HomeMy WebLinkAboutCivil Drainage PlanJune 23,2025
William & Catherine Kenworthy
223W. Menomonee St.
Chicago, lL 60614
MOUNTATN CROSS
ENGINEERING, INE.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
F.ili-t.:ii';r)
"JtJhl [] 2 ?fi?5
{.ii'.i ' l' :r'' {:'..11i:i"i'Y
Lr .. \ri i':;ii.li'f
RE Kenworthy Residence, Lot 21 Ranch at Coulter Creek,
Garfield Countyo CO - Drainage Report
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kenworthy
The purpose of this correspondence is to evaluate the construction of the proposed residence on
Lot 2l at the Ranch at Coulter Creek, from a storm water perspective and provide design
recommendations pertaining to runoff management for incorporation into the site design. These
recommendations were generated from the site plans that were submitted to our office. Refer to
the plan sheets that show the design recommendations and details. Attached are the drainage..
calculations that were generated.
The project is at an elevation of approximately 7465 feet above sea level. Ultimately, runoff from
the site will travel into the regional detention ponds for the subdivision through a series of
conveyances and storm drain appurtenances.
Runoff from snowmelt is typically very large in volume but because it happens over a much longer
time period, the peak flows are usually less than a rainfall event. Therefore, storm water is defined
in this study to be surface water that is a direct result from a rainfall event.
The site is not impacted by any floodplain boundary. No drainage studies are known to have been
performed specific to this lot.
Storm water from the site is evaluated in accordance with the standards of applicable sections of
the Garfield County LUDC. All flows are listed in units of cubic feet per second (cfs) unless
otherwise noted.
Methodoloey
The design of the drainage plan begins with a calculation of the flowrate of water that will be
produced from a rainfall event. Since the watershed basin is small (less than 90 acres), the Rational
method was used for estimating the amount of runoff that will occur. This method calculates
runoff (Q) in cubic feet per second (cfs) from basin area (A) in acres, runoff coefficient (C), dnd
rainfall intensity (I) in inches per hour:
Q:C*IxA
826% Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
F: 970.945.5 544 F : I 70.945.5558 www. tnountaincross-eng. coin
Kenworthy
Jttne,2025
Page 2 of 4
When acres and inches per hour are used as the units, the conversion into cubic feet per second is
1.008 but is usually ignored and it has been here. The runoff coefficient is a dimensionless
coefficient.
Basin Area
Drainage basins have the characteristic that any precipitation falling within that area will
drain to the same point of discharge. The project basin was delineated from project
topography, project site plan, and building architecture.
Runoff Cofficient
A runoff coefficient is assigned to each basin that gives a relationship between the amount
of precipitation that becomes surface water and the amount of water that is lost to
infiltration, evaporation, or transpiration. The runoff coefficient is a function of drainage
basin soil types, surface area, andlor land-use. Because the land-use and the surface cover
often vary through the project, a composite coefficient is often assigned to each drainage
basin, based on the weight of the areas and their respective coefficients.
Rainfall Intensity
Rainfall intensity is determined from intensity duration frequency curves, or IDF curves.
IDF curves are graphs of, more or less, parallel frequency curves that yield rainfall
intensities based on storm durations.
Frequency; The return frequency of a rainfall storm is the statistical probability
thatagiven storm event will occur on average in a given period. For instance a 100-
year storm has the statistical probability of occurring once in a 100 year span or it
has a lo/o chance of occurring in any given year. It is important to emphasize that
it is based on probability statistics and therefore does not reflect actual storm
frequency. Storms of a 100-year magnitude can occur in sequential years, even in
the same year. The return frequency of design is chosen and then referred to as the
design storm.
Duration: The duration of a storm is chosen to coincide with the time of
concentration. The FAA Overland flow equation was used to estimate the time of
concentration. The parameters needed to determine the flow elements include
length, slope, and the Rational runoff coeff,rcient. The theory states that if the
duration is equal to the time of concentration, the length of time will be adequate
for the entire basin to contribute flow.
Analvsis
In general, the site is at the top of a ridge and has very little contributary area to develop significant
storm flows. Project basins were delineated based on a review of aerial photography, roof lines,
site grading, and project topography. Only the largest roof area was analyzed for downspout
sizing. The driveway culvert contributory area was analyzed with the culvert and swale sized to
convey this area; the largest contributory area.
Mountain Cross Engineering. lnc.
Civil ancl Environrnental Ccnsulting and Design
826 1/. Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F : 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
Kenworthy
June,2025
Page 3 of4
All proposed storm water is captured and conveyed overland into either swales or piped to suitable
gravity outlets.
Runoff coefficients were determined based on land use and percentage imperviousness. The
parameters for calculating the time of concentration were determined from the site, slope, length,
and land uses. The times of concentration for the site basins are 5 minutes or 12 minutes. The
calculations are attached. The rainfall intensities were determined by using the appropriate storm
curve, duration to match the time of concentration, and the NOAA precipitation data. The basin
flow rates were calculated based on the Rational Method and type C soils. The calculations are
attached.
Basin
Description
Area
(acres)
Coefficient Flow
(cfs)
Proposedl-25yr 0.03 0.95 0.16
Proposed2-25yr 0.4t 0.53 0.63
Water Oualitv
Water quality will be provided by filtration from existing undisturbed vegetation. Temporary
structures are intended to be used during construction activities. Permanent structures are intended
to be used continually after the construction activities have been completed. Temporary erosion
control measures that arc to be employed during construction have been designed to contain
sediment on the site and to mitigate erosion from construction activities. Silt fencing will be placed
around the downhill limits of disturbance. Rock socks will be placed at inlets and in the thalwegs
of swales. Vehicle tracking pad is proposed. Permanent erosion control measures are revegetation
ofdisturbed areas and design ofconveyances to prevent erosion.
The site is expected to disturb less than one acre and therefore will not require a permit from
CDPHE.
Detention
As a point of history, the original drainage for the subdivision is assumed to have anticipated that
houses would be constructed on platted lots and the existing culverts and roadside ditches in the
subdivision were constructed with culverts sized for full build-out. The existingdrainage network
within the subdivision drains to an existing pond that was also assumed to be sized adequately for
regional detention and water quality treatment. That being assumed correctly, no additional
detention would be warranted specific toLot2l.
Maintenance
Maintenance will be required periodically for the drainage system. At a minimum the following
should be done bi-annually in the spring and fall: the pipes and drainage appurtenances should be
Mountain Cross Engineering. lnc.
Givil and E*virsnmental Consulting and Design
826'/. Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F : 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
I(cnrvorthy
Juttc,2025
Pagc 4 of4
clcanecl and clcarecl of deblis. llcat tape shoulcl bc chccltcd to vclily that it is wolking;rropelly
an(l it shoulcl lrc turncd ofJ'in tlrc spling and turttccl on in tlte fall. 'l'cmpot'tu'ily, the gettcral ttotes
requirc thc mainlcnance ancl li'ecprcrtt inspection ol'tlte silt ltnce atttd rttck socks.
Results
.fhc drainagc pipcs and erosion control ale desigrtecl to aclequatcly convey and prevent erosiott
ll'om the 25-year storn'1, per Garficld County regulations. Attached nre tlte calculntions.
"fhc ploltoscd drainage pattcln is inturdcd to rnaintaitr lhc existing as tnrtclt as possiblc. All
ploposecl storm water is capturccl ancl conveyed by pipes ancl swales to existing subclivision
convsyances.
T'hel'c is a ccrtain arnount of unccrtainty in hydLologic calculations. I-lowever, wltctt cottstl'ttcted
in accordance with this report arrcl the clrainagc plfln, it is our opirrion that the clesigrt will safuly
aonvey the rurrof['['lows and vr-rlume ol'tlre 2.5-ycar dr:sign stolttt evsnt lor this sitc and will not
callse llooding clatnagr.: lo tlris clr acljaccnI sitcs.
'l'he conclusions and o;linions that al'e explessed atrove are basecl on thc ittftrnnatiotr avttilable at
the tinre rrf prept'rration ol this report. Any adclitiouttl irtfornratiou prescnle<i afterward nray rcquirc
that tlrcsc opiuions ntrd tltc Lccorllltlcudations be rnodilied.
'l'hauk you for tlre opportunily to provide lhis r:eport, I?eel h'ee to call if'yott have any c;ttcstirltts,
concefns, or c0l]trnents.
Sincerely,
Arlouttl n (i'o.s'.r tn8
ti
s I lalc. lll'j
Ine
1n
o/t
!
',\
Ms.ULrlsin-'C_ro_e-s-Ergrnee-Llr-tg,--l-ns.
Civll and Envlronmental Consulting and Deslgn
828'1, Grand Avenue, Glenwood Sprlngs, CO 8160'l
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-erlg.corn
[tl oElz/8 FIGURE 1
Drainage Areas Analyzed
Lot 21, Coulter Creek Ranch
MOUNTATN CROSS
ENGINEERING, INE.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
826 112 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
ph 970.945.5544 fx 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross+ng.com
*llr 1'- !O'
m
Ctui tld.
mltr
ttarror@rten
I
5tl-o:t
USDA United States
-
Danartment of
Agriculture
NRCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Gustom Soil Resource
Report for
Aspen-Gypsum Area,
Golorado, Parts of Eagle,
Garfield, and Pitkin
Gounties
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
r1
i
i
June22,2025
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/
porta l/n rcs/ma i n/soi ls/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=n rcsl 42p2_05395 1 ).
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 Federalagencies, 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.
lnformation 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, maritalstatus, familialstatus, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 lndependence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.20250-9410 or
call(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equalopportunity
provider and employer.
3
Gontents
Preface......
How Soil Surveys Are Made...
Soil Map....
SoilMap.....
Legend.......
Map Unit Legend.......
Map Unit Descriptions
Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin
Counties.....
1 8-Cochetopa-Antrobus association, 12 to 25 percent slopes......
References
2
5
BI
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5
Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. lf 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. lnterpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
6
Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
=
b
Custom Soil Resource Report
SoilMap
3151210
3
e_@
315m 31524)315260 3152S 31534
390 27 56'N
E
39p 27'56'N
ap
E
E
EI
o
5h
E
+
ap
FIp
s
o
h
g
314S60 314W 315@ 31ffi 315G0 31540
Map Sah: 1 : 1,670 iF printed on A landspe (11" x 8.5) *ted.
o2o4o80
red0501@mil
1n
=
aj
=e_@
R
N
A I
390 2748'N
l4ap projedton: lveb Mqcabr Corner@ordinahs: WGS84 Edgetics: UTM Ane 13N WGS84
315170 31520 315230 315260 3't529
9 Z74gN
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,0Q0.
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
SurveyArea Data: Version 15, Aug 29,2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 25, 2021-Sep
5,2021
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Area of lnterest (AOl)
Area of lnterest (AOl)
Soils
d** Soil Map Unit Lines
tr Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
19 Blowout
ffi Borrow Pit
X Clay Spot
i.: Closed DePression
H Gravel Pit
;, Gravelly Spot
S Landfill
f. Lava Flow
,l. Marsh or swamo€
.. Mine orQuarry
@ Miscellaneous Water
ff Perennial Water
+ Saline Spot
;": Sandy Spot
€ Severely Eroded Spot
*, Sinkhole
il' Slide or SliP
@ Sodic Spot
E Spoil Area
S Stony Spot
!:$ Very Stony Spot
fj Wet SPot
i! Other
r- Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
tu, lnterstate Highways
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
I Aerial Photography
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.
10
MAP LEGEND
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
imagery displayed on these maps. As a resuh, some minor
of unit boundaries be evidenl.
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
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 arca. 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. lf 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 allthe soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. lf intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
18 Cochetopa-Antrobus
association, 12 lo 25 percent
slopes
10.4 100.0%
Totals for Area of lnterest 10.4 100.0%
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
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 so/ 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 so/ 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 assocrafion 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.
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin
Counties
1 8-Cochetopa-Antrobus associati on, 12 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Sefting
National map unit symbol: iq53
Elevation: 8,500 to 10,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 1B to 20 inches
Mean annual airtemperature: 36 to 38 degrees F
Frost-free period: 45 to 60 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Gomposition
Cochetopa and similar soils: 45 percent
Antrobus and similar so/s; 35 percent
Minor components; 20 percent
Estimates are based on obseruations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit
Description of Gochetopa
Sefting
Landform : Mountains, fans
La n dfo rm po sitio n (th ree-d i m e n si o n a l) : Lower th i rd of mo u nta i nfla n k
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-s/op e shape : Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from basalt
Typical profile
Hl -0 fo3rnches: loam
H2 - 3 to 38 inches; clay loam
H3 - 38 to 60 inches; gravelly clay loam
Properties and qualities
S/ope; 12 to 20 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than B0 inches
Drai n age c/ass: Well drained
Runoff class; High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water fable: More than B0 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.4 inches)
lnterpretive groups
Land capability cl assification (i rrig ated); None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecologicalsife; R048AY250CO - Subalpine Loam
Other vegetative classification: subalpine loam (null-84)
Hydric so/ rafing; No
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Antrobus
Setting
Landform : Mountains, fans
La n dfo rm positio n (th ree-d i m e n si o n al) : Lower th ird of mou ntai nflan k
Down-slope shape : Linear
Across-s/ope shape : Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from basalt and/or colluvium derived from basalt
Typicalprofile
Hl - 0 to 13 inches.' very stony loam
H2 - 13 to 60 inches; extremely stony loam
Properties and qualities
S/ope; 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than B0 inches
Drainage c/ass: Well drained
Runoff class; High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat); Moderately high to high
(0.20 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water fable; More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.4 inches)
lnterpretive groups
Land capability cl assification (i rrig ated); None specified
Land capabil ity cl assification (non i rrig ated) : 7 s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecologicalstfe: R048AY237CO - Stony Loam
Other vegetative classification; Stony Loam (null-82)
Hydric soi/ rafing: No
Minor Gomponents
Other soils
Percent of map unit: 20 percent
Hydric so/ rafing; No
15
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. Soilsurvey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U. S. Department of Ag riculture Handbook 1 B. http ://www. n rcs. usda. g ov/wps/po rta l/
n rcs/d eta i l/n ati o n a l/so i I s/?cid = n rcs'1 4 2p2 -0 5 4262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soilsurveys. 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 soiltaxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www. n rcs. 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/
h ome/?ci d = nr csl 42p2 _0 5337 4
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/land use/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1 043084
16
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
National soil survey handbook, title 430-Vl. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
n rcs/d eta i l/so i I s/scienti sts/?cid = n rcs 1 42p2 _0 54242
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:ll
www. nrcs. usda. gov/l nternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS I nrcsl 42p2-052290.pdf
17
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2
Location name: Carbondale, Golorado, USA*
Latitude: 39.4644', Longitude: -107.1488'
Elevation: 7457 tl**
* source: ESRI Maps** source: USGS
,ffi
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, lshani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale
Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin
NOAA, Nalional Weather Seruice, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF tabular I PF-grap-hieel I lt/aps-&-acne.lS
PF tabular
Back to Top
PF graphical
PDS-based rect on estimates with 90% confidence intervals in inches/hou 1
recurrence interval
ration
1 2 10 25 50 100 200 500 {000
1.38 2.O4 3.91
(3.1 0-5.05)
4.98 5.76 6.49
(4.60-9.13)
7.20
(4.86-10.5)5-min (1.10-1.76)(1.63-2.62)(3.74-6.65)(4.24-7.85)
t.0{1.49 2.86
(2.27-3.70)
3.65 4.22 4.75
(3.37-6.68)
5.27
(3.56-7.67)10-min (0.810-1 .29)(1.20-1.92)(2.74-4,87)(3.1 0-5.74)
0.820 1.22 2.32
(1 .84-3.01)
2.96 3.43 3.86
(2.74-5.44)
4.28
(2.90-6.24l.15-min (0.660-1.05)(0.976-1.56)(2.23-3.96)(2.52-4.67)
0.554 0.790 1.44
(1 .14-1.87)
1.8'l
(1.36-2,41]
2.08 2.33
(1.65-3.27)
2.56
(1.73-3.72)30-min (0.444-0.710)(0.632-1 .01)(1.53-2.83)
0.366
(0.294-0.46e)
0.487 0.823
(0.653-1.06)
1.02
(0.765-1.35)
I .15
(0.850-1.57)
1.28 1.41
60-min (0.910-1 .80)(0.951 -2.05)
o.227
(0.184-0.288)
0.289 0.462 0.561 0.633 o.701 0.766
(0.524-1.10)2-hr .371
0.177
(0.144-0.222)
0.214 0.322 0.385 0.431 0.476 0.520
358-0.741 )3-hr
1
0.116 0.132 0.182
148-0.227)
0.214
6-hr 144)1 09-0.1
o.o72 0.082 0.11 3 0.134
12-ht 10'l 140)107-O.
0.044 0.051 0.07'l 0.085
24-hr 061
0.026 0.030 0.043 0.051
2-day
1 )
0.020 0.032 0.038
3-day
0.0{ 6 0.026 0.030
4-day
1 .030)
0.0,l1 0.017
014-0.020)
0.020 0.030 0.033
7-day
1 6-0.-0.041
0.013 0.0r 5 0.023 0.025
(0.011-0.015)3-0.6-0.031
0.008
007-0.01 o)
0.010 0.011
009-0,01 3)
0.012 0.0{ 3 0.0't4 0.015
011-0.021 )010-0.01 7)0-0.
0.007
006-0.008)
0.008 0.009 0.009 0.010
008-0.01 3)
0.01'l 0.012
.008-0.010)
0.004 0.006
005-0.006)
0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.009 0,009
.007-0.0145-day .010)
0.003 0.004 0.005
004-0.005)
0.005 0.006
005-0.007)
0.007 0.007
005-0.009)
0.008 0.008
60-day 011)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
8.06
(5.22-12.2)
8.66
(5.48-1 3.5)
5.90
(3.82-8.91)
6.34
(4.01-9.85)
4.80
(3.10-7.24)
5.{6
(3.26-8.01)
2.84
(1.84-4.29)
3.04
(1.92-4.71)
0.239
(0.1 83-0.31 7)
I o.zss ll 0.292
l1o. r ss-o.eory I l1o. 204-0.41 sl
0.151
(0.11 7-0.1e8)
0.187
133-0.262)
0.169 ll
10. r zs-o.zzayllqo.
0.097
(0.076-0.125)
fu-ros lT or2i
llo.osz-o. ts1
l l1o.087-0. 1 67)
0.058
(0.046-0.074)
I o.oes ll
l(o.o5o-o.oB6)ll(0.
0.073
053-0.099)
0.043
(0.034-0.054)
I- 0"048
_lt
o"os4
Ito.osz o.ooelllto.03e-0.072)
0.034
(0.027-0.043)
0.038 0.043
031 -0.057)
0.022
(0.018-0.027)
o.o24
r19-0.03
0.027
020-0.036)
0.017
(0.014-0.021)
fo.oir-lt ooro
l(0.014-0.024)ll(0.01 5-0.027)
1.56
(1 .01-2.35)
r.66
(1.05-2.58)
0.845
(0.553-1.26)
0.900
(0.576-1.38)
0.574
(0.379-0.849)
0.614
,0.394-0.931)
0.328
(n atn-n iP4\
0.357
:0.231-0.533)
0.213
(0.144-0.308)
0.233
:0.153-0.343)
0.138
[0.095-0.1 98)
0.152
"0.101-0.221)0.084
(0.058-0.11 8)
0.092
:0.062-0.132)
0.061
/n ndr-n nRql
0.067
0.048 0.053
Please refer to NOAAAtlas 14 document for more information.
'-'t-
l-
101
PD5-based intensity-duration-frequency (lDF) curves
Latitude: 19.4644", Longitude: -107.L488'
5 10 25 50 100
Average recurrence interval (yean)
Averege recunence
inte&€l
(years)
I
2
5
10
25
50
100
zAO
500
I 000
t
c
oco!
L
fg
q.
TJ
d)
d-
10
10-r
-al0
trEC6qL!!L!>>>E E E F F f;f; 6 fi f +qs q€ s+s{; *S 8 d nurati# A An\* *J Rf;+8
101
10
10-r
_Jt0
I
-E
\'6
fll
o
fu
U
rl)
o.
l2 200 500 1000
freated (GfrTl: SatJun zl ll 30 l0 2015
Back to Top_
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
li0AA Atlds 14, Volume 8, Version J
i'I
!1
l
I
.l
1
!
- !-i, ,
| .,''
j"qe.E-
i:r
"(.':'Jti +
/:
I
i
t-
iI-,--I
I
1_. -I
.-
Duration
5-nrln
lo{nm
ltum
30-mln
6ofitn
24t
3-hr
6+r
tz-hr
24+r
- ?-d8y
- 3-day
- 4-day
- ?-dsy
- ro-day
- zo-day
- 30-day
- 46-day
- 60-day
ITY
3km
Large_scale terrain
-:i
r-?
Largg scale
100km
r-)
Large scale aerial
.1 v q
i r
zl
-t
- 1.,:
'-l I
I
!9'.,.!
't'
l
t
'"1 -r 'a
:l .
-l
I
I
r 100km
- 60mi'. t '- r{. r}
r-l r
Back to Top
I
+
+
U S De p g rtrned_9lgg!0-rnelge
National Oceanic and Atmosoheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spting, MD 20910
Questions?: H DSC.Questions@naaa. gov
Disclaimer
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS for
Lot21, Kenworthy, Coulter Creek
'06t22t2025
Civil and Environmental
ph g0,gig fi 970.95.5S0 ww,mouniainc.os*ng.@m
MOUNTAIN CROSS
ENGINEERINC, INC.
Drainage Proposed 1
Surface description: Largest roof area
PROPERTY GENER,AL SURFACE DATA
Total Drainage Area: 1,500 sq. ft.0.03 ac
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
Proposed Land Use
Roof
Hardscape & Paving
Landscaped areas
Pine and Aspen
Sage and Grasses
TOTAL BASIN ACERAGE
sq. ft. or
est. %
1,500
0
0
0
0
acres
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
imperviousness = 100%
C25 = 0.95
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Overland Flow Time
Upstream Elevation
Dnstream Elevation
Length
50
Slope
0.17
c2 Tc
4.290.25
Channel Flow Time
Upstream Elevation
Dnstream Elevation
Length
0.0
Slope
0.00
K
7.000
Tc
0.00
Total 4.29 min
RUNOFF
lntensity
(in/hr)
Flowrate
(cfs)
25-yr Storm 5.00 0.16
NOTES:
- lf land use percentages are used, they have been estimated from satellite image
- Conveyance coefficient K is based on "lawn" or vegetation lined channel
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS fOT
Lol21, Kenworthy, Coulter Creek
'0612212025
ph97qg'5glr
-:.
@ MOUNTAIN CROSS
ENGINEERINC, INC.
Civil and Environmenbl Consulting and Design
826 l/2 Gmnd Avenue Olsnw@d spdnqs, cO 81601
nage Proposed 2
Surface description: Proposed roof, hardscape improvements, and landscaping
PROPERTY GENERAL SURFAGE DATA
Total Drainage Area: 18,000 sq. ft. 0.41 ac.
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
Proposed Land Use
Roof
Hardscape & Paving
Landscaped areas
Pine and Aspen
Sage and Grasses
TOTAL BASIN ACERAGE
sq. ft. or
est. %
1,025
2,730
acres
0.02
0.06
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.41
imperviousness = 21%
HSG = C from Fig 6-2
14,245
0
0
C25 = 0.53
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Overland Flow Time
Upstream Elevation
Dnstream Elevation
7471.00
7465.00
Length
125
Slope
0.05
c2
0.25
Tc
10.22
Channel Flow Time
Upstream Elevation
Dnstream Elevation
7465.00
7462.90
Length
105.0
Slope
o.o2
K
7.000
Tc
1.77
Total 11.99 min
RUNOFF
Intensity
(in/hr)
Flowrate
(cfs)
25-yr Storm 2.86 0.63
NOTES:
- lf land use percentages are used, they have been estimated from satellite image
- Conveyance coefficient K is based on "lawn" or vegetation lined channel
TJ
-qJ(J
0)Ot]
L
\l-oc
=d
1.00
o"B0
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.00
0"50
0.40
0.30
0.20
010
+- 2-!. r
-X-5-yr
f,- 1O-yr
-x-25-yr
*50-yr
+ 100-yr
0 10 20 30 40 50 so 70 80
Watershed Perc.entage lrnpervionsness. s/o
go 100
Figure 6-3. Runoff rorlfrdrnt vs. watrrshed irnperviousnrss NRC S HSG C and D
J\
-ffi
f,{g
Proposed Goefficients
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, lnc.
4 in. Downspout
Gircular
Diameter (ft)= 0.33
Invert Elev (ft)
Slope (%)
N-Value
0.19
0.1 60
0.05
3.13
0.57
0.23
0.33
0.34
3
00
00
01
=1
-z
=Q
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
Q (cfs)
Area (sqft)
Velocity (fUs)
Wetted Perim (ft)
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
Top Width (ft)
EGL (ft)
Sunday, Jun222025
Section
Calculations
Compute by:
Known Q (cfs)
Known Q
= 0.16
Elev (ft)
2.OO
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0 1
v
0.75
Reach (ft)
Ghannel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, lnc.
Swale
Triangular
Side Slopes (z:1)
Total Depth (ft)
lnvert Elev (ft)
Slope (%)
N-Value
Sunday, Jun222O25
=l
=Q
=1
=1
=Q
0.46
0.700
0.42
1.65
2.06
0.38
1.84
0.50
2.0000,
50
00
00
030
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
Q (cfs)
Area (sqft)
Velocity (fVs)
Wetted Perim (ft)
Crit Depth, Yc (ft)
Top Width (ft)
EGL (ft)Galculations
Compute by:
Known Q (cfs)
Elev (ft)
Known Q
= 0.70
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
Section
1.5
Depth (ft)
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 1 32
0.75
.5
Reach (ft)
2.5
-0.25
Gulvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk@ Civil 3D@ by Autodesk, lnc.
Gulvert
lnvert Elev Dn (ft)
Pipe Length (ft)
Slope (%)
lnvert Elev Up (ft)
Rise (in)
Shape
Span (in)
No. Barrels
n-Value
Culvert Type
Culvert Entrance
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft)
Top Width (ft)
Crest Width (ft)
2.60
30.00
1.00
2.90
15.0
Circular
15.0
1
0.012
Circular Concrete
Square edge w/headwall (C)
0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5
00
00
00
Culvefi
Galculations
Qmin (cfs)
Qmax (cfs)
Tailwater Elev (ft)
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs)
Qpipe (cfs)
Qovertop (cfs)
Veloc Dn (ftls)
Veloc Up (ft/s)
HGL Dn (ft)
HGL Up (ft)
Hw Elev (ft)
Hw/D (ft)
Flow Regime
Sunday, Jun222025
= 0.10
= 1.00
= Normal
= 0.70
= 0.70
= 0.00
= 3.61
= 2.74
= 2.87
= 3.23
= 3.34
= 0.35
= lnlet Control
H,! Depth (fl1
-L
-L
-A
Elef rflr
-? ?t
2.Ca
3]C
2 13
I tc
-3 33
1 9-1
a5
r:rrcu ar l]ult erl
10 l5 2i 25
'_-_-_ _- Enrbifrl
3C 35 4X 51
Rei.h rfll
59 1/8"W x 87 3/4"H x 32 U2"D
on a combustiblelloor H = 93"
r,085 lbs
66 1/2"W x 81 3/4"H x 36 1/4"D
uillotine 0peration
42314"W x42"H
37 114"W x36112"H
35 1/2" W{ronl 21 3/4"W back
'13" deep
12" Rts
'12' (more with elbows)
N/A
4 medium logs
22"
Yes (100,000 BTU max)
N/A
N/A
Stove
0peration
Straight Trim
(included with f ireplace)
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
FO.INT
0"
0"
0"
67"W x 24"D
2.2 R-value
ULC
U.S, Patent No, 8,479,723
Canadian Patent Pending
This model qualifiesatthe EPA
Phase 2 emissions level for U.S,
EPA's Voluntary Fireplace Program.
Defined as a fireplace by the 2015
pa(ticulate emissions standards.
Door0pen 3,4 g/kg
Door Closed 0.68 g/kg
Linear 50Rumford 1O0OB Rumford 15008 Uptown 600
Clearance to Combustible Materials
Certification
2O Note 1: These f ireplacep may be drilled out to accept an after-market gas log assembly, You may not install a gas lighter in any Renaissance
f ireplace because the high firebox temperatures will burn out the log lighter very quickly,
0utside Dimensions
Shipping Weight
Shipping Crate Size
Door
Screen
Door 0pening size
Glass Viewing Size
Firebox Dimensions
Chimney
Minimum Chimney Height
lVasonry Chimney option
Touch up Paint Color
l\4aximum Fuel Load
Maximum Log Length
Gas Log Provision'
HBS
(Heat Recovery System)
HRS Grills
Trim
HRS extensions
HRS Grills
0utside Air Kit
Refractory Brick
Durable high temperature
refractory reinforced with
stainless steel pins,
Vermiculite Panels
High performance panels,
0racks and wear are
more likely,
Back
Sides
Floor
Hearth Requirements
Safety
Patents
Emissions
51"W x 80 l/4"H x 28 1/4"D
] rzo tn.
56"W x 78 3/4"H x 31 U4"D
counterweiqhted
counterweighted
34"Wx 37"H
29112"W x31112"H
27 1/2"W front 13 1/2"W back
l2 3/4" deep
r0" Bts
l2'(more with elbows)
N/A
3-4 medium logs
20"
Yes (70,000 BTU max)
N/A
Straight Trim
(included with fireplace)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
FO-INT
0"
0"
0"
45"W x 24"0
0.54 B-value
u,s, Patent No, 8,479,723
Canadian Patent Pending
This model qualifies atthe EPA
Phase 2 emissions level for U,S.
EPA's V0luntary Fireplace Program.
Defined as a fireplace by the 2015
particulate emissions slandards.
Door Open 3.0 g/kg
Door Closed 1.0 g/kg
44 3/4"W x 56 5/8"H x 28 l/4"0
705 lbs
51"W x 63 1/2"H x 32"D
Guillotine Glide'Bail system
Guillotine Glide-Rail system
36 7/8"W x 26 l/8" H
28112"Wx20318" H
28 1/2"W x l3"D
s" EXCEL (only)
12'
FO-FDM8
Metallic Black
3-4 medium logs
24',
Yes (50,000 BTU max)
lncluded with f ireplace:
Two 8" dia. outlet ducts - 5' length
See paqe 13 for details
Straight - E0-RUPST
Frame = E0-8UPff
F0-DUCTs = 5' outlet extension
N/A
N/A
N/A
FO-INT
Included with lireplace
Not available
0"
0"
0"
45"W x18"D
Ember protection only
I U1127
This model quali{ies at the EPA
Phase 2 emissions level lor u.S.
EPA'S Voluntary Fireplace Program,
Defined as a{ireplace by the 2015
NSPS particulate emissions slandards,
0oor 0pen 4.8 g/kg
Door Closed N/A
70 3/8"W x 66 3/8"H x 28 3/4"0
r '1,'130 lbs
I 0 1 I 4"W x 69 1 I 2" H x 32 1 I 2" D
:
Counterweighted Guilloline 0peration
Counterweighted Guillotine 0peration
50 7/16"W x 19 /8"H
45 7/8"W x l5 3/8"H
44112"W x14"0
't0" Rts
12' (more with elbows)
N/A
4-5 medium logs
24',
Yes (70,000 BTU max)
Included with fireplace:
Two 10" dia. outlet ducts - 5' length
See page i3 for details,
Straight Trim
(included with lireplace)
E0-DUCT = 5'outlet extension
E0-LLGIN (Long linear intake grills): 52 1/2"x 6"
E0-LLG-0UI (Long linear outlet grills): 52 l/2"x 6"
E0-SG(Wall grillsfor8'ceilings)i13"x13"
FO-INI
lncluded with fireplace
Not available
0"
0"
0"
74112"W x20"D
Ember protection only
Defined as a Iireplace by
lhe 2015 NSPS particulate
emissions slandards.
N/A