HomeMy WebLinkAboutArrington Road Sewer Study,-
1
I
I
\ ARRINGTON ROAD
SEWER STUDY
Prepared for
Texas Hotel Management, LP
Salim Ismail
110 Pershing Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
Prepared by
Civil Development Ltd.
2900 Longmire Drive, Suite K
College Station, Texas 77845
October 23, 2006
l ____ -;;Miftc-.:-~-----------------
ARRINGTON ROAD
SEWER STUDY
Prepared for
Texas Hotel Management, LP
Salim Ismail
110 Pershing Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
Prepared by
Civil Development Ltd.
2900 Longmire Drive, Suite K
College Station, Texas 77845
October 23, 2006
ARRINGTON ROAD SEWER STUDY
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze feasible options for providing sewer service to two tracts
of land located on the southeast comer of SH 6 and SH 40. The two tracts have a total combined area of
about 33.7 acres and are divided by the alignment of Old Arrington Road. The tracts fall within the C ity of
College Station's CCN (Certificate of Convenience and Necessity) area for both water and sewer, which
simply means the City must ensure these services are available to the general area. The City is not obligated
to extend utility lines to each tract of land within their CCN.
Prior studies by the City of College Station have produced a Master Plan for sewer service to this area as
shown in Exhibit A. The primary outfall under this plan is a 16" line located approximately 6000 feet south
of the property near the Nantucket Subdivision. The City has identified a zone around this line called Impact
Fee Area 97-02B and charges a fee to builders within the zone to recover the cost of the line's construction.
The subject property lies within this Impact Fee Area.
The great distance between the subject property and the existing 16" line is a significant deterrent to its use
for sewer service. In order to access it, the developer must acquire easements from many landowners
between the site and the existing sewer line, then construct a line between the two points. This study was
commissioned to examine the cost, benefits and problems associated with the construction of such a line.
Three other alignment options are also presented for obtaining sewer service along with the benefits,
problems and costs associated with each.
GENERAL INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS
The report that follows is divided into sections representing each of the four principle options for providing
the subject property with sewer service. The options have been given the following labels:
• Option 1 -Nantucket Lake Outfall (complies with the City of College Station Master Pl an)
• Option 2 -Gateway Drive Outfall
• Option 3 -Venture Drive Outfall
• Option 4 -Arrington Road Outfall
A primary assumption used in this analysis is that the subject property will develop commercially. The type
of commercial development is not known at this time, so the flowrates from the property have been estimated
under the most conservative conditions provided in the Design Guidelines of the City of Coll ege Station.
The figure used for the capacity analysis is 1500 gallons per day (gpd) per acre. As the property begins to
develop, the actual flowrates from the site could decrease significantly from this figure depending on the type
of establishments that move into it.
Using a flowrate of 1500 gallons per day per acre, the subject property can be served by an 8" sewer line if
laid at the minimum slope allowed under current regulations. This line size was used for all computations
and cost estimates in the report. The Master Plan for the City of College Station (Option I) calls for a 12"
line to extend up to the subject property. It is not the City's policy to install the se lines for developers, but
they will typically pay the additional cost to oversize a line from what is needed by the developer to the size
shown on their Master Plan. Such payments are made after construction, so the in itial cost of the 12" line
must be borne by the deve loper until reimburse ment is received. Those reimbursable expenses are not
included in the cost estimates shown in this report.
Option 1 -Nantucket Lake Outfall
General Description:
Overall Length:
Estimated Cost:
Significant Benefits:
Significant Problems:
The City of College Station recently installed a 16" line extending from it's
Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to a point on the west side of SH 6
near the Nantucket Lake. This line was the first leg of a planned sewer
system that is designed to serve the study area around Greens Prairie Road
and SH 6. The City's master plan calls for a 12" line to run northward along
SH 6 from the Nantucket Lake to a point on the eastern property line of the
subject property. A branch of this line is also planned to extend westward
through an easement to Arrington Road to serve the property on th e west side
of that roadway, which also includes a portion of the subject property.
8,309 feet
$ 1,014,000
I. This alignment option is part of the city's current master plan for the
subject property. There are established fees and regulatory measures in
place for the extension of this line. No changes to these governmental
controls are necessary for the construction of this line.
2. The existing line has already crossed SH 6 right-of-way, th erefore no
long bores are required. Short bores across Brazos County roadways will
still be necessary.
3. The installation of this line clears a major deterrent to development along
SH 6. While this is not necessarily a benefit to the owner, it is a potential
benefit to the City and could influence their decision to participate
financially in the project.
I. This option represents the longest feasible route from the subject property
to an existing sewer system and the cost is about 30% hi gher than th e
next highest option. Without significant financial participation by the city
or another party, this alignment option is not attractive and may be
prohibitively expensive.
2. There are few existing easements in which the sewer line could be
installed. It wi ll be the developer's responsibility to secure these
easements prior to construction. In addition to the expense, a large
amount of time will be needed to obtain easements from all property
owners.
Applicable Exhibits: Exhibit A -Overall Layout
Exhibit B -Preliminary Cost Estimate
600 300 0 600 2900 loogmtre Drive. Slite K
Collf19e Station. T HM 778-45
OPTION 1
NANTUCKET LAKE OUTFALL
SCALE IN FEET p O Bot 11929. Coll• Station. Texas 77&42
(979) 7&4·7743 Fu: (919) 7&4-7759
--··-····-··-·········· ··········-----·-·····--·------·--·-··-·-·· ---
PR POSED 8" SEJ,.-ER LINE
(1 " IN COLLEGE !STATION
1
MASTEr PLAN)
PROPOSED 8" SEWER LINE
(12" IN COLLEGE STATION
MASTER PLAN)
/
/
/
/ '
A
1OF2
Ol
l/)
300 0
SCALE IN
600 O.•l-ll-10U$MIUIW:IMC:l l
2900 Longmire Drive, St.de K Coneve Station. Te.as 77845
'\
' '----......
NANTUCKET
LAKE 't
EXISTING MANHOLE
ON NANTUCKET LAKE
-.....,, r-,
\--~"~-? ) ~--:-~ I
-,_ I -·
NAlffiJCK£T ORNE
OPTION 1
NANTUCKET LAKE OUTFALL
GATEWAY Bl
PROPOSED 8"
SE\'£R LINE
(12" IN COLLEGE
MASTER PLAN)
EXISTING 16"
____ ::~~~~:~---r
I
'-, I
-\....,I ----
_,~--\. __ /-'; --/
EXISTING 8"
SEWER LINE
(
A
2 OF 2
------
Exhibit B
ARRINGTON ROAD SEWER STUDY
OPTION 1 -NANTUCKET LAKE OUTFALL
Estimate of Construction Cost
October 12, 2006
Item
No.
SEWER SYSTEM
Description
I 8" SOR 26 D-3034, open cut
2 8" SOR 26 D-3034, bored & cased
3 4' dia. manhole-~ -12' de_Et~
4 4' dia. manhole -12' -18' depth
5 4' dia. manhole -18' -24' depth
6 4' dia. manhole -> 24' depth
EASEMENTS
7 1 Eas~ment ~~quisiti~~ (20 ft width)
SITEWORK AND CLEAN-UP
8 Mobilization/Construction Staking
9 Clearing
10 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Estimated
Quantity
8,159
150
20
2
0
0
-
163,180
4
I
T
LF --1
LF
EA -
EA
EA
EA
Unit
Price
50.00
200.00
3,500.00 --
4,500.00
6,000.00
7,500.00f
Subtotal -Sewer
I ---
SF 1.50;
L-s -r 20,000.00
AC I 4,000.00
LS I 5,000.00
Subtotal -Sitework & Clean-up
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION
Estimated
Cost
407,950
30,000
70,000
9,000
0
0
$5 16,950
244,770
20,000
14,984
5,000
$39,984
$801,704
Contingency (15%) 120,256
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, CONST. MGMT. (10%): 92,196
TOTAL PROJECT COST1 $1,014,156
Option 2 -Gateway Drive Outfall
General Description: The City of College Station installed an 8" line on the east side of SH 6 along
Gateway Drive as part of the College Station Business Park. It terminates
approximately 900 feet east of the highway frontage road. The proposed
alignment to the subject property follows a natural drainage channel through
the Business Park.
Overall Length:
Estimated Cost:
Significant Benefits:
Significant Problems:
5,819 feet
$ 772,000
1. The terminus of the existing outfall is much closer to the subject property
so the cost is less.
2. The City of College Station controls the property on which this alignment
falls east of SH 6. As a result, a reduced amount of easement acquisition
would be necessary.
1. This alignment does not fo llow the City's master plan for serving the
subject property. Any changes to that plan may require formal actions by
the governing political bodies of the City.
2. Since much of the land in the College Station Business Park is still
undeveloped, any reserve capacity in the existing 8" line may be needed
for future buildings. Due to the uncertainties of potential future water
usage in this area, no attempt was made to estimate reserve capacity in
the line. The City may be unwilling to allow connections to this line
outside of their Business Park until they are more certain of the service
demands.
3. A long and expensive bore will be necessary to cross SH 6.
4. While somewhat reduced from the previous option, there is sti 11 a
significant amount of easement acquisition necessary on the west side of
SH6.
Applicable Exhibits: Exhibit C -Overall Layout
Exhibit D -Preliminary Cost Estimate
_____ ,
SCALE IN FEET
STATE HIGHWAY 40
FREEWAY
600 2900 Longmire Onve. Sule K
College SllJllon. Te-.:a~ 776'1S
P O Bo• 11929. CotleQe Siaticn TeKM 77&t2
(979} 76•-77 .. 3 F•r· (919) 7&4-7759
OPTION 2
GATEWAY DRIVE OUTFALL
(
/
I
.~
/
f
c
TEX~S CEN1ROIO RANCH
PROPOSED 8"\
" SEWER LINE I ', (12" IN COLLEGE '--~..r--;-u
/ / -~ /
';-.. /
' '"'-. v
I TATION MASTER
PLAN)
/ /
/
/
/
/
EXISTING 8"
SEWER LINE
l/OITURE OR
·--... ....+---! I ~
GATEWAY Bl
m
yi EXIS ING MANHOLE
ON A TEWAY DRIVE
~D~C:;-;--_
-··--·····---·----·····----0.-.:.-·--~---·---·---------·-··------~----~-----------------
Item
No.
Exhibit D
ARRINGTON ROAD SEWER STUDY
OPTION 2-GATEWAY DRIVE OUTFALL
Estimate of Construction Cost
October 12, 2006
Estimated
Description Quantity
SEWER SYSTEM -
8" SOR 26 D-3034, open cut 5,419 LF
2 8" SOR 26 D-3034, bored & cased 400 LF
3 '!'_dia. ma11ho~ -O' ::__ 12' depth 10 EA -
4 14' dia. manhole -12' -18' depth 6 EA
5 4' dia . manhole -18' -24' depth 0 EA
6 14' dia . manhole -> 24' depth 0 EA
Unit
Price
50.00
200.00
3,500.00
4,500.00
6,000.00
7,500.00
Subtotal -Sewer
EASEMENTS
7 I Easement acquisition (20 ft width)
SITEWORK AND CLEAN-UP -----
8 'Mobilization/Construction Staking
9 Clearing
I 0 1 Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan
108,380 I
2
SF 1.50
LS 20,000.00
AC
LS
4,000.00
5,000.00
Subtotal -Sitework & Clean-up
Estimated
Cost
270,950
80,000
35,000
27 ,000
0
0
$412,950
162,570
20,000
9,952
5,000
$3 4,952
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION $610,4 72
Contingency (15%) 91 ,571
ENGfNEERJNG, SURVEYING, CONST. MGMT. (10%) 70,204 ===== TOTAL PROJECT COST $772,247
Option 3 -Venture Drive Outfall
General Description: As with Option 2 on Gateway Drive, the City of College Station also
installed an 8" line on the east side of SH 6 along Venture Drive as part of th e
College Station Business Park. It terminates approximately 600 feet east of
the highway frontage road. The proposed alignment follows Venture Drive
to SH 6.
Overall Length:
Estimated Cost:
4,750 feet
$ 643,000
Significant Benefits: The benefits are virtually the same as those in Option 2, except the outfall is
closer to the subject property and the overall length of the system is slightly
less.
Significant Problems: (same as Option 2)
Applicable Exhibits: Exhibit E -Overall Layout
Exhibit F -Preliminary Cost Estimate
600 300 0
SCALE IN FEET
STATE HIGHWAY 40
FREEWAY
600
co,-..f .. -lC-•OC:-~l.( ... CU
2900 Longmire Onve. $1...te K Cdleoe S1ation, T uas 77&45
p 0. Boa 11929. College Slalicr\ Tei.as 778'2
(919) 7&4-7743 FH: (979) 764-7759
PROPOSED 8"\
"'-SEWER LINE
',) (12" IN COLLEGE L---.;...c_--\--a
TATION MASTER
PLAN)
Ol
Vl
OPTION 3
VENTURE DRIVE OUTFALL
-/ I (
I \
' " \\ J ~
/
I A :'\
E
rt:X/6 CENTROiD R.>.NCH
EXISTING MANHOLE
ON VENTURE DRIVE
GATEWAY 8L
I . I COLLEGE sr..r101
1 BUSINESS CEWE
'
\ "' ~ '. ~ \ ~' --
9. "-. ' I
Item
No.
SEWER SYSTEM
Exhibit F
ARRINGTON ROAD SEWER STUDY
OPTION 3 -VENTURE DRIVE OUTFALL
Estimate of Construction Cost
October 12, 2006
Estimated
Description Quantity
8" SDR 26 D-3034, open cut
-, ----
I 4,350 LF
2 8" SDR 26 D-3034, bored & cased 400 LF
3 4' dia. manhole -O' -12' depth __ _ 11 EA
Unit
Price
50.00
200.00
3,500.00 ' 4 4' dia. manhole -12' -18' depth --I 2 EA 4,500.00 1
5 4' dia. manhole -18' -24' depth I 0 EA 6,000.00 .
6 4' dia. manhole -> 24' depth 0 EA 7,500.00
Subtotal -Sewer
EASEMENTS
7 -f E;seme~~~-u-isition (20 ft~idth) . , 87,000 I
SF --· [ 1.50
SITEWORK AND CLEAN-UP -~, ---1-
I LS 20,000.00
---~ --
8 Mobilization/Construction Staking
I 2 AC 4,000.00
1 LS 5,000.00
9 Clearing
10 I Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Subtotal -Sitework & Clean-up
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION
Estimated
Cost
217,500
80,000
38,500
9,000
0
0
$345,000
130,500
20,000
7,989
5,000
$32,989
$508,489
Contingency (15%) 76,273
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, CONST. MGMT. (10%) 58,476 ====== TOT AL PROJECT COST $643,239
Option 4 -Arrington Road Outfall
General Description: The City of College Station, in conjunction with adjoining developers,
recently reconstructed the intersection of Greens Prairie Road and Arrington
Road to facilitate traffic flow through the SH 40 and SH 6 intersection. As
part of this project, an 8" sewer line was extended southward across SH 40 to
this intersection. This line was intended to serve commercial and residential
property immediately west of the subject property. The proposed alignment
for this option begins at the existing terminus of New Arrington Road and
works its way eastward to the subject property.
Overall Length:
Estimated Cost:
Significant Benefits :
Significant Problems:
2,719 feet
$ 285 ,000
1. This is the shortest and least expensive option for serving the subject
property.
2. The alignment does not require long bores across existing highways,
although at least one relatively short bore across a Brazos County
roadway will still be necessary.
3. The alignment lies entirely on public right-of-way or on property owned
by the same owner as the subject property. No additional easement
acquisition is anticipated.
4. This alignment provides sewer service to other property the owner
controls adjacent to the subject property. As a result, the cost of the
sewer line can be distributed over a larger area.
5. The existing 8" line has sufficient capacity to carry projected flows from
the subject property in addition to all anticipated flows that it was
originally intended to serve.
1. This alignment does not follow the City's master plan for serving the
subject property. Any changes to that plan may require formal actions by
the governing political bodies of the City.
Applicable Exhibits: Exhibit G -Overall Layout
Exhibit H -Preliminary Cost Estimate
0 600
SCALE IN FEET
/
OPTION 4
ARRINGTON ROAD OUTFALL
/
.: ,/
/ / /
/
/
G
,'
I
,'
CT>
/ (/)
/
Exhibit H
ARRINGTON ROAD SEWER STUDY
OPTION 4 -ARRINGTON ROAD OUTFALL
Estimate of Construction Cost
October 12, 2006
Item Estimated Unit
No. Description Quantity Price
SEWER SYSTEM --------------,--2,-66 9------
1 8" SDR 26 D-3034, open cut LF 50.00
2 8" SDR 26 D-3034, bored & cased 50 LF 200.00 1
3 4' dia. manhole -O' -12' depth_ 5 EA 3,500.00 ·----·. -
4 4' dia. manhole -12' -18' depth 2 EA 4,500.00
5 4' dia. manhole -18' -24' depth 3 EA 6,000.00
6 4' dia. manhole -> 24' depth EA 7,500.00
Subtotal -Sewer
EASEMENTS ---
!Easement acq~isition (20 ft width) -r -----=r· -·--i 7 0 I SF l.50 i
SITEWORK AND CLEAN-UP
8 Mobilization/Construction Staking
9 Clearing
10 Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan
-~-l -r-LS -1 20 ,000.0-0 .
I 1 AC I 4,000.00
I 1 I LS I 5,000.00 1
Subtotal -Sitework & Clean-up
Estimated
Cost
133,450
10,000
17,500
9,000
18,000
7,500
$195,450
0
20,000
4,902
5,000
$29,902
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION $225 ,352
Contingency (15%) 33,803
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, CONST. MGMT. (10%)1 25 ,915
===== TOT AL PROJECT COST $285,070
CONCLUSION
Of the four options described above, Option 4 appears to be the most beneficial to the owner of the subject
property. It is by far the least expensive and provides greater benefits to the owner for the development of
his adjoining property. The only drawback to this alignment option is that it does not follow the City's
current Master Plan and will require authorization by the City of College Station. If the staff is amenable to
the changes, they will likely require formal approvals by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City
Council. This process could take several months.
If authorization is granted to use Option 4, it is still likely that the City will require payment of the fees
required under the Impact Fee Area 97-028 because it is the City's only mechanism for recovering the
construction cost of the 16" sewer line described in Option 1. Actual fees will be determined based on the
water meter size that each future building needs, and can range from $243 for a 5/8" meter to $22,391 for a
6" meter. The fees are not paid until building permits are requested, but the developers of the property
should be aware of this cost and include it in their financial planning.
Additional Exhibits:
Exhibit I -Capacity Analysis -This exhibit is a spreadsheet showing the
estimated flowrates in the pipes of each options. It determines the ability of
each line to carry the anticipated flows.
Exhibit J -Horizontal & Vertical Layout Analysis -This exhibit is a
spreadsheet showing the estimated line sizes, slopes, lengths and depths for
each of the various options. It determines if the lines can be placed on the
site with adequate depth for adjoining properties to use.
Line
Fru m To
\Ill # MH#
O plion I, 2. J
A B
B C
c D
I> E
F
G
II I
K
K L
I Ou1
Op1io 11 4
.\1\ BB
Ill! cc
CC DD
!JI) EE
LE FF
IF GG
<i<; HI-I
1111 II
II J.I
.I.I KK
KK LL
LL MM
\l\I NI\
'' OUT
"' 0 ...J
co
;.;
"O
"' u c>:::
267
GPD/101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Exhibit I
Arrington Road Sewer Study
Sanitary Sewer Analysis
Area of Contributing Land Uses i Flow Calculations Pipe Calculations I
>. :-:: u E <( "' --u..;:)
OJ Cl
Oo tn .E __; Vl
GPO per
Acre
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.13
0
N : I ., "' I "O OJ I Manning Min. >. o; 0 oJJ "O ~u z ._§ ~ ~ I . . ! -~ OJ 8 OJ I Friction 1 Design Actual Pipe c;; <( ., u I E "' :::i <!:: Average Daily Infiltration I Peaking Peak Inside I Slope (if; Slope u.. --E E .c 0 0 ~ ~ ~ Size Material . I Slope Slope
OJ;:) u ~ z Flows (ADF) (10%ADF)! Factor Flows Diameter 1 Ob Cl E 0 Vl I u.. g ~ 0 ... Peak Peak I known) : Check I 0 I ~ g u: ; I = u u ~ I I ' 0 I Flows Flows Vl I .,,.. ;:) I i I
GPO per : GPO per GPO per GPO per I
I I I I '
Acre Acre I Person Person I GPO GPO I CFS CFS CFS (in.) Inches I % % I %
---------,---------,------~----,.----,---------~--~c---,.--------r---.-----~-------~-o--+-1 __ 0 ____ 2_7._45_0-+-----+--27,450 t o.0425 ! 0.0042 4.oo 0.11 s 03034 7.754 I 0.0244 I oAo 1 0.40 1 OK 0 18.3 . -----·---
0 I 0 i I 27,450 27.45'1 l 0.0425 0.0042 I 4.00 0.17 8 03034 7.754 I 0.0244 ! 0.40 I 0.40 ~
o o -i--o --~!--o--!---_---2-1.-4-50-+---21-.-45-o I o.0425 0.0042 1 4.oo 0.11 s 03034 7.754 I 0.0244 ' oAo 1 oAo i OK
0 0
0 0 0 I 0 -27,450 27,450 I 0.0425 0.0042 I 4.00 0.17 8 03034 7.754 I 0.0244 I 0.40 I 0.40 ! OK
o ---11.2 --0-~1--o-·-' 16,800 27.450 44250 1 00685 0.0068 4.oo 0.28 8 03034 , 7.754 1 00633 040 ----oAci--r~
o o ! ~=-.~ -~ _ -____ __, __ 44-.2-5-o-+---4-4-:2-5-0 ; -o-:o-68-5-+-.1-o-.o-0_6_8_,_~~.-0_0~~:1 ~-o_.~2-s_-_-+•·-_-_-_s::~o~3~0-3_4~:1~~7~.7~5-=4_-_,...._o_:o_6_33 ___ o_4_o_===o_.-4_o-_-:-.-o-K-
·-_o _____ ,_, __ o_-+-__ o __ I,_ 1.500 44.250 51.750 o.oso1 o.ooso 4.oo o.33 s 03034 I 7.754 1 o.0866 ' oAo OAO OK
0 0 I 0 0 i 51.750 51.750 I 0.0801 0.0080 I 4.00 0.33 8 03034 7.754 I 0.0866 ; 0.40 i 0.40 OK
·---o -·====o==--·, __ o _ _,.... __ o_I 51.750 51.750 I 0.0801 J o.ooso .-1-_4_.o_o_+-l _o_._33 __ 1-_8-+-_0_3_03_4-+_7_.7_5_4_,_1 _o_.0_8_66--,-_0_A_o_"' ___ o_A_o_._o_K_
l ___ o_==I ===o=======o= J _ _j __ 51_.7_5_o-+-_5_1_.7_5_o ~l_o_.o_s_o_1 -+-_o_.o_os_o _ _[ 4.oo J o.33 8 03034 7.754 I 0.0866 0.40 ' oAo , 0 OK
o _, __ o ___ I _o_ I o _L I 51.750 I 51.750 I o.oso1 o.ooso , 4.oo o.33 BI 03034 I 7.75_4 __ '_0._08_6_6_~: _o~A~o~~-=-1 ~~o_.-4_o-_-._-'~,·~-o-=K-_-_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-·
!
!
-·---·
6.2 0 0 ---·
0 ' 0 0 -I 18.3 ' 0 I 0 --0 0 0 --·-5 I 0 I 0 --
0 ) 0 0
0 I 0 ' 0 I
0 I 0 0
0 I 0 0
0 ! 0 0 ---· --
0 0 0 -----1---
15 0 0 -·-34.7 0 0 -·-0 0 0
9.300 i 9.300 0.0144 ---·
9.300 9.300 I o.01 44 -I 27.450 9,300 36,750 0.0569 I
36,750 36,750 I 00569 _, -
I 7,500 36,750 44,250 0.0685
I -44,250 44,250 0.0685
I 44,250 44,250 0.0685
I -44,250 44,250 0.0685
J 44.250 44.250 0.0685
44,250 44.250 I 0.0685 -44,250 44.250 ' 0.0685 I
22,500 44,250 : 66.750 i 0.1033 -·-----58.5 18 66,750 . 125.268 0.1938 I
-· i ------125.268 125.268 0.1938 -----
Exhibi1 I
I s I I -------0.0014 4.00 0.06 03034 7.754 I 0.0028 I 0.40 ' 0.40 OK
0.0014 4.00 I 0.06 8 03034 7.754 I 0.0028 0.40 0.40 OK
I 0.0057 I 4.00 0.23 8 03034 7.754 I 0.0437 I 0.40 0.40 OK
0.0057 4.00 0.23 8 03034 7.754 I 0.0437 ' 0.40 I 0.40 OK I ' ~'-ol< 0.0068 4.00 0.28 8 03034 7.754 I 0.0633 I 0.40 i--I 0.0633 0.0068 4.00 0.28 8 03034 7.754 I 0.40 I 0.40 i OK
0.0068 4.00 0.28 8 03034 I 7.754 ' 0.0633 I 0.40 0.40 i OK I i 0.0068 I 4.00 0.28 8 03034 7.754 I 0.0633 I 0.40 I 0.40 i OK
0.0068 4.00 I 0.28 8 03034 7.754 ! 0.0633 0.40 I 0.40 OK ---0.0068 __ 4~!!._ _ _L 0.28 8 03034 I 7.754 I 0.0633 0.40 0.40 OK -'--·----
0.0068 4.00 0.28 8 • 03034 7.754 I 0.0633 0.40 0.40 OK ---· --------------
0.0103 4.00 I 0.42 8 I 03034 I 7.754 I 0.1441 0.40 0.60 OK --· ------------· -----. ---·
0.0194 4.00 0.79 8 I 03034 7.754 0.5077 0.40 0.60 OK -----------------· -·------.
0.0194 4.00 0.79 8 03034 7.754 0.5077 0.40 0.70 OK ----------~-------
Exhib it J
ARRINGTON ROAD SEWER STUDY
Horizontal an d Vertical Layout Analysis
October 13, 2006
Downstream Manhole Sanitar Sewer Se ment No. U stream Manhole
FLout I Internal I I Dia. i Slope FLout ~ 'FL;11 Elev. Length Rim Elev. Depth MH# Elev. _!?roE_Jit. Line 1~ -(i~) -j_ (}_t!rt)
MH# ' Elev. ---I -, . -
{ft) (ft) (ft) I _i.f!L {ft) (ft) (ft) --I
0 tion 1 -Nantucket Lake Outfall
ExMH 237.971 3 l 1370 8 0.01 50 N 258.52 268.00 1 9.48
N 258.52 0.10 258.62 2 2 2700 8 0.0060 M 274.82 1 282 .00 1 7.18
M 274.82 0.10 274.92 2 2 300 8 0.0040 L 276.121 286.00 1 9.88
L 276.12 0.10 276.22 2 3 260 8 0.0100 K 278.82 290.00 11.18
K 278.82 0.10 278.92 2 4 360 8 0.0060 J 28 1.08 294.oo : 12.92
J I 281.08 0.10 281.18 2 4 250 8 0.0400 29 1.18 302.00 ' 10.82
' 29 1.18 0.10 291.28 2 4 250 8 ' 0.0 100 · H 293.78 306.00 12.22
H 293 .78 0.10 293.88 2 4 350 8 0.0080 G 296.68 309.00 12.32
G 296.68 0.10 296.78 2 4 200 8 0.0 100 1 F 298.78 3 11.00 12.22
K 278.82 0.10 278.92 2 4 450 8 0.02001 E 287.92 · 298.00· 10.08
E 287.92 0.10 288.02 2 4 450 8 0.0 150 D 294.77 309.00 14.23
D 294.77 0.10 294.87 2 4 400 8 I 0.0040 1 c 296.47 309.00 12.53
c 296.47 0.10 296.57 2 4 450 I 8 0.0040 ' B 298.37 309.00 10.63
B 298.37 0.10 298.47 2 4 I 450 8 0.0040 1 A 300.27 309.00 8.73
-------0 f 2 Gt ·pion -a eway D . 0 tf II n ve u a
ExMH I I 259.131 3 l
I
1600 8 0.0060 M I 268.73 282.00 13.27
M I 268.73 I 0.10 268.83 2 2 300 8 0.0040 1 L I 270.03 282.001 11 .97
L 270.03 0.10 270.13 2 3 260 8 0.0350 , K 279.23 290.00 10.77 I
I
K 279.23 0.10 279.33 2 4 I 360 I 8 0.0080 j J 282.21 294.00 11 .79 I I
J 282.21 0.10 282.3 1 2 4 250 8 I 0.0400 ' I 292.31 302.00 9.69
I 292.31 0.10 292.4 1 2 4 250 8 0.0 100 H 294.91 306.00 11.09
H 294.91 0.10 295.0 1 2 4 350 I 8 0.0080 G I 297.81 309.00 11 .1 9
G 297.8 1 i 0.10 297.9 1 2 4 200 8 i 0.0 100 F 299.91 311.00 11.09
I I
K 279.23 I 0.10 279.33 2 4 450 8 I 0.0 150 E 286.08 298.00 11 .92
E 286.08 0.10 286.18 2 4 450 8 I 0.0200 1 D 295.1 8 309.00 13.82 I ' D I 295 .18 0.10 295.28 2 4 400 8 I 0.0040 c I 296.88 309.00 12.12
c 296.88 0.10 296.98 2 4 450 8 ' 0.0040 B I 298.78 309.00 10.22 I I I
B 298.78 0.10 298.88 2 4 450 8 0.0040 A 300.68 309.00 8.32
Downstream Manhole J FL00
,
Internal
MH# Elev. Drop Ht.
-----_ _Jf!l_ (ft)
ExMH
L 274.45 0.10
K 279.75 0.10
J 282.73 0.10
I 292.83 0.10
H 295.43 0.10
G 298.33 0.10
K 279.75 0.10
E 286.60 0.10
D 294.80 0.10
c 296.50 0.10
B 298.40 0.10
ExMH
NN 275.11 0.10
MM 277.50 0.10
LL 279.14 0.10
KK 282.24 0.10
JJ 285.94 0.10
II 286.56 0.10
HH 287.26 0.10
GG 288.20 0.10
FF 289.14 0.10
EE 289.74 0.10
DD 290.12 0.10
cc 291 .98 0.10
BB 293.72 0.10
Exhibit J
ARRINGTON ROAD SEWER STUDY
Horizontal and Vertical Layout Analysis
October 13, 2006
Sanitary Sewer Se~ment No.
FLin Elev. Line Length Dia. Slope MH#
(ft) (ft) (in) (ft/ft) -0 . 3 v 1ption -enture n · Ofll nve ut a
270.651 3 1 950 8 0.0040 L
274.55 2 3 260 8 0.0200 K
279.85 2 4 360 8 0.0080 J
282.83 2 4 250 8 0.0400 I
292.93 2 4 250 8 0.0100 H
295.53 2 4 350 8 0.0080 G
298.43 2 4 200 8 0.0100 F
279.85 24 450 8 0.0150 E
286.70 2 4 450 8 0.0180 D
294.90 2 4 400 8 0.0040 c
296.60 2 4 450 8 0.0040 B
298.50 2 4 450 8 0.0040 A
0 . 4 A . •phon -rrmgton R dO fll oa ut a
272.10 4 1 215 8 0.0070 NN
275.21 42 248 8 0.0060 MM
277.60 4 3 242 8 0.0060 LL
279.24 44 300 8 0.0100 KK
282.34 4 5 450 8 0.0080 JJ
286.04 4 6 130 8 0.0040 II
286.66 4 7 150 8 0.0040 HH
287.36 4 8 210 8 0.0040 GG
288.30 4 9 210 8 0.0040 FF
289.24 4 10 125 8 0.0040 EE
289.84 4 11 70 8 0.0040 DD
290.22 4 12 440 8 0.0040 cc
292.08 4 13 410 8 0.0040 BB
293.82 4 13 200 8 0.0040 AA
I
Upstream Manhole
FLoul I ! Rim Elev· 1 Depth Elev. -------
__ii!2_ --. (ft) --_WL
274.45 286.00 11.55
279.75 290.00 10.25
282.73 294.00 11.27
292.83 302.00 9.17
295.43 306.00 10.57
298.33 309.00 10.67
300.43 ! 3 11.00 10.57
i
286.60 298.00 11.40
294.80 309.00 14.20
296.50 309.00 12.50
298.401 309.00 10.60
300.30 309.00 8.70
275.11 1 293.15 18.04
277.50 299.35 21.85
279.14' 299.57 20.43
282.24 306.00 23.76
285.94 310.00 24.06
286.56 308.00 21.44
287.26 306.00 18.74
288.20 304.00 15.80
289.14 300.00 10.86
289.741 299.00 9.26 I
290.12 1 299.00 8.88
291.98 303.00 11.02
293.ni 305.00 11 .28
294.62 1 306.00 11.38
I