DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL …...DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDIX J...

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX J

SURFACE WATER QUALITY June 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner

Highway Project P.I.N. 4390.13

NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements

Monroe County Town of Gates, Town of Greece and

City of Rochester

of 3

To: NYSDOT Region 4 1530 Jefferson Road Rochester, NY 14623

Date: June 11, 2012 From: Mark J. McAnany, PE Project Manager

cc: Kenneth Avery, PE, CFM, D. WRE (Bergmann) James Boggs (Bergmann)

Re: Surface Water Quality

NY 390 /I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements PIN 4390.13

DRAINAGE BASINS

There are four watershed areas identified within the project area: New York State Canal (Canal), #1 Unnamed Tributary to the Erie Canal (T1), Unnamed Tributary to T1 (T1A), and #2 Unnamed Tributary to the Erie Canal (T2). Approximately 8.91 acres of post-construction disturbed impervious area will drain into the Canal, approximately 15.8 acres of post-construction disturbed impervious area will drain into T1 / T1A, and approximately 1.3 acres of post-construction disturbed impervious area will drain into T2. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey Maps for Monroe County were reviewed to determine the types and characteristics of the different soils found in the project area. The soil maps indicate that the project corridor is built on a multitude of soil types, and this includes: Canandaigua, Claverack, Hilton, Lima, Ovid, Riga, and Sun. These soils mostly consist of nearly level to gently sloping, deep, and poorly-drained to moderately well drained soils. Some of these soils are expected to be susceptible to erosion because of the slope and fine grain characteristics. An erosion control plan will be prepared during the final design phase to reduce erosion potential and reduce the rate of runoff during construction. The focus of the plan will be to minimize erosion and insure that the quality and quantity of runoff that reaches downstream surface waters is not substantially altered from existing conditions. All design and mitigation measures would incorporate the requirements of the NYS Department of Transportation Standard Specification for Temporary Soil Erosion and Water Pollution Control and the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Adherence to design standards, inspection and quality control during construction, and periodic cleaning of erosion control features would minimize and mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation. During construction, every reasonable attempt would be made to minimize impacts on the environment. Impacts to water quality during construction would be controlled by temporary soil erosion and water pollution control measures. Practical temporary measures as listed (but not limited to) below will be considered for this project.

• Erosion control methods will be installed prior to construction activities, including access roads. Methods will include but not be limited to silt fences, seeding, rock protection and rolled erosion control products.

• Access roads will be constructed in such a manner as to minimize clearing and grubbing. • Use of a staged soil erosion control plan. • Excavated materials will be disposed of in an approved disposal area outside the 100-year floodplain. • Sediment laden water will be pumped to a de-watering basin and water released downstream will be clear

or clearer than the receiving waters.

our people and our passion in every pro ject

of 3

Permanent measures that would be considered to minimize/control soil erosion and sedimentation include: • Seeding / vegetative cover • Rock / stone lining at outlets • Stormwater Ponds • Dry / Wet Swales STORMWATER ANALYSIS Site disturbance for this redevelopment project would be greater than 1 acre; therefore, a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required for compliance with the NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001). Contained in the project SWPPP document will be the following: erosion and sediment control designs (E&SC); review of stormwater management practices to provide for pollutant removal (water quality controls); review of the reduction in stream channel erosion; application of runoff reduction via green infrastructure techniques; prevention of overbank flooding, and control of extreme flood events (water quantity controls). The project construction phasing and sequencing has not yet been determined, and as a result, the amount of disturbed area open at one time during construction has not been established. The NYS DEC has set regulations for Effluent Limitations for all SPDES permits issued based on Permit No. GP-0-10-001 in New York State. These requirements are provided in Attachment 1. Components of a SWPPP have been generated that include the water quality and quantity requirements in accordance with the NYSDEC Permit No. GP-0-10-001. This report will be provided in full during final design.

For this project, the preliminary E&SC methods include silt fence, drainage inlet protection, pipe inlet/outlet protection, stone protection, and seeding/soil stabilization operations. The water quantity control (Channel Protection Volume (Cpv), Overbank Flood (Qp), and Extreme Storm (Qf)) for the portion of the project that discharges into the Canal will be waived because the Canal is a 5th-Order stream. The water quantity control for the portion of the project that discharges stormwater into the unnamed tributaries to the Erie Canal has also been reviewed in accordance with the NYS Stormwater Design Manual (SMDM). It has been determined that the Cpv is not required for the unnamed tributaries because the 1-year, 24-hour post-construction discharge rates and stream velocities will be less than or equal to pre-construction discharge rates through the use of Water Quality Management Area 7 at a minimum. If it is determined during final design that WQMA 7 cannot be constructed, then another WQMA or a combination of WQMA’s must be constructed with outlet controls that limit peak discharge rates along the unnamed tributaries at or below pre-construction conditions. Otherwise, the Cpv storage volume (2.526 ac-ft) will be required within a management area and released over a 24 hour period. In addition, a downstream analysis of 10-year and 100-year events has revealed that post-construction peak flow rates will be less than a 5% increase over existing conditions, and there are no downstream structures or buildings that are impacted as a result of the project; therefore, both of the Qp and Qf requirements are waived. For water quality control, this analysis uses the disturbed project area to determine the water quality volume calculation, and this includes the assumption of full depth reconstruction along the existing I-390 mainline (both NB and SB directions) from Chili Avenue to Trolley Boulevard north of the Canal, associated interchange ramps, and along Lyell Avenue (NYS Route 31). The re-development standard has been assigned to this project in accordance with Chapter 9 of the SMDM, and a preliminary review of the project shows that there are physical constraints pertaining to soils and the available head to drain stormwater. Treatment objectives may be achieved

of 3

under the option where the water quality volume calculation uses 100% of new impervious areas within the project limits, and 25% of replaced impervious areas within the project limits. See Attachment 2, Appendix B for water quality volume calculations. Based on these calculations, the water quality volume treatment (and any potential additional treatment) can be accomplished within an approximate 10.7 acres of available surface area using “NYSDEC – standard” stormwater management practices throughout the project limits. These are identified as WQMA #1 through WQMA #28 in Attachment 2, Appendix A. The water quality management areas are limited to dry swales, stormwater ponds and wet swales in the areas shown on Figures P-1 through P-3. It is assumed these areas can be constructed without limitations due to groundwater and soils. An analysis has been performed on the assumed management practice types and the potential Water Quality volume that can be achieved from these practices. See calculations and figures in Attachment 2, Appendix B. It is recommended that groundwater levels/constraints be addressed by taking borings and well monitoring at the proposed WQMA locations. In addition, coordination between the project drainage system designer and the water quality designer is necessary to formulate the best practicable design strategy of maximizing project impervious stormwater drainage to the WQMA’s.

The proposed project drainage for I-390 and associated road reconstruction will utilize the existing drainage patterns, allowing for treatment of the impervious surfaces within the construction limits. Approximately 1.4 acres of impervious area can be directed to WQMA #1 - #3; 3.3 acres of impervious area can be directed towards WQMA #4 - #6; 12.7 acres of impervious area will drain towards WQMA’s #7 - #24; and approximately 2.9 acres of impervious area will drain towards WQMA’s #25 - #28.

ATTACHMENT 1 – NYSDEC Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs)

our people and our passion i n ev ery p ro ject

750-1.10 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS IN ISSUED SPDES PERMITS

(a) In the application of effluent limitations, water quality standards, and other applicable requirements, pursuant to this Part, the department may specify daily average, monthly average, 7 day average, annual average, twelve month rolling average, peak hourly, annual maximum, instantaneous maximum and daily maximum quantitative limitations for the level of pollutants in the authorized discharge in terms of weight or, as in the case of flow, pH, temperature, and for any other pollutants not appropriately expressed by weight, in other appropriate terms. The department may, in addition to or in lieu of the specification of daily quantitative limitations by weight or by other terms, specify other limitations, such as average or maximum concentration limits, on the pollutants in the authorized discharge.

(b) Any point source, the construction of which is commenced after October 18, 1972, and which is so constructed or physically modified, provided the cost of such modification exceeds 50 percent of the initial capital costs of the facility or new source which meets the applicable promulgated new source performance standards before the commencement of the discharge, to meet all applicable standards of performance set forth in the point source SPDES permit and fact sheet shall not be subject to a more stringent technology based standard of performance (under Section 301(b)(2) of the Act) requiring the construction of additional treatment facilities during a 10-year period beginning on the date of completion of such construction or during the period of depreciation or amortization of such facility for the purposes of section 167 or 169 (or both) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, whichever period ends first; provided, however, that if the operation of such source causes or contributes to any contravention of any State water quality standard the department shall require that abatement action be taken by the permittee and modify the permit pursuant to section 750-1.18 of this Part.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Part, when effluent limitations are established they must be at least as stringent as the effluent limitations previously required unless the department determines that an exception is warranted because the circumstances on which the previous permit was based have materially and substantially changed since the time the permit was issued and would constitute cause for permit modification. A permit may be modified to contain a less stringent effluent limitation applicable to a pollutant, if:

(1) Material and substantial alterations or additions to the permitted facility occurred after permit issuance, which justify the application of a less stringent effluent limitation;

(2) (i) Information is available, which was not available at the time of permit issuance (other than revised regulations, guidance, or test methods), which would have justified the application of a less stringent effluent limitation at the time of permit issuance; or

(ii) the department determines that technical mistakes or mistaken interpretations of law were made in issuing the permit under this Part;

(3) (i) A less stringent effluent limitation is necessary because of events over which the permitee has no control and the permittee demonstrates that is has thoroughly studied or implemented all feasible alternative means to remedy the situation, and is still unable to meet the limitations; or

(ii) the department reviewed the data supplied by the permittee and is in agreement that no feasible alternatives to remedy the situation exist; provided that

(4) The permittee has received a permit modification under section 301(c), 301(g), 301(h), 301(i), 301(k), 301(n), or 316(a) of the Act (see section 750-1.24 of this Part);

750-1.10 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS IN ISSUED SPDES PERMITS

(5) The permittee has installed the treatment facilities required to meet the effluent limitations in the previous permit and has properly operated and maintained the facilities but has nevertheless been unable to achieve the previous effluent limitations, in which case the limitations in the reviewed, reissued, or modified permit may reflect the level of pollutant control actually achieved (but shall not be less stringent than required by effluent guidelines in effect at the time of permit modification);

(6) The discharge is to non-attainment waters for the limited pollutant and the limit is based on a final or interim TMDL or other wasteload allocation method and the TMDL is set to assure attainment of the water quality standard; or

(7) The limit is for attainment waters for the limited pollutant and based on a final or interim TMDL or other wasteload allocation method and the TMDL is set to assure attainment of the water quality standard and the limit has been subjected to an antidegradation review in accordance with the department's antidegradation policy.

(8) the modifications allowed in paragraphs (6) & (7) of this subdivision shall not apply to any revised waste load allocations or any alternative where the cumulative effect of such revised allocations results in a decrease in the amount of pollutants discharged into the concerned waters, and such revised allocations are not the result of a discharger eliminating or substantially reducing its discharge of pollutants due to complying with the requirements of this chapter or for reasons otherwise unrelated to water quality.

(d) In no event may a permit be modified in accordance with subsection (c) of this section to contain an effluent limitation that is less stringent than required by effluent guidelines, including variances thereto, in effect at the time the permit is modified. In no event may such a permit to discharge into waters be modified in accordance with subsection (c) of this section to contain a less stringent effluent limitation if the implementation of such limitation would result in a violation of a water quality standard or guidance value applicable to such waters as set forth in parts 700-706 et seq.

ATTACHMENT 2 – PROJECT SWPPP COMPONENTS

NY 390/I-490/NYS 31 Interchange Improvements Town of Gates, Monroe County

PIN 4390.13

Draft SWPPP Approach Document June 14, 2012 1

PROJECT WATERSHED INFORMATION

There are four watershed areas identified within the project area: New York State Canal (Canal), #1 Unnamed Tributary to the Erie Canal (T1), Unnamed Tributary to T1 (T1A), and #2 Unnamed Tributary to the Erie Canal (T2). Approximately 12.5 acres of post-construction disturbed impervious area will drain into the Canal, approximately 15.8 acres of post-construction disturbed impervious area will drain into T1 / T1A, and approximately 1.3 acres of post-construction disturbed impervious area will drain into T2.


PIN 4390.13


POST CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

A. Water Quantity Management The water quantity control for the portion of the project that discharges into the Canal will be waived because the Canal is a 5th-Order stream. Section 4.7 of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (SMDM) provides the method of examining stream order identification, and the Canal has been determined to be at least a fifth order stream due to its influence with the Genesee River at the point at which it receives the project stormwater.

The water quantity control for the portion of the project that discharges stormwater into the unnamed tributaries to the Erie Canal has been reviewed in accordance with the SMDM. Channel Protection Volume (Cpv) Cpv is not required for stormwater discharges to T1, T1A, or T2 because this is a re-development project, and the final stormwater designs will result in no changes to the hydrology that increase discharge rate. Even though the project area will include a 6.65-acre impervious area increase in the T1 / T1A drainage area, and a 0.13 acre impervious area increase in the T2 drainage area, the total runoff volume generated from the increased impervious areas during the 1-year 24-hour storm will be captured and throttled down and/or infiltrated in water quality management areas. Water Quality Management Area 7 has been analyzed as a pond with a storage capacity of 2.12 ac-ft, and consists of a drainage area that has 2.06 acres of impervious surface. The outlet structure for the proposed pond is required to be designed with a peak discharge at or below 0.43 cfs. By achieving a 0.43 cfs outlet peak discharge, there will be a net reduction of approximately 0.5 cfs in the post-construction peak discharge, which matches the existing hydrology. See Appendix B for water quantity calculations. It is understood that some of the potential WQMA’s may not be built during final design. Therefore, if WQMA 7 is not constructed as a pond, another WQMA must be constructed to hold and slowly release over 24 hours the channel protection volume of 2.5 ac-ft or be constructed such that the post-construction discharge rates and stream velocities of T1 / T1A and T2 will be less than or equal to pre-construction discharge rates. Overbank Flood (Qp) and Extreme Storm (Qf) Events The Qp and Qf requirements for this project are waived as the result of a downstream analysis. The exemption is approved if both of the following criteria are met: 1) Post-construction peak flow rates increase by less than 5% of the pre-developed

condition for the design storm (e.g., 10-year, 100-year). 2) No downstream structures or buildings are impacted. The peak discharges for Overbank flood and Extreme flood events can be found in attachment 2, Appendix B – Water Quantity / Quality Analysis Data.

The second criteria is met since there are no structures or buildings that can be impacted between the analysis point of the T1 / T1A streams and the confluence with


PIN 4390.13


the Canal, or between the analysis point of the T2 stream and the confluence with the Canal.

B. Water Quality Management

For water quality control, this analysis uses the project disturbed area to approximate the water quality volume calculation, which includes the assumption of full depth reconstruction along portions of the existing I-390 mainline (both NB and SB directions), Lyell Avenue and associated ramps as depicted in the project limits on plan sheets included in Attachment 2. Water Quality volume is based on the percent of impervious cover and the 90% rainfall values for a given area. Water Quality treatment is based on 100% of new impervious areas within the project limits. See Appendix B for water quality volume calculations. Based on a review of these calculations, the required water quality volume treatment can be achieved through multiple water quality management areas throughout the project limits (see Appendix A). The total approximate surface area available for stormwater treatment is 10.7 acres, all of which can be constructed within the highway right-of-way. The water quality management areas are limited to dry swales, stormwater ponds and wet swales in the areas shown on the figures P-1 through P-3. It is assumed these areas can be constructed without limitations due to groundwater and soils. An analysis has been performed on the assumed management practice types and the potential Water Quality volume that can be achieved from these practices. See calculations and figures in Appendix B.

A summary of the project area stormwater within each watershed as it pertains to water quality controls is provided in Table B-1.

Table B-1 – Water Quality Summary

Watershed Existing

Impervious (acres)

Proposed Impervious

Area (acres)

Required Water Quality Volume

(acre-feet)

Potential Water Quality Volume

Treatment (acre-feet)

T1 / T1A 5.84 15.76 0.806 6.160 T2 1.13 1.26 0.028 0.228

CANAL 8.67 12.54 0.418 0.859 Total 15.64 29.56 1.252 7.247

C. Post Construction Stormwater Management Summary

The following tables provide a summary of the Stormwater Management Plan for each watershed within the project.

Table C-1 – Post Construction Stormwater Management Summary – T1 / T1A Area Disturbance 31.53 acres

Water Quality Target Volume 0.806 acre-feet

Channel Protection Volume Waived due to no increase in peak discharge (2.526af)

Overbank Flood Control Waived due to downstream analysis Extreme Flood Control Waived due to downstream analysis


PIN 4390.13


Table C-2 – Post Construction Stormwater Management Summary – T2 Area Disturbance 1.78 acres

Water Quality Target Volume 0.028 acre-feet

Channel Protection Volume Waived due to no increase in peak discharge

Overbank Flood Control Waived due to downstream analysis Extreme Flood Control Waived due to downstream analysis

Table C-3 – Post Construction Stormwater Management Summary – Canal

Area Disturbance 19.65 acres Water Quality Target

Volume 0.418 acre-feet

Channel Bank Volume Waived due to 5th Order Overbank Flood Control Waived due to 5th OrderExtreme Flood Control Waived due to 5th Order

I-390/I-490 Interchange Buffalo Rd to Trolley Blvd Town of Gates and City of Rochester, Monroe County

PIN 4390.13

Draft SWPPP Components April 17, 2012

APPENDICES


PIN 4390.13


APPENDIX A SWPPP WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FIGURES

FUTURE CONTRACT PLANS (provide during final design)

JVankerkhove

Rectangle

aadekoya

Text Box

Impervious Area Draining to WQMA: 1) WQMA #'s 1-3 = 1.40 Acres 2) WQMA #'s 4-6 = 3.34 Acres 3) WQMA #7 = 2.06 Acres

aadekoya

Text Box

Impervious Area Draining to WQMA: 1) WQMA #'s 8-24 = 10.68 Acres 2) WQMA #25 = 1.31 Acres

aadekoya

Text Box

Impervious Area Draining to WQMA: 1) WQMA #'s 26-28 = 1.64 Acres


PIN 4390.13


APPENDIX B

WATER QUANTITY / WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS DATA

(update during final design)

aadekoya

Typewriter

Overall Drainage Area = 0.76 Square Miles = 488 Acres

aadekoya

Typewriter

Drainage Area T2

aadekoya

Polygon

JVankerkhove

Typewriter

Draiange area to Project Discharge

JVankerkhove

Typewriter

Remaining area to drains to Quarry

aadekoya

Stamp

aadekoya

Typewriter

Overall Drainage Area = 1.33 Square Miles = 851.2 Acres

aadekoya

Typewriter

Drainage Area T1 / T1A

Hydrology for I-390/I-490 Interchange Reconstruction ProjectPeak Discharge - TR-55 Graphical Method

SCS Curve numbers were estimated based on land use of 1/4 acre to 1/8 acre lots, for residential and open space in good condition for other greenspace.

Existing - DA-T2.1 Drains to Unnamed Tributary T2 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year Proposed - Drains to Unnamed Tributary T2 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year

% ImperviousCover Area (Ac) Product

WeightedCN

%Impervious

Cover Area Product

WeightedCN

Project Disturbed Area 63.3% 1.8 1.13 70.5% 1.8 1.26Remaining Watershed 30.0% 486.2 145.87 30.0% 486.2 145.87Total 30.1% 488.0 146.99 73.053 48.72 162.94 293.03 30.1% 488.0 147.12 73.057 48.73 162.95 293.04

Existing - DA-T1 & DA-T1A Drains to Tributary T1 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year Proposed - DA-T1 & T1A Drains to Tributary T1 1-Year 10-Year 100-Year

% ImperviousCover Area (Ac) Product

WeightedCN

%Impervious

Cover Area Product

WeightedCN

Project Disturbed Area 28.9% 31.5 9.12 49.1% 31.5 15.48Remaining Watershed 30.0% 819.7 245.90 30.0% 819.7 245.90Total 30.0% 851.2 255.02 76.026 116.31 345.93 585.11 30.7% 851.2 261.38 76.205 116.73 346.89 585.9

Results Pre PostDifference

(cfs)T2 (1-Year, CPv) 48.72 48.73 0.01T2 (10-Year) 162.94 162.95 0.01T2 (100-Year) 293.03 293.04 0.01T1/T1A (1-Year, CPv) 116.31 116.73 0.42T1/T1A (10-Year) 345.93 346.89 0.96T1/T1A (100-Year) 585.11 585.9 0.79

Conclusion:The Input parameters to determine Peak Discharge by the TR-55 method shows a negligible increase in the amount of runoff draining to Tributaries T-1 & T-2The proposed design shall account for storage of the increase of 6.65 Acres of Impervious in WQMA's 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24 for Water Quality.Values shown above are based on the 1, 10 & 100 year rainfall for Monroe County in New York State.

0.28%0.14%

% Difference

0.36%

0.01%0.00%

0.02%

BY DATE PROJ. NO. SHT OF

CKD DATE PROJ. NAME

TITLE:

For the disturbed area draining to T1 / T1A

Formula for calculating the Intial Water Quality Storage Volume (WQv(initial)) = (P) (Rv) (A)

P = 90% Rainfall Event =

A = total disturbed area in acres = acres

NA = New impervious area in acres = acres

RA = Replaced impervious area in acres = acres

I = ((NA+RA)/A)*100 =

Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I) =

WQv(initial) = acre-feet

Formula for calculating the Target Water Quality Storage Volume (WQv(targetl)) = (N)(WQv(initial)) + (0.25)(R)(WQv(initial))

1

JAV 03/19/12 390/490 Reconstruction Project

5.84

AAA 03/15/12 P.I.N. 4390.13 / BA (4353.00) 1

REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME CALCULATION

12

0.85

31.53

9.92

50

0.50

1.116


Total Impervious Area = (NA + RA) = acres

N = (New Impervious Area/Total Impervious Area) =

R = (Replaced Impervious Area/Total Impervious Area) =

WQv(target) = acre-feet

WQv(target) = cubic-feet

0.37

0.806

35,114

1.116

15.76

0.63


CKD DATE PROJ. NAME

TITLE:

For the disturbed area draining to T2






I = ((NA+RA)/A)*100 =

Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I) =



1


AAA 03/15/12

71

1


1.78

0.69

P.I.N. 4390.13 / BA (4353.00)

12

0.85

1.13

0.13

0.087







0.90

0.028

1,235

0.087

1.26

0.10


CKD DATE PROJ. NAME

TITLE:

For the disturbed area draining to T1 / T1A






I = ((NA+RA)/A)*100 =

Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I) =



1


8.67

AAA 03/15/12 P.I.N. 4390.13 / BA (4353.00) 1


12

0.85

19.65

3.87

64

0.62

0.869







0.69

0.418

18,225

0.869

12.54

0.31

Project: 390/490 Interchange Project No. 4390.13Date: 4/17/2012By: AAAChecked: JAVSheet: of

NYS RTE 390/490/NYS RTE 31 Interchange - Water Quality Management Areas

Watershed WQMA*Length ofTreatment (SQFT) (Acres)

ImperviousCatchment

(Acres)

PotentialWater Quality

Treatment(Acre-ft)

1 - DRY 472 7,689 0.18 0.282 - DRY 410 6,100 0.14 0.563 - DRY 400 5,193 0.12 0.564 - DRY 1,048 15,561 0.36 1.275 - DRY 1,018 18,765 0.43 1.146 - DRY 723 9,218 0.21 0.93

7 - POND 11,910 61,537 1.41 2.068 - POND 6,377 32,946 0.76 0.729 - DRY 1,105 11,651 0.27 0.62

10 - WET 2,376 18,412 0.42 0.2411 - DRY 843 28,302 0.65 0.7512 - DRY 528 7,505 0.17 0.3313 - DRY 347 6,647 0.15 0.3314 - DRY 409 8,567 0.20 0.3815 - DRY 506 15,093 0.35 0.3716 - DRY 996 23,240 0.53 1.6017 - DRY 587 15,846 0.36 0.5218 - DRY 269 6,220 0.14 0.3019 - DRY 996 17,306 0.40 0.3920 - DRY 640 18,059 0.41 0.6621 - DRY 977 33,004 0.76 0.9122 - DRY 553 25,542 0.59 0.49

23 - POND 4,274 22,081 0.51 0.7924 - DRY 933 12,442 0.29 1.2825 - DRY 754 10,983 0.25 1.3126 - DRY 761 11,545 0.27 0.8227 - DRY 111 5,045 0.12 0.4428 - DRY 413 10,200 0.23 0.38TOTAL 40,736 464,699 10.7 20.4 7.247

*Ponds and wet swales have conservatively been reduced by a factor of 4 in casethe full size of the pond as designated on the WQMA figures cannot be built

CANAL

T1 / T1A 6.160

0.363

WQMA Characteristics

T2 0.228

2.615

Project: 390/490 Interchange Project No.Date:By:Checked:Sheet: of

TITLE:

DESCRIPTION:Estimated WQMA Treatment

Requirements for Dry Swale Facilities per NYS Stormwater Management Design ManualAssume 4' wide bottom width w/ 3:1 side slopes, 0.5' ponding depth and 2.5' deep filter bed

Requirements for Wet Swale Facilities per NYS Stormwater Management Design ManualAssume a 2' ponding depth and half of the measured area is used for each pond

Requirements for Wet Pond Facilities per NYS Stormwater Management Design ManualAssume a 3' ponding depth and half of the measured area is used for each pond

Dry Swales, Wet Swales and Wet Ponds are possible water quality manage,emt areas that can be used to treatthe required water quality volume for the site.

Dry Swale Typical Section

4390.134/17/2012

AAAJAV

Water Quality Treatment

7'10'

2.5'

Volume of Ponding Area:

7.75 cf / LFVolume of Voids:

V = x = 5sf2.5'4' x 0.5'

13 TYP.

4'

7'

Dry Swale ProvidesV = (7+4)2 x 0.5' = 2.75sf

390/490 Interchange a T1 / T1A Channel ProtectionType II 24-hr 1-Year CPv Rainfall=2.20"390-490 Interchange CPv

Printed 4/18/2012Prepared by VRTHORPage 1HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 03498 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Summary for Subcatchment 2S: T1/T1A Proposed

Runoff = 20.22 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.526 af, Depth> 0.96"

Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrsType II 24-hr 1-Year CPv Rainfall=2.20"

Area (ac) CN Description* 15.770 76 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B* 15.760 98 Impervious

31.530 87 Weighted Average15.770 50.02% Pervious Area15.760 49.98% Impervious Area

Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)50.0 Direct Entry,

Subcatchment 2S: T1/T1A Proposed

Runoff

Hydrograph

Time (hours)20191817161514131211109876543210

Flow

(cf

s)

22212019181716151413121110

9876543210

Type II 24-hr1-Year CPv Rainfall=2.20"Runoff Area=31.530 acRunoff Volume=2.526 afRunoff Depth>0.96"Tc=50.0 minCN=87

20.22 cfs


PIN 4390.13


APPENDIX C

NRCS SOIL MAPS

Buffalo Rd

Lyell Ave

How

ard

Rd

Trolley BlvdEmerson St

Cairn

St

Col

fax

St

Lyell Rd

Dre

xel D

r

Miramar Rd

Ferrano St

Deb

by L

n

Chili Ave

McK

ee R

d

Mat

ilda

St

Jordan Ave

Mercer Ave

Auburn AveB

ru M

ar D

r

Gatewood Ave

Colwick Rd

Varia

n Ln

Eve

lyn

St

Dod

ge S

t

Eug

ene

St

Spencerport Rd Ros

smor

e S

t

Cor

nelia

Dr

Tarw

ood

Dr

Dea

rcop

Dr

Bel

knap

St

Kencrest Dr

Lee

Rd

Elv

ira S

t

Pilot St

Normandale Dr

Land

au D

r

Pol

aris

St

Avan

ti D

r

Nova Ln

Ard

ella

St

Ste

nson

St

Elder StIn

gram

Dr

Ren

ouf D

r

Jay St

Daw

nhav

en D

r

Pla

net S

t

Cre

stw

ood

Blv

d

Adi

rond

ack

St

Tim

pat D

r

Alvanar R

d

Le M

anz

Dr

Bee

chw

ood

Dr

Mor

ncre

st D

r

Mer

ryda

le D

r

Dolman Dr

Bickford St

West Ave

Lisa Ann Dr

Ste

el S

t

W S

t

Fox

Run

Letti

ngto

n A

ve

Dan

iel D

r

Lom

bard

St

Jew

ett S

t

Ham

let Ct

Hed

ge S

t

Har

cour

t Rd

Foxs

hire

Ln

Cheshire Ln

Gat

es S

t

Rad

aric

k D

r

Jennie Ln

Gem

ini C

ir

Person Pl

Che

sire

Ln

Trol

ley

Cir

Castlewood Dr

Vang

uard

Pkw

y

Beec

hcra

ft D

r

Lee

Roa

d E

xt

Lansing Cir

Northmore Ave

Albert St

Westerleigh RdG

lost

er R

d

Col

umbu

s C

ir

Lansing Cir

Albert St

Ca

Ow

LoB

CkB

Mb

LoB

HlB

St

HlB

Ca

CkB

Ud

Ca

Mb

RgB

HlB

Ow

Mb

Mb

St

W

Mb

Ms

HlB

280500

280500

281000

281000

281500

281500

282000

282000

282500

282500

283000

283000

283500

283500

4780

000

4780

000

4780

500

4780

500

4781

000

4781

000

4781

500

4781

500

4782

000

4782

000

4782

500

4782

500

4783

000

4783

000

4783

500

4783

500

4784

000

4784

000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000500Feet

0 300 600 900150Meters

±

43° 10' 41''

77°

39' 4

3''

43° 8' 22''

77°

39' 3

7''

43° 8' 19''

43° 10' 38''77

° 41

' 57'

'77

° 42

' 3''

Map Scale: 1:20,400 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map—Monroe County, New York(390/490)

Natural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesConservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

2/27/2012Page 1 of 3

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI)Area of Interest (AOI)

SoilsSoil Map Units

Special Point FeaturesBlowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line FeaturesGully

Short Steep Slope

Other

Political FeaturesCities

Water FeaturesStreams and Canals

TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Map Scale: 1:20,400 if printed on A size (8.5" × 11") sheet.

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,840.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate mapmeasurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.govCoordinate System: UTM Zone 18N NAD83

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as ofthe version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Monroe County, New YorkSurvey Area Data: Version 9, Dec 20, 2011

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 6/16/2006; 7/7/2006

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines werecompiled and digitized probably differs from the backgroundimagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shiftingof map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map–Monroe County, New York(390/490)

Natural ResourcesConservation Service


2/27/2012Page 2 of 3

Map Unit Legend

Monroe County, New York (NY055)

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

Ca Canandaigua silt loam 48.1 21.0%

CkB Claverack loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes 36.0 15.7%

HlB Hilton loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 24.9 10.8%

LoB Lima and Cazenovia silt loams, limestonesubstratum, 0 to 6 percent slopes

41.1 18.0%

Mb Made land 19.5 8.5%

Ms Muck, shallow 0.6 0.3%

Ow Ovid and Appleton silt loams, limestonesubstratum

40.6 17.7%

RgB Riga silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 4.0 1.8%

St Sun loam, moderately shallow variant 8.2 3.6%

Ud Udorthent, refuse substratum 4.9 2.1%

W Water 1.3 0.6%

Totals for Area of Interest 229.2 100.0%

Soil Map–Monroe County, New York 390/490



2/27/2012Page 3 of 3

Buffalo Rd

Lyell Rd

How

ard

Rd

Lyell Ave

Weg

man

Rd

Lori Ln

Dre

xel D

r

Miramar Rd

Deb

by L

n

Lee

Rd

Bru

Mar

Dr

Gatewood Ave

Colwick Rd

Ezi

o D

r

Rel

lim B

lvd

Spencerport Rd

Varia

n Ln

Bar

ney

Ln

Tarw

ood

Dr

Dea

rcop

Dr

Glen Oaks Dr

Mat

ilda

St

Kencrest D

r

Eve

lyn

St

Elv

ira S

t

Normandale Dr

Sno

wbe

rry

Cre

s

Land

au D

r

App

ian

Dr

Cor

nelia

Dr

Gar

den

Dr

Noe

l Dr

Avan

ti D

r

Eug

ene

St

Nova Ln

Ard

ella

St

Elder St

Ros

smor

e S

t

Daw

nhav

en D

r

And

y Ln

Mar

way

Cir

Bur

ning

Bru

sh D

r

Cre

stw

ood

Blv

d

Mar

kie

Dr

Alvanar R

d

Le M

anz

Dr

Long

Pon

d R

d

Pix

ley

Rd

Pas

aden

a D

r

Lisa Ann Dr

Haz

el B

ark

Run

Gre

en A

cre

Ln

Lech

ase

DrC

rest

Dr

Fox

Run

Abb

y Ln

Bramblewood Ln

Cresthill Dr

Bee

chw

ood

Dr

Tandoi Dr

Rahway Ln

Juliane Dr

Sha

dyw

ood

Dr

Dan

iel D

r

Bai

er D

r

Jane

t Ln

Hed

ge S

t

Ber

mar

Par

k

Har

cour

t Rd

Foxs

hire

Ln

Ger

aldi

ne P

kwy

Silv

er B

irch

Dr

Add

ison

St

Rad

aric

k D

r

Cen

ter L

n Dawson St

Jenn

ie L

n

Gem

ini C

ir

Fareson Rd

Castlewood DrK

aye

Par

k Te

r

Jack

rist C

ir

Beec

hcra

ft D

r

Gre

nvill

e R

d

Col

umbu

s C

ir

Ow

LoB

HlB

Ow

Ca

LoB

CkBCa

CkB

LoB

WfAWfA

HlB

HlB

LoB

Ow

Ud

ApA

Mb

BcB

Mb

ApA

W

278800

278800

279200

279200

279600

279600

280000

280000

280400

280400

280800

280800

281200

281200

281600

281600

282000

282000

282400

282400

282800

282800

4780

800

4780

800

4781

200

4781

200

4781

600

4781

600

4782

000

4782

000

4782

400

4782

400

4782

800

4782

800

0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000Feet

0 500 1,000 1,500250Meters

±

43° 10' 11''

77°

40' 1

6''

43° 8' 43''

77°

40' 1

2''

43° 8' 39''

43° 10' 7''77

° 43

' 14'

'77

° 43

' 18'

'


Soil Map—Monroe County, New York(390/490 Reconstruction DA-T1)



3/20/2012Page 1 of 3



SoilsSoil Map Units


Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot


Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other


Short Steep Slope

Other



TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads









Soil Map–Monroe County, New York(390/490 Reconstruction DA-T1)



3/20/2012Page 2 of 3

Map Unit Legend



ApA Appleton loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.8 0.3%

BcB Benson channery loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 3.0 0.3%





248.5 28.5%


Ow Ovid and Appleton silt loams, limestonesubstratum

207.4 23.8%

Ud Udorthent, refuse substratum 3.7 0.4%

W Water 0.0 0.0%

WfA Wassaic fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 49.1 5.6%


Soil Map–Monroe County, New York 390/490 Reconstruction DA-T1



3/20/2012Page 3 of 3

$

Brooks Ave

Hinchey Rd

How

ard

Rd

Cairn

St

Bue

ll R

d

Chili Ave

Ren

ouf D

r

Westfield S

t

Letti

ngto

n A

ve

Loderdale RdBrooklea Dr

Ingr

am D

r

Old

Bea

han

Rd

Tim

pat D

r

Meadowdale DrM

arilo

u D

r

Sta

nton

St

Airport Rd

Mer

ryda

le D

r

Mor

ncre

st D

r

Ham

let C

t

Dolman Dr

Greenbriar Dr

Arnett Blvd

Lyndale Dr

Beahan Rd

Arrowhead Dr

Ajax Rd

Spr

ucew

ood

LnRoyal Oak Dr

Wal

bert

Dr

Cheshire Ln

Farragut St

Firestone Dr

Elli

s D

r

Wes

thav

en D

r

Inglewood DrRoxborough Rd

Gen

esee

Par

k B

lvd

Ches

ire L

n

Ranch Village Ln

Mareeta Rd

Ste

war

t Dr

Dor

ston

e R

d

Car

olin

e D

r

Airport WayFr

eder

ick

Dr

Jasm

ine

Rd

Elh

am R

d

Airport Rd

CkB

ArB

OnB

HfB

HlB

Mb

Ca

LoB

Mb

Cw

StCoB

CkB

Cw

GaB

SeB

Cu

Pu

CoB

CkB

ArD

LoB

OnC

ApA

St

CkB

Lm

W

280500

280500

280800

280800

281100

281100

281400

281400

281700

281700

282000

282000

282300

282300

282600

282600

282900

282900

283200

283200

283500

283500

283800

283800

4778

700

4778

700

4779

000

4779

000

4779

300

4779

300

4779

600

4779

600

4779

900

4779

900

4780

200

4780

200

4780

500

4780

500

4780

800

4780

800

0 1,000 2,000 3,000500Feet

0 400 800 1,200200Meters

±

43° 8' 58''

77°

39' 3

0''

43° 7' 46''

77°

39' 2

7''

43° 7' 43''

43° 8' 55''77

° 41

' 54'

'77

° 41

' 57'

'


Soil Map—Monroe County, New York(390/490 Reconstruction DA-T2)



3/20/2012Page 1 of 3



SoilsSoil Map Units


Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot


Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other


Short Steep Slope

Other



TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads









Soil Map–Monroe County, New York(390/490 Reconstruction DA-T2)



3/20/2012Page 2 of 3

Map Unit Legend



ApA Appleton loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 3.8 0.7%

ArB Arkport very fine sandy loam, 0 to 6 percentslopes

83.8 14.8%

ArD Arkport very fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percentslopes

2.8 0.5%



CoB Colonie loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 22.2 3.9%

Cu Cosad loamy fine sand 5.1 0.9%

Cw Cut and fill land 26.3 4.7%

GaB Galen very fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 11.1 2.0%

HfB Hilton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 39.5 7.0%


Lm Lamson very fine sandy loam 0.4 0.1%


31.5 5.6%


OnB Ontario loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 46.5 8.2%

OnC Ontario loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 4.3 0.8%

Pu Pits and quarries 4.5 0.8%

SeB Schoharie silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 8.3 1.5%

St Sun loam, moderately shallow variant 10.9 1.9%

W Water 0.0 0.0%


Soil Map–Monroe County, New York 390/490 Reconstruction DA-T2



3/20/2012Page 3 of 3

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL …...DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDIX J...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL …...DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDIX J...