> lnk@ RbjbjFF $d,,J|||||||VVVVb4 """"""$RpF|F||[|| :0,||@BiVd:\
q0fRQQ||||Q|TFFV
VAnnapolis Townes at Neal Farm GRD16-0001
Review Date:
Result: Revisions Required
Stormwater Management Report
On page 3, paragrapgh 3 the site information is shown. On Sheet C2 of the plans, the information does not match what is shown here.
On page 6, the Stormwater Management Summary Table shows a volume of 695.5 CF for permeable pavement. It seems that this volume maybe missing one of the permeable pavement areas (Permeable Pavement 5).
On page 14, the ESD Summary Table is shown. Permeable Pavement Area 5 is not shown.
On page 21, the design of Micro-Bioretention (MB) 2 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using the factors presented, the target ESD should be 1,147 CF. Please check the formula used.
On page 22, the design of MB 3 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using the factors presented, the target ESD should be 985 CF. Please check the formula used.
On page 23, the design of MB 4 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using the factors presented, the target ESD should be 814 CF. Please check the formula used.
On page 24, the design of MB 5 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using the factors presented, the target ESD should be 813 CF. Please check the formula used.
On page 25, the design of MB 6 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using the factors presented, the target ESD should be 617 CF. Please check the formula used.
On page 26, the design of MB 7 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using the factors presented, the target ESD should be 517 CF. Please check the formula used.
On page 26, the bottom of the page shows the title for the design sheet of MB 8, which is the next page. Page 27 does not have a title.
On page 27, the design of MB 8 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using the factors presented, the target ESD should be 479 CF. Please check the formula used.
The Rain Garden design sheets on pages 28 to 90 calculate the total combine storage from the ponding storage and media storage. The ponding and storage volumes are shown to only one decimal and the ESDv provided is shown to two decimals. Please be consistent with these decimal places.
On page 91, the design of Filterra 1 is shown. The following comments relate to this page.
The proposed sediment chamber length is shown as 6 feet. The details for filterras on sheet C29 show the sediment chamber length to be 5.33 feet. Please verify the correct length.
Please show the calculation used for determining the WQv provided in the sediment chamber. Using the dimensions provided here and from the plans, this volume could not be duplicated.
The headspace in the filterra is shown to be 0.75 feet. The details on sheet C29 indicate that the headspace is 0.83 feet. Please verify the correct height.
Please update the ESDv as necessary.
On page 92, the design of Filterra 2 is shown. The following comments relate to this page.
The proposed sediment chamber length is shown as 8 feet. The details for filterras on sheet C29 show the sediment chamber length to be 7.33 feet. Please verify the correct length.
Please show the calculation used for determining the WQv provided in the sediment chamber. Using the dimensions provided here and from the plans, this volume could not be duplicated.
The headspace in the filterra is shown to be 0.75 feet. The details on sheet C29 indicate that the headspace is 0.83 feet. Please verify the correct height.
Please update the ESDv as necessary.
On page 93, the design of Filterra 3 is shown. The following comments relate to this page.
The proposed sediment chamber length is shown as 6 feet. The details for filterras on sheet C29 show the sediment chamber length to be 5.33 feet. Please verify the correct length.
Please show the calculation used for determining the WQv provided in the sediment chamber. Using the dimensions provided here and from the plans, this volume could not be duplicated.
The headspace in the filterra is shown to be 0.75 feet. The details on sheet C29 indicate that the headspace is 0.83 feet. Please verify the correct height.
Please update the ESDv as necessary.
On page 96, the summary of treatment shows a PE treated of 1.13 inches and an ESD provided of 10714 CF. These values do not match the values shown on page 14 in the ESD Summary sheet. Please note that those values need to be updated as stated in a previous comment. Please revise the computations on this page, which may reduce the size of the underground storage facility.
On pages 100 to 106, the design of the step pool conveyance system is presented. The Tc, flow rates and CN do not match the drainage area maps shown in this package.
The step pool conveyance system design is based on the TR-55 developed. Pipe flow and pipe velocities are not considered in TR-55, which may result in lower velocities at the start of the step pool conveyance system. Will this be a problematic for step pool?
On page 110, the existing drainage area E is shown to have an RCN of 73. On Sheet C30, RCN is shown as 72.
On page 111, the time for the sheetflow through the grass (flow A) is shown to be 0.196 hrs. On sheet 30, the time for this flow is shown as 0.181 hrs. Please verify the correct time.
On page 113, time of concentration breakdown is shown. The following comments relate to this.
The 100 foot sheetflow shows a time of 0.181 hrs. On Sheet C30, this time is shown as 0.196 hrs.
The first shallow concentrated flow is shown to have a length of 87 feet and a time of 0.007 hours. On Sheet 30, the length is shown as 173 feet and the time is shown as 0.018 hours.
On page 119, the time of concentration shows the shallow concentrated flow to be 0.008 hours. On Sheet C30, the time for this flow is shown to be 0.009 hours.
On page 127 and 129, the Q10 peak discharge for drainage areas B1 and B2 as 13 cfs and 6 cfs, respectively. On sheet C31, the Q10 is shown as 8.0 cfs. Please verify the Q10 for this outfall.
On page 132, the time of concentration breakdown for drainage area D is shown and it does not match the information shown on C31.
On page 133, the drainage area D peak discharge for Q10 and Q100 do not match the information shown on C31.
On pages 152 to 155 the post development stormdrain flow tabulations are shown. These pages were not reviewed since these have not been updated since changes have been made to the stormdrain system. Please revise these tabulations.
Plans
On Sheet C1, the sequence of construction is shown. In the first step of the sequence reference to Anne Arundel County is made. Step 11 makes reference to Anne Arundel County as well. There are other notes that and references that appear to be for another project. In note 7, there is reference to a commuter lot. A commuter lot is not shown anywhere in the plan set. Please review the sequence of construction and revise as necessary.
On Sheet C1, Phase 2, Note 7, it is stated that reinforced silt fence is to be installed around the model units. This is not shown on Sheet C14.
On Sheet C1, the removal of the pipe outlet structure is not shown in the sequence of construction
On Sheet C2, the Step Pool Conveyance System Sequence of Construction is shown. There are several references to Anne Arundel County and SHA. The diversion pipe shown in step 1E is stated to be 24, when in the plans it is shown as 18. It appears that this sequence has not been updated to this project specifically.
On Sheet C2, in the General Notes, under the second note 1, the property is shown to be in Grid 6. On page 3 of the Stormwater Management Report, this is called Block 6. Please verify the correct nomenclature.
On Sheet C2 in the General Notes 17 and 21 there are references to Anne Arundel County and SHA.
On Sheet C2 In the General Note 31, information is missing.
On Sheet C10, the callout for Proposed MH#34 is shown, but proposed MH#34 is on Sheet C11.
On Sheet C11, one storm drain system shows Proposed MH#9 going to Proposed MH#7 to Proposed MH#6, with Proposed Inlet #8 connecting to Proposed MH#6 as well. The Stormdrain Flow Tabulation, shown in the computations and in this plan set show MH9 connecting to MH8 and MH8 connecting to MH7. Please verify that this configuration is the correct one and update the stormdrain flow tabulation as necessary.
Micro-Bioretention area 2 is shown to have two curtain drains around it. One curtain drain is from Units 37-38 and 45-50 and the other is from Units 39-44 and a Stormdrain system containing Proposed Inlet #27 and Proposed MH #28. The curtain drain receiving runoff from units 37-38 and 45-50 is located right at the base of the 3 foot retaining wall. During site design review, it was stated that the proximitey to this wall could cause the wall to fail. This curtain drain was not shown during that review.
Please provide a profile for the pipes going to the curtain drain from Units 37-38 and Units 45-50.
On Sheet C13, the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Phase 1 is shown. The following comments directly relate to this sheet.
Please show the location of the Stabilized Construction Entrance (SCE).
There are several earth dikes shown for this project located along the perimeter. The majority of these earth dikes are flatter than 1%. The Erosion and sediment control manual states that spot elevations are to be provided in areas where the slope is less than 1%. Please note that some of these earth dikes are shown going up in elevation before going down in elevation based on the existing contours.
The earth dike located on the northern side of the project directing flow towards TSOS #7 has an average slope of 2.25%, however some spot elevations should be provided at the beginning of the earth dike should be provided.
The earth dike located in the middle of the project site directing flow towards the southern side of the Pipe Outlet Sediment Trap should connect to the stabilized inflow for the pipe outlet sediment trap.
TSOS #2 and TSOS #3 appear to be in a series. Page E.17 in the design criteria 4, Stone Outlet structures should not be used in series.
The pipe slope drain detail D-1 shows stabilization at the end of the pipe slope drain. There does not appear to be any stabilization at the outfall of this pipe.
TSOS #5 and TSOS #7 are shown at the top of the slope. It is understood that the LOD is trying to be minimized for this project. Will the location of these TSOS cause problems with the slopes adjacent to these erosion and sediment control measures?
On Sheet C14, the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Phase 2 is shown. The following comments directly relate to this sheet:
Please show the location of the SCE.
The sequence of construction on Sheet C1 states that utilities and storm drains are to be installed as shown on the E&S plans. This sheet does not show any storm drains, only shows the utilities.
The sequence of construction states that the rough grade for the roadways is to be completed after the installation of the utilities and storm drains. This plan sheet shows the curb and gutter for the entire project. The earth dikes, TSOS, and Sediment traps from phase 1 are still shown in the exact same locations. Some of the earth dikes are shown to be going through the curb and gutter. Will the installation of the curb and gutter change the drainage patterns and affect the drainage areas to each practice?
The sequence of construction states that the erosion and sediment control measures for the model units are to be installed. These are not shown on this sheet and it does not appear to be detail for these erosion and sediment control measures.
If the storm drain system is to be installed as stated in the sequence of construction, the erosion and sediment control measures need to be shown for the stormdrain system.
The temporary pipe outlet detail has a note stating to see the detail this sheet. This detail is not shown.
Please be sure to show how the underground storage will be installed and how the erosion and sediment controls will be implemented to prevent sediment from entering these practices.
On Sheet C15, the erosion and sediment controls from phase 1 are still being shown on this plan sheet, which is phase 3 of the erosion and sediment controls. On this plan sheet, the earth dikes are shown to be going through the curb and gutter and through houses. The pipe outlet sediment trap is located under several proposed houses.
In the plan set submitted to the City, Sheet C22 was inserted between Sheets C15 and C16. Please be sure the plans are in order.
On sheet C17, the detail E-7, temporary stone outlet structure, is shown. Page two of this detail is not included. Please add this.
On sheet C23, the micro-bioretention area data table shows MB-3 and MB-4 shows the proposed yard inlet to be inlet 37 and inlet 36, respectively. MB-3 should have inlet 36 and MB-4 should have inlet 35 according to be plans and details.
On sheet C25, the detail for the permeable pavement shows the 4 PVC perforated underdrain. What is the distance from the invert of the pipe to bottom of the facility? On the profiles, it appears the invert of the pipe is matching the bottom of the media.
On Sheet C25, there are several drafting mistakes associated with the permeable pavement section where the callouts for the C, D, E, F, and G are slightly obstructed by the circle around the letters.
The computations show a permeable pavement area 5 that is not included in this plan set.
On sheet C29, the detail for the filterra shows 34 tall concrete barrier between the sedimentation chamber and the treatment chamber. Based on the computations, this is only 33 tall. Please verify the height of this barrier.
On Sheet C29, the detail for the filterra does not indicate the depth of the media. Please provide this.
On Sheet C33 to C35 the storm drain profiles are shown. The following comments relate directly to these profiles.
When reviewing the information provided in the stormdrain flow tabulations versus the pipe profiles, it was noted in the first stormdrain system that structures have been removed and the flow tabulations were not updated. There were discrepancies for these tables too where pipe materials, lengths, slopes, velocities, and flow rates that are not consistent with each other. Please verify that the information on the flow tabulations are consistent with the plans.
There is concern that the steepness of the pipes prior to discharging at Proposed ES#1 will increase the velocity of flow and cause erosion issues in the step pool conveyance system. Two pipes are in excess of 11% slope. Please verify that this will not be problematic.
Please verify the length of the pipe between Proposed MH#7 and MH#9. It is shown to be 1+00.31 when it should be close to 2+10.00.
The slope for the proposed 18 RCP between Proposed MH#7 and MH#9 is shown as 0.5%. Based on the factors presented this is not the correct slope.
Proposed inlet 12 shows two pipes at elevation 74.84 and two pipes at 73.67. The details show only one pipe at both these locations. Please verify that this is correct.
The proposed 15 ADS N-12 pipe from Proposed I-11 to the proposed quantity control storage is shown to be 1.2%. Using the data provided on the sheets, this should be 1.5%.
The proposed quantity control storage trench has a reference to see sheet __. Please complete the reference.
The proposed 15 RCCP between MH 13 and 14 is shown to be 0.3%. Based on the factors shown, it should be 0.25%.
The proposed underdrain connecting to I-16 shows an invert of 65.39. This does not match sheet C23 where the invert is shown as 64.89. Please verify.
The pipe from proposed filterra box 2 to I-8 is shown to be 1.0%. Using the information provided, this slope should be 1.3%.
The proposed fiterra box 2 has a reference to see sheet __. Please complete this reference.
Proposed MH-13 on sheet C34 shows a 12 pipe from MH-14. The profile shows this pipe to be 15. Please verify this pipe.
Between MH-24 and MH-23, a pipe is shown on the plans but is not shown on the profile.
The pipe between I-25 to MH-24 is shown to be 0.5%. When using the factors presented, this should be 0.6%.
No profile has been provided for the 4 roof drain system connecting to MH-26.
The curtain drain for MB-2 has an invert 4.5 feet into the ground. How will the community and future inspectors be able to tell if the outfall is blocked or clear, properly draining, or maintain the area?
Between I-27 and MH-26, the plans show three 45 degree bends. Only two of these bends are shown.
Between i-27 and MH-26, the plans show three 45 degree bends. The computations did not seem to consider these bends. Will these affect the velocities and flowrates?
Between MH-29 and the quantity control storage trench, the proposed 15 pipe is shown to be at 3.5%. Using the factors presented, the slope should be 3.7%.
The proposed pipe at MH-29 from MH-34 has conflicting information shown on sheet C34. It is listed as both a 12 and 15 pipe with inverts at both 71.17 and 71.47. Please verify this pipe size and invert.
The proposed pipe from MH-30 to MH-29 is shown as both a 12 and 15 pipe. Please verify the correct pipe size.
The pipe from filterra box-1 to I-33 is shown to have a slope of 1.0%. Using the factors presented, this should be 0.7% slope.
The proposed fiterra box 1 has a reference to see sheet __. Please complete this reference.
The pipe between I-35 and MH-30 is shown to have a slope of 0.5%. Using the factors presented, this slope should be 0.8%.
The pipe from MH-19 to MB-1 is shown to have a slope of 8.8%. Using the factors presented, this slope should be 9.0%.
The outfall of the pipe from MH-19 to MB-1 is 4.5 in the ground.
Proposed I-21 has an inflow pipe and outflow pipe both at an elevation of 70.11. It does not appear to be this way graphically, please verify that these elevations are correct.
The pipe from I-22 to I-21 is shown to have a slope of 0.5%. Using the information provided, the slope for this pipe should be 1.1%.
The pipe from I-17 to the outfall is shown as 3.2%. Using the information provided it should be 3.1%.
The pipe outfall from I-17 is 5 below grade.
The proposed fiterra box 3 has a reference to see sheet __. Please complete this reference.
The pipe from filterra box 3 to I-38 is shown to have a slope of 1.0%. Using the factors shown, this should be 0.7%. Please verify this sloped.
The pipe from I-38 to the proposed quantity control storage trench is shown to be 10%. Using the factors shown, this should be 10.7%.
The pipe from MH-40 to the proposed quantity control storage trench is shown to be 10%. Using the factors shown, this should be 7.3%
The pipe from I-44 to MH-43 is shown to be 0.5%. Using the factors shown, this should be 0.6%.
The pipe from I-48 to MH-43 is shown to be 0.5%. Using the factors shown, this should be 0.6%.
The pipe from I-49 to MH-42 is shown to be 0.5%. Using the factors shown, this should be 0.6%.
The pipe from I-45 to MH-43 is shown to be 0.5%. Using the factors shown, this should be 0.6%.
Please update the storm drain flow tabulations.
+h+n+p+---../0000]1^13P4Q4'6(6`6g8h8^:_;`;<e=f=B**@&AA=BBCDtDEEEbFF%G
&Fgdi
&Fgd+M
&Fgd7L%GtGBHHMIIJ*KKLLL:MMrNNOdOO}PQcQQ#RRR
&FgdR
&Fgd)_
&FgdRRRgdR":p3-/ =!"#$%D@DNormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D
Default Paragraph FontRi@RTable Normal4
l4a(k@(
No ListDOD2 List Paragraph
^m$JdJ+9UVsu[(HZ
2?
d
v.k=VCVG G""(#p#%%&B''(^))J*Q,E--`./h00p1^2`3(44f55C68&99=::;<t<===b>>%?t?B@@MAAB*CCDDD:EErFFGdGG}HIcII#JJJJJ00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0H 0H 0H 0H 0
0
0
0
0
0 0d
0d
0d
0d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0= 0= 0 0 0 0 000 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( 0( 0( 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 0 5 0
5 05 05 0
5 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 0 5 0!5 0"5 0#5 0$5 0%5 0&50'50'5R*?#5%GRR+-./01R,V`~:F_cGKbj '
/
| Q
U
~
CK.8[eT^ ( M Y !!--11224455r6|666<<#=+===BAKA8C@CCCGGrGzGJ!&(J&Q&77J3333BJJJ`
:^hmh
^`hH.h
^`hH.h
pL^p`LhH.h
@^@`hH.h
^`hH.h
L^`LhH.h
^`hH.h
^`hH.h
PL^P`LhH.h
^`hH.h
^`hH.h
pL^p`LhH.h
@^@`hH.h
^`hH.h
L^`LhH.h
^`hH.h
^`hH.h
PL^P`LhH.`
m J!Ey9uPR7L+M3- Jxc[imWlm)_@JJ00JJJ@@UnknownG:Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3&:Cx Arial7@Cambria qh\C#D'&?&&?&!24JJA@H ?'2Office 2004 Test Drive UserMDWatersOh+'0.
0<
HT\dltssOffice 2004 Test Drive UserffiNormal.dot MDWaterst 5WaMicrosoft Word 10.0@9g@%Q@![&?GX-VT$ma ."System&0-@Cambria- 82
Annapolis Townes at Neal Farm >88185+;5M81+1"D1161)S
2
R22
GRD16=>B77
2
-"2
00017788
2
;2
,
Review Date: >121MB1"1
2
,5 ;42
Result: Revisions Requiredr>1+7">12+58+>177)17
2
~ <
2
;52
Stormwater Management Report2"5)SM1"1)R18111S18">185)"
2
l :-2
1.7@"Arial-
2
J-|2
KOn page 3, paragrapgh 3 the site information is shown. On Sheet C2 of the tA88111781)11)18177"71+"185)S1"58*+75M8A82711"875"71a2
v9plans, the information does not match what is shown here. 818+"7185)S1"58751+85"S1",7M71"++75M871)1
2
v
;-2
2.7-
2
J-2
On page A88111g2
=6, the Stormwater Management Summary Table shows a volume of 7"712"5)SM1"1)R18111S18"27SR1)2;171+75M+1268S15z2
aJ695.5 CF for permeable pavement. It seems that this volume maybe missing 7777866)81)S11718121S18" "+11S+"70""7+257S1S1271S++81d2
;one of the permeable pavement areas (Permeable Pavement 5).f5815"7181)S11717121S18"1)11+&91)S10719121S18"7&
2
:-2
K3.7-
2
K J-g2
K=On page 14, the ESD Summary Table is shown. Permeable Paveme A8811177"71:2B26SS1)2;171++75M891)S11719121S12
K)
nt Area 5 8"=)117"2
is not shown. +85"+75M8
2
y ;-2
64.7-
2
6 J-:2
6On page 21, the design of MicroA8811177"7171+185R,)5
2
6R -!J2
6s *Bioretention (MB) 2 shows the target ESDv =5)1"18"58&R=&7+75M+"71"1)11":2B22
Pto be 822 CF. Using the factors presented, the target ESD should be 1,147 CF. "57177786A+81"711,"5)+8)1+18"17"71!1)11":2B+75777178778682
Please check the formula used.911+1,71,4"715)S717+17
2
4 ;-2
5.7-
2
J-O2
-On page 22, the design of MB 3 shows the targtA8811177"7171+185R=7+75M+"71"1)172
et ESDv to be 822 CF. Using .2":2B2"57177786A*81z2
Jthe factors presented, the target ESD should be 985 CF. Please check the "711,"5)+8)1+18"17!71"1)11":2B+75777177786911+1,71,4"712
formula used. 5)S717+27
2
b ;-2
6.7-
2
J-z2
JOn page 23, the design of MB 4 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using A8811177"7171+185R=7+75M+"71"1)12":2B2"57177786A*81m2
jAthe factors presented, the target ESD should be 814 CF. Please c"711,"5)+8)1+18"17!71"1)11":2B+75777177786911+1,2
j heck the 71,4"712
formula used.
5)S717+27
2
b ;-2
U7.7-
2
U J-z2
UJOn page 24, the design of MB 5 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using A8811177"7171+185R=7+75M+"71"1)12":2B2"57177786A*81z2
Jthe factors presented, the target ESD should be 813 CF. Please check the "711,"5)+8)1+18"17!71"1)11":2B+75777177786911+1,71,4"712
?
formula used.5)S717+27
2
?
b ;-2
8.7-
2
J-v2
GOn page 25, the design of MB 6 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. UsiA8811177"7171+185R=7+75M+"71"1)12":2B2"57177786A*2
ng p81z2
*Jthe factors presented, the target ESD should be 617 CF. Please check the "711,"5)+8)1+18"17!71"1)11":2B+75777177786911+1,71,4"712
formula used.
5)S717+27
2
b ;-2
9.7-
2
J-z2
JOn page 26, the design of MB 7 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using A8811177"7171+185R=7+75M+"71"1)12":2B2"57177786A*81z2
Jthe factors presented, the target ESD should be 517 CF. Please check the "711,"5)+8)1+18"17!71"1)11":2B+75777177786911+1,71,4"712
formula used.5)S717+27
2
b ;-2
t10.p77-
2
t -2
tOn pA8|2
tKpage 26, the bottom of the page shows the title for the design sheet of MB 811177"7175""5S5"718111+75M+"71""15)"7171+18+711"5R=b2
:8, which is the next page. Page 27 does not have a title.7M7,7+"71810"8111911177751+85"71211""1
2
A
:-2
_11.p77-
2
_ -z2
_JOn page 27, the design of MB 8 shows the target ESDv to be 822 CF. Using A8811177"7171+185R=7+75M+"71"1)12":2B2"57177786A*81S2
0the factors presented, the target ESD should be "711,"5)+8)1+18"17!71"1)11":2B+75777122
479 CF. Please check the 77786911+1,71,4"712
I
formula used.5)S717+27
2
Ib ;-2
12.p77-
2
-}2
LThe Rain Garden design sheets on pages 28 to 90 calculate the total combine ;71>18=1)71871+18+711"+588111+77"577,1,71"1"71"5"1,5S781s2
4Estorage from the ponding storage and media storage. The ponding and s+"5)111)5S"71858781+"5)111187S171+#5)111;71858781187v2
Gstorage volumes are shown to only one decimal and the ESDv provided is +"5)111257S1+1)1+85M8"558258171,S2187"71:2B28)52717+v2
Gshown to two decimals. Please be consistent with these decimal places.+75M8"5"M571,S1+911+171,58+*"18"M"7"71+171,S181,1+
2
;-2
13.p77-
2
-2
NOn page 91, the design of Filterra 1 is shown. The following comments relate A8811177"7171+1856"1))17++75M8;7155M81,5SS18#+)11"12
to this page."5"7+8111
2
:-2
~a.1-
2
~ Q-h2
~F>The proposed sediment chamber length is shown as 6 feet. The ;718)585+17+17S18",71S71)181"7++75M81+711";7182
Fdetails for filterras on sheet71"1+5)"1))1+58,711"I2
) C29 show the sediment chamber length to u877+75M"71+17S18",71S71)181"7"5S2
hF0be 5.33 feet. Please verify the correct length.7177711"911+121(2"71,5))1,"181"7
2
h <-
՜.+,0hp
City of Annapoliso&J
Title
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012456789:<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abdefghijmRoot Entry FioData
31Table;eWordDocument$dSummaryInformation(K/DocumentSummaryInformation8cCompObjj
FMicrosoft Word Document
MSWordDocWord.Document.89q**