HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201900009 Correspondence 2020-06-08 (3)ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, NEI NGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS INC.*3
LETTER OF MAP REVISION APPLICATION
Prepared For:
Red Hill Quarry
Albemarle County, Virginia
(Google Maps)
Prepared By:
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc.
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 172 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT
1. PROJECT NARRATIVE/ MT-2 FORM SUPPLEMENTALS
APPENDICES
A. LOMR APPLICATION SIGNED
B. MT-2 RIVERINE HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULICS FORM FOR TRIBUTARY
C. MT-2 RIVERINE HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULICS FORM FOR NORTH FORK HARDWARE RIVER
D. USDA SOILS MAP
E. CURVE NUMBER CALCULATIONS
F. LAG TIME CALCULATIONS
G. ANNOTATED FIRM
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, NEI GINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS INC.*3 F
PROJECT NARRATIVE/MT-2 FORMS 1 & 2 SUPPLEMENTALS
Project Narrative:
S.L. Williamson is a third -generation asphalt paving and road construction company. It leases
property at the Martin Marietta quarry along Red Hill Road. The Red Hill lease is located on tax
map parcel 88-18, on a 4.4-acre portion of the larger 579-acre parcel (the "Property"), pursuant
to a lease with Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., the owner of the Property that comprises the Red
Hill Quarry. The Property is zoned Rural Areas and Natural Resource Overlay District, and
within Rural Area 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. The property also has areas that are zoned
Flood Hazard Overlay District.
Portions of the property are located within the 100-year floodplain per the FEMA 100-year from
FIRM panel 51003C0405D. Roudabush, Gale & Associates, the project engineers, have
performed a floodplain study using HEC-HMS (Version 4.3) and HEC-RAS (Version 5.0.7) to
determine the extent of the 100-year Floodplain in two areas: the creek located along the lease,
and the Hardware River to the southwest and west of the plant. Updated hydrologic analysis
was performed only on the creek, while updated hydraulic analyses were performed on both the
creek and the Hardware River. In the course of normal business operation, it has become
desirable to gain a more accurate representation of flood hazards. Therefore, more accurate
flood mapping is sought.
Methodology:
The topography used in this study was derived from LiDAR point cloud data from 2016,
provided by the Virginia Geographical Information Network. The hydrologic analysis of the
watershed used a study point at the confluence of the tributary to the North Fork Hardware
River. The design curve number used in this analysis was based on the Runoff Curve Number
Tables provided in the NRCS National Engineering Handbook (NEH) (Part 630, Ch. 9, tables
included in Appendix E), being derived from NRCS soil survey data (Appendix D) depicting
hydrologic soil groups (from the Web Soil Survey website) and the land use classifications
shown in Appendix E. Land use classifications were derived from aerial imagery and cross-
referenced with Albemarle County GIS zoning districts. The NEH method is derived from TR-55
SCS methodology. Certain assumptions were made when considering the curve number for
ground cover types to be more conservative:
When the hydrologic soil group ranged between B and D, D soil type was assumed, and
the corresponding curve number was used in estimation.
The majority of the landscape is rural, and forested, and ground conditions are
considered to be poor.
An impervious area of 5% was assumed.
The weighted curve number generated from this analysis was used to generate maximum
potential retention "S", and Initial Abstraction "la". Initial abstraction is defined in NEH Part 630
Ch. 10, and shown in Appendix F. Per the Watershed Lag Method (NEH Part 630, Ch. 15),
maximum potential retention was considered in determining the time of concentration. Other
characteristics considered in this method include flow length, average watershed land slope,
and lag time. Flow length was determined using the LiDAR generated topography. The
remaining parameters were calculated using the equations shown in Appendix F.
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, NEI NGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS INC.*3
For modeling, two programs were used. HEC-HMS (Version 4.3) was analyzed the defined
watershed in a precipitation/runoff process using the parameters discussed above. From this
information, a peak flow was generated at the study point. HEC-RAS (Version 5.0.7) was used
to evaluate stream network and flood surface elevations, and calculate water surface profiles for
flow in natural channels. The same LiDAR topography was imported into the RAS Mapper to
create a terrain, which was then used to generate reach centerlines and cross -sections.
Centerlines and cross -sections are shown on the certified topographic work map.
HEC-RAS also accounts for energy losses due to friction. These losses are associated with a
specific Manning's friction coefficient. These values were taken from Table 3.1 of the HEC-RAS
User's Manual. While this value is dependent upon land cover changes, the primary land cover
within the vicinity is the same, and even where it differs the same n-value is still applicable and
acceptable. Subsequently, and Manning's value of .04 was used in this analysis.
HEC-RAS analyzes water flow velocities, travel times, flow areas, top widths, and surface
elevations. Since the RAS Mapper includes associated terrain data, these parameters help to
generate an inundation boundary, which is visible on the certified topographic work map. This
inundation boundary has also been applied at scale to the FIRM map (Appendix G), generated
from FEMA's FIRM-ette creation tool online.
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, NEI NGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS INC.*3
SUPPLEMENTALS
Form 2: Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form
Section A.5:
Sediment transport was not evaluated because the 0.94 mil watershed is not alluvial in nature.
Section D.1.b:
LOMR request seeks to establish BFE's. BFE's are neither increased nor decreased, as they are not
currently established.
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.*
NEI ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS 3
LETTER OF MAP REVISION APPLICATION
APPENDIX A
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 172 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901
5/28/2020 https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/onlinelomc/revision/Summary/load.action
LOW Application
R3435034925093
Project Type: LOMR
Fee: $0.00 (LOMR Based Solely on Submission of More Detailed Data)
Project Nameddentifier: Red Hill Quarry Floodplain
State, District or Territory: VA
County: Albemarle County
Community Name: ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Map Panel Number - Effective Date: 51003CO405D - 02/04/2005
CID: 510006
Flooding Source: Unnamed Tributary
Types of Flooding Riverine
Flooding Source: North Fork Hardware River
Types of Flooding: Riverine
The basis for this revision request is: Hydraulic Analysis , Hydrologic Analysis . Improved Methodology/Data
htlps://hazards.fema,gov/femaportal/onlinelomc/revision/Summary/load.action 1/3
5/28/2020
https:l/hazards.fema.govlfemaporta I/onlineiomc/revision/SummaryAoad.action
Zone Designation
FEMA Zone designations affected: A
Revision Structures
The area of revision encompasses the following structures: No Project
Primary Contact Information
Title:
Mr.
First Name:
Alexander
Last Name:
Flint
Address 1:
999 Second St. SE, Ste 201
City:
Charlottesville
State, District or Territory: VA
ZIP Code:
22902
E-mail Address: aflint@roudabush.com
Company/Organization: Roudabush, Gale & Associates
Phone: 434-260-7057
Community Official Information
Title:
First Name:
Last Name:
Professional Title:
Community Name:
Address 1:
City:
State, District or Territory:
ZIP Code:
E-mail Address:
Mr.
Frank
Pohl
P.E., CFM
ALBEMARLE COUNTY.
401 McIntire Rd
Charlottesville
VA
22902
fpohl@albemarle.org
As the CEO or designee responsible for the floodplain management, I hereby acknowledge that we have
received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or conditional LOMR request Based upon the
community's review, we find the completed or proposed project meets or is designed to meet all of the
community floodplain management requirements. including the requirement for when fill is placed in the
regulatory floodway, and that all necessary Federal, State, and local permits have been, or in the case of a
conditional LOMR, will be obtained. For conditional LOMR request, the applicant has documented
Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance to DHS/FEMA prior to DHS/FEMA's review of the Conditional
LOMR application. For LOMR request, I acknowledge that compliance with sections 9 and 10 of the ESA
has been achieved independently of DHS/FEMA's process. For actions authorized, funded, or being
carried out by Federal or State agencies: existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA
are or will be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44 CFR 652(c), and that we have available upon
request by DHS/FEMA, all analyses and documentation used to make this determination.
https:/Ihazards.fems.govMemaportaltonlinelomc!revision/SummaryAoad.action 2/3
5/28/2020 https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/onlinelomc/revision/SummaryAoad.action
Community Official Signature:
Date:
Certification by Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor
This certification is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer,
or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information data, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and
any other supporting information as per NFIP regulations paragraph 65.2(b) and as described in the MT-2
Forms instruction. All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my
knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title
18 of the United States Code, Section 1001.
First Name:
Last Name:
License Number:
Expiration Date:
Company Name:
E-mail Address:
Jim
Taggart
022841
0112022
Roudabush, Gale & Associates
itaggart@roudabush.com
Telephone Number: (434) 260- il3
Fax Number:
Certifier's Signature:
Date: 05/8/2020
https:tflhazards.fema.govKemaportal/onlinelomc/revision/Summaryfload.action 313
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.*
NEI ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS 3
LETTER OF MAP REVISION APPLICATION
APPENDIX B
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 172 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 1660-0016
RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM Expires February28, 2014
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3.5 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not
required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments
regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington VA 20958-3005, Paperwork Reduction Project
(1660-0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your
completed survey to the above address.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AUTHORITY: The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Public Law 90-448, as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law
93-234.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): This information is being collected for the purpose of determining an applicant's eligibility to request changes to National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
ROUTINE USE(S): The information on this form may be disclosed as generally permitted under 5 U.S.0 § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended. This includes using this information as necessary and authorized by the routine uses published in DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1 National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) February 15, 2006, 71 FIR 7990.
DISCLOSURE: The disclosure of information on this form is voluntary; however, failure to provide the information requested may delay or prevent
FEMA from processing a determination regarding a requested change to a NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
Flooding Source: Unnamed Tributary
Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied
A. HYDROLOGY
1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply)
❑ Not revised (skip to section B) ® No existing analysis
❑ Improved data
❑ Alternative methodology ❑ Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) ❑ Changed physical condition of watershed
2. Comparison of Representative 1%-Annual-Chance Discharges
Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) Effective/FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs)
Station 00+32
0.94
1070.4
3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply)
❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records ® Precipitation/Runoff Model 4 Specify Model: HEC-HMS 4.0.3
❑ Regional Regression Equations ❑ Other (please attach description)
Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters), and documentation to support the
new analysis.
4. Review/Approval of Analysis
If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review.
5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology
Is the hydrology for the revised flooding source(s) affected by sediment transport? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your explanation..
FEMA Form 086-0-27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT-2 Form 2 Page 1 of 3
B. HYDRAULICS
1. Reach to be Revised
Description Cross Section Water -Surface Elevations (ft.)
Effective Proposed/Revised
Downstream Limit* 155404 ft upstream of James 16 N/A 574.5
River
Upstream Limit` 159917 ft upstream of James 4529 N/A 581.8
R ivar
Proposed/Revised elevations must tie -into the Effective elevations within 0.5 foot at the downstream and upstream limits of revision.
2. Hvdraulic Method/Model Used: HEC-RAS 5.0.7
3. Pre -Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models*
DHS-FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS, to aid in the review of HEC-2 and HEC-RAS hydraulic models,
respectively. We recommend that you review your HEC-2 and HEC-RAS models with CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS.
4.
Models Submitted
Natural Run
Floodway
Run Datum
Duplicate Effective Model*
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
Corrected Effective Model*
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
HardwareRiver519.prj
100-yr flow.p06
NAVD88
Existing or Pre -Project
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
Conditions Model
Revised or Post -Project
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
Conditions Model
Other - (attach description) File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name:
* For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions.
® Digital Models Submitted? (Required)
C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS
A certified topographic work map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing,
and proposed conditions 1 %-annual-chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1 %- and 0.2%-annual-chance
floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control
indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's
property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the
referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.).
® Digital Mapping (GIS/CADD) Data Submitted (preferred)
Topographic Information: Newest LiDAR data processed into ground surface
Source: Virginia Geographical Information Network LiDAR Date: 2015
Accuracy: 2-ft contours
Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM
must tie-in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM, at the same
scale as the original, annotated to show the boundaries of the revised 1 %-and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie-in with
the boundaries of the effective 1 %-and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area on
revision.
® Annotated FIRM and/or FBFM (Required)
FEMA Form 086-0-27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT-2 Form 2 Page 2 of 3
D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS*
1. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase?
❑ Yes ® No
a. For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations:
The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot compared to pre -project
conditions.
The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with or without BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot
compared to pre -project conditions.
b. Does this LOMR request cause increase in the BFE and/or SFHA compared with the effective BFEs and/or SFHA? ❑ Yes ® No
If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner
notifications can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.
2. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill?
❑ Yes ®No
If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or
proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the
NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(A)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please see the MT-2 instructions for more information.
3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised?
❑ Yes ®No
If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is
required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %-annual-chance floodplains
[studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being established. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision
notification can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.)
4. For CLOMR requests, please submit documentation to FEMA and the community to show that you have complied with Sections 9 and 10 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
For actions authorized, funded, or being carried out by Federal or State agencies, please submit documentation from the agency showing its
compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Please see the MT-2 instructions for more detail.
* Not inclusive of all applicable regulatory requirements. For details, see 44 CFR parts 60 and 65.
FEMA Form 086-0-27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT-2 Form 2 Page 3 of 3
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.*
NEI ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS 3
LETTER OF MAP REVISION APPLICATION
APPENDIX C
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 172 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 1660-0016
RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM Expires February28, 2014
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3.5 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not
required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments
regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington VA 20958-3005, Paperwork Reduction Project
(1660-0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your
completed survey to the above address.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AUTHORITY: The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Public Law 90-448, as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law
93-234.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): This information is being collected for the purpose of determining an applicant's eligibility to request changes to National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
ROUTINE USE(S): The information on this form may be disclosed as generally permitted under 5 U.S.0 § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended. This includes using this information as necessary and authorized by the routine uses published in DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA-1 National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) February 15, 2006, 71 FIR 7990.
DISCLOSURE: The disclosure of information on this form is voluntary; however, failure to provide the information requested may delay or prevent
FEMA from processing a determination regarding a requested change to a NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
Flooding Source: North Fork Hardware River
Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied
A. HYDROLOGY
1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply)
® Not revised (skip to section B) ❑ No existing analysis
❑ Improved data
❑ Alternative methodology ❑ Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) ❑ Changed physical condition of watershed
2. Comparison of Representative 1%-Annual-Chance Discharges
Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) Effective/FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs)
3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply)
❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records ❑ Precipitation/Runoff Model 4 Specify Model:
❑ Regional Regression Equations ❑ Other (please attach description)
Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters), and documentation to support the
new analysis.
4. Review/Approval of Analysis
If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review.
5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology
Is the hydrology for the revised flooding source(s) affected by sediment transport? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your explanation..
FEMA Form 086-0-27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT-2 Form 2 Page 1 of 3
B. HYDRAULICS
1. Reach to be Revised
Description Cross Section Water -Surface Elevations (ft.)
Effective Proposed/Revised
Downstream Limit* 155404 ft upstream of James 16 N/A 574.5
River
Upstream Limit` 159917 ft upstream of James 4529 N/A 581.8
R ivar
Proposed/Revised elevations must tie -into the Effective elevations within 0.5 foot at the downstream and upstream limits of revision.
2. Hydraulic Method/Model Used: HEC-RAS 5.0.7
3. Pre -Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models*
DHS-FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS, to aid in the review of HEC-2 and HEC-RAS hydraulic models,
respectively. We recommend that you review your HEC-2 and HEC-RAS models with CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS.
4.
Models Submitted
Natural Run
Floodway
Run Datum
Duplicate Effective Model*
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
Corrected Effective Model*
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
HardwareRiver519.prj
100-yr flow.p06
NAVD88
Existing or Pre -Project
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
Conditions Model
Revised or Post -Project
File Name:
Plan Name:
File Name:
Plan Name:
Conditions Model
Other - (attach description) File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name:
* For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions.
® Digital Models Submitted? (Required)
C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS
A certified topographic work map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing,
and proposed conditions 1 %-annual-chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1 %- and 0.2%-annual-chance
floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control
indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's
property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the
referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.).
® Digital Mapping (GIS/CADD) Data Submitted (preferred)
Topographic Information: Most recent LiDAR data processed into ground surfa
Source: Virginia Geographical Information Network LiDAR Date: 2015
Accuracy: 2-ft contours
Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM
must tie-in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM, at the same
scale as the original, annotated to show the boundaries of the revised 1 %-and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie-in with
the boundaries of the effective 1 %-and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area on
revision.
® Annotated FIRM and/or FBFM (Required)
FEMA Form 086-0-27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT-2 Form 2 Page 2 of 3
D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS*
1. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase?
❑ Yes ® No
a. For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations:
The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot compared to pre -project
conditions.
The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with or without BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot
compared to pre -project conditions.
b. Does this LOMR request cause increase in the BFE and/or SFHA compared with the effective BFEs and/or SFHA? ❑ Yes ® No
If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner
notifications can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.
2. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill?
❑ Yes ®No
If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or
proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the
NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(A)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please seethe MT-2 instructions for more information.
3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised?
❑ Yes ®No
If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is
required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1 %-annual-chance floodplains
[studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being established. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision
notification can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.)
4. For CLOMR requests, please submit documentation to FEMA and the community to show that you have complied with Sections 9 and 10 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
For actions authorized, funded, or being carried out by Federal or State agencies, please submit documentation from the agency showing its
compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Please see the MT-2 instructions for more detail.
* Not inclusive of all applicable regulatory requirements. For details, see 44 CFR parts 60 and 65.
FEMA Form 086-0-27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81-89 MT-2 Form 2 Page 3 of 3
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.*
NEI ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS 3
LETTER OF MAP REVISION APPLICATION
APPENDIX D
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 172 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901
USDA United States
Department of
Agriculture
N RCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Albemarle
County, Virginia
May 18, 2020
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface........................................................................................................... .
How Soil Surveys Are Made.........................................................................
SoilMap..........................................................................................................
SoilMap.......................................................................................................
Legend.........................................................................................................
MapUnit Legend..........................................................................................
MapUnit Descriptions..................................................................................
Albemarle County, Virginia.......................................................................
4D—Ashe loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes .............................................
4E—Ashe loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes .............................................
1413—Chester loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes ...........................................
14C—Chester loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes .........................................
14D—Chester loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes .......................................
15C—Chester very stony loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes .......................
15D—Chester very stony loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes .....................
15E—Chester very stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes ......................
36C—Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes .....................................
36D—Hayesville loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes ...................................
56B—Meadowville loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes ....................................
56C—Meadowville loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes ..................................
66C—Parker very stony loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes .........................
66D—Parker very stony loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes .......................
66E—Parker very stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes ........................
67D—Parker extremely stony loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes ...............
67E—Parker extremely stony loam, 25 to 60 percent slopes ...............
69—Pits, quarry ....................................................................................
77—Dan River-Codorus complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded...........................................................................................
95—Hatboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded.....
W—Water.............................................................................................
References.................................................................................................... .
.2
..5
.8
..9
10
11
12
14
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
31
33
34
35
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5
Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
0
Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
0
709500
37° 58' 44" N g
I
37° 57 29" N
709500 709800 710100 710400 710700 711000
3
Map Scale: 1:16,300 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet
;A Meters
ik N 0 200 400 800 1200
Feet
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Map projecdon: Web Mercabor Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
709800 710100 710400 710700 711000 711300 711600
711900 712200 712500
711300 711600 711900 712200 712500
M
W
712800
37° 58' 44" N
_g
v
a
I
v
v
37° 57' 29" N
712800
3
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
rwr
Soil Map Unit Lines
0
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
{J
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
.4
Gravelly Spot
0
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
+
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
IV
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
oa
Sodic Spot
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Wet Spot
.A
Other
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey LIRL:
.-
Special Line Features
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Transportation
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
#_F_+
Rails
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
r•,,r
Interstate Highways
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
US Routes
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Major Roads
of the version date(s) listed below.
Local Roads
Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia
Background
Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 17, 2019
Im
Aerial Photography
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 20, 2019—Aug
1. 2019
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
4D
Ashe loam, 15 to 25 percent
2.0
0.3%
slopes
38.6
4E
Ashe loam, 25 to 45 percent
6.4%
slopes
14B
Chester loam, 2 to 7 percent
5.6
0.9%
slopes
14C
Chester loam, 7 to 15 percent
21.2
3.5%
slopes
14D
Chester loam, 15 to 25 percent
90.7
15.0%
slopes
15C
Chester very stony loam, 7 to
1.4
0.2%
15 percent slopes
15D
Chester very stony loam, 15 to
31.0
5.1 %
25 percent slopes
15E
Chester very stony loam, 25 to
27.7
4.6%
45 percent slopes
36C
Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 percent
30.0
5.0%
slopes
36D
Hayesville loam, 15 to 25
26.6
4.4%
percent slopes
56B
Meadowville loam, 2 to 7
13.5
2.2%
percent slopes
56C
Meadowville loam, 7 to 15
7.5
1.3%
percent slopes
66C
Parker very stony loam, 7 to 15
7.0
1.2%
percent slopes
66D
Parker very stony loam, 15 to
7.9
1.3%
25 percent slopes
66E
Parker very stony loam, 25 to
33.8
5.6%
45 percent slopes
67D
Parker extremely stony loam,
24.6
4.1 %
15 to 25 percent slopes
67E
Parker extremely stony loam,
167.9
27.9%
25 to 60 percent slopes
69
Pits, quarry
26.3
4.4%
77
Dan River-Codorus complex, 0
8.6
1.4%
to 2 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
95
Hatboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
11.2
1.9%
slopes, occasionally flooded
W
Water
19.8
3.3%
Totals for Area of Interest
602.7
100.0%
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
Iandform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Albemarle County, Virginia
4D—Ashe loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbcl
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Ashe and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Ashe
Setting
Landform: Mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam
H2 - 10 to 19 inches: loam
H3 - 19 to 24 inches: sandy loam
H4 - 24 to 79 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
4E—Ashe loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbc2
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Ashe and similar soils: 75 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Ashe
Setting
Landform: Mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam
H2 - 10 to 19 inches: loam
H3 - 19 to 24 inches: sandy loam
H4 - 24 to 79 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to Iithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
1413—Chester loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kb80
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Chester and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Chester
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 41 inches: clay loam
H3 - 41 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 7 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
16
Custom Soil Resource Report
14C—Chester loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kb81
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Chester and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Chester
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 41 inches: clay loam
H3 - 41 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 7 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
17
Custom Soil Resource Report
14D—Chester loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kb82
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Chester and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Chester
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 41 inches: clay loam
H3 - 41 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
18
Custom Soil Resource Report
15C—Chester very stony loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kb84
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Chester and similar soils: 75 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Chester
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 41 inches: clay loam
H3 - 41 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 7 to 15 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 7.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
19
Custom Soil Resource Report
15D—Chester very stony loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kb85
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Chester and similar soils: 75 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Chester
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 41 inches: clay loam
H3 - 41 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 7.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
20
Custom Soil Resource Report
15E—Chester very stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kb86
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Chester and similar soils: 75 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Chester
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam
H2 - 7 to 41 inches: clay loam
H3 - 41 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 7.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
21
Custom Soil Resource Report
36C—Hayesville loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2xxy4
Elevation: 360 to 1,540 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Hayesville and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Hayesville
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: loam
Bt - 7 to 58 inches: clay
BC - 58 to 67 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 67 to 83 inches: fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 7 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
22
Custom Soil Resource Report
36D—Hayesville loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2xxyl
Elevation: 360 to 1,540 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Hayesville and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Hayesville
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: loam
Bt - 7 to 58 inches: clay
BC - 58 to 67 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 67 to 83 inches: fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
23
Custom Soil Resource Report
56B—Meadowville loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2xxyc
Elevation: 360 to 1,540 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Meadowville and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Meadowville
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Colluvium derived from igneous rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 14 inches: loam
Bt - 14 to 46 inches: loam
2C - 46 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 7 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 36 to 60 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Delila
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
24
Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform: Drainageways
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Head slope, tread
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: Yes
56C—Meadowville loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbck
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Meadowville and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Meadowville
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Colluvium derived from igneous rock
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 14 inches: loam
H2 - 14 to 46 inches: loam
H3 - 46 to 79 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 7 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 36 to 60 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
25
Custom Soil Resource Report
Hydric soil rating: No
66C—Parker very stony loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbd9
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Parker and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Parker
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 14 inches: extremely stony loam
H2 - 14 to 38 inches: extremely cobbly loam
H3 - 38 to 67 inches: very stony sandy loam
H4 - 67 to 79 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 7 to 15 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 7.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 48 to 80 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
26
Custom Soil Resource Report
66D—Parker very stony loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbdb
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Parker and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Parker
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 14 inches: extremely stony loam
H2 - 14 to 38 inches: extremely cobbly loam
H3 - 38 to 67 inches: very stony sandy loam
H4 - 67 to 79 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 7.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 48 to 80 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
27
Custom Soil Resource Report
66E—Parker very stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbdc
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Parker and similar soils: 75 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Parker
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 14 inches: extremely stony loam
H2 - 14 to 38 inches: extremely cobbly loam
H3 - 38 to 67 inches: very stony sandy loam
H4 - 67 to 79 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 45 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 7.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 48 to 80 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
28
Custom Soil Resource Report
67D—Parker extremely stony loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbdd
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Parker and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Parker
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 14 inches: extremely stony loam
H2 - 14 to 38 inches: extremely cobbly loam
H3 - 38 to 67 inches: very stony sandy loam
H4 - 67 to 79 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 35.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 48 to 80 inches to Iithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Excessively drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
29
Custom Soil Resource Report
67E—Parker extremely stony loam, 25 to 60 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbdf
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Parker and similar soils: 75 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Parker
Setting
Landform: I nterfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 14 inches: extremely stony loam
H2 - 14 to 38 inches: extremely cobbly loam
H3 - 38 to 67 inches: very stony sandy loam
H4 - 67 to 79 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 60 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 35.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 48 to 80 inches to Iithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Excessively drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
30
Custom Soil Resource Report
69—Pits, quarry
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbdk
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Pits: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Pits
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Granite, greenstone, and soapstone
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 79 inches: variable
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s
Hydric soil rating: Unranked
77—Dan River-Codorus complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2v7k0
Elevation: 360 to 1,540 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Dan river, occasionally flooded, and similar soils: 50 percent
Codorus, occasionally flooded, and similar soils: 40 percent
31
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Dan River, Occasionally Flooded
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 12 inches: loam
Bw - 12 to 35 inches: silt loam
C - 35 to 79 inches: silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 36 to 60 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Codorus, Occasionally Flooded
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam
BA - 8 to 16 inches: silt loam
Bw1 - 16 to 26 inches: silty clay loam
Bw2 - 26 to 40 inches: silty clay loam
Bw3 - 40 to 79 inches: silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 8 to 18 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
32
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 11.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Hatboro, occasionally flooded
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
95—Hatboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2v7kb
Elevation: 360 to 1,540 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Hatboro, occasionally flooded, and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Hatboro, Occasionally Flooded
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam
Bg - 10 to 52 inches: silty clay loam
Cg - 52 to 79 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Very high
33
Custom Soil Resource Report
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 0 to 30 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 11.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: kbgk
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost -free period: 195 to 231 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Water: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
34
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www. nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
35
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl 42p2_052290.pdf
36
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.*
NEI ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS 3
LETTER OF MAP REVISION APPLICATION
APPENDIX E
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 172 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901
From Soil Survey
Map Symbol
HSG
Area (%)
4D
B
0.3
4E
B
6.4
14B
B
0.9
14C
B
3.5
14D
B
15
15C
B
0.2
15D
B
5.1
15 E
B
4.6
36C
B
5
36D
B
4.4
56B
A
2.2
56C
A
1.3
66C
A
1.2
66D
A
1.3
66E
A
5.6
67D
A
4.1
67E
A
27.9
69
N/A
4.4
77
D
1.4
95
A
1.9
W
I N/A
13.3
Sums ->
Tributary
Land Use:
Hyd. Cond.
—88% wooded, —3.3% Water, —8.7% Industrial
Poor
A B
Ic
D
45.5 45.1
10
11.4
Overall CN:
59.7635163
Water CN: 98
Ref Files:
Watersheds for
AOI Q:\RGA\TMPROJ\8719 Red Hill Qua rry\ENGINEERING\CALCULATIONS-NARRATIVES\LOMR\Drainage Area.pdf
HSG/Soil Types: Q:\RGA\TMPROJ\8719 Red Hill Qua rry\ENGINEERING\CALCULATIONS-NARRATIVES\TOC Calcs\CN Development\Web Soil Survey 5-18-20.pdf
From Ch 9 of National Engineering Handbook:
Table 9-1 Run-off curve nurnbcrs for agricultural lands V
----------------------------------
Cover description ----------------------------------
--CNforhydrologicsoilgroup--
covertype
treatment'
hydrologic conditions
A
B
C
D
FhBaw
Bare Soil
-- -
77
86
91
94
Crop residue cover (CR)
Poor
76
85
90
EU
Good
74
83
88
90
Rowcrops
Straightrow (SR)
Poor
72
81
88
91
Good
67
78
8.5
89
SR + CR
Poor
71
80
87
90
Good
64
75
82
85
Contoured (
Poor
70
79
84
88
Good
65
75
82
86
C + C R
Poor
69
78
83
87
Good
64
74
81
85
Contoured & terraced (C T)
Poor
66
74
80
82
Good
62
71
78
81
C& T+ C R
Poor
65
73
79
81
Good
61
70
77
80
Small grain
SR
Poor
65
78
84
88
Good
63
75
83
97
SR + CR
Poor
64
75
83
8
Good
60
72
80
84
C
Poor
63
74
82
85
Good
61
73
81
84
C + CR
Poor
62
73
81
84
Good
60
72
80
83
C & T
Poor
61
72
79
82
Good
59
70
78
81
C&T+CR
Poor
60
71
78
81
Good
58
69
77
80
C,loseedcd or broadcast
SR
Poor
66
77
85
80
legumes or rotation
Good
58
72
81
85
meadow
C
Poor
64
75
83
85
Good
55
69
78
83
& T
Poor
63
73
80
83
Good
51
67
76
80
See footaotes -at erad of table.
Table•fl-1 Run-off cures numbers for agricultural lands Continued
---------------------------------- Cover description ---------------------------------- --CNfor hydrologic soil group --
cover type treatments hydrologic condition A B C D
Pasture, grassland, or range- Poor 68 79 86 89
-continuous forage for Fair 49 69 79 84
graaingl Good 39 61 74 80
Meadow -continuous grass,
Good
30
58
71
78
protected from grazing and
generally mowed for dray
Brush-brusl�forls-grgrass
Poor
48
67
77
83
mixture with brush the
Fair
35
56
70
77
major element Y
Good
30 V
48
65
73
Woods, -grass combination
Poor
57
73
82
86
(orchard or tree farm) 71
Fair
43
65
76
82
Good
32
58
72
79
Woods-
Poor
45
66
77
83
Fair
36
60
73
79
Good
30
55
70
77
Farmstead -buildings, lanes, -- - 59 74 82 86
driveways, and surrounding lots
Roads (including right -of -wary):
Dirt - - - 72 82 87 89
Gravel --- 76 85 8D 91
UAveragerunoffcondition, and I.-0-2s.
21 Crap residue cover applies only if residue is on at least 5 percent of the surface throughout the year.
3� Hydrologic condition is based on combinations of factors that affect infAtration and runoff, including (a) density and canopy of vegetative
areas, (b) amount of year-round cover, (c) amount of grass or close -seeded legumes, (d) percent of residue cover an the land surface (goad
�12096), and (e) degree of surface toughness,
Poor. Factors impair infiltration and tend to increase runoff.
Good Factors encourage average and better then average infiltration and tend to decrease runoff.
For conservation tillage poor hydrologic condition, 5 to 20percent of the surface is covered with residue (less than '7M pounds per acre for
raw crops or 300 pounds per acne for small grain) -
For conservation tillage ood hydrologic condition, more than 20 percent of the surface is covered with residue (greater than 750 pounds
per acre for row crops or 3Q0 pounds per acre for small grain)-
V Poor- < M% ground cover or heavily grazed with no mulch -
Fair: 50 to 7 36 ground cover and not heavily grazed -
Good > 76% ground cover and Lightly or only occasionally grazed-
& Poor. < Wk ground cover.
Fair. 50 to 75(kground cover -
Good > 7&X ground cover.
(V If actual curve number is less than 30, use CN = 30 for runoff computation-
71 CNs shown were computed for areas with 50 percent woods and 50 percent grass (pasture) cover, CFther combinations of conditions mars
be computed from the CNs for woods and pasture-
W Poor- Forest litter, small trees, and brush are destroyed by heavy grazing ar regular burning,
Fair. Wools are grazed, but not burned, and some forest Litter covers the soil
Good Woods are protected from gracing, and litter and brush adequately cover the soil-
Table 9-2 Run-off curve numbers for arid and semiarid rangelands
--------------------------------- Coverdescription--------------------------------- ----- Hydrologic soil group -----
covertype hydrologiccondition2� A:1 6 C D
Herbaceous—mix-ture of grass, weeds and low -growing
brush, with brush the minor element
Oak -aspen —mountain brush mixture of oak brush, aspen,
mountain mahogany, bitter brush, maple, and other brush
Pinyon jurdper—pinyon, juniper, or both; grass understory
Sage -grass —sage with an understory of grass
Desert shrub—rnW or plants include saltbush, greasewood,
creosotebush, blackbrush, bursage, paloverde, mesquite,
and cactus
poor
8D
Fair
71
81
89
Good
62
74
85
poor
OG
74
79
Fair
48
57
63
Good
30
41
49
poor
75
85
89
Fair
58
73
80
Good
41
61
71
poor
67
80
85
Fair
51
63
70
Good
35
47
55
poor 63
77
85
88
Fair 55
72
81
86
Good 49
68
79
84
1l Average runoff condition, and 1n = 0.2s_ Fbr range in humid region, use table 9-1_
2J Poor <30)& ground cover Clitter, grass, and brush overstory)_
Fair- 30 to'T0% ground cover_
Good- > 7096 ground cover_
2f Curve numbers forgroup A have been developed only for desert shrub_
Table 9-5 Runoff curve numbers for urban areas �
Cover description Average percent - - CN for hydrologic soil group - -
cver type and hydrologic condition impervious ar+ea-2� A 6 C D
Fully developed urban areas (vegetation established)
Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.) '
Poor condition (grass cover < 50%) 68 79 86 89
Fair condition (grass cover 50% to 75%) 49 69 79 84
Good condition (grass cover > 75%) 30 61 74 80
Impervious areas:
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc.
(excludingright-of-way)
98
98
98
98
Streets and roads:
Paved; curbs and storm sewers (excluding right-of-way)
98
98
98
98
Paved; open ditches (including right -of --way)
83
89
92
98
Gravel (including right -of --way)
76
85
89
91
Dirt (including right-of-way)
72
82
87
89
Western desert urban areas:
Natural desert landscaping (pervious areas only)
63
77
85
88
Artificial desert landscaping (impervious weed barrier,
desert shrub with 1- to 2-inch sand or gravel mulch
and basin borders)
96
96
96
96
Urban districts:
Conunercial and business 85
80
92
94
95
Industrial 72
81
88
91
93
Residential districts by average lot size:
1/8 acre or less (town houses) 65
85
90
92
114 acre 38
61
75
83
87
1f3 acre 30
57
72
81
86
1f2 acre 25
54
70
80
85
1 acre 20
51
6B
79
84
2 acres 12
46
65
77
8Q
Developing urban areas
Newly graded areas (penlous areas only, no vegetation)
77
86
91
94
1l Average runoff condition, and Ia = O-2S-
a The average percent impervious area shown was used to develop the composite CNs- Other
assumptions are as follows: impervious areas are
directly connected to the drainage system, irnpen-ious areas have a C N of 98, and pervious areas are considered equivalent to Open space in
goad hydrologic ccncbtion.
3! CNs shown are equivalentto those ofpasture-Composite CNs may be computed For other combinations olopen space type-
4! Composite CNs For natival desert Bru scap ing should be computed using figures 9-Z or 9�-4 based on the impervious area percentage
(CN=-98) and the pervious areaCN- The pervious area CNs are ass reed equiwalentto desert shrub in poorhydrologic
condition-
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.*
NEI ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS 3
LETTER OF MAP REVISION APPLICATION
APPENDIX F
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 172 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Flowpath
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average Watershed Land Slope, Y
Total Length of All Lines ->
20396
Flowpath Length (ft)
Percentage of Length of All
Lines
Starting
Elevation (ft)
Ending Elevation
(ft)
Flowpath Slope (%)
=I(Slope * % of Length)
10049.4
49.27%
1650
568
10.767
5.30
2954.3
14.48%
1515
652
29.212
4.23
1843.2
9.04%
1020
650
20.074
1.81
1600.2
7.85%
805
655
9.374
0.74
1893.8
9.29%
910
650
13.729
1.27
2055.1
10.08%
992
595
19.318
1.95
100.00%
15.31
L=
0 8 (S + 10.7
1, 00a.s
eq. 1--4a
Applying equation 15, L=0.6T,, yields:
'Cos(S+01-7
T = 1,140Yo_5
Time of Concentration Parameters:
1, ft
10049.4
S, in
6.73
CN, composite
60
Y, %
15.31
L, hr
0.9
L, min
53.8
Tc, hr
1.5
Tc, min
89.6
la, in
1.35
Time of Concentration Calcs
From NEH, Ch 15 Time of Concentration:
Land slope (Y), percent —The average land slope
of the watershed, as used in the lag method, not to be
confused with the slope of the flow path, can be deter-
mined in several different wares:
• by assuming land slope is equal to a weighted
average of soil map unit slopes, determined us-
(eq. 15--4b) ing the local soil survey
where:
L = lag, h
T, = time of concentration, h
= flow length, ft
= average watershed land slope, %
= maximum potential retention, in
1,ODO _ 10
cn'
by using a cliinomet�r for field measurement to
determine an estimated representative average
land slope
by drawing three to four lines on a topographic
map perpendicular to the contour lines and de-
termining the average weighted slope of these
lines
From NEH, Ch 10 Estimation of Direct Runoff from Storm Rainfall
ing Ia is not easy. Thus, Ia was assumed to be a. func-
tion of the rna.rnurn potential retention, S. An em-
pirical relationship bet-ween Ia and S was expressed
as
Ia = 0.
[10-101
ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOCIATES, INC.*
NEI ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS 3
LETTER OF MAP REVISION APPLICATION
APPENDIX G
914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 172 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901
0
0
C>
0
I
W
Z
Q
z
O
1875000 FT
ZONE X
3870000 FT
VIEW LN
ZONE X
MONACAN
TRAIL RD
LN
RD
RED HILL
DEPOT RD
1% FLOODPLAIN
TIE-IN
ZONE A
ZONE
STONEY CREST LN
ZONE X
29
MAP SCALE 1" = 1000'
500 0 1000 20(
300 0 300
PANEL 0405D
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
AND THE INDEPENDENT CITY
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
PANEL 405 OF 575
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
ALBEMARLE COUNTY 510006 0405 D
MOUN>%
Notice to User: The Map Number shown below should be used
�4t when placing map orders; the Community Number shown
JO above should be used on insurance applications for the subject
O community.
?ARTMAP NUMBER
51003CO405D
a - O
EFFECTIVE DATE
1VD S1 FEBRUARY 4, 2005
—: Federal Emergency Management Agency
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On -Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov