HomeMy WebLinkAboutWolf Pen CreekPARKS, ARTS AND COMMERCE
WOLF PEN CREEK
DESIGN CHARETTE
Purpose
To revitalize the existing Master
Plan for the Wo lf Pen Creek Corri-
dor with an emphasis on Parks, Arts
and Commerce.
Goals
To facilitate sharing innovative
ideas and expertise of community
leaders, owners, developers. design-
ers. city staff. citizens and commu-
nity organizations to define the
·························································~···················:
To Regi ster, simply fill out this form , and mail to
Steve Beachy, College Station Parks and Recreation
Department, P.O. Box 9960, College Station, TX 77842
or bring to College Station Parks Office in
Central Park, I 000 Krenek Tap Rd.
Registration deadline: October 13
Name: _____________ _
Address: ____________ _
Telephone:. ___________ _
E-mail (optional):. _________ _
Affiliation: _
0 i.e. Wolf Pen Creek Property Owner,
0 member of City Board,
0 member of community organization,
0 TAMUfaculty,
0 student,
0 other -------------Will Attend on (circle one or more): Oct 20, Oct 21
future opportunities for public and
private development.
It is hoped the charette will provide
those involved in the future of the
district a vision to guide growth in
the area and a sense of identity
which will be unique to Wolf Pen
Creek.
After looking at the district as a
whole, the participants will be divided
into eight groups, each looking at a
different part of the Wolf Pen
District. These intensive ·brain-
storming· sessions will utilize TAMU
students to help graphically present
the ideas and concepts on Saturday,
October 21st at 11:00 to the
charette members and the public.
Reference Area
An area at the Conference Center
will be used to provide reference
materials as well as a collage of
photographs collected from partici-
pants and the public illustrating
comparable projects. If you have a
photograph or magazine article wh ich
you would like to share, please ma il
or bring to Steve Beachy at the
Parks and Recreation Office in
Central Park before October 18t h.
These can be pictures of buildings,
parks, trails, street landscaping, etc.
Please attach a return envelope to
the photo/article if you would like it
returned to you.
fu /Friday, October 13
Registration Deadline
\\1.J\fr[)ruesday, October 17 'If (Rain date, Wednesday, October 18)
5-7 PM
Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater ~
Informational packets will be available .. ~
for team members. This will be a~
opportunity to meet other partici -'::f'\
pants and walk through the district. ~
Thursday, October 19
3-7 PM
College Station Conference Center
1300 George Bush Dr. Room 127
The reference room will be ava ilable
with additional information concern-
ing Wolf Pen Creek's History and De-
velopment. Staff will be present to
answer any questions concern ing the
project or the Charette.
Friday, October 20
8 AM-5 PM &
Saturday, October 21
8 AM-12 PM
College Station Conference Center
1300 George Bush Dr. Room 127
Intensive Design Charett e will happen
with 8 teams, each lead by the Brazos
Chapter, American Institute of Archi-
tects and will be comprised of mem-
bers from the commun ity, cit y staff,
owners and developers. and students
as well as any interested citizen.
Non-registered visitors are welcomed!
~CE
lEEK DESIGN CHARETTE
..
'1!0f\J PLANNING
WORKS DEPARTMENT
998
Additional info1;mation concerning the charette will be
provi1~ed on Channel 19 or contact
PLAZA O N IOLL MAN ST.
Ste11e Beachy at 979-764-3413
or
Kay H, nryson, AIA at 979-693-8283
I $CU LPTU R GARD N /PARKING ~REA DAR'TMOUTH DRIV
TEAMS:
1. Entire Corridor 2. Transportation Issues
~ .,0!Jp,per Corridor -North
4. Upper Corridor -South
5. South Quadrant
6. North Q~adrant
'l. Festival Area
8. Lower Corridor ............................
'----
COMMERCIAL
~-,,. r Cl~o;, o?.,:.o~!?.~G'~' ~!~!.!?N ~ College Station, Texas 77642-9960
( 409) 764-3500
February 4, 1997
Dear Sir,
The College Station City Council has identified the development of a plan for the maintenance and
operation of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor as one of their top ten issues to be addressed this year. Part of
the process to complete this task involves the review and update of the master plan for the Wolf Pen Creek
Corridor that was approved by the Council in 1988.
To assist with this review process, individuals have been identified who may provide input into the planning
effort. The list has been approved by the WPC Tax Increment Financing District Board and includes
property owners, developers, facility users and others who may have an interest in the future plans for this
area. The process will involve two interactive group workshops which will be conducted at the College
Station Conference Center. These workshops will be led by an independent facilitator to provide the basis
for an open expression of ideas.
•' The first workshop will be held on Tuesday, February 25th starting at 6pm. The workshop will be
structured to meet specific time schedules and will end no later than 9pm. The following three questions
will be addressed in this workshop:
1. What are the perceived problems/or the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
2. What are the perceived benefits of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
3. What are your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor and what do you think the City
should do in the future?
The second workshop will be held at 6pm on Tuesday, March 25th. It will focus on the results of the first
workshop and will address specific issues that need to be included in the recomm~ndations for a revised
master plan. A light meal will be served to all participants at both sessions.
The information and direction gained from these two workshops, along with the results from an engineering
study related to the erosion and silt problems, wiU form the basis for the revisions to the current master
plan. The proposed master plan revisions will be presented to the appropriate boards and commissions for
their review and formal public hearings. Their input and direction will then be incorporated into the final
recommendation presented to the City Council this summer.
A copy of the preliminary findings of the staff are included for your information. Please contact Steve
Beachy at 764-34 13 or Ric Ploeger at 764-3415 if you need additional information. Your time and
participation in this process are appreciated.
Sincerely,
Geo rge K. Noe
City Manager
Home of Te..xas A&M Unh· .r~it~
PRELIMI NARY FINDINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE MASTER PLAN ............................................................................................. 1
11. THE W O LF PEN CRE EK Z ONING DISTRICT ............................................................. 2
Ill. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .................................................................. 2
IV. C O UNCIL ISSUES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ........................................................ 3
V. DEVELOPMENT IN THE WOLF PEN CREEK CORRIDOR .............................................. 3
VI. UPCOMING DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 4
VII. CHANGES SINCE PLAN ADOPTION (CONFLI CTS WITH CURRENT PLAN) ..................... .4
VIII. POTENTIAL USES FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY ...................................................... 5
IX. POTENTIAL AMPHITHEATER ENHANCEMENTS ......................................................... 6
X. POTENTIAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ............................... 6
XI. PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS ...................................................................................... 7
GRAPHICS
GRAPHIC 1 : WOLF PEN CREEK MASTER PLAN ..................................................... 9
GRAPHIC 2: WOLF PEN CREEK C ORRIDOR STUDY -EXISTING DEVELO PMENT ....... 10
GRAPHIC 3: WOLF PEN CREEK C ORRIDOR STUDY -CITY-OWNED PROPERTY ....... 11
TABLE
TABLE 1: W O LF PEN CREEK AMPHITHEATER EVENTS .......................................... 12
TABLE 2: POTENTIAL PUBLI C INPUT PARTI CIPANTS:
CITY STAFF/RESOURCE GROUP ..................................................... 14
GENERAL ................................................................................... 14
H OTEL/MOTEL ............................................................................ 1 5
ORIGINAL W O LF PEN CREEK STEERIN G C OMMITIEE ........................ 15
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD .................................................. 15
PLANNING AND Z ONING REPRESENTATIVES .................................... 16
PROPERTY OWNERS .................................................................... 1 6
TIF BOARD ................................................................................ 18
W O LF PEN CREEK DESI GN REVIEW BOARD ..................................... 1 8
INTERESTED CITIZENS ................................................................... 18
W ORKS HOP FACI LI TATO RS ........................................................... 19
WOLF PEN CREEK MASTER PLAN
HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS
The City Council adopted the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan in 1988. This was the
culmination of work directed by Council to study a section of Wolf Pen Creek to
maximize it as an area for public and private use, as well as ensure its capacity to carry
storm water run-off. The section runs from Texas Avenue east to the Highway 6 Bypass,
and was largely undeveloped at the time of the study and plan adoption.
I. THE MASTER PLAN
The goal stated in the Master Plan is:
'Develop a comprehensive plan to recognize the interrelationships of
drainage, erosion, and recreation as they apply to the Wolf Pen Creek
Corridor from Texas Avenue to the East Bypass, as well as to create a
community attraction for College Station residents and out-of-town
guests.''
Several objective statements were formulated from this goal:
1. Establish drainage practices in compliance with the College Station Storm
Water Management Plan.
2. Utilize soil stabilization and other methods to deter erosion of creek banks.
3. Promote urban development with the creek as an amenity to development.
4. Encourage participation directed to an overall plan as opposed to piecemeal
projects.
5. Recognize the Wolf Pen Creek Development as an open space park connector,
as well as part of the city-wide park system of bicycle and pedestrian trails.
6 . Orient focal points in the creek development to major access points throughout
the creek corridor.
7. Develop recreational and cultural programs and facilities designed to maximize
the potential usage of the creek as a community attraction.
8. Preserve as much 6f the natural beauty of the creek's plants and wildlife as
possibl e.
9 . Seek and receive matching funds through Texas Department of Parks and
Wildlife .
The above goal and objectives were in corporated into an update of th e City's
Comprehensive Plan in 1989, and furth e r plan implementation occurred with th e
passage of the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning Distri ct regul ation s and subsequent
rezoning of the properties in th e corridor in late 1989 . A copy of this master plan
is included in this report as Graphic 1 (page 9).
Page 1 of 19
11. ItlEWDJ.liEJ:~LCREE K.LQNlbtGJ)_LSIRLCI
The W o lf Pen Creek D istri ct regu lations were formulated with the above objectives
in mind. They address development of both public and private elements by
providing standards for treatment of the creek and adjacent areas as well as
providing standards for various aspects of private development such as lighting,
landscaping, architecture, building design, and other objects that are observed by
the public. The regulations define what is called the 'minimum reservation area"
as an area parallel to the floodway and twenty feet in width. The developer has
the option to either dedicate the floodway and this minimum reservation area to
the city for future development or to develop the area privately in accordance with
the Master Plan. The Master Plan calls for a series of lakes along the creek and for
a system of pedestrian and bicycle trails surrounding the creek in the 'minimum
reservation area".
The regulations have an added level of review not found in most other zoning
districts in that a Design Review Board reviews all projects for compliance with the
standards in the Plan. The standards relative to private sector development '~re
not intended to restrict imagination, innovation, or variety, but rather to assist in
focusing on design principles, which can result in creative solutions that will
develop a satisfactory visual appearance with the City, preserve taxable values, and
promote the public health, safety and welfare."
The regulations also encourage private development to orient to the creek and the
pedestrian trail system by offering several incentives, ranging from reductions in
parking requirements to allowances for additional signage. There are incentives as
well for floodway and minimum reservation area dedication that allow reduced
building setbacks, more flexibility in landscape point calculation and additional
signage.
111. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Another incentive to private developm ent within th e corridor is the Ta x Increment
Financing District (TIF) that was established in 1989. Th is allows increases in tax
revenues resulting from development in the corrid or to be put back into the
corrid o r for public improvements. The TIF was established as a twenty-year TIF,
and to-date has accumulated approximately $130,000. The TIF is governed by a
Board of Directors with members appointed by the College Station City Council
(3), th e Coll ege Station Independent Schoo l District Board of Trustees (1) and
Brazos County Commiss ioner's Court (1 ). Current TIF members are: David Hickson
-Chairman, Hubbard Ken nady, Dick Birdwell (City); Chris Kling (CSISD); and
Judge Al Jo nes (Brazos County).
IV. COUNCii IS_SUES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City Council develops an annual issue list of items that should be addressed in
a particular budget year. This year the Council has retail development as an issue
high on its list. Another issue to be addresse d by Council as part of the new
Comprehensive Plan process will be whether to continue to allow development
within the floodplains in College Station. The Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan, its goal
and the objectives it contains, do not, in and of themselves, run contrary to either
of these issues. The vision for the Wolf Pen Creek area is for a combination of
commercial retail and multifamily development along the creek, with preservation
of as much of the natural creek areas as possible. If policy shifts to preclude any
reclamation of floodplain areas, then this will have an impact on development in
the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor, as several properties have floodplain. If a more
moderate policy is adopted allowing some floodplain reclamation, then this should
not inhibit Wolf Pen Creek development. The latest Council discussions on this
issue indicate a continuation of the current policies in regard to development in
the floodplain. Another question is whether the WPC District regulations inhibit
development in the corridor and the achievement of the objectives in the Master
Plan. Additional input from developers, property owners and users of the corridor
will provide further guidance on this subject.
V. DEVEi OPMENI IN THE WOLF PEN CREEK CORRIDOR
Since adoption of the Master Plan and the district regulations in 1988, there have
been several projects completed within the corridor. Commercial developments
include the Wolfe Nursery located at the eastern end of the creek, additions to the
Taco Bell located in the interior of the area and the current development of the site
for the new Office Max and Copy Max centrally located in the corridor.
Multifamily developments have included the University Commons, a 242-unit
apartment complex for student housing at the east end of the corridor, and The
Arbors, a 172-unit apartment complex located in the western portion of the
corridor. The city has received property dedications in conjunction with the
University Commons project, the Wolf Nursery project (through a development
agreement, which will occur in 1998), and the Office Max development. No
developer has chosen the option to develop th e floodway and 'tninimum
reservation area" to-date. Nor has th ere been development in the dedicated areas
by the city. Th e city ha s yet to receive enough property to enable other than a
piecemeal approach to development of the trail systems and other public
amenities. At the time of plan adoption in 1988, approximately twelve percent of
the land within the corridor was developed. As of O ctober, 1996, development
had grown to cover thirty perce nt of land within th e corridor.
1\:igc 3 of 1 9
A recent request fo r a rezoning to take a large piece of property located at the very
western end of the corridor out of the WPC District has brought to light that there
is a perception that th e district regulations inhibit development. Whether this is
indeed a fact is not clear. Certainly other developments have occurred and have
done so by complying with the district regulations. This particular property owner
feels that the added level of revi ew required by the Design Review Board has
'kared off" potential retail developers due to the more subjective nature of the
criteria to be reviewed. Yet all other developments have successfully gone through
the process provided for in the regulations. Council action was to rezone this
property from WPC to C-1 General Commercial, with the condition that a
development agreement be approved that provides for the implementation of the
Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan as it relates to the creek and 'minimum reservation
area". The existing development is shown in Graphic 2 (page 10).
VI. UPCOMING DEVELOPMENT
There is a second phase of University Commons being processed currently which
will add another 120 multifamily units to this district. This phase will be adjacent
to the portion of Phase I along the creek, and will result in additional land
dedication to the city.
VII. CHANGES SINCE PLAN ADOPTION (CONFLICTS WITH CURRENT PLAN)
Several things have occurred since the Master Plan was adopted in 1988 which
are different from the original plan. Some in significant ways, and others in minor
ways.
1. Library: One of the uses shown for a portion of the public property in the
corridor, is a public library. Since that time the city has chosen and is now
developing, an alternate library site on FM 2818.
2. Botanical Gardens: Where a botanical garden is shown on the plan, there is
now a new multifamily residential complex that is student oriented.
3. Colgate Extension: As part of th e development of Phase II of th e University
Commons multifamily complex, th e city made the decision to allow Colgate
Street to end where it does at present, rather than to extend it through to th e
Ea st Bypass as shown on th e pl an. This does not preclude future extension, but
c hanges th e alignment significantly.
4. Stallings Extension: Stallings Drive is shown as a north/so uth connector through
th e corridor o n th e plan. Due to recent development, thi s north/south corridor
will now to be the extension o f Kyle Stree t, from State Highway 30 to
H olleman. Stallings Drive w ill not be extended.
5. Rezoning Action: A large, undeveloped tract of land located at th e most
western end of th e corri dor was rezoned from WPC to C-1 General
Commerc ial. This allows the commercial development of the property without
requiring th e design review required in th e WPC District regul ations. The result
m ay be a shopping center or a big box retail development that is focused on the
major roadways surrounding the tract, rather than a development that orients to
and draws from, a pedestrian park and creek area. The council rezoned this
property with the condition that the Master Plan not be precluded from
implementation along the creek portion of the tract. A development agreement
will be considered by Council that allows for this by the dedication of the
floodway and 'minimum reservation area", as called for in the Master Plan and
the WPC District regulations.
6. Commercial Development: As stated in the Master Plan, "''examples of uses
envisioned to be built on private property with their orientation to the park
and passive spaces are restaurants, garden offices, galleries, and other similar
types of uses." Although apartments were listed in the district as permitted
uses, this district was developed at the time of an overabundance of apartments
on the market. The large amount of multifamily building that has occurred in
the corridor was not anticipated. Also, the type of commercial development in
the corridor has not been the type envisioned in the plan. Today there is
pressure for the 'big box" retailer or strip shopping center oriented to major
roadways, rather than for the smaller shops oriented to the creek and park area
as envisioned in the plan. There are still opportunities for this type of
commercial development along the creek in a few locations.
VIII. POTENTIAL USES FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
The City currently owns a total of approximately 50 acres of land in the corridor.
Of this, 14.2 acres is included in the first original project with the amphitheater
and lake. An additional 13.8 acres is owned by the City adjacent to the
amphitheater site at the corner of Dartmouth and Colgate. 5.1 acres is owned by
the City on the west side of the Dartmouth and Holleman intersection. In addition,
the City owns approximately 18 acres of creek property that was dedicated as part
of the development process. City owned property is shown in Graphic 3 (page
11). Potential uses for this property include th e following:
1. Hike and bike trail s
2. W ater features
3. Additional parking
4. A mphitheater support facilities
5. Private use for commercial development (se ll or lease)
6. Drainage improvements and erosion control
7. Fes tival and special event site
8. Nature study ce nter
9. Pe rforming arts area and cultural ce nte r
10. Water sto rage facility/office bui lding
IX. W_IlNilALAMPH ITJiEAIER.£NtiAbJUMi:m-_S_
Approximately 122,000 people have attended events at the amphitheater during
the past 4 years of operation. Detailed attendance figures are included as Table 1
(page 12). Thi s attendance has been recorded at 83 events during this time period.
Numerous minor modifi cations have been made to th e facility during this period to
improve the effectiveness of th e site. However, additional needs have aiso been
identified that are required to make the amphitheater perform to its full potential.
These needs reflect the experience gained from the operation of the facility during
the past several years. They include:
1. Additional storage for equipment
2. Dressing rooms for entertainers
3. Box office facilities at each entrance
4. Sound and light system for the stage
5. Permanent seating on part of the grass slope
6. Full service concession facilities
7. Signs for advertising events
8. Parking for support facilities
9 . Acquire additional property to the east of the existing parking lot for
dressing rooms and storage facilities
10. Festival facilities on adjoining property for additional programming
flexibility
X. POTENTIAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
No additional public development is planned in the corridor at this time. However,
the foll owing resources have been identified as sources of potential funds should
specific projects be approved by the City Council for implementation:
1. Tax Increment Financing District -Th e TIF District includes the City of College
Station, The College Stati o n Independent School District and Brazos County.
The TIF was established for a period of 20 years beginning in 1989.
Approximately 5130,000 will generated from all three agenci es during FY
1997. The projectio n for the remaining 12 years is for the TIF to generate a total
of approxim ate ly $2.9 milli on based upon the current configuratio n with full
pa rticipation of CS ISD and $1.9 millio n with 50% participation. These funds
can be used fo r development or operations and ma intenance.
2. Hote l/Motel Tax Fund -These funds were used to finance a portion of the
o ri g ina l project. Howeve r, the use of these funds a re governed by state
regul ati ons a nd cannot be used for ite ms su c h as drainage im prove me nts,
streets and o th er ite ms not re la ted to th e arts or touri sm. No estim ate of
potentia l funding a mo unts is presented here. Eac h specifi c project wou ld ha ve
l'agc (, or 1 <)
to be judged on its own merits to determine if it is appropriate for the use of
these funds.
3. Drainage Utility District -These funds are restricted to use in drainage
improvement projects. Approximately $1,200,000 is forecast for drainage
improvements in the section of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor from Texas
Avenue to Dartmouth Street. These projects are currently scheduled for FY
1999 and 2000. No projects are included for the portion of the corridor
between Dartmouth and State Highway 6.
4. Park Land Dedication Fund -The Wolf Pen Creek Corridor is located in Park
Zone 3. This zone is bounded by Harvey Road, STATE HIGHWAY 6 and Texas
Avenue. Funds are generated on a one time basis from the construction of
residential housing units at the rate of $225 per dwelling unit. The developer
also has the option to dedicate land with the approval of the City Council. The
current fund balance for Zone 3 is approximately $110,000. These funds can
only be utilized for neighborhood park purposes within the specific zone in
which they are generated. Examples of development that meet this requirement
include playgrounds, picnic units, trails, walks, playing courts, practice fields
and other similar facilities. Generally, they cannot be used for those items
related to community use such as swimming pools, lighted ball fields, etc. The
amount of additional revenue generated through park land dedication in this
zone will be dependent upon the level of future residential development. Also,
there are other sites within Zone 3 that may be improved with these funds.
5. Grants -The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department provides matching funds for
outdoor recreation facilities. These grants are highly competitive on a state
wide basis. Successful applications must meet numerous criteria established by
TP&WD for the grant process. All applications are reviewed and ranked in
accordance with this stated criteria. The merits of a project in the Wolf Pen
Creek Corridor would be compared to all other projects submitted from
throughout the State. The potential for success in future applications is
dependent upon this ranking system. Generally, there are more requests than
funds available and only the strongest applications are successful. This source
of funding should not be discounted, however, it must not be deemed to be
certain source either.
XI. PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS
The success of any effort to revise the master plan for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor
lies with involvement of the public during the process. The original plan was
developed with th e assistance and guidance of an appointed steering committee.
The process for the update and revision of the plan should a lso include public
input at c ritical stages. It is recommended that a structured group di scussion
process led by a team of ind epe ndent fa cilitators be utilized to achieve this end.
This method maxi mi zes the parti cipation of committee members without a ll owing
Page 7 of 19
a few strong will ed individuals to dominate the di scussions and decision making
e lements. Also, it le nds itse lf to a certain level of consensus building, as opposed
to traditional "public hearings' whi ch can turn into open-ended fo rums that tend to
favor the strongest speakers and polarize the participants.
A group of individual s will be invited to participate in this process with
representatives from a wide ra nge of backgrounds and interest levels. Both
proponents and opponents will be included in this effort. This list is included as
Table 2 (page 14). This is on th e premise that it is better to let these interested
individuals have their say early in the process rather than after key decisions have
been made. An independent facilitator is required to keep the process on track as
well as to lend a degree of objectivity to the effort. The recommendation is to
utilize a private facilitator to head this effort and provide assistance from the City
staff members who have no direct involvement in the project. A group of
approximately 80 people have been identified as potential candidates for this
process.
Two workshops are planned with a formal public hearing to be conducted once
the revised plan is in a draft format. The workshops are scheduled for February
25th and March 25th at the College Station Conference Center. Four rooms have
been reserved on these dates to a l low for break out sessions.
The main focus of the first session is to address the following questions:
1. What are the perceived problems for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
2. What are the perceived benefits of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
3. What are your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor and what do you
think the City should do in the future?
The focus of the second session will be to evaluate and prioritize the results from
the first session and to build a consensus for any recommendations regarding
c hanges to the current master plan.
The results of th ese two sessions wil l provide the framework for the staff to utilize
in developing a revised master plan that can then be presented to the appropriate
advi sory board in a public forum. The final recommendation to the TIF Board and
City Council will be developed from the additional input received at this stage.
Page 8 of 19
i ,-ar._ l.nlry ld-.rt1tf'Ctl'°" S19n
: ; Ptr\."""9 l ot
·~<.Pti.tt• Pitili
~ Plocnte Shelt•rt
~ Par•dng LOI' f.nlry
I I I
i
· "': HOLLE.MAN .. DflrvE. . .. r · !
Wolf Pen Creek
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
• P•rk Entry k1•nllflc•tlon Sl'ilf'\
. :1/i • E1.l•tln9 Ot'~ln4o• Way J
· /,;-·I:
-""--======
I
. -~~~-~.-~-~-!~~~ ~·.:.~.7,~~~:::-.:-=::~.:: :~::.:: .. /, W•l~:Scutph•9 •. _:_~·-··· ·-···---·~
s~~~~!·~_Mo~_1:'~ .~.:;.:.-.-=:.-.. ::.;_;
Historkal.Museum •• ----:· =~~~~-I~~ o;;,~,-h-Enir-.;. =--·---··-·
Ubtwy ••. -
/. . ·'
Master Plan
I • Enlry la)..a
.... · ,:;_ '"-,,
··~\
.--. u --·---·-···i--"·-.
/ /
I ...... I I .
• Propoud Col9al• E•tan•lon
.Ctty Flor•/ C'A'e.nl'M>VS .. I S&eondary Ped .. lr1an Circutatlon
• f:kM'M and Botank:a4 Cerd•na
I I • ObHrullon P,a.u
• Entry and CUI St'°9
Ne'9hbCKhood Park Op~n Space
Jt-1.1 · ..
':
Na1f\OM 0. Mao~r
--·
-0
Q,
0 200 400 600 ~
SCALE IN FEET
WOLF PEN CREEK CORRIDOR STUDY
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
GRAPHIC 2
0 200 400 600
11........ri
SCALE IN FEET
WOLF PEN CREEK CORRIDOR STUDY
C ITY OWNED PROPERTY
GRAPHIC 3
5/1 /93
5/28/93
6/10/93
7/4/93
7/18/93
7 /29/93
8/6/93
8/21/93
8/28/93
9/2/93
9/4/93
9/17/93
9/25/93
10/9/93
10/11 /93
10/15/93
10/17/93
10/31 /93
TABLE 1
WOLF PEN CREEK AMPHITHEATER EVENTS
1993 -1996
1993 Season 1994 Season
Brazos Valley Symphony Orchestra 4/9/94 Jazz Fest '94
Joe Diffie & Tim McGraw 4/10/94 Aggie Men's Club Benefit
Susanna Sharp 4/15/94 . Jerry Jeff Walker
Independence Day Celebration 4/23/94 Youth Explosion
Movie: "The Princess Bride" 5/7/94 Brazos Valley Symphony Orchestra
Miss Molly & the Whips 5/11 /94 Jackopierce
Movie: "Hook" 5/20/94 Movie: "Rookie of the Year"
Johnny Dee & the Rocket 88's 6/17/94 Movie: "Once Upon a Forest"
Worn Out Souls 7/4/94 Fourth of July Celebration
T.G. Shepard 8/20/94 Vince Vance & the Vali ants
Jerry Jeff Walker 9/10/94 Soul Hat
Dealer's Choice 9/11/94 Kid Fest '94 with Barney
St. Joseph's Dance Performance 9/24/94 Robert Earl Keen
Jackopierce 1 0/1 /94 Dixie Chicken 20th with Kelly Willis
CS ISD Choir Festival 10/15/94 David Allan Coe
Asleep at the Wheel
OPAS Jr. with Tim Chapin
Singing Cadets Benefit
18 Events 15 Events
Total Attendance: 28,760 Total Attendance: 32,513
Page 12 of 19
4/22/95
4/23/95
4/28/95
4/29/95
4/30/95
5/5/95
5/12/95
5/19/95
6/2/95
6/17/95
6/23/95
7/7/95
7/9/95
7/14/95
7/21/95
7/28/95
8/4/95
8/19/95
9/2/95
9/15/95
10/1/95
10/7/95
10/21/95
1995 Season
Earth Day/Jazz Fest
Willie Nelson & Friends
Jerry Jeff Walker
Jeff Foxworthy
Brazos Vall ey Symphony Orchestra
Cinco d e Mayo Celebration
Ty & the Semi Automatics
Safe Summer Kickoff
Comedy Night
Chri stian Mu sic Concert
Movie: "Swan Princess"
Movie: "Andre"
Against the Grain
Gary P. Nunn
Movie: "Ferngully"
Battle of the Bands
Movie: "Monkey Trouble"
Johnny Dee & the Rockett 88's
Davi d Allan Coe
Robert Earl Keen
Eddie Raven & Mi chelle Wright
Firemen's Anniversary Concert
Sponge
22 Events
Total Attendance: 21,813
3/10/96
3/30/96
3/30/96
4/7/96
4/13/96
4/18/96
4/25/96
4/27-28/96
5/4/96
5/8/96
5/14/96
5/21 /96
6/8/96
6/27/96
6/29/96
7 /1 /96
7/27/96
8/10/96
8/17/96
8/22/96
9/1 3/96
9/20/96
9/26/96
10/2/96
1 0/1 1 /96
10/18/96
10/3 1/96
Page 1 3 of 1 9
1996 Season
Buchanan Political Rally
Otis Day and the Knights
Aggieland Straight Shot Run
Easter Servi ce
Ri ck Trevino
The Maveri cks
Candle Light Vigil for Crime Victims
Jazz & Blues Festival
Cinco de Mayo w/Joel Nava
Jackopierce
CSISD High School Orchestra
Olympic Torch Relay
Movi e: "Pocahantas"
Annie Get Your Cun
Youth Theatre Production
Annie Get Your Cun
Movi e: "Babe"
Movi e: "Toy Story"
The Platters & The Drifters Concert
A&M Consol. Cross Country Track
Vet School Private Party
Robert Earl Keen
Texas A&M 12th Mania Yell
CS ISO Jr. High Cross County Track
Brazos Valley Symphony Orchestra
"V ienna Nights"
Robert Earl Keen 11
Monster Mosh Teen Concert
& Haunted House
28 Ev ents
Total Attendance: 38,869
TABLE 2
WOLF PEN CREEK
MASTER PLAN REVISION
PUBLIC INPUT PARTICIPANTS
CITY STAFF/RESOURCE GROUP
ANEL BOW
COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION
1 000 KRENEK TAP ROAD
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
JIM CALLAWAY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATIO N, TX 77840
CHARLES CRY AN
O FFI CE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET
1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE ST A TION, TX 77840
JANE KEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
11 0 1 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
DO NNIS BAGGED
THE EAGLE
P.O. BOX 3000
BRYAN, TX 77805
GEO RGE BALL
REMAX -TEXAS HERITAGE
410 1 SOUTH TEXAS AVENUE
BRYAN, TX 77801
SH ARON CO LSON
111 6 NEAL PICKETT D RIVE
COLLEGE STATI ON, TX 77845
WILLI AM FARRAR
P.O. GOX 10888
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
KENT LAZA
COLLEGE STATION ENGINEERING DEPT
1101 TEXAS AVE NUE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
ERIC PLOEGER
COLLEGE STATION PARKS & REC DEPT
1000 KRENEK TAP ROAD
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
MARK SMITH
PUBLIC WORKS
2613 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
GENERAL
DICK FORESTER
CONVENTI ON AND VISITOR'S BUREAU
715 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
THOMAS HAGGE
TAMU PHYSICAL PLANT
COLLEGE ST A TION, TX 77843
SUSAN LOWY
1018 WALTON DRIVE
COLLEGE STATIO N, TX 77840
DENNIS M ALO N EY
803 WELSH
COLLEGE STATIO N, TX 77840
Page 14 of 19
DAVID N EIL
CSISD
1812 WELSH
COLLEGE ST A TION, TX 77840
HELEN PUGH
601 FAIRVIEW
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
WILLIAM SILVIS
CBL & ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC.
1 500 HARVEY ROAD
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
BARRON HOBBS
COLLEGE STATION HILTON
801 UNIVERSITY DRIVE E.
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
GENERAi (CONT.)
RI CHARD TALBERT
426 TARROW, SUITE 106
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
LARRY WELLS
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP
203 HOLLEMAN DRIVE EAST
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
MIKE WRIGHT
KBTX-TV 3 CBS
P.O. BOX 3730
BRYAN, TX 77801
HOTEL/MOTEL
ORIGINAL WOLF PEN CREEK STEERING COMMITTEE
FRED BROWN
FRED BROWN MAZDA-BMW
3100 BRIARCREST
BRYAN, TX 77802
ANNE ERDMAN
902 PERSHIN G DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
DICK HADDO X
ANCO INSURANCE
1733 BRIARCR EST DRIVE
BRYAN, TX 77802
DEBRA ANDERSO N
2301 BROADMOOR, #22 1
BRYAN, TX 77802
ELIZABETH CUNHA
4019 TIFFANY
COLLEGE STATIO N, TX 77840
JIM JETI
1206 KING ARTHUR CIRCLE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
RON KAISER
DEPT RECREATION & TOURISM SCIENCES
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843-2261
WALTER WINDLER
1819 HONDO D RIVE
COLLEGE STATIO N, TX 77840
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
BOB DEOTIE
1208 HAINES
CO LLEG E STATIO N, TX 77840
RON GAY
2802 WILDERNESS SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
Page 15 of 19
£ARKSAblD RECREATION BOARD (CONT.)
GARY HALTER
1204 ASHBURN
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
CAROL REYNOLDS
11 04 RIO BRA VO
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
MICHAEL MANSON
T AMU DEPT. OF BIOLOGY
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843-3258
PLANNING AND ZONING REPRESENTATIVES
JULIUS GRIBOU
2102 KAZMEIER
BRYAN, TX 77802
KYLE HAWTHORNE
2914 PUEBLO COURT
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
JAMES MASSEY
3305 MILDONHALL COURT
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
STEVE PARKER
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
4001 E. 29TH STREET
BRYAN, TX 77802
PROPERTY OWNERS
ARBORS OF WOLF PEN CREEK PARTNERS
ATTN: STEVE UTLEY
8144 WALNUT HILL LN, #550 LB-6
DALLAS, TX 75231
CAMP HOLDINGS, LTD.
700 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
CHELSEA, INC
G/P FOR WOLF CREEK LUB E, LTD.
300 HARVEY ROAD
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
CLARKE & WYNDHAM, INC. ET AL
3608 E. 29TH STREET, #100
BRYAN, TX 77802
JO HN DENISON
800 CHISH O LM TRAIL, #8
SALADO, TX 76571
Page 1Gof 19
DONDACO, INC.
CIO DALE CONSTRU CTION CO.
BOX 10405
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
DON & ELORA DALE
35 12 PARKWAY TERRACE CIRCLE
BRYAN, TX 77802
FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
P.O. BOX 10276
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
LYDIA HILTON
CIO HENRY HILTON
4978 AFTON OAKS
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
HOMECRAFT ELECTRONICS
41 05 TANGLEWOOD
BRYAN, TX 77802
PROPERTY OWNERS (cont.)
JPJ INVESTMENTS & REAL ALCHEMY I, L.P.
CLARKE & WYNDHAM, INC.
3608 E. 29TH STREET, #100
BRYAN, TX 77802
SIMON KAHAN
P.O. BOX 9256
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
LACOUR INVESTMENTS
C/O TOM MCLAUGHLIN
P.O. BOX 153
KENNER, LA 70063
DAVIS &THELMA MCGILL
MCGILL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
1433 MCGILL LANE
BRYAN, TX 77808
ISRAEL & MICAELA MARTINEZ
1810 LOWRY
LAREDO, TX 78041
ORGANIZED CAPITAL, INC.
CLARKE & WYNDHAM, INC.
3608 E. 29TH STREET, #100
BRYAN, TX 77802
PIER GROUP, INC.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
6500 W FREEWAY, #600
FT WORTH, TX 76116
POOL PORTFOLIO PROPERTIES
3608 E. 29TH STREET, SUITE 100
BRYA N, TX 77802
REAL ALCHEMY I, L.P.
A TIN: STEPHEN HARTNETI
4504 WINEWOOD COURT
COLLEYVILLE, TX 76034
WALTER RUFF
3738 TRUESDE LL PLACE
DALLAS, TX 752 44
sec COLLEGE STATION PARTNERS, LTD
2121 SAGE, SUITE 380
HOUSTON, TX 77056
SANDI, INC.
300 HARVEY ROAD
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
SEARS MERCHANDISE GROUP
D/768 TAX, B2-l l 6A
3333 BEVERLY ROAD
HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60179
THE RICHARD SMITH COMPANY
4 1 1 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
SW EQUITY COMPANY
P.O. BOX 3788
BRYAN, TX 77805
TACO BELL
C/O AUSTACO, INC.
A FRANCHISEE OF TACO BELL CORP
500 CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY., BLDG #2
AUSTIN, TX 78746
TIRE AND AUTO HOLDINGS, INC.
2107 GRAND AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, MO 641 08
UNIVERSITY COMMONS-CS, LTD.
ATIN: KENT CAMPBELL
C/O CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
600 LUCKIE DRIVE, #424
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35223
WASHINGTON CHAPEL BAPTIST CHURCH
906 HOUK
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
ALVIN WILLIAMS
2900 ARROYO COURT SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
Page 17 of 19
DICK BIRDWELL
#3 FOREST DRIVE
COLLEGE ST A TION, TX 77840
DAVID HICKSON
2900 CORONADO
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
JUDGE AL JONES
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
300 E. 26TH STREET
BRYAN, TX 77801
IlEB-°ARO
HUBBARD KENNADY
424 TARROW
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
CHRIS KLIN G
1511 WAYFARER LANE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DAVID BROCHU
800 WOODLAND PARKWAY
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
KAY HENRYSON
2505 YORKTOWN
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
GEORGE MCLEAN
3942 ROBIN TRAIL
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
CHARLES ANDERSON, PASTOR
A&M UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
417 UNIVERSITY DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
RICHARD BENNING
DUDLEY'S/FOX & HOUND
311 UNIVERSITY DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
BOBBY BISOR
TAMU PERS ONNEL
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
ROBERT MOONEY
1111 HALEY PLACE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
BILL TRAINOR
8505 AMETHYST
COLLEGE ST A TION, TX 77845
INTERESTED CITIZENS
ANN BLACK
OPAS
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
JIM BUTLER
THE EAGLE
P.O. 3000
BRYAN, TX 77805
SUSA N CAUSEY
A&M CONSOLIDATED O RCH ESTRA
701 W . LOOP SO UTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
Page 18 of 19
MARC CHALOUPKA
RUDDER AUDITORIUM
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
WANDA DAISIA
BRAZOS VALLEY TROUPE
P.O. BOX 9633
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
TONY DA VI DSON
THE EAGLE
P.O. BOX 3000
BRYAN, TX 77805
WILLIAM GREEN
THIRD DAY CREATIONS
900 N. TEXAS AVENUE
BRYAN, TX 77802
MICHAEL GREENWALD
TAMU THEATER DEPT.
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
JAMES HAISLETI
ROM AUDIO
3602 EAST 29TH STREET, SUITE A
BRYAN, TX 77802
YVONNE HALL
SHILOH BAPTIST CHURCH
502 MARTIN LUTHER KING
BRYAN, TX 77802
BARBARA CHILES HAYNES
2111 WAYSIDE DR
BRYAN, TX 77802
ADAM DAVIDSON
HUMAN RESO URCES DEPT
CITY O F COLLEG E STATI O N
11 01 TEXAS AVENU E
COLLE GE STATIO N, TX 77840
INTERESTED CITIZENS (CONT.)
RUTH M O RALES
LU LAC
11 05 ANDERSON
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
HAROLD PRESLEY
MIX 104
MANOR EAST MALL
BRYAN, TX 77802
DAVE SALMON
UNIVERSITY TOWN HALL
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
STEVE SHROTH
HONEY B HAM
2416 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
RON WHITE
A&M CONSOLI DA TED
701 W. LOOP SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
ANNWIATI
BV SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
PO BOX 3524
BRYAN, TX 77805
WORKSHOP fACI LITATORS
JULIE O'CONNELL
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
CITY OF COLLEGE ST A TION
11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
KAREN PA VLI NSKI
HUMAN RESO URCES DEPT
CITY O F COLLEGE STATI ON
1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATIO N, TX 77840
Page 19 of 19
April 1, 1997
CITY OF COi .I .EGE STATION
Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 7 7842-9960
( 409) 764-3500
MEMORANDUM
ERIC PLOEGER
C OLLEGE STATION P ARKS & RECREATION
1000 KRENEK TAP RD
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
TO: ~ v.Jolf Pen Creek Master Plan Revision Project Participants
FROM: ~Steve Beachy, Director of Parks & Recreation
SUBJECT: Results of March 25th Workshop
Enclosed are the results of the second and final workshop that was conducted on March 25th at the
College Station Conference Center. Forty five people participated in the workshop which focused
on "What are your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor and what do you think that the
City should do in the future?"
The group decided to conduct a second vote on the categories from the first workshop with the .. , ,
"lack of understanding of the original master plan" and "lack of public support for the original
master plan" considered as two separate issues. This was accomplished during the workshop and
the new results are included with this packet.
The results from the second workshop are listed as the top five categories for each of the two parts
of the main question. They are based upon the numerical scores from the votes conducted during
the workshop. These results will be presented to the Wolf Pen Creek Tax Increment Financing
District Board on April 4th, The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on April 8th and the
Planning and Zoning Commission. on April 17th for their review and comment. With input from
these appointed bodies, a final report including recommendations and findings will be presented to
the City Council in June for their consideration.
Thank you for you time and assistance with th.is project. The results of the two workshops will be
very helpful in the formulation of the recommendations to the City Council. Your efforts are
greatly appreciated.
. ,.
' "
WOLF PEN CREEK
MASTER PLAN REVISION WORKSHOP
March 25, 1997
Re-ranking of question no. 1 (from 2/25/97)
What are the perceived problems for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
Lack of understanding of the original master plan 2 1 5 4 6 5 3 6 6 4 3 6 4 3 3 2 6 6 5 6 6 1 6 5 6 5 6 6
Lack of public support of the original master plan 6 2 6 3 6 5 6 4 5 4 6 4 5 3 5 2 6 4 5 5 6 2 3 6 4 6 3 4 5 6 5 4
Drainage and erosion 3 3 4 6 4 4 3 5 4 2 3 5 3 6 3 5 5 1 3 4 4 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5
Implementation of master plan 5 4 3 5 5 3 4 1 3 5 5 6 4 5 4 4 2 2 4 2 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 2 6 3 3 3 3
Development process 4 5 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2
Serving of alcohol at amphitheater 6 2 6 0 0 0 6 6. 5 4 2 2 2
What are the perceived problems for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
Development process
Implementation of master plan
Lack of understanding of the
original master plan
0 20 40 60
TOP FIVE
80 100 120 140 160 180
TOTAL
4 1 5 6 3 6 3 5 3 5 4 2 179
3 4 6 3 2 2 6 6 5 6 5 5 200
5 3 2 2 3 5 2 6 3 3 3 172
2 3 5 6 5 4 4 2 4 6 6 167
2 5 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 2 2 4 132
6 6 0 1 5 86
200
WOLF PEN CREEK
MASTER PLAN REVISI ON WORKSHOP
25-Mar-97
GROUP COMPILATIONS
What are your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
1. Implement th e vision of the original plan.
2. City-developed corridor (the City should purchase land and develop the corridor itself).
3. Fix waterways and bike trails in Wolf Pen Creek Corridor.
4. Scale down master plan as has been modified by existing development.
5. Expand to cross Texas and connect across Hwy. 6 Bypass.
What are your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
Expand to cross Texas and connect
across Hwy. 6 Bypass.
Scale down master plan as has been
modified by existing development.
Fix waterways and bike trails in Wolf Pen
Creek Corridor.
City-developed corridor (the City should
purchase land and develop the corridor
Implement the vision of th e original plan.
TOP FIVE
0 50 100 150 200
Total Points
237
69
65
47
24
250
What are your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
1. Waterways, bikeways, green area developed first. Floodplain developed into greenspace
with sidewalks.
2. O riginal master plan too big --scale down master plan and keep hike/bike and reduce
district.
3. Beautify waterways. Develop northwest waterways within the next five years to address
erosion in eastern part.
4. Fiesta market place/tourist attraction. Economical viable public/private give College
Station a central node or focus.
5. Drainage utility developed to encourage development of available commercial property.
GR_OUP 2
1. Place for citizens, tourists, and visitors to enjoy shopping, eating, entertainment, arts, and
relaxing in an aesthetic setting while solving drainage problems.
2. Open park greenway with some commercial area, mainly retail. Focus on creek and
plaza walkway open space. Continue stage plan for lake/drainage control.
3. Well-managed drainage way with greenbelt, walking and bike paths. Fix sediment
problem.
3a. Clean environment neighborhood that respects all.
office/fi nancial. Protect churches from bars/al cohol.
3b. Encourage developers to develop projects that are:
• attractive to tourists
• diversified use for w hole population
• free of alcohol-related bus iness
• complete waterway in designated lime
Art gallery, professional
GROUP3
1. Complete the development of master plan and m ake abso lute commitment to completi on.
2. Series of lakes, ponds, trai ls for entire length of WPC Corridor with residential,
commercial and publicly-owned development oriented to the creek.
3. Create an ecologically stable area for recreation/leisure and to protect a piece of
environment in College Station.
4. Development of city-owned property.
5. Better control of development east of amphitheater.
GROUP4
1. Implement th e vi sion of the original master plan.
2. City-developed corridor.
3a. A combination of parks, arts, entertainment and commerce that stretches from beyond the
Highway 6 Bypass to T AMU along a creekscaped waterway.
3b. Control drainage and an arts and entertainment center w ithout control of commercial
development.
WOLF PEN CREEK
MASTER PLAN REVISION WORKSHOP
25-Mar-97
GROUP COMPILATIONS
What do you think the City should do in the future?
1. Acquire easements or right-of-ways from TAMU to Hwy. 6 and put in erosion/drainage
and enchancement features as specified in the WPC master plan. Maintain zoning
and codes stringently as area develops. Develop marketing/communication program
for the area.
2. Develop drainage ways to minimize erosion and reduce sedimentation.
3. Educate public on WPC, marketing. Make commitment to plan. Build public/private
partnerships create separate organization like "River Authority" to see project through.
4. Fix waterway and put in sidewalks.
5. Develop specific plan of creek area where to provide parking, bike and walk ways,
benches, and other features --so future commercial development will not limit access
to creek
Develop specific plan of creek area
where to provide parking, bike and
Fix waterway and put in sidewalks.
Educate public on WPC,
What do you think the City should do in the future?
TOP FIVE
marketing. Make commitment to ~¥+~~~~~"'*~
Develop drainage ways to minimize
erosion and reduce sedimentation .
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Total Points
128
41
38
36
33
140
---·----
-.f' .
What should the city do in the future?
Group 1
1. Fix waterway and put in sidewalks.
2a. Educate public on WPC, marketing. Make commitment to plan ..
2b. Build public/private partnerships create separate organization like "River Authority" to see
project through
3. Obtain public support and understanding prior to implementation.
4. Have city make physical commitment in area. (I.e., municipal buildings/facilities)
Sa. Implement drainage plan/scale back district.
Sb. Prepare engineerin g study to address silt
1. Develop drainage ways to minimize erosion and reduce sedimentation.
2. Develop specific plan of creek area where to provide parking, bike and walkways,
benches, and other features --so future development will not limit access to creek.
3. Seek fed eral and state funds (with TIF) to develop trails and park-type areas, in concert
with erosion control to attract business interests.
4. City provide parking lot on city-owned property (under utility lines).
S. City should be open and informative to tax payers as to fu ture plans of WPC.
Group 3
1. Develop implementation plan (less conceptual, more detail ed th an master plan).
2. Develop the fl oodway in accordan ce with the master plan.
3. Create publi c support.
4. Stabilize embankment and solve silt problem.
5. Contin uation of lakes and st reams towards bypass.
~ '::--.
Group 4
1. Acquire easements or right-of-ways from TAMU to Hwy. 6 Bypass and put in
erosion/drainage and enhancement features as specified in the WPC master plan.
Maintain zoning and codes stringently as area develops.
Develop a marketing/communication program for the area.
MEMORANDUM
March 17, 1997
TO: j/ J:, JJ~olf Pen Creek Master Plan Revision Project Participants
FROM: fJf Steve Beachy, Director of Parks & Recreation
SUBJECT: Results of February 25th Workshop
Enclosed are the results of the first workshop that was conducted on February 25th at the
Conference Center. This workshop focused on the perceived problems and benefits of the Wolf
Pen Creek Corridor. At the conclusion of the workshop, staff was directed to place the comments
into like categories and include them on a ballot to be mailed to each participant. This was
accomplished utilizing several of the facilitators. Ideally, it is preferred that this process be
accomplished in the group setting to ensure consensus for the final listing.
One respondent felt that the staff combined two items that should have been listed separately on the
ballot. These were the "lack of understanding" and "lack of public support" for the master
plan. With his pennission, I have included his letter and will offer a revised ballot at the next
meeting if there is additional support from the other participants related to this concern. We want
to ensure that the participants have confidence with the process and that the results are
representative of the participants without influence from the City staff. This will be the first item
of discussion at the next workshop.
One other letter was received regarding the overall process and the need to follow through with the
master plan and the results this project. It has also been included with pennission of the author.
Thirty-five ballots were returned from the thirty-nine participants. These results are p rovided as
the total number of points scored for each item on the ballot and in graph format with average
scores. Several particip211ts did not enter ra!lk!ngs for every category. The resu!ts are bused upo:~
only those numbers that were actually entered and "()"being used for any category that was left
blank.
The next workshop wil l be on Tuesday, March 25th at 6pm in Room 101 of the College Station
Conference Center. This will be the final phase of the nominal group process and the focus will
be "What arc your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor and what do y ou think that the
City should do in the future?". The same fo nnat will be used fo r thi s workshop and food will be
provided once again
I want to thank each of you fo r your time and in put 011 tl 11s pro_1ect. These resul ts ''di provide th e
fou11datio11 for any proposed re\1isions to the mas ter pla11 that 11il l be presented to the appropriate
Goards. Aclvi sorv Commi ttees and City lOL111cil for their co11 ~1dcra ti o11 bter th is year.
..
WOLF PEN CREEK CORRIDOR
MASTER PLAN WORKSHOP
FEBRUARY 25, 1997
A total of 35 ranking sheets were returned from 39 participants
What are the perceived problems of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
Development process
Lack of understanding and ~ilim
public support
000 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
-----------------------------------~
What are the perceived benefits of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
Transportation
Economic development
Focal point for the community
0 00 0 50 1 00 1 so 2.00 2.50 3 00 3 50
What are the perceived problems of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
PROBLEMS
I ,H k of umlcrsta 11cJi11g ancJ public suppo 11 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5
l)1.1i11.1gc ,lfld cmsio n 2 3 4 4 2 2 4 2 2
l111plt•1 11l't1t,1tio11 oi111aster plan 3 5 1 1 4 5 5 4 3
Dcvclop111c 11t process 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 4
Scrv i11g alcohol d l a111pliitheater 1 1 2 5 1 1 2 1
\'\'hat arc the perceived benefits of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
BENEFITS
llllfJIO\'l'd d1.1 i11.1gc 2 3 5 5 2 2 5 4
Wolf Pen Creek Corridor
Master Plan Workshop
February 25, 1997
4 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 1 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 2 3 4 3 5 5 5
5 4 4 2 2 4 5 2 2 4 2 4 3 4 2 5 2 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 4
3 1 3 5 3 2 3 3 5 1 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 3 5 5 3 2 2
2 2 2 3 4 3 2 4 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 3 3
1 5 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2
5 4 3 3 4 5 2 4 5 3 3 2 5 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 5 5 5 5
Rl'Cl(',1ti o 11 <:Jlld cultural acti vities 4 5 0 0 3 3 4 2 4 4 3 5 4 2 3 2 5 3 3 2 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 3 4 0 4
1·oct1 I point fo r the community 5 4 0 0 5 5 3 3 5 3 1 4 3 4 1 4 4 2 2 1 4 5 2 5 3 4 2 5 4 5 5 2 0 2
1· COllOl ll i (° dl'V('I op111c11 t 3 2 0 0 4 4 2 5 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 1 1 4 5 2 3 3 3 5 2 4 2 3 2 4 3 0 3
I 1,i1isportc1ti o 11 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 2 1 3 5 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Total Points Average
145 4.14
118 3.37
108 3.09
100 2.86
50 1.4 3
Total Points Average
11 9 3.40
"116 3.31
108 3.09
98 2.80
48 ·1.37
TELEPHONE 409 -846 -2055
RICHARD D. TALBERT, P. C.
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
424 TARROW. SUITE 103
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
March 6, 1997
Mr. Steve Beachy, Director of Parks & Recreation
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842-9960
RE: Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan Workshop Survey.
Dear Mr. Beachy:
TELECOPIER 409 · 8'6 · 1272
I was a participant in your workshop regarding the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan,
Perceived Problems and Benefits. In reviewing the final ballot for us to evaluate, I see that you
combined lack of understanding and public support as one problem area, in spite of repeated
discussions at the workshop regarding the difference between the two. It seems to me that you
do not understand the difference between the public's lack of understanding of the project, and
the public's lack of support for the project. It may be inconceivable to you that someone would
understand the project, but not support it. However, there are many in this community who do
understand the Wolf Pen Creek theme and project, but do not support it. There are others who
do not understand the project as a whole. However, your combining the two makes the ballot
as to those issues, meaningless.
You were there at the workshop when this point was made repeatedly: that there are two
separate issues and distinct differences between the public's lack of understanding of the project,
and the public's lack of support for the project. I think that your combining the two into one
statement is not fair, and that the resulting ballot will not properly reflect the evaluation of these
two different issues. Your insistence that these two issues be lumped together indicates to me
that you have disregarded the participants' input into the evaluation process, or have decided on
your own to structure the ballot in a preconceived manner.
If you w ill look at the responses yo u will see that three separate groups identified lack of
publi c support as a separate issue, and at least three id entified lack of public understanding or
percepti on. However, in spite of th ese separate li stings with di stinct meanings by the groups,
there was onl y one group th at had th e servin g as alcohol as an issue. Yet the serving of alco hol
was a separate issue, but lack of publi c support was not li sted as a separate issue. I think rhat
thi s is a bad mi stake, and in my mind, greatly dec reases the validity of th e ballot and the
workshop process in general. If you \VOul d li ke to discuss th is further with me, you may
ce rtain ly give me a ca ll.
Sincerely yours,
;11/Jil~
Richard D. Talbert, P.C.
RDT:bre
2
..
March 2, 1997
Mr. Steve Beac hy
Director, Parks and Recr ea tion
City of College Stati on
College Station, Texas
Dear Steve:
Thank you for providing l ea dership in addressing the on-going problems
at WPC. Identifying the problems was relatively easy. Solving them is
quite another subject!
My greatest fear is that all of this wor k will simply become another
expense--hiring another consultant to prepare another study/charrette/
master plan that will, again, not be impl eme nted. I, personally, don't
see much wrong with the OLD master plan--except for the fact that it
has never been used very much.
I am convinced, both by the di sc ussion at the recent meetin.g and since
that time, that if the city would acq uire easements (or right-of-way)
from the top of the hill all the way to the bottom and, in an attractive
way, put in erosion/drainage materials together with walk ways, lighting,
( 11 creek-scape11 ) and pro vi de entrances and exits (for pedestrians and
bikers) from existing streets, it would be amazing how fast growth and
development would occur. It isn't necessary for the city to OWN the land
--it just needs to do what it already doe s with re spect to drainage,
utilities, etc. Zoning will take care of the rest (if waivers aren't
given carte blanche). And, those easements need not cost money to acquire.
Lan downers should be willing to grant the easements in return for the
improvements that will occur on their property. Yes, I am saying that
individuals NOT be assessed for these improve ment s . It will be cheaper to
the city (an d, ultimately, the taxpayer) in the long run, than continuing
to pour more money into the sil t in g probl em .
While I have ranked the problems as yo u requested on the attached form,
"more of the same " problems will continue if communicat i on , dra inage/
eros ion control, and impl ementation of the mas t e r plan are not worked
with as a combined effort. WPC wa s here before the mas ter plan and it
will be here long after al l of us are gon e . It is a part of a very l arge
waterway--but it ca n be a wonderful asse t .
Wh en I was chairman of the Parks Boa rd, you wi ll reca ll th at I sent a memo
on behalf of t he Bo a rd to Mayor La rry Rin ger whi ch sa id:
"The Parks and Recreation Bo ard memb ers stand rea dy t o ass ist Coun cil in
proj ec t in g i ts vi s i on of t he Wolfe Pe n Creek Pl an to t he vote rs in Col l ege
Station . We be liev e that thi s ambi t ious project wi ll impact pos itively t he
development of t he c ity over th e next tw o deca des . Not onl y will Ph ase I
en hance the c i t y's image in t erms of qua l i ty of li fe f or i t s c iti ze ns by
-Lette r to Steve Beachy, p. 2
linking par ks and ar t s ; but by initi atin g Ph ase II , bus iness and commer ce
will be drawn into the equati on, too, so th at the tota l co mm unity can fee l
own e rship in the ef fort . Shoul d spea ke r s or adv oc a tes be nee ded as the
informati on is shared with the publi c , all of our mem ber s are eage r and
anxious to help in the process ." To my knowl edge , no one was as ked to
help. The rest is hi story.
Good luc k with future efforts, Steve. I still beli eve in t he original plan.
Sincerely,
Sharon Co l son
1116 Neal Pickett St.
College Station, TX 7784 0
409-696-6050
Just The Fax •••
Co((ege Station Parks & Recreation Department
1000 Krenek Tap Rd.
P.O. Box 9960
Co((ege Station, TX. 77842
( 409) 764-3486
fax ( 409) 764-3737
=
Date : __ _._(_O_,...._c_o_r_(_7 _______ _
Tota( # of pages (incCmlin9 cover) : __ _,_~-----
Con tact : ____ _.__t2--"-'--r _" \.___ __ :?____,_f_-/_J_~ ____ _
Comments: -----------------
We Provide Good Tliin9s In Life!
March 17, 1997
CITY OF COi .I .EGE STATION
Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-9960
(409) 764-3500
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan Revision Project Participants FROM:~reve Beachy, Director of Parle; & Recreation
SUBJECT: Results of February 25th Workshop
Enclosed are the results of the first workshop that was conducted on February 25th at the
Conference Center. This workshop focused on the perceived problems and benefits of the Wolf
Pen Creek Corridor. At the conclusion of the workshop, staff was directed to place the comments
into like categories and include them on a ballot to be mailed to each participant. This was
accomplished utilizing several of the facilitators. Ideally, it is preferred that this process be
accomplished in the group setting to ensure consensus for the final listing.
One respondent felt that the staff combined two items that should have been listed separately on the
ballot. These were the "lack of understanding" and "lack of public support" for the master
plan. With his permission, I have included his letter and will offer a revised ballot at the next
meeting if there is additional support from the other participants related to this concern. We want
to ensure that the participants have confidence with the process and that the results are
representative of the participants without influence from the City staff. This will be the first item
of discussion at the next workshop.
One other letter was received regarding the overall process and the need to follow through with the
master plan and the results this project. It has also been included with permission of the author.
Thirty-five ballots were returned from the thirty-nine participants. These results are provided as
the total number of points scored for each item on the ballot and in graph format with average
scores. Several participants did not enter rankings for every category. The results are based upon
only those numbers that were actually entered and "()"being used for any category that was left
blank.
The next workshop will be on Tuesday, March 25th at 6pm in Room 101 of the College Station
Conference Center. This will be the final phase of the nominal group process and the focus will
be ''What are your visions for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor and what do you think that the
City should do in the future?". The same format will be used for this workshop and food will be
provided once again.
I want to thank each of you for yo ur tin1e and input on this project. These results will provide the
foundation for any proposed revisions to the master plan that will be presented to the appropriate
Boards, Advisory Committees and City Council for th eir consideration later this year.
:, 1_;
(
\
WOLF PEN CREEK CORRIDOR
MASTER PLAN WORKSHOP
FEBRUARY 25, 1997
A total of 35 ranking sheets were returned from 39 participants.
What are the perceived problems of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
Development process
Implementation of master plan
Drainage and erosion
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
What are the perceived benefits of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
Transportation
Focal point for the community
Recreation and cultural
activities
4.00
0 00 0.50 1 00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
4.50
3.50
Wolf Pen Creek Corridor
Master Plan Workshop
February 25, 1997
What a re the perceived problems of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
PRO BLEMS
Lack oi understanding and public support
Drai nage and erosion
Implementation of master plan
Development process
Serving alcohol at amphitheater
5 2 5 3 5 4 1 5 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 1 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 2 3 4 3 5 5 5
2 3 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 5 4 4 2 2 4 5 2 2 4 2 4 3 4 2 5 2 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 4
3 5 1 1 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 5 3 2 3 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 3 5 5 3 2 1 2
4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 4 3 2 4 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 3 3
112 5 1 1 2 11 151 1 1 11 14311111 11 11 1 0112
What are the perceived benefits of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor?
BENEFITS
Improved drainage
Recrea tion and cultural activities
Foca l point for the community
Economic development
Transportation
2 3 5 5 2 2 5 4 1 5 4 3 1 3 4 5 2 4 5 3 3 2 5 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 5 5 5 5
4 5 0 0 3 3 4 2 4 4 3 5 4 2 3 2 5 3 3 2 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 3 4 0 4
5 4 0 0 5 5 3 3 5 3 4 3 4 1 4 4 2 2 1 4 5 2 5 3 4 2 5 4 5 5 2 0 2
3 2 0 0 4 4 2 5 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 1 4 5 2 3 3 3 5 2 4 2 3 2 4 3 0 3
11001111 21 51 2121351 4111111111111 0
Tota l Points Average
145
118
108
100
50
Tota l Points
119
116
108
98
48
4.14
3.37
3.09
2.86
1.43
Average
3.40
3.3 1
3.09
2.8 0
1.37
WOLF PEN CREEK
MASTER PLAN REVISION
POTENTIAL PUBLIC INPUT PARTICIPANTS
CITY STAFF
JIM CALLAWAY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
CHARLES CRY AN
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET
1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
GENERAL
DONNIS BAGGETT
THE EAGLE
P.O. BOX 3000
BRYAN, TX 77805
GEORGE BALL
REMAX-TEXAS HERITAGE
4101 SOUTH TEXAS AVENUE
BRYAN, TX 77801
SHARON COLSON
1116 NEAL PICKETI DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
DICK FORESTER
CONVENTION AND VISITOR'S BUREAU
715 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
THOMAS HAGGE
T AMU PHYSICAL PLANT
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843
DENNIS MALONEY
803 WELSH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
JANE KEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
MARK SMITH
PUBLIC WORKS
2613 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
DAVID NEIL
CSISD
1812 WELSH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
HELEN PUGH
601 FAIRVIEW
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
WILLIAM SILVIS
CBL & ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC.
1500 HARVEY ROAD
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
LARRY WELLS
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP
203 HOLLEMAN DRIVE EAST
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
MIKE WRIGHT
KBTX-TV 3 CBS
P.O. BOX 3730
BRYAN, TX 77801
HOTEL/MOTEL
BARRON HOBBS
COLLEGE STATION HILTON
801 UNIVERSITY DRIVE E.
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
ORIGINAL WOLF PEN CREEK STEERING COMMITTEE
FRED BROWN
FRED BROWN MAZDA-BMW
3100 BRIARCREST
BRYAN, TX 77802
ANNE ERDMAN
902 PERSHING DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
DICK HADDOX
ANCOINSURANCE
1733 BRIARCREST DRIVE
BRYAN, TX 77802
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
DEBRA ANDERSON
2301 BROADMOOR, #221
BRYAN, TX 77802
ELIZABETH CUNHA
4019 TIFFANY
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
BOB DEOTTE
1208 HAINES
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
RON GAY
2802 WILDERNESS SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
JIM JETT
1206 KING ARTHUR CIRCLE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
RON KAISER
DEPT RECREATION & TOURISM SCIENCES
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843-2261
WALTER WINDLER
1819 HONDO DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
GARY HALTER
1204 ASHBURN
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
MICHAEL MANSON
T AMU DEPT. OF BIOLOGY
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77843-3258
CAROL REYNOLDS
1104 RIO BRAVO
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
PLANNING AND ZONING REPRESENTATIVES
JULIUS GRIBOU
2102 KAZMEIER
BRYAN, TX 77802
STEVE PARKER
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
4001 E. 29TH STREET
BRYAN, TX 77802
2
PROPERTY OWNERS
ARBORS OF WOLF PEN CREEK PARTNERS
ATTN: STEVE UTLEY
8144 WALNUT HILL LN , #550 LB-6
DALLAS, TX 75231
CAMP HOLDINGS, LTD.
700 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
CHELSEA, INC
G/P FOR WOLF CREEK LUBE, LTD.
300 HARVEY ROAD
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
CLARKE & WYNDHAM, INC. ET AL
3608 E. 29TH STREET, #100
BRYAN, TX 77802
JOHN DENISON
800 CHISHOLM TRAIL, #8
SALADO, TX 76571
DONDACO, INC.
C/O DALE CONSTRUCTION CO.
BOX 10405
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
DON & ELORA DALE
3512 PARKWAY TERRACE CIRCLE
BRYAN, TX 77802
DON DALE MANAGEMENT & TRUST
POOH'S PARK DEVELOPMENT LTD.
3512 PARKWAY TERRACE CIRCLE
BRYAN, TX 77802
FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
P.O. BOX 10276
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
LYDIA HILTON
C/O HENRY HILTON
4978 AFTON OAKS
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
HOMECRAFT ELECTRONICS
4105 TANGLEWOOD
BRYAN, TX 77802
JPJ INVESTMENTS & REAL ALCHEMY I, L.P.
CLARKE & WYNDHAM, INC . '
3608 E. 29TH STREET, #100
BRYAN , TX 77802
SIMON KAHAN
P.O. BOX 9256
CO LLEGE STATION, TX 77842
LACOUR INVESTMENTS
C/O TOM MCLAUGHLIN
P.O. BOX 153
KENNER, LA 70063
DAVIS &THELMA MCGILL
MCGILL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
1433 MCGILL LANE
BRYAN, TX 77808
ISRAEL & MICAELA MARTINEZ
1810 LOWRY
LAREDO, TX 78041
ORGANIZED CAPITAL, INC.
CLARKE & WYNDHAM, INC.
3608 E. 29TH STREET, #100
BRYAN, TX 77802
PIER GROUP, INC.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
6500 W FREEWAY, #600
FT WORTH, TX 76116
POOL PORTFOLIO PROPERTIES
3608 E. 29TH STREET, SUITE 100
BRYAN, TX 77802
REAL ALCHEMY I, L.P.
ATTN: STEPHEN HARTNETT
4504 WINEWOOD COURT
COLLEYVILLE, TX 76034
WALTER RUFF
3738 TRUESDELL PLACE
DALLAS, TX 75244
sec COLLEGE STATION PARTNERS, LTD
2121 SAGE, SUITE 380
HOUSTON, TX 77056
SANDI, INC.
300 HARVEY ROAD
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
SEARS MERCHANDISE GROUP
D/768 TAX, B2-116A
3333 BEVERLY ROAD
HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60179
THE RICHARD SMITH COMPANY
411 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
SW EQUITY COMPANY
P.O. BOX 3788
BRYAN, TX 77805
3
PROPERTY OWNERS, CONT.
TACO BELL
C/O AUSTACO, INC.
A FRANCHISEE OF TACO BELL CORP
500 CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY., BLDG #2
AUSTIN, TX 78746
TIRE AND AUTO HOLDINGS, INC.
2107 GRAND AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
UNIVERSITY COMMONS-CS, LTD.
ATTN: KENT CAMPBELL
C/O CAPSTONE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
600 LUCKIE DRIVE, #424
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35223
TIF BOARD
DICK BIRDWELL
#3 FOREST DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
DAVID HICKSON
2900 CORONADO
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
JUDGE AL JONES
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
300 E. 26TH STREET
BRYAN, TX 77801
WASHINGTON CHAPEL BAPTIST CHURCH
906 HOLIK
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
ALVIN WILLIAMS
2900 ARROYO COURT SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
HUBBARD KENNADY
424 TARROW
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
CHRIS KLING
1113 ASHBURN AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DAVID BROCHU
800 WOODLAND PARKWAY
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
KAY HENRYSON
2505 YORKTOWN
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
GEORGE MCLEAN
3942 ROBIN TRAIL
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
ROBERT MOONEY
1111 HALEY PLACE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
BILL TRAINOR
8505 AMETHYST
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
4
WOLF PEN CREEK PROSPECTIVE MASTER PLAN SUPPORTERS
CHARLES ANDERSON, PASTOR
A&M UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
417 UNIVERSITY DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
RICHARD BENNING
DUDLEY'S/FOX & HOUND
311 UNIVERSITY DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
BOBBY BISOR
T AMU PERSONNEL
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
ANN BLACK
OPAS
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
JIM BUTLER
THE EAGLE
P.O. 3000
BRYAN, TX 77805
SUSAN CAUSEY
A&M CONSOLIDATED ORCHESTRA
701 W. LOOP SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
MARC CHALOUPKA
RUDDER AUDITORIUM
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
WANDA DAISIA
BRAZOS VALLEY TROUPE
P.O. BOX 9633
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77842
TONY DAVIDSON
THE EAGLE
P.O. BOX 3000
BRYAN, TX 77805
WILLIAM GREEN
THIRD DAY CREATIONS
900 N. TEXAS AVENUE
BRYAN, TX 77802
MICHAEL GREENWALD
TAMU THEATER DEPT.
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
JAMES HAISLETT
RDM AUDIO
3602 EAST 29TH STREET, SUITE A
BRYAN, TX 77802
YVONNE HALL
SHILOH BAPTIST CHURCH
502 MARTIN LUTHER KING
BRYAN, TX 77802
RUTH MORALES
LU LAC
1105 ANDERSON
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
HAROLD PRESLEY
MIX 104
MANOR EAST MALL
BRYAN, TX 77802
DAVE SALMON
UNIVERSITY TOWN HALL
TAMU
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844
STEVE SHROTH
HONEYS HAM
2416 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
RON WHITE
A&M CONSOLIDATED
701 W . LOOP SOUTH
COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
ANN WIATT
BV SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
PO BOX 3524
BRYAN, TX 77805
5
A Presentation on the Documentation and Analysis of The
Wolf Pen Creek Design Charette and Focus Group Meeting
SCHEDULE
• Introduction
Presented By:
Stephen Hill and Asma Naz
Graduate Student, Master of Urban Planning
Dept of LAUP, Texas A & M University
Instructor:
Dr. Marlynn L. May
Professor, LAUP, Texas A & M University
Organized by
Kay Henryson & Steve Beachy
Tuesday, December 12
4:00 -5:30 pm
City Council Chambers, College Station City Hall
1101 Texas A venue, Coll ege Station, TX 77845
Stephen Hill and Asma Naz, are both Graduate Students of
Urban Planning at Texas A & M University. They are asked
by Kay Henryson, Steve Beachy and Dr. Marlynn May to
produce a Final Rep ort (as part of their class project) which
will serve as a documentation of the Wolf Pen Creek Design
Charette activities & experience, the Focus Group meeting
that followed, and finally, to provide analysis and
recommendation as observers, participants, future planners.
Foreword, Organization of Presentation
Time: 5 minutes
• The Wolf pen Creek Design Charette 2000
Introduction, Organization and Summary of work by each Charette team
Time: approx 30 minutes
Discussion: approx 10 minutes
• The Focus Group Meeting
o Introduction, Purpose and Organization
o Discussion agenda: brief summary of work of each team, The Ranking Poll and
Discussion concerning the Final Report
Time: approx. 15 minutes
• Analysis of information and Proposed Recommendation
Analysis and Recommendation: Wolf Pen Creek Charette
Analysis and Recommendation: Focus Group Meeting
Time: approx. 30 minutes
Good Afternoon ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the presentation.
The Wolf Pen Creek Design Charette took place on October 20 & 21 in response to the
need of public participation and consensus building in the design development stage of
the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. The participants were comprised of members from the
community, city staff, landowners, developers and students. They were divided into 9
teams, and each group had the responsibility to consider a different part of the Wolf Pen
Creek Corridor. The aim was to create a synergy of ideas and proposals, leading to a
realizable plan for Wolf Pen Creek. It was our responsibility to assemble & document the
design proposals from all of the teams and reproduce them in the Final Report.
The Focus Group meeting was a direct follow-up of the Charette, where we played the
role of moderators. The aim of the focus group was to generate discussion among
participants, ask questions, interact, re-evaluate and reconsider the understanding of their
specific experiences as well as ours. It was an effort to explore a solution as a unit, rather
than individuals. The participants were selected on the basis of their involvement as team
leaders of the Design Charette teams and their affiliation with the Brazos Valley Chapter
of the American Institute of Architects. They were asked to analyze and prioritize
development phases of Wolf Pen Creek and also provide feedback on the production of
this Final Report.
The Final Report that we are presenting tonight, is a compilation of information gathered
from both the Charette and the Focus Group meeting.
Our presentation will focus on three topics:
-The Wolf Pen Creek Design Charette
-The Focus Group meeting
-And finally, our analysis and recommendations as observers, planners and participants.
After the discussion of each topic, we invite your questions and thoughts in response to
the presented material. Please feel free to ask for clarification or to share your point of
view. We hope to create a dialogue for the further refinement of the master plan and a
continuation of the conversation beyond this event.
Focus-Group Meeting: Ranking poll
The participants were asked to rank each of the design proposals they made m the
Charette by priority. Ranking was based on:
• Design Feasibility
• Logical Order of Completion
• Importance to Overall Concept
Ballots were supplied to the participants to rank their proposals in the order of least
important to the most important.
Priority of design proposal Based on "Design Feasibility"
1st : Trail system
2nd: Gateways and Identity
3rd: Transportation
4th: Festival Area
5th: Lower Corridor
6th: South Quadrant
7th: Upper Corridor I South
8th: North Quadrant
9th: Upper Corridor/North
Priority of design proposal Based on "Logical order of Development"
1st : Trail system
2nd: Gateways and Identity
3rd: Transportation
4th: Festival Area
5th: South Quadrant
6th: Lower Corridor
7th: Upper Corridor/North
8th: North Quadrant
9th: Upper Corridor/South
Priority of design proposal Based on "Importance to Overall Concept"
1st : Trail system
2nd: Gateways and Identity
3rd: Festival Area
4th: Transportation
5th: North Quadrant
6th: Upper Corridor/ North
Upper Corridor/South
7th: Lower Corridor
8th: South Quadrant
The Participants selected the Trail System and Gateways & identity as their 1st and 2nd
priority of development respectively based on all three criterion. Transportation has
become the next most important development issue to consider. The development of
Festival Area has also been considered as another design proposal of importance.
AGENDA
City of College Station
Special Joint Meeting
City Council, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Planning and Zoning Commission
Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board
Wolf Pen Creek Tax Increment Finance Board
Tuesday, December 12, 2000
4:00 -5:30 p.m.
College Station City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Discussion and possible action regarding the development of the Wolf Pen Creek
Design Charette. Presentations will focus on the results of the Wolf Pen Creek
Charette Working Groups, analysis, and suggestions for future direction. The
Wolf Pen Creek 2000 Design Charette is intended to support the revitalization of
the existing master plan for the Wolf Pen Corridor with emphasis on Parks, Arts
and Commerce.
2. Adjourn.
APPROVED:
I certify that this agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building, 1101
Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas on December 8, 2000 at 5:00 p.m.
&ri01~fJhl
City Secretary Connie Hooks
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 (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
Wolf Pen Creek
Charette
2000
College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future.
WOLF PEN CREEK CHARETTE 2000
Table of Contents
I. Team .Rosters
II. Charette Team Locations
Ill. Vision for Wolf Pen Creek Goals
IV. Design Charette Restrictions
V. Identified Funding Sources
VI. Flow Chart
Wolf Pen Creek Charette 2000
Team Assignments
Team #lA
Trail System throughout Corridor
1. Eva Read-Warden, AIA
i<:aculty, Dept. of Arch., T AMU
Pres. Brazos Chapter, AIA
/ 2. Karl Hays
Arkitex Studio
Background in architecture, landscape, and currently
Graduate student in land development
/ 3. Judith Downs
/ 4.
City Staff
Greenways Program Director
Chara Ragland
Landscape Design
Former Member of Wolf Pen DRB
/ 5. Eric Ploeger
City Staff
A~st. Director of Parks and Recreation
ii 6. M.A. Sterling
Director, Brazos Valley Troupe
/ 7. Mike Patterson
City Staff
Major, College Station Police Department
8. Yolanda Lukaszewski
TAMU, Dept. of Journalism
/ 9. April Conkey PhD 6bf tr4 I 1 I n _n
Society for Conservation Biology ~ W~t~nC(
Team #lB
Wolf Pen Creek Charette 2000
Team Assignments
Gateways, Corridor Identities
1. Chad Grauke, AJA
Arkitex Studio
2. Sharon Colson, TIF
3. Afsaneh Yazdani
City Staff
Park Planner
4. Jennifer Coffin
President, T AMU Student Chapter AJA
5. Clay Britt
Land Design Group
6. Asma Naz
T AMU Student, Dept. of Landscape Arch.
and Urban Planning
7. Sherry Ellison, citizen (Saturday only)
8. Linda Piwonka
City Staff
Director of the Office of Tech. and Information
9. Mervyn Austria
T AMU Architecture student, AIAS member
Team #2
Transportation
Wolf Pen Creek Charette 2000
Team Assignments
1. Chris Gilbert
~rown Reynolds Watford Architects
2. Larry Wells
Municipal Design Group
3. Eric Miller
Transportation
4. Bruce Bateman
T AMU, Dept. of Construction Science
5. Stephen Hill
T AMU student, Dept. of Landscape Arch.
and Urban Planning
6. Edwin Hard
City Staff
Planning Department
7. Bahman Yazdani
TAMU, Department of Energy
8. Bob Appleton (Tentative)
TxDOT
Team #3
Wolf Pen Creek Charette 2000
Team Assignments
Upper Corridor North
1. Robert Payne, AIA
~ayne & Associates (Friday)
2. James Davidson, AIA
T AMU, Facilities Planning and Construction
3. Ande Bloom (8-3 Friday only)
Greenways Council Project Coordinator
4. Alan King
Land Design Group
5. Pete Vanecek
City Staff
Senior Park Planner
6. Frank Cox
7. Rye Lemons (Architect Student)
8. Ben Boggs
Payne & Associates, Architects
9. Kiley Jackson
T AMU, Architecture student, AIAS member
Team #4
Wolf Pen Creek Charette 2000
Team Assignments
Upper Corridor South
1. Andrew Hawkins
Holster & Associates, Architects
2. Moses Gonzalez
Holster & Associates, Architects
3. Don Wilkerson
T AMU, Horticulture Department
4. David Wood
City Staff
Park Planner
5. Pam Coe
Apartment Manager
The Arbors at Wolf Pen Creek
6. Bart Munro
Wolf Pen Creek Property Owner
7. Diane Stropp (Friday a.m. only)
Former President, Arts Council
8. Frank Simoneaux, Jr., P.E.
City Staff
Project Manager, Department of Public Works
9. Y aniser Orioli
T AMU, Architecture student, AIAS member
Team #5
Wolf Pen Creek Charette 2000
Team Assignments
South Quadrant
1. Elton Abbott, AIA
Arkitex Studio
2. Curtis Bingham
City Staff
Parks Operations Superintendent
3. Judy Holt
Member, Wolf Pen Creek DRB, Arts Council
4. Paul Clarke
Clarke & Wyndham
5. Joe Hutchinson (Saturday only)
TAMU Faculty, Dept. of Architecture
6. Marilyn Hooton
7. Dick Forester
Convention & Visitors Bureau
8. Dave Stevenson
Commercial Loan Officer
First American Bank
9. Jerry McGill
Property Owner
10. Rye Lemons
T AMU, Architecture student, AIAS member
Team #6
Wolf Pen Creek Charette 2000
Team Assignments
North Quadrant
1. Tim Donathen, AIA, Asst. Vice Chancellor (Sat. only)
~ AMU Facilities Planning and Construction
2. David Gerling
City Staff
Recreation Superintendent
3. Judy Warren
Planning and Zoning Commission
4. Kathy Parker (Friday only)
Brazos Resources Development
5. Susan Chmelar
City Staff
Staff Assistant, Fiscal Services
6. C.D. Claycamp, P.E.
7. Lee Battle
City Staff
Planning Department
8. Paul Guernsey
Hartnett Group
9. Winnie Gamer
College Station City Council
First American Bank
Team #7
Festival Area
Wolf Pen Creek Charette 2000
Team Assignments
1. Bill Scarmardo
Architect, AIA
2. Brian Weihausen
Kay M. Henryson, AIA Architect
3. Linda Waltman
City Staff
Recreation Superintendent
4. Scott Hooks
City Staff
Parks Operations Supervisor
5. Debbie Hutchinson
6. Roy Johnson
R.L. Johnson & Associates
7. Leslie Feigenbaum
Team #8
Lower Corridor
1. J.P. Grom
Wolf Pen Creek Charette 2000
Team Assignments
~rown Reynolds Watford Architects
2. Eugene Ray (Friday only)
3. Scott Shafer (all, but Friday)
TAMU, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences
4. Ross Albrecht
City Staff
Forestry Superintendent
5. Marsha Sanford
Realtor, Wolf Pen Creek TIF member
6. Ben Walker (Friday only)
Capstone Development
7. Greg Jarvie
8. Clint Schroft
9. Jane Kee (Friday only)
City Staff
City Planner
10. Ernie Camp
Wolf Pen Creek Bowl
PARKS, ARTS AND COMMERCE
WotF PEN CREEK DESIGN CHARETTE
TEAMS:
V I EVV U NDER
BUS H DR.BRIDG E 1A. Trail System throughout Corridor
1 B. Gateways, Corridor Identity
WOLF PEN CREEK
MASTER PLAN
~'""""""~~
, ' SCAL;:-FEE1 .. «JP\\ NORTH r'b
PREPARED BY:
2. Transportation Issues
3. Upper Corridor -North
4. Upper Corridor -South
5. South Quadrant
6. North Quadrant
7. Festival Area
8. Lower Corridor
COLLEGE STATION PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,& PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL JULY 9, 1998
p
(125
PLAZ A O N H OLL E MAN ST.
pARks ~
RECREATION
CollEGE STATiON
I I
SCULPT UR GARDEN /P/\.R.KtN G
AA.EA OAl~·rMOUTH DJ~IVC
• Curb Appeal
VISION FOR WOLF PEN CREEK GOALS
Created at Pre-Charette Workshop on June 4 2000
rv can begin now
• Review Existing Ordinance
rv for pedestrian, height, color, lights
• Supply Community Parking
'.
• Concentrate on Public-Private Partnership
"' Opportunity for private development to surpass public development
"' Identify existing restraints to private development for friendlier more conducive
development
• Develop Focal Draws
"' Create broad but balanced mix of development
"' Smaller specialty
"' Arts & entertainment
"' Combine with mall
• Node Approach (Sub-Districts within the district)
"' All nodes connected with a common design theme
"' Provide guidelines for architects and landscape architects working on specific projects
for the private sector
• Diversity or Attractions
"' Use Northgate's success as a model
"' During the day it's park-like; in evening, a place where people will eat and stroll
• Community & Neighborhood Destinations
"' Not just an area for out-of-towners but a community & neighborhood destination
• Pass-through Uses
"' Bike & pedestrian
"' Connection to other areas -east and west
"' Key crossings @ Texas Avenue, Earl Rudder & Harvey Road
• Promote Pedestrian Use
"' Try to make it conducive to fitness purposes
• Optimize Drainage Solutions to Incorporate Other Goals
"' Splash blocks, etc ...
"' Hydrological studies will dictate design/shape of channel
• Three Themes: Parks -Arts -Commerce
WOLF PEN CREEK
DESIGN CHARETTE RESTRICTIONS
The following items fall under regulatory control of the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers and are not subject to change:
1. lmpoundment of water along the stream is not allowed except for small pools that form as
a result of natural flow.
2. The size, shape, and alignment of the main channel are fixed.
3. The vegetative coyer along the main channel upstream from Dartmouth will be removed
during construction and replace with similar plant materials to recreate a natural, aquatic
environment around the stream.
4. The main channel below the amphitheater will remain intact as much as possible with
minimal improvements designed to control erosion.
5. Hard surfaces such as concrete sidewalks, cart paths, etc., 'in the immediate vicinity of
the stream are not allowed.
Other restrictions:
1. The boundary of the channelization work is limited to the floodway line plus 20 feet on
each side. Improvements outside this zone must be limited to property owned by the City
or where permission can be obtained to use the site.
2. No structures are allowed within the main channel that could restrict stormwater flow.
3. Flood elevations along the channel must not be raised more than one foot as a result of
fill material being placed in the fringe area.
4. The design of George Bush Drive East to Holleman is complete.
5. The master plan is approved and should not be changed in scope.
Channel Cross Section
Downstream from Dartmouth
Channel Cross Section
Upstream from Dartmouth
WOLF PEN CREEK MASTER PLAN
IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES
•!• Drainage Utility District
•!• Park Land Dedication Fund, Zone 3
•!• Wolf Pen Creek Tax Increment Finance
District
•!• General Obligation Bond Funds
•!• Certificate of Obligations
WOLF PEN CREEK PROJECT FLOWCHART
No
Make revisions
and resubmit
Subsequent review
Submit application and
related materials to
Development Services
Application is processed and
ORB meeting is scheduled
Document(s) reviewed
by staff
Did it pass
with no major
comments? Yes
( ' ORB meeting
ZBA meeting*
(if necessary)
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting**
*The Zoning Board of Adjustments hears requests for variances and special
exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance, appeals of Zoning Official decisions, variances
to the Drainage Ordinance, special exceptions to the Parking in the Yard
Ordinance, and variances to the Animal Control Ordinance.
**The Planning & Zoning Commission considers final plats (regarding more than
four lots), site plans, and requests for Conditional Use Permits.
L ~R I ONE COMPANY £-i..A. Many Solutions'M
HOR ENGINEERING, INC.
DALLAS, TEXAS 75248-1229
(972) 960-4400
(972) 960-4471 (FAX)
City of College Station
2613 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842
ATTN: Judity Downs
ORIGINAL
Invoice Numuca.
Invoice Date:
Period Ending:
Project Number:
For Professional Engineering Services associated with the development of a channel
restoration concept study for City of College Station (Wolf Pen Creek). This invoice is
for work performed from December I; 2002 through December 28, 2002.
REFERENCE: Purchase Order No. 021328, Dated 09/30/02
Contract Amount Percent ComQlete
Basic Services:
Task 1: Data Collection and Review $ 4,638.00 x 100% Complete
Task 2: Develop Existing Conditions Model $ 5,274.00 x 92% Complete
Task 3: Develop Alternative Concepts $ 15,110.00 x 25% Complete
Task 4: Develop Conceptual Cost Estimate $ 5,214.00 x 0% Complete
Task 5: Investigate Grant Opportunities $ 3,342.00 x 0% Complete
Task 6: Develop Recommendations and Model $ 8,858.00 x 0% Complete
Task 7: Develop Concept Report $ 6,410.00 x 0% Complete
$ 48,846.00
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Invoice
ittance with copy of invoice to
P.O. Box 3480
Omaha. NE 68103·0480
.. 1-2091
01/15/2003
12/28/2002
12033-001-037
$ 4,638.00
$ 4,852.08
$ 3,777.50
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Total to Date: $ 13,267.58
Less Previous Invoices: 10,402.48
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE: $ 2,865.10
Respectfully submitted,
HOR Engineering, Inc.
£JdcPa~
Robert P. Armstrong, P.E.
Project Manager
CONSULTANT CONTRACT
This Contract is by and between the City of College Station, a Texas Municipal Home-
Rule Corporation (the "City") and HDR Engineering, Inc., a Texas Corporation (the
"Contractor"), whereby Contractor agrees to perform and the City agrees to pay for the work
described herein.
ARTICLE I
1. 01 This Contract is for the development of a channel restoration conceptual study for
the area of Wolf Pen Creek located between Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive (the
"Project"). The scope and details of the work to be provided to the City by Contractor are set
forth in Exhibit "A" to this Contract and are incorporated as though fully set forth herein by
reference. Contractor agrees to perform or cause the performance of all the work described in
Exhibit "A."
1.02 Contractor agrees to perform the work described in Exhibit "A" hereto and the
City agrees to pay Contractor a fee based on the rates set forth in Exhibit "B" to this Contract for
the services performed by Contractor. The invoices shall be submitted to the City following the
15th day and the last day of each month. The payment terms are net payable within thirty (30)
calendar days of the City's receipt of the invoice. Upon termination of this Contract, payments
under this paragraph shall cease, provided, however, that Contractor shall be entitled to payments
for work performed in accordance with this Contract before the date of termination and for which
Contractor has not yet been paid.
1.03 The total amount of payment, including reimbursements, by the City to Contractor
for all services to be performed under this Contract may not, under any circumstances, exceed
Forty eight thousand eight hundred forty six and 00/100 dollars ($48,846.00).
1.04 The City may from time to time request changes in the scope and focus of the
activities, investigations, and studies conducted or to be conducted by Contractor pursuant to this
Contract, provided, however, that any such change that in the opinion of Contractor, the City
Manager, or the City's Project Manager varies significantly from the scope of the work set out
herein and would entail an increase in cost or expense to the City shall be mutually agreed upon
in advance in writing by Contractor and the City's Project Manager. Written change orders may
be approved by the City Manager or his delegate provided that the change order does not increase
the amount set forth in paragraph 1.03 of this Contract to more than Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00). Changes in the scope which would require an expenditure by the City of more
than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) shall be approved in advance by the City Council.
Any request by the Contractor for an increase in the Scope of Services and an increase in
the amount listed in paragraph 1.03 of this Contract shall be made and approved by the
CRC 3/16/00
Contract No. 02-165
Page 1
jad\c:\documen/s and sellings\jdowns.cocs-net\my documents\wpc\consultanl hdr.doc
8130102
City prior to the Contractor providing such services or the right to payment for such
additional services shall be waived.
1.05 Except as provided in Article VI hereinbelow, the Contractor shall complete all of
the work described in Exhibit "A" by the dates set forth below.
January 31 , 2003
1.06 Time is of the essence of this Contract. The Contractor shall be prepared to
provide the professional services in the most expedient and efficient manner possible in order to
complete the work by the times specified.
1.07 At any time, the City may terminate the Project for convenience, in writing. At
such time, the City shall notify Contractor, in writing, who shall cease work immediately.
Contractor shall be compensated for the services performed. In the event that the City terminates
this Contract for convenience, the City shall pay Contractor for the services performed and
expenses incurred prior to the date of termination.
1.08 Contractor promises to work closely with the City Manager or his designee (the
"Project Manager") or other appropriate City officials. Contractor agrees to perform any and all
Project-related tasks reasonably required of it by the City in order to fulfill the purposes of the
work to be performed. The work of Contractor under this Contract may be authorized by the
Project Manager in various phases as set forth in Exhibit "A."
1.09 In all activities or services performed hereunder, the Contractor is an independent
contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. The Contractor, as an independent
contractor, shall be responsible for the final product contemplated under this Agreement. Except
for materials furni shed by the City, the Contractor shall supply all materials, equipment and labor
required for the execution of the work on the Project. The Contractor shall have ultimate control
over the execution of the work under this Contract. The Contractor shall have the sole obligation
to employ, direct, control, supervise, manage, discharge, and compensate all of its employees and
subcontractors, and the City shall have no control of or supervision over the employees of the
Contractor or any of the Contractor's subcontractors except to the limited extent provided for in
this Contract. Contractor shall be liable for any misrepresentations. Any negotiations by the
Contractor on the City's behalf are binding on the City only when within the scope of work
contained herein and approved by the City.
ARTICLE II
2.01 The City shall direct Contractor to commence work on the Project by sending
Contractor a "letter of authorization" to begin work on the Project.
2.02 Upon receipt of the letter of authorization to begin work on the implementation of
the Project, Contractor shall meet with the City for the purpose of determining the nature of the
CRC 311 6100
Contract No. 02-165
Page2
jad\c:\documents and settings\jdowns.cocs-net\my documents\consu/tant hdr.doc
812102
Project, including but not limited to the following: meeting with the City's staff to coordinate
Project goals, schedules, and deadlines; coordinating data collection; briefing the City's
management staff; documenting study assumptions and methodologies; devising the format for
any interim reports and the final report to the City.
2.03 Contractor shall consult with the City and may, in some limited circumstances, act
as the City's representative, but it is understood and agreed by the parties that for all purposes
related to this Contract, Contractor shall be an independent contractor at all times and is not to be
considered either an agent or an employee of the City.
ARTICLE III
3.01 As an experienced and qualified professional, Contractor warrants that the
information provided by Contractor reflects high professional and industry standards, procedures,
and performances. Contractor warrants the design, preparation of drawings, the designation or
selection of materials and equipment, the selection and supervision of personnel, the fitness and
operation of its recommendations, and the performance of other services under this Contract,
pursuant to a high standard of performance in the profession. Contractor warrants that it will
exercise diligence and due care and perform in a good and workmanlike manner all of the
services pursuant to this Contract. Approval or acceptance by the City of any of Contractor's
work product under this Contract shall not constitute, or be deemed, a release of the
responsibility and liability of Contractor, its employees, agents, or associates for the exercise of
skill and diligence necessary to fulfill Contractor's responsibilities under this Contract. Nor shall
the City's approval or acceptance be deemed to be the assumption of responsibility by the City
for any defect or error in the Project's work products prepared by Contractor, its employees,
associates, agents, or subcontractors.
3.02 Contractor shall keep the City informed of the progress of the work and shall
guard against any defects or deficiencies in its work.
3.03 Contractor shall be responsible for using due diligence to correct errors,
deficiencies or unacceptable work product. Contractor shall, at no cost to the City, remedy any
errors, deficiencies or any work product found unacceptable, in the City's sole discretion, as soon
as possible, but no longer than fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving notice of said errors,
deficiencies or unacceptable work product.
3.04 Contractor's work product shall be the exclusive property of the City. Upon
completion or termination of this Contract, Contractor shall promptly deliver to the City all
records, notes, data, memorandum, models, and equipment of any nature that are within
Contractor's possession or control and that are the City's property or relate to the City or its
business.
CRC 3/16/00
Contract No. 02-165
Page 3
jad\c:\documents and settingsydowns.cocs-net\my documents\consultant hdr.doc
812102
ARTICLE IV
4.01 Indemnification. Contractor agrees to and shall indemnify and hold
harmless and defend the City, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and
all claims, losses, damages, causes of action, suits and liability of every kind, including all
expenses of litigation, court costs, and attorney's fees, for injury to or death of any person,
for damage to any property, or for any breach of contract, arising out of, or in connection
with the work done by Contractor under this Contract. In the event of personal injury to
or death of Contractor' employees, such indemnity shall apply regardless of whether the
claims, losses, damages, causes of action, suits or liability arise in whole or in part from the
negligence of the City. Such indemnity shall not apply, however, to liability arising from
the personal injury, death, or property damage of persons other than the Contractor or its
employees where such liability is caused by or results from the negligence of the City.
4.02 Contractor assumes full responsibility for the work to be performed
hereunder and hereby releases, relinquishes, and discharges the City, its officers, agents,
and employees from all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character,
including the cost of defense thereof, for any injury to or death of any person (whether
employees of either of the parties hereto or other third parties) and any loss of or damage
to property (whether property of either of the parties, their employees, or other third
parties) that is caused by or alleged to be caused by, arising out of, or in connection with
Contractor's work to be performed hereunder. This release shall apply regardless of
whether said claims, demands, and causes of action are covered, in whole or in part, by
insurance and regardless of whether such loss, damage, injury, or death was caused in
whole or in part by the negligence of the City.
ARTICLEV
5.01 The Contractor agrees to maintain the types and amounts of insurance required in
this Contract throughout the term of the Contract. The following insurance policies shall be
required:
1. Commercial General Liability.
2. Automobile Liability.
3. Workers' Compensation Insurance
4. Professional Liability.
5.02 For each of these policies, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance with respect to the City, its officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by the City, its officials, employees or volunteers, shall be considered in
excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute to it. Certificates of insurance and
endorsements shall be furnished to and approved by the City's Risk Manager before any letter of
authorization to commence planning will issue or any work on the Project commences. No term
or provision of the indemnification provided by the Contractor to the City pursuant to this
CRC 3116100
Contract No. 02-165
Page4
jad\c:\documents and settings\jdowns.cocs-net\my documents\consu/tant hdr.doc
812102
Contract shall be construed or interpreted as limiting or otherwise affecting the terms of the
insurance coverage. All Certificates of Insurance and endorsements shall be furnished to the
City's Representative at the time of execution of this Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit
"C," and approved by the City before work commences.
5.03 The Contractor shall include all subcontractors as additional insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All
coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
5.04 General Requirements Applicable to All Policies.
(a) Only insurance carriers licensed and admitted to do business in the State of Texas
will be accepted.
(b) Deductibles shall be listed on the certificate of insurance and are acceptable only
on a "per occurrence" basis for property damage only.
(c) "Claims made" policies will not be accepted, except for Professional Liability
msurance.
( d) Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
(30) calendar days prior written notice has been given to the City of College
Station by certified mail, return receipt requested.
(e) Upon request, certified copies of all insurance policies shall be furnished to the
City.
(f) The certificates of insurance shall be prepared and executed by the insurance
company or its authorized agent. Each certificate shall contain the following
provisions and warranties: (a) that the insurance company is licensed and
admitted to do business in the State of Texas; (b) that the insurance policy is
underwritten on forms provided by the Texas State Board of Insurance or ISO; (c)
all endorsements and coverages according to the requirements of this Contract; ( d)
the form of notice of cancellation, termination, or change in coverage provisions;
and ( e) original endorsements affecting coverage required by this Contract.
(g) The City of College Station, its officials, employees, and volunteers are to be
added as "Additional Insureds" to the Commercial (Public) Liability and Business
Automobile Liability Policies. The coverage shall contain no special limitations
on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officials, employees, and
volunteers.
5.05 Commercial General Liability requirements:
(a) Coverage shall be written by a carrier with an "A:VIII" or better rating in
accordance with the current Best Key Rating Guide.
(b) Minimum Combined Single Limit of $600,000 per occurrence for bodily injury
and property damage.
CRC 3116100
Contract No. 02-165
Page 5
jad\c:\documents and sellings\jdowns.cocs-net\my documents\consultanl hdr.doc
812102
(c) Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Service's Office Number CG 00
01.
(d) No coverage shall be deleted from the standard policy without notification of
individual exclusions being attached for review and acceptance.
(e) The coverage shall include but not be limited to: premises/operations;
independent contracts, products/completed operations, contractual liability
(insuring the indemnity provided herein), and where exposures exist, "Explosion
Collapse and Underground" coverage.
5.06 Business Automobile Liability requirements:
(a) Coverage shall be written by a carrier with an "A:VIII" or better rating m
accordance with the current Best Key Rating Guide.
(b) Minimum Combined Single Limit of $600,000 per occurrence for bodily injury
and property damage.
(c) The Business Auto Policy must show Symbol 1 in the Covered Autos portion of
the liability section in Item 2 of the declarations page.
( d) The coverage shall include owned or leased autos, non-owned autos, and hired
cars.
5.07 Workers' Compensation Insurance requirements:
(a) Employer's Liability limits of $100,000.00 for each accident is required.
(b) "Texas Waiver of Our Right to Recover From Others Endorsement, WC 42 03
04" shall be included in this policy.
(c) Texas must appear in Item 3A of the Worker's Compensation coverage or Item 3C
must contain the following: All States except those listed in Item 3A and the
States of NV, ND, OH, WA, WV, and WY.
5.08 Professional Liability requirements:
(a) Coverage shall be written by a carrier with a "A:VIII" or better rating m
accordance with the current Best Key Rating Guide.
(b) Minimum of $500,000 per occurrence and $500,000 aggregate.
(c) Coverage must be maintained for two (2) years after the termination of this
Contract.
ARTICLE VI
6.01 At any time, the City may terminate the Project for convenience, in writing. At
such time, the City shall notify Contractor, in writing, who shall cease work immediately.
Contractor shall be compensated for the services performed. In the event that the City terminates
CRC 3116100
Contract No. 02-165
Page 6
jad\c:\documents and settings\jdowns.cocs-net\my documents\consultant hdr.doc
812102
this Contract for convenience, the City shall pay Contractor for the services performed and
expenses incurred prior to the date of termination.
6.02 No term or provision of this Contract shall be construed to relieve the Contractor
of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City or because of any breach of contract by
the Contractor. The City may withhold payments to the Contractor for the purpose of setoff until
the exact amount of damages due the City from the Contractor is determined and paid.
ARTICLE VII
7.01 This Contract has been made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Texas. The parties agree that performance and all matters related thereto shall be in Brazos
County, Texas.
7 .02 Notices shall be mailed to the addresses designated herein or as may be designated
in writing by the parties from time to time and shall be deemed received when sent postage
prepaid U.S. Mail to the following addresses:
City:
City of College Station
Attn: ~~~~~~~~~
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Contractor:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
17111 Preston Road Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75248-1230
Attn: William R. Hindman, P .E.
Senior Vice President
7.03 . Contractor, its employees, associates or subcontractors shall perform all the work
hereunder. Contractor agrees that all of its associates, employees, or subcontractors who work on
this Project shall be fully qualified and competent to do the work described hereunder.
Contractor shall undertake the work and complete it in a timely manner.
7.04 The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal , state, and local statutes,
regulations, ordinances, and other laws, including but not limited to the Immigration Reform and
Control Act (IRCA). The Contractor may not knowingly obtain the labor or services of an
unauthorized alien. The Contractor, not the City, must verify eligibility for employment as
required by IRCA.
CRC 3116100
Contract No. 02-165
Page 7
jad\c:\documents and settings\jdowns.cocs-net\my documents\wpc\consu/tant hdr.doc
8130102
..
7 .05 No waiver by either party hereto of any term or condition of this Contract shall be
deemed or construed to be a waiver of any other term or condition or subsequent waiver of the
same term or condition.
7.06 This Contract and all rights and obligations contained herein may not be assigned
by Contractor without the prior written approval of the City.
7.07 If any provision of this Contract shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for
any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable. If a court of
competent jurisdiction finds that any provision of this Contract is invalid or unenforceable, but
that by limiting such provision it may become valid and enforceable, then such provision shall be
deemed to be written, construed, and enforced as so limited.
7 .08 This Contract represents the entire and integrated agreement between the City and
Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or
oral. This Contract may only be amended by written instrument approved and executed by the
parties.
7.09 The parties acknowledge that they have read, understood, and intend to be bound
by the terms and conditions of this Contract.
7 .10 This Contract will be effective when signed by the last party whose signing makes
the Contract fully executed.
[CONTRACTOR]
By:~~Pe.
Print6d Name: ~~,J D PBA-gs.o..J Pi:.
Title: ..Jr;uc ~~I /
Date: AJs tJs 1 71-1 '2..oc:> -z-
ATIEST:
Connie Hooks, City Secretary
CRC 3/16/00
Contract No. 02-165
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
By: ;V/fj
Ron Silvia, Mayor
Date
Page 8
jad\c:\documents and settingsVdowns.cocs-net\my documents\consultant hdr.doc
812102
APPROVED:
Thom~
trhla. II~
City Attorney
CRC 3/16/00
Contract No. 02-165
Page 9
jad\c:\documents and settings\jdowns.cocs-net\my documents\consultant hdr.doc
812102
Date
?--2 l . t) L.
Date
CRC 3/16/00
Contract No. 02-165
Exhibit "A"
Scope of Services
Page 10
jad\c:\documents and settings\jdowns.cocs-net\my documents\consu/tant hdr.doc
812102
· ..
July 18, 2002
Ms. Judith Downs
Greenway Program Manager
City of College Station
2613 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: Wolf Pen Creek Feasibility Study
Dear Ms. Downs,
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) is pleased to provide you, as requested, with this sole
source proposal for providing professional services to assist the City of College Station in
preparing a concept study to determine feasibility of performing channel restoration
activities on a portion of Wolf Pen Creek between Texas Avenue and Wolf Pen Drive.
Our proposed Lump Sum Fee for these services is $48,800. A detailed Scope of Services
is attached. We have revised the Scope of Services to include the analysis of impacts that
may result from enclosing the creek at Redmond Terrace. We have also removed
references to incorporating proposed improvements upstream of the project area. A
detailed breakdown is also attached that shows the estimated cost for each task of the
proposed Scope of Services.
We look forward to assisting you and performing as an extension of your staff in these
endeavors. Please let us know if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Glenn D. Pearson, P.E.
Vice President
Department Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Employee Owned
17111 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, Texas
75248-1230
Telephone
972 960-4400
Fax
972 960-4471
. ·~
SCOPE OF SERVICES 7/18/02
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
SCOPE OF
SERVICES
Task 1
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
Th is proposal by HOR Eng ineering , Inc. (HOR) to the City of College
Station (CITY) is to provide professional engineering services
(SERVICES) to assist the CITY in the development of a channel
restoration conceptual study for the area of Wolf Pen Creek located
between Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive.
HOR proposes to develop a channel restoration conceptual study by
providing the following professional SERVICES for the CITY. This
proposal includes engineering services associated with collection and
review of hydrologic and hydraulic data , revision of the FEMA hydraulic
model, and development of up to two channel restoration alternative
designs, including estimates of construction costs for each alternative.
HOR will also investigate grant-funding options. After data review and
initial modeling, HOR will issue a recommendation to the CITY for a
preferred alternative design. Upon approval by the CITY, HOR will
develop more detailed hydrologic and hydraulic models incorporating the
preferred design. A conceptual design report will be prepared and
submitted to the CITY.
Data Collection and Review
The purpose of this task is to collect and review existing hydrologic and
hydraulic data available for Wolf Pen Creek in the project vicinity.
HOR will collect available Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) soil data and United States Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic maps. HOR will review aerial photographs, topographic data,
FEMA reports and data, and other relevant floodplain studies provided to
HOR by the City.
None
None
Assume one kick-off meeting between two HOR representatives and CITY
personnel to discuss the goals and objectives of the project.
The CITY will provide aerial and topographic mapping data, as well as
electronic copies of floodplain studies, including FEMA hydrologic and
1
...
Task 2
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
Task 3
Objective:
HOR Activities:
hydraulic data.
Develop Existing Conditions Model
The purpose of this task is to revise the existing FEMA hydraulic model to
reflect existing conditions of Wolf Pen Creek between Texas Avenue and
George Bush Drive.
HOR will utilize the 2' contour topographic data provided by the CITY to
revise the FEMA regulatory HEC-2 model to reflect existing conditions.
HOR will develop the existing conditions model of Wolf Pen Creek from
just downstream of Texas Avenue to just upstream of George Bush Drive
using HEC-RAS. Potential hydrologic benefits that may result from
proposed projects upstream on Texas A&M property will not be
considered.
None
FEMA regulatory discharges will be utilized in the modeling efforts.
One site visit by two HOR personnel.
The CITY will provide modeling and topographic data as described under
Task 1. All modeling will be based off of data provided by the CITY. No
surveying will be performed.
Develop Alternative Concepts
The purpose of this task is to investigate and develop up to two alternative
concepts for providing channel and/or riparian restoration of Wolf Pen
Creek between Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive.
HOR will conduct a site visit to review potential alternatives. Potential
alternatives to be considered will include channel restoration using
bioengineering techniques where appropriate, and providing water quality
and/or flood control detention. HOR will develop up to three typical
sections for the bioengineering channel restoration alternative. Channel
depths, average channel velocities, and channel shear stresses will be
2
. ,.
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
Task4
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
estimated for each of the typical sections by approximate methods. No
detailed modeling of the bioengineering alternative will be performed at
this stage. The detention facility alternative will be evaluated by
developing a preliminary stage-storage-discharge curve and then
modifying the FEMA HEC-1 model to the extent necessary to determine
the feasibility of the detention facility alternative . Potential impacts of
enclosing the stream in a culvert in the Redmond Terrace vicinity will also
be examined for each alternative.
None
The alternatives will be evaluated by applying engineering judgment and
methods of estimation. Detailed analyses will not be performed.
HOR assumes that one field visit will be made by two HOR personnel.
None
Develop Conceptual Cost Estimates
The objective of this task is to develop conceptual-level estimates of
probable construction costs for the purpose of evaluating the two
alternatives.
HOR will estimate quantities and develop conceptual-level estimates of
probable construction costs.
None
None
None
None
3
t •
Task 5
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
Task6
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Investigate Grant Opportunities
The objective of this task is to investigate potential grant sources for the
project.
HOR will explore the possibility of obtaining federal or state grants from
the Corps of Engineers (COE) and TNRCC.
A letter memorandum describing an assessment of potential grant
opportunities.
Efforts for this task will be limited to discussions with COE and TNRCC
officials regarding potential grant opportunities.
None
None
Develop Recommendations and Model Selected Alternative
The purpose of this task is to select a preferred alternative and to develop
detailed modeling of the preferred alternative.
HOR will prepare a brief letter memorandum defining the alternatives and
the pros and cons and estimated costs of the alternatives. The
memorandum will also include a recommendation for the preferred
alternative. HOR will meet with CITY staff to discuss the memorandum
and the proposed recommendation. HOR will prepare detailed modeling
of the proposed alternative utilizing the existing data provided by the CITY
in Task 1.
Memorandum and meeting minutes.
The purpose of the additional modeling effort is to verify previous
assumptions and to verify that FEMA criteria can be met for the preferred
alternative.
4
. . .
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
Task 7
Objective:
HOR Activities :
Task
Deliverables:
HOR will facilitate one meeting between HOR staff and CITY staff.
None
Develop Concept Report
The purpose of this task is to develop a concept report describing the
methodology, assumptions, alternatives, and recommendations of the
concept study. Sketches of typical sections and alignments, backup
calculations, and documentation will also be provided.
HOR will develop a draft concept study for the CITY's review. HOR will
incorporate changes based upon staff comments and will prepare a final
report.
Two copies of the draft and final Concept Study Report.
Key None
Understanding:
Meetings/ None
Travel :
Information/ None
Services by
Others:
5
Task
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Description
Data Collection and Review
Develop Existing Conditions Model
Develop Alternative Concepts
Develop Conceptual Cost Estimates
lnvestiaate Grant Oooortunities
College Station -Wolf Pen Creek Channel Restoration
Budget
Hours
Project Sr. Sr. Env. Project
Manager Engineer Engineer
8 8 8
4 4 12
8 36 16 28
4 8 4 16
16 12
Develoo Recommendations and Model Selected Alternative 4 20 4 24
Preoare Conceot Reoort 4 6 4 16
Total 48 82 36 108
Billable Rate $ 125 $ 125 $ 99 $ 86
Labor Totals $ 6,000 $ 10,250 $ 3,564 $ 9,288
Expenses
TOTAL FEE
Labor Cost
EIT I Jr. Technician Clerical Basic Services
Env.
16 2 $ 4,038
28 12 2 $ 4,874
44 32 2 $ 14,710
16 8 2 $ 5,014
2 $ 3,142
40 4 2 $ 8,658
24 12 8 $ 5,910
$ -
168 68 2(
$ 71 $ 62 $ 55
$ 11 ,928 $ 4,216 $ 1,100 $ 46,346
$ 2,500
$ 48 846
7/18/2002
Exhibit "B"
Payment Terms
Payment is a fixed fee in the amount listed in Article II of this Contract. This amount
shall be payable by the City pursuant to the schedule listed below and upon completion of the
services and written acceptance by the City.
Schedule of Payment can be submitted upon completion of each phase
Task 1 Data Collection and Review
Task 2 Develop Existing Conditions Model
Task 3 Develop Alternative Concepts
Task 4 Develop Conceptual Cost Estimates
Task 5 Investigate Grant Opportunities
Task 6 Develop Recommendations and Model Selected Alternative
Task 7 Prepare Concept Report
CRC 3116100
Contract No. 02-165
Page 11
jad\c:\documenls and sellings\jdowns.cocs-nel\my documents\consullant hdr.doc
812102
CRC 3116100
Contract No. 02-165
Exhibit "C"
Certificate(s) oflnsurance
Page 12
jad\c:\documents and settings\jdowns.cocs-net\my documents\consultant hdr.doc
812102
• J
ACORD ... CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 06/01/2003
DATE (IHNDDIYY)
0512412002
PRODUCER
LOCKTON COMPANIES
444 W. 47TH STREET, SUITE 900
(816) 960-9000
KANSAS CITY MO 64112-1906
INSURED HOR ENGINEERING, INC.
13130 ATIN: LOUISJ. PACHMAN
8404 INDIAN HILLS DRIVE
OMAHA, NE 68114-4049
COVERAGES ~'R
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
~~ TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER I LIMITS
GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE s 1 000000
A ~OMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY , GL03504583 06/01/2002 06/01/2003 S:IAS: nillil'>I= IA~~fire\ s 1000000
CLAIMS MADE m OCCUR. I MED EXP (MY one ,_.,,nl s 'iMO I u-; !
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY s I 000000
GENERAi.AGGREGATE s ll\l\/'IOM
GENi.. AGGREGATE L..r.trT JPLIES PER: PRODUCTS -COMP/OP Ar..r> s 1 OM OM I Pl'\I ICY lxl ~,Q; lxl LOC
.l!!!JOllOBILE llA8IUTY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 B .x... ANY AUTO BAP3504584 06/01/2002 06/01/2003 (Ea acx:ident)
ALL OWNED AUTOS BAP3504585 BODILY INJURY
SCHEDULED AUTOS TAP3504586 (Per person) $ xxxxxxx -.x... HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ xxxxxxx .x... NON.OWNED AUTOS I i (Per accident)
i i -i PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ xxxxxxx "
HGEUABiUTY AUTO ONLY • EA ACCIDENT s YYA•YXX
l'JofYAUTO NOT APPLICABLE EAACC s OTHERTliAN yyyyyyy
AUTO ONLY: s AGG YYYYYXX
EXCESS UABtl.rrv EACH OCCURRENCE $ I 000000
E [iJ OCCUR : D CLAIMS MADE i BX052852174 06/01/2002 06/01/2003 AGGREGATE s I 000000
(EXCLUDES PROF. LIAB) s =i • [i] UMBRELLA
Y YX all• s
OEDUCTlbLE FORM s YYYXXXX
RETENTf6N ~ I s • 11. ll A 11 •A
c woRKERS col.PENSA~ AHO ··-· 1 90-14910-01 -·· --·-·· -. 06/0112002 06/01/200J.--I y 1~-s:r~~ I l!?!H-.. --EMPl..OYERS' LIABILITY E.l. EACH ACCIDENT s I 000000
E.L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE s 1000000
E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ 10011000
D OTHER \ Pl.NI 13978408 06/0112002 06/0112003 PER CLAIM: S 1,000,00-0. AGG: St ,00-0,000.
AR.CHS &: ENbS PROFESSIONAL
UABllJ'IY
DESCRPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS JS NAMED AS ADDffiONAL INSURED AS RESPECTS GENERAL AND AUTO UABilJ1Y AND W AIYER
OF SUBROOATION APPLIE~ TO TIIE WORKERS' COMPENSATION WHERE ALLOWED BY STATE LAW. PROJECT NAME: ROCK PRAIRIE
ROAD PERMIT APPUCATIQN.
CFRTlf:ICATF un1 ni::D ; I I ADDITIONAL INSURED· INSURER LETTER: '":ANf".FI I .&.TION n rnn1
969067 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL iNt'li/lllOR 1'0 MAIL -lO-DAYS WRITTEN ATIN: JIM SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
POBOX9960 NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,IU1' Ft.11.URi 1'0 llO 10 SH.\LL
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845 lllPOii HO 011.!G'l'ION OR U/\81U'IY OF _.IA' ICINt' UPON Tlli INIURiR, 11'5 'GliNTS OR
Rlif>RiiliNt:A:mlli&
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE <-;7_ j ;;:>,n Ot? / I
ACORD 25-S (7197) oACORD CORPORATION 1988
I
Proposed Schedule
Event
Notice to Proceed
Project Kick-Off
Conceptual Memorandum
Project Draft Report
Project Final Report
Date
September 30, 2002
October 21, 2002
December 22, 2002
January 31 , 2003
February 14, 2003
Tasks Start Date
Task 1 Data Collection and Review October 22, 2002
Task 2 Develop Existing Conditions November 11 , 2002
Task 3 Alternative Concepts November 22, 2002
Task 4 Conceptual Cost Estimate December 15, 2002
Task 5 Investigate Grant Opportunities December 15, 2002
Task 6a Develop Recommendations December 23, 2002
Task 6b Model Selected Alternative January 2, 2003
Task 7 Develop Concept Report January 15, 2003
End Date Length [days] Deliverable
November 12, 2002 21 none
November 25, 2002 14 none
December 22, 2002 30 none
December 22, 2002 7 none
December 22, 2002 7 Memorandum
January 6, 2003 14 Memorandum & Meeting Minutes
January 16, 2003 14
February 14, 2003 30 Report
Wolf Pen Creek Trib C
N
Section A-Public Plaza
Section 8 -Waters Edge
Section C -Crossing
Section D -Station
Section E -Source
· ... ater fe J!ll'e . . , , L" , C, "
'---------==%.rwi: ........
Wolf Pen Creek -Water Feature
College Station, Texas • Axon Sketch
~-----------;"~~T:s:~Tllt!l!S
,.------~.,~~SURFACe
AREJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;-;-S~T~!PPtNG~~~· ~------~
:'?!~~~'J-'~..:=::::::::=;;~~,;;;,,;~;:._~--lRAINllURSTFOUNTAll
AREA2
WATERS EDGE ~====-::: ... :!11.-~""'!~-------------
AREA1
PUBLICPIRA
CROSSING
·r---AREA 1 PIJBLIC PlAZA ~1\A<e~ AA~ INTO eAStH 'ATIG~ iT()f'e P'AQ9, Wolf Pen Creek-Water Feature College Station, Texas -Site Plan .......... jlR(U(fAtN "JuJD ( ··~---AREA2 AREA3 WATERSEOQE CROSS I NO "STOHe 9LAl5 ~ lft~Hllo ---~ ·'llUrilN etJlit!IT P'<::Ut'TAIM AREA4 STATION .......a ~TONI! 5'~Hl$STDN! :9'"'-1""4~~ ll """"'"" AREAS SOURCE Tetl<IU. ""1!.l<lUeP ............ ---~ •1'0Cc:.oL.l.MN fl'ClUilTAIM ~ LJMeSTONI! $L.AIK h.ii.J ~···w-r .... , ........... ,,, __ __ .,. ,,.-11JJU.1a: ,..,,..._ ....._.
College Station
Wolf Pen Creek Park Water Feature Concept
This exciting Water Feature Concept for Wolf Pen Creek and the City of College station is a
highly participatory environment which is envisioned to become a focal point within the
Community that incorporates the energetic use of water for public interaction and display.
When fully designed and implemented, it has the potential to become a signature element that
features local history set within the context of the Park and which celebrates the native,
indigenous use of materials to create a significant point of destination for the region.
Area No. 1
Public Area
The Public Area is the focal point of the water feature. At the focal point of this interactive
feature is a geyser fountain that rises up from a collection of stone columns standing. The water
crashes down and cascades into a shallow pool at its base.
The main plaza area is dotted with spray jets that send streams of water up into the air at various
intervals. The plaza is edged by large specimen deciduous trees. The nearby water walls can
have an interpretive graphic or text with water running over or behind the image.
The bottom portion of the plaza is a large shallow water basin that serves not only as an amenity
but also as the reservoir for the entire series of water features. The basin is bordered by a
number of wolf sculptures cascading water into the basin. There are large rock pads in the basin
on which visitors might climb or rest. The bottom of the basin might be textured or colored to
add interest to the feature.
Area No. 2
Water's Edge
The Water's Edge is a transition from the highly interactive plaza area to the eight-foot wide
canal. The canal which is 1 foot deep is bordered by a low pedestrian seat wall on both sides
with large shade trees to one half. The Water's Edge area has a broad lawn area leading to a
large flagstone shoreline. Water seeps out of the flagstone into the canal, which is the area
reminiscent of a rocky, shallow river bed. This is a more passive, yet still interactive area at the
interface between the canal and the shoreline. On the opposite side of the canal is a large grass
garden with bubbling fountain heads that are hidden within and which act as a growth medium
for these native emergent and wetland [plantings.
Area No. 3
Crossing
Area 3 is full of energy. The train burst fountain reaches its climax in the Crossing Are. There
steeping stones along the canal that are interrupted by the surprise, periodic rhythmic water
bursts. The opposite side of the canal is a similar to the edging of a rock slab structure that was
present in Area 2. This area also boasts two pedestrian crossings. The first incorporates a
concrete weir-all that cascades the water through a series of runnels into Area 2. The second is a
pedestrian bridge, which elevates the pedestrian area over the canal and leads visitors from one
side to the other.
Area No. 4
Station
The Station is the starting point of the train burst fountain. From this area the train bursts lead
from Area 4 under the bridge and continue into Area 3. The open space around the fountain
allows for highly interactive play. The canal is bridged by large stepping stones which offer a
variety of experiences and which lead to an open terrace for both relaxation and viewing.
Area No. 5
Source
Area 5 is the source of the canal. The water begins its journey here at The Source as it enters the
canal from the mouths of the 3 wolf sculptures set on native limestone pads. The canal itself is a
series of small textured rills in which the water skims over the surface and travels to the reservoir
at Area 4. The two sides of the canal are stepped toward its center and flanked by large
limestone slabs offering a natural feeling that compliments the character of the canal. There are
3 large stone columns adjacent to the canal set in a bed of rock stepping stones canal. These
columns offer verticality to the fairly flat profile of the block long water feature and have water
bubbling out of their tops down to the rocks below and into the canal.
Wolf Pen Creek Water Feature Design Concept Prepared by Damon Farber Associates and
Commercial Aquatic Engineering
\
I
Page 1 of 1
Judy,
Rob Armstrong (Hydraulic Eng.) and I got together recently to discuss the Wolf Pen Creek issues we discussed during our recent meeting.
He and I reviewed some aerial photos and we discussed several alternatives. However, he had a few things he would like to see and
consider before trying to come up with a scope of work for the study you and I had discussed. They are:
* Can you send a few of the digital photos you took of the channel with erosion, bridge crossings, Redmond Terrace rear loading/parking
lot, and the property the city has a lein on? * Do you have a description or drawing of what the Univ. proposes to do for the additional detention on the golf course that you had
mentioned? Or do you know who we could call.
and finally ....
* Any new word on the plans for the properties of Redmond Terrace, or the former apt property with the city lein?
We will probably contact the floodplain administrator to see what modeling or data exists for the branches of Wolf Pen coming from the golf
course and from under Anderson Rd. As we develop a scope and cost estimate for a study we want to be sure we have the latest
information so we come up with an efficient plan.
One scenario could be that a study may find that an option would be to let the owners of Redmond Terrace encroach even more on the
channel since space is too limited to do much with bio-engineering. Then they would need a 404 permit, mitigation for which could pay for
the detention work downstream at the old apt. site. But a hydraulic analysis will likely be needed to compare the benefits of stream work vs.
detention work or both.
I will be out on Monday but back in the rest of the week. I look forward to talking to you.
Thanks,
James A. Thomas
Environmental Scientist
HDR, Inc.
17111 Preston Rd., Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75248
phone (972) 960-4431
fax (972) 960-4471
c. / 1 (\ /') (\(\')
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner
Email: chartl@cstx.gov
Project Number: 07-00500072
Report Date: May 7, 2007
Meeting Date: May 17, 2007
Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for the River Oaks
Subdivision consisting of one lot on 12.965 acres at 305 Holleman Drive East, generally located
on the north side of Holleman Drive between Geroge Bush Drive East and Dartmouth Drive.
Applicant: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, L.L.P
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the condition that
the attached Staff Review Comments are addressed.
Item Summary: This final plat includes a 7.410 acre lot and 5.359 acres to be dedicated to the
City of College Station for the Wolf Pen Creek corridor. The applicant is subdividing the
property in order to construct a multi-family residential development. The property will have
access to the Wolf Pen Creek trails from a 10-foot sidewalk to be constructed from the
southeast corner of the property off of Holleman Drive to the existing trails on the adjacent
property to the east. The Wolf Pen Creek dedication area is in accordance with the Wolf Pen
Creek Master Plan and will be developed in the future with hike and bike trails and other park
amenities.
The subject property is bound by The Arbors Apartments and the future Wolf Creek Condos to
the southwest, and Wolf Pen Creek park areas to the north, east, and west.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The subject property is located in Wolf Pen Creek as
established by the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. Holleman Drive is classified as a minor
collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. The final plat is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
Item Background: The subject property was annexed into the city limits in 1958. The Wolf
Pen Creek zoning district was placed on the property in September 1989 shortly following the
adoption of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan . The subject property is currently unplatted.
A Conditional Use Permit to allow a multi-family residential use without retail on the first floor
was approved by the City Council on February 23, 2006.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: None requested.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: In discussions with the Parks and Recreation
Department, it is our understanding that the Wolf Pen Creek dedication area also fulfils the
parkland dedication requirement. The applicant is proposing to meet the parkland development
fee by developing a trail connection from Holleman Street to the existing trail system. The
details of the trail development will be worked out between the developer and the Parks staff
before building permits are issued.
The Design Review Board has the final authority over site plans in Wolf Pen Creek and will
review and take action on the site plan after staff has determined that it meets all minimum
standards.
Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the final plat. The
options regarding the final plat are:
• Approval
• Denial
Supporting Materials:
1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map
2. Application
3. Copy of Preliminary and Final Plat (provided in packet)
4. Staff Review Comments
STAFF REPORT
Item: Couidcrati.oa ol a FizW Plat fQr Wat Wo!f Pm Cn:ek:, 12.3 ~ aJoog the. IOllch side ol
JiaM1y Ro.d bc:twec:a ~ ~ ct Woodstoc:k Col!dominiums divided imo 4 .lots UJd, a Wolf
Pen Creek Dedicatioa Area. ·(99--201)
Applicut: MOO rep~ 'Pool Poctfoli.o Prope~
Item ~: The pu.rposc of this final plat is to divide ll .. 3 aae. iato 4 lots and appro:ximai.cly
6.46 aaa of Wolf Pen Ctedc.dedicatioa.. AU loll wilhin ibis plat arecw:really zooecl WPC.
ltai B~: The Land U.C Plan sbaws this area u Wolf Pm Crock whiGb is ao an:a with a
Wiiip: -iDa ·diltrid cftlial u part at the WQJf PU! Cra:k: l1IQta' p1-. Thc IPPtlc:aot is cbiriQa
to plat this Jlf'OPl'l1Y fQt fururc ~ &ild <kvdopn:ut. One ,of dJc. lou is cunaidy dcvcWpcd u dao
old Chrismw Scace (or Slll:akcr'l) ~.is mm:ntly vacaat. UU. lot is bci.Qa ~in llUa
p'-1 ~ it wu ·pu:t of the ~-11act and WU DOC properly plaUcd prior to dcYdopmc:ot •
. Althoogb devdopmc:sithu ocxum:dm t.bil Jot. staft'IW ~-and disouued wilh the appliic:ml
the .ability to cibWn additimal 6Cl;C:$$ ~15 IO the tred;, ~ ate ncccuary for \be City to
rnaintaUl exiat.ina etce:lc imp~ It this loc:atioo. 11ic applicaot bu aal'1lOd to provide lbcso
·cuements on the plAr and it is sbQwn oo Lot I as a 20' Park Maimawlcc Acccm Eacmcot .from smo 1.0 the WPC Dcdicatioo Arca and aloris the dedication bound.at)• adjacent to the exiatin&
re:taioiDg wall.
The Wolf Pm Creek: minimum reservatioo andfloodwayarQ Ir lbowtl·oa dicplat. k. dUcuued
dwing the hearing on the Pre1iiniDary Plat. lbe applic:aut ,bas hin:d N&tbaa D. Maier to restudy lhc
floodplaill and Ooodway ~ in this ana. This study Im 'been wbcnitted t.o FEMA. The: City
n:iceiYCd a k:tict-from PEMA, dated laooa.ry S. 1999, aclmowic:d&ii:lg the :1ubntluioo and 1be
JUultil. In that lcttcr,. FEMA mtea that upon compleiion of the pro.Jm, die~ may
mbmll add~ ~ and rcqucsc. a tlnal detenn.ioaiion oa ftVislDg the effQCtivc FIS report and
FIRM (i.e. LOMR).
In additlm UI the variance: request. lit the time of the Ptdin:llnary P~ the applicaot ~to
defer the dociiim to cidw::r-ibficatc or develop 1lic floodway mi minimum ~ U'C& oo.
Wolf Pm Creek: Tribuwy "A" u per die Wolf Pm Creek .M.utapbn wail •ite ~of
lou 3 and 4. With lbis plat ~ ~ ~ sbowi.q complc(c dcdi.calioa ~l~ property'°'
~ro!dmaldy 6.46 aa:es of dedicated WPC property.
Page 1 of 1
http://imaging.cstx.gov/ImageDisplay .aspx?cache=yes&sessionkey= WLimageDisplay &un... 101712009
Page 1 of 1
Judy Downs -FW: Wolf Pen Creek -construction above floodway
From: "Walker, Stan M SWF"<Stan.M.Walker@swf02.usace.army.mil>
To:
Date:
"'Ciity of College Station (Mark Smith )"' <MSMITH@ci.college-station.tx.us>
9/26/2002 9:33 AM
Subject: FW: Wolf Pen Creek -construction above floodway
Mark:
Are there any potential 404 impacts associated with this project?
Regards,
Stan
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a variance to the
College Station Drainage Ordinance to allow the proposed Texas Avenue Crossing Development
(currently known as Redmond Terrace) to construct facilities within the regulatory Floodway of a
tributary of Wolf Pen Creek.
The project site is located at the south comer of Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive and proposes to
construct access facilities at the rear of the site to extend over, but not into, the flood flow area of Wolf
Pen Creek Tributary "C". The applicant is Height Venture Architects.
The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at
the 6:00 p.m. meeting of the Board on Tuesday, October 1, 2002.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the
meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
For additional information, please contact Brett McCully, P.E., Assistant City Engineer, at (979) 764-
3570.
9-25-02
[ Posted in the legal section of the local newspaper, The Bryan-College Station Eagle, dated Wed Sept 25th, and
on the web page: htt ://classifieds.theea le.com/lineads/0699.html ]
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings~downs.COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW ... 9/26/2002
TO: Judy Downs
FROM: Robert Armstrong
DATE: May 23, 2003
SUBJECT: Wolf Pen Creek Grant Opportunities
I. Background Information
A Wolf Pen Creek Restoration Study has been developed under separate cover for the portion of Wolf Pen Creek and
Wolf Pen Creek Tributary #3 between Texas Avenue and George Bush Road. This memorandum addresses potential
grant fund ing sources that may be obtainable for this project. Table 1 below presents a brief summary of the project
alternatives as discussed in the Restoration Study. Refer to the study fo r a more detailed explanation of each alternative.
T bl 1 S a e ummarv o f Al ternat1ves
Alternate Alignment Cross-Section Type Estimated Cost
l A
1B
lC
2A
2B
2C
3
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Existing Concrete Biotechnical section Biotechnical section $1.8M
utilizing a slab rock toe utilizing a geotextile
wrap
Existing Biotechnical section Biotechnical section Biotechnical section $3.0M
utilizing a slab rock toe utilizing a slab rock toe utilizing a geotextile
wrap
Existing Biotechnical section Biotechnical section Biotechnical section $2.7M
utilizing a concrete utilizing a concrete utilizing a geotextile
retaining wall and rock retaining wall and rock wrap
facade at the toe facade at the toe
Existing Concrete Widened, natural Biotechnical section $0.7M
section utilizing a geotextile
wrap
Existing Biotechnical section Widened, natural Biotechnical section $1.9M
utilizing a slab rock toe section utilizing a geotextile
wrap
Existing Biotechnical section Widened, natural Biotechnical section $1.8M
utilizing a concrete section utilizing a geotextile
retaining wall and rock wrap
facade at the toe
New Natural, widened Widened, natural Biotechnical section $1.7M
section achieved by section utilizing a geotextile
removing existing wrap
apartments
Although there are several different grant programs available for stream channel restoration projects, three specific grant
programs appear to have the greatest potential application fo r the proposed Wolf Pen Creek project. Each of the three
grant programs are described below.
II. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 206
Grant Objective
To restore degraded aquatic ecosystem structure, function and dynamic process to a less degraded, more natural
condition, which will involve consideration of the ecosystem's natural integri ty, productivity, stability and biological
diversity.
May 23, 2003
Page 2
General Information
Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorizes the Corps of Engineers (COE) to administer
this continuing authority grant program. A letter from the City to the COE is all that is required to initialize a review by
the COE to determine whether a specific project qualifies for potential Section 206 funding. The letter must describe the
potential project and must also indicate that the requesting agency (City of College Station) has reviewed the COE
Section 206 program fact sheet (attached) and believes that the project is a candidate for funding under Section 206.
After receiving the request for involvement, the COE will prepare a Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP). The PRP is
typically an internally-developed document that describes the environmental degradation and restoration alternatives to
determine if there potential environmental benefits warrant federal involvement. If the federal participation is expected
to exceed $1 ,000,000 a Detailed Project Report (DPR) must be completed prior to development of plans and
construction documents. The DPR is a detailed evaluation of the alternatives and typically takes twelve months to
complete.
It is important to note that the COE will not participate in the purchasing of right-of-way needed for the project.
Therefore, funding for the removal of the apartment buildings as proposed with Alternative 3 would be funded
completely by the City.
Annual Grant Request Deadline
The Section 206 program is a continuing authority program and as such, has no annual deadline for submittal of grant
requests; projects are evaluated on a case-by-case basis as requests are received.
Cost-Sharing Percentage
The federal I local cost-sharing percentages are 65% I 35%, respectively.
III. EPA Wetlands Protection Development Grant Program
Grant Objective
The purpose of this grant program is to restore the nation's wetlands and riparian corridors. Channel restoration
activities, including educational activities associated with channel restoration are also funded through this program.
General Information
The EPA Wetlands Protection Development Grant Program is authorized under the Clean Water Act section 104(b)(3).
The 104(b)(3) funding is allocated on an annual basis. Funding levels for FY 2004 have not yet been announced. FY
2003 funding for EPA Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) was $1.3 million.
Federal priorities for the program vary from year to year. FY 2004 grant priorities will likely be published in the
Federal Register in July of this year. EPA 's Region 6 expects to publish a notice, requesting grant appli cations, 4-6
weeks after the Federal publication of FY 2004 program priorities.
Annual Grant Request Deadline
The deadline to apply for FY 2004 I 04(b )(3) grant funding is expected to be sometime in September of this year.
Cost-Sharing Percentage
The federal I local cost-sharing percentages are 75% I 25%, respectively.
May 23, 2003
Page 3
IV. FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
Grant Objective
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Planning Grants are available to States and communities to prepare Flood
Mitigation Plans. NFIP-participating communities with approved Flood Mitigation Plans can apply for FMA Project
Grants. FMA Project Grants are available to States and NFIP participating communities to implement measures to
reduce flood losses.
General Information
The City of College Station does not currently have a FEMA-approved Flood Mitigation Plan. Therefore, the Wolf Pen
Creek channel restoration project, or more specifically, the removal of the existing apartments as required for
Alternative 3, is not eligible for funding under the FEMA FMA program. In order to receive funding from FEMA for
the removal of the apartments, a Flood Mitigation Plan would first need to be developed and approved by FEMA. The
City could then make application to FEMA for FMA Project grant assistance for the Wolf Pen Creek project. While this
is a "longer term" process relative to the other potential grant opportunities, the potential dollar amount available to the
city may be greater than at least the EPA 104(b )(3) grant.
FMA Planning grants are available for the development of a Flood Mitigation Plan. The federal dollar amount allocated
for these plans is capped at $50,000 per City. Selection of which projects (from an approved Flood Mitigation Plan) are
to receive FMA Project grants is based upon an evaluation of project costs and benefits. Preference is given to projects
that will eliminate repetitive losses and payments from the National Flood Insurance Program.
City of College Station floodplain staff has indicated that the City is anticipating the development ofa Hazard
Mitigation Plan for College Station. A hazard Mitigation Plan that incorporates adequate discussion of floodplain issues
is accepted by FEMA for the FMA grant program.
Annual Grant Request Deadline
FMA grants are considered, awarded, and administered through state FEMA-coordinating agencies. The coordinating
agency for Texas is the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). Applications to TWDB may be filed at any time.
However, a formal notice and request for grant applications is generally made in October each year.
Cost-Sharing Percentage
The federal I local cost-sharing percentages are 75% I 25%, respectively.
May 23, 2003
Page 4
V. Conclusions and Recommendations
The COE Section 206 program likely has the greatest potential for providing the funds needed for the Wolf Pen Creek
Channel Restoration project. If the EPA funding levels for FY2004 are similar to those ofFY2003, it is considered
unlikely that adequate funding from the EPA would be dedicated to the Wolf Pen Creek project. HDR recommends that
the next steps for the Wolf Pen Creek project include:
• Draft a letter to the COE requesting their participation under the Section 206 program
• Develop a grant application for EPA funding of the Wolf Pen project. The two potential options would be as
follows:
1. Solicit funding for the entire project from the EPA ifthe COE decides not to proceed under the
Section 206 program -maximize funds to the greatest extent practicable.
2. lfthe COE proceeds under Section 206, apply for EPA's 104(b)(3) program for educational
workshops for post-project activities.
• Consider applying for a FMA planning grant for developing a Flood Mitigation Plan for the City of College
Station.
June 26, 2002
Mr. Mark Smith
Director of Public Works
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
Dear Mr. Smith,
Thank you for giving HDR Engineering Inc. the opportunity to submit this sole source proposal
for a feasibility study for options related to the restoration of Wolf Pen Creek. We believe that
this represents an important opportunity for the city. Attached are a scope of services (Exhibit
A) for this project, and a basis of compensation (Exhibit B). We have also attached our general
terms and conditions for the agreement (Exhibit C). We understand that you may wish to use the
City's standard terms and conditions, if so, please let us know.
In addition to the scope and fee proposed, I am also including, at the request of Judy Downs a
copy of the resumes of Rob Armstrong and James Thomas. Both these individuals will have the
major roles in the project. Rob is a member of the DFW Area Stream Team, which is sponsored
by the local Council of Governments and includes representatives from both state and federal
regulatory agencies. Rob is the only consulting engineer member of this team. Combined with
James Thomas's environmental science background, these two individuals can help identify cost-
effective and sound options for the City to consider.
We look forward to working with you on this project. If you concur with both the scope and fee,
please sign and return one copy of the document to us. If you would like further discussion of
our approach, Risa Fisher along with James and Rob will be in College Station on July 3, 2002.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
k~,~~,&
William R. Hindman P.E.
Senior Vice President
HOR Engineering, Inc.
Employee Owned
Approved: City of College Station
By:
Date:
17111 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, Texas
75248-1230
Telephone
972 960-4400
Fax
972 960-4471
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Exhibit A -Scope of Services
Page 1 of 5
This proposal by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to the City of College Station (CITY) is
to provide professional engineering services (SERVICES) to assist the CITY in the
development of a channel restoration conceptual study for the area of Wolf Pen Creek
located between Texas A venue and George Bush Drive.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
HDR proposes to develop a channel restoration conceptual study by providing the
following professional SERVICES for the CITY. This proposal includes engineering
services associated with collection and review of hydrologic and hydraulic data, revision
of the FEMA hydrologic and hydraulic models, and development of up to two channel
restoration alternative designs, including estimates of construction costs for each
alternative. HDR will also investigate grant-funding options. After data review and initial
modeling, HDR will issue a recommendation to the CITY for a preferred alternative
design. Upon approval by the CITY, HDR will develop more detailed hydrologic and
hydraulic models incorporating the preferred design. A conceptual design report will be
prepared and submitted to the CITY.
TASK 1. Data Collection and Review
Objective: To collect and review existing hydrologic and hydraulic data available for
Wolf Pen Creek in the project vicinity.
HOR Activities:
HDR will collect available Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil data and
United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. HDR will review aerial
photographs, topographic data, FEMA reports and data, and other relevant floodplain
studies provided to HDR by the City.
Task Deliverables:
None.
Key Understanding:
The CITY will provide aerial photographic data, topographic data (including 2' contour
data), FEMA studies, maps, and models, and other relevant floodplain studies including
hydrologic and hydraulic studies of the recent upstream improvements.
Meetings/Travel:
Assume one kick-off meeting between two HDR representatives and CITY personnel to
discuss the goals and objectives of the project.
Information/Services by Others:
Exhibit A -Scope of Services
Page 2 of 5
The CITY will provide aerial and topographic mapping data, as well as electronic copies
of floodplain studies, including FEMA hydrologic and hydraulic data.
TASK 2: Develop Existing Conditions Model
Objective: To revise the existing FEMA hydrologic and hydraulic models to reflect
existing conditions of Wolf Pen Creek between Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive.
HOR Activities:
HDR will revise the FEMA HEC-1 model to include the improved hydrologic conditions
resulting from the upstream detention facility at the Texas A&M Polo field. HDR will
utilize the 2' contour topographic data provided by the CITY to revise the FEMA
regulatory HEC-2 model to reflect existing conditions. HDR will develop the existing
conditions model of Wolf Pen Creek from 100' downstream of Texas Avenue to 100'
upstream of George Bush Drive using HEC-RAS.
Task Deliverables:
None.
Key Understanding:
HDR will revise the FEMA HEC-1 model to the extent that model-ready data from the
upstream detention facility (A&M Polo Field) analysis is available.
MeetingsfTravel:
One site visit by two HDR personnel.
Information/Services by Others:
The CITY will provide modeling and topographic data as described under Task 1. All
modeling will be based off of data provided by the CITY. No surveying will be
performed.
TASK 3. Develop Alternative Concepts
Objective: To investigate and develop up to two alternative concepts for providing
channel and/or riparian restoration of Wolf Pen Creek between Texas Avenue and
George Bush Drive.
HOR Activities:
HDR will conduct a site visit to review potential alternatives. Potential alternatives to be
considered will include channel restoration using bioengineering techniques where
appropriate, and providing water quality and/or flood control detention. HDR will
develop up to three typical sections for the bioengineering channel restoration alternative.
Exhibit A -Scope of Services
Page 3 of 5
Channel depths, average channel velocities, and channel shear stresses will be estimated
for each of the typical sections by approximate methods. No detailed modeling of the
bioengineering alternative will be performed at this stage. The detention facility
alternative will be evaluated by developing a preliminary stage-storage-discharge curve,
then modifying the HEC-1 model to the extent necessary to determine the feasibility of
the detention facility alternative.
Task Deliverables:
None.
Key Understanding:
The alternatives will be evaluated by applying engineering judgment and methods of
estimation. Detailed analyses will not be performed.
Meetings/Travel:
HDR assumes that one field visit will be made by two HDR personnel.
Information/Services by Others:
None anticipated.
TASK 4. Develop Conceptual Cost Estimates
Objective: To develop conceptual-level estimates of probable construction costs for the
purpose of evaluating the two alternatives.
HOR Activities:
HDR will estimate quantities and develop conceptual-level estimates of probable
construction costs.
Task Deliverables:
None.
Key Understanding:
None.
Meetings/Travel:
None.
Information/Services by Others:
None.
TASK 5. Investigate Grant Opportunities
Exhibit A -Scope of Services
Page 4 of 5
Objective: To investigate potential grant sources for the project.
HOR Activities:
HDR will explore the possibility of obtaining federal or state grants from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) and TNRCC.
Task Deliverables:
A letter memorandum describing an assessment of potential grant opportunities.
Key Understanding:
Efforts for this task will be limited to discussions with COE and TNRCC officials
regarding potential grant opportunities.
Meetings/Travel:
None anticipated.
Information/Services by Others:
None anticipated.
TASK 6. Develop Recommendations and Model Selected Alternative
Objective: To select a preferred alternative and to develop detailed modeling of the
preferred alternative.
HOR Activities:
HDR will prepare a brief letter memorandum defining the alternatives and the pros and
cons and estimated costs of the alternatives. The memorandum will also include a
recommendation for the preferred alternative. HDR will meet with CITY staff to discuss
the memorandum and the proposed recommendation. HDR will prepare detailed
modeling of the proposed alternative utilizing the existing data provided by the CITY in
Task 1.
Task Deliverables:
Memorandum including supporting calculations and modeling data, and meeting minutes.
Key Understanding:
The purpose of the additional modeling effort is to verify previous assumptions and to
verify that FEMA criteria can be met for the preferred alternative.
Meetings/Travel:
HDR will facilitate one meeting between HDR staff and CITY staff.
Information/Services by Others:
None.
TASK 7. Develop Concept Report
Exhibit A -Scope of Services
Page 5 of 5
Objective: To develop a concept report describing the methodology, assumptions,
alternatives, and recommendations of the concept study. Sketches of typical sections and
alignments, backup calculations, and documentation will also be provided.
HOR Activities:
HDR will develop a draft concept study for the CITY's review. HDR will incorporate
changes based upon staff comments and will prepare a final report.
Task Deliverables:
Two copies of the draft and four copies of the final Concept Study Report.
Key Understanding:
None.
Meetings/Travel:
None.
Information/Services by Others:
None.
Exhibit B -Fee Basis
Page 1 of 1
HDR proposes to be compensated for services described in this Scope of Services based
on a per-diem form of compensation.
We anticipate that we will be able to accomplish the tasks described in this Scope of
Services, not including additional services, for a total fee not to exceed forty-eight
thousand dollars ($48,000) without written authorization from the City of College
Station.
Compensation terms are defined as follows:
Per Diem shall mean an hourly rate equal to Payroll Cost times a multiplier of two and
one-half (2.5) to be paid as total compensation for each hour an employee works on the
project, plus Reimbursable Expense.
Payroll Cost shall mean salaries and wages, (basic and overtime) paid to all personnel
engaged directly on the Project, plus the cost of customary and statutory benefits
including, but not limited to, social security contributions, unemployment, excise and
payroll taxes, worker's compensation, health and retirement benefits, sick leave, and
vacation and holiday pay applicable thereto. For this Agreement, the amount of
customary and statutory benefits of all personnel will be considered equal to thirty-five
percent (35%) of salaries and wages.
Reimbursable Expense shall mean the actual expenses incurred directly or indirectly in
connection with the Project for transportation travel, subconsultants, subcontractors,
computer usage, telephone, telex, shipping and express, and other incurred expense.
ENGINEER will add ten percent (10%) to invoices received by ENGINEER from
subconsultants and subcontractors to cover supervision, administrative, and insurance
expenses. There are currently no anticipated subconsultants or subcontractors on this
project.
EDUCATION
B.S., Civil Engineering,
University of Oklahoma, 1986
REGISTRATION
Professional Engineer, 1991
(Nebraska No. E-7244) (Texas
No. 87107)
PROFESSIONAL
ENDEAVORS
HOR Engineering, Inc.
1999 to present
HNTB Corporation
1998 -1999
HOR Engineering , Inc.
1990 -1998
Wilson & Company
1988 -1990
Texas State Department of
Highways and Public
Transportation
1987 -1988
SPECIALIZED TRAINING
Brush Creek Biotechnical
Stream Restoration Workshop,
1997
Statistical Methods in Hydrology,
U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1994
Advanced HEC-1 Workshop,
U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1991
HY-7 Water Surface Profile
Computations (WSPRO)
Oklahoma State University, 1990
HEC-2 Flood Plain Analysis
short course, University of
Oklahoma, 1986
Introduction to Groundwater,
University of Oklahoma
Groundwater Institute, 1986
Robert P. Armstrong, P.E.
Experience
Mr. Armstrong is a civil engineer with 15 years of extensive experience in bridge
hydrau lic and scour studies, open channel hydraulics, and rural and urban stormwater
analysis and design using state-of-the-art technologies. He has served as project manager
on a wide range of water resource projects including over 300 bridge hydro logic and
hydraulic studies. Mr. Armstrong's career has also included roadway design and
construction observation, hydropower feasibility studies, and extensive railroad bridge
and culvert hydrauli c design. The fo llowing projects are representative of his experience:
HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS
Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad, Powder River Basi n Coal Expansion
Project. Conducted field inspection of bridge crossings across 850 miles of existing and
proposed track ali gnment stretching from eastern Montana into eastern Minnesota. Also
served as task manager for the hydraulic analysis of over 40 bridges along the railroad
corridor on this fast-track design-build project.
Union Pacific Railroad Company, Bridge Renewal Program, Various Locations,
Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas and Louisiana. Served as Omaha office project manager
for bridge renewal program. Assigned personnel for site visits, surveying, hydrologic
and hydraulic analysis, permitting, computer-aided drafting and design layout, and
technical report for 45 sites in Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Idaho.
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, Bridge Renewal Program, Various
Locations, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Performed site investigations, and
hydrologic and hydrauli c analyses. Prepared reports for 3 1 railroad bridges in Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Texas.
Washington DOT, Hydra ulic and Scour Evaluation of State Bridges, 1994-1996,
Washington. Project manager overseeing the collection of data; analysis of hydrology,
hydraulics, and scour, and preparation of reports and drawings for 150 bridge sites. The
purpose of the project was to determine the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A)
National Bridge Inventory System (NBIS) classification Item No. 13, Scour Vulnerability
for each of the bridges. The analysis methods incorporated varied widely based upon the
hydraulic and geomorphic characteristics of the stream channels and the physical
characteristics of the bridge. The bridges ranged in size from single span bridges on
spread footings to large structures such as the l-90 bridge over the Columbia River.
Hydro logic and geomorphic characteristics varied from tidally influenced estuaries to
mountainous streams.
Idaho DOT, Hydraulic and Scour Evaluation of State Bridges, 1996, Idaho. Served
in a quality control capacity for the scour analysis of multiple bridges located throughout
Idaho. Efforts included assisting the client with developing analysis methodology and
evaluation criteria for use by all consultants performing scour analyses for the Idaho
Department of Transportation. The purpose of the project was to determine the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) National Bridge Inventory System (NBIS)
classification Item No. 13, Scour Vulnerability for each of the bridges. The analysis
methods incorporated varied widely based upon the hydraulic and geomorphic
characteristics of the stream channels and the physical characteristics of the bridge.
Scour Analysis of State Bridges-1994, Oregon Department of Transportation
(DOT), Oregon. Served as project manager overseeing the collection of site data;
analysis of hydrology, hydrauli cs, and scour; and preparation of reports and drawings for
17 bridges at 13 sites. The sites were predominately located in coastal regions.
Oregon DOT, Scour Analysis of State Bridges, 1993, Oregon. Served as project
manager overseeing the collection of site data; analysis of hydrology, hydraulics, and
scour; and preparation of reports and drawings for 14 bridges.
Oregon DOT, Bridge Inspection Service, 1992, Oregon. Scour studies manager.
Collected site data; hydrology, hydraulics, and scour; and prepared reports for 20 bridge
sites. Reports included recommendations concerning scour vulnerability.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, Missouri River Environmental
Restoration. Served as project manager for the preparation of a Hydraulic Technical
Report and Engineering Appendix for the Overton Bottoms Missouri River Habitat
Restoration Project. The purpose of the project was to restore aquatic habitat in portions
of the Missouri River floodplain by breaching levees at several sites along a ten-mile
stretch of the river. The project includes the construction of a new river side-channel and
re-opening up to two remnant side-channels. The project, which encompasses 5,000
acres of river floodplain, is the largest restoration project to date on the Missouri River.
Texas Department of Transportation, State Highway 6 Over North Bosque River -
Fort Worth District. Completed a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for a proposed
bridge replacement on S.H. 6 over the North Bosque River. The project included
completing a scour analysis, hydraulic report, and hydraulic data sheet in accordance with
federal and state guidelines.
Texas Department of Transportation, U.S. 271 -Paris District. Completed a
hydraulic analysis for the proposed bridge replacement of2 bridges spanning the Ripley
Creek floodplain. Also provided QA/QC for the replacement of 8 bridges spanning the
White Oak Creek and Sulphur River floodplains. The hydraulic analyses included
modeling the replacement of existing structures and proposed construction of parallel
roadway bridges.
Texas Department of Transportation, U.S. 259 -Tyler District. Completed
hydro logic and hydraulic analyses for all roadside drainage features for this fast-track
highway design project. Completed the hydraulic design for over 20 roadway culverts
and one storm sewer system associated with a highway interchange.
Oklahoma Department of Transportation, US 70 Bridge Over Mud Creek.
Completed a hydro logic and hydraulic analysis for three bridges crossing the 1.5-mile
wide Mud Creek floodplain in south western Oklahoma. The analysis was completed as
part of a roadway relocation project.
City of Tacoma, Second Supply Pipeline, Tacoma, Washington. Served as task
manager responsible for evaluating scour potential at approximately 20 pipeline crossing
locations. Employed a screening method to determine the number of crossings that
warranted detailed analysis and determined the appropriate level of analysis for each site.
Results of the scour analysis were used in determining minimum cover required for this
60-inch major water supply pipeline.
City of Issaquah, Clark Street, Issaquah, Washington. Project engineer for modifying
an existing HEC-2 model to analyze alternative improvements to an existing bridge and
roadway. The work is being completed under a Federal Emergency Management Agency
grant for the City of Issaquah to faci litate reduction of upstream flooding.
HYDRO POWER
Alaska Energy Authority, Solomon Gulch, Valdez, Alaska. Gathered field data and
performed a hydraulic analysis of the spillway channel fo r use in analyzing potential
scouring of the toe of a saddle dike embankment as well as analyzing potential solutions.
Simpson Paper Company, Simpson Evergreen Mill Hydroelectric Project,
Willamette Falls, Oregon. Performed a regional hydrologic analysis to develop a long-
term estimated daily flow record on the Willamette River at Willamette Falls. The
analysis involved combining gaged flows from various locations within the I 0,000
square-mile drainage basin with simulated daily average flows for ungaged locations.
Long-term records were also synthesized for gaged locations with short periods of record.
Recorded and synthesized flows were routed as necessary to account for time Jag
between the various reaches of the drainage basin. Methodologies of stream flow
synthesis varied from simple drainage area ratios to linear regression techniques.
Estimated daily average headwater and tailwater elevations were also computed for the
falls. The stage analysis involved linear regression techniques to correlate short-term
stage information with estimated daily flow data. The computed relationships between
stage and discharge were used to synthesize a long-term record of stages. The estimated
daily discharge and stage information was utilized in analyzing various hydroelectric
design alternatives.
Benton County Public Utilities District (PUD), Tieton Hydroelectric Project,
Yakima, Washington. Incorporated a novel approach to analyze historic reservoir
operation trends to develop a reservoir simulation model to synthesize daily reservoir
contents and re lease to estimate the amount of energy to be produced from a proposed
hydroelectric facility.
Puget Power and Light Company, White River Bypass and Barrier Dam, Sumner,
Washington. Performed hydro logic and hydraulic analysis used in the design of a fish
bypass pipeline, fish barrier dam, tailrace canal, and bridge rehabilitation to minimize
project impacts on an existing hydroelectric power plant.
Hydro West Group, Youngs Creek, Snohomish County, Washington. Completed a
hydrologic and statistical analysis of stream gage data in the region and synthesized daily
flows for two potential hydroelectric faci lities on Young's Creek. Also performed a flood
distribution analysis for the project site.
Hydro West Group, Skookum Creek, Whatcom County, Washington. Completed
hydrologic and statistical analysis of stream gage data in the region and synthesized daily
flows for a proposed hydroelectric facility.
Hydro West Group, Warm Creek, Whatcom County, Washington. Completed
hydro logic and statistical analysis of stream gage data in the region and synthesized daily
flows for a proposed hydroelectric facility.
PacifiCorp, Bigfork Hydroelectric Project, Bigfork, Montana. Prepared hydraulic
analysis using HEC-2 to model the existing capacity of a water supply delivery canal for
a hydroelectric facility. Analyzed the impacts on the canal of proposed electric facility.
PUD No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, Sullivan Creek, Metaline Falls, Washington.
Completed hydro logic and statistical analyses of stream gage data in the region and
synthesized daily flows for a proposed hydroelectric faci lity.
STORMWATER
Bravos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Rock Prairie Road Landfill,
College Station, Texas. Completed an erosion control assessment and design selection
for preventing erosion oflandfill downchutes designed with a 25 % slope. The analysis
incl uded discharge computations, velocity and shear stress analysis, and selection of
preventative erosion control materials.
Bravos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Rock Prairie Road Landfill,
College Station, Texas. Developing existing and proposed conditions runoff
calculations in accordance with TNRCC guidelines for a proposed landfill expansion.
The proposed analysis includes the design of natural channel, detention storage, and
erosion control elements for the channel and landfill. In addition, the landfill is located
adjacent to a floodplain that is regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). The project also includes the analysis, design, and permitting process for a
proposed temporary access road crossing the FEMA-regulated floodplain.
City of McKinney, Texas, Lavon Street Storm Sewer Design. Completed a
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for over 2,500 feet of storm sewer system ranging in
size from 18" diameter RCP to twin 6' x 3' RCB structures under a 5-lane roadway.
Preliminary plans and an alternative design option that includes downstream channel
improvements have been completed. The project also includes curb and gutter
replacement and milling and overlay operations.
City of Yakima, Yakima Drainage and Criteria Manual, Yakima, Washington.
Developed comprehensive stormwater management manual to supply guidelines for
completing stormwater analyses consistent with the region's specific characteristics and
requirements.
The Gentry Companies, Waiawa Stormwater Analysis, Oahu, Hawaii. Gathered
field data and completed hydro logic analys is of large residential, commercial, and
recreational development. Analyzed required sizes for pipes, culverts, open channels,
and detention facilities.
Snohomish County, Rolling Greens Estates, Marysville, Washington. Prepared a
drainage study and preliminary design plans for retrofitting an existing storm drainage
system within a densely developed community that is experiencing frequent flood
inundation.
City of Shawnee, Sharon Lane to Nieman Road, Shawnee, Kansas. Performed final
modifications to construction documents for an enclosed storm sewer design. Performed
bidding services, utility conflict coordination/resolution and permitting assistance. The
project is designed to prevent flooding along a 3,000 foot stretch of open channel through
residential neighborhoods.
City of Oklahoma City, Rhode Island Drainage Project. Project manager overseeing
the hydro logic and hydraulic analysis and preliminary design of storm drainage
improvements for this residential neighborhood. The project includes over 2,000 linear
feet of enclosed storm sewer through an existing residential area with houses located as
close as 4 feet from the centerline of the proposed pipe. The project also includes over
2,000 linear feet of open channel improvements. Concrete-lined and "bio-engineering"
alternatives were developed for the open channel improvements.
City of Overland Park, Indian Creek, Vicinity of 103rd Street and Lowell Avenue,
Overland Park, Kansas. Served as project engineer for developing existing and
proposed hydraulic models, construction drawings, and permit applications for a flood
control project along approximately 3,000 feet of Indian Creek. The project objective is
to eliminate flooding along I 03rd Street through the use of a levee placed along the
northern bank of the creek. A major design consideration was the development of a
method for protecting the levee, generally located less than 75 feet from Indian Creek,
from possible lateral migration of the Creek. The unique design soluti on included
burying a "riprap stockpile" at the toe of the levee. If Indian Creek migrates toward the
levee, the riprap will fall into place along the creek's bank to prevent further migration of
the creek. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Conditional Letter of
Map Revision was also prepared and obtained for the project.
City of Merriam, Biotechnical Channel Restoration, Merriam, Kansas. Served as
project manager for conducting a feasibility study on the use ofbiotechnical engineering
for channel restoration of two creeks in Merriam, Kansas. The goal of the projects is to
accomplish flood control objectives and erosion control of two eroding streams while
maintaining the streams in a natural environment. The biotechnological design solutions
will be considered as alternatives to the currently proposed gabion-lined channels.
Quilceda Meadows, Snohomish County, Marysville, Washington. Prepared a
drainage study and final design plans and specifications including two detention facilities,
piped drainage system, and open channels.
Union Pacific Railroad Company, Design Intermodal Facility Expansion, Seattle,
Washington. Project manager overseeing the design of grading, paving, drainage, and
lighting plans and associated permitting assistance. Incorporated numerous scope
changes while meeting an accelerated client schedule.
Union Pacific Railroad Company, Construction Projects for Culvert Extensions,
Marysville, Kansas. Prepared design plans for culvert extensions at numerous sites for
the railroad.
WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
City of Pittsburg, Sewer Design, Pittsburg, Kansas. Designed sanitary sewer
interceptor that included I 0,000 feet of gravity sewer, 6,000 feet of line rehabili tation,
900-gpm li ft station, and 3,000 feet of force main. Other work included computer-aided
hydraulic analysis of sanitary sewers using HYDRA, and analysis of open channels and
reinforced concrete boxes.
City of Omaha, North Omaha Combined Sewer Study, Omaha, Nebraska.
Conducted surface water hydrologic investigation. Project included field data collection
and computer-aided analysis using HEC-1 and HYDRA as part of a combined sewer
study.
Buckner Dam, Pawnee Watershed District No. 5, Kansas. Analyzed possible effects
of reservoir site on local ground levels. Determined significance of both local and
downstream impacts from the reservoir. Prepared a feasi bility study describing the
potential groundwater impacts and an assessment of the reservoir's viability.
ROADWAY
Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Capital Improvements Program,
Mustang Road. Served as Project Manager for the design of a new 5-mile urban arterial
roadway southwest of Oklahoma City, OK. The project included design of a two-lane
roadway on 4-lane right-of-way. Responsi bilities included design and plan production
for all grading, drainage, and surfacing elements of the project.
Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Capital Improvements Program, Porter
Hill. Served as Project Manager for the design of3 miles of widening and resurfacing on
U.S. Highway No. 62 in southwestern Oklahoma. Responsibilities included design and
plan production for all grading, drainage, and surfacing elements of the project.
Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, South Padre
Island Drive Expressway, Corpus Christi, Texas. Supervised construction inspection
of bridges, retained earth walls, and roadways for the Texas State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation. Organized records for payment of all work
performed by contractors on this $25 million expressway project. Responsibilities
included serving as Assistant Project Manager and making construction-related design
changes for roadway and associated construction activities.
City of Bonner Springs, LP A Construction Project, Bonner Springs, Kansas.
Supervised construction inspection, documentation, and correspondence with city, state,
and contractor for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of roadway improvements to
Kansas Avenue. Responsibilities included making construction-related design changes
fo r all roadway and associated construction activities.
City of Lawrence, Seventh Street Widening, Lawrence, Kansas. Project engineer for
design of this roadway and retaining wall project. The project objectives included
widening the roadway, adding a tum lane, and improving vertical curve site distance.
EDUCATION
M.S., Wildlife & Fisheries
Sciences, Texas A&M
University, 1994
B.S., Wildlife & Fisheries
Sciences, Texas A&M
University, 1991
REGISTRATION
Professional Wetland Scientist,
2000 -Society of Wetland
Scientists
Certified Wildlife Biologist, 2000
-The Wildlife Society
PROFESSIONAL
ENDEAVORS
HOR Engineering, Inc.
2000 -to present
Geo-Marine, Inc.
1999-2000
Texas Parks & Wildlife
1997 -1999
Geo-Marine, Inc.
1994 -1997
PROFESSIONAL
ACTIVITIES
Society of Wetland Scientists
The Wildlife Society
Texas Aquatic Plant
Management Society
James A. Thomas, PWS, CWB
Experience
Mr. Thomas has over 6 years of professional experience in a variety of natural resource
projects, with an emphasis on wetland delineations, permit coordination, and restoration
projects. Areas of expertise include:
~ Delineation of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands
~ Wetland restoration techniques
~ Section 404 permit coordination
~ Threatened/Endangered species surveys
~ Wetland ecology and functional assessment
~ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Preparation
~ Biological assessments of wildlife and vegetative communities
WETLAND/ NATURAL RESOURCE PROJECTS
Managed, supervised, and/or participated in over 40 wetland delineation, management, or
restoration projects. These projects have included work in coastal marshes and swamps,
inland forested and emergent wetlands, playa lakes, tropical mangrove communities,
desert basin wetlands, and riparian habitats. Delineation projects identified jurisdictional
waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on property for planning of developments and in
support of NEPA work. Delineations have been conducted throughout Texas, and in
Louisiana, New Mexico and Arizona.
Other natural resource project experience includes DoD integrated natural resource
management plans, protected species surveys, baseline ecological assessments, and
rangeland monitoring. Representative project descriptions are listed below.
Central Texas Turnpike Project, State Highway 130, Wetland Delineation and 404
Permit Coordination, Texas Turnpike Authority. Mr. Thomas is the senior wetland
scientist for the delineation and permit coordination for the proposed 90-mile SH 130
Texas Turnpike Authority Project from Georgetown to Sequin. He coordinated the
preliminary assessment, field surveys, and final delineation for the new construction
project. He also led to effort to prepare the Section 404/401 Individual Permit
application for the project. Mr. Thomas is working with an interdisciplinary team to
develop the Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan for the project. HDR and TTA are
currently coordinating with the USACE Fort Worth Regulatory Branch, TNRCC, and
other resource agencies to secure the Individual Permit and the 401 Water Quality
Certification for this major transportation project.
Section 404 Individual Permit and Threatened/Endangered Species Coordination.
Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency (BVSWMA), Grimes County, Texas.
Conducted surveys for jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and Threatened/Endangered
Species on 600-acre tract for the proposed BVSWMA State Highway 30 Landfill.
Prepared jurisdictional delineation report and survey report for Navasota Ladies' Tresses
(Spiranthes parksii). Currently coordinating with USACE for a Section 404 Individual
Permit and have initiated Section 7 consultation for impacts to Spiranthes parksii . Have
prepared conceptual Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of major populations of
Spiranthes parksii on adjacent tracts.
James A... "lbcm.uw, Pwa, cwa
Pa9ea
TU Electric, Post-mined Wetland Delineation, Martin Lake and Oak Hill Mines,
Panola, and Rusk counties, Texas. Project Manager/Wetland Ecologist. Performed
the delineation of created wetlands and streams on 3,800 ac of reclaimed surface-mined
areas. The jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were mapped and evaluated to fulfill the
monitoring requirements for the wetland permit issued for the lignite surface mining
operations.
San Jacinto Rail Limited I Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Bayport Build-
In, Harris County, Texas. Project Environmental Scientist. Conducted wetland
delineation and environmental surveys for 12.8-mile new rai lroad construction project
from SH3 to the Bayport Industrial Complex in southeast Harris County. Coordinated
Section 404 Permit submittals to US Army Corps of Engineers and provided
environmental data to National Surface Transportation Board designated third party
contractor in support of Environmental Assessment. Performed impact assessment for
multiple alternatives segments for jurisdictional wetlands, threatened/endangered species,
wildlife habitat, and unique native plant communities in ROW.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Seadrift Build-In, Calhoun County, Texas.
Project Environmental Scientist. Conducted wetland delineation and environmental
surveys for 7.7-mile new railroad construction project from US 87 to Dow Chemical
Plant in Calhoun County, Texas. Coordinated 404 Permit submittals to US Army Corps
of Engineers and provided environmental data to National Surface Transportation Board
designated third party contractor in support of Environmental Assessment. Performed
impact assessment for three alternatives for jurisdictional wetlands, wildlife habitat, and
native plant communities in ROW.
Raney Landfill Wetland Mitigation Plan, Rowlett, Texas. Project Manager/Wetland
Ecologist. Performed a wetland delineation on the proposed landfill site and developed a
conceptual mitigation plan to create 6 ac of emergent and forested wetlands to
compensate for impacts of landfill operation. Tasks included photo interpretation,
wetland delineation, impact assessment, conceptual design, report preparation, and
coordination with USACE.
George Bush Turnpike Segment IV, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), North
Texas Turnpike Authority. Wetland biologist for pre-final EIS prepared for George
Bush Turnpike (SH 190), Segment IV. The segment is a 5.1 mile extension ofSH 190
between TH 65 in the south and the IH 35E/SH 190 interchange at its northern terminus.
Portions of the project corridor lie adjacent to or within the floodplain of the Elm Fork of
the Trinity River. Performed jurisdictional wetland delineations and impact analysis for
several route alternatives and worked on interdi sciplinary team to develop the Conceptual
Wetland Mitigation Plan.
Silveron Corporate Park/Commercial Development. Silverwing Development Inc.,
Flower Mound, Texas. Project Manager/Wetland Ecologist. Mr. Thomas managed
delineation and habitat survey efforts on a 350-acre site for a planned commercial
development. Tasks included preliminary delineation using aerial photography, field
de! ineation of all jurisdictional waters of the U.S., and habitat surveys to determine
potential occurrence of state or federal protected plant or animal species. Mr. Thomas
prepared a Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the project incorporating riparian restoration
of a degraded intermittent stream for proposed impacts to ephemeral stream channels. He
successfully coordinated the acquisition of Section 404 Nationwide Permit 39 from the
USACE Fort Worth Regulatory Branch.
James A.. l'twmas, PWS, cwa
Pa9@3
Lantana Development and Wastewater Pipeline. Protected Species Habitat Survey
and Wetland Delineation. Denton County, Texas. Project Manager/Ecologist. Mr.
Thomas managed all aspects of this project to identify potential habitat of state and
federal protected (threatened/endangered) species on a 1,500-acre project area. Surveys
for protected species habitat and jurisdictional waters were also conducted along a 5-mile
wastewater pipeline required for the proposed development. The project included
intensive field surveys to inventory plant communities on the property, review of habitat
requirements for listed protected species, delineation of jurisdictional waters (utilizing
1987 Manual methodology), and potential impact assessment.
Los Machos Mangrove Restoration Planning Project, U.S. Navy, Roosevelt Roads
Navel Station. Wetland Ecologist/Field Project Manager for baseline monitoring surveys
in preparation of restoration effort. Participated in photo interpretation of historic and
recent aerial photos. Aerial photography from 1936, 1958, 1972, 1986 and 1993 were
analyzed to reconstruct the vegetation history, evaluate changes, and determine
contributing factors resulting in the current degraded state of the mangrove ecosystem.
Baseline habitat surveys were performed and a restoration plan to reestablish historic
patterns of hydrology has been developed.
Delineation of Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands, Cannon AFB and Melrose
Air Force Range, New Mexico. Project Manager/Wetland Ecologist. Delineation of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on 65,000 ac. The study required skills and knowledge
for the identification of plants, hydrology, and hydric-soil characteristics in the Southern
High Plains Region of the U.S. Tasks included photo interpretation, wetland delineation,
report preparation, mapping using digital ortho-rectified photography, and coordination
of USA CE jurisdictional determination of the delineation maps.
Land Condition Trend Analysis (LCT A), Melrose Air Force Range, New Mexico.
Project manager/biologist of project to establish long-term biological monitoring
transects and perform baseline surveys of 52,000-ac study area. Methodology included
preliminary habitat mapping using digital ortho-rectified aerial photography and
establishment of sampling transects in each habitat type. Primary tasks included GIS
mapping, GPS navigation, plant ID, biomass sampling, and statistical analysis.
Stormwater Retention Pond and Wetland Design. Cannon AFB, Clovis New
Mexico. Project Manager/Wetland Ecologist. Developed conceptual designed for a 5-
acre stormwater detention/retention pond with wetland margins on the Base to help
alleviate flooding problems at a golf course. The golf course was developed around a
playa lake which now receives increased runoff volumes due to surrounding
development. Mr. Thomas worked closely with the project engineer to develop the final
plans for the excavation and water control structure for the facility.
Delineation of Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands, Davis-Mon than AFB,
Arizona. Project Manager/Wetland Ecologist. Delineation of jurisdictional waters on
11 ,000-ac study area. The studies included the identification of plants common in
Southwestern Basin and Range ecosystem. Tasks included photo interpretation, wetland
delineation, report preparation, mapping using digital ortho-rectified photography, and
coordination of USACE map review.
Delineation of Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands, Holloman AFB, New Mexico.
Delineation of jurisdictional waters on 60,000-ac study area. The studies included the
identification of plants common in Southwestern Basin and Range ecosystem. Tasks
included photo interpretation, wetland delineation, report preparation, mapping using
digital ortho-rectified photography, and coordination of USACE map review.
.James A.. l'tw.mas. Pws. cwa
Pa9Q4
Delineation of Wetlands on DoD Properties, Panama. Project Manager/Wetland
Ecologist. Delineation of wetlands on approximately 8,200 acres on Howard AFB,
Rodman Naval Station, and Farfan Naval Radio Transmitting Station on the western
bank of the Panama Canal near Panama City. The study area included approximately
1,200 ac of mangrove and coastal wetlands. The project required the identification of
plants using herbarium specimens for comparison and the functional evaluation of
habitats.
Wetland Delineation for Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. Environmental Scientist.
Wetland delineations and report preparation for more than 5,000 acres on Barksdale
AFB, Louisiana. The methods outlined in the 1987 Manual were used to detennine,
delineate, and map potential Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands within the project area.
Delineation of Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands, for Texas
Instruments/MEMC Southwest Facility, Sherman, Texas. Project Manager/Wetland
Ecologist. Delineation of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on I 00-ac site of a computer
chip manufacturing facility. Tasks included photo interpretation, wetland delineation,
report preparation, and coordination of USA CE jurisdictional detennination of the
delineation map.
Endangered Species Reconnaissance Surveys on Four Remote Communication
Facilities in Puerto Rico, U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads. Field
Supervisor/Biologist. Participated in the identification of potential habitat for
threatened/endangered plant and animal species on four sites on Puerto Rico for the U.S.
Navy. The study included surveys for protected mangrove associate species, protected
vertebrates, baseline vegetation inventory, and surveys for potential habitat for protected
species.
Land Use Management Plan, Vieques Naval Facility, Puerto Rico. Field Supervisor/
Biologist. Managed the field effort for the wetland/protected species portion of the
project. Participated in the identification of potential habitat for threatened/endangered
plan and animal species on Yieques Island for the U.S. Navy. The study included
surveys for protected mangrove associate species, protected animals, baseline vegetation
inventory, and potential habitat for protected species.
Environmental Attributes Analysis (EAA) for the Red Rio Bombing Range, White
Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Wetland Biologist/Field Supervisor. Managed a
team of biologists to identify jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Areas surveyed included
the Primary Impact Area (2000 acres) and approximately 60 miles of road shoulders
within the Red Rio Bombing Range, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Also
participated in surveys for federal and state listed endangered, threatened, candidate, and
sensitive species.
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Test Support Network, White Sands Missile
Range, New Mexico. Mr. Thomas served as a field biologist and wetland specialist for
an EA for the installation of 205 miles of fiber-optic cable along roads at White Sands
Missile Range, NM. Duties included recording and mapping the protected species
populations, and identification of waters of the U.S. including wetlands. Five federal
endangered, threatened, or candidate plant and animal species (i.e., Toumeya
papyracantha, Neolloydia intertexta dasyacantha, Mammillaria wrightii var. wrightii,
Phrynosoma comutum, and Lanius ludovicianus) and additional state protected species
were located at almost 80 sites. The sites were recorded and marked for avoidance during
construction. Mr. Thomas prepared the wetland section and portions of the vegetation
section of the EA.
Environmental Assessment of Expansion of Louisiana Hwy. 1, Mansura to
Marksville, LaDOTD. Project Co-Manager/Wetland Ecologist. Managed report
preparation, addressed agency (LaDOTD, FHW A, and Tribal) comments, and prepared
wetland impact sections for the EA. Proposed project corridor was approximately S-
miles long and required impacts to natural resources and private residences.
Biological Survey of North Playa Lake, Cannon Air Force Base (AFB), New Mexico.
Field Project Manager. Supervised interdisciplinary team members, conducted field
surveys, and prepared the overall report for biological survey to develop characterize a
16-ac playa lake on Cannon, AFB, New Mexico. Project included surveys of plants,
avian species, small mammal, herpetofauna, fish, and protected species.
PROJECTS CONDUCTED AS A WETLAND I WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST WITH TEXAS PARKS &
WILDLIFE:
~ Initiated management operations at Blue Elbow Swamp WMA and Mitigation
Bank. Projects included bald cypress/tupelo forest wetland restoration,
wildlife/plant baseline inventories, and breeding wood duck surveys.
Coordinated TxDOT habitat restoration projects on the Area required by the
mitigation bank MOA.
~ Participated in activities on 5 Upper Texas Coast WMAs (35,000 ac) including
marsh vegetation surveys, coastal marsh restoration projects, fish sampling,
aerial surveys for waterfowl, waterfowl banding/radio telemetry, public
waterfowl/alligator hunt supervision, and outreach events. Developed wetland
restoration plans and technical guidance for landowners. Supervised student
interns during 3 summers of baseline inventories.
~ Managed field efforts for interagency (TPWD/TxDOT) wetland delineation of
proposed 3,700-acre Columbia Bottomland Mitigation Bank in Brazoria Co.
Duties included photo interpretation/mapping, wetland delineation, plant
taxonomy, report preparation, and meeting participation. Worked with TPWD
GIS personnel and Charles Newling (WTl/WSA) to develop sampling
methodology for unique habitat using GIS with digital ortho-rectified photos
(DOQQs) and differential GPS.
~ Coordinated interagency interpretive project at TxDOT Orange Travel Center.
Secured construction agreement and funding for 600-ft boardwalk and
interpretive displays to educate estimated I million annual visitors ofTPWD
visitor opportunities throughout Texas.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
SCOPE OF
SERVICES
Task 1
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables :
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
This proposal by HOR Engineering , Inc. (HOR) to the City of College
Station (CITY) is to provide professional engineering services
(SERVICES) to assist the CITY in the development of a channel
restoration conceptual study for the area of Wolf Pen Creek located
between Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive.
HOR proposes to develop a channel restoration conceptual study by
providing the following professional SERVICES for the CITY. This
proposal includes engineering services associated with collection and
review of hydrologic and hydraulic data, revision of the FEMA hydraulic
model, and development of up to two channel restoration alternative
designs, including estimates of construction costs for each alternative.
HOR will also investigate grant-funding options. After data review and
initial modeling, HOR will issue a recommendation to the CITY for a
preferred alternative design. Upon approval by the CITY, HOR will
develop more detailed hydrologic and hydraulic models incorporating the
preferred design. A conceptual design report will be prepared and
submitted to the CITY.
Data Collection and Review
The purpose of this task is to collect and review existing hydrologic and
hydraulic data available for Wolf Pen Creek in the project vicinity.
HOR will collect available Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) soil data and United States Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic maps. HOR will review aerial photographs, topographic data,
FEMA reports and data, and other relevant floodplain studies provided to
HOR by the City.
None
None
Assume one kick-off meeting between two HOR representatives and CITY
personnel to discuss the goals and objectives of the project.
The CITY will provide aerial and topographic mapping data, as well as
electronic copies of floodplain studies, including FEMA hydrologic and
1
Task2
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
Task3
Objective:
HOR Activities:
hydraulic data.
Develop Existing Conditions Model
The purpose of this task is to revise the existing FEMA hydraulic model to
reflect existing conditions of Wolf Pen Creek between Texas Avenue and
George Bush Drive.
HOR will utilize the 2' contour topographic data provided by the CITY to
revise the FEMA regulatory HEC-2 model to reflect existing conditions.
HOR will develop the existing conditions model of Wolf Pen Creek from
just downstream of Texas Avenue to just upstream of George Bush Drive
using HEC-RAS. Potential hydrologic benefits that may result from
proposed projects upstream on Texas A&M property will not be
considered.
None
FEMA regulatory discharges will be utilized in the modeling efforts.
One site visit by two HOR personnel.
The CITY will provide modeling and topographic data as described under
Task 1. All modeling will be based off of data provided by the CITY. No
surveying will be performed .
Develop Alternative Concepts
The purpose of this task is to investigate and develop up to two alternative
concepts for providing channel and/or riparian restoration of Wolf Pen
Creek between Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive.
HOR will conduct a site visit to review potential alternatives. Potential
alternatives to. be considered will include channel restoration using
bioengineering techniques where appropriate, and providing water quality
and/or flood control detention. HOR will develop up to three typical
sections for the bioengineering channel restoration alternative. Channel
depths, average channel velocities , and channel shear stresses will be
2
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
Task4
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
estimated for each of the typical sections by approximate methods. No
detailed modeling of the bioengineering alternative will be performed at
this stage. The detention facility alternative will be evaluated by
developing a preliminary stage-storage-discharge curve and then
modifying the FEMA HEC-1 model to the extent necessary to determine
the feasibility of the detention facility alternative. Potential impacts of
enclosing the stream in a culvert in the Redmond Terrace vicinity will also
be examined for each alternative.
None
The alternatives will be evaluated by applying engineering judgment and
methods of estimation. Detailed analyses will not be performed.
HOR assumes that one field visit will be made by two HOR personnel.
None
Develop Conceptual Cost Estimates
The objective of this task is to develop conceptual-level estimates of
probable construction costs for the purpose of evaluating the two
alternatives.
HOR will estimate quantities and develop conceptual-level estimates of
probable construction costs.
None
None
None
None
3
Tasks
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
Task6
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
Key
Understanding:
Investigate Grant Opportunities
The objective of this task is to investigate potential grant sources for the
project.
HOR will explore the possibility of obtaining federal or state grants from
the Corps of Engineers (COE) and TNRCC.
A letter memorandum describing an assessment of potential grant
opportunities.
Efforts tor this task will be limited to discussions with COE and TNRCC
officials regarding potential grant opportunities.
None
None
Develop Recommendations and Model Selected Alternative
The purpose of this task is to select a preferred alternative and to develop
detailed modeling of the preferred alternative.
HOR will prepare a brief letter memorandum defining the alternatives and ·
the pros and cons and estimated costs of the alternatives. The
memorandum will also include a recommendation for the preferred
alternative. HOR will meet with CITY staff to discuss the memorandum
and the proposed recommendation. HDR will prepare detailed modeling
of the proposed alternative utilizing the existing data provided by the CITY
in Task 1.
Memorandum and meeting minutes.
The purpose of the additional modeling effort is to verify previous
assumptions and to verify that FEMA criteria can be met for the preferred
alternative.
4
Meetings/
Travel:
Information/
Services by
Others:
Task7
Objective:
HOR Activities:
Task
Deliverables:
HOR will facilitate one meeting between HOR staff and CITY staff.
None
Develop Concept Report
The purpose of this task is to develop a concept report describing the
methodology, assumptions, alternatives, and recommendations of the
concept study. Sketches of typical sections and alignments, backup
calculations, and documentation will also be provided.
HOR will develop a draft concept study for the CITY's review. HOR will
incorporate changes based upon staff comments and will prepare a final
report.
Two copies of the draft and final Concept Study Report.
Key None
Understanding:
Meetings/ None
Travel:
Information/ None
Services by
Others:
5