The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14 Development Permit 305 TAMU Well 2FILE NOTE Date: October 16, 1995 To: DDP File No. 305: TAMU Well No . 2 From : Steve Homeyer . -~ Graduate Engineer o/ There is not a DDP for this well due to it being located on the TAMU Campus. However, a drainage report was conducted for this well by Kling Engineering. DRAINAGE REPORT FOR TAMU WELL NO. 2 UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMP ANY J. E. Scott Survey, A-50 College Station, Brazos County, Texas September 12, 1995 DEVELOPED BY: Union Pacific Resources Company clo Duane Phillippi 7300 N. F.M. 2818, Suite 200 Bryan, TX 77803 ( 409)778-4867 PREPARED BY: Kling Engineering & Surveying 4103 Texas Avenue, Suite 212 Bryan, TX 77802 (409)846-6212 Drainage Report for TAMU Well No. 2 Union Pacific Resources Company J. E. Scott Survey, A-50 College Station, Brazos County, Texas September 12, 1995 GENERAL LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The proposed drilling site for TAMU #2 is located within the White Creek Drainage Basin approximately 800' southwest of Agronomy Road approximately 1900' northwest of the intersection of University Drive and Agronomy Road. (See Appendix 3: "Vicinity Map"). For impact purposes this well is considered to be high. Currently 1/2 of the site is plowed cropland with no vegetation, and the other 1/2 is pasture land with a small tin building, some barbed wire fencing and a few power poles. The site is relatively flat with a slight slope to the southwest. There are two earth channels that help facilitate drainage of this area. Proposed improvements consist of constructing a 330' x 230' crushed limestone drilling pad and constructing an access road from Agronomy Road to the drilling pad. DRAINAGE BASINS & SUB-BASINS The primary drainageway for this site is White Creek Tributary "C". Runoff proceeds as overland flow until it is interrupted by one of the two earth channels. Both of these channels drain into a series of swales and roadside ditches within the TAMU Research Center until ultimately discharging into White Creek Tributary "C". Neither the proposed drilling pad nor the proposed access road lies within the 100 year floodplain according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Brazos County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas (See Appendix 2: "Flood Plain Map"). Two primary studies have been performed on White Creek and its tributaries. The first is a study performed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in July, 1992, titled El.oo.d. Insurance Study -Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas. The purpose of this report was to investigate the existence and severity of flood hazards for Brazos County and to aid in the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The second study is the Stormwater Management Plan, Phase III, performed by Walton and Associates -Consulting Engineers, Inc. contracted with the City of College Station in 1987. The purpose of this study was to gain knowledge of the existing and future drainage conditions in the City and to identify flood problems and flood prone areas. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA/FACILITY DESIGN A topographic/grading plat was prepared to show existing conditions, the limits of the proposed improvements, and to show the secondary drainageways that will drain the site (See Appendix 4: "Topographic/Grading Plat -Kling Engineering) (See note 2, Appendix 4). TAMU Well No. 2 Drainage Report Page 2 The well pad will be divided at the well head to drain in opposite directions. The northerly portion will sheet flow off the pad into the earth channel running parallel to the pad and leave the site following the path shown on the topographic/grading plat which ultimately drains into White Creek Tributary "C". This drainage path will be referred to hereafter as "Path 1 ". Runoff that proceeds as sheet flow off the well pad in a southerly direction will drain through the adjoining field to the southeast of the pad where it will be intercepted by an existing channel that flows in a southwesterly direction, then proceeds following the path shown on the plat which ultimately drains into White Creek Tributary "C". This path will be referred to hereafter as "Path 2". There will be no off-site runoff onto this tract. The earth channel along the northwest line of the pad intercepts any flow coming from the area north of the pad site. The Rational Method was used to determine the increase in runoff expected for this development. The design storm used was the 25 year event. A runoff coefficient of 0.25 was used for pre-developed conditions and 0.85 was used for post-development conditions which produced the following results: Entire Well Pad Northerly portion Southerly portion Acreage (acres) 1.77 0.93 0.84 Ere02s (cfs) 4.36 2.29 2.07 £Qs1Q25 Increase (cfs) (cfs) 14.83 10.5 7.79 5.5 7.04 5.0 The northerly portion affects "drainage Path #1", the southerly portion affects "drainage Path #2", thus an increase of 5.5 cfs is expected for Path #1 and an increase of 5.0 cfs is expected for Path #2. The drainage areas impacted by this development are shown on the plat entitled Drainage Areas of TAMU #2 (See Appendix 5: Drainage Areas). Using the Rational Method and Mannings Equation, post development runoff calculations were performed for each drainage area and its corresponding drainage structure (See Calculations: Appendix 7). A tabulation of the results for each drainage area follows: Drainage Area #1 #2 #2A Area (acres) 17.7 11.5 5.1 Q 25 E.!2.s1 Drainage (cfs) Structure 64.6 4 -30" RCP 47.6 2 -30" RCP 22.6 2 -24" RCP Structure Capacity 146.7 97.1 40.5 From the table it can be seen that for each drainage area the runoff from the 25 year storm event (Q25 -Post) is substantially less than the drainage capacity for the same area (Column 5). Therefore, the proposed development will not increase runoff to a level above the carrying capacity Of the drainage structures mentioned above. TAMU Well No. 2 Drainage Report Page 3 To analyze both drainage paths, the following steps were taken: 1) field measurements were taken so as to define the channel cross-section at different segments along each path, 2) channel capacity for each segment was determined, 3) the area contributing to each segment was delineated, 4) using Mannings Equation, a Q25 for each area was calculated, and the results compared . To analyze drainage path #1, the path was broken into segments , i.e. segments A-B, B-C, and C-D, as shown on Appendix 5 . The corresponding areas affecting each channel lA, lB and IC respectively are shown on the same plat. To analyze drainage path #2, the path was broken into segments E-F. The results are tabulated below: .Drainage Path #1 Segment AB BC CD Drainage Path #2 Segment EF CONCLUSIONS Q25 -Post (cfs) 11.1 16.6 27.9 Q25 -Post 22.6 Capacity (cfs) 33 .3 109.2 56.2 Capacity 190.0 TAMU #2 is considered to be a "high" impact well, and the drainage analysis has been performed accordingly. The 25 year storm was used as the design storm . An increase in flow in the secondary drainageways is expected, but does not exceed the drainage capacity of either of the studied drainageways. "I hereby certify that this report (plan) for the drainage design of the IAMU Well No.2 was prepared by me (or under my supervision) and that proper engineering considerations were taken into account for the owners thereof, II ~,,,,,,, .' .........-.-. ......... -;¢. F ti \' ~· ~ . .. ... :'\> • •• :t ;· TAMU Well No. 2 Drainage Report Page 4 APPENDICES 1) General Location Map -U.S. G . S. Quad 2) Flood Insurance Rate Map -FEMA 3) Vicinity Map 4) Topographic/Grading Plat -Kling Engineering 5) Drainage Areas -Kling Engineering 6) Calculations -Rational Method 7) Calculations -Mannings Equation kcs95-0lb :\tamu#2 .rpt I I I I ~~~ WWW WWW :c: :c: :c: en en en en 0 888 .... C\I C\I I I I <O .......... (') (') (') (') C\I C\I C\I .... 9999 (') (') (') PAD A Rr:;.A ::;. I· 77 tl'-c.. pre. ";.. 0 I 2. s CF""''~ o, ~S L),..A..p•t Aot 'Pf>t-,k #-I t\-{l~ 1-t -= o · c;? A-'-, D,,-A _,'o'\ .... v ?~.:r--1... 1'=-Z A il ~ti :. V. ~+.(_'- L ~~ ;_ Cl. <6~ ~ / (r Opr-e-1_$ =-( 0.1-i:;-'I_ 9 1 i ~ 'f_ J. 7 7) -;; '-/-. '?6 l rs brposr-z;--: ( O .9i;-) (. 9 . ~C.. )( /, 7 7 ) -= _;t./--,g~ c_~~ ·-. A Q 'L ~--ro r o. I ~ I ~' ' -S -'-\-:~ (D -;.. I 0 , 5 c: ~ ~ !)~\tJ~~~ 'P.+rtt :#= I Or~-~..--~ (O.'-'S")(9.fb)(o.q3) ... 2.zq c..t-" Gf;o~r-·l':;: (().fs)tt!l.)(o_.93) -=_ 7.79 l'.'.~~ /:Jlf""'. -p :. 7, ?Q -'2 '2..1 ~ b, S' c./.~ 9t5, C<."l"HI I VRA--11V~c ?t+n·I #1 Q pr~ -'2.'[; ::0 { 0 I'-?)( 9 I~~) ( 0 d? '+-) ";_ 2-I{) 7 c_f J O ,oou -z..-> ~ (o,~~)(Cf .i<si)(CJ·f'f) -:: 7 .o'f ~r~ APPENDIX 6 CALCULATIONS -RATIONAL METHOD 0 SHEETS 100 SHEETS 200 SHEETS 0 -c:1 cJ .)> -1> -~<:'.\ • ):>-'" *-=':_j ~ c r_, ~~ J * N ~ )?- SJ \' -p..-:i>-J>-0 0 0 1> ? ~ D ~ r 0 }> )>-?--v> ~ tf -I ,.l -; T -i c..O --1 -1 -a-LI -' ~ Ji .. -v ~ ~ r ~ l .., ~ ,. r .. \) ,r, ,, ""11 r 'O 1' ..,.. ,, ,, f' """\} ,,. ,, ,. r ,..._,,_ ~ ,...........,, " .. .r g !' G "' ,, ,, !()' " 9 ii 11 ,r !:') \1 " ,, ' 1(\ 3--f--+--JJ C> V\ _D y () () f , 0 '--" ~ 0 ~ ~f -. 0 -~ __j "' II" ....0 -F-V'\ -JJ _j) -l ~ P' ~ -4 -l r ~ ~ _J -l r (' -f-f ~ .__,.,, rrt <;:) eq -{' ,, _J ()' -r r __J -t ~ ~ (\ ..._.,.. ~ + 'O f f ii' ,_ V\ r; r ~ t, ff5 v' Iii--_J '--->< \}l '--""" ,,.---._ \! ~ ~ _J) --I ~ ~ . . .._J ~ ~ "---0-() ~ , , ~ n .._./ ~ ,......__ ~ ~\ _J ,, J I' ~ \I _J ..1.-:> ~ ,, ...........-\) V' ~ --{::. ,, () _J .. ~ . ~ r ----.1 t c;-- ..{:... ,..... r " U\ ,..... °1"" (/' 56 /7 ·o . .S . ~ ·--------- -(_c.·_c:;)l..:.~·o)-+ \o · 'A b 1 J) ~ -?J? _5 :.5 .::. ">_,,..,, Ar:_,,v -, " 0 . 1 -=-J-w \ 'V ·-,");> 6'0 -::. Jvv-.l'iyl J"9 i' ·ce, :. _ly t . \ -:it:i b'O -s ~...,,.k 'If ..., "17 b I 0 -::: Jw. I v o' I g l :P: vQ loJloJloJ loJloJloJ . ' ' ---,.,. ,. ,. ..., -...,_ 00"' 000 """"' ::c::c::c "'"'"' "'"'"' ............ "'"'"' Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Diameter Results Depth Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Full Flow Capacity Full Flow Slope Drainage Area #1: 4 -30" RCP's Worksheet for Circular Channel d:\fmw\tamu#2 .fm2 4-30" RCP's@ TAMU#2 Circular Channel Manning's Formula Full Flow Capacity 0.013 0.008000 ft/ft 2.50 ft 2.50 ft 36 .68 ft3/s 4.91 ft2 7.85 ft 0.00 ft 2.05 ft 100 .00 % 0.007978 ft/ft 7.47 ft/s 0.87 ft FULL ft FULL 39 .46 ft3/s 36 .68 ft3/s 0.008000 ft/ft APPENDIX 7 CALCULATIONS MANNING'S Kling Engineering & Surveying EQUATION Sep 7 , 1995 09 :41 :47 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v4 .1 c Page 1of1 Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Input Data Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope ·Diameter Results Depth Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Max imum Discharge Full Flow Capacity Full Flow Slope Drainage Area #2: 2 -30" RCP's Worksheet for Circular Channe l d:\fmw\tamu#2.fm2 Drainage Area #2 Circular Channel Manning's Formula Full Flow Capacity 0.013 0.014000 tuft 2 .50 ft 2.50 ft 48.53 ft3/s 4.91 ft2 7.85 ft 0.00 ft 2.28 ft 100.00 % 0.012209 ft/ft 9.89 ft/s 1.52 ft FULL ft FULL 52.20 ft3/s 48 .53 ft3/s 0.0140 00 ft/ft Kling Engineering & Surveying Sep 7 , 1995 09:54:27 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v4.1 c Page 1 of 1 Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method So lve For Input Data Mannings Coefficient .Channel Slope Diameter Results Depth Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Full Flow Capacity Full Flow Slope Drainage Area #2A: 2 -24" RCP's Worksheet for Circular Channel d:\fmw\tamu#2.fm2 Drainage Area #2A Circu lar Channel Manning's Formula Full Flow Capacity 0.013 0.008000 ft/ft 2.00 ft 2.00 ft 20 .23 ft3/s 3.14 ft2 6.28 ft 0.00 ft 1.61 ft 100 .00 % 0.008226 ft/ft 6.44 ft/s 0.64 ft FULL ft FULL 21.76 ft3/s 20.23 ft3/s 0.008000 ft/ft Kling Engineering & Surveyi ng Sep 7, 1995 09:48 :59 Haestad M ethods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-166 6 FlowMaster v4 .1 c Page 1 of 1 DRAINAGE PATH #1 -SECTION "A-8" Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description d:\fmw\tamu22 .fm2 Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method DRAINAGE PATH #1 -SECTION "A-8" Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 351 .50 ft Elevation range: 350 .50 ft to 351.50 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0 .00 351 .50 8.00 350 .50 10 .00 350 .50 18.00 351 .50 Results Wtd. Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Discharge 33.32 ft3/s Flow Area 10 .00 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 18 .12 ft Top Width 18 .00 ft Depth 1.00 ft Critical Water Elev. 351.40 ft Critical Slope 0.016623 ft/ft Start Station 0.00 Velocity 3.33 ft/s Velocity Head 0.17 ft 351 .4 \ Specific Energy 351.67 ft Froude Number 0.79 Full Flow Capacity 33 .32 ft3/s Flow is subcritical. 351 .3 351 .2 351 . 1 351 .0 350. 9 350. 8 350. 7 350. 8 5 350. 0 .0 \ \ \ \ 2 .0 Kling Engineering & Surveying End Station 18 .00 \ I\ \ \ [\ \ 4 .0 6 .0 ~ .. \ Roughness 0.030 I v / 7 I I I v I I I/ I 8 .0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18 Station (ft) Sep 11, 1995 21 :57:53 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v4 .1 c Page 1of1 DRAINAGE PATH #1 -SECTION "B-C" Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description untitled Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method DRAINAGE PATH #1 -SECTION "B-C" Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge In put Data Channel Slope 0.012000 tuft Water Surface Elevation 349 .68 Elevation range: 348 .41 ft to 349 .97 ft . Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0.00 349 .97 74.00 92.00 106 .00 153 .00 Results Wtd. Mannings Coefficient Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Depth Critical Water Elev. 349.46 348.41 349.22 349 .68 0.0 30 109 .19 39 .84 110 .98 110.92 1.27 349.61 tt3/s ft2 ft ft ft ft Critical Slope 0.018641 tuft Velocity 2.74 tus Velocity Head 0.12 ft Specific Energy 349.80 ft Froude Number 0.81 Full Flow Capacity 270 .31 tt3/s Flow is subcritical. ft Start Station 0 .00 350.0 349.8 ~~ 349.6 349.4 E. 349.2 349.0 348.8 348.6 End Station 153 .00 ~ ""'-" I"\ \ Roughness 0 .030 '""" .. /v I \ I \ I v I - / / I / ' I 348.4 0 .0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 16( Sep 11 , 1995 18:49:04 Station (ft) Kling Engineering & Surveying Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v4.1 c Page 1of1 DRAINAGE PATH #1 -SECTION "C-D" Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Input Data untitled DRAINAGE PATH#1 -SECTION "C-D" Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Discharge Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft 1 Water Surface Elevation 34 7. 77 ft Elevation range: 346 .81 ft to 348.44 ft . Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0.00 348.44 Start Station 0.00 38 .00 49.00 57 .00 74 .00 130 .00 Results Wtd . Mannings Coefficient Discharge Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Depth Critical Water Elev. Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Full Flow Capacity 347 .82 346 .83 346 .81 347 .62 347 .77 0.030 56 .17 26 .14 91 .51 91.44 0.96 347 .55 ft3/s ft2 ft ft ft ft 0.017015 ft/ft 2.15 ft/s 0.07 ft 347 .84 ft 0.7 1 411 .16 ft3/s 348.6 348.4 348.2 348.0 Flow is subcritical. _____________________ g 347.8 347.6 347.4 347.2 ' ~ '\ End Station 130 .00 "' ~ \ \ \ I Roughness 0.030 ... ,...-L--- I I L---....... 347.0 l1 Sep 11 , 1995 18:37:29 346.8 0 .0 2 0 .0 Kling Engineering & Surveying 40.0 60.0 80.0 Station (ft) Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 100.0 120.0 FlowMaster v4.1 c Page 1 of 1 140 DRAINAGE PATH #2 -SECTION "E-F" Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description d:\fmw\tamu22.fm2 Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method DRAINAGE PATH #2 -SECTION "E-F" Irregular Channel Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Channel Slope 0.008000 ft/ft Water Surface Elevation 345.42 ft Elevation range: 343 .99 ft to 347.63 ft. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) 0.00 347 .63 38 .00 346 .72 65.00 344.12 68.80 343 .99 72 .20 344.05 85 .20 344 .61 154 .20 345.42 Results Wtd . Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Discharge 190 .00 ffl/s Flow Area 60.84 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 102 .78 ft Top Width 102.70 ft Depth 1.43 ft Critical Water Elev . 345 .27 ft Critical Slope 0.016275 ft/ft Velocity 3.12 ft/s Velocity Head 0.15 ft Specific Energy 345 .57 ft Froude Number 0.72 Full Flow Capacity 2356 .82 ffl/s Flow is subcritical. Start Station 0.00 348.0 347.5 ...... 347.0 346.5 g346.0 3 45 .5 3 45.0 344.5 344.0 ~ ~ End Station 154.20 ~ \ \ \ \ Roughness 0.030 .. /" ~ \// ~ v- I 343.5 0 .0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160 Sep 11, 1995 22:05:51 Station (ft) Kling Engineering & Surveying Haestad M et hods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 067 08 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v4.1 c Page 1 of 1 ~-~ r Cl~~ o<?c~s S:~!lEG1~1 ~!~~!~N ~ College Station, Texas 77642-9960 August 16, 1995 Kling Engineering and Surveying 4103 Texas Avenue, Ste. 212 Bryan, TX 77802 Attn : B.J. Kling Dear Mr. Kling : ( 409) 764-3500 I have reviewed the drainage report for TAMU Well No. 2 that you prepared for Union Pacific Resources Company, dated June 29 , 1995. I am disappointed in this report . All it tells me is that when the well pad is built, more water will run off the site than before the pad was built . I do not need a drainage report to tell me that. You state several times in the report that this is considered a high impact report. I agree with this statement and have conveyed that to Mr. Bruchez's office . Since this is a high impact location, your report should address what impacts the additional runoff will have on the surrounding area and existing drainage facilities . It should also address what improvements should be made to mitigate these impacts. There should be a plan in the report showing where and how these improvements are to be constructed . Your report does none of that. Please resubmit your report in a more thorough form that addresses the concerns stated above . Sincerely, Kent Laza City Engineer cc : j Veronica Morgan, Asst. City Engineer Duane Phillippi Ernest Bruchez Home of Texas A&M University