Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFire Flow AnalysisFIRE FLOW ANALYSIS For THE BARRACKS II SUBDIVISION PHASE 103 & 104 April 2013 Prepared by: LGLI GOOOWIN - LASITER, INC ENGINEERS — ARCHITECTS — SURVEYORS 4077 Cross Park Drive, Suite 100 Bryan, Texas 77802 Phone 979-776-9700 — Fax 979-776-3838 www.goodwinlasiter.com G-L Job No. 614008 GENERAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND The Barracks II Subdivision is a 108-acre development located midway between Rock Prairie Road and Cain Road in south College Station. It is bound on the west by Holleman Drive South and on the east by Old Wellborn Road. It is a multi -use development that has 424 residential lots and 6 commercial lots under its current configuration. The area's water supply is provided by Wellborn Special Utility District. To date, Phases 100, 101, and 300 are complete. Phase 102, Capps Drive is currently under construction. Phase 103 and 104 are located northeast of, adjacent to, and parallel with Phase 101. It involves the construction of Airborn Avenue and extensions of Deacon Drive, Foxtrot Way, and an alley and all standard infrastructure associated with a residential subdivision. The fire flow test, performed post construction, within Phase 100 and 101 has been incorporated into the analysis for the proposed phases. Fire flow test for Phase 102 is not available at this time. However, the water infrastructure associated with Phase 102 is being assumed as existing for this analysis. The report that follows analyzes the water system of Phases 103 and 104. WATER SYSTEM REPORT General Water System Improvement Description Phase 104 will tie to the 12-inch PVC stub from Phase 300 and continue the main along the Northwest side of Deacon Drive to the limits of the phase. An 8-inch PVC main will tee to the 12-inch line at the intersection of Deacon and Airborn Avenue and continue to the intersection with Travis Cole. From this location 6-inch mains will be placed along Travis Cole to the end of the phase and along Airborn Avenue to connect to the stub provided by Phase 102. The 8-inch line stubbed out along Foxtrot Way (Phase 101) will also be extended to Airborn Avenue and connect to the proposed 6-inch main. Total lengths of pipe along Deacon Drive, Airborn Avenue, Travis Cole, and Foxtrot Way are approximately 353, 1,339, 95 and 120 feet, respectively. Phase 103 and 104 will have a total of 59 residential units. No non- residential taps are expected. The fire flow test from The Barracks I, The Barracks II — Phase 100, and The Barracks II — Phase 101 were used to pressurize the system for analysis. Water System Design Parameters Pipe Materials: PVC C-900 Roughness Coefficient: 140 Maximum Pipe Length: 4" — 500 ft: 6" — 800 ft, Dead end line 6" — 1,500 ft w/8" or greater on both ends, no more than 2 FH > 8" — N/A Average Water Demands: Residential —100 gpd/cap Commercial (Retail) — 25 gpd/cap Flow Demands Utilized: Residential — Land Use Determination Average Daily Flow: (2.67 Persons/Unit)*(100 Gal/Day) = 0.185 gpm/unit Peak Hourly Flow: (0.185 gpm/unit)*(4) = 0.742 gpm/unit Fire Hydrant Separation: Residential (< 5 acre) — 1,000 ft Residential (> 5 acre) — 1,500 ft Non -Residential — Per City Fire Code Fire Flow Requirements: Residential (Single Family or Duplex) — 1,000 gpm each FH Commercial or Multi -family — 2,500 gpm; Between 2 adjacent FH Fire Flow System Design: Normal Flow Conditions — Minimum 35 psi Fire Flow Conditions — Residual Pressure > 20 psi, during Peak Conditions Maximum Velocity — 12 ft/sec Existing Flow Data: Fire Hydrant No. 1 Flow Test (VP-3); The Barracks I Located at 3331 General Parkway Flowrate: 1,163 gpm Static Hydrant: FH 2 at 3346 Lieutenant Avenue Static Pressure: 68 psi Residual Pressure: 50 psi Fire Hydrant No 4 Flow Test (VP-1); The Barracks II — Phase 100 Located on Deacon Dr. between Lots 14 and 15, Block 6 Flowrate: 1,233 gpm Static Hydrant: FH 7 Static Pressure: 75 psi Residual Pressure: 50 psi Fire Hydrant Flow Test (VP-2); The Barracks II — Phase 101 Located at intersection of Cullen Trail and Capps Drive Flowrate: 1,190 gpm Static Hydrant: FH at Intersection of Cullen Trail and Hayes Static Pressure: 75 psi Residual Pressure: 55 psi Design Software: KY Pipe 2010 — Version 5.017, October 4, 2011 Results and Conclusion KY Pipe was used to analyze the water network for conformity to the City of College Station Design Guidelines. A map of the proposed system model is included as Exhibit A. Appendix A provides the water network results for the system operating during peak demand conditions. During peak demand, the minimum pressure experienced in the network is 72.60 psi at Junction J-1. Phase 103 and 104 require the installation of one fire hydrant, H-7, to provide the necessary coverage and separation distance required by the Design Guidelines. Hydrant H-9, which was constructed with Phase 101, was selected to pair with H-7 for analysis of available fire flow. Appendix B provides the results of the fire hydrant analysis. Per the results, should a fire department pumper truck be connected to either hydrant and draw the water network down to 20 psi, H-7 and H-9 potentially could provide 3,881 gpm and 4,315 gpm, respectively. These results are obtained following National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines but may not be possible under real life conditions in part due to the large losses through the hydrant and hose to the pumper truck. A second calculation is done which calculates the maximum flow while maintaining acceptable suction pressure at the pumper truck (5 psi) on the way to drawing down the network to 20 psi minimum. In order to account for the losses through the fire hydrant and hose a "Hose Constant" of 142.8 is incorporated. This constant is calculated assuming a 4-inch fire hose connected to the 2.5-inch fire hydrant outlet. This calculation results in a flow capacity of 2,040 gpm and 2,109 gpm for Hydrant H-7 and H-9, respectively. In order to evaluate the velocities experienced by the water network during fire flow conditions two external demand nodes were added to the system near the proposed location of Hydrant No. 7 and near existing Hydrant No. 9. Each demand node was set to the hydrant test results (ie. H-7: 2,040 gpm; H-9: 2,109 gpm). This resulted in a maximum velocity in the network of 11.26 ft/s in pipe P-26 and a minimum pressure of 29.11 psi at Junction J-1. These results can be found in Appendix C. A second scenario used to evaluate fire flow conditions (flows, velocities, pressures) is a flushing analysis and can be found in Appendix D. This analysis assumes Hydrant No. 7 and No. 9 are opened at the same time to flush the surrounding waterlines; much like would be done during maintenance activities. An average Hydrant Constant of 262 was used to evaluate the flushing hydrants. This constant was determined from the three hydrant tests performed in the area (refer to Appendix E). The results of the flushing analysis provide flushing flowrates, network velocities, and minimum pressures. Hydrant No. 7 and No. 9 had flow rates of 1,668 gpm and 1,734, respectively. The maximum velocity was experienced in existing Pipe P-23 at 15.74 ft/s and the minimum pressure of 40.50 psi was experienced at H-7. In summary, based on the KY Pipe 2010 analysis, the proposed waterlines appear to have sufficient capacity to provide the domestic flows to Phase 103 and 104. The proposed system also appears to have adequate fire protection capabilities while maintaining sufficient residual pressures. Therefore, the proposed water system is in conformance with the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines. Attachments Exhibit A — Water Network System Map Appendix A — Peak Demand Analysis Appendix B — Fireflow/Hydrant Report Appendix C — Residential Fire Demand Analysis Appendix D — Flushing Analysis Appendix E — Water System Flow Test Reports EXHIBIT A WATER NETWORK SYSTEM MAP t The Barracks II April 30, 2013 G Phase 103 & 104 Peak Demand Analysis Appendix A * * * * * * * * * * K Y P I P E 5 * * * Pipe Network Modeling Software * * * Copyrighted by KYPIPE LLC * Version 5 - February 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Date & Time: Tue Apr 30 08:06:57 2013 Master File : w:\614\614008\reports\water\phase 103-104 the barracks ii.KYP\phase 103- 104 the barracks ii.P2K ************************************************ S U M M A R Y O F O R I G I N A L D A T A ************************************************ U N I T S S P E C I F I E D FLOWRATE ............ = gallons/minute HEAD (HGL) .......... = feet PRESSURE ............ = psig P I P E L I N E D A T A STATUS CODE: XX -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE P I P E NODE NAMES LENGTH DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR N A M E #1 #2 (ft) (in) COEFF. LOSS COEFF. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P-1 J-1 J-6 731.98 12.00 139.4518 0.00 P-2 J-2 S-1 141.33 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-3 J-2 J-5 965.34 6.00 139.4518 0.00 P-4 J-5 S-2 131.01 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-5 J-5 J-16 316.26 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-6 J-6 J-2 306.25 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-7 J-7 J-6 330.98 12.00 139.4518 0.00 P-8 J-7 J-4 99.38 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-9 VP-1 J-7 364.82 12.00 139.4518 0.00 P-10 J-9 J-30 96.59 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-11 J-17 J-8 62.47 6.00 139.4518 0.00 P-12 J-17 J-10 426.10 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-13 J-10 J-11 152.68 6.00 139.4518 0.00 P-14 J-10 J-12 155.63 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-15 J-13 J-12 236.35 8.00 140.0000 0.00 P-16 VP-3 J-12 194.26 8.00 139.4518 0.00 Page 1 The Barracks II GMPhase 103 & 104 Peak Demand Analysis Appendix A April 30, 2013 P-17 J-8 J-18 554.98 6.00 140.0000 0.00 P-18 J-14 J-15 171.53 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-19 J-16 VP-1 232.70 12.00 139.4518 0.00 P-20 J-16 J-30 455.60 12.00 139.4518 0.00 P-21 J-15 J-22 251.57 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-22 J-18 J-21 133.31 8.00 140.0000 0.00 P-23 J-18 J-23 609.28 6.00 140.0000 0.00 P-24 J-19 J-32 248.35 12.00 140.0000 0.00 P-25 J-19 J-20 112.91 12.00 140.0000 0.00 P-26 VP-2 J-22 589.56 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-27 J-21 J-22 127.36 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-28 J-23 J-19 184.44 8.00 140.0000 0.00 P-31 J-24 J-23 95.97 6.00 140.0000 0.00 P-32 J-15 J-9 359.48 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-33 J-32 J-30 129.27 12.00 139.4518 0.00 P-38 J-30 J-31 202.04 6.00 139.4518 0.00 P-56 VP-2 J-3 58.16 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-75 J-17 J-3 219.38 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P-77 J-3 J-45 117.48 8.00 139.4518 0.00 P U M P/L 0 S S E L E M E N T D A T A THERE IS A DEVICE AT NODE VP-1 DESCRIBED BY THE FOLLOWING DATA: (ID= 1) HEAD FLOWRATE EFFICIENCY (ft) (gpm) M 173.08 0.00 75.00 115.38 1233.00 75.00 -35.19 2466.00 75.00 THERE IS A DEVICE AT NODE VP-2 DESCRIBED BY THE FOLLOWING DATA: (ID= 2) HEAD FLOWRATE EFFICIENCY (ft) (gpm) M 173.08 0.00 75.00 126.92 1187.00 75.00 6.46 2374.00 75.00 THERE IS A DEVICE AT NODE VP-3 DESCRIBED BY THE FOLLOWING DATA: (ID= 3) HEAD FLOWRATE EFFICIENCY (ft) (gpm) M 156.92 0.00 75.00 115.38 1163.00 75.00 6.97 2326.00 75.00 Page 2 The Barracks H April 30, 2013 GEL] Phase 103 & 104 Peak Demand Analysis Appendix A N 0 D E D A T A NODE NODE EXTERNAL JUNCTION EXTERNAL NAME TITLE DEMAND ELEVATION GRADE (gpm) (ft) (ft) -------------------------------------------------------------- J-1 0.00 312.00 J-2 20.03 309.00 J-3 5.94 306.50 J-4 0.00 310.00 J-5 20.78 304.00 J-6 6.68 304.00 J-7 7.05 310.00 J-8 13.73 308.00 J-9 7.42 302.00 J-10 7.79 307.50 J-11 1.46 306.50 J-12 5.94 306.50 J-13 1.48 305.00 J-14 0.00 305.00 J-15 10.39 304.00 J-16 6.31 306.00 J-17 6.68 308.00 J-18 18.92 305.00 J-19 2.97 302.00 J-20 0.00 303.00 J-21 0.00 306.00 J-22 28.94 305.00 J-23 5.19 303.00 J-24 0.00 304.00 J-30 25.36 301.00 J-31 0.00 303.00 J-32 13.82 302.00 J-45 1.11 308.00 S-1 ---- 308.00 308.00 S-2 ---- 304.00 304.00 VP-1 ---- 308.00 306.00 VP-2 ---- 306.50 306.50 VP-3 ---- 310.00 310.00 O U T P U T O P T I O N D A T A OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPUT MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES = 5 MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM VELOCITIES = 5 MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM HEAD LOSS/1000 = 5 Page 3 The Barracks H April 30, 2013 G ■ Phase 103 & 104 Peak Demand Analysis Appendix A S Y S T E M C O N F I G U R A T I O N NUMBER OF PIPES = 35 NUMBER OF END NODES = 28 NUMBER OF PRIMARY LOOPS ...........(1) 3 NUMBER OF SUPPLY NODES ............(f) = 5 NUMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES ............(z) = 1 Case: 0 RESULTS OBTAINED AFTER 22 TRIALS: ACCURACY = 0.00003 S I M U L A T I O N D E S C R I P T I O N (L A B E L) Simulation provides water system results for the network during peak demand conditions. P I P E L I N E R E S U L T S STATUS CODE: XX -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE P I P E NODE NUMBERS FLOWRATE HEAD MINOR LINE HL+ML/ HL/ N A M E #1 #2 LOSS LOSS VELD. 1000 1000 (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P-1 J-1 J-6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-2 J-2 S-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-3 J-2 J-5 6.32 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.01 P-4 J-5 S-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-5 J-16 J-5 14.45 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.01 P-6 J-6 J-2 26.36 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.02 0.02 P-7 J-7 J-6 33.03 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 P-8 J-7 J-4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-9 VP-1 J-7 40.08 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.01 P-10 J-30 J-9 48.14 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.06 0.06 P-11 J-17 J-8 5.26 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 P-12 J-17 J-10 16.69 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.01 P-13 J-10 J-11 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 P-14 J-10 J-12 7.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 P-15 J-12 J-13 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 P-16 VP-3 J-12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-17 J-18 J-8 8.46 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.01 P-18 J-14 J-15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 4 The Barracks II April 30, 2013 ONLI Phase 103 & 104 Peak Demand Analysis Appendix A P-19 VP-1 J-16 134.47 0.01 0.00 0.38 0.05 0.05 P-20 J-16 J-30 113.70 0.02 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.04 P-21 J-15 J-22 30.33 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.02 P-22 J-21 J-18 9.15 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 P-23 J-23 J-18 18.23 0.02 0.00 0.21 0.04 0.04 P-24 J-32 J-19 26.40 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 P-25 J-19 J-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-26 VP-2 J-22 7.76 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 P-27 J-22 J-21 9.15 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 P-28 J-19 J-23 23.43 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.02 P-31 J-24 J-23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-32 J-9 J-15 40.72 0.02 0.00 0.26 0.04 0.04 P-33 J-30 J-32 40.21 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.01 P-38 J-30 J-31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-56 VP-2 J-3 35.69 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.03 0.03 P-75 J-3 J-17 28.64 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.02 0.02 P-77 J-3 J-45 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 P U M P/L 0 S S E L E M E N T R E S U L T S INLET #PUMPS #PUMPS NPSH NAME FLOWRATE HEAD PARALLEL SERIES Avail. (gpm) (ft) (ft) ---------------------------------- ------------------ VP-1 174.55 0.00 ** 33.2 VP-2 43.45 0.00 ** 33.2 Device "VP-3" is closed VP-3 0.00 0.00 ** 33.2 OUTLET PUMP EFFIC- USEFUL INCREMTL TOTAL HEAD HEAD ENCY POWER COST COST (ft) (ft) M (HP) ($) ($) ---------------------------------------------------- 171.53 171.5 75.00 0. 0.0 0.0 ** 172.98 173.0 75.00 0. 0.0 0.0 ** 169.47 0.0 75.00 0. 0.0 0.0 ** N 0 D E R E S U L T S NODE NODE EXTERNAL NAME TITLE DEMAND (gpm) --------------------------------------- J-1 0.00 J-2 20.03 J-3 5.94 HYDRAULIC NODE PRESSURE NODE GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE (ft) ------------------------------------- (ft) (ft) (psi) 479.53 312.00 167.53 72.60 479.52 309.00 170.52 73.89 479.47 306.50 172.97 74.96 Page 5 The Barracks H April 30, 2013 G ■ Phase 103 & 104 Peak Demand Analysis Appendix A J-4 0.00 479.53 310.00 169.53 73.46 J-5 20.78 479.52 304.00 175.52 76.06 J-6 6.68 479.53 304.00 175.53 76.06 J-7 7.05 479.53 310.00 169.53 73.46 J-8 13.73 479.47 308.00 171.47 74.30 J-9 7.42 479.50 302.00 177.50 76.92 J-10 7.79 479.47 307.50 171.97 74.52 J-11 1.48 479.47 306.50 172.97 74.95 J-12 5.94 479.47 306.50 172.97 74.95 J-13 1.48 479.47 305.00 174.47 75.60 J-14 0.00 479.48 305.00 174.48 75.61 J-15 10.39 479.48 304.00 175.48 76.04 J-16 6.31 479.52 306.00 173.52 75.19 J-17 6.68 479.47 308.00 171.47 74.30 J-18 18.92 479.47 305.00 174.47 75.61 J-19 2.97 479.50 302.00 177.50 76.92 J-20 0.00 479.50 303.00 176.50 76.48 J-21 0.00 479.47 306.00 173.47 75.17 J-22 28.94 479.47 305.00 174.47 75.61 J-23 5.19 479.50 303.00 176.50 76.48 J-24 0.00 479.50 304.00 175.50 76.05 J-30 25.36 479.50 301.00 178.50 77.35 J-31 0.00 479.50 303.00 176.50 76.48 J-32 13.82 479.50 302.00 177.50 76.92 J-45 1.11 479.47 308.00 171.47 74.31 S-1 ---- 479.52 308.00 171.52 74.33 S-2 ---- 479.52 304.00 175.52 76.06 VP-1 ---- 479.53 308.00 171.53 74.33 VP-2 ---- 479.48 306.50 172.98 74.96 VP-3 ---- 479.47 310.00 169.47 73.44 M A X I M U M A N D M I N I M U M V A L U E S P R E S S U R E S JUNCTION MAXIMUM JUNCTION MINIMUM NUMBER PRESSURES NUMBER PRESSURES (psi) (psi) J-30 77.35 J-1 72.60 J-32 76.92 VP-3 73.44 J-19 76.92 J-4 73.46 J-9 76.92 J-7 73.46 J-31 76.48 J-2 73.89 Page 6 The Barracks II April 30, 2013 G ■ Phase 103 & 104 Peak Demand Analysis Appendix A V E L O C I T I E S PIPE MAXIMUM PIPE MINIMUM NUMBER VELOCITY NUMBER VELOCITY (ft/s) (ft/s) --------------------- P-19 0.38 --------------------- P-77 0.01 P-20 0.32 P-15 0.01 P-10 0.31 P-13 0.02 P-32 0.26 P-14 0.05 P-56 0.23 P-26 0.05 H L+ M L / 1 0 0 0 PIPE MAXIMUM PIPE MINIMUM NUMBER HL+ML/1000 NUMBER HL+ML/1000 --------------------- (ft/ft) --------------------- (ft/ft) P-10 0.06 P-77 0.00 P-19 0.05 P-15 0.00 P-32 0.04 P-13 0.00 P-20 0.04 P-14 0.00 P-23 0.04 P-26 0.00 H L / 1 0 0 0 PIPE MAXIMUM PIPE MINIMUM NUMBER HL/1000 NUMBER HL/1000 (ft/ft) --------------------- (ft/ft) --------------------- P-10 0.06 P-77 0.00 P-19 0.05 P-15 0.00 P-32 0.04 P-13 0.00 P-20 0.04 P-14 0.00 P-23 0.04 P-26 0.00 S U M M A R Y O F I N F L O W S A N D O U T F L O W S (+) INFLOWS INTO THE SYSTEM FROM SUPPLY NODES (-) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO SUPPLY NODES NODE FLOWRATE NODE NAME (gpm) TITLE -------------------------------------------- VP-1 174.55 VP-2 43.45 NET SYSTEM INFLOW = 217.99 NET SYSTEM OUTFLOW = 0.00 NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 217.99 ***** HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED ***** Page 7 w 1J q ro aJ m O O U ro w 0 C ro 000 41 LH LH w c U H U U 0 w m m 0) m ro o 0 0 a a a w a a.H x-�x mmm m mum ro v a) r 0 H a H a) O H I m (L) :j -o x o a m 4Ja o V 4 y .H H .H -- H rl a ° w 01 N Pa Pa ri C 3 ..11 5 �--1 ro ro 0 4J ro N ro a G ro 'fi N N a G 'O G a) q a) :j U -rl >r (0 a) a) -H ' -H H o ms° m M—V)-1i�zrwc° m p a O }J ,Q y 0 4J o ;J q dN a In 4J (0V (0iJ ro 0 rl a 41 '° a N V u4 ,: � 1 V F4 4JJ N d) II H ro° +J 44 ro �:S ro ,7 w .H 0 -rl H w -rl H In H w (0 iJ r -H w 3 m a) U S w g m A I~ H yJ (�J 0 a) 0 a) o a) 0 a) ro " ro w H }i 0 a H H r-I H m +J a) w az w w aw 04-H w m _H ri N N m I U 4-4 F' N G r1 O 14 r°I w O 04 w z w w x m-H N I rn r N � I 0 hx 0 z N P 0 a w rl bH aD ) w m au d' m r4 o a Gri Z:: ) ri )r O) J m U S4 rn r .H 7 }J u) W v ro m r r LJ m V H a a 0 .ri m ri w J q N +ro- x o U )o ) o ) ri o )o m )m Q N rm rI ao a The Barracks II April 30, 2013 G ■ Phase 103 & 104 Residential Fire Demand Analysis Appendix C S I M U L A T I O N D E S C R I P T I O N External demand nodes were added to P-10 and P-23. Each demand node was set equal to the flows determined by the Fire Hydrant Analysis; at Hydrant No. 7, 2,040 gpm and at Hydrant No. 9, 2,109 gpm. The results below reflect the subsequent velocities and pressures experienced by the pipe network during fire flow conditions. P I P E L I N E R E S U L T S STATUS CODE: XX -CLOSED PIPE P I P E N A M E NODE NUMBERS #1 #2 ------------------------ P-1 J-1 P-2 J-2 P-3 J-2 P-4 J-5 P-5 J-5 P-6 J-6 P-7 J-7 P-8 J-7 P-9 VP-1 P-10 J-30 P-11 J-17 P-12 J-10 P-13 J-10 P-14 J-12 P-15 J-12 P-16 VP-3 P-17 J-8 P-18 J-14 P-19 VP-1 P-20 J-16 P-21 J-22 P-22 J-21 P-23 J-18 P-24 J-32 P-25 J-19 P-26 VP-2 P-27 J-22 P-28 J-19 P-31 J-24 P-32 J-15 P-33 J-30 P-38 J-30 P-56 J-3 P-75 J-17 P-77 J-3 CV -CHECK VALVE FLOWRATE (gpm) HEAD MINOR LINE HL+ML/ HL/ LOSS LOSS VELD. 1000 1000 (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/ft)(ft/ft) ---------------------------------- J-6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J-5 104.40 0.96 0.00 1.18 0.99 0.99 S-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J-16 83.63 0.05 0.00 0.53 0.16 0.16 J-2 124.44 0.10 0.00 0.79 0.34 0.34 J-6 131.11 0.02 0.00 0.37 0.05 0.05 J-4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J-7 138.16 0.02 0.00 0.39 0.06 0.06 J-9 579.77 0.56 0.00 3.70 5.85 5.85 J-8 895.67 3.32 0.00 10.16 53.10 53.10 J-17 1162.42 9.03 0.00 7.42 21.20 21.20 J-11 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 J-10 1171.70 3.35 0.00 7.48 21.51 21.51 J-13 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 J-12 1179.12 4.23 0.00 7.53 21.77 21.77 J-18 881.95 28.43 0.00 10.01 51.23 51.23 J-15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J-16 1537.90 1.15 0.00 4.36 4.94 4.94 J-30 1615.21 2.47 0.00 4.58 5.41 5.41 J-15 718.42 2.19 0.00 4.59 8.69 8.69 J-18 1017.48 2.19 0.00 6.49 16.44 16.44 J-23 94.60 0.50 0.00 1.07 0.82 0.82 J-19 167.66 0.02 0.00 0.48 0.08 0.08 J-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J-22 1764.84 27.08 0.00 11.26 45.93 45.93 J-21 1017.48 2.11 0.00 6.49 16.56 16.56 J-23 164.69 0.10 0.00 1.05 0.56 0.56 J-23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J-9 708.04 3.04 0.00 4.52 8.46 8.46 J-32 181.47 0.01 0.00 0.51 0.09 0.09 J-31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 VP-2 253.02 0.07 0.00 1.61 1.26 1.26 J-3 260.07 0.29 0.00 1.66 1.32 1.32 J-45 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Page 1 The Barracks II April 30, 2013 O Phase 103 & 104 Residential Fire Demand Analysis Appendix C N O D E R E S U L T S NODE NODE EXTERNAL HYDRAULIC NODE PRESSURE NODE NAME TITLE DEMAND GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft) (psi) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ J-1 0.00 379.17 312.00 67.17 29.11 J-2 20.03 379.07 309.00 70.07 30.36 J-3 5.94 407.41 306.50 100.91 43.73 J-4 0.00 379.19 310.00 69.19 29.98 J-5 20.78 378.11 304.00 74.11 32.11 J-6 6.66 379.17 304.00 75.17 32.57 J-7 7.05 379.19 310.00 69.19 29.98 J-8 13.73 404.39 308.00 96.39 41.77 J-9 1287.81 375.03 302.00 73.03 31.65 J-10 7.79 416.74 307.50 109.24 47.34 J-11 1.48 416.74 306.50 110.24 47.77 J-12 5.94 420.08 306.50 113.58 49.22 J-13 1.48 420.08 305.00 115.08 49.87 J-14 0.00 376.07 305.00 73.07 31.66 J-15 10.39 376.07 304.00 74.07 32.10 J-16 6.31 378.06 306.00 72.06 31.23 J-17 6.68 407.70 308.00 99.70 43.20 J-18 1804.83 375.96 305.00 70.96 30.75 J-19 2.97 375.56 302.00 73.56 31.88 J-20 0.00 375.56 303.00 72.56 31.44 J-21 0.00 378.15 306.00 72.15 31.26 J-22 28.94 380.26 305.00 75.26 32.61 J-23 259.29 375.46 303.00 72.46 31.40 J-24 0.00 375.46 304.00 71.46 30.96 J-30 853.97 375.59 301.00 74.59 32.32 J-31 0.00 375.59 303.00 72.59 31.46 J-32 13.82 375.58 302.00 73.58 31.89 J-45 1.11 407.41 306.00 99.41 43.08 S-1 ---- 379.07 308.00 71.07 30.80 S-2 ---- 378.11 304.00 74.11 32.11 VP-1 ---- 379.21 308.00 71.21 30.86 VP-2 ---- 407.34 306.50 100.84 43.70 VP-3 ---- 424.31 310.00 114.31 49.54 Page 2 The Barracks II 1imi G ■ Phase 103 & 104 Residential Fire Demand Analysis Appendix C M A X I M U M A N D M I N I M U M V A L U E S P R E S S U R E S JUNCTION MAXIMUM JUNCTION MINIMUM NUMBER PRESSURES NUMBER PRESSURES (psi) (psi) J-13 49.87 J-1 29.11 VP-3 49.54 J-4 29.98 J-12 49.22 J-7 29.98 J-11 47.77 J-2 30.36 J-10 47.34 J-18 30.75 V E L O C I T I E S PIPE MAXIMUM PIPE MINIMUM NUMBER VELOCITY NUMBER VELOCITY --------------------- (ft/s) --------------------- (ft/s) P-26 11.26 P-77 0.01 P-11 10.16 P-15 0.01 P-17 10.01 P-13 0.02 P-16 7.53 P-7 0.37 P-14 7.48 P-9 0.39 H L+ M L / 1 0 0 0 PIPE MAXIMUM PIPE MINIMUM NUMBER HL+ML/1000 NUMBER HL+ML/1000 --------------------- (ft/ft) --------------------- (ft/ft) P-11 53.10 P-77 0.00 P-17 51.23 P-15 0.00 P-26 45.93 P-13 0.00 P-16 21.77 P-7 0.05 P-14 21.51 P-9 0.06 H L / 1 0 0 0 PIPE MAXIMUM PIPE MINIMUM NUMBER HL/1000 NUMBER HL/1000 --------------------- (ft/ft) --------------------- (ft/ft) P-11 53.10 P-77 0.00 P-17 51.23 P-15 0.00 P-26 45.93 P-13 0.00 P-16 21.77 P-7 0.05 P-14 21.51 P-9 0.06 April 30, 2013 Page 3 The Barracks II April 30, 2013 GEPhase 103 & 104 Residential Fire Demand Analysis Appendix C S U M M A R Y O F I N F L O W S A N D O U T F L O W S (+) INFLOWS INTO THE SYSTEM FROM SUPPLY NODES (-) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO SUPPLY NODES NODE FLOWRATE NODE NAME (gpm) TITLE -------------------------------------------- VP-1 1676.06 VP-2 1511.82 VP-3 1179.12 NET SYSTEM INFLOW = 4367.00 NET SYSTEM OUTFLOW = 0.00 NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 4366.99 ***** HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED ***** Page 4 The Barracks II April 30, 2013 [L] GEPhase 103 & 104 Flushing Analysis Appendix D S I M U L A T I O N D E S C R I P T I O N Simulation provides velocity and flow rate results experienced by the system should both Hydrant No. 9 and No. 7 be opened for flushing at the same time. P I P E L I N E R E S U L T S STATUS CODE: XX -CLOSED PIPE P I P E N A M E (ft/ft) NODE NUMBERS #1 #2 CV -CHECK VALVE FLOWRATE (9pm) HEAD MINOR LINE HL+ML/ HL/ LOSS LOSS VELD. 1000 1000 (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/ft) P-1 J-1 J-6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-2 J-2 S-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-3 J-2 J-5 87.35 0.69 0.00 0.99 0.71 0.71 P-4 J-5 S-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-5 J-5 J-16 66.58 0.03 0.00 0.42 0.11 0.11 P-6 J-6 J-2 107.39 0.08 0.00 0.69 0.26 0.26 P-7 J-7 J-6 114.06 0.01 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.04 P-8 J-7 J-4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-9 VP-1 J-7 121.11 0.02 0.00 0.34 0.04 0.04 P-10 J-9 H-9 718.93 0.09 0.00 4.59 8.71 8.71 P-11 J-17 J-8 724.11 2.24 0.00 8.22 35.81 35.81 P-12 J-10 J-17 927.20 5.94 0.00 5.92 13.95 13.95 P-13 J-10 J-11 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 P-14 J-12 J-10 936.48 2.21 0.00 5.98 14.21 14.21 P-15 J-12 J-13 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 P-16 VP-3 J-12 943.90 2.80 0.00 6.02 14.41 14.41 P-17 J-8 J-18 710.38 19.05 0.00 8.06 34.32 34.32 P-18 J-14 J-15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-19 VP-1 J-16 1289.61 0.83 0.00 3.66 3.57 3.57 P-20 J-16 J-30 1349.88 1.77 0.00 3.83 3.88 3.88 P-21 J-22 J-15 735.26 2.28 0.00 4.69 9.08 9.08 P-22 J-21 J-18 691.69 1.07 0.00 4.41 8.05 8.05 P-23 J-18 H-7 1387.60 5.85 0.00 15.74 118.58 118.58 P-24 J-32 J-19 293.51 0.06 0.00 0.83 0.23 0.23 P-25 J-19 J-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-26 VP-2 J-22 1455.88 18.96 0.00 9.29 32.16 32.16 P-27 J-22 J-21 691.69 1.03 0.00 4.41 8.11 8.11 P-28 J-19 J-23 290.54 0.30 0.00 1.85 1.61 1.61 P-29 J-23 H-7 280.89 3.45 0.00 3.19 6.16 6.16 P-30 J-30 H-9 1015.72 1.42 0.00 6.48 16.51 16.51 2-31 J-24 J-23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-32 J-15 J-9 724.87 3.18 0.00 4.63 8.84 8.84 P-33 J-30 J-32 307.32 0.03 0.00 0.87 0.25 0.25 P-38 J-30 J-31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P-56 J-3 VP-2 189.37 0.04 0.00 1.21 0.74 0.74 P-75 J-17 J-3 196.41 0.17 0.00 1.25 0.79 0.79 P-77 J-3 J-45 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Page 1 The Barracks II April 30, 2013 GmPhase 103 & 104 Flushing Analysis Appendix D N 0 D E R E S U L T S NODE NODE EXTERNAL HYDRAULIC NAME TITLE DEMAND GRADE (gpm) (ft) H-7 H-9 J-1 J-2 J-3 J-4 J-5 J-6 J-7 J-8 J-9 J-10 J-11 J-12 J-13 J-14 J-15 J-16 J-17 J-18 J-19 J-20 J-21 J-22 J-23 J-24 J-30 J-31 J-32 J-45 S-1 S-2 VP-1 VP-2 VP-3 0.00 20.03 5.94 0.00 20.78 6.68 7.05 13.73 5.94 7.79 1.48 5.94 1.48 0.00 10.39 6.31 6.68 14.47 2.97 0.00 0.00 28.94 9.65 0.00 26.84 0.00 13.82 1.11 400.61 403.02 407.01 406.94 427.58 407.03 406.25 407.01 407.03 425.51 403.11 433.69 433.69 435.90 435.90 406.29 406.29 406.21 427.75 406.47 404.36 404.36 407.54 408.57 404.06 404.06 404.45 404.45 404.41 427.58 406.94 406.25 407.04 427.53 438.70 NODE PRESSURE NODE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE (ft) ---------------------------- (ft) (psi) 307.15 93.46 40.50 302.00 101.02 43.78 312.00 95.01 41.17 309.00 97.94 42.44 306.50 121.08 52.47 310.00 97.03 42.05 304.00 102.25 44.31 304.00 103.01 44.64 310.00 97.03 42.05 308.00 117.51 50.92 302.00 101,11 43.81 307.50 126.19 54.68 306.50 127.19 55.12 306.50 129.40 56.07 305.00 130.90 56.72 305.00 101.29 43.89 304.00 102.29 44.33 306.00 100.21 43.43 308.00 119.75 51.89 305.00 101.47 43.97 302.00 102.36 44.35 303.00 101.36 43.92 306.00 101.54 44.00 305.00 103.57 44.88 303.00 101.06 43.79 304.00 100.06 43.36 301.00 103.45 44.83 303.00 101.45 43.96 302.00 102.41 44.38 308.00 119.58 51.82 308.00 98.94 42.87 304.00 102.25 44.31 308.00 99.04 42.92 306.50 121.03 52.45 310.00 128.70 55.77 Page 2 The Barracks II G ■ Phase 103 & 104 Flushing Analysis Appendix D M A X I M U M A N D M I N I M U M V A L U E S P R E S S U R E S JUNCTION MAXIMUM JUNCTION MINIMUM NUMBER PRESSURES NUMBER PRESSURES (psi) (psi) J-13 56.72 H-7 40.50 J-12 56.07 J-1 41.17 VP-3 55.77 J-4 42.05 J-11 55.12 J-7 42.05 J-10 54.68 J-2 42.44 V E L O C I T I E S PIPE MAXIMUM PIPE MINIMUM NUMBER VELOCITY NUMBER VELOCITY (ft/s) (ft/s) P-23 15.74 P-77 0.01 P-26 9.29 P-15 0.01 P-11 8.22 P-13 0.02 P-17 8.06 P-7 0.32 P-30 6.48 P-9 0.34 H L+ M L / 1 0 0 0 PIPE MAXIMUM PIPE MINIMUM NUMBER HL+ML/1000 NUMBER HL+ML/1000 (ft/ft) (ft/ft) P-23 118.58 P-77 0.00. P-11 35.81 P-15 0.00 P-17 34.32 P-13 0.00 P-26 32.16 P-7 0.04 P-30 16.51 P-9 0.04 H L / 1 0 0 0 PIPE MAXIMUM PIPE MINIMUM NUMBER HL/1000 NUMBER HL/1000 (ft/ft) (ft/ft) P-23 118.58 P-77 0.00 P-11 35.81 P-15 0.00 P-17 34.32 P-13 0.00' P-26 32.16 P-7 0.04 P-30 16.51 P-9 0.04 April 30, 2013 Page 3 The Barracks II April 30, 2013 GEL] Phase 103 & 104 Flushing Analysis Appendix D S U M M A R Y O F I N F L O W S A N D O U T F L O W S (+) INFLOWS INTO THE SYSTEM FROM SUPPLY NODES (-) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO SUPPLY NODES NODE FLOWRATE NODE NAME (gpm) TITLE -------------------------------------------- H-7-1668.50 H-9-1734.65 VP-1 1410.73 VP-2 1266.52 VP-3 943.90 NET SYSTEM INFLOW = 3621.14 NET SYSTEM OUTFLOW =-3403.15 NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 217.99 ***** HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED ***** Page 4 Exhibit A Phillips Engineering TBPE Firm n13130 Water System Flow Test Report Date: March 17, 2011 Water System Owner: Wellborn SUD Development Project: The Barracks.H Flow Test Location: FH i at 3331 General Parkway Nozzle size (in.): 2.5 Discharge Coef: (c): 0.9 Pitot Reading (psi): 48 Flowrate formula: Q=29.84cd2p"2 c = discharge coef. d = orifice size (in) p = pitot pressure (psi) Flowrate (gpm): 1163 computed Pressure Guage Location: FH 2 at 3346 Lieutenant Avenue Static (psi): 68 Residual (psi): 50 This flow test was conducted in accordance with NFPA 291. The system meets or exceeds minimu 'design stag dards and flow recquirements of the City and the State of Texas. Report prepared by: signature ��a1 jFi�rMe Kent Laza printed name Others present: Steven Cast, Wellborn SUD !�P GausYa:e� = 27.1 (c-91-s0 C3✓ Y/3o f/3 Phillips Engineering 4490 Cosilegale Drive, Cnflcga Stalion 75t 77943 ° (979) 690-3141 "TOPS Firm k13130 Water System plow Test Deport Date: January27, 2012 Water System Owner: Wellborn SUD Development Project: The Barracks 11, Phase 100 Flow Test Location: Fill 7 Q Old Ironsides & Commando Trail Noccle size (in.): 2.5 Discharge Coef: (c): 0.9 Pitot Reading (psi): 54 Flowrate formula: Q=29.84cd pl2 c discharge cocf. d = orifice size (in) p = pitot pressdre (psi) Ftowtate (gpm): 1233 computed Pressure Guage Location: FH 4 on Deacon Drive between Lots 14 & 15, Block 6 Static (psi): 75 Residual (psi): 50 Report prepared by: was eondddhed in accordance with Nt*PA [91. -I tte system meets or erg gn standards and flow requirements of the City and the State of Tewic. Kent La2n prlated name Others present: Clendon Adams, Wellborn SIM Britt Curless, Wellborn SUD Seth Samuelson, Phillips Engineerbn a a5 �--���rJ= HydraIg,p,t� /i, Tr P d —6A' _ /2 3_- k 05-so cC v/so/t3 GOO®WIN - LASITER, INC. TBPE N F-413 Water System Flow Test Report Date: Water System Owner: Development Project: Flow Test Location: Nozzle size (in): Pitot Reading (psi): Flowrate (gpm): Pressure Guage Location: Static (psi): Residual (psi): 211212013 Wellborn SUD The Barracks 11- Phase 101 Intersection Cullen/Capps 2.5 50 1,190 Cullen/Hayes 75 55 Discharge Coef: ©: 0.9 Flowrate Q=29.84cd^2p^1/2 Flormula: c = discharge coef. d = orifice size (in) p = pitot pressure (psi) This flow testwas conducted in accordance with NFPA 291. The fystem meets or exceeds rpigimUR?. esign standards & flow requirements of the City and the State of Texas. ' �aaame� /jam OFI-M Report Prepared by:tf, ' Others Present: John Rusk, PE printed name 2 Operators, Wellborn SLID V E� Y Cost6Ta; �� rs�s SECTION IX APPENDIX D — TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY The Cities of Bryan and College Station both require storm drainage design to follow these Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Paragraph C2 of Section III (Administration) requires submittal of a drainage report in support of the drainage plan (stormwater management plan) proposed in connection with land development projects, both site projects and subdivisions. That report may be submitted as a traditional prose report, complete with applicable maps, graphs, tables and drawings, or it may take the form of a "Technical Design Summary". The format and content for such a summary report shall be in substantial conformance with the description in this Appendix to those Guidelines. In either format the report must answer the questions (affirmative or negative) and provide, at minimum, the information prescribed in the "Technical Design Summary" in this Appendix. The Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report shall include several parts as listed below. The information called for in each part must be provided as applicable. In addition to the requirements for the Executive Summary, this Appendix includes several pages detailing the requirements for a Technical Design Summary Report as forms to be completed. These are provided so that they may be copied and completed or scanned and digitized. In addition, electronic versions of the report forms may be obtained from the City. Requirements for the means (medium) of submittal are the same as for a conventional report as detailed in Section III of these Guidelines. Note: Part 1 — Executive Summary must accompany any drainage report required to be provided in connection with any land development project, regardless of the format chosen for said report. Note: Parts 2 through 6 are to be provided via the forms provided in this Appendix. Brief statements should be included in the forms as requested, but additional information should be attached as necessary. Part 7 — Executive Summary Report Part 2 — Project Administration Part 3 — Project Characteristics Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Part 5 — Plans and Specifications Part 6 — Conclusions and Attestation STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT Part 1 — Executive Summary This is to be a brief prose report that must address each of the seven areas listed below. Ideally it will include one or more paragraphs about each item. Name, address, and contact information of the engineer submitting the report, and of the land owner and developer (or applicant if not the owner or developer). The date of submittal should also be included. 2. Identification of the size and general nature of the proposed project, including any proposed project phases. This paragraph should also include reference to applications that are in process with either City: plat(s), site plans, zoning requests, STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 1 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY or clearing/grading permits, as well as reference to any application numbers or codes assigned by the City to such request. 3. The location of the project should be described. This should identify the Named Regulatory Watershed(s) in which it is located, how the entire project area is situated therein, whether the property straddles a watershed or basin divide, the approximate acreage in each basin, and whether its position in the Watershed dictates use of detention design. The approximate proportion of the property in the city limits and within the ETJ is to be identified, including whether the property straddles city jurisdictional lines. If any portion of the property is in floodplains as described in Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA that should be disclosed. 4. The hydrologic characteristics of the property are to be described in broad terms: existing land cover; how and where stormwater drains to and from neighboring properties; ponds or wetland areas that tend to detain or store stormwater; existing creeks, channels, and swales crossing or serving the property; all existing drainage easements (or ROW) on the property, or on neighboring properties if they service runoff to or from the property. 5. The general plan for managing stormwater in the entire project area must be outlined to include the approximate size, and extent of use, of any of the following features: storm drains coupled with streets; detention / retention facilities; buried conveyance conduit independent of streets; swales or channels; bridges or culverts; outfalls to principal watercourses or their tributaries; and treatment(s) of existing watercourses. Also, any plans for reclaiming land within floodplain areas must be outlined. 6. Coordination and permitting of stormwater matters must be addressed. This is to include any specialized coordination that has occurred or is planned with other entities (local, state, or federal). This may include agencies such as Brazos County government, the Brazos River Authority, the Texas A&M University System, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Environmental Protection Agency, et al. Mention must be made of any permits, agreements, or understandings that pertain to the project. 7. Reference is to be made to the full drainage report (or the Technical Design Summary Report) which the executive summary represents. The principal elements of the main report (and its length), including any maps, drawings or construction documents, should be itemized. An example statement might be: "One -page drainage report dated , one set of construction drawings (_sheets) dated , and a -page specifications document dated comprise the drainage report for this project." STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 2 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D — TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 — Project Administration Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction City: Bryan Goodwin-Lasiter, Inc. X 4077 Cross Park Drive, Suite 100 College Station Date of Submittal: Bryan, Texas 77802 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact Info.(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: Chad Emmel, P.E., 979-776-9700, cemmel@goodwinlasiter.com N/A Supporting Engineering / Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts: Kimley Horn & Associates N/A Chris Harris, P.E. Developer / Owner / Applicant Information Developer / Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail: Heath Phillips Investments, LLC 979-693-5000 Heath Phillips, Owner heath_superiorstructures@yahoo.com 4490 Castlegate Dr, College Station, TX 77845 Property Owner(s) if not Developer / Applicant (& address): Phone and e-mail: same Project Identification Development Name: The Barracks II Subdivision Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision, or part of a multi -phase subdivision? Multi -Phase Subdivision If multi -phase, subject property is phase 5 & 6 of 13 Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II, Paragraph B-3a) Crawford Burnett League, A-7 If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, describe general status of all. earlier phases. For most recent earlier phase Include submittal and review dates. Phases 100, 101, & 300 complete (1, 2, 3, of 13) -Phase 102 (4 of 13) under construction. General Location of Project Area, or subject property (phase): Between Old Wellborn Road and Holleman Dr. South, north of Rock Prairie Road West and south of Cain Road. In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan: acres. Bryan: College Station: College Station: 8.00 acres. Acreage Outside ETJ: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 — Project Administration Continued (page 2.2) Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land, or built subject property: developments: Capps Drive Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s): Bee Creek Tributary B.3 Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File #: Final Plat File #: Date: Name: The Barracks Il, Phases 103 & 104 Status and Vol/Pg: If two plats, second name: File #: Status: Date: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Zoning Type: PDD Existin r Proposed? Case Code: 12-006 Case Date Status: Ordinance No. 2012-3407 Zoning Type: Existing or Proposed? Case Code: Case Date Status: Stormwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Planning Conference(s) & Date(s): Participants: N/A Preliminary Report Required? Submittal Date Review Date Review Comments Addressed? Yes _ No _ In Writing? When? Compliance With Preliminary Drainage Report. Briefly describe (or attach documentation explaining) any deviation(s) from provisions of Preliminary Drainage Report, if any. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 4 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D — TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 — Project Administration Continued (page 2.3) Coordination For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Note: For any Coordination of stormwater matters indicated below, attach documentation describing and substantiating any agreements, understandings, contracts, or approvals. Dept. Contact: Date: Subject: Coordination With Other Departments of Jurisdiction City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non jurisdiction City Needed? Yes _ No X Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes _ No X Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes No X Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TAMUS Needed? Yes _ No X Permits For Projector Subject Property (or Phase) As to stormwater management, are permits required for the proposed work from any of the entities listed below? If so, summarize status of efforts toward that objective ins aces below. Entity Permitted or A roved . Status of Actions (include dates) US Army Crops of Engineers No X Yes _ US Environmental Protection Agency No X Yes _ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality No X Yes Brazos River Authority No X Yes STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 5 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 — Property Characteristics Start (Page 3.1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing: Land proposed for development currently used, including extent of impervious cover? Vacant land with no impervious cover. Site — Redevelopment of one lap tted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots. Development Building on a single platted lot of undeveloped land. Project _ Building on two or more Platted adjoining lots of undeveloped land. (select all applicable) — Building on a single lot, or adjoining lots, where proposed plat will not form a new street (but may include ROW dedication to existing streets). Other (explain): Subdivision Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more platted lots. Development X Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more proposed lots on Project lands represented by pending plats. Site projects: building use(s), approximate floor space, impervious cover ratio. Describe Subdivisions: number of lots by general type of use, linear feet of streets and Nature and drainage easements or ROW. Size of Proposed Phase 103 & 104: 59 residential lots, 2,060 LF of street. Project Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain: or on land for which platting is not pending? X No Yes FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse No X Yes (Section II, Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? Is any part of subject property in floodplain No Yes Rate Map area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? __X chment( into Floodplains) into Fl Encroachment purpose(s): Building site(s) Road crossing(s) areas planned? _ Utility crossing(s) _ Other (explain): No X Yes If floodplain areas not shown on Rate Maps, has work been done toward amending the FEMA- approved Flood Study to define allowable encroachments in proposed areas? Explain. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 6 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D — TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 — Property Characteristics Continued (Page 3.2) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) Has an earlier hydrologic analysis been done for larger area including subject property? Yes Reference the study (& date) here, and attach copy if not already in City files. X Kimley-Horn Study (2010) - nalyzed downstream flooding potential. Kimley-Horn Study (7/12) - Detention Facility Design Goodwin-Lasiter (1/16/13)- Phase 102 Is the stormwater management plan for the property in substantial conformance with the earlier study? Yes X No If not, explain how it differs. No If subject property is not part of multi -phase project, describe stormwater management plan for the property in Part 4. If property is part of multi -phase project, provide overview of stormwater management plan for Project Area here. In Part 4 describe how plan for subject property will comply therewith. Do existing topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? X No Yes Describe them (include approximate size, volume, outfall, model, etc). Any known drainage or flooding problems in areas near subject property? _ No X Yes Identify: The area around Cain Rd. and Old Wellborn Rd. Based on location of study property in a watershed, is Type 1 Detention (flood control) needed? (see Table B-1 in Appendix B) See Kimley-Horn Detention Study (7/12) X Detention is required. Need must be evaluated. Detention not required. What decision has been reached? By whom? If the need for How was determination made? Type 1 Detention must be evaluated: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 - Property Characteristics Continued (Page 3.3) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? X No Yes If yes, describesplits below. In Part 4 describe design conce t for handlingthis. Watershed or Basin Larger acreaa Lesseracrea e Above -Project Areas(Section II, Paragraph B3-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? _ No X Yes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4) refer to Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable a en i concentrated section(s), small creek (non -regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? No Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW: Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? No X Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies). Approximately 50-foot ling earthen channel traversing proposed City parkland. Kimley-Horn )n Study STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page S of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH.. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 — Property Characteristics Continued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? _ plat, or easements instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions. exist for any part of pathway(s)? X No Yes Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) Pathway Proposed City parkland to be dedicated with this phase. Private Areas drainage easements to be provided on the plat. Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts, bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc). A USACE drainage channel is under construction (see Phase 102). Drainage from Phase 103 and 104 outfall into this channel. Nearby Drainage Facilities Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater design? No X Yes If yes, explain: Tailwater elevations for the culvert crossings at Travis Cole and Deacon Drive dictate required back of curb elevations to provide the required 100-yr storm event freeboard. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Start (Page 4.1) Stormwater Management Concept Discharge(s) From Upland Area(s) If runoff is to be received from upland areas, what design drainage features will be used to accommodate it and insure it is not blocked by future development? Describe for each area, flow section, or discharge point. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section II, Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become public via platting? X No Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring Pre -development Release (Scenario 2) property(ies)? X Combination of the two Scenarios Scenario 1: If easements are proposed, describe where needed, and provide status of actions on each. (Attached Exhibit # ) Private drainage easements across proposed City parkland. Refer to Phase 103 & 104 plat. Scenario 2: Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre -development conditions (detention, sheet flow, partially concentrated, etc.). (Attached Exhibit #_) Detention Pond (reference Kimley-Horn Detention Study) Combination: If combination is proposed, explain how discharge will differ from pre - development conditions at the property line for each area (or point) of release. If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used, has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? No Yes Explain and provide documentation. Reference Kimley-Horn Detention Study submittal. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 10 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi -Phase Project Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting: Will project result in shifting runoff between Basins or What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased runoff between Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? X No Yes How will runoff from Project 1. With facility(ies) involving other development projects. Area be mitigated to pre- 2 X Establishing features to serve overall Project Area. development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2, 3. — On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area. and/or 3, and explain below. 1. Shared facility (type & location of facility; design drainage area served; relationship to size of Project Area): (Attached Exhibit# ) 2. For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit # ) Reference Kimley-Horn Drainage Study. 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. Are aquatic echosystems proposed? No Yes In which phases) or project(s)? C'• v Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? a Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: N C —No OI N O O Z If design of any runoff -handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical a Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. U) 2 Detention elements Conduit elements Channel features — Swales Ditches _ Inlets — Valley gutters _ Outfalls Culvert features _ Bridges Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 11 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.3) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi -Phase Project (continued) Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? No X Yes Identify type and general size and In which phase(s). Travis Cole: Triple barrel 42" RCP culvert constructed with headwall and wingwall. Deacon Drive: Triple barrel 48" RCP culvert constructed with headwall and wingwall. If detention/retention serves (will serve) overall Project Area, describe how it relates to subject phase or site project (physical location, conveyance pathway(s), construction sequence): Phases 103 & 104 drainage facilities will outfall into the USACE channel. This channel then outfalls into the main detention facility designed by Kimley-Horn & Associates. Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Project Area, is design in substantial conformance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? X Yes No, then summarize the difference(s): Identify whether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included, extent of use, and general characteristics. Typical shape? Surfaces? C'• -o (D Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes: Usual back slopes: N UI cLi Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway: o (D typical greatest (Attached Exhibit# ) v o v, z o X I Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? Yes No, then explain: At intersections or otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? C'. ) X No Yes If yes explain: U O JX Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? o, z X No _ Yes Explain: (number of locations?) m c m ¢` STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.4) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Gutter line slopes: Least 0.60% Usual-0.70% Greatest 1.60% Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? X Yes _ No If "no", identify where and why. Will inlets capture 10-year design stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)? X Yes No If no, explain where and why not. a v Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year design storm throughout site (or phase)? X Yes No If no, explain. rn m (D Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? X Yes No Are inlets and conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? r 0 v X Yes _ No Explain "no" answers. 3 a) N rn d Will 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on whole length of all streets? X Yes _ No If no, describe where and why. Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? X Yes No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. Are any 12-inch laterals used? X No —Yes Identify length(s) and where used. C1. Na Pipe runs between system Typical Longest > access points (feet): 0) Are junction boxes used at each bend? _Yes No If not, explain where NX I and why. N/A 0 �z v Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic Yes No If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line _ _ (system -wide): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D — TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.5) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below (include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). U 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? !q USACE Channel as described by attached Kimley-Horn Technical .-. o Memorandum d E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? c � O 4O L) C dE ca 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? T N �v O O a n E For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of o °'c receiving and all facilities at juncture? CO to :? 1) Inlets on Deacon Drive will outfall into the channel's culvert system. m a d 2) 0 3) Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? No X Yes Number of instances: 2 For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (including low -flow flumes if any): Concrete lined and grass lined. r• 0 v } c Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): v Max 2.0%; Min. 1.0% 0 d o Z Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle, & end treatment). X Velocity: Refer to Appendix B 3 Convergent Angle: Approximately 30 degrees. N End Treatment: Per USACE Permit. 0 ¢` Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained within easement(s) or platted drainage ROW in all instances? X Yes _ No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 14 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D — TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.6) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Are roadside ditches used? X No Yes If so, provide the following: t Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout ? _ Yes _ No Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? Yes No a)_ _ _ Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No w For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: a 0 0 of If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length: a } Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? —Yes —No N If "no" explain: 0 U 0 o Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width Z c Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum X and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: c 0 m Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): � c m � — t U (J 0 o Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): om E 5 0 o = c c 'a, Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: o E a N 3 c Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? _ Yes _ No ° o If "no" explain: ca a c E r Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width 0 Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum .. 0 m and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: L) 0) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): m @ c 3 0 N Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.7) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) If "yes" provide the following information for each instance: Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: c Betweeon Lots 5 & 6, Block 17 n 125' concrete channel; 53' earthen swale o w t u; Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? X Yes No Is swale wholly } _ within drainage ROW? X Yes No Explain "no" answers: 2 > X Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: 0 z Private drainage easement from Airborn Ave. v 0 1 U -0 Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: m ui Between Lots 13 & 14, Block 17 m 1 10'concrete channel; 53' earthen swale 'o E r d m Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? X Yes _ No Is swale wholly d within drainage ROW? X Yes No Explain "no" answers: _ 0 O _ W U Access Describe how maintenance access is provided: Z Private drainage easement from Airborn Ave. rs Instance 3. 4. etc. If swales are used in more than two instances, attach sheet providing all above information for each instance. "New" channels: Will any area(s) of concentrated flow be channelized (deepened, widened, or straightened) or otherwise altered? _ No X Yes If only slightly shaped, see "Swales" in this Part. If creating side banks, provide information below. Will design replicate natural channel? Yes X No If "no", for each instance -& o o describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. max.), surfaces, and 100-year 'w design flow, and amount of freeboard: a Instance 1: Grading/filling activities associated with installing culverts and headwalls c } at Travis Cole and Deacon Drive. a) aX 0 Instance 2: a E 0 z _ 0 � Instance 3: m t U STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 - Drainage Concept and Desian Parameters Continued (Page 4.8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existina channels (small creeks): Are these used? X No Yes If "yes" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? Yes _ No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location: For each location, describe length and general type of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): For each location, describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow. 0 m c Watercourses (and tributaries): Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory U Watercourses proposed to be altered? X No Yes Explain below. _ c Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address E existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures a and data. Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no" explain: E d C C UAll Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information requested in next three boxes. If design is to replicate natural channel, identify location and length here, and describe design in Special Design section of this Part of Report. Design in accordance with USACE permit and Kimley-Horn report. Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? X Yes _ No If not, identify location and explain: Are ROW / easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space? Yes _ No If not, identify location(s) and explain: N/A; Channel Mitigation in accordance with U.S. Corps Permit. To be maintained by owner. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.9) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) How many facilities for subject property project? For each provide info. below. For each dry -type facilitiy: Facility 1 Facility 2 Acres served & design volume + 10% 100-yr volume: free flow & plugged Design discharge (10 yr & 25 yr) Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? —yes no yes no Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? yes _ no yes _ no Explain any "no" answers: r For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: 0 zl Facility 2: X Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? Facility 1: —Yes —No Facility 2: _ Yes _ No If "no" explain: W 0 n 0 a For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet. & at s ilp Iway? Facility 1: & Facility 2: & Are energy dissipation measures used? No Describe type and u- —Yes location: c 0 c m O a) For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe: Q Facility 1: Facility 2: For each, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving facility? Facility 1: Facility 2: If berms are used give heights, slopes and surface treatments of sides. Facility 1: Facility 2: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 18 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 —Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.10) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Do structures comply with B-CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no": Facility 1; N N LL °�' Facility 2: c - o c r. o oFor additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. Are parking areas to be used for detention? No Yes What is maximum depth due to required design storm? Roadside Ditches: Will culverts serve access driveways at roadside ditches? _ No _ Yes If "yes", provide information in next two boxes. Will 25-yr. flow pass without flowing over driveway in all cases? Yes _ No Without causing flowing or standing water on public roadway? Yes _ No Designs & materials comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? Yes _ No Explain any "no" answers: C1 w m c oAre culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? Yes No Explain: U � f0 Q Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage m ways that serve Above -Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? Z No Yes If "yes" provide information below. X I How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. Location 1: 3 U 2 Location 2: Location 3: For each location enter value for: 1 2 3 Design year passing without toping travelway? Water depth on travelway at 25-year flow? Water depth on travelway at 100-year flow? For more instances describe location and same information on separate sheet. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 19 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4— Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.11) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Regulatory Watercourses 1& Tributaries): Are culverts proposed on these facilities? No Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria, analysis, computer programs, and study findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? Yes —No If "no", explain: Arterial or Maior Collector Streets: Will culverts serve these types of roadways? wNo X Yes How many instances? 1 For each identify the d location and provide the information below. iu Instance 1: Deacon Drive o. y Instance 2: X c o Instance 3: c 0 o '2 Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 z E o Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? Yes ESpread of headwater within ROW or easement? Yes rn ° Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? Yes "no" N m Explain any answer(s): V! 2 O U T O V o Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? No X Yes How many instances? 1 for each identify the v location and provide the information below: as Instance 1: Travis Cole N C Instance 2: O � m o Instance 3: > U c For each instance enter value, or "yes" / "no" for: 1 2 3 U (U y �, Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? Yes Q 100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? Yes E Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? 0 ,e Is velocity limited per conditions (Table CA 1)? Yes Limit of down stream analysis (feet)? 1,450 Explain any "no" answers: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 20 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 - Drainage Concept and Desian Parameters Continued (Page 4.12) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facilities (except driveway/roadside ditch intersects) provide information requested in next eight boxes. Do culverts and travelways intersect at 90 degrees? X Yes No If not, identify location(s) and intersect angle(s), and justify the design(s): Does drainage way alignment change within or near limits of culvert and surfaced approaches thereto? X No _ Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe change(s), and justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? X No _Yes If yes, identify location(s) and provide justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? X No _ Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): c .c 0 U N > Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural cj components, and surfacing at culvert ends? _ Yes _ No If "no" Identify locations and provide justification(s): Per Permit. Will 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW, and/or drainage easements/ ROW? X Yes _ No if not, why not? Do appreciable hydraulic effects of any culvert extend downstream or upstream to neighboring land(s) not encompassed in subject property? X No Yes If "yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with B-CS Tech. Specifications? X Yes _ No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 21 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.13) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? X No _ Yes If "yes" provide the following information. Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)? What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? N N a m A full report supporting all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural, geotechnical, hydrologic, and hydraulic factors) must accompany this summary report. Is the report provided? _ Yes _ No If "no" explain: Is a Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techniques: Pollution Prevention Ct Plan (SW3P) established for Silt fencing, construction entrance, seeding to establish project construction? vegetation cover. No X Yes Special Designs — Non -Traditional Methods Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland -type detention, natural stream replication, BMPs for water quality, etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property project? No X Yes If "yes" list general type and location below. Per approved U.S. Corps of Engineer Permit. Provide full report about the proposed special design(s) including rationale for use and expected benefits. Report must substantiate that stormwater management objectives will not be compromised, and that maintenance cost will not exceed those of traditional design solution(s). Is report provided? Yes No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 22 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.14) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Special Designs — Deviation From B-CS Technical Specifications If any design(s) or material(s) of traditional runoff -handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain by specific detail element. Detention elements _ Drain system elements _ Channel features _ Culvert features Swales Ditches _ Inlets _Outfalls Valley gutters Bridges (explain in bridge report) In table below briefly identify specific element, justification for deviation(s). Specific Detail Element Justification for Deviation (attach additional sheets if needed) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Have elements been coordinated with the City Engineer or her/his designee? For each item above provide "yes" or "no", action date, and staff name: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5). Design Parameters Hydrology Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? X Yes No Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: Rational formula was used for calculation of flows generated by various drainage areas. What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 2.00 acres Location (or identifier): D9 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.15) Design Parameters (continued) Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used? _ No X Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? 100 % As to intensity -duration -frequency and rain depth criteria for determining runoff flows, were any criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? X No _Yes If "yes" identify type of data, source(s), and where applied: For each of the stormwater management features listed below identify the storm return frequencies (year) analyzed (or checked), and that used as the basis for design. Feature Analysis Year(s) Design Year Storm drain system for arterial and collector streets 10,100 10 Storm drain system for local streets 10,100 10 Open channels 25,100 25 Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel Swales 25,100 25 Roadside ditches and culverts serving them Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s) Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged Culverts serving private drives or streets Culverts serving public roadways Bridges: provide in bridge report. Hydraulics What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? "Assuming full pipe Design flow velocities; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Channels Highest (feet per second) 6.41 2.94 6.26 Lowest (feet per second) 4.60 2.41 5.02 Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used: For street gutters: 0.018 For conduit type(s) Coefficients: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 24 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D — TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.16) Design Parameters (continued) Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued) For the following, are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? X No —Yes Head and friction losses X No _ Yes Explain any "yes" answer: In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? _ Yes _ No Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? _ Yes _ No Explain any "no" answers: N/A Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? _ Yes _ No For 100-year flow conditions? —Yes _No Explain any "no" answers: N/A What tailwater conditions were assumed at outfall point(s) of the storm drain system? Identify each location and explain: N/A Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec VI.F.5.a? _ Yes _ No Outside of straight sections, is flow regime within limits of sub -critical flow? No —Yes _ If "no" list locations and explain: Culverts If plan sheets do not provide the following for each culvert, describe it here. For each design discharge, will operation be outlet (barrel) control or inlet control? Reference Kimley-Horn memo. Entrance, friction and exit losses: Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.17) Design Parameters (continued) Computer Software What computer software has been used in the analysis and assessment of stormwater management needs and/or the development of facility designs proposed for subject property project? List them below, being sure to identify the software name and version, the date of the version, any applicable patches and the publisher WinStorm, V3.05, Jan. 25, 2002. Part 5 — Plans and Specifications Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a Technical Design Summary Report. See Section III, Paragraph C3. Part 6 — Conclusions and Attestation Conclusions Add any concluding information here: Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical Design Summary Drainage Report by signing and sealing below. "This report (plan) for the drainage design of the development named in Part B was prepared by me (or under my supervision) In accordance with provisions of the BryanlCollege Station Unified Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners of the property. All licenses and permits required by any and all state and federal regulatory agencies for the proposed drainage improvements have been issued or fall under applicable general permits.Vt " E,QFyjF�'l�t+� (Affix Seal) AR % * � Licensed Professional Engineer d77 CHAD EMMEL y 103495Q State of Texas PE No. /051 9S ry��tcs+.SENSE.G��1`��C'� STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 26 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMAR` Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The Barracks Culvert hydraulic Analysis Technical Memorandum To: Chad Funnel, P.E. — Goodwin-Lasiter, Inc. From: Chris Harris, P.E. — Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: November 28, 2012 Subj: The Barracks — Culvert and Channel Hydraulic Modeling Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) previously developed the pre- and post- development hydrologic/hydraulic EPA-SWMM models for the proposed Barracks Subdivision. Through the use of these models, KHA sized the necessary detention facility to detain the 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year events to predevelopment conditions. Based on the proposed land plan, the detention facility was comprised of three interconnected ponds that discharge through one shared outfall. The results of this analysis were presented in the report "The Barracks Detention Facility Design' dated July 2012. Due to the dynamic nature of the of the elevation in the ponds over the duration of each storm event, ICHA was later asked to analyze the proposed culverts at future Deacon Drive West, Travis Cole Avenue, and Capps Drive as well as the channel upstream of these culverts that connects the outfalls of the existing Barracks Phase I and Williamsgate ponds. This technical memo presents the proposed culvert sizes at these crossings and outlines the resulting peak headwater elevations for the 100 year event. In order to determine the resulting performance characteristics of these aforementioned hydraulic structures, KHA modified the previously (City of College Station) approved EPA-SWMM proposed condition model to incorporate them. KHA was then able to model the resulting headwater and tailwater elevations on each of the culverts in sync with the routing of the ponds. Table 1 presents the 100 year event peak data for each of the culverts. Table 1: Peak 100 Year Event Culvert Performance Data Capps Culvert Travis Culvert Deacon Culvert Pond Connection Prop TC 306.31 Prop TC 302.77 Prop TC 301.96 Prop TC 301.93 Length 47 Length 50 Length 68 Length 99 US FL 301.58 US FL 295.94 US FL 295.45 US FL 294.94 DS FL 301.37 DS FL 295.79 DS FL 295.25 DS FL 289.00 S 0.45% S 0.30% S 0.30% S 6.00% 3-42" 3-42" 3-48" 2-42" & 1-48" HW 305.31 HW 301.77 HW 300.96 HW 300.23 TW 304.38 TW 301.10 TW 300.23 TW 299.53 SF 1.98% SF 1.34% SF 1.08% SF 0.71% Q 307.08 Q 350.33 Q 354.83 Q 356.54 V 10.98 V 12.14 V 9.41 V(48") 11.82 Table 2 outlines the channel performance characteristics for the 100 year event. Copyright ©2012, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. I TBPE Registration No. F-928 ME Kimley-Horn _._. _. and Associates, Inc, The Barracks Hydrologic Analysis Technical Memorandum Table 2: 100 Year Event Channel Performance Characteristics Section Al Section B1 Section B2 Section C1 Section C2 Us- Williamsgate OF DS Capps Culy. 12 J3 DS Travis DS US Capps Culy. 12 13 US Travis US Deacon Length (ft) 115 625 275 150 110 Meander 1.16 1.07 1.07 1.1 1.1 Cross Section A -A B-B B-B C-C C-C Qp (cfs) 300.55 304.32 330.52 343.12 349.85 VP (fps) 4.41 4.73 4.18 3.96 4.49 J2 Depth (ft) 3.69 JB Depth (ft) 5.26 Attachments Culvert and Junction Identification Exhibit Channel Cross Section A -A Characteristics Channel Cross Section B-B Characteristics Channel Cross Section C-C Characteristics 94859 Copyright 0 2012, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2 TBPE Registration No. F-928 49 10 CONNECTION==m= THE BARRACKS COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS ❑IIIIIIIIII, ]B00 Seul� iewa Ave., Sidle R01 MPE egat on U0. KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. Le 1. No. 9]9 ]]5-9595 !a. No. 8]9 ]]5-9599 Cross Section A -A X Y Manning's n -27.6 4 0.058 -22.5 2.3 0.058 -7.5 2 0.030 -6 0 0.030 6 0 0.030 7.5 2 0.030 22.5 2.3 0.058 27.6 4 0.058 Transect PropSecA-A o Overbank a Channel Stalwa (ft) Cross Section B-B X Y Manning's n -67.6 4.8 0.058 -27.6 4 0.058 -22.5 2.3 0.058 -7.5 2 0.030 6 0 0.030 6 0 0.030 7.5 0.030 22.5 0.058 27.6 E48T 0.058 67.6 0.058 Tranaect PropSecB-B 0 OvtrEank 4 CBennel uol;ela;lV plaid lO sexal u01)e1S e6alla0 j 011's(vaw)senul d11114d 41eaH 'ON 133HS anueAV eulogllV - 11 sNoe11e8 ayl BOOKS 'S'1'N 3VO 3N0 £L—£l—BC e xnN ear 3TfJ5 Ge OAddV tla NNvea ava 'JNl'NeL -Nma nom 1NeeNm N3LLM11 iwp m, misimm sl munwum W aen D iwmnVNn' Nl'UL6 -HKL AB a3A U %WW 1 CWLa ddo m (m) -mm evxa %n . wa v u Lnelsi0 s ml =8e (dle)-WU MMI'NV)M• WI XIM*AM Md WO ,oro„o. ,rww a+aei c.o.wd,. adei SBOA3Auns 9-L0311HDHV - SUEEINIEIN3 '0NI 'LialISV1-NIM000E) 'S3dId 3dOH „SP - C Ol 03ONVHO 39 01laNNVHO JNIINOONI dO IIVMOV3H 011S3M 3nRJ0 NOOV30 d0 MIS HinOS NO 13INI MnO 3H1 VgONd 93dId d08 ,2t, - C 3Hl :NOI1VbJiMV O'131d rAdQH ,doA THANDW (INN-DNIQ(IaS 'III, ovq QNV ONIQQrAg rivola)u 'S310H 1130 N33M138 138M 3did 3H1 80d 180ddnS SnOnNLLN03 ONV W8031Nn 301A08d 01 SV OS 030VU0 'XVW „ZI/'NIN „9� C' 38 llVHS W01108 HON381 3H1 '38n1SI0W Wn WI1dO IV 31VO110SNOO AIIVONVW 3did ONnO8V SOIOA TV 1113 01 '30V1d O1NI Sldll A8 30VdS '(A1NO 111n0nd) AO/NOVS Z/t-t 'ONVS 03ZI11OVIS 1N3W33 031OVdW00 'SV38V 13381S 38nlnd H30Nn WOW11dO d0 Z4+ 01 WnlNLLdO ('NIW b) NIHIIM 1N31NO3 38fUS10W V IV (08VONVA) 9690 W1SV AB _ 0 03NIAH3130 SV A11SN30 Wnyawn 30 696 d0 YInWINIW 0'0 3dld V Ol ONV (S1N3W3SV3 'S38niSVd 'SONVA"'al) SV38V 1vawn81S-NON 830Nn WnWLLdO 30 %G + Ol WnlNlldO NIHLIM 1N31NO3 38n1510W v IV (08vaNvis) 9696 W15V 'NIW „ZI A8 03NIW83130 SV A11SN30 WnWIxVW d0 G06 30 WnWINIW —� V 01 0313VdW00 '(NOISN3WI0 1S30HVl 3H1 NI S3HONI (Z) OML NVHl 830NVI SIN830 80 'SOOl3 'SdWnl 'SN308 30 338d SI H01HM) 'HO110 3H1 NOW 031VAV3X3 1V1831VW 1VIN31VA 10313S 1H011 831VM 38 01 S1NIOf my 31ON ?I IVAMIS ULVUNUH 'XVW „ZI/'NIW „- '" -- '38n1510W Wn WlldO IV 31VO110SNOO Al1vnNVW 3dld ONn08V SOIOA 11V llld 01 '30Vld O1NI SAll AN 3OVdS '().1NO lllWOnd) A3/NOvs Z/I-I 'ONUS 03ZI118VIS 1N3W33 0313VdW03 NlVM3015 31:.—.1— 'S310H 1138 N33M138 138WS 3did 3H1 603 180ddn8 SnOnN11N00 ONV W8031Nn 301AONd O1 sv OS 030V83 - ao 'iwwc WO1108 HON381 3H1 ('NIWI 4) 0'0 3did Cross Section C-C X Y Manning's n -21.5 6 0.058 -21 5.32 0.058 -11 2.06 0.058 -5.5 2 0.030 -4 0 0.030 4 1 0 1 0.030 5.5 2 0.030 11 2.06 0.058 21 5.32 0.058 21.5 6 0.058 Transact PropSecC•C g Overbank u Channel a G� Station (ry) G•L City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 EAST TEXAS OFFICE GOOOWIN • LASITER, INC. FAX (936(9361637-4900 1 637-6330 ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • SURVEYORS Attn: Danielle Singh, Graduate Engineer RE: The Barracks II — Phases 103 and 104 Sanitary Sewer Capacities Ms. Singh, CENTRAL TEXAS OFFICE (9791 776-9700 FAX [979] 776-3B3B June 5, 2013 This letter summarizes the sanitary sewer flows for the proposed sanitary sewer to be installed with Phases 103 and 104 of the referenced development. To support the line sizing, calculations and corresponding map are attached for reference. The following table illustrates the proposed line sizes: _ -- Street - - Proposed Line Size I Airborne Ave (Deacon Dr. to Foxtrot.) --- 8" SDR 26 PVC Airborne Ave (Foxtrot to Capps) - _ 6" SDR 26 PVC Travis Cole Airborne to 90 degrree turn of Travis Cole - 1 8" 26 SDR PVC -- 1-Travis Cole (90 degree turn of Travis Cole to Capps -- 1 6" SDR 26 PVC Please note the 8" lines are needed for grade purposes, not capacities due to the crossing of the 3 — 42" lines on Travis Cole Avenue, just east of Airborne Ave. Sincerely, John Rusk, PE Project Engineer I * .............................. JOHN RUSK ........................ . o'. 87884 Enclosures \\%SiONnILa cc: Heath Phillips, Heath Phillips investments, LLC (w/attachments) 4077 CROSS PARK DRIVE • SUITE 100 • BRYAN, TEXAS • 77BO2 • mex@gaodwinlasiter.com TBPE #413 1609 S. CHESTNUT • SUITE 202 • LUFKIN. TEXAS • 75601 • admin@goodwinisslter.com W.1614161400BV7epodsISsnifaryseweASanilary Sewer Cover Letlerdw GOODWIN-LASITER, INC G ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS ARCHITECTS TSPE #413 4077 CROSS PARK DRIVE, SUITE 100 BRYAN. TEXAS 77602 I9791 776 - 9700 (9791 776 - 3B38Fex ctex9900dwinlaslter com www.QoDdwjnlasiter.com SUBJECT_ of JOB NO.: _ 41Y00B SHEET NO. � OF Z BY: ,TrS 1! DATE:-- CHCKO BY: _ DATE: CLIENT: �M Pndlirps x6yecrmwr$ NONE Me m ■■a■DIil■ i?��� �1_�Ar*�■■��■�■I N-1�■■■■ ONE ■ ■■■■■ I 1 {/.Y7��1, ■� 7,Vee jr i e;T" ., FrILPL'J. :!�lR IY ■■I■ J ■ ■ I 1 - 17■I■� �� ■■■■I ■■ ■■� Ili ■ow F 11 � ice' , r ■ r