Loading...
16015_Halliday_Stormwater Management Report Stormwater Management Report Minor Project Halliday Capital, LLC Commercial Boat Sales/Service/Storage Facility c/o Harold Halliday 2599 Ridge Road Town of Queensbury Warren County, New York Issued as Draft: December 15, 2016 M&A#16015 Prepared For: Hal Halliday 2599 Ridge Road Queensbury, New York 12804 Prepared By: Martino & Anthony Engineering and Landscape Architecture, D.C.P. 480 Broadway, Suite LL-14 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Phone: 518-832-4405 cmartino@martinoandanthony.com Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Site Information and Characteristics ................................................................................................1 2.1 Site Location..................................................................................................................................1 2.2 Project Description........................................................................................................................1 2.3 Land Use and Topography............................................................................................................1 2.4 Soils and Groundwater..................................................................................................................2 2.5 Rainfall Data..................................................................................................................................3 3.0 Existing and Proposed Stormwater Analysis.....................................................................................3 3.1 Existing Conditions Stormwater Analysis............................................................................................3 3.2 Post-Construction Stormwater Analysis.............................................................................................3 3.2.1 Ten-Year 24-Hour Storm Event....................................................................................................4 3.2.1 Twenty Five-Year Peak Rate Attenuation ....................................................................................4 4.0 Proposed Stormwater Facilities..............................................................................................................4 4.1 Stone Trench.......................................................................................................................................4 4.0 References ........................................................................................................................................5 ii Attachments Attachment A—Soils and Wetland Information Attachment B—Existing Conditions Attachment C—Proposed Conditions iii 1.0 Introduction This Stormwater Management Report(SWMR) has been prepared for the Owner, Harold Halliday, dba Halliday Capital, LLC,for the Commercial Boat Sales/Service/Storage Facility, located in the Town of Queensbury,Warren County, New York. Please note, however,that there is no intent to conduct boat sales or service at this facility, only boat storage. This SWMR includes the elements necessary to comply with the Town of Queensbury Code Chapter 147—Stormwater Management. This project has been designed in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Regulations.The SWMR and accompanying plans identify and detail stormwater management, pollution prevention, and erosion and sediment control measures necessary during and following the completion of construction. Stormwater calculations were performed utilizing widely accepted engineering methodologies, including stormwater modeling software Hydro CAD (Version 10.00) produced by HydroCAD Software Solutions, LLC, and Technical Release-55 (TR-55), dated June 1986. 2.0 Site Information and Characteristics 2.1 Site Location The Project is located on Ridge Road,Town Queensbury, Warren County, New York. Access to the site is off Ridge Road, approximately half a mile east of the intersection of Ridge Road and Pilot Knob Road. 2.2 Project Description The project includes the construction of an approximately 2,400 square foot boat sales/service/storage building, with a 1,200 square foot overhang. Please note, however,that no boat sales or service are proposed The remainder of the site improvements include stormwater controls and building mounted lighting. Access to the storage building will remain a vegetated path that currently exists.The project proposes approximately 11,000 square feet og earth disturbance, significantly under 1 acre, and therefore is not subject to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Stormwater Management Design Manual or NYSDEC General Permit GP-0-15-002 requirements. Per Chapter 147-Stormwater Management of the Town,this is classified as a Minor Stormwater Project, as it does not meet the requirements to be classified as a Major Project. It is important to note that the wetland in the project area is not classified as a Jurisdictional Wetland, per a APA determination dated November 29, 2016,found in Attachment 'A'. The stormwater controls have been designed in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Regulations for a minor project. 9nd Use and Topography The area surrounding the project area consists of a rural setting and is sporadically developed. The project site is a lot that contains an existing two family home and several sheds.The building location is an existing partially wooded area, with an existing shed.The shed will be taken down as it is in the same location as the current building. Also, note that there is a small 1 isolated wetland on the property,that has been deemed non-jurisdictional by the APA, as stated above. The topography of the site is relatively flat,with a slight slope toward the east. 2.4 Soils and Groundwater The Soil Maps for the proposed disturbance area indicate that the soils present consist primarily of fine sandy loam.The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils map of the project area is illustrated in Attachment A of this report. A summary of the NRCS Soil Survey Data is shown in Table 2-1, below. _ TABLE 2-1 Existing Soil Conditions Soil Soil Name Drainage % Slope Hydrological Erosion Description Class Range Soil Group Hazard ChB Charlton Well Drained 3-8 B N/A BeC Bice- Well Drained 8-15 B N/A Woodstock MsA Massena Poorly 0-5 C/D N/A Drained The Soil Conservation Services defines the hydrologic soil groups as follows: • Type A Soils: Soils having a high infiltration rate and low runoff potential when thoroughly wet.These soils consist mainly of deep,well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands.These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. • Type B Soils: Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet and consisting mainly of moderately deep to deep moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately course textures.These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. • Type C Soils: Soils having a low infiltration rate when thoroughly wet and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water rand soils with moderately fine to fine texture.These soils have a low rate of water transmission. • Type D Soils: Soils having a very low infiltration rate and high runoff potential when thoroughly wet.These soils consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink/swell potential, soils that have a permanent high water table, soils that have a clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.These soils have a very low rate of water transmission. A conservative assumption has been made that all soils have been modeled as Type B in both the existing and proposed stormwater models, as this is what is mapped in the area of construction, and what was observed onsite. Soil testing in the form of deep hole test pits were conducted onsite in September, 2016.These indicated the presence of sandy loam soils with shallow bedrock. Results are presented in Attachment A. 2 2.5 Rainfall Data Rainfall data utilized in the modeling and analysis were interpolated from maps presented in Chapter 4 of the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual and from NOAA National Weather Service information. Rainfall data specific to the portion of Warren County under consideration,for various 24-hour storm events, is presented in Table 2-2 below. Warren County lies within an area of SCS Type II rainfall distribution. TABLE 2-2 _ Rainfall Quantity Storm Event 24-Hour Rainfall (inches) Used For 10-year 3.80 Volume Attenuation 25-year 4.50 Peak Rate Attenuation 3.0 Existing and Proposed Stormwater Analysis 3.1 Existing Conditions Stormwater Analysis The site in composed of approximately 1.62 acres,which is currently developed with a two-family home and several sheds.The site is accessed off the existing Ridge Road. Water flows from the site to the East, in the directly of offsite wetlands on the adjacent property and an existing low point onsite. A stormwater model was created using HydroCAD 10.00, a stormwater modeling software created by HydroCAD Software Solutions, LLC. A complete hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is provided in Attachment B. Under the watershed's existing conditions, the watershed was divided into two (2) drainage areas, converging to the Analysis Points as depicted in "W-1 Existing Conditions Watershed Map" in Attachment B. Analysis Point-1 is to the east of the property, discharging offsite.Analysis Point-2 is discharging to an existing non-jurisdictional,wet low-lying area onsite. q.2 Post-Construction Stormwater Analysis The proposed project includes the development of a 3600 square feet building, and removal of an existing storage shed (467 square feet).This will that will result in an overall increase in impervious area of 3,133 square feet. Stormwater improvements include a stone trench to allow for infiltration of roof runoff.The infiltration rate was determined using onsite falling head tests. A complete analysis of the proposed conditions is provided in Attachment C. Under the watershed's proposed conditions,the watershed was divided into three (3) drainage areas,with one added for the proposed structure. However,the analysis points remain unchanged from the existing condition, as depicted in "W-2 Proposed Conditions Watershed Map" in Attachment C. 3 3.2.1 Ten-Year 24-Hour Storm Event As per Chapter 147 Stormwater Management of the Town of Queensbury Code, stormwater control measures must be designed so that there will be no increase in runoff volume from the pre-development conditions,for the 10-year, 24-hour storm events. Results are summarized in Table 3-1 below. 3.2.1 Twenty Five-Year Peak Rate Attenuation As per Chapter 147 Stormwater Management of the Town of Queensbury Code, stormwater control measures must be designed to attenuate peak runoff flow rates for the 25-year, 24-hour storm events. Results are summarized in Table 3-1 below. TABLE 3-1 Existing vs. Proposed 10 Year Volume 10-Year Existing Volume(ACRE-FT) Proposed Volume(ACRE-FT) AP-1 0.081 0.075 AP-2 0.061 0.050 TABLE 3-2 Existing vs. Proposed 25 Year Attenuation Analysis Point 25-Year Existing Flow Rate(CFS) Proposed Flow Rate(CFS) AP-1 2.32 2.15 AP-2 1.35 1.13 A stormwater model was created using HydroCAD 10.00, a stormwater modeling software created by HydroCAD Software Solutions, LLC. A complete hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is provided in Attachment C for post development conditions, including "W-2 Proposed Conditions Watershed Map". 4.0 Proposed Stormwater Facilities The project is proposing the stormwater runoff be attenuated and infiltrated using a stone trench. 4.1 Stone Trench The proposed stone trench is to be installed at a discharge point for drip strips that will capture rooftop runoff.The trench will allow infiltration of the runoff, reducing the overall impact of the proposed structure. 4 4.0 References 1. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Published by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.,June 1986. 2. HydroCAD 10.00 Computer Program, by HydroCAD Software Solutions, LLC. 3. NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual. Published by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Updated January 2015. 5 Attachment A N>rw YORK Adirondack 57ATE OF oPP,0 TUrrITY Park Agency SHERMAN C RAIG TERRY MARTINO tvliairr7<rn Executive Director November 29, 2016 Corinna Martino, PE Martino & Anthony Engineering and Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. P.O. Box 783 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: Jurisdictional Determination J2016-0653 Lands of Halliday 2599 Ridge Road Tax Map Parcel 240.5-1-32 Town of Queensbury, Warren County Dear Ms. Martino: Thank you for your letter received by the Adirondack Park Agency on November 21, 2016. Tax Map Parcel 240.5-1-32, located at 2599 Ridge Road in the Town of Queensbury, is in a Moderate Intensity Use land use area on the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan Map. The proposed construction of a 3,600 square foot structure to be used for commercial boat sales/service/storage in the location depicted on the plan titled, "Haliday Sketch Plan", prepared by Martino & Anthony Engineering and Landscape Architecture and dated September 20, 2016, does not require a permit or variance from the Agency. Please note that construction of a less than 10,000 square foot commercial use structure in a Moderate Intensity Use land use area constitutes a Class B regional project under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and would normally require an Agency permit. However, the Town of Queensbury administers an Agency-approved local land use program and, therefore the Town has authority over Class B regional projects and also administers the Agency's shoreline restrictions. Please be advised that this letter makes no representation as to the approvability of the project pursuant to the Town administered Agency-approved local land use program. The Town's Code Enforcement Officer or Zoning Administrator should be contacted to determine the requirements and the procedures and standards to be followed for the project. P.O. Box 99•1133 NYS Route 86-Ray Brook, NY 12977•Tel:518 891-4050•Fax:518 891-3938-www.apa.ny.gov Martino November 29, 2016 Page 2 Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, J hn M. Burth Environmental Program Specialist 2 JMB:ap Copy: Harold Halliday Tom Ulasewicz, Esq. Craig Brown, Queensbury Director of Planning, Zoning and Code Compliance (via e-mail) Agency Enforcement File E2015-0033 DIVERSIFIED SOIL SERVICES, LTD. POST OFFICE BOX 489,CLAVERACK,NEW YORK 125131 518-851-7953 CELL: 518-755-5023 1 cptdirt@verizon.net August 12,2016 Martino&Anthony Associates P.O.Box 783 Saratoga Springs,New York 12866 Re: Wetlands @ Halliday Property Dear Jeff, On August 9,20161 met with you at the Halliday Property on Ridge Road in Queensbury to determine the presence and or extent of wetland in a location for a proposed building site. The property is an area of shallow to bedrock glacial till soil. There are several bedrock outcrops in the vicinity of the proposed building envelope. The site has been extensively graded and filled to make the site usable. The fill is old and stable and was placed in the troughs between the folds in the bedrock. There is one isolated wetland that resulted from the uneven spreading of the fill across the site. The wetland is small on the west side of the proposed building site just south of the edge of the lawn. The wetland has been flagged and should be located by survey and displayed on a map of the property. The wetland soil is Orthents,wet substratum(which is a hydric component of fill material). The hydric fill is stable and been there for a long time. The wetland is very low value and has very low function. There a 14 flags delineating the wetland. On the east side of the property(possibly off the site)there is a broad wetland that extends down slope, The east edge of the wetland has been flagged. That wetland boundary should be survey located and shown on the map. The is also a narrow ditch that drains from east to west into the broader wetland. The center line of the ditch was flagged. The upland is well drained Lyman gravelly loam. Lyman soils formed in glacial till 10 to 20 inches deep over hard bedrock. The upland is dominated by hemlock,oak,white pine,hickory honeysuckle,bedstraw and Christmas fern. The wetland east of the property is poorly drained Lyme silt loam. The isolated fill wetland and the wetland off the site are dominated by red maple,American elm,sensitive fern,cattails,impatience and mixed sedges. Martino &Anthony V/ engineering and landscape architecture Date: September 9,2016 To: Martino&Anthony Design Team From: Corinna Martino,PE Re: Test Pit Haliday Site Plan—2599 Ridge Road Introduction On September 9,2016,six test pits were excavated on the above mentioned property.The purpose of these test pits was to examine the soils in are areas potentially suitable for the proposed stormwater devices. Observations Test Pit#1 0"- 6" (7.5 YR)3/3 Dark Brown Sandy Loam,roots 6"-22" (1OYR)5/6 Yellowish Brown, Sandy Loam No evidence of seasonal high groundwater. Bedrock was encountered at 22" Falling Head Test A8" Stabilized Rate:4:48 min/inch Test Pit#2 0"- 4" (7.5 YR)3/3 Dark Brown Sandy Loam,roots 4"-29" (10YR)5/6 Yellowish Brown, Sandy Loam,medium cobbles No evidence of seasonal high groundwater. Bedrock was encountered at 29" No Falling Head Test Test Pit#3 0"- 6" (7.5 YR)3/3 Dark Brown Sandy Loam,roots 6"-36" (1OYR)5/6 Yellowish Brown, Sandy Loam,medium cobbles No evidence of seasonal high groundwater. Bedrock was encountered at 36" Falling Head Test @7" Stabilized Rate: 1.13 min/inch Test Pit#4 0"- 7 (7.5 YR)3/3 Dark Brown Sandy Loam,roots 7"-22" (10YR)5/6 Yellowish Brown, Sandy Loam,medium cobbles No evidence of seasonal high groundwater. P.O.Box 783 1 Saratoga Springs,New York 12866 Bedrock was encountered at 22" No Falling Head Test Test Pit#5 0"- 5" (7.5 YR)3/3 Dark Brown Sandy Loam,roots 5"-28" (1OYR)5/6 Yellowish Brown, Sandy Loam,medium cobbles No evidence of seasonal high groundwater. Bedrock was encountered at 28" No Falling Head Test Test Pit#6 0"- 5" (7.5 YR)3/3 Dark Brown Sandy Loam,roots 5"-28" (lOYR)5/6 Yellowish Brown, Sandy Loam,medium cobbles No evidence of seasonal high groundwater. Bedrock was encountered at 28" No Falling Head Test h Y F' '� �' '�• � + � l �#.. of �• F•�. '��j •�F. � }/. 1 .• ye it rF •� 4 '•4 ~f fl FT`s1 YL f hC Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,protect,or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses.The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center(http:// offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads.Clayey orwet 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 ajoint 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 alternative means 2 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap..................................................................................................................7 SoilMap................................................................................................................8 Legend..................................................................................................................9 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................10 MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10 Warren County, New York..............................................................................12 BdC—Bice very bouldery fine sandy loam, sloping.....................................12 BeC—Bice-Woodstock very bouldery fine sandy loams, sloping................13 ChB—Charlton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes...............................15 MsA—Massena fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.............................16 References............................................................................................................19 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 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 identified each as a specific map unit.Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6 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. 7 •# {4' }!•f T�l1 ••�*_. "i} 1 =fir„ ,�• •z'X �`- 4.^dIr � lav dp ti t = - t a � l •S Lrt it � �' TWA."�'� � �� �� 1. � • 4 w" w w O O) O O) m O O C 00 = w y p w — C O 3 O O U w � N U) N y U y U � N O w y w p u) m m (U 2i C O) m p L N y p y 3 O (U O_ m U '6 w O O O U U U m N -O Q (n 7 O w m O w U y E U) y w 6 y E U N = O_ 7 0 '6 7 '`� U) O O Q O U U) '6 w O_ O m E m U m O N w O U m U) -0 O 0 w m °� T(? m U) U Y U) E — s o w w o `o U) E m a) U) N wC7 os � � � � � vii a 3 w o rn E o o_ � 3 a ami N .� Z U) � o wEyE m oyw y � w � � Q a) N 3 w m m m Q m E U) 0 � m CL U) Z o_ o Q N y c (Un m U U o m y N U) N O w Q '6 _ m m C a) C U O) CL (/j > O O m a) O C 4) 7 3 i U p (U 7 N m O (U O_ w > > o 3 c O � a) m o 0 o E T m LL w w — w w � '� y s o aa)) Q 2 o .o 2 o O U � N = w m E -0 o (n U) my T o m ate) U a) w Q o � � m o m CL o a) O a) U m E w Q a > w U) o a) L.2 a) a) y C m ECL G > p w w �y U nw mm o No Omt Z iomp mE o rn a) Ornwmi D a) m3 o s N fl > w (U m y m p m o 0 m ~_ o o a��i 3 U m voi a m 'E m t N-2 U w m U T E U °? E m e w a) o_ m U) E a) m o — m O s o � .0 Q Q m O -0 - a) E w o W a) ' o 3 T m w U)i 'E 2) U)i U)i U U) O N °) U w E y o 'Q w m a) m w U w m m o o_.a? m w o U) > — — m w a) E m E H U) a E cU og ow Q cccHc O Q N N U L O NN� 'L.1. VJ d y E C N Q L O CL U- O w U L 7 y 0>. a) 2 y -yo a O U 0' 0 O J N w w 0 0 L a CL m E m 0 a U) U U m fn y Q' O m .O CL O L w y _ U w p Z ffu 4 a LU ti R R R . !0 LU CLJ y o y Q Q Q ay oU) o o N QCL 2 a w Q Q 3 O 2 ° ° Q > > > a) U) 3 y w w 0 0 LU _ o O Q Q Q R a Q O a o o O m (n U) > a) Q o m m m w C) 3 a = LL `O O a m LL 3 o T w > > a m w w a) o Y w a y o 0 0 o o m O 'm m E y a) O m m w E a O a U) U) U) •o m m U U C7 c7 J J w a R �1 a y Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Warren County,New York(NY113) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI BdC Bice very bouldery fine sandy 1.2 12.1% loam,sloping BeC Bice-Woodstock very bouldery 2.2 22.0% fine sandy loams,sloping ChB Charlton fine sandy loam,3 to 8 5.1 51.2% percent slopes MsA Massena fine sandy loam,0 to 3 1.5 14.7% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 10.0 100.0% 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 forthe 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,ordissimilar,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 complexthat 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 10 Custom Soil Resource Report classes but ratherto separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Warren County, New York BdC—Bice very bouldery fine sandy loam, sloping Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 9xw2 Elevation: 800 to 1,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 41 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 130 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Bice and similar soils: 70 percent Minor components: 30 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Bice Setting Landform: Ridges, hills, till plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loamy till derived mainly from granite and gneiss with variable components of sandstone and shale Typical profile Oe - 0 to 2 inches: moderately decomposed plant material H2-2 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam H3-5 to 24 inches: fine sandy loam H4-24 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Schroon Percent of map unit. 5 percent 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No Lyme Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Stowe Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Woodstock Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Plainfield Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Hinckley Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Unnamed soils Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No BeC—Bice-Woodstock very bouldery fine sandy loams, sloping Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 9xw4 Elevation: 10 to 2,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 41 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 130 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Bice and similar soils: 50 percent Woodstock and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Bice Setting Landform: Ridges, hills, till plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Parent material: Loamy till derived mainly from granite and gneiss with variable components of sandstone and shale Typical profile Oe - 0 to 2 inches: moderately decomposed plant material H2-2 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam H3-5 to 24 inches: fine sandy loam H4-24 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Hydric soil rating: No Description of Woodstock Setting Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loamy till derived mainly from crystalline rock Typical profile H1 -0 to 2 inches: fine sandy loam H2-2 to 18 inches: fine sandy loam H3- 18 to 22 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: D 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Schroon Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Stowe Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Unnamed soils Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Lyme Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes ChB—Charlton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 9xw9 Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 110 to 160 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Charlton and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Charlton Setting Landform: Ridges, hills, till plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Acid loamy till derived mainly from schist, gneiss, or granite Typical profile H1 -0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam H2- 7 to 28 inches: fine sandy loam H3-28 to 60 inches: sandy loam 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Sutton Percent of map unit. 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Paxton Percent of map unit. 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Woodstock Percent of map unit. 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Bice Percent of map unit. 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Massena Percent of map unit. 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No Massena Percent of map unit. 1 percent Hydric soil rating: Yes MsA—Massena fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 9xx9 Elevation: 100 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period. 110 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Composition Massena, poorly drained, and similar soils: 50 percent Massena, somewhat poorly drained, and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Massena, Poorly Drained Setting Landform: Hills, till plains, drumlinoid ridges Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy till dominated by siliceous rocks with varying proportions of limestone Typical profile H1 -0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam H2-8 to 24 inches: fine sandy loam H3-24 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Massena, Somewhat Poorly Drained Setting Landform: Hills, till plains, drumlinoid ridges Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loamy till dominated by siliceous rocks with varying proportions of limestone Typical profile H1 -0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam H2-8 to 24 inches: fine sandy loam H3-24 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Sutton Percent of map unit. 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Unnamed soils Percent of map unit. 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: No 18 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 hydricsoils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy:A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=n res142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepastu re/?cid=stelprdb1043084 19 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ n res/d eta i I/so i Is/scie ntists/?cid=n res 142 p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/n res/detail/national/soils/? cid=n res 142 p2_05 3624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl 42p2_052290.pdf 20 Attachment B \ \ 1 \ \ I II / \ ` SII I IJ cT 1 Al \ \ I - II \ II I III � I - I 4R AP-1 1 Subcat 1 2 5R Subcat 2 AP-2 Subcat Reach on Link Routing Diagram for 16015_EX CONDS Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 11/14/2016 EHyd,.CADO 10.00-18 s/n 09474 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 16015 EX CONDS Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/14/2016 HydroCAD@ 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 0.866 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1, 2) 0.164 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1, 2) 0.160 98 Roofs, HSG B (1, 2) 0.641 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B (1, 2) 16015 EX CONDS Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Soil Listing (all nodes) Area Soil Subcatchment (acres) Group Numbers 0.000 HSG A 1.831 HSG B 1, 2 0.000 HSG C 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 16015 EX CONDS Type // 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 1: Subcat 1 Runoff = 1.40 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.081 af, Depth= 0.88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Area (sf) CN Description 27,324 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 4,444 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,998 98 Roofs, HSG B 13,043 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 47,809 66 Weighted Average 40,367 84.43% Pervious Area 7,442 15.57% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.6 47 0.0200 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.65" 0.3 15 0.0200 0.86 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.65" 0.3 45 0.1100 2.32 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.1 15 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.5 47 0.0500 1.57 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 9.8 169 Total Summary for Subcatchment 2: Subcat 2 Runoff = 0.84 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af, Depth= 0.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Area (ac) CN Description 0.238 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.062 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.092 98 Roofs, HSG B 0.342 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 0.734 68 Weighted Average 0.580 79.06% Pervious Area 0.154 20.94% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 125 0.0800 0.13 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.65" 16015 EX CONDS Type // 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Reach 4R: AP-1 Inflow Area = 1.098 ac, 15.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.88" for 10-year event Inflow = 1.40 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.081 of Outflow = 1.40 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.081 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Reach 5R: AP-2 Inflow Area = 0.734 ac, 20.94% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.99" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.84 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.061 of Outflow = 0.84 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 16015 EX CONDS Type 11 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 1: Subcat 1 Runoff = 2.32 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.128 af, Depth= 1.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 27,324 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 4,444 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,998 98 Roofs, HSG B 13,043 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 47,809 66 Weighted Average 40,367 84.43% Pervious Area 7,442 15.57% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.6 47 0.0200 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.65" 0.3 15 0.0200 0.86 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.65" 0.3 45 0.1100 2.32 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.1 15 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.5 47 0.0500 1.57 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 9.8 169 Total Summary for Subcatchment 2: Subcat 2 Runoff = 1.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.094 af, Depth= 1.53" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Area (ac) CN Description 0.238 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.062 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.092 98 Roofs, HSG B 0.342 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 0.734 68 Weighted Average 0.580 79.06% Pervious Area 0.154 20.94% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 125 0.0800 0.13 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.65" 16015 EX CONDS Type 11 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/14/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Reach 4R: AP-1 Inflow Area = 1.098 ac, 15.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.40" for 25-YEAR event Inflow = 2.32 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.128 of Outflow = 2.32 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.128 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Reach 5R: AP-2 Inflow Area = 0.734 ac, 20.94% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.53" for 25-YEAR event Inflow = 1.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.094 of Outflow = 1.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.094 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Attachment C \ \ 1 / I \ I \ \ I \ ` j \� c cT \� \ \ IJ II Al \ I II II r I I I � I � • 4R AP- Subcat 1 Subcat 2 AP-2 3P 3 STONE TRENCH Subcat 3 Subcat Reach on Link Routing Diagram for 16015_PROP CONDS Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 11/15/2016 Hydro CAD®10.00-18 s/n 09474 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 16015 PROP CONDS Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/15/2016 HydroCAD@ 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 0.866 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1, 2) 0.164 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1, 2) 0.161 98 Roofs, HSG B (1, 2, 3) 0.641 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B (1, 2, 3) 16015 PROP CONDS Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/15/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Soil Listing (all nodes) Area Soil Subcatchment (acres) Group Numbers 0.000 HSG A 1.831 HSG B 1, 2, 3 0.000 HSG C 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 16015_PROP CONDS Type // 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/15/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 1: Subcat 1 Runoff = 1.30 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.075 af, Depth= 0.88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Area (sf) CN Description 27,291 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 4,444 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,780 98 Roofs, HSG B 10,909 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 44,423 66 Weighted Average 38,199 85.99% Pervious Area 6,224 14.01% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.6 47 0.0200 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.65" 0.3 15 0.0200 0.86 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.65" 0.3 45 0.1100 2.32 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.1 15 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.5 47 0.0500 1.57 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 9.8 169 Total Summary for Subcatchment 2: Subcat 2 Runoff = 0.67 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth= 0.88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Area (ac) CN Description 0.239 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.062 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.037 98 Roofs, HSG B 0.345 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 0.683 66 Weighted Average 0.584 85.51% Pervious Area 0.099 14.49% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 125 0.0800 0.13 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.65" 16015-PROP CONDS Type // 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/15/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 3: Subcat 3 Runoff = 0.49 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.023 af, Depth= 2.15" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Area (ac) CN Description 0.083 98 Roofs, HSG B 0.046 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 0.128 85 Weighted Average 0.046 35.48% Pervious Area 0.083 64.52% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 4R: AP-1 Inflow Area = 1.148 ac, 19.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.78" for 10-year event Inflow = 1.30 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.075 of Outflow = 1.30 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.075 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Reach 5R: AP-2 Inflow Area = 0.683 ac, 14.49% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.88" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.67 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.050 of Outflow = 0.67 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond 3P: STONE TRENCH Inflow Area = 0.128 ac, 64.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.15" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.49 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.023 of Outflow = 0.17 cfs @ 11.81 hrs, Volume= 0.023 af, Atten= 66%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.17 cfs @ 11.81 hrs, Volume= 0.023 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 361.49' @ 12.09 hrs Surf.Area= 600 sf Storage= 177 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 4.5 min calculated for 0.023 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 4.5 min ( 821.7 - 817.3 ) 16015—PROP CONDS Type // 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=3.65" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/15/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 360.75' 420 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) 1,050 cf Overall x 40.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 360.75 600 0 0 362.25 600 900 900 362.50 600 150 1,050 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 360.75' 12.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area above 360.74' Excluded Surface area = 0 sf #2 Primary 362.33' 90.0 deg x 60.0' long Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.50 (C= 3.13) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 11.81 hrs HW=360.77' (Free Discharge) L1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.17 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=360.75' (Free Discharge) L2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs) 16015_PROP CONDS Type 11 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/15/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 1: Subcat 1 Runoff = 2.15 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.119 af, Depth= 1.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 27,291 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 4,444 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,780 98 Roofs, HSG B 10,909 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 44,423 66 Weighted Average 38,199 85.99% Pervious Area 6,224 14.01% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.6 47 0.0200 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 2.65" 0.3 15 0.0200 0.86 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.65" 0.3 45 0.1100 2.32 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.1 15 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.5 47 0.0500 1.57 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 9.8 169 Total Summary for Subcatchment 2: Subcat 2 Runoff = 1.13 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.079 af, Depth= 1.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Area (ac) CN Description 0.239 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.062 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.037 98 Roofs, HSG B 0.345 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 0.683 66 Weighted Average 0.584 85.51% Pervious Area 0.099 14.49% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 125 0.0800 0.13 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.65" 16015-PROP CONDS Type 11 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/15/2016 HydroCAD@ 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment 3: Subcat 3 Runoff = 0.65 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.031 af, Depth= 2.91" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Area (ac) CN Description 0.083 98 Roofs, HSG B 0.046 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 0.128 85 Weighted Average 0.046 35.48% Pervious Area 0.083 64.52% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 4R: AP-1 Inflow Area = 1.148 ac, 19.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.24" for 25-YEAR event Inflow = 2.15 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.119 of Outflow = 2.15 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.119 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Reach 5R: AP-2 Inflow Area = 0.683 ac, 14.49% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.40" for 25-YEAR event Inflow = 1.13 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.079 of Outflow = 1.13 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.079 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond 3P: STONE TRENCH Inflow Area = 0.128 ac, 64.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.91" for 25-YEAR event Inflow = 0.65 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.031 of Outflow = 0.17 cfs @ 11.75 hrs, Volume= 0.031 af, Atten= 74%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.17 cfs @ 11.75 hrs, Volume= 0.031 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 362.03' @ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 600 sf Storage= 307 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 8.6 min calculated for 0.031 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 8.6 min ( 817.3 - 808.6 ) 16015—PROP CONDS Type 11 24-hr 25-YEAR Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 11/15/2016 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 09474 @2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 360.75' 420 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) 1,050 cf Overall x 40.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 360.75 600 0 0 362.25 600 900 900 362.50 600 150 1,050 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 360.75' 12.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area above 360.74' Excluded Surface area = 0 sf #2 Primary 362.33' 90.0 deg x 60.0' long Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.50 (C= 3.13) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 11.75 hrs HW=360.77' (Free Discharge) L1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.17 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=360.75' (Free Discharge) L2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir( Controls 0.00 cfs)