Bruce, I understand this stream and its flooding are a particularly sensitive subject with City of Addison. I appreciate the care in which you have reviewed my work. I hope the following will convey the thought processes that went into modeling the stream as I have. I contend that the area of the Bankston parking lot is flooded on a regular basis. There are two primary flow paths in the area 1) the main channel which flows east to west from the east Lindbergh culverts to Midway and 2) north to south from the west Lindbergh culvert to the main channel. I believe that as flow and depth increases in the channel, there is a back water effect from the main channel that inundates the Bankston parking lot. There may be some minimal north-south flow in the parking lot when the 100-year flood event is peaking, but I contend that the only truly active conveyance in the parking lot and just south of it is from the east to the west in the main channel. During the 100-year storm event peak, the majority of the north-south flow would transpire in the north-south channel east of the parking lot. Further the buildings along the right (north) overbank, along with debris, vehicles, and shallow ponding conditions in the right overbank limits the active conveyance of the right overbank in either westerly or southerly direction in the parking lot and westerly west of the parking lot. In short, when the channel is experiencing the 100-year peak flow the right overbank is acting as a pond. During the 100-year storm event the area east of the Bankston parking lot is currently inundated. This is due to the backwater of the main channel. This is not helped by the fact that Bankston parking lot acts more like a pond that means of conveyance during the 100-year storm event. I believe the parking lot is inundated before the 100-year peak arrives and has become an area of ineffective flow when the 100-year storm event does arrive. Therefore there the filling of the parking lot would cause no loss of conveyance during the peak of the 100-year storm event and the loss of valley storage, in this case, would be very, very minor. If the volume were larger, or had a more controlled release and or held up, to one degree or another, the entire flow in the basin I could see how that might affect the flow downstream, but not at the parking lot or east of the parking lot. However, the area of ineffective flow (and volume of proposed fill) is small, is off channel, and really is a condition of backwater rather than detention. Therefore I see the filing of the parking lot as not effecting flow or water surface. With this in mind I don’t believe the loss of the valley storage at Bankston effects the west or east culverts or channels east of Bankston since there is no loss of conveyance. The stream itself is in a subcritical flow regime so the filling does not impact downstream. Because the area of proposed fill is currently inundated before the 100-year peak arrives it is filled with water at the time of the peak and its filling with another material should have little to know impact on the downstream flows. The proposed fill will not, in my mind, impact either upstream or downstream. If I had a larger basin to model with an area of minimal incoming lateral flows beside and partly through an area of ineffective flow, I would model as I have this one, with the exception that if it was over 200 ac I would Unit Hydrograph method to generate the peak flows rather than the Rational Method. I don’t believe the use of the Unit Hydrograph method on a basin less than 200 ac is well founded or in this case well suited. I also don’t believe a 2-D model would provide a level accuracy that would compensate for its cost. There is a law of diminishing returns that provides that doubling, tripling, or quadrupling time and cost does not double the level of accuracy. I don’t expect the filling of the Bankston parking lot to have any impact, either in a model or in the field. I don’t believe that a 2-D model will show a much different answer. If the right overbank had been free of buildings, not been a parking lot of cars which impede flow, and or had deeper depths it would not be an area of ineffective flow. However, the building on the west property line prevents water from flow west. The building on the south property line limits the flow to the south. And the south building coupled with the west building and the other downstream buildings prevents westerly flow in the right overbank. This, together with a parking lot that is routinely packed tight with cars and flow depths of less than a foot indicates to me an area of ineffective flow. I believe the cross sections should run north to south as the flow is in the east to west direction. The existing parking lot is an area of inundation, but also ineffective flow. The area is small and filled with water before the peak 100-year discharge arrives. Therefore I believe I have modeled the pre- and post project correctly and the proposed filling of the parking lot will have no describable impact on the adjacent property owners. I am sorry but I am leaving after I send this e-mail. I hope it was some small help into conveying my thoughts and modeling practices in this case. Thank you, sln Shannon L. Nave, P.E., CFM President Nave Engineering, Inc. Civil Engineers - Hydrologists Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-7457 P.O. Box 759, Weatherford, TX 76086 110 W. Josephine Ave., Weatherford, TX 76086 Off: 817-596-7575, Cell: 817-992-8031 e-mail Shannon@Nave-Eng.com Fax 817-887-3016 From: Bruce Grantham [mailto:bgrantham@gra-ce.net] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:39 PM To: SLN; Nancy Cline; Clay Barnett; Mathew Thomas Cc: Molly Pierson Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion Shannon: Unfortunately, I missed your call yesterday. However, I have made some additional comments below in black that may help to clarify our respective points of view. If you have an opportunity to respond via e-mail, I will talk to Nancy while you are out of town next week. Regards, Bruce From: SLN [mailto:shannon@nave-eng.com] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 3:45 PM To: Bruce Grantham; Nancy Cline; Clay Barnett; Mathew Thomas Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion Please see below Shannon L. Nave, P.E., CFM President Nave Engineering, Inc. Civil Engineers - Hydrologists Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-7457 P.O. Box 759, Weatherford, TX 76086 110 W. Josephine Ave., Weatherford, TX 76086 Off: 817-596-7575, Cell: 817-992-8031 e-mail Shannon@Nave-Eng.com Fax 817-887-3016 From: Bruce Grantham [mailto:bgrantham@gra-ce.net] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:13 AM To: Nancy Cline; SLN Subject: RE: Plan comments and further discussion Shannon & Nancy: I have attached a plan sheet from our Lindbergh channel project which includes the topo survey. Below are some conceptual comments related to the Bankston flood study: 1. Two FS cross sections are marked on the plan and they confirm that the 100-year water surface elevation is higher than the parking lot high point. 2. Consequently, stormwater that is flowing from east to west overtops this high point in a 100-year storm and flows between the two buildings to the channel. 3. This is consistent with what we have been told by Bankston representatives. 4. Bankston reps have also confirmed that prior to overtopping the high point, stormwater drains south across the parking lot to the channel on the east side of the small building. Eventually, this building floods. 5. As the parking lot conveys flow during a 100-year storm, we do not believe that modeling it as an ineffective flow area is an accurate representation of the field conditions. 1 – 5 It is recognized that the parking lot floods, but the flow there is typically from north to south. Therefore the HEC-RAS model that depicts channel flow from east to west should not consider it as active flow since the flows are perpendicular. Additionally the buildings as well as cars (in the parking lot) along the north bank also give reason not to count the north portion of the overbank as active flow. Therefore the HEC-RAS model was set up with the right (north) overbank as ineffective flow . · Your position is that the sheet flow in the parking lot, which is primarily north-south, should dictate the orientation of the main channel cross sections. · Our position is that the parking lot is part of the channel overbank; consequently, the cross sections should be orientated at right angles to the main east-west channel flow starting at the four elliptical pipes under Lindbergh to the east. · Your position is that the east-west 100-year flow that overtops the north-south parking lot high point and spills between the two buildings into the channel can be ignored because the parking lot slopes from north to south, and the buildings and cars in the parking lot completely block the flow. · Our position is that the parking lot flow is only north-south until the high point (which acts as a weir) is overtopped during the 100-year storm, at which time, the flow is west across the parking lot and south between the two buildings. We would also contend that parked cars do not completely block the channel flow. 6. The plan also shows two stormwater discharge points on the south side of Lindbergh. The eastern point shows four elliptical pipes that convey most of the flow from the southern airport. The western point shows one RCP which conveys a smaller airport drainage area. 7. The FS cross sections are oriented as if the RCP conveys all the airport runoff. In reality, it acts as a small tributary to the main channel with originates at the elliptical pipes. 6 -7 The channel from the west RCP and the east-west channel south and west of the project area are the major concerns to this project. Therefore the channel from the west RCP south to the east-west channel and then west to Midway are what was modeled. The upstream of the channel starting at the west RCP is modeled with 25.0 cfs at X-Section 1755 and 27.09 cfs at X-Section 1631. When the flow from the east pipes join the flow from the west RCP at X-Section 1584 the flow is increased to 385.01. I believe we have this modeled correctly. · Your major concerns are the 24” RCP (25 cfs) and the main channel west of and along the south Bankston property line. As a result, your position is that a wall can be constructed along the east and south Bankston property lines under proposed conditions with no impact on the 100-year water surface elevation anywhere. · Our major concern is that the existing condition model represent actual field conditions which include the primary flow (300+cfs) originating at the four elliptical pipes to the east, valley storage occurring on and east of the parking lot prior to the high point being overtopped, and east-west flow across the parking once it is. It seems to us that coming to terms with these conceptual issues is important before a detailed analysis of the hydrology and hydraulics is performed. I’m curious if you were dealing with a similar situation to Bankston on a much larger scale (add zeros to the respective flows), like the Rowlett Creek hydraulic model that our team in currently working on for Garland, would you take the same approach? Another way to think about Bankston is to visualize how the flow would be represented if it were modeled in 2D. What are your thoughts in this regard, and would you still block off the whole Bankston property to the 100-year flow? Shannon, if you would like to discuss these comments, please call my cell at 214-869-8856. Regards, Bruce From: Nancy Cline [mailto:ncline@addisontx.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:28 PM To: Bruce Grantham Subject: FW: Plan comments and further discussion Bruce, I am ok if you want to call him and discuss your concerns. Please call me if you want. Nancy From: SLN [mailto:shannon@nave-eng.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:18 AM To: Nancy Cline Cc: Clay Barnett; Bruce Grantham Subject: Re: Plan comments and further discussion Nancy, I would be glad to come, but I am going out off town next week and my schedule is very tight for this week. I can not make it today, but maybe Friday. Is there any way I can get your questions, could we do a conference call, or if it is your consultant that has questions maybe he and I can talk and work this out. Shannon L. Nave, P.E., CFM Nave Engineering, Inc. www.Nave-Eng.com 817-596-7575 (O) 817-992-8031 (C) Sent from my iPhone On Jan 18, 2011, at 5:02 PM, "Nancy Cline" wrote: Shannon, If possible, we would like to discuss some questions on the submittal you made. We are available to meet either tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon at 2:00 pm or 3:00 pm or on Friday afternoon at 3:00 pm. Do either one of these times work for you? Thank you, Nancy Nancy Straub Cline, P.E. Director of Public Works Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, TX 75001-2818 Office: (972) 450-2878 P Please consider the environment before printing this email. ****************************************************************************************************************** This e-mail and any files or attachments transmitted with it contains Information that is confidential and privileged. This document may contain Protected Health Information (PHI) or other information that is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and entity(ies) to whom it is addressed. If you are the intended recipient, further disclosures are prohibited without proper authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, printing, or use of this information is strictly prohibited and possibly a violation of federal or state law and regulations. If you have received this information in error, please delete it and notify Hamid Khaleghipour at 972-450-2868 immediately. Thank you. ******************************************************************************************************************* 污瀠灩獥‮‶㜭吠敨挠慨湮汥映潲桴⁥敷瑳删偃愠摮琠敨攠獡⵴敷瑳挠慨湮汥猠畯桴愠摮眠獥⁴景琠敨瀠潲敪瑣愠敲⁡牡⁥桴⁥慭潪⁲潣据牥獮琠桴獩瀠潲敪瑣‮桔牥晥牯⁥桴⁥档湡敮牦浯琠敨眠獥⁴䍒⁐潳瑵⁨潴琠敨攠獡⵴敷瑳挠慨湮汥愠摮琠敨敷瑳琠楍睤祡愠敲眠慨⁴慷⁳潭敤敬⹤ഠഊ吊敨甠獰牴慥景琠敨挠慨湮汥猠慴瑲湩⁧瑡琠敨眠獥⁴䍒⁐獩洠摯汥摥眠瑩⁨㔲〮挠獦愠⁴ⵘ敓瑣潩㜱㔵愠摮㈠⸷㤰挠獦愠⁴ⵘ敓瑣潩㘱ㄳ‮桗 湥琠敨映潬⁷牦浯琠敨攠獡⁴楰数⁳潪湩琠敨映潬⁷牦浯琠敨眠獥⁴䍒⁐瑡堠匭捥楴湯ㄠ㠵‴桴⁥汦睯椠⁳湩牣慥敳⁤潴㌠㔸〮⸱䤠戠汥敩敶眠⁥慨敶琠楨⁳潭敤敬⁤潣牲捥汴⹹਍਍₷††††潙牵洠橡牯挠湯散湲⁳牡⁥桴⁥㐲ₔ䍒⁐㈨‵晣⥳愠摮琠敨洠楡档湡敮敷瑳漠⁦湡⁤污湯⁧桴⁥潳瑵⁨慂歮瑳湯瀠潲数瑲⁹楬敮‮獁愠爠獥汵ⱴ礠畯⁲潰楳楴湯椠⁳桴瑡愠眠污慣敢挠湯瑳畲瑣摥愠潬杮琠敨攠獡⁴湡⁤潳瑵⁨慂歮瑳湯瀠潲数瑲⁹楬敮⁳ 湵敤⁲牰灯獯摥挠湯楤楴湯⁳楷桴渠浩慰瑣漠桴⁥〱ⴰ敹牡眠瑡牥猠牵慦散攠敬慶楴湯愠祮桷牥⹥਍਍₷††††畏⁲慭潪⁲潣据牥獩琠慨⁴桴⁥硥獩楴杮挠湯楤楴湯洠摯汥爠灥敲敳瑮愠瑣慵楦汥⁤潣摮瑩潩獮眠楨档椠据畬敤琠敨瀠楲慭祲映潬⁷㌨〰挫獦
牯杩湩瑡湩⁧瑡琠敨映畯⁲汥楬瑰捩污瀠灩獥琠桴⁥慥瑳‬慶汬祥猠潴慲敧漠捣牵楲杮漠湡⁤慥瑳漠⁦桴⁥慰歲湩⁧潬⁴牰潩⁲潴琠敨栠杩⁨潰湩⁴敢湩⁧癯牥潴灰摥‬湡⁤慥瑳眭獥 ⁴汦睯愠牣獯⁳桴⁥慰歲湩⁧湯散椠⁴獩‮਍਍ഠഊ䤊⁴敳浥⁳潴甠⁳桴瑡挠浯湩⁧潴琠牥獭眠瑩⁨桴獥⁥潣据灥畴污椠獳敵⁳獩椠灭牯慴瑮戠晥牯⁥⁡敤慴汩摥愠慮祬楳⁳景琠敨栠摹潲潬祧愠摮栠摹慲汵捩⁳獩瀠牥潦浲摥‮鉉畣楲畯⁳晩礠畯眠牥⁥敤污湩⁧楷桴愠猠浩汩牡猠瑩慵楴湯琠慂歮瑳湯漠⁡畭档氠牡敧⁲捳污⁥愨摤稠牥獯琠桴⁥敲灳捥楴敶映潬獷Ⱙ氠歩⁥桴⁥潒汷瑥⁴牃敥票牤畡楬⁣潭敤桴瑡漠牵琠慥湩挠牵敲瑮祬眠牯楫 杮漠潦⁲慇汲湡Ɽ眠畯摬礠畯琠歡⁥桴⁥慳敭愠灰潲捡㽨䄠潮桴牥眠祡琠桴湩扡畯⁴慂歮瑳湯椠⁳潴瘠獩慵楬敺栠睯琠敨映潬⁷潷汵⁤敢爠灥敲敳瑮摥椠⁦瑩眠牥⁥潭敤敬⁤湩㈠⹄圠慨⁴牡⁥潹牵琠潨杵瑨⁳湩琠楨⁳敲慧摲‬湡⁤潷汵⁤潹⁵瑳汩汢捯景⁦桴⁥桷汯⁥慂歮瑳湯瀠潲数瑲⁹潴琠敨ㄠ〰礭慥⁲汦睯ിഊ ਍਍桓湡潮Ɱ椠⁦潹⁵潷汵⁤楬敫琠楤捳獵⁳桴獥⁥潣浭湥獴‬汰慥敳挠污祭挠汥瑡㈠㐱㠭㤶㠭㔸⸶਍਍ഠഊ刊来牡獤 ‬牂捵൥ഊ ਍਍牆浯›慎据⁹汃湩⁥浛楡瑬㩯据楬敮慀摤獩湯硴朮癯⁝਍敓瑮›敗湤獥慤ⱹ䨠湡慵祲ㄠⰹ㈠㄰‱㨴㠲倠്吊㩯䈠畲散䜠慲瑮慨൭匊扵敪瑣›坆›汐湡挠浯敭瑮⁳湡⁤畦瑲敨⁲楤捳獵楳湯਍਍ഠഊ䈊畲散ബഊ ਍਍⁉浡漠晩礠畯眠湡⁴潴挠污楨湡⁤楤捳獵⁳潹牵挠湯散湲⹳਍਍ഠഊ倊敬獡⁥慣汬洠⁥晩礠畯眠湡⹴਍਍ഠഊ上湡祣਍਍ഠഊ䘊潲㩭匠乌嬠慭汩潴猺慨湮湯湀癡ⵥ湥⹧潣嵭ഠ匊湥㩴圠摥敮摳祡‬慊畮牡⁹㤱‬〲ㄱ㠠ㄺ ‸䵁਍潔›慎据⁹汃湩൥䌊㩣䌠慬⁹慂湲瑥㭴䈠畲散䜠慲瑮慨൭匊扵敪瑣›敒›汐湡挠浯敭瑮⁳湡⁤畦瑲敨⁲楤捳獵楳湯਍਍ഠഊ上湡祣ബഊ ਍਍⁉潷汵⁤敢朠慬⁤潴挠浯ⱥ戠瑵䤠愠潧湩⁧畯⁴景⁦潴湷渠硥⁴敷步愠摮洠⁹捳敨畤敬椠⁳敶祲琠杩瑨映牯琠楨⁳敷步‮⁉慣潮⁴慭敫椠⁴潴慤ⱹ戠瑵洠祡敢䘠楲慤⹹ഠഊ ਍਍獉琠敨敲愠祮眠祡䤠挠湡朠瑥礠畯⁲畱獥楴湯ⱳ挠畯摬眠⁥潤愠挠湯敦敲据⁥慣汬‬牯椠⁦瑩椠⁳潹牵挠湯畳瑬湡⁴桴瑡栠 獡焠敵瑳潩獮洠祡敢栠⁥湡⁤⁉慣慴歬愠摮眠牯桴獩漠瑵‮਍਍桓湡潮⹌丠癡ⱥ倠䔮Ⱞ䌠䵆਍਍慎敶䔠杮湩敥楲杮‬湉⹣ഠഊ眊睷丮癡ⵥ湅⹧潣൭ഊ㠊㜱㔭㘹㜭㜵‵伨ഩഊ㠊㜱㤭㈹㠭㌰‱䌨ഩഊ匊湥⁴牦浯洠⁹偩潨敮਍਍਍湏䨠湡ㄠⰸ㈠㄰ⰱ愠⁴㨵㈰倠ⱍ∠慎据⁹汃湩≥㰠据楬敮慀摤獩湯硴朮癯‾牷瑯㩥਍਍匉慨湮湯ബഊऊഠഊऊ晉瀠獯楳汢ⱥ眠⁥潷汵⁤楬敫琠楤捳獵⁳潳敭焠敵瑳潩獮漠桴⁥畳浢瑩慴潹⁵慭敤‮圠⁥牡⁥癡楡慬汢⁥潴 洠敥⁴楥桴牥琠浯牯潲⁷在摥敮摳祡
晡整湲潯瑡㈠〺‰浰漠⁲㨳〰瀠牯漠牆摩祡愠瑦牥潮湯愠⁴㨳〰瀠⹭†潄攠瑩敨⁲湯⁥景琠敨敳琠浩獥眠牯潦⁲潹㽵਍਍ ਍਍吉慨歮礠畯ബഊऊ慎据൹ഊऊഠഊऊ慎据⁹瑓慲扵䌠楬敮‬⹐⹅਍਍䐉物捥潴⁲景倠扵楬⁣潗歲൳ഊऊ潔湷漠⁦摁楤潳൮ഊऊ㘱〸‱敗瑳牧癯⁥牄癩൥ഊऊ摁楤潳Ɱ吠⁘㜠〵㄰㈭ㄸസഊऊ晏楦散›㤨㈷
㔴ⴰ㠲㠷਍਍ ਍਍倉倠敬獡⁥潣獮摩牥琠敨攠癮物湯敭瑮戠晥牯⁥牰湩楴 杮琠楨⁳浥楡⹬਍਍ ਍਍ ਍਍ ਍਍⨉⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪പऊ桔獩攠洭楡湡⁤湡⁹楦敬⁳牯愠瑴捡浨湥獴琠慲獮業瑴摥眠瑩⁨瑩挠湯慴湩⁳湉潦浲瑡潩桴瑡椠⁳潣普摩湥楴污愠摮瀠楲楶敬敧⹤吠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮洠祡挠湯慴湩倠潲整瑣摥䠠慥瑬⁨湉潦浲瑡潩倨䥈
牯漠桴牥椠普牯慭楴湯琠慨⁴獩椠瑮湥敤⁤湯祬映牯琠敨甠敳漠⁦桴⁥湩 楤楶畤污猨
湡⁤湥楴祴椨獥
潴眠潨瑩椠⁳摡牤獥敳⹤䤠⁦潹⁵牡⁥桴⁥湩整摮摥爠捥灩敩瑮‬畦瑲敨⁲楤捳潬畳敲⁳牡⁥牰桯扩瑩摥眠瑩潨瑵瀠潲数⁲畡桴牯穩瑡潩⹮䤠⁦潹⁵牡⁥潮⁴桴⁥湩整摮摥爠捥灩敩瑮‬湡⁹楤捳潬畳敲‬潣祰湩Ⱨ瀠楲瑮湩Ⱨ漠⁲獵⁥景琠楨⁳湩潦浲瑡潩獩猠牴捩汴⁹牰桯扩瑩摥愠摮瀠獯楳汢⁹⁡楶汯瑡潩景映摥牥污漠⁲瑳瑡⁥慬⁷湡⁤敲畧慬楴湯⹳䤠⁦潹⁵慨敶爠捥楥敶⁤桴獩椠普牯慭楴湯椠牥潲Ⱳ瀠敬獡⁥ 敤敬整椠⁴湡⁤潮楴祦䠠浡摩䬠慨敬桧灩畯⁲瑡㤠㈷㐭〵㈭㘸‸浩敭楤瑡汥⹹吠慨歮礠畯മऊ਍⨉⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪⨪਍਍