Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement Project …Appendix B – Tables Appendix C –...
Transcript of Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement Project …Appendix B – Tables Appendix C –...
Appendix F
Drainage Report
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3358
DRAFT DRAINAGE REPORTMay 2018
Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement
PIN X731.55Bronx County, New York
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3359
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................22.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS....................................................................................................2
2.1 West of Hunts Point Avenue along Bruckner Boulevard Drainage System.....................................22.2 East of Hunts Point Avenue and Sheridan Expressway Drainage System .....................................22.3 Edgewater Road Drainage System .................................................................................................22.4 East of Bronx River Drainage System .............................................................................................32.5 Existing Soils ...................................................................................................................................3
3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................33.1 Redevelopment ...............................................................................................................................33.2 New Development ...........................................................................................................................4
4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................44.1 Hydrology.........................................................................................................................................44.2 Water Quality Volume (WQv) ..........................................................................................................54.3 Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) .....................................................................................................74.4 Water Quantity Protections..............................................................................................................84.5 Proposed Stormwater Management ................................................................................................84.6 Proposed Drainage Treatment and Discharge ................................................................................8
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................9
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A – ExhibitsAppendix B – TablesAppendix C – CalculationsAppendix D – Soils Information
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3360
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This drainage report outlines the existing combined sewer systems within the project limits and the proposed drainage system for the Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement Project, PIN X731.55.
2.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
The Project has multiple drainage systems within the project limits, as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 1 – Existing Drainage Systems. Based upon review of New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) existing sanitary and storm sewer records the Project area falls within a Combined Sewer area. The existing sewers include highway catch basins that collect stormwater from the roadways and sidewalks. The stormwater is combined with the sanitary sewers and conveyed to the Hunts Point Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The Hunts Point WWTP has a 200 million gallon per day (mgd) capacity. Flows that exceed the capacity of the conveyance and treatment system are discharged into the waterbodies via CSO outfalls permitted by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
In 2005 NYCDEP entered into a Consent Order to reduce combined sewer overflows from its system to improve the water quality of the surrounding waters. The latest modification to the CSO Consent Order was executed by NYSDEC on March 8, 2012 requiring NYCDEP to submit Long Term Control Plans (LTCP). The LTCP for the Bronx River watershed was submitted in 2015 and approved by NYSDEC on March 7, 2017. The LTCP lays out a detailed plan of capital and operational improvements to reduce CSO by Volume 37% by 2026. Implementing green infrastructure is part of the LTCP.
Below is an outline of the drainage systems within the project limits.
2.1 West of Hunts Point Avenue along Bruckner Boulevard Drainage System
West of Hunts Point Avenue along Bruckner Boulevard, stormwater is collected through various scuppers, catch basins and pipe systems along Bruckner Boulevard, the access road, and the Bruckner Expressway. This system is broken up into segments along Bruckner Boulevard. Between Southern Boulevard and East 149th Street, runoff is collected and led to a 3’-9” diameter combined sewer at the intersection of East 144th Street and Bruckner Boulevard. This pipe flows eastward to the Hunts Point WWTP. Between East 149th Street and East 156th Street, runoff is piped to a 7’-3” by 11’-0” combined box sewer at Leggett Avenue. This sanitary sewer system also flows east towards the Hunts Point WWTP. Between 156th Street and Hunts Point Avenue, runoff collects to Longwood Avenue, where there is a 7’-1” by 8’-6” combined box sewer, which flows east to the Hunts Point WWTP. See Appendix A, Exhibit 2 - West of Hunts Point Avenue As-Builts.
2.2 East of Hunts Point Avenue and Sheridan Expressway Drainage System
East of Hunts Point Avenue along Bruckner Boulevard and the access road, stormwater is collected via a combined sewer system. Catch basins collect stormwater and using various sized pipes, carry water northeast towards Aldus Street. In this vicinity, there are also scuppers that collect stormwater along the Bruckner Expressway and Sheridan Expressway. Through several 12” diameter downspouts, stormwater is directed to the Bruckner Boulevard combined sewer system. Once the system reaches Aldus Street, stormwater is diverted south towards the Hunts Point WWTP via an 11’ x 9’-9” box sewer that runs beneath Whittier Street. See Appendix A, Exhibit 3 - East of Hunts Point Avenue As-Builts.
2.3 Edgewater Road Drainage System
Edgewater Road has multiple drainage structures within the project limits. As stormwater runoff travels downhill from Bruckner Boulevard, in the South direction, the first catch basins encountered are at the intersection of Garrison Avenue and Edgewater Road. The stormwater from these catch basins are piped westward along Garrison Avenue through a 30” pipe. At the intersection of Garrison Avenue and Whittier
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3361
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
3
Street, a 12’-0” by 9’-6.5” combined box sewer conveys the stormwater from Edgewater Road. This combined sewer runs South beneath Garrison Avenue and feeds to the Hunts Point WWTP. Runoff along Edgewater Road between Garrison Avenue and Lafayette Avenue is collected in catch basins which drain to a 30” pipe under Seneca Avenue. This 30” pipe also leads to the combined sewer under Whittier Street. See Appendix A, Exhibit 4 - Edgewater Road As-Builts.
2.4 East of Bronx River Drainage System
Within the project limits, there is a combined sewer system east of the Bronx River. Along the Bruckner Expressway, stormwater is collected through catch basins, which gets piped to the eastbound side of the Bruckner Boulevard. Once the stormwater reaches the Bruckner Boulevard, it flows east through a larger pipe which, according to NYCDEP records, is eventually conveyed to the Hunts Point WWTP. See Appendix A, Exhibit 5 - East of Bronx River As-Builts.
2.5 Existing Soils
The available Soil Survey indicates the following soil types within the Project area: Laguardia-Urban Land Complex (LUA) Laguardia-Urban Land Complex (LUB) Urban Land-Grenbelt Complex (UGA) Urban Land-Grenbelt Complex (UGB) Urban Land, tidal marsh substratum (UmA) Urban Land, til substratum (UtA) Urban Land, til substratum (UtB) Urban Land, til substratum (UtC)
Appendix D, Exhibit 1 - Existing Soils Map indicates the soil boundaries within the Project area. Descriptions of the Soils can be found in Appendix D.
Soil borings were performed at select locations during the January-March 2018 geotechnical investigation. Appendix D includes boring locations and preliminary boring logs from the January-March 2018 field activities.
3.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
This Project is divided into two proposed drainage conditions: redevelopment of the existing roadways and new development of additional ramps. Appendix A, Exhibit 6 - Redevelopment vs. New Development depicts the areas of the Project that would be new development as compared to the redeveloped sections.
The redevelopment and new development areas are described below.
3.1 Redevelopment
A calculated 96% of this Project constitutes redevelopment of roadways and other impervious surfaces. In the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual (SMDM), January 2015, Chapter 9, redevelopment is defined as reconstruction of any existing impervious surface that involves disturbance of the bottom 6-inch layer of subbase material. The drainage systems for these areas would be similar to the existing systems. Highway drainage inlets would collect stormwater into the combined sewers, which would be conveyed to the Hunts Point WWTP. For elevated structures, the drainage systems would consist of bridge scuppers and connecting pipes into the combined sewers.
The proposed new ramps BL, LB, the southern portion of Ramp ES, the northern portion of Ramp ES, Bruckner Expressway to Sheridan Boulevard, and Sheridan Boulevard to Bruckner Expressway would be
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3362
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
4
built over existing impervious paved area; therefore, the construction of these ramps would not increase the total impervious area.
The runoff from these areas would continue to be conveyed to the Hunts Point WWTP via a series of existing highway drainage basins and sewer piping. For elevated structures, the drainage systems would consist of bridge scuppers and connecting pipes into the combined sewers. During the redevelopment construction phase and in the final condition, low and high point locations may change, however, the same runoff quantity would enter the existing system. There are no plans for additional treatment within the redevelopment areas other than scheduled maintenance and cleaning.
Table 3.1.1 below details the existing and proposed impervious areas for the entire Project.
Table 3.1.1Increase in Impervious Area
Square Feet AcresExisting Impervious Area 769,085 17.65Proposed Impervious Area 801,985 18.41Increased Impervious Area 32,900 0.76
3.2 New Development
The construction of the Edgewater Ramps (Ramps SE, ESS and ESN) is considered new development. See Appendix A, Exhibit 6 - Redevelopment vs. New Development. The stormwater management system for new development must meet the requirements of the SMDM for stormwater quality and quantity. The proposed new development would be paved, impervious area. In additional, the stormwater runoff must be directed to a treatment system that does not include the combined NYCDEP sewer system.
The new construction consists of elevated structures over a primarily pervious, vegetated area. Stormwater would be collected via bridge scuppers and connected with piping to the new stormwater management facility. A new outfall into the Bronx River would be constructed.
Section 4.0 of this report outlines a preliminary design of proposed stormwater management measures.
4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS
Per Chapter 9 of the NYSDEC SMDM, if there are no changes to hydrology that increase the discharge rate within a redevelopment area, the ten-year storm and 100-year storm quantity controls do not apply. Similarly, channel protection controls are not required if there is no increase in impervious area or changes to hydrology that increases the discharge rate. In addition, because the redevelopment area coincides with a combined sewer area, a SPDES permit is not required and the Project is not required to follow the NYSDEC SMDM guidelines in this area.
For the 4% of the Project that constitutes new development, the SMDM would be followed for water quality and quantity treatment and controls and both a SPDES permit and SWPPP would be required.
4.1 Hydrology
During final design proposed drainage conditions for the closed drainage system would be assessed according to the Rational Method using the 10 year storm event. This method is generally utilized for calculating peak flows in small rural watersheds and for urban drainage design. The Rational Method predicts peak flows based on rainfall intensity and the contributing drainage area. Contributing Area (A): Based on available mapping, the contributing area (acres) to each scupper would be determined within the new development Project limits.
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3363
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
5
Runoff Coefficient (C): A runoff coefficient of 0.85 would be used for the Project limits to represent paved conditions.
Rainfall Intensity (R): Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) would be calculated as a function of the time of concentration and design flood frequency. Per Chapter 8 of the New York State Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual for interstates and other freeways a design flood frequency of 10 years (5.5 inches total rain for 24 hours per NOAA Atlas 14) should be used. However, the rainfall intensity (R) would be calculated per the NYCDEP calculation method, based on the following:
R = 140 in/hrt + 15
Where t represents the time of concentration. Based on NYCDEP and NYSDOT guidelines, a minimum time of concentration of 6 minutes would be used.
Based on the Rational Method, total runoff from the system would be calculated using:
Q = CRA (in ft3/s)
The results based on the equations and methods above are as follows: Contributing Area (A): Based on available mapping, the contributing area is 1.82 acres. This area
includes the additional proposed impervious area due to construction of 0.76 acres as shown in Table 3.1.1, above. This proposed drainage and treatment system would alleviate the contributing area of the existing combined sewer system by 1.13 acres. See Appendix A, Exhibit 7 – Proposed Contributing Drainage Area.
Runoff Coefficient (C): A runoff coefficient of 0.85 is used for this calculation as the contributing area is all paved.
Rainfall Intensity (R): Calculated to be 6.67 in/hr using NYCDEP methodology. Total runoff: The proposed system produces a total runoff of 10.4 ft3/s for a 10-year storm, which would
be discharged into the Bronx River. See Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail. Additional runoff to the existing combined sewer systems discussed in sections 3.1 through 3.4 is not anticipated. See Appendix B, Table 1 – Proposed Drainage System.
4.2 Water Quality Volume (WQv)
Calculations of water quality are necessary based on the criteria specified in the NYSDEC SMDM.
From the SMDM:
The Water Quality Volume (denoted as the WQv) is intended to improve water quality by capturing and treating runoff from small, frequent storm events that tend to contain higher pollutant levels. New York has defined the WQv as the volume of runoff generated from the entire 90th percentile rain event. Essentially what this means is that a practice sized using the WQv will capture and treat 90% of all 24 hour rain events. The WQv is directly related to the amount of impervious cover constructed at a site.
The following equation can be used to determine the water quality volume WQv (in acre-feet of storage):
WQv = 𝑃 ∗ 𝑅𝑣 ∗ 𝐴 12
where: WQv = water quality volume (in acre-feet) P = 90% Rainfall Event Number (1.5” from Figure 4.1of the NYS SMDM) Rv = 0.05 + 0.009(I), where I is percent impervious cover A = site area in acres (Contributing area)
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3364
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
6
The calculated WQv for the new impervious area, 0.76 acres, proposed to enter this new system is 0.09 acre-feet. The calculated WQv for the additional 1.13 acres of existing impervious area proposed to enter this new system is 0.14 acre-feet. Combined, the total calculated WQv for this new system is 0.23 acre-feet for the entire contributing area of 1.89 acres. Appendix C includes the WQv calculations for the new development areas.
NYSDEC allows selection of proprietary systems that are verified or certified through one of the following: the United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Technology Verification Program; the state of Washington Technology Assessment Protocol - Ecology (TAPE); the Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership Protocol (TARP - primarily New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology); the state of Maryland Department of the Environment; and several other evaluation systems. NYSDEC looks for the proprietary systems to meet removal of 80% of total suspended solids (TSS). The proposed treatment device is a hydrodynamic separator. This type of device capacity is measured in a flow rate, cubic feet per second (cfs). Per Chapter 9 of the SMDM, for flow through treatment practices, the practice must be sized to treat the peak rate of runoff from the WQv design storm. Using methodology from Appendix B of the SMDM and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Technical Release 55 manual, the following equations were used:
[Equation 2-1 of the USDA TR-55 manual]𝑄 = (𝑃 ‒ 𝐼𝑎)2
(𝑃 ‒ 𝐼𝑎) + 𝑆
where:
Q = runoff (in)P = 90% Rainfall Event Number (1.5” from Figure 4.1of the NYS SMDM)S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (in)
= initial abstraction (in) 𝐼𝑎
= 0.2S [Equation 2-2 of the USDA TR-55 manual] 𝐼𝑎
where:
= initial abstraction (in) 𝐼𝑎S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (in)
[Equation 2-4 of the USDA TR-55 manual]𝑆 = 1000
𝐶𝑁 ‒ 10
where:
S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (in)CN = Runoff curve number
From Table 2-2a in the USDA TR-55 manual, a CN of 98 would be used for this Project as the area being analyzed is paved, using curbs and storm sewers. Using equation 2-4 of the USDA TR-55 manual, S is calculated as 0.204 inches. Using equation 2.2 of the USDA TR-55 manual, = 0.0408 inches. Q is 𝐼𝑎calculated as 1.28 using equation 2-1 of the USDA TR-55 manual.
The following equation is used to calculate the Peak Discharge Rate:
[Equation 4-1 of the USDA TR-55 manual]𝑞𝑝 = 𝑞𝑢𝐴𝑚𝑄𝐹𝑝
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3365
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
7
where:
= peak discharge (cfs)𝑞𝑝 = unit peak discharge (csm/in)𝑞𝑢 = drainage area (sqmi)𝐴𝑚
Q = runoff (in) = pond and swamp adjustment factor 𝐹𝑝
The unit peak discharge is found using Exhibit 4-III in the USDA TR-55 manual assuming a 6 minute time of concentration from NYCDEP and NYSDOT standards and a /P rate of 0.027. The drainage area used 𝐼𝑎for this calculation is the contributing area for this proposed system; a combined 1.89 acres which includes 0.76 acres of new impervious area and 1.13 acres of existing impervious area, converted to square miles. The runoff, Q, is calculated above in equation 2-1 of the USDA TR-55 manual. A pond and swamp adjustment factor of 1.00 is used based on Table 4-2 in the USDA TR-55 manual. The new impervious area proposed to enter the new system, 0.76 acres, produces a peak discharge of 1.07 cfs. The existing impervious area proposed to enter the new system, 1.13 acres, produces a peak discharge of 1.58 cfs. Combined, the total calculated peak discharge is 2.65 cfs. See Appendix C for Peak Discharge Calculations. The capacity of the selected hydrodynamic separator would exceed the 2.65 cfs calculated above.
4.3 Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv)
From the SMDM:
Construction activities that cannot achieve 100% reduction of the total WQv due to site limitations shall direct runoff from all newly constructed impervious areas to a RR technique or standard SMP with RRv capacity unless infeasible. In no case shall the runoff reduction achieved from the newly constructed impervious areas be less than the minimum runoff reduction volume (RRvmin).
The minimum runoff reduction volume (RRvmin) is determined by the following equation:
RRvmin = P * Rv * Aic * S 12
where:
RRvmin= Minimum runoff reduction volume required from impervious area (acre-feet)Rv= 0.05+0.009(I) where I is 100% imperviousAic= Total area of new impervious coverS = Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) Specific Reduction Factor (S) (This is assumed as C since many of the site soils are not classified)
The calculated RRv for the new impervious area, 0.76 acres, proposed to enter this new system is 0.027 acre-feet. The calculated RRv for the additional 1.13 acres of existing impervious area proposed to enter this new system is 0.04 acre-feet. Combined, the total calculated RRv for this new system is 0.067 acre-feet for the entire contributing area of 1.89 acres. See Appendix C for the Runoff Reduction Volume calculations.
The proposed stormwater management practices would include an in-ground hydrodynamic separator unit and an outfall into the Bronx River. This system would not meet minimum runoff reduction requirements per the SMDM. It was determined that a system to meet these requirements would not be feasible to construct as part of the Project due to inadequate area to install a stormwater basin.
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3366
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
8
4.4 Water Quantity Protections
According to the SMDM, water quantity protections such as channel protection volume, Q10, and Q100 volumes are not required, if the management measure outlets directly to a tidal water. Since the proposed outfall outlets to the Bronx River, which is a tidal water, these protections are not warranted.
4.5 Proposed Stormwater Management
Following the Rational Method outlined in section 4.1, the hydrologic characteristics for the proposed system have been calculated and are presented in Appendix B, Table 1 – Proposed Drainage System.
The preliminary design of the proposed stormwater management measures can be found in Appendix C. All runoff from the area designated in Appendix A, Exhibit 7 – Proposed Contributing Drainage Area would be collected in catch basins and scuppers and piped along the bridge structures to a lower location on Edgewater Road, as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail. At this collection point, the runoff would flow to a proposed hydrodynamic separator treatment device, which would be designed to accommodate the Peak Discharge calculated in section 4.2. The unit is further explained below in section 4.6.
4.6 Proposed Drainage Treatment and Discharge
Refer to Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail for further details.
Collection
The collection system for the new ramp construction would be via scuppers and connected piping. Once the new ramps are on retaining wall structures the runoff would be collected into catch basins with connecting pipes.
Treatment
The specific system would be selected during final design. The preliminary design system indicates stormwater from the new ramp structures would be directed to an in-ground hydrodynamic separator unit (HSU) sized to meet the Water Quality Volume (WQv) for the new impervious area. The shallow treatment unit traps and retains trash, debris, sediment, and hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. The system’s large swirl concentrator and flow controls work together to create a low energy environment, ideal for capturing and retaining particles down to 50 microns.1 The unit would be located within a permanent easement between Edgewater Road and the Bronx River. The easement is of adequate size to park a vehicle to perform periodic maintenance activities of the HSU and outfall. An overflow structure would be included upstream of the HSU directing flow other than the WQv directly to the outfall.
Untreated stormwater enters the swirl chamber through an inlet pipe and the swirling motion of the water within the chamber promotes gravitational separation of solids which settle on the chamber floor. Stormwater then exits the swirl chamber, where a baffle wall traps floatables and hydrocarbons. Stormwater flows under the baffle wall into the flow control chamber which contains separate flow controls for peaks and low-intensity flows.1 This hydrodynamic separator would be sized based on the standard specifications provided by approved manufacturers. The units vary in size based on the maximum flow rate it can treat. The model selected for this design would need to sufficiently treat and discharge the Peak Discharge calculated in section 4.2.
The treated stormwater flows to the outlet chamber and exits via the outlet pipe at the Bronx River.
1 Accessed February 5, 2018, http://www.conteches.com/products/stormwater-management/treatment/vortechs
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3367
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
9
Outfall
Whether treated or bypassed due to a high intensity storm, all runoff would be discharged to the Bronx River at the indicated location in Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail. The Mean High High Water elevation of the Bronx River is at an elevation of 3.7’. The proposed system would have an outfall invert at least 3’ higher than this, at 7.0’. Maintaining a minimum pipe slope of 0.5% back from the outfall, a 3.2’ vertical clearance between the top of the 24” pipe and the railroad tracks is provided, as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail. The pipe would outfall onto a gravel/rip rap apron.
Yearly, depending on runoff quality and quantity of debris, the unit would need to be cleaned using a vacuum truck. Appendix A, Exhibit 8 – Drainage Layout Detail shows the Right of Way lines which would allow for the construction of the system and the access for the required maintenance and cleaning.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are provided for the stormwater drainage design within the Project limits:
The existing combined sewer system would not collect additional runoff due to this project. The proposed drainage/treatment system is sized to include all new impervious area plus 1.13
acres of additional existing impervious area. The proposed hydrodynamic separator treatment component would be sized to accommodate
the calculated Peak Discharge. A runoff reduction method is not feasible for this project due to inadequate area to install a
stormwater basin. The proposed drainage/treatment system would outflow to the Bronx River.
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3368
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
Appendix AExhibits
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3369
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3370
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3371
West of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 2
Sheet 1 of 7Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3372
West of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 2
Sheet 2 of 7Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3373
West of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 2
Sheet 3 of 7Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3374
West of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 2
Sheet 4 of 7Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3375
West of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 2
Sheet 5 of 7Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3376
West of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 2
Sheet 6 of 7Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3377
West of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 2
Sheet 7 of 7Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3378
East of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 3
Sheet 1 of 8Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3379
East of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 3
Sheet 2 of 8Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3380
East of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 3
Sheet 3 of 8Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3381
East of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 3
Sheet 4 of 8Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3382
East of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 3
Sheet 5 of 8Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3383
East of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 3
Sheet 6 of 8Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3384
East of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 3
Sheet 7 of 8Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3385
East of Hunts Point Ave As-BuiltsExhibit 3
Sheet 8 of 8Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3386
Edgewater Road As-BuiltsExhibit 4
Sheet 1 of 1Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3387
East of Bronx River As-BuiltsExhibit 5
Sheet 1 of 5Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3388
East of Bronx River As-BuiltsExhibit 5
Sheet 2 of 5Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3389
East of Bronx River As-BuiltsExhibit 5
Sheet 3 of 5Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3390
East of Bronx River As-BuiltsExhibit 5
Sheet 4 of 5Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3391
East of Bronx River As-BuiltsExhibit 5
Sheet 5 of 5Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3392
PELHAM LINE
AMTRAK-HELLGATE LINE
BRUCKNER BLVD
GARRISON AVESOUTHERN BLVD
STORY AVE
COSTE
R ST
RANDALL AVE
AVE B
BRYA
NT AV
E
AVE A
OAK POINT AVE
AUSTIN PL
TIFFA
NY ST
HUNTS POINT AVE
DRAK
E ST
LEGGETT AVE
EAST
149 S
T
LONG
FELLO
W AV
E
TIMPSON PL
MANID
A ST
WHITT
IER ST
EXIT 48 WB
WHITLOCK A
VE
EDGE
WATER
RDSENECA AVE
FAILE
ST
EAST 141 ST WORT
HEN
ST
SHER
IDAN E
XPRES
SWAY
2 ST
EAST 140 ST
3 ST
1 ST
BRON
X RIVE
R AVE
HALLE
CK ST
GRINNELL PL
LAFAYETTE AVE
ALDUS ST
LONGWOOD AVE
BARR
ETTO
ST
HOE A
VE
EAST 144 ST
ELDER
AVE
DRIVE
WAY
DUPO
NT ST
REET
CASA
NOVA
ST
CLOS
E AVE
EAST 163 ST
BOYN
TON
AVE
COLG
ATE A
VE
CONC
RETE
PLANT
PARK
GREEN
WAY
WHEE
LER A
VE
WARD
AVE
IRVINE
ST
EAST 165 ST
EAST 156 ST
BRUCKNER EP WB EN SHERIDAN EP
CRAV
EN ST
REET
ALLEY
TRUXTON ST
MANO
R AVE
EAST 142 ST
EVER
GREE
N AV
E
BURNETT PL
LOWELL ST
MORR
ISON
AVE
SPOFFORD AVE
STRAT
FORD
AVE
BRON
X RIVER
SHOREL
INE
DRAKE PARK SOUTH
BARR
Y ST
WESTCHESTER AVE
EAST 147 ST
AVE S
T JOH
N
CONCORD AVE
EVER
GREE
N AV
E
TIFFANY ST
PELHAM LIN
E
MANID
A ST
FAILE
ST
BRYA
NT AV
E
FAILE
ST
LAFAYETTE AVE
BRYA
NT AV
E
ELDER
AVE
WHEE
LER A
VE
EAST 156 ST
BOYN
TON
AVE
WHITT
IER ST
SHERIDAN EXPRESSW
AY
DRAK
E ST
CLOS
E AVE
SOUTHERN BLVD
WORTHEN ST
COLG
ATE A
VE
FOX S
T
3 AVE
WHITE
PLAIN
S RD L
INE
UNION AVE
BECK ST
AVE F
WESTCHESTER AVEKELLY
ST
AVE D
1 ST
2 ST
EAST 149 ST
WALES AVE
BROOK AVE
EAST RIVER SHORELINE
AVE G
3 ST
ST ANNS A
VE
EAST 156 ST
EAST 138 STELD
ER A
VE
EAST BAY AVE
INTER
VALE
AVE
TIFFA
NY ST
EAGLE AVEBERGEN AVE
VIELE AVE
MARKET ST
WARD
AVE
CONCORD AVE
MANO
R AVEPRO
SPECT A
VEBRONX RIVER SHORELINE
ROGE
RS PL
WALNUT AVE
EAST 160 ST
PIER
WHEE
LER A
VE
TINTO
N AVE
HEWITT PL
LAFAYETTE AVE
ALLEY
BOYN
TON
AVE
EAST 148 ST
EAST 139 ST
FAILE
ST
SIMPS
ON ST
ST MARYS ST
LOCUST AVE
EVER
GREE
N AV
E
DAWSON ST
HOE A
VE
PELHAM LINE
EAST 172 ST
COLG
ATE A
VE
AVE E
JACKSON AVE
EAST 136 ST
EAST 151 ST
EAST 145 ST
EAST 137 ST
AVE C
EAST 150 ST
SOUNDVIEW PARK GREENWAY
SOUT
HERN
BOUL
EVAR
D
EAST 161 ST
LONGWOOD AVE
MELROSE A
VE
WEST FARMS RD
CYPRESS AVE
COSTE
R ST
MANID
A ST
EAST 165 ST
EAST 152 ST
CLOS
E AVE
EAST 144 STAV
E ST J
OHN
ELTON AVE
ALDUS ST
LEGG
ETT A
VE
BIKE PATH
STRAT
FORD
AVE
HALL PL
DRAK
E ST
BRYA
NT AV
E
EAST 141 ST
WHITT
IER STBA
RRETT
O ST
POWERS AVE
EAST 147 ST
EAST 146 ST
LONG
FELLO
W AV
E
MORR
ISON
AVE
EAST 162 ST
CASA
NOVA
ST
EAST 142 ST
BEEKMAN AVE
WATSON AVE
TRINITY
AVE
HALLE
CK ST
FORES
T AVE
EAST 163 ST
CRIMMINS AVE
FREEMAN ST
CAULDWELL
AVE
TIMPSON PL
AMTRAK-HELLGATE LIN
E
STORY AVE
HEGNEY
PL
EAST 140 ST
BRONX R
IVER AVE
EAST 143 ST
EAST 158 STEAST 157 ST EAST 164 ST
PEDESTRIAN PATH
METC
ALF A
VE
BRONX RIVER SHORELINE
PIER
TRINITY
AVE
EAST 151 ST
FAILE
ST
BRYA
NT AV
E
PIER
PELH AM LINE
EAST 151 ST
PIER
TRINI
TY A
VE
COLG
ATE A
VE
EAST 161 ST
FOX ST
PIER
CAULDWELL AVE
EAST 145 ST
JACKSON AVE
PIER
PIER
EAST 152 ST
SIMPS
ON STALLEY
KELLY ST
EAST 140 ST
EAST 150 ST
!#"$278
!#"$278
!#"$895
!#"$278
0 800 1,600400Feet
FPa
th: Q
:\972
9470
0\GIS\
Mxd\X
731.5
5\Sco
ping D
ocum
ent_R
evisi
on1\X
731.5
5_SD
_Con
cept1
_BA.
mxd
Figure 4Concept 1 - Edgewater/Leggett Split Interchange (Build Alternative)X731.55 HUNTS POINT INTERSTATE
ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
12/2
0/20
17B R O N X N E W Y O R K
RAMP LB
RAMP BL
PEDESTRIANBRIDGE
Sources: NAIP Digital Georectified Image, 2015, USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field Office
SLIPRAMP
SHERIDANNORTHBOUND RAMP
SHERIDANSOUTHBOUND RAMP
RAMP ESSRAMP SE
LEGEND
Concept 1 (Build Alternative)
General Study Area
Proposed New Ramps
RAMP ESN
H U N T S P O I N T F O O D D I S T R I B U T I O N C E N T E R
B R O N X R I V E R
E A S T R I V E R
7Redevelopment vs New Development
Exhibit 6Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3393
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3394
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3395
ON:
AFFIX SEAL:
FIL
E
NA
ME
=
US
ER
=
DA
TE/
TI
ME
=
ON:
ALTERED BY:
SHALL STAMP THE DOCUMENT AND INCLUDE THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THEIR SIGNATURE, THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION, AND A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION.
TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE STAMP OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR,
REGION:
SA
BN
B
X731.55
11
URS/DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, INC.
D
1:0
0:3
3
PM
erizzo
BRIDGES CULVERTSPIN
JO
B
MA
NA
GE
RD
ESIG
N
SU
PE
RVIS
OR
COUNTY:
PR
OJ
EC
T
MA
NA
GE
RD
ESIG
ND
RA
FTIN
GC
HE
CK
CH
EC
K
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS:
AS-BUILT REVISIONS ALL DIMENSIONS IN ft UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
CONTRACT NUMBER
DRAWING NO.
BRONX
HUNTS POINT ACCESS IMPROVEMENT
HUNTS POINT INTERSTATE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
pw:/../../../../../../
X731.5
5_
Bruc
kner_
EIS
Truc
k
Access/
CA
D/01
AE
CO
M/
Civil/
Edge
water
Rd
Ra
mps/
X73155_P
RS_
GN
P_120-
AE
CO
M .D
GN
GRIDNORTH
0 20 40 60 80'20
1" = 40'
10
010
20
30
40'
10 0 10 40'20 30
HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"= 20'
VE
RTIC
AL
SC
AL
E 1"= 20'
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
EXHIBIT 8
DRAINAGE LAYOUT DETAIL
CL
OSE
D
ES 17
+00
ES 18
+00
ES 19+00
31433143
12'-0"
6'-
0"
OUTFALL
15'
AA
24" PIPE24" PIPE
8" PIPE8" PIPE
CHAMBER
DIVERSION TO RIVER BANK
RIP RAP APRON
GARRISON AVE
ED
GE
WATE
R
RO
AD
p
p
HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR
2424
8'-
3"
12'-0"
0
4
8
12
16
20
-4
-8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250-10-20-30
0
4
8
12
16
20
-4
-8
EDGEWATER
ROAD
RAMP ES
BLSW 15' BUFFERTRACKS
RAIL
INV. 7.0'
INV. 7.53'
MINIMUM
(MHHW) ELEV.=3.7'
MEAN HIGH HIGH WATER
MIN. 3.2'MIN. 3.0'
SLOPE=2.1% 18" PIPESLOPE=0.5% 24" PIPE
SLOPE=0.645% 18" PIPESLOPE=0.714% 24" PIPE
7' 12'
CHAMBER
DIVERSION
APRON
RIP RAP
SECTION A-A (THROUGH HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR)
HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3396
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
Appendix BTables
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3397
Job
R=140
COMBINED SEWER DESIGN Location Computed By ER Date
NOTES: Date Checked By Date
Datum Approved By Date
Revised By Date
Checked By Date
Approved By Date
LOCATION FROM TOAREA
(Acres)
RUN-OFF
COEFF.
"C"
WTD.
AREA
(Acres)
TOTAL
WTD.
AREA
RAINFALL
INTENSIT
Y (IN./HR.)
TOTAL
STORM
RUNOFF
(CFS)
UPPER
END
(ft)
LOWER
END
(ft)
UPPER
END
(ft)
LOWER
END
(ft)
UPPER
END
(ft)
LOWE
R END
(ft)
FALL (ft)LENGTH
(ft)
SLOPE
(%)
DIMENSION
OF SEWER
(in)
CAPACITY
OF SEWER
(CFS)
VEL.
(FPS)
UPPER
END OF
SECT.
IN
SECTION
LOWER
END OF
SECT.
REMARKS DWG. NO.
SHERIDAN CB2 MH1 0.15 0.85 0.13 0.13 6.67 0.85 74.50 60.00 72.15 58.00 2.35 2.00 14.15 271 5.221 8 2.76 7.91 6.00 0.57 6.57RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH1 CB4 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.13 6.67 0.85 60.00 57.85 57.90 55.85 2.10 2.00 2.05 44 4.659 8 2.61 7.48 6.00 0.10 6.10RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB4 MH2 0.31 0.85 0.27 0.39 6.67 2.62 57.85 58.00 54.40 54.15 3.45 3.85 0.25 42 0.595 12 2.75 3.50 6.00 0.20 6.20RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH2 MH3 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.39 6.67 2.62 58.00 59.00 54.05 53.80 3.95 5.20 0.25 40 0.625 12 2.82 3.59 6.00 0.19 6.19RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH3 MH4 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.39 6.67 2.62 59.00 59.86 53.70 53.50 5.30 6.36 0.20 33 0.606 12 2.77 3.53 6.00 0.16 6.16RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB6 MH4 0.05 0.85 0.04 0.04 6.67 0.27 62.25 59.86 60.15 57.86 2.10 2.00 2.29 37 6.189 8 3.01 8.62 6.00 0.07 6.07RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH4 MH5 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.43 6.67 2.89 59.86 59.50 53.40 53.00 6.46 6.50 0.40 70 0.571 15 4.88 3.98 6.00 0.29 6.29RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH5 MH6 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.43 6.67 2.89 59.50 58.00 52.90 52.50 6.60 5.50 0.40 64 0.625 15 5.11 4.16 6.00 0.26 6.26RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH6 CB8 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.43 6.67 2.89 58.00 58.01 52.40 52.00 5.60 6.01 0.40 61 0.656 15 5.23 4.26 6.00 0.24 6.24RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB8 MH7 0.22 0.85 0.18 0.62 6.67 4.12 58.01 57.50 51.50 51.10 6.51 6.40 0.40 74 0.541 15 4.75 3.87 6.00 0.32 6.32RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH7 CB10 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.62 6.67 4.12 57.50 43.00 51.00 40.90 6.50 2.10 10.10 300 3.367 15 11.85 9.66 6.00 0.52 6.52RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB10 CB11 0.14 0.85 0.12 0.73 6.67 4.90 43.00 23.30 40.70 21.30 2.30 2.00 19.40 300 6.467 15 16.43 13.39 6.00 0.37 6.37RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB11 CB12 0.13 0.85 0.11 0.85 6.67 5.65 23.30 23.30 21.20 21.00 2.10 2.30 0.20 31 0.645 15 5.19 4.23 6.00 0.12 6.12RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB12 CB14 0.13 0.85 0.11 1.34 6.67 8.94 23.30 13.70 12.00 11.50 11.30 2.20 0.50 24 2.083 18 15.16 8.58 6.00 0.05 6.05RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB13 CB14 0.22 0.85 0.19 0.19 6.67 1.26 14.50 13.70 12.00 11.50 2.50 2.20 0.50 53 0.943 10 2.13 3.91 6.00 0.23 6.23RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB14 VORTECH 0.03 0.85 0.03 1.55 6.67 10.37 13.70 13.70 8.75 8.50 4.95 5.20 0.25 35 0.714 24 19.12 6.09 6.00 0.10 6.10RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB5 MH5A 0.15 0.85 0.13 0.13 6.67 0.85 62.50 59.50 60.50 57.50 2.00 2.00 3.00 95 3.158 8 2.15 6.16 6.00 0.26 6.26RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH5A MH6A 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.13 6.67 0.85 59.50 58.00 57.40 56.00 2.10 2.00 1.40 80 1.750 8 1.60 4.58 6.00 0.29 6.29RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH6A CB7 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.13 6.67 0.85 58.00 58.01 55.90 55.50 2.10 2.51 0.40 66 0.606 8 0.94 2.69 6.00 0.41 6.41RCP
n=0.013
DRAINAGE STUDY
10 YEAR STORM - BRUCKNER TRUCK ACCESS
BOROUGH OF THE BRONX
BRUCKNER TRUCK ACCESS
EDGEWATER RD 2/7/2016
- ALL PIPES CIRCULAR 2/7/2016
- RUNOFF COEFFICIENT BASED ON ACTUAL LAND COVER
- FOR DESIGN PURPOSES, PIPE LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED
FROM CENTER OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE STORM FLOW SURFACE ELEV. INNER TOP ELEV. COVER TIME ELAPSED (MIN.)
Storm-10 (2) NO SHERIDAN .85 Page 1 of 2 Q:\2947\PIN X731.55 Bruckner Truck Access\Tech\DRAINAGE\References\EDGEWATER CALS
Proposed Drainage SystemTable 1
Sheet 1 of 2
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3398
Job
R=140
COMBINED SEWER DESIGN Location Computed By ER Date
NOTES: Date Checked By Date
Datum Approved By Date
Revised By Date
Checked By Date
Approved By Date
LOCATION FROM TOAREA
(Acres)
RUN-OFF
COEFF.
"C"
WTD.
AREA
(Acres)
TOTAL
WTD.
AREA
RAINFALL
INTENSIT
Y (IN./HR.)
TOTAL
STORM
RUNOFF
(CFS)
UPPER
END
(ft)
LOWER
END
(ft)
UPPER
END
(ft)
LOWER
END
(ft)
UPPER
END
(ft)
LOWE
R END
(ft)
FALL (ft)LENGTH
(ft)
SLOPE
(%)
DIMENSION
OF SEWER
(in)
CAPACITY
OF SEWER
(CFS)
VEL.
(FPS)
UPPER
END OF
SECT.
IN
SECTION
LOWER
END OF
SECT.
REMARKS DWG. NO.
DRAINAGE STUDY
10 YEAR STORM - BRUCKNER TRUCK ACCESS
BOROUGH OF THE BRONX
BRUCKNER TRUCK ACCESS
EDGEWATER RD 2/7/2016
- ALL PIPES CIRCULAR 2/7/2016
- RUNOFF COEFFICIENT BASED ON ACTUAL LAND COVER
- FOR DESIGN PURPOSES, PIPE LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED
FROM CENTER OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE STORM FLOW SURFACE ELEV. INNER TOP ELEV. COVER TIME ELAPSED (MIN.)
SHERIDAN CB7 MH7A 0.16 0.85 0.13 0.26 6.67 1.75 58.01 57.50 55.40 55.00 2.61 2.50 0.40 80 0.500 12 2.52 3.21 6.00 0.42 6.42RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN MH7A CB9 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.26 6.67 1.75 57.50 43.00 54.90 41.00 2.60 2.00 13.90 300 4.633 12 7.67 9.77 6.00 0.51 6.51RCP
n=0.013
SHERIDAN CB9 CB12 0.14 0.85 0.12 0.38 6.67 2.53 43.00 40.90 2.10 0.00 40.90 298 13.725 12 13.20 16.81 6.00 0.30 6.30RCP
n=0.013
Storm-10 (2) NO SHERIDAN .85 Page 2 of 2 Q:\2947\PIN X731.55 Bruckner Truck Access\Tech\DRAINAGE\References\EDGEWATER CALS
Proposed Drainage SystemTable 1
Sheet 2 of 2
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3399
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
Appendix CCalculations
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3400
PIN X731.55 Redevelopment/New Development Area Tabulation
ID LOCATION DESCRIPTION AREA (SQ FT) LEVEL IN MICROSTATION AREA DISTURBED (SQ FT) COMMENT NEW IMPERV. (SQ FT)
A1 BR EX MAIN 658,800 1-DECK REHAB 0 ELEVATED STRUC. ONLY 0
R1 32,913 2-REMOVE RAMP 32900 0
R2 LB 44,886 3-ADD RAMP 44900 0
R3 BL 85,753 3-ADD RAMP 85800 0
R4 SHER SB 63,200 3-ADD RAMP 63200 0
R5 SHER NB 47,500 3-ADD RAMP 47500 0
B2 BR EX FILL 70,700 4-FILL 70700 0
B3 BR EX 24,657 5-AT GRADE 24655 0
B4 BR EX 9,345 5-AT GRADE 9345 0
B5 BR BL 2,420 5-AT GRADE 2400 0
A2 EDGE -SEN 14,456 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0
B6 EDGE-RAMPS 26,000 5-AT GRADE 26000 0
B7 RR BRIDGES 27,750 6-BRIDGE REPLACE 27750 0
R6 BR EXPWY 56,000 5-AT GRADE 56000 0
R7_4_1 SE ES 19,700 4-FILL 19700 0
R7_3 SE ES 5,955 3-ADD RAMP 5955 0
R7_8 SE ES 32,900 8-NEW IMPERVIOUS 32900 32900
R7_4_2 SE ES 15,150 4-FILL 15150 0
A3 EDGE-RIGHT TURN 11,400 5-AT GRADE 11400 AT GRADE 0
B8 BR EX APPROACH 20,365 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0
B9 BR EX E APPROACH 20,423 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0
A4 BR BL E BOUND 39,318 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0
B10 BR BL E BOUND 7,739 3-ADD RAMP 7700 WIDEN EXPWY 0
B11 BR EX FILL 51,290 4-FILL 51300 0
B12 BR EX 24,030 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0
A5 BR BLVD W BOUND 47,090 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0
B13 BR EX 34,049 1-DECK REHAB 0 0
B14 BR EX FILL 25,567 4-FILL 25600 0
B15 BR BLVD 8,979 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0
A6 BR BLVD SW 1,372 7-MILL 0 MILL AND OVERLAY 0
R8 SH SB FILL 16,400 4-FILL 16400 0
R9 SH EX FILL 12,000 4-FILL 12000 0
R10 SH NB FILL 15,500 4-FILL 15500 0
R11 SH NB FILL 6,889 4-FILL 6890 0
R12 SH EX 80,340 5-AT GRADE 80340 0
R13 ES SE FILL 10,000 4-FILL 10000 0
Totals 801,985 32,900
AREAS OF DISTURBANCE (SQ FT)
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA TOTAL EXISTING PERVIOUS AREATOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA
801,985 32900 769,085
FUTURE PERVIOUS AREA FUTURE IMPERVIOUS AREA
0 801,985
AREAS OF DISTURBANCE (ACRES)
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA TOTAL EXISTING PERVIOUS AREATOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA
18.41 0.76 17.66
FUTURE PERVIOUS AREA FUTURE IMPERVIOUS AREA
0.00 18.41
5/8/2018
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3401
PIN X731.55 Water Quality Volume (WQv)
Calculate Water Quality Volume
NYSDOT HDM Appendix B-14
Wqv = P*Rv * A /12 A = 100% New Dev + 25% Redev
Rv = 0.05 + .009(IC)
WQV 0.090 acre feet 90% RULE
INPUTS FOR WQV
Rv
P(inch) (90%
rainfall event number)
A (acres) - Total Disturbed Area for
the Entire Project N = NEW DEV. IMP AREA
R = REDEV
IMPERV AREA
0.95 1.5 18.41 0.76 4.41
WQv New Dev 0.09 Acre-Feet
Rv = see below = 0.05 + .009(IC) WQv Redev 0.52 Acre-Feet
Rv = 0.95
INPUTS FOR Rv
IC = = (DIST. REDEV + DIST. DEVE ) / (ENTIRE DISTURBED AREA) * 100
IC = 100
(entire disturbed area will be impervious)
5/8/2018
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3402
Pin X731.55Peak Discharge Calculations (qu) (cfs)
P 1.5 inchesCN 98 (Table 2-2a)S 0.204082Ia 0.040816Q 1.280143 inchesqu 700 csm/inAm 0.002953 square milesFp 1 (Table 4-2)qp 2.646295 cfs
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3403
PIN X731.55 Runoff Reduction Volume (RRvmin)
Calculate Runoff Reduction Volume
RRv min = P * Rv * Aic * S /12
Rv = .05 + .009*I where I is 100% impervious
Aic Total new area of impervious cover
S hydrologic soil group specific reduction factor
RRv min 0.027 acre ft
P Rv AiC S
1.5 0.95 0.76 0.3
SOIL FACTOR "S"
Soils FACTOR % ON SITE WEIGHTED "S"
A 0.55
B 0.4 0.3
C 0.3 1
D 0.2
Soils in AOI
map unit symbol acres in aoi percent in aoi PERCENT - rev. to exclude water HSG
LUA 1.1 1.2 1.210121012 C
UGA 0.4 0.5 0.440044004 UNRANKED (C assumed)
UMA 35.7 38.9 39.27392739 UNRANKED (C assumed)
UTA 38 41.4 41.80418042 UNRANKED (C assumed)
UTB 15.7 17.1 17.27172717 UNRANKED (C assumed)
WATER 0.9 1
TOTAL 91.8 100.1 100
5/8/2018
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3404
May 2018 Draft Drainage Report PIN X731.55
Appendix DSoils Information
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3405
BRUCKNER EXPRESSWAY
UtB
UtA
UtA
UtA
UtB
UmA
UmA
W
UmA
UtB
UtB
UtB
LUA
UGA
UmA
LUB
UGA
LUAUGA
UtB
LUA
UtA
UtC
UGA
UGB
UGB
LaA
PELHAM LINE
AMTRAK-HELLGATE LINE
BRUCKNER BLVD
GARRISON AVE
SOUTHERN BLVD
WHITT
IER ST
STORY AVE
AUSTIN PL
BRON
X RIVE
R SHO
RELIN
E
FAILE
ST
LEGGETT AVE
EAST
149 S
T
TIFFANY ST
TIMPSON PL
EXIT 48 WB
WHITLOCK A
VE
EDGE
WATER
RD
SENECA AVE
BARRETTO ST
EAST 141 ST
SHER
IDAN E
XPRES
SWAY
EAST 140 ST
DRAK
E ST
BRON
X RIVE
R AVE
LONG
FELLO
WAV
E
GRINNELL PL
ALDUS ST
AVE A
HUNTS POINT AVE
HOE A
VE
EAST 144 ST
ELDER
AVE
BRYA
NT AV
E
LONGWOOD AVE
CLOS
E AVE
EAST 163 ST
BOYN
TON
AVE
COLG
ATE A
VE
CONC
RETE
PLANT
PARK
GREEN
WAY
MANID
A ST
WHEE
LER A
VE
IRVINE
ST
EAST 165 ST
EAST 156 ST
EAST 142 STEV
ERGR
EEN
AVE
BURNETT PL
LOWELL ST
HALLE
CK ST
WORTHEN ST
BARR
Y ST
EASTERN BLVD BRIDGE
WESTCHESTER AVE
AVE S
T JOH
N
LAFAYETTE AVE
SHERIDAN EP NB EN HUNTS PT AV
INTER
VALE
AVE
CONCORD AVE
EVER
GREE
N AV
E
SOUTHERN BLVD
PELHAM LIN
E
LAFAYETTE AVE
CLOS
E AVE
SHERIDAN
EXPR
ESSWAY
BRON
X RIVE
R SHO
RELIN
E
FAILE
ST
WHEE
LER A
VE
ELDER
AVE
PELHAM LINE
BRON
X RIVE
R SHOREL
INE
EAST 156 ST
FOX S
T
WHITE PLAINS RD LINE
2 ST
UNION AVE
BECK ST
3 AVE
WESTCHESTER AVE
3 ST
KELLY
ST1 ST
COSTE
R ST
WALES AVE
JACKSON AVE
EAGLE AVE
AVE B
BROOK AVE
BRYA
NT AV
E
EAST 156 ST
RANDALL AVE
AVE C
EAST 149 ST
AVE F
AVE D
INTER
VALE
AVE
OAK POINT AVE
HUNTS POINT AVE
ST ANNS A
VE
CONCORD AVE
DRAK
E ST
PROSPE
CT AVE
ROGE
RS PL
EAST 160 ST
EAST RIVER SHORELINE FAILE
ST
TINTO
N AVE
HALLE
CK ST
LONG
FELLO
W AV
E
WHITT
IER ST
HEWI
TT PL
BERGEN AVE
ALLEY
WHEE
LER A
VE
EAST 139 STST MARYS ST
SIMPS
ON ST
BRONX RIVER SHORELINE
DAWSON ST
EVER
GREE
N AV
E
WALNUT AVE
PELHAM LINE
HOE A
VE
COLG
ATE A
VE
LAFAYETTE AVE
AVE EEAST 138 ST
WORT
HEN
ST AVE A
EAST 145 ST
EAST 165 ST
EAST 150 ST
EAST 161 ST
SOUT
HERN
BOUL
EVAR
D
LONGWOOD AVELOCUST AVE
EAST 148 ST
WEST FARMS RD
AVE G
TIFFA
NY ST
MELROSE A
VE
CLOS
E AVE
MANID
A ST
ELDER
AVE
PIER
EAST 144 ST
AVE S
T JOH
N
ALDUS ST
LEGG
ETT A
VE
EAST 152 ST
ELTON AVE
BARR
ETTO
ST
EAST 151 ST
EAST 141 ST
HALL PL
CASA
NOVA
ST
SOUNDVIEW PARK GREENWAY
EAST 147 ST
EAST 162 ST
EAST 153 ST
EAST 142 ST
MACY PL
WATSON AVE
TRINITY
AVE
FORES
T AVE
EAST 163 ST
TRUXTON ST
CAULDWELL
AVE
TIMPSON PL
HEGNEY
PLFREEMAN ST
AMTRAK-HELLGATE LIN
EEAST 159 ST
EAST 146 ST
BRONX RIV
ERAVE
SPOFFORD AVE
UNNA
MED
ST
EAST 158 STEAST 157 ST
PEDESTRIAN PATH
EAST 155 ST
BURNETT PL
ST MA
RYS P
ARK B
OUND
ARY
HALLE
CK ST
FOX ST
TRINITY AVE
PIER
PIER
ALLEY EAST 163 ST
ALLEY
TIFFA
NY ST
EAST 151 ST
SOUTHERN
BOULEVARD
FAILE
ST
LAFAYETTE AVE
PIER
BRONX RIVER SHORELINE
EAST 152 ST
COLG
ATE A
VE
JACKSON AVE
SIMPS
ON ST
EAST 158 ST
AVE D
CAULDWELL AVE
KELLY ST
PELHAM LINE
!#"$278
!#"$278
0 700 1,400350Feet
FPa
th: Q
:\972
9470
0\GIS\
Mxd\X
731.5
5\EIS
Grap
hics\C
hapt
er 4\N
atural
Resou
rces\X
731.5
5_EIS
_Soil
s Map
_2.m
xd
Sources: NAIP Digital Georectified Image, 2015, USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field Office,Soil Data: USDA, NRCS.
Figure 4.3.3-1Soils Map
B R O N X R I V E R
X731.55 HUNTS POINT INTERSTATEACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
8/23
/201
7
E A S T R I V E R
B R O N X N E W Y O R K
- Laguardia Artifactual Coarse Sandy Loam (LaA)- Laguardia-Urban Land Complex (LUA)- Laguardia-Urban Land Complex (LUB)- Urban Land-Greenbelt Complex (UGA)- Urban Land-Greenbelt Complex (UGB)- Urban Land, tidal marsh substratum (UmA)- Urban Land, till substratum (UtA)- Urban Land, till substratum (UtB)- Urban Land, till substratum (UtC)- Water (W)
LEGENDStudy AreaSoil Designations
H U N T S P O I N TM A R K E T
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3406
Bronx County, New York
LUA—Laguardia-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: 2qf9mElevation: 0 to 150 feetMean annual precipitation: 40 to 52 inchesMean annual air temperature: 47 to 62 degrees FFrost-free period: 216 to 234 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit CompositionLaguardia and similar soils: 60 percentUrban land, till substratum: 25 percentMinor components: 15 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Laguardia
SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder,
backslope, footslope, toeslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope,
crest, rise, dip, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveParent material: Loamy-skeletal human-transported material
Typical profile^Au - 0 to 8 inches: cobbly-artifactual coarse sandy loam^BCu - 8 to 26 inches: very cobbly-artifactual coarse sandy loam^Cu - 26 to 79 inches: very cobbly-artifactual coarse sandy loam
Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 3 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: LowCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
Moderately low to moderately high (0.01 to 1.42 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 19 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Low (about 3.1 inches)
Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 1Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Map Unit Description: Laguardia-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County,New York
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 1 of 3
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3407
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Urban Land, Till Substratum
SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Asphalt over human-transported material
Typical profileM - 0 to 15 inches: cemented material2^C - 15 to 79 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 3 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to manufactured layerRunoff class: Very highCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very
low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 8sHydric soil rating: Unranked
Minor Components
GreenbeltPercent of map unit: 7 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope, base
slope, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No
EbbetsPercent of map unit: 7 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, base
slope, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No
SecaucusPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): BackslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Dip, talf
Map Unit Description: Laguardia-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County,New York
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 2 of 3
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3408
Down-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: ConcaveHydric soil rating: No
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Bronx County, New YorkSurvey Area Data: Version 6, Sep 23, 2016
Map Unit Description: Laguardia-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County,New York
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 3 of 3
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3409
Bronx County, New York
UGA—Urban land-Greenbelt complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: 2pblnElevation: 0 to 320 feetMean annual precipitation: 40 to 52 inchesMean annual air temperature: 47 to 62 degrees FFrost-free period: 216 to 234 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit CompositionUrban land, till substratum: 78 percentGreenbelt and similar soils: 12 percentMinor components: 10 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Urban Land, Till Substratum
SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Asphalt over human-transported material
Typical profileM - 0 to 15 inches: cemented material2^C - 15 to 79 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 3 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to manufactured layerRunoff class: Very highCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very
low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 8sHydric soil rating: Unranked
Description of Greenbelt
SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope, base
slope, talf
Map Unit Description: Urban land-Greenbelt complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County,New York
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 1 of 3
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3410
Down-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexParent material: Loamy human-transported material
Typical profile^A - 0 to 5 inches: loam^Bw1 - 5 to 16 inches: loam^Bw2 - 16 to 30 inches: loam^C - 30 to 79 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 3 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesNatural drainage class: Well drainedRunoff class: LowCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
Moderately high (0.43 to 1.42 in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 30 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 1Hydrologic Soil Group: BHydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
LaguardiaPercent of map unit: 7 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder,
backslope, footslope, toeslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope,
crest, rise, dip, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveHydric soil rating: No
CentralparkPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: ConvexHydric soil rating: No
North meadowPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope,
toeslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope, talf
Map Unit Description: Urban land-Greenbelt complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County,New York
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 2 of 3
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3411
Down-slope shape: Linear, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, concaveHydric soil rating: No
EbbetsPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, base
slope, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Bronx County, New YorkSurvey Area Data: Version 6, Sep 23, 2016
Map Unit Description: Urban land-Greenbelt complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County,New York
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 3 of 3
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3412
Bronx County, New York
UmA—Urban land, tidal marsh substratum, 0 to 3 percentslopes
Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: 2pbc9Elevation: 0 to 100 feetMean annual precipitation: 40 to 52 inchesMean annual air temperature: 47 to 62 degrees FFrost-free period: 216 to 234 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit CompositionUrban land, tidal marsh substratum: 92 percentMinor components: 8 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Urban Land, Tidal Marsh Substratum
SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Asphalt over human-transported material
Typical profileM1 - 0 to 6 inches: cemented materialM2 - 6 to 20 inches: cemented material2^C - 20 to 79 inches: very gravelly sand
Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 3 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to manufactured layerRunoff class: Very highCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very
low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)Depth to water table: About 20 inchesCalcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 8sHydric soil rating: Unranked
Minor Components
LaguardiaPercent of map unit: 5 percent
Map Unit Description: Urban land, tidal marsh substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes---BronxCounty, New York
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 1 of 2
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3413
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder,backslope, footslope, toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope,crest, rise, dip, talf
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveHydric soil rating: No
GreenbeltPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope, base
slope, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No
EbbetsPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, base
slope, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No
CentralparkPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: ConvexHydric soil rating: No
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Bronx County, New YorkSurvey Area Data: Version 6, Sep 23, 2016
Map Unit Description: Urban land, tidal marsh substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes---BronxCounty, New York
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 2 of 2
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3414
Bronx County, New York
UtA—Urban land, till substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: 2pbc8Elevation: 0 to 340 feetMean annual precipitation: 40 to 52 inchesMean annual air temperature: 47 to 62 degrees FFrost-free period: 216 to 234 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit CompositionUrban land, till substratum: 92 percentMinor components: 8 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Urban Land, Till Substratum
SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Asphalt over human-transported material
Typical profileM - 0 to 15 inches: cemented material2^C - 15 to 79 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 3 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to manufactured layerRunoff class: Very highCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very
low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 8sHydric soil rating: Unranked
Minor Components
GreenbeltPercent of map unit: 3 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope, base
slope, talf
Map Unit Description: Urban land, till substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County, NewYork
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 1 of 2
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3415
Down-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No
EbbetsPercent of map unit: 2 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, base
slope, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No
LaguardiaPercent of map unit: 2 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder,
backslope, footslope, toeslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope,
crest, rise, dip, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveHydric soil rating: No
CentralparkPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: ConvexHydric soil rating: No
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Bronx County, New YorkSurvey Area Data: Version 6, Sep 23, 2016
Map Unit Description: Urban land, till substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Bronx County, NewYork
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 2 of 2
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3416
Bronx County, New York
UtB—Urban land, till substratum, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit SettingNational map unit symbol: 2pbc7Elevation: 0 to 370 feetMean annual precipitation: 40 to 52 inchesMean annual air temperature: 47 to 62 degrees FFrost-free period: 216 to 234 daysFarmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit CompositionUrban land, till substratum: 92 percentMinor components: 8 percentEstimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Urban Land, Till Substratum
SettingLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Asphalt over human-transported material
Typical profileM - 0 to 15 inches: cemented material2^C - 15 to 79 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 8 percentDepth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to manufactured layerRunoff class: Very highCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very
low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr)Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percentAvailable water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive groupsLand capability classification (irrigated): None specifiedLand capability classification (nonirrigated): 8sHydric soil rating: Unranked
Minor Components
GreenbeltPercent of map unit: 3 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope, base
slope, talf
Map Unit Description: Urban land, till substratum, 3 to 8 percent slopes---Bronx County, NewYork
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 1 of 2
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3417
Down-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No
EbbetsPercent of map unit: 2 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope,
footslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, base
slope, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convexAcross-slope shape: Linear, convexHydric soil rating: No
LaguardiaPercent of map unit: 2 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder,
backslope, footslope, toeslopeLandform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope,
crest, rise, dip, talfDown-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveAcross-slope shape: Linear, convex, concaveHydric soil rating: No
CentralparkPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform position (two-dimensional): SummitLandform position (three-dimensional): TalfDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: ConvexHydric soil rating: No
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Bronx County, New YorkSurvey Area Data: Version 6, Sep 23, 2016
Map Unit Description: Urban land, till substratum, 3 to 8 percent slopes---Bronx County, NewYork
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
9/14/2017Page 2 of 2
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3418
Memorandum
The Hunts point access improvement boring program was completed by Aquifer Drilling and Testing (ADT). Borings started on Monday, January 22, 2018, and were completed on Friday, March 16, 2018. The thickness of the soil was typically 55 feet however, at two boring locations DNB-1 and DNB-11 soil was encountered to only 20 to 26 feet respectively. Where rock was encountered it was typically good recovery. Some locations had decomposed rock above bedrock. Rock was encountered at approximately 50 to 55 feet except as noted above. For borings located on pavement, asphalt was approximately1 ft-2 inches to 2 feet thick and soil was encountered at 2 feet. Soil encountered below the pavement was brown and grey gravelly SAND fill. Please see Appendix A for boring logs and the weekly boring report. Most borings were drilled in their intended locations However, borings DNB-2, DNB-3, and DNB-4 were relocated due to difficult access. Boring Number Reason for Relocation Resolution DNB-2 Restricted Access Low
Clearance Relocated 25 Feet North
DNB-3 Restricted Access Low Clearance
Relocated 25 Feet North
DNB-4 No Access to CSX track Relocated 250 Feet Southeast
Please see Appendix B for relocated borings. The water table was measured and was found to be approximately 14-29 feet below grade. This variation depended on the elevation of the borings. The borings within Garrison park were located approximately 20 feet below the Bruckner Expressway and the water table measured at 14 feet. The water table within borings located along the Bruckner measured at 29 feet. Water table measurements were taken during and after drilling.
To Nader Basta Page 1 CC Subject Hunts Point Access Improvement (Bronx)
From Joanna Smith Date 03/26/2018.
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3419
Hager Richter performed a geophysical penetration radar survey from Whitlock to Southern Avenue. The scope of work was to detect the limits of the train’s underground location to enable the protection of this underground facility during future phases of work. This study was completed in 3 days. The resulting report will be provided independently of this report. Environmental Planning & Management, Inc. (EPM) performed environmental sampling for ten of the thirteen borings completed, specifically DNB-4 through DNB-13. EPM completed 3-5 environmental samples for each boring. The results of the environmental testing will be provided independently of this report. MJ Engineering and Land Surveying completed the survey for boring locations DNB-1, through DNB-13. Please see the table below for the timeline of the completion for the Geotechnical Report, Invoice, and Bruckner Environmental report.
The surface soil at the site was found typically to be Sand based Fill of varying thickness. In 4 locations, (borings DN-B-8, DN-B-9, DN-B-10 and DN-B-12) a layer of soft to medium silty clay was encountered. Thickness of the silty clay layer ranged from 5 to 15 feet in thickness. These soils were overlying natural Gravelly Sand based soil. Boulders and refusal where encountered in multiple locations. Rock depth was observed to range from 26 to 55 feet below grade and often had decomposed rock above bedrock.
Company Role Completed Items Incomplete
Items
Submission dates
for Incomplete Items
1.AECOM Boring Inspector
a) Boring Logs
Bruckner Geotechnical Report
3 weeks (April 6, 2018)
2.ADT Drilling SUB a) Boring Plan completed
b) Invoice 1- (Jan-Feb)
Invoice 2-(Month of March)
1-2 weeks (April 2, 2018)
3.Hager Richter
Ground Penetrating Radar Study
a) Ground Penetrating Radar Study
b) Ground Penetrating Radar Study Report
Submitted on Friday March 16, 2018.
4.EPM Environmental Study
a) Environmental Borings
Bruckner Environmental Report
4-6 weeks (* Will be delivered to Dewberry) (April 27, 2018)
5. MJ Surveying
Surveying a) Surveying Boring Locations
Surveying for borings: DNB-2, DNB-3, DNB-4
1-3 days (March 22, 2018)
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3420
In terms of foundations, the presence of uncontrolled fills, and of compressible clays, indicates that shallow footings are not suitable to carry the foundation loads of the proposed elevated roadway. It is recommended that deep foundations are utilized for the roadway piers. Due to the number of obstructions encountered, a drilled foundation is more suitable than driven piles. Difficult pile driving would be anticipated because of the need to penetrate boulders and other obstructions. Drilled Shafts would be a more suitable foundation for these conditions. However, note that if the piers are subject to high lateral loads or overturning moments that rock sockets may be required in areas of shallow rock.
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3421
APPENDIX A
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3422
Hunts Point Access Improvement
Week No. (Date) Rig Borings Completed
Borings In Progress/Potential
Duration Boring Depth
1(Jan.22-Jan. 26) Rig: CME 55 Truck
DN-B-7 (E-4) 4days-DNB-7 (1/22-1/25)
Soil-50’,Rock:20’
2(Jan. 29-Feb. 2) Rig: CME 55 Truck
DN-B-8 (E-5)
DN-B-11 (E-10)
2 days-DNB-8 (1/26-1/29) 3days -DNB-11 (1/30-2/1)
Soil-45’,Rock-20’
Soil-26’,Rock:15’
3(Feb. 5-Feb. 9) Rig: CME 55 Truck Rig
DN-B-10(E-9)
DN-B-9(E-8)
2 days-DNB-10 (2/2-2/5)
3 days-DNB-9 (2/6-2/8)
Soil-52’(No RC)
Soil-105’(No RC)
4(Feb. 12- Feb. 16) DNB-6(E-3) 5days-DNB-6 2/8,2/12-2/15
Soil-57’,Rock:20’
5(Feb.19-Feb.23) DNB-5 (E-2)
DNB-12(E-6)
DNB-13(E-7)
DNB-1
3days-DNB5 2/8,2/15,2/19 3days-DNB-12 2/20-2/22 1day-DNB13 2/22-2/22 1day-DNB-1 2/23-2/23
Soil-55’,Rock:20’
Soil-52’,Rock:10’
Soil-20’, (No RC)
Soil-20’,Rock:20’
6(Feb.26-March 2)
7(Mar. 5-Mar. 9) DNB-2 4 days-DNB-2 2/28,3/1,3/4,3/5
Soil-52’, Rock:20’
8(Mar.12-Mar.16) DNB-4(E-1)
DNB-3
4 days-DNB-4 3/8-3/9,3/12-3/13 3 days-DNB-3 3/13-3/16
Soil-55’,Rock:20’
Soil-41’,Rock:20’
Note: *Hager Richter – MPT(Feb 9, 12 and 13th - Complete Geophysical Study)
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3423
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3424
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3425
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3426
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3427
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3428
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3429
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3430
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3431
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3432
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3433
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3434
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3435
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3436
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3437
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3438
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3439
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3440
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3441
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3442
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3443
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3444
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3445
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3446
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3447
APPENDIX B
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3448
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3449
Volume 2 5/21/18 Appendix - Page - 3450