Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarter Creek~___...-~ \s ~A-~ Je:---f' ~ ------\ Ob~~ C/r?~ -~ /tf<V\~~ \;\J/f<dtSA-Y-~A,~~~tfP) --~~cV)~<ctt, J~VV\~ ~~ ----.i --~dNc--offel~{&-twi(Pj&-~~-\-v ckD~ -I __ ~~ ~~~rP~.~o/),J,\.s~ ~-'& ~~· === Mf\:-~~ ,~~7~tsJ- --~% t:-1--(M~ ~ -b-~~s~ 1J ~ ~ - __ 1 {)Mi'?Jt_,d-~~L~CS~~~ ~ -/'li-fuviMv;<{vzt~~~~~?--~~J;J~ --/~ -~~~G)QO,v~~ W<fe~c\10e_/E --e~~.thlQ -~ ~~ Carter Creek Mike Davis Proposal D . Parcel.shp /V. Bikeplan.shp Creeks.shp Parks.shp City _property .shp CJ Green_flood_OO.shp Floodway _acreage2.shp N w E s 0.6 0 0.6 1.2 Miles November 2 7, OWNER_NAM1 OWNER ADD1 REGENCY PAR'r<M/AY I 1cn5 EARL RUDDER FF JIM SOWELL CONSTRI 3131 MCKINNEY AVE,~ M D WHEELER LTD 4543 POST OAK PLACE JIM SOWELL CONSTRI 3131 MCKINNEY AVE,~ TALK, M J 19415 JOAN LEIGH REGENCY PAR'r<M/AY I 1cn5 EARL RUDDER FF REGENCY PAR'r<M/AY I 1cn5 EARL RUDDER FF SMITH, RICHARD A 3743TEXASAVE HIGHWAY 3:> PARTNEF ALFRED A MARTIN & S JONES, CB 11004 NUNN JONES R[ OWNER_ CITY COLLEGE STATION DALLAS HOUSTON DALLAS SPRING COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION BRYAN BRYAN COLLEGE STATION OWNER_ ST OWNER_ZIP TX 77845 TX 75204 TX 77027-3100 TX 75204 TX 77388 TX 77845 TX 77845 TX 77802-3757 TX 77802 TX 77845 1 TOT_MKT_VA TOT_ASSESS TOTAL_ACR 27,120.00 1,220.00 13.56 9,000.00 410.00 4.54 00,960.00 13:>.00 1.40 ro,960.oo 3,280.00 36.39 59,2ro.OO 1,520.00 16.94 23,340.00 700.00 7.78 180,000.00 180,000.00 20.42 393,100.00 14,310.00 77.fll. 97,200.00 97,200.00 4.46 63,170.00 4,000.00 45.12 ---- l i{)O~ I ~/p :J 3oa ~!Jo }o '6 ()0 I f Judy Downs -Re: Mike Davis roQQsal From: To: Date: Subject: Judy- Jim Callaway Judy Downs 11/30/00 5:12PM Re: Mike Davis proposal I doubt that Mike has "free and clear" title to everything he referenced. He probably has various notes. contracts, options, contracts for deed, liens, etc. He may own some of the land outright either as an individual or partner. It sounded to me like Mike can't get his once proposed new channel under TxDOT's bridge. Mike would not come out and say that, but when I asked him he kept talking about % of the depth as if that was what TxDOT would approve. If that is true, his previous plan would be all but dead. I think that is inspiring his new concept. In any case, I think he is starting over and is facing the same COE problems we faced on Wolfpen. This will be a long process since he doesn't even have any preliminary plans, just an idea. Mike will probably prepare most of the conceptual plans and even initial hydralic/hydrologic analysis himself. After the meeting, I again asked Mike to make contact with BGC and let them have input up front rather than have them respond to a design. I think he will contact Scott. >>> Judy Downs 11/30/00 09:02AM >>> Jim, Yesterday's meeting was interesting and I just wanted to follow up with a few things. First of all, do you think that Mr. Davis has free and clear title to all the properties he said he did? I intend to go to the courthouse to look some things up and Ted Mayo said that there is a woman in your office that does this type of research also. If he does own the property, does Development Services review conceptual drawings? When I mentioned preliminary plans, I wasn't thinking of anything as formal as a preliminary plat through your subdivision process. I envisioned something a landscape architect would develop to start discussions from. Under the circumstances, I was even thinking that we might help him visualize the development instead of heading right into things like hydraulics. I can't imagine what TexDot has to review at this point. Let me know what you think. I'm going to talk to Scott Shaffer after I hear from you. Judy College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. STEPHEN L. BROWN President e-mail: sbrown@sowdlco.com August 12, 1 999 afer Assistant P. ofessor SOWELL&Co 3131 McKinney, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75204-2471 (214) 871-3320 FAX: (214) 871-1620 website: www.sowellco.com e-mail: sowell@sowellco.com College Agricultural and Life Sciences Texas &M University Col ge Station, Texas 77843-2261 Re: Re-channelization Carter, Burton, Hudson Creeks Dear Scott: I am writing this letter due to my inability to reach you by telephone over the past three (3) weeks-As you are aware we are proceeding with resolving the relevant issues in developing the above referenced project. In discussions with College Station, the city is interested in acquiring an approximate 150 foot buffer on the channel area south of Highway 60 (their jurisdiction). The staff is going through the appropriate steps to make the recommendation to Council. However, Bryan has shown no interest whatsoever in acquiring or supporting economically any greenbelt or greenway area acquisition. For your information, we have changed engineering firms on the project and based on our current critical path we anticipate completing our engineering and construction design by year end. If you have questions or comments, please feel free to call. Sincerely, JIM SOWELL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. By:-+----+-/~~__._._~-~ - b7e;;lLJ3rown President SB/ae cc: /Jim Callaway Linda Huff Chuck Ellison Mike Davis Carter Creek Relocation PROPERTY OWNERS H IP TAB L E Property Owner Legal Description Property ID Acreage Appraised & Market Value i N DOUGLAS Greensworld Subdivision R99777 3.817 $349,400 INVESTMENTS LTD Phase 2; Lot 1 MV: $249,400 " REGENCY PARKWAY INC Greensworld Subdivision R89892 0.953 $4,770 ;, Phase 1; Block 1, Lot 1 MV: $4,770 t ! & Adjacent 0.043 Acres A000801 R84671 2.33 $4,610 Richard Carter Tract 3. 9 MV: $4,610 A000801 R84672 4.43 $15,500 Richard Carter Tract 3.91 MV: $15,500 A000801 R88810 4.00 $60,000 Richard Carter Tract 3.81 MV: $60,000 A000801 R88816 1.98 $180 Richard Carter Tract 3. 71 MV: $3,960 A000801 R88814 86.23 $23,340 Richard Carter Tract 3. 61 MV: $163,690 A000801 R88811 1.05 $90 Richard Carter Tract 3.62 MV: $3,680 A000801 R88812 7.78 $700 Richard Carter Tract 3.63 MV: $23,340 ' A000801 R88815 13.56 $1,220 ;l Richard Carter Tract 3.51 MV: $27,120 ., 3 BERT WHEELER'S INC A000801 R10550 1.55 $140 Richard Carter Tract 3. 8 MV: $7,750 A000801 R86185 2.84 $260 Richard Carter Tract 3.61 MV: $14,200 A000801 R39005 149.01 $13,410 Richard Carter Tract 3.3 MV: $1,043,070 Block 3, Lot 3 4 JIM SOWELL CONSTRUCTION A000801 R10549 3.58 $320 COMPANY INC Richard Carter Tract 3. 7 MV: $8,950 A000801 R99890 0.36 $30 Richard Carter Tract 3. 72 MV: $720 A000801 R10547 36.39 $3,280 Richard Carter Tract 3.5 MV: $90,980 A000801 R99892 4.54 $410 Richard Carter Tract 3.52 MV: $9,080 A000801 R99891 2.90 $260 Richard Carter Tract 3.62 MV: $8,700 A000801 R39008 105.03 $ 9,450 Richard Carter MV: $ 424,530 Block 3, Lot 6 fi TEXAS A&M UNIV. SYSTEM, A000801 R10546 57.3 $ 5,928,830 ~~ THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Richard Carter Tract 3 .4 MV: $ 458,430 I.!:' :~~ \6 CINEMARK USA INC Gateway Park Block 1 R92106 11.4 $4,680,340 Lot 1 & Adjacent 1.526 Acres MV: $782,120 SAMS CLUB #6338 Sam's Block 1, Lot 1 R97256 16.0 $5,077,190 WAL-MART STORES, INC MV: $1,045,440 PAYLESS CASHWAY, INC #129 Harvey Rd East R76856 8.158 $2,080,000 Block 1, Lot lR (2 Cards) MV: $553,040 THURMOND, FRANK Harvey Rd East R76857 2.06 $150,000 TRUSTEE Block 1, Lot 2 MV: $150,000 DREWDAWN Harvey Rd East R76858 0.67 $116,740 ENTERPRISES INC Block 1, Lot 3 MV: $116,740 A000801 R10561 0.89 $463,220 Richard Carter Tract 30 MV: $155,070 TALK,MJ A000801 R88813 16.94 $1,520 Richard Carter Tract 3.64 MV: $59,290 12 HIGHWAY 30 PARTNERSHIP: A000801 R10568 29.921 $50,000 ALFRED A MARTIN & Richard Carter Tract 10 MV: $50,000 SUDHIR D PATEL A000801 R99892 4.54 $410 Richard Carter Tract 3.52 MV: $9,080 i~ MAJORS, ANTHONY Y High Ridge R92251 8.14 $443,980 ~i or.:-; Block 1, Lot 2 MV: $443,980 Gateway Park R94987 4.463 $97,200 Block 2, Lot 2 MV: $97,200 14 PRUITT, TERRY TRUSTEE HighRidge R92252 0.36 $1,000 Block 1, Lot 3 MV: $1 ,000 . l' r i Ll Carter Creek Relocation Project 2 Ll Carter Creek Relocation Project • Council requested mediation • Facilitated through Dispute Resolution Center -Central Brazos Valley 3 Ll Carter Creek Relocation Project • Developer, Greenways Council representatives will present results of mediation • Changes in project scope, limits 4 Ll Carter Creek Relocation Project • Revised proposal calls for City participation • Disagreement regarding value • Value is not an issue to resolve today s Ll Carter Creek Relocation Project • Revised project extends into Bryan, to Brazos Center • Impacts City of Bryan, Brazos County • Developer, Greenways Council need College Station's response before further developing project, presenting to Bryan, County 6 Ll Carter Creek Relocation Project • Developer, Greenways representatives will describe • If Council likes the concept: -Staff will work with Developer, BGC to further develop -Future action items will com~ back to Council - Z.1 -\) -<...J ' 0-()k-:. ,,__, ,, \ ;,_.J---r i (-- 7 Ll Carter Creek Relocation Project 1 D Regular Item D Consent Item CK] Workshop Item Item Submitted By: Council Meeting Date: Director Approval: Jim Callaway, Development Services Director November 12, 1998 Item: Presentation, discussion and possible direction on the proposed Carter Creek Relocation project. Item Summary: Mike Davis and representatives of the Brazos Greenways Council will present concepts for relocating the Carter Creek channel, floodplain and floodway in the FM 60 -SH 30 area. The proposal to be presented has been modified from the original proposal. The most significant changes include: • The proposal reduces the amount of land reclaimed for development, allowing a larger greenway area along the new channel; • The proposal calls for City financial participation to offset the reduction in reclaimed developable property; • The proposal calls for review of the project by wildlife biologists; • The proposal includes extension of a greenbelt -greenway from the University Drive area to the Brazos Center. Item Background: At Council's directions, the City facilitated a series of mediation sessions between the Green ways Council and the developer of the proposed Carter Creek Relocation Project. The proposal to be presented resulted from the mediation between the two groups. Both groups wanted an opportunity to present this proposal to the Council and receive Council comments prior to continuing with more detailed work on the proposal. Budgetary and Financial Summary: The proposal calls for the purchase of land by the City. The land proposed for purchase is land that would not be reclaimed in order to increase the greenway/greenbelt associated with the relocated channel. The cost included in the proposal materials is $1.8 million. This amount exceeds the market value of the land identified for purchase and includes future development costs and/or projected post-reclamation values. To Jim Callaway Director of Development Secvices City of College Station College Station, Texas From Michael Davis 4002 Aspen Bryan, Texas 7780 l 1-409-846-3 4 20 Dear Jim, I have enclosed my estimates of the values of the tracts included in the Greenways mediation that were proposed for a Greenbelt (and wildlife) Corridor through the city of College Station. When I was negotiating with Greenways, I had considered that part of the City Athletic park area could be traded for Tracts C, D and N Tract A--to greatly minimized .the dollar figures of purchases in this estimate. The estimates are based on a rough approximation of how much the removal of the tracts will diminish the total value of the Property of each Owner. The actual development costs will be increased due to longer haul path for dirt disposal due to A) the removal of the closest fill areas, and B)the limited crossing areas for fill disposal which will increase the haul distance. --This expense is reduced only slightly by reducing the clearing area and staking requirements. Any Street, Water and Sewer requirements will remain unchanged. The sale assumes appropriate arrangements for access during the completion of the work and agreements on placing site fill of part of the dirt not used on tract D and Tract C respectively within the 18 acre tract in the College Station Athletic Park, on appropriate project scheduling, as well as agreements to standard zoning, platting and development questions. Please note that in an effort to reduce the total city Purchase dollars: I have shown in the second map as separated out Tract D, which might be eliminated from the requested City Purchase by the usage of tract G within the Athletic park area as a natural area; though this would.still need to be agreed to by Greenways and the Parks Board. If you have any questions Please Call. ~D~ Michael K Davis l.' \ \-\ ··- ---· . _L;:=:~=:.::~~-'7..':::-. Christian Turner 4401 Kirkwood Drive Bryan, TX 77802 Mark Shavers 1114 Neal Pickett Dr. College Station, TX 77840 Scott Shafer 107 Pershing Dr. College Station, TX 11ro April 11, 1998 Veronica Morgan Floodplain Administrator City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue S. College Station, TX 77840 Dear Ms. Morgan: As you are aware, the groups.and individuals we represent are extremely concerned about the so called Carter Creek Relocation Project proposed by Mike Davis and his associates. We worry about the short and long term effects of the project if completed but also about the role the city has played and is continuing to play in the permitting of the channelization of Carter Creek. The comments in this letter will concern the erroneous interpretation of the city's drainage ordinance governing the length of time the Floodplain Administrator (FA) has to review permit applications and receive input from the public as well as the misconception the staff seems to have about what constitutes a new permit application. We will also discuss some of our objections to this permit in particular. In addition, we feel that the permit should be denied on other grounds, unrelated to any interpretation of what constitutes a new permit, but these comments will be submitted in another letter under separate cover. We first wish to point out that the application received by the city, apparently on March 31, 1998, from Mike Davis does indeed constitute a new permit application subject to all regulations governing the review of such permits as set forth in the Drainage Policy and Design Standards of the City of College Station (DP). It is unclear how exactly the latest application has been construed as not being new. Indeed, prior application by the developer has been denied, and he has now submitted a new design for city approval. During our comments before the City Council on April 9, 1998 during the Hear Visitors portion of the meeting, Mr. Noe, the City Manager, put forward the proposition that although this was an admittedly new permit application, it was the same "proposal" that the city evaluated last year. We have been unable to locate any rules or language in the DP which might be applicable to such a thing as a "proposal". The DP provides guidance to the FA on how to evaluate exactly one type of request -the request for a permit for a specific project. 1 Even if one were to accept the incorrect notion that some applications need not he considered "new" when they are similar to prior applications, it would be a significant stretch to include this application among them. The application contains over 190 pages of project description, data, cross sections, and maps. It achieves this great length even though it is incomplete, lacking crucial data, such as HECC 1 model runs and a sedimentation analysis, which are needed to evaluate the effects of the project on the safety of the public and the maintenance burden we would inherit. This great length is testimony to the myriad of new issues faced by the FA in the review process. Indeed all of the elements actuallv evaluated bv the FA have chanQed since the last oermit application: new HECC 2 data, new" engineering device~ used to achieve the new ponding scheme, and new proposals for how to deal with problems which plagued the first submittal. There is simply no lega/ basis for applying old ordinances to new permit applications, and as we have pointed out above, it defies the DP and common sense to conclude that this permit application is anything but new. The debate over the status of this permit is not simply semantic. Rather, staff"s current interpretation prevents the will of the Council, as embodied in the amendments to the DP adopted by the Council shortly after the joint meeting in October of 1997 from being applied in this circumstance. In particular, the Council amended section 1 B (Purpose) to include the following sentence: "It is also the purpose of this chapter to enhance the public health, safety and welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan and all of its elements." In addition the Council voted to amend section 4 D (Permit Procedures) by adding an item (4): "Any proposal which alters the floodways of the following special drainage areas: The entirety of Carter's Creek, ... shall receive written notice of approval or disapproval of the development permit from the FA within sixty (60) working days after receipt of the proposal." Both of these were recommended and adopted in response to deficiencies in the process which became apparent in the review of Mr. Davis's Carter Creek proposal. We deal with the latter amendment first. We note that staffs original recommendation was for a thirty day review period. This was changed to sixty days after remarks by Council members that thirty days was simply not enough time for staff to pursue alternatives consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is also our memory that the Council was astonished that staff would be expected to complete such a complicated review in a ten day period. We believe that it was the Council's intent that more time be available to the FA to review applications as large and complex as this one. It was also their intention that future permitting be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Regardless of the intent of the Council, the meaning of the passage is clear: the FA has sixty days to review this application. Again during the April 9 Council meeting, Mr. Noe offered his opinion that 60 days was an "unreasonable" amount of time to ask a developer to wait upon applying a second time for a permit. While this may be Mr. Noe's opinion, and he is right to suggest that the appropriate step would be for Council to consider amending the DP to clarify their intent, it is inappropriate for the City Manager or any other employee to impose a more restrictive time frame on the FA's permitting decisions, especially when Council explicitly moved to lengthen the review period. What is "unreasonable" here is a ten day time limit for the FA to review 190 additional (and incomplete) pages of information, evaluate the modeling, notify the public (as required by section 4 B 9 of the DP), and make a decision based in science and the public interest. We should note that by the time the public was notified, there was not even enough time to get this item on the Council's agenda. Indeed, it was the public that informed the Council members that this application existed at all. At the April 9 meeting, at least one 2 ' ' -~ I Council member requested that no action be taken on the permit until the next Workshop meeting, but staff reminded this member that no action can be taken during Hear Visitors. It is clear that a ten day review period eliminates public discourse and public review, and prevents the Council from being informed or exercising oversight. To reiterate, the decisions of the Council should not be ignored merely because the staff finds that their application may be unreasonable in a particular instance. Nor should bureaucratic constructs, such as "proposal", be created to allow staff to pursue what it construes to be a more reasonable course. The DP itself provides authoritative guidance in circumstances where the application of the ordinance is uncertain: [3 E (I)]: "In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be: (1) considered as minimum requirements; (2) liberally constructed in favor of the governing body, health, and safety ... " Thus, in a;case where the status of a permit is in question, the FA must take the most conservative approach in reviewing the permit, that is she should consider it to be a new permit, subject to the lengthier review time. The above section of the DP also offers guidance on how the FA should make use of the other amendment to the DP adopted by the Council last fall. It has thus far been the opinion of staff that the' Comprehensive Plan may not be considered in her review of a permit application (see our other letter of the same date for additional reasons why this interpretation is not only incorrect but a violation of Texas law). We find it unreasonable that the FA not be permitted to consider the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan when the furtherance of those same goals and objectives is stated as the very purpose of the DP. Consider also that among the stated reasons in the DP for furthering the goals of the Plan are to "enhance the public health, safety, and welfare .. " and, as we quoted in the above paragraph, the DP "should be liberally constructed in favor of ... health, and safety ... " How c;an this be construed in any manner which precludes the FA from considering the Comprehensive Plan? Section 4 E (Conditions of Approval) states that," Approval or denial of a development permit by the Administrator shall be based on all (emphasis ours) of the provisions of this chapter and the following relevant factors ... " We believe that the DP not only allows the FA to consider the Plan, but it also requires her to do just that. For copious references to those sections of the Comprehensive Plan which contradict the purposes of the Carter Creek project, see our other letter of the same date. Finally we note that all nine of the "relevant factors" listed in section 4 E would indicate denial of the permit. Numbers one through three raise the issue of the missing HECC 1 data in the new proposal. In addition, we have some concerns after an initial review of what data the developer did submit, but we will require more time to do a full analysis of his methods and results. We cover number four extensively in our other letter to you. For number five, we are on record about our maintenance concerns as they relate to the prior permit request (see our attached document, "The Future of Carter Creek"). We see nothing in the new design that would alleviate any of our original concerns. If anything the ponding scheme might be expected to exacerbate silting problems, which brings us to condition number six. Again this item is not adequately addressed in the current permit application, which lacks HECC 1 modeling and a sedimentation analysis. As to number nine, we take as "Comprehensive Site Plan" the developer's written and oral descriptions of the developments which will follow the rechannelization. See our other letter for a full description of how these developments contradict our City of College Station Comprehensive Plan and how this makes the proposed site plan illegal. Numbers seven and eight warrant further discussion. It is clear from the developer's written and oral statements on the proposed future development that there is no need for a waterfront location. He anticipates retail development and perhaps some multifamily dwellings. Although a complete description of the proposed uses has not been 3 forthcoming, the developer has made it clear that it will be up to the buyers of the converted properties to determine their use. Everyone knows what this means. We will surely see standard, frontage road style developments: gas stations, strip malls, box -style retail outlets, car dealerships, and the like. One need only survey the surrounding frontage to realize that unless the developer undertakes specific alternative-use projects on the site, it will be developed in exactly the same way as nearby Highway 6 frontage. None of these types of businesses rely on a waterfront location. Indeed the developer has stated in his prior application that the purpose for moving the creek is to recover the valuable frontage. So the waterfront is an obstacle to the proposed use, not a necessity of it. Finally, we will state relevant factor number eight from section 4 E of the DP: "The availability of alternativ,e locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use; ... " Can anyone seriously give a negative answer to the question -"Are there any nearby locations that would be suitable for retail development?" We believe that this condition is not just a requirement that the city seek out alternatives which meet with the approval of the developer, but rather, it requires a developer to site development at locations which are free of the hazards and burdens of the floodplain when such sites are available. Mr. Davis ignored this provision when deciding to develop this floodplain and floodway property. In direct contradiction to this condition, he purposely bought these properties with the intent of "buying low and selling high". He specifically sought out the very sort of property that the DP requires be avoided when other alternatives are available. Mr. Davis had no reason to expect that he would meet this condition other than his ignorance of its existence or meaning -neither exempts him from compliance. Our groups remain committed to working with the city and the developer on a solution to this problem which is both legal and in the public interest. In response to the request of the Council at the October 23, 1997 Workshop meeting that the staff work with the Brazos Greenways Council and' the developer to come to an agreement (at which time the Council reiterated their support for the Comprehensive Plan), we have met with Mr. Davis and city staff on two occasions. At each we reiterated that we were willing, and eager, to work on solutions which give the developer reasonable compensation and which spared the destruction of the Creek. The developer was unwilling to consider anything other than the channelization or receipt of the full post development value of the property. Apparently some staff have spoken with Mr. Davis about land swaps, increased development rights, and the like, but have decided not to pursue alternatives as Mr. Davis seemed unwilling to entertain certain alternatives on the one hand and the city did not have enough property available on the other. These steps have not adequately addressed the charge of the Council, the language of the DP, or the public interest as asserted through the Comprehensive Plan. The staff should at least undertake the step of doing an appraisal of the property in question and contacting a land trust, such as Trust for Public Lands. This would be a minimal step toward giving the Council, the public, and the developer a truer sense of the alternatives, although, for the multitude of reasons stated above, in our attached position paper, and most importantly in other letter, we firmly reject the notion that the only way for the city to deny this project would be through purchase of the property. We remain willing at anytime to discuss the options available to us and to work very hard to achieve a result for this property that will benefit our community in the long term. The City must deny this development permit and make it clear to the developer that for the reasons stated above and elsewhere, the channelization of Carter Creek within the City of College Station will not be permitted under any circumstances under our existing ordinances and Land Use Plan. 4 ~-~' \ Since~ D.tian Turner L-- Chair, Brazos Valley Group of the Sierra Club ~~~~ ( Mark Shavers ; President, Rio Brazos Audubon Society ~A-- Scott Shafer Q President, Brazos Greenways Council Cc: Jim Callaway, Jane Kee, Mark Smith, George Noe, Harvey Cargill, Lynn Mcllhaney, Hub Kennady, Dick Birdwell, Swiki Anderson, Steve Esmond, David Hickson, Larry Mariott 5 COLLEGE STATION P. 0 . Box 9960 Christian Turner Chair, Braz.os Valley Group of the Sierra Club 4401 Kirkwood Drive Bcyan, Texas 77802 Mark Shavers President, Rio Braz.os Audubon Society 1114 Neal Pickett Drive College Station. Texas 77840 Scott Shafer President, Braz.os Greenways Council 107 Pershing Drive College Station. Texas 77840 Dear Christian.. Scott and Mark: 1101 Texas Avenue Tel 409 764 3500 College Station, TX 77842 May 29,1998 This letter is in response to your letter of April 11, 1998. We do un<:lerstand your concerns stated in the letter and will attempt herein to answer as many of your concerns as possible. In your letter you state that the Floodplain Administrator cannot issue a development permit due to incompa1ll>ility of the proposed project to the existing or proposed use. You also state that Mr. Davis bas plans to develop the property with commercial businesses. We do not disagree that Mr. Davis bas stated that his desire is to. ultimately use the site for commercial development However, the granting of a development permit does not constitute a change in permitted land use. When reviewing a development permit all of the permitted uses allowed in the various roning districts within the project must be considered as well ~_the existing use. You also refer to Sec. 211.004 of the Local Government Code regarding roning regulations and state that, "'The Plan bas as much legal authority as any other ordinance which governs roning decisions.". The roning practices and procedures followed by the City of College Station were developed in consideration of the State Statutes, recognized city planning principles and practices as well as advise from our legal counsel. } We do not disagree with any of your quotes from the Comprehensive Plan rjgarding the considerations that should be given to natural floodplain~-In an effort to accomplish some of the goals and objectives in the Comp Plan, we have amended the drainage ordinance to give added protection to the floodways of several creeks throughout the City. This amendment gives the staff more time to review the submittal and allows enough time for the staff to inform the City Cou:ncil of the submission. In addition to this effort, we are sure that you are aware of the greenbelt and parlcs plan being coordinated by the Parks Department with Scott Shafer. It is within this plan that we hope to see ordinanecs Unfold that will designate clearly where areas should be retained as grecobelts, how laige they should be and bow to accomplish such a goal without the risk of takings issues. This plan should address tbe majority of your concerns as stated in your letter. Home of Texas A&M University We certainly desire to uphold the Comprehensive Plan as adopted by Council and are making attempts to convert the goals and objective stated therein into ordinance fonn for our use in guiding development within College Station. We are sure that these new ordinances, in particular as they relate to greenbelts, will be created with the cooperation and support of your three groups. We look forward to working with you all toward that end. As you state in your final paragraph, we too are always willing to work with your groups and the developer toward solutions that are in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and attempt to best meet everyone's goals. rely, \ If ~ ' ; \ \ ~eronica J.B. ~organ. 1 .E. Asst City Engineer cc: Skip Noe, City Manager !jm Callaway, Director of Development Services VJane Kee, City Planner Mark Smith, Director of Public Works Harvey Cargill, City Attorney I j Sunday, August 30, 1998 Status of Carter's Creek mediation between RBAS/Sierra/BGC and Regency Parkway: Requirements of a complex aegis of regulatory oversight must be satisfied in order for the rechannelization project to be begin. While Sierra, RBAS, and BGC (SRB) realize that the completed project will likely increase the tax revenue of College Station and Bryan over some period of time, we maintain that, as designed, the rechannelization project is not in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. Furthermore, the timing and enormous scope of the proposed development is such that the city staff members are hard pressed to review the project while also protecting the interests of the communities' citizens. The developer feels he can meet the regulatory burdens, and that the cities' zoning committees will allow a change of zoning to allow commercial development post-project. He agreed to the mayor of College Station's request for mediation with SRB. The position of SRB is that College Station has not properly reviewed the development permit application. Strict interpretation of the ordinance review process means that the currently reviewed permit must be reviewed under the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. SRB also maintains that the type and quantity of mitigation offered is inadequate for the type of wetlands being destroyed. Asked by the College station City Council to participate in mediation, we find that although we cannot resolve our differences over the best value of the land in question, we have been able to agree on a conceptual resolution. This proposal will require careful review and the ultimate approval of both city councils. Resolution requires a sequence of actions in order to meet the needs of the developer and the various groups of landowners that he represents. The actions include land swapping between the landowners and the city of College Station, fee simple purchase of a small parcel in College Station, and tax benefits from both cities for a limited period of time. The fee simple purchase may be financed termporarily through a land trust such as the Trust for Public Lands. The most logical and mutually beneficial land trade involves University Avenue frontage along the land parcel recently acquired for an athletic park traded for a greenbelt along the new creek channel. In consideration for the loss of acreage within the athletic park, the developer can mitigate by agreeing to fill along and within the west boundary of the athletic park to provide the city with useable land. A conservation easement is sought by SRB for part of the greenbelt. " The resolution also includes conveyance of an upstream parcel of land (adjacent to the Brazos Center) and a conservation easement along a small parcel near the south border of the project, to be held in trust by a local non-profit organization. In addition, future tree and signage policy will be negotiated in advance to further aesthetic goals suggested by the College Station Comprehensive Plan, but that are currently outside of the existing cities' ordinances. The currently proposed resolution is win-win because: In exchange for considerations above and necessary variances in the development permitting processes and some exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan recently adopted by College Station, the developer offers • • • v'lli. \ ilpS 11\K.,{)!Vl<e.. higher tax revenues'\ to botn cities a solution to perceived siltation problems a large area to be used for part of a unique and exceptional regional greenbelt for the public that will provide open space, park land, flood protection, and access to the athletic park from neighborhoods of both cities. If successfully negotiated, this mediated resolution will allow the developer and the landowners he represents to profitably develop in a manner that that is in the best interest of the our community. CONFIDENTIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER-CENTRAL BRAZOS VALLEY. INC J 005 UniW!Tsity Drive E. Suite JOO College Station, TX 77840 Telephone: (409) 26~245 FAX: (409) 260-2827 Fax Transmittal Form To:~ &#..f<~.Pfl1f± FaxNumber. ____ _ Date: ~ 11 1 111._! Total nwnbcr of pages (including cover sheet) __ ~----­ If you did not receive the correct nwubcr of pages, or have a.ny question. please call 409-260-0245. Notice: This transmission is intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify our office immediately by telephone and return the original to the address listed above. CONFIDENTIAL BH'd M1,,.j1rr lwdlt Joh,., !HIOll~ Rrv. NitNil4s Dyu liaoml 'aclckr Car/HQSQll Mic/vul H1JtUclu!r Doiry Mc/lvt1tt RoMl1 Jodltlfl Paul SdNit" SltiJroll Yo11.r ~ttWb¥ Dilwtd' Dr. Vlritt Nol11 DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER-CENTRAL BRAZOS VALLEY, INC. I OOS Univenity Drive East Suite I 00 College Station, TX 77840 Phone (409) 260-0245 FAX (409) 260-2827 August 10, 1998 Jim Callaway Director of Development Services, City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Greetings: The City of College Station hu asked the Dispute Resolution Center • Central Brazos Valley to provide mediation services for the parties involved in the Carter Creek Relocation Project. These parties have been identified as the City of College Station, the City of Bryan, the Greenway Group and the Devel open. It is our understanding that a.II of the groups are agreeable to using mediation and that you have been designated as a representative of your respective group. Enclosed are a copy of the Rules for Mediation and a sample of the Waiver and Consent form all participants will be expected to sign at the fint mediation session. We anticipate the first session will involve negotiating ground rules and establishing the mediation process. The mediation process is confidential. Notes may be taken during the session, but they are collected at the end of each ses.aion, redistributed, then destroyed at the end of mediation. All parties have an opportunity to discuss their perspective. The mediators facilitate communication and assist in bringing a variety of potential solutions to the table. The mediators do not judge the dispute or give legal advice. Resolutions result only from the parties' voluntary agreements. If no resolution is reached in mediation or the resolution proves unsatisfactory, parties retain the right to file an action in court. It appears nearly 20 people will be involved in this mediation, which represents a scheduling quagmire. To get us started, we are arbitrarily achcduling the first mediation session to be Monday. August 17. from 9am until 12 noon. Additional session times will be scheduled at the end of the first session. We hope mediation will be completed in 3 -S three hour sessions. The co-mediators have flexible schedules the week of August 17 and are open to having multiple sessions that week in an effort to bring this matter to a timely resolution. The City of College Station is covering the cost of mediation services and providing the venue at the College Station Conference Center, llOO George Bush Drive. Room 105. If you have questions or a conflict with the scheduling, please call 260-0245. Sincerely, ~-.7~ Vi:.t;c, Ed.D. Executive Director June 1, 1998 MEMORANDUM: To: CIP Committee Members Fr: Scott Shafer, CIP Committee Member Re: Greenbelt Acquisition At the CIP meeting on May 26th Mark Smith (City Engineer) presented information on drainage projects for the CIP's consideration. As a part ofthis, a proposal was made to begin purchasing property in the floodplain areas of College Station to create a system of greenbelts (greenways) that could serve multiple functions. The proposal was to set aside $200,000 per year starting in 2001 to be used for land purchases. The ensuing discussion indicated that many committee members were in favor of this idea but that more information was needed before a decision could be made. In particular members wanted rpore information about where the key floodplain areas were and approximately how much (acreage) was needed in these places. Members also expressed desires to consider higher dollar amounts and to implement the purchase plan before 2001 . I have asked for an o~portunity to present some information ( 10-15 minutes) to you at the next meeting (June 8 ) so that we can continue to discuss this possibility. I have tried to outline the basics on the attached sheets. (l(J :. 11 tJ.d~ SMlf1t 4r<-/ 9R M- Floodplain/Greenway Acquisition Proposal A greenway system in College Station (and potentially into Bryan and other areas of Brazos County) has been suggested as a "signature" of our city and the region. The vision is to have a system of open spaces along floodplains that provides for transport of flood waters while also providing safe trail connections among neighborhoods, schools, parks and business districts. Thus, a system of this type provides recreation, transportation (walking and bicycles) and helps maintain a rural feel in our area while providing a safer environment. The recently adopted College Station Comprehensive Plan includes 8 goals and 9 objectives that directly address the need for a system of greenways. Below are some examples: Land Use Goal Goal #5 -College Station should encourage land use that is in harmony with the environment • Objective 5.1 -... prohibit reclamation of the floodway associated with Carter, Lick, Wolf Pen Creeks and the Brazos River to prevent upstream flooding ... and provide the city with a network of open space. Transportation Goal Goal # 1 -College Station should balance the development of all modes of transportation to assure the fast, convenient, efficient and safe movement of people and goods to, from, and within the community while continuing to protect the integrity of neighborhoods. • Objective 1.3 -... develop adequate, safe systems for pedestrian and bicycle movement among neighborhoods, schools, parks, retail/office areas and the University. Parks and Recreation Goal Goal #3 -Develop greenbelts to connect park and residential areas. • Objective 3.1 ... develop a donation/purchase policy to acquire elected portions of the 100 year floodplain ... to provide natural corridors of open space for passive recreation that will link parks to one another and to residential areas. Priority Areas for a Greenway System: 1. Carter Creek from the College Station City limit to the confluence with Bee Creek. The area of the 100 year floodplain for this stretch of Carter Creek is approximately 1050 acres. The average appraised per acre value is $2,250. Total value of this area is approximately $2,230,000. Justification -A large portion of this area (between northern city limit and Harvey Rd.) is proposed for development through a realignment of the floodplain to a point several hundred feet east. There is potential for increased downstream flooding due to this project. Between Harvey Rd. and the confluence with Bee Creek several neighborhoods (Windwood, Raintree, Emerald Forest, Foxfire) exist. Designating a greenway along Carter Creek would help protect these neighborhoods from flooding while connecting them to each other, churches and office/retail. A connection to Bee Creek (see below) could also provide safe bike/pedestrian access to parks and retail areas in west College Station. 2. Lick Creek from State Highway 6 to C.S. Landfill. The area of the 100 year floodplain for this stretch of Lick Creek is approximately 202 acres. The average appraised per acre value is approximately ~2,200. Total value of this area is approximately $444,400. Justification -The lick creek area is likely to come under new development pressure quickly, as indicated in our first CIP meeting. The city already owns park and other property (for example, landfill to be future recreation area) in the area that could be linked into the system to create connections among residential areas, parks, future schools and retail areas. 3. Spring Creek from its confluence with Lick Creek to State Highway 6 and the proposed Crowley development. The area of the 100 year floodplain for this stretch of Spring Creek is / approximately 75 acres. The average appraised per acre value is $3,050. Total value of this area is approximately $228,750. Justification -This floodplain would link Lick Creek to a proposed 750 acre development just west of Highway 6. The proposed Crowley development has already presented a layout which would include greenway connections among schools and neighborhoods. Crowley's plans would link nicely with a Spring Creek and Lick Creek system keeping a large area safer from flooding while providing better recreation and transportation opportunities. 4. Bee Creek from east of the C.S . Public Works area to the confluence with Carter Creek. The area of the 100 year floodplain for this stretch of Bee Creek is approximately 338 acres. The average appraised per acre value is $5 ,600. Total value of this area is approximately $1 ,892,800. Justification -Upper Bee Creek is currently under design due to flooding problems (approximately $3,500,000 will be spent in the next 2 years) which could have been avoided if floodplain areas had been protected earlier. Keeping development well out of flood prone areas in the lower stretches is only prudent from a safety, and economic, standpoint. Bee Creek also has the potential to link several park areas (Lemon Tree, Bee Creek, Cy Miller and Central Park) to neighborhoods in east College Station. Parts of it are currently being included in the "College Station Bike Loop" and this concept could be extended into a loop that includes the Carter Creek area mentioned above. Total estimated acres in this proposal: Total estimated cost: 1665 $4,795 ,950 Possible CIP Recommendations to City Council: 1. Establish a fund for the purchase of floodplain areas in order to stay ahead of development. Such funds could be used in conjunction with revised ordinances to promote floodplain designation during the development process to create incentives to design subdivisions, retail centers and other use areas around floodplains. 2. Initiate such a program immediately in order to catch up with and keep up with current development. 3. Direct city departments in transportation, planning, public works and parks and recreation to seek matching funds for the acquisition, development and maintenance of these areas. New federal, and existing state, programs are very favorable toward this concept. • '\ . 1.~ ~--~. ~ :\ '\V \~7· ~[\ ;(. Veronica Morgan '/~~~/ 'J M • C I 'J • D P I n, SA_B; Drainage Systems Advisory Board STAFF REPORT CASE SUMMARY CASE: DSAB MEETING DATE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PREPARED BY: SITE DATA OWNERS: APPLICANT: SITE LOCATION: SIZE OF PROJECT: PROJECT BACKGROUND: VARIANCE REQUEST Carters Creek Relocation & Channelization December 15, 1997 Denial Development Engineering Staff Jim Sowell Construction Company, Inc.; Bert Wheeler, Inc.; Regency Parkway, Inc.; Highway 30 Partership; & M.J. Talk Michael Davis, President ofRiverView, Inc. Carters Creek 3,500 feet north of FM 60 to FM 30, Hudson Creek 1,600 feet east of Carters Creek, and Burton Creek 2,000 feet west of Carters Creek Subject property is roughly 375 acres. Proposed plan to rechannelize over 2.5 miles of natural creekbed with a drainage area of 17,000 acres. This is the upper half of the total 37,000 acre watershed for Carters Creek. This is a primary watershed for this area draining large portions of both cities. Carters Creek receives all flows from the Briar Creek, 'Burton Creek, Hudson Creek, Wolf Pen Creek, and Bee Creek basins. Confluences with Briar, Burton, and Hudson all lie upstream of the project. See Figures 6 & 7 attached. A FEMA application for CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) was submitted for signature by both the Cities of Bryan and College Station on June 27, 1997. The application was for a realignment and relocation proposal for sections of Carters, Hudson and Burton Creek. The effected portion of Carters Creek begins 3,500 ft north of FM 60 (University Drive) and extends to FM 30 (Harvey Road). Also to be channelized are sections of Hudson and Burton Creeks - distances of 1,600 ft and 2,000 ft, respectively. Figure 1 shows the extent and location of the channel improvements proposed. This project would allow the landowners to reclaim considerable floodplain/floodway property DSAB STAFF REPORT December 15, 1997 fronting the Hwy 6 Bypass and FM 60; thereby enabling increased development opportunities. Figure 2 shows the existing floodplain/floodway conditions at the site. Figure 3 shows the proposed floodplain configuration and the approximate amount of l_and reclaimed. Roughly 130 acres of floodplain would be reclaimed within Bryan and about 145 acres in College Station. In addition to the CLOMR, the applicant suggested the cities realign the City Limit boundaries so that they may follow the creek channels and provide undivided tracts of land. Figure 4 illustrates the existing and proposed boundaries. The proposed channel geometry varies from 200 ft to 350 ft in width and is predominantly grass lined. Side slopes planned are to be 4 horizontal to 1 vertical except.at the bridge structures where slopes are steeper in transition areas. Also provided is a concrete "sided" pilot channel that carries normal, low flows. Figure 5 shows a typical proposed cross-section. The report attempts to show that considerations were made for maintenance with standard equipment, velocities sufficient to flush out sediment, and a large safety margin with respect to the 100-year flood. The City of Bryan responded to the developer's submittal by letter dated September 3, 1997 outlining requirements that would be necessary before the City of Bryan would sign the CLO MR. Mike Davis requested variances to four required items by letter dated October 23, 1997. Copies of all correspondence are attached. The applicant received a nationwide 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in January of 1997. The Corp 404 permit is the wetlands mitigation required of projects of appreciable size and scope. The Corp tries, for environmental purposes, to make some provision for the natural habitats that are often destroyed with large man-made projects. This is one step in a series of reviews that must be satisfied for this type of project. Review of the hydrology, hydraulics, and associated maintenance concerns of a project is another important step. This review is the responsibility ofFEMA (the Federal Management Agency) and the municipality. During this time the City of College Station responded to this proposal with similar concerns as the City of Bryan. A joint meeting of the City of College Station's Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council was held on October 2, 1997 to discuss the proposal and philosophy of floodplain preservation. Also during this meeting the Brazos Greenways Council and residents of Windwood Subdivision (located immediately downstream of the project) had the opportunity to speak in opposition to the proposal. On November 4, 1997, the City of College Station's Zoning Board of Adjustments denied a variance to the concrete lining required by the City of College Station. The board did not find that the applicant had successfully demonstrated a design that met the intent of the concrete lining requirement. Page 2 DSAB STAFF REPORT December 15, 1997 ANALYSIS: Below is a list of the two variance items being requested, associated staff recommendation and the basis for recommendation. Stormwater Management Ordinance references are also noted. );>. ITEM 1: Variance to the requirement that the City of Bryan is to provide the long-term maintenance of the new channel and that it be concrete lined. Staff Recommendation: Denial Basis of Recommendation: Hydraulic analysis was performed using computer models with perfect trapezoidal channel cross-sections. In reality channels often become obstructed by vegetation and debris especially when not maintained properly. When that occurs, capacity is diminished and therefore assumptions from the original analysis are invalid. If diminished capacity occurred due to inadequate maintenance, the potential for flooding the subject property and adjoining properties is probable and could have detrimental effects on the public. Therefore to secure public safety, the City believes it would be in the best public interest to be the responsible party ensuring and maintaining the channel capacity. The City of Bryan will not accept unlined or grass-lined drainage channels for maintenance. Currently the only acceptable alternative is concrete lining. The basis for this requirement is that the City believes concrete lined channels are the most easily maintained and are the most effective at maintaining the design cross-section. Not only does this maintain the geometry of the channel, but also enables maintenance equipment to more easily remove debris and siltation. The high cost of maintaining natural or earthlined channels would create an unreasonable burden to the taxpayers. Currently in this area, we see man-made channels of only grass or concrete linings - occasionally limited use of gabians. We welcome innovative ideas and are willing to consider alternative designs. An alternative design, however, must sufficiently demonstrate that it meets the purpose of the original requirement before it can be approved. Due to the magnitude of this project, it is critically important to ensure that the channel design is stable, safe, and maintainable. Associated Stormwater Management Ordinance References: • Section 10-5 Purpose and objective (1) Protect human life, health, and property exposed to the hazards of flooding • Section 10-5 Purpose and objective (2) Maximize the cost effectiveness of expenditures of public money for flood control projects. • Section 10-5 Purpose and objective (3) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts ,associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public • Section 10-5 Purpose and objective (5) Help maintain a stable tax base for the city by providing for the organized development of all areas in such a manner as to minimize future areas of flooding Page 3 • DSAB STAFF REPORT December 15, 1997 • Section 10-5 Purpose and objective (10) Control, in the sense of providing authoritative guidance, the alteration of natural floodplains, their protective barriers and stream channels. • Section 10-77 Management methods, practices (4) Control the alteration of natural or developed floodplains, channels, or natural protective barriers, which are necessary to accommodate floodwaters, • Section 10-77 Management methods, practices (8) Establish drainage easements to control development and limit flood damage. • Section 10-77 Management methods, practices (13) Require adequate maintenance by landowner of drainage facilities and watercourses such that they retain their capacity for conveying stromwater. Maintenance within easements will be performed by the city. • Section 10-95 Plan elements A drainage plan shall consist of engineering drawings, contour maps, and all supporting engineering calculations, as applicable to the land area covered by the plan, which are required to demonstrate full compliance requirements of this chapter and the drainage design guideline manual. • Drainage Design Guideline Manual Section 601: Open Channel Geometrics and Design, Design Considerations, NOTE: City of Bryan will not accept unlined or grass- lined drainage channels for maintenance within drainage easements. ;... ITEM2: Variance to the requirement for the developer to provide short-term maintenance by way of a bond or cash equivalent to the cost of the initial 10 to 15 years. Staff Recommendation: Denial Basis of Recommendation: When the project is constructed, about 130 acres of land within the City of Bryan will be reclaimed. This land will eventually develop and increase the tax base. However until this increase is realized, the City of Bryan is requiring the developer to pay for the initial maintenance cost associated with this endeavor. Associated Stormwater Management Ordinance References: • Section 10-5 Purpose and objective (2) Maximize the cost e~fectiveness of expenditures of public money for flood control projects. • Section 10-5 Purpose and objective (5) Help maintain a stable tax base for the city by providing for the organized development of all areas in such a manner as to minimize future areas of flooding • Section 10-77. Management methods, practices. (13) Require adequate maintenance by landowner of drainage facilities and watercourses such they retain their capacity for conveying stormwater. Page 4 Mayor LYNN MCILHANEY Mayor Pro Tempore HUB KENNADY City Manager GEORGE K. NOE COLLEGE STATION AGENDA COLLEGE STATION CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Council Members STEVE ESMOND LARRY MARIOTT DAVID HICKSON DICK BIRDWELL SWIKI ANDERSON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. COLLEGE STATION CITY HALL, 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS (This meeting will be held as a joint meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission.) 1. Presentation by developers Mike Davis and George Chmelar on a drainage project planned for Carter Creek. 2. Discuss with Proponents and Planning and Zoning Commissioners. /-· Possible action, if necessary. / 3. Adjourn. I certify that this agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas on September 29, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3517 or 1-800-735-2989 .. Providing Customer Service Excelience TO: FROM: RE: COLLEGE STATION P. 0. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue Tel: 409 764 3500 MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen Planning & Zoning Commissioners Veronica Morgan, P.E., Assistant City Engineer Jane R. Kee, AICP, City Planner College Station, TX 77842 Carter Creek Relocation Proposal and Drainage Ordinance Amendment In 1986 the City Council passed a resolution expressing community support for a floodplain reclamation project relocating and channelizing Carter's Creek. This resolution came about as a result of a project Mike Davis was working on at the time. In June of this year, Mr. Davis presented to the City of College StatioJYa "Carter's Creek Relocation Report" and requested that this be forwarded to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) for a conditional letter of map revisions (CLOMR). This project also involves the City of Bryan. The report is presented on behalf of the Jim Sowell Construction Co., Inc., property owner. As you are well aware, the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in August of this year by resolution. The staff is and has been working to implement the various goal and objective statements and policy statements through ordinance amendments. One such amendment involves the Drainage Ordinance. This ordinance is designed to regulate development to avoid flooding. What it does not currently do is specifically address certain drainage areas referenced in the Comprehensive Plan as needing protection. The amendment before the P&Z on 10-2 adds lang\iage to the Drainage Ordinance that does two things: 1. Provides for creation of a Drainage Variance Board to hear requests from any aspect of the ordinance. Presently variances are heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Drainage Board is proposed to have 3 members required to have engineering background, one member required to have a real-estate background and one member required to have an environmental/conservation background. 2. Provides for a thirty day review time, rather than a 10 day review time, for proposals involving the followiri.g specific drainage areas referenced in the Comprehensive Plan: The entirety of Carter's Creek, The main channel and south fork of Lick Creek, Wolf Pen Creek from SH 6 By-Pass to the confluence with Carter's Creek and Home of Texas A&M University The Brazos River. One of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan states "College Station should prohibit reclamation of the floodway associated with Carter's Creek, Lick Creek, Wolf Pen Creek and the Brazos River in order to prevent upstream flooding, avoid long term structural and erosion problems associated with floodplain reclamation, and to provide a city wide network of natural open space." In order to actually prohibit proposals that aim to reclaim in these areas, the City will have to be prepared to make property acquisitions. The thirty day time frame will give staff the time to notify the City Council that a proposal is pending and receive direction whether to proceed with property acquisition or to proceed with the permit process. This amendment will not impact Mike Davis' project unless Council determines that acquisition is the more desirable direction rather than permitting. This is a topic appropriate for a Council executive session if staff is so directed. A long term goal to implement this specific objective statement and others that refer to preservation of natural open space and provision of greenbelts linking various areas of town, is to prepare a more detailed plan of the floodplain areas defining and prioritizing those areas targeted for preservation as shown on the Parks and Open Space Plan. The Parks Board is currently working with a TAMU class and the Brazos Greenways Council in doing just this. A program for acquisition will be a logical outcome of this process as well. It may be too early to specify a time frame for this, but staff would anticipate at least one year for development given the current workload of Parks, Development Services and Engineering. In the interim, the 30 day review period will give Council the opportunity to consider acquisition as proposals are made. attachments: Resolution from 1986 Figures "before and after" of the Carter Creek project Letters from Bryan and College Station to Mike Davis Drainage ordinance amendment RESOLUTION NO. 08-13-86-04 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR A FLOODPLAIN RECLAMATION PROJECT RELOCATING AND RECHANNELIZING CARTER CREEK FROM THE CITY LIMITS OF COLLEGE STATION AT THE NORTH END OF THE PROJECT TO STATE HIGHWAY 30 ON THE SOUTH END OF THE PROJECT. WHEREAS, on the 13th day of August 1986 the City Council met in special session and heard the presentation of this project by the developer; and WHEREAS, the proposed project will benefit the area by reducing the probability of flooding along the improved section of Carter Creek; and WHEREAS, the developer intends to construct this project and secure all permits and letters using private funds; and WHEREAS, the developer intends to construct the project in accordance with all local state national regulations, plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer and other appropriate agencies; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer or his designate will observe the project du ring the construction to assure its conformity to the same; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of College Station supports this project in principle and intends to operate and maintain the facility · when completed in accordance with all requirements and after appropriate right-of-way and easements have been dedicated to the public, and after the Federal Emergency Management Agency has issued a letter of map revision thereby, approving the completed project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 1986. ATTEST: 13th day of August APPROVED: ....---...7 ....... -. September 8, 1997 Riverview Inc. Attn: Mike Davis 4002 Aspen Bryan, Texas 77802 UU--ter lf'ee,tL-\f\Q\o r. u? COLLEGE STATION yqo P. 0 . Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 RE: Carter Creek Relocation Project Dear Mr. Davis: We have completed the review of your "Carter Creek Relocation" concept dated Jooe 1997. In concert with the City of Bryan development engineering staff: we discussed the concept and details of your design. There are maintenance and design issues that need to be addressed prior to approval of the relocation concept The following is a list of concerns currently identified by the joint Bryan and College Station review: 1. As previously discussed there are concerns with the maintenance of the proposed facility. a If the City can not maintain the proposed improvements, a plan to ensure the design "n" values and other assumptions will be required. b. The City has some concern with regard to the "flapper" gates being installed as part of the detention basins at the lower end of the project This design has the potential of not fimctioning properly due to debris getting caught within the opening and not allowing them to close. You have stated that the gates provide for added protection, but that if in the event they did not operate properly there would be no impact to the downstream properties. If this is in fact the case, it would be better to remove the gates and portions of the bermed areas in order to utilize the additional capacity for the entire channel · 2. In an effort to determine the amount of sediment load the channel will be carrying as a result of this project. you will need to submit a silt loading analysis. This information will help to determine the maintenance schedule necessary to maintain the design assumptions associated with this project Home of Texas A&M University Mr. Mike Davis Carter Creek Relocation Project September 8, 1997 Page2 3. As part of the maintenance concerns for this project, the City will require the channel bottom to be concrete lined Tills lining will provide a solid working surface to perform maintenance activities. 4. The developer will be responsible for submitting a financial guarantee that is equal to a sealed engineer's estimate for all costs associated with the construction of this project. Please submit this information at your earliest convenience. The approval of this conceptual plan is contingent upon receiving this information and full compliance with the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards manual. If you have any questions, feel free to contact either of us at 764-3570. xc: Sabine McCully, Senior Planner, City of College Station Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator, City of College Station Paul Kaspar, Graduate Engineer, City of College Station Mark Smith, Dir. of Public Works, City of College Station Kent Laza, City Engineer, City of College Station Steve Homeyer, Asst to the City Engineer, City of College Station Linda Huff, Development Engineering Division Manager, City of Bryan Lisa Hagerman, Development Engineer, City of Bryan Greg Taggart, Municipal Development GroUp Carter Creek Relocation Project D.P. File RECEIVED SEP 0 9 1997 September 2, 1997 P. 0 . BOX 1000 • BRYAN. TEXAS 77B05 • C409J 361 -3600 Mr. Mike Davis Riverview, Inc. 4002Aspen Bryan, Texas 77801 RE: Carter Creek Relocation Project Dear Mr. Davis: We have completed the review of the FEMA submittal prepared for the Carter Creek Relocation Project and have several concerns. • The long-term maintenance of the channel will need to be provided by the City, and therefore concrete lining along with access for maintenance equipment will be required. The developers will need to provide short- term maintenance by way of a bond or cash equivalent to the cost of the initial 10 to 15 years. • Additional easement for bike/hike type paths will need to be provided along both sides of the channel. • An analysis will need to be performed to better predict the amount of siltation, which can be expected. • We have concerns with the proposed alignment at the upstream end in relation to the existing creek. The proposed. alignment begins just beyond an area in the creek where a 90° bend occurs. We believe that the creek will eventually bypass the channel at this 90° bend. In addition, the weir and drop structure on the north end of the project are of concern, especially with respect to siltation occurring upstream and outside the property owned by this group. • Finally, we require that the City of College Station approve this proposal and that the City Limit relocations be performed prior to any submittals. We are in receipt of City of College Station's letter dated August 27, 1997 where their concerns were addressed. If you have any questions, please call me at 361-3842. Q1~J0Ls4f!- Linda Grubbs Huff, P.E. Development Engineering Division Manager Cc: Lisa Hagerman, Development Engineer Tom Coyle, Director of Development Services Rick Conner, Director of Public Works Kent Laz.a, City Engineer, City.of College Station Jane Kee, City Planner, City of College Station File ORDINANCE NO. _____ _ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13, "FLOOD HAZARD PROTECTION', OF TIIB CODE OF ORDINANCES OF TIIB CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, BY AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS AS SET OUT BELOW; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING A PENALTY. BE IT ORDAINED BY TIIB CITY COUNCIL OF TIIB CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: PART2: PART3: That Chapter 13, "Flood Hazard Protection" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, be amended as set out in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. That if any provisions of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or unconstitutional, such holding shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25 .00) nor more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. Said Ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten (10) days after its publication in the newspaper, as provided by Section 35 of the Charter of the City of College Station. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this ____ day of _______ 1997. ATIEST: APPROVED: CONNIE HOOKS, City Secretary LYNN McILHANEY, Mayor EXHIBIT A AMEND SECTION l :B AS FOLLOWS: It is the purpose of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse impacts associated with the increased stormwater flows generated by development. . It is also the purpose of this chapter to enhance the public health. safety and welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan and all of its elements -The following objectives will minimize public and private losses due to flooding, erosion, and sedimentation: (1) To protect human life and health; (2) To minimize the expenditure of public money for costly flood and erosion control projects; (3) To minimize the need for relief and rescue efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; (4) To minimize the damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and sewer lines, streets, and drainage structures; (5) To help maintain a stable tax base for the City by providing for the sound use and development of all areas in such a manner as to minimize future areas of flooding; (6) To establish review, approval, and permit procedures for the methods of handling, conveying, and disposing of stormwater flows within the corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City, and insure the review by the appropriate authority of the design, analysis, construction, and maintenance of all drainage facilities according to the provisions of this ordinance and the Drainage Policy and Design Standards; (7) To restrict or prohibit development which is dangerous to health, safety, or property during flooding conditions, or causes unacceptable increases in water surface elevations or velocities; (8) To require that uses vulnerable to floods, or flooding, including public and private facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; (9) To provide authoritative guidance in the alteration of any natural stream course, flood plain, or their associated protective barriers which are involved in the accommodation of floodwaters; (10) To prevent the construction of barriers which will divert stormwater flows and subject other lands to increased flood haz.ard; (11) To provide authoritative guidance in the modification of ground cover to minimize erosion and sedimentation; (12) To ensure that potential property owners are notified if the property is included in an area of special flood haz.ard; (13) To control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage. AMEND CHAP'IER 13, SECTION 4:B.(7) TO READ AS FOLWWS: "(7) provide information to the Zonieg Board of ADjl:lStmeets, Municipal Court, or City Council, as applicable on all variance requests, administrative appeals, enforcement actions, and proposed amendments to the Drainage Policy and Design Standards as required;" AMEND CHAP'IER 13, SECTION 4.D. TO ADD 4.D.(4) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: (4) Any proposal which alters the floodways of the following special drainage areas: The entiretv of Carter's Creek. The main channel and south fork of Lick Creek, Wolf Pen Creek from SH 6 By-Pass to the confluence with Carter's Creek and The Braros River shall receive written notice of approval or disapproval of the development permit from the Floodplain Administrator within thirtv (30) working days after receipt of the proposal. AMEND CHAPTER 13, SECTION 6,A. AS FOLLOWS: "SECTION 6: VARIANCES A. GENERAL All variances of this chapter shall be considered by the Drainage Variance Board (Board). This body shall be appointed by City Council and shall consist of five (5) members who are residents of the City and qualified voters. Each shall be appointed for a term of two years. except that two members appointed initially shall have terms of three years. After the initial appointments. two members shall be appointed in odd numbered years to maintain a membership of five (5) members. The members shall consist of three (3) professional engineers licensed in the State of Texas. one (1) real estate professional licensed in the State of Texas and one (1) member with evironmental and conservation background. Members shall be removable for cause by the City Council upon written charges and after a public hearing. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term of any member whose term becomes vacant. All cases to be heard by the Board will always be heard by a minimum number of 4 members. The concurring vote of 4 members of the Board shall be necessary to reverse any order. requirement. decisions or determination of the Administrator. to decide in favor of the applicant or any variance to this ordinance. The Zoaieg BoaFd of Adjl:lStmeet Drainage Appeals Board may authorize a variance to the provisions and requirements of this chapter when, in their opinion, undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, and when any of the following criteria are met: (1) There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, or, (2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant..Q!7 . . . (3) Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in the remainder of this section. AMEND SECTION6:C.(l) AS FOLLOWS: (1) The .ZORiBg Board of Adjustments shall hear and render judgement on any requests for variances from the requirements of this chapter." AMEND SECTION 6:C.(7) AS FOLLOWS: (7) Any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the .ZORiBg Board ef Adjustments may appeal such decision to the courts of competent jurisdiction. "--r , Mike Davis Riverview, Inc. 4002 Aspen Bryan, Texas 7780 l Dear Mike: COLLEGE STATION P. 0 . :Jox 9960 1101 Texas Avenue Tel: 409 764 3500 College Station, TX 77842 May29, 1998 We have completed the review of the material you submitted for the above referenced project To recap the status of what has been submitted to date. this project was originally submitted on November 26, 1997 and the City denied the permit on Deccmbci 15, 1997 due to incompleteness and o:-dina..'1ce non- compliance. On February l 7, 1998 you resubmitted the project. Again the submittal had several items originally requested in the December 1997 letter that were not included We previously responded that the City could not complete the review without this additional information. In early May, I received a number of phone calls from Gregg Taggert with MDG. He was inquiring if the City had completed the review of the additional information submitted to the City on March 31, 1998. I explained that the submittal I received on March 3 lst was for the larger Carter Creek Relocation Project and not for this small Reclamation Project at SH30. On May 13, 1998 you met with me to go over what to date had been submitted to the City. During our discussion it became apparent that approximately 6 loose sheets of paper were submitted on March 3 lst for the small Reclamation Project at SH30. They were submitted without benefit of a cover letter or explanation of what they were nor which project they were for. The same day, March 3 lst, a large 3 ring binder was submitted with a cover letter and description for the large Carter Creek Reclamation Project. The loose sheets were given to me with the large binder and the assumption was made that they belonged together. On May 13th after our discussion, the sheets were removed from the binder and logged in for review. Please remember in the future to submit information with a cover letter or submittal sheet to explain what project the submittal pertains to and the contents of the submittal. With more than 40 sets of plans and reports alone per month (which does not include letters, easements and other miscellaneous items for review) coming into this office, we cannot guess . which project a few single sheets of paper belongs to. Especially in this case; when documents for one . project c3.n easily be mistaken for those belonging to the large Carter Creek Reclamation Project because of the data overlap. The following are our comments on the project (the submittal made on February 17, 1998 and the subsequent information submitted to complete the request). These items are ones needed before we can grant approval: l. The fill at _Station 11.88 and 11.85 behind the Cinemark is located within the flood way of Carters Creek. This fill area seems to provide no purpose for this project, it certainly is not meant for reclamation of the floodplain given its shape a.;1d size. It appears to be some tyix-.:>f diversion structure which does not fit with your request for a simple floodplain reclamation plan. Due to this and its location within the floodway this area should be removed from the plan. 2. Since it appears that your single 24"x36" plan sheet will be the only item that will be submitted to a contractor for construction, please assure the following items are included on that sheet or a second page to the construction plans: a Notes regarding the lift depths and compaction requirements for fill as stated in the FEMA regulations. Home of Texas A&M University ,. . b. Plans for the piving diagram between the ponds and locations of these pipes shown on the plan view. c. Locations of all underground pipes. This is essential to assure that they are not disturbed by your locations of ponds. This request was made in earlier comments and still has not been addressed on the plans. The City requires on all construction plans that the locations of existing utilities be shown and does not allow someone to simply make a statement that they will be located in the field prior to construction. In this case we are contemplating 6-8 feet of cut in some areas, the City needs to see the locations of all utilities in relation to that cut and fill associated with the berms. d. Location of all silt fencing . Some has been shown to date. The plan still does not address silt migration toward the creek, as all silt fencing is located only on the SfDO side of the plan. This comment again was one made in an earlier review. e. Note on the plan that all side slopes shall not exceed 4: 1. In particular where this is a concern is adjacent to Furrows. On the fill plan in that area you need to make the proposed contours tie to existing contours, we will not accept a note to the contractor to "tie to adjacent tract". This is of concern because the grades to tie to appear to be well into another property owners tract This type of detail should not be worked out in the field but rather on a set of construction documents. Also your transition to the existing concrete access drive appears to contain some almost vertical slopes. Please show the contours as they approach the drive and assure that the slopes are no more than 4: l . Also spot a top of pavement elevation on the drive. f. Add a general note regarding where sodding or seeding is to be used, along with notes regarding the required timing of grass establislunent. 3. At station 11.7 remove the excess storage area from your cross section included in the HEC-2 runs. During the 100-year storm event, the ponds are full and storage capacity for those should not be used in the runs. In addition, this storage capacity is being used by the program from station 11.7 to station ll.85 where the cross section changes. This gives a false sense that this storage capacity is there when in reality it is not 4. At station 11. 7 you show two channels. The second channel depicted on the left overbank is not there. You may have picked up the meander in the stream and that is why you show two channels at this cross section. 5. Add a cross section at 11.52+ to depict the beginning of the bermed fill area. This again was a comment made earlier in a review where we requested additional cross sections to further depict the fill. 6. Also from an earlier review the question was asked why you changed the "n" value in the channel and left overbank when with this project you have stated that you are not doing anything in that area. You stated that you did not use different "n"s from those used in the FEMA runs. From the runs the "n" values used in the original FEMA runs were: Left Overbanlc =.075 Right Overbanlc =.08 Channel = .06 , . in your "fill" runs you used beginning at station l l.51 Left Overbank =.072 Right Overbank =.075 Channel =.065 The only one of these that should have changed is the right overbank. Since you disagreed with this statement earlier please let us know if we have misinterpreted your runs. 7. The plans for the pond piping need to be more descriptive. Keep in mind that this should be a construction document Please show flowlines at each pond location, pipe materials, headwall details, etc. From what you have submitted, we cannot tell how the ponds drain nor how full they will stay. The 1: l slope on the pond siphon diagram is unacceptable if you propose that the City ever have any maintenance responsibilities. Also the 5+ feet of fill on the City sewerline is also unacceptable. 8. Several questions regarding maintenance have still not been addressed. Although you submitted letters from property owners that say they will maintain the ponds, it does not address a maintenance schedule nor the level of maintenance that will be given to the ponds. It does refer to a 404 mitigation area and the maintenance associated with that type of facility. Please clarify what 404 maintenance means. 9. It appears that the Corp will be asking for no disturbance of any wetland areas that you may create with the large reclamation project How does the Corp view our easements in these wetland areas and our rights to install new pipelines through the area and disturb these new wetlands with construction equipment? 10. You will need to submit this data to FEMA as a LOMA based on fill in order to accurately depict the new floodplain line that you will have established. This must be done within 6 months of the completion of the fill operation. Other miscellaneous items that I am sure you are aware of but we have not received to date are: • A completed development permit application. • The fees associated with the permit and inspection. • A copy of the NOi for the project. If you have any questions, please call. Veronica J.B. M01pgan, Asst. City Engineer cc: !ile vJi.m Callaway, Director ofl>evclopment Services Linda Huff: City of Bryan Marie Smith, Director of Public Works North Bardell, MDG PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLANNING & DESIGN FOR CARTERS CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS RM 11.47 to 13.50 MDG Job No. 000657-3474 Bryan, College Station, Texas December, 2001 ··:· :··: :··-: :-: r s Department of Tran sportation ~ 255 1 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College Station, TX 77840 &1 ~~-O-fi-c:-97-9-.69-3 -.53-59-Fax--:-97-9-.69-3-.42_4_3 -Email-. :-m-dg-cs_@_m-dg-cs-.c-om-W-eb-: ww-w-.m-d-gc-s.c-om-. ~*~\~'f . 1\¥,._.c: '\;J\.~ G -~~----- CONCEPTUAL PLANNING & DESIGN FOR CARTERS CREEK -DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS RM 11.4 7 to 13.50 DEVELOPER Michael K. Davis, Ph.D. 4002 Aspen Bryan, TX 77801 --- CIVIL ENGINEER Municipal Development Group 2551 Texas Avenue South, Ste A College Station, TX 77840 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER HDR Engineering 1 7111 Preston Rd, Ste 200 Dallas, TX 75230 ---- EXISTING CONDITIONS I EXTREME BED & BANK EROSION Looking Downstream Looking Upstream &~\Y)~ Y f\f7{V{ ~ \UicJ View of Carters Creek (Approximate RM 11. 97) EXISTING CONDITIONS I EXTREME BED & BANK EROSION Looking Upstream Looking Downstream View of Carters Creek at FM 60 Bridge Creek Crossing (RM 12.475) --~ -·---...------------ ------ -,.....,_ ~ ~ _._,_. EXISTING CONDITIONS I EXTREME BED & BANK EROSION Looking Upstream View of Carters Creek at Confluence of Burton Creek (Approximately RM 12.75) EXISTING CONDITIONS I EXTREME BED & BANK EROSION I EXISTING FLOODPLAIN & FLOODW A Y Effective Model -Floodplain & Floodway (July, 1992) --- EXISTING CONDITIONS I EXTREME BED & BANK EROSION I EXISTING FLOODPLAIN & FLOODW A Y ,;-0" ·: ....... . ~~~,;~-- MDG Existing Conditions Model -Floodplain & Floodway (November, 2001) EXISTING CONDITIONS I EXTREME BED & BANK EROSION I EXISTING FLOODPLAIN & FLOODW A Y I EFFECTIVE MODEL HYDROLOGY (RM 10.93 to 12.39) Q10 = 13,800 cfs I Q50 = 19,250 cfs I Q100 = 21,800 cfs Q500 = 36,830 cfs I EFFECTIVE & EXISTING MODEL HYDRAULICS (RM 11.47 to 13.50) River Channel Capacity (Q100) Channel Velocity (Q100) Mile Effective Existing Effective Existing 11.47 6,315 1,904 2.32 3.14 11.88 1,553 5,672 2.97 5.41 12.24 1,970 5,840 3.91 6.76 12.25 2,882 5,673 5.93 6.49 12.27 1,763 6,020 3.05 5.75 12.39 2,689 10, 145 3.90 9.85 12.75 3,760 5,669 3.57 5.53 13.50 2,022 2,026 3.84 3.84 -~ ---..,.--------,.. ~~-. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN I RECLAIM LARGE PORTIONS OF FLOODPLAIN & RELOCATE FLOODWAYS I MODIFY EXISTING CARTERS CREEK FOR INCREASED FLOW CAPACITY 'J.bli/. ~ ~ '(;c./(t:;.{(~ ((!'? ' " Jt:>C>-0 1''-IP. lfo5~-5".."ffbl\.1 w!ONC. S•0&. ffl~Ft"' ({Ao:r~ l.<Z.€.E.V .. ,...., A'f>f<l.t:.'f... Yl-Wl l zAq) N.\.$. --~-~-----~- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN I RECLAIM LARGE PORTIONS OF FLOODPLAIN & RELOCATE FLOODWAYS I MODIFY EXISTING CARTERS CREEK FOR INCREASED FLOW CAPACITY ------------------- I " 100 -o -:;;,.(/{~ ~t C.fcS~·Sec:tbJ ~&T., S.CES n1WJtFta::> ( LPl-"2-i~tZ.5 Ca..~ ,.... /lPfrlt)'f... JZ.YV\ IZ-l'i) CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN I RECLAIM LARGE PORTIONS OF FLOODPLAIN & RELOCATE FLOODWAYS I MODIFY EXISTING CARTERS CREEK FOR INCREASED FLOW CAPACITY 25-YEAR DESIGN STORM COMPARISON River Channel Capacity (Q2s) Channel Velocity (Q2s) Mile Effective Existing Proposed Effective Existing Proposed 11.47 5,301 1,645 8,000 2.32 2.92 2.92 11.88 1,371 5,557 6,979 2.97 5.36 5.33 12.24 1,717 5,434 8,000 3.91 6.63 2.94 12.25 2,953 5,248 n/a 5.93 6.43 n/a 12.27 1,494 5,383 n/a 3.05 5.51 n/a -- 12.39 2,500 8,928 8,000 3.90 9.52 4.03 12.75 3,391 5,561 8,000 3.57 5.87 5.94 13.50 1,754 1,795 1,792 3.84 3.64 3.63 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN .. - I RECLAIM LARGE PORTIONS OF FLOODPLAIN & RELOCATE FLOODWAYS I MODIFY EXISTING CARTERS CREEK FOR INCREASED FLOW CAPACITY 100-YEAR ANALYZED STORM COMPARISON River Channel Capacity (Q100) Channel Velocity (Q100) Mile Effective Existing Proposed Effective Existing Proposed 11.47 6,315 1,904 1,904 3.14 3.14 3.14 11.88 1,553 6, 110 8,224 5.41 5.41 5.81 12.24 1,970 5,840 10,000 6.76 6.76 3.32 12.25 2,882 5,673 n/a 6.49 6.49 n/a 12.27 1,763 6,020 n/a 5.75 5.75 n/a 12.39 2,689 10,145 10,000 9.85 9.85 4.47 12.75 3,760 5,669 10,000 5.53 5.53 6.31 13.50 2,022 2,026 2,011 3.84 3.84 3.80 - -- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN I RECLAIM LARGE PORTIONS OF FLOODPLAIN & RELOCATE FLOODWAYS I MODIFY EXISTING CARTERS CREEK FOR INCREASED FLOW CAPACITY 2-YEAR ANALYZED STORM COMPARISON River Channel Capacity (Q2) Channel Velocity (Q2) Mile Effective Existing Proposed Effective Existing Proposed 11.47 2,691 1,093 1,093 n/a 2.40 2.40 11.88 1,005 4,183 3,784 n/a 5.21 3.56 12.24 1, 188 3,965 3,900 n/a 5.94 1.96 12.25 2,829 3,881 n/a n/a 5.76 n/a 12.27 756 4,237 n/a n/a 5.34 n/a - 12.39 1,538 6,199 3,900 n/a 9.06 2.80 12.75 3,068 5,982 3,900 n/a 8.11 4.97 13.50 1,052 4,370 4,370 n/a 3.83 4.39 PRIMARY CAUSE OF BED & BANK EROSION :I CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN I RECLAIM LARGE PORTIONS OF FLOODPLAIN & RELOCATE FLOODWAYS I MODIFY EXISTING CARTERS CREEK FOR INCREASED FLOW CAPACITY I CONSTRUCTION OF CARTERS CREEK OVERFLOW FLOOD ZONE .,_.oof'. ~ //{~/(~/ :::ill ""°'-o·'~ TYf. l~"r~11e>t..l {~. trrt. tt.11) [CA,~? t:~ 01/EUtol'l fi.clW ~) !'1."f.~. I DESIGN ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION I EROSION PROTECTION OF MODIFIED CARTERS CREEK & NEW OVERFLOW FLOOD ZONE I WINDWOOD, RAINTREE & DOWNSTREAM LANDOWNERS I HUMBLE GAS PIPELINE I REALIGNMENT OF CARTERS CREEK AT EXISTING VERTICAL SIDEWALLS I DESIGN CONTRAINTS OF PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD BRIDGE I TRANSPORTING & REDUCTION OF SILT I MAINTENANCE DESIGN ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION I TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I SCOUR PROTECTION I PILING PROTECTION ~ --· DESIGN ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION I TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I CITYOFBRYAN I EROSION PROTECTION OF NEW OVERFLOW FLOOD ZONE I TRANSPORTING & REDUCTION OF SILT I HYDRAULIC GRAIDENTS IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF ENTRANCE OF OVERFLOW FLOOD ZONE & HUDSON CREEK I MAINTENANCE ~~---------------------------·-- APPROVAL PROCESS I CONCEPTUAL PLANNING & DESIGN I INITIAL MEETINGS City of College Station -December 11 , 2001 TxDOT-December 19, 2001 City of Bryan -December 20, 2001 I USACE -TBA (HOR Engineering) I COMMENT PERIOD 1 Reviewing Agencies Responding to Conceptual Design in Written Form I Target Date -January 18, 2002 I JOINT MEETING 1 Respond to Design Comments Target Date -February 15 , 2002 Obtain General Consent Letter of Conceptual Design from each Reviewing Agency Target Date -March 1, 2002 --, -----..,._ _..,, ---~ -_., (!lmllll!I -- APPROVAL PROCESS I CONCEPTUAL PLANNING & DESIGN I FINAL DESIGN I CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS I COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE REPORT 1 Evaluation of Drainage Improvements 1 Hydraulic Analysis I FEMA -CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION (CLOMR) 1 Hydraulic Analysis I FEMA Forms, Graphics & Applications I TxDOT DRAINAGE REPORT 1 Hydraulic Analysis 1 Scour Analysis I SPECIFICATIONS & CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING --- APPROVAL PROCESS I CONCEPTUAL PLANNING & DESIGN I FINAL DESIGN I CONSTRUCTION I FINAL CERTIFICATION I AS-BUILT SURVEY & RECORD DRAWINGS I FEMA -LETTER OF MAP REVISION (LOMR) PRELIMINARY SUPPLEMENTAL DATA I I I I I I 13800.00 16900.00 16900.00 19250.00 19250.00 21800.00 21800.00 36830.00 36830.00 7800.00 7800.00 13800.00 13800.00 16900.00 16900.00 19250.00 19250.00 21800.00 21800.00 36830.00 36830.00 7800.00 7800.00 13800.00 13800.00 16900.00 16900.00 19250.00 19250.00 21800.00 21800.00 36830.00 36830.00 7800.00 7800.00 13800.00 13800.00 16900.00 16900.00 19250.00 19250.00 21800.00 21800.00 36830.00 36830.00 7800.00 7800.00 13800.00 13800.00 16900.00 16900.00 19250.00 19250.00 21800.00 21800.00 36830.00 36830.00 7800.00 7800.00 13800.00 13800.00 16900.00 16900.00 19250.00 19250.00 21800.00 21800.00 36830.00 36830.00 7800.00 7800.00 13800.00 13800.00 16900.00 239.10 239.10 239.10 239.10 239.10 239.10 239.10 239.10 239.10 239.10 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.00 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.20 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.50 236.70 236.70 236.70 236.70 236.70 236.70 236.70 236.70 236.70 236.70 236.70 236.70 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.40 237.80 237.80 237.80 237.80 237.80 253.88 253.88 254.43 254.43 254.81 254.81 255.18 255.18 257.11 257.11 252.72 252.72 254.01 254.01 254.57 254.57 254.95 254.95 255.33 255.33 257.27 257.27 252.78 252.78 254.08 254.08 254.64 254.64 255.02 255.02 255.40 255.40 257.34 257.34 252.80 252.80 254.12 254.11 254.69 254.67 255.08 255.06 255.46 255.44 257.44 257.40 252.81 252.80 254.14 254.15 254.71 254.73 255.10 255.12 255.49 255.51 257.48 257.51 252.87 253.00 254.23 254.37 254.81 254.96 255.21 255.37 255.61 255.77 257.64 257.80 252.89 253.03 254.26 254.42 254.85 250.65 250.65 250.90 250.90 251 .03 251.03 251.29 251 .29 252.08 252.08 254.48 254.48 254.86 254.86 255.23 255.23 257.19 257.19 252.77 252.77 254.08 254.08 254.64 254.64 255.03 255.03 255.41 255.41 257.39 257.39 252.80 252.80 254.12 254.12 254.69 254.69 255.08 255.08 255.47 255.47 257.46 257.46 252.82 252.82 254.15 254.16 254.72 254.73 255.12 255.13 255.50 255.52 257.51 257.52 252.84 252.90 254.19 254.25 254.77 254.83 255.17 255.23 255.56 255.62 257.58 257.65 252.89 253.02 254.26 254.41 254.85 255.00 255.25 255.41 255.66 255.82 257.71 257.88 252.91 253.05 254.29 254.46 254.88 0.000773 0.000791 0.000791 0.000804 0.000804 0.000824 0.000824 0.000871 0.000871 0.000705 0.000705 0.000920 0.000920 0.000992 0.000992 0.001041 0.001041 0.001097 0.001097 0.001292 0.001292 0.000068 0.000068 0.000109 0.000109 0.000126 0.000126 0.000138 0.000138 0.000151 0.000151 0.000210 0.000210 0.000053 0.000112 0.000088 0.000173 0.000103 0.000197 0.000113 0.000214 0.000125 0.000233 0.000177 0.000311 0.000177 0.001052 0.000271 0.001061 0.000307 0.001062 0.000332 0.001066 0.000358 0.001081 0.000462 0.001105 0.000047 0.000085 0.000077 0.000130 0.000090 0.000148 0.000099 0.000160 0.000108 0.000173 0.000150 0.000228 0.000059 0.000111 0.000097 0.000165 0.000113 2.92 2.92 3.02 3.02 3.14 3.14 3.62 3.62 3.15 3.15 3.83 3.83 4.09 4.09 4.26 4.26 4.44 4.44 5.22 5.22 0.97 0.97 1.33 1.33 1.48 1.48 1.58 1.58 1.69 1.69 2.18 2.18 0.93 1.36 1.29 1.81 1.43 1.99 1.53 2.11 1.64 2.23 2.12 2.81 1.61 3.92 2.15 4.25 2.35 4.38 2.50 4.48 2.64 4.60 3.29 5.10 0.65 0.88 0.93 1.21 1.04 1.35 1.13 1.45 1.21 1.55 1.61 2.01 0.86 1.20 1.22 1.61 1.37 6521.89 9331.12 9331.12 10639.83 10639.83 11556.34 11556.34 12456.68 12456.68 17280.45 17280.45 6251.79 6251.79 8663.53 8663.53 9723.70 9723.70 10461.36 10461.36 11186.32 11186.32 15003.99 15003.99 7912.13 7912.13 10334.19 10334.19 11394.83 11394.83 12136.44 12136.44 12869.20 12869.20 16771.58 16771.58 8438.40 7236.64 10889.42 9674.06 11981.42 10759.34 12739.93 11512.78 13486.40 12253.69 17386.98 16123.65 5980.98 4681.44 8431.98 7168.48 9512.08 8258.36 10266.67 9018.36 11013.14 9769.59 15021.02 13792.62 7691 .68 6760.82 10302.32 9423.31 11459.53 10593.50 12266.56 11409.13 13065.44 12218.34 17257.59 16438.75 7402.23 6377.18 9894.31 8931.12 11012.14 2157.61 2326.68 2326.68 2400.95 2400.95 2422.76 2422.76 2443.99 2443.99 2554.75 2554.75 1805.84 1805.84 1898.42 1898.42 1916.20 1916.20 1928.48 1928.48 1940.47 1940.47 1988.63 1988.63 1841.23 1841.23 1885.15 1885.15 1915.29 1915.29 1936.09 1936.09 1956.42 1956.42 2062.63 2062.63 1806.30 1805.97 1919.84 1919.54 1933.16 1932.78 1942.36 1941.92 1951.37 1950.86 1992.58 1992.04 1810.05 1809.77 1878.19 1878.82 1903.89 1904.74 1921.64 1922.61 1939.04 1940.12 2104.26 2107.06 1835.09 1860.05 1973.21 1978.86 1995.75 2001.59 2011.31 2017.27 2026.60 2032.71 2104.22 2110.53 1752.47 1766.63 1880.43 1892.13 1921.75 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.21 0.11 0.21 0.12 0.22 0.12 0.22 0.13 0.22 0.15 0.23 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07 1092.55 1473.05 1473.05 1645.09 1645.09 1769.59 1769.59 1904.20 1904.20 2607.82 2607.82 1828.03 1828.03 2447.41 2447.41 2710.79 2710.79 2898.31 2898.31 3098.50 3098.50 4094.06 4094.06 766.69 766.69 1176.64 1176.64 1368.85 1368.85 1509.17 1509.17 1658.73 1658.73 2460.91 2460.91 695.39 1014.16 1063.13 1490.50 1232.88 1705.30 1355.96 1859.98 1486.62 2024.05 2179.38 2878.60 1018.64 2480.41 1524.89 3023.40 1751.72 3265.11 1914.62 3442.27 2086.80 3636.73 2975.84 4619.14 375.51 518.96 640.66 853.98 771.33 1015.59 868.47 1134.84 972.64 1262.25 1559.64 1969.43 763.82 1077.77 1241.50 1661.67 1468.86 I I I I I 21800.00 21800.00 36830.00 36830.00 3900.00 7800.00 6750.00 13800.00 8000.00 16900.00 9000.00 19250.00 10000.00 21800.00 16000.00 36830.00 3900.00 7800.00 6750.00 13800.00 8000.00 16900.00 9000.00 19250.00 10000.00 21800.00 16000.00 36830.00 3900.00 7800.00 6750.00 13800.00 8000.00 16900.00 9000.00 19250.00 10000.00 21800.00 16000.00 36830.00 3900.00 7800.00 6750.00 13800.00 8000.00 16900.00 9000.00 19250.00 10000.00 21800.00 16000.00 36830.00 3900.00 7800.00 6750.00 13800.00 8000.00 16900.00 9000.00 19250.00 10000.00 21800.00 16000.00 36830.00 7800.00 13800.00 16900.00 19250.00 21800.00 36830.00 7800.00 13800.00 16900.00 237.80 237.80 237.80 237.80 237.80 237.80 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.20 238.70 238.70 238.70 238.70 238.70 238.70 238.70 238.70 238.70 238.70 238.70 238.70 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.00 239.70 239.70 239.70 239.70 239.70 239.70 239.70 239.70 239.70 239.70 239.70 239.70 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 240.30 255.43 255.65 255.83 257.70 257.89 252.80 252.95 254.09 254.39 254.66 255.01 255.05 255.43 255.45 255.84 257.49 257.93 253.06 253.36 254.54 254.82 255.14 255.43 255.55 255.85 255.95 256.26 257.91 258.32 253.11 253.39 254.61 255.02 255.22 255.63 255.65 256.05 256.05 256.46 258.05 258.50 253.26 254.63 254.86 255.95 255.51 256.47 255.96 256.83 256.40 257.20 258.53 259.12 253.52 255.10 255.33 256.62 256.06 257.19 256.58 257.58 257.07 257.96 259.56 259.86 255.21 256.73 257.30 257.69 258.07 259.95 255.26 256.78 257.35 252.30 254.30 255.33 255.30 255.48 255.70 255.89 257.78 257.98 252.99 253.20 254.44 254.62 255.05 255.23 255.47 255.64 255.88 256.06 257.99 258.15 253.15 253.67 254.72 255.11 255.37 255.69 255.82 256.10 256.25 256.50 258.44 258.55 253.20 254.03 254.80 255.36 255.46 255.92 255.92 256.30 256.37 256.70 258.61 258.71 253.41 254.79 255.17 256.15 255.89 256.68 256.40 257.05 256.89 257.43 259.35 259.36 253.58 255.44 255.45 256.95 256.19 257.51 256.73 257.89 257.24 258.27 259.84 260.17 255.52 257.03 257.60 257.98 258.36 260.25 255.55 257.07 257.64 0.000200 0.000137 0.000215 0.000189 0.000273 0.000587 0.001052 0.000984 0.001045 0.001048 0.001004 0.001098 0.000978 0.001124 0.000963 0.001161 0.000882 0.000206 0.000853 0.000374 0.000955 0.000435 0.000925 0.000486 0.000902 0.000534 0.000882 0.000751 0.000786 0.000219 0.002291 0.000383 0.001630 0.000441 0.001454 0.000490 0.001358 0.000536 0.001281 0.000784 0.001008 0.000370 0.000590 0.000639 0.000835 0.000732 0.000895 0.000808 0.000921 0.000882 0.000938 0.001233 0.000919 0.000157 0.001393 0.000231 0.001544 0.000253 0.001563 0.000271 0.001562 0.000287 0.001556 0.000366 0.001465 0.001298 0.001429 0.001446 0.001452 0.001453 0.001395 0.001259 0.001381 0.001399 1.47 1.88 1.57 1.99 2.06 2.50 3.56 5.21 4.96 5.61 5.33 5.70 5.60 5.76 5.81 5.85 6.65 6.21 2.39 5.06 3.47 5.68 3.85 5.73 4.15 5.76 4.42 5.81 5.86 6.04 2.44 7.29 3.54 6.60 3.93 6.34 4.23 6.16 4.52 6.02 6.02 5.92 3.15 4.06 4.48 4.88 4.94 5.21 5.29 5.39 5.61 5.56 7.29 6.07 1.96 5.94 2.69 6.58 2.94 6.74 3.14 6.82 3.32 6.88 4.25 7.02 5.76 6.35 6.51 6.60 6.67 6.87 5.68 6.26 6.41 11798.59 10868.18 12583.06 11667.77 16778.06 15913.66 1273.64 2673.63 1830.85 4898.15 2133.36 6002.71 2361.74 6779.50 2598.48 7551.97 3926.53 11590.68 1630.99 2660.03 1943.30 5184.57 2076.65 6393.39 2170.12 7239.29 2261.67 8083.61 2778.22 12492.77 1595.86 1912.42 1905.77 4552.51 2035.60 5763.93 2126.31 6612.09 2214.56 7462.65 2658.72 11741.40 1237.87 3244.03 1506.08 4775.38 1619.95 5643.66 1701.35 6289.50 1781.26 6962.30 2195.23 10827.98 1994.21 2081.86 2506.76 3800.90 2716.90 4674.54 2868.23 5298.51 3015.05 5932.62 3764.91 9318.31 2191.02 3957.50 4857.05 5478.87 6110.85 9498.43 2238.99 4030.53 4936.36 1950.30 1962.76 1978.36 1991.18 2122.16 2135.79 369.01 1293.37 498.14 1763.99 560.07 1831.73 592.74 1855.47 609.58 1878.78 676.00 1969.44 205.71 1278.42 218.89 1962.14 224.28 2017.84 227.98 2045.68 231.54 2068.51 298.62 2265.68 202.05 1348.78 210.14 1866.95 213.44 2019.86 215.73 2042.56 217.94 2060.68 226.82 2242.33 160.61 1036.36 173.25 1428.28 178.35 1759.68 181 .91 1797.98 185.87 1832.16 199.05 2156.52 277.90 1024.17 287.66 1355.46 291.57 1610.57 294.36 1637.73 297.03 1664.87 305.07 1936.62 1035.15 1434.04 1618.56 1645.50 1675.33 1943.70 1039.94 1514.93 1622.02 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.29 0.32 0.29 0.33 0.29 0.15 0.27 0.21 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.24 0.28 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.27 0.15 0.43 0.21 0.37 0.22 0.35 0.24 0.34 0.25 0.33 0.31 0.30 0.20 0.22 0.27 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.30 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.39 0.29 0.13 0.32 0.16 0.34 0.17 0.35 0.18 0.35 0.18 0.35 0.21 0.34 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.33 0.33 1635.46 2123.84 1812.70 2329.17 2776.29 3418.67 3783.68 4182.82 6117.16 5180.62 6979.19 5557.46 7629.20 5822.30 8224.19 6110.35 11222.88 7576.95 3900.00 5841.49 6750.00 7445.92 8000.00 7900.08 9000.00 8205.33 10000.00 8540.93 15940.12 10261.29 3900.00 5923.96 6750.00 6371.52 8000.00 6509.77 9000.00 6589.91 10000.00 6699.81 15999.81 7920.18 3900.00 4045.54 6750.00 5497.80 8000.00 6142.84 9000.00 6565.73 10000.00 6978.82 15999.88 8831.28 3900.00 3965.10 6750.00 5047.87 8000.00 5433.81 9000.00 5678.25 10000.00 5918.47 16000.00 7007.05 3881.31 4922.20 5296.46 5542.95 5787.25 6905.66 3844.52 4868.22 5238.33 I I I I 7800.00 13800.00 16900.00 19250.00 21800.00 36830.00 3900.00 7800.00 6750.00 13800.00 8000.00 16900.00 9000.00 19250.00 10000.00 21800.00 16000.00 36830.00 3900.00 7800.00 6750.00 13800.00 8000.00 16900.00 9000.00 19250.00 10000.00 21800.00 16000.00 36830.00 Bridge 7800.00 13800.00 16900.00 19250.00 21800.00 36830.00 3900.00 6750.00 8000.00 9000.00 10000.00 16000.00 3900.00 6450.00 6750.00 11040.00 8000.00 13520.00 9000.00 15530.00 10000.00 17720.00 16000.00 29070.00 3900.00 6450.00 6750.00 11040.00 8000.00 13520.00 9000.00 15530.00 10000.00 17720.00 16000.00 29070.00 500.00 4370.00 700.00 7550.00 240.60 240.60 240.60 240.60 240.60 240.60 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.00 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 243.00 243.00 243.00 243.00 243.00 243.00 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 242.70 243.90 243.90 243.90 243.90 243.90 243.90 243.90 243.90 243.90 243.90 243.90 243.90 245.30 245.30 245.30 245.30 245.30 245.30 245.30 245.30 245.30 245.30 245.30 245.30 246.00 246.00 246.00 246.00 258.11 260.05 255.38 256.95 257.52 257.90 258.27 260.15 253.66 256.27 255.52 257.81 256.26 258.39 256.79 258.78 257.29 259.16 259.81 261.03 253.82 257.98 255.72 259.23 256.46 259.70 256.99 260.05 257.50 260.40 260.05 262.10 258.47 259.93 260.51 260.96 261.41 264.82 253.96 255.91 256.68 257.22 257.74 260.39 254.24 259.00 256.24 260.78 256.99 261.49 257.52 262.01 258.04 262.53 260.57 264.99 255.18 260.09 257.47 261.75 258.33 262.34 258.96 262.77 259.55 263.23 262.48 265.44 256.42 261.92 258.79 262.70 255.94 257.22 254.98 257.42 257.74 258.06 258.33 259.59 252.61 255.70 258.03 258.50 258.80 260.70 252.81 255.84 258.18 258.61 258.98 260.86 250.32 251.48 251.95 252.29 252.62 254.36 255.68 248.31 254.05 248.83 256.71 258.39 260.33 255.65 257.17 257.73 258.11 258.49 260.42 253.78 257.30 255.74 258.67 256.51 259.20 257.07 259.57 257.60 259.95 260.29 261.88 254.03 258.40 256.07 259.93 256.86 260.54 257.43 260.99 257.98 261.45 260.70 263.74 258.83 260.48 261.15 261.66 262.17 264.91 254.17 256.25 257.05 257.64 258.19 261.00 254.56 259.28 256.80 260.98 257.65 261.66 258.27 262.16 258.86 262.67 261.83 265.08 255.56 261.04 257.97 262.03 258.88 262.55 259.54 262.95 260.17 263.38 263.28 265.54 256.43 261.95 258.80 262.74 0.001410 0.001326 0.001101 0.001053 0.001062 0.001076 0.001089 0.001107 0.000371 0.006569 0.000507 0.005241 0.000543 0.004901 0.000573 0.004745 0.000599 0.004644 0.000717 0.004369 0.000807 0.001317 0.000980 0.002046 0.001001 0.002408 0.001018 0.002621 0.001029 0.002838 0.001045 0.003908 0.001090 0.001563 0.001767 0.001865 0.001962 0.000357 0.000745 0.000905 0.000918 0.000933 0.000942 0.000960 0.000813 0.000828 0.001226 0.000660 0.001368 0.000579 0.001478 0.000530 0.001575 0.000488 0.002113 0.000345 0.001813 0.007201 0.001568 0.002888 0.001510 0.002273 0.001484 0.001945 0.001465 0.001688 0.001343 0.000966 0.000102 0.000287 0.000085 0.000377 6.58 6.72 5.34 5.44 5.56 5.67 5.81 6.49 2.80 9.06 3.72 9.40 4.03 9.55 4.26 9.70 4.47 9.89 5.55 10.93 3.72 5.87 4.73 7.94 5.05 8.86 5.30 9.43 5.52 10.02 6.54 12.84 5.46 7.16 7.87 8.29 8.71 4.35 3.64 4.62 4.94 5.18 5.39 6.37 4.49 4.61 6.04 4.62 6.55 4.51 6.94 4.44 7.29 4.38 9.01 4.13 4.97 8.11 5.69 5.89 5.94 5.45 6.13 5.19 6.31 4.98 7.21 4.28 1.04 2.01 1.06 2.45 6189.60 9687.18 2697.22 4854.14 5764.96 6370.90 6975.35 10152.19 1394.07 1244.49 1813.22 3019.08 1987.13 3733.45 211 4.01 4213.99 2237.80 4687.63 2882.69 7018.22 1048.65 1802.37 1426.55 2500.87 1586.31 2761 .14 1710.10 2958.49 1836.57 3155.74 2608.74 4101 .89 1984.06 2802.18 3129.96 3382.69 3637.45 19225.44 1072.71 1460.39 1626.08 1755.05 1887.17 2688.37 868.94 2279.59 1118.44 5572.84 1220.67 7457.01 1296.50 8845.89 1370.93 10263.14 1775.54 17143.78 784.87 1140.80 1185.70 4327.50 1346.83 5660.70 1467.23 6687.43 1583.55 7766.81 2326.97 13231.80 481 .47 4389.65 661.50 5948.40 1680.71 1951.09 1191.88 1597.88 1612.52 1617.59 1633.89 1735.89 217.48 1091.72 232.73 1625.89 238.77 1646.15 243.08 1648.78 247.21 1651.37 261.77 1675.13 189.81 1672.37 208.19 1875.93 224.88 1951.45 240.83 2008.62 256.10 2065.52 318.01 2623.16 1975.97 2030.84 2148.10 2249.31 2370.84 2944.53 189.16 207.77 228.61 244.74 260.23 318.10 118.24 1257.03 132.71 2604.35 138.99 2661.59 143.48 2702.81 147.74 2736.17 173.90 2851.20 166.29 1312.60 183.78 2218.56 190.36 2323.10 195.13 2373.81 199.63 2404.91 305.81 2514.40 70.44 2432.60 81.47 2487.20 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.19 0.66 0.24 0.61 0.25 0.60 0.25 0.60 0.26 0.59 0.29 0.59 0.28 0.33 0.32 0.43 0.33 0.47 0.33 0.49 0.34 0.51 0.35 0.61 0.31 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.43 0.19 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.29 0.26 0.37 0.24 0.39 0.23 0.41 0.22 0.42 0.21 0.50 0.19 0.40 0.53 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.31 0.39 0.29 0.40 0.27 0.40 0.21 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.14 6802.80 4237.32 5022.79 5418.91 5716.35 6061 .95 7898.27 3900.00 6199.17 6750.00 8152.23 8000.00 8945.52 9000.00 9535.62 10000.00 10171.39 16000.00 13674.57 3900.00 5761.22 6750.00 8823.36 7998.91 10273.63 8991 .51 11284.21 9974.29 12343.56 15521.91 18063.75 5530.38 8333.13 9632.34 10526.05 11462.59 7260.25 3900.00 6750.00 7997.12 8985.94 9963.42 15460.43 3900.00 5414.57 6750.00 6458.84 8000.00 6703.36 9000.00 6886.35 10000.00 7080.45 16000.00 7945.89 3900.00 5981.67 6750.00 5327.10 8000.00 5252.37 9000.00 5235.37 10000.00 5249.46 15785.34 5473.53 500.00 1994.24 700.00 2649.06 I I I I I I 1200.00 10500.00 2000.00 11900.00 3000.00 19820.00 500.00 4370.00 700.00 7550.00 900.00 9250.00 1200.00 10500.00 2000.00 11900.00 3000.00 19820.00 500.00 4370.00 700.00 7550.00 900.00 9250.00 1200.00 10500.00 2000.00 11900.00 3000.00 19820.00 4370.00 4370.00 7550.00 7550.00 9250.00 9250.00 10500.00 10500.00 11900.00 11900.00 19820.00 19820.00 4370.00 4370.00 7550.00 7550.00 9250.00 9250.00 10500.00 10500.00 11900.00 11900.00 19820.00 19820.00 4370.00 4370.00 7550.00 7550.00 9250.00 9250.00 10500.00 10500.00 11900.00 11900.00 19820.00 19820.00 3870.00 3870.00 5730.00 5730.00 7100.00 7100.00 8170.00 8170.00 9380.00 246.00 246.00 246.00 246.00 247.50 247.50 247.50 247.50 247.50 247.50 247.50 247.50 247.50 247.50 247.50 247.50 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.00 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 249.50 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 251.60 251.60 251.60 251.60 251.60 251.60 251.60 251.60 251.60 251.60 251 .60 251 .60 255.50 255.50 255.50 255.50 255.50 255.50 255.50 255.50 255.50 263.13 260.42 263.48 261.09 263.85 263.88 265.81 256.54 262.21 258.88 263.12 259.84 263.56 260.61 263.89 261.49 264.24 263.93 266.03 256.84 263.27 259.10 264.21 260.09 264.58 260.93 264.85 262.08 265.14 264.30 266.57 259.42 263.57 264.78 264.78 265.18 264.66 265.34 265.29 265.55 265.67 266.15 267.07 263.40 264.83 266.36 266.36 266.73 267.05 266.98 267.01 267.21 267.16 268.35 268.21 266.34 266.55 267.70 267.70 268.09 268.15 268.35 268.35 268.61 268.60 269.83 269.80 272.27 272.19 272.91 272.91 273.35 273.32 273.65 273.65 273.97 257.94 249.91 258.86 251.24 261.10 252.55 261.80 250.03 256.22 250.59 259.10 251.09 262.48 251.75 262.65 253.19 262.95 254.62 263.59 251.41 257.21 251.95 262.14 252.42 262.69 253.04 262.91 254.40 263.14 255.73 263.81 264.78 264.78 265.18 265.34 265.55 266.15 260.46 263.52 261.17 263.90 263.89 265.84 256.57 262.48 258.92 263.36 259.89 263.77 260.67 264.08 261.64 264.42 264.10 266.12 256.88 263.36 259.14 264.30 260.14 264.68 261.00 264.95 262.16 265.24 264.32 266.68 261.70 264.33 265.63 265.63 265.92 266.13 266.10 266.11 266.27 266.28 267.10 267.46 264.16 265.21 266.62 266.62 266.99 267.24 267.25 267.26 267.48 267.45 268.64 268.53 266.48 266.66 267.77 267.77 268.17 268.23 268.43 268.43 268.70 268.69 269.94 269.91 272.34 272.26 272.99 272.99 273.43 273.40 273.74 273.73 274.06 0.000185 0.000368 0.000410 0.000353 0.000091 0.000213 0.000255 0.001635 0.000194 0.001984 0.000228 0.001819 0.000315 0.001659 0.000661 0.001498 0.000748 0.000798 0.000352 0.000619 0.000234 0.000706 0.000258 0.000746 0.000314 0.000760 0.000412 0.000763 0.000102 0.000690 0.014964 0.003480 0.004856 0.004856 0.005210 0.008063 0.005951 0.006175 0.006290 0.005489 0.008980 0.003643 0.006008 0.003010 0.002537 0.002537 0.002703 0.002016 0.002759 0.002706 0.002911 0.003027 0.003262 0.003630 0.004049 0.003047 0.002214 0.002214 0.002174 0.002037 0.002155 0.002148 0.002158 0.002172 0.002208 0.002262 0.000930 0.001014 0.001126 0.001126 0.001183 0.001218 0.001226 0.001228 0.001263 2.54 1.47 2.55 2.24 2.56 1.29 2.24 1.50 4.75 1.49 5.15 1.68 5.10 2.04 4.99 3.07 4.87 3.36 3.99 1.63 3.17 1.56 3.52 1.74 3.68 2.02 3.75 2.45 3.83 1.34 3.94 12.11 7.04 8.36 8.36 8.35 10.78 8.71 8.93 8.76 8.20 10.91 7.45 7.00 5.24 5.19 5.19 5.48 4.83 5.63 5.58 5.86 5.96 6.61 6.92 4.39 3.83 3.53 3.53 3.63 3.54 3.71 3.70 3.80 3.81 4.24 4.29 2.95 3.07 3.39 3.39 3.57 3.62 3.70 3.71 3.83 6821.17 815.14 7520.08 893.85 8281.06 4787.32 15265.06 332.53 1611.23 471.36 2941.05 534.58 3671.47 587.28 4233.15 651.33 4853.06 961.54 9638.62 307.20 2575.98 449.88 4016.86 518.15 4624.84 691.46 5076.31 1232.18 5580.94 4166.90 8904.77 360.88 706.87 1751.46 1751.46 2283.45 1614.61 2502.04 2435.67 2826.58 3027.29 3818.98 5410.01 630.92 1308.72 3124.16 3124.16 3690.33 4212.18 4101.87 4137.00 4470.40 4395.34 6460.14 6202.45 1919.24 2210.73 4039.89 4039.89 4743.06 4857.96 5217.38 5223.62 5702.41 5689.48 8080.30 8011.02 2840.35 2726.49 3694.42 3694.42 4312.84 4263.32 4751 .37 4748.86 5226.01 111.48 2523.24 123.00 2540.66 2541.77 2631.01 54.59 1329.94 63.83 1909.06 67.62 1977.98 70.62 2029.82 74.10 2104.93 190.00 2471.24 58.34 1422.06 66.59 1673.32 90.41 1780.75 324.30 2050.93 692.72 2137.54 1691.19 2180.19 53.74 403.49 1203.54 1203.54 1403.60 1147.88 1479.97 1457.20 1569.86 1609.82 1702.58 1738.22 107.29 838.76 1523.06 1523.06 1585.80 1637.28 1626.54 1629.97 1662.17 1654.97 1791.66 1790.15 1309.80 1400.99 1755.43 1755.43 1815.81 1821.90 1840.83 1841.15 1866.06 1865.39 2112.61 2095.21 1301.84 1290.83 1380.07 1380.07 1431.90 1427.82 1467.54 1467.33 1503.94 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.10 0.32 0.11 0.31 0.12 0.29 0.18 0.28 0.20 0.21 0.12 0.18 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.20 0.12 0.20 0.14 0.20 O.o? 0.20 0.82 0.41 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.63 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.52 0.67 0.43 0.42 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 1200.00 2997.96 1999.77 3125.54 1577.87 3243.80 500.00 3355.71 700.00 4063.82 900.00 4241.88 1200.00 4309.85 2000.00 4370.05 2917.19 4268.32 500.00 2372.75 700.00 2892.10 899.93 3127.83 1161.52 3272.88 1615.88 3424.79 1113.01 3982.16 4370.00 4323.11 5857.54 5857.54 6131.12 7460.36 6510.13 6641.98 6723.29 6398.20 9029.63 6861 .70 4366.67 3840.26 4448.31 4448.31 4861 .06 4410.59 5107.05 5074.64 5424.06 5494.50 6740.78 6973.69 1639.14 1485.43 1643.40 1643.40 1792.00 1760.41 1895.06 1893.38 2010.86 2014.23 2610.28 2625.41 1613.65 1659.24 1972.54 1972.54 2166.83 2186.64 2309.10 2310.07 2456.67 I I I I ( 239.10 256.01 251.62 256.10 0.001097 3.81 941 3.91 1400.00 2501 .26 35600.00 239.10 256.01 252.04 256.11 0.001387 4.29 14505.00 2491.63 0.23 2812.34 16900.00 239.10 256.01 250.90 256.03 0.000313 2.03 14505.00 2491.63 0.11 1335.07 13800.00 239.10 256.01 250.65 256.03 0.000208 1.66 14505.00 2491.63 0.09 1090.18 7800.00 239.10 256.01 249.94 256.01 0.000067 0.94 14505.00 2491.63 0.05 616.19 21800.00 236.00 255.33 255.41 0.001097 4.44 11186.32 1940.47 0.20 3098.50 21800.00 236.00 256.20 256.30 0.001103 4.62 10421.05 1515.00 0.20 3404.85 35600.00 236.00 256.26 256.42 0.001865 6.02 13008.26 1967.44 0.26 4452.83 16900.00 236.00 256.07 256.11 0.000459 2.97 12630.33 1963.41 0.13 2166.92 13800.00 236.00 256.05 256.07 0.000309 2.43 12593.18 1963.01 0.11 1773.84 7800.00 236.00 256.02 256.03 0.000100 1.38 12542.33 1962.47 0.06 1006.03 21800.00 236.20 255.40 255.47 0.000151 1.69 12869.20 1956.42 0.08 1658.73 21800.00 236.20 256.27 256.35 0.000135 1.66 11979.34 1455.00 0.08 1742.43 35600.00 236.20 256.37 256.51 0.000277 2.39 14799.27 2009.35 0.11 2526.47 16900.00 236.20 256.09 256.13 0.000069 118 14247.27 1994.19 0.06 1222.07 13800.00 236.20 256.07 256.09 0.000047 0.97 14191.67 1992.65 0.05 999.84 7800.00 236.20 256.03 25604 0.000015 0.55 141 15.33 1990.55 0.03 566.64 21800.00 236.50 255.46 255.50 0.000125 1.64 13486.40 1951.37 007 1486.62 21800.00 236.50 256.34 256.39 0.000110 1.60 12739.23 1440.00 0.07 1536.42 35600.00 16900.00 13800.00 I 896.00 1975.32 0.10 2243.23 236.50 256.50 256.58 0.000227 2.31 15516.98 236.50 256.13 256.15 0.000058 1.15 14784.80 1966.86 1965.99 0.05 1094.15 0.04 236.50 256.09 256.10 0.000040 0.95 14709.96 7800.00 236.50 256.03 25604 0.000013 0.54 14606.86 1964.79 0.02 508.45 21800.00 21800.00 I 2311 .96 1939.04 0.13 2086.80 236.70 255.49 255.56 0.000358 2.64 11013.14 1380.00 0.13 236.70 256.35 256.44 0.000358 2.76 9819.49 35600.00 236.70 256.55 256.68 0.000614 3.64 13101.48 2014.78 0.17 3098.14 16900.00 13800.00 7800.00 I 1975.30 0.09 1523.84 709.66 236.70 256.14 256.17 0.000163 1.84 12281.00 1971.24 0.07 1249.00 236.70 256.10 256.12 0.000111 1.51 12197.48 1965.62 0.04 236.70 256.04 256.05 0.000036 0.86 12082.32 21800.00 237.40 255.61 255.66 0.000108 1.21 13065.44 2026.60 0.07 972.64 21800.00 35600.00 16900.00 I 1540.53 1225.00 0.07 1062.93 237.40 256.47 256.53 0.000098 1.22 11105.42 2070.54 2049.09 0.09 0.05 742.12 237.40 256.76 256.84 0.000189 1.72 15414.58 237.40 256.19 256.22 0.000052 0.87 14256.56 13800.00 237.40 256.13 256.15 0.000036 0 72 14133.75 2046.81 0.04 606.97 7800.00 21800.00 I 2043.62 0.02 343.84 237.40 256.05 25606 0.000012 0.41 13962.79 237.80 255.65 255.70 0.000138 1.58 12522.17 1978.35 0.08 1820.42 21800.00 237.80 256.51 256.58 0.000126 1.54 10777.63 1165.00 0.08 1899.27 35600.00 237.80 256.83 256.92 0.000238 2.21 14901.61 2061.15 0.11 2801.79 16900.00 237.80 256.21 256.24 0.000067 1.14 13646.64 2017.90 0.06 1370.73 13800.00 237.80 256.15 256.16 0.000046 0.94 13512.85 2013.24 0.05 1123.07 7800.00 237.80 256.05 256.06 0.000015 0.54 13326.32 2006.72 0.03 637.79 11000.00 238.65 255.57 255.81 0.000397 4.28 4439.70 982.51 0.23 9011.08 11000.00 238.65 256.45 256.67 0.000331 4.12 3955.19 546.17 0.21 9391.42 17000.00 238.65 256.72 257.09 0.000580 5.54 5586.32 1014.38 0.29 12948.13 9800.00 238.65 256.15 256.30 0.000244 3.48 5013.53 997.64 0.18 7732.91 8800.00 238.65 25609 256.22 0.000202 3.15 4952.63 995.84 0.17 6970.94 7000.00 238.65 256.01 256.09 0.000133 2.54 4870.83 993.42 0.14 5574.37 11 000.00 238.70 255.63 255.86 0.000377 4.23 4320.20 873.60 0.23 9138.42 11 000.00 238.70 256.48 256.72 0.000328 4.15 3730.06 463.00 0.21 9667.71 17000.00 238.70 256.79 257.17 0.000566 5.55 5371 .32 930.20 0.28 13278.68 9800.00 238.70 256.19 256.34 0.000239 3.48 4813.77 901.17 0.18 7901 .25 8800.00 238.70 256.12 256.25 0.000198 3.16 4754.09 898.01 0.17 7120.09 7000.00 238.70 256.03 256.11 0.000130 2.54 4672.40 893.67 0.13 5691.38 11000.00 239.00 255.89 256.20 0.000454 4.65 2984.29 416.90 0.25 10047.51 11000.00 239.00 256.72 256.98 0.000344 4.25 3295.34 396.86 0.22 9907.30 17000.00 239.00 257.15 257.70 0.000709 6.25 3603.18 572.94 0.32 15094.50 9800.00 239.00 256.34 256.56 0.000308 3.94 3182.51 464.65 0.21 8867.58 8800.00 239.00 256.25 256.43 0.000257 3.57 3139.99 452.27 0.19 7978.41 7000.00 239.00 256.11 256.23 0.000170 2.88 3079.92 434.17 0.15 6364.44 HEC-RAS Plan: h-ool-m Riv•: C...ien Cr..ii R..oh: CC1 {Continu«I) .&. _;. I § I 11000.00 239.50 256.91 257.22 0.000410 4.56 2866.60 387.06 0.24 10466.40 17000.00 239.50 257.56 258.14 0.000748 6.39 3450.77 519.64 0.33 15504.93 9800.00 239.50 256.52 256.77 0.000360 4.17 2914.51 506.89 0.22 9243.57 8800.00 239.50 256.39 256.61 0.000304 3.81 2852.65 505.39 0.20 8332.78 7000.00 239.50 256.21 256.35 0.000206 3.10 2759.64 503.14 0.17 6667.15 I 0.23 10980.06 11000.00 241.00 256.56 256.84 0.000514 4.31 2559.74 324.73 0.26 10998.74 11000.00 241.00 257.24 257.49 0.000398 3.99 2819.71 394.81 17000.00 241.00 258.14 258.62 0.000697 5.60 3200.69 442.77 0.31 16883.99 9800.00 241.00 256.80 257.01 0.000372 3.73 2645.13 384.78 0.22 9796.29 8800.00 241.00 256.63 256.81 0.000320 3.42 2584.79 343.44 0.20 8798.52 7000.00 241.00 256.37 256.49 0.000223 2.80 2502.02 305.11 0.17 6999.72 I 11000.00 242.00 256.48 257.10 0.001295 6.32 1741.63 220.58 0.40 11000.00 11000.00 242.00 257.17 257.69 0.001000 5.81 1894.53 223.94 0.35 11000.00 17000.00 242.00 257.96 259.01 0.001810 8.20 2073.53 227.82 0.48 17000.00 9800.00 242.00 256.74 257.20 0.000931 5.45 1798.56 221.84 0.34 9800.00 8800.00 242.00 256.59 256.97 0.000797 4.99 1764.36 221.08 0.31 8800.00 7000.00 242.00 256.34 256.60 0.000554 4.09 1710.66 219.89 0.26 7000.00 Bridge I 0.51 17000.00 11000.00 242.70 253.46 257.51 0.001647 6.82 1612.28 217.42 0.44 11000.00 11000.00 242.70 256.79 253.45 258.02 0.001282 6.30 1747.30 220.10 0.39 11000.00 17000.00 242.70 257.41 255.01 259.59 0.002088 8.60 1976.90 224.57 258.44 9800.00 242.70 256.96 253.11 257.50 0.001220 5.94 1648.52 218.14 0.38 9800.00 I 8800.00 242.70 252.83 257.23 0.001064 5.47 1607.50 217.33 0.35 8800.00 7000.00 242.70 256.77 256.46 252.24 256.78 0.000767 4.54 1541.83 216.01 0.30 7000.00 11000.00 242.70 257.08 257.80 0.001534 6.79 1621.18 211.65 0.43 11000.00 I 11000.00 242.70 257.63 258.25 0.001254 6.33 1738.15 216.44 0.39 11000.00 17000.00 242.70 258.84 259.96 0.001978 8.47 2006.98 227.07 0.50 17000.00 9800.00 242.70 257.17 257.72 0.001180 5.98 1638.86 212.38 0.38 9800.00 8800.00 242.70 256.95 257.42 0.001033 5.52 1592.98 210.48 0.35 8800.00 7000.00 242.70 256.59 256.92 0.000752 4.61 1518.59 207.35 0.30 7000.00 I 11000.00 11000.00 243.20 258.08 258.72 0.001262 6.43 1710.17 208.64 0.40 11000.00 11000.00 243.20 258.45 259.03 0.001110 6.16 1786.97 211.56 0.37 17000.00 243.20 260.16 261.12 0.001533 7.87 2160.42 225.24 0.45 17000.00 I 7000.00 9800.00 243.20 257.93 258.46 0.001055 5.83 1679.55 207.46 0.36 9800.00 0.34 8800.00 8800.00 243.20 257.62 258.08 0.000954 5.45 1614.99 204.95 0.30 7000.00 243.20 257.08 257.42 0.000740 4.65 1506.11 200.66 10000.00 249.00 258.30 258.95 0.001475 6.48 1542.27 210.38 0.42 10000.00 10000.00 249.00 258.63 259.23 0.001265 6.22 1607.81 206.53 0.39 10000.00 16000.00 249.00 260.41 261.40 0.001753 7.99 2003.59 227.25 0.47 16000.00 9000.00 249.00 258.10 258.66 0.001293 5.99 1501.78 208.84 0.39 9000.00 8000.00 249.00 257.78 258.26 0.001171 5.58 1433.97 206.22 0.37 8000.00 6500.00 249.00 257.19 257.57 0.001001 4.94 1314.70 201.54 0.34 6500.00 10000.00 249.00 258.31 258.96 0.001465 6.47 1545.79 210.52 0.42 10000.00 10000.00 249.00 258.65 259.25 0.001282 6.18 1617.23 213.21 0.40 10000.00 16000.00 249.00 260.43 261.41 0.001741 7.97 2008.25 227.41 0.47 16000.00 9000.00 249.00 258.12 258.67 0.001285 5.98 1504.79 208.95 0.39 9000.00 8000.00 249.00 257.79 258.27 0.001165 5.57 1436.64 206.33 0.37 8000.00 6500.00 249.00 257.20 257.58 0.000996 4.94 1316.89 201.63 0.34 6500.00 10000.00 249.00 258.33 258.98 0.001455 6.45 1549.28 210.65 0.42 10000.00 10000.00 249.00 258.67 259.26 0.001275 6.17 1620.29 213.33 0.39 10000.00 16000.00 249.00 260.45 261.43 0.001730 7.95 2012.88 227.57 0.47 16000.00 9000.00 249.00 258.13 258.69 0.001277 5.97 1507.79 209.07 0.39 9000.00 8000.00 249.00 257.80 258.28 0.001158 5.56 1439.30 206.43 0.37 8000.00 6500.00 249.00 257.21 257.59 0.000991 4.93 1318.90 201.71 0.34 6500.00 10000.00 249.50 259.59 260.20 0.001268 6.26 1597.39 204.76 0.39 10000.00 10000.00 249.50 259.76 260.36 0.001171 6.24 1602.29 191.02 0.38 10000.00 16000.00 249.50 261.97 262.86 0.001458 7.60 2105.42 223.73 0.44 16000.00 9000.00 249.50 259.25 259.79 0.001171 5.89 1527.08 201.99 0.38 9000.00 8000.00 249.50 258.82 259.30 0.001097 5.55 1440.96 198.55 0.36 8000.00 I ttEC-RAS Pl ... : h-oof-m Riv•: Cwt-Cf'Mk Ruoh: CC1 (ContWw.d) I 10000.00 250.40 260.85 261.46 0.001237 6.26 1598.35 201.23 0.39 10000.00 10000.00 250.40 261.53 0.001170 6.25 1601 .26 191.56 0.38 10000.00 260.93 16000.00 250.40 263.41 264.28 0.001367 7.47 2140.81 222.18 0.42 16000.00 I 9000.00 250.40 8000.00 250.40 6500.00 250.40 260.42 0.001177 5.95 1512.15 197.70 0.38 9000.00 8000.00 6500.00 260.97 0.001128 5.65 1414.98 193.64 0.37 259.92 260.42 1257.56 186.88 0.35 0.001051 5.17 259.09 259.51 10000.00 250.50 261.93 262.54 0.001132 6.25 1601.12 188.57 0.38 10000.00 10000.00 16000.00 I 10000.00 250.50 16000.00 250.50 9000.00 250.50 9000.00 1597.05 180.49 0.37 2135.14 209.30 0.41 0.001092 6.26 1510.58 184.83 0.37 261.96 262.57 264.62 265.49 0.001279 7.49 261.45 262.00 0.001083 5.96 8000.00 250.50 260.91 261.41 0.001039 5.67 1411 .95 180.66 0.36 8000.00 I 6500.00 250.50 11900.00 248.00 6500.00 11900.00 173.75 0.34 260.01 260.43 0.000968 5.19 0.001979 6.95 262.01 262.76 1253.27 1712.15 189.23 0.41 11900.00 248.00 262.04 262.78 0.001963 6.93 171706 189.36 0.41 11900.00 19000.00 10500.00 I 19000.00 248.00 10500.00 248.00 9250.00 248.00 9250.00 264.66 265.79 0.002294 8.52 261.54 0.001808 6.47 262.19 261.01 261.58 0.001697 6.07 2231.16 202.33 0.45 186.90 0.39 1623.40 1524.22 184.26 0.37 7550.00 248.00 260.11 260.59 0.001594 5.55 1360.83 179.83 0.36 7550.00 11900.00 11900.00 l 11900.00 248.00 11900.00 248.00 19000.00 248.00 19000.00 262.01 262.80 0.002168 7.15 262.03 262.82 0.002149 7.13 264.66 265.84 0.002469 8.71 1663.28 188.50 0.42 1668.18 188.64 0.42 2180.65 201.98 0.47 10500.00 248.00 261.54 262.23 0.001988 6.67 1574.97 186.11 0.40 10500.00 7550.00 I 9250.00 248.00 7550.00 248.00 9250.00 261.00 261.61 0.001875 6.27 260.11 260.62 0.001778 5.75 1476.30 183.39 0.39 178.83 0.37 1313.84 11900.00 248.00 261.30 263.52 0.009013 12.58 1001 .04 167.23 0.71 6176.37 6153.45 7922.33 5684.42 I 11900.00 248.00 19000.00 248.00 10500.00 248.00 261.34 263.53 0.008853 12.48 263.98 266.52 0.007482 12.55 260.88 262.89 0.008586 12.09 1007.41 167.61 0.70 1484.20 193.84 0.65 932.09 163.08 0.69 9250.00 248.00 260.36 262.26 0.008682 11.91 848.30 157.89 0.69 5298.55 7550.00 248.00 259.41 261.32 0.009718 12.11 703.04 148.47 0.72 4847.42 11 900.00 248.00 262.03 263.77 0.006467 10.94 1125.15 174.46 0.60 5772.63 11 900.00 248.00 262.03 263.77 0.006462 10.94 1125.45 174.47 0.60 5771 .76 19000.00 248.00 264.45 266.71 0.006307 11.69 1575.83 198.48 0.60 7681 .18 10500.00 248.00 261.50 263.11 0.006399 10.68 1034.14 169.19 0.60 5347.12 9250.00 248.00 260.99 262.49 0.006319 10.41 949.79 164.16 0.59 495207 7550.00 248.00 260.35 261.62 0.005822 9.74 846.33 157.77 0.56 4330.85 11 900.00 248.00 262.31 263.90 0.005727 10.40 11 74.19 177.23 0.57 5634.80 11 900.00 248.00 262.31 263.91 0.005724 10.39 11 74.41 177.24 0.57 5634.21 19000.00 248.00 264.76 266.85 0.005643 11.16 1638.63 201.60 0.57 7530.61 10500.00 248.00 261.77 263.24 0.005658 10.14 1079.93 171 .86 0.56 5214.63 9250.00 248.00 261.25 262.61 0.005575 9.88 992.77 166.74 0.56 4824.38 7550.00 248.00 260.58 261.74 0.005180 9.28 882.33 160.02 0.53 4223.59 11900.00 251.50 266.30 266.58 0.003756 5.93 4142.48 1708.30 0.35 5418.41 11900.00 251.50 266.53 267.00 0.005087 7.02 3020.81 950.00 0.40 6579.51 19000.00 251.50 268.43 268.56 0.001670 4.55 7872.74 1790.47 0.24 5125.56 10500.00 251.50 265.85 266.21 0.004655 6.39 3383.28 1656.51 0.38 5547.01 9250.00 251.50 265.41 265.89 0.005757 6.89 2688.11 1521.97 0.42 5679.99 7550.00 251.50 264.63 265.45 0.008438 8.06 1643.08 1153.68 0.51 6038.25 11900.00 251.60 268.56 268.65 0.002271 3.88 5599.76 1860.75 0.25 2038.03 11900.00 251.60 269.32 269.45 0.002353 4.12 4451.70 980.00 0.25 2384.43 19000.00 251.60 269.78 269.89 0.002103 4.13 7977.97 2086.85 0.25 2523.82 10500.00 251.60 268.34 268.43 0.002165 3.71 5208.67 1840.37 0.24 1897.41 9250.00 251.60 268.15 268.23 0.002043 3.54 4852.62 1821.62 0.23 1761 .85 7550.00 251.60 267.88 266.02 267.95 0.001807 3.25 4367.40 1788.69 0.22 1553.81 9380.00 255.50 274.00 274.09 0.001236 3.80 5268.00 1506.76 0.20 2440.87 9380.00 255.50 274.85 274.95 0.001203 3.93 4633.26 940.00 0.20 2709.52 14000.00 255.50 275.11 275.20 0.001274 4.10 7001.41 1614.47 0.20 2889.59 8170.00 255.50 273.66 273.74 0.001223 3.70 4755 09 1467.83 0.20 2307.66 7100.00 255.50 273.32 273.40 0.001216 3.61 4265.67 142801 0.19 2185.69 I I I I I • COMMISSIO NERS LEE M. BASS CHAIRMAN, FT. WORTH RICHARD (DICK) H EATH VICE-CHAIRMAN, DALLAS ERNEST ANGELO, JR. MIDLAND JOHN AVILA. JR. FT. WORTH MICKEY B URLESON T EMPLE RAY CLYMER WICHITA FALLS CAROL E . DINKINS H OUSTON SUSAN H OWARO·CHRANE BOERNE NOLAN RYAN ALVIN P ERRY R. BASS CHAIRMAN -EMERITUS FT. WORTH A NDREW SANSOM EXECUTIVE D IRECTOR To manage a11d conserm the 11atural and l1rltural resources Q{ Texas.for the use mu/ e1!i<~vni.e11t q{preseut and.f11t11re ge11emtio11s. 4 200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD AUSTIN. TEXAS 78744-3291 s 1 2-389-4800 www.tpwd.sta te.tx.us December 30, 1998 Mr. Jim Calloway Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Dear Jim: After our meeting and site visit to Carter Creek on December 15, I thought it might be useful to summarize some thoughts concerning wildlife values related to the development project. Restoration of the re-routed Carter Creek corridor will require establishment of the natural vegetation that is currently in place on the original creek banks. Although erosion has accelerated bank de-stabilization, the existing willows, oaks, pecans and understory vegetation provides food and cover for a variety of wildlife. Common mammal species using Carter Creek and associated drainages include white-tailed deer, feral hog, bobcat, cottontail rabbit, raccoon, opossum, armadillo, and gray and fox squirrel. There are other mammals present as well as numerous migratory and resident birds, reptiles and amphibians. To re-create a wooded corridor along the new Carter Creek channel, a minimum of 100 yards (50 yards on each side of the creek) of native trees, shrubs and grasses is recommended to provide habitat for wildlife. This will allow for wildlife movement between larger tracts of habitat on either end of the development project, and provide a filtering buffer for runoff into the creek from surrounding developed areas. To accommodate some of the more "area sensitive" species including interior-nesting songbirds, the wooded corridor could be expanded to at least 200 yards (100 yards on each side of creek). As the amount of wooded habitat is expanded, the more valuable it becomes to species that are threatened by habitat fragmentation. As we discussed on December 15, bermudagrass is commonly used in constructed overflow areas to prevent erosion. In most cases, it is the only option in flood-prone situations. However, in areas not frequently flooded, a mixture of CELEBRATING THE 75 H ANNIVERSARY OF TEXAS STATE PARKS IN 1998 Mr. Jim Calloway Page 2 December 30, 1998 native bunchgrasses and forbs is recommended to provide escape cover as well as seeds and forage for wildlife. Bermudgrass is essentially worthless as a wildlife plant, and out-competes more desirable vegetation. If more information is necessary to assist you with this project, please contact me. Thank you. Matt Wagner Technical Guidance Biologist Texas Parks and Wildlife 106 Nagle Hall, TAMU College Station, Texas 77843-2258 ( 409) 845-5798 (409) 845-7103 FAX mwagner@wfscgate. tamu. edu cc: Mike Davis, Scott Shafer, Christian Turner 1986 1995 1996 Jan.97 Feb.97 March 97 April 97 May97 June 97 August 13th, 1986 -Developer receives conditional support tor a hydrologicJI project on Carter Cree k from CS city council in the lorm of a resolution. 1995 -Brazos 2020 Vision. a partners hip between citizen volunteers. businesses. organizations. and city government. produces a report which details many future directions for the Brazos Countv area. The Environment The me group stressed .. minimal alterations of undeveloped areas in the floodplain (except where required for the public's health. safer,'. and welfare). They identified Carter Creek in particu lar as suitable for nature parks in its mid. lower. and upper reaches and stated the need fo r a continuous trail. The Infrastructure Theme group also laid out suggestions fo r floodplain management. They suggested we "identify the economic trade- off between capital requi red for chan neliz.ation and ongoing maintenance versus floodplain land being reserved for ·natural areas"'. that we ··promote use of floodplain as natural areas and preserve fo r wildlife/wildplant parks", and that we .. promote value of floodplains as tourist assets ... " 1996 and 1997 -College Station prepares and approves a Comprehensive Plan. Among its many statements about floodplain management and Carter Creek in particular as an important natural asset is this statement -"College Station should prohibit reclamation of the floodway assoc iated with Carter Creek. Lick Cree k, Wolf Pen Creek. and the Braws River in order to prevent upstream flooding, avoid long term structural and erosion problems associated with flood plain reclamation, and to provide a clty wide network of natural open space." The developer claims in October of 1997 that he "didn't follow [the development on the Compre- hensive Plan too closely". December 13th 1996 -U.S. Army Co rps of Engineers new, more stringent rules for the issuance of Nationwide Permit 26, a wetlands permit certifying compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act. The old rules were wide ly criticized for allowing far more than "minimal environmental impacts" and for leading to the destruction of many important "isolated and headland wetlands". The National Academy of Science issued a report arguing that there was no scie ntillc basis for assigning lesser importance to these wetland areas. Old Rules: 1\JWP 26 required that less than 10 acres of US waters be affected. There was no restriction on linear footage of affected streambed. New Rules: NWP 26 would now require less than 3 acres of US waters be affected. There is a new requirement that less than 500 linear feet of streambed be affected. Nationwide Permits require no public notice and no environmental impact studies. These new rules wo uld apply to permits issued after January 21st. 1997. January 3rd, 1997 -Developer applies for a permit from the Corps of Engineers. The project put forward would violate city drainage ordinances, ignore the evolving Comprehensive Plan for CS. and ignore the recommendations of the Brazos 2020 Vision report. The project is not identical to the one plan ned in 1986. It would represent the largest reclamation of floodplain in the history of Carter Creek. January 17th, 1997 -Project is granted a NWP 26 by the Corps of Engineers under the old rules. The Corps determines that 8.8 acres ofU.S. waters will be affected. Around 2 miles. or over 10,000 linear feet of streambed will be affected. The flow rates in Carter Creek far exceed the maximum allowed by NWP 26. even under the old rules ( < 5 cts). The Corps is unaware of this fact until September but determine at that time that the effluent from the sewage treatment plant should not be counted, since it ··can be turned off at any time". The project would definitely fail to qualify for a NWP 26 under the new rules. January 21st, 1997 -Deadline for NWP 26's issued under old rules. Developer meets this dead line with 4 days to spare. June 1997 -City of CS first learns of the project (over 150 days after it was submitted to the Corps) when the deve loper submits a binder to the city which includes a project description, various maps, and data from HECC 2 runs. The developer asks the city to favorably forward the project to FEMA in order to receive a conditional letter of map revision (CLOM R). July 97 Aug. 97 Sept. 97 Oct. 97 Nov. 97 Dec. 97 Jan.98 Dec. 98 Last week of August, 1997 -Brazos Greenways Council fi rst learns of the project from the city of CS. We learn that the developer is asking fo r part of the property to be rezoned. Over the next few weeks. BGC meets with the deve lope r on severnl occasions. once on the property itself Together they agree to table the rezoning request to give the public a chance to better understand the project. September 1997 -Federal court judge in Washington, D.C. rules that the Clinton administration may and shou ld phase out , iWP 26. Judge Stanley Sporkin rejected an appeal bv the Homebuilders Association. 30,000 acres of wetlands have bee n destroyed under '.'>WP 26. September 2nd (Bryan) and September 8th (CS), 1997 -Less than 90 days aher receiving the application. and despite staff reorganization in CS. both cities respond to the developer by refusing to forwa rd his request to FEi'v1A CS denies development permit. Both cite maintenance concerns and lack of compliance with drainage ordinance. Other issues are also raised. October 1st, 1997 -Army Corps compliance report due from developer. Developer ad mits that he cannot meet his deadline of Jan. 21, 1998. He agrees to seek an individual permit. since he is no longer eligible to receive a nationwide permit. Individual permits require public notice, allow for public comment. require environmental impact studies, and are generally more thorough. October 2nd, 1997 -Special meeting of CS City Council in conjunction with a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held to demonstrate the need for a drainage ordinance which implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Ca rter Creek project is presented by the developer and commented on by staff and the public in the context of the Comprehensive Plan. This is the first public hearing on the project, 9 months aher the initial application October 8th, 1997 -30 days after his city development permit is denied. the developer requests a variance from CS on the clay lining of the pilot channel. He requests a hearing on November 4th, 1997. November 4th, 1997 -Variance hearing held. The ZBA denies the developer's req uest as not being "the minimal variance necessary to afford the applicant relief'. The staff presented many alternative solutions that would satisfy the spirit of the ordinance while satisfying the Carp's requirements. The developer provided no documentation of the Carp's position on the channel liner, the Carp's opposition to concrete being the only non- financial hardship that the applicant could demonstrate in complying with the ordinance. BGC presented a graph of some of the developer's HECC 2 data (no graphical analyses were submitted by the developer) which demonstrated the strong possibility of a rise in flood levels immediately upstream of the project. Such a rise would disallow a variance. November 6th, 1997 -Developer sends a letter to the chair of the ZBA requesting a rehearing on the variance. The only sub.5tantive reason given was that the alternatives presented by city staff were not applicable to this project. November 18th, 1997 -ZBA considers and denies request for a rehearing. Deve loper presented no data nor did he indicate that there was new data to justify a rehearing. The developer characterized the situation as urgent, because of his approaching deadline. It became evident that the developer intended to proceed under his current NWP 26 if at all possible, disregarding offers made at meetings with BGC to modify the current design. January 21st, 1998 -Developer's NWP 26 will expire. December 1998 -Corps will completely phase out '.'rlX'P 26. Stephen L. Brown President sbrown@sowellco.com June 9, 1999 Mr. T om Brymer Assistant City Manager City of College Station P.O . Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 SOWELL &Co 3131 McKinney, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75204-2471 (214) 871-3320 FAX: (214) 87 1-1620 website: www.sowellco.com e-mail: sowell@sowellco.com Re: Greenway's G reenbelt, Mitigation and Chan nel lands located in the realignment of Carter, Burton and Hudson Creeks, Cities of Bryan and College Station, Texas Dear Mr. Brymer: In an effort to m ove forward toward a solution with the Greenway's Co uncil, I have developed the following proposal as to the lands referred to above. Initially, this proposal will include all property affected by the channelization project, th e Greenway's greenbelt requests, and any proposed mitigation land for the Corps of E ngineers. As you know, a porti on of the land is wi thin the jurisdiction o f the City of Bryan. Concurrent with the delivery of this proposal, I am fo rwarding an identical proposal to To m Coyle at the City of Bryan . As you can see by the schedule some of d1e land is a part of our designed sys tem or mitigation and are not a cost to either city even though there is a cost to each owner of the property. H owever, in order for the project to be economically feasible, the owners must be co mpensated fo r land set as ide as additional greenbelt areas. T he areas designated as "optional" are those which various entiti es have expressed an interes t in including in d1e "dedication." I have in cluded a colored exhibit to assist you in reviewing the proposal. I am not sugges ting that this proposal addresses all th e issues or ques tions related to the G reenway's Council request. I do believe it is a starting point to help advance a suitable resolution. This proposal achieves a 150 foot buffer from the 100-year flood plain on both sides of th e channel as suggested by the G reenway's Council biologist. A plan review mee ting is being held on June 11 , 1999 in which engineering staffs for both cities should generate comments on our constructi on submittals. I would be happy to meet with you at your earliest co nvenience to discuss this proposal. Sincerely, E nclosures cc: Mr. Charles A. E llison AE:\Steve \Brymer-T-Ltr-1 -· SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES APPROXIMATE OWNER ACREAGE USE CITY COST TO CITIES Sowell 34.7 acres<1> Channels Bryan & College Station $-0- Sowell 5.37 acres Additional Greenway's Greenbelt College Station $134,250 Sowell 2.89 acres Additional Greenway's Greenbelt Bryan $72,250 Sowell 8.93 acres Additional Greenway's Greenbelt Bryan $133,950 Regency 23 acres Channel College Station $-0- Regency 4 acres Corps of Engineers Mitigation College Station $-0- Regency 10 acres Diversion Pond/ College Station $-0- Harwoods Greenbelt Regency 12 acres Additional Greenway's Greenbelt College Station $375,000 Hwy. 30 12 acres Corps of Engineers Mitigation College Station $-0- Hwy30 8 acres Optional Greenbelt College Station $100,000 M. Talk 6.1 acres Channel College Station $-0- M. Talk 4.5 acres Additional Greenway's Greenbelt Bryan $90,000 M. Talk 22 acres Optional Greenbelt to Bryan $150,000 Brazos Center Sub-totals 153.49 acres(3) Bryan & College Station $1,055,450 Anticipated additional development costs associated with additional Greenbelt (estimate) <2> Total Costs Total Acreage College Station Total Acreage Bryan (1) Approximately 11 acres of channel in College Station, 24 acres in Bryan. (2) Estimates for limited access and haul distance increases. (3) College Station owns 8.74 acres of Benched Hardwoods as shown on exhibit east of channel and not included in totals. AE:\Steve\Brymer-T-Ltr-1 $250,000 $1,305,450 91.47± acres 62.02± acres COLLEGE STATION P. 0. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue Tet. 409 764 3500 Mike Davis 4002Aspen Bryan, Texas 77801 Charles A. Ellison Attorney at Law Rodgers, Miller and Ellison P.C. 2501 Ashford Drive STE 100 College Station, Texas 77840 Stephen L. Brown Sowell&Co. 3131 McKinney STE 200 Dallas, Texas Re: Carter Creek Relocation Project Dear Mike: July 13, 1999 College Station, TX 77842 Attached please find the review comments for the above referenced project. CivilTech Engineering, Inc. prepared these comments for the City of College Station. The City of College Station and the City of Bryan have retained CivilTech to perform our reviews on this project. We believe this will help with a consistent, non-conflicting review product. It is my understanding that these same review comments are being forwarded to you from the City of Bryan under separate cover. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. We look forward to working with you all on this project. Sincerely, ~ ~(" Veronica J.B. Morgan, P.E. Attachements Cc: Dr. Scott Shafer, Brazos Greenways Council 117 Pershing College Station, Texas 77840 Melvin Spinks, CivilTech CivilTech 10500 Richmond Ave. STE 248 Houston, Texas 77042 Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services Jeff Tondre, Graduate Civil Engineer File Home of Texas A&M University Carter, Burton & Hudson Creeks Realignment & Relocation Project Bryan and College Station, Texas Engineer: Municipal Development Group Developer: Riverview, Inc. Reviewed By: CivilTech Engineering, Inc. Review Date: June 25, 1999 Submittal Items: 1. Carter, Burton & Hudson Creek Realignment Study (Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study}, April 7, 1999. 2. Final Drainage Report for Site Grading of Carter's, Burton & Hudson Creeks Realignment & Relocation Project, April 15, 1999. 3. Siltation Study & Removal Report for the Carter, Burton & Hudson Creeks Realignment & Relocation Project, Revised April 13, 1999. 4. Proposed Construction Plans for Carter, Burton & Hudson Creeks Realignment & Relocation Project, April 7, 1999. (Received Revised Drawings on May 18, 1999) 5. Hwy. 60 Channel!fxD OT Views for Carter, Burton & Hudson Creeks Realignment & Relocation Project, April 7, 1999. Previous Submittal Items: 1. Carter Creek Relocation FEMA Submittal, June 1997. 2. Carter Creek Relocation FEMA Submittal, Modified March 1998. (CE! issued comments on 4113198 & 1114199) 3. Hydrology Study for Carter Creek Relocation, November 23, 1998. (CE! issued comments on 1114199) 4. Siltation Study & Removal Report for the Carter, Burton & Hudson Creeks Realignment & Relocation Project, November 1998. (CE! issued comments on 1114199) General Comments 1. Documents submitted by the Engineer for the project should generally conform to the Drainage Plan Submittal Requirements to comply with the drainage policy as stipulated by the City of Bryan and City of College Station. Several study documents have been submitted to the City for review which have different report formats and contents. The Engineer should submit a Preliminary Drainage Plan Report for the channel relocation project and the proposed site grading in a format generally outlined in the submittal requirements. Appropriate appendices may be included for supporting calculations, previous studies, model runs, cross sections, and other relevant issues. A consistent approach for project documentation will aid in the review and comment. 2. It appears that several comments issued by the City of College Station and City of Bryan on January 15, 1999, have not been addressed by the Engineer. Refer to attached checklist with the previous comments. Civil Tech Engineering, Inc. 3. The study documents, models, and construction plans submitted for review appear to be incomplete, and therefore this review was performed to address major issues for the proposed relocation project. Additional review comments may be issued upon further review. Review Comments -Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study (April 7, 1999) 1. The hydrologic review was informative in that it forms a basis for the Engineer to develop the design flows for the proposed project. It is evident from the previous studies for the proposed channel relocation project that a detailed hydrologic analysis had been performed for the proposed project several years ago. Refer to Kling Study dated September 1985 . The previous study addressed the watershed characteristics, hydrologic methodology, historical data, and design flows. Please provide an update to the Kling Study to reflect current and full watershed urbanization giving appropriate attention to downstream impacts along Carter's Creek. The report documentation should be arranged to present the study assumptions and findings in a logical sequence with the appropriate supporting technical data, tables, exhibits, and model runs. Revise report and resubmit. 2. It seems that the term "SET-UP STUDY" in the report should be referred to as a ''Hydrologic Analysis for System Impacts". Rename section appropriately. 3. Please address the following comments in the HEC-1 model (EXIST.DA1): (a) storage- outflow data and routing was not performed between Sta. 12.75 and Sta. 13.50 {from the beginning of proposed relocation project to the confluence with Burton Creek): and (b) rainfall point reduction is based on a storm area of 27.96 sq. mi. for each subbasin even though the subbasins are much smaller in size. 4. Please address the following comments in the HEC-1 model (CHAN99.DA1): (a) model shows that the diversion weir for the detention pond is taking flows in and out simultaneously, (b) hydraulic rating structure for the outlet structure (weir & pipe) should be combined for the detention pond routing, (c) side weir diversion structure may not function as analyzed since the diversion weir is located along old Carter's Creek, and (d) storage-outflow data and routing should be included in the model from SH 30 to the beginning of the proposed channel improvements at Sta. 12.95. 5. Identify extents of cross sections on topographic mapping to identify storage in the right overbank areas as presented in the storage-outflow model {STOR-HID.DA1). The proposed detention pond should not be included in the right overbank storage since it is functioning to divert flows from Carter's Creek. It is recommended that the HEC-2 channel storage models be combined into a single model to determine the storage-outflow data along Carter's Creek. 6. Run HEC-2 Edit Check Program for all HEC-2 models and correct all errors in the models. 7. It appears that the HEC-2 Model (EXIST.DA1) includes many arbitrary changes to the channel roughness values, revisions to existing channel geometry, increased flow area under SH 30, and the addition of the bridges at SH 60. These changes are significant in comparison to the FIS model (COMP-FIS.DA1). The hydraulic profile drops considerably in the revised model due to the changes made in the HEC-2 model. Please address the following: a. What field topographic surveying was performed to revise the existing channel geometry at similar cross sections in the FIS model? Or was the revisions based solely on topographic mapping? Civil Tech Engineering, Inc. b. Were field topographic surveys performed to revise the channel flow area under SH 30? With the main bridge and relief structure, it seems as though the Normal Bridge Method versus the Special Bridge Method should be used in the model. c. It appears that the selection of Manning's n values were arbitrary in the overbank areas. Based on the topographic and aerial mapping, it is evident that a substantial amount of trees and foliage exists in the overbank areas. Please provide better supporting data for changes to the Manning's n values. The models should also include a description of the changes at each cross section. d. Are you going to submit a HEC-2 Corrected Effective Model to FEMA? If not, why not? 8. The study report should adequately discuss the hydraulic analysis methodology, assumptions, and data. The model results should be described an d presented in tables and exhibits. Provide water surface profile plots for comparing model results. 9. The 100-year design velocities for the proposed channels as provided in the HEC-2 model (CHANNEL.DAT) generally exceed 6 feet per second along Carter's Creek, Burton Creek and Hudson Creek. City of College Station Design Standards require design velocities for grass-lined channels to be less than 4.5 feet per second. Refer to Table VII-2. Channel velocities in the FIS model are generally less than 4 feet per second. Please address. 10. The proposed channel along Carter's Creek between SH 30 and SH 60 does not convey a 100-year ultimate design storm within channel banks as previously discussed with the Cities. Provide typical proposed channel sections with pertinent data. Please address through design changes or a variance request application. 11. Please revise modeling approach in CHAN99 .DAT: a. The existing detention/retention pond should not be included in cross sections 11.546 and 11.55. b. The overflow dams should be analyzed as weir structures in the model. Correct modeling approach. c. The transition channel and drop structure at cross sections 12.95, 12.951, 12.952, 12.95 appear incorrect. Provide a smoother channel transition in accordance with standard channel design criteria. d. The channel transition and drop structure at Hudson Creek appears incorrect. Provide a smoother channel transition. Additional field topographic survey data may be required to identify the existing channel banks. e. The proposed channel transition and drop structure at Burton Creek and SH 6 takes a 90 degree tum. Provide a smoother channel transition and adequate slope protection. f. Energy dissipation structures should be used at the drop structures. Ci v i l Tech Engineering, Inc. 12. The channel trans1t1ons with drop structures are not acceptable as presented in the construction plans and models. The Engineer should provide standard hydraulic jump calculations for the drop structures along Carter's Creek, Hudson Creek and Burton Creek. Construction Drawings (April 7, 1999 -Resubmitted on May 18, 1999) The construction drawings are generally conceptual and need additional detail for an adequate design review. The following review comments discuss major issues that must be addressed by the Engineer prior to further review by the City. 1. The construction drawings contain Sheets l through 35 and a cover sheet. General site grading is shown on Sheets 2 through 20. These drawings generally identify the project features but were not prepared in sufficient detail for construction of the proposed channel, detention pond, and adjacent fill areas. Construction drawings should clearly identify the proposed channel top of bank, toe of slope, side slopes, pond layouts, channel slope protection, maintenance access areas, and existing and proposed right-of-way. Proposed contours are certainly of interest, but are generally not used to exclusively construct a channel project. Proposed design features must be identified properly in the drawings. Horizontal and vertical control data should be provided for the proposed channel and ponds. 2. Section 404 mitigation areas should be identified on the plans with adequate armotation. 3. Site grading in the adjacent fill areas do not clearly identify the proposed improvements and associated internal drainage ditches or storm drains to direct overland sheet flow. A few proposed contours in the fill areas are not adequate for proper layout during construction. Identify limits of construction on the drawings. Cross sections on Sheets 25 through 27 should show the proposed fill areas adjacent to the proposed channel. Are the existing trees in the fill areas going to be removed? Please comment. 4. Please provide information on your coordination and notification to Exxon and the Electrical Company for filling from 2 to 4 feet within their respective easements. 5. The proposed channel transitions and drop structures at the entrance from Carter's Creek, Burton Creek and Hudson Creek are not acceptable as shown on the plans. The flow has an angle of attack that may cause excessive channel bank erosion. The Engineer should investigate a smoother charmel transition with adequate channel slope protection. Consideration should also be given to providing weir control structures upstream of the drop structures to control upstream channel bank erosion caused by the draw down of the water surface profiles. 6. The proposed channel transition to the existing channel of Carter's Creek at Station 11.55 is not acceptable. Refer to Sheet 3. The Engineer should investigate a smoother channel transition with adequate slope protection at the confluence. The proposed Overflow Dam Structure #1 should be reoriented to the Proposed Channel "A" only. 7. The Engineer should provide construction plans and profiles for the proposed channel modifications along old Carter's Creek downstream of Burton Creek and SH 6. Provide a HEC-2 model to determine the proposed water surface elevations along old Carter's Creek. 8. Cross sections along the proposed channel must be provided every 200-foot (maximum). Include additional cross sections on Sheets 25 through 27. Cut and fill quantities must be Civil Tech Engineering, Inc. shown on the cross sections. Cross sections must also show the fill areas adjacent to the proposed channel. Provide pertinent information on each cross section including channel dimensions and cross slopes along the channel bench areas. 9. Insufficient information is shown on the plans for the proposed storm sewer drain outfalls into the proposed channel. The Engineer should consider additional storm sewer drains into the proposed channel to intercept overland sheet flow from the surrounding . contributing areas. Provide a drainage area map and flow computation table in the construction plans for the proposed storm sewer drains. Consideration should be given to placing storm sewer outfalls or concrete-lined ditches at the roadside ditches along SH 30 and SH 60. 10. Storm sewer drains should outfall at approximately I-foot above the toe of the channel slope. Provide necessary erosion protection in proposed channel. 11. Channel profiles shown on Sheets 21 through 24 are incomplete. It appears the channel profile follows the channel baseline and not the proposed channel centerline. Drawings do not adequately annotate the proposed channel slope or elevations. Need to include structures such as SH 30, SH 60, proposed storm sewer drains, proposed drop structures, aerial sewer crossing, etc. Channel profiles should transition into the existing channel some distance upstream and downstream of the proposed channel improvements. 12. The Engineer should address the bridge pier stability/capacity with the proposed channel modifications under SH 60 bridge. Please provide bridge foundation calculations and bridge scour calculations. It appears that approximately 17 feet of excavation will occur at the existing bridge piers. 13 . Provide design layout and sections for siltation ponds shown on Sheets 29 through 31. Provide pond cross sections and indicate pond volumes. Proposed channel transitions into siltation ponds need to be carefully evaluated to prevent channel bank erosion. Hydraulic jump calculations should be provided to support the length of slope protection downstream of the drop structure. HEC-2 model does not provide details for hydraulic jump. 14. The detention/retention pond shown on Sheets 3, 6, and 32 do not clearly show the pond features such as top of berm, toe of slope, rectangular side weir structure, etc. The overflow weir structure will probably not function properly since it is situated along old Carter's Creek and not along Channel "A". Consideration should be given to concrete slope protection along the diversion weir. Detail storm sewer drain outfall from detention pond. Provide pond volume. 15. The typical overflow dam detail on Sheet 33 does not show the concrete toe around the structure. A concrete toe should extend a minimum of 3 feet below natural ground around the perimeter of the structure. Slope protection should also be provided around the structure. 16. Erosion and sediment control plan is incomplete. Provide separate plan drawings for erosion and sediment plan in accordance with EPA standard requirements for Storm Water Management For Construction Activities. Consider the erosion and sediment plan for the channel project and adjacent site grading separately. 17. Provide geotechnical investigation report for soil characteristics along the proposed channel improvements. Boring should be taken at an interval recommended by the geotechnical Civil Tech Engineering, Inc. .. engineer. Provide channel side slope stability analysis to support proposed channel side slopes including under existing bridges. 18. Provide pier capacity and structural design computations for the aerial sanitary sewer crossing structure. 19. Provide structural design computations for the concrete retaining wall structure. 20. Evaluate whether manhole adjustments are necessary along the 24" sanitary sewer line due to 2-4 feet of fill placed above in the adjacent fill areas. Final Drainage Report for Site Grading (April 15, 1999) The Final Drainage Report should also include the detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the proposed channel relocation project. The site grading shown in the construction plans for the adjacent areas is very vague and must be better defined for construction. 1. Based on the construction plans, it appears that the proposed site grading will be performed in conjunction with the proposed channel excavation. Please coordinate construction plans to show proposed drainage channels as discussed in final drainage plan report. Provide typical proposed channel sections, plan and profile drawings, and details for all proposed internal drainage systems. 2. Do not outfall proposed storm sewer drains onto the proposed overflow dams. This will actually cause erosion to the overflow dams! Revise report and construction drawings accordingly. 3. Sub-Drainage Area #3 refers to three (3) drainage channels. Where are the proposed drainage channels on the drawings? The construction plans are very vague for the construction of the proposed channel along SH 60. Show proposed drainage channels in construction plans. You will need to have TxDOT approval to discharge flow into SH 60 right-of-way. 4. It appears that Sub-Drainage Area #4 will flow in an easterly fashion (not westerly) into a proposed drainage channel along SH 60. Show proposed drainage channel in construction plans. You will need to have TxDOT approval to discharge flow into SH 60 right-of-way. 5. Storm sewer drain outfall #2 into Hudson Creek for Sub-Drainage Area #5 should be relocated away from the overflow dam. Revise report and construction drawings accordingly. 6. Storm sewer drain outfall #5 into proposed Carter's Creek for Sub-Drainage Area #6 should be relocated away from the overflow dam. Revise report and construction drawings accordingly. 7. It appears that the description for Sub-Drainage Area #7 was copied from Drainage Area #6. Show proposed drainage channel to Burton Creek in construction plans. Revise report accordingly. 8. For Sub-Drainage Area #8 and #9, correct the statement in report 'The actual discharge outlet of the pipe will be over the top of the overflow dam in order to reduce erosion." Revise report accordingly. Civil Tech Engineering, Inc. • 9. The detention calculations for Sub-Drainage Area #1 are not consistent with the HEC-1 model for the detention pond. Consider performing one set of routing computations for the proposed detention pond. Civil Tech Engineering, Inc. Carter Creek Relocation Pro~erty Owner Acreage A~~raised Value Regency Parkway Inc 1.05 $90 7.78 $700 58.59 $82,700 Bert Wheeler's Inc 1.55 $140 2.84 $260 Jim Sowell Construction Company Inc 3.58 $320 36.39 $3,280 Talk, M J 16.94 $1,520 Hi9hwa~ 30 Partnershie 29.921 $50,000 '&11/lflv Total 158.641 $139,010 Page 1 To Jim Callaway Director of Development Services City of College Station College Station, Texas From Michael Davis 4002 Aspen Bryan, Texas 77801 1-409-846-3420 Dear Jim, During the mediation sessions with Greenways, many aspects of Carter Creek and our Project were discussed with the intent of both parties being to assemble a concept that could stand without modification for the foreseeable future at the least public cost for the benefits derived while protecting the property rights of the owners . A short list of the considerations is listed below. Flood Protection with allowance for increases in flows from offsite Stabilization of the existing creek in the project area. Downstream siltation with associated problems Water Quality Wetlands Wildlife Habitat and Required Nature Corridor Width Proper Wildlife and Wetlands in Urban Areas Linked Habitat Greenbelt Corridor Multiple Community Link Economic Impact of Developed Areas Visual Aesthetics Community Appearance Hike/ Bike trails Cost/ Benefit Analysis for various Acquisition Areas Woodland Preservation or Re-Establishment Potential and necessity of expansion and links upstream and downstream Linear Parks Potential Uses and Probable Zoning Infrastructure Location on major intersection Public Benefits Private Property Rights The Capitol Expenditure cost to the City of the Nature Park-Greenbelt Corridor-Community Link should be minor when compared with the increase in annual revenues off of the completed Development (At project completion with buildings, the total cost of the parkland and ten years maintenance should be less than two years increase in revenues off of the adjoining land, businesses and buildings). The channel is designed with approximately 70% excess flow capacity over the 100 year flood and should provide permanent flood control for the area while the ponds with continual flows joining grassed meadows with scattered trees bordered by the proposed greenbelt areas will provide a very positive community visual impact as well a very positive public community link for bike and hike paths through Brazos County, Bryan, and College Station. The Project should benefit the Public and improve the quality of life in the area as well as provide easy Community access to some of the nicest natural areas within the twin cities. Additionally the channel reduces the chances of flow blockage in the area and stabilizes Carter Creek within the project area (which keeps its two to three thousand cubic yards of annual bank and bed erosion siltation from flowing downstream). From a personal point of view, I heartily endorse the basics of this plan: particularly because of the possibility and importance of upstream extension within Bryan as well as the extension South in College Station before conflic~ing uses has occurred along the corridor. This viewpoint stems from wishing to maximize the Public and Private Benefits from land usage by combining Development tracts, Acquisition of excellent Parkland, Community links, Visual appearance, Increased flow capacity for Permanent Flood Hazard Reduction, Erosion Reduction, Water Quality improvement through silt removal, and Minimization of Future Public Expenditures by not having to build channels after adjacent development has occurred at far greater public expenditures without obtaining parkland. I believe the proposed plan effectively incorporates all the intended concepts of the Brazos 2020 Plan and College Station Comprehensive Plan and will become the basic link for completing the community wide greenbelt. I have heard several comments in regards to the City purchasing the Flood Plains and leaving the Creeks alone; From experience I find the concept inappropriate for the following reasons: There will be some substantial increase (though detention ordinances that have been enacted upstream will help to diminish this increase) in the flood flows of Carter Creek due to future upstream development and that any purchase of flood plain should be accompanied by some form of channelization (full, sidebank or overflow) that increases the capacity of the flood plain to protect the adjoining property. The channelization should also be designed to stabilize the existing creek and reduce its bed and bank erosion (the beds and banks of the existing Carter Creek waterways are the largest silt producers in Bryan and College Station and are flowing to downstream waterways and estuaries) while minimizing the initial construction and annual maintenance costs. The channelization should also reduce the probability of a "logjam" occurring and blocking the flow through the floodplain. The cost of channelization, disposal of spoils of channelization, clearing and burning, and ability to use natural designs for minimum maintenance costs are far less expensive and problematical when they are done in a rural environment than after the restrictions imposed by adjoining development, limited areas and upstream flooding has occurred. It also allows one to design a Greenbelt and flood flow area that if properly conceived can remain unchanged for centuries which will provide a superb area of specimen trees and natural setting that can remain intact for future generations. Most of the tracts downstream do not have the infrastructure or intrinsic value to make it feasible for the Owners to channelize the tracts, but I think that a combination of Public contracting for purchase of part of the tracts including channelized area with the Owners doing the initial channelization under a City designed and approved plan will allow the owners to improve some of their fringe lowlands with spoils of the channelization and the City to obtain a minimum maintenance channelized area with larger natural Greenbelt area at minimum public cost. The Public Area could encompass all the revised flood plain with some excess capacity. Note; The tracts involving ranchland and some interconnecting pastures would need special agreements. Since the plan proposed does not change any of the basics Hydraulics of the Carter Creek Relocation Plan and will only have minor inconsequential changes in the handing of the surface drainage and culvert sizing; I expect that none of the procedures involved in this process will delay the approval of our project. Sincerely yours ~o.JL!) /( n~ Michael K. Davis t Comments regarding the Conceptual Planning & Design for Carters Creek Drainage Improvements RM 11.47 to 13.50. There are several issues that the conceptual plan fails to address. I find it easiest to organize my comments under the "Conditions of Approval" contained in chapter 13 of the City's Code of Ordinances. E. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Approval or denial of a development permit by the Administrator shall be based on all of the provisions of this chapter and the following relevant factors: • The danger to life or property due to flooding or erosion damage; The plan needs to specifically address these threats to existing developments near the proposed development. These include but are not limited to the bridges on FM 60, State Highway 30, and the Windwood Subdivision. • The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; The plan does not indicate what "facility" is planned for the area reclaimed from the 100-yr flood plain. Therefore it is impossible to assess the facility's susceptibility to flood damage. • The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; Sediment transport and deposition have not been adequately addressed. • The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; Proposed use has not been indicated. Therefore its compatibility cannot be assessed. • The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of streets and bridges, and public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems. The issue of maintenance is one of great importance. The stream currently remains in a natural condition and presents no maintenance costs to the City of College Station. There are existing water and sewer lines near the proposed development. The impact on these facilities has not been addressed. • The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; Again, the sediment issue has not been adequately addressed. • The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; No comment • The availability of alternative locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use; Without knowing what the proposed use is, it is impossible to address this issue. • The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive site plan for that area. The Comprehensive Plan for the City of College Station shows this area to be floodplain and greenway. Based on that, any development proposal would not be consistent with the plan for this area. I I feel that this proposal puts the cart before the horse. It proposes to drastically alter the topography and hydraulics of the area without a development plan justifying that alteration. The proposal begins to address technical issues without first resolving land use issues. The proposal and request for endorsement is also premature in that State and Federal permitting issues have not been adequately addressed. In the City Code, one of the duties of the city is to: "review permits for proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have been obtained from those Federal, State, or local governmental agencies (including Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 USC. 1334) from which prior approval is required " I hesitate to make comments regarding the acceptability of the proposal when those comments may be construed as conditions for approval and the assumption made that if those conditions are met then the City endorses the proposal. The development proposal should stand on its own merits. Reclaiming flood prone areas does not, by itself, justify the elimination of flood plain and greenway. There needs to be a valid development proposal that includes proposed land use to give a context for the proposal. = 7 ~4,J/J;)#l{e,7 ( ' ' ( ' ~fP~f.IH fl}1--~· epJT-h~ 7bf-t7 kct~N.1/- ) ~ b' /kl-wK ----------7 'ca/-1/J 1f _________ ______ __ f61 ~~tw. /PfjfvJ ______ ____. s~ ?#116. ,?Jth/: ~ t/t>I/~ /5~ __ -~--- 1----(r:v~ch> ~ r~0 -- f-"7 ;~ ~jt/ ?1nP) ~ Irr~) ~§s:;~ .l&µ/L c(___