HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202200043 Assessment - Environmental 2023-03-17Rivanna Solar Site
Hydrologic & Hydraulic
Assessment
Completed for:
Adapture Renewables, Inc.
Completed By:
oa
SIERRA OVERHEAD ANALYTICS
Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc.
PO Box 1716, Twain Harte, CA 95393
Phone: +1.415.413.7558
DARIN RAY GALLON
Lic. No. 402058736
Darin Galloway, PE
Principal Engineer
dgalloway@sierraoverhead.com
(775) 848-5540
Revision: 1
Date: 03/10/2023
Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc.
PO Box 1716, Twain Harte, CA 95393
Phone: +1.415.413.7558
Introduction
AUJANkLI
soa
On behalf of Adapture Renewables, Inc., Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc. (SOA) has prepared this
hydrology and hydraulic report (report) for the Rivanna Solar Site, located in Albemarle County,
near Charlottesville, Virginia. The approximate center point of the project is located at: 37.967' N,
-78.401' W. This report summarizes the results of the hydrology study which was performed to assess
peak flows and flood risk across the project site. All runoff flows towards the edges of the site, with
no flow entering from outside the study area. For this reason a contributing watershed model was not
necessary. A two-dimensional (2D) hydraulic model developed in HEC-RAS was used to assess on -site
depth, velocity, and scour during a 100-year, 25-year, 10-year, 2-year, and 1-year recurrence interval
storm event.
1 Site Data
1.1 Existing Topography and Drainage
SOA utilized USGS 2017 LiDAR data for the region. The site is hilly, sloping at about 0.1 ft/ft toward
the channels in the center of the site, which flow toward the south. The model domain encompasses
the contributing drainage to the site. The channels that drain the site are tributaries to Buck Island
Creek, which flows from west to east about 0.5 mile south of the site. A FEMA Zone A (100-year
floodplain) area borders the southern side of the site. The remaining site area falls in FEMA Zone X
— outside of the 100-year floodplain. Flood zones are shown in Appendix A, Figure 1.
1.2 Site Soils and Land Use
Soils data was downloaded from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) Gridded SSURGO database. Soils in the model domain are mostly silt
loam. The soils are generally poorly draining and classified as hydrologic soil group D with some small
areas of B. Hydrologic soil types are shown in Appendix A, Figure 2.
The USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD) was used to determine land use for the model
domains. The site is mostly classified as Shrub/Scrub, Grassland/Herbaceous, and Deciduous For-
est.
1.3 Proposed Changes to Land Use and Topography
The area of the site that will be disturbed is shown on Appendix A, Figure 3. This area is outside
of the wetland buffer. This area will be cleared and maintained as a grassed meadow with some road
areas. Twenty-three detention basins with diversions will be added to capture and detain runoff from
the disturbed areas.
1.4 Precipitation
The Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, Chapter 12, Appendix 11-B - 24-Hour Rainfall
Depth Data for Virginia was used to determine precipitation depths for the 10-year, 25-year, and 100-
year 24-hour storm event for Albermarle County (Zone 2). The precipitation depths are 9.0 inches
for the 100-year storm, 6.7 inches for the 25-year storm, 5.5 inches for the 10-year storm, 3.6 for the
2-year storm, and 3 inches for the 1-year storm. These values are slightly higher than the NOAA Atlas
Rivanna H&H 1 Saturday lltb March, 2023 00:33
Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc.
PO Box 1716, Twain Harte, CA 95393
Phone: +1.415.413.7558
AUJANkLI
soa
14 publicly available rainfall data for the site location. These precipitation amounts were temporally
distributed through use of the Type -II, 24-hour storm.
2 Model Setup
2.1 2D Hydraulic Modeling
HEC-RAS was used to develop a 2D hydraulic model for the 100-year, 25-year, 10-year, 2-year, and
1-year 24-hour storm events to model maximum depths and velocities across the site for the pre -
construction and post -construction scenarios. Grid cells of approximately 10 feet by 10 feet were used
for the main stream channel areas and grid cells of 20 feet by 20 feet were used for the remainder
of the model area. Topography was interpolated to the grid cells based on the elevation described
above. A proposed grading surface was used for topography in the post -construction scenario. The
post -construction topography included proposed detention basins, diversions, and culverts. A land
use layer and soil layer were developed using the data described above, and combined to form an
infiltration layer. For the post -construction scenario, the disturbed areas were added as a shapefile
and incorporated into the land use data. Each land use was associated with a Manning's n value as
shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Land Cover Types and Associated Manning's n Values
Land Cover
Manning's n
Deciduous Forest
0.1
Evergreen Forest
0.15
Pasture/Hay
0.045
Mixed Forest
0.12
Developed, Low Intensity
0.08
Developed, Open Space
0.035
Shrub/Scrub
0.05
Developed, Medium Intensity
0.12
Grassland/Herbaceous
0.04
Developed, High Intensity
0.15
Woody Wetlands
0.07
Open Water
0.035
Disturbed area
0.035
Hydrologic soil group data was combined with land use data to assign a CN to each land use/hydrologic
soil group combination, as shown in Table 2. These values are based on the requirements outlined
in the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook. These CN values were used in the infiltration
layer of the 2D model. The average CN for the model domain was 75.45 for the existing conditions
scenario and 76.48 for the post -construction scenario. In the post -construction scenario, the disturbed
areas were also assigned the imperviousness values listed in Table 3. All other areas were assigned an
imperviousness of 0%. All cells were assigned an initial abstraction value of 0.2.
The precipitation events were simulated as spatially constant across the 2D model domain using an
internal precipitation boundary condition. Infiltration was modeled using the SCS Curve Number
method. An external boundary conditions of normal depth where friction slope = 0.01 was added to
Rivanna H&H 2 Saturday lltb March, 2023 00:33
Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc.
PO Box 1716, Twain Harte, CA 95393
Phone: +1.415.413.7558
Table 2: Curve Numbers
AUJANk,
soa
Land Use
Curve Number
Soil Type A Soil Type B Soil Type C Soil Type D Soil Type B/D
Open Water
100
100
100
100
100
Developed, Open Space
49
69
79
84
76.5
Developed, Low Intensity
77
86
91
94
90
Developed, Medium Intensity
89
92
94
95
93.5
Developed, High Intensity
98
98
98
98
98
Deciduous Forest
30
55
70
77
66
Evergreen Forest
30
55
70
77
66
Mixed Forest
30
55
70
77
66
Shrub/Scrub
30
55
70
77
66
Grassland/Herbaceous
30
55
70
77
66
Pasture/Hay
49
69
79
84
76.5
Woody Wetlands
88
89
90
91
90
Disturbed Area
39
61
74
80
70.5
Table 3: Impervious Percents for Disturbed Areas
Area
Percent Impervious
1
1.3
2
6.2
3
4.93
4
2.58
5
1.07
C1
100
C2
100
C3
100
El
100
E2
100
the boundaries edge of the model domain.
Two-dimensional unsteady flow routing was performed in HEC-RAS using the Diffusion Wave Equar
tions, as described in the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual. Model stability was maintained
through variable timestepping dictated by maximal and minimal Courant numbers where the Courant
number (C) _
C, V - AT
AX
(1)
V is the flood wave velocity, AT is the computational time step, AX is the average computational
grid cell size. The maximum Courant number was set to 0.95 and the minimum was set to 0.25. The
small cell size of the computational grid dictated a small timestep, on average around 1 second.
Rivanna H&H 3 Saturday lltb March, 2023 00:33
Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc.
PO Box 1716, Twain Harte, CA 95393
Phone: +1.415.413.7558
3 Results
3.1 2D Hydraulic Model Results
3.1.1 Pre -Construction Existing Conditions
AUSINkLI
soa
Of the total 100-year 24-hour storm precipitation depth of 9 inches, on average 2.98 inches was infil-
trated and 6.02 inches was runoff. Modeled infiltration depths across the model domain ranged from
0.24 to 5.51 inches. HEGRAS output for the 100-year pre -construction maximum depth, velocity, and
scour is shown on Appendix A Figures 4 through 6. Of the total 25-year 24-hour storm precipitation
depth of 6.7 inches, on average 2.74 inches was infiltrated and 3.96 was runoff. Modeled infiltration
depths across the model domain ranged from 0.24 to 4.76 inches. HEGRAS output for the 25-year
pre -construction maximum depth, velocity, and scour is shown on Appendix A Figures 10 through
12. Of the total 10-year 24-hour storm precipitation depth of 5.5 inches, on average 2.55 inches was
infiltrated and 2.95 was runoff. Modeled infiltration depths across the model domain ranged from
0.24 to 4.26 inches. HEGRAS output for the 10-year pre -construction maximum depth, velocity, and
scour is shown on Appendix A Figures 16 through 18. Of the total 2-year 24-hour storm precipitation
depth of 3.6 inches, on average 2.11 inches was infiltrated and 1.49 was runoff. Modeled infiltration
depths across the model domain ranged from 0.23 to 3.16 inches. HEGRAS output for the 2-year
pre -construction maximum depth, velocity, and scour is shown on Appendix A Figures 23 through
24. Of the total 1-year 24-hour storm precipitation depth of 3.0 inches, on average 1.91 inches was
infiltrated and 1.09 was runoff. Modeled infiltration depths across the model domain ranged from 0.23
to 2.73 inches. HEGRAS output for the 1-year pre -construction maximum depth, velocity, and scour
is shown on Appendix A Figures 28 through 30.
Scour depth was calculated using the methods of Chapter 7 of the HEC 18 Scour Manual. Kl, K2,
and K3 were calculated to be 1.1, 1.3, and 1.1 respectively, and a box pile of dimensions a=1/3' and
L=1/2' were used. For simplicity, the angle of attack was assumed to be zero for all piles. The proper
excerpt pages are included in Appendix B.
During all three storm events, flow was limited to the channels on -site. During the 100-year storm
event, flow depth reached approximately 6 feet in the deepest parts of the on -site channels. Water
depth is generally between 2 and 5 feet in the channels, 0.5 to 2 feet in the flooded areas along the
channels, and less than 0.5 feet in other areas of the site. Site flow velocities follow a similar pattern
to flow depth onsite. Flow within the channels sees velocities as high as 11 feet per second, and are
generally between 3 and 7 feet per second. Overland flow is generally between 0 and 3 feet per second.
Scour depth is between 1.0 and 2.25 feet within the channels and less than 1.5 feet in other areas.
During the 25-year storm event, flow depth reached approximately 5 feet in the deepest parts of the
on -site channels. Water depth is generally between 1 and 4 feet in the channels, 0.5 to 2 feet in the
flooded areas along the channels, and less than 0.5 feet in other areas of the site. Flow within the
channels sees velocities as high as 9 feet per second, and are generally between 2 and 5 feet per second.
Overland flow is generally between 0 and 3 feet per second. Scour depth is between 1.0 and 2.0 feet
within the channels and less than 1.0 feet in other areas.
During the 10-year storm event, flow depth reached approximately 4.9 feet in the deepest parts of the
on -site channels. Water depth is generally between 1 and 4 feet in the channels, 0.5 to 1.5 feet in the
flooded areas along the channels, and less than 0.5 feet in other areas of the site. Flow within the
channels sees velocities as high as 8 feet per second, and are generally between 2 and 5 feet per second.
Rivanna H&H 4 Saturday lltb March, 2023 00:33
Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc.
PO Box 1716, Twain Harte, CA 95393
Phone: +1.415.413.7558
AUJANkLI
soa
Overland flow is generally between 0 and 3 feet per second. Scour depth is between 0.75 and 2.0 feet
within the channels and less than 1.0 feet in other areas.
During the 2-year storm event, flow depth reached approximately 4 feet in the deepest parts of the
on -site channels. Water depth is generally between 0.5 and 3 feet in the channels, and less than 0.5
feet in other areas of the site. Flow within the channels sees velocities as high as 6 feet per second,
and are generally between 2 and 4 feet per second. Overland flow is generally between 0 and 3 feet
per second. Scour depth is between 0.5 and 2.0 feet within the channels and less than 1.0 feet in other
areas.
During the 1-year storm event, flow depth reached approximately 4 feet in the deepest parts of the
on -site channels. Water depth is generally between 0.5 and 3 feet in the channels, and less than 0.5
feet in other areas of the site. Flow within the channels sees velocities as high as 6 feet per second,
and are generally between 1 and 4 feet per second. Overland flow is generally between 0 and 2 feet
per second. Scour depth is between 0.5 and 1.5 feet within the channels and less than 1.0 feet in other
areas.
3.1.2 Post -Construction
HEC-RAS output for post -construction maximum depth, velocity, and scour is shown on Appendix A
Figures 7 through 9 for the 100-year storm, Figures 13 through 15 for the 25-year storm, Figures 19
through 21 for the 10-year storm, Figures 25 through 27 for the 2-year storm, and Figures 31 through
33 for the 1-year storm. Post -construction conditions caused some change in flow patterns in the areas
of the detention basins and diversions. Post -construction conditions caused minimal changes to site
flow depth, velocity and scour in the remaining areas of the site.
Overall peak runoff flow from the site decreased in the post -construction simulation due to diversion
and detention in basins. Appendix A, Figure 34 shows locations of flow profile lines where runoff
flow profiles were calculated in HEC-RAS along the downstream boundaries of the disturbed areas of
the site. Because the detention basins and their associated diversions changed the outlet location of
post -construction runoff flows as compared to the existing condition, peak runoff flows were compared
at downstream locations where flow from multiple areas of the site converge. The post -construction
peak excess runoff for each profile is shown in Table 4.
Tables 5 and 6 show the peak flow rate at each profile under existing conditions and post -construction,
the difference in peak flow volume post -construction compared to the existing condition, and the total
volume of runoff at each profile under existing conditions for the 10-year and 100-year flow events.
4 Assumptions
1. The elevation data has been deemed appropriate for use in pre -construction 2D hydraulic mod-
eling (HEC-RAS)
2. To the greatest extent practical this model represents pending and flow conditions for excess rain-
fall occurring on the model surface. This model is an approximation of real -life flow conditions
but is limited in its accuracy by the type and accuracy of its inputs. If future calibration data
is gathered, the model can be rerun using the calibration data as inputs to check the viability
and accuracy of the model.
Rivanna H&H 5 Saturday lltb March, 2023 00:33
Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc.
PO Box 1716, Twain Harte, CA 95393
Phone: +1.415.413.7558
A%AhkLI
soa
Table 4: 10-Year, 24-Hour Flow Event Peak Runoff Flow Rates, Post -Construction Excess Peak
Runoff Volume, and Total Volume of Runoff
Profile Line
Peak Flow
Existing (CFS)
Peak Flow
Post -Construction (CFS)
Peak Volume
Difference (Cubic Ft)
Total Volume
Existing (Cubic Ft)
1
85
79
-803
191,158
2
590
562
-4764
1,873,670
3
95
94
-56
345,471
4
223
228
689
722,965
5
167
147
-5252
441,098
6
100
106
927
289,816
7
69
64
-1075
171,433
Table 5: 100-Year, 24-Hour Flow Event Peak Runoff Flow Rates, Post -Construction Excess Peak
Runoff Volume, and Total Volume of Runoff
Profile Line
Peak Flow
Existing (CFS)
Peak Flow
Post -Construction (CFS)
Peak Volume
Difference (Cubic Ft)
Total Volume
Existing (Cubic Ft)
1
173
171
-97
398,830
2
1386
1344
-5551
3,830,742
3
262
271
1684
787,626
4
544
518
-4716
1,447,350
5
351
349
-162
890,934
6
242
253
2122
630,599
7
150
154
358
354,397
Rivanna H&H 6 Saturday lltb March, 2023 00:33
Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc.
PO Box 1716, Twain Harte, CA 95393
Phone: +1.415.413.7558
APPENDIX A - Figures
AUJANk,
soa
Rivanna H&H 7 Saturday 111h March, 2023 00:33
A
B
C
D E
G
H
t
r.
fit•
_z... .,
.� �.
..
C fF
�.Y
R. V al
a,
it
it
r
1 �
�t♦.
I,
i
I� �.
f
\
Y
.
r
4
t
..
�.'
4
:o
}
soa
3
,
'
T
♦
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYT/CR
`
PO O.1TeadArely4¢,Irc. (n 01SJ13]550
1 /.; {•
Txaln Hale, CN 9.S359 Inb®aAVreo MRd.♦un
PROJECTNPIAE
Rivanna
N .
PROJECTAOptE$$_
Z
37.967 N, 78.407 ° W
2
_ a
sEaL:
Ledene
202
2027-07-09
•
'
N
P.ELTY_
f
Site Boundary
AA
UR
' -
w
E
Troy
Jill Troy
Flood Zones
BHEB"EBB"'
A(100-Year Flood)
a
—
S
Owen Ransom
�ENUMB FEMAFlood HezaMZones
0 140 280
Feet
REV M'.
'
• � • �{
F9E'MBER:
'
e
Cmdin SymNLli 2011$Y lane
NRgNa$e FIPSIMMU$ BwAARp SOAV,ESRI
leafO Ihpand PLSS$uImaflM SEZ Sware: Nydne Nallo�al laLa2bry
A
B
F
G
H
I
J
A B C
E
G
H
R
d,
4
y
i
9
I?
1
• ••
rl� .� .�. ..
4
4
i.a
r
� 1
soa
3
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYT[CR
L¢OenIm M1 15J1.RIER
EB. Pvi 1116 T)2.1121.
Train Hale, CA 9.S309 inb®ae�reounSRd.run
Site Boundary PRO E NP E
Hydrologic Soil Groups [ Rivanna
, PROJECTAOptE$$_
A
2
37.967 N. 78.407 ° W
C sFAL: Bnre
2
2027-07-09
N PROJECT Y_
B/D
BR wN B
D - w e Jill Trovchock
cRECNEB Br.
Owen Ransom
S
$FEET None
B H rolo is Soil Grou s
0 140 280 Feet $REETNBNBER
Figure 2
1
:<OIUllaie$yRart NLDIRE02011 SVRPIaneWma$¢ab FIP$IEO2RUS B¢enePSmBA E$RI leaf OvnasEipaMPLSSSVxRxIIB $ S— Arydne NalimallUAEmbry
A
E
F
G
H
I
J
a TT JJ J
' S• i • I �i [' ry f ,r. i y i'. f f l 'n ''i� _ •« i .-- + Ji1G AS .. _-
J •. ` R f u fY rS ! A` a w
Ir
Ilk
et bib A MAMIN
• ,+I • l
doll
1"A '
6
�; , .. • ' �� J � y ,' .,, aim,.
,t .�'j.Mh T(
cl
,, 4 �/� I tr I •! L�• .
E1 i
or
2 3 C2
A.
Y';A.
1
_F . f... soa
/ SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTICS
t 5m.a O.eTea2ArelyL¢,Irc. (n01SJ13]55S
PO Tmin1 171fi pT)2M 1S2798
•., ` xaln Hale, CA 9S359 InbWelmeaeRie9R—
. / • x.'.• . A.
1_ PROJECr NA,AE
n �� 1 PROJECTAUptE$$_
t
2 - _,. .t,o-_.•`� * _ 37.967 N, 78.407°W 2
► � � - �'Y• s� 2023-03-70
t h N
PrtOJELT Y_
L,,n 1 ' a '., 1 _ _ 16
DRAWN BY:
[ w e Jill Troychock
Site Boundary • �+„ i _ cOwen Ransom
t e S
Disturbed Areas ti. s E TN NE
.r ��• � y• Disturbed Areas
0 140 280 Feel Figure 3 BER R � dSdW I Cn din Sy mNL li 2011$Y lane NRgNa$e FIPSIMMUS B¢emap5wrte'.ESRI lea!U RMipaWPLSS$nuiRaBlM SEZ Sware: Nydne Nallo�al laLa2bry
A C D E F G H I J
A B
%
a
t
its r�
E
♦ I It-0�
�M
e �
Y 1. ^ •
4
1v
Leoentl ? �
J t'
Site Boundary
Depth (Feet)
0 - 0.5 t�
0.5 - 1 a:
1-1.5
1.5-2�
2-3
3-4 ,
�4-5
>5
A
`a`lA/ t
i
7
t'
9
ti
J
`p
4
�q
W
soa
`r SIERRA OVERHEAD ANRLYTICR J
5a2O N�ea]PmIyL¢, Im o""B"1 S--
RD BIO 1716 (F)2.1S27.
Twain Hale, CA 9SV3 InfD&.—P-ID_D1 vn
PBGIECT NAME
Rivanna
PROJECTADDRES$'
37.967 N, 78.401' W 2
•, . ,`1 HEAL: DATe
2022-09-07
. • N PROJECT.:
i� DRAWN BYam :
,�w�y Tia W E Jill Troyohook
CHECKED BY
Owen Ransom
SHEET NAME 100-Year 24 Hoar Flow EVenl Depth
Existing Conditions
0 140 280 Feel SHEET NUMBER_ REV.'.
Figure 4 1
CaOrci R$yOwn'HAD IM2011 Sa Wlane Ngna SuN FIRS ISO2 Ft US B—p S—Hem I WCv Hp aW PLSS RAS— BIM S Sucre: ARYene Nah—I laLa2bry
F G H I J
w
F
, .� _ _ �� � N RYA , C y 'IIiNS � � '},.:; a } �r'�• � }�'
s
Nei
Boundary
eet per second)
` r j
c /g
w 11•
F`
k
�%;' ;�' Ste, f.••,+,,,,���..._ /(1� •.
I
,O~
d �
ANA
Site Boundary
r
a cour
t
;L
1 1 " ..
�..
...a.1
> 2 Existing Conditions
SHEET NUMBER
r ;
o
19
• p +v e c
i
�t1 i
M
,^���I w•,� V x1., .r c+•�"'�ry �` '` �. W rho
1,,`♦
.R y
Site Boundary
ith (Feet)
00
2-3
3-4
4-5
I
.* 1:
Mp
0
i4 1 1.
Pv,
x. 41.
— ,
Y t
0 140 280 Feel
IT
4 of � � •�. � i �', � �. jT"y�C'
r`I �
1
riL
Site BoundaryVelocity (Feet per second)
1 1
1 •- _ - - - .
r
2-3
It
3-4
4-5
5-6
i +•` v
�+ 1
0 coon
o "� y, ' / • \ ' •`\ yF� F/ . S r� " `' / fit • � IJ 1�.. rip, � I
+'kip -
.fir: y�, �,"!i�" � �.� � • .
10
ANA
40
ite Boundary
Scour (Feet)
PFKIJECTADIXtESS
0 COW
90
� � 1
v
* •�•
h /
1.4
Ir
v*wr rE� iiT r
av
'r r
S
re
6
ME
,. 777
a +n ! n
41 M
Legen
Site Boundary
Depth (Feet)
3 0-0.5
0.5 - 1
1-1.5
1.5-2
2 2-3
3-4
4-5
>5
1
1
18
I6
14
soa
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTICR
5m•a O�eTea2Arely4¢, Arc. M41S4137550
EO. Pvi 1716 T)2.1127.
Txaln E., CA KEE3 Inb&-IaoAIDmRnun
PROJECT NP E,
Rivanna
PROJECTACURE$$_
37.967 N, 78.401' W 2
SEA -ATE
2022-09-07
N PNOJELTY_
z BRAwN ev'.
w E Jill Troychock
CHECKED BY
Owen Ransom
A B C D E F
s
StMET NAME : 26-Near 24-Hour Flow Event Dept
Existing Conditions
0 140 280 Feet SHEET NUMBER'. REV Y.
Fig me 10
CnoNnab Sy Rn'NLD Isal2011 SYaRSIane NRgda SauM HIPS 45B2 R US B¢emap Swrte'. ESRI I A!0—VRp aM PLSS SuIma BIM S S—Ny eNat—I lax—bW
G H I J
F
G
H
I
F
i
F
it
_
1
4
Ilk
el
H
i
f
4
soa
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTICR
5m,a O�eTeadArelyti¢, Arc. M41S4137550
PO. Pvi 1716 T)2094n S279s
Txaln Hale, CA 9.S309 Ink,&-raawtead—
PRO.IEMNAME
Rivanna
��
PROJECTAOptE$$_
37.967 N, 78.401" W
2
AL:
2022-09-07
202
N
PROJECT.:
w E
..N BY'.
Jill TroychI
CHECNEO BY:
Owen Ransom
S
srvET NAME26-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Velocity
Existino conditions
0
.l p
4U 2V11 Feet
NIIMHER R Y.
Figure 17
1
cxV... S,,M— NAR 1.2.11 Slat I -A WUk,SoNM1 rIPS.02. us
B.ARAP swrte'. E$RI laM 0—RVRo aM PLIES exIme BIM s scare: Ny e Nat —I "ImimbW
F
G
H
I
J
A G
AS
1L
,1
6 t h
`wtt
It
l
5
l
A
r,
4
3
Site Boundary
Scour (Feet)
- 0-0.5
- 0.5 - 0.75
2 0.75 - 1
•1Y' 1
1-1.5
—A 1.5-2
'2
1
r B G
D E F G H I J
R
.r
� � 6
� I
t
a S
u'
4
y
soa
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTrCR
• ElDBO"1Tea�Arely46Irc. (na1S41127.
PB. Pvi 1]1fi M41D3152]98
Txaln Hale. cN RIESs bb&—a bead n
PRO.IECT NPIAE
jRivanna
PROJECTAOptE$$_
37.967 N, 78.401' W 2
a 202
2022-09-07
/ N
� PROJECT Y_
BR wNB'.
w e Jill Troychock
A cHEcxEB Br.
Owen Ransom
sto=Er NAME: 25-Near 24-Hour Flow Event Scour
.l Existing Conditions
0 140 280 Feet $HEET NUMBER'. REV Y.
Figure 12 1
i
Cmbna@Sy MBAR i9SS 2011 SURFIlane Wgma SaNM1 RIPS 4AQV R Us Bmemp$wrte: E$RI l AfU Nhp aM PLSS StIme BIM $ SO sm Nydn, 114-1 UVEmbry
D E F G H I J
F F �
we 4 4A.
r " R
1
mm
E
51 i
8
1 16
15
14
soa
SIERRA OVERHEAD ANRLYTICR J
—^�) 5a2O Nrea]N¢IyL¢,Irc. (r)015013]559
Twain Xale, CA 9S393 Infp®semaueT.E.Cvn
y
PRGIECT NAME
Rivanna
PROJECTADDRES$'
37.967 N, 78.401' W 2
SEAL: Dn e
2023-03-10
N PROJECrr:
DRnwN B
w E JIII Troychock
cXECNED—
Owen Ransom
V
sXEET NVAe 26-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Dept
Y
Post -Construction
0
140 280 Feel SHEET NUMBER: REV
�'�
Figure 13
COmliaR$yOm HAD IM2011 SaWlane Ngna 9uN FIPa IBQ2 F1 US
BazerraP Sm,-ESRl I W Ovaw9np aW PL$9 awrtC BIM 9E2 S— Arpxne NMlmal laLa2bry
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
r
it r + .� �. s: _ _ . I \ _ ,,pP+(�
.ly,.
_A,, ,`err �y�PI�
it
I
f*101i r r
e V
Site Boundary
Velocity (Feet per second)
SIERRA OVERHEAD ANALYTICS
r� ' lam / / • `, •
j
1 1 k i A,�� r -♦ � L�l ,
1 -' = - -
t` _ PROJECTAND•. �:
• l
5-6
' ej/ vd• •rss i.ds� r.v
�^ + ~, Vf
50
A.
Site Boundary
Scour (Feet)
r) Ell
0-0.5 1 4 N
Ij I,4 t
s,
s s
.75
2-2.9 0 cow Post -Construction
)• p+
C D E F
1 M4. ♦ .cam. -'
mot'
8 j _,t I M e g --- 8
t
77
[[[ c +I
Ilk
;d1 ii. 1
1.
1.
,r.
e
`p
r
4 4 4
1�
Leoentl .
Site Boundary +
Depth (Feet) ,'• r SOa
0 - O 55 SIERRA OVERHEAD ANALYTICS
RD BO N1ea]PmIyL¢,Irc. (1)01501,27.
0.5 - 1 Twain Hale, CA 9S3E3 Infp®aemauteT.E Cvn
PRGIECTNAME
1-1.5 v
i
Rlvanna
1.5 - 2 PRUIECTADDREss:
37.967 N, 78.407 ° W 2
2-3 sFaL: 202
2022-09-07
1 N vlzaEcrr
3-4:
s
BY
CD
w E Jill Troychock
4-5
CHECKHECK ED BY
Owen Ransom
SHEET NAME 10-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Depth
>5 Existing Conditions
0 140 280 Feel SHEET NUMBER : REvr
Flgore 16
CaOrci R$,0m BAD IM2011 SaCPIane Ngna auN FIRS IBO2 F1 US B—p S—ESRI I WCv Hp aM PLa$RAS—BIM S Sucre: ArPne Nah—I UflNmR,
A B C D E F G H I J
A C
1
f
-
)
6
5
3 f
r
S
4
3
Site Boundary
Scour (Feet)
- 0-0.5
- 0.5 - 0.75
2 0.75 - 1
1-1.5
1.5-2
'2
1
6 C
D
E
F
G
H
I J
.,,
•:a
1
1
r
Z
soa
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTrCR
smra O�emea�Arelyti¢, IM M41D,H17555
PB. Pvi 1716 T)2.1127.
Txaln Hale, CA RIRE3 Inb&._0•AIDMR un
T
PROJECr N.1
Rlvanna
PROJECTAOORM
37.967 N, 78.401' W
2
a
2022-09-07
202
N
P.ELTY_
w E
URAwN BY'.
Jill Troychock
CHECNEO BY'.
Owen Ransom
y
Br�ET Nnme 10-Near 24-Hour Flow Event Scour
0 -
Existing Conditions
-^
0
140 280 Feet
ER. mE e
t
FH>= 18
9
Cn din SymNLD19BS2011SY lane NRgda Sa FIPS4MMUs
B—ARPS—ESRI leafURVRpaMPLSSanuiRmBI SEZBware:.y eNallmaltzlx—bry
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
rN
,r T
P,
o cow
. 4
FA
I
4 • p a ` • ��r�
",
ji
l ,
ear •,�� - �. � ��
0
•
r
• �� � - � � 1. � / �
N 'O
1.75
11.<,
1� VM
a coon
•
A J
1 7,(,; *rty' �`•�yp'�t {,,ryry'� I �- jl :;t'7 �LI� h,r.ev "r` R
ilk All -
OFIx
- -',p ie
-Poo I
f i
x '
1
r� f )
5 k
• "1
a 4
ar
Leuene
t r
Site Boundary �� " •
soaDepth (Feet) - a
3
O _ O.C, ` e SIERRA OVERHEAD LN1LYTrCP
_ Y 5m,a O�eTeaaArelyL¢, Im M41.SA1$]55$
ED
- )2M121S2]98
0.5 - 1 5 ) tr TAwnH HaVle., (F
CN 9S3P9 mm�M,)2 m1a.7n
x PROJECTNPME,
1-1.5
a
Rivanna
1.5 - L PROJECTAUp$$
_
1 z r `• r Z N. 78.401°W
2 S
3 �t z
i • 2022-12-16
'� - "f ` • N PROJECT%3-4
'r' �.�- • "Aw BRAWN BY.
offr w e Jill Troychock
4-5�. • ` �' CHECxEB BY
' I r - s Owen Ransom
srmET NAME2-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Depth
> 5 r _. ExistingConditions
0 140 280 Feet $NEETNUMBER. RED
1 •.":r fR t {•�, Figure22 1
CmbVVRSym NLDi9E12011 Sba IneWma5xAh FIP$ISC2RU$ BmMAAPSmBA E$RI lR10 RNRpaV1PLSS$oum'BIM $ Scnrm Ny eNallmal"ImmabW
A B E F G H I J
ME
Al �
L uene
Site Boundary
Velocity (Feet per second)
3 0-0.5
0.5 - 1
1 2
2-3
2 3-4
4-5
5-6
>6
67="
A E
t • P
t
F
R
1 �
a
.L
1
4
k
-
soa
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTICR
'
f
smra O�emea�Arelyti¢, IM M41D,H175M
EO. Pvi 1716 T)2.1127.
')
tr
TAwn Hale, CA K EE3 Inb05bla0AIDay.iull
•.M
PROJECT NP E,
Rivanna
PROJECTACURE$$_
37.967 N, 78.401' W
2
SEAL: onrE
2022-12-16
N
PRO J"IT %.
M'
E
ORAwN BY'.
Jill Troychock
CHECKED BY:
Owen Ransom
s
SHEET NAME 2-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Velocity
Existing Conditions
0
140 280 Feet
SHEET NUMBER: REV Y.
Figum 23
1
cnobnale Sy Rn: NLD IRE32011 SYaRSlane wgaa SaNM1 HIPS 4AMM US
Bmemp S—ESRI IaM O—VRp aM PLSS Scum' BIM S S—Ny eNallaal CREmbry
G
H
I
J
A c
1
1R
lJ
)A.,l�
r
r
r
d
,1
6
5
a
a
r
J
r
4
{
3 !�
Site Boundary
Scour (Feet)
- 0-0.5 I
- 0.5 - 0.75
2 0.75 - 1
1-1.5
1.5-2
'2
a C
D
E F
H
R
_. r..
.°
I,1
1
,i
i
3
0
t
tri`��
�I
e
4
soa
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTICR
smra O�emea�Arelyti¢, IM M41D,H$7555
EO. BIX 1716 T)2.1127.
TAwn Hale, CA RRE3 bb&—o VBmR n
PRO.IECT NAME
k.
Rivanna
PROJECTAOptE$$_
37.967 N, 78.407 ° W
2
sEaL:
onre
2022-12-06
N
PROJECT%.
w
e
oRnwN er.
Jill Troychock
CHECKED BY
Owen Ransom
2-Near 24-Hour Flow El,en[Soour
`
Existing Conditions
�.
0
140 280Feet
SHEET NUMBERR
l
Figure 24
Ccobna@Sy Nn'BAR 1.2.11 SIRRSlane
wgaa SaNM1 FlP$15O2 Ft Us
BaeARP SNIBA E$RI
IaM 0—NRp aM PLSS Scum' BIM $ S—A: e114—1 CREmbry
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
A y J
Jr_ �M �Ar,]�Y1 rir
Ix
.r' R � 1 ►
t s ., t II 11 o f (1ir
Ar0
yr J
>. I
6� "A,Sim&
01111111
r
41 ■
r
LO...
Site Boundary
Depth (Feet)
3 0-0.5
0.5 - 1
1-1.5
1.5-2
2 2-3
3-4
4-5
>5
1
A B
1
wW..
t
k soa
- SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTICR
' Y smra O.emea�Arelyti¢, Im M4154 55S
PO. Pvi 1716 (F)2M121S27.
Txaln Hale, CA 9.S389 Inb®sareoMmR—
• ,x PROJEcr NP P
Rivanna
PROJECTAOURM
37.967 N, 78.401' W
a i M
203-03-10
N P.ELTY_
..N BY'.
w E Jill Troychock
�p ate. CHECHEO BY'.
Owen Ransom
DM NAME 2-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Depth
y r Post-Consuuctlon
0 140 280 Feet SHE NUMBER RE
Figure 25
1
CcoNlna@sy5lan'NLD 1. 2.11 SIR6Ine wgaa SauM rIPs.02. Us B.A—P Bwrte'. EBRI lAf 0—RVRp aM PLSS SOxce BIM S S—Ny a Nationall&1EmbW
E F G H I J
18
I6
14
12
C
-
• Jill,
�
t:At 1,
,
Y
6 � 1
1.
i r Fri.
ra�A
f
1.
d
Y 00
a
ry
LRRenC
Site Boundary
Velocity (Feet per second)
3 0-0.5
0.5 - 1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
>6
B C
D E F G H I J
'4
.,, i r.
6
5
y `I
4
soa
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTICR 3
5m,a O�eTeaYArely4¢, IM M01SJ13]55S
PO. Pvi 1716 (F)2M121S27.
Txaln Hale. cN 9s383 mb®a—oAISmR—
PRO.IECT NPIAE
RIVenno
PROJECT.Um S$_
37.96 r N, 78.401' W 2
a BATE
2023-03-70
_ N P.ELTY_
URAWN BY'.
Re' E Jill TroychHED.1nCk
cHECNEB er:
Owen Ransom
a' S aHEET NAME
+ 2-Veer 24-Hour Flow Even[ Velocity
Post-ConsWctlon
^9.lCE] Q 140 280 Feet SHEET NUMBER'. REV Y'.
Figum 26
CmNnaleS tRn'HAD Isal2O11 SYaRSlane wgaa SaNM1 RIPS I5O2 M Us B¢emap Bwrte'. EBRI l Af0—RVRp aM PLSS SuIma BIM S S—Ny a Nallmal"lEmlory
D E F G H I J
D
E F
G
H
I J
a,
it
7
i
6
1.
II
4
soa
OIERRI OVRRHEAD LNALYTICR
O:eTeaBA fly ,Im M41S413]SM
PO. Pvi 1]1fi (F)2M121S279
Txaln Hale, CN 9S3R9 Inb®5e�reouyfiRd7
-
PROJECT NPME
w�
Rivanna
PROJECTAOptM
37.967 N, 78.401' W
2
a BRIE
2023-03-70
N
PNOJELT Y_
w
E
..N BY'.
Jill Troychock
CHECNEOBY.
Owen Ransom
s
sto=Er Nnme 2-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Scour
Post-ConsWctlon
0
140 280
Feet SHEEPNUMBER:
Figure 27 F.
C din S tm xLD 19832011 SY Iane
WgmaSoN FIPS 4S02R us
Bmemao swrte'. ESRI
I WO• Mip aM PLSS S-e BIM s S—A: eNalmal"a mbW
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
ME
Site Boundary
Depth (Feet)
'
>> 2-3
3-4
4-5
3= �'•. r
■
18
I6
14
soa
-\ SIERRA CV PPNEIrP LN1LYTrCP
smra O.emea�Arelyti¢, IM M4154 5M
PO. Pvi 1716 (F)2M121S27so
i Txab Hale, CA KES3 Inb®5_OAIIfiMR_
PROJECT NPME
Rivanna
PROJECTADDRIDIS
37.967 N, 78.401' W 2
SEAL: DnrE
2022-12-16
N P.ECT%.
DRAWN BY'.
w E Jill Troychock
CHECKED BY
s Owen Ransom
arEET NGNE1-Year 24-Hour Flow Even[ Depth
Existing Conditions
0 140 280 Feet SHEETNBNBER'. REui
Figure 28
CmNhab Sy Rn NLD i9®2011 SYaRPIane Weida soNh HIPS 4AM R ua Bmemp Sw ESRI IaAf O• Mip eb PLSS arm' BIM s scare: N,ARe Nalmal laLa2Mry
G H I J
A C D
1
1R
e I p Al
r
6
1
r i
1 „^
a
1
Leuene
Site Boundary �,�•r "KGTna,
Velocity (Feet per second)
3 0-0.5
0.5 - 1
1-2
2-3
-
4 w. > r• T
z 3-4 S
*a
4 5
5-6
1 AI / ,�C�•��'ry�,e L', rJ
R 'fI' � laya
A B
a3xa�
E F G
H
A
�
—
F
t
At
r
v
�
1
�
R
'
.A
4
k
_ -
soa
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNALYTICR
"
•
e
SiAva lrc.
_
EDBOxemea•JArely4oT)a1S41K27M
PO. Pvi (F)2M121S2]98
;
Hale, CA 9.S3S9 Inb®ae�reounSRd.�un
,
x
•.M
PROJECT NP E,
Rivanna
PROJECTACURE$$_
37.967 N, 78.401' W
2
SEAL:
BnrE
2022-12-16
N
PROJECT%.
w
E
ORAWN BY'.
Jill TroyohoCk
CHECKED BY:
Owen Ransom
s
$FEET NAME1-Year 24-Hour Flow Even[ Velocity
Existin Contlnions
0
.l
140 280
Feet
SHEET NUMBER'. REV Y.
Flgum 29
1
CnomumIAS mNLD IRHI2O11 SURSlane
wgaa SaNM1 HIPS 4AM R US
BaeVAp SRAVA EBRI
IaM CIamr , aM PLSS SuIma BIM S ScArm Ny a Nallaal laLa2bry
E
F
G
H
I
J
A C D E F G H
J
rf
g •� 1 lam.- � �� ��f ��r�r ..�c
/ Per
•
r rr r � • �:n�R`y,• e 1 `° �F. Iif i] � iR !N f� .� F
r � � � f � l ,N i •�jr� ,
r 4" Il M
1F��
6 s 6
a..
5
4
4
4
y PIERRI CV PPNEIrP LN1LYTrCP
3 ��•.
1
Site Boundary sa,ao me a rei e,i mal ns]s s
��'� PO. Pvi 1]1fi (F)2M121S2]98
Scour (Feet) ain Ha CN 96 P9 b®breo MRdu
PROJECr NPME
- 0-0.5
Rlvanna
- 0.5 - 0.75 PNOJECTMptE$$_
2 37.967 N, 78.401' W 2
0.75 - 1 SE onrE,
2022-12-16
� r N PNOJECT%.
-
oNnwN Nr.
w e Jill Troychock
1.5-2
cHEcxEo er.
..7 - s Gwen Ransom
_ Sr�ET N"mE1-Year 24-Hour Flow Scour
> 2 existing Conditions
ER
1�� 14Q 2$0 FE:BS re Fgu30 NEvx
Cmdinw,S mN 19832011 Sba Ine WgmasoWRFIPSI5C2FlUS NaenepS—ESRI leaf O.a, M,MWPLSSSca¢PIM s S—N,—eHalaal"!NambW
A a C D E F G H I J
81 .
E.A
21■
!NE
Al M
AWQ
at rill
a �+? t• ' ,
ir
4 r
a
f 1•
C
5`
Site Boundary
Depth (Feet) soa 1 i 1
3 0 - 0.5 BIERRI CV PPNEIrP LNALYTrCP
5m,a O�eTeaaArely4¢,Irc. T)41S413]55B
PO. Pvi 1]1fi (F)2M121S2]98
0.5 - 1 aln Ha . cN9 Ps bm®b ren M�d..sin
PROJECT NPME
1-1.5 f '
11 Rlvanna
V,. a - PROJECTAOptE$$_
1.5 - 2 � � -- . ,
1 .•z
2 4 37.967 N. 78.407 ° W
2-3 202
2023-03-10
3 4 " PROJE Y_
O.N BY'.
\ ,Ru. w e Jill Troychock
4-5 _ Y``*- CH CNEDBY.
-) !'� °{ •` < 4 Owen Ransom
., s S
\ aib .E' 1-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Depth
> 5 �' � -� r�.• �tSL� 4 yap Post-Conswctlon
.l
1 � '� •\ �i U 14U GVO FFEet BFfiuREV Y. NUMBER:
Figure 31
r r
Cmbnam Sy mNL li 2011SY laneWgdaSa FIPS4MMUS B—PSwrte'.ESRI I WO.-MipaWPLSSaw,¢BI S Sware:Ny eNalb,aI"a mbry
A B F G H I J
18
I6
14
12
C D E
F It ri�r ° •: t
I.
ir
ww'�
21■
AM
p
v f
Al �
LeeenJ
Site Boundary
Velocity (Feet per second)
3 0-0.5
0.5 - 1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
M >6
1
i
.r
kI:
■ 18
■ 17
15
■ 15
■ 14
soa
•
'
k
, r
SIERRA OVERHEAD LNILYTICR
3
Y
sera O�emea�Arelyti¢, IM (n41S41s75M
_
PO. Pvi 1716 T)20R21S2799
')
Txaln Hale, CA 9.S389 Inb&—oAIDmR—
x
PROJECT NP P
•.M
Rivanna
PROJECT.UI E$s_
37.967 N, 78.401' W
2
a
202
2023-03-10
N
P.ELTY_
1°
a
..N BY'.
Jill Troyehock
CHECHEO BY
On Ransom
Own :
s
SibET NGME1-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Velocity
Post-Consuuctlon
0
140 280
Feet BHEETNUMBER RE I
Flgum 32
I
1
CnoNlnabSt— HAD 1. 2.11 sa6Slane
wgaa S,,. IIPs.02. Us
BaemaP Bwrte'. EBRI
l Af0—RVRp aM PLSS Snug' BIM SEZ ScHm Ny eNat—I"lEmlory
G
H
I
J
_ yy
�y7r� to
it
5
6Y,"
4 t ..-.ri 4
c f
- r
soa
'J BIERRI OVERHEAD LNALYTrCR
Site Boundary smao me as 1ly ,Im M41s41s]SM
^r':'-' ♦ .gym are�cnss3es mm�le�aloem�e279D
Scour (Feet)
• '!' PROJECr NPME
- 0-0.5 "i •
l i „ Rivanna
• ` PROJECTAORUM
0.5-0.75 +
2 37.967 N, 78.407 ° W 2
0.75 - 1 1111 SE : onre
2023-03A0
'r t N WtOJELTY_
w e Jill Troychock
1.5_ 2 CRECNEO Br.
.' Owen Ransom
I ' S
BibET NGNe 1-Year 24-Hour Flow Event Scour
2 - 2.5 f I cost -Construction
Y r • Q 14U Gy0 F it SFE NUMBER'. REV%.
1 - Figure 33 1
thrum Stm HAD IDES 2011 SYa6lane wgma Souh RIPS ARD M US Bmemap Swrte'. ESRI LAW 0—Mip aM PLSS Sou 'BIM S S—Ary eNM-1 la1,a2bry
A B E F G H I J
a TT JJ J
' S• i • I ,i` [' ry f ,r. i y i'. f f l 'n ''i� _ •« i + Ji1G AS .. ,
Ir
Ilk
let bib A MAMIN
.JAB'•_
doll
. f 7 1"A '
rr
r ! 1
s
it
ci
f
5 E1
e ), �.7 •
Y
2 3 C2 -
_ 1 'I', i. � h� .�i. � !(2 rry . M'. .1•a •! r a 1
1
soa
Dill;
I 4 '
/ SIERRA OVERHEAD LNILYTICR
t ED O.1TeadArelyL¢,Irc. T)01541$2790
•.� � Txaln Hale, CN 9.S359 Inb®a—ounSRd..un
4 x.• t .
PROJECr NP,AE
Rivanna
j �•
PROJECTAOptE$$_
t
2 .t.•�� * - 37.967 N, 78.401"W 2
L.Sentl t sEaL: onre
.f: 2023-03-10
PlmdEcrs_
Flow Profile Lines
BRnwN BY
t w e Jill TroYchock
Site Boundary ► CHECKED BY
owen Ransom
. ' s
Disturbed Areas r �7rQ'I, y• $
�� EFlowPmfileLines
� g.. ER R 34 r
0 140 280 Feet
A
C diSy mNL li 2011$Y lane NRgNa$e FIPSIMMU$ B¢emap5wrte'.ESRI -VH0 VRpand PLSS$num'BlM SEZ Sware: Nydne Nallo�al la.a2bry
E F G H I J
Sierra Overhead Analytics, Inc.
PO Box 1716, Twain Harte, CA 95393
Phone: +1.415.413.7558
APPENDIX B - Supporting Documentation
AUJANk,
soa
Rivanna H&H 42 Saturday 111h March, 2023 00:33
Chapter 2 Estimating Runoff Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Table 2-2a Runoff curve numbers for urban areas _v
Cover description
Cover type and hydrologic condition
Fully developed urban areas (vegetation established)
Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.) 21:
Poor condition (grass cover < 50%) ............................
Fair condition (grass cover 50%to 7596) ....................
Good condition (grass cover > 75%) ............................
Impervious areas:
Paved parldng lots, roofs, driveways, etc.
(excluding right-of-way) ...............................................
Streets and roads:
Paved; curbs and storm sewers (excluding
rightof--way)..................................................................
Paved; open ditches (including right-of-way) ............
Gravel (including right-of-way) ...................................
Dirt (including right-of-way) ........................................
Western desert urban areas:
Natural desert landscaping (pervious areas only) J .......
Artificial desert landscaping (impervious weed barrier,
desert shrub with 1- to 2-inch sand or gravel mulch
and basin borders)........................................................
Urban districts:
Commercial and business ...................................................
Industrial...............................................................................
Residential districts by average lot size:
1/8 acre or less (town houses) ............................................
1/4 acre..................................................................................
1/3 acre..................................................................................
1/2 acre..................................................................................
1 acre .....................................................................................
2 acres....................................................................................
Developing urban areas
Newly graded areas
(pervious areas only, no vegetation) ly
Idle lands (CN's are determined using cover types
similar to those in table 2-2c).
Curve numbers for
hydrologic soil group
Average percent
impervious area V A B C D
68
79
86
89
49
69
79
84
39
61
74
80
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
83
89
92
93
76
85
89
91
72
82
87
89
63
77
85
88
96
96
96
96
85
89
92
94
95
72
81
88
91
93
65
77
85
90
92
38
61
75
83
87
30
57
72
81
86
25
54
70
80
85
20
51
68
79
84
12
46
65
77
82
77 86 91 94
r Average runoff condition, and I, = 0.2S.
2 The average percent impervious area shown was used to develop the composite CN's. Other assumptions are as follows: impervious areas are
directly connected to the drainage system, impervious areas have a CN of 98, and pervious areas are considered equivalent to open space in
good hydrologic condition CN's for other combinations of conditions may be computed using figure 23 or 2-4.
a CN's shown are equivalent to those of pasture. Composite CN's may be computed for other combinations of open space
cover type.
4 Composite CN's for natural desert landscaping should be computed using figures 23 or 2-4 based on the impervious area percentage
(CN = 98) and the pervious area CN. The pervious area CN's are assumed equivalent to desert shrub in poor hydrologic condition.
5 Composite CN's to use for the design of temporary measures during grading and construction should he computed using figure 23 or 2-4
based on the degree of development (impervious area percentage) and the CN's for the newly graded pervious areas.
(210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) 2-5
Chapter 2 Estimating Runoff Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Table 2-2b Runoff curve numbers for cultivated agricultural lands _v
Cover type
Cover description
Treatment
Hydrologic
condition a'
A
Curve numbers for
hydrologic soil group
B C
D
Fallow
Bare soil
—
77
86 91
94
Crop residue cover (CR)
Poor
76
85 90
93
Good
74
83 88
90
Row crops
Straight row (SR)
Poor
72
81 88
91
Good
67
78 85
89
SR + CR
Poor
71
80 87
90
Good
64
75 82
85
Contoured (C)
Poor
70
79 84
88
Good
65
75 82
86
C + CR
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+ CR
Poor
65
73 79
81
Good
61
70 77
80
Small grain
SR
Poor
65
76 84
88
Good
63
75 83
87
SR + CR
Poor
64
75 83
86
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
Close -seeded
SR
Poor
66
77 85
89
or broadcast
Good
58
72 81
85
legumes or
C
Poor
64
75 83
85
rotation
Good
55
69 78
83
meadow
C&T
Poor
63
73 80
83
Good
51
67 76
80
r Average runoff condition, and Ia US
2 Crop residue cover applies only if residue is on at least 5%of the surface throughout the year.
a Hydraulic condition is based on combination factors that affect infiltration 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 on the land surface (good a 2096),
and (e) degree of surface roughness.
Poor. Factors impair infiltration and tend to increase runoff.
Good: Factors encourage average and better than average infiltration and tend to decrease runoff.
2-6 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986)
Chapter 2 Estimating Runoff Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Table 2-2c Runoff curve numbers for other agricultural lands y
Curve numbers for
Cover description
hydrologic soil group
Hydrologic
Cover type
condition
A
B C
D
Pasture, grassland, or range —continuous
Poor
68
79 86
89
forage for grazing. 21
Fair
49
69 79
84
Good
39
61 74
80
Meadow —continuous grass, protected from
—
30
58 71
78
grazing and generally mowed for hay.
Brush —brush -weed -grass mixture with brush
Poor
48
67 77
83
the major element. 9'
Fair
35
56 70
77
Good
30 v
48 65
73
Woods —grass combination (orchard
Poor
57
73 82
86
or tree farm). y
Fair
43
65 76
82
Good
32
58 72
79
Woods.ly
Poor
45
66 77
83
Fair
36
60 73
79
Good
30 V
55 70
77
Farmsteads —buildings, lanes, driveways, — 59 74 82 86
and surrounding lots.
1 Average runoff condition, and Za = 0.28.
2 Poor. <50'M) ground cover or heavily grazed with no mulch.
Fair. 50 to 75%ground cover and not heavily grazed.
Good: > 75%ground cover and lightly or only occasionally grazed.
a Poor. <50% ground cover.
Fair: 50 to 7596 ground cover.
Good: >75% ground cover.
4 Actual curve number is less than 30; use CN = 30 for runoff computations.
5 CN's shown were computed for areas with 50%woods and 50%grass (pasture) cover. Other combinations of conditions may be computed
from the CN's for woods and pasture.
6 Poor Forest litter, small trees, and brush are destroyed by heavy grazing or regular burning.
Fair: Woods are grazed but not burned, and some forest litter covers the soil.
Gaod: Woods are protected from grazing, and litter and brush adequately cover the soil.
(210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) 2-7
Chapter 2 Estimating Runoff Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Table 2-2d Runoff curve numbers for and and semiarid rangelands V
Cover description
Cover type
Hydrologic
condition 2/
A J'
Curve numbers for
hydrologic soil group
B C
D
Herbaceous —mixture of grass, weeds, and
Poor
80
87
93
low -growing brush, with brush the
Fair
71
81
89
minor element.
Good
62
74
85
Oak -aspen —mountain brush mixture of oak brush,
Poor
66
74
79
aspen, mountain mahogany, bitter brush, maple,
Fair
48
57
63
and other brush.
Good
30
41
48
Pinyon juniper —pinyon, juniper, or both;
Poor
75
85
89
grass understory.
Fair
58
73
80
Good
41
61
71
Sagebrush with grass understory.
Poor
67
80
85
Fair
51
63
70
Good
35
47
55
Desert shrub —major plants include saltbush,
Poor
63
77
85
88
greasewood, creosotebush, blackbrush, bursage,
Fair
55
72
81
86
palo verde, mesquite, and cactus.
Good
49
68
79
84
r Average runoff condition, and I„ = 0.25. For range in humid regions, use table 2-2c
2 Poor. <30%ground cover (litter, gmss, and brush overstory).
Fair. 30 to 7096 ground cover.
Good: > 70%ground cover.
a Curve numbers for group A have been developed only for desert shrub.
2-8 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986)
Chapter 2 Estimating Runoff Technical Release 55
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
Figure 2-3 Composite CN with connected impervious area
100
oonifnus CN = 90_
nil
Z
0
m 70
0
a
E
0
v 60
50
401
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Connected impervious area (percent)
Figure 2-4 Composite CN with unconnected impervious areas and total impervious area less than 30%
MWI
NMI
90 80 70 60 50 40 0 10 20 30
Composite CN Total impervious
area (percent)
2-10 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986)
V y, Downflow
Ys
Figure 7.2. Definition sketch for pier scour.
The HEC-18 equation is:
0.65
YS
Y, = 2.0 Ki Kz K3 � a Fr, .43
Yi )
(7.1)
As a Rule of Thumb, the maximum scour depth for round nose piers aligned with the flow is:
ys < 2.4 times the pier width (a) for Fr < 0.8 (7.2)
ys < 3.0 times the pier width (a) for Fr > 0.8
In terms of yja, Equation 7.1 is:
/ \ 0.35
as =2.0 Ki Kz K3 aJ Fro.43 (7.3)
where:
ys = Scour depth, ft (m)
y, = Flow depth directly upstream of the pier, ft (m)
K, = Correction factor for pier nose shape from Figure 7.3 and Table 7.1
K2 = Correction factor for angle of attack of flow from Table 7.2 or Equation 7.4
K3 = Correction factor for bed condition from Table 7.3
a = Pier width, ft (m)
L = Length of pier, ft (m)
Fr, = Froude Number directly upstream of the pier = V,/(gy,)'/2
V, = Mean velocity of flow directly upstream of the pier, ft/s (m/s)
g = Acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s2) (9.81 m/s2)
7.3
P `I' � L
O
�O
-
(a) Square Nose (b) Round Nose (c) Cylindrical
L L = (# of Piers) x (a)
O O
(d) Sharp Nose (e) Group of Cylinders
(see Multiple Columns)
Figure 7.3. Common pier shapes.
The correction factor, K2, for angle of attack of the flow, 2, is calculated using the following
equation:
K2 = (Cos 0 + L Sin 0)0.65
a
(7.4)
If L/a is larger than 12, use L/a = 12 as a maximum in Equation 7.4 and Table 7.2. Table 7.2
illustrates the magnitude of the effect of the angle of attack on local pier scour.
Table 7.1. Correction Factor, K,,
for Pier Nose Shape.
Shape of Pier Nose
K,
(a) Square nose
1.1
(b) Round nose
1.0
(c) Circular cylinder
1.0
(d) Group of cylinders
1.0
(e) Sharp nose
0.9
Table 7.2.
Correction Factor, K2, for Angle of
Attack, 2, of the Flow.
Angle
L/a=4
L/a=8
L/a=12
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
15
1.5
2.0
2.5
30
2.0
2.75
3.5
45
2.3
3.3
4.3
90
2.5
3.9
5.0
Angle = skew angle of flow
L = length of pier
7.4
Table 7.3. Increase in Equilibrium Pier Scour Depths, K3, for Bed Condition.
Bed Condition
Dune Height ft
K3
Clear -Water Scour
N/A
1.1
Plane bed and Antidune flow
N/A
1.1
Small Dunes
10 > H > 2
1.1
Medium Dunes
30 > H > 10
1.2 to 1.1
Large Dunes
H > 30
1.3
Notes:
The correction factor K, for pier nose shape should be determined using Table 7.1 for
angles of attack up to 5 degrees. For greater angles, K2 dominates and K, should be
considered as 1.0. If L/a is larger than 12, use the values for L/a = 12 as a maximum in
Table 7.2 and Equation 7.4.
The values of the correction factor K2 should be applied only when the field conditions are
such that the entire length of the pier is subjected to the angle of attack of the flow. Use
of this factor will result in a significant over -prediction of scour if (1) a portion of the pier is
shielded from the direct impingement of the flow by an abutment or another pier; or (2) an
abutment or another pier redirects the flow in a direction parallel to the pier. For such
cases, judgment must be exercised to reduce the value of the K2 factor by selecting the
effective length of the pier actually subjected to the angle of attack of the flow. Equation
7.4 should be used for evaluation and design. Table 7.2 is intended to illustrate the
importance of angle of attack in pier scour computations and to establish a cutoff point for
K2 (i.e., a maximum value of 5.0).
3. The correction factor K3 results from the fact that for plane -bed conditions, which is
typical of most bridge sites for the flood frequencies employed in scour design, the
maximum scour may be 10 percent greater than computed with Equation 7.1. In the
unusual situation where a dune bed configuration with large dunes exists at a site
during flood flow, the maximum pier scour may be 30 percent greater than the predicted
equation value. This may occur on very large rivers, such as the Mississippi. For smaller
streams that have a dune bed configuration at flood flow, the dunes will be smaller and
the maximum scour may be only 10 to 20 percent larger than equilibrium scour. For
antidune bed configuration the maximum scour depth may be 10 percent greater than the
computed equilibrium pier scour depth.
4. Piers set close to abutments (for example at the toe of a spill through abutment) must be
carefully evaluated for the angle of attack and velocity of the flow coming around the
abutment.
7.3 FLORIDA DOT PIER SCOUR METHODOLOGY
Equation 7.1 has been included in all previous versions of HEC-18 and has been used for
bridge scour evaluations and bridge design for countless bridges in the U.S. and worldwide.
This equation, which was developed and modified over several decades, could be improved
by including bed material size and a more detailed consideration of the bridge pier flow field
(see Section 3.6.2). An NCHRP study (NCHRP 2011a) evaluated 22 pier scour equations
and found that although the HEC-18 equation did well in comparison to the other equations,
the Sheppard and Miller (2006) equation generally performed better for both laboratory and
7.5