ABSTRACT

A. MORTON THOMAS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. –

A PROJECT ENGINEER IN LAND DEVELOPMENT

by Cynthia Marie Ong

In order to fulfill the requirements for a Master of Environmental Science at Miami

University, this report outlines my work experience as a project engineer at A. Morton
Thomas and Associates, Inc. (AMT), a civil engineering consulting firm in Rockville,
Maryland. This report describes the role of the civil engineer in land development and
the progressive phases of the development projects at AMT. The project phases,
responsibilities, and tasks that were typical of these projects are detailed through the
description of a campus development job that I was involved with - the University of
Maryland College Park Student Housing Buildings “5” and “6”. Insights of my work
experience and the role that my education at Miami University played at AMT is
discussed in the conclusion.
A. MORTON THOMAS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. –
A PROJECT ENGINEER IN LAND DEVELOPMENT

An Internship Report

Submitted to the

Faculty of Miami University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Environmental Science

Institute of Environmental Sciences

by

Cynthia Marie Ong

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2003

Advisor:____________________________
Dr. Gene Willeke

Reader:_____________________________
Dr. William Renwick
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES...…………………………...……………………………………..…iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………....iv
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….…..1
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
THE AMT PROCESS……………………………………………………………….…....2
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK
STUDENT HOUSING BUILDINGS “5 AND 6”…………………………….……..……9
Description………………………………………………………………….……..9
Proposal………………………………………………………………….…...…..11
Schematic Design…………………………………………………………...……12
Design Development…………………………………………………………..…14
Construction Documents……………………………………………………....…16
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………….......…...17
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..20
APPENDIX A: UMCP STUDENT HOUSING
BUILDINGS “5” AND “6”
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS …………………………….………………………21
APPENDIX B: UMCP STUDENT HOUSING
BUILDINGS “5” AND “6” AGENCY APPROVALS………………………………….43
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE SPREADSHEET FORMAT
FOR CALCULATING PEAK FLOWS…………………………………………...…….45

ii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: BaySaver…………………………………………………………………...….7
Figure 2: Vicinity Map…………………………………………………………………..9
Figure 3: UMCP Student Housing “5” and “6” – Pre-development……………… ......10
Figure 4: UMCP Student Housing “5” and “6” – Post-development………………..…10

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Institute of Environmental Sciences at Miami University:

Gene Willeke, Bill Renwick, and the IES Faculty

A. Morton Thomas and Associates, Inc.:

Matt Ernest and Tim Riordan

iv
INTRODUCTION
The main purpose of this paper is to describe my work experience as a project engineer
for the fulfillment of the IES requirements. From November 2001 through June 2003, I
worked for A. Morton Thomas and Associates, Inc. (AMT) as a full-time project engineer
in land development. Founded in 1955, AMT is a civil engineering consulting firm with
nearly 100 professionals employed. AMT provides engineering, surveying, and
inspection services with an emphasis in public works, land development and water
resources projects. AMT’s main office is held in Rockville, Maryland and its clients
encompass the private and public sectors with projects all over the Maryland, Virginia,
and Washington, D.C. areas. Some notable projects include the University of Maryland
Comcast Center Arena, the on-call architectural/engineering services for the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority at Reagan National and Dulles International airports, and
a wide range of federal-contracted jobs.

AMT’s engineering services are divided into several teams that include the project
manager, project engineers, and a draftsman. Each team was unofficially designated their
specialties and ours were the University of Maryland campus development projects. Tim
Riordan was my project manager while Matt Ernest was the other project engineer from
whom I received the majority of my training. The bulk of my projects were within
Maryland, but occasionally I was involved with jobs in the Washington, D.C.
jurisdiction. The scope of our services usually included the design of water and sanitary
facilities, erosion and sediment control plans, stormwater management facilities, the
coordination with miscellaneous design teams (i.e., architectural or mechanical) and the
coordination with regulatory agencies, mainly MDE (Maryland Department of the
Environment) and WSSC (Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission).

Initially, my tasks were limited to reviewing plans and reports and making drafting
changes using AutoCAD, the main drafting and design software used by the engineers.
This allowed me the time to observe how projects were developed, what resources were
available, and learn the advantages of AutoCAD. As I became more familiar with
drafting and permit preparation, my main tasks expanded to include the following:

1
designing and drafting the layout for the proposed utilities, mainly water, sanitary, and
storm lines, and occasionally, electrical, gas, and steam/chilled water systems; profiling
proposed utilities (profiling involves the depiction of the cross-sectional view of the
utility in its surroundings); coordinating with the other design teams; coordinating with
the state permitting agencies; and generating the appropriate construction documents and
reports for submittals. Throughout the twenty months that I spent at AMT, I worked on
many projects at different stages of the project development. In this report, I will be
discussing the phases of project development, the tasks involved and my developing role.
First, I will explain how AMT proceeded in its projects and the scope of our services.
My work experience will then be exemplified in my description of the University of
Maryland Student Housing project that I was deeply involved with. The remainder of
this report will conclude with insights about my educational and work experience.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND THE AMT PROCESS

By now, Tim and Matt have long established a solid working relationship with the
University of Maryland campus development projects. In fact, together they have
worked on over twenty University jobs, including the massive Comcast Center, a new
sports arena and facilities that were recently completed. With this on-going relationship
in good standing, AMT has been able to obtain most of the University campus
development projects. Aside from establishing a good working reputation with the client,
the usual steps towards winning a project begin by gathering information on site
topography, existing utilities, and soil or geological conditions. Since AMT provided its
own survey services, the topography and utility layouts were supplied in-house. Usually
a geotechnical company hired by the client performed the soil analysis and this
information was sent to us for reference. After gathering any relevant information we
could get our hands on, we would generate schematics and draft the proposal. The
proposal usually contained the following components: the professionals involved,
corresponding hourly rates, scope of services, a list of tasks, a list of assumptions and
permitting/reviewer fees. The proposal and schematic design were then sent to the client
for review and usually after a couple of weeks, a notice would be issued stating which

2
design teams from each discipline were awarded the project. The chosen comprehensive
design team included the architect (who essentially was the head contact for design and
responsible for the coordination of all the disciplines), structural, MEP (mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing), landscape architect, telecommunication, and civil engineers.

After a project was assured to us, a considerable amount of time was spent listing the
tasks, formulating a schedule, generating the appropriate construction documents, and
setting up the appropriate files in order to facilitate the management of important
documents and correspondence. The following lists and describes the construction sheets
that were typically included in a final submittal package for the civil design:

-General Sheet – a title sheet which generally contains an index of symbols and
general construction comments
-Existing Conditions Plan – depicts the survey information of the project site and
surrounding area before development
-Demolition Plan – lists the existing site features that need to be demolished or
relocated before any construction can occur
-Erosion and Sediment Control Plans – these plans are required for MDE
submission to appropriate a permit for the control and management of sediments.
It illustrates the drainage patterns during construction, the proposed E/S control
devices and a sequence of construction list.
-Site Improvement Plans – the proposed features, such as building, miscellaneous
utilities, landscape items, are shown on these plans. Road improvements, grading,
and stormwater management designs are emphasized.
-Stormwater Profile and Details – this sheet provides the profiles for stormdrain
lines and includes structure details and materials to be used.
-WSSC Plans – this set of documents is submitted for WSSC approval in order to
obtain a permit for the construction of the proposed water and sanitary (w/s) lines.
The layout, profiles, and details for the w/s are shown on these sheets.
-Details Plan – illustrates in finer detail some of the material and/or structures,
such as manholes and types of sidewalk.

3
 -Impervious Areas Summary – this sheet summarizes the amount of
proposed/existing impervious and pervious areas involved on the project site.
This plan is required for MDE approval and its significance will be subsequently
explained in further detail.

The preliminary information needed before any kind of design work could take place
included the survey plans, test pit information (underground utilities analysis done by an
outside company), and existing utility plans provided by the client or architect. The
projects were divided into phases and submittal dates to track the progressive stages of
the project development. For example, the 50% Construction Documents package by the
civil engineer might be expected to include completed erosion and sediment control plans
to be submitted to MDE for initial review, the general layout of the proposed utilities, and
the rough draft of the utility profiles.

For the University of Maryland jobs, the planning process usually required in-depth
foresight to identify the need for future development and facilities. Due to the changing
needs of students and faculty, important facilities would have to be considered in advance
so that these demands could be met easily when it was called for. The design process
was the synthesis phase for which the information from future analysis, site investigation,
and the client’s (or the public’s) requirements were factored into the design of utilities
and structures so that the satisfactory performance and budget could be met. This process
demanded constant interaction among the designers, owners, and permitting agencies.

As previously mentioned, MDE was one of the main permitting agencies we frequently
corresponded with. We were required to obtain permits for E/S control, essentially to
demonstrate the containment of sediments on-site during construction. Developing the
E/S plans meant analyzing the physical features of the site. As planners, we would have
to visit the site to understand its topographic, vegetative, drainage and soil characteristics.
We would then delineate the drainage areas based on existing and proposed storm
systems and natural slopes. Several phased-out plans might be needed to show the
changing drainage area boundaries as the site is developed and graded. These phased

4
plans would have to be upgraded by adjusting the E/S methods to the developing
drainage patterns. The E/S methods we used are detailed in the 1994 MDE Erosion and
Sediment Control Standards and Specifications. The basic principles that we followed
were to 1) expose disturbed areas for the shortest amount of time by requiring temporary
vegetative cover to stabilize exposed soil and newly graded areas and to 2) implement
practices that would prevent or minimize erosion on the construction site, such as
building temporary mounds to divert extraneous runoff from erodible soils.

Stormwater management plans were also required to be submitted for MDE permit
review. MDE provided a stormwater design manual which detailed the requirements for
the on-site treatment of stormwater in order to protect the integrity of water quality after
development. According to the Maryland Stormwater Management Guidelines for State
and Federal Projects July 2001, “stormwater management” is defined as:

“For quantitative control, a system of vegetative and structural measures that

control the increased volume and rate of surface runoff caused by man-made
changes to the land, and
For qualitative control, a system of vegetative, structural, and other measures
that reduce or eliminate pollutants that might otherwise be transported by surface
runoff.”

In the University development projects, quantitative control was almost always needed as
there was usually a significant change to the existing drainage pattern and some control
was needed to prevent flooding. MDE required that storm drain systems be designed to
handle the 10-year, 24-hour storm. The on-site quality treatment of storm runoff may or
may not be required, depending on the amounts of pre- and post-development impervious
area. If a net increase in impervious area occurred during development, then that net
increase was considered New Development, while Redevelopment was any
reconstruction of or new construction on existing impervious area. Basically, the steps
we used to calculate the amount of runoff to be treated were as follows (see Appendix A,
sheet C6.00):

5
 Step 1: Determine the total area of the project site.
Step 2: Determine the area of New Development.
(This is predevelopment pervious area that will be converted to
postdevelopment impervious area.)
Step 3: Determine the area of Impervious Areas To Be Removed (TBR).
(This any pre-development impervious area that will be converted to post-
development grassy areas.)
Step 4: Determine the area of Redevelopment.
(This is pre-development impervious area that will be developed on and
remain post-development impervious area and Impervious Areas TBR
since this will be disturbed land.)
Step 5: Calculate the area necessary for stormwater management treatment, also
known as WQv Area:
WQv Area = New Development + 20% of Redevelopment – Impervious
Areas TBR

If the WQv Area is less than zero, a waiver can be applied in order for a project to be
exempt from required runoff treatment. If WQv Area is greater than zero, then water
quality treatment is required. MDE defines WQv as “the volume needed to capture and
treat 90 percent of the average annual runoff volume at a development site” and is
calculated as follows:

WQv = [(P)(Rv)(WQv Area)]/12, where

WQv = water quality volume to be treated
P = rainfall depth (is 1” for University of Maryland jobs)
Rv = volumetric runoff coefficient = 0.05 + 0.009(percent of impervious cover)

WQv must be treated by an MDE-approved practice or structure to reduce the runoff

pollutants. Figure 1 illustrates one example of an on-site structure that can be used for
stormwater quality treatment. BaySaver is a structural BMP that separates the water and

6
pollutants through gravity and density differences and returns the treated water back into
the storm drain system.

Figure 1: BaySaver

Depending on the amount of post-development stormwater produced, other runoff

volumes may need to be calculated, such as the channel protection storage volume which
is used to design methods to control stream channel erosion. In most cases, I only dealt
with water quality treatment, but further information on the various volumes required for
treatment can be found in the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual Volumes I &
II.

The other regulatory agency that we usually dealt with was WSSC, which was
responsible for reviewing and approving proposed designs for water and sanitary (w/s)
systems. Mostly, their concerns were point of connections to existing lines, checking the
pipe profiles, location of hydrants, hydraulic calculations, ensuring that the proposed
lines were clear of any influences from nearby utilities or buildings, and to check if the
design would be feasible with the proposed materials and fittings.

7
When the final construction sets were reviewed and approved by the state agencies and
client, normally a contractor would estimate the construction costs. Sometimes
adjustments to the design were necessary in order to keep the costs within budget. Soon
afterwards, the construction package and specifications are organized and the project is
put out for bid - either as a competitive bid or a negotiated bid.

Once construction commences, the civil engineer was given the responsibility of insuring
that their designs were according to the plans and specifications and that the materials
and equipment used in the project were those which were indicated in the original design.
Many times, the engineer would be called upon by the contractor to provide more
innovative or cost effective solutions to construction problems associated with carrying
out the design. For the University jobs, if the contractor felt that a better method or
material could be used, a shop drawing would be submitted to the architect, client, and
civil engineer for review and the project manager of the design would have to approve or
reject the requested change soon after so that the job might continue without delay. Also,
when the contractor ran into design or construction issues in the field, they would submit
an RFI (Request For Information) to the civil engineer, whereby the engineer was
required to provide the best/cheapest solution in a limited amount of time.

8
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK STUDENT HOUSING
BUILDINGS “5” AND “6”
Description
After several months of learning how to draft and use AutoCAD as a design tool,
interacting more with the clients, and understanding the steps for permit applications, my
role began to shift towards lead engineer on other projects. In this section, I describe the
UMCP Student Housing project to explain more fully my responsibilities and tasks since
it more or less involved the comprehensive experience I had accumulated at AMT up to
that point. The project was located in College Park, Maryland, and consisted of
constructing two new student housing buildings located on the south side of the campus
along Mowatt Lane and Preinkert Drive. Figure 2 shows the general location of the
project. Appendix A contains a copy of a full construction documents submittal package
and can be referred to as the development of the project is discussed.

PROJECT
LOCATION

Figure 2: Vicinity Map

9
Figure 3: UMCP Student Housing “5” and “6” – Pre-development

Figure 4: UMCP Student Housing “5” and “6” – Post-development

10
As shown in Figure 3 and 4, the student housing project involved the construction of two
six-story buildings, approximately 16,557 square feet each and new walkways on top of
an existing asphalt parking lot. The project site encompassed a total area of
approximately 2.7 acres. The major civil engineering site items for the project included
storm drain, sanitary sewer, water service, stormwater management, erosion and sediment
control, and underground/above ground utilities. Appendix B contains a list of the
permits that were required for this project. Of these permits, I was responsible for the
MDE Erosion and Sediment Control, NPDES, MDE Stormwater Management waiver,
and WSSC On-Site Water and Sewer. The schedule for design submittals was as
follows:
100% Schematic Design (November 14, 2002)
100% Design Development (Jan 15, 2003)
50% Construction Documents (February 12, 2003)
90% Construction Documents (March 14, 2003)
100% Construction Documents (April 9, 20003)
Final Construction Set / Final Bid Set (May 1, 2003)
Construction Start (May 26, 2003).

The University had scheduled a submittal basically for every month, and in between these
submittals the University review comments would also have to be addressed. This
inevitably created a tight schedule due to all the design work, coordination, and the wait
for agency review responses on top of several other concurrent projects to be dealt with.
In anticipation of the dense workload, we scheduled weekly team meetings and kept an
on-going list of deadlines, items and tasks to be addressed.

Proposal
The analysis and evaluation of the existing site was based on an existing aerial survey
that was provided by the University of Maryland. AMT also performed a more detailed
field survey of the proposed site. The field survey included topographic features as well
as underground utilities. Most of the underground utilities were field located, which
meant that AMT would have to contract Accurate Locating for test pit analysis to re-

11
certify these locations. Along with the architect’s building schematics, I preliminarily
hand-sketched a possible layout for storm, water and sanitary lines without any in-depth
analysis and performed rough estimates of the pre- and postdevelopment land use areas
for MDE purposes, while Tim worked out the site grading and the proposal draft. After
about a month, the University notified AMT that we would be the civil designers for the
Student Housing 5 & 6 project.

Schematic Design
In the schematic phase, I began corresponding with the other disciplines involved. As the
project progressed, I would soon realize that the only other designer who I could freely
exchange ideas with was the landscape architect. Besides landscape, it was crucial that I
coordinate with the plumbing, electrical, and telecommunication engineers to verify their
utility routings, especially for this site, due to the clusters of existing utilities that would
challenge our design efforts. Much of what the civil engineer was responsible for
required permitting, and this meant trying to identify as many potential site issues
possible and getting an early start on utility designs in order to receive agency approvals
on time. This would pose a major dilemma – Should I overdesign at the beginning and
hope that future design changes could be worked out? Or wait until the other designers
notify me and work with their proposed layouts? In-depth designing during the initial
phases of project development meant spending the time and budget up front and taking
the risk of creating a rigid design or having to re-design and explain yourself all over
again to the permit reviewer. Since this was a relatively small site, with a swarm of
existing utilities running criss-cross in some areas, changing the design of one utility
would most likely have a domino effect on the rest of the proposed utility designs.
However, waiting too long for finalizing our design could mean applying late for permit
review and not allowing time for addressing reviewer comments. In time, I learned that I
would have to finalize a lot of my design without the necessary coordination anyway due
to the lack of communication. And, as predicted, near the end of the project
development, conflicts arose when the civil design could not be compromised because of
the time sensitive permitting.

12
Since most of the development would be on top of an existing asphalt lot, it was
anticipated that we could obtain a waiver for quality treatment of stormwater. If MDE
approved the waiver, this meant no stormwater quality treatment structure would be
needed and would save the University a considerable amount of money. As mentioned
earlier, the majority of the construction of the buildings, walkways, and asphalt paving
would occur on existing asphalt parking lots. Using AutoCAD, I laid the proposed
features over the existing conditions plan to determine the New Development,
Redevelopment, and Grassy areas. The total amount of existing parking lot that would be
converted to buildings and walks was approximately 1.14 acres and the amount of
existing impervious areas that would be converted into green space would be
approximately 0.51 acres. Based on the MDE requirements, the required Water Quality
Area to be treated turned out to be a “negative” value (see Appendix A, sheet C6.00).
Using this reason and the fact that we would be converting a parking lot (parking areas
are usually known to have higher runoff and pollutant rates), I applied for the MDE
stormwater management waiver for quality treatment.

Tim and I made several site visits to clarify the survey information and to determine the
condition of an existing 36” concrete storm pipe. The runoff from our site would be
discharging through this pipe and into a deep swale just south and downhill of our site
(see Appendix A, sheet C2.00 – the outfall is denoted as “Q” located at the southern most
part of the survey). The proposed buildings were laid on top of existing storm lines and,
as a result, these existing lines had to be taken out and relocated (see Appendix A, sheet
C1.02). As a result, we would be modifying the existing drainage patterns. As a
precautionary measure, I performed some hydrologic calculations to determine whether
or not we would be overtaxing the capacity of the existing 36” concrete storm pipe which
discharged into the swale. I had to work outside the limits of our survey and determine
the network of storm lines and inlets contributing to the affected storm pipe. I denoted
each inlet or connection point as a POA (point of analysis) and delineated the drainage
area of that POA. I used the Rational Method, Q=CiA, to calculate the peak discharge
for a 10-year, 24-hour storm (the University is required to design their storm systems for
10-year storms). A weighted C-value was determined by examining land use and I used

13
conservative time of concentration values to extract the rainfall intensity from an MDE
rainfall table. For the proposed lines that would be connecting to this network, I assumed
a worst-case development scenario (i.e., maximum development possible or maximum
impervious area possible) and calculated a Q for the post-development area. The Q’s
from the POAs and the proposed area were then totaled. The existing handling capacity
of the existing 36” pipe was calculated using Manning’s equation and was compared to
the accumulated post-development Q’s. It was estimated that the total post-development
Q would produce approximately 20% less runoff than the full capacity of the existing
pipe even with the worst-case scenario accounted for. I would keep these calculations in
mind when I designed the proposed storm system in case my initial assumptions about
post-development conditions were drastically different. These calculations were easily
produced using a spreadsheet where I could input different landuse data to quickly
calculate Q estimates (see Appendix C for an example of the spreadsheet).

Other tasks performed during the schematic design phase were generating the design
documents to illustrate the layout and grading associated with the new building,
examining demolition requirements, and establishing water, sanitary, storm drainage, and
miscellaneous utility connections and relocation requirements.

Design Development
During design development, full coordination with the other disciplines’ designs was
essential to ensure that no conflicts would occur further down the design process. After
each submittal, the architect would make copies of the comprehensive set of the full
design team’s plans and each discipline would receive the full set for their own review.
After each submittal, I would go through the set, examining any alterations to designs
outside the proposed buildings. The civil design was only responsible for work done 5’
outside the building footprint and any utility connections within the building were
responsibilities of the MEP and telecom engineers. I quickly learned that I had to pay
special attention to the MEP plans, as several times I had noticed utility location changes
that would affect the design of our facilities. It was clear that I would have to be
persistent in demanding information from them. It became even more necessary at this

14
point because the University had requested that we propose the best routes and generate
profiles for the telecommunication and electrical lines. Since these were not our fields of
expertise, I would draft the profiles and send it to the architect for distribution and
review. Needless to say, I received minimal response and had to rely on other AMT
engineers for their limited knowledge about the design and construction requirements for
the telecom and electrical lines.

At this stage, we were responsible for analyzing the storm and w/s utilities (new and
relocated) in greater detail. This meant identifying the utilities that would have to be
demolished and relocated in order to establish connection points. I drafted a utility
demolition plan to visualize how the existing and proposed storm and w/s lines would be
interconnected. After sketching various layouts for the proposed storm and w/s, I marked
wherever these proposed lines crossed over an existing utility. This was known as the
test pit plan and was sent to Accurate Locating to certify the locations and depths of the
existing utilities and to facilitate the design of the storm and w/s.

We also began the submittal to MDE for an erosion and sediment (E/S) control permit.
MDE required a plan that would demonstrate how sediments would be contained on the
project’s site and, in the event of a storm, how runoff from the construction site would
remain free of any silt and debris from the construction. This required a close
examination on the phasing of the construction and the changing drainage patterns that
would occur during development. I followed the 1994 MDE Erosion and Sediment
Control Specifications and Standards which contained the E/S details and chose several
temporary control measures based on feasibility and cost. The project was essentially
broken up into two phases: the initial phase in which the utilities were placed and the
final phase which constituted the building and its site features. It was determined that we
would try to prevent runoff from flowing into the site by installing an asphalt berm north
of Building 5 (Building 5 sits uphill and north from Building 6) and by wrapping the
downhill side of the site, just south of Building 6, with super silt fence to contain debris
on-site. Also, for several of the trees that were to remain, a protective fence was

15
proposed to surround the area of the tree to prevent damage to the surrounding soil and its
roots.

Construction Documents
In this phase we had to finalize the construction documents for site-related demolition
and improvements, and specifications including layout, grading, and storm and w/s
utilities. Also, any comments from MDE and WSSC had to be promptly addressed to
ensure the permits would be issued to the University before construction was scheduled
to take place.

Once we obtained the results from Accurate Locating and had a better idea of existing
utility locations, we could begin the profiles for the stormwater and w/s lines. Profiles
are essentially cross-sectional views of the proposed utilities to illustrate the location of
existing structures nearby and the depth of the proposed utility (see Appendix A, sheet
C3.03). They visually provide information on the amount of trenching and the location
of existing utilities to prevent construction problems.

With the aid of StormCAD, a modeling software program that models the hydraulic
conditions for storm systems based on HEC-22 procedures, I designed the storm drain
line using AutoCAD and accounted for these factors: connection points to existing
systems; slope of the existing topography; location of existing utilities; drainage areas
and amount of runoff; number of inlets and manholes required; location of roof drains;
pipe slope constraints based on minimum pipe velocity requirements; and pipe sizing and
material based on costs and functionality.

Matt designed the sanitary system while I designed the layout and profiles for the water
lines. The water and sanitary system design rules we usually followed for all the
University jobs were: proposed locations of building connections; location of existing
lines for connections; 4’ clearance between top of pipe and ground; sanitary lines must
run below storm and water lines; a minimum of 1’ vertical clearance between utilities; a
minimum of 15’ horizontal clearance between buildings and w/s lines; and a minimum of

16
0.5% slope for sanitary lines. In one area of the project site, there was a cluster of
existing and proposed utilities – water crossing sanitary, electric crossing water and storm
and sanitary, etc. This became a major construction issue. Because water and sanitary
lines were connected to buildings that were to remain open, coordinating the servicing
times and construction became a concern. With the help of Tim, who had more
experience with construction methods, I devised a special phasing sequence for this
unique situation and generated sheet C3.01. This utility phasing plan had to be reviewed
by the construction manager and coordinated with the University for its feasibility.

After the final set of construction documents were completed, they were sent out for bid
to the construction companies. Any changes to the plans after the bid stage were
submitted as Addendums and any cost-associated changes were specifically called out to
notify the reviewers of those modifications.

CONCLUSION
In any land development project, initial investigation begins with a good knowledge of
the site’s topography, geology, landuse conditions, and existing utilities. I have learned
how to research a site’s condition by examining surveys, gathering existing plans from
clients, and making site visits. During the design process, I developed the ability to use
this information along with the client’s demands and permitting requirements, and
propose water, sanitary, and storm systems which were, hopefully, functionally
appropriate and safe. Being able to juggle the multiple tasks, last-minute issues, and
demands of the owner or another designer within a limited timeframe also meant being
highly organized and open to communication. I was able to take control of the frenetic
pace by creating a structured working style for myself and keeping up with
correspondence, schedules, and tasks on a regular basis.

The educational experience that I attained from the IES program served as a template for
my professional growth. Civil engineering is a multifaceted practice which involves
preliminary investigation, forethought, problem solving, constant communication, and

17
lots of organization. IES’s Public Service Project paralleled this work process and that
experience helped me adapt to the quick working environment of consulting. In both
instances, the planning process meant gathering information, identifying specific tasks,
scheduling and designating responsibilities within the team. With PSP being a year-long
commitment, I knew the importance of acquiring the ability to communicate your ideas to
the group, establishing priorities, checking on each member’s progress, and keeping well-
organized throughout the design process. From the more technical classes, such as
Hydrogeology, Hydrogeography, and Regional Land Use Capability, I had studied the
factors involved in storm runoff, delineated drainage areas from topography maps, and
carried out hydrologic computations. Already having these skills made the transition into
land development work easier, since I knew what factors were involved and could
analyze a project site with much ease. These classes also helped me greatly in giving me
the ability to see the overall environmental picture. I was able to imagine AMT’s
projects in a more comprehensive context and consider the environmental implications
due to land development. I understood the significance of following the MDE guidelines
and could identify the underlying principles involved with the computations.

PSP and Environmental Measurements and Methodology also provided an exercise in

dealing with people’s idiosyncrasies and in handling personal conflicts. These classes
required interacting with a medley of personalities in various situations. In my own case,
it provided me the insight of the different working styles that I might encounter during
my career and helped facilitate my interaction with peers and mentors. Within our team,
Matt and Tim possessed polarized working styles. Matt was a thorough and highly
organized person, while Tim was extremely economical and based priorities on
deadlines. In a short time, I knew how to manage my own approach within this range
and could deal with problems and other’s behaviors. This was also true with interactions
outside our team, whether it was an irate construction manager out in the field with
questions or a client pressing to know the status of their permits. I had developed my
working personality through the IES education, and subsequently was able to separate the
emotional and professional aspects within myself under pressurized work situations at
AMT. Overall, the IES program provided a solid foundation for developing critical

18
thinking skills, but the training that prepared me the most was the frequent interaction
with my peers and learning to adapt to a variety of working attitudes.

With the world being so complex as it is today, society is developing some unique
challenges that civil engineers will have to contend with well into the next century.
Based on my observations in this profession, it seems that waste contamination and
depleting environmental resources will be the urgent difficulties needing resolution. It
was my intention that this experience and my education would provide me the leadership,
social skills, and the solutions to deal successfully with environmental problems and,
with that being said, I hope not to disappoint the future generations for whom our legacy
shapes.

19
 REFERENCES

1994 MDE Erosion and Sediment Control Specifications and Standards, Maryland
Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD, 1994.

2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual Volumes I & II, Center for Watershed
Protection and the Maryland Department of the Environment, Ellicott City, MD, 2000.

The BaySaver Separation System, http://www.baysaver.com, BaySaver, Inc., Mount Airy,

MD, 2003.

Maryland Stormwater Management Guidelines for State and Federal Projects July 2001,
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD, 2001.

Urban Drainage Design Manual, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No.22, Second Edition,
Federal Highway Administration, 2001.

Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release 55, United States Department
of Agriculture, 1986.

WSSC Pipeline Design Manual – Interim October 1995, Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission, Laurel, MD, 1995.

20
 APPENDIX A:
UMCP STUDENT HOUSING BUILDINGS “5” AND “6”
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

Construction Documents List:

C0.00 General Notes
C1.00 Existing Conditions
C1.01 Existing Conditions – Surrounding Areas
C1.02 Demolition
C2.00 E/S Control – Initial Phase
C2.01 E/S Control – Final Phase
C2.02 E/S Details
C2.03 E/S Notes
C2.04 E/S Notes
C3.00 Site Drainage and Site Grading
C3.01 Site Utilization and Construction Sequence
C3.02 Site Paving and Stakeout Plan
C3.03 Storm Drain Profiles and Schedules
C3.04 Telecom and Electrical Profiles
C4.00 Site Details
C4.01 Site Details
C5.00 WSSC Plan
C5.01 WSSC – Structure Schedules
C5.02 Sanitary Profiles
C5.03 Water Profiles
C6.00 MDE Impervious Areas Summary
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

CONSTRUCTION SET
 Capstone
Development
PG #5
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

LIMITS OF
AMT SURVEY

CONSTRUCTION SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 X

X X

X
X

X X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

BUILDING #5

X
STAGING
X

AREA #2

X
X

X
X

X X

CONSTRUCTION
X

AREA
X

X
X

X X X X

X
X

X
X

X X X X

X
X
BUILDING #6
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
Capstone
Development
X

431 Office Park Drive

X
X

Birmingham, Alabama 35233

X

X X X X X X X
X

X UMCP STUDENT

X
HOUSING
X
X
X
BUILDING 5 & 6

X
X

X
X
College Park, MD
X

X X X X X X
706-02

X
X
X

X
X
X

STAGING
AREA #1
X
X

X
X

X
X

X X

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 WATER AND SEWER GENERAL NOTES

1. Permit - Approval of this plan shall not constitute a commitment for service or an authorization to begin the on-site system
construction. The applicant shall obtain an on-site permit from the WSSC Permit Services Unit before construction may
commence.

2. Permission - The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from any Federal, State and/or local permit authority having
jurisdiction over any phase of construction associated with the installation of this on-site system.

3. Pretreatment - Water and/or sewer service is conditional upon compliance with any current or future Federal, State, and local
regulations governing the discharge of wastes to any body of water or to a publicly owned treatment facility. Pretreatment will be
required if industrial waste exceeds levels indicated in the WSSC Plumbing and Gasfitting Regulations.

4. Notification - The on-site contractor shall notify the Plan Review Unit of the Regulatory Services Group at (301) 206-8598 and
the applicant's engineer or agent at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction.

5. Coordination - When the on-site water and sewer system installation precedes WSSC service connection installation, the
applicant is fully responsible for ensuring proper line and grade between the service connection and the on-site system. The
on-site contractor shall verify the locations of all WSSC facilities prior to beginning construction. All water and sewer connections
-

shall terminate 5 feet from outside walls of buildings.

FINAL FILMED

6. Standards - All on-site water and sanitary sewer main construction, materials and appurtenances shall comply with the latest
editions of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission's General Conditions & Standard Specifications, Pipeline Design
Manual, Standard Details, The Plumbing and Gasfitting Regulations and this approved plan.

7. Observation - A State of Maryland registered professional engineer shall be responsible for general oversight and observation
of the on-site system installation for compliance with standards and testing requirements outlined below. VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1"=2000'
8. Testing - The following tests shall be administered by the on-site contractor and witnessed and reported by the applicant's
engineer or agent: PG COUNTY MAP: 7 PAGE: 12 GRID:C/12

Water, Chlorine residual and bacteriological - Results shall be obtained and reported by an independent laboratory and
must the following statement: "This sample meets federal standards for drinking water and is safe for human consumption." ON-SITE WATER PIPE SCHEDULE
-

Water, Hydrostatic, 200 psi for 2 hours or as specified on this plan.

AND BILL OF MATERIALS
PLAN FILMED

Sewer, Mandrel shall be pulled through all segments 6" and larger. 10" DIP (CLASS 50) 138 L.F.
Sewer, Gravity, Air test, 4 psi for 5 minutes, for all segments greater than 25 feet. 8" DIP (CLASS 50) 250 L.F.
6" DIP (CLASS 51) 102 L.F.
Sewer, Pressure, Hydrostatic, 100 psi for 120 minutes or as specified on this plan.
WATERMAIN FITTINGS:
All testing equipment shall be furnished by the on-site contractor.

9. Water Connection - Connection of the on-site water system to a WSSC service connection, WSSC water main or the building TAP AND SLEEVE 10"x8" 1
water distribution system is prohibited until the chlorine residual, and bacteriological tests as well as the required hydrostatic test 8" 1
have been performed and the results reported. The applicant shall submit the reports to the Regulatory Services Group for release
of the on-site water system. VALVE 10" 3
-

8" 3
10. Sewer Connection - Connection of the on-site sewer system to a WSSC service connection, WSSC sewer main or the building
RELEASED

drain is prohibited until the applicable tests have been performed, the results reported and found to comply with all requirements. 6" 3
The applicant shall submit reports to the Regulatory Services Group, Plans Review Unit, for release of the on-site sewer system.
METER LOCATION 1/8 HB 10" 2
8" METER # 5869879
8" 2
11. Responsibilities - The applicant and agents shall comply with the requirements of any service connection permit (SCP), INVERT: XXXX
relocation work (RMS) or main line extension (SEP) prior to connecting the on-site system to the Commission system. HIGH: XXXX 1/16 HB 8" 2
LOW:XXXX 1/8 UVB 10" 1
12. Certification - A State of Maryland registered professional engineer's certification of the on-site system and 2 print sets of final
as-built drawings shall be submitted to the WSSC Regulatory Services Group, Plan Review Unit. The drawing shall reflect any field
LOW AT 1500 GPM: XXXX 1/8 LVB 10" 1
changes and indicate "ties" for the location of valves, bends, manholes, fire hydrants, appurtenances, etc. 8" 1
13. Building Water and Sewer - This plan may designate "building water", "building sewer" or a plumbing appurtenance such as an 1/16 UVB 8" 1
interceptor. This work, shown in "light line" on this plan is for reference only and shall be installed and inspected under a separate 6" 1
WSSC plumbing permit by a WSSC registered master plumber.
ENGINEER 1/16 LVB 8" 1
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT PROPERTY ADDRESS
14. Fire Hydrant Color - On-site fire hydrants shall be painted red. (See ENGINEERS NOTE H.) CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT A. MORTON THOMAS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6" 1
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
-

431 OFFICE PARK DRIVE COLLEGE PARK 12750 TWINBROOK PARKWAY 1/32 UVB 8" 1
15. Follow-up Inspections - Manholes and fire hydrants shall receive a follow-up inspection by a WSSC Plumbing Inspector in
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35223 PREINKERT DRIVE AND LEHEIGH ROAD ROCKVILLE, MD 20852-1700 1/32 LVB 10" 1
conjunction with the final plumbing inspection. Manhole construction shall be intact after final paving and grading, and shall meet
R/W'S ACQUIRED

Standard Details. Fire hydrants shall be similarly inspected to ensure valve box access and compliance with WSSC monitoring ATTN: C. JAMIE GRANT COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20742 CONTACT: TIMOTHY F. RIORDAN, P.E.
TEE 10"x6" 1
requirements where applicable. PH: 205-414-6400 PH: (301) 881-2545

ENGINEERS NOTES:
FAX: 205-414-6405 FAX: (301) 881-0814
FHT
8"
8"x6"
1
1
Capstone
A. Pressure test waterline "A", "B", "C" and "E" at 213 psi for 2 hours. 6" 1 Development
FIRE HYDRANT 2
B. Pressure test waterline "D" at 217 psi for 2 hours. 431 Office Park Drive
CAP 8" 1 Birmingham, Alabama 35233
C. All fire hydrants adjacent to roadways are to be set within two feet (2') behind the face of curb. Large outlet shall face curb. MISS UTILITY NOTE 6" 1

D. All fire hydrants shall be installed prior to commencement of work. or store combustibles on site as required by NFPA 241. CALL "MISS UTILITY" AT 1-800-257-777 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK. THE TEMP CAP 8" 2
EXCAVATOR MUST NOTIFY ALL PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IN
E. All 6" water shall be class 51 ductile iron unless otherwise noted. THE AREA OF PROPOSED EXCAVATION AND HAVE THOSE FACILITIES LOCATED BY THE UTILITY ON-SITE SEWER PIPE SCHEDULE
COMPANIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING EXCAVATION. 8" PVC 747 L.F.
F. All 10 and 8" water shall be class 50 ductile iron unless otherwise noted.
-

6" PVC 15 L.F. UMCP STUDENT

G. All sewer shall be PVC SDR 35 (ASTM 3034) unless otherwise noted. 4" PVC 27 L.F. HOUSING
SOIL BORINGS ORDERED

EROSION CONTROL NOTE: TEMP CAP 6" 3

H. University of Maryland Fire Hydrant painting requirements. This is a modification to Water and Sewer General Note #14 which requires all
on-site fire hydrants to be painted red. STATE OF MARYLAND PROJECT.
NOTICE "THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM ON THIS PLAN IS BUILDING 5 & 6
ACCEPTED FOR DESIGN CRITERIA ONLY. THIS
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REVIEW BY THE
NO WORK can proceed on the Water and Sewer Service Connections until ACCEPTANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY,
a. University of Maryland On-Site fire hydrants (metered) shall be painted yellow with black tops and cap for 2000 gpm or higher at 20 psi. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
b. University of Maryland On-Site fire hydrants under 2000 gpm at 20 psi shall be painted according the requirements listed in NFPA 291. (MDE). WSSC EROSION CONTROL STICKER NOT
an On-Site Permit has been obtained from the Service Application and NOR DOES IT RELEASE THE PARTY SUBMITTING THE College Park, MD
c. University of Maryland On-Site fire hydrants (unmetered) shall be painted red. REQUIRED. SEE APPROVED MDE PLANS FOR Records Section. Inspections to be arranged with WSSC Code PLAN FROM FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DESIGN OF FOR LOCATION OF UTILITIES
Enforcement. To arrange an inspection call (301) 206-8598. 706-02
APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL. THIS SYSTEM, AS WELL AS ANY DEFICIENCIES WHICH CALL 1-800-257-7777
BLOCKING NOTES: MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE FOUND. THE PARTY 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN SUBMITTING THE PLAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTUAL WORK IN THIS VICINITY
1. BLOCK ALL HORIZONTAL BENDS WITH CONCRETE. SEE STANDARD WSSC DETAIL B/1.0. THE ISSUANCE OF CIVIL PENALTIES, AND/OR OTHER REMEDIES CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AS
DATE REVISIONS
2. BLOCK ALL UPPER VERTICAL BENDS WITH CONCRETE. SEE STANDARD WSSC DETAIL B/1.7.
3. BLOCK ALL LOWER VERTICAL BENDS WITH CONCRETE. SEE STANDARD WSSC DETAIL B/1.8. ALLOWED BY LAW. HEREBY ACCEPTED. PRIOR TO INITIATING
4. BLOCK ALL FITTINGS WITH CONCRETE. SEE STANDARD WSSC DETAILS B/1.3 AND B/1.4.
5. FIRE HYDRANTS MARKED "R" TO BE RESTRAINED WITH RETAINER GLANDS. SEE WSSC STANDARD DETAILS B/2.1, B/2.4 AND B/2.7. DO NOT
CONSTRUCTION THE REQUISITE ON-SITE PERMIT MUST 2-28-03 1st SUBMISSION
BLOCK FIRE HYDRANTS OR FIRE HYDRANT TEES. BE ACQUIRED FROM THE SERVICE APPLICATIONS AND
6. RESTRAIN 8" WATERLINE "A" FROM STA: 0+00 TO STA: 0+92.02 WITH MECHANICAL JOINT RETAINING GLANDS ACCORDING TO WSSC DETAILS RECORDS SECTION."
B/2.1, B/2.4 AND B/2.7. APPLY "RESTRAINED JOINT PIPE" TAPE ON TOP OF PIPE WITH RESTRAINED JOINTS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. PLACE TAPE
ON CLEAN, DRY SURFACE FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF PIPE. DO NOT PLACE TAPE ON FIRE HYDRANT LEADS.
AVERAGE SEWER FLOW
-

HHG = 325' BUILDING 5= 28,550 G.P.D. REGULATORY SERVICES DATE

BUILDING 6= 28,550 G.P.D.

JOB AUTH.

LHG = 289' ON-SITE # 03-OS-0357

ON-SITE WATER AND SEWER PLAN
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK NO 1
UMCP STUDENT HOUSING-BUIDLINGS 5 AND 6 209 NE 04 OF 4

WATER AND SEWER MUST BE CONSTRUCTED

FROM THE WSSC APPROVED DOCUMENTS
BID SET
-
FINAL FILMED
-
PLAN FILMED
-
RELEASED
-

Capstone
R/W'S ACQUIRED

Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
-

BUILDING 5 & 6
SOIL BORINGS ORDERED

College Park, MD
706-02
FOR LOCATION OF UTILITIES
CALL 1-800-257-7777
48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY
WORK IN THIS VICINITY

DATE REVISIONS
2-28-03 1st SUBMISSION
-
JOB AUTH.

ON-SITE # 03-OS-0357
ON-SITE WATER AND SEWER PLAN
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK NO 2
UMCP STUDENT HOUSING-BUIDLINGS 5 AND 6 209 NE 04 OF 4

WATER AND SEWER MUST BE CONSTRUCTED

FROM THE WSSC APPROVED DOCUMENTS
BID SET
-
FINAL FILMED
-
PLAN FILMED
-
RELEASED
-
R/W'S ACQUIRED

Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233
-
SOIL BORINGS ORDERED

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
FOR LOCATION OF UTILITIES
BUILDING 5 & 6
CALL 1-800-257-7777
48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY
WORK IN THIS VICINITY
College Park, MD
706-02
DATE REVISIONS
2-28-03 1st SUBMISSION
-
JOB AUTH.

ON-SITE # 03-OS-0357
ON-SITE WATER AND SEWER PLAN
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK NO 3
UMCP STUDENT HOUSING-BUIDLINGS 5 AND 6 209 NE 04 OF 4

WATER AND SEWER MUST BE CONSTRUCTED

FROM THE WSSC APPROVED DOCUMENTS

BID SET
-
FINAL FILMED
-
PLAN FILMED
-
RELEASED
-
R/W'S ACQUIRED

Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233
-
SOIL BORINGS ORDERED

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
FOR LOCATION OF UTILITIES
BUILDING 5 & 6
CALL 1-800-257-7777
48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY
WORK IN THIS VICINITY
College Park, MD
706-02
DATE REVISIONS
2-28-03 1st SUBMISSION
-
JOB AUTH.

ON-SITE # 03-OS-0357
ON-SITE WATER AND SEWER PLAN
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK NO 4
UMCP STUDENT HOUSING-BUIDLINGS 5 AND 6 209 NE 04 OF 4

WATER AND SEWER MUST BE CONSTRUCTED

FROM THE WSSC APPROVED DOCUMENTS

BID SET
 Capstone
Development
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35233

UMCP STUDENT
HOUSING
BUILDING 5 & 6

College Park, MD
706-02

BID SET
 APPENDIX B:
UMCP STUDENT HOUSING BUILDINGS “5” AND “6”
AGENCY APPROVALS

Applications/Issuing Validation Period Submitted At

Agency Approximate Processing
Period
City of College Park Not Required

MDE Erosion and Required 6 months or obtain a expedited 2 years After 50% CD
Sediment Control Permit: reviewer for a fee turn around
approx. 2 months
MDE Stormwater Not Required
Management Permit:
NPDES Permit (if project Required Anytime prior to
over 5 acres) construction as long as
it is received 48 hours
before construction
starts
MDE Non-Tidal Wetland and Not Required Minor Projects-3 months Maximum of 5 years
Waterway Permit Major Projects-6 months and extended fro an
additional 5 years.
Construction must be
initiated within 3 years.
MDE Waterway and 100-YR Not Required Minor Projects-3 months Maximum of 5 years
Floodplain Permit Major Projects-6 months and extended fro an
additional 5 years.
Construction must be
initiated within 3 years.
MDE Dam Safety Permit Not Required
Chesapeake Bay Critical Not Required
Area

MDNR Natural Resource Required 4 months after initial submission During Schematic
Inventory/Forest Stand Design
Delineation
Maryland Historic Trust Required During Schematic
Design
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Required During Schematic
Design
Maryland Wildlife and Required During Schematic
Hertigate Design

MDNR Forest Required 4 months after initial submission After 50% CD

Conservation

Prince George’s County Not Required

Driveway Entrance Permit:
Not Required
Prince George’s County Not Required
Stormwater Management
Concept Approval: Not
Required
Prince George’s County Not Required
Stormdrain/Stormwater
Management Permit: Not
Required
Prince George’s County Not Required
Work in Public Space

WSSC On-Site Water and Required 4 months after initial submission No expiration After 50% CD
Sewer Permit
WSSC Erosion and Not Required
Sediment Control Permit
 APPENDIX C:
SAMPLE SPREADSHEET FORMAT FOR CALCULATING PEAK FLOWS

POA #1
Description: drainage area near ex. inlet (referred to as N6 on UMD topo)

AREA
Total Drainage Area (sf) 290000
Total Drainage Area (ac) 6.65748393

C VALUES LAND COVER Weighted C

C for Imp 0.9 80% IMP / 20% Grass, C1 0.82
C for Grass 0.5 70% IMP / 30% Grass, C2 0.78
60% IMP / 40% Grass, C3 0.74

RAINFALL INTENSITY
Tc (min) Tc (h) Rainfall Intensity for 10 y storm (in/h)
7.44 0.124 I1 6.43
10 0.166666667 I2 5.87
15 0.25 I3 5.02

PEAK FLOWS FOR 10-Y STORM (cfs)

C1 C2 C3
I1 35.10224977 33.3899449 31.67764004
I2 32.04513315 30.48195592 28.9187787
I3 27.40486685 26.06804408 24.7312213