HomeMy WebLinkAboutConceptual Design for Drainage Improvementsi KLOTZ l 160 Dairy Ashford
~ ASSOCIATES,
~I\) I NC.
Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77079
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1s NU EL:: ~ G
~£~
1281) 589-7257
1281) 589-7309 Fax
kainc@insync.net
(\)' April 23 , 1998
~~ J\) Mr. Brett Mccully, P .E.
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Re: Conceptual Design for Drainage Improvements
along Bee Creek and Bee Creek Tributary B
KA Project No. 25403
Dear Mr. McCully:
Klotz Associates, Inc. is pleased to present this Final report for the Conceptual Design fe r
Drainage Improvements along Bee Creek and Bee Creek Tributary B. This report includes
an update of the hydrology model, review of the available FEMA models and a preliminary
construction cost estimate. This report incorporates the comments from the March 18, 1998
and April 7, 1998 meetings.
If you have any questions or need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact
me or Gary Struzick at (281) 589-7257.
Sincerely,
Carol Ann Ellinger, P.
Project Engineer
Attachments (3 copies of the final report)
FEMA Effective Updated Model
FIS Report* Snyder Method
Section D.A. Q D.A. Q
Location (sq. mi.) (cfs) (sq. mi.) (cfs)
Bee Creek
DS Corp. Limits of College Station 8.63 7,450 8.71 5,923
Highway 6 Bypass --5.63 4,163
Texas Avenue --4.41 3,856
Below Confluence w/ Trib. B 4.38 4,210 4.41 3,923
Above Confluence w/ Trib. B 0.98 2,850 1.00 880
Glade Street Bridge 0.49 2,010 --
B~~ Creek Irilm1&Y A
Above Confluence w/ Bee Creek 2.24 3,300 2.24 2,716
Texas Avenue Bridge 1.8 2,500 1.78 2,463
Bee ~rn~k Iributm B
Above Confluence w/ Bee Creek 3.41 3,600 3.41 3,203
FM2818 --2.60 2,689
Upstream FM 2818, near Welsh 1.06 1,540 1.57 1,630
""The Effective FEMA HEC-1 Model Was Not Available for Comparison. Values
**BEEIOOR.IHl is a stacked run that calculates flows using both the Synder and T
Ma~ 24 06 03:56p College Station PW 9797645014
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Engineering
P.O. Box 9960
2613 TE'.XAS AVENUE SOUTH
COLL.EGE: STATION, TX 77840
(979) 764-3690
FAX: (979) 764~5014
To: &a/ t!ofl-~
AT: 'f-?12~
p . 1
THIS FAX IS BE:ING SENT TO YOU FROM: DANIELLE A. CHARBONNET
(979) 764-5028 (OFFICE)
THIS FAX CONTAINS 5 PAGES INCLUDING THE COVER SHEET. PLEASE
CALL IF YOU 010 NOT RECEIVE AL.l... THE INt=ORMJ\TION.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
ClfJM(( . J.f: d~ X--~Ut.J -f4 CiM ~
t" r-cr" »4-; hv-:f ftlv'-s sl..~d /,,. :f. ~/(..CL t/
~ tA CP+ 1 ~ ~ s#fn; w-e-~c( ~
.R-tkd ]K._ sh-~ ~~~"./:if ... ~cf ~ c8/2f' /('.~
!~1S c~!J/?l /C
j/e1J (;t,!J/l) R
9 (',7 _ 1 ~ -r') c ~
~·' -() -/)b~
Ma~ 24 06 03:56p College Station PW 9797645014 p .2
I:
Federal Emergency Management Agency rr;O ~
Washington, D.C. 20472 S OC(
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RFCEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Lyon Mcllhaney
Mayor, C'rty of College Station
p_Q. Box 9960
College Station. Texas 77842
Dear Mayor McDhaney :
FEB 17 1999 cof-(1...
JN REPLY REFER TO:
Cage No.: 99-06-116R
Community: City of College Station. Texas
Conununity No.: 480083
104
This resporm to a requtsC th.al the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) comment on the
effects m.t a proposed project woold have on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 3Dd Flood
~ Study (FIS) repon for Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas (the effective FIRM am
FIS report fur your community), in acoordlw.c:e with Part 6S of the National FIQOd Insurance Program
(NFIP') regulations. In a leuerdaled Octobet 16, 1998. Mr. Brett McCully. P.E., City F.ogineer, City of
College Swion, requesc:i:d d)at FEMA evaluate the effects dW a clrannelU:ation aud chaiUd Jdocaiion project*"°" Bee Creek between Tens Aveme -1 Sodlhwest Patkway and aloog Bee Creek. Tributary B
(TribuWy B) from i1s cootluence with Bee: Creek to FM 2818 would have on the flood tm.ard infi>nnation
shown on tile effective FIRM and F1S report.
The propost.d channel improvements along Bee Cmek and Tnl>uwy B will consist of coomucti<m of an
eu1hen-trapezoidal chanoel along Bee Creek between Tens Avenue and rts ooofluence with Tributary B
with a 3S-foot bottom widlh, 3:1 side slopes, and a 10-fuot-•ide ~lined pilot channel;-am
earthen-trapezoidal channel along Bee Creek between the confluenc:e of Tributary B and Southwest
Parkway with a lQ..foot·Wide ~lined boaom and 3~ 1 side dopes; and an earthc:&trapezoidal channel
along Tributary B from the cooftuence with Bee Creek to FM 2818, with a 30-foot cbannel bottom width,
side slopes ranging between 2.5:1 to 3:1. and a IO-foot-wide concrete-lined pilot channel. A 15~foot
maintenance access shelf will be constructed approximately S feet above the channel bottom along the
DOl1hem *'Pe through the project reacbcs. In addition, tbi4; ~ included a deuiJcd hydrolotic analysic;
for Bee Creek and Tnl>uluy B and an updaled hydraulic analysis that incotp0rai:ed more detailed
topographic information ro reflect existing watershed CQDditions ~Bee Creek betwcm Texas Avenue
and Southwest Parkway and along Tribuwy B from its confluence with Bee Creek to FM 2818.
All data n:quin:d to COO'lplete our revieW of this iequest for a Conditional Lcuer of Map Revision
(CLOMR) were submitted wilh leaers from Mr. Gary L. Struzick., P.E., Manager of Hydrologic Servi.c:es,
Klott Auoc:iates, Inc. and Mr. McCully.
We have completed our review of the submitted datl and the flood data used to prepare the effective FIRM
for your C01nll1UDity. The submitted existing conditions HEC-2 _hydraulic computer model, dated
December 18, 1998, based on updated topo~ information. was used as the base conditions model in
our review of lhc proposal conditions model for this CLOMR request. We believe dlat, if the proposed
project is coosttucled as shown on the constroction plans entitled "'<Anstruction Plans tor Drainage
Impro~ aJoo,; &e Cr=k from Texas Avenue ti> Southwest Parkway aDd Tributary B ftmn Bee
Creek to FM 2818," aod the report cmilled .. Rcqocst for Comitional Lc:aer of Map Revision for Bee Creek
Ma~ 24 06 03:56p College Station PW 9797645014
• l
2
and Bee Creek; Tributary B."' bolh prepared by KJoa Associates, Inc .• and dated September J 998, and the
data listed below are received. a revision to the FIRM would be warranted.
As a result of more detailed hydrologic and topOgraphic infonnation, the elevations of the flood having a
1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) inci-eased and decreased
along Bee Cceek compated ro the effective base flood elevations (BFF.s)_ The maximwn increase in BFE,
approximately L2 feet. occurred approximately 630 feet upstream of 'fe.xas Avenue. The maximum
decrease In BFE. approximately 5.0 feet, occurred just downstream of Southwest Parkway.
As a result of the proposed project, the BF& will increase and decrease along Bee Creek compared to the
eidsti.Qg conditions BFF.s_ The maximum increase in BFE, appro~ldy 0.2 feet, will occur
approximately 8, 130 feet downstream of State Route 6. The maximum decrease in 8FE, approximately
3.6 feet, will occor approximately 1,710 feet dowmtrcam of Southwest Parkway. A change in the staning
wau:r-surface conditions will cause the BFEs to increase.
As a result of die prop<>Kd proj~t and more detailed hydrologic and topographic infonnation, the Bt:Es
will decrease compared to the effective BFEs along Bee Creek. 1be maximum ~ in BFE,
approxirn.a.rely 5.0 feet. will occur just do~tream of Southwest Parkway.
As a .result of more detailed hydrologic aud topographic infoJlJJ3tion, the BFEs increased and dee~
along Tributacy B compared to rbe effective BFlli. The maximum increase in BFE, approximately
3.6 feet, occum:djustdoW~oftbe upstream crosmng of FM 2818. The maximwn decrease in BFE.
approximately 3.5 feet. occurred just upstream of the downstream crossing of FM 2818.
As a result of the proposed project. the BF& wm increase and decrease along Tributary B CQmpared to
the existing conditions BF&. The maximum increase in BFE. approximately 0. 7 feet, wiU occur just
upstream of the downstream crossing of FM 2818. The maximum decrease in BFE, approximately
4.0 feet, will occur just U(>6tteam of Southwood Drive. A change in the bridge modeling will result in an
increase in BFE.
As a result of the proposed project and more detailed hydrologic and topographic infonnation, the BPEs
will iacreare and decrease compared to the effective BFEs along Tributary B. The maximum increase in
BFE. approximately 3.9 fut, will occur just dow~ of the upstream crossing of FM 2818. The
maximum decrease in BFE.. approximalely 4.9 feet, will occur approx;imately 260 feet downstream of the
downstream crossing of FM 2818.
The widths of the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SAI.As), lhe areas that would be inundated by me base
flood, and regulatory floodway will decrease along Bee Creek and Tributary B compared to the effective
SFHAs and floodway width$_
Upon completion of the project, your community may submit the data listed below and request that we
make a final detennination on revising me effective FIS report and FIRM.
• Effective Octobet I, 1996. PEMA revised the fee schedule for reviewing and processing
requcsrs for conditional and final modifications to published flood infonnation and maps.
FEMA established flat review and processing f ~ for most types of requests. Effective
March IO, 1997. FEMA modified the fee schedule that became effective oo October I.
p .3
Ha~ 24 06 03:56p College Station PW 9797645014
3
In accordance with this schedule, the fue fur your map revision request will be $2.300 and
must be reccM:d before we can beJin processing your request. Payment of this fee $hall
be made in the fonn of a check or money order, made payable in U.S. funds to the
National f]ood Jmu.tanr.c Proarn, or by credit cant. The payment mu.st be forwarded m the following address:
Fedcru Fmer~ency Management Agency
ft.e.Collection System Adminiscrator
P.O. Box 3173
Merrifield. VA 22116-3173
• A revised map showin~ the boundary delineations of the base tlood, the flood having a
0.2-percent Cbancc of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, and .n:gu!atmy
ftoodway for 'Bee Cmek and Tn"butny B based on lhc revised bydrologic modeb.
• As--built plans. certified by a registered pro~ epgineer. of .all proposed project
elmJetlts
• Community aclcnowledgment of die map revision request
• Certification that all fill placed in the cum:ntly effective base floodplain and below the
proposed BFE i$ compacttd to 95 percent of ~ maximum density obtainable with the
Stmdard Proctor TC$t method issued by lhe Americml Society for Testing and Marerials
(ASTM Standiaxd D-698) or an acceptable equivalent method for all areas to be removed
frQm the base floodplain
• A copy of the public notice distributed by your commwtlcy sating your comm.mity's inteut
ro revise: the Ooodway. ot a stawment by your community that it has notified all affected
property owners and-2'ffectcd adjacent jurisdictions
• A lener stating that your community will adopt and enforce the modified floodway.
• HYckaulic analyses, for as-built~. of the base flood; the fl~ having a 1().., 2-,
and 0.2-pc:rcent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year; and regulatory
floodway if rhey differ from the proposed tollditions models
After receiving appropriate documemation to show that the project has been completed, FEMA will initiate
a revision to the ARM and FIS report. Because tbe BFEs would change as a ie:sult of the project, a 'JO.day
appeal period would be initQtc:d, during which community officials and ioreresred persom may appeal the
revised BFEs based on scientific or technical data.
The basis of this CLOMR is. in whole or in part, a clwwel-modification project. NPIP regulations, ~
ci.ttd in Pllngnlph 60.3(b)(7), require that communities assure that the flood-carrying capacity within lbe
altered or relocated portion of any watercourse ~ maintained. This provision is incorporated inlO your
community's c:xidinf floodplain managcmc:nt regulations. Consequently, the ultimate responsibility for
maintenanc:e of rhe modified channel rests with your community.
p.4
Ma~ 24 06 03:56p Colle~e Station PW 9797645014
4
This CLOMR is based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the NFIP. Your
community is responsible for approving all floodplain development. and for ensuring all ~ permits
required by Federal or State law have been received. State, county. and community officials, based on
knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher swidards for construction in the
SFHA. If the Stale, COUnt)', or conununity has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain
management criteria, these criteria take prec.edence over the minimum NFIP criteria.
If you have any questions regarding floodplain management regulations for your community or the NFIP
in general, please c.ontact rbe Comulration Coordination Officet (CCO) for your community. Information
on the CCO for your eonununity may be obtained by contacting the Director, Mitigation Division of
FEMA in Oenion. Texas, at (940) 898-5127. lfyou have any tccbnical question.1 regarding this CWMR,
please contacr Mr. John Gambel of our staff in Washington; DC. either-by telepboOe at (202) 646--2724
or by facsimile at (202) 646-4596.
Sincerely,
.. ·~
fiohn ~J. Project Engineer ~azards Study Branch
Mitigation Directorate
tt: Mr. Brett McCully, P.E. v
City Engineer
City of College Station
Mr. Gary L. Struuck. P.E.
Manager of Hydrologic Services
Klotz Associates, Inc.
For: Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief
ffu.ards Study BraJJ(;h
Mitigation Oitectorate
'°. 5
REVISED
FLOOD ING SOURCE FLOODWAY
SECTION
CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH AREA
(FEET) (SQUARE
FEET)
Car ters Creek
A 8 . 82 1 1 ,695 10 ' 913
B 9 . 58 1 1,490 9,296
c 10 . 11 1 1 ,450 9,082
D 10 .93 1 1,170 7,524
E 11. 46 1 1,400 9,336
F 11. 88 1 1,535 9,964
G 12. 251 1,320 3 ,652
H 12 .391 1,482 9,266
I 12. 75 1 1 ,895 8,037
J 13 . 50 1 980 4,608
K 14 .20 1 940 4,586
L 14. 81 1 643 3,800
M 15 .70 1 138 844
N 19 .591 170 76 4
Bee cn~ek
A 0.86 L 700 3,325
B 1.152 263 1,261
c 1.332 276 1,294
' D 1.752 900 4,550
E 2. 66" 825 4 ,295
F 3. 26 2 62 535
G 3 .602 204 1,242 ~REA H 3. 8 72 200 770
I 4. 17 2 85 635
J 4 . 462 85 510
1Miles above confluence with Navasota River
2Mile s above confluence with Carters Creek
REVI
FE DERA L EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
BASE FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVAT I ON
MEAN
REGULATORY I WITHOUT I WITH I VELOCITY FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (FEET FER
SECOND) (FEET NGVDl
2.1 239.6 239 .6 240 .2
2.4 242.6 242.6 243.4
2.5 245.6 24 5 .6 24 6 .4
2 .9 251.1 251.1 251. 9
2.3 254 .7 .254.7 255 .7
2 .2 256.9 256 .9 257 .9
6 .0 259.2 259 .2 260 .0
2.4 261. 3 261. 3 261. 7
2.2 263.4 263.4 264.2
2.6 268.6 268.6 269 .5
2.0 274 .0 274 .0 274 .8
2.0 277. 5 277 . 5 278.3
9 .1 280.9 280.9 281. 8
2 .8 311. 7 311. 7 312.6
2.2 238.4 238.4 239.4
5.9 239 .1 239.1 239.9
5 .8 241.7 241 .7 242.2
1 .6 250.1 250.1 251 .1
1. 7 254.8 254.8 255 .4
7 .9 259 .4 259 .4 259 .9
3 .4 266.0 266 .0 266.6
3. 7 270.6 270.6 271. 2
4.5 280.0 280.0 280.8
5.6 289.1 289.1 289 .3
FLOODWAY DATA
BRAZOS COUNTY, TX
AND INCORPORATED AREAS DA ' ED MAR 2 6 19~ARTERS CREEK -BEE CREEK
INCREASE
0.6
0 .8
0 .8
0.8
1.0
1. 0
0.8
0 .4
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0 .9
1.0
0.8
0.5
1 .0
0.6
0.5
0 .6
0 .6
0.8
0 .2
ASSOCIATION BUSINESS
Architectural Control Committee
We encourage all homeowners to visit the EFHA
office to sign the document that will reinstate the
Architectural Control Committee in your phase of
the subdivision.
Filing of Property Liens
The property liens will be filed on July 8, 2004.
Those homeowners that have not paid their
annual dues by July 7, 2004 and have a balance of
$600 or more will have a property lien placed
against their property on July 8, 2004.
Please contact Peggy in the office to pay your
dues and avoid the filing and additional fees.
A Party Is A Party
It does not matter what size or kind of party you
are planning you must contact the office. Your
party may interfere with another party that has
been booked. There are rules for parties at the
pool and the clubhouse. Plea~ be considerate of
others when you plan a gathering or party.
Any food you may bring into the pool area that
creates garbage must be taken out to the large
orange dumpster as you leave.
Security phone numbers are: International
Security Service, 690-1812, Police Dispatcher
ro·r non-emergency activity, 764-3600, or
Police Emergency, 911.
FLOODPLAIN ISSUES
DeWitt Patton
Members of the Floodplain Committee and I have
met on a number of occasions with City officials
seeking a resolution to the lack of maintenance of
the Bee Creek floodway and the evident
increased potential for damaging flooding. Most
recently I met with the City Manager and the
f Director of Public Works to again discuss these
matter~ and progress towards their resolution. At
the end of this meeting Mark\ Snii~ Director of
fPubliG.,Wotks, volunteered fo write an article to
describe to you the present state of affairs. Mr.
Smith's article follows. Rest assured that the
members of your Board and I will continue to
pursue the ultimate satisfactory resolution of the
issues that concern us all. As always, please feel
free to contact me at 693-1918 or email
adpatton@tca.net.
Drainage Issues in Emerald Forest
• Nobody has been mowing the· flood channel
and I am concerned that it is increasing the
possibility of flooding in our neighborhood.
• I noticed the floodplain map on the City's web
site shows that some of the houses on Spring
Creek, Rolling Rock and Chippendale are in
the floodplain and FEMA's floodplain map
does not
• What is going on with the floodplain in
Emerald Forest?
• What is the City doing in response to these
concerns?
• It seems like the creek floods more now with
less rain than it used to.
Nobody is currently mowing the flood channel
that runs between the older part of Emerald
Forest and the newer part to the North. That
channel was nstructed to rechtte the Width ofi
. the l 00-year ·floodpla1n so that the newer section
of Emerald Forest could be developed. When it
w~s developed, Ji.~Bi,#~oJ:l~tedJ.Q11t
~Ci~ nor. was there a diaip~tn~~ewen given~ o
th~ qn; I am aware that City crews did mow ,.. . . ' ..... ,, .
this area for a while. However, when I
discovered that there was no City ownership or
~
. ::...·. .. ..-"'
• ·1
) . .J './ ..... /'1 , .....
y ' ' .... } .' t .J I . : ,' t : ~ ,f
drainage easement in the area, City mowing was
discontinued. I agree that the area needs to be
better maintained so that the channel's
effectiveness does not diminish. e"Citi.~
ade eifqttS to Jllir£hase · pro~ so that it
could be developed as a greenway and maintained
by the City. Those efforts will continue. The
City wants to own and maintain this area so that
it can be an asset to the community and so that
the effectiveness of the.flood channel can be
maintained.
The only "official" floodplain map is the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
floodplain map. Those can be viewed at the City
f.loodplain Administrator's, offi Our
Flo~~plain Administrator's name is Spencer
trhomj>sofi. Spencer's office is located in the
Development Services Department at City Hall:
The floodplain map that was available on the .
City's web site has been removed because it
displayed inaccurate information. That map was
the l"EMA,mal?, 9x,~r1cµ~ .. 9,i:t)P~~C.~W~ base map.
FEMA uses a flood profile developed by a
computer model and then applies it to the USGS
topography to get the floodplain that is shown on
the map. The USGS maps do not have the same
degree of accuracy that our base maps and
topographic maps have. So, when we apply the
floodplain developed by FEMA to our base map
it covers different areas. There is other
floodplain data available but the FEMA map is
the only one adopted d it is the "official"
floodplain map fqr the City of College Station.
The floodplain in Emerald Forest has not
changed. The City is planning to initiate a new
floodplain study to update the FEMA maps.
That process will inc ude a public notice and
comment period so that you will be aware of any
changes that may result from the new study.
Cify. rodes 'fequiie t1iat ihtdioor elevaiitm of
residences be built at least one (I) /obt:above the
JOO-year flood plaid. iThis rule doe& not apply o
<fetached garage . That rule, among others, was
..
adopted by the City in 1984 in order to make
federally subsidized flood insurance available to
property owners in College Station. Keeping
homes out of harm's way and making insurance
available to cover flood losses is one of the most
effective means for protecting the citizens from
loss of property due to flooding . •
' ·~other meas~ cO"ti' ~~cl~ citr~ci; i~ ~h~" .
requirement that new developments provide
t detention to assure that post development runoff
~ does not exceed the runoff before the area was
developed. These detention ponds work pretty
well on the 100-year rainfall events. However
1 they are not as effective at restricting runoff from
more frequent, smaller rain events. The result
that you see is that water gets higher than is used
to due to the more common rain events. The
100-year flood is no higher than it was before but
the more frequent floods are higher. ,
I
Mark Smith, PE
Director of Public Works
clty of Coll~ge Statfon
EMERALD FOREST FLOODPLAIN
IDS TORY
lbe6Z Sweet
We are fortunate to have the original developer
of our subdivision as a resident of our
neighborhood. He was kind enough to provide
us with a historical perspective of the floodplain
land in Emerald Forest.
f .........
. '
Review of Floodwater Drainage in Emerald
Forest
~en; Spip.hmtJ.
et ' · est..fte:v..e,Jsm Ii
When I first started planning the development of
Emerald Forest I envisioned homes with large
lots along the floodplain area of Bee Creek. My
vision was to tum the floodplain area into
something positive, by preserving the trees and
7
wildlife in its natural state as much as possible.
abnut· 1990, we were faced with building a
street crossing over Bee Creek before we could
~~WP Ph~ . We considered several
alternatives at the time, which would not require
building the bridge crossing of Bee Creek along
Appomattox Street. The City of College Station
insisted that Appomattox Street needed to be
built across Bee Creek. ·The Ci!Ys Master Plan at
the time called for Appomattox to continue
through the Raintree subdivision and connect
with Appomattox Street in the Windwood
Subdivision where it connects with Harvey Road.
The · it;y,engirr requirea us to design the
ridge ... and ~hann~l . & u1Pl11ate. ~~v~l~i;t].~ of
lM<lupStrearlt! even though the drainage
structures under fl\'fy -6 By-;-p~s 8:fe, de.signe0 for
l .25:Year. sto .. event· and is acting sqin~:Wbat tik~-a Clam. The ~itY ~t@.il~r also eqtfu: _ hat
the eart~en channe have a lGJ{;¥£ige ·con~ret~
c~]~ P.lace4:~ong the center lineoqf-tlje
ichann~l ana lh~t ·rock rubble placetji
everyWhere tliefe was a change in th ground
uqa~ of the channel.f This was required even
thoiigli calculated water velocities showed it
wasn't necessary by City ordinance.
We protested the City engineer's changes since
they were not required by City ordinance, which
addresses the requirements for drainage channels.
At the hearing before the Appeals Board, the
Development Department's reason that these
additions were being required was, inq;.JJie,Cicy
··as gping;to•be responsible for the fllo~g d
maintenance o~~he ch8J'lllel, they were requiring
the additions ;t()· -help ensute no erosion occurre;d
in the channel which would,: · creas, the cost of
:maintenance and mowing.
• J · ~ . ·We · d an extensive d . of th oodih on Bee • ~ I . · Creek to determine where the 100-yr floodway
was and what the 100-yr flood elevation was at
various points along Bee Creek. We did this with
and without the proposed flood channel in place.
We never intended to use the channel to reclaim
floodplain land so that we could construct more
lots. Our intent was to intercept floodwater as it
ov~rflowed the banks of Bee Creek and contain
the floodwaters within the channel and transport
it down stream and under the bridge structure.
he,~hannel did low~ .~O<kY.f.11~-elevatio.q The 'rop in flood elevation"'
was about t just upstream of the bridge.
One reason it appears that some of the area in
Emerald Forest is flooding more now than it used
to is that we appear to be having more frequent
rainstorms in the 10-year to 20:..year range than
we did in the past. There is not much· elevation
difference between floodwaters of a 20-yr storm
, . and a _1~0-~ s~orm. /• ~ · •. .' .. . ~: ~.;,,i•·j ... :..
Another reason one may believe we are having
higher .floodwater. is the.fact that the ~odlling ..
Water is:remaiiiing longer 9n the-I d. The major
reason for this is the onmow~ we¢ are slowing
the flow of water and causing it to remain longer.
When the channel water leaves Emerald Forest
property, it empties into a small natural channel
of Bee Creek that is only about 8-12 feet wide~· ....
.~.
and approximately 3 to 3-1/2 feet deep. This f-;-.·.,~11.
channel is unable to handle all the water comi~g
down the 92 ft. wide flood channel, which is 8-9
feet deep. The floodwaters must overflow Bee
Creek's banks and flow overland where it is
slowed even more. Until the City of College
Station or Brazos County improves the drainage
system down stream from Emerald Forest to
Carter Cr~k, floodwaters will continue to back
up.
The City claims they do not have an easement of
the channel area. I'm not sure if they do. There
was a lot going on at that time and it could have
been overlooked. However, the City attorney did
~ . . .
ask for access easements along Appomattox so
the City could get equipment down from
Appomattox to the channel. These are shown on
the Phase 8 plat of Emerald Forest.
In a letter dated May 8, 2002, Judy Downs
(Greenways Program Manager) presented an
offer from the City to purchase 55 .6 acres on
either side of the Appomattox Bridge. This offer
was based on an appraisal the City had obtained.
This appraisal was quite a bit lower than what we
had been paying in property taxes for the past 24
years. We countered back at what we felt was a
fair price (still below the Appraisal Districts
appraised value). We called Judy Downs to
discuss the offer we had made. She brought up
the fact that the City had been mowing this area
and that they would no longer maintain it.
During this time we were approached by an
Emerald Forest homeowner interested in
purchasing this same land. A number of
homeowners who share my vision of preserving
the floodplaln in. its natural state.J:i,ave sine.~ ·'.,
purchas~ portions of this land. They were
willing ~o pay the same price we had offered it to
the City for.
GROUNDS AND MAINTENANCE
Jim & Cynthia Boyer
The shrubs at the entrance to Emerald Forest
seem to be doing well at this time and hopefully
are well established enough to withstand the
summer temperatures. The nandinas have taken
on a nice color and the crape myrtles should be
blooming soon.
Several redbuds planted earlier in the lawn area
by the tennis courts did not bud out and they
have been replaced. We look forward to blooms
from the new trees and some nice color next
spnng.
The dead trees have been removed and our
irrigation system has been readied for the
summer.
The weather did not cooperate for the
neighborhood garage sale although some
residents did have their sale and had some
response. Thanks to one of our neighborhood
residents, The Eagle did run the ad again the
following week without additional charge and
many residents had their sale on that day.
Considering all the obstacles I think we did well
on our first attempt at a neighborhood garage
sale. We will discuss this again at our annual
meeting in the fall to see if the residents would
like to do this again.
Included in this newsletter you will·find a Pool
Facilities Survey. Please take a moment to fill in
your ansv.r~r~-7: Th.eJ~FijA·poQL. cpµµµittee needs
your iQ.put. Your opinions will guide us so that
we can.better' understand your needs and wishes.
Any of the ideas or suggestions proposed will
only be pursiled within the confines of our normal
fiscal budget. Associati<?n dues will not be
raised. In order to ensure that we meet the needs
of our growing neighborhood please respond to
this survey. Please submit only one survey per
household and thank you in advance for your ~ . .. ~ • time. 4 • !
. • ..
Several safety enhancements have been
~mpleted at our pool to ensure compliance with
the Texas DepartJ\1ent of Health Administrative
Codes. These enhancements include new drain
covers and the addition of deptq markings and
"no diving" marking~ around the edge of the
pool.
' If you notice a problem or a particular need
concerning the pool area please bring it to my
SECTION IX
0 2,600 5,200
APPENDIX B -REGION'S WATERSHEDS
Fe et
10,400
Figure B-3: Bee Creek Watershed Area
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 6 of 24 APPENDIX B: REGION'S WATERSHEDS
As Revised ___ _
,. .
~ ' ' SECTION IX
APPENDIX B -REGION'S WATERSHEDS
o spoo 12,000
Figure B-7: Carters Creek Watershed Area
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 10 of 24 APPENDIX B: REGION'S WATERSHEDS
As Revised ___ _
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Alan,
Danielle Charbonnet
Alan Gibbs
10/31/2005 4:06:39 PM
Bee Creek homes
The only thing that I came across in my files concerning homes that were flooded was an email between
@
ett McCully and the environmental subconsultant (Berg and Oliver) where he mentions that there were.d_
gnificant rainfall events in the 7+ years prior to 2000--10/94, 4/95 and around the summer 1998. In the
st 2 cases, Brett believed 6 homes were flooded . The last one came to the houses, but not in them. It
oks like this information was requested to be included in the Corp permit submittal. You may be able to ·
find a listing of the homes that took water in the actual permit application submittal that you guys have
down there.
I hope this helps!
Danielle
Danielle A Charbonnet, E.l.T.
Public Works-Engineering Division
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
2613 Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77842
P: 979.764.5028, F: 979.764.5014
Web: www.cstx.gov
DONN l8 -
p~C: fM'T
Im s VJ/ ~~
~{_ L,o/Vl rz..
0l£>-
TRANSMITTAL
CITY 0F COLLEGE STNf.ION
PUBLIC WORNS DEPARTMENT
2613 Texas Avenue
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
(979) 764-3690
(979) 764-3489 (FAX)
DATE: October 10, 2005
TO: Alan Gibbs
FROM: Danielle Charbonnet
RE: Bee Creek Combined Project, SD9802
Originals Description
Copy of info pertainine to Bee Creek pro.iect
COMMENTS:
Alan,
I made these copies from my files on the Bee Creek Combined project. You might
already have some of this, but hopefully it will provide the background information that
you are looking for. Let me know if you would like anything else.
~Danielle
LJA Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
2929 Briarpark Drive, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
www.ljaengineering.com
Phone: (713) 953-5200
Fax: (713) 953-5026
To: City of College Station
Public Works Department
2613 Texas A venue
College Station, TX 77842
WE ARE SENDING YOU the following items:
D Shop Drawings 0 Prints D Plans
IA
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: 08/10/01
LJA Job No.: 1646-0001-007
Attention: Laura Y. H. Harris E.l.T.
Re: Bee Creek Tributarv A
Drainage Improvements Project
C.O.E. Permit Application
VIA: Lone Star Overnight
D Samples D Specifications
o Copy of Letter D Change Order • _D_o_c_u_m_e_n_ts _______ _
08/1 0/01
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
D For approval
• For your use
• As requested
O For review & comment
o FOR BIDS DUE
o Approved as submitted
D Approved as noted
D Returned for corrections
D For signatures
0 -------
Updated C.O.E. Permit Application
D Resubmit copies for approval
0 Submit ___ copies for distribution
o Return corrected prints
0 ------------
0 Prints returned after loan to us
REMARKS: Attached is the most current version of the Permit Application. I believe that we have addressed all of
your previous comments in this report. When the report is finalized, we wi ll send you a copy. Please feel free to
comment on the content of the attached re ort. If
c:
O:\LAND\164611646000 llCityTransminal08100 I .doc
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
(33 CFR325)
OMB APPROVAL NO. o71o .o~
Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC
20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 1 O; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
City of College Station, Texas ATTN: Mrs. Laura Harris, E.l.T. Wallace Trochesset, P.E. Project Manager, LJA Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS
City of College Station Public Works Department
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence
b. Business (979) 764-6248
11 .STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
9. AGENTS ADDRESS
2929 Briarpark Drive, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence
b. Business (713) 953-5352
I hereby authorize LJA Engineering & Surveying, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon receipt, supplemental
information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Bee Creek Tributary A-Drainage Improvement Project
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable}
Bee Creek Tributary A
-----------------------------1 Not Applicable
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Brazos Texas
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
The proposed project area is located approximately 3,500 feet south of the intersection of FM 2818 (West Loop) and Business 6 (Texas Avenue S.)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Highway 6 (East Loop), take the FM 2818 exit and go west to Business 6 (Texas Avenue S.). Go south on Business 6 (Texas Avenue S.) approximately 3,300 feet
to Bee Creek Tributary A. The project is localed from Business 6 (Texas Avenue S.) west to Brothers Boulevard; a distance of approximately 3,000 feet See Appendix F
Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map.
ENG FORM 4345 Feb 94 EDITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
,1.8. \Ja!ure f Activity (Description of project, include all features)
See Appf.;i'ldix A.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce flooding and improve the maintainability of the Bee Creek Tributary A Channel from Brothers to Texas Avenue.
Additionally the project will reduce erosion and increase bank stabilization due to the use of a geosynthetic mat in some locations and stabilized side slopes.
'usE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
· 20. Reason(s) for Discharge
To improve maintainability. the project will re-align the existing channel. The channel will also be deepened to decrease the existing Floodplain.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
The applicant proposes to discharge approximately 6,240 cubic yards of dean upland fill material. The fill will be acquired from on-site cuttings and transported to the
discharge site by dozer, scrapers and/or trucks.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Approximately 0.05 acres of Wetlands will be filled. The existing channel contains waters of the U.S. totaling approximatetY 1.16 acres within the project area. The
proposed project will relocate the majority of the waters of the U.S. and increase the area to 1.54 acres.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Completed? Yes__ No _X_ IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners. Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here,
please attach supplemental list).
The addresses of adjoining property owners are induded .in Appendix I.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false. fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false. fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
"U.S.GPO: 1994-520-478162016
BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN
TEXASAVENUEANDBROTHERSBOULEVARD
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
FOR
THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Prepared by
LJA ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.
AND
OTHON, INC.
AUGUST2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A: General Project Information
General Project Information ............................................................................................................................. Page A-2
Appendix B: Environmental Conditions
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... Page B-2
Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................... Page B-2
Natural Environment ........................................................................................................................................ Page B-2
References ................................................................................................................................................... Page B-6
Appendix C: Proposed Site Development Plan
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... Page C-2
Project Description ................ ;~ ......................................................................................................................... Page C-2
Proposed Channel Alignment ........................................................................................................................... Page C-2
Impact on Jurisdictional Waters ....................................................................................................................... Page C-2
Maintenanc~ Berms .................................................................. :····································································:··.Page <:;-.3
Mitigation Areas ............................................................................................................................................... Page C-3
Sanitary Sewer Crossings ................................................................................................................................. Page C-3
Appendix D: Proposed Mitigation Plan
Adverse Effects ............................................................................................................................................... Page D-2
Mitigation .................................................................................................................................................. Page D-2
Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................................................................ Page D-2
Appendix E: Alternative Analysis
Project Need ................................................................................................................................................... Page E-2
Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................... Page E-2
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... Page E-3
Appendix F: Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Vicinity Map ···················: .......................................................................................................... Page F-l
Topographic Map ... , ................................................................................................................... Page F-2
Existing Waters of the U.S ........................................................................................................ Page F-3
Proposed Waters of the U.S ...................................................................................................... Page F-4
Site Overview Map ..................................................................................................................... Page F-5
USGS Topographic Map ............................................................................................................ Page F-6
Photographs Project. ................................................................................................................... Page F-7
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project II 200000639
Exhibit 8 Aerial Photograph Inset A ........................................................................................................ Page F-10
Exhibit 9 Aerial Photograph Inset B ........................................................................................................ Page F-11
Exhibit 10 Aerial Photograph Inset C ........................................................................................................ Page F-12
Exhibit 11 Aerial Photograph Inset D ........................................................................................................ Page F-13
Exhibit 12 Proposed Conditions Inset A .................................................................................................... Page F-14
Exhibit 13 Proposed Conditions Inset B .................................................................................................... Page F-15
Exhibit 14 Proposed Conditions Inset C .................................................................................................... Page F-16
Exhibit 15 Proposed Conditions Inset D .................................................................................................... Page F-17
Appendix G: Wetland Data Forms
Appendix H: Correspondence
Appendix I: Adjacent Property Owners
ii
Bee Creek Tributw)' A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
Appendix A -General Project Information
A-1
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
Project Name:
Project Location:
Project Size:
Existing Conditions:
Water Source:
Waters of the U.S.:
Project Description:
Fill Area:
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Bee Creek Tributary A Drainage Improvements (from Brothers Boulevard to Texas Avenue).
The drainage improvements on Bee Creek Tributary A are bounded by Business 6 (Texas Avenue) on the
east and Brothers Boulevard on the west. The entire project is located within College Station, Brazos
County, Texas. See Appendix F -Exhibit I: Vicinity Map for location of project.
Approximately 2,574 linear feet of channel will be improved.
Bee Creek Tributary A is undersized to convey the I 00-year peak flow for the existing conditions. The
existing conditions 100-year floodplain ranges from an approximate elevation of 266.1 upstream of Texas
A venue to an elevation of 270.4 downstream of Brothers Boulevard. The location of this elevation can be
seen on Appendix F -Exhibit 2: Topographic Map.
The channel normally contains a gentle flow of water. This source of this water is from irrigation runoff
of upstream areas and not from a spring source.
According to strrveying data, approximately 1.16 acres (50,704 square feet) is inside the Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM). By definition, this area is considered as waters of the U. S. for the existing Bee
Creek Tributary A channel by the United States Corps of Engineers (COE). The proposed project will
provide approximately 1.54 acres (67219 square feet) of waters of the U. S. The existing and proposed
waters of the U.S. are shown on Appendix F -Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively.
-.. --· -The City of College Station plans on improving the existing Bee Creek Tributary A Channel from
Brothers Boulevard to Texas A venue. These improvements will consist of realigning the existing creek to
the center of the right-of-way, construction of a trapezoidal channel with maintenance berms, and repair
the confluences with side channels to limit the possibility of channel erosion. The proposed project is
described more thoroughly in Appendix C -Proposed Site Development Plan.
-....
Approximately 6,420 cubic yards (CY) of fill will be placed within the Ordinary High Water Mark of Bee
Creek. Approximately l ,200 square yards (SY) of rip-rap will be used for slope stabilization and to
prevent washouts near the bridges and limit erosion of the side slopes at the smaller tributary channels.
Approximately 800 SY of poured concrete will be placed within the channel to prevent washouts at the
transition to the Texas A venue Box Culverts and will be used to reconstruct the confluence of the side
channel between Normand Circle and Adrienne Circle (concrete-lined side channel). Geotextile Fabric
will be used whenever possible to provide slope stability for areas adjacent to the existing bridges.
Applicant/Permittee: City of College Station
Public Works Department
P. 0 . Box 9960
TNRCC Water Quality
College Station, TX 77842
Contact: Mr. Brett McCully, P.E.
(979) 764-3816
''
Certification: The proposed project will not adversely impact the quality of water of Bee Creek Tributary A. Trees will
be planted along the proposed creek to replace the shade on the existing creek on a 1: I basis. The tree
mitigation plan is discussed more thoroughly in Appendix D -Proposed Mitigation Plan. Native grasses
will be used to provide vegetative cover for the proposed channel. This will limit the possibility of
washouts in the future. A Pollution Prevention Plan will be filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency before construction begins. This plan will detail the use of Hay Bales and Silt Fencing during
construction to minimize erosion from areas under construction and prevent sediment from loading the
watercourses downstream of the project.
A-2
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
Appendix B -Environmental Conditions
B-1
Bee Creek.Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
I. INTRODUCTION
The project site is an approximate 2,574-foot long section of Bee Creek Tributary A that extends from Texas Avenue south to
Brothers Boulevard in College Station, Texas (see Appendix F -Exhibit I: Vicinity Map and Exhibit 2: Topographic Map). The
City intends to conduct channel improvements of Bee Creek Tributary A to control the flooding of surrounding residential homes.
II. WATER RESOURCES
A. Surface Water
Bee Creek Tributary A lies within the Brazos River Basin. The tributary has been channeled and conveys storm water
runoff from surrounding residential communities. The tributary drains in a northeasterly direction into Bee Creek
approximately one mile northeast of the project terminus. Bee Creek drains in an easterly direction into Carter Creek,
which drains in southeasterly direction into the Navasota River. The Navasota River drains in a southerly direction into
the Brazos River.
B. Water Quality Data
According to the Texas Natural Resource Cons-ervation Commission (TNRCC) State of Texas Water Quality Inventory
1996, Bee Creek Tributary A is located within Segment 1209 (Navasota River Below Lake Limestone) of the Brazos
River Basin. Segment 1209 is classified as "Water Quality Limited". Designated water uses include contact recreation,
high aquatic life, and public water supply. Phosphorus levels are elevated in the segment. There have been no fish kills
or fish consumption advisories and/or closures. A TNRCC draft waste load evaluation recommends that advanced waste
treatment be required at Bryan and College Station in order to maintain stream standards in the segment.
III. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. Topography
The USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map of Wellborn, Texas (1961, photorevised 1980) shows that the elevation of the
project site ranges from approximately 270 to 260 feet above sea level. The overall gradient is east-northeast toward
Carters Creek (see Appendix F -Exhibit 6: USGS Topographic Map).
The project is located within a residential neighborhood of College Station, Texas. From Texas A venue south to
Longmire Drive, Tributary A resides in a 60-foot wide drainage right-of-way (ROW) owned by the City of College
Station. From Longmire Drive south to Brothers Boulevard, the tributary is in a 100-foot wide drainage ROW. The
surrounding area consists of single family residences on wooded lots, a city park, and apartment buildings. As
previously discussed, the project consists of an approximate 2,574-foot long section of Bee Creek Tributary A. The
jurisdictional area of the tributary totals approximately l.16 acres (see Appendix F -Exhibit 3: Existing Waters of the U.
S.).
B. Soils
The project is located on Shalba fine sandy loam. This is a shallow soil on nearly level to sloping convex uplands. This
soil is moderately well drained and has a very slow permeability. The classification of this soil was changed from a
Typic Albaqualf to a Udic Haplustalf because it was determined that the low chroma matrix of this soil is due to
litochromic influences, not an aquic moisture regime: This soil is not listed as a hydric soil.
B-2
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
C. Wetlands
A wetland delineationof the project area was conducted on September 5 -8, 2000 (see Appendix F -Exhibit 4: Project
Photographs). The wetland delineation was performed in accordance with the guidelines listed in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual for areas greater than five acres in size. A baseline was established parallel to
the Bee Creek Tributary A drainage ROW line and 3 transects were positioned perpendicular to the ROW. Within each
transect, observation points were sampled in each vegetative community and in locations that exhibited topographic
depressions and/or wetland hydrology. The soils were characterized based on those listed in the Soil Survey of Brazos
County, Texas. A Munsell soil color book was used to determine soil colors. The dominant vegetation for each stratum
was determined at each plot location using the 50/20 rule. The plant indicator status of each species was determined
using the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Texas. Wetland hydrology was determined by the
presence of primary and secondary field indicators. Wetland data forms were completed for each plot location (see
Appendix G: Wetland Data Forms).
None of the sampling locations exhibited wetland hydrology or hydric soil characteristics. No wetlands are located
along the project.
D. Biotic Communities
I. Vegetation
A tree survey was conducted on September 5 -8, 2000 along Bee Creek Tributary A within the City of College
Station easement. Trees surround an approximate 786-foot long section of Tributary A that extends northeast
from Brothers Boulevard (See Appendix F -Exhibit 7: Site Photographs, Exhibit 10: Proposed Conditions Inset
A, and Exhibit 11 : Proposed Conditions Inset B). Canopy cover, based on site reconnaissance and aerial
photograph review, is approximately 90%. Approximately 103 trees are located along this section of the
tributary and consist of approximately 50% sugarberry (Ce/tis laevigata), 35% water oak (Quercus nigra), and
15% cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia). Very little understory vegetation was observed along this section of the
tributary, with the exception of an approximate 30-foot wide by 200-foot long strip totaling approximately 0.14
acre along the northwest bank. The understory vegetation consisted of common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), coral berry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), Indian sea oats (Chasmanthium /atifolium), poison oak
(Toxicodendron radicans), privet (Ligustrum sp.), snail seed (Cocculus caroliniana), tree saplings, and yaupon
(Jlex vomitoria).
An approximate 900-foot long section of Tributary A, extending from approximately 786 feet northeast of
Brothers Boulevard to Longmire Drive, is surrounded by a mowed easement with scattered trees and little
understory vegetation (See Appendix F -Exhibit 7: Site Photographs, Exhibit 11: Proposed Conditions Inset B,
and Exhibit 12: Proposed Conditions Inset C). A dirt road is located along the northwest side of the tributary.
This area has been heavily disturbed. Canopy cover, based on site reconnaissance and aerial photograph
review, is approximately 50%. Approximately 165 trees are located along this section of the tributary and
consist of approximately 40% sugarberry, 30% water oak, 25% cedar elm, and 5% American elm (Ulmus
americana). The trees range in size from 4 to 16 inches dbh and average 6 inches dbh. Understory vegetation
consists of saplings and yaupon (flex vomitoria).
The remaining approximate 886-foot long section of the tributary that extends from Longmire Drive northeast
to Texas Avenue is located in a predominately open area with two small clumps of trees (See Appendix F -
Exhibit 7: Site Photographs, Exhibit 12: Proposed Conditions Inset C, and Exhibit 13: Proposed Conditions
Inset D). Canopy cover, based on site reconnaissance and aerial photograph review, is less than 5%. The
predominate vegetation in the open area consists of Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnson grass
(Sorghum halapense). This area is regularly mowed. A total of 15 trees in two clumps is located within the
B-3
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project # 200000639
tributary easement and consists of approximately 75% water oak, 15% sugarberry, and 10% cedar elm. The
trees range in size from 8 to 24 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and average 12 inches dbh .
2. Wildlife
Because the project is located in an urban area, the project area has a low potential to support wildlife. No
wildlife was observed during the site reconnaissance; however, raccoon and opossum tracks were identified
along Tributary A.
E. Threatened/Endangered Species
1. Known Species
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program was contacted
regarding threatened and endangered species in the project area (see Appendix H: Correspondence). TPWD
responded that the following species of concern are known to occur in the surrounding areas:
I;, Houston Toad (Bufo houstoniensis) -Federal and State Endangered
I;, Navasota Ladies-tresses (Spiranthes parksii) -Federal and State Endangered
The Houston toad is associated with soils of the Sparta, Carrizo, Goliad, Queen City, Recklaw, Weches, and
Willis geologic formations. The toad is found in pools and stock tanks. The toad breeds in the spring (February
through June), especially after rains, and burrows into the soil when inactive.
There is no suitable Houston toad habitat along the project. The banks of Bee Creek Tributary A have been
heavily disturbed and the surrounding area consists of residential homes. The on-site soils are not suitable for
burrowing and are associated with the Yegua geologic formation.
Navasota Ladies-tresses are found in open areas of post oak savanna typically cons1stmg of American
beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), little bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium), post oak (Quercus ste//ata), and yaupon (J/ex vomitoria). The species grows in moderate to well
drained, sandy loam soils located near the edges of intermittent streams and tributaries. The plant flowers from
late October through early November.
A pedestrian survey for the Navasota Ladies-tresses was conducted on November 6 -7, 2000 within the City of
College Station ROW along Bee Creek Tributary A. No Navasota Ladies-tresses were observed. There is a
low potential for Navasota Ladies-tresses to be present along the project. The ROW along both sides of the
tributary is heavily disturbed as a result of previous channelizations of Bee Creek Tributary A. In addition, both
sides of the tributary are periodically disturbed by ROW mowing and channel maintenance activities, and from
homeowners lining both sides of the tributary.
B-4
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project # 200000639
2. Potential Species
According to TPWD, the additional species listed in Table 1 may occur in Brazos County:
TABLE 1
FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED ENDANGER ED OR THREATENED SPECIES
THAT MAY OCCUR IN BRAZOS COUNTY1
Species Federal Federal Habitat
Status Status
Birds
Arctic Peregrine Falcon DL T Lakes, rivers, coastal and estuarine areas.
(Falco peregrinus tundrius) Potential migrant.
Bald Eagle LT-T Rivers, large lakes, sea coasts.
(Haliaeetus /eucocephalus) PDL
Whooping Crane LE E Potential migrant. Marshes.
(Grus americana)
Wood Stork -T Mud flats and other wetlands, even those
(Mycteria americana) associated with forested areas.
Fish
Blue Sucker -T Small rivers and large creeks of various types.
(Cycleptus elongatus)
Mammals
Rafinesque's Big-Eared Bat T Roosts in cavity trees of bottomland -(Corynorhinus rafinesquii) hardwoods.
Reptiles
Alligator Snapping Turtle -T Deep water of rivers, canals, lakes, swamps,
(Macroclemys temminckii) bayous with mud bottom and abundant aquatic
vegetation.
Louisiana Pine Snake T Mixed deciduous-longleafpine woodlands. -(Pituophis melanoleucus
ruthveni)
Texas Horned Lizard '
(Phrynosoma cornutum) -T Open, arid, and semi-arid regions.
Timber/Canebrake Rattlesnake T Swamps, flood plains, upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) -
deciduous woodlands.
1 Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Annotated County Lists of Rare Species, revised August
1998.
LE, LT-Federally listed Endangered/Threatened.
PDL -Proposed delisting.
E/SA -Federally Endangered/Threatened by Similarity of Appearance.
E, T -State Endangered/Threatened.
Note: Species on this list do not share the same probability of occurrence.
B-5
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
Due to the urban surroundings of the project area, there is no suitable habitat along Bee Creek Tributary A for
any of the species li sted in Table I.
IV. REFERENCES
Hydric Soils of Texas. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. December 1995 .
Wellborn, Texas 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map. United States Geological Survey. 1961, photorevised 1980.
Munsell Soil Color Charts. 1994 Revised Edition. Munsell Color. 405 Little Britain Road, New Windsor, New York 12553.
National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands, Texas. Biological Report 88. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. May 1988.
Soil Survey of Brazos County, Texas . USDA Soil Conservation Service. Unpublished 1991.
Wetland Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Technical Report Y-87-1). January 1987.
B-6
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
Appendix C -Proposed Site Development Plan
C-1
Bee Creek-Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
''
I. INTRODUCTION
The Proposed Improvements on Bee Creek Tributary A begin at Brothers Boulevard and proceed to Texas Avenue. This reach of
the existing channel is approx imately 2,574 linear feet. The proposed drainage improvement project will re-align the creek to the
center of the right-of-way. Maintenance Berms will be constructed on both sides of the channel to allow for easier access to
maintain this reach of Bee Creek Tributary A. The existing tributary channels and swales will be upgraded to prevent erosion on
the improved channel.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of College Station plans on improving the existing Bee Creek Tributary A CpfiQnel from Brothers Boulevard to Texas
Avenue. These improvements will consist of.realigning the existing creek to the dnter'~ the right-of-waY.., construction of a
trapezoidal channel with maintenance berms, and repair the confluences wjth side chapnels to !jmjt the possibility of chanu:l
erosian.
For maintenance and drainage improvements, the channel will be moved to the center of the right-of-way. An existing retaining
wall defines the east channel bank from !!.fothers Boulevard to a point approximately 800 feet downstre~. This retaining wall
will be removed because of the channel realignment. Because the channel will be deepened and the water will flow more
efficiently in a straighter channel, the 100-year water surface elevat!ons for the proposed conditions will decrease by as much as
2.3 feet from existing conditions.
The channel will be easier to access with the construction of maintenance berms that extend from Brothers Boulevard to Texas
A venue. A mowing policy will be established whereby the channel will be mowed at the most twice per year. Channel repair of
washouts will be scheduled on an as-needed basis.
The proposed channel will use geotextile fabric in areas with side slopes steeper than 4: 1 (horizontal:vertical) to limit the amount
of vegetative cover lost during storm events. This geotextile fabric will limit soil loss through erosion. For areas near bridges
with side slopes steeper than 3: 1, the channel will have slope paving or channel armoring.
III. PROPOSED CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
The proposed channel is nearly centered on the existing channel right-of-way. To construct the proposed alignment shown on
Figure 1, portions of the existing channel will be filled with appropriate on-site material from the excavation of the proposed
channel. Approximately, 6,420 cubic yards (CY) will be used to fill these portions of the existing channel. Approximately 14,210
(CY) of spoils will be removed from the site.
The proposed alignment will allow a more direct flow of water than the existing channel alignment. A portion of the existing
channel is outside the right-of-way. The city cannot legally maintain the channel in these locations.
IV. IMPACT ON JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
The proposed project will fill approximately 0.69 acres of the approximately 1.16 acres considered to be waters of the U.S. The
Environmental Consultant on this project, Othon, Inc., marked the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) at several locations
along the channel during a field visit. These surveyed markings were used to determine the boundaries of the Jurisdictional
Waters of the U.S.
The area shown as waters of the U.S. in the proposed alignment was approximated using hydraulic modeling in conjunction with
the surveyed OHWMs. The peak flows in the existing condition Bee Creek Tributary A HEC-2 Model were adjusted so that the
calculated Water Surface Elevation (WSE) from the model reached approximately the same elevation as a surveyed OHWM in
that location. These flows we considered to be the Ordinary High Water Peak Flow at various locations along the channel. These
flows were used as input for the proposed condition HEC-2 Model for Bee Creek Tributary A .
The proposed condition HEC-2 model calculated WSEs associated with this flow at various cross sections. These WSEs were
plotted on the side slopes of the proposed channel at the corresponding channel location. The area encompassed by these plotted
points determined what we consider to be the proposed conditions Jurisdictional Waters of the U. S. The existing and proposed
C-2
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
waters of the U.S. are shown on Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. Approximately 1.54 acres of Waters of the U.S. will be created
by the construction of the proposed alignment. This translates to a net gain of0.38 acres.
V. MAINTENANCE BERMS
The proposed channel will be made accessible for the entire project by Maintenance Berms. On the north side of the channel, the
maintenance berm will be a minimum width of 15 feet. The maintenance berm on the south side of the channel will be at least 5
feet-wide.
VI. MITIGATION AREAS
Shade from the trees that overhang the channel is an important factor in water quality for Bee Creek Tributary A. To maintain at
least the same water quality after the channel improvements, tree shading will be replaced on a I : l basis. That means that for
every square foot of shaded area in the channel, a square foot of shaded area will be provided in the proposed condition.
Approximately, 2.51 acres of trees will be impacted by the proposed project. This acreage will be mitigated in two locations.
The first location is along the channel and the second in an offsite area. The 5-foot maintenance berm on the south side of
Tributary A and a strip approximately 5 feet-wide on the north side of Tributary A will be used as a portion of the mitigation area.
This area will provide approximately 0.61 acres for mitigation. The other 1.90 acres of mitigation area will be located in an off-
site tract to be determined later.
VII. SANITARY SEWER CROSSINGS
Six sanitary sewer lines cross the creek. Five of these sewer crossings have the PVC pipe exposed in the channel. These sanitary
line crossings impede the flow of water during large storm events by collecting debris. Because the proposed channel will have a
lower flowline than the existing creek, these crossings will be more exposed. The proposed project will remove these sanitary
lines and replace them with a new PVC pipe inside of a Steel Casing. The pipes will also be lowered to match flow lines with the
manholes that run in a northeasterly direction on the west side of the right-of-way. An existing manhole west of the confluence of
Bee Creek Tributary A and the concrete side channel will be removed.
Approximately 6,420 cubic yards (CY) of fill will be placed within the existing Bee Creek Tributary A channel. This fill will be
comprised of acceptable soil from the site and select fill in cases where acceptable soil is not available. This surplus soil will be
produced by excavation for the realignment and deepening of the existing channel.
C-3
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
Appendix D -Proposed Mitigation Plan
D-1
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project # 200000639
I. ADVERSE EFFECTS
Construction of the proposed project would displace approximately 2.55 acres of trees consisting of American elm, cedar elm,
sugarberry, and water oak. Construction would also displace an approximate 0.14-acre strip of understory vegetation consisting
of common greenbrier, coral berry, Indian sea oats, poison oak, privet, snail seed, tree saplings, and youpon.
II. MITIGATION
Approximately 2.51 acres of two-inch caliper fruit and nut bearing trees would be planted along the proposed Bee Creek at a ratio
of 140 stems per acre for a total of approximately 351 trees. Approximately 84 of the trees would be planted along two 5-foot
wide strips that line both sides of the tributary and total 0.61 acre. The remaining 267 trees would be planted on l.90 acres in an
off-site location yet to be determined. The tree species proposed for mitigation are listed in Table l.
TABLE 1
TREE SPECIES PROPOSED FOR MITIGA TION1
Common Name Scientific Name Percent of Total Species Number of Trees
Bur Oak Quercus macrophyl/a 20% 70
Chinquapin Oak Quercus muh/enbergii 20% 70
Common Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 10% 35
Pecan Carya illinoensis 20% 70
Red Bud Cercis canadensis 10% 36
Shumard Red Oak Quercus shumardii 20% 70
1 Subject to availability
Native grasses consisting ofBermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) would be used to provide
vegetative cover for the proposed channel and within the tree mitigation areas. One non-native grass, winter rye (Lolium
perenne), would also be used to provide vegetative cover during the winter months. Bermudagrass and winter rye would be
applied as a hydromulch. The buffalograss would be applied as plugs.
III. MAINTENANCE PLAN
A qualified mitigation specialist would assist the City of College Station or their representative to ensure that the proposed
mitigation area meets the Individual Permit Special Conditions requirements. As a part of the Special Conditions requirements, a
Maintenance Plan would be followed to insure the establishment and success of the proposed wetland mitigation area. The
Maintenance Plan consists of two parts: short-term maintenance and long-term maintenance.
A. Short Term Maintenance
Short-term maintenance would be conducted for a mmnnum of two years or longer if necessary to ensure the
establishment and success of the wetland mitigation area so that Items 3 and 4 of the Individual Permit Special
Conditions can be accomplished. The tree mitigation area would be inspected after the installation of plant materials and
at subsequent monthly intervals to identify existing or potential problems related to tree establishment, and to conduct
maintenance measures to alleviate the problems. If unusual circumstances such as a prolonged drought occur,
inspections and maintenance at intervals less than one month would be conducted if necessary. Table 2 lists common
problems associated with tree mitigation areas during the tree establishment period and typical corrective maintenance
measures.
D-2
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
TABLE2
COMMON PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TREE MITIGATION AREAS DURING THE TREE
ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD AND TYPICAL CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE MEASURES.
Problem Corrective Measures
Drought Stress Provide supplemental irrigation to maintain adequate soil moisture until plants
establish a well developed root system.
Oxygen Degrivation
a. Organic Loading Reduce the input of oxygen demanding substances (e.g. organic fertilizer).
b. Smothering I Tight Soils Apply gypsum to increase soil aggregation.
Nutrient Stress Add macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients as required until plants are well
established.
Insects I Pathogens I Weeds
a. Insects Physically remove insect or disease invested foliage .
b. Plant Diseases Use an organic insecticide or natural fungicide as a last resort (e.g. insecticidal soap;
dusting sulfur for fungal pathogens).
c. Weeds I Invader Species Physically remove weeds and invader species, mulch where appropriate, mow when
-appropriate.
Weather -Physical
a. Cold I Frost Water frequently to maintain favorable root temperatures.
b. Heat Use mulch as a temperature buffer.
c. Wind Stake trees for temporary stability against wind.
d. Excessive Water and mulch to reduce excessive evapotranspiration, which usually occurs
Evapotranspiration during winter months.
Plant Mortali!Y Identify cause, correct problem, replant.
Soil Erosion Stabilize eroded areas, reseed, use biodegradable soil mats in problem areas.
Trash I Debris Remove trash and debris on a regular basis.
B. Long Term Maintenance
After the tree mitigation area is established, there would be minimal (if any) disturbance of the created tree mitigation
areas. Maintenance would be limited to removing trash. No long-term maintenance activities would be conducted that
would adversely affect the tree mitigation area. The mitigation area would be allowed to deveiop into a natural
environment, not a park-like setting.
D-3
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
, I
Appendix E -Alternative Analysis
E-1
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project # 200000639
\
I. PROJECT NEED
The existing Bee Creek Tributary A channel between Brothers Boulevard and Texas Avenue needs to be improved because of
drainage issues, maintenance issues, and health issues.
A. Drainage
The existing channel is a threat to the safety of the residents that live along the creek. The existing channel is undersized
to convey the existing I 00-year peak flow for the area that it is draining. This problem is compounded by the fact that
the channel has excessive plant growth in the channel and within the right-of-way in some locations. Because of Slope
Stability problems, the south bank of the channel from Brothers Boulevard to approximately 300 feet upstream of the
confluence with the concrete-lined side channel has landscape timbers that serve as a retaining wall.
B. Maintenance
The existing Bee Creek Tributary A channel between Brothers Boulevard and Texas A venue, is a previously improved
channel that has fallen into a state of disrepair. Access to the channel for maintenance is currently limited to an
approximately 10 foot-wide clearing that follows the top of bank on the west side of the channel from Texas A venue to
approximately 100 feet west of the concrete lined side channel between Normand Circle and Adrienne Circle.
Approximately 800 linear feet of the channel between where the existing maintenance-berm ends and Brothers
Boulevard cannot be maintained easily. The applicant's ability to maintain the channel in its current condition is
hampered because of this Jack of access.
C. Health
Some locations along Bee Creek Tributary A are health hazards to the residents of College Station. At many of the
confluences with side channels, the existing channel has major washouts. The slope paving at these locations is
structurally unstable. Existing topography shows low spots along the channel hold stagnant water for Jong periods of
time. Stagnant water tends to be a breeding ground for Mosquitoes that can be carriers of numerous diseases. Because
some of these _low spots can hold more than 2 feet of water, drowning is a possible danger for smaller children.
II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Several Alternatives were considered for the improvement of this project. The alternatives considered are listed below with a
brief discussion why this alternative was eliminated.
A. No-Build Alternative
B. Structural Channel Improvements Alternative:
The improvements would be centered on the existing channel. Because the existing channel is outside of the existing
right-of-way, construction and maintenance of this alternative would require an easement approximately ___ feet-
wide on the south side of the channel. The existing retaining wall downstream of Brothers Boulevard would need to be
replaced with slope paving. This alternative is more expensive than the proposed improvements because of the costs
associated with the land acquisition and the slope stabilization of the channel banks.
C. Channel Re-alignment Alternative:
The existing channel would be moved to near the center of the existing right-of-way. The proposed channel would be a
flat-bottomed, trapezoidal channel that would have side slopes that would support plant growth. Several variations of
this alternative were considered including options with drop structures to minimize the channel excavation and options
that maximized the channel to the entire width of the right-of-way.
E-2
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
III. CONCLUSION
The best alternative is the Channel Re-alignment Alternative. The variation of this alternative we are proposing has a 15 foot-
wide maintenance berm on the west side of the creek and a 5 foot-wide maintenance berm on the east side of the creek. This
alternative will improve maintenance and width channel improvements decrease the I 00-year Water Surface Elevation. There
will be less structural improvements (slope paving, removal of existing headwalls, etc.) needed with this alternative.
E-3
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
Appendix F -Exhibits
F-1
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
LOCATION
SCALE I I' = 500'
PURPOSE•
The purpose of this project Is to Improve the
existing channel In order to decrease the 100-year
floodpla ln and Improve molntalnabl I lty.
SUBM I TTEO BY•
MRS. LAURA HARR IS, E. I. T.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
AUGUST, 2001
LJA PROJECT NO. 1646-0001
PROJECT LOCATIO
LJA Engineerilg & Surveying, oc. l J l.
2929 Brlorpork Drive Phone 713.953.5200
Suite 500 Fox 713.953.5026
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
SITE1 BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION1 COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY1 BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT
LOCATION
SC ALE : I' = 500'
\
PURPOSE•
The purpose of this project Is to Improve the
existing channel In order to decrease the 100-year
floodplain and Improve mointalnabl llty.
SUBMITTED BY•
MRS. LAURA HARRIS, E. I. T.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEG E STATION, TX 77842
AUGUST, 2001
LJA PROJECT NO. 1646-0001
·~
*
LJA Engineerng & Surveying, Inc. l J j
2929 Brlorpork Drive Phone 713.953.5200
Suite 500 Fox 713. 953.5026
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP EXHIBIT 2
l. '•
LOCATION l
SC ALE : I' ; 300'
PURPOSE•
The purpose of this project Is to Improve the
existing channel In order to decrease the 100-yeor
floodplain and Improve mointolnabl I lty.
SUBMITTED BY•
MRS. LAURA HARR IS, E. I. T.
CITY or COLLEGE STATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
AUGUST, 2001
LJA PROJECT NO. 1646-0001
C\ /
LEGEND
EXlSTlNG WATERS Of TIIB U.S.
BEE CREEK RIGHT-Of-WAY
PROPOSED CENrERUNE & BOTTOM WIDTH
LJA Engneerilg & &Jveying, nc. J J j
2929 Brlorpork Drive Phone 713. 953.5200 Suite 500 Fox 713.953. 5026
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
EXISTING WATERS
OF THE U. S. EXHIBIT 3
LOCATION
SCALE : I' = 300'
PURPOSE•
The purpose of th i s project Is to Improve the
existing chonnel In order to decrease the 100-yeor
floodplaln and Improve molntolnobl I lty.
SUBMITTED BY•
MRS. LAURA HARR IS, E. I. T.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATI ON
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
AUGUST. 2001
LJA PROJECT NO. 1646-0001
'
/
LEGEND
llllllllllll ll l PROPOSED WATERS OF THE U.S.
BEE CREEK RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED CENTERLINE & BOTTOM WIDTH
LJA Engineerng & Surveying, Inc. l J .l
2929 Brlorpork Drive Phone 713.953.5200
Suite 500 Fox 713.953.5026 Houston, Texas 77042 -3703
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TE XAS
PROPOSED WATERS
OF THE U.S. EXHIBIT -4
/·· •t
~
\ \
( (
LOCATI ON
SCALE : I' =
PURPOSE•
The purpose of t h is project Is t o Impr ove t he
existing channel In order to decrease the 100-year
floodplain and Improve mol ntalnabl l lty.
SUBM ITTED BY•
MRS. LAURA . HARR IS, E. I. T.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATI ON
PUBLI C WORKS DEPARTMENT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
AUGUST, 2001
LJA PROJECT NO. 1646-0001
1
'
' LEGEND
111111111111111 PROPOSED WATERS OF THE U.S.
BEE CREEK RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED CENTERLINE & BOTTOM WIDTH
LJA Engineerng & Surveying, Inc. l J j
2929 Br lorpork Dri ve Phone 713.953.5200
Suite 500 Fox 713.953.5026
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
S ITE• BEE CREEK TR IBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCAT ION• COLLEGE STATI ON
COUNTY • BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
SITE OV ERVIEW MAP EXHIB IT 5
SCALE I , •• 100'
PURPOSE•
The ~f)08e of thta proJeot Ta to trrprove the
extattng ohclnel In order to deoreoae the 100-yeor
floodptotn and lrrprove matntotnobt I tty.
SUBMITTED BY•
liRS. LAURA HARR IS. E. I, T.
CITY OF COlLEOE STATION
PUBLIC WOflKS DEPARnEKT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION. TX TU.42
APRIL. 2001
l.JA ~ HO. "*"OOOI
LEGEND
11111111111111! PROPOSID \VATIJ1S OF t1il! m .
- - -lNSl!T BOUNDARY UNE
e =·SAN SEWER MANHOLE
p' EXIST. POWER POLE
m£-~E EXIST.SLOPE PAVING OR JUl'..MP
LJA~&~ne. lJl.
2929 Brlarpcrk Drive Phone 713.953.SWO
SUlte 500 Fax 713. 953.5026
Houston. Texoa 11ou-:no:s
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS INSET A EXHIBIT 8
,,
SCALE I I' • 100'
PURPOSE•
The pc.rpoee of thle proJeot le to tniirove the
extettng ohainel In order to deoreaee the 100-yecr
floo<lploln end rniirove mafntatnobl I lty.
SUBMITTED BY•
~ LAURA HARRIS, £.I. T.
Cl TY OF COlL£CE ST ATI OH
PUBl. IC WORKS DEPARnEHT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLL.EOE STATION, TX '1Tl42
APRIL. 2001
LIA PROJECT HO. l'4&-000I
LEGEND
™'1 PROl'OSl!D WATEllS OP nm U.S..
- - -INSET llOUNDAl!Y LINB
LJA~ &&rv!)TG. ne. l Jl
2929 Br I c:rpcrk Dr Ive Phone 713. 953. 5200
SU1t.500 Fax 713.953.5026
Houeton. Texoa 77042-3703
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
~~~~~S~D CONDITIONS EXHIBIT g
LOCATION
SCALE I I' • 100'
PURPOSE•
The pu'l>08e of thfe proJeot le to trrprove the
ex fat f ng ohClnne I f n order to deoreoae the I oo-yecr
flOOdplafn aid lrrprove malntalnobl I It)'.
SUBM I TIED BY•
liRS. LAURA HARR IS, E. I. T.
CI TY OF COLLEC£ ST A Tl OH
PUBLIC IORltS DEPARllEO'
2613 TEXAS A VE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX Til42
LEGEND
~ PROPOSED WATERS OF nm U.S.
PROJECT BOUNDARY UNl!
- - -INSET BOUNDARY lINB
LJA ~ &ane:,t'Q ne. l Ji
2929 Br I Cl"'J)<lr'"k Dr t ve Phone '113. 953. 5200
SUlte 500 Fax '113. 953.5026 Houaton. Texas 77<M2-3'103
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE l!r'PROVEMENTS_ PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS INSET C EXHIBIT 10
. I ,.
SCALE I , •• 100'
PURPOSE•
The pc.rpQM of thl• proJeot le to t~ve the
ex I at Ing ohcrne I In order to deoreoae the I 00-:yecr
floodplain Cl"l<I l~ove matntalnabl I tty.
SUBM I TIED BY•
~ ~ HARRIS. E. I. T.
CITY OF COl.LECE STATION
PUBl.IC WORJ.S DEPAJmEHT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SWTH
COlL£CE STATION. TX 71842
APRIL. 2001
UA PAO.ET NO.~
LEGEND
™'1 PROPOSED 'WATERS OP THB U.S..
----INSl!T BOUNilAR'l UNI!
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
~~~~~S~D CONDITIONS EXHIBIT II
LOCATION
SCAL E : I' = I 00'
PURPOSE•
The purpose of this project Is to Improve the
existing channel In order to decrease the 100-yeor
floodplain and Impr ove molntalnabl llty.
SUBMITTED BY•
MRS.· ·LAURA · HARR IS, E. I. T.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STAT ION, TX 77642
AUGUST, 2001
LJA PROJECT NO. 1646-0001
LEGEND
1111111 PROPOSED WATERS OF THE U.S.
BEE CREEK RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED CENTERUNE & BOTIOM WIDTH
INSET BOUNDARY LINE
SANITARY SEWER
• EXIST. SAN SEWER MANHOLE
EXIST. POWER POLE
EXIST. SLOPE PAVING OR RIP-RAP
LJA Engineerng & Surveying, Inc. l J j
2929 Brlorpork Drive Phone 713.953.5200
Suite 500 Fox 713.953.5026
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
SITE: BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
INSET A EXHIBIT 12
LOCATION
SCALE : I' = 100'
PURPOSE•
The purpose of this project ls to Improve the
existing chonnel In order to decrease the 100-year
floodplain and Improve molntatnabt I tty.
SUBMITTED BY•,
MRS. LAURA HARR1 S,-· E. I. T.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
AUGUST, 2001
LJA PROJECT NO. 1646-0001
LEGEND
1111 I I II PROPOSED WATERS OF THE U.S.
BEE CREEK RIGIIT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED CENTERLINE & BOTTOM WIDTII
- - -INSET BOUNDARY LINE
SANITARY SEWER
e EXIST. SAN SEWER MANHOLE
,cf EXIST. POWER POLE
[\'·.\!.\~}] EXIST. SI.OPE PAVING OR RIP-RAP
LJA Engi'leeriig & Surveying, Inc. l J l.
2929 Brlorpork Drive Phone 713. 953.5200 Suite 500 Fox 713.953.5026
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
INSET B EXHIBIT 13
LOCATION
SCALE : I" = I 00'
PURPOSE•
The purpose of this project Is to Improve the
existing channel In order to decrease the 100-year
floodploln and Improve molntolnobll lty.
SUBMITTED BY1
MRS. LAURA HARR IS, E. I. T.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
AUGUST, 2001
LJA PROJECT NO. 1646-0001
265 x
1 Ns --...... ( [)(L1 tr 0
--...... '7 I 8 I r 9;
LEGEND
11111 111 PROPOSED WATERS OF THE U.S.
BEE CREEK RJGl-IT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED CEl'CTEU.INE & BOTTOM WIDTH
INSET BOUNDARY LINE
SANITARY SEWER
• EXIST. SAN SEWER MANHOLE
EXIST. POWER POLE
EXIST. SWPE PAVING OR RIP-RAP
l
1
LJA EngineerrYJ & Surveying, Inc. l J l
2929 Brlorpork Drive Phone 713.953.5200
Suite 500 Fox 713.953.5026
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE
IMPROVEM~NTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
INSET C EXH 181 T I <:1
35.4
LOCATION
SCALE : I' = I 00'
PURPOSE•
260.1 x
The purpose of this project Is to Improve the
existing channel In order to decrease the 100-year
floodplain and Improve molntalnobl llty.
SUBMITTED BY•
MRS. LAURA HARR IS, E. I. T.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2613 TEXAS AVE. SOUTH
COLLEGE STAT I ON, TX 77842
AUGUST, 2001
LJA PROJECT NO. 1646-0001
PROPOSED WATERS OF Tiffi U.S.
BEE CREEK RIGITT--OF-WAY
PROPOSED CENrERUNl! & B01TOM WIDTH
INSET BOUNDARY LINE
SANITARY SEWER
• EXIST. SAN SEWER MANHOLE
EXIST. POWER POLE
EXIST. SLOPE PAVING OR RIP-RAF
LJA Engineerilg & Surveying, Inc. l J j
2929 Brlorpork Drive Phone 713.953.5200
Suite 500 Fox 713.953.5026
Houston, Texas 77042-3703
SITE• BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
LOCATION• COLLEGE STATION
COUNTY• BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS IS INSET D EXHIBIT
Appendix G -Wetland Data Forms
G-1
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
Appendix H -Correspondence
H-1
Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements
COE Project# 200000639
Federal Emergency Management Age1
Washington, D .C. 20472
The Honorable Ron Si]via
Mayor, City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842-0960
Dear Mayor Silvia:
NOV 18 200l
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Case Number: · 02-06-875R
Community: City of College SI
B1.uus County, T1
Community No .: 480083
104
F.Y.L
To: /_w.; ro..., &rr~~
From: ~-""'------
Retur~D ~ ~
Keep or toss D
~ .. :.!rF.Y·'· ped78e&
Thi~ is in reference Lu a letter, dated July 20, 2001, from Ted Mayo, P.E .• Assistant City Engjnecr,
City of College Station, requesting a Conditional Letter-of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the proposed Bee C'reek Tributary A
drainage improvements. The proposed project will be located along Bee Creek Tributary A from
approximately 1.400 feet down~tre~m of Longmire Drive to appro:x.imatcly.650 feet up~tream Qf
Longmire Drive. It will consist of channel improvements, the placement of fi1l in the 1 % annual
chance (100-year) floodpfain, and a detailed analysis of Bee Creek Tributary A from th~-limit of
detailed study to Rio Grande Drive in order to designate the. area as Zone AE, with established Base
(1 % annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), and a floodway. The area of the proposed project is
shown on l<'Jood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) numbers 48041C0144 C and 48041C0182 C, both
dated July 2, 1992.
We received the following data, prepared by Carolyn S. Gilligan, P .E., of UA Engineering &
Surveying, Inc., in support of this request: ·
· • HEC-2 hydnmlic morlP-ls., d~ted December 21, 2001, of the 10%, 2%, 1 %, and 0 .2% annual
chance (10-year, 50-ycar, 100-year, and 500-year, respectively) floods and floodway,
representing the duplicate effective conditions for Bee Creek Tributary A:
• HEC-2 hydraulic models, dated June 3, 2002, of the 10%, 2%, l %, and 0.2% annual chance
floods and floodway, representing the existing conditions for Bee Creek Tributary A;
• . HEC-2 hydraulic models, dated June 4, 2002, of the 10%, 2%, 1 %, and U.2% annual chance
floods and floodway, representing the proposed conditions for Bee Creek Tributary A;
• certified topographic work maps, dated September 2002, titled Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage lmpmw~m.1m.1s Work Map, shown at a scale of 1inch=200 feet, with :i contour
interval of 10 feet, representing the cff ective, existing, and proposed conditions for Bee Creek
Tributary A;
2
• a report, titled .Bee Creek Tributary A from River Mile 1.222 to River Mile 2.24, prepared by
LlA Engineering & Surveying, Inc., dated June 2001;
• a portion of the Brazos County, Tex.as and Incorporated Areas FIRM numbers 48041COI44 C
and 48041COl82 C, uaLe<l July 2, 1992, annorn1ed to reflect proposed condJt.Jons; and
• completed appJicntion/ccrtification forms, including communhy concuu~m;e with the
proposed project.
We received all of the data required to perform a technical review of the CLO:MR request as of
September 25, 2002.
An existing conditions model was developed to provide additional detaiJ in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The ex1stmg conditions model incorporated updated topographic irifonnation to
reflect current watershed conditions. This model was then compared to the effective model and the
proposed conditio~ model to differentiate Ghaoges in flood liazanh caused by more detailed
modeJing from changes in flood hazards that will be caused by the proposed project. The existing
conditions model reveals: increa$es in the l % annuru chance wntcr suri8CC elevations (WS~) for
Bee Creek Tributary A, when compared to the effective model. The maximum increase of 0.9 foot
occurs approximately 170 feet downstreat"p of Longmire Drive.
Out review of the-prop0sed conditions mooel indicates that the proposed project would cause
decreases in the 1 % annuaJ chance WSELs, when compared to the existing conditions model. 'The
maximlllll decrease of 3.0 feet occurs approximately 650 feet upstream of Longmire Drive.
We have reviewed the submitted data and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum
floodplain mantlgement critcrin of the Nntionnl Flood Insurance Progw:am. (NPIP). If the project j:s
built as proposed, a revision to the FJood Insurance Study (FIS) and FIRM for your community wilJ
be warranted. This revision will show the following effects, a-; shown hy the dat~ snhmittt".ci to
support the request:
1 % AnnuaJ Chance Water Sutf ace Elevations
When the proposed conditions were compared to the effecuve con<titions for Bee Creek
Tributary A, it was determined that a maximum decrease in the WSBLs of 2.4 feet would
occur &pproximatcly ltlOO feet downstream of Longmire Drive.
1 % Annual Chance Floodplain
When the proposed conditions were compared to the effective conditions for Bee Creek
Tributary A, it was determined that a maximum decrease in the 1 % annual chance floodplain
of 180 feet would occur approximately 600 feet upstream of Longmire Drive and a maximum
increase of 220 feet would occur just downstream of Longmire Drive.
When the proposed conditions were compared ro the effective conditions for Bee Creek
Tributary A from the limit of detailed study to Rio Grande Drive, it was determined that this
area would be designated a Zone AE, auu would have a maximum 1 % annual chance
floodplain of 430 feet approximately 2,450 feet downstream of Rio Grande Drive.
Floodway
When the proposed conditions were compared to the effective conditions for Bee Creek
Tributary A. it was detennined that a maximum floodway decrease of approxim::itely 300 feet
would occur approx.imately 1,000 feet downstream of Longm.fre Drive.
When the proposed condHions model was compared to the effective cond.itions model for
Bee Creek Tributary A from the limit of detailed study to Rio Grande Drive, it was
determined that thi~ area would be designated a Zone AE, and would have a maximum
floodway of 80 feet ·approximately 2,450 feet downstream of Rio Grande Drive.
Future revisions to the FIS and FIRM, or restudies of the flood hazards in this area, could modify this
determination.
We based this determination on the 1 % annual chance discharges computed in the FIS for your
community, along the currently effective Zone AE portion of Bee Creek Tributary A, and the
1 % annual chance discharges computed in the submitted hydrologic analysis for Bee Creek
Tributary A from the limit of dc:laik<l study to Rio Grande Prive wjthout considering subsequent
changes in watershed characteristics that could have increased discharges. Additionally, future
devdnpment of projects upstream may incre:ise discharges, which may incri;ase flood hazards. A
comprehensive restudy-Of your communjty' s flood hazards would consider the cumulative effects of
development on discharges subsequent to the pnblication of the FIS for your community and,
therefore, could estabJlsh greater flood hazatds in this area.
Your community must approve all proposed floodplain development, including this proposed
project, and ensure that pemilts required by other Federal agencies and/or State and local agencies
have been obLaiui;u. Slale and/or community officials may set standards for construction that arc
more restrictive than the minimum NFIP standards or may limit development in floodplains, based
on knowledge of local conditions nnd in the interest of safely. If the State and/or the community
have adopted mo:re restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, those criteria take
precedence over the minimum NFTP rt".qnire.ments .
When your community requests a map revision to reflect the effects of the completed proje.ct, you
must submit either a copy of a public notice stating the community's intent to revise·the floodway on
the FIRM or a statement by the community that it has notified a11 affected property owners and
affected jurisdictions of the revis10n to the floodway, in compliance with NFIP regulations
Subparagraph 6S.7(b)(l).
Channel modifications will fail to function as designed without proper maintenance, such as the
regular cleating of th~ c:h:mnelize.d stream. To avoid such failures, we rcqujre participatiu~
communities to ensure that the flood-carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any
watercourse is maintained according to NFIP regulations Suhp;lt(lgraph 60.3(b)(7). Therefore, upon
completion of the project, your community must submit documentation ensuring that the modified
4
channel will be mamtainecl to preserve its design function. We may request that your community
submit a description and schedule of its channel maintenance, as outljned in Subparagraph 6S.6(a)(12)
of the NPIP regulations. ·
If fill is placed in your conununity to rai3c the ground surface to OJ al.Nvc lhe BPE, your community
must meet the criteria of NFIP regulations Sections 60.3 and 65.6, which require that the community's
NFIP pennit official certify that pmpoRe:ci or e-.xisting structures to be reIDQved from the Spccia.l F1ood
Hazard Area (SFHA) be .. reasonably safe from flooding." "Reasonably safe from flooding'' means
base flood waters will not inundate the land or damage structures to be removed from th~ SFHA and
th.at any subsurface waters related to the base flood wilJ not damage existing or proposed buildings.
The community and engineers shouJd review and use FEM.A Technical Bulletin 10-01, Ensuring that
Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas are Reasonably Safe From
Flooding, which may be downloaded <tirectly from the FEMA website at
http://www.fcma.gov/pdf/fim8'tb 1001.pdf.
NFIP regulation~ Se.r.tion 65.3 states that when a con:ununity's BFEs incrcnse or dccrea&e because of
physical changes that affect flooding conditions, the community must submit technical or scientific
data to-FEMA that substantiate these changes. The community must submit such data as soon as
possible, but no later than six months after such data become available, so that FEMA can base flood
insurance premium rates and floodplain management requirements on the most up-to-date and
accurate information available .
. Upon completion of llJC proposed project, your community must request a revision to the FIS and
FIRM, per NFIP regulations Section ~S.3. The revision request should include the data listed below.
1. Evidence of compliance with NF1P regulations Paragraph 65.4(b), which states that "all
requests for changes to effective m~ps. ... mu~t :be made in writing by thti commuruty'~ Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) or an officiaJ designated by the CEO."
2. As-built plans of all relevant project elements or a statement declaring that the project was
built as proposed, either of which must be certified by a Professional Engineer. Please
provide digltal copies of the as~built plans, if available. ·
3. The det:liled o.pplicntion and certification forms may bt: 1~4uired if as-built conditions differ
from the prcJiminary plans. If re.quired, please submit new fonns or annotated copies of the
previously submitted fonnR shnwine the revised info~ation.
4. Hydraulic analyses for as-bwlt conditions, of the l 0%. 2%. 1 %. and 0.2% annni1l ch~ce
floods and floodway for Bee Creek Tributary A.
5. Certified topographic mapping delineating the 1 % and 0.2% annual chance floodplains and
floodway for Bee Creek TributMy A, including the locations and alignments of the cross
~cctions and flow linGS used hi \ht: hy<lnt.ulic model, representing as-built conditions.
a. Ple~u;A show this information on a map of suitable cc:Ue Clnd topographic definition to
provide reasonable accuracy.
5
b. Please label all items for easy cross-referencing to the hydraulic model and summary data.
c. Submit this infonnation in paper and, jf available, c!C(.;lronjc format.
6. r.opiP.s of the. Brnzos Connty. Texas and Incorporated Areas FJRM number 48041C0144 C
and 48041.COJ.82 C, dated July 2, 1992, annotated to reflect the as-built conditions.
7. A letter stating that your community wj)) adopt and enforce the modified floodway.
8. Documentation ot individual legal notices that were senc to property owners who are
adversely impacted by any increases jn and/or shifting of the 1 % annual chance floodplain
and/or nny incrcMc~ in the 1 'JL annual chance WSELs for Be:~ Crc:ck Tributary A.
a. If you submit notification and acceptance from the adversely impactt>.<t property owners,
FEMA can issue a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) effective the date of issuance.
b. If you submit notification of, but not acceptance by, the adverseJy impacted property
owners, FEMA may issue a LOMR effective three to six months after the date of
issuance.
9. Documentation showing complinncc with NFIP regulations Subparagraphs 65.7(bX1)
regarding floodwa:y revisions, Subparagraphs 60.3(bX7) and 65.6 (a)(12) regarding
maintenance, and Subparagraph 65.5(a)(6) regarding fill placement, as previously ilis.cussed_
If the project is buHt as proposed in the data submitted in support of this request. you do not have to
rcsubmjt items 3 and 4 listed above~ otherwise, please resubmit them.
W.:. have 1:..·m.:lusetl a copy of our application/cenification follilS tor your reference. The
application/certification fonns package may be downloaded directly from the FEMA website at
http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/en_main.htm or copie& may be obt3..\ned by contncting the FEMA Map
Assistance Center, toll free, al 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Typically, we do not require all
of these forms if the project is completed as proposed in the data submitted in support of this re.quest.
The enclosed document, titled Reqitirements for Submitting Application! Certification Forms to
Support Requests for NFIP Map Revisions, describes in detail the circumstances under which the
f onns are required.
The NPIP is primarily funded by policyholders, not taxes. We recover costs associated with
reviewing and processing requests for modifications to published FISs and FIRMs to minintize the
finnncial burden on the policyholders. The fee for an as-built LOMR request in folluw-up to this
CLOMR is $3,800, which we must receive before we can begin processing. This fee represents the
fee scherlule effective ~cptemher l, ?.002. Howeve.r, the fee schedule is subject to ch~ge, and the
requester is required to submit the fe¢ in effect at the time of the submission. Your payment must be
6
a check. ur money order made payable to the National Flood Insurance Program and should be
forwarded to:
Federal Emergency Mam1gemcnt Agency
Fee Charge System Administrator
P.O. Box 3173
Meo:ifield, Virginia 22216
Once we receive the processing fee and the items listed above, complete our review, and verify that
the completed project meets all applicable NFIP standards; we wm revise your commnnlry's FIS and
FIRM to incorporate the effects of the completed project, as appropriate.
Part <i5 of Lhe enclosed NFIP reguJations further describes the data needed to support a request to
revise the FIS and FIRM. Your compliance with the criteria outlined in the NFlP regulations will
streamline our review, allowing us to expeditiously revi:>e your community's FIS and FIRM.
If you have any questions regardine thji; C.LOMR, pleas~ contact the FEMA Map Assistance
Center, toll free, at l.-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627).
Sincerely,
~a. wa..U-'
Lloyd A. Hake, Project Engineer
Hazards Study Branch
Federal Insurance and
Mltigation Administration
Enclosures
For: Michael M. Grimm, Acting Chief
Hazard Study Branch
Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration .
cc: Veronjca Morgan, Floodplain Administrator, City of College Station
(;Arolyn S Gilligan, P .E., LJ A Engineering & Surveying. Inc.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D .C. 20472
The Honorable Ron Silvia
Mayor, City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842-0960
Dear Mayor Silvia:
NOY 18 2002
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Case Number: 02-06-875R
Community: City of College Station,
Brazos County, Texas
Community No.: 480083
104
T~is is in reference to a letter, dated July 20, 2001, from Ted Mayo, P.E., Assistant City Engineer,
City of College Station, requesting a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the proposed Bee Creek Tributary A
drainage improvements. The proposed project will be located along Bee Creek Tributary A from
approximately 1,400 feet downstream of Longmire Drive to approximately 650 feet upstream of
Longmire Drive. It will consist of channel improvements, the placement of fill in the 1 % annual
chance (100-year) floodplain, and a detailed analysis of Bee Creek Tributary A from the limit of
detailed study to Rio Grande Drive in order to designate the area as Zone AE, with established Base
(1 % annual chance)Flood Elevations (BFEs), and a floodway. The area of the proposed project is
shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) numbers 48041C0144 C and 48041C0182 C, both
dated July 2, 1992.
We received the following data, prepared by Carolyn S. Gilligan, P.E., of I.JA Engineering &
Surveying, Inc., in support of thi's request: ·
• HEC-2 hydraulic models, dated December 21, 2001, of the 10%, 2%, 1%, and 0.2% annual
chance (10-year, 50-year, 100-year, and 500-year, respectively) floods and floodway,
representing the duplicate effective conditions for Bee Creek Tributary A;
• HEC-2 hydraulic models, dated June 3, 2002, of the 10%, 2%, 1 %, and 0.2% annual chance
floods and floodway, representing the existing conditions for Bee Creek Tributary A;
• HEC-2 hydraulic models, dated June 4, 2002, of the 10%, 2%, 1 %, and 0.2% annual chance
floods and floodway, representing the proposed conditions for Bee Creek Tributary A;
• certified topographic work maps, dated September 2002, titled Bee Creek Tributary A
Drainage Improvements Work Map, shown at a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet , with a contour
interval of 10 feet, representing the effective, existing, and proposed conditions for Bee Creek
Tributary A;
APPROXIMATE SCALE
500EE3::::::l::j:\::::EE-"<::::::::CJ:E3::::::0C:=====::::::i500 FEET
llATIOllAL FLOOD lllSURAllCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
BRAZOS COUNTY,
TEXAS AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 182 OF 250
(SEE MAP INOEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
UNINCORPOAATID .-.REAS
!llMfil mu surnx
480053 0112
48tl9S 0112
lht.it1 to Uu1: Tile MAf' NUMBER lhow11 Mlow silOllN lie uset1
wli111 ,iac:~ •'P .,del'1: ~ COMMUlrlllTl lfUMBCR 11Mw1
th<l1sheclid lNl!Jed•inw~•...,plk,liens;* .. ~
MAP NUMBER
48041COl82 C
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JULY 2, 1992
Federal Emergency Management Agency
This is an official copy of a portion of the abo1o1e referenced ftood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may ha...e been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov
ZONE X
~ ~
APPROXIMATE SCALE
5~~~~~..---.~~~E-3~~0~~~~~~~~500FEET
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
BRAZOS COUNTY,
TEXAS AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 182 OF 250
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PAINTED)
N\IMBER llltEl SUfflX
~00113 0112
UNINCORPOP.ATCD AREAS 48119S 0112
lhtice kl Uur: TM MAP NUMBER 5'ww11 Mlow .-.~ M ti1M41
wll111 ,taeillg ••p 9'ders; die COMMUNITY flUMBU 11Nwt
DH1 Doa6d IN u.d Oii imJttr...U ••pliiu9on. '9f .. ut.;.c1
MAP NUMBER
48041C0182 C
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JULY 2, 1992
Federal Emetgency Management Agency
This is an ofTiciat copy of a portion of the above referenced ftood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reftect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov
500
APPROXIMATE SCALE
0 SOOFEET
E3 E3 E3
llATIOllAL FLOOD lllSURAllCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
BRAZOS COUNTY,
TEXAS AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 182 OF 250
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTEOI
!\!!l!fil PAll£l SUIFIX
480083 01112
481195 0112
JhtKe to UM•: TM MAP NUMBER it..-~ "-'W k wt..i
wt..11 ,1•ci119 •1p 9lders; tk COMMUlllTI NUMBER thw.
abtn 5hoakl iM •Hd c. ilts111~.; ...,,iiie1'9ns ler .. lllhjtC1
MAP NUMBER
48041COl82 C
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JULY 2, 1992
Federal Emergency Management Agency
This is an on'iciaf copy of a portion of the above referenced ftood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reftect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program ftood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov
./
From:
To:
Date:
Alan Gibbs
Charbonnet, Danielle
11/2/2006 8:49:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: Dr. Christopher Bailey -1205 Guadalupe -Reference: Camelot Project
Danielle,
I need to look into this question and would appreciate any input you or Jerry might have related to your
CIP project.
Alan Gibbs, P.E.
City of College Station
Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works
>»Gary Balmain 11/2/2006 2:56 PM»>
The attached letter arrived today addressed to Marshall. The photos did not scan very well but Marshall
has the original letter with color photos on file.
Alan, do you want to take the lead on this since he is talking about overall drainage capacity in the area?
Gary
CC: Balmain, Gary; Mclemore, Charles; Mosley, Bob; Smith, Mark
-As
t
r
Dr. Christopher A. Bailey
1205 Guadalupe
College Station, Texas 77840
(979) 7 64-0511
October 20, 2006
Mr. Marshall Wallace
College Station Streets and Drainage
PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Dear Mr. Wallace:
I am writing to express my concern regarding the r~cent cit work on the ere
paralleling Guadalupe Drive and running under L t. I live at the comer of
Cuadalupe and Langford an have experienced flooding in my garage on 4 occasions
(high enough to get into the passenger compartment of m automobiles on one occasion
an m ouse o s an causmg considerable damage over the last several
years. The recent rains (Oct 16) provided the first realistic test of the creek modificat10ns -and my observations are that the risk of my house flooding has gone up rather than down.
It seems the water holding capacity behind the Langford culvert or "dam" has actually
gone down. I don't believe I have ever seen the water build up behind the culvert as fast
as it did Monday morning, comin to within a few inches of flooding my garage. I spent
Monday morning scrambling to secure my garage contents o ee em from potentially
floating down the creek. I have spent quite a bit of money contouring my backyard with
railroad ties, el._evating my yard house seyeral feet above ground level and cutting a
"fl e" in m fence in an effort to keep the water more or less in · r
than in my house/11;arage. regu arly get in the cree e ow my house to remove debris
that gets caught up on the sewer line just in front of the Langford culvert. As the project
began !~greed to let the city cut down over half a dozen trees without so much as a
whimper.
When the drainage project was described to me I was led to believe the rock baskets.
wOJ.ild i<e placed.i._n the ditch in a step pyraraia ~hat would allow for increased water
holding capacity due to the gentle outward slope of the rock baskets. I was told that over
time soil would fill in the gaps between the rocks and they would in a sense disappear
over time leaving a gently sloped stable ditch. In reality the rock baskets were placed
right on top of each other creating near yertjcal sid~ rather than the sloping sides thus
reducing water holding capacity. I am concerned that eyentually the wire holding thJ.
roe ·u ru t allowing the rocks to fall into · decreasing the water
holding capacity even e allowing pictures may help illustrate the problems as
I see them.
Note above, the "dam" at the culvert on Langford Street. The water flow vastly exceeds
the carrying capacity of the pipe running underneath the street. The hemispheric shape (in
contrast to rectangular) means that as the water rises, capacity decreases exponentially.
This would be OK if the creek had greater holding capacity but it appears the city is
relying on my house to contain the excess water rather than the creek.
Note above, the water is just inches from backing up into the drive/garage.
Note above, the water just inches from entering my garage facing Langford.
Note above, the water near the top of my 4 ft chain link fence and just 3-4 inches from
entering the garage. Also note the railroad ties I placed to help control the water.
Above we see the so called retaining pond constructed at the H.S. It is obvious from this
picture the pond is not retaining nearly enough water to buffer the flow downstream. It
would seem this is the logical place to restrict the flow through the culvert rather than
restricting the flow at the Langford culvert.
Note above the other retaining pond at the H.S. While this pond does appear to retain
significantly more water than the other pond it still appears to have vastly more unused
retaining capacity.
Here we see the upper portion to the retaining pond illustrating the additional holding
capacity which isn't being used due to the excessively rapid draining under Nueces
Street.
' ' .
·;·"/ . '·-' ..... ~··-·
Here we see another major problem. It seems every street in the surrounding area drains
on the "up-water" side of the Langford culvert causing even more water to back up onto
my property. Very little street water drains into the opposite "down-stream" side of the
culvert.
I believe the most effective way to fix this problem is to increase the out-flow capacity of
the Lan gford ~uh~ by converting the hemisphere pipe to a rectangular passage. ~ Alternatively, the city could place two additional smaller pipes-just under the street which
could release additional water once the hemisphere pipe was filled to capacity. Either that
or the water holding capaci · ert needs to be increased at least 4x by
ili_gging a wider djtc or creating an additional retaining pond up stream. I don't want to
sound threatening but if the city continues to rely on my house/property to serve as the
water retaining pond at this location then I may have no choice but to send them the bill
the next time my house floods and I am forced to move out for a week or so while the
house dries out.
Sincerely,
v#:Jl:>£5)
Christopher A. Bailey
T
A
B
L
E
4
•
FLOODING SOURCE
CllOSS SECTION DISTANCE
Bee Creek
Tributary B
0.122 A
B 0.302
c 0.602
D 0.952
E 1.152
F 1.352
c 1.762
WIDTH
(FEET)
120
73
54
227
159
165
55
lMiles above confluence with Carters Creek
2Miles above confluence with Bee Creek
3Feet above confluence with Carters Creek
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
BRAZOS COUNTY, TX
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
FLOODWAY
SECTION
AllEA (SQUAllE FEET)
544
615
441
1,167
870
876
270
MEAN
VELOOTY (FEET PEii SECOND)
6.5
5.7
7.7
2.9
1.8
1.8
5.7
BASE FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
I WITHOUT I WITH I llEGULATOllY . FLOODWA'( R.OOOWAY
(FEETNGVD)
- - -
267.0 , __ 266.34 267.3 1.0
268.9 ,_ 268.9 269.9 1.0
237.7 273.7 274.4 0.7
278.0 278.0 278.3 0.3
278.8 278.8 279.S 0.7
281.6 281.6 281.8 0.2
285.7 285.7 286.6 0.9
4Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects
from Bee Creek
FLOODWAYDATA
BEE CREEK· BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY A-BEE CREEK TRIBUTARY B -
WOLF PEN CREEK
. .
<t.
November 6, 2006
Dr. Christopher A. Bailey
1205 Guadalupe
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Dr. Bailey:
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the erosion control work recently completed
in your neighborhood in the Camelot Subdivision area. The storm of October 16 certainly did
test the drainage system all over our community.
The purpose of the installation of the rock baskets is to control the erosion of the creek banks.
The intent was to minimize any impact to the yards while, at the same time, trying to stabilize
the banks with the baskets. The crews wanted to preserve the integrity of the existing
landscaping by removing as few trees as possible.
During the storm there was some damage to the erosion control baskets in an area of the creek
where the crews attempted to save some trees. The result was that several trees were lost
when water got behind the baskets. We are in the process of clearing that section and resetting
the baskets.
The purpose of the project was to secure the banks of the creek to prevent further erosion of the
yards. The carrying capacity of the drainage was not affected in one way or the other. The
baskets were placed one on top of the other and in time grass and cane will grow in and around
the structure to both assist in erosion control and to make the area look more natural. The
pyramid style structure that you refer to would have required much more excavation of
residential yards. Again, our purpose was to try to control natural erosion of the yards.
Our Engineering Division is in the process of reviewing the area drainage that has an impact on
Guadalupe Drive and Langford Street including any possible re-sizing of the culvert at Langford.
Sincerely,
:~~;~n~~
Streets and Drainage Superintendent
Cc: Glenn Brown, City Manager
Mark Smith, Director of Public Works
the heart of the Research Valley
P.O. BOX 9960
1101 TEXAS A VENUE
COLLEGE STATION · TEXAS· 77842
979.764.3510
' ~.
2
• a report, titled Bee Creek Tributary A from River Mile 1.222 to River Mile 2.24, prepared by
LJA Engineering & Surveying, Inc., dated June 2001;
• a portion of the Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas FIRM numbers 48041C0144 C
and 48041C0182 C, dated July 2, 1992, annotated to reflect proposed conditions; and
• completed application/certification forms, including community concurrence with the
proposed project.
We received all of the data required to perform a technical review of the CLO MR request as of
September 25, 2002.
An existing conditions model was developed to provide additional detail in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The existing conditions model incorporated updated topographic information to
reflect current watershed conditions. This model was then compared to the effective model and the
proposed conditions model to differentiate changes in flood hazards caused by more detailed
modeling from changes in flood hazards that will be caused by the proposed project. The existing
conditions model reveals increases in the 1 % annual chance water surface elevations (WSELs) for
Bee Creek Tributary A, when compared to the effective model. The maximum increase of 0.9 foot
occurs approximate} y 170 feet downstream of Longmire Drive.
Our review of the proposed conditions model indicates that the proposed project would cause
decreases in the 1 % annual chance WSELs, when compared to the existing conditions model. The
maximum decrease of 3.0 feet occurs approximately 650 feet upstream of Longmire Drive.
We have reviewed the submitted data and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum
floodplain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If the project is
built as proposed, a revision to the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and FIRM for your community will
be warranted. This revision will show the following effects, as shown by the data submittect to
support the request:
1 % Annual Chance Water Surface Elevations
When the proposed conditions were compared to the effective conditions for Bee Creek
Tributary A, it was determined that a maximum decrease in the WSELs of 2.4 feet would
occur approximately 1,100 feet downstream of Longmire Drive.
1 % Annual Chance Floodplain
When the proposed conditions were compared to the effective conditions for Bee Creek
Tributary A, it was determined that a maximum decrease in the 1 % annual chance floodplain
of 180 feet would occur approximately 600 feet upstream of Longmire Drive and a maximum
increase of 220 feet would occur just downstream of Longmire Drive.
When the proposed conditions were compared to the effective conditions for Bee Creek
Tributary A from the limit of detailed study to Rio Grande Drive, it was determined that this
3
area would be designated a Zone AE, and would have a maximum 1 % annual chance
floodplain of 430 feet approximately 2,450 feet downstream of Rio Grande Dri ve.
Floodway
When the proposed conditions were compared to the effective conditions for Bee Creek
Tributary A, it was determined that a maximum floodway decrease of approximately 300 feet
would occur approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Longmire Drive.
When the proposed conditions model was compared to the effective conditions model for
Bee Creek Tributary A from the limit of detailed study to Rio Grande Drive, it was
determined that this area would be designated a Zone AE, and would have a maximum
floodway of 80 feet approximately 2,450 feet downstream of Rio Grande Drive.
Future revisions to the FIS and FIRM, or restudies of the flood hazards in this area, could modify this
determination.
We based this determination on the 1 % annual chance discharges computed in the FIS for your
community, along the currently effective Zone AE portion of Bee Creek Tributary A, and the
1 % annual chance discharges computed in the submitted hydrologic analysis for Bee Creek
Tributary A from the limit of detailed study to Rio Grande Drive without considering subsequent
changes in watershed characteristics that could have increased discharges. Additionally, future
development of projects upstream may increase discharges, which may increase flood hazards. A
comprehensive restudy -0f your community's flood hazards would consider the cumulative effects of
development on discharges subsequent to the publication of the FIS for your community and,
therefore, could establish greater flood hazards in this area.
Your community must approve all proposed floodplain development, including this proposed
project, and ensure that permits required by other Federal agencies and/or State and local agencies
have been obtained. State and/or community officials may set standards for construction that are
more restrictive th an the minimum NFIP standards or may limit development in floodplains, based
on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety. If the State and/or the community
have adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, those criteria take
precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements.
When your community requests a map revision to reflect the effects of the completed project, you
must submit either a copy of a public notice stating the community's intent to revise the floodway on
the FIRM or a statement by the community that it has notified all affected property owners and
affected jurisdictions of the revision to the floodway, in compliance with NFIP regulations
Subparagraph 65.7(b)(l).
Channel modifications will fail to function as designed without proper maintenance, such as the
regular clearing of the channelized stream. To avoid such failures, we require participating
communities to ensure that the flood-carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any
watercourse is maintained according to NFIP regulations Subparagraph 60.3(b )(7). Therefore, upon
completion of the project, your community must submit documentation ensuring that the modified
4
channel will be maintained to preserve its design function . We may request that your community
submit a description and schedule of its channel maintenance, as outlined in Subparagraph 65.6(a)(l2)
of the NFIP regulations.
If fill is pl aced in your community to raise the ground surface to or above the BFE, your community
must meet the criteria of NFIP regulations Sections 60.3 and 65 .6, which require that the community's
NFIP permit official certify that proposed or existing structures to be removed from the Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) be "reasonably safe from flooding." "Reasonably safe from flooding" means
base flood waters will not inundate the land or damage structures to be removed from the SFHA and
that any subsurface waters related to the base flood will not damage existing or proposed buildings.
The community and engineers should review and use FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01, Ensuring that
Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas are Reasonably Safe From
Flooding, which may be downloaded directly from the FEMA website at
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/tblOOl .pdf.
NFIP regulations Section 65.3 states that when a community's BFEs increase or decrease because of
physical changes that affect flooding conditions, the community must submit technical or scientific
data to FEMA that substantiate these changes. The community must submit such data· as soon as
possible, but no later than six months after such data become available, so that FEMA can base flood
insurance premium rates and floodplain management requirements on the most up-to-date and
accurate information available.
Upon completion of the proposed project, your community must request a revision to the FIS and
FIRM, per NFJP regulations Section 65.3. The revision request should include the data listed below.
1. Evidence of compliance with NFIP regulations Paragraph 65.4(b), which states that "all
requests for changes to effective maps ... must be made in writing by the community's Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) or an official designated by the CEO."
2. As-built plans of all relevant project elements or a statement declaring that the project was
built as proposed, either of which must be certified by a Professional Engineer. Please
provide digital copies of the as-built plans, if available.
3. The detailed application and certification forms may be required if as-built conditions differ
from the preliminary plans. If required, please submit new forms or annotated copies of the
previously submitted forms showing the revised information.
4. Hydraulic analyses for as-built conditions, of the 10%, 2%, 1 %, and 0.2% annual chance
floods and floodway for Bee Creek Tributary A.
5. Certified topographic mapping delineating the 1 % and 0.2% annual chance floodplains and
floodway for Bee Creek Tributary A, including the locations and alignments of the cross
sections and flow lines used in the hydraulic model, representing as-built conditions.
a. Please show this information on a map of suitable scale and topographic definition to
provide reasonable accuracy.
5
b. Please label all items for easy cross-referencing to the hydraulic model and summary data.
c. Submit this information in paper and, if available, electronic format.
6. Copies of the Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas FIRM number 48041C0144 C
and 48041C0182 C, dated July 2, 1992, annotated to reflect the as-built conditions.
7. A letter stating that your community will adopt and enforce the modified floodway.
8. Documentation of individual legal notices that were sent to property owners who are
adversely impacted by any increases in and/or shifting of the 1 % annual chance floodplain
and/or any increases in the 1 % annual chance WSELs for Bee Creek Tributary A.
a. If you submit notification and acceptance from the adversely impacted property owners,
FEMA can issue a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) effective the date of issuance.
b. If you s_ubmit notification of, but not acceptance by, the adversely impacted property
owners, FEMA may issue .a LOMR effective three to six months after the date of
issuance.
9. Documentation showing compliance with NFIP regulations Subparagraphs 65.7(b)(l)
regarding floodway revisions, Subparagraphs 60.3(b)(7) and 65.6 (a)(12) regarding
maintenance, and Subparagraph 65.5(a)(6) regarding fill placement, as previously discussed.
If the project is built as proposed in the data submitted in support of this request, you do not have to
resubmit items 3 and 4 listed above; otherwise, please resubmit them.
We have enclosed a copy of our application/certification forms for your reference. The
application/certifi cation forms package may be downloaded directly from the FEMA website at
http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/en_main.htm or copies may be obtained by contacting the FEMA Map
Assistance Center, toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Typically, we do not require all
of these forms if the project is completed as proposed in the data submitted in support of this request.
The enclosed document, titled Requirements for Submitting Application/ Certification Fonns to
Support Requests for NFIP Map Revisions, describes in detail the circumstances under which the
forms are required.
The NFIP is primarily funded by policyholders, not taxes. We recover costs associated with
reviewing and processing requests for modifications to published FISs and FIRMs to minimize the
financial burden on the policyholders. The fee for an as-built LOMR request in follow-up to this
CLOMR is $3,800, which we must receive before we can begin processing. This fee represents the
fee schedule effective September 1, 2002. However, the fee schedule is subject to change, and the
requester is required to submit the fee in effect at the time of the submission. Your payment must be
6
a check or money order made payable to the National Flood Insurance Program and should be
foiwarded to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fee Charge System Administrator
P.O. Box 3173
Merrifield, Virginia 22216
Once we receive the processing fee and the items listed above, complete our review, and verify that
the completed project meets all applicable NFIP standards; we will revise your community's FIS and
FIRM to incorporate the effects of the completed project, as appropriate.
Part 65 of the enclosed NFIP regulations further describes the data needed to support a request to
revise the FIS and FJRM. Your compliance with the criteria outlined in the NFIP regulations will
streamline our review, allowing us to expeditiously revise your community's FIS and FIRM.
If you have any questions regarding this CLOMR, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance
Center, toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627).
Sincerely,
W Cl. WCLk-f-/
Lloyd A Hake, Project Engirieer
Hazards Study Branch
Federal Insurance and ·
Mitigation Administration
Enclosures
For: Michael M. Grimm, Acting Chief
Hazard Study Branch
Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Adniinistration
cc: Veronica Morgan, Floodplain Administrator, City of College Station
Carolyn S. Gilligan, P.E., LIA Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Gibbs:
"L Stewart" <llsierra@suddenlink.net>
<ag ibbs@cstx.gov>
3/12/2007 12:46:02 PM
FW: Bee Creek Improvements
I need to call City attention to the probable impact downstream of the
improvements currently in progress on Bee Creek, called ee Creek Channel
etiase IV & V (SD0001 and SD9802). I do not doubt that the improvements a e
necessary for the well-Ming of residents in the area West of Texas Avenue,
however, I wonder if any thought has been given to the impacts downstream.
I am submitting the attached photos of Bee Creek across Highway 6 to
emphasize the power of the "little creek" and to show what it does without
the upstream improvements, which I believe will only serve to increase the
volume and flow of water. I invite your attention to the attachments.
1 .. This is Bee Creek in action showing the typical closure of Appomattox
Street caused by heavy rains. This is BEFORE any upstream improvements.
2 .. A satellite image of the impact area. Note the trees. Here is where
the situation gets difficult, because Bee Creek has TWO channels in the
woods, the flood control channel which is plainly seen, and the original or
natural channel which is not visible.
3 .. This is the flood control channel in October, 2007
4 .. This is the flood control channel after the flooding of October, 2007.
Note the presence of heavy undergrowth that acts as an impediment to the
flows.
5 .. The next two photos are of the flooded Emerald Park (City park). Such
flooding occurs every time Bee Creek floods.
6 .. This shows the backyard at 1905 Amber Ridge and the flooding caused by
the Secondary or natural Bee Creel channel
7 .. This shows the flooding from the small feeder creek that crosses
Chippendale and flows into the natural creek bed. We believe that much of
this water is backflow from Bee Creek rising thru the bottom land.
8 .. The "natural" watercourse the day after the floods went down low
enough to enter Emerald Park. Note that the City did clean out this portion
of the natural channel when reported by Emerald Forest HOA However,
clearance was only made along a limited stretch of the watercourse.
9 .. Bee Creek also overflowed into the Emerald Forest HOA swimming pool,
the first time this has ever happened. We have the fish to prove it.
10 .. Here is one last view of the power of the Bee Creek natural channel.
Please advise if the City of College Station is even aware of the
o -. im act oft e ree 1m rovements now in work u on tho e
residents living downstream from these projects. I will suggest that
serious residential complaints are only a thunderstorm away.
Lawrence L. Stewart
President, Emerald Forest HOA
(979) 696-4744
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
FYI
Donnie Willis
Gibbs, Alan
3/12/2007 12:35 :03 PM
Fwd: Bee Creek Improvements
»>On 3/12/2007 at 12:18 pm , in message
<LGEHILJGGHIKAGCDDAOAOECCEAAA.llsierra@suddenlink.net>, "L Stewart"
<llsierra@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Dear Mr. Smith and Ms. Charbonnet::
I need to call City attention to the probable impact downstream of the improvements currently in
progress on Bee Creek, called Bee Creek Channel Phase IV & V (SD0001 and SD9802). I do not doubt
that the improvements are necessary for the well-being of residents in the area West of Texas Avenue,
however, I wonder if any thought has been given to the impacts downstream. I am submitting the
attached photos of Bee Creek across Highway 6 to emphasize the power of the "little creek" and to show
what it does without the upstream improvements, which I believe will only serve to increase the volume
and flow of water. I invite your attention to the attachments.
This is Bee Creek in action showing the typical closure of Appomattox Street caused by heavy rains. This
is BEFORE any upstream improvements.
A satellite image of the impact area. Note the trees. Here is where the situation gets difficult, because
Bee Creek has TWO channels in the woods, the flood control channel which is plainly seen, and the
original or natural channel which is not visible.
This is the flood control channel in October, 2007
This is the flood control channel after the flooding of October, 2007. Note the presence of heavy
undergrowth that acts as an impediment to the flows.
The next two photos are of the flooded Emerald Park (City park). Such flooding occurs every time Bee
Creek floods.
This shows the backyard at 1905 Amber Ridge and the flooding caused by the Secondary or natural Bee
Creel channel
This shows the flooding from the small feeder creek that crosses Chippendale and flows into the natural
creek bed. We believe that much of this water is backflow from Bee Creek rising thru the bottom land.
The "natural" watercourse the day after the floods went down low enough to enter Emerald Park. Note
that the City did clean out this portion of the natural channel when reported by Emerald Forest HOA.
However, clearance was only made along a limited stretch of the watercourse.
Bee Creek also overflowed into the Emerald Forest HOA swimming pool, the first time this has ever
happened. We have the fish to prove it.
Here is one last view of the power of the Bee Creek natural channel.
Please advise if the City of College Station is even aware of the potential impact of the Bee Creek
improvements now in work upon those residents living downstream from these projects. I will suggest that
serious residential complaints are only a thunderstorm away.
Lawrence L. Stewart
President, Emerald Forest HOA
(979) 696-4744
Bee Creek Channel -down tream
l \
Flooded Emerald Park from parking
lot next door -three feet deep ! !
Bee Creek -second channel behind
Emerald Park, day after the flood #1
....... ,_,_,. I:: M €/GP.LD rorcES(
-~ ,,.,oV:; f, ('>-i,.,,-.,,.,~ ('= (
-~t-~~
-J.vv vvo ~-h~
-~· ~"'"'s~ cowlrh,;,,, s~ •Civil<t cl.<-
-r°' -1>\-\<.rvJ ~~ tks.fr..,.. -~µ,(,_~ 11.loJ se,be>\-A ( ~ c, 1
() -fttzM u~
o -~ lodl v~i' 9-7-v11\(J)of..o.;t-e
~ ~ ~~vf/~
0 -s rt0 ~ F-
--w\tw owws ~ (~
<9wvr --~~ ~
o ~ ~ eJU -AA iq ;111,<s s-fi..4t ~~ ~ -f,, ~ ~L· Cr-1e_
PY-' f51NV1 ~ -~ ' ' If~
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Danielle,
"Mears, Katherine" <Katherine.Mears@klotz.com>
"Danielle Charbonnet" <Dcharbonnet@cstx.gov>
3/15/2007 11 :01 :12 AM
Velocities and Flows
The attached tables show the flow and velocities you requested for the
Bee Creek Drainage Improvements project. In the "Description" column,
you will see which cross-sections correspond to the different crossings
where you requested information. In the Tributary B Table, there are 2
cross sections labeled FM 2818 because the Tributary crosses it twice.
The project limit for our project is the first FM 2818 listed on the
table.
Please call Jorge Gutierrez or me with any questions.
Katherine A. Mears, P.E.
Klotz Associates, Inc.
281-589-7257
CC: "Alan Gibbs" <agibbs@cstx.gov>, "Bob Mosley" <bmosley@cstx.gov>, "Gutierrez,
Jorge" <Jorge.Gutierrez@klotz.com>
~/\
SECNO
0.86
1.5
1.93
1.931
1.931
1.931
2.33
2.34
2.38
2.39
2.91
3.04
3.24
3.3
3.34
3.57
3.58
3.6
3.61
3.63
3.642
3.66
3.681
3.698
3.718
3.739
3.78
3.807
3.827
3.852
3.871
3.892
3.913
3.933
3.956
3.993
4.014
4.032
4.069
4.08
4.083
4.095
4.1 l
4.13
4.147
4.167
4.1 85
4.219
4.239
4.255
4.273
4.292
4.312
4.327
4.343
4.46
4.474
OESCRIJYflON
OS Rte. 6 Bypass
US Rte. 6 Bypass
OS TX Ave.
US~CI
Confluence Trib B
OS S. Prkwy/US Cl
US Southwest Pkwy
FINAL COMPARISON TABLEjeg
TABLE
MAIN STEM BEE CREEK
100-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COMPARISONS
~i Existing Proposed
Kling Survey "' Conditions Conditions
Section VelCH Q CWSEL VelCH Q CWSEL
4
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
65
14
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
16
(FPS) !J:.Efil CFEETl (FPS) ~ CFEETl
3.45 5923 237.99 3.21 6222 238.18
2.06 5923
6.63 5923
6.4 5923
6.24 5923
6.04 5923
2.15 5923
240.9 1
245.54
245.62
245.69
245.77
249.44
5.12 4163 249.34
4.73 4163 249.67
5.05 4163 250.08
3.13 4163 253.46
3.22 4163 254.29
3.3 4 I 63 254.65
7.98 4163 254.86
5.98 4163 256.08
6.04 4163 259.45
8.62 4163 259.02
7.96 3923 259. l 9
5.23 3923 260.07
5.7 3923 260.46
5.09 3923 260.98'
2. 9 3923 261.35
2.39 3923 261.46
8.06 3923 260.9
7.33 3923 261.77
2.43 3923 262.78
3.13 3923 262.85
3.09 3923 262.97
3.07 3923 263.05
3.21 3923 263.14
4.33 3923 263.24
5.28 3923 263.39
5.3 l 3923 263.64
8.45 3923 263.5
4.18 3923 264.83
4.42 3923 264.93
3.97 3923 265.22
0.57 880 265.44
0.7 880 265.45
0.96 880 265.46
0.96 880 265.46
2.65 880 265.43
2.6 l 880 265.59
2.44 880 265.82
2.0 l 880 266.0 I
2.68 880 266. 17
3.25 880 266.4
2.66 880 266.63
2.04 880 266.82
3.53 880 266.84
3.73 880 267.26
3.27 880 267.71
3.44 880 267.95
3.02 880 268.14
5.49 880 268. l 8
5.4 880 268.26
4.75 880 268.91
2.11 6222
6.6 6222
6.4 6222
6.25 6222
6.09 6222
2.18 6222
240.98
245.67
245.74
245.8 1
245.88
249.53
5.24 4352 249.42
4.79 4352 249.8 1
5.1 4352 250.23
3.14 4352 253.56
3.24 4352 254.38
3.14 4352 254.72
7.81 4352 254.89
5.94 4352 256.05
6.02 4352 259.4 l
8.52 4352 258.99
8.2 3991 259.08
3.65 399 I 260.09
4.1 3991 260.12
4.14 3991 260.17/
2.86 399 l 260.38
2.61 3991 260.47
4.85 3991 260.31
4.91 3991 260.39
~991 260.53
4.3 399 l 260.67
4.73 3991 260.73
5.29 3991 260.76
5.21 3991 260.92
5.38 3991 261.04
6.08 399 l 261.07
6.25 3991 261.21
6.44 399 l 261.35
6.36 399 l 261.58
6.25 3991 261.76
6.59 3991 261.91
1.79 880 262.69
2.41 880 262. 7
1.95 880 262. 7 5
2.62 880 262. 72
2.78 880 262.75
2.95 880 262.79
3.2 880 262.87
3.33 880 262.95
3.72 880 263.05
3.76 880 263.19
4.22 880 263.3 1
4.26 880 263.53
4.76 880 263.7
4.88 880 263.98
4.66 880 264.32
5.11 880 264.6 1
4.58 880 264.94
5.23 880 265.1 5
9.57 880 266. I 3
4.78 880 268.88
VelCH Q CWSEL
(FPS) OIFF OIFF
-0.24 299 0.19
0.05
-0.03
0
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.12
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.02
-0.16
-0.17
-0.04
-0.02
-0.1
0.24
-1.58
-1.6
-0.95
-0.04
0.22
-3.21
-2.42
2.23
l.17
1.64
2.22
2
1.05
0.8
0.94
-2.01
2.18
1.83
2.62
1.22
1.71
0.99
1.66
0.13
0.34
0.76
l.32
1.04
0.51
1.56
2.22
1.23
l.15
1.39
299
299
299
299
299
299
189
189
189
189
189
189
189
189
189
189
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.67 0
1.56 0
0~
O.D7
0.13
0.1 2
0.12
O.l I
0.09
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.11
0.02
-0.34
-0.81
-0.97
-0.99
-0.59
-1.38
-2.25 vs
- .24
-2.29
-2.22
-2.20
-2.32
-.43
-.15
-13.25
-.17
-3.31
-2.75
-2.75
-2.71
-2.74
-2.68
-~.80
-2.95
-3.06
-3.12
-3.21
-3.32
-'.l .29
-'.l.14
-.28
-.39
-3.34
-3.20
-3.03
-2.13
-0.03
3/1512007
TABLE
MAIN STEM BEE CREEK
JOO-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COMPARISONS
Existing Proposed
Kling Survey Conditions Conditions
SECNO DESCRIPTION Section VelCH Q CWSEL VelCH Q CWSEL VelCH Q CWSEL
(FPS) LCEfil CFEETl (FPS) fC.Efil CFEETl (FPS) DIFF D!FF
4.477 2.74 880 269.2 2.76 880 269.16 0.02 0 -0.04
4.63 6.08 880 271.1 6.09 880 271.1 0.0 1 0 0.00
4.68 7.76 880 273.25 7.75 880 273.25 -0.01 0 0.00
4.81 4.59 880 276.77 4.59 880 276.77 0 0 0.00
4.81 4.75 880 276.84 4.75 880 276.84 0 0 0.00
4.82 4.9 880 276.91 4.9 880 276.91 0 0 0.00
4.83 5.05 880 276.99 5.05 880 276.99 0 0 0.00
4.95 6.41 880 280.61 6.41 880 280.61 0 0 0.00
5.1 5.79 880 285.88 5.79 880 285.88 0 0 0.00
5.282 4.26 880 290.32 4.26 880 290.32 0 0 0.00
5.287 4.06 880 290.49 4.06 880 290.49 0 0 0.00
5.288 2.16 880 293.05 2.16 880 293.05 0 0 0.00
5.293 2.14 880 293.1 2.14 880 293.l 0 0 0.00
5.41 4.04 880 294.1 4.04 880 294.1 0 0 0.00
5.45 3.83 880 295.2 3.83 880 295.2 0 0 0.00
5.56 4.25 880 300.74 4.25 880 300.74 0 0 0.00
5.57 3.92 880 300.93 3.92 880 300.93 0 0 0.00
5.571 3.69 880 301.08 3.69 880 301.08 0 0 0.00
5.572 3.48 880 301.21 3.48 880 301.21 0 0 0.00
5.58 3.7 880 301.52 3.7 880 301.52 0 0 0.00
5.59 2.84 880 301.68 2.84 880 301.68 0 0 0.00
5.66 6.28 880 303.05 6.28 880 303.05 0 0 0.00
5.72 3.32 880 305.33 3.32 880 305.33 0 0 0.00
5.74 3.26 880 305.4 3.26 880 305.4 0 0 0.00
5.75 1.63 880 308.29 1.63 880 308.29 0 0 0.00
5.76 2.03 880 308.29 2.03 880 308.29 0 0 0.00
Cl = Channel Improvements
OS= Downstream
US= Upstream
FINAL COMPARISON TABLEjeg 3115noo1
(_
SECNO
0.032
0.052
0.071
0.087
0.101
0.115
0.13
0.131
0.139
0.14
0.158
0.18
0.2
0.218
0.238
0.256
0.276
0.294
0.346
0.364
0.382
0.4
0.419
0.438
0.456
0.475
0.482
0.496
0.515
0.535
0.554
0.575
0.592
0.611
0.618
0.64
0.65
0.95
1.04
1.05
1.14
1.145
1.15
1.16
1.165
1.17
1.35
1.52
1.76
DESCRIPTION
Conflunccc/DS Cl
DS Southwood
US Southwood
DS FM 2818/US Cl
US FM2818
DS FM 2818
US FM 2818
Cl = Channel Improvements
DS = Downstream
US = Upstream
Kling Survey
Section
7
45
44
43
42
41
9
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
10
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
11
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
12
13
TABLE
TRIBUTARY B
100-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COMPARISONS
Existing
Conditions
Ve!CH Q CWSEL
(FPS) CCFSl f!:£!ill
2.33 3203 265.36
5.74 3203
8.17 3203
6.59 3203
5.72 3203
5.17 3203
5.19 3203
6.01 3203
3.95 3203
4.28 3203
5.08 3203
4 3203
4.13 3203
3.49 3203
6.85 3203
3.07 3203
6.23 3203
6.9 3203
5.29 3203
5.86 3203
5.09 3203
5.89 3203
6.56 3203
4.84 3203
5.56 3203
6.8 3203
5.69 2689
5.14 2689
5.53 2689
4.42 2689
265.2
265.22
265.95
266.22
266.43
266.6
266.57
267.38
267.34
267.43
267.78
267.86
268.07
267.84
268.59
268.43
268.65
269.55
269.67
269.94
270.09
270.3
270.82
270.94
270.96
271.26
27 1.55
271.73
272.1
272.22
272.46
272.74
273
273.06
273.07
VelCH
(FPS)
6.12
6
6.36
6.59
6.7
6.41
5.61
6.13
6.13
6.84
6.68
6.6
6.03
5.23
6.59
6.45
6.83
6.87
6.52
6.57
5.78
6.25
5.99
6.13
6.26
7.13
5.11
5.65
5.05
5.2
5.33
5.38
5.51
9.22
13.45
Proposed
Conditions
Q CWSEL
CCFSl IFEETl
3305 262.32
3305 262.55
3305 262.7
3305 262.86
3305 263.03
3305 263.29
3305 263.61
3305 263.55
3305 263.59
3305 263.49
3305 263.77
3305 264.08
3305 264.45
3305 264.86
3305 264.84
3305 265.1
3305 265.3
3305 265.55
3305 266.38
3305 266.6 1
3305 266.99
3305 267.13
3305 267.4
3305 267.6
3305 267.83
3305 267.99
2689 268.48
2689 268.55
4.6 2689
4.7 2689
4.02 2689
3.38 2689
3.12 2689
8.16 2689
2.71 2689
5.9 2689
5.78 2689
5.4 2689
4.33 2689
274.19 2.45
275)'7"" l~;.-.fl"\ 7.1
277.13 v 7.04
2689
2689
2689
2689
2689
2689
2689
2689
2689
2689
2689
2689
2689
268.82
268.96
269.1
269.28
269.42
269.59
270.43
272.3
274.86
275.48
276.7
276.94
218:49
277.E.-6...l,4
278.6 4.47
4.34 2689 278.63
6.55 2689 278.6
4.16 268 280.56
4.15 9
3.05 2689
5.02 89
4.34 2689
10.51 2689
280.57
280.61
281.1
283.08
286.18
'l I
c-0 7
4.47 2689 278.52
6.63 2689 278.56
3.83 2689 280.94
3.82 689
2.83 2689
4.59 2689
4.32 2689
10.55 2689
280.95
280.98
281.38
283.1
286.16
VelCH
(FPS)
3.79
0.26
-1.81
0
0.98
1.24
0.42
0.12
2.18
2.56
1.6
2.6
1.9
1.74
-0.26
3.38
0.6
-0.03
1.23
0.71
0.69
0.36
-0.57
1.29
0.7
0.33
-0.58
0.51
-0.53
0.63
0.6
0.63
1.36 ~
-0.26
1.2
1.26
1.14
0.14
0.13
0.08
-0.3
-0.33
-0.22
-0.43
-0.02
0.04
Q
DIFF
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
!Of
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CWSEL
DIFF
-3.04
-2.65
-2.52
-3.09
-3.19
-3.14
-2.99
-3.02
-3.79
-3.85
-3.66
-3.70
-3.41
-3.21
-3.00
-3.49
-3.13
-3.10
-3.17
-3.06
-2.95
-2.96
-2.90
-3.22
-3.11
-2.97
-2.78
-3.00
-2.91
-3.14
-3.12
-3.18
-:l.32
-.41
-2.63 ' -0.77
0.67
-0.39
-0.43
-0.38
-0.11
-0.11
-0.04
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.28
0.02
-0.02
----.....
I
)
KLOTZ
ASSOCIATES ,
INC
TABLE4
TRIBUTARYB
•: :: •• -; :J l I : :"-i :i
~~·J 'j. 'l~~~·~ 100-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COMPARISONS
Kling Survey
SECNO DESCRlPTION Section
0.032
0.052
0.071
0.087
0.101
0.115
0.13
0.131
0.139
0.14
0.158
0.18
0.2
0.218
0.238
0.256
0.276
0.294
0.346
0.364
0.382
0.4
0.419
0.438
0.456
0.475
0.482
0.496
0.515
0.535
0.554
0.575
0.592
0.611
0.618
0.64
0.65
0.95
1.04
Conflunece/DS CI
OS Southwood
US Southwood
------
DS FM 2818/US CI
US FM 2818
Klotz Associates Project No. 25403
September 1998
7
45
44
43
42
41
9
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
IO
31
Ju
29
28
27
26
25
11
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
12
13
Existing
Conditions
Q CWSEL
(CES). (EEEil
3203 265.35
3203 265.19
3203 265.22
3203 265.95
3203 266.22
3203 266.43
3203 266.6
3203 266.57
3203 267.38
3203 267.34
3203 267.43
3203 267.78
3203 267.86
3203 268.07
3203 267.84
3203 268.59
3203 268.43
3203 268.65
3203 269.55
3203 269.67
..)4U..) L.()~.94
3203 270.09
3203 270.3
3203 270.82
3203 270.94
3203 270.96
2689 271.26
2689 271.55
2689 271.73
2689 272.1
2689 272.22
2689 272.46
2689 272.74
2689 273
2689 273.06
2689 273.07
2689 274.19
2689 275.87
2689 277.13
Proposed
Conditions
Q CWSEL Q CWSEL
.(CTfil (EEEI) DJ.EE WEE
3305 262.16 102 -3.19
3305 262.4 102 -2.79
3305 262.56 102 -2.66
33 05 262.74 102 -3.21
3305 262.92 102 -3.30
3305 263.19 102 -3.24
3305 263.54 102 -3.06
3305 263.48 102 -3.09
3305 263.52 102 -3 .86
3305 263.41 102 -3.93
3305 263.7 102 -3 .73
3305 264.02 102 -3.76
3305 264.4 102 -3.46
3305 264.83 102 -3.24
3305 264.81 102 -3.03
3305 265.07 102 -3.52
3305 265.28 102 -3.15
3305 265.53 102 -3.12
3305 266.37 102 -3 .18
3305 266.6 102 -3.07
3JU) 266.98 102 -2.96
3305 267.13 102 -2.96
3305 267.39 102 -2.91
3305 267.59 102 -3 .23
3305 267.82 102 -3.12
3305 267.98 102 .? QR
2689 268.48 0 -2.78
2689 268.54 0 -3.01
2689 268.82 0 -2.91
2689 268.96 0 -3.14
2689 269.1 0 -3.12
2689 269.27 0 -3.19
2689 269.42 0 -3.32
2689 269.59 0 -3.41
2689 270.43 0 -2.63
2689 273 0 -0.07
2689 274.91 0 0.72
2689 275.51 0 -0.36
2689 276.69 0 -0.44
Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision
along Bee Creek and Bee Creek Tributary B
)
KLOT Z
ASSO CIATE S,
INC
TABLE4
TRIBUTARYB
C :')HS '.J:. • N 0
f NG 1 !\; t:. IOI S 100-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COMPARISONS
Kling Survey
SECNO DESCRIPTION
1.05
l.14
1.145
1.15 OS FM2818
l.16 US FM 2818
1.165
1.17
1.35
1.52
1.76
CI = Channel Improvements
DS = Downstream
US = Upstream
Klotz Associates Project No. 25403
September 1998
Section
Existing
Conditions
Q CWSEL
.(CTfil (ff.ED
2689 277.32
2689 278.6
2689 278.63
2689 278.6
2689 280.56
2689 280.57
2689 280.61
2689 281.1
2689 283.08
2689 286.18
Proposed
Conditions
Q CWSEL Q CWSEL
~ (EEE.Il D.lE.E .Q1E£
2689 276.94 0 -0.38
2689 278.49 0 -0.11
2689 278.52 0 -0.11
2689 278.56 0 -0.04
2689 280.93 0 0.37
2689 280.95 0 0.38
2689 280.97 0 0.36
2689 281.38 0 0.28
2689 283.1 0 0.02
2689 286.16 0 -0.02
Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision
along Bee Creek and Bee Creek Tributary B