Loading...
1,3,5 HARMONY GROVE RD, 60,64 GROVE ST - PLANNING (16) _ _ - _ _ _ `, - t _ .. - r. �, -.. E v '.: : _ - " �r 6016- GrineS}� I , 3 � S �✓mc�-, 6vat- eg �tri?x� MCPJT- 2014 — Pee4-- fV t,--) i T�co--C-F�c s-FvcS.� Pee_ —Re�ieJ 6�o�e S-hr�e'�" - - COMMITMENT &INTEGRITY 95 Cedar Street I Suite 100 T 800.985.7897 DRIVE RESULTS Providence, Rhode Island 02903 T 401.273.1007 www,woodardcurran.com F 401.273.5087 November 17, 2014 All Mr. David Knowlton, P.E. City Engineer City of Salem �S,OODARDCURRAN 120 Washington Street,41, Floor Salem, MA 01970 1 � Re: Letter Report No.4—Grove Street Apartments Peer Review Task Order No, 10 W&C Project No. 225585.01 Dear Mr, Knowlton: Woodard &Curran, in accordance with Task Order No. 10 between the City of Salem and Woodard & Curran, has reviewed the submitted documentation for the project referenced above for compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards and applicable civil/site aspects of the City of Salem's Site Plan Review, Zoning Bylaws,and Special Permit requirements. The project plans and report were revised to address the comments and recommendations presented in the Certificate of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed development dated May 2, 2014. The following is a summary of the documentation reviewed by Woodard & Curran and our findings and recommendations. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Woodard & Curran obtained and reviewed the following documentation provided by the Applicant's engineer relative to this matter: • Site Plans entitled "Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development, Grove Street Apartments, 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, &5 Harmony Grove Road, Salem, MA, prepared by Griffin Engineering Group, LLC dated December, 2011, revised October 16, 2014"; • Report entitled "Stormwater Management Plan under the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Regulations, Construction of a Mixed-Use Residential & Commercial Development, 60 & 64 Grove Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road, Salem, MA", prepared by Griffin Engineering Group, LLC, dated December,2011, revised October 2014" • City of Salem Planning Board Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision (Corrected Decision) for 1, 3 &5 Harmony Grove Road and 60 &64 Grove Street, Map 16, Lots 236, 237, 239, 277 &378,dated October 26, 2012; • City of Salem Conservation Commission Order of Conditions — DEP #64-547 for 60 & 64 Grove Street, 1 &3 Harmony Grove Road,dated July 23, 2013; • Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), EEA #15043, for Mixed Use Development, Harmony Grove Road Apartments, Salem, MA, prepared by Griffin Engineering Group, LLC, dated March 2014; and • Certificate of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report,for Mixed Use Development—Harmony Grove Road Apartments, dated May 2, 2014. FINDINGS& RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our review of the above referenced documentation, Woodard & Curran offers the following WOODARD findings and recommendations relative to the documentation reviewed for compliance with the C RRAN Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards and applicable civil/site aspects of the City of Salem's Site Plan Review, Zoning Bylaws, and Special Permit requirements. In addition to reviewing the proposed development for compliance with the aforementioned regulations, Woodard & Curran reviewed the project for common engineering practices. Stormwater Management System: 1. The Applicant has replaced the Stormceptor water quality chambers with Hydro-International First Defense water quality units. The Applicant has provided revised water quality volume calculations demonstrating that the proposed stormwater management system will provide an average annual total suspended solids removal rate of 82%. The proposed units have been sized in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Wetlands Program; Standard Method to Convert Required Water Quality Volume to a Discharge Rate for Sizing Flow Based Manufactured Proprietary Stormwater Treatment Practices. The Applicant has provided performance evaluation documentation under the Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project(MASTEP) Stormwater Technology Clearing House. The Applicant has revised the stormwater management system Operation and Maintenance Plan accordingly and has included the Manufacturers Operation and Maintenance Manual as well. Recommendation: The Applicant has provided documentation demonstrating that the proposed Hydro-International First Defense water quality units will provided the required total suspended solids removal rates in order for the stormwater management system to achieve a minimum removal rate of 80%. Woodard & Curran has no further comment relative to this item. 2. The DEIR notes several areas of the Site designated as Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) Areas. The MassDEP comment letter notes that these areas are considered Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Load (LUHHPL) and therefore requires that the stormwater management system be designed to treat a water quality volume equal to 1-inch times the total impervious area of the post-development Site. The Applicant has provided calculations in accordance with Volume 3, Chapter 1 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards demonstrating that the infiltration field has been sized per the simple dynamic method to provide the water quality volume required. Recommendation: The Applicant has provided calculations demonstrating that the infiltration field provides the required water quality volume and has been sized in accordance with the simple dynamic method as stated above. Woodard & Curran has no further comment relative to this item. Salem,MA(225585.01) 2 Woodard&Curran 2014.11.17 Letter Report No.4—Grove Street Apartments November 17,2014 3. The Applicant is proposing to repair the existing North River Canal pedestrian bridge crossing located at the northwest corner of the Site if permitted by MassDEP. Recommendation: The Applicant, as a condition of approval, should provide detailed design plans stamped by a Massachusetts Registered Structural Professional Engineer AlIll for the repairs to the existing North River Canal pedestrian bridge crossing. WOODARD 4. In our Letter Report dated October 1, 2012,we recommended that the Applicant field verify the t$ CURRAN elevation of the existing sewers at ESMH#2 as well as evaluate the condition of the existing service from the property to Grove Street. Please note that the Grove Street Reconstruction project is set to commence in spring 2015 and that a moratorium will be placed on Grove Street prohibiting new excavations upon completion of construction. Recommendation: As a condition of approval,the Applicant shall be responsible to evaluate the condition of the existing sewer service and make any repairs necessary and/or revisions to the design plans prior to the start of the Grove Street Reconstruction project. The Applicant shall coordinate the inspection with the City Engineer. Furthermore,all drainage and utility upgrades necessary and proposed drainage and utility service connections shall be installed prior to the start of the Grove Street Reconstruction project due to the moratorium being placed on Grove Street prohibiting new excavations. 5. The Applicant is proposing to connect the on-site drainage system north of the existing office building into the Grove Street closed conduit drainage system. Recommendation: As a condition of approval,the Applicant shall be responsible to evaluate the condition and capacity of the existing closed conduit drainage system within Grove Street and demonstrate that the proposed connection will not adversely impact the existing system. CONCLUSION Woodard & Curran finds the project to be in general compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards and applicable civil/site aspects of the City of Salem's Site Plan Review, Zoning Bylaws, and Special Permit requirements. The following conditions as previously stated in our Letter Report dated October 1, 2012 should remain. Please note the conditions of approval relative to the proposed North River Canal bridge crossing are no longer applicable provided that the proposed crossing has been removed from the project. • The Applicant, as a condition of approval, should provide a completed NOI and SWPPP to the Planning Board prior to any land disturbance. • The Applicant, as a condition of approval, should provide a completed and signed Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement to the Planning Board prior to obtaining a building permit. • The Applicant, as a condition of approval, should provide detailed design plans stamped by a Massachusetts Registered Professional Engineer for the proposed retaining walls prior to obtaining a building permit. • As a condition of approval, the applicant shall coordinate with the City to obtain access to the valve at Beaver Street in order to evaluate its condition and to determine if it will need to be Salem, MA(225585.01) 3 Woodard&Curran 2014.11.17 Letter Report No.4—Grove Street Apartments November 17,2014 replaced prior to obtaining a building permit. The applicant shall coordinate this inspection with the City Engineer. • As a condition of approval,the Applicant will be responsible for replacing the sewer service if it proves to be in unsatisfactory condition. The Applicant shall be responsible to coordinate the inspection of the existing sewer lines with the City Engineer. � � Woodard & Curran recommends the following additional condition of approval, as noted above in �,OODARD comment numbers 3,4, and 5: CURRAN • The Applicant, as a condition of approval, shall provide detailed design plans stamped by a Massachusetts Registered Professional Engineer for the proposed repairs to the existing North River Canal pedestrian bridge crossing. • As a condition of approval,the Applicant shall be responsible to evaluate the condition of the existing sewer service and make any repairs necessary and/or revisions to the design plans prior to the start of the Grove Street Reconstruction project. The Applicant shall coordinate the inspection with the City Engineer. Furthermore, all drainage and utility upgrades necessary and proposed drainage and utility service connections shall be installed prior to the start of the Grove Street Reconstruction project due to a moratorium being placed on Grove Street prohibiting new excavations. As a condition of approval, the Applicant shall be responsible to evaluate the condition and capacity of the existing closed conduit drainage system within Grove Street and demonstrate that the proposed tie-in will not adversely impact the existing system. Thank you for the opportunity for Woodard &Curran to provide engineering consulting services relative to this project. We trust the information contained herein is beneficial to your review of the project. Please feel free to call the undersigned below if you have any further questions or comments relative to this matter. Sincerely, WOODARD&CURRAN a4A a& � AZ David A. White Jr., P.E. Paul J.Jacques, P.E. Senior Vice President Project Engineer DW/PJ/jmm PN: 225585.01 Salem, MA(225585.01) 4 Woodard&Curran 2014.11.17 Letter Report No.4-Grove Street Apartments November 17,2014 30 .- . . - COMMITMENT&INTEGRITY 95 Cedar Street(Suite 100 T800.985,7897 DRIVE RESULTS Providence,Rhode Island 02903 T 401.273.1007 www.woodardcurran.com F 401.273.5087 Via Electronic Mail October 16,2014 �. Mr. David Knowlton,City Engineer City of Salem MN 120 Washington Street,4th Floor Salem, MA 01970 &CURe: Task Order#10—Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove Peer Review of Amended Plans Dear David: Woodard & Curran, Inc. (W&C) is pleased to present this proposal for engineering Peer Review Services to the City of Salem in support of the Planning Board's assessment of the application for Site Plan Review by MRM Project Management, LLC("the applicant").The property is located at 3 Harmony Grove Road & 60.64 Grove Street("the Site"), at the former Salem Oil& Grease Company site, and is situated in the Business Park Development (BPD) Zone District and portions of a Residential Two Family District(R2).The properties are bounded to the south and west by the Beaver Street and Silver Street residential neighborhoods,to the north by Harmony Grove Road and to the east by Grove Street. Traversing the site from east to west is the tidal North River Canal, which runs between the 60 & 64 Grove Street parcels and transects the 3 Harmony Grove Road parcel. The project proposes to raze the existing structures on the 64 Grove Street parcel and construct three 47-unit apartment buildings with associated driveways, parking areas, utilities, landscaping, and stormwater management features. Included in the proposal is the renovation of the existing office building located on the 60 Grove Street parcel. Woodard and Curran conducted a peer review on behalf of the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) for the applicant's original proposal. The peer review was summarized in our letter dated October 1, 2012. Subsequent to that review, the applicant has made modifications to the project plans to address regulatory comments/feedback.As such,our scope of services for this project will include a technical review of the submitted material from the Applicant to assess the revised project's conformance with applicable civil/site aspects of the City of Salem's site plan review requirements, Zoning Bylaws, Special Permit requirements, as well as compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards(as revised in January 2008). Woodard&Curran's will require the following documentation from the applicant to initiate the review: • Set of revised drawings(full size) • Revised stormwater management report • Planning Board's decision on the original proposal • DOC issued by the Conservation Commission • DEPs Superseding Order Of Conditions • All additional documentation provide to the DEP by the applicant pertaining to the appeal. The following sections address our Scope of Work, Project Deliverables, Compensation, Project Schedule,and Exclusions for this project. SCOPE OF WORK Woodard&Curran will perform the following tasks included in the Scope of Work for this project. ATask 1.0-Letter Report A1111111111' Woodard &Curran will prepare a letter report summarizing our findings, gaps or deficiencies found,and 1 recommendations relative to the submitted project plans and reports listed above. This task will include DMD the following: &CURRM On behalf of the Planning Board, Woodard $ Curran will review project plans and drainage calculations for the proposed mixed-use development. The review will focus on the following aspects of the application: 1) Compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards (as revised in January 2008).Furthermore,Woodard&Curran will review the project plans and drainage report for general best engineering practice. 2) Adequacy of proposed utility connections to the municipal infrastructure. 3) Site circulation and pavement markings. 4) Site grading. 5) Consistency with floodplain management along the North River, including review of the hydraulic adequacy of the proposed bridge over the river. • Prepare a Letter Report to the Planning Board summarizing our findings and recommendations. Task 2.0 Meetings Woodard & Curran will attend one meeting. This meeting may be either public hearings or technical workshop with the Applicant and their engineers. It is assumed that the meeting will require the attendance of one (1) Civil Engineer. Additional meetings will be billed on a per meeting basis, per individual required for attendance and will require an amendment to this contract. Attendance at additional meetings will be a lump sum cost of$925 per individual per meeting(assumes total meeting time and preparation of 5 hours per meeting and expenses). PROJECT DELIVERABLES A Letter Report will be prepared for Task 1.0 presenting our findings and recommendations. COMPENSATION Woodard &Curran proposes to perform the Scope of Work specked herein on lump sum cost basis as outlined in the table below. TASK DESCRIPTION FEE BILLING METHOD 1.0 Site Visit&Letter Report $2,000 Lump Sum 2.0 Meetings $925 Lump Sum Total $2,925 City of Salem,MA(225585.01) 2 Woodard&Curran October 16,2014 For all services duly rendered under the Scope of Services specked herein, the City of Salem will pay �. Woodard & Curran a lump sum fee of$2,925. All work will be performed in accordance with Contract 7 037 for on-call professional civil engineering services. We will invoice monthly for services completed in the prior month. �� N PROJECT SCHEDULE Work is to be completed within three weeks of execution of this contract and written authorization from the City to proceed. Woodard & Curran will submit the Letter Report(s) specified above prior to the respective Planning Board hearings. EXCLUSIONS The Scope of Work does not include the following items: • Review of revised, modified or additional plans and reports submitted by the applicant subsequent to the documents listed above; • Review or confirmation of the location of wetland resource areas; • Additional tasks not specked herein that may be requested of Woodard & Curran by the City of Salem; • Architectural design review;and • Attendance at additional meetings and/or site visits outside of the number of meetings specked in this contract. If additional services are requested, a contract amendment will be issued for authorization of the additionally requested work. If this Agreement is acceptable, please sign the attached agreement and return one original copy to my attention. Please note that we cannot begin work until we receive written authorization to proceed based on the availability of funds to the City of Salem. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call the undersigned at 1-800-9857897 or email at dwhitena woodardcurran.com. Sincerely, WOODARD&CURRAN '0"-t w �w David A. White,P.E. Senior Vice President Enclosure: Task Order No. 10 to Woodard&Curran—Contract 037 cc: Dana Menon,Salem PCD PN: 225585.01 City of Salem,MA(225585.01) -----T-Woodard&Curran October 16,2014 TASK ORDER NO.10 TO WOODARD&CURRAN CONTRACT 037 This is Task Order No. 10 attached to and made part of the Agreement dated March 15,2010 between Woodard&Curran 40 Shattuck Road Suite 110 Andover MA 01810 (ENGINEER)and the City of Salem,93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970(OWNER). This Task Order describes the Scope of Services,Time Schedule,Charges,and Payment Conditions for the Task Order known as: Task Order#10—Legacy Apartment at Harmony Grove—Peer Review of Amended Plans 1. Scope of Basic and Special Services A. ENGINEER shall provide for OWNER the following specific BASIC SERVICES- Scope of Services for Task Order No. 10 as outlined in Attachment A. B. ENGINEER shall provide for OWNER or obtain from others the following specific SPECIAL SERVICES None 2. Owner's Responsibilities The OWNER shall furnish to the ENGINEER,for performance of Services as required by the Agreement,the following: As specified in Task Order No. 10. - 3. Time Schedule The time periods for the performance of ENGINEER's services are as follows: Engineer will complete the scope of work within 2 weeks of executed agreement and requested information from the applicant. Note,Engineer is not responsible for delays resulting from unforeseen circumstances or matters beyond Engineer's control. 4. Compensation and Invoicing Compensation for services of ENGINEER described in this Task Order will be on the following basis: Page 1 A. For the Basic and Special Services the OWNER agrees to pay the ENGINEER as follows Total Fee =$2,925.00 5. Terms and Conditions The terms and conditions of the Agreement referred to above shall apply to this Task Order except to the extent expressly modified herein. In the event of any such modification,the modification shall be set forth below and the Article ofthe Agreement to be modified shall be specifically referenced. Modifications included in this Task Order are: None. 6. Terms or Provisions in Conflict If the provisions set forth in the Agreement are in conflict with the provisions set forth in this Task Order,the provisions of this Task Order shall govem. Acceptance of the terms of this Task Order is acknowledged by the following authorized signatures of the parties to the Agreement: OWNER ENGINEER 4—&- � ( '/'- : � By: Kimberley Driscoll By: David A.White,P.E. Title: Mayor Title: Senior Vice President By: Whitney Haskell le: Purchasing Agent By: David Knowlton,P.E. Title: City E ' eer TASK ORDER MADE AS OF: J- lizabeth Rennard Title: City Engineer vY " Date: i By: Lynn Duncan Title: City er ZLlS73 Paget erg' By: Sarah St! ton Obj: Title: Finance Director PO: . ' COMMITMENT&INTEGRITY 95 Cedar Street I Suite 100 T 800.985.7897 DRIVE RESULTS Providence,Rhode Island 02903 T 401.273.1007 www.woodardcurran.com F 401.273.5087 Via Electronic Mail October 16,2014 �► Mr. David Knowlton, City Engineer City of Salem 120 Washington Street,4th Floor & D Salem, MA 01970 Re: Task Order#10—Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove Peer Review of Amended Plans Dear David: Woodard & Curran, Inc. (W&C) is pleased to present this proposal for engineering Peer Review Services to the City of Salem in support of the Planning Board's assessment of the application for Site Plan Review by MRM Project Management, LLC("the applicant"). The property is located at 3 Harmony Grove Road &60-64 Grove Street("the Site'),at the former Salem Oil&Grease Company site, and is situated in the Business Park Development (BPD) Zone District and portions of a Residential Two Family District(R2).The properties are bounded to the south and west by the Beaver Street and Silver Street residential neighborhoods,to the north by Harmony Grove Road and to the east by Grove Street. Traversing the site from east to west is the tidal North River Canal, which runs between the 60 & 64 Grove Street parcels and transects the 3 Harmony Grove Road parcel. The project proposes to raze the existing structures on the 64 Grove Street parcel and construct three 47-unit apartment buildings with associated driveways, parking areas, utilities, landscaping, and stormwater management features. Included in the proposal is the renovation of the existing office building located on the 60 Grove Street parcel. Woodard and Curran conducted a peer review on behalf of the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) for the applicant's original proposal. The peer review was summarized in our letter dated October 1, 2012. Subsequent to that review, the applicant has made modifications to the project plans to address regulatory comments/feedback.As such,our scope of services for this project will include a technical review of the submitted material from the Applicant to assess the revised project's conformance with applicable civil/site aspects of the City of Salem's site plan review requirements, Zoning Bylaws, Special Permit requirements, as well as compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards(as revised in January 2008). Woodard&Curran's will require the following documentation from the applicant to initiate the review: • Set of revised drawings(full size) • Revised stormwater management report • Planning Board's decision on the original proposal • DOC issued by the Conservation Commission • DEPs Superseding Order Of Conditions • All additional documentation provide to the DEP by the applicant pertaining to the appeal. The following sections address our Scope of Work, Project Deliverables, Compensation, Project Schedule,and Exclusions for this project. SCOPE OF WORK Woodard&Curran will perform the following tasks included in the Scope of Work for this project. Task 1.0-Letter Report Woodard&Curran will prepare a letter report summarizing our findings, gaps or deficiencies found,and recommendations relative to the submitted project plans and reports listed above.This task will include. the following: 6&CURRAN On behalf of the Planning Board, Woodard & Curran will review project plans and drainage calculations for the proposed mixed-use development. The review will focus on the following aspects of the application: 1) Compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards (as revised in January 2008). Furthermore,Woodard&Curran will review the project plans and drainage report for general best engineering practice. 2) Adequacy of proposed utility connections to the municipal infrastructure. 3) Site circulation and pavement markings. 4) Site grading. 5) Consistency with floodplain management along the North River, including review of the hydraulic adequacy of the proposed bridge over the river. • Prepare a Letter Report to the Planning Board summarizing our findings and recommendations. Task 2.0 Meetings Woodard & Curran will attend one meeting. This meeting may be either public hearings or technical workshop with the Applicant and their engineers. It is assumed that the meeting will require the attendance of one (1) Civil Engineer. Additional meetings will be billed on a per meeting basis, per individual required for attendance and will require an amendment to this contract. Attendance at additional meetings will be a lump sum cost of$925 per individual per meeting(assumes total meeting time and preparation of 5 hours per meeting and expenses). PROJECT DELIVERABLES A Letter Report will be prepared for Task 1.0 presenting our findings and recommendations. COMPENSATION Woodard &Curran proposes to perform the Scope of Work specked herein on lump sum cost basis as outlined in the table below. TASK DESCRIPTION FEE BILLING METHOD 1.0 Site Visit&Letter Report $2,000 Lump Sum 2.0 Meetings $925 Lump Sum Total $2,925 City of Salem,MA(225585.01) 2 Woodard&Curran October 16,2014 r For all services duly rendered under the Scope of Services specked herein, the City of Salem will pay Woodard & Curran a lump sum fee of$2,925. All work will be performed in accordance with Contract i, 4qqk 037 for on-call professional civil engineering services. We will invoice monthly for services completed WKIOin the prior month. & RAN PROJECT SCHEDULE Work is to be completed within three weeks of execution of this contract and written authorization from the City to proceed. Woodard & Curran will submit the Letter Report(s) specified above prior to the respective Planning Board hearings. EXCLUSIONS The Scope of Work does not include the following items: • Review of revised, modified or additional plans and reports submitted by the applicant subsequent to the documents listed above; • Review or confirmation of the location of wetland resource areas; • Additional tasks not specked herein that may be requested of Woodard & Curran by the City of Salem; • Architectural design review;and • Attendance at additional meetings and/or site visits outside of the number of meetings specified in this contract. If additional services are requested, a contract amendment will be issued for authorization of the additionally requested work. If this Agreement is acceptable, please sign the attached agreement and return one original copy to my attention. Please note that we cannot begin work until we receive written authorization to proceed based on the availability of funds to the City of Salem. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call the undersigned at 1-800-985-7897 or email at dwhite(a)woodardcurran.cwm. Sincerely, WOODARDI&CCURRAN Pa4A'�' o David A. White,P.E. Senior Vice President Enclosure: Task Order No. 10 to Woodard&Curran—Contract 037 cc: Dana Menon,Salem PCD PN: 225585.01 City of Salem,MA(225585.01) 3 Woodard&Curran October 16,2014 TASK ORDER NO.10 TO WOODARD&CURRAN CONTRACT 037 This is Task Order No. 10 attached to and made part of the Agreement dated March 15.2010.between Woodard&Curran.40 Shattuck Road Suite 110 Andover MA 01810 (ENGINEER)and the City of Salem,93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970(OWNER). This Task Order describes the Scope of Services,Time Schedule,Charges,and Payment Conditions for the Task Order known as: Task Order#10—Leeacv Apartment at Harmogy Grove—Peer Review of Amended Plans 1. Scope of Basic and Special Services A. ENGINEER shall provide for OWNER the following specific BASIC SERVICES- Scope of Services for Task Order No. 10 as outlined in Attachment A. B. ENGINEER shall provide for OWNER or obtain from others the following specific SPECIAL SERVICES None 2. Owner's Responsibilities The OWNER shall furnish to the ENGINEER,for performance of Services as required by the Agreement,the following: As specified in Task Order No. 10. 3. Time Schedule The time periods for the performance ofENGINEER's services are as follows: Engineer will complete the scope of work within 2 weeks of executed agreement and requested information from the applicant. Note,Engineer is not responsible for delays resulting from unforeseen circumstances or matters beyond Engineer's control. 4. Compensation and InvoicingI, Compensation for services of ENGINEER described in this Task Order will be on the following basis: Page t A. For the Basic and S ecial Servi s the OWNER ces to a the E GINEER as follows: Total Fee _$2,925.00 5. Terms and Conditions The terms and conditions of the Agreement referred to expressly modified herein. In the event ofan above shall apply to this Task Order except to the extent Article of the Agreement to be modified shall be specifically h modrfication,the modification shall beset forth below are: refer and the referenced. Modifications included in this Task Order None. 6. T rms o?Provisions�in C,4 the Ifovi provisions set forth in the Agreement are in conflict with the provisions set forth provisions of this Task Order shall govern in this Task Order,the Acceptance of the terms of this Task Order the Agreement: is acknowledged by The followin g authorized signatures of the parties to OWNER ENGINEER By: KimberleyDriscoll Title: Mayor BY: David A. White,P.E. Title: Senior Vice President BY: Whitney Haskell Title: Purchasing Agent . By. David Knowlto , .E. Title: Ci En . r TASK ORDER MADE AS OF: BY: Elizabeth Renard Title: City hngincer Date: 4VADun�can �� Title: CityPiv tei�, By: Sarah Stan n Paget Z S7� Org: Title: Financ Dctor Obj: 5 13 PO: —20041-3q s COMMITMENT &INTEGRITY 95 Cedar Street I Suite 100 T 800.985.7897 r DRIVE RESULTS Providence, Rhode Island 02903 T 401.273.1007 www.woodardcurran.com F 401.273.5087 Via Electronic Mail October 16,2014 �. Mr. David Knowlton, City Engineer City of Salem 120 Washington Street,4th Floor WO ARD Salem, MA 01970 &CURe: Task Order#10—Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove Peer Review of Amended Plans Dear David: Woodard & Curran, Inc. (W&C) is pleased to present this proposal for engineering Peer Review Services to the City of Salem in support of the Planning Board's assessment of the application for Site Plan Review by MRM Project Management, LLC("the applicant"). The property is located at 3 Harmony Grove Road &60-64 Grove Street("the Site"), at the former Salem Oil& Grease Company site, and is situated in the Business Park Development (BPD) Zone District and portions of a Residential Two Family District(R2). The properties are bounded to the south and west by the Beaver Street and Silver Street residential neighborhoods,to the north by Harmony Grove Road and to the east by Grove Street. Traversing the site from east to west is the tidal North River Canal, which runs between the 60 & 64 Grove Street parcels and transects the 3 Harmony Grove Road parcel. The project proposes to raze the existing structures on the 64 Grove Street parcel and construct three 47-unit apartment buildings with associated driveways, parking areas, utilities, landscaping, and stormwater management features. Included in the proposal is the renovation of the existing office building located on the 60 Grove Street parcel. Woodard and Curran conducted a peer review on behalf of the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) for the applicant's original proposal. The peer review was summarized in our letter dated October 1, 2012. Subsequent to that review, the applicant has made modifications to the project plans to address regulatory comments/feedback.As such, our scope of services for this project will include a technical review of the submitted material from the Applicant to assess the revised project's conformance with applicable civil/site aspects of the City of Salem's site plan review requirements, Zoning Bylaws, Special Permit requirements, as well as compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards(as revised in January 2008). Woodard&Curran's will require the following documentation from the applicant to initiate the review: • Set of revised drawings(full size) • Revised stormwater management report • Planning Board's decision on the original proposal • OOC issued by the Conservation Commission • DEPs Superseding Order Of Conditions • All additional documentation provide to the DEP by the applicant pertaining to the appeal. The following sections address our Scope of Work, Project Deliverables, Compensation, Project Schedule,and Exclusions for this project. SCOPE OF WORK Woodard&Curran will perform the following tasks included in the Scope of Work for this project. Task 1.0-Letter Report Woodard &Curran will prepare a letter report summarizing our findings, gaps or deficiencies found,and recommendations relative to the submitted project plans and reports listed above. This task will include VMDARQ the following: &CURRAN On behalf of the Planning Board, Woodard & Curran will review project plans and drainage calculations for the proposed mixed-use development. The review will focus on the following aspects of the application: 1) Compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards (as revised in January 2008).Furthermore,Woodard&Curran will review the project plans and drainage report for general best engineering practice. 2) Adequacy of proposed utility connections to the municipal infrastructure. 3) Site circulation and pavement markings. 4) Site grading. 5) Consistency with floodplain management along the North River, including review of the hydraulic adequacy of the proposed bridge over the river. • Prepare a Letter Report to the Planning Board summarizing our findings and recommendations. Task 2.0 Meetings Woodard & Curran will attend one meeting. This meeting may be either public hearings or technical workshop with the Applicant and their engineers. It is assumed that the meeting will require the attendance of one (1) Civil Engineer. Additional meetings will be billed on a per meeting basis, per individual required for attendance and will require an amendment to this contract. Attendance at additional meetings will be a lump sum cost of$925 per individual per meeting (assumes total meeting time and preparation of 5 hours per meeting and expenses). PROJECT DELIVERABLES A Letter Report will be prepared for Task 1.0 presenting our findings and recommendations. COMPENSATION Woodard &Curran proposes to perform the Scope of Work specified herein on lump sum cost basis as outlined in the table below. TASK DESCRIPTION FEE BILLING METHOD 1.0 Site Visit&Letter Report $2,000 Lump Sum 2.0 Meetings $925 Lump Sum Total $2,925 City of Salem,MA(225585.01) 2 Woodard&Curran October 16,2014 For all services duly rendered under the Scope of Services specified herein, the City of Salem will pay JOA Woodard & Curran a lump sum fee of$2,925. All work will be performed in accordance with Contract _ 441qk 037 for on-call professional civil engineering services. We will invoice monthly for services completed in the prior month. &CURRM PROJECT SCHEDULE Work is to be completed within three weeks of execution of this contract and written authorization from the City to proceed. Woodard & Curran will submit the Letter Report(s) specified above prior to the respective Planning Board hearings. EXCLUSIONS The Scope of Work does not include the following items: • Review of revised, modified or additional plans and reports submitted by the applicant subsequent to the documents listed above; • Review or confirmation of the location of wetland resource areas; • Additional tasks not specified herein that may be requested of Woodard & Curran by the City of Salem; • Architectural design review;and • Attendance at additional meetings and/or site visits outside of the number of meetings specked in this contract. If additional services are requested, a contract amendment will be issued for authorization of the additionally requested work. If this Agreement is acceptable, please sign the attached agreement and return one original copy to my attention. Please note that we cannot begin work until we receive written authorization to proceed based on the availability of funds to the City of Salem. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call the undersigned at 1-800-985-7897 or email at dwhiteaa woodardcurran.com. Sincerely, WOODARD&CURRAN '!E�a4Att m� David A.White, P.E. Senior Vice President Enclosure: Task Order No. 10 to Woodard&Curran—Contract 037 cc: Dana Menon,Salem PCD PN: 225585.01 City of Salem,MA(225585.01) 3 Woodard&Curran October 16,2014 TASK ORDER NO. 10 TO WOODARD&CURRAN CONTRACT 037 This is Task Order No. 10 attached to and made part of the Agreement dated March 15,2010,between Woodard&Curran.40 Shattuck Road,Suite 110.Andover,MA 01810 (ENGINEER)and the City of Salem,93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970(OWNER). This Task Order describes the Scope of Services,Time Schedule,Charges,and Payment Conditions for the Task Order known as: Task Order#10—Legacy Apartment at Harmony Grove—Peer Review of Amended Plans 1. Scope of Basic and Special Services A. ENGINEER shall orovide for OWNER the following specific BASIC SERVICES: Scope of Services for Task Order No. 10 as outlined in Attachment A. B. ENGINEER shall provide for OWNER,or obtain from others the following specific SPECIAL SERVICES: None 2. Owner's Responsibilities - The OWNER shall famish to the ENGINEER,for performance of Services as required by the Agreement,the following: As specified in Task Order No. 10. 3. Time Schedule The time periods for the performance of ENGINEER's services are as follows: Engineer will complete the scope of work within 2 weeks of executed agreement and requested information from the applicant. Note,Engineer is not responsible for delays resulting from unforeseen circumstances or matters beyond Engineer's control. 4. Compensation and Invoicing Compensation for services of ENGINEER described in this Task Order will be on the following basis: Page 1 A. For the Basic and Special Services the OWNER agrees to pay the ENGINEER as follows Total Fee =$2,925.00 5. Terms and Conditions The terms and conditions ofthe Agreement referred to above shall apply to this Task Order except to the extent expressly modified herein. In the event of any such modification,the modification shall be set forth below and the Article of the Agreement to be modified shall be specifically referenced. Modifications included in this Task Order are: None. 6. Terms or Provisions in Conflict If the provisions set forth in the Agreement are in conflict with the provisions set forth in this Task Order,the provisions of this Task Order shall govern. Acceptance of the terms of this Task Order is acknowledged by the following authorized signatures of the parties to the Agreement: OWNER ENGINEER b9w By: Kimberley Driscoll By: David A.White,P.E. Title: Mayor Title: Senior Vice President �-j By: Whitney Haskell T'Ie:: Purchasing Agent By: David Knowlton,P.E. Title: City Engineer TASK ORDER MADE AS OF: By: Elizabeth Rennard Title: City Engineer Date: B : Lynn Duncan Title: City PI er'1 Page 2 Org: L-1 5 3 By: Sarah Stant Obj: Title: Finance Director - PO: 2 a4i Z difiin Engineering P.O.BOX 7061,1000IJXWNGS CHER o ` BEVERLY,K101915,SONE ZWG ` PHONE:978-9T1•Slll \ DATE JOB NO. to -aa-14 Z60 ATTENTION D.hulr� (.2);wk ro,*, i 17001:) Lo t c�a � ✓� C 5�tj t sr Alp No- So JrL /00 a L Y : v s WE ARE SENDING YOU e ❑ Attached ,#❑ Under separate cover via "the following items ❑ Shop drawings"� "*} «;;'❑ Prints �''«. ` Plans ❑"Samples •E],-Specifications •*a vk d '❑­C 6 of letter'• " ❑ Change order2� RM 620 COPIESDATE NO. DESCRIPTION I a 0(__V-t aoi� _ Pori I Of;,(- '001ti f L R L -a3 ni of cs fJ t+o✓1s. �.Auv�r fl G 13OAi Ll) vA-c.— THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution )!�-As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints )4-For review and comment ❑ ❑ FORBIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS / /1 ILA -1tA .� 6?ecy"o%I), ayvacAd Z?72.6-17r COPY TO Gt-I-�l n% S�-f�t�W1 — YLbNNl04 / 4u^ElsY1 Wt(� , SIGNED: tf enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once. MRM Project Management LLC` ® Bank 1 9 F « e� Dip#14-10012 �� America's Most Convenient Bank® P.O.Boz 388 - 53-7054-2113 10/23/2014 y Beverly,Ma 01915-4421 PAY TO THE City of Salem **2,925.00 0 ORDER OF Two Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Five and DOLLARS x City of Salem Dana Menon 8 120 Washington St. Salem, Ma. 01970 MEMO ALKORIZED SIGNATURE 11'0011 28111 1: 2 i 13705451: 8 25 i95578Sill MRM Project Management LLC 1128 p City of Salem 10/23/2014 G O 2,925.00 TD Bank DIP Account 2,925.00 Erin Schaeffer From: Rick Azzalina <RAzzalina@fstinc.com> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:36 PM To: Lynn Duncan; Erin Schaeffer Cc: Alan Cloutier; Gary Hebert; glhglh@comcast.net Subject: FW: Site Plan for Grove Street Apartments - Former Salem Oil &Grease Properties -60 &64 Grove Street Attachments: DECISION W 20 DAY.pdf Importance: High Lynn/Erin, The attached and below comments are what Bob Griffin sent over to Alan earlier today in response to us sending him a copy of our peer review comments. Alan is prepared to discuss the LOS F in the PM peak hour at the Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road intersection. He indicated this could potentially be mitigated with some signal timing adjustments. ° Also,please note via the email chain below that prior fire department comments have been coordinated with the developer. Regards, Rick Rick A. Azzalina, P.E. 1 Associate&Vice President Transportation Division FST FAY, SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE EY$ }` Celebrating a Century of Engineering Excellence ` 5 Burlington Woods 1 Burlington, MA 01803 Vc\ D: 781-221-1221 1 T: 781-221-1000 razzalina@fstinc.com 1 www.fstinc.com From: Alan Cloutier Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:28 PM To: Rick Azzalina Subject: FW: Site Plan for Grove Street Apartments - Former Salem Oil &Grease Properties - 60 &64 Grove Street From: Bob Griffin [mailto:bgriffin@griffineng.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:19 PM To: Alan Cloutier; Gary Hebert Cc: 'Giles Ham' Subject: FW: Site Plan for Grove Street Apartments - Former Salem Oil &Grease Properties - 60 &64 Grove Street Alan & Gary: Thanks for sending over the draft letter. As discussed, a few comments based on a quick read: 1 i 1., The d&eloper is already required to contribute$100,000 toward neighborhood traffic improvements. (Ref. Planning Board decision item 20g.) I think your suggestion that the developer make Boston/Grove street intersection improvements should reference that existing commitment. I've attached a scan of the 2012 decision. 2. We have reviewed the proposed site plan modifications with the Fire Dept; they find the current plan acceptable. Documentation of this follows below in this email; Sorry you didn't see this beforehand. 3. The Fire dept. asked that we remove landscape islands associated with the 24 spaces west of bldg. no. 1. 4. I think that reducing the radius of the roadway near bldg. no. 1 as you suggest is not easy to accommodate due to the increased topography toward Beaver Street. Perhaps we can address the concern by keeping any landscaping between the garage exit and the roadway in this area very short. 5. We didn't know you were missing the Vanasse October 2013 memo and could forward it to you. However, at this point perhaps another set of numbers would only add to the confusion. Giles Ham tells me the numbers are consistent. 6. Are your traffic estimates based on 141 or 129 residential units? Probably not a significant issue, but the developer has reduced the unit count to 129 units as part of this modification request. Bob G Robert H. Griffin, P.E. Griffin Engineering Group, LLC 495 Cabot Street, 2nd Floor Beverly, MA 09995 978-927-511115103 (fax) bgriffinPgriffineng.com From: Paul Gallant [mailto:PGallant@Salem.com) Sent; Friday, October 24, 2014 8:57 AM To: Bob Griffin Subject: RE: Site Plan for Grove Street Apartments - Former Salem Oil &Grease Properties - 60 &64 Grove Street Hi Rob, thank you for the re-submission of the plans identifying the issues that we discussed. Upon review of the current submission, you have addressed our concerns regarding apparatus turn radius's and the removable bollards. We do not have any further concerns at this time and are in approval of the design that has been presented. If you or anyone has any questions please feel free to contact me at anytime. Paul Gallant Fire Inspector 29 Fort Ave Salem, Ma 01970 Tel: (978) 745-7777 Fax: (978) 745-9402 From: Bob Griffin [bgriffin@griffineng.coml Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 8:47 AM To: Paul Gallant Subject: Site Plan for Grove Street Apartments - Former Salem Oil &Grease Properties - 60 &64 Grove Street Hello Paul: 2 t Thankeyou formeeting with Jesse Blanchette of Griffin Engineering and myself on October3rd. Please find attached 1-igures 1 and 2 which are the site plan as approved by the Planning Board in 2012 and the proposed modified site plan. We will shortly be requesting that the Planning Board approve the modified site layout. The proposed site plan modification will eliminate vehicle access to the site from Harmony Grove Road, due primarily to DEP concerns that a previously proposed new bridge across the North River Canal could impede future City of Peabody flood improvements. Instead of having two driveways for the site,there will be one—at Grove Street. To better accommodate vehicle access around the site, we have modified the design of the parking lot at the northwest end of the site. Larger curb radii have been provided in the vicinity of Building No. 1. A loop has been created in the parking lot that is large enough for all Salem Fire Trucks(90' +). The City's largest fire truck is a Pierce Arrow-XT,which has an outside turning radius of 87'. You suggested that a landscape island be removed from the northwest parking lot to improve turning movements; the island has been removed from the plans. We discussed modifying the shared use pathway along the canal. The pathway will be widened from 10' to 14'along the canal. Removable bollards will be provided at Grove Street and at two interior locations to prevent unauthorized vehicle access to the pathway. The bollards will be the MaxiForce Traffic Control Bollard, model SS1 with dual entry key system. This bollard, in addition to having an emergency collapse feature, will allow both the Fire Department and the property owner to unlock and remove the bollard as needed. The owner will reimburse the Fire Department for its purchase and installation of a Knox Key padlock on each bollard. As required by code, all of the buildings will have fire suppression systems and fire and smoke alarm systems. Would you please confirm that you find the modified site layout satisfactory? Should you have other comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your assistance. Bob G Robert H. Griffin, P.E. Griffin Engineering Group, LLC 495 Cabot Street, 2nd Floor Beverly, MA 01915 978-927-511115103 (fax) bgriffin(a)griffinen.gcom The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact IT Services at 800-835-8666 and properly dispose of this information. please consider the environment before printing this email. 3 �? p�q--�"�° r ( 1 P FSTFS.I. FAY, SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE,LLC ENGINEERS •PLANNERS•SCIENTISTS 5 Burlington Woods,Burlington,Massachusetts 01803 a Tel.781-221-1000 Fax 781-229-1115 MEMORANDUM TO: Dominick Pangallo, Chief of Staff David Knowlton, P.E., City Engineer DRAFT FROM: Alan Cloutier, P.E., PTOE—FST Advisor: Gary Hebert, P.E. PTOE—FST DATE: December 3, 2014 SUBJECT: Task Order No. 23 of MSA 0-37 (B)—Traffic Peer Review of Harmony Grove Apartments—Supplemental Site Plan Review FST was retained by the City of Salem to conduct a Peer Review of the Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development(formerly Salem Oil and Grease). The developer is currently investigating submitting a request for an amendment to their original Planning Board approvals. The potential modification to the site plan involves the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road site driveway, so that all traffic must access the site via Grove Street. FST previously submitted a memorandum on November 19, 2014 which summarized our findings. In addition to reviewing the traffic impact to nearby intersections, we had the following two comments on the site plan itself; • The proposed curve in the access drive to the southwest of Building 1 should be modified with a smaller radius to allow the access drive to intersect with the parking garage access to Building 1 at an improved angle. As currently proposed, drivers exiting the Building 1 garage would have difficulty seeing traffic approach from the southeast (left). • The end caps to the 24 space parking aisle on the western side of the site should be raised, to better define the edge of the "roadway". In addition during the hearing, there was discussion about bollard placement on the proposed multi-use path within the site. Griffin Engineering has resubmitted updated plans. FST has reviewed the following documents; • Revisions to Approved Site Plans, Letter from Griffin Engineering Group, LLC December 1, 2014 • Site Plans,Sheets, C-3, C-3A, C-313, C-3C, C-4B, C-4C, C-58, C-5C, Griffin Engineering, Revised December 3, 2014 Page 1 of 2 October 2, 2014 i� FSTTraffic Peer Review of Harmony Grove Apartments 0 The resubmitted plans show a relocation of a proposed wall to the southwest of Building 1. This will improve the sight lines for vehicles exiting the garage. FST is satisfied with this change. As discussed during the public hearing, the fire department requested the end caps to the 24 space parking lot to be flush to allow better access for emergency vehicles. We defer to the fire department on this issue. We agree with the bollard placement as shown on the updated plan. We have no outstanding issues on the resubmitted site plans. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this traffic peer review on behalf of the City of Salem and will be available to answer any questions that the Board may have on our findings above. T:\LG-423 Salem MA\Task Orders Contract 0-37\Task Order 23 Harmony Grove Residential Project Peer Review\FST Harmony Grove Peer Review Supplemental Review.docx Page 2 of 2 December 3, 2014 1 T.n.*+ FAY,SPOFFORD & THTISTS E,LLC FST ENGINEERS *PLANNERS-SCIENTISTS 5 Burlington Woods,Burlington,Massachusetts 01803 Tel.781-221-1000 Fax 781-229-1115 MEMORANDUM TO: Dominick Pangallo, Chief of Staff David Knowlton,P.E., City Engineer DRAFT FROM: Alan Cloutier, P.E., PTOE—FST Advisor: Gary Hebert, P.E. PTOE—FST DATE: November 19, 2014 SUBJECT: Task Order No. 23 of MSA 0-37 (B)—Traffic Peer Review of Harmony Grove Apartments FST was retained by the City of Salem to conduct a traffic Peer Review of the Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development(formerly Salem Oil and Grease). Site Plans and a Traffic Impact and Access Study for the project were originally submitted in December 2011. FST completed a Traffic Impact Peer Review on April 12, 2012. The project consists of 141 Apartment Units as well as 17,000 sf of office space. The apartment portion of the site originally included two full access driveways, one on Harmony Grove Road and one on Grove Street. The developer is currently investigating submitting a request for an amendment to their original Planning Board approvals. The potential modification to the site plan involves the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road site driveway, so that all traffic must access the site via Grove Street. This memorandum consists of a review of the changes to the current proposal. The August 7, 2014 letter from Vanasse and Associates (VAI)regarding the project change references a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22,2013. We are not in receipt of the October 22, 2013 memorandum; however we were able to assess the impact of the proposed change without it. The following documents have been reviewed as part of this peer review. • Harmony Grove Apartments, Letter from Vanasse and Associates August 7, 2014 • Site Plan Single Entrance Grove Street, Griffin Engineering October 2014 • Traffic Impact Peer Review—Proposed Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grave, Letter from Fay Spofford and Thorndike,April 12, 2012 FST has previously reviewed the proposed project in April 12, 2012 for completeness and adherence to Traffic Impact Study guidelines and design standards. Therefore, for this part of Page 1 of 5 October 2, 2014 t FSTTraffic Peer Review of Harmony Grove Apartments u the review, FST has focused on changes in the project that will impact the adjacent roadways and intersections. FST offers the following comments about the potential driveway modifications. GROVE STREET/HARMONY GROVE ROAD, GROVE STREET/MASON STREET INTERSECTIONS With the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road driveway, a higher percentage of the project related traffic will travel through the intersections of Grove Street with Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street/Mason Street, potentially impacting the operations at these locations. Specifically, the traffic entering or exiting the site from Harmony Grove Road to the west previously did not have to travel through these intersections. However, with the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road driveway, more site traffic will be redistributed through the intersection. This increase in traffic through these intersections are estimated to be 29 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 36 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. FST has previously analyzed the operations of the nearby intersections as part of the North River Canal Corridor Study. The study had incorporated volumes from the Harmony Grove Apartments. As part of this peer review, FST has reanalyzed these intersections with the changes in traffic patterns due to the change in driveway configuration. The results of the capacity analysis are shown in Table 1 below. The analysis was conducted using the future configuration of these intersections following the Grove Street improvement project. The analysis was conducted as all-way stop controlled intersection, since this was the most similar to the proposed condition, even though the movements between intersections will be stop. Page 2 of 5 November 19, 2014 FST Trak Peer Review of Harmony Grove Apartments • o Table 1 -Capacity Analysis Comparison - Build Condition Previous Development Current Proposal (2 Driveways) (1 Drrvewayl Intersection Movement Dela LOS Dela ' LOS Grove Street/Harmon Grove Road Eastbound 18.6 C 20.1 C AM Peak Hour Southbound 28.8 D 33.9 D Northbound' 12.0 B 12.3 B OVERALL 22.0 C 25.0 D Eastbound 17.6 C 18.8 C PM Peak Hour Southbound 77.0 F 91.2 F Northbound2 11.3 B 11.4 B OVERALL 49.5 E 57.5 F Grove Street/Mason Street Westbound 10.6 B 10.8 B AM Peak Hour Northbound 14.6 B 15.6 C Southbound 20.7 C 22.0 C OVERALL 16.9 C 17.9 C Westbound 11.4 B 11.4 B PM Peak Hour Northbound 49.3 E 57.4 F Southbound2 19.4 C 20.7 C OVERALL 34.7 D 39.5 E 1. Delay in seconds per vehicle. 2. Movement will not be under Stop Control, Delay will minimal As shown in Table 1, the additional 29 vehicles traveling through these intersections during the morning peak hour will result in an additional three seconds of overall delay at the intersection of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road and an additional one second of overall delay at the intersection of Grove Street/Mason Street. The additional 36 vehicles traveling through these intersections during the evening peak hour will result in an additional eight seconds of overall delay at the intersection of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road and an additional five seconds of overall delay at the intersection of Grove Street/Mason Street. Although the impact will not be excessive, there will be a slight impact to the operations at the intersections of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street Mason Street due to the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road driveway at the Harmony Grove Apartment Development. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY The new project will concentrate all of the apartment related traffic on a single driveway and the driveway intersection with Grove Street. The operations at the proposed driveway intersection with Grove Street were analyzed by FST. The results of the capacity analysis are shown in Table 2 below. The proposed driveway intersection with Grove Street is expected to Page 3 of 5 November 19, 2014 FSTTraffic Peer Review of Harmony Grove Apartments operate at LOS B. Therefore the proposed Grove Street driveway will operate at a good level of service with minimal delay. Table 2—Capacity Analysis Proposed A artment Driveway Current Proposal (I Driveway) Intersection Movement I Dela LOS Grove Street/Site Drivewa AM Peak Hour Eastbound 12.2 B PM Peak Hour I Eastboundl 1.4.7 1 B 1.Delay in seconds per vehicle. To ensure that proper sight lines are maintained, the developer shall keep vegetation clear along Grove Street and shall keep signage and other materials from impacting sight lines near the proposed driveways. The Salem Fire Department should be consulted to verify that they are satisfied with the proposed change in access. MITIGATION Previous mitigation was proposed at the intersection of Grove Street/Beaver Street/ Goodhue Street intersection and the Grove Street/Harmony Grove intersection which mostly consisted of pavement markings and signage. These intersections are included in the Grove Street improvement project currently being undertaken by the City. Since the City of Salem is mitigating the impacts of the Harmony Grove Apartments through the Grove Street improvement project, the developer could potentially contribute funds toward mitigating other nearby locations. One potential location is the outdated traffic signal at Boston Street/Grove Street, which serves as an access point into and out of the area and does process some of the proposed site traffic. SITE PLAN FST recommends the following modifications to the proposed site plan to improve on- site circulation. • The proposed curve in the access drive to the southwest of Building 1 should be modified with a smaller radius to allow the access drive to intersect with the parking garage access to Building 1 at an improved angle. As currently proposed, drivers exiting the Building 1 garage would have difficulty seeing traffic approach from the southeast (left). Page 4 of 5 November 19, 2014 FST Traffic Peer Review of Harmony Grove Apartments - o • The end caps to the 24 space parking aisle on the western side of the site should be raised, to better define the edge of the "roadway". CONCLUSION The original Traffic Impact Study and follow up material has been prepared professionally and follows standard practice. A summary of our findings is as follows; • Although the impact will not be excessive, there will be a slight impact to the operations at the intersections of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street Mason Street due to the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road driveway at the Harmony Grove Apartment Development. • The proposed Grove Street driveway will operate at good levels of service with minimal delay. • To ensure that proper sight lines are maintained, the developer shall keep vegetation clear along Grove Street and shall keep signage and other materials from impacting sight lines near the proposed driveways. • The Salem Fire Department should be consulted to verify that they are satisfied with the proposed change in access. • Since the City of Salem is mitigating the impacts of the Harmony Grove Apartments through the Grove Street improvement project, the developer could potentially contribute funds toward mitigating other nearby locations. One potential location is the outdated traffic signal at Boston Street/Grove Street, which serves as an access point into and out of the area and does process some of the proposed site traffic. • The proposed curve in the access drive to the southwest of Building 1 should be modified with a smaller radius to allow the access drive to intersect with the parking garage access to Building 1 at an improved angle. • The end caps to the 24 space parking aisle on the western side of the site should be raised, to better define the edge of the "roadway". We appreciate the opportunity to provide this traffic peer review on behalf of the City of Salem and will be available to answer any questions that the Board may have on the peer review findings above. T:\LG-423 Salem MA\Task Orders Contract 0-37\Task Order 23 Harmony Grove Residential Project Peer Review\PST Harmony Grove Peer Review Traffic Memorandum I I-I 8-2014.doex Page 5 of 5 November 19, 2014 FAY,SPOFFORD 6t THORNDIKE ENGINEERS I5 Broad Streer ST Boston,MA 02109 Toll Free:800.835.8666 T.617.723.8862 F � F:6f7.723.9995 inc.cc � Since 1914 svws�•.fstinccam April 12, 2012 City of Salem Planning Board c/o Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner Department of Planning and Community Development 120 Washington Street,Third Floor Salem, MA 01970 Subject:Traffic Impact Peer Review—Proposed Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Dear Members of the Board: As requested, Fay,Spofford &Thorndike is submitting this letterto summarize our peer review findings pertaining to the traffic impact of the proposed Legacy Park Apartments redevelopment at Harmony Grove Road. In connection with this peer review,the following information has been reviewed: • Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove,Salem, MA, Vanasse&Associates, Inc., (referred to as the 'TIAS') December 2011 • City of Salem Planning Board December 2011 Application forms signed by the Applicant and Owner including: - City of Salem Application for Planned Unit Development Special Permit—&60-64 Grove Street - City of Salem Application Site Plan Review - Project Narrative in Support of PUD and Site Plan Review Applications for Legacy Apartments at 60-64 Grove Street&3 Harmony Grove Road • Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development—Legacy Apartments at 60-64 Grove Street &3 Harmony Grove Road, December 2011, Griffin Engineering Group, LLC(referred to as the 'Site Plans') Additionally,the peer reviewer conducted a site visit on Wednesday February 15, 2012 during the PM peak period. During the site visit, existing conditions and traffic operations in the site vicinity and at the analyzed study area network intersections were observed. Also observed were the available sight lines at the proposed site driveway locations associated with the Site Plans. The TIAS indicates that at full build-out,the former Salem Oil &Grease site will include 141 apartment units plus 15,000 square feet (sf)of office space developed from an existing 17,000 sf building to be refurbished. The site plans indicates that four two-way access driveways will serve the site at or within existing curb cuts. A continuous driveway between Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road will serve ENGINEERS - PLANNERS , SCIENTISTS Trusted Partners for Design Solutions FAY,SPOFFORD&Y T HORNDIIE City of Salem Planning Board April 12, 2012 Page 2 of 12 the site apartments. The future cross-site ff { driveway will include a new on-site bridge with a sidewalk on the east side replacing an existing 4`x Ze narrow wood/metal bridge(see right).The residential cross-site driveway will also include a new at-grade railroad crossing of a low volume/low speed freight rail track via an existing railroad crossing easement. The southernmost of the three site-related Grove Street driveways will serve the residential component of the site. The two northern Grove Street driveways will serve the office component of the site. The southern office driveway serves 13 Looking south from Harmony Grove Road tenant spaces while for tenants while the northern Existing bridge to be replaced with a 24- office driveway serves 11 tenant spaces plus the site loading dock located in the same area as the foot bridge and 5-foot sidewalk existing building loading dock. immediately to the west as part of a residential access driveway between Grove FST's traffic impacts peer review is guided by Street and Harmony Grove Road Sections 6.7.5 and 9.5.6 of the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance adopted September 10, 2009,as amended. 1. (6.7.5 Traffic Impact Study) 'A detailed traffic impact analysis in accordance with professional engineering standards is required for any special permit or site plan approval... A registered professional engineer experienced and qualified in traffic engineering shall prepare the traffic impact study. 2. A proposed mitigation plan must be included: A plan (with supporting text) to minimize traffic and safety impacts through such means as physical design and layout concepts, or other appropriate means;and an interior traffic and pedestrian circulation plan designed to minimize conflicts and safety problems. Measures shall be proposed to achieve the following post development standards: All streets and intersections to be impacted by the project shall have the some level of service or better than predevelopment conditions. The SPGA must determine that the mitigation is satisfactory." "(9.5.6 Review Criteria) The Planning Board shall review and amend all such submitted plans in accordance with the following criteria (note: only traffic circulation review criteria is presented below): 1.Adequacy of parking facilities and number of parking spaces proposed for each development FAY,SPOFFORD&THORNDIKE City of Salem Planning Board April 12,2012 Page 3 of 12 2.Adequacy of loading facilities; 3.Adequacy of traffic circulation system; 4. Adequacy of access points and routes to and from the land parcel to adjoining streets and ways;and.... 11. Adequacy of pedestrian circulation systems to and from parking areas and structures;" PEER REVIEW FINDINGS STUDY AREA ADEQUACY The study area selected for intersections for analysis in the TIAS included: • Mason and Grove Streets at Harmony Grove Road (unsignalized) • Grove at Goodhue Streets (unsignalized) • Beaver at Grove Streets (unsignalized) • Grove at Boston and Nichols Streets (offset signalized intersection) We conclude the study area analyzed is adequate for addressing the site's primary traffic impacts in accordance with standard industry and City of Salem requirements. FST's NRCC Transportation Study did apply traffic generated by the Legacy Park development and documented in the TIAS, as discussed below,to a larger traffic network that was expected to have traffic generated by the five NRCC developments in aggregate. Therefore,traffic generated by the Legacy Park site was added to intersections like Boston Street at Bridge Street, Flint at Mason Streets, Flint at Bridge Streets, Mason at Tremont Streets, and Boston at Aborn Streets,along with the projected traffic from the other four NRCC redevelopment sites. TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION ASSUMPTIONS Consistent with the ITE Trip Generation report (8`" Edition, 2008)the Legacy Park Apartments TIAS indicates the development at full build out will generate approximately 1,144 vehicle trips on a daily basis or 572 trips in and 572 trips out. It projects that 96 trips will be generated during a typical AM peak hour. Of these, 61 will be in the outbound direction and 35 will be in the inbound direction. During the afternoon PM peak hour,the TIAS expects the site to generate approximately 117 vehicle trips, of which 66 will be in the inbound direction while 51 will be in the off-peak outbound direction. The TIAS trip generation analysis as presented is acceptable. We note there is a minor difference between the Application and the TIAS in that the Development Application indicates the existing office space from'-17,000 square feet(sf)will be reoccupied,while the TIAS indicates it will be reduced to .15,000 sf. If the future office space remains as existing(i.e.,'17,000 sf),the TIAS estimates of future trips pertaining to the office component of the Legacy site based on 115,000 sf are slightly understated. However,the difference of 2,000 sf is relatively small and does not significantly affect the analysis FAY,SPOFFORD&s THORNDIKE City of Salem Planning Board April 12, 2012 Page 4 of 12 findings, as the trip generation differences amount to fewer than 5 vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours and fewer than 40 vehicle trips on a 24-hour basis. The projected trip distribution pattern of the site-generated trips was based on the year 2000 Journey to Work Census Data.This methodology is acceptable,as the year 2010 Journey to Work Census data is not yet available and the distribution pattern is consistent with observations of traffic in the area. ASSUMED NO-BUILD/BUILD PROJECTIONS The approach to No-Build/Build projections cited in the TIAS uses the traditional three-phase analysis to estimate AM and PM peak hour traffic and is acceptable. Phase 1 involves adding a certain amount of unknown traffic growth to the'background'. In this case,a 1% per year compounded annual growth rate was added, as it is representative of a stable low growth environment pertaining to the area. Phase 2 involves estimating AM and PM peak hour trips generated from a list of NRCC programmed developments. Programmed developments include trips generated by the Riverview Place located off Mason and Flint Streets,28 Goodhue Street opposite the Legacy Park Apartments site,and the Gateway Center development east of Bridge Street and north of Boston Street. Trips from these three approved developments were added to the unknown 'background'traffic growth for the Legacy Park study area network by distributing the additional trips in accordance with published traffic impact reports or observed trip distribution patterns from traffic count data. Because the Flynntan site did not have a specific development plan, its potential development was assumed to be included in the Phase I 'unknown background traffic' component of the analysis. Phase 3 involves identifying and accounting for any roadway system changes programmed in the area. At this time, no specific changes are programmed for public streets in the Study Area. The future Build Alternative adds estimated trips from the Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove to the adjacent roadway network distributes them in accordance with the anticipated driveway locations using the year 2000 Journey to Work census data, as noted above. We conclude that the above method used in the TIAS to project future No-Build and Build Legacy Park trips is acceptable. The methodology employed is consistent with industry standards and Salem requirements. FUTURE INTERSECTION AND DRIVEWAY OPERATIONS The TIAS approach/methodology used to analyze future intersection and driveway conditions is consistent with industry standards and is acceptable. The latest accepted methodology is employed to perform analysis and Synchro 7 is approved for use by MassDOT. During the initial public hearing,there was much concern raised about the driveway operations at the intersection of Harmony Grove Road and the future site driveway. The analysis indicates that the FAY,SPOFFORD&THORNDIKE City of Salem Planning Board April 12,2012 Page 5 of 12 intersection should operate acceptably. Based on observed peak hour operations in the area,we concur with the analysis findings. The analysis does indicate that by 2016,the intersections of Harmony Grove Road at Mason and Grove Streets will experience operational problems during the PM peak period. DRIVEWAY SIGHT LINES i «a Looking west on Harmony Grove Road east Looking east on Harmony Grove Road east [� of future residential driveway of future residential driveway ! `P x � Looking south on Grove Street near Looking north on Grove Street near future office use driveways future office use driveways Looking south on Grove Street to Goodhue Looking north on Grove Street near future Street near future site residential driveway site residential use driveway '. FAY,SPOFFORD&c THORNDIKE City of Salem Planning Board April 12, 2012 Page 6 of 12 The analysis of driveway sight lines for the residential driveways contained in the TIAS is consistent with site observations performed on February 15, 2012 (see photos on the previous page). The TIAS addresses available stopping sight distance at three of the four driveways shown on the Site Plans. Site Plans generally call for modifying and re-using existing Salem Oil and Grease driveway curb cuts. Observations indicate that future driveway sight lines at all three Grove Street curb cuts exceed 200 feet and are acceptable, as are the sight lines for the future Harmony Grove Road Driveway,as long as hedge trimming is maintained to a height of 3.5'within the necessary sight triangles for each of the site driveways. During months when vegetation is in leaf,as indicated in the TIAS,vegetation must be kept trimmed back to ensure adequate driveway sight lines and sight triangles for vehicles exiting the site. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS The TIAS, under Recommendations,Transportation Demand Management Measures, recommends non- specific pedestrian and bicycle accommodations be provided within the project. The Site Plans identify pedestrian accommodations(i.e.,ADA compliant sidewalks generally on the north side of the residential driveway and on one side of the residential driveway and six crosswalks). Additionally, ADA accessible sidewalks are not indicated on the re-occupied office building plan,so its ADA compliance cannot be verified at this time. The Site Plans do not indicate where or if bicycle storage facilities are proposed. Because the MBTA Salem Commuter Rail Station is a relatively short bike ride from the site, consistent with the TIAS,we recommend the Applicant encourage bike use on the site along with walking to and from the Salem Station, recognizing that bikes can travel to and from the Station within approximately 7 minutes,while walking approximately 20 minutes. This will help reduce auto demands to and from the site. EXISTING AND FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND QUEUING ASSESSMENTS The TIAS provides tables summarizing existing and future projected levels of service that were analyzed in accordance with industry standards. Queuing assessments for the two-way stop controlled intersections are provided in the TIAS Technical Appendix.The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) does not include a methodology for estimating queues at all-way stops, such as that at the intersection of Harmony Grove Road at Grove and Mason Streets.' The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,Transportation Research Board,2010,soon to be adopted by MassDOT for traffic analyses, includes an equation that can be used to calculate 95`'percentile queues at all-way stop intersections. FAY,SPOFFORD&c THORNDIKE City of Salem Planning Board April 12,2012 Page 7 of 12 PARKING FACILITIES AND PEAK PARKING DEMANDS The Legacy Park Apartments site proposes a total of 215 spaces for the residential component of the development and 24 spaces for the commercial component of the development for a site total of 239 parking spaces. The ITE Parking Generation report(4`h Edition, 2010) indicates that during peak parking demand periods, usually from 12 midnight to 5 AM,the residential parking supply should be more than adequate to accommodate peak demands from the proposed 141 apartment units. On average, during the late night hours, peak parking demands of the apartment component of the site should be approximately 173 spaces,with a 95%confidence level of approximately 193 spaces. On the other hand,the office component supply is proposed at 24 spaces,which is less than the ITE average parking demand for office uses is 2.84 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 43 spaces for 15,000 sf and 49 spaces for 17,000 square feet. However, both ITE Parking Generation(4th Edition, 2010) and ULI Shared Parking(2nd Edition, 2005) data would suggest that weekday mid-day apartment parking demands between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM are likely to be no more than 75%of the daily peak,at late night Therefore,mid-day peak shared parking demands of the apartments should be approximately 130 spaces,with the 95%confidence level of 145 spaces. The big picture is that during the 7 AM to 7 PM period,consolidated peak mid-day parking demands of residential plus office users will be approximately 173 to 194 spaces. Itis recommended that as a condition, the Applicant submit a shared parking agreement plan to be activated if and when the number of employees exceeds 24, as indicated on Site Plan C-3. TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures proposed in the TIAS include the following: • Grove, Beaver and Goodhue Streets intersection o Provide pavement markings to delineate lanes o Install a stop sign on the Grove Street northbound approach to Goodhue Street o Install a stop sign on the Beaver Street westbound approach to Grove Street o Install a stop sign on the Beaver Street eastbound approach to Grove Street o Add signs to help enforce one-way flow on Goodhue Street • Grove Street at Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street o Place northbound right turn movement from Grove Street to Mason Street under stop control rather than as a free right turn o Replace/upgrade intersection signs at and approaching the intersection • Site Access o Place stop signs at all two-way access driveways and have minimum 12-foot lanes for each driveway lane. . FAY,SPOFFORD&THORNDIKE City of Salem Planning Board April 12, 2012 Page 8 of 12 • Transportation Demand Management Measures o Provide MBTA services information to residents o Provideon-site pedestrian and bicycle accommodations DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALKS MITIGATION Driveways on Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road across the entire site frontage should be have 'Inlaid' concrete sidewalks across them to clearly define the pedestrian space,with drivers yielding to pedestrians. Sidewalks generally should be upgraded to the City's standard concrete sidewalks along the site frontages on Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street. The proposed Grove Street site driveway directly adjacent to the railroad corridor is constricted by the office-building footprint that juts out toward the railroad within 14 feet of the rail right of way. Even though the volume this driveway will be serving will be very low, its continuous 14-foot width is too narrow for two-way traffic plus pedestrians from the office building using the rear parking area going back and forth to their cars. Loading maneuvers at the existing loading area will be very constrained, as trucks serving the office building will need to back out onto Grove Street,as there is no area to turn around. We would recommend consideration of an alternate method for loading operations. It is recommended the Applicant consider consolidating the two driveways servicing the office area into one driveway. If doing so,the idea is to create a loading space offset from but parallel to the Grove Street sidewalk for the design truck vehicle (assumed to be typical SU-30 wheelbase vehicle)to arrive and depart. The assumption is that the existing loading dock would be accessed using portable dollies from the front to the rear of the building rather than backing the truck out onto Grove Street across the Grove Street sidewalk. This will allow the Applicant to relocate the office driveway slightly to the north and reconfigure the front parking lot to retain the proposed number of parking spaces available for the office use. Thus, the narrow 14'constraint for the driveway 5 connecting the two parking lots would be used a small number of autos from the rear parking area !B and office-related pedestrians only. RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING MITIGATION a The existing Grove Street at-grade railroad crossing and the proposed new on-site at-grade driveway railroad crossing within the study area were not discussed in the TIAS. While the rail Looking south to Grove Street Railroad Crossing service involves just one landowner in the City of Peabody,the TIAS should recommend appropriate traffic control devices in compliance with the current US Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as amended. MUTCD-compliant signs and markings are needed at the new on-site rail crossing. Itis recommended + FAY,SPOFFORD&THORNDIKE City of Salem Planning Board April 12, 2012 Page 9 of 12 that existing signage and markings at the Grove Street crossing(see right)should also be updated to comply with current standards. HARMONY GROVE ROAD AT GROVE AND MASON STREETS MITIGATION Because this intersection serves access to the main Legacy Park Apartments site entrance on Harmony Grove Road, it is important that its traffic operations remain acceptable. The TIAS indicates this intersection has a crash rate that exceeds the average MassDOT District 4 criteria for unsignalized intersections. To improve intersection safety,the TIAS calls for replacing signs and markings at the intersection and adding stop control to what is at present a free right turn movement northbound from Grove to Mason Street. The idea is to bring the signage and markings up to current MUTCD standards. With the Applicant's proposed mitigation,the overall level of service remains the same as with the No- Build, but the analysis indicates that the Build worsens delays at the intersection compared to the No- Build, particularly during the afternoon peak period. is _ . .. � . . .. . jh II i l n Potential Mini-roundabout at Harmony Grove Potential all-way stop T intersection at Harmony Road, Grove, and Mason Streets Grove Road, Grove, and Mason Streets From the illustration above, FST's NRCC Transportation Study, currently underway, is exploring the potential for replacing the four-way stop intersection with a three-way yield-controlled mini- roundabout, similar to the alternative recommended in the 2003 North River Canal Neighborhood Master Planning Study'or with a modified all-way stop'r intersection that might eventually be traffic signal controlled. As envisioned, it is anticipated that the mini-roundabout would require raised splitter islands on all three of its approaches to create deflection. The southbound approach on Grove Street would retain stop control, but re-oriented slightly to the west with an extension of the Mack Park landscape. It is anticipated that the center island will need to be fully mountable for use by the design vehicles and that truck U-turns would need to be prohibited. 2 North River Canal Corridor Master Planning Study, Goody Clancy with EarthTech,2003. FAY,SPOFFORD&THORNDIKE City of Salem Planning Board April 12, 2012 Page 10 of 12 Also shown above is a conceptual illustration of a potential all-way stop'T' intersection alternative to the mini-roundabout. The T alternative concept would have a 3-way all-way stop,with an off-set stop for the southbound Grove Street approach. As illustrated on the previous page,the offset T intersections would operate better than the existing 4-way stop,while addressing potential feasibility issues pertaining to the steep Grove Street grade approaching Mason Street as well as improving intersection safety features for all modes of travel including pedestrians and cyclists. The February 15`"site visit found that creation of a mini-roundabout will be very challenging, as the intersection has a steep Mason Street upgrade from the Grove Street northbound approach. Creation of a potential mini- roundabout would require re-grading within Grove Street f the context of observed grades approaching the intersection, especially for vehicles passing through from Harmony Grove Road to Mason Street direction. While the feasibility of creating a mini-roundabout has not yet been fully confirmed, it appears that Harmony Grove looking west to Mason and the dimensions of the public layout are Grove Streets at Harkin Square adequate to accommodate one,should resolution of vertical grades on Grove Street northbound approach be workable. It appears an 80'-90' inscribed circle consistent with the Federal Highway Administration's mini-roundabout design criteria as contained in FHWA-SA-10-007) is achievable. We recommend the Applicant work with the Planning Board to mitigate the negative impact at the intersection of Harmony Grove Road, Grove,and Mason Streets in a manner consistent with the City's vision for the Grove Street corridor as cited in its 2003 NRCC Master Plan, and the ongoing NRCC Transportation Study. GROVE,GOODHUE,AND BEAVER STREETS INTERSECTION MITIGATION The 2003 NRCC Master Plan proposed construction of a roundabout at this wide open intersection that contains an informal, unmarked, neighborhood parking area. Observations indicate that the intersection often accommodates large truck rigs both in the parking area and adjacent to the outer edge of the Goodhue Street approach to Beaver Street. The TIAS recommends that the parking area be formalized and that signage be added to enforce the one-way end of Goodhue Street. FST's recent NRCC Transportation Planning Study is exploring two options for this intersection, either re- orienting it as a T intersection toward Beaver Street, or as proposed in the 2003 Master Plan, or converting it to a mini-roundabout (see concepts on the page that follows). FAY,SPOFFORD&n THORNDIKE City of Salem Planning Board April 12,2012 Page 11 of 12 r e �.• C Y N t P 4 Potential Mini-roundabout at Goodhue, Potential T intersection at Goodhue, Beaver, Beaver, and Grove Streets with Goodhue and Grove Streets with portion of Goodhue Street remaining one-way, as today Street two-way Either option would add a significant amount of landscaping to the area and either would create potential flood storage capability while creating a pedestrian and bicycle circulation environment far superior to existing observed conditions. While both the options for the Goodhue, Beaver,and Grove Streets intersection illustrated above may make sense from on urban design perspective,they are not required to mitigate traffic increases associated with the Legacy Park Apartments, as this intersection is not problematic from a traffic capacity analysis perspective using the City of Salem's guidelines or standard traffic engineering practices. The Applicant proposes to clarify existing flow patterns at the intersection by adding new signage, markings, and some small channelization islands at the ends of the intersection parking area. From a traffic mitigation perspective, the measures proposed by the Applicant for implementation at this intersection are acceptable as interim safety measures prior to construction of more significant urban design and traffic calming measures,such as those illustrated above. It is important to distinguish between necessary traffic mitigation measures and the vision for the Grove Street corridor between the Goodhue, Beaver, and Grove Streets and Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street intersection. This corridor is not only the focal point of Legacy Park development, but two other developments proposed in the NRCC Area --the 28 Goodhue Street development,and the Goodhue Street edge of the future Flynntan re-development site. As such,the City will need to partner with a wide array of stakeholders along Grove Street in order to implement the gamut of potential Grove Street infrastructure modifications that are more than typical 'traffic mitigation' measures. The broader Grove Street corridor vision has been outlined in FST's Preliminary Recommendations for the North �. FAY,SPOFFORD&s THORNDIIE City of Salem Planning Board April 12, 2012 Page 12 of 12 River Canal Corridor Transportation Study (3/29/12 presentation)that is currently under review and is posted on the City's website. Infrastructure changes well in excess of normal traffic mitigation measures are needed to transform the Goodhue/Grove Street corridor into one that serves all of its users well, including the provision of ADA accessible sidewalks, accommodations for bike users between the site and the MBTA, etc. Transformation is needed to create a Grove Street corridor that serves the circulation needs of all of its neighbors in a manner that will achieve positive and sustainable long-term economic and quality of life expectations. The TIAS was generally well done. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this traffic impacts peer review on behalf of the City of Salem Planning Board and will be available to answer any questions that the Board may have on the peer review findings detailed above. We look forward to presenting the peer review findings cited above at an upcoming meeting. Very truly yours, Fay,Spofford &Thorndike By Gary L. Hebert, PE, PTOE Vice President LG-410H GLH:gh New f ngland B.iamess Lt,rte- Clave Transportation Engineers &Planners A ,ciuvel NIA 1918w 1066 .�ftrr^973 474 3800 Fax 97&588-65f08 Ref: 5977 August 7,2014 Mr. Michael Hubbard MRM Project Management LLC 3 Broadway,3rd Floor PO BOX 388 Beverly, MA 01915 Re: Harmony Grove Apartments Salem, Massachusetts Dear Michael: As requested, Vanasse & Associates, (VAI) has reviewed the proposed Harmony Grove residential project as it relates to a single access and impacts at the proposed intersection changes at Grove Street/ Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street/Goodhue Street. This information is summarized below: Sinele Access Proposal The single access driveway was studied in a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22, 2013. The project traffic generation and site traffic is summarized in Table I and Figures 3 and 4 from the traffic study. Table 1 TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY Apartment Trips Office Trips Time Period/Direction (141 Units)' (t5,000st)° Total Average Weekday Daily: Entering 489 83 572 Exitine 489 83 572 Total 978 166 1,144 Weekday Morning Peak Hour: Entering 15 20 35 Exiting 58 3 61 Total 73 23 96 Weekday Evening Peak Hour: Entering 62 4 66 Exiting 33 18 51 Total 95 22 Ill 'Based on ITE LUC 220,Apartment; 141 units. 'Based on ITE LUC 710,General Office Building; 15,000 sf. W W HARMONY GROVE a ROAD 1 C5 MASON STREET 107 � } r* mem �m OFFICE J DRIVEWAY 2--f t p M SITEJ61 RESIDENTIAL 1 Residential Offlce DRIVEWAY 32� Trips Tripe 267 ^0 In 15 20 Out 56 3 Total 73 23 `� + R #28 GOODHUE STREET 1 R r �\ n O � 2CK O � U 9J C$ N Q BE STREET 1 yG� 5--f IPA w a p^ 3 F2 ww >O O � 1 BOSTON m �? � V STREET w.fes � I rn r �3 J �W U� Vanessa &Associates, Inc. Site Generated Weekday Moming Peak Hour Traffic Volumes r' '' ''"P:�59i)C68'7THi51ewg AMd/4013 10:00:57 nw EDT w w N HARMONY GROVE I` ROAD 1 `9 MASON STREET 20--,l, � Tr RESIDENTIAL n DRIVEWAY OFFICE J DRIVEWAY 10--P T 67 n m SITE N 1 RESIDENTIAL Residential Was Total DRIVEWAY Tripe Trips Trips 157 H In 62 4 66 Out 33 18 51 Total 95 22 117 nn,+ 1 * J28 GOODHUE STREET N O o O O U 75 c0 "1 UO BEAVER STREET a ZG^ 10- °'O Nw >O O U�+ BOSTON STREET w.-. � T N> Q N3 0I =w U� Figure 4 Z� Venesse 6 Associates, Inc. Site Generated Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes W\5077�5i7V(4idb'16/10FI'2013 10.05:43 W EDT 1 Mr. Michael Hubbard August 7, 2014 Page 2 of 2 i As can be seen in Table 1, the project is expected to generate approximately 1,144 vehicle trips on an average weekday (572 entering and 572 exiting), with approximately 96 vehicle trips (35 entering and 61 exiting) during the weekday morning peak hour and It 7 vehicle trips (66 entering and 51 exiting) during the weekday evening peak hour. As documented in the memorandum, the site driveways (residential and office) intersections with Grove Street are expected to operate at LOS B during the peak hours indicating very good operating conditions. Area Improvements Improvements are proposed along Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road and Goodhue Street to better define traffic flow and improve safety conditions. These improvements are depicted on the attached Figure. The Grove Street/Goodhue Street intersection was recently studied as part of the proposed Medical Office Building located at 70—92% Boston Street. This study contemplated the proposed improvements, as well as the Harmony Grove Project in place. The traffic study conducted by FST concluded that LOS A operation can be maintained including the proposed Harmony Grove Project. At the Grove Street intersection with Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street, it is proposed to create two separate unsignalized "T"-type intersections. The Harmony Grove Project will add in the order of one vehicle every minute to these intersections and sufficient capacity exists to accommodate these increases. I trust this information is helpful. Very truly yours, VA E ASSOC TES, INC. Giles Ham, P.E. Managing Principal FGH/mef Attachment cc: R. Griffin—Griffin Engineering Group, LLC J. Correnti, Esquire - Serafini, Serafini, Darling&Correnti Gi5W7 SW .,MA1 melt W Hubbud 080714,doc �' y r � 4 's cox Olt szv �rz ev\\� , Gt( �4� � • 1 t t+l Ylm `"mss'. . •I�,q:..at•�' •�s..�- - , '8'L�"F.n.v..F-} ..,s!/�'a.—` 'T:. �; .tie., _..t• , , e=:-,:..t�=- _ ' ., • �„��, _�• : fie. _ " ._,.� _ � �_ —. _ .� .. � 4 Ok'drt8& ASSOCIBIB$'�i II1C " Fveov F ny6vid t3,ramess Gert::: UnvF 3x.•`. me 311 'TranspertatiOn Engineers & Planners A ,doves MA 0 18 10 '066 tl ,re 978 4'4 8800 F 4x 978 388 6,1)08 Ref: 5977 August 7,2014 Mr. Michael Hubbard MRM Project Management LLC 3 Broadway, 3rd Floor PO BOX 388 Beverly,MA 01915 Re: Harmony Grove Apartments Salem, Massachusetts Dear Michael: As requested, Vanasse & Associates, (VAI) has reviewed the proposed Harmony Grove residential project as it relates to a single access and impacts at the proposed intersection changes at Grove Street/ Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street/Goodhue Street. This information is summarized below: Sinale Access Proposal The single access driveway was studied in a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22, 2013. The project traffic generation and site traffic is summarized in Table I and Figures 3 and 4 from the traffic study. Table 1 TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY Apartment Trips Office Trips Time Period/Direction (141 Units)' (15,000 sf)' Total Average Weekday Daily: Entering 489 83 572 Exiting 489 83 572 Total 978 166 1,144 Weekday Morning Peak Hour: Entering 15 20 35 Exiting 58 3 61 Total 73 23 96 Weekday Evening Peak Hour: Entering 62 4 66 Exiting 33 18 51 Total 95 22 117 'Based on ITE LUC 220,Apartment; 141 units. 'Based on ITE LUC 710,General Office Building; 15,000 s£ . i w w N HARMONY GROVE ROAD `ff5 MASON STREET # I 0� � Two, �0 OFFICE 1 ORI VEWAY 2--t 11 t7 a n SITE RESIDENTIAL Residential Office Total DRIVEWAY 32-..+ t Trips Trips Tripe 26'7 n m In 15 2035 Out 58 3 61 n Total 73 23 96 N R J26 GOODHUE STREET w O �' ZF V 9� J �o ^ o0 BEAVER STREET ~ 1 yt- 5� \moi s N l w wz > O O BOSTON m STREET wf� � I N>- N3 Ji �W UZ Z O Vanessa 6 Assoc/ales, Inc. Site Generated Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes °§!N 77�&97SHisierq�do{101/9013 10:00:57 AM EDT w N i HARMONY GROVE ROAD 1 `9 MASON STREET 207 r r �aam RESIDENTIAL n DRIVEWAY OFFICE DRIVEWAY N j SITE RESIDENTIAL Resldentiol Office Total DRIVEWAY 18� 1 r Tripe Trips Trips 15-4 N'n In 62 4 66 Out 37 18 51 Total 95 22 117 N * #28 GOODHUE STREET 0 O o V a- - 1 BEAVER STREET 1 2 G� 10� �O I � N w >O O 1 V BOSTON � 4 STREET t- w.-. � r N�- N 3 O I =w V� Z� Figure 4 Vanessa &Associates, Inc. Site Generated Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes p —° "W.\%77) 6601dt6.V b?1(A0F/2a1] 10:05:43 AM WT 4 Mr. Michael Hubbard August 7, 2014 Page 2 of 2 I As can be seen in Table 1, the project is expected to generate approximately 1,144 vehicle trips on an average weekday (572 entering and 572 exiting), with approximately 96 vehicle trips (35 entering and 61 exiting) during the weekday morning peak hour and 117 vehicle trips (66 entering and 51 exiting) during the weekday evening peak hour. As documented in the memorandum, the site driveways (residential and office) intersections with Grove Street are expected to operate at LOS B during the peak hours indicating very good operating conditions. Area Improvements Improvements are proposed along Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road and Goodhue Street to better define traffic flow and improve safety conditions. These improvements are depicted on the attached Figure. The Grove Street/Goodhue Street intersection was recently studied as part of the proposed Medical Office Building located at 70—92'h Boston Street. This study contemplated the proposed improvements,as well as the Harmony Grove Project in place. The traffic study conducted by FST concluded that LOS A operation can be maintained including the proposed Harmony Grove Project. At the Grove Street intersection with Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street, it is proposed to create two separate unsignalized "T"-type intersections. The Harmony Grove Project will add in the order of one vehicle every minute to these intersections and sufficient capacity exists to accommodate these increases. I trust this information is helpful. Very truly yours, VA E ASSOC TES, INC. Giles Ham, P.E. Managing Principal FGH/mef Attachment cc: R. Griffin—Griffin Engineering Group, LLC J. Correnti, Esquire- Serafini, Serafini, Darling&Correnti G\5971 Salem,MATT mW HubbW 080714.docx Al ..cam.: . .•. � /�;ytw .._ v ., � \�,,, y ` i• � ru[ne+w _ ' M � ,_ j' . _ j ��1�1i�8 :f71i1li':5i -�y;.-,��°4jI3;�* ^ISA-t �,.�" } • . y •" __ ,., .: SLLVER a Y "r-.:._A! `�-- .�•n.— =.,..—ar':�"' t :i" �.1. ,,�" i. � � � I •� C � i It� � `.j � 1 ,rte. yy,,,_,,,��.,,�, 1. � • aopA "'^iass. 'd..�fi�. •Sss./!.i'A'17��C�r�l1�'. '. P. ,'jaw.-'�7V1[s•r"`T' 1P "''". — . •I !A � Yl7�k, s"���-�,-�-j,• ��n� r'� �,.�..�_ '_ Tom. ,..•w... .o ` 0 81tS 6 .4SSOG 8 BS . IIQ. 10 New England Business Center Drive Transportation Engineers &Planners suite 314 Andover, MA 018101066 Office 978 474-8800 Fax 978-088-6508 Ref: 5977 August 7,2014 Mr.Michael Hubbard MRM Project Management LLC 3 Broadway, 3rd Floor PO BOX 388 Beverly,MA 01915 Re: Harmony Grove Apartments Salem,Massachusetts Dear Michael: As requested, Vanasse & Associates, (VAI) has reviewed the proposed Harmony Grove residential project as it relates to a single access and impacts at the proposed intersection changes at Grove Street/ Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street/Goodhue Street. This information is summarized below: Sinele Access Proposal The single access driveway was studied in a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22, 2013. The project traffic generation and site traffic is summarized in Table 1 and Figures 3 and 4 from the traffic study. Table 1 TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY Apartment Trips Office Trips Time Period/Direction (141 Units)' (15,000 sf)" Total Average Weekday Daily: Entering 489 83 572 Exitine 489 83 572 Total 978 166 1,144 Weekday Morning Peak How: Entering 15 20 35 Exiting 58 3 61 Total 73 23 96 Weekday Evening Peak Hour: Entering 62 4 66 Exiting 33 18 51 Total 95 22 117 'Based on ITE LUC 220,Apartment; 141 units. 'Based on ITE LUC 710,General Office Building; 15,000 sf. w w HARMONY GROVE a ROAD 1 `5 MASON STREET 0� 4) Ir mmm m OFFICE DRIVEWAY 2-..f *i t I- ° n m� LOfflceRESIDENTIAL Resal DRIVEWAY 32� T s 26'Z nm In 5Out 1n Totalj1 1 ♦ J/28 GOODHUE STREET 1 t n O 2� U qy J oa BEAVER STREET ~ 1 yG*R 5.! J` w¢ Pt^ N I w >o 01 BOSTON m J4 STREET w }� Figure 3 I �n> a J� of =W V� 2� Vanessa & Assoc/etas, Inc. Site Generated Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 71*\sy77@697`riii5:n.q::nojnvFAom 1¢00.57 AM esr w w HARMONY GROVE ^ ROAD 1 r-9 MASON STREET 20-�, � � r mem RESIDENTIAL n DRIVEWAY OFFICE 1 DRIVEWAY 10- I 87 nm SITEJ51 RESIDENTIAL J 1 Residential Office DRIVEWAY 18' Trips Trlps 157 r In 62 4 Out 33 18 Total 95 22 N 1 R ,¢28 GOODHUE STREET N O o O �F O �y U 9J c° BEAVER STREET ~ 1 yGc^ 101 �O f w¢ P^ � 3 y I w z >O O �v BOSTON J4 STREET f- w � I t- rn� rn 3 I ow UZ Z� Vanessa 6 Associates, Inc. Site Generated I Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes \ssn�asii:ftbu:9' 11CF11013 MON43 AM EDT Mr. Michael Hubbard August 7, 2014 Page 2 of 2 As can be seen in Table 1, the project is expected to generate approximately 1,144 vehicle trips on an average weekday (572 entering and 572 exiting), with approximately 96 vehicle trips (35 entering and 61 exiting) during the weekday morning peak hour and 117 vehicle trips (66 entering and 51 exiting) during the weekday evening peak hour. As documented in the memorandum, the site driveways (residential and office) intersections with Grove Street are expected to operate at LOS B during the peak hours indicating very good operating conditions. Area Improvements Improvements are proposed along Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road and Goodhue Street to better define traffic flow and improve safety conditions. These improvements are depicted on the attached Figure. The Grove Street/Goodhue Street intersection was recently studied as part of the proposed Medical Office Building located at 70—92% Boston Street. This study contemplated the proposed improvements,as well as the Harmony Grove Project in place. The traffic study conducted by FST concluded that LOS A operation can be maintained including the proposed Harmony Grove Project. At the Grove Street intersection with Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street, it is proposed to create two separate unsignalized "T"-type intersections. The Harmony Grove Project will add in the order of one vehicle every minute to these intersections and sufficient capacity exists to accommodate these increases. I trust this information is helpful. Very truly yours, VA E ASSOC TES, INC. F. Giles Ham, P.E. Managing Principal FGH/mef Attachment cc: R. Griffin—Griffin Engineering Group, LLC J. Correnti, Esquire- Serafini, Serafini, Darling&Correnti G\59]7 Salem,MAV.e0 W Hubbard 080714,d.. �� r - c PA RO ` r Y :;'relld—�_-~ill SIVER `-t m 0` �■ CY [ - F .. —. .m[-i•?•.. .W�a.ar9eJ1.�,,..I�r- - ^t,�te�'.a+�'- -:. a. - - -_ .2[. ..« , -;<-',�.tjr� _ _ - • 10 New England nd Business Center Drive AA1 � 8►t$ $ Br SBOC @�88�t7C� 9• Transportation Engineers&Planners Suite 3i, Andover, MA 01810-1066 Office 978 474-8800 Fax 978-688-6508 Ref: 5977 August 7,2014 Mr.Michael Hubbard MRM Project Management LLC 3 Broadway, 3rd Floor PO BOX 388 Beverly,MA 01915 Re: Harmony Grove Apartments Salem,Massachusetts Dear Michael: As requested, Vanasse & Associates, (VAI) has reviewed the proposed Harmony Grove residential project as it relates to a single access and impacts at the proposed intersection changes at Grove Street/ Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street/Goodhue Street. This information is summarized below: Single Access Proposal The single access driveway was studied in a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22, 2013. The project traffic generation and site traffic is summarized in Table I and Figures 3 and 4 from the traffic study. Table 1 TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY Apartment Trips Office Trips Time Period/Direction (141 Units)' (15,000 SW Total Average Weekday Daily: Entering 489 83 572 Exitine 489 83 572 Total 978 166 1,144 Weekday Morning Peak Hour: Entering 15 20 35 Exitine 58 3 61 Total 73 23 96 Weekday Evening Peak Hour; Entering 62 4 66 Exiting 33 18 51 Total 95 22 117 'Based on ITE LUC 220,Apartment; 141 units. 'Based on ITE LUC 710,General Office Building; 15,000 A w w F- HARMONY GROVE < ROAD 1 J-}5. MASON STREET mmrn OFFICE J DRIVEWAY T7 m n SITE RESIDENTIAL + } Residential Office Total DRIVEWAY 32--+ 4 Trips Trips Trips 26-�F ^O1 In 15 20 35 Out 56 3 61 r Total 73 23 96. + t #26 GOODHUE STREET j: of O �. yF 9/. J BEAVER STREET n c� s N I w >o of BOSTON rn j STREET' F w,. w • �r ' J3 ow =2 V� Figure 3 Z� yVanasse &Assoelates, Ifi Site Generated �iransp l,t iqi- r iftulneer,& Pik owr* Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes e s"Y,-a»��,.NssnFdu39Ni5:U:y 1116il6/Po1s 1aoo,n Au epT Cup1riot©2011 by VAI. All RIOhu Rwm. C ayl tt,v 1 .. !A P"" _i c01�. y.4 +r a. lk � y,T..-�.�- � •"�zd4�it:���iLL1 _ ..�.+: ij1::y- ,�._.�-�ry' \ �\ �� 1' o i •�' �i.. 1 rf 5+ 1k w w HARMONY GROVE ^ ROAD 1 `g MASON STREET 20--�, -) 1r RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY OFFICE 1 DRIVEWAY .tOs *1 I 87 nm J m SITE RESIDENTIAL 1 } Residential Offlce Total ORIVEWAY 18� Tripe Trips Trips 157 n ro In 62 4 66 Out 33 18 51 n To of � 5 22 777 N 1 #28 GOODHUE STREET F 0 0 o � o00 BEAVER STREET n 10-1 'Np N w¢ � 3 �.e N W WZ ?O O I Of BOSTON ^ 4 STREET w� wt rn.> N 9 O 1 =w U� Figure 4 j Vanasse'&;4ssgciates, Ma Site Generated ��rurs�sertaiinrl f)j1filk)Vf3g6PlAnI101I Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes �'-1`'"'`4�"" �SflT�eg']lrRd$wa?10'{10/4013 10:09:13 A4 EDT Cep,lyet Q 2011 by VAI. Ae Rights Remmd. Mr.Michael Hubbard August 7, 2014 Page 2 of 2 As can be seen in Table 1, the project is expected to generate approximately 1,144 vehicle trips on an average weekday (572 entering and 572 exiting), with approximately 96 vehicle trips (35 entering and 61 exiting) during the weekday morning peak hour and 117 vehicle trips (66 entering and 51 exiting) during the weekday evening peak hour. As documented in the memorandum, the site driveways (residential and office) intersections with Grove Street are expected to operate at LOS B during the peak hours indicating very good operating conditions. Area Improvements Improvements are proposed along Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road and Goodhue Street to better define traffic flow and improve safety conditions. These improvements are depicted on the attached Figure. The Grove Street/Goodhue Street intersection was recently studied as part of the proposed Medical Office Building located at 70—92%2 Boston Street. This study contemplated the proposed improvements,as well as the Harmony Grove Project in place. The traffic study conducted by FST concluded that LOS A operation can be maintained including the proposed Harmony Grove Project. At the Grove Street intersection with Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street, it is proposed to create two separate unsignalized "T"-type intersections. The Harmony Grove Project will add in the order of one vehicle every minute to these intersections and sufficient capacity exists to accommodate these increases. I trust this information is helpful. Very truly yours, VA' EASSOC TES INC. Giles Ham, P.E. Managing Principal FGH/mef Attachment cc: R. Griffin—Griffin Engineering Group, LLC J.Correnti, Esquire- Serafini, Serafini, Darling&Correnti W5977 Seem,MALL euemW,Hubbard 080714.daa AA' ST October 15,2014 � ; Mr. David Knowlton P.E., City Engineer City of Salem Engineering Department City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street,4th Floor Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Subject: Task Order No. 23 of MSA 0-37 (B) — Traffic Peer Review of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development (formerly Salem Oil and Grease) Dear David: FAY, SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE, LLC (FST) is pleased to submit the attached Task Order No. 23 in connection with FST's Master Services Agreement (MSA) 0-37 (B). Task Order No. 23 Scope of Services involves a Peer Review of the Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development (formerly Salem Oil and Grease). Site Plans and a Traffic Impact and Access Study for the project were originally submitted in December 2011. FST completed a Traffic Impact Peer Review on April 12,2012. The original project included two full access driveways, one on Harmony Grove Road and one on Grove Street. The developer is currently investigating submitting a request for an amendment to their original Planning Board approvals. The potential modification to the site plan involves the elimination of the Harmon Grove site driveway, so that all traffic must access the site via Grove Street. This task involves a Traffic Peer Review of the changes to the current proposal. For Task Order No. 23, we propose a not to exceed fee of $4,800, as detailed in the attached Task Order No. 23 Agreement for review. Please feel free to contact me at 781-221-1221 if you need any further information or scope changes to the attached tentative Scope of Services. Very truly yours, Ft , ,�SPOFFORD &TgOR DIKE By S . . Richard A. Azzalina, P.E. J Vice President RAA:atc: LG423 Task Order#20 s Burlington,on FAY, SPOFFORD &r THORNDIKE Burlington,MA 01803 T:800.831.8666 Offices in:Massachusetts,New Hampshire,Maine,Connecticut and New York T:781.221.1000 F:781.229.1115 www.fstinc.com - TASK ORDER NO.23 TO MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT 0-37(B) BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR MASTER SERVICES (NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE SERVICES) This is Task Order No. 23 attached to and made part of the Master Services Agreement 0-37 (B) dated April 10h, 2013 between Fay, Spofford & Thomdike, LLC (FST), 5 Burlington Woods, Burlington, MA 01803 (ENGINEER) and the City of Salem (City), 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970 (OWNER). This Task Order No.20 describes the Scope of Services, Time Schedule, Charges, and Payment Conditions for the Task Order known as: Traffic Peer Review of Grove Street(Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development PROJECT OBJECTIVE The purpose of Task Order No. 23 is to provide a Traffic Peer Review of the Harmony Grove Residential Project. This project has previously been reviewed and approved by the Salem Planning Board. The project is investigating modifications to the site access that would result in the elimination of the Harmony Grove Site driveway. The August 7, 2014 letter from Vanasse and Associates (VAI) regarding the project change references a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22, 2013. We are not in receipt of the October 22, 2013 memorandum. FST will need to acquire this memorandum from the City or VAI to complete our review. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Review Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Develooemtn Change in Access FST has previously reviewed the proposed project in April 12,2012 for completeness and adherence to Traffic Impact Study guidelines and design standards. Therefore, for this part of the review, FST will focus on changes in the project that will impact the adjacent roadways and intersections. We anticipate focusing on the following areas. • Grove Street Driveway — The new project will concentrate all of the site related traffic on this driveway and the intersection with Grove Street. • Grove Street/Harmony Grove Street/Mason Street intersection—With the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road driveway, a higher percentage of the project related traffic will travel through this intersection, potentially impacting the operations at this location. • Mitigation — In our original memorandum, FST recommended mitigation at the intersections of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road/ Mason Street intersection and the Grove Street/Beaver Street/ Goodhue Street intersection. These intersections are included in the Grove Street improvement project currently being undertaken by the City. FST will identify potential project related mitigation. i 2.0 Proiect(Client Meetings FST will attend one (1) public meeting with the City to discuss the results of the Peer Review. PERIOD OF SERVICE Work on this portion of Task Order No. 23 shall commence upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed (NTP)via e-mail or letter. The above tasks will be completed within two weeks of a Notice to Proceed. BUDGET Task Order No. 23 Hours Estimate Staff Rote Hours Rick Azzalina Project Manager 4 Gary Hebert Project Advisor 6 Alan Cloutier Senior Engineer—Traffic 24 The total Not-to-Exceed Task Order No. 23 project budget cost is $4,800 which includes approximately 34 hours of engineering labor at 0-37 (B) Contract rates plus Direct Expenses in the amount of$100, which include travel expenses. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The terms and conditions of the Agreement referred to above shall apply to this Task Order except to the extent expressly modified herein. In the event of any such modification, the modification shall be set forth below and the Article of the Agreement to be modified shall be specifically referenced. Terms or Provisions in Conflict; If the provisions set forth in the Agreement are in conflict with the provisions set forth in this Task Order, the provisions of this Task Order shall govern. Acceptance of the terms of this Task Order No. 23 is acknowledged by the following authorized signatures of the parties to the Master Services Agreement 0-37(B): ' FAY,SPOFFORD &rTH RNDIKE, LLC CITY OF SALEM B : Authorized Signature Kimberley Driscoll it Richard A. Azzalina, PE Vice President Mayor Authorized Officer (Print Name) Sarah to n F' z cc Director n Goonin D can, AICP rector P)lanning�&Community Development av d�4 lton, PE. City Engineer 'Wx-, /d---\ Whitney Haskell Purchasing Agent A r ved as to form Eliza Renard, Esq, City Solicitor TASK ORDER MADE AS OF: Date: Funding Source: Object: 2573 Ore. 71.�— Looy00.s-- i YST October 15 2014Zr 18 Mr. David Knowlton P.E., City Engineer City of Salem Engineering Department City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street,4th Floor Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Subject: Task Order No. 23 of MSA 0-37 (B) — Traffic Peer Review of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development (formerly Salem Oil and Grease) Dear David: FAY, SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE, LLC (FST) is pleased to submit the attached Task Order No. 23 in connection with FST's Master Services Agreement(MSA) 0-37 (B). Task Order No. 23 Scope of Services involves a Peer Review of the Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development (formerly Salem Oil and Grease). Site Plans and a Traffic Impact and Access Study for the project were originally submitted in December 2011. FST completed a Traffic Impact Peer Review on April 12,2012. The original project included two full access driveways, one on Harmony Grove Road and one on Grove Street. The developer is currently investigating submitting a request for an amendment to their original Planning Board approvals. The potential modification to the site plan involves the elimination of the Harmon Grove site driveway, so that all traffic must access the site via Grove Street. This task involves a Traffic Peer Review of the changes to the current proposal. For Task Order No. 23, we propose a not to exceed fee of$4,800, as detailed in the attached Task Order No. 23 Agreement for review. Please feel free to contact me at 781-221-1221 if you need any further information or scope changes to the attached tentative Scope of Services. Very truly yours, F ',SPOFFORD &T O DIKE B , Richard A. Azzalina,P.E. Vice President RAA:atc: LG-423 Task Order#20 5 Burlington, MA 18 FAY, SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE Burlington,MA 01803 T:800.835.8666 Offices in:Massachusetts,New Hampshire,Maine,Connecticut and New York T:781.221.1000 - F:761.229.1115 www.fstinc.com TASK ORDER NO. 23 TO MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT 0-37(B) BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR MASTER SERVICES (NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE SERVICES) This is Task Order No. 23 attached to and made part of the Master Services Agreement 0-37(B) dated April 16a', 2013 between Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, LLC (FST), 5 Burlington Woods, Burlington, MA 01803 (ENGINEER) and the City of Salem (City), 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970 (OWNER). This Task Order No.20 describes the Scope of Services, Time Schedule, Charges, and Payment Conditions for the Task Order known as: Traffic Peer Review of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development PROJECT OBJECTIVE The purpose of Task Order No. 23 is to provide a Traffic Peer Review of the Harmony Grove Residential Project. This project has previously been reviewed and approved by the Salem Planning Board. The project is investigating modifications to the site access that would result in the elimination of the Harmony Grove Site driveway. The August 7, 2014 letter from Vanasse and Associates (VAI) regarding the project change references a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22, 2013. We are not in receipt of the October 22, 2013 memorandum. FST will need to acquire this memorandum from the City or VAI to complete our review. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Review Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Develooemtu Change in Access FST has previously reviewed the proposed project in April 12,2012 for completeness and adherence to Traffic Impact Study guidelines and design standards. Therefore, for this part of the review, FST will focus on changes in the project that will impact the adjacent roadways and intersections. We anticipate focusing on the following areas. • Grove Street Driveway — The new project will concentrate all of the site related traffic on this driveway and the intersection with Grove Street. • Grove Street/Harmony Grove Street/Mason Street intersection—With the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road driveway, a higher percentage of the project related traffic will travel through this intersection, potentially impacting the operations at this location. • Mitigation — In our original memorandum, FST recommended mitigation at the intersections of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road/ Mason Street intersection and the Grove Street/Beaver Street/ Goodhue Street intersection. These intersections are included in the Grove Street improvement project currently being undertaken by the City. FST will identify potential project related mitigation. 2.0 Proiect/CHent Meetings FST will attend one (1) public meeting with the City to discuss the results of the Peer Review. PERIOD OF SERVICE Work on this portion of Task Order No. 23 shall commence upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed (NTP)via e-mail or letter. The above tasks will be completed within two weeks of a Notice to Proceed. BUDGET Task Order No. 23 Hours Estimate staff Role Hours Rick Azzalina Project Manager 4 Gary Hebert Project Advisor 6 Alan Cloutier Senior Engineer—Traffic 24 The total Not-to-Exceed Task Order No. 23 project budget cost is $4,800 which includes approximately 34 hours of engineering labor at 0-37 (B) Contract rates plus Direct Expenses in the amount of$100, which include travel expenses. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The terms and conditions of the Agreement referred to above shall apply to this Task Order except to the extent expressly modified herein. In the event of any such modification, the modification shall be set forth below and the Article of the Agreement to be modified shall be specifically referenced. Terms or Provisions in Conflict; If the provisions set forth in the Agreement are in conflict with the provisions set forth in this Task Order, the provisions of this Task Order shall govern. Acceptance of the terms of this Task Order No. 23 is acknowledged by the following authorized signatures of the parties to the Master Services Agreement 0-37 (B): FAY, SPOFFORD& TH RNDIKE, LLC CITY OF SALEM C B Authorized Signature Kimberley Driscoll Mayor Richard A. Azzalina,PE Vice President Authorized Officer (Print Name) Sarah n ice Director n konin Duncan,AICP ecto Planning& Community Development David H. Knowlton, PE. City Engineer -w /q-- Whitney e-Whitney Haskell Purchasing Agent Ap ov 7ast orm by: i Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor TASK ORDER MADE AS OF: Date: Funding Source: Object: 2 y'7 3 Ora, s-7/3 200y0os— r FSTtOctober 15, 2014 Mr. David Knowlton P.E., City Engineer City of Salem Engineering Department City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street,4th Floor Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Subject: Task Order No. 23 of MSA 0-37 (B) — Traffic Peer Review of Grove Street(Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development (formerly Salem Oil and Grease) Dear David: FAY, SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE, LLC (FST) is pleased to submit the attached Task Order No. 23 in connection with FST's Master Services Agreement (MSA) 0-37 (B). Task Order No. 23 Scope of Services involves a Peer Review of the Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development (formerly Salem Oil and Grease). Site Plans and a Traffic Impact and Access Study for the project were originally submitted in December 2011. FST completed a Traffic Impact Peer Review on April 12,2012. The original project included two full access driveways, one on Harmony Grove Road and one on Grove Street. The developer is currently investigating submitting a request for an amendment to their original Planning Board approvals. The potential modification to the site plan involves the elimination of the Harmon Grove site driveway, so that all traffic must access the site via Grove Street. This task involves a Traffic Peer Review of the changes to the current proposal. For Task Order No. 23, we propose a not to exceed fee of$4,800, as detailed in the attached Task Order No. 23 Agreement for review. Please feel free to contact me at 781-221-1221 if you need any further information or scope changes to the attached tentative Scope of Services. Very truly yours, F SPOFFORD &T O DIKE B� Richard A. Azzalina, P.E. Vice President RAA:atc: LG-423 Task Order 420 B dingo n,MA 018 FAY, SPOFFORD &t THORNDIKE Burlington,MA 01803 T:800.835.8666 Offices in:Massachusetts,New Hampshire,Maine,Connecticut and New York T:781.22 1.1000 F:781.229.1115 www.fstinccom - TASK ORDER NO. 23 TO MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT 0-37(B) BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR MASTER SERVICES (NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE SERVICES) This is Task Order No. 23 attached to and made part of the Master Services Agreement 0-37 (B) dated April 16", 2013 between Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, LLC (FST), 5 Burlington Woods, Burlington, MA 01803 (ENGINEER) and the City of Salem (City), 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970 (OWNER). This Task Order No.20 describes the Scope of Services, Time Schedule, Charges, and Payment Conditions for the Task Order known as: Traffic Peer Review of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development PROJECT OBJECTIVE The purpose of Task Order No. 23 is to provide a Traffic Peer Review of the Harmony Grove Residential Project. This project has previously been reviewed and approved by the Salem Planning Board. The project is investigating modifications to the site access that would result in the elimination of the Harmony Grove Site driveway. The August 7, 2014 letter from Vanasse and Associates (VAI) regarding the project change references a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22, 2013. We are not in receipt of the October 22, 2013 memorandum. FST will need to acquire this memorandum from the City or VAI to complete our review, SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Review Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Develooemtn Change in Access FST has previously reviewed the proposed project in April 12, 2012 for completeness and adherence to Traffic Impact Study guidelines and design standards. Therefore, for this part of the review, FST will focus on changes in the project that will impact the adjacent roadways and intersections. We anticipate focusing on the following areas. • Grove Street Driveway— The new project will concentrate all of the site related traffic on this driveway and the intersection with Grove Street. • Grove Street/Harmony Grove Street/Mason Street intersection—With the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road driveway, a higher percentage of the project related traffic will travel through this intersection, potentially impacting the operations at this location. • Mitigation — In our original memorandum, FST recommended mitigation at the intersections of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road/ Mason Street intersection and the Grove Street/Beaver Street/ Goodhue Street intersection. These intersections are included in the Grove Street improvement project currently being undertaken by the City. FST will identify potential project related mitigation. 2.0 Proiect/Client Meetings FST will attend one (1) public meeting with the City to discuss the results of the Peer Review. PERIOD OF SERVICE Work on this portion of Task Order No. 23 shall commence upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed (NTP)via e-mail or letter. The above tasks will be completed within two weeks of a Notice to Proceed. BUDGET Task Order No. 23 Hours Estimate Staff Role Hours Rick Azzalina Project Manager 4 Gary Hebert Project Advisor 6 Alan Cloutier Senior Engineer—Traffic 24 The total Not-to-Exceed Task Order No. 23 project budget cost is $4,800 which includes approximately 34 hours of engineering labor at 0-37 (B) Contract rates plus Direct Expenses in the amount of$100, which include travel expenses. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The terms and conditions of the Agreement referred to above shall apply to this Task Order except to the extent expressly modified herein. hi the event of any such modification, the modification shall be set forth below and the Article of the Agreement to be modified shall be specifically referenced. Terms or Provisions in Conflict; If the provisions set forth in the Agreement are in conflict with the provisions set forth in this Task Order, the provisions of this Task Order shall govern. Acceptance of the terms of this Task Order No. 23 is acknowledged by the following authorized signatures of the parties to the Master Services Agreement 0-37(B): FAY, SPOFFORD& TH RNDIKE, LLC CITY OF SALEM B : � L C�A Authorized Signature Kimberley scoll � Mayo Richard A. Azzalina, PE Vice President Authorized Officer (Print Name) Sarah S n F' cc irect r n Goonin uncan,AICP Director Planning/& Community Development vid H. Kn wlton, PE. City Engineer 'ti✓,e� I c� Whitney Haskell Purchasing Agent Ap ro as too by: Elizabeth Renard, Esq., City Solicitor TASK ORDER MADE AS OF: Date: Funding Source: Obiect: 7,157-3 Ore. .S 7/3 2 06 '�°pS" FS _ October 15,2014ltldYy R � Mr. David Knowlton P.E., City Engineer City of Salem Engineering Department City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street,4th Floor Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Subject: Task Order No. 23 of MSA 0-37 (B) — Traffic Peer Review of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development (formerly Salem Oil and Grease) Dear David: FAY, SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE, LLC (FST) is pleased to submit the attached Task Order No. 23 in connection with FST's Master Services Agreement (MSA) 0-37 (B). Task Order No. 23 Scope of Services involves a Peer Review of the Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development (formerly Salem Oil and Grease). Site Plans and a Traffic Impact and Access Study for the project were originally submitted in December 2011. FST completed a Traffic Impact Peer Review on April 12,2012. The original project included two full access driveways, one on Harmony Grove Road and one on Grove Street. The developer is currently investigating submitting a request for an amendment to their original Planning Board approvals. The potential modification to the site plan involves the elimination of the Harmon Grove site driveway, so that all traffic must access the site via Grove Street. This task involves a Traffic Peer Review of the changes to the current proposal. For Task Order No. 23, we propose a not to exceed fee of$4,800, as detailed in the attached Task Order No. 23 Agreement for review. Please feel free to contact me at 781-221-1221 if you need any further information or scope changes to the attached tentative Scope of Services. Very truly yours, F7i';,SPOFFORD &T OR DIKE g Richard A. Azzalina, P.E. Vice President RAA:atc: LG-423 Task Order#20 mw.remmv�m:awu,w:uvnm,u.wa,�u,muncsaroouac:mmn®�aaemunc u:a.xaummwmono�emuvu.M..amm �:u:r�.i...ocs Nn,�...nnwwawmoe,u—.,ww:.:u::�.:,:. SBungton, A018WoodFAY, SPOFFORD &t THORNDIKE Burlington,MA 01803 T:800.835.8666 Offices in:Massachusetts,New Hampshire,Maine,Connecticut and New York T:781.221.1000 F:781.229.1115 www.fstinc.com M1 � TASK ORDER NO.23 TO MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT 0-37(B) BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR MASTER SERVICES (NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE SERVICES) This is Task Order No. 23 attached to and made part of the Master Services Agreement 0-37 (B) dated April 16`x', 2013 between Fay, Spofford & Thomdike, LLC (FST), 5 Burlington Woods, Burlington, MA 01803 (ENGINEER) and the City of Salem (City), 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970 (OWNER). This Task Order No.20 describes the Scope of Services, Time Schedule, Charges, and Payment Conditions for the Task Order known as: Traffic Peer Review of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Development PROJECT OBJECTIVE The purpose of Task Order No. 23 is to provide a Traffic Peer Review of the Harmony Grove Residential Project. This project has previously been reviewed and approved by the Salem Planning Board. The project is investigating modifications to the site access that would result in the elimination of the Harmony Grove Site driveway. The August 7, 2014 letter from Vanasse and Associates (VAI) regarding the project change references a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22, 2013. We are not in receipt of the October 22, 2013 memorandum. FST will need to acquire this memorandum from the City or VAI to complete our review. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Review Harmony Grove Road Residential and Office Develooemtn Change in Access FST has previously reviewed the proposed project in April 12,2012 for completeness and adherence to Traffic Impact Study guidelines and design standards. Therefore, for this part of the review, FST will focus on changes in the project that will impact the adjacent roadways and intersections. We anticipate focusing on the following areas. • Grove Street Driveway — The new project will concentrate all of the site related traffic on this driveway and the intersection with Grove Street. • Grove Street/Harmony Grove Street/Mason Street intersection—With the elimination of the Harmony Grove Road driveway, a higher percentage of the project related traffic will travel through this intersection, potentially impacting the operations at this location. • Mitigation — In our original memorandum, FST recommended mitigation at the intersections of Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road/ Mason Street intersection and the Grove Street/Beaver Street/ Goodhue Street intersection. These intersections are included in the Grove Street improvement project currently being undertaken by the City. FST will identify potential project related mitigation. 2.0 Projeckfient Meetings FST will attend one (1) public meeting with the City to discuss the results of the Peer Review. PERIOD OF SERVICE Work on this portion of Task Order No. 23 shall commence upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed (NTP)via e-mail or letter. The above tasks will be completed within two weeks of a Notice to Proceed. BUDGET Task Order No. 23 Hours Estimate Staff Role Hours Rick Azzalina Project Manager 4 Gary Hebert Project Advisor 6 Alan Cloutier Senior Engineer—Traffic 24 The total Not-to-Exceed Task Order No. 23 project budget cost is $4,800 which includes approximately 34 hours of engineering labor at 0-37 (B) Contract rates plus Direct Expenses in the amount of$100, which include travel expenses. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The terms and conditions of the Agreement referred to above shall apply to this Task Order except to the extent expressly modified herein. In the event of any such modification, the modification shall be set forth below and the Article of the Agreement to be modified shall be specifically referenced. Terms or Provisions in Conflict; If the provisions set forth in the Agreement are in conflict with the provisions set forth in this Task Order, the provisions of this Task Order shall govern. Acceptance of the terms of this Task Order No. 23 is acknowledged by the following authorized signatures of the parties to the Master Services Agreement 0-37(B): FAY, SPOFFORD& TH RNDIKE,LLC CITY OF SALEM 131 Authorized Signature berley Mcoll Mayor--'Richard A. Azzalina, PE,Vice President Authorized Officer (Print Name) Sarah to n Fin c/eADirec'tor 1� n Goorun Duncan,AICP rector Planning&Community Development a David H.Knowlton,PE. City Engineer --L'i't- ICL, Whitney Haskell Purchasing Agent Approv as rnt by: Eliza6eih Rennard, Esq., City Solicitor TASK ORDER MADE AS OF: Date: 3 Funding Source: Obiect: zy.5- Ore. S?i3 2 0,0 yo05, K&OUPGriffin ,LLC Engineering December 1, 2014 Ms. Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner Dept. of Planning & Community Development 120 Washington Street, 3`d Floor Salem, MA 01970 Subject: Revisions to Approved Site Plans Grove Street Apartments (f.k.a. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road) Dear Ms. Schaeffer: During the November 20th public hearing for the subject project, we were requested to consider modifying the project site plans to reflect comments made that date by Fay Spofford & Thorndike, LLC. Accordingly, we have attached modified project plans, which incorporate the following revisions: 1) To improve sight lines at the Building #1 garage entrance, the retaining wall supporting the sidewalk at the northwest end of the building was relocated to be further away from the entrance. Proposed grades in this vicinity were also modified, and a sign added to alert approaching motorists that vehicles may be exiting the garage. Providing a reduced radius on the access drive, another suggestion of FST, was considered but not adopted due to its potential negative impact on truck access and egress. In our opinion, the retaining wall, grading and signage modifications adequately address the stated concern. 2) FST recommended removing some of the bollards on the shared-use pathway and accenting the pathway with different surface materials. As suggested, the plans now show portions of the pathway to have a concrete or concrete paver surface instead of bituminous concrete. These materials will contrast with the adjacent roadways and driveways, which will be paved with bituminous concrete. Signs have also been added warning motor vehicles to stay off the pathway. The owner would like to reserve the right to install the removable bollards in these locations in the event unauthorized vehicular use of the shared-use pathway becomes problematic. A note has been provided on Sheet C-3 to that effect. Phone 978-927-5111 1 Fax 978-927-5103 1 www.grifflnery&com m,< ;r�495 Cafiot Street .Znd Floor'4 Beverly,MA 01915. j ` µ Ms. Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner Page 2 December 1, 2014 Re: Grove Street Apartments We trust the above is satisfactory. Should you have any questions or comments, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the ? undersigned. i Very truly yours, Griffin Engineering Grop, LLC Robert H. Griffin, P. Enclosure: Updated Site Plans (C-3, C-3A thru 3C, C-4B&C, and C-5B&C) PDF copies also sent by email. Cc (with enclosures): Attorney Joseph Correnti MRM Project Management, LLC D. Knowlton, P.E. —by email Fay Spofford & Thorndike (Attn: A. Cloutier, P.E.) —by email Woodard & Curren (Attn: D. White, P.E.) — by email ii _e. -'404ex-A, ►► �� /� � `i � n.wnPrrP o.�x x�,E /' --� � r'�� crePRxlc scaF.e NJIR Hua ml a.�u, i 'c�\'F•ST BATiRPN CRTAiION xrt mew ,y �`e"a�x Vr u.e✓r r.,_ .vrr 'ir rv-.-.n«n :�".' "..r..w 1. J-17 Tr-- un �_ mw t, G Jam uanz ' u r _ 6 �. I za.az mn. � r_ aw,a .ted A A uxeew� SIL VER _ ______ _ - rPL.Lo 'x� 1 I 1V _ k el ReNarons 71 �'n«,�,qrm inn, .m 9ef u Ix II I i - -- rl�E r x-r aM mmr.0 xons Y � wry � .a I z ••e ffl- )' 2EAVER STREET __ __ zoN�rvc CNFR- 1 _ W xE.,:P, MT WIDII ai LM M�.u �of r xEwxo rwxr.un cRnPtuc scPF.R _ x �-__ !—^�{„ Engmaenrg ''uFi'n�PTMe�_F _ cue,uc 115¢IMa�' Fnmx6�5 —__—___ ___IS P.OBav M1Mf __ rl 1 L�PPMGFL¢S��MIwA lIX�Krtrpx vx 0, xwiri acre _ Ltl GmHdgs0.Ma.SWh RtO x�m ____ _ esmly ru 0lerf x al°aT ua Ixc .11•Ys xuvom'cnorz mw.rs �__� 'RII_M _ {7 y�6xr _J�9�' ryARMONY GROVE ROAC— MRM PROJECT _ - I [ w MANAGEMENT, LLC _ _-_� — _ �------ — � _ --� SALEM MA Wt y R ,T.N AUhI _—_ • �— — _ IOAI _��' TRA _---'_ _ ASSw„rw✓"„r..✓__'_�_ I wx� :I€ SITEPLAN UT P try RI=R(.4NPLCHSETLE___--�- ig3OF RESIpENTµ AC SPE //[r.�— _ PESO[YW xJx PES I p 3 fi uwW oa lumm ml MAP 16 LOT 237 HISTORIC HIGH Q \� + cwwxo w rwuc wn m aE auwlc (60 GROVE STREET) WATER LINE _ _ 26,946 SO.FT. \ \ U W I U W 0.62 ACRES \ \ mol mm _ _ _ _\ _ \\ PROPOSED _. T_._.—._._._. —. —.A _. _. — _. \ INWO CONCRETEEXISTIy AUTHORITY OM TO REMAIN \ CROSSWAVS ATIkH w R.R. TRACKS HHHH ENTRANCE PROPOSED 6' d t PROP. BIKE A``�/G o FENCE ALONG ~ RAM 59.1' \\ GO -113 TRACKS \ n Q (TO REMAIN y �\ WASTING AS COMMERCIAL. STORAGE SPACE) \\ \ AREA EXISTING 4 , 9.6} I NO BUILDING RTy �p�—A _ RIVER _CA/VAL c^AwrE 1 21D-4L BLOCK R `� `r WALL row _ 40.0 PROPOSED - EL. 9.6y ---- e :.nn• 'NO vENILLEY BIT CON_ ` T 4 SIGN —_ &�ME�GEN C. PAr>•l� .6t TONRE PIKE ftSEK \ �r LANE CROSSWALK OwW N ovnwurt cKusxNa caw'. GH (rn F2 122.7 (SEE NOTE. U""l racmav�nT n�6mn w.vwas.. N - P B01 O7 P Ga IIIT1115 SNE cmmm am�caoinw' wn IIIIIIIIII�II aE o N _ a� 0 ED UI s'mDE em"x�'` Ks aVf°r rnoo+'w`n.sla-ml nl I Nrn w/ GA GEL O 3 ® —'� _ � wnarvixcASTaI a..BeNsions SIo ( '(1 iSNO IST C TE INE ` Ix smc cwacre w""ss,wa."s`s •• pp \ qON CitAy \\ C. � - ORBIGAi � az¢ua Px[a[unnc � � C V 30 ... ICROSS DNO AT ENIR C \ \\ WWmi+p Gr.Y,Lub 7NO t 4 STOP 514N {g i PROP. AND STOP E I WALL �IL� FENCE ALL I \�\� MRM PROJECT PROPOSED \ - MANAGEMENT, LLC { 16 LOT 2321 � I #y ROADWAY I h 1 SALEM, MA $ 6 I I I BIT.GONG. PARKING - MAP 16 IMPROVEMENTSBY Cltt MYERS 1 I I y/10 LOT 235 L MAP 16 MAP 16 N/F / ��/ 1 i PAR ING I MAP 16 LOT #6 OT 234 LOT 380 PATDSON ��I� SITE LAYOUT 19 (8i SPICES 233 #6 C$'MGGIN N/F PA DSON SPERIDAKOS _ice_-� _ cRAPxm scnls 1 BEAVER STREET fm C-3A (PUBLIC WAY ^' 30' WIDE) !� �Gi �rw'm In sserMN' A�v.In. •. l (1 HARMONY GROVE RD.) SB/DH \ N / 1 20,909± SO. FT FND & HLD 1 0.48 ACRES \ \ 1 NATH RIVER CANAL _ TIDAL \ —WOOD k METAL \ \ HISTORIC HIGH BRIDGE W/8- PIPE REMEDIA➢IXI AREA \ / WATER LINE CEGB- EL 9.2± (SEE SHEET C-10) Tf UI m MAP 16 LOT 239 \ ml Q S rISF (3 HARMONY GROVE RD.) HISTORIC HIGH EXISTING SHISH UH W2nIILVQW= 35,561 WATER LINE RIDGE Q 0.82 ACRES UH WIV W ABUTMENTS — � PROPOSED MOVABLEi BA�/ FENNCEALONG \ TRANSPORTATION ARD U H _...sc 'NO WHOLES' l If4; 0 •FAtE1 slcns s'woE GONG. c 1 PAVER WARNING . ::.. . ..r:v IrIRIP(SEE NOTE) _ L I mM �':j;*� PROPOSED I PEN sacral 5• OCT REL WALL HANo I B sTo GEA a _�_ 14'� TOW EMERGE NC' pA7}) EL 9'6. I N, CyLANE 4— _ �aeNslone iP TED W/ AR U ER �, I _ 055 LR (4 UNI ) I(TTP .N.D.) PR OSED CO EiE �► W p ED UI (N awG m in6Tu1 R1avEg[ew.nm�s E RA 5 wAL GA AG G X2 nm.s wms cmwele PA.wwlwc U _N snm r uxwlwuan W MLAR Ams TM 2 ? Al. PER UILDI T$ PR OSEO m rm r.Ar� rrP RA z HIS RIC CH rs-r v 1 - _ P mml ) AT LIN - �. I riffin r+yy EnglMfing can uc V - P..., rny,worere 1 �' TN oreazrern # i v ve,A�ea,e 1 ______ _ ____________________ MRM PROJECT ---i— MANAGEMENT. LLC 16. SALEM, MA IMAP{ 16 LOT �� M i 111224 LOT 225 MAP 16 T I CPNLEY I N/F �34NC ER. I IU#32 DN/F2, X28 SHED SHED® I STfP YWT 1 I A/F I — — cRAINKIG SCALE ma m I I i MAP 16 LOT 23 I +LllMAe N/F I ®1• >as.enrm.. C-3B F"qDEMEUUE 1 " Oe4ayAe EXIST. CURB W { I REMOVABLE R PO / s \/ C7`io l�IDEI I/ HISTORIC HIGH ' N 1 Y 50 WATER/LINE �p M�g !gNYd _ - - - - - - N 'SPU SLP j ,� 25' WIDE /' / / / 'NA.TH RIV �S.E.S.D. SEWER ' / / / – –RVPC az METAI / / I i —flRIUC.F. N/A PIPE _ EASEMENL' scN= EL ?.23 ISjR\Gli REPAIR EXIST. \y>_0 irR1Cy / BRIDGE EOR PED./BIKE o USE IE ;SI EP LED BT M' ;SI 0I U I m _ REMEDIATION AREA EXIST. O ~W ~W 1 (SEE SHEET c-10) Z Q 21Q Z _ – MAP 16 LOT 378 RAILROAD n I– – mm l mw — �� T (5 HARMONY GROVE RD.) ---'—'– CROSSING-- 44432} SQ, FT EASEMENT ... –10 – REMOVABLE I vrm 1.02 ACRES 2 BOLLARD BE POSED 6O1O I I swan _ EENCE ALONG R TACKS !44''�*+1 +'++ I�' N TIttTH'HIHI! Cpl CTTS µ!THN+ W (HH �H w ,1 H1 I wN F - - - - MASSACHUS: _ BULK MASH ---- -------MONITORING STORAGE AREA W L'S V.THIN GENCEO "- HANC P (TW OF 4) ENCLOSURERA AI IIII II - .MAP 16 LOT 2161 MATERIAL CEu� ^ \ RE Cs v IP TED N/F ]W TU 1 MO ENT OSS 1 1 N.0) RAYMOND ' (GRASS) 1Oi _ I 1' I(TTP . . � 1 I 1 E ineen em mea I STOP SIGN & _ I STOP BAR (TYP) \ 'l, I r.::ocean<iro MAP 16 LOT 236 MRM PROJECT MAP 16 LOT 217 LL MANAGEMENT, LLC (64 GROVE STREET) SALEM. MA SA RKES T _ 2.4,152 SOFT L $12 ) _ — 5.38 ACRES AU ON: I. •• .•••••••.•. VEHILIES — -_ _ ..• N6 EXITING' SIGN SITE LAYOUT PLAN SILVER L MAP 15 LOT 218___ __ BPD DISTRICT------ I ---_ (PUBLIC WAY FLORES R2 DISTRICT I cRAPwc SCALE m.rm C-3C U� 44. MAR 16 LOT . oase/nAe l 12 VC 12- VC \ V1FALL \ • I PRECACT sT FR R SygE➢uLE OUTFALL \ =5.3dgC`ilII ®mne.Ir�vf NKp�] I I=4.32 erv..ff. liir.i.n �p 1 � � .m Nnl-efo krl \ _ lu4-am lfzl Y IIr)•amli] NO41TH RIVER_ CANAL _ TIDAL �j \ \ \ I =mom °� •D _v ODIC sMN IMETAL BRIDGE M'/8-PIPECON \ I �ff 4r'hfvm(fa] i(ath vR(i1') EF LIMIT OF OLS �CK- EL 9.22 / \ I ryw Fwm(fS) _ DI LIMB OF WORK _DISTURBANCE INGTG C® _---BAN�4� \ IL wrn� �5{n}hffim fe+^1I i(r F•w.w =V I rm BA -� 9AN✓.pH DANKflEXISTNG UwI�Jw /� ,�_—e \\ RIDGE UWIUw Q=1aW // \� ABUTMENTSQ=1aW eMu i7dfhl.0 l _ _ pym �•i Irw".mwnll�.0 J PROP OUTFALL a —�0�® Me Nw pe'�fllzi] m"" 16�e1 ] EROSON CONTROLS k NN E%ISi. pA-'�J \ LIMIT OF WORK/DISTURBANCE MCTVRE #2 TRANSPORTATION I il:u-am<fp ALONG PAN Ll)F1 I m s•v urwlmr ym up eme2 w*n 1 IHIIH IT HIT 1 PF . A'w^'ul umt xa x-avo-gf sr TOP OF 1 C PIPF�IF I COASTAL -f ` 12 • PWC ALL EXISt: I < nS fr. HP p' _ ®_53 \ ,p, \Dyl�2 W FALLS ALONG L _ l feaa, fS• nan %% D �Dj I—Y—O _>�o -.A�. \\ `\•_ ALONG CANAL WALL DMH12A \ 3 \M1�R'_ !! vsn 11. \\ �� 1 _ 1\ ;op M=J� —i- REi. WAt TOW W 1 El 9-8t 'Ir IYr PROPOSED BUILDING X11 Tw=z}. m W/ GARAGE UNDER 1 \ I - m . 2Y' ReNsions 43-UNITS — �- �_ m� f•• 1 1 NV.1},0 mL ' '4 _ _ fxr Ir. Iz 1 123.0 GRG=13.0 1 / Tw=2z PRO OSEO BUIL _ an fc•I, .�I_m I FF=23.0 \ CLEANOUT' GARAGE DI $2 _ (TrPICAL7 o��D3 UN UNDER TW-22.oE�R*70ED rot PgF 1OD o S) - �'�✓Ja zi o'er � _ 0 I ROOF SLOPE D IN =12.0-1 +r X25 \ RL I TO DMHT GRG'72.0 O`® a vV s ' �7k- 16 HP . / ` I Giin c6z 3 enfiz * 1 c1 D�oD—e m. _— — � } \ * a _ I DP r EnBlrreenrg om.Tm } - -- -- -y 22 --Y`� _-- -13- - \ -D X14 1208- * V er•u'M�MAo o,r aer are I L TW=2Z5/ TW=Z80 \ `: TM52B.5 DMH TEEHP .e nem 2081 1 / 'mem'rar'm OR A3-� _ _ _._�, \ �'� - 3 n I MRM PROJECT e 8— _-'_�1S�3U-_' E I 17 - 0 - mus { T�— -yy-------- - 12- T ,e i�- � 1 \ Of ) Wes uopr fermixyrsw¢wuxem MANAGEMENT. LLC i _1_-aY�. 128. urcfw armm umasm°y4°m c°i SALEM. MA a3B is - SHALLOW MAfl 16 LOT M 1 SwaLE MIT OF WO DISTURBANCE _ 1224 LOT 225 MAP 16J� i-a z - r�36" �xwa GRADING DRAINAGE 4 LN/F #34 N/F i 22/1 �2B APPROX. C "SUED SIT __—�- -� .1�m a�T x-f m xmnvw xoffs ulo famm. ER090N coNTROL CUNLEY NC ER APPROX. F LIMIT OF \ M)i OF NARK/ TW=`32.33 y♦ 2Q PLAN 1 I LIMIT OF I PROP,INfIL FlEID %LAVATION- 5 N RSF D FRO E%LAVATION kJ32L'A%..� I WBA_CE Irl 2 NIDE x 9D LCNG FOND�X -� GRAPWC SCALEf,� �I I BTM FIELD- EL 12.5 I BLOCK RETAINING WAL4 BIM CHAMBERS= EL. 13.0 MAP 16 LOT 23 GARDE W/SWALE ALONG iCP JIIbvfm SEE OETAI SHEET C�] C-4B INV. tDET LSH ET C-7) N/F I ( 4 ) yo fml emarrohA+ (SEE OETNL,SHEET ca) DEMEULE `% I E r f m ` mMe/mm ® 6m�.rs G6�4II® �.D® V686ZL Oe0!!AE UFF�R P�\PN MST. CE(ECB) �;OYN� LURBPR r ACT c1R iR Ili c X P r' x.rc rrn MG6�8.1G1 �ae.(al �.Im YI�AYl9 Q EL\Q / FIM:B.10 w 100 011 =5.85 5 ND \tE R EE NOTE 6 IO GROJ of R3] HI I I / YwIYT.w Gf1 r° � 50 NA / o I_I- T VC �al""°'1°1° w�v �(Ine mT rwwL rao-vn noa ua DMOISNRBANCIT OF E �J`\TIO 1D1 QIP"Y0.0 /€RGI / BANK I I 1=e.3± rnlmT w e a amc siwc.. xwu VA l / //dil ,� N WORK/ .wx°YOem'IYi rsr�'pCxow°n�w Aawr lop OF OIOF STURBAN�Ba O. COASTAL B PIPE c_CHEouL 25 WIDE DANK t / _ _ NDI>'�TH RI1IE S.E S.D. SEWER 1 _ / -WOOD METAL Y; _� EASEMENT / / /�/� ,B��EAN p ' BECKS E/92i•IPE N. rr. C i AVK ]JJJ B/ CRUSHED STONE FILTER STRIP ALONG 1n — \u gDEN1N3� / 1e R EDGE OF PATHS I UILrm /BANKNI -- //�� SF�I:Lr n.u�n w2a w. mee¢wucAreu EROSION i r I U wIU w CONTROLS n �! EXIST. w 7. uMIT Or waaK/ RAILROAD Q S I Q — - DISTURBANCE .',e' CROSSING c�- 6WFKg5 _-- EASEMENT _- ANKAS _ _J-�-- MAINTAIN EX ST. _ - GRACE ALONGONG PA.. '^^' _ B� R.R. TRACK awn, B" TTS - - SANK#2 MASSACHUSE 3ANKI.I TRAC _---\ \ \\ . . HIP `= •�ReWsbns W SB - - BLOCK \\ \ \ GS �� t_nn'e MCNITIXtINCRET. WALLt-// I row=vnmes ONE \OF a)� I - A' i MAP 16 LOT 216 / / / _ I r I- _--- �\ \\ b\4r i n-^•+' RAYMOND I I 1 I �I '\ \ `\ �\ 1 TWf BLOCK RETAINMG \ `} \ \ rLZAQ90 LTM?OF WORK/ �6 _- 36- - \ WALL(SEE DETAIL. \ \ \ c Ill 0 ri�in SHEET C-]) : \ • �.. 'Si�. E^91^GaMB DISTURBANCE -_yam _ -,per \ M-30a TW=320\ \ �f. � \ � � =2Pp U uC �� PROPO POSED -^b�e1\3B- ENGINEER i \ .� � \\• I ' swm we r. xmu wmx was[v e BARRIER SrDNf q ` ` `�\ \ -alnx.i�� \tel Immum mw aw'c1 a aWOJam�o-°uc A. moria Mesar mmw MRM PROJECT MAP 16 LOT 217 �� \\ � \ c I o �mmi"io�.°..sxm s.w.� MANSAMMENMA LLC 1 N/F APPRO%. �\\ - ® - - MIT OF #12 - SARKES E%CAVARON `\� \ \ _• LIMIT OF WORN/ �� LT TW s)am m•m xr GRpfIING, DRAINAGE h (,6 DISTURBANCE - 3 BB °{""¢ Mea IOL• ER090N CONTROL —BLOCK RE?�)Mt✓NC WALL �Am'°1O1wP �Aeniui we m°M1 w PLPN ] -32� W ${y L£ALO TOP �< MAP 16 LOT 218 SILVER N/F I (StE TAI�L.'SI C== PUBLIC WAY L- �_� cWmc scA ( FLORES �S _�--�Ji�. seyerm 3, #a GATE 0 38 nNnq- Jt�oT__ �••'m lrs m.vmv C-4C -- 12- VC y IY VC OUTFALL OUTFALL NK- I 1=4.33 \ " O2)NO�TH RIVER CAN TIDAL \ —WOOD&METAL — — \ BRIDGE W1 8" PIPE REMEDIATION AREA ECK= EL. 9.23 (SEE SHEET C-10) \ EANKA9 i � gAANKNIO BANK4�11 \� EANKNtd I1 U ED BANKe12 BANK013 m`¢ =FIS SANKa15 EXISTING V W IEJ W REMOVE EXISTING BRIDGE V W IU W F W IF W MH UMP STATION& ABUTMENTS\ F W IF W ¢S ¢ — WINCE FM FORCE MAIN. cork — NIS N �F0' W LS-FORCE MAIN CAP E%ISi�4'SETV1. —� BAY TRANSPORTATION +1 H — TOP of SMH1 COASTAL_ RBANK SSMI IM-11.00 RIM-1 I: J0 PLUG ALL EXIST. l(OUT)=6.W 0 • I(OUT)=Z65 O�ALLS LONG L I I c D—O�O—D 0-0-0 NPS FENCE ENCLOSED \ I DCK RET, WAIL 1 1 TRASH k RECYCLING D T Yy _^� _ p V _ i ® BIN STORAGE AREA R 5�T_0 EL 9.6} (T'(TEACH BUILDING) ' me• ® PROPOSEO I S PROPOSED BUILD /j1 BSc D.I.ISFI1a - ® 6°GER35 B, W/ GARAG NDER MIN, SLOPE I s=D.0o4 "T PROPOSED I _ 43 ITS) a W w' PROPOSEp O s— CONNECT FLOOR W/GARAGE PROPOSED&G oRaNS To MOc TRAP) MEGTRAP D 4 RAGE LINDERk2 Fvc Bu1LolNc —..—. (TVP EACH SHILOINC) bR—� �`6 UNI S SEWER SERVICE. D 't ♦• I• • RIM=IL80 MIN. 2R SLOPE. —RL RLt FEMOVE EXIST._® DRAINAGE S'57 _ W W, \ C_ a e I N ;c W : ®®® S_ W G_G _ riffin R V4 PROP 8b CL01 ♦ PROP_SEPARATE 4bD 0�0� IN 1 _GV P.Oes mn { I PIPE. 5 COVER • POTABLE WATER SERMGE km —p SEC_� � "" 1mpm�NpeGn°',sc'vc t E PROT. RMCES. SEE 1 D—) w 0 Nwk W aN0 N 1&2. (TTP EACH 1 LHR W_�� viaenalll f Nc I eul 1 1 -BLQcjraS __- — D D_ W(_? oRYOelm dS__-------- 1 tic__- 1 Dip I MRM PROJECT F I `♦P♦ROP. H DRAM ' O—D1 MANAGEMENT, LLC i -(lyv OF 3) I Q D SALEM, MA •`• PROP, CONCEPT PAO _ INFILTRATION y--'— _ — •�. (TTP OF RANSFORMERS I MAF4 16 LOT M 1 • 1ELD (TVP Di 3j I • �` •amry nuEwuux 1224 LOT 225 (� •_ • eta rlem n� �'v a`mc Wim. 1N/F 7(34 N/F OTP22]IIF� q26 SHED I I �• URMDES PLAN I CPNLEY I NC ER. N/F I E'�� • BHeL�•• • 200 FRO I S Eic� :mo„ roH I #32 LAW$ON I — — •�• M r GRAPHIC SCALE Mrao, 4y.ng I MAP 16 LOT 23 DEMEULE GI�I I m SER RTPN ECU GB-810 Prom gJ R�pP. CURB CU RIM=6.10 (IN)-6,80 u) =5.85 / �/� 0 e R F ;i R� 0 0 • - — ��/ GY 50 x(10 12 W oulFev_ / PRM 0`10 �Gae /f / a ry K I I=a.3z TOP OF I^ �PU A / — RA UC E%IST. zs WIDE COASTAL ,--;, / OONNECTION NORTH Rlb BANKBANNK (SEE NI2) S.E.S.D. SEWER — / — GG a METAL EASEMENT � / EANK� FRIDGE W 6 PIPE ELK— L. 9.2t BANKp3 / BANK. NK IS BANKKIR) �� µISE W EyIKLY` i / DA #2 B V I m — elt/COMG /BANKAI — =FI=I, 1 EXIST. RAILROAD I —' ����— CROSSING _ _ EANK,gs EASEMENT BANK#5 — — — e #4 R R.,TRACKii#-} }{+ m B"""93TTS — — � MASSACHUSE BANK#I RR TRACKS ___ ' —J--- �RRNalems _ 1 0—G—GI---G— _ BULK 1AREA / 0 l� MONITORINGs J/STORAGE FENDED 1 OF 4) NiT EN FENCED i �r (TTP OF 4J ENCLOSURE ZONE i JOE, FERCIlk PROP8'0CL01PIPE5COYFF .m MAP 16 LOT 216 11 RELOCATE I 2.r.r✓ N/F 1 ��MA1 ATERIAL GELL ' ABANDON EXIST. RAYMOND \ I. SG)— 1 6'0 WATER MAIN W_— 1 BEYOND i CONNECTION a Griffin ------------------------- •� •• voa.roeT [• i�ua..sm aw tP79 570NE ,qEi. WA 200 F.6wMA • 3 MRM PROJECT 1 MAP 16 LOT 217 _ /• I MANAGEMENT, LLC i SAR F C 3&, 8.6x8 PROP. SALEM, MA #2 _• ' — a�3 TEE I PIPE. #6 �'P`pQa MAINTAIN E%1511NG UTLITE$PLAN 6 0 WATER MAIN IN SIL1/rl-]w MAP 16 L0T 218 3�CONNECNON TO I YnKuuwaY✓w[[wwue wm 6 �A 'E"'P1MX6' L V L�\ N/F BEA4ER STREET �'cRMwc 6C .— (PUBLIC WAY FLERES I LE 4 — — MAH 16 LOT r. � Erin Schaeffer From: Erin Schaeffer Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:08 AM To: Lynn Duncan Subject: Summary of Planning Board Meeting Salem Oil and Grease November 20th. Hi Lynn, Below is a summary of 2014 Proposed Site Plan Modifications related to the Salem Oil and Grease Site: 1) Elimination of proposed vehicle bridge to and from Harmony Grove. 2) Change the project name to "Grove Street Apartments" 3) There is a reduction in the number of units by 12 (from 141 units to 129 total units)-the structure footprint and mass will not change with this reduction. Instead the space will be absorbed internally by making some units larger.This decline in units is proposed to provide a little mitigation in response to the singular access point for traffic mitigation.The parking spaces remain the same, ratio is 1.65+/-for parking spaces. 4) Increase the width of the pedestrian path to 14' and install bollards to accommodate emergency vehicles-There is no railing proposed along the canal. Mr. Reider was concerned about the possibility 5) Repair existing bridge for a shared-use pathway-the applicant proposed to specifically replace the deck and handrails of the existing bridge. 6) Eliminate parking spaces in the rear of the commercial building per DEP.There will be a total of 11 parking spaces available in relation to the Commercial building on the site. 7) Remove pedestrian bridge to commercial building.—Ms. Sides expressed concerned about the removal of this bridge. 8) Environmental remediation of the sludge bed located at 3 Harmony Grove Rd. and Construction of capped disposal cell—Mr. Reider requested that an updated landscaping plan be submitted to show updated landscaping changes for the relocated material cell. 9) Minor driveway, landscape, parking lot and stormwater changes. FST— presented the summary of findings as written in the November 19`h, 2014 draft memo.A final Memorandum has been requested and is pending. David White from Woodard and Curran Presented- Engineering changes in stormwater. 1) Type of stormwater treatment device is changed to mitigate water quality impacts from impervious surface to separate suspended solids and oils. Alternative device is approved by DEP standards. No concern with this change. t 2) Appll;c.int proposes a stormwater infiltration field adjacent to build number 2 needed to be adjusted to be able oto recharge 1 inch times the total impervious area rather than a%: inch in response to DEP comments. 3) Proposed to have 4 outfalls to canal that are consolidated into 2 outfall points.One way that these 4 outfalls were consolidated was with a designed catch basin by the Commercial property to connect with the City's drainage system. The City does not know the condition of the existing sewer service that the project outfall needs to be connected to. (Item#4 in Nov 17`h, 2014 report). a. This is important because any drainage and utility upgrades have From the original decisions: Woodard &Curran Recommends that 1) Conditions"D and E" of ondi�does not need to be part of the decision as the proposed vehicular bridged is not proposed to go forward. However, Woodard &Curran recommended that a condition would be for the applicant to submit final engineering plans showing the rehabilitation of the pedestrian bridge be included for the record of this project. 2) The timing of the sewer condition assessment and evaluation of condition. Stormwater condition assessment and any associated improvements that need to be made in the public right of way must be made before Moratorium in association with the Grove Street Improvement project. Condition assessment and any improvtments of the exist sewer pipe from the project site and connection with the City that need to be made in the public right of way must be made before Moratorium on digging in relation to Grove Street Improvement Project. Bridge Street Neck-Planning Board expressed wanting the Planning Department to revive the possibility of zoning reform with support from the Ward Councilor for this area. Planning Board discussed your recommendations that when the proposed project comes before the Planning Board, the Planning Board will have control over the decision to consider a possible a Waiver of Frontage. Erin Schaeffer Staff Planner, City of Salem Department of Planning&Community Development 120 Washington Street, P Floor Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Phone: 978-619-5685 1 Fax: 978-740-0404 eschaeffer@salem.com I salem.com z `iTu'�'S4_a4t 1#fiS, , t851 C.: . 1N C i ti ind Rusin-as Center Drive Transportation Engineers&Planners �1`t Andover, )1810-106G 01fice 97B 474 8,800 Fax 978-688-6508 Ref: 5977 August 7,2014 Mr.Michael Hubbard MRM Project Management LLC 3 Broadway, 3rd Floor PO BOX 388 Beverly, MA 01915 Re: Harmony Grove Apartments. Salem,Massachusetts Dear Michael: As requested, Vanasse & Associates, (VAI) has reviewed the proposed Harmony Grove residential project as it relates to a single access and impacts at the proposed intersection changes at Grove Street/ Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street/Goodhue Street. This information is summarized below: Sinele Access Proposal The single access driveway was studied in a detailed traffic memorandum dated October 22, 2013. The project traffic generation and site traffic is summarized in Table I and Figures 3 and 4 from the traffic study. Table 1 TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY Apartment Trips Office Trips Time Period/Direction (141 Units)' (15,000 sf)b Total Average Weekday Daily: Entering 489 83 572 Exitine 489 83 572 Total 978 166 1,144 Weekday Morning Peak Hour: Entering 15 20 35 Exiting 58 3 61 Total 73 23 96 - Weekday Evening Peak Hour: Entering 62 4 66 Exitin 33 18 51 Total 95 22 117 'Based on ITE LUC 220,Apartment; 141 units. 'Based on ITE LUC 710,General Office Building; 15,000 A w w HARMONY GROVE a ROAD 1 r5 MASON STREET tOZ 4 r mlom �m OFFICE DRIVEWAY 2=-+ 1,t m� SITE ' 1 } RESIDENTIAL Residential Office Total ORI V£WAY 321 I Trips Trips Tripe 26"7 n a In 15 20 35 Out 56 3 61 _ n Total : 73 23 96. 1 ,28 GOODHUE STREET S t �o � ZF c� sJ �o r BEAVER STREET i( y$1 J1 wi 1 w¢ VI I W >O OI BOSTON rn m * 4 STREET w,.. v1> rn 3 J I O w O Z� Figure 3 "A�Vanasse-&-Associates, Inc. Site Generated 15.>11 I , 1 Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes IhaQST AM EDT Up,not 2011 by VAI. All Rlgbla Rxe . w w HARMONY GROVE ^ ROAD ! ,`y MASON STREET 207 *1 1 r m<m RESIDEN77AL n DRIVEWAY OFFICE 1 DRIVEWAY 10—+ �1 B7 nm nm SITE RESIDENTIAL Residential 0(Flce Total DRIVEWAY 19- '�t Trips Trips Trips 157 In 62 4 66 Out 33 /s 51 n TDtal - 95 22 117 1 ,¢28 GOODHUE STREET S. a F o 1A U pJ 0 n 00 BEAVER STREET `~ 4 G� 10' 00 S N I w 0 > >o 0I ul BOSTON ^ O � 4 STREET A- w.}.; � I h> Q �3 O I zw U OZ Z�. Figure 4 i Manasse &Associates, /7c., Site Generated 7,-as. „: „1n,, `• .,;iz ,,:, d h `_; . Weekday Evening A I Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1'1" �`�""A!'\`✓9TT�8B']4btlw'V y1Uf10/20ll 10:05:13 AM EDT Cop919M ©2011 by VAI. All RIybG Reword. Mr. Michael Hubbard August 7, 2014 Page 2 of 2 As can be seen in Table 1, the project is expected to generate approximately 1,144 vehicle trips on an average weekday (572 entering and 572 exiting), with approximately 96 vehicle trips (35 entering and 61 exiting) during the weekday morning peak hour and 1 l7 vehicle trips (66 entering and 51 exiting) during the weekday evening peak hour. As documented in the memorandum, the site driveways (residential and office) intersections with Grove Street are expected to operate at LOS B during the peak hours indicating very good operating conditions. Area Improvements Improvements are proposed along Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road and Goodhue Street to better define traffic flow and improve safety conditions. These improvements are depicted on the attached Figure. The Grove Street/Goodhue Street intersection was recently studied as part of the proposed Medical Office Building located at 70—92%2 Boston Street. This study contemplated the proposed improvements,as well as the Harmony Grove Project in place. The traffic study conducted by FST concluded that LOS A operation can be maintained including the proposed Harmony Grove Project. At the Grove Street intersection with Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street, it is proposed to create two separate unsignalized "T"-type intersections. The Harmony Grove Project will add in the order of one vehicle every minute to these intersections and sufficient capacity exists to accommodate these increases. I trust this information is helpful. Very truly yours, VAE e ASSOC iTES, INC. Giles Ham,P.E. Managing Principal FGH/mef Attachment ce: R. Griffin—Griffin Engineering Group, LLC J. Correnti, Esquire-Serafini, Serafini,Darling&Correnti G M77 Seim,MAV.elteMM HuhhaM 080714,dcc i;f' •-''- tOME up r. as . c -.t::'�.\ .''-�u'..,._mss t�•-.• a w4.9°._3'v MV .t �} _ -.._i �F!tOCAiEO. @v ��'. [;I --b•1 biF Ytl Y WitYY1 i ' • Y{•. —�, 4121— a€ M ._rf '6Y':ff•r+=-:.. ._ �t • ;�1 � ;q iLt ._ i- ^�. -Za..., � -cr x � art r--+fw.v • Qo �4W 04�c-+ Y �,..:;'.1r , _ ,+new.. �.. -;•`-s�-�,w � _ - --•` _ tk NI '®■ `� \yam\ UWIUw 70 .* W (� I —BUFF' Q z I Q ® IER ZON 1 = — E \ S \ U) 1 —� -- — \ AU TH ORI TY ' TRACKS �� \ I� R . R . 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H+H- I I I I I I Tt 1 � ' _ \ 11111111 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII \ \ 1 K � 1 D�GIZqH11/iC ®--D —p — \ G SMH2 1 D--D—__ D-�D \ �� RIM 1 cc) rJ OUT)= .80 I / EXIST EXISTING . s -� PROP. GAS SERVICE wgTE I ---_W 4 ° � � \ � , �\ --._W R ID �� SIZE BY UTILITY 9. 6 � STORAGE D � w PROVIDER AREA ' EXISTING 1 SEE NOTE OFFICE � . 2 & 5 ��� �� g BUILDING - � Z � - 6 I Alolz? _ G �Z- s � S CA S EXIST --- AIAGRA --__S 6 SERE a Csp \ r _ / _ NIT ----_ R �S � B S --D —� 1 _ 71DA R ` DS� K a _ — =_� = RIM10.3 �� S _; _ _ — _ L L To _ S _ I(IN)-5.85 W - S_ F� = 8 0 SDR35 PVC E�• 9. 6 - - - - S ' -- _ I-��u T 5.80 ,� B L -S L oC S=0.005 FT/FT ` r! _ _ -_ UTILITY POLE g 0 ... ! —S — _ _ _ _ _ K RST _ _ _ - TO BE RELOCATED ING ' EG RL 8 0 SD 3 S_ — ALL N ;� Y CITY RADED _'_RL�'RL P V S_�_�S �O 4 10 16 1 REVISE DRAINAGE ON 60 e, �RL `RL SO.O ,---�—S EL• (]• J — `' / / GROVE STREET & STORMWATER OF ND =.._. _ SRL O4 FT �� _ g `/ 6 T' � OUTFALLS. ADJUST SEWER I � I� .._� � � �RL_RL�/FT A�.7 E `�` —� D '�� �_ -- --- �, �n \, � INVERTS. f�A p _ REMOVE PARKING FROM REAR `�/1 C RL�RL _RL Ste_ D�`D D \ \ 0 3 3/10/14 OF 60 GROVE ST. OO SS a \ 2 2/30/1 ADD NOTE 5 & 6 i —'RL__RL�RL R/R O `� H� \ ABANDON EXIST. 1 3/11/13 A D FORAD RIVERFRONT AREA R s RIM=1'f.B _ s ° WATER SERVICES D No. Date Description ' 1 - - PRO OS PROP. 8"� O ' REMOVE ALL � E� BU/Li PVC BUILDING o I(IN)=5'.65 �A--,� o� r-& VALVE PfT PER ReVISIOr]S 1 EXISTING ON STIE VI/ GAR ING 3 ® ° S o I(OUT)=5.60 EXis <_ CITY STANDARDS 3 UTILITIES UNLESS AG SEWER SERVICE. S 8 I �- ' _, E ONDE IN. 2% SLOPE. � SD o ; I NOTED OTHERWISE. (43_ R M R 0 \l RL RLQ - ' -, : „UNITS EXIS ATER 3S p EXIST. ` \� Previously Proposed RL R W W E W" VALVE I wV Water Connection RL 1 v .; . 00' BOF MDC TRAP 2 -w w - ` - F` SEPARATt �co PI'S ESMH11 Location. Proposed i : = = : _� _ – --1� R ZON AT CROSSING `� RIM=1 25 s004 i p ONEAT Utility,� F \ S Modification .0 EXIST. 8 WATER T H y 7/21 /15 -1-G EI ` W ____--W `"--� EXIST. 10" SER___S____._ S S TIM �ITY IN ,`c CON 3 ,. w----w o S —s-----s ESM � G G _ C• RL S G AM • f W G��G� y i _ L_RL� V V D —GAG J R C I eJ WG �_W G G _- - - g - - RL- -- � o G—G--- Z 1LL iJ 1 p G D 1 / p D W �_ yr —D G D G G o D —p D \c �\ / �' V � 000 \� �� / �11,, a 1 _ + , AlI 1 n— rcl oeecnl -- _ MERS B U 1 LD I Griffin '4 CONNECT TO � o � ° __ : � �� j-Y%� 1.� En ineerin ® PROP. GAS SERVICE v � � �\� .�N01 E30A riD ,. g g EXISTING SMH �r� Group, LLC SIZE BY UTILITY � 1 REMOVE & RESET PROP. SEPARATE OVIDER RIM=11 .30 ' \ AP PROVEo ' UTILITY POLE. �wI(IN)=5.200 P.0 Box 7061 1 POTABLE WATER SER VI �A F, E H 0 U S E / \ \\ % �� Tt J 100 Cummings Center, Suite 224G 200 1 S RISER DOWN TO FIRE PROT. SERVICES. SEE ►+- I(OUT)=5.15 , Beverly, MA 01915 FROM 1 ETC XFORMER PADS. NOTE 1 &3. (TYP EACH BUILDING) \�W SEE NOTE 2) y ; ETC-� I S Tel: 978-927-5111 WALL I ` — w Fax: 978-927-5103 1 �� � �� \ NOTES: 3 � 1) FIRE PROTEC11ON BUILDING SERVICES TO BE SIZED BY MECHANICAL ALL _ — — w G �� \ ENGINEER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. MRM PROJECT 1 I _ PROP. 8 0 w WV \ \ 2) EXISTING SEWER SERVICE IS CURRENTLY BRICKED-UP. CONTRACTOR TO /- CLDI PIPE. MIN. G ` �I REMOVE BRICK AND VIDEO INSPECT EXISTING SERVICE CONNECTION TO THE MANAGEMENT, LLC L-1 II MAIN. CITY TO DETERMINE IF SERVICE IS ACCEPTABLE FOR REUSE OR 16 LOT 2321 5' COVER #2 I I �I NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. REPLACE SERVICE WITH 10" SDR35 PVC IF SALEM, MA 1 BIT. CONC. PARKING I % 7 / REQUIRED. CONTRACTOR TO REBUILD INVERT AND REPAIR DAMAGE FROM N/1- / ` T`� BRICK REMOVAL. I I i MAP 16 / 3) COORDINATE BUILDING SERVICE LOCATIONS WITH OTHER DISCIPLINE MYERS I I I I LOT 235 EXIST. SEWER � // DRAWINGS. #10 MAP 16 SCHEDULE �.� // 4) REFER TO SHEET N-1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES & LEGEND. 1 MAP 16 N/F / ESM H 1 _ y .01 LOT 5) CONTRACTOR TO VIDEO INSPECT EXISTING BUILDING SEWER SERVICE FOR 1 MAP 16 LOT Y. LOT 234 LOT 380 PATTISON / RIM=10.26 �� A2 60 CONTRACTORET AND REPAIR OR REPLACE IF TO PRESSURE TEST NEW SEWER MAINS TO VERIFY WATER UTILITIES PLAN I ///// �' TIGHT CONDITION. 1 I 233 I # N/F N �F , , �-'f INV=3.08 PROPOSED 1 f I 7) CONTRACTOR TO VERFIY EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE (ESMH2) INVERT #14 I CSWIGGIN PATTIS�ON — �_�- �,��� TRIPLE GATE PRIOR TO SETTING ANY STRUCTURES OR SEWER LINES. 1 SPERIDAKOS : ��— T`� ----� � VALVE -- 1 .�.��-__�-�-- ESMH2 RIM=11 .28 '� GRAPHIC SCALE S� 1'=20' - - /% 40 0 20 40 60 160 INV=5.13 Job No. 700 EAVTC- 5A1 r` 3 O WIDE) V ( IN FEET ) (PUKIC WAY lot-- 11 inch 40 ft 1 — -A DAt% 6/20/12 j Stormwater f Management Plan underthe Massachusetts Stormwater Management Regulations ' Construction of a Mixed-Use Residential & Commercial Development f 60 & 64 Grove Street & 3 Harmony Grove Road ' Salem, MA December 2011 ' Revised October 2014 1 4 i p Applicant: MRM Project Management, LLC Submitted to: City of Salem, MA and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Prepared by: Griffin Engineering tib° � 'iwBeverly, MA ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Stormwater Management Checklist ' Attachment A Project Description 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................A-1 1.1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................A-1 1.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................................. A-1 ' 2.0 LID MEASURES.............................................................................................................A-2 3.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS ...........................................................A-2 ' 3.1 Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges...........................................................A-2 3.2 Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation .......................................................................A-2 3.3 Standard 3: Recharge ...........................................................................................A-3 ' 3.4 Standard 4: Water Quality .....................................................................................A-4 3.5 Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads ..............................A-6 3.6 Standard 6: Critical Areas......................................................................................A-6 3.7 Standard 7: Redevelopment Projects and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the Maximum Extent Practicable..................A-6 3.8 Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sediment Control......................................................................A-7 ' 3.9 Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan.......................................................A-7 3.10 Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges........................................................A-7 4.0 MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE EVALUATION.......................................................A-7 5.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................A-10 ' Attachment B Stormwater Computations & References B.1 - Recharge Volume & Design Calculations ' B.2 - Deep Observation Hole Soil Logs B.3 - Groundwater Contour Plan B.4 - Drawdown Analysis t B.5 - USDA Soil Survey B.6 -Water Quality Calculation Sheet B.7 -Water Quality Flow Rate Sizing Calculations &TSS Net Annual Efficiency Calculations ' (by Hydro International) B.8 - Structural BMP's Sizing Calculations B.9 - TSS Removal Calculation Worksheets ' Attachment C Drainage Calculations (HydroCAD) ' Attachment D Subcatchment Plans Attachment E Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan ' Attachment F Operation and Maintenance Plan Attachment G Illicit Discharge Statement Attachment H Proprietary Separator Third-Party Evaluations ' -Downstream Defender First Defense t i 1 1 ' STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CHECKLIST 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program I Checklist for Stormwater Report ' A. Introduction Important:When A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document filling out forms 9 ' on the computer, compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards. The following checklist is NOT a substitute for use only the tab the Stormwater Report(which should provide more substantive and detailed information) but is offered Ivey to move your here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their cursor-do not Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format. As noted in the Checklist, use the return the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting key. P 9 9 P information set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Stormwater Report must be prepared and certified by a Registered Professional Engineer(RPE) licensed in the Commonwealth. ' The Stormwater Report must include: • The Stormwater Checklist completed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer(see page 2) that certifies that the Stormwater Report contains all required submittals.' This Checklist ' is to be used as the cover for the completed Stormwater Report. • Applicant/Project Name • Project Address • Name of Firm and Registered Professional Engineer that prepared the Report • Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by Standards 4-6 • Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan required by Standard 8Z ' • Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Standard 9 In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative ' describing stormwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types, critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL), and any areas on the site ' where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations. ' As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete, applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted, the applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification 'The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not included in ' the Stormwater Report,the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stornwater runoff to the post-construction best management practices. f For some complex projects,it may not be possible to include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in the Stormwater Report. In that event,the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site. ' B. Stormwater Checklist and Certification The following checklist is intended to serve as a guide for applicants as to the elements that ordinarily need to be addressed in a complete Stormwater Report. The checklist is also intended to provide Stormwater-Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Check ist•Page 1 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ' Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report conservation commissions and other reviewing authorities with a summary of the components necessary ' for a comprehensive Stormwater Report that addresses the ten Stormwater Standards. Note: Because stormwater requirements vary from project to project, it is possible that a complete ' Stormwater Report may not include information on some of the subjects specified in the Checklist. If it is determined that a specific item does not apply to the project under review, please note that the item is not applicable (N.A.) and provide the reasons for that determination. A complete checklist must include the Certification set forth below signed by the Registered Professional ' Engineer who prepared the Stormwater Report. Registered Professional Engineer's Certification ' I have reviewed the Stormwater Report, including the soil evaluation, computations, Long-term Pollution Prevention Plan, the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (if included), the Long- , term Post-Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement(if included) and the plans showing the stormwater management system, and have determined that they have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards as further elaborated by the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. I have also determined that the , information presented in the Stormwater Checklist is accurate and that the information presented in the Stormwater Report accurately reflects conditions at the site as of the date of this permit application. Registered Professional Engineer Block and Signature , OF moo? ROBERT �5G H. m GRIFFIN y CIVIL � #36686fV Q )b `p� Signature and Date Checklist Project Type: Is the application for new development, redevelopment, or a mix of new and ' redevelopment? ❑ New development ' ❑ Redevelopment ® Mix of New Development and Redevelopment , Checklist (continued) ' LID Measures: Stormwater Standards require LID measures to be considered. Document what ' environmentally sensitive design and LID Techniques were considered during the planning and design of Stonnwater-Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 2 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report the protect. ❑ No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas ❑ Site Design Practices (e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks) ❑ Reduced Impervious Area (Redevelopment Only) ® Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs ❑ LID Site Design Credit Requested: ❑ Credit 1 ❑ Credit 2 ❑ Credit 3 ❑ Use of"country drainage'versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe ' ❑ Bioretention Cells (includes Rain Gardens) ❑ Constructed Stormwater Wetlands (includes Gravel Wetlands designs) ' ❑ Treebox Filter ' ❑ Water Quality Swale ❑ Grass Channel ' ❑ Green Roof ® Other(describe): Taller Buildings, Locating Parking Below Buildings, Reduced Parking Ratio I ' Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges ® No new untreated discharges ' ® Outlets have been designed so there is no erosion or scour to wetlands and waters of the Commonwealth ❑ Supporting calculations specified in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook included. ' Checklist (continued) Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation Stormwater-Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Cheddist•Page 3 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ' ` Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report ❑ Standard 2 waiver requested because the project is located in land subject to coastal storm flowage ' and stormwater discharge is to a wetland subject to coastal flooding. ® Evaluation provided to determine whether off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm. ' ® Calculations provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre- development rates for the 2-year and 10-year 24-hour storms. If evaluation shows that off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm, calculations are also provided to show that ' post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates for the 100-year 24- hour storm. Standard 3: Recharge ® Soil Analysis provided. ® Required Recharge Volume calculation provided. ' ❑ Required Recharge volume reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. ' ® Sizing the infiltration, BMPs is based on the following method: Check the method used. ® Static ❑ Simple Dynamic ❑ Dynamic Field' , ❑ Runoff from all impervious areas at the site discharging to the infiltration BMP. ® Runoff from all impervious areas at the site is not discharging to the infiltration BMP and calculations ' are provided showing that the drainage area contributing runoff to the infiltration BMPs is sufficient to generate the required recharge volume. , ® Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume. ® Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the maximum ' extent practicable for the following reason: ❑ Site is comprised solely of C and D soils and/or bedrock at the land surface ❑ M.G.L. c. 21E sites pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000 , ❑ Solid Waste Landfill pursuant to 310 CMR 19.000 ® Project is otherwise subject to Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent , practicable. ® Calculations showing that the infiltration BMPs will drain in 72 hours are provided. , ❑ Property includes a M.G.L. c. 21E site ora solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included. '80%TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP ff Dynamic Field method is used. Checklist (continued) ' Standard 3: Recharge (continued) ' Stormwater-Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 4 of 8 ' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ` Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report ' ❑ The infiltration BMP is used to attenuate peak flows during storms greater than or equal to the 10- year 24-hour storm and separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than 4 feet and a mounding analysis is provided. ❑ Documentation is provided showing that infiltration BMPs do not adversely impact nearby wetland resource areas. ' Standard 4: Water Quality The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan typically includes the following: • Good housekeeping practices; ' • Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover; • Vehicle washing controls; • Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs; • Spill prevention and response plans; • Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas; • Requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; ' • Pet waste management provisions; • Provisions for operation and management of septic systems; • Provisions for solid waste management; • Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas; ' • Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions; • Street sweeping schedules; • Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system; ' • Documentation that Stormwater BMPs are designed to provide for shutdown and containment in the event of a spill or discharges to or near critical areas or from LUHPPL; • Training for staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan; ' • List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan. ® A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan is attached to Stormwater Report and is included as an attachment to the Wetlands Notice of Intent. ' ® Treatment BMPs subject to the 44%TSS removal pretreatment requirement and the one inch rule for calculating the water quality volume are included, and discharge: ❑ is within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area ' ❑ is near or to other critical areas ' ® is within soils with a rapid infiltration rate (greater than 2.4 inches per hour) ® involves runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads. ❑ The Required Water Quality Volume is reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. ® Calculations documenting that the treatment train meets the 80% TSS removal requirement and, if applicable, the 44%TSS removal pretreatment requirement, are provided. Checklist (continued) Standard 4: Water Quality (continued) Sto"water-Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 5 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ' ` Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report ® The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on: ' ® The ''%"or 1"Water Quality Volume or ® The equivalent flow rate associated with the Water Quality Volume and documentation is provided showing that the BMP treats the required water quality volume. ® The applicant proposes to use proprietary BMPs, and documentation supporting use of proprietary ' BMP and proposed TSS removal rate is provided. This documentation may be in the form of the propriety BMP checklist found in Volume 2, Chapter 4 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and submitting copies of the TARP Report, STEP Report, and/or other third party studies verifying performance of the proprietary BMPs. ' ❑ A TMDL exists that indicates a need to reduce pollutants other than TSS and documentation showing that the BMPs selected are consistent with the TMDL is provided. , Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) ❑ The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been included with the Stormwater Report. , ❑ The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the SWPPP will be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater to the post-construction stormwater BMPs. ® The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit does not cover the land use. 1 ® LUHPPLs are located at the site and industry specific source control and pollution prevention measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the exposure of LUHPPLs to rain, snow, snow ' melt and runoff, and been included in the long term Pollution Prevention Plan. ® All exposure has been eliminated. , ❑ All exposure has not been eliminated and all BMPs selected are on MassDEP LUHPPL list. ❑ The LUHPPL has the potential to generate runoff with moderate to higher concentrations of oil and , grease(e.g. all parking lots with >1000 vehicle trips per day) and the treatment train includes an oil grit separator, a filtering bioretention area, a sand filter or equivalent. Standard 6: Critical Areas (Not Applicable) 1 ❑ The discharge is near or to a critical area and the treatment train includes only BMPs that MassDEP has approved for stormwater discharges to or near that particular class of critical area. ' ❑ Critical areas and BMPs are identified in the Stormwater Report. Checklist (continued) ' Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum extent practicable Stormwater-Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 6 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report ® The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent Practicable as a: ❑ Limited Project ❑ Small Residential Projects: 5-9 single family houses or 5-9 units in a multi-family development provided there is no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area. ❑ Small Residential Projects: 2-4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development with a discharge to a critical area ❑ Marina and/or boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff ' ❑ Bike Path and/or Foot Path ❑ Redevelopment Project ' ® Redevelopment portion of mix of new and redevelopment. ® Certain standards are not fully met(Standard No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 must always be fully met) and an ' explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report. ® The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to improve existing conditions is provided in the Stormwater Report. The redevelopment checklist found ' in Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook may be used to document that the proposed stormwater management system (a) complies with Standards 2, 3 and the pretreatment and structural BMP requirements of Standards 4-6 to the maximum extent practicable and (b) improves existing conditions. ' Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control ' A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include the following information: • Narrative; • Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan; • Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance; • Construction Period Pollution Prevention Measures; ' • Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Drawings; • Detail drawings and specifications for erosion control BMPs, including sizing calculations; • Vegetation Planning; ' • Site Development Plan; • Construction Sequencing Plan; • Sequencing of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; • Operation and Maintenance of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; • Inspection Schedule; Maintenance Schedule; • Inspection and Maintenance Log Form. ❑ A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan containing the information set forth above has been included in the Stormwater Report. ' Checklist (continued) ' Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control (continued) Stormwater-Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 7 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ' Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report 1 ❑ The project is highly complex and information is included in the Stormwater Report that explains why ' it is not possible to submit the Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with the application. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control has not been included in the Stormwater Report but will be submitted before land disturbance begins. ❑ The project is not covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit. , ❑ The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit and a copy of the SWPPP is in the Stormwater Report. ® The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit but no SWPPP been submitted. The SWPPP will be submitted BEFORE land disturbance begins. Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan ® The Post Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan is included in the Stormwater Report and , includes the following information: ® Name of the stormwater management system owners; ' ® Party responsible for operation and maintenance; ® Schedule for implementation of routine and non-routine maintenance tasks; , ® Plan showing the location of all stormwater BMPs maintenance access areas; ® Description and delineation of public safety features; ® Estimated operation and maintenance budget; and ® Operation and Maintenance Log Form. ' ❑ The responsible party is not the owner of the parcel where the BMP is located and the Stormwater , Report includes the following submissions: ❑ A copy of the legal instrument(deed, homeowner's association, utility trust or other legal entity) that establishes the terms of and legal responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the ' project site stormwater BMPs; ❑ A plan and easement deed that allows site access for the legal entity to operate and maintain BMP functions. ' Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges ® The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges; , ❑ An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached; ® NO Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached but will be submitted prior to the discharge of ' any stormwater to post-construction BMPs. 1 stormwater-Checklist•04/01/08 stormwater Report Checklist•Page 8 of 8 1 ' ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' This stormwater management report is prepared in support of the proposed site redevelopment as a mixed-use residential and commercial project at 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1, 3 & 5 Harmony Grove Road in Salem, MA. The drainage system has ' been designed in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) Stormwater Management Standards. ' 1.1 Existing Conditions The site is comprised of five properties totaling approximately 8.3-acres in size and is mostly part of the former site of the Salem Oil and Grease Company. The site is developed with six industrial, office and storage buildings and associated, utilities, material storage areas, and bituminous pavement parking areas. The remaining site mostly consists of degraded surfaces covered with debris and scrub vegetation. The properties are bounded to the south and west by Beaver Street and Silver Street residential neighborhoods, to the north by Harmony Grove Road and commercial properties, and to the east by Grove Street. The tidal North River Canal runs between the 60 & 64 Grove Street parcels and transects the 3 Harmony Grove Road parcel. The topography of the site is generally flat except for steep sloping terrain along the southerly perimeter. ' 1.2 Proposed Conditions The proposed project involves razing the existing structures on the 64 Grove Street ' parcel and constructing three, 43-unit apartment buildings with associated driveways, parking areas, utilities, landscaping, and stormwater management features. The access drive for the apartment complex will extend from Grove Street. The existing office building on the 60 Grove Street parcel will be substantially renovated and the site landscaping improved. No work is proposed on the 1 & 5 ' Harmony Grove Road properties. A site plan showing the proposed development and stormwater management features have been separately provided. The proposed project is a mixture of new development and redevelopment. When complete, there will be an increase of approximately 42,870 square feet of impervious surfaces on the project site (i.e. "new" development). Stormwater runoff ' from the new impervious surfaces will fully meet all 10 Stormwater Management Standards. The remaining impervious surfaces at the site, approximately 93,551 square feet, are characterized as "redevelopment' and, as required, will meet the ' Standards to the maximum extent practicable. Documentation of the ways by which the redevelopment portion of the project meets the Standards to the maximum extent practicable is provided in Section 4.0. ' A-1 2.0 LID MEASURES , Low Impact Development (LID) measures have been considered for this project. However, due to current developed conditions, limited site size, topographical and ' groundwater constraints, the implementation of the majority of these design techniques are not practical. Also, the lot shape is narrow which prohibits constructing natural qualifying areas and buffer zones between the resource areas ' and the proposed development. LID measures have been employed to reduce impervious surfaces such as reduced parking ratio, locating parking below the proposed buildings, and providing taller buildings with smaller footprints. For the ' purpose of demonstrating compliance with the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards, no LID credits were used. 3.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS 3.1 Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges ' There are two new discharge points (i.e. outfalls) associated with the proposed project. Stormwater conveyed to the new outfalls will be treated and achieve a minimum 80% annual TSS removal efficiency prior to discharge as documented by ' Standard 4 (discussed below). The outfalls are located at the approximate stream bed elevation. To protect the ' stream bed and bank during low tide and low flow conditions, a reinforced concrete outfall vault structure is provided in the granite block canal walls to dissipate the discharge velocity on a concrete pad and flow over a weir into the stream. The vault ' structures will effectively minimize erosion (i.e. scour) of the stream bed at the outfalls. 3.2 Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation ' Hydrologic modeling was conducted using the HydroCAD computer model. This , model uses an approximation of Soil Conservation Service TR-20 methods to calculate runoff rates and volumes based on descriptions of land use, ground characteristics, and size. ' The time of concentration (Tc) for each subcatchment was calculated in HydroCAD using a combination of sheet flow and shallow concentrated flow. Sheet flow uses ' roughness coefficients (Manning's n) and watercourse slope to calculate travel time of stormwater runoff for each subcatchment. The site was modeled using a maximum of 100-feet of sheet flow. The shallow concentrated flow method was , used to determine the velocity factor along the flow path of the runoff and thereby derive a travel time. The time of concentration of each subcatchment is the combination of these travel times. A minimum time of concentration of 6 minutes ' was used for all subcatchnients, for both existing and proposed conditions. A-2 ' 1 ' Stormwater from the project site discharges to the tidal North River Canal. Post- development peak runoff rates do not exceed pre-development peak runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. HydroCAD calculations for the aforementioned design storms are provided in Attachment C. Comparison of pre- and post-development stormwater runoff calculation results are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1 : Comparison of Pre-Development and Post Development Peak Runoff Rates (cfs) Subcatchment Storm Frequency ' 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year Pre-Development 15.59 25.98 32.71 40.93 Post-Development 12.05 20.40 27.00 37.53 ' The volume of stormwater runoff from the project site during the 100-year storm event has been decreased by 12% (20,425 cubic feet). Therefore, there is no threat of increased off-site flooding associated with this proposed project. ' 3.3 Standard 3: Recharge ' Site soils are mapped by the United States Department of Agriculture — Soil Conservation Service (Essex Co. Massachusetts Southern Part Soil Survey, 1984) as being Urban Land. An excerpt from the USDA soil maps is provided in ' Attachment B. The Urban Land mapping unit indicates that the soils have been significantly altered or obscured by urban works and structures at the time of the survey. Based upon surrounding soil mapping units and observed on-site soil ' conditions (i.e. non-native fill materials), for the purpose of this report we have classified the soil in the C hydrologic soil group. ' Stormwater management guidelines require that, at a minimum, the annual recharge from the post-development site shall approximate the annual recharge from the pre- development conditions based on the soil type. Therefore, for C-type soils, a ' recharge device shall be provided with a capacity equal to 0.25-inches times the increase in impervious area to match pre-development conditions. The increase in impervious area (i.e. new development) is approximately 42,870 sf which yields a ' minimum groundwater recharge volume of approximately 893 cf. Recharge calculations are provided in Attachment B. A subsurface stormwater infiltration field is proposed for the project recharge device. The infiltration field is proposed in an area of the project site that exhibits minimal disturbance from previous industrial use. The infiltration field has a static storage A3 capacity of approximately 3,472 cf below the overflow outlet. Stormwater runoff from a portion of the proposed upper parking lot and apartment building roofs is directed to the proposed infiltration field. Runoff from approximately 48,638 square feet of impervious surfaces (36% of the total impervious surfaces and 113% of new impervious surfaces) will be conveyed to the proposed subsurface infiltration field. Conveying additional impervious surfaces to the infiltration field from the ' redevelopment portion of the project site is not practicable due to the topography of the project site. Also, providing additional stormwater infiltration at other locations on the project site is not practicable due to numerous Activity and Use Limitations , (AUL) areas, existing fill materials along the canal walls, required setbacks to surface waters, and a high groundwater table associated with the adjacent tidal river. Three deep observation holes were conducted within the area of the proposed , stormwater infiltration field. Native sandy soils were found within the soil horizon at the proposed bottom of field elevation. The applicable Rawls Rate used for the ' drainage and drawdown calculations for the system is 8.27 inches per hour. The drawdown calculation is provided in Attachment B. The infiltration field should drawdown in approximately 3.3 hours which is less than the maximum 24 hours ' allowable. Standard No. 3 has been met for the new development portion of the site and has , been met to the maximum extent practicable for the remaining redevelopment portion of the project site. The proposed project improves existing conditions because post-development annual recharge volume exceeds pre-development , conditions. As presented in Standard 2 above, there is an approximately 12% decrease in stormwater runoff volume from the project site during the 100-year storm (19% during 2-year storm). The decrease is attributed to the proposed ' recharge device and due to replacing gravel road and parking surfaces with well vegetated surfaces to promote natural stormwater infiltration and filtration. An expanded discussion on how the redevelopment portion of the project complies with I the Standards to the maximum extent practicable is provided in Section 4 below. 3.4 Standard 4: Water Quality , The minimum required water quality treatment volume for the project site is the first inch of runoff from site impervious surfaces. The proposed stormwater treatment ' system is designed to provide a weighted average of approximately 82% TSS removal for the proposed combination of.new development and redevelopment work. The reader is referred to the Water Quality Calculations provided in , Attachment B. In the new development portion of the project site (42,870 sf increase in impervious surfaces), the stormwater treatment train consists of catchbasins, a First Defense proprietary separator pretreatment device, and a subsurface infiltration structure A-4 i 1 1 1 treatment device. Stormwater guidelines require a minimum 44% annual TSS removal pretreatment prior to the proposed infiltration field since the infiltrating soils ' are very pervious (<2.41 min./in.). Pretreatment calculations, documenting 77% annual TSS removal from the 0.51-acre parking lot tributary to the infiltration field, has been provided by the manufacturer, Hydro International, and is included in ' Attachment B. The new development treatment train (catchbasins, First Defense proprietary separator, and subsurface infiltration field) has an 80% annual TSS removal efficiency in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Handbook. For documenting compliance with Standard 4, the simple dynamic method was used to verify the Water Quality Volume (WQV) capacity of the proposed subsurface infiltration field. A minimum WQV of 4,053 cubic feet is required. Using the recommended 2-hour discard time, approximately 3,100 cubic feet is discarded resulting in a minimum required static volume of approximately 950 cubic feet. A static volume of approximately 3,470 cubic feet has been provided below the infiltration field overflow outlet. Structural BMP Sizing Calculations can be found in Attachment B. The treatment train for the redevelopment portion of the project site consists of ' catchbasins and proprietary separator (First Defense or Downstream Defender) terminal treatment devices. In accordance with Volume 2, Chapter 2, page 10 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, proprietary separators are allowed to be used as terminal treatment devices for redevelopment projects where it is not feasible to provide other treatment BMPs. A review of the maximum extent practicable criteria is provided is Section 4.0 below. Computations for the proposed proprietary separators have been prepared by the manufacturer, Hydro International, and are incorporated into Attachment B. Water Quality Flow (WQF) rate calculations have been performed for each device in accordance with MassDEP's guidelines. The calculated WQF rate for each proprietary separator was used by the manufacturer to estimate the TSS Net Annual Efficiency Calculation which is also enclosed in Attachment B. The efficiency calculations were based off third-party evaluations of the First Defense and ' Downstream Defender proprietary separators. The third-party evaluations are provided in Attachment H. ' Stormwater runoff from the rear portion of the adjacent residences along Beaver and Silver Street will be routed through the proposed stormwater treatment train. A minimum of 80% TSS removal will be provided for the runoff from the tributary portions of the adjacent residential properties. As required by the Stormwater Management Standards, a Long-Term Pollution A-5 1 Prevention Plan has been prepared and can be found in Attachment E. In short, the ' plan identifies suitable practices for source control and pollution prevention throughout the useful life of the site operation as a mixed-use residential and ' commercial development. 3.5 Standard 5: Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads ' In accordance with the Stormwater Management Standards, the proposed primary site uses are not considered Land Use with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of residential apartment buildings and , a commercial office building. The proposed site uses, their associated parking areas, and their stormwater management systems are located on separate parcels and are entirely independent of each other. The average weekday traffic is ' estimated to be 895 vehicle trips per day from the residential parking lots and 188 vehicle trips per day from the commercial office parking lot. Insofar as the contaminated history of the site is concerned, the proposed site ' redevelopment will comprehensively cap (with clean cover soil or new impervious surfaces) or eliminate pollutant threats from coming into contact with surface water ' runoff. However, the site will still contain AUL areas which, in accordance with the Stormwater Management Handbook, characterize the site as a "disposal site" and therefore the proposed drainage system is required to meet LUHPPL requirements. ' As demonstrated in Section 3.4 (Standard 4 —Water Quality) above, greater than 1- inch Water Quality Volume provided at this site demonstrates compliance with LUHPPL requirements. 3.6 Standard 6: Critical Areas ' The project site is not tributary to an environmentally-critical area as defined by the Stormwater Management Standards. Therefore, this standard does not apply to this project. 3.7 Standard 7: Redevelopment and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the Maximum Extent Practicable ' The site has been previously developed with six industrial, office and storage buildings and associated, utilities, material storage areas, and bituminous pavement parking areas. There is approximately 93,550 square feet of existing impervious ' surfaces on the project site which are considered a "redevelopment project" under the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Handbook. Stormwater runoff from existing impervious surfaces is required to meet the standards to the "maximum ' extent practicable." The redevelopment portion of the project does not completely meet all 10 Stormwater Management Standards. It fully meets Standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10. As noted above, in regard to Standards 3 and 4, only 35% of the sites' impervious A-6 ' ' l 1 1 surfaces are directed to the infiltration BMP (as compared to the min. 65% required to fully meet Standard 3) and proprietary separator treatment devices are proposed 1 for water quality treatment which are only allowed under Standard 4 to be used as terminal treatment devices for redevelopment projects where it is not feasible to provide other treatment BMPs. The proposed stormwater infiltration and treatment 1 components for the redevelopment portion of the project meet Standards 3 and 4 to the maximum extent practicable. A discussion of the projects' compliance with the maximum extent practicable requirement is provided in Section 4 below. 3.8 Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sediment Control 1 Consistent with the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for any project resulting in over 1-acre of land disturbance. The proposed project anticipates over 5-acres of 1 land disturbance. Therefore, a SWPPP will be prepared and submitted to the issuing authority prior to land disturbance commencing. 1 3.9 Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan An Operations & Maintenance description and plan has been provided in Attachment F. The owner(s) of the land is the party responsible for the system operation and 1 maintenance. 3.10 Standard 10: Illicit Discharges The submitted Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan (Attachment D) specifies measures to prevent illicit discharges from entering the stormwater management system. Source control and response plans are also specified to prevent illicit 1 discharges from being conveyed through the stormwater management system. Since the project site has been previously developed and contains several observed 1 outfalls, a signed Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement cannot be provided at this time. A component of the proposed project includes abandoning the existing utilities 1 and plugging all existing outfalls from the existing industrial buildings and site. Consistent with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, the Final Order of Conditions shall require the submission of a signed Illicit Discharge Compliance 1 Statement prior to the discharging of stormwater runoff to the post-construction stormwater BMP's. A draft copy of the Illicit Discharge Statement is provided in Attachment G. 1 4.0 MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE EVALUATION 1' The project is a comprehensive redevelopment of an industrial site. There is a 42,870 square-foot increase in impervious surfaces associated with the proposed i i A7 1 1 redevelopment of the project site. Runoff from the new impervious surfaces must 1 meet all 10 Stormwater Management Standards. The existing 93,551 square-feet of on-site impervious surfaces are required to meet the Standards to the maximum 1 extent practicable. The proposed stormwater management system meets all 10 Stormwater Management Standards except that; 1) less than 65% of the site impervious surfaces are conveyed to the stormwater infiltration device (a 1 requirement for full conformance with Standard 3); and 2) proprietary separators are proposed as terminal treatment devices to provide the minimum 80% TSS removal for each outfall. (Standard 4 allows proprietary separators to be used as terminal treatment devices only for redevelopment projects where it is not feasible to provide other treatment BMPs, which is the case at this site). The term "maximum extent practicable" is defined in the Stormwater Management 1 Handbook as: 1) Proponents of redevelopment projects have made all reasonable efforts to 1 meet the applicable Standard; 2) They have made a complete evaluation possible stormwater management 1 measures including environmentally sensitive site design that minimizes land disturbance and impervious surfaces, low impact development techniques, and stormwater BMPs; and 1 3) If not in full compliance with the applicable Standard, they are implementing the highest practicable level of stormwater management. Environmentally sensitive site design techniques have been applied to this site, such 1 as reduced parking ratios, providing under-building parking, and by providing taller buildings to reduce overall building footprints. The site design creates a wide 1 vegetated buffer between the proposed buildings and the North River Canal, which will help naturally filter stormwater runoff. This is an improvement over existing conditions which currently contains impervious surfaces up to the edge of the canal 1 walls. The North River Canal is the topographic low-point on the project site. Ideally, 1 terminal treatment and infiltration BMPs would be positioned along the canal, avoiding the need for upstream proprietary treatment devices and increasing the amount of recharge proposed at the site. However, several site characteristics 1 make such construction impossible, as described below. All reasonable efforts have been made to bring the site stormwater management design as close to full compliance with the Standards as possible. The restrictive site characteristics are as follows: ' 1) AUL & Contamination - The existing paved areas and industrial building near 1 proposed Outfall #1 are recorded as Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) areas. A8 i 1 1 The gravel area between the existing Finishing Building and Building No. 59 near proposed Outfall #2 contain buried drums filled with boiler ash that will be removed as part of the site remediation program. The industrial contamination associated with these areas requires that infiltration BMPs or BMP's that interact with the groundwater table (i.e. constructed wetlands) be located elsewhere. 2) Groundwater Table -The groundwater table along the banks of the North ' River Canal generally is controlled by the tidal water surface level of the canal. The seasonal high water table in the areas along the canal is approximately 3 to 4 feet below existing grade. The high groundwater table ' makes it impossible to design infiltration systems that would meet MassDEP design guidelines. Also, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding performance standards prevent placement of fill to create raised infiltration beds or basins. ' Elevating the site to provide adequate separation to the groundwater table or berms for extended detention basins is not possible. ' 3) Tidal River and Floodplain - The minimal elevation differential between the existing ground surface and the peak water elevation in the North River Canal creates backwatering concerns which would affect the performance of lined ' stormwater BMPs such as Bioretention Areas or Sand Filters. Water flowing from the canal back into the BMPs could resuspend trapped pollutants. Constructing stormwater management BMPs within a floodplain is also not practicable due to the potential for physical damage from the river during flooding conditions. 4) Setbacks —The Structural BMP Specifications for the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook provides minimum setback distances to surface waters ' and restrictions on siting stormwater treatment BMP's within wetland resources areas such as Riverfront Area and Bordering Land Subject to Flooding. There is insufficient room to site BMP's other than proprietary ' separators after accounting for setback requirements. 5) Ch. 91 Land —The majority of the land along the banks of the North River Canal is filled tidelands subject to Chapter 91 waterways regulations. The area needs to be maintained for public use. Siting large surficial stormwater treatment devices within this area would infringe upon or prevent public use of ' the area. Placing new buildings on filled tidelands is also prohibited which requires that the proposed apartment buildings be placed as they are presently located. 6) Lot Shape—The long and narrow lot shape restricts the site layout and the potential locations for stormwater BMPs. A-9 7) Topography— Site redevelopment is constrained by the approximately 30-foot ' grade difference between the southerly property line (the residential properties along Beaver Street) and the land along the canal and railroad tracks. The grade difference, and the need for parking facilities and vehicular access to the apartment buildings, requires that the buildings, utilities, and ' parking facilities be located as shown on the plans. There is no remaining land on the site which would support traditional stormwater management BMPs. ' 8) Soil Conditions —The soil conditions within the project site have been widely disturbed and compromised by past industrial activities. The proposed ' infiltration BMP has been sited in an area of the project site with clean, sandy soils that exhibit minimal signs of industrial disturbance in the substratum. Due to topographic constraints, it is not possible to direct runoff from additional , impervious surfaces to the proposed infiltration structure. The use of the proposed infiltration structure has been maximized. The proposed project improves existing ' conditions because post-development annual recharge volumes exceed pre- development conditions. There is a 12% decrease (at a minimum) in stormwater runoff volume from the project site during the 2- to 100-year storm events which is , attributed to the proposed recharge device and by replacing industrial gravel surfaces with well vegetated, relatively-flat surfaces that promote natural stormwater filtration and infiltration. ' Using proprietary separators will provide the highest level of stormwater treatment given the numerous site constraints noted above. There currently is no engineered ' stormwater management system at the site, so untreated stormwater sheet flows from impervious surfaces directly into the river. Providing an engineered drainage system and eliminating surface water contact with contaminates is an improvement , over existing conditions. The proposed proprietary separators that provide terminal treatment (WQS#2, ' WQS#3, and WQS#5) will improve TSS removal from the contaminate industrial site. The proprietary separators are oversized and provide TSS removal efficiencies greater than 80% due to their small tributary impervious areas and the higher water t quality flow rates that the devices are capable of handling. 5.0 SUMMARY ' The proposed drainage system and site redevelopment plans for the mixed-used development conforms to MassDEP Stormwater Management Regulations. The proposed drainage system will treat and remove TSS and other pollutants A-10 i throughout the project area, recharge groundwater, and minimize erosion. Proper construction and operation and maintenance of the proposed drainage system are ' critical to its long-term performance. To that end, an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan have been prepared and will be instituted throughout the facilities' life. L A-11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT B STORMWATER COMPUTATIONS 1 & REFERENCES 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 t t B.1 ) Recharge Volume & Design Calculations ' B.2) Deep Observation Hole Soil Logs ' B.3) Groundwater Contour Plan B.4) Drawdown Analysis ' B.5) USDA Soil Survey ' B.6) Water Quality Calculations Sheet ' B.7) Water Quality Flow Rate Sizing Calculations & TSS Net Annual Efficiency Calculations ' (by Hydro International) ' B.8) Structural BMP's Sizing Calculations ' B.9) TSS Removal Calculation Worksheets 1 1 1 1 1 1 Griffin Engineering Group, LLC 100 Cummings Center, Suite 224G ' P.O. Box 7061 Beverly, MA 01915 Phone: 978.927-5111;Fax: 978-927-5103 RECHARGE VOLUME & DESIGN CALCULATIONS Job Name: Grove Street-Apartments& Office Building ' Job No: 700 Date 12-19-11 (Revised 10-16-14) Designer JSB ' Checked By: RHG IMPERVIOUS AREA 60 Grove Street 64 Grove Street 3 Harmony Total Grove Road Existing 23,270 70,281 0 93,551 Proposed 15,891 119,060 1,470 136,421 ' Net 1 -7,379 48,779 1 1,470 42,870 Target Depth Factor: "C"Type Soils 0.25 inches of runoff ' MINIMUM RECHARGE REQUIRED: For Increase in Impervious Area: Volume= (42,870 sf) x (0.25') x(T/12") = 893 cf ' Note: If this project was entirely new development, 2,825 cf(135,590 sf x 0.25' x 1712") of recharge would be required. However, since the project is a mix of new development and redevelopment, recharge from the new development(increase in impervious surfaces) is required and recharge from the redevelopment area is required to the maximum extent practicable. RECHARGE STRUCTURE DESIGN ' Impervious Area Tributary to Infiltration Field = 48,638 sf (Subcatchment P-10,11,12,13,14,15,20a) Percentage of New Impervious Surfaces = 113% Percentage of Total Impervious Surfaces= 36% Note: Maximum extent practicable Ratio of Total Site Imp. Area to Tributary Area= 2.80 Min. Required Recharge Volume= 893 cf Adjusted Required Min. Recharge Volume= 2,505 cf Provided Recharge Volume in Infil. Field Below Overflow Outlet(Ref. HydroCad) = 3,472 cf ' Page 1 of B.1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-3) Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=2.99" , Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 12/27/2013 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC ' Summary for Pond IF: Infiltration Field [86] Warning: Oscillations may require smaller dt (severity=891) ' Inflow Area = 55,125 sf, 88.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.46" Inflow = 3.32 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 11,295 cf ' Outflow = 0.43 cfs @ 11.92 hrs, Volume= 21,854 cf, Atten= 87%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.43 cfs @ 11.92 hrs, Volume= 21,854 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf fLgt4cA*_645� ' Routing by5Sjp.RQute method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 51'.XI C- A V oc-U wt I.:' Peak Eiev 14.7 ' 12.66 hrs Surf.Area= 2,263 sf Storage= 3,472 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) ' Center-of-Mass det. time= 6.5 min ( 783.8 - 777.3) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description ' #1 12.50' 2,490 cf 25.00'W x 90.001 x 4.00'H Prismatoid 9,000 cf Overall- 2,776 cf Embedded = 6,224 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 13.00' 2,756 cf StonnTech SC-740 x 60 Inside#1 ' Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap #3 13.00' 20 cf 12.0" Round Pipe Storage Inside#1 ' L= 25.0' #4 13.00' 93 cf 4.00'D x 7.43'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder #5 20.43' 1,141 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) 6,500 of Total Available Storage ' Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) ' 20.43 4 0 0 21.00 4,000 1,141 1,141 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Discarded 8:270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontalarea #2 Primary 14.75' 18.0" Round Culvert OUoW L= 166.8' CPP,square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 14.75'/ 12.25' S=0.01507' Cc= 0.900 13Lrs✓moo N • n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.43 cfs @ 11.92 hrs HW=13.00' (Free Discharge) ' t1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.43 cfs) triOutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=12.50' TW=12.15' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2 ' =Culvert (Controls 0.00 cfs) it i Atr& A Gl! 'X t3 , 1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts (4 Cityfrown of Form 11 : Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. 0 -si a Review (Continued) Deep Observation Hole Number. TR/ CEt ev75Y) son H Soil Lubhc CouaFr�nardsDepth Oa) njRftod"UnolpWok,� Soil Texture %by Vol uns sonSon N30A} ravel leen StruoLne D°ru!ieturee other stable SAS .z �o i v.aaass 0 Additional Notes; T/UtS —RoV1� 70 ,r Sytm W G1,. I h 6— 1t6 t5h0Fm11•rev.10/07 . . Form 11—Soli SWfabNq'AsseswTwg for Onsite Sewage DWpoeW •Puge 5 of e fi♦ � iiiii• � fi• � f• fi fi• � fiiiii• � fii• i � � � � Commonwealth of Massachusetts p° CRY/Town of Form 11 i- Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. Unite Review (Continued) Deep Observation Hole Number. 2'O'.2 (61,64 Depth nR) sod Hortm Sod RLtr6c col � noMblee Cous►.Pr Lever mow(U= eiry 309TerdureQJM %byYotume Soil soil PPS or argot D� revel lee 3 Shvchue Co+u4bnee Otter Stones (Nola" a Sy- G 4 to Y¢. 31-) - SLS 3� a/ Fit- Gy- 7H 3 5,1 P- 6,14- -7 q 1.)o -7N-1.)o C N•Co. Additional Notes: C � [ fyLffZ v1RtL'S t &44 fFs 80ft .d.t KO L-j ca piN , � - S(iWT G '7 t5f0rtnll•rev,10/07 - Form 11-8011 SWC ftAsseasrnentfor on8de Sswage Disposal •page 5 of 8 Commomvealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 " $oil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. Onsite Review (Continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: 1-7.31 Redaodmotphk Features Depth nM1) I.H sell UsIr Col (MOM**) Coars*f at msaL . �r moral(Mmnaiq sellTezture 7G byYottuns 300 SoU for N3D� d Cobbles 3 Struelure cormutance Dow stones �' 6 -d FLLL _ 3 Sia G j! -- 3y- 3 6 A ;5 to YR 3(0- Ido G I to YfR 4 Merv. • d� G d/6 SCs, Lb_ � Additional Notes: t5fam11•rev,10167 Form 11-Sall SWtabft Aswsw mtt9r 0"ft Saa®Os ptgposal .pags 5 of 8 l.■ r � 1• 1• 1• 1, � � � 1• 1• 1• 1• � 1• 1•■ 1• i• i� f• i• f• � f• � f• f• f• i• i• i• i• 'i• f• i•� re t; Commonwealth of Massachusetts Cityrrown of Form 11 : Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (Continued) Deep Observation Hole Number. P- a.A CEL IT-0) Redoximorphlc Features Coarse Fragments Sol]Horizon/Soil Matrix:Color. (mottles) Depth M) layer Moist(Munsell) Soil Texture %by Volume Soil Soil (USDA) Structure Consistence Other epth olor ereent ravel Cobbles& (moist) Stones 7$- ISO G i to Y2 y Woo. o `1 54A& a to aCI w s Additional Notes: t5form1l•rev.10/07 . Form 11—Soil Suitability Assessment for On-SRe Sewage Disposal •Page 5 of 8 - ri p Commonwealth of Massachusetts lugCity/Town of Form 11 i Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (Continued) Deep Observation Hole Number. -FP 3 A (6t, f�•3 Radoxlmorphic Features Coarse F Depth Pn.) Soil Horizo Soil Matrix:Color- (rn ea) Soil Texture %by Volre Fragments Soil Soll Layer Moist(Munsain (USDA) Structure Consistence Other epth Color eroont Gravel Cobbles S (Moist) Stones 6 'luO GwL �' — o -� A- F, -7-5 -/g6 . 5Aei A Additional Notes: t5forml I•rev.10/67 . FOm111—Soil Suitability Assessment for OnSlte Sewage Disposal •Page 5 of 8 iiiiil. hili r I• il• � i� � I• il• � � il• � I• I• il• l� ' MONITORING WELL DATA LOCUS ry GRANITE CUa.B 1, MONITORING WELL ELEV WATEDEPTH RTO GROUNDWATER ' HARU0 WELL (I) (z) (4/9/12) (4/9/12) N lm— 'y CR sw-Mw-1 .06' 5,59' n s9' 6 ' a �RTR R pv�' ROAD SW-MW-2 n8.56' 5.56' 3.10' �� 72C 475 SW-MW-4 12.60' 5.75' _ _— =\\ sw-MW-S e.e5' 6.88 599' rr sw-Mw-6 12.e2' 6.e9' S.9m EASEMENT N\T _. l_ Sw Mw l0 ,za4 558' 8,40' gos SIT T EXlsnrvcSW-14W-1 16 38 / RAILROAD CROSSING �L 21.1]' 6-83' WSr L. L \ 5.64' 5.97' 6.47' SW-MW-11 1147' 6.61' 6.86' 110' /A �A ASA .'�� �� BAB�MW-I 456' 3.5 6.07' .p\ 5 , MAP 16 LOT 239 O9 I \ \ A jTAV (3 HARMONY GRObE RD.J Ni(L V AUL2-M W-1 10.62' ilfi' 5 8 30,995 SO Fi 0.71 ACRES \ \ AUL3-MW 1 991 5.03' 2.98' /� p 25' WIDE �� AUL3 MW 2 9.29 568' 3.61' SCALE: � =V00 FORMER L SEWER TANNERY \ YEASEMENi GTA MW 1 1319 6,4 ' 67,' \NFILTRATIONS \ \^ FTn MW 2 139, 7.09' 6.82' (I) LISTED MONITORING WELLS INSTALLED BY GEOLOGICAL FIELD SERNCES, INC. IN OCTOBER 2011. (2) WELL ELEVATION MEASURED AT TOP OF PVC RISER. Ll I ¢ A\ re / 1AS I,ILIJ� \ \ IT CNL \ HENT •. W_I.PAFENT. II A AUL AEA 1 \ \ \_ t/ 13,465± BE - EORMER \ \ .....". ...I —TANNERY RY AREA �. v _ T A V A 'A NSA0�� / EMAP 16 Li O 236 \ \ \ /\Q\ /\ \ \ \ '9 NOTE: WELLS APPEAR 64 GROVE STREET TO BE AFFECTED BY ( 233,180 SOFT. \ \ - 1 TIDE LEVEL. s35 ACRES, AT, �_ AUL AREA 3 6092 SF 11\ No Date IDescnptron c A Revisions Two v, �now cn,SN It'd' c /� ~ � ! VI \ \ � f7 �f�\. �•rY� 1 /7F s q \ 2e �\� : . 'S/ / \� 4•\..� �b ..�ff�����9 Sto• 5��—�sr,-"�"-' ��J\ �6�91 \;. \\ \\ l w DIT ca \`K nql'•\ \ /'Z_� \\ \ l+c. \\� H r IE DCIE / Io (60A GR10VE LOT STREET)I �u \ 1 A 26,RAE SO FT. O LEGEND / ,� /555 /�\ t \� , ` -70BIT CON62 I I G — ` /1 \ Engineering LEG PA'CMENT I 6j > — EXIST. PROPERTY LINE \/� / ( 1 � "1l � I � - / � I .j P, LLC NOTES S PLAN IS PREPARED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING — EXIST. EASEMENT LINE P.O Box 7061 PREVIOUS (PRE 2011) AND RECENT SOIL EXPLORATION LOCATIONS. 100 Cummin sCenlei;Suite 224G ALL PREVIOUS TEST LOCATIONS ARE FROM RECORD PLANS AND EXIST. BUILDING ,� 1 A� V \\ -3 9 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE, THIS PLAN IS NOT / - Y BEANI,,MA 01915 SUITABLE FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES. — EXIST. RETAINING WALL y \ 2) EXISTING CONDITIONS AND BOUNDARY SURVEY BY LEBLANC £ \\ \ \\'S- \ TEL 976-927-5111 SURVEY ASSOCIATES, INC. IN MARCH/APRIL OF 2007. E%ISi. CONTOUR i_1 I �y\ a \ `..\ \ Fax:978-92]-5103 U 3) SUBSURFACE UTTES EXIST ON-SITE AND ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 1w GULF OF MAINE TEST PITS (PER 1991 PLAN) ` I\ 1 4 PROPERTY LINES FOR 3 HARMONY GROVE ROAD ARE ` �C \� / \\ \ Mw I f MRI\') PROJECT APPROXIMATE. ♦B-e GLUE OF MAINE BORINGS (PER 1991 PLAN) 5) SITE PUN REFERENCES A.O.H. AV�. AV 1 MANAGEMENT, LLC ' -STE EXPLORATION PLAN FOR 60 GROVE STREET, SALEM, MA 0uw-�a1 GULF OF MAINE MONITORING WELL (PER ,991 PLAN) \` A Bl i. CONC �. < ll PREPARED BY GULF OF MAINE DATED OCTOBER 1991. \" L / PARKING \(\.\ 7 \\ \ y A7L5222AREA SF \ 60-64 GROVE ST. GRUE 3: WAIVER COMPLETION SETS PLAN PREPARED FOR •v-e GULF OF MAINE SAMPLES(PER 1991 PLAN) \ \ \ \_ ii / .3 HARMONY GROVE SALEM OIL AND GREASE COMPANY GATED AUGUST 4, 1994. X/-`-, \ \ (h -FIGURE 5. OFFICE BASEMENT SAMPLING LOCATONS MAY \ \' / 1990. AND AUGUST 1991, PREPARED By GULF OF MAINE R GULF OF MAINE BUILDING SAMPLES (1990) y tea\ BIT. COYC. RESEARCH CENTER, INC " ` \ FA`' , -FIGURE 6: LOCATIONS OF COOPERAGE ROOM AND FORMER ® GULP OF MAINE BUILDING COMPOSITE SAMPLES (1991) / SULFONATION BUILDING BASEMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS: MAY `�\ / \ II(1 1990 AND AUGUST 1RST PREPARED BY GULF OF MAINE 0 AUL AREAS (1994) / I I GROUNDWATER RESEARCH CENTER, INC. 1 ` -FIGURES. FINISHING BUILDING BASEMETN SAMPLING at5s-I DEC MONITORING WELL(2007) \ y"`\ _ CONTOUR PLAN LOCATONS. PHASE II: MAY 1990 AND AUGUST 1991, [[[ j 1\ PREPARED BY GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH CENTER, INCGES SOIL BORINGS(2007) �. I F D REFERENCES crs MaNITa9wc WELL (2011) GRAPHIC SCALE 1) DEED B OR E00 PAGE 109 �uw ✓ S<ple;I'-IO' 2J DEED BOOK 7654 PAGE 26 Sg 3) PLAN BOOK 152 PLAN 96 GFS SOIL BORINGS (2011) �Y• - = Job No. TM 4) LAND COURT PLAN 11112418 m GFS LEST PITS (2011) �, CWC S) PLAN N6626(air) ( p FE.T) L / - BLtl�6 p/p/e/0-n 6) PLAN IN DEED 3K 5452 PG. 1117) PLAN IN DEED BC 4983 PG. 4DO � '�—,INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONTOURS 1 inc5 0 t \/ \ QI4/10/12 �1Mr17 1 06 �- 3�3 Griffin Engineering Group, LLC 100 Cummings Center, Suite 224G ' P.O. Box 7061 Beverly, MA 01916 Phone: 978-927-5111; Fax: 978-927-5103 DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS Job Name: Grove Street-Apartments &Office Building Job No: 700 Date 10-18-11 (Revised 10-16-14) Designer JSB Checked By: RHG DRAWDOWN CALCULATION: Infil. Field Overflow Elev. 14.75 ft Infil. Field Btm Elev.= 12.5 ft ' Depth (D) of Water in Structure = 2.25 ft or 27 in. Equation: Drawdown = D/ IR (hrs) D= Depth of Water in Structure(in) IR = Infiltration Rate(in/hr) ' D IR Drawdown Infiltration Field 1 27.00 1 8.27 1 3.3 Drawdown is less than 72 hours-> OK Page 1 of 1 B.4 1. .1. t // + / - ,�+ nae : ♦�'s� f r+ �.X e'�'1 M+ AN 16. Fj R AlI �y Meson 5l Tf 74- yy 3l 'r v \N 4. X IN ow dry - � �� d��/� P • #: fs� 1 k �"•�, - :11 •11 .1. 11 1 1 11 .11 'll �� 1 t Soil Map—Essex County,Massachusetts,Southern Part (6064 Grove St.,Salem,MA) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION ' Area of Interest tAOp Very Stony Spm Map Scale'.1.4,950 if printed an A size(8.5"•1 V)sheet. , 4 Area of Interest(Ai s Wm Spm The soil surveys that combined your AOI were mapped at 1:15,840. Soils Other lJ Soil Map units a Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Spadal Line Features Enlargement of mad beyond the scale of mapping Can cause Spadal Poli Featured Gully p y FF g ' (! Blowout jw misunderstanding of the not ho mapping and accuracy d sail line a Soon Steep Slope placement The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting ® Bortow Ph aster soils Metcould have been shown at a more detailed scale. Clan,Spot sppolitical Pommel Fmues Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map 4 Closed Oepreeaion � Cities measurements. ' X Gravel Pit Water Features Source of Map'. Natural Resources Conservation Service Gravelly spm streams eon candle Web Soil Survey URL: http'/Nrebsoilsurvey.mce.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zane 19N NAD83 ® Landfill T2napertatlan Raps t versio This rio d is generated from Vie USDA-NRCS certified data as of A Law Flow ... the ven date(s)listed below , ale Mom.swamp iV Interstate Highways Soil Survey Area. Essex County,Massachusetts,Southern Pen da Mine or puany N US Ramee Survey Area Data: Version 9,Feb 26,2010 ® Miscellaneous Weer ^, Mayor Roads Deals)aerial images were photographed, 7/31/2003 p Perennial Water /,v Local Roads The onhophoto or other base map on which Me soil lines Were , - compiled and digitized probably differs from the background .• Rock Gmmoy imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting } Saline Spm of map unit boundaries may be evident. Sandy Spot a Severely Eroded Spat 0 Sinkhole It, Slide or Slip g Sodic Spot C SpmlArea Q Stony Spot �+ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5282012 , Conservation Service National Cooperative Sail Survey Pa e 2 II•S , Soil Map—Essex County,Massachusetts,Southern Part 60-64 Grove St.,Salem,MA ,i Map Unit Legend ' Essex County,Massachusetts,Southern Part(MA606) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres In AOI Percent of AOI 102C Chatfield-Hollis-Rock outcrop complex,3 to 15 11.41 11.1% ' percent slopes 102E Chatfield-Hollis-Rock outcrop complex,15 to 35 11.21 10.9% percent slopes 254C Merrimac fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes 13.6' 13.3% 602 Urban land 52.31 50.9% 651 FUdorthents,smoothed 4.0 3.9% 724C Hollis-Urban land-Rock outcrop complex,sloping 10.1 9.8% Totals for Area of Interest 102.7 100.0%I ' Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/2812012 Conservatlon Service National Cooperative Soil Survey tae 3 013 �rS Griffin Engineering Group, LLC 100 Cummings Center, Suite 224G P.O. Box 7061 Beverly, MA 01915 Phone: 978-927-5111;Fax: 978-927-5103 WATER QUALITY VOLUME CALCULATION SHEET Job Name: Grove Street-Apartments& Office Building Job No: 700 Date 12-19-11 (Revised 10-16-14) Designer JSB ' Checked By: RHG REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME(WQV) = 1 inch of runoff WEIGHTED AVERAGE TSS REMOVAL CALCULATION Treatment Train Total Area Imp. Area WQV % TSS Imp. Tributary Subcatchments so (sf) Removal Area x ' Infiltration Field 55,125 48,638 4,053 80% 38,910 P-10,11 1,12,13,14,15,20a WQS#2 61,143 32,547 2,712 99% 32,221 P-16,17,18,19,20c,23,24 WQS#3 130,704 74,458 6,205 86% 64,034 P-6,7,8,9,25 WQS#5 13,596 12,771 1,064 90% 11,494 P-22a,22b Bike Path (64 Grove) 28,613 9,544 795 25% 2,386 P-3,4 Grove St. Entrance 10,322 5,058 421 25% 1,264 P-21 Bike Path 3 H.G.R.) 73,354 1,470 123 10% 147 P-1,2 Weighted Average 372,857 184,485 82% 1 150,456 Calculations WQV= Imp. Area x 1.0-inches x 1-foot/12-inches Weighted Average %TSS Removal = Total Imp. Area x TSS/Total Imp. Area Notes: 1)Stormwater runoff from the Beaver and Silver Street neighborhoods is routed through the proposed drainage system (to Outfall#1 &Outfall#2). The water quality treatment devices are sized to provide a minimum 80% TSS removal from these impervious areas as well. 2)The proposed impervious areas that do not receive a minimum 80%TSS removal are concidered "de minimus"and meet the criteria listed in the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Handbook. 3) Stormwater runoff from the roofs (Subcartchments P-20b&22c) are omitted from the weighted average calculations unless routed through water quality treatment devices. Roof runoff is considered clean (80% TSS). 4) Refer to attached TSS Removal Calculation Worksheets for%TSS removal for each treatment train and minimum pretreatment requirement for the infiltration BMP. ' Page 1 of 1 B.6 i Water Quality Structure Sizing and TSS Removal Calculations Evaluation reports for both the Downstream Defender and First Defense are posted on the MASTEP website. Both reports are based on NJDEP laboratory test protocols. NJDEP is considered the principal agency among TARP states for evaluation of proprietary separators. Under NJDEP requirements, a proprietary separator must demonstrate at least 50% removal efficiency for certification.The test reports for both the Downstream Defender and First Defense demonstrate removal efficiencies of 70%, for a water quality flow rate (WQF)that does not exceed the 100%treatment flow rate of the device. ' Testing of each device was conducted over a range of flow rates. The removal efficiency is determined by ensuring the flow rate associated with a water quality rainfall event is not greater than the 100% treatment operating rate for the device, and weight factors based upon Type III rainfall distribution are applied to the range of flows to determine a net annual removal efficiency. Net annual efficiency can be predicted for different sites by determining a WQF, and selecting a device size relative to the WQF to provide the required removal efficiency. For example, in Massachusetts, water quality flow can be calculated using"Standard Method to Convert Required Water Quality Volume to a Discharge Rate for Sizing Flow Based Manufactured Proprietary Stormwater Treatment Practices". The calculated WQF is then set as the 100%Treatment Flow Rate,with weight factors for a Type III rainfall distribution applied to the device flow range. Using this methodology, the selection of a larger device size naturally results in a higher removal efficiency than a smaller device for the same required WQF. In other words, although NJDEP testing may demonstrate 70%removal for a particular WQF and device size, greater removal efficiencies can be expected if the device size is increased for the same WQF. The performance of larger size devices is predicted by applying a scaling factor to the tested ' performance of a 4-foot diameter unit.Table 3 of the WQF calculations lists the verified treatment flow rates for 70%TSS removal. In all cases,the required WQF is less than the verified treatment flow rate of the proposed device. In the case of WQS2 &WQS3,where 6' dia. Downstream Defenders are proposed, the WQF is significantly less than the device treatment flow rate.This again would suggest that the calculated removal efficiency of the proposed devices should be greater than 70%. Following are WQF calculations for the Grove Street Apartments project in Salem based on the MassDEP Standard Method,along with net annual removal efficiency calculations, which are determined by inserting the WQF values for each device into the NJDEP weighted efficiency table. 1 41 Calculation of Required Water Quality Flow for Sizing of Stormwater Treatment System ' 10/22/2014 Based on Massachusetts DEP document: ' "Standard Method to Convert Required Water Quality Volume to a Discharge Rate for Sizing Flow Based Manufactured Proprietary Stormwater Treatment Practices" Stormwater Standard No.4 requires that the full WQV be captured and treated to remove 80%of the TSS load. Since manufactured proprietary separators are sized using discharge rates and not volume, MassDEP requires the method below be used to convert the required WQV to a discharge rate(WQF). ' Project Site: Grove Street Apartments&Office Building Project Location: Salem,MA Area Type: Critical Runoff Depth,Q: 1 " (0.5" non-Critical/1"Critical) Table 1. Structure Imp.Area Name (acres) A(mile s) t.(min.) t°(hrs.) WQS1 0.51 0.000797 6.0 0.100 , WQS2 0.75 0.001172 15.2 0.253 WQS3 1.71 0.002672 16.8 0.280 WQSS 0.29 0.000453 6.0 0.100 Because only runoff from impervious surfaces is used in calculation of WQV,area is considered 100%impervious Therefore,CN= 98 Enter la/P Ratio for CN=98: ' la/P= 0.034 (0.058 for Q=0.5"/0.034 for Q=1") Enter unit peak discharge,ou(csm/in)for Type III rainfall distribution, la/P,and tc From Figure 2(Q=0.5")or Figure 4(Q=11 Table 2. Structure qu Name (csm/in) W QS 1 774 WQS2 628 WQS3 607 WQS5 774 WQF in cfs=(qu)(A)(Q).where: ' WQF=water quality flow(cfs) q„=unit peak discharge(csm/in) From Table 2 above A=drainage area(miZ) From Table 1 above Q=runoff depth(watershed inches) Based on Area Type,from above Table 3. ' q„ A Q WQF Proposed Device Proposed Removal Structure Name (csm/in) (miles) (in) (cfs) Device Flow(cfs) Config. Efficiency` WQS1 774 0.000797 1, 0.62 4'FD 0.7 Online 77% WQS2 628 0.001172 1 0.74 6'DD 3.8 Offline 99% ' WQS3 607 0.002672 1 1.62 6'DD 3.8 Offline 86% WQS5 774 0.000453 1 0.35 4'FD 0.7 Online 90°% *Refer to following pages for removal efficiency calculations. 1 pZ U Y 3, 7 Net Annual Efficiency Calculation Project: Grove Street Apartments&Office Building Location: Salem, MA Note: Set required Water Quality Volume Flowrate to 100%Treatment Flow Rate. Removal Efficiency is based upon proposed device size and type. ' Device ID: WQS2 Device Size: 6-ft Diameter Downstream Defender %Treatment Flow Rate Flow Rate Removal Weighted Flow Rate (gpm) (cfs) Efficiency Weight Factor Efficiency Water 25% 83 0.19 100% 0.25 25% Quality 50% 166 0.31 100% 0.30 30% Flowrate 249 0.56 100% r 0.20 20% 100% 332 0.74 97% 0.15 15% 125% 415 0.93 89% 0.10 9% Average Annual Efficiency: 99% tDevice ID: WQS3 Device Size: 6-ft Diameter Downstream Defender %Treatment Flow Rate Flow Rate Weighted Flow Rate (gpm) (cfs) Efficiency Weight Factor Efficiency 25% 182 0.41 100% 0.25 25% ' 50% 364 0.81 94% 0.30 28% 75% 545 1.22 80% 0.20 16% 100% 727 1.62 69% 0.15 10% ' 125% 909 2.03 61% 0.10 6% Average Annual Efficiency: 86% w ' 3 6F 13. 7 Net Annual Efficiency Calculation r Project: Grove Street Apartments&Office Building Location: Salem, MA ' Note: Set required Water Quality Volume Flowrate to 100%Treatment Flow Rate. ' Removal Efficiency is based upon proposed device size and type. Device ID: WQS3 , Device Type: 4-ft Diameter First Defense %Treatment Flow Rate Flow Rate Device Weighted Flow Rate Weight Factor Water (gpm) (cfs) Efficiency Efficiency 25% 70 0.16 100% 0.25 25% Quality 50% 139 0.31 81% 0.30 24% Flowrate 7 a 209 0.47 68% 0.20 14% 100% 278 0.62 60% 0.15 9% 125% 348 0.78 53% 0.10 5% Average Annual Efficiency: 77% Device ID: WQSS ' Device Type 4-ft Diameter First Defense %Treatment Flow Rate Flow Rate Device Weighted Weight Factor Flow Rate (gpm) (cfs) Efficiency Efficiency 25% 39 0.09 100% 0.25 25% ' 50% 79 0.18 98% 0.30 30% 75% 118 0.26 86% 0.20 17% 100% 157 0.35 77% 0.15 12% ' 125% 196 0.44 70% 0.10 7% Average Annual Efficiency: 90% 13, 7 1 1 Griffin Engineering Group, LLC 100 Cummings Center, Suite 224G P.O. Boz 7061 Beverly, MA 01915 Phone: 978-927-5111;Fax:978-927-5103 ' STUCTURAL BMP's SIZING CALCULATIONS Job Name: Grove Street-Apartments& Office Building Job No: 700 Date 12-23-13 (Revised 10-16-14) Designer JSB ' Checked By: RHG INIFLTRATION FIELD Tribuatary Imp. Area 48,638 sf(22,225 sf Parking Lot&26,413 sf Building Roofs) Min. Infil. Field Sizing Crit. 1 inch/impervious area (WQV) Min. Req. WQV(Rv) 4,053 cf Sizing -Simple Dynamic Method Field Area (A) 2,250 sf Rawls Rate (k) 8.27 in/hr t Discard time(t) 2.00 hr Volume Discarded (V) 3,101 cf V=A*k*t Min. Static Volume Req'd (Vs) 952 cf Vs=Rv-V Infil. Field Static Vol. Provided 3,472 cf(below outlet pipe -see attached HydroCAD in B.1) OK PROPRIETARY SEPARATORS Refer to Attached Water Quality Flow Rate (WQF) Calculations and TSS Removal Efficiency Calculations ' Prepared by the Manufacturer, Hydro International. WQS2-DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER (DD) BYPASS MANHOLE CALCULATIONS ' Bypass Weir Elev= DD Outlet Elev. + Flow Depth in DD Outlet Pipe @ WQF+ Headloss through DD DD Outlet Elev.= 7.00 ft Flow Depth @ WQF= 0.20 ft(See Attached) Headloss through DD = 0.04 ft HL=WQF`/(21.5x4`) Min. Bypass Weir Elev= 7.24 ft Provided Weir Elev.= 7.25 ft WQS3 -DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER (DD) BYPASS MANHOLE CALCULATIONS Bypass Weir Elev= DD Outlet Elev. + Flow Depth in DD Outlet Pipe @ WQF+ Headloss through DD DO Outlet Elev.= 6.05 ft Flow Depth @ WQF= 0.47 ft(See Attached) Headloss through DD = 0.19 ft HL=WQF`/(21.5xk) Min. Bypass Weir Elev= 6.71 ft Provided Weir Elev.= 6.71 ft WQS1&5 - FIRST DEFENSE PROPRIETARY SEPARATORS Internal Bypass Configuration Bypass Flowrate= 0.7 cfs (Per Manufacturer) WQF = 0.62 &0.35 cfs -> OK Page 1 of 3 B.8 Free Online Manning Pipe Flow Calculator Page 1 of 1 1 Free Online Manning Pipe Flow Calculator List of Calculators Hydraulics Language Manning Formula Uniform Pipe Flow at Given Slo a and I Depth was ��- Can you help me translate this calculator to your language or host this calculator at your web , site? 12 L.) Q� 1 0.013 ' Results: Set units: Im I mm I ft inchesFlow, q 0.7403 fs v Velocity, v ft/sec iv Pipe diameter, do nches v Velocity head, h„ 0.6871 ft n Manning roughness, n ? 0.013 Flow area 0.1113 ft^2 v Wetted perimeter 0.9258[iv Pressure slope (possibly ? equal to 0.057 Hydraulic radius 0.1203 ft v pipe slope), So riselrun v Top width, T 0.7991 Percent of(or ratio to) full depth AL19.94 ft � (100% or 1 if flowing full) oho Fronde number, F 3.14 , Shear stress (tractive 0.7097 psf v force), tau G a• 39 � za o. a �- �a„ Please give us your valued words of suggestion or praise. Did this free calculator exceed ' your expectations in every way? Home I Support I FreeSoftware I Engineerinq Services I Engineering Calculators Technical Documents I Blog (new in 2009) 1 Personal essays I Collaborative Family Trees , Contact Last Modified 10/16/2014 13:30:37 I http://www.hawsede.com/engcalcs/Manning-Pipe-Flow.php of 3 10/16/2014 8� Free Online Manning Pipe Flow Calculator Page I of 1 I Free Online Manning Pipe Flow Calculator List of Calculators Hydraulics Language Manning Formula Uniform Pipe Flow at Gi7777 Sld Depth ' Can you help me translate this calculator to your language or host this calculator at your web site? 12 vow 0.013 Results: Set units: m mm ft inches Flow, q 1.6200 cfs v Velocity, v 4 ft/sec v Pipe diameter, do 12Velocity, v Velocity head, h„ 0.3048 ft v Flow area 0.3658R2v Manning roughness, n ? 16.0iil Wetted perimeter 1.5170 ft v Pressure slope (possibly ? equal to 0.01 Hydraulic radius 0.2412 ft v pipe slope), So riseirun v rPercent of(or ratio to) full depth a�.31� Top width, T 0.9985 ft v ' 0 % or 1 if flowing full) % Froude number, F 1.29 Shear stress (tractive 0.2954 psf v force), tau o,-1-1 jl � Please give us your valued words of suggestion or praise. Did this free calculator exceed your expectations in every way? Home I Support I FreeSoftware I Engineering Services I Engineering Calculators Technical Documents I Blog (new in 2009) 1 Personal essays I Collaborative Family Trees Contact Last Modified 10/16/2014 13:39:06 http://www.hawsede.com/engcaics/Manning-Pipe-Flow.php ?,&UC 3 o~ -3 10/16/2014 U,P INSTRUCTIONS: neon-automated:hoar 4,2008 1. Sheet is nonautomated. Print sheet and complete using hand calculations. Column A and B: See MassDEP Structural BMP Table 2.The calculations must be completed using the Column Headings specified in Chart and Not the Excel Column Headings 3. To complete Chart Column D, multiple Column B value within Row x Column C value within Row 4. To complete Chart Column E value,subtract Column D value within Row from Column C within Row 5.Total TSS Removal=Sum All Values in Column D LocationdINFILTRATION FIELD (PRETREATMENT) A B C D E TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMP' Rate' Load* Removed B*C Load C-D FIRST DEFENSE PROPRIETARY d SEPARATOR 0.77 1.00 0.77 0.23 L fA o 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 E C0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 Cl) S f— 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 ccV U 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Total TSS Removal = 77% Outlet or BMP Train Project: MRM-GROVE ST. Prepared By: JSB *Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date: 10/16/2014 which enters the BMP Page 1 of 8 13.9 V INSTRUCTIONS: Version 1,Automated.,Mar. 4, 2008 1. In BMP Column, click on Blue Cell to Activate Drop Down Menu 2. Select BMP from Drop Down Menu 3. After BMP is selected,TSS Removal and other Columns are automatically completed. Location: INFILTRATION FIELD B C D E F TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMP' Rate' Load* Removed C*D Load D-E Q) Subsurface.Infiltration Structure 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.20 IF 0 0 0.00 0.20 0.00 IF 0.20 d1E 0 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 ~ 3 0.00 0.20 _�]F 0.00 0.20 V U 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Total TSS Removal = 80% Outlet or BMP Train Project: MRM-GroveSireet Prepared By: SSB *Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date: 10H6/2014 which enters the BMP Non-automated TSS Calculation Sheet must be used if Proprietary BMP Proposed 1. From MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Vol. 1 Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection I W INSTRUCTIONS: Non-automated..Mar.4,2008 1. Sheet is nonautomated. Print sheet and complete using hand calculations. Column A and B: See MassDEP Structural BMP Table 2.The calculations must be completed using the Column Headings specified in Chart and Not the Excel Column Headings 3. To complete Chart Column D, multiple Column B value within Row x Column C value within Row 4. To complete Chart Column E value, subtract Column D value within Row from Column C within Row 5.Total TSS Removal=Sum All Values in Column D Location:IWQS#2 -OUTFALL#1 A B C D E TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMPRate' Load* Removed (B*C) Load C-D ++ DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER PROPRIETARY SEPARATOR 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.01 N 0 0 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 d 01 1 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 CO M -IF IF ~ V 0.000.01 0.00 0.01 R U 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Total TSS Removal = 99% :::]Outlet or BMP Train Project: MRM-GROVE ST, Prepared By:1JSB *Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date: 10/16/2014 which enters the BMP Page 3 of 8 B.9 INSTRUCTIONS: Non-automated.Mar.a,2008 1. Sheet is nonautomated. Print sheet and complete using hand calculations. Column A and B: See MassDEP Structural BMP Table 2. The calculations must be completed using the Column Headings specified in Chart and Not the Excel Column Headings 3. To complete Chart Column D, multiple Column B value within Row x Column C value within Row 4. To complete Chart Column E value,subtract Column D value within Row from Column C within Row 5. Total TSS Removal=Sum All Values in Column D Location:I WOS#3-OUTFALL#2 A B C D E TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMP' Rate' Load" Removed (B*C) Load C-D +,r DOWNSTREAMDEFENDER d PROPRIETARY SEPARATOR 0.85 1.00 L 0.86 0.14 > >V Q Q 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 E RooC wQ 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 40 ~ 0 V 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 __]FE:R U 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Total TSS Removal = 86/0::::] Outlet or BMP Train Project: MRM-GROVE ST. Prepared By: JSB `Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date: 1011612014 which enters the BMP Page 4 of 8 B.9 INSTRUCTIONS: neon-automated:Mar.a,2008 1. Sheet is nonautomated. Print sheet and complete using hand calculations. Column A and B: See MassDEP Structural BMP Table 2.The calculations must be completed using the Column Headings specified in Chart and Not the Excel Column Headings 3.To complete Chart Column D, multiple Column B value within Row x Column C value within Row 4. To complete Chart Column E value,subtract Column D value within Row from Column C within Row 5. Total TSS Removal=Sum All Values in Column D Location:I WQS#5- MUNICIPAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM A B C D E TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMP' Rate' Load* Removed B*C) Load C-D a.+ FIRST DEFENSE PROPRIETARYIF SEPARATOR 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.10 0 0 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0 0 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 ~ 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 V U7F 1777 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Total TSS Removal = 90^io Outlet or BMP Train Project: MRM-GROVE ST. Prepared By: SSB *Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date: 10/16/2014 which enters the BMP Page 5 of 8 B.9 V INSTRUCTIONS: version t,Automated:Mar. 4, 2008 1. In BMP Column, click on Blue Cell to Activate Drop Down Menu 2. Select BMP from Drop Down Menu 3. After BMP is selected, TSS Removal and other Columns are automatically completed. Location: BIKE PATH-64 GROVE STREET. B C D E F TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMP' Rate' Load* Removed C*D Load D-E Deep Sump and Hooded` Catch Basin 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.75 � fn C 0.00 0.75F70-00 0.75 E 0.00 0.75 70.00 0.75 IF ~ 0.00 0.75 0.00 __J0.75 _V U 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.75 Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Total TSS Removal = 25% Outlet or BMP Train Project: MRM-Grove Street Prepared By: .isB *Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date: 10/16/2014 which enters the BMP Non-automated TSS Calculation Sheet must be used if Proprietary BMP Proposed 1. From MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Vol. 1 b °�t5 TMass. Dept. of Environmental Protection �-t; V INSTRUCTIONS: Version 1,Automated:Mar. a, 2008 1. In BMP Column, click on Blue Cell to Activate Drop Down Menu 2. Select BMP from Drop Down Menu 3. After BMP is selected, TSS Removal and other Columns are automatically completed. Location: GROVE STREET ENTRANCE- MUNICIPAL SYSTEM B C D E F TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMP' Rate' Load* Removed C*D Load D-E d Deep Sump and Hooded .0 Catch Basin 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.75 N C C 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.75 E 0 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.75 IF ~ 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.75 V cc U _]F 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.75 Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Total TSS Removal = 25% Outlet or BMP Train Project: MRM-Grove Street Prepared By: JSa *Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date: 10116/2014` which enters the BMP Non-automated TSS Calculation Sheet must be used if Proprietary BMP Proposed 1. From MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Vol. 1 Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection 'PA&C 7 or= 6 31 V INSTRUCTIONS: Version 1,Automated:Mar. 4, 2008 1. In BMP Column, click on Blue Cell to Activate Drop Down Menu 2. Select BMP from Drop Down Menu 3. After BMP is selected;TSS Removal and other Columns are automatically completed. Location: BIKE PATH 3 HARMONY GROVE ROAD B C D E F TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMP1 Rate' Load* Removed C*D Load D-E d Vegetated Filter Strip>25J feet 0.10 1.00 0.10 0.90 t tQ ,YIF OO 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 d 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 ca 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 75v U 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Total TSS Removal = 100 e Outlet or BMP Train Project: MRM-Grove Street Prepared By: JSB *Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date: 10/16/2614 which enters the BMP Non-automated TSS Calculation Sheet must be used if Proprietary BMP Proposed 1. From MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Vol. 1 Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection 1 ! 1 ! ! 1 1 ATTACHMENT C DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS (2-,10-,25-,100-YEAR STORM EVENTS) ! ! ! ! ! (as2o Prop:�bla CBll p,op�11CB18 eJl 01O/// Lpl]�CB 16 uses pM+1 "! Ak \_ Prap:Har oSl. �\To a (P-201,Prop:Tv nal/P25PE P-9-9)�JJ �fey Proposed Bullving Prap. C823 Prop,;Ip C88 prop.;To CB12113 3— B2 ��P-0CBI 613 C821 Prop,;To CB21 CIO Prop.;To CBg CBg A4- �AADA- � -� P AAA D�]A TRO P', TROT pM8 OMB pM10 DMH12A .12C Proposed:Canal PIP TOCBB C86 cel Prop.:11C.1 (P PIP..To Cal Co. DMH13 / YO< Prop'.TO Y04 P-26 Front PrapazM/BuiMing uy" CaO Prop:TO LBB . 1 3 Rid P IO FraPrap:To CBS MPopozM Bud \ Baeme:Ha o� n,so Grow sc cr w \' Q Pprl BuldnB2 Ifitl IT Fivld PIP:TO YG] 1 ❑R /P.lzana c.na\ Ad---A�- P-15 \ P 10 WT Wya01 Lea Prop To Cal E2 / E-3'. PropozM BwdllgI Onwrg:6a Grwe61 Corona.To Cuove a, &M , CB3 Prap;To CW GM1 CO2 PIP-T-0O2 ' A Q--- P-12 Cal Prop:To Cel ' SubCat Reach on:,.. Llnk: Routing Diagram for MRM-GroveSt}Rev-4) Prepared by{enter your company name here}, Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC MRM-Grove&(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment E-1: Existing: Harmony Grove Runoff Area=6,381 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.08" ' Flow Length=34' Slope=0.0300 'P Tc=6.0 min CN=76 Runoff=0.18 cfs 576 cf Subcatchment E-2: Existing: 64 Grove St RunoffArea=347,309 sf 36.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.83" ' Flow Length=516' Tc=12.6 min CN=87 Runoff=13.80 cfs 52,869 cf Subcatchment E-3: Existing: To Grove St. Runoff Area=11,293 sf 66.53% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.26" ' Flow Length=64' Slope=0.03127' Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=0.67 cfs 2,123 cf Subcatchment E-4: Existing: 60 Grove St. Runoff Area=26,948 sf 86.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.55" ' Flow Length=100' Slope=0.01007 Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=1.75 cfs 5,720 cf Subcatchment P-1: Prop: Harmony Grove To Runoff Area=6,381 sf 6.08% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.14" Flow length=34' Slope=0.15007' Tc=6.0 min CN=77 Runoff=0.19 cfs 607 cf ' Subcatchment P-10: Proposed Building 1 Runoff Area=1 1,842 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.82 cfs 2,830 cf ' Subcatchment P-11: Proposed Building 2 Runoff Area=11,842 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.82 cfs 2,830 cf Subcatchment P-12: Prop.: To CB1 Runoff Area=3,464 sf 78.81% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.35" Flow Length=73' Slope=0.0292 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=0.21 cfs 678 cf Subcatchment P-13: Prop.: To CB2 Runoff Area=7,937 sf 83.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.45" , Flow Length=72' Slope=0.0292 'P Tc=6.0 min CN=94 Runoff=0.50 cfs 1,618 cf Subcatchment P-14: Prop.: To CB3 Runoff Area=10,229 sf 72.89% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.16" , Flow Length=113' Tc=6.0 min CN=91 Runoff=0.59 cfs 1,845 cf Subcatchment P-15: Prop.: To CB4 Runoff Area=7,082 sf 76.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.26" ' Flow Length=72' Slope=0.0292'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=0.42 cfs 1,331 cf Subcatchment P-16: Prop.: To CB5 Runoff Area=8,579 sf 65.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.08" ' Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0230 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=0.47 cfs 1,484 cf Subcatchment P-17: Prop.: To CB6 Runoff Area=3,115 sf 64.82% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.08" , Flow Length=121' Tc=6.3 min CN=90 Runoff=0.17 cfs 539 cf Subcatchment P-18: Prop.: To CB7 Runoff Area=5,519 sf 59.89% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.99" Flow Length=130' Tc=6.0 min CN=89 Runoff=0.29 cfs 915 cf , Subcatchment P-19: Prop.: TRD1 Runoff Area=3,016 sf 80.50% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.35" Flow Length=80' Slope=0.0319 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=0.19 cfs 591 cf , Subcatchment P-2: Prop.: To Canal Runoff Area=66,973 sf 9.11% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.33" Flow Length=200' Tc=6.6 min CN=80 Runoff=2.31 cfs 7,398 cf 1 ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type Ill 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD@ 10 nn s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 ' Subcatchment P-20a: Front Proposed Runoff Area=2,729 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.19 cfs 652 cf ' Subcatchment P-20b: Rear Proposed Runoff Area=5,725 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.40 cfs 1,368 cf ' Subcatchment P-20c: Front Proposed Runoff Area=3,389 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.23 cfs 810 cf Subcatchment P-21: Prop: To Grove St. Runoff Area=10,322 sf 49.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.75" ' Flow Length=153' Tc=6.7 min CN=86 Runoff=0.47 cfs 1,504 cf Subcatchment P-22a: Prop.: To CB17 Runoff Area=6,606 sf 89.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.65" ' Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=0.44 cfs 1,459 cf Subcatchment P-22b: Prop: To CB16 Runoff Area=6,990 sf 97.97% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.48 cfs 1,671 cf ' Subcatchment P-22c: Prop: 60 Grove St. Runoff Area=13,345 sf 23.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.33" Tc=6.0 min CN=80 Runoff=0.47 cfs 1,474 cf ' Subcatchment P-23: Prop.: To YD3 Runoff Area=16,901 sf 43.40% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.67" Flow Length=201' Tc=14.9 min CN=85 Runoff=0.58 cfs 2,356 cf Subcatchment P-24: Prop.: To YD4 Runoff Area=20,624 sf 41.18% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.67" Flow Length=282' Tc=15.2 min CN=85 Runoff=0.70 cfs 2,875 cf Subcatchment P-25: Prop.: To CB23 Runoff Area=85,348 sf 43.94% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.67" Flow Length=554' Tc=16.8 min CN=85 Runoff=2.78 cfs 11,896 cf ' Subcatchment P-3: Prop.: To CB20 Runoff Area=14,224 sf 38.79% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.53" Flow Length=146' Tc=7.7 min CN=83 Runoff=0.55 cfs 1,811 cf ' Subcatchment P-4: Prop.: To CB21 Runoff Area=14,389 sf 27.99% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.39" Flow Length=159' Tc=6.9 min CN=81 Runoff=0.52 cfs 1,668 cf Subcatchment P-6: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff Area=17,477 sf 95.15% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.76" ' Flow Length=322' Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=1.19 cfs 4,016 cf Subcatchment P-7: Prop.: To CB8 Runoff Area=7,517 sf 89.25% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.55" ' Flow Length=232' Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff--0.49 cfs 1,596 cf Subcatchment P-8: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff Area=6,497 sf 67.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.08" Flow Length=166' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=0.36 cfs 1,124 cf. ' Subcatchment P-9: Prop.: To CB12&13 Runoff Area=13,865 sf 66.45% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.08" Flow Length=145' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=0.77 cfs 2,399 cf Reach E: Existing: Canal Inflow=15.59 cfs 61,288 cf Outflow=15.59 cfs 61,288 cf MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by(enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Pond CB1: CB1 Peak EIev=18.08' Inflow=0.21 cfs 678 of ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=98.6' S=0.0051 'P Outflow=0.21 cfs 678 of Pond CB10: CB10 Peak EIev=8.30' Inflow=1.19 cfs 4,016 of , 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.7' S=0.0171 '/' Outflow=1.19 cfs 4,016 of Pond C812: CB12&13 Peak EIev=7.51' Inflow=0.77 cfs 2,399 of 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.2' S=0.0089 '/' Outflow=0.77 cfs 2,399 of ' Pond CB16: CB16 Peak EIev=6.44' Inflow=0.48 cfs 1,671 of 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=97.4' S=0.0051 '/' Outflow=0.48 cfs 1,671 of t Pond CB17: CB17 Peak EIev=6.33' Inflow=0.44 cfs 1,459 of 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=4.0' S=0.1250 '/' Outflow=0.44 cfs 1,459 of ' Pond CB2: CB2 Peak Elev=18.17' Inflow=0.50 cfs 1,618 of 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.4' 5=0.0203 '/' Outflow=0.50 cfs 1,618 of Pond CB20: CB20 Peak EIev=6.42' Inflow=0.55 cfs 1,811 of ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=139.2' S=0.0101 '/' Outflow=0.55 cfs 1,811 of Pond CB21: CB21 Peak EIev=6.37' Inflow=0.52 cfs 1,668 of ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=53.3' S=0.0094 'P Outflow=0.52 cfs 1,668 of Pond CB23: CB23 Peak EIev=10.45' Inflow=2.78 cfs 11,896 cf , 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=78.2' S=0.0262 '/' Outflow=2.78 cfs 11,896 cf Pond CB3: CB3 Peak Elev=17.42' Inflow=0.59 cfs 1,845 of ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.4' S=0.0185 '/' Outflow=0.59 cfs 1,845 of Pond CB4: CB4 Peak EIev=17.12' Inflow=0.42 cfs 1,331 of ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=17.8' S=0.0197 '/' Outflow=0.42 cfs 1,331 of Pond CBS: CB6 Peak Elev=16.37' Inflow=0.47 cfs 1,484 of 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.9' S=0.0203 'P Outflow=0.47 cfs 1,484 of , Pond CB6: CB6 Peak Elev=12.47' Inflow=0.17 cfs 539 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=2.6' S=0.0192'P Outflow=0.17 cfs 539 cf , Pond CB7: CB7 Peak Elev=11.27' Inflow=0.29 cfs 915 of 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=20.0' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=0.29 cfs 915 of ' Pond CBS: CB8 Peak EIev=8.51' Inflow=0.49 cfs 1,596 of 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.6' S=0.0592 'P Outflow=0.49 cfs 1,596 of Pond CBS: CBS Peak EIev=8.49' Inflow=0.36 cfs 1,124 of ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=24.0' S=0.0104 '/' Outflow=0.36 cfs 1,124 of Pond DM1: DM1 Peak Elev=17.63' Inflow=0.71 cfs 2,297 of , 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=131.8' S=0.0099 'P Outflow=0.71 cfs 2,297 of ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD010 00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 ' Pond DM10: DM10 Peak Elev=7.26' Inflow=4.54 cfs 21,030 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.0' S=0.01007 Outflow=4.54 cfs 21,030 cf ' Pond DM11: DM11 Peak EIev=6.03' Inflow=0.92 cfs 3,130 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=31.8' S=0.0047 '/' Outflow=0.92 cfs 3,130 cf Pond DM12B: DMH12B Peak EIev=5.54' Inflow=5.07 cfs 22,844 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.8' S=0.01927 Outflow=5.07 cfs 22,831 cf Pond DM2: DM2 Peak EIev=16.37' Inflow=1.30 cfs 4,142 cf ' 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=66.5' 5=0.0098 '/' Outflow=1.30 cfs 4,142 cf Pond DM4: DM4 Peak EIev=12.58' Inflow=0.93 cfs 3,921 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=181.2' S=0.0150 '/' Outflow=0.93 cfs 3,921 cf Pond DMS: DM5 Peak EIev=9.97' Inflow=1.87 cfs 8,144 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=15.3' S=0.0248 '/' Outflow=1.87 cfs 8,144 cf Pond DM6: DM6 Peak EIev=9.52' Inflow=2.11 cfs 9,060 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=56.3' S=0.0311 T Outflow=2.11 cfs 9,060 cf ' Pond DM7B: DM7B Peak EIev=5.39' Inflow=3.06 cfs 12,686 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=9.0' S=0.0222 '/' Outflow=3.06 cfs 12,656 cf Pond DMB: DM8 Peak EIev=8.48' Inflow=3.22 cfs 14,616 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=8.7' S=0.0172 T Outflow=3.22 cfs 14,616 cf ' Pond DM9: DM9 Peak EIev=8.18' Inflow=3.89 cfs 18,632 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=171.5' 5=0.00557 Outflow=3.89 cfs 18,632 cf Pond DMH12A: DMH12A Peak EIev=6.91' Inflow=4.54 cfs 21,030 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=82.3' S=0.0200'P Outflow=4.54 cfs 21,030 cf ' Pond DMH13: DMH13 Peak EIev=5.56' Inflow=0.55 cfs 1,811 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=12.5' S=0.0120'/' Outflow=0.55 cfs 1,813 cf Pond DMH7A: DMH7A Peak EIev=7.69' Inflow=2.26 cfs 9,650 cf ' 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.6' S=0.0862 'P Outflow=2.26 cfs 9,650 cf Pond IF: Infiltration Field Peak Elev=14.87' Storage=3,658 cf Inflow=3.46 cfs 11,785 cf ' Discarded=0.43 cfs 22,088 cf Primary=0.07 cfs 81 cf Outflow=0.51 cfs 22,169 cf Pond TRD: TRD Peak EIev=10.66' Inflow=0.19 cfs 591 cf 6.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=35.0' S=0.0686 '/' Outflow=0.19 cfs 591 cf Pond WQS1: WQS#1 Peak Elev=15.66' Inflow=1.71 cfs 5,473 cf 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=3.2' S=0.01567' Outflow=1.71 cfs 5,473 cf Pond WQS5: WQS#5 Peak EIev=5.79' Inflow=0.92 cfs 3,130 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=20.0' S=0.0100 'P Outflow=0.92 cfs 3,130 cf MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD010 00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Pond YD4: YD4 Peak Elev=13.12' Inflow=0.70 cfs 2,875 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=25.0' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=0.70 cfs 2,875 cf Link P: Proposed: Canal Inflow=12.05 cfs 49,599 cf ' Primary=12.05 cfs 49,599 cf Total Runoff Area = 783,858 sf Runoff Volume= 122,632 cf Average Runoff Depth = 1.88" 54.81% Pervious =429,643 sf 45.19% Impervious = 354,215 sf ' 1 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD0 10.00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 tSummary for Subcatchment E-1: Existing: Harmony Grove Runoff = 0.18 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 576 cf, Depth= 1.08" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' Area (sf) CN Description 6,381 76 Woods/grass comb. Fair HSG C ' 6,381 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 5.2 34 0.0300 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 34 Total Summary for Subcatchment E-2: Existing: 64 Grove St Runoff = 13.80 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 52,869 cf, Depth= 1.83" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (so CN Description ' 88,123 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C * 10,942 89 Railroad - Gravel * 38,112 98 Building ' * 29,689 98 Pavement * 58,077 89 Gravel lot, HSG C 41,223 77 Woods, Poor, HSG C ' 81,143 77 Brush, Poor HSG C 347,309 87 Weighted Average 222,228 63.99% Pervious Area 125,081 36.01% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 100 0.0500 0.17 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 2.6 416 0.0700 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow t Nearly Bare & Untilled Kv= 10.0 fps 12.6 516 Total 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment E-3: Existing: To Grove St. ' Runoff = 0.67 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,123 cf, Depth= 2.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description ' 7,743 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 2,480 98 Paved parking & roofs 1,070 89 Gravel roads HSG C 11,293 92 Weighted Average 3,780 33.47% Pervious Area 7,513 66.53% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) , 0.7 64 0.0312 1.48 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.3 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 64 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment E-4: Existing: 60 Grove St. ' Runoff = 1.75 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 5,720 cf, Depth= 2.55" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description , 23,270 98 Paved parking & roofs 3,678 77 Brush Poor, HSG C 26,948 95 Weighted Average ' 3,678 13.65% Pervious Area 23,270 86.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.6 100 0.0100 1.03 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" ' 4.4 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 100 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Prop: Harmony Grove To Canal Runoff = 0.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 607 cf, Depth= 1.14" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Area (sf) CN Description * 388 98 Bit. Conc. Path 70 96 Gravel surface, HSG C ' 400 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,523 76 Woods/grass comb. Fair HSG C 6,381 77 Weighted Average ' 5,993 93.92% Pervious Area 388 6.08% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.7 34 0.1500 0.21 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 3.3 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 34 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-10: Proposed Building 1 Runoff = 0.82 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,830 cf, Depth= 2.87" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,842 98 Roof ' 11,842 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-11: Proposed Building 2 Runoff = 0.82 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,830 cf, Depth= 2.87" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (so CN Description * 11,842 98 Roof 11,842 100.00% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type Ill 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment P-12: Prop.: To CB1 ' Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 678 cf, Depth= 2.35' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description ' " 2,730 98 Pavement 734 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,464 93 Weighted Average , 734 21.19% Pervious Area 2,730 78.81% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 73 0.0292 1.48 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 73 Total , Summary for Subcatchment P-13: Prop.: To CB2 Runoff = 0.50 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,618 cf, Depth= 2.45' ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' Area (so CN Description 6,606 98 Pavement , 1,331 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 7,937 94 Weighted Average 1,331 16.77% Pervious Area ' 6,606 83.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 0.8 72 0.0292 1.47 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 72 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-14: Prop.: To CB3 ' Runoff = 0.59 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,845 cf, Depth= 2.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" 1 ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by(enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Area (so CN Description * 7,456 98 Pavement 2,773 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,229 91 Weighted Average 2,773 27.11% Pervious Area 7,456 72.89% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1 1.1 100 0.0292 1.58 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.1 13 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 113 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-15: Prop.: To CB4 Runoff = 0.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,331 of, Depth= 2.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' Area (so CN Description " 5,433 98 Pavement ' 1,649 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 7,082 92 Weighted Average 1,649 23.28% Pervious Area 5,433 76.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 0.8 72 0.0292 1.47 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 72 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-16: Prop.: To CB5 ' Runoff 0.47 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,484 cf, Depth= 2.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description 5,577 98 Pavement 3,002 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 8,579 90 Weighted Average 3,002 34.99% Pervious Area 5,577 65.01% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 100 0.0230 1.43 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 4.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 100 Total , Summary for Subcatchment P-17: Prop.: To CB6 Runoff = 0.17 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 539 cf, Depth= 2.08" 1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' Area (so CN Description * 2,019 98 Pavement. ' 1,096 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,115 90 Weighted Average 1,096 35.18% Pervious Area , 2,019 64.82% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) , 6.0 53 0.0520 0.15 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.3 68 0.0440 4.26 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line ' Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.3 121 Total ■ Summary for Subcatchment P-18: Prop.: To CB7 ■ Runoff = 0.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 915 cf, Depth= 1.99" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" , Area (so CN Description 1,953 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C ' * 2,036 98 Pavement 1,530 76 Woods/grass comb. Fair HSG C 5,519 89 Weighted Average 2,214 40.11% Pervious Area ' 3,305 59.89% Impervious Area 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.7 100 0.2100 0.29 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.1 30 0.1000 6.42 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps ' 0.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 130 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-19: Prop.: TRD1 Runoff = 0.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 591 cf, Depth= 2.35' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (so CN Description * 2,428 98 Pavement 588 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 3,016 93 Weighted Average 588 19.50% Pervious Area 2,428 80.50% Impervious Area tTc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) - 0.9 80 0.0319 1.56 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.1 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 80 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Prop.: To Canal ' Runoff = 2.31 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 7,398 cf, Depth= 1.33" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description ' 7,725 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C * 10,767 89 Railrod - Gravel * 1,082 98 Bit. Conc. Path 138 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 19,590 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 27,671 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair HSG C 66,973 80 Weighted Average 60,870 90.89% Pervious Area 6,103 9.11% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description , (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 100 0.1800 0.28 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 0.6 100 0.1600 2.80 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 6.6 200 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-20a: Front Proposed Building 3 Runoff = 0.19 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 652 cf, Depth= 2.87" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description 2,729 98 Roof 2,729 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-20b: Rear Proposed Building 3 , Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,368 cf, Depth= 2.87" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description ' 5,725 98 Roof 5,725 100.00% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-20c: Front Proposed Building 3 ' Runoff = 0.23 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 810 cf, Depth= 2.87' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" 1 ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 ' Area (sf) CN Description * 3,389 98 Roof 3,389 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-21: Prop: To Grove St. ' Runoff = 0.47 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,504 cf, Depth= 1.75" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (so CN Description ' 3,546 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C * 2,753 98 Pavement 4,023 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C ' 10,322 86 Weighted Average 5,264 51.00% Pervious Area 5,058 49.00% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) ' 6.4 91 0.1278 0.24 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.3 62 0.0270 3.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Pavement Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.7 153 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-22a: Prop.: To CB17 tRunoff = 0.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,459 cf, Depth= 2.65' ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' Area (sf) CN Description * 5,923 98 Pavement 683 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C ' 6,606 96 Weighted Average 683 10.34% Pervious Area 5,923 89.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) f 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yrRainfa11=3.10" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Summary for Subcatchment P-22b: Prop: To CB16 , Runoff = 0.48 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,671 cf, Depth= 2.87" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description ' * 6,848 98 Building & Pavement 142 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,990 98 Weighted Average ' 142 2.03% Pervious Area 6,848 97.97% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 1 (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' Summary for Subcatchment P-22c: Prop: 60 Grove St. Runoff = 0.47 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,474 cf, Depth= 1.33" , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (so CN Description * 3,120 98 Building 10,225 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 13,345 80 Weighted Average 10,225 76.62% Pervious Area ' 3,120 23.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-23: Prop.: To YD3 ' Runoff = 0.58 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 2,356 cf, Depth= 1.67" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description , 11,285 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 5,616 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C ' 16,901 85 Weighted Average 9,566 56.60% Pervious Area 7,335 43.40% Impervious Area 1 ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10122/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.0 11 0.5450 5.17 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps ' 0.4 90 0.0722 4.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 14.9 201 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-24: Prop.: To YD4 Runoff = 0.70 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 2,875 cf, Depth= 1.67' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (so CN Description 13,066 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C ' 7,558 76 Woods/grass comb Fair HSG C 20,624 85 Weighted Average 12,131 58.82% Pervious Area 8,493 41.18% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.1 6 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.6 176 0.1165 5.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps ' 15.2 282 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-25: Prop.: To CB23 Runoff = 2.78 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 11,896 cf, Depth= 1.67' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description 57,701 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 27,647 76 Woods/grass comb Fair HSG C 85,348 85 Weighted Average 47,842 56.06% Pervious Area 37,506 43.94% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /ll 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.0 12 0.5000 4.95 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 2.3 442 0.0446 3.17 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale ' Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 16.8 554 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-3: Prop.: To CB20 ' Runoff = 0.55 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 1,811 cf, Depth= 1.53" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description ' * 4,415 98 Bit. Conc. Path * 1,102 98 Walkways ' 8,707 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 14,224 83 Weighted Average 8,707 61.21% Pervious Area ' 5,517 38.79% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 7.0 40 0.0200 0.10 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.7 106 0.0150 2.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutterline ' Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 7.7 146 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-4: Prop.: To CB21 ' Runoff = 0.52 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,668 cf, Depth= 1.39" , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,027 98 Bit. Conc. Path 10,362 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C ' 14,389 81 Weighted Average 10,362 72.01% Pervious Area 4,027 27.99% Impervious Area ' I MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.7 54 0.0600 0.16 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 1.2 105 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutterline Paved Kv= 20.3 fps ' 6.9 159 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-6: Prop.: To CB9 ' Runoff = 1.19 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 4,016 cf, Depth= 2.76" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (so CN Description " 16,629 98 Pavement 848 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17,477 97 Weighted Average 848 4.85% Pervious Area 16,629 95.15% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.0 100 0.0320 1.63 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 1.4 222 0.0162 2.58 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 3.6 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 322 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-7: Prop.: To CB8 Runoff = 0.49 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,596 cf, Depth= 2.55" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (so CN Description 6,709 98 Pavement 808 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C I 7,517 95 Weighted Average 808 10.75% Pervious Area 6,709 89.25% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 100 0.0550 2.03 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" ' 0.5 132 0.0454 4.33 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.7 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes , 6.0 232 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-8: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff = 0.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,124 cf, Depth= 2.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description ' * 4,401 98 Pavement 2,096 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 6,497 90 Weighted Average 2,096 32.26% Pervious Area 4,401 67.74% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.7 100 0.0833 2.40 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" ' 0.3 66 0.0290 3.46 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 166 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-9: Prop.: To CB12&13 ' Runoff = 0.77 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,399 cf, Depth= 2.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Type III 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (so CN Description * 9,213 98 Pavement 4,652 74 >75% Grass cover. Good, HSG C 13,865 90 Weighted Average ' 4,652 33.55% Pervious Area 9,213 66.45% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.1 35 0.3210 0.28 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.8 110 0.0125 2.27 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps ' 3.1 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 145 Total ' Summary for Reach E: Existing: Canal Inflow Area = 391,931 sf, 39.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.88" for 2-yr event ' Inflow 15.59 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 61,288 cf Outflow 15.59 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 61,288 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond C81: CB1 ' Inflow Area = 3,464 sf, 78.81% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.35" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.21 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 678 cf Outflow = 0.21 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 678 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 678 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 18.08' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 20.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 17.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 98.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 17.80' / 17.30' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.21 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=18.08' TW=17.63' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.21 cfs @ 1.77 fps) Summary for Pond CB10: CB10 Inflow Area = 17,477 sf, 95.15% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.76" for 2-yr event Inflow 1.19 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 4,016 cf Outflow = 1.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,016 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,016 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.30' @ 12.13 hrs Flood Elev= 10.50' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 7.50' 12.0" Round Culvert MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type ll/24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 L= 11.7' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.50' /7.30' S= 0.0171 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.10 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=8.27' TW=8.12' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.10 cfs @ 2.34 fps) Summary for Pond C612: CB12&13 ' Inflow Area = 13,865 sf, 66.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.08" for 2-yr event Inflow = 0.77 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,399 cf , Outflow = 0.77 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,399 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.77 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,399 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 7.51' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 10.00' , Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.00' 12.0" Round Culvert , L= 11.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.00'/6.90' S= 0.0089 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.77 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=7.51' TW=7.21' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.77 cfs @ 2.75 fps) Summary for Pond CB16: CB16 ' Inflow Area = 6,990 sf, 97.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.87" for 2-yr event ' Inflow = 0.48 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,671 cf Outflow = 0.48 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,671 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.48 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,671 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.44' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 97.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00'/5.50' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.47 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=6.44' TW=6.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) t--1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.47 cfs @ 2.10 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by (enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Pond CB17: CB17 Inflow Area = 6,606 sf, 89.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.65" for 2-yr event ' Inflow 0.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,459 cf Outflow 0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,459 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,459 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.33' @ 12.09 hrs ' Flood Elev= 9.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 4.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 6.00' /5.50' S= 0.12507 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=6.33' TW=6.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) t--1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.44 cfs @ 1.95 fps) tSummary for Pond CB2: CB2 ' Inflow Area = 7,937 sf, 83.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.45" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.50 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,618 cf Outflow 0.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,618 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,618 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 18.17' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 20.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 7.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 17.80' / 17.65' S= 0.0203 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=18.17' TW=17.63' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.50 cfs @ 2.85 fps) ' Summary for Pond CB20: CB20 Inflow Area = 14,224 sf, 38.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.53" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.55 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 1,811 cf Outflow = 0.55 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,811 of, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.55 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,811 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev=6.42' @ 12.13 hrs ' Flood Elev= 9.00' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 24 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 139.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00' /4.60' S= 0.0101 T Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.54 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=6.42' TW=5.53' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.54 cfs @ 2.60 fps) Summary for Pond CB21: CB21 Inflow Area = 14,389 sf, 27.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.39" for 2-yr event ' Inflow = 0.52 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,668 cf Outflow = 0.52 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 1,668 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 0.52 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 1,668 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.37' @ 12.11 hrs ' Flood Elev= 9.00 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 53.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00' / 5:50' S= 0.0094 '/' Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow, Max=0.52 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=6.37' TW=5.38' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.52 cfs @ 2.90 fps) Summary for Pond CB23: CB23 Inflow Area = 85,348 sf, 43.94% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.67" for 2-yr event ' Inflow = 2.78 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 11,896 cf Outflow = 2.78 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 11,896 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min , Primary = 2.78 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 11,896 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 10.45' @ 12.24 hrs Flood Elev= 13.25' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 9.60' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 78.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 9.60' /7.55' S= 0.0262 '/' Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.78 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=10.45' TW=8.48' (Dynamic Tailwater) , t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 2.78 cfs @ 3.14 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /1124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 Summary for Pond CB3: CB3 Inflow Area = 10,229 sf, 72.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.16" for 2-yr event ' Inflow 0.59 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,845 cf Outflow 0.59 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,845 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.59 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,845 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 17.42' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 20.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 5.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 17.00' / 16.90' S= 0.0185 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.59 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=17.42' TW=16.36' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.59 cfs @ 2.74 fps) ' Summary for Pond CB4: CB4 Inflow Area = 7,082 sf, 76.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.26" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,331 cf Outflow 0.42 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,331 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.42 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,331 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 17.12' @ 12.10 hrs ' Flood Elev= 19.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 16.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 17.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 16.80' 116.45' S= 0.0197 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.42 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=17.12' TW=15.65' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.42 cfs @ 1.93 fps) ' Summary for Pond CB5: CB5 ' Inflow Area = 8,579 sf, 65.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.08" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.47 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,484 cf Outflow = 0.47 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,484 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 0.47 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,484 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 16.37' @ 12.10 hrs ' Flood Elev= 19.00' 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 16.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 5.9' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 16.00' / 15.88' S= 0.02037 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.47 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=16.36' TW=12.56' (Dynamic Tailwater) , L1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.47 cfs @ 2.72 fps) Summary for Pond CB6: CB6 ' Inflow Area = 3,115 sf, 64.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.08" for 2-yr event Inflow = 0.17 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 539 cf Outflow = 0.17 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 539 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 0.17 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 539 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 12.47' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 15.25' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 12.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 2.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 12.25' / 12.20' S= 0.0192 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=12.47' TW=9.92' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' L7=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.17 cfs @ 1.96 fps) Summary for Pond C67: C67 ' Inflow Area = 5,519 sf, 59.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.99" for 2-yr event Inflow = 0.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 915 cf Outflow = 0.29 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 915 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.29 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 915 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 11.27' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 14.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 11.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 11.00'/ 10.60' S= 0.0200'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.29 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=11.27' TW=9.48' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.29 cfs @ 1.76 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type Ill 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Summary for Pond CB8: CB8 Inflow Area = 7,517 sf, 89.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.55" for 2-yr event ' Inflow 0.49 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,596 cf Outflow 0.49 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,596 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.49 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,596 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.51' @ 12.18 hrs ' Flood Elev= 11.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 8.00' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 7.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 8.00' /7.55' S= 0.0592 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.43 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=8.45' TW=8.35' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.43 cfs @ 1.83 fps) ' Summary for Pond CB9: CB9 Inflow Area = 6,497 sf, 67.74% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.08" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,124 cf Outflow 0.36 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,124 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.36 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,124 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.49' @ 12.22 hrs ' Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 7.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 24.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.80' /7.55' S= 0.0104 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.22 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=8.38' TW=8.36' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.22 cfs @ 0.67 fps) Summary for Pond DMI: DMI ' Inflow Area = 11,401 sf, 81.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.42" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.71 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,297 cf Outflow = 0.71 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 2,297 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 0.71 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 2,297 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 17.63' @ 12.11 hrs I ' Flood Elev= 21.00' 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" , Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 28 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.20' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 131.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 inlet/Outlet Invert= 17.20' / 15.90' S= 0.0099 '/' Cc= 0.900 , n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.71 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=17.63' TW=16.37' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.71 cfs @ 3.23 fps) Summary for Pond DMI 0: DMI 0 ' Inflow Area = 130,704 sf, 56.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.93" for 2-yr event Inflow = 4.54 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 21,030 cf Outflow = 4.54 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 21,030 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 4.54 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 21,030 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 7.26' @ 12.15 hrs Flood Elev= 10.15' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices , #1 Primary 6.15' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 5.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.15'/6.10' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=4.54 cfs @ 12.15 hrs HW=7.26' TW=6.91' (Dynamic Tailwater) t--1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 4.54 cfs @ 3.66 fps) Summary for Pond DM11: DMI 1 , Inflow Area = 13,596 sf, 93.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.76" for 2-yr event Inflow = 0.92 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,130 cf ' Outflow = 0.92 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,130 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.92 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,130 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 6.03' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.10' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 5.40' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 31.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 , Inlet/Outlet Invert= 5.40'/5.25' S= 0.0047 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.91 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=6.03' TW=5.79' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.91 cfs @ 2.48 fps) ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 29 Summary for Pond DMI 2B: DMH12B Inflow Area = 144,928 sf, 55.18% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.89" for 2-yr event Inflow 5.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 22,844 cf Outflow 5.07 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 22,831 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 5.07 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 22,831 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 5.54' @ 12.16 hrs ' Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 4.25' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 7.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 4.25'/4.10' S= 0.0192 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=5.07 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=5.54' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 5.07 cfs @ 3.36 fps) ' Summary for Pond DM2: DM2 t Inflow Area = 21,630 sf, 77.63% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.30" for 2-yr event Inflow 1.30 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 4,142 cf Outflow 1.30 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 4,142 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.30 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 4,142 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 16.37' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 20.20' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 15.80' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 66.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 15.80'/ 15.15' S= 0.00987 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.29 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=16.37' TW=15.66' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.29 cfs @ 3.49 fps) Summary for Pond DM4: DM4 Inflow Area = 80,605 sf, 76.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.58" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.93 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 3,921 cf Outflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 3,921 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.93 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 3,921 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 12.58' @ 12.14 hrs Flood Elev= 19.12' 1 1 MRM-Grove&(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 30 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 12.15' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 181.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 12.15' / 9.43' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.93 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=12.58' TW=9.96' (Dynamic Tailwater) , t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.93 cfs @ 2.23 fps) Summary for Pond DMS: DM5 ' Inflow Area = 107,733 sf, 70.04% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.91" for 2-yr event Inflow = 1.87 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 8,144 cf Outflow = 1.87 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 8,144 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 1.87 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 8,144 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 9.97' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 15.35' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices , #1 Primary 9.33' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 15.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 9.33' / 8.95' S= 0.0248 '/' Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.87 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=9.97' TW=9.52' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.87 cfs @ 3.87 fps) Summary for Pond DM6: DM6 Inflow Area = 113,252 sf, 69.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.96" for 2-yr event Inflow = 2.11 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 9,060 cf t Outflow = 2.11 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 9,060 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 2.11 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 9,060 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 9.52' @ 12.15 hrs Flood Elev= 14.40' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices , #1 Primary 8.85' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 56.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 8.85'/7.10' S= 0.0311 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.11 cfs @ 12.15 hrs HW=9.52' TW=7.69' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 2.11 cfs @ 2.78 fps) 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 31 ' Summary for Pond DM7B: DM7B Inflow Area = 136,382 sf, 66.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.12" for 2-yr event ' Inflow 3.06 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 12,686 cf Outflow 3.06 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 12,656 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 3.06 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 12,656 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 5.39' @ 12.14 hrs ' Flood Elev= 9.55' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 4.20' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 9.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 4.20' /4.00' S= 0.02227 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=3.06 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=5.39' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t--1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 3.06 cfs @ 2.26 fps) ' Summary for Pond DMB: DM8 ' Inflow Area = 99,362 sf, 48.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.77" for 2-yr event Inflow 3.22 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 14,616 cf Outflow 3.22 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 14,616 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 3.22 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 14,616 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.48' @ 12.23 hrs ' Flood Elev= 11.25' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 7.45' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 8.7' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.45'/7.30' S= 0.0172 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=3.23 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=8.48' TW=8.17' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 3.23 cfs @ 3.51 fps) ' Summary for Pond DM9: DM9 ' Inflow Area = 116,839 sf, 55.84% Impervious; Inflow Depth = 1.91" for 2-yr event Inflow 3.89 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 18,632 cf Outflow = 3.89 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 18,632 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 3.89 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 18,632 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.18' @ 12.16 hrs ' Flood Elev= 10.90' i MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type Ill 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 32 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 7.20' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 171.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.20' /6.25' S= 0.00557 Cc= 0.900 t n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=3.90 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=8.18' TW=7.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 3.90 cfs @ 3.70 fps) Summary for Pond DMH12A: DMH12A Inflow Area = 130,704 sf, 56.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.93" for 2-yr event ' Inflow = 4.54 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 21,030 cf Outflow = 4.54 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 21,030 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 4.54 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 21,030 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 6.91' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.20' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 6.00' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 82.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 6.00' /4.35' - S= 0.0200 ? Cc= 0.900 , n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=4.54 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=6.91' TW=5.54' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 4.54 cfs @ 3.25 fps) Summary for Pond DMH13: DMH13 ' Inflow Area = 14,224 sf, 38.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.53" for 2-yr event Inflow = 0.55 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,811 cf Outflow = 0.55 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1,813 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 0.55 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1,813 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs t Peak Elev= 5.56' @ 12.17 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 4.50' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 12.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 4.50' /4.35' S= 0.0120 'r Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.41 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=5.54' TW=5.53' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.41 cfs @ 0.52 fps) ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 33 ' Summary for Pond DMH7A: DMH7A Inflow Area = 116,268 sf, 69.83% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.00" for 2-yr event ' Inflow 2.26 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 9,650 cf Outflow 2.26 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 9,650 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 2.26 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 9,650 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 7.69' @ 12.16 hrs ' Flood Elev= 10.75' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.00' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 11.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.00' /6.00' S= 0.08627 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.26 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=7.69' TW=5.39' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 2.26 cfs @ 2.83 fps) ' Summary for Pond IF: Infiltration Field Inflow Area = 55,125 sf, 88.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.57" for 2-yr event Inflow 3.46 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 11,785 cf Outflow 0.51 cfs @ 12.61 hrs, Volume= 22,169 cf, Atten= 85%, Lag= 30.6 min Discarded = 0.43 cfs @ 11.91 hrs, Volume= 22,088 cf Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 12.61 hrs, Volume= 81 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 14.87' @ 12.61 hrs Surf.Area= 2,263 sf Storage= 3,658 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 7.6 min ( 783.9- 776.4) 1 Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 12.50' 2,484 cf 25.00'W x 90.001 x 4.00'H Prismatoid 9,000 cf Overall - 2,790 cf Embedded = 6,210 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 13.00' 2,771 cf StormTech SC-740 x60 Inside#1 Effective.Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows #3 13.00' 20 cf 12.0" Round Pipe Storage Inside#1 L= 25.0' #4 13.00' 93 cf 4.00'D x 7.43'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder #5 20,43' 1,141 cf Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 6,509 cf Total Available Storage ' Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 20.43 4 0 0 21.00 4,000 1,141 1,141 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 34 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 14.75' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 166.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 14.75' / 12.25' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Discarded 12.50' 8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area ' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.43 cfs @ 11.91 hrs HW=13.01' (Free Discharge) t2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.43 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 12.61 hrs HW=14.87' TW=12.41' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.07 cfs @ 1.16 fps) Summary for Pond TRD: TRD ' Inflow Area = 3,016 sf, 80.50% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.35" for 2-yr event ' Inflow = 0.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 591 cf Outflow = 0.19 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 591 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.19 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 591 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 10.66' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 10.95' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 10.40' 6.0" Round Culvert , L= 35.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 10.40' / 8.00' S= 0.0686 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf t Primary OutFlow Max=0.18 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=10.66' TW=7.64' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.18 cfs @ 1.75 fps) Summary for Pond WQS1: WQS#1 Inflow Area = 28,712 sf, 77.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.29" for 2-yr event Inflow = 1.71 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,473 cf Outflow = 1.71 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 5,473 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.71 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 5,473 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 15.66' @ 12.12 hrs Flood Elev= 20.30' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 14.90' 15.0" Round Culvert , L= 3.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 14.90' / 14.85' S= 0.0156 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf , MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 35 Primary OutFlow, Max=1.71 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=15.66' TW=13.76' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.71 cfs @ 3.13 fps) Summary for Pond WQSS: WQS#5 Inflow Area = 13,596 sf, 93.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.76" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.92 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,130 cf Outflow = 0.92 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 3,130 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 0.92 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 3,130 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 5.79' @ 12.11 hrs ' Flood Elev= 9.30' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 5.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 5.25' / 5.05' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.92 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=5.79' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.92 cfs @ 3.09 fps) Summary for Pond YD4: YD4 ' Inflow Area = 20,624 sf, 41.18% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.67" for 2-yr event Inflow 0.70 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 2,875 cf Outflow = 0.70 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 2,875 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 0.70 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 2,875 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 13.12' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 16.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.70' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 25.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 12.70' / 12.20' S= 0.0200 ? Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.70 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=13.12' TW=9.95' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.70 cfs @ 2.21 fps) Summary for Link P: Proposed: Canal ' Inflow Area = 391,927 sf, 50.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.52" for 2-yr event Inflow 12.05 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 49,599 cf Primary = 12.05 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 49,599 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs II MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 2-yr Rainfall=3.10" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 36 Fixed water surface Elevation= 5.26' ' 1 t 1 MRM-Grove&(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 37 Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method ' Subcatchment E-1: Existing: Harmony Grove Runoff Area=6,381 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.13" Flow Length=34' Slope=0.0300 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=76 Runoff=0.36 cfs 1,133 cf ' Subcatchment E-2: Existing: 64 Grove St Runoff Area=347,309 sf 36.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.10" Flow Length=516' Tc=12.6 min CN=87 Runoff=23.17 cfs 89,691 cf t Subcatchment E-3: Existing: To Grove St. Runoff Area=11,293 sf 66.53% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.60" Flow Length=64' Slope=0.0312 'P Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=1.05 cfs 3,390 cf Subcatchment E-4: Existing: 60 Grove St. Runoff Area=26,948 sf 86.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.92" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0100'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=2.63 cfs 8,814 cf t Subcatchment P-1: Prop: Harmony Grove To Runoff Area=6,381 sf 6.08% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.21" Flow Length=34' Slope=0.1500'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=77 Runoff=0.38 cfs 1,175 cf Subcatchment P-10: Proposed Building 1 Runoff Area=11,842 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" ' Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=1.20 cfs 4,208 cf Subcatchment P-11: Proposed Building 2 Runoff Area=11,842 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=1.20 cfs 4,208 cf Subcatchment P-12: Prop.: To CB1 Runoff Area=3,464 sf 78.81% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.71" Flow Length=73' Slope=0.0292 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=0.33 cfs 1,070 cf 1 Subcatchment P-13: Prop.: To CB2 Runoff Area=7,937 sf 83.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.82" Flow Length=72' Slope=0.0292'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=94 Runoff=0.76 cfs 2,524 cf ' Subcatchment P-14: Prop.: To CB3 Runoff Area=10,229 sf 72.89% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.50" Flow Length=113' Tc=6.0 min CN=91 Runoff=0.93 cfs 2,982 cf ' Subcatchment P-15: Prop.: To CB4 Runoff Area=7,082 sf 76.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.60" Flow Length=72' Slope=0.0292 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=0.66 cfs 2,126 cf ' Subcatchment P-16: Prop.: To CB5 Runoff Area=8,579 sf 65.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.40" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0230'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=0.76 cfs 2,428 cf Subcatchment P-17: Prop.: To CB6 Runoff Area=3,115 sf 64.82% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.40" Flow Length=121' Tc=6.3 min CN=90 Runoff=0.27 cfs 881 cf Subcatchment P-18: Prop.: To CB7 Runoff Area=5,519 sf 59.89% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.30" Flow Length=130' Tc=6.0 min CN=89 Runoff=0.48 cfs 1,516 cf Subcatchment P-19: Prop.: TRD1 Runoff Area=3,016 sf 80.50% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.71" Flow Length=80' Slope=0.0319'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=0.28 cfs 932 cf Subcatchment P-2: Prop.: To Canal Runoff Area=66,973 sf 9.11% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.46" Flow Length=200' Tc=6.6 min CN=80 Runoff=4.35 cfs 13,738 cf MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type Ill 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 38 Subcatchment P-20a: Front Proposed Runoff Area=2,729 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" ' Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.28 cfs 970 cf Subcatchment P-20b: Rear Proposed Runoff Area=5,725 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" ' Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.58 cfs 2,034 cf Subcatchment P-20c: Front Proposed Runoff Area=3,389 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.34 cfs 1,204 cf ' Subcatchment P-21: Prop: To Grove St. Runoff Area=10,322 sf 49.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.00" Flow Length=153' Tc=6.7 min CN=86 Runoff=0.81 cfs 2,583 cf ' Subcatchment P-22a: Prop.: To CB17 Runoff Area=6,606 sf 89.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.04" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=0.65 cfs 2,222 cf ' Subcatchment P-22b: Prop: To CB16 Runoff Area=6,990 sf 97.97% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.71 cfs 2,484 cf Subcatchment P-22c: Prop: 60 Grove St. Runoff Area=13,345 sf 23.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.46" ' Tc=6.0 min CN=80 Runoff=0.88 cfs 2,737 cf Subcatchment P-23: Prop.: To YD3 Runoff Area=16,901 sf 43.40% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.91" ' Flow Length=201' Tc=14.9 min CN=85 Runoff=1.00 cfs 4,097 cf Subcatchment P-24: Prop.: To YD4 Runoff Area=20,624 sf 41.18% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.91" ' Flow Length=282' Tc=15.2 min CN=85 Runoff=1.21 cfs 5,000 cf Subcatchment P-26: Prop.: To CB23 Runoff Area=85,348 sf 43.94% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.91" ' Flow Length=554' Tc=16.8 min CN=85 Runoff=4.83 cfs 20,691 cf Subcatchment P-3: Prop.: To CB20 Runoff Area=14,224 sf 38.79% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.73" ' Flow Length=146' Tc=7.7 min CN=83 Runoff=0.98 cfs 3,231 cf Subcatchment P-4: Prop.: To CB21 Runoff Area=14,389 sf 27.99% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.55" Flow Length=159' Tc=6.9 min CN=81 Runoff=0.96 cfs 3,055 cf ' Subcatchment P-6: Prop.: To C139 Runoff Area=17,477 sf 95.15% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.15" Flow Length=322' Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=1.75 cfs 6,043 cf ' Subcatchment P-7: Prop.: To CB8 Runoff Area=7,517 sf 89.25% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.92" Flow Length=232' Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=0.73 cfs 2,459 cf ' Subcatchment P-8: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff Area=6,497 sf 67.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.40" Flow Length=166' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=0.58 cfs 1,839 cf Subcatchment P-9: Prop.: To CB12&13 Runoff Area=13,865 sf 66.45% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.40" ' Flow Length=145' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=1.23 cfs 3,924 cf Reach E: Existing: Canal Inflow=25.98 cfs 103,026 cf ' Outflow=25.98 cfs 103,026 cf MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 39 ' Pond CB1: CB1 Peak EIev=18.16' Inflow=0.33 cfs 1,070 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=98.6' S=0.0051 '/' Outflow=0.33 cfs 1,070 cf ' Pond CB10: CB10 Peak EIev=8.69' Inflow=1.75 cfs 6,043 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.7' S=0.0171 '/' Outflow=1.75 cfs 6,043 cf Pond CB12: CB12&13 Peak EIev=7.77' Inflow=1.23 cfs 3,924 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.2' S=0.00897 Outflow=1.23 cfs 3,924 cf Pond CB1 6: CB16 Peak EIev=6.57' Inflow=0.71 cfs 2,484 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=97.4' S=0.0051 '/' Outflow=0.71 cfs 2,484 cf Pond CB17: CB17 Peak EIev=6.43' Inflow=0.65 cfs 2,222 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=4.0' S=0.1250 '/' Outflow=0.65 cfs 2,222 cf Pond C82: CB2 Peak EIev=18.27' Inflow=0.76 cfs 2,524 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.4' S=0.0203 '/' Outflow=0.76 cfs 2,524 cf Pond CB20: CB20 Peak EIev=6.59' Inflow=0.98 cfs 3,231 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=139.2' S=0.0101 '/' Outflow=0.98 cfs 3,231 cf Pond CB21: CB21 Peak EIev=6.52' Inflow=0.96 cfs 3,055 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=53.3' S=0.0094 '/' Outflow=0.96 cfs 3,055 cf Pond CB23: CB23 Peak EIev=10.89' Inflow=4.83 cfs 20,691 cf 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=78.2' S=0.0262 '/' Outflow=4.83 cfs 20,691 cf ' Pond CB3: CB3 Peak Elev=17.55' Inflow=0.93 cfs 2,982 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.4' S=0.0185 '/' Outflow=0.93 cfs 2,982 cf Pond CB4: CB4 Peak Elev=17.21' Inflow=0.66 cfs 2,126 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=17.8' S=0.0197 '/' Outflow=0.66 cfs 2,126 cf Pond CBS: CB5 Peak Elev=16.48' Inflow=0.76 cfs 2,428 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.9' S=0.0203 '/' Outflow=0.76 cfs 2,428 cf Pond C66: CB6 Peak EIev=12.54' Inflow=0.27 cfs 881 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=2.6' S=0.0192 'P Outflow=0.27 cfs 881 cf Pond CB7: CB7 Peak Elev=11.34' Inflow=0.48 cfs 1,516 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=20.0' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=0.48 cfs 1,516 cf Pond CB8: CB8 Peak EIev=8.97' Inflow=0.73 cfs 2,459 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.6' S=0.0592 '/' Outflow=0.73 cfs 2,459 cf Pond CB9: CB9 Peak EIev=8.96' Inflow=0.58 cfs 1,839 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=24.0' S=0.0104 'P Outflow=0.58 cfs 1,839 cf Pond DM1: DM1 Peak Elev=17.76' Inflow=1.09 cfs 3,594 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=131.8' S=0.0099'/' Outflow=1.09 cfs 3,594 cf 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 40 Pond DM10: DM10 Peak Elev=7.63' Inflow=7.44 cfs 34,954 cf ' 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=7.44 cfs 34,954 cf Pond DM11: DM11 Peak EIev=6.20' Inflow=1.36 cfs 4,706 cf , 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=31.8' 5=0.0047 '/' Outflow=1.36 cfs 4,706 cf Pond DM12B: DMH12B Peak EIev=5.77' Inflow=8.38 cfs 38,184 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.8' S=0.01927 Outflow=8.38 cfs 38,179 cf ' Pond DM2: DM2 Peak Elev=16.56' Inflow=2.02 cfs 6,576 cf 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=66.5' S=0.0098 '/' Outflow=2.02 cfs 6,576 cf ' Pond DM4: DM4 Peak EIev=13.07' Inflow=3.74 cfs 9,577 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=181.2' S=0.0150 '/' Outflow=3.74 cfs 9,577 cf ' Pond DM5: DM5 Peak EIev=10.57' Inflow=5.25 cfs 16,663 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=15.3' S=0.0248 '/' Outflow=5.25 cfs 16,663 cf Pond DM6: DM6 Peak EIev=10.03' Inflow=5.48 cfs 18,178 cf , 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=56.3' 5=0.0311 '/' Outflow=5.48 cfs 18,178 cf Pond DM7B: DM7B Peak EIev=5.62' Inflow=6.39 cfs 24,200 cf ' 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=9.0' S=0.0222 T Outflow=6.39 cfs 24,177 cf Pond DM8: DM8 Peak EIev=8.96' Inflow=5.50 cfs 24,988 cf ' 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=8.7' S=0.0172 '/' Outflow=5.50 cfs 24,988 cf Pond DM9: DM9 Peak EIev=8.55' Inflow=6.46 cfs 31,030 cf ' 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=171.5' S=0.0055 'P Outflow=6.46 cfs 31,030 cf Pond DMH12A: DMH12A Peak EIev=7.21' Inflow=7.44 cfs 34,954 cf , 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=82.3' S=0.0200'/' Outflow=7.44 cfs 34,954 cf Pond DMH13: DMH13 Peak EIev=5.83' Inflow=0.98 cfs 3,231 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=12.5' S=0.0120 '/' Outflow=0.98 cfs 3,230 cf , Pond DMH7A: DMH7A Peak EIev=8.19' Inflow=5.62 cfs 19,110 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.6' S=0.0862 '/' Outflow=5.62 cfs 19,110 cf ' Pond IF: Infiltration Field Peak Elev=15.46' Storage=4,370 cf Inflow=5.22 cfs 18,087 cf Discarded=0.43 cfs 23,726 cf Primary=2.37 cfs 3,052 cf Outflow=2.80 cfs 26,778 cf ' Pond TRD: TRD Peak EIev=10.74' Inflow=0.28 cfs 932 cf 6.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=35.0' S=0.0686'P Outflow=0.28 cfs 932 cf Pond WQS1: WQS#1 Peak Elev=15.89' Inflow=2.66 cfs 8,701 cf ' 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=3.2' S=0.0156 'P Outflow=2.66 cfs 8,701 cf Pond WQSS: WQS#5 Peak EIev=5.93' Inflow=1.36 cfs 4,706 cf , 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=20.0' S=0.0100 'P Outflow=1.36 cfs 4,706 cf MRM-GrOveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 sin 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 41 ' Pond YD4: YD4 Peak Elev=13.28' Inflow=1.21 cfs 5,000 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=25.0' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=1.21 cfs 5,000 cf ' Link P: Proposed: Canal Inflow=20.40 cfs 87,296 cf Primary=20.40 cfs 87,296 cf Total Runoff Area= 783,858 sf Runoff Volume= 205,385 cf Average Runoff Depth = 3.14" 54.81% Pervious=429,643 sf 45.19% Impervious= 354,215 sf I 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 42 Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Existing: Harmony Grove ' Runoff = 0.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,133 cf, Depth= 2.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' 6,381 76 Woods/grass comb. Fair, HSG C 6,381 100.00% Pervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.2 34 0.0300 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow , Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 34 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment E-2: Existing: 64 Grove St Runoff = 23.17 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 89,691 cf, Depth= 3.10" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 88,123 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C , * 10,942 89 Railroad - Gravel * 38,112 98 Building * 29,689 98 Pavement ' * 58,077 89 Gravel lot, HSG C 41,223 77 Woods, Poor, HSG C 81,143 77 Brush Poor, HSG C ' 347,309 87 Weighted Average 222,228 63.99% Pervious Area 125,081 36.01% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 100 0.0500 0.17 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 2.6 416 0.0700 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Nearly Bare & Untilled Kv= 10.0 fps ' 12.6 516 Total MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 sir, 01316 C 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 43 Summary for Subcatchment E-3: Existing: To Grove St. Runoff = 1.05 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,390 cf, Depth= 3.60" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 7,743 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 2,480 98 Paved parking & roofs 1,070 89 Gravel roads HSG C 11,293 92 Weighted Average 3,780 33.47% Pervious Area 7,513 66.53% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.7 64 0.0312 1.48 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" ' 5.3 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 64 Total Summary for Subcatchment E-4: Existing: 60 Grove St. Runoff = 2.63 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 8,814 cf, Depth= 3.92" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 23,270 98 Paved parking & roofs 3,678 77 Brush Poor HSG C ' 26,948 95 Weighted Average 3,678 13.65% Pervious Area 23,270 86.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 1.6 100 0.0100 1.03 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 4.4 Direct Entry Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 100 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Prop: Harmony Grove To Canal ' Runoff = 0.38 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,175 cf, Depth= 2.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type Ill 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 44 Area (sf) CN Description ' * 388 98 Bit. Conc. Path 70 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 400 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C ' 5,523 76 Woods/grass comb. Fair HSG C 6,381 77 Weighted Average 5,993 93.92% Pervious Area ' 388 6.08% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) , 2.7 34 0.1500 0.21 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 3.3 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 34 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-10: Proposed Building 1 ' Runoff = 1.20 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 4,208 cf, Depth= 4.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' * 11,842 98 Roof 11,842 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' Summary for Subcatchment P-11: Proposed Building 2 Runoff = 1.20 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 4,208 cf, Depth= 4.26" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,842 98 Roof 11,842 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here] Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 45 ' Summary for Subcatchment P-12: Prop.: To CB1 Runoff = 0.33 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,070 cf, Depth= 3.71" 1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" ' Area (sf) CN Description " 2,730 98 Pavement ' 734 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,464 93 Weighted Average 734 21.19% Pervious Area 2,730 78.81% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 0.8 73 0.0292 1.48 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 73 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-13: Prop.: To CB2 Runoff = 0.76 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,524 cf, Depth= 3.82" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' 6,606 98 Pavement 1,331 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 7,937 94 Weighted Average ' 1,331 16.77% Pervious Area 6,606 83.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 72 0.0292 1.47 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 72 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-14: Prop.: To CB3 Runoff = 0.93 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,982 cf, Depth= 3.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 , HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 46 Area (sf) CN Description ' * 7,456 98 Pavement 2,773 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,229 91 Weighted Average ' 2,773 27.11% Pervious Area 7,456 72.89% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.1 100 0.0292 1.58 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.1 13 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 113 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-15: Prop.: To CB4 ' Runoff = 0.66 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,126 cf, Depth= 3.60" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' * 5,433 98 Pavement 1,649 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7,082 92 Weighted Average ' 1,649 23.28% Pervious Area 5,433 76.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 72 0.0292 1.47 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 72 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-16: Prop.: To CBS Runoff = 0.76 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,428 cf, Depth= 3.40" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" , Area (so CN Description * 5,577 98 Pavement ' 3,002 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 8,579 90 Weighted Average 3,002 34.99% Pervious Area ' 5,577 65.01% Impervious Area � 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by(enter your company name here} Printed 10/2212014 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 47 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 100 0.0230 1.43 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 4.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 100 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-17: Prop.: To CB6 Runoff = 0.27 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 881 cf, Depth= 3.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 2,019 98 Pavement 1,096 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,115 90 Weighted Average 1,096 35.18% Pervious Area 2,019 64.82% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 53 0.0520 0.15 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 0.3 68 0.0440 4.26 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.3 121 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-18: Prop.: To CB7 ' Runoff = 0.48 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,516 cf, Depth= 3.30" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description 1,953 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C " 2,036 98 Pavement 1,530 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair HSG C 5,519 89 Weighted Average 2,214 40.11% Pervious Area 3,305 59.89% Impervious Area i MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yrRainfall=4.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 48 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.7 100 0.2100 0.29 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" , 0.1 30 0.1000 6.42 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 130 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-19: Prop.: TRD1 Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 932 cf, Depth= 3.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description * 2,428 98 Pavement 588 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,016 93 Weighted Average ' 588 19.50% Pervious Area 2,428 80.50% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.9 80 0.0319 1.56 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.1 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 80 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Prop.: To Canal Runoff = 4.35 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 13,738 cf, Depth= 2.46" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" ' Area (so CN Description 7,725 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C ' * 10,767 89 Railrod - Gravel * 1,082 98 Bit. Conc. Path 138 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 19,590 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C ' 27,671 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C 66,973 80 Weighted Average 60,870 90.89% Pervious Area , 6,103 9.11% Impervious Area 1 ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 49 ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 100 0.1800 0.28 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.6 100 0.1600 2.80 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps ' 6.6 200 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-20a: Front Proposed Building 3 ' Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 970 cf, Depth= 4.26" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description 2,729 98 Roof 2,729 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-20b: Rear Proposed Building 3 ' Runoff = 0.58 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,034 cf, Depth= 4.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 5,725 98 Roof 5,725 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-20c: Front Proposed Building 3 Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,204 cf, Depth= 4.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 50 Area (sf) CN Description ' * 3,389 98 Roof 3,389 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description , (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' Summary for Subcatchment P-21: Prop: To Grove St. Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,583 cf, Depth= 3.00" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 3,546 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C ' * 2,753 98 Pavement 4,023 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,322 86 Weighted Average , 5,264 51.00% Pervious Area 5,058 49.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.4 91 0.1278 0.24 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 0.3 62 0.0270 3.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Pavement Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.7 153 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-22a: Prop.: To CB17 Runoff = 0.65 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,222 cf, Depth= 4.04" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description * 5,923 98 Pavement , 683 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 6,606 96 Weighted Average 683 10.34% Pervious Area ' 5,923 89.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description , (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes i MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 51 ' Summary for Subcatchment P-22b: Prop: To C616 Runoff = 0.71 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,484 cf, Depth= 4.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,848 98 Building & Pavement 142 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,990 98 Weighted Average 142 2.03% Pervious Area 6,848 97.97% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-22c: Prop: 60 Grove St. Runoff = 0.88 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,737 cf, Depth= 2.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,120 98 Building 10,225 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 13,345 80 Weighted Average 10,225 76.62% Pervious Area 3,120 23.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-23: Prop.: To YD3 Runoff = 1.00 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 4,097 cf, Depth= 2.91" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description 11,285 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C ' 5,616 76 Woods/grass comb. Fair HSG C 16,901 85 Weighted Average 9,566 56.60% Pervious Area 7,335 43.40% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type Ill 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" � I Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 52 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.0 11 0.5450 5.17 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.4 90 0.0722 4.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale ' Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 14.9 201 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-24: Prop.: To YD4 ' Runoff = 1.21 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 5,000 cf, Depth= 2.91" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description ' 13,066 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 7,558 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair HSG C ' 20,624 85 Weighted Average 12,131 58.82% Pervious Area 8,493 41.18% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.1 6 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.6 176 0.1165 5.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 15.2 282 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-25: Prop.: To CB23 ' Runoff = 4.83 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 20,691 cf, Depth= 2.91" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 57,701 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C , 27,647 76 Woods/grass comb. Fair, HSG C 85,348 85 Weighted Average 47,842 56.06% Pervious Area ' 37,506 43.94% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type I/124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 53 ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.0 12 0.5000 4.95 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 2.3 442 0.0446 3.17 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 16.8 554 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-3: Prop.: To CB20 Runoff = 0.98 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 3,231 cf, Depth= 2.73" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description * 4,415 98 Bit. Conc. Path ' * 1,102 98 Walkways 8,707 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,224 83 Weighted Average 8,707 61.21% Pervious Area 5,517 38.79% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 40 0.0200 0.10 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.7 106 0.0150 2.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutterline Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 7.7 146 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-4: Prop.: To CB21 Runoff = 0.96 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,055 cf, Depth= 2.55" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,027 98. Bit. Conc. Path ' 10,362 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,389 81 Weighted Average 10,362 72.01% Pervious Area ' 4,027 27.99% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 54 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description , (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.7 54 0.0600 0.16 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 1.2 105 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutterline Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.9 159 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-6: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff = 1.75 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 6,043 cf, Depth= 4.15' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 16,629 98 Pavement ' 848 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 17,477 97 Weighted Average 848 4.85% Pervious Area , 16,629 95.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 1.0 100 0.0320 1.63 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 1.4 222 0.0162 2.58 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow , Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 3.6 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 322 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-7: Prop.: To CB8 Runoff = 0.73 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,459 cf, Depth= 3.92" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description * 6,709 98 Pavement 808 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7,517 95 Weighted Average 808 10.75% Pervious Area 6,709 89.25% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 55 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 100 0.0550 2.03 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.5 132 0.0454 4.33 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.7 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 232 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-8: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff = 0.58 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,839 cf, Depth= 3.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description 4,401 98 Pavement 2,096 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C ' 6,497 90 Weighted Average 2,096 32.26% Pervious Area 4,401 67.74% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 0.7 100 0.0833 2.40 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.3 66 0.0290 3.46 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 166 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-9: Prop.: To CB12&13 Runoff = 1.23 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,924 cf, Depth= 3.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (so CN Description 9,213 98 Pavement 4,652 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C _ 13,865 90 Weighted Average 4,652 33.55% Pervious Area 9,213 66.45% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" , Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 56 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.1 35 0.3210 0.28 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.8 110 0.0125 2.27 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 3.1 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 145 Total Summary for Reach E: Existing: Canal Inflow Area = 391,931 sf, 39.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.15" for 10-yr event Inflow = 25.98 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 103,026 cf Outflow = 25.98 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 103,026 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min , Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond CB1: CB1 ' Inflow Area = 3,464 sf, 78.81% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.71" for 10-yr event , Inflow = 0.33 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,070 cf Outflow = 0.33 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,070 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.33 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,070 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 18.16' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 20.80' , Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.80' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 98.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 17.80' / 17.30' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.32 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=18.16' TW=17.75' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.32 cfs @ 1.89 fps) Summary for Pond CB10: CB10 Inflow Area = 17,477 sf, 95.15% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.15" for 10-yr event Inflow = 1.75 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 6,043 cf ' Outflow = 1.75 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= _ 6,043 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.75 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,043 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.69' @ 12.13 hrs Flood Elev= 10.50' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.50' 12.0" Round Culvert , 1 ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yrRainfall=4.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 57 L= 11.7' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.50' /7.30' S= 0.0171 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.60 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=8.62' TW=8.44' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.60 cfs @ 2.03 fps) ' Summary for Pond CB12: CB12&13 Inflow Area = 13,865 sf, 66.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.40" for 10-yr event Inflow 1.23 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,924 cf Outflow 1.23 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,924 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.23 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,924 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 7.77' @ 12.13 hrs Flood Elev= 10.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 11.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.00' /6.90' S= 0.0089 'r Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.13 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=7.73' TW=7.55' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.13 cfs @ 2.55 fps) ' Summary for Pond CB16: CB16 ' Inflow Area = 6,990 sf, 97.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.26" for 10-yr event Inflow 0.71 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,484 cf Outflow - 0.71 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,484 of, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.71 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,484 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.57' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 97.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00'/5.50' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.69 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=6.56' TW=6.19' (Dynamic Tailwater) ` t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.69 cfs @ 2.18 fps) I , i MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yrRainfall=4.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @ 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 58 Summary for Pond CB17: CB17 ' Inflow Area = 6,606 sf, 89.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.04" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.65 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,222 cf Outflow = 0.65 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,222 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.65 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,222 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 6.43' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 4.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 6.00' / 5.50' S= 0.1250 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.63 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=6.42' TW=6.19' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.63 cfs @ 2.96 fps) Summary for Pond CB2: CB2 ' Inflow Area = 7,937 sf, 83.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.82" for 10-yr event ' Inflow = 0.76 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,524 cf Outflow = 0.76 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,524 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.76 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,524 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 18.27' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 20.80' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.80' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 7.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 17.80' / 17.65' S= 0.0203 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.76 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=18.27' TW=17.75' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.76 cfs @ 3.07 fps) . Summary for Pond CB20: CB20 ' Inflow Area = 14,224 sf, 38.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.73" for 10-yr event ' Inflow = 0.98 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 3,231 cf Outflow = 0.98 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 3,231 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.98 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 3,231 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.59' @ 12.13 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' , MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 59 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 139.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 6.00' /4.60' S= 0.0101 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.97 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=6.59' TW=5.78' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.97 cfs @ 2.87 fps) Summary for Pond CB21: CB21 Inflow Area = 14,389 sf, 27.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.55" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.96 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,055 cf Outflow 0.96 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 3,055 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 0.96 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 3,055 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.52' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 53.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 6.00'/5.50' S= 0.0094 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.96 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=6.52' TW=5.51' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.96 cfs @ 3.36 fps) Summary for Pond CB23: CB23 tInflow Area = 85,348 sf, 43.94% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.91" for 10-yr event Inflow 4.83 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 20,691 cf Outflow 4.83 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 20,691 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 4.83 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 20,691 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 10.89' @ 12.24 hrs Flood Elev= 13.25' . ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 9.60' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 78.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 9.60'/7.55' S= 0.0262 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=4.82 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=10.89' TW=8.95' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 4.82 cfs @ 3.93 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @ 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 60 Summary for Pond CB3: CB3 ' Inflow Area = 10,229 sf, 72.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.50" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,982 cf Outflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,982 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.93 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,982 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 17.55' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 20.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 5.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 17.00' / 16.90' S= 0.0185 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.93 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=17.55' TW=16.54' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.93 cfs @ 3.00 fps) Summary for Pond CB4: CB4 ' Inflow Area = 7,082 sf, 76.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.60" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.66 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,126 cf ' Outflow = 0.66 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,126 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.66 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,126 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 17.21' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 19.80' , Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 16.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 17.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 16.80'/ 16.45' S= 0.01197T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow, Max=0.66 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=17.21' TW=15.87' (Dynamic Tailwater) , 1=Culvert Inlet Controls 0.66 cfs @ 2.17 fps) Summary for Pond CBS: CB5 , Inflow Area = 8,579 sf, 65.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.40" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.76 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,428 cf Outflow = 0.76 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,428 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.76 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,428 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 16.48' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 19.00' ' 1 ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD010 00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 61 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 16.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 5.9' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 16.00' / 15.88' S= 0.0203 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.76 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=16.48' TW=12.69' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.76 cfs @ 2.97 fps) Summary for Pond C66: C66 Inflow Area = 3,115 sf, 64.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.40" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.27 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 881 cf ' Outflow 0.27 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 881 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 0.27 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 881 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 12.54' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 15.25' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 2.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 12.25' / 12.20' S= 0.0192 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.27 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=12.54' TW=10.15' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.27 cfs @ 2.16 fps) Summary for Pond CB7: C67 Inflow Area = 5,519 sf, 59.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.30" for 10-yr event Inflow 0.48 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,516 cf Outflow 0.48 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,516 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.48 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,516 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 11.34' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 14.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 11.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 11.00'/ 10.60' S= 0.0200T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.48 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=11.34' TW=9.68' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.48 cfs @ 2.00 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 , HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 62 Summary for Pond CB8: CB8 ' Inflow Area = 7,517 sf, 89.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.92" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.73 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,459 cf Outflow = 0.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,459 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.73 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,459 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 8.97' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 11.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 8.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 7.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 , Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 8.00'/7.55' S= 0.0592 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.46 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=8.75' TW=8.72' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.46 cfs @ 1.00 fps) Summary for Pond CB9: CB9 ' Inflow Area = 6,497 sf, 67.74% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.40" for 10-yr event Inflow = 0.58 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,839 cf ' Outflow = 0.58 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,839 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.58 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,839 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 8.96' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices , #1 Primary 7.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 24.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.80'/7.55' S= 0.0104 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=8.72' TW=8.73' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond DMI: DM1 Inflow Area = 11,401 sf, 81.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.78" for 10-yr event Inflow = 1.09 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,594 cf Outflow = 1.09 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,594 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.09 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,594 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 17.76' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 21.00' ' 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 63 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.20' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 131.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 17.20'/ 15.90' S= 0.0099 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.08 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=17.76' TW=16.55' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.08 cfs @ 3.49 fps) ' Summary for Pond DMI!0: DM10 Inflow Area = 130,704 sf, 56.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.21" for 10-yr event Inflow = 7.44 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 34,954 cf Outflow 7.44 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 34,954 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 7.44 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 34,954 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 7.63' @ 12.15 hrs Flood Elev= 10.15' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.15' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 5.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.15' /6.10' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=7.44 cfs @ 12.15 hrs HW=7.63' TW=7.21' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 7.44 cfs @ 4.16 fps) Summary for Pond DM11: DM11 Inflow Area = 13,596 sf, 93.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.15" for 10-yr event ' Inflow = 1.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,706 cf Outflow = 1.36 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 4,706 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.36 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 4,706 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.20' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.10' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 5.40' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 31.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 5.40' / 5.25' S= 0.0047 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.33 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=6.20' TW=5.93' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.33 cfs @ 2.71 fps) 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 , HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 64 Summary for Pond DM1213: DMH12B , Inflow Area = 144,928 sf, 55.18% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.16" for 10-yr event Inflow = 8.38 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 38,184 cf ' Outflow = 8.38 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 38,179 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 8.38 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 38,179 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 5.77' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 4.25' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 7.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert=4.25' /4.10' S= 0.0192 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=8.37 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=5.77' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1 t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 8.37 cfs @ 4.54 fps) Summary for Pond DM2: DM2 Inflow Area = 21,630 sf, 77.63% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.65" for 10-yr event Inflow = 2.02 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 6,576 cf Outflow = 2.02 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 6,576 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 2.02 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 6,576 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 16.56' @ 12.12 hrs Flood Elev= 20.20' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 15.80' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 66.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 15.80' / 15.15' S= 0.0098 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow, Max=2.00 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=16.56' TW=15.89' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 2.00 cfs @ 3.68 fps) Summary for Pond DM4: DM4 ' Inflow Area = 80,605 sf, 76.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.43" for 10-yr event ' Inflow = 3.74 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 9,577 cf Outflow = 3.74 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 9,577 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 3.74 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 9,577 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 13.07' @ 12.24 hrs Flood Elev= 19.12' ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 65 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.15' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 181.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 12.15' /9.43' S= 0.0150 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=3.74 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=13.07' TW=10.56' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 3.74 cfs @ 3.27 fps) ' Summary for Pond DMS: DMS Inflow Area = 107,733 sf, 70.04% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.86" for 10-yr event ' Inflow 5.25 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 16,663 cf Outflow 5.25 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 16,663 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 5.25 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 16,663 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 10.57' @ 12.25 hrs Flood Elev= 15.35' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 9.33' 18.0" Round Culvert ' L= 15.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 9.33' /8.95' S= 0.02487 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf ' PrimaryOutFlow Max=5.18 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=10.57' TW=10.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 5.18 cfs @ 4.50 fps) ' Summary for Pond DM6: DM6 Inflow Area = 113,252 sf, 69.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.93" for 10-yr event ' Inflow = 5.48 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 18,178 cf Outflow = 5.48 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 18,178 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 5.48 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 18,178 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 10.03' @ 12.25 hrs Flood Elev= 14.40' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 8.85' 18.0" Round Culvert ' L= 56.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 8.85' /7.10' S= 0.0311 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=5.48 cfs @ 12.25 hrs HW=10.02' TW=8.19' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 5.48 cfs @ 3.69 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 66 Summary for Pond DM7B: DM7B ' Inflow Area = 136,382 sf, 66.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.13" for 10-yr event Inflow = 6.39 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 24,200 cf ' Outflow = 6.39 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 24,177 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 6.39 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 24,177 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 5.62' @ 12.27 hrs Flood Elev= 9.55' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 4.20' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 9.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 t Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 4.20' /4.00' S= 0.02227 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=6.38 cfs @ 12.27 hrs HW=5.61' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 6.38 cfs @ 3.77 fps) Summary for Pond DMB: DM8 ' Inflow Area = 99,362 sf, 48.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.02" for 10-yr event ' Inflow = 5.50 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 24,988 cf Outflow = 5.50 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 24,988 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 5.50 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 24,988 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 8.96' @ 12.21 hrs Flood Elev= 11.25' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.45' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 8.7' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.45' / 7.30' S= 0.0172 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=5.52 cfs @ 12.23 hrs HW=8.95' TW=8.53' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 5.52 cfs @ 3.13 fps) Summary for Pond DM9: DM9 ' Inflow Area = 116,839 sf, 55.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.19" for 10-yr event , Inflow = 6.46 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 31,030 cf Outflow = 6.46 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 31,030 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 6.46 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 31,030 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.55' @ 12.18 hrs Flood Elev= 10.90' , MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" ' Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 67 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.20' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 171.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.20' /6.25' S= 0.00557 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=6.47 cfs @ 12.18 hrs HW=8.55' TW=7.62' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 6.47 cfs @ 4.06 fps) ' Summary for Pond DMH12A: DMH12A Inflow Area = 130,704 sf, 56.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.21" for 10-yr event Inflow = 7.44 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 34,954 cf Outflow 7.44 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 34,954 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 7.44 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 34,954 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 7.21' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.20' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 82.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00'/4.35' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=7.44 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=7.21' TW=5.77' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 7.44 cfs @ 3.74 fps) ' Summary for Pond DMH13: DMH13 Inflow Area = 14,224 sf, 38.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.73" for 10-yr event ' Inflow = 0.98 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 3,231 cf Outflow = 0.98 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 3,230 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.98 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 3,230 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 5.83' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 4.50' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 12.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert=4.50'/4.35' S= 0.0120 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.86 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=5.80' TW=5.75' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.86 cfs @ 1.10 fps) 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type III 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" ' Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 68 Summary for Pond DMH7A: DMH7A ' Inflow Area = 116,268 sf, 69.83% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.97" for 10-yr event Inflow = 5.62 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 19,110 cf ' Outflow = 5.62 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 19,110 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 5.62 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 19,110 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 8.19' @ 12.26 hrs Flood Elev= 10.75' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.00' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 11.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.00'/6.00' S= 0.0862 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=5.61 cfs @ 12.26 hrs HW=8.19' TW=5.61' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 5.61 cfs @ 3.72 fps) Summary for Pond IF: Infiltration Field ' Inflow Area = 55,125 sf, 88.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.94" for 10-yr event ' Inflow = 5.22 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 18,087 cf Outflow = 2.80 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 26,778 cf, Atten= 46%, Lag= 8.2 min Discarded = 0.43 cfs @ 11.77 hrs, Volume= 23,726 cf Primary = 2.37 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 3,052 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 15.46' @ 12.24 hrs Surf.Area= 2,263 sf Storage=4,370 cf ' Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 8.3 min ( 775.6- 767.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description , #1 12.50' 2,484 cf 25.00'W x 90.00'L x 4.00'H Prismatoid 9,000 cf Overall - 2,790 cf Embedded = 6,210 cf x 40.0% Voids ' #2 13.00' 2,771 cf StormTech SC-740 x60 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap , Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows #3 13.00' 20 cf 12.0" Round Pipe Storage Inside#1 L= 25.0' #4 13.00' 93 cf 4.00'D x 7.43'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder ' #5 20.43' 1,141 cf Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 6,509 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc,Store Cum.Store ' (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 20.43 4 0 0 , 21.00 4,000 1,141 1,141 it ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 69 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 14.75' 18.0" Round Culvert ' L= 166.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 14.75' / 12.25' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Discarded 12.50' 8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.43 cfs @ 11.77 hrs HW=13.00' (Free Discharge) t2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.43 cfs) Primary OutFlow, Max=2.37 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=15.46' TW=13.07' (Dynamic Tailwater) L7=Culvert (Inlet Controls 2.37 cfs @ 2.87 fps) Summary for Pond TRD: TRD ' Inflow Area = 3,016 sf, 80.50% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.71" for 10-yr event Inflow 0.28 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 932 cf Outflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 932 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 0.28 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 932 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 10.74' @ 12.09 hrs ' Flood Elev= 10.95' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 10.40' 6.0" Round Culvert L= 35.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 10.40' / 8.00' S= 0.0686 '/' Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.28 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=10.74' TW=7.85' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.28 cfs @ 1.99 fps) Summary for Pond WQS1: WQS#1 ' Inflow Area = 28,712 sf, 77.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.64" for 10-yr event Inflow 2.66 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 8,701 cf Outflow = 2.66 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 8,701 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 2.66 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 8,701 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 15.89' @ 12.12 hrs Flood Elev= 20.30' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 14.90' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 3.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 14.90'/ 14.85' S= 0.01567 Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 70 Primary OutFlow Max=2.66 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=15.89' TW=14.64' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t--1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 2.66 cfs @ 3.50 fps) Summary for Pond WQSS: WQS#5 , Inflow Area = 13,596 sf, 93.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.15" for 10-yr event t Inflow = 1.36 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 4,706 cf Outflow = 1.36 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 4,706 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.36 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 4,706 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 5.93' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.30' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 5.25' 12.0" Round Culvert , L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 5.25' / 5.05' S= 0.01007 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=1.36 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=5.93' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.36 cfs @ 3.36 fps) Summary for Pond Y134: YD4 Inflow Area = 20,624 sf, 41.18% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.91" for 10-yr event ' Inflow = 1.21 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 5,000 cf Outflow = 1.21 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 5,000 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.21 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 5,000 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 13.28' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 16.00' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.70' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 25.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 12.70'/ 12.20' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=1.21 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=13.28' TW=10.50' (Dynamic Tailwater) L7=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.21 cfs @ 2.58 fps) ' Summary for Link P: Proposed: Canal Inflow Area = 391,927 sf, 50.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.67" for 10-yr event , Inflow = 20.40 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 87,296 cf Primary = 20.40 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 87,296 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 10-yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 71 Fixed water surface Elevation= 5.26' 1 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 72 Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment E-1: Existing: Harmony Grove Runoff Area=6,381 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" , Flow Length=34' Slope=0.0300 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=76 Runoff=0.49 cfs 1,525 of Subcatchment E-2: Existing: 64 Grove St RunoffArea=347,309 sf 36.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.95" ' Flow Length=516' Tc=12.6 min CN=87 Runoff=29.25 cfs 114,190 of Subcatchment E-3: Existing: To Grove St. Runoff Area=11,293 sf 66.53% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.48" ' Flow Length=64' Slope=0.0312 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=1.29 cfs 4,217 of Subcatchment E4: Existing: 60 Grove St. Runoff Area=26,948 sf 86.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.82" ' Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=3.19 cfs 10,815 of Subcatchment P-1: Prop: Harmony Grove To Runoff Area=6,381 sf 6.08% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.96" Flow Length=34' Slope=0.1500 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=77 Runoff=0.51 cfs 1,575 of ' Subcatchment P-10: Proposed Building 1 Runoff Area=11,842 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.16" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=1.44 cfs 5,095 of ' Subcatchment P-11: Proposed Building 2 Runoff Area=11,842 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.16" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=1.44 cfs 5,095 cf ' Subcatchment P-12: Prop.: To CB1 Runoff Area=3,464 sf 78.81% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.59" Flow Length=73' Slope=0.0292 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=0.40 cfs 1,325 of Subcatchment P-13: Prop.: To CB2 Runoff Area=7,937 sf 83.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.70" ' Flow Length=72' Slope=0.0292'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=94 Runoff=0.93 cfs 3,111 of Subcatchment P-14: Prop.: To CB3 Runoff Area=10,229 sf 72.89% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.37" ' Flow Length=113' Tc=6.0 min CN=91 Runoff=1.15 cfs 3,726 cf Subcatchment P-15: Prop.: To CB4 Runoff Area=7,082 sf 76.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.48" ' Flow Length=72' Slope=0.0292 T Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=0.81 cfs 2,644 of Subcatchment P-16: Prop.: To CB5 Runoff Area=8,579 sf 65.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" , Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0230 'P Tc=6,0 min CN=90 Runoff=0.94 cfs 3,048 cf Subcatchment P-17: Prop.: To CB6 Runoff Area=3,115 sf 64.82% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" , Flow Length=121' Tc=6.3 min CN=90 Runoff=0.34 cfs 1,107 of Subcatchment P-18: Prop.: To CB7 Runoff Area=5,519 sf 59.89% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.16" Flow Length=130' Tc=6.0 min CN=89 Runoff=0.60 cfs 1,911 of , Subcatchment P-19: Prop.: TRD1 Runoff Area=3,016 sf 80.50% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.59" Flow Length=80' Slope=0.0319'P Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=0.35 cfs 1,154 cf ' Subcatchment P-2: Prop.: To Canal RunoffArea=66,973 sf 9.11% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.24" Flow Length=200' Tc=6.6 min CN=80 Runoff--5.72 cfs 18,108 of 1 1 1 ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here? Printed 10122/2014 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 73 Subcatchment P-20a: Front Proposed Runoff Area=2,729 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.16" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.33 cfs 1,174 cf 1 Subcatchment P-20b: Rear Proposed Runoff Area=5,725 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.16" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.69 cfs 2,463 cf ' Subcatchment P-20c: Front Proposed Runoff Area=3,389 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.16" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.41 cfs 1,458 cf ' Subcatchment P-21: Prop: To Grove St. Runoff Area=10,322 sf 49.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.84" Flow Length=153' Tc=6.7 min CN=86 Runoff=1.02 cfs 3,305 cf Subcatchment P-22a: Prop.: To CB17 Runoff Area=6,606 sf 89.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.93" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=0.79 cfs 2,714 cf Subcatchment P-22b: Prop: To CB16 Runoff Area=6,990 sf 97.97% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.16" ' Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.85 cfs 3,007 cf Subcatchment P-22c: Prop: 60 Grove St. Runoff Area=13,345 sf 23.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.24" Tc=6.0 min CN=80 Runoff=1.16 cfs 3,608 cf ' Subcatchment P-23: Prop.: To YD3 Runoff Area=16,901 sf 43.40% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.74" Flow Length=201' Tc=14.9 min CN=85 Runoff=1.28 cfs 5,267 cf ' Subcatchment P-24: Prop.: To YD4 Runoff Area=20,624 sf 41.18% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.74" Flow Length=282' Tc=15.2 min CN=85 Runoff=1.55 cfs 6,427 cf ' Subcatchment P-25: Prop.: To CB23 Runoff Area=85,348 sf 43.94% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.74" Flow Length=554' Tc=16.8 min CN=85 Runoff=6.17 cfs 26,597 cf Subcatchment P-3: Prop.: To CB20 Runoff Area=14,224 sf 38.79% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.54" Flow Length=146' Tc=7.7 min CN=83 Runoff=1.27 cfs 4,194 cf Subcatchment P-4: Prop.: To CB21 Runoff Area=14,389 sf 27.99% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.34" Flow Length=159' Tc=6.9 min CN=81 Runoff=1.25 cfs 4,007 cf Subcatchment P-6: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff Area=17,477 sf 95.15% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.05" Flow Length=322' Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=2.11 cfs 7,349 cf Subcatchment P-7: Prop.: To CB8 Runoff Area=7,517 sf 89.25% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.82" ' Flow Length=232' Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=0.89 cfs 3,017 cf Subcatchment P-8: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff Area=6,497 sf 67.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Flow Length=166' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=0.72 cfs 2,308 cf Subcatchment P-9: Prop.: To CB12&13 Runoff Area=13,865 sf 66.45% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Flow Length=145' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=1.53 cfs 4,926 cf ' Reach E: Existing: Canal Inflow=32.71 cfs 130,748 cf Outflow=32.71 cfs 130,748 cf MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 74 Pond CBI: CB1 Peak Elev=18.21' Inflow=0.40 cfs 1,325 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=98.6' S=0.0051 '/' Outflow=0.40 cfs 1,325 cf Pond CB10: CB10 Peak Elev=8.98' Inflow=2.11 cfs 7,349 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.7' S=0.0171 'P Outflow=2.11 cfs 7,349 cf Pond CB12: CB12&13 Peak Elev=7.96' Inflow=1.53 cfs 4,926 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.2' S=0.00897 Outflow=1.53 cfs 4,926 cf ' Pond CB16: CB16 Peak EIev=6.65' Inflow=0.85 cfs 3,007 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=97.4' S=0.0051 '/' Outflow=0.85 cfs 3,007 cf ' Pond CB17: CB17 Peak EIev=6.51' Inflow=0.79 cfs 2,714 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=4.0' S=0.1250 '/' Outflow=0.79 cfs 2,714 cf ' Pond CB2: CB2 Peak EIev=18.33' Inflow=0.93 cfs 3,111 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.4' S=0.0203 '/' Outflow=0.93 cfs 3,111 cf Pond CB20: CB20 Peak EIev=6.72' Inflow=1.27 cfs 4,194 cf , 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=139.2' S=0.0101 'P Outflow=1.27 cfs 4,194 cf Pond CB21: CB21 Peak EIev=6.61' Inflow=1.25 cfs 4,007 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=53.3' S=0.0094 '/' Outflow=1.25 cfs 4,007 cf Pond CB23: CB23 Peak EIev=11.31' Inflow=6.17 cfs 26,597 cf ' 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=78.2' S=0.0262 '/' Outflow=6.17 cfs 26,597 cf Pond CB3: CB3 Peak Elev=17.63' Inflow=1.15 cfs 3,726 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.4' S=0.01857 Outflow=1.15 cfs 3,726 cf Pond CB4: CB4 Peak Elev=17.26' Inflow=0.81 cfs 2,644 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=17.8' S=0.01977 Outflow=0.81 cfs 2,644 cf Pond CBS: CBS Peak EIev=16.55' Inflow=0.94 cfs 3,048 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.9' S=0.0203 '/' Outflow=0.94 cfs 3,048 cf , Pond CB6: CBS Peak Elev=12.58' Inflow=0.34 cfs 1,107 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=2.6' S=0.0192'P Outflow=0.34 cfs 1,107 cf , Pond CB7: CB7 Peak Elev=11.39' Inflow=0.60 cfs 1,911 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=20.0' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=0.60 cfs 1,911 cf Pond CB8: CB8 Peak EIev=9.46' Inflow=0.89 cfs 3,017 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.6' S=0.0592 'P Outflow=0.89 cfs 3,017 cf Pond CB9: CB9 Peak EIev=9.45' Inflow=0.72 cfs 2,308 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=24.0' S=0.0104'P Outflow=0.72 cfs 2,308 cf Pond DMI: DM1 Peak EIev=17.83' Inflow=1.33 cfs 4,436 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=131.8' S=0.0099'P Outflow=1.33 cfs 4,436 cf I MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 75 ' Pond DM10: DM10 Peak EIev=7.85' Inflow=9.33 cfs 44,196 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.0' S=0.01007' Outflow=9.33 cfs 44,196 cf Pond DM11: DM11 Peak EIev=6.31' Inflow=1.64 cfs 5,721 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=31.8' S=0.0047 '/' Outflow=1.64 cfs 5,721 cf ' Pond DM12B: DMH12B Peak EIev=5.98' Inflow=10.53 cfs 48,389 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.8' S=0.0192 '/' Outflow=10.53 cfs 48,385 cf Pond DM2: DM2 Peak EIev=16.68' Inflow=2.47 cfs 8,162 cf ' 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=66.5' S=0.0098 '/' Outflow=2.47 cfs 8,162 cf Pond DM4: DM4 Peak Elev=13.47' Inflow=6.45 cfs 13,543 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=181.2' S=0.0150 '/' Outflow=6.45 cfs 13,543 cf Pond DMS: DM5 Peak EIev=11.64' Inflow=8.45 cfs 22,535 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=15.3' S=0.0248 '/' Outflow=8.45 cfs 22,535 cf ' Pond DM6: DM6 Peak EIev=10.68' Inflow=8.83 cfs 24,446 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=56.3' S=0.0311 T Outflow=8.83 cfs 24,446 cf fPond DM7B: DM7B Peak EIev=5.87' Inflow=10.27 cfs 32,069 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=9.0' S=0.0222 'P Outflow=10.27 cfs 32,055 cf ' Pond DMB: DM8 Peak EIev=9.44' Inflow=6.99 cfs 31,922 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=8.7' S=0.0172 'P Outflow=6.99 cfs 31,922 cf ' Pond DM9: DM9 Peak EIev=8.78' Inflow=8.14 cfs 39,270 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=171.5' S=0.0055 'P Outflow=8.14 cfs 39,270 cf Pond DMH12A: DMH12A Peak EIev=7.39' Inflow=9.33 cfs 44,196 cf 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=82.3' S=0.0200'P Outflow=9.33 cfs 44,196 cf ' Pond DMH13: DMH13 Peak EIev=6.08' Inflow=1.27 cfs 4,194 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=12.5' S=0.0120 T Outflow=1.27 cfs 4,193 cf Pond DMH7A: DMH7A Peak EIev=8.88' Inflow=9.04 cfs 25,600 cf ' 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.6' S=0.0862'P Outflow=9.04 cfs 25,600 cf Pond IF: Infiltration Field Peak Elev=15.79' Storage=4,668 cf Inflow=6.34 cfs 22,170 cf ' Discarded=0.43 cfs 24,693 cf Primary=4.53 cfs 5,229 cf Outflow=4.96 cfs 29,921 cf Pond TRD: TRD Peak EIev=10.79' Inflow=0.35 cfs 1,154 cf 6.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=35.0' 5=0.0686 'P Outflow=0.35 cfs 1,154 cf Pond WQS1: WQS#1 Peak EIev=16.03' Inflow=3.27 cfs 10,806 cf . 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=3.2' S=0.0156'P Outflow=3.27 cfs 10,806 cf ' Pond WQS5: WQS#5 Peak EIev=6.02' Inflow=1.64 cfs 5,721 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=20.0' S=0.0100'/' Outflow=1.64 cfs 5,721 cf 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" 1 Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 76 Pond YD4: YD4 Peak Elev=13.37' Inflow=1.55 cfs 6,427 cf 1 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=25.0' 5=0.0200'/' Outflow=1.55 cfs 6,427 cf Link P: Proposed: Canal Inflow=27.00 cfs 112,757 cf 1 Primary=27.00 cfs 112,757 cf Total Runoff Area= 783,858 sf Runoff Volume= 260,465 cf Average Runoff Depth = 3.99" ' 54.81% Pervious = 429,643 sf 45.19% Impervious= 354,215 sf i i i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 77 ' Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Existing: Harmony Grove Runoff = 0.49 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,525 cf, Depth= 2.87" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description 6,381 76 Woods/grass comb. Fair HSG C ' 6,381 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.2 34 0.0300 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 34 Total Summary for Subcatchment E-2: Existing: 64 Grove St Runoff = 29.25 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 114,190 cf, Depth= 3.95" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description 88,123 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C * 10,942 89 Railroad - Gravel * 38,112 98 Building * 29,689 98 Pavement * 58,077 89 Gravel lot, HSG C 41,223 77 Woods, Poor, HSG C ' 81,143 77 Brush, Poor, HSG C 347,309 87 Weighted Average 222,228 63.99% Pervious Area ' 125,081 36.01% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) 10.0 100 0.0500 0.17 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 2.6 416 0.0700 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow ' Nearly Bare& Untilled Kv= 10.0 fps 12.6 516 Total MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yrRainfal1=5.40" Prepared by(enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @ 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 78 Summary for Subcatchment E-3: Existing: To Grove St. , Runoff = 1.29 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 4,217 cf, Depth= 4.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description ' 7,743 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 2,480 98 Paved parking & roofs ' 1,070 89 Gravel roads, HSG C 11,293 92 Weighted Average 3,780 33.47% Pervious Area 7,513 66.53% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 0.7 64 0.0312 1.48 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.3 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 64 Total Summary for Subcatchment E-4: Existing: 60 Grove St. Runoff = 3.19 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 10,815 cf, Depth- 4.82 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (so CN Description ' 23,270 98 Paved parking & roofs 3,678 77 Brush, Poor, HSG C 26,948 95 Weighted Average ' 3,678 13.65% Pervious Area 23,270 86.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.6 100 0.0100 1.03 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" , 4.4 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 100 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Prop: Harmony Grove To Canal ' Runoff = 0.51 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,575 cf, Depth= 2.96" , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" ' ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 79 ' Area (sf) CN Description * 388 98 Bit. Conc. Path 70 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 400 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,523 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair HSG C 6,381 77 Weighted Average ' 5,993 93.92% Pervious Area 388 6.08% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.7 34 0.1500 0.21 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 3.3 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 34 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-10: Proposed Building 1 Runoff = 1.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 5,095 cf, Depth= 5.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,842 98 Roof ' 11,842 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-11: Proposed Building 2 ' Runoff = 1.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 5,095 cf, Depth= 5.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" ' Area (so CN Description * 11,842 98 Roof 11,842 100.00% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 6,0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" ' Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 80 Summary for Subcatchment P-12: Prop.: To CB1 ' Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,325 cf, Depth= 4.59" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description ' 2,730 98 Pavement 734 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C ' 3,464 93 Weighted Average 734 21.19% Pervious Area 2,730 78.81% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 73 0.0292 1.48 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow , Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 73 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-13: Prop.: To CB2 Runoff = 0.93 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,111 cf, Depth= 4.70" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description 6,606 98 Pavement ' 1,331 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7,937 94 Weighted Average 1,331 16.77% Pervious Area ' 6,606 83.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description , (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 72 0.0292 1.47 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n=0.011 P2= 3.10" ' 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 72 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-14: Prop.: To CB3 , Runoff = 1.15 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,726 cf, Depth= 4.37" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 81 ' Area (sf) CN Description * 7,456 98 Pavement 2,773 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C ' 10,229 91 Weighted Average 2,773 27.11% Pervious Area 7,456 72.89% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 1.1 100 0.0292 1.58 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.1 13 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 113 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-15: Prop.: To CB4 Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,644 cf, Depth= 4.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (so CN Description * 5,433 98 Pavement 1,649 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7,082 92 Weighted Average 1,649 23.28% Pervious Area 5,433 76.72% Impervious Area 1 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft1sec) (cfs) ' 0.8 72 0.0292 1.47 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 72 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-16: Prop.: To CBS ' Runoff = 0.94 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,048 cf, Depth= 4.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description * 5,577 98 Pavement 3,002 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 8,579 90 Weighted Average ' 3,002 34.99% Pervious Area 5,577 65.01% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" , Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 82 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 100 0.0230 1.43 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow , Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 4.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 100 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-17: Prop.: To CB6 ' Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,107 cf, Depth= 4.26" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" ' Area (sf) CN Description 2,019 98 Pavement ' 1,096 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,115 90 Weighted Average 1,096 35.18% Pervious Area 2,019 64.82% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 53 0.0520 0.15 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.3 68 0.0440 4.26 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line ' Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.3 121 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-18: Prop.: To CB7 ' Runoff = 0.60 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,911 cf, Depth= 4.16" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" ' Area (so CN Description 1,953 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 2,036 98 Pavement , 1,530 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C 5,519 89 Weighted Average 2,214 40.11°/a Pervious Area , 3,305 59.89% Impervious Area ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 83 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.7 100 0.2100 0.29 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.1 30 0.1000 6.42 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps ' 0.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 130 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-19: Prop.: TRD1 Runoff = 0.35 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,154 cf, Depth= 4.59" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,428 98 Pavement 588 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,016 93 Weighted Average 588 19.50% Pervious Area 2,428 80.50% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.9 80 0.0319 1.56 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.1 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 80 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Prop.: To Canal ' Runoff = 5.72 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 18,108 cf, Depth= 3.24" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (so CN Description ' 7,725 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C * 10,767 89 Railrod - Gravel * 1,082 98 Bit. Conc. Path 138 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 19,590 74 >75% Grass.cover, Good, HSG C 27,671 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair HSG C 66,973 80 Weighted Average 60,870 90.89% Pervious Area 6,103 9.11% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type ///24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 84 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft1sec) (cfs) 6.0 100 0.1800 0.28 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 0.6 100 0.1600 2.80 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 6.6 200 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-20a: Front Proposed Building 3 Runoff = 0.33 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,174 cf, Depth= 5.16" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" ' Area (sf) CN Description 2,729 98 Roof 2,729 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-201b: Rear Proposed Building 3 ' Runoff = 0.69 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,463 cf, Depth= 5.16" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (so CN Description ' 5,725 98 Roof 5,725 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) ' 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-20c: Front Proposed Building 3 ' Runoff = 0.41 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,458 cf, Depth= 5.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" 1 r r MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 85 r Area (so CN Description * 3,389 98 Roof 3,389 100.00% Impervious Area rTc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) r6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-21: Prop: To Grove St. rRunoff = 1.02 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,305 cf, Depth= 3.84" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (so CN Description r 3,546 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C * 2,753 98 Pavement 4,023 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C r 10,322 86 Weighted Average 5,264 51.00% Pervious Area 5,058 49.00% Impervious Area rTc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) r 6.4 91 0.1278 0.24 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.3 62 0.0270 3.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Pavement Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.7 153 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-22a: Prop.: To CB17 rRunoff = 0.79 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,714 cf, Depth= 4.93" r Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description * 5,923 98 Pavement 683 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,606 96 Weighted Average 683 10.34% Pervious Area 5,923 89.66% Impervious Area r Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes r r MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" ' Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 86 Summary for Subcatchment P-221b: Prop: To CB16 f Runoff = 0.85 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,007 cf, Depth= 5.16" Runoff b SCS TR-20 method UH=SCS Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs dt= 0.01 hrs Y 9 p Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" _ Area (so CN Description , 6,848 98 Building & Pavement 142 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C , 6,990 98 Weighted Average 142 2.03% Pervious Area 6,848 97.97% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' Summary for Subcatchment P-22c: Prop: 60 Grove St. Runoff = 1.16 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,608 cf, Depth= 3.24" ' Runoff b SCS TR-20 method UH=S S Weighted-CN, Ti = - .0 hrs d = 1 hr CTime an 00030 0 t 00 s Yp Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area(so CN Description 3,120 98 Building ' 10,225 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 13,345 80 Weighted Average ' 10,225 76.62% Pervious Area 3,120 23.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-23: Prop.: To YD3 , Runoff = 1.28 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 5,267 cf, Depth= 3.74" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description 11,285 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 5,616 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C 16,901 85 Weighted Average 9,566 56.60% Pervious Area 7,335 43.40% Impervious Area ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10122/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 87 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.0 11 0.5450 5.17 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.4 90 0.0722 4.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 14.9 201 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-24: Prop.: To YD4 Runoff = 1.55 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 6,427 cf, Depth= 3.74" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=.0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" IArea (sf) CN Description 13,066 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 7,558 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C 20,624 85 Weighted Average 12,131 58.82% Pervious Area 8,493 41.18% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.1 6 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow ' Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.6 176 0.1165 5.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 15.2 282 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-25: Prop.: To CB23 Runoff = 6.17 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 26,597 cf, Depth= 3.74" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (so CN Description 57,701 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 27,647 . 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair HSG C 85,348 85 Weighted Average ' 47,842 56.06% Pervious Area 37,506 43.94% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 88 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.0 12 0.5000 4.95 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow ' Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 2.3 442 0.0446 3.17 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 16.8 554 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-3: Prop.: To CB20 Runoff = 1.27 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 4,194 cf, Depth= 3.54" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (so CN Description ' 4,415 98 Bit. Conc. Path " 1,102 98 Walkways 8,707 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,224 83 Weighted Average 8,707 61.21°/a Pervious Area 5,517 38.79% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 7.0 40 0.0200 0.10 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.7 106 0.0150 2.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutterline , Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 7.7 146 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-4: Prop.: To CB21 Runoff = 1.25 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 4,007 cf, Depth= 3.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description 4,027 98 Bit. Conc. Path 10,362 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,389 81 Weighted Average 10,362 72.01% Pervious Area 4,027 27.99% Impervious Area ' ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 89 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.7 54 0.0600 0.16 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 1.2 105 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutterline Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.9 159 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-6: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff = 2.11 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 7,349 cf, Depth= 5.05' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (so CN Description * 16,629 98 Pavement 848 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17,477 97 Weighted Average 848 4.85% Pervious Area 16,629 95.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 1.0 100 0.0320 1.63 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 1.4 222 0.0162 2.58 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 3.6 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 322 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-7: Prop.: To CB8 Runoff = 0.89 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,017 cf, Depth= 4.82" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,709 98 Pavement 808 74 >75% Grass cover, Good. HSG C 7,517 95 Weighted Average 808 10.75% Pervious Area 6,709 89.25% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type ///24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 90 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 0.8 100 0.0550 2.03 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.5 132 0.0454 4.33 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.7 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 232 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-8: Prop.: To CBS Runoff = 0.72 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,308 cf, Depth= 4.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (so CN Description * 4,401 98 Pavement 2,096 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 6,497 90 Weighted Average 2,096 32.26% Pervious Area 4,401 67.74% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft1sec) (cfs) 0.7 100 0.0833 2.40 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" ' 0.3 66 0.0290 3.46 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 166 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-9: Prop.: To CB12&13 Runoff = 1.53 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 4,926 cf, Depth= 4.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Area (sf) CN Description 9,213 98 Pavement 4,652 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 13,865 90 Weighted Average 4,652 33.55% Pervious Area 9,213 66.45% Impervious Area i1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type ///24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" I Prepared by(enter your company name here} Printed 10122/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 91 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.1 35 0.3210 0.28 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.8 110 0.0125 2.27 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 3.1 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 145 Total Summary for Reach E: Existing: Canal Inflow Area = 391,931 sf, 39.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.00" for 25-yr event Inflow = 32.71 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 130,748 cf Outflow = 32.71 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 130,748 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond CB1: CB1 Inflow Area = 3,464 sf, 78.81% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.59" for 25-yr event Inflow 0.40 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,325 cf Outflow = 0.40 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,325 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.40 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,325 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 18.21' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 20.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 98.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 17.80'/ 17.30' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.39 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=18.21' TW=17.83' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.39 cfs @ 1.93 fps) Summary for Pond CB10: CB10 Inflow Area = 17,477 sf, 95.15% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.05" for 25-yr event Inflow 2.11 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 7,349 cf Outflow = 2.11 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,349 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 2.11 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,349 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.98' @ 12.13 hrs Flood Elev= 10.50' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.50' 12.0" Round Culvert MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 92 L= 11.7' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.50' /7.30' S= 0.0171 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.96 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=8.91' TW=8.64' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.96 cfs @ 2.49 fps) Summary for Pond CB12: CB12&13 , Inflow Area = 13,865 sf, 66.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.26" for 25-yr event Inflow = 1.53 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 4,926 cf Outflow = 1.53 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,926 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.53 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,926 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 7.96' @ 12.14 hrs Flood Elev= 10.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 11.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.00' /6.90' S= 0.0089 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=7.91' TW=7.75' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.36 cfs @ 2.40 fps) Summary for Pond CB16: CB16 ' Inflow Area = 6,990 sf, 97.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.16" for 25-yr event ' Inflow = 0.85 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,007 cf Outflow = 0.85 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,007 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.85 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,007 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.65' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 97.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00'/5.50' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.82 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=6.64' TW=6.29' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.82 cfs @ 2.20 fps) 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 93 ' Summary for Pond CB17: CB17 Inflow Area = 6,606 sf, 89.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.93" for 25-yr event Inflow 0.79 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,714 cf Outflow 0.79 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,714 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.79 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,714 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.51' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' iDevice Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 4.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 6.00' / 5.50' S= 0.1250 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.75 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=6.50' TW=6.29' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.75 cfs @ 2.83 fps) ' Summary for Pond C1812: CB2 Inflow Area = 7,937 sf, 83.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.70" for 25-yr event ' Inflow 0.93 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,111 cf Outflow 0.93 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,111 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.93 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,111 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 18.33' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 20.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 7.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 17.80' / 17.65' S= 0.02037 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.93 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=18.33' TW=17.83' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Cuivert (Barrel Controls 0.93 cfs @ 3.19 fps) ' Summary for Pond CB20: CB20 Inflow Area = 14,224 sf, 38.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.54" for 25-yr event Inflow 1.27 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 4,194 cf Outflow = 1.27 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 4,194 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.27 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 4,194 cf 1 Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.72' @ 12.14 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 94 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 139.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00' /4.60' S= 0.0101 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow, Max=1.23 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=6.71' TW=5.98' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.23 cfs @ 2.89 fps) Summary for Pond CB21: CB21 Inflow Area = 14,389 sf, 27.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.34" for 25-yr event , Inflow = 1.25 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 4,007 cf Outflow = 1.25 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 4,007 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 1.25 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 4,007 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 6.61' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 53.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00'/5.50' S= 0.0094 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.25 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=6.61' TW=5.60' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.25 cfs @ 3.56 fps) Summary for Pond CB23: CB23 ' Inflow Area = 85,348 sf, 43.94% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.74" for 25-yr event Inflow = 6.17 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 26,597 cf Outflow = 6.17 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 26,597 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 6.17 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 26,597 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 11.31' @ 12.24 hrs Flood Elev= 13.25' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices , #1 Primary 9.60' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 78.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 9.60' 17.55' S= 0.0262 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=6.16 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=11.31' TW=9.44' (Dynamic Tailwater) , t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 6.16 cfs @ 5.02 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 95 Summary for Pond CB3: CB3 Inflow Area = 10,229 sf, 72.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.37" for 25-yr event Inflow 1.15 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,726 cf Outflow 1.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,726 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.15 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,726 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 17.63' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 20.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.00' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 5.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 17.00' / 16.90' S= 0.0185 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=17.63' TW=16.66' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.14 cfs @ 3.14 fps) Summary for Pond CB4: CB4 Inflow Area = 7,082 sf, 76.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.48" for 25-yr event Inflow 0.81 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,644 cf Outflow 0.81 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,644 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.81 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,644 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 17.26' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 19.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 #1 Primary 16.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 17.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 16.80' / 16.45' S= 0.0197 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.80 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=17.26' TW=16.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.80 cfs @ 2.30 fps) Summary for Pond CB5: CBS Inflow Area = 8,579 sf, 65.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.26" for 25-yr event Inflow = 0.94 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,048 cf Outflow = 0.94 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,048 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.94 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,048 cf ` Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 16.55' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 19.00' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" ' Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 96 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 16.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 5.9' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 16.00'/ 15.88' S= 0.0203 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.94 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=16.55' TW=12.80' (Dynamic Tailwater) , t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.94 cfs @ 3.10 fps) Summary for Pond CB6: CB6 Inflow Area = 3,115 sf, 64.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.26" for 25-yr event Inflow = 0.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,107 cf Outflow = 0.34 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,107 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min , Primary = 0.34 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,107 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 12.58' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 15.25' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 2.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 12.25'/ 12.20' S= 0.0192 T Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.34 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=12.58' TW=10.30' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.34 cfs @ 2.26 fps) Summary for Pond CB7: CB7 Inflow Area = 5,519 sf, 59.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.16" for 25-yr event Inflow = 0.60 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,911 cf Outflow = 0.60 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,911 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.60 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,911 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 11.39' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 14.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices , #1 Primary 11.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 11.00'/ 10.60' S= 0.0200 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.60 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=11.39' TW=9.81' (Dynamic Tailwater) t--1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.60 cfs @ 2.12 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 1/124-hr 25-yrRainfall=5.40" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 97 Summary for Pond CB8: CB8 Inflow Area = 7,517 sf, 89.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.82" for 25-yr event Inflow 0.89 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,017 cf Outflow 0.89 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,017 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.89 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,017 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 9.46' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 11.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 8.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 7.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 8.00' / 7.55' S= 0.0592 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=8.98' TW=8.99' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond CB9: CB9 Inflow Area = 6,497 sf, 67.74% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.26" for 25-yr event Inflow 0.72 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,308 cf Outflow 0.72 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,308 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.72 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,308 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 9.45' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 7.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 24.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.80' /7.55' S= 0.0104'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=8.96' TW=9.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) ' Summary for Pond DMI: DM1 Inflow Area = 11,401 sf, 81.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.67" for 25-yr event Inflow 1.33 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,436 cf Outflow - 1.33 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 4,436 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.33 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 4,436 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 17.83' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 21.00' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 98 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices , #1 Primary 17.20' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 131.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 17.20'/ 15.90' S= 0.0099 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.32 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=17.83' TW=16.67' (Dynamic Tailwater) , L1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.32 cfs @ 3.59 fps) Summary for Pond DM10: DMI 0 Inflow Area = 130,704 sf, 56.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.06" for 25-yr event Inflow = 9.33 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 44,196 cf Outflow = 9.33 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 44,196 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min , Primary = 9.33 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 44,196 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 7.85' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.15' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.15' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 5.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.15'/6.10' S= 0.0100 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=9.26 cfs @ 12.15 hrs HW=7.85' TW=7.39' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 9.26 cfs @ 4.39 fps) Summary for Pond DMI 1: DMI 1 Inflow Area = 13,596 sf, 93.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.05" for 25-yr event Inflow = 1.64 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,721 cf Outflow = 1.64 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,721 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.64 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,721 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.31' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.10' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 5.40' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 31.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 5.40' /5.25' S= 0.0047 ? Cc= 0.900 n=, 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.60 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=6.30' TW=6.01' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' L1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.60 cfs @ 2.84 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 99 Summary for Pond DM12B: DMH12B Inflow Area = 144,928 sf, 55.18% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.01" for 25-yr event Inflow 10.53 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 48,389 cf Outflow 10.53 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 48,385 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 10.53 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 48,385 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 5.98' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 4.25' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 7.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 4.25' /4.10' S= 0.0192 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=10.53 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=5.98' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 10.53 cfs @ 4.87 fps) Summary for Pond DM2: DM2 Inflow Area = 21,630 sf, 77.63% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.53" for 25-yr event Inflow 2.47 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 8,162 cf Outflow 2.47 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 8,162 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 2.47 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 8,162 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 16.68' @ 12.12 hrs Flood Elev= 20.20' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 15.80' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 66.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 15.80'/ 15.15' S= 0.00987' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.45 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=16.68' TW=16.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 2.45 cfs @ 3.75 fps) tSummary for Pond DM4: DM4 Inflow Area = 80,605 sf, 76.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.02" for 25-yr event Inflow 6.45 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 13,543 cf Outflow 6.45 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 13,543 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 6.45 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 13,543 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 13.47' @ 12.18 hrs �, Flood Elev= 19.12' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type ///24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.15' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 181.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 12.15' /9.43' S= 0.01507' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=6.45 cfs @ 12.18 hrs HW=13.47' TW=11.51' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 6.45 cfs @ 3.91 fps) Summary for Pond DMS: DM5 Inflow Area = 107,733 sf, 70.04% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.51" for 25-yr event Inflow = 8.45 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 22,535 cf Outflow = 8.45 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 22,535 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min , Primary = 8.45 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 22,535 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 11.64' @ 12.20 hrs Flood Elev= 15.35' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 9.33' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 15.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 9.33' /8.95' S= 0.0248 '/' Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=8.25 cfs @ 12.19 hrs HW=11.61' TW=10.67' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.25 cfs @ 4.67 fps) Summary for Pond DM6: DM6 Inflow Area = 113,252 sf, 69.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.59" for 25-yr event Inflow = 8.83 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 24,446 cf Outflow = 8.83 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 24,446 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 8.83 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 24,446 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 10.68' @ 12.20 hrs Flood Elev= 14.40' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 8.85' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 56.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 8.85'/7.10' S= 0.0311 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=8.82 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=10.67' TW=8.86' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.82 cfs @ 4.99 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 101 Summary for Pond DM7B: DM7B Inflow Area = 136,382 sf, 66.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.82" for 25-yr event 1 Inflow 10.27 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 32,069 cf Outflow 10.27 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 32,055 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 10.27 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 32,055 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 5.87' @ 12.21 hrs Flood Elev= 9.55' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 4.20' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 9.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 4.20' /4.00' S= 0.0222 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=10.26 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=5.87' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 10.26 cfs @ 4.96 fps) Summary for Pond DMB: DM8 Inflow Area = 99,362 sf, 48.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.86" for 25-yr event Inflow 6.99 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 31,922 cf Outflow 6.99 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 31,922 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 6.99 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 31,922 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 9.44' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 11.25' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.45' 18.0" Round Culvert ' L= 8.7' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.45'/7.30' S= 0.0172 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=7.01 cfs @ 12.23 hrs HW=9.44' TW=8.76' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 7.01 cfs @ 3.97 fps) fSummary for Pond DM9: DM9 Inflow Area = 116,839 sf, 55.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.03" for 25-yr event Inflow 8.14 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 39,270 cf Outflow 8.14 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 39,270 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 8.14 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 39,270 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.78' @ 12.18 hrs Flood Elev= 10.90' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 102 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 7.20' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 171.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.20'/6.25' S= 0.0055 '/' Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=8.16 cfs @ 12.18 hrs HW=8.78' TW=7.85' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 8.16 cfs @ 4.22 fps) Summary for Pond DMH12A: DMH12A Inflow Area = 130,704 sf, 56.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.06" for 25-yr event Inflow = 9.33 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 44,196 cf Outflow = 9.33 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 44,196 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min , Primary = 9.33 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 44,196 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 7.39' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.20' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 82.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00'/4.35' S= 0.0200 'P Cc= 0.900 , n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=9.32 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=7.39' TW=5.98' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 9.32 cfs @ 4.01 fps) Summary for Pond DMH13: DMH13 ' Inflow Area = 14,224 sf, 38.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.54" for 25-yr event Inflow = 1.27 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 4,194 cf Outflow = 1.27 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 4,193 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.27 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 4,193 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.08' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 4.50' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 12.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert=4.50' /4.35' S= 0.01207 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.07 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=6.02' TW=5.94' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.07 cfs @ 1.37 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 103 Summary for Pond DMH7A: DMH7A Inflow Area = 116,268 sf, 69.83% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.64" for 25-yr event ' Inflow 9.04 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 25,600 cf Outflow 9.04 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 25,600 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 9.04 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 25,600 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.88' @ 12.21 hrs ' Flood Elev= 10.75' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.00' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 11.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.00' /6.00' S= 0.0862 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=9.03 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=8.88' TW=5.87' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 9.03 cfs @ 5.11 fps) Summary for Pond IF: Infiltration Field ' Inflow Area = 55,125 sf, 88.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.83" for 25-yr event Inflow 6.34 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 22,170 cf Outflow 4.96 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 29,921 cf, Atten= 22%, Lag= 4.3 min Discarded = 0.43 cfs @ 11.68 hrs, Volume= 24,693 cf ' Primary = 4.53 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 5,229 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 15.79' @ 12.17 hrs Surf.Area= 2,263 sf Storage= 4,668 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 9.0 min ( 772.2- 763.2) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 12.50' 2,484 cf 25.00'W x 90.001 x 4.00'H Prismatoid ' 9,000 cf Overall- 2,790 cf Embedded = 6,210 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 13.00' 2,771 cf StormTech SC-740 x60 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 =45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap ' Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows #3 13.00' 20 cf 12.0" Round Pipe Storage Inside#1 L= 25.0' #4 13.00' 93 cf 4.00'D x 7.43'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder #5 20.43' 1 141 cf Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 6,509 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 20.43 4 0 0 21.00 4,000 1,141 1,141 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /1124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" , Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 104 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 14.75' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 166.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 14.75' / 12.25' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Discarded 12.50' 8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.43 cfs @ 11.68 hrs HW=13.01' (Free Discharge) t-2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.43 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=4.52 cfs @ 12.17 hrs HW=15.79' TW=13.47' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 4.52 cfs @ 3.47 fps) Summary for Pond TRD: TRD ' Inflow Area = 3,016 sf, 80.50% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.59" for 25-yr event ' Inflow = 0.35 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,154 cf Outflow = 0.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,154 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,154 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 10.79' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 10.95' , Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 10.40' 6.0" Round Culvert L= 35.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 10.40'/8.00' S= 0.0686 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=10.79' TW=7.98' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.35 cfs @ 2.12 fps) Summary for Pond WQS1: WQS#1 Inflow Area = 28,712 sf, 77.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.52" for 25-yr event ' Inflow = 3.27 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 10,806 cf Outflow = 3.27 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 10,806 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 3.27 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 10,806 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 16.03' @ 12.12 hrs Flood Elev= 20.30' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 14.90' 15.0" Round Culvert ' L= 3.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 14.90'/ 14.85' S= 0.0156 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 105 J PrimaryOutFlow Max=3.26 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=16.03' TW=15.40' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 3.26 cfs @ 3.70 fps) Summary for Pond WQSS: WQS#5 ' Inflow Area = 13,596 sf, 93.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.05" for 25-yr event Inflow 1.64 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,721 cf Outflow - 1.64 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,721 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.64 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,721 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.02' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.30' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices t #1 Primary 5.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 5.25'/ 5.05' S= 0.0100 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.64 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=6.02' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.64 cfs @ 3.50 fps) ' Summary for Pond YD4: YD4 Inflow Area = 20,624 sf, 41.18% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.74" for 25-yr event Inflow 1.55 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 6,427 cf Outflow = 1.55 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 6,427 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.55 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 6,427 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 13.37' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 16.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.70' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 25.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 12.70' / 12.20' S= 0.0200T Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.55 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=13.37' TW=11.57' (Dynamic Tailwater) t--1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.55 cfs @ 2.78 fps) Summary for Link P: Proposed: Canal ' Inflow Area = 391,927 sf, 50.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.45" for 25-yr event Inflow 27.00 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 112,757 cf Primary = 27.00 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 112,757 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 25-yr Rainfall=5.40" Prepared by (enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 106 Fixed water surface Elevation= 5.26' i 1 1 � I 1 MRM-Grove&(Rev-4) Type Ill 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by (enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 107 Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method I ' Subcatchment E-1: Existing: Harmony Grove Runoff Area=6,381 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.82" Flow Length=34' Slope=0.0300 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=76 Runoff=0.66 cfs 2,029 cf ' Subcatchment E-2: Existing: 64 Grove St Runoff Area=347,309 sf 36.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.00" Flow Length=516' Tc=12.6 min CN=87 Runoff=36.66 cfs 144,626 cf ' Subcatchment E-3: Existing: To Grove St. Runoff Area=11,293 sf 66.53% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.56" Flow Length=64' Slope=0.0312 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=1.58 cfs 5,234 cf ' Subcatchment E4: Existing: 60 Grove St. Runoff Area=26,948 sf 86.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.91" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0100'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=3.87 cfs 13,268 cf Subcatchment P-1: Prop: Harmony Grove To Runoff Area=6,381 sf 6.08% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.92" ' Flow Length=34' Slope=0.1500 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=77 Runoff=0.67 cfs 2,084 cf Subcatchment P-10: Proposed Building 1 Runoff Area=11,842 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" ' Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=1.73 cfs 6,179 cf Subcatchment P-11: Proposed Building 2 Runoff Area=11,842 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=1.73 cfs 6,179 cf Subcatchment P-12: Prop.: To CB1 Runoff Area=3,464 sf 78.81% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.68" Flow Length=73' Slope=0.0292 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=0.49 cfs 1,639 cf ' Subcatchment P-13: Prop.: To CB2 Runoff Area=7,937 sf 83.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.79" Flow Length=72' Slope=0.0292 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=94 Runoff=1.13 cfs 3,831 cf ' Subcatchment P-14: Prop.: To CB3 Runoff Area=10,229 sf 72.89% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.45" Flow Length=113' Tc=6.0 min CN=91 Runoff=1.41 cfs 4,643 cf ' Subcatchment P-15: Prop.: To CB4 Runoff Area=7,082 sf 76.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.56" Flow Length=72' Slope=0.0292 '/' Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff--0.99 cfs 3,282 cf ' Subcatchment P-16: Prop.: To CB5 Runoff Area=8,579 sf 65.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.33" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0230'P Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff--1.17 cfs 3,813 cf Subcatchment P-17: Prop.: To CB6 Runoff Area=3,115 sf 64.82% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.33" ' Flow Length=121' Tc=6.3 min CN=90 Runoff=0.42 cfs 1,385 cf Subcatchment P48: Prop.: To CB7 Runoff Area=5,519 sf 59.89% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.22" ' Flow Length=130' Tc=6.0 min CN=89 Runoff=0.74 cfs 2,401 cf Subcatchment P-19: Prop.: TRD1 Runoff Area=3,016 sf 80.50% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.68" Flow Length=80' Slope=0.0319 'P Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=0.43 cfs 1,427 cf Subcatchment P-2: Prop.: To Canal Runoff Area=66,973 sf 9.11% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.24" Flow Length=200' Tc=6.6 min CN=80 Runoff=7.43 cfs 23,638 cf MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 108 Subcatchment P-20a: Front Proposed Runoff Area=2,729 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" ' Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.40 cfs 1,424 cf Subcatchment P-20b: Rear Proposed Runoff Area=5,725 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" , Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.84 cfs 2,987 cf Subcatchment P-20c: Front Proposed Runoff Area=3,389 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.50 cfs 1,768 cf ' Subcatchment P-21: Prop: To Grove St. Runoff Area=10,322 sf 49.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.89" Flow Length=153' Tc=6.7 min CN=86 Runoff=1.29 cfs 4,203 cf ' Subcatchment P-22a: Prop.: To CB17 Runoff Area=6,606 sf 89.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.03" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=0.96 cfs 3,317 cf ' Subcatchment P-22b: Prop: To CB16 Runoff Area=6,990 sf 97.97% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=1.02 cfs 3,647 cf Subcatchment P-22c: Prop: 60 Grove St. Runoff Area=13,345 sf 23.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.24" , Tc=6.0 min CN=80 Runoff=1.51 cfs 4,710 cf Subcatchment P-23: Prop.: To YD3 Runoff Area=16,901 sf 43.40% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.78" ' Flow Length=201' Tc=14.9 min CN=85 Runoff=1.62 cfs 6,727 cf Subcatchment P-24: Prop.: To YD4 Runoff Area=20,624 sf 41.18% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.78" ' Flow Length=282' Tc=15.2 min CN=85 Runoff=1.96 cfs 8,208 cf Subcatchment P-25: Prop.: To CB23 Runoff Area=85,348 sf 43.94% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.78" ' Flow Length=554' Tc=16.8 min CN=85 Runoff=7.81 cfs 33,968 cf Subcatchment P-3: Prop.: To CB20 Runoff Area=14,224 sf 38.79% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.56" ' Flow Length=146' Tc=7.7 min CN=83 Runoff=1.62 cfs 5,402 cf Subcatchment P-4: Prop.: To CB21 Runoff Area=14,389 sf 27.99% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.34" Flow Length=159' Tc=6.9 min CN=81 Runoff=1.61 cfs 5,206 cf ' Subcatchment P-6: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff Area=17,477 sf 95.15% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.14" Flow Length=322' Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=2.55 cfs 8,947 cf ' Subcatchment P-7: Prop.: To C138 Runoff Area=7,517 sf 89.25% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.91" Flow Length=232' Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=1.08 cfs 3,701 cf ' Subcatchment P-8: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff Area=6,497 sf 67.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.33" Flow Length=166' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=0.88 cfs 2,888 cf Subcatchment P-9: Prop.: To CB12&13 Runoff Area=13,865 sf 66.45% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.33" , Flow Length=145' Tc=6.0 min CN=90 Runoff=1.89 cfs 6,163 cf Reach E: Existing: Canal Inflow=40.93 ofs 165,158 cf ' Outflow=40.93 cfs 165,158 cf MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yrRainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 109 Pond CB1: CB1 Peak Elev=18.27' Inflow=0.49 cfs 1,639 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=98.6' S=0.0051 '/' Outflow=0.49 cfs 1,639 cf ' Pond CB10: CB10 Peak Elev=9.36' Inflow=2.55 cfs 8,947 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.7' S=0.0171 '/' Outflow=2.55 cfs 8,947 cf Pond CB12: CB12&13 Peak Elev=8.33' Inflow=1.89 cfs 6,163 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.2' S=0.0089 '/' Outflow=1.89 cfs 6,163 cf Pond CB16: CB16 Peak Elev=6.75' Inflow=1.02 cfs 3,647 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=97.4' S=0.0051 '/' Outflow=1.02 cfs 3,647 cf Pond CB17: CB17 Peak Elev=6.61' Inflow=0.96 cfs 3,317 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=4.0' S=0.12507 Outflow=0.96 cfs 3,317 cf Pond CB2: CB2 Peak EIev=18.40' Inflow=1.13 cfs 3,831 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.4' S=0.0203 '/' Outflow=1.13 cfs 3,831 cf ' Pond CB20: CB20 Peak EIev=6.93' Inflow=1.62 cfs 5,402 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=139.2' S=0.0101 '/' Outflow=1.62 cfs 5,402 cf Pond CB21: CB21 Peak EIev=6.72' Inflow=1.61 cfs 5,206 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=53.3' S=0.00947 Outflow=1.61 cfs 5,206 cf ' Pond CB23: CB23 - Peak Elev=12.23' Inflow=7.81 cfs 33,968 cf 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=78.2' S=0.0262 '/' Outflow=7.81 cfs 33,968 cf Pond CB3: CB3 Peak EIev=17.72' Inflow=1.41 cfs 4,643 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.4' S=0.0185 '/' Outflow=1.41 cfs 4,643 cf Pond CB4: CB4 Peak Elev=17.31' Inflow=0.99 cfs 3,282 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=17.8' S=0.0197'/' Outflow=0.99 cfs 3,282 cf Pond CBS: CBS Peak EIev=16.62' Inflow=1.17 cfs 3,813 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.9' S=0.0203 '/' Outflow=1.17 cfs 3,813 cf Pond CBS: CBS Peak EIev=13.44' Inflow=0.42 cfs 1,385 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=2.6' S=0.0192'P Outflow=0.42 cfs 1,385 cf Pond CB7: CB7 Peak Elev=11.89' Inflow=0.74 cfs 2,401 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=20.0' 5=0.0200'P Outflow=0.74 cfs 2,401 cf Pond CB8: CB8 Peak EIev=10.17' Inflow=1.08 cfs 3,701 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.6' S=0.0592 '1' Outflow=1.08 cfs 3,701 cf Pond CB9: CB9 Peak EIev=10.17' Inflow=0.88 cfs 2,888 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=24.0' S=0.01047 Outflow=0.88 cfs 2,888 cf Pond DM1: DM1 Peak Elev=17.93' Inflow=1.62 cfs 5,470 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=131.8' S=0.0099 'P Outflow=1.62 cfs 5,470 cf 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 110 Pond DM10: DM10 Peak Elev=8.19' Inflow=11.64 cfs 55,667 cf ' 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=5.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=11.64 cfs 55,667 cf Pond DM11: DM71 Peak Elev=6.43' Inflow=1.98 cfs 6,964 cf , 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=31.8' S=0.0047 '/' Outflow=1.98 cfs 6,964 cf Pond DM12B: DMH12B Peak Elev=6.27' Inflow=13.18 cfs 61,067 cf ' 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=7.8' S=0.0192 '/' Outflow=13.18 cfs 61,064 cf Pond DM2: DM2 Peak Elev=16.94' Inflow=3.03 cfs 10,113 cf 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=66.5' S=0.0098 '/' Outflow=3.03 cfs 10,113 cf , Pond DM4: DM4 Peak EIev=15.07' Inflow=9.14 cfs 18,701 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=181.2' S=0.0150 '/' Outflow=9.14 cfs 18,701 cf ' Pond DMS: DM5 Peak Elev=13.43' Inflow=11.62 cfs 30,062 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=15.3' S=0.0248 '/' Outflow=11.62 cfs 30,062 cf Pond DM6: DM6 Peak Elev=11.87' Inflow=12.21 cfs 32,464 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=56.3' S=0.0311 '/' Outflow=12.21 cfs 32,464 cf Pond DM7B: DM7B Peak EIev=6.29' Inflow=14.28 cfs 42,084 cf , 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=9.0' S=0.0222 '/' Outflow=14.28 cfs 42,070 cf Pond DMB: DM8 Peak EIev=10.15' Inflow=8.81 cfs 40,557 cf ' 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=8.7' S=0.01727 Outflow=8.81 cfs 40,557 cf Pond DM9: DM9 Peak EIev=9.10' Inflow=10.20 cfs 49,504 cf ' 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=171.5' S=0.0055 '/' Outflow=10.20 cfs 49,504 cf Pond DMH12A: DMH12A Peak EIev=7.60' Inflow=11.64 cfs 55,667 cf , 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=82.3' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=11.64 cfs 55,667 cf Pond DMH13: DMH13 Peak EIev=6.42' Inflow=1.62 cfs 5,402 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=12.5' S=0.0120'/' Outflow=1.62 cfs 5,400 cf Pond DMH7A: DMH7A Peak EIev=9.91' Inflow=12.52 cfs 33,890 cf 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=11.6' S=0.0862 '/' Outflow=12.52 cfs 33,890 cf ' Pond IF: Infiltration Field Peak EIev=16.12' Storage=4,973 cf Inflow=7.71 cfs 27,177 cf Discarded=0.43 cfs 25,723 cf Primary=6.65 cfs 8,162 cf Outflow=7.08 cfs 33,885 cf ' Pond TRD: TRD Peak EIev=10.85' Inflow=0.43 cfs 1,427 cf 6.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=35.0' S=0.0686'/' Outflow=0.43 cfs 1,427 cf Pond WQS1: WQS#1 Peak Elev=16.51' Inflow=4.00 cfs 13,395 cf ' 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=3.2' S=0.0156 '/' Outflow=4.00 cfs 13,395 cf Pond WQS5: WQS#5 Peak EIev=6.12' Inflow=1.98 cfs 6,964 cf ' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=20.0' S=0.0100 ? Outflow=1.98 cfs 6,964 cf ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 111 Pond YD4: YD4 Peak Elev=13.72' Inflow=1.96 cfs 8,208 cf 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=25.0' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=1.96 cfs 8,208 cf ' Link P: Proposed: Canal Inflow=37.53 cfs 144,733 cf Primary=37.53 cfs 144,733 cf ' Total Runoff Area= 783,858 sf Runoff Volume= 328,925 cf Average Runoff Depth = 5.04" 54.81% Pervious=429,643 sf 45.19% Impervious = 354,215 sf 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 112 Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Existing: Harmony Grove ' Runoff = 0.66 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,029 cf, Depth= 3.82" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' 6,381 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C 6,381 100.00% Pervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.2 34 0.0300 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 34 Total , Summary for Subcatchment E-2: Existing: 64 Grove St Runoff = 36.66 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 144,626 cf, Depth= 5.00" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' 88,123 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 10,942 89 Railroad - Gravel 38,112 98 Building 29,689 98 Pavement 58,077 89 Gravel lot, HSG C 41,223 77 Woods, Poor, HSG C 81,143 77 Brush, Poor, HSG C ' 347,309 87 Weighted Average 222,228 63.99% Pervious Area 125,081 36.01% Impervious Area , Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 100 0.0500 0.17 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 2.6 416 0.0700 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Nearly Bare& Untilled Kv= 10.0 fps ' 12.6 516 Total , j 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by tenter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 113 Summary for Subcatchment E-3: Existing: To Grove St. Runoff = 1.58 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 5,234 cf, Depth= 5.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Area (sf) CN Description 7,743 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C ' 2,480 98 Paved parking & roofs 1,070 89 Gravel roads, HSG C 11,293 92 Weighted Average ' 3,780 33.47% Pervious Area 7,513 66.53% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.7 64 0.0312 1.48 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" ' 5.3 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 64 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment E-4: Existing: 60 Grove St. Runoff = 3.87 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 13,268 cf, Depth= 5.91" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 23,270 98 Paved parking & roofs 3,678 77 Brush Poor HSG C ' 26,948 95 Weighted Average 3,678 13.65% Pervious Area 23,270 86.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 1.6 100 0.0100 1.03 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 4.4 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 100 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Prop: Harmony Grove To Canal Runoff = 0.67 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,084 cf, Depth= 3.92" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yrlRainfall=6.50" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 114 Area (so CN Description ' 388 98 Bit. Conc. Path 70 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 400 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C ' 5,523 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C 6,381 77 Weighted Average 5,993 93.92% Pervious Area , 388 6.08% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 2.7 34 0.1500 0.21 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 3.3 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 34 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-10: Proposed Building 1 , Runoff = 1.73 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 6,179 cf, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' 11,842 98 Roof 11,842 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' Summary for Subcatchment P-11: Proposed Building 2 Runoff = 1.73 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 6,179 cf, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description " 11,842 98 Roof ' 11,842 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (f tft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10122/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 115 Summary for Subcatchment P-12: Prop.: To CB1 Runoff = 0.49 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,639 cf, Depth= 5.68" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Area (so CN Description * 2,730 98 Pavement ' 734 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,464 93 Weighted Average 734 21.19% Pervious Area ' 2,730 78.81% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 73 0.0292 1.48 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 73 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-13: Prop.: To CB2 ' Runoff = 1.13 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,831 cf, Depth= 5.79" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' * 6,606 98 Pavement 1,331 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7,937 94 Weighted Average 1,331 16.77% Pervious Area 6,606 83.23% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 72 0.0292 1.47 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 72 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-14: Prop.: To CB3 ' Runoff = 1.41 cfs @ 12.08 hrs; Volume= 4,643 cf, Depth= 5.45' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 116 Area (sf) CN Description ' * 7,456 98 Pavement 2,773 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,229 91 Weighted Average , 2,773 27.11% Pervious Area 7,456 72.89% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.1 100 0.0292 1.58 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow , Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.1 13 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 113 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-15: Prop.: To CB4 , Runoff = 0.99 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,282 cf, Depth= 5.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (so CN Description ' * 5,433 98 Pavement 1,649 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7,082 92 Weighted Average ' 1,649 23.28% Pervious Area 5,433 76.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 72 0.0292 1.47 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow , Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 72 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-16: Prop.: To CB5 Runoff = 1.17 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,813 cf, Depth= 5.33" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Area (sf) CN Description * 5,577 98 Pavement 3,002 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 8,579 90 Weighted Average 3,002 34.99% Pervious Area ' 5,577 65.01% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10 00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 117 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 1.2 100 0.0230 1.43 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 4.8 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' 6.0 100 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-17: Prop.: To CB6 ' Runoff = 0.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,385 cf, Depth= 5.33" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sl) CN Description t 2,019 98 Pavement 1,096 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,115 90 Weighted Average ' 1,096 35.18% Pervious Area 2,019 64.82% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 53 0.0520 0.15 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.3 68 0.0440 4.26 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.3 121 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-18: Prop.: To CB7 ' Runoff = 0.74 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,401 cf, Depth= 5.22 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (so CN Description 1,953 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C * 2,036 98 Pavement 1,530 76 Woods/grass comb Fair HSG C 5,519 89 Weighted Average 2,214 40.11% Pervious Area 3,305 59.89% Impervious Area I 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/2212014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 118 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.7 100 0.2100 0.29 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 0.1 30 0.1000 6.42 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.2 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes , 6.0 130 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-19: Prop.: TRD1 Runoff = 0.43 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,427 cf, Depth= 5.68" 1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall-6.50" Area (so CN Description ' * 2,428 98 Pavement 588 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,016 93 Weighted Average , 588 19.50% Pervious Area 2,428 80.50% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.9 80 0.0319 1.56 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 5.1 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 80 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Prop.: To Canal Runoff = 7.43 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 23,638 cf, Depth= 4.24" , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Area (sf) CN Description 7,725 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C * 10,767 89 Railrod - Gravel * 1,082 98 Bit. Conc. Path 138 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 19,590 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C ' 27,671 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C 66,973 80 Weighted Average 60,870 90.89% Pervious Area , 6,103 9.11% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 119 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 100 0.1800 0.28 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.6 100 0.1600 2.80 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps ' 6.6 200 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-20a: Front Proposed Building 3 Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,424 cf, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (so CN Description 2,729 98 Roof 2,729 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-20b: Rear Proposed Building 3 Runoff = 0.84 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,987 cf, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (so CN Description ' 5,725 98 Roof 5,725 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-20c: Front Proposed Building 3 Runoff = 0.50 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,768 cf, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 120 Area (sf) CN Description ' 3,389 98 Roof 3,389 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes ' Summary for Subcatchment P-21: Prop: To Grove St. Runoff = 1.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,203 cf, Depth= 4.89" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (so CN Description 3,546 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C ' 2,753 98 Pavement 4,023 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,322 86 Weighted Average ' 5,264 51.00% Pervious Area 5,058 49.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.4 91 0.1278 0.24 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.3 62 0.0270 3.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Pavement Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.7 153 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-22a: Prop.: To CB17 Runoff = 0.96 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,317 cf, Depth= 6.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (so CN Description 5,923 98 Pavement 683 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,606 96 Weighted Average ' 683 10.34% Pervious Area 5,923 89.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" 1 Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 121 ' Summary for Subcatchment P-22b: Prop: To CB16 Runoff = 1.02 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,647 cf, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Area (sf) CN Description * 6,848 98 Building & Pavement 142 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 6,990 98 Weighted Average 142 2.03% Pervious Area 6,848 97.97% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-22c: Prop: 60 Grove St. Runoff = 1.51 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,710 cf, Depth= 4.24" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' 3,120 98 Building 10,225 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 13,345 80 Weighted Average ' 10,225 76.62% Pervious Area 3,120 23.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes Summary for Subcatchment P-23: Prop.: To YD3 Runoff = 1.62 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 6,727 cf, Depth= 4.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (so CN Description 11,285 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 5 616 76 Woods/grass comb Fair HSG C 16,901 85 Weighted Average 9,566 56.60% Pervious Area ' 7,335 43.40% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @ 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 122 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 0.0 11 0.5450 5.17 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.4 90 0.0722 4.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale ' Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 14.9 201 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-24: Prop.: To YD4 ' Runoff = 1.96 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 8,208 cf, Depth= 4.78" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description ' 13,066 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C 7,558 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C ' 20,624 85 Weighted Average 12,131 58.82% Pervious Area 8,493 41.18% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow , Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.1 6 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps ' 0.6 176 0.1165 5.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 15.2 282 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-25: Prop.: To CB23 Runoff = 7.81 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 33,968 cf, Depth= 4.78" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 57,701 90 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG C ' 27,647 76 Woods/grass comb., Fair, HSG C 85,348 85 Weighted Average 47,842 56.06% Pervious Area , 37,506 43.94% Impervious Area 1 ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 123 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.5 100 0.0200 0.11 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" 0.0 12 0.5000 4.95 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concetrated Flow Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps ' 2.3 442 0.0446 3.17 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grass Swale Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 16.8 554 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-3: Prop.: To CB20 Runoff = 1.62 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,402 cf, Depth= 4.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (so CN Description * 4,415 98 Bit. Conc. Path * 1,102 98 Walkways 8,707 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 14,224 83 Weighted Average 8,707 61.21% Pervious Area 5,517 38.79% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 40 0.0200 0.10 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 0.7 106 0.0150 2.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutterline Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 7.7 146 Total tSummary for Subcatchment P-4: Prop.: To CB21 ' Runoff = 1.61 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,206 cf, Depth= 4.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,027 98 Bit. Conc. Path ' 10,362 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,389 81 Weighted Average 10,362 72.01% Pervious Area 4,027 27.99% Impervious Area MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 124 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.7 54 0.0600 0.16 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 1.2 105 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutterline Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.9 159 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-6: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff = 2.55 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 8,947 cf, Depth= 6.14" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description " 16,629 98 Pavement ' 848 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17,477 97 Weighted Average 848 4.85% Pervious Area 16,629 95.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 1.0 100 0.0320 1.63 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 1.4 222 0.0162 2.58 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow ' Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 3.6 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 322 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-7: Prop.: To CB8 Runoff = 1.08 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,701 cf, Depth= 5.91" , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 6,709 98 Pavement ' 808 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7,517 95 Weighted Average 808 10.75% Pervious Area ' 6,709 89.25% Impervious Area I MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 125 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.8 100 0.0550 2.03 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.5 132 0.0454 4.33 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Flow Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 43 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 232 Total ' Summary for Subcatchment P-8: Prop.: To CB9 Runoff = 0.88 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,888 cf, Depth= 5.33" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Area (sf) CN Description 4,401 98 Pavement 2,096 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,497 90 Weighted Average 2,096 32.26% Pervious Area 4,401 67.74% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.7 100 0.0833 2.40 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow ' Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.3 66 0.0290 3.46 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 166 Total Summary for Subcatchment P-9: Prop.: To CB12&13 Runoff = 1.89 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 6,163 cf, Depth= 5.33" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Area (sf) CN Description " 9,213 98 Pavement 4,652 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C ' 13,865 90 Weighted Average 4,652 33.55% Pervious Area 9,213 66.45% Impervious Area 1 1 I MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 126 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.1 35 0.3210 0.28 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.10" ' 0.8 110 0.0125 2.27 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Gutter Line Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 3.1 Direct Entry, Min. 6 Minutes 6.0 145 Total ' Summary for Reach E: Existing: Canal , Inflow Area = 391,931 sf, 39.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.06" for 100-yr event Inflow = 40.93 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 165,158 cf ' Outflow = 40.93 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 165,158 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond C131: CB1 ' Inflow Area = 3,464 sf, 78.81% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.68" for 100-yr event , Inflow = 0.49 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,639 cf Outflow = 0.49 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,639 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.49 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,639 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 18.27' @ 12.10 hrs Flood Elev= 20.80' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.80' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 98.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 17.80' / 17.30' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.48 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=18.27' TW=17.92' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.48 cfs @ 1.95 fps) Summary for Pond CB10: CB10 Inflow Area = 17,477 sf, 95.15% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.14" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 2.55 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 8,947 cf Outflow = 2.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,947 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 2.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,947 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 9.36' @ 12.13 hrs ' Flood Elev= 10.50' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.50' 12.0" Round Culvert ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 127 ' L= 11.7' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.50' /7.30' S= 0.0171 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.39 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=9.28' TW=8.88' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 2.39 cfs @ 3.04 fps) ' Summary for Pond CB12: CB12&13 ' Inflow Area = 13,865 sf, 66.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.33" for 100-yr event Inflow 1.89 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 6,163 cf Outflow 1.89 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,163 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.89 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,163 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.33' @ 12.15 hrs ' Flood Elev= 10.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 11.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.00' /6.90' S= 0.0089 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.69 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=8.18' TW=7.98' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.69 cfs @ 2.15 fps) ' Summary for Pond CB16: CB16 Inflow Area = 6,990 sf, 97.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.26" for 100-yr event Inflow 1.02 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,647 cf Outflow - 1.02 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,647 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.02 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,647 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.75' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 97.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 6.00' /5.50' S= 0.0051 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.98 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=6.74' TW=6.41' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.98 cfs @ 2.21 fps) 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 ' HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 128 Summary for Pond CB17: CB17 ' Inflow Area = 6,606 sf, 89.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.03" for 100-yr event Inflow = 0.96 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,317 cf ' Outflow = 0.96 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,317 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.96 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,317 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 6.61' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 4.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 6.00' / 5.50' S= 0.1250 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.89 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=6.59' TW=6.41' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' 1-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.89 cfs @ 2.66 fps) Summary for Pond C132: CB2 ' Inflow Area = 7,937 sf, 83.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.79" for 100-yr event Inflow = 1.13 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,831 cf ' Outflow = 1.13 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,831 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.13 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,831 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 18.40' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 20.80' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Prima 17.80' 12.0" Round Culvert Primary i L= 7.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 17.80'/ 17.65' S= 0.0203T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.13 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=18.40' TW=17.92' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert Barrel Controls 1.13 cfs @ 3.31 fps) Summary for Pond CB20: CB20 ' Inflow Area = 14,224 sf, 38.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.56" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 1.62 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,402 cf Outflow = 1.62 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 5,402 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag=0.6 min Primary = 1.62 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 5,402 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.93' @ 12.15 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' ' 1 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 129 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 139.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 6.00' 14.60' S= 0.0101 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=1.54 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=6.89' TW=6.30' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.54 cfs @ 2.75 fps) Summary for Pond CB21: CB21 Inflow Area = 14,389 sf, 27.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.34" for 100-yr event Inflow = 1.61 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,206 cf ' Outflow 1.61 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,206 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 1.61 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 5,206 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.72' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 9.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 53.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00' /5.50' S= 0.00947 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow, Max=1.61 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=6.71' TW=5.84' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.61 cfs @ 3.77 fps) Summary for Pond CB23: CB23 Inflow Area = 85,348 sf, 43.94% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.78" for 100-yr event Inflow = 7.81 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 33,968 cf ' Outflow 7.81 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 33,968 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 7.81 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 33,968 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 12.23' @ 12.23 hrs Flood Elev= 13.25' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 9.60' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 78.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 9.60'/7.55' S= 0.0262'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=7.81 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=12.23' TW=10.14' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 7.81 cfs @ 6.37 fps) 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type l/l 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 130 Summary for Pond CB3: C63 , Inflow Area = 10,229 sf, 72.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.45" for 100-yr event Inflow = 1.41 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 4,643 cf Outflow = 1.41 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,643 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.41 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,643 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 1 Peak Elev= 17.72' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 20.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 5.4' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 , Inlet/Outlet Invert= 17.00' / 16.90' S= 0.0185 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.41 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=17.71' TW=16.80' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.41 cfs @ 3.29 fps) Summary for Pond CB4: C134 Inflow Area = 7,082 sf, 76.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.56" for 100-yr event Inflow = 0.99 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,282 cf ' Outflow = 0.99 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,282 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.99 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,282 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 17.31' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 19.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 16.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 17.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 16.80'/ 16.45' S= 0.01977 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.99 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=17.31' TW=16.21' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.99 cfs @ 2.44 fps) Summary for Pond C65: C1135 Inflow Area = 8,579 sf, 65.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.33" for 100-yr event 1 Inflow = 1.17 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,813 cf Outflow = 1.17 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,813 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.17 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,813 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 16.62' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 19.00' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 @2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 131 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 16.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 5.9' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 16.00' / 15.88' S= 0.0203 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=1.17 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=16.62' TW=13.55' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.17 cfs @ 3.24 fps) Summary for Pond CB6: CB6 Inflow Area = 3,115 sf, 64.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.33" for 100-yr event Inflow = 0.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,385 cf Outflow 0.42 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,385 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 0.42 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,385 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 13.44' @ 12.18 hrs Flood Elev= 15.25' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.25' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 2.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 12.25' / 12.20' S= 0.0192 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.42 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=12.62' TW=11.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.42 cfs @ 2.36 fps) Summary for Pond CB7: CB7 Inflow Area = 5,519 sf, 59.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.22" for 100-yr event Inflow = 0.74 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,401 cf Outflow 0.74 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,401 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 0.74 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,401 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 11.89' @ 12.18 hrs Flood Elev= 14.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 11.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 11.00'/ 10.60' S= 0.0200 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.74 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=11.44' TW=10.42' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.74 cfs @ 2.25 fps) MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 1/124-hr 100-yrRainfall=6.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10122/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 132 Summary for Pond CB8: CB8 ' Inflow Area = 7,517 sf, 89.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.91" for 100-yr event Inflow = 1.08 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3,701 cf Outflow = 1.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,701 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,701 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 10.17' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 11.00' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 8.00' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 7.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 8.00' /7.55' S= 0.0592 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=9.43' TW=9.46' (Dynamic Tailwater) , t1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond CB9: CB9 Inflow Area = 6,497 sf, 67.74% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.33" for 100-yr event Inflow = 0.88 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,888 cf , Outflow = 0.88 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,888 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 0.88 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,888 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 10.17' @ 12.22 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 7.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 24.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.80'/7.55' S= 0.0104 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=9.41' TW=9.47' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond DMI: DMI , Inflow Area = 11,401 sf, 81.89% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.76" for 100-yr event , Inflow = 1.62 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,470 cf Outflow = 1.62 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,470 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.62 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,470 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 17.93' @ 12.12 hrs Flood Elev= 21.00' ' ' MRM-Grove&(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 0 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 133 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 17.20' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 131.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 17.20'115.90' S= 0.0099 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=1.59 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=17.93' TW=16.83' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.59 cfs @ 3.63 fps) Summary for Pond DM10: DMI 0 Inflow Area = 130,704 sf, 56.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.11" for 100-yr event Inflow = 11.64 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 55,667 cf ' Outflow 11.64 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 55,667 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 11.64 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 55,667 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.19' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.15' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.15' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 5.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.15' /6.10' S= 0.0100 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=11.56 cfs @ 12.15 hrs HW=8.18' TW=7.60' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 11.56 cfs @ 3.68 fps) Summary for Pond DM11: DM11 Inflow Area = 13,596 sf, 93.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.15" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 1.98 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,964 cf Outflow = 1.98 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 6,964 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.98 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 6,964 cf I ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.43' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.10' 1 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 5.40' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 31.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 5.40'/5.25' S= 0.0047 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.93 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=6.43' TW=6.11' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.93 cfs @ 2.98 fps) 1 MRM-Grove&(Rev-4) Type /// 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 , HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 134 Summary for Pond DMI 2B: DMH12B , Inflow Area = 144,928 sf, 55.18% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.06" for 100-yr event Inflow = 13.18 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 61,067 cf Outflow = 13.18 cfs 12.16 hrs, Volume= 61,064 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min @ 9 1 Primary = 13.18 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 61,064 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.27' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 4.25' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 7.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 , Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 4.25' /4.10' S= 0.0192 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=13.17 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=6.27' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' L1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 13.17 cfs @ 5.17 fps) Summary for Pond DM2: DM2 ' Inflow Area = 21,630 sf, 77.63% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.61" for 100-yr event Inflow = 3.03 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 10,113 cf ' Outflow = 3.03 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 10,113 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 3.03 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 10,113 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 16.94' @ 12.14 hrs Flood Elev= 20.20' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 15.80' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 66.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 15.80' / 15.15' S= 0.0098 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.74 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=16.87' TW=16.39' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 2.74 cfs @ 3.30 fps) Summary for Pond DM4: DM4 Inflow Area = 80,605 sf, 76.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.78" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 9.14 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 18,701 cf Outflow = 9.14 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 18,701 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 9.14 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 18,701 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 15.07' @ 12.15 hrs Flood Elev= 19.12' ' ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by(enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 135 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.15' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 181.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 12.15'19.43' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=8.43 cfs @ 12.15 hrs HW=14.89' TW=13.19' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 8.43 cfs @ 4.77 fps) ' Summary for Pond DMS: DM5 Inflow Area = 107,733 sf, 70.04% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.35" for 100-yr event Inflow = 11.62 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 30,062 cf ' Outflow 11.62 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 30,062 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 11.62 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 30,062 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 13.43' @ 12.17 hrs Flood Elev= 15.35' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 9.33' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 15.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/Outlet Invert= 9.33'/8.95' S= 0.0248 'f Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf ' PrimaryOutFlow Max=11.05 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=13.36' TW=11.68' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 11.05 cfs @ 6.25 fps) Summary for Pond DM6: DM6 Inflow Area = 113,252 sf, 69.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.44" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 12.21 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 32,464 cf Outflow = 12.21 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 32,464 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 12.21 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 32,464 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 11.87' @ 12.17 hrs Flood Elev= 14.40' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 8.85' 18.0" Round Culvert ' L= 56.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 8.85'/7.10' S= 0.0311 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=11.90 cfs @ 12.17 hrs HW=11.81' TW=9.86' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 11.90 cfs @ 6.74 fps) 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 1/124-hr 100-yrRainfal1=6.50" , Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01316 02013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 136 Summary for Pond DM7B: DM7B ' Inflow Area = 136,382 sf, 66.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.70" for 100-yr event Inflow = 14.28 cis @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 42,084 cf ' Outflow = 14.28 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 42,070 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 14.28 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 42,070 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 6.29' @ 12.18 hrs Flood Elev= 9.55' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices t #1 Primary 4.20' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 9.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 4.20' /4.00' S= 0.0222 ? Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=14.27 cfs @ 12.18 hrs HW=6.29' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 14.27 cfs @ 5.41 fps) Summary for Pond DMB: DM8 Inflow Area = 99,362 sf, 48.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.90" for 100-yr event Inflow = 8.81 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 40,557 cf Outflow = 8.81 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 40,557 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 8.81 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 40,557 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 10.15' @ 12.21 hrs Flood Elev= 11.25' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.45' 18.0" Round Culvert ' L= 8.7' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.45' /7.30' S= 0.0172 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=8.85 cfs @ 12.23 hrs HW=10.15' TW=9.06' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' L1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.85 cfs @ 5.01 fps) Summary for Pond DM9: DM9 ' Inflow Area = 116,839 sf, 55.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.08" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 10.20 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 49,504 cf Outflow = 10.20 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 49,504 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 10.20 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 49,504 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 9.10' @ 12.18 hrs Flood Elev= 10.90' ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 137 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.20' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 171.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.20' /6.25' S= 0.0055 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf ' Primary OutFlow, Max=10.27 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=9.09' TW=8.16' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 10.27 cfs @ 4.32 fps) ' Summary for Pond DMH 12A: DMH12A Inflow Area = 130,704 sf, 56.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.11" for 100-yr event Inflow = 11.64 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 55,667 cf ' Outflow 11.64 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 55,667 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary 11.64 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 55,667 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 7.60' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.20' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 6.00' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 82.3' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 6.00'/4.35' S= 0.02007 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf ' Primary OutFlow, Max=11.63 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=7.60' TW=6.27' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 11.63 cfs @ 4.31 fps) ' Summary for Pond DMH13: DMH13 Inflow Area = 14,224 sf, 38.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.56" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 1.62 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 5,402 cf Outflow = 1.62 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 5,400 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.62 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 5,400 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.42' @ 12.16 hrs Flood Elev= 10.80' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 4.50' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 12.5' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 4.50'/4.35' S= 0.0120 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.43 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=6.35' TW=6.21' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.43 cfs @ 1.82 fps) 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 138 Summary for Pond DMH7A: DMH7A ' Inflow Area = 116,268 sf, 69.83% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.50" for 100-yr event Inflow = 12.52 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 33,890 cf ' Outflow = 12.52 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 33,890 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 12.52 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 33,890 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 9.91' @ 12.18 hrs Flood Elev= 10.75' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 7.00' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 11.6' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 ' Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.00'/6.00' S= 0.0862 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf PrimaryOutFlow Max=12.44 cfs @ 12.18 hrs HW=9.89' TW=6.29' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 12.44 cfs @ 7.04 fps) Summary for Pond IF: Infiltration Field , Inflow Area = 55,125 sf, 88.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.92" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 7.71 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 27,177 cf Outflow = 7.08 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 33,885 cf, Atten= 8%, Lag= 2.2 min Discarded = 0.43 cfs @ 11.44 hrs, Volume= 25,723 cf Primary = 6.65 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 8,162 cf ' Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 16.12' @ 12.17 hrs Surf.Area= 2,263 sf Storage= 4,973 cf ' Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 10.9 min ( 770.2 - 759.3) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 12.50' 2,484 cf 25.00'W x 90.001 x 4.00'H Prismatoid 9,000 cf Overall -2,790 cf Embedded = 6,210 cf x 40.0% Voids , #2 13.00' 2,771 cf StormTech SC-740 x 60 Inside#1 Effective Size=44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 6.45 sf x 5 rows #3 13.00' 20 cf 12.0" Round Pipe Storage Inside#1 L= 25.0' #4 13.00' 93 cf 4.00'D x 7.43'H Vertical Cone/Cylinder ' #5 20.43' 1,141 cf Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below (Recale;) 6,509 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 20.43 4 0 0 ' 21.00 4,000 1,141 1,141 1 MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 139 1 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 14.75' 18.0" Round Culvert ' L= 166.8' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 14.75' / 12.25' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf ' #2 Discarded 12.50' 8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.43 cfs @ 11.44 hrs HW=13.00' (Free Discharge) t-2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.43 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=6.53 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=16.09' TW=14.43' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 6.53 cfs @ 5.18 fps) ' Summary for Pond TRD: TRD ' Inflow Area = 3,016 sf, 80.50% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.68" for 100-yr event Inflow 0.43 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1,427 cf Outflow = 0.43 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,427 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min ' Primary = 0.43 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,427 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 10.85' @ 12.09 hrs ' Flood Elev= 10.95' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 10.40' 6.0" Round Culvert L= 35.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 10.40'/8.00' S= 0.0686 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.20 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=10.85' TW=8.40' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.42 cfs @ 2.28 fps) Summary for Pond WQS1: WQS#1 Inflow Area = 28,712 sf, 77.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.60" for 100-yr event Inflow 4.00 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 13,395 cf Outflow = 4.00 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 13,395 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 4.00 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 13,395 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Peak Elev= 16.51' @ 12.14 hrs Flood Elev= 20.30' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 14.90' 15.0" Round Culvert L= 3.2' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 14.90'/ 14.85' S= 0.0156 '/' Cc= 0.900 ' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 111 24-hr 100-yr Rainfall=6.50" ' Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 140 Primary OutFlow Max=3.75 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=16.44' TW=16.04' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 3.75 cfs @ 3.05 fps) Summary for Pond WQSS: WQS#5 ' Inflow Area = 13,596 sf, 93.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.15" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 1.98 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 6,964 cf Outflow = 1.98 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 6,964 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.98 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 6,964 cf , Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 6.12' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 9.30' , Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 5.25' 12.0" Round Culvert , L= 20.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 5.25'/5.05' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' PrimaryOutFlow Max=1.98 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=6.12' TW=5.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.98 cfs @ 3.65 fps) Summary for Pond YD4: YD4 1 Inflow Area = 20,624 sf, 41.18% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.78" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 1.96 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 8,208 cf Outflow = 1.96 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 8,208 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary = 1.96 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 8,208 cf Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs , Peak Elev= 13.72' @ 12.18 hrs Flood Elev= 16.00' ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 12.70' 12.0" Round Culvert ' L= 25.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 12.70' / 12.20' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf ' Primary OutFlow Max=2.07 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=13.50' TW=12.73' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 2.07 cfs @ 3.05 fps) Summary for Link P: Proposed: Canal Inflow Area = 391,927 sf, 50.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.43" for 100-yr event ' Inflow = 37.53 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 144,733 cf Primary = 37.53 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 144,733 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' MRM-GroveSt(Rev-4) Type 11124-hr 100-yrRainfal1=6.50" ' Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 10/22/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 01316 ©2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 141 ' Fixed water surface Elevation= 5.26' 1 1 1 1 ' ATTACHMENT D SUBCATCHMENT PLAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 � _ - LL_ � TT t_u11- 11 Is- �Lf 1 if .. ffc�yl IPN a�N- ) R0P� 25 AIDE ••�.., zoo'F 1�E \ IS NOTE Ci / SES D. SEWER R� W NN "� (`(� / nN / \ JT EASEMENT •��• N� \ NJ \jf\5(l'�Dfl - I / f_ Ey \ \C1 `� AN IS%Or P OF C♦ ' (15Na°nHLC RMS WPl' i L. 5a GROVE STREET REAL EST LLC .. wpHk / PUBL µfi 1 l \ uluO c0uar vuN na13A J� N\5 PI \ is� WER NORTH RIVER CANAL - TIDAL SEWER i - \ \ \� C L \ — EASEMENT / '°E n P C E 2' \9}� \\\� CRUSHED 5 Ty �.wM�' EsIll - - I _ M1 ,x.. \ 00 BUFFC NN UNIT OF MEAN/ ONE RAILROAD �\ T _'— '=T CROSSING '� � '_ JEASEMENT a BAY sm 1aTRANSPORTATION \ \\\\ '. AAADE Iry - i O .. 1] .. ..a-. - .-_ -- CEOs MMC USETTS NANO p \ OIASSAC�I _ pE ALONO eP.y_ P _ T i - �`Es \\ \\ „__ \ \ -®"- 97x_ _ _ _ IRISH CUI NO i mURE R ZOME - 4 3 w>_ RTN smut _� I 1 1 1 r_ -� _ , 1 I u \ 1Ba rrE �--. CAN C PROPOSED BUILDING N1��—,Do \ _ �'$_' _ AL'T/Q4 ._y '� W/ L �jert - (a3-UNITS) \ •t3p AF / /� 11ln - wz3.D GRG=13.0 rw-xxq Rv/CAR W // 1 1 L` ala E uG - \ neE FF=23.0 LEmaul W/CARA f EE DErA \ '. t ` RACE k2 ; 1w 3DJ ! 2zn `\ I \� 1 .i11 > — TYPICAL _rot 1 .v a3 uNlTsj aER rv.z 'RADED L�RL� I _Z'p� �. poe is ro°uus� CRC-72.0 IPre ALL -�\ 2� \ .Lw-\So _ \` \ . \ FFa22.0 !\ ROP �- \ 3 tp/v/t RENEE 52 LAYWr. .e \ _ ! ••a;SL°G°EER GS UILDIN F��"fi \ ' p anaa EN E \� D 3 \ Ia0 9U 2 FRGUNI 0 0 k3 rvz6 2 E \ 1I D a � U MAP 1fi Loi zn r. 1 J�� �• fi_ ° - b N1' °urvu 3_ e°ao M E I RENEE P v e P-tp N� \\ 1 fi/20/I2NENSE DRMNACE, es RNES 2 m �_ p S.AE _\ - ° o p �� ZONE 0 ND Gare Oe aPfidn CE,aREE e _ X32 'S h 2 -5� Revisions NETWAN AP 16 LOT 216 k- / - _ p - _ _ _ J N SIL VER N/F I _ ISEE DE`A MI ET c ]) __. g)-3-, -t \ _ - --- w3rD ON = N (PUBLIC WAY FLORES L 2 - --- _ J _ _ ' _ _ ]'� ..-- _-5__ - \� � �,_. ..� � G _ _- 1w.26 -_�20_ Rp—H5 - _ _. - _ _ 6 p5 r JQ c, r �ti s }9 I rnav32 Lor I LDrP22sA HE HE DSTuwen.a"/ ,� 0 MAP I6 L i ]J6 �`,i LUC MAP 16 LOT CONLEY NC ER nPPNOM A / L� ... D 'UNT L E DMPP 16 +� Oi 22 6 �s'.T� —ppb® r�-� •. o mlTl N/v 1 -! 213 :uupRpr I x F _ _ GBBWC/ Tw-3zp �0a IROM u 1 "-{ FLOREs \Q�I� MPP I6 A.REAL E CnV ?LIME 82 I O 90' p e N�'c MINING 3 MAP 16 S LUT 222 I ESTALY BTM[ s EL. MAP 16 LOT 2] .. / AIF .° TRI N J `OF 12 5IJ/ _ DIUNIT N FIELD L \\ LOT 22D NOHL�OFER TRUST I. I I IEEE pEiAL 511EET L�)I JOEMEHILI MAP PC I6 LOT 232 -}I1«�L1���rPA-4NML °15 ' 3 Buaow 1 """'-'T I ru Q Q ILOT zi1� g I N"YER e"7 uI L wmc MAP 6 o I e � Et .--T,.�I f I '-- 3 j 3 "/rte_ T I [ I°I p .i�MA ��MAP t6 MA I6� Lor z3s OI 1f RO55 ,LOT 23a LOi 8 PATT/ISON� > 'r BIT. r .., MPP IN LOT x291 \°�/� Ib y, N ' 141---'{ d• a0- -.. �GONQ BASH ,'. �J G —d c _.i ' 65'M GIN -•• N - DRAM¢ c, B BEAVER STREET ,.,. - A"RIBANB9 riffs ? a-----------ZAN d �� Engineenng _ (PUBLIC WAY.. 3D' AADS) Group, LLC _r- a a ' 5,b atl,>�a-1 Sobcamnment P-s s�beaf_ omen �I 5°bca[omen P-n atom of P- s�.beafmmenf P-24 P.0Box 7061 (A Bit. COLO. Path = 388 s! OMITTED Building ILB42 s! Pavement = 2.019 At Grass = 683 If 1/B Acre site = 13,066 If 100 Cummings Center Suite 2246 N Gravel = 70 Bemuly,MA 01915 Gross = Lp96 sl Pnwmsnt = s Waods/Grass Camoo = ,7.558 Of Q Tata( = 3,115 If Tata! = 6.606 of Total - 20,624 sf Gross 400 s( Armco menf P-6 .e offly <�nim nt 3D I Waods/Grass Camba 5.523 sr Pavement = 16.629 sf Pvvement = 2.,730 If U' GLASS = fl Grass = 734 e1 sobcpmhmen P-IB sabcntahment P-22b s•b aI nm nt P- s Tel 978-927-5111 C Tofol = 6.}81 s! Total 1]477`1 Total = 3.464 of / I/8 Acre Site = 57,701 sl el t 6 Acre Site 2 t,953 st Grass = 1a2 sr Fax:978-927-5103 ' a Subcvtchment P-2 Subcatahmmt P- - Pvvement = 2,03fi ,5 fl�ildina &Pavement 6.84R sf Wa°tls/Gross Combo = 2,7.64] sl I/8 A<re Site = 7.725 sl 7 Subcatchmenf P-f3 Woods/Grass Camba = 1.530 Of iotol = 6.990 s( coral 65.3a8 s( RDAraad = 10.767 sf Poremmt = 6,709 At Povement = 6,606 If Tata! = 5,519 IF < b of hment P MRM PROJECT N rm<s = due •t Bit. can°. f - = 1.082 at Grace tis .r Grass - m,225 sf 3: Grave( = 738 sr Tat°I Jsv IT T°Im 7.937 at occroltcnment P-19 - 3120 sf MANAGEMENT, LLC 3 Grass = 19,590 If Pavement = 2.428 51 Buildlina 9 wnaae/r.,a=s comm = 7671 er SWme t - 01 soba omen P- 4 crane = see sr Tool = 13 345 at SALEM, MA ' U) Total = 66,973 st Pavement a,a01 sr Pavement = 773 . sf Totvl = 3.016 sl _ nm P-2CID } p < bwfchmen P-3 Total = fiA97 sf TvtvlGross= 10,229 If Siecv obmen P-20v 1/8 RUTH Si If Bit. Cpnc Path 4,415 If �ibcA afy nt p_o cubcafMmenl P-!5 Building 2.729 s! /Total = 16,901 55 6 sr Walkr�0ys = 1,102 sl Pavement/W°I4s = 9.213 If Pavement = 5.433 if $ybmfchmen 206 C.r°" ' B.7°7 el f..a•s aNcv r Grvss = 1.649 of Bwmm9 = 5,725 sf PROPOSED LEC iotol = 1a,224 sr TO LOUD =nm total= 13,865 sr Total 7,082 s! $_i6r'vfcnmen P-20c ' SUBCATCHMENT Bit. cwt. Pato = 4,027 of PO -Lvemm� 5.5716 Baedmq = 3.3e9 IT PLAN Gro�6.` = 10.362 at Sf Goss y ab nt P- Total = 14.389 at iofv8.579 t I/B Acre Site = 3.546 at DID P m = 2.753 Of GRAPHIC SCALE G,ULOS e 59918;I'=Q' .�, total =' 10.322 s! Is ED b ND.700 SC-2 C ( O ) �1 PUT P/P/s/b'b a I men= D rt. d DdI;12/10/11 FEMA 100-YEAR FL000 ZONE / ZONE AE (EL. 10.8) _ - x ' }HARMONY GROPE y. / D ` \ ROAD PROPERTY IS ��/�x3 OP. �' { \ \ \ 25' WIDE `'•�.�=JO FF=M ENTIRELY WIO THE '< R \ /� \ 29 NO SEWER Mk= wEnANO FLooO COVE \ - HAZARD OVERLAY (`R Df) s-5.mow. MAP 16 LOT 377 \\ / \ CASEMENT „�•• DISTRICT i n1 VN'I i (I HARMONY GROVE RD) _ "�., AO1 Oc' y '0' / a 20.9093 SO. FT „z ���((( \ MPP I6 LOT AL T.I NP PUT Par } / o.aa ADREs \ T P \ s0 cfiOK s1R X/ REAL EST.uc \ LAND COURT PLAN 33813q g \ \ \ C is vnoE - \`- ,rNORTH RIVER CANAL _ TIDAL —S.ESEASEMENTT 4 _' 60 GROVE STREETr" E \ \Z\ _ l PROPERTY Is \}�ME I A'/1B—LUT 239 \ �" ENTIRELY WITHIN THE 0��� _ WERANO FLOOD "(3 HARMONY GRAVE - ) T"Z S AZAR OVERLAY �9 V-- 355fi1 SOFT. R - IOD T 4 \ s- EXIST 082 ACRES W' xEa'S� �UFFF�H2 D DISTRICT Sr, _ MAP Ifi LOT 378 a RAILROAD - �� 7 = A M A— - _ _ `E _ _ - _ 27* \ (5 HARMONY GROVE RD.) a. CROSSING �� I— "" 44,4323 SO. FT - - EASE E 102 AC Es _ , - _ - �+ � _ _�- �+fLX — —F' — )' TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY T MAP 16 LOT 23 EOb 6gVEMNT L'GRACE .•HM60 a,602V`CRTREET FT 26,946 50 sP w FEMA 1aD YEAR 7pvE - .. q ° NORTHPAVEMENr Rl�-R WETLA FLOOD ] CA \ y ZONE AE (EL 1c6) _ _!' 1 I `� ND n.e _ NAC- // I HAzgreO OVERLAY T/QqL ��`� �� \ q _ �x 'msmlCi d / MW w d _— 1- --",A' 4^ .,,..� / \ 1r oN^ - D`-GRADED I . . D - - _ _ , E 2 QR REM rt -.. c cR_UB' t,,, MAP 16 LOT 236 ryry g C7 y (64 GROVE STREET) �� AX MCL`41YPICAL - - U J HMC A A 234.162 SOFT. FEM 100 YEAR ' p -yy ED - >~ FLOOD ZONE I _ _ �'Ck O One WETLAND FLOOD z< s, 5.38 ACRES C �� -_. Ay .%� } - _ ZONE A� (EL 10.8) V _ 81i CONG (GONC AREA �� �lI HAZARD OVERLAY P� MAP lfi LOT 21�AAF �O E�MHS�, �� __ �� PAVEMENT �� - D) F A 100-YEaR / BITDISTRICT ws. U N/F c _El¢ � 1 r. . . EMFL000 ZONE- 100' ONE) PA EN'E+< _ �G } SARREs �\_�� (� ®'�-� 1C0 BUFFS E ZONE AE (EL 108 ~— y=9' ES aJ _�" _.,. i09:3� ' __ __ �- _ S .. �ic I�'^^�- --s r Ips 6Z-E CONC. '"--i. `�-4._��. s=.N ysy1 �9 No OaM OescnPfion o ( ,] I��F/\ -- - -- \. ^Ylr' `s`�Q ` �-_s - ,$x•-5 ' \ � Revisions N Cil 1/ER MAP 16 LOT 216 J� /} __ N J(PULB.LIVC WAY FO ES _ _CD µ~ I P220L M4P 16 6 J ti _ �.` __� l I'.i N/F LOT F25. AP 16 r _ _ ONC. E-3 �mMAP 16 L i J6 I N/' OT 22 ^tel, ' pm (1 I -.^' MAP Ifi LOT CONLEYN/F ..t a , 20 y 4A IS �5 223 I 1 .I LAW50t tel• \`_ _ _ '_D �. /F N INE _ao Es I' --�. hr mr 2TIf N e cmc.v "r MAP 6 cm _ f.-.i'_J X11 1 MAP IS AAN REAL P LOT 222 ESTATE u..l MAP 6 Loi 2l ♦i ��_ �� a N/F iau5i rv/F G 91i CONE- LOi 22� XOHLDRER� i _ P EMENT � krsr AI .� OEMEIILE MAP I6F TJ MAP Ifi LOT 2}$ 1 euuDEN 1 ., rY Mrce I �, "� - I N F I I LOT 215 / 1 I - MAP 16 LOT 90 " F1,PI ° B I' LY ,I[MA I6 L0 _ 23 .SM A ( MAP Ifi LOT 2P9 : EY, 2}} _ �N/F 4 6atG N/F V� L._vlF DSv46Dl PA'S Nv..e PATTsax TIN ,e BEAVER STREET � z Griffin }} En ineenn (PUBLIC WAY 30' WOE)- ay. 9 9 Group, LLC PO Box 7061 to 100 Cummings Center,Suite 224G O Beverly MA 01915 17 Tel 976-927-5111 cSUbootohnnest_E-I Fax 978-927-5103 m d Woods/Gross Cameo - 6.381 s1 :.-sa E-2 MRM PROJECT N 1/8 Acre Sae = 88,123 sf POOL ro.d = 10.942 .1 MANAGEMENT, LLC Buildl = 38.112 sl Pavement = 29.689 e1 SALEM, MA DO Gravel 58.077 d Woods 41,223 sf O 8 s a a°X s1 Total = 30,309 s1 E-3 EXISTING N 1/8s Slfe = ]J43 do ' R crPPel =Pavement .,_480SIT SUBCPLANMENT 2� NOTF<. Ta'at = 11,293 sl N11 THIS PLAN 15 PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING EXISTING CONDITIONS, n$ hm " 2) EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY BY LEBLANC SURVEY ASSOCIATES, INC. Building & Pavement 23.2 DANVERS. MA. , 70 AT 3627 a N3) ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON THE 1929 NG.V.D. /iofo48 s1 GRAPHIC SCALE �;70 =40'4) UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE THE RESULT OP RECORDS OF VARIOUS PLANSANO AHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELDTHE ABSENSE OF SUBSURFACE UR LITIES IS NEITHER INTENDED NOR IMPLIED. CONTRACTOR TOVERIFY EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTON AND TO ja UN-6CONTACT "DIG SAFE' AT LEAST 72 HOOKS PRIOR TD ANY EXCAVATION WORK. (IN F641I5) REFERi0SHEET -IFORADDITONAL NOTES AND LEGEND. I inch- 4D It 2/20/11 1 1 ATTACHMENT E ' LONG TERM POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan Standard #4 of the MA DEP Stormwater Management Handbook requires that a Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan (LTPPP) be prepared and incorporated into the long term operation and maintenance plan of the projects stormwater management system. The purpose of the LTPPP is to identify potential sources of pollution that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges and to describe suggested practices to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges. Good housekeeping practices-The subject property owners are to keep the site in a neat and orderly condition so that pollutants are not conveyed to the storm drainage system. ' Materials swept, blown or washed into the storm drains can decrease the system's effectiveness and could eventually be conveyed into the adjacent North River Canal. Some examples of good housekeeping practices are pavement sweeping, litter control, contained outdoor waste and cigarette disposal receptacles, and protected material storage areas. The property owners should provide proper training and assign ' responsibilities to personnel to keep the site in a neat and orderly condition. Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover—There are no exterior (un-covered) storage areas associated with the project site. The trash and waste program includes interior trash compactors and designated recycling areas. A trash disposal company will be hired to pick up waste materials from the compactors and ' properly dispose at a state approved disposal facility. The stormwater drainage system has catchbasins with hooded outlets and deep sumps ' designed to capture and retain trash, debris, oils, and sediments. Downstream of the catchbasins but before the stormwater outfalls, proprietary separators are also installed to further intercept and trash, debris, oils, and sediments that might have entered the stormwater drainage system. Vehicle washing controls—Outdoor vehicle washing has the potential of conveying wash ' water with heavy concentrations of detergents and sediments into the stormwater drainage system. The project site does not include any designated vehicle washing areas, nor is it expected that any vehicle washing will take place on-site. ' Requirements forroutine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMP's- Consistent with Standard 9 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Regulations, an Operation and Maintenance Plan has been provided in the Stormwater Management Report. The plan details routine inspection and maintenance of the stormwater BMP's along with associated record keeping forms. ' Spill prevention and response plans— Sources of potential spill hazards include vehicle ' MRM — Grove Street 10/21/11 ' LTPPP-1 1 fluids and fuels, pesticides, paints, solvents, and liquid cleaning products. The majority , of the spill hazards would likely occur within the building and would not enter the stormwater drainage system. However, there are spill hazards from vehicle fluids and ' fuels located outside of the buildings. These exterior spill hazards have the potential to enter the stormwater drainage system and are to be addressed as follows: 1) Spill hazards of pesticides, paints, and solvents shall be remediated using the ' Manufacturers' recommended spill cleanup protocol. 2) Vehicle fluid and fuel spills shall be remediated according to local and state regulations governing fuel spills. 3) The property owners shall have the following equipment and materials on hand to address a spill clean-up: brooms dust-pans, mops, rags, gloves, trash bags, ' trash containers, and absorptive materials such as sand, sawdust, or kitty litter. 4) Spills of toxic or hazardous materials shall be reported to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection at 1-888-304-1133. ' Provisions for maintenance of lawns garden and other landscaped areas- It should be a general goal of the subject property owners to achieve a high quality of well-groomed and ' stable landscape that evolves throughout the changing seasons and overall condition of the property. All landscaped areas are to be maintained with dense vegetative growth or a layer of mulch so as to minimize sediment transport. Litter and waste is to be removed ' weekly from the landscaped areas and adjoining parking lots and disposed of properly. Requirements for storage and use of fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides - Fertilizers, ' herbicides, and pesticides are not to be stored on site or within the buildings. Should use of same become necessary, application should be performed by a state licensed contractor in accordance with the manufacturer's label instruction and when ' environmental conditions are conducive to product application. Chemical controls should be used as a last resort to organic and biological control methods. Pet waste management provisions-All pet waste is to be scooped up, sealed in a plastic ' bag, and disposed of properly in the garbage. Never deposit pet waste in the stormwater ' management system for it contains high level of fecal coliform bacteria. Provisions for operation and management of septic systems—There are no septic ' systems associated with the project site. The sanitary sewer is proposed to be connected to the city sewer main in Grove Street. Snow disposal and deicing chemicals—Snow will be stockpiled on site within open space ' areas until the stockpile areas become a hazard to the daily operation of the site. At that point, snow is to be disposed of at an off-site location. No snow is to be disposed of , within the North River Canal. It will be the responsibility of the hired snow removal MRM — Grove Street 10/21/11 , LTPPP-2 ' contractor to properly dispose of transported snow according to the Massachusetts DEP, Snow Disposal Guidelines. It is the responsibility of the snow removal contractor to ' follow these guidelines and all applicable laws and regulations. The property owners, or hired building maintenance company, will be responsible for the ' clearing of the sidewalk and building entrances. The owner may be required to use a de-icing agent such as salt or potassium chloride to maintain a safe walking surface. The de-icing agent for the walkways and building entrances may be kept on site in a ' designated storage room within the building. De-icing agents are not be stored outside. I i ' MRM — Grove Street 10/21/11 ' LTPPP-3 1 I ATTACHMENT F OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 X11 1 —r--r \ TWO %. tD{IST. CB (ECB) 100 CURB CU RIM=8.10 I(IN)=6.80 I(OUT =5.85 — \ 25' WIDE ` \ S.E.S.D. SEWER \\ Q 0\j / / / \ EASEMENT \ i G 1 ��pE� , .� /(OUTFALL \ `♦ \ i ^ , 0 �, O / 12" VC O\v r, 12" VC 5 �� / OUTPALL I=5.3t MAP 16 LOT 238 C� BAN#7� 1=4.3t \ 50 GROVE STREET REAL EST, LLC P \ CpVBL ���tE \ LAND COURT PLAN 33813A \\\� TOP OF / BAS#f ;R • \ \ \ 25 WIDE COASTAL ll�' NORTH RlvER CANAL — TIDAL \�A�C'p \\�\ SEWER BANK / / �� - - WooD & METAL - - - \ ��� O \111114:\ ' BRIDGE W/ 8" PIPE vim\ \ II / / BANK#4 _ - - DECK= EL. 9.2t EASEMENT � � \ \ BANK#7 l —^-- `\ BANK#3 E 4NK#8 BANK#9 ~- - BANK#10 BANIK#1� \ �\' �� \ BANK#14 / � I #12 BAN �"" ' \�'•\O�is,�� BANK#1�� BANK # ' G . BANK 15 EXISTING / I BRIDGE; / EXIST. ABUTh�ENTS� "^- 1po, SU, DRAM, MANHOLE ♦ ��Fs, \ t^t � RAILROAD ZOO TYP. U.N.O. \ - \ - ( CROSSING - BANK#6 EASEMENT BBA�5 — — BAY TRANSPORTA TION R.R. TRACKS AUTHORITY I H i i+l t I FH F t+ I F H t f f I��1+ +9 I f F H�1-f-1-}H f f I I H l H I t W I f\t-f- 1+H H 111 11� fH+HII 1 �{f' BANK#4 TRACKS H-}-I�t���{It1FI}� I� �I {1 , � IH�Iff -{HfI-Iff{l I- I 'rI'r;ri�- IfFf-1-4-II1IfIi �ii�iw �� �i�i�����i��i��ii� p —- R.R. 4 H I++1 I++i-I--1 l I+f H F+H-H H+t+F I i IT -,�,� +H++++a{ I} }+f H N BANK#3 I WA ER QUA ITY - '� TOP OF D __ K#2 ACHUSETTS — _ AS - - - - - - - jr D � - M S STRUCTURE (WQS#3) �• BANK o BANK#t __. � ' --•-_ ...,_ � \� \ OUTFALL #2 � ULUUK KE-_ A CATCHBASIN DRAIN MANHOLE - - - - - p�_D D l O "0e EXISTING ® - D D D D D D D D G L 9 STORAGE (TYP) \ (TYP. U.N.O.) N iE f w D \` '4 ' - RET ALL AREA EXISTING WATER QUALITY r �_ TOW _ s' tL--,, EL. 9 BUILDING STRUCTURE \ ZoE �S s f NO,Q7' (WQS#5) PROPOSED BUILDING 1 D��z C'�NAL �'1�ANITE �t _ v-.. B W/ GARAGE UNDER S_�'S�... ` D,q� �� LUCK RET. �\ I >.._, D - ; (43-UNITS) S TOIy :Z_ / pR0 aEL. 9.6 _ — �...--" ; MDC W/ PROPOSED BUILDING s - s C SE RL 6� �.. o TRAP ARA GE UNDER#2 -�s _ _ i W OUTFALL #1 _� ` --------------------� °r YARD NITS) E �- s - ' r - (43_U R RL RL �--1 t W L. ----- - gL RL RL RL = DRAIN '�RL_RL_� sem= - ---`� � 9 6_+ ; RL R ,. ,:. -tip --►- -' � D CATCHBASIN R _- z, CATCHBASIN �p p L -` S--D ---�s , REVISE DUE TO LAYOUT (TYP) (TYP) > `�' -� o YARD ROPOSED BUIL MDC WATER z 3 0/16/14 CHANGE STONE RET W D— WATER QUALITY ��@�, DRAIN W/ GARAGE DING #3 TRAP QUALITY Q 6.--. MAP 16 LOT 217 ALL D—_D =; _ UNDER2 2/30/13 ADD WQS NUMBERS N/F , . �... _ --_'m— D —_D \ -. 100' WQS 2 1 9/28/12 P A _ D- STRUCTURE _ _ , ,;'� -., _. (43-UNII7S s STRUCTURE x' J (WQS#1) - �U ) ( # ) \ \ +; ADDNSEWER & MDC TRAPS TO SARKES ' 1 #12 = DRAIN MANHOLE - D— ��/ ZONE TRENCH s 'U.-N. .-. �. : - ,�--_�... ._. �—`° -- - _ - f? , p v � No. Date Description " - (TYP. O.) � _ �- 1 . -r, r _ - D„A.N #`6 - D Revisions , SILVER 16 LOT 218 ---------- MAP z>- _ _1_`` I 1D 1` Ds - D 6 y1 N F .:._ -- (PUBLIC WAY FLORES D D INFILTRATION D - - - MAP 16 LOT M/!� 16 - _ FIELD W/ _ r 4 � - -- INSPECTION _ .., : , .,,,. _ . ..;,: .-. � � \♦ o # J 224 LOT 225 /// MAP 16 // // /, PORTS - YARD _ CATCHBASIN \ \ DRAIN ) \ F I MAP 16 LOT 76 / 4 I MAP 16 LOT #34 N/F i OT 227 #28 sIIED sHED YARD (TYP \ F � a / -' I CONLEY I TUCKER ' N/F DRAIN %c,.o N/F s 1 223 1 I I I — — _ _ ✓�� FLORES #2/ �F-: rl N/F ,#32 LAWSON � �' — WALL � � �:� � ROBERT y / /„ - GRIFFIN MAP 16 A&N REAL I I ,' > H. LOT 222 ESTATE MAP 16 LOT 23 �� OT 220 Y N/F TRUST , „ N F -") , ALL ,• MAP 16 �° CIVIL /--- #36686 Q KOHLOFER DEMEULE ...1' U 1 � � , :,, - MAP 16 LOT 232 % #2' BLANDEN m ;,„ 1 Q MAP 16% MAP 16 4a, ► * t I 44 1 I I (LOT 23 - N/F „ , BIT. CONC. PARKING I r� I 11; MYERS ( ' #10 , , , 1 N/F _� LOT 235 X418 z f I , I 1 ROSS #20 /; MAP 16 MAP 16 N/F 0'1!9 r' I , MAP 16 LOT/'56 LOT 234 PATTISON _ BIT. MAP 16 LOT 229 #24 - LOT 380 I c� #38 #36 , —J - 40 #30 233 - # N/F' N/F ;LONG. N/F 14 PATTISON # N/F CSWIGGIN - _ — — — BASH SPERIDAKOS -- ■ GRANITE:_CURB — — — — — — r- BEA VER S TREE T �� � Grinin�� ` t Engineering _ - Z—D (PUBLIC WAY 30' WIDE) � Y' - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - �.�]S_ -_ -G=-_=— — Group, LLC w cu P.O Box 7061 100 Cummings Center, Suite 224G NOTE: Beverly, MA 01915 c� WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE �'4 WAS OMMITTED FROM Tel: 978-927-5111 THE SITE. Fax: 978-927-5103 v a M N MRM PROJECT O MANAGEMENT, LLC 0 SALEM, MA `� OPERATION & a MAINTENANCE aNi PLAN aRD • GRAPHIC SCALE 3 v 40 0 20 40 80 160 �� 1p-�/ N d Job No,: 700 .0 ( IN FEET ) Re Name: 3 –bO&M z 1 inch = 40 ft. P/P/ co D&k 6/20/12 UN , N p a` • a ' OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN ' System Owner: MRM Project Management, LLC c/o Cabot Company ' P.O. Box 388 Beverly, MA 01915 Party Responsible for O&M: The stormwater management system for this project is owned by MRM Project Management, LLC. The owner shall be responsible for the construction phase and the ' long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system as outline in this Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. Should ownership of the property change, the succeeding owner shall assume all responsibilities for implementing this ' Operation and Maintenance Plan. In the event the residential and commercial properties are severed from common ownership, each owner will be responsible for the stormwater management system on their individual parcels. In the event the residential building is conveyed to multiple owners, the owners shall establish an association that will have the responsibility of continuing the operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system. A legal document creating such responsibilities shall be recorded ' at the Registry of Deeds. Emergency Contact Information: ' . Salem Fire & Police (Emergency) 911 Salem Fire Department (Business) 1-978-744-6990 ' • Salem Police Department (Business) 1-978-744-0171 • Salem Conservation Commission 1-978-619-5685 • Salem Health Department 1-978-741-1800 Salem Public Works Department 1-978-744-3302 • Salem Engineering Department 1-978-619-5673 Mass DEP (Emergency Response) 1-888-304-1133 ' • Mass DEP (Northeast Regional Office) 1-978-694-3200 Note: The system inspectors should note that drainage pipes, catchbasin, manholes, ' and treatment devices are considered "confined spaces"subject to strict OSHA standards regarding safe entry. Confined spaces present inherent hazards to workers. Only appropriately trained staff with appropriate safety equipment and monitors may ' enter confined spaces, and then only with a specific entry permit. Also, this work may pose hazards to workers, such as soft ground, flowing or standing water, snakes and rodents. Again, only appropriately trained staff with the necessary safety equipment should undertake such work. I ' O&Mplan-Rev2 Rev. 12/27/13 ' 1 1 Phase I: Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan Following is the general sequence of anticipated construction events: ' 1) Install proposed erosion controls and construction entrance. , 2) Abandon all existing on-site utilities and then demo existing buildings. Contractor to remove or plug all existing outfalls to the North River Canal. ' 3) Clear site and grub areas as they become necessary. 4) Install underground utilities. Construct southerly retaining walls and bring ' parking areas and building pads to rough grade. (Note: Do not install frame and grates/covers on the drainage structures until the fine grading phase. ' Provide large metal plates over the precast openings and burry as required.) 5) Excavate and install building foundations and adjoining retaining walls. Install ' building utility services and backfill foundation to rough grade. 6) Construct residential apartment buildings, main access bridge, and renovate ' existing office building. 7) Install frame and grates/covers to finish grade. Vacuum all precast drainage ' structures and install and maintain geotextile filter fabric in all catchbasin grates until final paving. 8) Install bituminous pavement binder course. ' 9) Install curbing, sidewalks, and landscaping. 10) Install final pavement, signage and striping. ' Installing and maintaining comprehensive erosion controls during construction is critical ' to the protection of the adjacent resource areas and the proposed drainage system. Following is a list of erosion control measures to be taken to protect the North River Canal and the proposed drainage system during construction. ' 1) Install haybales and silt fence downhill of all proposed work area as shown on the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C-4a thru c). ' 2) Install the Grove Street construction entrance and silt sacks in the existing Grove Street catchbasins as shown on the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion ' Control Plan (Sheet C-4a). Site access is only to be achieved from this O&Mplan-Rev2 Rev. ' 12/27/13 2 , ' location until the proposed bridge and binder pavement has been installed. 3) Temporary soil stockpiles shall be encircled with haybales and stabilized with erosion control matting or temporary seeding, depending upon the proposed duration. ' 4) Stabilize all disturbed areas as soon as practicable. Provide temporary stabilization of soil to be exposed for a long period of time (i.e. one month). ' 5) Install erosion control matting on all proposed vegetated slopes greater than 3:1 (H:V). 6) All erosion control measures are to be inspected weekly and after each rainfall event. Additional erosion control materials (i.e. haybales, silt fence, filter ' fabric) are to be kept on site and readily accessible as required. 7) Sediment accumulation up-gradient of the haybales and silt fence greater than 6" in depth shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations. 8) The stabilized construction entrance shall be inspected weekly. The entrance ' shall be maintained by adding additional clean, angular stone to remove the soil from the construction vehicle tires. If soil is still observed leaving the site from construction vehicle tires, adjacent roadways shall be kept clean by street sweeping. 9) Dust shall be controlled using on-site water trucks as required. 10) All erosion control measures shall be maintained, repaired or replaced as required or directed by the owner's engineer, the City Engineer, or the City ' Conservation Agent. 11) The contractor shall comply will the Erosion Control Notes listed on the project drawings (Sheet N-1) Part 11: Long Term Operation and Maintenance Plan ' The stormwater management system is a series of catchbasins located at low points within the paved parking lots. Stormwater collected by the catchbasins is conveyed through water quality treatment devices prior to discharging to North River Canal. ' Stormwater runoff from the residential building rooftops is collected by gutters and/or scuppers and conveyed by downspouts and roof leaders to the sites drainage system. O&Mplan-Rev2 Rev. 12/27/13 I ' 3 Runoff from some rooftops and a portion of the paved parking lot is conveyed to an ' underground stormwater infiltration field. To ensure optimal performance of the stormwater management system, routine ' inspections and maintenance should be done at frequencies specified below. An Operation and Maintenance Plan Schedule form is attached documenting compliance. , Paved Parking Surfaces—As part of normal site clean-up and as discussed in the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan, debris is to be removed from the parking lots ' as it accumulates. Weekly patrolling for litter is recommended. Sand from winter ice and traction control should be removed semi-annually (ie. during early spring and late fall). Significant oil leaks should be swept up and disposed of using ' oil-absorbent materials as they are discovered. Any oil spills or leaks that reach the catchbasins must be reported to the Massachusetts DEP oil spill hotline. Catchbasins & Drain Manholes - Remove the grate or cover and visually inspect for corrosion and structural damage. Inspect pipe inlets and bottoms for signs of infiltration or inflow. The grate or cover and hoods on the catchbasins should be ' inspected on a quarterly basis during the first and year and semi-annual thereafter. Cleaning of the catchbasins should be done on a yearly basis and by a vacuum truck or clamshell. The contractor is to take care to avoid damaging the , catchbasin hood. While cleaning, if a layer of oil is observed floating on the water surface, place an oil-absorbent pillow on the surface, allow to soak and remove. Repeat this process until the oil layer is removed. Alternatively, have the oil layer pumped out by a licensed disposal contractor and appropriately disposed of. The oil absorbent pillows must be drummed for disposal by a licensed disposal contractor. ' Downstream Defender& First Defense Stormwater Treatment Devices—A copy of the manufacturer's Operation & Maintenance Manuals are provided at the end of ' this section which contains the required operation and maintenance procedures for the treatment devices. The devices should be inspected for corrosion and structural damage on a quarterly basis during the first year and semi-annually thereafter. The device also should be cleaned on a yearly basis and in accordance with the manufacturer's procedural recommendations. ' MDC Trap —The traps should be visually inspected for corrosion and structural damage on a quarterly basis during the first year and semi-annually thereafter. , Inspect pipe inlets and precast structures for signs of exfiltration, infiltration or inflow. The traps also should be cleaned on a yearly basis and in accordance with applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations including M.G.L.c.21C and , O&Mplan-Rev2 Rev. 12/27/13 4 t ' 310 CMR 30.00. A licensed disposal contractor should be commissioned to pump out the oil layer on a yearly basis. The oil is to be removed using a small ' portable pump and separately contained and disposed of. Infiltration Field—The site stormwater infiltration field has been provided with ' inspection ports on each row of infiltration chambers. Initially inspect the stormwater infiltration field after each major storm events (greater than 1-inch) to ensure proper function and stabilization. Record the water level over several ' hours to check infiltration performance. After the first year, inspect the infiltration field on a semi-annual basis. Inspect for apparent signs of silt buildup or clogging. ' Snow Storage Area —The parking lot has been designed with snow storage areas along the edges. There should be ample storage areas while maintaining reasonable travel lanes and parking areas. In the event of significant snow accumulation, snow can be placed along the westerly portion of the site. Debris from melted snow shall be cleared form the site and properly disposed of at the end of the snow season or no later than May 15tH O&Mplan-Rev2 Rev. 12/27/13 5 1 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN SCHEDULE Project: Grove Street-Apartment&Office Buildings Project Address: 60 &64 Grove Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road Date: 10/21/2011 (Revised 10/16/14) Party Responsible: MRM Project Management(or Successor) Annual Maint. Budget: $15,000 Maintenance Est. Annual Inspection Task Description/Schedule Activity Maint. Cost Date: Inspector: Perform sweeping of paved parking areas and walkways Sweep, power Street Sweeping after spring thaw to remove any traction sand applied broom, or vacuum $6,500 during the winter months. Also, perform sweeping during paved parking lots late fall to remove any leaf litter and debris. and walkways Inspect grates, covers, and hoods quarterly for the first Catchbasins& Drain Vacuum Deep Manholes year and semi-annual thereafter. Also, inspect pipe inlets Sump Annually $4,500 and precast structures for infiltration and inflow. Downstream Defender Inspect covers, inlets, and plastic insert quarterly for the & First Defense Water Vacuum Deep first year and semi-annual thereafter. Clean yearly per $1,250 Quality Treatment Manufacturers' recommendations Sump Annually Devices Inspect covers quarterly for the first year and semi-annual Vacuum Deep MDC Traps thereafter. Also, inspect pipe inlets and precast Sump Annually $750 structures for infiltration and inflow. Inspect after each major storm even (>1 inch)for the first None unless Insp. Infiltration Field year and semi annually thereafter. Record water level Warrants over several hours. Otherwise Debris from melted snow shall be cleaned form the site Snow Storage Area and properly disposed of at the end of the snow season Clean Annually $2,000 (by May 15th). Inspectors Notes: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 71 Hydro International aYs.M •{- c y t e A x 1 Operation and Maintenance Manual Downstream Defender' Stormwater Solutions ' Vortex Separator for Stormwater Treatment Turning Water Around ...® 1 Page 2 Downstream Defender® Operation and Maintenance Manual Table of Contents ' 3 Downstream Defenders by Hydro International ' -Benefits of the Downstream Defender® -Applications ' -Downstream Defender®Components 4 Operation ' -Introduction -Pollutant Capture and Retention ' -Wet Sump -Blockage Protection 4 Maintenance -Overview -Determining Your Maintenance Schedule 5 Maintenance Procedures ' -Inspection -Floatables and Sediment Cleanout 7 Downstream Defender°Installation Log ' 8 Downstream Defender°Inspection Log ' 9 Downstream Defender°Maintenance Log , COPYRIGHT STATEMENT:The contents of this manual,including the drawings and specifications contained herein or annexed hereto,are intended for ' the use of the recipient to whom the document and all associated information are directed. Hydro International plc owns the copyright of this document (including any drawings or graphics),which is supplied in confidence. It must not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied and must not be reproduced,in whole or in part stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writing from ' Hydra International plc.Downstream Defender®is a trademarked hydrodynamic vortex separation device of Hydro International plc.A patent covering the Downstream Defender®has been granted. DISCLAIMER: Information and data contained in this manual is exclusively for the purpose of assisting in the operation and maintenance of Hydro ' International plc's Downstream Defender®. No warranty is given nor can liability be accepted for use of this information for any other purpose. Hydro ' International plc have a policy of continuous product development and reserve the right to amend specifications without notice. Hydro International(Stormwater), 94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 , Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com Page 13 Downstream Defender®Operation and Maintenance Manual Downstream Defender° by Hydro International The Downstream Defender®is an advanced Hydrodynamic Vortex Separator designed to provide high removal Benefits of the Downstream Defender" efficiencies of settleable solids and their associated pollutants, • Removes sediment, floatables, oil and grease oil, and floatables over a wide range of flow rates. • No pollutant washouts • Small footprint The Downstream Defender®has unique, flow-modifying • No loss of treatment capacity between clean-outs internal components developed from extensive full-scale • Low headloss ' testing, CFD modeling and over thirty years of hydrodynamic • Efficient over a wide range of flows separation experience in wastewater, combined sewer - Easy to install and stonnwater applications.These internal components • Low maintenance distinguish the Downstream Defender®from simple swirl-type ' devices and conventional oil/gnt separators by minimizing turbulence and headlosses,enhancing separation, and Applications preventing washout of previously stored pollutants. • New developments and retrofits - Utility yards The high removal efficiencies and inherent low headlosses of • Streets and roadways the Downstream Defender®allow for a small footprint making . Parking lots it a compact and economical solution for the treatment of non-point source pollution. • Pre-treatment for filters, infiltration and storage • Industrial and commercial facilities See page 12 for more about Hydro International's Stormwater • wetlands protection ' BMP Maintenance Contractor Certification Program. • Pretreatment to Low Impact Development practices gr u.._ �A,tL.t691 ci r 4 Downstream Defender'Components 1 1. Central Access Port(all models) 4 f 1 t 2. Floatables Access Port(6-W1.8m, 641/2.4m, 10-W3.0m and 12-ft/3.7m models only) 3. Dip Plate with Integral Floatables Lid 4. Tangential Inlet 4 + 5_ Center Shaft t 6. Center Gone 7. Benching Skirt 8. Outlet Pipe - s 9. Floatables Storage Zone 10. Isolated Sediment Storage Zone W;; ystv" Fig.l Components of the Downstream Defender°. y5Y Page 14 Downstream Defender®Operation and Maintenance Manual Operation level between storm events. The water in the sump prevents stored sediment from solidifying in the base of the unit. (The Introduction clean-out procedure becomes more difficult and labor intensive if ' the system allows fine sediment to dry-out and consolidate. Dried The Downstream Defender® operates on simple Fluid hydraulics. sediment must be manually removed by maintenance crews. This It is self-activating, has no moving parts, no external power ' is a labor intensive operation in a hazardous environment.) requirement and is manufactured from durable non-corrosive components. No manual procedures are required to operate Blockage Protection the unit and maintenance is limited to monitoring accumulations of stored pollutants and periodic clean-outs. The Downstream The Downstream Defender, has large clear openings and no internal restrictions or weirs, Defender®has been designed to allow for easy and safe access minimizing the risk of blockage and for inspection/monitoring and clean-out procedures. Entry into hydraulic losses. In addition to increasing the system headloss, the unit or removal of the internal components is not necessary orifices and internal weirs can increase the risk of blockage within ' for maintenance, thus safety concerns related to confined-space- the unit. entry are avoided. ,Pollutant Capture and Retention Maintenance The internal components of the Downstream Defender® have Overview been designed to protect the oil/floatables and sediment storage The Downstream Defender® protects the environment by volumes so that separator performance is notreduced as pollutants removing a wide range of pollutants from stormwater runoff. accumulate between clean-outs (Fig.2). The Downstream Periodic removal of these captured pollutants is essential to the Defender® vessel remains wet between storm events. Oil and continuous, long-term functioning of the Downstream Defender®. ' floatables are stored on the water surface in the outer annulus The Downstream Defender®will capture and retain sediment and separate from the sediment storage volume in the sump of the oil until the sediment and oil storage volumes are full to capacity. unit providing the option for separate oil disposal,and accessories When sediment and oil storage capacities are reached, the such as adsorbent pads. Since the oil/floatables and sediment Downstream Defender®will no longer be able to store removed ' storage volumes are isolated from the active separation region, sediment and oil. Maximum pollutant storage capacities are the potential for re-suspension and washout of stored pollutants provided in Table 1. between clean-outs is minimized. ' Hydro International recommends that maintenance crews watch the Downstream Defender® maintenance training video Wet Sump at www.hydro-int.com/us/products/downstream-defender. ' The sump of the Downstream Defender®retains a standing water Maintenance providers are also encouraged to participate in Hydro International's Maintenance Contractor Certification Program (see page 12). ' Max Oil Oil Iy rr ;' Storage Depth ....... �"'` ., '.. Isolated Sediment r Sediment Storage rr Fig.3 Watch the Downstream De/enders instructional maintenance.video Fig.2 Pollutant storage volumes of the Downstream Defender°. at www.hydro-int.com/us/products/downstream-defender. Hydro International(Stormwater),94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 ' Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com 1 Page 15 Downstream Defender® Operation and Maintenance Manual The Downstream Defender®allows for easy and safe inspection, Inspection Procedures ' monitoring and clean-out procedures. A commercially or Inspection is a simple process that does not involve entry into the municipally owned sump-vac is used to remove captured sediment Downstream Defender®. Maintenance crews should be familiar and floatables. Access ports are located in the top of the manhole. with the Downstream Defender® and its components prior to On the 6-ft(1.8m), 8-ft(2.4m), 10-ft(3.0m)and 12-ft(3.7m) units, inspection. the floatables access port is above the outlet pipe between the concrete manhole wall and the dip plate. The sediment removal Scheduling access ports for all Downstream Defender® models are located . It is important to inspect your Downstream Defender®every directly over the hollow center shaft. six months during the first year of operation to determine your Maintenance events may include Inspection, Oil & Floatables site-specific rate of pollutant accumulation Removal, and Sediment Removal. Maintenance events do not . Typically, inspection may be conducted during any season require entry into the Downstream Defender®, nor do they require of the year the internal components of the Downstream Defender® to be removed. In the case of inspection and floatables removal, a . Sediment removal is not required unless sediment depths ' vactor truck is not required. However, a vector truck is required if exceed 75%of maximum clean-out depths stated in Table 1 the maintenance event is to include oil removal and/or sediment removal. Recommended Equipment ' • Safety Equipment and Personal Protective Equipment Determining Your Maintenance Schedule (traffic cones,work gloves, etc.) The frequency of cleanout is determined in the field after installation. During the first year of operation, the unit should be . Crow bar or other tool to remove grate or lid inspected every six months to determine the rate of sediment and floatables accumulation. A simple probe such as a Sludge Judge® . Pole with skimmer or net ' can be used to determine the level of accumulated solids stored in the sump. This information can be recorded in the maintenance . Sediment probe(such as a Sludge Judge®) log(see page 9)to establish a routine maintenance schedule. ' - • Trash bag for removed floatables The vactor procedure, including both sediment and oil/flotables removal, for a 6-ft (1.8m) Downstream Defender®typically takes . Downstream Defender®Maintenance Log less than 30 minutes and removes a combined water/oil volume of ' about 500 gallons(1900 liters). Table 1. Downstream Defender®Pollutant Storage Capacities and Max.Cleanout Depths. Diameter6ii Clean-out Total Sediment Sediment Max. Liquid Volume' Unit . . Storage Depth Storage Clean-out Depth Removed ' 4 1.2 70 265 <16 <41 0.70 0.53 <18 <45 384 1,454 6 1.8 216 818 <23 <58 2.10 1.61 <24 <61 1,239 4,690 8 2.4 540 2,044 <33 <84 4.65 3.56 <30 <76 2,884 10,917 10 3.0 1,050 3,975 <42 <107 8.70 6.65 <36 <91 5,546 20,994 ' 12 3.7 1,770 6,700 <49 <125 14.70 11.24 <42 <107 9,460 35,810 NOTES 1.Refer to Dowmstream Defender®Clean-out Detail(Fig.2)for measurement of depths. 2.Oil accumulation is typically less than sediment,however, removal of oil and sediment during the same service is recommended. 3.Remove floatables first,then remove sediment storage volume. 4.Sediment removal is not required unless sediment depths exceed 75%of maximum cleanout depths stated in Table 1. Page 16 Downstream Defender® Operation and Maintenance Manual r Fig.4 Fig.S Fig.B Inspection Procedures 7. Securely replace the grate or lid. 1. Set up any necessary safety equipment around the access port or grate of the Downstream Defender®as stipulated by 8. Take down safety equipment. local ordinances. Safety equipment should notify passing pedestrian and road traffic that work is being done. 9. Notify Hydra International of any irregularities noted during inspection. 2. Remove the lids to the manhole(Fig.4). NOTE: The 4-ft (1.2m) Downstream Defender®will only have one lid. Floatables and Sediment Cleanout Floatables cleanout is typically done in conjunction with sediment ' 3. Without entering the vessel, look down into the chamber to removal. A commercially or municipally owned sump-vac is used inspect the inside. Make note of any irregularities. See to remove captured sediment and floatables(Fig.6). Fig.7 and 8 for typical inspection views. ' Floatables and loose debris can also be netted with a skimmer 4. Without entering the vessel, use the pole with the skimmer net and pole. The access port located at the top of the manhole to remove floatables and loose debris from the outer annulus provides unobstructed access for a vactor hose and skimmer ' of the chamber. pole to be lowered to the base of the sump. 5. Using a sediment probe such as a Sludge Judge®, measure Scheduling the depth of sediment that has collected in the sump of the + Floatables and sump cleanout are typically conducted once ' vessel(Fig.5). a year during any season. 6. On the Maintenance Log(see page 9), record the date, unit If sediment depths are greater than 75%of maximum clean- ' location,estimated volume of Floatables and gross debris out depths stated in Table 1, sediment removal is required. removed, and the depth of sediment measured. Also note any apparent irregularities such as damaged components or Floatables and sump cleanout should occur as soon as ' blockages. possible following a spill in the contributing drainage area. A 1 et s : 4 I rya i e�x• , Fig.7 View over center shaft into sediment storage zone. Fig.8 View of outer annulus of floatables and oil collection zone. Hydro International(Stormwater),94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 ' Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www,hydro-int.com Page 17 Downstream Defender®Operation and Maintenance Manual Recommended Equipment • Safety Equipment(traffic cones, etc) 7. Retract the vactor hose from the vessel. ' Crow bar or other tool to remove grate or lid 8. On the Maintenance Log provided by Hydro International, record the date, unit location, estimated volume of floatables • Pole with skimmer or net(if only floatables are being removed) and gross debris removed, and the depth of sediment measured. Also note any apparent irregularities such as • Sediment probe(such as a Sludge Judge®) damaged components or blockages. • Vactor truck(6-inch/150mm diameter Flexible hose recommended) 9. Securely replace the grate or lid. • Downstream Defender®Maintenance Log 0 Floatables and Sediment Clean Out Procedures 1. Set up any necessary safety equipment around the access ' port or grate of the Downstream Defender®as stipulated by z, local ordinances. Safety equipment should notify passing . pedestrian and road traffic that work is being done. - 2. Remove the lids to the manhole NOTE:The 4-ft(1.2m) ' Downstream Defender®will only have one lid. 3. Without entering the vessel, look down into the chamber to inspect the inside. Make note of any irregularities. p 4. Using the Floatables Port for access, remove oil and floatables stored on the surface of the water with the valor hose or the r skimmer net(Fig.9,top). - ' 5. Using a sediment probe such as a Sludge Judge®,measure the depth of sediment that has collected in the sump of the vessel ' and record it in the Maintenance Log(Pg.9). 6. Once all Floatables have been removed, drop the vactor hose to the base of the sump via the Central Access Port. Vactor out the sediment and gross debris off the sump floor(Fig.6 and 9). Fig.9 Floatables and sediment are removed with a vactor hose 1 Maintenance at a Glance FrequencyActivity Regularly during first year of installation Inspection Every 6 months after the first year of installation ' Oil and Floatables Once per year,with sediment removal Removal -Following a spill in the drainage area Sediment Removal Once per year or as needed Following a spill in the drainage area NOTE: For most cleanouts it is not necessary to remove the entire volume of liquid in the vessel. Only removing the first few inches of oils/floatables and the sediment storage volume is required. H dro International Ze Downstream Defender Operation&Maintenance Maual Page 17 ' 1 Downstream Defender° Installation Log 1 HYDRO INTERNATIONAL REFERENCE NUMBER: SITE NAME: SITE LOCATION: OWNER: CONTRACTOR: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT NAME: ' COMPANY NAME: COMPANY NAME: ' ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ' TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: t FAX: FAX: INSTALLATION DATE: MODEL(CIRCLE ONE): 4-FT 6-FT 8-FT 10-FT 12-FT ' (1.2m) (1.8m) (2.4m) (3m) (3.7m) Hydro International(Stormwater),94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 Tel:(207)756-6200 Fax:(207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com � Hydronalo i InternatiDownstream Defender Operation&Maintenance Maual Page 8 ' Downstream Defender° Maintenance Log Site Name: Owner Change since last inspection? Y N Location: ' Owner Name: Address: Phone Number: ' Site Status: Date: Time: Site conditions`: "(Stable, Under Construction, Needing Maintenance, etc.) Depth of Sediment Floatables Depth Date Initials and Oils Measured Site Activity and Comments Removed Prior to Removal 'Note: Sediment removal is not required unless sediment depths exceed 75%of maximum clean-out depths stated in Table 1. Notes Hydro International(Stonnwater), 94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax:(207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com in Hydro � IllteY11dt10IldI Downstream Defender Operation&Maintenance Maual Page 9 Downstream Defender° Inspection Log 1 Site Name: Owner Change since last inspection? Y N Location: Owner Name: ' Address: Phone Number: Site Status: ' Date: Time: Site conditions`: '(Stable, Under Construction, Needing Maintenance, etc.) , Inspection Frequency Key:A=annual; M=monthly; S=after major storms U 'p p N Inspection Items 0 z ro a) z Comments/Description C_ n C UL S C v 2 Z r Debris Removal Adjacent area free of debris? M ' Inlets and Outlets free of debris? M Chamber free of debris? M Vegetation ' Surrounding area fully stabilized?(no evi- A dence of eroding material in Downstream Defender®) ' Grass mowed? M Water retention where required Water holding chamber(s)at normal pool? M ' Evidence of erosion? A Sediment Deposition Sedimentation sump not more than 50% A ' full? Structural Components Any evidence of structural deterioration? A ' Rim&cover in good condition? A Spelling or cracking of structural parts? A OutletlOverflow Spillway A ' Other Noticeable odors? A Evidence of flow bypassing facility? A Hydro International (Stormwater), 94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com t 1 Downstream Defender Operation&Maintenance Maual Page 110 Inspector Comments: Overall Condition of Downstream Defender®: [-]Acceptable ❑Unacceptable ' —Acceptable"would mean properly functioning, "unacceptable"would mean damaged or required further maintenance. ' If any of the above Inspection Items are checked"Yes"for"Maintenance Needed", list Maintenance actions and their completion dates below: Maintenance Action Needed Due Date The next routine inspection is schedule for approximately: (date) Inspected by: (signature) ' Inspected by: (printed) ' Hydro International(Stormwater), 94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 :,.... Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com Hydro International Certification Program 88 for Stormwater BMP Maintenance Providers The Hydro International Stormwater BMP Maintenance Certification verifies that a stormwater BMP maintenance provider has been trained on the proper inspection and maintenance procedures for Hydro International's manufactured stormwater treatment products. i.............. Maintenance providers who complete ill N I this complimentary web-based pr,10106160-lw become a Hydro International ferried 9 Stormwater at Partner' Become orn, orl a Hydro 4 NI International certified Stormwater B P mamtenancb Learn more at http://www.hydro-i'n S, CX" Stormwater Solutions 94 Hutchins Drive Portland, ME 04102 Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 stormwaterinquiry@hydro-int.com www.hydro-int.com Turning Water Around...® 1 ©Hydro International DD_O+M_C13O3 � Hydro International i and x: t 66 l : u s yry .y Y a F Operation and Maintenance Manual First° Defense Stormwater Solutions ' Vortex Separator for Stormwater Treatment Turning Water Around ...® Page 12 First Defense® Operation and Maintenance Manual Table of Contents ' 3 First Defense®by Hydro International ' -Benefits of the First Defense® -Applications -First Defense®Components ' 4 Operation ' -Introduction -Pollutant Capture and Retention -Wet Sump -Blockage Protection 4 Maintenance -Overview -Determining Your Maintenance Schedule 5 Maintenance Procedures -Inspection -Floatables and Sediment Cleanout 8 First Defense®Installation Log ' 9 First Defense®Inspection and Maintenance Log ' COPYRIGHT STATEMENT:The contents of this manual,including the graphics contained herein,are intended for the use of the recipient to whom the ' document and all associated information are directed. Hydro International plc owns the copyright of this document,which is supplied in confidence. It must not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied and must not be reproduced, in whole or in part stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writing from Hydro International plc. First Defense®is a trademarked hydrodynamic vortex separation device of Hydro International plc.A patent covering the First Defense®has been granted. DISCLAIMER: Information and data contained in this manual is exclusively for the purpose of assisting in the operation and maintenance of Hydro , International plc's First Defense®.No warranty is given nor can liability be accepted for use of this information for any other purpose.Hydro International plc has a policy of continuous product development and reserves the right to amend specifications without notice. Hydro International(Stormwater),94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 ' Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com Page 13 First Defense®Operation and Maintenance Manual First Defense° by Hydro International ' Capturing more than 25 years of separation design Benefits of the First Defense experience,the First Defense®is Hydro International's latest - Compact and flexible design addition to its family of hydrodynamic vortex separators -Can be used as a catch basin inlet and directional intended for stormwater applications. It has been developed change manhole with ease of installation and maintenance at the forefront -Optional one or two inlets without sacrificing performance or design flexibility. -Does not require a bypass structure -Hydrodynamic Vortex Separation All internal components are housed in either a 4-ft or 6-ft -Extended and structured flow path -Minimal headloss diameter precast manhole that is designed to withstand traffic -Reduces turbulence and re-suspension loads. Each model can be used as a catch basin inlet or -Reverse-flow outlet intake prevents short-circuiting. standard manhole with solid cover so that runoff can enter -Improved efficiency for all flows from an overhead grate, inlet pipe or both without diminishing . Delivered Pre-assembled for easy and fast installation performance. • Simple to inspect and maintain • Independently verified The First Defense®has internal components that are designed to generate rotational flow within the device Applications without requiring a tangential inlet. Flow within the precast • New developments and retrofits chamber is controlled to prevent turbulence and its unique Utility yards reverse-flow outlet intake ensures a longer retention time • Streets and roadways by preventing short-circuiting. An internal bypass prevents • Parking lots ' high flow re-suspension and washout and eliminates the - Pre-treatment for filters, infiltration and storage need for additional bypass structures. The internals can • Industrial and commercial facilities easily be adjusted to change the angle between the inlet • Wetlands protection and outlet for storm drain directional changes and dual inlets can be accomodated in most cases. This simplifies grading a and site design so that flow can be conveyed from isolated locations within the same site without increasing the number of structures. For removal of fine sediment and associated pollutants, oil spills,trash and debris,the first choice in stormwater treatment systems is the First Defense®. Y 't ' First Defense'Components 1. Built-In Bypass 2. Inlet Pipe _ 3. Inlet Chute= 4. Floatables Draw-off Port(not pictured) 5. Outlet Pipe 6. Floatables Storage 7. Outlet Chute 8. Sediment Storage Page 14 First Defense® Operation and Maintenance Manual Operation Maintenance Introduction Overview The First Defense®operates on simple fluid hydraulics. It is self- The First Defense®protects the environment by removing a wide activating, has no moving parts, no external power requirement range of pollutants from stormwater runoff. Periodic removal of and is fabricated with durable non-corrosive components. these captured pollutants is essential to the continuous, long- No manual procedures are required to operate the unit and term functioning of the First Defense®. The First Defense®will maintenance is limited to monitoring accumulations of stored capture and retain sediment and oil until the sediment and oil pollutants and periodic clean-outs. The First Defense®has storage volumes are full to capacity. When sediment and oil ' been designed to allow for easy and safe access for inspection, storage capacities are reached, the First Defense®will no longer monitoring and clean-out procedures. Neither entry into the be able to store removed sediment and oil. Maximum pollutant unit nor removal of the internal components is.necessary for storage capacities are provided in Table 1. maintenance,thus safety concerns related to confined-space- entry are avoided. Pollutant Capture and Retention The internal components of the First Defensehave been fAr—r designed to optimize pollutant capture. Sediment is captured F - and retained in the base of the unit,while oil and Floatables are { stored on the water surface in the inner volume. The pollutant storage volumes are isolated from the built-in bypass chamberu to prevent washout during high-flow internally-bypassed storm , events. Accessories such as oil absorbant pads are available for Max oil enhanced oil removal and storage. Due to the separation of the oil e` ,.±� Storage Depth oil and Floatable storage volume from the outlet,the potential for washout of stored pollutants between clean-outs is minimized. .! Wet Sump ': The sump of the First Defensee retains a standing water level between storm events. The water in the sump prevents stored ) r y �. " �� Sediment Sediment b, �•' Storage sediment from solidifying in the base of the unit. The clean- 5s . , out procedure becomes more difficult and labor intensive if the _ system allows fine sediment to dry-out and consolidate. Dried sediment must be manually removed by maintenance crews. This is a labor intensive operation in a hazardous environment. -• " Fig.f Pollutant storage volumes in the First Defensee. Hydro International (Stormwater), 94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 , Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com Page 15 First Defense®Operation and Maintenance Manual I The First Defense®allows for easy and safe inspection,monitoring Inspection and clean-out procedures. A commercially or municipally owned Inspection is a simple process that does not involve entry into the sump-vac is used to remove captured sediment and floatables. First Defense®. Maintenance crews should be familiar with the Access parts are located in the top of the manhole. First Defense®and its components prior to inspection. ' Maintenance events may include Inspection, Oil & Fooatables Removal, and Sediment Removal. Maintenance events do not Scheduling require entry into the First Defense®, nor do they require the • It is important to inspect your First Defense®every six months internal components of the First Defense®to be removed. In the during the first year of operation to determine your site-specific case of inspection and floatables removal, a vactor truck is not rate of pollutant accumulation. required. However, a vactor truck is required if the maintenance event is to include oil removal and/or sediment removal. • Typically, inspection may be conducted during any season of the year. Determining Your Maintenance Schedule The frequency of cleanout is determined in the field after Recommended Equipment installation. During the first year of operation, the unit should be • Safety Equipment and Personal Protective Equipment inspected every six months to determine the rate of sediment and (traffic cones,work gloves, etc.) floatables accumulation. A simple probe such as a Sludge Judge® can be used to determine the level of accumulated solids stored in • Crow bar or other tool to remove grate or lid the sump. This information can be recorded in the maintenance log(see page 9)to establish a routine maintenance schedule. • Pole with skimmer or net The vactor procedure, including both sediment and oil/flotables • Sediment probe(such as a Sludge Judge®) removal, for a 6-ft First Defense® typically takes less than 30 minutes and removes a combined water/oil volume of about 800 • Trash bag for removed floatables gallons. • First Defense®Maintenance Log Table 1. First Defense®Pollutant Storage Capacities and Maximum Cleanout Depths ' Unit Diameter TotalOil Storage • Clean-out • - Sediment -• quid Depth • -r- Clean-out Depth vooved ' 4 180 <23.5 202 26 202-342 6 420 <23.5 626 36 626-1,046 NOTE The total volume removed will depend on the oil accumulation level. Oil accumulation.is typically much less than sediment, however removal of oil and sediment during the same service is recommended. Page 16 First Defense® Operation and Maintenance Manual Inspection Procedures -- - - 1. Set up any necessary safety equipment around the access - S port or grate of the First Defense®as stipulated by - local ordinances. Safety equipment should notify passing pedestrian and road traffic that work is being done. _ a may, y . 2. Remove the grate or lid to the manhole. '` 3. Without entering the vessel, look down into the chamber to inspect the inside. Make note of any irregularities. Fig.2 shows the standing water level that should be observed. 4. Without entering the vessel, use the pole with the skimmer net to remove Floatables and loose debris from the outer annulus I of the chamber. y. , 5. Using a sediment probe such as a Sludge Judge®, measure CAUTION! the depth of sediment that has collected in the sump of the AVOID INLET CHUTE— vessel. HUTE vessel. 6. On the Maintenance Log(see page 9), record the date, unit °i§ ' location, estimated volume of floatables and gross debris Y, ;. removed, and the depth of sediment measured. Also note any apparent irregularities such as damaged components or4", blockages. I 7. Securely replace the grate or lid. ,. 8. Take down safety equipment. j 9. Notify Hydro International of any irregularities noted during �--- -- -- inspection. Fig.2 Floatables are removed with a vactor hose. ' Floatables and Sediment Cleanout Floatables cleanout is typically done in conjunction with sediment Recommended Equipment ' removal. A commercially or municipally owned sump-vac is used . Safety Equipment(traffic cones, etc) to remove captured sediment and floatables(Fig.2). ,Floatables and loose debris can also be netted with a skimmer • Crow bar or other tool to remove grate or lid and pole. The access port located at the top of the manhole . Pole with skimmer or net(if only floatables are being removed) provides unobstructed access for a valor hose and skimmer pole to be lowered to the base of the sump. • Sediment probe(such as a Sludge Judge®) Scheduling • Vector truck(flexible hose recommended) • Floatables and sump cleanout are typically conducted once ' a year during any season. • First Defense®Maintenance Log • Floatables and sump cleanout should occur as soon as - ' possible following a spill in the contributing drainage area. Hydro International(Stormwater), 94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax:(207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com Page 17 First Defense®Operation and Maintenance Manual Floatables and sediment Clean Out Procedures 1. Setup any necessary safety equipment around the access port or grate of the First Defense®as stipulated by ,- � local ordinances. Safety equipment should notify passing pedestrian and road traffic that work is being done. tt '' 2. Remove the grate or lid to the manhole. ' 3. Without entering the vessel, look down into the chamber to x inspect the inside. Make note of any irregularities. 4. Remove oil and floatables stored on the surface of the waterw with the vactor hose(Fig.2)or with the skimmer or net(not pictured). a sjr . 5. Using a sediment probe such as a Sludge Judge®, measure CAUTION! � -, E- + the depth of sediment that has collected in the sump of the I AVOID INLET CHUTE vessel and record it in the Maintenance Log (page 9). ! '. 6. Once all floatables have been removed, drop the vactor hose to the base of the sump. Vactor out the sediment and gross £ debris off the sump floor(Fig.3). L Pnn 7. Retract the vactor hose from the vessel. ' B. On the Maintenance Log provided by Hydro International, record the date, unit location, estimated volume of floatables and gross debris removed, and the depth of sediment measured. Also note any apparent irregularities such as damaged components, blockages, or irregularly high or low water levels. Fig.3 Sediment is removed with a vactor hose 9. Securely replace the grate or lid. ' Maintenance at a Glance FrequencyActivity ' Inspection -Regularly during first year of installation - Every 6 months after the first year of installation Oil and Floatables -Once per year,with sediment removal Removal -Following a spill in the drainage area Sediment Removal -Once per year or as needed -Following a spill in the drainage area NOTE: For most cleanouts it is not necessary to remove the entire volume of liquid in the vessel.Only removing the first few ' inches of oilstfloatables and the sediment storage volume is required. r Hydro' � International First Defense® Installation Log ' HYDRO INTERNATIONAL REFERENCE NUMBER: ' SITE NAME: SITE LOCATION: ' OWNER: CONTRACTOR: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT NAME: ' COMPANY NAME: COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: , TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: FAX: FAX: ' INSTALLATION DATE: ! I MODEL SIZE (CIRCLE ONE): 4-FT 6-FT INLET(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY): GRATE INLET (CATCH BASIN) INLET PIPE(FLOW THROUGH) Hydro Intemational(Stormwater),94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 ` Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com el Hydro" International o First Defense® Inspection and Maintenance Log Date Initials Depth of Sediment Volume of Site Activity and Floatables Depth Sediment Comments and Oils Measured Removed 1 Hydro International(Stormwater), 94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 Tel:(207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com i I 1 I i I 1 I 1 1 1 i Hydro International(Stonnwater),94 Hutchins Drive, Portland ME 04102 i Tel: (207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 Web:www.hydro-int.com 1 � I SGION H dro i International What is HX? ' HX is Hydro Experience, it is the essence of Hydro. It's interwoven into every strand of Hydro's story, from our products - r to our people, our engineering pedigree to our approach to business and problem-solving. HX is a stamp of quality and a mark of our commitment to optimum process performance.A Hydro solution is tried, tested and proven. There is no equivalent to Hydro HX. r r r . r r Stormwater Solutions 94 Hutchins Drive Y Portland, ME 04102 rr Tel:(207)756-6200 Fax: (207)756-6212 stormwaterinquiry@hydro-int.com r www.hydro-int.com 1 Turning Water Around...® FD_O+M_B1209 r r r r r ATTACHMENT G ILLICIT DISCHARGE ' STATEMENT i r r r r r t ILLICIT DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT I verify that no illicit discharges exist on the 60 & 64 Grove Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road properties. Through the implementation of Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan ' and Operation and Maintenance Plan, measures are set forth to prevent illicit discharges from entering the stormwater management drainage system. I , Signature Print Name Date Title Company Signature Print Name Date ' Title Company Note: This certification must be signed before stormwater is conveyed to the proposed stormwater drainage system in accordance with Standard 10 of the Massachusetts ' Stormwater Management Standards. 1 ATTACHMENT H PROPRIETARY SEPARATOR THIRD-PARTY EVALUATIONS 1 -DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER ' - FIRST DEFENSE 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' NJCAT TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION Hydro International 1 ' February 2005 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction - I 1 1.1 New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT) Program-------1 1.2 Technology Verification Report--------------------------------------- ---------------------------2 1.3 Technology Description.................. ._................................2 1.3.1 Technology Status-- 2 1.3.2 Specific Applicability--------------------------------------------------------------- 5 1.3.3 Range of Contaminant Characteristics 5 , 1.3.4 Range of Site Characteristics.....................................................5 1.3.5 Material Overview, Handling and Safety,-------- --------- --------fi 1.4 Project Description------- 7 ' 1.5 Key Contacts--..-.... .......... .................. ..........................................................8 2. Evaluation of the Applicant,---. 9 2.1 Corporate History--------------- - - 9 --------- ------ --------------------------------------------------------- 2.2 Organization and Management----------------------------------------------------------------------10 2.3 Operating Experience with respect to the Proposed Technology__________________10 2.4 Patents 10 2.5 Technical Resources, Staff and Capital Equipment -------------------------------------10 3. Treatment System Description--------------------------------- ------------------------------------11 ' 3.1 Components- - ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------I1 3.2 System Dynamics------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------13 3.3 Specifications---------------------- ------..... ---.......................... ------------------------------13 3.4 Installation 13 4. Technical Performance Claim------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 5. Technical System Performance----------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 5.1 Indirect Testing vs. Direct Testing________________________________________________________________14 5.1.1 Indirect Testing _________ ..................................... _________ ______ 14 5.1.2 Direct Testing............... ...... .............------------------------------------15 5.2 The Downstream Defender®Test Facility Description.................................15 5.3 Testing Criteria 18 5.3.1 Flow Rate 18 5.3.2 Sediment Loading.....................................................................18 5.3.3 Influent Feed Sand Gradation 18 5.4 Testing Procedure.. --------------------------------------------- - ---------- .............l8 5.4.1 Grain Size Distribution 18 5.4.2 Performance Testing......... ...... ............. .......... .....................18 5.5 Verification Procedures 20 5.5.1 NJDEP Recommended TSS Laboratory Testing Procedure......20 ' 5.5.2 Laboratory Testing Results------------------------------------•-----,-.--.-----...21 1 ' 5.5.3 Size Scaling------------ ---------------------------------------- -------------- ---------24 ' 5.6 Re-entrainment Prevention- ----------- -------- - ---------- - ----- --- ......------- ------25 6. Technical Evaluation Analysis------ .............. ................................... ----------- ---------25 ' 6.1 Verification of Performance Claims--------------------------------------------------------------25 6.2 Limitations. - - ------------------------------------------------ --- ----------26 6.2.1 Factors Causing Under-Performance-----------------------------------------26 ' 6.2.2 Pollutant Transformation and Release---------------------------------------26 6.2.3 Sensitivity to Heavy Sediment Loading-...------..........---------_-----26 6.2.4 Mosquitoes--------- ------------ - ............................. ........................26 7. Net Environmental Benefit.-, ------------------ -------- --- --------- ----------26 ' 8. References and Bibliography:.-..----------------- --------- ----------------------------------- - ---------27 LIST OF TABLES ' Table 1. Downstream Defender Standard Sizes-----------------------------------------------------------------6 Table 2. Downstream Defender®Pollutant Storage Capacities--------------------------------------------7 and Maximum Clean-out Depths ' Table 3. NJDEP Particle Size Distribution----------------------------------------- ----------------------­---------21 Table ------------------ -- Table 4. NJDEP Weight Factors for different Treatment Operating Rates..........................-21 Table 5. Laboratory Testing Results for 4-ft Diameter Downstream Defender®--------------- 22 ' Table 6. Weighted Solids Removal Performance-----------------------------------------------------------------22 Table 7. Downstream Defender Flow Rates for 70 Percent Solids Removal---------------------25 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Simplified Flow Pattern Showing Outer and Inner Helical Flows------------------------4 Figure 2. Cutaway View of the Downstream Defender®---.........---.........-...........................--12 ' Figure 3. Downstream Defender Pollutant Storage Zones-------------------------------------------------12 Figure 4. Test Facility General Arrangement---------------- ----- ------_____-----_______------____--_-------___16 Figure 5. Photos of Test Facility--- ------------- ---------------------------------------------------i7 ' Figure 6. Schematic of Typical Test Set-up Highlighting both the"Direct'--------................17 and"Indirect'Test Methods Figure 7. Particle Size Distribution of U.S. Silica F-95 Sand Used ------------------------------------23 ' in the Laboratory Tests 1 ii 1. Introduction 1.1 New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT) Program ' NJCAT is a not-for-profit corporation to promote in New Jersey the retention and growth of technology-based businesses in emerging fields such as environmental and energy technologies. NJCAT provides innovators with the regulatory, commercial, technological and financial assistance required to bring their ideas to market successfully. Specifically,NJCAT functions to: ' • Advance policy strategies and regulatory mechanisms to promote technology commercialization; ' • Identify, evaluate, and recommend specific technologies for which the regulatory and commercialization process should be facilitated; • Facilitate funding and commercial relationships/alliances to bring new technologies ' to market and new business to the state; and • Assist in the identification of markets and applications for commercialized technologies. ' The technology verification program specifically encourages collaboration between vendors and users of technology. Through this program, teams of academic and business professionals are ' formed to implement a comprehensive evaluation of vendor specific performance claims. Thus, suppliers have the competitive edge of an independent third party confirmation of claims. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:1D-134 et seq. (Energy and Environmental Technology Verification ' Program), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and NJCAT have established a Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) whereby NJCAT performs the ' technology verification review and NJDEP certifies the net beneficial environmental effect of the technology. In addition, NJDEP/NJCAT work in conjunction to develop expedited or more efficient timeframes for review and decision-making of permits or approvals associated with the verified/certified technology. ' The PPA also requires that: ' • The NJDEP shall enter into reciprocal environmental technology agreements concerning the evaluation and verification protocols with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), other local required or national environmental agencies, entities or groups in other ' states and New Jersey for the purpose of encouraging and permitting the reciprocal acceptance of technology data and information concerning the evaluation and verification of energy and environmental technologies; and ' • The NJDEP shall work closely with the State Treasurer to include in State bid specifications, as deemed appropriate by the State Treasurer, any technology verified under the Energy and ' Environment Technology Verification Program. 1 ' 1.2 Technology Verification Report ' In August 2004, Hydro International (94 Hutchins Drive, Portland, Maine 04102) submitted a formal request for participation in the NJCAT Technology Verification Program. The request (after pre-screening by NJCAT staff personnel in accordance with the technology assessment guidelines) was accepted into the verification program. The technology proposed by Hydro International, the Downstream Defender®, is an Advanced Hydrodynamic Vortex Separator used ' for the control of sediments and their associated pollutants, oil and floatables in stormwater. The Downstream Defender has internal flow modifying members that ensure that stable flow ' regimes are maintained over a wide range of flows and that isolated storage zones are established for capturing material preventing the risk of re-entrainment/washout. The internal geometry, in conjunction with the flow modifying members, creates a three-dimensional flow field that is ' unique to the device and provides the basis for unit scaling. This verification report covers the evaluation based upon the performance claim of the vendor, ' Hydro International (see Section 4). The verification report differs from typical NJCAT verification reports in that final verification of the Downstream Defender (and subsequent NJDEP certification of the technology) awaits completed field testing that meets the full requirements of the Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership (TARP) — Stormwater ' Best Management Practice Tier II Protocol for Interstate Reciprocity for stormwater treatment technology. This verification report is intended to evaluate the Downstream Defender® initial performance claim for the technology based primarily on laboratory studies. This claim is ' expected to be modified and expanded following completion of the TARP required field-testing. This verification project included the evaluation of assembled reports, company manuals, ' literature, computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling, and laboratory testing reports to verify that the Downstream Defender®meets the performance claim of Hydro International. ' 1.3 Technology Description 1.3.1 Technology Status In 1990 Congress established deadlines and priorities for USEPA to require permits for discharges of stormwater that is not mixed or contaminated with household or industrial ' wastewater. Phase I regulations established that a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit is required for stormwater discharge from municipalities with a separate storm sewer system that serves a population greater than 100,000 and certain defined industrial activities. To receive a NPDES permit, the municipality or specific industry has to develop a stormwater management plan and identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater treatment and discharge. BMPs are measures, systems, processes or controls that reduce pollutants at the source to prevent the pollution of stormwater runoff discharge from the site. Phase II stormwater discharges include all discharges composed entirely of stormwater, except those specifically classified as Phase I discharge. 2 The nature of pollutants emanating from differing land uses is very diverse. Hydro International t has developed a technology for separating and retaining floating and sinking pollutants including sediment a Y hydrocarbons and debris under rapid flow conditions usinghydrodynamic namic se arator. Y P Y P Hydro's Downstream Defender® is a vertically oriented concrete cylindrical vessel with polypropylene internal components and a stainless steel support frame, designed to separate oil and sediment from stormwater. Between maintenance events, pollutants accumulate within the system and are therefore removed from the natural environment. Maintenance is performed from above by a vacuum truck and without interference from internal components. ' General Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators (HDVS) are characterized by tangential flow into a cylindrical vessel, which in turn creates a complex rotary flow regime. In comparison with conventional systems, which rely solely on 'gravity', HDVS utilize both gravity and inertial separation mechanisms to achieve higher rates of solids liquid separation and as such provide the , performance equivalence of conventional systems in a considerably smaller footprint (Andoh and Smisson, 1994; and Andoh et. al., 2001). ' The levels of pollutant removals achieved are very dependent on the nature and characteristics of ' the influent wastewater in terms of solids species and their settling properties. The general rule is that higher flow rates (short residence times) can be applied when the solids in the influent stream are readily settleable. For influent streams containing solids with poor settling ' characteristics longer residence times may be necessary to achieve the desired level of solids removals. HDVS have been found to be generally more efficient than conventional chambers (Averill et. al., 1997; Arnett and Gurney, 1998). A vortex chamber tends to increase the time a particle stays in a confined space since the helical path from entrance to outlet is much longer than the straight ' distance between them. High Efficiency HDVS ' Although, in general, vortex separators belong to the same family of devices, different ' configurations have different separation efficiency characteristics (Saul et. al., 1993). Various configurations have evolved and are differentiated by the nature and type of internal flow modifying components and the location of inlets and outlets. The effectiveness of a given type of ' HDVS depends on the nature and characteristics of the rotary flow regime established and the degree to which complex swirls generated are structured and stabilized. This is a function of the internal geometry and the nature and placing of the internal components. Details of HDVS , configurations and the role of internal flow modifying members are described elsewhere (Andoh and Smisson, 1994; and Andoh, 1998). 3 ' Hydro International's HDVS differ from other types of vortex separators in that the internal flow modifying components have been designed to ensure that the current generation of HDVS are highly efficient, relatively `low energy", rotary flow devices, with stable macro-flow fields over a wide range of flows and pressure drops (i.e. head loss) typically less than 4 inches at design flows. The HVDS (see Section 3) create an axial return flow above the cone region in the form of an inner helical vortex (see Figure 1). This increases the overall path-line between inlet and outlet and reduces the potential for short-circuiting. This flow regime in Hydro International's ' HDVS has also been found to be conducive to effective contacting for disinfection (Boner et. al., 1993; Alkhaddar et. al., 2000; and Turner et. al., 2000) as well as flocculation to enhance solids removals (Andoh et. al., 1996). Outlet ' Inlet 1 ' Underflow loaded with sediments ' Figure 1. Simplified Flow Pattern Showing Outer and Inner Helical Flows L I ' System Operation and Maintenance Features The Downstream Defender® is unique in that the sediment and oil storage areas are outside the ' treatment flow path. As mentioned above, previously collected solids, oil and floatables are thereby protected from re-entrainment into the effluent during major storms or surcharge conditions. Furthermore, as sediment, floatables and oil are collected and stored over a period of several months, treatment capacities are not reduced as pollutants accumulate between clean- outs. 1 ' 4 After a storm event, the water level in the Downstream Defender drains down to the invert of ' the outlet pipe, keeping the unit wet. Maintaining a wet unit has two major advantages: ' 1. It keeps the oil and floatables stored on the water surface separate from sediment stored below the vortex chamber, providing the option for separate oil disposal, such as passive skimmers, if desired. 2. It prevents stored sediment from solidifying in the base of the unit. The clean-out procedure becomes much more difficult and labor intensive if the system allows fine sediment to dry-out and consolidate. When this occurs, clean-out crews must enter the ' chamber and manually remove the sediment; a labor intensive operation in a hazardous environment. The Downstream Defender has large clear openings and no internal restrictions or weirs, minimizing the risk of blockage and hydraulic losses ' 1.3.2 Specific Applicability , The Downstream Defender is a water quality improvement device applicable for treatment of stormwater in a variety of development situations including: ' ➢ New developments and retrofits ➢ Construction sites ' ➢ Streets and roadways ➢ Parking lots ➢ Vehicle maintenance wash-down yards ' ➢ Industrial and commercial facilities ➢ Wetlands protection 1.3.3 Range of Contaminant Characteristics , The Downstream Defender® has been shown to capture a wide range of pollutants of concern. ' These include: trash and debris, TSS, sediments, and oil and grease. 1.3.4 Range of Site Characteristics , The Downstream Defender® is designed to accommodate a wide range of flows and volumes (Table 1). Four standard sizes are available, each designed to treat a range of flows to a specific solids removal efficiency. To meet specific performance criteria or for larger flow applications, Hydro International offers custom designed units up to forty (40) feet in diameter. The Downstream Defender® is a primary treatment device which requires no pretreatment. However, it can be used as a pretreatment device before detention systems, mitigating wetlands or other polishing systems. t 5 ' ' Table 1. Downstream Defender®Standard Sizes ' Model Peak Maximum Maximum Head Continuous Spill Sediment Unit Number Treatment Inlet Outlet Loss Oil Storage Containment Storage Diameter Flow' Pipe Pipe at Peak Capacity Capacity Capacity (feet) (cfs) Diameter_ Diameter Treatment (gallons) (gallons) (cubic ' (inches) (inches) Flow yards) inches 4-FT 3.0 12 12 5 70 188 0.70 4 6-FT 8.0 18 18 8 230 634 2.10 6 ' 8-FT 15.0 24 24 8 525 1,504 4.65 8 10-FT 25.0 30 30 10 1,025 2,937 8.70 10 ' NOTES: 1. Peak Treatment Flow rate is based on keeping headloss at a minimum and removal efficiencies within a ' desirable range. Higher flow rates are possible if lower removal efficiencies and higher headlosses are acceptable. Lower flow rates may be necessary if higher removal efficiencies and lower headlosses are desired. The Peak Treatment Flow rates listed in this table are not the flow rates verified for a specific removal efficiency in this report. ' 2. Headloss is defined as the difference between the top water level upstream and the top water level downstream of the unit. t1.3.5 Material Overview,Handling and Safety ' A commercially or municipally owned sump-vac is used to remove captured sediment and floatables. Access ports are located in the top of the manhole. The floatables access port is above the outer annular space between the dip plate and the manhole wall, where floatables are retained. The sediment removal access port is located directly over the hollow center shaft which leads to the sediment storage facility below the vortex chamber. Floatables and oil should be removed prior to the removal of the sediment.. 1 The frequency of the sump-vac procedure is determined in the field after installation. During the first year of operation, the unit should be inspected every six months to determine the rate of sediment and floatables accumulation. A probe can be used to determine the level of solids in the sediment storage facility. This information can then be used to establish a maintenance schedule. When sediment depth has accumulated to the specified depth, the contents should be ' removed by a sump-vac. In most situations, it is recommended that the units be cleaned annually. Maximum storage capacities are shown in Table 2 ' 6 Table 2.Downstream Defender 's Pollutant Storage Capacities ' and Maximum Clean-out Depths Downstream Defender""" ' Pollutant Storage Capacities and Max.Clean-out Depths Unit Total Oil it Total Sediment Total ' Diameter Storage Clean-out Sediment Clean-out Volume De th Storage Depth Removed feet al. inches al, inches al 4 70 <16 141 <18 384 ' 6 230 <23 424 <24 1239 8 525 <33 939 <30 2884 10 1050 <42 1,757 <36 5546 ' Notes: 1. Refer to Downstream Defender Clean-out Detail for measurement of depths. 2. Oil accumulation is typically much less than sediment, , however,removal of oil and sediment during the same service is recommended. 2. Remove floatables first,then remove remaining volume. ' Although a small portion of water is removed along with the pollutants during the clean-out ' process, the units are typically not completely dewatered - minimizing disposal costs. The sump vac procedure for a typical 6-ft diameter Downstream Defender®with one foot of sediment depth ' and two inches of oil and debris takes about 25 minutes and removes about 150-200 gallons of water in the process. Solids recovered from the Downstream Defender® can typically be land filled or disposed of at a wastewater treatment plant. It is possible that there may be some specific land use activities that create contaminated solids, which will be captured in the system. Such material would have to ' be handled and disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste management requirements. 1.4 Project Description This project included the evaluation of assembled reports, company manuals, literature, CFD ' simulations, and laboratory testing reports to verify that the Downstream Defender®,meets the performance claims of Hydro International. ' 7 , 1.5 Key Contacts Rhea Weinberg Brekke Ravi Patraju Executive Director Bureau of Sustainable Communities & NJ Corporation for Advanced Technology Innovative Technologies c/o New Jersey EcoComplex Division of Science, Research & Technology ' 1200 Florence Columbus Road NJ Department of Environmental Protection Bordentown,NJ 08505 401 East State Street 609 499 3600 ext. 227 Trenton,NJ 08625-0409 ' rwbrekke(-,nicat.ora 609 292 0125 ravi.patra l u(i ,dep.state.n i.us Pamela Deahl, P.E. Qizhong Guo, Ph.D., P.E. Vice President Associate professor Hydro International Department of Civil and Environmental ' 94 Hutchins Drive Engineering Portland, ME 04102 Rutgers,The State University of New Jersey 207 756 6200 623 Bowser Road pdeahl(ci,hil-tech.com Piscataway,NJ 08854 732 445 4444 gauo(arci.ruteers.edu t Richard S. Magee, Sc.D., P.E., DEE Technical Director NJ Corporation for Advanced Technology c/o Carmagen Engineering Inc. 4 West Main Street Rockaway, NJ 07866 973 627 4455 rmalZee(@,carmagen.com 1 8 2. Evaluation of the Applicant ' 2.1 Corporate History The Downstream Defender® is part of a family of Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators designed, ' manufactured and supplied by Hydro International which have evolved over the last 40 years from pioneering work undertaken by Bernard Smisson. The history of Hydrodynamic Vortex ' Separators (HDVS) dates back to the early 1960s when Bernard Smisson built and tested the very first full-scale vortex type combined sewer overflow (CSO) unit at Bristol in the U.K. This first generation separator was found to be effective in retaining 70% of the pollution load (Smisson, 1967). , Smisson's pioneering work was followed by the development in the 1970s, of the USEPA Swirl Concentrator - a second generation HDVS, by the American Water Works Association and EPA, ' with Mr. Smisson acting as a consultant (Sullivan et. al., 1972, 1982). A third generation of HDVS was subsequently developed in the UK in the early 1980s, with Bernard Smisson's assistance, to overcome identified shortcomings with the EPA Swirl Concentrator, particularly to , reduce shoaling of solids on the base, to reduce headloss at high flows and to further improve performance. This configuration was subsequently patented and commercialized with the trade name Storm King Overflow. ' It should be noted that CSO/SSO typically include sanitary solids, along with other pollutants, that cannot be stored for a length of time. Therefore, when used as a CSO/SSO treatment device ' the HDVS has an underflow component that returns concentrated solids to the sanitary collection system to be conveyed to a wastewater treatment plant for further processing. Further work in the 1990s in the USA, led to the adaptation of the third generation HDVS for stormwater treatment in the form of the Downstream Defender. This new configuration (also patented) differs from the application of the HDVS as a CSO or SSO treatment device. Unlike ' CSO/ SSO applications, pollutants removed from stormwater runoff are typically stored within a treatment device for several months to be removed periodically. The Downstream Defender® is configured with a sump to provide an isolated storage zone for the collection of separated ' sediments and their associated pollutants. Since their development and subsequent commercialization in the 1980s and 1990s, Hydro , International's HDVS have been the subject of numerous independent performance evaluations in Europe, North America and Japan (Hedges et. al., 1992; Hedges, 1993; Boner et. al., 1992; Averill et. al., 1997; Arnett and Gurney, 1998; Turner, et. al., 2000; Pratt, 2000 and Okamoto et. ' al., 2002). These evaluations have all confirmed the efficacy of the hydrodynamic separation phenomenon occurring in the separators. A number of these. included an assessment of influent solids and their settling characteristics, ' which in turn highlighted the relevance and importance of wastewater characterization (especially settling velocity distributions) in assessing device performance (Tyack et. al., 1992; , Andoh and Smisson, 1994). 9 ' 1 2.2 Organization and Management ' An overview of the Company (Group)Structure is detailed below. lam . . Hydro US .. Portland, The Group has a relatively small employee base of approximately 60 employees. In addition, there is a strong network of independent agents (particularly in North America), distributorship agreements with key players in the market and selected licensing agreements. 2.3 Operating Experience with respect to the Proposed Technology ' To date over 2,000 of Hydro International's HDVS have been installed worldwide for stormwater, combined sewage and wastewater treatment with device configurations adapted to the specific application area. 2.4 Patents Hydro International holds the following international patents in reference to the Downstream Defender®: Patent No. 5188238 - USA Patent No. 2019390 - Canada Patent No. 2233255 - UK 2.5 Technical Resources, Staff and Capital Equipment For over 25 years, Hydro International has been working in partnership with their customers to ensure successful solutions throughout the design and installation process and has developed considerable expertise in the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. These systems ' include treatment, storage and flow controls. Technical assistance is provided by an engineering staff at Hydro International's U.S. ' headquarters in Portland, Maine in addition to local Hydro International representatives in the State of New Jersey. Custom sizing and drawings are available for a given project. ' Hydro International maintains a full-scale test facility in Portland, Maine as described in Section 5.2. To ensure results are accurate and unbiased, Hydro International utilizes full-scale, state-of- ' io the-art testing technology both in-house and through independent centers of excellence including the following: g Academic Institutions , Federal and State Regulatory Agencies ' Research Institutions Consulting Engineers Municipalities ' In addition to field testing and external validation, Hydro International has developed considerable expertise in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation. This ability to ' mathematically model flow fields and assess device characteristics is enabling rapid prototyping, thereby shortening product development cycles and improving the quality of outputs. Hydro International promote the benefits of sustainable strategies to the wider water ' environmental community. In addition to contributing to industry events, the company hosts educational conferences, which encourage knowledge sharing, dialogue and provides networking opportunities between Environmental Regulators, Municipalities, Engineers and Academic , Institutions. 3. Treatment System Description ' 3.1 Components The Downstream Defender (Figures 2 and 3) has no moving parts and no external power requirements. It consists of a concrete cylindrical vessel with polypropylene internal components ' and a stainless steel support frame. The concrete vessel is a standard manhole, installed below grade, with a tangential inlet pipe and an overflow pipe which connect the treatment unit directly to the storm sewer. Two ports at ground level provide access for inspection and clean-out of ' stored floatables and sediment. The internal components consist of two concentric hollow cylinders (the dip plate and center shaft), an inverted cone (the center cone), a benching skirt and a floatables lid. The purpose of the internal components is two-fold: , ■ The components act as flow modifying members to effect a complex but stable flow regime through the device; which maximizes solids separation and prevents short circuiting. ' • The components create isolated zones for pollutant capture and storage. u 1 Access Port Concrete Manhole _ ' 4, Floatables Lid Outlet Pine Inlet Pipe r b Dip Plate y Center Shaft ' and Cone Benching Skirt g A 4 Sediment Storage Figure 2. Cutaway View of the Downstream Defender' ra. w� Inleta 4� Outlet Isolated Storage Zones ' -Oils and Floatables Dip Plate _.T S Cone + ' -Sediments Figure 3. Downstream Defender's Pollutant Storage Zones ' 12 3.2 System Dynamics The Downstream Defender© is self-activating and operates on simple fluid hydraulics. The , geometry of the internal components and placement of the inlet and outlet pipes are designed to direct the flow in a pre-determined path through the vessel as described below. ' Stormwater is introduced tangentially into the side of the vessel and initially spirals around the perimeter, in the outer annular space (between the dip plate cylinder and manhole wall), where ' oil and floatables rise to the water surface and are trapped. As the flow continues to rotate about the vertical axis, it travels down towards the bottom of the dip plate. Sediment is directed toward the center and base of the vessel where it is collected in the sediment storage facility, beneath the , vortex chamber. The center cone protects stored sediment and redirects the main flow upwards and inwards. Flow passes under the dip plate and up through the inner annular space, inside the dip plate (between the dip plate and center shaft cylinders), as a narrower spiraling column ' rotating at a slower velocity than the outer downward flows. By the time the flow reaches the top of the vessel, it is virtually free of solids and is discharged from the inner annular space, through the outlet pipe. , The dip plate and center shaft cylinders are suspended from the underside of a component support frame. This dip plate serves two purposes: , • It locates the shear zone, the interface between the outer downward circulation and the inner upward circulation where a marked difference in velocity encourages solids separation, and ' • It establishes a zone between it and the outer wall where floatables, oil and grease are captured and retained after a storm. ' The floatables lid covers the inner annular space between the dip plate and center shaft. It separates oil and floatables stored in the outer annular space, between the dip plate and the ' manhole wall, from the treated effluent in the inner annular space. 3.3 Specifications , The Downstream Defender® can easily be custom sized to meet specific performance requirements. Headloss through the unit, at design flow, is typically less than 12 inches. At lower ' flows, the removal efficiencies are enhanced and headlosses decrease. To meet specific performance criteria or for larger flow applications, Hydro offers custom designed units up to forty (40) feet in diameter. ' 3.4 Installation The unit should be installed in a location that is easily accessible for the maintenance vehicle, ' preferably in a flat area close to a roadway or parking area. 13 ' ' The Downstream Defender® is delivered to the site completely fabricated, ready to be installed into the excavated hole and connected to the inlet and outlet piping. It is compact and can fit within an excavation trench guard. Larger units are delivered to the site in component form for final assembly at the job site. Installation time for a 6 foot unit is typically 1%z hours. ' 4. Technical Performance Claim ' Claim: The Hydro International Downstream Defender®, sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 20 gpm/ft3 has been shown to have a 70% solids mass removal efficiency (as per NJDEP treatment efficiency calculation methodology) for F-95 sand with an average influent concentration of 240 ' mg/l, an average d50 particle size of 120 microns and zero initial sediment loading in laboratory studies using simulated storm water. 5. Technical System Performance ' 5.1 Indirect Testing vs. Direct Testing 5.1.1 Indirect Testing ' Field-testing normally involves taking multiple samples from the influent and effluent streams to determine solids concentrations. The concentration of solids contained in the effluent is ' compared to the concentration of solids contained in the influent to indirectly determine the solids removal efficiency of the device. The actual mass of material captured by the unit is not measured. This method of indirect testing, while the only practical method available in the field, produces unreliable results due to the sampling method and the various assumptions made (see bullets below). ' Samples taken from a rapidly flowing influent and effluent stream may not be truly representative. The assumption made is that the solids content of the flow stream is consistent from one sample to the next. In reality, this assumption is not always valid. ' The sampling location can have a bearing on the results. Sampling sediment and sand particles is very difficult, as stratification tends to occur within the flow stream. Heavier ' particles tend to travel in the bottom of the pipe or channel while finer particles are carried higher in the water column. ' Statistically, small volume samples taken from a total flow, as when taking samples from the effluent stream,provide opportunity for compounding errors. ' Small-bore tubes used in automated samplers do not collect heavier sediments and large particles. • In the case of laboratory testing, variations in background solids already in the feed water can impact the results. 14 1 5.1.2 Direct Testing In contrast to the indirect testing method, Hydro International in its laboratory testing uses a direct method to determine the removal efficiency of the Downstream Defender®. The mass of solids captured by the unit is collected and compared to the mass fed to the unit to directly measure the removal efficiency. Hydro International has set up a full-scale Downstream Defender® testing facility at its location in Portland, Maine. This comprehensive facility allows testing to be performed under controlled conditions and is equipped with an underflow collection , tank. The whole of the underflow is collected to determine the quantity of solids captured which, when compared with the known quantity added to the influent, provides a direct method for measurement of removal efficiency. Experience has shown that direct testing allows easier ' closing of the solids mass balance. By capturing the whole of the underflow, any inaccuracies inherent in indirect testing (influent and effluent sampling) are avoided. 5.2 The Downstream Defender®Test Facility Description ' The Hydro test facility (Figures 4, 5, 6) consists of a 23,300-gallon clean water storage reservoir equipped with a Flygt submersible pump to provide feed water. The test unit is a standard 4-ft diameter Downstream Defender® with an 8-inch diameter inlet and a 12-inch diameter outlet. The Downstream Defender® is connected to the pump delivery with 8-inch diameter PVC pipe- ' work that incorporates clear standpipes. For accurate flow control, the delivery line is fitted with a Hershey VP-820 gearbox butterfly valve and the pump is controlled by a variable frequency drive. A bypass line directs excess flow back to the reservoir. The overflow from the ' Downstream Defender® is returned to the reservoir for re-circulation via the 12-inch diameter PVC pipe. An ISCO UniMag Magnetic Flowmeter is located in the 8-inch diameter inlet piping upstream ' from the inlet to the Downstream Defender®test unit for accurate flow readings. A 3-inch diameter underflow pipe connects the sediment storage area of the Downstream ' Defender® test unit to an underflow collection tank. At the end of each test, the underflow valve is opened and the unit is drained down. Most of the captured material remains in the sediment ' storage area. A clean-out port at the base of the Downstream Defender®allows for rinsing and sediment collection. During drain down, some material is swept into the underflow collection tank equipped with a weir wall and two baffles for additional sediment collection. ' A 6-inch diameter standpipe is provided in the delivery line approximately 15 feet from the Downstream Defender® inlet for introduction of the feed sediment. Alternatively, material may , be introduced into the influent line through a stand pipe located approximately 2.5 feet from the Downstream Defender®inlet. 1 15 ' a INK PRODUCT ? PRODUCT TEST FACILITY PUMP HHYDRO INTERNATIONAL 94 HUTCHINS DRIVE. PORTLAND, ME 04102 y T: (207) 756-6200 F: (207) 756-6212 E-MAIL hiltech®hil-tech.com VALVESOld w G'1 A CD SECTION A- CD SCALE: 3/16'=11 '-0' 'S w_ Y s NDER to 12"x12"X4" TEE 8" INO TN P STPERM 12" OVERFLOW PIPE) 'III; FEED SAND SAMPLE PORT UQ eb A 3' GRIT KING SAMPLE" TEE P RT M PUMP 48"x96" TANK 26.CDO gal. 8" PUMP GRIT RECOVERY STORAGE TANK A 10"x12" '2" 90' RISER PUMP RETURN REDUCER g"X 18" MAG METER 0 8"x8"x6" TEE INLET SAMPLE PORT 3YPASS 12"x12"x12" W/ 6" KNIFE GATE TEE 12"x8" 12" KNIFE REDUCER 8"x8"X4" TEE GATE VALVE FEED INLET GRIT KING FLOW LINE TO GRIT KING TEST UNIT 8" BUTTERFLY A VALVE PLAN SGLE: a ff s g�dro� � Y y „ 3 { \K �`� �^yam{-- •.�F y�Y 4aIT PIP6 33 RW Figure 5. Photos of Test Facility Sieve , analysis Calibrated ' Funnel Overflow , Grab ------ ------ Samples , ----- '-- Influent Sieve Samples analysis Figure 6. Schematic of Typical Test Set-up Highlighting both the"Direct' and "Indirect'Test ' Methods 17 ' 5.3 Testing Criteria 5.3.1 Flow Rate ' The flow rate to the 4.0-foot diameter Downstream Defender®can be adjusted from 0-1930 gpm (0.0-4.3 cfs). ' 5.3.2 Sediment Loading Sediment (sand) loading for testing is typically based on an average target concentration of 300 mg/l. Ideally, the bulk influent feed weight should be between 30-50 pounds, although this may vary depending on the material being tested. 5.3.3 Influent Feed Sand Gradation The feed sand is blended using clean, dry, industry standard silica sand. Feed sands of different grades are available and selected to best represent the sediment likely to be encountered at a project location. ' 5.4 Testing Procedure 5.4.1 Grain Size Distribution ' Particle size analysis is performed on each blend to ensure that it conforms to the target gradation. Blends that are composed primarily of fine and medium sand are tested according to ' ASTM C136 (AASHTO T27) — Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. If a blend has significant quantities of material smaller than 75 microns (#200 sieve) a washed gradation is performed according to ASTM C117 (AASHTO T11). If fines dominate a blend, the particle ' size distribution is determined by performing a hydrometer analysis - ASTM D422 (AASHTO T88). ' 5.4.2 Performance Testing The following procedure is used: 1. Accurately weigh out a bulk sample of the influent feed sand. Ideally, 30-50 lbs should be used for fine to medium sand. ' 2. Calculate the sediment feed rate necessary to deliver an average concentration of 300 mg/I to the treatment unit. The calculation is based on the mass of sediment fed per unit time (either dry feed or slurry feed) and the flow rate into the treatment unit. ' 3. Start the submersible pump and allow it to run until the Downstream Defender overflows to the reservoir and the flow rate stabilizes. The flow rate can be adjusted using the inlet valve, valved bypass and the VFD pump controller. Allow the flow to stabilize. 4. Start the stopwatch as begin feeding the influent feed sand into the 6-inch diameter standpipe in the Downstream Defender® line at a constant rate. The method of feeding the material is ' 18 dependent on how well the material flows. Fine and medium sands may be fed with a ' calibrated funnel. Gradations dominated by fines, may not flow well and will have to be fed ' as a slurry using a peristaltic pump. 5. While the sand is being fed, record the flow rate at regular intervals (these records will be used to calculate an average flow rate). ' 6. Stop the stopwatch when all the sediment is delivered to the influent line. 7. Allow the flow to continue for five minutes after completion of sand addition. 8. Close the valve in the influent feed line. ' 9. Stop the pump. 10. Drain the Downstream Defender unit through the underflow line into the underflow collection tank. ' 11. When the Downstream Defender®is completely empty, close the underflow valve and restart the submersible pump. Fill the Downstream Defender®with water up to the inlet to wash out any sand residue left in the system. ' 12. Let the sediment settle and drain the Downstream Defender into the underflow collection tank again. 13. Repeat steps 11 and 12 for a total of three times. 14. Inspect the inside of the Downstream Defender®and collect any sand it may contain. Scoop ' sand into drying containers. Wet vacuum the remainder of the sediment from the sump and decant into drying containers. 15. Using a small submersible pump, decant the contents of the underflow tank and collect any ' sand with the wet vacuum. 16. Dry the sand in the oven at a temperature of 105°C until dry. 17. Weigh the collected sand for comparison with the influent sand weight to obtain a total solids ' removal efficiency. 18. By accepted methods, obtain a representative sample from collected sediment that is thoroughly blended. For fine to medium sand, usually I Ib. is an acceptable sample size. ' Ensure that the sample is sized so that it will not overload the sieves. 19. Perform a sieve analysis on the collected sediment for comparison to the feed sand gradation. 20. When the underflow sample has been analyzed, the performance will be determined as follows: , Removal efficiency of total solids = weight of captured sand x 100 weight of feed sand Removal Efficiency in each particle , size range= weight of captured sand on each sieve x 100 weight of feed sand on each sieve , Removal Efficiency down to x microns = weight of captured sand greater than x microns x 100 ' weight of feed sand greater than x microns 19 ' 1 5.5 Verification Procedures ' All the data provided to NJCAT were reviewed to fully understand the capabilities of the Downstream Defender. To verify Hydro International's claim, the Downstream Defender® ' laboratory data were reviewed and compared to the draft NJDEP TSS laboratory testing procedure. Claim: The Hydro International Downstream Defender®, sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 20 gpm/ft3 has been shown to have a 70% solids mass removal efficiency (as per NJDEP treatment efficiency calculation methodology) for F-95 sand with an average influent 1 concentration of 240 mg/l, an average dso particle size of 120 microns and zero initial sediment loading in laboratory studies using simulated storm water. 5.5.1 NJDEP Recommended TSS Laboratory Testing Procedure The NJDEP has prepared a draft TSS laboratory testing procedure (Patel 2003) to help guide ' vendors as they prepare to test their stormwater treatment systems prior to applying for NJCAT verification. The testing procedure has three components: 1. Particle size distribution 2. Full scale laboratory testing requirements 3. Measuring treatment efficiency ' 1. Particle size distribution: The following particle size distribution will be utilized to evaluate a manufactured treatment system (See Table 3) using a natural/commercial soil representing United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) definition of a sandy loam material. This hypothetical distribution was selected as it represents the various particles that would be associated with typical stormwater runoff from a post construction site. 2. Full Scale lab test requirements A. At a minimum, complete a total of 15 test runs including three (3) tests each at a ' constant flow rate of 25, 50, 75, 100, and 125 percent of the treatment flow rate. These tests should be operated with initial sediment loading of 50% of the unit's capture capacity. ' B. The three tests for each treatment flow rate will be conducted for influent concentrations of 100, 200, and 300 mg/L. C. For an online system, complete two tests at the maximum hydraulic operating rate. ' Utilizing clean water, the tests will be operated with initial sediment loading at 50% and 100% of the unit's capture capacity. These tests will be utilized to check the potential for TSS re-suspension and washout. D. The test runs should be conducted at a temperature between 73-79 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or colder. ' 20 1 3. Measuring treatment efficiency A. Calculate the individual removal efficiency for the 15 test runs. ' B. Average the three test runs for each operating rate. C. The average percent removal efficiency will then be multiplied by a specified weight factor(See Table 4) for that particular operating rate. ' D. The results of the 5 numbers will then be summed to obtain the theoretical annual TSS load removal efficiency of the system. Table 3. NJDEP Particle Size Distribution i Particle Size microns Sandy loam ercent by mass 500-1,000 coarse sand 5.0 250-500 medium sand 5.0 100-250fine sand 30.0 ' 50-100 (very fine sand 15.0 2-50 silt 8-50 gm, 25% 2-8 Itm, 15%)* 1-2 (clay) 5.0 ' Notes: 1.Recommended density of particles<_2.65 g/cm3 ' *The 8 pm diameter is the boundary between very fine silt and fine silt according to the definition of American Geophysical Union. The reference for this division/classification is: Lane, E. W., et al. (1947). 'Report of the Subcommittee on Sediment Terminology," Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. , 936-938. Table 4. NJDEP Weight Factors for different Treatment Operating Rates , Treatment Weight factor operating rate 25% .25 t 50% .30 75% .20 100% .15 ' 125% .10 Notes: , Weight factors were based upon the average annual distribution of runoff volumes in New Jersey , and the assumed similarity with the distribution of runoff peaks. This runoff volume distribution was based upon accepted computation methods for small storm hydrology and a statistical analysis of 52 years of daily rainfall data at 92 rainfall gages. 5.5.2 Laboratory Testing Results Hydro International submitted laboratory data that had been obtained prior to the NJDEP test ' protocol development. While the data they submitted was not in accordance with the protocol it 21 , ' was still deemed to be sufficient to determine and verify a laboratory removal claim. The results ' of laboratory studies are shown in Table 5. The NJDEP weighted solids removal efficiency is shown in Table 6. i ' Table 5. Laboratory Testing Results for 4-ft Diameter Downstream Defender® Run Flow Run Feed Surface Volumetric Sand Underflow Total No.1 Rate Time Sand Water Water Loading Mass Removal (gpm) (secs) Masse Loading Loading Rates Recovered Efficiency ' (lbs) Rate Rate' (mg/L) (lbs) (%) m/ft2 m/ft3 1 100 1369 4 7.96 3.98 210.1 3.918 97.95 2 200 821 6 15.92 7.96 262.7 5.583 93.05 3 400 527 8 31.83 15.92 272.9 4.221 52.76 4 500 541 8 39.79 19.89 212.7 3.304 41.30 ' S 600 488 10 1 47.75 1 23.87 1 245.6 1 3.652 1 36.52 6 800 606 12 63.66 31.83 178.0 3.382 28.18 7 900 399 14 71.62 35.81 280.3 3.588 25.63 ' 8 1000 425 14 79.58 39.79 236.9 3.450 24.64 'Test Period: June 18-22,2001 'Sand Type:F-95 ' 'Unit Diameter=4 ft, Surface Area=nr2= 12.6 ft2,where r is the radius of the unit. °Treatment Volume=nr'h=25.1 ft',where r is the radius of the unit,h is the distance between top of sloping part of the benching skirt and the invert of the outlet pipe and is equal to r. ' 'Calculated from the feed sand mass and the feed water volume. 6Calculated from the feed sand mass and the underflow mass recovered. ' Table 6. Weighted Solids Removal Performance ' Percent of Design Loading Rate Removal Weight Factor Weighted Operating Rate m/ft3 Efficienc ' % Efficiency 25% 5 96.55 .25 24.14 ' 50% 10 82.72 .30 24.82 75% 15 57.42 .20 11.48 100% 20 41.17 .15 6.18 125% 25 35.34 .10 3.53 ' Total 70.15% ' 'Linearly interpolated from the two adjacent laboratory data points in Table 5. ' 22 1 The F-95 sand with an average particle size (d50) of 120 microns was used during the laboratory ' tests. The particle size distribution (PSD) of the F-95 sand is shown in Figure 7. Maine DEP U.S.Silica F-95 Sand Removal Confirmation Test Grain Size Distribution of Test Material 100 , 90 w H 80 ' N c 70 `u 60 E c , E 950 q N a 40 u n 30 - ° 20 10 0 ' 0.010 0.100 1.000 PARTICLE SIZE,mm Figure 7. Particle Size Distribution of U.S. Silica F-95 Sand Used in the Laboratory Tests ' The removal efficiency for a particular individual loading rate(Table 6) was linearly interpolated , from the two adjacent points of data (Table 5) obtained from the laboratory tests. The fitting of all the data points with a pre-determined form of function, such as logarithmic or power function, ' did not yield a weighted removal efficiency significantly different from that obtained from the piece-wise linear interpolation (less than 5 % relative difference) and, more importantly, the fitted curves did not approach 100% solids removal at low flow rates. A confirmation test was conducted and witnessed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection on September 20, 2001(Dennis, 2001). Flow for the six runs varied from 611 gpm to ' 644 gpm with a mean of 628 gpm (25 gpm/ft3). Solids contents in the water samples were analyzed using ASTM's Suspended Sediment Concentration method. Inflow concentrations ranged from 190 mg/I to 289.3 mg/I. Outflow concentrations ranged from 17.4 mg/L to 42.1 ' mg/L. Background concentration ranged between 5.3 and 9.3 mg/L. The removal efficiencies indicated by inflow/outflow pairs ranged from 82.1% up to 92.7%, with a mean 86.0%. When adjusted for recycled background concentrations, efficiencies were slightly higher, from 84.6% 0 0 0 to 95.8/o with a mean of 88. /o 9 . It should be noted that the 88. /o 9 removal efficiency at the flow ' rate of 628 gpm is much higher than the 35.35% removal efficiency interpolated from the data points in Table 5. The direct method (the mass balance method, described above) was used in ' producing data in Table 5, whereas the more commonly used indirect method (the influent and effluent sampling method, also described above) was employed in the Maine DEP confirmation 23 ' ' test. The same size unit (4-ft), the same solids materials (F-95 sand), and the same laboratory ' setup were used in both tests. The use of different methods and procedures for evaluating the removal efficiency is expected to be the primary, if not the sole, reason for the large difference. Therefore, the NJDEP weighted removal efficiency most likely would have been higher than ' 70.15%(Table 6) if the indirect method and associated procedure were used. 5.5.3 Size Scaling Only the smallest size (4-ft diameter) of the Downstream Defender® models was tested in the laboratory for performance. There is a need to scale the size up in order for the unit to take a higher treatment flow rate. ' The commonly used scaling factor for design of solids settling basins (clarifiers, sedimentation tanks, etc.) is the surface area, i.e., the flow rate is scaled by length to the power of 2.0. This ' scaling factor of 2.0 was determined based on gravitational settling of discrete particles along the straight path (Peavy et al., 1985). ' However, in the vortex/swirl hydrodynamic separator, solids settling/separation is enhanced by the flow pattern (Field and O'Connor, 1996). As the solids-laden flow swirls around the chamber, the difference in inertia between the settable solids and the water creates a tangential separation (spinoff) between the particle and fluid flow field. Gravity separation also occurs as particles follow the "long path" through the outer and inner swirl. Separation of solids is also assisted by the shear forces and friction losses between the inner and outer swirls and along the ' perimeter wall and the bottom. For hydraulic structures, such as spillways and weirs, where there is a rapidly changing water- surface profile, the two dominant forces are inertia and gravity (Hickox, 1942). Therefore, to obtain similar paths of flow, the Froude numbers (the ratio of gravitational force over inertial force) of the model (the small size unit) and the prototype (the large size unit) are equated. ' Sullivan et al. (1972) did use the same Froude number in their physical model study of solids removal efficiency of the swirl separator, i.e., the treatment flow rate was scaled by length to the power of 2.5. Recently, a study of similarity based on the tracer residence time distribution indicated that scaling by length to the power of 2.85 was the most appropriate (Alkahaddar et al., 2001). Moreover, water detention time is typically calculated using volume of the water in the treatment chamber/tank/basin, i.e., the treatment flow rate is scaled by length to the power of 3.0. Although it is not certain what exactly the scaling factor should be for particle removal in the vortex hydrodynamic separator, it appears the power of 3.0 is more appropriate than the power of 2.0 in the length scaling. Therefore, the scaling by length (radius) to the power of 3 was used to extrapolate performance of the tested size to other sizes of the unit for the Downstream Defender®(Table 7). ' Alternatively, to be on the conservative side, the treatment flow rate could be scaled by the length to the power of 2.5. The formula for the treatment flow rate extrapolation would be Q = 502 (D/4)25, where Q is the flow rate in gpm and D is the diameter of the unit in ft. This 24 1 alternative Froude Law-based scaling would give treatment flow rates that are smaller than the ' volume-based scaled treatment flow rates given in Table 7. ' Table 7. Downstream Defender®Flow Rates for 70 Percent Solids Removal Downstream Defender Diameter(ft) Flow Rate= 20 m/ft' x ar' 4 502 gpm 1.1 cfs 6 1696 gpm 3.8 cfs 8 4020 gpm 9.0 cfs 10 7860 gpm 17.5 cfs 5.6 Re-entrainment Prevention Another important performance issue is the retention efficiency characteristics of various ' separator configurations. Retention efficiency refers to the ability of the device to retain previously captured material. Preventing pollutant washout is particularly important for stormwater applications where pollutants are typically allowed to accumulate over several months between cleanouts. The internal components of the Downstream Defender® provide isolated storage zones for recovered material. In the configurations shown in Figures 2 & 3 the cone shields the separated solids in the sump region thereby reducing the risk of re-entrainment compared with configurations without this arrangement (Faram and Harwood, 2002). Floating material is held between the dip plate and the vessel wall preventing direct communication with the outlet. These features provide significant benefits with regards to the ability of the device to ' retain captured pollutants. The Downstream Defender®'s ability to prevent re-entrainment of previously captured pollutants over its entire flow range was videotaped at Hydro's full-scale testing laboratory. For comparison purposes, the test was repeated with the internal components removed, resulting in pollutant washout. Liverpool John Moores University conducted similar tests on scale models of ' the Downstream Defender®; a Gravity Sedimentation Device (GSD) and a simple vortex separator (SVS). These tests were also videotaped and validate the in-house testing as well as CFD predictions. The Downstream Defender®had a superior ability to retain captured pollutants, preventing washout, compared to the GSD and SVS alternatives. This capability is critical to maintaining treatment levels as pollutants accumulate between cleanouts. 6. Technical Evaluation Analysis 1 6.1 Verification of Performance Claim ' Based on the evaluation of the results from laboratory studies, sufficient data is available to support the Hydro International Claim: The Downstream Defender®, sized at a hydraulic loading ' rate of 20 gpm/ft3 has been shown to have a 70%solids mass removal efficiency (as per NJDEP treatment efficiency calculation methodology) for F-95 sand with an average influent concentration of 240 mg/I, an average d50 particle size of 120 microns and zero initial sediment loading in laboratory studies using simulated storm water. 25 ' 6.2 Limitations ' 6.2.1 Factors Causing Under-Performance ' If the Downstream Defender®is designed and installed correctly, there is minimal possibility of failure. There are no moving parts to bind or break, nor are there parts that are particularly susceptible to wear or corrosion. Lack of maintenance may cause the system to operate at a reduced efficiency, and it is possible that eventually the system will become filled with sediment up to the dip plate. ' 6.2.2 Pollutant Transformation and Release The Downstream Defender® will not increase the net pollutant load to the downstream ' environment. However, pollutants may be transformed within the unit. For example, organic matter may decompose and release nitrogen in the form of nitrogen gas or nitrate. These processes are similar to those in wetlands but probably occur at slower rates in the Downstream Defender® due to the absence of light and mixing by wind,thermal inputs and biological activity. Accumulated sediment should not be lost from the system at or under the design flow rate. 6.2.3 Sensitivity to Heavy Sediment Loading Heavy loads of sediment will increase the needed maintenance frequency. 6.2.4 Mosquitoes Although the Downstream Defender® is a self contained unit, the design does incorporate ' standing water in the lower chamber, which can be a breeding site for mosquitoes. No actual field tests were conducted regarding mosquitoes. However, it appears that the Downstream Defender has advantages over other gravity separators and simple swirl concentrators. The ' Downstream Defender® has a submerged inlet. This will prevent access into the Defender's manhole from the upstream side. The Defender is supplied with frames and covers so there is no access to the Defender's manhole from above. The only access into the Defender is from a ' downstream catch basin inlet - up the storm drain into the "treated" area under the dip plate. If a mosquito were to make the flight, they would have access to surface water, but a much more reduced area compared to other treatment systems due to the floatables lid. 7. Net Environmental Benefit The NJDEP encourages the development of innovative environmental technologies (IET) and has established a performance partnership between their verification/certification process and NJCAT's third party independent technology verification program. The NJDEP, in the IET data ' and technology verification/certification process, will work with any company that can demonstrate a net beneficial effect (NBE) irrespective of the operational status, class or stage of an IET. The NBE is calculated as a mass balance of the IET in terms of its inputs of raw materials, water and energy use and its outputs of air emissions, wastewater discharges, and solid waste residues. Overall the IET should demonstrate a significant reduction of the impacts to the 26 � 1 environment when compared to baseline conditions for the same or equivalent inputs and , outputs. , Once the Downstream Defender®has been verified and granted interim approval use within the State of New Jersey, Hydro International will then proceed to install and monitor systems in the ' field for the purpose of achieving goals set by the Tier II Protocol and final certification. At that time a net environmental benefit evaluation will be completed. However, it should be noted that the Downstream Defender technology requires no input of raw material, has no moving parts, and therefore, uses no water or energy. 8. References and Bibliography t Andoh, R.Y.G., and Smisson, R.P.M. (1994). "High Rate Sedimentation in Hydrodynamic Separators." Proc. of 2nd International Conf. On Hydraulic Modelling Development and ' Application of Physical and Mathematical Models, Stratford, UK, pp. 341 —358. Andoh, R.Y.G., Harper, I., and Hipwell, P.M., (1996). "Meeting the EC Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive with Hydro Swirl-FIoTM Process." Chemical Water and Wastewater Treatment IV, Proceedings of the 7`h Gothenburg Symposium, September 23 —25, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp 241 —250. ' Andoh, R.Y.G. (1998). "Improving Environmental Quality using Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators." Water Quality International, January/February. Andoh, R. Y. G., and Saul, A.J. (2000). "Field Evaluation of Novel Wet-Weather Screening Systems." Proc.WEF Speciality Conf, Collection Systems Wet Weather Pollution Control: ' Looking into Public, Private and Industrial Issues, New York, USA, 7-10 May. Andoh, R. Y. G., Faram, M. G., Stephenson, A. G. and Kane, A. (2001). "A Novel Integrated ' System for Stormwater Management." Novatech: 4th International Conference on Innovative Technologies in Urban Storm Drainage, Lyon, France, June 25-27. Alkhaddar, R. M., Higgins, P. R. and Phipps, D. A. (2000). "Characterisation for in situ disinfection of a hydrodynamic vortex separator (HDVS)." Proceedings of the Is` World ' Congress of the International Water Association, Paris, 3-7 July. Alkhaddar, R. M., Cheong, C. H., Phipps, D. A., Andoh, R., James, A., and Higgins, P. (2001). ' "The Development of a Mathematical Model for the Prediction of the Residence Time Distribution of a Vortex Hydrodynamic Separator."Proceedings ofNovatech 2001: 4`h Int. Conf. , on Innovative Technologies in Urban Drainage, Lyon, France, June 25-27,pp. 835-842. Alkhaddar, R. M., Higgins, P. R., Phipps, D. A., and Andoh, R.Y.G. (2002). "The Experimental ' and Residence Time Distribution Estimation of Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide within a Hydrodynamic Vortex Separator." 91CUD Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA 27 ' Arnett, C. J. and Gurney, P. K. (1998). "High rate solids removal and chemical and non-chemical ' UV disinfection alternatives for treatment of CSO's." Innovation 2000, Conference on Treatment Innovation for the Next Century, Cambridge, UK. ' Averill, D., Mack-Mumford, D., Marsalek, J., Andoh, R. and Weatherbe, D. (1997). "Field Facility for Research and Demonstration of CSO Treatment Technologies." Water Science & Technology, 36 (8-9), 391 —396. ' Boner, M. C., Ghosh, D. R., and Hides, S. P. (1992). "High Rate Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows in Columbus, Georgia." Water Environment Federation, 691h Annual Conf. and ' Exposition,New Orleans, Louisiana, Sep., 20-24. Boner M C , Ghosh D R, Hides S P and Turner B G (1993). "High Rate Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows in Columbus, Georgia." Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on ' Urban Storm Drainage, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada 1671-1676. Deahl, P.J., and Faram, M. G., (2002). "Treatment, Storage and Control of Stormwater in Urban ' Developments." 91CUD conference, Portland, Oregon, USA. Dennis, J. (2001). Hydro International F-95 Sand SSC (TSS) Removal Confirmation Test, September 20, 2001, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed Management, Augusta, ME,November 16. ' Dudley J (1994). "An Evaluation of a Pilot Lamella Settler and the Swirl-F1oTM Separator." Report No. - UC 2356, Water Research Centre, Swindon, UK. ' Dudley J, Mulhall, E and Solomon, S (1994). 'Primary Treatment Processes to Reduce BOD and Suspended Solids — Final Report." Report No. - UM 1458, Common Interest Research Programme Reference U-0816, Water Research Centre, Swindon, UK. ' Faram, M.G. and Andoh, R.Y.G. (1999). "Evaluation and Optimisation of a Novel Self- Cleansing Combined Sewer Overflow Screening System using Computational Fluid Dynamics." ' 8ICUSD Conference, Sydney, Australia, August-September. Faram, M. G., Andoh, R. Y. G. and Smith, B. P. (2000). "Hydro-Jet ScreenTM: A Non-Powered ' Self-Cleansing Screening System for Storm Overflow Screening Applications." Wastewater Treatment: Standards and Technologies to Meet the Challenges of the 21" Century, CIWEM/AETT Millennium Con£, Leeds, UK, 4-6 April, pp 205-212. ' Faram, M. G. and Andoh, R. Y. G., (2000). "Application of Simulation and Predictive Techniques for the Evaluation of Hydrodynamic Separators." Wastewater Treatment: Standards ' and Technologies to Meet the Challenges of the 21" Century, CIWEMJAETT Millennium Conf., Leeds, UK, 4-6 April, pp 223-230. ' 28 Faram, M. G. and Harwood, R., (2002). "A Method for the Numerical Assessment of Sediment ' Interceptors." 3`d International Conference on Sewer Processes & Networks, Paris, France, 15-17 ' April. Field, R. and O'Connor, T. P. (1996). "Swirl Technology: Enhancement of Design, Evaluation, t and Application."Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 8, pp. 741-748. Harwood, R and Saul, A.J. (1996). "CFD and Novel Technology in Combined Sewer Overflow." Proc. 7`h Int. Conf. On Urban Storm Drainage, Hanover, Germany, pp 1025-1030. Harwood, R., (1998). Modelling Combined Sewer Overflow Chambers Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. PhD Thesis, The University of Sheffield, UK. ' Harwood, R. (1999). "The Influence of CSO Chamber Size on Particle Retention Efficiency Predictions." 8ICUSD Conference, Sydney, Australia, August-September. , Harwood, R. (2002). "CSO Modelling Strategies using Computational Fluid Dynamics." 9ICUD Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA. Hedges, P.D., (1993). "The Relationship between Field and Model Studies of an Hydrodynamic Separator Combined Sewer Overflow." Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on ' Urban Storm Drainage,Niagara Falls, Canada. Hedges, P.D., Lockley P. E., and Martin J R, (1992). "A Field Study of an Hydrodynamic ' Separator Combined Sewer Overflow." International Conference on Innovative Technologies in the Domain of Urban Storm Water Drainage,Novatech. Hides, S.P., (1997). "Treatment of Wet Weather Discharges in Columbus, Georgia." 691"Annual ' Meeting of the New York Water Environment Association, New York City, U.S.A, January 26- 27. , Horowitz, A.J. (1991). A Primer on Sediment-Trace Element Chemistry, Second Edition, Lewis Publications, ISBN 0-87371-499-7, USA. ' Hickox, G. H. (1942). "Hydraulic Models" in Handbook of Applied Hydraulics, C. V. Davis, Editor-in-Chief, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,New York and London. ' Okamoto, Y., Konugi, M. and Tsuchiya, H., (2002). "Numerical Simulation of the Performance of a Hydrodynamic Separator." 91CUD conference, Portland, Oregon, USA. , Patel, M. (2003). Draft Total Suspended Solids Laboratory Testing Procedures, dated December 23, 2003,New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Innovative Technology ' and Market Development, Trenton, New Jersey. Peavy, H. S., Rowe, D. R., and Tchobanoglous, G. (1985). Environmental Engineering, ' McGraw-Hill, Inc.,New York,NY. 29 ' 1 ' Pratt, C. (2000). Laboratory Tests on Downstream Defender TM for Hydro International plc, Clevedon, BS21 7RD, May-June, Coventry University, UK. ' Saul, A.J., Ruff, S.J., Walsh, A.M., and Green, M.J. (1993). Laboratory Studies of CSO Performance. WRc Report No. UM 1421, October, UK. Saul, A. J. (1998). "CSO state of the art review: a UK perspective." UDM'98, Fourth Int. Conf. on Developments in Urban Drainage Modelling, September, London, UK. Smith, B. P., and Andoh, R. Y. G. (1997). "New generation of hydrodynamic separators for CSO treatment." Proc. 2nd Int. Conf on the Sewer as a Physical, Chemical and Biological Reactor, Aalborg, Denmark, 25-28 May. ' Smisson, B. (1967). "Design, Construction and Performance of Vortex Overflows." Institute of Civil Engineers. Symposium on Storm Sewage Overflows, London, pp 99—110. ' Southern Water Authority (1989). Egerton Park Stream, An Ecological Study of the Long Term Effects of Stormwater from Hydrodynamic Separators on the Egerton Stream. Sussex Division, UK. Sullivan, R. H., Cohn, M. M., Coomes, J. P., and Smission, B. S. (1972). The Swirl Concentrator ' as a Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator Facility. USEPA-R2-72-008. Sullivan R H , Ure J E, Parkinson F and Zielinski P (1982). Swirl and Helical Bend Pollution Control Devices - Design Manual. EPA - 600/8-82-013. Tyack, J.N., Hedges, P.D., and Smisson, R.P.M. (1992). "The Use of Sewage Settling Velocity Grading in Combined Sewer Overflow Design." NOVATECH 92, International Conference on Innovative Technologies in the Domain of Urban Water Drainage, Lyon (France), November 3- 5. Turner B. G. and Boner M. (1998). "Economics of Wet Weather Water Quality Controls." Proceedings and Workshop Session, Treatment Innovation for the Next Century, INNOVATION 2000, by the European Water Pollution Control Association, Water Environment Federation, ' Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management and Anglian Water, Cambridge, July, UK. ' Turner B. G., Arnett, C.J., and Boner M. (2000). "Performance Testing of Combined Sewer Overflow Control Technologies Demonstrates Chemical and Non-Chemical Disinfection Alternatives and Satisfies EPA CSO Policy." Disinfection 2000: Disinfection of Wastes in the New Millennium, WEF, March 2000,USA. Turner B. G., Arnett, C.J., and Boner M. (2001). "Columbus, Georgia Water Quality Programs." Conference Proceedings, WEFTEC 2001, October, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. I, ' 30 1 1 iroonal stormwater IF S t O r m w a t e r w w w . h y d r o - i n t e r n a t i o n a I . b i z 1 1 1 First Defense° 1 Performance Evaluation 1 1 1 For submission to the Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project (MASTEP) 1 Stormwater Technology Clearinghouse 1 February, 2011 1 1 1 1 1 1 n1ionall r® 's t o r m w a t e r First Defense® Performance Evaluation , Summary Hydro International successfully completed First Defense® laboratory testing to assess washout ' retention and SSC/TSS removal efficiency. Test procedures were based on NJDEP and WI DNR protocols. Performance evaluation included varying flow rates up to 200% of the ' Maximum Treatment Flow Rate (MTFR) and varying influent concentrations using OK-110 silica sand, with 50% pre-loaded sediment sump. Positive removals were achieved for all flows and concentrations, with greater than 70% ' SSC/TSS efficiency based on the NJDEP weighted removal efficiency calculation method. Non- detectable (<4 mg/L) SSC and TSS effluent concentrations and over 90% sediment retention indicated that no detectable washout had occurred. ' These findings indicate that washout would be minimal even with a larger MTFR or a shallower sump design. Alternatively, it is reasonable to expect that finer particle sizes with lower settling ' velocities would be retained and not washed out at the tested flow rates. INLET FLOATABLES STORAGE INLET CHUTE OUTLET ' CHUTE FLOATABLES DRAW-OFF-PORT SEDIMENT ' STORAGE Figure 1: First Defense® - Internal components and flow path ' 1 ©2011 Hydro International Performance Evaluation — First Defense® dro Hy ' International S f orn) v�o I e ' Introduction The First Defense® is an enhanced vortex separator designed to remove floating and settleable pollutants commonly found in stormwater runoff. A key feature of the First Defense is an internal Bypass Chute (Figure 1) that allows treatment without requiring additional flow-diversion structures and prevents scour velocities from re-suspending captured pollutants. The MTFRs ' are 0.7 cfs and 2.2 cfs for the 4-ft and 6-ft diameter models, respectively. Internal weirs are set to ensure all flows up to the MTFRs can be treated without bypass. This laboratory-based test program was conducted to evaluate the overall system performance while accounting for variable inlet concentrations and sediment retention over a wide range of loading rates. Test Objectives ' The First Defense was tested utilizing protocols that met or exceeded the most recent recommendations by testing authorities, including NJDEP and WIDNR. Objectives included: • Determine the MTFR using washout as the limiting factor. • Quantify washout at 125% and 200% of the MTFR by measuring the maximum effluent concentration and maximum allowable reduction in sump load. Determine the Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal efficiency for inlet concentrations of 50 mg/L, 100 mg/L, and 200 mg/L at 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of the MTFR, with the sump filled to 50% of the maximum storage volume. Determine the weighted removal efficiency based on the calculation method described ' in the NJDEP protocol for laboratory testing of hydrodynamic sedimentation devices. • Provide independent witnessing during testing to validate and confirm procedures described and followed in this report. ' • Validate TSS and SSC analytics by outsourcing samples to an independent, state- certified laboratory. In an effort to satisfy regulations that require results reported according to TSS procedures, results of this study included both TSS and SSC analysis. Recent settleable solids performance evaluations are reporting percent removal of SSC with a general consensus that SSC methods can improve the accuracy and repeatability of measurements for samples that have relatively high sediment settling.velocities. ' ©2011 Hydro International Performance Evaluation — First Defense® Page 2 of 8 Hydro International ' s f o r m w a i e r Test System Description , The distribution of the test material, US Silica OK-110, is shown in Figure 2. Approximately 20% of the particles are less than 75 pm with the remaining 80% are between 75 and 150 Nm. ' 100 0 80 c 60 m ar 80% 75-150 microns c_ " 40 Y ' d V a� 20 '....... 0% <75 microns , 0 50 100 150 200 250 , Particle Size µm Figure 2: Test sand particle size gradation (OK-110) ' A full-scale First Defense with 4-ft diameter vortex chamber was tested at Hydro International's state-of-the-art hydraulics laboratory in Portland, ME. Clean water from a 23,000-gallon ' reservoir was pumped using an 8-inch variable Flygt pump at targeted flow rates through a pipe network to the First Defense (see Figure 3). Dosing equipment delivered a slurry of the OK-110 test material to the First Defense. Grab samples were collected at the inlet sampling point and t effluent pipe. Effluent was discharged back into the reservoir. 1 0 2011 Hydro International Performance Evaluation — First Defense® Page 3 of 8 � "ional s ( ormwater ' I Sediment Probe Slurry Mix Bypass Chute p? Effluent Sample Point ' y Outlet Chute Influent Sample Point ' Inlet Chute + A! fi 3 3"Sediment 1 False Bottom t0"Support fi• Figure 3: Cutaway diagram of test setup with false bottom, sediment probe and internal components Washout Test Procedure The sediment storage sump was pre-loaded to 50% maximum storage volume by depositing greater than three inches of OK-110 on a false floor 10 inches from the sump bottom (Figure 3). The sediment depth was measured with a sediment probe at thirteen locations, evenly spaced ' over the sump bottom, and averaged to determine initial sediment depth. Clean water from the reservoir was pumped to the First Defense vortex chamber at the target flow rate of 0.88 cfs for 125% of the MTFR. After the flow had stabilized, water was pumped to the test unit for a period of 15-minutes. At the conclusion of the test period, the sediment depth was re-measured and compared to the initial depth. After determining that greater than 90% of the pre-loaded volume remained in the sump, washout testing using effluent sampling was initiated. The pump was restarted at the target flow rate of 0.88 cfs, and influent and effluent samples were collected after the flow rate had stabilized. For a test period of 25 minutes, influent and effluent samples were collected at five- minute intervals, resulting in six paired samples, which were analyzed for SSC by ASTM D3977 ' Method B and TSS by APHA SM2540D. The test was repeated for the flow rate of 1.4 cfs or 200% of the MTFR. ' A representative from the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center observed all of the tests as an independent witness and reviewed data analysis and quality control procedures of the external laboratory used for sample analysis. ' 0 2011 Hydro International Performance Evaluation— First Defense(D Page 4 of 8 Hy��o I International ' storrnwofer Removal Efficiency Test Procedure ' The sediment storage sump was pre-loaded to 50% maximum storage volume by depositing greater than three inches of the test sand on a false floor 10 inches from the sump bottom. ' Clean water from the reservoir was pumped to the First Defense vortex chamber. The five target flow rates were 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of the MTFR. Background influent and effluent samples were collected to ensure clean water supplied from the reservoir did not ' exceed non-detect concentrations of 4 mg/L for SSC/TSS. A slurry mixture dosing system (see Figure 4) was used to obtain the variable influent concentrations of 50 mg/L, 100 mg/L and 200 mg/L for the target flow rates. The required mass ' of test sand was mixed with clean water in a 60-gallon barrel to form the slurry, which was continually stirred to keep the mixture in suspension. The slurry was pumped at a constant rate from the mixing barrel to a dosing port located upstream of the First Defense using a peristaltic , pump. The first influent sample was collected after displacing three test volumes, or three residence times within the vessel. Four additional influent samples were collected at one- minute intervals. -� Slurry Mixer F Rh 60 Gallon Mixing Barrel Peristaltic Pump ' W4 Figure 4: Slurry Mixture Dosing System ' The first effluent sample was collected one residence time after collection of the first influent ' sample. Four additional effluent samples were collected at the same time interval, for a total of five repeats. The test was repeated for three influent concentrations.at five flow rates, for a total of 150 influent and effluent samples collected for 15 test runs. ' Dosing was ceased after collection of the last effluent sample. Another set of influent and effluent background samples was collected one residence time after the peristaltic pump had ' stopped and sediment was no longer entering the system. The influent and effluent samples were analyzed for SSC by ASTM D3977 Method B and TSS by APHA SM2540D. ©2011 Hydro International Performance Evaluation— First Defense® Page 5 of 8 Mydro rnational stormwoter ' A representative from the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center observed 20% of the tests as an independent witness and reviewed data analysis and quality control procedures of ' the external laboratory used for sample analysis. Twenty percent of the SSC samples for the removal efficiency testing were analyzed by an external laboratory and all TSS samples were analyzed by an external laboratory. ' Washout Test Results and Discussion The ability of the First Defense to retain sediment solids was evaluated in two ways: ' 1. Measure the reduction in the sediment sump level prior to and following testing at operating rates of 125% and 200% of the MTFR with the sump 50% pre-loaded, and 2. Measure the effluent concentrations with the sump 50% pre-loaded with sediment at operating rates 125% and 200% of the MTFR. The goal of the first part of the washout testing was to demonstrate that less than 10% of the sediment was reduced (i.e. show greater than 90% of the sediment was retained). Sediment depths were determined by averaging the depth measurements taken from 13 sampling locations within the sump. Sampling locations were replicated for each flow rate with the intent ' of monitoring changes in depths throughout the sump. Although the initial sediment depth was approximately three inches as measured from the false floor, additional sediment was deposited throughout the test program resulting in sediment depths greater than three inches. However, for both flow rate tests, the difference in average sediment depth prior to and following testing remained the same and all measurements were greater than three inches. The goal of the second part of the test was to demonstrate that effluent concentrations did not exceed 10 mg/L at operating rates of 125% and 200% of the MTFR. As seen in Table 1, at 50% of the sediment capacity, the effluent concentrations were below the analytical detention limit of 4 mg/L for both TSS and SSC for flow rates of 125% and 200% of the MTFR. Table 1: Washout test results for First Defense rr , MTF R Percent of Influent Flow Effluent EMC m /L MTFR cfs SSC TSS 125 0.88 Non detect Non detect 200 1.4 Non detect Non detect Overall, the First Defense met or exceeded the test requirements to show no measurable effluent TSS or SSC concentrations, as well as retaining greater than 90% of the pre-loaded sediment, at both 125% and 200% of the MTFR. ©2011 Hydro International Performance Evaluation — First Defenseg Page 6 of 8 Hydro International ' siormwafe � Removal Efficiency Test Results and Discussion ' Removal efficiency data was based on a total of 150 influent and effluent samples collected from 15 test runs at five target flow rates and three target inlet concentrations. Each test run ' included five influent and effluent samples that were averaged to determine the test run "event mean concentrations' (EMC) and resulting removal efficiencies for SSC and TSS. All tests were run with sediment pre-loaded to 50% of the sump volume.Table 2: First Defense ' . - • % Removal ' Percent Target Target EMC m lL Efficient Test of Flow EMC Influent Effluent ' Run MTFR cfs (m /L) SSC TSS SSC TSS SSC TSS 1 25 0.18 50 43 20 2.7 0 94 100 2 25 0.18 100 103 49 6.2 0 94 100 ' 3 25 0.18 200 216 114 7.8 10 96 91 4 50 0.35 50 55 33 11 6 80 82 5 50 0.35 100 107 52 28 14 743 6 50 0.35 200 232 98 50 29 784]54 0 7 75 0.53 50 47 25 23 11 528 75 0.53 100 105 57 37 26 65 9 75 0.53 200 192 126 81 41 58 67 10 100 0.71 50 62 37 28 15 55 59 ' 11 100 0.71 100 123 67 58 33 53 51 12 100 0.71 200 196 111 107 54 45 51 13 125 0.88 50 39 16 21 13 44 19 ' 14 125 0.88 100 112 50 66 36 41 28 15 125 0.88 200 190 104 99 58 48 44 Note: All TSS samples analyzed by external state-certified laboratory. The results from all SSC and TSS test runs with the sump volume greater than 50%full are shown in Table 2. Target flow rates ranged from 25% of the MTFR (0.18 cfs) to 125% of the MTFR (0.88 cfs) and target influent EMC concentrations ranged from 50 mg/L to 200 mg/L. Consistent with flow-based separation systems, the results indicate that system performance ' was dependent on flow rate, with higher removal efficiencies achieved at lower flow rates. In general, the discrete removal efficiencies for the 15 test runs remained positive for flow rates up to 125% of the MTFR, at which point bypass would be occurring. This demonstrates better ' control over the tested loading rates than conventional gravity-based separators with internal bypass. ©2011 Hydro International Performance Evaluation— First Defense® Page 7 of 8 1 Mydro rnational storrn :va ter ' All samples were included in calculating the removal rates, as there were no observed outliers. Minimal variation was measured between the SSC target influent concentration and the ' measured SSC concentrations. Measured influent TSS concentrations were approximately 50% lower than the target EMC. However, lower TSS measurements are expected for particles having high settling velocities due to the TSS analytical method, and both the TSS influent and effluent measurements were consistent with this trend. As a result, the variation of TSS influent concentration relative to the target EMC did not have a significant effect on removal efficiencies. The annual system performance was calculated using the NJDEP method for weighting removal ' efficiency data. The results in Table 3 show that the First Defense will achieve approximately 70% removal of SSC/TSS based on the NJDEP weighted removal efficiency calculation. ' Table Defense NJ DEP Weighted;- Target NJDEP Average Removal Weighted Removal ' Flow Weight Efficiency Efficient MTFR cfs Factor SSC TSS SSC TSS 25 0.18 0.25 95% 94% 24% 23% ' 50 0.35 0.30 77% 79% 23% 24% 75 0.53 0.20 58% 63% 12% 13% ' 100 0.71 0.15 51% 47% 8% 7% 125 0.88 0.10 44% 32% 4% 3% Treatment Efficient = 71% 70%. Washout Testing Conclusions ' The washout test results showed no measurable washout from the First Defense when 50% of the sump was pre-loaded with OK-110 at flow rates of 125% and 200% of the MTFR. Additionally, washout test results showed sediment retention greater than 90% of the pre-loaded ' sediment for both 125% and 200% of the MTFR. Washout testing results also met the NJDEP protocol requirement of less than 10 mg/L effluent ' concentration for both 125% and 200% of the MTFR. In conclusion, the First Defense met or exceeded the test requirements to show no measurable effluent TSS or SSC levels. This implies that a larger MTFR or a shallower sump is possible. Alternatively, it is reasonable to ' expect that finer particle sizes with lower settling velocities are likely to be retained and not washed out at the tested flow rates. Removal Efficiency Testing Conclusions ' Removal efficiency results from 15 test runs, operating within a flow range of 0.18 — 0.88 cfs showed good correlation between flow rate and removal efficiency for both SSC and TSS. In ' general, removal efficiencies were independent of the inlet concentrations, which ranged from 50 to 200 mg/L. The NJDEP weighted TSS/SSC removal efficiency calculation showed that overall performance was 70% for the First Defense with sediment pre-loaded in the sump to reduce the sump volume by 50%. 0 2011 Hydro International Performance Evaluation — First Defense® Page 8 of 8