IN
ROUND
1.5.E1 SHALL BE NDS 6-IN
ROUND
2.TRENCH DRAINS
2.1.TRENCH DRAINS 1-3
SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF 10 GPM/FT
3.PIPE SLOPES
3.1.PIPE A
3.1.1.A1-A7 MIN SLOPE
2%
3.1.2.A8-A10 MIN SLOPE
4%
3.2.PIPES B AND C
3.2.1.PIPE B1 AND C1
MIN SLOPE 4%
3.3.PIPE D
3.3.1.PIPE D1 MIN
SLOPE 2%
3.4.PIPE E
3.4.1.PIPE E1-E3 MIN
SLOPE 4%
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
VERT:1":2'
1/11/201812/12/2019
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:55 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
MIN 1.5 FT C-33 SAND
7795
7790
7800
WELL DRAINED NATIVE SOIL
12/12/2019 DATE OF PUBLICATION
C000
COVER SHEET
BE
R
N
S
T
E
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
97
5
C
H
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
AS
P
E
N
4/27/2018 PERMT
WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC
557 N MILL ST #201
WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656
(P): 970-429-8297
WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM
7/27/2018 COA REV 1
12/12/2018 CHANGE ORDER
C400
DETAILS
SPOT ELEVATION XXXX.XX
CONC. = CONCRETE
HP = HIGH POINT
TD = TRENCH DRAIN
TOW=TOP OF WALL
BW=BOTTOM OF WALL
UTILITY SERVICE
E=ELECTRIC
UG=UNDERGROUND GAS
SS=SANITARY SEWER
W=WATER
Tel=PHONE LINE
Cable=CABLE LINE
PROPERTY LINE
WALL
TRENCH DRAIN (TD)
PIPE
NOTES:
1.INLETS
1.1.A1 SHALL BE NDS 8-IN
ROUND
1.2.A2 SHALL BE NDS 8-IN
ROUND
1.3.D1 SHALL BE NDS 10-IN
ROUND
1.4.E1 SHALL BE NDS 6-IN
ROUND
1.5.F1 SHALL BE NDS 6-IN
ROUND
2.TRENCH DRAINS
2.1.TRENCH DRAIN 1
SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF 0.005
CFS/FT
2.2.TRENCH DRAIN 2
SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF 0.006
CFS/FT
2.3.TRENCH DRAIN 3
SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF 0.012
CFS/FT
SAND FILTER WATER ELEVATIONS AND OUTLET DETAIL
SCOUR STOP EROSION CONTROL MAT
MIN. 6 IN.
MIN. 2 FT. LENGTH
MINIMUM GRAVEL
DIAMETER: 34 IN.
NATIVE SOIL
LEVEL SPREADER DETAIL
1/11/201812/12/2019
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:55 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
78
1
9
.
8
0
78
2
0
.
8
0
78
2
1
.
3
0
EX:AVG: 39.5%
MAX 48.5%
INLET A1
RIM:7829.97
INV IN:7828.16 4" PVC
INV OUT:7828.16 4" PVC
INLET A2
RIM:7828.71
INV IN:7826.88 4" PVC
INV OUT:7826.88 4" PVCINLET D1
RIM:7806.29
INV OUT:7804.34 4" PVC
INLET E1
RIM:7803.24
INV IN:7801.20 4" PVC
INV OUT:7801.20 4" PVC
78
3
6
78
3
6
78
3
5
.
5
0
7835
7834
7833.5
0
783
3
.
5
0
78
3
2
783
2
7831
7829
7829.50
7830
783
0
.
5
0
783
1
.
5
0
78
3
3
78
3
2
.
5
0
7834.5
0
EDG
E
O
F
PAV
E
M
E
N
T
CH
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
RO
A
D
S 71 DEGREES 57'00'E 207.23'
N 77 DEGREES 33'5
4
"
W
1
7
0
.
6
7
'
N
0
2
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
0
6
'
0
0
"
E
4
8
.
0
8
'
N
0
0
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
1
9
'
3
0
"
W
5
3
.
9
0
'
S
2
3
D
E
G
R
E
E
S
0
8
'
0
0
"
W
8
1
.
0
0
'
DECK: 7827.20
EDGE:7826.86
WALKOUT:7827.00
FFE:7837.1
FFE:7814.90
FFE:7814.90
EX:7814.40
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
N
O
.
1
:
7
8
0
6
.
5
6
78
0
7
.
6
5
78
0
8
.
6
5
78
0
9
.
6
5
78
1
0
.
6
5
78
1
1
.
7
1
78
1
2
.
7
1
78
1
3
.
7
1
78
1
4
.
7
1
7814.1
78
1
4
.
8
0
78
1
5
.
8
0
78
1
6
.
8
0
78
1
7
.
8
0
78
1
8
.
8
0
78
2
1
.
5
0
DE
C
K
:
7
8
0
6
.
5
8
78
1
0
.
7
1
TOW:7807
TO
W
:
7
8
0
4
TO
W
:
7
8
1
0
78
2
6
.
9
TO
W
:
7
7
9
8
.
6
5
EXISTING WALL
TOW:7809.09
FFE:7805.5
78
1
4
.
2
7
78
0
7
.
1
5
78
0
8
.
1
5
78
0
9
.
1
5
78
1
0
.
1
5
78
1
3
.
2
7
78
1
2
.
2
7
78
1
1
.
2
7
78
1
0
.
2
7
TOW:7809.50-7812 SLOPED TOW:7812.50
TOW:
7813.50-7815.5 SLOPED
EX
:
7
8
0
6
.
8
9
6
BW:7806.59TRENCH DRAIN NO. 1:7806.56
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
2
:
7
8
0
6
.
5
6
TR
E
N
C
H
D
R
A
I
N
N
O
.
3
INLET A3
RIM:7820.00
INV IN:7816.59 4" PVC
INV OUT:7816.58 6" PVC
JUNCTION 1
RIM:15615.48
INV IN:7805.43 6" PVC
INV IN:7805.50 4" PVC
INV IN:7805.50 4" PVC
INV OUT:7805.43 6" PVC
JUNCTION 3
RIM:7803.77
INV IN:7803.22 6" PVC
INV IN:7803.22 4" PVC
INV OUT:7803.22 6" PVC
JUNCTION 4
RIM:7804.12
INV IN:7800.00 4" PVC
INV IN:7800.00 6" PVC
INV OUT:7795.93 6" PVC
TO
W
:
7
8
0
1
.
5
12/12/2019 DATE OF PUBLICATION
C000
COVER SHEET
BE
R
N
S
T
E
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
97
5
C
H
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
AS
P
E
N
4/27/2018 PERMT
WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC
557 N MILL ST #201
WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656
(P): 970-429-8297
WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM
7/27/2018 COA REV 1
12/12/2018 CHANGE ORDER
Feet1:119.99999966
201005
C500
EROSION
SEDIMENT PLAN
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
1/11/201812/12/2019
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:55 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
103
7837.329
CKRC25947
HOUSE
SILVER KING DRIVE
WV
CH
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
WV
WV
57835.677
RC25947
2017842.392
UE
202
7842.505
UE1
203
7842.335
UC
2047842.072
UC
2057842.346
UC1
2067842.377
UC1
2077842.570
UC2
208
7842.437
UC3
2097843.470
UC3
2107842.316
TP
2117842.310
EP 2127842.602
ETP
2137841.871
UE
2147842.076
UE1
2157841.982
UC
2167842.240
CE
2177841.891
UE
2187842.018
UE12197842.061
UC
220
7841.810
CE221
7841.602
UE
2227841.862
UE1
2237841.958
UC
2247841.001
UE
2257841.126
UE1
226
7841.412
UC
227
7840.059
UE
2287840.264
UE1
2297839.429
UE12307839.177
UE
2317841.228
UC
232
7842.281
UC
2337842.198
TP
2347839.270
UG
235
7839.800
UG
2367839.755
UG
237
7840.213
CE
238
7840.551
CE 2397840.577
UG
240
7836.117
WK CL 2'
2417835.171
WK CL 2'
2427833.656
WK CL 2'
2437832.871
WK CL 2'2447832.203
WK CL 2'
2457831.385
WK CL 2'
246
7829.279
WK CL 2'
247
7828.813
WK CL 2'
2487828.289
WK CL 2'2497828.020
WK CL 2'
2507827.451
WK CL 2'
251
7826.615
WK CL 2'
2527822.431
VE
253
7821.389
VE
2547818.944
VE
2777820.313
UC
2787820.489
UC 2797824.422
UC
280
7824.837
UC
281
7828.851
UC
2827834.479
UC
2837834.676
UE
7833.939
UE
1017839.020
TS FRON
T
102
7837.333
RC25947
1047837.404
SMH
1057837.209
FF GARAG
E
106
7837.316
FF SILL
1077837.193
FF 1087836.668
UG MARK
1097835.101
TS WALK
1107838.987
CKTSDRI
V
E
1117835.946
CLWK
1127826.840
CLWK
113
7814.895
FF
1157835.102
CKTSWA
L
K
1167837.091
FF
1177827.219
FF1187827.202
FF
1207814.406
PATIO @ T
O
E
S
T
1217821.874
FF CRAW
L
17837.361
RC 25947
67838.993
TS FRON
T
F.F.
7814.9'
PATIO @
T
O
E
STEP 78
1
4
.
4
'
F.F. GA
R
A
G
E
7837.2'
SILL
7837.3'
F.F.
7837.2'
F.F.
7827.2'
F.F.
7837.1'
F.F. CRA
W
L
SPACE
7821.9'
F.F.
7827.2'
WOOD W
A
L
K
LANDIN
G
7826.8'
WOOD
WALK
7835.9'
APPROX
.
PATH
ELECTR
I
C
LINE
GASLIN
E
CONCRE
T
E
DRIVEW
A
Y
P
I
P
E
A
1
INLET A1
RIM:7829.97
INV IN:7828.16 4" PVC
INV OUT:7828.16 4" PVC
PIPE A2
P
I
P
E
A
3
PIPE A4
INLET A2
RIM:7828.71
INV IN:7826.88 4" PVC
INV OUT:7826.88 4" PVC
PIP
E
B
1
P
I
P
E
A
5
PIPE A6
E
G
INLET A3
RIM:7820.00
INV IN:7816.59 4" PVC
INV OUT:7816.58 6" PVC
INV OUT:7805.43 6" PVC
1037837.329
CKRC2594
7
HOUSE
SILVER KING DRIVE
LOT 6
WV
CH
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
LOT 7
27793.985
NO5 REBAR
2407836.117
WK CL 2'
2417835.171
WK CL 2'
2427833.656
WK CL 2'
2437832.871
WK CL 2'2447832.203
WK CL 2'
2457831.385
WK CL 2'
2467829.279
WK CL 2'
2477828.813
WK CL 2'
2487828.289
WK CL 2'2497828.020
WK CL 2'
250
7827.451
WK CL 2'
2517826.615
WK CL 2'
252
7822.431
VE
253
7821.389
VE
2547818.944
VE
2557814.756
VE2567809.767
VE
2577806.984
VE
2587804.594
VE259
7802.923
VE
260
7800.346
VE2617797.669
VE
2627796.449
VE
2637795.767
VE
268
7794.038
VE
2697794.184
VE
2707794.271
VE
2717798.948
VE
2727801.495
VE
273
7802.607
VE
1017839.020
TS FRONT
1027837.333
RC25947
1047837.404
SMH
1057837.209
FF GARAG
E
106
7837.316
FF SILL
1077837.193
FF 1087836.668
UG MARK
1107838.987
CKTSDRIV
E
1167837.091
FF
117
7827.219
FF118
7827.202
FF
1207814.406
PATIO @ T
O
E
S
T
121
7821.874
FF CRAWL
17837.361
RC 25947
67838.993
TS FRONT
PATIO @
T
O
E
STEP 78
1
4
.
4
'
F.F. GA
R
A
G
E
7837.2'
SILL
7837.3'
F.F.
7837.2'
F.F.
7827.2'
F.F.
7837.1'
F.F. CR
A
W
L
SPACE
7821.9'
F.F.
7827.2'
EDGE O
F
B
R
U
S
H
APPROX
.
PATH
EX:AVG: 39.5%
MAX 48.5%
E
G
12/12/2019 DATE OF PUBLICATION
C000
COVER SHEET
BE
R
N
S
T
E
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
97
5
C
H
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
AS
P
E
N
4/27/2018 PERMT
WOODY CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC
557 N MILL ST #201
WOODY CREEK, COLORADO 81656
(P): 970-429-8297
WOODYCREEKENGINEERING.COM
7/27/2018 COA REV 1
12/12/2018 CHANGE ORDER
Feet
1:119.99998486
201005
C600
UTILITIES
PROPERTY LINE
NOTES:
1.1.UPGRADE ELECTRIC
1.2.RELOCATE ELECTRIC
METER
1.3.UTILIZE EXISTING
1.3.1.GAS
1.3.2.WATER
1.3.3.SANITARY
1.3.4.CABLE
1.3.5.TELEPHONE
1.4.RUN UNDERGROUND
GAS FROM HOUSE TO
OUTDOOR KITCHEN TO
MECHANICAL ROOM
1/11/201812/12/2019
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:56 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
4
Appendix D--Hydrologic Calculations
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:56 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan
Chapter 8 – Water Quality 8-30 Rev 11/2014
Figure 8.13 Aspen Water Quality Capture Volume
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
WQ
C
V
(
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
-in
c
h
e
s
)
Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area to BMP (percent)
WQCV
SF
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:56 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 1
Area =0.051 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =42.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.31
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.31
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2081 149 0.31 N/A 0.39 6.42
1
2
3
4
5
149 Computed Tc =6.42
Regional Tc =10.83
User-Entered Tc =6.42
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =2.99 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.047 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.33 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.036 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =2.99 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.047 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 1
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB1 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:56 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 2
Area =0.016 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =100.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.90
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.90
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4500 5 0.90 N/A 0.35 0.24
1
2
3
4
5
5 Computed Tc =0.24
Regional Tc =10.03
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =4.92 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.070 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.43 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.035 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.29 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.047 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 2
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB2 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:56 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 3
Area =0.024 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =46.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.33
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.33
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.1974 38 0.33 N/A 0.20 3.21
1
2
3
4
5
38 Computed Tc =3.21
Regional Tc =10.21
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =3.76 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.030 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.41 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.019 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.29 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.026 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 3
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB3 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:56 PM
"It should be known that this review shall notrelieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City is
offered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit basedon construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the construction
documents and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 4
Area =0.024 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =51.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.36
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.36
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2152 79 0.36 N/A 0.30 4.34
1
2
3
4
5
79 Computed Tc =4.34
Regional Tc =10.44
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =3.45 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.029 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.38 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.020 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.29 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.028 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 4
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB4 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:56 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 5
Area =0.119 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =0.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.08
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.08
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2606 165 0.08 N/A 0.34 8.11
1
2
3
4
5
165 Computed Tc =8.11
Regional Tc =10.92
User-Entered Tc =8.11
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =2.70 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.024 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.32 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.021 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =2.70 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.024 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 5
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB5 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:56 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 6
Area =0.006 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =100.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.90
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.90
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4500 5 0.90 N/A 0.35 0.24
1
2
3
4
5
5 Computed Tc =0.24
Regional Tc =10.03
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =4.92 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.026 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.43 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.013 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.29 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.018 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 6
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB6 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:57 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 7
Area =0.066 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =60.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.41
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.41
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.1779 84 0.41 N/A 0.32 4.40
1
2
3
4
5
84 Computed Tc =4.40
Regional Tc =10.47
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =3.44 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.093 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.37 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.065 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.29 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.090 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 7
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB7 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:57 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 8
Area =0.023 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =5.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.10
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.10
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.1773 103 0.10 N/A 0.24 7.09
1
2
3
4
5
103 Computed Tc =7.09
Regional Tc =10.57
User-Entered Tc =7.09
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =2.87 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.007 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.36 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.005 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =2.87 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.007 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 8
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB8 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:57 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 9
Area =0.017 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =100.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.90
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.90
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4500 5 0.90 N/A 0.35 0.24
1
2
3
4
5
5 Computed Tc =0.24
Regional Tc =10.03
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =4.92 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.075 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.43 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.037 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.29 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.050 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 9
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB9 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:57 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 10
Area =0.040 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =100.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =5 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=0.64 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.90
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.90
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4500 5 0.90 N/A 0.35 0.24
1
2
3
4
5
5 Computed Tc =0.24
Regional Tc =10.03
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =4.92 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.176 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.43 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.087 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.29 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.118 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 10
Paved Areas &
5YR-PB10 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:57 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 1
Area =0.051 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =42.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.50
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.31
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2081 149 0.31 N/A 0.39 6.42
1
2
3
4
5
149 Computed Tc =6.42
Regional Tc =10.83
User-Entered Tc =6.42
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =5.75 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.147 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.48 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.114 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.75 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.147 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 1
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB1 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:57 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 2
Area =0.016 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =100.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.96
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.90
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4500 5 0.90 N/A 0.35 0.24
1
2
3
4
5
5 Computed Tc =0.24
Regional Tc =10.03
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =9.45 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.144 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.67 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.071 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =6.33 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.097 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 2
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB2 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:57 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 3
Area =0.024 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =46.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.51
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.33
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.1974 38 0.33 N/A 0.20 3.21
1
2
3
4
5
38 Computed Tc =3.21
Regional Tc =10.21
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =7.23 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.089 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.62 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.057 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =6.33 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.078 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 3
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB3 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:57 PM
"It should be known that this review shall notrelieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City is
offered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit basedon construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the construction
documents and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 4
Area =0.024 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =51.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.53
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.36
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2152 79 0.36 N/A 0.30 4.34
1
2
3
4
5
79 Computed Tc =4.34
Regional Tc =10.44
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =6.63 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.084 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.57 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.058 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =6.33 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.080 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 4
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB4 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:58 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 5
Area =0.119 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =0.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.35
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.08
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2606 165 0.08 N/A 0.34 8.11
1
2
3
4
5
165 Computed Tc =8.11
Regional Tc =10.92
User-Entered Tc =8.11
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =5.19 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.216 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.46 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.186 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.19 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.216 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 5
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB5 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:58 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 6
Area =0.006 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =100.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.96
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.90
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4500 5 0.90 N/A 0.35 0.24
1
2
3
4
5
5 Computed Tc =0.24
Regional Tc =10.03
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =9.45 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.054 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.67 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.027 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =6.33 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.036 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 6
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB6 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:58 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 7
Area =0.066 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =60.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.56
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.41
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.1779 84 0.41 N/A 0.32 4.40
1
2
3
4
5
84 Computed Tc =4.40
Regional Tc =10.47
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =6.60 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.246 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.56 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.170 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =6.33 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.236 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 7
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB7 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:58 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 8
Area =0.023 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =5.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.38
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.10
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.1773 103 0.10 N/A 0.24 7.09
1
2
3
4
5
103 Computed Tc =7.09
Regional Tc =10.57
User-Entered Tc =7.09
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =5.51 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.048 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.54 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.040 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.51 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.048 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 8
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB8 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:58 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 9
Area =0.017 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =100.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.96
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.90
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4500 5 0.90 N/A 0.35 0.24
1
2
3
4
5
5 Computed Tc =0.24
Regional Tc =10.03
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =9.45 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.154 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.67 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.076 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =6.33 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.103 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 9
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB9 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:58 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID =PB 10
Area =0.040 Acres
Percent Imperviousness =100.00 %
NRCS Soil Type =B A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr =100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 =88.80 (input the value of C1)
C2=10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3=1.052 (input the value of C3)
P1=1.23 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C =0.96
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 =0.90
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey-Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4500 5 0.90 N/A 0.35 0.24
1
2
3
4
5
5 Computed Tc =0.24
Regional Tc =10.03
User-Entered Tc =5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =9.45 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.361 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.67 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.178 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =6.33 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =0.242 cfs
(Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
975 CHATFIELD
PB 10
Paved Areas &
100YR-PB10 Page 103/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:58 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
5
Appendix E--Hydraulic Calculations
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:58 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Sunday, Mar 11 2018
4-IN PVC @ 80% Full
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 0.33
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 2.00
N-Value = 0.009
Calculations
Compute by: Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.26
Q (cfs) = 0.370
Area (sqft) = 0.07
Velocity (ft/s) = 5.04
Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.73
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.32
Top Width (ft) = 0.26
EGL (ft) = 0.66
0 1
Elev (ft)Section
99.75
100.00
100.25
100.50
100.75
101.00
Reach (ft)
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:59 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Sunday, Mar 11 2018
4-IN PVC @ 80% Full
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 0.33
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 4.00
N-Value = 0.009
Calculations
Compute by: Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.26
Q (cfs) = 0.523
Area (sqft) = 0.07
Velocity (ft/s) = 7.13
Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.73
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.33
Top Width (ft) = 0.26
EGL (ft) = 1.05
0 1
Elev (ft)Section
99.75
100.00
100.25
100.50
100.75
101.00
Reach (ft)
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:59 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Sunday, Mar 11 2018
6-IN PVC @ 80% Full
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 0.50
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 2.00
N-Value = 0.009
Calculations
Compute by: Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.35
Q (cfs) = 0.961
Area (sqft) = 0.15
Velocity (ft/s) = 6.54
Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.99
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.47
Top Width (ft) = 0.46
EGL (ft) = 1.01
0 1
Elev (ft)Section
99.75
100.00
100.25
100.50
100.75
101.00
Reach (ft)
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:59 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Sunday, Mar 11 2018
6-IN PVC @ 80% Full
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 0.50
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 4.00
N-Value = 0.009
Calculations
Compute by: Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.40
Q (cfs) = 1.584
Area (sqft) = 0.17
Velocity (ft/s) = 9.40
Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.11
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.50
Top Width (ft) = 0.40
EGL (ft) = 1.77
0 1
Elev (ft)Section
99.75
100.00
100.25
100.50
100.75
101.00
Reach (ft)
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:59 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Thursday, Jul 26 2018
Outlet
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 0.50
Invert Elev (ft) = 7797.84
Slope (%) = 3.14
N-Value = 0.009
Calculations
Compute by: Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.40
Q (cfs) = 1.403
Area (sqft) = 0.17
Velocity (ft/s) = 8.33
Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.11
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.50
Top Width (ft) = 0.40
EGL (ft) = 1.48
0 1 2
Elev (ft)Section
7797.00
7797.50
7798.00
7798.50
7799.00
Reach (ft)
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:59 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Orifice Calculator
Qallow (cfs)=0.594
Co =0.6
Ho (ft)=0.68
Ao (sf)=0.149602
Ao (in^2)=21.54271
D (in)=5.24
D(ft)=0.4366
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:59 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
6
Appendix F—Detention Calculations
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:59 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant's
understanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project:
Basin ID:
Design Information (Input):Design Information (Input):
Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Ia =61.22 percent Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Ia =61.22 percent
Catchment Drainage Area A =0.267 acres Catchment Drainage Area A =0.267 acres
Predevelopment NRCS Soil Group Type =B A, B, C, or D Predevelopment NRCS Soil Group Type =B A, B, C, or D
Return Period for Detention Control T =5 years (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100)Return Period for Detention Control T =100 years (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100)
Time of Concentration of Watershed Tc =5.45 minutes Time of Concentration of Watershed Tc =5.45 minutes
Allowable Unit Release Rate q =cfs/acre Allowable Unit Release Rate q =2.222 cfs/acre
One-hour Precipitation P1 =0.64 inches One-hour Precipitation P1 =1.23 inches
Design Rainfall IDF Formula i = C1* P1/(C2+Tc)^C3 Design Rainfall IDF Formula i = C1* P1/(C2+Tc)^C3
Coefficient One C1 =88.80 Coefficient One C1 =88.80
Coefficient Two C2 =10 Coefficient Two C2 =10
Coefficient Three C3 =1.052 Coefficient Three C3 =1.052
Determination of Average Outflow from the Basin (Calculated):Determination of Average Outflow from the Basin (Calculated):
Runoff Coefficient C =Runoff Coefficient C =0.57
Inflow Peak Runoff Qp-in =cfs Inflow Peak Runoff Qp-in =0.93 cfs
Allowable Peak Outflow Rate Qp-out =cfs Allowable Peak Outflow Rate Qp-out =0.594 cfs
Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume = 0 cubic feet Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = 153 cubic feet
Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume = 0.000 acre-ft Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = 0.004 acre-ft
1 <- Enter Rainfall Duration Incremental Increase Value Here (e.g. 5 for 5-Minutes)
Rainfall Rainfall Inflow Adjustment Average Outflow Storage Rainfall Rainfall Inflow Adjustment Average Outflow Storage
Duration Intensity Volume Factor Outflow Volume Volume Duration Intensity Volume Factor Outflow Volume Volume
minutes inches / hr acre-feet "m"cfs acre-feet acre-feet minutes inches / hr acre-feet "m"cfs acre-feet acre-feet
(input)(output)(output)(output)(output)(output)(output)(input)(output)(output)(output)(output)(output)(output)
0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000
1 4.56 0.000 0.00 1 8.77 0.002 1.00 0.59 0.001 0.001
2 4.16 0.000 0.00 2 8.00 0.003 1.00 0.59 0.002 0.002
3 3.83 0.000 0.00 3 7.35 0.005 1.00 0.59 0.002 0.002
4 3.54 0.000 0.00 4 6.80 0.006 1.00 0.59 0.003 0.002
5 3.29 0.000 0.00 5 6.33 0.007 1.00 0.59 0.004 0.003
6 3.08 0.000 0.00 6 5.91 0.007 0.95 0.57 0.005 0.003
7 2.89 0.000 0.00 7 5.54 0.008 0.89 0.53 0.005 0.003
8 2.72 0.000 0.00 8 5.22 0.009 0.84 0.50 0.006 0.003
9 2.57 0.000 0.00 9 4.93 0.009 0.80 0.48 0.006 0.003
10 2.43 0.000 0.00 10 4.67 0.010 0.77 0.46 0.006 0.003
11 2.31 0.000 0.00 11 4.44 0.010 0.75 0.44 0.007 0.004
12 2.20 0.000 0.00 12 4.23 0.011 0.73 0.43 0.007 0.004
13 2.10 0.000 0.00 13 4.03 0.011 0.71 0.42 0.008 0.003
14 2.01 0.000 0.00 14 3.86 0.011 0.69 0.41 0.008 0.003
15 1.92 0.000 0.00 15 3.70 0.012 0.68 0.40 0.008 0.003
16 1.85 0.000 0.00 16 3.55 0.012 0.67 0.40 0.009 0.003
17 1.77 0.000 0.00 17 3.41 0.012 0.66 0.39 0.009 0.003
18 1.71 0.000 0.00 18 3.28 0.012 0.65 0.39 0.010 0.003
19 1.64 0.000 0.00 19 3.16 0.013 0.64 0.38 0.010 0.003
20 1.59 0.000 0.00 20 3.05 0.013 0.64 0.38 0.010 0.002
21 1.53 0.000 0.00 21 2.95 0.013 0.63 0.37 0.011 0.002
22 1.48 0.000 0.00 22 2.85 0.013 0.62 0.37 0.011 0.002
23 1.44 0.000 0.00 23 2.76 0.013 0.62 0.37 0.012 0.002
24 1.39 0.000 0.00 24 2.67 0.013 0.61 0.36 0.012 0.001
25 1.35 0.000 0.00 25 2.59 0.014 0.61 0.36 0.012 0.001
26 1.31 0.000 0.00 26 2.52 0.014 0.60 0.36 0.013 0.001
27 1.27 0.000 0.00 27 2.45 0.014 0.60 0.36 0.013 0.001
28 1.24 0.000 0.00 28 2.38 0.014 0.60 0.35 0.014 0.000
29 1.20 0.000 0.00 29 2.31 0.014 0.59 0.35 0.014 0.000
30 1.17 0.000 0.00 30 2.25 0.014 0.59 0.35 0.015 0.000
31 1.14 0.000 0.00 31 2.20 0.014 0.59 0.35 0.015 -0.001
32 1.11 0.000 0.00 32 2.14 0.014 0.59 0.35 0.015 -0.001
33 1.09 0.000 0.00 33 2.09 0.014 0.58 0.35 0.016 -0.001
34 1.06 0.000 0.00 34 2.04 0.015 0.58 0.34 0.016 -0.002
35 1.04 0.000 0.00 35 1.99 0.015 0.58 0.34 0.017 -0.002
36 1.01 0.000 0.00 36 1.95 0.015 0.58 0.34 0.017 -0.002
37 0.99 0.000 0.00 37 1.90 0.015 0.57 0.34 0.017 -0.003
38 0.97 0.000 0.00 38 1.86 0.015 0.57 0.34 0.018 -0.003
39 0.95 0.000 0.00 39 1.82 0.015 0.57 0.34 0.018 -0.003
40 0.93 0.000 0.00 40 1.78 0.015 0.57 0.34 0.019 -0.004
41 0.91 0.000 0.00 41 1.75 0.015 0.57 0.34 0.019 -0.004
42 0.89 0.000 0.00 42 1.71 0.015 0.56 0.34 0.019 -0.004
43 0.87 0.000 0.00 43 1.68 0.015 0.56 0.33 0.020 -0.005
44 0.86 0.000 0.00 44 1.64 0.015 0.56 0.33 0.020 -0.005
45 0.84 0.000 0.00 45 1.61 0.015 0.56 0.33 0.021 -0.005
46 0.82 0.000 0.00 46 1.58 0.015 0.56 0.33 0.021 -0.006
47 0.81 0.000 0.00 47 1.55 0.015 0.56 0.33 0.021 -0.006
48 0.79 0.000 0.00 48 1.52 0.015 0.56 0.33 0.022 -0.007
49 0.78 0.000 0.00 49 1.50 0.015 0.56 0.33 0.022 -0.007
50 0.77 0.000 0.00 50 1.47 0.015 0.55 0.33 0.023 -0.007
51 0.75 0.000 0.00 51 1.45 0.015 0.55 0.33 0.023 -0.008
52 0.74 0.000 0.00 52 1.42 0.016 0.55 0.33 0.024 -0.008
53 0.73 0.000 0.00 53 1.40 0.016 0.55 0.33 0.024 -0.008
54 0.72 0.000 0.00 54 1.37 0.016 0.55 0.33 0.024 -0.009
55 0.70 0.000 0.00 55 1.35 0.016 0.55 0.33 0.025 -0.009
56 0.69 0.000 0.00 56 1.33 0.016 0.55 0.33 0.025 -0.009
57 0.68 0.000 0.00 57 1.31 0.016 0.55 0.33 0.026 -0.010
58 0.67 0.000 0.00 58 1.29 0.016 0.55 0.32 0.026 -0.010
59 0.66 0.000 0.00 59 1.27 0.016 0.55 0.32 0.026 -0.011
60 0.65 0.000 0.00 60 1.25 0.016 0.55 0.32 0.027 -0.011
Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (cubic ft.) =0 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (cubic ft.) =153
Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (acre-ft.) =0.0000 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (acre-ft.) =0.0035
Determination of MAJOR Detention Volume Using Modified FAA Method
(For catchments less than 160 acres only. For larger catchments, use hydrograph routing method)
(NOTE: for catchments larger than 90 acres, CUHP hydrograph and routing are recommended)
UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.34, Released November 2013
Determination of MINOR Detention Volume Using Modified FAA Method
DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD
975 Chatfield
Sand Filter
975 Chatfield FAA, Modified FAA 12/12/2019, 4:26 PM
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:56:59 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant'sunderstanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.
Project:
Basin ID:
UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.34, Released November 2013
DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD
975 Chatfield
Sand Filter
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Vo
l
u
m
e
(
a
c
r
e
-fe
e
t
)
Duration (Minutes)
Inflow and Outflow Volumes vs. Rainfall Duration
Minor Storm Inflow Volume Minor Storm Outflow Volume Minor Storm Storage Volume Major Storm Inflow Volume Major Storm Outflow Volume Major Storm Storage Volume
975 Chatfield FAA, Modified FAA 12/12/2019, 4:26 PM
03/13/2020
Reviewed by Engineering
06/23/2020 3:57:00 PM
"It should be known that this review shall not
relieve the applicant of their responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the City of
Aspen. The review and approval by the City isoffered only to assist the applicant'sunderstanding of the applicable Engineering
requirements." The issuance of a permit based
on construction documents and other data shall
not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the
correction of errors in the constructiondocuments and other data.