The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage ReportEngineering and Drainage Report for Scott and White Memorial Hospital College Station Subdivision Improvements and Site Plan Prepared For: Scott and White Memorial 2400 South 3 1 " Street Temple, TX 76508 Prepared By: JACOBS 2705 Bee Caves Road, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78746 TBPE Registration # 2966 JOEL R. BOCK �'. 98441 Q Jacobs Protect No. F8W96852 ��\\i�� ; LAF81V96852 SC07T AND WHITE CS\rHIV96852\600 Discipline ftesom'ee Oiles\610.01 0WAReponADivinage Sludy.dac A-01V Engineering and Dainage Reporl Scan d While Memorial Hospital College Station Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................3 LandUse.........................................................................................................................................3 Soils.................................................................................................................................................3 Floodplain.......................................................................................................................................3 ExistingDrainage...........................................................................................................................3 Proposed Drainage.........................................................................................................................4 HydrologicModeling......................................................................................................................4 WaterQuality and Detention..........................................................................................................4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control and Tree Protection.............................................................5 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................5 Appendix Appendix A — Location Map...........................................................................................................8 AppendixB— Technical Design Summary...................................................................................10 Appendix C — Soil Survey Map.....................................................................................................23 Appendix D — FEMA Firm Panel................................................................................................27 Appendix E — Existing Drainage Area Map................................................................................29 AppendixF — Proposed Drainage Area Map..............................................................................31 Appendix G — HEC-HMS Hydrologic Model..............................................................................33 AppendixH — Wet Pond Hydrograph..........................................................................................34 AppendixI — Detention Pond Hydrograph..................................................................................39 Appendix J— Existing Conditions HEC-HMS Results...............................................................40 Appendix K — Proposed Conditions HEC-HMS Results .............................................................41 - 2 - April 2011 Cngineerhlg and Drainage Repo,'t Scoll & While Wiwi 01 Ho.spilal College Station Introduction The Scott and White College Station Memorial Hospital project is a commercial subdivision 9 lots which will include a 143-bed acute care hospital and a 150,000 s.f. clinic, located at the southeast corner of Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road in College Station, Texas. The project is situated within the City of Austin's Full Propose Jurisdiction. A site location map has been included in this report as Appendix A. Land Use The 97.9 acres subdivision is comprised of seven (9) Lots as follows: Lot Use Acreage (ac) Lot 1 Block 1 143 Bed Hospital 37.12 Lot 1 Block 2 Future Development 7.16 Lot 1 Block 3 Future Development 5.35 Lot 1 Block 4 Future Development 15.01 Lot 1 Block 5 Undeveloped 0.69 Lot 1 Block 6 Undeveloped 2.57 Lot 1 Block 7 Undeveloped 1.09 Lot 2 Block 1 Future Development 7.82 Lot 3 Block 1 Future Development 10.86 Right of Way Proposed R.O.W. 10.23 97.9 acres Table 1: Land Use Table Soils The soils on the property consist of Bonville Fine Sandy Loam (BoA) with a 0 to 1 percent slope and Tabor -Urban Land Complex (TuA) with a 0-2 percent slope, which are both classified as D soils. A soils map and report is provided in this report as Appendix C. Floodplain No portion of the site is situated within the FEMA 100-yr floodplain as shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 48041CO201D dated February 9, 2000 for Brazos County, Texas. A copy of the FEMA floodplain map has been included in this report as Appendix D. Existing Drainage The proposed development is located entirely within the Lick Creek Watershed. Under existing conditions, the site is primarily undeveloped and consists of moderately to gently sloping grasslands and agricultural land. A portion of Rock Prairie Road as well as a portion of the The Stonebrook Subdivision drains through the site. An Existing Conditions Drainage Area Map is included in this report as Appendix C. -3- Engineering and Drahmge Report Scott & White Memorial lloyital College Sialion In -situ soils characteristically have slow infiltration rates and relatively high runoff potential, per the soil survey of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Previous drainage studies and models have been obtained from the City of College Station and have been referenced as a basis for analysis. Although Jacobs prepared design survey on the 97.7 acre tract, the existing drainage basins are delineated based on the City of College Stations two -foot contour LIDAR topographic survey do to a larger area this data represented. Proposed Drainage Runoff from the proposed project site will be conveyed through a storm system of shallow channels, area inlets, street gutters, street inlets, and storm drain pipes, and into two separate ponds, a Wet Pond and a Detention Pond. As per the approved Planned Development District (PDD) Lot I Block 1 requires water quality treatment, Wet Pond has been designed to treat and detain runoff from this lot. The Wet Pond is also designed to detain the existing runoff from Lot 2 Block 1, Lot 3 Block land Lot 3 Block 1, a significant portion of the proposed Medical Avenue right of way, as well as the portion of Rock Prairie Road and Stonebrook Subdivision that drains through the site. Runoff from Lot 1 Block 2, 3, and 4 as well as Scott and White Drive, Healing Way and Lakeway Drive Right of Way will be detained by a detention pond located at the Southeast corner of Lot 1 Block 4. Both the Wet Pond and Detention pond will ensure that flood stages downstream of the developed site will not exceed those of existing conditions, in accordance with City of College Station Code. An Existing Conditions Drainage Area Map is included in this report as Appendix F. Hydrologic Modeling This site was analyzed using US Army Corps of Engineers HEC-HMS software. This software utilizes the HEC-1 methodology for its computations. Two separate hydrologic models were developed for this site. One represents the site's existing conditions to establish the current runoff rates for the site. The second represents the fully developed conditions of the site. The SCS type III 24-hour storm distribution was used as the model storm. The HEC-HMS model is included in this report as Appendix G. Once both the existing and ultimate hydrologic models were completed in HMS, Hydraflow was utilized to calculate the estimated storage sizes required in order to develop the site with no change in flood stages from the existing conditions. Impervious cover calculations were calculated using the road way plans from the subdivision improvement plans and the proposed hospital site plan. These impervious percentages were then used to calculate composite developed CN numbers. Based on the size of the basin and the developed CN numbers, the ponds were able to be designed. Water Quality and Detention As previously mentioned, Water Quality treatment and detention for Lot 1 Block 1, will be provided via a Wet Pond located on Lot 1 Block 1. Subject to City of College Stations review and approval, this facility was designed to use physical and biological treatment mechanisms to remove urban stormwater pollutants prior to discharging the treated runoff downstream. This wet pond has been sized to detain the 2, 10, 25, and 100-year storm events. A 4 sided outlet structure -4- Engineering and Divinage 2epmq Scot( & White Memorial Hospital College Station tied into a storm system will convey the detained runoff to the southeast portion of the site, where it will continue downstream to Lick Creek. p The Detention Pond has been sized to treat existing runoff from Lot 1 Block 2, 3, and 4 as well as Scott and White Drive, Healing Way and Lakeway Drive Right of way. The pond has been designed to detain the 2, 10, 25, and 100 year storm events. The pond outlets at the southeast portion of the site. They Hydrographs for the Wet Pond and Detention Pond are included in this report as Appendix H and I respectively. Erosion and Sedimentation Control and Tree Protection Erosion and sedimentation controls (ESC) will be utilized during construction. Prior to the start of any construction activity all ESC and tree protection must be installed. The placement of ESC and tree protection must be in accordance to the with the ESC plan and stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) provided in the Subdivision Improvement Plans and the Site Plan Construction Documents. Conclusion Upon Analysis of the existing and ultimate basins the wet pond and detention pond yielded adequate capacity for the increased runoff generated from the proposed development. Results for the wet pond and detention pond can be found below: Wet Pond Peak Outflow (cfs) Water Surface Elevation (ft) Peak Storage (ac-ft) 2 - Year 49 283.9 10.8 10 - Year 134.3 285.7 14.1 25 - Year 165.3 286.2 15.2 100- Year 249.5 287.5 17.7 Detention Pond Peak Outflow (cfs) Water Surface Elevation (ft) Peak Storage (ac-ft) 2 - Year 67.2 279.6 2.1 10 - Year 153.5 280.3 3.1 25 - Year 184.1 281.1 3.4 100- Year 265.3 281.7 3.9 April Eagineefing and Dfainage Repo,'I Scoll 8 Whire memorial Hospital College Stalion As a result of our detention pond, the ultimate flows are reduced at Analysis Point 1 as shown in the table below. Anaysis Point 1 Existing (cfs) Ultimate (cfs) %Reduction 2 - Year 203.1 109.8 45.94% 10 - Year 450.1 275.1 38.88% 25 - Year 538.5 338.8 37.08% 100- Year 771.8 504.9 34.58% At offsite Analysis Pont -1 there are no reductions in flows since there is no increased impervious cover in the right of way. Any impervious cover associated with the development of the driveways on 1 WY 6 will be drained to the subdivisions drainage infrastructure. The HEC- HMS results at Offsite Analysis Point 1 are shown in the table below: Offsite Analysis Point - 1 Existing (cfs) Ultimate (cfs) % Reduction 2 - Year 22.2 22.2 0.00% 10 - Year 37.5 37.5 0.00 0 25 - Year 42.9 42.9 0.00% 100- Year 56.8 56.8 0.00% -6- Engineering and Drainage Repoli Scoll & While Afemorial Hospital College Station At offsite Analysis Pont -2 there are reductions in flows since there is drainage area draining to the point in the ultimate conditions was reduced, since it is being conveyed to the subdivisions drainage infrastructure. The HEC-HMS results at Offsite Analysis Point 2 are shown in the table f below: Offsite Analysis Point - 2 Existing (cfs) Ultimate (cfs) �a Reduction 2 - Year 21.7 16.9 22.12% 10 - Year 43.3 36.5 15.70% 25 - Year 51.9 43.5 16.1 S% 100- Year 71.4 61.9 13.31% As you can see by results and as well as the supplemental information included in the Appendices, the runoff generated with the proposed development is reduced from the existing conditions. Therefore no adverse effects will be made on Lick Creek or any other development downstream of the Hospital. I hereby certify that the Subdivision Improvement Plans and the Site Development Construction Documents have been designed to meet the City of College Station Unified Design Guidelines. 1 7 - April 2011 Engineering and Drain age Report Scoll & Nthite Memorial Hospital College Station Appendix A — Location Map mIN Engineering anADntiimge Report Scott & White Memorial Hospital College Station - 9 - April 2011 ,nook Figure 1: Project Location Map LJ \BX�an Project Location t CeolA e e tation N 0 1 2 4 6 8 Wes SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 — Project Administration Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction Jacobs Engineering City: Bryan 2705 Bee Cave Road X Suite 300 College Station Austin, Texas, 78745 Date of Submittal: 3-9-11 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact Info.(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: Joel Bock, P.E. (512-314-3100, Joel.Bock@jacobs.com, 512-314-3135) Supporting Engineering / Consulting Firm(s): N/A 7Othetacts: Developer / Owner I Applicant Information Developer / Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail: Scott and White Healtcare John Cunningham 2400 South 31st Street 254-724-6084 Temple, Texas 76508 Property Owner(s) if not Developer / Applicant (& address): Phone and _e-mail: Project Identification Development Name: Scott and White Healthcare Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision, or part of a multi -phase subdivision? Single Phase Subdivision If multi -phase, subject property is phase of Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II, Paragraph B-3a) 97.69 acre tract in the Thomas Caruthers League Abstract Number 9, and the Robert Stevenson League Abstract Number 54 in Brazos County, Texas. If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, describe general status of all earlier phases. For most recent earlier phase Include submittal and review dates. N/A General Location of Project Area, or subject property (phase): Northeast Corner of Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road in College Station, Brazos County, Texas. In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan: acres. Bryan: College Station: College Station: 97.69 acres. Acreage Outside ETJ: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 — Project Administration Continued (page 2.2) Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land, or built subject property: developments: Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s): Lick Creek Watershed Brazos River Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File #: Final Plat File #: Date: Scott & white Healthcare Name: Subdivision Status and Vol/Pg: If two plats, second name: File #: Status: Date: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Zoning Type: PDD Existing or Proposed? Case Code: Case Date Status: Approved Zoning Type: Existing or Proposed? Case Code: Case Date Status: Stormwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Planning Conference(s) & Date(s): Participants: Not Applicable Preliminary Report Required? No Submittal Date Review Date Review Comments Addressed? Yes _ No No In Writing? When? Compliance With Preliminary Drainage Report. Briefly describe (or attach documentation explaining) any deviation(s) from provisions of Preliminary Drainage Report, if any. Not Applicable STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 4 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 — Project Administration Continued (page 2.3) Coordination For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Note: For any Coordination of stormwater matters indicated below, attach documentation describing and substantiating any agreements, understandings, contracts, or approvals. Coordination Dept. Contact: Date: Subject: With Other Departments of Jurisdiction City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non -jurisdiction City Needed? Yes No X Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes _ No X Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Coordination with TxDOT was need to obtain driveway permits off of Highway 6. Yes X No Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TAMUS Needed? Yes No X Permits For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) As to stormwater management, are permits required for the proposed work from any of the entities listed below? If so, summarize status of efforts toward that objective ins aces below. Entity Permitted or Approved ? Status of Actions (include dates) US Army Crops of Engineers Engineers Corps letter to Scott and White due by No Yes X the end of March US Environmental Protection Agency No X Yes Texas Commission on Environmental Quality No X Yes Brazos River Authority No X Yes STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 5 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY -- Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 — Property Characteristics Start (Page 3.1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing: Land proposed for development currently used, including extent of impervious cover? Undeveloped Approximately 2% I.C. Redevelopment of one platted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots. Site Development X Building on a single platted lot of undeveloped land. Project Building on two or more platted adjoining lots of undeveloped land. (select all Building on a single lot, or adjoining lots, where proposed plat will not form applicable) a new street (but may include ROW dedication to existing streets). Other (explain): Subdivision X Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more platted lots. Development Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more proposed lots on Project lands represented by pending plats. Site projects: building use(s), approximate floor space, impervious cover ratio. Subdivisions: number of lots by general type of use, linear feet of streets and Describe drainage easements or ROW. Nature and Size re of Site Plan: Building a 140 Bed Hospital and 1S0,000 s.f. clinic. Proposed Approximately 60% of impervious cover. Project Subdivision: Building approximately XX LF of roadways Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain: or on land for which platting is not pending? X No Yes FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse No X Yes (Section II, Paragraph B1)or a tributary thereof? Is any part of subject property in floodplain No X Yes Rate Map 4e041co201D area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? Encroachment(s) Encroachment purpose(s): Building site(s) Road crossing(s) into Floodplain areas planned? Utility crossing(s) Other (explain): No X Yes If floodplain areas not shown on Rate Maps, has work been done toward amending the FEMA- approved Flood Study to define allowable encroachments in proposed areas? Explain. No STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 6 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 — Property Characteristics Continued (Page 3.2) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) Has an earlier hydrologic analysis been done for larger area including subject property? Yes Reference the study (& date) here, and attach copy if not already in City files. Is the stormwater management plan for the property in substantial conformance with the earlier study? Yes No If not, explain how it differs. No If subject property is not part of multi -phase project, describe stormwater management X plan for the property in Part 4. If property is part of multi -phase project, provide overview of stormwater management plan for Project Area here. In Part 4 describe how plan for subject property will comply therewith. Do existing topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? X No Yes Describe them (include approximate size, volume, outfall, model, etc). Any known drainage or flooding problems in areas near subject property? X No Yes Identify: Based on location of study property in a watershed, is Type 1 Detention (flood control) needed? (see Table B-1 in Appendix B) X Detention is required. Need must be evaluated. Detention not required. What decision has been reached? By whom? If the need for How was determination made? Type 1 Detention must be evaluated: S I ORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 — Property Characteristics Continued (Page 3.3) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? X No Yes If yes, describesplits below. In Part 4 describe design co nce t for handling this. Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acreage Above -Project Areas(Section II, Paragraph B3-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? No X Yes Size(s)of area(s)in acres: 1) 3.5�(0-1) 2) 3.96(0-2) 3) 2.56(0-3) 4) 3.56(0-4) Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable concentrated section(s), small creek (non -regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); Overland Sheet Flow Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Flow Determination Method used was the SCS method Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? No X Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW: Runoff is conveyed into a stormsewer system which ultimately drains to a pond. Stormsewer system is within a storm easement. Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain Once Block 2 Lot 1, Block 3 Lot 1, Block 4 Lot 1 and 2 are developed the runoff on site will increase. The ponds and stormsewer system on site have been designed for full build out of the lots. Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? X No Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies). STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH, DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 — Property Characteristics Continued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? or easements _plat, instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions. exist for any part of pathway(s)? X No Yes Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) Pathway Areas Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts, bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc). Nearby Drainage Facilities Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater design? X No Yes If yes, explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Start (Page 4.1) Stormwater Management Concept Discharge(s) From Upland Area(s) If runoff is to be received from upland areas, what design drainage features will be used to accommodate it and insure it is not blocked by future development? Describe for each area, flow section, or discharge point. Runoff from upland areas will be conveyed through a storm sewer system which will be located within a drainage easement. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section II, Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become public via platting? X No —Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring X Pre -development Release (Scenario 2) property(ies)? Combination of the two Scenarios Scenario 1: If easements are proposed, describe where needed, and provide status of actions on each. (Attached Exhibit # ) Scenario 2: Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre -development conditions (detention, sheet flow, partially concentrated, etc.). (Attached Exhibit # ) A detention pond is proposed on Lot 1 Block 4 which will detain all flows back to pre -development conditions. Combination: If combination is proposed, explain how discharge will differ from pre - development conditions at the property line for each area (or point) of release. If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used, has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? X No Yes Explain and provide documentation. No coordination has been done with neighboring property owners since post -development flows are less than pre -development flows. Therefore no increased runoff. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 10 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMAKY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi -Phase Project Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting: Will project result in shifting runoff between Basins or between What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased runoff Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? X No Yes How will runoff from Project 1. With facility(ies) involving other development projects. Area be mitigated to pre - 2. X Establishing features to serve overall Project Area. development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2, 3. On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area. and/or 3, and explain below. 1. Shared facility (type & location of facility; design drainage area served; relationship to size of Project Area): (Attached Exhibit # ) 2. For Overall Proiect Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit # ) A wet pond will be constructed on Lot 1 Block 1 and a Detention Pond will be constructed on Lot 1 Block 4. 3. By phase (or site) proiect: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. Are aquatic echosystems proposed? X No Yes In which phase(s) or project(s)? a r Are other Best Management Practices for reducing Stormwater pollutants proposed? EL X No X Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: rn .N A wet pond is proposed on Lot 1 Block 1 which be used to treat aD runoff generated from Lot 1, 2, and 3 Block 1. A wet pond has a o C' Z total suspended solids (TSS) reduction of 93% per TCEQ standards. If design of any runoff -handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical a Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. U) 2 X Detention elements Conduit elements Channel features Swales Ditches Inlets Valley gutters _ Outfalls Culvert features Bridges Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 11 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.3) Stormwater Management Concept (continued); Within Project Area Of Multi -Phase Project (continued) Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? X No Yes Identify type and general size and In which phase(s). If detention/retention serves (will serve) overall Project Area, describe how it relates to subject phase or site project (physical location, conveyance pathway(s), construction sequence): A detention Pond is proposed on Lot 1 Block 1. It will detain runoff generated by the site to pre -development conditions. Once erosion and sedimentation controls are installed and operational, the pond will then be rough cut and constructed. Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Project Area, is design in substantial conformance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? Yes X No, then summarize the difference(s): Identify whether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included, extent of use, and general characteristics. Typical shape? Surfaces? N m Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes: Usual back slopes: u Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway: (Attached Exhibit # ) typical greatest 0 z o X Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? Yes No, then explain: At intersections or otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? u X No Yes If yes explain: 0 a �X NAre valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection?- 0 X No Yes Explain: (number of locations?) � m STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.4) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Gutter line slopes: Least Usual Greatest Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? X Yes No If "no", identify where and why. Will inlets capture 10-year design stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)? X Yes No If no, explain where and why not. m Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year a) design storm throughout site (or phase)? X Yes No If no, explain. rn Sao curves: Are inlets placed at low points? X Yes No Are inlets and g conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from pending at greater than 24 inches? s o Yes No Explain "no" answers. 3� v, m Will 100-yr stormflow, be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on Q whole length of all streets? X Yes No If no, describe where and why. Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? X Yes No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. Are any 12-inch laterals used? X No Yes Identify length(s) and where used. aa) 0 u, Pipe runs between system Typical Longest > access points (feet): aa) Are junction boxes used at each bend? X Yes No If not, explain where and why. c o Z v E m Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic N Yes X No If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line (system -wide): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.5) Stormwater Management Concept (continued)' Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below (include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? RCP Storm system. `o E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? � o O O C E a)E v 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? N N T � � 2 O @ O O p E For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of o receiving and all facilities at juncture? N 0 1) Energy Dissipaters will be installed at the outfall of the pond. o. 2) N 0 3) Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? No Yes Number of instances: For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (including low -flow flumes if any): r m � N ; 0 c Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): -`o 0 Z Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle, &end treatment). m X 3 m a) Q Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained within easement(s) or platted drainage ROW in all instances? X Yes No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 14 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.6) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Are roadside ditches used? X No Yes If so, provide the following: LIs 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout ? Yes No Y _ _ Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? Yes No _ Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: 0 0 If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length: r Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? X Yes No X N _ If "no" explain: m U o m z Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW X Easement Width s Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum c and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: Conduit will be RCP. o sizes range from 12" to 10x3 Box Culver y a Minimum Slope: Maximum Slope: c m Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): Runoff is conveyed to the stormsewer system via curb inlets. s as U C 0 '0 Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): o Maintenance will be provided via manholes and junction boxes. E n a = c E 0 Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: � o c :9 Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No ° 'o _ _ If "no" explain: m a c n o = Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width o Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum '5 tandximumslopes: slopes, design storm: a 0 0. a) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): — o � c 3 QAccess Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Desicin Parameters Continued (Page 4.7) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) If "yes" provide the following information for each instance: Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: c Q o W � N Is 100-year design flow contained in Swale? _Yes _ No Is Swale wholly 0 within drainage ROW? Yes No Explain "no" answers: m Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: 0 o Z c y 0 Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: 0 c � o � a � o E n Swale?Yes No s Swale wholly containedYes Is 0 n `o ?gn drainage ROWNo Explain "no" answers: withind a _ p W Access Describe how maintenance access is provided: U_ Q Instance 3. 4, etc. If swales are used in more than two instances, attach sheet providing all above information for each instance. "New" channels: Will any area(s) of concentrated flow be channelized (deepened, widened, or straightened) or otherwise altered? _ No Yes If only slightly shaped, see "Swales" in this Part. If creating side banks, provide information below. Will design replicate natural channel? Yes No If "no", for each instance .c o a _ describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year o w design flow, and amount of freeboard: Instance 1: c } m E m 'o Instance 2: a E o Z X� Instance 3: m s U STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH, DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels (small creeks): Are these used? X No Yes If "yes" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? X Yes No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location_ For each location, describe length and general type of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): For each location, describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow. m c oWatercourses (and tributaries): Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory Watercourses proposed to be altered? X No Yes Explain below. Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address E existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures o and data. Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no" explain: E a) c c vAll Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information requested in next three boxes. If design is to replicate natural channel, identify location and length here, and describe design in Special Design section of this Part of Report. Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? —Yes If —No not, identify location and explain: Are ROW / easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space? Yes No If not, identify location(s) and explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.9) Stormwater Management Concept (continued)' Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) How many facilities for subject property project? 2 For each provide info. below. For each dry -type facilitiy: Facility 1 Facility 2 Acres served & design volume + 10% 42.06 ac. 55.68 ac. 100-yr volume: free flow & plugged 3.5 ac-ft 17.7 ac- t Design discharge (10 yr & 25 yr) 166.2 cfs195. 9 cfe134 .3 cf 165.3 cf Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? X yes no X yes no Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? X yes no x yes no Explain any "no" answers: m X For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: 25-year Q: 195.9 cfs. Outlet structure is a notch weir. Z Facillty2: 25-year Q:165.3 cfs. Outlet strct is a 4 sided area inlet Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? Facility 1: Yes X No Facility 2: X Yes _ No If "no" explain: y For Facility 1 the outlet structure spills into an existing 0 o creek which ultimately drains to Lick Creek. a For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at s ilp Iway? Facility 1: 8.06 ft/s & Facility 2: 7.23 ft/s & Are energy dissipation measures used? No X Yes Describe type and m u_ location: o Concrete Block Energy Dissipators are proposed at the outlet of of both the Detention and Wet Pond. For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe: Q Facility 1: No Facility 2: No For each, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving facility? Facility 1: Energy Dissipaters and Erosion Fabric will be installed Facility2: to prevent scour and erosion at the receiving channel. If berms are used give heights, slopes and surface treatments of sides. Facility 1: Berms are a 3:1 slope for both facilities and will have erosion fabric will be installed. Facility 2: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 18 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX '' APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 —Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.10) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Do structures comply with B-CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no": Facility 1; Yes. iu U ) u- Facility 2: Yes. o c oFor additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. Are parking areas to be used for detention? X No Yes What is maximum depth due to required design storm? Roadside Ditches: Will culverts serve access driveways at roadside ditches? X No Yes If "yes", provide information in next two boxes. Will 25-yr. flow pass without flowing over driveway in all cases? Yes No Without causing flowing or standing water on public roadway? Yes _ No Designs & materials comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? Yes —No Explain any "no" answers: rn c oAre culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? _Yes No Explain: U W a, } (6 1 a Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage m ways that serve Above -Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? a)z° No Yes If "yes" provide information below. N X How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. r Location 1: U Location 2: Location 3: For each location enter value for: 1 2 3 Design year passing without toping travelway? Water depth on travelway at 25-year flow? Water depth on travelway at 100-year flow? For more instances describe location and same information on separate sheet. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 19 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY - Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.11) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Reaulatory Watercourses (& Tributaries): Are culverts proposed on these facilities? X No Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria, analysis, computer programs, and study findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? Yes No If "no", explain: Arterial or Maior Collector Streets: Will culverts serve these types of roadways? r X No Yes How many instances? For each identify the a m location and provide the information below. Instance 1: r N Instance 2: X 0 Instance 3: c 0 O 'M Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 z E o Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? c Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? E N Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? �c Explain any "no" answer(s): o a T (0 (p U 3 0 0 Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? 0. a No X Yes How many instances? 3 for each identify the location and provide the information below: a� @ a Instance 1: Culvert located at Highway 6 Frontage and c Instance 2: Culvert located at Highway 6 Frontage and � m o Instance 3: Culvert located at Highway 6 Frontage and 0 For each instance enter value, or "yes" / "no" for: 1 2 3 U 6 y Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? Yes Yes Yes c 100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? Yes Yes Yes E Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? Yes Yes yes ,12 Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? Yes Yes Yes Limit of down stream analysis (feet)? Explain any "no" answers: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 20 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.12) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facilities (except driveway/roadside ditch intersects) provide information requested in next eight boxes. Do culverts and travelways intersect at 90 degrees? X Yes No If not, identify location(s) and intersect angle(s), and justify the design(s): Does drainage way alignment change within or near limits of culvert and surfaced approaches thereto? X No Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe change(s), and justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? X No _Yes If yes, identify location(s) and provide justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? X No Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): c c 0 U ul N _> Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural c i components, and surfacing at culvert ends? X Yes No If "no" Identify locations and provide justification(s): Will 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW, and/or drainage easements/ ROW? X Yes No if not, why not? Do appreciable hydraulic effects of any culvert extend downstream or upstream to neighboring land(s) not encompassed in subject property? X No Yes If "yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with B-CS Tech. Specifications? X Yes No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 21 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH, DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.13) Stormwater Management Concept (continued)' Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? No X Yes If "yes" provide the following information. Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)9 What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? 0 rn a m` A full report supporting all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural, geotechnical, hydrologic, and hydraulic factors) must accompany this summary report. Is the report provided? —Yes _ No If "no" explain: Is a Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techniques: .sT Pollution Prevention Erosion and sedimentation controls include: 76 Plan (SW3P) Silt Fence Stabilized Construction Ent. C1 established for `m project construction? Rock Berm X Inlet Protection No Yes Fiber Rolls Special Designs — Non -Traditional Methods Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland -type detention, natural stream replication, BMPs for water quality, etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property project? X No _ Yes If "yes" list general type and location below. Provide full report about the proposed special design(s) including rationale for use and expected benefits. Report must substantiate that stormwater management objectives will not be compromised, and that maintenance cost will not exceed those of traditional design solution(s). Is report provided? Yes X No If "no" explain: This project does not propose any non-traditional methods. Therefore a report has not been provided. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 22 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.14) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Special Designs — Deviation From B-CS Technical Specifications If any design(s) or material(s) of traditional runoff -handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain by specific detail element. Detention elements Drain system elements Channel features Culvert features Swales Ditches Inlets Outfalls Valley gutters Bridges (explain in bridge report) In table below briefly identify specific element, justification for deviation(s). Specific Detail Element Justification for Deviation (attach additional sheets if needed) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Have elements been coordinated with the City Engineer or her/his designee? For each item above provide "yes" or "no", action date, and staff name: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Design Parameters Hydrology Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? X Yes No Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: The SCS Method was used to calculate runoff generated by the proposed development. What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 33.18 acres Location (or identifier): Drainage Area P-18 on sheet CG-202 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.15) Design Parameters (continued) Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used? X No Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? % As to intensity -duration -frequency and rain depth criteria for determining runoff flows, were any criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? X No _Yes If "yes" identify type of data, source(s), and where applied: For each of the stormwater management features listed below identify the storm return frequencies (year) analyzed (or checked), and that used as the basis for design. Feature Analysis Year(s) Design Year Storm drain system for arterial and collector streets 2,10, 25 & 100 yr 100 yr. Storm drain system for local streets 2, 10, 25 & 100 yr 100 yr. Open channels Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel 2,10, 25 & 100 yr 100 yr. Swales Roadside ditches and culverts serving them - Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall 2,10, 25 & 100 yr 100 yr. Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s) 2,10, 25 & 100 yr 100 yr. Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged 2,10, 25 & 100 yr 100 yr. Culverts serving private drives or streets Culverts serving public roadways Bridges: provide in bridge report. Hydraulics What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? Design flow velocities; Gutters Conduit I Culverts Swales Channels Highest (feet per second) 9 ft/s 9 ft/s - Lowest (feet per second) 3 ft/s 3 ft/s - Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used: For street gutters: .013 For conduit type(s) concrete Coefficients: .013 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 24 of 26 APPENDIX, D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMAKY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.16) Design Parameters (continued) Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued) For the following, are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? X No —Yes Head and friction losses X No _ Yes Explain any "yes" answer: In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? X Yes _ No Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? X Yes _ No Explain any "no" answers: Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? X Yes No For 100-year flow conditions? X Yes No Explain any "no" answers: What tailwater conditions were assumed at outfall point(s) of the storm drain system? Identify each location and explain: XXXXXXXXXXX Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec VI.F.5.a? Yes _ No Outside of straight sections, is flow regime within limits of sub -critical flow? _ Yes No If "no" list locations and explain: Culverts If plan sheets do not provide the following for each culvert, describe it here. For each design discharge, will operation be outlet (barrel) control or inlet control? Entrance, friction and exit losses: Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX.D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D - TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 — Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.17) Design Parameters (continued) Computer Software What computer software has been used in the analysis and assessment of stormwater management needs and/or the development of facility designs proposed for subject property project? List them below, being sure to identify the software name and version, the date of the version, any applicable patches and the publisher This site was analyzed using US Army Corps of Engineers HEC-HMS software. Version 3.3 Date: October 9, 2008 Publisher: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street Davis California 95616-4620 Part 5 — Plans and Specifications Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a Technical Design Summary Report. See Section III, Paragraph C3. Part 6 — Conclusions and Attestation Conclusions Add any concluding information here: Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical Design Summary Drainage Report by signing and sealing below. "This report (plan) for the drainage design of the development named in Part B was prepared by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with provisions of the Bryan/College Station Unified Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners of the property. All licenses and permits required by any and all state and federal regulatory agencies for the proposed drainage improvements have been issued or fall under applicable aeneral nermits." •;ll, Joel R. Bock, P.E. ��;%• 1� / R. BO/ Licensed Professional Engineer �•-0•:; JOEL CK ••••• ......441 •p i NS f ttt,\\\\.NA..o rr� State of Texas PE No. 96441 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 26 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN JUMMAKv Effective February 2007 As Revised February 2009 iV 30' 35'14" 3W 34' 38" Soil Map —Brazos County, Texas m n Map scale:1:6,260 d panted on A sIm(8.5"x 11") sheet INMeters m 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 200 400 800 1,200 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/11/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 30' 35' 13" 30° 34' 37" \ \ ! § 0 iL 4 � LID �0 ]( \ \ \ .2 k ! \ / 7%® § /!3 m k)z k ® \k�® )\ | §!! : »; i ± !.`e £ [ :!0 !_° E§ °° { �{±k 02 k ��( §\ \\ \ ){|E ! a. t/ _ \}/ ,!�\§ ` ),` 0 £!20ƒ_ }§ j\\ }/ j\ \ Z(/\ ) ( , | ! 0 !;!! 60 || {\0\ƒ7C) 06 ! )-|■1{}2�\2 { (FL E\)!!�\ - /! \))|ƒ)))\!)|))2}J))!)!\ »Nm-x4»c >+S), \ q Soil Map -Brazos County, Texas t Map Unit Legend Brazos County, Texas (TX041) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI BoA Boonville fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 51.4 61.7% Sa Sandow loam, frequently 0ooded Tabor -Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.3 19.0 0.3 % 22.8% TuA Us Ustarenls, clayey 4.2 8.4 83.2 5.1% ZUB Zulch fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 10.1 % Totals for Area of Interest 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/11/2010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 RM 51 6 City of College Station 480083 LIMIT DETAILED STUDY NO 'LIMITOF DETAILED STUL o� 4 RM52 ®o APPROXIMATE SCALE 600 0 600 FEET CORPORn �. Marls Iwas extracted NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS AND INCORPORATED AREAS (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) Oil COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX COLLEGE STATION, CITY OF 480083 U2U1 D UNINCORPORATED AREAS 481195 0201 0 NnIlnoTo User: ThoMAP NUMBER sxowe bekwsbeultlba usetl e when Plaoinsouidbeevetl on insusane e'Uug atershe own oemmaexv. MAP NUMBER 48041CO201 D MAP REVISED: FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Federal Emergency Management Agency map does not refiec[ changes Is subsequent to the data on the on about National Flood Insurance A Map Slere at vry vo rn.,fema.gov N LL U_ 3 0 U. 11 10 Reservoir "Wet Pond" Results for Run "Prop 2" I 4 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:131.) O1Jan2000 .... Run'PROP 2Elemenl:WET PONDResullftrepe - RunPROP20 menlWET POND PasldtPWISOafan — RumPROP2ElemenfWETP0NDRWtWUNaw ___ Rm'PROP2El meo'NETPONDRMACmmned Nlax 284.00 283.36 282.71 282.07 281.43 w 280.79 280.14 279.50 uu:uu 02Jan2000 14 E 12 co LL U_ 3 0 L. Reservoir "Wet Pond" Results for Run "Prop 10" g I i Y 285.36 284.09 282.82 m w 281.55 280.27 279.00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 1b:uu Iu:uu eI uu vv.vv 01Jan2000 102Jan2000 ...... Run PROP 10EIewtWETPOND Rmilsvage WHOP 10 EWAIWET POND NSUIPONPIevdOn — Rm:PROP IOEWMET POND RMIUMN ___ HwPROP 10EWMI:WETPOND Res XAMUNd Aw N U. U_ 9 0 a Reservoir "Wet Pond" Results for Run "Prop 25" , , i 4 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 01Jan2000 ...... RMTROP 2E EImsntWETPOND RMICSMaga — RmPROP25ElementWETPOND RMILOMM 287.00 285.67 284.33 E 283.00 D' w 281.67 280.33 279.00 15:00 18:1.11.) &UL) uu:uu 02Jan2000 RmPROP25nemem:WETPOND NON Elvab R09ROP25 EIem LYIETPONDReWItCamgned lnkw U7 LL U 3 0 w 4 Reservoir "Wet Pond" Results for Run "Prop 100" 6 zt — — — 21 6 — — 21 q — 2 2 — — -- 0 2 8- 2 6 —. 4 ` 00 50 — — -- I 00 j I I I f50 I I I� 300 II II 250 II 200 I �I I 150 I 100 — — 50 — - n 6.00 6.71 15.43 14.14 f2.66 w 31.57 K29 79.00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:uu uu:uu 01Jan2000 10242000 ...... Rm.FROP 100Om IMET POND RMASWage PunPROP 100EIemed:WETPOND ReWl Pod EWM — Rm'.PAW 100 EIMRMET POND RMAID W __— RwPROP 100 EIement.WET POND RMILODn"11MV 2.0 1.8 1.6 U. 6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0 0.8 N 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 rn LL U_ 3 0 LL Reservoir Teiention Pond" Results for Run "Prop 2" n I' 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:UU 01Jan2000 ...... Run PROP 20 menl:OETENTMPONDP.eeAnt5u(RF HMPROP2ElementmETEMION POND ReWIPW Elev& — RonPROP 2ElymmOETEMgN PONDResultOftw _-- RmPROP 2 Elemenl)ETEMIONPOND ReWI.Qmdnen lnWw 279.50 279.10 278.70 278.30 277.90 277.50 277.10 w 276.70 276.30 275.90 275.50 UU:UU 02Jan2000 3.0 2.5 Q 2.0 rn 1.5 ro `o rn 1.0 0.5 0.0 Reservoir "Detention Pond' Results for Run "Prop 10" 11 — U� 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 1U:UU zt:uu 01Jan2000 ...... Am:PA0P 10 EIMMETENBONPONDRM16WW AmPA0P 10 EIwtDETENNON POND RMO:PodEWIM — ROMP 10EI(SWETEMNPOND RmIIQAAM --- AmPA0PIOEkwl DEIENiKKVPONDRMHIO gkmdlRlm >80.50 ME 278.83 278.00 D' w 277.17 276.33 275.50 uu:vu 1 02Jan2000 3.0 2.5 U. 6 2.0 a rn 1.5 m 0 N U 0.! N LL U_ 0 0 IL Reservoir "Mention Pond' Results for Run'Prop 25" — fi 1 1 C 0.0 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 O1Jan2000 ----- R PROP 25EIeftfl OEIENEIONPOND RHOLSbrege — Aun,PAW 2SEWmentDEiENAONPONO AevAI.Ud9vx 281.00 280.08 279.17 p U. 278.25 �01`) w 277.33 276.42 -275.50 1b:UU IU:Uu 1IA uu.w 1 02Jan2000 AnnPROP25 EWmentOETEtIRON POND AeW Pod EIMW RmPROP25RUNDETEN➢ON POND RMII..fnNmdlnkw 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 ro 2.0 `o N 1.5 1. 0. N U_ 3 0 LL Reservoir "Detention Pond" Results for Run "Prop 100" 11 'I 0.0 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:UU 1 a:UU z I:uu 01*2000 RMTROP 100EImIDETENM1N PONDROWISW90 -- RMPROP 100 NWIDETENTO POND AesultW Owako RIPROP 100ElMtDETENMMPOND RrdLOURN --- ROMP 1000I 1DETENNON POND ROU30 edMm 282.00 281.12 280.25 279.38 278,50 m 51 z77.62 276.75 ME 275.00 uuvu 02Jan2000 Project: College Station Wet Pond Simulation Run: Exist 2 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 01:00 End of Run: 02Jan2000, 01:30 Compute Time: 01Apr2011, 08:46:26 Volume Units: IN Basin Model: Existing Conditions Meteorologic Model: 2 yr 24 hr Control Specifications: Control 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Analysis Point 'D.1735469 197.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 2.05 Existing 1 0.0055781 4.9 01Jan2000, 13:20 1.97 Existing 2 10.0061875 13.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 3.99 Existing 3 0.0327188 37.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 1.97 Existing 4 0.0662188 73.8 0lJan2000, 13:10 1.97 Existing 5 0.0308906 35.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 1.97 Existing 6 0.0319531 37.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 1.97 Junction-1 0.0117656 16.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 3.04 Junction 0.0444844 54.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 2.26 0-1 0.0040156 9.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 O-2 0.0058906 13.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 O-3 0.0011250 2.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 0-4 0.0131094 19.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 2.41 OffsiteAnalysi 03WR9062 22.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 OffsiteAnalysi 0?0142,04 21.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 2.65 Project: College Station Wet Pond Simulation Run: Exist 10 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 01:00 End of Run: 02Jan2000, 01:30 Compute Time: 01Apr2011, 08:46:37 Volume Units: IN Basin Model: Existing Conditions Meteorologic Model: 10 yr 24 hr Control Specifications: Control 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Analysis Point 10.1735469 443.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.48 Existing 1 0.0055781 11.1 01Jan2000, 13:15 4.39 Existing 2 0.0061875 23.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.80 Existing 3 0.0327188 86.2 01 Jan2000, 13:05 4.40 Existing 4 0.0662188 163.7 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.40 Existing 5 0.0308906 81.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.40 Existing 6 0.0319531 84.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.40 Junction-1 0.0117656 30.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.66 Junction X 0.0444844 116.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.73 0-1 0.0040156 15.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 0-2 0.0058906 22.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 0-3 0.0011250 4.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 0-4 0,0131094 39.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.89 Offsite Analysi 0?00990S2 37.5 01 Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 OffsiteAnalysi 6?bf 4 I43.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.05 Project: College Station Wet Pond Simulation Run: Exist 25 Start of Run: 01 Jan2000, 01:00 End of Run: 02Jan2000, 01:30 Compute Time: 01Apr2011, 08:47:09 Volume Units: IN Basin Model: Existing Conditions Meteorologic Model: 25 yr 24 hr Control Specifications: Control 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Analysis Point 10.1735469 532.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.38 Existing 1 0.0055781 13.3 01Jan2000, 13:15 5.29 Existing 2 0.0061875 26.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.78 Existing 3 0.0327188 103.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.29 Existing 4 0.0662188 195.9 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.29 Existing 5 0.0308906 97.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.29 Existing 6 0.0319531 101.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.29 Junction-1 0.0117656 35.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.60 Junction X 0.0444844 139.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.63 0-1 0.0040156 17.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 0-2 0.0058906 25.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 0-3 0.0011250 4.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 0-4 0.0131094 46.1 0lJan2000, 13:05 5.80 OffsiteAnalysi 0N2990,62 42.8 101,lan2000, 13:05 7.88 OffsiteAnalysi 101Jan2000, 13:05 5.96 Project: College Station Wet Pond Simulation Run: Exist 100 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 01:00 End of Run: 02Jan2000, 01:30 Compute Time: 01Apr2011, 08:47:15 Volume Units: IN Basin Model: Existing Conditions Meteorologic Model: 100 yr 24 hr Control Specifications: Control 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Analysis Point 1D.1735469 765.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.77 Existing 1 0.0055781 19.2 01Jan2000, 13:15 7.68 Existing 2 10.0061875 35.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.34 Existing 3 0.0327188 149.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.68 Existing 4 0.0662188 281.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.68 Existing 5 0.0308906 140.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.68 Existing 6 0.0319531 145.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.68 Junction-1 0.0117656 48.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 9.08 Junction X 0.0444844 197.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.05 0-1 0.0040156 23.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 0-2 0.0058906 33.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 0-3 0.0011250 6.5 0lJan2000, 13:05 10.44 0-4 0.0131094 64.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.21 Offsite Analysi (?OQ99062 56.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 Offsite Analysi 0?0tra ZM4 71.4 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.38 Project: College Station Wet Pond Simulation Run: Prop 2 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 01:00 End of Run: 02Jan2000, 01:30 Compute Time: 30Mar2011, 16:55:31 Volume Units: IN Basin Model: Ultimate Conditions Meteorologic Model: 2 yr 24 hr Control Specifications: Control 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Analysis Point 10.15192 109.8 01Jan2000, 13:25 3.79 Detention Pon 10.0640468 67.2 01Jan2000, 13:20 3.24 EX-1 10,0055781 12.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 EX-2 0.0061875 14.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 Junction-1 .0008281 2.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Junction-10 .000875 2.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Junction-11 0.0426093 58.9 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.83 Junction-13 .0004375 0.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 2.94 Junction-14 .00053125 1.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 3.21 Junction-15 .000875 1.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 3.72 Junction-16 .000875 1.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 3.72 Junction-2 0.0274843 31.3 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.05 Junction-3 0.0294218 34.7 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.21 Junction-4 0.0303281 36.2 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.28 Junction-5 0.0317031 38.4 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.38 Junction-6 0.0410312 56.0 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.77 Junction-7 0.0410312 56.0 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.77 Junction-8 0.0419062 57.7 0lJan2000, 13:10 2.80 Junction-9 .000875 2.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Junction-X1 0.0248437 56.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 Junction-X2 .000765625 1.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Junction-X3 0.0085781 19.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.12 Junction-X4 0.0097031 21.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.17 Junction-X5 0.0878750 49.3 01 Jan2000, 13:35 4.19 0-1 0.0040156 9.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Page 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) 0-2 0.0058906 13.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 0-3 0.0011250 2.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Offsite Analysi 0?@089062 22.5 01 Jan20100, 13:05 4.50 OffsiteAnalysi 0?®1YH87S0 16.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 2.20 P-1 0.0130781 29.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 P-10 0.0093281 19.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 P-11 .0007031 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-12 .0004375 1.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-13 .0004375 1.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-14 0.0214375 45.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 P-15 .000609375 1.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-16 0.0518438 100.5 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.08 P-17 .000390625 1.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-18 .000375 0.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-19 .000546875 1.3 01 Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-2 .0004375 1.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-20 .000578125 1.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-21 0.0117500 14.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 1.97 P-22 0.0078125 17.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 P-23 .00034375 0.8 01 Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-24 .000328125 0.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 2.41 P-25 .000109375 0.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-26 .00009375 0.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-3 .0003906 1.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-4 0.0266562 29.7 01Jan2000, 13:10 1.97 P-5 10.0010625 2.6 01 Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-6 .000875 2.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-7 .0004844 1.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-8 .0004219 1.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 P-9 0.0013750 3A 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-1 .0003906 0.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 14.50 Page 2 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Reach-10 0.0410312 56.0 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.77 Reach-11 .0004375 1.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-12 ,0004375 1.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-13 .000875 2.1 01 Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-15 .000875 2.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-16 0.0410312 55.9 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.77 Reach-17 0.0419062 57.7 01 Jan2000, 13:10 2.80 Reach-18 0.0426093 58.9 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.83 Reach-19 .000109375 0.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-2 .0004375 1.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-20 .000328125 0.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 2.41 Reach-21 .0004375 0.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 2.94 Reach-22 .00009375 0.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-23 .00053125 1.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 3.21 Reach-24 .00034375 0.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-25 .000875 1.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 3.72 Reach-26 .000875 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 3.72 Reach-27 0.0248437 54.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.08 Reach-28 .000765625 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.50 Reach-29 0.0085781 19.0 01 Jan2000, 13:05 4.12 Reach-3 .0008281 2.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-30 0.0097031 21.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.17 Reach-4 0.0274843 31.2 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.05 Reach-5 .000875 2.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-6 0.0294218 34.6 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.21 Reach-7 .0004219 1.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.50 Reach-8 0.0303281 35.9 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.28 Reach-9 0.0317031 38.4 01Jan2000, 13:10 2.38 Wet Pond 10.0870000 49.0 01Jan2000, 13:35 4.19 Page 3 U) tL U_ 0 0 tI Junction "Analysis Point 1" Results for Run "Prop 2" 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 01Jan2000 IO2Jan2000 — Run:Prop 2 Element:ANALYSIS POINT 1 Result:0utflow --- Run:Prop 2 ElemenUunction-M Result:Outflow ------ Run:Prop 2Element:DetentionPond ResulCOutllow Reservoir "Detention Pond" Results for Run "Prop 2" 2.0 i 279.59 j LL 0 1.0 l _ 277.55 w 275.50 120 U) tL U_ 3 0 tL 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 01Jan2000 -- - - Run:PROP 2 Element:DETENTION POND Result:Storage Run:PROP 2 Element:DETENTION POND ResulCPool Elevation — Run:Prop 2 Element:DETENTION POND Result:Outflow — -- Run:PROP 2 Elemenl:DETENTION POND Result:Combined Inflow 18:00 21:00 00:00 IO2Jan2000 Reservoir "Wet Pond" Results for Run "Prop 2" N RIM 282.07 280.79 w 279.50 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 01Jan2000 IO2Jan2000 Run:PROP 2 Element:WET POND Result:Storage Run:PROP 2 Element:WET POND Result:Pool Elevation — Run:Prop 2 Element:WET POND Result:Outflow --- Run:PROP 2 Element:WET POND Result:Combined Inflow ell 15 rn LL U 0 10 u 5 C Junction "Offsite Analysis Point - 1 " Results for Run "Prop 2" I I I I I It� G� I I kid I f� t I I ' I 1 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 01Jan2000 — Run:Prop 2 Element:OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT -1 Result:Outflow --- Run:Prop 2 Element:0-2 Result:Outflow ------ Run:Prop2Element:0.1Result:0uiflow 18:00 21:00 00:00 102Jan2000 18- 16 14 12 10 fn LL U 3 8 0 6 4 2 0 Junction "Offsite Analysis Point - 2" Results for Run "Prop 2" I I I I I I I _ I 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 01Jan2000 — Run:Prop 2 Element:OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT - 2 Result:Outflow --- Run:Prop2Element:0.3Result:0utflow ------ Run:Prop2Element:P-21Result:Outflow 18:00 21:00 00:00 IO2Jan2000 Project: College Station Wet Pond Simulation Run: Prop 10 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 01:00 Basin Model: Ultimate Conditions End of Run: 02Jan2000, 01:30 Meteorologic Model: 10 yr 24 hr Compute Time: 30Mar2011, 16:55:50 Control Specifications: Control 1 Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Analysis Point 10.15192 275.1 01Jan2000, 13:20 6.54 Detention Pon J10.0640468 153.5 01Jan2000, 13:15 5.90 EX-1 10.0055781 21.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 EX-2 0.0061875 23.7 01 Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 Junction-1 .0008281 3.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Junction-10 .000875 3.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Junction-11 0.0426093 115.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.41 Junction-13 .0004375 1.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.52 Junction-14 .00053125 1.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.85 Junction-15 .000875 3.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.46 Junction-16 .000875 3.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.46 Junction-2 0.0274843 68.5 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.49 Junction-3 0.0294218 74.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.68 Junction-4 0.0303281 76.8 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.76 Junction-5 0.0317031 80.6 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.88 Junction-6 0.0410312 110.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.34 Junction-7 0.0410312 110.3 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.34 Junction-8 0.0419062 113.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.38 Junction-9 .000875 3.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Junction-X1 0.0248437 95.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 Junction-X2 .000765625 3.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Junction-X3 0.0085781 32.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.94 Junction-X4 0.0097031 36.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.00 Junction-X5 0.0878750 135.4 01Jan2000, 13:25 7.01 0-1 10.0040156 15.0 01 Jan2000, 13:05 17.40 Page 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) 0-2 0.0058906 22.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 0-3 0.0011250 4.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 OffsiteAnalysi 0?NK0062 37.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Offsite Analysi 0 UR87S0 36.5 01 Jan2000, 13:05 4.66 P-1 0.0130781 50.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 P-10 0.0093281 33.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 P-11 .0007031 2.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-12 .0004375 1.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-13 .0004375 1.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-14 0.0214375 76.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 P-15 .000609375 2.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-16 0.0518438 170.4 01Jan2000, 13:10 6.90 P-17 .000390625 1.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-18 .000375 1.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-19 .000546875 2.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-2 .0004375 1.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-20 .000578125 2.3 01 Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-21 0.0117500 32.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.40 P-22 0.0078125 29.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 P-23 .00034375 1.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-24 .000328125 1.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.89 P-25 .000109375 0.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-26 .00009375 0.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-3 .0003906 1.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-4 0.0266562 65.9 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.40 P-5 0.0010625 4.3 01 Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-6 .000875 3.5 01 Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-7 .0004844 1.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-8 .0004219 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 P-9 0.0013750 5.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-1 .0003906 11.6 101,lan2000, 13:05 7.40 Page 2 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Reach-10 0.0410312 110.3 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.34 Reach-11 .0004375 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-12 1.0004375 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-13 .000875 3.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-15 .000875 3.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-16 0.0410312 110.3 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.34 Reach-17 0.0419062 113.1 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.38 Reach-18 0.0426093 115.1 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.41 Reach-19 .000109375 0.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-2 .0004375 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-20 .000328125 1.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 4.89 Reach-21 .0004375 1.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.52 Reach-22 .00009375 0.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-23 .00053125 1.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.85 Reach-24 .00034375 1.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-25 .000875 3.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.46 Reach-26 .000875 3.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.46 Reach-27 0.0248437 93.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.90 Reach-28 .000765625 2.8 01Jan2000, 13:10 7.40 Reach-29 0.0085781 32.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.95 Reach-3 .0008281 3.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-30 0.0097031 36.5 01 Jan2000, 13:05 7.00 Reach-4 0.0274843 68.4 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.49 Reach-5 .000875 3.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-6 0.0294218 74.1 01 Jan2000, 13:10 4.68 Reach-7 .0004219 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.40 Reach-8 0.0303281 76.5 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.76 Reach-9 0.0317031 80.5 01Jan2000, 13:10 4.88 We Pond 10.0870000 1134.3 01Jan2000, 13:25 7.01 Page 3 Reservoir "Detention Pond" Results for Run "Prop 10" LL 3.0 Q 2.0 1.0 fn 4 281.00 �i 280.21 279.43 278.64 \ l (. 277.86 1`r; 277.07 W 276.29 275.50 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 01Jan2000 IO2Jan2000 Run:PROP 10 Elemenl:DETENTION POND Result Storage Run:PROP 10 Element:DETENTION POND Result:Pool Elevation — Run:PROP 10 Elemenl:DETENTION POND Resull:0ulflow --- Run:PROP 10 Element:DETENTION POND Result:Combined Inflow 4 Reservoir "Wet Pond" Results for Run "Prop 10" i 285.36 C' O' _ 1- 282.82 uL 281.55 ui 280.27 279.00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 01Jan2000 IO2Jan2000 --- -- - Run:PROP 10 Element:WET POND Result:Storage — Run:PROP 10 Element:WET POND Result:Pool Elevation — Run:PROP 10 Element:WET POND Result:Outflow --- Run:PROP 10 Element:WET POND ResulCCombined Inflow Project: College Station Wet Pond Simulation Run: Prop 25 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 01:00 End of Run: 02Jan2000, 01:30 Compute Time: 30Mar2011, 16:56:31 Volume Units: IN Basin Model: Ultimate Conditions Meteorologic Model: 25 yr 24 hr Control Specifications: Control 1 Area ) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) lHydrolWogicDrainageinage 192 338.8 01Jan2000, 13:15 7.50 40468 184.1 01Jan2000, 13:15 6.84 EX-1 0.0055781 24.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 EX-2 0.0061875 27.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 Junction-1 .0008281 3.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Junction-10 .000875 3.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Junction-11 0.0426093 136.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.34 Junction-13 .0004375 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.45 Junction-14 .00053125 2.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.79 Junction-15 .000875 3.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.42 Junction-16 .000875 3.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.43 Junction-2 0.0274843 82.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.38 Junction-3 0.0294218 88.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.58 Junction-4 0.0303281 91.5 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.67 Junction-5 0.0317031 95.6 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.79 Junction-6 0.0410312 130.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.26 Junction-7 0.0410312 129.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.26 Junction-8 0.0419062 133.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.31 Junction-9 .000875 4.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Junction -XI 0.0248437 108.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 Junction-X2 .000765625 3.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Junction-X3 0.0085781 37.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.93 Junction-X4 0.0097031 41.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.98 Junction-X5 0.0878750 166.6 01Jan2000, 13:25 7.99 O-1 0.0040156 17.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Page 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) 0-2 0.0058906 25.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 0-3 0.0011250 5.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Offsite Analysi 0DQ099082 42.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 OffsiteAnalysi 0?®ir2&7S0 43.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.56 P-1 0.0130781 57.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 P-10 0.0093281 38.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 P-11 .0007031 3.2 o1Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-12 .0004375 2.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-13 .0004375 2.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-14 0.0214375 87.7 01 Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 P-15 .000609375 2.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-16 0.0518438 194.7 01Jan2000, 13:10 7.88 P-17 .000390625 1.8 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-18 .000375 1.7 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-19 .000546875 2.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-2 .0004375 2.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-20 .000578125 2.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-21 0.0117500 38.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.29 P-22 0.0078125 34.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 P-23 .00034375 1.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-24 .000328125 1.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.80 P-25 .000109375 0.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-26 .00009375 0.4 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-3 .0003906 1.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-4 0.0266562 78.9 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.29 P-5 0.0010625 4.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-6 .000875 4.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-7 .0004844 2.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-8 .0004219 1.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 P-9 0.0013750 6.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-1 1.0003906 1.8 IOUan2000, 13:05 8.40 Page 2 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Reach-10 0.0410312 129.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.26 Reach-11 .0004375 2.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40. Reach-12 1.0004375 2.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-13 .000875 3.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-15 .000875 3.8 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-16 0.0410312 129.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.26 Reach-17 0.0419062 133.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.31 Reach-18 0.0426093 135.3 01Jan2000, 13:10 6.34 Reach-19 .000109375 0.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-2 .0004375 2.0 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-20 .000328125 1.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 5.80 Reach-21 .0004375 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.45 Reach-22 .00009375 0.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-23 .00053125 2.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 6.79 Reach-24 .00034375 1.6 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-25 .000875 3.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.43 Reach-26 .000875 3.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.43 Reach-27 0.0248437 106.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.88 Reach-28 .000765625 3.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-29 0.0085781 36.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.93 Reach-3 .0008281 3.7 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-30 0.0097031 41.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.98 Reach-4 0.0274843 81.8 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.38 Reach-5 .000875 4.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-6 0.0294218 88.4 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.58 Reach-7 .0004219 1.9 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.40 Reach-8 0.0303281 91.0 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.67 Reach-9 0.0317031 95.6 01Jan2000, 13:10 5.79 Wet Pond 10.0870000 165.3 01Jan2000, 13:25 7.99 Page 3 CO LL U_ 3 0 LL Junction "Analysis Point 1" Results for Run "Prop 25" 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 01Jan2000 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 102Jan2000 — Run:Prop 25 Element:ANALYSIS P01NT 1 Resultoufflow --- Run:Prop 25 ElemenUunction-M Result:0utflow ------ Run:Prop 25Element:DetentionPond Resulf:0utflow AM U) uL U_ 3 0 LL Reservoir "Detention Pond" Results for Run "Prop 25" 281.00 h 279.00 0 277.00 w 275.00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 01Jan2000 102Jan2000 Run:PROP 25 Element:DETENTION POND Result:Storage Run:PROP 25 Element:DETENTION POND Resull:Pool Elevation — Run:PROP 25 Element:DETENTION POND Result:Outflow --- Run:PROP 25 Element:DETENTION POND Resull:Combined Inflow W U) LL U_ 0 0 U. Reservoir "Wet Pond" Results for Run "Prop 25" 287.00 284.33 LL 281.67 w 79.00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 01Jan2000 IO2Jan2000 -- Run:PROP 25 Elemenl:WET POND ResultStorage -- - -- Run:PROP 25 Element:WET POND Result:Pool Elevation — Run:Prop 25 Element:WET POND Result:Outflow --- Run:PROP 25 Element:WET POND Result:Combined Inflow Junction "Offsite Analysis Point -1" Results for Run "Prop 25" 45 40 i 35 30 I I 25 JI I i 20 t 15 _ �11 10 I' I 5 i t_ I 0 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 01Jan2000 — Run:Prop 25 Element:OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT -1 Result:OuIllow --- Run:Prop 25 Element:0.2 Resull:0utflow ------ Run:Prop 25Element:0-1Result:Outflow 18:00 21:00 00:00 IO2Jan2000 Junction "Offsite Analysis Point - 2" Results for Run "Prop 25" 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 01Jan2000 IO2Jan2000 — Run:Prop 25 Element:OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT - 2 Result:0utflow --- Run:Prop 25 Element:0-3 Result:Ouffiow ------ Run:Prop 25ElemenCP-21Result:Outflow Project: College Station Wet Pond Simulation Run: Prop 100 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 01:00 End of Run: 02Jan2000, 01:30 Compute Time: 31 Mar2011, 08:06:44 Volume Units: IN Basin Model: Ultimate Conditions Meteorologic Model: 100 yr 24 hr Control Specifications: Control 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Analysis Point 10.15192 504.9 01Jan2000, 13:15 10.03 Detention Pon 0.0640468 265.3 01Jan2000, 13:10 9.34 EX-1 10.0055781 32.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 EX-2 0.0061875 35.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 Junction-1 .0008281 4.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Junction-10 .000875 5.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.01 Junction-11 0.0426093 189.4 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.80 Junction-13 .0004375 2.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.90 Junction-14 .00053125 2.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 9.27 Junction-15 .000875 4.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 9.95 Junction-16 .000875 4.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 9.95 Junction-2 0.0274843 118.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.78 Junction-3 0.0294218 126.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.99 Junction-4 0.0303281 129.4 01Jan2000, 13:10 8.08 Junction-5 0.0317031 135.1 01Jan2000, 13:10 8.21 Junction-6 0.0410312 181.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.72 Junction-7 0.0410312 181.0 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.72 Junction-8 0.0419062 185.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.77 Junction-9 .000875 5.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Junction-X1 0.0248437 143.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 Junction-X2 .000765625 4.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Junction-X3 0.0085781 49.5 0lJan2000, 13:05 10.49 Junction-X4 0.0097031 55.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 10,55 Junction-X5 0.0878750 251.7 01Jan2000, 13:20 10.54 0-1 0.0040156 22.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 j 11.00 Page 1 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) 0-2 0.0058906 32.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 0-3 0.0011250 6.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 OffsiteAnalysi 3ON299062 55.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 OffsiteAnalysi 0?®ir$8750 61.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.97 P-1 0.0130781 75.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 P-10 0.0093281 50.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 P-11 .0007031 4.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-12 .0004375 2.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-13 .0004375 2.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-14 0.0214375 116.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 P-15 .000609375 3.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-16 0.0518438 258.1 01Jan2000, 13:10 10.44 P-17 .000390625 2.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-18 .000375 2.2 01 Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-19 .000546875 3.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-2 .0004375 2.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-20 .000578125 3.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-21 0.0117500 55.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.68 P-22 0.0078125 45.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 P-23 .00034375 2.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-24 .000328125 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.21 P-25 .000109375 0.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-26 .00009375 0.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-3 .0003906 2.3 01 Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-4 0.0266562 113.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 7.68 P-5 0.0010625 6.4 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-6 .000875 5.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-7 .0004844 2.9 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-8 .0004219 2.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 P-9 0.0013750 8.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-1 .0003906 12.3 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (MI2) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Peak Volume (IN) Reach-10 0.0410312 181.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.72 Reach-11 .0004375 2.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-12 1.0004375 2.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-13 .000875 5.1 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.01 Reach-15 .000875 5.0 01 Jan2000, 13:05 11.01 Reach-16 0.0410312 180.8 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.72 Reach-17 0.0419062 185.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.77 Reach-18 0.0426093 187.5 01Jan2000, 13:10 8.81 Reach-19 .000109375 0.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-2 .0004375 2.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-20 .000328125 1.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 8.21 Reach-21 .0004375 2.3 01 Jan2000, 13:05 8.90 Reach-22 .00009375 0.6 01 Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-23 .00053125 2.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 9.27 Reach-24 .00034375 2.0 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-25 .000875 4.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 9.95 Reach-26 .000875 4.7 01Jan2000, 13:05 9.96 Reach-27 0.0248437 140.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.44 Reach-28 .000765625 4.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-29 0.0085781 48.6 01Jan2000, 13:05 10.49 Reach-3 .0008281 4.8 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-30 0.0097031 55.1 01 Jan2000, 13:05 10.55 Reach-4 0.0274843 116.6 01 Jan2000, 13:10 7.78 Reach-5 .000875 5.2 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-6 0.0294218 125.4 01Jan2000, 13:10 7.99 Reach-7 .0004219 2.5 01Jan2000, 13:05 11.00 Reach-8 0.0303281 129.0 01Jan2000, 13:10 8.09 Reach-9 0.0317031 1135.1 IO1Jan2OOO, 13:10 8.21 Wet Pond 0.0870000 1249.5 JOIJan2OOO, 13:20 10.55 Page 3 Co U. U 0 0 Junction "Analysis Point 1" Results for Run "Prop 100" 600 I 500 ! I I 400 I i 300 I i i I 200 I 100 a r, 0 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 01Jan2000 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 IO2Jan2000 — Run:Prop 100 Element:ANALYSIS POINT 1 Result:0utflow --- Run:Prop 100 Element:Junction-X5 Result:Outflow ------ Run:Prop 100 Element: Detention Pond Result:Outflow U Q m m 0 co w U) tL U_ 0 0 LL Reservoir "Detention Pond" Results for Run "Prop 100" 4-4141If, 280.25 fl 278.50 ; 276.75 w 275.00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 01Jan2000 IO2Jan2000 -- - -- Run:PROP 100 Element:DETENTION POND Result:Storage Run:PROP 100 ElemenCDETENTION POND Result:Pool Elevation — Run:Prop 100 Element:DETENTION POND Result:Oulflow --- Run:PROP 100 Element:DETENTION POND Result:Combined Inflow n Reservoir "Wet Pond" Results for Run "Prop 100" 286.71 F- 284.14 LIL 0 281.57 W 279.00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00 01Jan2000 IO2Jan2000 -- -- Run:PROP 100 Element:WET POND Result:Storage Run:PROP 100 Element:WET POND Result:Pool Elevation — Run:Prop 100 Element:WET POND Result:Outflow --- Run:PROP 100 Element:WET POND Result:Combined Inflow 50- 40- 7m 0 30 - 0 0 ILL ild M Junction "Offsite Analysis Point -1" Results for Run "Prop 100" i I I 41 I ' ,I t I' r , I , 1 1 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 01Jan2000 — Run:Prop 100 Element:OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT -1 Result:Oulflow --- Run:Prop100Element:0.2Result:0utflow ------ Run:Prop100Element:0.1Result:0utflow 18:00 21:00 00:00 102Jan2000 70 m 50 40 U- lL U 0 30 LL Kij m 11 Junction "Offsite Analysis Point - 2" Results for Run "Prop 100" i I i _ i i 1 i 1 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 01Jan2000 — Run:Prop 100 Element:OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT - 2 Result:Out low — -- Run:Prop 100 Element:0-3 Result:Outflow -----• Run:Prop100Element:P-21Result:0ufflow 18:00 21:00 00:00 102Jan2000 H G 9 Anaysis Point 1 Existing Ultimate ° (cfs) (cam) Reduction Reduction 2 - Year 10 - Year 25 - Year 100- Year ANALYSIS POINT 1 8 ffsite Analysis Point -1 ng Ultimate F(cfs) 2 - Year 10 - Year 25 - Year 100- Year 2 - Year 10 - Year 25 - Year 100- Year Offsite.Analysis Point - 2 Existing Ultimate o (cfs) (cfs) /o Reduction OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT 1 ANALYSIS POINT POINT 2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED RUNOFF COMPARISON i • Ultimate Conditions Drainage Area Area (acres) Area (sq. miles) Impervious Cover (%) Impervious Cover (acres) SCS Runoff Number Time of Concentration (min) Lag Time (min) 2-Year Flow (cfs) 10=Year Flow (cfs) 25-Year 100-Ye; Flow Flow (cfs) (cfs) . Proposed - 2 0.82 0.00128125 100% 0'.82 74 5 3.0 - 3 0.25 0.00039063 100% 0.25 74 5 3.0 IProposed Proposed - 4 17.06 0.02665625 0% 0 74 8 4.8 36 a7 74 9 88 7 , f 125,1' Proposed - 5 0.68 0.0010625 100% 0.68 74 5 3.0 Proposed - 6 0.56 0.000875 100% 0.56 74 5 3.0 n 5a2 Proposed - 7 0.31 0.00048438 100% 0.31 74 5 8.02L9 Proposed - 8 0.27 0.00042188 100% 0.27 74 5 3.0 Proposed - 9 0.22 0.00034375 100% 0.22 74 5 3.0 Proposed -10 0.23 0.00035938 100% 0.23 74 5 3.0 Proposed -11 5.97 0.00932813 80% 4.776 74 8 4.8 19 7 33 4 38,2 ° F 50 6 Proposed -12 0.39 0.00060938 100% 0.39 74 5 3.0 Proposed -13 0.45 0.00070313 100% 0.45 74 5 3.0 17 2 8 a 3 2 42 1 Proposed -14 0.28 0.0004375 100% 0.28 74 5 3.0 Proposed -15 0.29 0.00045313 100% 0.29 74 5 3.0 Proposed 16 13.72 0.0214375 80 /0 10.976 74 8 4.8 43 h 75 2� 87 ,120=6 Proposed - 25 0.22 0.00034375 100% 0.22 74 5 3.0 0 8 1 uJkx , f 16 21 1 Proposed - 26 0.21 0.00032813 100% 0.21 74 5 3.0? J F 3�!YN t Proposed 27 0.07 0.00010938 100% 0.07 74 5 3.0 •., :... ..,... _ ..._ 77777777 :,: ,:: .,.. ._ .,. . .Q ne. , . r...>•.. . ...... . ... z, -. al Proposed - 28 0.06 0.00009375 100% 0.06 74 5 3.0 Detention Pond 83 7 166 2 `, 195.9 280 9: Offsite -1 3.57 0.00557813 80% 2.856 74 5 3.0 12i8 li Offsite - 2 3.96 0.0061875 80% 3.168 74 5 3.0 , Proposed -1 8.37 • 0.01307813 80% 6.696 74 5 3.0 29,5 ,t 50 57 75 8 ' Proposed -17 0.39 0.00060938 100% 0.39 74 5 3.0 14 2 3 2 6 3 4 Proposed -18 33.18 0.05184375 80% 26.544 74 5 3.0 '100.5 ? 170 4 , 194'7 258 1 j Proposed -19 0.25 0.00039063 100% 0.25 74 5 3.0 Proposed - 20 0.24 0.000375 100% 0.24 74 5 3.0 15 t 7 a 2 2 Proposed - 21 ,0.35• 0.00054688 100% 0.35 74 5 3.0 j ' r Proposed - 22 0.37 0.00057813 100% 0.37 74 5 3.0 F Proposed - 24 5 0.0078125 0% 0 74 5 3.0 17 8 { 29 0 S 34yY 45 3 . rrl Wet Pond ' 49 L . 134 3 165 3 248 5 Analysis Point -1 12'f6 2$6 5 350 512 4` Offsite - 3 2.56 0.004 100% 2.56 74 5 3.0 91 s 15 172 2 Offsite - 4 3.66 ' 0.0055625 100% 3.56 74 5 3.0 12 30 9 I Offsite Analysis Point -1 218 .t 35.$ 40,6 531 Proposed - 23 7.52 0.01175 0% 0 74 7 4.2 16,T 3 40 3 56 7 0-5 0.72 0.001125 100% 0.72 74 5 3.0 51 67 A Offsite Analysis Point-2 141 A II� . I • i - ' 'l ISSUED FOR REVISION DATE E I ISSUED FOR SITE SUBMITTAL 01/14/2011 ; Ir • 1, ............................... • JOEL R. BOCK . � �o........9s44 � ......��.� f o KEY PLAN: R V i DRAWING TITLE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS ' PROJECT NUMBER FSW96852 n i DRAWING NUMBER 0 E CG203 PRINT DATE JANUARY 14, 2011 2 1 E" G 9 8 i Existing Conditions Impervious Impervious SCS Runoff Area Area _ Time of Lag Time �-Year 10-Year 25-Y ae r 100-Year Drainage Area Cover Cover Number (acres) (sq. miles) Concentration Flow Flow Flow Flow (min) (off) (acres) (min) j(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Existing -1 3.57 0.00557813 80% 2.856 74 10 6.0 Existing - 2 3.96 0.0061875 80% 3.168 74 5 3.0 51i ,_ 5 r 2trr l 35 7� Existing - 3 20.94 0.03271875 0°A 0 74 8 4.8 r y Existing - 4 42.38 0.06621876 0% 0 74 10 6.0 73 f63 i 195's 28 1 Existing - 5 19.77 0.03089063 0% 0 74 8 4.8 k� 35 V i -814 99 ` Existing - 6 20.45 0.03195313 0% 0 74 8 4.8 ri9ti 37 f r4 101 1,, 145 7 k t y Analysis Point 1 Offsite -1 2.81 0.00439063 80% 2.248 74 5 3.0 Ofisite - 2 3.53 0.00551563 80% 2.824 74 10 6.0 Ofisite Analysis Pont 8 � � M OfFslte - 3 0.72 0.001125 .80% 0,576 74 5 3.0 1 25• 65 .� Offsite - 4 8.39 0.01310938 0% 0 74 6 3.6 19 2 39 `4r:9 « 64 y r.i Offsite Analysis Pont 2 `� 21.E SCOTT & WHITE MEMORIAL G 19 ISSUED FOR REVISION DATE E ISSUED FOR SITE SUBMITTAL 01/14/2011 D N 0 75' 150' 300' SCALE: 1" =150' or- ...:.....................:..../ JOEL R BOCK 'p 98441 ......s KEY PLAN: DRAWING TITLE EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA MAP PROJECT NUMBER F8W96852 DRAWING NUMBER CG201 PRINT DATE JANUARY 14, 2011 4 0 z R I Lo C I.400 0-1 0-2 / 3.57 ac. f 3.96 ac SCOTf &WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SCOTT, SHERWOOD AND BRINDLEY FOUNDATIONS SCOTT & WHITE HOSPITAL 0 _ r COLLEGE STATION, TX .i^ 2/ �'i / \ \ \`�°g./ I ter• �'-+. -..r ,-,- '\3 _ .-----.-._ca_ .a'.'._ C „--,,,,_ C� P-3 P-2 /�� C� /�=--- _ TEXAS REGISTRATION #F 2966 .►/ _ �f \ "- 1'~ 2705 BEE CAVE ROAD SUITE 300 �� _ _. N ! \ 0.25 ac JAlC0 Lo r �t o 0.28 ac i / / \ I \ AUSTIN, TEXAS 78746 P-17 ` ! Q�A�R�E RA.S i /�� r }\`- -- J ► ,i//// / / I I I r 0.25 ac \ l> �' \ fir/ �/ ! 1 0.39 ac �� a \ P-20 tcl. P-1 � // 1r ♦ � •r � �.� �\ ��°, ��\ 0.24 ac • P-4 i �i / 8.37 ac 175 ` /%/��/�r// I ; // v P-23 / \ ° ;O6 ac. 'Fo 7.52 ac. co 1/ \ 1 1 /1 1 \ -' P-24 0.68 c it / ,G \ass \ �� / \\ t \ �' �\ \ 5.00 ac. P-21 0.35ac + P-60.37 ac 0-5 0.72 ac OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT 2 Q 2 (cfs) = 19.5 Q 10 (cfs) = 38.5 Q 25 (cfs) = 45.4 Q ioo (cfs) = 63.4 IH G Fa �'\\ \` /\ \ \ \ / / \ _ r ` �' i ISSUED FOR REVISION DATE E // / j'% `, , ^ ` \ \ \ \ \ f rJ� -- - - - -` `\ ISSUED FOR SITE SUBMITTAL 01114/2011 ---toy- - �-.•, 0.27ac if/ i }_.__ / �� --'" / / / _ter •' P-7 f 33.18 ac.0-4 \� ` \ \ \ �� \ \ r a \ t\\�\ \ P-11 �f. \ �� \ \ �\ \ \ 9s. \ / \ N 3.56 ac \ `\�� P-25 < , \ \ N At P-10 \� \\ \ �\ �� _ _ ^\ �_ 0.22a v\\ � \ P-9 0.2 \ \ P-14 \ 3 ac \ ,2 r \�\ 0.22 ac `0.28 ac /if _ 4 V\ SCALE: 1 150 7� 0.07 ac 0.45 ac . � 0.29 ac \ � //� L i * . . \ \/....:.....................:....i ' JOEL R. BOM ._.._285- P-16 \� q; `ft <�� ` -- -- \✓��\ \- � /0.06* ac KEY PLAN: `..� �\ \\ ,\\ \ Qti/ \�l� � \� �,. � �' �-•` ill / ANALYSIS POINT 1 Q2 (cfs) = 126.5 Q to (cfs) = 294.1 Q 25 (cfs) = 350.6 Q oo (cfs) = 512.4 DRAWING TITLE PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT 1 \\\Z \ PROJECT NUMBER Q 2 (cfs) = 21.8 \ `\� \ F8W96852 -14 r. A\ Q 25 (cfs) = 40.6 Q ioo (cfs) = 53.1 \ \ t] Q -7 n IT, A n n DRAWING NUMBER CG202 PRINT DATE JANUARY 14, 2011 A D. C 0 m 0 101 n OWN now mm,* P-2 �' '� P-1 � / OFFSITE ANAL (SIS POINT 2 0-2 KUL- awn GAS NI i \, i �f \ \ \ \ _ `y / i' � /, ..,., r _, _. -.. _. __ / /// � 'i / /~ """--.� `= d r .-./ - - -- - _ - - --- - �-` "-y.1 ^ 3- - •_ - - :-+-".- - r- ~` —tee` a qp /' ..- -"' /! r \ \'` _.. — t )..._ .— _._ _... / ` -. \\ / •%/ ��! ( 1 { P -- `, pow �• — — — / \ _ --oa P-3 — \ � Ab + N\\� � t' /' 1tiG� / � \\ � c ! \ `.... —• 7 \ `" -299-- — ..... _... — 1/ / ' ' t j �!� \ 1 l / \ •, Job` \ \ `\ \ \ \ f \ �uo, \tea \\\ / // , �! !r"`. �,\,�� `_•;`,--' `-_ �\ c _. to \ l \ l / /i- / ""'„"lrr /! \\ \ } ) man waft MAW P-13 \\ l k p-9 \" \ 1 \ P-7 - \�� P-19 //! P-17 \ \'\ \\ \\ \\\ \f P-30 P-29 P-32 i P. 33.18 ac. ON \ \, , —.\\ •\$ ANALYSIS POINT 1 \ \\ r -285— _—.\\ 285 `\ x�✓�i/ l� sue ! \\'` \\\�! . \\\\\�\vim`.;'/�•+ -.. � ', '`----� � JIII f jai \ \ si►\\\\ \�\ A$2'` � \\\\.., �,t� ^-.� ,� '� `"�• /jj 1 ail � ZIP OFFSITE ANALYSIS POINT \\\\ SCOTT & WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SCOTT, SHERWOOD AND BRINDLEY FOUNDATIONS SCOTT & WHITE HOSPITAL. COLLEGE STATION, TX TEXAS REGISTRATION #F-2966 2705 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 300 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78746 MOON - MAYORAS ARCHITECTS, INC. I ISSUED FOR ISSUED FOR SITE SUBMiITAL KEY PLAN: G F REVISION DATE E 011mol1 ORR DRAWING TITLE PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP PROJECT NUMBER FOW96852 DRAWING NUMBER F%i re j Z 5, 15 n 2 JANUARY 14, 2011 1