SWMM-USERS Digest - 25 Jun 2008 to 26 Jun 2008 (#2008-115)

3 views

Skip to first unread message

Automatic digest processor

unread,

Jun 27, 2008, 12:00:50 AM6/27/08

to Recipients of SWMM-USERS digests

There are 14 messages totalling 1672 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. Input of Bridge into SWMM 5 (5)
2. SWMM ver. 5.0.013 (6)
3. RTK questions (3)

**********************************************************
* To sign off, email to: list...@listserv.uoguelph.ca *
* In the body of the message type: signoff swmm-users *
**********************************************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:57:39 -0400
From: Marc Massey <Marc....@KIMLEY-HORN.COM>
Subject: Input of Bridge into SWMM 5

All,
I am new to the SWMM program. I have a project that lies within a watershe=
d that has been modeled in SWMM 44h. I have converted and combined the ext=
ran and runoff models to SWMM 5 and have a working model that I would like =
to use as a base for the improvements. However, there is a bridge that was=
not converted into SWMM 5. What is the suggested method for adding this b=
ridge to the SWMM 5 model, since a bridge is not a link option? Any help =
would be greatly appreciated.

Marc Massey, E.I. (AL)

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
marc....@kimley-horn.com<mailto:marc....@kimley-horn.com>
www.kimley-horn.com<http://www.kimley-horn.com/>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:44:25 -0400
From: Chris Hauser <CHa...@JHENG.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Greg-

You bring up a good point, but I think the impacts won't be limited to just those resulting from "improving the drainage system", but perhaps (even more significantly) to those resulting from just filling in the flood plain and eliminating the storage areas. Unless the storage areas are delineated as being in a floodway (perhaps Mark could comment on whether his Shaker Heights project involved this), then the local community would have to adopt a "no-net-loss" policy in those areas to avoid losing that flood plain storage.

This is not necessarily an issue just for a SWMM model, but with SWMM, it's a more explicit problem because you are hydraulically modeling the runoff hydrograph, as opposed to (usually) just the peak flows in a HEC-RAS model. Some states have adopted more stringent floodway surcharge requirements, which may help preserve flood plain storage. I know FEMA had kicked around the idea of a "storage floodway" in years past.

Ohio has no real state-level flood plain regulatory authority. I'd like to hear what regulations other states or communities may have adopted regarding accounting for flood plain storage.

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> "Gregory P. Kacvinsky" <Greg.Ka...@CLARK-DIETZ.COM> 6/25/2008 6:25 PM >>>
Mark,

I think your situation brings up an important issue with respect to
floodplain mapping (especially when we're using SWMM to model a
watershed).

When is it appropriate to count system storage (due to flooding in
low-lying areas) for the determination of peak flows for the 1% (100-yr)
event? The pure modeler may say that we must account for this storage
(because it defines the wet weather response), but we could also assume
the municipality will eventually improve their internal drainage system
so as to reduce or eliminate surface (flood) storage. This modeling
decision has a very significant impact on estimated peak flows, thus
impacting flood risk determination.

There doesn't seem to be a universally-accepted methodology for this
situation.

Regards,
Greg

Gregory P. Kacvinsky, P.E.
Clark Dietz - Engineers
217-373-8934

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is available at WWW.JHENG.COM

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:51:50 -0500
From: Gene Rovak <gro...@HORNERSHIFRIN.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Modeling future conditions is a wise thing for planning, and a community may
decide to include the effects of future development (whether that means loss
of storage, increase in imperviousness etc.). But unless there has been a
policy change, FEMA mapping (whether new or LOMR) is to account only for
existing conditions.

Gene

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Gregory P. Kacvinsky
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:25 PM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Mark,

I think your situation brings up an important issue with respect to
floodplain mapping (especially when we're using SWMM to model a
watershed).

There doesn't seem to be a universally-accepted methodology for this
situation.

Regards,
Greg

Gregory P. Kacvinsky, P.E.
Clark Dietz - Engineers
217-373-8934

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Dennis, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:33 PM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I used SWMM 5 for a LOMR in Shaker Heights, Ohio (inner ring suburb of
Cleveland). Many decades ago, a stream which ran through the center of
the City had been enclosed in a large storm sewer. The original FIS was
completed after the storm sewer was constructed. The FIS for the
drainage way was performed by hand by adding flow through the sewer to
overland flow calculated by Manning's equation. The City had recently
hired another consulting firm to restudy the entire watershed in SWMM.
This study was then submitted to FEMA through the LOMR process and
accepted. As part of another project, my company then sized a parallel
sewer using the same SWMM model to lower the 100-year floodplain through
a redevelopment area. I don't know how difficult it was to get the first
SWMM based LOMR approved. The LOMR approval for our project was
relatively straightforward once the FEMA consultant found a reviewer who
had a SWMM background.

To address another issue raised, the original SWMM model (and
accordingly our parallel sewer model) included perhaps a dozen or more
storage nodes which represented above ground storage in street low
points. Due to the terrain, this storage was significant. In fact,
because of the uncertainty of FEMA's response, the other consultant
developed two models (one with and one without above ground storage).
Only the storage model was submitted to FEMA, but at one point we sized
our parallel sewer using both models. The storage model required a 48"
parallel sewer to achieve the desired results whereas the no-storage
model required an 84" system.

Mark R. Dennis, PE

ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
Akron, Ohio

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Mark Boucher
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:33 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I've never hear of SWMM being used for a FIS or LOMR. Has anyone done
this?

Mark Boucher

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Chris Hauser
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:18 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad-

I know that in the case of HEC-RAS, you do not have to (nor should you
necessarily want to) use an older version of the program. However, the
core hydraulic computations in HEC-RAS have changed very little, while
the various routines in SWMM have been tweaked more often.

Have you already tried to duplicate the SWMM results and run into
problems? If so, I would suggest trying to get some guidance from FEMA
or their review engineers at Baker, as they are the ones who will have
the final say in any FIS or FIRM revision requests.

(I'm assuming the original FEMA study was done using SWMM; if it was
done using HEC-RAS, you may have a more difficult time getting FEMA to
approve a different model.)

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM> 6/25/2008 8:44 AM >>>
Thanks Robert,

One question regarding the modified DW routing procedure. In submission
of FIS map modifications, one is require to provide a "duplicate
effective model" producing the same results as the original study. Does
this mean that you would necessarily have to use the specific version
(ie: 9, 11,...) for which the original study was developed?

Bradley S. Vance, PE
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
4100 Center Pointe Drive, Suite 112
Fort Myers, Florida 33916
(p) 239-277-0003 (f) 239-277-1211
(e) bva...@ectinc.com
P Think Green & please print this e-mail only if necessary.

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Robert E Dickinson
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:43 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad,

The SWMM 5 data input files are not backwards compatible with previous
versions of SWMM - you cannot open a file created in v13 with a v11 GUI
without getting messages about Options or features present in v13 but
not present in v11. Not everyone looks at the C code but the new
options are listed in the file enums.h with a version notation:

SKIP_STEADY_STATE, TEMPDIR, IGNORE_RAINFALL, //(5.0.010 - LR)
FORCE_MAIN_EQN, LINK_OFFSETS,
//(5.0.012 - LR)

The good feature about this message is that it tells you what MAY be
different between the two SWMM versions. For example, if you used Link
Offsets in v13 then you will not have a valid model in SWMM 5.0.011.
However, if you are not using a new option in SWMM 5.0.013 then you will
have a valid backwards compatible SWMM 5.0.011 input data set.

Best and Kind Regards,
Robert Edgar Dickinson
MWH Soft Inc.

Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Sent by: SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>
06/18/2008 12:28 PM
Please respond to
SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>

To
SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
cc

Subject
[SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I was running a previous model from ver. 11 in ver. 13 and got
differing flow values at a number of nodes. When trying to re-open in
ver.
11, I got the following error message:

Error Report for File Z:\ENGINEERING
PROJECTS..................DP_South-West-SR80.inp
Unrecognized keyword (LINK_OFFSETS) at line 29:
[OPTION]
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH

Are there any computational issues or otherwise with ver. 13?

Thanks

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use
of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the
sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free
or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is
available at WWW.JHENG.COM

NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property
of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. All rights, including without
limitation copyright, are reserved. The proprietary information
contained in this e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is
intended for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of
this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
you have received this e-mail in error and that any review, distribution
or copying of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message and any files
transmitted. The unauthorized use of this e-mail or any files
transmitted with it is prohibited and disclaimed by ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
and its affiliates.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:38:00 -0400
From: Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Mark, Chris, and Greg,

I have modified an effective study with a different model and you have to re-create the entire study length for that stream with the new model and duplicate the effective results ...... been there - done that - wouldn't volunteer to do it again.

The concern I have with version 13 is that it has modified its "computational procedure(?) in DW" which results in different numbers (elevations more than 1/2 foot lower). Thus, it is not a matter of "tweaking" to get the same results. However, this is not unique in that different models using different storage methods (ie: level pool, etc..) will not yeild the same results. As with HEC-1 and 2, one would run hec-2 thru a range of flows to obtain the overbank storages and then input into hec-1, this is an iterative and time consuming process. This procedure can be further complicated when considering or anticpating an utlimate floodway encroachment condition.

In SW florida, channel and overbank storage is major component of the hydrologic analysis (slopes less than 0.5 feet/mile). Thus, flows directions and magnitude can be more resultant of mass inertia - than gravity. In that regard a "coupled" H &H model such as SWMM offers a major advantage. Anyhow, I was taught that H&H studies should be reasonable, reproducible, and methodology(ies) consistently applied. Therefore, I feel I must use the version that created the original study and cannot upgrade to the most current or future version of SWMM (9, 11 vs 13).

Thanks for your time and consideration.

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of Dennis, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:33 PM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I used SWMM 5 for a LOMR in Shaker Heights, Ohio (inner ring suburb of Cleveland). Many decades ago, a stream which ran through the center of the City had been enclosed in a large storm sewer. The original FIS was completed after the storm sewer was constructed. The FIS for the drainage way was performed by hand by adding flow through the sewer to overland flow calculated by Manning's equation. The City had recently hired another consulting firm to restudy the entire watershed in SWMM. This study was then submitted to FEMA through the LOMR process and accepted. As part of another project, my company then sized a parallel sewer using the same SWMM model to lower the 100-year floodplain through a redevelopment area. I don't know how difficult it was to get the first SWMM based LOMR approved. The LOMR approval for our project was relatively straightforward once the FEMA consultant found a reviewer who had a SWMM background.

To address another issue raised, the original SWMM model (and accordingly our parallel sewer model) included perhaps a dozen or more storage nodes which represented above ground storage in street low points. Due to the terrain, this storage was significant. In fact, because of the uncertainty of FEMA's response, the other consultant developed two models (one with and one without above ground storage). Only the storage model was submitted to FEMA, but at one point we sized our parallel sewer using both models. The storage model required a 48" parallel sewer to achieve the desired results whereas the no-storage model required an 84" system.

Mark R. Dennis, PE

ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
Akron, Ohio

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Boucher
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:33 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I've never hear of SWMM being used for a FIS or LOMR. Has anyone done this?

Mark Boucher

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of Chris Hauser
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:18 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad-

I know that in the case of HEC-RAS, you do not have to (nor should you necessarily want to) use an older version of the program. However, the core hydraulic computations in HEC-RAS have changed very little, while the various routines in SWMM have been tweaked more often.

Have you already tried to duplicate the SWMM results and run into problems? If so, I would suggest trying to get some guidance from FEMA or their review engineers at Baker, as they are the ones who will have the final say in any FIS or FIRM revision requests.

(I'm assuming the original FEMA study was done using SWMM; if it was done using HEC-RAS, you may have a more difficult time getting FEMA to approve a different model.)

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM> 6/25/2008 8:44 AM >>>
Thanks Robert,

One question regarding the modified DW routing procedure. In submission of FIS map modifications, one is require to provide a "duplicate effective model" producing the same results as the original study. Does this mean that you would necessarily have to use the specific version
(ie: 9, 11,...) for which the original study was developed?

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of Robert E Dickinson
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:43 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad,

The SWMM 5 data input files are not backwards compatible with previous versions of SWMM - you cannot open a file created in v13 with a v11 GUI without getting messages about Options or features present in v13 but not present in v11. Not everyone looks at the C code but the new options are listed in the file enums.h with a version notation:

SKIP_STEADY_STATE, TEMPDIR, IGNORE_RAINFALL, //(5.0.010 - LR)
FORCE_MAIN_EQN, LINK_OFFSETS,
//(5.0.012 - LR)

The good feature about this message is that it tells you what MAY be different between the two SWMM versions. For example, if you used Link Offsets in v13 then you will not have a valid model in SWMM 5.0.011.
However, if you are not using a new option in SWMM 5.0.013 then you will have a valid backwards compatible SWMM 5.0.011 input data set.

Best and Kind Regards,
Robert Edgar Dickinson
MWH Soft Inc.

Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Sent by: SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>
06/18/2008 12:28 PM
Please respond to
SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>

To
SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
cc

Subject
[SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I was running a previous model from ver. 11 in ver. 13 and got differing flow values at a number of nodes. When trying to re-open in ver.
11, I got the following error message:

Error Report for File Z:\ENGINEERING
PROJECTS..................DP_South-West-SR80.inp
Unrecognized keyword (LINK_OFFSETS) at line 29:
[OPTION]
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH

Are there any computational issues or otherwise with ver. 13?

Thanks

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is available at WWW.JHENG.COM

NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. All rights, including without limitation copyright, are reserved. The proprietary information contained in this e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is intended for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail in error and that any review, distribution or copying of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message and any files transmitted. The unauthorized use of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is prohibited and disclaimed by ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:01:28 -0600
From: "Dennis, Mark" <Mark....@ARCADIS-US.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Chris and others,

To my recollection, the revised flood mapping did not include a delineated floodway, because the original FIS did not include a floodway delineation. I am not 100% sure of this, because the other consultant performed this work. I know that our LOMR which lowered the flood elevations for the development did not include a floodway delineation. I know that the City was planning on limiting development in the newly defined floodplain. Whether they were adopting a 'no-net-loss' of storage policy is a good question. Because the City (and for that matter the floodplain) is completely developed, substantial filling in the floodplain would probably be unusual. However, with another significant redevelopment project, this is something that should be considered.

Mark R. Dennis, PE
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
Akron, Ohio

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of Chris Hauser
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:44 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Greg-

Ohio has no real state-level flood plain regulatory authority. I'd like to hear what regulations other states or communities may have adopted regarding accounting for flood plain storage.

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> "Gregory P. Kacvinsky" <Greg.Ka...@CLARK-DIETZ.COM> 6/25/2008 6:25 PM >>>
Mark,

I think your situation brings up an important issue with respect to
floodplain mapping (especially when we're using SWMM to model a
watershed).

There doesn't seem to be a universally-accepted methodology for this
situation.

Regards,
Greg

Gregory P. Kacvinsky, P.E.
Clark Dietz - Engineers
217-373-8934

NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. All rights, including without limitation copyright, are reserved. The proprietary information contained in this e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is intended for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail in error and that any review, distribution or copying of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message and any files transmitted. The unauthorized use of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is prohibited and disclaimed by ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:31:50 -0500
From: Yingjian Han <yh...@HNTB.COM>
Subject: Re: Input of Bridge into SWMM 5

I have not modeled a bridge in SWMM. A quick solution as far as I can tell may be to model the bridge in HEC-RAS to get a rating curve and then bring back this rating curve in SWMM.

Yingjian Han
HNTB

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of Marc Massey
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:58 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: [SWMM-USERS] Input of Bridge into SWMM 5

All,
I am new to the SWMM program. I have a project that lies within a watershed that has been modeled in SWMM 44h. I have converted and combined the extran and runoff models to SWMM 5 and have a working model that I would like to use as a base for the improvements. However, there is a bridge that was not converted into SWMM 5. What is the suggested method for adding this bridge to the SWMM 5 model, since a bridge is not a link option? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Marc Massey, E.I. (AL)

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
marc....@kimley-horn.com<mailto:marc....@kimley-horn.com>
www.kimley-horn.com<http://www.kimley-horn.com/>

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:29:15 -0500
From: John Holmes <jho...@ALLSTATECONSULTANTS.NET>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

This has been an interesting thread and it reminds me that I've long
thought there should be a discussion forum for engineers submitting
LOMRs, LOMAs, etc to discuss approaches for getting FEMA buy in. I've
used the email ask the expert from FEMA's website and been burned by an
expert that didn't interpret the rules the same way as the reviewers.
So, I think it would be beneficial to have a place to swap stories and
get a broader view of how rules might be interpreted. Obviously that is
not the intent of this forum and I apologize for posting somewhat off
topic, but I've been searching high and low for such a forum and had
given up until this thread reminded me. So, do any of you know of such
a forum? I'd start one myself but I don't know how I would get enough
members to achieve the critical mass necessary to sustain it, let alone
get it any where near the quality of this forum.

Chris, I am not aware of any specific floodplain storage requirements in
Missouri.

John Holmes, P.E., C.F.M.
Allstate Consultants, LLC
3312 LeMone Industrial Blvd.
Columbia, MO 65201

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Dennis, Mark
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:01 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Chris and others,

To my recollection, the revised flood mapping did not include a
delineated floodway, because the original FIS did not include a floodway
delineation. I am not 100% sure of this, because the other consultant
performed this work. I know that our LOMR which lowered the flood
elevations for the development did not include a floodway delineation. I
know that the City was planning on limiting development in the newly
defined floodplain. Whether they were adopting a 'no-net-loss' of
storage policy is a good question. Because the City (and for that matter
the floodplain) is completely developed, substantial filling in the
floodplain would probably be unusual. However, with another significant
redevelopment project, this is something that should be considered.

Mark R. Dennis, PE
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
Akron, Ohio

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Chris Hauser
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:44 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Greg-

You bring up a good point, but I think the impacts won't be limited to
just those resulting from "improving the drainage system", but perhaps
(even more significantly) to those resulting from just filling in the
flood plain and eliminating the storage areas. Unless the storage areas
are delineated as being in a floodway (perhaps Mark could comment on
whether his Shaker Heights project involved this), then the local
community would have to adopt a "no-net-loss" policy in those areas to
avoid losing that flood plain storage.

This is not necessarily an issue just for a SWMM model, but with SWMM,
it's a more explicit problem because you are hydraulically modeling the
runoff hydrograph, as opposed to (usually) just the peak flows in a
HEC-RAS model. Some states have adopted more stringent floodway
surcharge requirements, which may help preserve flood plain storage. I
know FEMA had kicked around the idea of a "storage floodway" in years
past.

Ohio has no real state-level flood plain regulatory authority. I'd like
to hear what regulations other states or communities may have adopted
regarding accounting for flood plain storage.

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> "Gregory P. Kacvinsky" <Greg.Ka...@CLARK-DIETZ.COM> 6/25/2008
6:25 PM >>>
Mark,

I think your situation brings up an important issue with respect to
floodplain mapping (especially when we're using SWMM to model a
watershed).

There doesn't seem to be a universally-accepted methodology for this
situation.

Regards,
Greg

Gregory P. Kacvinsky, P.E.
Clark Dietz - Engineers
217-373-8934

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use
of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the
sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free
or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is
available at WWW.JHENG.COM

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:08:51 -0500
From: Gene Rovak <gro...@HORNERSHIFRIN.COM>
Subject: Re: Input of Bridge into SWMM 5

Just remember that with a rating curve you are giving up the capabilities of
backwater effects, particularly if two-way flow is a possibility. If the
superstructure doesn't get involved, consider modeling it as a transect (or
a few closely spaced transects).
Alternately, of you elect to use HEC-RAS, you might just keep it in HEC-RAS,
using the unsteady flow capabilities.

Gene

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Yingjian Han
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:32 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] Input of Bridge into SWMM 5

I have not modeled a bridge in SWMM. A quick solution as far as I can tell
may be to model the bridge in HEC-RAS to get a rating curve and then bring
back this rating curve in SWMM.

Yingjian Han
HNTB

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of Marc
Massey
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:58 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: [SWMM-USERS] Input of Bridge into SWMM 5

All,
I am new to the SWMM program. I have a project that lies within a watershed
that has been modeled in SWMM 44h. I have converted and combined the extran
and runoff models to SWMM 5 and have a working model that I would like to
use as a base for the improvements. However, there is a bridge that was not
converted into SWMM 5. What is the suggested method for adding this bridge
to the SWMM 5 model, since a bridge is not a link option? Any help would be
greatly appreciated.

Marc Massey, E.I. (AL)

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
marc....@kimley-horn.com<mailto:marc....@kimley-horn.com>
www.kimley-horn.com<http://www.kimley-horn.com/>

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible
for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you
have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:13:38 -0700
From: Neil Jordan <NJo...@EXPONENT.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

FEMA's web site has a procedure for floodway analysis using SWMM. I
have appended the text version below, between the === lines.

Neil M. Jordan, P.E.

======================================================================
Floodway Analysis for SWMM Models

This document explains the procedures to follow in performing a floodway
analysis in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's SWMM model.

Floodway analyses in unsteady flow models, such as SWMM, can consider
the loss of floodplain storage and the loss of conveyance, while steady
flow models can consider only the loss of conveyance in computing
floodways. However, unsteady flow programs do not have an option to
determine floodways automatically to account for the loss of floodplain
storage and conveyance. Therefore, the encroachment stations for the
floodway must be determined first from a steady flow model, such as
HEC-2, using the equal conveyance reduction method. The computed
encroachment stations will then be inserted into the unsteady flow model
to compute the water-surface elevations for the floodway analysis to
account for the loss of floodplain storage.

The following procedures should be followed in computing floodways for
the SWMM model. This procedure assumes that the floodplain areas beyond
the encroachment stations will be completely filled.

Data for natural cross sections

The data for the natural cross sections are specified by C2, C3, and C4
records (SWMM format) or NC, X1, and GR records (HEC-2 format). The
natural (irregular) cross section is coded as 8 as the type of conduit
shape on the C1 record of the SWMM model. The HEC-2 format is
recommended when specifying data for the natural cross sections in the
SWMM model.

The NC record specifies left overbank n-value, right overbank n-value,
and channel n-value. The X1 record specifies cross section
identification number (same as the conduit number on the C1 record),
total number of ground stations on the following GR data lines, left
bank station, right bank station, length of channel reach represented by
this cross section, factor to modify the ground stations, and constant
to be added (+ or -) to ground elevation data. The GR record specifies
the elevation and station of the ground points. The user should refer
to the SWMM user's manuals for the detail explanation of the variables
on these records.

Maximum computed flow (discharge) and corresponding water-surface
elevation

The maximum computed flow at the cross sections (conduits) and the
corresponding time of occurrence is obtained from the Conduit Summary
Statistics Table for the 1% annual chance flood. The SWMM output data
also include water-surface elevations at the junctions and flows at the
conduits for user-specified time intervals. The corresponding
water-surface elevation at the time of occurrence of maximum computed
discharge at a junction is obtained from the output data. The exact
time of occurrence of the maximum computed flow at a conduit may not
match the user-defined time interval. In that case the water-surface
elevation at a junction should be obtained from the user-defined time
intervals before and after the time of maximum discharge occurrence. A
conduit in SWMM model is bounded by two junctions.

The water-surface elevation at the upstream junction and the flow at the
conduit (cross section) should be used for the floodway analysis. The
maximum computed flow at a conduit obtained from the Conduit Summary
Statistics Table should be verified with the flow at the same conduit in
the output data for the user-specified time interval.

Creation of steady flow file

The HEC-2 cross section data from the SWMM model are then copied to
create a separate HEC-2 file. The user should refer to the HEC-2 user's
manual for a detailed explanation of each record. The combination of
QT, ET, and X5 records provide encroachment stations at each cross
section based on the equal conveyance reduction principle for different
target surcharge values. The maximum computed discharges from SWMM
output data are specified on QT records for each cross section. The
equal conveyance reduction method is specified on ET record with
different target surcharge values. The X5 record specifies the 1%
annual chance water-surface elevation for the unencroached profile and
the floodway water-surface elevations for the encroached profiles. The
floodway water-surface elevation is obtained by adding the target
surcharge value to the 1% annual chance water-surface elevation. The
HEC-2 program will not compute the backwater analysis if the
water-surface elevations are specified on the X5 record. The HEC-2
program will determine the floodway encroachment stations for the
specified floodway water-surface elevations.

The following steps should be followed to modify the HEC-2 file thus
created to compute encroachment stations based on the equal conveyance
reduction method.

Insert T1, T2, T3, J1, J2, and J3 records.
T1, T2, T3 are the title records.
Specify 2 in field 2 of the J1 record. Specify 0 in field 5 of the J1
record. In field 9 of the J1 record, specify the 1% annual chance
water-surface elevation at the upstream junction of the first cross
section (conduit) obtained from the SWMM output data. The number of the
first cross section (conduit) is specified in the first field of the
first X1 record.
Specify 1 in field 1 of the J2 record. Specify -1 in field 3 of the J2
record.
Specify 110, 115, and 200 in fields 1, 2, and 3 of the J3 record to
obtain encroachment data in summary output tables 110, 115 and 200.

Insert QT record before every X1 record.
Specify the number of profiles to be analyzed in field 1 of the QT
record. The number of profiles is equal to the number of floodway
profiles for different target surcharge values to be considered plus one
for the unencroached profile of the 1% annual chance flood. For
example, if 5 different target surcharge values are to be considered,
the number of profiles will be equal to 6 (1 unencroached profile plus 5
target surcharge profiles).
Specify the maximum computed flow (discharge) obtained from the SWMM
output data at the conduit for the unencroached and floodway profiles.
For this example, the maximum computed discharge will be specified on
fields 2 through 7 of the QT record.

Insert ET record before the first X1 record.
Only one ET record is required before the first X1 record for the equal
conveyance reduction method. Encroachment Method 4 is the equal
conveyance reduction method in HEC-2. Specify different target
surcharge values and the encroachment method starting from field 3 of
the ET record. For example, for a target surcharge value of 1 foot, the
number 10.4 is specified in field 3 of the ET record. If additional
target surcharge values of 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, and 0.2 are to be considered,
the numbers 8.4, 6.4, 4.4, and 2.4 are specified in fields 4, 5, 6, and
7 of the ET record, respectively.

Insert X5 record after every X1 record.
The X5 record is used in HEC-2 to specify the known water-surface
elevation. HEC-2 will use this elevation to compute the floodway
encroachment stations, and the backwater analysis will not be performed
at this cross section. Specify the number of profiles to be analyzed in
field 1 of the X5 record. Specify the 1% annual chance water-surface
elevation at the junction upstream of the conduit (specified in field 1
of the X1 record) in field 2 of the X5 record. Specify the floodway
water-surface elevations starting from field 3. The floodway
water-surface elevation is obtained by adding the target surcharge value
on the ET record to the 1% annual chance water-surface elevation in
field 2 of the X5 record.

Insert EJ record after the last GR record.

Insert the group of T1, T2, T3, J1, and J2 records for each target
surcharge value specified on the ET record. For example, if five
different target surcharge values are specified, five groups of T1, T2,
T3, J1, and J2 records must be inserted.

Insert ER record.

Save the newly created HEC-2 file and run the HEC-2 program.

Obtain one set of encroachment stations for a selected target surcharge
value at each cross section from Table 110 of the HEC-2 output file.

Floodway analysis

The following procedure should be followed to analyze the floodway in
the SWMM model.

Modify the SWMM file by deleting the ground stations beyond the selected
encroachment stations and inserting the selected encroachment stations
at each cross section. The weir length for the road profiles and weirs
must be shortened based on the width between the selected encroachment
stations at the cross sections bounding the road or the weir. The other
conduit shapes that are considered between the natural cross sections
should also be modified based on the encroachment stations at the
natural cross sections, if necessary. Save the SWMM file for the
floodway analysis and run the SWMM (EXTRAN) program.

The maximum computed flow at the cross sections (conduits) and the
corresponding time of occurrence for the floodway analysis is obtained
from the Conduit Summary Statistics Table for
the floodway run. The corresponding water-surface elevation at the same
time of occurrence of maximum computed discharge at the upstream
junction for each conduit (cross section) is obtained from the output
data.

Create a table for junctions and the water-surface elevations for the
unencroached run and the floodway run. The difference in water-surface
elevations will provide the surcharge value. If the surcharge value is
more than the allowable value at any cross section, a new set of
encroachment stations from the HEC-2 run must be used to modify the
cross section in the SWMM input file and the new floodway run must be
conducted. This procedure should be followed until all the surcharge
values are no more than the allowable value.
======================================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
John Holmes
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:29 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Chris, I am not aware of any specific floodplain storage requirements in
Missouri.

John Holmes, P.E., C.F.M.
Allstate Consultants, LLC
3312 LeMone Industrial Blvd.
Columbia, MO 65201

Chris and others,

To my recollection, the revised flood mapping did not include a
delineated floodway, because the original FIS did not include a floodway
delineation. I am not 100% sure of this, because the other consultant
performed this work. I know that our LOMR which lowered the flood
elevations for the development did not include a floodway delineation. I
know that the City was planning on limiting development in the newly
defined floodplain. Whether they were adopting a 'no-net-loss' of
storage policy is a good question. Because the City (and for that matter
the floodplain) is completely developed, substantial filling in the
floodplain would probably be unusual. However, with another significant
redevelopment project, this is something that should be considered.

Mark R. Dennis, PE
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
Akron, Ohio

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Chris Hauser
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:44 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Greg-

You bring up a good point, but I think the impacts won't be limited to
just those resulting from "improving the drainage system", but perhaps
(even more significantly) to those resulting from just filling in the
flood plain and eliminating the storage areas. Unless the storage areas
are delineated as being in a floodway (perhaps Mark could comment on
whether his Shaker Heights project involved this), then the local
community would have to adopt a "no-net-loss" policy in those areas to
avoid losing that flood plain storage.

This is not necessarily an issue just for a SWMM model, but with SWMM,
it's a more explicit problem because you are hydraulically modeling the
runoff hydrograph, as opposed to (usually) just the peak flows in a
HEC-RAS model. Some states have adopted more stringent floodway
surcharge requirements, which may help preserve flood plain storage. I
know FEMA had kicked around the idea of a "storage floodway" in years
past.

Ohio has no real state-level flood plain regulatory authority. I'd like
to hear what regulations other states or communities may have adopted
regarding accounting for flood plain storage.

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> "Gregory P. Kacvinsky" <Greg.Ka...@CLARK-DIETZ.COM> 6/25/2008
6:25 PM >>>
Mark,

I think your situation brings up an important issue with respect to
floodplain mapping (especially when we're using SWMM to model a
watershed).

There doesn't seem to be a universally-accepted methodology for this
situation.

Regards,
Greg

Gregory P. Kacvinsky, P.E.
Clark Dietz - Engineers
217-373-8934

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use
of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the
sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free
or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is
available at WWW.JHENG.COM

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:19:45 -0700
From: Mark Boucher <mb...@PW.CCCOUNTY.US>
Subject: Re: Input of Bridge into SWMM 5

At a recent symposium at UC Davis, in Davis, CA where HEC resides, I got reacquainted with one of the developers/trainers of HEC. I mentioned that there are at least two federal agencies (US Army Corps, and EPA) doing excellent hydrologic modeling work. He said HEC is putting pollutants in HEC-HMS and sediment transport in HEC-RAS. I commented on how SWMM does pollutants and asked if the two agencies talk and share code. He did not know, thought he was traveling in the near future to talk to others back east. He thought it was a good idea and could to save taxpayer money etc.

It would be great to have cross compatibility between the models: bridges and inlet control in SWMM; pipe systems in HEC-RAS, etc. It seems that FEMA and the Corps could work together to share approaches and code for things like bridges, inlet control on pipes, pollutants, etc. Chances are, they've already thought of this or are already working together.

Mark Boucher, PE
Senior Hydrologist
Contra Costa County Flood Control
& Water Conservation District.
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94521
(925) 313-2274 (FAX) 313-2333

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:36:20 -0500
From: "Gregory P. Kacvinsky" <Greg.Ka...@CLARK-DIETZ.COM>
Subject: Re: Input of Bridge into SWMM 5

Modeling bridges in SWMM is not quite as straightforward as it is in
HEC-RAS, but the hydraulics can be duplicated. We've done this by way
by selecting a "User Defined Channel" through which you can define (for
each unit of depth) area, wetted perimeter, and surface width. This
works well, especially when you have a multi-span bridge with sloping
abutments.

I'm not aware of exactly how one would model piers (columns) in SWMM...I
suppose you could add the piers as additional wetted perimeter for your
User Defined Channel. Or use a multi-link to set a User Defined Channel
for the areas defined by each bridge span (i.e areas between column
lines).

We've used this method in XP-SWMM and compared the results with HEC-RAS
output. Generally, we get results that closely match HEC-RAS, provided
that we add links immediately upstream and downstream of the bridge link
to model the expansion/contraction effects...and don't forget to modify
the conduit factors for the links immediately upstream/downstream of
your bridges to increase expansion/contraction coefficients and any
entrance/exit loss coefficients. When all this is done, you get a model
that's closer to resembling a HEC-RAS bridge model.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Greg

Gregory P. Kacvinsky, P.E.
Clark Dietz - Engineers
217-373-8934

I have not modeled a bridge in SWMM. A quick solution as far as I can
tell may be to model the bridge in HEC-RAS to get a rating curve and
then bring back this rating curve in SWMM.

Yingjian Han
HNTB

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Marc Massey
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:58 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: [SWMM-USERS] Input of Bridge into SWMM 5

All,
I am new to the SWMM program. I have a project that lies within a
watershed that has been modeled in SWMM 44h. I have converted and
combined the extran and runoff models to SWMM 5 and have a working model
that I would like to use as a base for the improvements. However, there
is a bridge that was not converted into SWMM 5. What is the suggested
method for adding this bridge to the SWMM 5 model, since a bridge is
not a link option? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Marc Massey, E.I. (AL)

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
marc....@kimley-horn.com<mailto:marc....@kimley-horn.com>
www.kimley-horn.com<http://www.kimley-horn.com/>

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person
responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is strictly
prohibited.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:28:29 -0400
From: Mauricio Herrera <Mauricio...@CH2M.COM>
Subject: RTK questions

Hi,
I have a couple of questions regarding RTK in SWMM5:

1. When simulating various months, how does the program deal with the
initial abstraction (maximum depth)when going from one month to the
next. Does it initilize the abstraction capacity as specified in the
parameters for that month, or does it carry a water balance from month
to month?

2. When projecting flows using design storms, how to deal with storm
durations that are different to the ones used in the calibration. Should
I modify my RTK parameters? if so, how to do it?

Thank you, any guidance is greatly appreciated

Regards,

Mauricio Herrera
CH2M HILL
Metrotower II, Suite 2100
4720 Kingsway
Burnaby, BC V5H 4N2
Tel: 604.684.3282
Fax: 604.684.3292
Direct: 604.439.2354

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:42:12 -0400
From: Tom Walski <Tom.W...@BENTLEY.COM>
Subject: Re: RTK questions

#1 is the primary shortcomings of the RTK method. R, T and K are
calibrated parameters and in particular R and T can vary with antecedent
moisture conditions. There were a couple of good talks at the WEF
Collection system conference this year that touched on this subject.

I would not be concerned with #2 so much, as part of the beauty of unit
hydrograph methods is that they can be extrapolated (within reason) to
storms of different duration, especially once you get past the impacts
of the antecedent moisture conditions.

Tom Walski

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Mauricio Herrera
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:28 PM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: [SWMM-USERS] RTK questions

Hi,
I have a couple of questions regarding RTK in SWMM5:

2. When projecting flows using design storms, how to deal with storm
durations that are different to the ones used in the calibration. Should
I modify my RTK parameters? if so, how to do it?

Thank you, any guidance is greatly appreciated

Regards,

Mauricio Herrera
CH2M HILL
Metrotower II, Suite 2100
4720 Kingsway
Burnaby, BC V5H 4N2
Tel: 604.684.3282
Fax: 604.684.3292
Direct: 604.439.2354

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:08:41 -0400
From: Robert E Dickinson <Robert.E....@US.MWHGLOBAL.COM>
Subject: Re: RTK questions

Hi Mauricio,

Good question:

This would be better answered with a plot of the initial abstraction over
time in SWMM 5 but the program cleverly adjusts the amount of ia as a
function of time and by month. So the initial abstraction is recovered
over time and changes as the simulated month changes during the
simulation. In code speak this is done in rdii.c in the following lines:

// --- recover a portion of the IA already used
UHData[j].iaUsed -= dt / 86400. * UnitHyd[j].ia[m][IA_REC];
// --- determine amount of unused IA
m = datetime_monthOfYear(aDate) - 1;
ia = UnitHyd[j].ia[m][IA_MAX] - UHData[j].iaUsed;
ia = MAX(ia, 0.0);

Best and Kind Regards,
Robert Edgar Dickinson
MWH Soft Inc.

Tom Walski <Tom.W...@BENTLEY.COM>
Sent by: SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>
06/26/2008 09:42 PM
Please respond to
SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>

To
SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
cc

Subject
Re: [SWMM-USERS] RTK questions

Tom Walski

Hi,
I have a couple of questions regarding RTK in SWMM5:

2. When projecting flows using design storms, how to deal with storm
durations that are different to the ones used in the calibration. Should
I modify my RTK parameters? if so, how to do it?

Thank you, any guidance is greatly appreciated

Regards,

Mauricio Herrera
CH2M HILL
Metrotower II, Suite 2100
4720 Kingsway
Burnaby, BC V5H 4N2
Tel: 604.684.3282
Fax: 604.684.3292
Direct: 604.439.2354

------------------------------

End of SWMM-USERS Digest - 25 Jun 2008 to 26 Jun 2008 (#2008-115)
*****************************************************************

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages