CFA Letterhead

Planned Unit Development Major Drainageway Analysis Phase 1

September 2018

Appendix F - 1

Planned Unit Development Major Drainageway Analysis Phase 1

September 2018

Prepared for:

Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC 777 S. Center Street, Suite 105 Reno, Nevada 89501

Prepared by:

Reno: Elko: 1650 Meadow Wood Lane 835 Railroad Street Reno, Nevada 89502 Elko, Nevada 89801 Phone: (775) 826-8822 | Fax: (775) 826-8857 Phone: (775) 753-9496 | Fax: (775) 826-8857

Appendix F - 2

Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC StoneGate Planned Unit Development Major Drainageway Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose...... 1 1.2 Project Location...... 1 1.3 Project Description ...... 1 1.4 Pre-Field Desktop Analysis ...... 1 1.5 Overview of Phase 1 Drainageways ...... 3 1.6 Field Survey ...... 5 2 West Copperfield Creek ...... 7 2.1 Site Conditions ...... 7 2.2 Vegetation ...... 7 2.3 Wildlife ...... 9 2.4 Soils ...... 9 2.5 Existing Engineered Improvements ...... 11 2.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities ...... 11 2.7 Hydrologic Resources ...... 11 2.8 Potential Flow Impediments ...... 11 2.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses ...... 11 2.10 Representative Photographs ...... 11 3 Short Creek ...... 12 3.1 Site Conditions ...... 12 3.2 Vegetation ...... 12 3.3 Wildlife ...... 13 3.4 Soils ...... 13 3.5 Existing Engineered Improvements ...... 13 3.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities ...... 13 3.7 Hydrologic Resources ...... 13 3.8 Potential Flow Impediments ...... 14 3.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses ...... 14 3.10 Representative Photographs ...... 14 4 Heinz Spring Creek ...... 15 4.1 Site Conditions ...... 15 4.2 Vegetation ...... 15 4.3 Wildlife ...... 16 4.4 Soils ...... 16 4.5 Existing Engineered Improvements ...... 17 4.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities ...... 17 4.7 Hydrologic Resources ...... 17

i 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 3 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

4.8 Potential Flow Impediments ...... 17 4.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses ...... 17 4.10 Representative Photographs ...... 18 5 Constructed Drainageway ...... 19 5.1 Site Conditions ...... 19 5.2 Vegetation ...... 19 5.3 Wildlife ...... 19 5.4 Soils ...... 19 5.5 Existing Engineered Improvements ...... 19 5.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities ...... 20 5.7 Hydrologic Resources ...... 20 5.8 Potential Flow Impediments ...... 20 5.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses ...... 20 5.10 Representative Photographs ...... 20 6 Haul Road Crossings, Construction Yard, and Pond ...... 21 6.1 Wet Ravine Creek ...... 21 6.1.1 Site Conditions ...... 21 6.1.2 Vegetation ...... 21 6.1.3 Wildlife ...... 26 6.1.4 Soils ...... 26 6.1.5 Existing Engineered Improvements ...... 28 6.1.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities ...... 28 6.1.7 Hydrologic Resources ...... 29 6.1.8 Potential Flow Impediments ...... 29 6.1.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses...... 29 6.1.10 Representative Photographs ...... 29 6.2 Waltz Canyon Creek ...... 29 6.2.1 Site Conditions ...... 29 6.2.2 Vegetation ...... 29 6.2.3 Wildlife ...... 30 6.2.4 Soils ...... 30 6.2.5 Existing Engineered Improvements ...... 30 6.2.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities ...... 30 6.2.7 Hydrologic Resources ...... 30 6.2.8 Potential Flow Impediments ...... 30 6.2.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses...... 31 6.2.10 Representative Photographs ...... 31 7 Conclusion ...... 32 8 References ...... 33

ii 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 4 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

FIGURES

Figure 1. Location, Project Area, and Phase 1 Boundary...... 2 Figure 2. Drainageways in Phase 1, USGS National Hydrography and FEMA Drainage Maps 4 Figure 3. Drainageways Data Point Locations ...... 6 Figure 4. SWReGAP Vegetation Communities in StoneGate, Phase 1 ...... 8 Figure 5. NRCS Soil Map for StoneGate, Phase 1...... 10 Figure 6. Haul Road Crossings, Proposed Pond, and Alternative Construction Yard Locations ...... 22 Figure 7. Data Point Locations on Waltz Canyon Creek and Wet Ravine Creek...... 23 Figure 8. SWReGAP Vegetation Communities for Haul Road Crossings, Proposed Pond, and Alternative Construction Yard ...... 24 Figure 9. NRCS Soils Types for the Haul Crossings, Proposed Pond, and Alternative Construction Yard ...... 27

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Photo Log Appendix B: Representative Plant Species by Drainage Appendix C: Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: Plant Materials

iii 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 5

Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC StoneGate Planned Unit Development Major Drainageway Analysis

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

EM Strategies, Inc. (EMS) was retained by Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC (HRLC) to complete a Major Drainageway Analysis for Phase 1 of the StoneGate Planned Unit Development (StoneGate PUD) located in Washoe County, Nevada. This report demonstrates compliance with the City of Reno Major Drainageways Plan (Plan) (1992); Conservation Plan (2008); and Reno Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 18.12 of the General Development and Design Standards, Article XIX: Drainageway Protection Standards, as amended (2015).

1.2 Project Location

StoneGate PUD is located on private lands within Sections 32 & 33, Township 21 North, Range 18 East (T21N R18E), and Section 5, T20N R18E, in the Cold Springs Valley area of Washoe County (Project Area) (Figure 1). The Project Area is approximately 1,737 acres in size and is bifurcated by United States Route 395 (US 395). Phase 1 encompasses approximately 229 acres in Section 33, T21N R18E.

1.3 Project Description

The City of Reno annexed the property in 2006. StoneGate is a master planned community that incorporates a mix of uses and densities and includes residential, schools, open space, parks, an extensive trail corridor network, and retail and industrial uses. StoneGate design standards have been created to protect and enhance the site’s natural features including gentle slopes, drainageways, viewsheds, and native vegetation. The StoneGate PUD is expected to be constructed over a 20-year period (2018 to 2038) (HRLC 2018).

1.4 Pre-Field Desktop Analysis

Information was compiled from the following sources on the environmental conditions within the drainageways prior to the field survey:

• Aquatic Resource Delineation Report, Heinz Ranch – StoneGate Project (geosUAS 2016); • Conceptual Drainage Report for StoneGate a Master Planned Community (Lumos and Associates 2017);

1 4066.Drainageway.Update.docx Appendix F - 6 Elko Winnemucca !( !( !( Battle Mountain Reno !( Ely !( !( Carson City Tonopah !(

Las !( Vegas

21N 18E

20N 18E

Explanation HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY LLC Project Area Phase 1 STONEGATE Location, Project Area, and Phase 1 Boundary Figure 1 07/19/2018 WDL 4066 0 0.5 1 ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) Miles $ 4066W_Stonegate_Fig1_Location.mxd Appendix F - 7 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

• United States Geological Survey (USGS) Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) data to produce vegetation community mapping for the Project Area (USGS 2004); • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, Washoe County, Nevada, South Part (NRCS 2015); • Information provided by Lumos and Associates on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood and drainage maps; • USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) data to identify water sources and features (e.g., springs and streams) within Project Area (USGS 2017); and • USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles (Reno NW).

1.5 Overview of Phase 1 Drainageways

A ‘major drainageway’ is defined as a drainageway that drains a land area of 100 acres or more (RMC Article XIX: Section 18.12.1903). There are three major drainageways within Phase 1 based on FEMA drainage maps (HRLC 2018) (Figure 2). They are Heinz Spring Creek, Short Creek, and West Copperfield Creek. In addition, a drainage feature within the current Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) right-of-way (ROW) along US 395 will be incorporated into the Project Area and was analyzed as a drainageway in this report. Finally, haul road crossings, a proposed pond, and a construction yard will impact two drainageways (Wet Ravine Creek and Waltz Canyon Creek) outside of Phase 1 during construction; only the areas of those drainageways that will be impacted were analyzed.

Ephemeral flows travel south to north from within the Project Area and terminate in White Lake, which is a hydrologically isolated terminal basin. As such, none of the drainages are under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The City of Reno assumed jurisdiction of USACE non-jurisdictional waters.

The Plan (City of Reno 1992) contains two stream designations that are applicable to the major drainageways in the Project Area, described as follows:

"Disturbed" - Drainageways which have been or will be significantly graded, filled or otherwise altered by man.”

"Landscaped - Drainageways which have been or will be improved with landscaping and may include turf or non-native plant species. These drainageways are generally part of a park or planned unit development and are designed to address aesthetics, and should also include water quality, stormwater management and recreation functions where appropriate.”

The StoneGate PUD will reroute three major drainageways in Phase 1 - West Copperfield Creek, Heinz Spring Creek, and Short Creek (HRLC 2018). Heinz Spring Creek and Short Creek will be landscaped. Therefore, West Copperfield Creek is designated as ‘Disturbed’ and Heinz Spring Creek and Short Creek are designated as ‘Disturbed/Landscaped.’

3 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 8 !

! !

! Winnemucca

! !( Elko !(

! ! ! ! !(

! Battle !

! Mountain ! ! Reno

! !(

! ! Ely

! !(

! !( !

Carson City !

! !

! !( !

! ! Tonopah

! !

! ! ! !( ! Las Vegas

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! Constructed Drainageway

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! 21N 18E !

! ! !

! !

! West Copperfield Creek

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

Heinz Spring Creek ! !

! !

S !

! !

h ! ! !

o !

! !

! r !

t ! !

! C !

! r !

e !

! !

e !

! ! ! ! !

k !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! 20N 18E

! ! ! !

! !

! ! Explanation !

! ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY LLC !

! !

Project Area !

! ! !

! STONEGATE ! !

! Intermittent Stream ! ! ! Drainageways in Phase 1, ! !

Proposed Ditch !

! !

USGS National Hydrography ! !

Playa ! !

! ! and FEMA Hydrography Datasets !

Phase 1 ! ! Figure 2 !

! ! !

08/31/2018 WDL ! ! 4066 ! ! ! 0 500 1,000 ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) ! !

! Feet 4066W_Stonegate_Fig2_NHD.mxd

! ! $ ! Appendix F - 9 ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

The intent of the drainage alterations as stated in the Stonegate PUD (HRLC 2018) is to create natural stream-like channel environments to convey storm and drainage waters throughout the Project Area while providing public safety and creating recreation amenities. Alterations are supported in the Plan (City of Reno 1992) only where they result in a situation which is better than what currently exists, which is defined as follows:

“Enhancement - The improvement of a drainageway which results in a treatment which is better than the existing drainageway in terms of recreation, filtration, impoundment of storm waters or diversity of plant species provided species to be introduced serve to filter storm water and create food and cover for wildlife.”

1.6 Field Survey

In general, Phase 1 consists of historically irrigated crop land that was heavily grazed. Data were collected on the environmental conditions at representative data points (Figure 3) for each drainageway in Phase 1 on July 10, 2018. Data were collected on the environmental conditions at representative data points (Figure 7) for haul road crossings, the pond, and the construction yard on August 29, 2018. Plant communities and species, wildlife sign and species, soil characteristics, and general site conditions were recorded at each point. A discussion of the existing conditions for each drainageway are presented in Sections 2-5. A photo log is included in Appendix A. A list of representative plant species by drainage is included in Appendix B.

5 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 10 !

! !

! Winnemucca

! !( Elko !(

! ! ! ! !(

! Battle !

! Mountain ! ! Reno

! !(

! ! Ely

! !(

! !( !

Carson City !

! !

! !( !

! ! Tonopah

D4B ! !

! ! ! !( ! !( Las Vegas

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! D4A !

! ! !

! !(

! !

! ! !

D3I ! !(

!( ! !

! !

D3H ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! D2G !(

! ! !( !

! !

! ! ! ! !

D3G ! ! ! !

! ! D1F ! ! !( ! ! ! !

D2F !

! !

! ! !

(! ! D2E !( !( !

! D1E !

D3F !

! !

! 21N 18E !

! !

!( ! !( D1D !

! !

! ! D3E !

! ! !( !( D1C ! !

D2D ! !

! !

! !( !( !

! ! D1B

D3D !

!( !

! ! !

! !

! D1A !

! !

! !( !

D3J ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! D3K

! !

! !(! ! ! ! D2C

! !(

! ! !

!( ! ! !

D3C ! !

! !

! D2B ! !

!( !

! !

! ! D3L

!( !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! D3B !

! !( !

! !

D3M !

!( !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

D3A ! !

! D3N

! !

!( !(! D2A !(

! ! !

! !

! 20N 18E

! ! ! !

! !

! ! Explanation !

! ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY LLC !

! !

Project Area ! ! !

! STONEGATE ! !

! Phase 1 ! !

! ! !

Intermittent Stream !

! Drainageways Data

! !

Proposed Ditch ! !

Point Locations !

Playa ! ! Figure 3 !

! ! !

08/31/2018 WDL ! ! 4066 ! ! ! 0 500 1,000 ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) ! !

! Feet 4066W_Stonegate_Fig3_SurveyPoints.mxd

! ! $ ! Appendix F - 11 ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

2 WEST COPPERFIELD CREEK

2.1 Site Conditions

West Copperfield Creek is located on the northwest edge of Phase 1 (Figure 2). The length within the Phase 1 area is approximately 1,478 feet (geosUAS 2016). It has an average Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) width of two feet and covers 0.05 acre (geosUAS 2016).

The drainageway passes outside of the Project Area to join with a larger ditch in the NDOT ROW at data point D1B (Photo Plate 2) and re-enters the Project Area at D1C (Photo Plate 3) (Figure 3). The drainage exits Phase 1 at D1F where it enters a culvert that passes under US 395 (Photo Plate 6). Although the drainage is rocky, there are signs of erosion along the banks and siltation.

Per the Plan, West Copperfield Creek is classified as “Disturbed” (City of Reno 1992). It has been culverted under US 395 and will be graded or filled in during the development of the StoneGate PUD (HRLC 2018).

2.2 Vegetation

Vegetation was identified within a 30-foot buffer of the centerline of the drainageway. Representative species are listed in Appendix B. There was a substantial increase in species diversity at data point D1B where the drainageway joined the larger ditch along the US 395 frontage road. Two noxious weeds were identified – medusahead (Taeniatherum caput- medusae), and a small infestation of perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) that was present at data point D1E (Photo Plate 5).

The vegetation within the West Copperfield Creek buffer is mapped entirely as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland by the SWReGAP (Figure 4) (USGS 2004). The SWReGAP is a national program administered by the USGS that documents the distribution of plant communities and selected wildlife species. The SWReGAP description for the Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is described below (USGS 2005):

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrublands

This ecological system occurs throughout much of the western United States, typically in broad basins between mountain ranges, plains and foothills between 1,500 and 2,300 meter (m) (4,920 to 7,545 feet) elevation. Soils are typically deep, well-drained, and non-saline. These shrublands are dominated by sagebrush or Wyoming sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata and/or Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis). Some stands may include scattered juniper (Juniperus spp.), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), and saltbush (Atriplex spp.) In disturbed stands, rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), or mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) may co-dominate. Perennial herbaceous components typically contribute less than 25 percent vegetative cover. Common graminoid species include Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus), Idaho fescue (Festuca

7 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 12 !

! !

! Winnemucca

! !( Elko !(

! ! ! ! !(

! Battle !

! Mountain ! ! Reno

! !(

! ! Ely

! !(

! !( !

Carson City !

! !

! !( !

! ! Tonopah

! !

! ! ! !( ! Las Vegas

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! Constructed Drainageway

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! 21N 18E !

! ! !

! !

! West Copperfield Creek !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! Heinz Spring Creek !

! !

S !

! ! h !

o ! !

! !

r !

t !

! !

C ! !

! ! ! !

r !

! e !

! !

! e !

! !

k ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! 20N 18E

! ! ! !

! !

! ! Explanation !

! ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY LLC !

! !

Southwest Regional Gap Land Cover Project Area ! ! ! ! STONEGATE Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland ! ! Phase 1 ! ! !

! !

! ! Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland Intermittent Stream !

! SWReGAP Vegetation Communities ! ! Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland Proposed Ditch

! !

! in Stonegate, Phase 1

! Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

! ! Figure 4 !

! ! Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe !

08/31/2018 WDL ! ! 4066 ! ! Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland !

ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) ! 0 500 1,000 !

! 4066W_Stonegate_Fig4_SWreGAP.mxd

! ! Feet $ ! Appendix F - 13 ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS idahoensis), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), James’ galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), or bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata).

2.3 Wildlife

Two black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) were observed at separate times near the drainageway during the survey. In addition, a ground squirrel burrow was located at data point D1A (Photo Plate 7). California quail (Callipepla californica) were observed at data point D1B in the willows.

2.4 Soils

The following three soil types were mapped by the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 2015) within the area of West Copperfield Creek (Figure 5):

Northmore sandy loam, eight to 15 percent slopes (Map Unit 203)

This component is on fan remnants, fan piedmonts. The parent material consists of mixed alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This component is in the R026XY010NV Loamy 10-12 P.Z. ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Northmore sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 201)

Cassiro gravelly sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 250)

This component is on fan remnants, fan piedmonts. The parent material consists of mixed alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer, bedrock, paralithic, is 39 to 65 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of

9 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 14 !

! !

! Winnemucca

! !( Elko !(

! ! ! ! !(

! Battle !

! Mountain ! ! Reno

! !(

! ! Ely

! !(

! !( !

Carson City !

! !

! !( !

! ! Tonopah

! !

! ! ! !( ! Las Vegas

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! Constructed Drainageway

! !

! ! 230 !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! 21N 18E !

! ! !

! 250

! !

! West Copperfield Creek !

131 !

! !

! 514 ! !

! !

623 !

! !

! ! ! !

201 ! !

! !

S !

! !

h ! ! Heinz Spring Creek !

or !

! !

! ! !

Ct ! !

! !

! r 203 !

132 ! !

ee !

! !

! ! !

! !

k !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! 612

! !

! ! !

! !

683 ! !

! 612 !

! ! 203 !

! !

! ! !

982 ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! 20N 18E

! ! ! !

! !

! ! Explanation !

! ! Project Area HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY LLC ! ! NRCS Soils !

! Phase 1 ! ! Cassiro gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes ! STONEGATE Intermittent Stream ! ! ! Cradlebaugh loam ! ! ! Greenbrae sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Proposed Ditch ! !

! Greenbrae sandy loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes !

! NRCS Soil Map for

! ! Koontz stony loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes ! !

StoneGate, Phase 1 ! ! Northmore sandy loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes

! ! Northmore sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Figure 5 !

! ! Orr sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes !

08/31/2018 WDL ! ! Reno stony sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 4066 ! ! !

ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) ! Settlemeyer gravelly loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes 0 500 1,000 !

! 4066W_Stonegate_Fig5_Soils.mxd

! ! Verdico very stony sandy loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes Feet $ ! Appendix F - 15 ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. This component is in the R026XY010NV Loamy 10-12 P.Z. ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 6c. Irrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

2.5 Existing Engineered Improvements

There are no existing engineered improvements in Drainage 1.

2.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities

The drainageway capacities for storm water are addressed in the Conceptual Drainage Report for StoneGate a Master Planned Community (Lumos and Associates 2017).

2.7 Hydrologic Resources

Phase 1 is within the Cold Spring Valley HU12 Sub-Watershed of the Lemmon Valley HU10 Watershed. Site hydrology is ephemeral, and flows may occur from winter storms and spring snowmelt and to a much lesser extent from summer thunder storms. The nearest climate station to the Project Area is the Western Regional Climate Center site at Stead, Nevada, about four miles north of the site, which at an altitude of 5,120 feet is very similar in topographic setting. The 27‐ year (1985 to 2012) average precipitation at Stead is 10.89 inches as total water. Ephemeral surface hydrology flows from the south to the north across the site and drains into White Lake, which is a hydrologically isolated terminal basin with no surface water outlets.

There was no flow within the channel at the time of the survey. The hydrologic resources indicators identified during the survey and the waters of the United States jurisdictional assessment (geosUAS 2016) included the presence of bed and bank, a break in bank slope, a change in vegetation cover, and a change in the average sediment texture.

2.8 Potential Flow Impediments

Ponding was present in the ditch beyond data point D1C where the drainage returns to the Project Area (Photo Plate 7), which was due to sediment deposition and a topographical depression. Large rocks are within the drainageway bottom near the US 395 culvert at data point D1F (Photo Plate 6).

2.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses

Phase 1 is bounded by the frontage road to southbound US 395 on the north; public lands (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] and United States Forest Service [USFS]) to the east and the south, and by the private property to the west proposed for development per the StoneGate PUD handbook (HRLC 2018).

2.10 Representative Photographs

Photographs from data points D1A-D1F are provided as Photo Plates 1 through 7 in Appendix A.

11 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 16 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

3 SHORT CREEK

3.1 Site Conditions

Short Creek is located west of West Copperfield Creek. It runs from south to north through the middle of Phase 1 (Figure 2). The length within the Phase 1 area is approximately 4,209 feet. The drainage exits Phase 1 at data point D2G where it enters the ditch in the NDOT ROW that runs along the frontage road for US 395 (Photo Plate 14).

Per the Plan, Short Creek is classified as “Disturbed/Landscaped” (City of Reno 1992). It will be rerouted during the development of the StoneGate PUD (HRLC 2018). It will be landscaped using native vegetation, riparian vegetation, turf, or non-native ornamental plant species as approved by the City of Reno (HRLC 2018). The plant list will be derived from the “Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: Plant Materials” developed by the University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension (2009) included in Appendix C. Permanent irrigation will be installed.

3.2 Vegetation

Vegetation was identified within a 30-foot buffer of the centerline of the drainageway. Representative species are listed in Appendix B. One noxious weed – Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) was identified at data point D2D.

The vegetation within the Short Creek buffer is mapped primarily as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland by the SWReGAP (Figure 4) (USGS 2004). A small portion of the drainage passes through the Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland community. The SWReGAP description for the Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is included in Section 2.2. The Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland is described below (USGS 2005):

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland

This ecological system occurs in the Great Basin on dry flats and plains, alluvial fans, rolling hills, rocky hill slopes, saddles and ridges at elevations between 1,000 to 2,600 m (3,281 to 8,530 feet). Sites are dry, often exposed to desiccating winds, with typically shallow, rocky, non-saline soils. Shrublands are dominated by black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) (mid and low elevations), little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscular) (higher elevation) and may be co-dominated by Wyoming sagebrush or yellow rabbitbrush. Other shrubs that may be present include shadscale saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia), jointfir (Ephedra spp.), rabbitbrush (Ericameria spp.), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), Shockley’s desert-thorn (Lycium shockleyi), bud sagebrush (Picrothamnus desertorum), greasewood, and horsebrush (Tetradymia spp.) The herbaceous layer is likely sparse and composed of perennial bunch grasses such as Indian ricegrass, desert needlegrass (Achnatherum speciosum), Thurber’s needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), or Sandberg bluegrass.

12 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 17 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

3.3 Wildlife

Coyote scat was identified at numerous locations in the drainageway.

3.4 Soils

The following three soil types were mapped by the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 2015) within the area of Short Creek (Figure 5):

Reno stony sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 683)

This component is on fan remnants, fan piedmonts. The parent material consists of mixed alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer, duripan, is 20 to 39 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is high. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about one percent. This component is in the R026XY023NV Claypan 10-12 P.Z. ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Northmore sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 201)

See Section 2.4 for a soil description.

Cassiro gravelly sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 250)

See Section 2.4 for a soil description.

3.5 Existing Engineered Improvements

A culvert passes under an unpaved road at data point D2B (Photo Plate 9). This drainageway will be rerouted and landscaped and creating recreation amenities.

3.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities

The drainageway capacities for storm water are addressed in the Conceptual Drainage Report for StoneGate a Master Planned Community (Lumos and Associates 2017).

3.7 Hydrologic Resources

See Section 2.7 for a description of the hydrologic resources of the Phase 1 Project Area. There was no flow within the drainageway at the time of the survey. The most consistent hydrologic indicator was a reduction in vegetation cover in the channel. Inconsistent breaks occurred in the defined bank and bank along the entire length of the drainageway and it was often difficult to discern.

13 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 18 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

3.8 Potential Flow Impediments

There were no potential flow impediments in Short Creek at the time of the survey. In places where the drainageway has an undefined bed and bank (esp. between data points D2A and D2D), flows might sheet flow and create a new channel. The road and culvert at D2B does not appear to be a flow impediment.

3.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses

Phase 1 is bounded by the frontage road to southbound US 395 on the north; public lands (BLM and USFS) to the east and the south, and by the private property to the west proposed for development per the StoneGate PUD handbook (HRLC 2018).

3.10 Representative Photographs

Photographs from data points D2A-D2G are provided as Photo Plates 8 through 14 in Appendix A.

14 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 19 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

4 HEINZ SPRING CREEK

4.1 Site Conditions

Heinz Spring Creek is located west of Short Creek. It runs from south to north on the western portion of Phase 1 (Figure 2). There are two branches of the creek, one reported by NHD (D3A- D3I) and one reported by FEMA (D3D-D3I and D3J-D3N). Both branches were analyzed. The length of both branches within the Phase 1 area is approximately 5,019 feet. The drainage exits Phase 1 at data point D3I where it enters a culvert that passes under US 395 (Photo Plate 24). The average OHWM was 1.5 feet. The drainageway shows evidence of erosion and heavy grazing (Photo Plates 25 and 26) north of data point D3E.

Per the Plan, Heinz Spring Creek is classified as “Disturbed/Landscaped” (City of Reno 1992). It will be rerouted during the development of the StoneGate PUD (HRLC 2018). It will be landscaped using native vegetation, riparian vegetation, turf, or non-native ornamental plant species as approved by the City of Reno (HRLC 2018). The plant list will be derived from the “Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: Plant Materials” developed by the University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension (2009) included in Appendix C. Permanent irrigation will be installed.

4.2 Vegetation

Vegetation was identified within a 30-foot buffer of the centerline of the drainageway. Representative species are listed in Appendix B. The upstream portion of Heinz Spring Creek included species common in the Sierra Nevada and higher elevations in Nevada.

The vegetation within the Heinz Spring Creek buffer is mapped primarily as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland by the SWReGAP (Figure 4) (USGS 2004). A small portion of the drainage passes through the Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland community. The SWReGAP description for the Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is included in Section 2.2. The Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland is described below (USGS 2005):

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland

This widespread ecological system occurs throughout the Intermountain western United States on dry plains and mesas, at approximately 1,450 to 2,320 m (4,750 to 7,610 feet) in elevation. These grasslands occur in lowland and upland areas and may occupy swales, playas, mesa tops, plateau parks, alluvial flats, and plains, but sites are typically xeric. Substrates are often well- drained sandy- or loamy-textured soils derived from sedimentary parent materials but are quite variable and may include fine-textured soils derived from igneous and metamorphic rocks. When they occur near foothills grasslands they will be at lower elevations. The dominant perennial bunch grasses and shrubs within this system are all very drought-resistant plants. These grasslands are typically dominated or co-dominated by Indian ricegrass, threeawn (Aristida spp.), blue grama, needle and thread, New Jersey muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyana), or James’ galleta, and may include scattered shrubs and dwarf-shrubs of species of sagebrush, saltbush, coleogyne (Coleogyne), jointfir, snakeweed (Gutierrezia), or winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata).

15 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 20 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

4.3 Wildlife

A coyote was observed crossing the drainage at D3I. Coyote scat was identified at numerous locations in the drainageway. A hawk was observed (but could not be identified) flying over data point D3B. Fence lizards were seen throughout the drainageway.

4.4 Soils

The following four soil types were mapped by the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 2015) within the area of Heinz Spring Creek (Figure 5):

Greenbrae sandy loam, four to eight percent slopes (Map Unit 132)

This component is on fan remnants, piedmonts. The parent material consists of alluvium derived from granitic rocks. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about one percent. This component is in the R026XY016NV Loamy 8-10 P.Z. ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 6s. Irrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Greenbrae sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (Map Unit 131)

This component is on fan remnants, piedmonts. The parent material consists of alluvium derived from granitic rocks. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. This component is in the R026XY016NV Loamy 8-10 P.Z. ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 6s. Irrigated land capability classification is 2s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Cradlebaugh loam (Map Unit 230)

This component is on semi-bolsons, flood plains. The parent material consists of mixed alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 18 inches during February, March, April, May, June. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This component is in the R026XY001NV Moist Floodplain ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 6w. Irrigated land capability classification is 4w. This soil meets hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed

16 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 21 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS three percent. The soil has a moderately saline horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. The soil has a maximum sodium adsorption ratio of seven within 30 inches of the soil surface.

Verdico Very Stony Sandy Loam, four to eight percent slopes (Map Unit 612)

The Verdico component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are four to eight percent. This component is on piedmonts and pediments. The parent material consists of residuum and colluvium derived from water laid tuff. Depth to a root restrictive layer, bedrock, paralithic, is 20 to 39 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is high. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about one percent. This component is in the R026XY023NV Claypan 10-12 P.Z. ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

4.5 Existing Engineered Improvements

A culvert passes under an unpaved road between data points D3F and D3E (Photo Plate 20). The drainageway also passes under US 395 in an engineered culvert at D3I (Photo Plate 24). This drainageway will be rerouted and landscaped to creating recreation amenities.

4.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities

The drainageway capacities for storm water are addressed in the Conceptual Drainage Report for StoneGate a Master Planned Community (Lumos and Assoc. 2017).

4.7 Hydrologic Resources

See Section 2.7 for a description of the hydrologic resources of the Phase 1 Project Area. There was no flow within the drainageway at the time of the survey. The hydrologic resources indicators identified during the survey and the waters of the United States jurisdictional assessment (geosUAS 2016) included the presence of bed and bank, a break in bank slope, a change in vegetation cover, and a change in the average sediment texture. These indicators were absent at data point D3A (Photo Plate 15).

4.8 Potential Flow Impediments

There is a barbed wire fence that passes in front of the culvert at data point D3I (Photo Plate 24). The fence has accumulated debris which is a flow impediment.

4.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses

17 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 22 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

4.10 Representative Photographs

Photographs from data points D3A-D3N are provided as Photo Plates 15 through 31 in Appendix A.

18 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 23 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

5 CONSTRUCTED DRAINAGEWAY

5.1 Site Conditions

The Constructed Drainageway is in the NDOT ROW along the south side of the frontage road along southbound US 395. It runs along the north border of Phase 1 (Figure 2). The length within the Phase 1 area is approximately 2,154 feet. The drainageway is currently a vegetated swale for most of its length. Per the Plan, the Constructed Drainageway is classified as “Disturbed” (City of Reno 1992). It will be graded during the development of the Project (HRLC 2018).

5.2 Vegetation

Vegetation was identified in the swale along the frontage road. Representative species are listed in Appendix B.

The vegetation within the Constructed Drainageway is mapped as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland by the SWReGAP (Figure 4) (USGS 2004). The SWReGAP description for the Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is included in Section 2.2.

5.3 Wildlife

No wildlife or wildlife sign were observed in Constructed Drainageway, primarily due to its proximity to the frontage road.

5.4 Soils

The following three soil types were mapped by the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 2015) within the constructed drainageway area (Figure 5):

Cassiro gravelly sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 250)

See Section 2.4 for a soil description.

Northmore sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 201)

See Section 2.4 for a soil description.

Cradlebaugh loam (Map Unit 230)

See Section 4.4 for a soil description.

5.5 Existing Engineered Improvements

There are no existing engineered improvements in Drainage 4. It will be graded and developed as part of the StoneGate PUD (HRLC 2018). It may connect to the large culvert at data point D1B.

19 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 24 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

5.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities

The drainageway capacities for storm water are addressed in the Conceptual Drainage Report for StoneGate a Master Planned Community (Lumos and Associates 2017).

5.7 Hydrologic Resources

See Section 2.7 for a description of the hydrologic resources of the Phase 1 Project Area. There was no flow within the drainageway at the time of the survey. This drainageway is a vegetated swale without bed and bank or other hydrologic resources indicators.

5.8 Potential Flow Impediments

Ponding was present in the drainageway before data point D1C where it meets with West Copperfield Creek (Photo Plate 7), which was due to sediment deposition and a topographical depression. The drainageway/swale will be improved during the development of the StoneGate PUD to facilitate drainage from the Project Area under US 395.

5.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses

5.10 Representative Photographs

Photographs from data points D4A-B are provided as Photo Plates 32 through 33 in Appendix A.

20 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 25 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

6 HAUL ROAD CROSSINGS, CONSTRUCTION YARD, AND POND

The haul road crossings, pond, and construction yard are outside of Phase 1, but will be impacted during the construction of Phase 1. Two major drainageways are impacted by these features – Wet Ravine Creek and Waltz Canyon Creek. This report analyzes the portions of the drainages where the impacts will occur (Figure 6).

6.1 Wet Ravine Creek

Four locations were analyzed along Wet Ravine Creek – two haul road crossings (HR1 and HR2), the section of the drainage adjacent to the alternative construction yard, and the proposed pond (Figure 6).

6.1.1 Site Conditions

Wet Ravine Creek is located west of Phase 1. It runs south to north and exits Phase 1 at data point D5K where it enters a culvert that passes under US 395 (Figure 7, Photo Plate 44). The drainageway shows evidence of erosion and heavy grazing north of data point D5G (Photo Plates 40 - 44).

Per the Plan, Wet Ravine Creek is classified as “Disturbed/Landscaped” (City of Reno 1992). It will be rerouted during the development of the StoneGate PUD (HRLC 2018). It will be landscaped using native vegetation, riparian vegetation, turf, or non-native ornamental plant species as approved by the City of Reno (HRLC 2018). The plant list will be derived from the “Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: Plant Materials” developed by the University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension (2009) included in Appendix C. Permanent irrigation will be installed.

6.1.2 Vegetation

Haul Road Crossing 1

Vegetation was identified within a 250-foot buffer of the centerline of haul road where it crosses the drainageway (HR1) (Figure 6). Representative species are listed in Appendix B. The vegetation within HR1 is mapped as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland and Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland by the SWReGAP (Figure 8) (USGS 2004). The SWReGAP description for Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is included in Section 2.2. The SWReGAP description for Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland is included in Section 4.2.

Haul Road Crossing 2

Vegetation was identified within a 250-foot buffer of the centerline of haul road where it crosses the drainageway (HR2) (Figure 6). Representative species are listed in Appendix B. The vegetation

21 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 26 Winnemucca !( Elko !( !( Battle Mountain Reno !( !( !( Ely Carson City

!( Tonopah

Construction Yard !( Las Vegas Alt. Location

Constructed Drainageway

HR1

ek re C e in av R et W k e e r 21N 18E C g in r p S z n i e H

POND

HR3 ek re C n yo an C tz HR2 al

e W

20N 18E

Explanation Project Area HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY LLC Phase 1 STONEGATE ! Intermittent Stream Proposed Ditch Haul Road Crossings, Proposed Constuction Yard Pond, and Alternative Construction Haul Road Yard Locations Crossing Area Figure 6 Primary Road 09/04/2018 WDL 4066 Secondary Road 0 500 1,000 ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) Feet$ 4066W_Stonegate_Fig6_HaulRoads.mxd Appendix F - 27

! !

Winnemucca ! !( Elko

!( ! ! !( !

Battle ! ! !

Mountain !

Reno !

!( !

Ely !

!( !( !

! !

Carson City !

! ! !

!( ! ! !

Tonopah !

! !

D5K !

! ! ! Construction Yard !

!( !

Las Vegas !(

Alt. Location ! !

! !

D5J !

! !

!( !

! ! !

! Constructed Drainageway !

D5H !

! !

!( !

D5I ! !

! ! !

HR1 !

! ! !

!( ! !

k ! !

e ! ! !( !

e !

r ! C !

e !

! ! n !

! a ! !

R ! t !

e ! ! !

D5G ! W ! ! k e

! ! ! e !

r !

! 21N 18E

C ! ! ! g!

! n

i !

! ! ! r

D5F p !

! S !

D6E !

! z n !

! i !( e ! ! !

! H !

!( ! !

D6D !

! !

! ! ! !( !

!( POND! !

! !

D6C !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

!( !

! D5D !

! !

!( !

! ! !

! !

D6B D5E ! !

HR3 ! ! ! !( !

! D5C ! !

! k ! ! ! e !( e !( ! r !

! C !

n ! ! ! o

! y ! an !

C ! ! ! ! tz HR2!(

! l !

a !

W ! !

D6A !

! !

! !(

! ! !

! D5A ! !

! !

D5B !

! !

e ! !

! e

! r

! !

C !

! !

! e

! !

n i

v !

! R

! !

e !

! !

! ! !

! !

20N 18E !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

Explanation !

! ! Project Area ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY LLC !

! Phase 1 ! STONEGATE ! !

! ! Intermittent Stream

! Proposed Ditch ! ! ! Data Point Locations on Waltz Constuction! Yard !

! Canyon Creek and Wet Ravine Creek

! Haul Road !

Crossing Area ! ! Figure 7

! !

Primary Road 09/04/2018 WDL ! ! 4066 ! Secondary Road 0! 500 1,000 ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) ! !

! Feet 4066W_Stonegate_Fig7_SurveyPoints.mxd

!( Survey Locations ! !

! $ !

Appendix! F - 28

! !

! ! !

! !

Winnemucca ! !( Elko

!( ! ! !( !

Battle ! ! !

Mountain !

Reno !

!( !

Ely !

!( !( !

! !

Carson City !

! ! !

!( ! ! !

Tonopah !

! !

! ! ! Construction Yard !

!( !

Las Vegas

Alt. Location ! !

! !

! ! !

Constructed Drainageway !

! !

! ! !

HR1 !

! !

k ! !

e ! ! !

e !

r ! C !

e !

! ! n !

! a ! !

R ! t !

e ! ! !

! W ! ! k e

! ! ! e !

r !

! 21N 18E

C ! ! ! g!

! n

i !

! ! ! r

p !

! S !

! z n !

! i e ! ! !

! H !

! !

POND! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

HR3 ! !

! ! ! ! !

! k ! ! ! e e ! r !

! C !

n ! ! ! o

! y ! an !

C ! ! !

! tz HR2

! l !

a !

W ! !

! ! !

! !

e ! !

! e

! r

! !

C !

! !

! e

! !

n i

v !

! R

! !

e !

! !

! ! !

! !

20N 18E !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

Explanation ! ! ! Project Area ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY LLC Southwest Regional Gap Land Cover !

! Phase 1 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland (17.9 acres) ! STONEGATE ! !

! ! Intermittent Stream Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat (0.6 acres)

! Proposed Ditch Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland! (6.2 acres) SWReGAP Vegetation for Haul Road

! !

Constuction! Yard Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland! (5.3 acres) Crossings, Proposed Pond, and

! Haul Road

! Alternative Construction Yard Locations

Crossing Area ! ! Figure 8

! !

Primary Road 09/04/2018 WDL ! ! 4066

! Secondary Road ! 0 500 1,000 ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) ! !

! Feet 4066W_Stonegate_Fig8_SWReGAP.mxd ! !

! $ !

Appendix! F - 29

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

within HR2 is mapped primarily as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland by the SWReGAP (Figure 8) (USGS 2004). The SWReGAP description for Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is included in Section 2.2. A small portion of HR2 is mapped as Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland, which is described as follows (USGS 2005):

Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland

Areas that are dominated by introduced annual and/or biennial forb species such as: Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), Kochia (Kochia scoparia), Russian thistle (Salsola spp.)

Alternative Construction Yard

Vegetation was identified within an area designated as an alternative construction yard for trailers and storage (Figure 6). Representative species are listed in Appendix B. The vegetation within the alternative construction yard is mapped as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland and Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland by the SWReGAP (Figure 8) (USGS 2004). The SWReGAP description for Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is included in Section 2.2. The SWReGAP description for Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland is included in Section 4.2.

Pond

Vegetation was identified within a 400-foot buffer of the center of the pond (Figure 6). Representative species are listed in Appendix B. The vegetation within the pond area is mapped as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland, Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland, Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat, and Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland by the SWReGAP (Figure 8) (USGS 2004). The SWReGAP description for Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is included in Section 2.2; for Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland in Section 4.2; and for Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland in HR2 above. Inter- Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat is described as follows (USGS 2005):

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat

This ecological system occurs throughout much of the western U.S. in Intermountain basins and extends onto the western Great Plains. It typically occurs near drainages on stream terraces and flats or may form rings around playas. Sites typically have saline soils, a shallow water table and flood intermittently, but remain dry for most growing seasons. This system usually occurs as a mosaic of multiple communities, with open to moderately dense shrublands dominated or co-dominated by greasewood. Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), shadscale saltbush, or winterfat may be present to codominant. Occurrences are often surrounded by mixed salt desert scrub. The herbaceous layer, if present, is usually dominated by graminoids. There may be inclusions of alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) (where water remains ponded the longest), or common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) herbaceous types. om

25 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 30 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

6.1.3 Wildlife

Ground squirrel burrows were evident in the portion of the drainageway adjacent to the construction yard and HR1. Two antelope were observed in the Project Area in the general vicinity of Wet Ravine Creek.

6.1.4 Soils

Haul Road Crossing 1

The following three soil types were mapped by the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 2015) within the area of HR1 (Figure 9):

Orr sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (Map Unit 623)

This component is on piedmonts, fan remnants. The parent material consists of mixed alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This component is in the R026XY010NV Loamy 10-12 P.Z. ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 6c. Irrigated land capability classification is 2c. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Orr sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 620)

This component is on piedmonts, fan remnants. The parent material consists of mixed alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about two percent. This component is in the R026XY010NV Loamy 10-12 P.Z. ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 6s. Irrigated land capability classification is 4s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Settlemeyer gravelly loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 514)

This component is on flood plains, semi-bolsons. The parent material consists of mixed alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is rarely flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 21 inches during February, March, April, May, June, July. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about three percent. This component is in the R026XY003NV Wet Meadow 10-14 P.Z. ecological site. Non-irrigated land capability classification is 6w. Irrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil meets hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not 26 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 31

! !

Winnemucca ! !( Elko

!( ! ! !( !

Battle ! ! !

Mountain !

Reno !

!( !

Ely !

!( !( !

! !

Carson City !

! ! !

!( ! ! !

Tonopah !

! !

! ! ! Construction Yard !

!( !

Las Vegas

Alt. Location ! !

! !

623 !

! ! !

Constructed Drainageway !

! !

! ! !

HR1 !

! !

! 620 514 !

k !

e ! ! !

e !

r ! C !

e !

! ! n !

! a ! !

R ! t !

e ! ! !

! W ! ! k e

! ! ! e !

r !

! 21N 18E

C ! ! ! g!

! n

i !

! ! ! r

p !

! S !

! z n !

! i e ! ! !

! H !

! !

! ! !

! 514

! !

POND! !

! !

620 !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! 620 !

! !

HR3 ! !

! ! ! ! !

! k 514! ! ! e e ! r !

! C !

n ! ! ! o

! y ! an 514 !

C ! ! !

! tz HR2

! l !

a !

W ! !

! ! !

! !

e ! !

! e

! r

! !

C !

! !

! e

! !

n i

v !

! R

! !

e !

! !

! ! !

! !

20N 18E !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

Explanation ! ! ! Project Area ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY LLC Soils !

! Phase 1 Orr sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (5.6 acres) ! STONEGATE ! !

! ! Intermittent Stream Orr stony sandy loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes (12.7 acres)

! Proposed Ditch Settlemeyer gravelly loam, 2 to 4 percent! slopes (11.7 acres) NRCS Soils for Haul Road

! !

Constuction! Yard ! Crossings, Proposed Pond, and

! Haul Road

! ! Alternative Construction Yard Locations

Crossing Area ! ! Figure 9

! !

Primary Road 09/04/2018 WDL ! ! 4066

! Secondary Road ! 0 500 1,000 ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) ! !

! Feet 4066W_Stonegate_Fig9_Soils.mxd ! !

! $ !

Appendix! F - 32

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS exceed three percent. The soil has a slightly saline horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. The soil has a maximum sodium adsorption ratio of 22 within 30 inches of the soil surface.

Haul Road Crossing 2

The following soil type was mapped by the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 2015) within HR2 (Figure 9):

Settlemeyer gravelly loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 514) See the description under Haul Road Crossing 1.

Alternative Construction Yard

The following three soil types were mapped by the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 2015) within the alternative construction yard area (Figure 9):

Orr sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes (Map Unit 623) See the description under Haul Road Crossing 1.

Orr sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 620) See the description under Haul Road Crossing 1.

Settlemeyer gravelly loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 514) See the description under Haul Road Crossing 1.

Pond

The following two soil types were mapped by the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 2015) within the pond survey area (Figure 9):

Settlemeyer gravelly loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 514) See the description under Haul Road Crossing 1.

Orr sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 620) See the description under Haul Road Crossing 1.

6.1.5 Existing Engineered Improvements

The drainageway passes under US 395 in an engineered culvert at data point D5K (Figure 7) (Photo Plate 44).

6.1.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities

The drainageway capacities for storm water are addressed in the Conceptual Drainage Report for StoneGate a Master Planned Community (Lumos and Associates 2017).

28 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 33 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

6.1.7 Hydrologic Resources

See Section 2.7 for a description of the hydrologic resources of the Phase 1 Project Area. There was no flow within the drainageway at the time of the survey. There was a defined bed and bank from data point D5G north, however the bed and bank became less defined and difficult to discern south of data point D5F.

6.1.8 Potential Flow Impediments

In the proposed construction yard area which currently is the location of a barn and other farm buildings, the drainageway had been manipulated for agricultural purposes (Photo Plate 43), however those diversions are no longer maintained.

6.1.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses

The area is bounded by the frontage road to southbound US 395 on the north; public lands (BLM and USFS) to the west and the south, and by the private property to the east proposed for Phase 1 development per the StoneGate PUD handbook (HRLC 2018).

6.1.10 Representative Photographs

Photographs from data points D5A-K are provided as Photo Plates 32 through 44 in Appendix A.

6.2 Waltz Canyon Creek

Two locations were analyzed along Waltz Canyon Creek – one haul road crossing and the proposed pond (Figure 6).

6.2.1 Site Conditions

Waltz Canyon Creek is located west of Phase 1. It runs south to north and connects with Wet Ravine Creek between data points D6E and D5G (Figure 7). Per the Plan, Waltz Canyon Creek is classified as “Disturbed/Landscaped” (City of Reno 1992). It will be rerouted during the development of the StoneGate PUD (HRLC 2018). It will be landscaped using native vegetation, riparian vegetation, turf, or non-native ornamental plant species as approved by the City of Reno (HRLC 2018). The plant list will be derived from the “Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: Plant Materials” developed by the University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension (2009) included in Appendix C. Permanent irrigation will be installed.

6.2.2 Vegetation

Haul Road Crossing 3

Vegetation was identified within a 250-foot buffer of the centerline of haul road where it crosses the drainageway (HR3) (Figure 6). Representative species are listed in Appendix B. The vegetation within HR3 is mapped entirely as Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland by the

29 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 34 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

SWReGAP (Figure 8) (USGS 2004). The SWReGAP description for Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is included in Section 2.2.

Pond

The vegetation communities in the proposed pond area are described in Section 6.1.2.

6.2.3 Wildlife

No wildlife was observed during the survey.

6.2.4 Soils

Haul Road Crossing 3

The following two soil types were mapped by the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 2015) within the HR3 survey area (Figure 9):

Settlemeyer gravelly loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 514) See the description under Section 6.1.4 Haul Road Crossing 1.

Orr sandy loam, two to four percent slopes (Map Unit 620) See the description under 6.1.4 Haul Road Crossing 1.

Pond

The soils in the proposed pond area are described in Section 6.1.4.

6.2.5 Existing Engineered Improvements

There are no engineered improvements along the surveyed portions of Waltz Canyon Creek.

6.2.6 Storm Drainageway Capacities

The drainageway capacities for storm water are addressed in the Conceptual Drainage Report for StoneGate a Master Planned Community (Lumos and Associates 2017).

6.2.7 Hydrologic Resources

See Section 2.7 for a description of the hydrologic resources of the Phase 1 Project Area. There was no flow within the drainageway at the time of the survey. There is a defined bed and bank where the drainageway crosses the proposed pond area and HR3.

6.2.8 Potential Flow Impediments

There are no flow impediments where the drainageway crosses the proposed pond area and HR3.

30 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 35 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

6.2.9 Adjacent and Connecting Land Uses

6.2.10 Representative Photographs

Photographs from data points D6A-E are provided as Photo Plates 45 through 49 in Appendix A.

31 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 36 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

7 CONCLUSION

A Major Drainageway Analysis was conducted for Phase 1 of the proposed StoneGate PUD. The City of Reno has jurisdiction over the drainageways. This report complies with the City of Reno 1992 Plan, specifically the biological value of the drainages.

Six major drainageways were analyzed in this analysis. There are three major drainageways within Phase 1 based on FEMA drainage maps (HRLC 2018) (Figure 2). They are Heinz Spring Creek, Short Creek, and West Copperfield Creek. In addition, a drainage feature within the current NDOT ROW along US 395 will be incorporated into the Project Area and was analyzed as a drainageway in this report. Finally, haul road crossings, a proposed pond, and a construction yard will impact two drainageways (Wet Ravine Creek and Waltz Canyon Creek) outside of Phase 1 during construction; only the areas of those drainageways that will be impacted were analyzed.

West Copperfield Creek and the Constructed Drainageway are classified as “Disturbed.” Short Creek, Heinz Spring Creek, Wet Ravine Creek, and Waltz Canyon Creek are classified as “Disturbed/Landscaped.” All drainageways will be rerouted during construction and site development.

The Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is the dominant vegetation community surrounding the drainageways. Four noxious weeds are present – perennial pepperweed, medusahead, musk thistle, and Russian knapweed, however the infestations are limited in size.

Landscaping Short Creek and Heinz Spring Creek during the construction of Phase 1 will result in an increase in plant species diversity and vegetative structural diversity resulting in improved wildlife habitat. Short Creek and Heinz Spring Creek will become common space and provide recreational opportunities, while maintaining the function of the drainageways to convey storm and drainage waters through the development. The improvements that will be made to the drainageways meet the qualification for “Enhancement” in the Plan (City of Reno 1992).

32 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 37 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC STONEGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ANALYSIS

8 REFERENCES

City of Reno. 1992 (June 9). Major Drainageways Plan.

_____. 2008 (October 22). Conservation Plan. geosUAS, Inc. 2016. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report, Heinz Ranch – StoneGate Project. Prepared for StoneGate MPC. May.

Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC (HRLC). 2018. StoneGate Planned Unit Development Handbook. Revised February 21, 2018.

Lumos and Associates. 2017. Conceptual Drainage Report for StoneGate a Master Planned Community. Prepared for Heinz Ranch Land Company. July.

Reno Municipal Code (RMC). 2015. Reno, Nevada – Land Development Code, Chapter 18.12 General Development and Design Standards, Article XIX: Drainageway Protection Standards. Available: https://www.municode.com/library/nv/reno/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=L AND_DEVELOPMENT_CODE_CH18.12GEDEDEST_ARTXIXDRWAPRST .

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Web Soil Survey. Washoe County, Nevada, south part. Available: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

United States Geological Survey National Gap Analysis Program (USGS). 2004. Provisional Digital Land Cover Map for the Southwestern United States. Version 1.0. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University Logan, Utah. Available online at: http://swregap.org/data/landcover/. Accessed January 2018.

_____. 2005. Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project - Land Cover Descriptions. United States Geological Survey National Gap Analysis Program. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University. Logan, Utah. Available online at: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/legend_desc.html.

_____. 2017. National Hydrography Geodatabase: The National Map viewer available online at https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/?basemap=b1&category=nhd&title=NHD%20Vie w. Accessed July 2018.

University of Nevada, Reno Cooperative Extension. 2009. Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: Plant Materials. Fact Sheet FS-09-28. Available online at: www.unce.unr.edu/nem

33 4066.Drainageway.Update.V2.docx Appendix F - 38

APPENDIX A

PHOTO LOG

Appendix F - 39 Photo Plate 1: D1A

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 40 Photo Plate 2: D1B

Looking SW Looking NW

Appendix F - 41 Photo Plate 3: D1C

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 42 Photo Plate 4: D1D

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 43 Photo Plate 5: D1E

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 44 Photo Plate 6: D1F

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 45 Photo Plate 7: D1

Ground squirrel burrow Ponding

Appendix F - 46 Photo Plate 8: D2A

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 47 Photo Plate 9: D2B

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 48 Photo Plate 10: D2C

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 49 Photo Plate 11: D2D

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 50 Photo Plate 12: D2E

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 51 Photo Plate 13: D2F

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 52 Photo Plate 14: D2G

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 53 Photo Plate 15: D3A

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 54 Photo Plate 16: D3B

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 55 Photo Plate 17: D3C

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 56 Photo Plate 18: D3D

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 57 Photo Plate 19: D3E

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 58 Photo Plate 20: D3

Culvert under road

Appendix F - 59 Photo Plate 21: D3F

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 60 Photo Plate 22: D3G

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 61 Photo Plate 23: D3H

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 62 Photo Plate 24: D3I

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 63 Photo Plate 25: D3J

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 64 Photo Plate 26: D3K

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 65 Photo Plate 27: D3L

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 66 Photo Plate 28: D3M

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 67 Photo Plate 29: D3N

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 68 Photo Plate 30: D3

Ground Squirrel Burrows Damage from Grazing

Appendix F - 69 Photo Plate 31: D3

Erosion along channel

Appendix F - 70 Photo Plate 32: D4A

Looking NW Looking SE

Appendix F - 71 Photo Plate 33: D4B

Looking NE

Appendix F - 72 Photo Plate 34: D5A

Downstream HR2

Appendix F - 73 Photo Plate 35: D5B

Center HR2 Downstream Center HR2 Upstream

Appendix F - 74 Photo Plate 36: D5C

Upstream HR2

Appendix F - 75 Photo Plate 37: D5D

Pond Downstream

Appendix F - 76 Photo Plate 38: D5E

Center Pond Downstream Center Pond Upstream

Appendix F - 77 Photo Plate 39: D5F

Pond Upstream

Appendix F - 78 Photo Plate 40: D5G

Downstream HR1 Ground squirrel burrows

Appendix F - 79 Photo Plate 41: D5H

Center HR1 Downstream Center HR1 Upstream

Appendix F - 80 Photo Plate 42: D5I

Upstream HR1

Appendix F - 81 Photo Plate 43: D5J

Downstream Upstream

Appendix F - 82 Photo Plate 44: D5K

Upstream Downstream

Appendix F - 83 Photo Plate 45: D6A

Downstream HR3

Appendix F - 84 Photo Plate 46: D6B

Center HR3 Downstream Center HR3 Upstream

Appendix F - 85 Photo Plate 47: D6C

Upstream HR3

Appendix F - 86 Photo Plate 48: D6D

Pond Upstream

Appendix F - 87 Photo Plate 49: D6E

Pond Upstream

Appendix F - 88

APPENDIX B

REPRESENTATIVE PLANT SPECIES BY DRAINAGEWAY

Appendix F - 89 West Waltz Species Noxious(N)1 Heinz Spring Constructed Wet Ravine Family Copperfield Short Creek Canyon or Invasive (I) Creek Drainage Creek Scientific Name Common Name Creek Creek Allioideae Allium sp. Wild onion - X X X Amaranthaceae Amaranthus blitoides Prostrate pigweed - X X Apiaceae Perideridia sp. Yampah - X Asclepiadaceae Asclepias fascicularis Narrowleaf milkweed - X X X Achillea millefolium Yarrow - X X X Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed N X Antennaria sp. Pussytoes - X X Artemisia tridentata ssp X X Wyoming sagebrush - X X X X wyomingensis Artemisia sp. Sage - X X Blepharipappus scaber Rough eyelash weed - X X Carduus nutans Musk thistle N X Chicorium intybus Common chicory - X X X Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Yellow rabbitbrush -- X X X Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle I X X X Crepis acuminata Tapertip hawksbeard - X Asteraceae X X Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush - X X Erigeron sp. Daisy fleabane - X Gnaphalium palustre Cudweed - X X X Grindelia squarrosa Gumweed - X X X X Iva axilaris Poverty weed - X X X X X Lactuca seriola Prickly lettuce - X X X X Machaeranthera canescens Hoary tansyaster - X X Madia gracilis Common tarweed - X X Pleiacanthus spinosus Thorn skeletonweed - X X Taraxacum officinalis Dandelion - X Tragopogon dubius Yellow salsify - X X X Wyethia mollis Mule’s ears - X X X

Boraginaceae Amsinckia tessellata Fiddleneck - X Cryptantha sp. Popcorn flower - X X Descurainia sophia Herb sophia - X Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed N X Brassicaceae Lepidium perfoliatum Clasping pepperweed I X X Nasturtium officinale Watercress - X Sysimbrium altissimum Tumble mustard I X X Convulvulaceae Convulvulus arvensis Field bindweed I X X Carex douglasii Douglas’ sedge - X Cyperaceae Carex aquatilis Water sedge - X

Appendix F - 90 West Waltz Species Noxious(N)1 Heinz Spring Constructed Wet Ravine Family Copperfield Short Creek Canyon or Invasive (I) Creek Drainage Creek Scientific Name Common Name Creek Creek Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge - X X Carex praegracilis Slender sedge - X Eleocharis macrostachya Pale spikerush - X X Astragalus purshii Woolypod milkvetch - X X X X Astragalus sp. Milkvetch - X X Lotus purshianus Spanish clover - X X X X Lupinus argenteus Silvery lupine - X X X X Fabaceae Melilotus alba White sweet-blossom clover I X X Melilotus oficinalis Yellow sweet-blossom clover I X X Trifolium sp. Clover - X Vicia americana American vetch - X X X Geraniacae Erodium cicutarium Storksbill - X X X X Hydrophyllaeae Phacelia hastata Silverleaf hastata - X Juncus balticus Baltic rush - X X X X X Juncaceae Juncus bufonius Toad rush - X Juncus nevadensis Nevada rush - X X Malvaceae Sidalcea glaucescens White-veined mallow - X Camissonia tanacetifolia Tansy-leaf evening primrose - X Epilobium brachycarpum Panicle willowherb - X X X Onagraceae Epilobium sp. Willow herb - X Oenothera sp. Evening primrose - X Orobanchaceae Castilleja sp. Indian paintbrush - X X Losaceae Mentzelia albicaulus Whitestem blazing star - X X X Papaverace Eschscholzia californica ssp. mexicana Mexican poppy - X Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass - X Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome I X Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass I X X X X X Deschapsia danthoniodes Annual hairgrass - X X X Distichlis spicata Inland saltgrass - Elymus cinereus Great Basin wildrye - X X X Poaceae Elymus elymoides Squirreltail - X X X Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye - X Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley - X Leymus triticoides Creeping wildrye - X Muhlenberia sp Muhley - X Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass - X X Phleum pratense Timothy - X Poa bulbosa Bulbous bluegrass I X X X X X X

Appendix F - 91 West Waltz Species Noxious(N)1 Heinz Spring Constructed Wet Ravine Family Copperfield Short Creek Canyon or Invasive (I) Creek Drainage Creek Scientific Name Common Name Creek Creek Poa secunda ssp. juncifolia Sandberg bluegrass - X X X X X Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitsfoot grass - X X X Taeniatherum caput-medusae Medusahead N X X X Pinaceae Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey pine - X X Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata Narrowleaf plantain - X Polemoniaceae Navarretia sp. Pincushion plant - X X Eriogonum nudum Naked buckwheat - X Polygonaceae Polygonum aviculare Knotweed - X X X Rumex crispus Curly dock - X X X X X Ranunculaceae Ceratocephala testiculata Curveseed butterwort I X X X Rhamnaceae Ceanothus prostratus Prostrate ceanothus - X Amelanchier alnifolia Western serviceberry - X Curl-leaf mountain Cercocarpus ledifolius mahogany Rosaceae Prunus andersonii Desert peach - X X Purshia tridentata Bitterbrush - X X X X Rosa woodsii Wood’s rose - X Salix exigua Coyote willow - X X Salicaceae Salix lemmonii Lemmon’s willow - X Mimulus guttatus Common monkeyflower - X X Verbascum blattaria Moth mullein - X X X Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus Mullein - X X X Veronica anagallis-aquatica Water speedwell - X Nicotiana (glauca) Tree tobacco - X X Solanaceae Solanum triflorum Cutleaf nightshade - X

1 http://agri.nv.gov/Plant/Noxious_Weeds/Noxious_Weed_List/

Appendix F - 92

APPENDIX C

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHERN NEVADA: PLANT MATERIALS

Appendix F - 93 Protecting water quality through community planning Fact Sheet FS-09-28 Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials www.unce.unr.edu/nemo Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: Plant Materials

By JoAnne Skelly, Extension Educator Jana Vanderhaar, Interpretive Gardens, Inc. Melody Hefner, Water Quality Program Assistant Susan Donaldson, Water Quality Education Specialist UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION L ow Impact Development (LID) is a sustainable approach to stormwater management that minimizes Benefits of Proper impacts on waterways. When designing LID practices, proper plant selection is essential to ensure plants Plant Selection are suited to soils, climates and microsites. In addition to improving the appearance of properties and LID features, plants also aid in stabilizing soil, minimizing erosion, providing windbreaks, shade and both food and n FILTER and infiltrate cover for wildlife. stormwater runoff Most LID practices or features n REDUCE erosion are designed to detain, retain n STABILIZE slopes and/or infiltrate stormwater n MINIMIZE inputs of runoff. Detention or retention fertilizer and pesticides times will depend on the size n IMPROVE aesthetics of the LID feature, the size of the stormwater collection area feeding into the feature, and the infiltration rate of the soil. These three factors determine the level and duration of moisture in the LID feature,

and are important factors to Susan Donaldson

consider when selecting plants. This LID feature includes a number of ornamental grasses and flowering This publication lists trees, plants and shrubs, including butterfly bush, autumn joy sedum, tickseed coreopsis and cotoneaster. shrubs, grasses and flowering plants that are well-suited to to help determine the type of inundation, while others require northern Nevada and may be LID feature that will work best well-drained soils to flourish. useful in various LID features. and the plants that will grow Consider these characteristics Follow these tips when best at a given site. Few plants carefully when selecting plants using the plant list: grow well in all types of soil. for biorention features. Plants Copyright © 2009, University of n Assess soil characteristics, n Some plants can survive that can survive in saturated Nevada Cooperative Extension. All rights reserved. including soil texture and salinity, periodic flooding or temporary soils are good choices for the

Appendix F - 94 Page 2 n Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada; Plant materials lower portions of a bioretention Trees, shrubs and grasses feature. Plants requiring well- drained soils are better choices useful in LID projects for the upper slopes or upland areas of biorention features. 1 n Many of the plants listed are A wide variety of native to Nevada, while some are plants are useful introduced species. Both types in LID projects: are adapted to our dry climate. 1 Black hawthorn n When planning the LID grows to 15 feet feature, consider the mature size and provides good of the plant materials. The list browse for wildlife; provides estimates of the mature 2 Penstemon, size and form of individual plants. which is highly For purposes of this publication, adapted to medium a tree is defined as more than and coarse soils; 10 feet tall with one main stem, 3 Bitterbrush, which and a shrub is less than 10 feet is highly adapted to tall with one or more stems. medium-textured soils n As the trees or shrubs as well as coarse- Al Schneider, www.swcoloradowildflowers.com Al Schneider, planted in the biorention area textured soils; begin to grow, smaller plants 2 4 Squirreltail grass, may be shaded. Shade tolerance which is a bunchgrass is an important consideration that competes with 5 in multi-storied plantings. cheatgrass; n Irrigation is an added 5 Potentilla, also expense many property owners known as shrubby

wish to avoid. Some plants are Jana Vanderhaar cinquefoil, a bush that is more drought-tolerant than suitable for swales, rain are others. Very few plants will gardens and green 3 grow without additional water roofs; in our area, at least during Susan Donaldson 6 Barberry, a 3- to establishment. Irrigation systems 6-foot shrub that adds a should be included in the design. lot of color and is n If your soil has a high salt adapted to coarse- Susan Donaldson content, consider planting 6 textured soil. salt-tolerant species. A soil test will provide you with 4 information about the salinity levels in your soil. n Wind tolerance is important if the bioretention feature is subject Ed Smith Ed to high winds or if the LID feature Sheri Hagwood,USDA-NRCS will also serve as a wind break.

Appendix F - 95 Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: Plant materials n Page 3

Upland: Plant drought- and wind-tolerant species that require good drainage.

Slope: Plant species with moderate drainage requirements and shade tolerances.

Bottom: Plant species that tolerate periodic flooding, shade and poor drainage.

n Some of the plants that For a description grow best in northern Nevada of Low Impact can become invasive or Development practices, weedy. Avoid their use when consult the following Fact possible, particularly on sites Sheets in this series: where they have proven to be invasive in the past. LID: An Introduction, FS-09-22 n Commercial availability Soil Considerations, FS-09-23 of seed, container or bareroot Rainwater Harvesting, stock can be a limiting FS-09-24 factor. Check with your local Bioretention, FS-09-25 nursery, retail outlet or online Vegetated Swales and during the planning phase to Buffers, FS-09-26 determine if the plant material Green Roofs, FS-09-27 you want is available. Plant Materials, FS-09-28 Jana Vanderhaar Baltic rush is native to Nevada. It can grow to 2 feet tall and works Porous Pavement, FS-09-29 well in vegetated swales, biorentention cells and rain gardens. Roadway and Parking Lot Design, FS-09-30 Maintenance, FS-09-31

For additional detailed planning and design information, refer to the latest versions of the Truckee Meadows Low Impact Development Handbook and the Truckee Meadows Structural Controls Design Manual available at www.tmstormwater.com.

Appendix F - 96

TREES SHRUBS Page 4nLow Impact Development inNorthern Nevada: Berberis species Atriplex lentiformis Atriplex confertifolia Atriplex canescens Artemisia species Amelanchier alnifolia Sambucus racemosa subspecies Sambucus nigra Salix amygdaloides Prunus emarginata Prunus americana Populus tremuloides Picea pungens Malus hybrids Gleditsia triacanthos Crataegus douglasii Cercocarpus ledifolius Cercis orbiculata Celtis occidentalis Catalpa speciosa Calocedrus decurrens subspecies Alnus incana Acer negundo Acer grandidentatum Botanical Name cerulea tenuifolia Plant MaterialsPlant Barberry Big saltbush,quailbush Shadscale, shadscalesaltbush Fourwing saltbush Sagebrush Western serviceberry Saskatoon serviceberry, Red elderberry Blue elderberry Peachleaf willow Bitter cherry American plum Quaking aspen blue spruce Colorado spruce, apple, crabapple Flowering crab Honeylocust Black hawthorn mahogany Curl-leaf mountain California redbud Western redbud, Common hackberry Northern catalpa Incense cedar Thinleaf alder Boxelder Bigtooth maple Common Name

Susan Donaldson N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I I I I Native status Appendix F -97 Appendix N = Native, I=Introduced U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S S,B S,B S,B S,B S,B U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S S,B Location in feature U=Upland, S=Slope, B=Bottom Plants for Bioretention Areas inNorthern Nevada 10-20’ shrub/tree 45-60’ shrub/tree to 24’ shrub/tree 3-15’ shrub/tree 7-20’ tree/shrub 6-20’ shrub/tree 6-15’ shrub/tree 50-125’ tree 1.5-5’ shrub to 10’ shrub 20-65’ tree 30-60’ tree 35-75’ tree 12-20’ tree 26-60’ tree 20-60’ tree 18-60’ tree 10-30’ tree 2-6.5’ tree 3-6’ shrub 1-3’ shrub 1-4’ shrub to 15’ tree 6-25’ tree Height/form ‘ = feet, “ = inches 12-140 16-260 30-60 16-20 24-60 10-60 24-60 16-32 16-40 20-45 30-60 20-70 10-45 14-60 20-80 20-80 10-20 15-75 16-30 4-20 4-12 5-18 7-60 Annual water requirement (inches) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Vegetated swales and larger- LID Feature scale features Suitability

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bioretention cells, rain gardens, smaller-scale features

X X X X X Green roofs M M H H H H H H H Adapted to clay or M M H H L L L L L L L L L L L fine-textured soils Soils M M M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Adapted to L medium-textured soils Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: n Page 5 Plants for Bioretention Areas in Northern Nevada Plant Materials Soils Water Tolerances Other

KEY: H - high, highly; M - moderate, moderately; L - low, poor, poorly

Data Sources Adapted to coarse-textured soils of Tolerance periodic flooding Drainage requirement Drought Salinity Wind Shade Commercial availability Tolerance for prolonged Tolerance saturation Potential to be weedy or invasive Additional Notes TREES

H L L M/H L L M M L M Good fall color 11

M H H M H M L M M H Birds, small mammals eat seeds; attracts boxelder bugs; suckers; brittle limbs 3,5,6,9,11

M M H L L L L M M H Forms thicket; has invasive roots; good in high water table areas 2,3,5,9,11

H L L M H L H L L H Tolerates summer heat and poor soil; good screen or windbreak for large area 5,8

H L L H M L L L L H Good wildlife food & cover; huge leaves, showy flowers; likes deep, moist soil 3,8,11

H L M L H L H H L H Good for wildlife; good in urban setting; deep roots; tolerates air pollution 3,8,11

H L M H H L L L L H Plants do well in moderate- to low-fertility soils 11

H L L H H L L M L M Prefers deep, rocky soils; evergreen 5,6

M M H M L L M M M M Has thorns; forms thicket; good wildlife browse 5,9,11

L L H H H M H L L H Hardy & fast-growing; thorns; used in urban stress areas, such as parking lots 3,8,11

H L L H M L M M L H Good wildlife food value; pruning required; characteristics vary by variety 3,8,11

H L L M M L H M L H Good wildlife cover; needle color interesting in landscape; long-lived 3,8,11

M M H M L/M L/M M L H H High water use; best at higher elev.; short-lived; can be invasive; wildlife food & habitat

H M M H L L H L L H Good for bird nesting, food & cover; good for erosion control 3,11

H L L M M L L L L M Red bark; bitter red fruit 5,6,11

H M H L L L H L H M Woody; easy to establish 2,9,11

H L M H M L L M L M Good food & cover for birds 3,5,6,9,11

L L M M M M L M L H Big game browse; wildlife eat fruit; fruit toxic to humans without preparation 3,5,6,9,11 SHRUBS H L L M L L H M L H Forms a thicket; has edible fruit 3,5,6,11

M L L M H M M L M H Characteristics vary by species 5,8,11

H L L M H H M L L M High boron tolerance 5,7,11

H L L L H H L L L M Calcium-tolerant; good winter forage for wildlife 7,11

L M L L H H L L L M Tolerant of alkaline soil; good to 7 degrees F 7,11

H L L M L L M L L H Attractive color in landscape; has thorns 8,11

Appendix F - 98 SHRUBS Page 6nLow Impact Development inNorthern Nevada: Syringa vulgaris Symphoricarpos albus Spiraea Shepherdia argentea Rosa woodsii Ribes cereum Ribes aureum Rhus trilobata Purshia tridentata Prunus virginiana Prunus andersonii Pinus mugo microphyllus Philadelphus Mahonia repens Forsythia species Forestiera neomexicana Forestiera pubescens, Fallugia paradoxa Ephedra viridis Potentilla fruticosa Dasiphora fruticosa, Cotoneaster subspecies Cornus sericea nauseosa nauseosus, Ericameria Chrysothamnus Caragana arborescens Buddleja Botanical Name species species sericea (continued) species Plant MaterialsPlant

Common lilac Common snowberry Spirea Silver buffaloberry Woods’ rose Wax currant Golden currant Skunkbush sumac bitterbrush Antelope bitterbrush, Chokecherry Desert peach Mugo (Mugho)pine Littleleaf mockorange creeping Oregongrape Creeping barberry, Forsythia olive, NewMexicoprivet Stretchberry, desert Apache plume Mormon tea bush cinquefoil Shrubby cinquefoil, Cotoneaster twig dogwood Redosier dogwood,red- rabbitbrush Rabbitbrush, rubber Siberian peashrub Butterflybush Common Name

David Allen N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

I I I I I I I Native status Appendix F -99 Appendix N = Native, I=Introduced U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S S,B S,B S,B S,B S,B Location in feature U=Upland, S=Slope, B=Bottom Plants for Bioretention Areas inNorthern Nevada 3-12’ shrub/tree 3-20’ shrub/tree 1-2.5’ shrub to 12’ shrub to 20’ shrub 6-12’ shrub 4-10’ shrub 3-15’ shrub 3-10’ shrub 3-20’ shrub 3-10’ shrub 4-10’ shrub to 4’ shrub to 6’ shrub 3-7’ shrub 1-2’ shrub 2-6’ shrub 1-3’ shrub 1-9’ shrub 3-6’ shrub 2-5’ shrub 2-6’ shrub 2-6’ shrub 3’ shrub Height/form ‘ = feet, “ = inches 30-50 12-45 35-60 15-20 12-40 13-35 12-20 13-65 35-60 15-45 32-60 16-40 14-30 18-60 12-55 8-20 8-20 8-12 8-12 9-24 4-20 6-12 6-20 Annual water requirement (inches)

Vegetated swales and larger- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LID Feature scale features Suitability

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bioretention cells, rain gardens, smaller-scale features

X X X X X X X X X X X Green roofs M H H H H H H H H H Adapted to clay or L L L L L L L L L L L L L L fine-textured soils Soils H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Adapted to medium-textured soils Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: n Page 7 Plants for Bioretention Areas in Northern Nevada Plant Materials Soils Water Tolerances Other

KEY: H - high, highly; M - moderate, moderately; L - low, poor, poorly

Data Sources Tolerance for prolonged Tolerance saturation Potential to be weedy or invasive Adapted to coarse-textured soils of Tolerance periodic flooding Drainage requirement Drought Salinity Wind Shade Commercial availability Additional Notes SHRUBS (continued)

H L L H L L L L L H Attracts butterflies 8

H L L H H M H M L H Very tolerant of infertile soils; requires little maintenance 3,8,11

H L L L H M L L L M Calcium-tolerant; good wildlife cover; pollen may irritate those with allergies 5,7,8,10,11

M H H L M L H L L H Brilliant red fall color 1,2,5,6,11

H L L L M L H M L H Adapted to a variety of soil textures 3,8,11

H L H H L M H L L H Height and flower color dependent on variety; fair nesting cover 3,8,9

H L L H H H L M L M Calcium-tolerant; intolerant of wet sites and poor drainage 8,11

H L L M H M M L H L Adds interest in landscape; wildlife browse 6,11

H L M H M M M L L M Provides browse, fruit and nectar for wildlife 8,11

H L L H M L H M L H Bright yellow spring flowers; characteristics vary by variety 3,8,11

L L L H H L L/M H M M Creeping habit; stoloniferous growth; evergreen; berries provide wildlife food 11

H L L L H L L L L H Big-game browse 3,8,11

H L L L M M M L L H Interesting shape in landscape; size varies with variety; fair wildlife value 3,8,11

M L L M H M M L L M Pink flowers in spring; can form thicket 6,11

H L M H M M L L H H Birds and small mammals eat fruit; can be toxic to wildlife 3,5,6,9,11

H L L L H L H M L M Provides spring & winter browse & cover for wildlife 7,11

H L L H M M L M L H Good fall color; slow to establish; birds & small mammals eat fruit 2,3,9,11

L L M L M L L M L H Wildlife food & cover; alternate host for white pine blister rust 2,3,8,9,11

H L L L H L L L L H Wildlife food & cover; calcium-tolerant; alternate host for white pine blister rust 3,9,11

H L M L M L H M M H Suckers and grows vigorously in moist sites; heavily thorned 2,3,5,8,9,11

H L M H M H H M H H Spreads fast, forms thicket; thorny; wildlife food; can fix atmospheric nitrogen 2,3,6,8,11

H L L L M L M L/M L H Colorful, dense blooms; many varieties; good nesting, food & cover 3,8,11

H L M L/M H M M L L M Cover and food for birds & small mammals; browse for wildlife 6,8,11

H L L H M M H M L H Beautiful flowers; fair nesting cover 3,8,11

Appendix F - 100 GRASSES, SEDGES &RUSHES Page 8nLow Impact Development inNorthern Nevada: Sporobolus airoides Spartina pectinata Schoenoplectus Scirpus species Pascopyrum smithii ‘Prairie Sky’ Panicum virgatum Muhlenbergia rigens Leymus triticoides Elymus cinereus Leymus cinereus, Juncus effusus Juncus balticus Hesperostipa comata sempervirens Helictotrichon Agropyron trachycaulum Elymus trachycaulus, Elymus elymoides Eleocharis palustris macrostachya, Eleocharis Distichlis stricta Distichlis spicata, (aquatilis, nebrascensis,rostrata) Carex species acutiflora Calamagrostis canadensis Calamagrostis Bromus inermis Bromus biebersteinii Botanical Name (Karl Foerster) X , Plant MaterialsPlant species

Alkali sacaton Prairie cordgrass Bulrush, tule Western wheatgrass Prairie skyswitchgrass Deergrass creeping wildrye Beardless wildrye, wildrye, giantwildrye Basin wildrye,Great Common rush,softrush Baltic rush Needle andthread Blue oatgrass Slender wheatgrass Squirreltail pale spikerush Common spikerush, Saltgrass Sedge Feather reedgrass bluejoint Bluejoint reedgrass, Smooth brome Meadow brome Common Name

USDA plants database N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

I I I I I Native status Appendix F -101 Appendix N = Native, I=Introduced U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S U,S S,B S,B S,B S,B S,B S,B S,B S,B S,B Location in feature U=Upland, S=Slope, B=Bottom Plants for Bioretention Areas inNorthern Nevada 0.5-2.5’ 0.5-1.5’ 2 to6’ 2-3.5’ 0.5-1’ 1.5-2’ 2-2.5’ 1.5-3’ 4-18” to 5’ to 3’ to 6’ 2-4’ 1-4’ 1-2’ 2-6’ 2-3’ 2-4’ Height/form 5’ 5’ 2’ ‘ = feet, “ = inches 10-65, depending on species 14-35 12-60 12-60 10-18 18-60 16-60 14-65 18-60 15-30 5-13 8-36 7-60 8-20 5-20 8-25 5-16 5-70 Annual water requirement (inches)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Vegetated swales and larger- LID Feature scale features Suitability

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bioretention cells, rain gardens, smaller-scale features

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Green roofs M M M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Adapted to clay or L L L fine-textured soils Soils M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Adapted to L medium-textured soils Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: n Page 9 Plants for Bioretention Areas in Northern Nevada Plant Materials Soils Water Tolerances Other

KEY: H - high, highly; M - moderate, moderately; L - low, poor, poorly

Data Sources Drought Adapted to coarse-textured soils of Tolerance periodic flooding Drainage requirement Salinity Wind Shade Potential to be weedy or invasive Tolerance for prolonged Tolerance saturation Commercial availability Additional Notes GRASSES, SEDGES & RUSHES

H L M M M M H M M H Sod-forming grass; good soil stabilizer; wildlife food 3,11

L L M M M M H L H H Sod-forming grass; good soil stabilizer; wildlife food 3,11

L L H L/M L L M L H H Sod-forming grass; good soil stabilizer; wildlife food 3,10,11 & cover; does well in saturated soils

L H H L H L H L L/M H Bunchgrass; bears sterile seed heads into winter; ornamental; 1,8 cut to ground in fall or spring; moderate water requirement

L H H L L L L L-H L H Heat & shade tolerance varies with species; wildlife food & cover 3,4,11

L H H L H H M L H H Sod-forming grass 7,11

H H H L L L H L M H Provides waterfowl food 1,3,11

L L L M H L H L L M Bunchgrass; competes with cheatgrass 1,11

L L M M H H M L M M Short-lived bunchgrass; wildlife food & cover 9,11

M L L H H L M L L H Bunchgrass; arching clump; blue-gray color; moderate water requirement 8

H L L H H M H L M M Bunchgrass; may hybridize with Indian ricegrass, forming sterile hybrids 11

M H H L H H M M L H Tolerates wide range of hydrologic conditions; fixes atmospheric nitrogen 3,4,11

H M M L M L H L H H Fast-spreading 1,11

H L M M H H H L L H Bunchgrass with deep root system; cannot be mowed below 10 7,11 inches tall; likes deep soils; excellent wildlife food & cover

L M H L H H H L L M Sod-forming grass; fast-spreading 1,11

H L H H H L H M L H Bunchgrass 1,11

H L M M M M H L M H Sod-forming grass; excellent nesting, wildlife food & cover 11

L L M H H H M L M H Sod-forming grass 3,11

L H H L M L-H M/H L L H Salinity and pH tolerance varies with species (acutus, 3,4,11 maritimus, pungens); wildlife food & cover

H L H L L L H L M H Sod-forming grass; shade-intolerant; calcium-tolerant 3,11

H L H M H H H L M H Bunchgrass 7,11

Appendix F - 102 NOTE: Forconsistency, muchoftheinformation usedinthistablewasderived fromtheUSDA plantsdatabase.The authorsunderstandthereisgreat variabilityinplantdata,depending onthedatasource.Plant alsovarywithsoil,locationand aspect.Theinformationinthis table ismeantasageneralguide only. PERENNIAL FORBS ANDFLOWERING PLANTS Page 10nLow Impact Development inNorthern Nevada: Tanacetum species Stachys byzantina Sphaeralcea ambigua Sedum species Salvia species Rudbeckia hirta Penstemon species Penstemon palmeri Mimulus species Linum lewisii Lavandula angustifolia Kniphofia uvaria Iris germanica Iberis sempervirens Hemerocallis Gaura lindheimeri Gaillardia Gaillardia aristata Eriogonum umbellatum Echinacea purpurea Coreopsis Aster species Achillea millefolium Botanical Name X grandiflora species hybrids Plant MaterialsPlant pyrethum daisy Tansy, painteddaisy, hedgenettle Lamb’s ear, woolly Desert globemallow Stonecrop Salvia, sage Blackeyed Susan Beardtongue penstemon Palmer’s Monkeyflower Lewis flax English lavender Redhot poker Bearded iris,Germaniris Evergreen candytuft Daylilies beeblossom Gaura, Lindheimer’s Blanket flower common gaillardia Indian blanketflower, Sulfur flower Sulfur-flower buckwheat, Eastern purpleconeflower Coreopsis, tickseed Aster Common yarrow Common Name

Susan Donaldson N/I N/I N/I N N N N N N N N N N

I I I I I I I I I I Native status Appendix F -103 Appendix N = Native, I=Introduced U,S,B U,S,B U,S,B U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S U,S S,B Location in feature U=Upland, S=Slope, B=Bottom Plants for Bioretention Areas inNorthern Nevada 1-3’, varieswithvariety flower spikesto4’ 0.5-3’ 1-2.5’ 0.5-3’ 6-10” to 3’ to 5’ 1-3’ 2-4’ 1-2’ 1-5’ 1-2’ 1-3’ 1-4’ 1-3’ 1-3’ Height/form 4’ 2’ 2’ 1’ 3’ 1’ ‘ = feet, “ = inches 8-60, depending varies with on variety species 28-65 10-20 18-36 10-20 32-65 28-60 16-30 16-30 14-40 20-50 5-15 8-14 6-14 8-18 Annual water requirement (inches)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Vegetated swales and larger- LID Feature scale features Suitability

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bioretention cells, rain gardens, smaller-scale features

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Green roofs M M M M M M H H H H H H Adapted to clay or L L L L L L L L L L L fine-textured soils Soils

M Adapted to H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H medium-textured soils Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: n Page 11 Plants for Bioretention Areas in Northern Nevada Plant Materials Soils Water Tolerances Other

KEY: H - high, highly; M - moderate, moderately; L - low, poor, poorly

Data Sources Tolerance for prolonged Tolerance saturation Drought Adapted to coarse-textured soils of Tolerance periodic flooding Drainage requirement Salinity Wind Shade Potential to be weedy or invasive Commercial availability Additional Notes PERENNIAL FORBS AND FLOWERING PLANTS

L L L H H L H M H H Many varieties 8,11

L L L H L L L M M H Fall- or spring-blooming, depending on variety 8,10

H L L M H L L L H H Some annual species 8,11

H L L H L L L L L H Grows best at neutral soil pH; attracts insects & birds 8,11

H L L H H H H L L H Seeds are used as food source for birds & small mammals; 7,8,11 excellent for use in dried flower arrangements

H L L L H L L L M H Orange-yellow flowers 7,11

H L L H H L L L L H Short-lived 8,11

L L M H M L M M M H Pink or white flowers; moderate water requirement 8,11

H L M L M L L M L H Many colors available 8,11

H L L H M L L M L H Evergreen 5,11

L L L H H L M M L H Many colors available; divide plants periodically; moderate water requirement 8

H L L M H L H L M H Attracts birds; moderate water requirement 8

H L L H M M M L L H Several colors available; moderate water requirement 8

H L M H L L L L M H Resistant to wildfire 7,11

M L M L L L L H L M Flower color, height & hardiness vary with species 11

H L L H H L L L L H Short-lived; fire-resistant 7,11

H L L H H L L M L H Short-lived; bird & insect nectar source 8,11

L L L M M L L L M H Naturalized through most of the U.S.; self-seeding 11

H H L M M M L M M H Best in dry zones; wildlife browse 1,7,8,11

H L L H H L H L L H Several colors of flowers & foliage available 1,8

H L L H H M M L M M/L Short-lived; self-seeding 7,11

H L M H M M H L H H Ground cover; less invasive cultivars available; low water requirement 8,11

H L L H H L M M L H Moderate water requirement; many species 8,11 formerly classified as chrysanthemum

NOTE: For consistency, much of the information used in this table was derived from the USDA plants database. The authors understand there is great variability in plant data, depending on the data source. Plant data also vary with soil, location and aspect. The information in this table is meant as a general guide only.

Appendix F - 104 Page 12 n Low Impact Development in Northern Nevada: Plant Materials

References: 1. City of Salinas Development Standards Plan, January 2007 7. Truckee Meadows Regional Stormwater Quality Management Draft, LID Practices for Urban Storm Drainage Management. Program, 2003, Truckee Meadows Construction Site BMP 2. Cobourn, J. and S. Donaldson, 1995, Nevada Small Ranch Handbook, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, www.tmstormwater.com. Manual, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, EB-95-02. 8. Truckee Meadows Water Authority, unknown date, 3. Ogle, D. and J. C. Hoag, 2000, Stormwater Plant Materials, Landscaping in the Truckee Meadows, www.tmh20.com A Resource Guide, USDA Natural Resources Conservation 9. USDA-ARS and Forage and Range Research Lab, Logan, Service and Boise Public Works, www.cityofboise. Utah, in conjunction with Utah State University Extension, org/Departments/Public_Works/PDF/PlantGuideline.pdf unknown date, Intermountian Planting Guide AG510, http:// 4. Shaw, D.and R. Schmidt, 2003, Plants for Stormwater www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmspu3144.pdf Design, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 10. USDA NRCS, 1998, Practical Streambank Bioengineering 5. Skelly, J.A., 2004, Selected Native Trees of Northern Nevada, Guide, User’s Guide for Natural Streambank Stabilization Techniques University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, SP-06-04. in the Arid and Semi-Arid Great Basin and Intermountain 6. Skelly, J.A. and K. McAdoo, 2007, Selected West, USDA NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho. Native Shrubs of Northern Nevada, University of 11. USDA Plants Database, http://plants.usda.gov Nevada Cooperative Extension, SP-07-12.

Copyright © 2009, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, published, transmitted, used, displayed, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher and authoring agency. The University of Nevada, Reno is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, creed, national origin, veteran status, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation in any program or activity it operates. The University of Nevada employs only United States citizens and aliens lawfully authorized to work in the United States.

Appendix F - 105

CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY For Phase 1 of

A MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY

Prepared For: Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC 777 S. Center Street, Suite 105 Reno, NV 89501

Prepared By:

Lumos & Associates, Inc. 308 N. Curry Street, Suite 200 Carson City, NV 89703 (775) 883-7077

JN 9000.500 September 2018

9/6/18

Appendix G - 1

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 II. EXISTING OFF-SITE WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES AND POTENTIAL ON-SITE RESOURCES ...... 2 A. Phase 1 Off-Site Supply ...... 2 B. Potential On-Site Resources ...... 2 III. WATER DEMAND ESTIMATES ...... 2 A. Residential Dwelling Unit Descriptions and Counts ...... 3 B. Maximum Day Demand Projections ...... 3 C. Phase 1 Summary of Total Demands ...... 5 D. Phase 1 Fire Flow Demands ...... 6 IV. DESIGN CRITERIA ...... 6 V. WATER MODELING ...... 7 A. Average Day Demand ...... 8 B. Maximum Day Demand ...... 8 C. Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow ...... 8 D. Peak Hour Demand ...... 8 VI. WATER SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 8 A. On-Site Water System ...... 8 B. Off-Site Water Supply ...... 10 C. Opinion of Probable Costs ...... 11 VII. REFERENCES ...... 12

JN: 9000.500 Page i September, 2018

Appendix G - 2

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

APPENDICES

Appendix A StoneGate Discovery by TMWA (July 25, 2018) Appendix B StoneGate Phase 1 Demands – TMWA Calculations Appendix C Phase 1 Water Model Results

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Phase 1 Residential Dwelling Unit Counts ...... 3 Table 2: Phase 1 Domestic Single Family MDD Calculation ...... 4 Table 3: Phase 1 Domestic Multi-Family MDD Calculation ...... 4 Table 4: Phase 1 Non-Residential MDD Calculation...... 5 Table 5: Phase 1 Irrigation Demands ...... 5 Table 6: Phase 1 StoneGate MPC Total Anticipated Water Demand ...... 6 Table 7: Phase 1 Tank Elevation and HGL ...... 9 Table 8: Phase 1 Storage Tank Requirements ...... 9 Table 9: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Project Costs for Off-Site Water System ...... 11 Table 10: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Project Costs for On-Site Water System ...... 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: StoneGate Phasing Map ...... 14 Figure 2: Phase 1 Vicinity Map ...... 15 Figure 3: Phase 1 Preliminary Pressure Zones ...... 16 Figure 4: Phase 1 Preliminary Backbone Water System...... 17

[File Doc: L:\LAProj\9000.300 - Stonegate Masterplan Engineering\Civil\Water\0-Reports\Phase 1 SUP\9000.500 SUP Water Report.docx] September 4, 2018

JN: 9000.500 Page ii September, 2018

Appendix G - 3

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

I. INTRODUCTION

The StoneGate Planned Unit Development (PUD) is planned to be constructed in multiple phases. This Phase 1 Conceptual Water Supply and Conveyance Study focuses on Phase 1 of the StoneGate Master Planned Community (MPC). Refer to Figure 1 for the StoneGate Phasing Map.

The StoneGate PUD is located 12 miles north of the US395-580/I-80 interchange in the Cold Springs area of Reno, Nevada. The Master Developer, Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC, holds property on the north and south side of US395. The property north of the freeway will be developed into the StoneGate Town Center (TC) and property south of the freeway will be developed into the StoneGate MPC.

The SUP project area is comprised of 1,142.8 acres on parcels 081-110-32, 081-110-33, 087-010- 43, and 087-010-46 and resides within Sections 27, 28, 32, and 33, T21N, R18E in the City of Reno, Nevada. However, the infrastructure within this report serves only the Phase 1 superpad development (Phase 1) as depicted on Figure 2, which is 232.8 acres on parcel 081-110-33. Phase 1 contains approximately 850 single-family residential units, 30 multi-family residential units, an elementary school, and a fire station.

On-site and off-site water supply infrastructure will need to be constructed to bring water to the StoneGate development. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the conceptual water supply and conveyance for Phase 1 of the StoneGate MPC; this is further investigated by Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) in the StoneGate Discovery dated July 25, 2018 included as Appendix A.

Projected water demands and design recommendations presented in this report are at the conceptual level based on preliminary development areas, lot counts, and lot sizes. Water demands and infrastructure design will be updated as necessary during the final planning stages of each development area. The final design of all infrastructure will ultimately be reviewed by and coordinated with TMWA prior to the issuance of any will-serves or approvals associated with water service/delivery to the project.

This Conceptual Water Supply and Conveyance Study, and the subsequent Final Water Supply and Conveyance Study, shall serve as the basis of design for all backbone water facilities outside the superpads. These reports should be included by reference or inclusion in Tentative Map and Final Map submittals by merchant builders to serve as a demonstration of adequacy of infrastructure outside the superpads.

JN: 9000.500 Page 1 September, 2018

Appendix G - 4

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

II. EXISTING OFF-SITE WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES AND POTENTIAL ON-SITE RESOURCES

The supply source for Phase 1 of the StoneGate MPC will include off-site water supply provided by TMWA and potentially on-site resources.

A. Phase 1 Off-Site Supply There are two existing off-site water sources through TMWA currently being investigated as an initial source of supply for Phase 1 of the StoneGate MPC. These sources are detailed below:

• Alternative 1 – Red Rock Connection: This source will require a 12” connection at the intersection of Silver Lake Road and Red Rock Road. A new 16” supply pipeline would be installed along the south side of US395 with a booster pump station. The 16” water main will connect to the StoneGate MPC distribution system at the entrance of the development at White Lake Pkwy. This source can provide up to 1,000 gpm.

• Alternative 2 – Stead Main Connection: This source will require a 16” connection near 9550 N. Virginia Street. The new 16” supply pipeline would be installed along the south side of US395 with a booster pump station. The 16” water main will connect to the StoneGate MPC distribution system at the entrance of the development at White Lake Pkwy. This source can provide 1,000 gpm or more.

The proposed 16” water main is sized based on TMWA criteria and the estimated buildout demand for the StoneGate MPC and TC. Reference Appendix A for further information on initial off-site supply alternatives. There are no requirements by any adjacent land owners to oversize the main.

The off-site booster pump station location and design is to be determined. The preliminary location for the booster pump station is near Red Rock Road and US 395.

B. Potential On-Site Resources On-site water resources for StoneGate are currently under investigation and could potentially be part of the water supply serving the development in addition to the off-site supply from TMWA. Potential well location(s) and production capacities are still being determined.

III. WATER DEMAND ESTIMATES

Demands were calculated using TMWA guidelines and locally accepted methods for the Reno area. The following sections present a detailed methodology for the water demand estimates for use in the design of on-site and off-site water facilities.

JN: 9000.500 Page 2 September, 2018

Appendix G - 5

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

A. Residential Dwelling Unit Descriptions and Counts Land use designations and preliminary lot sizes planned for the development are as follows:

ß Multi-Family (MF): Variety of high density residential uses including low-rise multi-family, single-family attached, and single-family detached housing. An average lot size of 4,000 sf will be used for estimating water demands. ß SF4 Residential: Single-family residential with lot sizes of 4,000 to 6,000 sf. An average lot size of 5,000 sf will be used for estimating water demands. ß SF6 Residential: Single-family residential with minimum lot sizes of 6,000 sf. An average lot size of 8,000 sf will be used for estimating water demands.

A summary of dwelling unit (DU) counts for StoneGate MPC Phase 1 are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Phase 1 Residential Dwelling Unit Counts

MF SF4 SF6 Total Area/Phase (DU) (DU) (DU) (DU) Phase 1 30 420 430 880

B. Maximum Day Demand Projections Maximum day demand calculations and projections for Phase 1 of the StoneGate MPC are summarized in the sections to follow.

Domestic Single Family (SF) Maximum Day Demand Indoor and outdoor residential water demands were estimated based on TMWA criteria and information provided in Appendices A and B. The TMWA guidelines include an equation (Equation 1) for calculating maximum day demand (MDD) in gallons per minute (gpm) based on lot size.

Equation 1: TMWA MDD Calculation (SF)

0.0063 ∗

Using average lot sizes and Equation 1, a domestic single-family MDD per DU was calculated for residential land uses within Phase 1. The domestic single-family MDD calculations for Phase 1 are summarized in Table 2.

JN: 9000.500 Page 3 September, 2018

Appendix G - 6

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

Table 2: Phase 1 Domestic Single Family MDD Calculation

2 Count Avg Lot MDD Factor Total MDD Use (DUs) Size1 (sf) (gpm/DU) (gpm) (gpd) SF4 420 6,000 0.5 210 302,400 SF6 430 8,000 0.6 258 371,520 Total 850 - - 468 673,920 1 Lot sizes and counts are preliminary and may vary with final planning of development. 2 MDD factor calculated from TMWA Criteria (Appendix B). Includes irrigation demands.

Domestic Multi-Family (MF) Maximum Day Demand Domestic multi-family residential water demands were estimated based on the TMWA criteria and information provided in Appendices A and B. TMWA provided a domestic multi-family maximum day demand factor of 0.14 gpm/unit. The domestic multi-family MDD calculations for Phase 1 are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Phase 1 Domestic Multi-Family MDD Calculation

MDD Count Factor Total MDD Use DUs (gpm/DU) (gpm) (gpd) MF 30 0.14 4.2 6,048

Non-Residential Demand In addition to the anticipated residential water demands, non-residential demands in the form of one elementary school and one fire station are included in Phase 1 of StoneGate MPC. The details of estimating the non-residential demands are provided below.

The elementary school is estimated to have 750 students. TMWA provided an estimated school demand of 3 acre-feet annually (AFA) based on billing data and a TMWA maximum day multiplier of 1.08 gpm/AFA (Appendix B). The fire station water demands were estimated assuming an average of 10 employees at the station per day, 100 gpd/employee, and a TMWA maximum day multiplier of 1.08 gpm/AFA (Appendix B). The non-residential MDD summary for Phase 1 is summarized in Table 4.

JN: 9000.500 Page 4 September, 2018

Appendix G - 7

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

Table 4: Phase 1 Non-Residential MDD Calculation

Total MDD Use (gpm) (gpd) Elementary School 3.2 4,608 Fire Station 1.2 1,728

Irrigation Demand Common areas and open space within Phase 1 of the StoneGate MPC include the community entrance, street right-of-ways, and channels. The estimated irrigation demand takes into account the trees, plants, turf, and pasture grasses used for landscaping in the various StoneGate MPC common areas and open space as well as the landscaping at the elementary school. Single-family residential landscaping for the StoneGate MPC is taken into account with the residential demand calculation as part of the TMWA guidelines (as reflected in Table 1 and 2). Drip systems are planned to be installed to irrigate individual plants such as shrubs and trees. Sprinkler systems are planned to be used to irrigate large areas such as turf and pasture grasses.

The irrigation MDD summary for Phase 1 is summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Phase 1 Irrigation Demands

Total MDD Area (gpm) (gpd) Common Space/Open Areas 77.3 111,312

C. Phase 1 Summary of Total Demands Peaking factors provided by TMWA in Appendix B were used to calculate average day demand (ADD) and peak hour demand (PHD) from the MDD values presented in Section III.B. The peaking factors provided by TMWA are provided below:

ß MDD/ADD Single-Family Residential Factor = 2.13 ß MDD/ADD Multi-Family Residential Factor = 1.37 ß MDD/ADD Commercial (or Non-Residential) Factor = 1.58 ß MDD/ADD Irrigation Factor = 2.54 ß PHD/MDD Factor = 1.70

A summary of total anticipated water demands for Phase 1 of the StoneGate MPC are provided in Table 6. The total projected MDD is 554 gpm.

JN: 9000.500 Page 5 September, 2018

Appendix G - 8

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

Table 6: Phase 1 StoneGate MPC Total Anticipated Water Demand

ADD MDD PHD Use DUs (gpm) (gpd) (gpm) (gpd) (gpm) Single-Family (SF4) 420 99 142,560 210 302,400 357 Single-Family (SF6) 430 121 174,240 258 371,520 439 Multi-Family (MF) 30 3.1 4,464 4.2 6,048 7.1 Elementary School - 2.0 2,880 3.2 4,608 5.4 Fire Station - 0.8 1,152 1.2 1,728 2.0 Irrigation (Common - 30 43,200 77.3 111,312 131 Area /Open space) Total 880 256 368,496 554 797,616 942

D. Phase 1 Fire Flow Demands The largest fire flow demand for Phase 1 is the elementary school. The preliminary finish floor area of the elementary school is approximately 80,000 sf. Per the 2012 International Fire Code (IFC), a building with Type IIB construction at this size will require a fire flow of 6,000 gpm for 4 hours (or 3,000 gpm for 4 hours with sprinklers at a 50% reduction). The reduced fire flow requirement equates to a storage volume of 720,000 gallons.

If fire storage for the future high school planned for the StoneGate TC is included in the Phase 1 storage tank(s), the required fire flow using a preliminary finish floor area of 200,000 sf and assuming Type IIA construction is estimated at 6,000 gpm for a duration of 4 hours per the 2012 IFC (or 3,000 gpm for 4 hours with sprinklers gallons at a 50% reduction). If the high school building is Type IIB construction, the fire flow requirement would be 8,000 gpm for a duration of 4 hours per the 2012 IFC (or 4,000 gpm for 4 hours with sprinklers gallons at a 50% reduction). For Type IIB construction, the reduced fire flow requirement for the high school equates to a storage volume of 960,000 gallons.

For residential homes under 3,600 square feet, the recommended fire flow is 1,500 gpm for a duration of 2 hours. This equates to a residential fire storage requirement of 180,000 gallons which is less than that required for the elementary school or high school.

Ultimately the fire flow requirements will be set by fire department having jurisdiction, but the demands discussed above provide a conservative estimate for sizing infrastructure.

IV. DESIGN CRITERIA

As the StoneGate water system will be connected to and served as part of an existing public water system through TMWA, it falls under Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A66.752 through

JN: 9000.500 Page 6 September, 2018

Appendix G - 9

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

445A.66755. Recommended design criteria for the on-site water systems are outlined below in conformance with the NAC and TMWA design standards [1].

ß Supply capacity: Total system capacity (including storage) should be sufficient to meet the MDD and fire demand with all facilities in service per NAC 445A.6672. In addition, total system capacity should be sufficient to meet the ADD and fire demand with the most productive well out of service. Alternative pumping capacity and storage capacity can be considered as sources of supply per NAC 445A.66725.1. o A well or booster pump is considered alternative pumping capacity when equipped with a source of backup power (e.g. emergency generator). ß Storage capacity: Storage capacity will include operating storage, emergency reserve, and fire demand per TMWA standards (see Appendix A). o Operating Storage: 15% of the indoor and outdoor MDD. o Emergency Reserve: 24 hours of indoor and outdoor ADD. o Fire Demand: Per fire authority requirements. ß Distribution system pressures (more stringent of NAC 445A.6711 and TMWA design standards [2]): o Minimum pressure of 45 psi during MDD. o Minimum pressure of 20 psi during MDD + fire flow. o Minimum pressure of 40 psi during PHD. o Minimum static pressure of 45 psi. o Maximum static pressure of 100 psi. ß Distribution system main sizing [1]: o Minimum water main size of 8-inch diameter. o Maximum velocity of 8 feet per second (fps) during PHD. o Maximum velocity of 18 fps during MDD + fire flow. o Hazen Williams roughness coefficient (‘C’ Value) of 130 for pipe diameters greater than or equal to 14-inch diameter and 120 for pipe diameters less than 14-inch diameter. ß Minimum 10 ft horizontal and 18-inch vertical (water main above) separation from sewer, storm, and reclaimed water pipelines, unless approved otherwise with special construction per NAC 445A.6715 and TMWA design standards [1]. ß Isolation valves required at intervals not to exceed 500 ft, at intervals to isolate no more than (2) fire hydrants at any time, at all main intersections, and at tees/crosses [1]. ß Air/vacuum valves required at high points along water pipelines per NAC 445A.67135 and TMWA design standards [1]. ß Fire hydrants spacing in accordance with fire department having jurisdiction [1].

V. WATER MODELING

The Phase 1 backbone distribution system was designed based on preliminary road alignments, finish grades, and future phases for the StoneGate development. To size the distribution mains and define pressure zones, the conceptual system was modeled using Bentley WaterCAD software. Input to the water model included physical data (pipe lengths, alignments, ground

JN: 9000.500 Page 7 September, 2018

Appendix G - 10

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

surface elevations) and loads (water demands). The model was used to determine minimum required pipeline sizes and pressure zone boundary locations to meet design criteria outlined in Section IV (pressure and velocity requirements). The backbone system was also sized considering fire flows and demands for future phases.

Phase 1 is planned to be incorporated into two pressure zones designated as SG Pressure Zones 1 and 2. The model scenarios are described below. A water model schematic and results are included in Appendix C.

A. Average Day Demand The Phase 1 ADD for the StoneGate MPC is estimated at 256 gpm. The model was run at ADD loading to achieve minimum and maximum static water pressures of 45 psi and 100 psi, respectively.

B. Maximum Day Demand The total buildout MDD for StoneGate is estimated at 554 gpm. The model was run at MDD loading to achieve minimum pressures of 45 psi.

C. Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow The largest fire flow demand required for StoneGate MPC Phase 1 is the elementary school with a fire flow demand of 3,000 gpm for 4 hours (with sprinklers). Other residences in Phase 1 require a fire flow of 1,500 gpm for 2 hours.

The model was run at MDD plus fire flow loading to achieve minimum pressures of 20 psi. All fire flow demands can be met with the on-site storage.

D. Peak Hour Demand The total system buildout PHD is 942 gpm. The model was run at PHD loading to achieve minimum pressures of 40 psi.

VI. WATER SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS

A. On-Site Water System On-Site Water Supply On-site water supply for StoneGate could potentially include groundwater well(s) and well house(s). The well location(s), production capacity, and timing are still being determined.

Storage The proposed tank site for Phase 1 is located near the eastern boundary of the StoneGate MPC. One or two storage tanks are to be installed in Phase 1 to satisfy minimum storage requirements

JN: 9000.500 Page 8 September, 2018

Appendix G - 11

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

for Phase 1 and potentially future phases. The preliminary Phase 1 tank elevation and hydraulic grade line (HGL) are summarized in Table 7. The tank location is shown on Figure 3.

Table 7: Phase 1 Tank Elevation and HGL

Tank Base EL (ft) HGL (ft) 1 5,295 5,325

A comparison of estimated storage volumes required for Tank Site 1 for different service areas are shown in Table 8. Reference Appendix A for further information on required storage by TMWA.

Table 8: Phase 1 Storage Tank Requirements

Minimum Required Storage Operating, Emergency Max Fire Total 15% MDD Reserve, Demand in Tank Size % of Area Served (gal) ADD (gal) Area (gal) (gal) Total

MPC Ph 1 Only Single-Family Residential 101,090 316,800 - 417,890 34.6% Multi-Family Residential 910 4,460 - 5,370 0.4% Elementary School 690 2,880 720,000 723,570 59.9% Fire Station 260 1,150 - 1,410 0.1% Irrigation (Common/Open Space) 16,700 43,200 - 59,900 5.0% Total 119,650 368,490 720,000 1,208,140 100%

MPC Ph 1 + High School Single-Family Residential 101,090 316,800 - 417,890 26.8% Multi-Family Residential 910 4,460 - 5,370 0.3% Elementary School 690 2,880 - 3,570 0.2% Fire Station 260 1,150 - 1,410 0.1% Irrigation (Common/Open Space) 16,700 43,200 - 59,900 3.8% High School 29,190 81,270 960,000 1,070,460 68.7% Total 148,840 449,760 960,000 1,558,600 100%

MPC Ph 1 + Town Center Single-Family Residential 101,090 316,800 - 417,890 22.2% Multi-Family Residential 910 4,460 - 5,370 0.3% Elementary School 690 2,880 - 3,570 0.2% Fire Station 260 1,150 - 1,410 0.1% Irrigation (Common/Open Space) 16,700 43,200 - 59,900 3.2% High School (Indoor + Outdoor) 29,190 81,270 960,000 1,070,460 56.8% Remaining Town Center 63,970 261,450 - 325,420 17.3% Total 212,810 711,210 960,000 1,884,020 100%

JN: 9000.500 Page 9 September, 2018

Appendix G - 12

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

Distribution System Design of the preliminary backbone distribution system for Phase 1 of the StoneGate MPC considers minimum/maximum pressure and maximum velocity requirements outlined in the design criteria in Section IV. The backbone distribution system includes 8 to 12-inch C900 PVC pipe and a 16-inch ductile iron high pressure transmission main that will also serve future phases. The Phase 1 distribution system includes two pressures zones regulated via pressure reducing valves (PRVs).

Hydraulic modeling results and calculations show that the preliminary Phase 1 water distribution system will be in compliance with all state and local regulations to meet the required ADD, MDD, PHD, and fire flow scenarios.

B. Off-Site Water Supply The off-site water supply system will be designed to provide MDD to serve only StoneGate through a connection to existing TMWA facilities and a new booster pump station. The MDD for Phase 1 of the StoneGate MPC is 554 gpm. Various combinations of off-site water supply options are being coordinated with TMWA to meet initial and future demands including two initial connection options and a final off-site supply buildout plan.

Preliminary off-site water supply infrastructure includes a 16-inch transmission main and booster pump station with an initial connection to the TMWA system at either Red Rock Rd. or Stead Blvd (see Appendix A). The final water supply approach and operations will depend upon final contractual decisions made between TMWA and StoneGate.

JN: 9000.500 Page 10 September, 2018

Appendix G - 13

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

C. Opinion of Probable Costs Preliminary opinions of probable project costs for the off-site water system and on-site water system are presented in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. Quantities and costs for the on-site backbone water system are for infrastructure required by the Master Developer only (see Figures 3 and 4).

Table 9: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Project Costs for Off-Site Water System

Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 16” TMWA Main1 1 LF 20,500 $320 $6,560,000 (Alt 2 – Stead Main Connection) Booster Pump Station with 2 LS 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Standby Generator Subtotal $8,060,000

Contingency (15%) $1,209,000 Total Phase 1 Off-Site Construction Costs $9,269,000 1 Includes isolation valves, air/vacuum valves, restrained joints, fittings, excavation, backfill, restoration of finish grade/pavement replacement, and traffic control.

Table 10: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Project Costs for On-Site Water System

Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 1 8-inch Pipeline1 LF 2,070 $175 $362,250 2 12-inch Pipeline1 LF 2,570 $200 $514,000 3 16-inch Pipeline1 LF 5,500 $250 $1,375,000 4 Pressure Reducing Valves EA 3 $50,000 $150,000 5 Pressure Sustaining Valves EA 1 $50,000 $50,000 6 Fire Hydrants1 EA 20 $5,500 $110,000 1.9 MG Lower Tank (if Town 7 LS 1 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 Center included in Service Area)2 Subtotal $4,461,250

Contingency (15%) $669,200 Total Phase 1 On-Site Construction Costs $5,130,450 1 Quantities for backbone system are for Master Developer infrastructure only. Unit cost includes isolation valves, air/vacuum valves, restrained joints, fittings, excavation, backfill, restoration of finish grade/pavement replacement, and traffic control. 2 Includes tank foundation, tank accessories, on-site improvements/civil work, and on-site piping.

JN: 9000.500 Page 11 September, 2018

Appendix G - 14

PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL WATER SUPPLY & CONVEYANCE STUDY

VII. REFERENCES

[1] Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Section 1.1. Designing Water Distribution Facilities – Design Standards, July 2011.

JN: 9000.500 Page 12 September, 2018

Appendix G - 15

FIGURES

Appendix G - 16 TownTown Center

MPC Phase 1 SF - 850 DU MF - 30 DU ES - 750 ST MPC Phase 33

ABBREVIATIONS ES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

MPC DU DWELLING UNITS Phase 44 ST STUDENTS

HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC Date: AUGUST 2018 STONEGATE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY Scale: NTS Job No: 9000.500 9222 PROTOTYPE DRIVE STONEGATE PHASING MAP RENO, NEVADA 89521 FIGURE 1 PH. (775) 827-6111 FAX (775) 827-6122 RENO WASHOE NEVADA

Appendix G - 17 STONEGATE TOWN CENTER (TC)

MPC PHASE 1

STONEGATE PROJECT LOCATION MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (MPC)

VICINITY MAP N.T.S.

HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC Date: AUGUST 2018 STONEGATE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY Scale: NTS Job No: 9000.500 9222 PROTOTYPE DRIVE PHASE 1 VICINITY MAP RENO, NEVADA 89521 FIGURE 2 PH. (775) 827-6111 FAX (775) 827-6122 RENO WASHOE NEVADA

Appendix G - 18 LEGEND

PRESSURE ZONE 1 800 E. COLLEGE PARKWAY CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89706 PRESSURE ZONE 2 TEL (775) 883-7077 FAX (775) 883-7114

HIGH PRESSURE MAIN WWW.LUMOSENGINEERING.COM

CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PRV GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SURVEYING / GIS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES MATERIALS TESTING

LINE TYPE LEGEND

WATER LINE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY MASTER DEVELOPER FUTURE WATER LINE TO BE CONSTRUCTED NEVADA BY OTHERS

200 0100 200 400 WASHOE COUNTY PHASE 1 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC PRELIMINARY PRESSURE ZONES RENO STONEGATE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY BY DESCRIPTION DATE REV FIG. 3

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2018 DRAWN BY: KAH DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: KT JOB NO.: 9000.500 Appendix G - 19 LEGEND

8.0 IN. 800 E. COLLEGE PARKWAY CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89706 TEL (775) 883-7077 12.0 IN. FAX (775) 883-7114 16.0 IN. WWW.LUMOSENGINEERING.COM CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PRV GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SURVEYING / GIS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES MATERIALS TESTING

LINE TYPE LEGEND

WATER LINE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY MASTER DEVELOPER FUTURE WATER LINE

TO BE CONSTRUCTED NEVADA BY OTHERS

200 0100 200 400 WASHOE COUNTY PHASE 1 HEINZ RANCH LAND COMPANY, LLC PRELIMINARY BACKBONE WATER SYSTEM RENO STONEGATE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY BY DESCRIPTION DATE REV FIG. 4

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2018 DRAWN BY: KAH DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: KT JOB NO.: 9000.500 Appendix G - 20

APPENDICES

Appendix G - 21

Appendix A

StoneGate Discovery by TMWA (July 25, 2018)

Appendix G - 22

July 25, 2018 Mr. Don Pattalock STONEGATE 777 S Center St, Suite 105 Reno, NV. 89501

RE: Discovery: Stonegate Discovery; TMWA PLL 15-4312 APN’S: 081-010-13, -18, -43, 081-110-32, -33

Dear Mr. Pattalock;

Pursuant to your request, Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) has completed its Discovery for the above referenced project, also referred to as STONEGATE_DISC; TMWA PLL 15-4312 for APN’s as listed above

Enclosed please find two internal memoranda from TMWA’s Engineering and Water Rights Departments detailing their findings. Should you have any questions after reviewing the enclosures, please feel free to contact me at (775) 834-8012 or my email at [email protected] .

Thank you for the opportunity to serve your discovery and future project development needs.

Sincerely,

Karen Meyer Karen L. Meyer New Business Project Coordinator

Enclosure

775.834.8080 | tmwa.com | 1355 Capital Blvd. | P.O. Box 30013 | Reno, NV 89520-3013

Appendix G - 23 Appendix G - 24 Appendix G - 25 Appendix G - 26 Appendix G - 27 Appendix G - 28 Appendix G - 29 Appendix G - 30 Appendix G - 31 Appendix G - 32 Appendix G - 33 Appendix G - 34 Appendix G - 35 Appendix G - 36 Appendix G - 37 Appendix G - 38 Appendix G - 39 Appendix G - 40 Appendix G - 41 Appendix G - 42 Appendix G - 43

Appendix B

StoneGate Phase 1 Demands – TMWA Calculations

Appendix G - 44 Stonegate Phase 1 W.O. 15-4312 Maximum Day Demands (MDD)

Domestic Single Family units Av Lot Size factor (gpm) Total gpm 420 6,000 0.5 210 430 8,000 0.6 258 468 gpm

Domestic Multi-Family 30 units Domestic Maximum Day Multiplier 0.14 gpm/unit 4.2 gpm

Commercial (Elem School + Fire Station) 4.1 AFA Commercial Maximum Day Multiplier 1.08 gpm/AFA 4.4 gpm

Maximum Day Domestic Demand 476.6 MDD gpm

Irrigation Demands 44.7 AFA Irrigation Demand Multiplier 1.73

Maximum Day Irrigation Demand 77.3 MDD gpm Total Maximum Day Demand 553.9 MDD gpm

Average Day Demands (ADD) MDD:ADD Metered Single Family Residential Factor 2.13 219.7 ADD gpm

MDD:ADD Metered Multi-Unit Residential Factor 1.37 3.1 ADD gpm

MDD:ADD Commercial Factor 1.58 2.8 ADD gpm

MDD:ADD Metered Irrigation - Residential Factor 2.54 30.4

Total Average Day Demand 256.0 ADD gpm

Peak Hour Demands (PKHR)

PKHR:MDD Factor 1.7

Total Peak Hour Demand 941.6 PKHR gpm

8/1/2018 L:\LAProj\9000.300 - Stonegate Masterplan Engineering\Civil\Water\Calculations\SG Demands_TMWA criteria_20180801.xls Appendix G - 45

Appendix C

Phase 1 Water Model Results

Appendix G - 46 StoneGate Water Model Phase 1

WaterCAD CONNECT Edition Update 1 9000300SG Model_Phase 1.wtg Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center [10.01.01.04] 9/4/2018 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203 Page 1 of 1 -755-1666

Appendix G - 47 StoneGate Water Model - Phase 1 Max Day Demand - Junction Report Label Elevation Zone Demand Hydraulic Grade Pressure (ft) (gpm) (ft) (psi) J-362 5,179.34 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.74 62.9 J-291 5,103.76 Zone 1 6.5 5,250.00 63.3 J-365 5,176.39 Zone 2 9.5 5,324.48 64.1 J-502 5,101.60 Zone 1 10.2 5,250.02 64.2 J-521 5,174.78 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.48 64.8 J-494 5,100.27 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.01 64.8 J-367 5,100.07 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.98 64.9 J-455 5,173.76 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.70 65.3 J-369 5,097.44 Zone 1 10.2 5,249.99 66.0 J-495 5,097.41 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.00 66.0 J-209 5,096.99 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.97 66.2 J-210 5,095.51 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.97 66.8 J-206 5,094.48 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.03 67.3 J-496 5,093.81 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.97 67.6 J-505 5,168.11 Zone 2 9.5 5,324.48 67.7 J-534 5,093.58 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.98 67.7 J-303 5,167.86 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.71 67.9 J-388 5,091.99 Zone 1 6.5 5,249.99 68.4 J-289 5,091.24 Zone 1 6.5 5,249.99 68.7 J-205 5,091.18 Zone 1 10.2 5,249.98 68.7 J-287 5,090.77 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.00 68.9 J-523 5,164.02 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.48 69.4 J-290 5,088.62 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.99 69.8 J-207 5,085.70 Zone 1 10.2 5,250.01 71.1 J-533 5,084.90 Zone 1 6.5 5,249.99 71.4 J-508 5,158.89 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.69 71.7 J-204 5,083.85 Zone 1 10.2 5,249.98 71.9 J-368 5,083.39 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.97 72.1 J-520 5,157.66 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.53 72.2 J-25 5,082.99 Zone 1 1.1 5,249.99 72.3 J-356 5,157.44 Zone 2 9.5 5,324.47 72.3 J-213 5,082.39 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.97 72.5 J-516 5,156.21 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.70 72.9 J-304 5,155.92 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.69 73.0 J-288 5,081.01 Zone 1 6.5 5,249.99 73.1 J-504 5,079.87 Zone 1 4.2 5,249.99 73.6 J-522 5,154.05 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.47 73.7 J-211 5,078.68 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.97 74.1 J-208 5,078.24 Zone 1 10.2 5,249.99 74.3 J-203 5,076.77 Zone 1 10.2 5,249.98 74.9 J-192 5,076.19 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.97 75.2 J-197 5,074.06 Zone 1 16.3 5,249.96 76.1 J-147 (Irrig) 5,073.75 Zone 1 9.0 5,249.98 76.2 J-24 5,073.63 Zone 1 3.2 5,249.98 76.3 J-385 5,147.45 Zone 2 9.5 5,324.47 76.6 J-514 5,147.52 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.68 76.6 J-524 5,072.66 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.96 76.7

Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution WaterCAD CONNECT Edition Update 1 9000300SG Model_Phase 1.wtg Center [10.01.01.04] 9/4/2018 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 2 Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666

Appendix G - 48 StoneGate Water Model - Phase 1 Max Day Demand - Junction Report Label Elevation Zone Demand Hydraulic Grade Pressure (ft) (gpm) (ft) (psi) J-26 5,071.97 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.98 77.0 J-194 5,071.29 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.96 77.3 J-302 5,145.76 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.69 77.4 J-355 5,145.26 Zone 2 9.5 5,324.47 77.5 J-201 5,070.12 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.96 77.8 J-219 5,067.11 Zone 1 10.2 5,249.98 79.1 J-301 5,141.13 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.68 79.4 J-371 5,066.18 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.94 79.5 J-525 5,064.77 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.95 80.1 J-481 5,137.86 Zone 2 10.6 5,324.68 80.8 J-193 5,063.10 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.94 80.8 J-513 5,136.86 Zone 2 10.6 5,324.68 81.3 J-107 5,135.92 Zone 2 9.5 5,324.47 81.6 J-517 5,135.99 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.66 81.6 J-195 5,060.90 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.94 81.8 J-198 5,060.31 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.93 82.0 J-351 5,132.80 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.66 83.0 J-202 5,057.74 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.93 83.2 J-526 5,055.24 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.93 84.2 J-350 5,129.82 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.66 84.3 J-364 5,127.40 Zone 2 10.6 5,324.68 85.4 J-487 5,127.11 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.66 85.5 J-196 5,052.25 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.93 85.5 J-370 5,051.92 Zone 1 8.1 5,249.93 85.7 J-3 5,049.57 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.98 86.7 J-112 5,123.48 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.64 87.0 J-363 5,117.51 Zone 2 7.2 5,324.65 89.6 J-146 (Irrig) 5,116.79 Zone 2 68.4 5,324.63 89.9

Appendix G - 49 StoneGate Water Model - Phase 1 Peak Hour Demand - Junction Report Label Elevation Zone Demand Hydraulic Grade Pressure (ft) (gpm) (ft) (psi) J-362 5,179.34 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.32 62.7 J-291 5,103.76 Zone 1 11.0 5,249.90 63.2 J-365 5,176.39 Zone 2 16.2 5,323.60 63.7 J-502 5,101.60 Zone 1 17.4 5,249.95 64.2 J-521 5,174.78 Zone 2 0.0 5,323.61 64.4 J-494 5,100.27 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.93 64.8 J-367 5,100.07 Zone 1 13.7 5,249.85 64.8 J-455 5,173.76 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.20 65.1 J-369 5,097.44 Zone 1 17.4 5,249.88 66.0 J-495 5,097.41 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.91 66.0 J-209 5,096.99 Zone 1 13.7 5,249.84 66.1 J-210 5,095.51 Zone 1 13.7 5,249.83 66.8 J-505 5,168.11 Zone 2 16.2 5,323.60 67.3 J-206 5,094.48 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.98 67.3 J-496 5,093.81 Zone 1 13.7 5,249.83 67.5 J-534 5,093.58 Zone 1 13.7 5,249.87 67.6 J-303 5,167.86 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.23 67.7 J-388 5,091.99 Zone 1 11.0 5,249.90 68.3 J-289 5,091.24 Zone 1 11.0 5,249.90 68.6 J-205 5,091.18 Zone 1 17.4 5,249.87 68.7 J-287 5,090.77 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.91 68.9 J-523 5,164.02 Zone 2 0.0 5,323.61 69.1 J-290 5,088.62 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.90 69.8 J-207 5,085.70 Zone 1 17.4 5,249.92 71.1 J-533 5,084.90 Zone 1 11.0 5,249.89 71.4 J-508 5,158.89 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.16 71.5 J-204 5,083.85 Zone 1 17.4 5,249.86 71.8 J-520 5,157.66 Zone 2 0.0 5,323.76 71.9 J-356 5,157.44 Zone 2 16.2 5,323.58 71.9 J-368 5,083.39 Zone 1 13.7 5,249.83 72.0 J-25 5,082.99 Zone 1 1.9 5,249.89 72.2 J-213 5,082.39 Zone 1 13.7 5,249.84 72.4 J-516 5,156.21 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.20 72.7 J-304 5,155.92 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.16 72.8 J-288 5,081.01 Zone 1 11.0 5,249.89 73.1 J-522 5,154.05 Zone 2 0.0 5,323.59 73.4 J-504 5,079.87 Zone 1 7.1 5,249.89 73.6 J-211 5,078.68 Zone 1 13.7 5,249.84 74.1 J-208 5,078.24 Zone 1 17.4 5,249.89 74.3 J-203 5,076.77 Zone 1 17.4 5,249.86 74.9 J-192 5,076.19 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.84 75.1 J-197 5,074.06 Zone 1 27.7 5,249.80 76.0 J-147 (Irrig) 5,073.75 Zone 1 15.3 5,249.86 76.2 J-385 5,147.45 Zone 2 16.2 5,323.58 76.2 J-24 5,073.63 Zone 1 5.5 5,249.87 76.2 J-514 5,147.52 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.15 76.4 J-524 5,072.66 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.80 76.6

Appendix G - 50 StoneGate Water Model - Phase 1 Peak Hour Demand - Junction Report Label Elevation Zone Demand Hydraulic Grade Pressure (ft) (gpm) (ft) (psi) J-26 5,071.97 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.87 77.0 J-355 5,145.26 Zone 2 16.2 5,323.58 77.2 J-302 5,145.76 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.17 77.2 J-194 5,071.29 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.80 77.2 J-201 5,070.12 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.81 77.7 J-219 5,067.11 Zone 1 17.4 5,249.86 79.1 J-301 5,141.13 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.14 79.2 J-371 5,066.18 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.76 79.4 J-525 5,064.77 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.77 80.0 J-481 5,137.86 Zone 2 18.0 5,324.14 80.6 J-193 5,063.10 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.74 80.7 J-513 5,136.86 Zone 2 18.0 5,324.14 81.0 J-107 5,135.92 Zone 2 16.2 5,323.58 81.2 J-517 5,135.99 Zone 2 0.0 5,324.09 81.4 J-195 5,060.90 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.76 81.7 J-198 5,060.31 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.74 82.0 J-351 5,132.80 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.09 82.8 J-202 5,057.74 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.73 83.1 J-350 5,129.82 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.09 84.1 J-526 5,055.24 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.73 84.1 J-364 5,127.40 Zone 2 18.0 5,324.14 85.1 J-487 5,127.11 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.09 85.2 J-196 5,052.25 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.73 85.4 J-370 5,051.92 Zone 1 13.9 5,249.74 85.6 J-3 5,049.57 Zone 1 0.0 5,249.87 86.7 J-112 5,123.48 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.04 86.8 J-363 5,117.51 Zone 2 12.3 5,324.07 89.4 J-146 (Irrig) 5,116.79 Zone 2 116.2 5,324.00 89.6

Appendix G - 51 StoneGate Water Model - Phase 1 Max Day Demand + Fire Flow Report Label Zone Satisfies Fire Fire Flow Fire Flow Pressure Pressure Pressure Junction w/ Flow (Needed) (Available) (Calculated (Calculated (Calculated Minimum Constraints? (gpm) (gpm) Residual) Residual @ Total Zone Lower Pressure (psi) Flow Needed) Limit) (Zone) (psi) (psi) J-3 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 69.7 83.0 60.0 J-291 J-24 Zone 1 True 3,000.0 3,500.0 68.6 70.4 60.0 J-291 J-25 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 67.2 71.1 59.9 J-291 J-26 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 59.4 74.4 52.6 J-502 J-107 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 2,512.6 22.1 57.8 20.0 J-356 J-112 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 69.3 82.9 58.6 J-362 J-192 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 67.5 73.4 60.4 J-367 J-193 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 43.3 72.6 47.1 J-198 J-194 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 64.9 74.5 60.5 J-291 J-195 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 49.1 74.6 55.3 J-525 J-196 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 39.8 75.6 42.9 J-526 J-197 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 56.8 71.8 60.3 J-291 J-198 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 40.4 73.0 46.9 J-193 J-201 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 65.0 74.9 60.2 J-291 J-202 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 37.4 73.2 42.7 J-526 J-203 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 35.2 68.4 36.2 J-204 J-204 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 30.6 65.2 32.3 J-205 J-205 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 27.7 62.2 30.7 J-369 J-206 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 47.7 66.2 45.1 J-502 J-207 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 48.4 68.5 48.4 J-502 J-208 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 52.6 71.4 49.9 J-502 J-209 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 41.6 60.8 44.7 J-210 J-210 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 39.8 61.0 44.6 J-209 J-211 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 63.0 71.6 58.0 J-367 J-213 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 55.8 68.9 56.9 J-367 J-219 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 51.1 74.6 47.1 J-369 J-287 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 64.5 67.9 60.0 J-291 J-288 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 53.5 68.9 53.7 J-388 J-289 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 57.1 66.1 55.9 J-291 J-290 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 58.7 67.4 56.0 J-291 J-291 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 45.4 59.4 54.6 J-388 J-301 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 67.0 76.5 56.8 J-455 J-302 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 58.9 73.2 58.6 J-362 J-303 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 63.0 66.6 58.6 J-362 J-304 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 54.7 68.9 52.1 J-455 J-350 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 75.4 82.1 58.6 J-362 J-351 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 75.0 81.0 58.6 J-362 J-355 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 2,548.5 20.0 55.1 20.1 J-356 J-356 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 2,361.1 20.0 48.9 25.8 J-385 J-362 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 58.6 61.8 59.8 J-365 J-363 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 71.8 85.5 58.6 J-362 J-364 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 49.4 77.5 55.6 J-481 J-365 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 2,083.8 20.0 39.5 29.4 J-521 J-367 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 45.6 60.6 48.7 J-209 J-368 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 47.1 66.7 47.4 J-496 Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution WaterCAD CONNECT Edition Update 1 9000300SG Model_Phase 1.wtg Center [10.01.01.04] 9/4/2018 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT Page 1 of 2 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666

Appendix G - 52 StoneGate Water Model - Phase 1 Max Day Demand + Fire Flow Report Label Zone Satisfies Fire Fire Flow Fire Flow Pressure Pressure Pressure Junction w/ Flow (Needed) (Available) (Calculated (Calculated (Calculated Minimum Constraints? (gpm) (gpm) Residual) Residual @ Total Zone Lower Pressure (psi) Flow Needed) Limit) (Zone) (psi) (psi) J-369 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 26.8 59.9 32.9 J-205 J-370 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 43.7 76.5 49.4 J-196 J-371 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 49.9 73.0 53.4 J-193 J-385 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 2,411.1 20.1 52.3 20.0 J-356 J-388 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 43.7 63.1 50.4 J-291 J-455 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 44.7 60.7 58.6 J-362 J-481 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 50.4 74.1 58.6 J-362 J-487 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 76.0 83.1 58.6 J-362 J-494 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 61.7 64.1 60.2 J-291 J-495 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 57.9 64.2 55.3 J-291 J-496 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 39.8 61.6 44.1 J-210 J-502 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 36.9 61.0 41.9 J-369 J-504 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 62.9 71.2 58.1 J-291 J-505 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 2,109.9 20.0 41.7 27.9 J-365 J-508 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 66.3 70.3 58.6 J-362 J-513 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 50.7 74.5 58.6 J-362 J-514 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 59.2 72.7 58.6 J-362 J-516 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 58.1 69.5 58.6 J-362 J-517 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 75.1 79.9 58.6 J-362 J-520 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 46.2 66.0 38.1 J-365 J-521 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 2,358.4 20.7 45.0 20.0 J-365 J-522 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 2,593.1 22.0 54.1 20.0 J-365 J-523 Zone 2 True 1,500.0 2,593.1 25.4 52.6 20.0 J-365 J-524 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 58.1 72.6 60.3 J-291 J-525 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 53.1 74.2 55.9 J-195 J-526 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 37.9 74.2 41.8 J-202 J-533 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 47.9 66.4 48.9 J-388 J-534 Zone 1 True 1,500.0 3,500.0 57.2 65.3 54.9 J-367

Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution WaterCAD CONNECT Edition Update 1 9000300SG Model_Phase 1.wtg Center [10.01.01.04] 9/4/2018 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT Page 2 of 2 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666

Appendix G - 53 StoneGate Water Model - Phase 1 Static Conditions - Junction Report Label Elevation Zone Demand Hydraulic Grade Pressure (ft) (gpm) (ft) (psi) J-362 5,179.34 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 63.0 J-291 5,103.76 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 63.3 J-502 5,101.60 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 64.2 J-365 5,176.39 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 64.3 J-494 5,100.27 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 64.8 J-367 5,100.07 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 64.9 J-521 5,174.78 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 65.0 J-455 5,173.76 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 65.4 J-369 5,097.44 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 66.0 J-495 5,097.41 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 66.0 J-209 5,096.99 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 66.2 J-210 5,095.51 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 66.9 J-206 5,094.48 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 67.3 J-496 5,093.81 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 67.6 J-534 5,093.58 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 67.7 J-505 5,168.11 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 67.9 J-303 5,167.86 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 68.0 J-388 5,091.99 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 68.4 J-289 5,091.24 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 68.7 J-205 5,091.18 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 68.7 J-287 5,090.77 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 68.9 J-523 5,164.02 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 69.7 J-290 5,088.62 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 69.8 J-207 5,085.70 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 71.1 J-533 5,084.90 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 71.5 J-508 5,158.89 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 71.9 J-204 5,083.85 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 71.9 J-368 5,083.39 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 72.1 J-25 5,082.99 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 72.3 J-520 5,157.66 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 72.4 J-356 5,157.44 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 72.5 J-213 5,082.39 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 72.5 J-516 5,156.21 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 73.0 J-288 5,081.01 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 73.1 J-304 5,155.92 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 73.2 J-504 5,079.87 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 73.6 J-522 5,154.05 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 74.0 J-211 5,078.68 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 74.1 J-208 5,078.24 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 74.3 J-203 5,076.77 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 75.0 J-192 5,076.19 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 75.2 J-197 5,074.06 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 76.1 J-147 (Irrig) 5,073.75 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 76.3 J-24 5,073.63 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 76.3 J-524 5,072.66 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 76.8 J-514 5,147.52 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 76.8 J-385 5,147.45 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 76.8

Appendix G - 54 StoneGate Water Model - Phase 1 Static Conditions - Junction Report Label Elevation Zone Demand Hydraulic Grade Pressure (ft) (gpm) (ft) (psi) J-26 5,071.97 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 77.0 J-194 5,071.29 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 77.3 J-302 5,145.76 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 77.5 J-355 5,145.26 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 77.8 J-201 5,070.12 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 77.9 J-219 5,067.11 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 79.2 J-301 5,141.13 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 79.6 J-371 5,066.18 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 79.6 J-525 5,064.77 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 80.2 J-193 5,063.10 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 80.9 J-481 5,137.86 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 81.0 J-513 5,136.86 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 81.4 J-517 5,135.99 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 81.8 J-107 5,135.92 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 81.8 J-195 5,060.90 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 81.8 J-198 5,060.31 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 82.1 J-351 5,132.80 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 83.2 J-202 5,057.74 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 83.2 J-526 5,055.24 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 84.3 J-350 5,129.82 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 84.4 J-364 5,127.40 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 85.5 J-196 5,052.25 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 85.6 J-487 5,127.11 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 85.6 J-370 5,051.92 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 85.7 J-3 5,049.57 Zone 1 0.0 5,250.06 86.7 J-112 5,123.48 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 87.2 J-363 5,117.51 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 89.8 J-146 (Irrig) 5,116.79 Zone 2 0.0 5,325.00 90.1

Appendix G - 55