The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About42 DP Sterling Univ Village 00-500065Sterling University Apartments, Phase II Drainage Analysis September 2000 By ;krrcHELL.&/koRGAN, LLP Engineers & Constructors 511 University Drive, Suite 204 College Station, Texas 77840 Office (979) 260 -6963 Fax (979) 260-3564 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report for the drainage design of Sterling University Apartments, Phase II was prepared under my supervision in accordance with the provisions of the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards for the owners thereof. · Joel . itchell, P.E. S te pf Texas No. 80649 / ~~'''~ ;" 'C. OF Tf:..r .~\111. ~~~~"\,.·······~"'• 1'*..-· * ···.\'-~~: .•.•.••........•• ~ I JOEL J. MITCHELL 2 ' '•••.,.•••••••••••••:•oR 1A-o·· -s> 80649 ~<J:,Jf K U ~o··.~Gt s1t:.~.·~~ ··\~.s:·····G~(°j.,,, ,,~~~/ONA\. T--!II#' ·~,,,,~ STERLING UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS, PHASE II SITE IMPROVEMENT DRAINAGE ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This storm drainage report is written to document and analyze the necessary drainage infrastructure for the Sterling University Apartments, Phase II site improvements. The parameters used for design and analysis of pre-vs. post-developed conditions are incorporated to show how the final drainage design will accomplish the desired drainage objectives per the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards (DPDS). GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Sterling University Apartments are located in southwest College Station at the southwest comer of Wellborn Road and Holleman Drive as shown on Exhibit A. The existing Phase I 19-acre site , comprised of approximately 29% grassland and 71 % impervious land cover (i.e., Cpre=0.74), is nearly surrounded by natural grassland. Some commercial property exists across Wellborn Road and a Southern Pacific Railroad right- of-way runs adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property. The proposed Phase II activities include construction of new multi-family dwellings, parking areas , and landscaping on a 3-acre tract east of and adjacent to the existing site. This new Phase II will be constructed such that the entire Sterling University complex (Phases I and II) will function as one site. Upon completion of Phase II the total area will be 21 acres with 28% grassland and 72% impervious land cover (i.e., Cpo si=0.75). PRIMARY DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION Discharge from the subject site enters the North Fork Bee Creek Tributary "B" drainage basin per the College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards manual. In general the property drains toward the south. Constructed during Phase I, two detention ponds located on the east side of the site capture all runoff except that originating from the southwesterly portion of the site. The ponds work in series as stormwater is routed first 2 Sterling Univ ers ity Apartments , Ph ase Il Dr ai nage Analysis ~~~~~~~~~~~~- through the northern pond and then through the southern pond before exiting the site , while the remaining runoff (from the southwesterly third of the site) discharges directly offsite via concrete flumes and a swale. The existing drainage areas and flow directions are shown on Exhibit B-1 and the proposed conditions on Exhibit B-2. No portion of the site lies within the 100-year floodplain per the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map as shown in Exhibit B-3. DRAINAGE FACILITY AND DESIGN CRITERIA All drainage design is in accordance with the City of College Station DPDS. As such: • the design rainstorm events used are the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year ; • post development runoff rates do not exceed the predevelopment rates; and • detention pond side slopes do not exceed 4: 1; Drainage facility design for Phase II is primarily an extension of the existing system designed by Sitech Engineering Corporation as part of the Phase I construction activities . Phase II drainage design will not alter the existing grading, grate inlets , pipe networks, flumes , or swales of Phase I. Rather, the proposed drainage system designed to manage stormwater originating within the 3-acre tract will work in conjunction with the in-place system. Generally, the sit~ will drain to the southeast as sheet flow in the parking areas before entering a single low-point curb inlet. Although this inlet will capture nearly all of the stormwater from Phase II, a 0.31-acre portion of the site will drain to an existing grate inlet. Much of this 0.31-acre area already drains to this inlet and the downstream storm sewer system has adequate capacity to accept this small increase While the 10-yr discharge will increase from 20 cfs to 24 cfs (see Exhibit C-4 Rational Method calculations) at the affected inlet, the downstream drainage system (consisting of a single pipe and overflow flume both leading directly to the northern detention pond) has a combined capacity of 25 cfs (see Exhibit C-4 additional information). In both cases the runoff will then travel via pipe directly to the northern detention pond. 3 Sterling University Apartments , Phase II Drai nage Analysis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Nearly half of the 3-acre Phase II development presently drains into the detention ponds and is , therefore , accounted for in the current Sitech Engineering design. However , upon completion of Phase II the remaining portion of the 3-acre tract will also enter the pond system. In addition to the added acreage , the construction of buildings and parking areas will further increase runoff entering the ponds , thus , requiring resizing/redesign of the pond(s). While the basic layout of the ponds will not be altered , several modifications will take place. Both ponds rely upon an orifice and V-notch weir housed in a concrete box for outlet control. These outlet structures will be removed from both ponds and replaced with sloped headwalls and larger single orifices in order to facilitate greater outflow through the low-level outlets rather than the over-flow weirs. The northern pond orifice will be 18 inches in diameter and the southern pond will be 24 inches. Due to physical limitations on site , the northern pond has been chosen for resizing. Simply extending the northern end of the pond approximately 100 feet will provide the necessary supplemental volume. The general geometry (i.e., side slopes and bottom slope) will remain intact, however, the low-flow flume will be extended to a new inlet at the northern end of the pond . The new inlet will convey stormwater solely from the 3-acre Phase II tract and all other inlets will function as previously designed by Sitech Engineering Corporation (with the exception noted above). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package computer model was used to simulate three basic methodologies in order to evaluate the performance of the detention ponds. In order to provide the most accurate estimates of peak flows , the interactions between the two detention ponds were analyzed. Most notably, the tailwater surface elevation of the northern pond (i.e ., the water surface elevation occurring in the southern pond) was used to determine whether the northern pond functions under inlet or outlet control. This determination was made by first computing water surface elevations assuming inlet control conditions in both ponds. Next the calculated hydraulic grade line (HGL) from the southern pond to the northern pond at each time interval was compared to the estimated headwater surface elevation. Because the calculated HGL was 4 Sterling Uni ve rs ity Apartm ents, Ph ase II Dra in age Anal ys is ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ consistently lower than the assumed headwater surface elevation, the pond system has been deemed inlet controlled. Thus, the HEC-1 simulations represent very accurate depictions of the behavior of the drainage facilities design during storm events. Three simulated storms were used in the analysis of this design. The original design by Sitech used the rational method and a triangular unit hydrograph (TUH) to model the detention facilities. Although this method is allowable under the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards (DPDS), its results often differ significantly from those using other runoff methodologies. Therefore, two other methodologies were used to check the design. These were the SCS Type III storm distribution (an approved methodology under the DPDS) and the National Weather Service hypothetical storm. Despite the accuracy of the HEC-1 computer simulation modeL the three simulated storms resulted in somewhat inconsistent outputs. For each of the three methodologies, three plans or scenarios were modeled. The three plans are: 1. Pre-Phase I development conditions throughout the 21-acre site ; 2 . Existing conditions throughout the 21-acre site using Sitech Engineering design parameters for drainage facilities; and 3. Post-Phase II development conditions throughout 21-acre site using Mitchell & Morgan proposed parameters and Sitech Engineering "as-built" parameters. The first method involved applying a triangular unit hydrograph (TUH) to each individual drainage area within the 21-acre site to produce composite inflow hydrographs to the ponds. The TUH of each drainage area is generated by setting the peak runoff rate equal to that determined by the Rational Method and its time-to-peak at its time-of- concentration with a base equal to 3 times its time-of-concentration. This methodology, used by Sitech Engineering during the initial design of the detention ponds, indicates over-detention within the system (see Exhibit C-1). Peak discharge values at the study point (southwest corner of site) indicate post-development flows reduced 17% to 33% 5 Ste rl ing Uni ve rs ity Apartme nt s , Phas e II Dr ai nage Anal ys is ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (2-to 500 -yr events, respectively) compared to pre-development conditions (e.g., 86 cfs pre reduced to 59 cfs post for the 100-year storm event). Table 1. TUH Results Location Plan Storm r, ent (d's) 2-YR 5-YR 10-YR 25-YR 50-YR 100 -YR 500-YR North 1 21 30 36 40 46 52 58 Pond 2 6 7 8 8 8 9 21 Outfall 3 13 15 16 17 17 18 35 Study 1 35 49 59 67 76 86 97 Point 2 23 30 35 39 44 49 54 3 30 38 44 48 53 59 65 The second method employed the use of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Type III storm. This technique uses a set of precipitation ordinates to create a rainfall distribution over time representative of a typical Gulf Coast storm. The result is a storm event of increasing then decreasing intensity producing a given cumulative rainfall depth (e.g., 11.0 inches for the 100 -year , 24-hour event in College Station). Unlike the TUH approach, the SCS approach indicates the system requires more detention (see Appendix C-2) for larger storms (e.g., 50-to 500-yr events) during which, peak discharge values at the study point for post-development conditions are slightly higher than those for pre- development conditions. Flows decrease between 3% and 32% for the 2-year to 25-year storms while increases range from 5% to 7% for the remaining larger events. Table 2. SCS Storm Results Location Plan Storm bt.•nt (rfs) 2-YR 5-YR 10-YR 25-YR 50-YR 100-YR 500-YR North 1 17 26 32 40 45 52 64 Pond 2 8 13 34 43 49 55 67 Outfall 3 14 17 23 43 49 55 67 Study 1 28 43 54 66 75 86 105 Point 2 17 22 53 71 80 90 109 3 25 32 37 68 80 91 110 6 _____________ Sterling Uni vers ity Apartments , Phas e Il Drainage Anal ys is The third method used a National Weather Service (NWS) hypothetical storm. This approach is similar in nature to the SCS technique of creating a typical local storm from a rainfall distribution over time. The NWS storm produces the same cumulative rainfall depth, but exhibits a more intense peak precipitation rate than the SCS storm. Although it is desirable to evaluate several magnitudes of storm events using the above techniques , the HEC-1 software allows for simulation of only one NWS hypothetical storm at a time (e.g., the 10-yr storm event). In order to circumvent this problem Mitchell and Morgan employs scaling factors by which single storm ordinates are multiplied to produce increased or decreased storm ordinates. Thus, creat.ing storms of other magnitudes. In this case the 10-yr event is the base storm and the other storms are simply scaled down or up versions of the base storm. Mitchell and Morgan recognizes a possible slight sacrifice in accuracy associated with this procedure; however, the simplification and convenience gained through this technique outweighs the minimal loss of accuracy. Because of the aforementioned similarities between the NWS and SCS techniques , the NWS results are similar to the SCS results. The NWS results also indicate over-detention during the more frequent storm events (see Exhibit C-3) and decreases in flows range from 6% for the 100-yr event to 43% for the 10-yr event. The sole increase occurs during the 500-yr storm event at a value of 7%. Table 3. NWS Storm Results Location Plan Storm bent (cfs) 2-YR 5-YR 10-YR 25-YR 50-YR 100-YR 500-YR North 1 30 41 50 58 65 75 88 Pond 2 8 18 36 50 65 84 105 Outfall 3 16 18 30 45 59 78 101 Study 1 50 69 84 96 109 126 147 Point 2 26 32 51 75 99 130 167 3 34 42 48 60 87 118 157 CONCLUSION While all evaluation methods are accepted practices, there remains some skepticism as to which, if any, is most appropriate and should therefore be relied upon for this design. All possess characteristics applicable and not applicable to this scenario. Because it is based 7 Ste rl ing Uni ve rs ity Apartm ents, Ph as e II Drainage An a lysis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~- on Rational Method calculations, the TUH approach is generally appropriate for drainage areas less than 50 acres (well in excess of the 21-acre study area). On the other hand this simulation produces an intense , but short storm. Thus , it typically does not require large amounts of volume for detention and drainage facilities based on these calculations may not be of adequate size for longer duration storms. Contrasting the Rational Method based TUH methodology, the SCS Type III storm technique is most commonly used for much larger drainage basins. In fact , many advise using the SCS technique only for watersheds greater than 100 acres. Although the Sterling University Apartments development clearly does not meet this criterion, the SCS method may still prove appropriate in detention facility design. This is due to the prolonged duration of the simulated storm event. Peak precipitation rates are lower using this methodology, but the cumulative depth of rainfall is much greater, thus , requiring much greater volume within the detention system. The NWS methodology shares several attributes with the SCS approach, as evidenced by their relatively similar results. A possible advantage of using the NWS hypothetical storm lies in its incorporation of a more intense peak rainfall rate (as compared to the SCS storm) embedded within a long duration event. Therefore , the NWS methodology evaluates performance under both conditions requiring an all-around effective drainage facility design. Perhaps no methodology used alone will produce the most effective and efficient drainage facility design. Rather , acknowledging each 's strengths (and weaknesses) and drawing upon those characteristics will lead to the optimal design. In the case of Sterling University Apartments , Mitchell & Morgan has attempted to do just that. The proposed drainage facility design incorporates information gleaned from three methodologies while simultaneously recognizing the physical and monetary limitations of the project. According to the TUH technique , one that meets all requirements of the City of College Station DPDS , the detention ponds meet all design criteria and are more than capable of liandling a very intense , short duration storm event , the SCS technique shows the design 8 ______________ Sterling Unive rs ity Apartm ent s, Ph ase n Dr ai nage An a lys is to be sufficient in the case of long duration events and the NWS technique provides verification the ponds offer suitable detentiort for long duration events with intense rainfall peaks. 9 _______________ Sterling University Apartments , Phase II Drainage Anal ysis EXHIBIT "A" ZONE X n ZONE X 28 16 PROJECT SITE LIMIT OF 0 DETAILED STUDY EXHIBIT "B-3" FIRM #48041C0182C EFFECTIVE DATE JULY 2, 1992 z Exhibit C-1 l ••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) JUN 1998 VERSION 4.1 RUN DATE lBSEPOO TIME 10:35:26 x x xxxxxxx x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x xxxxx x xx x xxxxx x x x xxx U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 (916) 756-1104 THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HECl (JAN 73 ), HEClGS , HEClDB, AND HEClKW. THE DEFIN I T I ONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP-AND -RTIOR-HAVE CHANGED FROM TH OSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK-ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP Bl. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS: WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM LINE 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 LINE 46 47 48 49 HEC-1 INPUT ID ....... 1. . .. 2 ....... 3 ..... 4 ....... 5. ... 6 ....... 7 ....... 8 ....... 9 . .. 10 ID STERLING UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS PHASE II ID PH STORM USING CONVERSIO N FACTORS ID PLAN UN DEVELOPED COND ITIONS ID PLAN 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS USING SITECH ENGINEERING CORP DES I GN PARAMETERS ID PLAN 3 MITCHELL & MORGAN PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND "AS BUILT" SITECH PARAMETERS IT l 14AUGOO 0000 1441 IO 5 0 *DIAGRAM JP FACTORS CONVERT ING FROM 10-YR STORM ••••••••• JR PREC KK BA DAl .0169 PH 10 LS 0 UD .2 KP 2 LS 0 UD .12 KP 3 LS 0 UD .11 KK BA LS UD KP LS UD KK HC DM . 0028 0 .09 3 0 0. 05 PONDl 2 KK RTPNDl KO RN KP RS SV SE SL SS SS KP RS SA 0 307 . 33 307 . 65 309.5 311. 5 3 SE 307.55 SL 308 .3 * SS309 .85 SS 311.7 .695 .863 l 1.108 1 .224 1.369 NWS HYPOTHETICAL 10 -YR STORM ••••••••• 0 .66 1.42 3.1 3.9 80 0 80 70 80 72 80 80 STOR .01 308 . 785 l 85 STOR .0232 308 l. 77 .577 85 70 -1 . 2 309 . 7 .67 3 -1 . 2913 309 . 7 2 .5 3 . 71 310 . 5 2.5 1. 5 .5432 310 . 5 2.5 1. 5 21 1. 42 311 . 7184 311 HEC-1 INPUT 1 .81 311. 5 .8058 312 4.4 2. 23 312 .8505 312.5 ID ....... 1 ..... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6. . .. 7. KK BA LS UD DA2 . 0045 0 .13 80 l. 557 5. 2 6.2 7. 2 .8 ....... 9 ...... 10 PAGE PAGE INPUT LINE 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 SCHEMATIC (V) ROUTING KP 2 LS 0 80 75 UD .10 KP 3 KK POND2 HC 2 KK RTPND2 KO 21 RN KP RS STOR -1 SV 0 .08 . 41 . 67 SE 305.5 306 307 308 308.5 SL 306.12 1. 23 . 7 .5 SS 307. 25 1 .67 2.5 SS 308.5 102 3 1.5 KP 3 RS 1 STOR -1 SV 0 0 . 08 . 41 . 6 7 SE 305.5 306 307 308 308 .5 SL 306.5 3. 14 . 7 .5 . 307. 25 . 577 . 5 2 . SS 308.5 102 1.5 KK DA3 BA .0083 LS 0 80 UD . 2 KP 2 LS 0 80 34 UD .12 KP 3 KK STDYPT HC 2 zz DIAGRAM OF STREAM NETWORK (--->) DIVERSION OR PUMP FLOW NO. ( . ) CONNECTOR (<---) RETURN OF DIVERTED OR PUMPE D FLOW 10 DAl 21 DA4 28 PONDl ..... , , .. , •• v v 30 RTPNDl 46 DA2 54 POND2. v v 56 RTPND2 72 DA3 80 STDYPT ........... . (•••) RUNOFF ALSO COMPUTED AT THIS LOCATION 1 * * * * * * * * * * ** * •• * * * * * * •• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * • . FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) JUN 1998 VERSION 4 .1 RUN DATE 18SEPOO TIME 10' 3 5' 26 STERLING UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS PHASE II PH STORM USING CONVERSION FACTORS PLAN 1 UNDEVELOPED CONDITIONS .9 5 309 .95 309 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 (916) 756-1104 PLAN 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS USING SITECH ENGINEERING CORP DESIGN PARAMETERS PLAN 3 MITCHELL & MORGAN PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND "AS BUILT" SITECH PARAMETERS 7 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL I PLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 14AUG STARTING DATE JP JR ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NQ NDDATE NDTIME I CENT 1441 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES 15AUG 0 ENDING DATE 0000 ENDING TIME 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL .02 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 24 .00 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECIPITATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATI ON FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEMPERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHEIT MULTI-PLAN OPTION NPLAN NUMBER OF PLANS MULTI-RATIO OPTIO N RATI OS OF PRECIPITATION .69 .86 1.00 l. ll 1.22 l. 37 VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG . 01667 . 01667 24 . 00000 VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG 30 KK 31 KO WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING RTPNDl OUTPUT CONTROL IPRNT I PLOT QSCAL IPNCH IOUT ISAVl ISAV2 TIMINT ROUTED OUTFLOW ROUTED OUTFLOW ROUTED OUTFLOW ROUTED OUTFLOW VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE I N LOGLOG VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG 56 KK 57 KO WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING RTPND2 OUT PUT CONTROL IPRNT I PLOT QSCAL IPNCH IOUT ISAVl ISAV2 TIMINT ROUTED OUTFLOW ROUTED OUTFLOW ROUTED OUTFLOW ROUTED OUTFLOW .01667 . 01667 .01667 . 01667 .01667 . 01667 . 01667 . 01667 VARIABLES 5 0 0. PRINT CONTROL PLOT CONTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE PUNCH COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH 24 . 00000 24 . 00000 24 . 00000 24.00000 0 21 SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT FIRST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED 1441 LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED .017 TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS 103.) IS GREATER THAN MAXIMUM OUTFLOW 105. IS GREATER THAN MAXIMUM OUTFLOW 104.) I S GREATER THAN MAXIMUM OUTFLOW 102. IS GREATER THAN MAXIMUM OUTFLOW . 01667 . 01667 .01667 . 01667 .01667 . 01667 VARIABLES 5 PRINT CONTROL 0 o. PLOT CONTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE PUNCH COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH 24. 00000 24 . 00000 24. 00000 0 21 1441 SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT FIRST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED .017 TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS 123. IS GREATER THAN MAXIMUM OUTFLOW 125. IS GREATER THAN MAXIMUM OUTFLOW 125.) IS GREATER THAN MAXIMUM OUTFLOW 122.) IS GREATER THAN MAXIMUM OUTFLOW 1.56 99.) IN STORAGE-OUTFLOW TABLE 99.) IN STORAGE-OUTFLOW TABLE 99.) IN STORAGE-OUTFLOW TABLE 99.) IN STORAGE-OUTFLOW TABLE 120.) IN STORAGE-OUTFLOW TABLE 120 .) IN STORAGE-OUTFLOW TABLE 120.) IN STORAGE-OUTFLOW TABLE 120.) IN STORAGE-OUTFLOW TABLE VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG .01667 .01667 24.00000 VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG .01667 .01667 24 . 00000 VALUE EXCEEDS TABLE IN LOGLOG .01667 .01667 24 . 00000 PEAK FLOW AND STAGE (END-OF-PERIOD) SUMMARY FOR MULTIPLE PLAN-RATIO ECONOM I C COMPUTATIONS FLOWS I N CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, AREA I N SQUARE MILES OPERATION STATION AREA PLAN HYDROGRAPH AT DA l . 02 HYDROGRAPH AT CM . 00 2 COMBINED AT PONDl . 02 ROUTED TO RTPNDl . 02 HYDROGRAPH AT DA2 . 00 2 COMBINED AT PO ND2 .02 ROUTED TO RTPND2 . 02 HYDROGRAPH AT DA3 . 01 2 COMB !NED AT STDYPT . 03 TIME TO PEAK IN HOURS RATIOS APPLIED TO PRECIPITATION RATIO 1 RATIO 2 RATIO 3 RATIO 4 RATIO S RATIO 6 RATIO 7 .69 .B6 1.00 1.11 1.22 1.37 1.S6 FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME 26. 12 .23 41. 12 .13 43. 12 .13 6 . 12 .12 6. 12.10 B. 12.07 30. 12.22 47. 12.13 49. 12.12 30. 12.22 B. 12 .73 16. 12. 47 PEAK STAGES I N FEET STAGE .00 TIME STAGE TIME STAGE TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME .00 311. 09 12.73 3 1 0.B9 12. 4B B. 12 .lS 12 . 12 .12 12. 12 .12 3B. 12. 20 19. 1 2.12 26. 12 .13 3B. 12.20 10. 12.9S 19. 12.S2 PEAK STAGES IN FEET STAGE .00 TIME .00 STAGE 3 OB. 03 TIME 12.9S STAGE 307. 70 TIME 12. S2 FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME 13. 12.23 lB. 12 .13 lB. 12 .13 so . 12.22 36. 12.23 S2. 12 .13 S4. 12 .13 B. 12 .12 B. 12 .10 11. 12.07 41. 12. 22 60. 12.13 63. 12.12 41. 12.22 lB. 12.S3 lB. 12.S3 . 00 . 00 311.61 12.S3 311.49 12.S3 11. 12.lS lS. 12.12 lS. 12.12 S2. 12. 20 23. 12.S2 30. 12.13 S2 . 12.20 17. 12.70 22. 12.SS . 00 . 00 30B.S7 12.70 30B. 00 12.SS lB. 12.23 23 . 12 .13 23 . 12.13 69. 12.20 44. 1 2.23 62. 12 .13 63. 12 .13 9. 12.12 9. 12.10 12. 12.07 so. 12.22 71. 12 .13 73. 12.12 so . 12.22 36. 12.37 30. 12.40 .00 .00 311. 73 12.37 311. B2 12.40 14. 12.lS 17. 12 .12 17 . 12 .12 63. 12.lB 44. 12.3S 36. 12.3B 63. 12.lB 39. 12. 43 2S. 12.62 . 00 . 00 30B. 70 12. 43 30B.47 12.62 22. 12.23 2B . 12 .13 2B . 12 .13 B4. 12.20 so. 12.23 69. 12 .13 71. 12 .13 11. 12 .12 11. 12.10 14. 12.07 SB. 12.22 79. 12.13 B2. 12.12 SB. 12.22 so. 12 .30 4S. 12. 32 .00 .00 311. BO 12.30 311. 92 12.32 lS. 12.lS 19 . 12 .12 19. 12.12 72' 12.lB 61. 12 .2B SS . 12 .32 72. 12.lB S7. 12.3S 4S. 12. 42 . 00 . 00 30B . 78 12.3S 30B.66 12.42 2S. 12.23 31. 12.13 31. 12 .13 96. 12.20 S7. 12.23 77. 12 .13 79. 12 . 13 12. 12.12 12. 12.10 lS. 12.07 6S . 12.22 88. 12.13 91. 12.12 6S. 12.22 6S. 12.2S S9. 12.27 .00 .00 311. B6 12. 2S 311. 99 12 .27 18. 1 2.lS 22. 12.12 22. 12.12 82. 12.18 79. 12.2S 73. 12 .27 82. 12.lB 7S. 12. 2B 66. 12.33 . 00 . 00 308. 8S 12.2B 308.7S 12.33 28. 12.23 3S. 12 .13 3S. 12.13 109. 12.20 6S. 12.23 86. 12 .13 89. 12 .13 14. 12.12 14 ' 12.10 17. 12.07 7S. 12 '20 100. 12.13 103. 12.12 7S. 12.20 84. 12 .22 78. 12.22 .00 .00 311. 94 12. 22 312. 07 12. 22 20. 12.lS 24. 12.12 24. 12.12 94. 12.lB 102. 12.20 96. 12.22 94. 12.lB 9B . 12.23 B9. 12.27 . 00 . 00 308.93 12.23 30B.84 12.27 32. 12 .23 40. 12 .13 40 . 12 .13 126. 12.20 76. 12.23 99. 12 .13 101. 12 .13 16. 12.10 16. 12.10 20. 12.07 88. 12.20 llS. 12.13 118. 12.12 88. 12.20 lOS. 12 .18 101. 12.18 .00 .00 312.02 12.18 312.16 12.lB 24. 12.lS 28. 12.12 28. 12.12 110. 12.18 128. 12.17 124. 12.18 110. 12.18 12S. 12. 20 llB. 12.22 . 00 . 00 309. 02 12.20 30B.94 12.22 37 . 12.23 46. 12 .13 46. 12 .13 147 . 12.20 *** NORMAL END OF HEC -1 *** FLOW TIME FLOW TIME 26. 12 .15 34 . 12 .15 32. 12.15 42. 12.15 51 . 12. 42 48. 12 .15 7 5. 12 . 33 60 . 12.40 99. 12. 28 87. 12.32 130. 12. 23 118. 12 .27 167. 12 .20 157. 12 .22 ExhibitC-2 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC -1) JUN 1998 U.S. ARM Y CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOG I C ENGINEERING CENTER 609 SECOND STREET DAV I S, CALIFORNIA 95616 (916) 756-1104 RUN DATE VERSION 4 .1 18SEPOO TIME 10 ' 36' 42 x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x x x x x xxxxxxx x x x x x x xx xx x x xxxxxxx x x x x x x x xxxxx xxxxx x xx x x x x xxx THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KN OWN AS HECl (JAN 73 ), HEClGS, HEClDB, AND HEClKW. THE DEFI NIT I ONS OF VARI ABLES -RT I MP-AND -RTIOR-HAVE CHANGE D FROM THOSE USE D WI TH THE 1973-STYLE I NPUT STRUCTURE . THE DEFI NIT I ON OF -AMSKK-ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVIS I ONS DATED 28 SEP Bl . THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIO NS ' DAMBREAK OUT FLOW SUBMERGE NCE S I NGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS ,WRITE STAGE FREQUENC Y, DSS ,READ T IM E SERIES AT DES IRED CALCULAT I ON I NTERVAL LOSS RATE,GREEN AND AM PT INFILTRATI ON KINEMATIC WAVE, NEW FINITE DI FFERENCE ALGOR ITHM HEC-1 INPUT PAGE LINE ID ....... 1. ... 2 ....... 3 ...... 4 ....... 5. . .. 6. . . 7. . 8 ....... 9 ...... 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3 0 31 32 33 34 35 36 3 7 38 39 40 41 42 43 4 4 45 46 47 48 49 LINE 50 51 52 ID STERLING UN IVERSITY APARTMENTS PHASE II ID TRIANGU LAR UNIT HYDROG RA PH ID PLAN 1 UN DEVELOPED CO ND ITIONS ID PLAN 2 EXISTI NG CO NDITIONS USING SITECH ENGI NEER I NG CORP DES I GN PARAMETERS ID PLAN 3 MITCHELL & MORGAN PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND "AS BUILT " S I TECH PARAMETERS IT 1 1 4AUGOO 0000 30 IO 5 0 0 JR PREC 4 .5 6 .33 7 .7 8.63 9.86 11.15 12 .5 3 JP 3 KK DA l PB . 00039 IN 1 l4AUGOO PI .1 . 2 PI . 95 . 9 PI .45 .4 BA 10. B LS . 01 UD . 0001 KP 2 LS . 01 UD • 0001 KP 3 LS . 0 1 UD . 000 1 KK BA LS UD KP LS UD KK HC DM 1. 79 .0 1 .0001 3 . 01 . 000 1 POND l KK RTPND l KO RN KP RS 1 SV 0 SE 307.33 SL 307.65 SS 309 .5 SS 311. 5 KP 3 RS SA SE 30 7 .55 SL 308.3 * SS309.85 SS 311. 7 STOR .01 308 . 785 1 85 STOR .0232 308 1. 77 .577 85 0000 . 3 .85 .35 38 74 75 38 75 -1 . 2 309 .7 . 67 3 -1 . 2913 309 . 7 . 5 3 . 4 . 8 . 3 . 71 310 . 5 . 5 1 .5 . 5432 310 .5 2. 5 1. 5 . 5 . 75 .25 21 1. 42 311 . 7184 311 HEC-1 INPUT . 6 . 7 . 2 1 .81 311. 5 . 8058 312 . 7 . 65 .15 2. 23 312 .850 5 312 .5 ID ....... 1 .. . .2 ....... 3 ....... 4 ...... 5 ..... 6 ....... 7 . KK DA2 BA 2.893 LS . 01 38 . 8 . 6 .1 . 9 .55 . 0 5 .. B ....... 9 .. .5 .0001 .10 PAGE 53 UD . 0001 54 KP 55 LS . 01 56 UD . 0001 57 KP 3 58 KK POND2 59 HC 60 KK RTPND2 61 KO 62 RN 63 KP 64 RS l STOR 65 SV 0 0 66 SE 305. 5 306 67 SL 306.12 . 982 68 SS 307.25 l 69 SS 308.5 102 70 KP 3 71 RS l STOR 72 SV 0 0 73 SE 305 .5 306 74 SL 306.5 3 .14 * 55307 .25 .577 75 SS 308.5 102 76 KK DA3 77 BA 5.323 78 LS .01 79 UD .0001 80 KP 2 81 LS . 01 82 UD . 0001 83 KP 3 84 KK STDYPT 85 HC 2 86 zz l * * * * * * * * * * * *. *. * * * * * * * * * * * * *. ** *. * * * * * * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE JUN 1998 VERSION 4 . l RUN DATE 18SEPOO TI ME (HEC -1) 77 21 -1 . 08 .41 .67 307 308 308.5 . 7 . 5 . 67 2.5 3 1.5 -1 . 08 . 41 .67 307 308 308 . 5 . 7 .5 2.5 2.5 3 l. 5 38 74 STERLING UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS PHASE II TRIANGULAR UNIT HYDROGRAPH PLAN l UND EV ELOPED CONDIT I ONS .95 309 .95 309 U.S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 (916) 756-1104 PLAN EXISTI NG CONDITIONS USING SITECH ENGI NEERING CORP DES IGN PARAMETERS PLAN MI TCHE LL & MORGAN PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND "AS BUILT" SITECH PARAMETERS 7 IO IT JP JR OUTPUT CONTROL VAR I ABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL I PLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN l MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 14AUG 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TIME NQ 30 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE l4AUG 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 0029 ENDING TIME I CENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL . 02 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE .48 HOURS ENGLISH UN I TS DRAINAGE AREA SQUARE MILES PRECI PI TATION DEPTH INCHES LENGTH, ELEVATION FEET FLOW CUBIC FEET PER SECOND STORAGE VOLUME ACRE-FEET SURFACE AREA ACRES TEM PERATURE DEGREES FAHRENHE I T MULT I -PLAN OPTION NP LAN NUMBER OF PLANS MULTI-RATIO OPTION RATIOS OF PRECIPITATION 4 . 50 6. 33 7. 70 8 .63 9. 86 11.15 12.53 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ••• *** *** *** **"' 34 KK RTPNDl 35 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 I PLOT 0 QSCAL 0. IPNCH 0 !OUT 21 PRINT CONTROL PLOT CONTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE PUNCH COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT FIRST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED ISAVl ISAV2 TIM INT 30 LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED .017 TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ••• *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 60 KK 61 KO OPERATION HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT RTPND2 OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 I PLOT QSCAL IPNCH 0 0. 0 21 1 30 PRINT CONTROL PLOT CONTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE PUNCH COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT FIRST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED !OUT ISAVl ISAV2 TI MINT .017 TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS PEAK FLOW AND STAGE (END-OF-PERIOD) SUMMARY FOR MULTIPLE PLAN-RATIO ECONO MI C COMPUTATIONS FLOWS IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, AREA IN SQUARE MILES TIME TO PEAK IN HOURS RATIOS APPLIED TO PRECIPITATION STATION AREA PLAN RATIO 1 RATIO 2 RATIO 3 RATIO 4 RATIO S RATIO 6 RATIO 7 DAl 10. 80 DA4 1.79 PONDl 12 .59 RTPNDl 12.S9 DA2 2.89 POND2 lS.48 4 .SO 6.33 7.70 8.63 9.86 11 .15 12 .S3 FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME 18. .17 35. .17 36. .17 3. . 17 3. .17 6. .17 21. .17 38 . .17 41. .17 21. .17 6. . 45 13. . 40 PEAK STAGES IN FEET STAGE .00 TIME .00 STAGE 309 .81 TIME . 4S STAGE 310.00 TIME . 40 FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW 5. .17 10 . .17 10. .17 26. .17 15. .lB 20. 2S. .17 49. .17 so. . 17 4. .17 4. .17 8. .17 30. .17 54. .17 S8. .17 30. .17 7 . . 47 15. .42 .00 .00 310.30 . 4 7 310. so .42 7. .17 14. .17 14. .17 36. .17 19 . .18 25. 31. .17 60. .17 61. .17 5 . .1 7 5 . .17 10. .17 36. .1 7 6S. .17 71. . 17 36. .17 8. .47 16 . . 43 . 00 . 00 310. 63 .47 310.86 .43 B. .17 17. .17 17. .17 44. .17 23. .18 29. 35. . 17 67. .17 68 . .17 6. .17 6. .17 11. .17 40. .17 73. .17 79. .17 40. .17 8. .47 17. . 43 . 00 . 00 310.8S .47 311. 08 .43 9. .17 19. .17 19. .17 so. .17 25. .18 32. 39. .17 77. .17 78. .17 7. .17 7. .17 13. .17 46. .17 83. .17 91. .17 46. .17 8. . 47 17 . . 45 . 00 . 00 311.13 .47 311 . 36 . 45 11. .17 21. .17 21. .17 S7. .17 28 . .18 3S. 45 . .17 B7. .17 BB. .17 7 . . 17 7. .17 lS. .17 52. .17 94. .17 103 . .17 S2. .17 9. .47 18 . . 45 .00 . 00 311. 42 .48 311.67 . 45 12. .17 24. .17 24. .17 64. . 17 31 . .18 38. so. .17 98. .17 99. .17 8. .17 B. .17 16. .17 SB. .17 106. .17 llS . .17 S8. .17 21. . 45 35. . 40 .00 .00 311. 63 . 4S 311. 86 .40 13. .17 27. .17 27. .17 72. .17 34. .18 44. TIME .20 .18 .18 .18 .18 .18 . 40 ROUTED TO RTPND2 15.48 FLOW 26. 36. 44 . 50. 57. 64. 72. TIME .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 FLOW 6. 7. 7 . 8. 8 . 8. 11. TIME . 48 . 48 . 48 . 48 .48 . 48 . 48 FLOW 15. 18. 19 . 20. 21 . 22. 24. TIME . 42 . 43 . 45 . 45 . 45 . 45 . 48 PEAK STAGES IN FEET STAGE .00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00 . 00 .00 TIME .00 .00 .00 . 00 .00 . 00 .00 STAGE 307.46 307. 72 307. 92 308 . 03 308 .14 308 .26 308.54 TIME . 48 .48 . 48 . 48 . 48 . 48 . 48 STAGE 307.29 307. 51 307 . 68 307 .79 307.94 308.07 308. 43 TIME . 42 .43 . 45 . 45 . 45 . 45 .48 HYDROGRAPH AT DA3 5.32 FLOW 9. 12. 15. 17. 19. 22. 25. TIME .17 .17 .17 .17 . 17 .17 .17 FLOW 17. 24. 30. 33. 38. 43. 48. TIME .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 FLOW 17. 24. 30. 33. 38. 43. 48. TIME .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 2 COMBINED AT STDYPT 20.81 FLOW 35. 49. 59. 67. 76. 86 . 97. TIME .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 FLOW 23. 30. 35. 39. 44. 49. 54 . TIME .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 FLOW 30. 38. 44. 48. 53. 59. 65. TIME .18 .18 .18 .18 .18 .18 .18 ... NORMAL END OF HEC-1 ... Exhibit C-3 l***'*'*'*********** *'*'***'***** '*'*'*'*'* '* '* '* '* '* '* '* '* '*'* . FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) JUN 199B U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER RUN DATE VERSION 4 .1 lBSEPOO TIME 1Q,34,2B x x x x xxxxxxx x x x x x x xxxxx x x xx x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 9S616 (916) 7S6-1104 THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HECl (JAN 73), HEClGS, HEClDB, AND HEClKW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIAB LES -RTIMP-AND ·RTIOR-HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WI TH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE . THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK-ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 2B SEP Bl. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS' DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS,WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS,READ TIME SERIES AT DES I RED CALCULAT I ON INTERVAL LOSS RATE ,GREEN AND AMPT I NFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE ' NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGOR ITHM HEC-1 INPUT PAGE LINE ID ....... 1 ..... 2 ....... 3. ... 4 ....... s ....... 6 ....•.• 7 •...... B. . ... 9. . . 10 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 2B 29 30 31 32 33 34 3S 36 37 3B 39 40 41 42 43 44 4S 46 47 4B 49 so LINE Sl S2 ID STERL ING UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS PHASE II ID SCS TY PE III STORM ID PLAN 1 UNDEVELOPED CONDITIONS ID PLAN 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS USING SITECH ENGINEERING CORP DESIGN PARAMETERS ID PLAN 3 MITCHELL & MORGAN PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND "AS BUILT" SITECH PARAMETERS IT 1 14AUGOO 0000 1441 IO S 0 0 *DIAGRAM JP JR PREC 4 .S DAl KK KM KM BA PB IN PC PC PC PC PC LS UD KP LS UD KP LS UD STORM 2 YR SCS TYPE III .0169 1 30 14AUGO O .oos .010 . 064 . 072 .217 .2S O .B72 .BB6 .963 .969 0 BO .2 2 0 BO .12 3 0 BO KK BA LS UD KP LS UD KK HC .11 DA4 . 002B 0 .09 3 0 o.os PONDl 2 KK RTPNDl KO RN KP RS 1 SV 0 SE 307.33 SL 307.6S SS 309 .S SS 311.S KP 3 RS 1 SA 0 BO BO STOR . 01 30B . 7BS 1 BS STOR . 0232 6 .2 S YR 0000 .OlS .OBl .29B . B9B . 97S 0 70 72 70 -1 . 2 309 . 7 . 67 3 -1 .2913 7. 4 1 0 YR . 020 .091 . soo . 910 .9Bl . B 2S YR . 02S .102 . 702 . 919 . 9B6 21 .71 1.42 310 311 . s 2.S 1. s . S432 . 71B4 HEC-1 INPUT 9 . SO YR .031 .114 . 7SO . 92B .991 1. Bl 311. s .B OSB 11 100 YR .037 .12B . 7B3 .936 .996 2.23 312 . BSOS ID ..... 1 ....... 2 ..... 3 ....... 4 ....... S ....... 6 ...... 7. SE 307.SS SL 30B.3 • SS309 .BS 30B 1. 77 .S77 309 . 7 2 .S 310 . s 2.S 311 312 312.S 13 .2 SOO YR . 043 .1 4 6 .Bll .943 1. 000 .oso .166 .B34 . 9SO . OS7 .1B 9 .BS4 .9S7 .. B ....... 9 ...... 10 PAGE INPUT LINE 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 SS 311. 7 KK DA2 BA . 0045 LS 0 UD .13 KP 2 LS 0 UD .10 KP 3 KK POND2 HC 2 KK RTPND2 KM RN KP RS 1 sv 0 SE 305 . 5 SL 306 .12 SS 307. 25 SS 308.5 KP 3 RS 1 SV 0 SE 305.5 SL 306.5 SS 308.5 KK DA3 BA .0083 LS 0 UD . 2 KP 2 LS 0 UD .12 KP 3 KK STDYPT HC zz 85 80 80 75 STOR -1 . 01 . 08 306 307 1 .23 . 7 1 .67 102 3 STOR -1 . 01 . 08 306 307 3 .14 . 7 102 3 80 80 34 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF STREAM NETWORK 1.5 . 41 308 . 5 2.5 1.5 . 41 308 . 5 1.5 {V) ROUTING {--->) DI VERSION OR PUMP FLOW 22 .67 308.5 .67 308.5 NO. { . ) CCNNECTOR { < - --) RETURN OF DIVERTED OR PUMPED FLOW 10 DAl 29 DA4 36 PONDl .........•.. v v 38 RTPNDl 54 DA2 62 POND2 ........... . v v 64 RTPND2 80 DA) 88 STDYPT ... {***) RUNOFF ALSO COMPUTED AT THIS LOCATION 1 *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE JUN 1998 VERSION 4 . 1 RUN DATE lBSEPOO TIME {HEC -1) 10 ,34 ,20 STERLING UNIVERSITY APARTMENTS PHASE II SCS TYPE III STORM PLAN UNDEVELOPED CONDITIONS . 95 309 .95 309 1 310 1 310 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 (916) 756-1104 PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS USING SITECH ENGINEERING CORP DESIGN PARAMETERS PLAN 3 MITCHELL & MORGAN PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND "AS BUILT" SITECH PARAMETERS 7 IO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL !PLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL IT JP JR QSCAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 1 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL IDATE 14AUG 0 STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 STARTING TI ME NQ 14 4 1 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE lSAUG 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 0000 ENDING TIME I CENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL .02 HOURS TOTAL TIME ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA PRECIPITATION DEPTH LENGTH, ELEVATION FLOW STORAGE VOLUME SURFACE AREA TEMPERATURE MULTI-PLAN OPTION NP LAN MULTI-RATIO OPTION BASE 24.00 HOURS SQUARE MILES INCHES FEET CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ACRE-FEET ACRES DEGREES FAHRENHEIT NUMBER OF PLANS RATIOS OF PRECIPITATION 4.SO 6.20 7.40 8.80 9. 80 11. 00 13.20 *** *** *** *** *** *** ••• *** *** ••• *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ••• *** *** *** *** *** *** 38 KK 39 KO OPERATION HYDROGRAPH AT HYDROGRAPH AT 2 COMBINED AT ROUTED TO RTPNDl OUTPUT CONTROL IPRNT I PLOT QSCAL IPNCH !OUT ISAVl ISAV2 TIM INT VARIABLES s 0 0 . 21 1 1441 .017 PRINT CONTRO L PLOT CONTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE PUNCH COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT FIRST ORDI NATE PUNCHED OR SAVE D LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS PEAK FLOW AND STAGE (E ND-OF -PERIOD) SUMMARY FOR MULTIPLE PLAN -RATIO ECONOM I C COMPUTATIONS FLOWS I N CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, AREA I N SQUARE MILES TIME TO PEAK IN HOURS RATIOS APPLIED TO PRECIPITATION STATION AREA PLAN RATIO 1 RATIO 2 RATIO 3 RATIO 4 RATIO s RATIO 6 4 .SO 6. 20 7 . 40 8.80 9. 80 11 .00 DAl .02 FLOW 14. 22. 28. 34. 39. 44. TIME 12.03 12.03 12. 02 12. 02 12. 02 12. 02 FLOW 18. 26. 31. 38. 42. 48. TIME 12.00 12.00 12. 00 12.00 12.00 12.00 FLOW 18. 26. 32. 38. 42. 48. T I ME 12.00 12. 00 12. 00 12.00 12.00 12.00 DA4 . 00 FLOW 2 . 4. s. 6. 7. 7. TI ME 12 .00 12. 00 12 .00 12.00 12.00 12. 00 FLOW 2. 4. s. 6. 7. 7. TIME 12 .00 12 .00 12 .00 12.00 12.00 12. 00 FLOW 3. 4. s. 6. 7. 8. TIME 12 . 00 12 .00 12 .00 12 .00 12.00 12.00 PONDl . 02 FLOW 17. 26. 32. 40. 4S. S2 . TIME 12.02 12.02 12. 02 12 .02 12 .00 12.00 FLOW 21 . 30. 36. 43 . 49 . SS . TIME 12.00 12.00 12.00 12 .00 12 .00 12.00 FLOW 22. 30. 37. 44 . 49 . S6 . TIME 1 2 .00 12.00 12 .00 12.00 12.00 12.00 RTPNDl . 02 FLOW 17 . 26. 32. 40. 4S. S2. TIME 12.02 12. 02 12. 02 12.02 12.00 12.00 FLOW 8. 13. 34. 43. 49. SS. T I ME 12. 22 12.18 12.0S 12.02 12.02 12.00 FLOW 14. 17. 23. 43. 49. SS. TIME 12.12 12.13 12.12 12.03 12.00 12.00 PEAK STAGES IN FEET STAGE .00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00 . 00 TIME .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00 STAGE 310.61 311.S6 311 . 71 311 . 76 311. 79 311 .82 TIME 12 .23 12.18 12 .OS 12 .02 12 .00 12 . 00 STAGE 310.37 311.22 311.76 311 . 91 311. 94 311 . 97 RATIO 7 13.20 SS. 12.02 S7. 12.00 S8. 12 . 00 9. 12 .00 9. 12 .00 10 . 12.00 64. 12.00 67. 12.00 67. 12.00 64. 12 .00 67. 12.00 67. 12.00 .00 .00 311.87 12.00 312.03 TIME 12.12 12 .13 12.12 12.03 12 .00 12 .00 12.00 HYDROGRAPH AT DA2 . 00 FLOW 4. 6. 7. 9 . 10. 12. 15. TIME 12 . 02 12 .00 12 . 00 12 . 00 12.00 12.00 12.00 FLOW 5. 7. 8. 10 . 11. 13. 15. TIME 12 . 00 12 . 00 12 . 00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 FLOW 5. 7. 8 . 10. 11. 13. 15. TIME 12 . 00 12 . 00 12.00 12.00 12 .00 12.00 12.00 2 COMBINE D AT POND2 . 02 FLOW 21. 32 . 40 . 49. 56. 64. 78 . TIME 12.02 12 .02 12.02 12. 00 12.00 12 . 00 12.00 FLOW 12. 16. 42. 53 . 60. 68. 82 . TIME 12 . 02 12 .1 7 12. 03 12 .00 12 .00 12 .00 12 .00 FLOW 19. 24 . 28 . 53. 60. 68 . 82 . TIME 12.02 12.02 12.10 12. 02 12.00 12.00 12 .00 ROUTE D TO RTPND2 .02 FLOW 21. 32. 4 0. 49. 56. 64. 78. TIME 12.02 12.02 12 . 02 12.00 12.00 12.00 12 .00 FLOW 9. 10 . 40. 53. 60. 68 . 82 . TIME 12.28 12.50 12.08 12.02 12.02 12.02 12.00 FLOW 17. 21. 23. 51. 60. 68. 82. TIME 12.12 12. 13 12. 20 12. 07 12.02 12.00 12. 00 PEAK STAGES IN FEET STAG E .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TIME .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 STAGE 307.79 308 .36 308.70 308. 76 308.79 308. 82 308. 87 TIME 1 2. 28 12 . 52 12. 08 12.02 12. 02 12 . 02 12 . 00 STAGE 307.47 307. 88 308 .18 308. 68 308. 73 308 . 76 308 . 82 TIME 12.12 12 .13 12. 20 12.07 12. 02 12. 00 12.00 HYDROGRAPH AT DA3 .01 FLOW 7 . 11. 14. 17. 19. 22. 27. TIME 12 . 03 12 . 02 12. 02 12. 02 12.02 12. 02 12.02 FLOW 8. 12. 15 . 18. 20. 23. 28. TIME 1 2.00 12 . 00 12. 00 12.00 12.00 12. 00 12.00 FLOW 8. 12. 1 5 . 18. 20. 23. 28. TIME 12.00 12.00 12 .00 12.00 12.00 12. 00 12.00 2 COMB INED AT STDYPT .03 FLOW 28. 43. 54. 66 . 75. 86. 105. TIME 12. 02 12 .02 12.02 12.02 12.00 12.00 12 .00 FLOW 17. 22 . 53. 71. 80. 90. 109. TIME 12. 02 1 2 .02 12.07 12.02 12.00 12.00 12 .00 FLOW 25. 32. 37. 68 . 80 . 91. 110. TIME 12.02 12.02 12.02 12.05 12 .02 12.00 12.00 *** NORMAL END OF HEC-1 *** ' J ~ co-Scco65 SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT INFOmfATION '°I/~~ Application is hereby made for the following development specific waterway alterations: M~ "-----"'I.~ ~ 1 lif-._.) ~~/owner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that: '~i ~ The ~oo and 00 .: CXIDlaiood in the ab<M: plans and supporting documcolS comply with the cum:nt RquhcmcolS <i City of College Station, Texas City Code. Chapter 13 and its associated Drainage Policy and Design Standards. condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to construct the improvcmcots proposed in this application according to doam>cmts requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City Code. tfilc Tu; ld t.ag Contractor .x::==.:===~ (for proposed alterations within designated flood hazard areas.) , ___________ __, certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part Engineer Engineer · n is designated to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100 year storm. Date ____ ___, _______ __.., certify that the finished floor elevation of the lowest floor, including any SIQJICblre, proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood elevation established in the Adlnm~lti·1 on Flood Hai.ard Study and maps. as amended. Date :. I. certify that the alterations or development cove~ by this permit shall not '----'diminish the flood-anying capacity of the waterwa ~oining or crossing this permitted site and that such alterations or development are consistent with requirements of the Ci of College Station City Code, Chapter 13 concerning encroachments of floodways and of floodway fringes. Engineer ' D . I, do certify that the p1ropcld.alteratlons do not raise the level of the 100 year flood above elevation established in the latest Federal Insurance ~on Ha7.ard Study. Engineer Date Conditions or comments as part of approval:------------------------- In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ontinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sMirnentation shall not be deposited in city streets. or existing drainage facilities. I hereby grant this permit for development All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project. All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station shall apply. "-.._.....JITE PLAN APPLICATION SITEAPP.DOC 03fZ~/'fl., 3 of3 . J . ~ m I ~ITE PLAN APPLICATION ij MINIM'1M SUBMrITAL REQUIREMENTS ./ Silt pJ.aai awlication c;anplr.tod m full . __L SlOOJ;iGAppaicatiol.i ~ _.L_ SlOO.~ ~ Pcniit Applic<atiM Foe. ..;;,L_ S300JIO Public~~ Fee if applicabla. (This fi::c is payabk if coostruciioa of a public wate.r linl; scwerl.ine, sidewalk,. meet or~ facilities is in\'Olved.) ·,/ . Tc:n (1~) foldld oopies «she plan. . l7 A coit of the 1i1'1llcbod 1itc pl.an chcclilist with .all items cb.ec;:lc.ed off or a W cxp1™tion ~ to 'Why they are not . checbid oft APPUCAnON DATA NAME Of *ROJEICI' _St~"" l-irJ.r ·U ~[-fl e.~2 i'f--1, V _~ '-L 4-'f='t -· . ADllWS ~ i 11 HoLLe,(!':.~f'J f>r:I!~. Wo.,i.t • c/LLe'I-~ s+~+; .. ,.d I ti ':FJ·?-A·D LEGALDEliCRIPTION .! APPUCANC (Primaly Cout3cC fur the Project): NIUllC .: _. ,('? A~Y f1n~~H iL..0 • ~= t..ddre.os r.e ~" ~ Yi.).~w k1 :4f 1 &:ti(.) City Ho~;Jf~ St31c _Ii<_ zap Code 11 o E:i~ E-Mail Addres.s-------fc-AfA-. ....._..~___,_D_m_c.._M_, ,-;M-r' ...... {~-. 6.-~- ~ lfumber -·1 l~"' 5?(0 · 06 ~ ' Fax Nwabct 117; .. 24 o .. $.e :; . . I Pa.DPER...,.i OWNER'S INFOlilMAUON: L. p N11.me _; ,S±.i.d e ..;t .!. Bu,; I J ti "5 ).., SU'CQ £~ (.,.3 b.3 Woaj u.> Ptt ~ .. ,:r ·.: /ODD City · ..... H...;..· ..... a 1 ..... 1 .,..s+_..o...;...V;._ _____ _ Sb.re ' T 'X'. Zip Code :r:r o S1' Pbooclil~ ":/-/3 510 oJoo . '£-Mail Addn:s.s {) flt; 11 'i-f e tJ M <-M j-c+ . (" /}) Fax Number + J J ~~+o -o .3 ;2. Ct ARCHfIE(iT OR. BNGINBBR'S INFORMATION: . . Name j HoF~ MG.Ht~~.::..!~ WtU..\ AM 'b . -Hc?Fr- sn-~ ~~;; Woe>Dl&!.A-'f ~ ~Of> 0tyH~10J . Statc ~;h"''>l Zip Code 1'1061 1 ' E-Mail A4dreis ~rz.ML£~e. H{)fft'l:'CrfrfU:.'f;, _ ,,,...;;... 11 ?• 1(,,1, • 1 l?;P,,1 Fdumbor 11 '.> -'}. ffi ~ • l "! 4-/) wi" . I OTHER.CONTACTS (Please ~typeOf~ ic. pnJjc.ct m;mager, ~t:lll bu~, local cootatt, etc.) Name :i M ~ t '-"-fl, A .l ~ y . Stteet~s ~Jlj L.tJ<:>;Jw.A-J. .s&,,'i·.,, 10 00 City l+ou~"+oJi) ,, -'-':..=>-'.....:...A<--~~~~~~- Stale '"r k Zip Codo ~ J...c s: r-E-MW.J Addres:i ---------- Pbooe Number + 1.3 .... Sro 0 3 S"r-Fax Nambor y... '-~ -S~D 0 ~r-2. . .:Y I cd3 ) .. IZT9/2~10f1l C?lS : El.=! P .1<!03 1 CSf:RJ,.X; ()~: .,j~~,i\'f CURRENT ~ONINO ___ f-i_-_'Q __ ~ PltESHNT f E OF PROPER.l'Y v~A,.,..:.·r 't r · I f. ·.--PROPOSE£: USE OP PR.OPER1Y · .I ...c-tr . ,t I' ti OF PARl~JrNG SPACES REQtllB.ED _\_t;"-"(p"--- i/ ' CJ ·: MULif-FAMJ!tYRESO>ENTIA_L 1i ;1 : Totll~ _.::;~'--- ! Floodplain Acr~o_Q__ J HcusioB Units 7 2. .i 24-i of 1 Bedroom Unit:! ~! ---...- ;! 4-b i af 2 Bedroom Units i - ! M af3 &droom Ui. I -llU!I i _ 1' of 4 Bedroom Unitll ,: I : FOR .l BEDROOM UNITS ONLY ' I --IJ~~l32sq.:ft. ii ~ # :&drooms < 132 sq. ft. mi!.PUN A.k'Pl.JCATION srt'!APP.DOC ~ NT'UC:\i 'HJTn #OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED I '?U, Teul~ B~ Square Feet __ _ Floodplain Acre:age ___ _