SW4211201_Supplement-EZ Form_20220225

SUPPLEMENT-EZ COVER PAGE
FORMS LOADED
PRE7ld:ECi
IN IiMAT]ON
1
Project Name
The Grove Subdivision Road
2
Project Area ac
66.82
3
Coastal Wetland Area ae
0
4
Surface Water Area ac
0.33
5
Is this pLqjeGt High or Low Density?
Low
6
1 Does this project use an off -site SCM?
No
COMPLIANCE WITH 02H .1003(4)
7
Width of vegetated setbacks rovided feet I
30 feet
8
Will the vegetated setback remain vegetated?
Yes
9
If BUA is proposed in the Setback, does it meet NCAC 02H.1003 4 c-d ?
NIA
10
Is strearnbank stabilization proposed on this project?
No
NUMB RAND TYPE OF SCMs:
11 Infiltration System
12
_
Bioretention Celt
_
Wet Pond
14
Stormwater Wetland
15
L1713
Permeable Pavement
16
Sand Filter
Rainwater Harvesting RWH
18
Green Roof
19
Level S reader -Filter Strip LS-FS
20
Disconnected Impervious Surface 01S
21
Treatment Swale
0
22
Diy Pond
23
StormFllter
24
Silva Cell
25
lBayfilter
26
Filters
FORMS LOADED
CESIGNER G£ftTli=[CATION
27
Name and Title:
John F. Oglesby, PE
28
Organization:
CSD Engineering
29
Street address:
115 E. Third Street
30
City, State, Zip:
Wendell, NC 27591
31
Phone numbers :
[phone]
32
Email:
[e-mail]
Certification Statement;
I certify, under penalty of law that this Supplement-EZ form and all supporting information were prepared under my directions or supervision; that the
information provided in the form is, to the hest of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete; and that the engineering plans,
specifications, operation and maintenance agreements and other supporting information are consistent with the information provided here.
C4 SEAL
• 032721
S' na of Designer
Z 1 / .� 1 Z- 2-

LOW DENSITY
DEsm
1
agwixgmgM MR Low DENSITY PROIECfs FROM 02H .1003
is project below density thresholds set forth in the applicable stormwater rule? Yes
2
Does project maximize dispersed flow and minimize cllannelization of flow?
Yes
3
Has the use of piping been minimized per. 1 003(2)(c)?
Yes
4
Side slopes of the vegetated conveyances (H:V)
3:1
5
Maximum velocity in the vegetated conveyances during the 10-year storm?
2
6
Are curb nutlet swales proposed?
No
7
Maximum longitudinal slope of curb outlet swale(s) (%)
8
Bottom width of curb outlet swale(s) (feet)
9
Maximum side slope of curb outlet swale(s) (H:V)
10
Minimum length of curb outlet swale(s) (feet)
11
Are treatment swales used instead of curb outlet swales?
12
Is stormwater released at the edge of the setback as dispersed flow?
Yes
13
Have stormwater outlets been designed to prevent downslope erosion?
Yes
14
Are variations to rule .1003 proposed?
No
ADDITIONAL [NFORMATION
15
Please use this space to provide any additional information about this low density project:
Roadside channels are not intended to meet MDC for grassed swales; however, some treatment expected. Channel analysis
was done by estimating discharge with Rational formula with same paramters for all anlysis; C=0.6, 110-6.83 inlhr (5-min TOC)
times the drainage areas. Roughness for Class D vegetation was computed in channel analysis worksheet based on FHWA
HEC No. 15 "Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Lining" . These channels will not directly discharge near surface water
buffers.
Swale
#
Drainage ', BUA Pervious '°
Area
(ac) area
C
4
(cfs)
Slope
(%)
V,r,,,,
(fps)
V� L
(fps)
Flow depth
(ff)
1
0,22
0.11
0.11
0.60
0.84
3.44
1.00
0.60
2
1.06
0.53
0.53
0.60
4.06
3.44
2.10
0.90
3
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.60
0.84
1.01
0.50
0.80
4
0.26
0.13
0.13
0,60
1.00
1.00 1
0.60
0.80
5
0.54
0.27
0.27
0.60
2.07
4.50
1.70
0.70
6
0.67
0,34
0.33
0.60
2.56
4.60
1.90
0.70
7
0.30
OAS
0.15
0.60
1.15
5,58
1.50
0.60
8
0.27
0.14
0.13
0.60
1.03
5.58
1.50
0.60
9
10
11
12
13
14
kie
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30