Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
32-06 FEMA - Office Bldg. - Stonewall - Backfile
G m 0 m a Cc 0 LL 0 No RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS o Q n j U ., w a k DATE z LL1_0"` NO. 2 �831 I kr7:> 4, .i• AMT. OF CASH ACCOUNT I AMT. PAID '3(7 ! l CHECK } I BALANCE I MONEY DUE ORDER AID i BY �) tk j �/� �1 s.. E r It SITE PLAN TRACKING SHEET Date: File opened U' Reference Manual updated/number assigned 1 CI� D-base updated P-IFile given to Renee' to update Application Action Summary CLOSE OUT FILE: Z 0 V6 0 Approval (or denial) letter mailed to applicant/copy made for file 0 0 06 File stamped "approved", "denied" or "withdrawn" /0 4/06 Reference Manual updated / 0 _1L�� D-base updated /0 - o42. File given to Renee' for final update to Application Action Summary ski W-Q Q- U \13-TommonMacking shcets`Sitc Plan Tracking wpd Rniscd 02107/03 SITE PLAN APPLICATION CHECKLIST The cbecklist shown below specifies the information which is required to be submitted as part of the site plan application_ The Department of Planning & Development will review the application to ensure that it is complete prior to accepting it. If any portion of the application is not complete, it will be returned to the applicant(s). (1) One (1) set of approved comment sheets are required from each relevant review agency prior to final approval of a site plan_ It is recommended that applicants contact the Department of Planning & Development to determine which review agencies' are relevant to their site plan application. A list of potentially relevant review agencies is shown below: Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Department of GIS (Geographic Information Services) ✓ Frederick County Sanitation Authority ✓ Frederick County Building Inspections Department ✓ Frederick County Department of Public Works ✓ Frederick County Fire Marshal X Frederick County Health Department x Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation ,✓ Virginia Department of Transportation (VDO'I) City of iVmDhester y Town of Stephens City Town of Middletown Frederick County / Winchester Airport Authority ✓Z. (2) One (1) copy of the Site Plan application form. (3) Payment of the site plan review fee. t/ (4) One (1) reproducible copy of the Site Plan (if required). Pagc I of 2 Eric Lawrence From: Eric Lawrence [elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:47 AM To: 'Ed Sussi' Cc: 'douglas.dooling@gsa.gov'; 'Tertell, Paul'; 'Linda Wurzberger'; 'Whitacre, Ricky'; 'mark.kelly@gsa.gov' Subject: RE: revised: FEMA ELEVATIONS Hi Ed The tower as illustrated in the attached images does comply with our zoning requirements (in terms of heights and setbacks). You will need to secure a building permit. Contact Amy Light in the Building Inspections Department ( ALight@co.frederick.va.us or 540-665-5650) for specific structural detail specifications that will be required with the building permit application. -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us http://www_co.frederick.v_a__us/PlanningAndDevelopment/PlanningAndDev.htm www.co.frederick.ya.us -----Original Message ----- From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:02 AM To: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us Cc: douglas.dooling@gsa.gov; 'Tertell, Paul'; 'Linda Wurzberger'; 'Whitacre, Ricky'; mark.kelly@gsa.gov Subject: FW: revised: FEMA ELEVATIONS Mr. Lawrence: FEMA is seeking approval to install dish communication antennas at the northeast corner of the building as previously discussed several months ago. I have attached photo -shopped images (Image #1 & #2) and scale schematic graphic images (Image #3 East & #4 North) as well as the details for the dish antennas and the supporting structure, (Tower w/ Antenna pdf), that the Government has provided. The northeast corner of the FEMA site is adjacent to the Riddick property to the east and the DeHaven Property to the north (Image #2), and can be seen from Martinsburg Pike through existing mature zoning buffer planting at the Riddick property (Image #1). Now that we have more detail, I wish to again confirm that such an antenna installation is permitted under the existing zoning and if so, what procedure is required for County approval. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. Sincerely, Edward J. Srtssi Executive Vice President THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212 953 0007 6/12/2008 Page 2 of 2 212'953 1535 fax www.cowperwood.com 6/12/2008 Prepared by: ME Associates 768 ('h .v-W Ur, Wyhofl, NJ 0741 PA: 201-790 1911 Fu. 201 560-IS e-wu 1. dekcry(.O."h--1 LLC rt,MA (1ric6 w,..h. a View looking west at the east side of the building. VP ► S'l I I I Rutherford, VA I I I IC I URF, Prepared by: ME Associates, LLC 761 Ch-nworr, d UWyckoff, NJ 07421 Ph 201-79019n Fu. 201-160-1540 c- 1 dekcrf(a)uplon1wm net 6,7/04 PROPOSED 10' & 8' MICROWAVE DISH INSTALLED ON 20' TOWER SECTION F= F= F= F= f= f= fw- F= fi-- fw- F= f= Fr` F F j F= F- F= f= f= f= f= f= F" rr F= F= F= F= f= F= F! Fr" F= F= F= F= F= F= FPr FEMA I View looking west at the east side of the building. Office / Warehouse Rutherford, VA (Note: Base building elevation by others, new tower & microwave dish added to rendering). VP1 RENDERING Prepared by: ME Associates, LLC 768 r'hamwad Dr., Wycknlr, NJ 07481 11h* 201-790'1911 Fa■: 201-560-1590 c-mildckerj*op1online.m1 6mos PROPOSED 10' & 8' MICROWAVE DISH TINSTALLED ON 20' TOWER SECTION FFFFFFFFFF= - I a- FEMA I View looking south at the north side of the building. Orrice! Warehouse Rutherford, VA (Note: Base building elevation by other, new tower & microwave dish added to rendering). VP2 RENDERING PROPOSED 20—FT SELF SUPPORTED TOWER ANALYSIS MODEL FOR RUTHERFORD, VA L2 F �a � Iw 0 oa L1 a H E O � Inc Pt�tJ IC) ou. asp+ NEW W10 BEAM ON TOP OF EXISTING BUILDING ROOF -ttp OF fis� �s 2 :z n m6L^V t') r' of Q1•,c..,P+E -r 'vY cf-- 15 60 '— 2 n . @Y[MPS\ JaeNpas-(}oik'aRTIJLA7rbdYZ\QJLLA8:17:/frgi^y{pnpaeWZOJLACaE7EH:IJAaNOITUP Page 1 DESIGN CRITERIA Tower: New 20-ft Self -Supported Lattice Steel Tower On Roof of Rutherford Bldq (FEMA —New Office/Warehouse Building) LOCATION: 2021 Martinsburg Pike, Winchester, VA Latitude N 39' 13' 31 "/ Longitude W 780 07' 43" Frederick County, VA DESIGN STANDARDS ANSI/TIA-222-G-1-2007 Structural Standards for Antenna Supporting Structures & Antennas & 2006 International Building Code 90 MPH (3 second gust wind speed) Class III Structure (for Essential Cominunications) Exposure Category C In addition to the loads from the existing tower framing and platforms the loads from the following antennas and their associated transmission lines were considered in the analysis. ANTENNA CONFIGURATION ( Used for Structural Analysis) N-ew (Proposed) Antennas - To Be Mounted on Tower ,'` 1.) (AT&T Gov. Solutions/ FEMA) One Andrew HPX10-107 (10-ft dia) Parabolic Antenna at a centerline of approx. 21-ft above tower base plate* and two runs of EW90 elliptical waveguide. 2.) (AT&T Gov. Solutions/ FEMA) One Andrew HPX8-59 (8-ft diameter) Parabolic Antenna at a centerline of approx. 16-ft above tower base plate* and two runs of EW52 elliptical waveguide. * Note: The Tower Base Plates will be mounted on new steel beams that will be approximately 3.5-ft above the roof of this 59-ft +/- tall, four-story steel framed building. CZMA Communication Structures Engineering, Inc. 5579-B Chamblee Dunwoody Road /Suite 517/ Dunwoody, GA 30338 / email: mail@comstructures.com / (770) 951-8080 L I I r ro.4 Ss -0 * To.B•7 SL Go -1 v ,c -odi -7 -f r7/o4e NOTE: COURSES WITH ASTERISK (*) DENOTE NEW Qo,� Oa6 j TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. pF 0017 SEE SHEETS 5 do 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES W/NCHEVER AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. 60' R AND R 4R614D /,w - sEE De JO' WATER & s£WER 63J PG 712 EASEMENT T -1NST. No. 020014907 Dor-SHADED AREA DENOTES A 20' - a _ a - ` SANITARY SEWER'S �/ �E ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 4J-A-99 T EASEMENT HEREBY / j p Zp SEE SHEET 2 ESTABLISHED TO(9 /0 VACATED 4 BENEFIT ADJUSTED 0 61 TRACT -- LINE NE HEREBY E - � -� TAX PARCELE2 WATT E o 43-A-111. E4 ` _ L`* E1C1 �T_��E m o IRS IRS c S 0� E E 25' BRL yEREBy SCE E4 �E�yp (:� �' c`"n E 6.81 61.65 ep'ti'F�T q� ��SyEDEN� EJ 2 m t4* IRS L� o * OVERHEAD UTILITY ` w I IRS t o1RS ^ Q WIRES - POTOMAC C14 a EDISON CO. R/W C * BRL OB 495 PG 74 to % W - Q (NO WIDTH APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF z a ►� SPECIFIED) FLOOD ZONE A PER N i o F.I. R. M. No. 51006J 0105 B W Wi JW� 3 m L 3 41 -dW� aV * w ��NW 'KADJUSTED TAX Z_�Ln BARN PARCEL 4 3—A —111 00 1� o 18.3453 ACRES m, 100' MINIMUM 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C Q CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT ? w ZONING DISTRICT 0YEE UFFER REQUIRED BUFFER REQUIRED BARN o * o ZONE: Al 1 IRF ZONE- RA 4 1 ZONE.• RP IRS L ,°t ZONE. RP f o,rF L 6 ZONE. M 1 L 1 1 IPF ZO`IRr - -'* " -- o IRS NAIL FD. L1O WIRE FENCE IN TREE SHo : o FOR DETAIL ti: ti c O ti:ti ti ti li 2 2 i ti ti IRF L8 —� - - —_-� N C2 IRF MO200 0 200 0.65 M/LEf TO MARTINSBURG PIKE INTERSTATE 81 EXITU.S. ROUTE 11 GRAPHIC SCALE ON FEET) 80' R/W REVISED: AUGUST 31 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF �4 ,NJ TH 0�, y� C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL S �° f C, STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINLA ` RICHARD A. EDE1 a SCALE: 1" = 200' 1 DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 No.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill lane 1� Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 9 SURv� Surveyors 1 elephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX- (540) 722-9528 I-ow)(led in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com r2795J SHEET 3 OF 6 v 0o Page 1 of 4 Candice Perkins From: Eric Lawrence [elawrenc@co.frederick.va.usj Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 5:33 PM To: Candice Perkins Subject: FW: FEMA waterline Background Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us http_//www.co.frederick.v_a,us/PlanningAndDevelopment/Planni_ngAndDev.htm www.co.frederick.va. us -----Original Message ----- From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:20 AM To: 'Randy Kepler' Cc: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us; Brian Harvey; 'David Pearson' Subject: FW: FEMA water line Randy: In order to accommodate the County's request to provide landscape screening along the FEMA/Merryman property line as we discussed, please revise the water line plan and prepare the site plan to be resubmitted to FCSA for review, as requested below by Eric Lawrence, DDPD, Frederick County. Please note that the lamp pole bases can not be more than three feet into the waterline 20' easement and may need to be located closer to the edge of the access road pavement than previously planned. Please inform me if this presents any difficulties for us. Also, please send me for my review the current proposed LEED revisions to the southwest parking lot for the Grass -Pave surface material and related curb and drainage revisions. As we will be resubmitting the site plan, I would like to include these other revisions, including the shift of the western sanitary line top avoid the line pole, at this time. Thank you, Edward J. Sussi Executive Vice President THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212 953 0007 212 953 1535 fax www.cowperwood.com I 1 /28/2007 Page 2 of 4 From: Eric Lawrence[maiIto: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:53 AM To: 'Ed Sussi' Cc: 'Patrick Barker'; 'Randy Kepler'; 'David Pearson'; 'Brian Harvey' Subject: RE: FEMA water line Hi Ed. I spoke with FCSA about the possible shift in easement. They are OK with shift, so long as the lamp post base is no more than 3 feet into the easement. They also requested that the effect plan sheets be revised and submitted to FCSA (John Whitacre) for review. Sounds like good progress. Could Randy make plan change and forward the effect sheets to FCSA for review/approval? Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) el_awrenc@co.frederick_va.us www.co.frederick.va.us -----Original Message ----- From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:43 AM To: 'Eric Lawrence' Cc: 'Patrick Barker'; 'Randy Kepler'; 'David Pearson'; Brian Harvey Subject: RE: FEMA water line Eric: After review with Greenway Engineering, we can move the water line easement to the north which will provide 25 feet to a minimum of 20 feet from the southern edge of the easement to the Merryman property line. This will provide ample area for the preservation of the existing deciduous trees and for planting new evergreen trees among the existing trees to form the landscape screen buffer as we discussed. Moving the water line easement to the north will however leave the here street light bases approximately 3-4 feet inside the northern edge of the easement. Please confirm that this is acceptable to the County/FCSA and we will then proceed on this basis. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Edward J. Sussi Executive Vice President THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212 953 0007 l 1/28/2007 Page 3 of 4 212 953 1535 fax www.cowperwood.com From: Eric Lawrence [maiIto: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:16 PM To: esussi@cowperwood.com Cc: Patrick Barker Subject: FEMA water line 'afQi� In reference to your call on Friday regarding the water line extension from Rt11 to the FEMA site, I have contacted John Whitacre at FCSA. FCSA maintains the position that if any vegetation (aside from sod) will be within the 20-ft water line easement, then the ductile pipe is necessary. I understand Cowperwood's preference to avoid use of the ductile pipe, as a cost savings measure. The challenge before us is to work together to meet all party interests. In reviewing the approved site plan, it appears that the southern boundary of the FCSA easement does coincide with the COWPERWOOD/MERRYMAN property boundary. There is a row of existing, mature deciduous trees (in particular, the 5 located close to the Merryman house) within the vicinity of the Cowperwood/Merryman property line. I understand that these existing trees are on the Merryman property, but their branch systems overhang onto the Cowperwood property. Certainly, it is reasonable to anticipate that the tree's root systems mirror its canopy; therefore tree roots may be located on both properties. Reasonable efforts should be exercised to minimize any impacts on these existing tree root systems during the water line installation. Additionally, just last month we agreed to work together and relocate some planned evergreen trees from elsewhere on the FEMA site and plan them in the vicinity of the Cowperwood/Merryman property line as an effort to lessen impacts the FEMA temporary/emergency access drive may have on the Merryman residence. This double row of evergreen trees could be placed close to the property line, almost pitching the trees together so that they grow into an evergreen wall — keep trees within 5-ft of the property line? Accordingly, might it be possible to shift the FCSA easement north by 5-ft, placing the new water line in the northern 1/3rd of the easement? This slight tweaking of the FCSA easement and pipe would remove all trees (existing and planned) from the easement, potentially avoiding the need for ductile pipes while preserving the existing trees and the planned evergreen trees. I would be curious if you feel this shift in easements/pipes is feasible, as well as a resolution to our issue: preserving the trees and planned evergreen screen, while also more efficiently installing the water pipe. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you for your consideration. -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us 11/28/2007 Page 4 of 4 www.co.frederick.va. us 11/28/2007 0 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 TRANSMITTAL Project Name: FE11A File No: 279iC Date: September 13, 2007 To: FC Planning Attn: Candice Perkins Copied From: Randy Kepler/dlm GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Delivery: F Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail �J Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Other ❑ Urgent rvj' For Your Review r7l As You Requested R] Please Comment Message Candice, Per your request, attached is the following for your review and approval: -5 copies of the revised site plan per Planning comments -Comment response letter -Approval letters from Inspections and Fire Marshal As always, thank you for your assistance. Call with any questions. Hand Deliver- and Pick tips Only: Received bv: Date: Please Print Name: GREENWAY ENGINEERING, mc. 151 Windy Hill lane Winchester, irginia 22602 nulled In 1971 September 12, 2007 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Attn: Candice E. Perkins, Planner 11 Re: FENIA Office Building Site Plan Revisions (SP#32-06) Comment Response Dear Ms. Perkins: We are in receipt of comments dated April 3, 2007 and offer the following responses: Comments from Frederick County Planning Comment l: Site Plan Revisions. This site plan needs to be identical to the previously, approved site plan 6vith exceptions to the revisions being sought). This site plan will need to be administrativeh, approved and will take the place of SP#32-06. Response: The plans submitted are identical other than revisions stated. Administrative approval process noted. No changes needed to plan set. Comment 2: Landscaping Revisions. Landlscuping sheets were not included with this submission: this site plan needs tO reflect the landscaping revisions along the access road. Response: The landscaping sheets have been added to the plan set, but have not been revised to include the landscaping revisions along the access road. The landscaping revisions that were approved under separate cover have been added to sheet C 1-02 — E&S Phase II and have been labeled as entrance road landscaping revisions to be incorporated into the plan set. The landscaping has been included per the previous agreement. No other changes have been made per the landscaping requirements. Comment 3: Sidewalk. The sidewalks should be extended as indicated on sheet CL 0.1 to join with the sidewalks being provided within Rutherford's Crossing. Response: Greenway Engineering has reviewed the possibility of including sidewalks along the main entrance road onto the FEMA site. Unfortunately due to the existing grading and stormwater conveyance channels along this entrance road, it is physically impossible to install 4-5 foot sidewalks on either one to two sides of this entrance either horizontally or vertically without major redesign of the entrance and parking. Since this area has already been constructed it would be expensive to make this improvement. The sidewalks have not been provided. No changes to the plans have been made. Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 Filer+2795C IRl-K/dim www.greenwayeng.com Please find attached the revised plans for your approval, as well as, approvals from the following: Frederick County Inspections Department and Fire Marshal. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. As always, we appreciate your time in this matter. Sincerely, Gre n��a Cn 1ineering, nc. Randy L. Kepler, 11 Ed SUSSI — Cowperwood Company Request For Site Plan Comments Frederick County Inspections Department Mail to: Frederick County Inspections Department Attn: Building Official 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Hand deliver to: 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, VA (540) 665-5650 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Phone Number: (540) 662-4185 Name of development and/or description of the request: FEMA-Site Plan Location of property: Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, Route 11 North Inspections Department's Comments:���`u' P P Inspections Department use only Date received Date revision received Date approved i Incomplete Incomplete Date reviewed Date reviewed Signature and Date 2 (� Signature and Date (revisionL f ` I) qc Si 2007 By15� 1c,4 CA." Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal Plan Review and Comments Control number Date received Date reviewed Date Revised S P 06 - 00 4 3 RR 8/22/2007 8/23/2007 Protect Name Applicant FEMA Office Building Greenway Engineering Address City State Zip Applicant Phone 151 Windy Hill Ln. Winchester VA 22602 540-662-4185 Type Application Tax ID Number Fire District Rescue District Site Plan Revision 43-A-99 13 13 Current Zoning Election District M-1 Recommendations Stonewall Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System Yes Yes No Other recommendation Requirements Emergency Vehicle Access Hydrant Location Fire Lane Required Adequate Adequate Yes Siamese Location Roadway/Aisleway Width Special Hazards Adequate Adequate No Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature ���/ Yes J Neal44��- ^'"� Title f COU , lik4iREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 December 7, 2006 Edward J. Sussi THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 RE: FEMA Office Building Frederick County, Virginia Dear Ed: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation on December 4, 2006, we appreciate your willingness to work with the County towards minimizing the impacts your facility's construction and future vehicular access may place upon the adjacent Merryman's residence. Based on our conversation, evergreen screening would be installed between the FEMA facility's temporary/emergency access drive and the adjacent Merryman's residence. I have met with the adjacent resident, Scott Merryman, as well as coordinated with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA), to discuss the proposed evergreen screening, and understand that both parties concur with the attached planting layout. In an effort to accommodate the double row of evergreen plantings, the Merryman's are agreeable to allowing a single row of evergreen trees to be planted along the shared property boundary, planted on 15 foot centers. These plantings should respect the three existing and established deciduous trees. The second row of plantings would be planted on the FEMA Office Building property, approximately 15 feet from the property line, and again on 15 foot centers. Off -set from the first row, this second row of trees would complete the intended visual and noise screening element. John Whitacre of the FCSA requests that a ductile iron (class 52) pipe be used if trees are to be planted atop the line. This ductile iron pipe should be used from station 10+50 to 14+50. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 y Edward J. Sussi Re: FEMA Office Building December 7, 2006 Page 2 Recognizing that it's not logical to plant the trees until the earthwork (i.e., driveway and water line installation) is completed, it is expected that the first row of evergreen screening be planted as soon as possible in early Spring 2007, but no later than April 30, 2007. The second row of plantings would be planted at the time the balance of the FEMA site's landscaping is completed, and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the FEMA project. This evergreen screening would contain approximately 30 trees. The Planning Staff will work with you (or your landscaper) to relocate the trees from the required landscape buffers as illustrated on the approved site plan for the FEMA Office Building. Therefore, no additional plantings are requested. Thanks for your efforts to minimize the impacts on the adjacent residence. , AICP Planning Director cc: Scott Merryman, 1995 Martinsburg Pike, Winchester, Va 22603 Jolui Whitacre, Frederick County Sanitation Authority Patrick Barker, Winchester -Frederick EDC Attachment ERL/bad r - DRIvEWA?'Q — I w EX. DRIVEWAY CUTUP I - RELOCATE PP I ;n C* -12E (rrPa �'E_-- _ Ex DRIVEWAY---_ FENCE PATH VSF-1 _ TO BE REMOVED) E —E _ PPERJ 12° RGP R=15' �✓SCs_2 m� _uul u IME BE 14+0 ��Q� (� CE 100 TAPER — 4 10 13+00 12+85.11 i I 10+00, — — - , (� E _ 1 !z F 1 EE 0 --! -- CS 6 I 14*W 15+0 21+65 n n PER 100' URN LANE 12 +00 102 W2 "A" n , L n —f SITE SIGNn FUTURE) J I - S 55'45'S5" '339.&0, ^ 0 1�e CG -1251 I (Tl'Pa �l ��_�� ���. - I PJ TEMPORART a- CASING I 1 ENTRANCE ROAD EXTEND 5' B (SERVICE) PAST ROW JACK AND BORE I PROVIDE C S W� CROSSING I 1 I B NG FOR W/L CROSSING f 43-A-10S PER FCSA DETAIL ER � SCOTT E. t 1_INDA M. Pf�Fc,EL r EV E INSTR Y R 2003 ((J MSTR • (f-e z REGRADE ' ROADSIDE � DITCH GRAVEL SHOULDER I I I I I 55'45155" E 4152 EG 43-A-108 FENCE NETHER;S, PATRICIA S. ZONED: Rp✓ BE REMOVED) INSTR INSTR �1R 2001 w SO 15 (�, J 0 30 60 IQ I (( w \ \ \ SCALE: I 060018810 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALSIG STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JUNE 13, 2006 REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2006 Opp Hiorr \ Q' o STONEWALL INDUSTRIAL 4f46 PARK '"t°e �\�., � � Z _ J. �Sj Rood 3 co fir` 01) ��o- O � Li b �• P�� c EXIT }•� i • -t`� v� � � 317 G5• \ VICINITY MAP 2000' 0 WNER'S CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULL Y, IV, AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLATS, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANF W1T E DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, A TRt1S .S COMA40NWEILTH OF WRGINA, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINAf L ; FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY P.O. Box 1877 Winchester. VA 22604-8377 ROBERT P. MOWERV, C.P.A., Chairman JOHN STEVENS, Vice-chairman RICHARD A. RUCKMAN, P.E., Sec -treasurer J. STANLEV CROCKETT DARWIN S. BRADEN February 11, 2008 Mr. Ty Lawson Lawson & Silek, P.L.C. 120 Exeter Drive, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Titan Plant — Clear Brook Storm Water Discharge Dear Ty: %NellinQton H. Jones, P.E. Engineer -Director Ph. - (540) 868-1061 Fax - (540) 868.1429 I have reviewed the revised site plan you provided, and I am returning it with corrections as noted. Not having storm water reach the quarry to the east of the site would be the best practice. This will provide the best protection for the raw water source of our water treatment plant. However, since the site was developed so storm water drains to the quarry, the best mitigation is to retain the storm water to the fullest extent possible. This provides more reaction time should a failure of fuel or chemical tank occur. Therefore, I recommend placing standard drop inlets at the entrance to each of the three culverts. The top of the drop inlets should be about four inches below the surface of the road. The berms on the outlet ends of the culverts should be restored and armored. This will provide for retention of the storm water in the existing ditches along the plant side of the road and additional retention basins along the east side of the road. Should you have any questions, please contact me. ef: DEQ, Steve Hetrick Sincerely yours, W.H. Jones, P.E. Engineer -Director WATER AT YOUR SERVICE Candice Perkins From: Candice Perkins [cperkins@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:06 AM To: 'Ed Sussi' Subject: RE: FEMA - Smokers Shelter Location Mr. Sussi, The proposed smokers shelter is minor in nature and located behind the main structure, therefore we will not require a site plan revision. You should contact the Inspections Department to see if the shelter will require a building permit. Candice Perkins, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5651 (540) 665-6395 (fax) cperkins(@co.fredericl<.va.us www.co.frederick.va.us -----Original Message ----- From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:49 PM To: cperkins@co.frederick.va.us Cc: Mark Roberts Subject: Fwd: FEMA - Smokers Shelter Location > Dear Ms. Perkins: > The attached plan and sketches are for a proposed 10 x 20 prefab > aluminum and glass smokers shelter that FEMA would like to h ave > installed. It is similar in construction to a bus stop shelter. > Do we have to file for site plan approval for the smokers' shelter? > It will be located within all required setbacks. No electric, > plumbing or HVAC work is associated with the installation of the > smokers shelter. The existing 4 concrete walkway will be extended to > provide support and flooring for the shelter. > Thank you, > Edward J. Sussi > Executive Vice President > COWPERWOOD COMPANY > 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 > New York, NY 10152 > 212 953 0007 > 212 953 1535 fax > www.cowperwood.com > From: Ed Sussi > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 9:55 AM 1 > To: Mark Roberts > Subject: Smokers Shelter Location > Mark: > See attached. Run this past Mike Goss. > Edward J. Sussi > Executive Vice President > COWPERWOOD > COMPANY > 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 > New York, NY 10152 > 212 953 0007 > 212 953 1535 fax > www.cowperwood.com <http://www.cowperwood.com/> 2 .� �--_ w - � i � ,' _' � i w ��__ __ _..�-. I , i � �� I I I� � � ' I 4 i III Mi 4111 NMI March 17, 2008 Ms. Candace Perkins Frederick County Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: FEMA Office & Warehouse Exterior Building Lights Dear Candace: It has been brought to our attention that light shields are required to be installed on all exterior lights on the North and East sides of the office building and warehouse to eliminate any lighting that may shine on adjacent properties. Harvey Cleary Builders will have these light shields installed within 10 days from Tuesday, March 18, 2008 to comply with the county requirements. If there is any additional information needed or requested please do not hesitate to contact me at 301.519.2288 (office) or 240.388.0669 (cell). Sincerely, I ��--- � David S. Pearson Project Manager CC: File Field Mike Crough — Director of Construction Mike Harvey — Vice President Ed Sussi — The Cowperwood Company 101 Orclimd Hid(Y Drive Suite 325 G:ulhershurll, MD 20878 ;101 519 2288 301 1)19 9677 fax C✓VJv/ I1£Wey clowy corn I lou,,ton ■ nustm ■ Wttshinrjton, D.0 Candice Perkins From: Eric Lawrence [elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:57 PM To: 'Ed Sussi' Cc: 'Candice Perkins'; 'Mark Roberts'; 'Michelle Kobrin'; douglas.dooling@gsa.gov Subject: RE: FEMA building exterior lighting Let's give it a shot. So long at the replacement light eliminates the glare (and is shielded in a manner so that the filament is not visible from the adjoining residences), I think we're headed in the right direction. Thanks for working towards resolution. -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrenc(a)co.frederick.va.us htto://www.co.frederick.va.us/PlanningAndDevelopmenUPIanningAndDev.htm www.co.frederick.va.us From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:48 AM To: Eric Lawrence Cc: Candice Perkins; Mark Roberts; Michelle Kobrin; douglas.dooling@gsa.gov Subject: RE: FEMA building exterior lighting Thank you for the response, Eric Lowering the lighting fixtures is not an option, as the areas of the side yards to the property lines require high overhead lighting for security camera reasons. Running new electrical circuits to lower building mounted locations and having to patch the building precast concrete facade at the exiting locations will also greatly add to the cost of correcting the problem. We have been exploring alternate cut-off type lighting fixtures. We will have one new fixture installed at the northeast corner of the building (facing north) to replace the existing building mounted lighting fixture at that location. I will then contact you and request a coordinated field inspection one evening with the County, our facility manager and FEMA security. Upon approval of the alternate fixture by County Planning and FEMA security, Cowperwood will proceed to replace the remaining building fixtures along the north and east side of the building. Please confirm if proceeding in this manner is acceptable to the County Sincerely, Edward J. Scrssi Executive Vice President THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212 953 0007 212 953 1535 fax www.cowperwood.com From: Eric Lawrence[ma iIto: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:33 PM To: Ed Sussi Cc: 'Candice Perkins'; Mark Roberts; Michelle Kobrin Subject: RE: FEMA building exterior lighting Hi Ed As this lighting glare is an issue that warrants resolution, I certainly would appreciate all efforts to remedy. Please do pursue replacing these troublesome lighting fixtures (north and east side of FEMA building) with units that are better suited for the location — adjacent to residential uses. The obvious challenge is identifying a lighting unit that offers the preferred security light coverage, while minimizing glare and more importantly eliminating the ability for the adjacent residences to view the lamp's filament. One option is to lower the lamp's placement on the wall, to a level where the landscaped berm may assist in shielding the lighting from adjoining properties. Thank you for continuing the seek resolution. -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrenc(@co.freclerick.va.us http://www co frederick va us/PlanningAndDevelopmenUPIanningAndDev.htm www.co.frederick.va.us From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 8:33 AM To: 'Eric Lawrence' Cc: 'Candice Perkins'; Mark Roberts; Michelle Kobrin Subject: RE: FEMA building exterior lighting Eric: The existing building lighting shields cannot be further adjusted to reduce the glare that is reported from the neighboring property owner. I am contacting you to determine if we need to pursue this further. If so, we will have investigate alternative replacement lighting fixtures along the north and east property boundaries. Please advise. Thank you, Edward J. Sussi Executive Vice President THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212 953 0007 212 953 1535 fax www.cowperwood.com From: Eric Lawrence[mailto:elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 12:53 PM To: 'Ed Sussi' Cc: 'Candice Perkins'; 'Mark Roberts'; 'Michael A. Blanc' Subject: RE: FEMA building exterior lighting Chapter 165-35.A of the Frederick County Code discusses Glare as a nuisance that is prohibited. "Glare. Outdoor lighting shall be arranged to deflect glare away from adjoining properties and public streets. Sources of light on a lot shall be hooded or controlled to prevent glare beyond the lot line. Sources which produce harmful glare or ultraviolet rays, including arc welding or acetylene torches, shall be completely screened from view sufficiently to imperceptible beyond the lot lines." Thank you for working with us on this glare issue. -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrenc(Dco.frederick.va.us http://www co frederick va us/PlanningAndDevelopment/PIanningAndDev.htm www.co.frederick.va.us From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:39 AM To: 'Eric Lawrence' Cc: 'Candice Perkins'; 'Mark Roberts'; 'Michael A. Blanc' Subject: RE: FEMA building exterior lighting Eric: I will review the issue further with my lighting consultant and respond to the County's concern and request for further building lighting modifications. Cowperwood has no control over FEMA's security camera systems. Can you please provide me, or direct me, to the ordinance language regarding off -site glare that you refer to below? I was under the impression that a certain foot-candle lighting level at the property line was how the off -site adjacent lighting cut-off is measured. I want to ensure that my consultant has the correct ordinance language that needs to be addressed. Thank you, Edward J. Sussi Executive Vice President THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212 953 0007 212 953 1535 fax www.cowperwood.com From: Eric Lawrence[ma iIto: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 3:12 PM To: 'Ed Sussi' Cc: 'Candice Perkins'; 'Mark Roberts' Subject: RE: FEMA building exterior lighting Ed - I visited the site last evening to see if the light shielding was indeed adequate to minimize the off -site glare. My observation is that the shield, as was apparently installed based on a letter we received from Harvey Cleary (attached), does not address the excessive off -site glare. I have also spoken with the adjacent property owner (DeHaven) who continues to be impacted by this glare. Mr. DeHaven has stated that his property and residence's interior is being significantly affected by this glare. Mr. DeHaven has extended to any interested parties an invitation to visit his residence to personally experience this excessive glare. This site offers a challenge to managing the lighting glare, and the placement of the intense light fixtures near the roof line of a nearly 60-ft building only intensifies the challenge. The adjacent landscaped 6-ft high berm certainly assists in lessening the impacts of the building on the surrounding neighbors. But the berm and landscaping do nothing to address this wall mounted lighting — the light simply shines/glares over top of the berm. And it appears the light shields also do little to assist. I noted in your below message that FEMA requires after hours lighting and cameras for security. In an effort to marry FEMA's needs, County ordinance requirements applicable to glare, while acknowledging the adjacent residents, I would suggest that these wall mounted lights need to be revisited. Maybe there is an acceptable camera with nighttime technological advancements that would enable minimal exterior lighting? Maybe the wall mounted lights could be lowered so that the landscape berms might capture some of the glare? As the current situation is not acceptable, I offer these suggestions in an effort to arrive at a solution for all parties. I appreciate your consideration of these and any other alternatives in an effort to remedy this excessive glare situation. Thank you -Eric Lawrence Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrenc(o,co.frederick.va.us http://www co frederick.va.us/PlanningAndDevelopmenUPlanningAndDev.htm www.co.frederick.va.us From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:12 AM To: 'Eric Lawrence' Cc: 'Candice Perkins'; douglas.dooling@gsa.gov; 'Tertell, Paul'; 'Linda Wurzberger'; 'Mark Roberts' Subject: RE: FEMA building Eric The building lighting is an after hours requirement of the FEMA security and camera system coverage off all facades of the building and must remain on after hours, as does all other property and parking area lighting. Whoever from the contractor or my staff stated that the lighting was for emergencies only was misinformed. Planning requested that shields be placed on the lights to direct the building lighting downward and away from the adjacent properties. The shields have been installed which should cut-off the horizontal projection of the lights to the minimum at the adjacent property lines. Please let me know what other measures you suggest can be taken in this regard and I will review same with FEMA. Sincerely, Edward J. Sussi Executive Vice President THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212 953 0007 212 953 1535 fax www.cowperwood.com From: Eric Lawrence [mailto:elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:56 AM To: 'Ed Sussi' Cc: 'Candice Perkins' Subject: FEMA building Ed... I have been made aware that the building mounted Emergency Lighting has been left burning throughout the night. We were led to believe the lights were for emergency's, and would therefore rarely be turned on. Please request that your site personnel/contractors turn off this emergency lighting. Thanks. -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrenc(cbco.frederick.va.us http://www co frederick va.us/PlanningAndDevelopmenUPIanningAndDev.htm www.co.frederick.va.us -----Original Message ----- From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:02 AM To: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us Cc: douglas.dooling@gsa.gov; 'Tertell, Paul'; 'Linda Wurzberger'; 'Whitacre, Ricky'; mark.kelly@gsa.gov Subject: FW: revised: FEMA ELEVATIONS Mr. Lawrence: FEMA is seeking approval to install dish communication antennas at the northeast corner of the building as previously discussed several months ago. I have attached photo -shopped images (Image #1 & #2) and scale schematic graphic images (Image #3 East & #4 North) as well as the details for the dish antennas and the supporting structure, (Tower w/ Antenna pdf), that the Government has provided. The northeast corner of the FEMA site is adjacent to the Riddick property to the east and the DeHaven Property to the north (Image #2), and can be seen from Martinsburg Pike through existing mature zoning buffer planting at the Riddick property (Image #1). Now that we have more detail, I wish to again confirm that such an antenna installation is permitted under the existing zoning and if so, what procedure is required for County approval. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. Sincerely, Edward J. Sussi Executive Vice President THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212 953 0007 212 953 1535 fax www.cowperwood.com 0 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 TRANSMITTAL Project Name: FENIA File No: 2795C Date: March 12, 2007 To: FC Plannine Attn: Candice Perkins Copied From: Randy Kepler/dim GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Deliven : F_ 1-cd Ex F7 U.S. Mail 0 Courier ❑ Pick Up F c tth r ❑ Urgent Q For Your Review Q As You Requested 0 Please Comment Message Candice, Per your request, attached is the following for your review: -2 copies of the revised site plan per Planning comments -Comment response letters from FCSA and Public Works Thank you for your assistance. Call with any questions. Hand Deliven, and Pick Ups Only: Received by: Please Print Name: Date: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 March 8, 2007 Mr. Randy Kepler, P.E. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Site Plan Comments - FEMA Office Building Frederick County, Virginia Dear Randy: Upon review of the revised site plan dated January 2E, 20-� 7, we offer no additional comments at this time. Therefore, we reco-mmend approval of the revised site plan. Sincerely, e � jje� Joe C. Wilder Deputy Director JCW/rls cc: Planning and Development file C:\Program Files\WordPerfect Office X3\Rbooda\TEMPCOMMENTS\FEMAOFFICEREVSPCOM.wpd MAR 0 q 2007 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 FR.EDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PO Box 1877, Winchester, VA 22604 315 Tasker Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 540.868.1061 Voice 540.868.1429 Fax Project Applicant REVIEW STATUS review number Iq 12L correct & resubmit approved as note approved DRAWINGS number of items to be corrected / .. - - send me by _! / l4 19 O 1 1. one full set 4, 4- 1 m I— IVYI$E4 PRE*TS 2. two separate CD's of plan sheets C- i ' oY f ' y -p a) one CD of above noted sheets in PDF format, with one sheet per file, landscape orientation, and with a name for each file that describes the project name and the sheet number b) one CD of above noted sheets in DWG format, with one sheet per file, landscape orientation, and with a name for each file that describes the project name and the sheet number c) each CD shall be labeled with its format and project name, and placed in a CD sleeve EASEMENTS N I need a copy of the recorded onsite waterand / or sewer easement(s). 1r N 1 need a copy of the recorded offsite 1/and / or sewer easement(s). I need a copy of the recorded decd(s) of casement before service will be authorized. OTHER Y &) This project also requires DI Q - Valley Region approval. 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, YA 22801 (540-574-7814) Y /© This project also requires VDH - Lexington Office approval. 13l Walker St., Les/ngron, VA 24450 (540-163-7136) Date: 1096t> 0 7. John G. Whitacre - Senior Engineer N`OV 06 NS C. �V- NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY REGIONAL COMMISSION OFFICERS April 28, 2006 Edwin C Daley Chavm,n Ms. Katrina M. Scarpato Dennis M Moms Vice Chairman Regional Environmental Quality Advisor General Services Administration John E Vance T"' 0 The Strawbridge Buildin� Charles R Johnston 20 North Eighth Street, 8 Floor Secraary Philadelphia, PA 19107 Stephen W Kerr Executive Director 101 Bast 6th Strcct Front Roval, Virginia 22630 Phony: 5-10 636.8800 Fax: 540.619. €1 — l:-mail n,%rc,tshcntcl.nct COMMISSIONERS Re: Intergovernmental Review — Environmental Assessment for Construction of the January, 2006 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center in • Executive Committee Winchester, VA CLARKE COUNTI' Barbara J Byrd *Charles R Johnston John R Sroelin Dear Ms. Scarpato: CK FREDER Ty This letter is in response to our request for review and comments for the above referenced coy NTt P Y q Richard Shickle project. The environmental assessment is for a proposed facility to be constructed in the Kns C Tierney Enc R Lawrence Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site in Frederick County. 'John R. Riley Charles S DeHaven. Jr PACE COUNTY The Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission reviewed the proposed environmental Tommy R LaFrance impact review report at its meeting held on April 20, 2006. As a result of this review, the *Non Belle Comer Carol L Fischer -Strickler Regional Commission concurs with the report which states that there are no significant SHENANDOAH environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. COCNTI' •Bevefley ffC Aimotem Fleming 1efrC If you have any questions or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. *Dennis M Moms Jim C Patnck BARREN COl NTs' Sincerely, Richard W Hoo,et .John E Vance 1 Scott Weinbergr�J Archie A Fox FRONT ROYAL Slayor Janes M Eastham Stephen W. Kerr 1 Daniel Pond,lll P 'Carson C Lauder Executive Director Lt RAV *Lowell B Baughn William P Menefee MIDDLETO%N 'Donald E Breeden ccwin C. Daley, Chairman, Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission STRASBt Rc ric R. Lawrence, Director of Planning and Development, Frederick County .JamesC :Massey Mayor Timothy S Cnsman STEPHEN'S CITY 'Mayor Ray E Ewing % INCHESTER 1 Stephen Baucerman Glen P Burke *Edwin C Daley Timothy A Youmans �� GSA Mid -Atlantic Region H a c M � e '1 ��BZC.:gZ Dear Recipient: The General Services Administration (GSA) is pleased to submit for your review a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center in Winchester, Virginia. This document was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), GSA Order ADM 1095.1F (Environmental Considerations in Decision Making), and the GSA Public Building Service (PBS) NEPA Desk Guide. Probable environmental impacts and mitigation measures have been identified for the following alternatives: The No -Action Alternative: The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate would continue to use the Mt. Weather Emergency Operations Center (MWEOC) located in Berryville, Virginia, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Alternative 2 - The Build Alternative: The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would be constructed on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. The new facility would consist of approximately 135,000 square feet; 105,000 square feet of office space, and 30,000 square feet of storage/light industrial space. Please direct questions or comments to: Katrina M. Scarpato Regional Environmental Quality Advisor General Services Administration The Strawbridge Building 20 North Eighth Street, 8th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-446-4651 katrina.scarpato@gsa.gov U.S. General Services Administration The Strawbridge's Building 20 North Eighth Street Philadelphia, PA 19107-3191 www.gsa.gov The FONSI will become final 30 days after publication of its Notice of Availability in local newspapers provided no information leading to a contrary finding is received or comes to light during the 30-day review period. Sincerely, Rob Hewell Acting Assistant Regional Administrator Final Environmental Assessment for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security Emergency Assistance Center Responsible Agency: General Services Administration Region 3 October 2005 I, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ' 'EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE DIRECTORATE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE CENTER ' FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA FINDING ' In accordance With the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), GSA Order ADM ' 1095.IF: Environmental considerations in decision making, and the Public Buildings Service NEPA Desk Guide, I find that constructing the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial ' Park Site, as described in the attached Environmental Assessment (EA), is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. APPROVED:— Date: J%ck R�Williams Regional Achninistrator Rn U.S. General Services Administration This 1*ONSI will become final 30 clays after publication of its Notice of Availability in local newspapers provided no information leading to a contra7y finding is received or conies to light during the 30-day review period. BASIS FOR FINDING GSA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the environmental impacts from the construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. The EA was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), GSA Order ADM 1095.IF: Environmental Considerations in Decision Making, and the Public Buildings Service NEPA Desk Guide. The EA documents the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for the build alternatives The environmental issues addressed in the EA were identified through scoping; through consultations with Federal and City agencies; and by the project team, which includes GSA, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, and contractor personnel who have had experience with projects of similar scope. The EA is incorporated by reference into this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). I. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The purpose of the proposed action is to select a site that can accommodate a new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. The new facility would house approximately 600 the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate personnel (730 during disasters) and would consist of approximately 135,000 square feet; 105,000 square feet of office space, and 30,000 square feet of light industrial space; and 732 surface parking spaces. Due to the events of September 11, 2001, there is an increased need for the secured use of the MWEOC. The secure use of the existing facility is not compatible with non- classified training activities and operation of the fixed disaster activities of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. Of particular concern are the non- classified personnel working in the fixed disaster facilities and the transient nature of the student population. Therefore, a new facility is needed to house the non -classified personnel currently located at MWEOC. Relocating these personnel will greatly improve physical security at MWEOC. In addition, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate has outgrown their location at the Mount Weather facility. The relocation of these personnel frees up a significant amount of space at MWEOC that is needed by both the newly created Department of Homeland Security and other departments and agencies that have expanding needs to operate from a secure facility. II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives are analyzed in detail in this EA: the No -Action Alternative and the Build Alternative. ALTERNATIVE I - NO -ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No -Action Alternative, GSA would not utilize the site studied in this EA for the proposed'Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate would continue to use the Mt. Weather Emergency Operations Center (MWEOC) located in Berryville, Virginia, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. ALTERNATIVE 2 - RUTIIERFORDS FARM SITE (BUILD ALTERNATIVE) Under Alternative 2, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would be constructed on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. The new facility would consist of approximately 135,000 square feet; 105,000 square feet of office space, and 30,000 square feet of storage/light industrial space. The Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site consists of approximately 17 acres in Frederick County, Virginia and is part of the planned Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park (see Figure 2-2). The site is covered with tall grasses, and there are two small structures in the southwestern portion of the site. The site is currently landlocked. A secondary road would need to be constructed to provide access to the site via US Route 11. A stream and railroad tracks are located to the north of the site; an undeveloped parcel, covered with tall grasses, is located to the west of the site; a nursery is located to the east of the site; and a residential area is located to the south of the site. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of all alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the EA. Alternative 2, Construction on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is the selected alternative and best meets GSA's and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's long-range needs. No significant long-term adverse impacts to the human, natural, or cultural environment would occur under the selected alternative. However, there would be minor to moderate impacts that would be mitigated as appropriate. No to negligible impacts to wetlands and land use and zoning would occur. Minor impacts to water resources, floodplains, vegetation and wildlife, air quality, and noise are anticipated under the proposed action and moderate impacts to soils and aesthetics and Visual resources are anticipated. In addition, moderate beneficial impacts to economy and employment and taxes and revenue are expected. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the attached EA for more specific information on the impacts and mitigation measures. i"able of Contents 7 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action......................................................................... I 1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Action..........................................................................................................2 1.3 Need for the Action............................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Sco pin 2 1.5 Environmental Assessment Process, Procedures, and Schedule ......................................... 3 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.......................................................................5 2.1 Description of the Proposed Action.................................................................................... 5 2.2 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed.............................................................................. 5 2.3 Alternatives Given Detailed Consideration......................................................................... 5 2.3.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative............................................................. 5 2.3.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Site (Build Alternative).............................6 3 Affected Environment.......................................................................................................15 3.1 Natural and Physical Environment....................................................................................20 3.1.1 Geology, Topography, and Soils................................................................... 20 3.1.2 Water Resources............................................................................................ 21 3.1.3 Floodplains.....................................................................................................22 3.1.4 Wetlands........................................................................................................ 23 3.1.5 Vegetation and Wildlife.................................................................................24 3.1.6 Air Quality..................................................................................................... 26 3.1.7 Noise.............................................................................................................. 27 3.2 Social Environment........................................................................................................... 27 3.2.1 Land Use Planning and Zoning 27 3.2.2 Economy and Employment............................................................................ 31 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 3.2.3 Taxes and Revenue........................................................................................ 32 3.2.4 Aesthetics and Visual Resources................................................................... 32 3.3 Cultural Environment........................................................................................................ 32 3.3.1 Archaeological Resources............................................................................. 35 3.4 Infrastructure and Waste Management............................................................................. 35 3.4.1 Utilities.......................................................................................................... 35 3.4.2 Transportation................................................................................................36 3.4.3 Waste Management....................................................................................... 37 4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation..................................................................39 4.1 Natural and Physical Environment.................................................................................... 39 4.1.1 Geology, Topography, and Soils................................................................... 40 4.1.1.1 No -Action Alternative.......................................................................... 40 4.1.1.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site ......................... 40 4.1.2 Water Resources............................................................................................ 41 4.1.2.1 Alternative 1-No-Action Alternative.................................................... 42 4.1.2.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site ......................... 42 4.1.2.3 Mitigation Measures for Water Resources Impacts .............................. 43 4.1.3 Floodplains.................................................................................................... 43 4.1.3.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 44 4.1.3.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site ......................... 44 4.1.3.3 Mitigation Measures for Floodplains.................................................... 45 4.1.4 Wetlands........................................................................................................ 45 4.1.4.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 46 4.1.4.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site ......................... 46 4.1.4.3 Mitigation Measures for Wetland Impacts ........................................... 47 ii Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 4.1.5 Vegetation and Wildlife.................................................................................47 4.1.5.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 47 4.1.5.2 Alternative 2 — Ruthcrfords Farm Industrial Park Site ......................... 47 4.1.5.3 Mitigation Measures for Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts .................. 48 4.1.2 Air Quality..................................................................................................... 48 4.1.2.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 49 4.1.2.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site ......................... 49 4.1.2.3 Mitigation Measures for Air Quality .................................................... 50 4.1.3 Noise.............................................................................................................. 50 4.1.3.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 50 4.1.3.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site .......................... 51 4.1.3.3 Mitigation Measures for Noise Impacts ................................................ 51 4.2 Social Environment ........................................................................................................... 52 4.2.1 Land Use Planning and Zoning 52 4.2.1.1 Alternative I - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 52 4.2.1.2 Alternative 2 - Ruthcrfords Farm Industrial Park Site .......................... 52 4.2.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Land Use and Zoning .................................... 53 4.2.2 Economy and Employnlent............................................................................ 53 4.2.2.1 Alternative I - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 53 4.2.2.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site .......................... 54 4.2.3 Taxes and Revenue........................................................................................ 54 4.2.3.1 Alternative I - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 55 4.2.3.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site .......................... 55 4.2.4 Aesthetics and Visual Resources................................................................... 55 4.2.4.1 Alternative I - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 56 If Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 4.2.4.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site .......................... 56 4.2.4.3 Mitigation Measures for Aesthetics and Visual Resources .................. 57 4.3 Cultural Environment........................................................................................................ 57 4.3.1 Archaeological Resources............................................................................. 57 4.3.1.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 57 4.3.1.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farrn Industrial Park Site .......................... 58 4.3.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Archaeological Resources ............................. 58 4.4 Infrastructure..................................................................................................................... 58 4.4.1 Utilities.......................................................................................................... 58 4.4.1.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 59 4.4.1.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site .......................... 59 4.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Utilities.......................................................... 60 4.4.2 Transportation................................................................................................60 4.4.2.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 61 4.4.2.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site .......................... 63 4.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures for Traffic........................................................... 66 4.4.3 Waste Management....................................................................................... 66 4.4.3.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative .................................................. 67 4.4.3.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site .......................... 67 4.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures for Waste Management ....................................... 68 4.5 Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided ................................................. 68 4.6 Relationship between Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Tern Productivity.................................................................. 68 4.6.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative........................................................... 68 4.6.2 Proposed Action............................................................................................. 69 iv Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center final Environmental Assessment 4.7 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .................................................... 69 4.7.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative........................................................... 69 4.7.2 Proposed Action.............................................................................................69 5 References.........................................................................................................................71 6 List of Preparers................................................................................................................73 7 Environmental Assessment Distribution List....................................................................75 7.1 Federal Officials and Agencies......................................................................................... 75 7.2 State Officials and Agencies............................................................................................. 75 7.3 Local Officials and Agencies............................................................................................ 76 List of Figures: Figure2-1: Site Location Map................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2-2: Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site.................................................................. 8 Figure3-1: Soils.......................................................................................................................21 Figure3-2: I-I&H Study Map...................................................................................................23 Figure 3-3: Figure 3-4: Water Resources ...................... ...........................................................................25 Hiatt Run located northwest and outside of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Siteboundary ............................................................................................................................26 Figure3-5: Planned Land Use.................................................................................................29 Figure 3-6: Zoning ........................................................................................ ...........................30 Figure 4-1: No -Action Alternative Traffic Volumes...............................................................63 Figure 4-2: Trip Distribution Percentages ..................... ..........................................................64 Figure 4-3: Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Traffic Volumes Assignment (2007)............................................................................65 Figure 4-4: Total Traffic Volume Assignment (2007)...........................................................66 List of Tables: Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................... 9 Table 3-1: 2000 Census Data Eni plo merit ........................31 Table 4-1: Trip Generation by Approved Background Developments (2007)........••••."'........62 Table4-2: Trip Generation.................................................................................................. v Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. vi 1.0 Purpose and Need for, the Propose Action �z �o Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Enviro nnental Assessment PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The General Services Administration (GSA), acting as development manager for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, proposes to undertake a lease construction project for a new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center in Frederick County, Virginia. GSA has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508), GSA Order ADM 1095.1F - Environmental considerations in decision making, and the Public Building Service (PBS) NEPA Desk Guide (October 1999). GSA is preparing this EA at this time as part of its due diligence efforts to ensure all environmental issues are identified and potential impacts are assessed before selecting a site to secure an assignable option/terms for a ground lease. The proposed action assessed in this document is the selection of a site on which the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center can be located through a lease construction project. The Mount Weather Emergency Operation Center (MWEOC) currently handles secure and non -secure operations. During the early 1990's, when there was less of a need for secure uses, MWEOC changed its mission to support the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's fixed disaster operations. Existing buildings were converted to support the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's "all hazards" mission and not all personnel were required to have a security clearance to gain access to MWEOC. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's current 650 personnel occupy about 90,000 square feet of office space and 30,000 square feet of warehouse/storage space. These personnel work the fixed disaster facilities and are comprised of: The Virginia National Processing Center (VNPSC) - One of three Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Processing Service Centers nationwide. Its mission is to assist individuals impacted by disasters to begin the recovery process. Each Center's phone banks receive countless first calls for assistance from victims in the aftermath of disasters. The Disaster- Finance Center (DFC) - Centralized financial management services for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's Disaster Relief Fund. These services include disaster cost projections, payment of disaster expenses, and production of financial statements and related reports. The DFC is a division of the Office of Financial Management and has a full-time staff of about 80 people and a surge staff that varies in size, depending on disaster activity. • The Disaster- Personnel Operations Division (DPOD) - Part of the Office of Human Resources Management and is responsible for personnel management in support of Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment disaster response. The division recruits, selects, and supports employees that fill temporary positions at the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's fixed facilities and other offices throughout the U.S. In addition, the division maintains National Cadres of Disaster Assistance Employees and maintains the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's Automated Disaster Deployment (ADD) system. • The Disaster Information Systems Clearinghouse (DISC) - Operates a storage and recycling center that provides centralized control and deployment of all computer and communications equipment necessary to support disaster declarations. In addition, about 50 non -classified personnel in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's Information Technology Services provide direct support to the fixed disaster facilities. With the exception of the DISC, which is a logistics operations, the other components of the fixed disaster facilities are principally business operations that can process work in a less secure environment than is provided at the MWEOC. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE ACTION The purpose of the proposed action is to select a site that can accommodate a new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. The new facility will house 600 non -classified personnel (730 during disasters), 650 of which are currently located at MWEOC. 1.3 NEED FOR THE ACTION Due to the events of September 11, 2001, there is an increased need for the secured use of the MWEOC. The secure use of the existing facility is not compatible with non -classified training activities and operation of the fixed disaster activities of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. Of particular concern are the non -classified personnel working in the fixed disaster facilities and the transient nature of the student population. Therefore, a new facility is needed to house the non -classified personnel currently located at MWEOC. ' Relocating these personnel will greatly improve physical security at MWEOC. In addition, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate has outgrown their location at the Mount Weather facility. The relocation of these personnel frees up a significant amount of space at MWEOC that is needed by both the newly created Department of Homeland Security and other departments and agencies that have expanding needs to operate from a secure facility. 1.4 SCOPING In accordance with the NEPA, a scoping process was conducted to aid in determining the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify the significant issues related to this action. 2 Emeigeilcy Preparedness and Response Directorate Bntergency Assistwice Censer Final Lnviroivnewal Assessment The CEQ defines scoping as an early and open process for determining the significant issues related to the proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping is usually the first direct contact between proponents of a proposed action and the public. It is an ongoing process that occurs (luring planning for preparation of an environmental document, which may consist of meetings, telephone conversations, and written comments. Scoping has the following specific, but limited objectives: • to identify the affected public or agency concerns; • to facilitate an efficient environmental document preparation process through assembling cooperating agencies, assigning data collection and analysis tasks, and scheduling appropriate reviews; • to define the issues and alternatives that will be examined in detail in the environmental document while simultaneously devoting less attention and time to issues which cause no concern; and • to save time in the overall process by helping to ensure that the environmental document adequately addresses relevant issues. GSA is conducting consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) as part of the project in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Informal consultation was also conducted with the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, GSA has also requested and received information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation regarding any known threatened or endangered species within the project area. Correspondence can be found in Appendix A. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS, PROCEDURES, AND SCHEDULE NEPA is intended to help public officials make decisions based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and to take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. Decisions should be made based on accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny of readily available environmental information. Federal agencies are obligated to follow the provisions of NEPA to identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that will avoid or minimize any adverse effects upon the quality of the human environment before proceeding with the proposed action. The level of NEPA analysis undertaken by an agency for a proposed action depends on the probable impacts. In order to determine the level of NEPA analysis to be performed by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate for the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center, GSA and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate examined potential impacts on the natural and human environment. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment The impacts considered were based on reasonably foreseeable changes resulting from implementation of the proposed action. Issues that could affect the environment and/or the proposed project were identified, including: • potential impacts to the natural environment including water resources, floodplains, wetlands, forested areas, and threatened and endangered species; • compatibility with surrounding land uses and visual effects on surrounding areas; • potential impacts to archaeological resources; • availability and capacity of utilities; • effects of the development on transportation facilities and traffic. Based on a review of these issues and because significant impacts are not anticipated, GSA elected to prepare an EA for the site selection and construction of the new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. This EA takes a hard look at the probable impacts based on the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the proposed action and recommends measures to mitigate impacts, as appropriate. M 2.0 Alternatives So N A� O CD cn Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Fnral Eiwironmental flssesslnent 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This section describes alternatives for meeting the purpose and need of the proposed action. The Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is being considered for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center (see Figure 2-1, Site Location Map). The existing environment associated with this site is described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, and potential impacts associated with construction on the site are described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project will allow the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate to meet infrastructure requirements for a new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center, a hub for emergency response activity providing the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate and other government agencies space for offices, training, conferencing, operations, and storage. The new facility would house approximately 600 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate personnel (730 during disasters) and would consist of approximately 135,000 square feet; 105,000 square feet of office space, and 30,000 square feet of storage/light industrial space; and 732 surface parking spaces. The building's height and massing will be dependent on the layout of the selected site. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED Three additional sites were offered to GSA as possible sites for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. These sites include: the Airport Park Site located at Airport Road and Admiral Byrd Drive; the Eastgate Site located at Tasker Road and Route 522; and the Eastgate II Site, also located at Tasker Road and Route 522. These three sites were not viable options because terms could not be agreed upon. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES GIVEN DETAILED CONSIDERATION Two alternatives are analyzed in detail in this EA: the No -Action Alternative and the Build Alternative. 2.3.1 ALTERNA'TIVE 1 - NO -ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No -Action Alternative, GSA would not utilize the site studied in this EA for the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate would continue to use the Mt. Weather Emergency Operations Center (MWEOC) located in Berryville, Virginia, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. I-IOweVer', the existing facility does not meet the security requirements of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's mission. Although the No -Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project, as part of NEPA analysis, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment environmental impacts of the No -Action Alternative must be considered. This analysis serves as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives. For purposes of this EA, it is assumed that under the No -Action Alternative the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with approved development plans and/or current zoning and the Frederick County Master Plan. 2.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - RUTHERFORDs FARM SITE (BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under Alternative 2, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would be constructed on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. The new facility would consist of approximately 135,000 square feet; 105,000 square feet of office space, and 30,000 square feet of storage/light industrial space. The Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site consists of approximately 17 acres in Frederick County, Virginia and is part of the planned Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park (see Figure 2-2). The site is covered with tall grasses, and there are two small structures in the southwestern portion of the site. The site is currently landlocked. A secondary road would need to be constructed to provide access to the site via US Route 11. A stream and railroad tracks are located to the north of the site; an undeveloped parcel, covered with tall grasses, is located to the west of the site; a nursery is located to the east of the site; and a residential area is located to the south of the site. Emergene _v Prep�redness alit! Rcspunse' Direc tnrutc• E►nergenc _�. As.ci.ctunce Cenler Final Ent•ircutnue►till Assessment 0- 21 -b" Source National Geographic Mid Atlantic USA USGS Topographic Maps. 2001 Figure 2-1: Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Location Map 7 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate EniergetTcy Assistance Center Final Etzviroiimental Assessment Q, Ica e5 SITE / 0 0 O Abandonded Structures O Q� l � O ' O rd O 0k, 1 -1 O Figure 2-2: Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site I Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Table 2-1: Comparison of Alternatives Impact Topic Alt. 1 No Action Alternative Alt. 2 Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site No impacts would occur at the Direct, long-term, moderate adverse effects to soils would occur from clearing, existing facility. grading, and construction activities. Indirect adverse impacts from soil erosion are Geology, anticipated to be minor and short-term. The proposed action when added to past Topography, and Future development of the site and future projects would have a minor, adverse, cumulative impact on geologic, Soils could impact geology, soil, and topographic conditions in the project area. However, the Emergency topography, and soils similar Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would to the action alternative. contribute negligibly to these moderate cumulative impacts. No impacts would occur at the No direct impact to groundwater or surface water resources would occur. With existing facility. mitigation measures, development would have minor, adverse, long-term, indirect impact on surface water and groundwater resources. The proposed Emergency Water Resources Future development of the site Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would add could impact water resources negligibly to adverse, long-term, cumulative impacts to water resources from past, similar to the action present, and future development. alternative. No impacts would occur at the No direct impacts to floodplains would occur. Increases in impervious surfaces existing facility. Future could raise flood levels and cause a minor, adverse, long-term, indirect impact. F000dplams development of the site could impact floodplains similar to the action alternative. No impacts would occur at the No direct impacts to wetlands would occur under Alternative 2. A negligible to existing facility. Future minor, adverse, long-term indirect impact off -site wetlands would occur due development of the site could increased sedimentation from construction activities. A minor, adverse, long-term, Wetlands impact wetland resources cumulative impact to wetlands would occur. similar to the action alternative. 0 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Impact Topic Alt. 1 No Action Alternative Alt. 2 Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site No impacts would occur at the Construction on the site would result in minor, adverse, long-term direct impacts to existing facility. Future vegetation and wildlife. A minor, adverse, long-term, indirect impact to vegetation Vegetation and development of the site could and wildlife would occur. Minor, adverse, long-term, cumulative impacts to Wildlife impact vegetation and wildlife vegetation and wildlife would occur. resources similar to the action alternative. No impact would occur at the Construction activities are expected to have little impact, with emissions limited in existing facility. Future both magnitude and duration. development of the site could impact air quality similar to the Emissions from the operation of modern, efficient heating and cooling equipment action alternative. for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center are estimated to be below de minimis thresholds. Air Quality Motor vehicles traveling to and from the proposed facility would generate emissions. However, these emissions would be similar to those produced by vehicles traveling to the current facility. Based on the General Conformity Review, the change in emissions resulting from the construction of proposed facility would fall below the appropriate de minimis levels established under General Conformity. Consequently, the General Conformity procedures are not applicable to the proposed action. 10 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Impact Topic Alt. 1 No Action Alternative Alt. 2 Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site No impacts would occur at the Construction on the site would result in minor, adverse, short-term, direct noise existing facility. Future impacts. development of the site could impact noise levels similar to During operation, the proposed facility would produce low-level noises from the action alternative. ventilation equipment and vehicle traffic primarily during peak traffic periods, which would have a minor, adverse, loner term, direct impact on employees at the Noise site and residents and businesses along Martinsburg Pike. Negligible, adverse, loner term, indirect impacts would occur under this alternative. Past, present, and future development in addition to the proposed the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility, would have minor, adverse, long- term, cumulative effects on noise levels. No impacts would occur at the Construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency existing facility. Future Assistance Center on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be consistent Land Use Planning development of the site would with land use plans and zoning. No direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to land and Zoning be consistent with planned land use planning or zoning would occur. use. No impacts would occur at the Alternative 2 would have minor, short-term, beneficial, direct impact on economy existing facility. Future and employment. Daily spending by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Economy and development of the site would Directorate employees would positively affect the area. Therefore, a moderate, Employment have beneficial impacts to the beneficial, short-term, indirect impact would occur. Past, present, and future economy and employment. development in the vicinity of the site would result in a moderate, beneficial, loner term cumulative impact on the economy, employment, and revenues of the region. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Impact Topic Alt. 1 No Action Alternative Alt. 2 Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site No impact would occur at the Increased sales transactions for the purchase of materials and supplies would existing facility. Future generate some additional revenues for local and state governments, which would development of the site would have a beneficial impact on taxes and revenue. Secondary jobs related to the have beneficial impacts to increased economic activity stimulated by the proposed action may be created. Taxes and Revenue state, county, and local taxes Additional retail services and business employment may result from the proposed and revenues. action through a multiplier effect, yielding additional sales and income tax revenues for local and state governments, thus having a positive indirect impact. Past, present, and future development has and will continue to create revenue for the state, county and local governments. No impacts would occur at the Moderate, adverse, long-term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to aesthetics existing facility. Future and visual resources would occur. Aesthetics and Visual development of the site would Resources impact aesthetics and visual resources similar to the action alternative. No impacts would occur at the No impact would occur at the site. Archaeological studies at the site indicated that existing facility. Future no significant cultural materials area present on the site. Archaeological development of the site would Resources impact archaeological resources similar to the action alternative. 12 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Impact Topic Alt. 1 No Action Alternative Alt. 2 Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site No impacts would occur at the Negligible, adverse, short-term, direct impacts to utilities are expected during existing facility. Future construction. The increased demand for utilities would have a negligible, adverse development of the site would long-term, direct impacts. impact utilities similar to the During construction within street rights of way or public utility easements, traffic action alternative. delays may occur. This would cause a negligible, adverse, short-term, indirect impact. Infrastructure Past, present, and future development in the area would place additional demands on the existing utilities. While the utility companies plan for regional growth, each future project would have to prepare studies to determine if their supply is adequate. Therefore a minor, adverse, long-term, cumulative impact from increases in service demands on area utility providers would occur. However, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would contribute negligibly to these minor cumulative impacts. No impacts would occur at the The addition of traffic generated by the Emergency Preparedness and Response existing facility. Future Directorate Emergency Assistance Center will not adversely impact the surrounding Transportation development of the site would area roads and intersections. In addition, the entrance to the Rutherfords Farm impact transportation similar to Industrial Park Site is expected to operate below capacity. the action alternative. No impacts would occur at the A minor, adverse, long-term, direct impact on county landfills would occur. No existing facility. Future indirect impacts to waste management are anticipated. Past, present, and future development of the site would development, along with the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate impact waste management Emergency Assistance Center would generate general waste. This development similar to the action would have a moderate, adverse, long-term, cumulative impact on waste Waste Management alternative. management. However, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would contribute negligibly to these moderate cumulative impacts. 13 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. 14 3.0 Affected Environment 1 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 3, Affected Environment, provides a description of the current natural, social, economic, and cultural environments at the RLrtherfords Farm Industrial Park Site, the proposed location of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. The purpose of this section is to provide sufficient information on the existing conditions to evaluate the potential impact to the human environment from the proposed action. This section is divided into two sections: 1) Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis, and 2) Impact Topics Analyzed in Detail. Impact topics that have been dismissed from further consideration are topics that would either not be affected or would be affected negligibly by the alternatives evaluated in this document. Therefore, these topics are briefly discussed in this section of the EA and then dismissed from further consideration or evaluation. Negligible effects are effects that are localized and immeasurable at the lowest level of detection. Impact topics analyzed in detail are divided into four sections: • Section 3.1, Natural and Physical Environment Section 3.2, Social Environment • Section 3.3, Cultural Environment • Section 3.4, Infrastructure and Waste Management IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS Threatened and Endangered Species According to the USFWS, there are no known federally proposed or listed endangered or threatened species within the project area at the Ruthertlords Farm Industrial Park Site (USFWS, 2005b). According to the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, there are natural heritage resources in the project area (VDCR, 2005). However, clue to the scope of the activity and the distance to the resources, it is not anticipated that this project will adversely impact these natural heritage resources. Therefore, Threatened and Endangered Species was dismissed as an impact topic. Site Contamination A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the Ruthcrfords Farm Industrial Park Site in August 2005 (G&O, 2005a). No contamination was identified on or adjacent to the site. A search of environmental regulatory database did not identify a regulated facility on the target property. No off -site property listed in the environmental regulatory databases is anticipated to adversely impact the project site. In addition, no evidence of environmental monitoring or remediation systems was noted on the property or on adjacent properties. No physical or historical evidence of industrial or manufacturing activities was identified. The Investigation revealed no physical evidence to suggest environmental impairment of the property 15 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment by hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, or other contaminants. Also, the investigation revealed no evidence of adverse impacts from activities on adjacent properties. Site contamination is being dismissed from further discussion because no contamination appears to be present on or in close proximity of the site. Population and Housing Since the turn of the century, the population of Frederick County has more than tripled, growing from 13,239 people in 1900 to 45,723 in 1990 (Frederick County, 2003). Much of the population growth occurred during the 1970s and 1980s. Population data from the 2000 Census were used to determine current population numbers for the area. The Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is located within Census Tract 511, Block Group 1. The predominant race in Census Tract 511, Block Group 1 is white (93.2 percent), followed by black (3.8 percent), Asian (1.1 percent), American Indian (0.02 percent), Hawaiian (0.08 percent), some other race (0.5 percent), and two or more races (1.3 percent) (see Table 3-1). The median household income for Census Tract 511 ($47,165) is slightly higher than that of Frederick County. The percentage of individuals living below the poverty level in the study area is slightly lower than in the County as a whole. According to 2000 Census data, there are 3,477 housing units in Census Tract 511. Of these, 5 percent were vacant, 80.6 percent were owner -occupied, and 20.4 percent were renter -occupied. Several single-family homes are situated along US Route 11 south of the site. These homes were built in the mid to late 1900s. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate employees are not expected to relocate because of the construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. The existing MWEOC is located in Berryville, Virginia, only 12 miles from the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Therefore, no impacts to housing and population are anticipated. Therefore, Population and Housing was dismissed from further analysis. Community Facilities and Services The following section describes community facilities and services in the vicinity of the site. Parks, Recreation, Community Facilities, and Open Space Frederick County currently owns and operates two regional parks, Clearbrook Park and Sherando Park. Clearbrook Park is located approximately 4 miles north of the site on US Route 11. The 55 acres of Clearbrook Park include: a 3-acre lake, lighted ball fields, picnic shelters & tables, 3,000 feet of paved walking paths, paddle boats, horseshoe pits, playground, 25 meter outdoor pool, and a volleyball court. Several youth organizations centers and clubs are located near the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. The Cartwright Recreation Center is located 2.6 miles southwest of the site. Winchester Moose Family Center is located 3.2 miles southwest of the site. Winchester Sport and Entertainment is located 3.6 miles southwest of the site. 16 I, Emerge►u.%- Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final En► ironmental Assessment Library service is provided to Frederick County through the Handley Regional Library. Handley Regional Library is located approximately 3 miles southeast of the site. Churches Several churches are located in close proximity to the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Church of the Redeemed is located approximately 0.6 miles west of the site; United Pentecostal Church is located 0.8 miles northwest of the site. Emmanuel United Methodist Church is located 1.7 miles North East of the site. Schools The Frederick County Public School System is composed of ten elementary schools serving students in grades kindergarten through fifth grade; three middle schools serving grades six through eight; and two high schools serving grades nine through twelve. The schools serving the neighborhoods closest to the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site are Stonewall Elementary, James Wood Middle School, Frederick County Middle School, and James Wood High School. None of these schools is within a mile of the site. Emergency Services The Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department was established in 1990 to provide support and guidance for eleven volunteer fire and rescue companies that provide fire suppression and emergency medical services to the citizens of Frederick County. Each volunteer fire and rescue company provides fire suppression service, eight provide advanced life support emergency medical service, one provides basic life support emergency medical service and two provide first responder level medical care. The Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is served by the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company located approximately four miles northeast of the site. Response time to the site is approximately four minutes. Clearbrook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company provides both fire suppression service, and emergency medical service. The Frederick County Sheriff's Office serves the site. Sheriffs office is located approximately three miles southeast of the site at 5 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. The Sheriff's Office employs approximately 85 officers. Response times to the site would vary depending on the location of the officers. The Winchester Medical Center serves the area surrounding the site. The medical center is a short term acute care facility with a 329-bed capacity. The hospital is located at 3840 Amherst Street in Winchester, Virginia. Construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would not result in direct impacts to community facilities and services. Because the Mt. Weather facility is located in close proximity to the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site significant numbers of employees are not anticipated to relocate. Therefore, construction of the new facility would not impact the school systems of Frederick County. The proposed facility would be served by local medical, fire protection and rescue services. However, the impact to these services is expected to be minor. Therefore, Community Facilities and Services was dismissed from further analysis. 17 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate I Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Historic Structures Through the map review and site visit, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for standing historic structures was determined to be a radius of about 500 feet with variations due to existing structures and land forms. Research for historic resources was undertaken at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) in Richmond, Virginia, as well as through a review of historic maps of the site and a reconnaissance field survey. There are no historic structures listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of this property. The 17-acre Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is mostly vacant. A stream and railroad tracks are located to the north of the Site. One building older than 50 years of age is located on the Site: a frame, one-story shed. The building is supported by round posts set on stone footings. The interior floor is earthen. The exterior is clad with vertical, unpainted boards, and the roof is clad with metal. This building probably originally served as an agricultural shed, possibly a loafing shed, and is currently littered with debris consisting mostly of old automobile tires. The front of the shed is protected by an overhanging roof. Approximately half of the metal roofing is falling off and the supporting roof rafters are in a state of ruin. The exterior walls are partially collapsed and missing much of their vertical siding. This shed is not an architecturally or historically significant structure, and it possesses little of its integrity of design, workmanship, materials, association, and feeling. Therefore, the shed on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Frame, One -Story Shed on Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Three potentially historic structures have been recorded within the greater project area. These are: 034-0022, a demolished structure for which no other information was available; 034-0952, Emergenc.i• Preparedness and Response Directorate Emer.,encl• Assistance Center Final /: ivironmental Assessment the Herschel House, a 1930s foursquare style dwelling; and 034-0951, the Rutherford -Webber House, ca. 1880. All three structures have been determined, by VDHR, as not eligible for listing on the National Register. The two surviving previously recorded structures are located within a mid -to -late twentieth century residential area that is located along US Route 11. The majority of these dwellings were constructed between 19.55 and the early- 1970s. The two recorded structures are the oldest dwellings within this community. Although most of the dwellings are not yet 50 years of age, there are some that date to the early and mid-1940s. These are mostly modest Colonial Revival Style dwellings with no particular historical or architectural significance. The residential neighborhood does not possess the characteristics necessary to be considered as a historic district since the majority of the dwellings are less than 50 years of age, and those that are older do not possess any architectural significance. Indeed, the two dwellings with any potential for architectural significance have already been determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places by VDHR. The one dwelling that exhibits some degree of uniqueness is located at 2015 Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11). This dwelling is located adjacent to where access to the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center will be established. The house, constructed in 1942, is a one -and -a -half story, 4x2-bay, brick and frame dwelling with modest Colonial Revival styling. The first story is brick, having three double -hung six -over -six sash windows and a single entrance door with flat -roofed porch. The porch has a balustrade. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles and has a four -bay dormer extending from it, creating a half -story. The front fagade has an exterior brick chimney, and a single -story brick garage with flat roof adjoins the south gable end of the house. The siding on the frame section is aluminum, and the windows are modern, vinyl clad replacement sashes. This house does not possess the architectural significance necessary to be considered a good representative of its type and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Colonial Revival Home — c. 1940, 2015 Martinsburg Pike Im Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate I Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Because there are no National Register eligible or listed historic structures within the APE of the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Site, Historic Structures was dismissed from further analysis. IMPACT TOPICS ANALYZED IN DETAIL 3.1 NATURAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 3.1.1 GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS According to the USGS topographic map for the area (USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, Stephens City, Virginia) the surface elevation of the site is approximately 716 feet above the mean seal level (msl). According to the geologic map of Winchester, Virginia 2003, the site geology includes the Rockdale Run Formation which is a predominately an interbedded blue -gray limestone and gray dolomite with several distinctive chert zones. The Rockdale Run Formation includes karst characteristics that includes voids and caverns that may development into sinkholes. Sinkholes are common throughout the karst terrain of the Valley and Ridge Province. The site is located within the Valley and Ridge Province of Virginia, which is characterized by sharp ridges and long, broad valleys. The region is primarily underlain by sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic age consisting mostly of carbonates, shales, and sandstones. Major structural features include anticlinal and synclinal forms that trend northeast to southwest along geologic strike. Ridges are commonly comprised of resistant formations containing shales and/or sandstones, while the lowland valleys comprised of limestones and dolomites (carbonates). The carbonate bedrock that underlies the site is constantly being dissolved by solution action. Direct solution activity results in the formation of voids within the bedrock. Indirect solution activity is caused by the shifting of discrete rock masses as adjacent support is removed. The solution activity will continue if left unaddressed, and may affect the performance of the building and stormwater management support conditions. Soils are mapped in the Frederick County Soil Survey (USDA, 1987) (see Figure 3-1). Although the site contains soils classified as prime farmland soils, the site is not subject to the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act because they are zoned for urban use (NRCS, 2005). An area identified as prime farmland must be used for producing food or fiber or must be available for those uses (USDA, 1987). Thus, urban and built-up land and water areas are not classified as prime farmland. Prime farmland soils on the site include: 5B-Carbo Silt Loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes and 32-B Oaklet silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes. No hydric soils are present on the site. PO Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment soy 1,000 Source USDA Sod Conservation Service. Frederick County. VA, January 1987. 5B Carbo silt loam. 2 to 7 percent slopes 6C Carbo-Oaklet silt foams, very rocky. 2 to 15 percent slopes 7C Carbo-Oaklet -Rock outcrop complex. 2 to 15 percent slopes 14B Frederick-Poplimento foams, 2 to 7 percent slopes 166 Frederick-Poplimento loams. very rocky. 2 to 7 percent slopes 3.1.2 WATER RESOURCES 16C Frederick-Poplimento foams. very rocky, 7 to 15 percent slopes 17C Frederick-Poplimento-Rock outcrop comples, 2 to 15 percent slopes 32B Oaklet silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 39B Swimly silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Figure 3-1: Soils Water resources include groundwater and surface water. No published groundwater data or wells were identified for the area in the immediate vicinity of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. It is anticipated that groundwater and surface water within the project area flows in accordance with existing topographic features, which is generally high elevation to low elevation. According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map and to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map there is one stream, Hiatt Run, located northwest and outside of the site boundary. Given the topography associated with Hiatt Run, it is anticipated the stream flows in a northwest to a northeast direction. Wetlands are described in Section 3.1.4. 21 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 3.1.3 FLoonPLAnvs Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of any actions it may take in a floodplain and to ensure that plans consider flood hazards and floodplain management needs. The floodplain of concern is usually the 100-year floodplain, which is defined as the area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. For certain critical actions, which are those actions that even a slight chance of flooding would be too great, the 500-year floodplain is the area of concern. The 500-year floodplain is defined as an area subject to a 0.2 percent chance of flooding in a given year. The proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center is categorized as a Critical Facility. GSA's Floodplain Management Desk Guide provides an eight -step process to assess and address floodplain effects: Step 1: Determine whether the action will occur in, or stimulate development in, a floodplain. Step 2: Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in or affecting the floodplain. Step 3: Public review/input of the proposed action. Step 4: Identify the impacts of the proposed action if it were to occur in a floodplain. Step 5: Minimize threats to life, property and to natural and beneficial floodplain values, and restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values. Step 6: Reevaluate alternatives in light of any new information that may have become available. Step 7: Issue findings and a public explanation. Step 8: Implement the action. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Frederick County (Panel Number 510083 0105B), the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is located entirely within Flood Zone C. Zone C refers to areas of minimal flooding. In order to determine the true extent of the 500-year and 100-year flood zones, a hydrology and hydraulic (H&H) study was completed. Part of the site, approximately %2 acre, in the northern portion of the site is within the 100- and 500-year floodplain. 22 Enu,j;ge,m.I- Preparedness and Response Directorate Grner,t,,enc%' Assistance Center Final Etnvircmmental Assessment FLOODN l SQ0—YR �\ III (� FLC�ODPL�/N // It III f� I 0 / \ FLOODAL,O — I T 1 `!~`—�—t \ • 1 11I \ 6�0• dss/ £cuss Ea RIO— ^ • \ , PG 74 \ 1 ,1 \ i\ \ 0 250' Scale in Feet Nose Survey data from Greenway Engineenng, Apnl 26, 2005 Figure 3-2: H&H Study Map 3.1.4 WETLANDS Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR 328.3). Development in wetlands and 23 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment waters of the U.S. is regulated by the USACE pursuant to the Clean Water Act (33 CFR 320- 329, November 13, 1986 and 33 CFR 328.3, November 22, 1991). Nontidal wetlands are the subset of the wetland and waterway resources that exist upstream of tidally influenced waters. They include streams, freshwater marshes, wet meadows, bogs, shrub swamps, wooded swamps, bottomland hardwood forests, shallow ponds, seepage areas, and springs. Wetlands range in size from small depressions to large complexes. The 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual uses the presence or absence of hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation (vegetation with the ability to grow in water), and hydric soils to determine if an area is a wetland (USACE, 1987). Normally, all three parameters must be present for an area to be considered a wetland under USACE's jurisdiction. Exceptions to the three parameter approach include riverine and open water wetlands as well as disturbed wetlands. The Frederick County Hydric Soil List was reviewed to determine if the soil at the site is classified as a hydric soil. According to the Soil Survey Manual, the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site contains no hydric soils (Figure 3-1). According to the NWI map and USGS topographic map there is one stream, Hiatt Run, which is located northwest and outside of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site boundary (Figure 3- 3). Given the topography associated with Hiatt Run, it is anticipated the stream flows in a northwest to a northeast direction. According to the NWI map and to a field investigation, there are no wetlands within or immediately adjacent to the project area boundary; however, there are wetlands associated with Hiatt Run located at relatively far distances from the project area. An on -site investigation of Hiatt Run was conducted in June 2005 to characterize the stream. During this investigation Hiatt Run contained no water. Hiatt Run is approximately 5 to 6 feet in width and is incised approximately 1 to 3 feet (Figure 3-3). The stream banks were dominated with eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoids); whereas, the stream bed was mostly barren except it contained small quantities of northern water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatico). It can be assumed that Hiatt Run would be considered a jurisdictional stream by the USACE, since it is mapped by both the USGS and the NWI (Figure 3-3). 3.1.5 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Biologists from Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. conducted a field visit in June 2005 to characterize vegetation and wildlife on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. The Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is characterized as open grassland dominated by common upland grasses. Very few trees exist within the project area boundary. A small number of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) exists within the project area boundary. However, an abundant amount of vegetation exists adjacent to Hiatt Run in Flood Zone A. Vegetation at this location includes eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoids), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), black locust, Russian or autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), and silky dogwood (Corpus amomum). No specimen trees were noted during the field visit. 24 l:ntergenc _I' Preparedness and Re,yonsc� Directorate E►nergencY Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment r Stage Route g63 I r C: ' Hiatt Run J� a��yr SITE 0 3 WINCHESTER r r G r C) II Not to Scale Figure 3-3: Water Resources Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate I Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Figure 3-4. Hiatt Run located northwest and outside of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site boundary. Due to the proximity of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site to highly developed residential and urban areas, wildlife within the project area is limited to those species that have adjusted to human activity. Wildlife species within the project area are primarily those associated with open spaces and forest edge habitats. Common mammal species found within the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site include the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Common avian species found within the project area include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), English sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Stumus vulgaris), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). 3.1.6 AIR QUALITY Air quality became a national concern in the mid- 1960s, leading to the passage of the Air Quality Act in 1967. The Act (now referred to as the Clean Air Act) and subsequent amendments have established procedures for improving conditions, including a set of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is directed to set levels for pollutants in order to protect the public's health. The NAAQS have been adopted for six pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and lead. A system of monitoring stations has been established across the country to measure progress in meeting these goals. If an area is found to exceed the allowable concentrations, local officials are required to develop a plan for achieving air quality that meets the standards. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Pinal Em4ronmental Assessment Frederick County, Virginia, in which the site is located, is a non -attainment area for ground -level ozone. However, existing Clean Air Act Programs will bring the Winclester-Frederick County area into attainment by 2010. 3.1.7 NOISE Noise regulations have been established at all levels of government, from local municipalities to Federal agencies. Although, there is great variation in the controls established by different municipalities, the Federal guidelines provide widely accepted standards, which are reasonably consistent among the various agencies. Congress passed the Noise Control Act in 1972, specifically authorizing EPA to promulgate regulations establishing maximum permissible noise characteristics for products manufactured for interstate commerce. In addition, EPA was directed to publish information about the kind and extent of effects of different qualities and quantities of noise, and to define acceptable levels under- various conditions to protect public health and welfare. This information was then used by other Federal agencies in establishing criteria applicable to their programs. The primary sources of noise near the site is from vehicular activities along major roadways and from the railroad tracks to the north of the site. 3.2 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT Many of the topics discussed below are considered within the larger context of planning areas including Frederick County and the City of Winchester metropolitan area as a whole. 3.2.1 LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING The following section describes existing and planned land use and zoning in the vicinity of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. The site is an undeveloped parcel of land. Railroad tracks and a stream are located directly to the northeast of the site. The area to the west of the site is an undeveloped field, which is planned for development as part of an office park, the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park. To the east of the site is a plant nursery, and to the south of the site is a residential area. Currently, the site cannot be accessed by motor vehicles. A planned roadway would provide access off US Route 1 I (Martinsburg Pike). According to the Frederick County Northeast Land Use Plan, the majority of the site is proposed for industrial use (see Figure 3-5). The area to the southeast of the site is proposed as historic/developmentally sensitive. Southwest of the site, the proposed land use is business. Tile Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is zoned M-1, Light Industrial (see Figure 3-6). The section of land between US Route 1 1 and the site is zoned RA, Rural Area. The zoning surrounding the site is Business, General District (B-2) and Business, Industrial Transition District (B-3) to the east; Rural Areas (RA) to the west; Residential Performance District (RP) to tine south; and Industrial, Light District (M 1) to the north. The site is part of a planned industrial park, the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park. Light Industrial District (M-1) provides for a variety of light manufacturing, commercial office and heavy commercial uses In well -planned Industrial settings (Frederick County, 2005). Uses 27 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate EmerLyencv Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment are allowed which do not create noise, smoke, dust or other hazards and which do not adversely affect nearby residential or business areas. It is the intent of the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to reduce environmental impacts, such as soil erosion, by requiring development that is sensitive to the existing features of the natural terrain. Diversity and originality in lot layout are encouraged in order to achieve the best possible relationship between the development and the land. Individual lots and streets should be designed to minimize alteration of the natural site features, relate positively to surrounding properties and protect the views from surrounding areas. It is intended that by allowing flexibility in the subdivision design, while at the same time requiring that environmental concerns be addressed, a more attractive, environmentally sound and economically viable development will result. The intent of the Business General District (B-2) is to provide large areas for a variety of business, office and service uses. General business areas are located on arterial highways at major intersections and at interchange areas. Businesses allowed involve frequent and direct access by the general public but not heavy truck traffic on a constant basis other than that required for delivery of retail goods. General business areas should have direct access to major thoroughfares and should be properly separated from residential areas. Industrial Transition District (B-3) provides for heavy commercial activities, involving larger scale marketing or wholesaling, in locations that are separate from but in the vicinity of business and industrial areas. In some cases, such areas may be transitional, located between business and industrial areas. In these areas, there will be a mixture of automobile and truck traffic. Some of the uses in this district will require large areas of land and may have outdoor storage and display, The Residential Performance District (RP) is intended to implement the residential land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with urban lands. The plan identifies four basic land use characteristics, which are to be encouraged: 1) efficient land use patterns; reduced housing and public facility costs; energy efficient housing and housing patterns; and environmentally sensitive landuse. RP zoning allows a mixture of housing types on the land within an approved master development plan. Multifamily housing types are allowed only when they adjoin similar uses or are properly separated from different uses. The preliminary master development plan specifies the amount and percentages of all proposed housing types. Emergetic ' v Prep(b aiviless mid Reywist, Dii-ectol'afe Emereem,%, Assistmice Celltel - Fimil Efivii,omiteii1al As.se,ssmew Fri ha 11N SITE • Not to Scale Source Fredenck County Planning Departirrm Residential Institutional Urban Development Area Business Historic -Developmentally memo Sewer and Water Service Area Sensitive Areas Industrial Proposed Route 37 By -Pass Figure 3-5: Planned Land Use 29 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment .' 3 663 a36 j33G/ • 35 722 ss¢, SO 337, , - . • ..-- SOn 4 [ !f SITE,- x�` Z.9 `�11 t d62 662 d3i� t a39 .._ - I_ 32660--- II pa N 11 * 54 o s 2 miles Source: Frederick County Department of GIS. B2 (Business, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home community District) - B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) RP (Residential Performance District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) RA (Rural Areas District) M2 (Industrial, General District) Urban Development Area — — — Proposed Route 37 By -Pass Figure 3-6: Zoning 30 Eiiiergency Preparedness awl Response Directorate Eniergency Assistance Center 1",inal LnWronmewal Assessment 3.2.2 ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT Growth in the local economy is a major factor influencing overall growth in Frederick County (Frederick County, 2003). The economics of Frederick County and the City of Winchester are interrelated and economic changes affect both jurisdictions. There has been a continued growth in local employment in both the City and County. An additional factor influencing growth in Frederick County has been an increasing movement of people into the County from the Washington Metropolitan Area. It is anticipated that economic growth will continue, thereby supporting continued steady rates of overall growth. The total labor force for Frederick County in 2004 was 36,177. Of those, 35,380 are employed and 797 are unemployed (WFCCDC, 2004). The unemployment rate for Frederick County is 1.7 percent, lower than the state average of 3.8 percent. According to 2000 Census data, the median household income for the state is $46,677. For Frederick County, the median household income is slightly higher, $46,941. The unemployment rate and median household income for the county and the Block Group in which the site falls is in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: 2000 Census Data (Employment) Census Tract 511, Block Frederick County Group 1 Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Unemployment Rate 1.7 % 2.9% Median Household Income $46,941 $54,550 The manufacturing industry employs 18.4 percent of working individuals in Frederick County; followed by 17.9 percent in the educational, health, and social services industry; 14.0 percent in the retail trade industry; 10.4 percent in the construction industry; 6.8 percent in the professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services Industry; and 5.6 percent in the arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services industry. The remainder of the population is employed by the utilities industry (5.0 percent); other services (4.8 percent); public administration (4.7 percent); finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (4.0 percent); wholesale trade (3.7 percent); professional/technical services (3.0 percent); transportation and warehousing, and information (2.8 percent); and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and mining (2.1 percent). Major employers in the Frederick County -Winchester, Virginia area include Rubbermaid, Inc., Valley Health System, Frederick County Public Schools, Kraft General Foods, Inc., Lear Operations Corp., Polyorie, Kohl's, Shenandoah University, Wal Mart, Winchester City Public Schools (WINVA, 2005). 31 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 3.2.3 TAXES AND REVENUE The State of Virginia levies a 6 percent corporate tax on businesses; a 5.75 percent individual income tax on incomes greater than $17,001 on residents within the state; and a 5.5 percent retail sales tax (on non-food items). Frederick County's property tax rate is $0.73 per assessed $100 on personal and real estate property. 3.2.4 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES The Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is an undeveloped parcel of land located in Frederick County, Virginia. Railroad tracks and a stream are located directly to the northeast of the site. The area to the west of the site is an undeveloped field, which may be developed in the future as part of a planned office park. To the east of the site is a plant nursery, and to the south of the site is a residential area. The area surrounding the site is undeveloped to moderately developed. 3.3 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT Cultural Background Section 101(b)(4) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), as amended, requires the Federal government to coordinate and plan its actions to, among other goals, "preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage..." Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requires Federal agencies to include analysis of the potential impacts to historic and cultural resources as part of the NEPA process. Prehistoric Context The following prehistoric context relies chiefly on the context study produced in the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Rainville Road Highway Project, Eastville Industrial Park, Frederick County, Virginia (Boyer & Boyer, 2001). The climate of the Shenandoah Valley has undergone considerable change during the past 12,000 years of human occupation. Although not directly affected by glaciers during the Late Pleistocene Era, conditions were cooler and moister with more severe winters than experienced today. The environmental variation formed by patches of tundra, deciduous forest, coniferous forest, and open grasslands supported a number of species of animals including grazing herd animals and solitary or small group species (mammoth, mastodon, giant bison); species which have since shifted to more northern latitudes (such as caribou and moose) and modem species, such as deer. With the retreat of the glaciers around 8000 B.C., most of the larger game animals disappeared from the Shenandoah Valley. The areas of extensive grassland on the valley floor had given way to large areas of coniferous forests. Moose, deer and elk were probably the dominant species at this time. By 6000 to 5000 B.C, conditions had become slightly cooler and moister followed then by the warmer Atlantic period. During this period, oaks began to replace pine in the lower elevations. By 5000 B.C., the deciduous forest had come dominant with the exception of some areas more favorable to hemlocks. By 3000 to 2000 B.C., the Shenandoah River had reached its present level. By A.D. 1750, essentially modern conditions were established. 32 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Much of the archaeological work done in the Shenandoah Valley has emphasized cultural and ecological relationships. With prehistoric settlement patterns, there was a close relationship between the choice of living sites and environmental factors. These included proximity to fresh drinking water, the availability of lithic raw materials; the proximity of game attracting habitats; the distribution of zones of maximum habitat overlap (these represent the zones possessing the highest resource potential); the distribution of high -order perennial streams; the presence of well drained, low -relief topographic areas suitable for habitation; and the presence of maximum sunlight exposure. The degree to which each of these variables affected site location varied through time depending upon the type of sites, subsistence strategies and the relative importance of each variable. The Paleoindian Period represents the earliest widely accepted evidence of prehistoric occupation in the Eastern United States. The subsistence system focused on hunting, with wild plants probably contributing a minority of the diet. The toolkit was oriented towards the hunting and processing of animals and animal by-products, and included spears, scrapers, knives, and various cutting tools, gravers, etc. The diagnostic artifact from this period is the fluted point manufactured with jaspers, chests and other workable stones that played a determining factor in the settlement system of the inhabitants. The Early Archaic period (8000-6800 B.C.) represents an overall continuation of this lifestyle, ' yet is marked technological changes linked to the changing climate. As the coniferous and deciduous forests increased with an accompanying loss of grasslands, hunting shifted to focus on solitary forest game animals. Fluted, lanceolate spear points were replaced by corner -notched ' forms, such as Palmer and Kirk types and later, the side -notched Warren points and Kirk stemmed and serrated points. Tile Middle Archaic period (6800-2500 B.C.) corresponds to the beginning of the Atlantic tclimatic episode, which presaged modern climatic conditions. The changes wrought by the Atlantic resulted in further adaptations of the prehistoric populations. The main adaptation involved general foraging as the primary subsistence base, marked by the exploitation of seasonally available foods. Wider ranges of lithic raw materials were utilized in comparison to the earlier emphasis on fine-grained chests and jaspers. 1 The Early Woodland period (1000-450 B.C.) saw the use of steatite -tempered pottery followed by crushed rock -tempered potter and later sand -tempered pottery. The earliest type had smooth, plain surfaces made by molding patches of clay. Coiling became the preferred method later, using textile impressions (mostly cord marking) as a surface treatment. During this period, there appears to be a tendency towards increased sedentisrn, rather than regular seasonal relocation of ' settlements in response to variations in resource availability. The Middle Woodland (450 B.C. - 800 A.D.) continues the trend toward increased sedentism. Little is known about the later part of the Middle Woodland in this region. By 1400 to 1500 A.D., the earlier settlement pattern of dispersed villages and hamlets disappeared and was replaced by settlements now consolidated into larger, stockaded villages ' associated with, apparently, nearby outlying farmsteads. This coincides with the widespread appearance of warfare in the eastern United States and is presumed to represent unrest in the Shenandoah Valley and Eastern Woodlands, in general. SometilllC just before the 1700s, the 33 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergencv Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment middle and northern portions of the Shenandoah Valley were abandoned by the aboriginal populations. Between 1700 and 1730 A.D., there were no resident populations in the Valley Historic Context Winchester and Frederick County, at the top of the Shenandoah Valley and Virginia, was the grounds of the Shawnee Indians when Pennsylvania Quakers came to settle in 1732. The town was originally named Frederick Town after Frederick, father of George III of England. In 1752 the name was changed to Winchester. In the mid- 1700s, Frederick County became the military and political training ground for George Washington. He came to the county at the age of 16 to survey the lands of Thomas, the sixth Lord Fairfax. Washington built Fort Loudoun during the French and Indian War and, at 26, was elected to his first public office as the county's representative to the House of Burgesses. Winchester was a strategic prize of great importance during the Civil War. In Confederate hands, it was a serious threat to the supply lines of the Union armies trying to reach Richmond. When in the hands of the Union army, Winchester made Confederate raids into the north risky and gave the Union a protected avenue for troop movements to the South. Due to this strategic importance, Winchester and Frederick County became the scene of six battles during the Civil War, and the city changed flags around 70 times during the four-year conflict. Two major conflicts, the battles of Second Winchester and Third Winchester, as they are known today, as well as a skirmish in 1864 known as the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, involved operations within or adjacent to the proposed project site. The actual location of the former Rutherford's Farm farmhouse is located more than 1,000 feet to the southwest of the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Site. Second Winchester After the Battle of Brandy Station on June 9, 1863, General Robert E. Lee ordered his troops under General Ewell to clear the northern Shenandoah Valley of Federal opposition. Ewell's columns converged on Winchester's garrison commanded by Union General Milroy. Instead of retreating in the face of superior numbers, Milroy determined to make a stand in the supposedly strong fortifications west and north of town. On June 14, the Confederate Louisiana Brigade captured the West Fort. After dark, Milroy abandoned his remaining entrenchments in an attempt to retreat to Charles Town (now in West Virginia). Confederate General Edward Johnson's division cut off Milroy's retreat just north of Winchester at Stephenson's Depot, capturing over 2,500 Union troops. This victory cleared the Valley of Federal troops and opened the door for Lee's invasion of the north and the Battle of Gettysburg (Shenandoah at War, 2005; Winchester Online, 2005). Third Winchester In September 1864, Confederate General Joseph Kershaw's division left Winchester to rejoin General Lee's army on the Richmond -Petersburg line. On September 19, Union General Sheridan advanced towards Winchester through the narrow Berryville Canyon. Sheridan's slow movement through the canyon gave Confederate General Early time to concentrate his forces to meet the initial Federal attacks. The battle continued for several hours with very heavy Im Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center FMal Environmental Assessment casualties on both sides, but the Confederates were eventually forced to retreat. The Battle of Third Winchester was one of the largest battles fought in the Shenandoah Valley and resulted in the wounding and deaths of several important generals on both sides (Shenandoah at War, 2005; Winchester Online, 2005). Battle of Rutherford's Farm On July 20, 1864, Brig. General W.W. Averell's Union division attacked Maj. General S.D. Ramseur's Confederate division at Rutherford's and Carter's farms about 2 mules north of Winchester near the B&O railroad line which the Confederates had been raiding. The Union Army attacked the flank west of the Berryville Pike (now US Route 11) on Rutherford's Farm, and Ramseur retreated toward Winchester in confusion. General Averell captured four pieces of artillery and nearly 300 men. Total casualties were estimated around 1,100 men. 3.3.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES A Phase I Archaeological Survey was conducted for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Site (G&O, 2005b). The goal of this survey was to identify any potentially significant archaeological deposits within the Area of Potential Effects (APB) prior to construction of the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate project in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, (36 CFR 800, as amended), and the Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974. Research for historic resources was conducted at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) in Richmond, Virginia, as well as through a review of historic maps of the site and a reconnaissance field survey. An archaeological survey was conducted across the majority of the property with standard recovery methods (shovel test pits). A limited metal detection transect survey was also conducted. No evidence of former structures that could yield archaeological resources was uncovered. In addition, no prehistoric or historic sites were identified. Therefore, it was concluded that the parcel contains no significant cultural materials. 3.4 INFRASTRUCTURE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT The following sections describe the infrastructure, including utilities, transportation, and waste management, at the site. 3.4.1 U'rILTrIES Water & Server There are two providers of water in Winchester and Frederick County. The City of Winchester provides water to Winchester and parts of Frederick County. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) provides water- to portions of Frederick County. The FCSA is responsible for providing public water and sewer services to the site. 35 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment The Frederick -Winchester Service Authority operates the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility The Authority provides wholesale service to Winchester City and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Electricity & Natural Gas The Allegheny Power System provides electricity in the City of Winchester and Frederick County. Most generation facilities are coal. Allegheny Power serves an area of about 29,000 square miles and about three million people in parts of Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Shenandoah Gas provides natural gas service to the northern Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. Customers can purchase natural gas on either a firm or interruptible basis. Telecommunications nTelos, Shenandoah Telecommunications, Verizon-Virginia, and Adelphia Business Solutions all provide telecommunication services to the area. On the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site, a 30-foot water and sewer easement runs parallel to the railroad tracks. Water is conveyed to the site via an existing 20-inch water transmission line. Sewage is conveyed to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility for treatment. An electricity easement traverses the site (northeast to southwest) in the southwest corner of the site and a telephone easement runs east of the site and perpendicular to US Route 11. 3.4.2 TRANSPORTATION The Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is located along US Route 11, northeast of the I-81 interchange in Frederick County, Virginia. Throughout most of this section, US Route 11 is a three -lane highway with two 9.5 foot travel lanes and one 9.5 foot center turn lane. Through the 1-81 interchange area, US Route 11 is a four -lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. There is a signalized intersection in the southeast quadrant of the interchange, at the US Route 11/I-81 Northbound exit ramp. This rainp is approximately 1,200 feet south of the proposed entrance road into the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site, herein referred to as the Proposed Rutherfords Farm Drive. The US Route 11 and Welltown Road intersection, located approximately 2,000 feet south of the proposed entrance road, is also signalized. There are no signalized intersections to the north along US Route 11 within 1 mile of the project site. Access to the existing properties along the corridor is provided by individual driveways. Public transit is limited within Frederick County, Virginia. Virginia Regional Transit Authority (VRTA) provides on -call service four days a week and service to the Winchester Hospital on Mondays; these services are available from 9:00 am until 3:00 pin with 24 hours notice. The Winchester Transit system also operates regular routes and schedules throughout the city during the day. These services are available from 6:00 am until 5:55 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am until 1:25 pm on Saturdays. According to the Deputy County Administrator, a regular bus route (Bus Route #2 — Stonewall Industrial Park) is planned that will stop approximately % mile south of the site on US Route 11 (Tibbs, 2005). There are no sidewalks or bicycle facilities in the immediate area of the site. 36 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 3.4.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT No wastes are currently generated at the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. The MWEOC currently generates general waste, which consists of all waste materials which are not regulated or defined as hazardous, special, or potentially dangerous and which do not require special handling and disposal due to potential hazards it possesses to either personnel or the environment. General waste typically includes a varying, non -homogeneous mixture of paper goods, corrugated items, plastics, food scraps, glassware, metal waste, and other miscellaneous organics and inorganics. All waste generated at MWEOC is managed in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local regulations. General waste is collected from all areas of the facility and transported to compactors/dumpsters. This waste is picked up on a regular basis by licensed waste haulers and disposed of either in local sanitary landfills or at incineration facilities. 37 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate I Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. 4.0 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center final Envirainiental flssessment 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION This chapter contains a discussion of the environmental consequences, or impacts, associated with the No -Action Alternative and with site selection and construction of the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center on the Rutlierfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Impact Assessment This section includes an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Fecleral) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (40 CFR 1508.7 — 1508.8) Potential impacts are described in terms of: • intensity, the effects are negligible, minor, moderate, or major; • type, the effects are beneficial or adverse; • duration, the effects are short-term, lasting through construction or less than one year, or long-term, lasting more than one year; and • context, the effects are site -specific, local, or even regional. The thresholds of change for the intensity of impacts arc defined as follows: • negligible, the impact is localized and not measurable or at the lowest level of detection; • minor•, the impact is localized and slight but detectable; • moderate, the impact is readily apparent and appreciable; or • major, the impact is severely adverse and highly noticeable. This section also includes information on measures to mitigate the impacts at the end of each impact topic. 4.1 NATURAL AND PIIYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's (DCR) implements the Virginia erosion and sediment control (ESC) program according to the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Regulations, and Certification Regulations. This law is found in the Code of Virginia at Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4, the regulations arc found at Section 4VAC30-50, and 39 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate I Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment certification regulations are found in the Virginia Administration Code at Section 4VAC50-50. Since the proposed action would result in a land disturbance exceeding 10,000 square feet, it would need to abide by the DCR's ESC program. This program's goal is to control soil erosion, sedimentation, and runoff from land disturbing activities (DCR, 2005b). 4.1.1 GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS The general geologic conditions of the project area are discussed in Section 3.1.1 of this EA. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts - Direct impacts to geology, topography and soils occur when clearing, grading, and construction activities are conducted on a site. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts to geology, topography and soils occur when erosion of soils, and other ground disturbances during construction leads to sedimentation in local streams. 4.1.1.1 No -Action Alternative Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts Under the No -Action Alternative, the non -classified personnel at the MWEOC would continue to use their existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to geology, topography, and soils at the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. It is assumed that the site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable plans and zoning. This development could result in long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to geology, topography, and soils. 4.1.1.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Under Alternative 2, there would be direct, long-term, moderate, adverse effects to soils from clearing, grading, and construction activities associated with constructing the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. Indirect Impacts Under the proposed action, erosion of soils during construction may lead to sedimentation in local streams. Because an erosion and sedimentation plan would be followed, indirect adverse impacts from soil erosion are anticipated to be minor and short -teen. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Ewnervencv Assistance Center final Bnvironrnental Assessment Cumulative Impacts The proposed action when added to past and future projects in the vicinity of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site, including development of the remainder of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park, would have a minor, adverse, cumulative impact on the geologic, soil, and topographic conditions in the project area. However, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would contribute negligibly to these moderate, adverse, cumulative impacts. Mitigation Measures Detailed subsurface engineering studies would be need to be undertaken by the developer prior to design and construction to ensure that sound building practices are followed. Soil suitability would be determined and appropriate building foundation specifications would be developed. A detailed erosion and sedimentation plan would be developed prior to construction, to ensure that appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures are taken during construction of buildings, roadways, or utility lines to minimize soil loss due to erosion. 4.1.2 WATER RESOURCES Current regulations in Virginia are applicable to the water resource issues for the proposed action. Stormwater regulations and programs are implemented according to the Virginia Stormwater Management (SWM) Law and Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations. This law is found in the Code of Virginia at Title 10.1, Chapter 6, Article 1.1, and the regulations are found in Section 4VAC3-20 of the Virginia Administrative Code. Since the proposed action would disturb greater than one acre of land, it would need to abide by the Department of Conservation and Recreation's (DCR) Virginia SWM program. This program seeks to address adverse impacts to water resources and to manage the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff (DCR, 2005a). DCR also implements the Virginia erosion and sediment control (ESC) program according to the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Regulations, and Certification Regulations. This program's goal is to control soil erosion, sedimentation, and runoff from land disturbing activities (DCR, 2005b). Lal)lanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts - Direct impacts to water resources occur when a stream is directly altered hence that the surface water hydrology is changed, water quality is degraded, or aquatic habitat is diminished or lost. An example would be when a stream is placed in a culvert under a road, and a portion of the natural stream bottom and banks are replaced with concrete. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts to water resources result from the creation of impervious surfaces, such as parking lots and rooftops, when development occurs. Impervious surfaces increase the volume of surface water runoff during precipitation events and decrease the area available for water infiltration back into the ground (recharge). As a result peak flows in area streams are higher and base flows are lower. While most fish and macroinvertebrate species inhabiting head water streams are adapted to normal variations in water flow, the increased IN Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment variability that occurs after development may be too great for some species to tolerate. Those intolerant species may disappear from the aquatic system. Extremely high water flow can cause erosion of stream banks and scouring of the streambed. Scouring is detrimental to benthic macroinvertebrates, which attach to rock or cobble substrates. Increased volumes of stormwater runoff can also raise water surface elevations that in -turn can result in an increase in the area of a stream's floodplain. Surface water runoff from impervious surfaces may also affect water quality by raising in -stream water temperatures (thermal loading) and transporting fine sediments and pollutants into streams. Warmer stream temperatures can adversely affect some temperature -intolerant species. A buildup of fine sediments in the streambed may smother fish eggs and larvae as well as benthic macroinvertebrates that inhabit the interstitial spaces between the coarser gravel and cobble sediments. Increased levels of fine sediments may also negatively affect aquatic organisms (both fish and invertebrates) by clogging the organisms' gills. Surface water runoff from landscaped areas that receive pesticide and fertilizer applications can carry these chemicals into surface waters. In addition, runoff from roads and parking areas may transport oils, greases, heavy metals, and deicing agents to streams. These substances degrade water quality and are lethal to aquatic organisms when present in significant quantities. These substances can also coat gravel substrates, making them unfit for fish and benthic macroinvertebrate eggs. 4.1.2.1 Alternative 1-No-Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, GSA would continue to use its existing facility, the MWEOC located in Berryville, Virginia, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no additional direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to existing surface water or groundwater resources at the existing MWEOC. For the purpose of this EA, it is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable development plans and zoning. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2. 4.1.2.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Under Alternative 2, the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed to meet the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's infrastructure requirements for the construction of a new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. Since no on -site streams exist, no construction activities would occur in any streams. Therefore, the placement of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would not directly impact groundwater or surface water resources. 42 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Enieigency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Indirect Impacts Under Alternative 2, there would be indirect impacts to surface water and groundwater. With the ' implementation of this alternative, groundwater recharge at the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be reduced by the addition of impervious surfaces, such as parking lots and buildings. A decrease in groundwater recharge could disrupt the hydrologic conditions in the off -site stream, Hiatt Run. The increase in impervious surfaces would also increase runoff volume to Hiatt Run. iAdditionally, construction activities may increase the runoff of sediments that could adversely impact water quality in Hiatt Run. During operation of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility, there may be increased runoff of sedimentation and pollutants from the building and parking lot. Landscaped areas that receive pesticide and fertilizer applications may as well impact water quality. By implementing the mitigation measures as described in Section 4.1.2.3, this alternative would have a minor, adverse, long-term, indirect impact on surface water and groundwater resources. Cumulative Impacts Past development in the area has resulted in increased impervious surfaces. The Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is part of a larger development plan called the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park. Future development planned in the Rutherfords Farm hndustrial Park would also result in increases in impervious surfaces that could in turn have a negative cumulative effect on water quality, storrnwater runoff volumes, and groundwater recharge. By following the appropriate Frederick County and Virginia state requirements for stormwater quality and ' quantity controls, the severity of these impacts would be reduced. Witli mitigation, the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would add negligibly to these adverse, long-term, cumulative impacts to water resources from past, present, Iand fixture development. 4.1.2.3 Mitigation Measures for Water Resources Impacts A detailed erosion and sedimentation plan would be developed prior to construction, to ensure that appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures are taken during construction of ' buildings, roadways, or utility lines to minimize soil loss clue to erosion. Stormwater quality and quantity control may be required in compliance with state and county requirements. The use of best management practices during construction, including the use of silt fences and other soil retention measures, would minimize soil erosion from precipitation and wind and the transport of sediment to surface water. 4.1.3 FLOODPLAINS Executive Order- 11988 provides floodplain management requirements for federal projects. The objective of this order is to avoid to the maximum extent possible long- and short-term impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development whenever there is a practicable alternative. 43 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts - Direct impacts to floodplains occur when fill is placed in floodplains or when buildings or other obstructions are placed in floodplains. These actions displace floodwaters causing increases in flood levels upstream or downstream. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts to floodplains can occur from increases in impervious surfaces, such as parking lots and rooftops. Impervious surfaces increase the volume of surface water runoff during precipitation events and decrease the area available for water infiltration back into the ground (recharge). As a result, peak flows in area streams are higher and base flows are lower. Increased volumes of stormwater runoff can raise water surface elevations that in -turn can result in an increase in the area of a stream's floodplain. 4.1.3.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, GSA would continue to use its existing facility, the MWEOC located in Berryville, Virginia, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to floodplains at the existing facility. For the purpose of this EA, it is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable development plans and zoning. Since the project area is not location within a floodplain, future development at this location would not result in any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to this resource. 4.1.3.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Under Alternative 2, the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed to meet the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's infrastructure requirements for the construction of a new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. As mentioned in Section 3.1.2, Water Resources, the FIRM for the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site indicates the project area is within Flood Zone C, an area of minimal flooding (FEMA, 1978). Based on a site specific hydrology and hydraulic study, approximately '/2 acre in the northern portion of the site is within the 500-year and 100-year floodplains. However, the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is large enough to allow construction of the proposed facility and associated infrastructures while avoiding construction within the floodplain. There are no current plans to build on that portion of the property; therefore, there would be no direct impacts to floodplains under this alternative. Indirect Impacts Construction on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site could indirectly impact floodplains by increasing impervious surface, which may increase stormwater runoff volume to Hiatt Run. An increase in stormwater runoff could raise a stream's water level, which in -turn can result in an increase in the area of the stream's floodplain. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergencv Assisvance Center By implementing the mitigation measures as described in Section 4.1.3.3, Alternative 2 would have a minor, adverse, long-term, indirect impact on floodplains. Cumulative Impacts Past development in the area has increased impervious surfaces. Future development planned in the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park would also result in increases in impervious surfaces. Suct increases in impervious surfaces could result in a negative cumulative effect on stormwater runoff volumes and thus on floodplains. The proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would add to these cumulative impacts. By following the appropriate Frederick County and Virginia state requirements for stormwater quality and quantity controls, the severity of indirect impacts to off -site floodplains would be reduced. Therefore, minor, adverse, long-term, indirect, cumulative impacts to floodplains could occur. 4.1.3.3 Mitigation Measures for Floodplains A detailed erosion and sedimentation plan would be developed prior to construction, to ensure that appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures are taken during construction Of buildings, roadways, or utility lines to minimize soil loss due to erosion. Stormwater quality and quantity control may be required in compliance with state and county requirements. The use of best management practices during construction, including the use of silt fences and other soil retention measures, would minimize soil erosion from precipitation and wind and the transport Of Wetlands are regulated under- the Clean Water- Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC 1251-1387). The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Executive Order 11990 furthers the purposes Of NEPA by directing federal agencies to "...avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support Of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative... The USACE has been charged with evaluating federal actions that result in the potential degradation of the waters of the U.S. and issuing permits for actions consistent with the Clean Water Act. In the state Of Virginia, the USACE has a joint permit process with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Iinpacts - In general, direct impacts to wetlands result from the loss of acreage due to filling or excavation during construction. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts are defined as alterations in hydrology or increases in impervious surface area that may affect receiving wetlands. Impacts due to the increased runoff have the potential to increase the fi-equency and extent of flooding to the wetlands adjacent to Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 4.1.4.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, GSA would continue to use its existing facility, the Mount Weather EOC located in Berryville, Virginia, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to wetlands at the existing facility. For the purpose of this EA, it is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable development plans and zoning. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2. 4.1.4.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Under Alternative 2, the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed to meet the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's infrastructure requirements for the construction of a new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. According to the NWI map and to the USGS topographic map there is one stream, Hiatt Run, which is located northwest and outside of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site boundary. According to the NWI map and to a field investigation, there are no wetlands within or immediately adjacent to the project area boundary. Therefore, no direct -impacts to wetlands would occur under this alternative. Indirect Impacts Although no on -site or adjacent wetlands exist, there are wetlands associated with Hiatt Run. Other potential off -site wetlands may also exist. Development of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would reduce pervious surfaces and increase runoff, which could alter the hydrologic regime of these off -site wetlands that are associated with Hiatt Run. Construction activities would increase runoff, which could increase sedimentation in off -site wetlands. By implementing the mitigation measures as described in Section 4.1.4.3, Alternative 2 would have a negligible to minor, adverse, long-term, indirect impact to off -site wetlands. Cumulative Impacts Past development in the area may have resulted in wetland acreage loss. Future development planned in the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park could also result in further wetland acreage loss through filling or could result in indirect impacts by causing changes in wetland hydrology. The proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would add to these cumulative impacts. The proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center could indirectly add to these cumulative impacts by increasing impervious surfaces and altering the hydrologic regimes of any off -site wetlands. By following the appropriate Frederick County and Virginia state requirements for stormwater quality and quantity controls, the severity of indirect impacts to wetlands would be reduced. Therefore, a minor, adverse, long-term, cumulative impact to wetlands would occur. 46 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 4.1.4.3 Mitigation Measures for Wetland Impacts A detailed erosion and sedimentation plan would be developed prior- to construction, to ensure that appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures arc taken during construction of buildings, roadways, or utility lines to minimize indirect impacts to off site wetlands. These control measures would minimize sedimentation that could indirectly affect off -site wetlands during construction. 4.1.5 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Biologists from Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. conducted a field visit in June 2005 to characterize vegetation and wildlife on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Vegetation and wildlife characteristics are discussed in Section 3.1.5 Vegetation and Wildlife. The following section discusses the impacts to vegetation and wildlife for the No -Action Alternative and for the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Alternative. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Lxpact Topic Direct Impacts - Direct impacts to vegetation and wildlife occur when vegetated areas that make up plant and wildlife habitats are cleared for construction of buildings and roads. When assessing affects on wildlife due to habitat loss in an urban area, it is assumed that any adjacent habitats are at carrying capacity and that those animals and plants utilizing the affected habitats would be lost. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts to vegetation and wildlife consist of a reduction in on -site habitat diversity and suitability for use by plants and wildlife. Noise and human activity during construction and operation of buildings can also disrupt wildlife. 4.1.5.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, GSA would continue to use its existing facility, the Mount Weather- EOC located in Berryville, Virginia, and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to vegetation or wildlife at the existing the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility. For the purpose of this EA, it is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable development plans and zoning. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those under- Alternative 2. 4.1.5.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Faun Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Under Alternative 2, construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would require clearing of open grassland for the facility and associated infi-astructure. This clearing would 47 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergencv Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment eliminate open grassland habitat and would displace resident wildlife into adjacent areas that may be at its maximum capacity. Since the adjacent habitats display similar characteristics as the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site, they should provide suitable habitat for any displaced wildlife. Because the project area contains few trees, no clearing of deciduous forest would occur as a result of the development. Therefore, a minor, adverse, long-term, direct impact to vegetation and wildlife would occur. Indirect Impacts Under Alternative 2, noises and human activities consistent with construction and operation of typical office buildings would indirectly impact wildlife. However, the majority of these noise impacts would decrease upon completion of the center. Development could also increase the amount of airborne pollutants that are harmful to vegetation and wildlife habitat. However, construction activities are expected to have little impact to air quality, and emissions from the operation of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility are estimated to be below de minimis thresholds and therefore have a negligible effect on vegetation. Additionally, surface water hydrology may be altered as a result from the development, which may affect vegetation and wildlife located down -gradient from the project. Therefore, a minor, adverse, long-term, indirect impact to vegetation and wildlife would occur. Cumulative Impacts Past development in the area may have resulted in a reduction of vegetation and wildlife habitat. Future development planned in the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park could also result in further vegetation and wildlife habitat loss. The proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would add to these cumulative impacts. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center could indirectly add to these cumulative impacts by increasing human and construction noises and amounts of airborne pollutants that are harmful to vegetation. Therefore, a minor, adverse, long- term, cumulative impact to vegetation and wildlife would occur. 4.1.5.3 Mitigation Measures for Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts Mitigation measures would not be warranted for impacts to vegetation and wildlife as a result of Alternative 2. 4.1.2 AIR QUALITY The following section discusses the impacts to air quality for the No -Action Alternative as well as the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts — Direct impacts from a project on ambient air quality can be caused by construction activities and the operation of additional motor vehicles on and in the vicinity of the project site. Air quality pollutants can also be generated by the operation of stationary water and space heating equipment, and facility maintenance activities. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Fmervencv Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Indirect Impacts — Indirect impacts on air quality would occur from traffic generated by the facility. 4.1.2.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, the non -classified personnel at the MWEOC would continue to use their existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no new impacts to air quality at the existing facility. It is assumed that the site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable plans and zoning. It is likely that direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2. 4.1.2.2 Alternative 2 — Rutherfords Farni Industrial Pai-k Site Direct Impacts Federal actions, for construction of new office facilities such as the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center, must be in conformity with the provisions of the Clean Air Act. General conformity requirements are applied to certain Fcderal actions within air quality non - attainment and maintenance areas, including the construction of Federal office buildings, such as the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. The General Conformity rule can be considered to contain three major parts: applicability, procedure, and determination. Based on the following evaluation, it has been determined that the anticipated emissions would be sufficiently small that no further action is required. In the case of ozone, the precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are considered. Once these emissions have been evaluated, a determination can be made with respect to the applicability of the rules. If the total emissions are below de minimis levels, the rules are not applicable. The following are potential emission sources from the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center: • construction activities; heating/cooling facilities; • mobile sources, including employee coi1IIII Liti119. Consti-lictlon Activities Construction activities are expected to have little impact, with emissions lin-iited in both inagnitUde and duration. According to EPA, these operations are of greater significance in areas that are nonattainnient for particulates, which does not include Frederick County. 49 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment HeatingXooling Facilities Emissions from the operation of modern, efficient heating and cooling equipment for 135,000 square -foot buildings are estimated to be below de minimis thresholds. Mobile Sources Motor vehicles traveling to and from the proposed facility would generate emissions. However, there would not be an increase from the emissions associated with current commuting patterns. Conclusions of General Conformity Review This review has considered the precursors of ozone, VOCs, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The largest stationary source, the heating equipment, would be subject to permit review requirements; consequently, systems would be re-examined comprehensively during the permitting stage of the project, when more precise design information is available. However, based on the size of the proposed facility, it is estimated that emissions would fall below the de minimis levels established under General Conformity. Consequently, the General Conformity procedures are not applicable to the proposed action. 4.1.2.3 Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Stationary sources of emissions would require permits. This would be considered early in the design stage of the project and would be coordinated with the VDEQ. 4.1.3 Noisy This section analyzes the potential for increased noise levels under the No -Action Alternative and construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center at the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Noise modeling was not conducted as part of this study. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts - Direct impacts can occur as a result of construction noise during site development and permanent site -induced noise during operations. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts may result from the incremental noise from area roadways due to the additional traffic generated by the proposed action. 4.1.3.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alteriative, the non -classified personnel at the MWEOC would continue to use their existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative noise impact at the existing facility. 50 Ennergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emeraenev Assistance Center Final Environnnental Assessnnent It is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable plans and zoning. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2. 4.1.3.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Temporary increases in noise levels within the immediate vicinity of the site would occur during construction. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the specific types of equipment used, the construction methods employed, and the scheduling of work. Therefore, a minor, adverse, short-term, direct impact would occur to residents and businesses along Martinsburg Pike. During operation, the proposed the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility would produce low-level noises from ventilation equipment and vehicle traffic primarily during the peak traffic periods, which would have a minor, adverse, long-term, direct impact on employees at the site and minor, adverse, long-term, direct impacts on residents and businesses along Martinsburg Pike. If the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility is constructed at the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site, employees at the new facility would not be impacted by off -site noises. The site is located at a sufficient distance from major roads and other development to minimize noise impacts from traffic. Indirect Impacts Traffic increases associated with the construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility are expected to be minimal. Therefore, negligible, adverse, long-term, indirect impact would occur under this alternative. Cumulative Impacts Past, present, and future development in addition to the proposed the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility, would have minor, adverse, long-term, cumulative effects on noise levels. 4.1.3.3 Mitigation Measures for Noise Impacts The following mitigation measures could be implemented at the site: • Construction noise impacts may be reduced by avoiding tines of day or clays of the week when noise exposures would be more objectionable (i.e., nights or weekend mornings). Equipment could be operated with manufacturer noise control features in working order (for example, exhaust Inufflcrs in good repair and engine enclosure panels fitted and properly secured). If additional quieting is necessary, installation of noise controls to equipment can further reduce their noise emission, primarily through the fitting of additional or enhanced engine exhaust silencers. 51 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergencv Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 4.2 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 4.2.1 LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING Land use and zoning impacts attributable to a project are determined by changes to the site and the surrounding area, including changes in density and use, induced development, spurred revitalization, or increased vacancy. Such changes are typically a function of the scale of the proposed development, proximity of other uses to the project site, existing zoning, the availability of vacant or underutilized land, the condition of surrounding buildings, and outside development forces. The following section discusses the impacts to land use and zoning for the No -Action Alternative as well as the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts — Direct land use impacts associated with the proposed action are determined based on physical changes to the development site. Indirect Impacts — Indirect land use impacts generally include commercial, retail, and residential land use changes within adjacent parcels or a larger study area that result from the proposed action. 4.2.1.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, the non -classified personnel at the MWEOC would continue to use their existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no changes to land use or zoning at the existing facility. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to land use planning or zoning at the MWEOC. It is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable plans and zoning. The eventual development of the site would result in a change in land use. It is anticipated that new development would be consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan for the area. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2. 4.2.1.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would result in a change in land use from an undeveloped field to Federal office space and parking. These changes are consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. 52 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Lnvlrownenial Assessment According to the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, construction of the proposed facility is consistent with the zoning on site, M-1, Light Industrial (Ruddy, 2005). Therefore, no direct impacts to zoning would occur on site. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts to the land uses associated with the development of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site may result fi•om the introduction of additional employees to the area. These additional employees may bring an increased patronage to commercial establishments, and may prompt construction of new establishments resulting in additional changes in land use. No indirect impacts to zoning would occur. Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact of development Of the site, along with past and ruture development would continue to change land use to commercial office uses. These changes are in accordance with approved land use plans. 4.2.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Land Use and Zoning Mitigation measures are not warranted for impacts to land use or zoning. 4.2.2 ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMEN'r This section analyzes the potential for impacts to economy and employment for the No -Action Alternative and construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center at the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Iml7acts - Direct economic and employment impacts occur when there is a change in the number of jobs in all area or a change in the number Of businesses in an area. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts occur when daily spending changes in an area clue to the increase or decrease of jobs or businesses. These expenditures commonly include gasoline, automobile servicing, food and beverages, laundry, and other retail purchases undertaken in the immediate area because of convenience and access during the course of the business day. 4.2.2.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, non -classified personnel currently housed at MWEOC would continue to use its existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, Or Clinlulative Impacts to econoInic or employment conditions. 53 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate I Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment It is assumed that the site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable plans and zoning. This proposed development would bring new jobs to the area and add to the region's economy. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2. 4.2.2.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Regional economic activity would increase as local construction contractors and construction firms are hired for the project. The purchase of building materials, construction supplies and construction equipment, as well as spending by the construction workers, would add income to the economy. The proposed action would have a minor, beneficial, short-term direct impact on the regional economy. Minor, short-term, beneficial, direct impacts to employment may occur from jobs related to the construction of the facility. Indirect Impacts Daily spending by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate employees would positively affect the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site area. These expenditures commonly include gasoline, automobile servicing, food and beverages, laundry, and other retail purchases undertaken in the immediate area because of convenience and access during the course of the business day. Therefore, a moderate, beneficial, short-term, indirect impact would occur. Cumulative Impacts Past, present, and future development in the vicinity of the site would result in a moderate, beneficial, long-term cumulative impact on the economy, employment, and revenues of the region. 4.2.3 TAXES AND REVENUE The following section discusses the impacts to taxes and revenue for the No -Action Alternative and for the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts — Direct impacts to taxes and revenues occur when site improvements or new buildings increase a property's value and hence increase the taxes levied on it. Direct impacts may also occur if a property's ownership status changes from public to private or vice versa, as publicly owned properties are tax exempt. Finally, direct impacts can also occur from new job creation or relocation of employees to an area. Indirect Impacts — Indirect impacts can occur if a development spurs additional development Indirect impacts can also occur from spending by employees. 54 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Eniefgency Assistance Center PYnal Environniental Assessment 4.2.3.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, non -classified personnel currently housed at MWEOC would continue to use its existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no changes to state and local taxes and revenues. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to taxes and revenues. It is assumed that the site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with approved development plans and/or current zoning and the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Property taxes on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would continue to be paid by the property owners. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2. 4.2.3.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts GSA would lease the property from a private entity who would be subject to state property taxes. Therefore, taxes would continue to be paid on the property and no direct impact would occur. Construction workers employed for the construction period arc assumed to be currently employed, and residing and paying taxes in the Winchester, Virginia — Frederick County area. Increased sales transactions for the purchase of materials and supplies would generate some additional revenues for local and state governments, which would have a positive effect on taxes and revenue. Indirect Impacts Secondary jobs related to the increased economic activity stimulated by the proposed action may I' be created. Additional retail services and business employment may result from the proposed action through a multiplier effect, yielding additional sales and income tax revenues for local and state governments, thus having a positive indirect impact. 1 Cumulative Impacts Past, present, and future development in the vicinity of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site has and will continue to create revenue for the state, county, and local governments. 4.2.4 AESTIILTICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ' The area of visual influence or viewshcd provides the context for assessing aesthetic and visual resource impacts. Impacts to identified views and vistas were determined based on an analysis of the existing quality of the landscape views, the sensitivity of the view, and the anticipated relationship of the scale and massing of the proposed buildings to the existing visual environment. 55 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment The following section discusses the impacts to aesthetics and visual resources for the No -Action Alternative and the Build Alternative. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts - Direct impacts occur when the proposed development is visible as a background element of a view that includes buildings of a similar mass and scale. Direct impacts occur when the proposed development is visible as a contrasting or dominant element that interferes with views from the representative viewpoint and substantially changes the existing view. Conversely, the development could improve a view or the visual appearance of an area. Indirect Impact - Indirect impacts may occur if, because of the project, additional development occurs that affects viewsheds. 4.2.4.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, non -classified personnel currently housed at MWEOC would continue to use its existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to aesthetics or visual resources at the existing facility. It is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable plans and zoning. This development would result in changes in the aesthetics of the area similar to those described for the proposed action. 4.2.4.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center on the Rutherfords Fann Industrial Park Site would change the aesthetics of the site by removing an undeveloped grassy field and replacing it with a Federal office building. This change would be most notable onsite and from the adjacent houses on the southeastern border of the site. Currently, the site is undeveloped. In addition, there are no other buildings in the vicinity of the site of similar scale. Therefore, a moderate, adverse, long-term, direct impact to aesthetics and visual resources would occur. Indirect Impacts Indirect visual impact may occur if additional development takes place as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, a moderate, adverse, indirect impact would occur under this alternative. 56 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final EnWronniental Assessment Cumulative Impacts Continued development of the area surrounding the site would contribute to a more densely 1 developed environment. Therefore, a moderate, adverse cumulative indirect impact would occur under this alternative. ' 4.2.4.3 Mitigation Measures for Aesthetics and Visual Resources The following mitigation could be implemented for aesthetics and visual resources: • Landscaping around the perimeter of the site could be implemented to help screen the view of the building fi-om neighboring houses. S• Low -intensity lighting could be used where feasible. • Design Excellence Standards would be implemented. • A proffer statement was signed by the landowner requiring a 15-foot transitional ' landscape buffer along US Route 11, extending the length of the site. Ground cover, trees, and an earthen berm of 2-3 feet in height will be provided within the transitional buffer. A maximum height of 12-foot for all freestanding business signshrionument signs in the M 1 Zoning District was also established. 4.3 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 4.3.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following section describes impacts to archaeological resources, for the No -Action Alternative and the Action Alternative. 1 Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts — Direct impacts to archaeological resources occur when development results in the disturbance of soils containing historic or prehistoric resources. Indirect Impacts — Indirect impacts can occur when development results in exposing an archaeological site, increasing the potential for vandalism. ' 4.3.1.1 Alternative I - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, non -classified personnel currently housed at MWEOC would continue to use its existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and ' Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, ol- cumulative impacts to archaeological resources at the existing facility. 57 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate I Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment It is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable plans and zoning. This development would not result in impacts to archaeological resources, given the findings of the Phase I Archaeological Survey. 4.3.1.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts This development would not result in impacts to archaeological resources, given the findings of the Phase I Archaeological Survey. Indirect Impacts No indirect impacts would result from construction at the site or from subsequent development and construction that may be stimulated by the construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility, which may include expansion of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility or future development by others that the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility may promote. Cumulative Impacts Other development could impact nearby areas with archaeological resources associated with the three nearby Civil War battlefields. However, the proposed action would not add to these impacts. 4.3.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Archaeological Resources Following Phase IB Archaeological Survey at the Site, no intact archaeological remains are present on the proposed Site. All mitigation measures for impacts to archaeological resources would be set forth in a Memorandum of Agreement between GSA and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). According to a proffer statement signed by the property owner, an interpretive area and pull off along US Route 11 for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford's Farm historic site will be established. 4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE The following section describes impacts to infrastructure, including utilities, transportation, and waste management, for the No -Action Alternative and for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Site. 4.4.1 UTILITIES The following section describes impacts to utilities for the No -Action Alternative and for the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Explanation of Lnpacts Affecting this Iinpact Topic Direct Impacts - Direct impacts to utilities would occur when services are disrupted due to the relocation or extension of utility lines. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts to utilities would occur when construction in rights of way of easements causes traffic delays or increased usage of utilities impacts the supply of these utilities. 4.4.1.1 Alternative I - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, non -classified personnel currently housed at MWEOC would continue to use the existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to utilities at the existing facility. It is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable plans and zoning. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those under Alternative 2. 4.4.1.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts There are no existing water, sewer, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications lines on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Water, sewer, electric power, and gas lines are adjacent to the property. Construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would require the extension of these utilities onto the site. Negligible, adverse, short-term, direct impacts to utilities are expected during construction. The relocation of and connection to utilities would be completed with the least amount of disruption possible to current users. The increased demand for utilities would have a negligible, adverse, long-term, direct impact on utilities. Indirect Impacts During construction within street rights of way or public utility casements, traffic delays may occur. This would cause a negligible, adverse, short-term, indirect impact. Cumulative Impacts Past, present, and future development in the area would place additional demands on the existing utilities. While the utility companies plan for regional growth, each future project would have to prepare studies to determine if their supply is adequate. Therefore a minor, adverse, long-term, cumulative impact from increases in service demands on area utility providers would occur. However, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would contribute negligibly to these minor, adverse, cumulative impacts. 59 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center 4.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Utilities Final Environmental Assessment The following mitigation measures may need to be conducted the site: Water/Sewer • A water conservation plan and policy could be prepared. • Water saving fixtures could be installed throughout the facility. • Water closets rated at 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) (6.0 liters per flush) and urinals rated at 1.0 (gpf) (3.9 liters per flush) in conformance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 could be installed. • All plumbing would be designed to meet criteria established in the BOCA-Energy Conservation Code (1990). • Drought -tolerant plant materials and local indigenous plant material could be utilized in landscaped areas to reduce water usage. • Landscape designs requiring irrigation could be minimized; automatic, low volume irrigation equipment would be installed to minimize overwatering. Electrical Power and Gas • Energy conservation measures could be incorporated into building design. • Runaround heat recovery system for preheating and precooling of outside air could be used. • Variable speed pumping systems with variable speed drive could be used for office areas to reduce energy demands. Telecommunication • Fiber optic technology could be used as much as possible to minimize the size and number of cables that would need to be constructed. Any relocation of utility lines would be conducted to ensure continuous service and as little inconvenience to utility users as possible. Coordination with the appropriate entity will be required to determine utility requirements associated with the site. 4.4.2 TRANSPORTATION The evaluation of transportation impacts of the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center and the relocation of 650 employees to this facility was based on the policies and guidelines established by the Highway Capacity Manual. This Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate F.ntervenev Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment evaluation assumes complete build out of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility by the year 2007. The following section describes impacts to transportation for the No -Action and Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Alternatives. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts - Direct impacts to transportation would occur when traffic volumes increase and patterns change due to the construction of the project. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts to transportation occur when a project spurs other development, which in turn increases traffic volumes. 4.4.2.1 Alternative 1 - No -Action Alternative Under the No -Action Alternative, the non -classified personnel at the MWEOC would continue to use the existing transportation network in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, the existing traffic volumes and patterns would not change. There would be no impacts to transportation or parking at the existing facility. The No -Action Alternative includes future anticipated peak hour traffic volumes for roadways near the alternate site without the traffic generated by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center facility. These volumes are the Burn of the existing traffic volumes, plus the background growth in the area and any approved but not yet built developments in the area. Approved Developments Developments that are approved, but are not yet built or occupied, are included in the background traffic. Three Traffic Impact Analysis reports have been prepared over the last four years for proposed developments in the area. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC (PHR+A), prepared these studies between October 2001 and April 2004. These approved developments are scheduled to be phased in between 2006 and 2015. Table 4-1 presents the number of trips that will be generated by the phased -in development of these parcels by the year 2007. The number of trips generated by each use and each phase was taken and interpolated from the report by PHR+A titled: A Phased T raff c Impact Analysis o/'Stephenson Village, dated February 7, 2003. 61 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emerg,encv Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Table 4-1: Trip Generation by Approved Background Developments (2007) Development Name Land Use AM In Peak Out PM In I Peak Out ADT Rutherfords Farm Industrial Industrial Park (350k sf) 255 56 68 254 2,436 Park, Phase 1 (2006) Rutherfords Farm Totals 255 56 68 254 2,436 Stephenson Village, Phase I Single Family Housing 77 232 255 144 4,290 (2006) Apartment 20 103 100 49 1,573 Townhouse/Condo 26 125 127 62 3,393 Elderly Housing -detached 29 51 78 44 1,064 Elderly Housing — attached 3 2 4 3 251 Stephenson Village, Phase Single Family Housing 38 114 111 62 2,145 11(2007) Elderly Housing — detached 10 17 17 10 530 Elderly Housing — attached 1 1 2 2 125 Retail 14 4 31 38 763 Stephenson Village Totals 218 649 725 414 14,134 The trips generated by these developments were distributed to the study area roadway network based on the existing travel patterns as established by PHR+A. The construction of the approved developments will include several improvements to US Route 11 and the intersections in the vicinity. According to the traffic reports prepared by PHR+A, these improvements include the following: • The US Route 11/I-81 Northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road intersection will undergo improvements including additional turn lanes and signalization. • The four -lane divided section of US Route 11, which tapers down to three lanes just east of 1-8 1, will be extended to include the Proposed Rutherfords Farm Drive. Proposed Rutherfords Farm Drive property will be signalized. Background Traffic Traffic data for US Route 11 obtained from the Virginia Department of Transportation Mobility Management Division reveals that in 2004 the average annual weekday traffic was approximately 11,000 vehicles per day, with 7 percent trucks, a peak hour factor of 8.2 percent, and a 60 percent-40 percent peak hour directional split. However, traffic counts conducted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC (PHR+A) in 2004 indicate an average daily traffic volume of 9,750 vehicles along this segment of US Route 11. This data was taken from the report titled A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of OMPS Property, dated April 20, 2004. The daily volume of 9,750 vehicles was used for this analysis. According to the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission, the population of the region has increased from 82,794 in 2000 to 89,153 in 2003, thus indicating an average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent. However, in several traffic studies conducted by PHR+A, a growth factor of 5 percent was consistently used to reflect the rapidly growing traffic volumes in this area of the County. Therefore, the same conservative growth factor of 5 percent was used in the subsequent analyses within this document. 62 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Pimrl Environmental Assessment IThe Highway Capacity Software planning analysis module for signalized intersections was used to evaluate the capacity of the Proposed Rutherfords Farm Drive in 2007. The timing of construction of this road is not currently known. There will be a temporary driveway connecting US Route I l to the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Site until the Proposed Rutherfords Farm Drive is constructed. ' The analysis of the background traffic included the 5 percent annual growth rate and the approved development in the vicinity of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes used in the analysis of the No -Action alternative are shown in Figure 1. Results of the analysis indicate that the intersection will be under capacity, and therefore acceptable. �_`-- SITE , o� w o F� d _ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTI0 d � u AM VC RATIO = 0.43 PM YiC RATIO = 0.51 N UNDER CAPACITY US ROUTE 11 M N SOUTHBOUND Er 4 r 120 (32) +- 900 (589) US ROUTE 11 (36)135 LEGEND NORTHBOUND (940) 486 -a 30 AM PEAK (134) PM PEAK Figure 4-1: No -Action Alternative Traffic Volumes (2007) 4.4.2.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Proposed Development Characteristics ' Future Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center traffic volumes were generated based on the number of employees for the ITE land use "Government Office Complex." Traffic volumes for the site were based on trip generation data for 730 ' employees. As indicated in Table 4-2, 730 the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate temployces are expected to generate approximately 5,658 daily trips, of'which 445 vehicles trips will occur during the AM peak hour and 577 vehicle trips will be during the PM peak hour. 63 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Table 4-2: Trip Generation Final Environmental Assessment 730 Employees of Government Office Complex AM Peak PM Peak Peak Hour Enter' 394 175 Peak Hour Exit' 51 402 Peak Hour Total' 445 577 Average two-way Driveway Volume' 5,658 ' These rates are based on Trip Generation (ITE, 7"' ed.) The site trip distribution percentages, shown on Figure 4-2, are based on the prevailing traffic patterns along US Route 11 and are the same as those used in traffic studies performed previously by others. SITE LU Ix fn O 0 u, O o- w 0 F Q- 5 {QL US ROUTE 11 SOUTHBOUND 47% US ROUTE 11 53% -1' NORTHBOUND Figure 4-2: Trip Distribution Percentages Trips generated by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center were assigned to the study area network using the directional distribution percentages previously described. The traffic generated by the alternative site at the Proposed Rutherfords Farm Drive is shown on Figure 4-3. .A Emergency Preparedness and Response Direclorale Emergency Assistance Center P"inal Environmental Assessment SITE N 0 w O O i O IUJ a lid� Cl)� G US ROUTE 11 N N SOUTHBOUND 185 (82) US ROUTE 11 (93) 209 1' LEGENU NORTHBOUND 30 AM PEAK (134) PM PEAK Figure 4-3: Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Traffic Volume Assignment (2007) The total projected traffic on US Route 11 at the project entrance, including background traffic volumes, is shown on Figure 4-4 for the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site The Highway Capacity Software planning analysis module for signalized intersections was used to determine if the Proposed Rutherfords Farm Drive would operate at under or over capacity conditions. The capacity analysis results for each of the peak hours are included on Figure 4-4. As can be seen in Figure 4-4, the entrance to the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site is expected to operate below capacity and is therefore acceptable. 65 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment SITE N W EDO°L in0 (D 02 NJ EL 0 O W °- � SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AM W RATIO = 4.69 a PM W RATIO = 0.38 m UNDER CAPACITY US ROUTE 11 k i n SOUTHBOUND 4f 4 't- 305 014) -+- 900 (589) US ROUTE 11 029j 344 ? LEGEND NORTHBOUND (940) 486 -. 30 AM PEAK (134) PM PEAK Figure 4-4: Total Traffic Volume Assignment (2007) As noted previously, during construction of the approved projects in the area, the existing roadways and intersections will be improved as part of these projects. With the proposed improvements already in place, the addition of the traffic generated by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center will not adversely affect the surrounding roads and intersections 4.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures for Traffic No mitigation measures are recommended for impacts to traffic. 4.4.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT The following section describes impacts due to waste management issues for the No -Action Alternative and the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. Explanation of Impacts Affecting this Impact Topic Direct Impacts - Direct impacts to waste management occur when there is an increase or decrease in waste generation. Indirect Impacts - Indirect impacts to waste management occur when a project spurs other development, which in turn increases traffic volumes. Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center final Environmental Assessment 4.4.3.1 Alternative I - No -Action Alternative Direct Impacts Under the No -Action Alternative, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate would continue to use its existing facility in Berryville, Virginia and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would not be constructed. Under this alternative, there would be no changes in waste management at the existing facility. Therefore, no direct impacts to waste management would occur. It is assumed that the site would be developed at some point in the future consistent with all applicable plans and zoning. It is unknown what type of waste and what quantity of waste the potential occupants of the site would generate. Quantities of waste could be far greater or less than waste generated at the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility. Minor to moderate, direct impacts may occur. Indirect Impacts It is unknown what type of waste and what quantity of waste the potential occupants of the site would generate. Quantities of waste could be far greater or less than waste generated at the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility. Indirect impacts may or may not ' occur. 1 Cumulative Impacts It is unknown what type of waste and what quantity of waste the potential occupants of the site would generate. Quantities of waste could be far greater or less than waste generated at the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility. Cumulative impacts may or may not occur. ' 4.4.3.2 Alternative 2 - Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site Direct Impacts Construction of the proposed Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Centel- would generate construction waste. Disposal of this waste would result in minor, adverse, short-term, direct Impacts. Under the proposed action, general waste would be generated at the Elnergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center. General waste would be placed in receptacles. Waste would be removed from receptacles on a regular basis and transported to collection areas outside of the building. A licensed hauler would transport the general waste to county landfills. A minor, adverse, long-term, direct impact on county landfills from increased waste would occur. Indirect Impacts No indirect impacts to waste management are anticipated under the proposed action. 67 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment Cumulative Impacts Past, present, and future development, along with the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center, would generate general waste. This development would have a moderate, adverse, long-term, cumulative impact on waste management. However, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would contribute negligibly to these moderate, adverse, cumulative impacts. 4.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures for Waste Management The following mitigation measures could be implemented at the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site. They include complying with Executive Order 13101 by recycling white office paper, newspapers, corrugated cardboard, aluminum and bi-metal cans, glass bottles and jars, plastic containers (PETG and HDPE), and yard/landscaping waste; using recycled building materials and finishes; and using recycled or recyclable products during operation of the facility. In addition, a proffer statement signed by the land owner includs the establishment of a recycling program to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. 4.5 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED Environmental impacts for all alternatives have been described in detail in the previous sections of Chapter 4. In general, there would be unavoidable adverse effects due to the type of construction project that is proposed. If the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility is constructed on the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site, there would be a loss of greenspace. Loss of these vegetated areas would lead to an unavoidable loss of habitat for some animal species. In addition, there would be an increased demand for utilities and an increase in traffic densities in the area surrounding the site, due to commuting employees. 4.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 4.6.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO -ACTION ALTERNATIVE Existing Facilities Under the No -Action Alternative, non -classified the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate personnel would remain in the MWEOC facility. With No -Action, there would be no effect in the short-term to the physical, social, or cultural environment. However, there would be an impact on the existing the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility. Without the relocation, security would continue to be an issue for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate employees housed at MWEOC. Under the No -Action Alternative, it is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would eventually be developed. Development would result in short-term effects to the environment during the period of construction. These effects would include localized noise and •: Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment air pollution, as well as traffic detours and delays. However, these impacts would be temporary and proper controls could be utilized to prevent these impacts from having a lasting effect on the environment. 4.6.2 PROPOSED ACTION The long-term benefits of the proposed construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center in Frederick County would occur at the expense of short-term impacts near the project site. These short-term effects would occur during the period of constriction, and would include localized noise and air pollution, as well as traffic detours and delays. However, these impacts are temporary and proper controls would be utilized to prevent these impacts from having a lasting effect on the environment. In addition to the construction of the facility building, extensions to existing lines to provide water service to the site; off -site and on -site sewer lines and a pumping station to provide sewage services; and electric and/or natural gas lines would be required. These infrastructure developments would cause further traffic delays during their respective construction periods. However, upon completion of the construction, traffic conditions should return to normal. Short-term gains to the local economy would occur as local companies and workers are hired, and local businesses provide services and supplies during the construction of the facility and required infrastructure. However, upon completion of the proposed action, the gains to local economy would evolve into a long-term benefit as over 700 permanent the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate employees move into the new facility and provide consistent business to the surrounding merchants. 4.7 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 4.7.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO -ACTION AID rERNATIVE Under the No -Action Alternative, there would be no immediate commitment of resources relating to construction of the new facility. However, there would be a continued growth at the existing facility. This growth would result in the irreversible commitient of utilities, fiiel, and power. Under the No -Action Alternative, it is assumed that the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would be developed in the future. Development of the Rutherfords Farm Industrial Park Site would result in the irreversible commitment of resources such as fuel, energy, construction materials and labor. There would also be an additional long-term commitment of labor to maintain a new facility and its associated infrastructure. In addition, once the site is developed, there is a commitment of utilities, fuel, and power. All of these resources relating to the construction and maintenance of the facility and its infrastructure should be considered irretrievably committed. 4.7.2 PROPOSED ACTION The proposed construction of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center would result in the irreversible commitment of resources. A commitment of 69 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment fuel, energy, construction materials and labor would be required to construct the facility. There t would be an additional long-term commitment of labor for the maintenance of the facility and the infrastructure. In addition, once the facility is in place, there is a commitment of utilities, fuel, and power. All of these resources relating to the construction and maintenance of the facility and its infrastructure should be considered irretrievably committed. While there would be the above commitment of resources, through conservation practices some of these resources, such as water supply, may be retrieved or committed at a lower rate than the present the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate facility requires. In addition, the new facility will require a lower expenditure of funds, energy, and fuel than presently committed. 70 iZ 5.0 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Entergencv Assistance Center 17inal Eni4wivilental Assessment 5 REFERENCES 1. Census, 2005. Frederick County, Virginia Data - Census 2000. [Online] Available: www.ceiistis.gov. [Accessed 5/1/05] 2. DCR, 2005a. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Stormwater Managment Program litti)://www.(Icr.vii-giiiia.t,,ov/sw/storinwat.litiii [Accessed 5/2005]. 3. DCR, 2005b. Virginia Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Erosion and Sediment Control Program litti)://www-dcr.vii-giiii,,i.gov/sw/c&s-lit"' [Accessed 5/2005]. 4. FEMA, 1978. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1978. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Frederick County, Virginia. Panel 510083 0105B. 5. Frederick County, 2003. Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2003. Frederick County, Virginia. 6. GSA, October 1999. PBS NEPA Desk Guide. 7. Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., 2005a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated August 2005. 8. Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., 2005b. Phase I Archaeological Survey for the 17 Acre Parcel of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park dated September 2005. 9. ITE, 2003. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 10. NRCS, 2005. Personal Communication with Mike Liskey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stephens City Service Center. June 22, 2005. 11. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, P.C., 2001. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. 12. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, P.C., 2003. A Phascd Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village. 13. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, P.C., 2004. A Phascd Traffic Impact Analysis of OMPS Property. 14. Ruddy, 2005. Personal Communication with Mike Ruddy Deputy Director of the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. August 15, 2005. 15. Shenandoah at War, 2005. http'//www shCnandoal)atwat' oi-Wbatticfielcls/tlUl'CI win battleficId,html. [Accessed 5/1/2005] 16. Tibbs, 2005. Personal Communication with Jay Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator. Frederick County. August 26, 2005. 71 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 17. Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,. 2005a. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), Wetlands Mapper. [Available online: http://www.nwi.fws.gov/index.html] 19. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005b. Correspondence from Ecological Services dated May 12, 2005. 20. USACE, 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers — Wetland Delineation Manual. 21. USDA, 1987. US Department of Agriculture. Frederick County, Maryland Soil Survey. 1987. 22. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2005. Correspondence from S. Rene' Hypes on date June 17, 2005. 23. Virginia Department of Transportation, 2005. 2004 Traffic Data [Online] Available: http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/et-TraffieCounts-2004. asp 24. Virginia Regional Transit Association, 2005. Frederick County Transit Information [Online] Available: http://www.transitservices.or /g info frederick.htm. [Accessed 6/2005] 25. WFCEDC, 2005. Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission. Work Force Draw Area. 26. WINVA, 2005. Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission. Community Profile [Online] Available: http://www.winva.com/profile.html [Accessed 6/2005] 27. Winchester Online, 2005. http://www.winchesteronline.com/touiists/history.html [Accessed 6/2005] 72 6.0 List of Preparers r rA 0 o Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate /;mervencv Assistance Center 6 LIST Or PREPARERS GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 20 North Eight Street Philadelphia, PA 19107-3191 Dale Anderson Asset Manager Doug Dooling Realty Project Manager Noel Willette Contract Specialist GREENHORNE & O'MARA, INC. 9001 Edmonston Road Greenbelt, MD 20770 Joan Glynn QA/QC B.A. Corrimunlcatlons University of Maryland, 1991 Robin Griffin EnvironmeIltal Scientist M.S. Environmental Management Illinois Institute of Technology, 1999 B.A., English Composition DePauw University, 1992 Julie A. Liptak Senior Graphic Artist B.S., Graphic Design University of Cincinnati, 1976 Assoc. Civil Engineering Cincinnati Technical College, 1984 Shannon Miller Environmental Scientist B.S. Geo-EIlvlronmental Studies Shippensburg University, 2000 Final Environmental Assessment MaryAnn Dobbins Asset Manager Katrina Scarpato Regional Environmental Quality Advisor John Christman, P.E Senior Project Manager BCE, Civil Engineering Villanova University, 1970 Donna Keener, PE Transportation Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering North Carolina State University, 1988 Emily Lux Environmental ScieItist M.S. Environmental Studies B.S. Environmental Biology Ohio University, 2004 Alisha T. Durgam Engineering Technician II B.S. Environmental Management University of Maryland University College, 2004 73 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate I Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment This page was intentionally left blank. RE ' 7.0 Environmental Assessment ' Distribution List a �- o p I' Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emereency Assistance Center Final Enyronmental Assessment 7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST 7.1 FEDERAL OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES The Honorable John Warner United States Senate 204 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Frank Wolf House of Representatives 241 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061 The Honorable George Allen United States Senate 204 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Regional Administrator Region 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 841 Chesnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 7.2 STATE OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES The Honorable Mark R. Warner- Senator H. Russell Potts, Jr. Executive Office Building, 3rd Floor 14 North Braddock Street I I I I East Broad Street Winchester, VA 22601-4120 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Virginia Council on Indians P.O. Box 1475 Richmond, VA 23218 S. Rene' Hypes Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 217 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-2010 Ms, Kristin Hill Architectural Historian Office of Review and Compliance Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 75 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Emergency Assistance Center Final Environmental Assessment 7.3 LOCAL OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES Richard C. Shickle Frederick County Board of Supervisors 292 Green Spring Road Winchester, VA 22603 Barbara E. Van Osten Frederick County Board of Supervisors 103 Coopers Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Gary W. Dove Frederick County Board of Supervisors 821 Apple Pie Ridge Road Winchester, VA 22603 Bill M. Ewing Frederick County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 27 Stephen's City, VA 22655 Gene E. Fisher Frederick County Board of Supervisors 246 Bush Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Linda J. Tyler Frederick County Board of Supervisors 438 Devil's Backbone Overlook Stephenson, VA 22656 Gina A. Forrester Frederick County Board of Supervisors 105 Kapok Circle Winchester, VA 22602 Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation PO Box 897 New Market, Virginia 22844 John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Kris C. Tierney Assistant County Administrator 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Jay E. Tibbs Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester Frederick County Economic Development Commission 45 East Boscawen Street Winchester, VA 22601 James T. Anderson Frederick County Sanitation Authority P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 Steve Kerr Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission 103 East 6th Street Front Royal, VA 22630 Mayor Elizabeth Minor City of Winchester 695 Woodland Avenue Winchester, VA 20602 76 Appendix A 112 CD 0 Appendix A Agency Letters CNr OF ThN n+�gF' ii �rz United States Department of the Interior 3 y FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE , cu a +"'9 Ecological Services �. ......fir 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061 Dale: May 12, 2005 Project namc: _Ry1t,Vl �r rJ Tt;n rm s T t)4-ri Project number: 'f23y City/County, VA �'iZCT (--1 ct< Co,Jr-t-,-f The U.S. Fish curd Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your request for information on federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species and designated critical habitat for the above referenced project. The following comments are provided under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 of seq.). V/ We have reviewed the information you have provided and believe that the proposed action will not adversely affect federally listed species or federally designated critical habitat because no federally listed species are known to occur in the project area. Should project plans change or if additional information on listed and proposed species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. We recommend that you contact both of the following State agencies for site specific information on listed species in Virginia. Each agency maintains a different database and has differing expertise and/or regulatory responsibility: Virginia Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries Virginia Dept, of Conservation and Recreation Environmental Services Section Division of Natural Ileritage P.O. Box 11104 217 Governor Street, 2nd Floor Richmond, VA 23230 Richmond, VA 23219 (804)367-1000 (804)786-7951 If either agency indicates a federally listed species is present, please resubmit your project description with letters from both agencies attached. If appropriate habitat may be present, we recommend surveys wJtlrin appropriate habitat by a qualified surveyor. Enclosed are county lists with fact sheets that contain information the species' habitat requirements and lists of qualified surveyors. If this project involves a Federal agency (Federal permit, funding, or land), we encourage the Federal agency to contact this office if appropriate habitat is present and if they determine their proposed action may affect federally listed species or critical habitat. Determinations of the presence of waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the need for permits are made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They may be contadted:at: Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, 803 Ftont Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, telephone (757) 441-7652. Our website http://yirpir iafieldoffice.fws.gov contains many resources that may assist with project reviews. Point of contact is M I C 'DRvMKoNO at (804) 693-6694, ext. \ I . Sincerely, ). e I/ —I- ZI �— ' Karen L. Mayne Supervisor Virginia Field Office W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 217 Governor Street Rlchmond, Virginia 23219-2010 Telephone (804) 786.7951 PAX (804) 371-2674 'I'DD (804) 786.2121 June 17, 2005 Robin W. Griffin Greenhome & O'Mara, Inc. 9001 Edmonston Road Greenbelt, MD 20070 Re: Emergency Assistance Center — Eastgate Site & Rutherford Farms Site Dear Ms. Griffin: Joseph H. Maroon Director The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) has searched its Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the areas outlined on the submitted maps. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations. Eastuate Site: According to the information currently in our files, natural heritage resources have not been documented in the project area. The absence of data may indicate that the project area has not been surveyed, rather than confirm that the area lacks natural heritage resources. Rutherford Farms Site: Biotics documents the presence of natural heritage resources in the project area. However, due to the scope of the activity and the distance to the resources, we do not anticipate that this project will adversely impact these natural heritage resources. In addition, our files do not indicate the presence of any State Natural Area Preserves under DCR's jurisdiction in both project vicinities. Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), DCR represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state -listed threatened and endangered plant and insect species. The current activities will not affect any documented state -listed plants or insects. New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please contact DCR for an update on this natural heritage information if a significant amount of time passes before it is utilized. State Parks • Soil and Water Conservation • Natural Heritage • Outdoor Recreation Planning Chesapeake Day Local Assistance • Dai n,Safety and Floodplabn Manageaent • Laird Conservation r Due to an increasing number of requests and limited staffing resources, effective July 1, 2003 DCR-DNH will require 30 days to comment on projects submitted for our review. A fee of $120.00 has been assessed for the service of providing this information. Please find enclosed an invoice for that amount. Please return one copy of the invoice along with your remittance made payable to the Treasurer of Virginia, Department of Conservation and Recreation, 203 Governor Street, Suite 414, Richmond, VA 23219, ATTN: Cashier. Payment is due within thirty days of the invoice date. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries maintains a database of wildlife locations, including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish waters, that may contain information not documented in this letter. Their database may be accessed from www.daif.viruinia.aov/wildlife/info man/index.html, or contact Shirl Dressler at 804-367-6913. Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at 804-371-2708. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these projects. Sincerely, I Ata`f'�' S. Rene' Hypes Project Review Coordinator COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Historic Resources W. rlyloe Atuxphy, Jr. 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 ISnthlccn S. TSilpattick &vretof) oJAroturol Rcecuras Dieeclor Tel: (804) 367.2323 August 8, 2005 Fax: (804) 367-2381 TDn: (804) 367.2386 vnnv tlltt.0vttv.vau;, Ms. Maryann Dobbins Regional Historic Preservation Officer U.S. General Services Administration The Strawbridge's Building 20 North Eighth Street Philadelphia, PA 19107-3191 Re: Lease Construction Project Frederick County, Virginia DHR file no. 2005-1053 Dear Ms. Dobbins: Thank you.for initiating consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for flit above referenced project. I understand that GSA. plans to lease a facility that will be built bya private developer for the use of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Group (fomierly known as FEMA), The proposed location Is a 17-acre parcel of land that is a component of a larger parcel that will be developed as Rutherford Industrial Park, GSA has determined the APE for standing structures for this project to be the 17-acre site and adjacent properties within a radius of 500 feet. The APE for archaeological resources is the 17-acre parcel itself. The Department of Historic Resources concurs with this APE. I understand that GSA has contracted with Crreenhorne & O'Mara to completGa Phase la and I b Cultural Resource Survey of the APE to identify historic properties. Once we receive a copy of the report, we will provide our comments on the potential of this project to affect historic properties. Thank you for initiating the Section 106 process at an early stage in the planning process. We look forward to receiving the Please 1 report for our review. If you have any questions, I can be reached at KYistin,Hi�dhr vireinia gqv or by phone at (804) 367-2323 ext. 111. r Kristin Hill; Architectural Historian Office of Review. and Compliance Adtntnittratlwfrt jcts Captu11te1p0noffi" PorteniouthRegion Office Ko.u:okottesiatMe WinehesterRegion0fce 10 Cwrthouaa Avenue 2101 Kendngtou Aye. 012(:onrt Street, V Floor IQ:)() Fulmar Am,AB 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 20a Pc tcnbu ry. VA 23803 RIch".dNA23221 Pot t3mouth, VA 23704 R—noke,VA21013 Mncho>wr, VA22603 rol:(804)M8.1624 Yel:(604WI- zi Tcl:(737)a9"707 Ttl:(siu)80775M 'rcl:(640) 7229427 Fax: (803) 862-606 Fam(104) 307-2301 r4x: (757) 396.471. Fxx: (61n) 8s7.7:,8b Fnxi (640) 922-76a0 Departrnent� of Historic Resources L. Preston 13ryant 1r. 2801 Kensington Avenue, Riehinolld, Virginia 23221 ,crelmy of 'arural Resoutecs February 23, 2006 IVIS. Katrina Scarpato Action Regional Historic Preservation Officer Y.J.S. General Services Administration The Wanamaker Biulding 100 Perin Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107-3396 Re: Lease Construction Project Frederick County, Virginia DHR file no. 2005-1053 Dear Ms. Scarpato; Kathleen S. Kilpatrick 01reclor Tel: (804) 36M323 Fax: (804) 367-2391 TDD: (804) 361-2386 Nnvw.dhr.virginia.gov Thank you for submitting tNvo copies of the report entitled Phase I Archaeological Survey For a 17-acre FEMA EAC Parcel, Winchester, Virginia prepared by Greerr]]Orne & O'Mara, Inc for out review. We are pleased to irllorrn you that the report meets our Guidelines for Conducting Cultural Resource Survey in Virginia. The report concludes that no archaeological sites were discovered witlMrr the project area and no significant architectural resoru'ces are present within the APE. They recommend no further work on this parcel. We concur with their recommendations and GSA's finding of no historic Properties affected. Thank you for providing us with alu opportunity to corrrment on this Project. If you have any questions, Y can be reached at (804) 367-2323 ext. 11 I or by email at K-iistin.Hill(@.dhr virgitia goy. ' Sincerely 1/--/ /1 ' Kristin Mill, Architectural Historian Office of Review and Compliance ' Administrative Services lU Ceurthouse Ave. Petersburg, YA 23803 Tcl:(804)863-1624 Fax:(804)862.6196- Capital Region Office 2601 Kensington Office Richmond, VA 23221 TO: (804) 367-2323 NIX: (804)367.239J Tidewater Region office 14415 old COurUr0U5C way 2`' Floor Newport News, VA 23608 Tcl: (757) 886-2807 Fax:(757)886.2308 Roanoke Region Office: 1030 Pcninar Avenue, SG Rouokc, VA 2,1013 Tcl: (510.)_857-7585 Fax:(540) 857-7588 winchcster Region Office 107 N. Kent Street, Suitc 203 Winchester, VA 22601 Tcl: (5,10) 722-3,127 Fa.\: (5,10) 722-7535 Page] of 3 Eric Lawrence From: Patrick Barker, CEcD [pbarker@winva.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:00 AM To: 'Eric Lawrence' Cc: 'Ed Strawsynder' Subject: RE: LEEDS I Follow-up EL and Ed ,Need to know if anything special needs to happen to incorporate these issues.. I.e. changes to county code Patrick 540.665.0973 winva.com " Your Move. Our Commitment." From: Eric Lawrence[mailto:elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 4:08 PM To: pbarker@winva.com Cc: 'Ed Strawsynder' Subject: RE: LEEDS I Follow-up Patrick - I have reviewed your questions, conferred with Ed, and offer the following responses: If you require more details prior to responding, please advise and I will ask GSA to provide more information. Parking surface as impervious asphalt or concrete. Need options for pervious such as Grass -Pave, all weather surfaces. This will help with storm WQ and with the heat sink requirements. a. It is understood that this will not be allowed for the FEMA project primarily due to the underlying soil conditions on -site. Need some guidance whether this will be allowed for the FBI project. We are amenable to working with GSA to implement the GrassPave2 parking surface for the parking spaces above the 538 parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance. It is our expectation that the more heavily traveled driving aisles within this supplemental parking area will continue to be paved with a more durable bituminous concrete surface. Within these supplemental parking areas, it remains necessary to properly delineate the GrassPave2 parking spaces, as well as provide shade trees at the end of all parking bays, in lieu of the required raised landscape islands. Curb and gutter will not be required within the supplemental parking areas, while the installation of shrubs should be utilized to control traffic flow to/within the parking area. Ordinance required parking lot landscaping continues to be expected. 2. Curb and gutter requirement on interior and perimeter of parking areas. Need ability to vary parking delineations without curb while still marking the travel lanes and parking stalls. Curb and gutter requirements continue to be required in conjunction with the 538 required parking spaces. 3. Ability for infiltration for storm water WQ issues. In bio-swale and all other unpaved and/or landscaped areas. Possibly - Design must meet Public Works approval. 4. Compact Parking stalls a. See attached information Minimum sized parking space standards must be met: all parking spaces must be a minimum of 180 sq ft. Typically 9ft by 20R or I OR by 18ft parking spaces. 10/1 1/2006 Page 2 of 3 5. Light Pollution. Parking light levels as low as possible with cut-off type fixtures. a. See attached information So long as lighting glare does not leave property. 6. Reduction of "heat islands". a. Asphalt with white surface chips and/or recycled asphalt. So long as the surface complies with bituminous concrete requirement, lighter colored and recycled asphalt is acceptable. Parking lot heat is also significantly reduced with the installation of shade trees. -therefore, it is encouraged that additional raised landscape islands be implemented within the primary 538 parking space lot. 7. Dual flush toilets I would note that implementation of any of these changes will require revisions to the approved site plan. ------------------------------ Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) -----Original Message ----- From: Patrick Barker, CEcD [mailto:pbarker@winva.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:38 PM To: estrawsn@co.frederick.va.us; '3ohn Trenary'; 'Eric Lawrence' Subject: LEEDS I Follow-up Ed; John and Eric, Hope you are all doing well. Thanks once again for attending the LEEDS presentation earlier this summer. Trying to put some closure on this issue to allow for proper planning for the area's pending GSA projects. Can you please identify if the following items are allowed the County code currently? If you require more details prior to responding, please advise and I will ask GSA to provide more information. 8. Parking surface as impervious asphalt or concrete. Need options for pervious such as Grass -Pave, all weather surfaces. This will help with storm WQ and with the heat sink requirements. a. It is understood that this will not be allowed for the FEMA project primarily due to the underlying soil conditions on -site. Need some guidance whether this will be allowed for the FBI project. 9. Curb and gutter requirement on interior and perimeter of parking areas. Need ability to vary parking delineations without curb while still marking the travel lanes and parking stalls. 10. Ability for infiltration for storm water WQ issues. In bio-swale and all other unpaved and/or landscaped areas. 11. Compact Parking stalls a. See attached information 12. Light Pollution. Parking light levels as low as possible with cut-off type fixtures. a. See attached information 13. Reduction of "heat islands". a. Asphalt with white surface chips and/or recycled asphalt. 14. Dual flush toilets 10/ 11 /2006 Page 3 of 3 Thanks for your attention to this issue. A response by close of business next Friday (September 29"') would be appreciated. Regards, Patrick Barker, AICP, CEcD Executive Director Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission 45 East Boscawen Street Winchester, VA 22601 phone - 540.665.0973 fax - 540.722.0604 wmva.com " Your Move. Our Commitment." 10/11/2006 Re: FEMA Office and Warehouse Plan . Subject: Re: FEMA Office and Warehouse Plan From: Candice Perkins <cperkins@co.fi-ederick.va.us> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:53:11 -0400 To: Randy Kepler <rkepler a greenNvayeng.coni> Randy Kepler wrote: Candice, was emailing to check on the status of two items we discussed in our meeting in August. You were going to check on these issues. 1. The relocated driveway for the RA house is located 139' from the FEMA entrance. This is less than the required amount. You were going to see if the 139' was acceptable to the county based on the site specific instance. 2. Buffer Plantings - The MDP shows 3 trees per 10' with a schematic showing a tree on the 10' line and a tree at the 5' distance. At the time of the MDP this was acceptable however since the MDP approval the county has re -interpreted the regulation to actually provide 3 trees per 10'. You were going to check to see if the MDP approval holds true for this site (vested) or if we need to provide the current interpretation. Please address these issues as soon as you can. We are very close to being ready for submittal and i need to have resolution to these issues before we can submit. Thanks in advance for your help. Randy I FYI - as you might have heard by now the front RA lot will be combined with the FEMA parcel so the non conforming lot issue has gone away. We will not submit until this revised lot has been recorded. Randy Kepler, P.E. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Visit us on the web at www.greenwayeng.com Q Greenway Engineering Home Company history Servic es Portfolio Company directory rounded In 1971 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This entail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any file attachments fi'0111 your computer. Thank you. Randy, Regarding the issues: 1. There is a 150' entrance spacing requirenicnt between the FEMA entrance and the new driveway. 2. The buffer can follow what was approved with the MDP. 1 of 2 9/22/2006 8:22 AM Re: PEMA Office and Warehouse Plan Candice Perkins Planner II Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540)665-5651 2 of 2 9/22/2006 8:22 AM FEMA Office and Warehouse Plan Subject: FEMA Office and Warehouse Plan From: "Randy Kepler" <rkepler@greenwayeng.com> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:17:46 -0400 To: "Candice Perkins (E-mail)" <cperkins@co.frederick.va.us> Candice, was emailing to check on the status of two items we discussed in our meeting in August. You were going to check on these issues. 1. The relocated driveway for the RA house is located 139' from the FEMA entrance. This is less than the required amount. You were going to see if the 139' was acceptable to the county based on the site specific instance. 2. Buffer Plantings - The MDP shows 3 trees per 10' with a schematic showing a tree on the 10' line and a tree at the 5' distance. At the time of the MDP this was acceptable however since the MDP approval the county has re -interpreted the regulation to actually provide 3 trees per 10'. You were going to check to see if the MDP approval holds true for this site (vested) or if we need to provide the current interpretation. Please address these issues as soon as you can. We are very close to being ready for submittal and need to have resolution to these issues before we can submit. Thanks in advance for your help. Randy FYI - as you might have heard by now the front RA lot will be combined with the FEMA parcel so the non conforming lot issue has gone away. We will not submit until this revised lot has been recorded. Randy Kepler, P.E. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Visit us on the web at www greenwayeng com Greenway Engineering Home Company history Services Portfolio Company directory 11.4 deem rrrr CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you. 1 of 1 9/7/2006 12:08 PM The Building Team Magazine Reed Business Information DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SUSTAINABILITY 1 1 •04 GOLD RUSH A long, narrow site for the EPA Science & Technology Center in Kansas City Kan die fated a building footprint of similar propor tions — 135 feet wide and 480 feet deep. Photo Steve Swalwell Arthiteoural fologroplws Although they serve vastly different functions. mo rcccntl� completed GSA leased buildings share a common characteristic. They were initially designed to meet tiilycr-level requirements of the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating program. But in each case, the developer raised the bar. One of the buildings, the EPA Science & Technology Center in Kansas City, Kan., has been certified as Gold. The other, the National Park Service's Carl T. Curtis Midwest Regional Headquarters in Omaha, expects to receive a similar designation. The Kansas City building, which opened in April 2003, achieved a Gold rating even though the laboratory operations it houses make it an "energy hog," says Ken Henton, project manager with the building's architect, Hoefer Wysocki Architects, Kansas City, Mo. The building's HVAC system supplies 100% outside air and exhausts 100% of it. Laboratory chemicals are exhausted through fume hoods. "As we went through the planning process, GSA saw how close we were getting to qualifying for Gold," says Dan Carr, SVP of the building's .,v 13 M ,ram;: 0 M developer, CB Richard Ellis. "They participated in was lowered. As a result, when the building was additional engineering that allowed us to get over submitted for certification, it had amassed the hump." After the project was awarded to CB enough credits to achieve a Gold classification. Richard Ellis, GSA ponied up an additional A stormwater management plan also helped $57,632 for a grey -water system and $41,969 to with achieving a Gold designation. LEED provide additional indirect lighting. These addi- Sustainable Sites Credit 6.1 provides that if the tions helped move the project into Gold range. existing imperviousness of the site is greater than But the project also seemed to have a streak of 50%, a stormwater management plan that results luck running with it. At the time the building was in a 25% decrease in the rate and quantity of bid, LEED 2.0 was in draft form. As the project stormwater runoff should be implemented. Prior entered the negotiating stage, LEED 2.0 advanced to construction, the site was occupied by two one - to the balloted version. In this revised form, the story buildings surrounded by asphalt parking number of points required to achieve Gold level lots. Its imperviousness was calculated at 75%. The laboratory building's public entrance incorporates a security station that is linked to the nearby EPA regional headquarters. A rear entry is provided for employees. Adjustable exhaust hoods supplement the laboratory's 100% fresh air requirement. They can be positioned directly above laboratory specimens to accelerate the removal of pollutants. Photos: Steve Swalwell, Architectural Fotogrophics EPA Region 7 Science & Technology Center Kansas City, Kan. Leaseholder: l .,,. General Services Administration Developer: CB Richard Ellis Architect: I loefer Wysocki Architects Laboratory designer: Clark Enersen '.iunrr, General contractor: poll Construction Area: 71,100 gross sf Construction cost: $20 million Completed: April 2003 LEED rating: Gold SUSTAINABILITY Clerestory windows in laboratory areas admit natural light but block distracting direct sunlight. Supply air ducts pass through the space. Photo Steve Swolwell, Architectural Fotogrophics The site now includes concrete and asphalt paving and natural and native landscaping. Its cal- culated imperiousness has been reduced to 43%. The reduction in stormwater runoff would not have been achieved if 31,600 sf of the building's 57,200-sf roof had not been connected to a rain- water haresting system, removing it from the "imperyious aura A ( Ording to Douglas Benton, project manager in (gas Kansas City office. Rainwater drains From the roof and is collcct- cd in a 10,000-gallon storage tank. Since Kansas Cit\.,s average annual rainfall is 39 inches, 735,000 gallons of water is projected to flow into the system. I his water is used to flush toilets and as makeup water for the cooling towers. The san- itary fixtures are designed to require an csthnated 55,000 gallons of water annuall, so the ssstems remaining 680,000 gallons of c apact� is a\,Iilable for the cooling towers. 'I hey will require an esti- mated 2.77 million gallons of makeup water per vear. The rainwater collection feature earned two LEED points for water efficiency. The project team prepared an energy model based on ASHRAEAESNA 90.1-1999. Actual first - year operating data now indicate that the building is using energy, at a rate of 273,000 Btu/GSE: or about 3% less than the 280,000 Btu/GSF project- ed by the energy budget. Benton says that the Kansas City building is EPAs most energy -efficient laboratory, based on comparisons with six other facilities located in similar temperature zones. As required by the U.S. Department of Energy. EPA tracks the energy use of its laboratory facilities. A prominent building feature is a 480-foot- long, 36-foot-high concrete "great wall" that runs north and south. To the east of the wall are offices, to the west a courtyard and laboratorie.. In order to prevent cross -contamination, the courtyard separates labs used for inorganic analy- sis from those that perform organic analysis. The city of Kansas City, Kan., contributed to the project by pro\ iding the mostly vacated for- mer brownfield site. which it had remediatcd. The laboratory is one of two EPA buildings at the eastern edge of the city's downtown. The other is EPA1s regional office, which is housed in a 200,000-sf building two blocks away. It was built about fisr s ears ago on another one-time brownfield site donated by the city. "We alwas s w arited to do a LEED-certified building, and rcalh enjoyed participation in the process," sad s CB Richard Ellis' Carr. "We are now looking at all our projects from a LEED perspec- tive." The company's current projects in develop- ment include a laboratory for the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration in Salt Lake Cit%. Carr says the key to success was teaming up to figure out which points would be bcneficial to the project — not just to get LEED prints, but to do what would Ix good for the building for the next 20 years. "You've got to look at every aspect of what you're doing, starting with site selection." The pro- ject received a LEED point under Sustainable Sites Credit I for being in an urban area. Carr also emphasizes that achieving LEED goals should continue after a building is occu- pied. CB Richard Ellis was also hired as the on - site property manager. When a developer submits a proposal to con- struct a Federal building, GSA evaluates the SUSTAINABILITY Abundant natural light throughout the building decreases the amount of electrici- ty required to illuminate and cool interior areas. Photo: Tom Kessler First -floor plan of the extensive parking lot of the new Qwest Center convention facility. The two acres of natural landscaping on the site will become self-sufficient, requiring nei- ther mowing nor watering. In anticipation of alternate -fuel vehicles, the parking lot contains several 110-volt power outlets for recharging electric vehicles. Morgan says the project received a LEED cred- it for development on a perceived brownfield site. The Building Team decided not to request docu- Second -floor plan Third -floor plan mentation from the city that might have resulted in additional credit for remedial actions the city took before turning the site over to GSA. Kirshenbaum says he has no doubt that the number of both government and private build- ings designed and constructed according to LEED principles will increase. For example, he cites voluntary recycling of trash by contractors seeking to reduce their costs. He notes that obtaining construction materials locally has always made sense — especially now that fuel costs have skyrocketed. "We've embraced the LEED philosophy," he says. "It has become sec- ond nature for us." Kirshenbaum says that although a building constructed to LEED Gold standards may cost 10-15% more than a conventional structure, "The reality is that operational costs are lower. Pay now, but realize savings later." Any thoughts that Kirshenbaum may have harbored about the bureaucratic nature of a Federal agency were dispelled as a result of his experience with this project. "GSA put some very talented people on this job," he says. "They made all of us better. We're now looking for more opportunities with GSA projects." ODC Floor layouts place private offices in the interior, to enhance the transmission of day- light and maximize views to the surround- ing area. More than 90% of the building occupants have river views. Exterior bal- conies on the second and third levels pro- vide even closer river viewing sites. �r Reprinted from Building Design & Construction, November, 2004 by Valeo Intellectual Property, Inc.. Copyright © Reed Business Information, 500373 v a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved- For reorders call Valeo Intellectual Property, Inc. 651.415.2300. For subscription information call 847.390.2152. To learn more about GSA's sustainable design program, visit www.gsa,gov/sustainabledesign, SUSTAINABILITY design and determines its desired energy-cffi- ciency features. A major project in which GSA is the lessee involves a two-step procurement process. After the solicitation and evaluation of technical proposals, GSA negotiates for the "best and final" offer. It weighs proposed levels of LEED against other required building features and available funding. Each GSA procurement incorporates a state- ment of priorities. After technical proposals from the offerers have been reviewed, price becomes a crucial factor. The best scenario is one in which the highest -ranked technical proposal stays under the budget. HOMFTnW N TEAM SCORES WITH NPS REGIONAL HQ F_ o 1 ds As_A 1i r: ¢, _Wiff` Now On a bank of the Missouri River in Oii,.,i..� Deb., an . ,i. i - � 'Id candi- date houses offices that serve 13 states in the National Park Service's Midwest region. The Carl E Curtis Midwest Regional Headquarters of the National Park Service, which opened in June, was delivered by a team assembled by the home- town firm of Noddle Development Co. Noddle typically develops retail and office buildings, and the Park Service facility was the company's largest GSA -leased project. Government projects "are not a business we really pursued," says com- pany VP Jeff Kirshenbaum. Noddle became involved with the project "because it was in our backyard, we know the site, and members of our Building Team had worked in the riverfront area," Kirshenbaum says. "We felt it was a natural for us to pursue." GSA requested a building that could achieve a Silver LEED accreditation. "VVe immediately said, What can we do to set us apart'"' Kirshenbaum says. "The answer was, 'Let's shoot for Gold.'" "Fortunately, the selection process lasted long enough for us to get our arms around what it would take to make it a Gold building, and we put together a team that could deliver. We think that was one of our best selling points." "We established a plan for achieving Gold and checked regularly to make sure it was being followed," Kirshenbaum says. "Once you decide you're going for LEED certifir.uion, everything is A limestone wall that extends the length of the (arl T. (urtis Midwest Region Headquarters in Omaha, Neb., highlights the build ing's use of natural materials and serves as a backdrop for National Park Service exhibits. Photo Tom Kessler SUSTAINABILITY or. The building is part of an overall upgrading of Omaha's riverfront. Photos: Tom Kessler Carl L Curtis Midwest Regional Headquarters National Park Service Lease Holder: U.S. General Services m i n istration Tenant: National Park Service Owner: Noddle Development Co. Developer: Park Service Developers, Inc. Architect and Engineers: Leo A Daly Civil Engineer: Kirkham, Michael 6r Associates General Contractor: Kiewit Construction Co. Area: 68,000 gross sf Construction cost: $8 million Completed: J une 2004 LEED rating: Registered (seeking Geld) on the table. You have to make sure that every- thing you're doing falls in line." The three-story building features extensive glazing, and incorporates sensors that adjust the lighting level based on available daylight. The building utilizes natural materials, particularly exposed concrete, as well as products, such as carpet tiles, made with recycled materials. "Natural sugaring" of wood used in the interior allows its natural appearance to be retained. Most of the building's construction materials, including Kansas limestone, came from within 500 miles of Omaha, helping to qualify for LEED points under MR Credits 5.1 and 5.2. The building also incorporates a raised -floor system with floor diffusers, which not only min- imizes energy use but allows building occupants to essentially control the temperature and flow of air in their work area, he says. The building, which is open to the public, incorporates displays relating to National Park Service attractions. It has large meeting rooms in which NPS conducts classes, and will be the final home for Lewis and Clark Exploration exhibits now touring the U.S. to commemorate the 200-year anniversary of their expedition. Patrick Morgan, project principal with archi- tect Leo A Daly, says the siting of the building WW c i The undulating surface of the ceiling in an executive area corridor suggests the flow of the Missouri River, which runs past the building. represented a critical planning decision for the Building Team. The plans submitted by most of the other teams vying for the project oriented the building north -south, parallel to the river. The Noddle team, capitalizing on the river's mean- dering path, positioned the building perpendicu- lar to the river. This orientation not only maxi- mizes views of the river and downtown Omaha for building occupants, but also minimizes views The Building Team Magazine Reed Business Information DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SUSTAINABILITY 1 1.04 GOLD RUSH A A long, narrow site for the EPA Science & Technology Center in Kansas City, Kan., dic- tated a building footprint of similar propor- tions 135 feet wide and 480 feet deep. Photo Steve Swolwell Arthitedurol Fotogrophics Although they serve %astly different funs t , u i ,%, � rcccntls , oinplctcd GSA leased buildings share a common characteristic. They were initially designed to meet tiilycr-level requirements of the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating program. But in each case, the developer raised the bar. One of the buildings, the EPA Science & Eechnology Center in Kansas City, Kan., has been certified as Gold. The other, the National Park Services Carl T. Curtis Midwest Regional Headquarters in Omaha, expects to receive a similar designation. The Kansas City building, which opened in April 2003, achieved a Gold rating even though the laboratory operations it houses make it an ..energy hog," says Ken Henton, project manager with the building's architect, Hoefer Wysocki Architects, Kansas City, Mo. The building's HVAC system supplies 100% outside air and exhausts 100% of it. Laboratory chemicals are exhausted through fume hoods. "As we went through the planning process, GSA saw how close we were getting to qualifying for Gold," says Dan Carr, SVP of the building's • 0 developer, CB Richard Ellis. "They participated in additional engineering that allowed us to get over the hump." After the project was awarded to CB Richard Ellis, GSA ponied up an additional $57,632 for a grey -water system and $41,969 to provide additional indirect lighting. These addi- tions helped move the project into Gold range. But the project also seemed to have a streak of luck running with it. At the time the building was bid, LEED 2.0 was in draft form. As the project entered the negotiating stage, LEED 2.0 advanced to the balloted version. In this revised form, the number of points required to achieve Gold level r was lowered. As a result, when the building was submitted for certification, it had amassed enough credits to achieve a Gold classification. A stormwater management plan also helped with achieving a Gold designation. LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 6.1 provides that if the existing imperviousness of the site is greater than 50%, a stormwater management plan that results in a 25% decrease in the rate and quantity of stormwater runoff should be implemented. Prior to construction, the site was occupied by two one- story buildings surrounded by asphalt parking lots. Its imperviousness was calculated at 75%. The laboratory building's public entrance incorporates a security station that is linked to the nearby EPA regional headquarters. A rear entry is provided for employees. Adjustable exhaust hoods supplement the laboratory's 100% fresh air requirement. They can be positioned directly above laboratory specimens to accelerate the removal of pollutants. Photos: Steve Swalwell, Architectural Fotographirs J EPA Region 1 Science & Technology Center Kansas City, Kan. Leaseholder: l;.S. General Services Administration Developer: CB Richard Ellis Architect: I loefer Wysocki Architects Laboratory designer: Clark Enersen General contractor: Koll Construction Area: 7 1, 100 gross sf Construction cost: $20 million Completed: \I'ril2003 LEED rating: cold SUSTAINABILITY Abundant natural light throughout the building decreases the amount of electrici- ty required to illuminate and cool interior areas. Photo: Tom Kessler first -floor plan - = ... AVINOW - -- I Lam- J of the extensive parking lot of the new (west Center convention facility. The two acres of natural landscaping on the site will become self-sufficient, requiring nei- ther mowing nor watering. In anticipation of alternate -fuel vehicles, the parking lot contains several I Ill -volt power outlets for recharging electric vehicles. Morgan says the project received a LEED cred- it for development on a perceived brownfield site. The Building Team decided not to request docu- Second floor plan Third floor plan mentation from the city that might have resulted in additional credit for remedial actions the city took before turning the site over to GSA. Kirshenbaum says he has no doubt that the number of both government and private build- ings designed and constructed according to LEED principles Nyill increase. For example, he cites voluntary recycling of trash by contractors seeking to reduce their costs. fie notes that obtaining construction materials locally has always made sense — especially now that fuel costs have skyrocketed. " \:'e've embraced the LEED philosophy- he says. At has become sec- ond nature for us." Kirshenbaum says that although a building constructed to LEED Gold standards may cost 10-15% more than a conventional structure, "The reality is that operational costs are lower. Pay now, but realize savings later." Any thoughts that Kirshenbaum may have harbored about the bureaucratic nature of a Federal agency were dispelled as a result of his experience with this project. "GSA put some very talented people on this job," he says. -They made all of us better. We're now looking for more opportunities with GSA projects.- tilt Floor layouts place private offices in the interior, to enhance the transmission of day light and maximize views to the surround ing area. More than 90', of the building occupants have river views. Exterior bal conies on the second and third levels pro vide even closer river viewing sites Reprinted from Budding Design 8 Construction, November, 2004 by Valeo Intellectual Property Inc Copyright (0 Reed Business Information. 500373 a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc All rights reserved. For reorders call Valeo Intellectual Property, Inc 651 415 2300 For subscription information call 847 3902152 T,11 !•�tlIllieft'�flhtit c5n5SllSti1111i11)!'(I('tilfJliii! �flYr'1'?'..,i t'ti^JN1Nr.<I�E1.(j", ti.,���110��)IE'CtCSlfil�.. SUSTAINABILITY im (lerestory windows in laboratory areas admit natural light but block distracting The site now includes concrete and asphalt direct sunlight. Supply air ducts pass paving and natural and native landscaping. Its cal - through the space. Photo: Steve Swalwell, culated imperviousness has been reduced to 43%. Architectural fotographics The reduction in stormwater runoff would not have been achieved if 31,600 sf of the building's 57,200-sf roof had not been connected to a rain- water harvesting system, removing it from the "impervious area," according to Douglas Benton, project manager in GSM Kansas City office. Rainwater drains from the roof and is collect- ed in a 10,000-gallon storage tank. Since Kansas City's average annual rainfall is 39 inches, 735,000 gallons of water is projected to flow into the system. This water is used to flush toilets and as makeup water for the cooling towers. The san- itary fixtures are designed to require an estimated 55,000 gallons of water annually, so the system's remaining 680,000 gallons of capacity is available for the cooling towers. They will require an esti- mated 2.77 million gallons of makeup water per year. The rainwater collection feature earned two LEED points for water efficiency. The project team prepared an energy model based on ASHRAEAESNA 90.1-1999. Actual first - year operating data now indicate that the building is using energy at a rate of 273,000 Btu/GSF, or about 3% less than the 280,000 Btu/GSF project- ed by the energy budget. Benton says that the Kansas City building is EPA's most energy -efficient laboratory, based on comparisons with six other facilities located in similar temperature zones. As required by the U.S. Department of Energy, EPA tracks the energy use of its laboratory facilities. A prominent building feature is a 480-foot- long, 36-foot-high concrete "great wall" that runs north and south. To the east of the wall are offices, to the west a courtyard and laboratories. In order to prevent cross -contamination, the courtyard separates labs used for inorganic analy- sis from those that perform organic analysis. The city of Kansas City, Kan., contributed to the project by providing the mostly vacated for- mer brownfield site, which it had remediated. The laboratory is one of two EPA buildings at the eastern edge of the city's downtown. The other is EPA's regional office, which is housed in a 200,000-sf building two blocks away. It was built about five years ago on another one-time brownfield site donated by the city. "We always wanted to do a LEED-certified building, and really enjoyed participation in the process," says CB Richard Ellis' Carr. "We are now looking at all our projects from a LEED perspec- tive." The company's current projects in develop- ment include a laboratory for the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration in Salt Lake City. Carr says the key to success was teaming up to figure out which points would be beneficial to the project — not just to get LEED points, but to do what would be good for the building for the next 20 years. "You've got to look at every aspect of what you're doing, starting with site selection." The pro- ject received a LEED point under Sustainable Sites Credit 1 for being in an urban area. Carr also emphasizes that achieving LEED goals should continue after a building is occu- pied. CB Richard Ellis was also hired as the on - site property manager. When a developer submits a proposal to con- struct a Federal building, GSA evaluates the SUSTAINABILITY design and determines its desired energy -effi- ciency features. A major project in which GSA is the lessee involves a two-step procurement process. After the solicitation and evaluation of technical proposals, GSA negotiates for the "best and final" offer. It weighs proposed levels of LEED against other required building features and available funding. Each GSA procurement incorporates a state- ment of priorities. After technical proposals from the offerers have been reviewed, price becomes a crucial factor. The best scenario is one in which the highest -ranked technical proposal stays under the budget. HOMFTnWN TEAM SCORES WITH NPS REGIONAL HQ On a bank of the Missouri River in On,.tha, Ncb., an . pirino Gold candi- date houses offices that serve 13 states in the National Park Service's Midwest region. The Carl T. Curtis Midwest Regional Headquarters of the National Park Service, which opened in June, was delivered by a team assembled by the home- town firm of Noddle Development Co. Noddle typically develops retail and office buildings, and the Park Service facility was the company s largest GSA -leased project. Government projects "are not a business we really pursued," says com- pany VP Jeff Kirshenbaum. Noddle became involved with the project "because it was in our backyard, we know the site. and members of our Building Team had worked in the riverfront area," Kirshenbaum says. "We felt it was a natural for us to pursue." GSA requested a building that could achieve a Silver LEED accreditation. "We immediately said, 'What can we do to set us apart?" Kirshenbaum says. "The answer was, 'Let's shoot for Gold.' "Fortunately, the selection process lasted long enough for us to get our arms around what it would take to make it a Gold building, and we put together a team that could deliver. We think that was one of our best selling points." "We established a plan for achieving Gold and checked regularly to make sure it was being followed," Kirshenbaum says. "Once you decide \tribe going for 111 D certification, everything is A limestone wall that extends the length of the Carl T. Curtis Midwest Region Headquarters in Omaha. Neb. highlights the build ing's use of natural materialsand serves as a backdrop for National Park Service exhibits. Photo Tom Kessler SUSTAINABILITY Carl T. Curtis Midwest Regional Headquarters National Park Service Lease Holder: U.S. General Services Administration Tenant: National Park Service Owner: Noddle Development Co. Developer: Park Service Developers Inc. Architect and Engineers: Leo A Daly Civil Engineer: Kirkham, Michael & Associates General Contractor: Kiewit Construction Co. Area: 08,000 gross sf Construction cost: $8 million Completed: June 2004 LEED rating: Registered (seeking 6o](1) on the table. You have to make sure that every- thing you're doing falls in line." The three-story building features extensive glazing, and incorporates sensors that adjust the lighting level based on available daylight. The building utilizes natural materials, particularly exposed concrete, as well as products, such as carpet tiles, made with recycled materials. "Natural sugaring" of wood used in the interior allows its natural appearance to be retained. Most of the building's construction materials, including Kansas limestone, came from within 500 miles of Omaha, helping to qualify for LEED points under MR Credits 5.1 and 5.2. The building also incorporates a raised -floor system with floor diffusers, which not only min- imizes energy use but allows building occupants to essentially control the temperature and flow of air in their work area, he says. The building, which is open to the public, incorporates displays relating to National Park Service attractions. It has large meeting rooms in which NPS conducts classes, and will be the final home for Lewis and Clark Exploration exhibits now touring the U.S. to commemorate the 200-year anniversary of their expedition. Patrick Morgan, project principal with archi- tect Leo A Daly, says the siting of the building i C." The undulating surface of the ceiling in an executive area corridor suggests the flow of the Missouri River, which runs past the building. represented a critical planning decision for the Building Team. The plans submitted by most of the other teams vying for the project oriented the building north -south, parallel to the river. The Noddle team, capitalizing on the river's mean- dering path, positioned the building perpendicu- lar to the river. This orientation not only maxi- mizes views of the river and downtown Omaha for building occupants, but also minimizes views The Building Team Magazine ?.eed Business InformationDESIGN & CONSTRUCTION 1 1 •04 SUSTAINABILITY NEW S r-j rj rj �) -� -� -,j 6 •1-e SUSTAINABILITY Federal building design is turning over a new 'green' leaf with the incorporation of sustainable techniques and innovative technology into three mega -projects. By Larry Flynn, Senior Editor The General Services Administration's great architectural awakening came 10 years ago, with the implementation of its Design Excellence Program. In recent years, sustainable design has become a primary component of design excel- lence in GSA projects. Since 2003, the GSA has required all its buildings to receive certification (or, better still, a Silver rating) through the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED green -building rating program. Sustainable design has become a dominant theme in a trio of high -profile, big -ticket GSA building projects whose very size and dimension reflect the significance of their purpose and sym- bolize the characteristics of a strong and endur- ing government. The Seattle Federal Courthouse, Los Angeles Federal Courthouse, and San Francisco Federal Office Building take a holistic approach to sus- tainability, treating the concept as an integrated process in which each building's site, its place in the context of the urban environment, its func- tional program, and its massing figure as much into the overall sustainability of the projects as do the individual green components that com- Sustainability is a core element in the holistic design approaches taken in the Seattle Federal Courthouse (opposite page), San Fran- cisco Federal Office Building (above), and Los Angeles Federal (our- thouse (right). The location of each building in a dense urban envi- ronment figured heavily in their orientation, massing, and layout. Computational fluid dynamics and other modeling technologies were used to maximize daylighting opportunities and energy efficiency. Photo: Frank 0oms. Renderings: Morphosis; Perkins + Will 7 _ Ell s Seattle Federal Courthouse site plan A Stacking the Seattle Federal (ourthouse's 18 courtrooms two per floor in a tower minimized the building's footprint, enabling the open site space to exceed local zoning code requirements by 1,000',. Formerly a barren parking lot, the site now features a large public plaza, 100 birch trees, and a lily pond. Photo Fronk 0oms Seattle Federal Courthouse section a �a _ J r prise the buildings. Although the new Seattle Federal Courthouse predates the Design Excellence Program, the design of the project, which opened in Septenr, her, takes a "holistic approach that ties into sus- tainability," says Steve Connell, AlA. principal for local lead architect NBBJ. "You can build the most energy -efficient building in world, but if you just have one long row of offices, how sus- tainable is that?" Building orientation is crucial to all three of these new federal bu1ld111gs. With each building being located in a dense urban environment, their site and local climatic conditions were cen- tral to their planning and design. NBBJ conduct- ed solar analyses to determine where the most light would be distributed onto the site and how to plan the layout of courtrooms and offices to maximize the use of natural light. During design of the San Francisco Federal Office Building, now under construction, Los Angeles firm Morphosis studied climatic pat- terns, focusing on temperature and wind. The result is the design of a narrow 18-store tower with operable windows, a greatly downsized mechanical heating and cooling system, and an innovative metabolic skin (called a "living machine") made of rotating metal panels that envelopes the towers exterior, providing shade and blocking out heat and glare. A self -professed nonbeliever in green archi- tecture, Morphosis principal Thom Mayne. AAA. says he's interested in architecture as gestalt. looking --at architecture in response to the urban environment, the workplace, and energy." Chicago's Perkins + Will planned the orienta- tion of the one-million-sf Los Angeles Federal Courthouse in accordance with the path of the SUSTAINABILITY Seattle Federal Courthouse Seattle, Wash. Owner/developer: U.S. General Ser- vices Administration Architects/Interior architects: NBBJ Structural engineer: Magnusson Kle- mencic AsSociatcs Mechanical engineer: CBG Consulting Engineers Electrical engineer: Sparling General contractor: JA Jones/Absher Construction, Joint Venture Gross sf: 615,000 Number of floors: 23 Construction time: July 2001-Septem- ber 2004 Construction cost: S 171 million Delivery method/contract type: Sourcc Selection/Best Value P — ; - -- Judge Law Law. - Clerk i l Clerk Judge Reception I Law Clerk— - - Confere=ce Work Room Race lion H Work:a_4 Law Room H onference Z Located behind the courtrooms, judges' chambers in the Seattle Federal Courthouse are designed for flexibility, enabling them to be modified to accommodate judges' changing workloads and support space needs. Floor plan: N88J Law Clerk Law Clerk Judge Snared Libraiy Reception Work Rooml Conference C r. �I 0 Y �.......... . I 1 r,I sun, the city grid, and the historic city hall (which sits diagonally across the street). A south- east -facing entry portal provides a visual con- nection between the courthouse and city hall. The courthouse's innovative iconic element takes the form of a towering, south -facing, 80,000-sf "metamorphic energy wall" made of glass and photovoltaic panels collecting solar energy to power a small portion of the building's energy needs and providing an energy -saving enclosure for the building's grand atrium. Light shelves, light scoops, and articulated ceilings fill the court- rooms in the Seattle Federal Courthouse with natural light. Cherry wood louvers reduce glare and provide privacy. Photo: Frank Ooms Nearly finished with its design, Perkins + Will will soon turn the project back over to the GSA, which will let the next phase of the bridging con- tract out for bid. Construction is expected to begin in 2006, with completion in 2010. Let's take a look at the sustainability features of these remarkable GSA projects. Daylighting measures are pushed to the extreme in each of the projects. To make the most of daylighting, NBBJ separated the Seattle court- house — dubbed by a local newspaper the "courthouse of light" — into three sections: courtroom tower, judges' chambers, and office. Courtrooms in the tower were arranged two per floor, with one on the east side of the tower and one on the west, to maximize natural light. Inside the courtrooms (which are standardized in size, a first for Federal courthouses, with three judges sharing the two courtrooms per floor to reduce the total number of courtrooms required) light shelves, light scoops, and articulated ceil- ings fill the rooms with light. Outside of the courtrooms, usually cloistered transactional spaces where cases are filed are opened up and glass doors are installed on attorney -client con- a Los Angeles Federal Courthouse Los Angeles, Calif. Owner/developer: General tier- .„. Design architect: Perkin, + Will Structural engineer: I,1hn A \tarun —,,,Ah- Mechanical/electrical engineer: Ili I n�nn ri, In, Sustainable and facade engineering consultant: vI. c .�.::.. Program manager: JAL011.4 h,utrn uu \intLiIL General controctor. \,,t N ct out Ior hi ' Gross sf: million 4 Number of floors: 17 Expected construction time: 200h-201 Construction cost: 11on Delivery method/contract type: The south facing atrium design for the Los Angeles Federal Courthouse acts as a thermal buffer for the rest of the building. The outer "meta- morphic energy wall" (of right in rendering) is designed to reduce cooling loads and generate energy for the building. Rendering: Perkins + Will Cooling is also reduced through the proce,• , I ccn and the t(,%%crs glazing, %%Inch pulls % arin of thermal storage, which enables the buildings air out of the building and up the stack space. concrete skeleton to store much of its cooling energy at night and disperse it during the day. On Solar wall reduces energy use the southeast facade, the metabolic skin is Culminating in a statuesque spire, the Los designed to act like a sunscreen to reduce heat Angeles courthouse's curving metamorphic gain. A chimney effect is also created between the energy wall is comprised of 60,000 sf of clear SUSTAINABILITY Detail at Los Angeles courthouse atrium wall Point -supported glazing system. — 20,000 sf of monocrystalline photovoltaic #i " panels will be integrated into the glazing !3 1 of the atrium wall, initially generating 2-3% "''' ✓ + }; of the annual lighting loads. • The cavity between the glazing and the stainless steel mesh forms a thermal buffer, reducing cooling loads in the summer and heat loss in the winter. -- Stainless steel mesh panels provide solar shading. -- — Fresh air is introduced into the cavity at the canopy to reduce peak temperature levels. The resultant airflow along the surface of the mesh produces a thermoclime, cooling the mesh and preventing it from radiating heat into the atrium. Architect Perkins + Will teamed with engineer Bat tie Mc(arthy to design the "metamorphic energy wall," which will enclose the atrium of the Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Detail Perkins + Will U Fully captured glazing system. Radiant cooling allows the atrium floor to function as a heat sink. Cooling of the lobby level is also provided by air displacement ventilation. glass panels and 20,000 sf of monocrystalline photovoltaic panels. Spawned by Perkins + Will's Ralph Johnson and Guy Battle of Battle McCarthy during an encounter in Chicago, the concept of a "solar wall" that is both a solar collector and ener- gy -reducing atrium enclosure is unique and has required close collaboration between the two firms. The genesis of the wall, says Johnson, was formulated during the course of the six -week Design Excellence competition "and we've been trying to make it work for three years. The design has changed, but the concept has held together." The limitations of current photovoltaic tech- nology will only enable the wall to provide 2-3% of the building's energy. But Perkins + Will's Aki Knezevic says the wall is designed to be flexible and will be able to be modified as technology advances. The number of panels can be adjusted as needed to supply varying amounts of energy. The payback period for the wall is 10-15 years. Computational fluid dynamics modeling enabled the energy wall to be designed to work in unison with the building's air displacement ventilation system to reduce the energy required to heat and cool the building. In terms of energy usage, Knezevic says the building's 40,000 BTUs per year is below ASHRAE standards and well below GSA guidelines. It seems counterintuitive, Knezevic says, but "by using high-performance glass and variable - ratio photovoltaic cells on the wall, you can fine tune and contour the space to bring in more nat- ural light or add more shade as the space demands." Using the technology, its possible to "engineer a space to produce more energy, pro- vide more shade, and filter heat rays while allow- ing visible light to pass through it." According to Knezevic, the design of the wall system and the use of displacement air ventila- tion cause the atrium to act like a large heat buffer, where the first six feet of air is cooled and warm air is exhausted out through the top of the building. A cavity space in between the glass/PV- panel curtain wall and the perforated stainless steel metal mesh screen that backs it acts as another buffer space through which warm air is upwardly exhausted. The screen filters light entering the atrium and serves as a structural component of the wall system, enabling it to meet blast -resistance requirements. These three buildings are prime examples of how GSA is using its position to advance and showcase innovation in sustainable design in big - budget, high -profile projects. Morphosis' Tim Christ credits GSAs support at the national and local levels for "allowing us to win over some skeptics early on" in the design of the San Fran- cisco Federal Office building. "It would have been difficult to win over people if this had been a spec office" and not a Federal building, he says. BDC Reprinted from Building Design & Construction, November 2004 by Valeo Intellectual Property, Inc. Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. For reorders call Valeo Intellectual Property, Inc. 651.415.2300. For subscription information call 847.390.2152. To learn more about GSA's sustainable design program, visit www.gsa.gov/sustair 500467 Terence rooms. Connell says NBBJ's experience in the corpo- rate sector helped ensure that the daylighting measures enhanced the indoor environment in such a way that "the building performs for the people that work in it." Sustainability is "not about just installing triple -glazed glass," he says. Perkins + Will's strategy for lighting a deep floor plan was key to winning the Design Excel- lence competition for the Los Angeles Federal Courthouse, says principal Ralph Johnson. Nat- ural light is a fixture in the courthouse's 41 court- rooms, with light entering the courtrooms from the north and south via clerestory windows located above secured corridors. The south -fac- ing secured corridor looks out onto the glass cur- tain -wall -enclosed atrium, says Perkins + Will principal Aki Knezevic, AIA, LAP On the north back -of -house side of the building, judges' cham- bers are arranged in an alternating series of ver- tical columns and lightwells. The lightwells "break apart the columns, allowing the penetra- tion of light into the building," says Johnson. Perkins + Will expects a 20-40% reduction in electrical loads for lighting. In the Seattle courthouses office wing, 70- foot clear spans allow for casy access to daylight. "It's much more like a European office wing, where they have regulated standards for day- light," says Connell. When completed in early 2006, the San Fran- cisco Federal Office building will be illuminated using natural light through 800k, of its space. The amount of energy consumed by lighting; expected to he reduced by 26%, says Morphost, Thom Mayne. The goal of providing as much natural venti- lation as possible in the building drove Morpho- sis and the Los Angeles office of engineering firm Arup to perform initial studies of temperature and wind patterns, which led to the design of an extremely narrow 65-foot-wide tower with clear spans. The design produces loft -like workspaces that are heavily da\ lit. "We eliminated the hier- archical structure of private offices,' says Mayne. "There arc no corner offices in the building. The emphasis is on natural light, fresh air, and flexi- ble office space for a sustainable workplace. - Natural light lends a special nuance and a ,.sense of tnaiesty" to both the Los Angeles cour- thouse's glass atrium and the Seattle courthouses skylit portico, ,ass NBBJ's Connell. -As you enter San Francisco Federal Office Son Francisco, Calif. Owner/developer: I (,encral ser- Design/interior architect: \lorpho,t, Executive architect: ,mith(inwp Structural/mechanical /electrical engineer: Civil engineer: Brian Kangas Faulk Landscape architect: Richard Haag Geotechnicol consultant: c,eomatrix Lighting design: Horton Lees Brugden I i _hui ,n Curtain wall design: Curtain \\'all Netwal ventilation modeling: I a\crence Bcrkcicc \anonal tafxsratum General contractor: Dick Corp./Mor- .nui c roup 1onnt venture Gross sf: >- 5 0oo Number of floors: Is Construction time: `c>1t4-2000 Construction cost: - 144 n711hUn Delivery method/contract type: Workspace section: San Francisco Federal Office The design of the San Francisco Federal Office Building reverses the traditional hierarchy of an office floor layout. The perimeter of each floor is reserved for open offices with 52 inch high partitions to minimize the blockage of daylight. Meeting rooms and enclosed offices located in the middle spine of the floor will feature translucent glass panels. Rendering section Morphosis SUSTAINABILITY Skylights let daylight into the 60-foot-high lobby of the Seattle Federal Courthouse. A combination of evaporative cooling and displacement air ventilation is used to cool the space. Photo: Fronk 0oms the portico [in Seattle), it's flooded with light on all sides." Engineering out energy usage is also crucial to these three structures. The temperate climate in Seattle, as well as San Francisco, means that heat -gain issues associated with the extensive use of glass and glazing may be less of a concern Airflow concept A diagram illustrates how breezes entering the San Francisco Federal Office Building's southwest facade (top right) are vented through the southeast wall via the chimney effect created by the wall and outer skin. Diagram: Morphosis than in a city such as Los Angeles. However, with the U.S. consuming 25% of the world's energy, Morphosis' Mayne says it's important to reduce energy consumption across the board. "We believe we have a fundamental responsibility to take on these issues," says Morphosis project manager Tim Christ. Each of the design teams uses a combination of methods to cool and heat the three projects, with underfloor displacement air ventilation and radiant heat being common components of all three projects. In Seattle, a conditioned zone design enables four air -handling -unit zones to serve the 60-foot-high main entry lobby and the courtroom lobbies in the tower. An indirect/direct evaporative cooling system and a displacement air ventilation system will cool by exhausting warmer, lighter air through the top of the atrium, while cool, clean air is delivered at extremely low velocity at floor level to the first six or seven feet of space. The system is "ideally suited for transitory public spaces," says NBBJ's Connell, because they are not required to be kept at an optimal 69 degrees. Above the fifth floor, Morphosis' Federal office building uses operable windows and hor- izontal awnings that can be slid out four inches to let in fresh air. This, combined with the meta- bolic perforated metal skin worn on the build- ing like a jacket, enables 70% of the building to be cooled without the use of mechanical air- conditioning, says Mayne. This equates to an estimated 86% reduction in annual operating costs for cooling. Due to security needs and heavy computer -server requirements, displace- ment air ventilation is used in the lower levels of the building. A view of the San Francisco Federal Office Building looking west shows the perforated metal skin on the building's southeast facade, which acts as sunscreen. Rendering: Morphosis FF THE SHELF E PA KAN Presented by ARTERS SAS the (�j f ri f I rli ABOUT THIS ISSUE PROJECT TEAM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION KOLL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LANGDON WILSON ARCHITECTS KOLL CONSTRUCTION This publication was designed to increase the awareness of "building green" and introduce the various environmentally friendly building products that are available. For additional information, visit us at our World Wide Web sites: www.epa.gov/region07 www.gsa.gov www.koll.com PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Photographer Glenn Patterson, SkyCam Copyright 1999 GSA/KOLL All rights reserved. MISSION STATEMENT We pledge to lead by example and dedicate ourselves to share, distribute and inform others of the environmentally responsible choices incorporated in the design and construction of the EPA Regional Headquarters in Kansas City, Kansas. We shall accomplish this through partnering, teamwork, shared responsibilities and professionalism to create a "Green Book", that illustrates a quality, cost-effective and sustainable "Off the Shelf" building. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE 1 THE BUILDING PAGE 2 History Building Design/Siting Green Building Rating (LEEDTm Award) Construction Waste Management ENERGY EFFICIENCY Summary Building Exterior Lighting Thermal Systems Electric vs. Gas Water Conservation/Quality OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE Chemical Use & Storage Occupant Recycling Architectural Entries EXTERIOR ENVIRONMENTS Landscape/Irrigation Erosion Control Ozone Considerations Ground Level Ozone Stratospheric Ozone IN -slow MIT- PAGE 4 PAGE 6 PAGE 7 qqq INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS PAGE 10 Introduction Air Quality Sound Visual Light Artificial Light Natural Light Heating/Cooling Smoke Free Environment Fitness Center Government -Supplied Equipment BUILDING MATERIALS PAGE i 6 Introduction Subsurface Materials Exterior Finish Materials Interior Finish Materials Miscellaneous Materials BUILDING PRODUCTS APPENDIX PAGE 19 TEAM RECOGNITION PAGE 21 Biographies ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS BACK COVER 1 f O INTRODUCTION Cast in the spirit of partnership, the Green Team was formed in June of 1998 by members of the General Services Administration (GSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Koll Development Company, Langdon Wilson Architects and Koll Construction. The partnership adopted the name "Green Team" and began development of a program to document their efforts towards the commitment of creating an environmentally sensitive or "green" project. Each mem- ber volunteered the time and effort (beyond that of their pri- mary responsibilities to the project) to research, document and evaluate the "green" aspects within the different disci- plines of the building. The goal was to evaluate and recom- mend environmentally responsible products and practices that could be incorporated into the building without signifi- cantly impacting the cost or schedule of the project. Standard "off the shelf' building products and systems were utilized incorporating the desired "green" qualities. The term "green" in this sense, refers not only to the application of environmen- tally friendly building products, but also takes into considera- tion the manufacturing process of products, installation process, waste management and the maintenance processes over the life of the building. In many cases, making the green" choice simply meant utilizing a different means or method of application. This publication. "Off the Shelf', is the product of this Team's endeavor to help educate all who read it. It should be used as a tool to help any venture of industry and govern- ment to be responsible in their judgement, selection and atti- tude towards the development of buildings. This publication, this building, these individuals may appear to be small and insignificant in the overall scope of worldwide building development, but the responsibility of choices must start with each of us, each day. The lessons learned through this experience will help to raise the bar of awareness and accomplishment for the next group of individuals assigned to the task of developing a project of any type. What we were able to take from this experience was far more than we put into it. This book is a dedication to the efforts of the Green Team, whose paradigm as professionals has been changed for the better, as a result of this experience. For that. we are truly grateful. r� THE BUILDING Responsibility. It begins when an Owner decides to move forward with a project. A project Owners selection of materials, composites, and construction practices are gen- erally conducted as a function of cost to value. Aesthetics and maintenance/operation ��■�■`®�■�■�■�■� impacts are also considerations utilized in evaluating these selections. In an industry ■�■I■MEW — - whose standard practices are frequently defined b minimum requirements, it is easy to �■�■�■�■�®. T�r� P q Y Y q Y ■�■ Sir . — — — ,■l■■l�--_w-*� see how responsible choices can and do often take secondary roles in these decisions. In one of the Design / Construction Team meetings, Mr. Dave Treece, a key member of �the EPA construction design Team challenged us to "tell the story" of how, on this proj- ect, we took the higher road. By challenging vendors, and ourselves, we "pushed the a v envelop" of complacency. Alternate materials, methods, and resources that did not negatively effect cost. These options offered positive and cre- ative environmental solutions to some ordinary, everyday issues. The following narrative tells this story. It's purpose is to encourage others and show them that an "off the shelf' office building can be purposeful in this endeavor and not become a costly "demonstration." Responsibility. Maybe it starts at home with a trash recycling program, or maybe with your children for school or scouts for fund raising, or maybe at work with soda pop cans in a separate container. Regardless of where it begins, responsi- bilities must become a mantra for our generation to promise to ourselves and to those that will follow us, that we chose to be responsible. Because, after all, the Earth is a pretty nice place to live. HISTORY The challenge was to "win the beauty contest". In so doing, the prize was the opportunity to develop an EPA Regional Headquarters in downtown Kansas City, Kansas. In late 1995, downtown Kansas City, Kansas had become somewhat physically distressed remnants of a once proud and vibrant metropolitan area. Here, the government saw an opportunity to participate in a revitalization ... to lead by example, and create a "jewel" to be seen by the "neighbor across the river" making a statement and becoming the gateway to a new beginning. In March 1996, development proposals were submitted to the government in response to the Solicitation For Offer (SFO). By mid year of 1996, Koll Development Company had been awarded the project and began moving forward with the design from Langdon Wilson Architects. The fol- lowing represents the documentary as to "how" this build- ing came to be. BUILDING DESIGN / SITING Situated looking Southeast across the River to spectacular views of downtown Kansas City, Missouri, the building offers a transitional sensitivity from residential neighbor- hoods to a commercial district while still maintaining a strong "Gateway" impression. MINNESOTA AVENUE LOOKING EAST 0970 Provided by Wyandotte County Museum The building integrated site topography to: soften visual impact reduce disturbance to site conditions and surroundings effective oriented to accommodate natural light and solar efficiencies The design was intended to emphasize the EPA overall mis- sion of enhancement and sustainability to the environment. rZ-1 THE BUILDING To begin addressing environmental responsibility, the site chosen is a "Brownfield" site. Per definition of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a "Brownfield" site is property that is "...abandoned and/or underutilized and has ... an actual or perceived threat of environmental con- tamination..." The EPA encourages redevelopment of such sites to eliminate the actual or perceived threat of environ- mental contamination. Special design considerations were introduced, including indirect lighting, recessed windows for increased shading coefficients, outdoor terraces for employee interaction, a large green atrium with trees, a fountain and a skylight for increased natural lighting. Once the Architect had respond- ed to massing and fenestration design opportunities, he turned his attention to the interiors and building systems. In addition, you will note where the architectural focus towards a selection of proprietary products and materials that offer "off the shelf' solutions to the "green" intent. Many federal goals and standards for environmental or "green" programs were originally set forth as law in 1976 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA. RCRA controls the generation, treatment, and dis- posal of hazardous and non -hazardous waste materials. RCRA can be found at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 240-282. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) significantly modified the Act in 1984. Due to problems with over -collection versus demand, Congress added Section 6002 to RCRA, which established the Federal Government's buy -recycled pro- gram. Section 6002 also required the EPA to identify and recommend what products made with recycled content should be purchased by federal agencies. The EPA has identified such items in their Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG). This "Off the Shelf' publication includes information on how the products used in the construction of this building matched the requirements of the CPG. Note that many products were purchased prior to publication of the CPG. Please read through our story. Use it, and pass it on. That, after all, is our mission; to pass on what we have learned and created to be used and re -used by others. LEED 'ST. CRITERIA The EPA Regional Headquarters located in Kansas City. Kansas is a participant in a voluntary program known as "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" (LEED TV) promoted by the US Green Building Council in San Francisco, California. The US Green Building Council says the following about the LEED 'sTV process. "The LEED Green BuildingT"^ Rating System is a priority program of the US Green Building Council. It is a voluntary, consensus -based, market -driven building rating system based on existing proven technology that evaluates envi- ronmental performance from a whole building perspective over a building's life cycle. LEEDT" is intended to be a defin- itive standard for what constitutes a green building. The US Green Building Council's LEED Green Building TM Rating System is based on accepted energy and environ- mental principles that strikes a reasonable balance between known effective practices and emerging concepts. Unlike many other rating systems currently in existence, the devel- opment of the LEED Green Building TV Rating System has been open to public scrutiny and has involved the participa- tion of virtually all segments of the building industry includ- ing product manufacturers, environmental groups, building owners, utilities, state and local government, research insti- tutions, professional societies, colleges and universities. LEED TV is a self -certifying system designed for rating new and existing commercial. institutional, and high-rise resi- dential buildings. It is a feature -oriented system where cred- its are awarded to applicants that earn two-thirds of the available credits and meet all prerequisites. The system is designed to be comprehensive in scope, yet simple in oper- ation." The EPA Regional Headquarters earned credits based on complying with criteria in areas such as energy efficiency, indoor air quality, water quality, landscaping/exterior design, recycling and other environmentally sensitive categories. Architects. Engineers, Contractors, Governmental Consultants and various other sources combined their inge- nuity and expertise to support the validity of the criteria as it related to the EPA Regional Headquarters. Current docu- mentation for this project supports 34 out of the 44 LEED TV criteria for application for a gold award. rn ENERGY EFFICIENCY Many building features contribute to exceptional energy efficiency. The building exceeds the requirements of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 "Energy Efficient Design of New Buildings Except New Low -Rise Residential Buildings". BUILDING EXTERIOR The building has relatively long north and south walls, with shorter east and west walls. This creates energy efficiency due to the fact that the winter sun will penetrate the south wall throughout the day. The summer sun is higher in the sky, which creates more reflection of the midday sun's heat off of the south facing surfaces. The late afternoon and evening sun will broadcast onto the shorter surfaces. The building's atrium glass has a low -emissivity to allow visible light to enter while reflecting larger percentages of infrared light. The windows throughout the building, also low-e rated, are inset and shaded by the building walls and light shelves. These shelves reflect light upward across ceil- ings, thereby projecting the light to interior spaces which increase their attractiveness and creates more comfort. The canopy and trees shade the west entrance of the building. LIGHTING The atrium design allows most of the office space in the building to receive natural light. The natural lighting effect is enhanced using light shelves. Open office areas use indirect lighting with task lights. The general lighting level is ±25 footcandle at the desk surface, rather than 50 footcandle typically used in most office build- ings. Because illumination is a squared relationship, 0.52, or only 25% of the general light is required, and only 25% of the heat needs to be removed by the cooling system. All occupied spaces utilize motion sensors to detect occu- pants for the control of the general lighting. There is one sensor per 1000 square feet. The general lighting uses a more energy efficient T-8 fluorescent bulb with electronic ballast. Some incandescent lighting is used to highlight conference and training room walls because it is more aesthetically pleasing and the light dimming control will be more precise. In order to conserve energy, the building's exterior lighting is on timers. THERMAL SYSTEMS A state-of-the-art building automation system offers com- puterized monitoring of the energy related information throughout the building and controls equipment accordingly. r� ENERGY EFFICIENCY A chilled water system and central air handling system, located in an equipment room immediately underneath the domed roof, provides cooling for the building. Two large rotary screw chillers, 231 kilowatts each, use environmen- tally friendly refrigerant (HFC-134a). A constant volume pri- mary chilled water loop feeds variable frequency drive sec- ondary pumps, and these provide water to the coils in the four large air handling units (AHUs) serving all five floors of the building. The four AHUs have variable frequency drive fans with 200,000 cubic feet per minute (94,400 liters/sec) total capacity. The supply air system has variable air volume (VAV) boxes with a maximum 2000 sqare feet of building area served per box. Cool air is provided at 550 F to 650 F as determined by the building automation computer to sup- ply effective cooling for all spaces and to minimize energy consumption. The perimeter boxes have fans that can either draw from the supply air ductwork, or the ceiling plenum, and push air through electric heating coils that have a minimum of two stages of heat. The large conference rooms and training rooms have two boxes and dual setting thermostats that stage the boxes on a one -at -a -time basis. Approximately eight separate exhaust systems provide normal exhaust for the large conference rooms. Toilet rooms have separate exhaust as required by code. Garage levels one and two are ventilated with 6 air changes per hour in order to remove the accumulation of any dangerous combustion products. Sensors provide input to the building's automated computer system so that safe operation is monitored. The atrium's smoke evacuation system requires 280,000 cfm be exhausted. The return air fans provide two-thirds of the smoke evacuation and dedicated smoke evacuation fans accomplish the remaining one-third. Balcony doors open automatically to facilitate make-up air. ELECTRIC VS. GAS The building was initially intended to be heated with natural gas. During building design, Koll Development Company teamed -up with the Board of Public Utilities, Kansas City, Kansas, and structured an Economic Development Rate Rider for this building. This rider offers a 5-year, stair - stepped discount on the cost of electric service and its appli- cation will result in an estimated energy and maintenance cost savings of $1,200,000 during the 10-year EPA lease. Electric utility companies across the nation are being urged to use low sulfur coal and to use environmentally friendly technologies to generate green power. The Federal Government is leading our nation in buying green power where it is commercially available. WATER CONSERVATION / OUALI i Y Low flow faucets reduce the amount of water used, and that reduces the energy required to heat hot water. The EPA Green Rider for the Kansas City Regional office required, "water conservation. through low flow shower heads and toilet room fixtures, landscaping with native species and drip irrigation systems." r, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE This section addresses chemical use and storage, occupant recycling and the architectural entries of the building. The focus of this section will be on the basic layout of the building, the choices made in that layout, and the ongoing commitment toward keeping the building's operations and maintenance environmentally friendly. The intent is to showcase the thought process that went into the decisions and choices made in this sec- tion. CHEMICAL STORAGE & USE All chemical storage and mixing areas for housekeeping products were designed and installed to allow for adequate and secure product storage. All locations have ample room for mixing concentrated chemicals. Drains are plumbed for the appropriate disposal of liquid waste products. Each location is operated under 10% negative pressure and equipped with separate outside venting to keep chemical fumes from spreading throughout adjacent areas. In keeping with the "Off the Shelf' building theme all clean- ing and mechanical chemicals used for building operations are environmentally preferable products where competitive- ly priced. Material Safety Data Sheets are available and maintained on site for all the products in use. OCCUPANT RECYCLING This multi -story building has a recycling collection and sort- ing room on every floor. The collection room is located next to the freight elevator for easy access and trans- fer of recycled material between floors. The collection room allows for the easy sorting of white paper, mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard, and aluminum cans. Organic waste and un-recyclable items will be dis- posed of separately. At least 80% of the building's waste - stream should be diverted by using these methods. ARCHITECTURAL ENTRIES The architectural entries are designed to prevent undesir- able air particles from entering the building. The building is designed to operate under 10% positive air pressure thus limiting infiltration. The entire return system is fully filtered to remove undesirable air particles. Originally designed as a permanent grating "walk -off sys- tem", an easier to maintain stone floor with walk -off carpets was eventually utilized offering lower capital and operational costs. The carpets chosen used recycled rubber from tires. L� EXTERIOR ENVIRONMENTS This section addresses all the design and construction factors of the New EPA Region 7 Headquarter's Building which may have an impact on the exterior environment. The exterior environment includes the ambient (outdoor) air, soils, groundwater, and surface water, including all animal and human life supported by these media. LANDSCAPING The building's exterior landscaping was designed to emphasize the use of native plants which will require less water and maintenance than plants imported from another environment. The plants selected are tolerant of local cli- mate, soils, and are not totally dependent upon receiving water from a municipal potable water source in order to stay alive. This design incorporates the use of minimal to zero harmful pesticides. Consideration was given to site functions for humans and wildlife as well as anticipating the cycles of use throughout the day, week, and year. Consideration was also given to extremes of climate, annu- al solar angles with patterns of light or shade, annual direction and intensity of breezes as well as sea- sonal color and life span of plants. The landscape concept was formal in keeping with the character of the building and its municipal setting. More than forty shade trees were planted within the visitor parking area on the west side of the building. These decid- uous trees will provide a considerable amount of shade to this area in the summer months and allow for solar heat gain in the winter when the leaves have fallen from the trees. A colonnade of ornamental trees were planted in the parking garage planters on the east side of the building. These trees offer additional relief in the form of shade to those individuals approaching the building from the east parking lot. The shrub beds located throughout the site add visual interest to the site and serve functional purposes, such as softening the architecture, direct pedestrian move- ments, provide separation of spaces and aid in erosion control. All exterior paving is concrete with light gray color- ing. One tree is planted on site for every 2,500 square feet of impermeable surface on the building lot. IRRIGATION The irrigation system is designed with automatic valves that control individual zones. These zones are comprised of pop-up spray and gear drive rotors with matched precip- itation rates for uniform water distribution. The valves are operated by an advanced water -management controller with beneficial water saving features, such as water budg- eting. programmable rain delay, and cycle soak. The irriga- tion system includes probes which measure the moisture content in the soil. Therefore, the vegetation is watered only when the moisture is needed. Water conservation for the landscaping complies with the Department of Energy's International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol for water consumption. In order to promote better water quality in the runoff water, sand/oil interceptors have been installed in the parking lot drains. EROSION CONTROL Erosion is another important element of site development as well as landscaping. Due to raised environmental aware- ness and the rising costs of repairing the damage erosion creates, erosion has become a important consideration for all potentially affected projects. Construction sites with slopes that are bare, along with surface drainage areas, are especially subject to erosion. Erosion reduces the produc- tivity and usability of land areas. The sediment run off EXTERIOR ENVIRONMENTS resulting from this erosion finds its way to streams, rivers, and other bodies of water, thus choking them and adverse- ly effecting wildlife habitat. Erosion is an effect of multiple causes. Developing land is one of them. Vegetation helps to control erosion by keeping the water from washing silt and pollutants into streams. At this site, erosion was con- trolled during construction with the use of sand bags, straw bales and a silt fence. When an area is developed it can cease to absorb rainwa- ter, thus flooding streams, eroding banks, and sending silt into water ways. Erosion is still a consideration after con- struction is completed. The sloped bank near the northwest corner of the building is the only location where erosion con- trol is needed. Erosion at this location is controlled by plant- ing low spreading shrubs on the slope. In addition, a Geoweb cellular confinement system is used within the shrub bed to hold the soils on the slope. The Geoweb sys- tem is a jute or organic cover system of mats with integral plant seed designed to be rolled out or laid on the soil sur- face to mitigate erosion and potential turbidity. Erosion control at this site is in compliance with Sections 4.2 e. & f. of the Maryland Model Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance and Section 6 (Group 2) of the Maryland Model Storm Water Management ordinance. OZONE CONSIDERATIONS Ozone is a gas composed of three atoms of oxygen (03) and can be found in the air that we breathe at ground -level as well as in the upper atmosphere. The ozone located at ground -level can cause detrimental health affects and dam- age to the environment. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is beneficial, as it forms a protective layer that shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. GROUND LEVEL OZONE Ground level ozone is commonly referred to as smog. It is produced by a combination of pollutants from many sources including smokestacks, cars, paints and solvents. When a car burns gasoline, releasing exhaust fumes, or a painter paints a house, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) rise into the sky and react in the presence of sunlight forming smog. Smog can cause a variety of health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function, and adversely sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Smog also interferes with the ability of plants to produce and store food making them more susceptible to disease, insect attack, and other pollutants. Smog causes health problems: - Acute respiratory problems - Aggravates asthma - Reduces lung capacity - Inflames lung tissue - Worsens heart disease - Impairs body's immune system GROUND LEVEL OZONE = SMOG Since NOx and VOCs are the two primary precursors to the formation of smog, the minimization or elimination of these two compounds during planning or construction is ideal. Since automobiles contribute more than 50% of the precur- sors to smog, the use of alternative transportation will decrease the concentration of smog. Alternative transportation is when an individual chooses to get to their destination by some other means than by driving a motor vehicle. Some examples of alternative transporta- tion include walking, riding a bike, taking public transporta- tion such as a bus or train, and carpooling. One element of design that is being incorporated into this building project is the construction of a combination bike trail and jogging path. This bike trail / jogging path is an attractive environmental feature as it incorporates the plant- ing of trees along its half mile length. It is a total of ten feet wide, in which four feet is dedicated to the jogging path. It provides a "safety zone" from automobiles for cyclists and pedestrians. If an employee chooses to walk or ride their bike to work, rather than getting to work in a motor vehicle, they are significantly reducing the amount of contributors to smog. For more information on the planning and design of this bike trail/jogging path, contact the Kansas Department of Transportation at (785) 296-7448. ra, EXTERIOR ENVIRONMENTS As an incentive to interests EPA employees to participate in alternative transportation (thus reducing automobile emis- sions), the EPA provides for FREE transportation. The Kansas City Regional EPA Headquarters office participates in a reimbursement program, called the Transit Subsidy Program, where employees can have all of their bus fare reimbursed, if they ride the bus. For more information on the Transit Subsidy Program, contact the EPA Regional Transportation Coordinator in EPA's Air Program at (913) 551-7020. In addition to EPA's Transit Subsidy Program, Kansas City's three transit systems have cooperatively agreed to allow anybody to ride any of the three transit systems free of charge on "Ozone Alert Days." "Ozone Alert Days" are days when smog is at a high enough concentration to cause health concerns. Employees located in this building or those visiting are welcome to join in this cost-effective effort to reduce the contributors to smog. For more information about this program, call the Metro at (816) 221-0660. Another incentive is provided for EPA employees to use alternative transportation. Preferred parking is being pro- vided for all employees at this Kansas City location who car- pool. In addition to alternative transportation, the reduction of smog was also considered when selecting building materi- als. Low emitting VOC carpets, adhesives, architectural sealants, and paints were specifically selected for this build- ing in order to help reduce the contribution of VOCs into the atmosphere, hence reducing the formation of smog. STRATOSPHERIC OZONE As mentioned above, the ozone in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) is beneficial, as it forms a protective bar- rier, shielding the earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. This ozone occurs naturally, yet is being destroyed by manmade chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and other ozone depleting substances (used in coolants, foaming agents, fire extinguishers, solvents, and aerosol propellants). These manmade chemicals escape into the air and damage this protective layer of ozone by thinning it similar to clothes getting worn to threads at cer- tain spots. These thinning spots in the ozone allow ultraviolet rays to make their way to the earth's surface. Ultraviolet rays are known to cause skin cancer, cataracts, and impair immune systems. These harmful rays also damage crops and cause diseases in plants. Health effects of ozone (upper atmosphere) depletion: - Skin cancer - Cataracts - Impair's body's immune system The mechanical equipment installed in this building elimi- nates the use of CFC and HCFC refrigerants, thus will not contribute to the stratospheric ozone depletion problem. e Ozone Hole (thin spot in ozone layer j When the ozone layer is damaged. there is an increase in harmful rays from the sun reaching the Earth. These rays can harm both human health and the environment. INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS This section will address all the items presented previously focusing on some background information and the action taken by Koll, GSA, and EPA to use mar- ket, "off the shelf" products and procedures to enhance the indoor health of the New EPA Region 7 Headquarters Building. NTRODUCTION What does it take to create a healthy indoor environment for EPA Region 7 employees? This is a question that Koll Development Company and Langdon Wilson Architects had to consider when designing the new EPA Regional Headquarters office building. There is no more important issue facing facility managers today than the indoor envi- ronment and air quality, Koll Development Company and Langdon Wilson Architects placed great importance on operations and maintenance procedures. A healthy indoor environment cannot be sustained without careful attention to routine maintenance. Several factors were considered in the design of the build- ing to keep the interior of the building and the employees healthy: Air Quality Sound Visual / Aesthetics Lighting including artificial and natural light Heating / Cooling Smoke Free Environment Fitness Center Government supplied equipment AIR QUALITY EPA has determined the average U.S. citizen today spends 90% of the time indoors. Indoor air pollution levels can be up to 96 times greater than outdoor pollution levels. Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) is one of the greatest health concerns in this country. Poor air quality can have a significant impact on worker health and productivity. The table below, "Indoor Air Quality Impacts on Health," identifies the sources and symptoms of indoor air quality impacts on health. A good program of filter changing, control system checks, and air / water system balancing will positively effect the air quality of the interior spaces. Interior finishes can also cause air quality problems. For chemically sensitive people, the effects can be severe. The EPA Regional Headquarters building contains low -emission finishes, including carpeting, paint, wall coverings, sealants, and varnishes. INDOOR AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ON HEALTH Irritation Formaldehyde, VOC's combustion gases, Irritation of skin, upper airway, eye, nose and particulates, man-made fibers, and pesticides throat, headache, erythema Pulmonary Asbestos, combustion gases, Formaldehyde, ozone, particulates Cardiovascular Carbon monoxide, particulates Rapid breathing, fatigue, increased infections, pul- monary edema, asthma, allergies, flue -like symptoms Headache, fatigue, dizziness, aggravation of existing pulmonary conditions, heart damage Nervous System Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, Formaldehyde, Headache, blurred vision, fatigue, malaise, VOC's nausea, impaired judgement Reproductive Formaldehyde, VOC's Menstrual irregularity, birth defects Cancer Asbestos, radon, combustion gases, VOC's, Cancer of the lung, stomach, colon particulates INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Koll's strategy in dealing with indoor air pollutants was to find material and set up procedures that eliminate the four main sources of indoor air pollution: VOCs, particularly formaldehyde, in building materials cleaning products and pesticides Bioaerosols from both indoor and outdoor sources Combustion gases from appliances and automobiles Particulates from fibrous materials and combustion gases. Specifically, Koll Development Company used many build- ing products that were environmentally sensitive, including a few products which met or exceeded the recycled content specified by EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG) which became effective after the building was con- tracted. The table in the Building Products Appendix identifies the building product category, product, benefit, recycled con- tent, EPA's CPG requirement, and the manufacturer. Some of the product categories are building insulation, cement and concrete, paints and coatings, ceiling systems, floor covering, and lighting and energy systems. Since poor ventilation can be a major cause of indoor air quality problems, Koll Development Company relied on properly balanced and maintained ventilation systems that provide adequate outdoor air quantities to the building. Air handlers were selected that are easy to clean and tightly sealed. Additionally, they have a mini mum of joints and other dust catchers, and have efficient filters. Inspection of air handlers are facilitated by good access doors and light or white -colored surfaces inside the air handlers to accommodate ongoing inspections. Condensate pans inside air handlers drain fully, and any debris will be removed from the pans. Fresh air intakes will be inspected to ensure that poor quality air is not drawn into the building from "short circuits" between exhaust and air intakes, or site -specific conditions such as wind patterns. Floor drains will be refilled periodically to prevent sewer gas from entering the building through dry traps. Paints and adhesives contain no or very low VOCs. Adequate "airing out" was done to remove the major ity of the VOCs from the air prior to occupancy. Durable building materials were selected to eliminate the need for strong cleaning chemicals. For exam- ple, ceramic tile is used in entry areas rather than carpeting. During construction, all air duct openings were sealed with plastic to keep construction dust from entering the system. Indoor air is inherently polluted by hundreds of indoor chem- icals. The most common pollutants are carbon monoxide. formaldehyde, and benzene. Even humans emit bioefflu- ants which are potentially harmful to others in closed, ener- gy efficient environments. To alleviate indoor air pollution. EPA's New Region 7 Headquarters Building took the tradi- tional approach of controlling contaminate through filtration and developing procedures concerning building operations. Koll Development Company promptly investigate indoor air quality (IAQ) complaints and implement controls including alteration of building operating procedures (e.g., adjusting air intakes, adjusting air distribution, cleaning and maintain- ing HVAC. ). Another step to control the contaminates in the air and add aesthetically pleasing features to the atrium is the addition of twelve Ficus Benjamina trees, one of the most aggres- sive pollution -fighting plants according to NASA tests. EPA research suggests one type of throat cancer caused by formaldehyde is the result of indoor air pollution. Studies show that commonly used indoor flowering plants can reduce levels of potential cancer -causing substances by up to 70 percent in 24 hours. SOUND Building acoustics have traditionally been a low priority compared to other indoor environmental problems, yet acoustically acceptable indoor environments increase work- er satisfaction and morale. Irritating and unexpected noises create distractions that reduce productivity. Bathrooms. plumbing fixtures, exhaust fans, mechanical ducts, outdoor condensing units, lawn maintenance equipment. traffic, and airplanes are all irritating sources of noise. Some noises created in building systems, such as fluorescent lamp bal- lasts that buzz, or HVAC systems that generate and trans- mit various noises. can be difficult to trace. Background noise is beneficial if it is of the proper level and tonal quality. Above a level of Noise Criteria 40 (NC-40). background noise interferes with speech and telephone conversations. If it is too low, it fails to drown out intrusive noises and diminishes privacy. INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS White noise or sound -masking systems artificially raise the background noise level to maintain speech privacy. Koll Development Company has introduced a fountain in the east end of the atrium that will provide a natural, soothing background noise. Koll also considered an array of speak- ers located above the finished ceiling. However, Koll found that many people find the use of white noise systems objec- tionable and opted only for the use of the fountain. Additionally, the acoustical requirements in EPA's new building call for: Reverberation control - Ceilings in carpeted space have a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NCR) of not less than 0.55 in accordance with ASTM C-423. Ceilings in offices, conference rooms, and corridors having resilient flooring have an NRC of not less than 0.65. Ambient noise control - Ambient noise from mechanical equipment operates in a range of 18-28 Noise Criteria curve (NC) in accordance with ASHRAE Handbook in offices and conference rooms; NC 32 in corridors, cafeterias, lobbies, and restrooms; NC 50 in other spaces. Noise isolation - Rooms separated from adjacent spaces by ceiling -high partitions (not including doors) are not less than 40 Noise Isolation Class (NIC) in the conference rooms and 35 NIC in the offices following NIC Standards when tested in accordance with ASTM E-336. VISUAL When employees or visitors enter the building on the east and west sides, they will be treated to carefully thought out designs in the spacious atrium floor plan with a fountain in the east end of the atrium. The building incorporates several convenient employee entrances. Upon leaving vehicles in the parking structure east of the building, employees are afforded two entry alter- natives. One option is to walk up the pedestrian pathway at the center of the parking structure and enter the building below the verandah at the east end of the building. Alternatively, the internal interconnecting stairs at the east end of the atrium continue down through the ground floor and connect the parking structure levels to the building. A garage elevator also travels from each level of the parking structure to the Plaza Level. Employees accessing the building from off -site bus stops or parking lots to the west, enter the building from that side near the visitor's entry at a key card controlled access point. The building's design accommodates a separate visitor entrance. Once arriving from the plaza at the west end of the site, visitors enter the building at a security check area located adjacent to the elevator lobby and building core area. This is the only building entry not controlled by a key card security device. Visitors can conveniently access the training rooms and several conference facilities that lie directly adjacent to the Plaza Level lobby in the base of the atrium. The floors are configured so that employee interaction and productivity are maximized. The open atrium facilitates the visual sighting of colleagues and encourages circulation and interaction within the office area. In addition, the Plaza Level verandah on the east side of the building invites employees to gather for lunch and conduct informal Team meetings when weather permits. The large open floor plan and space configurations provide for efficient and flexible workspace planning. The floor plan is incorporated into an efficient "U" shaped design that implements a centrally located building core at the base of the "U". A pair of stairs are located in the building core that interconnect the office floors and allow employees to freely circulate. A second pair of interconnecting stairs that are open to the atrium are located at the ends of the "U". These stairs join the unique terraced floors which provide a rich source of natural light to the walkways and work areas. As you go up each floor in the building, the widths of the "U" legs decrease from 90 feet to 53 feet. Since the inside of the "U" is an atrium, natural light is no further than 45 feet from all office space in the legs. These bay depths, com- bined with efficient 30 feet by 30 feet column spacing, allow workspace areas to be efficiently and flexibly planned on each office floor. The building's core is located at the west end at the base of the "U" and provides for an inviting, yet compact arrange- ment of three passenger elevators, one freight elevator, restrooms, two stairwells, and other core elements. INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Located on the interior of the floor plan, the core placement allows the adjoining space on all office floors to benefit from the atrium and exterior natural light sources. The building placement and atrium orientation capitalize upon the site's excellent views of the river confluence and downtown Kansas City, Missouri. The atrium leverages the enjoyment of this perspective by allowing more employees to experience it within the building. The placement of the building on the site's elevated west side enhances the west- ern views that encompass downtown Kansas City, Kansas and the Federal Courthouse. The liberal use of windows on the building's west side provides for open and expansive perspectives to the downtown area. LIGHT Day lighting and artificial lighting are required in order to perform visual tasks, to provide views to the outside. and to provide a connection to the daily rhythms of the natural environment. Sunlight provides an equal spectral distribu- tion of visible light frequencies to produce 'white light' and provides the truest color rendition. Artificial light is limited in the frequencies it can emit, often producing blue- or yellow - tinted light. Lighting levels and distribution can either enhance or detract from the efficient use of both day light- ing and artificial light for energy savings and occupant com- fort. The two components of interior lighting are ambient and task lighting. Ambient lighting provides general lighting for orientation and background visual identification. Task light- ing provides focused lighting, which will aid in the perform- ance of concentrated and small-scale tasks such as read- ing. Windows and light fixtures have been properly located and balanced to provide the most efficient and visually pleasing lighting in interior environments. ARTIrJ, A- _�GHT Lighting accounts for 25% of the electricity us Federal sector. If new lighting technologies w everywhere in the Federal sector, electricity rei lighting would be cut by 50%, electrical demand and working environments improved. The Regional Headquarters building uses compact fluores- cent lamps (CFLs) which are energy -efficient, long-lasting substitutes for the traditional incandescent lamps. Introduced in the early 1980s, CFLs use about one-half to one -tenth the energy to produce the same light output. INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS They also last up to thirteen times longer than the incan- descent lamps they replace, providing an attractive return on investment. Lighting is controlled automatically by various methods to save energy: energy management and control systems daylight sensors that detect available daylight control fixture outputs accordingly occupancy sensors which prevent energy waste by turning off lights operating in unoccupied spaces by dimming lights according to daylight level within the building All conference rooms are equipped with occupancy sensors that are set to turn off the lights after a period of inactivity. NATURAL LIGHT Day lighting and artificial light fixtures can be significant sources of heat gain in commercial buildings. All day light- ing strategies need to be designed to minimize heat gain along with the reduction in the heat gain of the fixture. The additional first costs of day lighting devices, such as light shelves and other daylight collection devices, should be bal- anced against the reductions in costs for interior light fixture, and long-term electricity use costs. Direct sunlight can damage interior furnishings, and the ultraviolet radiation component of sunlight can combine with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that might be present to form ground -level ozone, which is hazardous to human lung tissue. VOCs should be minimized as a matter of course, and space planning should specify interior finishes and fur- nishings that have low to zero VOC emissions. Koll Development Company addresses these issues by innovative designs in which all exterior windows are equipped with one -inch wide, non -corroding, slated horizon- tal aluminum window blinds. HEATING / COOLING The variety of functions anticipated for the building warrants the need for built-in system flexibility. The building includes numerous spaces, requiring separate temperature control zones, i.e., conference rooms, office areas, and computer areas. The design condition of the building calls for a temperature of 74-76OF during the summer in occupied areas of the building. During the winter the temperature inside will range from 70- 74°F. These temperatures must be maintained throughout the building, regardless of the outside temperature, during the hours specified in the lease. During non -working hours, heating temperatures shall be set no higher than 550F and air conditioning will not be provided except as necessary to return space temperatures to a suitable level for working hours. Special purpose areas (such as photocopy centers, large conference rooms, computer rooms) with an internal cooling load are independently controlled. Concealed package air- conditioning equipment is provided to meet localized spot cooling of tenant's special equipment. Intakes for outside air are located to avoid contamination of the air from sources such as vehicle exhausts from the garage, loading docks and street traffic, exhausts from rest - rooms, sanitary vents, and cooling towers. Ducts and plenum were constructed and maintained to minimize the potential for growth and dissemination of micro-organisms. Humidity will be maintained at 30 percent during the winter to 50 percent during the summer. SMOKE FREE ENVIRONMENT INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS In an August 9. 1997, Executive Order. President Clinton banned smoking inside all Federal buildings. Smoking is currently prohibited inside all buildings managed by GSA and in many other facilities where Federal employees work. The goal of these actions is to "protect Federal Government employees and members of the public from exposure to tobacco smoke in the Federal workplace." FITNESS CENTER The Regional Headquarters building houses a 1.200 square foot fitness center on the main floor. The center will be equipped by the EPA with various weight machines, free weights, and aerobic equipment such as treadmills and sta- tionary bikes. After working out, employees shower in either of the two locker rooms adjoining the center. A regu- lar program of physical fitness decreases the body's susept- ability to illness and promotes a more alert focus during work. GOVERNMENT -SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT EPA required emission testing assessment of environmen- tal policies in place at each manufacturer's facility, and the environmental characteristics of all workstations submitted for consideration. These characteristics include issues of global pollution, energy consumption, and resource conser- vation, as they pertain to factory and office procedures, and to the workstation product. Human health and safety issues were also considered. Emission testing included an indoor pollutant source man- agement plan which provides assurance that minimum pol- lutant emission rate standards for components and finish materials are met by applying uniform testing controls and procedures. Products include a single, easily assembled. composite workstation, incorporating panels, components and related modular units. The target emission standards are defined as those "emission rates" of pollutants emanat- ing from the product. Fabrics are excluded from the testing procedure. EPA was not looking for the -greenest- vendors. However. EPA was concerned that the vendors providing furniture. and accessories demonstrated due diligence relative to environmental, sustainable and ergonomic issues. Vendors were encouraged to provide written detail describing the environmental, sustainable characteristics of their systems. EPA uses electronic white boards in conference rooms to eliminate or reduce chalk dust and increased maintenance. BUILDING MATERIALS As the 21 st century approaches it has become incumbent to design and build in a more environmentally responsible manner. There is more and more evidence +� that supports the need for designing for future reuse and adaptability. It is an amazingly simple and relatively inexpensive venture. Today's building products and materials are more environmentally sensitive, or "greener" than ever. NTRODUCTION An excellent example of this environmentally responsible approach is the new 200,000 square foot EPA Regional Headquarters office building being constructed in downtown Kansas City, Kansas. The building design and site location was strategically assessed to take advantage of passive solar energy. Recycled materials were used extensively in the finish selections of the EPA building. Early in the scope develop- ment stage, only a limited number of recycled materials and finishes were specified. Dialogue between the EPA, Koll Development and the designers from Langdon Wilson Architects resulted in nearly all the interior finish selections containing recycled or environmentally friendly content. SUBSURFACE MATERIALS The owner took possession of the site with a worn concrete foundation in place. As part of the site work, the old foun- dation was removed and a great deal of the rubble was recycled as roadbed. The rubble was used at the fill site for temporary roads. The part of the foundation that could not be recycled was disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Following site preparation the auger piles, footings and foundations were constructed with concrete containing 1,000 tons of Fly Ash. Fly Ash is a coal combustible byprod- uct from coal-fired electric generating plants. It's in the form of a particulate (much like dust) and when it gets into the air it can cause various health problems, such as eye, nose and throat irritations. Utilizing Fly Ash in concrete design not only locks it up so it doesn't blow in the air, but it also improves the strength and stability of concrete. Typically there is no cost increase to use Fly Ash in concrete, which is always preferable. Once the new foundation was complete it was sealed with bentonite water proofing and a modified bitumen mem- brane. This greener alternative was utilized instead of a petroleum -based product. EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS The exterior of the building features a majestic skylight and glass wall construction. Exterior facing materials include polished Texas granite and precast concrete. The skylight and glass wall integrated design features allow for daylight- ing and passive solar heating in the building. Both of these features assist in highlighting the spacious 4 story, stair- BUILDING MATERIALS stepped atrium that dominates the center of the building. The aluminum mullions and trim on the windows, sheer wall, sunscreens, cable trays and skylight are all construct- ed from 12.9 tons of recycled aluminum. All of the glass features play a significant role in the energy profile of the building. As mentioned earlier the "hard" materials on the exterior of the building are polished Texas granite and precast con- crete. In the early stages of the project, India sandstone was considered for the exterior of the building. The owners of the building reaffirmed their desire to retain a more dem- ocratic presence and chose to make the switch to the Texas granite. In furtherance of the "green" effort, aggregate used in the precast is from local Kaw River gravel surplus instead of a synthetic or imported aggregate. In restrooms, the floors and walls were constructed with ceramic tile made from over 70% post-industrial recycled waste glass. Nearly thirty-eight tons of recycled glass was used in the construction of this building. The lavatory coun- ters are stone, thus inert, non -toxic, and chemically non - reactive hypoallergenic material. There was no additional charge associated with the use of the ceramic tile that con- tained recycled glass. INTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS - FLOORS The carpets selected are from Lotus and Shaw manufactur- ers. Both are non -latex products and are 100% recyclable. The Shaw carpet is made of 25% recycled material. The carpet installation was a glue -down process that used a no VOC glue. These carpets are 100% solution dyed, which extends the life of the carpet. To accent the carpet installa- tion, the vinyl wall base is an antimicrobial product using an adhesive with no VOCs. Great care was taken to strategically desiyn and place the facing windows and glass wall to take advantage of the solar heat, but also to prevent overheating in the summer months. Low emittance (Low-e) coatings were used on North side of the building to reduce the heat loss during the winter months. INTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS - WALLS The paint used on this project contained no volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This type of paint is readily available from major manufacturers and is competitively priced. The vinyl wall covering used in this project contained 100% clean water based inks. BUILDING MATERIALS The lobby and atrium floors both feature the same Texas granite used on the exterior of the building. However, it was not polished like the exterior facade. This allows the build- ing design to gracefully flow from exterior environments to interior spaces with a contiguous "feel." The wall base in the atrium is wood, which provides richness of finish and is 100% recyclable. In selected areas of the building, such as servery areas and storage rooms, vinyl composition tile (VCT) was installed because of the durability and heavy traffic. Mannington Impressions VCT was selected because it met the environ- mental goals of the Team. It is the only VCT to feature par- tially recycled content and green manufacturing practices in its production. In these same servery areas and storage rooms where mill- work is installed, the plastic laminate on the counters has partially recycled content. The manufacturer, Wilsonart, is also environmentally responsive in its manufacturing prac- tices. MISCELLANEOUS The ceiling system that was used is an acoustic tile and grid system. The ceiling tile is made from 93%-recycled slag and the grid system from light gauge steel made from 67% recycled material. To accompany this system, indirect ambient lighting was installed to enhance the light levels in the building and use the outside light to the best advantage. Additional lighting will be supplemented in the use of task lighting at the desktop. The overall effect is a more aes- thetic, evenly lit building than the usual 2 x 4 fluorescent lighting to which we have all grown accustomed. The doors throughout the building are American Red Oak. They are a very durable product and are not an endangered wood species. Langdon Wilson Architects were very proactive in selecting a wood that came from a well -managed forest with certifications for its management and replenishing prac- tices. And finally, one of the basic building requirements the gov- ernment specified in its solicitation for offer was that the building include no asbestos -containing materials (ACM). This building complies with that requirement. As you can see there are several "hidden benefits" that have the ability to produce a very professional and elegant building. With a little research and legwork a dramatic dif- ference can be made in the environment without sacrificing the beauty of the space or the cost of the materials. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE BUILDING PRODUCTS This table compares the identified material incorporated in the new EPA Region 7 Building with the EPAs Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG). The different categories are Identified by Normal Text [Bold & Red} CPG Products included in building at given percentages (Bold & Green): and Products containing a recycled content or other environmental benefit but not necessarily meeting the CPG requirements (Blue & Bold). Building Fiberglass The insulation provides Insulation effective resistance to heat transfer between air spaces creating better efficiency and energy conservation Ceiling Acoustic Ceiling Conditioned sound System Tile Acoustic Ceiling N/A Grid System (Donn 15.16") Cement & Coal Fly Ash The use of Coal Concrete Fly Ash and GGBF Ground Granulated Slag improves the Blast Furnace strength and (GGBF) Slag stability of concrete Counters Lavatory Counters Inert, non -toxic chemically non - reactive hypoaller- genic material. Insulated Insulated Windows Energy Savings Windows & Glazings Window Overglazing Energy Savings Floor Carpet Non -latex products, Covering Lotus Carpet goods are 100% Nylon Carpet Face recyclable. Fiber Recycled Source Nylon Carpet Carpet Adhesive - Very low toxic SIB latex resin Adhesive System emulsion Floor Tiles & Patio Blocks: 5th Floor Patio Access to satellite Blocks dish. Only VCT to Terra Traffic feature partial recycled Bathroom content Tile is made Floor & Walls Tile from over 70% post - Ceramic Tile industrial recycled waste glass. Inert, non -toxic, chemically non -reactive Granite Flooring hypoallergenic material Lighting & Energy Efficient Energy Lighting Products Systems Indirect Lighting These lighting products Electronic Ballast are used in 100% of the Watt Stoppers open office and public Motion Detectors areas in the building Core Lighting on providing even light Energy distribution throughout. Management to reduce eye strain of employees and to lower energy consumption Flourescent Task Energy Savings Lighting Task Lighting with Energy Savings Occupancy Sensors Energy Efficient Energy Savings Computers 93% Recycled Slag N/A WA US Gypsum 67 % Light gauge Steel N/A WA US Gypsum 10". Due to variations in coal Fly Ash, GGBF slag. cement. strength Ashgrove Products requirements, costs, and construction practives. EPA is not 20% recommending recovered materials. content levels for cement Ashgrove Products or concrete containing coal fly ash or GGBF slag. EPA is, however. providing information about recovered materials content in the CPG. Granite WA WA Cold Spring Granite 6011 60 50% Nylon N/A WA DuPont 50% Nylon N/A NIA DuPont 10% Water. SB latex N/A N/A Tackafiena resin, Kaolin clay, & processing oil 100% Concrete N/A N/A West Tile 60% Vinyl Composition NIA N/A Terra Green Tile (VCT) 70% Waste Glass N/A N/A 100% Granite N/A N/A Cold Spring Granite Finelight Motorola Thomas Company Thomas Company EPA Supplied EPA Supplied EPA Supplied APPENDIX Paints & Reprocessed No VOC's Coatings Latex Paint: White, Off-white, 30% Latex 20 20 Sherwin Williams Pastel Colors Grey, Brown, Earth- 25% Latex 50-99 50-99 Sherwin Williams tones, and other Dark Colors Consolidated Latex 30% Latex 100 100 Sherwin Willliams Paint Primer Latex Paint Overcoat - 40% Latex N/A N/A Sherwin Williams color Frazee Recycling Recyciling & Specialty Provides recycling EPA Supplied System Waste Receptacles opportunities Shower & Steel Dividers Utilizes recycled 10% Steel 16 20.30 All American Metal Restroom recovered products 30% Plastic 20-100 20-100 Corporation All American Metal Dividers/ Plastic Laminate Corporation Partitions Water Urinals: Water Saving Fixtures Crane Company Conservation Mister Miser Products Toilet Adapters: Sloan Flushometer ADA Retrofit Handle Flushometers Low -Flow Shower Heads: Simmons Low -Flow Shower Heads Walls & Vinyl Wall Covering Manufacturer uses N/A Water base inks N/A N/A Koroseal Doors (Type 2) 100°% clean water based inks Wood Wall Base Reduced PVC's from N/A Wood N/A N/A Woodcraft Company (Lobby Area) substitution of rubber base Vinyl Wall Base Antimicrobial product 40% Vinyl N/A N/A Woodcraft Company (Johnsonite) using an adhesive with no VOC's Plastic Laminate Partial recycled 75% Plastic Veneer NIA N/A LSI Company content, environmentally responsive manufacturer. LSI utilizes recovered and renewable forest products. The materials contain no heavy metals, rain forest timber, or tropical hardwoods. They also contain no ozone depleting substances thereby reducing toxicity releases by 98%. Durable, not endangered wood pieces from a well managed forest. Wood Doors Osh Kosh utilizes 40% Wood N/A N/A Osh Kosh Company (American Red Oak) 40% recovered wood products in their doors. Marc Matthews, Pollution Prevention Coordinator, US EPA Region 7, at (913) 551-7517 if you wish to receive additional copies of this table, to discuss "green" issues, or Please contact talk about the features included in the Environmentally Sensitive Building Products table. I A" TEAM RECOGNITION Leader of the Green Team and Vice President of Construction Management with the Southwest Division of Koll Development Company located in Dallas, Texas. His edu cation is from Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota. He is completing his certification for recognition as a Project Manager Professional. Jerry has a seat on the North Texas Board for the Make -A -Wish Foundation. Jerry extended his supervi- iW sory skills and development experience with The Green Team by organizing regular Team meetings, assisting with research materials, text and graphic preparation, edit- ing and publishing arrangements and kept the Team motivated and on schedule. Jerry contributed the information regarding the building's history, design and LEED goals. Contracting Officer for the Heartland Region 6 of the General Services Administration which managed the build -to -suit construction process of the EPA Regional Headquarters located in Kansas City, Kansas. She holds a MBA from Rockhurst College, an Undergraduate Degree from the University of Missouri with a BS in Space Planning and Interior Design. Other titles earned include Certified Realty Specialist JL Real Property Administrator, Facilities Management Administrator, and Certified MADELYNN GARi Commercial Investment Manager. Madelynn contributed her time and effort with the "Off the Shelf' publication by providing the information on building materials. The Green Team is grateful to Madelynn for sharing her invaluable knowledge with our book. �+ Environmental Engineer with the Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 currently serving as the Coordinator for the Pollution Prevention Program located in the Solid Waste and Pollution Prevention Branch. His undergraduate work was in Environmental Engineering Technology at Kansas State University. He has a Master ' of Business Administration with major area of concentration in Human Resources from the University of Kansas. Marc's expertise provided information for the section on indoor environments and compiled the information for the "Environmentally Sensitive Building Products" table. Marc explores the ways the EPA Regional Headquarters was designed to help maintain a healthy and safe environment inside the building. n1:_ L J Environmental Engineer with the Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 currently positioned with the Air Planning and Development Department. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Kansas State University. Pat provided the materials regarding the exterior environments. The Green Team thanks Pat for shar- ing her knowledge of the steps taken outside of the building to produce an environ- mentally sensitive atmosphere surrounding the project. Recycling Coordinator for the Heartland Region 6 of the General Services Administration. He earned a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration from University of Kansas, has earned his Facilities Management Administration (FMA) designation from the Building Owners and Managers Institute International. He is an active member of the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). Bill dedi- cated time and effort to the section of operations and maintenance of the EPA Regional Headquarters, The Green Team appreciates Bill's contribution of sustainable building techniques in the design, construction and operations area. We thank Bill for taking complex subjects and making them reader friendly. TEAM RECOGNITION t i� DOUG BENTON PEBECCA BISHOP TRACIE FRAZIER MURRAY NEWTON P,NDPE`, LOSSEUS Mechanical Engineer in GSA's Energy Center of Expertise. He earned his Mechanical Engineering degree at the University of Illinois. He is presently enrolled in the Master of Science in Engineering Management Program at the University of Kansas. Other titles include Register Professional Engineer and Certified Energy Manager. Doug's 19 years of experience in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of build- ings, campus utilities, power plants and central plants allowed him to provide us with information on the energy efficiency techniques being used in the EPA Regional Headquarters. Doug is a Certified Energy Manager and his wealth of knowledge on the subject was utilized heavily. Administrative Assistant for the Koll Development Company, Kansas City office. Becky's education is from the Kansas City, Kansas Community College, University of Missouri -Kansas City and Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Becky was the point of contact for the "Off the Shelf' project and provided clerical support for the Green Team. Becky provided the material on the LEED Criteria and coordinated the self -certifications needed for the EPA Regional Headquarters' participation for a Green Building Award. Marketing Coordinator for the Southwest Division of Koll Development Company locat- ed in Dallas, Texas. She is a graduate from the University of Texas at San Antonio with a Bachelors degree in Business Administration, Marketing. Tracie was responsible for the creative aspects of the book including layout, design, desktop publishing, coordi- nation of graphics and editing. Editor of the "Off the Shelf' publication is an Executive Vice President with the Southwest Division of Koll Development Company located in Dallas, Texas. Murray has a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Technology from Texas A&M University and is a Certified Professional Project Manager. Construction Manager for Koll Construction, L.P.'s Kansas City office and a veteran of the real estate and construction industry with 20 years of experience. His education begins with being raised the the construction industry and culminated with a Master's Degree in Finance. Tim has had the hands on responsibility of managing real estate and construction projects as large as 130 million dollars. Tim has been an active mem- ber of the Metro 3 Arthritis Foundation's Board of Directors, the Foundation's execu- tive committee and is the co-chair of the foundation's most successful annual fund raising event. Tim has been involved in the compilation of technical information for the design criteria and the LEED goals. Chemist with the Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 Solid Waste and Pollution Prevention Branch. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. Andrew assisted the Green Team in the final stages of the project. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As we enter the new millennium, it has become increasingly evi- dent that the building practices of the past 100 years must change if we are to assume greater responsibility for the welfare of our planet. If it seems that our global neighborhood is becoming a smaller place every day, then we must realize that our natural resources are dwindling along with it. If we equally share in this planet, then we equally share in this problem. It is all too easy to back away from addressing "green" issues by claiming that solutions are too expensive, too time consuming and too specialized. Regrettably, to specialize is to marginalize. If it is perceived that environmentally responsive building techniques are elitist and expensive, then our cause is lost. The concept of "Off the Shelf' was developed to demonstrate that building responsibly is accessible to all people and to all projects, regardless of size or budget. Our mission was to encourage by example. By carefully researching building products and tech- niques that are readily available to the general public, our project Team was able to create an environmentally responsive building that remained on budget and on schedule. This book is a record of those achievements and a tribute to their dedication. Building responsibly is not an "all or nothing" deal. While we rec- ognize that the most "green" solution is not always achievable, we can each make a series of small commitments in our building proj- ects that can add up to sizeable environmental response. Our hope is that this project record will become a guide to empow- er and encourage every interested party toward building in a man- ner that is earth friendly. The tools and the techniques are avail- able "off the shelf." We challenge you to add the commitment required to build projects that will set a responsive example for the next 100 years. David von Oeyen, Director of Design for Langdon Wilson, has over 20 years of experi- ence designing various comercial, institutional and healthcare facilities. David holds a Master of Architecture degree from the University of Michigan. His key work has been honored with more than 15 design awards and has been published in numerous journals. Steve Arnold, Project Manager, is a talented and experienced Project Manager who has made major contributions to a broad spectrum of projects with emphasis in the areas of Project Management, Design Implementation and Construction Administration. Robert Puleo, Interior Design, has more than fifteen years of pro- fessional experience in architectural planning, interior design and project management. He is thoroughly experienced in overall space renovation and expansion planning, detailed design devel- opment, modular furniture systems analysis and construction administration on large and small projects. Robert holds a Bachelor of Architecture from the University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona. Members of the Green Team would also like to thank the following people who shared their knowledge and dedicated their time in the creation of the EPA Regional Headquarters. KOLi COMPANY Steve Van Amburgh Bob Jimenez Walt Mountford Vince Guzzo, formerly KDC GSA Mike Brinks Dale Mutchler Bernd Ostermann Sam Lombardo Mary Ruwwe Mike Thomas Peggy Cobb Woody Overton F P!• Rob Bukaty Alma Brent Dave Treece Chet McLaughlin Larch Bates Dan Brown Barbara Bodinson Steve Stanberry Bruce Stubbs T.J. Hewitt Gene Ramirez Bond Faulwell Bea Sanders Bucky Green Craig Grable Jim Callier LAS % ,".RC'r{ Paul Thometz, formerly Langdon Wilson Architect MHI Structural Engineers FBA Electrical Engineers T&K Mechanical Engineers Sylvan Lighting David Stoudt Marcy Owens BOAR B_'� a-I'_IT:ES Sal Coco Gary Roethler Patrice Townsend George Powell Mike Turbak CiT', �,,: _ITIV, rS Al Greenwood Ray Bond Lavert Murray Bill Blackwell Bob Evans Mayor Carol Maranovich FAS%'A.%--", 3 %_'�_ON Mark Hillman Donna Buck Ronald J. Claud Bill Harris Viola McCowan Maurice Bartlett Kelly Rotert Chris Lobb Bill McFarland TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC Kent Dvorak RENTOKIL, INC Rosie Sutton Z. -'%� - .'." naft— AMC --Ukmb" EPA REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS Kansas City, Kansas F (Route 11) FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGII" PEAK FLOW DRAINAGE ANALYSIS NARRATIVE AND COMPUTATIONS May 22, 2006 ��+ OKL JDY L NO.032809 PREPARED BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Fax: (540) 722-9528 s-P 8 2CC6 1 1 J HiLac raw, F- omk Flow Drah-taggi Analysis JN 2793 ' 1. Drainage Shed Description a. Pre -Development Analysis b. Post Development Analysis c. Adequate Outfall Analysis d. Conclusions ' 2> 3. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS-2 yr Storm HYDROGRAPHS DRAINAGE ANALYSIS -10 yr Storm HYDROGRAPHS 4, DRAINAGE ANALYSIS -100 yr Storm HYDROGRAPHS 5. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS -2yr Hiatt Run Cross Section Report ' 6. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS -10yr Hiatt Run Cross Section Report 7. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS -100yr Hiatt Run Cross Section Report 8. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS -Study Maps ' 9. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS -Calculations 1 1 1 1 1 I Page 2 Mao Rain Peal, Flow Drainage Analysis JH 2795 Peak Flow Drainage Analysis HIATT RUN Frederick County, Virginia May 22, 2006 1. Drainage Shed Description: For the purpose of this study the Hiatt Run drainage shed was analyzed from a study point located at the intersection of Hiatt Run and Martinsburg Pike — US Route 11. The total drainage area at this point encompasses an area of approximately 4,081 acres or 6.4 square miles. The overall drainage area was divided into seven individual sub - drainage areas and analyzed using the SCS Unit Hydrograph Method. Land use through out most of the drainage shed is primarily agricultural with small pockets of residential development along the major thoroughfares with a few commercial and industrial areas close to the intersection of I-81 and Route 11. Soils are primarily type B soils in the northwestern portion of this drainage shed while soils in the remaining portion of the shed, to the south, are mostly classified as type C soils. There is a long corridor of karst geology running through sub -areas 4 and 7 and reaches from U. S. Route 11, near the I- 81 interchange, northward to a point near Welltown at the intersection of Welltown Road and Hiatt Road. Hiatt Run is nearly nonexistent through this area because of the many sinkhole features and karst conditions found. All calculations for the predevelopment and post development hydrographs have been presented in the sections at the end of this report. This evaluation was completed using the Frederick County 2004 aerial topography with 5 foot contours, the latest USGS quad map and aerial topography completed for Greenway Engineering for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. The Hiatt Run cross section data was compiled using the 2 foot contours on the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park topography. Pre -Development Analysis: ■ For this analysis, drainage areas 1 thru 6 were modeled as a single hydrograph with a weighted CN of 61.5. This model was taken from an earlier analysis of the ' individual areas. In order to account for the karst conditions found in sub -areas 4 and 7, soil classifications were adjusted to type A soils. Travel times were also increased to simulate the existing sinkhole activity within this area. A CN of 69 was used to reflect the ' existing conditions within sub -area 7 (approximate 277 acres). This is the sub -area under review with this evaluation as the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park is located within this sub -area. 1 I Page 3 Peah Flow Dxahiap- Aimlysis Pre -developed Peal-,-_ Flows at Miegd -rdsbipr(R lyil:-e, (Rt I D: o Q? = 205.7 cfs Tp = 13.8 hours ® Qio = 858.7 cfs Tp = 15.2 hours Qioo = 1,886.7 cfs Tp = 14.9 hours Post -Development Analysis: The Rutherford Farm Industrial Park proposes to develop approximately 158 acres of land located within sub -area 7 as shown on the included drainage map. This development presently is zoned as RA (3.64 acres), B2 (28.64 acres), B3 (22.45 acres) and M1 (104.12 acres). The M1 zone has approximately 27 acres located within the FEMA 100 yr flood plain and has been removed from the developable area. The post development analysis has been broken down into 4 study events. Each event takes into account different scenarios regarding the development or buildout of the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. Presently the Emergency Preparedness Response Group (FEMA) is developing a 17 acre parcel within the M1 zone for office space. Also a commercial development is looking into developing all of the B2 and B3 zone as well as portions of the M 1 zone. As a part of this evaluation the preparer was notified of the commercial development evaluating the potential for rezoning a portion of the M1 zone (approx. 9 acres) to a B3 zone. All evaluations in this report that mention development of Rutherford Farm included this 9 acre switch from M1 to B3 to be on the conservative side of the scale. This study calls this evaluation "R-9ac" and has a CN calculation of 86.3. Also to ensure this evaluation is as conservative as possible, we have included an additional evaluation. This last evaluation assumes that all of Rutherford Farm Industrial Park has the potential to be rezoned to all B-2.This study calls this last evaluation "R-B2" and has a CN calculation of 87.9. These different developments are included in the study events. The study events are described and listed below. Study Event Description 1. This event includes the FEMA project in post development and the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park in predevelopment. 2. This event includes the FEMA project in post development and the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park in post development (R-9ac). 3. This event includes FEMA in pre development and the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park in post development (R-9ac). 4. This event includes FEMA in post development and the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park in post development (R-B2). Page 4 kliati Run rrc,1 Flo,,A; l prainage Analysis R f 2.7V Stab area 7 for fodeling poirposts down into three different areas for ease in modeling the different study events listed above. Area A consists of the FEMA site, Area B is the remainder of the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park and Area C is the remainder of Subarea 7 that does not include FEMA or Rutherford Farm. The hydrograph results page has a matrix label. The study area letter and the study event number comprise the label. As an example a B2 label would say the hydrograph is for the remainder of the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park for study event 2. The Results of each Study event are listed below along with the results of pre - development already listed above. ' Storm Event Pre Study I Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Q2 205.7 cfs 206.4 cfs 211.5 cfs 210.8 cfs 211.9 cfs ' Tp 15.8 hours 15.8 hours 15.7 hours 15.7 hours 15.7 hours Qlo 858.7 cfs 859.5 cfs 866.5 cfs 865.5 cfs 867.0 cfs Tp 15.2 hours 15.2 hours 15.1 hours 15.1 hours 15.1 hours ' Qioo 1,886.7 cfs 1887.5 cfs 1895.1 cfs 1893.9 cfs 1895.5 cfs Tp 14.9 hours 14.9 hours 14.9 hours 14.9 hours 14.9 hours ' Adequate Olitfall Analysis: As allowed by Virginia State Code 4VAC 50-30-40 (19.b) adequacy of all channels shall be verified by showing the 2 year storm will not overtop banks nor cause erosion of channel bed or banks (b.2.a) and show the 10 year storm will not overtop its banks (b.2.b.). This study has also evaluated a cross section of Hiatt Run approximately 200 feet below the property line of Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. Although this is not i' where the study point for the drainage shed was evaluated the report is again taking a conservative look at the stream and evaluating the narrowest portion of Hiatt Run downstream of the subject property. A map in the attachments shows the location of the ' cross-section evaluation. A cross section report has been provided for each study event on the 2 year storm and a cross section has been provided for each study event on the 10 and 100 yr storms. Conclusion: It is clear from the general stormwater analysis on the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park that there will be an increase in overall drainage. However when the proposed stormwater is added to the full drainage shed the impacts are minor and meet the adequate outfall evaluation requirements. Between the 2 yr predevelopment flow and the worst case 2 yr post development flow in Study 4 the flow increased by 6.2 cfs. The velocity in the channel went from 4.29 fps to 4.33 fps. This is a minor increase and based on allowable velocities provided by Virginia DPR grass lined channels at slopes of less than I % can maintain stable channels with velocities below 6 fps. The evaluated velocity is well within this range and meets the first criteria for a stable channel for the 2 yr storm. Page 5 r 1 ha i Run No& Flaw Drainage Analysis A I e79 In evalA.1a6--h-Ithe 10 yr storm between the 10 yr flow and he worst case 10 yr post devekoipnaa„p3t flow in Study 4 the flow increased by 8.3 cfs. Evaluation of the ' stream cress sections for the 10 year storm show that the water surface elevation rose 0.02 feet (or a/a") for a post development elevation of 676.56. The stream bard_ is at an ' elevation of 677.73 showing that the 10yr post development storm will maintain flows within the existing stream banks. ' Although not required by the regulations to evaluate, this report has also included an evaluation of the 100 yr storm and subsequent results to the stream cross section. In evaluating the 100 yr storm between the 100 yr predevelopment flow and the worst case ' 100 yr post development flow in Study 4 the flow increased by 8.8 cfs. Evaluation of the stream cross sections for the 100 year storm show that the water surface elevation in pre development is at 678.70 and in Study 4 100 yr post development is still at 678.70. There ' is no appreciable increase in stormwater elevation of the 100yr storm with the addition of the stormwater from Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. Further evaluation shows that this elevation is consistent with the Zone A shown on the FEMA floodplain Map 510063- 0105-5 dated July 17, 1978. A copy of the map is included in this report for reference. As a final evaluation, results of this report show that the addition of the post development r stormwater from full buildout of the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park will not significantly impact the downstream flows within Hiatt Run for the 2yr, 10 yr and 100 yr storm events. 1 � I � I � I � I i I � I 1 n I Page 6 Hyd. real, aowd (Gz) Time Ind Ava0 1n-o -d) T15ae 0 peEJ (6rulh=d) volunIG �CU@ fe) Inflow G�V�Qa) Alaayimum eI vaai®n 04 RAa.;imum � D�°a��� C la9 arc 6°� Iota 9e�G6°li<��Ic�6� SCS Runoff 196.54 6 918 5,290,676 ---- ------ ------ Hiatt Run (Rt11) - DA 1-6 Pre Reach 193.78 6 954 5,290,662 •i ------ ------ Hyatt Run 1-6 at Rt11 Pre 3 SCS Runoff 75.10 6 756 686,213 ---- ------ ------ DA 7 @ Rt 11 -Pre Combine 205.74 6 948 5,976,874 2,3 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - Pre SCS Runoff 39.02 6 756 337,107 _--- ------ ------ STUDY C SCS Runoff 19.00 6 738 95,781 STUDY Al-A2-A4 8 SCS Runoff 34.99 6 756 329,192 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B1 ' Combine 206.38 6 948 6,052,743 2, 6, 7, 8 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 STUDY 1 SCS Runoff 120.30 6 756 885,476 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B2-B3 �1 2 Combine 211.48 6 942 6,609,025 2, 6, 7, 11 Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - STUDY 2 04 SCS Runoff 2.62 6 738 22,742 ---- ------ —::- STUDY A3 5 Combine 210.78 6 942 6,535,987 2, 6, 11, 1 : Hiatt Run @ Rt11 - STUDY 3 7 1 SCS Runoff 129.46 6 756 951,130 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B4 18 Combine 211.89 6 942 6,674,678 2, 6, 7, 17 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt11 - STUDY 4 SATT RUN s''udy.gpw Return Period: 2 Year Thursday, May 18 2006, 1:14 ECM Hydratlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve a. @% v (60gln) P.C-M, ode G (ove) h'a u6of 4°�raC (min) ���&'a�G'�C C c1C (6�1In� �i�V�9Bo7� (��9'u'd) ��a'd@�Ptl9 Co\9�i(f �c�SiEdX�9G`au aD 9F9 3'uICB u ('�d) �E�3llBked961 't,G4:1i('i)C � (CUR) ��fe�6'C4s 4'� 64 n SCS Runoff 842.16 6 882 18,636,130 ---- ---:-- ------ Hiatt Run (Rt11) - DA 1-6 Pre Reach 826.81 6 912 18,636,120 1 Hyatt Run 1-6 at Rt11 Pre 3 SCS Runoff 251.09 6 756 1,931,796 ---- ------ ------ DA 7 @ Rt 11 -Pre ' Combine 858.72 6 912 20,567,910 2,3 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - Pre SCS Runoff 118.87 6 756 900,817 ---_ -- -- ------ STUDY C SCS Runoff 39.76 6 732 199,825 STUDY Al-A2-A4 8 SCS Runoff 122.51 6 756 950,380 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B1 Combine 859.55 6 912 20,687,14 2, 6, 7, 8 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 STUDY 1 SCS Runoff 242.30 6 756 1,788,318 ---- - --- ------ STUDY B2-133 Combine 866.54 6 906 21,525,07 2, 6, 7, 11 Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - STUDY 2 SCS Runoff 14.43 6 738 81,567 ---- ------ ------ STUDY A3 Combine 865.53 6 906 21,406,83 2, 6, 11, 1 Hiatt Run @ Rt11 - STUDY 3 SCS Runoff 252.73 6 750 1,872,605 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B4 18 Combine 866.99 6 906 21,609,36 2, 6, 7, 17 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rti 1 - STUDY 4 9A T RUN s udy.gpw Return Period: 16 Year Thursday, May 16 2006, 1 o a 4 PM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve n_''il1 LI C=vel. �, HiftivoyVaph eft swigin) pealz tlBe CRY � uE� 1Om's @6�n 6'9ciC �6o3I�9y TWUle`u i GclCe QhoaOa-d� We4u6uoG Q6�9'i'n� h'f'ICOW Gad y!i31! ,t�k �V '9� 9 fic Q' Py %qal bnv wo-O eUl¢aC21C (cagy'?u� C;G Cv1ip,d. o) �o SCS Runoff 1866.85 6 870 38,178,34 ---- ------ ------ Hiatt Run (Rtl1) - DA 1-6 Pre Reach 1829.97 6 900 38,178,32 .i Hyatt Run 1-6 at Rtl l Pre 3 SCS Runoff 485.69 6 756 3,601,211 ---- ------ ------ DA 7 @ Rt 11 - Pre ' Combine 1886.76 6 894 41,779,520 2,3 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - Pre SCS Runoff 222.21 6 756 1,639,758 ---- ----:- ------ STUDY C SCS Runoff 63.67 6 732 322,272 STUDY Al-A2-A4 8 SCS Runoff 240.98 6 756 1,791,833 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B1 ' Combine 1887.50 6 894 41,932,17 2, 6, 7, 8 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 STUDY 1 SCS Runoff 380.44 6 750 2,837,248 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B2-B3 Combine 1895.06 6 894 42,977,58 2, 6, 7, 11 Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - STUDY 2 SCS Runoff 32.47 6 738 168,305 ---- ------ ------ STUDY A3 Combine 1893.93 6 894 42,823,63 2, 6, 11, 1 Hiatt Run @ Rtl1 - STUDY 3 SCS Runoff 391.11 6 750 2,933,021 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B4 18 Combine 1895.48 6 894 43,073,360 2, 6, 7, 17 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rtl1 - STUDY 4 1 It, �A ,T RUN study.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Thursday, May 18 2006, 1:15 PM Hydraflow Hydrograhhs by Intelisolve Mimi JI 12-7"9 1 IO.DRAINAGE ANALYSIS-2 yr Storm HYDROGRAPHS (Pre and Post) 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 jw d Tc�)gG'p�� Wc'. H@ydvogv'n[ph gLiG (Origin) pads- u''0i.vv (da) Oh-gl WOi(q v.M (ffutl9n- oWas3o � Clli (fiMn) v(Diume (cu 96i'fiew Guy l� y I(�]Ialdv t uu 3B�CEAki6u6Y 6didaaz@Gd9urul w6'c`"a (CUR) i� o4'Vi i� 6u 1 SCS Runoff 196.54 6 918 5,290,676 ---- ------ ------ Hiatt Run (Rt11) - DA 1-6 Pre 1 Reach 193.78 6 954 5,290,662 1 ------ ------ Hyatt Run 1-6 at Rt11 Pre 3 SCS Runoff 75.10 6 756 686,213 ---- ------ ------ DA 7 @ Rt 11 - Pre ' Combine 205.74 6 948 5,976,874 2,3 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - Pre SCS Runoff 39.02 6 756 337,107 ---- ------ ------ STUDY C SCS Runoff 19.00 6 738 95,781 ---- ------ ------ STUDY Al-A2-A4 8 SCS Runoff 34.99 6 756 329,192 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B1 Combine 206.38 6 948 6,052,743 2, 6, 7, 8 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 STUDY 1 1 SCS Runoff 120.30 6 756 885,476 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B2-B3 Combine 211.48 6 942 6,609,025 2, 6, 7, 11 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - STUDY 2 SCS Runoff 2.62 6 738 22,742 ---- ------ STUDY A3 Combine 210.78 6 942 6,535,987 2, 6, 11, 1 __--_- Hiatt Run @ Rt11 - STUDY 3 SCS Runoff 129.46 6 756 951,130 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B4 Combine 211.89 6 942 6,674,678 2, 6, 7, 17 Hiatt Run @ Rti 1 - STUDY 4 i i 1 i 1 1 1 i TT -UN study.gpw Return Period; 2 Year Thursday, May 180 2006, 1:33 PM Hydratlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Starr u urequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 3303.60 ac Basin Slope = 0.0 % ' Tc method = USER Total precip. = 3.00 in ' Storm duration = 24 hrs 1 Q (cfs) ■, „ ^„ 0 3 5 9 Hyd No. 1 Peak discharge = 196.54 cfs T in-�e interval = 6 rain Curve number = 61.5 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of cone. (u c) = 243.7 min Distribution = Type II Shape factor = 434 Hydrograph Volume = 5,290,676 cuff Hiatt Run (Rt11) - FDA 1-6 Pre Hyd. No. 1 -- 2 Yr 12 15 18 21 24. 27 Q (cfs) 210.00 180.00 150.00 120.00 30.00 0.00 30 Time (hrs) f Hyatt Run `i Rtl `I Pre -6 ct Hydrograph type = Reach Storm frequency = 2 yrs Inflow hyd. No. = I Reach length = 0466.0 ft Manning's n = 0.005 Side slope = 40.0:1 Rating curve x = 0.696 ' Ave. velocity = 0.00 ft/s Modified Aft -Kin routing method used. Q (cfs) ILL ^ ^^ Ii-u_1i5Clc!1, h�k?• i�ti �VCIl�, I:��:i �'"1'dl Peals discharge: Time interval Section type Channel slope Bottom width Max. depth Rating curve m Routing coeff. Hyatt Faun 1-6 at Rt11 Pre Hyd. No. 2 -- 2 Yr 0 3 6 0 12 ' Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 1 = `i 93.78" cfs = 6 n-iin = Trapezoidal = 0.7 % = 8.0 ft = 2.9 ft = 1.187 = 0.2285 Hydrograph Volume = 5,290,662 cuft 15 18 21 24 27 30 Q (cfs) 210.00 180.00 150.00 120.00 30.00 —L 0.00 33 Time (hrs) ■ ■CA7@Rt11-Pre Hydrograph type, _ SCS Raunofit Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 277.07 ac [basin Slope = 0..0 % ' Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 0.00 in ' Storm duration = 24 hrs ■ ■ 0 (cfs) 0 2 4 6 8 ' Hyd No3 ■ Peak discharge = 75.10 cfs Time intervE,4 = 6 rain Curve number = 69 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (T 0) _ 64 rniW Distribution = Type ll Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 686,213 cuff DA 7 C Rt 11 -Pre Hyd. No. 3 -- 2 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24. 0 (cfs) 80.00 1 11 �!'_ 0.00 26 Time (hrs) Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve ' DA7@Rt11-Pre Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 ' Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 TWMa Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 8.71 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 8.71 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 I' Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning s n-value _ 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = ' Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 1 10.85 64.00 m i n Hy�iraiicwu 6ly+i�u�'sez�I�Gs�'a�y ��-�i�=.tli�uh�c- hiflow hyds. — 2, 3 Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - Pre Hyd. No. 4 -- 2 Yr 0 3 6 9 12 Hyd No. 4 Hyd No. 2 15 13 Peak discharge = 205.74 cfs Touuue iMsrva� = 6 rnan 21 Hyd No. 3 Hydrograph Volume = 5,976,574 culit 24 27 30 Q (cfs) 210.00 KIIIIII 120.00 30.00 —L 0.00 33 Time (hrs) FiViil'+�I!uu I-I�ltlivi�f'c!1517� 1:,�- B41iilSGlu----—s--•-=_ 'STUDYC Hydrograph type Storm frequency = SCS Runoff = 2 yrs Drainage area = 118.52 ac Basin Slope Tc method = 0.0 % = TR66 Total precip, = 3.00 in ' Storm duration = 24 hrs Q (cfs) ■ A^ AA 0 2 4 6 E ' Hyd No. 6 ThifrsilEly; 'Jean 6scharg6 = 30,02 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 71.2 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 64 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 464 Hydrograph Volume = 337,107 cult STUDY C Hyd. No. 6 -- 2 Yr 10 12 14. 16 18 20 22 24 Q (cfs) 40.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 26 Time (hrs) I-Iydraflow hiydrographs by Intelisolve Z STUDY C ' NBC&tBan A TotfMa Sheet Flow 'Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 ' Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) 8.71 + 0.00 + 0.00 8.71 'Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 'Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 m 10.85 Total Travel Time, Tc ........00aao. o000 0.00.0.00.0.000000 00....o.o.e o.,,.ao.. a.ao..000.o.a0000. 64.00 min 1 1 1 1 IS'TUDY AI -A2-A4 Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff IStorm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area. = 16.64 ac G�asin Slops = 0.0 % Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 0 (Cfs) 0 2 4. 6 8 ' - - Hyd No. 7 Thw6Ew! wov 13 20.11, PM Peak discharpjse = 19.00 rfs Tirne interval = 6 min Curve number = 34.3 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 39.4 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 95,781 cuff STUDY Al -A2-A4 Hyd. No. 7 -- 2 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 (Cfs) 21.00 15.00 12.00 &MIC 1111M 3.00 L 0.00 26 Time (hrs) Hydraipow i-lvdrograp hs by pnieppsopva � hv` 'J o J J tj . d ' STUDY Al 40,2-A4 ' ie$rIHR#®n A 6 C T© Ms Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.300 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 149.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 1.74 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 25.63 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 25.63 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 507.00 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse slope (%) = 2.00 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.87 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 2.94 + 0.00 + 0.00 0 2.94 'Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 'Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 planning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 10.85 Travel Time, Tc Total ................oaeo.o.aeo 00 o a ......o a 00000. o..00..00000000 oo..oa000 39.40 rain '' - - I-I�YCircdloV'V t-i�/iaPi+��i'c`��+ham i��� Ifi'I�II�liIFr�� STUDDY Bi Flydvograph'iypre, = SCS Runoff Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 142.21 ac il' Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = T P-155 Total precip. = 3.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs a (Cfs) 2 4 6 8 Hyd No. 8 Ti-,ursctati, May 1�; 1:,-*.:-'; Pith Pcsak discharge = 34.99 cis Tin-ua interv,"d = 6 min Curve number = 68 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 64 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 329,192 cuff STUDY BI Hyd. No. 8 -- 2 Yr 10 12 14. 16 18 20 22 24 Q (Cfs) 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 S-1- 0.00 26 Time (hrs) Hydi'E41ovv Hydvographs by hialisolve STUDYBI Desc lk a C TWYMs- Sheet Row Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope = 1.30 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) a 8.71 + Oo00 + 0.00 8.71 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 10.85 Total Travel Time, Tc... ........... .............. ....... __ .............. ...... 64.00 min 1 Hv tic?' low l- v tf cogva rl 'z l -v h itali AV& 1 Kati! Run @ Ri- 11 S- d U fir' I Hydrogreaph type = Combine Inflow hyda. = 2, 6, 7, 8 1 1 I i Q (cfs) ELd„ -- ihuvsOaof, c�ak disdiarge, = 206.350 cfs Time inte v&I = 6 rnh Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 STUDY 1 Hyd. No. 9 -- 2 Yr 0 3 6 9 12 Hyd No. 9 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 8 1 Hydrograph Volume = 6,052,743 cuft 15 18 21 24. 27 30 --= Hyd No, 6 --- Hyd No. 7 Q (cfs) 210.00 180.00 120.00 30.00 HV(waf,IC,Vt' hydo--opaph-i by lniehscolv(� STUDY B2-B3 Hy&ograph type Storm ftequency = SCS Runoff = 2 yrs Drainage area. = 142.21 ac Basin Slope Tc method = 0.0% = TR55 Total precip. = 3.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 0 (Cfs) 0 2 4 6 8 - Hyd No. 11 Peal; discharge = 120.30 d"s Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 86.3 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of cone. (Tc) = 62.2 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volurne = 885,476 cult STUDY B2-193 Hyd. No. 11 -- 2 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 a (Cfs) 140.00 40.00 —1- 0.00 26 Time (hrs) L Hydrafilow Hydrogranhs by Intelisolve STUDY B2-63 1 ®esc A 0 B T Wals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.32 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 6.91 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 6.91 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 'Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.85 ' Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 62.20 min 1 1 1 1 FlckT � IViIPcd�Ii rVH B���JdP��t�YcilyV"B5 43y BY11f�3YIStiIVG' a_� ' Pat I `a STUDY A.=ADY 2 P,- loat'C Run @ Hydrograph tyyps, = ConiNns Storm frequ ncy = 2 yrs hif low hyds. = 2, 6, 7, 11 1 Q (cfs) 'mI ljr:dav, May IU2u6t, -1:mk-,� FIVI Tin-* hv� ervat0 = 6 m n Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - STUDY 2 Hyd. No. 12 -- 2 Yr Hydrograph Volume = 6,609,025 cuff IF40.00 110.00 — 80.00 IV A 50.00 20.00 ' 90.00 ' 60.00 30.00 Q (cfs) 240.00 210.00 180.00 150.00 120.00 30.00 0.00 - - — ------ - 0 00 0 3 6 9 ' -_- Hyd No. 12 — 12 15 18 21 Hyd No. 2 -- Hyd No. 6 Hyd No. 11 24 27 30 - Hyd No. 7 33 Time (hrs) 1 N, c1: ELI d H, c S'TUDY A3 Hydrographtype = SCS Runo-q'f Storm frequency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 16.64 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 3.00 in 1 Storm duration = 24 hrs '1 Q (Cfs) 0 2 4. 6 8 Hyd No. 14 Peak discharge = 2.62 efs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 61 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 39.4 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 22,742 cuft STUDY A3 Hyd. No. 14 -- 2 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 a (Cfs) 3.00 WAIIII RM -1- 0.00 26 Time (hrs) L Hydraflow I-Iydrographs by Inic-lisolye y STUDY A3 ' Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.300 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 149.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 1.74 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 25.63 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 25.63 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 507.00 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse slope (%) = 2.00 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.87 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 2.94 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.94 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 'Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.85 TotalTravel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 39.40 min IFficatt R01 (d) RO I STU DY '3' ' Hyd rograph typs = Corgibh8 Stuvr-ri frequency = 2 yrs In -flow hyds. = 2, 6, 11, 14 a (Cfs) r0.00 '10.00 '80.00 '50.00 '20.00 1 vi 90.00 60.00 30.00 Trlui sciay, 0 , I :_:16 W_ Ivi Perak dschasirgen, = 210.7081 cfs Time iryevved = 6 min Hiatt Run @ Rtl 1 -STUDY 3 Hyd. No. 15 -- 2 Yr Hydrograph Volume = 6,535,987 cuft Q (cf S) 240.00 210.00 180.00 120.00 30.00 nnn I I --d I n nn 0 3 6 9 12 Hyd No. 15 — Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 14 15 18 21 24 27 30 --- Hyd No. 6 Hyd No. 11 33 Time (hrs) 1 P i-I�r_lr�?$ICov f�9ydru;��_+.Cie f:y Irc�fic'Iir 71 ' STUDY B4. Hydrograph type = SCS Run©'�I Storm ft cquency = 2 yrs Drainage area = 142.21 ac Basin dope = 0.0 % tTc method = TR55 Total precip. = 0.00 in ' Storm duration = 24 hrs Q (cfs) ■ A A AA 0 2 4 6 8 ' _.. Hyd No. 17 t E l-luk'eclay, idlal i 18 ' !."106, 1: 8 Fivi Pea[c discivarge = 129.46 cfs Time interval = 6 min Curve number = 87.9 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of cone. (Tc) = 62.2 min Distribution = Type Il Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 951,130 curt STUDY B4 Hyd. No. 17 -- 2 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Q (cfs) 140.00 120.00 100.00 20.00 —'- 0.00 26 Time (hrs) Tr VA's Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve STUDY B4 D es r, A B C T ORMS Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 Shallow Concentrated Row Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.32 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 6.91 + 0.00 + 0.00 a 6091 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 10.85 Tc Total Travel Time, ........................... .............. ........ 62.20 min STUDY Hicaft Run Ftil I - 4 Hydvographtyps Combine S"Orm fraquency 2 yvs Wlow hyds. 2, 6, 7, 17 Q (cf S) '240.00 1210.00 1180.00 ,150.00 ,120.00 90.00 60.00 30.00 TnLIPSCI@,�7'- Peaak dischcarge = 2,a 1.0'19 cfs Time intevved = 6 min Hiatt Run @ Rtl 1 -STUDY 4 Hyd. No. 18 -- 2 Yr Hydrograph Volume = 6,674,678 cuft 0 (Cfs) 240.00 210.00 150.00 120.00 30.00 0.00 1 000 0 3 6 9 12 ' -- Hyd No. 18 — Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 17 15 18 21 Hyd No. 6 24 27 30 33 — Hyd No. 7 Time (hrs) - FfiaiL Rim PcAl- Flo -ITV fwaiflkqe 1-ulalysis A T 121179.� ILIDIIAUHA, GFH, A\A , LYONS, -IRO Siou ii IYDRO(GRA, HIS (Prc, and Post) Page 8 4VOr(agra, rph 6=Iy& Nydvaigvaph eypC_: (ovigin) Peale dw (cis) Tima lSa'aavvEd (Y'vhq Tlraae'aC, (ieak (Yaaln) volusaac (Culk) Inflow voydkop R aArfaurn u ji Hdc`Aka11um (Cu9.k) Hydrograpls dGacHlodcon SCS Runoff 842.16 6 882 18,636,13 ---- -:---- ------ Hiatt Run (Rt11) - DA 1-6 Pre Reach 826.81 6 912 18,636,12 1 Hyatt Run 1-6 at Rt11 Pre 3 SCS Runoff 251.09 6 756 1,931,796 ---- ------ ------ DA 7 @ Rt 11 -Pre ' Combine 858.72 6 912 20,567,910 2,3 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - Pre SCS Runoff 118.87 6 756 900,817 ---- ------ ------ STUDY C SCS Runoff 39.76 6 732 199,825 STUDY Al-A2-A4 8 SCS Runoff 122.51 6 756 950,380 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B1 1 Combine 859.55 6 912 20,687,14 2, 6, 7, 8 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 STUDY 1 SCS Runoff 242.30 6 756 1,788,318 ---- ---_-- ---__- STUDY B2-B3 Combine 866.54 6 906 21,525,07 2, 6, 7, 11 Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - STUDY 2 SCS Runoff 14.43 6 738 81,567 ---- ------ ------ STUDY A3 Combine 865.53 6 906 21,406,83 2, 6, 11, 1 Hiatt Run @ Rt11 - STUDY 3 SCS Runoff 252.73 6 750 1,872,605 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B4 Combine 866.99 6 906 21,609,36 2, 6, 7, 17 Hiatt Run @ Rt11 - STUDY 4 IATT RUN study,gpw I Return Period° 10 Year Thursday, May 18 2006, 1 e34 PM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve r- n �'i•1/l�iC'?Ill.lti I'aV.�lill.�rCl1.+h�• EJy IPillJll.i�+l',1�, ! u Hydrograph type = SCS Runo'f Storm frequency = 10 yrs Drainage; area = 3303.60 ac Fusin Slope Tc method = 0.0 % = USER Total precip. = 4.00 in ' Storm, duration = 24 hrs Q (cfs) IL.— -- v.vV 0 3 6 0 ' _-_ -- Hyd No. 1 Peak discharge = 004216 cfs u ir-ne interval = 6 min Curve number = 61,5 Hydraulic length = 0 -lt Time of conc. (T c) = 2410.7 min Distribution = Type Il Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 18,636,130 cuft Hiatt Run (Rt11) - DA 1-6 Pre Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Yr 12 15 18 21 24 27 Q (cfs) 847.00 726.00 605.00 363.00 242.00 121.00 �—, 0.00 30 Time (hrs) Ip f , vzi Hy�itt Run 1-6 at Ril I Prs Hydrograph type = Reach StOFM freqLMIC)f = 10 YFS Inflow hyd. No. = I Reach length = 3466.0 ft Manning's n = 0.035 Side slope = 40.0:1 Rating curve x Ave. velocity = 0.896 = 0.00 ft/s 1 Modified At, -Kin routing method used, 0 (Cfs) IILA� f%n 0 3 6 ' _,_._._- Hyd No. 2 I 1601'80a., hla.kl 1 -6 :'�UQ 0, 1 }�k, 111-A F-��Ieaddischarge Tinna intsrval Section type Channel slope Bottom width Max. depth Rating curve m Routing coeff. Hyatt Run 1-6 at RtIl 1 Pre Hyd. No. 2 -- 10 Yr 12 Hyd No. 1 626.81 cfs 6 min Trapezoidal 0.7 % 8.0 ft 2.9 ft 1.187 0.2790 Hydrograph Volume = 18,636,120 cuft 15 18 21 24 27 a (Cfs) 847.00 726.00 91-1111AIIIIII 242.00 121.00 0.00 30 Time (hrs) i-I'voradow Hvcirogaphs b'v [DA 7 Rt 11 Pvcem� - Hydrograph type Storm frequency = SCS Runoff = 10 yrs Drainage area = 277X ac Basin Slope Te method = 0.0% = TR55 Total precip. = 4.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs, a (Cfs) an^ ^^ 0 2 4. 6 8 ITIL11 srlsav IVIC'1E1 '16 2UQh; 'I Peak discharge = 251.09 Gfs Time intervai = 6 n1in Curve number = 69 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (Tc) = 64 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 1,931,796 cult DA7 @ Rt 11 -Pre Hyd. No. 3 -- 10 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Q (Cfs) 280.00 EM-1111f 120.00 40.00 —L 0.00 26 Time (hvs) �Il�/ ���i C�� Ilr� Hycdrerlow Hycdrographs by Inielisolve C aid r @9 Rt,'M `1 o FF d' 7 ' 9-e-scd ROMQ atat s Sheet How Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 I' Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 0.00 0.00 Time 8.71 Travel (min) = + 0.00 + 0.00 = 8.71 Channel Flow ' X sectional flow area (sgft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.85 Total Travel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 64.00 min iyi,ci6� lc+ru i 9t+�irucrairi�� b'v hiisfisolvs- RM @ Rtl 11 PrS Hydrograph type _ Coi-ri gins Sion-n frequency s 10 Jrs Inflow hydra 2, 3 0 (cfs) ■— -- 0 3 6 ' Hyd No. 4 — Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - Pre Hyd. No. 4 -- 10 Yr 9 12 15 - Hyd No. 2 - hU1'3rlaVf, I� &I i -1 a 200«, 'I 1''M Peak dischati-g- Thrds i� d•�emd ® 6 wain Hydrograph Volume = 20,567,910 can Q (cfs) 861.00 738.00 615.00 492.00 369.00 246.00 123.00 W -- —� -- — 0.00 18 21 24 27 30 Time (firs) Hyd No. 3 ' H�rw:dr�i�w d-i!'Carebc�rad�{'� E.;�drrteli��i'r�: STUDY Hydvogvcqph,iype Storm frequency = SCS Palunoff- = 10 yrs Drainage area = 1100.52 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 4.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs a (Cfs) a---- 0 2 4 6 8 Hyd No. 6 Tinirsdav, lv&�iv 10 2066, POi Peak discharge: = 11013.37cfs Time- internal = 6 min Curve number = 71.2 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 64 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 900,817 cuff STUDY C Hyd. No. 6 -- 10 Yr 10 12 14 16 Is 20 22 24. a (Cfs) 120.00 20.00 —1- 0.00 26 Time (hrs) F9yolraflow Hydrogranhs by Infelisolve C-f pc"]. Cr ' STUDY C Sheet Flow, 'Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 ' Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 0.00 0.00 8.71 0.00 Travel Time (min) = + 0.00 = 8.71 'Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.85 Total Travel Time, Tc 64.00 .........00.o......000..aa..e.00a........o..o.oao.a.o..........o.ea........... min hyciiailow hyiiiogiaphs by iihhsovj& STUDY AJ -A2-A4 Hydrogrraph type = SCS Runoff Stordu frequawlcyl = 10 vrs Drainage area = 16.34 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 4.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs a (Cfs) STUDY Al -A2-A4 Hyd. No. 7 -- 10 Yr I -luv8day. Wfav �4006, Pivi Peak discharge = 39.76 cfs Tin -le in"k-awal = 6 min Curve number = 034.3 Hydraulic length = 0 it Time of conc. (Tc) = 39.4 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 199,825 cuff +U.UU 30.00 20.00 10.00 - a (Cfs) 40.00 30.00 20.00 0.00 - n nn 0 2 4 6 8 Hyd No. 7 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hydraflow Hydrographs by inieiisolve 'HyL-,�. T I STUDY Al =A2-A4 ' DOSOV!, flay A 6 TotMe 8haet flow n-value = 0.300 0.011 0.011 'Manning's Flow length (ft) = 149.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 ' Land slope (%) = 1.74 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 25.63 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 25.63 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 507.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 2.00 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.87 0.00 0.00 ' 2.94 0.00 Travel Time (min) = + + 0.00 = Channel Flow ' X sectional flow area (sgft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 'Channel Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = ' Total Travel Time, Tc .....00...........e.o.000000000,..00e..o..o...000000.o.o.o...e.0000...o..oe.e 1 1 2.94 10.85 IRK h r0l(" lt HvClu:id'-'vv li-VC60ijell Al, by STUDY BI Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Storm frequancy = 10 yrs Drainage area = 142.21 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Te method = TR55 Total precip. = 4.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 'OCfS ) =1 A^ n^ 0 2 4 6 8 Hyd No. 8 Peak discharge, = 122.51 d's Time inievva.l = 6 nAn Curve number = 68 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 64 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Flydrograph Volume = 950,380 cuft STUDY 191 Hyd. No. 8 -- 10 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24. 0 (Cfs) 14-0.00 llllir$ I E 20.00 —L 0.00 26 Time (hrs) CAN ' Hydrafilow Flydroyraphs by Intelisolve n_n 9 ' STUDY B1 ' Descriitoon I 181811 Totals Sheet Flow n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 'Manning's Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 ' Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 8.71 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 8.71 Channel Flow ' X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 'Channel Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.85 ' Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 64.00 min ' i-it/dY'clGNd d-�Vi�i'U�VYc+pru3 !7V ii���=UsGfi�. -s �Iabk- Rlun COP Rt I I STUDY I Hydrographtype = Combhe Storm irequency = 10 p's Inflow hydro = 2, 69 7, 8 Q (Cfs) 161.00 138.00 t15.00 1492.00 369.00 246.00 I'123.00 h ILII,8L1�, " 1 1, 16 --,Uuk:., 1:v4 i--iql Pscak discharge = 0859-55 of's Time hitervad = 6 min Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 STUDY 1 Hyd. No. 9 -- 10 Yr Hydrograph Volume = 20,687,140 cuff 0 (Cfs) 861.00 738.00 615.00 492.00 369.00 246.00 123.00 nnn — I I - 0.00 0 3 6 9 12 Hyd No. 9 — Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 8 15 18 — Hyd No. 6 21 24 27 ---- Hyd No. 7 30 Tirne (firs) I STUDY B2-83=1 Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Storm frequency = 10 yrs Drainage arset = 142.21 a c Basin Slope = 0.U) % Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 4.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 'Qcfs ) F80.00 F40.00 t00.00 1160.00 120.00 80.00 40.00 STUDY 1132-1133 Hyd. No. 11 -- 10 Yr Peak discharge = 242M cfs Tin-ie- interval = 6 min CUrV8, number = 86.3 Hydraulic iength = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 62.2 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 1,788,318 tuft a (Cfs) 280.00 240.00 200.00 160.00 120.00 0.00 -- - - - n nn 0 2 4. 6 8 ' Y Hyd No. 11 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hydia low Hydvographs by In'talisolva C . LI'll L10 u I STUDY UDY B2-83 ®eacrIOM A B Ti aWa Sheet Flow n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 'Manning's Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 ' Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.32 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 6�91 + 0.00 + 0.00 6- 991 ChavmM Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 0.73 0.00 0.00 'Channel Manning's n-value = 0.035 0,015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) 10.65 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.65 Total Travel Time, Tc.,........o.a.ao...o...........- ............................................ 62.20 rain Yhul ;�,Ja f, 6v6ap 10' 2U06, 6:W4 1`6vl Pasik, discharge = 066.64 cfs Tione inteiva9 = 6 111wn lnfbw hyds. = 2, 6, 7, 91 Q cfS �68.00 144.00 120.00 - 196.00 372.00 248.00 24.00 Hiatt Run @ Fit 11 - STUDY 2 Hyd. No. 12 -- 10 Yr Hydrograph Volume = 21,525,070 cuff Q (cfs) 868.00 744.00 620.00 372.00 248.00 124.00 ' 0.00 - --- 0 00 0 3 6 9 12 ' - - Hyd No. 12 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 11 15 18 — Hyd No. 6 21 24 27 y- Hyd No. 7 30 Time (hrs) I S T U M A 23 Hydrograph typs = SOS Runoff Storm frequency = 10 yrs Drainage area = 16.64 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Te method = TR55 Total precip. = 4.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs Q (Cfs) 0 2 4. 6 8 -- - Hyd No. 141. Peak 6schairgc--, = 14.43 cfs Tin�il8 intarval = 6 min Curve number = 61 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Ti c) = 39.4. min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 81,567 cuff STUDY A3 Hyd. No. 14 -- 10 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Q (Cfs) 15.00 12.00 3.00 L 0.00 26 Time (hrs) Hydra`iiow Hydrographs by hn clisolve ' STUDS` A3 ' ®esc A B C Totals Sheet Flow n-value = 0.300 0.011 0.011 'Manning's Flow length (ft) = 149.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 ' Land slope (%) = 1.74 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 25.63 + Oo00 + 0.00 25063 ' Shallow Concentrated; 1 ntu Flow length (ft) = 507.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 2.00 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.87 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 2.94 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2094. Channel Flow I' X sectional flow area (sgft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 'Channel Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.85 tTotal Travel Time, Tc .......o0000......o...00..........__ .......... ..........o...o.00......... 39.40 min Hyd o sir-Ah Plot '' I-dytdr t'i'i�wd I dytrrv�iVahlr� I�i! dirt�,lr>oi+rc� `_�—� Hiatt Run @ RO `a Hydrogrraph gyps = Combine storrun freque cy = 10 yrs Inflow hyds. = 2, 6, 11, 14 i Q (cfs) 168.00 144.00 LO.00 t96.00 372.00 248.00 1 '124.00 Peak, discharge = 065.53 cfs Hiatt Run @ Rt11 - STUDY 3 Hyd. No. 15 -- 10 Yr Hydrograph Volume = 21,406,830 cuff Q (cfs) 868.00 744.00 620.00 372.00 F-ff10I01 124.00 ' 0.00 -- _ - _ _.____...__. 0 00 0 3 6 9 12 Hyd No. 15 Hyd No. 2 - Hyd No. 14 15 18 —= Hyd No. 6 21 24 27 --- Hyd No. 11 30 Tim (hrs) 1 C=C�LCo C S, T U D Y 6, 4 Hydrograph type = SCS Runoj-nV- Storrn vrequency = 10 yrs Drainage area = 14221 ac Basin Y Slope = 0.0 % d c method = TR55 Total precip, = 4.90 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 1 STUDY B4 Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 17 -- 10 Yr 0 2 4. 6 8 ' Hyd No. 17 I , discharge = 262.73 cfs Time Werval = 6 min Curve number = 87.9 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of cone. (Tc) = 62.2 rein Distribution = Type II Shape factor = 484 10 12 14 16 18 Hydrograph Volume = 1,872,605 cult Q (cfs) 280.00 240.00 IKIIII11 160.00 120.00 -- 1 0.00 20 22 24 26 Time (hrs) Hydrallow-Hydiographs by Inialis,lva yd. No. 1 ' STUDY S4 ' Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 'Manning's Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 ' Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 'Watercourse Surface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.32 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 6.91 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 6.91 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 'Channel Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 tFlow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = tTotal Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 1 1 1 1 1 10.85 62.20 m i n I i A, "k P-Wn (60 Rrh STULYbl- 4. Hydrographiype = Conibine 8-bri-rifrequency = 10yrs Inflow hyds. = 2,6,7,17 Q (cfs) 168.00 t44.00 t20.00 t96.00 372.00 248.00 1124,00 Peak, discharp- = 6066-99 dus- Th-ne interval = 6 rn n Hiatt Run @ Rtl 1 - STUDY 4 Hyd. No. 18 -- 10 Yr Hydrograph Volume = 21,609,360 cuii a (cfs) 868.00 744.00 620.00 372.00 248.00 124.00 0.00 I - MMM� MMW_ — - 0 00 0 3 6 9 12 --- Hyd No. 18 — Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 17 15 18 — Hyd No. 6 21 24 27 - Hyd No. 7 30 Time (hrs) I 1 t'llait Pami Peak Flow Drainage Analysis I.➢11 2793 1 1 0 _,1i ti�G Z _/z1AAL YSRS -100 y-L Starrrrz i HYDR0G \ THER ' (Pre, a i Posey 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 9 ftl�lj 6_1 w 9TA V�Dg VE I Ol yhv T il V C") k SCS Runoff 1866.85 6 870 38,178,340 ---- ------ ------ Hiatt Run (Rtl 1) - DA 1-6 Pre Reach 1829.97 6 900 38,178,320 1 ------ ------ Hyatt Run 1-6 at Rtl 1 Pre 3 SCS Runoff 485.69 6 756 3,601,211 ---- ------ ------ DA7@ Rt 11 -Pre ICombine 1886.76 6 894 41,779,520 2,3 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - Pre 6 SCS Runoff 222.21 6 756 1,639,758 ---- ------ ------ STUDY C ISCS Runoff 63.67 6 732 322,272 ---- ------ ------ STUDY A 1 -A2-A4 8 SCS Runoff 240.98 6 756 1,791,833 ---- ------ ------ STUDY Bl ICombine 1887.50 6 894 41,932,170 2, 6, 7, 8 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 STUDY 1 11 SCS Runoff 380.44 6 750 2,837,248 ---- ------ ------ STUDY B2-B3 FCombine 1895.06 6 894 42,977,580 2,6,7, 11 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - STUDY 2 14 SCS Runoff 32.47 6 738 168,305 ---- ------ ------ STUDY A3 5 Combine 1893.93 6 894 42,823,630 2,6,11,14 ------ ------ Hiatt Run @ Rtl 1 - STUDY 3 7 SCS Runoff 391.11 6 750 2,933,021 ---- ------ STUDY B4 8 Combine 1895.48 6 894 43,073,360 2,6,7,17 _----- ----- ------ Hiatt Run @ Rtl I -STUDY 4 HIATT RUN study.gpvv Return Period: 100 Year Thursday, May 18 2006,1:34 PM w Hydratlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve -� 7 Hyciloyi'6gA18 4.Y h',i�-IV-l:>= Hiatt RL M (R a I) - DA�, 1-6 N's Hydrograph type = SCS R unooI 'Storm ��'requency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 3803 0 ac Basin dope = 0.0 % To method = USER Total precip. = 7.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs ' Q cfs 0 3 6 9 ' Hyd No, 1 Peak- discharge = I OR' 66335 of Tirnc, intevval = 6 min Curve number = 61.5 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of cone. (To) = 248.7 miry Distribution = Type Il Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 38,178,340 cuff Hiatt Run (Rt11) - DA 1-6 Pre Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Yr 12 15 18 21 24 27 Q (cfs) 1869.00 1602.00 1335.00 1068.00 801.00 534.00 267.00 0.00 30 Time (hrs) I_ 1 I% {I _l ik i. c ti t 1 NS" Hydrograph type = Reach Storm b,'reguency = 10LD) yrs Inflow hyd, No. = 1 Reach length = 3466.0 it 'planning's n = 0.035 Side slope = 40,0:1 Rating curve x = 0.896 ' Ave. velocity = 0.00 ft/s t Modified Alt -Kin routing method used. Q cfs 0 3 6 ' Hyd No. 2 — ri I Peak discharge Time interval Section type Channel slope Bottom width Max. depth Rating curve m Routing coeff. Hyatt Run 1-6 at Rt11 Pre Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Yr 12 Hyd No. 1 = 182°,97 cfs = 8 min = Trapezoidal = 0.7 % = 8.0 ft = 2.9 ft = 1.187 = 0.3105 Hydrograph Volume = 38,178,320 cuft 15 18 21 24 27 Q (cfs) 1869.00 1602.00 1335.00 1068.00 801.00 534.00 267.00 0.00 30 Time (hrs) U r A d Pat II e Pre Hydvogrciph type, = SCS 'runoff Storm frequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 277,37 ac Basin Slope = 0.0 % r c method = d R55 Total precip. = 7.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 1 1 ' Q (cfs) ® 2 4 6 8 ' — Hyd No. 3 Peak discharpis, = 4085,60 cfs u img, inWve , l = 6 min Curve number = 09 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of cone, (Tc) = 04 min Distribution = Type II Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 3,601,211 cult ®A 7 C Rt 11 -Pre Hyd. No. 3 -- 100 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Q (cfs) 490.00 350.00 280.00 210.00 140.00 70.00 0.00 26 Time (&ors) --- - _- I-lydsaloUd 6-iViiw'ugraph5 by IFRelisOive ' DA, 7 Cy �escri�ti®i u=. B C Totals Sheet How n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 'Manning's Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 ' band slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 T ravel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated] Now Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) 811 + 0.00 0.00 m 8.71 Flow 'Channel X sectional flow area (sgft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 slope (%) = 0.73 0.00 0.00 'Channel Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) m 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 10.85 ' Total Travel Time, Tc...................-......,...................................,............. 64.00 min C=8ydrogrs).ph gyps = Combins brrn requ8ncy = 100 yrrs WOow hds. = 2, 3 1 ' Q (cfs) 0 3 6 '---u-'--- Hyd No. 4 — BYYI,if •�:dc?1; IvicAi+ Iv sJY.Yv, I: i 4''L; The interval = 6 man Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 - Pre Hyd. No. 4 -- 100 Yr 9 12 15 18 - Hyd No. 2 --- Hyd No. 3 Hydrograph Volume = 41,779,520 cuff 21 24 27 Q (cfs) 1890.00 1620.00 1350.00 1080.00 810.00 540.00 270.00 - 0.00 30 Time (hrs) STUDY G Hydrograph type = SCS Run6l"l' &Ovn-1 frequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 118.52 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 7.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 0 (Cfs) 0 2 4 6 8 -- Hyd No. 6 Peak discharge = 222.21 cfs Tin-ua interval = 6 n-in Curve number = 71.2 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 64 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 1,639,758 cuft STUDY C Hyd. No. 6 -- 100 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 a (Cfs) 240.00 210.00 180.00 150.00 120.00 30-00 -1- 0.00 26 Time (hrs) T VRI - - s - 6-BVCIPeitlirvv I-lydrayraphs by Ineiisolve 1 _I -u%'' ' STUDY ' i�a8-�F�EPD100n� ^� o Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 ' Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 `gavel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 m 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 ' Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 8.71 + 0.00 + 0.00 8.71 Flow 'Channel X sectional flow area (sgft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 ' Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (men) 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 m 10.85 ' Total Travel Time, Tc000a000............ a.o,.o.a.o.o.000000...00®.o..........e_oao .................0 64.00 min 8 T U D Y AI - A 2 - IL", Hydrogvaph'iype = SCS Flunoff Storm frequency = 100 y rs Drainage area = 16.64 ac Basin Slope = 0.0% Tc method = TR55 Total precip. = 7.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs ■ 10 (Cts) 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 n nr 0 2 4 6 8 Hyd No. 7 PeaCz discharge = 63.67 d"s Time interval = 6 rnin Cuvve number = 004.3 Hydraulic length = 0 ti Time of conc. (Tc) = 39A min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 322,272 cult STUDY Al -A2-A4 Hyd. No. 7 -- 100 Yr 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 (Cfs) 70.00 n-11MI 50-00 40.00 30.00 ITPOW 10.00 0.00 26 Tiros (hrs) - - --- - _ m FaydY'E+ louv C-lyidvogi'aph3 by lni6fisdve - so ' STUDS" Al -A2-A4 i Description A B 70tMa Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.300 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 149.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 1.74 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 25.63 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 25.63 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 507.00 0.00 0.00 ' Watercourse slope (%) Surface description = 2.00 = Paved 0.00 Paved 0.00 Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.87 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 2.94 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 2.94 Channel Flow X flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 sectional Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 ' Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 ' Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.85 TotalTravel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 39.40 min I'' Ci,illiG'.i1LeUp Y6V'-1iU:'a4J10 EJ.i `1!'.—,�{:t�'E.'l. C—�\y"'Jo STUDY BI Hydrogra-ph 'We, = SCS Runoff Sjorrf, -wcequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 142.21 ac Basin dope = 0.0 % m c method = T R55 Total precip. = 7.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs ■ ■ 1 cfs ' 280.00 ' 240.00 1200.00 160.00 ■ 120.00 ■ 80.00 ■ ' 40.00 A.®� 0 2 4 6 ' - Hyd No. 8 ■ 8aG, discharge = 240.98 rfs Time interval = 6 min Curve nudrrber = 68 Hydraulic length = 0 R Time of cone. (TO = 64 rain Distribution = Type Il Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 1,791,833 cuii STUDY BI Hyd. No. 8 -- 100 Yr 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 240.00 200.00 160.00 120.00 M El # 0.00 ?-b Time (&ors) Hyd afow I-lydr09MPI-18 by Uiii.liso 6- S9U®YBI Description A B C o Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 ' Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 ' Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 1.84 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 8.71 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 8.71 ' Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 ' Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 ' Travel Time min = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.85 ' Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 64.00 min 1 1 ' Hie, d RaL n @ PL i `d 1-; T 0 9LOY I Hydrograph type = Combine 'Sionru frequency = 100 yrs Inflow hycls. = 2, 6, ®, 8 ' Q (cfS) 190.00 t20.00 LO-00 t80.00 810.00 540.00 270.00 ' 0.00 0 3 6 ' ---- Hyd No. 9 tl i iul 9c{i; , ividq, i v2606, 1 : 7°i Pivi Pask disdiar fie = 1'067.50 cfs Time interval = 6 min Hydrograph Volume = 41,932,170 cuf4 Hiatt Run @ Rt 11 STUDY 1 Hyd. No. 9 -- 100 Yr 9 12 15 18 21 24. 27 Hyd No. 2 — Hyd No. 6 -- Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 8 Q (cfs) 1890.00 1620.00 1350.00 1080.00 810.00 270.00 0.00 30 Time (hrs) "Cf --- ' —J.fla4'Idl, ;jli9'Rili+4YIc!iil� i.•iYlt;ll`?CIt� STUDY B2-821'1 Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Storrn frequency = 100 yrs Drainage airea = 142.21 ac 8asin Slope = 0.0% Te method = TR55 Total precip. = 7.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs 0 (Cf S) t20.00 '360.00 '300.00 1240.00 1 180.00 120.00 60.00 STUDY B2-133 Hyd. No. 11 -- 100 Yr Peak 6scharge = 380.44 ofs Tim8 Mterval = 6 min Curve nurnber = 86.3 Hydraulic length = 0 ft Time of conc. (Tc) = 62.2 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 2,837,24.8 cult 0 (Cfs) 420.00 360.00 300.00 240.00 180.00 F-TIM nnn I I I ----1- 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 -- Hyd No. 11 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24. 26 Time (hrs) ' 8-i�rci�ai�,w d-iy8oy��r8� Vyr Ioclis�IvU - Hybl, STUDY B2-B3 Deacdop&100 1a 0 Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.01 -1 Flow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 and slope N = 0.30 UO 0.00 Travel Time (niln) = 4.4.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 44.47 Shallow Concentrated ftwr Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope description = 1.30 = Paved 0.00 Paved 0.00 Paved Surface Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.32 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) m6.91 5. 0.00 + 0.00 = 6.91 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope N = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) 10.85 + 0.00 + 0000 m 10.85 Total Travel Time, Tc ....... ....... ...... __ ................................. 62.20 min @ Rt `i `i - S H N A ID `U' 2 Stc ny, raquenc y = 100 yrs 9n low hyd-s. = 2, 6, 7, 11 1 ' Q (cfs) ,897.00 1626.00 1355.00 1084.00 813.00 542.00 271.00 O.OG 0 3 6 _�_--- Hyd No. 12 Time interval = 6 min i lydrograph VOIUM8 = 42,977,580 cuff Hiatt Run @ Fit 11 m STUDY 2 Hyd. No. 12 -- 100 Yr 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 Hyd No. 2 - -- Hyd No. 6 ---"— Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 11 1626.00 1355.00 1084.00 813.00 542.00 271.00 0.00 W Time (hrs) I��gaYc+t@e:rtv 6-i�iuuia+�gYctl.r6a �=ry iuuli : E, r. r, L-6 AS STUDY 1=lydrogr9ph type = S(F--,S Runc),i Storm irequency = 100 yrs Drainage area = 16.64 ac Basil{tl Slope = 0,0 % Tc method = d R55 Total precip. = 7.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs ' Q cfs O p 2 4 6 Hyd No. 14 Peals dischargs t,1,1,7 o' d iiuue interval 0 0 mm Curve number = 01 Hydra, LA is length = 0 it Time of conc. (TO = 39.4 min Distribution = Type 11 Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 168,305 cult STUDY A3 Hyd. No. 14 -- 100 Yr 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Q (cfs) 35.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 i 11 ----'- 0.00 26 Time (hrs) Tcr; Worksheei ' a_ Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intellsolve DOSCODUan A", o a -C Totals Sheet How Manning's n-value Flow length (ft) = 0.300 = 149.0 0.011 0.0 0.011 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope N = 1.74 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) 25.63 + 0.00 + 0.00 25.63 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 507.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope Surface description = 2.00 = Paved 0.00 Paved 0.00 Paved Average velocity (ft/s) = 2.87 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) 0 2.94. 4- 0.00 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sqft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = U35 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 10.85 Total Travel Time, Tc ___ .......... ........ ae0000e000a............ ........ - .............. 39e40 min 1 S-�cgm regLAency = 100 yrs Inflow hyds. = 2, 6, 1 `i , 14 Q (cfs) �97.00 F26.00 1355.00 1084.00 813.00 542.00 271.00 E- Psrak di3,charge = `a N0J3.93 Of Time interval = 6 rain Hiatt Run @ Rt11 ® STUDY 3 Hyd. No. 15 -- 100 Yr Hydrograph Volume = 42,823,630 cuii a (cfs) 1897.00 1355.00 1084.00 813.00 542.00 271.00 0.00 ..,.._ _ --. _ _ _w--- 0.00 ' 0 3 6 9 Hyd No. 15 12 Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 14 15 18 —= Hyd No. 6 21 24• 27 --- Hyd No. 11 30 Time (hrs) ° _ V-Ig id :il?Jd d der6YN�e�tal;Piid I.yIie�lr,eolr� STUDY B4 Hydrograph type = SCS R,unioff frequency = 100 yrs 'Storm Drainage area = 142.21 ac Basin Slope = 0.0 % method = TR55 'Tc Total precip. = 7.00 in Storm duration = 24 hrs ■ 10 (cfs) �420.00 360.00 ' 300.00 1240.00 1180.00 120.00 60.00 STUDY B4 Hyd. No. 17 -- 100 Yr dfRIV J�.9cdt, Ii��`e; �lu G�.EI�C•, !. ,'-bi+ Peak discharge = 3 1.11 rfs T roue interval = 6 nii n Curve number = 17.0 Hydraulic length = Oft Time of conc. (TO = 62.2 mien Distribution = Type II Shape factor = 484 Hydrograph Volume = 2,933,021 cuff 0 (cfs) 420.00 360.00 300.00 240.00 180.00 120.00 NOW 0.00 - - 0.00 ' 0 2 4 6 8 Hyd No. 17 1 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time (firs) Hydva`ilow Hydvogiaphs by iniefisoiva I' 1 STUDY UDY S4 esc A B C `totals ' Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 tFlow length (ft) = 154.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 0.30 0.00 0.00 II' Travel Time min = 44.47 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 44.47 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 961.00 0.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 1.30 0.00 0.00 tSurface description = Paved Paved Paved Average velocity (fVs) = 2.32 0.00 0.00 ' Travel Time (min) = 6.91 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 6.91 Channel Flow ' X sectional flow area (sgft) = 357.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter (ft) = 239.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.78 0.00 0.00 ' Manning's n-value = 0.035 0.015 0.015 Velocity (fVs) = 4.92 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) = 3202.0 0.0 0.0 ' Travel Time (min) = 10.85 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.85 ' Total Travel Time, Tc.............................................................................. 62.20 min 1 I' lci Hiatt Run @ Rtl I STUDY 4 Hydrograph type = Combine Storm frequency = 100 yrs Mflow hyds. = 2, 6, 7, 17 Q (Cfs) Thw8day, Peak dscharge = 10695.4080 cuss The intewd = 6 mh Hiatt Run @ Rtl I -STUDY 4 Ilyd. No. 18 -- 100 Yr Hydrograph Volume = 4.3,073,360 cuh �97.00 �26.00 155.00 184.00 113.00 L , 54-2.00 271.00 a (Cfs) 1897.00 1355.00 IMMOM Fla"I 0.00 000 0 3 6 9 — Hyd No. 16 — 12 Hyd No. 2 N*d No. 17 15 is — Hyd No. 6 21 24 27 — Hyd No. 7 30 Tinne (hrs) Miaa Ran, Pad. Flow Deaiiaige P4talysis Ff 12793 1 BID WA\Ef (G-FI -2yFc Matt P-tibiu (Cu°oss Section Report 1 1 1 1 7 I� Hiatt Run e 2 Yr Pre for irregula6° Oh ae nel Project Descripi:ion Project File ,c:\jobfiles\2795c\engineering\computations\swm\drainage.fm2 Worksheet Hiatt Run Channel Eval - 2yr Pre Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation Input Data Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Elevation range: 671.84 It to 679.48 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station 0.00 679.48 0.00 10.00 679.28 100.00 20.00 679.09 -116.49 30.00 678.89 40.00 678.70 50.00 678.50 60.00 678.31 70.00 678.11 80.00 677.36 90.00 675.84 100.00 674.04 110.00 672.20 111.11 672.00 113.70 671.84 116.49 672.00 120.00 673.00 130.00 674.80 140.00 676.03 150.00 677.26 153.42 677.68 160.00 677.73 170.00 677.82 180.00 677.90 190.00 677.98 200.00 678.13 Discharge 205.74 cfs Results Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.040 Water Surface Elevation 674.62 ft Flow Area 47.99 ftz Wetted Perimeter 32.76 ft Top Width 32.22 ft Height 2.78 ft Critical Depth 674.10 ft Critical Slope 0.024889 ft/ft End Station 100.00 116.49 200.00 Roughness 0.030 0.050 0.030 05/18/06 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 '03:21:45 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 or 2 Hiati- F'Wil - 2 Yr Pre Worksheet ior IrregLI181'Channel Velocity 4.29 R/S Velocity Head 0.29 ft Specific Enavgy 674.91 ft Froude Numt)er 0.62 Flow is subuitical. 0,5,18,06 03:21:45 PM Academic Edition FlowMastev v5.17 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Race Run - STUDY IhiNY 1 - "71yr Workshee-: for Irr(=�plar Channe Project description Project File ,c:\jobfiles\2795c\engineering\computations\swm\di-ainage.fm2 Workshest Hiatt Run Channel Eval - STUDY 1 2yr ' Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation Input Data Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Elevation range: 671.84 ft to 679.48 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station 0.00 679.48 0.00 10.00 679.28 100.00 20.00 679.09 116.49 30.00 678.89 40.00 678.70 50.00 678.50 60.00 678.31 70.00 678.11 80.00 677.36 90.00 675.84 100.00 674.04 110.00 672.20 111.11 672.00 113.70 671.84 116.49 672.00 120.00 673.00 130.00 674.80 140.00 676.03 150.00 677.26 153.42 677.68 160.00 677.73 170.00 677.82 180.00 677.90 190.00 677.98 200.00 678.13 Discharge _ 206.38 cfs Results ' Wtd. Mannings Coefficient Water Surface Elevation Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Height ' Critical Depth Critical Slope 0.040 674.62 ft 48.10 ftz 32.79 ft 32.26 ft 2.78 ft 674.10 ft 0.024853 ft/ft End Station 100.00 116.49 200.00 Roughness 0.030 0.050 0.030 05/18/06 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 '03:19:17 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 2 I i 9 it r- I I - E T @ J DO Y 1 - 2- y v tov lrr,,gflar Channe� VG-106i' .V Velocity Head 0.29 It Specific Energy 674.9-i .11 Froude Number 0.62 Flow is sulacrifical. 1 05/18/06 13:19:17 PM Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Hiatt Run - STI_KO Y` 2, a 2-vr W0Vk18li 8E-i Ibe° 1rd`ea U161- ChEffli-101 Project Description - -- - ' Project File at:\jobfiles\2795c\engineering\computations\swm\draine.ge.frn2 Woricsheet Hiatt Run Channel Eval - STUDY 2 - 2yr ' Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation Input Data Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Elevation range: 671.84 ft to 679.48 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station 0.00 679.48 0.00 10.00 679.28 100.00 20.00 679.09 116.49 30.00 678.89 40.00 678.70 50.00 678.50 60.00 678.31 70.00 678.11 80.00 677.36 90.00 675.84 100.00 674.04 110.00 672.20 111.11 672.00 113.70 671.84 116.49 672.00 120.00 673.00 130.00 674.80 140.00 676.03 150.00 677.26 153.42 677.68 160.00 677.73 170.00 677.82 180.00 677.90 190.00 677.98 200.00 678.13 Discharge 211.48 cfs Results Wtd. Mannings Coefficient Water Surface Elevation Flow Area ' Wetted Perimeter Top Width Height Critical Depth Critical Slope 0.040 674.65 ft 48.91 ftz 33.08 ft 32.54 ft 2.81 ft 674.12 ft 0.024572 ft/ft End Station 100.00 116.49 200.00 Roughness 0.030 0.050 0.030 05/18/06 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 �3:22:40 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page I of 2 HiMit Run - STUDY2 - 2yr Worksheet for M-egvlar Channel Velocity 4.32 fus Velocity Head 0.29 ft Specific Energy 674.94 ft FrOUde Number 0.62 Flow is subcritical. 05/18/06 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 '' 03:22:40 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 2 of 2 ieid - STUDY 4. = �� � �9c.tt �eu(II � y6 ' Project Descripliion Project File ,c:\jobfiles\2795c\engineering\computations\swm\drainage.fm2 Worksheet Hiatt Run Channel Eval - STUDY 4 - 2yr ' Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation 1 1 Input Data Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Elevation range: 671.84 ft to 679.48 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Start Station 0.00 679.48 0.00 10.00 679.28 100.00 20.00 679.09 116.49 30.00 678.89 40.00 678.70 50.00 678.50 60.00 678.31 70.00 678.11 80.00 677.36 90.00 675.84 100.00 674.04 110.00 672.20 111.11 672.00 113.70 671.84 116.49 672.00 120.00 673.00 130.00 674.80 140.00 676.03 150.00 677.26 153.42 677.68 160.00 677.73 170.00 677.82 180.00 677.90 190.00 677.98 200.00 678.13 Discharge 211.89 cfs Results ' Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.040 Water Surface Elevation 674.65 ft Flow Area 48.98 ft2 ' Wetted Perimeter 33.10 ft Top Width 32.56 ft Height 2.81 ft Critical Depth 674.13 ft ' Critical Slope 0.024550 ft/ft End Station 100.00 116.49 200.00 Roughness 0.030 0.050 0.030 05/18/06 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 '03:24:08 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Rage 1 of 2 Hiati Flun - STUDY 4 -22yr Wcot:,Aie-e-i for kregulaw C-'harn( Wd-OC;Ky 4,313 ryz� Ve-locity Head 0.29 .1, -Specilic Energy 67,4.94 fi Froude Number 0.62 Flow is subai'deal. 1 05/18/06 13:24:08 PM Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 2 of 2 lliau Rawl Peal. Flaw Diaiiiage Analysis 3P°i 279 UDRAINAGE ANALYSIS -10yr Hiatt Run Cross Section Report PrCJeC'i Description Project -_-- - — -- Project File;,Ajoboilcs�795c\engiideem'ingAccaiY�l�yutations\s it\drainage.f�o12 Worksheet Hiatt Run Channel Eval - 10yr Pre Flog Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Wader Elevation Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.036 Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 676.54 ft Discharge 858.72 cfs 679. C TU O 677. C ' 676.0 c ' r c� N 675.0 W 673. C 672. C 671.0' 1 11 1 1 1 1 o 1 i 0.0 20.0 40.0 80.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0 Station (ft) Academic Edition FlowiAaster v5.17 Hassiad Methods, inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Pace 1 of 1 y-a_Nch 'i it 06'''� - E,roject Fill. ? e\jol�files\�795c\euiJiuc .u°ing\c�+reilsplt�aii u�: \W,ssuua\�9i�?ii�age.ii�l Workshaei Hiatt Run Channel Eval - S T DD"b' 1 - 90yr Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Weiier Elevation Section Data ' Wtd, Mannings Coefficient 0.036 Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/fi Water Surface Elevation 676.55 ft ' Discharge 859.55 cfs ' 680.0 ' 679. C ' 678. C 1 677. C ' 676.0 c 0 i 0675.( 674.( ' 673.( ' 672.( 671 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0 1 Station (tt) 05118/06 Academic Edition Flowl'Aaster v5.17 20:37 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-16W Pacgc 'i of 1 N!jCI(A Dc-soripticon Pi,(--Jcaci File worksheet Hiatt Run Channel Evad - STUDY 2 - I Oyr Flow Element Irregular Channel '' Maihod Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation I Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.036 Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 676.56 ft Discharge 866.54 cfs 9M 679. C 677.0 ' % 676.( C 0 (D 675.( W C-VZKI 673.( 672.( 671.0'-- 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0 Station (ft.) Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project Descxiptirwc Project File Workshest Hiatt Run Channel Eval - STUDY 4 - 10yr Flow Elarneni lasgular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation I Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.036 Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 676.56 ft Discharge 866.99 cfs 679.0 678.0 677.0 I= 676.( C 0 675A w 1 674. 673. 672.( 671.0" 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 150.0 130.0 200.0 Station (ft) Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, OT 06708 (203) 765-1666 Page I of 1 Higa pail Pea& Flow Drahiare. Analysis if �7 1 0� � Liij ti 1 la- J zL'YSRS-100ypi H'a v�i Eub?Li Cpna,-� Sedfgon IRep l Page 12 Pf .0ject Description Projact File ,,,:\jobf 3-\svYi-rAdrairtaga.-f wi'a Worksheat Hiatt Run Channel Eval - 100yi° Pi's Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation I Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.031 Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 678.70 ft Discharge 1,886.76 cfs 680.0 679.0 678.0 677.0 r- 676A C 0 41 675A w 674. 673. 672A 671.0' 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 Station (ft) 800.0 Academic Edition Haestad Mathods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.17 Pagel of 1 ' Iy°roj�;�t D�.sc:ril�iuro - — - - , "I I t q _ - — Worksheet Mail Run Channel Eval - STUDY 1 - 100yr Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.031 Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 678.70 ft Discharge 1,887.50 cfs 680-C 679.0 678.( 677.( 676.( C 0 41 675.1 ED 674.1 673.1 572. 671 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 IStation (ft) "i S/ 8/06 Academic Edition Flovv[Aasisr v5.17 1 03:21:22 PM Haesiad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, OT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page I o`r 1 ' C Y�huajrvfl::e (Ir��s�ril�:�tioY � -- - — —-- _. Project He .,Ajobf Worksheet Hiatt Run Channel Eva-4 - STUDY"2- -100yY, Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation I Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.031 Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 678.70 ft Discharge 1,895.06 cfs 680 679.0 678.0 677.0 IIV 676.0 C 0 675.( W 1 674.( 673. 672.( 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 Station (ft) Academic Edition Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Wateibuql, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowiViastev v5.17 page 1 of 1 Q Project Description Projsc-i File, ,,Ajobii ilaE,\—,2 Worksheet Hiatt Run Channel Eval - STUUI'4 - 100yr Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Water Elevation Section Data Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.031 Channel Slope 0.007900 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 678.70 ft Discharge 1,895.48 cfs 680-C 679.0 678.0 677.0 676.( C 0 4, a) 675A LLI 674.( 673.( 672.1 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 IStation (ft) 5/18/06 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 3:25:04 PKA Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of -i Hiaa Run Peal_ Flow Drainage ukalysis Jill -1 %vj 16.192kARNAGE 4-T\1A, LYSIO-Stuady Daps Page 13 w w ww w w w w w w w w w w �w w w w w w „V I Ol R yy it { 7 _ w 04 i • J - r.- - -- - ...... h - 511.49 flC V W PAW 00 'AM iW.37; cc n � x' mr MOTES:— L DPAHAG-E W-EA. TOPOGP.APHY AND USAGE ADATA PROVIDED BY FREDERIq COUITY ORTI-!OPWOtlR-b&-RAPHS AND 5' CONiOURS DATED JAMJAP.Y 2004 0 i CE,r I. rED AHBEft uAll-! CIRCLE$ !?EI'RESENf LOCATICW Cl PIG'ii4 CIFr-LE RF-ii?f30 T 'il-E DII CiICAl it E FICTIM (102, 7A1:61 a tm+.'ro tars a PAW f� \. 14 ISI bICr�Eb• - . L DRA.noc-E TOPOC-PWI IY AND USAGE ADATA FfbwDED BY FP.EDEMCY r i - rOKI-I OMOFNOTr-,6GWAA-1"5 AFC 5' GOWTOURS DATED J.MUARY 3OOA. � A rr RwP4 Pr 1 - VAc,iN c, DowN wl- aM ( mom CZasSSEa-q>A) .t orb 1 fI P )ATr R-Vtj PT' 2 — FAC wJe, nowr+ STV-O 1 'N-`b¢16 IN CA A+-+NlEL 1s AT �ROPt'�R-T`1 t v E � vc� e�t.Foa-o 's �AQN• . Pr 3 - �AC�N� DowN srgrz 1 W /ATr2orj Pr q - Atjw4 OP SrReAM r IATT �v4 'Qr L �ACwPj Sn�.E74N� mq� .f 1 t l ' 1 n � 1 1 1 1 t ill I ZONE B RM 66T I �I �NE E I I ZONE A3 III h ��� 77:+4busritlwt Pokj*- atCdL6 _ o QQ �W 6% 3P y' LIMIT OF RM DETAILED STUDY ZONE A i i11.L IUr. iiu i,. n� C, k' I'iION TOVI I'.UL P PI'!s JUL I] I>7_ To determine It llood insurance is available in this community, II or tact your msur snce agent, or call the National Flnod Insl ante Program, at (800) 6386620. or (81>01 424 9872. APPROXIMATE SCALE 1000 0 1000 PEE, ,, 11I NATIONAL FLOOD RISUNANCE PROBE Ar I "lilt!( FLOOD INSURANCE RATE 19AP FREDERICK COOhTT, is VIRGINIA (UNINCORPORATED APs�AU) COMMUNITY.PANEL MOWER 510063 n105 6 PAGE 105 OF 200 'SEE MAP IN DE I POA PAGES NOT +F NTE01 EFFECTIVE JULY 17. 1978 FA SPM. DEPARTAAENT OF HOUSItUD URBAN DEVELOENT DEAML 111SUta:rKE AOMINISTF TI J, Mau Run Pealc Flow Diviiiage Analysis R! 279-5, 17MPUINA, GE ANALYSIS -CaRcuRafious Page 14 1 T tAlle off Concentration — Hiatt F'-1an L_airiage —Rurdae11f iapg Te ca ies U3,11::ulaced using tie TR-33 method — TR-55 TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.10 TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATION 04-21-2006 Subarea # 1 - Tc 2 Year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Time Flow Type Rain (ft) (ft/ft) Code (Sg Ft) (Ft) (hr) — Sheet 3.0 300 0.0427 f 0.437 ' Shallow Concentrated Shallow Concentrated 707.8 0.0812 u 688 0.0269 u 0.043 0.072 Open Channel #1 7994 0.0087 0.03 163 161 0.475 Open Channel #2 241 0.0001 0.03 163 161 0.106 Open Channel #3 6400 0.0085 0.03 163 161 0.385 Open Channel #4 3183 0.0063 0.03 163 161 0.222 Open Channel #5 1584 0.0001 0.03 325 228 0.699 ' Open Channel #6 3417 0.0029 0.03 325 225 0.278 Open Channel #7 1411 0.0001 0.03 325 228 0.623 Open Channel #8 774 0.0064 0.03 325 225 0.042 ' Open Channel #9 1054 0.0001 0.03 325 228 0.465 Open Channel #10 335 0.0001 0.03 357 239 0.148 ' Open Channel #11 3131 0.0079 0.03 357 239 0.151 ' TOTAL = 4.146 hours (248.76 minutes) i --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- ' A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense -- Concentrated - - B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda _Shallow Surface Codes - C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved ' D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range,Short J Range, Natural J 11 i t k1 •- I _ 1 �j UDCTo V . ) 2. t �07Z skAu_(Y,,, L - , G 1 CAI yt-- p .L SLICE /o 7(0 1 _ 1 mQnlr;,_ 0. -zr 1 1 Jr,.a 1'Yii' r• .. _" �' /JD IIr�.•_:. I \may �,' �� L= 1142(n ' SweIE = D.29,/v -710- — 3, S ;. 35 7 3r" 1 �N FA: 40 I'i'L.(, ��'•`- ' � �.� (� �, t Sb.8 (3) '_ G® (FAIQ� 8�5'i� �r9�d-i.`IV11.33 - �r:��,- �•,19 3 D? qo„ I-=)r:�_ 4 3. 9 14 97,r� IU'd. �ac i:,:r 1 ,,l� 2� (C) t 2D �B) r 5L �6) ` (t�' i•C r i = y - ', 1 DAMN A 37 1 199 I I i I �- z„c, A = 132 v 3 A(-'- IhA V51'` r-'. , t 41141 —a- VSE LVI a G5 DA 7 A = 277.37 (lti,! �- •-^��� a !-R�.��s ��,� � I S� . $r +� �. 13.P�' r Zoe! + 4,�40 ��• , r - 12 Ll3 y b 9S + 9 Ib, D•6 0* ILID,3P,4.i'� L4. L4 = v�us ,a,,�y �.a.• : y.zy, IO.2-(o YDpr Svg 17 AL p F 11- 1 P/>2T 5 R.r "'7.3� 0o,� 'ram'-'-•=' - I�?.G - (�h - l r. • q Ti h• � ��, .�� cam. W��.��.�.�-._._..._.,�_ 15 '3 2> : 6-7 = 9a 75 /� ob aw-p. 73 89 — o,2D 40? yZ 219.77 — It, IoL4 = 203.13 x (�pw Y `�j4,�' I4(� !� Cs`E! For.,_r ,_ 1 3 3 3, 2 PA. +")�'r - 1 3812 i q I �c 1't e.f.! 106 1, 2 ti�9.y I L4 TCOO = 7Q.2 I lei - '/ Ai -I.,. O•F 12 ViH l=�L I: +� L +=1� r✓r� 1 r,r D. (o �u- Z5. yg Nv ell 7(,1 q � [c.P, t L4 I yo2,8 LI 31 ri A b bA 7 cl �Aq 1(4'S T (Ok 0 1 7 7 A r t oir il-Ai- jfO'7 "A, 64 1 I 1 I 1 - �/L� . � ", �L, �. I '' i_,y �,P., l'i.�.v!• t C' .� i .l1., ' f` ; � I'� , .�.. nre� iuv.li p'Z 'iG,.$b46i786393 I ,! C►`I - U r Z ��l+tk� k, ►ap ��'��IA D� ��l'�1ac�?�=0•:+� ;` �CC'�`� ) �j2- _ •i:'tjil� � ;,;'.`a' ('��t., �'r)i (�/ 1'i ipri;i,-_ iP , ; r � �, �i � ., r, ►�V.a.()A,''c:'A45 sou) +<.`i �v�`Ei-= U+�'-i� fir_ �ti•. p05�" � �: a � 'QtmYAi�•�,�vG, rk0�`E�� x i -Zp;.�') ry- � , ! �'i"11�-i .L = r,L�„ry�y 5 1-,-t I�t`51 , �4' ►-)C,C'•i�,-L =���. , ,: c L%Jj lo -7 6q, SO -/Ib it- I—] 0 FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY P.O. Box 1877 inche%ter. \'A 22604-8377 ROBERT P. MOWERY. C.P.A.. Chairman JOHN STEVENS, Vice-chairman RICHARD A. RUCKMAN, P.E., .Sec -treasurer J. STANLEY CROCKETT DARWIN S. BRADE:N March 19, 2008 The Cowperwood Company Mr. Edward J. Sussi 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 REFERENCE: FEMA Office Building SUBJECT: Bill of Sale Dear Mr. Sussi: Wellington H. Jones, P.E. Engineer -Director Ph. - (."0) 868-1061 Fax - 1540) 868-1429 Enclosed for your files is a copy of the recorded Bill of Sale for the referenced project. You will be responsible for repair to these facilities for one year following the date of our acceptance. Thank you for working on this project with us. Sincerely yours, 'Jou-a Tashema L. Long/for kInt John G. Whitacre Senior Engineer /tl I Enclosure cf. Frederick County Zoning Administrator WATER AT YOUR SERVICE COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 October 5, 2007 Mr. Randy Kepler, PE Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Re: Approval of Site Plan #32-06; FEMA Office Building Revisions Property Identification Number (PIN): 43-A-1 I I Dear Randy: The Frederick County Department of Planning and Development administratively approved the above - referenced revised site plan on October 4, 2007. The site plan is approved for parking lot and landscaping revisions to the FEMA facility located in the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. All requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance have been met in the approved site plan, including review agency comments from all relevant review agencies. I am providing you with three (3) copies of the approved site plan. Please forward these copies to the appropriate representative(s). Furthermore, advise the owner(s) that a copy should be kept for future reference, and an approved copy must be kept on the construction site throughout the development process. Once site development is complete, the owner(s) should contact this office to schedule an on -site inspection. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, dwx'�' C G� Candice E. Perkins Senior Planner CEP/dlw cc: Charles DeHaven Jr., Stonewall District Supervisor John Light and Gary Oates, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Patrick Barker, EDC The Cowperwood Company, 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701, New York, NY 10152 C. Robert Solenberger, John Schroth, John Scully, 112 N. Cameron Street, Winchester, VA 22601 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 I • GREENWAY SINEERING, IHC. 151 Windy I lilt I;uic Winchcster, Virginia 22602 I li Founded in 1971 June 19, 2007 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Attn: Candice Perkins Re: FEMA Office Building Revisions, Property Identification Number (PIN): 43-A-I I 1 Comment Response Letter Dear Ms. Perkins, Gi-ecnway Engineering is 111 receipt of co111mcnts dated, April 3, 2007. We are pleased to offer the following responses: Comments from Frederick County Planning: Comment 1. Sile Plan Revisions: 'Phis rile plan needs to be identicul to the previously approved site pl(u! (ii,ilh exceptions to Ilse revisions heh/g,sought). 7'hls.vile pl(iii ii,ill /lee(l /o be udnunls//'CNIVL'/} approved Clnd will leike the pluce of'SP1132-06. The submitted plans are mostly identical to what was originally Response: It is understood. approved except for the items shown as revised. Comment 2: Landscape Revisions: L indscapillg sheets were no/ included with this s!!hlllls,loll. This site pl(m needs to rlecl the landSCaping revisions along the access ro(/(l. Response: The landscaping sheets have been i11CILKICCl with this SLlbinission, however, were not adjusted to show the Changes along the access road. The access road landscaping has been shown oil sheet C - 1-02, which is labeled "Phase 2Erosion and Sediment Control and Entry Road Landscaping Plan". The landscape agreement Clatcd December 7, 2006 has been referenced and the appropriate landscaping has been shown as required by this agreement. Comment 3: Sidewalk. t he sideivalks should he extended as indicciled on sheet C - 1-04 to join with the sidewalks heing provided within RulheiJbi-d's' Crossing. Response: We have evaluated the request for sidewalks but have determined that due to the site restrictions and drainage, we are Linable to install sidewalks along this section. rile separation between the back of curb and the drainage s\vales is not wide enough to allow for a 5' sidewalk to be installed. In addition, if the slope was fit into the area, it would be 19%, which is considerably greater than the allowable cross section slope of 2% on an ADA sidewalk. Because of these restrictions, the sidewalks have not been added. Engineers Surveyors Telephone 5,10-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 File #2795C/RLK/rcb tvww.grcemvaycng.com I Please find attached the revised plan per your comments. We have not submitted or obtained comments from the Inspections Department or the Fire Marshal as the changes made to the plans did not affect their jurisclictions. Fccl free to contact nic with any dUestions or concerns and as always we thank you for your time in this matter. Sincerely, Creel way Engin •cring, hlc. - i� Randy Keplci. P.L. Enclosures cc: Ed Sllssi — Cowperwood Company File 1127950RLK/reb • FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 April 3, 2007 Mr. Randy Kepler, PE Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Re: Comments for FEMA Office Building Revisions Property Identification Number (PIN): 43-A-1 I I Dear Randy: Planning Staff has reviewed the above -referenced site plan to determine if administrative approval can be granted. At this time, administrative approval cannot be granted. This site plan is denied until the issues in this letter, as well as all issues of the other review agencies, have been adequately addressed. Please review Staffs comments listed below and then prepare a revised site plan which adequately addresses each concern. Review Comments: 1) Site Plan Revisions. This site plan needs to be identical to the previously approved site plan (with exceptions to the revisions being sought). This site plan will need to be administratively approved and will take the place of SP#32-06. 2) Landscaping Revisions. Landscaping sheets were not included with this submission; this site plan needs to reflect the landscaping revisions along the access road. 3) Sidewalk. The sidewalks should be extended as indicated on sheet C 1.04 to join with the sidewalks being provided within Rutherford's Crossing. Once you have adequately addressed all of these comments, please resubmit a copy for my review. I will need all approved review agency comment sheets and at least five copies of the final plan for approval. Comment sheets are required from the following agencies: the Frederick County Inspections Department, and the Frederick County Fire Marshall. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/dlw 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 3z-�- fOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 March 8, 2007 Mr. Randy Kepler, P.E. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Site Plan Comments - FEMA Office Building Frederick County, Virginia Dear Randy: Upon review of the revised site plan Qate.0 January?6, 2007, we over no additional comments at this time. Therefore, we recoirimend approval of the revised site plan. Sincerely, r Joe C. Wilder Deputy Director JCW/rls cc: Planning and Developmen file CAPrognm Files\WordPerfect Office X3\Rhonda\TEMPCOMMENTS\FEMAOFFICEREVSPCOM.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COMMONWEALTH of VIRC-jINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. Box 2249 Staunton, VA24402-2249 www.VrginiaDOTorg DAVID S. EKERN, PE COMMISSIONER December 12, 2006 Mr. Brian P. Harvey, Superintendent Harvey Cleary, Inc. 101 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 325 Gathersburg, MD 20878 Ref: Land Use Permit #855-7903 - Cowperwood FEMA, LLC - Route 11, Frederick County Dear Mr. Harvey: Enclosed is your approved Land Use Permit #855-7903 to cover work on the VDOT right-of-way at referenced location. Please ensure a copy of the approved permit assembly is kept at the job site whenever working within the Route 11 right-of-way. I would also like to remind you of the need to erect and maintain proper traffic control in accordance with our Virginia Work Area Protection Manual. For your information the account receivable number for this project is 00084090. Any inspection costs we incur will be billed to you monthly. ---- ---- ------ ------ -- IYou are required to contact me at (540) 984-5633 at least 48 hours in advance of the start of construction to_arrange for any necessary inspections. If you have any questions concerning the permit requirements or during construction, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, r Permits Et Subd.ecialist Sr. S Ronnie Dove, Hwy. p Virginia Department of Transportation - Edinburg Residency - Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone #(540) 984-5600 / Fax #(540) 984-5607 Enclosure xc: �Mr_—_Mark Cheran WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING '' �f►_;+ F�,�, ill October 10, 2006 Mr. Randy Kepler, PE Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Re: Approval of Site Plan #32-06; FEMA Office Building Property Identification Number (PIN): 43-A-1I I Dear Randy: CO CK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 The Frederick County Department of Planning and Development administratively approved the above - referenced site plan on October 10, 2006. The site plan is approved for the construction of a new office/warehouse complex for FEMA located in the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This complex consists of the following: • A building with 132,286 square feet of office area and 29,637 square feet of warehouse. • Construction of parking lots with a total of 734 (including 15 handicap) spaces, including curb and gutter, a sidewalk network around the development, landscaping, striping, and handicap access. • A temporary access road for the site onto Martinsburg Pike (access provided to residential dwelling from access road as well). Main access is stubbed to property line which will be connected when the roads are installed within the remainder of the site. • Zoning District Buffers along the northern and eastern property lines. Please note that all road improvements associated with the approved proffers for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park must be completed within one year of this plan being approved. All requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance have been met in the approved site plan, including review agency comments from all relevant review agencies. 1 am providing you with three (3) copies of the approved site plan. Please forward these copies to the appropriate representative(s). Furthermore, advise the owner(s) that a copy should be kept for future reference, and an approved copy must be kept on the construction site throughout the development process. Once site development is complete, the owner(s) should contact this office to schedule an on -site inspection. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, Planner 11 CEP/bad cc: Charles DeHaven Jr., Stonewall District Supervisor John Light and Gary Oates, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Patrick Barker, EDC The Cowperwood Company, 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701, New York, NY 10152 C. Robert Solenberger, John Schroth, John Scully, 112 N. Cameron Street, Winchester, VA 22601 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • GREENWAY ENGINEERING, INC. i SI grind% I fill Luu• wincht-mer. Virginia 2 tw. iounded irl 19; 1 September 25. 2(X)6 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester. Virginia 22601-5(NX) Attn: Candice E. Perkins. Planner II Re: FEMA Office Building Site Plan Dear Ms. Perkins, Greenway Engineering is in receipt of comments, dated June 30, 2(X)6. and we are pleased to offer the following responses: Comment /: Special Limited Power of Attorney Form. Please have tlhe properh• owner sign the attached Special Limited Power of Attorne y Form prior to further review or approval. This form should be notarized and completed to grant the applicant (gnu) with authorization to represent them for this site plan. Response: The Power of Attorney Form has been executed by the present owners and included with this package. Continent 2: Proffers. The proffers fro►n the rezoning need to be included in the site plan. Response: The Proffers have been added to sheet C 0 01. Comment 3: Subdivision. Please indicate if the lot for this development has been created. if the subdivision has not been completed. it must be done prior to the site plan being approved. Response: The Parcel Identification No. will remain 43-A- I 11. A boundary line adjustment has been completed. A copy of the approved plat is attached as documentation of this parcel's approval. A copy of the recorded will be provided for final site plan approval once received. Continent 4: Parkinz Calculations. Revise the parking c•alc•ulation on tlhe coversheet as indicated. Response: The Parking Calculations have been revised as directed and are located under "Project Information" on the cover sheet. Comment S: l4in(Acapia_>; P n entage. 011 the coversheet, provide the percentage of landscaped area provided. Response: The Landscaping Percentage has been added under "Project Information" on the cover sheet. Continent 6: Notes. Provide a note on the coversheet that all outdoor lighting must be shielded to prevent glare onto adjoining roads and properties. Response: A note has been added to the cover sheet. See Miscellaneous Note #2. File#2795C/RLK/adf Fngincers survcvors It -It plwi ,40-662 4181 LAX ,40 - " 'I ,28 www.greenwayeng.com 0 • Comment 7: B2 Zoning. The references for the B2 zoning on the coversheet treed to be removed since the properlY being developed is t1Y11 and port of ll(e access road is RfI. Response: The reference to B2 zoning has been removecl and the reference to RA zoning has been added. Comment 8: Sign Height. Provide a note on the coversheet that the heiglt of any proposed signs cannot exceed 12 '. Response: A note has been added to (lie cover sheet See Miscellaneous Note #3. Continent 9: Monetary Proffers. A ,510,000.00 proffer is required ivith this site plan submissiotu. Prior to further review of this plan, the proffer mast be paid. Response: The $10,000 proffer fee was paid July 20, 2006. Comment 10: Road Improvements. Please note that all road improvements associarled with the proffers front the rezoning must be completed Ivilhin one year of this plan heing approved. Response: A note has been added to the cove- sliest stating this. Sec Miscellaneous Note #4. Sheet C 104 Comment 11: Building Uses. Label the mmuber of stories than the building will have and where, and label the square footage of the warehouse. Response: The Office portion of building will be 4 stories at approximately 132,928 G.S.P. The one story Warehouse portion of the bUllding will be approximately 29,637 G.S.P. A notation has been icided to the plan clarifying the number of -stories and height. Comment 12: "Zoning Boundaries. The majority of tlue site is zoned MI and a portion zoned RA: provide the location of rill zoning district boundaries. Response: The zoning clistrict boundaries have been added. Comment 13: Property boundaries. The propert}' line mfornution for the northern properh, line has not been shown. Response: The property line information has been adclecl to the northern and southern property lines. Comment 14: Pedestrian Fencing. Provide a detail for the pedestrian fencing. Response: Fencing clemils arc provided on Architectural sheet A5.00 for reference. Comment 15: Sidewalks and Ramps. A sidewalk should be provided along the lentporaurY entrance road and ramps along the Marlhtsburg Pike entrance. Response: As previously cliscussecl, the project will not be providing sidewalks along the temporary entrance road as this entrance will not be provided for peclestrians. I-fandicap ramps at the entrance within the VDOT ROW have been shown on the plans per VDOT requirements. Comment 16: Directional Arrows. Provide dn'eclional arrows throughout the site as indicated. Response: Directional arrows have been added. We have also adclecl a "Do Not Enter" sign at the one-way sections of, the travel ways. file#2795C/RLK/adf Continent 17: Curb and Gutter. The handicap parking spaces are showii with a depressed curb. Curb and gutter (inininlum CG-6) is required along all parking spaces. Response: The notation has been revised to state that the hancicap parking areas will be provided with it nloclified CG-12 handicap ramp. The ramp width will be the length of the parking bays. Comment 1 H: Main Entrance. Indicate ij there is a temporal 1' cal -de -sac plallnedi jai' the !nail/ entrance. Response: Per discussions with the client based on our sleeting on August 25'i', the main entrance road will be installed up to the property line but a tesporary turn around will not be addecl. Instead, traffic barriers will be installed at the intersection Of this i11ilII1 elltl'ililce to prohibit vehicles Irom using this entrance. These barriers will be removed once the main Rutherforcl's Farm access road has been extencled and connected to the F MA site work. Comment 19: Dumpster Screening. The dunlpster needs to be screened by a 6' board on board fence Response: Per discussions with Frederick County Planning on August 25"i, the earthen berms have been adjusted and enlarged to provide the necessary screening of the dunlpster areas from the slain public access roads. No additional fence or screening will be provided. Continent 20: Zoning District Buffer. Label the 75' inactive and 25' active buffers along the northern and eastern property lines. Response: I3uffers have been labeled appropriately. Additional labels have been adclecl for better clarification. Continent 21: Adjoining Properties. Some of lie adjoining properties have not been labeled. Response: Missing adjoining owners have been adclecl. Comment 22: New Driveway. It is unclear why the residential propertl, ill front of the FEA1111 site needs a new entrance onto Route I I, this site should use the access rood. Response: Per our Conversation and subsequent entail from the Planning Department, the ch•iveway will be relocated and connect to the temporary entrance road. Plans have been revised to account for this change. Sheet C 503 Comment 23: Paving Details. Please indicate why the pavement types for area 2 and 3 is different Mail area 1. Response: The pavement design was based Oil tridflc intensity expectecl for cilcll typicill section. "Therefore, it lighter paveillent clesign wits Chosen for those areas with it lower anticipated traffic count. Continent 24: Fire Larne Sections. "There are two fire lure details provided. It appeals that the fire lanes will be constructed front grass pavers not concrete/asphalt. Response: There is it section showing the slain access/fire lane area for asphalt that is a public access area. There is also a fire lane around the backside of'the buildings, which are located within the lawn area and uses Grassp ive for the structural support. Two materials require two pavenent sections. 'The detail notes have been revised for better clarification. File112795GRLK/adf Skeet L 201 Comment 25: Landscaping Notes. On skeet L 201, notes need to be provided that state (1) till platting shall conform wilh §165-36B of the Frederick Coutuy Zoning Ordinance (Plate selection, planting procedure, crud mainlenanc'e), and (2) an1, plan/ subsliltttiotts must be approved in writing by the Frederick County Plamling Deparlment. Response: A note has been added to the sheet. Comment 26: Hedges. Evergreen hedges (3' min) are required as indicated. Response: A note has been aciclecl to the sheet. Comment 27: Buffer Plantings. the plan slates that 337 buffer plantings are required; the buffer contaills approximate!), 1620' and would require around 486 plates. the buffer requires three trees per 10linear feet (113 deciduous): revise the buffer to reflect the requirements. fl 6' beret or fence is also required as part of FIIe full screen buffer. Response: Per the approved MDP 1104-02 Planning approval elate Nov. 21, 2002, 2 trees per 10 linear feet are required. This has been confirmed by email from the Planning Department. No changes have been made to this portioll of the landscape plans. Please find attached the revised plans for your approval, as well as, approvals from the 1611owing: Frederick County Inspections Department, Department of Public Works, Fire Marshall, Sanitation Authority, and Virginia Department of "l'ransportation. Feel free to contact nle with any questions or concerns. As always, we appl'CCIaIC )olli' hIl1C ill this matter. S' 1 erel , anc . Kepler, I E. Greenway Engineering Enclosures cc. Ed SUSSI — Cowperwood Company f i]e#2795C/RLK/adf GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane FO nuled in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 TRANSMITTAL Project Name: FEMA-Office Building Site Plan File No: 2795C Date: September 25. 2006 To: FC Planning Attn: Candice Perkins Copied From: Randy Kepler/dlm GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Delivery: r Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail [j Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Other ❑ Urgent ❑Q For Your Review P1 As You Requested ❑ Please Comment Message Candice, Attached is the following for final approval and signature: -Comment response letter -Signed/notarized Special Limited Power of Attorney -Copy of Receipt of Proffer payment -Approval letters from FC Inspections. Public Works, Fire Marshal, FCSA, and VDOT -5 complete copies of site plan for signature -1 cover sheet for signature As always, thank you for your assistance. Call with any questions or need for additional information. Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: Received bv: llate: Please Print Name: Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www co frederick �auS Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-66S-.i651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That 1 (We) (Name) C. Robert Solenberger John B. Schroth and John S. Scully IV (Phone) (540) 662-0323 (Address) 112 North Cameron Street, Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 040017164 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: Parcel: 43 Lot: 101 Block: A Section: Subdivision: Parcel: 43 Lot: 111 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenwak Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ® Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attornev-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. 11 In witness tb� (Wopayy icrcto set my (our) hard and seal this : /rday of u> , 200l�j Signaturc(s) &Jr d��ir State of Virginia, City/County of , To -wit: 1, Ga , otary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this _VQf day of, 200.�_7_. My Commission Expires: 3 3 k iK Notary Public e 9016 0 DATE _ __ NO. o N RECEIVED FROM 11 ADDRESS d4� YYI�� I4 o ��" ��0.rr t i 19� d l O d a po LLARS $ 0 E t% Ca O .s N >, N � N ` n JFOR RENT �/ !11 - • > w Q D FOR o v, U `° AMT CASH Pry 4 - A - t� � � i• N ACCOUNT AMT. PAID�r CHECK `ng ii(Q\� OIo-O 11 ~ z U �D ECE BADUE p pER Big rt/ aD Lf w kn waC:)3kn • JUL 2 0 2006 0 • • 10 1 40 • Request For Site Plan Comments Frederick County Inspections Department Mail to: Frederick County Inspections Department Attn: Building Official 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Hand deliver to: 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, VA (540) 665-5650 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, Virginia 22602 Phone Number: (540) 662-4185 Name of development and/or description of the request: FEMA-Site Plan Location of property: Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, Route l l North Inspect' ns Department's Co nts: �5 Inspections Department ❑se o Date recei%ed Incomplete Date rc%lewed Si -nature :,nd Date �Sipnature ,!nd DaIC (IC . ion)_ Date re%Mon received In Hill tote rg ie% ed 46 r MrIm AUG 1 0 2006 ,27.5C Stricture shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and section 304 use group B (Business) and section 311 use S (Storage). of the International Building CodeJ22003.(IBC 2003 was adopted Nov. 16, 2005 however the 2000 edition of the IBC can be utilized up to one year from the date of {code adoption). Other code that applies is ICC /AANSI Al 17- 2003 Accessible and usable Buildings and Facilities- Special inspections are required per chapter 17 of the IBC. (soils, concrete , etc.) - Three van accessible spaces shall be required at one per six or fraction of under section 1106.5113C with min. 8" striped unloading area Question the accessible mute from the parking to the building that crosses road traffic`_' Required egress doors shall be accessible to a min. area of rescue on the landing with fire rating, of the wall within 10' of the exterior door per IBC section 1007.8 . E • 0 • Request For Site Plan Comments Frederick County Engineering Department Mail to: Frederick County Engineering Dept. Attn: Director of Engineering 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540)665-5643 Hand deliver to: 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, Virginia (540) 665-5643 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review-. Please attach two (2) copies of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Phone Number: (540) 662-4185 • Name of development and/or description of the request: FEMA-Site Plan Location: Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, Route 11 North Date received Incomplete Date reviewed Si�n;�iu�r and I)atc Signature and Date (revfi. ion • Date revision received Incomplete Date reviewed /_ A , Date approved JUL 2 5 2006 ��r • LIRt ceN�IIA Control number sP06-0043R Project Name Fema Office Building/Warehouse Address 151 Windy Hill Lane Type Application site plan revision Current Zoning KI Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Siamese Location Adequate Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments • Plan Approval Recommended Yes Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal Plan Review and Comments Date received Date reviewed Date Revised 6/28/2006 7/25/2006 Applicant Greenway Enginneenng City State Zip Applicant Phone Winchester VA 22602 540-662-4185 Tax ID Number Fire District Rescue District 13 13 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Yes Requirements Hydrant Location Adequate Roadway/Aisleway Width Adequate Reviewed By Signature Karl Steudl Title Election District Residential Sprinkler System No Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No JUL 2 5 2006 FCSA '1 GREENWAY ENGINEERING ,AVG 18 2W6 • 151 Windy Hill Lane -'tt Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 197! . T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: FEMA Office / Warehouse File No: 2795C Date August, 18 2006 To: FCSA Attn: John Whitacre Copied From: Randy Steele GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Delivery: ❑ Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail ® Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Other • ❑ Urgent ® For Your Review ❑ As You Requested ❑ Please Comment • Message: Mr. Whitacre, attached is a revision to your approval. The water meter has been relocated to satisfy a FEMA comment and a portion of Waterline "A"has been relocated to accomodate proposed street and parking lighting which is not shown on this plan. Please review and comment as needed. V C =:J . t /Y D Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: A}1 Received By: - j C�J2 Date:' Please Print Name: SEP 0 1 2006 P95C 114 L,"L _ • FCSA Clrlfu n GREENWAY ENGINEERIN 2006 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 Li TRANSMITTAL--- - Project Name: FEMA-Site Plan File No: 2795C Date: July 17, 2006 To: FCSA Attn: John Whitacre Copied From: Randy Keplar/dlm GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 • Delivery: r Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Other ❑ Urgent [F For Your Review Q As You Requested ❑ Please Comment C] Message John, Attached are 2 copies of the revised site plan per FCSA comments for your review and approval. Thank you for your assistance. Call with any questions. i f vL " 5 ,tc!' ��r�.vrS 36X y8 g-C ELF /V o Tfv M A> hiCr7.> yam,/ 4�,{ Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: e-- Received by: Date: Please Print Name: 4 • V-j � 10 i'*1--.,MA Office/Warehouse • Page 1 of 2 Randy Kepler From: Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd. Ingram@VDOT.Virginia.govj Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:11 AM To: Randy Kepler Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; Baluch, Stephen; Ibe, Javier Subject: FEMA Office/Warehouse Ref: FEMA Office/Warehouse Route 11, Martinsburg Pike Frederick County This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans with latest revisions dated July 31, 2006 for the referenced project. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved, subject to the following comments: 1. On sheet C.4.03, in the STOP sign placement notes, indicate the following additional placement details: Mounting height 7 feet from top of curb to bottom of sign panel (MUTCD, p. 2A-9), b. Maximum set back 50 feet from edge of travel lane of through roadway (MUTCD, p. 2A-10). The location on the plans should be moved within 50 feet of the edge of pavement of the SB Route 11 through lane. 2. The following applicable VDOT standards and details should be added or updated as follows: Standard Sheet Latest Rev. Title Page Notes DI-3A,3B,3C 2 of 2 Standard Curb Drop Inlet, 12"-30" Pipe: Maximum Depth (H) = 8 feet 104.10 Add to sheet C.5.02. PG-2A Rev. 7/04 Standard Paved Ditches 109.01 Update on sheet C.5.02. CG-12 3 of 4 Rev. 7/05 CG-12 Detectable Warning Surface Type B (Parallel) Application 203.06 Delete page 203.06 on sheet C.5.02. The updated page is shown on sheet C.5.04. TTC-4.0 May 2005 Stationary Operation on Shoulder (Figure) p.6H-13 On sheet C.4.03, print the sign legends under the sign size, since it is not legible in the sign panel. Please advise the developer of this approval. Please provide 6 sets of approved construction plans with signed seal for VDOT distribution. I offer the following general comments: • A preconstruction conference be held by the engineer and/or developer with the attendance of the contractor, various County agencies and VDOT prior to initiation of work. • Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. • Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department. • All drainage is to be carried within the right-of-way in ditch lines or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. • The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of 8/ 14/2006 F- MA Office/Warehouse 0 Page 2 of 2 time. VDOT will also require 48 hours notice for inspections. The appropriate land use permits shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right-of-way. The permit is issued • by this office and will require a minimum processing fee, surety bond coverage, and the salary & expenses of a State assigned Inspector. . Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with the MUTCD and the approved plans. I suggest any utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right-of-way be backfilled completely with C.R. Type I 21-B Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement settlement. A copy of any/all recorded plats of dedication for drainage easements or additional right-of-way required for implementation of this proposed project should be provided to VDOT prior to issuance of any land use permit. Dedication should be made to the Commonwealth of Virginia. A copy of any/all RECORDED PLATS of dedication to public use (the County of Frederick) for drainage easements or additional right-of-way required for implementation of this proposed project should be provided for VDOT review prior to issuance of any land use permit. lie Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call me or Mr. Stephen Baluch at the VDOT office in White Post at 540-869-3277. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer VDOT N Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540)984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) 8/ 14/2006 3 co • Request For Site Plan Comments Frederick County Engineering Department Mail to: Frederick County Engineering Dept Attn: Director of Engineering 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5643 Hand deliver to: 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, Virginia (540) 665-5643 JUG ? 1 ?6Q6 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach hvo (2) copies of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, Virginia 22602 Phone Number: (540) 662-4185 Name of development and/or description of the request: FEMA-Site Plan Location: Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, Route 11 North Engineering Department's Comments: 61 �►�ti-w tl U Date received Incomplete Date reviewed Signature and Date — Signature and Date (rev Date revision received-- Date approved, Incomplete Date reviewed Y. 18 I, C FIE COPY� C COUNTY of FREDERICK w d Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 June 30.2006 Mr. Randy Kepler, PE Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Re: Comments for Site Plan #32-06; FEMA Office Building Property Identification Number (PIN): 43-A-99, 43-A-I I I Dear Randy: Planning Staff has reviewed the above -referenced site plan to determine if administrative approval can be granted. At this time, administrative approval cannot be granted. This site plan is denied until the issues in this letter, as well as all issues of the other review agencies, have been adequately addressed. Please review Staff s comments listed below and then prepare a revised site plan which adequately addresses each concern. Review Comments: 1) Special Limited Power of Attorney Form. Please have the property owner sign the attached Special Limited Power of Attorney Form prior to further review or approval. This form should be notarized and completed to grant the applicant (you) with authorization to represent them for this site plan. 2) Proffers. The proffers from the rezoning need to be included in the site plan. 3) Subdivision. Please indicate if the lot for this development has been created. If the subdivision has not been completed, it must be done prior to the site plan being approved. 4) Parking Calculations. Revise the parking calculation on the coversheet as indicated. 5) Landscaping Percentage. On the coversheet, provide the percentage of landscaped area provided. 6) '.Votes. Provide a note on the coversheet that all outdoor lighting must be shielded to prevent glare onto adjoining roads and properties. 7) B2 Zoning. The references for the 132 zoning on the coversheet need to be removed since the property being developed is M 1 and part of the access road is RA. 8) Sign Height. Provide a note on the coversheet that the height of any proposed signs cannot exceed 12'. 9) Monetary Proffers. A $10,000 proffer is required with this site plan submission. Prior to further review of this plan, the proffer must be paid. 10) Road Improvements. Please note that all road improvements associated with the proffers from the rezoning must be completed within one year of this plan being approved. 1 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Mr. Randy Kepler Re: FEMA June 30, 2006 Page 2 Sheet C 1 04 11) Building Uses. Label the number of stories that the building will have and where, and label the square footage of the warehouse. 12) Zoning Boundaries. The majority of the site is zoned M1 and a portion zoned RA; provide the location of all zoning district boundaries. 13) Property boundaries. The property line information for the northern property line has not been shown. 14) Pedestrian Fencing. Provide a detail for the pedestrian fencing. 15) Sidewalks and Ramps. A sidewalk should be provided along the temporary entrance road and ramps along the Martinsburg Pike entrance. 16) Directional Arrows. Provide directional arrows throughout the site as indicated. 17) Curb and Gutter. The handicap parking spaces are shown with a depressed curb. Curb and gutter (minimum CG-6) is required along all parking spaces. 18) Main Entrance. Indicate if there is a temporary cul-de-sac planned for the main entrance. 19) Dumpster Screening. The dumpster needs to be screened by a 6' board on board fence. 20) Zoning District Buffer. Label the 75' inactive and 25' active buffers along the northern and eastern property lines. 21) Adjoining Properties. Some of the adjoining properties have not been labeled. 22) New Driveway. It is unclear why the residential property in front of the FEMA site needs a new entrance onto Route 11, this site should use the access road. Sheet C 5 03 23) Paving Details. Please indicate why the pavement types for area 2 and 3 is different than area 1. 24) Fire Lane Sections. There are two fire lane details provided. It appears that the fire lanes will be constructed from grass pavers not concrete/asphalt. Sheet L 2 01 25) Landscaping Notes. On sheet L 2 01, notes need to be provided that state (1) all planting shall conform with §165-3613 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (Plant selection, planting procedure, and maintenance), and (2) any plant substitutions must be approved in writing by the Frederick County Planning Department. 26) Hedges. Evergreen hedges (3' min) are required as indicated. 27) Buffer Plantings. The plan states that 337 buffer plantings are required; the buffer contains approximately 1620' and would require around 486 plants. The buffer requires three trees per 10 linear feet (1/3 deciduous); revise the buffer to reflect the requirements. A 6' berm or fence is also required as part of the full screen buffer. Once you have adequately addressed all of these comments, please resubmit a copy for my review. I will need all approved review agency comment sheets and at least five copies of the final plan for 0 Mr. Randy Kepler Re: FEMA June 30, 2006 Page 2 approval. Comment sheets are required from the following agencies: the Frederick County Inspections Department, the Frederick County Department ofPublic Works (County Engineer), the Frederick County Fire Marshal, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the Airport Authority and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/dlw COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 August 2, 2006 Mr. Edward J. Sussi The Cowperwood Company 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York. New York, 10151 RE: Access to Proposed FEMA 17.11 acre facility Martinsburg Pike, Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Sussi: In an effort to clarify the County's access requirements applicable to the above referenced site, the County will allow for the secondary access across the RA (Rural Areas) zoned property to Route 1 l (Martinsburg Pike). This access route is considered secondary for the site; primary access will be through the planned Ruthersford Industrial Park road system immediately south of the FEMA site. This primary access route is depicted and addressed in the approved proffer statement associated with the rezoning for the property, as well as the approved Master Development Plan. I trust this will address your concerns with stanning ry access the proposed FEMA facility. Sly, ELawrence, AICP P Director cc: Economic Development Commission ,,,,Candice Perkins, Planner I1 ERL/bad utilizing the RA zoned property as a 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 TRANSMITTAL Project Name: FEMA-Site Plan File No: 2795C Date: May 31, 2006 To: F(�Pl Planning Attn: Candice Perkins Copied Delivery: r Fed Ex ❑ Other_ ❑ U.S. Mail From: Randy Kepler/dlm GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 F Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Urgent RJ For Your Review ❑ As You Requested ❑ Please Comment Message Candice, Per our email correspondance, attached is the following for your preliminary review and comments: -2 copies of the site plan -Site Plan Application -Application fee check for $3,711.00 -Planning comment sheet As always, thank you for your assistance. Call with any questions. Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: Received by; Please Print Name: Date: wN I V, Request For Site Plan Comments Department of Planning and Development Mail to: Department of Planning and Development Attn: County Planner 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Hand deliver to: 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, VA (540) 665-5651 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, Virginia 22602 Phone Number: (540) 662-4185 Name of development and/or description of the request: FEMA-Site Plan Location of property: Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park -Route 1 l North Planning and Development's Comments: Ylanninj! and Development use only Date received Date revision received Date approved Incomplete Incomplete Date reviewed Date reviewed Signature and Date Signature and Date (revision 1O SITE PLAN APPLICATION Department of Planning and Development Use On] Date application received Application # ❑ Complete Date of AcceptanceW:, iW, �0 ❑ Incomplete Date of return- p 1. ' Project Title: 2. Location of Property (street address) 3. Property Owner: Address: Telephone 4. Applicant/Agent Address Telephone 5. Designer: Address: Telephone: Contact: FEMA-Office Buildin Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, Route 11 North The Cowperwood Company 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212-953-0007 Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering Same Same Randy Kepler, PE JUN 1 2006 6. is this an original or revised site plan? 7a. Total acreage of parcel to be developed: 7b. Total acreage of parcel: 8. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number: b) Current Zoning: c) Present Use: d) Proposed Use: e) Adjoining Property Use(s) f) Adjoining Property Identification Number(s) g) Magisterial District(s) Original ® Revised ❑ 17.11 acres 77.87 acres 43-A-99.43-A-111 M1, B2 Vacant Office and warehouse Vacant, residential 43-A-99, 43-A-108, 43-A-109, 43-A-1 10, 43-A-112A, 43-A-11213, 43-A-113 Stonewall 1 have read the material inclu ed in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Planning epar1ment. 1 also understand that all required material will be complete pr r o sub isn of my site plan. Signature: Date: 31. Pl AY - Z0 0 7 Document Approval Form J U N 1 2006 PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME E OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YO UR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE C01DlENTSAS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIRE TO SAVE COMPLETED. INITIALS DATE & TIME Candice, C l Bernie Mark Susan Eric Mike Kevin John i-4'�l Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time):