PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT NEWCASTLE FIRE STATION OLD STATE HIGHWAY

Similar documents
Appendix F HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY REPORT TIESLAU CIVIL ENGINEERING

LAKE COUNTY HYDROLOGY DESIGN STANDARDS

E. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Preliminary Drainage Analysis

HYDROLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS. 22 nd Annual Nonpoint Source Pollution Conference Saratoga Springs, NY

Appendix A Stormwater Site Plan Report Short Form

Chapter 6. Hydrology. 6.0 Introduction. 6.1 Design Rainfall

CITY OF CHICO. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) Worksheet for Small Construction Projects. Project Address: Building Permit Number:

City of West Sacramento Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) Worksheet for Small Construction Projects

DIVISION 5 STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA

COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT REVIEW. Spring Lake Park Schools Westwood Middle School st Avenue NE, Spring Lake Park, MN 55432

APPENDIX F RATIONAL METHOD

Earth Dikes and Drainage Swales

PART 3 STORM WATER TECHNICAL MANUAL

Appendix I OFFICE OF THE MORGAN COUNTY SURVEYOR STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL 7/1/2008

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY

Stormwater Erosion Control & Post-Construction Plans (Stormwater Quality Plans)

Applying the Water Quality Volume

Washoe County PLAN SUBMITTAL

STORM DRAINS AND IRRIGATION

Appendix B. Storm Drain System Data

LDS Technical Guidance

APPENDIX J-3. Orcem Stormwater Management and Treatment Facilities Design Summary

APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE REFER TO ENCROACHMENT AND/OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND PLAN COVER SHEET FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND PERMIT NUMBERING

Appendix E.2 Preliminary Hydrology Report

COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT REVIEW Mississippi Dr Coon Rapids, MN SQ FT Residence on 0.64 Acre Lot

2010 California Green Building Standards Code. Residential and Non-Residential Development

RETENTION BASIN EXAMPLE

Appendix B Construction SWPPP Short Form

Hydrology Study. Ascension Heights Subdivision Ascension Drive at Bel Aire Road San Mateo, California (Unincorporated)

EROSION CONTROL AND GRADING PERMIT APPLICATION

Phase II: Proposed (regulated) Impervious in disturbed area (ac) Long Lake Existing Impervious in disturbed area (ac)

Design Handbook. Low Impact Development Best Management Practices

APPENDIX E APPENDIX E ESTIMATING RUNOFF FOR SMALL WATERSHEDS

THE CROSSROADS IN WINCHESTER 4. DRAINAGE PLAN. 4. Drainage Plan. a. Drainage Plan Description

IV.E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

APPENDIX IV. APPROVED METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN (NORTH ORANGE COUNTY)

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART III - MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS Section 105 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND SCOPE 105.1

Preliminary Stormwater Quality Mitigation Report

Appendix B Stormwater Site Plan Submittal Requirements Checklist

Appendix J: The Project Stormwater Control Plan by Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc.

HYDROLOGY STUDY PREPARED FOR: MARKHAM PERRIS LLC 302 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 103 SAN PEDRO, CA (310) FOR THE PROJECT:

APPENDIX E ESTIMATING RUNOFF FROM SMALL WATERSHEDS

Items in this checklist identify the base requirements that are to be provided by the design professional.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY REPORT & LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LID PLAN)

Drainage Analysis. Appendix E

SECTION 11 PART I STORMWATER QUALITY PROTECTION Definitions / Acronyms 11-3 PART 1 CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5) 1.0 Overview

3F. Hydrology and Water Quality

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP) INFEASIBILITY WORKSHEET FOR ON-SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Legal Description Part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Decoria Township

June 2017 C.3 Workshop Sizing Example. Section II.B Sizing Volume-Based Treatment Measures based on the Adapted CASQA Stormwater BMP Handbook Approach

Chapter 7. Street Drainage. 7.0 Introduction. 7.1 Function of Streets in the Drainage System. 7.2 Street Classification

a. Title of Report Example: Final Hydrologic and Hydraulic Drainage Report For Tract #### (or Planning and Zoning Permit ##-###-###)

Typical Local Erosion Control Requirements (Storm Water Management Authority, Inc.)

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS G. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY

HYDROLOGIC-HYDRAULIC STUDY ISABELLA OCEAN RESIDENCES ISLA VERDE, CAROLINA, PR

APPENDIX I. Plan Reviewer Checklist

State Standard. for. Stormwater Detention/Retention

Single Family Residential Construction Erosion/Sediment Control Standards

ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO. A. SECTION ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 1. REVISE Sealed Bid Date/Time/Location paragraph to read as follows:

Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) Stormwater Plan Review Checklist

Dawson County Public Works 25 Justice Way, Suite 2232, Dawsonville, GA (706) x 42228

100-yr Design Runoff (cfs) Basin ID 103b A a B B C Totals

Concrete Waste Management

Stormwater Management Studies PDS Engineering Services Division ES Policy # 3-01

Activity Calculating Property Drainage

ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE ZONED UNINCORPORATED AREAS ARTICLE 1500 OF PUTNAM COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA Page 149 ARTICLE 1500 DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWERS

CITY OF CAMARILLO STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN Demolition or Stockpile Activity Under One Acre

SAMPLE DRAINAGE STATEMENT

Introduction to Storm Sewer Design

Design Example Residential Subdivision

G. HYDROLOGY Existing Conditions

COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT REVIEW th Ave NE Ham Lake, MN 55304

Hydrology Study. For Bella Terrazza Portion of Lot 1, Block 39, Subdivision of S Tract, Rancho El Cajon El Cajon, CA 92021

Concrete Waste Management

HYDROLOGY STUDY LA MIRADA BOULEVARD La Mirada, California

Project: Developer/Designer: Reviewer:

Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference T. M. K. Roeder, P. I. Frazier, R. Szechtman, E. Zhou, T. Huschka, and S. E. Chick, eds.

Building Better Storm Water Quality

STANDARD PLAN FOR MINOR EARTH DISTURBANCES

ENGINEERING REVIEW CHECKLIST City of Mount Clemens

NEW CASTLE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. through. (Name of Municipality) PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION DRAINAGE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL

Section 600 Runoff Table of Contents

Incorporating Restoration Planning and Transportation Controls into the Valley Creek Watershed Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan

Water Resources Management Plan

APPENDIX L Hydrology and Stormwater Pond Analysis

DRAINAGE REPORT. Project Name: PG&E Gas Operations Technical Training Center Winters, CA. Date: February 4, Prepared by: BKF Engineers

Elements of the Storm Water Management Plan. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)

New Administration Building

UPDATED SITE DESIGN NARRATIVE AND CALCULATIONS

BMP 6.4.4: Infiltration Trench

ORDINANCE APPENDIX F STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA

Chapter Introduction. 5.2 Computational Standard Methods HYDROLOGY

Module 10b: Gutter and Inlet Designs and Multiple Design Objectives

Appendix G Preliminary Hydrology Study

SECTION 4 STORM DRAINAGE

2. DEFINITIONS. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Transcription:

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE NEWCASTLE FIRE STATION OLD STATE HIGHWAY PREPARED FOR THE NEWCASTLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT JULY 2014 BY ROSEVILLE DESIGN GROUP, INC. ROSEVILLE DESIGN GROUP, Inc Established 1979 Planning Surveying Architecture Civil Engineering Structural Engineering Values from the Past, Experience for the Present, Preparing for the Future rdg@rosevilledesigngroup.com 8421 Auburn Boulevard Suite 170 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 phone: (916) 910-9345 fax: (916) 910-9479

Contents PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 1 PROCEDURE AND DESIGN CRITERIA... 1 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM... 1 PRE-DEVELOPMENT... 1 POST-DEVELOPMENT... 3 CONCLUSSIONS... 5 STORMWATER QUALITY... 5 Attachments... 1. Pre-development Calculations... 2. Shed Map A... 3. Post-Development Calculations... 4. Shed Map B... 5. Vicinity Map... 6. FEMA Map... 7. Excerpts from Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater Management Manual....

Newcastle Fire Station Preliminary Drainage Report July, 2014 Page 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Newcastle Fire Station is located within half a mile of the existing station in the downtown area of the Town of Newcastle in Placer County, California. The site is located on Old State Hwy at Newcastle Road. The 0.57± acre project is bound by Old State Hwy to the West, Newcastle Road to the south, an industrial parcel owned by Union Pacific Railroad to the north, and Highway 80 to the East. The property quickly drops off in elevation from Old State Hwy and then gently slopes to the south toward an existing 24 inch diameter culvert on Caltrans property. The highest point of elevation that drains on-site is approximately 928 feet MSL and the lowest point of elevation is approximately 901 feet MSL at the entrance to the culvert. Development of the project area will consist of removing approximately 50 trees, filling a portion of the site with engineered soil, grading, construction of the Newcastle Fire Station, and paving of a new parking lot. Roseville Design Group, Inc. (RDG) has had preliminary discussions with Caltrans regarding draining post-development storm water flow into their existing 24 diameter culvert. According to FEMA flood insurance rate maps 06061C0409F the property is located outside of the 500-year flood plain (unshaded Zone X). PROCEDURE AND DESIGN CRITERIA In accordance with Placer County standards, the Project s proposed drainage facilities will be designed as follows: Response times, peak flows, and detention requirements per the Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District s Stormwater management Manual (SWM), version 3, dated February 1990 and October 1994 and 1997 amendments. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM The runoff calculations for both the pre-development and post-development phases and the drainage system design for the post-development phase were performed using the Placer County Stormwater Management Manual dated September 1, 1990 (updated February, 1994). Excerpts of the standards are attached. Return periods have been analyzed for the 10-year and 100-year storm events with Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) type B soils. PRE-DEVELOPMENT The existing terrain is undeveloped with trees of multiple sizes. Ground cover consists of brush, grasses, and blackberry thickets. The site is depressed approximately 20 feet lower than the surrounding area. Only local runoff drains into the site, then meanders to a 24 inch diameter culvert

Newcastle Fire Station Preliminary Drainage Report July, 2014 Page 2 located at the south end of the site. This culvert directs drainage under the off-ramp in a southerly direction along Caltrans right-of-way. Referring to Shed Map A for pre-development flow, the site has been analyzed by dividing it into sub-sheds as follows: Drainage Path 1 : Sub-shed 1 = 0.08 ac Sub-shed 2 = 0.20 ac Sub-shed 3 = 0.86 ac Sub-shed 4 = 0.35 ac Sub-shed 5 = 0.01 ac Sub-shed 6 = 0.07ac Sub-shed 7 = 0.02 ac Sub-shed 8 = 0.01 ac Sub-total = 1.60 ac Drainage Path 2: Sub-shed 9 = 0.04 ac Sub-shed 10 = 0.03 ac Sub-shed 11 = 0.21 ac Sub-total = 0.28 ac Total = 1.88 ac As noted previously, the methodology specified in the Stormwater Management Manual by the Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was used to calculate the flows. Excerpts of the manual are attached at the end of this report. The following equations and values are used for the predevelopment conditions: Overland flow response time, t ro, as follows: Poor grass cover on moderately rough surface (Table 5-5, Page V-10), n = 0.40 Slope and flow length vary per shed area. Equation 5-3 (page V-10) gives the initial response time. Collector Flow time, t r, as follows: Collector swale length, slope, side slope, and contributing areas vary per shed areas Roughness coefficients: n (table 8-1, page VIII-4) = brush (medium to dense brush, summer) = 0.11 Equation 5-4 (page V-10) give the different responses time within each shed areas Sum of Time of Response The addition of the initial and collector response times. Unit Peak Flow Figures 5-3A (pages V-14) give the Unit peak flows using the sum of response times for a 10 year storm event. Infiltration Factor, F i (cfs/ac) Infiltration rate, table 5-3 (page V-6), class B soil open natural maximum available pervious area, grass, fair to good. I = 0.20

Newcastle Fire Station Preliminary Drainage Report July, 2014 Page 3 Equation 5-5 (page V-13) gives: 1 0.2 1.. F I = 0.31 cfs/ac (A1-8) F I = 0.31 cfs/ac (A9-11).. 0.31 / Peak Flow Equation 5-6 (page V-13) gives the adjusted infiltration peak flow Pervious area 80.9% Assuming an average elevation of 916± feet MSL, the total Pre-Development runoff for this project using the 10 year storm duration: (Watersheds A1-8) =. 1.59 1.23 0.31., See Spreadsheet (Watersheds A9-11) =. 0.28 0.27 0.31., See Spreadsheet POST-DEVELOPMENT Development of the site will include importing approximately 13,500 cubic yards of soil to raise a portion of the site even with the adjacent road. Site improvements include an impervious roof, concrete walk, and asphalt pavement. Drainage flows will be directed through landscaped swales around the site, then directed southward toward the culvert. Referring to Shed Map B, the site is again divided into sub-sheds as follows: Drainage Path 1: Sub-shed 1 = 0.10 ac Sub-shed 2 = 0.20 ac Sub-shed 3 = 0.04 ac Sub-shed 4 = 0.27 ac Sub-shed 5 = 0.19 ac Sub-shed 6 = 0.09 ac Sub-shed 7 = 0.07 ac Sub-shed 8 = 0.23 ac Sub-shed 9 = 0.005 ac Sub-shed 10 = 0.07 ac Sub-shed 11= 0.35 ac Sub-shed 12 = 0.02 ac Sub-shed 13 = 0.01 ac Sub-total = 1.65 ac Drainage Path 2: Sub-shed 14 = 0.04 ac Sub-shed 15 = 0.03 ac Sub-shed 16 = 0.21 ac Sub-total = 0.28 ac Total = 1.93 ac

Newcastle Fire Station Preliminary Drainage Report July, 2014 Page 4 Overland flow response time t ro as follows: Short Grasses (Table 5-5, Page V-10), n = 0.15 Slope and flow length vary per shed area. Equation 5-3 (page V-10) gives the initial response time. Collector Flow time t r as follows: Collector swale length, slope, side slope, and contributing areas vary per shed areas. Roughness coefficients: n (table 8-1, page VIII-3) Earth; Minor Irregularity; Minor Obstructions; Medium Vegetation; Minor Meandering = 0.022 n (table 6-3, page VI-6) Use Interior Plastic Pipe for corrugated metal pipe = 0.022 n (table 8-1, page VIII-4) = brush (medium to dense brush, summer) = 0.11 Equation 5-4 (page V-10) give the different responses time within each shed areas. Sum of Time of Response The addition of the initial and collector response times. Unit Peak Flow Figures 5-3A (pages V-14) give the Unit peak flows using the sum of response times for a 10 year storm event. Infiltration Factor, Fi (cfs/ac) Infiltration rate, table 5-3 (page V-6), class B soil open natural maximum available pervious area, grass, fair to good. I = 0.20 Equation 5-5 (page V-13) gives: 1 0.2 1.. F I = 0.31 cfs/ac (A1-13) F I = 0.31 cfs/ac (A14-16).. 0.31 / Peak Flow Equation 5-6 (page V-13) gives the adjusted infiltration peak flow Pervious area = 56.8% Total Post Development runoff from this project for the 10 year storm duration: (Watersheds A1-13) =. 1.65 0.91 0.31. (Watersheds A14-16) =. 0.28 0.27 0.31., See Spreadsheet, See Spreadsheet

Newcastle Fire Station Preliminary Drainage Report July, 2014 Page 5 CONCLUSSIONS The following is a summary comparison of the pre- and post-development flows: 10-Year Return Period Pre-Development Area Response Time Peak Flow Drainage Path 1 1.60 acres 7.14 min 3.45 cfs Drainage Path 2 0.28 acres 3.18 min 0.64 cfs 4.09 cfs Post-Development Area Response Time Peak Flow Drainage Path 1 1.65 acres 9.17 min 3.37 cfs Drainage Path 2 0.28 acres 3.18 min 0.64 cfs 4.01 cfs 100-Year Return Period Pre-Development Area Response Time Peak Flow Drainage Path 1 1.60 acres 7.14 min 6.65 cfs Drainage Path 2 0.28 acres 3.18 min 1.29 cfs 7.94 cfs Post-Development Area Response Time Peak Flow Drainage Path 1 1.65 acres 9.17 min 6.34 cfs Drainage Path 2 0.28 acres 3.18 min 1.29 cfs 7.63 cfs The post-development flows do not increase compared to the pre-development flows, and actually decrease slightly due to the longer times of concentrations. This indicates that the project will not adversely affect the site s existing hydrology. Although site drainage will be predominantly overland flow, drainage inlets and 8 diameter pipes will be utilized to prevent erosion due to washout at the tops of slope. These pipes will direct water down the slopes to the grassy swale located between the fire station and the freeway off-ramp. Drainage will then meander to the south to the culvert similar to existing conditions. STORMWATER QUALITY In relation to stormwater quality, the project site will be more than adequately protected from potential storrmwater impacts. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized thoroughly throughout the site to mitigate potential impacts from land disturbance activities. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed and implemented on-site. Five minimum control measures (employee training, scheduling & maintenance, good housekeeping, erosion & sediment controls, and inspection & maintenance), as outlined by the State Water Resources Control Board, will be implemented during construction activities, as required. CASQA BMP specifications shall be strictly adhered to for the duration of construction activities.

Newcastle Fire Station Preliminary Drainage Report July, 2014 Page 6 During grading, the primary potential pollutant of concern is anticipated to be wind erosion, particularly during grading activities. Areas of exposed soil have a potential to contribute sediment to stormwater discharges if a rain event occurs. Furthermore, during dry periods, dust control measures involve applying water to the exposed area, which can also produce sediment-laden runoff if not applied properly. Runoff control measures such as fiber rolls and inlet protection will be utilized on-site to avoid an unauthorized discharge due to grading disturbances. Cut and fill activities also have the potential to contribute to erosion and sedimentation if proper techniques are not employed. Disturbed areas will be stabilized through a variety of methods including hydroseeding and fiber rolls. Material storage and equipment staging areas will be protected from potential run-on and covered and secured prior to predicted rain events. Post-development pollutants are anticipated to consist primarily of oily stormwater runoff during the first substantial rain event following the completion of paving activities. Paving activities will add asphalt and concrete materials to the site, which will require additional BMPs to be implemented in order to protect the site from a potential unauthorized stormwater discharge. Runoff control measures including, but not limited to, drain inlet protection and fiber rolls will be utilized to prevent any oils or pollutants from exiting the work area. Steep slopes on the site will also require the use of erosion and sediment control measures such as hydroseeding. Runoff will discharge as sheet flow and channelize into swales leading to existing vegetated areas simulating pre-development condition). At a minimum the following CASQA BMPs shall be implemented on-site. Please refer to the SWPPP for an all-inclusive list of BMPs that will be utilized on-site: EC-4 Hydroseeding; NS-10 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance; SE-5 Fiber Rolls; TC-1 Stabilized Construction Entrance; WE-1 Wind Erosion Control; and WM-1 Material Delivery and Storage The BMP s listed above are included in the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook for New Development and Re-Development, November 2009. Also refer to the SWPPP and the Erosion Control plans for more detail location and description of the BMPs. See the Water Quality appendix for the sizing calculations of the facilities.

EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS

PRE-DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS, 10 Year Period

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Pre-Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A1-8 Area, acres 1.60 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 100 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A1 98 0.226 0.4 5.01 Swale 1, A2 131 0.063 0.11 0.28 0.5 0.90 Swale 2, A3 121 0.013 0.11 1.14 0.5 1.05 Swale 3, A4-A5-A6 19 0.206 0.11 1.22 0.5 0.06 Swale 4, A7-A8 23 0.038 0.11 1.6 0.5 0.12 Total Response Time (minutes) 7.14 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 4.40 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 21.64 Watershed Peak Flow 6.65 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Pre-Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A9-11 Area, acres 0.28 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 100 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A9 26 0.031 0.15 2.28 Swale 1, A10 42 0.500 0.11 0.07 2.0 0.19 Swale 2, A11 104 0.061 0.11 0.28 2.0 0.72 Total Response Time (minutes) 3.18 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 4.90 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 4.91 Watershed Peak Flow 1.29 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

PRE-DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS, 100 Year Period

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Pre-Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A1-8 Area, acres 1.60 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 10 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A1 98 0.226 0.4 5.01 Swale 1, A2 131 0.063 0.11 0.28 0.5 0.90 Swale 2, A3 121 0.013 0.11 1.14 0.5 1.05 Swale 3, A4-A5-A6 19 0.206 0.11 1.22 0.5 0.06 Swale 4, A7-A8 23 0.038 0.11 1.6 0.5 0.12 Total Response Time (minutes) 7.14 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 2.40 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 21.64 Watershed Peak Flow 3.45 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Pre-Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A9-11 Area, acres 0.28 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 10 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A9 26 0.031 0.15 2.28 Swale 1, A10 42 0.500 0.11 0.07 2.0 0.19 Swale 2, A11 104 0.061 0.11 0.28 2.0 0.72 Total Response Time (minutes) 3.18 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 2.60 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 4.91 Watershed Peak Flow 0.64 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

PRE-DEVELOPMENT Map

HWY OLD STATE SHED MAP "A" TAYLOR RD UNION PACIFIC R.R. NEWCASTLE RD NEWCASTLE FIRE STATION 925 925 920 915 910 Swale 1 920 Swale 3 Swale 2 915 INDIAN HILL RD VICINITY MAP Pre-Development Shed Map Newcastle Fire Station County of Placer, California 910 905 Swale 4 910 905 24"D Swale 5 905 920 915 925 920 910 915 910 915 920 905 910 915 920 1" = 50' JULY, 2014 1 of 2 925 925 925 BD PH 13-262

POST-DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS, 10 Year Period

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Post Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A1-13 Area, acres 1.65 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 10 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A1 57 0.010 0.15 5.12 Swale 1, A2 91 0.016 0.057 0.30 14.3 0.97 Swale 2, A3 83 0.025 0.057 0.34 3.0 0.50 Pipe, A3 49 0.050 0.022 0.34 3.0 0.11 Swale 4, A4 107 0.015 0.11 0.61 5.0 1.24 Swale 5, A6 70 0.031 0.11 0.70 4.0 0.57 Swale 6, A5-A7 29 0.031 0.11 0.96 3.0 0.20 Swale 7, A8 71 0.137 0.11 1.19 3.0 0.27 Swale 8, A9-A10-A11 7 0.206 0.11 1.62 1.5 0.02 Swale 9, A12-A13 32 0.038 0.11 1.65 1.5 0.16 Total Response Time (minutes) 9.17 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 2.20 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 49.73 Watershed Peak Flow 3.37 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Post Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A14-16 Area, acres 0.28 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 10 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A14 26 0.031 0.15 2.28 Swale 1, A15 42 0.500 0.11 0.07 2.0 0.19 Swale 2, A16 104 0.061 0.11 0.28 2.0 0.72 Total Response Time (minutes) 3.18 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 2.60 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 4.91 Watershed Peak Flow 0.64 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Post Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A1-3 (Flow at Proposed 8" Culvert, North Side) Area, acres 0.34 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 10 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A1 57 0.010 0.15 5.12 Swale 1, A2 91 0.016 0.057 0.30 14.3 0.97 Swale 2, A3 83 0.025 0.057 0.34 3.0 0.50 Total Response Time (minutes) 6.59 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 2.50 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 53.86 Watershed Peak Flow 0.80 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Post Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A5 (Flow at Proposed 8" Culvert, South Side) Area, acres 0.19 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 10 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, Street 19 0.040 0.11 1.45 Swale 1, Parking Lot 34 0.667 0.013 0.04 78.0 0.07 Swale 2, Parking Lot 56 0.020 0.013 0.19 78.0 0.31 Total Response Time (minutes) 1.83 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 2.60 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 100.00 Watershed Peak Flow 0.49 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

POST-DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS, 100 Year Period

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Post Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A1-13 Area, acres 1.65 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 100 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A1 57 0.010 0.15 5.12 Swale 1, A2 91 0.016 0.057 0.30 14.3 0.97 Swale 2, A3 83 0.025 0.057 0.34 3.0 0.50 Pipe, A3 49 0.050 0.022 0.34 3.0 0.11 Swale 4, A4 107 0.015 0.11 0.61 5.0 1.24 Swale 5, A6 70 0.031 0.11 0.70 4.0 0.57 Swale 6, A5-A7 29 0.031 0.11 0.96 3.0 0.20 Swale 7, A8 71 0.137 0.11 1.19 3.0 0.27 Swale 8, A9-A10-A11 7 0.206 0.11 1.62 1.5 0.02 Swale 9, A12-A13 32 0.038 0.11 1.65 1.5 0.16 Total Response Time (minutes) 9.17 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 4.00 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 49.73 Watershed Peak Flow 6.34 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Post Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A14-16 Area, acres 0.28 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 100 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A14 26 0.031 0.15 2.28 Swale 1, A15 42 0.500 0.11 0.07 2.0 0.19 Swale 2, A16 104 0.061 0.11 0.28 2.0 0.72 Total Response Time (minutes) 3.18 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 4.90 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 4.91 Watershed Peak Flow 1.29 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Post Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A1-3 (Flow at Proposed 8" Culvert, North Side) Area, acres 0.34 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 100 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, A1 57 0.010 0.15 5.12 Swale 1, A2 91 0.016 0.057 0.30 14.3 0.97 Swale 2, A3 83 0.025 0.057 0.34 3.0 0.50 Total Response Time (minutes) 6.59 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 4.50 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 53.86 Watershed Peak Flow 1.48 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Small Watershed Peak Flow Worksheet, Post Development Date July, 2014 Engineer Roseville Design Group, Inc. Project Newcastle Fire Station Watershed A5 (Flow at Proposed 8" Culvert, South Side) Area, acres 0.19 Elevation 916 Return Period, Years 100 Feet Contributing Side Slope Response Length Slope Mannings Area (ft H per Time (feet) (V/H) n (acres) 1 ft V) (minutes) Overland Flow, Street 19 0.040 0.11 1.45 Swale 1, Parking Lot 34 0.667 0.013 0.04 78.0 0.07 Swale 2, Parking Lot 56 0.020 0.013 0.19 78.0 0.31 Total Response Time (minutes) 1.83 Unit Peak Flow (cfs/acre) 4.90 Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) 0.2 Infiltration Factor (cfs/acre) 0.31 Percent Impervious 100.00 Watershed Peak Flow 0.93 Area x Unit Peak Flow - (1-Percent Impervious) * Area x Infiltration Factor

POST-DEVELOPMENT MAP

HWY OLD STATE SHED MAP "B" TAYLOR RD UNION PACIFIC R.R. NEWCASTLE RD NEWCASTLE FIRE STATION INDIAN HILL RD VICINITY MAP Post-Development Shed Map Newcastle Fire Station County of Placer, California BD PH 13-262 1" = 50' JULY, 2014 2 of 2

FEMA MAP

VICINITY MAP

TAYLOR RD I-80 UNION PACIFIC R.R. OLD STATE HWY NEWCASTLE RD I-80 NEWCASTLE FIRE STATION INDIAN HILL RD DRAWN: CHECKED: JOB NO: 13-262 Roseville Design Group Inc. 8421 Auburn Blvd, Suite 170 Citrus Heights, California 95610 Phone: (916) 910-9345 Fax: (916) 910-9479 Email: rdg@rosevilledesigngroup.com SCALE: DATE: SHEET: Comprehensive Services PLANNING SURVEYING BUILDING DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DRAINAGE REPORT VICINITY MAP PLACER COUNTY, CA

EXCERPTS FROM PLACER COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL