Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Stormwater_Tab 6_4/30/1998 _ m _ 1 Village of Tequesta Country Club Community Drainage Study . April 1998 Prepared by: Cherie Soya, P.E. 4070 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 221 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 A. Scope 1 B. Background 1 II. Existing Conditions 2 A. General 2 B. Topography 2 C. Geology 3 D. Land Use 4 E. Existing Drainage ' 5 F. Drainage Areas • 5 G. Problem Areas 6 H. Level of Service Standards 6 III. Water Management Analysis 7 A. Model Input and Assumptions 7 B. Calibration 8 C. Findings 8 IV. Drainage System Evaluations 10 A. Drainage Alternatives 10 B. Proposed Improvements 17 C. Preliminary Cost Estimates 19 V. Recommendations 20 List of Tables Table 1 SFWMD Soil Storage Values for Coastal Soils 4 Table 2 Permitted Water Control Structures 5 Table 3 Rainfall Depths for the Village of Tequesta 7 Table 4 Proposed Pipe Replacements 11 Table 5 Proposed Water Control Structures 12 Table 6 Summary of-Existing and Proposed Stages 18 Table 7 Preliminary Storm Drainage Cost Estimates 19 List of Exhibits Exhibit A J oration Map Exhibit B Drainage System I Exhibit C Drainage System II Exhibit D Proposed Typical Roadway Cross-Section Appendices Appendix A Water Management Analysis for Drainage System I Appendix B Water Management Analysis for Drainage System II • \ ii 4 I. Introduction A. Scope In February 1998, the Village of Tequesta authorized an engineering analysis of two drainage systems within the Village's Country Club Community(refer to Exhibit A for Location Map). The purpose of the analysis was to determine what the existing Levels of Service are and what improvements would be neccessary to provide Levels of Service consistent with that adopted by the Village. The scope of the study included the following: • identification of existing drainage systems and outfalls • identification of known problem areas • a review of topography, land use, and soils data ▪ a review of the existing typical roadway cross-section • coordination with South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) • a review of SFWMD Permit Files • a review of existing drainage conditions and development of drainage basins and sub- basins • a discussion of Level of Service Standards • computer modeling of two existing drainage systems • investigation of alternative solutions • recommendations for improvements • development of preliminary cost estimates for proposed improvements B. Background ' In July 1979, SFWMD issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 50-00682-S to the Village of Tequesta for"construction and operation of a water management system to serve 355 acres of residential lands". The proposed drainage improvements included the construction of three additional outfalls to the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River as well as expansion of 1 the existing golfcourse ponds, the addition of new storm sewers to improve road drainage,and construction of water control structures to provide water quality and limit discharges. The permitted improvements are indicated on Gee&Jenson,Inc. construction drawings dated May 1979. Field observations indicate that the proposed drainage facilities have been constructed and appear to be in substantial conformance with the construction drawings. • In response to the drainage problems occurring within the Village's Country Club Community, this study was authorized to address facility needs to reduce flooding. The location of the study area is shown in Exhibit A. The study area includes two major drainage systems which discharge to the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. Drainage System I consists of catch basins and stormwater pipe and three golfcourse ponds(Numbers 2, 5,and 6) which discharge through a water control structure to Outfall B. Drainage System II consists of catch basins and stormwater pipe which directs discharge to a golfcourse pond(Number 12) and through a water control structure to Outfall E. Both systems were designed and permitted in 1979. II. Existing Conditions A. General Drainage System I comprises an area of approximately 113 acres and includes sections of Country Club Drive, Fairway North, Fairway East and Fairway West,approximately 49 acres of golfcourse,Bunker Place,and sections of Golf View and River Drive. Drainage System II comprises an area of approximately 80 acres and includes sections of Country Club Drive,Yacht Club Place,Fairview East and Fairview West,El Portal Drive, approximately 16 acres of golfcourse,and sections of Golf View Drive and River Drive. The study area boundaries are shown on Exhibit A. B. Topography Detailed topographic maps of the Village(including road elevations and finished floor 2 ' elevations) were not available. Therefore, the topography of the study area was estimated using the following: • May 1979 construction drawings"Country Club Community Drainage Improvements" prepared by Gee &Jenson • June 1979 construction drawings"Country Club Drive Resurfacing and Drainage Improvements"prepared by Gee&Jenson • SFWMD Permit information • U.S.G.S. (United States Geological Survey) quadrangle maps • Field observations and measurements(i.e., spot-checking of selected key elevations) A review of the topography based on the above sources indicates that developed site elevations within the residential area of the study area vary from approximately 6 Ft. NGVD to approximately 9.5 Ft. NGVD and the average elevation of the golfcourse appears to be 8 Ft. NGVD. In addition to determining drainage divides, topography,is indicative of the storage capacity of a basin. A steep watershed will generally indicate a rapid rate of runoff with little storage, whereas relatively flat areas such as the study area are subject to considerable storage and lower rates of flow. Within the study area,natural ground elevations tend to slope from the golfcourse towards the Loxahatchee River. • C. Geology A United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) Soil Conservation Service(SCS)soils survey for Palm Beach County,Florida was used to identify the soils in the study area. Infiltration capacity and the ability of underground strata to transmit or hold groundwater are affected by such soils properties as permeability;depth to claypan,rock or other layers that influence the rate of water movement;and depth to the water table. Thus,soil properties influence the generation of runoff from rainfall and must be considered in methods of runoff estimation. � __ 3 ' According to the SCS soils survey, the study area consists of St. Lucie sands. St. Lucie sands are typical for areas located near coastal ridges and consist of deep layers of sand with excellent percolation rates. Therefore,in determining soil storage, SFWMD values for coastal soils (which show lower runoff potential) were used. Typically, coastal storage values show lower runoff potential and moderate to high infiltration rates favorable for drainage design. The SFWMD soil storage values for coastal soils are given below: Depth to Water Table Cumulative Water Storage Compacted Water Storage (Ft.) (Inches) (Inches) 1 0.6 0.5 2 2.5 1.9 3 6.6 5.0 4 10.9 8.2 Table 1. SFWMD Soil Storage Values for Coastal Soils In developed areas,soil storage values are reduced by 25%to allow for compaction. The values in the third column represent the estimated amount of water which can be stored under pervious areas after development. D. Land Use The study area is entirely developed and consists of two land uses: single family residential and recreational (golfcourse). A REDI aerial photograph was obtained and used to further identify the land use characteristics of the study area including percentages of impervious area,paved area and building area. Runoff is a function of the land use characteristics of the area. Urbanization usually results in an accelerated removal of stormwater with corresponding increases in the volume and peak of runoff. This is due primarily to an increase in impervious surfaces such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots and buildings. An increase in impervious surfaces decreases the .__ 4 . ' opportunity for infiltration and increases the runoff potential of an area. E. Existing Drainage The natural drainage of the Village(primarily overland flow) is augmented by storm sewers. The two existing storm sewer systems addressed in this study were designed to direct runoff to golfcourse ponds with water control structures to provide detention for water quality enhancement and restrict runoff through the outfalls to the Loxahatchee River. The permitted water control structures are described in Table 2 below. Bleeder Top of Weir Crest Weir Bleeder Invert Structure Elevation Length Dimensions Elevation (Ft. NGVD) (Ft. NGVD) (Feet) (Inches) (FL NGVD) Drainage 6.0 5.5 2.0 4"high x 8"wide 3.5 System I rectangular Drainage 5.0 4.5 2.0 4"high x 8"wide 3.5 System II rectangular Table 2. Permitted Water Control Structures Each water control structure consists of a 4 inch high by 8 inch wide rectangular orifice with an invert elevation of 3.5 Ft. NGVD and a two foot wide weir with a weir crest elevation of 4.5 Ft. NGVD and 5.5 Ft. NGVD for Drainage System I and II respectively. Downstream of the water control structures, stormwater runoff is collected in catch basins and conveyed through stormwater pipes directly into the Loxahatchee River without any provisions for water quality or water conservation. Field observations indicated that the water control structures are not operating as permitted. As a result, the golfcourse ponds are maintaining water elevations as much as a foot higher than the permitted control elevation,resulting in lost surface storage within the systems. F. Drainage Areas The boundaries of the drainage areas for each of the two drainage systems within the study 5 area are identified on Exhibits B and C. The boundaries were delineated based on a review of available construction drawings for existing drainage systems throughout the Village,SFWMD Permit Files,and field observations. Once drainage basins were developed, they were further divided into sub-basins in order to evaluate the various components of the existing drainage systems. G. Problem Areas The areas within the study area which were observed to have the most severe drainage problems are located upstream of the golfcourse and include sections of Country Club Drive, Fairway North, Fairway East and Fairway West within Drainage System I and sections of Fairview East and Fairview West,Yacht Club Place and Country Club Drive within Drainage System II. The most severe drainage problems exist within areas where finished floor elevations are low relative to the road(i.e., less than 1.5 feet above the adjacent road crown elevations). Field measurements indicated that there are homes within Drainage System II that are only approximately 0.5 feet above the adjacent roadway crown. H. Level of Service Standards The Growth Management Act(1985) and supporting regulations(Ch. 9J-5F.A.C.) required that local governments adopt Levels of Service for drainage facilities in their comprehensive plans. The Village of Tequesta has adopted a 25 year 24 hour Level of Service Standard for drainage facilities within the Village. This is consistent with what many local governments have adopted for newer developments and exceeds the Level of Service Standards set for older,existing developments which would require retrofitting to meet current water management standards. Often with retrofitting land availability and topography are limiting factors along with economic considerations. The design of a drainage system with sufficient capacity to accommodate the most severe 6 - rainfall expected cannot generally be economically justified because the cost of such a system would be prohibitive. Therefore, it is necessary to select a design frequency which will provide adequate flood protection without resulting in excessive cost. As practical and economical criteria, many municipalities have adopted a Level of Service Standard equivalent to a 5 year 24 hour storm event or a 10 year 24 hour storm event for roadways and a 100 year 72 hour storm event for minimum finished floor elevations. A five year return frequency storm is a storm with a rainfall depth which would not be expected on an average more than once in a five year period. (It must be noted that a return frequency period is based on past records and historical averages and there is no guarantee that two or more five year storms will not occur within any five year period.) Obviously,a ten year return frequency storm will occur less frequently;however,the rainfall depth will be greater resulting in a more costly drainage system. SFWMD rainfall maps were used to determine the rainfall depths for various stone events. For the Village of Tequesta,the depth of rainfall for specific return frequencies and storm durations are as follows: Return Frequency and Rainfall Depth Storm Duration (Inches) • 3 year 24 hour 5.3 5year24hour 6.5 10 year 24 hour 7.5 25 year 24 hour 9.0 100 year 72 hour 16.3 Table 3. Rainfall Depths for the Village of Tequesta • III. Water Management Analysis A. Model Input and Assumptions The study area was modeled using CHAN for Windows (Version 2). This computer ` .� 7 . ' program generates stormwater runoff liydrographs for sub-basins and performs hydrodynamic routings of that runoff through a surface water management system comprised of lakes,ponds, channels,and drainage structures. Drainage Systems I and II were modeled as closed conduit or piped systems discharging into golfcourse ponds which ultimately discharge through water control structures to the Loxahatchee River. The tailwater conditions were based on an estimation of mean high tide at 2.4 Ft. NGVD for the Loxahatchee River. Hydrologic and hydraulic input parameters were determined using the best information available including a combination of permit information,construction drawings, field observations and measurements,and U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. Drainage facilities modeled included ponds,culverts,and water control structures (as drop structures). B. Calibration Once the computer models were developed,the models of the two existing systems were calibrated using observed stages and SFWMD rainfall data for the October 1995 storm event. SFWMD rainfall data indicated a 72 hour rainfall depth of approximately 18.2 inches(which exceeds the 100 year 72 hour rainfall amount for the Village of Tequesta). During the October 1995 storm event,homes within Drainage System II experienced flooding and there was significant flooding of the roadways throughout the study area. Water elevations as high as two to three feet over the roadways were reported. The results of the calibration simulation with a 72 hour rainfall of 18.2 inches and a tailwater elevation of 2.4 Ft. NGVD were consistent with the observed stages. After the models of the existing drainage systems were successfully calibrated, the models were used to identify problems and investigate the impacts of proposed drainage improvements. C. Findings Based on a review of the Redi aerial photograph and field observations, it appears that the 8 . existing golfcourse ponds (with the exception of Number 2) were constructed in accordance with the May 1979 construction drawings and SFWMD Surface Water Management Permit. Golfcourse Pond Number 2 has been modified with the elimination of the swale area and expansion of the pond. Although the water control structures appear to have been constructed according to the permitted drawings,site reviews indicate that they have been adjusted and/or modified. The result is a reduction in detention for water quality treatment and less surface storage available for flood protection. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the golfcourse ponds(except for Number 2) and water control structures were constructed and are operated in compliance with the SFWMD Permit. The modifications to Golfcourse Pond Number 2 are reflected in the analysis. When the Level of Service Standard adopted by the Village(a 25 year 24 hour storm event with 9.0 inches of rainfall) was used to analyze the two existing drainage systems the results indicated that there would be ponding with relatively long duration(greater than 24 hours)and roadways would not be accessible. Drainage Systems I and II were further evaluated using a 3 year 24 hour storm event with 5.3 inches of rainfall and it was determined that the existing drainage systems provide a Level of Service Standard equivalent to less than a 3 year 24 hour storm event. During a 3 year 24 hour storm event,peak stages exceeded the minimum road elevations by 0.1 feet for Drainage System I and 0.2 feet for Drainage System II. A major reason for the roadway flooding is a lack of storage facilities, specifically a lack of storage below the roadways within each of the drainage systems. With most of the golfcourse graded at elevations as high or higher than finished floor elevations, the golfcourse ponds offer the only opportunity for the storage of stormwater runoff within the golfcourse and when the runoff is greater than they can accommodate, the roads become flooded. Fortunately,most of the buildings within the study area are much higher than the roadways so the flooding of buildings is less frequent than the flooding of roadways and is limited to those homes that have low finished floor elevations relative to the roadway. 9 In order to provide better flood protection for the roads and buildings with low finished floor elevations,either discharges to the Loxahatchee River must be increased or additional surface storage must be provided. Due to the current regulatory environment,increased discharges to the Loxahatchee River are discouraged and therefore,sources of additional surface storage must first be explored. For the Village of Tequesta Country Club Community,land acquisition is not possible and increasing the size of the golfcourse ponds is not practical or economically feasible. As a result, the use of roadside swales as dry retention areas is proposed. Drainage improvements for Tequesta Drive and Seabrook Road were recently permitted by SFWMD and constructed by the Village and appears to be a successful application of the use of roadside swales as dry retention areas. To increase the conveyance of the drainage systems and improve flood protection within the study area it will be necessary to replace the stormwater pipes between each of the water control structures and corresponding outfalls to the Loxahatchee River. Under existing conditions,the pipes are controlling discharges to a greater degree than the water control structures. IV. Drainage System Evaluations A. Drainage Alternatives The following drainage alternatives were evaluated to determine the effect the proposed improvements would have on flood protection: 1. storm sewer pipe improvements 2. modifications to the water control structures(including provisions for emergency discharges) 3. expansion of the golfcourse ponds(including dredging) 4. roadside swales for local disposal of stormwater by infiltration 5. diversion of flow A 25 year 24 hour storm event (9.0 inches of rainfall)was used to evaluate the flood 10 . ` protection benefits associated with the alternative drainage improvements. Although flood protection was considered to be the primary objective, consideration must also be given to water conservation(especially in an area such as this where saltwater intrusion is a concern) and water quality due to State regulatory requirements. Thus,within this regulatory framework,each of the drainage alternatives is further described below. 1 . Storm Sewer Pipe Improvements The proposed storm sewer pipe improvements are given in Table 4 and can be seen in Exhibits B and C. Storm sewer pipes within Drainage Systems I and II for which improvements are not recommended were deemed to be satisfactory based on the information available for this study. Drainage Location Length Existing Pipe Proposed Pipe System .from to (feet) size and type size and type I Water control structure Golf View 350 24"cmp 42"rcp I Golf View Golf View 60 24"cmp 42"rcp I Golf View River Drive 250 24"cmp 42"rcp i I River Drive River Drive 40 30"rcp 42"rcp I River Drive Loxahatchee River 180 30"rcp 42"rcp I Fairway West Golfcourse Pond 170 24"cmp 36"rcp I Fairway West Fairway West 30 24"cmp 36"rcp II Water control structure Golf View 150 24"cmp 42"rcp II Golf View Golf View 35 24"rcp 42"rep II Golf View River Drive 270 24"rcp 42"rcp II River Drive River Drive 80 30"rcp 42"rcp I II River Drive Loxahatchee River 180 36"rep . 42"rcp II Fairview West Golfcourse Pond 150 24"cmp 42"rcp II Fairview West Fairview West 50 24"cmp 36"rcp II Fairview East Fairview West 250 18"cmp 36"rcp II El Portal Drive El Portal Drive 120 unknown 30"rcp II El Portal Drive Fairview West 120 unknown 30"rcp Table 4. Proposed Pipe Replacements C 11 r One problem with the proposed pipe replacements is that pipes are located within ten feet wide drainage easements. Twenty feet wide drainage easements are normally recommended as a minimum for ease of construction should replacement be necessary. In addition, the drainage easements are mostly located between expensive homes and pipe replacements would disrupt existing landscaping and irrigation. 2. Modifications to the Water Control Structures (including provisions for emergency discharges) The proposed dimensions and elevations of the bleeders and weirs and top of the structures are given in Table 5. Bleeder Top of Weir Crest Weir Bleeder Invert Structure Elevation Length Dimensions Elevation (Ft. NGVD) (Ft. NGVD) (Feet) (Inches) (Ft. NGVD) Drainage 5.5 Not Not 4"high x 8"wide 3.5 System I Applicable Applicable rectangular Drainage 5.0 4.5 2.0 4"high x 8"wide 3.5 System II rectangular Table S. Proposed Water Control Structures The proposed modifications are to the water control structure of Drainage System I and include,as indicated by Table 5,elimination of the 2 feet wide weir with the top of the structure lowered from elevation 6.0 Ft. NGVD to 5.5 Ft. NGVD. No modifications are proposed to the bleeder and weir of the water control structure of Drainage System II. Other proposed modifications to the water control structures are: - replacement of outfall pipes with larger pipes(see pipe replacements) - replacement of existing structures with Type E inlets and steel grates(constructed so that the entire perimeter of the inlet is unobstructed and available for flow over the structure)to accommodate the larger outfall pipes and allow for greater discharges during major storm events ` :� 12 lower structure bottoms to accommodate lower invert elevations of outfall pipes operation of the water control structures as permitted by SFWMD to maintain a control elevation of 3.5 Ft. NGVD in the golfcourse ponds provisions for emergency discharges (e.g., screw gates) The proposed modifications outlined above in conjunction with the proposed roadside swales will result in an increase in the existing and permitted detention for water quality as well as an increase in the peak discharge. It is important to note that although the peak discharge increases,the volume of runoff discharged to the Loxahatchee River will decrease as a result of the increased detention and proposed retention. To provide additional flood relief for the area operable structures are proposed which will allow the Village to lower the water elevations within the golfcourse ponds in anticipation of and following major storm events. As a result of the October 1995 storm event, SFWMD has initiated a process for permitting emergency facilities. An operating schedule must be developed and approved by SFWMD prior to implementation. 3. Expansion of the Golfeourse Ponds In the past, golfcourses in South Florida were often designed with lower elevations than the surrounding residential areas in order to serve as stormwater storage areas. Since the Village of Tequesta golfcourse is mostly higher than the surrounding residential areas and a lack of storage facilities is a major reason for the flooding of roadways,expanding the golfcourse ponds would be most advantageous and viewed very favorably by SFWMD. Typically, with new developments, water management areas are approximately 10%of the total project area. Unfortunately,the golfcourse is privately owned and therefore the expansion of the golfcourse ponds would be economically unfeasible. Due to the excessive cost of implementing this alternative,further evaluation was deemed unnecessary. In the event that, over the years,siltation has occurred within the golfcourse ponds, '�_ -13 dredging may be necessary to restore original design specifications. Although dredging will not increase the storage or conveyance of stormwater through the ponds,dredging may be required, however,to accommodate the invert elevations of the proposed pipes. If the bottom of the ponds are above the invert elevations of the incoming pipes then the ponds will need to be dredged so that inflows and outflows will not be restricted. 4. Roadside Swales for Local Disposal of Stormwater by Infiltration The traditional method of disposing of stormwater in an urban area was to drain the stormwater away from where it fell as quickly as possible. Gutters and storm sewers were normally proposed to convey the runoff to the nearest canal or lake. In recent years,in response to environmental concerns, the rapid conveyance of stormwater downstream is discouraged and consideration must be given to water quality enhancement and water conservation. Water quality requirements are not well defined for existing built-up areas. Although the State has set goals for retention and/or detention,these goals may not be achievable for an existing urban area such as the Village of Tequesta. However, since new outfalls (or replacement of existing outfalls with larger pipes)are proposed,the Village will be required to meet current water quality requirements to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore,infiltration is proposed to control stormwater from individual residential lots. Dry retention areas are to be constructed within the road right-of-ways throughout the study area as indicated on the proposed typical roadway cross-section shown in Exhibit D. Raised inlets will act as blocks in order to maximize the amount of retention provided. The advantages of local disposal of stormwater through infiltration include: 1. recharge of groundwater 2. reduction of downstream flows 3. reduction of pollutants transported to the Loxahatchee River 4. will help to alleviate roadway flooding 14 The disadvantages of local disposal of stormwater through infiltration include: 1. increased maintenance 2. site specific design is necessary 3. if not designed carefully, infiltration systems may not work and if not maintained, they become inoperative 4. wet site conditions 5. public awareness campaigns are often necessary due to public opposition 6. close supervision during construction is required to ensure proper construction 7. high construction costs in addition to maintenance costs The proposed dry retention areas are shallow(0.5 feet below the edge of pavement) which should minimize wet site conditions especially if the underlying soils are porous. Although soils permeability or porosity tests were not available for this study, the SCS Soil Survey indicates that the soils in the study area are suitable for infiltration. Still,in order to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground, there will be temporary ponding of runoff within the roadside swales. The duration of ponding may be as long as 24 to 36 hours depending on specific soil conditions (including soil permeability and porosity and depth to the water table). SFWMD approval of the proposed dry retention will require proof of excellent soil percolation rates(e.g.,coastal ridge sands) or an operations entity which specifically reserves funds for operation,maintenance,and replacement. 5. Diversion of Flow As an alternative means of improving the flood protection for Drainage System II,a potential diversion of flow was investigated. This alternative includes design and construction of a piped system to direct stormwater runoff from the residential area within Sub-basin B 1 of Drainage System II south to Tequesta Drive and east to an existing Palm Beach County ditch that outfalls via 15 . a 36 inch rcp to the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River. The existing ditch currently provides drainage for Tequesta Drive,a development immediately north of Tequesta Drive(Bermuda Terrace),and the First Presbyterian Church of Tequesta which is located immediately south of the roadway. This alternative would require approximately 1000 feet of storm sewer pipe to connect the sub-basin(which currently discharges to Golfcourse Pond Number 12)to the ditch. Assuming that the existing ditch(approximately 400 feet long) will be replaced with pipe, the following improvements would also be required: • Removal of the existing 24 inch cmp between Fairview West and Golfcourse Pond Number 12. • Replacement of the existing pipes between Fairview West and Country Club Drive. • Replacement of the 36 inch rep that extends approximately 600 feet from the ditch to the Loxahatchee River. To accommodate the runoff from Drainage System II and minimize the impact on other developments,the minimum pipe size required between the existing pipe at Country Club Drive and the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River is a 42 inch rcp. In addition,the existing pipes between Fairview East and Country Club Drive will need to be replaced with a 36 inch rcp and the existing pipes between Fairview West and Fairview East will need to be replaced with a 30 inch rcp. Discharges from Tequesta Drive,Bermuda Terrace,and the First Presbyterian Church of Tequesta were considered in the analysis. Since approximately 1400 feet of new pipe would be required in addition to the pipe replacements, the cost of the flow diversion will be much greater than the proposed improvements to the existing outfall pipes of Drainage System II..Also,the diversion of flow to a County ditch would require permitting by Palm Beach County as well as SFWMD. Assurances would have to be given to both agencies that no negative impacts to other developments will occur as a result of this project. If drainage problems already exist in the area,it is unlikely that such assurances could \._.: 16 • . be given unless the design were very conservative(resulting in larger pipes and increased costs). According to Palm Beach County,Bermuda Terrace has experienced drainage problems in the past Increasing the drainage area by approximately.47 acres would only compound the existing • problems and future drainage problems would likely be attributed to any modifications to the existing system. Because of the higher costs involved and the potential controversy when connecting to an existing system, this alternative is not recommended for implementation. B. Proposed Improvements As a result of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the proposed drainage alternatives within the study area,the following drainage improvements are proposed: • Construction of dry retention areas within the right-of-way of all roads within the study area. • • Good operation and maintenance of proposed infiltration areas. • Operation of the water control structures as permitted by SFWMD(with the golfcourse ponds maintained at no higher than 3.5 Ft NGVD). • Modification of the water control structure within Drainage System I,as indicated in Table 5, to reduce upstream stages. • Modification of the water control structures in order to accommodate the proposed pipe replacements and allow for emergency discharges. • Operation of water control structures to allow greater discharges in anticipation of major storm events. • Pipe replacements as indicated in Table 4. Although the storm sewer outfall to the Loxahatchee River for Drainage System I currently consists of a flap gate at the outlet, replacement of the flap gate is not proposed since there does not appear to be a problem with high tides(i.e.,minimum road elevations are significantly higher than mean high tide). 17 i A summary of the impact of the proposed improvements on flood stages is given in the following table. Drainage Sub-basin Existing Existing Proposed Proposed System 3 year 24 hour 25 year 24 hour 5 year 24 hour 25 year 24 hour Stage Stage Stage Stage (Ft. NGVD) (Ft. NGVD) (Ft. NGVD) (Ft. NGVD) I B 1 6.6 7.9 6.5 7.2 I B2 6.0 7.1 4.5 6.1 I B3 6.0 6.9 4.2 5.8 I B4 4.8 5.8 3.6 5.1 • I B5 4.6 5.4 3.3 4.4 II B 1 6.7 7.6 6.5 7.0 II B2 6.2 7.1 5.8 6.4 II B3 6.1 7.0 5.4 6.2 II B4 5.2 6.3 4.7 5.5 II B6 4.8 5.6 4.0 4.6 Table 6. Summary of Existing and Proposed Stages The minimum road centerline elevations are estimated to be 6.5 Ft. NGVD for Sub-basins B 1,B2, B3, B4 and B5 within Drainage System I and Sub-basin 131 within Drainage System II and 7.0 Ft. NGVD for Sub-basins B2,B3, B4 and B5 within Drainage System II. The minimum finished floor elevation within Sub-basin B 1 of Drainage System II is estimated to be 7.0 Ft. NGVD. Therefore, the proposed improvements will result in an increase in the Level of Service for roadways from less than a 3 year 24 hour to a 5 year 24 hour storm event. (A 5 year 24 hour Level of Service is the recommended minimum standard for roadways.) In addition, the 25 year 24 hour stage will be reduced by 0.6 feet or more which will lower the 25 year 24 hour stage within Drainage System II to the estimated minimum finished floor elevation of homes within the problem area. _- 18 C. Preliminary Cost Estimates Preliminary cost estimates for the proposed storm drainage improvements are summarized in the following table. Item Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Estimated No. Quantitiy Amount 1 . Drainage System I , a. Mobilization 1 Lump Sum 20,000 20,000 b. Clearing&Grubbing 1 Lump Sum 10,000 10,000 c. Removal of Existing Structures 7 Each 500 3,500 d. Removal of Existing Pipes 1080 Linear Feet 10 10,800 e. Pavement Replacement 333 Square Yards 15 4,995 f. 36 inch rcp 200 Linear Feet 50 10,000 g. 42 inch rcp 880 Linear Feet 60 52,800 h. Type E inlets 6 Each 1,400 8,400 i. Water Control Structure 1 Each 2,500 2,500 _ j. Sod 2475 Square Yards 3 7,425 k. Landscaping&Irrigation 1 Lump Sum 10,000 10,000 . Sub-total 140.420 Contingencies* 35,105 Total 175,525 2a. Drainage System II Option 1 a. Mobilization 1 Lump Sum 20,000 20,000 b. Clearing&Grubbing 1 Lump Sum 10,000 10,000, c. Removal of Existing Structures 9 Fach 500 4.500 d. Removal of Existing Pipes 1405 Linear Feet 10 14,050 e. Pavement Replacement 555 Square Yards 15 8,325 f. 30 inch rcp 240 Linear Feet 40 9,600 g. 36 inch rcp 300 Linear Feet 50 15,000 h. 42 inch rcp 865 Linear Feet 60 51,900 i. Type E inlets 10 Each 1,400 14,000 j. Water Control Structure 1 Each 2,500 2,500 k. Sod 2920 Square Yards 3 8,760 1. Landscaping&Irrigation 1 Lump Sum 20,000 20,000 Sub-total 178,635 Contingencies* 44,659 Total 223,294 1, 19 • 2 b. Drainage System II Option 2 • a. Mobilization 1 Lump Sum 20,000 20,000 b. Clearing&Grubbing 1 Lump Sum 10,000 10,000 c. Removal of Existing Structures 8 Each 500 4,000 d. Removal of Existing Pipes 1385 Linear Feet 10 13,850 e. Pavement Replacement 2250 Square Yards 15 33,750 f. 30 inch rcp 300 Linear Feet 40 12,000 g. 36 inch rcp 485 Linear Feet 50 24,250 h. 42 inch rcp 2000 Linear Feet 60 120,000 i. Type E inlets 12 Each 1,400 16,800 j. Sod 5475 Square Yards 3 16,425 k. Landscaping&Irrigation 1 Lump Sum 10,000 10,000 Sub-total 281,075 Contingencies* 70,269 Total 351344 *Note: Contingencies are 25% • of the sub-total. Table 7. Preliminary Storm Drainage Cost Estimates The above preliminary cost estimates do not include construction of the roadside swales. It is assumed that the swale excavation will be completed by others. For Drainage System II,preliminary cost estimates are given for two options. Option 1 is for the recommended improvements including replacement of the existing water control structure and downstream pipes. Option 2 is for the flow diversion including replacement of the Palm Beach County ditch and downstream pipe. V. Recommendations The proposed drainage improvements within the study area will serve to improve the overall flood protection of the area. It is therefore recommended that the proposed improvements be implemented along with the promotion of good operation and maintenance practices. (Poor operation and maintenance reduces the hydraulic capacity and pollutant removal efficiency of the drainage facilities.) 20 . ' The proposed improvements will require an Environmental Resource Permit from SFWMD. Permits will also be required from the Department of Environmental Protection,the Army Corps of Engineers,and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ' It is unlikely that the proposed pipe replacements or water control structure modifications will be permitted by SFWMD without addressing current water quality and quantity criteria. Although SFWMD recognizes the difficulty this presents for existing built-up areas,the Village will need to commit to best management practices such as the construction and maintenance of roadside swales as dry retention areas throughout the study area. In addition to providing water quality enhancement and water conservation, the proposed swales will serve to extend system capacities. Other recommendations for the Village of Tequesta are summarized below: • To adopt a 5 year 24 hour Level of Service as a minimum standard for existing roadways within the Village. • To implement Option 1 rather than Option 2 to improve flood protection within Drainage System II. • In setting priorities,consider construction of the roadside swales as a top priority to facilitate the permitting of the other proposed improvements. • After construction of the roadside swales,priority should be given to Drainage System II over Drainage System I because of the severity of the existing drainage problems. 21 EXHIBITS „,,•....n,,,,- •-,,.Yr.,,,fT,a',E4':;Wg.Mtkkqet:RjAle41 141) -4-trn-V4.4:44N.',4,041,0NkiN,,,,,,X4- ,Qa,MatA(VX,'*;a4Matjl,V*Italark; '4,,,',NYQ,*;,%.;,t,tqAitilrif,MAIP,,$.4* .11: •0 ,,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,„.....;„44,,,v,Act,f,• At:-*?<$P.OVAWMR"htiva.04`tg-riiMv .V.t-,54.'0,ire,'&;-Tit,t06**. --44ti'Atik,r,P7W,'*WASe,'--w-&44,31;W:41-40,,Ititko ...a. , ,,4A.Avg4%,,,,,,:i.,,,,,,,,,„:,.*4.,:,?,,,,,,,v1,,,.....,:p,„:,,,,,,,,,,w,,,,04.,,,,,,,..4-0,,,,,va.,,,,,,sk.ril,,i, ..,,, .A.1, Pt,.P'..,,itt,ref,.--,,,,,,,4,-,.,-,-, k,,,,,,,,....,1,--1, ,,,,,y,,,,,,,,...c.. .,......,,,,•,,...A.,,,,,,I.,,,,,,.. ..kr-,1-,.A.,,,,,, ,,,,:,,,.,.4.??,,,,,,,,, ,,,141M...y?-,',..,,49,m.,..,...X...,..,..,..44.1.4 ,4...,..........., i,....,,,v,.. , 1,4,4APt PA,. ..',:.'. PRil'14:ZP&k''''. ,?‘i'PPA:., "."11:t.4.-,ipV.:41, -...:„ ;V:;:pAtiAIA:nA7-1 ,Pt 1;.0.;',11,4',..i•-;,,T,„AVT/A!'..37'44fg?Azi4i:Z..,444.`TALPA44744.,4**.pt,4,ef ,'..k::,;'S-,,c ',A'rP'4.24:itt%'''PW'P,Z7''."W::P'P''rtAVPPiVrkAZV,'Tf,V,A%,440,t3itty2ttVfaXat,PiMttV.,,.t4AF4'4k,,A,Pi A . ,41:.f4 .itki,;',.;YeL,,I•Ei .re.4',, '..'0.i''744'...VM*4'4%.';`,";:''`.,;4kr;12';... 141i'AWZ.V4....M.'i'Pq;.'i";6.'n'.''''.,S:AfIlavg,j0:.4:4V.V.i,,,,,417-010WPIT.if.MW.,,VP4,4-L,..41.4414A,..W.0416:t*Wr,"-Z4i.AWA'keAR.4447M4414tt - -W4 •.: ,:',`,a.,;z.?;:••;5's:',V,?.::.ftP,•.lfi<.•Tg!t:4'.:Acit'fft,,':g.2.&';'--f'":!A.VgNW•t4;.'a'Vi!z'-A,M:V-t•V•34kq•i't•CAA.IMAVPi.k•',!:fil•Va;'.42i,-V‘otz.iVAKWkrftnkftNi:z;r:•‘V-tiki••,'I'tg:*t- f•,,.kSK',.v44'.0-..•,%•,Vtk'*P*PAVlaftki ” •:,•.'i'.:13f:.:71,-..:•41.1t3V-.::-.:z.3it:R•iii.ziV.M.',i,',1Wait.VIA.04,A!:',',$L,k'f,40:11'.:41i,,..aAkV,itajk4:11-1.,`014.11.440:piikkzoOVVOR;OpTlicIAN-!`&45:16,..•10.-NrAtliz.ft43r4kgi.-AgfitMOMU.1.-;:lt•ty.,'4F:• 1.i.t4;;Rig.,20-30,MR.4,i4g..kgii.4.4 ,i/wv-Atadwk-4:4,-*•*TF,'%xv.f.Q.',..iv,:••iyo.„f.0.4 ..,-7T:dfaw.4.4,,,..:=,.,144f„,•,..,,,,,,,:z..at,Vc,wx,"im..witklwo.. .kity.:,,44,41e4px.tgo-eve:444,ig4,,,,to,•*, ,,,,,,74ii,,It.o..t.;1 1 .,A A.,,,,,A bf,APPliAt.k. .A.p.A.,,Alit0/..."'•.A11,Art4P•At,,A,""14,,,/,',....A.:PA,".4,,AA,A,,,,,,A„, .4 .AAAaPt-',A...A 1,..j4,,,,,A,.0.,,"."cipi4MP-A,,toXit,itP.,.‘;',,PPNI. ,11%.,,P41A l'A PrA44.1f.'irtrjrt P,`,41,-^ • PtA_'t''!,.'tP.3,f"..^.4...04-.A5.4,-,A4..,PZ .:g Ae• AA' ,44;,,,t;,,A''.A.7',,,47,40-- i..11-i5,4"$=1,,,' -,i,,,:.. .,",:,,,,-,,- 4'A,,A,. ,...,,,,,,,,,,,;.,..., .-AA,./ A ' • ''..- / , A 464. A, :AAP.,.• '- ' *AAA':....!'1A3PPY';P4;t"AP--,A4.Nrit.t. " -A tf,'A,-1,..•Asfft,,,41.setA41.,:.-A.t.t;4.,,,,V.,A1)..':-• .../A1..,-rt''t.:,',...4r....y.,.p.-_,- A<,tlro4,,,,,,A.,A,,,A41.4;,,N;,,,,,:Zr.....-,,kt,;r,w,,k*k vg,,,i,-,.4.4::q.-A.,,,,,,a,--,',,,..^,!-.14f)A.,„i,ty.,..),..,.:till.k...,-,y11440,0,,,,,,, ,,,t."1::,.,,,,,k.,•,0-6 -.•:,,k,,W;;•.-.t,:;'4z;,•:?'?.'rzt.-;::;,.•_t':-4-:',:'in.i,*;,ti,•.;itf,cgiN:..,iR,A.-StK.V'-',., !•••';'t,•'g'tP:;'Iox•Vt,i'"eMor•;*..,'i-<4WtV,p,t)4,•,•14-.Z- ,T,•:i,!;.t',i44,•',-iti,A:4','q-,''.-Vp.lf,4.,.,,,t,q7TfiMkgsb,• •',.',Vj'40-70,,Ati,,'A'W.,'X;S•,'ft,i'VAK,SP. 4.,,,4P41•>:W*ill . ki'',1'.,, ,',.41, •te,irtf-11;'''..,-.. 414-:..fh,k.-. ..Y43-.i:ZY.,?*.l.e.Aq,*tZiej.i-41.4-t14i1,41,-.•••••5--, . .i''.f-Nxi,,49>gTA-/,',14'44.a,4,,,,,44ii'lgii, -,,1•0§:,:,,,40,,,,,,,,y4,44AVI•411,0F.,•*,k,V.,1414a.k.0,4,,A xi),°%.-tg.g0h0.41A..,4,,,,,`OVztiiilef',•• '''''.4f1140.1 `iig1-7611:Z.1:4Ta;:4n. ..iitZ3:4'n404.1•3,1.'10Z.'Vg4I'Agi'Vllik,Vg digqiWi:A114444/-V444'1.V.Y•OPP-A•4&K":ftt'qkRAW*Y°,''*'i'&440.4.4*,•tfW.41411:r'' ''''- 6. ..:eg'.,1-'1,•q12*4regiXA.VI,CW.Vd.ttt'f*;4::Mg4g.k8*VLN#10-:*tifteAVQ)-k'4;g6.k.kPai44Qta-*-"i'll-Aqltg*:Aattlk,ttr.t-ikOVU 1:13 .',e';.,...,;',(.:v.-1„.,7:,,1,;,;&::-,,:/•,-,.,;..,.:-,.,,..,:,:,;*,,:,,:h,f,,,,,W-,,,•',is:?,„„,,.,,.,:m.:,„',-:,„;W::..,':,:„-•-,:,.1:,,:.,4P,,,:,,:,,.T.,..,.,i,::.,..,•..i,:,,;1-,.:',;,'..”,.p-<,,acv.:.,.„,,...,'1•,w.i:,r,1,:,•6z,.-o.W,..Ix-.,;.‘,et.-,„;-,,r,V,„w,„,„i,-3i..•.x:,.4.,.„A;,;-V,.,,,,,3i,,:.:t„,:.s,:,?:,k.4N;w„;l.r,:::i`,,i,z4'7e'.,Wi,i,*f,lA.„,,,,„,.,z'.,,,;,.,,',.RJ.,:„o$ia,l,,,:i,.c•,5,,,,,...cqc,,;,.A.3;1i•:",-..,,.aij0,.,C.,:,,,z,,*„.,,.„„4.,.-c4ti'.kea--,,:,*4k,,,.z,„,,;fl.*i.:'„5.,i,i,;V--.Mm:4,i„e.0,-,.,-t„,.a.p.,,Tc,,.:,„,,.",,.;,„,,iV,,,",i,,.o7;,,,-iA-F,i:s4.t'..:?,V%.•-!c.,7-;%t,,,;,7„W.-:,Vnh„z-:'41v:fFit!,t..%.-:..,..,.g,•,i:.,/.:i,i,4.,k&'iq;.,'„,i,,1.:.-',.:-:,,-.,:4:,'C,,.V..-.-5'.:.-.:,..5,P,.':;..s;;,,,4":;V5:l..:'.q...,;f-,:i*,1„44;,:^:-i,i..,,V,!-,q,-N4.,-•.,`‘.,Z.,yi4..,,,.E::,Ot.,.:::;N6,),-,1,,:l•,„7a;V,5;,;,,i:2IIq,-t•,,,-_:i,.N-,,.M.,.,'.,.-..3,.$›-,t,1.,t1:...?..t&,gA,;,9 4 nl4 -.40X-.--;-,.•-:-M"f9,:--41i,q„:l,0,,,.-z.....,A.;.5._v-,-..X,-.z.",.ig--,1..4..',..`4,4-,I?;.,,.?..4-'.a-'c..S*N,,k;;.•,;,.•.'X,iA.;'m)--',:-.,.',.;Li,=flA'!,.;.?,,rii,,,,,,;v,*.k,A-;;.',.-,WnN,,,,k.,,to',.s:1,"y,*,...4t.-v.,_,tg-,tQI,.:i,i,v..)v,-tAw.,-.7'L;e1,,q:6:•Ji,--7.-.,i:i;-,sFN,n,4,,I,N.4O.A.„AA.4,„.,1f,,.;,k,:-*,4i-.,vz:.!,-::,,f,i,-.v,t7v%44t.,..k?41."4:„,,0,.411,:.g1„,,),:,t,,4.,l,i,!,N;.vi.;.'i„.,,0,tIgN,,3.;:,t7-s 41.k44*-s;q:.-,i4*iki.o.m,i,....,:e-.,,i2,{,N,,„.q4,.t1,gi.w.4:m4,f,y,..,,-;-,i-t?4J,.,ki.,.,ii.f4;g,i0,i-„-,.-4...,.o,4,i,it.q7.L,.w0n.,.li4qv..•-a1..S4:1;.iii,4,,,,4:-V V:,r,,,,.,4.,,,.-4-.j,,,,e.,4",.,k..-1-:0,a,#1a,,-v.,-A,..7.,.1-,,,,*,-,,,t-.,,,,1f.,1.i11..-17'l4:.,...'0e4,0.•.it4•,,0,',.•.4.,,4,T10043.%-.W.4,,7;P,c-.r-W,. S ;'X.*,'4„1i4.10064.01 , 0s 3 ) , , m• I 111. :i;,.:- 7..,,•:.,,,2.,..:•,..:;:.,:,1-.-;.;,,,k.,;-:).i4-i•::6,FA,4, .....4. 4. • ,, r-le.,:,i4.1a:tr,S.,.57r;-:;•:.:,..,;,;Pr'1ii?::',V,O.,, ,M2;iirtit.*-0.01.TrM•Fi;:•-.24',-,,,*ski;,.44,4:t.lr---' ,?,, •r."'l r . ji'.::.: 4''':;::111Wil,Pa';.5111P-1;','AtlNi:',Vji4W41;4417:4. ,M;;N:4Z-1,,W4Illt, Lre.4.:FgA.c3f7Aig,'404,T.A.0144',3'5'"' k11-1.-r. ' ,:r, :_,---1+ 111 , L. .,s0-40 rel :,'•i•t'.,)!:,•-..tl.'.',-,':,•,.:•,,''-,.'.',.,•':!.:::,-i.:.''.;:':,,,,'...w:'.,.',..A•,,,.'4:,,.,''.•',.,,'6,.',,,:,,,:.''t,,.-,:]:•,,'!.',',.;.•',,,,.,',te;,!-,..,..:.,,'--::..',f...rJ..'",;,r'-,S'i,...-,,'','.i•'.,.-,F:.:,.,•,0,ft,.,,;„c.:,,'oA,'-,•1,gp.•'::•,i.',.,'i`t...,rf....,..,-•..VV'f1,,;,.-.:,,.,:we.,!.,;:.-„.;R..--,:,45,,',.,,11-.1..,,,0.i.',,:,4;s.4;„,c:,;li•W..,r,*,.1 7;A;:,t,it-,4-,'.,,:,•,k,.-.*4,W,.4'.z•0-,r4:;.:—.e,4,r!?,.,j,.-.,,,,#6,,•4-z.-'•1--'I.,.r.'.4i.7" 6•,1,'e•,,4t,z.f4---F.1?.'.::,N-'ft1e-.;•AIK,:f.,',,4,,-•i,.-'i:,•t:t:-vst•.f„t.-,4•O'V::r4-.:,4:t:,,.:N•;,.:v.,*•,,--M: rW,k.-,-.g'A:,V,q.z-,,A-A1i,V,r',,-•,,- ..,'A,',M5',o,,:v&,:fXZ-,;-,t,-:,;0.,-.„-:4,-*-,.-i!f,.,;4.er,.'l.,,*-.,..•1ft;•-•A: M0-,-'.F A--.-----A.-i.-2,,'',W..,'4.&vA,:-7--,,k,;Z-',Y--i.5-,v'{::•-i,i-1 V.u.,;.2..0'„,,:t:.,i':',,,.i.,:$W4.f,-,.,.,-..W,,4.1„„Y,',,t:,-2:,,%S,„;%.,.*:.V„,.:,,i,j,,;r:*e',.,‘1,,,1',!.i.,"r,-_.-g..--,•,-le.s*.ft9_:-t-':;,,,.,.,,,,_.:'r,4.;.,.t--..-,:,,..4e—„'.,..1 11--:-.:4 .„--4..:.'',.'...' +..., 0;— 3M-. -q-ie9. .•,. 0_- ,„.•:;.,1-1..t.:,/„.;...-/?:bq,.4.:.'!„.,t,i...•.A7'A,,.'.u:-,,';,,"..,..4.i.4.'r.!,:,el.73.',,',•,:.e4r;'i,.,•'•, ,-:•?;,-•'-,'?-,';7-4KA'','.,',;,k,',.1•- ,,...,.'v '-.'•_..•_.-,,i-5..',,: -,-, l_j,_—1_,•-._.I.:.5iN,,.,.,„.'..4,-.....,....',..:..,--•/.,..,,-,v.,—,wi,-P,,.,-,'r,,e--„ 4•.,•.•,,..•.,-.,,,.....,/-.„..*; = -;,w- D4 .. .=,C.,. 0,--:„I1,'r1 t.-,,1p1h.41 1 ,..-.." ._ I1.I _a P,1-;- 4P -4 .4 --- „ F <4ov ,g - ,0 ,-- - , - 0 -1 W 0Z F-L 1,--,I t..,7,., C,'30;'...'4.,'-'' •, - ..." 1- ... ,......, . ..;:;;;t:p•, a ,..•- !.4...- -P':•Ai`--,A4,*•,,,i-- 7"..--1---• • A641 itr- i. 0 . : ,,-.4::.4Afi.-.....--.,..-t,tig: (•:',,•:74,,,`'.,;:--i•.,•:.'`''., , • fe.1,---1),1 tPAP*. 'I:,,,i44S'g-P,,,.i.4....1,/Ait,t...„ i.,,i,-",•','At, ri a • ' ____.,-• 1 - , `..- 4,:"::!,'"•'4:-+Z.:•,-.s4,,,,,!,..„._, ' ---"1-1;;;;41..;.17 ' '' ." ._••••/;:,-;;Zr:;;;;;;;;-7: - )... .--\r a) ,/ '-•N!----' •14 • , , • . • . ',,,,';',W`.....fral. .."..t IL i ... . • .4>t,-.A.:1,-0,41,-,,,A.,,i,vi ..• -- • i --}---' -,•,,.,:m,.„4-- -elf.: "Ifil?,,a'NF,F,-,„,...4,••; .., _.... . 7\117PH i.r . ,.. i ,...' • : , .•T'. :4:31t40\ %•:1:12..;;Oft4,4. )W.I.VA.,4131,A ki. ------- j „„:,z-0.,, .,..,,,,..A'.- 0 -.;:, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:;">,•1.• •-.":,1 ,,,..7/ '.';7:N65','' A.-1 •• .I:...........,,4;•,•,,V,.1.',--4:P ,,,,,•,v,.. ,.. .-i----13 j•• 1 •,,,K •, .!,.:s•,...;,.., ai, .,./.,,r1 ,,.;...,,,---....; 4g I P 't nt'yl el •,---- ,,,,,,,,,: ,,,,,,,,,,- ,,,,, ,,..p.,,, ..,,,,-,,....,*„' •-.,:ert::::.......... .i'''''44,i''',,WAPA''',VA I V .1 •.'47, 41" / ' ...,'.-' 7="''''.. '''' \ 4 •,.:::1:: ....,,t,itC,-....:. ,a.K. k-, -7 ••••,„ -4. - 60°49, as I •--'-,-" i---•,-=^, /0 ii4.-9e..,-;%*;•..v:V;e0X1F-TO 7, . T, . • V.I.,A4APPAP.At.,`,Ppe PP .,,,,1 P 4„_.•,.--1.7)'w, 14 / t 76 1 ' j '' ''''-') i.:47X•M''''PR;Sf4t'Z'''''Veit:pb 6e-1: ri 1 c i 1 (-) ..•••I'r . •,:.r• ilva•i• j , 1 .cr..H 47--tIN il 1 ...i ,...:•'i ••,4•,:,,,,"4.4-';';:k4 -- 'k _:.___i /•i ,g;:„.;.."=" 6,4'2,1.:'1'' .---"N i / X--I ,_..( f i a--1 r ----- • ..._-r---,1 f--::- __i 1 -,.. , .1-1 .._, ••,-1-1-'>1.____.4, '- " t / c1/40---0 a C •re,..A11) .S. 4:= \I imr,-- ' , g/941/80 /.4!,t.-:. •,•,..?" •F-X./ 'L"------ (73 _ , ) 7- '-------1----'---- TT ,. ,',.•<,,,/.../, 1 ',-/ ..,--",„..e,'., ',--4:- .,,,•./., _ t ., '---/ Dr,K :-.e: ' C ' Z i 0 • • i •••1 ,,,,..,,,f .4, ' /-' .) j)) I . 9 ,,,,,.. ,,,..,/* 1 iniumw ., -.. ,„,....,...„,,,i2. ,,,, .;;,., k 4 ,,,T T ,,, ..„„ I A , „..„.,,.....„.....,..,.,,, ,..„..2, • P'".4 1,1.4 ,.1", , '....-1 ) i I -- I i i "ri ' .- iriL COUNTRY 3 s'. 21" CLUB M i'• 4. 4; 3 4, `' * . wlw nIw ® ,. . ,..,. ... .KA Ei 1: . Ie t h �' ti ti e % of ,1 fio 101, - � 04 . 0M 1 a 00.:.-4-'i1.:141 zit1ri11.11v oi r\ r90 `-- • frr. ��®6 .s 0lotef .Z34 .. s —Q®r3ti POND * 5 0a l: li bop ovi wwle . li , 0-a-ea zip on 4.717%irial0 le) , log vo 0 Golfcourse n 2., ?t� ��® ll 0 441111, 111111.15411)1, \ 61fli OA TA , 2,7 froliV - . 20 \ 0 rit olit* - tO 40 • Illi • water control 010 ,00, ItO® .�� :::�, ®d\12" V 0 r.—..\ta, /-.:-.7... --7•”' = tristructure ---_____________10 .... 11 1,_ At,` • A. w LOXAHATCHEE RIVER : I't 133 POND 2 , 11 . ilaW-l" - 9 1 --I.-isokIP.* ,ilkl .' ....1 • Exist. 36" roHi R-1 �„ . • / : /er • . 4:petr, .,,, Ald` -4.# Golfcourse d LEGEND / / • `+r jr-/ Drainage basin i boundary fa !per'.;. a _ a," oilor .' \' /7/ ` i .Sub-basin 27" I.G' v r1 la.a-1.&..x- boundary �‘ Ila/ 44 # • y;r Sub-basin i `J-� .c1 1 designation ® p t\.3.r xi • Pr used i ® A •�' Is ��' p, oP P Pe mnuuumm�nnnl ® i3 + \0 4 v.a 0\,N. replacement ' tu ICl/ 1 Q[ ';' 99 (�.., DRAINAGE SYSTEM I Exhibit B - .• N .or PONDS 16 /0' �_ s s ,i /s n irs is ai Sc ;ps /05 /� �` ; �a : 1 = STARBOARD WAY .ice /• . ` �_ 4 j 8 rr I .. a'I�I to sr N. I A tee Mil i 5f .1.- Tt•• s/ ,.3, l.m* • ,Q, iv \,3-%_i`' POND iZr BIMINI ROAD �� `•� ri ^ •t`V�;ti ` /I3 �` rt3 .�.�2 � �Y "" j • /fr `V . ' r ..3:>.•� it. ; Golfcourse 99 3, ilit�i /00 Ei � /� ��' ' a •••� ,� aT .fir �� ` 9 �v ` ' C i 83E 8 ,8 83 w Rt e21 Pore B1A ' ' , cr \ WINDWARD — 0♦ /c 7s t3 l tG AVE. water control B_ '�` ••r� ` ee;r-- Ili--I al structure - 0d ' MAWR EL i ;11..,........:!....1110 �mGQ63Exist. 36" • •4. ••••';‹ �� 4 ' ®ID Go I sy co .ar�P • Q9sik , #®E1 ' ©® fa "4 46" ...' If Cara cc Cliral dig I ibis, 13 •••• mm ztam= ' er ��a ©)- LEGEND 1 1/ rj Drainage basin — Z • m■aow 6 boundary .,...,"‹ S Sub-basin newt:o- �, boundary m /z'I& 20 '►, Sub-basin ` f 9 Bl N. designation - Proposed pipe 11111111111111111111111111 replacement ( DRAINAGE SYSTEM II Exhibit C i SYMMETRICAL ABOUT CENTERLINE ► 30' 0 12' 8' 10' SHOULDER PAVEMENT' min. 6" 12.5%max. 6% PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION for the Village of Tequesta Country Club Community Drainage Systems I and II Exhibit D APPENDIX A Drainage System I: Existing (3 year storm event) Basin Element Data Destination Hydrograph Lac(hr) Comput Increment(min) B1 N 1 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf_24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 62. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 94.6 Tc(min) 30. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lao (hrl Comput Increment(min) B2 N2 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5.3 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag(hr) Comput Increment(min) B3 N3 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist • Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5.2 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lac (hr) Comput Increment(min) B4 N4 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h:rai CHAN Version 2-Co�__ pyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 • Drainage System I: Existing (3 year storm event) Basin Element Data Excess: • .SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.5 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrooraph Lao(hr) Commit Increment(min) B5 N5 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 3.4 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg • • �.. CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System I: Existing (3 year storm event) . Node Element Data Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N1 Pond 0 3.5 6.5 Elev 0 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.6 1.7 2.7 3.8 Elev 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Stor 4.8 7.2 12.2 20 30.3 66.8 Elev 9 Stor 105.9 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N2 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.6 2.5 5.6 • Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N3 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.6 2.4 5.4 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N4 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.5 2.1 4.8 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N5 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.4 1.6 3.6 • Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N6 Tailwater 0 2.4 2.4 No area relation associated with this node • �_, CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 { , Drainage System I: Existing (3 year storm event) • Reach Element Data From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R1 N1 N2 0 1 Element#1 : Culvert Riser Subelement#1-1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 350 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 3 DS Inv(ft) 3 Manning's n 0.024 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.9 Number Barrels 1 Subelement#1-2: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length(ft) 2 Height(ft) 0.5 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 5.5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 Subelement#1-3: Rectangular Orifice Width(It) 0.67 Height(ft) 0.33 Invert(It) 3.5 Number 1 Weirflow Cd 3 Orifceflow Cd 0.6 Subelement#1-4: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length(ft) 6.5 Height(ft) 99 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 6 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R2 N2 N3 0 1 • Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 60 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 3 DS Inv (ft) 2.9 Manning's n 0.024 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.9 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R3 N3 N4 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 250 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 2.9 DS Inv (ft) 2.3 Manning's n 0.024 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.9 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R4 N4 N5 0 1 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System I: Existing (3 year storm event) Reach Element Data Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 40 Rise(in) 30 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 2.3 DS Inv(ft) 2.3 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R5 N5 N6 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 180 Rise(in) 30 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 2.3 DS Inv(ft) 1.5 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 l _t 5 ro - a p 2 �(Z71AWN ? ON • CD QNNNNcp 0 m 5 w � 5 �, �„0 , N S. E � 3 3 c N y' N ¢a � O) O O) �N C ' 6c4i61c2 E 115 se) rw `C cc � m y m .4• NO) O)O) d) O) TI as0000 1g §. z olLlicScSo { Drainage System I: Existing (3 year storm event) Maximum Flows Listing Time of Maximum Time of Maximum Reach Max Flow Flow Max Vel. Velocity ID hours cfs hours fos R1 25.09 6.78 25.09 2.16 R2 16.36 7.09 16.36 2.26 R3 12.43 8.26 16.30 2.71 R4 12.25 13.26 12.25 2.83 R5 12.25 17.33 12.25 6.10 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Softens,Inc. Page 1 Drainage System I: Existing (25 year storm event) Basin Element Data Destination Hvdrograph Lag(hr) Comput Increment(min) B1 N1 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 62. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 94.6 Tc(min) 30. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lao(hr) Comput Increment(min) B2 N2 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. • Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5.3 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lao(hr) Comput Increment(min) B3 N3 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5.2 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrograph Lag(hr) Comput Increment(min) B4 N4 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System I: Existing (25 year storm event) Basin Element Data • Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.5 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lao (hr) Comput Increment(min) B5 N5 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 3.4 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg • • `�: CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 • Drainage System I: Existing (25 year storm event) . Node Element Data Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N1 Pond 0 3.5 6.5 Elev 0 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 • Stor 0 0.01 0.6 1.7 2.7 3.8 Elev 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Stor 4.8 7.2 12.2 20 30.3 66.8 Elev 9 Stor 105.9 Node Tvoe Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N2 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.6 2.5 5.6 Node Type Bottom Bev Initial Elev Flood Elev N3 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 i Stor 0 0.01 0.6 2.4 5.4 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N4 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 • Stor 0 0.01 0.5 2.1 4.8 Node Time Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N5 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.4 1.6 3.6 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N6 Tailwater 0 2.4 2.4 No area relation associated with this node i �,, CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 • Drainage System I: Existing (25 year storm event) Reach Element Data From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R1 N1 N2 0 1 Element#1 : Culvert Riser Subelement#1-1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 350 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 3 DS Inv(ft) 3 Manning's n 0.024 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.9 Number Barrels 1 Subelement#1-2: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length(ft) 2 Height(ft) 0.5 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 5.5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 Subelement#1-3: Rectangular Orifice Width(ft) 0.67 Height(f). 0.33 Invert(ft) 3.5 Number 1 Weirflow Cd 3 Orificeflow Cd 0.6 Subelement#1-4: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length(ft) 6.5 Height(ft) 99 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 6 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R2 N2 N3 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert • Length(ft) 60 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 3 DS Inv(ft) 2.9 Manning's n 0.024 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.9 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R3 N3 N4 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 250 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 2.9 DS Inv (ft) 2.3 Manning's n 0.024 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.9 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R4 N4 N5 0 1 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System I: Existing (25 year storm event) • Reach Element Data Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 40 Rise(in) 30 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 2.3 DS Inv(ft) 2.3 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R5 N5 N6 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 180 Rise(in) 30 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 2.3 DS Inv(ft) 1.5 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 \_. CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 s , Drainage System l: Existing (25 year storm event) Maximum Stages Listing Time of Maximum Flood Flood Node Max Stage Stage Elevation Depth ID hours feet feet feet N1 23.19 7.90 6.50 1.40 N2 13.50 7.12 6.50 0.62 N3 12.95 6.95 6.50 0.45 N4 12.25 5.77 6.50 -0.73 N5 12.25 5.35 6.50 -1.15 N6 0.00 2.40 2.40 0.00 • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 w { Drainage System I: Existing (25 year storm event) Maximum Flows Listing Time of Maximum Time of Maximum Reach Max Flow Flow Max Vel. Velocity ID hours cfs hours fps R1 23.19 7.67 23.19 2.44 R2 16.80 8.34 16.80 2.66 R3 13.75 10.68 13.75 3.40 R4 12.25 18.86 12.25 3.84 R5 12.25 28.27 12.25 7.44 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 Drainage System I: Proposed (5 year storm event) Basin Element Data Destination Hydrograph Lag(hr) Comput Increment(min) B1 N1 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 62. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 94.6 Tc(min) 30. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lao(hrr Comput Increment(min) B2 N2 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5.3 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lao(hr) Comput Increment(min) B3 N3 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5.2 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrooraph Lao(hr) Comput Increment(min) B4 N4 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf24h.rai ��. CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 • Drainage System I: Proposed (5 year storm event) Basin Element Data Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. ON Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100.. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.5 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B5 N5 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 3.4 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg • • - ' CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 F Drainage System I: Proposed (5 year storm event) Node Element Data Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N1 Pond 0 3.5 6.5 Elev 0 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.6 1.7 2.7 3.8 Elev 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Stor 4.8 7.7 13.2 22 32.8 69.8 Elev 9 Stor 108.9 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N2 • Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.8 2.9 . 6.2 • Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N3 • Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 f Stor 0 0.01 0.8 2.8 5.9 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Rood Elev N4 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.65 2.45 5.25 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N5 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.55 1.95 4.05 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N6 Tailwater 0 2.4 2.4 No area relation associated with this node �_ CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System is Proposed (5 year storm event) Reach Element Data From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R1 N1 N2 - 0 1 Element#1 : Culvert Riser Subelement#1-1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 350 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 Subelement#1-2: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length(ft) 10 Height(ft) 0.5 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 5.5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 Subelement#1-3: Rectangular Orifice Width(ft) 0.67 Height(ft) 0.33 Invert(ft) 3.5 Number 1 Wei flow Cd 3 Orificeflow Cd 0.6 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R2 N2 N3 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 60 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R3 N3 N4 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 250 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R4 N4 N5 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 40 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 5 Drainage System I: Proposed (5 year storm event) Reach Element Data From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R5 N5 N6 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 180 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 a Drainage System I: Proposed(5 year storm event) Maximum Stages Listing Time of Maximum Flood . Flood Node Max Stage Stage Elevation Depth ID hours feet feet feet N1 13.98 6.51 6.50 0.01 N2 13.65 4.52 6.50 -1.98 N3 13.64 4.19 6.50 -2.31 N4 13.64 3.64 6.50 -2.86 N5 13.64 3.25 6.50 -3.25 N6 0.00 2.40 2.40 0.00 • • • • • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 ti Drainage System I: Proposed(5 year storm event) Maximum Flows Listing Time of Maximum . Time of Maximum Reach Max Flow Flow Max Vel. Velocity ID hours cfs hours fps R1 14.00 31.75 14.00 3.30 • R2 13.90 33.17 13.90 3.45 R3 13.65 34.67 13.65 3.60 R4 13.64 36.11 13.65 - 3.88 R5 13.64 37.20 13.64 5.29 • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 ti Drainage System I: Proposed (25 year storm event) • Basin Element Data Destination Hydrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B1 N1 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 62. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 94.6 Tc(min) 30. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B2 N2 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5.3 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag(hr) 'Comput Increment(min) B3 N3 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5.2 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B4 N4 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai , CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System I: Proposed (25 year storm event) Basin Element Data Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.5 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lap(hr) Comput Increment(min) B5 N5 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. • Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 3.4 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 I, Drainage System I: Proposed (25 year storm event) . Node Element Data • Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N1 Pond 0 3.5 6.5 Elev 0 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 . Stor 0 0.01 0.6 1.7 2.7 3.8 Elev 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Stor 4.8 7.7 13.2 22 32.8 69.8 Elev 9 Stor 108.9 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N2 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.8 2.9 6.2 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N3 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev . 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.8 2.8 5.9 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N4 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 , 0.65 2.45 5.25 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N5 Pond 0 2.4 6.5 Elev 0 6 7 8 9 Stor 0 0.01 0.55 1.95 4.05 Node Tvpe Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N6 Tailwater 0 2.4 2.4 No area relation associated with this node \. ... ' CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 ti Drainage System I: Proposed (25 year storm event) Reach Element Data From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R1 N1 N2 0 1 Element#1 : Culvert Riser Subelement#1-1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 350 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 Subelement#1-2: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length (ft) 10 Height(ft) 0.5 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 5.5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 Subelement#1-3: Rectangular Orifice Width(ft) 0.67 Height(ft) 0.33 Invert(ft) 3.5 Number 1 Weirflow Cd 3 Orificeflow Cd 0.6 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R2 N2 N3 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 60 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R3 N3 N4 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 250 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R4 N4 N5 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 40 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System I: Proposed (25 year storm event) Reach Element Data From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R5 N5 N6 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 180 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 • �.../ CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 -J , t s a Z ti g• Z gro ZZZZZZ —a wcn4coN -I Dm O ca• 1 a ;. m CQ R. C 0 =! y opNNNN � Oso � Co �co • 3 ppc 3 wilz � �JICT10) V -+. 0 me N 0y 864wwo'o m 3 N 3 �D Q, rN COco al P. ID m m Co Nrnrnrnrnrn --hm-. §. 0 000000 _ A. 3 �. 3 M M Z OFJ D!D0 .-.. 11 • 8o `�JO�'v $o Drainage System I: Proposed(25 year storm event) Maximum Flows Listing Time of Maximum Time of Maximum Reach Max Flow Flow Max Vel. Velocity ID hours cfs hours fps • R1 15.00 42.26 15.00 4.39 R2 14.72 43.66 14.72 4.54 R3 13.50 45.82 13.50 4.76 R4 12.39 51.07 12.39 5.31 R5 12.25 60.42 12.25 8.49 • • • • • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 APPENDIX B • Drainage System II: Existing (3 year storm event) Basin Element Data Destination Hvdrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B1 N1 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 66. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 63.3 Tc(min) 30. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrograph Lag(hr) Comput Increment(min) B2 N2 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 2.6 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B3 N3 0. 4. • Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.7 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B4 N4 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Existing (3 year storm event) Basin Element Data Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5. Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B5 N5 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 5.3 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.4 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg • • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 • 7 Drainage System II: Existing (3 year storm event) Node Element Data Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N1 Pond 0 3.5 6.5 Elev 0 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 Elev 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Stor 1.2 2.9 7.5 14.9 25.3 45.8 Elev 9 Stor 68.9 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N2 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.3 1.2 2.7 • Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N3 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.6 2.2 5 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N4 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 • 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.6 2.3 5.3 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N5 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.5 2.1 4.7 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N6 Tailwater 0 2.4 2.4 No area relation associated with this node CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Existing (3 year storm event) • Reach Element Data From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R1 N1 N2 0 1 Element#1 : Culvert Riser Subelement#1-1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 150 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 3.5 DS Inv(ft) 3.2 Manning's n 0.024 • Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.9 Number Barrels 1 Subelement#1-2: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length (ft) 2 Height(ft) 0.5 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 4.5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 Subelement#1-3: Rectangular Orifice Width(ft) 0.67 Height(ft) 0.33 Invert(ft) 3.5 Number 1 Weirflow Cd 3 Orificeflow Cd 0.6 Subelement#1-4: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length (ft) 5 Height(ft) 99 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R2 N2 N3 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 35 Rise(in) 24 Flap,gate False US Inv (ft) 3.2 DS Inv (ft) 3.1 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R3 N3 N4 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 270 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 2.9 DS Inv(ft) 2.9 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R4 N4 . N5 0 1 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Existing (3 year storm event) Reach Element Data Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 80 Rise(in) 30 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 2.6 DS Inv(ft) 2.3 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow # Elements R5 N5 N6 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 180 Rise(in) 36 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 2.4 DS Inv(ft) 1.5 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 • • \,__ CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc: 1996 Drainage System 11: Existing (3 year storm event) Maximum Stages Listing Time of Maximum Flood Flood Node Max Stage Stage Elevation Depth ID hours feet feet feet N1 14.85 6.73 6.50 0.23 N2 12.40 6.20 7.00 -0.80 N3 12.40 6.05 7.00 -0.95 N4 12.25 5.18 7.00 -1.82 N5 12.25 4.80 7.00 -2.20 N6 0.00 2.40 2.40 0.00 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 Drainage System II: Existing (3 year storm event) Maximum Flows Listing Time of Maximum Time of Maximum I Reach Max Flow Flow Max Vel. Velocity ID hours cfs hours fps R1 15.82 9.63 15.82 3.07 R2 15.82 9.86 15.82 3.14 R3 12.40 11.67 16.89 4.18 R4 12.26 16.79 12.26 3.42 R5 12.25 21.99 12.25 6.19 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 Drainage System II: Existing (25 year storm event) Basin Element Data Destination Hydrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B1 N1 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 66. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 63.3 Tc(min) 30. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B2 N2 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 2.6 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag(hr) Commit Increment(min) B3 N3 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pen, 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.7 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B4 N4 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai ` . CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Existing (25 year storm event) Basin Element Data Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. • Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5. Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B5 N5 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. % DCIA •0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.4 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg • • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Existing (25 year storm event) Node Element Data Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N1 Pond 0 3.5 6.5 Elev 0 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 Elev 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 • Stor 1.2 2.9 7.5 14.9 25.3 45.8 Elev 9 • Stor 68.9 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N2 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.3 1.2 2.7 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N3 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.6 2.2 5 • Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N4 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.6 2.3 5.3 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N5 Pond 0 2.4 7 , Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor • 0 0.01 0.5 2.1 4.7 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N6 Tailwater 0 2.4 2.4 No area relation associated with this node • , CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Existing (25 year storm event) Reach Element Data From Node To o Node Initial Flow #Elements R1 N1 N2 0 1 Element#1 : Culvert Riser Subelement#1-1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 150 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 3.5 DS Inv(ft) 3.2 Manning's n 0.024 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.9 Number Barrels 1 Subelement#1-2: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length (ft) 2 • Height(ft) 0.5 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 4.5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 Subelement#1-3: Rectangular Orifice Width(ft) 0.67 Height(ft) 0.33 Invert(ft) 3.5 Number 1 • Weirflow Cd 3 Orificeflow Cd 0.6 Subelement#1-4: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir • Length (ft) 5 Height(ft) 99 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R2 N2 N3 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 35 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 3.2 DS Inv(ft) 3.1 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R3 N3 N4 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 270 Rise(in) 24 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 2.9 DS Inv(ft) 2.9 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R4 N4 N5 0 1 \ • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 • Drainage System II: Existing (25 year storm event) • Reach Element Data Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 80 Rise(in) 30 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 2.6 DS Inv (ft) 2.3 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R5 N5 N6 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 180 Rise(in) 36 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 2.4 DS Inv (ft) 1.5 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Existing (25 year storm event) Maximum Stages Listing Time of Maximum Flood Flood Node Max Stage Stage Elevation Depth ID hours feet feet feet N1 16.89 7.62 6.50 1.12 N2 12.76 7.11 7.00 0.11 N3 12.77 6.97 7.00 -0.03 N4 12.25 6.26 7.00 -0.74 N5 12.25 5.56 7.00 -1.44 N6 0.00 2.40 2.40 0.00 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 Drainage System ll: Existing (25 year storm event) Maximum Flows Listing Time of Maximum Time of Maximum Reach Max Flow Flow Max Vel. Velocity ID hours cfs hours los RI 25.91 11.45 25.91 3.65 R2 13.91 12.10 13.91 3.85 R3 13.50 15.04 13.50 4.79 R4 12.25 2259 12.25 4.60 R5 12.25 34.77 12.25 7.30 CHAN version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 • Drainage System II: Proposed (5 year storm event) Basin Element Data Destination Hydrograph Lag (hr) Commit Increment(min) B1 N1 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 66. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 63.3 Tc(min) 30. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrociraoh Lag(hr) Comput Increment(min) B2 N2 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. • Area(ac) 2.6 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Laq(hr) Commit Increment(min) B3 N3 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai • Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.7 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Lag(hr) Comput Increment(min) B4 N4 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai �_ ._ CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Proposed (5 year storm event) Basin Element Data Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 5. Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hydrograph Laq (hr) Comput Increment(min) B5 N5 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 6.5 Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.4 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg • • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 $ Drainage System II: Proposed (5 year storm event) Node Element Data Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N1 Pond 0 3.5 6.5 Elev 0 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Stor. 0 0.01 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 Elev 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Stor 1.2 3.4 8.9 17.3 28.5 49.6 Elev 9 Stor 72.8 • Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N2 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.5 1.6 3.2 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N3 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.8 2.6 5.5 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N4 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.8 2.8 5.9 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N5 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.7 2.6 5.3 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N6 Tailwater 0 2.4 2.4 No area relation associated with this node CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 - , Drainage System II: Proposed (5 year storm event) • Reach Element Data From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R1 N1 N2 0 1 Element#1 : Culvert Riser Subelement#1-1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 150 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 Subelement#1-2: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length (ft) 2 Height(ft) 0.5 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 4.5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 Subelement#1-3: Rectangular Orifice Width(ft) 0.67 Height(ft) 0.33 Invert(ft) 3.5 Number 1 Wei►fiow Cd 3 Orificeflow Cd 0.6 Subelement#1-4: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length (ft) 10 Height(ft) 99 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R2 N2 N3 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 35 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 0 DS Inv (ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R3 N3 N4 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 270 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R4 N4 N5 0 1 `--- CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Proposed (5 year storm event) Reach Element Data • Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 80 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R5 N5 N6 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 180 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv (ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 2 Z 5 Z rnuZi "WN? Omm v n 4) pO N N N N W m Fr 33 '`• = 3 • 3 0 N D (11 (Trn -%� w. CA Q. r y o' m gb N7.474V7453) -wPtrg 0 888888 Ha 0 ONN O -w(6 - 8 '88k3g ram§. I • Drainage System II: Proposed(5 year storm event) Maximum Flows Listing Time of Maximum Time of Maximum Reach Max Flow Flow Max Vel. Velocity ID hours cfs hours fos • R1 13.75 40.30 13.75 4.19 • R2 13.66 41.10 13.66 4.27 R3 13.32 42.82 13.32 4.45 R4 12.29 46.81 12.29 4.86 R5 12.25 54.22 12.25 7.72 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1 r Drainage System II: Proposed (25 year storm event) Basin Element Data • Destination Hvdrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B1 N1 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 66. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 63.3 Tc(min) 30. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrograph Lag (hrl Comput Increment(min) B2 N2 0. 4. Rainfall : • Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number • Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 2.6 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrograph Lag (hr) Commit Increment(min) B3 N3 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 %NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pen 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.7 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrograph Lag (hr) Comput Increment(min) B4 N4 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai �._. CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Proposed (25 year storm event) Basin Element Data Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. %DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. • Area(ac) 5. Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg Destination Hvdrograph Laa (hr) Commit Increment(min) B5 N5 0. 4. Rainfall : Vol (in) 9. Dur(hr) 24. Dist Sf 24h.rai Excess: SCS Curve Number Initial Abs 0.2 % NDCIA 0. % DCIA 0. CN Pery 71. CN NDCIA 100. CN DCIA 100. Runoff: SCS Unit Hydrograph Tabular U.H. Area(ac) 4.4 Tc(min) 15. scs256.uhg • • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 R , Drainage System II: Proposed (25 year storm event) Node Element Data • Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N1 Pond 0 3.5 6.5 Elev 0 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 Elev 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Stor 1.2 3.4 8.9 17.3 28.5 49.6 Elev 9 Stor 72.8 Node Tvpe Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N2 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.5 1.6 3.2 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N3 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.8 2.6 5.5 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N4 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.8 2.8 5.9 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N5 Pond 0 2.4 7 Elev 0 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 Stor 0 0.01 0.7 2.6 5.3 Node Type Bottom Elev Initial Elev Flood Elev N6 Tailwater 0 2.4 2.4 No area relation associated with this node '\ . CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 Drainage System II: Proposed (25 year storm event) Reach Element Data From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R1 N1 N2 0 1 Element#1 : Culvert Riser Subelement#1-1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 150 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 Subelement#1-2: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length(ft) 2 Height(ft) 0.5 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 4.5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 Subelement#1-3: Rectangular Orifice Width(ft) 0.67 Height(ft) 0.33 Invert(ft) 3.5 Number 1 • Weirflow Cd 3 Orificeflow Cd 0.6 • Subelement#1-4: Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir Length(ft) 10 Height(ft) 99 Exponent 1.5 Crest El (ft) 5 Cd 3 Number Weirs 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R2 N2 N3 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 35 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv (ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R3 N3 N4 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length(ft) 270 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv (ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R4 N4 N5 0 1 '\. . CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 • Drainage System.II: Proposed (25 year storm event) Reach Element Data Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 80 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv (ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 From Node To Node Initial Flow #Elements R5 N5 N6 0 1 Element#1 : Circular Culvert Length (ft) 180 Rise(in) 42 Flap gate False US Inv(ft) 0 DS Inv(ft) 0 Manning's n 0.012 Velocity Coef 1 Ent Loss Coef 0.5 Number Barrels 1 CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software, Inc. 1996 ' r C_ a . g. zzzzzz -a co al pwN vm 1 y pONNNN �W)p sn m 86) '6; N (71 ulm a 3X. 3 30 v,a N :r 91 •C) Q) V —h C wc;'coo �'ow am 3 Vs4 r N co M . m 11) ni �. V V V V �. — cD pON 2► bb0 8 4 " NNE23C. Drainage System ll: Proposed(25 year storm event) Maximum Flows Listing Time of Maximum Time of Maximum Reach Max Flow Flow Max Vel. Velocity ID hours cfs hours fps R1 14.65 44.09 14.65 4.58 R2 14.50 44.87 14.50 4.66 R3 14.02 46.39 14.02 4.82 R4 12.32 51.93 12.32 5.40 R5 12.25 64.02 12.25 8.69 • CHAN Version 2-Copyright Aquarian Software,Inc. Page 1