1 of 5

Robert W. Ross, PE 198 Thompson St., Halifax, MA 02338

617-470-1407 bob@therosscause.com

www.therosscause.com

September 17, 2008 (via Email: lshumaker@shumakerengineering.com) Shumaker Consulting Engineering and Land Surveying, PC 143 Court Street Binghamton, NY 13901 Attn: Linda Shumaker, PE, President and Managing Principal Dear Ms. Shumaker: As you are well aware, I have expressed concerns with a report produced by Shumaker Consulting Engineering and Land Surveying, PC while acting as Town Engineer for the Town of Whitestown, NY. Specifically, my concerns pertain to a stormwater management report prepared by your Utica, NY office; that pertains to the Holy Trinity Cemetery. It is my understanding that Mr. Schrantz, the Managing Engineer of Shumaker’s Utica office, is the engineer-of-record for this report. Over the past couple of months, I have regularly provided Mr. Schrantz with written arguments, supported by pictures, letters and expert opinion; that expose what I believe to be fundamental flaws in the stormwater modeling techniques presented in this report. To my knowledge, Mr. Schrantz’s has not acknowledged or addressed these alleged flaws. Most recently, in response to my expressing frustration over Mr. Schrantz’s silence, Whitestown Councilman Sullivan, in an 8-15-08 email stated, “Your questions should be directly addressed to the … Town Engineer.” That same day, I followed up, yet again, with a series of questions to Mr. Schrantz. As of today, one month later, I am still waiting for a response… When Town Councilman Sullivan encouraged me to submit questions directly to the Town Engineer, I assume he had a reasonable expectation that Mr. Schrantz would respond. I suspect that if he anticipated continued silence, he would have directed me otherwise. Since Mr. Schrantz apparently has no intention of responding, I have taken it upon myself to copy Shumaker’s partners with this letter. It is my hope that this letter reaches someone who believes they have an obligation as a NYS Professional Engineer to see that these flaws are addressed:

1. EMERGENCY SPILLWAY

a. On Page 3-9 (copy attached) of Mr. Schrantz’s report, he wrote (my emphasis), “The stormwater management basin … has the capability to retain the 100-year storm event without activating the spillway per the requirements of the Village of Yorkville.”

2 of 5

b. On Page 3-3 (copy attached) of Mr. Schrantz’s report, he presents modeling

results for the 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year design events and claims that the emergency spillway experiences NO flow during any of these events.

c. Below is a picture, taken 8/2/08, of the Cemetery’s emergency spillway weir.

d. Below is a detail of the Cemetery’s emergency spillway weir, taken directly from Sheet 5 of 5 (copy attached) of the drawings approved by the Whitestown Planning Board. Please note the emergency spillway weir’s lowest invert is at elevation 509.0.

e. On Page 3-3 (copy attached) of Mr. Schrantz’s report, he claims that the

emergency spillway experiences NO flow during the 50 and 100 year design events, this despite “Peak [Water] Elevation in Basin” reaching elevations 509.35 and 510.51 respectively.

f. Please explain how the peak water elevation in the detention basin reaches

elevations 0.35’ and 1.51’ above the emergency spillway weir’s lowest invert, yet NO water flows through this weir?

g. Suspecting that the weir had been defined improperly in the modeling, I asked

Mr. Peter Smart to review Mr. Schrantz’s modeling. Mr. Smart is the software developer of the HydroCAD modeling software used by Mr. Schrantz.

3 of 5

i. I provided Mr. Smart the following:

1. A copy of the picture shown in part (1)(c) above, 2. Sheet 5 of 5 of the construction drawings; showing the detention

basin outlet control structure and weir detail, and 3. HydroCAD detention basin output calculations; taken directly from

Mr. Schrantz’s report (see attached).

ii. Upon reviewing this information, Mr. Smart responded in an 8/12/08 email (see attached) stating (my emphasis):

Bob,

Device #5 does not seem to bear any relation to the "stepped" weir in your illustration.

1) The modeled invert of 511.0' does not match the inverts of 509.0' or 510.0' shown on the sketch. There will never be any flow below the specified invert, regardless of the coefficients.

2) Based on the sketch, the weir breadth is about 1 foot (the thickness of the concrete weir), but the model cites a breadth of 5'.

3) A BC weir is intended for modeling a rectangular flow cross-section. The coefficients are intended to model the differing efficiency at each head, but they do not account for the variable flow area that occurs with a trapezoidal weir. I suggest a trapezoidal or custom weir instead.

Overall, I suspect there is a misunderstanding of the use of a BC rectangular weir:

A) The crest must be horizontal. B) The sides must be vertical (to create a rectangular flow cross-section) C) The "breadth" is the thickness of the weir wall, measured along the direction of flow.

Peter Smart HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

h. Despite my distribution of Mr. Smart’s email, I am unaware of Mr.

Schrantz’s modeling being revised. Please explain where Mr. Smart is mistaken in his interpretation of the weir definition?

2. SITE COVER CHARACTERISTICS

a. Included in Mr. Schrantz’s report is a drawing titled “Current Condition – Ground Cover Areas” (copy attached).

4 of 5

i. The colored portions of this plan (yellow, red, green) represent ‘current’

ground cover conditions.

ii. The roadways shown on this drawing, lacking color, represent roadways to be built in the future. This future ‘build-out’ proposes, in addition to existing roadways, the construction of approximately 4800’ of 20’ wide asphalt paved roadways.

b. Mr. Schrantz, in his modeling, defines the site cover characteristics for the

‘current’ condition (see attached) to have 2.68 acres of impervious area. c. Mr. Schrantz, in his modeling, defines the site cover characteristics for the ‘build-

out’ condition (see attached) to have 1.7 acres of impervious area.

d. Please explain how the construction of nearly one-mile of 20’ wide asphalt paved (impervious surface) roadways results in a one-acre reduction in impervious area?

3. TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION

a. Mr. Schrantz, in his modeling, defines the time-of-concentration for the ‘current’ condition (see attached) to be 15.5 minutes, based on a 1,230 foot long travel path.

b. Mr. Schrantz, in his modeling, defines the time-of-concentration for the ‘build-

out’ condition (see attached) to be 21.6 minutes, based on a 2,100 foot long travel path.

c. Please explain how the time-of-concentration increases by 6 minutes as a

result of development on the Cemetery property? Please explain how the time-of-concentration travel path increases by 830 feet as a result of development on the Cemetery property?

4. PIPE CAPACITY

a. All stormwater discharge from the Cemetery property is directed to a 12” storm drainage pipe in an adjacent street. This 12” pipe drains into a downstream stormwater collection network.

i. The capacity of this pipe requires close scrutiny. Exceeding the capacity

of this pipe, with discharge from the Cemetery, will result in localized flooding.

b. On Page 3-3 (copy attached) of Mr. Schrantz’s report, he indicates that this pipe

maintains a uniform capacity of 4.6 CFS during the 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year design events.

5 of 5

c. On Page 3-4 (copy attached) of Mr. Schrantz’s report, he states, “SCE identified the … storm sewer to have a capacity of 4.6 cfs based on 12-inch RCP drainage pipe, 269-feet in length, at 1.22 percent slope with 2.02 feet of head…”

d. With the exception of the information presented in parts (4)(b) and (4)(c), Mr.

Schrantz’s report contains no hydraulic or hydrologic calculations presenting how the 4.6cfs capacity has been calculated.

e. Please explain how the capacity of a storm drainage pipe, as part of a pipe

network, can be calculated without evaluating downstream influences? In other words, how is it that free-discharge was assumed for all design events, yet the downstream conditions are in no way evaluated?

I respectfully request that you revise the report to address these deficiencies and/or provide a written rebuttal. I invite you to debate the report’s contents in front of the Whitestown Town Board at their scheduled October meeting. I encourage you to join me in inviting Mr. Peter Smart (HydroCAD) to attend this meeting; his expertise will provide the board an unbiased and impartial opinion that will prove invaluable in bringing this debate to a close. Please provide a copy of the report with Mr. Schrantz’s PE seal and signature affixed. The report currently on file at the Town Clerk’s office has neither. To not honor such simple requests, in my opinion, would simply show your lack of confidence in the report’s contents, and even more so, a desire to avoid having this report publicly scrutinized. Regards,

Robert W. Ross, PE Cc: Joseph Bayer, P.E. via email: jbayer@shumakerengineering.com

James Cummings, P.E. via email: jcummings@shumakerengineering.com Vernon D. Myers, P.E. via email: vmyers@shumakerengineering.com John W. Franz, PE via email: jfranz@shumakerengineering.com

Bob Ross

From: HydroCAD Support [support@hydrocad.net]Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:57 AMTo: Bob RossSubject: Re: HydroCAD Web Support Question

Page 1 of 1

9/17/2008

Bob, Device #5 does not seem to bear any relation to the "stepped" weir in your illustration. 1) The modeled invert of 511.0' does not match the inverts of 509.0' or 510.0' shown on the sketch. There will never be any flow below the specified invert, regardless of the coefficients. 2) Based on the sketch, the weir breadth is about 1 foot (the thickness of the concrete weir), but the model cites a breadth of 5'. 3) A BC weir is intended for modeling a rectangular flow cross-section. The coefficients are intended to model the differing efficiency at each head, but they do not account for the variable flow area that occurs with a trapezoidal weir. I suggest a trapezoidal or custom weir instead. Overall, I suspect there is a misunderstanding of the use of a BC rectangular weir: A) The crest must be horizontal. B) The sides must be vertical (to create a rectangular flow cross-section) C) The "breadth" is the thickness of the weir wall, measured along the direction of flow. Peter Smart HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC