The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDP FolderLETTER OF COMPLETION CITY ENGINEER CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Dear Sir: DATE:.~~-5_11_8_11_2~~- RE: COMPLETION OF Public Infrastructure --- For College Station High School The purpose of our letter is to request that the following listed improvements be approved and accepted as being constructed under City inspection and completed according to plans and specifications as approved and required by the City of College Station, Texas. This approval and acceptance by the City is requested in order that we may finalize any subcontracts and to affirm their warranty on the work. This approval and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed below does hereby void the letter of guarantee for the listed improvements on the above referenced project. The one-year warranty is hereby affirmed and agreed to by C S TS 0 and by their subcontractors as indicated by signatures below. WORK COMPLETED WARRANTY DATE Water Hydrants 5/18/12 Water Mains 5/18/12 Sidewalks 5/18/12 OWner: College Station ISO Contractor: Pepper-Lawson Phone Number: (979) 764-5400 Phone Number: (281 ) 371 -3100 • Address: 1812 Welsh Address: 4555 Katy Hockley Cut-Off RD. College Station, Texas 77840 Katy, Texas 77493 Revised 1/31I07 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 09-72 B CITY OF COLLEGE STATION /'lamtfot & {Jn~/IJpnll'nt Snvirt"$ FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE : CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A005401 R Stevenson (ICL), Tract 48.1 Volume 3604, Pg 243 (CSISD High School Site) DATE OF ISSUE: May 12, 2010 OWNER: SITE ADDRESS: Barron Road at Victoria Avenue DRAINAGE BASIN: Spring Creek VALID FOR 24 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: College Station Independent School District (c/o Jon Hall) 1812 Welsh Avenue, Suite 120 Pepper-Lawson Construction PO Box 219227 College Station, Texas 77840 Houston, Texas 77218-9227 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Full Development Permit CONDITIONS: 1. No work of any kind may start until a Development Permit is issued. 2. No work beyond limits covered in permit is authorized. 3. The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein. If revoked, all work must cease until permit is re- issued. 4. Development shall not be used or occupied until Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 5. The permit will expire if no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance. 6. If required , Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction. 7. Other permits may have been required to fulfill local, state and federal requirements. Construction will be in compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits. 8. Stormwater mitigation, including detention ponds will be constructed first in the construction sequence of the project. 9. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that all debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities . Construction Site Notice or Notice of Intent (NOi) along with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) will be kept and maintained on-site during construction as per TPDES permitting requirements. If it is determined that the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment on-site, it is the Contractor's responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State, and Federal requirements. 10. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated prior to Letter of Completion or Certificate of Occupancy. 11 . All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with the Landscaping and Tree Protection Section of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as, but not limited to, paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also prohibited. 12. All construction shall be in accordance with the stamped approved plans and specifications for the above-named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station , as well as State and Federal Regulations that apply. Only those deviations from BCS Unified Design Guidelines, Specifications and Details specifically requested and approved will be allowed. 13. Special Conditions: **TCEQ Phase II Rules In Effect** I, M lC.l-.\1\-€.L t-\ £.. D C'"I e._s , the Contractor, hereby agree to comply with all conditions herein. i&f,.!1 t1 s-12-2.010 Date I hereby grant this permit for development. Contact Ke,tl.\,"' kc:r ~7/~ 777-017&, the Public Works lnspec o ss ned to this project 24 hours prior to beginning construction for scheduling required Inspections. · 5'·12 ·lo Date DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 09-72 A CITY OF C OLLEGE STATION J'/mmillg & f.Hr>tlnpnunt Sn11i n FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A005401 R Stevenson (ICL), Tract 48.1 Volume 3604, Pg 243 CSISD High School Site DATE OF ISSUE: April 5, 2010 OWNER: SITE ADDRESS: Barron Road at Victoria Avenue DRAINAGE BASIN: Spring Creek VALID FOR 24 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: College Station Independent School District (c/o Jon Hall) 1812 Welsh Avenue, Suite 120 Pepper-Lawson Construction PO Box 219227 Houston, Texas 77218-9227 College Station , Texas 77840 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Clearing and Grading Permit CONDITIONS: 1. No work of any kind may start until a Development Permit is issued. 2. No work beyond limits covered in permit is authorized. 3. The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein. If revoked, all work must cease until permit is re- issued . 4. Development shall not be used or occupied until Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 5. The permit will expire if no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance. 6. If required, Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction. 7. Other permits may have been required to fulfill local, state and federal requirements. Construction will be in compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits. 8. Stormwater mitigation, including detention ponds will be constructed first in the construction sequence of the project. 9. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that all debris from construction , erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. Construction Site Notice or Notice of Intent (NOi) along with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) will be kept and maintained on-site during construction as per TPDES permitting requirements. If it is determined that the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment on-site, it is the Contractor's responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State, and Federal requirements. 10. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated prior to Letter of Completion or Certificate of Occupancy. 11 . All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with the Landscaping and Tree Protection Section of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as, but not limited to, paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also prohibited . 12. All construction shall be in accordance with the stamped approved plans and specifications for the above-named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station , as well as State and Federal Regulations that apply. Only those deviations from BCS Unified Design Guidelines, Specifications and Details specifically requested and approved will be allowed. 13. Special Conditions: Restricted Clearing and Grading Only (TCEQ Phase II Rules In Effect) Probable Estimate of Sitework Construction Costs CSISD New High School Gessner Engineering, LLP GE Job#: 09-0318 WATER Item QuanUty Units Unit Cost 12" PVC Water 706.75 LF $ 50.00 8" PVC Water 3590.07 LF $ 40.00 12" Ductile Iron Water Pipe 146 LF $ 60.00 6" PVC Water 337.84 LF $ 35.00 3" PVC Water 6 LF $ 30.00 18x18x12 Tee Cut to Existinq 1 LS $ 6,300.00 12x12x12 Tee Cut to Existing 1 LS $ 5,700.00 Ductile Iron Fittings 2.9 TON $ 5,200.00 18" Butterfly Valve 1 EA $ 6,200.00 12" Gate Valve 9 EA $ 2,000.00 8" Gate Valve 12 EA $ 1,225.00 6" Gate Valve 7 EA $ 918.75 8" Isolation Valve with lockable lid 1 EA $ 1,475.00 6" Isolation Valve with lockable lid 1 EA $ 1,200.00 3" Isolation Valve with lockable lid 1 EA $ 350.00 4" Gate Valve 1 EA $ 459.38 3" GateValve 3 EA $ 229.69 2" Gate Valve 1 EA $ 180.00 4" Meter with Vault 1 EA $ 425.00 3" Meter with Vault 1 EA $ 300.00 2" Meter 2 EA $ 250.00 1" Meter 1 EA $ 225 .00 Free Standinq FDC 2 EA $ 2,750.00 Wall Mounted FDC 1 EA $ 2,000.00 Fire Hydrant Assembly 6 EA $ 3, 149.00 Pressure Testing and Disenfecting 1 LS $ 5,500.00 Sawcut Trench for Water Install 50 LF $ 150.00 Traffic Control for Barron Road 1 LS $ 5,000.00 Trench Safety 4,787 LF $ 1.00 Sub Total -Water DECELERATION LANE PAVING Item Quantity Units Unit Cost 8" 3,500 PSI Concrete w/ Std . Curb 1,597 SY $ 40.00 8" Lime Stab. Subqrade 2,079 SY $ 2.00 Hydrated Lime 33 TON $ 120.00 4" Wide White Reflective Stripinq 420 LF $ 1.40 Directional Arrow 3 EA $ 250.00 Sub Total -Pavi ng Total Construction Cost Total $ 35,337.50 $ 143,602.80 $ 8,760.00 $ 11 ,824.40 $ 180.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 5,700.00 $ 15,093.00 $ 6,200.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 14,700.00 $ 6,431 .25 $ 1,475.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 350.00 $ 459.38 $ 689.06 $ 180.00 $ 425.00 $ 300.00 $ 500.00 $ 225.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 18,894.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 4,786.66 $ 327,113.05 Total $ 63,866.84 $ 4,157.38 $ 3,991 .08 $ 588.00 $ 750.00 $ 73,353.30 $ 400,466.35 Gessner Engineering " May 3, 2010 Mr. Josh Norton, P.E. City of College Station Public Works Department 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Re: Fire Flow Study Proposed College Station ISO High School and Site Buildings Barron Road and Victoria Avenue College Station , Texas Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Norton: The fire flow test information was provided to Gessner Engineering in regards to the fire hydrant S-106 located at Barron Road , and the fire hydrant S-141 located at Victoria Avenue. The fire flow information is as follows: Barron Road Victoria A venue Static Pressure 84 si Residual Pressure m According to the International Fire Code Table B105.1 and C105.1, the fire flow demand at this site is 6,000 gallons per minute with a flow duration of four (4) hours . This demand was determined for a Type llA building with G greater than 166,501 square feet of fire flow calculation area. A minimum of six (6) fire hydrants are required for this fire flow demand. Gessner Engineering was informed if the building contains a sprinkler system the fire flow may be reduced by fifty percent. The proposed (design) building will have a sprinkler system built in, resulting in a total fire flow of 3000 gallons per minute. The standard formula given in AWWA M-17 (1989), shown on the next page, was utilized for converting test flow data to distribution capacity at the minimum 20 psi residual pressure. where, ( J 0.54 Q, = Q, ;, =; Or = fire flow at residual pressure Pr (gpm) 01 = hydrant discharge during test (gpm} Ps = static pressure (psi) Pr = desired residual pressure (psi) P1 = residual pressure during test (psi) The total flow available with a 20 psi residual at Victoria Avenue and Barron Road (planned areas of connection) is calculated to be greater Gessner Engineering 250 I Ashford Drive Suite 102 College Station, Texas 77840 P.O. Box 10763, 77842 979.680.8840 fax 979.680.8841 2204 S. Chappell Hill Street Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 fax 979.836.6847 ,• than 3,000 gallons per minute. Therefore, the proposed site should have adequate fire flow provided for the planned development. Fire hydrant supply pipes were sized using the water distribution modeling software, EPANET, developed by the EPA's Water Supply and Water Resources Division. The modeled system head loss was computed using the Hazen- Williams based hydraulic analysis. Please see the attached calculations from EPANET for pipe and node details. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. 4--fat,, ff-- Kyle M. Zapalac, M.E., E.l.T Gessner Engineering .. Page 1 S/2/2010 9 :2S :29 PM ********************************************************************** * * * * E P A N E T Hydraulic and Water Quality Analysis for Pipe Networks Version 2 .0 * * * * ********************************************************************** Input File : CS ISO High School 040Sl0 Update .NET Link -Node Table : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Link Start End Length Diameter ID Node Node ft in ---------------------------------------------------------------------- W2 Nl N2 2SS.81 12 W3 N2 N3 Sl 7. 71 8 Wl6 Nl6 NlS 24S .92 8 WlS NlS Nl4 S2 .79 8 W22 Nl4 Nl3 6 .97 8 Wl4 Nl3 Nl2 112 . 3S 8 Wl3 Nl2 Nll 407 .07 8 Wl2 Nll NlO 107 .SB 8 Wll NlO N9 61 .0S 8 WlO N9 N8 162 .40 12 W9 NB N7 44 2 .60 12 W8 N7 N6 114 . SS 12 W21 N8 Nl8 21S .98 8 DCONCESSION Nl8 CONCESSION 9S .60 3 F6 Nl8 HYD6 3S .Ol 8 F4 N9 HYD4 12.12 8 DFIELDHOUSE NlO FIELDHOUSE 103 .30 4 Wl9 Nll Nl9 222 .99 8 W20 Nl9 N20 232 .98 6 DPRESSBOX N20 PRESS BOX lS0 .49 4 Il N20 WCANNONl 114 . 80 3 FS Nl9 HYDS 70 .48 8 F3 Nl2 HYD3 37 .26 8 OHS Nl4 DOMHS 73 .01 6 FHS Nl3 FIREHS 71. 2S 6 I4 WCANNON2 WCANNON4 163 .77 3 Wl Nl BARRON 143 .03 12 W7 N6 VICTORIA 118 . S2 12 DTENNIS N7 TENNIS 36 .29 2 W4 N3 N4 118 . 62 8 I3 WCANNONl WCANNON3 167.13 3 Wl8 Nl Nl7 327 .16 8 Wl 7 Nl7 Nl6 188 .34 8 ws N4 NS 216 .36 8 W6 NS N8 314 .0S 8 Fl N2 HYDl 71. 91 8 F2 N3 HYD2 SO .Sl 8 . ' Page 2 Link -Node Table : (continued) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Link Start End Length Diameter ID Node Node ft in ---------------------------------------------------------------------- l CONCESSION WCANNON2 165 . 72 3 Node Results : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Node Demand Head Pre ssure Quality ID GPM ft psi ---------------------------------------------------------------------- N6 0 .00 193 .43 83 .81 0 .00 N7 0 .00 192 .89 83 .58 0 .00 NS 0 .00 190 .77 82.66 0 .00 CONCESSION 0 .00 190 .77 82 .66 0 .00 N18 0 .00 190 .77 82 .66 0 .00 HYD6 0 .00 190 .77 82 .66 0 .00 Nll 0 .00 187 .79 81 .37 0 .00 N19 0 .00 187 .79 81 .37 0 .00 HYDS 0 .00 187 .79 81 .37 0 .00 N9 0 .00 190 .42 82.51 0 .00 HYD4 0 .00 190 .42 82 .51 0 .00 NlO 0 .00 189 .47 82 .10 0 .00 FIELDHOUSE 0 .00 189 .47 82 .10 0 .00 PRESS BOX 0 .00 187 .79 81 .37 0 .00 N20 0 .00 187 .79 8 1.37 0 .00 WCANNONl 0 .00 187 .79 81 .37 0 .00 WCANNON2 0 .00 190 .77 82.66 0 .00 WCANNON4 0 .00 190 .77 82 .66 0 .00 HYD3 1500 .00 180 .20 78 .08 0 .00 N12 0 .00 181 .46 78 .63 0 . 00. N13 0 .00 181 .97 78 .85 0 .00 N14 0 .00 182 .03 78 .88 0 .00 FIREHS 0 .00 181 .97 78 .85 0 .00 DOMHS 215 .00 181. 76 78 .76 0 .00 N15 0 .00 182 .50 79 .08 0 .00 N16 0 .00 184 .67 80 .02 0 .00 N3 0 .00 184 .83 80 .09 0 .00 N2 0 .00 192 .62 83 . 4 6 0 .00 Nl 0 .00 193 .16 83 .70 0 .00 TENNIS 0 .00 192 .89 83 .58 0 .00 N4 0 .00 185 .91 80 .56 0 .00 WCANNON3 0 .00 187 .79 81. 37 0 .00 N17 0 .00 187 .77 81. 36 0 .00 NS 0 .00 187 .89 81. 41 0 .00 HYDl 0 .00 192 .62 83 . 4 6 0 .00 HYD2 1500 .00 181 .65 78 .71 0 .00 BARRON -1697 .53 194 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Reservoir VICTORIA -1517 .47 194 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Reservoir Page 3 Link Results : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status ID GPM fps ft/Kft ---------------------------------------------------------------------- W2 970 .30 2 .75 2 .09 Open W3 970 .30 6 .19 15 .06 Open Wl6 727 .23 4 . 64 8 .83 Open Wl5 727 .23 4 .64 8 .83 Open W22 512 .23 3 .27 8 .60 Open Wl4 512 .23 3 .27 4 .61 Open Wl3 -987 .77 6 .30 15 .56 Open Wl2 -987 .77 6 .30 15 .56 Open Wll -987 .77 6 .30 15 .56 Open WlO -987 .77 2 .80 2 .16 Open W9 -1517 .47 4 .30 4 .78 Open W8 -1517 .47 4 .30 4 .78 Open W2 1 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open DCONCESSION 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open F6 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open F4 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open DFIELDHOUSE 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open Wl9 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open W20 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open DPRESSBOX 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open Il 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Op e n F5 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open F3 1500 .00 9 .57 33 .74 Open DHS 215 .00 2 .44 3 .75 Open FHS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open I 4 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open Wl -1697 .53 4 .82 5 .89 Open W7 -1517 .47 4 .30 4 .78 Open DTENNIS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open W4 -529 .70 3 .38 9 .15 Open I3 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open Wl8 727 .23 4 .64 16.46 Open Wl 7 727 .23 4 .64 16.46 Open W5 -529 .70 3 .38 9 .15 Open W6 -529 .70 3 .38 9 .15 Open Fl 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open F2 1500 .00 9 .57 62 .92 Open 1 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Open I Demand 25.00 50.00 500.00 1000.00 OPM I Velociy 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 lps )( // / /' BAARON / ..... // WI / VICTORIA April 14, 2010 Mr. Josh Norton, P.E. City of College Station Public Works Department 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Re : Domestic Water Flow Analysis Proposed College Station ISO High School and Site Buildings Barron Road and Victoria Avenue College Station, Texas Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Norton: The peak water demands were calculated by the MEP engineer. Gessner Engineering calculated the average water demands using the 2009 Domestic Water Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines. Bu ild ing Buildin~ Size Average Water Peak Water Meter Size (ft ) Demand (gpm) Demand (gpm) Main School 407,407 53.75 215 Field House 28,295 40.00 160 Football Press Box I 8,180 40.00 160 Concession Concessions 4,337 21 .25 85 Tennis Court 1,232 11 .50 46 Table One: College Station /SD High School Site Total Water Usage The peak water demands, average water demands, and proposed meter sizes for the College Station ISO High School site buildings are shown in the table above . The specifications for the proposed 2", 3" and 4" Sensus OMNI T2 water meters are attached. Gessner Engineering understands that for some of the given flow values smaller meters could be applicable. The domestic supply lines to the building were sized to match the MEP domestic stub out which are designed to allow a maximum of 5 feet per second velocity, as stated in the building code . It was recommended by the MEP engineer, and by a Sensus water meter representative, to not downsize more than one size reduction from the pipe diameter to the meter diameter (i.e. 6" pipe to a 4" meter, instead of a 6" pipe to a 3" meter). (in) 4 3 3 2 1 G Gessner Engineering 250 l Ashford Drive Suire 102 College Srarion, Texas 77840 P.O. Box 10763, 77842 979.680.8840 fax 979.680.8841 2204 S. Chappell Hill Srreer Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 fax 979.836.6847 Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 vrvltf~ Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. r+~·~ Kyle M. Zapalac, M.E., E.l.T. Gessner Engineering MEMO: 10 January 2012' Josh, I have reviewed this and see no problem in letting Pepper-Lawson have this variance on the wires inside two valve boxes. Butch ~ PEPPER-LAWSON CONS T RUCTION, L.P. January 5, 2012 Attn: Mr. Butch Willis Water Services P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77845 Re: Valve box locations Dear Butch, Please see attached letter from Joslin Construction. Pepper-Lawson did not recognize that the tracer wires were placed in the valve boxes. We missed two locations noted in the attached letter. Pepper-Lawson is asking for variance on these locations. Concrete has been placed and demolition would be required for correction. Thank you for your help. Please advise if you require any further information. Sincerely, Pepper-Lawson Construction, L.P. --Ot~~ Project Superintendent cc: 20187-G-10.12 4555 Katy Hockley Cut-Off Road Katy, Texas 77493 Telephone 281-371-3100 Fax 281-371-2029 .. • J City of College Station Utilities Attn: Butch December 16, 2011 Butch, Joslin Construction is sending this letter to the City of College Station Utilities Department in reference to the College Station High School located at 4002 Victoria. On this project, there are two water valves that were installed with the tracer wire turned up inside of the valve box instead of outside the valve box. This first valve where this occurs is on an 8" waterline along Barron Road, station STA 4+72.71 W2. This valve serves as an isolation valve for a portion of the water loop. The second valve with the tracer wire inside the valve box is a 6" valve serving the football field press box located at station STA 3+74.73 W3. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (281) 354-5840. Thanks, Michael Green Project Manager PO BOX 1970 PORTER, TEXAS 77365 PHONE (281) 354-5840 FAX (281) 354-1864 www .joslinconstruction.com February 26, 2010 Mr. Josh Norton City of College Station Planning Services 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Re : Letter Acknowledging City Standards CSISD High School 2449 Barron Road College Station, Texas Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Norton : The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the construction plans for the water, sanitary sewer, streets and drainage for the above-referenced project, to the best of my knowledge, do not deviate from the B/CS Design Guideline Manual. Alternate design or construction methodology that was used includes : • Two water valves were not added at every tee fitting due to the close spacing of service lines to the buildings on site as discussed with Ms. Carol Cotter, P.E ., College Station City Engineer. • HOPE pipe is specified for the Storm Sewer Design. This is discussed more in depth in the Drainage Report. Due to the fact that the HOPE pipe is located entirely on private property, it does not need to meet these public design standards. Also, to the best of my knowledge the details provided in the construction plans are in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Standard Details . Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. G Gessner Engineering 1712 Southwest Plnvy Suite 105 College Station, Texas 77840 P.O. Box 10763, 77842-0763 979.680.8840 FAX 979.680.884 1 2204 S. Chappell Hill St. Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 FAX 979.836.6847 April 14, 2010 Mr. Josh Norton, P.E. City of College Station Public Works Department 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Re: Fire Flow Study Proposed College Station ISO High School and Site Buildings Barron Road and Victoria Avenue College Station, Texas Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Norton: The fire flow test information was provided to Gessner Engineering in regards to the fire hydrant S-106 located at Barron Road , and the fire hydrant S-141 located at Victoria Avenue. The fire flow information is as follows: Barron Road Victoria Avenue Static Pressure 84 psi 92 psi Residual Pressure 80 psi 92 psi Flow 1325 qpm 1455 qpm According to the International Fire Code Table B105.1 and C105 .1, the fire flow demand at this site is 6,000 gallons per minute with a flow duration of four (4) hours . This demand was determined for a Type llA building with greater than 166,501 square feet of fire flow calculation area. A minimum of six (6) fire hydrants are required for this fire flow demand. Gessner Engineering was informed if the building contains a sprinkler system the fire flow may be reduced by fifty percent. The proposed (design) building will have a sprinkler system built in, resulting in a total fire flow of 3000 gallons per minute. The total flow available with a 20 psi residual at Victoria Avenue and Barron Road (planned areas of connection) is calculated to be greater than 3,000 gallons per minute. Therefore, the proposed site should have adequate fire flow provided for the planned development. G Gessner Engineering 2501 Ashford Drive Suite 102 Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further College Sration, Texas 77840 assistance. Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 vrn~ Melissa P. Thomas, P. E. _,_.,,,, .... ---oFr .,, L ... '\!-........ fk ... ''~ -4\'r·· * .. ..,~ .. ~ft.... . *I ,, •• • 'Ji '*: ·~·~ l~. : .......................... 1.: ...... THOMAS l \.~~?~.!:····a······;····l , \ 9839 l ~ ··~· .. (/Cl-~··' "*' ,, ~8.··········· -''' llONA\. _.r ''"''~- P.O. Box 10763, 77842 979.680.8840 fax 979.680.8841 2204 S. Chappell Hill Street Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 fax 979.836.6847 April 14, 2010 Mr. Josh Norton, P.E. City of College Station Public Works Department 1101 Texas Avenue College Station , TX 77842 Re: Wastewater Design Report Proposed College Station ISO High School and Site Buildings Barron Road and Victoria Avenue College Station , Texas Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Norton: The peak wastewater flows for the College Station ISO High School site were calculated by the MEP engineer. These wastewater flows are shown below in table one. Buildi n~ Size Peak Building Wastewater (ft ) Flow (aom) Main School 407,407 558 Field House 28,295 120 Football Press Box I 8,180 102 Concession Concessions 4,337 80 Tennis Court 1,232 33 Table One: Design Wastewater Flow for CS /SD High School The sewer lines were sized using the Manning equation with a Manning's roughness coefficient "n" value of 0.013 (minimum acceptable Manning's roughness coefficient per TCEQ) and the slopes shown on the plans. All of the design slopes meet the International Plumbing Code and fall within the minimum and maximum design slopes per TCEQ Table C.1. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. · Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING , LLP F-7451 ~~ Melissa P. Thomas, P.E . ~,,,,,, -i& OF 1'. '' ~ ~'\~········t!'..: ,, ''-~··· * ~ .. '• l .... ... .. , *I "*1. ···'······················'····i l MELISSA P. THOMAS l ~~·~::·9·93·91····.:~1. ..~ ... ,~~~~ .,,~~...-; ''"~ G Gessner Engineering · 2501 Ashford Drive Suite 102 College Station, Texas 77840 P.O. Box 10763, 77842 979.680.8840 fax 979.680.8841 2204 S. Chappell Hill Street Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 fax 979.836.6847 April 12 , 2010 Mr. Josh Norton City of College Station Planning Services 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Re : Letter Acknowledging City Standards CSISD High School 2449 Barron Road College Station, Texas Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Norton: The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the construction plans for the water, sanitary sewer, streets and drainage for the above-referenced project, to the best of my knowledge, do not deviate from the B/CS Design Guideline Manual. Alternate design or construction methodology that was used includes: • HOPE pipe is specified for the Storm Sewer Design. This is discussed more in depth in the Drainage Report. Due to the fact that the HOPE pipe is located entirely on private property, it does not need to meet these public design standards. Also, to the best of my knowledge the details provided in the construction plans are in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Standard Details. Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 Melissa P. Thomas , P.E. G Gessner Engineering 250 l Ashford Drive Suite 102 College Station, Texas 77840 P.O. Box 10763, 77842 979.680.8840 fax 979.680.8841 2204 S. Chappell Hill Street Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 1>·3\ fax 979.836.6847 \0~00 '\.,).-\0 ,. , April 19, 2010 Attn: Regulatory Branch USACOE -Fort Worth District 819 Taylor St. Room 3A37 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Re : NPR College Station ISO -Proposed High School College Station, Texas 77840 Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 To Whom It May Concern: Gessner Engineering is the civil engineer for the above referenced project. The project scope includes a proposed new high school building, football field , tennis court, baseball field and several pavement areas. An existing wetland and small stream are located immediately adjacent to the project limits on the southeastern portion of the property. An existing outlet for the stormwater runoff system currently discharges into the stream and is proposed to remain in use. The proposed development and construction will not result in discharge of any fill material into the wetland or stream . Based on a phone conversation between ACOE regulatory branch at the Fort Worth District office and Gessner Engineering, it is our understanding that due to the fact the proposed design and construction do not include any fill material being discharged into the existing wetlands or stream a permit is not required for this project. Please submit confirmation of this determination in writing. A copy of the existing and proposed site plans is included with this submittal. If I can be of further assistance to you with this review please contacJ me. Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 _,,~_,,,,, .. • ct,,OF 7'~ '' ; ~~\,·····• ... ::~ ,., "Cit ·· * ··'tf.a t "' · .. ·· . ·-·':' ' ,,, * • .. •. :& •tt 'I •, '~ ~ • . •• r.. 1, {p ~ ········.J~·············~····:, ... , v7 / L ~ ~···:~~~~~~.~.s~~~~~~.s -l i\*·· 101 9$6 j J Machel D. Craig, P.E. 'e,~,;-.!1Cr11\:~······ ~..f ~~~--,. ~;.ta!········· -w S-~ "'~ ~ \\V'ONA\. _..:-· c/~~:t'"'Jtf!~~ll '"''-~ P flo ~:tJ••t•••ttt 0•1t: .. ~CI~ Thomas E. Gessner, .E. 2 THOMAS E. GESSNER ~ ~••o0••o •e •••••••••:o •g if ~·~ < 90967 :s IP '!I O~.fp I: N S~~·~~ ' ·it .ss,oNAL°f-~~ '~~~~...,.. G Gessner Engineering l.~Ot Drrrc Ut..M S.. ( .happd1 H.~I t .(t 'B""nh.ur.,."lt......i.t:. ,3 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FORT WORTH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 17300 FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-0300 April 29, 2010 Planning, Environmental, and Regulatory Division Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Project Number SWF-2010-00201, College Station ISD High School Mr. Thomas Gessner Gessner Engineering 250 l Ashford Drive, Suite 102 College Station, TX 77840 Dear Mr. Gessner: Thank you for your letter received April 22, 2010 concerning a proposal by the College Station Independent School District to construct a new high school building, football field, tennis court, baseball field and several pavement areas located off of Barron Road and Victoria A venue, City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas. This project"has been assigned Project Number SWF-2010-00201. Please include this number in all future correspondence concerning this project. Ms. Elisha Bradshaw has been assigned as the regulatory project manager for your request and will be evaluating it as expeditiously as possible. You may be contacted for additional infonnation about your request. For your information, please reference the Fort Worth District Regulatory Branch homepage at http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/regulatory and particularly guidance on submittals at http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdate/environ/regulatory/introduction/submital.pdf, and mitigation at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/final_cmr.aspx that may help you supplement your current request or prepare future requests. If you have any questions about the evaluation of your submittal or would like to request a copy of one of the documents referenced above, please contact Ms. Elisha Bradshaw at the address above or telephone (817) 886-1738 and refer to your assigned project number. Please note that it is unlawful to start work without a Department of the Army permit if one is required. Please help the Regulatory Program improve its service by completing the survey on the following website: http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html. Stephen L Brooks Chief, Regulatory Branch Page 1of1 Morgan Lund From: Jennifer Prochazka [JProchazka@cstx.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:40 PM To: Bob Cowell; Thomas Gessner Cc: Alan Gibbs; Carol Cotter; Morgan Lund Subject: Re: CSISD High School Thomas, We can issue a grading permit once a Development Permit and grading application are submitted, but please know that little will be able to be done on site since driveway locations, utility locations, building and parking locations, etc. will still be subject to change based on the TIA, site plan, construction documents, drainage study, etc. We cannot allow work on utilities to proceed without all engineering reports, drawings and a completed site plan that would support the placement of utilities. Please let us know if you have any questions! Thanks! Jennifer Prochazka, AICP Senior Planner Planning & Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Office: 979.764.3570 Fax: 979.764.3496 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov Website: www.cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® >>>"Thomas Gessner" <tgessner@gessnerengineering.com> 11/3/2009 4:06 PM >>> Bob -The school district is wanting to get started early on the high school site. Specifically, they would like to release a rough grading and utilities package in December. It would not be a finished site plan or engineering set of drawings -would the city allow this and what would be required in the way of a site plan for review? Thomas Gessner, P.E. Principal Gessner Engineering LLP -F7451 State of Texas Hub Certified P.O. Box 10763 2501 Ashford Drive, Suite 102 College Station, Texas 77842 979.680.8840 Phone 979 .680.8841 Fax www.gessnerengineering.com 1211 7/2009 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FORT WORTH DI STRICT, CORPS OF ENG INEERS P.O. BOX l 7300 FORT WORTH. TEXAS 76102-0300 May 6, 2010 Planning, Environmental, and Regulatory Division Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Project Number SWF-2010-00201, College Station ISD High School Mr. Thomas Gessner Gessner Engineering 250 l Ashford Drive, Suite I 02 College Station, Texas 77840 Dear Mr. Gessner: Thank you for your letter received April 22, 2010, concerning the proposal by the College Station Independent School District to construct a new high school building, football field, tennis court, baseball field and several pavement areas located off of BalTon Road and Victoria Avenue, City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas. This project has been assigned Project Number SWF-2010-00201. Please include this number in all future correspondence concerning this project. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act the U.S. Atmy Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. USACE responsibility under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 is to regulate any work in, or affecting, navigable waters of the United States. Based on your description of the proposed work, and other info1mation available to us, we have determined this project will not involve activities subject to the requirements of Section 404 or Section 10. Therefore, it will not require Department of the Army authorization. The USA CE based this decision on a preliminary jurisdictional determination that there are no waters of the United States within the project site. Thank you for your interest in our nation's water resources. If you have any questions concerning our regulatory program, please contact Ms. Elisha Bradshaw at the address above or telephone (817) 886-1738 and refer to your assigned project number. Please help the Regulatory Program improve its service by completing the survey on the following website: http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html. Sincerely, r1 ~~~ -f'oi-Stephen L Brooks Chief, Regulatory Branch ~ I Texas Department of Transportation 1300 N TEXAS AVE • BRYAN TX 77803-2760 • (979) 778-2165 May 20, 2010 Ms. Morgan Lund, P.E. Gessner Engineering 2501 Ashford Drive, Suite 102 College Station, TX 77840 RE: SH 40 Eagle Avenue -Barron Road PROPOSED DETOUR ROUTES Dear Ms. Lund: We have reviewed your proposed Temporary Detour Routes on SH 40 from Eagle Avenue east to Barron Road to allow for the closure of Barron Road north of SH 40 in connection with the construction of the new CSISD High School. This letter shall serve as approval to use SH 40 as a Temporary Detour Route with the following provisions: 1) All signage shall be according to TM UT CD & should be maintained & inspected periodically for dependability: 2) All signs shall be crashworthy: 3) All signs shall be removed & the areas restored in a timely manner once the need for a Detour is no longer required. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call. Attachments . File -.. '· ... ' age, P.E. Associate Area Engineer .-:!.· • •. l ' An Equal Opportunity Employer p ·EPPER-LAWSON CONSiRUCT I ON, L. P. January 28, 2010 City of College Station -Storm Water Quality Public Works Josh Norton 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 Re: New High School for College Station Independent School District Corner of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue College Station, Texas 77845 Mr. Norton: In compliance with TCEQ guidelines, we are formally notifying you as the MS4 for the above referenced project. We have included copies of out Construction Site Notice and NOi for your reference. These documents are being forwarded in accordance with Part II of the TCEQ General Permit Number TXRlSOOOO for discharge of the storm water runoff from the above referenced construction site. Should you have any questions or require further information, I can be contacted at the following (979) 690-3056. Respectfully submitted, PEPPER-LAWSON CONSTRUCTION, L.P. Karli McGinty Project Engineer Attachments: Construction Site Notice · Notice of Intent 4002-B Victoria Avenue · College Station, Texas 77845 P (979) 690-3056 · F (979) 690-9432 Case file #10-00500031 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: CSISD College Station High School (SP) #10-00500031 Comment Responses ENGINEERING (Grading and Drainage Comments) ff) (Repeat) The proposed detention ponds at the South end of the property appear to I/ be formed by building berms along the south edge of the property. It appears that these berms are based on a 20' offset from the property boundary, which was the centerline of the creek at the time the property was purchased . The creek in this area is very meandering and the 20' offset results in the berms filling the existing flow paths as well as portions of the wetlands previously designated in the vicinity of the Victoria crossing. While the proposed detention ponds should mitigate the increased runoff from the development, I am concerned that filling in the current flow path and storage areas will result in increased flooding on adjacent properties. The bottom of the exterior of the berms are placed a minimum of 30' from the centerline of the closest flow path. Gessner Engineering is currently waiting on surveyed cross section information of Spring Creek to determine the effects of placing fill in the flood fringe of Spring Creek. Gessner Engineering plans to submit a flood study of this area to submit to the city. O')(Repeat) Verify that proposed grading does not impact the 100-year conveyance in l7 ~he adjacent tributaries of Spring Creek. A flood study was performed with the development of the adjacent residential subdivision (Sonoma) to determine the Limits of the Base Flood In order to establish finished floor elevations to protect residential structures from flooding. You will need to show that the fill you are proposing does not negatively Impact these properties. Until verified , no grading will be allowed within 150 feet of common property line with Sonoma Subdivision. Gessner Engineering has determined the "Limits of Base Flood" for both the existing and proposed conditions along this property line. The same flow values that were used in the Sonoma study were used for the Gessner Engineering study to ensure the studies were conducted in a similar fashion. The existing and proposed "Limits of Base Flood" are shown on the Grading Master Plan (Sheet C300) and the Master Storm Plan (Sheet C500). £)The western property line is shared with the adjacent Sonoma Subdivision. The f.7 Sonoma Subdivision established the "Limits of Base Flood" in this area. The proposed High School site appears to be encroaching this area with berms, parking lots, practice fields, fill , etc. How will this affect the adjacent lots and residential structures with the existing flood capacity proposed to be decreased? The parking lot and practice field is not a concern, but rather the fill that is proposed. Please illustrate the "Limit of Base Flood " in this area and possibly continue with the Gessner Engineering G existing improvements without fill in those areas? Gessner Engineering has determined the "Limits of Base Flood" for both the existing and proposed conditions along this property line. The same flow values that were used in the Sonoma study were used for the Gessner Engineering study to ensure the studies were conducted in a similar fashion. The existing and proposed "Limits of Base Flood" are shown on the Grading Master Plan (Sheet C300) and the Master Storm Plan (Sheet C500). Gessner Engineering designed this area so that the proposed "Limits of Base Flood" after development of the CS/SD High School site will be at or below the existing "Limits of Base Flood" elevation. /tJ Likewise, the southern property line is adjacent to Spring Creek. Please provide V analysis determining the "Limits of Base Flood" along the southern property line. @ Ideally the area encroached by the "Limits of Base Flood" would be reserved for flood capacity. How will the proposed fill affect the adjacent tract to the south and downstream properties with the existing flood capacity proposed to be decreased? Simply put it appears you are pushing the flood capacity off the High School site and onto the adjacent tract to the south. Gessner Engineering is currently waiting on surveyed cross section information of Spring Creek to determine the effects of placing fill in the flood fringe of Spring Creek. Gessner Engineering plans to submit a flood study of this area to submit to the city. With the extensive amount of grading proposed near the creek and with the armoring of proposed outfalls at the creek, what Corp. Permit has been has been utilized for this project. If a Nationwide Permit is proposed please provide specific permit number, if notification is required and the specific permits parameters and thresholds. Gessner Engineering is currently determining which, if any, of the Corps. Nationwide Permits need to be utilized for this project. If it is determined that a Nationwide Permit is required the specific permit number, parameters, and thresholds will be provided to the City of College Station. (BarronNictoria) Based on the top of pavement spot elevations provided It appears that the high school site will be accepting some amount of water from Barron Road, however the drainage area map does not take this into account. In addition there appears to be a conflict in the deceleration lane and the Barron Road widening project's underground storm system. Please coordinate with Daniel Beamon (764- 3816) concerning these issues. Gessner Engineering has contacted Daniel Beamon and coordinated designs with the Barron Road expansion. The planned solution for the storm conflict is to relocate the storm inlet just northeast of the driveway entering the CS/SO High School site. The relocation of this inlet will also catch the water from Barron Road before it enters the CS ISO High School site. Gessner Engineering ~arronNictoria) Please coordinate the proposed sidewalk and storm pipe improvements and adjustment along Victoria and Barron. It would be helpful for you to provide a note on the plans summarizing this coordination. Gessner Engineering has coordinated with the Barron Road and Victoria Ave. design teams to ensure both designs will match in the areas where they impact each other. Cf) (BarronNictoria) With the design of the Victoria extension some wetland areas were identified in this general vicinity, in an effort to avoid these areas please coordinate these findings with Bleyl Engineering. Gessner Engineering received the Qut/jf]JL,of the wetlf!!l_d, which was delineated in the Victoria Ave. extension study, from Bleyl Engineering. The wetland outline has been added to the Grading Master Plan (C300) and the Strom Master Plan (C500). This area has been left at existing grades to ensure the wetland is not disturbed. {f) (BarronNictoria) With the Victoria Extension, Bleyl Engineering is tasked with the responsibility of determining the culvert sizing for the section of Victoria crossing Spring Creek. Can you verify that no rise will result from the proposed fill near Spring Creek that is proposed with the high school site? Please document the coordination between the high school project and the Victoria extension. (City's Project Manager -Donald Harmon) Gessner Engineering is currently waiting on surveyed cross section information of Spring Creek to determine the effects of placing fill in the flood fringe of Spring Creek. Gessner Engineering plans to submit a flood study of this area to submit to the city. 1~arronNictoria) Joe Guerra has been out of the office and unable to review the v · ~~oposed improvements along Barron and Victoria regarding traffic concerns, I will forward you these comments ASAP. Joe Guerra met with Gessner Engineering at an engineering comments meeting with the City of College Station and asked that we show the deceleration lane dimensions on our plans. These dimensions have been added to the Dimension Control Plans (C100-C107) and the Site Plans (SP100-SP107). ~heet C200) Please provide pavement section BCS detail for the proposed deceleration improvements along Barron and Victoria (i.e. 8 inch concrete section typical). Sheet C200 now calls out 8" pavement for the deceleration lane locations. Gessner Engineering took the 'X " off of the BCS street pavement details. In addition, Gessner added 8" pavement to the table on the site plan, which meet or exceeds Gessner Engineering the section on the BCS street pavement details. (Jj. (Sheet C300 thru C509) Please coordinate the proposed grading plan and proposed storm sewer plan sheets. A close up of the proposed detention areas were included in the grading plan but they lack existing contours and the outfall structure details were included on random storm sewer sheets? Sheet C511 was created to include both detention ponds and all of the corresponding details. The grading plans (C305 and C306) now include detention bottom slopes, pilot channel slopes, and detention berm side slopes. , . (Sheet C300 thru C509) Please provide close up and detail of proposed erosion control efforts at the detention pond outfall in relation to the existing creek. Also, the proposed erosion efforts at the outfall do not show up on some sheets. Sheet C511 was created to include both detention ponds and all of the corresponding details. The rip rap has been added to all sheets. f) (Sheet 0300 thru C509) Please clearly identify the center line of the adjacent creeks. The main flow path of Spring Creek has been added to the Master Grading Plan (C300) and the Master Storm Plan (C500). @ (Sheet C300 thru 0509) Please clearly identify existing , and proposed contours. as on several sheets it is difficult to decipher between , specifically in the areas adjacent to the existing creeks and the proposed detention facilities. The existing and proposed contours have been adjusted/added to aid in deciphering between on another on sheets C300-C500. dIYtSheet 0300 thru C309) Please identify the "Limits of Base Flood" as established with the adjacent Sonoma Subdivision (western property line), to verify these areas are not being encroached with fill. The "Limits of Base Flood" for the existing and proposed conditions along the Sonoma Subdivision property line has been identified on the Grading (C300 series) and Storm (C500 series) sheets. @. (Sheet 0300 thru 0509) Please identify the "Limits of Base Flood ' along the southern property line adjacent to Spring Creek, to verify these areas are not being encroached with fill. Gessner Engineering is currently waiting on surveyed cross section information of Spring Creek to identify the "Limits of Base Flood" along the southern property line. p heet 0300 thru 0509) Please clearly identify proposed locations of retaining walls. Gessner Engineering ' ' G The retaining walls have been clearly labeled on the site plans (SP100 series) and on the grading plans (C300 series) sheets. {j (Sheet C500 thru 0509) Please clearly identify the location of the emergency spillway, which should be located at the 1 OOyr water surface elevation. The emergency overflows have been clearly identified on the Storm (C500 series) and Grading (C300 series) and detailed to show bottom/top elevations and 1 OOyr emergency overflow (fully clogged outlet) elevation. ~Detention) Please verify that the Detention Pond's Physical Characteristics as spelled out in the BCS Storm Water Design Guidelines are being met (i .e. 4:1 side slope, min 20% bottom slope, etc). Bottom slopes, pilot channel slopes, and side slopes have been added to sheets C305 and C306 to clearly illustrate the pond characteristics. The ponds at the CS /SO High School Site are designed to maximize volume while also allowing the school district to utilize the ponds for other purposes. ty(Detention) Please verily that the Emergency Overflow Requirements as spelled out in the BCS Storm Water Design Guidelines are being met. The emergency overflow requirements are being met. This is illustrated on sheet C511 . @.. (Drainage Report) Have the backwater conditions been analyzed concerning the timing of the detention pond outfall and the adjacent creek. How will the ponds function as the creeks water surface elevation rise? Gessner Engineering is currently waiting on surveyed cross section information of Spring Creek to identify the base flood and study Spring Creek in detail. This study will include an analysis on the backwater conditions for the detention ponds. 6k. (Drainage Report) As the interior storm system was designed to the 25yr storm, C7 please verify that the proposed storm system will not back up into the parking lots more than 6 inches during the 1 OOyr event per the BCS Storm Water Design guideline requirement. All parking lot storm inlets are curb inlets with the exception for the one between the school and field house. Curb inlets only allow the water to pond to the top of the curb in the 100 yr storm event before they allow water to overflow. The sump inlet at Station 1+75 on Line S1-3 is the inlet of concern. The elevation at the top of the inlet is 1' lower than the gutter elevation at the parking areas to the plan north and south of the specified inlet. At the edge of the parking stripes, there is 0.33' drop down to the top of the inlet and from the head of the parking at the curb down to the Gessner Engineering .. { l • G end of the space there is 0. 42' drop. This area and the inlet was not designed to hold and detain water so as to cause issues with tfJ€;.;earSF\arking in the spaces during the design storm event. In addition, this· area was df}s1gned wtth an overflow to spill out of the parking area once a heaq.of 1.5 feet oy,,el the inlet is achieved. { ,/ ,.,<;) ~--v (Drainage Report) The total post development-flow routed from the site exceeds the amount routed thru the combined detention ponds. Obviously it is not possible to route all post development flows thru the ponds, however please verify that the difference is not being displaced in a manner to create a larger amount of runoff anywhere offsite (i.e. Victoria, neighboring properties, etc). The pre-existing offsite drainage area to the western property line is 11 . 99 acres. The post-developed offsite drainage area to the western property line (as shown on C400) is 3.51 acres. Therefore, this drainage area is greatly reduced and the curve number is the same pre and post developed for this area. The pre-existing offsite drainage area to the eastern property line is 6. 65 acres. The post-developed offsite drainage area to the eastern property line (as shown on C400) is 4. 68 acres. Therefore, this drainage area is reduced and the curve number is the same pre and post developed fo r this area. ftp. (Drainage Report) As a part of your drainage report please certify that the proposed fill near the creek will not adversely impact the surrounding developments or downstream properties (i .e. "I have conducted a topographic review and field investigation of the existing and proposed flow patterns for stormwater runoff from (name of subdivision or site project) to the main stem of (name of creek). At build - out conditions allowable by zoning , restrictive covenant, or plat note , the stormwater flows from the subject subdivision or site project will not cause any increase in flooding conditions to the interior of existing building structures, including basement areas, for storms of magnitude up through the 100-year event.") Gessner Engineering is currently waiting on surveyed cross section information of Spring Creek to identify the base flood and study Spring Creek in detail. Th is study will include a statement regarding no rise in the base flood . .y.{Drainage Report) Please sign and seal technical design summary. The technical design summary has been signed and sealed. (.. Gessner Engineering G Comment Responses for ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. I January 20, 2010 {ff I JUULT Id 300 111 .J:~ tp; /Be aware that you will be proceeding at your own risk pending approval of Site Plan . We are aware and have issued the site plan and full engineering plans for review at this ~me . .,: Issuance of Grading Permit does not constitute approval of driveway locations. We are aware and have issued the site plan and full engineering plans for review at this / time. Show tie-in with grades on adjacent properties. Your topography stops at your property line. We have shown tie in grades at the drives and adjacent properties as needed where site grading extends to the property line. It is common practice to end topography at the property line of the project. {j)No grading will be allowed on southern 200 feet of property ahead of approved Site Plan and Drainage Report approval. We are aware and have issued the site plan and full engineering plans and drainage report for review at this time. ~ Grading will result in sanitary sewer manholes located in areas of inundation from runoff and one within a detention pond berm . Both of these result in maintenance issues. Our Utilities Department may have additional requirements for these manholes. We have water tight lids called out for these sanitary sewer manholes as required by TCEQ. ;. Confirm you are meeting all TPDES requirements. Aren't sedimentation basins required on properties this size? We are meeting TPDES requirements and sedimentation basins have been added in the / detention pond areas prior to the outfalls with this submittal. ,,. Submit NOi. NO/ that has been completed and submitted by Pepper Lawson has been submitted with this package. ~Confirm that SWPPP has been prepared for the site. Pepper Lawson has prepared SWPPP for the site. (J) Verify that proposed grading does not impact the 100-year conveyance in the adjacent tributaries of Lick Creek. A flood study was performed with the development of the adjacent residential subdivision (Sonoma) to determine the limits of the Base Flood in order to establish finished floor elevations to protect residential structures from flooding . You will need to show that the fill you are proposing does not negatively impact these properties. Until verified, no grading will be allowed within 150 feet of common property line with Sonoma Subdivision. Gessner Engineering is currently looking at the impact of the development on the 100-year . '-onveyance for the tributary of Spring Creek. J'fJ· General Note I says Contractor to verify with Owner when grading on adjacent property. Indicate these off-site areas on plans. Easements or letter from adjacent property owner could be required. This note has been removed as there is no grading that should have to be done on adjacent roperty. Process noted if that changes for some reason. What coordination has there been with the City's Victoria Drive extension project? There could be delays if any conflicts between the projects require modifications. We have received the plan layout in CAD of the Victoria Drive extension, and are coordinating those locations, however, the elevations have not been finalized, according to the design engineer. This will continue to be coordinated with the Victoria Drive extension design engineer. Gessner Engineering G 12. The following are comments from Design Engineer for Victoria Extension project. Please address; At the driveway south of the proposed Southern Plantation Intersection the grading shows a CL elevation of just under 299.0, while the proposed Victoria has a CL elevation of 297.5. If the driveway was relocated to the intersection as previously assumed, the proposed grading is still high compared to the 297.9 elevation for Victoria. We have requested the elevations from the design engineer on February 2, 201 O and have not received those elevations. We have sent another email request March 1, 2010. The proposed detention ponds at the South end of the property appear to be formed by building berms along the south edge of the property. It appears that these berms are based on a 20' offset from the property boundary, which was the centerline of the creek at the time the property was purchased. The creek in this area is very meandering and the 20' offset results in the berms filling the existing flow paths as well as portions of the wetlands previously designated in the vicinity of the Victoria crossing. While the proposed detention ponds should mitigate the increased runoff from the development, I am concerned that filling in the current flow path and storage areas will result in increased flooding on adjacent properties. The location of the detention ponds leaves two sanitary sewer manholes in the middle of the ponds. We have water tight lids called out for these sanitary sewer manholes as required by TCEQ. Although we have not set the final profile for the proposed alignment of Victoria , the proposed grading around the Tennis Courts should not interfere as the closest the proposed Victoria Sidewalk comes is 26' which would allow for a 6-8' grade difference. Again, this will have to be coordinated once we have the plans from the design engineer. Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: January 20 , 2010 Gessner Engineering G landscaping points. Please revise the point totals for these plantings. 6. Gulf Coast Muhly, Fountain Grass. Fox Tail Fern, Feather Reed Grass are not on the approved planting list add as such do not accrue any landscaping points. Please revise the point totals for these plantings. 7. Detention ponds are required to be integrated Into the overall landscaping design, by reasonably dispersing the required landscaping points. 8. An irrigation permit will need to be sought prior to installation. 9. Irrigation plan does not show the location of the sprinkler heads. 10. Please note that vegetation in hydro mulched areas must be completely established before a lull Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the site. 11. Provide a general note that 100% coverage of groundcover, decorative paving, decorative rock (not loose), or a Perennial grass is required in parking lot islands, swales and drainage areas the parking lot setback, rights-of-way, and adjacent property disturbed during construction. Reviewed by : Matt Robinson Date: 3/12/10 GREENWAYS 1. A multi-use path is proposed to follow Spring Creek then north to Barron Road as a part of the City's Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan similar to the exercise trail exhibited on the site plan. Would CSISD be interested in upgrading the 8' foot wide mulch surface exercise trail into a 10 foot concrete multi-use path? The City, however, is currently not in the position to help with funding. The proposed multi-use path, however, in the City's Master Plan will eventually continue east past Victoria and follow Spring Creek to SH6. If interested in discussing further please contact the Greenways Program Manger. College Station ISO currently does not have funds to upgrade the 8' mulch surface to a 1 O' concrete path in the budget. Reviewed by: Vanessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: 3/5/10 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. I 4rading Permit) A grading permit could be issued upon your next submittal in response to this first round of comments, however no grading will be allowed on southern 200 feet of property ahead of approved Site Plan and Drainage Report approval. ~ading Permit has been obtained. V. (Drainage Report and Design) Per my conversation with Kyle Zapalac, it is my understanding that the drainage report and analysis is still in design. I am currently reviewing the drainage report and design as submitted, these comments do not reflect the review of the drainage report and design. Please let me know once the drainage report and design is complete. The storm water drainage report was completed in the original submittal and Gessner Engineering Gessner Engineering received additional comments from Josh Norton and those ~esponses are included in this submittal. L/iDrainage) Have you coordinated the drainage calcs with Bleyl Engineering and their efforts concerning the Victoria Extension? It is my understanding that they have made some determination concerning the adjacent creek. Gessner Engineering has received additional information from Bleyl Engineering egarding their study for Spring Creek to coordinate calculations. Repeat) The following are comments from Design Engineer for Victoria Extension project. Please address; At the driveway south of the proposed Southern Plantation Intersection the grading shows a CL elevation of just under 299.0 while the proposed Victoria has a 1 elevation of 297.5. If the driveway was relocated to the intersection as p ~ -ously assumed , the proposed grading Is stilt high compared to the 297 .9 nevation for Victoria. David Besly with Bleyl Engineering has given Gessner Engineering the preliminary Victoria Ave. grades at the bus drive tie in . The grading plan grades have been ~ed te match tne proposea 1ctoria Ave rades. he proposed detention ponds at the South end of the property ear to be formed by building berms along the south edge of the property. It app rs that these berms are based on a 20' offset from the property boundary, whic was the centerline of the creek at the time the property was purchased. The cree in th is area Is very meandering and the 20' offset results in the berms filling tH existing flow paths as well as portions of the wetlands previously designated in the vicin ity of the Victoria crossing. White the proposed detention ponds should mitigate the increased runoff from the development, I am concerned that filling in the current flow path and storage areas wilt result in increased flooding on adjacent properties. The berms afi ~l d in the main flow path of the creek, yet they are located in t floodwa ge. The base of the berm closest to the creek is planned to be a mmimum of 30' from the nearest channel center line and are no filling in any of the wetland designated in the Victoria Ave. report. The result f the development will be discussed more in the flood study done on Spri v reek which is currently being conducted. Gessner Engineering -~gineer's Cost estimate will follow in the submittal on Wednesday. ~ (~etter of Acknowledgement) Please remove statement rega rding gate valve placement and follow comments below; In speaking to Carol this statement was not agreed upon. ~ Letter of Acknowledgement has been revised as noted. , <!»' (Water Report) Please submit water system and fire flow report. The fire flow report should identify each separate Structure's square footage and building material type and sprinkler system in determining the flow and fire hydrant requirements (see Fire Code Table 8105.1 and 0105.1). C~ J, l -'f ~ (.~""""'-.s*' .. ~ Water system and fire flow reports w11J70J1ow in the submittal on Wednesday. The majority of this information has been provided on the mast site plan and master ility plan. DC) Please clearly Identify all FDC on site plan and Master Utility Plan and verify there is a fire hydrant within 150 feet of each. Each FDC must be located adjac nt to a fire lane . FOG symbol has been clarified on the plan, adding "FOG " to the symbol. They are all located within 150 feet of a fire hydrant and adjacent to a fire lane. The fire lane dashed line has been added to the utility plans for clarity of its location in reference the FOC's and fire hydrants. Water/Sewer Demands) Please identify water and sewer demand on site plan and Master Utility Plan. lkJ_ ~-1.r / · "/ ? The water and sewer demand for each of the buildings has been added in a table ]i;t"nat on the site plan (SP100) and the master utility plan (C600). ~(Fire Flow) On the site plan , please note the fire flow and number of fire hydrants required on this site based on building size and material type (Table 8105.1 and 0105.1 of the Fire Code). Fire flow and number of hydrants required is noted on the Master site plan (SP100) . _Lid master utility plan (C600). ~(Sheet C100) The proposed fire lane/hammer head located near the green house and chiller units does not meet the Fire Code, please revise. The fire Janel hammer head located near the green house was provided per early coordination conversation with Steve Smith. It was desired that the fire lane extend to behind the greenhouse as shown and it was ok not to have the actual "hammer fiad turn-around" per the fire code. JI{. (Sheet C206) Please remove left turn movement arrow from exit at Barron . ~ft turn movement arrow has been removed as noted. y. (Sheet C300-309) Please clearly identify locations of all proposed retaining walls. The two site retaining walls have been clearly identified and called out on grading _ ~heets C300-C309. ~-(Retaining Walls) Since the City adopted the 2006 Building Codes a standalone Bu i-lding Permit and inspection for all retaining wails greater than 2 feet above grade is required and need to be sealed by an engineer. This application is the standard Building Permit application which is reviewed and inspected by Building. Understood that the retaining walls greater than 2 feet must be sealed by an engineer and a stand alone building permit and inspection will be required for all retaining walls greater than 2' tall. Gessner Engineering /15.!l:>heet C500-510) It appears that the close up plan view of the proposed drainage (..,/flumes, detention areas, and outfalls as well as proposed flow lines are missing? Add detention pond outfall detail from 0501 and 0505. Do the detention pond outfall include an emergency spillway as required? An additional sheet (C511) with the outflow structures of the detention ponds have been added to clarify this information. The proposed flow line elevations of the pilot 1annel are provided in the grading plans. '-'(Sheet C500 -510) Are cross sections B-B, C-C & D-D called out in plan view? The sections are called out on the Master Storm plan and the call outs have been Jjt«ded to the blow up storm sewer sheets as well. Y.(Sheet C600 -604) Please identify proposed water line material type. The general notes sheet, COOO was left out of the last submittal in error, the sewer line material type is included in this sheet and it has been included with this ~mittal. ~(~heet C600-604) Water meters 3 inch and larger must be located within a vault. Vaults are provided for meters 3 inches and larger as required . .J'f.(Sheet C600 -604) A section of water main W2 located behind the main high school bldg appears to be illustrated outside of the proposed easement? Water line has shifted as well as the easement per conversation with the city. · ~(Sheet 0600 -604) The water main near the western corner of The high school bldg cannot be located beneath the enclosed chiller units and walls, please revise alignment. _)Nater line has shifted as well as the easement per conversation with the city. ~·(Sheet 0600 -604) The water main cannot be located any closer than 15 feet from any structure: this occurs near the western corner of the high school bldg near the green house and near the 2 ticket booths, please revise alignment. )Vater line has shifted as well as the easement per conversation with the city. .;IE. (Sheet C600 _ 604) There appears to be a section of water main W1 and W5 that does not have an easement, please revise. Of.sement has been provided as required. - ~,..,heet 0600-604) Please identify the private sanitary sewer system specific material type, slope and tie in elevation at existing manhole. The general notes sheet, COOO was left out of the last submittal in error, the sewer line rr:aterial type is included in this sheet ~°'$ ii j1as been included with this ~m1ttal. (.pJv .14--(Sheet C600-604) Please submit plumbing permit thru the building department for the entire sanitary sewer system, as it will need to be inspected by building. Noted that the plumbing permit will be submitted through the building department. ~,,.~·heet 0600-604) Please identify method of installation for proposed water main extension across Barron and Victoria. Please identify all appropriate BCS details for proposed methods and repair. Method of installation has been added. Victoria Road will be open cut as this portion of Victoria has not been built yet. The portion across Barron ~La~ open cut since the expansion will not be under construction yet. A t ic controi_Q_.IBn will be ovided for the construction across Barron Road with the submittal on Wednesday. heet C600-804) The proposed 12 inch water main extension across Victoria Gessner Engineering requires a 20 inch steel casing pipe with a 3/5 inch minimum thickness and casing spacers. Please identify all appropriate BCS Specs and Details. The section of Victoria where the proposed 12 inch water main extends across Victoria will be installed by open cut as well as this portion of Victoria has not been structed yet. The pipe has been changed to ductile iron (like Barron Road- mment 27) crossing proposed Victoria as boring is not required. eet C600-604) The proposed 12 inch water main extension across Barron requires encasement, however with the existing 18 inch water main proposed to be located under the future Barron Road widening, the proposed 12 inch water main crossing of Barron should be ductile iron up to the proposed 12x12x8 tee. The pipe has been revised to be ductile iron up to the proposed 12x12x8 tee as ~~uired. ti' \~~eet 0600-604) Please move the proposed 8 inch water main that parallels Barron over and outside of the right of way. Please identify an easement for this revised al ignment. Moving this water main over will avoid construction delays and conflicts with the upcoming Barren Road widening project. __ ]p_e proposed 8 inch water main has been shifted outside of the right of way. ~Sheet 0600-604) Please clearly identify the existing and proposed right of way and easement locations along Barron Road . Existing and proposed right of way and easement locations along Barron Road have _ J een added and clarified as noted. ~(Sheet 0600-604) Please verify that the public water and private sanitary sewer alignment maintain a 9 foot horizontal separation at all times including all proposed manholes, please revise accordingly. Public water and private sanitary sewer alignments have been adjusted as need to ~aintain 9' horizontal separation, including manholes as required. ~\~heet 0600-6~4) Pl_ease c~early Identify all _isolati?n ~alves , a~ this clearly identifies where the public main terminates and the private fire lines begin . Isolation valves have been added on the private fire lines and clearly identified as ~1quested. ~-~Isolation Valves) Please add the following pertaining to fire suppression lines, an isolation valve is required just inside the PUE . Also note on the plans that fire suppression lines shall have a lockable lid on the isolation valve. The lockable lid shall , at a minimum supply protection as the AMP or USA, LL562 Locking Lid. Alternate lockable lids shall be approved by College Station Utilities Director or his designee. Note has been added regarding the isolation valve lockable lid. An--sheet 0600-604 and Site Plan) Please clearly identify all proposed water and <....,:;'irrigation meter locations and size. Each meter must be located in an easement. Irrigation meter locations and sizes have been clearly identified and the meters are _ /Provided within the easements. ~-(Sheet 0600-604) Any proposed water main deeper than 6 feet will requ ire a 20 foot wide easement, any proposed Water main deeper than 14 feet will require a 30 foot wide easement. Modified profiles will be submitted on Wednesday and the water line kept to 6 feet deep. If that is not possible, the easements widths will be revised as required by this Gessner Engineering G _ _2mment . .J'!f. (~heet C600-604) The easement proposed behind the football stadium press box appears to have been extended too far, the meter and isolation valve should be placed back at the tee serving the water line to the track. ~e meter and isolation valve and easement has been adjusted as noted. t/6. (Sheet 0600-604) In several locations there are private drainage, connections and/or junction boxes proposed in the water line public utility easement. Please revise this alignment. Areas where the private storm crosses the water line perpendicular are not a concern. Junction boxes and other drainage structures have been shifted out of the proposed water easements. ~Sheet 0601) Line W-1, STA 1+90, gate valves are incorrectly labeled. ~ment addressed as noted, or addressed as applicable to shifted water lines. ~Sheet 0601) STA 2+62, the tee should be a 12x12x6 as the standard fire hydrant assembly is a 6 inch lead line, please identify proposed valves (12 inch and 6 inch), please referenced BOS Fire Hydrant Assembly Detail number, please remove 12" PVC (WI) label pointed at hydrant. fi,pmment addressed as noted ~Sheet 0601) STA 3+00, you have transitioned from an 8 inch to a 12 inch main with no reducer? faducer added at all transitions in line size as noted/ .ji(f. (Sheet 0601) STA 7+60, please illustrated hydrant lead line and lead line valve. Please reference BCS Fire Hydrant Assembly Detail number. j;;l.¥drant pulled off the line with a lead line and valve as noted. JK.'(~heet C802) Line W-2 , STA 4+00, please identify proposed valve . ,S;omment addressed as noted, or addressed as applicable to shifted water lines. V(Sheet 0602) STA 10+54. the proposed meter near the bldg needs to be pulled back away from the building (> 15 feet) and located within the easement. Identify 8 inch valve, an 8x8x6 tee, a 6 inch lead line, then meter assembly and then isolation valve (see earlier comment regarding isolation valves). The meter assembly will have its own valve. This isolation valve must be located within an easement. There will need to be separate bldg feed from the meter (domestic) and isolation valve (fire). Also, please identify water meter size. A 6 inch domestic line post meter seems to be extremely large? Please identify FDC, which must be located adjacent ~omment addressed as noted, or addressed as applicable to shifted water lines. 4iif.{Sheet 0602) STA 10+60, the proposed utility easement is not illustrated above the water main and is located beneath the green house, please revise. _)Jl"ater main line has been relocated and easement adjusted accordingly. ~(Sheet 0602) STA 11+47, please identify proposed tee and gate valves. The gate valve on the 8 inch main may be removed due to proximity to others. The fire hydrant lead line should be a 8 inch. An additional lead line valve is required within 15 feet of hydrant. Please identify BCS Fire Hydrant Assembly detail number. Note has been added referencing BCS Fire Hydrant Assembly detail and valves ~justed as noted. $,(Sheet 0602) STA 15+06, please identify proposed gate valves. Valves identified as noted. Gessner Enginee ring £.(Sheet 0603) Line W2, STA 17+00, you transition from a 8 inch to a 12 inch main with no reducer? Reducer has been added as noted. P(Sheet 0603) STA 17-1-31, remove 2 of the 3 proposed gate valves, the only required gate valve will be a part of the tire hydrant lead. Please identify BCS Fire Hydrant Assembly detail number. The tee should be an 8x8x6. /ire Hydrant assembly, valves, etc. has been modified as noted . ..$. (Sheet 0603) STA 18+00; please identify proposed gate valves. -h alves identified as noted. ~-(Sheet 0603) STA 18+14 and 18+24, these 2 tees should be combined ,· no gate valves required. Identify a 12x12x6 tee, a 6 inch lead line, then meter assembly, and then isolation valve (see earlier comment regarding isolation valves). This isolation valve must be located within an easement. The meter assembly will have its own valve. There will need to be separate bldg feed from the meter (domestic) and isolation valve (fire). Also, please verify water meter size. A 3 inch meter and 4 inch domestic line post meter seems to be 'extremely large? Please identify FDC, wh ich must be located adjacent to fire lane. Line has been shifted as noted. In addition, all meter sizes onsite have been verified based on flow required, line sizes required by flow calculations as well as MEP ,,,;:alculations and size requirements. ?f. (Sheet C603) STA 19+07, please identify proposed gate valves. ~alves identified as noted. ~-(Sheet C603) Line W4, STA 1+75, remove meter and valve. Meter should be located off W4. This line is more appropriately a 6 inch line and 12x12x6 tee, please revise. ifjieter has been modified as noted. Line adjusted as applicable. ~Sheet C603) STA 2+42, remove gate va lve. ~ate valve removed as noted. ~(Sheet C603) Line W4, STA 0+14, illustrate meter tap and identify meter size. A 4 inch domestic line post meter seems to be extremely large? All meter sizes onsite have been verified based on flow required, line sizes required by flow calculations as well as MEP calculations and size requirements. ~Sheet 0603) STA 0+90, please illustrate 6 inch gate valve. Please reference BCS Fire Hydrant Assembly Detail number. _ y re Hydrant assembly has been modified as noted. ~(Sheet C603) Line W2, STA 23+00, please identify proposed valves and 12x12x4 tee. Please identify water meter size and locate meter In an easement. A 4 inch domestic line post meter seems to be extremely large? Water meter size has been identified and is located in the easements. All water meters are located within the easements. All of the domestic line sizes have been verified with system calculations and MEP .jt('(Sheet 0604) Line W2, STA 15+00, please identify proposed valves. /roposed valves have been identified. $.(Sheet C604) Line W3, STA 2+20, please rename fire hydrant lead line, something other than ·w3. Add gate valve within 15 feet of hydrant. Please reference BCS Fire Gessner Engineering Hydrant Assembly Detail number . .Jttit!!vised as noted. ~(Sheet 0604) STA 3+75, remove tee and gate valves, this should be a meter tap, the meter assembly will include its own valve. This meter could also feed the press box domestic line. Please identify meter size. A 4 inch domestic line post meter seems to be extremely large? Line revised as noted. All of the domestic line sizes have been verified with system JliMculations and MEP ~(Sheet C604) STA 4+00, isolation valves needed, public line ends, and then continue into stadium with fire line. No easement needed after isolation valve. Press box FDC must be located adjacent to fire lane. ·ne revised as noted. 0. ( eet 0605 and 606) Please revise the profiles according to the comments above. lease label profiles to maintain 4 feet of cover throughout. Please label structural backfill in profile anywhere water main is proposed beneath pavement. Please verify that all gate valves are labeled correctly. Please identify existing and proposed grades P files will be modified as noted and resubmitted on Wednesday submittal for iew. eet 0605 and 606) It would be helpful to include the profile for each pipe on the same sheet as the plan view if at all possible. With the line systems the way they are, this is not feasible at this point for these onstruction documents. 2. lease submit blanket easement dedication form and supporting documents. the dedication of the blanket easement will be required before full site approval. _ ~e surveyor, Ron Bryant is working with the city on this document. ~·Is the intent to dedicate all easements and right of way with a plat following the project's completion? es, this is the intent. Barren oad) Please coordinate design files with Jacobs Engineering and Daniel ea (CoCS Capital Projects ~ Project Manager). It is important that we c dinate the High School work proposed along Barron Road with the upcoming arron Road widening project. Coordination between Daniel Beamon, with the C~t-e6J rf(~~ t ion, and Gessner Engineering has been completed regardin ~'lvjotsg~fin the Barron Road xpansion and CS ISO High School site. .. Victoria Avenue) Please coordinate design · with Bleyl En ineering and Donald Harmon (CoCS Capital Projects _ Assistant DirectGr . is important that we coordinate the High School work proposed alon · ue with the upcoming Victoria Extension project. Coordination between Donald Harmon, with t Jty of College Station, and "~ssner Engineering has been done to ensure design files match. ,,. :~:~se verify that the proposed cross walks along Barron and Victoria can be angled across the intersection per ADA as proposed. Crosswalks have been adjusted so as to not angle across the drive entries as noted. It was not clear on TDLR if angling them is allowed, but we went ahead and revised Gessner Engineering ~m to go straight across the drives. ~-FYI .The subject tract is in the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area . · __ Jll'fhe meeting it was discussed that this will not affect this project. ~~~-~addition to the following standard comments, if more than 6 acres will be disturbed during construction of this project a NOi must be filed with the state and a copy provided to the CoCS. Storm water management requirements are as follows, any questions may be directed to Donnie Willis, CoCS Drainage Inspector, at 979- 764-6375: Pepper Lawson, the general contractor, has been notified that a NO/ must be filed with the state and a copy sent to the City of College Station. Storm Water Discharges from Small Construction Activities The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has Issued a general permit for construction activities under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The general permit (TXRl50000) is for construction activities disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres or is part of a common plan of development disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres. ***Pepper-Lawson has completed the SWPPP and NO/ was submitted with the previous submittal and they have been made aware of the following comments. We are also aware of these comments and the process required.*** · You will need to follow these steps to discharge storm water from your construction site to the City of College Station's.Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4); I. Read the general permit (TXR1 50DQQ) to make sure it applies to your situation. 2. Adhere to the requirements of the general permit (LXR1 5000-). 3. Prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with Part Ill of the general permit (TXRl50000). 4. Sign and post a construction site notice. 5. At least 2 days before beginning construction, provide a copy of the site notice to the operator of any Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4) into which storm water will be discharged. A M84s includes streets, channels gutters, ditches or anything else that is publicly owned , designed or used to collect or transport storm water. As long as you meet the conditions of this general permit, you are authorized to discharge storm water. No notice of intent (NOi), notice of termination (NOT), or fee is required tinder this option-as long as the requirements of this general permit are followed . Gessner Engineering G This particular general permit will expire at midnight on March 5, 2013 . A copy of General Permit TXR 1 SOOOO can be obtained from TCEQ at: -60000. pdf A copy of the construction site notice can be obtained from TCEQ at: -52d2.pdf Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: March 11 , 2010 UTILITY COMMENTS NO. I ~lease depict the water line crossing at Barron Rd. that will connect the l./proposed 12" WL to the existing 18" WL located on the north side of Barron Rd.(Please note that the City of College Stations Unified Design Guidelines require that this connection be made with a "Cut-In" Tee Please label accordingly on plans) ~ut in tee has been provided at the tie in as noted . .)F.' Please depict all proposed Public Utility Easements within the plan set. _ pe PUE's have been added as noted . .,,.-c_~n the proposed water line alignments be adjusted with respect to the attached exhibit? Our department would prefer that the proposed water line in front of the school be located to a farther distance away to insure for adequate space during any future maintenance operations. /he proposed water line has been adjusted as shown. '-Can a Tee and 12" stub out be installed under the proposed driveway near the southern driveway at Victoria Avenue to allow for a future connection of the Victoria Avenue 12" Water Line Extension Project? Exhibit: A tee and 12" stub out has been provided under the proposed driveway near the southern driveway for future water line extension. Reviewed by; Stephen A , Maldonado Date: March 11,2010 ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION ---==::::--. 1. Developer provides e pora!Y b anke easement for construction purposes and provides descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU for electric lines (where applicable, including street lights). The Surveyor, Ron Bryant is working on the blanket easement documents with the city. 2. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries. Gessner Enginee ri ng G Noted. 3. CSU will not provide traffic rated pull boxes. Any pull box required by non-CSU design to be traffic rated will be provided by Developer or Contractor. Noted that traffic rated pull boxes will be provided by the Developer I Contractor. 4. Traffic rated pull boxes will meet CSU specifications. Traffic rated pull boxes will meet the CSU specifications as noted. 5. If applicable, the following easements will be required: a) 20' PUE for entire length of primary electric conduit route, including area designated for transformers. Easement will be added as noted with the plat. GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS 1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design. Noted. 2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation. Noted. 3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. OSU installs riser. Noted. 4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices and extend as required . Noted. 5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices, developer will furnish and install conduit as shown on CSU electrical layout. Noted. B. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per OSU specs and design. Noted. 7. Developer installs pull boxes per CSU specs and design (pull boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU), except as noted in above section. Noted. 8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and I or site plan. Email to : Gmartinez@cstx.gov. Site plans have been provided to Gilbert Martinez, however, Gessner is sending an additional copy of the site plan in CAD format. 9. Developer provides load data to OSU as soon as it is available to avoid construction delays, Delivery time for transformers not in stock is approximately 40 weeks. Load data has been provided to Gilbert Martinez already. 10. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical service, i.e. transformer(s), pull box(es), switchgear(s), meter location and conduit routing as designed by CSU. Many of these items are already depicted on the site plan, however we are still waiting to hear back from CSU on their design. 11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at 979.754.6255. Gessner Engineering . ,. G Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez Date: 03.15.2010 FIRE A1 have a question about the two Ticket Booths near the football field. Are they built in or over the Fire Lane? The ticket booths are located across the fire lane and have a clearance height of 1,?'to allow for fire access. This is now clearly noted on the site plans. ~ FDC locations are not shown FOG locations have been clarified and are easier to see on the plan as noted. Reviewed by: Steve Smith Date: 03/10/2010 Gessner Engineering e...~.fl7 \J.l~ ~ ~ .. t..tt..~ ' J,rr·o--,,.~T~FF REVIEW COMMENTS N0.3 Project:CSISD College Station High School (Sp) 10-00500031 Gessner Engineering Comment Responses 05-10-2010 E~NEERING COMMENTS N0.3 (Infrastructure Only) v These comments are only in response to the infrastructure portion of the plan set, as "Grading and Drainage Comments" will be returned under separate cover. Noted (!:)The "Sonoma Subdivision" overlay and proposed walking path stub is not accurately depicted and needs to be slide to the southeast approximately 520 feet. Sidewalk _/tub has been relocated southeast. y (Sheet C603) W2, the tee called out at STA 19+07.40 is not stationed correctly and should be STA 19+35.99. Adjusted on plan. )j.,fo ~~Sheet C603) W2, STA 23+18.08, please remove the 2 gate valves illustrated in plan :> (:,f view as they are not needed. Adjusted on plan. ~Sheet C603) W4, STA 1+78.67, the proposed 3 inch Meter Vault does not match the 2 inch Meter as called out in your Utility Demand/Meter Sizin_g Table. A 2 inch ,.../';eter would not require a vault. 2 inch meter now called out. Y''l1 ~..c-Iv i,'' ~ ~ l~heet C604) STA 3+74.73 , there needs to be a 4 inch gate valve prior to the meter vault. The proposed valves after the meter will be considered private and are not required by th e City, these can be 3 inch in size , but should be called out as gate valves and not "isolation valves". Valve relocated before meter, called as 4" gate Jltl!ffve; 3" gate valve called out on fire line. ~(Sheet C605 and C606) Please revise the profiles according to the comments above. Please check plan view against profile view as some items have been left out fi profile view. •vr. (Sheet C605 and C606) Please call out the hydrant assembly locations in profile, it appears the corresponding tees were identified but the hydrant assemblies we re not. ~ed to profiles. ~(Sheet C605 and C606) W5 does not appear to be in the profiles. The 12 inch stub with blow off near Victoria does not appear to be in the profiles . Added to profile ,,;>tee ts. , .. ~ ~(Slteet C605) W2, STA 10+10.27 , the proposed tee is missing in profile view. Added f. "~ ... flprofile y. \'I, ( V'f· ~S~eet C605) W2, STA 18+34.53 , the tee should be a 12x12x6, please remove the II \1',. 8x8x6 tee, the12x8x4 tee, and the anchor coupling. The domestic and fire line \\I., assembly is already detailed on C603. Callout adjusted and anchor coupling ./emoved. JL · (Sheet C605) W2, STA 21+80 thru STA 22+80 requires structural backfill as the -~rking lot is in this area. Notation for structural backfill extended. ,)€.(Sheet C606) W3, STA 3+74.73, the tee is proposed to be a 6x6x4 in plan view not a 6x6x6. The illustrated 6 inch gate valve should be identified as an isolation valve. Notations adjusted. 14. (Sheet C606) W4, STA 1+78.67 , the tee is propo.&ed a be an 8x8x6 in plan view not an 8x8x4. The gate valve schould bea6 inch not a 4 inch , the re cer should be an f'-\ i .ii 'VO ~" ~k.. ~I"' G Gessner Engineering •• 8x3 not a 4x3 , the meter should be a 2 inch not a 3 inch with vault, as your Utility J'emand/Meter Sizing Table calls out. Notations adjusted to match plan. ~I have discussed the blanket easement submittal with Ronald Bryant in person and it is y understanding that the blanket easement package will be submitted to the City n Monday, May 101h. Will be submitted separately by Ron Bryant . . (Traffic Control Plan) Please find and respond to the below comments from Troy Rotl)Pr in regards to the proposed traffic control plan: .L..-Will Renee Lane stay open during the construction? Yes Z Road Closed Ahead signs needed prior to detour. Additional signage shown ~on plan. c. Road Close to Thru Traffic needed on barricades at detour. Additional ./3ignage shown on plan. ~ Look at Typical Application 20 in the TMUTCD (ftp ://ftridot.state.tx.us/0ub/txdotinfo/librarv/pubs/gov/devices/2006part6h. pdf) ..,,-for needed signs and spacing. Noted; plans adjusted accordingly. /. TxDOT will need to review/approve signage on SH 40. Traffic Control plan has been submitted to Jay Page in the Bryan TxDOT office and will be approved prior to construction. Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: May 6, 2010 EN~NEERING COMMENTS NO. 3 (Grad ing and Drainage) ~Exhibit F1 .0) The proposed flood boundary appears to be further encroaching the existing residential lots in the Sonoma PH 1 Subdivision in one particular area . While our calculations differ slightly from the Sonoma study, our proposed flood boundary ~ not extend further than our existing flood boundary in the Sonoma Subdivision. ~(Barron Road) Please add a note to the plans explaining the agreement and / coordination on relocating the storm inlet along Barron Road . Notation added to the ~ster Site Plan and Master Storm Plan. ~(Victoria) In an effort to coordinate the Victoria Avenue and High School project, I have also asked Donald Harmon and Bleyl Engineering to review the flood study that was received by the City this week. I will pass any future comments or concerns from them on to you . I do not have any additional comments concerning the flood study. It is our understanding that this peer review will not hold up the permit ess. Gessner Engineering will coordinate with Bleyl Engineering and Donald mon if they have any future comments regarding the flood study of Spring Creek. ( ctrical) It is my understanding that CSU Electric is meeting with Pepper-Lawson today to discuss the electrical plan, please coordinate with Gilbert Martinez (979- 765-6255) regarding the outcome and updates from this meeting. Electrical lines have been updated on the site plan. Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: May 7, 2010 Gessner Engineering STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS N0.2 Project:CSISD College Station High School (Sp) 10-00500031 Gessner Engineering Comment Responses 05-03-2010 PLANNING .-1'. A parking island is required at the end of each parking row. A parking island needs to be placed at the rear of the building next to the loading area. In addition a parking island will need to be placed adjacent to the dumpster pad that is on the west side of the field house, I would recommend moving the dumpster pad further out towards the parking lot to limit the potential for people parking in front of the dumpster and to provide striping indicating that parking is not allowed in that location. Parking end island added adjacent to the dumpster pad as well as at the rear of the building next to the loading area. Additionally, the dumpster pad has been shifted out in the parking area as noted . ./2. The above mentioned dumpster pad is also depicted to be located behind a curb. Please revise. Dumpster pad has been shifted so that it is no longer depicted behind a curb as noted. /3. At this time we are operating under the assumption that the bus/transit facility will be done at a later time and will not be part of this site plan. Yes, the bus/transit facility will be done at a later time and is not a part of this site plan. 4 . Please verify fire hydrant/gate clearance on the west side of the campus (Barron road side), rear of the building west of the field house and around the two fire hydrants adjacent to the field house. There are plantings proposed that would appear to block gate movement and visibility/access to the fire hydrants. The hydrant and gate clearances have been adjusted on the landscape plans. End islands are required to be a minimum of 180 square feet at the end of each parking row and a double row of parking requires a minimum of 360 square feet. There are several end islands that are not meeting this requirement. End islands have been adjusted to be the appropriate 180 and 360 sf as required. 6 It appears that a parking lot light is still located within the driving aisle, as shown on sheet SPI07. The parking lot light has been removed as noted. 7. How is the band practice field striping going to be delineated from the parking? Notes have been added to the blow up site plan sheet showing the parking lot that also has the band striping that specify the band practice striping is yellow and the parking striping is white. These same notes are on the striping plan in the construction documents. 8. In our discussions a connection to the sidewalk/street in the Sonoma Subdivision has been mentioned. Please illustrate this connection on the site plan if this is to Gessner Engineering be included. The connection from the mulch path to the Sonoma Subdivision walk has been shown on the plans. 9. Staff has determined Fountain grass and Mexican feather grass will not qualify for landscaping points. Please revise the point totals for these plantings . Point totals revised as noted. (_ 1o\Provide a detail for the Double-Check Back Flow Device on the irrigation detail page. Detail provided on the irrigation detail sheet as noted. 11. Provide the following notes; 1) Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum Breaker, a Reduced Pressure Principle Back Flow Device, or a Double- Check Back Flow Device, and installed as per City Ordinance 2394 , 2) All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance 2394. Both Notes added to the irrigation plan and note #2 also added to the Gessner site plan notes. 12. Please note that any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station , must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that the City has not been made aware of will constitute a completely new review. Noted. Reviewed by: Matt Robinson Date: 4/22/10 Gessner Engineering ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 4 (Grading and Drainage) 1. (Sheet 0300-0309 & 0500-0511) Please illustrate the limits of base study, in order to compare the 'Proposed Limits of Base Flood"-It is critical to verify that the limits of base flood are not proposed to further encroach the developed lots in the Sonoma Subdivision. The Proposed and Existing "Limits of Base Flood" has been added to the master grading plan, C300, and the master storm plan, C500. It has been determined that the Spring Creek water surface elevation would be increased by 0.5', at most, along the downstream detention pond. The "Limits of Base Flood" remains the same along the rest of the site. The analysis of Spring Creek will be explained in more detail in the flood study report. (The report will be submitted to the city Tuesday or Wednesday of this week) 2. (Sheet C300-C309 & C500-C511) Please provide limits of base flood critical to verify that the limits of base flood are not proposed to further encroach the south or reduce the existing flood capacity of this area. The Proposed and Existing "Limits of Base Flood" has been added to the master grading plan, C300, and the master storm plan, C500. It has been determined that the Spring Creek water surface elevation would be increased by 0.5', at most, along the downstream detention pond. The "Limits of Base Flood" remains the same along the rest of the site. The analysis of Spring Creek will be explained in more detail in the flood study report. (The report will be submitted to the city Tuesday or Wednesday of this week) /(sheet C305 -C306) Please provide proposed detention outfall elevations and top of berm elevations. The detention pond outlet flow lines and the top of berm elevation has been called out on sheets C305-C306 . ./.'(Sheet C511) Please provide existing and proposed grading elevations for the surrounding areas of the proposed outfalls. The proposed and existing contours have been shown and labeled on Sheet C511 and the top of berm elevation have been called out. 5. (Repeat) The southern property line is adjacent to Spring Creek. Please provide analysis determining the 'Limits of Base Flood" along the southern property line. Ideally the area encroached by eh "Limits of Base Flood " would be reserved for flood capacity. How will the proposed fill affect the adjacent tract to the south and downstream properties with the existing flood capacity proposed to be decreased. Simply put it appears you are pushing the flood capacity off the High School site and onto the adjacent tract to the south. Gessner Engineering G The Proposed and Existing "Limits of Base Flood" has been added to the master grading plan, C300, and the master storm plan, C500. It has been determined that the Spring Creek water surface elevation would be increased by 0.5 ', at most, along the downstream detention pond. The "Limits of Base Flood" remains the same along the rest of the site . The analysis of Spring Creek will be explained in more detail in the flood study report. (The report will be submitted to the city Tuesday or Wednesday of this week) hepeat) With the extensive amount of grading proposed near the creek and with the armoring of proposed outfalls at the creek, what Corp. Permit has been has been utilized for this proposed please provide specific permit number, if notification is required and the specific permits parameters and thresholds. Gessner Engineering has contacted the Army Corps of Engineers in the District office to determine if a permit is needed for the construction at the College Station ISO High School Site. The Army Corps of Engineers stated verbally that this site does not require a permit. Gessner Engineering has submitted an existing and proposed site plan to the Army Corps of Engineers for their review and to obtain a /tter stating that the site does not require a Nationwide Permit. / ~~epeat) Based on the top of pavement spot elevations provided it appears that the high school site will be accepting some amount of water from Barron Road , however the drainage area map does not take this into account. In addition there appears to be a conflict in the decel lane and the Barron Road widening project's underground storm system. Please coordinate with Daniel Beamon (764-3816) concerning these issues. Please provide design for inlet relocation. The driveway entrance along Barron Road has been re-graded to inhibit water from entering the parking lot area. Gessner Engineering will provide the City of College Station with a design and construction document to relocate the storm drain to a new location outside of the deceleration lane. This construction will be done by the City of College Station and not by the College Station High School utility contractor, this design will be provided under separate cover and will not be included in the construction documents for the proposed High School so as to avoid confusion. This plan and design for the inlet relocation will be submitted for next week's staff review. 8. (Repeat) With the Victoria Extension Bleyl Engineering is tasked with the responsibility of determining culvert sizing for the section of Victoria crossing Spring Creek. Can you verify that no rise will result from the proposed fill near Spring Creek that is proposed with the high school site? Please document the coordination between the high school project and the Victoria extension . (City's Project Manager -Donald Harmon: 764-3795). The Bleyl exhibit I forwarded you provides a Q100 = 1873.30 cfs at the Victoria crossing, which is your site's direct downstream study point. In talking to Kyle it sounded like your preliminary Q100 for this study point was significantly less than 1873.30 cfs? Gessner Engineering The Proposed and Existing "Limits of Base Flood" has been added to the master grading plan, C300, and the master storm plan, C500. It has been determined that the Spring Creek water surface elevation would be increased by 0.5', at most, along the downstream detention pond. The "Limits of Base Flood" remains the same along the rest of the site. The analysis of Spring Creek will be explained in more detail in the flood study report. (The report will be submitted to the city Tuesday or Wednesday of this week) Gessner Engineering determined an existing conditions 0 1oo value of 1, 459cfs in Spring Creek at the Victoria Ave. crossing location. This is very similar to Bleyl's 0 100 value of 1,419 cfs for existing conditions at the same JP1tion. V (Repeat) Have the backwater conditions been analyzed concerning the timing of the detention pond outfall and the adjacent creek. How will the ponds function as the creeks water surface elevation rise? The backwater conditions have been analyzed by overlaying the hydrograph for the detention pond outfalls and Spring Creek. Utilizing the SGS Runoff Method, the detention pond outflow peaked at 12.58 hours and Spring Creek peaked at 13.92 hours at the detention outfall location. The detention pond affected by Spring Creek was found to still function as designed and reduces outflow from the site to predevelopment levels. This will be explained in more detail in a separate report. (The report will be submitted to the city Tuesday or Wednesday of this week) Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: April 27, 201 0 Gessner Engineering G ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 (Infrastructure Only) ~hese comments are only in response to the infrastructure portion of the plan set, as "Grading and Drainage Comments" will be returned under separate cover. Noted, comment responses to the grading and drainage comments are attached. {)Please illustrate lot and subdivision configuration for the adjacent Sonoma Subdivision , as this subdivision is proposing to stub out a section of sidewalk to the High School property. Please coordinate this connection with Jeff Robertson at McClure and Browne (693-3838). The connection to the stub out section of sidewalk to the high school property to the Sonoma Subdivision has been shown on the plans as discussed and the location coordinated with Jeff Robertson at McClure and Browne. (J) Please provide the location of the walking trail in the construction document set. Location of the walking trail has been added to sheets. It has been called out on the blow-up site plan sheets and is depicted on the grading plan for clarity. (J. (Sheet 0600-604) Please revise your meter sizing and/or your meter sizing table. a-The gpm range for a 4 inch meter is 320 to 500 gpm. b. The gpm range for a 2 inch meter is 100 to 160 gpm . c. The field house, press box and tennis courts appear to be sized appropriately. Meters are required to be larger due to the attached line size, in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. r(Sheet 0600-604) Please revise the location of the FDC serving the press box, as it should not be located behind the ticket booth and should be located closer to the press box. FOG been relocated to the grassy area west of the firelane between the pressbox and the main building. ,(Sheet C600-604) The FDC located on the backside of the press box appears to be an error. This FOG has been relocated. ~(Sheet C600-604) The FDC for the field house is backwards. The symbol has been rotated on the plan. ~(Sheet C400-604) For irrigation meters, all proposed 'stubs for irrigation" need to be illustrated in plan view, meter location and size identified , and meter demands provided. Irrigation stubs are shown on the blow up sheets in plan view, 3" meters are called out, and demands are included on the "water demands" table on sheet ~600. /T. (Sheet C,00-604) If your service lines do not match your meter sizes you should illustrate the reducer needed coming out of the meter. Reducers have been added . _}11!1ere required. ,(Sheet C600) Please revise Note 3, as the construction of the private sanitary sewer main must be designed/built to building/plumbing code standards. Note 3 has been •• Jl..vised. 7-l~heet C601) On W1 , at Sta . 0+50, water line under Barron should be ductile iron . ~pe . Now noted on C601 . )!".(Sheet C601) On W1 , at Sta. 1+95.11 , if you reduce from the 12 inch to the 8 inch -~ore the tee, change the tee to an 8x8x6. The tee has been changed. ~.(Sheet C601) On W1 , at Sta 3+54.27 , remove proposed gate valve as it is not needed. Gate valve has been removed. Gessner Engineering tsheet C602) On W2, at Sta. 10+1 0.27, use 8x8x8 tee, 8 inch anchor coupling, 8x8x6 tee , 6 inch anchor coupling, 6 Inch gate valve, 6x4 reducer and 4 inch meter vault for domestic line; And an 6 inch anchor coupling, 8 inch isolation valve for fire ~-See revised ca/louts. ~(Sheet C602) On W2, at Ste . 11 +47.55 the FDC is not correctly illustrated . the FOG will not be fed by the public main/hydrant assembly, but rather by a separate private line feed from the building. As the FOG is directly connected to the internal sprinkler .. ~tern. Symbol has been rotated so that it does not appear connected to the FH. ~~~~eet C602) On W2, at Sta . 16+11.95, please remove the 8 inch gate valve as It is not needed , and change the tee to a 8x8x4 with a 4 inch gate valve, 4x3 reducer, and 3 inch meter vault. Is this meter for irrigation? It so, clearly label and provide demands. Valve has been removed and notations have been changed. The meter . _J._s for irrigation and demands are included in the "water demands" table on C600. V·~Sheet C603) On W2, at Ste . 18+17.25, tee should be a 12x12x8. Please check Stationing at this tee as it is labeled incorrectly. Tee size has been changed and . ,tationing for W2 has been added to the callout . .j6. (Sheet C603) On W2, at Sta . 18+43.01 , consolidate the domestic and fire tap , use 12x12x6 tee, with 8 inch anchor coupling, 6x6x4 tee, 4 inch anchor coupling , 4 inch gate valve, 4x3 reducer, 3 inch meter vault for the domestic line; And a 6 inch anchor coupling, a 6 inch isolation valve for the fire line. Removed reducer as it is not needed as the line was increased from an 8 inch to 12 inch at Sta. 17+49.16 . .J!'t111outs and layout have been adjusted as requested. ~(Sheet C603) On W2, at Sta . 18+34.53 , water main between fire line and domestic _ ~e labeled as 8 inch not 12 inch? Wa ter line has been changed to a 12". Jff· ~~heet C603) On W2, at Sta . 23+18.41 , please remove everything and replace with 12x1 tapping saddle and 1 inch meter. No tees, valves or meter vau lts are required . _ /a/louts adjusted on plans. ,. ~~heet C603) On W2, at Sta. 23+43.50 , please illustrate gate valves in profile. "Stub for Future" line requires a 4 inch blow-off at terminus. Gate valves shown in profile. ,)li"blow off called out on plan and profile. '(Sheet 0603) On W2, at Sta. 24+00, crossing requires 20 inch steel encasement, 3/8 inch thick with casing spacers and end caps extended 2 foot outside of curb . Please reference all appropriate specs and details. Noted on plan and profile; shown p phical/y in profile. J€· ~S~eet C603) On W4, at Sta. 1+78.67 , change tee to 8x8x4 tee, 4 inch gate valve , 4x3 reducer, 3 meter vault for domestic line; And a 8x6 reducer, 8 inch gate valve and add add itional 6 inch gate valve just outside of fire hydrant assembly for fire hydrant line. Vavles added and notations changed, except configuration was changed to include a Bx8x6 tee, which required a 6" gate valve instead of the 4" gate valve, and an Bx3 reducer instead of the 4x3 reducer. An Bx6 reducer is not ~.Jl!5Dired. 7"~.~~eet C604) On W3, Sta. 2+22.78 , use 8x8x6 tee, remove reducer use 6 inch lead line, and add 6 inch gate valve before hydrant assembly. Place 8x6 reducer after 8x8x6 tee -headed toward press box. FDC is not located appropriately; FDC should be fed from private line out of press box and should be location closer to the press box and away from the field house and ticket booths. Tee and pipe size changed, Gessner Engineering • r I • G _ /_ducer removed and FOG relocated. /O·(Sheet C604) On W3, Sta. 3+74.73, use 6x6x4 tee, 4 inch anchor coupling, then a 4 inch gate valve, 4x3 reducer, 3 inch meter vault for domestic line: And 6 inch anchor coupling, 6 inch isolation valve for fire line. The FDC located on the backside of the press box appears to be an error. The 2 inch meter appears to be an error, as the table illustrates a 3 inch meter. Configuration and ca/louts adjusted as requested, DC relocated, and 3 inch meter called out. Sheet C600 and 604) Please revise the profiles according to the comments above. ave all vertical and horizontal bends been identified in profiles? Please verify that all gate valves, reducers, etc. are labeled correctly. Profiles revised to coordinate &with the plans. Please submit blanket easement dedication form and supporting documents. The dedication of the blanket easement will be required before full site approval. Ron Bryant with A-Survey is coordinating the blanket easement which he said should be wrapped up this week. I have asked him to send a copy of the documents to your attention as well. eAYTraffic Control Plan) The open cut to Barron Road needs to be done all at once and Vnot one half at a time . The traffic control plan should illustrate a road closure, with all appropriate signage and alternate routes identified. A revised Traffic Control Plan has been completed showing a road closure and ~mate route along Eagle as requested and has been submitted with this set. ~(Barron Road) Please coordinate design and construction of the storm inlet to be re- located with Jacobs Engineering and Daniel Beamon (COGS Capital Projects _ Project Manager). As this construction will be done by the City of College Station and not by the College Station High School utility contractor, this design will be provided under separate cover and will not be included in the construction documents for the proposed High School so as to avoid confusion. This plan and design for the inlet relocation will be submitted for next week's staff review. This design will be and has been coordinated with Jacobs Engineering and Daniel Beamon as requested. Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: April 20 , 2010 Gessner Engineering CITY OF C OLIEGE STATIO Home o/Texas A&M University• DEVELOPMENT PLAT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: $668 Development Plat Application Fee. $167 Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable). $600 (minimum) Development Permit Application I Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee. Fee is 0.75% of acceptable Engineer's Estimate for public infrastructure, $600 minimum (if fee is > $600, the balance is due prior to the issuance of any plans or development permit). [g] Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided. D Fourteen (14) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review). [g] D D D D D D Two (2) copies of the grading, drainage, and erosion control plans with supporting drainage report. Two (2) copies of the Public infrastructure plans and supporting documents (if applicable). Notice of Intent (NOi) if disturbed area is greater than five (5) acres cumulatively. One (1) copy of the approved Final Plat, (if applicable). Title Report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate current within ninety (90) days. The report must include applicable information such as ownership, liens, encumbrances, etc. Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station l.S.D. Proof of parkland dedication consideration approved by the Parks & Recreation Board or Parks & Recreation Department, if applicable. D The attached Development Plat checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. Date of Optional Preapplication or Stormwater Management Conference ""S-"-e"'"p""te-'-'m-"b'"-'e_r--'-1-"-6._, 2"""0'-'0'"-'9 ________ _ NAME OF PROJECT College Station High School ADDRESS Barron Road and Victoria Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot, Block, Subdivision) A005401 R Stevenson (/CL), Tract 48.1 Vo/ 3604, Pg 243 SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT: APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name Morgan S. Lund; mlund@gessnerengineering.com Street Address 2501 Ashford Drive, Suite 102 City College Station State TX Zip Code _7_78_4_0 ____ _ Phone Number 979-680-8840 Fax Number 979-680-8841 ---------------- 10/09 Page 1 of 7 3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. 4. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: Streets Sidewalks Sanitary Sewer Lines Water Lines Channels Storm Sewers Bike Lanes I Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Development Plat: ACREAGE: ___ No. of acres to be dedicated + $ ____ development fee ___ No. of acres in floodplain No. of acres in detention --- ___ No. of acres in greenways OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: ___ No. of SF Dwelling Units X $ = $ --------- (date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Advisory Board ----- NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN HOLDERS identified in the title report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as described above. ~ature and title o 1 a.etfl1 a. tJ> P totJe,f1-cJcno,.J s et2-vi(~ Date 10/09 Page 3 of7 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name College Station Independent School District E-mail jhall@csisd.org ------------ Street Address 1812 Welsh Avenue, Suite 120 City College Station state _T_ex_a_s _______ Zip Code _7_7_84_0 _____ _ Phone Number 979-694-5610 Fax Number ----------------~ ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name SHW Group E-mail rdelao@shwgroup.com Street Address 20 E Greenway Plaza, Suite 200 City Houston State _T_e_xa_s _______ Zip Code _7_7_04_6 _____ _ Phone Number 713-548-5700 Fax Number 713-548-5701 ----------------~ ~-------------~ Total Acreage 63.67 acres R-0-W Acreage _2_.2_9_a_c_r:_es __________ _ Curre~zoning~su~eciproperty _A_-o _____________________________ _ Floodplain Acreage 0 -----------------------------------~ Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? I Yes IX No A statement addressing any differences between the Development Plat and the Final Plat (if applicable): Requested variance to subdivision regulations and reason for same (if applicable): Regarding the variance request, explain how: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. 2. The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 10/09 Page 2 of7 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 1. No work of any kind may start until a permit is issued. 2. The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein. 3. If revoked, all work must cease until permit is re-issued. 4. Development shall not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 5. The permit will expire if no work is commenced within 24 months of issuance. 6. Applicant is hereby informed that other permits may be required to fulfill local, state, and federal regulator requirements. 7. Applicant hereby gives consent to the City representatives to make reasonable inspections required to verify compliance. 8. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project. All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station shall apply. 9. I, THE OWNER, CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN, AND IN ATTACHMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, ARE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, TRUE, AND ACCURATE. k. 'l.~ldl Pr~rtYQwner(s) l'Z-. t7 .oj Date ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (required for all development): 1. I, .Jo,J f-{~ , the owner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that: The information and conclusions contained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with the current requirements of the City of College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified Design Guidelines. All development has been designed in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station and State and Federal Regulations. ~ t.-Mt 1'2... I(. OCf Date P erty Owner(s) 2. I, <Jo,.J H.4--U... , certify that all necessary State and Federal permits will be obtained prior to construction . ~ 1. ,Ji! 1"2-· 17-0'1 Prop~ Owner(s) Date 3. I, .J o,...J HA--l-L. , the Owner, authorize release of plans to for bidding purposes only. I understand that final approval and release of plans for construction is contingent on contractor signature on approved Development Permit. k ~-dd!_ Prope Owner(s) Date rz_. l]_O+ 10/09 Page 4 of7 , I • 7 ENGINEERING CERTIFICATIONS (required for development in Special Flood Hazard Areas): A. I, Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. , certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is designated to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm. CfY)cpdfuyytM-lZ-/1-D°I Engineer Date 8. I, Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. , certify that the finished floor elevation of the lowest floor including any basement, of any residential structure, proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood elevation established in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study and map, as amended. ~~~ 12--l/-OC] Engineer Date C. I, Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. , certify that the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the waterway adjoining or crossing this permitted site and that such alterations or development are consistent with requirements of the City of College Station City Code, Chapter 13 concerning encroachments of floodways and of floodway fringes. tj)J~~~ l2-l 7-0J_ Engineer Date D. I, Melissa P. Thomas, P. E. , certify that the proposed alterations do not raise the level of the 100-year flood above elevation established in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study. cmY?Jfu~ 12-r1-oq Engineer Date Conditions or comments as part of approval: 10/09 Page 5 of 7 .. April 15, 2010 Prepared for: City of College Station College Station, Texas Prepared by: GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 College Station , Texas Gessner Engineering Job No. 09-0318 HEC-RAS ANALYSIS -SONOMA PARK DRAINAGE College Station ISO High School Site Brazos County, Texas Gessner Engineering April 15, 2010 Mr. Josh Norton , P.E. Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station , Texas 77842 Re : Flood HEC-RAS Analysis Barron Road and Victoria Avenue College Station, Texas Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Norton , Gessner Engineering has conducted a topographic review and field investigation of the existing and proposed flow patterns for stormwater runoff in the Sonoma Park drainage swale. At developed conditions allowable by zoning, restrictive covenant, or plat note, the stormwater flows conveyed through the proposed conditions according to the available data, calculations and sound engineering judgment, will not cause any increase in flooding conditions to the interior of existing building structures, includ ing basement areas, for storms of magnitude up through the 100-year event. This report includes results from a HEC-RAS analysis conducted for the Sonoma Park drainage swale, which is located on the southwest edge of the College Station ISO High School site , in College Station, Texas. We trust that this report is responsive to your needs. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, F-7451 \-f(\c{J~ Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. t;-/'~ }cr----- Kyle M. Zapalac, M.E., E.l.T. ~~'''" ~ .. 1,0FT.• \\ ~"~~··········~:t~ ~ , , .. ·· * . .,__~ .. I *: .•• 1 .. • • .. • « '-.····'······················1····1 ~.~~!~.~· .. ~-it r. ~ ... -98398 I I "·:.riii··.~!ctr-.!-::f#.~; ''t:"iiOWit~.r"' ,,,~,--~ .... G Gessner Engineering 2501 Ashford Drive Suite 102 College Station, Texas 77840 P.O. Box 10763, 77842 979.680.8840 fax 979.680.8841 2204 S. Chappell Hill Street Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 fax 979.836.6847 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................................................................... I Site Background and Information ............................................................................................................................. I AREA STUDIED .............................................................................................................. 1 ENGINEERING METHODS ............................................................................................. 1 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Hydraulics ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 2 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 3 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 4 APPENDIX A: LIMITS OF BASE FLOOD EXHIBIT .................................................... A Gessner Engineering INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study Gessner Engineering preformed a HEC-RAS analysis of the drainage swale which runs through Sonoma Park to determine the effects of the development of the College Station ISO High School site located at the southeast corner of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue in College Station , Texas. The purpose of this HEC-RAS analysis is to ensure the protection of adjacent properties from storm discharge increases due to development. Site Background and Information The proposed project consists of the development of an approximately 65 acre agricultural site. Proposed improvements include multiple buildings to be used as a new College Station High School, field house, press boxes, concessions and restrooms, playing fields, sidewalks and parking lots. The College Station ISO High School site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue in College Station, Texas. It is located in the upper portion of the Spring Creek Watershed. Currently, the property is covered in light woods and pasture. According to the Sonoma Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report, dated March 5, 2007, approximately 26 .8 acres to the northwest drains onto the drainage swale in Sonoma Park through one culvert under Barron Road . It then continues to flow onto the west portion of the College Station ISO High School site for a few hundred feet before the swale exits the property back into the Sonoma Park property. AREA STUDIED This flood HEC-RAS analysis focused on the drainage swale located in Sonoma Park, which is partially on the College Station ISO High School site. Existing conditions for the drainage swale consist of grass and weeds (n = 0.35) in the main channel with some light brush (n = 0.50) in the floodplain. The proposed conditions on the College Station High School Site in this area would consist of short grass (n = 0.27) and light brush (n = 0.50). ENGINEERING METHODS Gessner Engineering utilized the Sonoma Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report, dated March 5, 2007, and HEC-RAS to provide the extents of the 100 1 Gessner Engineering year storm event, also known as the base flood event, in the Sonoma Park drainage swale . Hydrology The Sonoma Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report, dated March 5, 2007, was conducted to aid in the development of the Sonoma Subdivision, which is to the southwest of the College Station ISO High School site. This report studied the Sonoma Park drainage swale to determine the "limits of base flood" for the drainage swale, thus allowing the developer to set finished floor elevations for the homes located in the Sonoma Subdivision. To ensure a similar result of the "limits of base flood" and due to the fact that the finished floor elevations for the homes in the Sonoma Subdivision were set from the past study, Gessner Engineering felt it was important to incorporate the same flow values which were utilized in the previous HEC-RAS study. Therefore, a value of 180 cubic feet per second was modeled throughout the majority of the focus area in the drainage swale. Hydraulics The Sonoma Park drainage swale was analyzed using the 4.1.0 version of the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS program which performs one-dimensional steady and unsteady hydraulic calculations to determine water surface elevations at cross section locations. The cross section elevations input into HEC-RAS were based off of the actual topographic survey data taken by A-Survey for the College Station ISO High School site. The 100 year storm event flows determined from the Sonoma Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report was used to determine the actual limits of base flood at the cross sections. RESULTS The HEC-RAS model was run with the existing site conditions and the proposed site conditions. These two models were compared to determine if the development of the College Station ISO High School site would be detrimental to adjacent properties. Table 1 and Table 2 on the next page show the existing and proposed conditions HEC-RAS output for the cross sections studied. 2 Gessner Engineering " G HEC-R.ll.S Plan Plan 04 River S nnq Creek Tn Reach Sonoma Profile PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total I Min Ch El I W.S. Elev I Crit W.S. I E.G. Elev I E.G. Slope I Vel Chnl I Flow Areal Top Width I Froude II Chi [els} I [ft} I [ft} I [ft} I [ft} I [ft/ft} I [ft/s} I (sq ftJ I (ft} I Sonoma 1071 PF 1 __ JQ?.,.Q.Qi 321.00 322.39 322.39 322.57 0.009477 3.74 43.10 147.37 0.71 --Sonoma 944 PF 1 180.00 317.00 318.48 318.66 0.007475 3.55 57.96 91.80 0.64 Sonoma 777 PF 1 180.00 315.65 316.42 316.42 316.62 0.039109 4.44 51 .25 126.15 1.26 Sonoma 633 PF 1 180.00 312.60 314.05 314.20 0.006041 3.09 59.11 72.72 0.57 Sonoma 482 PF 1 180.00 311 .70 312.95 313.13 0.008235 3.59 59.64 96.43 0.67 -Sonoma 336 PF 1 180.00 310.80 312.53 312.58 0.001894 1.87 97.39 121.40 0.33 -Sonoma 179 PF 1 180.00 310.80 311.99 311.81 312.10 0.005576 2.99 86.51 180.00 0.55 --Sonoma 0 PF 1 180.00 309.50 310.33 310.26 310.55 0.015014 3.79 51 .01 151 .53 0.85 Table 1: Existing Water Surface Elevations HEC·RAS Plan-Plan 04 River S rinq Creek Tn Reach Sonoma Profile· PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total I Min Ch Ell W.S. Elev I Crit W.S. I E.G. Elev I E.G. Slope I Vel Chnl I Flow Area l Top Width I Froude II Chi [els} I [ft} I [ft} I (ft} I (ft) I [ft/ft) I [ft/s} I [sq ftJ I (ft] I Sonoma 1071 PF 1 ... J.Q?.,.Q.Ql 321 .00 322.39 322.39 322.57 0.009406 3. 73 43.27 147. 74 0.71 ---Sonoma 944 PF 1 180.00 317.00 318.42 318.28 318.64 0.009336 3.82 53.00 86.87 0.71 Sonoma 777 PF 1 180.00 315.65 316.42 316.42 316.63 0.024080 4.53 51.58 126.37 128 --Sonoma 633 PF 1 180.00 312.95 313.77 313.77 314.07 0.01 2771 4.40 40.92 68.66 1.00 Sonoma 482 PF 1 180.00 311 .35 312.37 312.55 0.004828 3.42 52.71 62.34 0.65 Sonoma 336 PF 1 180.00 310.80 311 .93 312.02 0.002520 2.45 7347 88.65 0.47 Sonoma 179 PF 1 180.00 310.20 311.44 311.10 311 .57 0.003298 3.02 61.70 70.71 0.55 Sonoma 0 PF 1 180.00 309.50 310.28 310.28 310.54 0.012162 4.16 44.46 89.63 0.97 Table 2: Proposed Water Surface Elevations The water surface elevation in these two tables can be compared to determine the effects of the development. The HEC-RAS analysis resulted in the water surface elevations at each of the cross sections for the proposed conditions to be either at the same elevation as existing conditions or lower than existing conditions for the 100 year storm event. Exhibit A, in the appendix, shows both the existing and proposed limits of base flood for the Sonoma Park drainage swale as it will be affected by the College Station ISO High School site development. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the study of developing the College Station ISO High School, as described in the construction documents, resulted in no increase in the Sonoma Park drainage swale during a 100-year storm event. Based on the models available and analysis in this report, Gessner Engineering does not foresee any negative effects of the proposed conditions of the Sonoma Park drainage swale. 3 Gessner Engineering - LIMITATIONS In order to complete this study, assumptions have to be made for curve number values, Manning 's roughness values, ground moisture conditions , etc. therefore limiting the accuracy. However, the information provided in this report includes sufficient information for making an engineering decision to conclude what effects the College Station ISO High School development will have on the Sonoma Park drainage swale. 4 Gessner Engineering • APPENDIX A: LIMITS OF BASE FLOOD EXHIBIT A May 5, 2010 Prepared for: City of College Station College Station, Texas Prepared by: GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 College Station , Texas Gessner Engineering Job No. 09-0318 BASE FLOOD ANALYSIS -SPRING CREEK College Station ISO High School Site Brazos County, Texas Gessner Engineering May 5, 2010 Mr. Josh Norton, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station P.O . Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Base Flood Analysis -Spring Creek Barron Road and Victoria Avenue College Station, Texas Gessner Engineering Job No .: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Norton, Gessner Engineering has conducted a topographic review and field investigation of the existing and proposed flow patterns for stormwater runoff in the Upper Spring Creek watershed . At developed conditions allowable by zoning, restrictive covenant, or plat note, the stormwater flows conveyed through the proposed conditions according to the available data, calculations and sound engineering judgment, will not cause detrimental flooding conditions for storms of magnitude up through the 100-year event. This report includes results from a HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS analysis conducted for Spring Creek, which is located on the southeast edge of the College Station ISO High School site, in College Station, Texas. We trust that this report is responsive to your needs. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, F-7451 Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. f+--M.1 ~ Kyle M. Zapalac, M.E., E.l.T. ~~,, , to~!=·• * ~d' L I• l -...·.~~ 1.~.i ...................... 1 .... 1 ~~!~.!: .. ~J '•~· .. 9839!_.~ ··~~"7 '''~""'..,.,...- G Gessner Engineering 2501 Ashford Drive Suite 102 College Station, Texas 77840 P.O. Box 10763, 77842 979.680.8840 fax 979.680.8841 2204 S. Chappell Hill Street Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 fax 979.836.6847 • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Site Background and Information ............................................................................................................................. 1 AREA STUDIED .............................................................................................................. 1 ENGINEERING METHODS ............................................................................................. 2 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Hydraulics ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 3 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 4 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT A: SPRING CREEK WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................... A EXHIBIT B: LIMITS OF BASE FLOOD EXHIBIT ........................................................ B EXHIBIT C: FEMA FIRM .............................................................................................. C Gessner Engineering • G • INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study Gessner Engineering preformed a HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS analysis forthe upper Spring Creek to determine the effects of the development of the College Station ISO High School site located at the southeast corner of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue in College Station, Texas. The purpose of these HEC analyses is to ensure the protection of adjacent developments from damage caused by increases in the flood waters of Spring Creek due to development on the College Station ISO High School site. Site Background and Information The proposed project consists of the development of an approximately 65 acre agricultural site. Proposed improvements include multiple buildings to be used as a new College Station High School, field house, press boxes, concessions and restrooms, playing fields, with associated sidewalks and parking lots. The College Station ISO High School site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue in College Station, Texas. It is located in the upper portion of the Spring Creek Watershed. Currently, the property is covered in light woods and pasture. The main flow path of Spring Creek is located near the southeast border of the College Station ISO High School property. A FEMA flood plain has not been defined for this reach of Spring Creek, but the findings of this study indicate that the base flood extends onto the College Station ISO High School property in some locations along the southeast border. The proposed site plan shows locations where fill is planned in the flood fringe portion of the floodplain as allowed by the Bryan-College Station Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. AREA STUDIED The HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS analysis focused on the Spring Creek reach nearest to the southeast border of the College Station ISO High School site. The entire 446 acre watershed from the headwaters to the proposed Victoria Avenue crossing location was studied in HEC-HMS to determine the existing base flood hydrograph. Gessner Engineering used an overall curve number of 75 for the existing conditions of the Spring Creek watershed . The existing conditions for the HEC-RAS study of Spring Creek consist of grass and weeds (n = 0.35) in the main channel with some light brush (n = 0.50) in the floodplain. The proposed conditions after the College Station High School site is 1 Gessner Engineering .. developed would still consist of grass and weeds (n = 0.35) and light brush (n = 0.50). ENGINEERING METHODS Gessner Engineering utilized the HEC-HMS to model the Spring Creek watershed and determine the runoff hydrograph in Spring Creek at Victoria Avenue, and HEC-RAS to provide the extents of the 100 year storm event, also known as the base flood event, in Spring Creek along the southeast border of the College Station ISO High School site . Hydrology The hydrology was determined by utilizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers program HEC-HMS, 3.4 version . This program simulates precipitation-runoff processes in watershed systems to produce peak flow values and runoff hydrographs. Within the program , Gessner Engineering modeled the Spring Creek watershed using the SCS Runoff method to allow the output hydrograph to be comparable in time with the hydrographs of the proposed outfall structures modeled in StormNET. An overview of the upper portion of the Spring Creek watershed which was studied in HEC- HMS is attached in the appendix as Exhibit A. Hydraulics Spring Creek was then analyzed using the 4.1.0 version of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS program which performs one-dimensional steady and unsteady hydraulic calculations to determine water surface elevations at specified cross section locations. The cross section elevations input into HEC-RAS were based off of the actual topographic survey cross sections taken by A-Survey specifically for the study of Spring Creek along the College Station ISO High School site . The 100 year storm event flows determined from the HEC-HMS model were used to determine the actual limits of base flood at the cross sections. Gessner Engineering did not include the storage area of the College Station ISO High School detention ponds in this hydraulic analysis, even though the timing of the proposed outfall hydrographs shows available storage in the ponds during the peak of the Spring Creek hydrograph . 2 Gessner Engineering • G RESULTS The HEC-RAS model of Spring Creek was run with the existing site conditions and the proposed site conditions. These two models were compared to determine if the development of the College Station ISO High School site would be detrimental to adjacent properties. Table 1 and Table 2 below show the existing and proposed conditions HEC- RAS output for the Spring Creek cross sections studied . ------------------------ HEC-RAS Plan Plan 04 River S nnq Creek Reach H1 h School Profile PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total I Min Ch Ell W.S. Elev I Crit W.S . I E.G. Elev I E.G. Slope I Vel Chnl I Flow Areal Top Width I Froude II Chi [cfs) I [ft) I [ft) I [ft) I [ft) I [ft/ft) I [ft/s) I [sq ftl I [ft) I High School 1479 PF 1 1010.00 297.68 302.47 302.60 0.003172 3.00 373.32 283.31 0.44 High School 1244 PF 1 1010.00 295.87 301.01 300.72 301 .50 0.005765 6.01 225.09 175.28 0.65 -High School 1046 PF 1 1010.00 294.79 299.29 299.29 300.09 0.00931 4 7.51 160.69 120.88 0.83 High School 889 PF 1 1010.00 294.01 299.33 299.46 0.001232 3.07 378.96 24004 0.31 High School 71 3 PF 1 1010.00 294.46 299.01 298.15 299.12 0.004083 3.46 423.64 377.58 0.50 High School 544 PF 1 1010.00 292.34 296.88 296.88 297.72 0.017685 8.19 144.52 86.79 1.07 High School 334 PF 1 1459.00 291.09 296.99 297.04 0.000464 1.96 891 .68 411 .51 0.19 High School 108 PF 1 1459.00 287.23 296.94 291.28 296.97 0.000159 1.35 1368.52 659.82 0.12 High School 54 Culvert High School 20 PF 1 1459.00 287.38 294.76 294.84 0.000426 2.36 763.70 364.73 0.20 High School 0 PF 1 1459.00 292.18 294.42 294.37 294.79 0.010004 5.52 326.17 342.45 0.80 Table 1: Existing Water Surface Elevations HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 04 River S rin Creek Reach H1oh School Profile PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total I Min Ch El I W.S. Elev I Crit W.S. I E.G. Elev I E.G. Slope I Vel Chnl I Flow Areal Top Width I Froude II Chi [cfs) I [ft) I [ft) I [ft) I [ft) I [ft/ft) I [ft/s) I [sq ftl I [ft) I High School 1479 PF 1 .. J..QJ..Q .. 9.9.: 297.68 302.50 302.62 0.002967 2.90 386.85 292.95 0.43 High School 1244 PF 1 1010.00 295.87 301.03 300.70 301 .55 0.005951 6.12 205.61 170.97 0.66 High School 1046 PF 1 1010.00 294. 79 299.28 299.28 300.09 0.009478 7.56 159.63 121.71 0.83 High School 889 PF 1 1010.00 294.01 299.29 299.41 0.001044 2.82 378.59 206.20 0.29 High School 713 PF 1 1010.00 294.46 298.98 298. 12 299.10 0.004366 3.53 414.15 375.63 0.52 High School 544 PF1 1010.00 292.34 297.24 296.87 297.82 0.01 2553 7.06 184.66 157.58 0.91 -High School 334 PF1 1459.00 291.09 297.48 297.52 0.000304 1.72 947.31 278.56 0.16 High School 108 PF 1 1459.00 287.23 297.44 291.28 297.47 0.000144 1.46 1137.77 353.19 0.12 High School 54 Culvert High School 20 PF 1 1459.00 287.38 294.76 294.84 0.000426 2.36 763.70 364.73 0.20 High School 0 PF 1 1459.00 292.18 294.42 294.37 294.79 0.01 0004 5.52 326.17 342.45 0.80 Table 2: Proposed Water Surface Elevations The water surface elevation in these two tables can be compared to determine the effects of the development of the College Station ISO High Sch ool site. The HEC-RAS analysis indicates the water surface elevations at cross section stations 108 to 544 is increased up to 0.5 feet due to the fill in the flood fringe on the College Station ISO High School site for the 100 year storm event. This increase in water surface elevation conforms to the requirements of the Bryan-College Station Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines Section VI, Sub-Section G , and Sub-Section D , Part 5 which allows the Base Flood Elevation to be raised by up to 1 foot. The remaining proposed water surface profiles resulted in very little 3 Gessner Engineering • .. or no change to the elevations when compared to existing conditions. Exhibit B, in the appendix, shows both the existing and proposed limits of base flood for Spring Creek along the southeast border of the College Station High School site. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion , the study of developing the College Station ISO High School , as described in the construction documents, resulted in no detrimental increase of Spring Creek during a 100-year storm event. The HEC-RAS model does indicate up to a 0.5' increase in the water profile from cross section 108 to cross section 544. This increase in water level would occur only on the College Station High School site and the adjacent agricultural site southeast of Spring Creek. Based on the models available and analysis in this report, Gessner Engineering does not foresee any negative effects due to the development of the College Station High School site. LIMITATIONS In order to complete th is study, assumptions have to be made for curve number values, Manning's roughness values, ground moisture conditions, etc. therefore limiting the accuracy. However, the information provided in this report includes sufficient information for making a sound engineering decision to conclude what effects the College Station ISO High School development will have on Spring Creek. 4 Gessner Engineering EXHIBIT A: SPRING CREEK WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS A Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (Tc) or travel time (T t) Project By Date S Gl-1r.J~ Ul."i.-t.L 6l. ./1.., ~~77 ~ /1-I/ Iv Location Checked Date Check one: ~ Present D Developed Check one: ~Tc D Tt through subarea Notes: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments. Segment ID 1. Surface description (table 3-1) 12ArJG.f.... 2. Manning's roughness coefficient, n (table 3-1) ......... . 0 ,13 3. Flow length, L (total L t 300 ft} ................................. ft 3 oo f'f 4. Two-year 24-hour rainfall, P 2 ...................... .... ...... .. in kj '':i' 5. Land slope, s ........................................................ tvft Q,0 1(,;,I 6. Tt = 0.007 (nl) o.a Compute Tt ......... hr o, 3'2. I + I =I.________. P2 o.s s0.4 Segment ID 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved} vtrvPAvt.t> 8. Flow length, L ........................................................... ft II S" o f"'i 9. Watercourse slope, s ............................................ tvft o,o I/ 10. Average velocity, V (figure 3-1) ............................. tvs I.I 11 . Tt = L Compute Tt ........... hr 0 1 p~ I+ I =~I ___. 3600 v ~~~"°'Mi f'r Segment ID 12. Cross sectional flow area, a ................................. ft2 13. Wetted perimeter, Pw .............................................. ft 14. Hydraulic radius, r= ~ Compute r ......................... ft Pw 15 Channel slope, s ..................................................... tvft 16. Manning's roughness coefficient, n ........................... . 17. v = 1.49 r 213 s 112 Compute V ................ tvs 11.ol lP n 18. Ptowiength, L .......................................................... ft O,I \ I+ I 19. Tt = L Compute Tt .............. hr = c=J 20. Watersh3e6d0gr~ubarea Tc or Tt (add Tt in steps 6, 11 , and 19) ....................................................... Hr ~ -y;:ll\6 := O.i.,, K i,Z .. :1- (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) ~Ac:, c: O, 13 ~/o;....s D-3 • EXHIBIT B: LIMITS OF BASE FLOOD EXHIBIT B • EXHIBIT C: FEMA FIRM c .. May 5, 2010 Prepared for: City of College Station College Station, Texas Prepared by: GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 College Station, Texas Gessner Engineering Job No. 09-0318 BACKWATER ANALYSIS -SPRING CREEK College Station /SO High School Site Brazos County, Texas Gessner Engineering I. May 5, 2010 Mr. Josh Norton, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Backwater Analysis -Spring Creek Barron Road and Victoria Avenue College Station , Texas Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Norton, Gessner Engineering developed hydrographs utilizing the SGS Curve Number Method in HEC-HMS and Storm NET to analyze how the rising levels of Spring Creek, during a 100 year storm event, would affect detention operation on the College Station ISO High School site. The peak flows and corresponding times of the hydrographs at noteworthy locations for this study are shown below in Table 1. Location 100-Yr Peak Peak Time Flow (cfs) (hours) Small Detention Pond Inflow 88.0 12.42 Small Detention Pond Outflow 77.0 12.58 Large Detention Pond Inflow 165.2 12.42 Large Detention Pond Outflow 97.7 12.83 Spring Creek @Victoria Ave. 1,459.0 13.92 Table 1: Hydrograph Peaks and Corresponding Times The studied site outfalls are located in the Spring Creek floodplain upstream of the proposed Victoria Avenue crossing location. From this comparison, it can be seen that the developed site outflow hydrographs peak 1.09 and 1.34 hours before the Spring Creek peak flow occurs during a 100 year storm event. A better illustration of the comparison of the College Station ISO High School site outflow peaks compared to the Spring Creek hydrograph peak is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 attached to this letter. The study of 100-year storm hydrographs indicates that detention placed in the locations shown on the College Station ISO High School site construction documents would not be adversely influenced by the rising flood water of G Gessner Engineering 2501 Ashfo rd Drive Suite 102 College Station, Texas 77840 P.O. Box 10763, 77842 979.680.8840 fax 979.680.8841 2204 S. Chappell Hill Street Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 fax 979.836.6847 •• Spring Creek. The proposed on site detention ponds should be sufficiently drained by the time the Spring Creek peak flood waters occur as shown in the attached figures. Based on the models and analysis in this report, Gessner Engineering believes on site detention at the College Station ISO High School site will function properly in the event of a 100 year flood within the Spring Creek watershed. This report includes results from a HEC-HMS and StormNET analyses conducted for the upper Spring Creek watershed and the College Station ISO High School site in College Station, Texas. We trust that this report is responsive to your needs. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, F-7451 LfY)f~ Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. t;_JA\~ Kyle M. Zapalac, M.E., E.l.T. Gessner Engineering ---- C> CD Cl) Cl) ::I CD .... "" ::I o:9. ::I CD CD ::::!. ::I OQ -J!? 0 -3: ..2 LL 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 • Timing Comparison --Small Pond Outflow " -Small Pond Inflow --Large Pond Outflow --Large Pond Inflow --Spring Creek \ \ ) \ ~ ~ 5 10 15 20 Time (hours) Figure 1: Comparison of Detention Hydrographs with Spring Creek Hydrograph C") CD ~ :::I CD .., "" :::I II!:!. :::I CD CD :::!. :::I aq --Small Pond Outflow Small Pond Inflow 1200 --Large Pond Outflow --Large Pond Inflow --Spring Creek 10 11 12 Timing Comparison 13 14 Time (hours) 15 16 Figure 2: Comparison of Detention Hydrographs with Spring Creek Hydrograph 17 18 • ~ Storm Water Drainage Study College Station ISO -High School College Station, Texas ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-Ge~nfilEn~neering • - February 25, 2010 Mr. Alan Gibbs, P.E., City Engineer City of College Station Planning Services 1101 Texas Avenue College Station , TX 77842 Re: Storm Water Drainage Study College Station ISO High School College Station, Texas Gessner Engineering Job No.: 09-0318 Dear Mr. Gibbs: 2 This report conveys the results of the storm water drainage study conducted by Gessner Engineering fo r the proposed College Station ISO High School in College Station, Texas. Gessner Engineering believes that all information contained in this report is valid. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, GESSNER ENGINEERING, LLP F-7451 Melissa P. Thomas , P.E. ___ ,,,,,,, ---~€.OF]".''' ; ,(. 'r· ....... S' J,.. ''• ,,,,-, '*',..,-...., t ,, Co • • • •• 1<.P ' ~*.. ·. *'~ ~*: ·. 't ~ 'M'Ei.iss'A P. 'iHOM~~· ~ ~ ••• : •••••••••••••••••• it! 11-o "· 98398 :'~I 1t 1'o~·~~9ENS~<?··· ~J •,, (<".ss .... ·"~,~~ ,,,,IDNAL t'~--,,,,,,-- N:\Gessner Eng Data 09\09-03 18 CSISD High\civil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-hi gh.doc G Gessner Engineering 17 12 Southwest Pkwy Suite 105 College Station, Texas 77840 P.O. Box 10763, 77842-0763 979.680.8840 FAX 979.680.884 1 2204 S. Chappell Hill Sc. Brenham, Texas 77833 979.836.6855 FAX 979.836.6847 G 3 Executive Summary This storm water drainage report is submitted to the City of College Station, Texas for review on February 25, 2010 by Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. of Gessner Engineering, located at 2501 Ashford Drive , Suite 102, College Station , Texas 77840. This report is submitted on behalf of the owner, Mr. Jon Hall with College Station Independent School District, at 1812 Welsh Avenue , Suite 120, College Station, Texas 77840 . The proposed project consists of the development of an approximately 64 acre undeveloped site. Proposed improvements include an approximately 190,400 square foot high school building with football stadium, baseball fields, tennis courts , track and associated field buildings and parking. The site is located at the south corner of the intersection of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue in College Station, Texas. It is located in the Spring Creek watershed. The site is not located in the FEMA 100 year flood plain, as shown by FIRM number 48041 C0205D. Currently, the property is covered in light woods, scattered trees and moderate grass and weeds. None of the surrounding areas drain through the subject property. The proposed site development routes flow off of the proposed parking , field and building areas into two (2) proposed detention ponds through a storm network. These ponds will outflow into the Spring Creek Tributary that borders the subject property to the southeast. Due to the size of development at this site, a Notice of Intent is required for submittal to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. In addition , a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared by Pepper Lawson.· This drainage report includes a report detailing the methods of calcuations and results summary, with appendices including drainage area maps and calculations, StormNET reports, and Technical Design Summary. N:\Gessner Eng Data 09\09-03 18 CSISD High\civil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-high .doc Gessner Engineering - G 4 Introduction This storm water drainage report is intended to determine the required detention to match pre-existing storm runoff conditions for the Proposed College Station ISO High School. Surrounding areas do not drain onto the subject property. Drainage Calculations for this site were prepared according to the National Resource Conservation Method as detailed in Technical Release 55 (TR-55) published in June of 1986. Proposed improvements include an approximately 190,400 square foot high school with football stadium, baseball fields , tennis courts, track and associated field buildings and parking. Curve numbers from TR-55 were used based on developed uses as described above . Pre-developed flows were calculated based on the undeveloped land on the subject tract. The calculated pre-developed and developed flows include the two (2), ten (10), twenty-five (25), fifty (50) and one-hundred (100) year storms in accordance with the Bryan College Station Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Calculations Calculations were performed according to the USDA TR-55 and with the aid of StormNET 4.18.2 by Boss International, Inc. of Madison, Wisconsin. The output data from StormNET has been provided as Appendix C. Time of Concentration The time of concentration (travel time) for each drainage area was estimated by summing the flow time for each segment of travel. For sheet flow, travel time was estimated by Manning's Kinematic equation : Where: t1 n L s P2 = = = = = 0.007 x (nL )0 8 t =---~-/ so.4 .jP; travel time (hours) manning's roughness coefficient flow length (feet) slope (ft/ft) 2-year, 24 hour rainfall (inches) For shallow concentrated flow, the travel time was calculated from the flow ve locity based on the slope in the direction of flow. These velocities were taken from Table C-4 of the Bryan College Station Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. The computed times of concentration for each drainage area are included on sheet C4 .0. Computed va lues were increased to a minimum time of ten (10) minutes as required . N:\Gessner Eng Data 09\09-03 18 CSISD High\civil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-high.doc Gessner Engineering .. G 5 Unit Hvdrograph A generic unit hydrograph was computed by distributing the rainfall depths (Table One) according to the distribution factors for the NCRS Type Ill 24 hour storm. This hydrograph was then applied to each subarea based on the curve number and time of concentration of that area. Reach Routing Hydrographs were routed from subareas to the outflow through the kinematic wave method. This method allows for hydrographs to be translated with time but not attenuated . 7 The effects of backwater flow and pressure flow in channels were neglected . Peak Runoff Flow Peak Runoff Flow from the site was determined based on the Type Ill 24 hour storm applied to each drainage area. The depth-duration-intervals for each frequency are included in Table One below, and were obtained from Table C-6 in the Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Curve Number values (CN) were determined from Table C-7, Appendix C of the Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Peak pre-developed flow for the subject site and adjacent properties is also included in Table One. Drainage areas and calculations are included on sheet C4.0, which is attached as Appendix A. Rainfall Depth (in), Pre-Developed Peak Frequency 24-hr duration Flow (cfs) 2 years 4.50 62.4 10 years 7.40 133.5 25 years 8.40 159.0 50 years 9.80 194.5 100 years 11 .00 224.6 Table One: Rainfall Depths and Resulting Flows Inlets The storm design utilizes area grate inlets and curb inlets with grates manufactured by ADS (or approved equivalent). The inlet capacities were determined based on curves provided by the manufacturer. Storm Pipe Calculations The proposed storm system was sized for the 25 year storm inflow for site runoff. Capacity was calculated based on Manning's equation with a roughness coefficient "n" of 0.012 for HOPE pipe. Pond Design The proposed ponds shown on the grad ing sheets of the College Station ISO High School Engineering plans were designed to detain the post-developed flows to pre-developed levels. Pond 1 is located on the north side of the southeast end of the property and detains runoff from the main building and from the parking and fields on the northeast side of the N:\Gessner Eng Data 09109-03 18 CSISD 1-lighlcivil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-high.doc Gessner Engineering G 6 property. The storage in the designed Pond 1 is shown in Table Two below, Stage Storage Data Pond 1, and in Figure 1, Stage Storage Curve Pond 1. Pond 2 is located on the south side of the southeast end of the property and detains runoff from the parking and fields on the southwest side of the property. The storage in the designed Pond 2 is shown in Table Three below, Stage Storage Data Pond 2, and in Figure 2, Stage Storage Curve Pond 2. The storage volumes are computed based on a trapezoidal estimate from the areas given at each elevation and are reduced by 10% to allow for sedimentation as required. Elevation (ft) Area (sf) StoraQe (cf) 295 12,099 0 296 33 ,686 22,892 297 38 ,373 58,922 298 42,943 99,580 299 47,687 144,895 299.5 49,714 169,245 Table Two: Stage Storage Data, Pond 1 Elevation (ft) Area (sf) StoraQe (cf) 299 4,776 0 300 38,135 21,456 301 69,232 75, 139 302 104,531 162,020 303 152,899 290,780 304 255,637 495,003 304.5 301 ,933 634,396 Table Three: Stage Storage Data, Pond 2 N:\Gessner Eng Data 09109-03 18 CSISD High\civil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-high.doc Gessner Engineering G Volume (ft') 20K 40K 60{ 80K 1 00{ 120{ 140{ 1 SOK 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 s 2.s t Q) 0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Figure One: Stage Storage Curve, Pond 1 Outlet Design 5.5 50 45 4.0 35 ~3.0 Ci. Q) 0 25 2.0 1 5 1 0 05 00 7 .t. Depth VS. Volume CurVl! Volume (ft') I 00{ 200{ 300K 400!< SOOK SOOK Figure Two: Stage Storage Curve, Pond 2 It was determined that a staged outlet structure was required for each pond to keep the post developed flows below the pre-developed flows for the 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year storms. Details of the outlet structures are shown on sheets C501 and C505. Table Four below shows post-developed peak flow rates and the maximum water surface elevations in the ponds for each storm event. Using the proposed outlet structure, it was determined that Pond 1 will have 2.6 feet of freeboard during the 25 year design storm and 2.2 feet of freeboard for the 100 year storm, with a top of berm elevation of 299.5. Pond 2 will have 2.3 feet of freeboard during the 25 year design storm and 1.8 feet of freeboard for the 100 year storm, with a top of berm elevation of 304.5. Storm Event Pond1 Water Pond2 Water Surface Surface Elevation Elevation (ft), Post- (ft), Post-Developed Developed 2 year 296.1 301 .1 10 year 296.8 302.0 25 year 296.9 302.2 50 year 297.2 302.5 100 year 297.3 302.7 Table Four: Pond Outflows and W.S.E.Ls N:\Gessner Eng Data 09\09-0318 CSISD High\civil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-high.doc Gessner Engineering .. G 8 The peak post-developed flow out of the site equals the sum of the hydrographs from Pond One, Pond Two and the flow from some landscaped areas to the east and west. These post-developed peak flows compared to the pre-developed peak flows are shown in Table Five below for each storm event. Hydrographs for each storm event are included as Appendix B. Post-Developed flows without onsite detention are also included in the table for reference. Storm Event Pre-Developed Post-Developed Flow Post-Developed Flow Peak Flow (cfs) no Detention (cfs) with Detention (cfs) 2 year 62.4 102.0 61.5 10 year 133.5 189.2 128.1 25 year 159.0 219.9 152.3 50 year 194.5 258.2 179.8 100 year 224.6 278.7 199.2 Table Five: Pre-Developed and Post-Developed Site Outflows To dissipate energy at the pond outflow structures, rip rap was designed at each structure based on the discharge velocities. The discharge velocity for the 100 year design storm is 6.7 feet per second at Pond 1 and 9.0 feet per second at Pond 2. Conclusion Based on visual evidence , engineering drainage calculations and sound engineering judgment, Gessner Engineering believes that the post-development flows can be detained below or at the pre-developed flows for the two (2), ten (10), twenty-five (25), fifty (50) and one hundred (100) year design storms for this site. N:\Gessner Eng Data 09109-03 18 CSISD Highlcivil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-high.doc Gessner Engineering .. G .. APPENDIX A: Drainage Area Map and Calculations (Sheet C400) N:\Gessner Eng Data 09\09-03 18 CSISD High\civil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-high.doc 9 Gessner Engineering .. 10 APPENDIX B: Hydrographs N:\Gessner Eng Data 09\09-03 18 CSISD High\civil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-h igh.doc G~~~~~~~~~~~ Gessner Engineering Site Hydrographs -2 year design storm -TOTAL POST WITH DETENTION -PREDEVELOPMENT -TOTAL POST NO PONDS o ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ oo m m o ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ oo m m o ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N Time (hours) -----------------··· -~ () Site Hydrographs -10 year design storm -TOTAL POST WITH DETENTION ~-PREDEVELOPMENT -TOTAL POST NO PONDS 160 -t--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---+-'t--~~~~--1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 i 100 -t--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---+--ff----<>-++-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---; .2 u. 0 ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ 00 m m 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ 00 m m 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N Time (hours) Site Hydrographs -25 year design storm -TOTAL POST WITH DETENTION -PREDEVELOPMENT -TOTAL POST NO PONDS 200 -t-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----+-t>--~~~~~;_~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 150 -J!? ~ ~ ..2 LL 100 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ 00 m m 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ 00 m m 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-N N N N N N Time (hours) -... ---·· Site Hydrographs -50 year design storm -TOTAL POST WITH DETENTION -PREDEVELOPMENT -TOTAL POST NO PONDS -J!? ~ 3: 150 ..2 LL 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ 00 m m 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ 00 m m 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N Time (hours) _____ ._.._. ......... Site Hydrographs -100 year design storm -TOTAL POST WITH DETENTION -PREDEVELOPMENT -TOTAL POST NO PONDS -J!? ~ ~ 150 ..2 u. 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ 00 m m 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ 00 m m 0 ~ ~ N M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N Time (hours) 11 APPENDIX C: StormNET Calculations G N:\Gessner Eng Data 09109-0318 CSISD Highlcivil\Doc\Drainage Report-NRCS-high.doc Gessner Engineering SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4-Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.15) Design Parameters (continued) Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used? No x Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? % 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 N/A N/A Storm drain system for local streets N/A N/A Open channels N/A N/A Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel N/A N/A Swales N/A N/A Roadside ditches and culverts serving them N/A N/A Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall 2 ,10,25,50,100 100 Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s) 2,10,25,50,100 2 Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged 2 ,10,25 ,50,100 100 Culverts serving private drives or streets N/A N/A Culverts serving public roadways N/A N/A Bridges: provide in bridge report. N/A N/A Hydraulics Whaf is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? Design flow velocities; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Channels Highest (feet per second) N/A 9.58 N/A N/A N/A Lowest (feet per second) N/A 2.33 N/A N/A N/A Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used: For street gutters: NL'.A For condu it type(s) HDPE STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 QiQe Page 24 of 26 Coefficients: O • 015 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.16) Design Parameters (continued) Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued) For the followi ng, are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? _x_ No Yes Head and friction losses _2L No Yes ---- Explain any "yes" answer: In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? -1L 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? _2L 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: Free outfall Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec Vl.F.5.a? N /A Yes __ No Outside of straig ht sections, is flow regime within lim its of sub-critical flow? __ Yes __ No If "no" list locations and explain: N/A 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? Inlet Entrance, friction and exit losses: Bridges Provide all in brid ge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELI NES Effective February 2007 Control Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I 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 _K_ 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? _K_ Yes --No For 100-year flow conditions? _K_ 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: Free outfall Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec Vl.F.5.a? N /A Yes __ No Outside of straight sections, is flow regime within limits of sub-critical flow? __ Yes --No If "no" list locations and explain: N/A 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? Inlet Control Entrance, friction and exit losses: Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.13) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? __x_ No --Yes If "yes" provide the following information. Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)? What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? VJ Q) Ol -0 ·;:: co A full report supporting all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural, geotechnical, hydrologic, and hydraulic factors) must accompany this summary report. Is the report provided? --Yes --No If "no" explain: Is a Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techniques: .~ Pollution Prevention Sil t fencing ro Plan (SW3P) Inl et Protection ::i a established fo r ..... project construction? St abilized construction entrance (l) iii Sod landscape at all d i sturbed s No x Yes or areas -- Sediment a tion Pond 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? STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Yes -- -- Page 22 of 26 No If "no" explain: APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.14) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Special Designs -Deviation From 8-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 _X_ Dra in system elements Channel features ---- Culvert features Swales Ditches Inlets Outfalls -- -- ------ __ Valley gutters __ Bridges (explain in bridge re port) In table below briefly identify specific element, justification for deviation(s). Specific Detail Element Justification for Deviation (attach additional sheets if needed) 1) HDPE pipe Only in private development 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) Yes, Carol Cotter 2) 3) 4) 5) Design Parameters Hydrology Yes No Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? _x_ -- Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: Rational Formula not used. Calculations in accordance with USDA TR-55 What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 0 acres STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Location (or identifier): Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.14) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Special Designs -Deviation From 8-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 _x_ 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) HDPE pipe Only in private development 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) Yes, Carol Cotter 2) 3) 4) 5) Design Parameters Hydrology Yes No Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? _x_ -- Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: Rational Formula not used. Cal culations in accordance with USDA TR-55 What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 0 acres STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Location (or identifier): Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce(;!t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.11) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named RegulatoD£ Watercourses (&Tributaries}: Are culverts proposed on these facilities? --No __ Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria, analysis, computer programs, and study findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? __ Yes --No If "no", explain: ~ Arterial or Major Collector Streets: Will culverts serve these types of roadways? Q) Q) No Yes How many instances? For each identify the .s::::. C/l -- -- Q) location and provide the information below. cn -ro Instance 1: Q) .... >-[ I~ Instance 2: Instance 3: c 0 o~ Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 z E ~1~ Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? E C'· ro Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? C/l C/l gi "O Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c ~ ro 0 c '-0 u +:i >-ro ro u ~ ..Q "O Q) ro ..c 0 ·-'-.... Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? u u No Yes How many instances? for each identify the ·-C/l ---Q) ---g "O location and provide the information below: a. Q) ...... a. Instance 1: ro z- "O >-Instance 2: Q) c cn ro ::::i_ Instance 3: C/l 0 t C/l Q) Q) For each instance enter value, or "yes" I "no" for: ~u 1 2 3 :::Jc u ro Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? Q) iii .... c <( ·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? Q) .... 0 Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? E .... g Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? Limit of down stream analysis (feet)? Explain any "no" answers: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 20 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.12) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Se rving Subject Prope rty (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? 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? __ No --Yes If "yes" id entify location (s), describe change(s), and justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? __ No __ Yes If yes, identify location(s) and provide justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? -a No Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): Q) ----::i c ~ 0 ~ en t Q) Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of cu lvert structural > :5 components, and surfacing at culvert ends? __ Yes __ No If "no" Identify (.) locations and provide justification(s): .:i:: ......... z Will 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW, and/or drainage easements/ ROW? __ 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? --No --Yes If "yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with 8-CS Tech. Specifications? --Yes --No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 21of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters j 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? 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? __ No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe change(s), and justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? __ No __ Yes If yes, identify location(s) and provide justification: 'C Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? Q.) --No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): ::i .~ c 0 ~ Ul t: Q.) Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural > 'S u components, and surfacing at culvert ends? __ Yes __ No If "no" Identify locations and provide justification(s): r::i: ........ :z; Will 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW, and/or drainage easements/ ROW? __ 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? --No --Yes If "yes " describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with B-CS Tech. Specifications? --Yes --No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 21 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I 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% 18 .9 4.6 ac-ft 26.0 16.2 ac-ft 100-yr volume: free flow & plugged 1.95 ac-ft 2.45 ac-ft 5.49 ac-ft 7.14 ac-ft Design discharge (10 yr & 25 yr) 54 .7 cfs 64 .3 cfs 44.8 cfs 52.0 cfs Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? _X_yes --no _X_yes --no Berms 6 inches above plugged W SE? _X_yes --no _x __ yes --no Explain any "no" answers: If) Q) >-~1 For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: see detail sheet C5.1, 64.3 cfs 0 z Facility 2: See detail sheet C5 .5, 52.0 cfs I Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? Facility 1: __ Yes x No Facility 2: Yes x No ---- --C'· If "no" explain: Discharges into tributary "C to Spring Creek Q) If) 0 o._ 0 ..... 0.. For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway? If) Q) Facility 1: 4.0 cfs & 0 Facility 2: 5 .0 cfs & 0 ~ ·u Are energy dissipation measures used? No _x_ Yes Describe type and ro --LL location: c 0 Dissipator blocks and riprap at each outlet ~ Q) Q) 0 Q) For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe: ..... <( Facility 1: No Facility 2: No For each, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving facility? Facility 1: Dissipator blocks and riprap at outfalls Facility 2: Dissipator blocks and riprap at outfalls If berms are used give heights , slopes and surface treatments of sides. Facility 1: 5 ft, Max 3:1 , grass Facility 2: 6 ft, Max 3 : l, grass STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 18 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.10) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Se rving Subject Property (Phase, or Si te) (continued) Do structures comply with 8-CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no": Facility 1; Yes en Q) :;:; =:o ~ Q) Facility 2: Yes LL ::J c: c: :z; 0 c: :.;::: 0 c: u Q) ~ Q) For additiona l facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. 0 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? --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 8-CS Technical Specifications? __ Yes --No Explain any "no" answers: C'· en Ol .~ en Are cu lverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __ Yes No Explain: en 0 --..... en u Q) Q) -ro >- > I '§_ Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives , or streets cross drainage -ro ways that serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? "'O 0 No Yes If "yes" provide information below. Q) z -- --~xi How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. Q) Location 1: 1! ::J u Q) 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 Effective February 2007 Page 19 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I 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 CJ) a.> :;:::; ~:o co a.> Facility 2: Yes lJ.. :::J c c;; 0 c :.;::; 0 c u a.i~ Q) For additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. 0 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? --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: C:-· CJ) Cl c 'iii Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? Yes No Explain: CJ) 0 -- --,_ CJ) u a.> a.> n; >- > I ·c Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage c.. n; ways that serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? "C 0 No Yes If "yes" provide information below. a.> z -- --~~1 How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. a.> Location 1: > :; u a.> 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 Effective February 2007 Page 19 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4. 7) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) c 'iii a. E x 0 w .l:: If "yes" provide the following information for each instance: Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: :g 11> Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? X Yes __ No Is swale wholly c ~ within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: .; I f--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--i u Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: ~ 0 §Z § xi f--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--i Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: 'O Q) ·c C'-· :::::s !/) .0 c :i Q) o E £ 3l '§ ill !/) ..... Q) 0 "iii s ~ 0 Cl'.: ~ -~ :c C'-· 'O Q) !/) 0 c.. 0 ..... c.. !/) c Q) E Q) > 0 ..... c.. E Qi c c ro .r. u :::::s c.. c ~ c.. x w !/) Q) >- I 0 z xi Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided: 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 describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow, and amount of freeboard: Instance 1: Instance 2: Instance 3: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels (small creeks}: Are these used? --No --Yes If "yes" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? __ Yes No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location: For each location, describe length and general typ e of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): For each location, describe section shape & area, fl ow line slope (min . & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow. 'C Q) :::i c E Watercourses (and tributaries}: Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory 0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No Yes Explain below. ~ --en c Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address Q) existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E Q) length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures > 0 and data . Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no" explain: ..... --a_ E - Qi c c ro All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information .c (_) 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. F't; .......... z Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? --Yes --No If not, identify location an d explain: Are ROW I easements sized to contain channel and requ ired maintenance space? --Yes --No If not, identify location(s) and explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 17 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels {small creeks}: Are these used? --No --Yes If "yes" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? __ Yes No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location: For each location, describe length and general type of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): For each location, describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow. 'C CIJ ::::i c ~ Watercourses {and tributaries}: Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory 0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No Yes Explain below. ~ -- CJ) c Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address CIJ existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E CIJ length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures > 0 and data. Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no" explain: ..... --0. E OJ c c ro All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information ..c (.) 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 . .::i: .......... z Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? --Yes --No If not, identify location and explain: Are ROW I easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space? --Yes --No If not, identify location(s) and explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I 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 Ul (incl ude design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). CV () r:: 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ro u; 1. Spr ing Cr e ek Tr ibutary, vel o cit y= 6 .7 cfs -~ ~ ang l e= 90 de grees ,...._ 0 ~E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? :::J ..... 1. Sp ring Creek Tributary, v elocit y=9.0 cfs r:: 0 ·--c . 0 .E a ngle= 9 0 degre es ~.£ E CV ~ CV E 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? .... ro iii ~ Ul ~ Ul CV :::J r:: :"2 0 ·-> ~ e -0 0.. E .... For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of '-CV O CV receiving and all facilities at juncture? .... .r:: Cf) Ul CV 1) Riprap t o centerline of creek trib u t ary -ro ..... ro 2) Riprap cent erline of creek tribut ary 0.. to CV Ul r:: 3) 2- 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): C'-· N/A Ul w ~ Ul ..., CV Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): Ul >-r:: ~ I ~ 0 Ul z Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle, & end treatment). :::J ~1 Ul CV ..... Will 100-year design storm ru noff be contained with in easement(s) or platted drainage <( ROW in all instances? --Yes --No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDE LI NES Effective February 2007 Page 14 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 - Drainage Con ce~t and Design Parameters I 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: rJl Q) Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? __ Yes No ..c: --~ Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes --No 0 Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No Q) ----"O For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: "iii "O Ill 0 a::: If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Insta nce 1 Describe general location, approximate length: rJl Q) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduiUswale combination? Yes No >-----I~ If "no" explain: c Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width 0 Ill z ii5 Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum ~1 ~ and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: 0 C'· ~ "O rJl "O a:; Ill Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): c >. c Ill c ..c: Ill u ..... c .E Q) c Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): 0.. 0 0 ~ -0 E ::J -~ .E c c Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: Q) "O E Q) Ill rJl rJl ::J rJl Q) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduiUswale combination? Yes No c "O ·:; ----0 If "no" explain: ~ 0 ..... c 0.. 15 Q) Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width E Q) 0 ..c: u rJl Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size , minimum and maximum ...... <1> ::J n; and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: "O ..... c Ill 0 0.. u Q) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): ~ rJl c Ill .s. ~ rJl <1> Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): ..... <( STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 15 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I 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: Ill Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? __ Yes No Q) --..c .B Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes --No 0 Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No Q) -----c For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: .iii -c Cl! 0 0::: If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length: Ill Q) Is 1 DO-year design flow contained in conduiVswale combination? Yes No >----- lw If "no" explain: c Space for 1 DO-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width 0 Cl! z u; Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size , minimum and maximum ~1 ~ and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: 0 C'-· ~ -c Ill -c Qi Cl! Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): c >-c Cl! c ..c Cl! (.) L.. c .E Q) c Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): c.. 0 0 :..:::; -Cl! 0 E :::J L.. ~ 0 -c c Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: Q) -c E Q) Cl! Ill Ill :::J Ill Q) Is 1 OD-year design flow contained in conduiVswale combination? Yes No c -c ·:; ----0 If "no" explain: ~ 0 L.. c c.. :.c a; Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width E Q) 0 ..c (.) Ill Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum ...... Q) :::J iii and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: -c L.. c Cl! 0 c.. (.) Q) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): ~ Ill c Cl! ~ 3 Ill Q) Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): L.. <( STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 - Drainage Conce~t 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 wh ich 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): 2 d etenti on ponds wi ll be locat ed at the Southeast end of t h e subject site . With in Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Project Area, is design in substantial co nformance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? __ Yes No, then summarize the difference(s): N/A Identify wh ether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included, extent of use, and general characteristics . Typical shape? I Surfaces? C"· " Q) <JI Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes: Usual back slopes: <JI :::J Q) <JI >- Q) I ..c Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway: ~ " typi cal (Attached Exhibit # ) Q) 0 greatest " "iii z " xi !1l 0 Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with 8-CS Standard Specifications? ..... Q) Yes No, then explain: ..... <l'. <JI At intersections or otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? ..0 Q) No Yes If yes expla in: :; C"· >--- (.) " I ..c Q) ...... <JI ·-:::J :0: ..... Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? <JI Q) OJ~ 0 No Yes Explain: (number of locations?) ~ oiz ---- u; " ~~xi STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELIN ES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I 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? --Yes --No If "no", identify wh ere and why. Will inlets capture 10-year design stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)? --Yes --No If no, explain where and why not. C'· "O QJ (/) Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year ::i 0 ..... z design storm throughout site (or phase)? Yes No If no, explain. QJ 5 -- -- OJ "O ........ c "O <ll QJ Sag curves : Are inlets placed at low points? Yes No Are inlets and .0 ~ -- --..... ·-conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? ::i +-' (.) c Yes No Explain "no" answers. 0 .r:. (.) -- --+-' ~ '§ (/) (i) QJ ..... ii) QJ Will 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on ..... <t: whole length of all streets? Yes No If no, describe where and why. ---- Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? Yes --No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. Are any 12-inch laterals used? __ No x Yes Identify length(s) and where --used. ref. sheet cs.a C'· "O Pipe runs between system I Typical ft ft QJ (/) 17 0 Longest 332 (/) QJ access points (feet): ::i >-E Are junction bo xes used at each bend? Yes x No If not, explain where ~~1 ----and why. (/) c Not used where access is located near the bend. ·-0 ~z "O I E 0 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount th at hydraulic u; .!!!. Yes _x_ No __ If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line (system-wide): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I 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? --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)? --Yes --No If no, explain where and why not. C'-· "C (!) "' Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year :;J 0 Q; :z; design storm throughout site (or phase)? Yes No If no, explain. =§ ---- C') -c..-.. c "C C'O (!) Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? Yes No Are inlets and .o E ---- L... ·-conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? :;J ..... (.) c Yes No Explain "no" answers. 0 --.c (.) --::: .._ ::: "' a:; (!) L... ii) (!) Will 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on ~ whole length of all streets? Yes No If no, describe where and why. ---- Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? Yes --No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. Are any 12-inch laterals used? __ No x Yes Identify length(s) and where --used. ref. sheet cs .o C'-· "C Pipe runs between system I Typical (!) 170 ft Longest 332 ft "' "' :;J (!) access points (feet): E >-x ~~1 Are junction boxes used at each bend? --Yes --No If not, explain where and why. "' c Not used where access is located near the bend. ·-0 ~z "C I E L... 0 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic ii) ~ Yes _x_ No __ If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line (system-wide): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SU MMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I 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 developm ent? Describe for each area, flow section, or discharge point. N/A Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section 11 , Paragraph E1) Does project incl ude drainage features (existing or futu re) proposed to become public via platting? __x_No --Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will __ Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring __ Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) property(ies)? N/A Combination of the two Scenarios -- Scenario 1: If easements are proposed, describe where needed, and provide status of actions on each. (Attached Exhibit# ) N/A Scenario 2: Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre-development conditions (detention, sheet flow, partially concentrated, etc.). (Attached Exhibit# ) N/A 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. N/A If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used, has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? documentation. N/A STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 No Page 10 of 26 --Yes Explain and provide APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project Will project result in shifting runoff between Basins or Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting: N/A between r-,--,W...,..h_a_t_d_e_s-ig_n_a_n_d_m-it-ig-a-tio-n-is_u_s_e_d_t_o_c_o_m_p_e_n_s_a_te_f_o_r_i n-c-r-ea_s_e_d_r_u_n_o_ff-----1 Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? _X_No Yes How will runoff from Project Area be mitigated to pre- development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2, and/or 3, and explain below. 1. __ With facility(ies) involving other development projects. 2. __ Establishing features to serve overall Project Area . 3. _X_ On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area. 1. Shared facility (type & location of facility; design drainage area served; relationship to size of Project Area): (Attached Exhibit# l N/A 2. For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit# ) N/A 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. C'-· "'O Q) fJl r::: Q) ~ >- 0::: fJl r::: O> 'ii) Q) 0 Oz 1~ Q) -< Are aquatic echosystems proposed? _X_ No project(s)? __ Yes In which phase(s) or Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? __ No _X_ Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: -Silt fencing at limits of construction -Inlet protection -Sedimentation Pond -Sod of landscaping in all disturbed areas -Construction Entrance If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. __ Detention elements __ Conduit elements __ Channel features __ Swales __ Ditches __ Inlets __ Valley gutters __ Outfalls __ Culvert features __ Bridges Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 11 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters J Continued (Page 4.2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project Will project result in shifting runoff Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting: N/A between Basins or ~--------,---,-----,---.,.--------,-.,..-----,----:-----;;:-----I between What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased runoff Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? _X_No Yes 1. __ With facility(ies) involving other development projects. 2. __ Establishing features to serve overall Project Area. How will runoff from Project Area be mitigated to pre- development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2, and/or 3, and explain below. 3. _X_ On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area. 1. Shared facility (type & location of facility; design drainage area served; relationship to size of Project Area): (Attached Exhibit# ) N/A 2. For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exh ibit# ) N/A 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. Are aquatic echosystems proposed? _X_ No project(s)? __ Yes In which phase(s) or Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? __ No _X_ Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: -Silt fencing at limits of construction -Inlet protection -Sedimentation Pond -Sod of landscaping in all disturbed areas -Construction Entrance If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. __ Detention elements __ Conduit elements __ Channel features __ Swales __ Ditches __ Inlets __ Valley gutters __ Outfalls __ Culvert features __ Bridges ________ Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 11 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert~ Characteristics I Con tinued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (c ontinued) Do drainage If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? __ plat, or easements exist for any __ instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions. part of pathway(s)? --No N/A Yes -- Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe ch aracteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) Pathway N/A Areas Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts, bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc). Culvert beneath Barron Drive to drainage swale south of subject property . Nearby Drainage Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design? _x_ No --Yes If yes, explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro(;!ert~ Characteristics I 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 , describe splits below. In Part 4 describe desion concept for handlino this. Watershed or Basin LarQer acreaQe Lesser acreage Spring Creek 63.665 Above-Project Areas(Section II, Paragraph B3-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? ~No --Yes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4) Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable concentrated section(s), small creek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? x No Yes If yes , describe facilities in easement or ROW: -- -- Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? x No Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies). N/A STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Property Characteristics I 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 , describe splits below. In Part 4 describe desiQn concept for handling this. Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acreaQe Spring Cree k 63 .665 Above-Project Areas(Section II , Paragraph 83-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? ~No Yes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4) __ _ Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable concentrated section(s), small creek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? _X_ No __ Yes If yes , describe facilities in easement or ROW: Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? X No Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies). N/A STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert~ Characteristics I Start (Page 3.1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing: Land proposed for development currently used, including extent of impervious cover? Existing land undevelope d Site __ Redevelopment of one platted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots. Development __ Building on a single platted lot of undeveloped land. Project __ Building on two or more platted adjoining lots of undeveloped land. (select all __ Bu ilding 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). _X_ Other (explain): Building on a single unplatted lot of undeveloped land. Subdivision N /A 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. Describe Subdivisions: number of lots by general type of use, linear feet of streets and Nature and drainage easements or ROW. Size of Approximately 190 ,400 sq . ft High School, wit h ProE!osed a f ootball stadium, baseball fields, tennis courts, Project trac k and associated field buildings and parking . Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain: Platt to be submitted or on land for which platting is not pending? as as-built documents after No x Yes -- --con s t ruction is complet e FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I N y (Section II, Paragraph B1 ) or a tributary thereof? 0 --es _x__ Is any part of subject property in floodplain I No_X_ Yes Rate Map area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? -- Encroachment(s) Encroachment purpose(s): __ Build ing site(s) __ Road crossing(s) into Floodplain areas pl anned? __ Utility crossing(s) __ Other (explain): No _x__ N/A Yes -- If floodplain areas not shown on Rate Maps, has work been done toward amending the FEMA- approved Flood Study to define allowable encroachments in proposed areas? Explain. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 6 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SU MMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -P ro12ert~ Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.2) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) Has an earlier hydrologic analysis been done for larger area inclu ding 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 plan for the property in Part 4. _x_ If property is part of multi-phase project, provide overview of stormwater management plan for Proj ect 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 approxim ate size, volume, outfall, model, etc). Any known drainage or flood ing 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: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I 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 plan for the property in Part 4. _K..._ 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: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ... SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Pa rt 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2.2) Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts , platted land, or built subject property: developments: Barron Road NW: Needham Estates Victoria Avenue NE: Reatta Meadows SE: Gary Seaback SW: Sonoma Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s): None Spring Creek Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File #: N[A Final Plat File #: N/A Date: Name: Status and Vol/Pg: If two plats, second name: File#: Status: Date: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Zoning Type: A-0 Existing or Proposed? Existing Case Code: Nl'.A Case Date Nll}. Status: 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: September 16, 2009 City of College Station SHW Group Gessner Engineering Preliminary Report Required? NO Submittal Date Review Date Review Comments Addressed? Yes N/A 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. N/A STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 4 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I 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 N/A Departments of Jurisdiction City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): T AMUS 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 in spaces below. Entity Permitted or Approved? US Army Crops of Engineers No _x_ Yes - US Environmental Protection Agency No _x_ Yes - Texas Commission on Notice of Environmental Quality Intent No --Yes _x_ Brazos River Authority No _x_ Yes - STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 To be Page 5 of 26 Status of Actions (include dates) submitted by contractor APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I 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 N/A Departments of Jurisdicti on City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include co ntacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TAMUS Needed? Yes --No _x__ Permits For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) As to stormwater manag ement, are permits required for the proposed work from any of the entities listed below? If so, summarize status of efforts toward that objective in spaces below. Entity Permitted or Approved ? US Army Crops of Engineers No _x_ Yes - US Environmental Protection Agency No _x__ Yes - Texas Commission on Notice of Environmental Quality Intent No --Yes _x__ Brazos River Authority No _x_ Yes - STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 To be Page 5 of 26 Status of Actions (include dates) submitted by contractor APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY or clearing/grading permits, as well as reference to any application numbers or codes assigned by the City to such request. 3. The location of the project should be described. This should identify the Named Regulatory Watershed(s) in which it is located, how the entire project area is situated therein, whether the property straddles a watershed or basin divide, the approximate acreage in each basin, and whether its position in the Watershed dictates use of detention design. The approximate proportion of the property in the city limits and within the ET J is to be identified, including whether the property straddles city jurisdictional lines. If any portion of the property is in floodplains as described in Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA that should be disclosed. 4. The hydrologic characteristics of the property are to be described in broad terms: existing land cover; how and where stormwater drains to and from neighboring properties; ponds or wetland areas that tend to detain or store stormwater; existing creeks, channels, and swales crossing or serving the property; all existing drainage easements (or ROW) on the property, or on neighboring properties if they service runoff to or from the property. 5. The general plan for managing stormwater in the entire project area must be outlined to include the approximate size, and extent of use, of any of the following features: storm drains coupled with streets; detention I retention facilities; buried conveyance conduit independent of streets; swales or channels; bridges or culverts; outfalls to principal watercourses or their tributaries; and treatment(s) of existing watercourses. Also, any plans for reclaiming land within floodplain areas must be outlined . 6. Coordination and permitting of stormwater matters must be addressed . This is to include any specialized coordination that has occurred or is planned with other entities (local, state, or federal). This may include agencies such as Brazos County government, the Brazos River Authority, the Texas A&M University System, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Environmental Protection Agency, et al. Mention must be made of any permits, agreements, or understandings that pertain to the project. 7. Reference is to be made to the full drainage report (or the Technical Design Summary Report) which the executive summary represents. The principal elements of the main report (and its length), including any maps, drawings or construction documents, should be itemized . An example statement might be: "One __ -page drainage report dated , one set of construction drawings ( __ sheets) dated , and a ___ -page specifications document dated ____ comprise the drainage report for this project." STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 2 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction Gessner Engineering City: Bryan 2501 Ashf o r d Drive Suite 1 02 x College Station College Station, TX 77840 Date of Submittal: 12 _ 1 6 _ 2 0 0 9 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: Melissa P . Thomas, P.E. mthomas@g e.com Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts: Developer I Owner I Applicant Information Developer I Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail: J on Ha l l, Coll ege Station I SD 979-764-54 00 181 2 Welsh Av., Suite 120 jhall@c sisd.org College Station, TX 77840 Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: Project Identification Development Name: CS I SD High School Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision, or part of a multi-phase subdivision? Site Proj ect If multi-phase, subject property is phase of Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II , Paragraph B-3a) A0 054 01 -R. Stevens o n (ICL) I Tract 4 8.1 Vol . 36 04, PG2 43 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): South corner of Barron Road a n d Vi c t oria Avenue In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan: 0 acres. Bryan: 0 College Station: 0 College Station : 63 .665 acres. Acreage Outside ET J: 0 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELI NES Effective February 2007 Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction Gessner Engineering City: Bryan 2501 Ashford Drive Suite 102 x College Station College Station, TX 77840 Date of Submittal: 12 _1 6 _ 2 0 0 9 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. mthomas@ge.com Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts: Developer I Owner I Applicant Information Developer I Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail: J on Hall, College Station ISD 979-764-5400 1812 Welsh Av., Suite 120 jhall@csisd.org College Station, TX 77840 Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: Project Identification Development Name: CSISD High Schoo l Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision, or part of a multi-phase subdivision? Site Project If multi-phase, subject property is phase of Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II , Paragraph B-3a) A005401 -R. Stevenson (ICL) I Tract 48.1 Vol. 3604 , PG 24 3 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): South c o rner of Barron Road and Vic t o ria Av enue In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan: 0 acres. Bryan: 0 College Station: 0 College Station: 63.665 acres. Acreage Outside ET J: 0 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 Appendix D Technical Design Summary Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines City of College Station City of Bryan February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY The Cities of Bryan and College Station both require storm drainage design to follow these Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Paragraph C2 of Section Ill (Administration) requires submittal of a drainage report in support of the drainage plan (stormwater management plan) proposed in connection with land development projects, both site projects and subdivisions. That report may be submitted as a traditional prose report, complete with applicable maps, graphs, tables and drawings, or it may take the form of a "Technical Design Summary". The format and content for such a summary report shall be in substantial conformance with the description in this Appendix to those Guidelines. In either format the report must answer the questions (affirmative or negative) and provide, at minimum, the information prescribed in the ''Technical Design Summary" in this Appendix. The Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report shall include several parts as listed below. The information called for in each part must be provided as applicable. In addition to the requirements for the Executive Summary, this Appendix includes several pages detailing the requirements for a Technical Design Summary Report as forms to be completed. These are provided so that they may be copied and completed or scanned and digitized. In addition , electronic versions of the report forms may be obtained from the City. Requirements for the means (medium) of submittal are the same as for a conventional report as detailed in Section Ill of these Guidelines. Note: Part 1 -Executive Summary must accompany any drainage report required to be provided in connection with any land development project, regardless of the format chosen for said report. Note: Parts 2 through 6 are to be provided via the fo rms provided in this Appendix. Brief statements should be included in the forms as requested , but additional information should be attached as necessary. Part 1 -Executive Summary Report Part 2 -Project Administration Part 3 -Project Characteristics Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Part 5 -Plans and Specifications Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT Part 1 -Executive Summary This is to be a brief prose report that must address each of the seven areas listed below. Ideally it will include one or more paragraphs about each item. 1. Name, address, and contact information of the eng ineer submitting the report, and of the land owner and developer (or applicant if not the owner or developer). The date of submittal should also be included. 2. Identification of the size and general nature of the proposed project, including any proposed project phases. This paragraph should also include reference to applications that are in process with either City: plat(s), site plans, zoning requests, STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 1of 26 '" Effective February 2007 APPEN DIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SU MMARY As Revised February 2009 I 1"\ \ ~" J • ' .. J • ~ f \,.. • .. J .. , • / ,' f J ,_.N t .'~ .. • J (_ ) • f t , I .. l •. ""'"~ 1' : ~ l , -..: • ,t ' J'..J -~J~ .• : ': 'J,: SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY The Cities of Bryan and College Station both require storm drainage design to follow these Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Paragraph C2 of Section Ill (Administration) requires submittal of a drainage report in support of the drainage plan (stormwater management plan) proposed in connection with land development projects, both site projects and subdivisions. That report may be submitted as a traditional prose report, complete with applicable maps, graphs, tables and drawings, or it may take the form of a 'Technical Design Summary". The format and content for such a summary report shall be in substantial conformance with the description in this Appendix to those Guidelines. In either format the report must answer the questions (affirmative or negative) and provide, at minimum, the information prescribed in the "Technical Design Summary" in this Appendix. The Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report shall include several parts as listed below. The information called for in each part must be provided as applicable. In addition to the requirements for the Executive Summary, this Appendix includes several pages detailing the requirements for a Technical Design Summary Report as forms to be completed. These are provided so that they may be copied and completed or scanned and digitized. In addition, electronic versions of the report forms may be obtained from the City. Requirements for the means (medium) of submittal are the same as for a conventional report as detailed in Section 111 of these Guidelines. Note: Part 1 -Executive Summary must accompany any drainage report required to be provided in connection with any land development project, regardless of the format chosen for said report. Note: Parts 2 through 6 are to be provided via the forms provided in this Appendix. Brief statements should be included in the forms as requested , but additional information should be attached as necessary Part 1 -Executive Summary Report Part 2 -Project Administration Part 3 -Project Characteristics Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Part 5 -Plans and Specifications Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT Part 1 -Executive Summary Th is is to be a brief prose report that must address each of the seven areas listed below. Ideally it will include one or more paragraphs about each item. 1. Name, address, and contact information of the engineer submitting the report, and of the land owner and developer (or applicant if not the owner or developer). The date of submittal should also be included. 2. Identification of the size and general nature of the proposed project, including any proposed project phases. This paragraph should also include reference to applications that are in process with either City: plat(s), site plans, zoning requests, STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 1 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I 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 StormNet Version 4.18 .2.17854 Apr082009 Gigasoft, Inc. Part 5 -Plans and S12ecifications Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a Technical Design Summary Report. See Section Ill, Paragraph C3. Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation Conclusions Add any concluding information here: Based on the proposed storm system design, the peak post- developed flows will be detained to peak pre-developed levels for the 2,10,25,50 and 100 year storms. Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical Design Summary Drainage Report by signing and sealinQ below. "This report (plan) for the drainage design of the development named in Part B was prepare by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with provisions of the Bryan/College Sa ion Unified Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners of the property. All licenses an ermits required by any and all state and federal regulatory agencies for the propos drainage improvements have been issued or fall under applicable general permits." \~ Licensed Professional Engineer State of Texas PE No. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 26 of 26 (Affix Seal) 0·\~f' I / \_ - APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 -'· ~\ 7 • - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.15) Design Parameters (continued) Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used? No x Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? % 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 N/A N/A Storm drain system for local streets N/A N/A Open channels N/A N/A Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel N/A N/A Swales N/A N/A Roadside ditches and culverts serving them N/A N/A Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall 2,10,25,50 ,100 100 Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s) 2 ,10,25 ,50,100 2 Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged 2,10 ,25,50 ,100 100 Culverts serving private drives or streets N/A N/A Culverts serving public roadways N/A N/A Bridges: provide in bridge report. N/A N/A Hydraulics What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? Design flow velocities; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Channels Highest (feet per second) N/A 9.58 N/A N/A N/A Lowest (feet per second) N/A 2.33 N/A N/A N/A Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used: For street gutters: N£'.'.A For conduit type(s) HDPE STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 gige Page 24 of 26 Coefficients: O . O 15 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I 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 _L 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: Free outfall Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec Vl.F.5.a? NL.A Yes __ No Outside of straight sections, is flow regime within limits of sub-critical flow? __ Yes __ No If "no" list locations and explain: N/A 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? Inlet Control Entrance, friction and exit losses: Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I 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? _L No Yes Head and friction losses _x_ No Yes ---- Explain any "yes" answer: In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? _L 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? _L 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: Free outfall Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec Vl.F.5.a? N.LA Yes __ No Outside of straight sections, is flow regime within limits of sub-critical flow? __ Yes __ No If "no" list locations and explain: N/A 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? Inlet Entrance, friction and exit losses: Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Control Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ( ( .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.13) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? _x_No --Yes If "yes" provide the following information. Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)? What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? ~ Q) O> ""C ·;:: en A full report supporting all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural, geotechnical, hydrologic, and hydraulic factors) must accompany this summary report. Is the report provided? --Yes --No If "no" explain: Is a Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techniques: ~ Pollution Prevention Silt fencing ro Plan (SW3P) Inlet Protection ::J a established for .... project construction? Stabilized construction entrance Q) iii Sod or landscape at all disturbed s No __K_ Yes areas -- SPrlj mPntat ion Pond 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? _lL 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? STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Yes ---- Page 22 of 26 No If "no" explain: APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters l Continued (Page 4.14) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Special Designs -Deviation From 8-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 _X_ 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) HDPE pipe Only i n private develop ment 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) Yes, Caro l Cotter 2) 3) 4) 5) Design Parameters Hydrology Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? _x_ Yes --No Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: Rational Formula not used . Cal c ulat i ons i n acco r d ance with USDA TR-55 What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 0 acres Location (or identifier): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.14) Stormwater Management Concept (continu·ed) 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 _X_ 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) HDPE pipe Only in private development 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) Yes, Carol Cotter 2) 3) 4) 5) Design Parameters Hydrology Yes No Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? _x_ -- Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: Rationa l Formula not u sed. Calculations in accordance with USDA TR-55 What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 0 acres STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Location (or identifier): Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ( ( ( ( ( SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.11) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Regulato!)l Watercourses (&Tributaries}: Are culverts proposed on these facilities? --No __ Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria, analysis, computer programs, and study findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? __ Yes --No If "no", explain: -Arterial or Major Collector Streets: Will culverts serve these types of roadways? Ci) Q) No Yes How many instances? For each identify the ..c: I/) ---- Q) location and provide the information below. I/) -ro Instance 1: Q) ..... >-~ I~ Instance 2: Instance 3: c: 0 o~ Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 ZE xi~ Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? E C'-· ro Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? I/) I/) g>-o Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c: ~ ro 0 c: ..... 0 (.):.;::::; >-ro ro u :;:: _Q -0 Q) ro .o 0 ·-..... ..... Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? (.) (.) No Yes How many instances? for each identify the ·-I/) ---Q) --.g -0 location and provide the information below: c. Q) ...... c. Instance 1: ro >- -0 ;_ Instance 2: Q) c: Ill ro :::J-Instance 3: I/) 0 t::: I/) Q) Q) ~ (.) For each instance enter value, or "yes" I "no" for: 1 2 3 :::J c: u ro Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? Q) iii ..... c: ~ ·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? Q) ..... 0 Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? E ..... g Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-1 1)? Limit of down stream analysis (feet)? Explain any "no" answers: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 20 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I 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? 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? __ No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe change(s), and justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? __ No __ Yes If yes, identify location(s) and provide justification: 'C Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? Q) --No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): :::J .~ c 0 ..s. (/) t::: Q) Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural > "S (.) components, and surfacing at culvert ends? __ Yes __ No If "no" Identify locations and provide justification(s): ~ .......... :z; Will 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW, and/or drainage easements/ ROW? __ 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? --No --Yes If "yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance V1ith 8-CS Tech. Specifications? --Yes --No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 21 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I 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? --Yes --No If not, I 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? __ No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe change(s), and justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? __ No __ Yes If yes, identify location(s) and provide justification: 'C Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? <IJ --No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): ::J c E 0 .s. VJ t: QJ Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural > :J 0 components, and surfacing at culvert ends? __ Yes __ No If "no" Identify locations and provide justification(s): .:i:: ......... :z; Will 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW, and/or drainage easements/ ROW? __ 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? --No --Yes If "yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance y.iith 8-CS Tech. Specifications? --Yes --No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 21 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.9) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) !/) Q) >- ~1 0 z I C'-· "'O Q) !/) 0 a. e a... !/) Q) ~ '(3 ro LL c: 0 :e Q) Q) 0 ~ <{ 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% 18.9 4 .6 ac-ft 26.0 16.2 ac-ft 100-yr volume: free flow & plugged 1. 95 ac-ft 2.45 ac-ft 5.49 ac-ft 7.14 ac-ft Design discharge (10 yr & 25 yr) 54.7 cfs 64 .3 cf s 44.8 cfs _X_yes --no _X_yes Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? _X_yes --no _x __ yes Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? Explain any "no" answers: For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: See detail sheet CS. 1, 64. 3 cf s Facility 2: See detail sheet cs. s, S2. o cfs Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? Facility 1: __ Yes ~No Facility 2: __ Yes ~No 52.0 -- -- If "no" explain: Discharges into tributary to Spring Creek For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway? Facility 1: 4. 0 cfs & n Facility 2: S . 0 cfs & o cfs no no Are energy dissipation measures used? __ No _x_ Yes Describe type and location: Dissipator blocks and riprap at each outlet For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe: Facility 1: No Facility 2: No For each, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving facility? Facility 1: Dissipator blocks and riprap at outfalls Facility 2: Diss ~erm-ac·k-~d riprap at outfalls If b~~~s?s~d give heightS:-slopes and surfcre7 tr ents o sides. Fae/. s ft, Max 3, 1, grass Fa9 1ity2: 6 ft, Max 3:1, grass STORMWATER DESIG~YIOEL.lli.E age 18 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 Effective February 2007 7 1 o SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.1 0) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Do structures comply with 8-CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no": Facility 1; Yes IJ) CV :.;::; =u ~ :6 CV Facility 2: Yes LL ::I c ----------------c:.;:; 0 c :.;:::; 0 c u CV ._.. _!;.0raddition al facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. ) Q) 0( Are parking areas to be used fo r detention? _X_ No --~ maximum depth due to required design storm? " ...Roadside Ditches: Will culverts serve accesS-df.j ays at roadside ditches? __ N u __ , vv ,t"ye-s , 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 8-CS Technical Specifications? __ Yes --No Explain any "no" answers: C'-· IJ) Ol c "(ii Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __ Yes No Explain: IJ) 0 --... IJ) u CV CV -ro >- > I ·c Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage 0.. -ro ways that serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? -0 0 No Yes If "yes" provide information below. CV Z ----~~1 How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. CV Location 1: ~ ::I u CV Location 2: .... <l'. 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 Effective February 2007 Page 19 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 1 o SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.10) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Do structures comply with 8-CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no": Facility 1; Yes VJ ~ =u ~ (IJ Facility 2: Ye s LL. ::J c ~----·--·-----·-···---··-···---·-----= c += ----~ 0 c :;:::: 0 c (.) (IJ ._, ~radditional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. ) -(IJ 0 ( Are parking areas to be used for detention ? _X_ No -~ maximum depth due to required design storm? ""-..... Roadside Ditches: Will culv~r-iv ays at roadside ditches? ~o __ Yes If "ye-s·~, 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 8-CS Technical Specifications? __ Yes --No Explain any "no" answers: C'-· VJ Cl c 'Cii Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __ Yes No Explain: VJ 0 --L.. VJ (.) (IJ (IJ -ro >- > I ·;::: Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage c. -ro ways that serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? -c 0 No Yes If "yes" provide information below. (IJ z -- --~~1 How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. (IJ Location 1: > "5 (.) (IJ Location 2: L.. <x: 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 fl ow? For more instances describe location and same information on separate sheet. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 19 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4. 7) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) If "yes" provide the fo llowing information for each instance: Instance 1 Describe general location , approximate length, surfacing: c "iii E Ci x 0 UJ ..... -x :i:: ui Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? Yes --No Is swale wholly 0 Q) within drainage ROW? Yes No Explain "no" answers: c ,_I --::J --..... Q) > "Qj Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: u Q) ..... 0 ..... z ::J 1 ~I Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: Q) ·c C'-· ::J VJ ..c c :J Q) 0 E £ Q) '§ VJ Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? Yes No Is swale wholly Cll ----Q) within drainage ROW? __ Yes No Explain "no" answers: VJ ..... --Q) 0 (ij s 3: VJ 0 ~ 0:::: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided: .!2 ::c ::J a. Instance 31 41 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. C'-· -c .S: Will design replicate natural channel? Yes No If "no", for each instance Q) -----VJ Cll describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year 0 -a. ~ design flow, and amount of freeboard : e w a. Instance 1: VJ VJ c Q) Q) >- E I Q) > Instance 2: 0 ..... a. E 0 z Qi ~1 c Instance 3: c Cll £ 0 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels {small creeks}: Are these used? --No --Yes If "yes" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? __ Yes --No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location: For each location, describe length and general type of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): For each location, describe section shape & area, flow line slope (m in. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow. 'O Q) ::J c: ~ Watercourses {and tributaries}: Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory 0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No Yes Explain below. 2--- I/) Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address c Q) existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E Q) length affected , and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures > 0 and data . Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no" explain: ..... --c.. E Q; c: c: Cll All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information .r:: u 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. ~ ......... z Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? --Yes --No If not, identify location and explain: Are ROW I easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space? --Yes --No If not, identify location(s) and explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4-Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.8) ..... . . . . •···· ·~· Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels (small creeks}: Are these used? --No --Yes If "yes " provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? __ Yes --No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location: For each location, describe length and general type of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): For each location, describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 1 OD-year design flow. ::0-Q) ::i c E Watercourses (and tributaries}: Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory 0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No Yes Explain below. ~ --Ill 'E Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address Q) existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E Q) length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures > 0 and data. Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no" explain: ..... --a. E Q3 c c ca All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information .s::::. 0 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. i:i: ......... z Will 1 DO-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? --Yes --No If not, identify location and explain: Are ROW I easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space? --Yes --No If not, identify location(s) and explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 • • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 - Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.5) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Iii" Describe watercou rse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below Q) (include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). u c:: 1) Watercou rse (or system), velocity, and angle? ro iii 1. Spring Creek Tributary, vel ocity= 6 .7 cfs c:: Q) ang le= 90 degrees L.. -o -g E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ::I L.. Spring Creek Tribu tary, velocity=9 .0 cfs c:: 0 1. ·--c . 0 .£? angle= 90 degrees ~.~ E <V ~ Q) E ~ 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ...... ro ~ Ul ::I Ul Q) 0 c:: :!2 ·-> ~ e ""C 0.. -----i E ...... ~eoffall above, what measures are taken to prevenferosiol'r'sr c:~r of L.. Q) 0 Q) and all facilities at juncture? ) ...... s:::. Cl) Ul Q) / 1)Riprap to centerline of creek tributary iii L.. ro 2) Riprap centerline 0.. to of creek tributar Q) Ul c:: ~ 3) ,£. r--. Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? __ No --Yes Number of instances: For each instance answer the followi ng questions. Surface treatments (i ncluding low-flow flumes if any): C'· N/A Ul Qi ~ Ul ...... Q) Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): Ul >-c:: ~ I -g 0 Ul z ::I Outfall chara cteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle, & end treatment). ~1 Ul Q) L.. Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained within easement(s) or platted drainage <( ROW in all instances? --Yes --No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELIN ES Effective February 2007 Page 14 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I 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: (/) Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? __ Yes No Q) ..r::. --.B Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes No 0 -- Q) Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? --Yes --No -0 For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: "iii -0 C1) 0 Cl::'. If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length: r/l Q) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? >---Yes --No I~ If "no" explain: c Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width 0 C1) z iii Swale Surface type , minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum ~1 ~ and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: :8 C'-· 'C .!!!. -0 Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): Q) C1) c >-c C1) c ..r::. C1) u ..... c .E Q) c Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): a. 0 0 ~ -C1) 0 E ::i ..... .~ .E c .£ Q) Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: -0 E Q) C1) (/) (/) ::i r/l Q) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No c -0 ·5 ----.Q 0 If "no" explain: -ro ..... c a. :.0 Q) Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width E Q) 0 ..r::. u r/l Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum ...., Q) ::i -ro and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm : -0 ..... c C1) 0 a. u Q) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): --(/) Q) ~ c ~ (/) Q) Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): ..... <{ STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concegt and Design Parameters I 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: Cf) Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? __ Yes No Q) --..c .B Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes --No Ci Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No Q) ----"'CJ For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: ·w "'CJ ro 0 0::: If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length: Cf) Q) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No >-----I~ If "no" explain: c: Space for 1 00-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width 0 ro z iii Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum xi~ and maximum slopes : slopes, design storm: 0 ~ C'· 'C .!!!. "'CJ Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): Q) ro c: >. c: ro c: ..c ro u ..... c: .E Q) c: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): o._ 0 0 :;:; -ro 0 E ::J ..... ~ .E c: .5 Q) Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: "'CJ E Q) ro Cf) Cf) ::J Cf) Q) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No c: "'CJ 0 ·::;: ---- ~ 0 If "no" explain: ..... c: o._ :.c Q) Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW E Q) Easement Width 0 ..c u Cf) Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum ...., Q) ::J -ro and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: "'CJ ..... c: ro 0 o._ u Q) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): ~ Cf) c: ro _£. s: Cf) Q) Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): ..... -< STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ( ( ( .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt 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): 2 detention ponds will be located at the Southeast end of the subject site. 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 No, then summarize the difference(s): N/A Identify whether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included, extent of use, and general characteristics. Typical shape? I Surfaces? C'· "C Q) (/) Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes: Usual back slopes: (/) :::J Q) (/) >- Q) I .r:. Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway: ~ "C (Attached Exhibit # ) Q) 0 typical greatest :2 (/) z "C xi ro 0 Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with 8-CS Standard Specifications? .... Q) Yes No, then explain: .... <( (/) At intersections or otherwise , do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? .0 Q) No Yes If yes explain: ::::; C'· >---(.) "C I .r:. Q) ...... (/) '§ : Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? (/) Q) ...... :t: Q) :::J 0 No Yes Explain: (number of locations?) ~ CJZ ---- in "C I ~ lij x STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I 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? --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)? --Yes --No If no, explain where and why not. C'-· "'O Q) <n Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year ::::J 0 ...... z Q) design storm throughout site (or phase)? Yes No If no, explain. =§ ---- O'l "'O ~ c "'O ro w Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? Yes No Are inlets and ..c ~ ----...... ·-conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? ::::J...., u c Yes No Explain "no" answers. 0 ..c. u -- --....,.._, "§ <n Q) Q) ...... (;) Q) Will 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on ...... <{ whole length of all streets? Yes No If no, describe where and why. ---- Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? Yes --No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. Are any 12-inch laterals used? __ No x Yes Identify length(s) and where --used. ref. sheet cs.a C'-· "'O Pipe runs between system j Typical Q) <n 170 ft Longest 332 ft <n Q) access points (feet): ::::J >-E x If not, explain where ~~1 Are junction boxes used at each bend? --Yes --No and why. <n c Not used where access is located near the bend. ·-0 ~z "'O I E 0 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic (;) !!2 Yes _x__ No __ If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line (system-wide): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I 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? --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)? --Yes --No If no, explain where and why not. C'· "'C dl Ill Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year ::::J 0 a; :z design storm throughout site (or phase)? Yes No If no, explain. :::: ---- ::::J OJ "'C -c "'C (1) dl Sag curves : Are inlets placed at low points? Yes No Are inlets and ..0 ~ ----..... ·-conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? ::::i-(.) c Yes No Explain "no" answers. 0 £ (.) -- --~---- Ill Q) dl J:; Ill dl Will 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on ..... <( whole length of all streets? Yes No If no, describe where and why. ---- Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? Yes --No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. Are any 12-inch laterals used? __ No x Yes Identify length(s) and where --used. ref . sheet cs.o C'· "'C Pipe runs between system / Typical g: Ill 170 ft Longest 332 ft ::::J dl access points (feet): E >-~~1 Are junction boxes used at each bend? Yes x No If not, explain where ----and why. Ill c Not used where access is located near the bend. ·-0 ~z "'C I E ..... 0 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic ti .!E. Yes _x__ No __ If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line (system-wide): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ( ( ( ( ( .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I 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. N/A Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section 11 , Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become public via platting? _x_No --Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will __ Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring __ Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) property(ies)? N/A Combination of the two Scenarios -- Scenario 1: If easements are proposed, describe where needed, and provide status of actions on each. (Attached Exhibit# ) N/A Scenario 2: Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre-development conditions (detention, sheet flow, partially concentrated, etc.). (Attached Exhibit# ) N/A 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. N/A If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used, has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? documentation. N/A STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 No Page 10 of 26 --Yes Explain and provide APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I 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 N/A 1--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----< between Watersheds? What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased runoff from gaining basin or watershed? _X_No __ Yes How will runoff from Project Area be mitigated to pre- development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2, and/or 3, and explain below. 1. __ With facility(ies) involving other development projects. 2. __ Establishing features to serve overall Project Area. 3. _X_ On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area. 1. Shared facility (type & location of facility; design drainage area served; relationship to size of Project Area): (Attached Exhibit # ) N/A 2. For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit# ) N/A 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. C'-· -0 Q) C/) c: Q) ~ >-c:: C/) c: O> ·u; Q) 0 Oz !ii !~ Q) ~ Are aquatic echosystems proposed? _x_ No project(s)? __ Yes In which phase(s) or Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? __ No _X_ Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: -Silt fencing at limits of construction -Inlet protection -Sedimentation Pond -Sod of landscaping in all disturbed areas -Construction Entrance If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. __ Detention elements __ Conduit elements __ Channel features __ Swales __ Ditches __ Inlets __ Valley gutters __ Outfalls __ Culvert features __ Bridges Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 11 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project Will project result in shifting runoff Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting: N/A between Basins or ~--------------------------~ between Watersheds? _X_No __ Yes What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased runoff from gaining basin or watershed? How will runoff from Project Area be mitigated to pre- development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2, and/or 3, and explain below. 1. __ With facility(ies) involving other development projects. 2. __ Establishing features to serve overall Project Area. 3. _X_ On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area. 1. Shared facility (type & location of facility; design drainage area served; relationship to size of Project Area): (Attached Exhibit# ) N/A 2. For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit# ) N/A 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. C'-· "O QJ Ul c QJ ffi >- 0:: Ul c Cl "iii QJ 0 Oz i4 QJ ~ Are aquatic echosystems proposed? _X_ No project(s)? __ Yes In which phase(s) or Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? __ No _X_ Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: -Silt fencing at limits of construction -Inlet protection -Sedimentation Pond -Sod of landscaping in all disturbed areas -Construction Entrance If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. __ Detention elements __ Conduit elements __ Channel features __ Swales __ Ditches __ Inlets __ Valley gutters __ Outfalls __ Culvert features __ Bridges · Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 11of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I 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, describe splits below. In Part 4 describe design concept for handlinci this. Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acreage Spring Creek 63.665 Above-Project Areas(Section II, Paragraph 83-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? ~No --Yes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4) Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable concentrated section(s), small creek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? x No Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW: -- -- Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? x No Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies). N/A STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? __ plat, or easements __ instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions. exist for any part of pathway(s)? --No N/A Yes -- Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) Pathway N/A Areas Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts, bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc). Culvert beneath Barron Drive to drainage swale sou th of subj ect propert y . Nearby Drainage Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design? _x_ No --Yes If yes, explain : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic.Attr_iblit~s ofSubject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? __ plat, or easements instrument. exist for any --If instrument(s), describe their provisions. part of pathway(s)? --No N/A Yes -- Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) Pathway N/A Areas Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts, bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc). Culvert beneath Barron Drive to drainage swale south of subject property. Nearby Drainage Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design? _x_ No --Yes If yes, explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I Start (Page 3.1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing: Land proposed for development currently used, including extent of impervious cover? Existing land undeveloped Site __ Redevelopment of one platted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots. Development __ Building on a single platted lot of undeveloped land. Project __ Building on two or more platted adjoining lots of undeveloped land. (select all __ 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). _X_ Other (explain): Building on a single unpl atted lot of undeveloped land. Subdivision N /A 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. Describe Subdivisions: number of lots by general type of use, linear feet of streets and Nature and drainage easements or ROW. Size of Approximately 190,400 sq. ft High School, with Pro(!osed a football stadium, baseball fields, tennis courts, Project track and associated field buildings and parking. Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain: p 1 at t to be submitted or on land for which platting is not pending? as as-built documents after No x Yes is ----construction complete FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I N y (Section II, Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? 0 --es _x_ Is any part of subject property in floodplain I No_X_ Yes Rate Map area of a FE MA-regulated watercourse? -- Encroachment(s) Encroachment purpose(s): __ Building site(s) __ Road crossing(s) into Floodplain areas planned? __ Utility crossing(s) __ Other (explain): No _x_ N/A Yes -- If floodplain areas not shown on Rate Maps, has work been done toward amending the FEMA- approved Flood Study to define allowable encroachments in proposed areas? Explain. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 6 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I 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: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I 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 plan for the property in Part 4. _K_ 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: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2.2) Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land, or built subject property: developments: Barron Road NW: Needham Estates Victoria Avenue NE: Reatta Meadows SE: Gary Seaback SW: Sonoma Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s): None Spring Creek Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File#: N[A Final Plat File #: N/A Date: Name: Status and Vol/Pg: If two plats, second name: File#: Status: Date: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Zoning Type: A-0 Existing or Proposed? Existing Case Code: Nl'.A Case Date Nl'.A Status: 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: September 16, 2009 City of College Station SHW Group Gessner Engineering Preliminary Report Required? NO Submittal Date Review Date Review Comments Addressed? Yes N/A 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. N/A STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 4 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I 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 N/A Departments of Jurisdiction City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes --No _x_ Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TAMUS Needed? Yes --No _x_ Permits For 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 obiective in spaces below. Entity Permitted or Approved? US Army Crops of Engineers No _x_ Yes - US Environmental Protection Agency No _x_ Yes - Texas Commission on Notice of Environmental Quality Intent No --Yes _x_ Brazos River Authority No _x_ Yes - STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 To be Page 5 of 26 Status of Actions (include dates) submitted by contractor APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I 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 N/A Departments of Jurisdiction City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes No x -- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes --No _x_ Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TAMUS Needed? Yes --No _x_ Perl11its For Project o.r 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 in spaces below. Entity Permitted or Approved? US Army Crops of Engineers No _x_ Yes - US Environmental Protection Agency No J_ Yes - Texas Commission on Notice of Environmental Quality Intent No --Yes _x_ Brazos River Authority No _x_ Yes - STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 To be Page 5 of 26 Status of Actions (include dates) submitted by contractor APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ( ( ( ( SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY or clearing/grading permits, as well as reference to any application numbers or codes assigned by the City to such request. 3. The location of the project should be described. This should identify the Named Regulatory Watershed(s) in which it is located, how the entire project area is situated therein, whether the property straddles a watershed or basin divide, the approximate acreage in each basin, and whether its position in the Watershed dictates use of detention design. The approximate proportion of the property in the city limits and within the ET J is to be identified, including whether the property straddles city jurisdictional lines. If any portion of the property is in floodplains as described in Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA that should be disclosed. 4. The hydrologic characteristics of the property are to be described in broad terms: existing land cover; how and where stormwater drains to and from neighboring properties; ponds or wetland areas that tend to detain or store stormwater; existing creeks, channels, and swales crossing or serving the property; all existing drainage easements (or ROW) on the property, or on neighboring properties if they service runoff to or from the property. 5. The general plan for managing stormwater in the entire project area must be outlined to include the approximate size , and extent of use, of any of the following features: storm drains coupled with streets; detention I retention facilities; buried conveyance conduit independent of streets; swales or channels; bridges or culverts; outfalls to principal watercourses or their tributaries; and treatment(s) of existing watercourses. Also, any plans for reclaiming land within floodplain areas must be outlined. 6. Coordination and permitting of stormwater matters must be addressed. This is to include any specialized coordination that has occurred or is planned with other entities (local , state, or federal). This may include agencies such as Brazos County government, the Brazos River Authority, the Texas A&M University System, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Environmental Protection Agency, et al. Mention must be made of any permits, agreements, or understandings that pertain to the project. 7. Reference is to be made to the full drainage report (or the Technical Design Summary Report) which the executive summary represents. The principal elements of the main report (and its length), including any maps, drawings or construction documents, should be itemized. An example statement might be: "One __ -page drainage report dated one set of construction drawings ( sheets) dated , and a ___ -page specifications document dated comprise the drainage report for this project." STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 2 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction Gessner Engineering City: Bryan 25 01 Ashford Drive Suite 102 x College Station College Station, TX 77840 Date of Submittal: 12 _1 6 _ 2 0 0 9 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. mthomas@ge.com Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts: Developer I Owner I Applicant Information Developer I Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail: Jon Hall, College Station ISD 979-764-5400 1812 Welsh Av ., Suite 120 jhall@csisd.org College Station, TX 77840 Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: Project Identification Development Name: CS I SD High School Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision, or part of a multi-phase subd ivision? Site Project If multi-phase , subject property is phase of Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II , Paragraph B-3a) A005401 -R. Stevenson (ICL) I Tract 48.1 Vol . 3604, PG243 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): South corner of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan: 0 acres. Bryan: 0 College Station: 0 College Station : 63.665 acres. Acreage Outside ET J: 0 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised Februarv 2009 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction Gessner Engineering City: Bryan 2501 Ashford Drive Suite 102 x College Station College Station, TX 77840 Date of Submittal: 12 _1 6 _ 2 0 0 9 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: Melissa P. Thomas, P.E. mtliomas@ge.com Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts: Developer I Owner I Applicant Information Developer I Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail: Jon Hall, College Station ISD 979-764-5400 1812 Welsh Av., Suite 120 jhall@csisd.org College Station, TX 77840 Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: Project Identification Development Name: CS I SD High School Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision, or part of a multi-phase subdivision? Site Project If multi-phase, subject property is phase of Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II, Paragraph B-3a) A005401 -R. Stevenson (ICL) I Tract 48.1 Vol. 3604, PG243 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): South corner of Barron Road and Victoria Avenue In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan: 0 acres. Bryan: 0 College Station: 0 College Station: 63.665 acres. Acreage Outside ET J: 0 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 Appendix D Technical Design Summary Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines City of College Station City of Bryan February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY The Cities of Bryan and College Station both require storm drainage design to follow these Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Paragraph C2 of Section Ill (Administration) requires submittal of a drainage report in support of the drainage plan (stormwater management plan) proposed in connection with land development projects, both site projects and subdivisions. That report may be submitted as a traditional prose report, complete with applicable maps, graphs, tables and drawings, or it may take the form of a "Technical Design Summary". The format and content for such a summary report shall be in substantial conformance with the description in this Appendix to those Guidelines. In either format the report must answer the questions (affirmative or negative) and provide, at minimum, the information prescribed in the "Technical Design Summary" in this Appendix. The Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report shall include several parts as listed below. The information called for in each part must be provided as applicable. In addition to the requirements for the Executive Summary, this Appendix includes several pages detailing the requirements for a Technical Design Summary Report as forms to be completed. These are provided so that they may be copied and completed or scanned and digitized. In addition , electronic versions of the report forms may be obtained from the City. Requirements for the means (medium) of submittal are the same as for a conventional report as detailed in Section Ill of these Guidelines. Note: Part 1 -Executive Summary must accompany any drainage report required to be provided in connection with any land development project, regardless of the format chosen for said report. Note: Parts 2 through 6 are to be provided via the forms provided in this Appendix. Brief statements should be included in the forms as requested , but additional information should be attached as necessary. Part 1 -Executive Summary Report Part 2 -Project Administration Part 3 -Project Characteristics Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Part 5 -Plans and Specifications Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT Part 1 -Executive Summary This is to be a brief prose report that must address each of the seven areas listed below. Ideally it will include one or more paragraphs about each item. 1. Name, address, and contact information of the engineer submitting the report, and of the land owner and developer (or applicant if not the owner or developer). The date of submittal should also be included. 2. Identification of the size and general nature of the proposed project, including any proposed project phases. This paragraph should also include reference to applications that are in process with either City: plat(s), site plans, zoning requests, STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 1of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY The Cities of Bryan and College Station both require storm drainage design to follow these Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Paragraph C2 of Section Ill (Administration) requires submittal of a drainage report in support of the drainage plan (stormwater management plan) proposed in connection with land development projects, both site projects and subdivisions. That report may be submitted as a traditional prose report, complete with applicable maps, graphs, tables and drawings, or it may take the form of a "Technical Design Summary". The format and content for such a summary report shall be in substantial conformance with the description in this Appendix to those Guidelines. In either format the report must answer the questions (affirmative or negative) and provide, at minimum, the information prescribed in the "Technical Design Summary" in this Appendix. The Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report shall include several parts as listed below. The information called for in each part must be provided as applicable. In addition to the requirements for the Executive Summary, this Appendix includes several pages detailing the requirements for a Technical Design Summary Report as forms to be completed. These are provided so that they may be copied and completed or scanned and digitized. In addition, electronic versions of the report forms may be obtained from the City. Requirements for the means (medium) of submittal are the same as for a conventional report as detailed in Section Ill of these Guidelines. Note: Part 1 -Executive Summary must accompany any drainage report required to be provided in connection with any land development project, regardless of the format chosen for said report. Note: Parts 2 through 6 are to be provided via the forms provided in this Appendix. Brief statements should be included in the forms as requested, but additional information should be attached as necessary. Part 1 -Executive Summary Report Part 2 -Project Administration Part 3 -Project Characteristics Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Part 5 -Plans and Specifications Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT Part 1 -Executive Summary This is to be a brief prose report that must address each of the seven areas listed below. Ideally it will include one or more paragraphs about each item. 1. Name, address, and contact information of the engineer submitting the report, and of the land owner and developer (or applicant if not the owner or developer). The date of submittal should also be included. 2. Identification of the size and general nature of the proposed project, including any proposed project phases. This paragraph should also include reference to applications that are in process with either City: plat(s), site plans, zoning requests, STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 1of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ... 12 APPENDIX D: Technical Design Summary G N:\Gessner Eng Data 09\09-0318 CSISD High\civil\Doc\Drainage Report-N RCS-high.doc Gessner Engineering - Con-177 0.92 Con-178 0.64 Con-179 0.97 Con-180 0.73 Con-181 0.82 Con-182 0.92 Con-183 0.57 Con-184 0.61 Con-185 0.63 Con-186 0 .78 Con-187 0 .60 Con-188 o. 77 Con-189 0.45 Con-190 0.65 Con-191 1.00 Con-192 0.93 con-193 o. 72 Con-194 1. 00 Con-195 0 .93 Con-196 1.00 Con-197 0.61 Con-198 0.69 Con-199 0.78 Con-200 0.69 Con-201 0 .44 Con-202 0.79 con-203 0.63 Con-204 0.70 Con-205 1.00 con-206 0.91 .. -··COn=207 .. 0.70 Con-208 0.93 Con-209 0.58 Con-210 0.63 Con-211 0.67 Con-212 StormNET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONDUIT 0 12:18 CONDUIT 0 12:18 CONDUIT 0 12: 16 CONDUIT 0 12:15 CONDUIT 0 12:10 CONDUIT 0 12:16 CONDUIT 0 12; 16 CONDUI T 0 12:16 CONDUIT 0 12:15 CONDUIT 0 12:25 CONDUIT 0 12:25 CONDUIT 0 12:21 CONDUIT 0 12:20 CONDUIT 0 12:15 CONDUIT 0 12:27 CONDUIT 0 12:25 CONDUIT 0 12:27 CONDUIT 0 12:18 CONDUIT 0 12 :16 CONDUIT 0 12:40 CONDUIT 0 12:15 CONDUIT 0 12:30 CONDUIT 0 12:26 CONDUIT 0 12 :18 CONDUIT 0 12:21 CONDUIT 0 12:40 CONDUIT 0 12:19 CONDUIT 0 12: 15 CONDUIT 0 12:13 CONDUIT 0 12: 16 ....... --.. -CONDUL-T-· ... o .. 12.:n CONDUIT 0 12:15 CONDUIT 0 12:15 CONDUIT 0 12: 16 CONDUIT 0 12:17 CONDUIT 0 12:25 7.05 7.52 8.05 5 .80 3.69 6.14 6.45 6.57 4.70 4.91 5.64 5.91 3.60 4.17 6.09 8 .81 6.85 8.84 4.46 3.83 5. 64 4.24 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 4. 92 1. 00 6. 79 1.00 7 .17 1. 00 4.98 1.00 8.27 1.00 4.84 1.00 4. 67 1.00 5.05 1.00 ..5.89-· ·---1.00 6.03 1. 00 6. 42 1. 00 6. 62 1. 00 6.70 1.00 3.96 1.00 31.08 35.91 52.29 14.30 2.54 17.05 18.27 20.53 5.53 7 .20 11.18 15.32 1. 90 3.52 17.57 75.97 26.06 75.02 4. 92 2 .78 11.20 3.80 7.27 24. 55 29.43 7.45 52.54 6.41 13.29 8.04 29. 77 48.56 48.35 16.14 2.54 16.43 29.70 29.86 7.59 7.63 16.49 16.34 4 .66 4. 65 16.43 72 .87 29.67 73.88 4.70 2 .59 16.37 4. 67 7.64 29. 78 72 .80 7.73 73.07 7.60 12 .58 7. 62 ---·1-3 r88--·-· ................. 16.-39- 16.98 18 .95 21.35 23 .41 2.47 16.45 29.73 29.90 29.65 4.83 1. 04 0.74 1.08 0.89 1. 00 1.04 0. 62 0.69 0.73 0 .94 0.68 0.94 0.41 0 . 76 1. 07 1.04 0.88 1.02 1.05 1.07 0.68 0.81 0.95 0.82 0.40 0.96 0. 72 0.84 1. 06 1. 06 1.03 0.64 0. 71 0. 79 0.51 Page 51 0.51 Con-213 0.92 Con-214 0.66 Con-215 0.76 Con-216 0.68 Con-217 0.75 Con-218 0.66 Con-219 0.16 Con-220 0.56 Con-221 0.57 Con-222 1. 00 Con-223 0. 7!5 Con-224 0.66 Con-225 0. 67 Con-226 0.70 Con-227 0.75 Con-228 0.41 Con-229 1. 00 Con-230 1. 00 Con-231 0.77 Con-232 1. 00 Con-234 0 .68 Con-235 0.69 Con-236 0.76 Con-237 0.93 Con-238 0.56 Con-239 0.60 Con-240 0. 67 Con-242 1.00 Con-243 0.62 Con-244 o~-78-·· -·-· Con-245 0.64 Con-246 0.55 Con-247 0.69 Con-248 0.57 Con-249 0.34 Storm NET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 14 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 ·o 0 0 0 0 0 CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUI T CONDUIT CONDUIT 0 12:16 0 12: 13 0 12:13 0 12: 13 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12 :15 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12:24 0 12:14 0 12:25 0 12:25 0 12:25 0 12:26 0 12:10 0 12:27 0 12:42 0 12:15 0 12:32 0 12:20 0 12:09 0 12:09 0 12:09 0 12:15 0 12:26 0 12: 15 5.04 6. 71 5 .99 7.60 4.90 5.76 5.32 5.48 4.03 8.77 7,75 9.17 9.27 9.31 9.43 3.02 4.40 3.83 4.35 4,45 3. 67 4.82 4.90 4.96 5.47 9 .58 4.24 0 12:17 4.44 0 12:15 5.67 0 12:20 4.36 0 12 :25 3.65 0 12:15 6.27 0 12:20 4.81 0 12:16 6.41 0 12:14 2 .75 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 7.84 23.06 15.31 39.14 6.95 12.66 0.66 9.86 2.92 77.25 44.26 80.07 83.10 87 .87 95.28 0.92 5.05 2.76 4.40 5.05 2.07 6 .26 7.10 7.86 9 .91 95 .28 3.69 4.88 11. 55 4.46 1. 95 17.22 6.27 18.66 0.65 7. 62 29.84 16.52 48.23 7.58 16.37 12 .26 16.46 4.69 73 .02 48.30 103.82 104.14 104.32 104.32 2.59 4.69 2.58 4. 68 4. 71 2.60 7.62 7.63 7.57 16.41 142.21 4. 67 1. 03 0.77 0.93 0.81 0.92 o. 77 0.05 0 .60 0.62 1.06 0.92 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.91 0.35 1.08 1.07 0.94 1.07 0.80 0.82 0.93 1.04 0.60 0 .67 0.79 4.69 1.04 16.38 0.71 4. 69 0. 95 2.61 0.75 29 .68 0.58 7.61 0.82 29 .81 0.63 2 . 60 0.25 Page 52 - 0.51 Con-213 0.92 Con-214 0.66 Con-215 0.76 Con-216 0.68 Con-217 0.75 Con-218 0.66 Con-219 0 .16 Con-220 0.56 Con-221 0.57 Con-222 1. 00 Con-223 o. 75 Con-224 0.66 Con-225 0. 67 Con-226 0.70 Con-227 0.75 Con-228 0.41 Con-229 1.00 Con-230 1. 00 Con-231 0. 77 Con-232 1.00 Con-234 0.68 Con-235 0.69 Con-236 0. 76 Con-237 0.93 Con-238, 0.56 Con-239 0.60 Con-240 o. 67 Con-242 1. 00 Con-243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 14 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0. 62 0 Con-244 "' 0·;·'78-"' ·-·-" -·-····---"0 Con-245 0. 64 0 Con-246 0.55 Con-247 0.69 Con-248 0.57 Con-249 0 .34 Storm NET 0 0 0 0 CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT 0 12:16 0 12:13 0 12:13 0 12:13 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12:24 0 12:14 0 12:25 0 12:25 0 12:25 0 12: 26 0 12:10 0 12 :27 0 12:42 0 12:15 0 12:32 0 12:20 0 12:09 0 12:09 0 12:09 0 12:15 0 12: 26 0 12:15 D 12: 17 0 12:15 D 12:20 0 12:25 0 12:15 0 12:20 0 12:16 0 12:14 5.04 6.71 5.99 7.60 4.90 5.76 5 .32 5.48 4.03 8. 77 7.75 9.17 9.27 9.31 9.43 3.02 4.40 3.83 4.35 4.45 3. 67 4.82 4.90 4.96 5.47 9.58 4.24 4.44 1. DO 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7. 84 23.06 15.31 39 .14 6.95 12.66 0.66 9.86 2.92 77.25 44.26 80.07 83.10 87.87 95.28 0.92 5.05 2.76 4.40 5.05 2.07 6.26 7.10 7.86 9.91 95.28 3.69 4.88 5.67 1.00 11.55 4.36 1.00 4 .46 3.65 1.00 1.95 6.27 1.00 17.22 4.81 1. 00 6.27 6.41 1. 00 18.66 2.75 1. 00 0 .65 7.62 29.84 16.52 48.23 7.58 16.37 12.26 16. 46 4.69 73.02 48.30 103.82 104.14 104.32 104.32 2.59 4.69 2.58 4. 68 4. 71 2. 60 7.62 7. 63 7.57 16.41 142 .21 4. 67 4. 69 1.03 0.77 0.93 0.81 0.92 0. 77 0.05 0.60 0.62 1. 06 0.92 0. 77 0.80 0.84 0.91 0.35 1. 08 1.07 0.94 1. 07 0.80 0.82 0.93 1.04 o. 60 0.67 0.79 1. 04 16.38 0. 71 4. 69 0. 95 2 . 61 0. 75 29. 68 0.58 7.61 0.82 29.81 0. 63 2. 60 0.25 Page 52 ( l Jun-114 JUNCTION 2.81 12 .67 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-115 JUNCTION 6.95 6.95 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-116 JUNCTION 2.93 2.93 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-117 JUNCTION 0.66 0.66 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-118 JUNCTION 5.29 44.31 0 12:13 0.00 Jun-119 JUNCTI ON 3.60 80.56 0 12:24 0.00 Jun-120 JUNCTION 3.89 83. 77 0 12:25 o.oo Jun-121 JUNCTION 5.18 5.47 0 12:35 0.78 0 12:35 Jun-122 JUNCTION 0.92 0 .92 0 12:10 o.oo Jun-123 JUNCTION 1.44 6.28 0 12:09 0.00 Jun-124 JUNCTION 0.86 7.09 0 12:09 0.00 Jun-125 JUNCTION 0.92 7.99 0 12:09 0.40 0 12:10 Jun-126 JUNCTION 2.15 9.93 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-127 JUNCTION 2.07 2.07 0 12:20 0.00 Jun-128 JUNCTION 2.99 2.99 0 12:35 0.41 0 12:35 Jun-129 JUNCTION 1. 99 1. 99 0 12:15 o.oo Jun-130 JUNCTION 0.00 95.28 0 12:26 0.00 Jun-131 JUNCTION 0.00 52.02 0 12:23 2.56 0 12 :23 Jun-132 JUNCTION 0.00 75.97 0 12:25 1. 66 0 12:19 Jun-134 JUNCTION 2.48 2.48 0 12:25 0.00 Jun-137 JUNCTION 0.86 0 .86 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-139 JUNCTION 0.47 0.47 0 12:20 0.00 Jun-140 JUNCTION 0.00 75.95 0 12:33 0.00 Jun-141 JUNCTION o.oo 97. 71 0 12:48 0.00 Jun-62 JUNCTION 2.97 2.97 0 12: 15 0.36 0 12 :15 Jun-63 JUNCTION 1. 66 4.18 0 12:20 0.00 Jun-64 JUNCTION 4.85 8.64 0 12:15 1.01 0 12:15 Jun-65 JUNCTION 3.91 11.97 0 12 : 12 0.00 Jun-66 JUNCTION 3. 71 15.56 0 12:12 0.00 Jun-67 JUNCTION 1.94 17 .48 0 12:13 1.06 0 12 : 13 Jun-68 JUNCTION 5.22 24.04 0 12 :17 0.00 Jun-69 JUNCTION 2.83 2.83 0 12:35 0.24 0 12:35 Jun-70 JUNCTION 6.72 30 .47 0 12:17 0.57 0 12:17 Jun-72 JUNCTION 5.56 5 .56 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-73 JUNCTION 14.31 14.31 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-74 JUNCTION 2.53 2.53 0 12:10 o.oo Jun-75 JUNCTION 2.36 18.57 0 12:16 0.00 Jun-76 JUNCTION 3.77 20 .63 0 12:16 0.00 Jun-77 JUNCTION 7.22 7 .22 0 12:25 o.oo Jun-78 JUNCTION 4.19 11.18 0 12:25 0.00 Jun-79 JUNCTION 4.28 15 .32 0 12:20 0.00 Jun-BO JUNCTION 1. 90 1.90 0 12:20 o.oo Jun-81 JUNCTION 1.65 3.53 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-82 JUNCTION 0.00 18.62 0 12:20 2.17 0 12:21 Jun-83 JUNCTION 8.Bl 26.17 0 12:27 o.oo Jun-84 JUNCTION 3.69 3.69 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-85 JUNCTION 5.66 5.66 0 12:15 0.97 0 12:15 Jun-86 JUNCTION 3.48 11.55 0 12:14 0.00 Jun-87 JUNCTION 0.00 6.27 0 12:20 o.oo Jun-88 JUNCTI ON 4.48 4.48 0 12:20 0.00 • Jun-89 JUNCTION 1. 95 1. 95 0 12:25 0.00 Jun-90 JUNCTION 0.65 0.65 0 12 :15 o.oo • Jun-91 JUNCTION 5. 71 28 .12 0 12:15 0.00 Jun-92 JUNCTION 4.53 4.53 0 12:20 0.00 Jun-93 JUNCTION 2.84 2.84 0 12:15 0.26 0 12:15 • Jun-94 JUNCTION 3.07 3.07 0 12:20 0.47 0 12:20 Jun-95 JUNCTION 23 .90 23.90 0 12 :20 0.00 • Jun-96 JUNCTION 5.01 5.01 0 12:15 0.30 0 12:15 Jun-97 JUNCTION 3.52 3.52 0 12:25 0.93 0 12:25 • Jun-98 JUNCTION 3.83 11.25 0 12:15 0.00 . ......... Jun.--99 --·-· ·--· ··-JUNCT.ION ··-3 . 81----· 3.81-·-··--0 ---12+30 . ----0. 00 -··-·- Out-37 OUTFALL 30.01 199.17 0 12 :39 0.00 PONDl STORAGE 18 .99 88.69 0 12 :25 o.oo POND2 STORAGE 31. 72 168.48 0 12:25 0.00 ********************** Detention Pond Summary ********************** Storm NET Page 49 --------------------------------Detention Pond ID Maximum Maximum Time of Max Maximum Time of Max. Total Ponded Ponded Ponded Exfiltration Exfiltration Exfiltrated Volume Volume Volume Rate Rate Volume 1000 ft> (%) days hh:mm cfm hh:JtUl\:SS 1000 ft• --------------------------------PONDl 70.635 42 0 0.00 0:00:00 0.000 POND2 247.441 39 0 0.00 0:00:00 0 .000 *********************** Outfall Loading SuJtUl\ary *********************** Outfall Node ID Flow Average Peak Inflow cf s Out-37 System ***************** Link Flow Summary ***************** -------------------Link ID Ratio of Total Maximum Time Flow Surcharged Depth Minutes Frequency Flow (%) cfs 96.32 24.18 199.17 96.32 24.18 199.17 Element Time of Maximum Type Peak Flow Velocity Occurrence Attained days hh:JtUl\ ft/sec 12:33 12:48 Length Factor Average Average Maximum Ponded Ponded Pond Volume Volume Outflow 1000 ft• (%) cfs 7.931 5 75.95 26. 725 4 97.71 Peak Flow Design Ratio of during Flow Maximum Analysis Capacity /Design cf s cf s Flow --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 CONDUIT 0 12:15 3.65 1.00 1. 98 2.59 0 .77 0.66 0 15 CONDUIT 0 12:10 5.02 1.00 B.08 7.62 1.06 1.00 0 Con-169 CONDUIT 0 12:18 3.81 1.00 2.76 2.59 1.06 1.00 5 Con-170 CONDO IT 0 12:20 4.35 1.00 4.15 4.69 0.89 0.73 0 Con-171 CONDUIT 0 12 :19 5.02 1.00 8 .12 7.61 1.07 ··hOO-·-· ·----6 ··-·····-.. ·-----... -·-··· ---·----··· . -· -------···--· ······-····--·--··------···--· . Con-172 CONDUIT 0 12:12 5.75 1.00 11. 92 16.44 0.73 0.63 0 Con-173 CONDUIT 0 12:13 5.94 1.00 15.54 16.36 0.95 0.78 0 Con-174 CONDO IT 0 12 :17 6.08 1.00 17 .14 16.40 1. 05 0.93 0 Con-175 CONDUIT 0 12:35 3.84 1.00 2.73 2.59 1.05 0.94 0 Con-176 CONDUIT 0 12:17 6.78 1.00 23.83 29. 72 0.80 0.68 0 Storm NET Page 50 ·····--·-···---· ··-··- f f i4 I 14 4 ·-· -·· ··-·. ----·· --------------------------------Detention Pond ID Maximum Maximum Time of Max Maximum Time of Max. Total Ponded Ponded Ponded Ex.filtration Ex.filtration Exfiltrated Volume Volume Volume Rate Rate Volume 1000 ft> (%) days hh:mm cfm hh:nun:ss 1000 ft' --------------------------------PONOl 0.00 0:00:00 PON02 0.00 0:00:00 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary **•******************** 70.635 0 .000 247.44.l 0.000 42 0 39 0 Outfall Node ID Flow Average Peak Inflow cfs Frequency Flow (%) cfs Out-37 96.32 24.18 199.17 System 96.32 24.18 199.17 ***************** Link Flow Summary ***************** -------------------Link ID Element Time of Maximum Ratio of Total Type Peak Flow Velocity Maximum Time Occurrence Attained Flow Surcharged days hh:nun ft/sec Depth Minutes 12:33 12 :48 Length Factor Average Average Maximum Ponded Ponded Pond Volume Volume Outflow 1000 ft' (%) cfs 7.931 5 75.95 26. 725 4 97. 71 Peak Flow Design Ratio of during Flow Maximum Analysis Capacity /Design cf s cf s Flow --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 CONDUIT 0 12: 15 3.65 1. 00 1. 98 2.59 0.77 0.66 0 15 CONDUIT 0 12:10 5.02 1. 00 e.oe 7. 62 1.06 1.00 0 Con-169 CONDUIT 0 12 :18 3.Bl 1.00 2.76 2.59 1. 06 1. 00 5 Con-170 CONDO IT 0 12:20 4.35 1.00 4.15 4.69 0.89 0.73 0 Con-171 CONDUIT 0 12:19 5.02 1. 00 B.12 7.61 l. 07 ·--1-,-0 O-···· ·-· ..... ·-.. -· .. -6 --· .. -··-·•··-··-----··-··-·--···-··-·---···-·-··· ····-··-····-····---···-·····-·· ····-··-·-····-·-···-· ---··-·----··-···-·-·-·-·····-········- Con-172 CONDUIT 0 12:12 5.75 1. 00 11. 92 16 .44 0.73 0.63 0 Con-173 CONDUIT 0 12:13 5.94 1.00 15.54 16.36 0.95 0.78 0 Con-174 CONDO IT 0 12:17 6.0B 1.00 17 .14 16. 40 1. 05 0.93 0 Con-175 CONDUIT 0 12:35 3.B4 1.00 2.73 2.59 1.05 0.94 0 Con-176 CONDUIT 0 12:17 6.78 1. 00 23.B3 29. 72 a.so 0.6B 0 Storm NET Page 50 JBll 0.57 2.82 298.47 0 12:25 0 0 0:00:00 JB12 0.60 3.02 298 .11 0 12:25 0 0 0:00:00 JB13 0.18 1. 00 299.52 0 12:29 0 0 0:00:00 JB14 0.21 1.25 299.23 0 12:08 0. 46 27 0:00:00 JB15 0.22 1. 50 302.55 0 12:07 0.11 13 0:00:00 JB16 0.26 1. 37 300.32 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 JB17 0.27 1.43 299.59 0 12 :16 0 0 0:00:00 JB18 0.46 3.00 298.24 0 12 :10 1. 43 15 0:00:00 JB2 0 .46 3.00 308.70 0 12:10 0.95 14 0:00:00 JB20 0.26 1. 41 300.13 0 12: 15 0 0 0:00:00 JB21 0.33 1. 76 298.18 0 12:16 0 0 0:00:00 JB22 0.34 1.85 297.32 0 12:16 0 0 0:00:00 JB3 0.27 2.00 310.98 0 12:10 0.03 7 0:00:00 JB4 0.52 3.50 304.27 0 12 :14 0.51 12 0:00:00 JBS 0 .33 1. 73 304.30 0 12:18 0 0 0:00:00 JB6 0.43 2.20 303.67 0 12:19 0 0 0:00:00 JB7 0.31 1. 68 303.62 0 12: 17 0 0 0:00:00 JBS 0.29 1. 65 303.08 0 12:13 0 0 0:00:00 JB9 0.20 1.13 303.72 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-100 0.18 1.17 307.03 0 12:26 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-101 0.31 1. 73 306.93 0 12:17 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-102 0.23 1.19 303.84 0 12:40 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-103 0.27 2.00 304.22 0 12:09 0.12 9 0:00:00 Jun-104 0.18 1. 06 303.80 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-105 0.30 1. 56 303.65 0 12 :16 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-106 0.27 1. 70 304.95 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-108 0.27 2.00 305.66 0 12:13 0.05 6 0:00:00 Jun-109 0.24 1. 42 306.03 0 12:16 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-110 0.20 1. 50 308. 72 0 12:14 0.00 3 0:00:00 Jun-111 0.20 1.50 303.63 0 12:09 0 .02 7 0:00:00 Jun-112 0.27 2 .00 303.78 0 12:14 0 2 0:00:00 Jun-113 0.35 2.05 302.99 0 12: 13 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-114 0.22 1.32 303.09 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-115 0.19 1.13 304.44 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-116 0.12 0. 72 303.61 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-117 0.03 0.20 303.84 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-118 0.37 2 .26 302.88 0 12: 13 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-119 0.57 3.50 302.35 0 12:10 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-120 0.55 2. 72 300.36 0 12:25 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-121 0.20 1.25 297.12 0 12 :22 0.20 25 0:00:00 Jun-122 0.08 0.41 296.68 0 12:10 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-123 0.22 1.25 298.62 0 12:10 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-124 0.22 1.14 298.05 0 12 :09 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-125 0.24 1. 50 297.93 0 12:09 0.04 9 0:00:00 Jun-126 0.24 1. 29 297.26 0 12:09 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-127 0.12 0.68 298.82 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-128 0.14 1.00 300.40 0 12:23 0.09 22 0:00:00 Jun-129 0.10 0.66 299.69 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-130 0.60 3.01 296.49 0 12:26 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-131 0.46 3.00 297.69 0 12:11 0.08 15 0:00:00 Jun-132 0.52 3.50 302.67 0 12:15 0.15 11 0:00:00 Jun-134 0.13 0.63 302.61 0 12:25 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-137 0.06 0.40 299.49 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-139 0.04 0 .26 296.93 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-140 0.17 0.69 299.19 0 12:33 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-141 0.24 0.74 293.24 0 12:48 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-62 0.14 1.00 315.09 0 12:10 0.03 10 0:00:00 Jun-63 0.16 1.00 314. 71 0 12:13 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-64 0.22 1. 50 314.15 0 12:09 0.13 13 0:00:00 .Jun-65 0.24 1.50 313. 08 0 12:13 0 0 0:00:00 • __ Jun::9_9_ ...... -____ 0.2.6 _. -__ l .. 5.6.. ___ 3.H~9_0_ __ o_. ..12.:12 ····-· _o __ ... .. 0 .. -.. -0.:.00:00 -------·-···· ..... Jun-67 0.28 2.00 311. 87 0 12:10 0.08 8 0:00:00 • Jun-68 0.32 1. 73 310.37 0 12:17 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-69 0.14 1. 00 310.37 0 12:28 0.05 19 0:00:00 • Jun-70 0.35 2.50 309.94 0 12:15 0.02 4 0:00:00 Jun-72 0.17 0.95 307.66 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 • Jun-73 0.25 1.47 310. 72 0 12: 15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-74 0.13 0.82 309.91 0 12: 10 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-75 0.27 1. 72 309.54 0 12:16 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-76 0.30 1. 53 307.86 0 12:16 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-77 0.20 1.16 305.00 0 12:25 0 0 0:00:00 Storm NET Page 47 Jun-78 0.22 1.21 304.54 0 12:25 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-79 0.26 1.54 304·. 51 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-80 0.10 0.56 303.39 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-81 0.13 0.81 303.44 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-82 0.29 2.00 304.42 0 12:15 0.32 15 0:00:00 Jun-83 0.32 2 .00 303.34 0 12:19 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-84 0.14 0.84 302.47 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-85 0.18 1.25 302. 69 0 12:07 0.13 12 0:00:00 Jun-86 0.23 1.49 302.30 0 12:18 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-87 0.17 1. 04 300.58 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-88 0.15 0.98 300.92 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-89 0.11 0.64 300.25 0 12:25 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-90 0.07 0.34 298.69 0 12:14 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-91 0.31 1. 64 298. 77 0 12: 15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-92 0.15 1.00 298.27 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-93 0.14 1.00 297.59 0 12:13 0.03 10 0:00:00 Jun-94 0.13 1.00 296.64 0 12:14 0.07 16 0:00:00 Jun-95 0.31 1. 70 297.54 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-96 0.16 1.25 309.10 0 12:10 0.02 7 0:00:00 Jun-97 0.15 1.00 308.50 0 12:15 0.27 28 0:00:00 Jun-98 0.22 1.22 308.18 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-99 0.14 0.86 307.88 0 12:30 0 0 0:00:00 Out-37 0.24 0.74 -0.26 0 12:49 0 0 0:00:00 PONDl 0.39 2.30 301.30 0 12:33 0 0 0:00:00 POND2 0.79 3.70 296.70 0 12:48 0 0 0:00:00 ***************** Node Flow Summary ***************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Node Element Maximum Peak Time of Naximwn Time of Peak ID Type Lateral Inflow Peak Inflow Flooding Flooding Inflow Occurrence Overflow Occurrence cf s cf s days hh:mm cfs days hh:nun ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JBl JUNCTION 0.00 36.16 JBlO JUNCTION 0.00 94.46 JBll JUNCTION 0.00 88.09 JB12 JUNCTION 0.00 95.69 JB13 JUNCTION o.oo 4.41 JB14 JUNCTION 0.00 6.41 JB15 JUNCTION 0.00 8.38 JB16 JUNCTION o.oo 17.23 JB17 JUNCTION 0.00 18. 68 JB18 JUNCTION 0.00 57. 77 JB2 JUNCTION 0.00 55.94 JB20 JUNCTION 0.00 18.07 JB21 JUNCTION 0.00 31.28 JB22 JUNCTION 0.00 33.97 JB3 JUNCTION o.oo 16.82 JB4 JUNCTION 0.00 77.41 JBS JUNCTION 0.00 29.44 JB6 JUNCTION 0.00 52.62 JB7 JUNCTION 0.00 23.42 JBS JUNCTION o.oo 23.07 JB9 JUNCTION 0.00 9.87 Jun-100 JUNCTION 3. 64 7 .26 Jun-101 JUNCTION 7.78 24.60 ·Jun-102-· ---JUNGT-ION ·-7-.-4-5----·--'.7·A!i Jun-103 JUNCTION 7.54 13.96 Jun-104 JUNCTION 6.41 6.41 Jun-105 JUNCTION 3.53 21. 36 Jun-106 JUNCTION 2.02 18.97 Jun-108 JUNCTION 3. 67 17.32 Jun-109 JUNCTION 6 .16 13.97 Jun-110 JUNCTION 7.85 7.85 Jun-111 JUNCTION 7.87 7.87 Jun-112 JUNCTION 2.09 15.33 Jun-113 JUNCTION 3.48 39.14 Storm NET 0 12:18 0 12:16 0 12:25 0 12:25 0 12:15 0 12:16 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12:16 0 12:16 0 12:16 0 12:15 0 12:16 0 12:16 0 12:15 0 12:18 0 12:20 0 12:19 0 12:17 0 12:13 0 12:15 0 12 :26 0 12: 17 -0 -· ·12·:40---·-- 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12 : 16 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12:16 0 12:15 0 12:15 0 12:13 0 12:13 0.00 21. 33 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 1. 70 0.76 0.00 0.00 9.35 7.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 ---0,00 1. 35 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.18 0.25 0.00 0.00 0 12:16 0 12:16 0 12:15 0 12:16 0 12:16 0 12:15 0 12:19 0 12:15 0 12 : 16 0 12 :15 0 12 :15 Page 48 Jun-78 0.22 1.21 304.54 0 12:25 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-79 0.26 l. 54 304·. 51 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-80 0.10 0.56 303.39 0 12 :20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-Bl 0.13 0.81 303.44 0 12: 15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-B2 0.29 2.00 304.4.2 0 12: 15 0.32 15 0:00:00 Jun-83 0.32 2.00 303.34 0 12 : 19 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-B4 0.14 0.84 302.4.7 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-85 0.18 1.25 302.69 0 12:07 0.13 12 0:00:00 Jun-BG 0.23 1.49 302.30 0 12:18 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-87 0.17 1.04 300.58 0 12:20 0 0 0 :00:00 Jun-88 0.15 0.98 300.92 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-89 0.11 0.64 300.25 0 12:25 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-90 0.07 0.34 298.69 0 12:14 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-91 0.31 1. 64 298.77 0 12: 15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-92 0.15 1.00 298.27 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-93 0.14 1.00 297.59 0 12:13 0.03 10 0:00:00 Jun-94 0.13 1.00 296.64 0 12:14 0.07 16 0:00:00 Jun-95 0.31 1. 70 297.54 0 12:20 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-96 0.16 1.25 309.10 0 12:10 0.02 7 0:00:00 Jun-97 0.15 1. 00 308.50 0 12:15 0.27 28 0:00:00 Jun-98 0.22 1. 22 308.18 0 12:15 0 0 0:00:00 Jun-99 0.14 0.86 307.88 0 12:30 0 0 0:00:00 Out-37 0.24 0.74 -0.26 0 12:49 0 0 0:00:00 PONDl 0.39 2.30 301. 30 0 12:33 0 0 0:00:00 POND2 0.79 3.70 296. 70 0 12:48 0 0 0:00:00 ***************** Node Flow Surrunary ***************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Node Element Maximum Peak Time of Maximwn Time of Peak ID Type Lateral Inflow Peak Inflow Flooding Flooding Inflow Occurrence Overflow Occurrence cf s cf s days hh:mm cfs days hh:mm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JBl JUNCTION 0.00 JBlO JUNCTION 0.00 JBll JUNCTION 0.00 JB12 JUNCTION 0.00 JB13 JUNCTION 0.00 JB14 JUNCTION 0.00 JB15 JUNCTION 0.00 JB16 JUNCTION 0.00 JB17 JUNCTION 0.00 JB18 JUNCTION 0.00 JB2 JUNCTION 0.00 JB20 JUNCTION 0.00 JB21 JUNCTION 0.00 JB22 JUNCTION 0.00 JB3 JUNCTION 0.00 JB4 JUNCTION 0.00 JBS JUNCTION a.co JB6 JUNCTION 0.00 JB7 JUNCTION o.oo JBB JUNCTION o.oo JB9 JUNCTION 0.00 Jun-100 JUNCTION 3 . 64 Jun-101 JUNCTION 7.78 Jun-102·· ·---··· --· ·-·--··--JUNGT-ION +.-45--·· Jun-103 JUNCTION 7.54 Jun-104 JUNCTION 6.41 Jun-105 JUNCTION 3.53 Jun-106 JUNCTION 2.02 Jun-108 JUNCTION 3. 67 Jun-109 JUNCTION 6.16 Jun-110 JONCTION 7.B5 Jun-111 JUNCTION 7.87 Jun-112 JUNCTION 2.09 Jun-113 JUNCTION 3.48 Storm NET 36.16 0 12:18 0.00 94.46 0 12:16 21. 33 0 88.09 0 12:25 0.00 95.69 0 12:25 0.00 4.41 0 12 :15 o.oo 6.41 0 12 :16 1. 70 0 8.38 0 12 :15 0.76 0 17 .23 0 12:15 0.00 18. 68 0 12:16 0.00 57.77 0 12:16 9.35 0 55.94 0 12:16 7.52 0 18.07 0 12:15 0.00 31.28 0 12:16 0.00 33.97 0 12:16 0.00 16.82 0 12:15 0.39 0 77.41 0 12:18 4.46 0 29.44 0 12:20 o.oo 52.62 0 12:19 0.00 23 .42 0 12:17 0.00 23.07 0 12:13 0.00 9.87 0 12:15 0.00 7 .26 0 12:26 o.oo 24.60 0 12:17 0.00 ....... 7 .. .,45 ... ··-·-· --0·-···12c 40--.. ···-··---0,.00---·------·-- 13.96 0 12 :15 1 .35 0 6.41 0 12:15 o.oo 21. 36 0 12:16 0.00 18.97 0 12:15 0.00 17.32 0 12: 15 0.84 0 13.97 0 12:16 0.00 7.85 0 12:15 0.18 0 7.87 0 12:15 0.25 0 15.33 0 12:13 0 .00 39.14 0 12:13 0.00 12:16 12:16 12:15 12:16 12:16 12:15 12:19 12:15 12:16 12:15 12:15 Page 48 l ( ( ( ( - Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Fl.ow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0 .00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total. TOC (minutes): Subbasin 71 Sheet Fl.ow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow.Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocit y (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): *********************** Subbasin Runoff Summary *********************** Subbasin ID 01 02 03 04 05 ..... -06. 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Storm NET Total Precip in Total Runoff in 11. 000 7. 542 11.000 10.637 11. 000 10. 637 11.000 10.637 11.000 10.637 .. _ .... 1-b 000-..... -10·;·63'7· 11. 000 7. 541 11. 000 7. 404 11. 000 10 .145 11.000 8.743 11.000 10.637 11.000 7.405 11.000 10.759 11.000 10. 759 11. 000 10. 759 11.000 10.759 0.40 105.79 1.00 4.50 0.07 24.99 24.99 Subarea A 0.40 100.00 1. 00 4 .50 0.07 23 .89 23.89 Peak Weighted Runoff Curve cf s Number 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time of Concentration days hh:mm:ss 17.440 73.000 0 00:57:32 4.950 97.000 0 00:11:48 4.040 97.000 0 00:10:45 3.790 97.000 0 00:11:11 2.020 97 .000 0 00:10:01 Subarea ... .s .• -3 60-...... 97-.ooo -·-------.. -o-.. -eo :-10 :·58 .... · -............. _ .. ___ ------·--.... . 2.040 73.ooo o 00:46:22 1.670 12.000 o 00:31:43 2.970 93 .000 0 00 :14:28 6.850 82.000 0 00:19:27 5.560 97.000 0 00:14:23 3.110 12.000 o 00:43:47 14.900 98.000 0 00:10:00 2.640 98.000 0 00:10:00 6.690 98.ooo o 00:10:00 0.210 90 .000 o 00:10:00 Page 45 - 17 11. 000 10.759 7.250 98.000 0 00:10:00 18 11.000 7.404 2.380 72. 000 0 00:41:19 19 11. 000 9.770 7,220 90.000 0 00:29:52 20 11.000 9. 770 4.200 90.000 0 00:23:45 21 11. 000 9.770 4.290 90.000 0 00:23:40 22 11. 000 7.405 3.550 72.000 0 00:32:19 23 11.000 7.405 3.810 72.000 0 00:36:52 24 11. 000 7.405 3.650 72.000 0 00:28:45 25 11. 000 10.145 5.100 93 .000 0 00:11:49 26 11.000 10.145 3.860 93.000 0 00:12:43 27 11.000 9.770 7.960 90.000 0 00:19:13 28 11.000 9 .517 7.490 88.000 0 00:51:18 29 11. 000 10.393 7.850 95.000 0 00:14:27 30 11.000 7.405 12.630 72.000 0 00:57:32 31 11.000 10.759 6.160 98.000 0 00:14:41 32 11.000 10.759 3.690 98.000 0 00:12:53 33 11. 000 10.637 2.040 97.000 0 00:12:32 34 11.000 9. 770 3.540 90.000 0 00:40:38 35 11. 000 10.145 2.490 93.000 0 00:32:35 36 11. 000 10.021 7.600 92.000 0 00:12:28 37 11.000 10.637 2.110 97.000 0 00:12:04 38 11. 000 10.392 3.630 95.000 0 00:10:00 39 11. 000 10 .145 2.940 93.000 0 00:10:01 40 11. 000 10.392 5.340 95.000 0 00:12:01 41 11. 000 7.405 3.000 72.000 0 00:41:38 42 11.000 7.405 3. 630 72.000 0 00:40:12 43 11. 000 7.405 3.890 72.000 0 00:38:04 44 11. 000 7.405 5.180 72 .000 0 00:44:13 45 11. 000 10.758 0.960 98.000 0 00:10:00 46 11.000 7.405 31. 860 72. 000 0 00:57:32 47 11.000 10.637 2 .150 97.000 0 00:13:57 48 11.000 10.758 0. 960 98.000 0 00:10:01 49 11.000 10.758 0.900 98.000 0 00:10:01 50 11. 000 10.145 1. 500 93.000 0 00:10 :01 51 11 .000 10 .392 2.100 95.000 0 00:20:07 52 11. 000 9. 770 2.060 90.000 0 00:10:24 53 11.000 9.129 0.680 85.000 0 00:10:24 54 11.000 9.517 2.980 88 .000 0 00:11:45 55 11. 000 10.392 3.840 95.000 0 00:10:09 56 11. 000 10.392 3.630 95.000 0 00:10:00 57 11.000 10.759 5.900 98.000 0 00:10:00 58 11.000 7.403 0.860 72.000 0 00:14:40 59 11. 000 10.759 24.570 98 .000 0 00 :18:58 60 11.000 9.133 4.500 85 .000 0 00:20:51 61 11.000 9.770 1.950 90.000 0 00:18:58 62 11. 000 8.743 1.650 82 .000 0 00:14:22 63 11. 000 8.082 8.820 77.000 0 00:28:54 64 11. 000 7.812 1.960 75.000 0 00:31 :16 65 11 . 000 10.759 5.960 98.000 0 00:10:01 66 11.000 10.757 0. 670 98.000 0 00:10:00 67 11.000 10.392 2. 910 95 .000 0 00:18:04 68 11. 000 7.400 0.470 72.000 0 00:21:46 69 11. 000 8.082 19.080 77.000 0 00:57:32 70 11. 000 7.813 4.590 75.000 0 00:24:59 71 11. 000 8.082 3.080 77.000 0 00:23:53 --------------------------------------------------------------------------System 11.000 8.843 296.76 ***************•** .... NOtle-· nei;t:h · summa:ry · ········-·-· -----. . ---····-·--··. -····. -· ·---·· ···-····· ........ ·--···--··· ··---.. ---------·· ···-·····-· ·--· ·-····-··-·-··-···· •·······------· ···-···-···· ****************** -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 Node Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Total Total Retention ID Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Flooded Time Time Attained Attained Attained Volume Flooded 4 ft ft ft days hh:rnm acre-in minutes hh:rnm:ss -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 JBl 0.36 2.16 308.22 0 12 :18 0 0 0:00:00 JBlO 0.57 3.50 303 .22 0 12:08 3.80 18 0:00:00 4 Storm NET Page 46 4 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11 . 000 11.000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11.000 11.000 11. 000 11.000 11. 000 11.000 11.000 11 .000 11.000 11. 000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11. 000 11. 000 11.000 11 .000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11. 000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11. 000 11.000 10.759 7.404 9.770 9. 770 9.770 7.405 7.405 7 .405 10 .145 10.145 9.770 9.517 10.393 7.405 10.759 10.759 10.637 9.770 10.145 10.021 10.637 10.392 10.145 10.392 7 .405 7.405 7.405 7.405 10.758 7 .405 10.637 10.758 10.758 10.145 10.392 9. 770 9.129 9.517 10.392 10.392 10.759 7.403 10.759 9.133 9.770 8.743 8.082 7.812 10.759 10.757 10.392 7.400 8.082 7.813 8.082 7.250 2.380 7.220 4.200 4.290 3.550 3.810 3.650 5.100 3.860 7.960 7.490 7.850 12.630 6.160 3.690 2.040 3.540 2.490 7.600 2.110 3.630 2.940 5.340 3.000 3.630 3.890 5.180 0.960 31. 860 2 .150 0. 960 0.900 1. 500 2.100 2.060 0.680 2.980 3.840 3.630 5.900 0.860 24.570 4.500 1.950 1.650 8.820 1.960 5.960 0. 670 2 .910 0. 470 19.080 4.590 3.080 98.000 72. 000 90.000 90.000 90.000 72. 000 72.000 72.000 93.000 93.000 90.000 88.000 95.000 72. 000 98.000 98.000 97.000 90.000 93.000 92.000 97.000 95.000 93.000 95.000 72 .000 72 .000 72. 000 72.000 98.000 72. 000 97.000 98.000 98.000 93.000 95.000 90.000 85.000 88.000 95.000 95.000 98.000 72. 000 98.000 85.000 90.000 82.000 77.000 75.000 98.000 98.000 95.000 72 .ooo 77.000 75.000 77.000 0 00:10:00 0 00:41:19 0 00:29:52 0 00:23:45 0 00:23:40 0 00:32:19 0 00:36:52 0 00:28:45 0 00:11:49 0 00:12:43 0 00:19:13 0 00:51:18 0 00:14:27 0 00:57:32 0 00:14:41 0 00 :12:53 0 00:12:32 0 00:40:38 0 00:32:35 0 00:12:28 0 00:12:04 0 00:10:00 0 00:10:01 0 00:12:01 0 00:41:38 0 00:40:12 0 00:38:04 0 00:44:13 0 00:10:00 0 00:57:32 0 00:13:57 0 00:10:01 0 00:10:01 0 00:10:01 0 00:20:07 0 00:10:24 0 00:10:24 0 00:11:45 0 00:10:09 0 00:10:00 0 00:10:00 0 00:14:40 0 00:18:58 0 00:20:51 0 00:18:58 0 00:14:22 0 00:28:54 0 00:31:16 0 00:10:01 0 00:10:00 0 00:18:04 0 00:21:46 0 00:57:32 0 00:24:59 0 00:23:53 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- System 11.000 8.843 296. 7 6 ****************** · · ·· ······-Ncc:le·· m'!'j:jt:h ··-sumara:ry ... ········-·--··----····------..................... _ .. _______ · -··---·---··----·----···-·---··· ---· ·-·----··--------· ···-· · --··· -· .................... ··-------·---·---· -·---···----·------··-··-- * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Node ID Average Depth Attained ft Maximum Depth Attained ft Maximum HGL Attained ft Time of Max Occurrence days hh:mm Total . Flooded Volume acre-in Total Time Flooded minutes Retention Time hh:nun:ss ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JBl JBlO Storm NET 0 .36 0.57 2.16 3 .50 308.22 303.22 0 12: 18 0 12:08 0 3.80 0 18 0:00:00 0:00:00 Page 46 Subbasin 65 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): o.oo 0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 66 Sheet Flow Computations c Manni ng's Roughness : 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall {in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time {minut es) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 67 Sheet Flow Computations .. C .. Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%) : 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : 0.00 Storm NET Subarea A 0.10 135.00 1.00 4.50 0.22 10.02 10.02 Subarea A 0.10 300.00 5.00 4.50 0.50 9.97 9.97 Subarea A 0.40 70.52 1. 00 4.50 0.07 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea Sub area Subarea B Subarea 0.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 Page 43 Computed Flow Time {minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 68 Sheet Flow Computations c o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 69 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall {in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 70 Sheet Flow Computations c Storm NET 18.07 18.07 Subarea A 0.40 89.05 1.00 4.50 0.07 21. 78 21.78 Subarea A 0.40 300.00 1.00 4.50 0.09 57.54 57.54 Subarea A 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 44 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 68 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: o.oo Flow Length (ft): o.oo Slope (%) : 0.00 2 yr, 24 br Rainfall (in): o.o o Velocity (ft/sec): o.oo Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 69 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): 18.07 18.07 Subarea A 0.40 89.05 1.00 4.50 0.07 21. 78 21. 78 Subarea A 0.40 300.00 1.00 4.50 0.09 57.54 57.54 0.00 Subarea B Subarea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B Subarea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo ......... ···=====s====:;::::====---==============================-=-=================--·-·· Subbasin 70 Sheet Flow Computations Subare a A Subarea B Subarea c Storm NET Page 44 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Ra inf all (in): 0 .00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes ): 0 .00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasi n 63 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning 's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Ve locity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 64 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0 .00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): O·:·OO- Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Storm NET 1. 00 4.50 0.25 14.38 14.38 Subarea A 0.40 126.88 1. 00 4.50 0.07 28. 91 28.91 Subarea A 0.40 139.99 1.00 4.50 0.07 31.27 31. 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo Subarea Subarea Page 42 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 63 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 64 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Vel ocity (ft/sec): 1. 00 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.25 0.00 14 .38 0.00 14.38 Subarea A Subarea B Subarea 0.40 0.00 126.88 0.00 1. 00 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.07 0.00 28.91 o.oo 28.91 Subarea A Subarea B Subarea 0.40 0.00 139.99 0.00 1.00 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.07 0.00 O·: 0 O-· --·-· ·-·--------· · -·-· ··-·--·-·-···-------· ·-··-······ ·-·---·------·-·-· ·······-····-·---·-·-·· ·····-····. ·-·--·--·-----.. ·-· ·-··-·-·--··· ··------------···--· .. -··---··-··-··--··-···---·-·-· ..... ······--····-····----·······-·····-···-·····-· --···· ····-.. - Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 31.27 o.oo 0.00 ==========================--===================================================================== Total TOC (minutes) : 31.27 ================================-===========z=======~=========================================== Storm NET Page 42 .. 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Veloci ty (ft/sec}: 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 55 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness : 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%} : o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec}: 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes} : Subbasin 56 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 o.oo Nanning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft) : Slope (%}: 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in}: Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 57 Storm NET 4.50 0.21 7.33 11. 76 Subarea A 0.10 137.35 l. 00 4.50 0.23 10.16 10.16 Subarea A 0.10 134.06 1.00 4.50 0.22 9.97 9.97 4.50 0.06 16.18 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 Subarea Sub area Page 39 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin SB Sheet Flow computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Veloci ty (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin S9 Sheet Flow comput ations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: ··· ... Flow-Iiength .. · .. ('ft) ·: Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes) : Storm NET Subarea A 0.10 300 .00 5.00 4.SO a.so 9.97 9.97 Subarea A 0.40 S4.39 l. 00 4.SO 0.06 14. 68 14.68 Subarea A 0.10 ·300 .00 --·-· ....... -· 1.00 4.50 0.26 18 .98 Subarea B 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo o.oo Subarea B 0.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 subarea B 0.00 .... 0 .00- o. oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub area Subarea Subarea Page 40 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length {ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall {in) : Velocity {ft/sec): COlllputed Flow Time {minutes): Total TOC {minutes): Subbasin 58 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length {ft): Slope {%) : 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes) : Subarea A 0.10 300.00 5.00 L50 0.50 9.97 9.97 Subarea A 0.40 54.39 1. 00 4.50 0.06 14. 68 14. 68 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo o.oo Subarea B o.oo o.oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo Sub area Subarea ======~==============================-========•-=--=====-==========================c..:-c::===-===-==- Subbasin 59 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Subarea A 0.10 Subarea B 0.00 Subarea ··-·· -··--n:ow-I:;ength·--(ftJ··: ··-··-·····-··--···-····--···-···-······-······ ···-300·, 00··--···-····-·····-···--................... o .•. OO-····-··--·-·-·-····-····-·--···-····-·-· ...................... . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall {in): Velocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): Storm NET 1. 00 4.50 0.26 18.98 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Page 40 ( ( c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in}: 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): o.oo Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 50 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Veloci ty (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): o.oo Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 51 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope(\): .o ._oo _____ _ 2 yr, 24 hr Ra infall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Storm NET 0.10 135.00 1. 00 4.50 0.22 10.02 10.02 Subarea A 0.10 135.00 l. 00 4.50 0.22 10.02 10.02 Subarea A 0.40 80.65 1.00 4.50 0.07 20.12 20.12 0.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo Subarea B 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea Subarea Page 37 Subbasin 52 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0 .00 Veloci ty (ft/sec) : 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): o.oo Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 53 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning' s Roughness : Flow Length (ft) : Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): computed Flow Time (minutes) : Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 54 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning 1 s Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 Storm NET Subarea A 0.40 55.00 1.00 4.50 0.06 14.81 10.41 Subarea A 0.10 28.18 1. 00 4.50 0.16 2.B6 10.41 Subarea A 0.10 91. 25 1.00 Subarea B Subarea 0.10 71.28 1. 00 4.50 0.20 6.01 Subarea B Subarea 0.40 70.02 1. 00 4.50 0.06 17. 97 Subarea B Subarea 0.40 61. 45 1.00 Page 38 Subbasin 52 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) : Velocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 53 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft) : Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes) : Total.TDC (minutes): Subbasin 54 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): Storm NET Subarea A 0.40 55.00 1.00 4.50 0.06 14 .81 10.41 Subarea A 0.10 28.18 1. 00 4.50 0.16 2.86 10.41 Subarea A 0.10 91.25 1.00 Subarea B 0.10 71.28 1. 00 4.50 0 .20 6.01 Subarea B 0. 40 70.02 1. 00 4.50 0.06 17.97 Subarea B 0.40 61. 45 1.00 Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 38 ( ( ( ( .. Subbasin 44 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length {ft) : 0.00 Slope (%) : 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : 0.00 Computed Flow Ti me (minutes) : 0 .00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 45 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness : 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope {%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall {in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 46 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0 .00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0 .00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): Storm NET Subarea A 0.40 215.89 1. 00 4.50 0.08 44.23 44.23 Subarea A 0.10 300.00 5.00 4.50 0.50 9.97 9.97 .......... suba:i;ea A--·· 0.40 300.00 1. 00 4.50 0.09 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 o.oo Sub area Subarea ----Suba-rea--B··-····· -·-· · ····· -· ········Subarea···-····· 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 35 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 47 Sheet Flow Computations c Manni ng's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope ( 't;) : 0 .00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Veloci ty (ft/sec}: 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minut es): 0.00 Total TOC (minut es): Subbasin 48 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft) : Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rai nfall (in}: Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Tot al TOC (minutes): Subbasin 49 Sheet Flow Computations Storm NET 57.54 57.54 Subarea A 0.40 94.33 1.00 4.50 0.07 22.80 13.95 Subarea A 0.10 135.00 1. 00 4.50 0.22 10.02 10.02 Subarea A 0.00 Subarea B 0.10 58.11 1.00 4.50 0.19 5.11 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B Suhar ea Suhar ea Subarea Page 36 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 47 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope ('~): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) : 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec}: 0.00 Computed Flow Ti.me (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 48 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in}: o.oo Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): 57.54 57.54 Subarea A 0.40 94.33 1.00 4.50 0.07 22.80 13.95 Subarea A 0.10 135.00 1. 00 4. 50 0.22 10.02 10.02 0.00 Subarea B Sub area 0.10 58.11 1.00 4.50 0.19 5.11 Subarea B Subarea 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .. ·····-·. ·--···-···-··--··-···---------···-····-..... _. ···-· ----·--· .. ·-·-·-·-·····-·---···-····--··-........ -·--··--··---···--···-·-······-··-···-·--··--·--··· --·-·· ...... --· ·-·--·----·········--·--····-······-------···-··----·-····---···········-·-·· ·--·· ·-··-------.. ···-· «••··--·····-····· .. Subbasin 49 Sheet Flow Computations Subarea A Subarea B Subarea Storm NET Page 36 ( .. Total TOC (minutes} : Subbasin 39 Sheet Fl ow Computations c 0.00 0.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec}: Comput ed Flow Time (minutes}: Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 40 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft}: 0 .00 Slope (%} : 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in}: 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec}: 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes} : 0 .00 Total TOC (minutes} : Subbasin 41 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 StormNET 8.94 Subarea A 0 .10 135.00 1.00 4.50 0.22 10 .02 10.02 Subarea A 0.10 169.45 1.00 4.50 0.23 12. 02 12 .02 Subarea A 0.40 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 33 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Vel ocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 42 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0 .00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rai nfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 43 Sheet Fl ow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0 .00 Flow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope (%): o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 ··· ·-·-··-···-Velocity -(·ft/sec) : ..... --..... ······ ..... ----.... 0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : Total TOC (minutes): 200.27 0.00 1.00 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.08 0.00 41. 65 0.00 41. 65 Subarea A Subarea B Subarea 0.40 0 .00 191. 65 0.00 1.00 0 .00 4.50 0.00 0.08 0.00 40.21 0.00 40.21 Subarea A Subarea B Sub area 0.40 0.00 178 .99 0.00 1.00 0.00 4.50 0 .00 --0-,00 ····· ...... _ ......... _ ........ --··-0-.00 --.. 38.07 0.00 38.07 =====================================~--========---=========================-==================== Storm NET Page 34 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Vel ocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 42 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft) : Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rai nfall (in): Veloci ty (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 43 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: o.oo Flow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope (%): 0 .00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): o.oo ··········-·-···-··velocity·-( ft/sec)·: .. ____ .. _____ ... _ .............. ·--.. ---... 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Storm NET 200.27 0.00 1.00 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.08 0.00 41. 65 0.00 41. 65 Subarea A Subarea B Subarea 0.40 0.00 191. 65 0.00 1.00 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.08 0.00 40.21 o.oo 40.21 Subarea A Subarea B Subarea 0.40 0.00 178.99 0.00 1.00 o.oo 4 .50 0.00 .. ....... -... o., 09 .......... -·---·-------·--.. --.. -.... o .. 00 .. -......... __ ................ _ .................... -................................ -.. .. 38.07 0.00 38.07 Page 34 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 34 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): o.oo Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 35 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 36 Storm NET 4.50 0.24 12 .54 12.54 Subarea A 0.40 194 .22 1.00 4.50 0.08 40 .64 40.64 Subarea A 0.40 147.45 1.00 4.50 0.08 32 .60 32 .60 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo o.oo o.oo Subarea B 0 .00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0 .00 Subarea Subarea Page 31 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%) : 0 .00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Veloci ty (ft/sec) : 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 37 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0 .00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0 .00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 38 Sheet Flow Computations c -o·:oo o.oo 0 .00 0.00 0.00 o.oo Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%-): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Storm NET Subarea A 0.10 177.57 1.00 4.50 0.24 12 .48 12.48 Subarea A 0.10 170.41 1.00 4.50 0.24 12.07 12.07 Subarea A 0.40 46.87 1.00 4.50 0.06 13.03 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 Subarea B 0.10 54.36 1. 00 4.50 0.19 4.84 Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 32 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%) : 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 37 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope ('S): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes}: Subbasin 38 Sheet Flow Computations c ····· ······· ···· ··--o··:oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hanning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope ('S): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes} : Storm NET Subarea A 0.10 177.57 1. 00 4.50 0.24 12.48 12.48 Subarea A 0.10 170.41 1. 00 4.50 0.24 12.07 12.07 Subarea A 0.40 46.87 1. 00 4.50 0.06 13.03 Subarea B o.oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.10 54.36 1. 00 4.50 0.19 4.84 Subarea Sub area Subarea Page 32 c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec ): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): o.oo Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 29 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness : 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr , 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): o.oo Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 30 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo Manni ng's Roughness: Fl ow Length (ft): .. slope ... (.% ). : . 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes) : Total TOC (minutes) : Storm NET Subarea A 0.40 259.93 1. 00 4.50 0.08 51.31 51. 31 Subarea A 0.40 73.90 1. 00 4.50 0.07 18. 76 14.45 Subarea A 0.40 300.00 . ..... ...J... 00 4.50 0.09 57.54 57.54 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.10 137.04 1. 00 4.50 0.23 10.14 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 Subarea Subarea Subarea .. 0 • 0 0 ..................... --· ·-·--····-· ...... .. o.oo o.oo 0.00 Page 29 Subbasin 31 Sheet Flow Computations c o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 32 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness : 0.00 Fl ow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope (%) : 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0 .00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Subarea A 0.10 217.67 1.00 4.50 0.25 14.69 14 . 69 Subarea A 0.10 185.00 1.00 4 .50 0.24 12.89 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0 .00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 Subarea Subarea ===============================================================================================n Total TOC (minutes): 12 .89 ===========================================================================-====================== Subbasin 33 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): Storm NET Subarea A Subarea B Subarea 0.10 0 .00 178 .74 0.00 1. 00 0.00 Page 30 Subbasin 31 Sheet Flow Computations c o.oo o.oo 0 .00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : o.oo 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 32 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0 .00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 33 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): Storm NET Subarea A 0.10 217.67 1.00 4.50 0.25 14 .69 14.69 Subarea A 0.10 185.00 1.00 4.50 0.24 12.89 12.89 Subarea A 0.10 178.74 1. 00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0 .00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub area Subarea Subarea Page 30 ( ( ( ( ( { ... Subbasin 23 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 0 .00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 24 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft) : o.oo Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Ti me (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 25 Sheet Flow Computations . -·--:_-:-_-:-:::.=-:::-_~.::.::::::.::-:.::-.~--=-:-:-=:::-.::~:'!':.:::' .. -·-·-· --- c Manni ng's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope (%) : o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Storm NET Subarea A 0.40 171. 98 1. 00 4.50 0 .08 36.87 36.87 subarea A 0 .40 126.02 1.00 4 ;50 0.07 28.75 28.75 subarea A 0.40 41. 90 1.00 4.50 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 o.oo Subarea B 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo Subarea B 0.10 164.64 1. 00 4.50 Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 27 Velocity (ft/sec): o.oo Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 26 Sheet Flow Computations c Hanning' s Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%-): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall {i n) : 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : 0.00 Computed Flow Time {minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 27 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length {ft) : Slope {%-): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall {in): Vel ocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes) : ·· ····· ····-··· ·Tot aJ:···Toe--(minutes-): - Subbasin 2B Sheet Flow Computations Storm NET 0.06 11. 91 11.83 Subarea A 0.40 67. 07 1.00 4.50 0.06 17.36 12.73 Subarea A 0.40 120 .14 1. 00 4.50 0.07 27. 67 .. --19 .22 0 .23 11. 75 Subarea B 0.10 103.43 1.00 4.50 0.21 8.10 Subarea B 0.10 147.61 1. 00 4.50 0.23 10.76 - Subarea Subarea Page 28 Velocity (ft/sec) : 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 26 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 27 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Manning' s Roughness : Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): -··-·· -········Totai-··Toe-··(minutes-J :·-·-·--·· Subbasin 28 Sheet Flow Computations Storm NET 0.06 11.91 11.83 Subarea A 0.40 67. 07 1.00 4.50 0 .06 17.36 12.73 Subarea A 0 .40 120.14 1. 00 4.50 0.07 27. 67 .... ·-·-···-·····-·-···· --19 ···2'2·--·· ..... ·-······-· ·-···- 0.23 11. 75 Subarea B 0.10 103.43 1.00 4.50 0.21 8.10 Subarea B 0.10 147 .61 1. 00 4.50 0.23 10.76 Subarea Subarea Page 28 ( ( - 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin lB Sheet Flow Computations c Manning' s Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes J : 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 19 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Fl.ow Length (ft): 0.00 SI.ope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Vel ocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 20 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: Storm NET 9.97 Subarea A 0.40 198.31 1. 00 4.50 O.OB 41. 32 41. 32 Subarea A 0.40 195.10 1.00 4.50 0.08 40.78 29 .88 Subarea A 0.40 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea B 0.10 300.00 1. 00 4.50 0.26 18.98 Subarea B 0.10 Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 25 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (i n): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): o.oo Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 21 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rai nfall (i n): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 22 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0 .00 0.00 ·0 ;00 ... 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes) : Total TOC (minutes): Storm NET 124.78 1.00 4.50 0.07 28 .52 23.75 Subarea A 0.40 123.89 1.00 4.50 0.07 28.36 23.67 Subarea A 0.40 145. 92 1. 00 4.50 0.08 32.33 32.33 300.00 1. 00 4.50 0.26 18.98 Subarea B 0.10 300.00 1. 00 4.50 0.26 18.98 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 - Sub area Subarea Page 26 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Tillie (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 2l Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 22 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: o.oo Flow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2· yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) : ·O, 00·----···--·· ··· --·· --·--·--.. ---· 0.00 0.00 Velocity {ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Storm NET 124.78 1.00 4.50 0.07 28.52 23.75 Subarea A 0.40 123.89 1.00 4.50 0.07 28.36 23.67 Subarea A 0.40 145.92 1.00 4.50 0.08 32.33 32.33 300.00 1. 00 4.50 0.26 18.90 Subarea B 0.10 300.00 1. 00 4.50 0.26 18.98 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea Subarea Page 26 ( t - Slope (\): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rai nfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): o.oo Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 13 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness : Flow Length (ft): Slope (\): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes) : Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 14 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%) : 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 ... _ .... Computed-. Fl ow .... Time . (minutes)-:·-· 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 15 Storm NET 1.00 4.50 0.08 43.79 43.79 Subarea A 0.10 300.00 5.00 4.50 0.50 9.97 9.97 Subarea A 0.10 300.00 5.00 4.50 0.50 9.97 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea Subarea ·-·-·-···---0-.-00 ·-·-·-... ·-····--···-··. ·-···············-·· Page 23 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0 .00 Flow Length (ft) : 0 .00 Slope (%) : 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Tot al TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 16 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0 .00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes] : o.oo Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 17 Sheet Flow Computat ions c · .... · · .............. Manning's-Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope (%): o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): o.oo Computed Flow Time (minutes) : StormNET Subarea A 0.10 300.00 5.00 4.50 0.50 9.97 9.97 Subarea A 0.10 300.00 5.00 4.50 a.so 9.97 9.97 Subar ea A 0-,10- 300.00 5.00 4.50 0 .50 9.97 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 Subarea B ...... 0.00 ...... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 24 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Fl.ow Length (ft) : Slope (%) : 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfal.l (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Fl.ow Time (minutes): Total. TOC (minutes): Subbasin 16 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Fl.ow Length (ft): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total. TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 17 Sheet Flow Computations c Subarea A 0.10 300.00 5.00 4.50 0.50 9.97 9.97 Subarea A 0.10 300.00 5.00 4.50 0.50 9.97 9.97 Subarea A ·-· ... ···················--··········Manning's-Roughness: .......... _ .. ,, ______ ....................... 0.-10- 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 o.oo Flow Length (ft) : Slope(%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) : Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Storm NET 300.00 5.00 4.50 0.50 9.97 Subarea B 0 .00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0 .00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B ,,,, ___ ·-0 •. 0 o ... __ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 24 ( ( ( ( ( -----------------------Subarea A Subarea B Sub area c Manning's Roughness: 0.40 0.00 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 229.12 0.00 0.00 Slope (%): l. 00 0.00 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 4,50 0.00 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.08 0.00 o.oo Computed Flow Time (minutes): 46.38 0.00 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : 46.38 Subbasin 08 Sheet Flow Computations Subarea A Subarea B Subarea c Manning's Roughness: 0.40 0.00 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 142.49 0.00 0.00 Slope (%): l.00 0.00 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (i n): 4.50 0.00 0 .00 Vel ocit y (ft/sec): 0.07 0.00 o.oo Computed Flow Time (minutes): 31. 72 0.00 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): 31. 72 Subbasin 09 Sheet Flow computations Subarea A Subarea B Subarea c Manning's Roughness: 0.10 0.00 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 213.78 0 .oo. 0.00 Slope (%): 1.00 0.00 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainf all (in): 4.50 0.00 0.00 Veloci ty (ft/sec): 0.25 o.oo 0 .00 Computed Flow Ti me (minutes): 14.47 0.00 0 .00 Storm NET Page 21 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 10 Sheet Flow Computations c Manni ng's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope (%): o.oo 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) : 0 . 00 Velocity (ft /sec): 0 .00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): o.oo Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 11 Sheet Flow Computations c 0 .00 Manni ng's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : ·-subbasin--·12 ·-·· Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Storm NET 14. 47 Subarea A 0.40 131.22 1. 00 4 .50 0.07 29.70 19.47 Subarea A 0.10 212.18 1.00 4.50 0.25 14.39 14 .39 Subarea A 0.40 213.25 Subarea B 0.10 121 .89 1.00 4.50 0.22 9.23 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 22 Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 10 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%-): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall [in) : Velocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes): Subbasin 11 Sheet Flow Computations c 6.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nanning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft} : Slope (%-) : 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec}: Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes) : ··subbasin-· 1·2 ·-· -·- Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length {ft): 0.00 Storm NET 14 .47 Subarea A 0.40 131.22 1. 00 4.50 0.07 29.70 19.47 Subarea A 0.10 212.18 1.00 4.50 0.25 14.39 14.39 Subarea A 0.40 213.25 Subarea B 0.10 121. B9 1. 00 4.50 0.22 9.23 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 22 ( ( ( Subbasin 02 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (\): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : o.oo Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 03 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): o.oo Veloci ty (ft/sec): 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes}: Subbasin 04 .... Sheet Flow .computat.ions. -······· c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft): o.oo Slope (%) : 0 .00 2 yr , 24 hr Rainfall (in): Storm NET Subarea A 0.10 165.62 1.00 4.50 0.23 11.80 11.80 Subarea A 0.10 1 47.61 1.00 4.50 0.23 10.76 10. 76 Subarea A 0.10 154.97 1. DO 4 .50 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 Subarea Subarea Subarea Page 19 0.00 0 .00 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 05 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0 .00 Flow Length (ft): 0.00 Slope (%): 0 .00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 0.00 Vel ocity (ft/sec): 0 .o o Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.00 Total TOC (minutes) : Subbasin 06 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft ): Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.23 11.19 11.19 Subarea A 0.10 135.00 l. 00 4.50 0.22 10.02 10 .02 Subarea A 0.10 300.00 1. 00 4.50 0.26 18.98 0.00 0.00 Subarea B o.oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 subarea Sub area ···=====-======z==================---=-========:z===============:..--==--===::::;=========···-. Total TOC (minutes) : 18.98 Subbasin 07 Sheet Flow Computations Storm NET Page 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Velocity (ft/sec}: Computed Flow Time (minutes}: Total TOC (minutes} : Subbasin 05 Sheet Flow Computations c 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's Roughness : Flow Length (ft} : Slope (%}: 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Ve l ocity (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes}: Total TOC (minutes}: Subbasin 06 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo Manning's Roughness: Flow Length (ft) : Slope (%): 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): Velocity (ft/sec) : Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.23 11.19 11.19 Subarea A 0.10 135.00 1. 00 4.50 0.22 10.02 10.02 Subarea A 0.10 300.00 1.00 4 .50 0.26 18.98 Total TOC (minutes} : 18 . 98 Subbasin 07 Sheet Flow Computations Storm NET 0.00 0.00 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 Subarea B o.oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 Subarea Sub area Page 20 t ( ( i ( Soil/Surf ace Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 66 Soil/Surf ace Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 67 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 68 Soil/Surface Description Composit e Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 69 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 70 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 71 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN *************************************************** SCS TR-55 Time of Concentration Computations Report ********************************•****************** Sheet Flow Equation Area (acres} 0.68 0.68 Area (acres) 0.07 0.07 Area (acres) 0.38 0.38 Area (acres} 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 4.91 4.91 Area (acres) 0.82 0.82 Area (acres) 0.53 0.53 Tc= (0.007 * ((n • Lf)"0.8)) I ((P"0.5) * (Sf"0.4 )) Storm NET Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group CN 98 .00 98.00 CN 98.00 98.00 CN 95 .00 95.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 77.00 77.00 CN 75 .00 75.00 CN 77. 00 77.00 Page 17 Where: Tc = Time of Concentration (hrs) n =Manning's Roughness Lf Flow Length (ft) P - 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (inches) Sf Slope (ft/ft) Shallow Concentrated Flow Equation V 16.1345 * (SfA0.5) (unpaved surface) V 20.3282 * (SfA0 .5) (paved surface) V = 15.0 * (SfA0.5) (grassed waterway surface) v 10. 0 * (Sf AO. 5) (nearly bare & untilled sur face) v 9.0 * (SfA0 .5) (cultivat ed straight rows surface) V = 7. 0 * (SfAO. 5) (short grass pasture surface) v 5.0 * (SfA0.5) (woodland surface) V = 2 .5 * (SfA0 .5) (forest w/heavy litter surface) Tc = (Lf I V) I (3600 sec/hr) Where: Tc Time of Concentration (hrs) Lf Flow Length (ft) V = Velocity (ft/sec) Sf = Slope (ft/ft) Channel Flow Equation V = (1 .49 * (RA(2/3)) * (SfA0.5)) / n R = Aq / Wp Tc = _(Lf I V) I (3600 sec/hr) Where: Tc = Lf R Aq = Wp v Sf = n Time of Concentration Flow Length (ft) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Flow Area (f t 2 ) wetted Perimeter (ft) Velocity (ft/sec) Slope (ft/ft) Manning's Roughness (hrs) Subbasin 01 Sheet Flow Computations c 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0 .00 0.00 Manning's Roughness: Fl ow Length (ft): Slope (%): .. 2 ·yr; -24 hr····Rain·fall (·in-}·:·· Veloci ty (ft/sec): Computed Flow Time (minutes): Tot al TOC (minutes): Storm NET Subarea A 0.40 300.00 1.00 4.50 0.09 57.54 57.54 Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 ... o .. oo 0.00 0. 00 Subarea Page 18 Where: Tc Time of Concentration (hrs) n Manning's Roughness Lf Flow Length (ft) P -2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (inches) Sf = Slope (ft/ft) Shallow Concentrated Flow Equation v 16.1345 * (SfA0.5) (unpaved surface) V 20.3282 * (SfA0 .5) (paved surface) V 15.0 * (SfA0.5) (grassed waterway surface) v = 10.0 * (SfA0.5) (nearly bare & untilled surface) V 9.0 • (SfA0,5) (cultivated straight rows surface) V 7.0 * (SfA0,5) (short grass pasture surface) v -5.0 * (SfA0,5) (woodland surface) v 2.5 * (SfA0.5) (forest w/heavy litter surface) Tc (Lf I V) I (3600 sec/hr) Where: Tc Time of Concentration (hrs) Lf Flow Length (ft) V Velocity (ft/sec) Sf = Slope (ft/ft) Channel Flow Equation V = (1.49 * (RA(2/3)) * (SfA0,5)) In R = Aq / Wp Tc = • (Lf I V) I (3 600 sec/hr) Where: Tc = Time of Concentration (hrs) Lf Flow Length (ft) R Hydraulic Radius (ft) Aq Flow Area (ft2 ) Wp = wetted Perimeter (ft) V = Velocity (ft/sec) Sf = Slope (ft/ft) n = Nanning' s Roughness Subbasin 01 Sheet Flow Computations c Manning's Roughness: 0.00 Flow Length (ft) : 0.00 Slope (%) : 0 .00 Subarea A 0.40 300.00 1. 00 ·· ····2 yr;· ·24 hr··-Rain·fall· -(-in·): ........ -4-.50--o.oo Velocity (ft/sec): 0.09 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes) : 57.54 0.00 Total TOC (minutes): 57.54 Storm NET Subarea B 0.00 0.00 0.00 ·---0.00 0.00 0.00 Subarea Page 18 ( ( ( ( ( Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weight ed CN Subbasin 50 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 51 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 52 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Wei ghted CN Subbasin 53 Soi l/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 54 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 55 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weight ed CN Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 57 Storm NET (acres ) 0 .10 0 .10 Area (acres) 0.17 0,17 Area (acres ) 0.29 0.29 Area (acres} 0.24 0.24 Area (acres) 0.08 0.08 Area (acres} 0.37 0.37 Area (acres) 0.44 0.44 Area (acres ) 0.42 0.42 Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group CN 98.00 98.00 CN 93.00 93.00 CN 95.00 95.00 CN 90.00 90.00 CN 85.00 85 .00 CN 88.00 88.00 CN 95.00 95.00 CN 95.00 95.00 Page 15 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasi n 56 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 59 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weight ed CN Subbasin 60 Soi l/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 61 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 62 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 63 Soil/Surface Description composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 64 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 65 StormNET Area (acres) 0 .67 0.67 Area (acres) 0.13 0.13 Ar ea (acres) 3.27 3.27 Area (acres) 0.67 0.67 Area (acres) 0.27 0.27 Area (acres) 0.22 0.22 Area (acres) 1.63 1. 63 Area (acres) 0 .39 0.39 Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group CN 96.00 96.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 96.00 98.00 CN 65.00 85 .00 CN 90.00 90.00 CN 62.00 82.00 CN 77 .00 77 .00 CN 75.00 75.00 Page 16 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 58 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 59 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 60 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 61 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 62 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 63 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 64 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 65 Storm NET Area (acres) 0.67 0.67 Area (acres) 0.13 0.13 Area (acres) 3.27 3.27 Area (acres) 0. 67 0.67 Area (acres ) 0.27 0.27 Area {acres) 0.22 0.22 Area {acres) 1. 63 1. 63 Area (acres) 0.39 0.39 Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group CN 98 .00 98.00 CN 72 .00 72.00 CN 98.00 98.00 CN BS.DO 85.00 CN 90.00 90.00 CN 82 .00 82.00 CN 77 .00 77.00 CN 75.00 75.00 Page 16 .. Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 34 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 35 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 36 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 37 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 39 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 39 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 40 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 41 Soil/Surface Description StormNET 0.24 0.24 Area (acres) 0. 67 0.67 Area (acres) 0.41 0.41 Area (acres) 0.92 0.92 Area (acres) 0.25 0.25 Area (acres) 0.41 0.41 Area (acres) 0.34 0.34 .. Area (acres) 0. 64 0. 64 Area (acres) Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group ·Soil Group Soil Group 97.00 97.00 CN 90.00 90.00 CN 93.00 93.00 CN 92 .00 92.00 CN 97.00 97.00 CN 95.00 95.00 CN 93 .00 93.00 CN 95.00 95.00 CN Page 13 Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 42 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 43 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 44 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 45 soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 46 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 47 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 48 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 49 Storm NET 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 0.11 0.11 Area (acres) 8.86 8.86 Area (acres) 0.26 0 . 26 Area (acres) 0.11 0.11 Area Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil 72. 00 72.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 72.00 72 .00 CN 72 .00 72.00 CN 98 .00 98.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 97.00 97.00 CN 98.00 98.00 - • • 4 4 4 Page 14 4 4 4 4 4 Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 42 Soil/Surface Description composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 43 Soil/Surface Description composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 44 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 45 soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 46 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 47 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 48 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 49 Storm NET 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 0.11 0.11 Area (acres) 8.86 8.86 Area (acres) 0.26 0. 26 Area (acres) 0 .11 0.11 Area Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil 72.00 72.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 98.00 98.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 97.00 97.00 CN 98.00 98.00 Page 14 • Subbasin 18 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 19 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 20 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 21 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 22 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 23 Soil/Surface Description composi te Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 24 Soil/Surface Descript ion Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 25 Soil/Surface Description StormNET • Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres ) 1.18 1.18 Area (acres) 0.63 0.63 Area (acres) 0.64 0. 64 Area (acres) 0 .74 0.74 Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 0 .61 Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soi l Group CN 72.00 72.00 CN 90.00 90.00 CN 90.00 90.00 CN 90 .00 90.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 72 .oo 72.00 CN 72 .oo 72 .oo CN 93.00 Page 11 Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 26 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 27 Soil/Surface Descript ion Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 28 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 29 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 30 Soil /Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 31 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 32 Soil'/Surface ·Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 33 Soil/Surface Descx:iption Storm NET 0.61 Area (acres) 0.47 0.47 Area (acres) 1.10 1.10 Area (acres) 1. 60 1. 60 Area (acres) 0.97 0.97 Area (acres) 3.52 3.52 Area (acres) 0.76 0.76 Area (acx:es)· · 0.44 0.44 Area (acres) Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil ··Group · Soil Group 93.00 CN 93.00 93.00 CN 90.00 90.00 CN 88.00 88.00 CN 95.00 95.00 CN 72 .00 72.00 CN 98 .00 98 .00 · ·CN ·· 98 .00 98.00 CN Page 12 • .. Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 26 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 27 soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 28 Soil/Surf ace Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 29 Soil/Surf ace Description Composite Area & lieighted CN Subbasin 30 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 31 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 32 0.61 Area (acres) 0.47 0.47 Area (acres) 1.10 1.10 Area (acres) 1. 60 1. 60 Area (acres) 0. 97 0.97 Area (acres) 3.52 3.52 Area (acres) D. 76 0. 76 Area Soil/Surface ···Description ··-· ·--······-·-·-·-··················· ····· ····--··-· · ··-············(acres)· Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 33 Soil/Surface Description Storm NET 0.44 0.44 Area (acres) Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil ····Group·· Soil Group 93.00 CN 93.00 93.00 CN 90.00 90.00 CN BB .DO B8.00 CN 95.00 95.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 98. 00 98.00 ···············CN ·······--·-·-·-···--··-····· 98.00 9B.OO CN Page 12 .. Subbasin 02 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 03 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 04 Soil/Surface Descri ption Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 05 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 06 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & weighted CN Subbasin 07 Soil /Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin OB Soil/Surface Description .. comp0site .. AJ;ea ·& Weighted . GN ...... -····-··· Subbasin 09 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Storm NET Area (acres) 0.58 0.58 Area (acres) 0.47 0.47 Area (acres) 0.44 0.44 Area (acres) 0.23 0.23 Area (acres) o. 72 0 . 72 Area (acres) 0.69 0.69 Area (acres) 0 .34 --0,34 Area (acres) 0.37 0.37 Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group CN 97.00 97.00 CN 97 .00 97.00 CN 97.00 97.00 CN 97.00 97.00 CN 97.00 97.00 CN 73 .00 73.00 CN 72.00 ..... :72., 00· CN 93.00 93.00 Page 9 Subbasin 10 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasi n 11 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 12 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 13 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & ~1eighted CN Subbasin 14 Soil/Surf ace Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 15 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 16 Soil/Surface Descri ption Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 17 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & ~1eighted CN Storm NET Area (acres) 1. 01 1. 01 Area (acres) 0 .69 0.69 Area (acres) 5.00 5.00 Area (acres) 1. 70 1. 70 Area (acres) 0.30 0.30 Area (acres) 0.76 0. 76 Area (acres) ·0·;·93 . 0.93 Area (acres) 0.83 0.83 Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soi l Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group CN 82.00 B2.00 CN 97.00 97.00 CN 72 .00 72.00 CN 98.00 98.00 CN 98.00 98.00 CN 98.00 98.00 CN -98.00 98.00 CN 98.00 98.00 • Page 10 • Subbasin 10 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 11 Soil/Sur face Description Composite Area & ~leighted CN Subbasin 12 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 13 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 14 Soil/Sur face Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 15 Soil/Surface Description Compos ite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 16 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Subbasin 17 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Storm NET Area (acres) 1. 01 1. 01 Area (acres) 0.69 0.69 Area (acres) 5 .00 5.00 Area (acres) 1. 70 l. 70 Area (acres) 0.30 0.30 Area (acres) 0. 76 0. 76 Area (acres) ....... ···0-;·93···· 0 .93 Area (acres) 0.83 0 .83 Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group Soil Group CN 82.00 82.00 CN 97.00 97.00 CN 72.00 72.00 CN 98.00 98.00 CN 98.00 98.00 CN 98.00 98.00 CN ······-··98 -.00 ··-·----···---····-· 98.00 CN 98 .00 98.00 Page 10 ( Con-200 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.45 Con-209 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29 .73 Con-210 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29.90 Con-211 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29.65 Con-212 CIRCULAR 1. 25 1.25 1 1. 23 0.31 4.03 Con-213 CIRCULAR 1. 50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7. 62 Con-214 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29.84 Con-215 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0 .50 16.52 Con-216 CIRCULAR 3.00 3.00 1 7.07 0.75 48.23 Con-217 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7.58 Con-218 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.37 Con-219 CIRCULAR 1.25 1. 25 1 1. 23 0.31 12.26 Con-220 CIRCULAR 2.00 2 .00 1 3.14 0.50 16.46 Con-221 CIRCULAR 1.25 1. 25 1 1.23 0.31 4.69 Con-222 CIRCULAR 3 .50 3.50 1 9.62 0.88 73.02 Con-223 CIRCULAR 3.00 3.00 1 7.07 0.75 48.30 • Con-224 CIRCULAR 4.00 4.00 1 12.57 1. 00 103.82 • Con-225 CIRCULAR 4.00 4.00 1 12.57 1.00 104.14 • Con-226 CIRCULAR 4.00 4.00 1 12.57 1.00 104.32 Con-227 CIRCULAR 4 .00 4.00 1 12.57 1. 00 • 104.32 Con-228 CIRCULAR 1.00 1. 00 1 0.79 0.25 2.59 Con-229 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1.23 0.31 • 4.69 Con-230 CIRCULAR 1.00 1.00 1 0.79 0.25 • 2.58 Con-231 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1.23 0.31 4. 68 Con-232 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1.23 0.31 4 . 71 Con-234 CIRCULAR 1.00 1.00 1 0.79 0.25 2.60 Con-235 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7 .62 Con-236 CIRCULAR 1. 50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7.63 Con-237 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.30 7.57 Con-238 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.41 ··· ··-· eon-2-39 ··· ·CIRCULAR-· ······ -4-;50·-·· .......... 4.,50 ............. -1 -······-···15-;·90-· ·········-··L-1-3-.... HO•••O·H-00"' 142.21 Con-240 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1.23 0.31 4.67 Con-242 CIRCULAR 1. 25 1. 25 1 1.23 0.31 4.69 Con-243 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.38 Con-244 CIRCULAR 1.25 1. 25 1 1.23 0.31 4.69 Con-245 CIRCULAR 1.00 1. 00 1 0.79 0.25 Storm NET Page 7 2.61 Con-246 CIRCULAR 29.68 Con-247 CIRCULAR 7.61 Con-248 CIRCULAR 29 .81 Con-249 CIRCULAR 2.60 Con-250 CIRCULAR 4.63 Con-251 CIRCULAR 48.36 Con-252 CIRCULAR 48.40 Con-257 CIRCULAR 48 .35 Con-258 CIRCULAR 29.78 Con-259 CIRCULAR 2.58 Con-260 CIRCULAR 48.29 Con-261 CIRCULAR 48.37 Con-262 CIRCULAR 2.57 Con-263 CIRCULAR 2.59 Con-264 CIRCULAR 29. 78 Con-265 CIRCULAR 7.37 Con-266 CIRCULAR 1872. 29 Con-267 CIRCULAR 2030.49 ************************** Runoff Quantity continuity ************************** Total Precipitation ..... . Surface Runoff ....•.••... Continuity Error (%) ••.. , ************************** Flow Routing Continuity ************************** External Inflow •..•...... External Outflow ..•...•.. Initial Stored Volume .... Final Stored Volume .•.••• Conti nuity Error (%) ..•.. 2.50 1.50 2.50 1.00 1.25 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 1.00 3.00 3 .00 1. 00 1. 00 2.50 1. 50 5.00 5 .00 Volume acre-ft 59.843 4. 713 -0.000 Volume acre-ft 0,000 46.202 0.000 0.200 -0.001 ****************************************** Composite Curve Number Computations Report ****************************************** Subbasin 01 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Storm NET 2 .50 1.50 2.50 1.00 1.25 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 1. 00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.50 1. 50 5.00 5.00 Depth inches 11.170 0.880 Volume Mgallons 0.000 15.055 0.000 0. 065 Area (acres) 4.78 4.78 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.91 1. 77 4.91 0.79 1. 23 7.07 7.07 7 .07 4.91 0.79 7.07 7.07 0 .79 0.79 4.91 1. 77 19.63 19.63 Soil Group CN 73.00 73.00 0.63 0.38 o. 63 0.25 0.31 0.75 0.75 0.75 o. 63 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.63 0 .38 1. 25 1.25 Page8 2.61 Con-246 CIRCULAR 2.50 29.68 Con-247 CIRCULAR 1.50 7.61 Con-248 CIRCULAR 2.50 29.81 Con-249 CIRCULAR 1.00 2.60 Con-250 CIRCULAR 1.25 4.63 Con-251 CIRCULAR 3.00 48.36 Con-252 CIRCULAR 3.00 48.40 Con-257 CIRCULAR 3.00 48.35 Con-258 CIRCULAR 2.50 29.78 Con-259 CIRCULAR 1.00 2.58 Con-260 CIRCULAR 3.00 48.29 Con-261 CIRCULAR 3.00 48.37 Con-262 CIRCULAR 1. 00 2.57 Con-263 CIRCULAR 1. 00 2.59 Con-264 CIRCULAR 2. 50 29.78 Con-265 CIRCULAR 1.50 7.37 Con-266 CIRCULAR 5.00 1872 .29 Con-267 CIRCULAR 5.00 2030.49 ************************** Volume Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-ft ************************** ---------Total Precipitation I 0 0 0 0 0 59.843 Surface Runoff ........... 4. 713 Continuity Error (%) 0 0 0 0 I -0.000 ************************** Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-ft ************************** ---------External Inflow .......... o.ooo &>eternal Outflow ......... 46.202 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.200 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.001 Composite Curve Number Computations Report ****************************************** Subbasin 01 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted CN Storm NET 2.50 1.50 2.50 1.00 1.25 3.00 3.00 3.00 2 .50 1. 00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2 .50 1. 50 5.00 5.00 Depth inches 11.170 0.880 Volume Mgallons ---------o. 000 15.055 0.000 0.065 Area (acres) 4 .78 4.78 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.91 1. 77 4.91 0.79 1.23 7.07 7.07 7.07 4. 91 0.79 7.07 7.07 0.79 0.79 4.91 1. 77 19.63 19.63 Soil Group CN 73.00 73.00 0.63 0.38 0.63 0.25 0.31 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.63 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.63 0.38 1.25 1.25 Page 8 Con-222 JBlO Jun-119 CONDUIT 124.1 o. 7013 0.0150 Con-223 Jun-118 JBlO CONDUIT 128.9 0.6981 0.0150 Con-224 Jun-119 Jun-120 CONDUIT 174 .0 0.6955 0.0150 Con-225 Jun-120 JBll CONDUIT 284.4 0.6997 0.0150 Con-226 JBll JB12 CONDUIT 79.B 0.7022 0.0150 Con-227 JB12 Jun-130 CONDUIT 229.3 0.7022 0.0150 Con-228 Jun-122 Jun-121 CONDUIT 56.7 0.7052 0.0150 Con-229 Jun-121 JBll CONDUIT 31.4 0.7004 0.0150 Con-230 Jun-128 JB13 CONDUIT 126.1 0.6978 0.0150 Con-231 JB13 JB14 CONDUIT 77.1 0.7002 0.0150 Con-232 JB14 Jun-123 CONDUIT 86.2 0.7075 0.0150 Con-234 Jun-127 JB14 CONDUIT 22.6 0.7077 0.0150 Con-235 Jun-123 Jun-124 CONDUIT 65.7 0.7006 0.0150 Con-236 Jun-124 Jun-125 CONDUIT 68.4 0.7015 0.0150 Con-237 Jun-125 Jun-126 CONDUIT 66.5 0.6922 0.0150 Con-238 Jun-126 JB12 CONDUIT 125. 7 0.7002 0.0150 Con-239 Jun-130 POND2 CONDUIT 68.9 0.6963 0.0150 Con-240 Jun-84 JB15 CONDUIT 83.2 0.6971 0.0150 Con-242 Jun-85 JB15 CONDUIT 55.6 0.7018 0.0150 Con-243 Jun-86 JB16 CONDUIT 266.6 0. 6977 0.0150 Con-244 Jun-88 Jun-87 CONDUIT 57 .0 0.7022 0.0150 Con-245 Jun-89 Jun-87 CONDUIT 9.8 0. 7150 0.0150 Con-246 JB16 JB20 CONDUIT 33.0 0.6972 0.0150 Con-247 Jun-87 JB16 CONDUIT 84.5 0.6986 0.0150 Con-248 JB17 Jun-91 CONDUIT 146.4 0.7034 0.0150 Con-249 Jun-90 JB17 CONDUIT 26. 9 0. 7068 0.0150 Con-250 Jun-92 Jun-91 CONDUIT 20.5 0. 6839 0.0150 Con-251 Jun-91 JB21 CONDUIT 101.5 0.6999 0.0150 Con-252 JB18 Jun-131 CONDUIT 78.4 0.7012 0.0150 Con-257 Jun-131 POND2 CONDUIT 241.5 0.6997 0.0150 Con-258 JB20 JB17 CONDUIT 79. 8 0.7018 0.0150 Con-259 Jun-137 JB20 CONDUIT 53.0 0.6977 0.0150 Con-260 JB21 JB22 CONDUIT 136.1 0.6979 0.0150 Con-261 JB22 JB18 CONDUIT 32.9 0.7002 0.0150 Con-262 Jun-93 JB21 CONDUIT 24.5 0.6936 0.0150 Con-263 Jun-94 JB22 CONDUIT 24.2 0.7036 0.0150 Con-264 Jun-95 JB18 CONDUIT 85.5 0.7018 0.0150 • Con-265 Jun-139 JB21 CONDUIT 38.1 0.6558 0.0150 Con-266 Jun-140 Out-37 CONDUIT 435.3 68.8047 0.0150 • Con-267 Jun-141 Out-37 CONDUIT 362.7 80.9231 0.0150 pondlhigh PONDl Jun-140 ORIFICE • pondllow PONDl Jun-140 ORIFICE pond2high POND2 Jun-141 ORIFICE • pond2low POND2 Jun-141 ORIFICE • ********************* Cross Section Sununary ********************* Link Shape Depth/ Width No. of Cross Full Flow Design ID Diameter Barrels Sectional Hydraulic Flow Area Radius Capacity ft ft ft2 ft cfs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 --CIRCULAR ..... 1 .00 1-.00 -... --1 --...... 0.79 ...... 0.25- 2.59 15 CIRCULAR 1.50 1. 50 1 1. 77 0.38 7. 62 Con-169 CIRCULAR 1. 00 1. 00 1 0.79 0.25 2.59 Con-170 CIRCULAR 1.25 1. 25 1 1.23 0.31 4. 69 Con-171 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1.77 0.38 7.61 Con-172 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 Storm NET Page 5 16.44 Con-173 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.36 Con-174 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.40 Con-175 CIRCULAR 1.00 1.00 1 0.79 0.25 2 .59 Con-176 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 o. 63 29. 72 Con-177 CIRCULAR 2 .50 2.50 1 4.91 0. 63 29 . 77 Con-178 CIRCULAR 3 .00 3.00 1 7 .07 0.75 48.56 Con-179 CIRCULAR 3.00 3.00 1 7 .07 0.75 48.35 Con-180 CIRCULAR 2 .00 2 .00 1 3 .14 0.50 16.14 Con-181 CIRCULAR 1.00 1.00 1 0.79 0.25 2.54 Con-182 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3 .14 0.50 16.43 Con-183 CIRCULAR 2 .50 2 .50 1 4.91 0.63 29.70 Con-184 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29 .86 Con-185 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7.59 Con-186 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7.63 Con-187 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.49 Con-188 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.34 Con-189 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1. 23 0.31 4 .66 Con-190 CIRCULAR 1. 25 1.25 1 1. 23 0.31 4.65 Con-191 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 3.14 0.50 16. 43 Con-192 CIRCULAR 3.50 3.50 1 9.62 0.88 72.87 Con-193 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 l 4.91 0.63 29.67 Con-194 CIRCULAR 3.50 3.50 1 9 .62 0.88 73.88 Con-195 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1.23 0.31 4. 70 Con-196 CIRCULAR 1.00 1.00 1 0.79 0.25 2.59 Con-197 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0 .50 16.37 Con-198 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1. 23 0.31 4. 67 Con-199 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7.64 con-200 CIRCULAR 2 .50 2 .50 1 4.91 0 .63 29.78 Con-201 CIRCULAR 3.50 3.50 1 9.62 0.88 72.80 Con-202 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 '1 ;-73 ····-· ·-................•.... . ............... -·-·. Con-203 CIRCULAR 3.50 3.50 1 9. 62 0 .88 4 73.07 Con-204 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 4 7.60 Con-205 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 12.58 Con-206 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7. 62 4 Con-207 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.39 StormNET Page 6 16.44 Con-173 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.36 Con-174 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.40 Con-175 CIRCULAR 1.00 1.00 1 0 .79 0.25 2 .59 Con-176 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29.72 Con-177 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29 . 77 Con-178 CIRCULAR 3.00 3 .00 1 7.07 0.75 48.56 Con-179 CIRCULAR 3.00 3.00 1 7.07 0.75 48.35 Con-180 CIRCULAR 2.00 2 .00 1 3.14 0.50 16.14 Con-181 CIRCULAR 1.00 1. 00 1 0. 79 0.25 2.54 Con-182 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 o. 50 16.43 Con-183 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29.70 Con-184 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29. 86 Con-185 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7.59 Con-186 CIRCULAR 1. 50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7.63 Con-187 CIRCULAR 2.00 2 .00 1 3.14 0.50 16 .49 Con-188 CIRCULAR 2.00 2 .00 1 3.14 0.50 16.34 Con-189 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1.23 0.31 4.66 Con-190 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1.23 0.31 4.65 Con-191 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16. 43 Con-192 CIRCULAR 3.50 3.50 1 9.62 O.BB 72 .87 Con-193 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29 .67 Con-194 CIRCULAR 3.50 3 .50 1 9.62 0.88 73.88 Con-195 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1.23 0.31 4.70 con-196 CIRCULAR 1.00 1. 00 1 0.79 0.25 2 .59 con-197 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.37 Con-19B CIRCULAR 1.25 1.25 1 1.23 0.31 4. 67 Con-199 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 7.64 con-200 CIRCULAR 2.50 2.50 1 4.91 0.63 29 . 7B Con-201 CIRCULAR 3.50 3 .50 1 9. 62 O.BB 72. 80 Con-202 CIRCULAR 1. so 1.50 1 1. 77 0.38 ·"J .-73 ····-·-.... ·······-.. ··--·-···-·-·-............ ·-··-·------·-·-···--····-····-··-······--·--.. -·----······-······-····--·-·····-·····-··-····· Con-203 CIRCULAR 3 .50 3.50 1 9. 62 O.B8 73.07 Con-204 C'.IRCULAR 1.50 1.50 1 1. 77 0.3B 7.60 Con-205 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 12.58 Con-206 CIRCULAR 1.50 1. 50 1 1. 77 0.38 7. 62 Con-207 CIRCULAR 2.00 2.00 1 3.14 0.50 16.39 Storm NET Page 6 JBS JUNCTION 301. 43 303.93 0.00 JB9 JUNCTION 302. 59 304.59 o.oo Jun-100 JUNCTION 305.86 307.36 0.00 Jun-101 JUNCTION 305.20 307.70 0.00 Jun-102 JUNCTION 302.65 304.15 0.00 Jun-103 JUNCTION 302.22 304.22 0.00 Jun-104 JUNCTI ON 302.82 304.32 0.00 Jun-105 JUNCTION 302.09 304.59 0.00 Jun-106 JUNCTION 303.25 305.75 o.oo Jun-108 JUNCTION 303.66 305.66 0.00 Jun-109 JUNCTION 305.41 307.41 0.00 Jun-110 JUNCTION 307.22 308. 72 0.00 Jun-111 JUNCTION 302.13 303. 63 o.oo Jun-112 JUNCTION 301. 78 303.78 0.00 Jun-113 JUNCTION 300.94 303.94 o.oo Jun-114 JUNCTION 301. 77 303.77 0.00 Jun-115 JUNCTION 303.31 304.81 0.00 Jun-116 JUNCTION 302.89 304.14 o.oo Jun-117 JUNCTION 303.64 304.89 0.00 Jun-118 JUNCTION 300. 62 303.62 0.00 Jun-119 JUNCTION 298.85 302.85 0.00 Jun-120 JUNCTION 297 . 64 301. 64 0.00 Jun-121 JUNCTION 295.87 297.12 0.00 Jun-122 JUNCTION 296.27 297.27 0.00 Jun-123 JUNCTION 297.37 298. 87 0.00 Jun-124 JUNCTION 296.91 298.41 0.00 Jun-125 JUNCTION 296.43 297.93 0.00 Jun-126 JUNCTION 295.97 297.97 o.oo Jun-127 JUNCTION 298.14 299.14 0.00 Jun-128 JUNCTION 299.40 300. 40 0.00 Jun-129 JUNCTION 299.03 300.03 0.00 Jun-130 JUNCTION 293.48 297.98 0.00 Jun-131 JUNCTION 294. 69 297.69 0.00 Jun-132 JUNCTION 299.17 302.67 0.00 Jun-134 JUNC'l'ION 301.98 303.23 0.00 Jun-137 JUNCTION 299.09 300.09 0.00 Jun-139 JUNCTION 296 .67 298.17 0.00 Jun-140 JUNCTION 298.50 303.50 0.00 Jun-141 JUNCTION 292.50 297.50 o.oo Jun-62 JUNCTION 314.09 315.09 0.00 Jun-63 JUNCTION 313. 71 314.96 0.00 Jun-64 JUNCTION 312. 65 314 .15 0.00 Jun-65 JUNCTION 311.58 313.58 0.00 • Jun-66 JUNCTION 310.34 312.34 0.00 Jun-67 JUNCTION 309.87 311. 87 0.00 Jun-68 JUNCTION 308. 64 311.14 0,00 • Jun-69 JUNCTION 309.37 310.37 0.00 Jun-70 JUNCTION 307.44 309.94 0.00 Jun-72 JUNCTION 306.71 308.21 o.oo Jun-73 JUNCTION 309.25 311. 25 0.00 • Jun-74 JUNCTION 309.09 310.09 0.00 Jun-75 JUNCTION 307.82 310.32 o.oo • Jun-76 JUNCTION 306.33 308 .83 0.00 Jun-77 JUNCTION 303.84 305.34 0.00 Jun-78 JUNCTION 303.33 305.33 o.oo • Jun-79 JUNCTION 302.97 304.97 o.oo Jun-80 JUNCTION 302.83 304.08 0.00 Jun-81 JUNCTION 302.63 303.88 0.00 Jun-82 JUNCTION 302.42 304.42 0.00 Jun-83 JUNCTION 301.34 303.84 0.00 Jun=84-____ -----_____ JUNCT.ION--------------301..-63-----302. 8-B-----0-.-0-0.-------·---------·H--·--···--·--·----H .. -00------ Jun-B5 JUNCTION 301. 44 302.69 0.00 Jun-B6 JUNCTION 300.81 302.81 0.00 Jun-B7 JUNCTION 299.54 301. 04 0 .00 Jun-BB JUNCTION 299.94 301.19 0.00 Jun-B9 JUNCTION 299.61 300.61 0.00 Jun-90 JUNCTION 298.35 299.35 0.00 Jun-91 JUNCTION 297.13 300.13 0.00 Jun-92 JUNCTION 297. 27 298 .52 o.oo Jun-93 JUNCTION 296. 59 297.59 0 .00 Jun-94 JUNCTION 295. 64 296.64 0.00 Storm NET Page 3 Jun-95 JUNCTION 295.84 298.34 0.00 Jun-96 JUNCTION 307.85 309.10 0.00 Jun-97 JUNCTION 307.50 308.50 0.00 Jun-98 JUNCTION 306.96 308.96 0.00 Jun-99 JUNCTION 307 .02 308.27 0.00 Out-37 OUTFALL -1.00 4. 00 0.00 POND! STORAGE 299.00 303.50 58452 .00 POND2 STORAGE 293.00 298 .50 704884.00 ************ Link Summary ************ Link From Node To Node Element Length Slope Manning's ID Type ft % Roughness --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 Jun-129 JB13 CONDUIT 72.6 0.7025 0.0150 15 JB15 Jun-86 CONDUIT 34 .3 0.7003 0.0150 Con-169 Jun-62 Jun-63 CONDUIT 54.0 0.7034 0.0150 Con-170 Jun-63 Jun-64 CONDUIT 151.1 0.7016 0.0150 Con-171 Jun-64 Jun-65 CONDUIT 153.3 0 .6980 0.0150 Con-172 Jun-65 Jun-66 CONDUIT 176.5 0.7027 0.0150 Con-173 Jun-66 Jun-67 CONDUIT 67.5 0.6965 0.0150 Con-174 Jun-67 Jun-68 CONDUIT 175. 7 0.6999 0.0150 Con-175 Jun-69 Jun-68 CONDUIT 103.8 0.7033 0.0150 Con-176 Jun-68 Jun-70 CONDUIT 171. 7 0.6990 0.0150 Con-177 Jun-70 JBl CONDUIT 196.7 0.7015 0.0150 Con-178 JBl JB2 CONDUIT 39. 7 0. 7056 0.0150 Con-179 JB2 JB4 CONDUIT 716.2 0.6996 0.0150 Con-180 Jun-73 JB3 CONDUIT 39.9 0.6775 0.0150 Con-181 Jun-74 JB3 CONDUIT 16.3 0.6757 0.0150 Con-182 JB3 Jun-75 CONDUIT 165 .1 0. 7025 0.0150 Con-183 Jun-75 Jun-76 CONDUIT 213 . 4 0.6982 0.0150 Con-184 Jun-76 JB2 CONDUIT 77.9 0.7058 0.0150 Con-185 Jun-72 JBl CONDUIT 93.5 0.6952 0.0150 Con-186 Jun-77 Jun-78 CONDUIT 72.6 0.7023 0.0150 Con-187 Jun-78 Jun-79 CONDUIT 50 .9 0.7071 0.0150 Con-188 Jun-79 Jun-82 CONDUIT 79.2 0.6942 0.0150 Con-189 Jun-80 Jun-81 CONDUIT 28.9 0.6928 0.0150 Con-190 Jun-81 Jun-82 CONDUI T 30.4 0.6910 0.0150 Con-191 Jun-82 Jun-83 CONDUIT 153.9 0.7019 0.0150 Con-192 JB4 Jun-132 CONDUIT 229.1 0.6984 0.0150 Con-193 Jun-83 JB4 CONDUIT 81. 8 0.6967 0.0150 Con-194 Jun-132 POND! CONDUIT 23.7 0.7179 0.0150 Con-195 Jun-96 Jun-98 CONDUIT 126.2 0.7053 0.0150 Con-196 Jun-97 Jun-98 CONDUIT 76.7 0.7042 0.0150 Con-197 Jun-98 Jun-101 CONDUIT 252.5 0.6969 0.0150 Con-198 Jun-99 Jun-100 CONDUIT 166. 7 0.6961 0.0150 Con-199 Jun-100 Jun-101 CONDUIT 93.8 0.7038 0.0150 Con-200 Jun-101 JBS CONDUIT 374.8 0.7017 0 .0150 Con-201 JBS JB6 CONDUIT 157.8 0. 6971 0.0150 Con-202 Jun-102 JBS CONDUIT 11.1 0.7201 0.0150 Con-203 JB6 JBlO CONDUIT 249.2 0.7022 0.0150 Con-204 Jun-104 Jun-103 CONDUIT 86.1 0.6969 0.0150 Con-205 Jun-103 Jun-112 CONDUIT 106.9 0.4116 0.0150 Con-206 Jun-110 Jun-109 CONDUIT 258. 3 0.7006 0.0150 Con-207 Jun-109 Jun-108 CONDUIT 250.3 0.6990 0.0150 Con-208 Jun-108 Jun-106 CONDUIT 58.2 0.7041 0 .0150 Con-209 Jun-106 Jun-105 CONDUIT 165.8 0.6996 0.0150 Con-210 Jun-105 JB7 CONDUIT 21.2 0.7075 0.0150 Con-21-1·· ·--JB7·--· .... JB-6 -···-·-····· ·····--CONDUIT --6?-;5 ·-o-:69s8 ···· .. o-. 0·150-........................... -..... Con-212 Jun-134 JB7 CONDUIT 5.4 0.7449 0.0150 Con-213 Jun-111 JBS CONDUIT 99.9 0.7006 0.0150 Con-214 JBS Jun-113 CONDUIT 69.5 0.7048 0.0150 Con-215 Jun-112 JBS CONDUIT 49.3 0.7104 0.0150 Con-216 Jun-113 Jun-118 CONDUIT 46.0 0.6963 0.0150 Con-217 Jun-115 JB9 CONDUIT 103.8 0.6935 0.0150 Con-218 Jun-114 Jun-113 CONDUIT 119.l 0.6970 0.0150 4 Con-219 Jun-117 JB13 CONDUI T 106. 8 4.7945 0.0150 Con-220 JB9 Jun-114 CONDUI T 116.3 0.7052 0.0150 Con-221 Jun-116 JB9 CONDUI T 42.B 0.7004 0.0150 4 StormNET Page4 4 Jun-95 JUNCTION 295.84 29S .34 o.oo Jun-96 JUNCTION 307.85 309.10 0.00 Jun-97 JUNCTION 307.50 30S.50 0.00 Jun-98 JUNCTION 30 6. 96 308.96 0.00 Jun-99 JUNCTION 307.02 308.27 0.00 Out-37 OUTFALL -1.00 4.00 0.00 PONDl STORAGE 299 .00 303.50 58452.00 POND2 STORAGE 293.00 298.50 704884.00 ************ Link Summary ************ Link From Node To Node Element Length Slope Manning's ID Type ft % Roughness ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 12 Jun-129 JB13 CONDUIT 72.6 0.7025 0 .0150 15 JB15 Jun-86 CONDUIT 34.3 0.7003 0.0150 Con-169 Jun-62 Jun-63 CONDUIT 54.0 0.7034 0.0150 Con-170 Jun-63 Jun-64 CONDUIT 151. l 0.7016 0.0150 Con-171 Jun-64 Jun-65 CONDUIT 153.3 0 .6980 0.0150 Con-172 Jun-65 Jun-66 CONDUIT 176.5 0.7027 0.0150 Con-173 Jun-66 Jun-67 CONDUIT 67.5 0.6965 0.0150 Con-174 Jun-67 Jun-68 CONDUIT 175.7 0.6999 0.0150 Con-175 Jun-69 Jun-68 CONDUIT 103.8 0 .7033 0.0150 Con-176 Jun-68 Jun-70 CONDUIT 171. 7 0 .6990 0.0150 Con-177 Jun-70 JBl CONDUIT 196.7 0.7015 0.0150 Con-178 JBl JB2 CONDUIT 39.7 0.7056 0.0150 Con-179 JB2 JB4 CONDUIT 716.2 0 .6996 0.0150 Con-180 Jun-73 JB3 CONDUIT 39.9 0. 6775 0.0150 Con-181 Jun-74 JB3 CONDUIT 16.3 0.6757 0 .0150 Con-182 JB3 Jun-75 CONDUIT 165 .1 0.7025 0.0150 Con-183 Jun-75 Jun-76 CONDUIT 213.4 0. 69S2 0.0150 Con-184 Jun-76 JB2 CONDUIT 77.9 0.7058 0.0150 Con-1S5 Jun-72 JBl CONDUIT 93.5 0.6952 0.0150 con-186 Jun-77 Jun-78 CONDUIT 72.6 0.7023 0.0150 Con-187 Jun-78 Jun-79 CONDUIT 50.9 o. 7071 0.0150 Con-18S Jun-79 Jun-82 CONDUIT 79.2 0.6942 0.0150 Con-1S9 Jun-SO Jun-Sl CONDUIT 28.9 0.692S 0.0150 Con-190 Jun-Sl Jun-82 CONDUIT 30.4 0.6910 0.0150 Con-191 Jun-S2 Jun-83 CONDUIT 153.9 0.7019 0.0150 Con-192 JB4 Jun-132 CONDUIT 229.1 0.6984 0 .0150 Con-193 Jun-S3 JB4 CONDOIT Sl. 8 0.6967 0.0150 Con-194 Jun-132 PONDl CONDUIT 23 .7 0. 7179 0.0150 Con-195 Jun-96 Jun-98 CONDUIT 126.2 0.7053 0.0150 Con-196 Jun-97 Jun-98 CONDUIT 76.7 0.7042 0.0150 con-197 Jun-98 Jun-101 CONDUIT 252.5 0.6969 0 .0150 Con-198 Jun-99 Jun-100 CONDUIT 166.7 0.6961 0.0150 Con-199 Jun-100 Jun-101 CONDUIT 93 .8 0.7038 0.0150 Con-200 Jun-101 JBS CONDUIT 374.8 0.7017 0.0150 Con-201 JBS JB6 CONDUIT 157 .8 0.6971 0.0150 Con-202 Jun-102 JBS CONDUIT 11.1 0. 7201 0.0150 Con-203 JB6 JBl O CONDUIT 249.2 0.7022 0.0150 Con-204 Jun-104 Jun-103 CONDUIT 86.1 0.6969 0.0150 Con-205 Jun-103 Jun-112 CONDUIT 106.9 0.4116 0.0150 Con-206 Jun-110 Jun-109 CONDUIT 258. 3 0.7006 0.0150 Con-207 Jun-109 Jun-108 CONDUIT 250.3 0.6990 0.0150 Con-208 Jun-108 Jun-106 CONDUIT 58.2 0.7041 0.0150 Con-209 Jun-106 Jun-105 CONDUIT 165.8 0.6996 0.0150 Con-210 Jun-105 JB7 CONDUIT 21.2 0.7075 0.0150 .............. -·-· ··Con-21-1·· --JB?--·-··· ·JB6··--·-······-····CONDUIT·-· ···· · · ·-··--51-: s--·---·o: 6958 · ··· ······o-. 0·1so-··· ·····-···-·-·--·-·-.. -· Con-212 Jun-134 JB7 CONDUIT 5.4 0.7449 0.0150 Con-213 Jun-111 JBS CONDUIT 99.9 0.7006 0.0150 Con-214 JBS Jun-113 CONDUIT 69.5 0.7048 0.0150 Con-215 Jun-112 JBS CONDUIT 49.3 0. 7104 0.0150 Con-216 Jun-113 Jun-118 CONDUIT 46.0 0 . 6963 0.0150 Con-217 Jun-115 JB9 CONDUIT 103.8 0 .6935 0.0150 Con-218 Jun-114 Jun-113 CONDUIT 119.1 0.6970 0.0150 Con-219 Jun-117 JB13 CONDUIT 106.8 4.7945 0.0150 Con-220 JB9 Jun-114 CONDUIT 116.3 0.7052 0.0150 Con-221 Jun-116 JB9 CONDUIT 42.S 0.7004 0.0150 Storm NET Page 4 BOSS International StormNET® -Version 4.18.2 (Bui ld 17854) ****~*********** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ................ cfs Subbasin Hydrograph Method. SCS TR-55 Time of Concentration ...... SCS TR-55 Link Routing Method ....... Kinematic Wave Pond Exfiltration .......... None Starting Date ............. SEP-21-2009 00:00:00 Ending Date ............... SEP-22-2009 00:00:00 Report Time Step .......... 00:05 :00 ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages ...... l Number of subbasins ....... 71 Number of nodes ........... 98 Number of links ........... 99 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Gage ID Gage-1 **************** Subbasin Summa ry **************** Subbasin ID Data Source TS-100 Total Area acres 01 4.78 02 0.58 03 0.47 04 0.44 05 0.23 06 0.72 07 0.69 OB 0.34 09 0.37 10 1.01 11 0.69 12 0.91 13 1.70 14 0.30 15 0.76 16 0.93 17 0.83 Data Type CUMULATIVE Interval hours 0.10 18.-·--·-··-· -·--------------·--...... __ .Q_. 5.6-·---·-----··----------·--·--........ ·····--··---.. ---··----····-... ·---·· ..... _ ·---·-·--·--··---··-·-·----·--·---. ___ _ 19 1.18 20 0.63 21 0.64 22 0.74 23 0.84 24 0.72 25 0.61 26 0.47 27 1.10 28 1.60 Storm NET Page 1 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ************ Node Summary ************ Node ID 0.97 3.52 0.76 0.44 0.24 0 .67 0.41 0.92 0.25 0.41 0.34 0.64 0.70 0.84 0.88 1.25 0.11 8.86 0.26 0.11 0.10 0.17 0.29 0.24 0.08 0.37 0.44 0.42 0.67 0.13 3.27 0.67 0.27 0.22 1. 63 0.39 0.68 0.07 0 .38 0.08 4.91 0.82 0.53 Element Type Invert Elevation ft Maximum Elev. ft Ponded Area ft2 JBl JUNCTION 306.06 309.06 0.00 JBlO JUNCTION 299.72 303.22 0.00 JBll JUNCTION 295. 65 299. 65 0. 00 JB12 JUNCTION 295.09 299.09 0.00 JB13 JUNCTION 298.52 299 .77 0.00 JB14 JUNCTION 297.98 299.23 0.00 JB15 JUNCTION 301.05 302.55 0.00 JB16 JUNCTION 298.95 301.45 0.00 External Inflow ,,,,_, .. ·--JBl-7-·-··----·· ···----JUNG'l'-IGN---·-----·-··--2-98-.-16--300-.-66----o-.oe--.. ---------·--· .. -·-·-..... ___ . ____ .. __ ,, ___ , __ JB18 J UNCTION 295.24 298 .24 0.00 JB2 JUNCTION 305. 78 308. 78 0 . 00 JB20 JUNCTION 2 98. 72 301. 22 0. 00 JB21 JUNCTION 296.42 299 .42 0.00 JB22 JUNCTION 295.47 298.47 0.00 JB3 JUNCTION 308 .98 310.98 0.00 JB4 JUNCTION 300. 77 304 . 27 0. 00 JBS · JUNCTION 302.57 306.07 0 .00 JB6 JUNCTION 301.47 304.97 0.00 JB7 JUNCTION 301 . 94 304 . 44 0 . 00 Storm NET Page 2 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ************ Node Sununary ************ Node ID 0.97 3.52 0.76 0.44 0.24 0.67 0.41 0.92 0.25 0.41 0.34 0.64 0.70 0.84 0.88 1.25 0 .11 8.86 0.26 0.11 0.10 0.17 0 .29 0.24 0.08 0.37 0.44 0.42 0.67 0.13 3.27 0.67 0.27 0.22 1.63 0.39 0.68 0.07 0.38 0.08 4.91 0.82 0.53 Element Type Invert Elevation ft Maxi.mum Elev. ft Ponded Area ft2 JBl JUNCTION 306.06 309.06 0.00 JBlO JUNCTION 299. 72 303. 22 0 . 00 JBll JUNCTION 295. 65 299. 65 0. 00 JB12 JUNCTION 295,09 299.09 0.00 JB13 JUNCTION 298.52 299.77 0.00 JB14 JUNCTION 297.98 299.23 0.00 JB15 JUNCTION 301.05 302.55 0.00 JB16 JUNCTION 298.95 301.45 0.00 External Inflow .... ·-···--· -JBJ.-7-·-·-----.. -----JUNG'l'-I0N-·-----·-·--2-98-r16--300-.-66-----0-;-00--------------·-------------------- JB18 JUNCTION 295.24 298.24 0.00 JB2 JUNCTION 305. 78 308. 78 0, 00 JB20 JUNCTION 298. 72 301.22 0.00 JB21 JUNCTION 296.42 299.42 0.00 JB22 JUNCTION 295.47 298.47 0.00 JB3 JUNCTION 308.98 310.98 0.00 JB4 JUNCTION 300. 77 304. 27 0, 00 JBS ' JUNCTION 302.57 306.07 0.00 JB6 JUNCTION 301. 4 7 304. 97 0. 00 JB7 JUNCTION 301.94 304.44 0.00 Storm NET Page 2 l ( SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I 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 StormNet Version 4.18.2.17854 Apr082009 Gigasoft, Inc . 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 Ill, Paragraph C3 . Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation Conclusions Add any concluding information here: Based on the proposed storm system design, the peak post- developed flows will be detained t o peak pre-developed levels for the 2 ,10,25,50 and 100 year storms. Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical Desiqn Summary Drainaqe Report by siqning 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 propo~~~ 1~·mprovements have been issued or fall under applicable general permits." /:'\i:;\~~-t~'li ~ (Affix Seal) ~ * .. ···· ·····!" I ~ '*: "•*I. s···~c; .................. J.~ ~ Licensed ofessional Engineer l-···:···~~~~ .. ~· LUND ~ State of Texas PE No._l_D_So _ _.y_f-__ STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 26 of 26 ~ i·· 1 osoe1···:r··· ~ 1t O~:·.!fCENst.O.--..··"il"J ., .. ~~(\.::.······~~ ~ .,,, -... ,.. .. -.. -,,,,, ........ APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009